Tag: Abbott

Humour

A letter to the Editor. From Morrie Moneyweather.

Morrie.

I didn’t think I would ever do this again because the last time I wrote none of you ungratefull bastards appreciated the wisdom of my words. All yous could do was have a go at me gramma. Even after me sons final year English class at Melbourne Gramma proofed it.
Anyway Im upset, again about the dispectfull way in which your writers are treating one of the finest prime ministers we have ever had. Even to the point of commenting on his receeding hair. No bloody wonder hes loosing it with all the crap he has to take. I meam Juliar also had a hair problem.
I agree with Chris Kenny. Quote.

‘’For all the coalitions failings and missteps it is surely incontestable that Tony Abbott has provided the best 16 months of government Australia has seen in 7 years.’’
Absolutely incontestable.”

You can do as many fact checks as you want but they will never be a substitute for the truth.

I mean look at some of the things he has done. Hes put Bronnie in charge of the house and made the whole thing more equitable (did ya like that word) and fairer. Now she is a women with balls and is displaying an unbiased approach to the job that has been lacking with Labor speakers.

And with a cabinet shuffle hes fixed the sexual imbalance.

Just before I go on. I read that piece by John Lord; “Why are the Right so Feral?”
Fair dinkum. He wouldn’t know shit from clay. I’d suggest he takes a hold of himself. Surely it’s clear to everyone that we need to be free to pursue wealth. I mean I needed the freedom to accept my inheritance. The same with Gina. There will always be haves and have nots. Lifters and leaners as Joe calls them. Even Jesus said that. And Ronald Regan said. If we keep giving more money to the rich, everyone will have more money. It’s called tickle down economics.
And all this shit about the budget being unfair.
It wasn’t it was just misunderstood. Joe was just sayin that the poor and middle classes had to support the rich. Christ anyone can understand that.
It was the fairest budget in fifty years. I mean what choice did Joe have? Someone has to pay to balance the books and it shouldn’t be those creating the wealth. People need to understand the stress involved in wealth creation.

Conservatives were born to control capitol. Labour comes after capital. Not everyone can be effluent. Had we had less regulation and let market forces have their way we wouldn’t have had a Global Financial Crisis. Now look at the mess Tony has to get the world out of.

Oh and another thing. At the risk of repeating myself. I didn’t appreciate all the sarcastic remarks from those people last time. Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.I can only say that good manners is a basic tenant of conservation. And women should be obscene and not heard.

Now where was I? Yes? There is no inequity in society. It’s just that some deserve more than others. We were born to rule. If we don’t have poor people who’s going to do the work.

That’s why I admire Christopher Pyne. It talks a lot of courage to do what hes doin even if I don’t understand what it is. I mean two many educated people can be dangerous for society.

They might all want to be wealthy.

And we don’t tell lies.

And talking about lies. How stupid people can be. Have a read of this letter I found in the AGE. I mean really.

“Some time back Tony Abbott told us that the best way to understand the truth of what he was saying was to have it in writing. Otherwise what he was saying was just idle chatter for an audience. So now I’m a little confused. You see now he is saying that what I thought he said is only a figment of my imagination. That what I think I thought he meant is not what he meant at all. That when he says something and I take it to mean one thing he has the option of saying that what I thought I heard was not what I heard at all. It was only my interpretation of what he meant. I mean, did he say what he meant or did he mean to say what he meant or was what he meant really what he meant.
I know that I am 75 and I have the odd senior moment but usually I know what I mean and what is meant by what I say. I also know that people understand what I’m meaning.

The silly confused old fart must be suffering from dementia.”

And all that nonsense about knighthoods. He should have given John Howard one too. He would have appreciated it for sure. I mean really think about the contribution Philip has made to our country. I mean really think it if your capable. And I’m sure Philip will keep up the good work. When and if we see him.

Anyhow I think all the writers on this blog show such little respect for Tony its just revolting. I think you’re that dumb that you must be three bricks short of a load or not the full two bobs worth. Either that or your three sanwhiches short of a picnic.
And most of the comments have to be a joke – no-one can be that stupid and arrogant, unless they are members of the Greens.

And that fellow. Ive forgotton what his name is. Your comment about me being a lesbeim was despickable. I could describe you as a pain in the neck but I have a much lower opinion of you.

There were so manny comments regarding mylast letter. All of them in such poor taste that I feel I cannot avail myself to share my wisdom with you again. I can only hope and pray that someday the working classes will come to their senses and show their appreciation for the effluence we share.

. I think you are all so mean that if I paid you a compliment you would probably ask for a receipt.
So stick it up ya jumpa.

Morrie Moneyweather from Malvern.

PS , Tony is the best thing to ever happen to this country? So tell the person who runs this sight that he needs a manager. Hes been handlin himself to long. Good government started last week. Cant remember the exact date.

Twitt
Humour

Grand Canyon Wolfslayer Admits To Having An Unusually Small Penis: Australian PM has found something in common with someone at last

idiot-gun-15

BEAVER, UTAH (CT&P) – The bloodthirsty asshole who shot and killed Echo, the grey wolf who traveled over 750 miles from the Northern Rockies to the Grand Canyon, has admitted to authorities that his penis and testicles are far below average in size.

The hunter, whose name is being kept secret for fear that actual decent human beings would surround his trailer and skin him alive, told officials that he had “always been insecure about his sexual organs”, and that is one of the main reasons he liked to inflict pain on innocent animals.

echo

The pitiful excuse for a man told U.S. Fish and Game officers that he had mistaken the wolf for a coyote.

Genetic tests conducted at the University of Idaho found that the DNA sample taken from the wolf killed on December 28 was identical to the DNA in scat samples taken from Echo, the name given to the Grand Canyon wolf following a worldwide naming contest among schoolchildren.

Wolves in Utah are protected under the Endangered Species Act, and hunting them can bring penalties of up to a year in prison and tens of thousands of dollars in fines. A spokesperson for the Fish and Wildlife Service would not comment on the shooting, but said the investigation is under way.

“I find it very difficult to believe that this asshole could not tell the difference between a coyote and a grey wolf, said the spokesman. “Any third grader could tell the difference with one eye closed, and it would be damn near impossible to miss the huge radio collar that Echo was wearing.”

smalldick

“I think it’s far more likely that this shithead, like most hunters, is trying to compensate for his pencil dick and shrunken testicles by going out and murdering any animal that he comes across. I’m sure he also beats his wife and kids in his spare time.”

The loss of the wolf made international news and has sparked anti-hunting protests across the country.

“It’s very sad news,” said Michael Robinson, a conservationist and wolf advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity. “We and a lot of other people were rooting for her. Echo’s death illustrates the peril wolves face even under the protection of the Endangered Species Act.”

“We certainly hope that this moron will do time and be forced to pay some heavy fines,” said Robinson. Maybe in prison he’ll be able to find someone lonely enough to appreciate his miniscule member. People like this son of bitch should be sterilized before they are able to reproduce.”

LNP

Westerners Join Iraqi Christian Militia To Fight ISIS/ Abbott want’s them arrested or the right rescind their passports. Do they have good reason to be there?

 

DWEKH

Westerners Join Iraqi Christian Militia To Fight ISIS.

LNP

Children in detention: A government without compassion: Andrew Bolt’s truism right wing governments show compassion.

Joshua Dale

Prime Minister Tony Abbott dismisses a damning Human Rights Commission report into children in refugee detention, saying he feels no guilt about their plight whatsoever. Human rights lawyer Joshua Dale says there needs to be complete overhaul of attitudes amongst Australia’s politicians and their constituents.

IT IS with sadness, that one must now accept that the rights of children in Australia, particularly so far as it concerns Australia’s immigration policies, have fallen by the wayside.

There is now a common theme amongst Australian governments to dismiss human rights issues when it concerns Australia’s detention facilities and the treatment of their occupants.

Recently, the Australian Human Rights Commission under the guidance of its president, Gillian Triggs, has engaged in a national inquiry into children in immigration detention. The report has now been released, making 16 recommendations, including that all children should be released from detention in the next four weeks and that a Royal Commission into the treatment and detention of children should be convened.

This report has been met with strong opposition by the Abbott Government.

The Federal Government’s current approach to ensuring Australia’s international obligations are upheld is by delegating authority to the Australian Human Rights Commission to investigate and advise.

Outside of the Human Rights Commission’s recent findings, there remains the question of how children or minors accused of people smuggling are affected by current Government policies.

You may recall reports in 2012 and also 2013 where young Indonesian children, accused with people smuggling crimes, were detained in Silverwater Prison.

Many of these children came from impoverished backgrounds, in which they were forced into operating vessels on the high seas where they risked death, all for the purpose of being able to return what can only be described as a dismal income to their families. Evidence submitted to a Senate Inquiry suggested that many of these individuals had very little knowledge as to whether or not they were, in fact, committing a crime.

When detained in Australia, many of these minors did not have any identification or birth documents in their possession. In the absence of identification data, their age was determined by the performance of a wrist X-ray, which would then be examined for certain levels of deterioration in the wrist, which could then estimate age of the minor.

Various studies had been in existence prior to the implementation of law that allowed for age testing with the use of X-ray. These anthropological studies concluded that there existed a significant variation in findings and concluded that unreliable results concerning bone ages had arisen. The conclusions generally were that the testing methods did not accurately represent multi ethnic child populations.

For example, a study conducted in 2001 [Mora Et Al, “Skeletal Age Determinations in Children of European and African Decent; Applicability of the Greulich and Pyle Standards”, Paediatric Research (2001) 50, pp624-628] indicated that African American children had a greater bone age than those of European decent. The testing standards made no allowances for differences in genetic make up in so far as it affected bone age. As a result, the study rejected the adequacy of the testing method and determined that new standards were thus required.

Despite this, the Australian Government continued to apply this testing. Indeed, from September 2008 to January 2012, 208 people detained as members of smuggling crews who claimed to be minors had been detained. After the result of X-ray testing, 86 of these persons were determined to be adults, despite truly being minors. This means, in effect, that  Australia’s Government was advocating and allowing the detention of children in adult prisons based on testing that, anthropologically speaking, had been rejected almost a decade prior.

A Senate inquiry ensued and a number of recommendations were made. Whilst the Government generally accepted the recommendations arising out of the majority report, it disagreed with all further recommendations made by the Senate Committee, except for the funding of Government funded legal agencies, such as Legal Aid, to assist Indonesian minors detained and accused of people smuggling to return to Indonesia in order to substantiate their age.

Of most concern regarding the outcome is that it took until 2013 before any amendments to crime regulations were made removing the use of x-ray testing for age. Furthermore, the Human Rights Commission was not consulted prior to implementing x-ray testing for age despite this avenue being available to them.

There have remained ongoing issues arising from these events and this inquiry.

For example, there remains a significant issue for children detained in circumstances where their age is not known, so far as legal representation is concerned, particularly in relation to any criminal proceedings arising from minors being detained on people smuggling charges. Depending on how they plead to criminal offences, this can also affect other recovery actions against the Government should there be untoward treatment, such as detaining a minor in an adult prison and any subsequent injury.

Furthermore, there is an ongoing fear that anyone pleading guilty to such offences are doing so without adequate advice, legal representation, or proper knowledge and understanding of the crimes in which they are charged.  Without ensuring this advice and access to a proper defence it is clear that Australia will continue to advocate for laws that allow for breaches of international treaties and procedural fairness.

The point here is that there should be no excuse for delaying the implementation of comprehensive rights based laws that advocate for the rights of children. Nor should there be any politically motivated attack on a commission charged with protecting Human Rights in Australia.

What history confirms is that the current political landscape looks to solve immigration and people smuggling policies with short term fixes without implementing a longstanding agenda that creates a system whereby Australia maintains its Human Rights obligations, yet maintains a tough stance on people smuggling and national security issues.

Despite what the current government would have you think with their mantra and partisan stance of “stop the boats”, this can be achieved by ongoing consultation with Human Rights based groups, including the Human Rights Commission.

From an international perspective, policies need to be shifted to create a more collaborative approach internationally to shut down illegal people smuggling operations. And more importantly, greater education needs to be provided to the regions where the operators of the boats that come to Australia are recruited.

Domestically, it seems that Australia is crying out for human rights based legislation to be enacted to ensure that breaches of international human rights are recognised at their earliest stage, not only by our government when making laws, but also so that they are actionable should they be breached.

It is clear there needs to be a complete overhaul of attitudes amongst not only our members of Parliament but also their constituents. There needs to be current and ongoing checks and balances and there needs to be an underlying concern and motivation to ensure change not only to minors held in detention centres but any minor that finds themselves at the mercy of Australia’s current immigration policies.

Core Policy

Tony Abbott’s promised industrial relations crackdowns face Senate defeat :PM’s pre-election promise to monitor conduct of unions and business groups, and strengthen industrial laws, meets crossbench opposition

construction stock

Two of Tony Abbott’s long-promised industrial relations crackdowns appear headed for Senate defeat with the Palmer United party and crossbench senator Ricky Muir set to join Labor and the Greens in rejecting them.

