Home > Oz Politics > Abbott out

Abbott out

November 26th, 2009

Tony Abbott’s resignation must surely mark the end for Malcolm Turnbull’s leadership and therefore, in all probability, for the deal with Labor over the ETS.

Ultra-optimistic scenario: Turnbull quits and Abbott is installed, the deal is cancelled and Rudd calls a double dissolution based on the original bill, winning easily. Since the original bill clearly needs amendment he doesn’t use the joint sitting mechanism but instead makes an agreement with the Greens who now have the balance of power.

Rudd’s preferred scenario: Turnbull holds on long enough to deliver seven senate votes tomorrow and pass the watered-down ETS. He is promptly rolled and the Liberal party splits. Abbott as new leader, starts with a commitment to repeal the scheme, but abandons it because this is the last thing big business wants. Labor reduces the divided opposition to rump status at the next election, and ends up dealing with three or four different parties in the Senate, needing only one to get its legislation through. This is probably more plausible than mine, but the timing will be very tight tomorrow. The decision is to be made at 3:45pm, apparently.

Categories: Oz Politics Tags:
  1. Peter Rickwood
    November 26th, 2009 at 16:48 | #1

    I have thought for some time that the best option for Turnbull is to resign. The alternative is to lead the rabble to the next election, lose, and get ditched then. Better to quit now and let them come to the realization themselves that Turnbull is their best option.

  2. Uncle Milton
    November 26th, 2009 at 16:58 | #2

    Turnbull doesn’t seem the quitting type to me. I suspect he’ll tough it out for a while by which time the bill will be passed.

  3. 2 tanners
    November 26th, 2009 at 17:06 | #3

    Ultra optimistic indeed. I’d love it, but I don’t believe it. Turnbull will get this one up. I do think it’s better than nothing, as people will get used to it and then wonder what the fuss was about. In turn, better legislation can be passed

    Second option – this one passes, so he enters more ambitious bill to act as DD trigger and pushes them further. This based on a reasonable response to the first legislation but a significant ‘should be stronger’ opinion on the crosstabs.

    I can be optimistic too.

  4. Ikonoclast
    November 26th, 2009 at 17:45 | #4

    I’m hoping Abbott’s resignation marks the end for Abbott. I’m no Turnbull fan and no Liberal fan but Turnbull is about the best of a bad bunch.

    Rudd will very probably win the next election but his second term will be a poisoned chalice. The Australian housing bust, the second round of the Global Recession/Depression and significant resource shortages all look likely to hit in the next term.

  5. Donald Oats
    November 26th, 2009 at 17:52 | #5

    I was hoping something with the Greens might be done, last minute like.

  6. ken n
    November 26th, 2009 at 17:55 | #6

    JQ are you speaking as one of Australian’s leading academic economists?
    Or as a supporter of the ALP?

  7. nanks
    November 26th, 2009 at 18:04 | #7

    @Ikonoclast

    Ikonoclast :
    but his second term will be a poisoned chalice.

    i hope so

  8. jquiggin
    November 26th, 2009 at 18:20 | #8

    ken n :
    JQ are you speaking as one of Australian’s leading academic economists?
    Or as a supporter of the ALP?

    As someone who would like to see a decent emissions trading scheme passed into law.

    I don’t think the ALP has any need of my support now, or for the next three or four Parliaments. The global climate on the other hand, needs whatever help it can get.

  9. ken n
    November 26th, 2009 at 18:26 | #9

    Ah, OK JQ, a one issue man.
    I agree with you on the next three or four terms.
    I just don’t think there is a hope in hell that politicians, anywhere, can do anything about reducing CO2 emissions. Politicians are hard wired to fiddle and fudge.
    That’s what Kyoto was and that’s what Copenhagen will be.
    Adaptation will be the solution.

  10. November 26th, 2009 at 18:41 | #10

    “In turn, better legislation can be passed”?

    Like legislation that takes the $7 billion back from the the coal industry et al, and uses it to build renewable energy infrastructure then systematically closes down the coal industry as the renewable energy comes on line? That’s not even possible as a fantasy yet any policy that doesn’t propose closing down the coal industry as rapidly as possible is basically fraudulent. You can bet that it won’t even be discussed until every other scam, rort and rip-off has been worked through first. What puzzles me above all else why there a willingness to subsidise coal to such an extreme when so much manufacturing industry has been cheerfully put to the sword over recent decades?

  11. Alicia
    November 26th, 2009 at 19:12 | #11

    Turnbull has always been impressive under pressure. And his stand here was what one has come to expect of him. The man’s got balls.

    Let’s hope the odious, effete Abbott disappears without a trace. Leftists and ordinary workers hate him for his anti-labor stance, women hate him for his anti-reproductive freedom stance, and environmentalists hate him because he cares not a fig for the planet.

  12. Chris O’Neill
    November 26th, 2009 at 19:20 | #12

    Ultra-optimistic scenario: Turnbull quits and Abbott is installed, the deal is cancelled and Rudd calls a double dissolution based on the original bill, winning easily.

    This is, I guess, what ALP partisans would be hoping for. If the Liberals put Abbott in charge then their electoral prospects will be trashed for a long. long time.

  13. Tim Macknay
    November 26th, 2009 at 19:34 | #13

    It remains to be seen whether Abbott can take over the Lib leadership. In the imbroglio so far, a majority of Liberals seemed to have held to the view that a realistic attitude to climate change is their only hope of electoral viability.

    Of course, a significant majority now apparently think that Malcolm Turnbull, and the CPRS deal, are worse than electoral death. But if they don’t have the numbers, their only option is to walk.

    I’d hesitate to say a split is on the cards, but it certainly seems more likely than at any time I can remember.

