The path down which Tony Abbott so recklessly trod

The Daily Telegraph political cartoonist Warren Brown 

 Part One: Team Abbott

The Guardian 8 February 2015:

Team Abbott sailed to victory, extraordinary gusts of hubris filling their sails. If opposition had been conducted within the confines of a box, the prime ministership was to become a fortress. The victors disdained the cultural moment and thumbed their noses at the zeitgeist with a towering kind of arrogance.

The coterie around the prime minister brought their conflict addiction, their brittle tribalism and their self-reinforcing insularity into government. The prime minister’s chief of staff stood sentry at the door, and the prime minister wanted the security blanket of the old rituals, like an elite sportsman insisting on his lucky socks.

Abbott then insisted that the entire government cede its freedom just as quiescently as he had. The culture of freedom and managed dissent in the Liberal party was to be replaced with command and control from his office. The Abbott cabinet lacked the talent and firepower of the Howard cabinet, and Abbott lacked the finesse and accumulated wisdom of Howard – so perhaps this was a gesture of insurance more than an outburst of gratuitous authoritarianism. But talent within government ranks did exist. It was just banished to the bleachers if it was mouthy. It wasn’t just ministers. Friends and confidants had the door closed in their face if the feedback was unpalatable.

The backbiting began almost immediately. The take-no-prisoners culture imposed inside the government created the bizarre cult of Peta Credlin, which was both vexed reality and collective mythology. The “witch in the office” began to loom larger than ministers, and project as a proxy for the prime minister rather than a conduit. The prime minister was rendered a sock puppet, and consented to his diminution.

Politics has a high tolerance for bastardry as long as the strategy is working. But the edifice began crumbling very slowly right from the start. The whole enterprise felt strangely vacant and unconvincing.

There was no real clean break, no fresh start. How could there be? Abbott began his life as prime minister knee deep in the wreckage he’d imposed on the polity. All the things to resent about politics since 2010 were not past tense because one of the main protagonists was still on his feet. Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard had faded, sensibly, into history.

Abbott has always been a contrary figure, a complex person, and his stock in trade, aggressive simplicity, could only resonate when it was delivered in broad brushstrokes. The devil was always going to be in the detail. The basic contradictions started early. The man who’d elevated trust and competence to moral imperatives in national politics quickly proved himself neither trustworthy nor particularly competent. Small-target politics in opposition was replaced by an agenda the voters didn’t expect, and then Abbott blamed onlookers for failing to read the tea leaves.

At budget time the new Coalition government unleashed an ambitious referendum. Would we tolerate a society that was less fair? This was not supposed to be a surprise because Joe Hockey once made a speech about ending the age of entitlement. The answer to the question was a resounding no. Again, very little made sense. Low and middle-income earners copped the pain disproportionately, only to see savings spent on thought bubble priorities rather than directed to repairing the deficit. How could a genuine budget emergency produce net savings of only $3bn over four years? It was bollocks, and the voters knew it.

The agenda in Abbottland whipped around in the prevailing wind. Abbott didn’t know if he was freedom Tony, or security Tony, or austerity Tony, or double the deficit Tony. The treasurer thought poor people didn’t drive cars and high-income earners paid half their income in tax. Apart from gaffes and thought bubbles and brain explosions, there was a basic and persistent level of identity confusion.

In government, Abbott had relished the daily combat but his officials complained he wasn’t enamoured by detailed policy work. Government can’t just be a culture war, a raised fist against modernity, it requires focus and direction. It requires an intellectual core. Rather than soothing persistent anxiety in the community, Abbott heaped on the surprises to the point where it was impossible to define the government’s character. What was Abbott’s core? Why does Tony Abbott want to be prime minister? It is entirely unclear. Does he even want to be prime minister? That is also, sometimes, unclear.

Looking through the self-interested anecdotes various protagonists are feeding to journalists in order to deepen this current crisis in order to force a resolution, understanding that in a leadership crisis everybody lies and everything is quicksand – the simple facts are Abbott’s leadership is on death watch because he has lost, comprehensively, in the court of public opinion.

Full article here.

*************************

Part Two: Fiscal Frolics

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT GENERAL GOVERNMENT SECTOR MONTHLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 2014

Crikey 3 February 2015:

The Coalition that promised in 2012 to reduce Australia's debt by $30 billion delivered in 2014 an increase of more than $60 billion. Clearly Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Treasurer Joe Hockey have failed spectacularly to reduce Labor's "skyrocketing debt".

