Skip navigation

This is Part 3 of my “Uninformed Speculation” series on the 2019 Federal Election. The other two parts being Why Rob Oakshott Will Be Speaker In The 46th Parliament Of Australia” and Why Tanya Plibersek Will Be Dumped For Nikki Savvas As Deputy Labor Leader”.

As I write on Federal Election Eve, all the polls consistently say that Labor will win with 51.5% of the 2PP vote. My prediction is that the ALP will gain a little less than that vote share but still win enough seats to form a minority government holding 74 of the 151 seats and govern with the support of two Greens plus Rob Oakeshott and Andrew Wilkie.

Here’s how the election issues have panned out:

Bill Shorten’s Personality  

Will not influence votes. Morrison relentlessly harped on about the horror of Shorten’s  unlikeability but in the end Shorten has come out well.

Noting his significant lead in the “Preferred Prime Minister” ratings, Morrison tried to make the election into a beauty content between Shorten and himself. To this end, Morrison insisted on having three one-on-one debates with Morrison, aiming to force Shorten into the spotlight and exposing Shorten’s supposed personality deficiencies as starkly as possible to the voting public. Morrison also hoped to KO Shorten in these debates using his own superior communication skills, mental agility and innate aggression.

To the surprise of most, Shorten carried himself well through the debates with the live audiences rating Shorten the winner of the first debate and scoring the other two as draws. Shorten proved effective at being able to engage audiences on his agenda and, in contrast to his reputation for being a wooden communicator, was often able to connect at a personal and empathetic level with the listeners. Conversely, Morrison, while definitely a far more assured communicator and having excellent recall of debating points and figures that he wished to quote, often came across as scripted and abstract, more of a political machine rather than a real human being. Oftentimes Morrison seems to operate in an endless jabber-mode kind of a non-stop hyper-charged babble much like Kevin Rudd with a short-circuit and the volume amped to 11. 

Here, for fun, is Annabel Crabb’s original description of The Ruddbot:

 Ruddbot, our “first android prime minister” with a Muppet-inspired smile…

There are essential triggers hard-wired into the Ruddbot cortex. Ask the android machine about the number of union officials on its front bench and it will also promptly divert into a charming reverie about a rock star, an academic and a Mandarin-speaking diplomat. Include a reference to Mark Latham in a question, and it will reply “I am not aware of those reports.” Ask it any difficult question and it has been programmed to reply by asking itself several of its own. It will then answer them all with mechanical precision.

In the end, the final Leader’s Debate was quite boring as it was apparent before it started that Shorten was Morrison’s equal in the debates and that no conclusive victory would be gained by either man. Morrison appears to lack his usual energy, seemingly resigned to being unable to KO Shorten. For his part Shorten seemed to have the glow of a man who, to his own amazement, survived a test he felt sure would overcome him.

In the debates, Morrison was hamstrung by being unable to unleash the full force of his aggression as the Christchurch Shooting tragedy which occurred just prior to the start of the election campaign made snarling aggression, a common feature of Morrison’s communication, distasteful in the public mind, forcing Morrison to curtail this instinct of his and robbing him of a natural advantage.

Towards the end of the campaign, Newscorp made an ill-considered attack on Bill Shorsten vis-a-vis his mother. Public revulsion at this tactic provoked sympathy for Shorten and a considerable improvement in his personal approval ratings, much to the chagrin of Newscorp and whichever executive gave approval to this distasteful over-reach.

Galilee Basin Coal Mines (Adani)

Important in Queensland. Labor’s luke-warm toleration of Adani imperils jobs in central Queensland and means that the Coalition will retain all their Queensland rural marginals and gain the seat of Herbert. But the city/country divide means that Brisbane Metro seats will lack the same affect and align with the general national swing of 1.5% toward the ALP.

Big Tax Scare Campaign

Has not cut through. The polls show only a minimal narrowing of the polls toward the incumbent LNP Coalition government since the campaign began. Indeed, the lack of movement in the polls indicates that no issue has particularly cut through from either side. Voters made up their minds before the campaign began and have not changed their views since.

Fundamentally, the disunity of the government over the last five years convinced the electorate that a change is required.

Caveat: Even now, 24 hrs before voting there are a great many undecideds out there. On Saturday Morning the phrase “Big Scary Tax” in the newspapers or at the polling booth could easily push that needful 1.5% Morrison’s way.

Franking Credits

Will not affect votes. This issue created a lot of heated talk but in the end this issue does not affect many people. Only self-supported retirees who do not receive a pension are affected by this measure and only a small sub-set of those.

The Franking Credits issue in the end merely energised rusted-on Liberal voters who would never swing to Labor anyway.

Other pensioners did fall for Morrison’s scare campaign initially but if this has changed voting intention then it is not reflected in the polls.

Negative Gearing

Will not affect votes. Like all the tax issues, endlessly hammered by Morrison, but did not cut through if the polls are correct.

Shorten’s appeal to fairness appears to have neutralised Morrison’s “price crash, rent spike” rhetoric. Shorten has been arguing the case for Negative Gearing for at least three years now. I think the issue is now familiar to the voters and has lost its heat.

For those interested, here is the research showing that the concept that Keating’s abolition of  Negative Gearing in 1985 caused a rental spike is a myth.

Climate Change

Will not change seats. I thought Morrison did very well at arguing his case that the Liberals have done enough on Climate Change. But Shorten did produce a great cut-through line on this in the second Leader’s debate. Whilst Morrison was eulogising the LNP achievement of meeting Kyoto and Paris Agreement Carbon targets, Shorten intejected to note that Australian Carbon emissions are higher than they ever were  and said  “Typical Surgeon’s response – the operation was a complete success but the patient died”

The Climate Change issue has shifted voters in some safe Liberal voting seats but not many in marginal seats. Some,  but not many.

I think Shorten made the tactically correct call not to give a total cost to his Carbon Abatement policy. I think Shorten has correctly judged that general community sentiment is present for Climate Abatement and so there is not pressing insistence that this policy be comprehensively costed. Giving a definitive cost to Carbon Abatement would merely have handed Morrison with another Big Scary Number in addition to the Big Scary Tax Number that he has been endlessly shouting at the electorate.

Liberal Party Too Right Wing

Meaningful in Victoria. The wrecking tactics of the right-wing of the Federal LNP has outraged moderate Liberal voters in Victoria who are simultaneously repelled by a takeover of the State Liberals by religious conservatives. Outrage at the sacking of Malcolm Turnbull caused  a huge backlash among moderate Libs in last year’s Victorian State Election and resulted in a landslide loss including shocking losses of blue-ribbon seats.

Three or four seats will ultimately go to the ALP over this issue in tomorrow’s Federal vote.

