Tuesday, 27 January 2015

The central question this political year will be whether Abbott is up to the prime minister's job

The central question this political year will be whether Abbott is up to the prime minister's job



ARTICLE BY MICHELLE GRATTAN









The central question this political year will be whether Abbott is up to the prime minister’s job









Prime Minister Tony Abbott has started 2015 in a worse state than he ended 2014.
AAP/Wayne King






Tony Abbott’s “captain’s pick” of Prince Philip for a knighthood
– on Australia Day, and when he says the government should consult more
– suggests the Prime Minister’s head is in some very strange place.




There is no credible, rational explanation. If Abbott was travelling
strongly, one might write it off as some monarchist/anglophile
indulgence. But with his standing so low that he’s being asked in the
media about the future of his leadership, and remembering the bollocking
he received over his “knights and dames” initiative, why would he
deliberately attract a beating and, worse, widespread ridicule?




Announcing the new honour last year, Abbott highlighted it being for
“Australians of ‘extraordinary and pre-eminent achievement and merit’ in
their service to Australia or to humanity at large”. How Philip fits is
a mystery. One government man described the appointment as a “barbecue
stopper on a day when everyone is having a barbecue”.




Abbott has started 2015 in a worse state than he ended 2014, when he was trying to remove the barnacles.



Abbott should, as much as possible, have kept out of the limelight
over January. Instead, despite taking some holidays, he seemed to be
much in the public eye and ear.




Yes, Abbott had to inspect the bushfire areas. But did he need to go
to Iraq, a trip involving a stoush with media that had been left behind?
And was it essential to do radio interviews that simply invited
leadership questioning?




Among the government’s woes has been January’s backflip on December’s
Medicare compromise. The December changes included slashing the rebate
for very short consultations from mid-January. When it seemed clear this
cut would be disallowed as soon as parliament resumed, and, under fire
from doctors and backbenchers, Abbott abandoned the measure. He was
further embarrassed by a leak that Treasurer Joe Hockey and then-Health
Minister Peter Dutton had advised against the December changes.




In education, another compromise has been flagged this month to the
universities deregulation package. It would further reduce the savings,
but the detail and the package’s fate remain up in the air.




Over the summer backbenchers have become more agitated after copping their voters' views.



No-one thinks Abbott’s leadership is in short-term danger. But memory
of the Labor Rudd-Gillard-Rudd fiasco doesn’t provide him with
automatic protection in the longer term. If his office thought that, it
wouldn’t be so paranoid about Malcolm Turnbull.




There is some safety, perhaps, in the fact there is not a single
alternative, if it came to that, but several who balance each other off.
Apart from Turnbull, forced by his past to step carefully, there’s the
indefatigable Julie Bishop; Joe Hockey, seriously down but he hopes not
out forever; and the ambitious Scott Morrison, who this year in his new
Social Services job – which covers families policy – will try to graft a
more human face onto his hard-man persona.




Governments in trouble blame messaging and the Abbott office’s
communications team has been revamped. Previous press office director
Jane McMillan was chopped unceremoniously from that position just before
Christmas. Andrew Hirst, Abbott’s main spokesman in opposition who has
been deputy chief of staff in government, will again head the
communications effort.




But Abbott’s problems run far deeper than poor and muddled spin. They
are fundamentally about product, including policy and personnel. They
embrace the past and the present, but have now become a serious
constraint on what can be done in the future.




The budget proved an indigestible disaster, now privately regretted
at senior levels as the bitter dregs linger. Looking ahead, the
government does not have the political capital to take robust outcomes
from its current reviews of taxation, industrial relations and
federalism to the 2016 election. And Abbott, never popular personally,
has become deeply distrusted in the electorate, with his broken promises
adding mightily to the voter cynicism he fanned with his attacks on
Julia Gillard.




On Saturday the Liberals will get a rebuff at the Queensland
election, from which Abbott has been conspicuously absent. While state
issues are dominating, Labor is seeking to capitalise on Abbott’s
unpopularity. An expected big swing against the Newman government will
be read as having some federal implications, whatever its cause. More to
the point, some of Newman’s perceived faults – arrogance, seeming to be
out of touch – are Abbott’s problems.




