Compost: a climate action solution

Composting’s role in the fight against climate change will be in focus…

The River Road

By James Moore “Four wheels move the body, but two wheels move…

Balancing eSafety and Online Censorship, 2024

By Denis Hay Description: Explore how Australia’s eSafety laws impact free speech and how…

Ignorant. Woke.

By Bert Hetebry Yesterday I was ignorant. I had received, unsolicited, a YouTube video…

Violence in our churches

We must always condemn violence. There must be no tolerance for brutality,…

Treasuring the moment: a military tattoo

By Frances Goold He asked if we had anything planned for Anzac Day. "A…

Top water experts urge renewed action to secure…

The Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE) has today urged…

Warring Against Encryption: Australia is Coming for Your…

On April 16, Australia’s eSafety commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, issued with authoritarian…

«
»
Facebook

Tag Archives: Tony Abbott

Has anything changed? Not judging by the comments.

While many Australians, and no doubt the rest of the world, are still breathing a collective sigh of relief at the deposal of Tony Abbott, his supporters are still smarting and licking their wounds. Abbott himself is still pretending to not wreck, not snipe and not undermine, by telling his supporters he could still have won the election, while those within Abbott’s camp have conveniently forgotten Abbott’s own overthrow of Turnbull not even a decade ago, albeit as leader of the opposition.

Malcolm Turnbull is by far more popular than Abbott. A jump in the polls after Turnbull ascended to the top is a pretty clear indication that Abbott as leader was the problem. Even a commitment to retain the most odious of Abbott’s policies has not dampened Turnbull’s popularity. Likewise, Andrew Hastie’s easy win in the Canning by-election after the coup was a good indication that the Coalition’s policies were not the problem for most people – the problem was Abbott.

Despite Turnbull now giving the Coalition a fighting, and likely, chance of winning the next election, Abbott’s supporters are still coming out hard. With the Liberal party effectively split in two for loyalty, diehard Lib fans continue to fiercely support Abbott’s legacy. As a result, they are reminding Australian’s of what the Coalition stands for, regardless of leader. Consequently, Australian’s cannot forget that the same party is in charge and nothing has really changed.

On Saturday, 3 October 2015, Malcolm Turnbull (or his staff) posted a rather innocuous photo and caption on his Facebook page, to which I replied. Some of the responses to my light-hearted comment serve as a reminder of the sheer ignorance and wilful deceit of the Coalition rhetoric and propaganda.

Turnbull’s initial Facebook post which prompted my comment was not remarkable. It was rather normal and not the slightest bit inflammatory. It hardly gave the impression of aiming to boost Turnbull’s standings in the polls, nor indicated a desperate attempt to show Turnbull leading the nation as a humble servant.

The post showed a photo of Turnbull with actor Chris Hemsworth, with the following words:

“Good to meet Chris Hemsworth today – talked about the contribution of the creative sector to our economy. But a bit weird he insisted on me calling him Thor“.

My comment, intended as a light-hearted comparison to what we had come to expect was:

“I can just imagine Tony Abbott’s caption to this photo, ‘Good to meet Chris Hemsworth today – talked about the contribution of the creative sector to our economy. He told me I could be a god just like him because of my superpowers stopping the boats’.”

This sparked an immediate tirade of misinformation, absurd assertions and a litany of personal abuse. Clearly critical thought and fact checking are not considered necessary for the diehard Liberal supporters.

The obvious response, and one of the most perpetuated lies of the Federal Government was that Abbott did indeed stop the boats.

“He did stop the boats as promised.

Granted, he stopped any boats landing on Australian shores, but he did not stop the boats. The Commonwealth has openly admitted that 20 boats were prevented from landing on Australian territory up until August 2015, and the Government has never refuted that it paid people smugglers to turn a boat around. If the boats had actually stopped there would be no need to turn them back.

Abbott cannot even claim credit for the massive reduction in boats leaving Indonesia: the credit belongs to Kevin Rudd II and his hard-line asylum seeker stance just before the 2013 election, where he declared no person arriving by boat would ever be resettled in Australia.

One response on the post demonstrated complete ignorance of Coalition policy and spending, saying:

“So you would rather pay for illegals than pay for what Australians need like bigger pensions better child care education etc etc. fix our own because no one else will, would or could!”

Ignoring the fact that it is not illegal to seek asylum, the Federal Government currently spends $1 billion a year on offshore detention. It also intends to cut pensions. Extra childcare funding is reliant on cutting family payments, leaving thousands of families worse off. New Treasurer, Scott Morrison has also announced that the Coalition is pushing for privatisation of health and education. It seems pretty obvious that the Government has a very clear intention to spend billions on arbitrary detention, and as little as possible on the Australian family.

Another poster astutely remarked:

“Eva is so far from the left she could probably fall over, let me guess your against offshore detention you probably believe in global warming. … I bet Eva is also against Christianity and private education.”

This disturbingly amusing ‘insult’ is a perfect example of the ignorance of the typical Coalition supporter. Apart from the billions of tax dollars currently used to arbitrarily detain asylum seekers and refugees, including young babies, it is laughable that someone would attempt to use the situation to cast aspersions on my character given the offshore detention regime supports rape, sexual assault, and physical abuse. A growing list of people are calling for the detention centres to be closed, on top of a Senate Committee inquiry recommending that children and families be immediately removed from Nauru.

Global warming, or climate change, is a pet hate of the Abbott supporter. With 97% of scientists agreeing that climate change is a serious issue, Australia has been criticised by a UN climate expert for its abysmally low greenhouse gas emissions targets. Despite Turnbull’s previous stance and criticism on the Coalition’s environmental policy, he has indicated an intention to retain Abbott’s laughable Direct Action. No doubt the Coalition supporters found Dutton’s recent shamefully embarrassing climate change ‘joke’ hilarious too.

It’s possible the curious comment on my alleged anti-Christian sentiment comes from the commenter’s observation of a satirical anti-radicalisation meme on my Facebook page: ‘Case Study: Jesus of Nazareth’. The meme describes Jesus as a ‘radical’ who left his loving family, was tempted by Satan, attempted to recruit followers, went against the Romans and the priests, and was ultimately hanged with thieves. Clearly the irony of this meme would be lost on most Coalition supporters, who would consider Karen, the alternative music loving, political activist, and environmentalist a genuine threat to their conservative, capitalist ideals.

Despite the overwhelming majority support of the Coalition and conservative politics within the mainstream media, Australians now source most of their news online, with a recent survey finding that 59% of people access news on their smartphones and 48% relying on Facebook. While there is no real evidence that the mainstream media in general has anything more than a ‘muted’ influence over an actual election outcome, the use of social media to access the news provides a new opportunity for all political stances and ideologies to share facts, lies, and opinions, whether informed or not.

A recent Nielson report found that approximately 13 million Australians (over 50% of the population) are active users of Facebook every month. The information also shows that on average, 60% of those that discover new information on Facebook will go on to learn more. Equal numbers of people reportedly use YouTube, with around a quarter of the population using WordPress.com and approximately 11% using Twitter.