Jobs And The Economy

Important. This is why the LNP are still in the contest. Morrison has been able to say that the Budget is back in surplus (in fact it isn’t until next year on projections, but this year it is very close). The talismanic surplus speaks meaningfully to the electorate on the subject of economic management which is considered a traditional LNP strength.

In addition, while there is very little wages growth, most people have jobs and the unemployment rate is fairly low. While the economy is lacking vigour, most people are working. In conditions where the economy is acceptably good, governments mostly retain power. (Howard’s loss in 2007 a notable exception).

LNP Disunity

This is the election-deciding issue. Fundamentally, the disunity of the government over the last five years has persuaded the electorate that a change is required. Government  infighting has caused the Libs to depose two Prime Ministers and prevented them from finalising basic policy on Power and Energy. This is a basic failing of governance and this will cause them to lose tomorrow’s election.

Well, let’s see what happens…

Advertisements

Following on from my uninformed speculation about the Federal Election result I would like to add some uninformed speculation about the new Labor Leader and Deputy Leader.

Anthony Albanese would appear to be favoured to win but I wonder if this might create a factional conundrum for the Labor Caucus. I am under the impression that Labor is required to balance factional, gender and State interests in the appointment of its senior officers. Albanese is from the Left faction, but so is current Deputy Leader Tanya Plibersek. Would the Labor Right faction be prepared to tolerate the Left owning both leadership positions ? If not, would they require Tanya Plibersek to stand aside as Deputy Leader and cede that position to the Right ?

Plibersek would definitely resist any non-volitional incineration and refuse to step aside. In that case, with the Left owning Leader and Deputy Leader, the Right may have to be mollified by being given a large number of senior Shadow positions.

Could Plibersek end up getting dumped ? 

If so, who from the Right faction would replace her ? Kristina Kenneally is from the Right and also female. She was prominent in the campaign being employed as Shorten’s attack dog. But perhaps Kenneally would prefer not to displace her sister-comrade acrimoniously. But then again, why not ? If the ALP are going to make difficult leadership decisions they might as well do so as soon as possible. Plibersek is strongly associated with Shorten and may now be irredeemably tarred with the losing policy positions of this  election campaign and indeed the past two campaigns.

So there you go: Albanese for leader and Kenneally as Deputy.

Other Candidates

Jim Chalmers (Shadow Finance) is from the Right (factional balance) and would make a good option as Deputy if Labor decide to go for generational change and leadership renewal and completely move away from the familiar faces that have now lost two elections.. Thanks to Nikki Savvas who pointed out this generational change aspect on Insiders this morning. Savvas also says that Chalmers is a sharp communicator with a quick mind. Morrison is very quick-witted indeed and the ALP could use someone prominent with those skills.

Just quickly, Savvas is one of my favourite Insiders guests. Knowledgeable and concise. I wish bloody Malcolm Farr and Barrie Cassidy would stop interrupting her and let her talk. Her contributions are always excellent.

Plibersek would be disastrous as Leader in my view. Sorry, but left-wing feminists have zero appeal as leaders except to other left-wing feminists. Sometimes carries that scornful superiority which bedevils certain left-wing intellectuals. Can tend to scoff and derisively snort. Its electoral poison. Plibersek would reduce the ALP to 1 seat, her own, which she would hold with a 99% 2PP.

Chris Bowen, current Shadow Treasurer and from the Right faction, would be potentially worse as Leader than Plibersek. Morrison would eat him alive. Bowen would be a gibbering wreck in a fortnight. He’s the ALP version of Alexander Downer except wonked out on Theoretical Economics. I actually think Bowen is a very competent Economic mind, clearly superior to Frydenberg, but not the one for National Leader. Sometimes tends to gabble and protest when put under stress by questioning. But then again so do I. I think that’s normal. I’m not judging him. Well yes I am, but not in a bad way.

Chris Bowen (again) could be promoted to Deputy under Albanese to keep the Right happy. But then again it was Bowen’s Big Tax Plans he developed as Shadow Treasurer that have just been flushed by the great Australian voting public. Bowen might remind the public of BAD THINGS. Certainly Bowen will be a daily target for Morrison from now on as author of the so-called Retiree Tax, Housing Tax, Income Tax, Superannuation Tax and in general the loser who wanted to steal $400 Billion in Tax from honest hard-working Aussie battlers earning over $180K per year. And, like Savvas said, Bowen gifted the Libs a gilt-edged attack line on his own policies: If you don’t like Labor’s policies, don’t vote for them. Frydenberg sepulchrally intoned that line every day of the campaign. I think Bowen has to go. Not in a bad way.

Albanese: calm under pressure, relaxed, experienced, is authentic and liked. Good mind. Runs a reasonable attack line. Sense of humour. Should connect well with ordinary Australians. Closest thing to an ALP ScoMo. Should win the ballot in a canter.

Nikki Savvas: Lets herself get interrupted too often. Wouldn’t make her Deputy Leader of the ALP.

Miscellaneous – Who else of the female gender did Shorten have in his group of bodyguards during the campaign ? Maybe one of them would be the go for Deputy. Or all of them simultaneously. Maybe they could operate an an amalgamated cross-factional hive-mind. ? I’ve got one and I’ve never been happier.

The result will be: ALP 74 LNP 71 GRN 2 OTH 4 CLIVE PALMER 0

which means a ALP Minority Government supported by two Greens, Andrew Wilkie and Rob Oakeshott. Oakeshott will become Speaker. You heard it here first.

How We Will Get There

The 2016 result was LNP 76 ALP 69 GRN 1 OTH 4

Since then, the post-election redistribution made two Victorian seats notionally ALP (Corangamite and Dunkley), additional seats were created in the ACT and VIC which are both notionally ALP, a SA seat held by Labor was abolished and Wentworth was lost by the Liberals to the Independent.

So the starting position for the 2019 poll (tomorrow) is: LNP 73 ALP 72 GRN 1 OTH 5

Projected Outcome

The Swing will be 1.5%. ALP will get 51.1% of the vote, 2PP

QLD – Rural Qld needs jobs so the proposed Adani coal mine is popular. This means that the LNP will retain all their rural marginals and gain the ultra-marginal seat Herbert based around Townsville.  Brisbane Metro will align with the national swing and the ALP will gain Forde (Brisbane Metro, 0.6% swing required)

VIC – The anger over the Turnbull sacking has abated. But resentment among moderate Libs at the undue influence and instability engendered by the right-wing Dutton/Abbott group, along with the same resentment felt at the current takeover of the local Liberal State party by right-wing Libs will cause moderate Libs to swing to the ALP.

In addition to the seats that have become notionally Labor by redistribution, the ALP will additionally gain Chisholm (2.9%) where the incumbent candidate has also made remarks seen as anti-LGBT, which will pad the gain from the raw swing; GRN will gain Macnamara (1.2%) , formerly known as Melbourne Ports from the ALP.