Outcomes for the full calendar year 2014 are now online at the Finance Department's website. Commonwealth monthly financial statements show year-to-date net debt and the projection for the full financial year. Hence it is simple to calculate the debt incurred — or repaid — each month.

Australia's net government debt — that is, money borrowed minus money loaned out — was $239.16 billion at the end of December. This was a hefty increase over the level a month earlier of $224.35 billion. In just one month, the debt rose almost $15 billion, or 6.6%. Compounded, that rate would double the debt in less than a year. Fortunately, the December rise was abnormal.

So what was the full-year increase through 2014?

At the end of 2013, the actual net debt was $177.74 billion. Hence the increase over the full year was $61.42 billion ($239.16 - $177.74). That's a rise of 34.6%.

That December 2013 actual figure is pretty close to the level that can reasonably be attributed to Labor. As Crikey explained last October, the best measure of Labor's debt is the projection for the end of the full year 2013-14 at the September 2013 election. At that time, projected debt at year end was $178.1 billion, although actual debt then was marginally lower. That year-end projection of $178.1 billion was affirmed in Finance's statements for October and November 2013. It did not shift until well after Joe Hockey had taken control of the levers.

So is it possible that debt has peaked and will soon tumble, as promised? No — Friday's figures also show a higher estimate for total debt at year end, still six months away. This is now projected to be $244.84 billion.

If $178.1 billion is the debt level attributable to Labor, then it can be argued that by the end of this financial year the Coalition will have blown out Labor's debt by $66.7 billion ($244.8 billion to $178.1 billion) or 37.5%. In one budget.

Full article here.

The Peril Of Intergenerational Theft

In his speech to the Press Club on 2nd February, Tony Abbott once again called up the spectre of intergenerational theft:

And reducing the deficit is the fair thing to do – because it ends the intergenerational theft against our children and grandchildren.

We’ve never been a country that’s ripped off future generations to pay for today.

And under my government, we never will.

http://www.liberal.org.au/latest-news/2015/02/02/prime-minister-address-national-press-club

"Intergenerational theft" has been a catchcry of the Prime Minister and other ministers such as Joe Hockey and Eric Abetz.  It has invariably been used in defence of the Government's budget and its cost-cutting measures.  According to them we should suffer some pain now in order to leave the nation in a sound state for our children and grandchildren.

On one level this seems eminently commendable.  But it completely misses the point of another area of government policy where today's Government is severely ripping off future generations. Our children and grandchildren and their descendants are being ripped off because of the Government's tepid and ineffective policy on climate change.  There is no Government understanding of a need for urgent action and of the impact ineffective action now will have on the economy of the future and the health and lifestyle of our descendants as well as the health of the natural world.

And the truly amazing thing is that no-one in the Government seems to recognise the inconsistency of their position on inter-generational theft.  A cynical person could claim that at least some Government MPs do see this inconsistency – and just choose to ignore it. After all it would be decidedly awkward to concede that climate change is a really important and urgent issue and therefore know that not taking effective action will severely penalise future generations.  It's much easier to pay lip-service to the climate problem with a shonky "direct action" plan and to claim that the government will do more when other major emitters take more action.  Interestingly, the fact that many other major emitters are starting to take more action appears to have escaped the attention of the Abbott Government.

Obviously the Government's tepid climate policy suits those dinosaur Liberals and Nationals – and there appear to be quite a few of them - who are climate change deniers.

I suspect that the inconsistency about intergenerational equity/theft probably is seen by very few, if any, government MPs. After all, many of them still don't seem to understand that a great number of people oppose their budget because it is inherently unfair – that it places all of the pain on the less well-off in our society. The Prime Minister, the Treasurer and many others just don't get it.  Many Coalition MPs still seem to believe that the policies can be delivered if they improve their communication strategy. In their self-centred view those benighted electors just don't understand.  In reality very large numbers of electors understand only too well.

The core of their problem is that they are out of touch with ordinary Australians.  They are purblind inhabitants of a series of ivory towers.

Until the Government starts to take effective action on climate change, it should stop using the argument of intergenerational theft to justify other aspects of policy.  That would eliminate one of the areas in which it renders itself ridiculous.

Hildegard

Northern Rivers

*  Guest Speak is a North Coast Voices segment allowing serious or satirical comment from NSW Northern Rivers residents. Email ncvguestpeak at gmail dot com dot au to submit comment for consideration.