The prime minister promised before the election to re-establish the Australian Building and Construction Commission as a “tough cop on the beat” for the building industry and to set up a new registered organisations commission to monitor the conduct of unions and business groups.

Labor and the Greens oppose both bills and now a spokesman for the Palmer United party has confirmed both PUP senators intend to vote against them. A spokesman for Motoring Enthusiast senator Muir said he was also “very likely” to vote against them.

Both bills were set to be debated this week but have now been deferred by the government as it seeks more time to lobby and win the crossbench votes.

The looming Senate defeat comes as the government is seeking to recover from Monday’s damaging leadership spill motion and as Abbott said Senate obstructionism had been the only mistake in last year’s budget.

He said the only thing the government got wrong with its 2014 budget was that it had “failed to get legislation through … a Senate controlled by our political enemies” and that the only promises he had actually broken were spending cuts to foreign aid and the ABC.

The government has given mixed messages about whether it remains committed to key budget measures stalled in the Senate, including higher education reforms and the Medicare co-payment, which has already been twice revised.

The tougher industrial laws were part of the government’s election pitch, and are often touted as the answer to scandals such as the wrongdoing at the Health Services Union.

The building and construction industry (improving productivity) bill was introduced almost as soon as the government won office in 2013, and the fair work (registered organisations) amendment bill – described by Abbott as “very significant legislation” – was introduced in the middle of last year.

Labor argues legislative changes it made in government already strengthened the Fair Work Commission’s investigative powers and penalties were increased.

In a submission to a Senate committee early last year, the workplace relations minister, Eric Abetz, said: “The government considers the fair work (registered organisations) amendment bill 2013 as a high priority piece of legislation … This policy has been well ventilated for some time and the government has a very clear mandate to implement it as a matter of extreme urgency.”

Asylum Seekers

Abbott lacks compassion for children in detention – » The Australian Independent Media Network

Asylum-seekers-fenced-in-400x229

Abbott lacks compassion for children in detention – » The Australian Independent Media Network.

Asylim Seekers

Human Rights Commission should congratulate Scott Morrison: Tony Abbott responds to report on children in immigration detention

Australian Human Rights Commission president Gillian Triggs.

Human Rights Commission should congratulate Scott Morrison: Tony Abbott responds to report on children in immigration detention.

Aborigines Protection Act

Closing your ears on closing the gap – » The Australian Independent Media Network

closing the gap

Closing your ears on closing the gap – » The Australian Independent Media Network.

Aboriginal people

Gap widens under Abbott Government — in outcomes and understanding

Gap widens under Abbott Government — in outcomes and understanding.

Indigineous People

Australia May Stop Providing Water and Power to Remote Aboriginal Communities | VICE News

Australia May Stop Providing Water and Power to Remote Aboriginal Communities | VICE News.

Humour

Alabama To Reconsider Sharia Law: Abbott promises to change and Bolt thinks his confession has religious significance

sharia666

MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA (CT&P) – A group of Alabama state senators backed by religious zealot Judge Roy Moore and unhinged racist congressman Mo Brooks (R-AL) have introduced a bill in the Alabama legislature that would effectively overturn a November ballot initiative that banned Sharia law from being used in Alabama’s court system. The November initiative was passed by an overwhelming majority of 72% of voters.

Senator Gerald Allen (R-Tuscaloosa), the idiot who introduced the original amendment, told the Birmingham News that recent events have caused him to change his mind about the ballot initiative. “The decision by a federal court judge to overturn our ban on gay marriage, and the horrible measles outbreak across our dear country have made me think that we may have been a bit too hasty,” said the imbecile from Tuscaloosa.

sharia5

“Judge Moore and Representative Brooks have convinced me and several other senators to introduce the ‘Sharia Ain’t So Bad’ bill early next month,” said Allen. “The bill will overturn the ballot initiative and introduce our own version of Sharia into the court system, although our version will be called Chriria, and will be based on the Bible instead of the Quran.”

Judge Moore, famous for his religious zealotry that most Americans thought we left behind in the Middle Ages, set up a series of meetings with the senators when it became apparent that the federal government was going to attempt to drag Alabama kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

“If we allow these fags and lesbians to marry, it will be the end of the world as we know it and God will take back the coal, deer, and other natural resources that he bestowed upon us at the Creation,” said the sexually insecure homophobe.

Representative Mo Brooks joined the fray because he is convinced that the measles outbreak has been caused by illegal dingoes crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. The dingoes in question are said to be seeking political asylum after years of oppression in Australia.  The wacked-out right-wing kook is also against abortion in any form and thinks that stem cell research is the work of Satan.

“Chriria law will help us keep subhuman Central American kids and diseased dingoes out of America,” said the bigoted freak from the 5th District. It’ll also help us to keep women where they belong, in the bed or in the kitchen.”

sharia3

Senator Allen told the Montgomery Advertiser that in the end it was a pretty easy decision to introduce the bill.

“When we all sat down and really thought about it, we decided that we really have a lot in common with those Islamic savages from the 7th century. We both think women are our property, we both think that a nation should be governed by a set of archaic religious laws, and of course we both fear homosexuals and think they should be thrown onto concrete from a great height.”

As of yet there are no polls to indicate how the residents of Alabama will respond to the flip-flop, but most pundits think that as long as the politicians say that the new law is based on the Bible, it will pass without too much trouble.

“You can convince these idiots to pass just about anything if you say that Jesus wants them too,” chuckled Senator Allen.

On another note, Alabama is currently ranked third behind Florida and Texas as the most idiotic state in the Union, but it appears to be rapidly gaining ground.

“In recent years Florida and Texas have really been kicking our ass,” said Alabama Governor Robert Bentley. “But it is my sincere hope that the recent actions of Judge Moore, Representative Brooks, and Senator Allen will boost us back to our rightful position as laughingstock of the entire country.”

Australian Economy

Abbott leadership: Canberra’s ‘Game of Thrones’ is bad for business :

Business leaders say the strife surrounding Tony Abbott's leadership will hurt consumer sentiment.

The Australian stock market and our local currency may have brushed off Canberra’s rendition of Game of Thrones but make no mistake: the instability and uncertainty surrounding the attempt to topple Tony Abbott’s crown is bad for business.

And there is virtual uniformity of opinion that while Monday’s battle of numbers was won by Abbott, the war is not over and he is a terminal prime minister.

This means only that the uncertainty will drag on, taking consumer and business confidence down with it.

Illustration: John Spooner.

One common meme being shared amongst disgruntled voters.

History shows that even calling a normal (non-controversial) election means consumers hold back spending until there is an outcome.

If the leadership contest continues for months, those companies that have consumer-based businesses will suffer.

They were hit hard by the unpopular May 2014 federal budget from which there has not been a full recovery, thanks to the fact that that it’s hasn’t been clear which of the big policy measures would ultimately survive.
One common meme being shared amongst disgruntled voters.

One common meme being shared amongst disgruntled voters.
Fewer friends

Thus it is no surprise that one of the most outspoken critics of the Liberal Party’s destabilising power struggle is Myer chief Bernie Brookes, who hit out this week, telling Fairfax, “It’s incredibly disappointing and I think the quicker it’s resolved and the quicker they can get on and govern and run the place the better”.

And he is not alone. In recent times there have been numerous executives bemoaning the shambolic governance in Canberra – pointing to this as a significant factor in the lack of consumer confidence.

Abbott has few if any real supporters left in big business, and Treasurer Joe Hockey isn’t far behind..

In many respects, those in the upper echelons of the business community initially felt more comfortable with Tony Abbott as leader than they do now with the prospect of a the smaller ‘l’ Liberal Malcolm Turnbull. Abbott was more of a natural ally to big business.

But stability trumps both and they would now prefer a Turnbull-led Coalition that can deliver policy, especially compared with a desperate Abbott who is holding on to power by a thread and whose erratic decisions are increasingly designed for his personal benefit rather than the economy.

Abbott’s last-ditch effort to get South Australian backbenchers over the voting line by promising the ASC (formerly Australian Submarine Corporation) the opportunity to tender for a $40 billion contract was the most startling illustration of this.

Business leaders I spoke with were gobsmacked at the potentially expensive pork-barrelling exercise.
Lightning rod

While the lightning rod for disdain for Abbott’s judgment was the knighting of Prince Philip, this decision was stupid rather than damaging

Turnbull would have a clean slate to attack some of the economic issues that Australia is facing, while during the past week Abbott has jettisoned the backbone of most of his economic agenda, which was centred on reducing the budget deficit.

Business is clinging to some hope that Turnbull’s more workable relationship with Clive Palmer could help solve the hostile senate-related impasse that has rendered the May budget measures dead in the water.

Indeed, most believe that Australia’s debt needs to be tackled and hope that if Turnbull establishes a workable relationship with the community, he could attempt to market these objectives more successfully to the electorate.

Abbott’s chances of connecting with the community are now gone.

Thus the business community is now looking ahead to get a feel of what policy decisions a Turnbull leadership would bring.

There will be a fear that some kind of carbon pricing would be on the agenda given his previous position on the issue. However, the chat from his supporters on Monday suggested he would be steering clear of that in the near term. This should be a relief for the big carbon emitters and energy users like the mining and manufacturing sectors.

His position on media policy is one that should be clear given he was a strong advocate for changes in media ownership, including abolishing the television 75 per cent reach rule and the restrictions on owning two types of media in any market. However, media executives said on Monday that they expect he will have bigger issues to deal with and won’t invest too much political capital in pushing for change on a non-pressing issue.

There was a feeling among the banking industry that Turnbull would embrace the findings of David Murray’s Financial Services Inquiry – because it appeared to promote competition and was consumer friendly.

There was a unanimous view that Turnbull understands financial and economic issues and would focus on debt reduction. But he has to operate within the same constraints that Abbott endured – in particular, pressure on government revenue thanks to the end of the mining boom.

While it’s fine for the business community to project on what Australia might look like under Turnbull, to do so would be premature.

While few doubt Abbott’s days are numbered, there is less certainty over who might take the party to the next election. While Turnbull remains the favourite, there could be other contenders.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/abbott-leadership-canberras-game-of-thrones-is-bad-for-business-20150209-139v36.html#ixzz3RI0g8bFR

LNP

Abbocolypse Now: Zombie PM’s days are numbered: Not all Zombies are “IN”

 

Abbocolypse Now: Zombie PM’s days are numbered.

Australia

Coalition needs a heart transplant, not a facelift

<i>Illustration: Andrew Dyson</i>

Coalition needs a heart transplant, not a facelift.

Humour

Tony Abbott Village Idiot

LNP

More time would suit new Malcolm Turnbull: Time is on our side as well Turnbull. You could get blamed for Abbott’s future fuck ups.

Malcolm Turnbull at Tuggerah train station

Annabel Crabb

If the motion to spill the leadership of the Liberal Party leadership succeeds, the main prospect as a challenger is and has always been Malcolm Turnbull, who has transformed himself to a milder, more patient and less pushy political figure, writes Annabel Crabb.

From the jungly commando warfare that has occupied the Coalition over the last two torrid weeks, a familiar battle-cry has now clearly emerged: “If it leads, we can kill it.”

This afternoon, two WA backbenchers have posted their intention to move, on Tuesday, for a spill of the Liberal Party leadership, five-and-a-bit years and two elections and four prime ministers on from its memorable capture by Tony Abbott with the heart-stopping margin of one single vote.

The message: No leader is safe any more. Not in their first term, not ever. The threat has evolved.

Internecine political warfare has changed a lot. In the old days, it was slower. You’d start off with a challenger and go from there. Sometimes, you’d start with a challenger – Peter Costello, say – and then nothing would happen for eight years.

On one memorable occasion in 2007, John Howard even asked his Cabinet whether they thought he should go. By the time they answered (“Yes”), he was out of his consultative patch and the moment was lost.

These days, you don’t even need to start with a challenger.

These days, dissatisfaction plus a multi-headed media hydra will get you to crisis point even if – as in this present situation – none of the purported leadership alternatives has sought to bring things to a head.

Can Tony Abbott survive on Tuesday? Possibly. Can he survive long-term? Hmmm. Put it this way: Barnaby Joyce last week bet his house on Tony Abbott still leading the Coalition at the next election. He would want to be checking his mortgage insurance.

Mr Abbott has just made a terse appearance at Sydney’s Commonwealth Parliamentary Offices to declare that he and his deputy, Julie Bishop, have spoken and have agreed to stand together – leader and deputy – to contest any motion to spill.

“We are not the Labor Party,” he further and uncontroversially declared, before disappearing from the shortest press conference I can ever recall seeing.

Ms Bishop’s absence from her leader’s side does not necessarily mean that she has been tied up somewhere by Peta Credlin; she has been in Adelaide, playing awkwardly with preschoolers in the company of a sub-ebullient Christopher Pyne.

The question of whether Ms Bishop’s support would continue in the event that the spill motion succeeds is still unanswered.