  14. Alice
    November 26th, 2009 at 19:43 | #14

    @Alicia
    Hear hear Alicia. Abbott was only useful as some sort of JH sidekick – complete with sneering attack dog in parliament and he earned his reputation as being JHs bootlicker (actually he helped reduce parliament to a schoolyard in my opinion). The taint of workchoices is all over him. No hope there.

  15. Anthony
    November 26th, 2009 at 19:59 | #15

    Malcolm’s got balls and Tony’s effete. Puh-lease. Hasn’t political analysis got beyond this?

  16. CJ
    November 26th, 2009 at 20:04 | #16

    I’ll definitely be doubly disillusioned if I have to choose between Labor and the Coalition anytime soon.

  17. paul walter
    November 26th, 2009 at 20:13 | #17

    Anthony, I don’t think Ive watched anything more stomach-turnng than Abbott’s interview after his knifing (in theback!) of Turnbull. Turnbull’s dismemberment by lesser individuals wrapped up in an ideological psychosis, for trying to drag them into the twentieth, let alone twenty first century, allows Turrnbull the right to choose his own time to walk away regardless of any future party room spill, and he will walk away back to his North Shore mansion to look on in amusement, as these troglodytic myopes do what Labor did for ten years and keep themselves out of government, as befits juvenile delinquents.

  18. Michael of Summer Hill
    November 26th, 2009 at 20:50 | #18

    John, in my opinion Turnbull will survive the ruckus and live to see another day even though there are vast ideological differences within the Liberal Party between the neo-conservative illywackers and the Turnbullities.

  19. November 26th, 2009 at 21:02 | #19

    “The global climate on the other hand, needs whatever help it can get.”

    I’ll go along with the notion that mitigation is justified for the moment.

    The CPRS is just woeful.

    I posted a simpler, better idea at catallaxy.

    http://www.catallaxyfiles.com/blog/?p=7093&cpage=3#comment-168515

    Fire away.

  20. Alice
    November 26th, 2009 at 21:03 | #20

    @Michael of Summer Hill
    My bet is on Turnbull surviving this one. If not – my runner up bet is on Hockey. However if they dont get the illywhackers in line none of them will survive and thats preferable by a long shot. They really have lost it.First workchoices and now this fruit loop climate denialism mess. What planet did they come from?

  21. Alice
    November 26th, 2009 at 21:05 | #21

    A case of DNFTT

  22. Chris Warren
    November 26th, 2009 at 21:23 | #22

    Not so long ago the economic right opposed abolition of slavery – (they lost that one).

    They opposed the spreading of the franchise – (they lost that one).

    They opposed equal rights for women – (they lost that one).

    They opposed immigration – (they lost that one).

    They opposed abortion rights – (they lost that one).

    They opposed land rights for indigenous peoples – (they lost that one).

    Now they oppose climate change but, true to form, this is just another issue they will naturally and assuredly loose.

    As amusing as all this is, in the long-run, they are nothing but a noxious, reactionary rightwing “Tuckey-rump” in the Liberal Party.

    If something unexpected happens, the Liberals will be wiped out at next election time.

    So I hope Turnbull falls, as this will bring out the uglies in the Liberal party, and the electorate will take its revenge at the next opportunity. Most likely Australia will then be rid of the Liberals for many many years.

    A win for everyone except Tuckey, Abbott, Schultz and co.

  23. November 26th, 2009 at 21:29 | #23

    Even if Abbott takes the leadership tomorrow and changes the partyroom position on the CPRS, there could be enough votes to get it through. I imagine there would be enough Senators who don’t want to lose their job from a double dissolution happening.

  24. November 26th, 2009 at 21:36 | #24

    Chris – how was Thomas Carlyle *economically right*?

    How did George Reid oppose immigration to a greater extent than the ALP or Protectionists?

    Abortion rights can be thought of as an exercise of the right to privacy vis a vis private property and self ownership.

    Land rights are not strictly left or right. If you categorise me as *economically right*, it is my view that land rights don’t go far enough.

  25. Freelander
    November 26th, 2009 at 21:44 | #25

    @Chris Warren

    Sadly, if the right had their way they would undo all those ignominious defeats one after the other. Hopefully, the public is recognising just how loopy these people are.

  26. Fran Barlow
    November 26th, 2009 at 22:21 | #26

    I suppose it’s too much to hope that the decision by the coalition to support the deal will be bucked by the Liberals in the senate.

    I think the time may have come for a bit of mischief making.

    I think maybe posing as capital c-conservatives and writing to pro-CPRS senators may put the final nail in this rotten deal and send the conservative forces into the wilderness at the same time.

    What’s not to like about that?

    Time for a visit to the Andrew Bolt/Piers Akerman blogs …

  27. Chris Warren
    November 26th, 2009 at 22:23 | #27

    Mark Hill

    I never mentioned Carlyle, so why pit false words in my mouth. Anyway; Carlyle was a extreme rightist, based on undemocratic hero worship, enacted as a State function that led to a political disaster in Germany. According to Wikipedia….

    Carlyle’s distaste for democracy and his belief in charismatic leadership was unsurprisingly appealing to Adolf Hitler, who was reading Carlyle’s biography of Frederick during his last days in 1945.

    So two rats, who never met, recognised each other.

    I never mentioned George Reid, and I suspect you have misrepresented him just as you did Carlyle.

    Abortion rights do not conflict with privacy and do not involve private property rights nor ‘self ownership’ (whatever this is).

    Yes the camouflaged-right do claim that Land Rights “do not go far enough”, but only because they want to force aborigines to buy their own homes, and have freehold rights to sell land to mining companies.

    This is not just ‘economically right’ but ‘economically and socially rancid’.

  28. Fran Barlow
    November 26th, 2009 at 22:33 | #28

    @Alice

    Joe Hockey knows he can’t win without being the catspaw of the anti-action on climate change forces. He will stay out of this I suspect, if he has any smarts at all. The party is headed down the toilet.

