Tony Watch (3)

Given that there is currently not a single politician in Liberal or Nationals ranks who would make even a half-decent Australian prime minister, speculating on who might replace Malcolm Bligh Turnbull is to venture down into the dark pages of a horror story.

However, I’m willing to wager that the right-wing nutters currently infesting both parties will be whipped into a frenzy if polling numbers like those set out below continue.

Former Liberal prime minister John Anthony "Tony" Abbott was first out of the barrier with a 'helpful' comment to journalists. 

Skilfully he wielded a sharp blade by pointing out that his government's lowest polling occurred at after an "excellent" trip to Asia in 2014 to finalise the Japan free trade agreement and making "giant strides" towards one with China, then contrasting 
Turnbull's even lower polling as having come after what Tony reportedly described as a modest but significant move towards budget repair.

The  Australian reporting on Newspoll results, 26 September 2016:

The Coalition’s primary vote has tumbled below 40 per cent for the first time under Malcolm ­Turnbull’s prime ministership and is now lower than when Tony Abbott was dumped as leader a year ago.

The latest Newspoll, taken ­exclusively for The Australian, also reveals Labor has seized a two-party-preferred lead of 52 per cent to the Coalition’s 48 per cent — the opposition’s biggest lead since Mr Turnbull took power.

Mr Turnbull remains the preferred prime minister over Bill Shorten, but less than a third of voters are satisfied with his performance while more than a half are ­dissatisfied.

The poll of 1662 voters, taken from last Thursday to Sunday, shows the Coalition’s primary vote has fallen three points in the past fortnight to 38 per cent and is down four points since the election 12 weeks ago.

Aside from the post-election slump for Julia Gillard’s government, which took only three weeks to lose four points after the 2010 election, it is the quickest ­decline in primary vote by a re-elected government in the 32-year history of Newspoll.

In the final Newspoll under Mr Abbott’s leadership in September last year, the Coalition’s primary vote was 39 per cent. It peaked at 46 per cent under Mr Turnbull, was 42.1 per cent at the election and has now fallen to 38 per cent.

Support for Labor has risen one point in the past fortnight to a four-month high of 37 per cent, while the Greens have gained one point to 10 per cent and other parties and independents have climbed a combined one point to 15 per cent.

Based on preference flows from the July election, Labor has a two-party-preferred lead of 52 per cent to the Coalition’s 48 per cent…….

When Mr Turnbull launched his challenge against Mr Abbott, he cited the fact the Coalition had lost 30 consecutive Newspoll ­surveys.

Mr Turnbull has now been leader for 21 Newspoll surveys and the Coalition has won nine, Labor has won five and there have been seven tied.

Mr Turnbull’s own standing with voters has continued to fall to new lows. Satisfaction with his performance fell two points to 32 per cent and dissatisfaction rose two points to 55 per cent.

It leaves Mr Turnbull with a net satisfaction rating of minus 23 points, a deterioration of four points in the past fortnight and a 61-point drop from his honeymoon peak last November of plus 38 points.

Mr Shorten has a higher ­satisfaction rating of 36 per cent, up one point, and a lower dissatisfaction measure of 51 per cent, down one point.

The Labor leader’s net satisfaction rating has improved from minus 17 to minus 15 points.

The only measure where Mr Turnbull has consistently remained ahead of Mr Shorten is on the question of who is the better prime minister, where his support rose one point to 44 per cent while Mr Shorten gained two points to 33 per cent.

Mr Turnbull has lost 20 points since his peak of 64 per cent last December while Mr Shorten has more than doubled his support since reaching the equal-record low for a Labor leader of 14 per cent…..

The United Nations clearly recognises that Coalition prime ministers may have changed but the Australian Government continues to be a bad international citizen

Then……

Australian Prime Minister John Anthony "Tony" Abbott

69th Session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, 25 September 2014

Speaking to a near empty hall

Now……

Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Bligh Turnbull

71^st Session of United Nations General Assembly in New York, 22 September 2016

Speaking to a near empty hall

TONY WATCH (2)

TONY  WATCH is an irregular post series recording Abbott’s efforts to bring down Malcolm Turnbull and re-install himself as prime minister.

