Lately I’ve seen various opinion writers and journalists refer to Mr Turnbull as “left wing” and, as we all know, being “left wing” is akin to being one of those unsavoury types who campaigned against Peter Dutton in the recent election. You know, bikies, activists or, even worse, unionists.
How did we end up with this terrible situation when you elect a perfectly reasonable middle-of-the-road government that you end up with such a person as PM? It had something to do with the fact that the previous leader, Tony Abbott, who in spite of being very adult, as well as being a top bloke, had run into a few difficulties with his popularity owing to the fact that people didn’t understand that when he made certain promises on the ABC, Pensions,Health and Education, they should have realised that he wasn’t serious because – as he made abundantly clear – unless it was written down, then it might be something that one says in the heat of the moment. So, in desperation, the Liberals turned to Malcolm, because in spite of his unfortunate ideas on a number of issues, he seemed more popular with the voters because the majority had similar views on climate change, the Republic and same sex marriage. Faced with the prospect of a backlash at the election, the Liberals decided to appease those “lefties” in our society who formed the majority of the population by electing Turnbull on the strict proviso that he could continue to hold these views as long as he never again expressed any desire to actually do something about them.
Some sources in the Liberal Party have held up Turnbull as a reason why we shouldn’t allow same sex marriage because Turnbull is an example of what happens when you don’t ensure that children have a father AND a mother – you end up with a left winger who has anger management problems. Of course, given that many gay people are already raising children, it begs the question how preventing them from marrying will lead to all children having both a mother and father, but that’s a discussion for another time.
Right now, we’re looking at Malcolm Turnbull and tracing his life in an effort to explain what could have led him to follow such an unacceptable ideology.
Turnbull was born on October, 1954. Spending his formative years in the slums of Vaucluse, he attended that hotbed of radical thought, Sydney Grammar School. After showing some aptitude for schoolwork, he managed to get into the University of Sydney. It was here that he showed the first signs of the Trotskyite he was to become. Rather than join student politics or sell the “Socialist Weekly”, he studied Arts and Law.
Typical of many left wingers, he used his law degree to make money defending such battlers as Kerry Packer. During these years Turnbull clearly showed his desire to destroy the capitalist system by working as a venture capitalist. Remember the role of venture capitalists in the Global Financial Crisis? These people nearly brought the entire system to its knees, and while there are no direct links between Turnbull and these people, I’m sure that he’s glad that nobody tried the same legal precedents as Queensland’s bikie laws to link him to any of those people who went to jail for fraud after the GFC. Oh wait, nobody got sent to jail. They were bailed out and told not to do it again.
Anyway, he eventually decided to dedicate himself to the overthrow of our system by joining the republican movement. I mean, it’s a pretty left-wing idea to argue that the person who is our head of state should be someone who Australians appoint, rather than some person on the throne in England who holds the position thanks to years of judicious inbreeding amongst the royal families of Europe.
Turnbull eventually entered the Parliament in a typical left-wing way by splashing out $600,000 on his electoral campaign for the seat of Wentworth.
Since becoming Prime Minister, Turnbull’s popularity has slipped. While some have speculated that this is because of a period when he was removing things that he’d put on the table faster than your plates are cleared at most restaurants, others are suggesting that this because his actions have failed to match his most radical positions. Unfortunately, because the majority of people also hold these positions, this has led to a realisation from certain commentators that most Australians are also radical lefties who don’t deserve to have their opinion heard.
In fact, the Liberals have a mandate to implement the policies that they took to the election. But not the one on superannuation -they’re going to listen to the people on superannuation. And by people, I mean George Christensen. Anyway, they’ve decided they didn’t really like that one, after all. It’s just a mandate for the policies they really liked; there’s no obligation to include everything they said in the election when talking about mandates. A mandate only refers to the policies you still want to implement but the other parties are stopping you. They should let you do what you like now that you’re the government!
It’s only Right.
196 total views, 2 views today