Tony Abbott: from political rooster to feather duster in seventeen months?

Tony Abbott during his unsuccessful bid to rally backbenchers & voters behind him

National Press Council Address

2 February 2015 

The anglophile who only became an Australian citizen for personal financial advantage, the aggressive bully who thought his divine destiny was to rule the country, the intellectual lightweight who believes good policy is a quiverful of three-word slogans, the man whose sense of entitlement has him dipping his hand deep into the taxpayer's pocket, the right wing ideologue without a decent bone in his body, the sole author of his own misfortune  - has Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott  finally morphed into a political feather duster?

West Australian Liberal MP for Cowan, LukeSimpkin, signalling the party leadership spill scheduled for 10 February 2015:

@latikambourke, 6 February 2015

The Daily Telegraph, 6 February 2015:

An angry Mr Abbott yesterday called a press conference to stare down his backbench, before sending out cabinet ministers to back his leadership publicly.

Tony Abbott’s Press Statement, 6 February 2015:

As you know, two of my colleagues have called for a leadership spill of the two senior positions in our Party. They’ve called for a spill of my position as leader and they’ve called for a spill of Julie Bishop’s position as Deputy.
The first point to make is that they are perfectly entitled to call for this, but the next point to make is that they are asking the Party Room to vote out the people that the electorate voted in in September 2013.
I want to make this very simple point: we are not the Labor Party. We are not the Labor Party and we are not going to repeat the chaos and the instability of the Labor years.
So, I have spoken to Deputy Leader Julie Bishop and we will stand together in urging the Party Room to defeat this particular motion, and in so doing, and in defeating this motion to vote in favour of the stability and the team that the people voted for at the election.
We have a strong plan. It’s the strong plan that I enunciated at the Press Club this week and we are determined to get on with it – and we will.

Julie Bishop's position as deputy leader of the parliamentary Liberal Party will also fall vacant if the spill motion is successful.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 6 February 2015:

On Friday evening, after a spill motion to oust the Prime Minister was moved, Channel Nine's political editor Laurie Oakes reported the Prime Minister's office "was so concerned about the optics of them appearing together looking like a unity ticket", it asked Ms Bishop to cancel her attendance at the fundraiser with Mr Turnbull but she refused.

UPDATE

Abbott blinks?

Quotes of the Week

“it’s a classic example of what goes wrong when, in a fit of absent-mindedness, people elect Labor governments.”

[Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott during 2 February 2015 National Press Club question period on the reason voters reject his political party]

Abbott over-reached when telling his audience that removing a Prime Minister is the preserve of the public come election time.

Party room colleagues who take pride in their right to cast a vote for or against a leader won’t have liked hearing such an arrogant observation from Abbott, who they already believe takes them for granted.

The right of party MPs to choose their leader is what makes a Prime Minister a first among equals. John Howard always respected this. It is how MPs can ensure a leader listens.

While Abbott used his speech to (again) promise to consult and listen more, the obvious disdain Abbott showed for his colleagues right to remove him suggests that he won’t.

[Peter Van Onselen writing in The Australian, 2  February 2015]

The Prime Minister spent much of last week calling around his backbench trying to quell the anger of those frustrated by his leadership.

But MPs are still angry that Mr Abbott changed his personal mobile number late last year, leaving backbenchers unable to contact him directly with their concerns.

“We wanted to talk to him directly and none of us had his number. It’s just not a genuine consultative style.”

[Herald Sun, 3 February 2015]

Dr Jensen is from the WA electorate of Tangney. He was involved in calling the first of the Liberal spills in 2009 with Wilson Tuckey that ultimately saw Mr Abbott installed as the party’s leader.

Speaking on 7.30 tonight, Dr Jensen said he informed Mr Abbott on January 23 — three days before the disastrous Australia Day knighting of Prince Phillip — that he no longer supported the Prime Minister. [Federal Liberal MP Dennis Jensen, Herald Sun, 3 February 2015]

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott: 'out of touch', 'arrogant', 'narrow-minded' and 'erratic'

Five days before the September 2013 federal election which saw him become Australia’s 28^th prime minister, Anthony John ‘Tony’ Abbott’s chief personal attributes (according to Essential Research polling at the time) were ‘hard working’ and ‘intelligent’.

Seventeen months later, he is primarily seen as 'out of touch with ordinary people', 'arrogant', 'narrow-minded' and 'erratic'.