But the full support of Ms Bishop has never, in any event, been a guarantor of ballot triumph; she supported Brendan Nelson all the way to his defeat in 2008, and she supported his successor, Malcolm Turnbull, right up to the point at which he was knocked over by Mr Abbott in late 2009.

In any event, the main prospect as a challenger is and – realistically – has always been Malcolm Bligh Turnbull.

He has not declared himself to be a candidate. He has been studiously cautious about canvassing the issue with colleagues.

If internecine political warfare has changed, then Malcolm Turnbull is one jungle-dweller who has evolved as effortlessly as Schwarzenegger.

The old Malcolm, who strutted and fretted under Brendan Nelson’s leadership and whose ambition to take over was so red-hot it was palpable across a crowded room, is nowhere to be seen these days.

New Malcolm is milder, more patient, less pushy. Less prickly; the “metadata” fiasco, which last year saw the PM and George Brandis both stumble rather badly on some technical detail within Turnbull’s portfolio rather than just doing the obvious thing and including him in the discussion, would have sent Old Malcolm into Rage Orbit. But he helped to fix the situation, and refrained from making a fuss.

Internally, Turnbull has been reported as encouraging colleagues to give the PM more time. That in itself is not a qualification for saintliness; more time would suit Turnbull.

Annabel Crabb is the ABC’s chief online political writer. She tweets at @annabelcrabb.

Australian Politics

Extreme Right and Left are minorities Australians are in the middle and it’s were our politics belong.

Climate Change

Tony Abbott denies China’s carbon trading plan shows he is out of step : ‘More and more countries are going down the direct action path,’ prime minister says of grants aimed at lowering emissions

Tony Abbott does some heavy lifting at a timber factory in Melbourne

Tony Abbott has denied that China’s plan to launch a national carbon trading market shows he is out of step internationally on climate change, claiming his Direct Action policy is getting “more and more support” in Australia and abroad.

On Wednesday a Chinese government official said a national carbon market was likely to be launched by the middle of next year, along with an emissions cap for six sectors: power generation, metallurgical, nonferrous metal, building materials, chemicals and aviation.

“We hope to kick off the national market in summer of 2016, starting with a three-year trading phase before the market becomes fully functional in 2019,” said Jiang Zhaoli, a senior official within the National Development and Reform Commission’s climate change department.

But Abbott dismissed the suggestion that China’s actions showed the Coalition decision to dump Australia’s carbon pricing scheme in favour of his Direct Action plan ran against the tide of international efforts to reduce emissions.

“In fact, more and more countries are going down the direct action path,” the prime minister said in Melbourne on Friday. “Direct action has more and more support, here and abroad.

“Don’t underestimate what we are actually doing. By 2020 we will have reduced emissions by 12% on 2005 levels, on a per capita basis they are down 30% – this is amongst the world’s best outcomes.

“Sure, other countries talk about what they might do down the track, but we are actually delivering lower emissions for a better environment.”

Abbott was in suburban Melbourne to tour a woodfiller business he said had benefited from the repeal of Australia’s carbon price last year through lower power costs.
Advertisement

The Direct Action plan that replaced carbon pricing involves the distribution of voluntary grants to businesses that wish to lower their emissions. The government insists this policy will easily achieve Australia’s target of a 5% reduction on emissions by 2020, on 2000 levels, although several bodies have questioned this confidence.

China, by comparison, has launched seven regional carbon markets since 2013, with Qingdao, a city of 9 million people, planning to join the scheme. It’ i estimated the pilot carbon markets cover around a third of China’s overall emissions, although the lack of a unified national system has led to variations in each of the markets.

The plan to introduce a national scheme will unify these regional markets, subject to approval by Chinese state authorities. The national market would eclipse the EU’s emissions trading scheme, which is now the world’s largest.

In September China put its name to a list of 73 countries that signalled support for putting a price on carbon. This list includes Germany, France, Britain, South Africa and New Zealand. It also includes US states such as California and Massachusetts, as well as more than 1,000 businesses.

Australia, which was the first country in the world to repeal a carbon price, is now working out its position on emissions cuts beyond 2020. Crunch UN climate talks in Paris this year will set out a new global deal on lowering emissions, with the aim of avoiding more than 2C of warming compared with pre-industrial times.

Analysis conducted by the CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology states that Australia could warm by up to 5.1C by 2100 unless action is taken to curb emissions. This level of warming would have major ramifications for agriculture, human health owing to increased heatwaves, and coastal infrastructure owing to rising sea levels and extreme weather events.

Abbott

PM – Abbott unlikely to be rolled: Hewson 06/02/2015

PM – Abbott unlikely to be rolled: Hewson 06/02/2015.

LNP

Liberals do a fine imitation of Labor chaos

Liberal MPs will confront a stark choice next week between propping up a deeply wounded prime minister or trying a fresh start. They know each course is fraught with big risks.

With the crucial vote not until Tuesday, anything can happen in this extraordinary volatile situation.

Backbenchers will be under huge pressure from the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and close supporters. But Team Abbott will need the kid gloves on, or they will reinforce the criticisms about the “command and control” style.

On the other hand, the MPs will also be acutely aware of the evidence pointing to the dangers of retaining Tony Abbott. This includes the feedback they’re getting from their electorates, and the polling, of which there will be more between now and Tuesday, including the influential Newspoll.

A Seven News ReachTEL poll done on Thursday night had the government trailing 45-55%. When people were asked how they’d vote if Malcolm Turnbull were leader there was a massive turnaround – the Coalition led 54-46%. A hypothetical Julie Bishop leadership had the Coalition ahead 51-49%.

Asked to choose between Turnbull and Bishop to lead, Turnbull polled 56.5% to Bishop’s 43.5% – although Bishop was decisively ahead among Coalition voters and Turnbull was strongly in front among Labor voters.

Ministers – including Mathias Cormann, Peter Dutton, Jamie Briggs, Bruce Billson, Josh Frydenberg and Kevin Andrews – rushed out late on Friday to oppose the spill motion from Luke Simpkins and Don Randall, which is to open both Abbott’s position and that of deputy Julie Bishop.

Bishop and Turnbull are under intense attention from media and colleagues. Abbott, in his brief take-no-questions appearance which lasted less than two minutes, said he’d spoken to Bishop and they’d “stand together” against the spill.

But Bishop made it clear that while she is opposing the spill, if it passed all bets would be off, saying in a statement that: “I agreed with the Prime Minister that due to cabinet solidarity and my position as deputy there should be support for current leadership in the spill motion”.

Turnbull was conspicuously missing in the ministerial dash to shore up Abbott.

One factor that could affect the numbers is whether it is a secret ballot or a show of hands. Chief Government Whip Philip Ruddock indicated this was up to the leader.

An open ballot would test the courage of those critical of Abbott but ambitious for their own future. Some might fear the wrath of the PMO if the motion failed but they had voted for it. Ministers could not break ranks if the vote were public – for a few, it might be a different story if it were a secret vote.

But an open ballot would bring resentment among the troops and reduce the credibility of a win. Cormann predicted it would be a secret ballot.

If Abbott fends off the motion the size of the margin is important. A sizeable “yes” minority would just encourage another attack later in a classic two-stage operation.

If there’s not a declared alternative, that probably helps Abbott. In the next few days, MPs will want to try to suss out what Turnbull and Bishop would do if the spill were carried. But the pair will have to take into account what their situations would be if they’d privately indicated they were willing to be candidates but then the spill vote was lost.

And then there is the question of what Abbott would do if the vote were carried – would he enter and complicate a subsequent contest?

This campaign against Abbott has been a bottom-up one by backbenchers increasingly afraid he will cost the Coalition government and them their seats. It’s quite broadly based across the country, with a significant number of people networking in the run up to Friday’s formal move. “It looks orchestrated,” observed cabinet minister Andrew Robb. The grassroots nature of the backbench revolt makes it hard for ministers to judge the numbers.

A perfect storm of events came together for the dissidents. The backflip on a backflip over the Medicare changes symbolised a flaky approach to policy; Prince Philip’s knighthood pointed to Abbott’s eccentricities; the Queensland rout highlighted that the voters are brutal to governments they come to dislike and distrust – and they make up their minds quickly.

Abbott is making a central point of his appeal for support that the spill sponsors “are asking the party room to vote out the people that the electorate voted in”.

“We are not the Labor party and we are not going to repeat the chaos and the instability of the Labor years,” he said in Friday’s statement.

It’s a pretty good imitation, however.

Liberal Party

How Tony Abbott can use the lack of rules to survive a leadership spill vote The Liberal party has no rules about whether the vote to force a spill is secret or not. And that may be all the prime minister needs to save his job on Tuesday

Tony Abbott leaves his brief press conference about the leadership ballot on Friday.

Tony Abbott’s immediate fate is to some extent in his own hands. As chair of the Liberal party room meeting he will decide whether the all-important “spill” motion is a secret ballot or a show of hands.

When the 102 Liberal MPs vote on the motion to declare the leader’s and deputy leader’s positions vacant on Tuesday, it can either be by secret ballot or show of hands. Party whip Philip Ruddock says without written rules, it is up to the leader to decide. “It’s Tony’s call,” he said.

The two West Australian MPs who will move and second the motion, Luke Simpkins and Don Randall, said they believed the spill motion should be voted on by secret ballot.

When Malcolm Turnbull faced his showdown as opposition leader in 2009 he asked former prime minister John Howard, who said it was up to Turnbull and Turnbull opted for a secret ballot.

The decision is important because it would put the ministry in a very difficult position. Voting for an unsuccessful spill would be a vote of no confidence in the executive of which they are a part. There are 19 cabinet ministers, 11 outer ministers and 12 parliamentary secretaries who owe their jobs to the prime minister.

Should the spill ballot be successful, the actual leadership vote would be by secret ballot.

Ruddock, the father of the house who entered parliament in 1973 told Guardian Australia he could not recall other examples of a secret ballot being allowed for a spill motion. But back in 2009 then opposition whip Alex Somlyay could recall two precedents for a secret ballot – in 1974 when Malcolm Fraser was trying to overthrow Bill Snedden and in 1989 when Andrew Peacock was stalking John Howard.

Abbott’s office said the voting procedures “remained unclear”, but senior Liberals said they would be surprised if Abbott tried to force a “show of hands” because he would want the ballot to be seen to be fair.
How many candidates stand could also be critical to the outcome. Abbott’s own surprise victory on December 1 2009, by a single vote, was due to Malcolm Turnbull recontesting, instead of standing aside. Unexpectedly Hockey was eliminated in the first round of voting and then Abbott won the subsequent ballot by 42 votes to 41.

Politic of uncertainty

Voters’ feelings of uncertainty have come back to bite Abbott In 2012, then-opposition leader Tony Abbott gave a speech that set out his agenda for winning government and indicated the policies he intended to implement. He argued that one of his key aims was to make…

In 2012, then-opposition leader Tony Abbott gave a speech that set out his agenda for winning government and indicated the policies he intended to implement. He argued that one of his key aims was to make voters feel secure again:

John Howard was onto something when he said that he wanted Australians to feel more “relaxed and comfortable” about our country. People naturally seek the reassurance that their job is safe, their doctor is available, their children go to a good school, their neighbourhood is friendly and their country is secure.

As John Howard saw it, a big part of his mission was to end the confused sense of self that afflicted Australia at the end of the Keating era exacerbated by the then-prime minister’s insistence that we couldn’t be a real country unless we changed our symbols and repudiated much of our history.

These days, there’s an even deeper sense of public unease about where we’re headed, only the uncertainty is more economic than cultural.

Recently, I have argued that this speech helps explain a key part of Abbott’s strategy for winning government. Abbott sought to heighten voters’ feelings of fear and anxiety by emphasising the chaotic and dysfunctional nature of the Labor government and the economic threats posed by Labor’s claimed debt crisis.

Abbott then offered voters the opportunity to feel reassured by arguing that electing the Coalition would provide both stable government and good economic management.

It was a good, and ultimately successful, formula for winning power. However, Abbott doesn’t seem to have thought through some of the implications of his own words for what to do in government.

Let’s consider some of the issues that have got Abbott into trouble in recent weeks. The government claims to have stopped the boats, so it argues that it has delivered on border security. However, Abbott hasn’t performed so well on other issues.

In 2012, Abbott stressed that voters like to feel certainty about access to their doctors. Yet the government’s proposed Medicare co-payment in its various iterations has made voters uncertain and anxious about whether they will be able to afford to see their doctor when they need to.

Abbott also stressed that workers like to feel that their jobs are safe. However, his government has overseen the Australian car industry’s demise and threatened to buy new submarines from overseas rather than building them in South Australia.

There is debate over whether the Coalition has kept its promises on school funding. Parents are increasingly anxious that even if their children do get a good secondary education, the Coalition’s proposed higher education reforms mean that they may not be able to afford to go to university.

Meanwhile, Abbott has managed to re-ignite voters’ dormant anxiety about cultural identity issues by knighting Prince Philip. As former NSW Liberal premier Nick Greiner pointed out, one of the reasons the decision was so unpopular was because:

… of what it says about the future, about a self-image for the country.