With the rise of the use of social media, and the use of the same by the ill-informed, it is crucial that Australians who care about human rights, who believe in equality, and who deplore the dehumanisation of anyone other than white, middle-class, privileged Coalition party members and their friends, continue to speak out and demand accountability.

Turnbull’s new leadership will bring with it some changes, but not enough if Australia is to reach the standard expected of a Western democracy in the 21st Century. Abbott returned Australia to the 1950’s with his personal ideology, and medieval times in more than one policy. However, as Abbott so kindly pointed out, “Border protection policy the same, national security policy the same, economic policy the same, even same-sex marriage policy the same, and climate change policy the same. In fact, the rhetoric is the same…” under a Turnbull leadership.

Turnbull may be popular, but the Coalition remains the same.

 

A Political Watcher’s Pig Heaven

Over the last two years a number of articles have been written here at the AIMN about tax expenditures and the need to rein them in if the economy is going to reflect a more even distribution of the wealth.

I couldn’t count the number of times mainstream journalists had put the question to former Treasurer Joe Hockey and Finance Minister Mathias Cormann.

I cannot recall the number of leading economists that have also added their voice to the need for reform to end the waste of concessions to superannuation, negative gearing, the mining industry and capital gains.

But I know there have been many.

Yet for two years, Hockey and Cormann defended their decisions not to touch these sacrosanct areas of welfare for the wealthy at the expense of the average worker.

It was the elderly, the low paid and the sick who were told to pull their belts in, stop leaning on the rest of us and pay more for health care while receiving less in retirement.

Yet, five minutes after both Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey are given their marching orders and despite Mathias Cormann miraculously holding on to a job he is not very good at, the government has finally agreed these areas of obscene generosity can be now be looked at. What has changed?

mitchellFormer PM Tony Abbott did the rounds of his favourite shock jocks last week to vent some of his angst about the treachery he experienced from within his cabinet that resulted in his overthrow. He has made a point of saying nothing has changed. It would seem he hasn’t looked very far.

This week’s summit, both called for and chaired by Malcolm Turnbull, was a big change. The summit was a means of getting stalled reform initiatives back on the table.

Business groups, unions, welfare and social groups all got to have a say, with the notable exception of the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), Abbott’s favourite policy spruiker.

So, some things have changed.

It is inconceivable that Turnbull will not try for further, more substantial changes. The difficulty he faces is the hard right wing of the party who reluctantly allowed him back as leader.

They still don’t trust him. They think he is a Labor stooge, a socialist at heart, one who needs to be watched very carefully.

This lack of trust, this suspicion from the Right that Turnbull is not one of them will continue to undermine his agenda for Australia.

If the Right succeeds in holding him back they will stall the nation’s ability for genuine economic recovery and frustrate the voters.

Under Abbott, the Liberal Party made a hard turn to the right on practically everything. Turnbull wants to bring it back to the centre. In doing that, he risks both alienating an important support base within the party as well as making the party appear no different from Labor on issues that matter to the voters.

The Australian voter will generally go along with either party on foreign policy, immigration and national security. Their main interest is in education, health, climate change and the economy.

Thus far, both parties have no answer to what is perceived as spiralling debt and ongoing deficits. The next election will be fought on these four issues.

The new treasurer, Scott Morrison has already blotted his copy book claiming we only have a spending problem. He is wrong, of course, but the mere fact that this was his opening salve doesn’t look good for his, or the government’s, credentials as economic managers.

In the meantime, Labor will always trump them on climate change, education and health. The next twelve months will be a political watcher’s pig heaven. Can Labor convince the electorate that they were better at running an economy?

Can Turnbull build a consensus between the unions and industry while keeping welfare groups happy? Can he convince anyone that Direct Action is not a waste of money?

One thing is certain. The bad air, the despondency, the feeling of being dragged back into the middle of the last century has passed. We have been liberated from the threat of a recurring dark age. No longer are we embarrassed, ridiculed and portrayed as recalcitrant dimwits from down-under.

For that I’m grateful, but I suspect the turbulence for change within the electorate is going to make life inside the Coalition a smouldering keg of discontent that threatens to explode at any time.

 

Interview With Mr Rabbit After Mr Bull Has Taken Over!

Andrew Boar Column

Why The Removal Of Mr Rabbit Is A Tragedy Not Just For The Farm But The Worst Thing To Happen To This Country Since… Well Actually Nothing Worse Has Ever Happened!

Now that Mr Rabbit is gone I can finally tell the truth about him. Folks, you made a big mistake.

No, no. The mistake wasn’t that you voted for him.

In fact, you got one of the finest animals ever to be in charge of the Farm. As my boss Mr Fox, the other finest being to have ever lived, said “He’s a decent rabbit!” Far too decent for the job which requires the sort of animal cunning that Mr Bull has displayed in ripping the job from his hands.

And I know some of you will say that I’m just saying this because he’s my friend. But the truth is that he’s my friend because I’m saying this.

He’s had a rotten couple of weeks. In spite of stopping the goats and removing the tax on animal droppings, the animals have deposed him. And it wasn’t even all the animals. Just the ones he thought had his back.

Little did he realise that was where they were going to sink the knives and that they were only behind him so that he wouldn’t suspect.

Yet how glorious was he in defeat. While other defeated leaders of our farm have rushed out and congratulated the winner quickly, Mr Rabbit took fourteen hours to compose a speech that rivals the Gettsburg address or Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech.

“Quite a crowd here today, thank you for being here.

“This is not an easy day for many animals in this building. Leadership changes are never easy for this country. My pledge today is to make this change as easy as I can. There will be no wrecking, no undermining, and no sniping. Quite unlike the other people who’ve become Head Farm Animal.

“I have consistently said in opposition and in government that being the Head Animal is not an end in itself – it’s about the animals you serve. And how you prepare and cook them. Of course, sometimes there have been complaints that it was only the chickens that were being served and that some of the better fed animals were just getting fatter. Certainly, I reject this because without fatter animals people would have nothing to aspire to.”

He went on to list his many achievements and to thank people before quietly hiding in the barn so that Mr Bull could get on with the job without the focus being on the unscrupulous way he seized power.

Fortunately the time for silence is over and Mr Rabbit is again showing that he keeps his word by giving me this interview and demonstrating that, in all of this nastiness, he’s still the bigger animal.

Boar -Thanks for joining me, Mr Rabbit.

Mr Rabbit – Oh come on, we’re friends. You can call me “sir”.

Boar – I can’t tell you how impressed I am by the way you’ve handled yourself over the past… Well, you’ve always impressed me. You’re just wonderful, but the way you haven’t done anything to undermine the current leader has been a credit to you.

Mr Rabbit – Well thanks, Andrew, and just let me say that I’ve always been pretty good. I’ve been prepared to own up to my mistakes unlike some people who are now leading the farm and I’ve been committed to improving things around here, so I didn’t expect to be stabbed in the back.

Boar – So you feel Mr Bull stabbed you in the back?

Mr Rabbit – They’re your words, not mine. I’d just urge all the animals to now get behind Mr Bull no matter how hard it is to get behind such a two-faced hypocrite. After all, the thing that matters is that we all work together to improve things. I’ve always encouraged cooperation and it’s only been those who’ve disagreed with me that have stopped this being one big, happy team.