For over half those polled he remains ‘hardworking’, but is also viewed as ‘superficial’ and ‘intolerant’.

The percentage of poll respondents who consider Tony Abbott as ‘intelligent’ has dropped from 63 per cent prior to his becoming prime minister down to 50 per cent at the beginning of this week.

Tony Abbott, when compared with Bill Shorten, is considered by more respondents to be ‘erratic’, ‘out of touch with ordinary people’, ‘arrogant’, ‘narrow minded’, ‘intolerant’, ‘aggressive’ and ‘superficial’.

Bill Shorten, when compared with Tony Abbott, is regarded by more respondents to be someone who is ‘intelligent’, ‘hardworking, ‘understands the problems facing Australia’, and ‘a capable leader’.

'Someone else' still has more support than Tony Abbott as being the best leader of the Liberal Party - as does Malcolm Turnbull and Julie Bishop at 24 per cent and 21 per cent respectively.

This poll indicates that if an election had been held on Tuesday 2 February 2015 Labor would have taken back federal government by roughly the same percentage as the Coalition won it in 2013.

Essential Report* of 3 January 2015:

* This report summarises the results of a weekly omnibus conducted by Essential Research with data provided by Your Source. The survey was conducted online from the 30th January 2015 to 2nd February and is based on 1,019 respondents.    

Australian of the Year 2015 politely calls out the 'Prime Minister for Women' on his hypocrisy with regard to domestic violence

On or about 17 September 2013 then Prime Minister-elect Tony Abbott announced that he would hold portfolio responsibility for policies and programs targeting women.

He was sworn in as Prime Minister on 18 September that year.

Sixteen months later and his ongoing poor record in this area is there for all to see.

Women’s Agenda 2 February 2015:

Australian of the Year Rosie Batty has criticised Tony Abbott for promising to take real action to tackle family violence while at the same time slashing funding to family violence services.

After Batty was appointed Australian of the Year last Sunday, the prime minister announced he would be implementing new measures to fight domestic and family violence. 

On Tuesday he announced he would create a new national advisory panel on domestic violence and appointed Batty and retiring Victorian Police Commissioner Ken Lay as its founding members.

He also announced he would elevate domestic and family violence to an urgent agenda item for the Council of Australian Governments. He said he would urge the Council to agree on a framework for a national domestic violence scheme. 

But Batty has said that these announcements are meaningless unless Abbott takes action to reverse the cuts he has already made to crucial domestic violence services. 

She said it is hypocritical for him to make announcements about new frameworks and approaches when the cuts already in place are so damaging to domestic violence victims.

She said when compared with Abbott’s newfound public stance on family violence, the existing cuts are “contradictory”.

"It is a double standard, it is contradictory and totally undervaluing the part that these workers play in our front line services," she said to the Prime Minister’s office on Friday.

The cuts she refers to are to family violence services as well as homelessness and crisis accommodation services across the country. Altogether, the cuts are worth $300 million. Several services across the country will be forced to close after having their federal funding slashed or even removed in its entirety.

English peer Lord Michael Ashcroft helped fund the Liberal Party's war chest to the tune of $1.5 million over the last three Australian federal elections

Sixteen days before the 2004 federal election English peer, Michael Anthony Ashcroft, the Rt Hon. the Lord Ashcroft KCMG  (left), donated $1 million to the federal arm of the Liberal Party of Australia.

Twenty-four days before the 2010 federal election this peer contributed $250,000 to that same federal political party.

Six days before the 2013 federal election he again donated $250,000 to the federal Liberal Party - this time from an address in that well-known tax haven Belize where he is said to hold dual citizenship.

Of his first sizable donation to the Liberal Party, Lord Ashcroft stated in his book Dirty Politics, Dirty Times:

The donation of Australian $1 million – £410,000 – was believed to have been the largest single political donation in the country’s history. I made it prior to the 2004 general election as a show of support for John Howard, the country’s Prime Minister and leader of the International Democratic Union. I have long been a great admirer of John and he was struggling against the Labour Party, which seemed poised to take power. In fact, in October 2004, John secured a fourth term and, if my donation helped him to victory at the polls, then I am delighted. 

One has to wonder if he feels the same way about the money he has outlaid on Tony Abbott, now that the Liberal Party Leader’s prime ministership has become a slow-motion political train wreck .