Casey (4.5%) will be retained by Tony Smith who did a good job as Speaker in the last Parliament and is a respected traditionally moderate Vic Liberal. Deakin (6.4%) is a little out of range. Higgins and Kooyong will be retained despite significant swings. Flinders (7%) will be held by Health Minister Greg Hunt despite Julie Banks, the ex-Liberal MP, running in Flinders and directing preferences to Labor. LaTrobe (3.2%) too close to call.

WA – ALP are coming off a low base and the State Libs are a bit on the nose, so ALP will gain Swan (2.6%) and Hasluck (3.6%). Christian Porter’s seat of Pearce (3.6%) is said to be close but Porter’s profile as Attorney-General will help him to retain.

NSW – Latest indications are that NSW will swing to the Libs. But ALP will gain Gilmore (0.7%) where the Libs have been beset by infighting. Rob Oakeshott seems to be popular and will gain Cowper (4.6%) from NAT; LNP will gain Lindsay (1.1%) and regain Wentworth(1.0%) from IND.

TAS – The 2016 Mediscare campaign artificially inflated the ALP vote in Tasmania last time and the State Libs are popular. LNP will gain Braddon (1.7%)

SA –  I don’t expect SA to swing much. Libs will retain Boothby (2.7%) and polling indicates that the Centre Alliance will retain Mayo (2.9%) quite easily.

NT – No change. LNP said to be gaining a swing but the margins in both of the seats will be too large for the Libs to gain.

ACT – No change, except ALP wins the newly created 3rd seat.

So that’s how you get to ALP 74 LNP 71 GRN 2 OTH 4 CLIVE PALMER 0 and Rob Oakeshott as Speaker.

Biggish Calls

Largish swings in Victorian seats Higgins, Kooyong and Deakin will not deliver ALP gains. Same for Warringah (NSW – Tony Abbott); Dickson (Peter Dutton) will be retained by the Libs. Farrer (NSW) will swing hard but Libs will retain. Indi (VIC) will be retained by the Independent.

Pivotal Seats

There are many – but LaTrobe in Victoria (Lib 3.2%), Pearce (WA Lib 3.6% – Christian Porter, the Attorney-General), Warringah (Lib 11.1% see above) and Petrie (QLD Lib 1.6%) – could give the ALP majority government (though Warringah would be IND not ALP).

What Chance This ?

ALP win 75 seats on the night then two weeks later win Warringah by 10 votes after a full recount. Tony Abbott delivers govt. to Labor !

Just Quietly

Scott Morrison has studiously avoided assisting Tony Abbott in Warringah, hoping to rid himself of Abbott’s destructive destabilizing presence in the LNP Party Room. This is the second time Morrison has run dead on Abbott hoping for others to do his dirty work which is now an obvious ScoMo Modus Operandi.

The first time Morrison ran dead on Abbott was when Morrison failed to whip his numbers in support of Abbott in the leadership spill against Malcolm Turnbull. Abbott will not have forgotten this and, given Morrison’s current latest passive-aggressive effort to dud Abbott, if Abbott survives into the next Parliament (or even if he doesn’t) it will be Abbott’s sole raison d’etre to destroy Morrison. Ray Hadley’s too.

 

 

 

More on Liberal Party preferencing strategy towards One Nation here.

And of course, here 

Since 1998, with some exceptions, the LNP have claimed that their preferencing strategy towards One Nation is predicated on ethical principles. This post will demonstrate that the LNP has never based their preferencing strategy toward One Nation on ethical principles but has always based it on tactical and strategic considerations designed to maximize their chances of gaining or retaining power.

2019 Federal Election Campaign

In the 2019 Federal Election, the Liberal Party are preferencing One Nation behind the ALP but are not imposing that directive on their Coalition partners, The National Party.  Whilst the Liberal Party have dropped One Nation below the ALP in the preferencing order as a consequence of One Nation’s contemptuous approach to Australia’s Gun Control laws, the fact that the Liberal Party leadership are not insisting that the National Party also de-preference One Nation shows that there is no ethical imperative to the Liberal Party preferencing decision. This continues a long history of the LNP taking an unprincipled stand on One Nation preferencing in order to retain power.

Reluctant Revulsion

As Kathryn Murphy of The Guardian has exposed, the decision to direct Liberal voters to preference One Nation behind Labor was made reluctantly by Prime Minister Scott Morrison and the Liberal leadership. They were driven to it by the public revulsion directed toward One Nation in relation to the views of Pauline Hanson, One Nation’s leader, that the horrific Australian gun tragedy, The Port Arthur Massacre, in which 35 people were killed,  was the result of a government conspiracy [1]

As always the LNP is claiming that their approach to One Nation preferencing is based on ethical principles, but in reality, as always, the LNP approach to One Nation preferencing is based entirely on strategic motives.

The misleading claims to ethicality lie in Scott Morrison’s assertion that there will be no preference deals with One Nation.  This is a deliberately disingenuous remark designed to conceal from metropolitan voters the fact that the Liberal Party whenever possible preferences One Nation above Labor in the hope of attracting reciprocal preferences from One Nation.

Morrison was speaking in the aftermath of remarks made by Independent (former One Nation) Senator Fraser Anning, a far right sympathizer, who stated that massacre of Muslims in New Zealand by an Australian racist gun man was proof that Muslim immigration to Australia should be halted.

Morrison’s disingenuous no deals locution [3], correctly described as weasel words by the Queensland Federal Senator Murray Watt, concealed the fact that the LNP preferenced One Nation in 50 of 58 seats in the November 2017 Queensland State Election and had assisted One Nation to acquire the eat of Mirani.

Disingenuous
/ˌdɪsɪnˈdʒɛnjʊəs/
adjective
  1. not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.
    synonyms: dishonestdeceitfulunderhandunderhandedduplicitousdouble-dealingtwo-faced, dissembling, insincerefalselyinguntruthfulmendacious;

Placating One Nation: An LNP Quandry

Hanson’s comments on Port Arthur were made public in the week following the Christchurch Massacre in which a racist Australian gunman, adorned with Neo-Nazi symbols, gunned down Muslims in two New Zealand Mosques, killing 50 and wounding 50 others. The public was further disgusted by revelations that One Nation party officials had met with the American National Rifle Association with the intention of seeking donations to support One Nation watering down Australia’s gun control laws.

Consequently, the LNP found itself in a similar quandry to that in 1997 when One Nation was held in opprobrium by a large section of the voting public, at that time as a result of its xenophobic anti-Asian immigration views. Then, as now, the LNP wanted to attract One Nation preferences but could not broker a preference deal with One Nation without alienating a large segment of the electorate. Then, as now, the LNP was trapped between wanting to mollify One Nation supporters and alienating the political centre by association with One Nation and certain of their viewpoints which are shocking to political moderates.

