But what if
Tony Abbott is often touted as being the most effective opposition leader this country has ever had. What criteria people use to reach this conclusion is I am unsure. However it seems to me that it is flawed. Why? Well it’s rather simple really. For almost three years the polls have given the LNP an unassailable lead over the Labor Party. So why the overkill? Obviously both the MSM and Abbott were eager to be rid of the Prime Minister. Did they show good judgement in hounding her out of office in the knowledge that a more formidable and popular opponent would replace her. Why do it when it would have been easier over the past twelve months to let political nature take its course and assume office with little effort. Everyone agreed that the populace had stopped listening to her in spite of her policy success. They needed to do everything possible to see her remain in office. It would guarantee them victory. So what was to be gained by applying the blow torch?
It goes without saying that Julia Gillard was subjected to the most contemptible and at times depraved attacks that in a political sense were unnecessary if just gaining office was the only objective. However, it seems that men cannot help themselves so they went for the jugular and in so doing put Abbott’s election at risk. But they did achieve one objective and set back the political aspirations of women for generations.
If Abbott does lose this election then he could be rightly accused of losing an unlosable one.
Tony Abbott if nothing else is a very colourful character. He is aggressive both physically and in the use of language. His negativity is legendary and he has little consideration for any ideas other than his own and says NO to his opponents policies regardless of their worthiness. He is by evidence and his own admission a liar of some regularity. Added to that he has a political gutter mentality and little respect for the institution of parliament and its conventions.
My personal desire is that Labor wins the forthcoming election. Firstly because it’s the party I support ideologically and at this point in time has the best policies to take this country forward. Secondly because I would prefer never to again see the negative often hateful style of opposition that Mr Abbott has foisted on the Australian people. It may be a way to win office but the country pays a price.
But what if he does win
He would face governing the country (Perhaps even implementing Labor policies) against a backdrop of unsavoury personal and party distractions. All of these distractions regardless of merit would create major diversions not withstanding constant public intrigue and judgement. He would be a Prime Minister like no other facing constant involvement in court proceedings or by association being on the edge of them.
There is the law suit he is facing in relation to David Ettridge and One Nation. He is being sued by Ettridge for for $1.5 million. His expenses are being looked after by a legal firm of Liberal supporters. Now it is not for me to judge the veracity of Mr Ettridge’s claims (the courts will do that) however, I would just point that firstly Abbott established a slush fund to bring down Pauline Hansen and then lied about its existence on the ABC Late Line program. He would have to explain this to the public. Not a good look for newly elected a Prime Minister. I dare say we could expect a plethora of journalists all chaffing at the bit to fill a few tabloid pages.
Then of course we have the Ashby/Slipper affair and we are awaiting the courts appeal decision. It is difficult to imagine whatever the outcome that there would not be some residual flak that Abbott would have to face. He has said that he had no direct knowledge of the proceedings. He has never explained what knowledge he did have. And if Ashby was granted his day in court it would involve members of his party and he could not escape the obvious implications. He may be able to explain his involvement but he would have to explain the involvement of his colleagues and that would be difficult. If on the other hand the ruling vindicates Justice Rare’s original verdict and an investigation is warranted. Would Prime Minister Abbott have to stand aside? After all, he was suggesting that the Prime Minister Gillard and Craig Thompson do just that under similar circumstances.
Early next year Barbara Ramjan sues Michael Kroger for defamation. Remember she accused Abbott of punching a wall either side of her head during a university altercation. Tony Abbott is not directly involved in this case although he might have to explain the fact that he reckons the event never took place in spite of witnesses saying it did. You might also recall that upon finding out Ramjan’”s standing in the community Alan Jones apologised to her. And she is married to a Supreme Court judge. All in all again not a good look for a new PM.
And Peter Slipper will front court to answer Cab Charge charges. On the surface this might seem trivial but it is still to be explained as to why the matter was not dwelt with in the normal parliamentary manner instead of having to go to court. Again Abbott is not directly involved but he would have to explain his party’s complicity.
And of course, unionist John Setka is also suing Abbott for defamation.
I can think of no person ever running for the position of Prime Minister who would take with them so much personal and party scandal into the office.
[textblock style=”7″]
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
[/textblock]
Interesting times ahead……..I hope.
If all this comes to pass, I could cope with Abbot’s election win.
Once he’s elected he becomes a shit magnet and it will fly toward him faster than he can bat it away. IF he wins it will be a pleasure to watch him deal with his poisoned chalice.
Ripper material, John Lord. Thank you.
Nup, it will be swept under the carpet. There is already enough evidence of political interference in police matters, Thomson, AWU, AWB, Jackson, etc., whilst in opposition. In power with Abbott the move to a police state would have to be accelerated to hide the past.
I doubt rupert murdoch will allow any of the LNP gutter dwellers face up to their front their accusers. Unless his media empire collapses in the meanwhile that is, which isn’t totally out of the question. One can only hope!
[Caps omitted intentionally]
The question of ‘what if?’ might also have been followed by the words ‘ the opposition under Abbott had acted in the best interests of the Country rather than the narrow interests of the coalition? Think what could have been achieved if he did not oppose just for the sake of it: he could have proposed constructive amendments. He could have used the time to earn respect.
No, he merely tried to destroy the Government. If he had succeeded we would not have the benefits of all of the good legislation introduced by the ALP under Rudd/Gillard.
Only a truly great Opposition Leader could have stuffed up the negotiations with independents to form Government in 2010. His efforts in keeping the LNP in opposition at that time should be seen as heroic. He is such a good LOTO it would be a crime if he lost that position at the upcoming election.
Abbptt’s greatest achievement to date would have to be in consigning the Liberal arty to the opposition benches for the past three years. In the near future there is a good chance he may eclipse this effort with an additional three years. It must be acknowledged he has managed this despite the frenetic efforts of MSM and shock jocks.
Mind you it may well be that any evasive moron with serious character flaws could have done it.
The achievements of the Labor Party during the period may have also had a small role to play!
John, Yes I too struggled with the reasoning behind the claims of best and most effective LOTO.
As you correctly point out, he could have spent his time in opposition putting forward good amendments to legislation, as well as their own bills which, if good enough, in a minority government could have stood a good chance of getting through 😯
The truth is he has been the most wasteful LOTO, with his expenses far exceeding those of the PM, all the while claiming that he would “Stop the waste!” 😆
Keep up the good work 😎
BTW, just posted “Politics is a dirty game!”
Cheers 😀
if attempting to cripple governments and stop any plans they have is now the standard for oppositions, then Australia loses if our future is opposition trumps actually governing, as a taxpayer, they should work with government where possible. by definition the most effective opposition would see entire terms of crippling negativity and deadlock, that will destroy a country for the sake of so few thatif we stand byandlet this become a standard we will share the blame.
Well said Matthew.
All of this begs the question, why is he leader of the Opposition at all? Whose interest does *that* serve?
As to the question why did Abbott etc. pursue Julia Gillard to the end instead of just letting it all happen , shut up and take the election win ? He just could not wait because of his manic desire for the prestige and power of office. He is the sort of person who would have to plunge the knife in and kill his prey to satisfy that lust. Had that happened you could just imagine the dancing around the fire by Bishop and Pyne as they too would drool and screech their delite at the kill.