BRIEF BACKGROUND

Lord Ashcroft writing about himself on his website:

After more than 40 years as an entrepreneur working in both the UK and overseas, particularly the US, I am an active investor in new companies and ideas. At various points in my business career, I have headed companies employing more than 100,000 people. Over the years, I have negotiated countless major deals, including the sale of ADT to Tyco International for more than $6.7 billion (£3.7 billion) in 1997. See my Business page for more details.

I am a lifelong supporter of the Conservative Party. In 2000, I was knighted and became a member of the House of Lords (Lord Ashcroft of Chichester, KCMG).  I served as Treasurer of the Conservative Party, under William Hague’s leadership, from 1998 to 2001. I continue to be Treasurer of the International Democrat Union.

The peer’s register of interests recorded by the U.K. Parliament:

Information found at Linked In:

Group Mayfair Limited (UK) in Australia which includes Anne Street Partners Financial Services Pty Limited, QNV Constructions Pty Limited and a number of related subsidiary companies owned by interests associated with UK businessman and philanthropist billionaire The Right Honourable Lord Ashcroft PC KCMG….

Impellam Group plc (traded on AIM Board London Stock Exchange IPEL) Group conducts business primarily in the UK and North America, with smaller operations in Australia, Ireland, New Zealand and mainland Europe. The Group employs nearly 6,000 people, including 2,200 managers and consultants and more than 3,500 support services workers, across a network of 230 branch and regional offices. The Group operates more than 17 speciality brands across a broad range of staffing sectors which are complemented by businesses in the outsourced support services sector. Impellam Group is ranked 2nd largest in the UK and 12th largest in the world…..

Medacs Healthcare Group commenced operations in 1990 in the UK and is part of the listed Impellam Group, a global brand of specialist recruitment agencies…..history of service provided to Qld Health dates back to the commencement of the acquired firms.....Qld Health from 2005 to 2010 was the Group’s largest customer in terms of placement services and revenue generated in Australia. [my red bolding]

Former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory and chairman & director of a number of companies in which Lord Ashcroft’s has an interest, Shane Stone, is currently the chairman of Australian PM Tony Abbott’s Northern Australia Advisory Group.

QNV Constructions Pty Ltd currently lists residential housing projects in NSW, VIC, SA and Tasmania, with a number of completed projects in Queensland.

Staffing Industry Analysts December 2014:

Lord Michael Ashcroft, KCMG PC, has been appointed Non-Executive Chairman of recruitment firm Impellam Group (IPEL: AIM), the second largest staffing firm in the UK, with immediate effect.

Impellam Group is one of Lord Ashcroft’s many business interests in the UK. According to the company’s most recent financial results, the Group achieved revenue of £612.3 million in the six months to 27 June 2014, an increase of +3.5% compared with the same period in 2013.

In 2010, his 57% holding in the Group was transferred to his children and “remoter issue”. The transfer occurred one day before a new law forcing members of the House of Lords to pay tax on their worldwide income and assets came into effect. Tax lawyer, Richard Frimston, subsequently told the BBC’s Panorama programme that Lord Ashcroft would have faced a hefty inheritance tax bill under the new legislation if he had made the change one day later. Lord Ashcroft's lawyers denied any impropriety or wrongdoing….

Excerpt from Press Complaints Commission (U.K.) ruling:

Lord Ashcroft complained to the Press Complaints Commission that an article headlined “Tory treasurer sued in US court” published in The Observer on 8 April 2001 was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code of Practice.

The complaint was rejected.

The article claimed that the complainant, the former treasurer of the Conservative Party, had, along with four other directors of a company called Tyco, been accused of making ‘false and misleading statements’ to the public and using deceptive accounting to boost the share price falsely. The piece made clear that the allegations were yet to be tested in court and that a Tyco spokesman had made clear that they were ‘totally without any foundation’. In addition, a spokesman for Lord Ashcroft was quoted denying the allegations and the article made clear that such lawsuits were common in America…..