Here, as elsewhere, Abbott has shown none of John Howard’s skill in handling issues of national identity and has gone much further than Howard in emphasising Australia’s British links. Abbott had previously affirmed that he sees Australia as part of the so-called “Anglosphere” – a concept that Howard was careful not to endorse in office.

During the 2013 election campaign, Abbott attempted to reassure the electorate that Kevin Rudd’s accusation that a Liberal government would “cut, cut, cut” was a false scare campaign. He infamously assured voters that there would be no:

… no cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to pensions, no change to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or SBS.

After Abbott won office, he seemed to forget the need to reassure voters on economic issues. Hence the voter backlash when precisely these cuts and changes were proposed. In his attempts to cut the budget deficit, he’d been hoisted on his own petard, his election strategy.

Meanwhile, the government is having trouble delivering reassurance via sound economic management because it is facing many of the same economic problems that its Labor predecessors faced, including global economic uncertainty, falling commodity prices and major drops in government revenue. Unlike Peter Costello, Treasurer Joe Hockey is not facing unexpected and massive increases in government revenue due to being at the height of a resources boom.

Further, as part of his political strategy of encouraging feelings of anxiety then offering reassurance, Abbott in opposition also said that his government’s policies would not be dependent upon making deals like the “dysfunctional” Labor government’s were:

There is only one way that Australians can be sure to leave the chaos, the division, the failures, the bloodletting and the politics behind, for good … and that is to change the government.

Only the Coalition can be trusted when we say: there will be no deals with the Greens, no deals with flaky independents, no deals whatsoever.

Above all we will return stable, certain, competent government so all Australians can again plan their futures with confidence.

It was an extraordinary statement to make given that the Coalition was never likely to win a majority in the Senate. Now voters and business are still suffering the uncertainty of waiting to see if deals can be made to get key government legislation through the Senate and what form the final legislation will take, given the influence of the Palmer United Party and various other minor parties and independents.

There are many factors contributing to the Abbott government’s malaise, just as there are many factors that contributed to the government being elected in the first place. However, one of those problems is that, in the exact opposite to his election strategy, Abbott has been making voters feel anxious and alarmed about his government rather than offering them reassurance.

LNP

Tony Abbott’s 67% disapproval rating is pretty bleak. But with rumours circulating of a potential leadership challenge, it’s important to remember that the problem isn’t the man — it’s the policies! Austerity policies don’t work!

This government has attempted a $7 medicare copayment, deregulated university fees, cuts to the aged pension and Family Tax Benefits, a 6 month wait for young jobseekers to access income support, not to mention unwinding all progress on climate change action and putting our renewable energy industry in jeopardy.

Let’s spread this image far and wide and get the word out; Abbott or not, we won’t stand by while this government continues its assault on everyday Australians.

Abbott

Tony Abbott says he will not resign in wake of LNP’s Queensland rout; result described as ‘catastrophic’ by federal MPs

Tony Abbott says he remains determined to continue as Prime Minister, in spite of reports the Queensland election result has doomed his leadership.

Some federal Coalition MPs have described the LNP’s loss in Queensland as “catastrophic” for the party and potentially terminal for Mr Abbott’s leadership.

Queensland MPs Jane Prentice and Warren Entsch have both said there now need to be “discussions” about the issue, but Tony Abbott says he will not resign.

“The people of Australia elected me as Prime Minister and they elected my government to get on with the job of governing our country,” he told reporters in Sydney today.

“The important thing is not to navel-gaze, it’s not to look at ourselves, it’s to get on with the job of being a better Government.”

Mr Abbott attributed the LNP’s Queensland defeat to state issues, but did acknowledge that his decision to knight Prince Philip had hurt Campbell Newman’s campaign.

“It was a distraction for a couple of days, I accept that and I very much regret that,” Mr Abbott said.

Earlier Federal Attorney-General and Queensland senator George Brandis moved to quash speculation of a challenge to Mr Abbott’s leadership.

“The Cabinet is determinedly, unitedly and strongly behind the Prime Minister,” Senator Brandis said on Sky News this morning.

“There is absolutely no appetite among the vast majority of my colleagues for this issue to arise or even to be visited.”

Abbott’s approval rating just 27 per cent: poll

A Galaxy poll published today in News Limited newspapers has Labor leading the Liberal-National Coalition 57 points to 43 on a two-party preferred basis.

Mr Abbott’s personal approval rating is just 27 per cent.

While also backing the Prime Minister, another Queensland Liberal, Warren Entsch, this morning said the leadership needed to be addressed.

“I think there’s some more discussions that need to be had,” Mr Entsch said.

“I’ll certainly be part of those discussions.”

Mr Entsch also conceded that the Prime Minister’s decision to award a knighthood to Prince Philip had played a part in the LNP’s loss in Queensland.

“People certainly suggest knighting the Duke of Edinburgh did not go over well in Queensland and it may have influenced some people’s vote,” he said.

Senator Brandis was more forthright, describing the knighthood issue as a “dangerous distraction” in the final week of campaigning.

“That one issue created a distraction that caused the Newman Government to lose momentum,” he said.

Senator Brandis acknowledged that the result would have “federal implications”, but firmly rejected suggestions it would bring the leadership issue to a head.

“The Prime Minister has the overwhelming support of the party room.

“There is no widespread appetite in the Liberal Party for a leadership change.

“We would be crazy to repeat the experience of the last Labor government, which failed because it tore down an elected leader.”

Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss this morning conceded the federal Coalition had to learn from the election result.

“That agenda has been frustrated in the Senate because many of the good things we wanted to do we haven’t been able to,” he said.

“On the other hand we need to do more to explain to people at the federal level that we have delivered.”

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has told the ABC’s Insiders program that there were “federal issues at stake” in Queensland.

Mr Shorten said the leadership was “up to the Liberal Party”, but said the result should be seen as a rejection of the Federal Government’s policies.

“If they think it’s the salesman, not what they’re selling, then they will have learnt nothing.”

Qld 2015

LNP rout in Queensland ‘catastrophic’ and leaves Tony Abbott terminally wounded, federal Coalition MPs say

PM at press conference

By political editor Chris Uhlmann

The rout of the Liberal National Party in the Queensland election is being described as “catastrophic” by federal Coalition MPs, with some claiming the Prime Minister is now terminally wounded.

“All we are talking about now is the timing and method of execution,” one Queensland MP said.

“This is catastrophic, unimaginable,” said another.

Labor looks set to pull off a stunning victory in a cliffhanger election, after securing a double-digit swing that has ended the political career of Premier Campbell Newman.

Labor is on track to claim 45 or 46 of the 89 seats in the state’s parliament, after going into the poll holding only nine seats.

“My political career is over,” Mr Newman told LNP supporters as he conceded defeat in his seat.

A senior federal Coalition source said the next move was Tony Abbott’s.

“So far the chatter has been among privates and corporals,” he said.

“It’s a time for generals now. And a time for the general: Tony Abbott. He has to decide what’s in the best interest of the party.”

The ABC spoke to Coalition MPs and senators across the country, as all watched the most remarkable turnaround in Australian electoral history with growing disbelief and horror.

 YouTube: Abbott’s leadership “a discussion”: Liberal MP
http://youtu.be/vat6B5KqZoE

Liberal MP Jane Prentice said the party “can’t continue as we are” and that Tony Abbott was “not taking the people with us”.

Ms Prentice, the federal member for Ryan in the south-western suburbs of Brisbane, made the comments while appearing on ABC TV’s Queensland election panel.

“Tony has said he has listened and learned. He is making a keynote speech on Monday at the Press Club, but we can’t continue as we are,” she said.

“I think that’s the lesson from today.”

Mal Brough reportedly urged to challenge for leadership

A Coalition minister said all eyes would now be on federal and state LNP MPs, who he feared would unload on the weakened Prime Minister in the wake of the Queensland poll.

A number have suggested former Howard government minister Mal Brough is the one most likely to break ranks and take aim at Mr Abbott.

Fairfax Media reported Mr Brough was being urged to challenge Mr Abbott, to bring the leadership chatter to a head.

Other MPs said he would simply make a statement that laid part of the blame for the loss at the federal leader’s feet, adding to the momentum building against him.

Mr Brough did not respond when contacted by the ABC.

Our leadership change addiction


Scott Bowman writes that ongoing calls for the axing of first-term leaders sabotage the integrity of the country’s political system.

Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce said the Queensland election was a “terrible result” but cautioned restive federal Coalition MPs against repeating the mistakes of the past.

“If you behave like the Labor Party at the last election, you will be treated like the Labor Party at the last election, and you will be annihilated,” Mr Joyce said.

“You don’t usurp the right of the Australian people. They don’t like it.”

Another MP said that the party’s only choice was to make a change or risk the same fate that befell the Coalition governments of Queensland and Victoria.

There would only be three credible candidates to replace Mr Abbott as leader: Foreign Minister Julie Bishop; Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull; and Social Services Minister Scott Morrison.

None of these contenders has been agitating for change, or courting numbers.

Although Ms Bishop has been touted as the most likely to take over, there is an emerging consensus Mr Turnbull has the best chance of recovering the Coalition’s position; because he has the most fully formed public image.

It has been suggested the Prime Minister is safe because there are three contenders, because it is assumed they will fight among themselves for the top job.

However, the three are quite close and it is possible they could come to a consensus on who should lead.

Preferred option for Tony Abbott to stand down

The strong suggestion in the wake of the Queensland vote is that none of them would launch a challenge, as the preferred option is for Mr Abbott to stand down.

“I think the first response has to come from him,” one senior Coalition MP said.

“He has to, in his mind, resolve what is in the best interest of the party and the country.”

But if that decision was to stay on as leader, then the party would have to respond to it, he said, which suggests the Prime Minister’s future is no longer his decision alone.

The National Party MPs and senators do not get a vote in a Liberal leadership ballot and one said the party would not countenance anything that smelled of chaos.

If there was a messy leadership spill it might threaten the Coalition, he said.

The Prime Minister is preparing for a major speech on Monday, which is supposed to set out the Government’s agenda for the year.

Now it looms as another exercise in damage control.

News Limited papers reported Mr Abbott was preparing to dump his signature paid parental leave scheme as a sign he was willing to listen and make compromise.

Asked about the policy, Mr Abbott said: “Look, I said before Christmas, we’d be scaling it back … I’ll have a bit more to say on PPL in the next day or so”.

One MP said if Mr Abbott did not dump the policy in his speech on Monday, he would be carried out of the Press Club “in a box

Qld

God I love Australians : Kay Lee says it all. For the second time in my life I got angry about politics the first was when I knew “It’s Time”

people-of-australia-multicultural-policy-booklet_img_0_resized

We are an apathetic bunch who would rather watch sport than talk politics.  We would rather have a barbie than a bi-election.  We would rather go to the beach than the polling booth.  But push us too far and bear the consequences, as Campbell Newman found out this evening and as Dennis Napthine found out a few weeks ago.

I am 57 years old (same as Tony) and I have always had a passing interest in politics but, until Tony Abbott became LOTO, I was never passionate about it.  He changed all that.  Tony made me realise that I had to get off my bum and do something to help protect my country from the pillage and plunder that he is proposing.

I am just a middle aged woman in jammies but I cannot sit back and watch my country sold off to the highest bidder.  In fact it isn’t even the highest bidder who necessarily gets the nod.

Tony Abbott views our assets as his to distribute to his mates as he pleases.  He gives jobs to friends like Christmas presents like offering his close personal friend, The Australian newspaper’s Greg Sheridan, the plum posting of high commissioner to Singapore after the 2013 election despite him having no qualifications or experience to recommend him for the job.

And that same attitude was shown by Campbell Newman who so incensed the people of Queensland that they reversed the biggest election win in the history of the country to say piss off….enough is enough.

It is now up to every one of us to stand up to protect the country we love, to protect our children’s future, to protect the way of life our parents fought hard to provide for us.  We can no longer trust politicians (if we ever could) to do what is in our best interests.  We have to tell them no, you may not do this.  Our common wealth is not yours to dispose of as you please.

To the people of Victoria, and even more so, to you amazing Queenslanders who delivered a result no-one expected, I say thank you.  You have stood up in the first line of defence to stop the corporatization of our nation.  You have slapped down those who think wealth and power gives them the right to dictate to us, to wring whatever profit they can from us with no thought to the consequences of their greed.  I can only hope that the people of NSW show the same courage and determination to stop Mike Baird from destroying our farmland and water and gifting our public land to developers.

And to Tony Abbott, I look forward to your address to the National Press Gallery on Monday with gleeful anticipation.

