Australian War Memorial needs to own Australian frontier…

By David Stephens Proper recognition and commemoration of the Australian Frontier Wars at…

Chegg, Cheating and Australian Universities

The note on Radio National’s Background Briefing on the morning of July…

By the People and for the People: a…

By Max Ogden and John Lord One of Australia's most vexing questions is…

We Are In Total Agreement With The 43%…

Good morning, today we have a representative from the government-in-exile, Shadow Minister…

Fire, Flood and Famine

Sounds Biblical? As it should. Man's inhumanity to man also features. Talking to a close…

Whither Constitutional Change?

Within a very short space of time, we are going to be…

The Fuss about Monkeypox

The World Health Organization has been one of the easier bodies to…

Nancy Pelosi, was that the right move?

Archduke Franz Ferdinand’s visit to Sarajevo in 1914 was an instructive lesson…

«
»
Facebook

The Turnbull endgame – again?

By Ad astra

It was Karl Marx who said History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce. Malcolm Turnbull gives contemporary credence to these words.

Seven years ago, in August 2009, as Malcolm Turnbull’s time as Leader of the Opposition seemed close to its end, I wrote The Turnbull endgame? Four months later he was gone, replaced by Tony Abbott by just one vote.

The leopard has not changed his spots. What was written about him then, applies now. This piece highlights the striking parallels between now and then.

I shall intersperse in block quotes clips from that earlier piece, with contemporary comment to illustrate my argument.

The Australian today [6 August 2009] abounds with talk of replacing Malcolm Turnbull as Coalition leader. Dennis Shanahan and Matthew Franklin wrote a piece Desperate Liberals look to replace Turnbull with Robb, and Shanahan has a blog It’s a loser or the last man standing. The sixty comments that followed are evenly divided between support for making a change and leaving Turnbull there, as Robb would be no better!

Jack the Insider has a blog Turnbull artistry no match for the numbers. He concludes “…the hard heads in the Coalition will soon reach the view, if they have not already done so, that the continued existence of the Liberal Party depends on a change in leadership.”… Most of the 240 respondents, even those with Liberal leanings, agreed that a change was necessary.

The Political Sword has long maintained that while Malcolm Turnbull was an accomplished journalist, barrister, businessman and banker, he was not a politician and would have difficulty in the political milieu.

On 19 September last year [2008] in Will the real Malcolm Turnbull please stand up?, it was argued that after starting so promisingly when he entered parliament, when this independent thinker and decision-maker was being forced uncomfortably into a political mould as a Howard Government minister, his authority faded and he became less convincing. He seemed to not have his heart in what he was saying.

Then in The Turnbull Report Card 10 days in posted on 26 September 2008 soon after he became leader, after acknowledging his pluses, concluded “…where he falls short is when he is not on his favoured turf, when he’s challenged with uncomfortable facts, when he attempts to advocate causes in which he does not have his heart, and when he has to defend untenable positions. As political life abounds with such circumstance, unless he can overcome this flaw, he will have difficulty convincing the people of the merit of his approach and his capacity to manage a nation beset with many contemporary challenges and complexities. Leading a nation is so much more complex and demanding, so different from life at the bar and managing a merchant bank.”

Sounds familiar doesn’t it!

Despite the unhappy memories of the Turnbull of 2009, when he toppled Abbott in September last year the sense of relief among the general public that finally the calamitous Abbott was gone (at least from the top job) was so great that memories of the earlier Turnbull were erased from the public’s mind. Great hope was held out that at last we had a leader that was prime ministerial in appearance, demeanour and speech. At last our embarrassment of having Abbott as our leader was behind us.

His prime ministership started well, but soon doubts began. Had he learned from his previous period as leader? Had the Turnbull nature changed? The public was at first prepared to give him the benefit of the gathering doubts that people had.

Let’s look back again to 2008:

In Malcolm’s at it again posted on 15 October [2008], when he was beginning to qualify his support initially given to the first Rudd Government stimulus package, he began to sound less persuasive, became circumlocutory, and arguably lost his audience. The piece concluded: “Kim Beasley was criticized for his prolixity, and unable to overcome it, eventually people stopped listening. Indeed this was a major factor behind the move to replace him as leader. Leaders who lose their audience – Beasley and Howard are examples – lose elections. Turnbull’s minders would be wise to point out this defect to him, and try to rectify it, always providing Malcolm’s ego will tolerate such a move.