Boar – So you don’t feel bitter at all?

Mr Rabbit – No, Andrew, just disappointed when we’ve done exactly what we criticised Julia Rhode Island and Kevin Rooster for doing. And let me add we were absolutely right to criticise them for doing something as idiotic and undemocratic as replacing their leader because of poor polling… But I don’t mean this as a criticism of Mr Bull.

Boar – You’ve forgiven him?

Mr Rabbit – If I say “no comment”, that’ll be blown up and put in tomorrow’s news, so I’d rather not say “no comment” and just leave it at that.

Boar – So you have forgiven him then?

Mr Rabbit – No comment.

Boar – What if you’d acted on the concerns about Joe Hoggey and Peta Peahen?

Mr Rabbit – Look, it’s a bit of a myth that if it’d removed either of them that animals keen for advancement would have been satisfied. Peta was doing an excellent job and Mr Hoggey had my loyalty.

Boar – What are your future plans?

Mr Rabbit – Well, I plan to do lots of interviews like this one where I urge my supporters to get behind Mr Bull – even if they don’t like him because we know that deep down he’d be prepared to work with those chickens who ruined our farm.

Boar – Well, I for one wish to tell you how your removal has just broken my heart and I just hope that one day we all wake up and realise what we’ve tossed away.

Mr Rabbit – Could you repeat that last bit? It sort of got lost when you threw your face on the floor at my feet.

Boar – I just said that this is a time of great sorrow and I’m not sure that I can continue with the interview because I can’t see to read my questions through the tears.

It was a shame that we had to end it there, but I’m thinking that I could offer to help write a book on Mr Rabbit’s time as Farm Leader where we remind people of his achievements and his great humility.

This farm has rejected and despised a great rabbit. You should all have a good hard look at yourself. And I don’t mean in the mirror, Mr Bull!

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

Abbott, Bolt And The Stages Of Grief

Most people will have heard about Elisabeth Kubler-Ross and the five stages of grief. Over the past couple of weeks, I’ve been having trouble working out where Tony Abbott in terms of what stage he’s at.

Listening to some of his comments, I have to conclude that he’s just like he’s always been: all over the place and not at all consistent.

Then we also have his great friend Andrew Bolt. Bolt is easier because, consistent with nearly everything else in his writing, he’s fluctuating between the denial and anger stages. I call Bolt, Abbott’s friend because that’s exactly what Bolt wrote earlier this week.

“See, I don’t think Abbott is a great man because he’s my friend. He’s my friend because he’s a great man.”

So, in Bolt’s world, greatness is a prerequisite before you attain his friendship. Mm, anyway back to Mr Abbott.

Evidence of the first stage is everywhere.

Denial — The first reaction is denial. In this stage individuals believe the diagnosis is somehow mistaken, and cling to a false, preferable reality.

This explains his non-attendance in Parliament, although this could be more consistent with a much later stage, depression:

Depression — “I’m so sad, why bother with anything?” During the fourth stage, the individual becomes saddened by the mathematical probability of death. In this state, the individual may become silent, refuse visitors and spend much of the time mournful and sullen.

The denial stage also explains his rather bizarre interview with Ray Hadley where he expalined that he could have won the next Federal election because – in spite of a losing poll streak resembling The Generals against the Harlem Globetrotters – people were going to change their minds and vote for him in the only poll that counts. Just look at the great result in the Canning by-election. A mere seven percent swing. The change to Turnbull had no effect. No sir, I, Tony the Great would have achieved a similar result.

And in the same interview, we have a swing to stage two:

Anger — When the individual recognizes that denial cannot continue, it becomes frustrated, especially at proximate individuals. Certain psychological responses of a person undergoing this phase would be: “Why me? It’s not fair!”; “How can this happen to me?”; ‘”Who is to blame?”; “Why would this happen?”.

According to Tony, the forces plotting against him knew that they had to move before Canning because if they waited, there’d be no reason for a change. A mere seven percent swing would have been viewed as time to pop the champagne and dance in the street. As for replacing Credlin or Hockey, well, it was a myth that doing that would have changed things. You see, this was brought about by individuals “keen for advancement”. It was nothing to do with his performance because, well, none of the policies have changed.

See, it wasn’t because of his performance as Prime Minister that anyone moved against him, The lack of a change in policy just proves what a commendable job he was doing. Said quickly this sounds all right, although to me it’s a bit like a sacked policeman arguing that the law hasn’t changed so there was no reason to remove me from my job. Actually, it’s probably more like a sacked football coach telling us that the game plan hasn’t changed in the week since his sacking so the score is irrelevant.

As for the other two stages, let’s start with stage three:

Bargaining — The third stage involves the hope that the individual can avoid a cause of grief. Usually, the negotiation for an extended life is made in exchange for a reformed lifestyle. People facing less serious trauma can bargain or seek compromise.

Mm, now isn’t this what he did when he survived his “near death experience” back in February? “Give me another six months and I’ll change. I’ll turn things around. Just give me another chance.”

Of course, the final stage, acceptance, doesn’t seem to have happened unless one counts his speech the day after his party room defeat. You know, the one where he promised no “sniping”. Still, this one does take time and maturity, so I don’t expect to see it in the days before Christmas.

But I’ll let Andrew Bolt have the final word:

“Those I love best are people of honour, warmth and kindness.

“Tony Abbott is one such man, and that he has been betrayed and deposed doesn’t just break my heart. It makes me fear for this country. I can only hope that Australians will one day wake up to what they’ve tossed away.

“Sorry to sound so melodramatic, but here are some glimpses of the man I know — ones that put the lie to the trash that even big-name correspondents peddled about him.

“A woman hater? Ask his daughters or female chief of staff. Ask the many women on his staff, so loyal that he had one of the lowest turnovers of modern prime ministers.”

Yeah, sort of gives new meaning to the term “hard right”…

Actually, I wonder why his wife was left of the list of people to ask in that “woman hater” paragraph.

 

We need a feminist

Australia now has a female Minister for Women. The only trouble is, she isn’t a feminist.

Now I know many people attach all sorts of connotations to the term feminist, many critical, but all it means is an advocate for women’s rights, something we desperately need more of.

Unfortunately, our new Minister for Women thinks “that movement was a set of ideologies from many, many decades ago now”, a view she shares with Miranda Devine who used her own delightful turn of phrase, saying “feminism is now well past its use-by date. It has just become an excuse for unhinged individuals with Daddy issues to indulge a mean streak.”

I guess the bar wasn’t set too high when our previous Minister for Women spent International Women’s Day at a local fire station receiving an award for his volunteer service.

Then again, both Ms Cash and her predecessor come from the party that chose to hold its International Women’s Day lunch at the men only Tattersall’s Club so nothing should surprise. In fact Tony Abbott said the women should consider it a victory that they were allowed to attend, a mark of how progressive the Liberal Party were at breaking down the bastions of male dominance…for one day, invitation from a male member required.