While the Commission noted the complainant’s objection to what he saw as the staleness of the story it considered that the selection of material for publication is a matter for editorial discretion. Turning to the specific complaints of inaccuracy, the Commission noted that, while the complainant may have disputed the worth or chances of success of the legal proceedings, they were nonetheless still active as reported in the paper. There was no dispute that the complainant was a director of the company or that he had been mentioned in legal documents, some of which the Commission noted had been quoted in the piece. Regarding whether or not readers might erroneously have thought that the complainant was personally being sued in the US, the Commission highlighted the fact that it considers headlines in conjunction with the text of a piece and, examining the context of the article as a whole it did not conclude that readers would have been misled as to who was the subject of the legal action. The Commission considered that the piece made clear that the claims were untested allegations and considered that the phrase ‘corporate scandal’ would have been seen in this context. The Commission did not find any material discrepancy between the complainant’s account of the involvement of the SEC and how it was reported in the article. Given that there had been an SEC investigation and given that the company had contemporaneously restated some of its results – albeit before the conclusion of the investigation – the Commission did not consider that there was any significant inaccuracy in the article’s claim that the ‘SEC did force Tyco to redo its financial results’. The Commission noted that some of the allegations were still to be tested in court or struck out and it considered that the newspaper’s offer to report the outcome was a sensible one in the circumstances.

The Commission noted the complainant’s objections that the newspaper had initially approached his spokesman for a comment only a few hours before publication. In some cases this might be a factor that the Commission would take into account – usually if the approach was so late that somebody had no reasonable opportunity to comment on a story that, by omitting their comments, would be inaccurate or misleading in breach of the Code if published. In this case, however, the Commission noted that the article had used the comments of the complainant’s spokesman and lawyer to make the complainant’s point of view very clear. Readers could have been in no doubt that the complainant vigorously disputed the allegations. The Commission also noted that the article had explained that such lawsuits were common in America and that the company believed that lawyers were attempting to blackmail the firm. In all these circumstances the Commission could find no breach of the Code. 

The Guardian 8 April 2001:

Lord Ashcroft the Conservative Party treasurer, is being sued in the United States over his alleged role in a corporate scandal that is said to have cost shareholders millions of dollars.

The allegations will again raise awkward questions about Ashcroft's business affairs and William Hague's judgment in appointing him party treasurer.

Documents filed in the US courts - and obtained by The Observer - claim Ashcroft, along with four fellow directors of a company called Tyco International, made 'false and misleading' statements to the public and used deceptive accounting to boost falsely the firm's share price. The allegations, made by disgruntled shareholders, have yet to be tested in court.

They claim the directors have 'profited handsomely' by selling more than $242 million of shares they owned in their company.

Ashcroft, who has donated millions to the Tory party, is personally named in the lawsuit. He is accused of selling nearly 830,000 shares in the company at 'artificially inflated' prices for more than $37m.

The documents filed in the Court of New Hampshire in November allege that Ashcroft took part in a 'fraudulent scheme' to 'cover up and conceal Tyco's real business prospects and artificially to inflate the price of Tyco's stock so that it would be attractive... and to personally benefit by selling a substantial portion of their holdings'.

One claim is 'specifically, Ashcroft sold 827,400 shares of Tyco common stock at artificially inflated prices for proceeds of $37,472,947.'

Ashcroft still has almost $300m of shares in Tyco, a Bermudan-based manufacturing company which bought Ashcroft's ADT security firm in 1997 for $6 billion. It was as a result of this deal that Ashcroft became a non-executive board director of Tyco and a major shareholder of the company, whose products range from bandages to burglar alarms.

A Tyco spokesman has insisted that all the allegations - which are contained in the 56-page document lodged on behalf of Tyco shareholders - are 'totally without any foundation' and says the directors will 'vigorously defend' themselves…..

On 2 November 2007 the matter of Meran v Tyco International Ltd, Michael A Ashcroft, Mark A Belnick and Price Waterhouse Coopers LLP - and other associated matters - were finally concluded when the defendants entered into a $3.4 billion agreement which compensated all shareholders (listed from 13 December 1999 to 7 June 2006) with the exception of the defendants and certain others.

* Photograph from The Daily Mail

Abbott states that the people elected him prime minister. No they didn't, Tony.

It's the people that hire, and frankly it's the people that should fire

[Prime Minister Tony Abbott spinning a line at the National Press Club, 2 February 2015]

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott has gone all presidential again. 

Trying to convince everyone that the nation directly elected him as prime minister, when both he and every voter in the country knows that a prime ministership is exclusively within the gift of the political party which wins the right to form government at a federal general election.

The people have no say.

Perhaps he is laying the groundwork for one of the arguments he will continue to use this week in the hope of stopping a leadership spill in the near future.

A spill is reportedly being discussed as ‘Team Abbott’ is not happy with its wayward captain……..

The Sydney Morning Herald 1 February 2015:

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has called a crunch two-day meeting of his federal cabinet designed to thrash out a policy agenda for 2015 and confront the political issues dogging his government.