To quibble or not to quibble, posted the next day when Turnbull again quibbled about his support for the stimulus, concluded “As said so many times in this blog, when Turnbull does his own thing and promotes his own views, he looks impressive and sounds authentic; but as soon as he’s forced to toe the party line, he loses his lustre and becomes an ordinary politician…When will the Coalition learn? When will they realize that sometimes it’s better not to quibble?”

Sounds familiar again. Balanced journalists have commented time and again that Turnbull is under the thumb of his right wing members, the very ones who extracted promises from him for their vote when he challenged Abbott for leadership.

Now we hear him arguing strongly in support of the Coalition’s paltry Direct Action Plan although he vowed previously never to lead a government that did not put a price on carbon pollution. Just as before, he now sounds unconvincing, and is marked down for being a turncoat.

Although a strong supporter of marriage equality, he persists with his intention to hold a plebiscite. His rationale is that it was an election promise, but more importantly it was a promise to his right wing. The fact that recent polls show that the public’s desire for a plebiscite is waning and that they want parliament to get on with its job of legislating for equality, has so far not persuaded him to reverse his stand and show the leadership they hoped he would. Although he knows how close he went to losing the recent election, he realizes that his prime ministership depends more on the support of his right wing than on the support of the people. He knows where the power rests.

The emerging Opposition strategy, posted on 13 November [2008], described the strategy being adopted by Turnbull and the Coalition: attacking everything the Government did, criticizing everything Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan proposed, and attacking them personally, labeling them as incompetent and reckless. At the time Crikey’s Bernard Keane said “The risk with Turnbull’s tactics are that they backfire, and create a public impression of a smart-rse, someone who failed to get behind the Government as it tried to manage a global crisis…The risk at the moment is that he cruels his public image before that can happen. Once the public has an image of you, it’s very hard to shake it off.”

The TPS piece concluded “So it’s hard to see any logic to Turnbull’s strategy and tactics other than his belief that if he throws enough mud, some will stick, and that by repeatedly attempting to discredit Rudd, Swan and the Government generally, he will gain traction, the scales will fall from the voters’ eyes, and he will emerge as the indispensable statesman who can restore Australia to the ‘glory’ of the Howard years. On the other hand, as Keane suggests, his strategy may inflict so much damage on his image that recovery will be difficult, if not impossible. Some are already punting he will not survive as leader to the next election; what he’s now doing may ensure that this becomes a discerning prophesy. Unfortunately for him, his impatience, his ego and his determination to use a ‘do whatever it takes’ strategy no matter how politically opportunistic, may be his undoing.”

The pattern of Turnbull’s behaviour was becoming clearer:

The ‘deficit’ wedge posted on 25 November [2008] was written when the deficit and debt slogan was launched. The piece concluded “What this amounts to is an opportunistic ploy by the Opposition to wrong-foot and embarrass the Government about the much-talked-about deficit, and to paint it as incapable of sound economic management if it finally does go into deficit for the good of the nation. That the Coalition’s wedge campaign flies in the face of sensible economic management in these troubled times is of no importance to them; political advantage and the wistful hope of winning the next election is all that counts…Since his election to leadership Turnbull has posed as a financial guru, but he has gained no traction in two party preferred terms in the opinion polls…The people don’t seem to be buying his rhetoric…Turnbull needs to be careful that his blatant opportunism doesn’t backfire.”

Turnbull’s benchmarks for failure of 30 November [2008] described his three benchmarks for Rudd Government failure: going into a deficit, rising unemployment, and recession. The piece concluded: “Economist after economist, commentator upon commentator agree that under the current economic circumstances a deficit occasioned by a well-targeted fiscal stimulus is necessary to limit the risk of recession. They agree with Rudd and Swan, not with Turnbull. His demand that the Government avoids a deficit, although this would be detrimental to the economy, to jobs, and to the nation, is irresponsible. But will contrary opinion be enough to stop him? Laurie Oakes doesn’t think so. Writing in the 29 November issue of the Daily Telegraph: ‘Turnbull falls into deficit’, he suggests that even if he is wrong, Turnbull is never in doubt about the correctness of his position. So it’s unlikely Turnbull will change tack – no price is too high for him to achieve political traction. If one can judge from the latest opinion polls, Turnbull is spinning his wheels. He desperately needs traction. But his strategy is risky. The people are watching. When they see through his glib talk, he will be the one who fails.”