Once again the fiscal shenanigans of our politicians have been brought to the electorate's attention, reminding us all of this:

"Non-Australian individuals, businesses and even governments may donate to political parties, “purchasing access and influence far greater than that of ordinary (Australian) citizens”, writes Marian Sawer. Sawer also points out that other democratic countries ban corporate donations, those from foreign interests, or require shareholder approval for company donations while Australia does not." [The Australian Collaboration (2011) Democracy in Australia – Electoral donations and campaign finance in IDEA Political Finance data for Australia]

Like a hound that had scented blood, on Thursday 9 September 2016 former Australian prime minister Tony Abbott was making sure he was in the news either being compared with or confronting the current prime minister - safe in the knowledge that Turnbull overseas on official business would not be able to quickly respond.

Independent Australia, 9 September 2016:

Back in 2008, before rolling Tony Abbott for the leadership, Turnbull supported political donation reform, telling Parliament:

 "This is a big, big, moral issue. I would love to see a day when only individuals on the electoral role were able to give money to political parties with an annual cap".

Since the 1980s, Australia has become known for its laissez-faire or lackadaisical attitude to the role of money in politics. At the federal level, Australia introduced public funding for political parties to reduce reliance on private donations but corporate donations have continued to grow — reaching $202 million in 2013–14.

Disclosure to the Australian Electoral Commission is required for donations of over $13,200 but there are no source restrictions or limits for donations.

So we have the situation where companies seeking access to government and favourable treatment of bids for contracts or licenses are quite lawfully making large donations to political parties. Australia’s political finance regulation falls way behind international standards, as can be seen in the global database maintained by the Institutional Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA).

To take just the issue currently in the headlines, Australia has not even taken the step of banning donations from foreign interests, unlike 114 other democracies. See IDEA's Political finance bans and limits here…… 

In the early hours of the morning there was a somewhat hypocritical Tony Abbott seeking to land a blow on his arch-nemesis Malcolm Turnbull with this stance on a topical political issue.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 9 September 2016, 12am:

Former prime minister Tony Abbott has outlined a sweeping plan for reform of Australia's political donations system that would ban payments from unions, companies and overseas donors.

In comments that will ratchet up pressure on Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to act on reform of Australia's donations laws - rather than punt the problem off to a parliamentary committee - Mr Abbott spoke exclusively to Fairfax Media about the need for a major re-think of the current system.

While opposition leader in May 2013, Mr Abbott backed out on a donation reform deal struck with then-prime minister Julia Gillard after an internal party and public backlash.

That deal would have handed political parties and elected MPs more public funding but also, crucially, reduced the disclosure thresholds for anonymous donations from $12,000 to $5000.

There are strong calls for donation reform from various sides of politics following the Sam Dastyari affair.

While opposition leader in May 2013, Mr Abbott backed out on a donation reform deal struck with then-prime minister Julia Gillard after an internal party and public backlash.

That deal would have handed political parties and elected MPs more public funding but also, crucially, reduced the disclosure thresholds for anonymous donations from $12,000 to $5000.

But in the wake of the Dastyari scandal, Mr Abbott said: "I think it is time to look at donations reform again.

" We need to look long and hard at restricting donations to real people on the electoral roll. To that end, there should be no union donations, company donations or foreign donations, " he said.

" Obviously we don't want influence buying, we don't want subversion of our system. The best way to ensure the system is straight and clean is full transparency. The best way to have transparency is to have real-time disclosure, or near-to-real-time disclosure."

Mr Abbott encouraged people "to donate to the Liberals, or the party of their choice - that's a good thing - and if they want to do it substantially that's great, as long as there is that transparency".

"Plainly we do need to subject any changes to scrutiny to ensure there are no unintended consequences, but in the wake of the Dastyari affair, this does need to be looked at again."

Mr Abbott did not specify whether the Turnbull government should appoint an independent panel of experts to examine donations reform, as the NSW government did in 2014, or whether it should be left to a parliamentary committee…..

Mr Turnbull said that "ideally" donations should be limited to people on the electoral roll but only hinted that a parliamentary committee could look at the issue.

"So you would exclude not simply foreigners but you would exclude corporations and you'd exclude trade unions," he said.