    I suppose it’s too much to hope that the decision by the coalition to support the deal will be bucked by the Liberals in the senate.

    I think the time may have come for a bit of mischief making.

    I think maybe posing as capital c-conservatives and writing to pro-CPRS senators may put the final nail in this rotten deal and send the conservative forces into the wilderness at the same time. It would be delicious to be part of that.

    What’s not to like about that?

    Time for a visit to the Andrew Bolt/Piers Akerman blogs … Let’s get busy.

  29. nanks
    November 26th, 2009 at 22:49 | #29

    Fran Barlow :
    @Alice

    Time for a visit to the Andrew Bolt/Piers Akerman blogs

    I’d feel so dirty :)

  30. Fran Barlow
    November 26th, 2009 at 23:05 | #30

    @nanks

    What was Bismarck’s dictum here?

    Nobody would eat sausage if they knew how it was made …

  31. November 26th, 2009 at 23:07 | #31

    Chris,

    You’ve inferred many “right” groups that have no preference to free enterprise are “economically right”. I assume that means that “economically right” doesn’t mean there is a preference towards free enterprise. You’ll have to call me something different.

    I’d be interested to know why you think I’ve misrepresented Reid.

    What is socially rancid about allowing Aborigines to be able to have their native title as freehold? It is economically retarding not treating them as equals. I can sell land I inherit but a native title holder can’t. I think that is systematic discrimination.

    But now seriously…people are saying the Liberals are finished. People have been saying this since Rudd won in 07. Knowledgeable experts in political science were saying it too.

    Does anyone reckon Rudd would win by a margin equal to or larger to what Howard had after Keating lost office? The ALP came back from that. Beazley gave Howard a good nudge as well.

    The Liberals don’t have leadership but the ETS or any carbon tax is a lot less popular than most commenters here would want it to be. Rudd could be re-elected with a small increase in his majority in the House but the bill might be settled by a joint sitting.

    The effect of minor parties in a DD might be totally unpredictable, except in hindsight.

  32. observa
    November 26th, 2009 at 23:20 | #32

    The natural take for most pundits is that disunity is death but I’d caution against that in this case. You need to be careful not to conflate as Turnbull does in all his exhortations, that a vote against an ETS is to ‘do nothing on climate change’. Whilst it’s true that AGW skeptics would naturally object to an ETS it’s not clear that the electorate have been sold on the notion that an ETS is the answer to their clear environmental concerns, particularly now that the hard yards begin. Last weekend they were sampled for their views and with caution about the usual margin for error in mind-

    “The Survey, commissioned by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry Queensland, released by ACCI and undertaken by Galaxy Research over the weekend, indicates that:
    • 71% believe a CPRS will raise electricity prices;
    • 49% believe there would be job losses if we move in isolation;
    • 82% do not believe enough information has been provided about the CPRS; and
    • 54% believe Australia should delay introduction of a CPRS until after Copenhagen.”

    As the LP rebels on this ETS legislation have found, they are largely being bombarded by strong opposition to this scheme at the eleventh hour from within their electorates, at the very moment the folly of Groupthink emanting out of EAU’s CRU is hitting the airwaves. As a result I’d caution against the traditional firm belief that disunity is death, when a sudden Rudd/Turnbull chumminess on ETS may simply smell of a Groupthink conspiracy out there in voterland. It will be interesting to see which way this breaks as I have a hunch there’s a firestorm developing out there that Rudd and Labor are oblivious to at present. You also need to remember that no double dissolution election could occur before Copenhagen and both Rudd and Turnbull will look a little silly if there’s no binding outcome achieved there again. We live in interesting times again.

  33. Michael of Summer Hill
    November 27th, 2009 at 04:50 | #33

    Freelander, I wouldn’t worry about the neo-conservative illywackers toppling Turnbull for they never had the numbers. Its all a big bad dream for those going bonkers.

  34. TerjeP (say tay-a)
    November 27th, 2009 at 05:01 | #34

    Chris Warren :Not so long ago the economic right opposed abolition of slavery – (they lost that one).

    How the heck do you even begin to justify that remark. In the US context most people who say the “economic right” are probably refer to the Republican Party. However you can’t possibly be refering to them because as Wikipedia states:-

    The Republican Party is one of the two major contemporary political parties in the United States, along with the Democratic Party. Founded by anti-slavery expansion activists in 1854, it is often called the Grand Old Party or the GOP, despite being the younger of the two major parties. In the U.S. political spectrum, the party’s platform is generally considered center-right or right, while globally it is considered to be right.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)

    The first republican president was Abraham Lincoln. He waged a civil war to emancipate southern slaves.

    In Britian anti-slavery activist William Wilberforce received support from Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger. William Pitt is often refered to as a Tory. So perhaps more notionally right than left.

    John Stuart Mill – something of a poster boy amoungst classical liberals – opposed slavery and wrote a book called the “Subjagation of Women” in 1861 arguing that women ought to be regarded as equal to men.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill#Human_rights_and_slavery

    I think the terms left and right are quite crude and unhelpful political classifications. You did qualify it with a reference to the “economic right” but this makes the remark even harder to justify. I can’t see any sense at all in what you are saying. You might as well be saying that the economic right eat babies and sacrifice virgins.

  35. Alice
    November 27th, 2009 at 05:08 | #35

    @TerjeP (say tay-a)
    Terje – you know and I know the Republican party of its foundings in the 1800s was a completely different animal and closer to liberals (US for left) than it is today.

  36. TerjeP (say tay-a)
    November 27th, 2009 at 05:21 | #36

    Alice – However I have no argument with the notion that the Republicans have changed since the 1800s just as everything else has changed. I suspect that in the 1800s everybody was more religious and socially conservative so in some regards they have perhaps changed less than other US political parties.

    Slavery was abolished in the USA in the 1800s and in the context of the Republican party they were clearly on the right side of that moral debate.