 

Humour, Politics, Science

Scientific American Takes An In Depth Look At The Tea Party. This is applicable to the LNP, Tony Abbott, and all Murdoch elves such as Albrechtson,Bolt,Blair,Devine etc. See the connection here. Unfortunately Fox News is rated as the most believable news provider in the US by 25% yet it gets a rating of 8% in delivering truth. Murdoch’s influence of madness is widespread on issues of anti- climate change, anti- Islam,anti- multiculturalism, anti- corporate tax, anti- penalty rates, etc etc

sa

THE CABIN ANTHRAX, MURPHY, N.C. (CT&P) – This month’s edition of Scientific American is somewhat of a departure for a magazine that normally steers well clear of politics. It boasts several well-researched articles examining the right wing in general and the Tea Party in particular.

“We wanted to highlight how a group could overcome the serious handicaps of its individual members to become a viable political force in our society,” said SA editor Michael Moyer. “The rise of the Tea Party, the Christian Right, and their propaganda arm, Fox News, illustrates how a species crippled by superstition, racial hatred, and lower than average IQ’s can rise to a position of prominence in the modern nation state.”

teaparty1

The issue, which is on news stands now, traces the growth of the Tea Party from a ragtag army of inarticulate individuals all the way to this year’s midterm elections, when an alarming number of the insecure cretins won national political office.

“We tried to get inside the minds of these people, as frightening as that prospect was,” said Moyer. “We really wanted to find out what made these people tick. We placed particular emphasis on finding the common threads that unified this group of backwoods bumpkins.”

“What we found was fear. Fear of change, fear of the unknown, fear of minorities, fear of science, fear of gay people, fear of just about any fucking thing you could imagine. The overwhelming consensus was that this group of people yearns to return to the days before the Enlightenment, where their outdated ideas and archaic societal standards ruled with an iron fist.”

The SA team spent a great deal of time analyzing the movement’s leaders Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and a host of other kooks such as Steve King and Louie Gomhert.

sarah-palin-1

“One only has to look at the leadership of this movement to see how incoherent and insane their beliefs really are,” said Moyer. “If you go back and examine some of the speeches and statements made by Bachmann and Palin over the last decade, it reads like something out of H.P. Lovecraft. Nothing makes sense. For example, last weekend in Iowa, Palin was apparently possessed by one of her demons and began writhing around the podium and speaking in tongues. It was truly scary.”

Although the writers and editors at SA came to no definitive conclusions about the future of the right wing and the Tea Party, Moyer said that they will most likely be swept away by the tide of history.

“To paraphrase Huxley, extinguished theologians, and in this case reactionary political factions, lie about the cradle of progress as the strangled snakes beside that of Hercules,” said Moyer.

Although many midterm Congressional races were won by Tea Party supported buffoons, the facts seem to support Moyer’s argument.

Gay marriage, Obamacare, and decriminalization of marijuana, three policies that the far right is rabidly against, are more popular than ever and gaining national acceptance.

“It gives us hope for a bright future in which the voices of these kooks are drowned out by the voices of reason and science,” concluded Moyers. “I am a fervent supporter of free speech and support these people’s right to be as ignorant as they want to be, but I fully believe that they will be remembered by history as the wingnuts they truly are.”

TPP

Tony Abbott and the Coalition: stand up for Australian democracy and stop the secret Trans-Pacific Partnership.

For years, there’s been talk of creating a new free trade deal that would span countries bordering the Asia-Pacific, including the US, Canada, New Zealand, as well as several countries in Latin America and Asia. The deal is called the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement – or “TPP” for short.The TPP agenda is being driven by big business, big pharmaceuticals and big tobacco – but the impacts will affect all Australians.Between foreign corporations suing our governments over public health measures and environmental protection laws, higher pharmaceutical prices, and surveillance of Australians’ internet usage, there’s a lot for citizens to be concerned about – which is why Prime Minister Abbott and Trade Minister Robb are keeping it quiet.

What we do know from leaked parts of the agreement is terrifying. But most Australians haven’t even heard about the TPP. That’s why we need to sound the alarm now, and sound it loudly.

Can you sign the petition calling on our politicians not to sign our rights away and share the video with everyone you know?

Want to know more?

If the trade agreement includes Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions, it could mean that foreign-owned companies will have the power to sue the Australian Government for decisions that adversely impact on their investments in Australia. Worst of all, these cases would be played out in secret international courts which only corporations have access to.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is currently undergoing negotiations between 12 countries: Australia, Brunei, Chile, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam.

This is already being seen in the case of tobacco giant Phillip Morris, which is using an ISDS provision in the Australian-Hong Kong treaty to sue the Australian Government over its plain-packaging laws. When Quebec placed a ban on dangerous fracking processes in a local river, a trade agreement similar to the TPP made it possible for a foreign-owned energy company to file a $250 million lawsuit against the Canadian government.It’s already happening in El Salvador, where a Canadian company is suing the government for $315 million in “loss of future profits” because local citizens won a hard-fought campaign against a gold mine that threatened to contaminate their water supplies.It’s happening in Argentina, where the government imposed a freeze on water and energy bills during the GFC and was sued by an international utilities company.

It’s even happening in Canada, where American pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly is demanding $500 million in compensation — as well as changes to Canadian patent laws — because courts revoked two of its patents for lack of evidence around the drugs’ supposed benefits.

For more on the potential dangers of ISDS provisions, see ABC Radio National’s story here.

The treaty gives global pharmaceutical companies far-reaching power to extend their patents in order to prevent or delay the manufacture of cheaper generic medicines and curb subsidy programs that keep drugs more affordable in Australia and elsewhere. Imagine having to pay $50-$100 – or more – for a simple asthma inhaler. That’s the average cost in the US, when they currently sell for less than $10 here.

…and dob you in for possible copyright infringement. We all know piracy is illegal, but this treaty gives US companies the power to pull strings that could make heavy-handed spying, fines, internet service disconnection and even criminal charges the norm for even the most minor and potentially unintentional infringements. And what about privacy?

Foreign companies can sue Australia for protecting our environment…
When Quebec placed a ban on dangerous fracking processes in a local river, a trade agreement similar to the TPP made it possible for a foreign-owned energy company to file a $250 million lawsuit against the Canadian government. We really don’t need foreign-owned mining companies bullying our government or preventing us from protecting our land.

Read more
For more information about the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, click here to read the Australian Fair Trade & Investment Network’s (AFTINET) explainer.

Domestic Violence

Destroy the Joint

The Prime Minister today announced that both Australian of the Year Rosie Batty and former Victorian Police Commissioner Ken Lay are to be on a panel about domestic violence. He also announced that domestic violence would be on the COAG agenda.Earlier this week, Michaelia Cash said the government was 110 per cent committed to stopping violence against women.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/minister-downplays-idea-of-national-royal-commission-into-domestic-violence-20150127-12yyqq.html

But Destroyers, why won’t the Prime Minister reverse the cuts to counselling, advocacy and family violence prevention programs?
http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/abbott-governments-cuts-threaten-to-trap-women-in-domestic-violence-20150128-12zzmr.html

Murdoch Press

Murdoch is turning the screws again, this time he has Abbott in his sights. When, Andrew Bolt, Nicky Savva, and Team Murdoch turns on him. you just know he is in trouble, and Team Australia is abandoning him in their droves. Must be driving Brian Loughnane quite mad, having his wife being asked to step down, I wonder who and how many phone calls he is taking these days?

Illustration: Eric Lobbecke

NORMALLY, opposition parties are forced to cope with life in the wilderness. Not now. Today, and for almost 18 months, we have endured, enjoyed or been bewildered by government in the wilderness.

More disturbingly, the man in charge, so brilliant as opposition leader, so flawed as Prime Minister, shows few signs he is capable of leading his government out of it, and every sign the job is beyond him: that he is not up to it and might never be up to it.

The situation is that dire. Not because of a hostile media, a restless backbench or an effective opposition leader brimming with conviction or ideas, but because of the Prime Minister’s own actions.

Frontbenchers as well as backbenchers are realising it’s time to stop criticising staff and start directing the blame for the government’s predicament where it really belongs. With him. They now accept they have to convince him to change and if they can’t they will be forced to consider changing him. If their survival depends on his elimination, eliminate him they will. Count on it.

That is because ultimately Tony Abbott is responsible for all of it. He decides what is done, as well as who does it, he signs off on it or cedes the authority which ­allows it to happen, or simply turns a blind eye to it.

There is no guarantee the Prime Minister will perform better if he is forced to sack his chief of staff, Peta Credlin. Government insiders fear he has become psychologically dependent on her, a view supported by the private comments of friends who worry he would feel bereft without her.

Publicly his colleagues grappled with formulations to distance themselves from him after his decision to award a knighthood to Prince Philip without stabbing him in the front. Privately there was sorrow, anger, humiliation and as one said “utter utter disbelief” that he could do this to himself and to them. It will never be forgotten nor readily forgiven. Some were already doing ­numbers, apparently intending to impress upon him how much trouble he was in. After Monday, it acquired a deeper, more urgent focus.

According to one Liberal MP, the most obscure backbencher game enough or riled enough to put their hand up today would get 15 to 20 votes. Imagine what Julie Bishop could do if she wanted to.

Despite Kevin Andrews saying it has cost nothing, it could ultimately be the costliest decision Abbott has ever made because it encapsulated for sensible Liberals, including the monarchists, everything which is wrong with Abbott’s conduct as Prime Minister: his failure to consult; his failure to gauge the mood of the electorate; his failure to concentrate on issues mainstream Australians deem paramount; his failure to live up to repeated promises to do better.

Yesterday, his preparedness to accept responsibility, cop it on the chin and again undertake to consult more fell on increasingly deaf and hostile ears. They have heard it all before. Often.

If it was an isolated incident, he might have got away with it. If everything else was going swimmingly he might have got away with it. But it is not. Far from it. Unfortunately it is only the most recent of a very, very long line of blunders and miscalculations which have undermined his authority and diminished his capacity to prosecute the government’s case for tax reform, workplace changes or budget repair.

Take the Medicare rebate debacle. Abbott announced it after parliament rose, without backbench consultation, against the advice of Treasurer Joe Hockey and then health minister Peter Dutton. Days later as Christmas approached, he unveiled a ministerial reshuffle, including a new Health Minister, Sussan Ley.

Everyone went on holidays ­assuming it would automatically proceed as they had announced just because they had announced it.

Not bloody likely. Complicated, contentious policies have to be properly sold and explained ­before, during and after announcement.

Back in their electorates, MPs were confronted by irate GPs.

Queensland backbencher Mal Brough, flexing his muscles, was unhappy with the policy, as well as its plopping into the middle of the state election campaign, and orchestrated the campaign against it. Finally Ms Ley was called off the Titanic (or whatever cruise ship she was on), to declare the government would not proceed with the changes.

Unfortunately her cabinet colleague Bruce Billson was still strapped into his deck chair declaring, despite the icebergs, that it was full steam ahead. Another triumph for the internal communications of the government.

Abbott won the leadership five years ago as a result of a policy contest. If he falls as prime minister, policies will be a contributory factor, but it will be mainly because of the now fully exposed personality or character flaws.

The question is what next. The gloom will deepen and the resolve to act intensify if Queensland goes worse than expected, especially if Campbell Newman loses his seat. Abbott’s warnings to remember the consequences of the Rudd- Gillard battles and to consider that Ted Baillieu’s removal did not help in Victoria hold little sway. His faults are more pronounced and better known to voters than were Rudd’s, while the problem with Baillieu was not that he was removed, but that he was left there too long.

Liberals are evaluating the qualities of potential replacements, mainly Bishop and Malcolm Turnbull, with Scott Morrison on the periphery.

As Foreign Minister Bishop has performed very well, however, while she remains quarantined from them, she is also untested on domestic issues.

Turnbull is hated inside the party as much as he is admired outside it. His prospects would ­improve if he undertook not to push for an Emissions Trading Scheme until the rest of the world moved.

As one senior member of the government put it, choosing a leader is not so much about deciding who is the best candidate, but who is the least worst.

That is how Abbott got there and if he doesn’t improve, he will go out the same way.

Murdoch

Murdoch is ready to blame Credlin for Abbott’s lack of Political IQ. Howard always knew he was little more than a pit bull and kept him on a short chain. Murdoch remains his apologist simply because he supports the extreme right, it’s drive to privatise, create austerity policies and push ever increasing profit to the 1%.

peta

First Dog On The Moon wrote that Tony Abbott was beyond satire. My immediate thought was it’s a bit like masturbation – if you think it’s impossible to do it to him, he’ll probably do it to himself.

This isn’t meant to be a criticism of masturbation, by the way! I’ve always thought of it as a bit like writing poetry. Most people will do it at some point in their life, but doing it in public and expecting people to admire your unique technique and your use of rhythm, requires either extraordinary self-confidence, or a special type of insanity. Or perhaps, in the case of certain public figures, a little of both.

As for Rupert Murdoch’s demand that Abbott sack Credlin, we have a strange diversion. (As an aside, I find it strange that Murdoch said “Leading involves cruel choices”. “Cruel” not strong or difficult. There’s a whole book there for some psychiatrist. As for “Tough to write”, I guess that’s why he become an owner rather than a journalist.)

murdoch credlin jpeg

The conspiracists among us will suggest that this is Murdoch’s way of saving Abbott. Abbott will surely refuse and by standing up to a dictator and supporting his woman (er, only in terms of being his Chief of Staff, we know that he has more than one woman in his marital home, which is what qualifies him as a feminist) Abbott is showing that Rupert isn’t pulling his strings and that he’s his own man, and that this a clever plan that they probably worked out while Abbott was on his way back from Iraq when he stopped off at a destination that none of us know about to meet Rupert, Peta, Wendy, Tony Blair and Elvis for lunch.