"It is a very complex issue, however, and it is something that the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters should look at very carefully."

The committee, however, has not been formed, has not been asked to examine the issue and routinely has had its past reform recommendations ignored.

After the 2013 election, the committee undertook a routine review but devoted just 10 pages of the 192-page report to the issues of donations. It made not one recommendation to reform the system or improve transparency.

After the 2010 poll, the committee examined how the political donations system in Australia could be improved and made a sweeping series of recommendations - including lowering disclosure thresholds and banning foreign money.

Mr Shorten said the Prime Minister was "hardly one to throw rocks about political courage".

"I say to Malcolm Turnbull: be prepared. Next week you can either work with us or oppose us but, by hook or by crook, Labor is going to propose legislation which will ban foreign donations."

Labor's donations reform policies include reducing the disclosure threshold from $13,800 to $1000, banning anonymous donations over $50 and banning foreign donations.

The Greens and sections of the crossbench also back donations reforms, including lowering donations thresholds and stopping foreign donations……

Not content with a single left to the jaw, Abbott swiftly followed on with this jab in The Australian on the same day, on the subject of the so-called Healthy Welfare Cards aka restricted bank debit card being trialled between 1 February 2016 and 30 June 2018 at three test sites.

The Australian, 9 September 2016, 12am:

Tony Abbott has called for an ­expansion of the government’s healthy welfare card and says criticism that it is racist could ­derail it and ignores the fact the debit system has been backed by indigenous people.

Writing in The Australian after spending five days in the remote East Kimberley town of Kununurra, Mr Abbott has challenged parliament to keep the trial going “long enough for a proper evaluation”. He has also renewed his controversial push for people to be given their full family tax benefit payment only if their children have a good school attendance rate, saying trials could work in places where the community wants to tackle truancy…..

Unlike the incumbent Prime Minister, Abbott as a backbencher can conveniently ignore the fact that these tests results may be potentially skewed due to accompanying supportive wraparound welfare services, that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has raised concerns about income management infringing human rights based on the right to equality and non-discrimination, the right to social security and the right to privacy and family and that not all indigenous communities are in favour of this move by federal government.

His pugilistic propensities not yet satisfied, Abbott hit out at Turnbull a third time later in the morning.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 9 September 2016, 9am:

Former prime minister Tony Abbott has accused the ABC of bias over its July coverage of abuse in Northern Territory juvenile detention system and suggested that his successor Malcolm Turnbull responded "in panic" at the TV program.

Mr Turnbull announced there would be a royal commission the morning after the Four Corners broadcast, which depicted shocking scenes in the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre, and the government formally established the inquiry the next week.

Just over a month later, Mr Abbott has called the ABC report "pretty one-sided", joining ousted NT chief minister Adam Giles in criticising it despite the federal government's praise.

"Yes, it was a shocking report but it was only telling one side of the story and, when the rest of the story started to come out, it appeared that things were not nearly as black and white as the ABC presented them," the former prime minister told 2GB radio……

All in all a pathetic performance on Abbott's part - reminding the nation as it does of his justifiable sacking in September 2015 rather than acting as a showcase for his 'leadership' qualities.

TONY WATCH (1)

 

Illustration: Eric Lobbecke, with apologies to Annie Leibovitz Source: The Australian

With a bare working majority of one in the House of Representatives the Turnbull Government ended the first sitting week of the 44^th Australian Parliament in disarray.

So it is hardly surprising that former prime minister Tony Abbott was out to draw blood from those colleagues who sacked him on 15 September 2015 finally returning him to the wilderness of the backbench.

Here is the first snippet for TONY  WATCH, an irregular post series recording Abbott’s efforts to bring down Malcolm Turnbull and re-install himself as prime minister.

The Australian, 3 September 2016:

Tony Abbott has clashed with Scott Morrison over his super­annuation changes, labelling them “deeply unpopular” with the Coalition’s base, as support builds for the Treasurer to ­increase the cap on after-tax contributions to $1 million.

In a “tetchy” private meeting with a group of Liberal and ­Nationals MPs in Parliament House on Thursday, Mr Abbott confronted Mr Morrison and Minister for Revenue Kelly O’Dwyer about their proposed $6 billion super package. He ­argued the government was wrong to offer super concessions to low-income earners.