Backlash and Rightward Shift

In the Queensland State Election of 1998, the first election after One Nation’s formation the Liberals preferenced One Nation above the ALP and were punished by metropolitan Brisbane voters for association with One Nation’s xenophobic viewpoints, losing 5 seats while also assisting One Nation to win seats in outer-metropolitan areas with Liberal preferences. For the Liberals it was an absolute disaster.

After this very negative electoral experience, Howard put One Nation last on tactical considerations, to avoid being punished by moderate voters for holding xenophobic views on immigration and culture. But following the Tampa Incident Howard pushed Australian immigration policy to the right. The public proved receptive to this view which was inflamed by Howard and Peter Reith concocting the infamous Children Overboard scare on the Australian public. As Muslim asylum-seekers continued to flow in from Afghanistan following the Taliban wars there, Australian public opinion, encouraged by Howard, then in turn by Abbott and Morrison, continued to harden such that  majority views on immigration became compatible with the rejectionist stance of One Nation and also embedded in LNP policy.

Hanson herself noted this phenonemon by stating

“It has been widely recognised by all, including the media, that John Howard sailed home on One Nation’s policies,”

As the Australian Financial Review puts it

The suggestion Hanson has changed in some fundamental way is actually an indication of how much the rest of politics has changed

Mainstream Xenophobia

This rightward drift of mainstream views on immigration  occurred during a period when One Nation was largely neutralized within Australian politics. John Howard and Tony Abbott had succeeded in dampening One Nation as a political force by secretly funding legal action against One Nation in relation to breaches of the Electoral Act with the result that Pauline Hanson went to jail for three months during 2003. This, along with the organisational chaos of One Nation, culminating in the expulsion of Hanson from her own party, caused One Nation to lose voter legitimacy and One Nation temporarily ceased to be an important political force. In fact Hanson herself did not hold parliamentary office between 1998 and 2015. [2] But the xenophobic sentiments of One Nation had become entrenched in the mainstream and were now amply reflected in LNP government policy.

The overall effect was that One Nation was no longer held in general opprobium. Its xenophobic views, now directed primarily at Muslims instead of Chinese, were embraced by the majority of Australians. Instead of being a lightning rod for the anti-Immigration vote, One Nation became the home of a generalised right-wing protest vote for those on the right feeling alienated and disenfranchised with the major parties. But in general, One Nation no longer excited disgust from the political centre because on One Nation’s core issue – immigration – the centre had shifted rightward and was largely satisfied with LNP rejectionism of Muslims.

Disgusting The Centre Again

Furthermore, the major parties had come to a consensus that directly criticizing One Nation and especially Pauline Hanson was counter-productive and merely acted to increase its support. So after 2016, with the election of Pauline Hanson to the Federal Senate, One Nation was treated by the main parties and the public as a fixture of Australian politics – perhaps not liked or truly respected by many – but representative of an alienated minority of Australians and part of business-as-usual within the Australian polity.

This acceptance of One Nation changed with Pauline Hanson’s embrace of conspiratorial views of the Port Arthur Massacre and their exposure in the week following the Christchurch Massacre. The timing of this exposure indicates opportunism by Hanson’s political opponents but nevertheless One Nation was again equated with far-right viewpoints which disgusted the political centre. Consequently, the LNP again faced the dilemma of associating with far-right opinion and risking backlash from metropolitan and moderate voters.

Tactical, Not Ethical

But Morrison and the Liberal Party also had to accommodate the fact the One Nation vote is significant in some key Queensland rural seats. One Nation traditionally retaliate if put last in preferences by treating opposing parties in the same way. For example, One Nation ran this style of campaign in the Western Australian State election of 2001 putting all sitting members last. Fearing losing the flow of One Nation preferences in these key rural Queensland seats, Morrison has allowed the National Party to preference One Nation and so avoid One Nation retaliation and thus receive One Nation preferences.

The overall strategy of Scott Morrison and the LNP in relation to One Nation preferences therefore is to maximise seat retention. Putting One Nation last in Liberal seats avoids voter backlash in metropolitan seats. Accepting One Nation preferences in National seats allows the Nationals to receive One Nation preferences and hopefully retain rural seats.

So, in the LNP tradition, the One Nation preferencing strategy is all about strategy and tactics: retaining seats whilst attempting to mollify One Nation voters as far as possible while trying to distance themselves from certain far right views of Pauline Hanson.

Milestones In LNP / One Nation Preference Deals

March 1997 – One Nation Formed.

One Nation immediately attracts 9% of the national vote, most of which came from the Liberal/National coalition. George Megalogenis states that the LNP vote fell from 49% in March 1997 when One Nation was formed, to 40% one month later ‘and all of it went over to the One Nation column’.

Howard could not afford to antagonize One Nation as their support base was comprised mainly of disaffected Coalition voters. Howard needed to ensure that One Nation voters would preference him, so he played softly-softly with them.

Howard is not fundamentally opposed to the One Nation agenda and tells his party room that he would prefer to work with them rather than the Australian Democrats. Peter Costello and Amanda Vanstone disagree. Both of these made public comments that the Liberal Party should put One Nation last in the preference order on ethical grounds i.e. that One Nation were racist. Both received long and emphatic phone calls from John Howard they should retract their opinions, Vanstone commenting that Howard was so loud she was forced to hold the receiver away from her ear (‘The Howard Years’, Episode 1, ABC Television, broadcast 17 Nov. 2008)

Howard decides to preference One Nation above Labor. This, Howard hoped, would send a message to One Nation voters that he was not displeased with the One Nation message, particularly in the climate of general social condemnation of One Nation, and maximize the One Nation preference flow to the Coalition.

June 1998 – Queensland State Election

One Nation won an astonishing 22.7% of the primary vote and, aided by Coalition preferences won 11 seats, while the Coalition itself lost 5 seats in Brisbane as inner-city voters expressed their disgust at The Liberal’s preferencing of One Nation above Labor.

If these results were to be repeated at the upcoming Federal Election, Howard and the Coalition would be soundly defeated.

Immediately after Queensland election Howard flies to Queensland to meet with One Nation supporters and try to convince them that the Coalition understood their issues and would help them. In the meantime he commissions Tony Abbott to find a way to destroy One Nation. Abbott creates a slush fund to fund legal action against Hanson and One Nation. Abbott and Howard lie about their knowledge of and existence of the Fund. Abbott and Howard eventually get Hanson thrown in jail.

The strategy of the National and Liberal parties to preference One Nation paid off outside Brisbane, where it won five seats from Labor. In Brisbane the strategy badly back-fired: urban voters ‘punished’ the Liberals for directing preferences to One Nation (Reynolds 2001, 156).