The other responses will be more confused. Some will argue that Credlin shouldn’t be sacked on Murdoch’s say-so and argue that Abbott should stand up to Murdoch. Others will argue that this is a distraction, it doesn’t matter what anyone does, we need to complain because Bill Shorten didn’t say anything about this, and Labor should change leaders. Others will say that there’s no basic difference between Liberal and Labor. A small number will say that Murdoch has it right for once. A couple will say that none of this matters and that the world is doomed and renewable energy won’t solve anything. One Abbott supporter will start talking about something even more irrelevant to any of this, like debt or climate change in the hope that he/she attracts all the comments like a chip to a bunch of sea-gulls.

But to me there’s only one clear, intelligent response to all this. That’s right – only one! Certain people (the names Tony, Peta and Rupert may spring to your mind, but if anyone adds Rossleigh, I’ll be very, very annoyed and you’ve blown your chances of a knighthood when I become supreme ruler) are starting to think that their opinion is the only one that counts. And that tends to piss people off, eventually. It’s fine when the opinion is that you deserve something far better than what you’ve got. However, once it morphs into I said you deserve better and you picked me, I’m it, so shut up, people tend to reassess a whole lot of things. I mean, whatever happens in the Queensland election this week, I’d feel pretty safe betting against an increased majority for Campbell Newman.

Whatever your views, I think you should petition Abbott and demand that I get the next knighthood. Tell him that this his best chance of survival. Yep, it’s not likely that he’d do it. It’s almost as unlikely as him surviving the year as PM. But it’d please my mum and she’s even older than Prince Philip. And if we’re talking about unlikely things, I think we could create a fairly long list if we started just three years ago, so anything’s possible.

Humour

It’s over. It’s now impossible to satirise Tony Abbott : First Dog, After the Medicare backflips, knightings and comments about working weekends, the prime minister is now an Official Australian Embarrassment

firstdog itshappening

Australia

PM Abbott awards imperial bauble to Prince Philip: Time to end the farce

PM Abbott awards imperial bauble to Prince Philip: Time to end the farce.

Critical Thought, Islam

“Since a young age, Muslims and Arabs are told not to question authority … However, Islam rejects that idea” Strange the extreme right or left anywhere hates any form of critical thought. However it’s where Tony Abbott has taken us.

Two women explore some expressive street graffiti in central Cairo

On Islam, critical thinking, and why it’s so difficult to speak one’s mind

Banner Icon Understand Islam

Does condemning the attack on Charlie Hebdo make me less Muslim? No, supporting the freedom of speech of the dead cartoonists, or the Saudi blogger being flogged for “insulting Islam” doesn’t make me a westernized secular who doesn’t care about Islam, my religion or the Prophet Muhammad. Instead it is those so-called Muslims hostile to critical thinking that lack basic understanding of what Islam is all about.

The fact remains that the reason we lack freedom, or any shot at democracy in the Middle East, is because it is so difficult to speak one’s mind, whether it is about religion, politics or social justice.

In Egypt, the satirist Bassem Yousef had his show cancelled following the overthrow of democratically elected Mohamed Morsi. Why? Because Bassem was going to criticize Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi’s coup. In Turkey, the Justice and Development party, which was initially hailed for deepening democracy, is now destroying that democracy by jailing and arresting journalists and banning social media websites to mask a massive corruption scandal within the government.

SINCE A YOUNG AGE, Muslims and Arabs are told not to question any authority that presides over them. Islam as taught in the schools has many contradictions, which many children try to wrap their heads around. Yet when they ask about contradictions, the answer is always, “Questioning God’s will is forbidden. We have to accept everything God does and says even if we don’t understand why he willed it that way.” As a teenager I wondered why Islam prescribed the death penalty for apostasy, my Islamic Studies teacher responded, “They deserve to die because they rejected Islam after they were lucky enough to be enlightened as Muslims.”

“…it is so difficult to speak one’s mind”

According to the Pew Research Center, in Egypt and Jordan more than 80 percent of questioned Muslims approve of the death penality for leaving Islam. In Palestine and Egypt more than 80 percent favor stoning as a punishment for adultery. These cruel punishments and close-minded religious interpretations are reminiscent of the Islam that ISIS seeks to establish in Syria and Iraq. Yet many Muslims believe that ISIS is a plot by foreign governments, and the very reason these conspiracy theories thrive is because we have given up critical thinking and questioning.

However, Islam rejects that idea. The Quran indicates over and over again that questioning is the very foundation of being a Muslim. Prophets came to revolutionize the societies they lived in. They didn’t accept the atrocities that were taking place and came to fix them, to enlighten and not to keep people in darkness.

Yet too many Muslims have suspended basic critical thinking. Does it make sense to beat your wife? Does it make sense to make your daughters slaves to older men when they are twelve? Does it make sense for a woman to wear a hijab just because she is a woman? Does it make sense to stone women who have been raped? Does it make sense to perform the painful and hideous crime of female genital mutation on girls as young as five? Does it make sense to behead an aid worker who was helping Syrians in times of war? Arabs and Muslims are throwing around all these traditions as “Islamic laws.” But they are not. You simply need access to Google to prove that those traditions are not part of Islam.

BUT TODAY, in many countries, you can’t say that in public without censure or more serious punishment. In Egypt, a student was sentenced to three years in prison for proclaiming that he was an atheist and “insulting Islam.” Yet he was simply declaring his disapproval of killing people who leave Islam or the practice of stoning for adultery. He questioned and ended up in trouble. Imagine how many who secretly believe the same thing but are afraid to speak out. It is this very instinct of wanting to know why, what and how that is being put to death slowly until it no longer exists.

Everyone must be allowed to talk, criticize and think, whether about religion, politics or social traditions. This is something that many in the Middle East gave up on a long time ago, until the glimpse of youthful hope of the Arab Spring, until it was hijacked by the old paternal and controlling elite.

“Yet too many Muslims have suspended basic critical thinking”

It is easy to capitalize on religious sentiment when people feel helpless. Equating political and religious authority is important in consolidating power. They feed into one another. Embracing a more radical or ”brave,” as its champions call it, interpretation of Islam makes the leader look less submissive to “evil western” powers for rejecting their sinful liberty.

Egyptian President Sisi, who many Egyptian seculars supported when he announced his coup, made it clear that Salafi groups and the al-Azhar religious authority was on his side. To the majority of Egyptians who voted for Morsi a year before he affirmed that he was even more Muslim than the Muslim Brotherhood itself.

IN TURKEY, Erdogan won three consecutive elections by adopting a subtle yet effective religious rhetoric to please his grassroots supporters. He no longer talks of secularism, freedom or democracy. Rather he asserts over and over again his religious identity, his wish to make women to be stay-at-home mothers, and act more “moral,” for example not laugh in public as one of his ministers suggested last year. All the while in Turkey journalists are being silenced and protests are being squashed or gunned down.

Ideological extremism exists in every country and every religion, yet the fact that it remains part of the government, whether democratic or not, is the very reason repression remains endemic in the region. At its root is this idea of not being able to think freely. One doesn’t need surveys or statistics to show that where freedom of speech exists and prevails, societies and nations stand a better chance of enhanced lives, a better chance at practicing their beliefs, in other words a real democracy, not a farcical one.


Any views expressed are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of Your Middle East.

Asylum Seekers

Asylum seekers forcibly removed from Darwin detention in middle of the night : We don’t intentionally kill them but it happens sometimes. So this government believes it has the right to criticize Indonesia. We imprison children call them people smugglers or illegals. Our government can do that to any of it’s citizens now. Yet Tony Abbott refuses to show us his legitimacy to be PM and the Immigration Department has made no moves to validate his position.

 Manus Island hunger strike

Four men were suddenly returned to detention centres on Manus Island and Nauru after being brought to Australia for medical treatment

Four asylum seekers have been forcibly removed from a Darwin detention centre where they were receiving medical treatment, and returned to Manus Island and Nauru in the middle of the night.

The men had been brought over from Manus Island and Nauru for medical treatment but their level of recovery before being returned is not know. It is believed one man suffers chronic pancreatitis.

Two asylum seekers were returned to Nauru and two to Manus Island. Guardian Australia has had the removal confirmed by separate sources, but multiple calls over several days to the office of immigration minister Peter Dutton have not been returned.

It is understood at least one detainee was able to alert advocates on Friday that he had been called for an impromptu meeting with his case officer – roundly considered a signal that he will be put on a flight that night and sent to the offshore facilities, often with no opportunity to contact legal representatives. The forced removals have occurred several times over recent months according to advocates.

Guardian Australia was told a man returned to Papua New Guinea two weeks ago had a medical condition which meant he could require immediate emergency care at some point. It’s not known if he has been returned to the Manus Island facility or is being housed in Port Moresby.

Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young said Manus Island “is in the midst of a humanitarian crisis” and no one else should be sent there.

“These four people had been sent to mainland Australia because of medical concerns, none of them deserve to be sent back to the hellholes of detention on Manus or Nauru,” she told Guardian Australia.
Advertisement

“These offshore detention camps are making people sick. They are dangerous and inhumane and must be closed.”

Darwin-based lawyer John Lawrence, who has been representing an Iranian man, referred to as Martin, who has been on hunger strike for more than two months, told Guardian Australia the forced removals are “typical of the arbitrary nature which this department deals with human beings”.

Lawrence also described the transfers to Manus Island as “lunacy” considering the volatile current environment after protests saw more than 500 detainees refuse food and water, some sewing their lips together, others swallowing razor blades.

Fifty-eight detainees were forcibly removed from the facility by security and allege they were beaten. The men are now being housed in a windowless cell, despite facing no charges.

Both the Australian and PNG governments have denied using improper force.

Guardian Australia was also told some men – including two who allegedly witnessed the murder of Reza Barati during unrest in February – were placed in solitary confinement.

At least 15 more Iranian detainees inside Darwin’s Wickham Point detention centre have embarked on hunger strike protests in the last two weeks. They have all been refused refugee status but cannot be sent back as Iran will not accept involuntary returns.

“The only choice left to him is to go back voluntarily and he’s steadfastly refused to do that for the same reasons as [Martin],” Lawrence said of one 28-year-old detainee he had spoken with.

Calls to Dutton’s office about the hunger-striking detainees have also gone unanswered.

LNP

PM on the rocks: Abbott’s insider revolt and Fairfax’s fun

View image on Twitter

PM on the rocks: Abbott’s insider revolt and Fairfax’s fun.

LNP

It makes no difference : Better salesman won’t cut it if there’s nothing to sell

WrongWayGoBack

  • January 22, 2015
  • Written by:
  • Whether it’s Abbott as PM or someone else from the Liberal government, it makes no difference. Because they are all the same. Sure, it’s fun to watch Abbott squirm as he realises he’s losing the fight. I can’t deny I’m enjoying the sense of schadenfreude that comes from watching the Liberals respond to ‘leadership tensions’, something the previous Labor government had to put up with for years. But that’s not to say that the Liberals are in the same position as the Gillard government was in, because the two situations are completely different.Gillard was running an entirely successful government and was effectively negotiating many positive policy successes with independents and minor parties as a member of a minority government. Sure, Rudd was a problem for Gillard. There’s no denying Rudd’s leaking spurred on a press pack desperate for any bite of a story that would save them from doing any policy analysis, something they’re incapable of doing. But for Abbott, Abbott is clearly the problem. His incompetence is his problem. His ineptitude and incapacity for the development of reasoned, logical, fair, sensible and importantly, popular policies, and his lack of negotiation skills to get terrible and unpopular policies through the Senate are his problem. Abbott is a problem of Abbott’s making. And it’s such fun watching the house of cards come slowly tumbling down. Especially since he has no idea what the problem really is.

    This is why I think it’s important to note now, at the outset, before a decision is made about Abbott’s future by his colleagues who are stuck between a rock of an unpopular Prime Minister and a hard place of the hypocrisy of changing leaders after the way these same very people attacked Labor for doing the same thing, that a leadership change will make no difference. The reason for this is because Abbott is not unique to the Liberal National Coalition government. He is not even rare. He’s just like all of them and his policies are ideas they all support. So why would it make any difference if someone else is PM? It’s not Abbott who has to go. It’s this government.