The ‘stop at nothing’ pattern was emerging.

History repeats itself.

In the wake of the disastrous storms that blacked out South Australia, we have Turnbull in full political mode, lambasting Labor states for having ‘aggressive and extremely unrealistic targets for renewable energy’, insinuating that South Australia’s high use of wind power was a significant factor in the catastrophic failure of electricity supply to that State. He persists with this line despite energy providers and experts in power generation, as well as renewable energy providers and advocates insisting that the blackout was caused by the unprecedented disastrous weather event that hit the State, and not the use of renewables. As he condemned Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan for their actions during the GFC (now shown to be life-saving for our economy), he now condemns Labor premiers for their support of renewables, and piously (echoed by energy minister Josh Frydenberg) boasts that ‘energy security is the Coalition’s top priority’ (apparently national security has slipped down the list). Again accruing political capital is his object, not the wellbeing of the nation.

The 2 December [2009] piece Why does Malcolm Turnbull make so many mistakes? concluded “History may show that Turnbull’s biggest mistakes are underestimating Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan, perpetually insisting they ‘simply don’t understand’ financial or economic matters, consistently condemning their every move, changing his tune whenever it suits him, flying in the face of competent economic intelligence, failing to exercise strong leadership, continuing to make political points at a time of unparalleled financial turmoil and steadily losing credibility as he does, indulging in obfuscation and circumlocution while avoiding answering questions asked by interviewers, and most significantly failing to notice that the people are not behind him.”

He is now in similar mode, asserting that Labor does not understand energy security, that it is obsessed with renewables, that its targets are wildly unrealistic, all the time neglecting to set national targets to guide the states, or even to carry out modeling for the very modest emission reduction and renewable targets he agreed to in Paris. He is dragging his feet while castigating the Labor states which have filled the void. Again, he is failing to provide leadership. He seems oblivious to the increasing demands of the people who want action on climate change urgently.

And it’s not just ordinary people who want action. Major business organizations and energy users have urged federal and state governments to work cooperatively to map out a “strategic response to Australia’s energy transition and challenges”… warning that investment is at risk. The Australian Energy Council, the Australian Industry Group, the Business Council of Australia, the Energy Users Association of Australia, Energy Consumers Australia, the Energy Efficiency Council, the Energy Networks Association and the Clean Energy Council are jointly calling for leadership from and between the jurisdictions, and bipartisanship on “the tightly connected issues of energy and climate change”, warning that in the absence of bipartisanship, “uncertainty will cause essential energy investments to be deferred or distorted, to the ultimate cost of us all.” But will Turnbull listen to them?

On 11 April [2009], a piece Why is Malcolm Turnbull so unpopular? began “There’s not much need to emphasize Turnbull’s contemporary unpopularity – it’s all over the air waves and the papers. It takes only a few metrics to quantify it…He leads a Coalition that currently shows has an average TPP of 60/40 in Labor’s favour across several polls, which show a steady trend away from the Coalition.

His polling situation is not quite as bad now, but compared with the stellar polls he enjoyed just a little over a year ago, his personal popularity is in a steady downward spiral, and recently the Coalition’s TPP was as bad as it was when Abbott was PM!

This piece is already long enough. Let’s finish with the conclusion of the 2009 piece; The Turnbull endgame?

To draw this long piece to an end, should we be surprised at the position in which Turnbull now finds himself? Looking back over a year or more a pattern of behaviour has become clearly apparent: impetuosity, poor political judgement, ruthlessness and self-confidence not matched by political ability, that goes to his character, his integrity and his political wisdom, all of which are now highly questionable.

Is Turnbull’s endgame upon him? ‘Endgame’ describes the last part of a chess game, when there are very few pieces left. That looks like the right word.

It seems that only lack of a plausible alternative can now save him.

Here we are again! Nothing has changed since 2009 except the dates. Turnbull is still the Turnbull he always was, and always will be. The electorate, initially buoyed with high expectations, has that sinking feeling again as disappointment and disillusionment overwhelms.