News of the meeting comes as a government backbencher said Mr Abbott should not be challenged for the leadership, warning any change should occur without the party room having to knife a first-term prime minister and that "mature, careful and selfless consideration" was now needed about the Coalition's future.

The comments suggest the backbench could push for Mr Abbott to stand down as Prime Minister to avoid a damaging leadership spill…..

Mr Abbott is expected to begin the meeting by giving a "state of play" address. That will be followed by each cabinet minister setting out their policy priorities and plans for the next 12 months.

Time has also been set aside for a political discussion, and it is in this portion of the meeting that Mr Abbott is expected to hear the frank views of colleagues dismayed at the precipitous drop in the government's fortunes.

One cabinet minister told Fairfax Media on the condition of anonymity that Mr Abbott's fortunes had moved "dramatically" in recent weeks and confirmed the government's political fortunes would now effectively feature as the top agenda item.

But that same minister stressed that no one was "stalking" Mr Abbott and that it was up to the Prime Minister to turn around his fortunes.

"The question is does he have the confidence of the party room?" the minister asked.

Liberals MPs are openly discussing Mr Abbott's future in the wake of the LNP's devastating rout in the Queensland state election…..

Mr Abbott on Sunday reminded voters he had been elected Prime Minister and said leadership was not a popularity contest.

"The people of Australia elected me as Prime Minister … but in the end government is not a popularity contest it's a competence contest," he said.

Perth Now 1 February 2015:

It is understood more than 30 backbenchers are open to removing Mr Abbott as Prime Minister.

“It’s certainly more than 30,” one MP who asked not to be named said.

“Queenslanders are leading the push now”.

Another MP, who also asked not to be named, said that there could be a special meeting of the party room as early as Tuesday.

The Sydney Morning Herald 1 February 2014:

Liberal Prime Minister Tony Abbott's missteps have begun eroding the party's standing in NSW, eight weeks before Premier Mike Baird faces the electorate and after a dramatic rout in Queensland.

A well-placed source has told Fairfax the party's primary vote in NSW lost two percentage points in the week after Mr Abbott's decision to grant a knighthood to Prince Philip, according to internal polling.

The revelation comes as local Liberal party figures question the extent to which the electoral contagion which routed the Queensland Liberals will spread to NSW…..

Party figures are understood to be considering asking Mr Abbott to avoid campaigning at all in his home state ahead of the March 28 poll.

"You won't be seeing much of Tony Abbott in the NSW campaign, you can be sure of that," said the ABC's election analyst, Antony Green. "That's if he's still Prime Minister"…..

The Sydney Morning Herald 7:10pm 2 February 2015:

Sorry is the hardest word for (an unrepentant) Tony Abbott

The tone of Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott's 2 February 2015 National Press Club address was quite frankly unrepentant.

He refused to own his personal mistakes - preferring to prefix mention of them with an "our".

The rejection of Liberal and National Party policies at state level he preferred to attribute to "absentmindedness" on the part of voters.

The waning electoral support for Liberal and National Party MPs and Senators was someone else's fault by the time his speech came to an end.

There was nere an I'm sorry or I apologise in sight. Not a hint that he understood that he was THE problem for the Coalition.

These are the words that dominated his speech to varying degrees:

The train wreck that is Tony Abbott

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott was always a political train wreck in slow motion. However, it now appears that the crash may be imminent.

January 2015 Galaxy Poll, 1 February 2015:

ABC News, 1 February 2015:

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

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

"This is catastrophic, unimaginable," said another.

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

The Age, 1 February 2015:

Mr Abbott's grip on power suffered a series of devastating body blows on Saturday, but things got worse late in the evening when Jane Prentice, a Queensland-based federal Liberal National backbencher, warned on live TV that Mr Abbott could face a leadership challenge if he did not nail a critical address to the National Press Club on Monday.

Asked on the ABC whether Mr Abbott was the right person to lead the Coalition to the next election, Ms Prentice replied: "Well, that's a discussion, isn't it? We need to look at where we're going."

"Tony has said he has listened and learned. He is making a keynote speech on Monday at the press club [and] we can't continue as we are. We are not taking the people with us. We are getting bad feedback."

Ms Prentice predicted the Coalition would suffer the same fate as Campbell Newman's first-term state government if "we don't change what we're doing".

Ms Prentice agreed Monday's speech was "make or break" for Mr Abbott.