So the overall effect of Coalition preferences was to assist One Nation to win seats, to win some seats for the LNP in rural and outer-metro areas, but to experience significant punishment in urban seats as relatively educated and progressive voters express disgust against associating with One Nation

1998 – Federal Election

Howard decides to put One Nation last to protect urban seats  (of which there are many) from backlash against inner-city voters, foregoes assistance in rural seats (of which there are few) and avoid loss of outer-metro seats to One Nation.

2001 – WA State Election

LNP are-run their 1998 Federal Election strategy and put One Nation last. One Nation responds by putting “all sitting Members last”, whether LNP or ALP. LNP lose power to ALP.

While some consider that the “One Nation last” strategy was germane to the LNP losing power as One Nation retaliated by putting sitting LNP members last, professional psephologists rate the effect of One Nation preferencing as relatively minor in this particular election.

As Antony Green. Australia’s premier psephologist, demonstrates in this paper for the Western Australian Parliamentary Library, Green preferences to the ALP were clearly decisive in delivering seats to the ALP  whereas the effect of One Nation preferences was much more limited. It was, actually the effect of the LNP losing Primary votes to One Nation which was the much bigger concern.

The 2001 WA election was conducted in the climate of a large general swing against the LNP which would have led them to lose power regardless of One Nation preferencing. In fact One Nation preferences split evenly between LNP and ALP, but flowed a little less strongly to the LNP than would otherwise have occurred in the absence of the “sitting members last” directive.

Nevertheless, even though the actual One Nation preferencing effect was minor, WA Liberals decided that the party had suffered materially by putting One Nation last and hence resolved to avoid repudiation of One Nation on the future.

2002-2015 One Nation Temporarily Ceases To Exist as a significant political force

2017 – WA State Election

Barnett, Turnbull and Howard fine-tune the preference strategy, swapping One Nation preferences in Lower House for Lib preferences in the Upper House. The deal is limited to selected seats. The Libs are trying to sandbag Lower House seats and so retain government whilst conceding Balance of Power in the Upper House. They are also avoiding assisting One Nation to win seats in the Lower House.

Like Howard did, Barnett and other Liberals are trying to mollify One Nation voters by saying they are good people, sophisticated and nuanced, and that their concerns are seriously addressed by the Libs.

Also, noting a reactionary shift in the political landscape toward populism, nationalism and anti-Immigration, the Libs judge that urban voters are less likely to punish them by association with One Nation

The Libs, including Malcolm Turnbull, are also trying to distance themselves from One Nation even while cuddling up to them, hence Barnett feigning ignorance of their policies. This is to mollify urban voters and  intended to reduce backlash.

2019 – NSW State Election

The rightward shift of the political centre and the long-standing ‘don’t criticize Pauline’ strategies of the major parties have normalized One Nation and the LNP is able to quietly accept One Nation preferences without raising serious objection in the community. The party attracting most attention vis-a-vis Preference Deals is the Shooters, Farmers and Fisher’s Party (SFF) who support watering down Australia’s gun control laws. NSW Liberal Premier and former Prime Minister John Howard criticizes the ALP for running selective preference deals with the SFF.

2019 Federal Election Campaign

One Nation’s conspiratorial views on Part Arthur in the wake of the Christchurch Massacre disgust large segments of the electorate who once again perceive One Nation as possessing certain unacceptable far right views. The Liberal Party are forced under community pressure to put One Nation behind the ALP, but Prime Minister Scott Morrison does not compel the National Party to do the same. This bifurcated position within the Coalition crystallises the tactical nature of the LNP approach to One Nation preferences, showing that the LNP is uninterested in an ethical approach to dealing with One Nation.

I go into more detail about the early LNP / One Nation history here, drawing heavily on research by Margo Kingston.

======

[1] Hanson alludes to a statement made by former NSW Premier Barry Unsworth as providing insight into government intentions to stage a gun massacre in Tasmania.

[2] Hanson did go very close twice to regaining parliamentary office in this period. In 1998 Hanson was unlucky to suffer a drastic redistribution in her seat of Oxley which cut the seat in half. Hanson stood for the seat of Blair and was the leading candidate on Primary Votes, gaining 36%, but was prevented from winning the seat by being put last on preferences by the major parties. Also, in 2015 Hanson went within 114 votes of winning Lockyer in a Queensland State Election

[3] Thanks to Kathryn Murphy for this lovely word “locution” which so aptly encapsulates the artfully deceptive phraseology of Scott Morrison in this matter

I was shocked to discover that Mormons believe that Joseph Smith’s consent is required for anyone to enter Heaven

The source for this fact is a sermon by one of their most honoured Presidents, Brigham Young, immediate successor to Joseph Smith and notorious polygamist (55 wives) and racist (believed black-skinned people were cursed and did not participate fully in salvation), delivered in the Salt Lake City Tabernacle headquarters and recorded in the Mormon Journal of Discourses, 7:289. The Journal Of Discourses is an esteemed Mormon publication once validated by the Mormons as a kind of inspired commentary on Mormon teaching. The Mormons now officially state that The Journal is not canonised even though it contains hundreds of sermons from Church Presidents whom they say directly speak for God.

Brigham Young said

no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith. 

Typical Cult Behaviour

It is typical cult behaviour that the founder is venerated and assumes a central importance as a necessary supplement to, equal to or superior to Jesus, with the effect that texts authoured by the cult leader supercede or interperet The Bible. This is what has happened with Mormonism and their many texts: The Book Of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, The Pearl Of Great Price and so on.

The blasphemous importance given to Joseph Smith is seen here in this assertion by Brigham Young that Joseph Smith’s consent is required to enter heaven. Other outlandish exaggerations applied to Smith are, for example that his (Smith’s) mind expands as eternity; and only God can comprehend his (Smith’s) soul” (Journal History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 9 Apr. 1837, Church Archives).

While Mormons do not officially state that Joseph Smith was sinless, they are shockingly, required to believe by supposed revelation from God, that Joseph Smith never did anything wrong in his personal conduct, let alone make any error  in The Book Of Mormon or in his many doctrinal statements.

Early Mormon leaders displayed a blasphemous magnification of Joseph Smith attributing their salvation to Smith: Heber Kimball, a significant senior Mormon leader who was contemporary with Smith, wrote, supposedly directly under the inspiration of the Mormon Spirit, that his (Kimball’s) salvation was assured because of his loyalty to Joseph Smith.

As this Mormon writer reports for us:

Brigham Young said, “I feel like shouting hallelujah, all the time, when I think that I ever knew Joseph Smith” (Journal Of Discourses 3:51). Significantly, Brigham’s last mortal words were, “Joseph! Joseph! Joseph!” (Leonard J. Arrington, Brigham Young: American Moses [New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1985], p. 399).