    However why on earth should Chris be permitted to get away with such a reckless reinvention of history. Next he will be claiming that Jesus was a member of the Labor party and Aristotle voted for Bob Brown. That the Liberal party was founded by Fred Flintstone and that The Australian Democrats were merely a myth.

  37. TerjeP (say tay-a)
    November 27th, 2009 at 05:22 | #37

    oops. Ignore the “However”.

  38. Alice
    November 27th, 2009 at 05:39 | #38

    Its a bloodbath in LP this morning.

    My bets looking safe. Hockey thinks he is the man..but not on this one he isnt. Just like workchoices the electorate will give Rudd the mandate he needs (which they have already given once). The denialists will sink in their own spin. They are well and truly in the desert now.

  39. Alice
    November 27th, 2009 at 05:42 | #39

    @TerjeP (say tay-a)
    I did prefer Republican V1 Terje as I did prefer Liberal V1950s in Australia and yes on the slavery issue – Chris is not quite correct.

  40. November 27th, 2009 at 06:17 | #40

    Chris Warren@#22 November 26th, 2009 at 21:23 said:

    Not so long ago the economic right opposed abolition of slavery – (they lost that one).
    They opposed the spreading of the franchise – (they lost that one).
    They opposed equal rights for women – (they lost that one).
    They opposed immigration – (they lost that one).
    They opposed abortion rights – (they lost that one).
    They opposed land rights for indigenous peoples – (they lost that one).
    Now they oppose climate change but, true to form, this is just another issue they will naturally and assuredly loose.

    This list gets the Right wrong. In fact it was the Cultural Old Right, rather than Economic Right, that opposed most of these reforms. Most of these reforms were as much liberal as Left wing. The Economic Right is usually strongly in favour of liberal immigration: cheap labour.

    But the Cultural Old Right has certainly lifted its game recently, opposing ideological insanity on both sides of politics, such as
    – Invade-the-World (Iraq-attack)
    – Invite the World (rampant unlawful immigration)
    – Indebt-the-World (borrowing to the hilt from Red China to finance irrational speculation and conspicuous consumption)

    One can run-off the same kind of shopping list of failures for the Broad Left. Not long ago it:

    – supported nationalisation of the entire economy (they lost that one)
    – supported Closed Shop unionism across-the-board (they lost that one)
    – supported appeasement of the Soviet Union foreign policy (they lost that one)
    – supported indigenous self-determination (they lost that one)
    – supported hard-core multiculturalism (they lost that one)
    – supported lenient prison sentences (they lost that one)
    – opposed state aid to religious schools (they lost that one)
    – opposed the GST (they lost that one)

    The Left lived and learned from its failures.

    Undoubtedly the Economic Right will lose on climate change. It will likewise live and learn.

  41. November 27th, 2009 at 06:30 | #41

    Also the Republicans, at least in the North of the US, took a prominent position against slavery and later in favour of Civil Rights. Nixon worked for the passage of a Civil Rights bill in 1957. As did 80% of his fellow Republicans in 1968.

    The subsequent reservations and opposition to further “rights-based agendas” that have come from the Right have been based on considerations of empirical common sense and ethical decency at the horrendous iniquities unleashed by nusto Left-liberal policies on vulnerable communities. Of which the complete anomic collapse in remote indigensous communities is only an extreme example.

    Although the Right-liberals were responsible for the same process occurring in the CIS.

    Now to deal with climate change we have an ETS, designed by liberal economists to reduce carbon emissions without taxing the economy unduly. It is designed to fail, as it has done.

    So perhaps it is the newer form of liberalism that is the problem, not so much Right or Left.

  42. Alice
    November 27th, 2009 at 09:03 | #42

    @nanks
    LOL Nanks ‘Id feel so dirty’ (know exactly what you mean but it could be fun to pose as a capital C) but Fran does have a point….delicious.

  43. observa
    November 27th, 2009 at 09:22 | #43

    “Now to deal with climate change we have an ETS, designed by liberal economists to reduce carbon emissions without taxing the economy unduly. It is designed to fail, as it has done.”

    Well Ken Davidson comes to the same conclusion as he reports the growing disquiet-

    “Australia (and other countries) would be better off with no ETS. Two recent reports – The Brave New World of Carbon Trading by Australian ecological economist, Clive L. Spash, and A Dangerous Obsession by Friends of the Earth – spell out in detail why the attempt to deal with global warming by setting up ETS schemes have already failed, why they will continue to fail and also why governments, in thrall to financial interests, continue to persevere with them.”

    Now Spash has been disciplined for breaking ranks with the lockstep Groupthinkers at CSIRO with the usual Groupspeak-
    “CSIRO has a nationally recognised role as a trusted advisor on matters of science and as such it is important that all our staff are able to fulfil their duties in an apolitical, impartial and professional manner.”
    Perhaps email that to the good folk at EAU CRU Dr Clark?

    To those rubbing their hands together at the disagreement within the Coalition generally, all I can say is I’m very surprised at some of the negative response to an ETS from friends and acquaintances I’d usually associate with the left/green side of the political spectrum. There seems to be a strong feeling that this Rudd/Turnbull chumminess on ETS is just more feelgood politics and deal making with powerful vested interest groups with no real positive outcome for the environment. You look in the comments sections of MSM articles on this and there’s a strong negativity to it all but more interesting are the repeated calls for a referendum on this. That tells me people feel disenfranchised by Rudd and Turnbull Groupthink over this and the LP rebels know it. That’s just simple democracy at work and the Groupthinkers on this issue will ignore it at their peril. My take is you wouldn’t want to fight an election on it as that ACCI survey shows. Conflating opposition to an ETS with lack of concern for the environment is pure folly IMO and that’s what the Rudd/Turnbull/MSM nexus is trying to rush and hustle the electorate along with now. I reckon it’s getting their backs up.

  44. James
    November 27th, 2009 at 09:45 | #44

    @Mark Hill

    Why a DC grid? Doesn’t that cause massive transmission losses over long distances? This seems like a red herring. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Currents#Early_transmission_analysis

    @ Jack Strocci
    It’s been repeatedly pointed out to you, with evidence, that your view of what remote indigenous communities are like is wrong, wrong, wrong.

  45. November 27th, 2009 at 09:56 | #45

    I think this is the wrong thread. Maybe not, it’s all ETS related.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current#Advantages_of_HVDC_over_AC_transmission

    This technology is solid state and did not exist in the Edison-Telsa battle.

    Remember I’m saying this should be done with the earmarked revenue of a carbon tax to make geothermal etc more viable in the context of Government owned power generation.

    I think it is fair to say it would be money better spent than the subsidies now in the CPRS or the poorly administered batt scheme.

  46. Fran Barlow
    November 27th, 2009 at 10:32 | #46

    senator.coonan
    senator.fierravanti-wells
    senator.Heffernan
    senator.payne
    senator.boyce
    senator.brandis
    senator.ian.macdonald
    senator.mason
    senator.trood
    senator.Humphries
    senator.birmingham
    senator.fisher
    senator.barnett
    senator.bushby
    senator.kroger
    senator.ronaldson
    senator.ryan
    senator.troeth
    senator.adams
    senator.cash
    senator.corman
    senator.eggleston
    senator.back

    The above senators may well move the gag to get the CPRS through or otherwise vote for it. Anyone who would like to stop the CPRS, should use the above user names followed by “@” followed by “aph.gov.au”. I suggest we find as many people to contact them to ensure that the bill is defeated.

    Enjoy

  47. Chris Warren
    November 27th, 2009 at 12:29 | #47

    OK TerjeP

    The right often reinterpret others words, to add-in convenient stupidities, instead of sensible commentary.

    Needless to say – I do not believe that “The economic right eat babies and sacrifice virgins” and what I in fact said is not, in any way, consistent with TerjeP’s eating babies and sacrificing virgins.

    If TergeP is feeling a bit vulnerable perhaps he is a “baby virgin” – I dunno?

    If that is the level of TerjeP’s discourse – then fine, but why waste others time?

  48. Chris Warren
    November 27th, 2009 at 12:55 | #48

    Jack Strocci

    Cultural right and economic right are both of the same coin.

    Your list of Broad Left is bizarre:

    1. The Broad Left never

    – supported nationalisation of the entire economy

    2. The Broad Left never

    – supported Closed Shop unionism across-the-board

    3. The Broad Left never

    – supported appeasement of the Soviet Union foreign policy

    4. The Broad Left always

    – supported indigenous self-determination and still a work-in-progress

    5. The Broad Left never

    – supported hard-core multiculturalism

    6. The Broad Left never

    – supported lenient prison sentences [This is a subjective canard]

    7. Some Broad Left

    – opposed state aid to religious schools [means testing is not opposition]

    8. The Broad Left never

    – opposed the GST as it was split on this issue. Anyway as Hewson found, it was the electorate that opposed the GST. Also Australia was forced into the GST by a rightwinger who lied to the public on this issue (saying ‘Never’) in order to get elected. We have now got rid of him.

    Maybe “Its Time” to revisit the GST issue. Why should poor people pay the same tax for a service as a millionaire? Why should all goods and services be taxed at the same rate?

  49. Fran Barlow
    November 27th, 2009 at 13:09 | #49

    I have no problem in principle with a GS&T Chris. I do believe though that the funds raised should be deployed to address the inequity of such a regressive system. If this were done consistently and coherently through the provision of quality service in kind — housing, transport, communal kitchens, public education upgrades, before and after school care at high school level, health clinics, pre-school case management etc then in effect the arrangements would be progressive as the funding would be a transfer from the middle class and above to the disadvantaged but in ways that would be difficult to rort.

  50. November 27th, 2009 at 13:59 | #50

    James@#43 November 27th, 2009 at 09:45

    @ Jack Strocci [sic]
    It’s been repeatedly pointed out to you, with evidence, that your view of what remote indigenous communities are like is wrong, wrong, wrong.

    I know, by the same kinds of knaves and fools responsible for setting up and administering that unfolding slow-motion disaster. The “evidence” they present is of similar credibility, being mainly in the nature of cover ups and smokescreens so belatedly blown by “Little Children are Sacred” report.

    If you want your credibility downgraded to “zero” keep going in that direction.

    I’ve been there a number of times. I know what my lyin’ eyes saw.

    The Church disgraced itself by covering up similar episodes of abuse as they came to light over the past generation. Left-liberal agit-props and apparats achieved an epic fail on this issue and only exacerbate the disgrace with denial.

    Left-wing Anthropological denialism is as bad for culture as Right-wing ecological denialism is for nature.

    Strocchi’s Law of Ideological Ass Symmetry

  51. Chris Warren
    November 27th, 2009 at 14:09 | #51

    Fran

    Equity is the key issue. If your feedback system was possible then I would agree.

    When the Right was in power recently they corrupted the feedback system so rich schools (eg Kings) got similar Commonwealth funding as poor schools (Mt Druitt).

    The trick was called “geo-coding”. In simple terms schools got funds according to the “home postcodes of students” not the school’s “actual resources”.

    So in the long-run we get better equity through a progressive income tax and quality services you mentioned, can still be implemented.

  52. November 27th, 2009 at 14:24 | #52

    Chris Warren@#47

    Jack Strocci [sic]
    Cultural right and economic right are both of the same coin.

    Yes that explains why the Cultural Right so enthusiastically supports Economic Right wing policies, such as the liberalisation of laws relating to porn, drugs and mass immigration.

    Oh wait a minute, that only happens in Bizzaro-land. Back in the real world the Cultural Right is actually at odds with the Economic Right on these and many other issues. Which is why the paelo-cons split from the econo-cons and neo-cons in the US.

    The Cultural Right are interested in conserving traditional identity, as received by those individuals established in high-status positions. The Economic Right are interested in getting the economically successful established in their high status positions. The two branches are frequently at odds, as witnessed by their uneasy bedfellowship in the Coalition.

    Chris Warren said:

    Your list of Broad Left is bizarre:
    1. The Broad Left never
    – supported nationalisation of the entire economy
    2. The Broad Left never
    – supported Closed Shop unionism across-the-board
    3. The Broad Left never
    – supported appeasement of the Soviet Union foreign policy
    5. The Broad Left never
    – supported hard-core multiculturalism

    Your historical memory is selective.

    The ALP still has a nationalisation clause in its platform, which it took very seriously up until 1949.

    Closed Shop unionism was widespread and widely supported right up until the 1970s. Thats why we had an Accord.

    Whitlam recognised the Soviet takeover of the Baltic States, to the enthusiastic applause of commie-symps right through out Left-land.

    The Broad Left has never criticised hard-core multiculturalism on the disreputable grounds of pas d’ennemis a gauche. Thats bad enough.

    Your distillation of history is little better than rank apologetics.

  53. Fran Barlow
    November 27th, 2009 at 14:27 | #53

    The trouble is Chris, that we still have radical differences in privilege under that system. The poroblem you specify at Kings wouldn’t be technically hard to fix. It would simply take a different political perspective — one that didn’t entail giving grants to private schools.

    If people want to send their kids to a private school, let them pay with their own money and raise their own funds. Problem solved. Then you establish a service requirement within the schoolsystem covering class sizes, teacher load, teacher training and support, welfare, physical resources per student etc and see that it is met no matter what.

  54. Alice
    November 27th, 2009 at 14:31 | #54

    @Jack Strocchi
    Jack – now I think you atre stretching it – nationalisation did not mean nationalise everything ever. And whats wrong with nationalisation where its needed?. It did us just fine for quite a few decades until the denationalise everything lot denationalised everything.

    What is this “national tell lies about the left / right day.”

  55. November 27th, 2009 at 16:41 | #55

    Pr Q said:

    Tony Abbott’s resignation must surely mark the end for Malcolm Turnbull’s leadership and therefore, in all probability, for the deal with Labor over the ETS.

    On Turnbull, FWIW I have been mightily impressed with his grace under pressure in the current political crisis. Whatever one might think of the defects and disagreements about the ETS he was handed it as a program to get through Parliament with majority consent.

    He rose to the occasion and gave his all and showed a side of his personality that most were unaware of, patriotism mixed with passionate reason. Whether he succeeds or not no one can claim he did anything less than his best.

    If he fails then the fault lies with his colleagues and their ideological associates who have behaved abominably.

    And if this ETS bill does fail and he resigns or loses the leadership then the LP can kiss goodbye to office until 2016 minimum.

  56. Chris Warren
    November 27th, 2009 at 17:06 | #56

    Jack Stocci

    Good to see how rightwingers misrepresent issues.

    ALP nationalisation is NOT of the entire economy (which was your claim)

    Closed-shop unioinism was never across the board (which was your claim)

    Whitlam’s recognition Baltic states was not appeasement (which was your claim)

    Your invocation of hard-core multiculturalism is weird, meaningless and a misrepresentation.

    If you want to discuss issues – address the issue, not your own misrepresentation.

  57. Socrates
    November 27th, 2009 at 17:14 | #57

    While I understand that this is important to some people, I don’t find this going back over old ideological struggles either interesting or helpful in understanding the current ETS policy debate. Most of the professionals I work with were born after Whitlam left office 34 years ago. The same applies even more so to some of the other issues dredged up. They are irrrelevant.

    The important point is, we are seeing the Liberals turn their back on science accepted by Margaret Thatcher 20 years ago. IMO it is electoral suicide. There were so many smarter ways they could have played it. They could have attacked the over generous industry compensation, or the leaving out of farming, or the lack of any accompanying detailed planning for transition strategies for various related infrastructure. But no, they chose a spoiling tactic instead, coming out as a bunch of anti-scientific old men. Even if their policies were credible, they are so disorganised and disunited I don’t see how they could form a government. I find this very dissappointing.

    I don’t find their economics much better than their science. References to our debt, which is still quite low, and to job losses without mentioning the job gains, is not credible. They even referred to debt with China, when we have one of our largest trade surpluses with China. Garnaut already identified the impact of an ETS, and this one is far milder than the one he proposed.

    Once the bill is defeated or formally deferred Rudd gets his ETS trigger, and he can then use it any time next year. I hope the Liberals use the chance to get some new blood into parliament. If not, we will continue to have a very poor opposition, which in the long term is a recipe for bad government too.

  58. Alice
    November 27th, 2009 at 17:14 | #58

    @Jack Strocchi
    jack says “On Turnbull, FWIW I have been mightily impressed with his grace under pressure in the current political crisis. Whatever one might think of the defects and disagreements about the ETS he was handed it as a program to get through Parliament with majority consent.”

    Thats exactly what I think and its exactly what other people are going to think and I suspect if the party tips him it will do the LP more harm in the electorates eyes than good. They are in the desert and Abbott led them there.

  59. Donald Oats
    November 27th, 2009 at 18:03 | #59

    @Alice
    Same here. Malcolm Turnbull has articulated his position with regards to why he believes the Liberal party must a) have a policy towards dealing with AGW or ACC, take your pick of favourite acronym; b) must abide by their agreement to accept the final amended form of the ETS; c) why the recent foment by Nick Minchin, Tony “The Rabbit” Abbot, et al has been self-serving rather than either to the long-term benefit of the Liberal party; d) accept that he is the leader and that he is operating at all times for the benefit of the Liberal party (and in Turnbull’s mind, by extension for the benefit of Australians), and is applying long-held Liberal processes to obtain these goals.

    In fact, I’d go so far as to say that we’ve been given some insight into how a good politician operates, as opposed to the Macchiavellian self-appointed owners of Australia and the Liberal party; that is, the standard bearers for the “Lying Rodent” neo-conservative sect. Perhaps given their repugnant repossession of the Liberal party and the repetititon of the dirty brown politics of the Lying Rodent, these Macchiavellian Mice should be called repo-neo-cons or re-neo-cons. Plenty of guts but no honour – just repeating – like a bad burger – every time they get the chance to kick someone to the ground and to clean their boots on their face.

    Whew! Guess I’m a tad unhappy with these nefarious numbskulls! And the Uber-schemer is from my state, more’s the pity.

  60. Alice
    November 27th, 2009 at 18:13 | #60

    @Donald Oats
    Don – And the uber schemer is from my locality even worse…he has a reputation in his local surf club (which he thinks he should be running autocratically) and its not a good name. I see him occasionally loudmouthing in some cafe. It isnt pretty. Kind of puts you off your cuppacino.

    and you say “as opposed to the Macchiavellian self-appointed owners of Australia and the Liberal party; that is, the standard bearers for the “Lying Rodent” neo-conservative sect.”

    Exactly. They are not getting it at all. They now have Abbott and the wilderness.

    Its goodbye Mr Abbott after this. Ive been waiting such a long time…

  61. Chris Warren
    November 27th, 2009 at 18:23 | #61

    At this stage our Mad Monk is drooling at the prospect of knifing Turnbull.

    Hockey may block him, but I want a blood stained Abbott at the head of the Liberals plus an quick double dissolution.

    Abbott and Menchin heading a Liberal Federal election campaign will be a fantastic farce and will send thousands of swinging voters towards the ALP, Greens and independents.

    Swinging voters need to really experience the uglies in the Liberal party. Up until now they have been hiding behind Turnbull.

    Turnbull may yet survive as most reasonable Liberals realise he is marketable to swinging voters, Abbott and Hockey are sitting targets.

    Australian governments are not chosen by party faithfuls.

  62. Alice
    November 27th, 2009 at 18:46 | #62

    Ha so Michin just slipped up on Kerry show on the ABC…with “Tony and I considered these matters and Tony and I”

    ahhhh sooooo..the penny drops… it was the Tony and Nick show was it? and Nick convinces Tony he can be the King for longer…as if. He was only King for a day.

  63. Alice
    November 27th, 2009 at 18:49 | #63

    If Turnbull survives this he should root out Minchin first and Abbott second in short order and squash both of them. They are yesterdays men.

  64. gerard
    November 27th, 2009 at 18:58 | #64

    Very much looking forward to “The Turnbull Diaries”

  65. November 27th, 2009 at 19:17 | #65

    Pr Q said:

    Tony Abbott’s resignation must surely mark the end for Malcolm Turnbull’s leadership and therefore, in all probability, for the deal with Labor over the ETS.

    Turnbull has to resign before Hockey will mount a challenge. I dont think that Turnbull is ready to fall on his sword to humor the delusionists. The Australian reports on “Malcom’s Last Stand”:

    MALCOLM Turnbull has told his lieutenants he will not stand down and the looming leadership contest could force MPs to choose between him and Tony Abbott.

    While Turnbull supporters say the “Plan B” is a unity ticket involving Joe Hockey and Peter Dutton, Mr Hockey has indicated to supporters he does not want to challenge the leader and will put his name forward only if he stands aside.

    But a defiant Mr Turnbull is determined to pass the government’s emissions trading scheme legislation and honour his agreement with Labor.

    Refusing to go quietly, Mr Turnbull is challenging the party to blast him out. “I will not step down. I’ll stay leader until the party room removes me as leader,” he told the Seven Network.

    Hockey will have to back-track on his loyalty oath to the Leader. At this stage I am not prepared to rule this out, but really, what next – the Spanish Inquisition?

    That means that Abbott will throw his hat in the ring against Turnbull. I ask you, who would you like to run the nations largest company: Malcolm or Tony?

    If the LP vote Abbot it is committing conscious and premeditated electoral suicide. Just like the ALP of old!

    I had time for Abbott until recently. Not any more.

  66. November 27th, 2009 at 19:18 | #66

    Webmaster

    could you please close the italic html tags on the Australian quote?

    thanks

  67. nanks
    November 27th, 2009 at 19:57 | #67

    over the weekend, cold light of day and all that, Abbott won’t look so pretty

  68. Alice
    November 27th, 2009 at 20:01 | #68

    @nanks
    Abbot is just a nasty arrogant narcissist, easily flattered. The real puppet master in this plot was Minchin.

  69. Alice
    November 27th, 2009 at 20:03 | #69

    JQ was right – Minchin isnt stupid at all but he is a denialist fruit loop just the same.

  70. November 27th, 2009 at 20:17 | #70

    Now the plot thickens as Hockey “considers his options” in preparation to renege on his agreement to support Turnbull.

    The rats are squabbling over who will captain the sinking ship.

  71. November 27th, 2009 at 20:31 | #71

    Put another way: if the LP dumps Turnbull for a climate change denialist or delayer then the LP will be thrashed at the next election which will inevitably lead to the long foretold split in the Right wing.

    It will mark the end of Menzies creation. All for less than nothing.

    More than that, one can say goodbye to effective accountability for the time being.

    With a hopelessly divided and delusional Opposition facing the ALP holding five state, two territorial and federal governments for probably a decade it spells the evolution of a one-party state.

    The LP are stark raving mad if they think they can somehow muddle through this quagmire.

  72. Alice
    November 27th, 2009 at 20:40 | #72

    @Jack Strocchi
    Jack – I dont want to disillusion you but Menzies creation died quite some time ago. Thats the major problem with modern LP. Of course Hockey is trying to work out how he can play this one and I suspect how he can work out how to support the ETS as well…but its not dumb of Hockey to ask the party to tweet him on what their ETS stand is. He wants to count for or against.

  73. paul walter
    November 28th, 2009 at 00:12 | #73

    The last dozen post here are pretty fair, but I’d accept, no problems, that the Tory ( and we CAN call it “Tory”, now ) party is in fact in the process of a vicious purge of those not au fait with certain dogmatic views, something begun by Howard in the eighties. Hence the necessity not only to drive Turnbull and his shrinking bunch of reformers out, but to demonise him thru the Murdoch press as somehow being the cause of the current problems, rather than the ultraist intransigent backstabbers whose shamefulbehaviour is stillbefore us courtesy ofpublic media, who are reacting to hormones, pathology, bloodlust, etc- anything rather than clear thinking.
    Look at the sorts of creature involved in this sort of movement.
    Matthias Cormann; straight out of a history book on John Calvin and apartheid, Corey Bernardi, Minchin, Abbott himself, Fierravanti Wells and influential fellow travellers outside parliament like Shanahan and Miranda Devine, who have their sinecure of a virtual “rotten borough” provided by Nurdoch rather thanobtained thru public consent or personal ability (Van Onselen seems another one, just into that fold)
    I feel like I’m re reading Stendahl’s classic “Scarlett and the Black”, set in the reactionary clericist France of the eighteen thirties; what should have been and until recently was, the true heyday of what we might today refer to as “Opus Dei” politics.
    Make no mistake: some of these nutters actually seek a theocratic dictatorship. Some one on teev tonight described this using a parallel term; “Talibanisation” when it comes to the coalition.

  74. Freelander
    November 28th, 2009 at 01:17 | #74

    @paul walter

    Yes. I agree ‘some of these nutters actually seek a theocratic dictatorship’. Personally, I like to call them the Pelliban after their liberal leader, their Ayatollah, Big George.

  75. paul walter
    November 28th, 2009 at 01:48 | #75

    Looks they are retreating inwards. Minchin and co want the gaze of public opinion off their lot, asap, as the dissasemblng of Van Onselen tonight indicated. Then they get on with a “night of the long knives” along the lines of
    Howard twenty years ; the instigation of a pogrom of dissidents ( any one who thinks differently to them ).
    “Silence of the Lambs?
    Not that Labor people can be happy, after similar purges of independent thinkers also over the last twenty years.

  76. paul walter
    November 28th, 2009 at 02:17 | #76

    One last comment ( should be at “lunatics” thread as a continuance of Freelander and myself’s conversation about Abbott’s pathology )
    After quickly consigning Turnbull to the dust bin of history because of Grech,
    Guy Rundle reckons that the elevation of Abbott to rebuild the libs ignores the reality that the electorate regards Abbott as “a prick”. I include following in light of a previous conversation with Freelander, re the Abbott pathology.
    Rundle continues:
    ” … The Banton stuff, the teenage (non) paternity case, the RU 486 sleaziness, the Pauline Hanson stitch-up, the excess aggressiveness he shows toward female opponents; they all ring alarm bells, especially with women voters”.
    I don’t think this has been a sorted-out lad, at all, particularly if that alleged homophobia during seminary days is also true.

  77. Alice
    November 28th, 2009 at 05:28 | #77

    @paul walter
    Pauls says “and we CAN call it “Tory”, now ?”

    Well only in the sense that mature aristocracies after a few hundred years of close association and natural genetic evolution tend to end up stark raving mad.

  78. November 28th, 2009 at 19:39 | #78

    Pr Q said:

    Rudd’s preferred scenario: Turnbull holds on long enough to deliver seven senate votes tomorrow and pass the watered-down ETS. He is promptly rolled and the Liberal party splits. Abbott as new leader, starts with a commitment to repeal the scheme, but abandons it because this is the last thing big business wants. Labor reduces the divided opposition to rump status at the next election, and ends up dealing with three or four different parties in the Senate, needing only one to get its legislation through.

    That accords with my (hastily revised post-bedlam) prediction. Prior to that I have repeatedly predicted that Turnbull will prevail in both ETS policy and LP leadership politics. I think he will fall over the line, presumably exhausted.

    The LP rebels have no electable candidate. The delusionists have the whole weekend to ruefully regret last weeks bender. It only needs a dozen or so to start having buyers remorse when a candidate like Tony Abbot is on offer.

    I predict that Hockey will NOT stand for leader of the LP. I dont think he fancies sipping delusionist Kool Aid from the post-Turnbull LP’s poisoned chalice. It’s way to early to sing out Hey Joe…

    The revolt has no legs. It represents a majority of the base but a minority of the LP primary vote. And a dramatically smaller minority of the LP’s total potential vote catchment area. It will also be opposed by LP donors and interest groups who have invested heavily in keeping the generous concessions extracted out of Rudd.

    I am unsure of the electoral math for the half-Senate election. But surely another big 54/46 TPP victory for the ALP in the 2010 election will allow it to rule outright in the next Parliament? Therefore obviating the need for “dealing with three or four different parties in the Senate”. It will be able to get its legislation through on its own numbers, no?

    Or will the ALP have to deal with the Greens holding the balance of power. That was Anthony Green’s prediction, made way back in the halcyon days of JUL 09.

  79. Alice
    November 28th, 2009 at 19:45 | #79

    @Jack Strocchi
    Buyers remorse – its called cognitive dissonance.

  80. Alice
    November 28th, 2009 at 19:50 | #80

    Hey Jack – sorry no ref to politics or economics but you just mentioned a great song…

    Hey Joe, where you goin’ with that gun in your hand
    Hey Joe, I said where you goin’ with that gun in your hand
    I’m going down to shoot my old lady
    You know, I’ve caught her messin’ around with another man

Comments are closed.