Asked whether the Queensland result would trigger a leadership spill, Ms Prentice hesitated and replied: "Look, I think our discussion... I think the members will look at the results tonight and they will take those to Canberra." When pressed again about the likelihood of a showdown, she said MPs would "see what he [Mr Abbott] says on Monday"…..

The Courier Mail, 1 February 2015:

THE anti-LNP electoral tsunami in Queensland has set the clock ticking for Tony Abbott.

While state issues, particularly Campbell Newman’s style and asset sales, were dominant in the savage ballot box backlash, federal issues disrupted the LNP campaign and contributed to the swing.

Talk of a GST hike, Medicare rebates, cutting penalty rates and a knighthood for Prince Philip all consumed oxygen the LNP needed to get its message across and gave voters one more reason to vote against the Government.

Now Abbott has to wear some of the blame – and he’d be advised to take it on the chin, to borrow a phrase he used after the knighthood fiasco.

Queensland Coalition MPs around Brisbane and along the coast, all the way to Cape York, will be looking nervously at the towering swings this weekend and wonder if they can stick with Abbott.

They will worry that the sentiment shown against asset sales and service cuts will be repeated at the federal level in reaction to harsh budget measures such as health, pension, welfare and education changes.

Other Coalition MPs around Australia will look at Labor’s January juggernaut and have similar nervous jitters.

The Australian, 31 January 2015:

THE Prime Minister will face the next wave of wrath from his colleagues and the electorate…..

For Abbott there is no doubt his thoughtless and ideologically blind decision to appoint Prince Philip an Australian knight will have played some part in Newman’s loss in Ashgrove.
Federally it will increase the sense of panic and trouble making from Queensland, encourage leadership destabilisation and limit Abbott’s options generally.
Realistically the size of the swing against LNP in Queensland can’t be sheeted home entirely to Abbott but when there is a disaster anyone on the bridge is blamed.
Abbott’s attempts to right his own ship, clumsy and barnacle-busting as they were, will suffer a huge hit from this Queensland State election result.

The Daily Telegraph, 31 January 2015:

PRIME Minister Tony Abbott would lead the Liberal Party to a historic defeat that would deliver a primary vote of just 36 per cent and terminate the careers of more than 40 Coalition MPs if an election was held today.

In a poll that will send shock waves through the Coalition party room, support for the Abbott government has plunged to 57-43 on a two party preferred basis, according to a new Galaxy poll.

The Sunday Telegraph can reveal Julie Bishop has offered a personal assurance to the Prime Minister in private talks she was not undermining him or campaigning for his job.

However, she was not asked to provide nor did she offer a personal guarantee that she would never challenge in the future.

“We are willing the Prime Minister to succeed,’’ a Liberal MP said.

“But if he can’t succeed, all bets are off.’’

It comes as former Howard Government minister Mal Brough yesterday refused to deny he had been asked by Queensland MPs to challenge for the leadership as a circuit breaker.

Liberal MPs say Ms Bishop and Malcolm Turnbull have assured the Prime Minister they are willing him to succeed as nervous backbenchers warn he has until the end of the year to prove he can take the party to the next election.

Support for Mr Abbott has plunged to just 27 per cent when voters are asked to nominate their preferred prime minister. Support for Bill Shorten has increased to 44 per cent….

The Age, 31 January 2015:

Fairfax Media revealed on Saturday that former Howard government cabinet minister Mal Brough was being urged to challenge Mr Abbott for the prime ministership.

Such a challenge would effectively see Mr Brough act as a stalking horse for an alternative leader such as Julie Bishop or Malcolm Turnbull.

Mr Brough did not deny approaches had been made to him when contacted by Fairfax Media. He said only that: "Clearly people are talking to each other because we are all interested in doing what's best for the nation."

A tilt would act as a leadership circuit-breaker for government backbenchers, who are furious with Mr Abbott for a series of recent missteps and misjudgments, culminating in the decision to knight Prince Philip last Monday.

The 2009 leadership contest that saw Mr Abbott replace Mr Turnbull was precipitated by Victorian Liberal MP Kevin Andrews mounting a similar surprise challenge. 

Several sources told Fairfax Media, before polling booths closed on Saturday afternoon, that Mr Brough's next move would depend, in part, on the result in the Queensland election.

News of Mr Brough's surprise leadership aspirations came just a day after Fairfax Media revealed that Ms Bishop and Mr Turnbull had been approached to take the leadership from Mr Abbott but had refused to do so….

Meanwhile anticipation grows……