Mormons may see this magnification of Joseph Smith as normal, but Christians immediately notice the blasphemous tone of Kimball and Young’s remarks, which displace Jesus from his rightful place as the centre of our praises, the source of our joy in God, the One who is essential to know,  our welcomer into Heaven, the security of our Salvation and as the name which should be called on by those entering the afterlife.

To this may be added the Mormon assertion that Smith the the final prophet, not Jesus, that Smith’s revelations will never become corrupted or lost, but Jesus’s revelations and Bible were so lost and corrupted, and that Smith’s revelations are more extensive than that of Jesus, clearly blasphemous, since Jesus is God.

Defence Of Smith

Mormons defend Smith by asserting that The Bible teaches that the consent or acknowledgement of The Biblical Apostles is required for Christians to enter heaven and that therefore Mormons are only applying normal Apostolic prerogative to Smith, exactly the same as The Bible does. That defence is found here .

The scripture that Mormon apologists rely on is Matthew 19:28

Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Unfortunately for Mormons, this scripture does not apply to the Last Judgement. The Apostles will not be issuing consent for anyone to enter heaven; that privilege applies to Jesus alone as only He has defeated death and obtained redemption and atonement for mankind. Therefore Jesus and only Jesus has the right to issue consent to Heaven, as only He has made the way to heaven open.

In short The Apostles do not have either the right, capacity or privilege to act as Judges in the Last Judgement. They have neither earnt that right nor been granted it. These prerogatives apply to Jesus alone. Joseph Smith will not participate in this action despite the blasphemous claims of Mormons.

Millennium

The scripture in question, Matthew 19:28 applies to the Millenium in which the faithful servants of Jesus will be given privilege to rule over cities and regions as viceroys to Jesus. Jesus will at that time be reigning in Jerusalem from Mt. Zion where His throne will be located. From this scripture we see that the Disciples will have privilege to rule over the nation of Israel and, one may infer, be located there also.

Here’s another scripture where Jesus talks about the Millenium and how  His faithful servants will rule over various numbers of cities.

Conclusion

Mormon apologists apply Biblical scripture incorrectly in order to justify their blasphemous claim that Joseph Smith will participate in The Last Judgement. In doing this Mormons display the typical behaviour of a cult in magnifying their founder to usurp the proper place of Jesus.

From Kristina Photios in The Guardian, today:

The irony is that our coal industry exports about 95% of its coal. Its key markets are offshore, predominately in Asia, and not at all domestic. In theory we could be 100% renewable and those workers could still keep their jobs.

That’s pretty clear.

We export basically all of our Coal.

Therefore if Australia goes to a 100% Renewable energy grid, not even one Australian job would be lost.

Just for the icing:

The coal export demand will only be curtailed if Asian demand drops as they transition to a clean economy, which is outside of the control of our domestic politics.

Kristina Photios, you are a genius.

I’ll flesh this out a bit more at some point, but one of the common (misguided) teachings associated with the (misguided) concept of Generational Curses is that Generational Curses come about as a result of iniquity. You can read a representative presentation on iniquity and its supposed generational effects here from a dangerously deluded  afficionado of the Generational Curses meme.

Iniquity, in the Generational Curses line of (misguided) thinking is sin of a special, particularly nasty kind that causes God to smite the iniquitous offender with a Generational Curse that persists indefinitely down the family line unless ‘broken’ by special prayers of repentance, specifically naming the iniquity of one’s distant ancestor and asking forgiveness for it.

Commonly, Freemasonry (for example) is said to be one such iniquity that causes God to initiate a Generational Curse on this or that family and it is the responsibility of the Christian to ‘break’ the curse by first discovering its existence and then specifically naming it in a prayer of repentance.

Alternatively, during so-called Prayer Ministry, a minister may supposedly ‘discern’ through the Holy Spirit the existence of a Generational Curse, then ‘take authority’ over it and vicariously break it through their own prayers.

This whole Generational Curses thing is redolent with falsehood, but just for now what I want to say is that Jesus has already taken away the iniquity of all believers. This being the case, even if Generational Curses exist (which they do not) they have already been ‘broken’ by Jesus, so there is no need for any believer to have to ‘break’ them themselves.

Look at Isaiah 53:5-6

But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

Quite plainly, Jesus Messiah has taken iniquity away from all believers. We are free ! We don’t need to be cleansing ourselves of our own iniquity because Jesus has already done so ! That’s Good News.

And here’s the scripture that turned on the light-bulb for me: Zechariah 3:3-5

Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments and standing before the angel. He spoke and said to those who were standing before him, saying, “Remove the filthy garments from him.” Again he said to him, “See, I have taken your iniquity away from you and [b]will clothe you with festal robes.”

Then I said, “Let them put a clean turban on his head.” So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him with garments, while the angel of the Lord was standing by.

It seems quite straight-forward.

Jesus has taken our iniquities away from us, acting as our High Priest, making atonement for our sins.

We are free !

Now enjoy your freedom.

There is no iniquity on you.

Thanks to Jesus.

All you need to do is receive His salvation.

 

Hiking the glorious Overland Track in the Central Highlands of Tasmania I came into Pelion Hut and on the notice board I read the following quote by the Vietnamese Zen Buddhist Monk Thich Nhat Hanh.

The miracle is not to walk on water. The miracle is to walk on the green earth, swelling in the present moment and feeling truly alive.

Miracles And Mindfulness

Thich Nhat Hanh wouldn’t have a clue what he is talking about in relation to Miracles.

Miracles are supernatural events in which the normal physical laws of the Universe are suspended or transcended by a Higher Power. Walking on water, exemplified by Jesus, is an excellent example of this.

What Thich is describing – the swelling in the present moment and feeling truly alive is an example of mindfulness. 

Mindfulness, while a most beneficial practice, is not miraculous. The physical laws of the Universe are not overcome or transcended by mindfulness. Hence mindfulness is not a miracle. Swelling in the present moment and feeling truly alive is not a miracle.

Walking on water, on the other hand, is in fact miraculous. That’s why the person who did it, Jesus, is worth listening to. He is capable of transcending the physical laws of the Universe. This marks him as someone extraordinarily special.

Thich Nhat Hanh, on the other hand, for all his achievements including significant contributions to the Peace Movement during difficult times, should not be listened to in regard to spiritual teaching.

This is because Thich Nhat Hanh doesn’t know the difference between something as basic as what is a miracle and what is not. Since Thich is not capable of even this basic level of discernment it is apparent that he is not capable of any deeper levels of analysis.

Blind

Consequently it is plain that Thich Nhat Hanh is a blind guide.

Avoid him.