And his right wing would have him gone in a flash if they could mount a plausible case, provided they could find an acceptable alternative, as was the case in 2009.

As 2353NM put it in Turnbull – Abbott from a better postcode?: “When Turnbull became prime minister, there was a hope that he would bring the claimed decency and ability to appeal to the middle ground that was so lacking with Abbott. After 13 months, it hasn’t happened. There are two possibilities: Turnbull is just as bad as Abbott (except for better clothing choices and living in a ‘more expensive’ postcode); or, to coin a phrase, Turnbull ’doesn’t have the ticker’ to promote and implement policy and legislation that isn’t approved by his conservative rump thereby ensuring his longevity as prime minister. Either way, the rest of us as Australian citizens will continue to suffer as a result.”

Marx said: History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.

We’ve had the tragedy; now we have the farce.

Is this the Turnbull endgame – again?

This article was originally published on The Political Sword

For Facebook users, The Political Sword has a Facebook page:
Putting politicians and commentators to the verbal sword

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

 104 total views,  2 views today

11 comments

Login here Register here
  1. johnlward010

    IMF indicates, to stop fossil subsidies would benefit gov 3.8% GDP a year.
    https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/unlawful-reallocation-of-clean-energy-investment-by-the-coalition,9567
    https://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/australia-still-subsidising-fossil-fuels-at-rate-of-1712-per-person-a-year-33164
    https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/unlawful-reallocation-of-clean-energy-investment-by-the-coalition,9567

    During the recent election campaign Prime Minister Turnbull purported to have the authority to redistribute CEFC funds by: $1billion from the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) to fund his new Clean Energy Innovation Fund (CEIF last week they took $800million from the CEIF to make up for the loss of the ARENA debacle).
    $1 billion was also set aside to finance a ‘Better Cities Fund’.
    A further $1 billion ‘drawn ‘ from the “Green Bank ” to clean up the Barrier Reef.
    $1.5 billion for a second Bass Strait under sea cable link to the mainland.
    $100 million was set aside to prevent the closure of the Steelworks in Whyalla SA . The University of Tasmania’s Northern Campus in Launceston received a pledge of $150 million to be extracted from the CEFC.
    Prime Minister Turnbull is saying to Tasmanians and UTAS, “you can have an expanded Northern Campus or a renewable energy industry, but you cannot have not both”.
    Cabinet Ministers have conspired to remove all funds from the CEFC by pledging the total amount left in the CEFC account to other ‘good LNP causes’.
    Malcolm promised money he cannot access, with the total pledged so far being around $5.0 billion.
    Cabinet Ministers have conspired to remove all funds from the CEFC by pledging the total amount left in the CEFC account to other ‘good LNP causes’.
    At the same time Malcolm Turnbull is subsidising the fossil fuel industry (Oil, Coal and Gas) with (IMF numbers) $1,712 per person a year or $41 billion of taxpayer funds.
    This includes exploration funding for Geoscience Australia and tax deductions for mining and petroleum exploration.
    The president of the World Bank stated that it was crazy that governments were still driving the use of coal, oil and gas by providing subsidies. “We need to get rid of fossil fuel subsidies now,” he said. In July, Stern estimated that tackling climate change would require investment of 2% of global GDP each year. Prime Minister Turnbull, Deputy Prime Minister Joyce, Former Prime Minister Abbott, Ministers Pyne, Hockey, Cormann and Hunt are attempting to falsely convince the public that the Cabinet can “re-purpose and re-direct the Act” without going back through the Parliament. These attempted changes to the CEFC Act 2012 are yet to be legislated.