    Ask yourself, once they’re rid of Abbott and Peta Credlin, who would they put in their place? Julie Bishop, who is more interested in locating an earring which cost more than most workers’ monthly home mortgage payment than supporting Australians on death row in Bali? Malcolm Turnbull, the quality NBN wrecker who’s giving his Telstra mates control of a lemon of a broadband network, which relies on old technology and will barely be faster than the internet network we have already? How about Joe Hockey, the cigar smoking, best night of his life dancing, poor people don’t drive, bully boy architect of the most unpopular and unfair budget the country has ever seen, which has so far failed to pass the Senate many many months after it has been released? What about, shudder to think, Scott Morrison, who clearly takes great pleasure in the suffering of desperate asylum seekers who are begging Australia to help them save themselves? Instead of helping these desperate people, Morrison has been aiming to make Australia a scarier destination than anywhere the desperate people have fled from. Would you trust this man with your children’s future? He’s in charge of Social Services now. It’s the stuff of nightmares. Name someone else, anyone else who could take over from Abbott and you will see it’s quite clear that they are all the same. They all share the same values, values that lead them to misunderstand why they’re so unpopular. They all share the same failure to understand that their policies are to blame, policies they never took to an election. The problem is not the way the Liberals spin their policies. The turd is unpolishable and the turd is everyone in the Liberal government.

    In the simplistic media narrative that goes something like ‘Abbott can’t get his message across so the Liberals need to try a new salesperson’, there is no analysis of the core of the Liberal government’s problem. The core is that their extreme conservative ideology is disgusting and Australians don’t like it. Australians value a fair go, where a person’s post code doesn’t dictate their future success. The Liberals hate this idea. Australians believe that quality education and healthcare should be available as a right to everyone in the country, no matter their bank balance. The Liberals think people who can’t afford health and education should be denied health and education. Australians appreciate a clean environment which provides a safe climate for their futures and future generations. The Liberals cancelled the Carbon Price to help their rich business owner mates continue to pollute our environment and endanger our futures, all to maintain their rich business owner mates’ profits. Australians think we should all benefit from the rewards that come from the sale of natural resources we all own. The Liberals defended rich miners by cancelling the mining tax. Australians think those who have benefited most from the Australian civilisation – those who are the richest – should progressively pay the most tax to pay forward the opportunities they have benefited from to future generations. The Liberals think the rich already pay too much tax and should pay less, with the tax burden falling regressively on those who can least afford it. The values of Australians are fundamentally different than the values of the Abbott government. This mismatch isn’t going to be solved by cutting off the head of the snake.

    So I’ll sit back and laugh as I watch Abbott’s political career unravel, and I will appreciate the self-inflicted karma Abbott and his colleagues have brought upon themselves. But I will not entertain notions of anything changing with a new Liberal PM in the top job. The only way to solve this problem, as I suspect Australians have now worked out, is to comprehensively vote the Liberal government out in 2016, if not before.

Humour, Politics

Jeb Bush Announces Plans To Tour America On ‘Short Bus Express’: If Abbott was American he’d be a Republican front runner before destroying that party as well. The Democrats are trying to recruit him for the job and allow him to have triple nationality

shortbus2

THE CABIN ANTHRAX, MURPHY, N.C. (CT&P) – Sources within the Bush Campaign have informed several media outlets that the former governor of Florida and presidential candidate will be touring the United States in what pundits have dubbed “The Short Bus Express.” Although official tour dates have not yet been set, an aide to the former governor told reporters at the Tallahassee Cretin Gazette that a bus had already been purchased and was in the process of being repainted and prepared for travel.

jebbush4

“The Governor feels that he needs to connect face to face with the citizens of this great country so he can deliver his message to Americans in a personal way,” said an aide in an interview with the Gazette. “We plan on traveling from state to state like a troop of reactionary right-wing gypsies spreading the ‘good news’ of the Republican vision for America.”

All of the archaic and antiquated policies of the standard Republican platform will be stressed, according to the aide.

“Tax breaks for the 1%, white male domination in all areas of society, denial of a woman’s right to choose under any circumstances, ignoring climate change and dangerous environmental pollutants, special compensation for giant corporations, making gay marriage illegal once and for all, suppression of minority civil rights, and destruction of our national parks through mining and oil exploration are just a few of the policies that Mr. Bush will be touting,” said the aide.

medieval

“Mr. Bush is solidly behind the Republican agenda of returning America to a pre-Enlightenment society. We firmly believe that if we can just return to a medieval culture and economic system where aristocrats and the church have total control over everyone’s lives, we’ll be much better off.”

Although the bus that the campaign has purchased is rather small, there will room for three Fox News pundits and Mr. Bush’s NRA minder to travel along with the candidate.

One of the most important functions of the Fox News personnel will be to convince poor and weak minded white Americans to vote against their economic interests by playing on racial prejudice and religious beliefs leftover from the Middle Ages.

The NRA operative will be at Jeb’s side 24/7 to insure firearms manufacturers are represented and to make sure Mr. Bush supports the right of every American to be killed by an accidental gunshot wound.

Although this will be the first time Mr. Bush has sought national office, it is by no means the first time he has used a short bus for transportation, and he looks forward to the trip with great glee.

“I just can’t wait to get out there and take the pulse of the American people so I can go to Washington and completely ignore it,” said an excited Mr. Bush. “I really want to do for the whole country what I did for the great state of Florida!”

God help us all.

ART, Politics

Life imitating art: Tony Abbott who is backed by conglomerates such as the Rinehart empire and the Murdoch empire thrusting 24 hour fascist ideology and terror-invoking commentary on the Australian people.

A scene from 'Children of Men' ( image taken from evilgeeks.com)

The scenes of social collapse in movies of a decade ago are now everyday scenes in allegedly democratic countries, writes Melissa Frost in this letter to The AIMN.

I watched the movie “Children of Men” again the other night and walked away with a renewed feeling of dread. A sinking feeling of doom came over me. Right in my chest. Had I just witnessed a glimpse of the future? Our future. Our future here on Earth. Was this how it ends? Are we imploding as a species? “No, no, no”, I said to myself. It can’t be, as I slipped onto the comfort of my massive mattress pulling the crisp European duvet over my head. But as I restlessly tossed around in bed that night I started to analyse what is happening here in Australia.

There are a lot of similarities between the movie and the ideology of our present government in Australia. We have a government that is anti-immigration, totalitarian and fascist. Refugees coming to our shores are classified as illegal immigrants, hunted down by our border patrols, made to sit on navy decks in neat little rows of confinement and then transferred to prisons where they spend an eternity of misery. These scenes we view hourly on the 24hour news channels we also see in the movie. A universal battleground of military control, security zones, refugee camps and warring tribal and religious identities.

The world of “Children of Men” is in absolute turmoil and anguish. The media are filled with headlines about religious fundamentalism – based terrorist attacks, mosques being put under surveillance, allegations of tortures of journalists, backlash against refugees and immigrants and political powerplays enveloped in pollution and poverty. The scenes of the two hour movie are a world of social collapse and desperation redolent of the hourly scenes on our screens of Iraq, Syria, Gaza or closer to home the 105,000 homeless of Australia. Which brings me to the story of the residents of a luxury apartment block in the UK installing spikes outside “their” reception area to deter a somewhat sheltered slumber for the homeless of Southward, South London. Mark Hicks, a resident of the building, said it was a “very good idea” as he was seeing “drunk homeless people” in his doorway which is “not very nice at all and if it stops that, its great”.

Where has our humanity gone? Are we so desensitised to these hourly visions that our subconsciousness is now immune? Yes, yes I think we are. “Children of Men” is based in the UK and it is interesting that the film makers decided on the UK. The UK is one of the oldest democracies in the world. Democracy means a government by the people. That is all the people have a say in the running of their lives. So for Brits to witness their government developing fascist ideologies and terror-invoking methods is tyrannical and oppressive.

And this is exactly what is happening in Australia. We are witnessing a government led by Tony Abbott who is backed by conglomerates such as the Rinehart empire and the Murdoch empire thrusting 24 hour fascist ideology and terror-invoking commentary on the Australian people. Its time for Australians to read the signs and demand Democracy.

Wealth Inequality

1 per cent of the world will own more than half its wealth by 2016, Oxfam report says The World Today : Abbott governs for the 1%

Inequality, unemployment to soar says UN, Oxfam

Audio: Oxfam CEO Helen Szoke speaks to The World Today (The World Today)

“The actual global checks and balances that might have once achieved the kind of reasonable equality that occurred after the Second World War have broken down; they’re not coping with the kind of way that business is down by the very fast moving global economy, by the sort of digital world that we live in one way or the other,” she said.

Oxfam said it would call for action to tackle rising inequality at the Davos meeting, which starts on Wednesday, including a crackdown on tax dodging by corporations and progress towards a global deal on climate change.

“The reason that this should be raised at a forum like Davos, is that inevitably with the concentration of wealth comes the concentration of power, and what we need are governments to be operating in the interests of the poorest as well as the richest,” Dr Szoke said.

“At the moment in our domestic context, and in many other contexts, [the burden of tax] falls on labour and consumption. We’re saying if you have this concentration of wealth, we really need to look at capital and wealth tax.

“So, stop the dodging, make sure that there are fair taxes that are paid by people, but then we also need to look actually look at how those taxes are used, and that really goes back to the issues of what are the social structures that are put in place that are the safety net

for people across the world, like a minimum income guarantee.

“Horrifyingly, we are a long way off that.”

Unemployment to rise by 11 million: UN

Meanwhile, the United Nations has warned that unemployment will rise by 11 million in the next five years due to slower growth and turbulence.

More than 212 million people will be jobless by 2019 against the current level of 201 million, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) said.

“The global economy is continuing to grow at tepid rates and that has clear consequences,” ILO head Guy Ryder said in Geneva.

“The global jobs gap due to the crisis stands at 61 million jobs worldwide,” he said, referring to the number of jobs lost since the start of the financial crisis in 2008.

The ILO World Employment and Social Outlook – Trends 2015 report said an extra 280 million jobs would have to be created by 2019 to close the gap created by the financial turmoil.

“This means the jobs crisis is far from over and there is no place for complacency,” Mr Ryder said.

The job scenario improved in the United States, Japan and Britain but remained worrisome in several developed economies of Europe, the report said.

“The austerity trajectory… in Europe in particular has contributed dramatically to increases in unemployment,” Mr Ryder said.

The report said eurozone powerhouse Germany could see unemployment rise to 5 per cent in 2017 against 4.7 per cent at present, while it was expected to fall just under the double-digit in number two eurozone economy France.

The worst-hit segment globally were those aged between 15 and 24, with the youth unemployment rate touching 13 per cent last year, almost three times the rate for adults.

The UN agency said the steep fall in oil and gas prices would hit the labour market hard in producing countries in Latin America, Africa and the Arab world.

But one of the rare bits of good news was that the middle class comprised more than 34 per cent of total employment in developing countries from 20 per cent in the 1990s, Mr Ryder said.

However, extreme poverty continues to affect one out of 10 workers globally who earn less than $1.50 a day, he added.

LNP

Does the average person realise how much the Abbott Government is helping the wealthy? He calls it Cool- Aid

He said it. He's doing it. (Image from northcoastvoices.blogspot.com)

  • January 19, 2015
  • Written by:
  • In opposition and in government, the Coalition has moaned with frenetic monotony that Medicare is unsustainable. The fact is, it isn’t. But while they can maintain the rage and attempt to convince everybody that the country can’t afford to keep it in its present form, they’ll find one way or another to use it as an economic scapegoat.The news that they had scrapped their planned cuts to the Medicare rebate was only a temporary reprieve as we’ve been warned that they are still committed to introducing price signals into the national icon. Why? This was summed up by Tony Abbott:

    Mr Abbott has called on the opposition and the crossbenchers to come up with alternative savings measures to pay off the debt and deficit instead of obstructing the government’s attempts to repair the budget.

    It’s the same-old same-old from Tony Abbott. Blame Labor, hit the poor. The budget must be in one hell of a mess if the country’s prosperity is at stake because of Medicare.

    With the government’s back-down on the planned cuts to the rebate we can expect a ramp-up in their rhetoric. The attempts to convince us that Medicare is unsustainable will go into overdrive.

    I agree with the government that the budget is in a shambles, but I disagree at where the fault lies. One good thing – for them – is that while they keep Medicare in the news the real culprits behind our budget woes remain out of sight. Or as Richard Denniss points out, the much talked about budget deficit gives the Treasurer the chance to keep his agenda in the public domain. Which is, of course, that the budget can’t be fixed because Medicare is the hole in the economic bucket.

    With the help of the Murdoch media not only will the Medicare bashing be kept front and centre, but the ‘real’ culprits for the deficit will be kept hidden from public view. The average punter has been deluded into believing that Medicare is unsustainable and that the only way the budget can be fixed is if services to the less well-off (aka the ‘bludgers’) are trimmed. The government and the Murdoch media have managed to sustain both the delusions rather effectively.

    I wonder if the mug punter is aware of how much the Abbott Government is actually helping the wealthy. At not only the poor’s expense, but at their’s too. The facts might shock them.

    How can we accept that Medicare is the boil on the budget’s backside when being slipped into the hands of the wealthy is enough money that, if ceased, would go close to balancing social inequality? And the budget, of course.

    Stop pandering to the wealthy, and Medicare becomes sustainable. It is the luxuries afforded to the well-off that are unsustainable. How much is it costing us? Too much. Here are some examples.

    George Lekakis writes in The New Daily that:

    Former Liberal Party leader John Hewson last year called on the Abbott government to slash the superannuation tax concessions available to high-income earners.

    One of the effects of the changes introduced by Peter Costello in 2006 is that most multi-millionaires can structure their assets so that they pay no tax in retirement even though they might be reaping more than $150,000 a year.

    In an opinion column for the Australian Financial Review last April, Mr Hewson made three salient observations about the existing superannuation tax arrangements:

    • The tax breaks on super are costing the government in foregone revenue about $45 billion a year and this is roughly the same amount that is spent each year on the age pension.

    • The dollar value of the tax breaks is growing faster than expenditure on the aged pension, making concessions on super contributions a much bigger threat to balancing government finances in the near-term.

    • The super tax concessions are skewed to high-income earners: the top 10 per cent of income earners reap more than 36 per cent of the tax concession dollars, while the bottom 10 per cent are actually penalised for making super contributions.

    Did you read that? $45 billion a year just on superannuation tax breaks. And who gets the bulk of that? Yes, the wealthy. (And it certainly makes the $7.5 billion spent on Newstart look paltry in comparison).

    This year Medicare will cost us $20 billion. I’m happy to contribute towards the cost, but I sure do hate losing out because of the $45 billion tax breaks (alone) to the country’s well-off.

    But it’s only the start.

    Of the $18 billion in lost revenue over the next four years from the abolition of the ‘mining tax’, $1.6 billion of that was “purely a gift from Mr Abbott to the miners”.

    Scrapping the mining tax will cost us $5.3 billion and who gets that? It will go mainly to the biggest mining companies:

    The mining industry is clearly at the top of the government’s priority list. They sit far above concerns about the cost of living for working families.

    Then there’s the $2.4 billion a year the government gives back to property investors because of negative gearing. How many welfare recipients have investment properties? How many of the well-off do?

    And while the price of fuel costs you a couple of dollars extra week due to Hockey’s new surcharge you might like to know that:

    A new report finds exploration by coal and energy companies is subsidised by Australian taxpayers by as much as $US3.5 billion ($4 billion) every year in the form of direct spending and tax breaks.

    Heard enough? There’s no doubt more, but this small handful of examples alone should be enough for the average person to realise how much the Abbott Government is helping the wealthy.

    Medicare – I repeat – isn’t the problem. The government is. They’re giving too much money to the rich.

    Twitt
Politics

Tony – In His Own Words Or I Never Realised How Many Things I Agree With!

Image from Facebook.com

  • January 15, 2015
  • Written by:
  • This morning I started looking for a quote from Tony Abbott for this piece. Surprisingly, I came across many, many statements from him with which I wholeheartedly agree.For example, “The great thing about the Coalition is you know exactly what you will get from the Coalition.”

    Yep, he was pretty right on that one. I pretty much did know exactly what we’d get from the Coaltion…

    And then I read the following:

    “Let me just say of this government that it’s broken promises; that’s bad.”

    “It’s the government that is faking things, fudging things and ultimately trying to deceive people.

    “It’s my job between now and polling day to remind the Australian people just what a hopeless, unreliable, untrustworthy, dishonest, deceptive Government this has been. It just doesn’t get democracy.”

    “A fake. An absolute fake, from start to finish.”

    Unfortunately when I checked the dates, they were all made before the election and I realised that he wasn’t talking about his own government.

    But I did find one interesting one made after the election.

    TONY ABBOTT: “I think Christopher said ‘schools’ – plural – will get the same amount of money. The quantum will be the same.”

    ANDREW BOLT: “I hear that. ‘Schools’, plural. People just saw the grab. They heard ‘school’, your ‘school’, singular, and I don’t understand why that promise was made. I would go a billion dollars into debt just to keep your promise. I don’t know why you don’t commit to it.”

    TONY ABBOTT: “But Andrew, we are going to keep our promise. We are going to keep the promise that we actually made, not the promise that some people thought that we made or the promise that some people might have liked us to make. We’re going to keep the promise that we actually made.”

    Which sounds fine, excerpt the promise to which he was referring was this:

    Christopher Pyne: “You can vote Liberal or Labor and you will get exactly the same amount of funding for your school.” 2 August 2013

    So that infamous “We are going to keep the promise that we actually made, not the promise that some people thought that we made or the promise that some people might have liked us to make,” should have actually read, “We’re keeping the promise I thought we made not the one we actually made.”

    Which some pedantic people are sure to argue is the same thing as not keeping a promise at all, but, as Abe Lincoln said, you can’t please all of the people all of the time… Or was that “fool”?

    Whatever, after Labor’s “back-flip” on the $20 Medicare cut, Mr Abbott cut short his holiday to do an interview. (By the way, Labor has apparently changed its mind because Shorten said that he’d “consider” the change… I can see how this can be considered a back-flip by the Liberals because when they say they’ll consider something – or pay one of their mates to hold an inquiry into the best course of action – they’ve already made up their mind!) And what started my search was this little snippet from Mr Abbott:

    He called on his critics to provide their own budget savings if they continued to reject the government’s attempts to restore the budget to surplus and pay down the debt.

    “We are serious about economic reform, we are serious about budget responsibility – is the Senate? That is the question; are they serious about economic reform and budget responsibility and if they don’t like what this governments doing tell us what their alternative is,” he said.

    Now, I could be wrong, but I seem to remember that when he was Leader of the Opposition that he said something about Oppositions:

    Oppositions are not there to get legislation through. Oppositions are there to hold the government to account. And unless we are confident that a piece of legislation is beyond reasonable doubt in the national interest, it is our duty as the Opposition to vote it down.

    I also seem to remember that he said that it wasn’t his job as Opposition Leader to come up with ideas for the Government, but I can’t find any actual quote. As soon as you put in anything for a Google search for an Abbott quote, all you get is stuff about climate change being crap, or a paid parental leave scheme being introduced over his dead body, or a bad boss being like a bad father, or virginity, or “the phrase WorkChoices being dead and buried”, so it’s been a long, depressing search.

    Although I did find quite a few about not being afraid of a Double Dissolution, and, if the Senate held up necessary legislation, then they’d go to the people straight away. But maybe that was another one where we only thought we heard something, when what he really said was: “I’m going to cling onto being Prime Minister as long as I can because there’s no way that I’d survive an election campaign as Leader”

Media, Murdoch Press

Murdoch Press a Truthless Tiger: Arguing with them on Climate Change, Islamaphobia, the ABC, or any other topic is like playing chess with a pigeon

War or Aid

What’s Abbott’s priority?

Boob

Policy decisions is not our best skill

Boob

His Minders Ad Their Backs Turned

LNP

Tony Abbott Village Idiot

Freedom of speech

Individuals are policed News Corp isn’t it’s too difficult and might open a can of worms.

Uncategorized

The Sydney Morning Herald Comment Letters Editorials Column 8 Obituaries View from the Street Blunt Instrument You are here: Home Comment Search smh: Search in: Comment Tony Abbott must stop baffling the voters

<i>Illustration: Simon Letch</i>

Latika Bourke

Tony Abbott won the Liberal leadership on his own good instincts, it’s time to remind himself of that.

By the end of his first year in government Tony Abbott had conceded the need for a political reset. The new year,  he declared, would be about “jobs and families”. We were told he planned to travel less and get back to domestic issues. Major end of year personnel changes were not just confined to the government’s public face – the ministry. Another significant adjustment occurred behind the scenes.

After months of conservative columnists calling for a shake-up in media strategy, the Prime Minister replaced his communications chief of one year and announced a successor – the ABC’s political correspondent Mark Simkin.

They need a better communications strategy latched on to a better governing strategy, says Lachlan Harris

Affable, respected and clear-eyed, the well-liked press gallery veteran has the badly needed skills required to mend some of the PMO’s broken relationships with parts of the media. But his task is herculean and will only be surmountable if the Prime Minister is capable of fundamentally recasting himself by rediscovering the political instincts that served him well in opposition but ditching the tactical approach that is crippling him in government.

The test for Abbott is if he can show he is capable of drawing a line under the last year and learning the lessons of what one Liberal describes as the “horror stretch” of 2014.  Simkin is yet to begin but the immediate signs don’t look promising.  Tony Abbott has begun the New Year much like he ended the last.  More overseas travel and sending new confusing signals about what he stands for – crucially – throwing open the prospect of a Great Big New Tax.

His newly minted Assistant Treasurer Josh Frydenberg is talking of imposing the GST on goods bought from overseas which are currently exempt if they are worth below $1000. This is in spite of Tony Abbott’s promise that there would be no changes to the GST.  A trio of backbenchers, led by the Victorian country Liberal Dan Tehan who was overlooked for promotion in the recent reshuffle, has begun lobbying for a debate about extending the GST to fresh food.  This has now been backed by at least one minister.  Their political courage is admirable.

“Did he let them off the hook or are they just off the hook,” asks one Liberal. Abbott is giving the impression that he is (belatedly) happy for his backbench to publicly debate politically sensitive topics. But he only needs to dust off his own scare campaign to recognise how politically vulnerable he is, not least because it violates all his pledges with the electorate that is against new taxes.

His opening salvos in 2015 have prompted fresh dismay and fear that the year might not yield the PM’s promised and badly needed reset.  “I think our media strategy needs a bit of rethinking when we decide to start the new year by mooting tax rises for Aussie families,” says Cory Bernardi, a Liberal instrumental in promoting Abbott to the leadership.  Few want the Prime Minister to succeed as much as the conservative South Australian Senator.

Scare campaign aside, the greater cost of opening debate on new taxes is that once again, the Prime Minister is baffling voters about what he is and what he will do. He pledges no surprises then wastes political capital astonishing the public by restoring Knighthoods and Dameships.  He promises no new taxes but unveils a deficit levy and agrees to float the prospect of a 10 per cent slug on fresh food, health and education.  On one hand, he is the leader happy to rid families of the cost of living pressures associated with the carbon and mining taxes.  But on the other he is the big-spending Liberal PM who will cheerfully levy big businesses to pay for an expensive paid parental leave scheme that few want.

As one MP puts it, it’s very hard to explain to pensioners that they should cop the budget’s “tough choices” with paid parental leave  lurking in the background.  Of all the demographics, older voters accept and understand the need to pay down the debt and deficit, says one MP, but their response is always ‘well why are you having the PPL?’  ‘That’s what cuts across fundamentally,’ says the MP.

Tony Abbott told his partyroom in 2011 that faced with “policy purity and pragmatic political pragmatism, I’ll take pragmatism every time”.    The Prime Minister doesn’t need “policy purity” but could trade a little of the “political pragmatism” for some consistency on defining values.  The vast majority of voters don’t follow policy debates closely.  Instead they navigate their leaders by their values.

John Howard was successful because he gave voters a compass, a framework, which they could use to navigate him.  Says one Liberal, even a reasonably disengaged voter knew that on any given day, John Howard stood for reducing income taxes, controlled migration and aiding families through huge middle-class welfare handouts.

In contrast, Tony Abbott has spent his time in office constantly confusing and perplexing voters. By the end of 2014, he was left with no shortage of friends giving him no end of free advice.  He might legitimately complain that when Julia Gillard was in similar trouble the left rallied behind her while the right has appeared to pile in.  But unlike Gillard, Abbott is seen so far, as a great disappointment to his base.

But Abbott can turn a new leaf in the New Year.  First, says one insider who has known Abbott for more than a decade, he needs to remind himself of who he is.  With his regimented blue ties, new side part and strained way of talking, Prime Minister Abbott is straight-jacketed and unrecognisable to those who’ve know him in his previous iterations as the former health minister, Member for Warringah, surfer, volunteer firie and so on.

Abbott won the Liberal leadership on his own good instincts and without his formidable chief of staff, Peta Credlin, who in 2009 was working for Malcolm Turnbull at the time. He could do with reminding himself of that, says one of his friends.

But the instincts that served him victory in opposition also need recalibrating.  Lachlan Harris, former Communications director to Kevin Rudd recognises all too well the familiar problems that are disabling the Coalition after its first year.  Opposition is tactical.  The strategy, if continued into government eventually becomes counter productive.  “They need a better communications strategy latched on to a better governing strategy,” says Harris. Another Liberal insider agrees.  Good governance in the Howard years was never about waking up to win the media cycle – “You need to get your policy ducks in a row first”.

But Harris says the problem is larger than the media or governing strategy. Abbott simply needs some big ideas. Fortunately, a raft of white papers, a new budget, inter-generational report and new climate targets will give the Prime Minister ample opportunity to re-cast himself with voters.  But it will be need to brought together with a focus on the outcomes of reform and not the mechanics, as is currently taking place with the GST.  What are the long-term benefits being proposed and why should the pain be felt now? The Prime Minister has made the right noises that he is willing to reset. Now he must show he is capable

Uncategorized

Democracy down the drain handed to foreign corporations on a platter with the TPPA