Reliable

If you would like some reliable spiritual teaching, I recommend this clear-minded passage by Jesus, who knows what a miracle is, what a miracle isn’t and who performed a great many astounding miracles himself including raising Himself from the dead and ascending into heaven in the presence of hundreds of witnesses.

Also In This Series

An Audience With Geshe Ngawang Gedun in which Geshe provides his insights into the teachings of Jesus.

 

 

Lee Harvey Oswald, by his own admission, played a crucial part in the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

Oswald may or may not have taken a rifle into the Texas School Book Depository, though he never fired it. It wasn’t Oswald’s role to shoot the President. That was the job of others. Soon after the assassination, Oswald briskly left the environs of the Book Depository and returned to his Dallas rooms where he was alerted by members of the Dallas Police Department that his escape rendezvous was ready to proceed. So Oswald was in cahoots with the assassination machinery

Oswald then decamped to the Texas Theatre cinema where he was more or less immediately arrested. After a day or two in custody of the Dallas Police, Oswald was then escorted to the Police Basement where Oswald played his crucial role – which was to be shot point-blank on national television, the squadrons of Dallas Police surrounding him apparently powerless to protect the most wanted man in the USA.

Oswald Was The Patsy. 

Oswald was the one left holding the blame for the assassination and was himself assassinated by his co-conspirators as thanks for assisting in their act of national decapitation. Public anger at him for plunging the nation into chaos,  an assessment of wickedness of character and a perpetually soiled reputation was all his .

Oswald was The Patsy  
… and therefore expendable.

And this is exactly the role that Peter Dutton played in the downfall of Malcolm Turnbull.

As a Patsy in the service of others.

Revenge

As in the JFK assassination, a central motive in the assassination of Malcolm Turnbull was revenge.

Tony Abbott hated Turnbull for stripping the Prime Ministership away from him in 2015 and from the moment that event occurred has never ceased plotting how to destroy Turnbull in return.

Policy

Again, as in the JFK assassination, the direction of government policy was at stake in the Turnbull assassination. For JFK, his intervention in the CIA  Bay Of Pigs Black Operation, causing it to fail, signalled a change in the tenor and execution of Foreign Policy unacceptable to US Reactionary interests just as unacceptable as Turnbull’s accommodation of Climate Change considerations within Energy Policy and Gender Equality considerations within Marriage Policy.

But Policy does not begin to describe what was at stake for Reactionary interests in both scenarios. What was at stake in both the JFK presidency and the Turnbull Prime Ministership was the soul of the nation.

As David Marr put it,

[the assassination of Malcolm Turnbull is] an audacious gambit by a political faction that knows it is losing traction in the community.

Terrible polling figures for policies dear to their hearts does not dissuade but compels them to act.

The rule is this: when you face losing control of the country, you must take control of the party. Otherwise you are done for.

Camelot

JFK’s Camelot signalled the death of the old order and the commencement of a new way. Reactionary interests were being sidelined. The Military-Industrial Complex, the CIA shadow government and the Monied interests that controlled and parasitically fed on both were outraged. Their grip on the soul of America, their gravy train was coming to an end under the upstart, wealthy, Catholic President. JFK didn’t need them. He had his own means. He was not dependent; no-one’s protege. And to the Reactionaries, JFK was the wrong man in the wrong place. A Catholic ! As President !

Wentworth

And so too was Malcolm Turnbull the wrong man in the wrong job. Socially progressive, yet a Liberal Party Prime Minister. Independently wealthy, he does need Murdoch’s financial backing or anyone else’s. Possessed of his own vision. A Republican !  A supporter of Marriage Equality ! And – lethally –  clear-minded on Climate Change and the role of Fossil Fuels.

The Monied interests of  The Liberal Party and the media organisations they controlled could not abide Turnbull. Under Turnbull the Liberal Party would drift from Reactionary views and come to accept Science-based Climate policy and progressive social currents. No Coal ! The wealth, status and prestige of the Old Order was under challenge.

Malcolm Turnbull , the Member for Wentworth, was an existential threat to the Old Order. He had to be eliminated.

Hemlock

The main players in Turnbull’s downfall were Abbott, sick with the need for revenge, Eric Abetz, insane by reason of mental obsession with his own importance; and Kevin Andrews a crusted Reactionary of instinctive hatred towards progressives.

Abetz, Abbott and Andrews: AAA, Triple A.

But none of these could challenge in their own right. Abbott is a failed and unmissed Prime Minister, described by some of his own colleagues as electoral hemlock. Abetz and Andrews are yesterdays men, politically alive only by the artificial respiration provided by long service to Coal, Tobacco and other Liberal Party donors. Neither could be the suitable face of a renewed or modern Liberal Party. Hemlock the lot of them.

No. They needed a Patsy.

Dickson

Peter Dutton, member for Dickson, Minister for the hugely popular  Border Protection portfolio. Beloved by right-wing media across the country for his unswervable commitment to allowing immigrant children to die in detention, for the humour he finds in the devestating consequences of Climate Change, for walking out on the national apology to the Stolen Generation; for his championing of the plight of White people; for his contempt for Civil Liberties and Refugee Advocacy groups.

This is Dutts, as he’s fondly known to right-wing talkback hosts and their audiences. No wonder One Nation did not stand a candidate against Dutton in the last election.

Praised every week on Sky TV, on 2GB, by average Aussies everywhere. You’d have to be made of stone to be immune to such unrelenting flattery

Dutts is a Queenslander. Marginal seats in Queensland will be crucial to the outcome of the next Federal election.

The Longman by-election came up. Sky and 2GB were confident. The Liberals would win it. The first time a Government would win a By-Election in 90 years.  But instead, out-campaigned by the ALP  the LNP vote went backwards.  That wasn’t expected. Blimey ! We could really lose this.

Phone calls from Triple A. Dutts – we need you. You’re the man. You can save the government. Save The Party. Save The Nation. Dutts is an ex-copper. Grounded. But human. He came to believe it.

The Assassination 

So, Triple A roll Turnbull on Energy Policy. Turnbull looked weak, vulnerable. Longman lost. Energy Policy lost. Now’s the time, Dutts ! So he goes for it. Malcolm is assassinated.

But Dutts loses. Someone else gets the job.

Triple A don’t care. Turnbull is eliminated and the Climate Change elements of the Energy Policy are gone. Basically Triple A and the Reactionary interests have got what they want.

The Patsy

But in the process it has become clear that most of the Liberal Party and most of the nation don’t want Dutton. Most find him unreasonably harsh and possessing xenophobic views outside the comfort zone of the mainstream. Plus the general public has been alienated by the self-evidently selfish and callow nature of the whole Assassination.  We can all see this whole affair is just a vehicle of Abbott to satisfy his blood lust.

Dutton is the face of all this. He will lose his seat at the next election. He drank the Hemlock.

Dutts is expendable.

A Patsy.

Tripe A ? They live on. As do the systemic forces that nurture them.

Why Triple A Couldn’t Lose

Kevin Andrews holds the blue ribbon seat of Menzies on a 2PP vote of 60.6%
Tony Abbott holds the seat of blue ribbon Warringah on a 2PP vote of 61.6%
Eric Abetz holds the No. 1 Senate Spot for the Liberals in Tasmania. His seat in unloseable.

These Reactionaries will be in Parliament until the end of time distantly watching the comings and goings of the less fortunate from the glorious viewpoint afforded by their Ivory Towers in blue-ribbon seats.

Their chosen servant is not so fortunate:

Peter Dutton holds the marginal seat of Dickson on a 2PP vote of 51.6%

Win Lose or Draw in whatever stoush AAA find themselves fomenting, they can never lose. Their seats are too safe.

Dutton, doing their bidding,  is a marginal-seat holder. Any moderate swing would unseat him. Being held responsible for disintegrating the Parliament and knifing a popular PM will be fatal to him.

Abetz, Abbot and Andrews could care less. They’re untouchable, despaching others to do their dirty work.

Cowards really.

A Little Bit Afraid

The vote in the Dutton v. Turnbull leadership spill was 35-48. Triple A only count for three. But thirty-five of the eighty-three Liberal Party MPs voted in favour of Dutton for PM. That’s 42%.

Forty-two per cent of Liberal Party MPs think that Dutts would be a suitable Prime Minister. Given Dutt’s  alarming lack of concern for everything except White people I find it amazing that such a high percentage of Liberal MPs think this way.

Worse than this, we didn’t count the National Party MPs yet. With notable exceptions, such as Darren Chester, National MPs are even more reactionary than Libs. There are 22 National Party MPs in the current parliament. Let’s say that 18 of them are Dutts-friendly. That would mean that the majority LNP Government Caucus thinks like Dutts, 53-52.

Let’s remind ourselves of the Dutton manifesto:

Peter Dutton, member for Dickson, Minister for the hugely popular  Border Protection portfolio. Beloved by right-wing media across the country for his unswervable commitment to allowing immigrant children to die in detention, for the humour he finds in the devestating consequences of Climate Change, for walking out on the national apology to the Stolen Generation; for his championing of the plight of White people; for his contempt for Civil Liberties and Refugee Advocacy groups.

Suddenly I feel a bit afraid of the LNP.

Republicanism and Santamaria

Background for this section is obtained from David Marr’s Quarterly Essay on Abbott, Political Animal, QE #47

Even before his first day as leader, Malcolm Turnbull was held in deep distrust by the LNP for the many reasons described above.

For Abbott, the prime motive was revenge, but he also sincerely believes that Turnbull is unsuited to national leadership by reason of his Republicanism. This may seem strange to many that Republicanism should be an automatic reason to consider someone unfit for office, but Abbott really believes this.

Abbott is an amoral political operator; a stone-cold liar primary among his many character flaws, but Abbott considers himself to be a man of values. Foundational to those values are his belief in the indispensible utility and goodness of certain long-standing Western institutions: namely the Papacy, The Monarchy, The Enlightenment, Constitutional Liberal Democracy and the traditional moral code associated with them.

In Abbott’s world, allegiance to those institutions and philosophies automatically make a person good and mark them as a suitable for office. Failure to embrace them invalidates a person for leadership and makes them morally suspect.

Turnbull is a Republican, not a Monarchist. In Abbott’s thinking that disqualifies Turnbull from office. Simple as that

Abbott’s starry-eyed admiration for the values of Western civilisation, the Papacy, the Monarchy and the Enlightenment are a romantic fiction that Abbott tells himself about himself, as he relives the ‘Prince Hal’ [QE #47 p.1] Ladybird books of his childhood,.

Abbott’s heart beats faster at the excitement of imaging himself a new Crusader King, a new reforming Priest or a defender of Western values. As a University student, Abbott, discipled by the famous Catholic anti-Communist warrior Bob Santamaria, spent day after day expunging ideological and moral evil from the campus.

While Abbott was motivated purely by revenge, he is able to delude himself that his assassination of Turnbull was a morally significant act for the betterment of Western civilisation. That’s why, after the result of the leadership spill was announced by the Whips, among the very first to speak to the media was Tony Abbott who said:

As we have been reminding ourselves, we are the custodians of great logical traditions.

“The Liberal tradition of smaller government, greater freedom, lower taxes, the conservative traditional support for families, small business and values and institutions that have stood the rich test of time, 

Values and Institutions that have stood the rich test of time – the evil Republican is dead: Thank me.

So, let’s look at Abbott’s values as he actually lives them:

Following the spill, Oliver Murray of News.com.au quoted two former colleagues of Abbott:

Former Liberal frontbencher Amanda Vanstone told ABC: “All I can tell you is my own experience of Abbott is whatever you do with him, unless he gets his way he’ll be disruptive.

“That’s my own experience of him. My personal view is putting him in any ministerial position doesn’t mean he’ll be a team player unless he gets what he wants.

It’s up to them to decide whether they can cope with that or not. That’s their decision, not mine.”

It was something backed up by former Liberal leader John Hewson.

“He’s got one goal, which is to get back to the Prime Ministership even though he’s made some smooth sort of statements coming out of the room today, it sounds pretty much like, ‘I won’t snipe, I won’t undermine’, the sort of commitment he’s made once before,” he told ABC.

Murray goes on to say: A minister’s position seems a crazy reward for someone who has had a major role in bringing his party to its knees.

 

In relation to this, this and this

Committee: “Mr. Bancroft. When did you come to realise you had a ream of 32-Grit Industrial Grade Glass Shard Sandpaper concealed in your box ?

Bancroft: Errrmm. When Smithy took the new ball ??

Darren Lehmann: NO NO NO !

Committee: Could Counsel Assisting please relieve Mr. Lehmann of his walkie-talkie ? Thankyou. So. Mr. Bancroft. Prior to the 87th over of the innings you were completely unaware of the Silicon Graphite Hardware products concealed on your person ?

Bancroft: Errmmm. Yes. Well some of them.

Committee: Here is a picture of you affixing an oxy-acetylene blowtorch to your helmet visor.

Bancroft: (Confidently). Oh yes. That’s Boof’s second-hand…

Lehmann: (Frantically through Plexiglass barrier): NO NO NO !

Committee: Could Counsel Assisting please administer the Elephant Tranquiliser ?

Lehmann: NO NO NO !

Committee: Increase the dosage.

Lehmann: NO NO N..zzzzzz

Committee: Mr. Bancroft. Exhibit C.

Bancroft Errrmmmm…

Committee: The fire hydrant.

Bancroft: Errm. Lehmo ? … Lehmo ? … (Lapses into Catatonia)