    John Ward
    johnlward010@gmail.com
    03 62921211
    20 Grosse Road
    Gordon
    Tasmania
    7150

    IMF indicates, to stop fossil subsidies would benefit gov 3.8% GDP a year. https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/unlawful-reallocation-of-clean-energy-investment-by-the-coalition,9567
    https://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/australia-still-subsidising-fossil-fuels-at-rate-of-1712-per-person-a-year-33164 httphttps://www.ucsusa.org/The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdf http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/gas-cartel-holding-nation-ransom-60079
    http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/energy-incumbents-fight-changes-that-
    could-accelerate-battery-storage-73260
    http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/murdoch-coalition-go-guns-blazing-wind-solar-74901

  2. Alan Baird

    There’s nothing original in what I’ll say about Turnbull. He sold out to the Extreme Right (in the Libs) and most of the Nationals. He now says mostly what Abbott would have said. What’s to like here? Bugger all. It’s been an exercise in futility. SNAFU. The worse Turnbull performs (and it’s pretty appalling) the easier job Shorten will have getting into the Lodge and the more right wing and ineffectual he’ll become. At the last election he felt he had to come up with a more interesting policy line-up with Turnbull seemingly providing a tougher challenge than the hapless Abbott. With a nobbled Turnbull (and Abbott grinning somewhere nearby) Shorten can relax. I can see a relapse to a useless ALP (Another Liberal Party) VS Conservative competition in our future that’ll make the great US debacle we’re currently seeing seem strangely prophetic. More much ado about nothing. Once again both sides will go to enormous trouble to magnify the the insignificant difference between a neocon-affected ALP and a Conservative Coalition. John Clarke will be down on the carpet again parting the fibres & trying to find the difference between the parties. More faffing about in the Centre, a Centre which will once again be well to the Right.

  3. johnlward010

    https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/unlawful-reallocation-of-clean-energy-investment-by-the-coalition,9567 https://secure3.convio.net/gpeace/site/Advocacy?

    During the recent election campaign Prime Minister Turnbull purported to have the authority to redistribute CEFC funds by: $1billion from the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) to fund his new Clean Energy Innovation Fund (CEIF last week they took $800million from the CEIF to make up for the loss of the ARENA debacle).
    $1 billion was also set aside to finance a ‘Better Cities Fund’.
    A further $1 billion ‘drawn ‘ from the “Green Bank ” to clean up the Barrier Reef.
    $1.5 billion for a second Bass Strait under sea cable link to the mainland.
    $100 million was set aside to prevent the closure of the Steelworks in Whyalla SA . The University of Tasmania’s Northern Campus in Launceston received a pledge of $150 million to be extracted from the CEFC.
    Prime Minister Turnbull is saying to Tasmanians and UTAS, “you can have an expanded Northern Campus or a renewable energy industry, but you cannot have not both”.

    Cabinet Ministers have conspired to remove all funds from the CEFC by pledging the total amount left in the CEFC account to other ‘good LNP causes’.
    Malcolm promised money he cannot access, with the total pledged so far being around $5.0 billion.

    Cabinet Ministers have conspired to remove all funds from the CEFC by pledging the total amount left in the CEFC account to other ‘good LNP causes’.
    At the same time Malcolm Turnbull is subsidising the fossil fuel industry (Oil, Coal and Gas) with (IMF numbers) $1,712 per person a year or $41 billion of taxpayer funds.

    This includes exploration funding for Geoscience Australia Great Australian Bight and tax deductions for mining and petroleum exploration.

    The president of the World Bank stated that it was crazy that governments were still driving the use of coal, oil and gas by providing subsidies. “We need to get rid of fossil fuel subsidies now,” he said. In July, Stern estimated that tackling climate change would require investment of 2% of global GDP each year. Prime Minister Turnbull, Deputy Prime Minister Joyce, Former Prime Minister Abbott, Ministers Pyne, Hockey, Cormann and Hunt are attempting to falsely convince the public that the Cabinet can “re-purpose and re-direct the Act” without going back through the Parliament. These attempted changes to the CEFC Act 2012 are yet to be legislated.

    John Ward
    johnlward010@gmail.com
    03 62921211
    20 Grosse Road
    Gordon
    Tasmania
    7150

    IMF indicates, to stop fossil subsidies would benefit gov 3.8% GDP a year. https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/unlawful-reallocation-of-clean-energy-investment-by-the-coalition,9567
    https://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/australia-still-subsidising-fossil-fuels-at-rate-of-1712-per-person-a-year-33164 httphttps://www.ucsusa.org/The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdf http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/gas-cartel-holding-nation-ransom-60079
    http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/energy-incumbents-fight-changes-that-could-accelerate-battery-storage-73260
    http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/murdoch-coalition-go-guns-blazing-wind-solar-74901

  4. Matters Not

    I think there’s a song that sums him up rather well.