On Monday, Abbott faces the rigours of an address to the National
Press Club. His MPs don’t return for the start of the parliamentary year
until the following week, but his performance will be important for
their mood. He needs something to say, and no missteps in what can be a
testing forum.




The coming few weeks will be dominated by the struggle to get the
university changes through the Senate; the continuing row about what’s
left of the Medicare reforms; and Hockey’s release of the tax discussion
paper and the latest intergenerational report. Hockey hopes the latter
will help convince people of the case for budget and tax reforms.
National security will also be in the early weeks' mix, with reporting
on the Sydney siege and security co-ordination arrangements, and the
proposed metadata retention regime still a challenge.




Abbott said on Monday that “we probably need to be a more
consultative and collegial government in the 12 months ahead” and “I
think we need to be more conscious of the realities in the parliament”.




True but obvious. And this is not the first time Abbott has expressed
such sentiments. There are a few other things needed. For starters: a
saleable May budget; realism in the reform agenda; and a better
performance by Abbott himself (and his office, which always gets down to
a discussion about chief of staff Peta Credlin). Each is hard, maybe
impossible, to achieve.




Given the numbers and last year’s legacy, how does the government produce an acceptable budget?



With inquiries underway, what can it say to reassure people on tax
and industrial relations, especially when it is caught between a
resistant electorate and a baying business sector?




And how can Abbott repair an image now as bad as that of Gillard when she was prime minister?



Despite the fashionability of the idea of “rebooting”, there is no
one reset button. Abbott has had his ministerial reshuffle, which
strengthened the team, but that can only bring limited benefit.




In the first half of the year Abbott’ll launch his families package,
which will cut his planned paid parental leave scheme (his “signature
policy” and lengthy farce) and recalibrate child care. In theory it’s a
chance to do something positive, but can he get it right?




In politics lots can change very quickly, and everything is
comparative. Bill Shorten has been doing well largely because Abbott has
been looking bad.




Shorten will be under more scrutiny this year. Eventually voters will
face the question of whether Labor is up to the task of governing
again.




But it’s Abbott who is under the most intense and immediate pressure.
As the 2015 political year gears up, the central question will be
whether Abbott is up to the job of being prime minister. So far, he has
not shown that he is.



Hands off our common wealth - The AIM Network

Hands off our common wealth - The AIM Network



Hands off our common wealth














John F Kennedy once said:


“Voters chose us because they have confidence in our discernment,
when we are in a position that allows us to determine what best serves
their interests as a part of national interests. This means that we –
according to the situation – we have to lead, instruct and correct the
opinions of voters and sometimes not even consider them, exercising the
discernment we were elected for”.



For me to be comfortable with that, which I would love to be, I would
need to have confidence that our elected representatives were people of
integrity.  I would need to feel that they had sufficient intelligence
to grasp the issues, that they would listen to expert opinion, that they
were honest when speaking to their constituents, and that they had
enough courage to protect us from those who would seek to exploit us.



When a politician is elected they are given temporary custodianship
of our common wealth.  It is a huge responsibility.  They will be making
decisions about how best to invest the money we entrust to them and how
best to grow the country’s assets and raise living standards for all.



Instead of attracting people of integrity, politics in this country,
and many others, has become the haven of career politicians whose goal
is to secure a comfortable lifestyle for themselves now and into the
future.



We elect people to lead, but many have just become followers. They
follow a party line, a lobbyist or an ideology.  In so doing they are
abrogating their responsibility and failing in the job they were elected
to do.  Every utterance, every decision, is made with the view to being
re-elected.  Far from being leaders, our politicians follow polls and
focus groups searching for what will make them popular.



What other job can you get with a starting salary package of hundreds
of thousands of dollars with no qualifications, no experience, no
essential criteria, no application other than saying you are eligible
(and you don’t even have to prove that), no interview other than by the
media, and no ongoing performance assessment other than an election in
three years’ time whose outcome has been decided by Rupert Murdoch?



The required paperwork to apply for welfare, to open a bank account,
or to get a driver’s licence is much tougher than to run for Parliament.



It has been said that if you pay peanuts you get monkeys.  Our method
of paying huge wages and entitlements has attracted gorillas – those
who have, from a young age, worked out how to milk the most they can
from their mediocrity.



Look at Tim Wilson – appointed by George Brandis after an enjoyable
evening spent together at an IPA bash where Tony Abbott lauded Rupert
Murdoch as one of the finest Australians in history.  Lo and behold, as
soon as George gets the power he kicks out our Commissioner for the
Disabled and employs Tim at a salary package approaching $400,000 – no
application, no interview.



Previously Tim had been for seven years policy director of the
Institute of Public Affairs during which time he vociferously called for
the abolition of the Human Rights Council.



One can only imagine the phone call.


“The HRC…that hotbed of leftie tree huggers?  No way!  They should
all be sacked to save we taxpayers….huh…what’s that you say?  Are you
sure you can get me a gig?  How much does it pay?  Ok…I am sure I can
whip them into line.  You do your bit by undermining Gillian Triggs in
every way you can and I am sure I will be able to take over when you
force her to resign.  I was a real force in the Young Liberals….I can
make this thing work.  Ummm…I don’t want to appear pushy but what
entitlements do I get and I’ll need school holidays off”.



On appointment to the HRC, Wilson resigned from membership of the
Liberal Party.  Look, no more conflict of interest … now what are we
working on again, George?



He has been arguing for Section 18C of the 1975 Racial Discrimination
Act to be revoked, calling the prosecution of broadcaster Andrew Bolt
(who, I might add, was the MC for the IPA bash) for vilification of
indigenous Australians an infringement on Bolt’s right to freedom of
speech.  After finding himself with nothing to do after the government
responded to the public outcry to dump the changes, Tim briefly
resurrected himself after the shootings in Paris.  He seems to have
faded away again no doubt enjoying his backdated pay rise over the
holiday period.



When the Prime Minister sets the example by keeping his colleagues
waiting for an hour while he gets his photo taken so he can claim
entitlements for attending a private function, and has the gall to admit
to it like there is no problem with that, one can see the total disdain
he has for propriety and that Tony is very much in it for the money. 
Let’s face it, his career before entering politics was hardly stellar
and it is rather hard to imagine what he could be successful at other
than being Howard’s attack dog.



The blatant cronyism, the rewarding of donors, the hiring of climate
sceptics to advise about everything, the dogged determination to unwind
all reforms introduced by the previous government, the exploiting of
entitlements, the silencing of advocacy groups whilst allowing paid
access to ministers by lobby groups and rich individuals, the backing
away from tax reform measures (FBT on novated leases, taxing super
payouts over $100,000pa, tightening corporate tax evasion profit sharing
loopholes, mining tax, carbon pricing), selling off our assets,
unfettered mining with no regard for the environment  – all of these
things are proof of how the Abbott government considers our common
wealth theirs to do with as they will.




Monday, 26 January 2015

Quo vadis, Abbott Agonistes?

Quo vadis, Abbott Agonistes?



458 6





After his latest absurd decision to knight Prince Philip,
the political destruction of Tony Abbott in the coming months is almost
a certainty, writes Michael Galvin.




Within hours of Abbott making the Queen's husband a knight, some online media polls were showing 90% of people thought the whole idea was so ridiculous it must be some kind of pathetic joke.



Which it is, of course. But no joke Abbott plays is without an
element of malice and this one is no different. It is a calculated
insult, with more than one loser. In this case, it appals me that
attention has been be taken away from those far more deserving
Australians who gained Order of Australia awards — people like Rosemary Crowley from South Australia, for instance.




Most politicians – indeed, most people – would be alarmed and
challenged by such a reaction to their behaviour. But not Abbott. He
delights in being in an iconoclastic and beleaguered minority. He is as
incapable of caring about the ridicule of the majority as an ISIS
terrorist is of caring about what others think of the morality of
beheading innocent hostages. Indeed, such ridicule validates and affirms
his sense of self-identity. Like Evelyn Waugh,
even if Waugh could not conceive of this weird bunyip caricature of
himself, Abbott delights in being out of step with the mores of his
times.




Nevertheless, he can still count. And he is rat-cunning enough to know his support is slipping where it counts — inside the party room.



And so it has begun. After 15 months of the Abbott horror show, the
MSM is now regularly criticising Abbott, and a kind of ritual has
emerged since Christmas:




  1. Abbott opens his mouth and says or does something (usually stupid);
  2. sundry critical columns appear in the Fairfax press, the Guardian, or the ABC;
  3. hundreds of negative comments pour forth in response.
It is interesting that the online comments supporting Abbott
have dropped right off in recent months. I would estimate the ratio of
anti to pro Abbott comments in such (non-Murdoch) MSM forums is now
about 9:1. And the comments that convey extreme distaste and contempt
for the man make up an increasing proportion of that 90%.








ASU NSW and ACT branch secretary Sally McManus seems to think PM Abbott has given up (Image via Facebook)



So what happens now? How long can the situation continue where a
political leader is relentlessly ridiculed and dismissed as a fool? And
how long is it until many people simply tire of abusing him and turn
off?




In recent days, I think this criticism fatigue is starting to set in.
Will the point be reached when people are no longer angry at Abbott,
rather, they are just tired of him? Where they have reached the point
where they just want Abbott to go away, to disappear, to be out of their
face? There must be a limit to how often someone can summon the energy
to say that Abbott has hit a new low.




But Abbott Agonistes is no ordinary politician. He will not suffer
through this long, slow crucifixion like Rudd and Gillard did, albeit in
their different ways.




It is conceivable, on some bizarre level, that he will actually enjoy
it. As outlined above, and unlike most mature people, Abbott will never
be able to see that it is his fault. When he departs the political
scene, it will be the public that did not live up to his expectations,
not the other way round. It will be just as he blamed the faults of the
Church for leaving the priesthood — the church let him down, he wasn't the problem. Isolation vindicates him; general consensus unnerves him.




The political destruction of Abbott in the coming months is much to
be hoped for and almost a certainty. But because he is like no ordinary
politician, it will be a fascinating and very unique spectacle to watch.
But at this stage of the process, before he departs the scene, three
points can be made.




Firstly, Abbott has damaged the fabric of our society. His behaviour
towards Julia Gillard was full of contempt, cruelty and hatred. And
deliberate lies. Many people were also hurt or offended by him, not as
individuals but as supporters of hers, or as ordinary people trying to
be decent citizens. The anger coming out now at Abbott is a sign of just
how damaging he was – and how many people felt its effects – even if
not fully aware at the time of how hurtful it was to them personally.








Abbott's ascensiuon to the top job was built on hatred, say Michael Galvin.



Secondly, admiration for competent government during 2007-2013 can
only increase. The Federal Government held together during those years,
despite its own enormous internal tensions and relentless attacks from
Abbott and co. Under circumstances far less difficult, Abbott's
Government has been spectacularly inept and incompetent by comparison.




Thirdly, admiration for Julia Gillard personally can only increase.
Unlike Abbott, she must have felt every stinging blow. To say that she
showed grace under pressure is the understatement of the century, and
more obvious by the day.


Saturday, 24 January 2015

Mr Rabbit, Mr Fox and Miss Takesaplenty ... An Update! - The AIM Network

Mr Rabbit, Mr Fox and Miss Takesaplenty ... An Update! - The AIM Network



Mr Rabbit, Mr Fox and Miss Takesaplenty … An Update!














Interrviewer – Good morning, today marks a fresh start for Mr Rabbit, and after his interview with us before his election, we thought it was time for a follow-up. Good morning, Mr Rabbit.


Mr. Rabbit – Good morning.


Interviewer – It’s been a rough time for you just lately, hasn’t it?


Mr Rabbit – Look, ah … I … never said that it would be easy, but
overall, I think we’ve been pretty successful. We’ve removed the tax on
animal droppings and we’ve stopped the goats.



Interviewer -Yes, but you still haven’t introduced your Direct
Excrement Plan, where you pay larger animals to pick up their own
droppings.



Mr Rabbit – We have a plan to do that, so it’s all under control.


Interviewer – Aren’t you concerned about all the excrement that’ll be produced while you get your plan up?


Mr Rabbit – On the contrary, excrement is a sign that the farm is
working well, and anyway, this farm only produces a small amount of the
excrement in the world.



Interviewer – Some are saying that you don’t actually believe that
excrement causes problems, and they’re citing your “Excrement science is
crap!” statement to suggest that you’re not really serious…



Mr Rabbit – If I could just interrupt you there, that statement was taken out of context.


Interviewer – So what was the context?


Mr Rabbit – The context was that I thought I was with people who wouldn’t report it.


Interviewer – Moving on to your stopping the goats…


Mr Rabbit – Yes, we’ve been very successful, only one goat has made
it to the farm since we introduced our turn back the goats policy.



Interviewer – If we no longer have goats arriving, why can’t the
goats we’re holding in the abattoir be released into the community?



Mr Rabbit – Because it would send the wrong signal and undermine our policy and just start the illegal entries again.


Interviewer – But if you’re turning them back what’s the problem?


Mr Rabbit – These goats have come here illegally!


Interviewer – Some would say that there’s an inconsistency with your
policy of strong fences when it comes to goats, but you’re happy to
reduce requirements on the 457 animals.



Mr Rabbit – The 457 animals are just here temporarily to fill in the
areas where we have no animals in that can fill a particular role.



Interviewer – But some of the roles seem a bit strange. I mean, there
are stories of chickens and pigs coming in, when we have plenty of our
own.



Mr Rabbit – Well, many of our hens aren’t capable of laying eggs, so
we’ve brought in some specialist roosters who’ve just been cleaning up
the yard while we wait for them to settle in to an egg laying routine.



Interviewer – And the pigs?


Mr Rabbit – The pigs are all on a fly in, fly out basis, in areas where we can’t get our animals to go.


Interviewer – It’s been alleged that some pigs aren’t flying anywhere.


Mr Rabbit – That’s not my understanding.


Interviewer – Onto the repair of the leaky barn, Joe Hoggey’s told
everyone before the election that you’d have the barn fixed in no time,
yet now he’s saying that it may be ten years before he stops the leaks.



Mr Rabbit – Well, you can blame Kevin Rooster’s mob for the leaky
barn, and now they’re trying to sabotage our repair by stopping us from
using the sick animals to hold down the loose boards.



Interviewer – They’re suggesting that – apart from being unfair to
use the sick animals this way – this wouldn’t solve the basic problem,
which is that the farm needs to make enough money to replace the loose
boards.



Mr Rabbit – We all have to do our bit. Even the sick animals… I mean,
looking after them till they get better is a nice idea, but we can’t
afford that.



Interviewer – Of course, Mr Hoggey’s comments that there’s a tortoise
somewhere in the world that’ll live to be 350 didn’t help matters.



Mr Rabbit – Mr Hoggey was just making the point that we need to
ensure that – as we’re all living longer – then we need to things that
ensure we have a quality of life when we’re older.



Interviewer – How is sitting on a barn a good quality of life?


Mr Rabbit – I’d think that animals would b just happy to contibute.


Interviewer – And finally, we need to address the elephant in the room.


Mr Rabbit – There is no elephant in the room, that’s just one or two animals making up a story…


Interviewer – Apparently, Miss Takesaplenty seems to be having too
much influence, and this has led to speculation that there may be a
challenge to your leadership.



Mr Rabbit – No, I think you’ll find that we’re all content, and everybody’s happy with the job I’m doing.


Interviewer – But the suggestion is that Mr Bull and Ms Peahen want
to replace you, and have been actively canvassing the other animals.



Mr Rabbit – What makes you say that? Mr Bull is happy with his bull
role, and Ms Peahen is more than happy just strutting round telling
other farms the way things are.



Interviewer- But even Mr Fox’s helpers are being critical of you,
which tends to suggest that Rupert Fox himself is worried that you’re a
one term animal.



Mr Rabbit – Mr Fox assures me that he’s right behind everything I’ve done.


Interviewer – With respect, he’s concerned about the things you haven’t done. Even Andrew Boar is pointing out your faults.


Mr Rabbit – I have a plan.


Interviewer – Can we see it?


Mr Rabbit – I’ll show you closer to the election.


Interviewer – The election’s already happened, Mr Rabbit.


Mr Rabbit – Yes, but we have another one coming up in a year or so!


Interviewer – Well, how much closer to the election can we see it?


Mr Rabbit – Ah… probably anything from three weeks to six months…
after the next election. I mean, if we release it before the election,
there’s a strong chance that animals may not vote for us.



Interviewer – You’re out of time, Mr Rabbit.


Mr Rabbit – No, I’m not! Mr Fox assured me that I had until March…


Interviewer – I meant for the interview. Thanks, Mr Rabbit. Till the next time.


Mr Rabbit – Oh, right. Yes. It’s been a pleasure.



Friday, 23 January 2015

An Open Letter To The Federal Liberal Party - Please Think Before You Make A Big Mistake! - The AIM Network

An Open Letter To The Federal Liberal Party - Please Think Before You Make A Big Mistake! - The AIM Network



An Open Letter To The Federal Liberal Party – Please Think Before You Make A Big Mistake!














Dear Liberal MPs,


I know that many of you are thinking that you can’t turn on a TV at
the moment  – so ask one of you staff to do it for you. Once you’ve
mastered that modern technology, you’ll probably notice how many of the
news stories are about either about some stranger coming to spectacular
end. or else the stories are speculating about the less than spectacular
end of Tony Abbott as Prime Minister.



Of course you know about the recent opinion poll where Tony Abbott’s
approval rating was a mere 23%. You obviously know because I’m refering
to the one conducted amongst Liberal Party MPs. His approval rating was
much higher amongst the Cabinet, but there’s speculation that was only
because he voted for himself as well as allowing Peta to stand beside
people as they voted.



And, of course, we all know about how Tony Abbott refused that
invitation to campaign in the Queensland election. The fact that it came
from the Labor Party shouldn’t have mattered. Whichever way you look at
it, his absence looks just as bad as his presence. Surely he could have
done what he did with the Adelaide bushfires – gone there for just long
enough to have three photos taken, then been back in Sydney by
lunchtime! It would have stopped this ridiculous rumour that he’s
frightened to go to Queensland because people would expect him to go
swimming and he’s scared of either the jellyfish or the pollution from
all the dredging.



But I’m pleading with you to remember your principles and stick with
Tony. Don’t think that your problems will disappear if you were to elect
someone less inclined to make stupid comments like Joe Hockey, someone
more charismatic like Eric Abetz, someone less prone to hysterical
overreaction like Christopher Pyne, or someone with a greater grasp of
modern technology and metadata like George Brandis. As Tony put it,
there are lessons to be learned from changing the leader. After all,
if the change from Rudd to Gillard back to Rudd teacher didn’t teach us
of the dangers of changing the Prime Minister, then certainly the change
of Rudd to Abbott should have shown us once and for all, that changing
the leader is a move that will end in tears.



No, you owe it to yourselves to give Tony what he asked for at the
end of 2014 – a fresh start in 2015. Ok, I suspect that most you
interpreted that as being from the beginning of 2015, but that’s not the
promise he made, that’s only the promise that you though he made. I
think that you should definitely wait until Tony has made that fresh
start in whichever month he chooses.



As Abbott himself said, when he took over the leadership:


“There are some wounds that need to be healed. I have
said to my colleagues that I will do my best to be a consultative and
collegial leader…



“Political parties don’t work when people just announce what they’re
doing and expect everyone else to follow. I will not be that kind of
leader.”




And, eventually, he won’t. Eventually he’ll work out that when he
announces something almost nobody will follow. And he won’t expect it
any more. I mean, there are signs that he is learning. There are many,
many things that he didn’t announce because he knew that people would
like them. By just quietly slipping them through, and not announcing them,  nobody knows what you’ve cut or quietly slipped in while they were having Christmas lunch.



Remember, Tony is a man who is capable of learning from his mistakes,
so it’s obvious that he’s learnt more in twelve months than most PM’s
would learn in their entire career.



And even if you don’t believe me, I’m appealling to you to remember
what you said in the past about Rudd being the elected PM and that it
wasn’t up to the faceless men of the Labor Party to determine the Prime
Minister, Julia Gillard needed to go to an election before she could be
considered our leader. I clearly remember that, and you needn’t think
that the public won’t have a similar reaction to any attempt to dispose
of Tony. As Rupert Murdoch’s paper said before the election, “We Need
Tony”. And I really think that we do need Tony. I think that he’s one of
the best things we have going at the moment.



So please, please don’t change leaders. I implore you.


Kind Regards,


B. Shorten



Thursday, 22 January 2015

It makes no difference - The AIM Network

It makes no difference - The AIM Network



It makes no difference














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.