There are countless examples of why feminists must continue the good fight. Here are a just a few that were brought up at the recent Ernie Awards.

Take the Matildas.

The discrepancy between the Matildas and Socceroos was laid bare when it was revealed Australia’s national female footballers would be paid less in match fees if they made the final of the World Cup in Canada than the Socceroos get for a single group-stage game. As it turned out, they reached the quarter finals, better than the men have ever done.

National women’s soccer, cricket, and basketball teams are flown economy as a matter of course, while the male teams travel in business.

When Nick Kyrigos got a bit flustered in a tennis match, he went for the age old “I f*cked your old lady” sledge. Ok, that isn’t quite what he said – his pitiful outburst was even more cowardly.

Too often, when men fail, they need someone else to blame and so it was when our cricket team was annihilated in their recent bid for the Ashes. According to Ian Healey, it’s because having their wives and girlfriends on tour was a distraction. Funny how all the rest of us are able to go to work each day, focus on the task at hand, and then return home to our families in the evening.

With 63 women dead from domestic violence incidents this year, Australian of the Year Rosie Batty has had some success in bringing long overdue attention to this scourge. Her courage has been amazing yet she must endure people like Mark Latham whose many attacks include tweeting “@RosieBatty1 Australian of the Year dividing the nation on the basis of gender. You owe my wife daughter and mother a massive apology.” Seriously?

When much-loved and best-selling Australian author Colleen McCullough died earlier this year, the Australian newspaper published an obituary which began: ”Plain of feature and certainly overweight…” Will the peacock mentality never end? When will women be judged by their achievements and contribution to society?

If Malcolm Turnbull wants people around the world to say gee they really respect women in Australia, I would suggest our Minister for Women better realise that we need some advocacy to change the endemic disrespect and discrimination that is alive and kicking more than a century after the battle was begun.

We need a feminist.

The Right Wing Horror Story

Before, during and after the implosion of the Abbott government, commentators have blamed this political failure on a ‘lack of narrative’. The media’s narrative of this ‘lack of narrative’ is a story about a good government who has many great ideas, but just can’t sell them to the untrusting, fickle, inattentive electorate. As someone who is studying political narrative, I can assure you these commentators have got it all wrong. The Abbott government, and the right-wing political class including the right-wing media, have a very obvious narrative to those who know what they’re looking for. Their narrative clearly describes their policies. Their narrative has been consistent across many generations of right-wingers. The snake-oil-salesmen in the Liberal Party are coherently telling this story. The problem is not, therefore, a missing narrative. The problem for the government is that voters, in the majority, do not like the story they are trying to sell. Turnbull is now trying to polish the same story, covering it in glitter. But we all know turds can’t be polished, and under eye-catching-glitter they’re still stinky turds.

Perhaps rather than telling us the Abbott government lacked a narrative, journalists could have done a better job of scrutinising the Abbott government narrative. It would have been really helpful if this had happened BEFORE ABBOTT WAS ELECTED. Anyhow, just like one of those brain twister images where you think you’re looking at a black and white twirl, but when you squint you can see a monster staring back at you, once you see the right-wing narrative, you can’t un-see it. Once you know the story, you see it everywhere. It haunts you. The right-wing story is scary. In fact, I would go as far as saying it’s a horror story.

The right wing narrative can fittingly be summed up with the tag line of a BMW advertisement: Life is not a race… said those who lost. In this narrative, the hero are those who in their mind have won the race. The race to get wealthy. The race to inherit wealth. The race for power. The race to afford a BMW. The race to climb the ladder and the race to kick the ladder away so other racers can’t climb up behind. These people live their life by the concept of dog eat dog. They see themselves as heroes for eating a dog before it eats them. No matter how advantaged they are in the race before the starting gun goes off, these right-wingers always see their own success as something they have won through merit. Not luck. Not privilege. Just because they’re born winners. And they are therefore the heroes in their right-wing narrative. But they are also the victims. Because in their scary little minds, and their narrow little worlds, they think they’re being dragged down in their quest to win the race of life by their story’s villain. I think by now you can guess who the villain is. Yep, you’ve guessed it. The weak. The poor. The sick. The uneducated. The vulnerable. The ones who think life isn’t a race because they lost. And of course, left-wingers who want to help these ‘losers’ are also part of the problem. Right-wingers think they’re the victims of these do-gooder-lefties who believe everyone in a community has a responsibility to care for everyone else. So in a nutshell the story is about right-wing heroes defending their victimised selves against the villainous losers and the losers who want to help the losers who don’t realise life is a race and that right-wingers have won the race. Get it?

Now you see the story, you realise how worn out it is. The Abbott/Hockey budget told this story, with the winners nicknamed the ‘lifters’ and of course the losers the ‘leaners’. Abbott and his government colleagues all share the values in this story. Turnbull, a filthy rich merchant banker who believes in the power of a free market to ensure the heroes keep getting richer and aren’t made into victims by villainous governments and their un-free redistribution of wealth to weak losers. Workers organising into unions to demand a fair share of capitalist profit are, in the right-wing narrative, the villains who should just shut up and worship the heroes who gave them a job in the first place. Miranda Devine has told the same story when this weekend she victim-blamed ‘unsuitable women’ for the abuse they suffer since they choose to have relationships with ‘feckless men’. Everything is the fault of the weak. The abused. The ones asking for help. You see the same story in this article describing the behaviour of Conservative politicians in the UK who join clubs of rich young men who burn money in front of homeless people.

The right wing narrative is a scary story about a community I would never choose to live in. I was not brought up to blame the disadvantaged for their predicament. And nor will I bring up my child to think our societies’ problems are the fault of the vulnerable, the disabled, the sick, the mentally ill, the poor and the abused. The rejection of the Abbott government has, I hope, proved that the majority of Australians, like me, reject this story and don’t believe that life is a race. I hope so. But either way, next time someone says the Liberal government is missing a narrative, just remember the narrative is there. It’s just not a very nice story and they know this so they do their best to keep it hidden. Don’t let them get away with it. You know the story. Call it out whenever you see it.

 

The relevance of Tony Abbott

By Paul G. Dellit

Now That The Lunatic Is No Longer In Charge Of The Asylum . . .

That’s unfair. Tony Abbott neither is nor was a lunatic. In the view of this writer, he was, at least as far as his Prime Ministerial persona was concerned, a brawling, misogynistic, serial-lying, duplicitous, incompetent, inarticulate, graceless buffoon. And he sought to mask all of these character traits with slogans and repetitions of slogans, and repetitions of repetitions of slogans said with animus as if to imbue them with the gravity they lacked . . . but he was not a lunatic.

We could go on, well into the night, reciting the many failings of this man in the role of Prime Minister and in the role of sensitised human being – but it would avail us nothing. It is not often wise to quote Senator Eric Abetz – in fact it is frequently impossible to quote the good Senator accurately, given the number of extra syl-lie-bles he finds for each word – but he said it all, ruby cheeked and trembling of hand, when asked about his prospects of a Ministerial position post Abbott. “The king is dead . . .”, he said. He didn’t add, “bur-i-ed, and cre-may-ted”. He didn’t need to. Former Prime Minister Abbott is now relevant to the current political scene in Australia only insofar as he is the exemplar of how not to do it.

However, it seems that life’s reversals are not learning experiences for Anthony John Abbott. He has already broken a post-Prime Ministerial promise to go gently into the night. He was, as he would have it, the victim of external forces, not personal failings, just as was Peta, she said, victimised because her name wasn’t Peter, even though she was responsible for the LNP winning the 2013 election.

But the purpose if this article is not to indulge in necrocide. Nor is it, in Shakespearean terms, to bury Tony Abbott without praise. And here I must crave your indulgence. The purpose of this article is to praise our most recently deposed Prime Minister.

It is easy to consider that man as little more than political carrion, but he did render a service to us for which we must be eternally grateful. It was for the fact that he was true to himself. From beginning to end, he was a shining beacon for right wing extremists in Australia (and Canadia). He gave them the status of having one of their own occupying the highest political office in the land. He gave the timorous within their ranks the courage to openly express their inner voices. He gave them licence to propose the policies and schemes, hitherto concealed, by which they would seek to transform Australia. And he gave them the belief that he had within his power the means to pursue those ends on their behalf. In short, the praiseworthy service Tony Abbott rendered to Australia was to expose the agenda of our extreme right wing while at the same time unwittingly laying IEDs along the road to their ultimate defeat.

Some of you may remember my article in May of this year, ‘Australian Democracy at a Tipping Point‘ which argued that Prime Minister Abbott was setting about the abolition of the rule of law and, given his way, would replace it, step by step, with rule by unchallengeable Ministerial fiat. The ratio decidendi of Ministerial decisions and the evidence upon which they were based would be kept secret, with any disclosure without Ministerial permission punishable by law. This attempt by the Abbott Government has largely been stymied by the effects upon the Senate of the outcries of respected lawyers and large sections of the public. While the rump of this Abbott initiative remains in play, a preponderance of legal opinion has it that these remnants to the original bill, if passed, would be struck down by the High Court. We seem to be out of danger on this score for now.

However, there are many precedents for democratic governments being overthrown by right wing movements. Their first item of business after gaining power is to restructure government in ways that would fit comfortably alongside the challenges to democracy proposed in the original Abbott bill. Had circumstances been different, had those with ultimate power in Australia decided they wanted that bill passed into law, its passing would have set a precedent for other such laws to follow. A clever strategist could then have set about introducing small changes, none of which would seem so egregious as to warrant a revolution, but by accretion would, like boiling frogs by raising the water temperature slowly so that they become inured to change, kill our Westminster system of government.

Minister Dutton and others attempted to promote the original Abbott bill by assuring the public that the LNP would never abuse the power it gave them. Yet there is evidence that even without the power of that bill passed into law, the extreme right wing abuse what power they do have.

A recent FOI request revealed a case in point: A man of some power and influence within business and politics in Australia, Maurice Newman, used that power and influence to arrange for The Australian newspaper to launch an attack upon the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM). The willingly complicit Murdoch press manufactured evidence to claim that that the BoM had manipulated and falsified data to suit a left wing climate change conspiracy. With this campaign of misinformation successfully launched, Maurice Newman had provided the excuse for his close friend, Tony Abbott, to launch a Prime Ministerial foray into the data gathering and analysis functions of the BoM. The nature and tone of his intervention was manifestly designed to intimidate the BoM into toeing the Abbott/Newman climate change denial line – clear evidence of an attempt to smother science with extreme right wing ideology.

More importantly, the attempt to manipulate the work of the BoM demonstrated Prime Minister Abbott’s propensity for using the power of the Executive to covertly exert anti-democratic influence upon role of the Public Service to provide “frank and fearless advice”. How many other attempts, successful or otherwise, might he have made to pervert the fundamental principles upon which our system of democracy is based? We may never know, but, on balance, we don’t have to care. If there are further examples to be unearthed, they will be because, by his own actions, he has ensured that he will not be around to covertly carry them through. His interference with the BoM was undertaken before he had rendered the FOI legislation impotent. And all of his other assaults upon democracy in the prosecution of his extreme right wing agenda were committed before he had shored up his defences against the democratic backlash that was ultimately his undoing:

  • The appointment of his benefactor, Dyson Heydon to run the TURC (This is not to say that a TURC was not justified, whatever Abbott’s motives for creating it, but Dyson Heydon’s appointment ensured that the partiality of the Commissioner and his commitment to causing as much mud as possible to stick to the ALP was never in doubt).
  • The appointment Bronwyn Bishop (nee Setright) as a highly politicised Speaker.
  • Reposing in his unelected Chief of Staff the extraordinary executive power to control the actions of elected representatives, including Ministers, culminating in the directions issued from her Office which resulted in Border Force officers roaming the streets of Melbourne with the stated intention of randomly stopping and questioning members of the public under pain of arrest.
  • And of course, the law, passed with the supine collaboration of the ALP, that threatens whistleblowers with imprisonment for following their own professional standards and obligations – a law that allows the most egregious abuses of the human rights of people under the Government’s control without any legal means of exposure.

So I for one am grateful to Tony Abbott for dragging the extreme right agenda into full public view and epitomising, Pauline Hanson-like, the kind of irrational, ideologically driven, callous people who would prosecute it if they had the chance.

 

Abbott’s Stockpile of Hubris

In his first interview after losing the Liberal leadership, Tony Abbott gives us his take on how his government performed with him as Prime Minister. “What we have given the new Prime Minister and the new Treasurer is a very strong foundation.”

This is sheer hubris.

Paul Kelly’s interview in The Weekend Australian and republished here on Facebook, reveals as much as you could expect from a wounded politician trying to salvage some form of legacy for his two years as PM.

His self-proclaimed achievements are pitiful. His obsession with boats, carbon taxes and national security exposes his cold-war approach to modern day politics. One old enough can easily imagine his flawed motivation to be something along the lines of ‘What would Santamaria have done’.

He is understandably proud of achieving the top job but ignores the reality that his accession to the Liberal leadership was more a reflection of the discord in the Liberal Party than any personal qualifications he might have had.

His approach to economics, ISIS and his moralistic feet-dragging attitudes toward social issues, put him out of mainstream thinking and out of place in a 21st century setting. Not that he would realise this.

On policy implementation, he claims with some pride that everything he did is still intact, “Border protection policy the same, national security policy the same, economic policy the same, even same-sex marriage policy the same, and climate change policy the same. In fact, the rhetoric is the same.”

Can he really believe that? The new cabinet has been in the job one week and he thinks everything will remain the same?

While no policy changes have yet been announced, it is only a matter of time. The polls were the driving issue that saw him removed but with a fairly modest bounce in the party’s electoral hopes since his dumping, Abbott is somewhat premature in concluding that nothing will change.

The excuses he offers for the party’s poor showing since the 2014 budget ring of déjà vu.

“We had an obdurate Labor party, a feckless Senate and a very difficult media culture,” Abbott said. “I’m not complaining,” he said. “This is the world in which we live.” Nor indeed should he complain.

His strategy as opposition leader was no less obdurate, during which time the then Prime Minister Julia Gillard performed much better. As for the so called media culture, surely he must be referring to social media. The MSM and his radio shock jock mates gave him a free ride, no matter how feckless he was.

He said, “The 2014 budget was a very serious structural attemp­t to tackle our long-term spending problems.” It was nothing of the sort. It was a thinly veiled attack on the weak, the tired and the hungry; easy targets in the high powered world of focus groups, lobbyists and media barons who have your back.

But he then went on and said, “In the end, what counts is what the government decides not how it arrives at the decision.” If this is suggesting that the outcome was more important than the means to achieve it, it was arrogant, without compassion for the most affected and so typical of those in positions of privilege who might well echo the classic line misattributed to Marie Antoinette, “let them eat cake.”

Abbott’s subsequent comment, “I think from all participants in the national conversation there has been an obsession with the trivial rather than the substantial and the long-term,” is, again, a clear indication of his own hubris. We never knew what the substantial was, or the long term.

There was no long term plan. There was a great deal of rhetoric about forging a ‘credible path back to surplus’ despite unemployment increasing.

In effect, they were using rubbery figures in an effort to manufacture a balanced budget, against a deficit that was getting bigger and a ballooning debt that, if it were occurring while they were in opposition, would bring forth screams, renting of clothing and bursting of blood vessels as they squealed for the heads of anyone in charge.

As much as Abbott’s supporters in the mainstream media will try to re-write history and paint him as a much maligned leader, their efforts, I suspect will be in vain.

The image of failure tends to stick, no matter what the mitigating circumstances are, or how they are expressed.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

 

“Tony” – A Case Study in Radicalisation

Apart from Karen’s case study, there are many others. Take “Tony”.

As a young man, Tony had the simple ambition of becoming the Pope, but the demands of celibacy combined with a demand that he cover his chest led him to drop out of the priesthood and before long he’d left the country to train overseas where he studied hand to hand combat at Oxford.

On his return to Australia he became involved in politics where he joined Hewson’s radical “Fightback” program, which had introducing the regressive GST as one of its aims. It also had a plan to make it too expensive for poor people to go to the doctor, which would hopefully reduce the numbers of them voting in elections.

When this was defeated in a popular vote because of the plans being accidentally released during a campaign launch – a mistake Tony was determined not to repeat – Tony decided that he was no longer satisfied with being behind the scenes and began his strategy for ensuring this plan didn’t die with Hewson’s de-radicalisation. He joined a sect with the oxymoronic name of the “Liberal politicians”. Claiming to be the love child of two of the senior members of this sect who had never had carnal relations,Tony subtly suggested that it was a virgin birth and that he was the messiah.

While such a claim may seem ludicrous to us, members of this radical cult found the claim to be plausible and were convinced by his claim that he could outdo the miracle of the loaves and fishes by returning the Budget to surplus while removing taxes with no significant spending cuts.

His capacity to reduce complex problems to three simple words impressed many, but ultimately this led him thinking that his followers would be satisfied with this when it became clear that the “plan” to which he constantly referred, consisted of nothing more than repeating the same simple slogans whatever the question. After a particularly tricky encounter where the ABC ambushed him by asking about the economy when he’d been practising, “stop the boats” all day, Tony was on a slippery slope.

Tony eventually relalised that he was on the wrong path when his colleagues voted in a new leader. Since then Tony has been helping to undo the damage that his group has done by giving beachside interviews to explain that his former colleague, “Scott” has been lying, as well as undercutting the new leader by saying that nothing’s changed.

Tony is expected to a great help to the other side of politics over the coming months.

 

Shock Jocks, Turnbull And Housetraining …

Ok, I am aware that there’s a certain type in the media who relies on saying something shocking in order to create the sort of controversy that gets them noticed. And there are some who’d say anything that someone paid them to say.

They’re the sort who are “housetrained”. Bring out your chequebook and they’ll tell you that black is white.

Sorry, Andrew, that’s just a figure of speech, so don’t get all funny about that court case, and Alan we’ve forgotten all about that Media Watch!

I mean, Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt are pillars. They are extraordinary human beings.

How do I know this?

Well, a few days ago, someone was suggesting that Turnbull had a “narcissist personality disorder”. And there were descriptions about what such a thing meant, but to use the Wikipedia defintion, it means that “a person is excessively preoccupied with personal adequacy, power, prestige and vanity, mentally unable to see the destructive damage they are causing to themselves and others.”

And yet, in spite of Turnbull’s alleged disorder, we’re told today, by Andrew Bolt that he’s been “housetrained”.

That’s Turnbull, not Bolt. Nobody could ever accuse Bolt of being “housetrained”.

Anyway, this Prime Minister – the one with prestige and vanity – has been harnessed by Jones and Bolt.

Yep, Bolt wrote today:

“So, yes, I should feel like Samson after a haircut. But here’s the funny thing. We’ve actually won. Me and Alan. We’ve house-trained Turnbull.”

Now some of you may have a problem with the idea that a Prime Minister could be the pet of two people who’s only claim to representing the people is that they give their opinion and that they don’t listen to anyone else. But, in Bolt’s world, this is what democracy means. He has the right to say whatever he likes and anyone who disagrees should be shut down, shut up or shut off.

After all, as he said when that other Murdoch paper, The Australian, had the temerity to critiicism him, he only has his reputation, so nobody should attack that. Particularly a paper that relies on the tabloids to subsidise it.

Now some may see a problem with the idea that Malcolm Turnbull would “housetrained” by such a person, but I don’t.

That’s because I read Andrew Bolt’s column today. And that means that I know all that I need to know. Because even though Bolt never completed his university degree, he’s somehow been able to become an expert on everything.

Even controlling PM’s with alleged narcissist disorders.

Pity he didn’t do it when Tony and Peta were running things …

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

Are some solutions just too easy?

Does it seem to anyone else that we are in election mode?

In reality, we are always in election mode but both sides seem receptive to ideas at the moment so how about we revisit the extra 58 fighter jets Tony ordered in his first flush of having the keys to the Treasury.

In 2002 John Howard went to the United States and signed Australia up in the early stages of development of the Joint Strike Fighter.

In 2009 it was a Labor government that ordered the first 14 of the aircraft for Australia.

In April 2014 Tony Abbott announced Australia would acquire another 58 Joint Strike Fighters at a cost of around $90 million per plane; $24 billion has been budgeted to purchase and operate the aircraft until 2024.

And while we are at it, do we really need 12 new subs?

In February the Defence Minister said the project will be worth around $50 billion.

Has anyone noticed that we don’t have long range bombers and aircraft carriers either? If we really want to do undersea work wouldn’t it be better done by robot craft/drones for a far smaller cost?

Wouldn’t subsidising the car industry to make low emission cars, building high speed rail, installing FttP NBN, and investing in renewable energy and sustainable practice all bring more jobs and a better return than war toys? The shipyards could build research vessels or hospital ships or cargo vessels – you know, constructive things.

Wouldn’t lifting people from poverty and investing in health, education, and affordable housing be of more benefit to our society?

Wouldn’t investing in childcare and aged care be better than investing in warfare?

Research and foreign aid are surely more important?

Come on Malcolm…think of all that extra money. Think of the jobs that could be created. Scott…you could be a hero. Can we please consider this very easy way to solve so many problems?

 

Turnbull, Credlin And “Interesting Times”…

“May You Live In Interesting Times” = Chinese Curse.

“As they craft their new economic narrative, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Treasurer Scott Morrison must reframe the national conversation about debt.

“To listen to the conservative right, government should never spend a penny more than it raises – and it should raise a lot less at that.

“To listen to the loony left, government debt is simply an investment in our future, and anyway, our debt levels are much smaller than in other countries.

“Neither description of Australia’s debt position holds water.”

Jessica Irvine, The Age, September 24th, 2015

OK, so according to Ms Irvine, the section of western civilisation containing Tony Abbott, Cory Bernardi, Donald Trump, the Tea Party and Sarah Palin is “conservative”, while the one with people such as Bob Brown, Bernie Sanders, Russell Brandt and the Socialist Alliance is just “loony”.

Yes, she was just using “loony left” because it’s a term often used, and unfortunately, my suggestion that we start using the term “ridiculous right” to cover extremists on the conservative side of politics hasn’t really caught on.

However, I suspect that now Malcolm’s in charge, the phrase we’ll be hearing a lot more is the “sensible centre”.

Of course, when I say Malcolm’s in charge, I simply mean that now he’s Prime Minister. Yes, he certainly isn’t “in charge”. because, well, if he were, wouldn’t he be doing more on climate change and same sex marriage?

And the Republic. Lest we forget all those diggers who died at Eureka trying to make this country free from tyranny.

Oh wait, we should forget them because under today’s laws most of them would have their citizenship stripped and sent back to their country of origin.

No, we should only say “lest we forget” when refering to those diggers who went and invaded Turkey to keep our country safe from the potential invasion in World War One.

Anyway, let’s not get bogged down in history. As we all know these are “interesting times”.

Malcolm Turnbull is proving to be a polarising figure. He’s winning popularity with some for two major reasons. First, not only is he not Tony Abbott, and is responsible for sending Tony into such a funk that he hasn’t turned up for work in over a week. This endears Malcolm to a number of people. Second, although he’s only been in the job a week, he’s actually done some things that people agree with, such as removing Hockey, Andrews and Abetz from Cabinet, and his announcement on extending services for victims of domestic violence. Not only that, he’s managed to do things without a major stuff-up.

On the other hand, there are many who mistrust Malcolm and think that he’s too slick and has a hidden agenda. They feel that he doesn’t mean what he’s saying and his main goal is to stay as Prime Minister. This simple fact is helping to heal the rifts between the Left and Right in Australia, as it’s something that both Cory Bernardi and Sarah Hanson-Young can agree on.

So, because of a couple of polls, everyone has written Shorten off as Labor leader, and the commenteriat will speculate about when Labor will remove him, overlooking the obvious fact that the hard-heads in Labor may be ready to concede the next election and be working on the one after. Why chew up a good leader when Shorten can be dispensed with after he’s lost, and you can approach the future with a fresh face? I still think that it’s likely that the Liberals may go to the polls before they have to frame another Budget, and, with a rise in the GST on the table, they’ll lose some seats even with the drover’s dog leading them. Replacing a leader after an election loss, doesn’t have the same “here we go again” about it that replacing Shorten any time soon would create.

And now that Peta Credlin has joined Julia Gillard in playing the “sexism card” – which was just being a bit of girl then, but OK now (yes, yes, irony intended, don’t clog up the comments with about accusations of me being sexist, I’m not, and being a white male, I’m in the best position to know when I’m being racist or sexist!). She came out against the sexism Abbott spoke of when he commented that things would be different if her name was “Peter” rather than “Peta”. There’s no doubt that Abbott’s right on this, as one of the problems people were complaining about was the fact that she was married to Brian Loughnane, long term Federal Director of the Liberal Party and to have his wife as the PM’s Chief of Staff meant that too much power was in the hands of one couple. (Loughnane and Credlin, that is. What did you think I meant!) Given Abbott’s strong opposition to gay marriage, there’s no way she would have been his Chief of Staff if her name were “Peter”.

Anyway, we were treated to a rather frank assessment from Ms Credlin yesterday:

“And if you’re a cabinet minister or a journalist and you’re intimidated by the chief-of-staff of the prime minister then maybe you don’t deserve your job.”

Now, this is rather interesting. Is she suggesting that there were cabinet ministers who didn’t “deserve” their jobs? If so, which ones? And did she bring this to the attention of the PM? Because he could have done a reshuffle and dropped them. Actually, one has to ask if they were, in fact, the ones Turnbull dropped, or are there still people there who don’t deserve their jobs.

She also informed us:

“I am not going to be one of those people who go out and kick the Liberal Party and kick the new Prime Minister on their way out. I think that is undignified,”

Interesting that her way of not kicking the Liberal Party is suggesting that some of the cabinet ministers weren’t up to the job. Also interesting that she’s not doing it because it’s “undignified” and not because they don’t deserve a damn good “kicking”.

Yep, like the curse says, “May you live in interesting times.”

Footnote: In spite of a boost in consumer confidence after Turnbull’s ascension, Australia is still likely to slip into recession owing to massive redundancies in our flag manufacturing sector.

 

Democracy lost?

By Steve Laing

Another government, another coup. Since the final Howard Government of 2004, the last three governments have been characterized by having a different Prime Minister at the start than at the end of each term, and with those in power at the end elected not by popular vote, but by the decision of a very small political class. If evidence was required that we have quietly moved from a democracy to an oligarchy, the jury is now emphatically in.

Commentators note this instability, and suggest solutions that would make it harder to remove sitting Prime Ministers. Labor, the original overthrow experts, changed the way they appointed leaders in an attempt to diffuse the constant, often media-inspired, pressure to change the parties leader to a more popular one. No sooner than Malcolm ousted Tony, the media focus moves to Bill’s popularity with not an iota of embarrassment.

However this entirely misses the point, which is that the general public consistently takes a different view of the leaders and potential candidates, than those within the party who actually make the choice. Moreover, the dialogue that occurs around the times of these transitions as reported in the media can significantly impact public perception of the new leader (though this has been stirred up somewhat by opposition parties looking for weak points on which to attack their rivals).

The reality is that the party based system is very insular, and to a significant degree tyrannical in nature. Dissent and loyalty appear more important that competence, which worryingly means that bad leaders may actually be maintained longer than perhaps they should!

It is very clear that the now deposed Tony Abbott is the example that proves the problems of the system. Clearly elevated beyond his ability, he was unpopular with the electorate from the beginning of his prime ministership, and never recovered. Lauded in sections of the media as Australia’s greatest opposition leader, his hyper aggressive style masked a total lack of foundation with regard to the policies needed to move Australia forward. And in two years, his government has wrought enough damage to put Australia back ten years or more.

For many of us casual observers, it was clear that the LNP were policy lite, but spin heavy coming into election. Yet the mainstream media and our “astute” political commentariat somehow appeared to miss that vital component. In sports, the term is ball watching, more interested in the human drama of the election than analyzing the few policy ideas communicated prior to the election and dissecting them. Tony’s gold plated parental leave scheme was one such nonsense, dumped finally for being too expensive (it was probably, in reality, simply an attempt to try and grab woman’s votes), the impact it would have had on business, particularly small business, would have been extremely disruptive. But nobody seemed willing to think the impact through.

Tony Abbott leaves behind an economy teetering on recession due to his team constantly talking it down, a community where racism has again become mainstream and acceptable, a vastly expensive white elephant broadband scheme that will be obsolete before rollout is complete, a renewable energy industry that is teetering from lack of support, a defunct car industry, a nervous tertiary education system, no concrete plans for tax reform to help rebuild our economy, and no vision for the future post-mining boom. He has stacked the boards of our public institutions with sycophants, blundered into international diplomacy like a bull in a china shop, signed trade deals that we hope will benefit our nation (though with no precise plans as to how), and at vast expense incarcerated for an indefinite period a number of migrants whose only crime was to try and find a better life for themselves and their families, but who now have to endure conditions which we would not only reject for our animals, but indeed have made such a situation palatable for our citizens through propaganda and cover-up.

So can we expect a postmortem for this disastrous political experiment? Who is to blame for putting a person clearly incapable of this vital role into that position (and how are they still allowed to run the country!)? How was an electorate so easily duped into supporting him? Why did the media fail to provide the required due diligence that they claim to provide on our behalf? How can promises made prior to an election be dropped so quickly afterwards with no recourse bar the next election three years hence? And at what point did the electorate hand over the rights to the political parties to decide who should be eligible to become prime minister?

The Prime Ministership of Tony Abbott will not be remembered fondly, but the very least that we, the voting public, the actual employers, should be allowed, is some guarantee that such a situation will never be foist on us again. Until we recognize that our system is no longer a democracy, and do something to ensure that it becomes one again, then it is our fault if we allow our country to be hijacked again. And if any further incentive is needed, just remind yourself of who has quietly positioned themselves to be lurking in the wings . . .

About the author: Steve Laing is politically unaffiliated, but politically astute. A believer in social justice, but also properly regulated free-markets, he believes that the current political system is moribund and broken, and that if it doesn’t get repaired soon, the world will return to a modern feudalism run by capitalist barons (before destroying itself by not addressing climate change…). He believes that features of the current Australian system actually make it well placed to evolve to fix the problem IF people were given an alternative to the current party driven approach, and that using more of the best practice techniques used in business to be innovative and flexible in resolving problems, would result in a more dynamic and prosperous environment for Australians, and through example, thence the rest of the world. He is documenting his thoughts on www.makeourvoiceheard.com where he has so far outlined the problems, and is starting to outline solutions.

 

Credlin: It’s not me, it’s them

There’s a point in just about any desirable human characteristic when it can tip over into pathology, and self-confidence is no exception.

Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s Chief of Staff, Peta Credlin (otherwise known as the Horsewoman of the Apocalypse) has spoken publicly for the first time since the powerful couple were ousted by their party a few days ago.

The ousting was, Ms Credlin insisted at a Women’s Weekly woman of the future event, caused by the “tripe and bile” of a media fed anonymous commentary by despicable persons who leaked.

The double ousting can be seen, I suppose, as evidence that the voice of Murdoch’s Newscorpse, otherwise known as the LNP Weekly, was drowned out by other voices to a degree sufficient enough to persuade the Liberal party to dump its leader. These other voices are, no doubt, the “tripe and bile” to which Ms Credlin refers.

Let us take a moment to reflect on the Murdoch rags and their global standard of journalism, shall we? Just for perspective.

As examples of individuals promoted beyond their merit (defined as not up to dealing with her) Ms Credlin cites Cabinet Minsters and journalists, who should not, she states, be in their jobs at all if they are intimidated by a Chief of Staff.

Ms Credlin also stated that she had got the opposition into government:

If I was a guy I wouldn’t be bossy, I would be strong. If I was a guy I wouldn’t be a micro-manager, I would be across the detail,” she said.

“If I wasn’t strong, determined, controlling – and got them into Government from Opposition, I might add – I would be weak and not up to it and would have to go and be replaced.

As in all the best spin, there’s elements of truth in Credlin’s assessment of herself, and only the most naive would deny she is as subject to sexist character analysis as are the rest of our gender. Be that as it may, like her former boss Credlin’s strongest message is that she is beyond criticism, indeed she cannot and will not take criticism. In other words, I’m totally OK, you most certainly are not.

Being unable to take criticism isn’t a marker of self-confidence and strength. It’s a marker of delusion and weakness. It’s an indicator that self-confidence has reached its tipping point, and has begun its descent into pathology.

How fortunate we are to have escaped Ms Credlin’s anointing as the most powerful woman in Australia.

But did they ask her if she’s a feminist? That’s what I want to know.

This article was first published on No Place For Sheep.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

 

Parliament Would Be Better If We Banned Election Campaigns And Appointed People Randomly For Three Years

Turnbull said something that I agree with.

Now, as you know, I’m no fan of Turnbull’s. Mainly because he reminds me of an assistant principal who used to imply privately that any unpopular decision was the principal’s fault and, if it were up to him, he wouldn’t be implementing that particular measure.

However, when Turnbull said that the public was sick of the way politics has operated over the past few years, I had to agree. Certainly, I’m ready to start talking about what we should be doing and not what should have been done. When we bring up what the various parties have done in the past, we’re talking about different leaders, and, for the most part, a different group of politicians.

Yes, I thought, let’s get back to discussing the merits of individual ideas and not worrying about where the idea has originated.

Turnbull’s stolen Shorten’s innovation and science focus. Excellent! Hopefully, Bill will come up with a few more good ideas that he can steal. Better than relying on the Abbott regime’s ideas.

Actually, did they actually have an idea?

Mm, yes, they “stopped”, they “got rid of”, they “eliminated”, but I’m struggling to actually come up with an idea they had while in government.

But rather than embrace Turnbull’s positivity, we find the same predictable carping. The same negativity.

Yep, it seems that the Liberals just can’t help themselves.

Apart from the whinge from Kevin Andrews, who felt that he should have kept Defence for the good of the country, we have Tony Abbott. Tony felt it necessary to tell everyone that Scott Morrison had misled the Australian people. Apparently, neither Bishop nor Morrison warned Tony about the possible leadership challenge.

What was it Mr Abbott said in his concession speech? Ah yes:

“My pledge today is to make this change as easy as I can. There will be no wrecking, no undermining, and no sniping.”

Just an assertion that my trusty colleagues are liars. Well, I guess one has to set the record straight. Mr Abbott had no warning about the potential leadership challenge.

Apart from the ones printed in the newspaper a day or so before. Oh, that’s right – that was just insider gossip and he wasn’t going to play those games.

As one British politician remarked, “No, my boy, those people are the Opposition, When I said ‘the enemy can be vicious’, I meant the people on this side of the chamber!”

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button