  5. Jane Love

    The most competent, interesting, accurate and well-written article I have ever read on The Aim Network. Thank you.

  6. astra5

    Jane Love
    Thank you for your most generous compliment. Such a comment makes the task of political blogging so worthwhile. I’m glad you enjoyed the piece.

  7. astra5

    Matters Not
    Your YouTube clip nails Turnbull. The words are so apt:

    He’s a real nowhere Man,
    Sitting in his Nowhere Land,
    Making all his nowhere plans
    for nobody.

    Doesn’t have a point of view,
    Knows not where he’s going to,
    Isn’t he a bit like you and me?
    Nowhere Man, please listen,
    You don’t know what you’re missin’,
    Nowhere Man, the world is at your command.

    He’s as blind as he can be,
    Just sees what he wants to see,
    Nowhere Man can you see me at all?

    Nowhere Man, don’t worry,
    Take your time, don’t hurry,
    Leave it all ’till somebody else
    lends you a hand.

    Doesn’t have a point of view,
    Knows not where he’s going to,
    Isn’t he a bit like you and me?

    Nowhere man please listen,
    you don’t know what your missin’
    Nowhere Man, the world is at your command

    He’s a real Nowhere Man,
    Sitting in his Nowhere Land,
    Making all his nowhere plans
    for nobody.
    Making all his nowhere plans
    for nobody.
    Making all his nowhere plans
    for nobody.

  8. astra5

    johnlward010
    Thank you for your comprehensive comment.

    What Turnbull is doing with his reallocation of Clean Energy Finance Corporation funds is not just immoral, it is a sign of his indebtedness to the conservative rump in his party; more shamefully his preparedness to abandon his long held high principles about what we should be doing about global warming; and even more disgracefully his willingness to cast aside his principled statement of 2009: “I will not lead a party that is not as committed to effective action on climate change as I am”. He knows the Coalition’s Direct Action Plan is a fraud, and is not doing what it purports to do, yet he lauds it with phony words about its effectiveness.

    Turnbull knows about the ultimate effects of global warming; he knows that unchecked, life on our planet will be dangerously threatened, and in the end extinguished. Yet for short-term political gain he takes a number of actions that not only will not curtail global warming, but will accelerate it. How disappointing is he in the eyes of those, even Labor supporters, who imagined he would be better than Abbott. By not sticking to his principles, he is less moral than his awful predecessor.

  9. astra5

    Alan Baird
    You paint a gloomy picture.

    Combating Abbott was akin to punching an adversary in full armour. Combating Turnbull is like punching putty. As Matters Not attests, Turnbull is a ‘Nowhere Man’. How disappointing that the replacement for the calamitous Abbott is so ineffectual, so vague, so indecisive, so shapeless, so lacking conviction, so willing to abandon cherished principles.

    As for Bill Shorten, when his time comes, I hope he will exhibit the integrity we expect of Labor leaders, will stick to Labor principles, eschew neoliberal ideology, and bring this nation back to the egalitarian state so many of our citizens desire.

  10. townsvilleblog

    I may not have a degree in anything, but I am a keen political observer and have been for the best part of half a century. In that time the only end game I have seen from the servants of the rich (and I refer to the 1% of the global population who own 50% + of Earth’s economy) is to continue to increase the percentage of wealth owned by the global 1% at the expense of everyday people. The corporations owned by the 1% are operating ‘taxed not’ in every developed country on Earth including Australia, UK, US of A, Canada, etc.

    Until we have governments who are prepared to change the taxation laws to ensure corporations who trade for example in Australia are registered in Australia and declare their income publicly and pay a fair share of income tax, perhaps 23% as a number, then the people will not get a fair go. The supposed ‘end game’ is simply ensuring that the corporations owned by the 1% are not taxed, so that the 1% can continue to gobble up further percentages of the Earths’s wealth. They, as I have said in the past, have a mental illness of insatiable greed, where enough is never enough, always have to have, more!

  11. astra5

    townsvilleblog
    The ‘sense of entitlement’, a label so often applied to those on welfare who have so little, more appropriately applies to those who have so much, but feel entitled to even more.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

The maximum upload file size: 2 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here

Return to home page
%d bloggers like this: