Home > Oz Politics > Three at one stroke

Three at one stroke

December 1st, 2009

Turnbull defeated, Hockey discredited, Abbott doomed.

Looking at Turnbull’s impressive stand, and Abbott’s disastrous press conference, I bet there is at least one Lib who would change their vote if the ballot could be brought on again.

Categories: Oz Politics Tags:
  1. December 1st, 2009 at 10:34 | #1

    More likely, the Bolshevik eTs is doomed.

  2. iain
    December 1st, 2009 at 10:35 | #2

    You can hear the Labor messaging machine already gearing up. The messaging based on workchoices (alone) will be something to watch.

    You could see Abbott physically cringe when Bishop mentioned maintaining emissions targets.

  3. 2 tanners
    December 1st, 2009 at 10:52 | #3

    In terms of who’d change their votes, particularly the one who voted informal.

    Turnbull sunk by cowardice.

  4. snuh
    December 1st, 2009 at 11:16 | #4

    speaking of people who’d like to be able to change their minds, i bet labor is regretting not nominating a candidate for those 2 by-elections this weekend. in the current climate a drovers dog could have led them to victory in both of those seats.

  5. gianni
    December 1st, 2009 at 11:26 | #5

    Tony Abbott did the electorate a real service today. By calling for a secret ballot on whether to accept or delay/reject the ETS before the Senate, Tony Abbott has ensured the public has a clear understanding of where the parliamentary Liberal Party really stands on climate change policy.

    Protected by anonymity of the secret ballot, the Liberal parliamentarians were free to express their real view, and the 54-39 vote shows a strong plurality in favour of inaction. The reasons may be varied (denialism, objection to cap and trade, preference for a carbon tax, opposition to a carbon tax, whatever) but the outcome — inaction — is the same as that sought by Nick Minchin/Tony Abbott wing of the party.

  6. Jim Birch
    December 1st, 2009 at 11:29 | #6

    Liberal policies are now based on the alternate science of Intelligent Warming.

  7. gianni
    December 1st, 2009 at 11:32 | #7

    Oops, broken link. The vote was 54 – 29.

  8. TerjeP (say tay-a)
    December 1st, 2009 at 11:33 | #8

    Polls suggest that most Australians favour a delay so it is hardly radical that the opposition votes for a delay.

  9. Chris Warren
    December 1st, 2009 at 11:34 | #9

    The upper-class Jesuits have moved-in on the Liberal Party and have placed their blood-soaked monkey on the tiller (for now).

    They will now head off into the wilderness.

  10. David Allen
    December 1st, 2009 at 11:43 | #10

    Some questions.

    1. If the vote last week was not to change the leadership, what changed in two days so that a new vote was needed?
    2. Is today’s vote irrelevant in two days as well? Why not have a vote every week?
    3. The mainstream media was wrong again. Turnbull doomed. Hockey will win. Abbot, haha, etc. Will anyone own up?
    4. Can you respect anyone who says “It’s time to get behind the leader” five minutes after stabbing the current leader in the back?
    5. Is Jule Bishop just a “good girl”? Bet she loved that line.
    6. Will the lib voters of Higgins vote for Kelly O’Dwyer if they want action on climate change?

  11. Chris O’Neill
    December 1st, 2009 at 11:46 | #11

    ALP partisan:

    Yes, yes, yes. Oh happy day.

  12. Cavitation
    December 1st, 2009 at 11:49 | #12

    I think you are being too hard. This was a good outcome for Turnbull (apart from an actual win). Remember this situation is his original game plan, to position himself for leadership after the next election. His taking the party into the next election as leader and losing badly would probably have been suicidal. Now he can sit on the backbench, learn from his past mistakes, and become leader again in a year’s time. His loss today, in these circumstances, should help his re-election in his Wentworth seat too, a task not easy in the landslide loss that is shaping up for the Liberals at the next election.

    It’s Peacock/Howard all over again. Turnbull is still the Liberal’s heir apparent; he lost just by one vote today, and the two new members from the coming by-elections, and the member missing today, would probably go to him. When these new members appear, Turnbull, or at least the non-Abbott fans, will have more supporters than Abbott does. A one vote win, is no win at all, if history is any guide.

    Hockey will find he will not suffer from missing out today. Abbott is the big loser. He seems to have been blindsided; his wife wasn’t there, and his speech was not prepared. He managed to confuse the situation further at his press conference. At least now the conservatives have to put up or shut up. You’d almost think Turnbull and Hockey got the best result out of all this mess.

  13. Donald Oats
    December 1st, 2009 at 11:55 | #13

    WorkFarts II, No ETS, Intelligent Design in public schools, indefinite detention for boat-arrival asylum seekers (record 7 years so far), issuance of an UN-SORRY, no welfare for single mums (they should have just said no), no welfare for the unemployed (they should have got a job), no disability benefits for the disabled (shouldn’t have got hit by a drunk driver, then, should you?) repeal of Medicare Act (back to the 70s), no right to decide for women, no stem cell research if an embryo is involved, more religious thoughtleaders in public schools etc. Looking forward to it, bring it on Tones, bring it on. Forget voluntary euthanasia for those that really need the option to be there. Come on, Tony, bring it on.

    PS: All that talk about being collegial – look it up in the dictionary. Fitting really.

  14. Chris Warren
    December 1st, 2009 at 12:04 | #14

    Internal Server Error

    The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.

    Please contact the server administrator, [email protected] and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.

    More information about this error may be available in the server error log.

  15. Monkey’s Uncle
    December 1st, 2009 at 12:05 | #15

    The funny thing is that if Hockey had survived the first ballot, he would probably have beaten Abbott in the second ballot.

    So the Liberals are now stuck with a leader with little electoral appeal, when even the majority of the party may well have opted for the alternative but were hampered by procedural limitations.

  16. Chris Warren
    December 1st, 2009 at 12:43 | #16

    Sad to say, but the Libs may soon get rid of their monkey. 2 more liberals are likely to enter the fray, and this will reinstate the old balance between the Liberal moderates and Catholic uglies.

    I do not know if the newcomers are Catholics too, so lets assume they are honest and independent.

    Maybe Abbott is a mere caretaker until the party Room returns to full strength.

    If Rudd really cares for the globe he will pursue the legislation by heading directly to a Joint Sitting (via a double dissolution) despite the problems a DD would include.

    A joint sitting is the only thing that can fix this mess.

    Who would you vote for: Rudd with his shiny halo, or a blood-soaked Monkey?

  17. wilful
    December 1st, 2009 at 14:17 | #17

    Bolshevik? Not much of a student of history, are you, Tony G ?

    Terje, I think the opposition voted for no ETS at all just then. Which is quite the opposite of the polls.

  18. Monkey’s Uncle
    December 1st, 2009 at 14:44 | #18

    So everyone agrees with me that Hockey was the Condorcet winner today?

  19. Alice
    December 1st, 2009 at 15:06 | #19

    One of Rudd’s massive advantages right now is Abbott (in person with puppet master Michin attached to the string controls).

    Doesnt get any better than this. Come on Rudd….cut the strings…they are threadbare enough a it is…Id like to see the back of Abbott and me thinks he has just walked the plank.

  20. El Mono
    December 1st, 2009 at 15:57 | #20

    Why do i get the feeling that I am gonna be bombed next wee kat mass. Dear Liberals, please stick to Protestant leaders.

  21. El Mono
    December 1st, 2009 at 16:46 | #21

    Donald Oats :WorkFarts II, No ETS, Intelligent Design in public schools, indefinite detention for boat-arrival asylum seekers (record 7 years so far), issuance of an UN-SORRY, no welfare for single mums (they should have just said no), no welfare for the unemployed (they should have got a job), no disability benefits for the disabled (shouldn’t have got hit by a drunk driver, then, should you?) repeal of Medicare Act (back to the 70s), no right to decide for women, no stem cell research if an embryo is involved, more religious thoughtleaders in public schools etc. Looking forward to it, bring it on Tones, bring it on. Forget voluntary euthanasia for those that really need the option to be there. Come on, Tony, bring it on.
    PS: All that talk about being collegial – look it up in the dictionary. Fitting really.

    Not that anyone cares I would just like to seperate the teachings of Tony Abbot and those of the church. The church is pro action on claimate change (except population control), anti mandatory detention, pro apology and land rights for native Autralians, pro teaching evolution in science class rooms, pro justice for the poor including welfare for the out of work, single mums and disbaled; Medicare and Workers rights (i.e the Majority of the church was against work choices). So the only things that is particualrly Catholic about Abbott is his position on Abortion and Euthanasia (and i am guessing Homosexual Marriage rights)

    And if anyone knew anything about the Jesuits you would know they allmost certainly all vote Greens now a days.

  22. Michael
    December 1st, 2009 at 17:39 | #22

    @El Mono
    The Catholic church mirrors the liberal party quite well. You have a small group of out of touch white males trying to hold onto the past whilst the world moves on. George Pell is most likely overcome with ecstasy.

  23. paul walter
    December 1st, 2009 at 17:45 | #23

    Monkeys Uncle, depends on how things play out?
    Abbott could end up in as much strife as Condorcet, having caused so much strife getting to where he’s got: If he doesn’t come up trumps and they treat him like other rejected leaders, he’ll wish he was Condorcet!

  24. Alice
    December 1st, 2009 at 17:56 | #24

    So abbotts the leader?? Its time for the DD. Women hate him because of his white chritian male backward views o abortion (get your rosaries off our ovaries Abbott!!!!). The pro ETS hate him…time to move and whipe this narcissiistic idiot leader out. Time. Time now Rudd. JH and his lientenants into the garbage bin of history. Abbott has his five mins of sun elected from a dysfunctial bunch of losers…go for the jugular. Abbott has Buckleys. Bring the DD forward and slaughter the idiots.

  25. Alice
    December 1st, 2009 at 17:57 | #25

    So abbotts the leader?? Its time for the DD. Women hate him because of his white chritian male backward views o abortion (get your rosaries off our ovaries Abbott!!!!). The pro ETS hate him…time to move and whipe this narcissiistic idiot leader out. Time. Time now Rudd. JH and his lientenants into the garbage bin of history. Abbott has his five mins of sun elected from a dysfunctial bunch of losers…go for the jugular. Abbott has Buckleys. Bring the DD forward and slaughter the idiots.

  26. Alice
    December 1st, 2009 at 17:59 | #26

    oops – double post but iIsay to Rudd – move in straight for the carotid artery of the libs. They are dead anyway electing Abbott. They must be dreaming.

  27. Donald Oats
    December 1st, 2009 at 18:12 | #27

    @El Mono
    All good points. For the record, as the temperature might rise on this topic as it is discussed further, I am in possession of several Catholic friends, whose opinions span quite a range on the issues mentioned. Intelligent Design is something that not one of them countenance. Managing the number of kiddies in the family is probably where I depart most from them.

    Still, Tony “The Rabbit” Abbott doesn’t have a distinguished record of enlightened views on the topics I raised. Unless your surname is Pell, in which case it is all good.

  28. paul walter
    December 1st, 2009 at 18:24 | #28

    Was just at SMH where Michael Pascoe reports sardonically that the new opposition leader has been already caught out on “his first big lie”. Something to do with interest rates, but want to watch ABC news (Adelaide time), so will say no more for now.
    God help us if I missed an irony alert, sharing this.

  29. Donald Oats
    December 1st, 2009 at 19:04 | #29

    Saw him on 7:30 report. This is going to take some getting used to :-P

  30. robert
    December 1st, 2009 at 19:20 | #30

    I agree with Donald Oats. How about we nix the anti-Catholic rhetoric, whatever our own religious beliefs are, and whatever our views upon the unlovely Mr Abbott.

    For far too much of its history, Australian life was plagued by malice between those Protestants who thought all Catholic priests raped penitents in the confession booth; and on the other hand those Catholics who thought that Satan designed Masonic aprons so that his own tail could be undisturbed at the back. I say, enough already with the sectarianism.

  31. Alice
    December 1st, 2009 at 19:47 | #31

    @robert
    Hey Donald – so Tony wore a red uniform on the school bus eh? Sounds like a blast from a water pistol or a rolled up wad of wet toilet paper as a missile is is the appropriate order of events to me…..

  32. El Mono
    December 1st, 2009 at 20:16 | #32

    @Michael
    Plenty of out of touch Hispanic, Asian and black males as well

  33. SJ
    December 1st, 2009 at 21:22 | #33

    robert Says: How about we nix the anti-Catholic rhetoric, whatever our own religious beliefs are, and whatever our views upon the unlovely Mr Abbott.

    Fine by me, as long as we’re not thereby nixing anti-”right wing religious loony” rhetoric. Because these people do exist. Abbott’s one of them, and as Donald Oats points out, so is Cardinal Pell. At least from my point of view, as a nominal Catholic.

  34. Freelander
    December 1st, 2009 at 21:42 | #34

    Religious tolerance was all about one set of crazy people not pointing out that another set of crazy people are crazy (that is, given the propensity of different religions to kill people who didn’t belong to their brand of craziness, atheists introduced them to the idea that they shouldn’t criticise each other, because this inevitably led to mass murder). That is not to say that those who are not crazy should be so constrained. Nevertheless, there are Christians and Catholics whose words and behaviour can be tolerated because they are relatively harmless. Neither Pell nor Abbott nor JP II or Benedict belong to this group. Their views and behaviour should definitely not be tolerated. They are not tolerant, in fact, they spend much of their time quietly fomenting. They are also into ‘dog whistle’ preaching. For example, as it is no longer socially acceptable to engage in gay bashing in public, now one talks of ‘protecting the institution of marriage between a man and a woman’.

  35. El Mono
    December 1st, 2009 at 22:01 | #35

    So on this note I will leave you all to it, but i would just like to I am a Devout, benedict 16 loving Catholic, but i think Abbott is a dick.

  36. Freelander
    December 1st, 2009 at 22:07 | #36

    @El Mono
    No problem. He is. But so is Benedict.

  37. paul walter
    December 2nd, 2009 at 05:29 | #37

    Donald Oats:”Saw him on 7.30 Report. This is going to take some getting used to”.
    Wait ’till you get an idea of what to expect per the Defined Miranda, after the guff in the latest column.

  38. paul walter
    December 2nd, 2009 at 06:04 | #38

    Now that we have an Abbott Bishop leadership, some may prefer to contemplate a prospective rise in Deaconite liberalism?

    BTW, a reader at Quiggin would note a couple of comments above; re Catholic-bashing.
    But I don’t think it’s Catholicism or Christianity as a whole that’s despised, so much as its colonisation and politicisation from the Right, in particular in conservative or feudal nations in places like Latin and South America, on behalf of the powers that be there.
    Here the high prieshood is derived from the landed or ruling classes and performs a political role in the legitimisation of the Status Quo. Likewise the sense of interference from what Stendahl would call the “ultras” into Western politics, also involving shadowy and politicised units like Opus Dei.
    Those of us who dislike reactionary Catholic conservatism and its funny ideas about family planning and feudalism, for example, actually respect people like the late Archbishop Romero of El Salvador, murdered by ruling class fascists in the ‘eighties for siding with the masses instead of doing the normal job of boostering the status quo for the rich landed classes.
    With Romero and other practitioners of Liberation Theology, we recall a healthy side of Catholicism that is both most respected and follows most closely the Gospels, with their message of care, advocacy and resistance from and for the masses, culminating in the conviction showed with the Crucifixion and subsequent martyrdoms.
    That’s a long distance from Cardinal’s palaces and the retreat into isolation from the daily experiences of the poor.

  39. December 2nd, 2009 at 06:57 | #39

    THE LP’s MARTYRDOM OPERATION

    Before the recent political upheavals the LP had five things going for them or at least not going against them:

    1. An unchallenged leader, the most capable man in parliament;
    2. A party that appeared to generally believe in the reality of climate change;
    3. A commitment to some sort of CPRS in principle;
    4. A generous concession package on the ETS bill negotiated by the shadow cabinet;
    5. A somewhat improved position in relation to the ALP in the polls.

    After the recent upheavals the ALP had five things going against them:
    1. A shaky leader with a reputation for erratic or extreme views;
    2. A party that appeared to be deeply split on the reality climate change;
    3. Total confusion on the form and timing of climate change mitigation policies;
    4. Lost concession package on the ETS, thereby damaging donors and interest groups;
    5. A hopeless position in the polls.

    Nick Minchin, I hope the 72 virgins waiting to greet you in delusionist Heaven are worth it.

  40. December 2nd, 2009 at 15:49 | #40

    SJ said;

    “Fine by me, as long as we’re not thereby nixing anti-”right wing religious loony” rhetoric. Because these people do exist. Abbott’s one of them, and as Donald Oats points out, so is Cardinal Pell. At least from my point of view, as a nominal Catholic.”

    There are plenty of loony catholics, especially on the left, like hitler was in the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. He was a control freak like the loony left on this site, who don’t a stuff that their loony eTs wont reduce carbon emissions, as long as it will give them more control. Pity they are not smart enough to get the trains to run on time as well.

  41. Alice
    December 2nd, 2009 at 16:55 | #41

    @Tony G
    They cant get the trains to run on time because of lunatic free marketers Tony…. in case you hadnt noticed. I dont care what church they go to…they worship in the temple of chaos. Vote liberal if you want more “loony left control stuff” because they are better at it and even less likely to get the trains to run on time. Jeez my patience wears thin with nuisances like Tony G who cant see the bleeding obvious if you clubbed them over the head with it.

    All you can do is shout “wake up Tony” which sounds like a Wiggles tune to me….

  42. Alicia
    December 2nd, 2009 at 17:01 | #42

    Climate denialists who are Catholic males also tend to be denialists of Catholic clerical abuse of children.

    What has Abbott ever said on this matter? Nothing I bet.

  43. Alice
    December 2nd, 2009 at 17:57 | #43

    @Alicia
    Nothing.

  44. SJ
    December 2nd, 2009 at 20:04 | #44

    Just as a point of fact, Mussolini never actually did get the trains running on time, but as a fscist dictator, was able to lie and claim that they did. Gullible right wing morons don’t seem to be able to understand this. They also don’t seem to be able to understand that Hitler might have been lying when he claimed to be a socialist. But, then, what would the world be without gullible right wing morons?

    I know, I know, “a better place” is the obvious answer…

  45. December 2nd, 2009 at 21:10 | #45

    Alice, I dont vote or worship as ‘all creeds and parties are created equal’ and like me, equal the depiction in my link.

    SJ said;
    “Hitler might have been lying when he claimed to be a socialist.”

    Lying would make him a socialist. Just like the socialists around here are lying about the eTs’s ability to reduce carbon emissions.

  46. SJ
    December 2nd, 2009 at 21:27 | #46

    Tony, I think we all get the point that you’re trying to make, i.e., that you’re a complete nutbag. Consider the matter closed and move on.

  47. Freelander
    December 2nd, 2009 at 21:29 | #47

    @SJ

    I wasn’t aware that anyone thought Mussolini got trains running on time. I thought trains running on time was more of a German thing?

    I am surprised that Mr G thinks Hitler was on the left. If so, why was he so beloved of capitalists and the right? (And, if truth be told, still beloved.) The brown shirts had a socialist bent, and he didn’t let them last long after they had served their purpose.

  48. Donald Oats
    December 2nd, 2009 at 22:45 | #48

    @Tony G
    Tony, Tony, Tony. Enough Godwin’s Law already.

  49. December 3rd, 2009 at 10:34 | #49

    Don, Godwin has socialist tendencies, so of course he is going to come up with crap like Godwin’s Law to defend his ideology.

    What is clear is hitler was left wing when he start, what he became later on is s anyones guess, but it was the result of him getting in with ‘do good big government knows best policies’ that started the mess.
    .

    Regardless, Hitler got into power saying society needs me and my socialist policies (see the 25 point program), and in keeping with the socialist modus operandi, once in control he expanded into big government and then he got drunk with the power and turned into a despot. That is what socialists do, they evolve into big government and stuff society; that is why I am vehemently against big governments and the left ideology of expanding government.

  50. Freelander
    December 3rd, 2009 at 12:07 | #50

    @Tony G

    What complete nonsense.

    You do realise you are just making this stuff as you go along? Hitler got into power via the German electorate opting for his ‘socialist reform agenda’? Do you know anything at all about the Nazi party’s rise to power?

    “once in control … then he got drunk with the power … turned into a despot” Really? That’s the way it all happened? He was transformed by assuming the mantle? That’s original, why don’t you write it up and put it in a book? You really need to set everyone right on the topic.

    Earth to Tony… Flat earth to Tony… Intelligently warming flat earth to Tony….

  51. Fran Barlow
    December 3rd, 2009 at 12:39 | #51

    Tony G does his own weird version of the no true scotsman fallacy

    SJ said;
    “Hitler might have been lying when he claimed to be a socialist.”

    Tony G suggested

    Lying would make him a socialist.

    So if he says he’s a socialist but he is lying, the lying alone is a sufficient qualification for socialism.

    This reminds me of a piece from The Life of Brian

    Brian: I’m not the Messiah! Will you please listen? I am not the Messiah, do you understand? Honestly!
    Girl: Only the true Messiah denies His divinity.
    Brian: What? Well, what sort of chance does that give me? All right! I am the Messiah!
    Followers: He is! He is the Messiah!

  52. December 3rd, 2009 at 13:17 | #52

    Fran;
    “So if he says he’s a socialist but he is lying, the lying alone is a sufficient qualification for socialism.”

    Considering everybody lies at some point, pathological lying is the qualification need.

    Socialists promise the earth and deliver nothing; Similar to the pathological lie of saying the eTs is going to reduce carbon emissions.

    Freelander;

    Is it your assertion that the ‘25-point plan” was not a socialist agenda and Hitler did rise to power promoting that platform?

    And ypu said;

    “He was transformed by assuming the mantle? That’s original, why don’t you write it up and put it in a book?”

    I do not have to write on it, Lord Acton already has…it goes something like this.. “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”

  53. Ian Gould
    December 4th, 2009 at 00:10 | #53

    Tony G :

    Lying would make him a socialist. Just like the socialists around here are lying about the eTs’s ability to reduce carbon emissions.

    So Tony what are we to make of your repeated claims that the Rudd government had “banned solar cells”?

  54. Freelander
    December 4th, 2009 at 04:36 | #54

    Tony G :Freelander;
    Is it your assertion that the ‘25-point plan” was not a socialist agenda and Hitler did rise to power promoting that platform?
    I do not have to write on it, Lord Acton already has…

    Hitler probably also rose to power brushing his teeth. Whether he rose to power simply because he brushed his teeth is another matter.

    I wasn’t aware that Lord Acton wrote a [non-fiction] novel and original book on Hitler’s rise to power and how Hitler changed once in power. Could you give me a reference to the Acton book?
    Given that Acton died in 1902 it must be a remarkable book. I look forward to reading it.

  55. December 4th, 2009 at 23:13 | #55

    Ian, stop treating me like a dog and rubbing my nose in it, I have already apologised for slightly exaggerating on the issue of Ruddd restricting subsidies for solar panels, something which Rudd restricts.

    Freelander, are you saying that hitler wasn’t “transformed by assuming the mantle?” Now “That’s original,” disagreeing with Actons assertion that “all power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely” says something about you, as Acton’s statement is clearly something that applied to Hitler.

Comments are closed.