He also argued for the government to abandon its proposed cap on post-tax contributions.

As Mr Morrison and Malcolm Turnbull seek to reach a consensus with backbench MPs on the contentious election policy, The Weekend Australian can also ­reveal that doubling the lifetime cap on non-concessional contributions to $1m would hit the budget bottom line by $750m.

MPs at the meeting said they were “aghast” that Mr Abbott had proposed hitting low-income earners — particularly working mothers — to benefit the wealthy, whom the former leader accused Mr Morrison and Ms O’Dwyer of abandoning.

“He went in there looking for a fight; he wasn’t interested in ­information, he wasn’t interested in listening to his colleagues, he wanted to have a fight,” said one MP present at the meeting.

“He kept interrupting and he wanted to derail the discussion.”

Mr Abbott is understood to have argued that the Coalition should represent lower taxes and smaller government, prompting a retort from Mr Morrison about policies Mr Abbott had put in place while leader that had ­increased taxes. Amid a series of tense exchanges with the man he believed betrayed him in last year’s leadership spill, Mr Abbott said the super changes ­announced in Mr Morrison’s first budget in May “sent the wrong message about aspiration” and he argued that there should be no cap on after-tax contributions.

When he was prime minister, Mr Abbott ruled out changing superannuation, ­saying it was not a “piggy bank” to be raided.

The Weekend Australian ­understands Mr Morrison told Thursday’s meeting that the Coalition needed to focus on its key narrative — the moral ­responsibility it had for budget repair — and pointed to legislation being pursued by the government that cut taxes and spending.

“Scott was very firm, but it was clear from Tony’s demeanour that he had not got out of bed on the right side that morning,” one MP said. Another said: “Tony ­arrived to the meeting cranky, and I think people were a bit shocked that he went for Scott so obviously. It was personal.”

Journalist Paul Bongiorno on the subject of Tony Abbott's comeback ambitions in 2016

ABC NEWS: MP for Warringah Tony Abbott’s 2016 federal election campaign launch

The New Daily, 16 May 2016:

Just ask yourself this: what other backbench member of parliament could attract all the TV networks, extensive radio coverage and print reporters to their local campaign launch?

Only a deposed prime minister keen to keep his name up in lights and intent on a comeback would be capable of the feat.

Tony Abbott’s Warringah launch had all the trappings of a national event. In fact, it had more razzamatazz than Julia Gillard’s 2010 effort, complete with a giant national flag back drop, professional placards and rows of blue t-shirted supporters.

It was followed with extensive interviews on Sky TV and with high-rating Sydney shock jock Alan Jones. And he is not up to mischief?

It is a free country and he successfully sought Liberal endorsement fair and square. But just as Malcolm Turnbull didn’t hang around in politics to be anything other than Prime Minister, it is surely not beyond the pale to ask why Tony is clinging to his parliamentary career. A lack of imagination doesn’t cut it. To serve the people of his electorate and the nation sounds, well, self-serving.

This is where the game of politics, the rules of engagement and appearances have to be well understood. Mr Abbott has assured his sympathetic media interrogators his party would never turn to him again as leader. His former chief of staff Peta Credlin scotched that one. That’s what he may be thinking now, she says, but experience tells us there’s no such thing as never ever.

Especially as a significant number of Liberals both in and out of the parliament are beginning to worry that Mr Turnbull is just not the politician he needs to be to maximise the government’s position either in the election, or if he should just win it, after the poll.

In fact there is a belief – more a shuddering fear – that the Coalition could be left with a bare majority at best.

“Anything under 80 seats spells doom for Malcolm,” was the view of one disconsolate Liberal MP. Seventy-six are needed to form government.

If perceptions of dithering and drift continue, and the government’s standing worsens, the precedent is set for a coup…..

Australian Federal Election 2016: slugging the taxpayer for your wine bill

One of the perks of being Prime Minister of Australia is that liquor flows freely courtesy of the taxpayer’s pocket.

Tony Abbott seems to have done himself proud if the redacted wine bills (all 13 pages of them) covering less than two months between February and April 2015 are any indication:

FOI-Beverage receipts by RJ

Australian Federal Election 2016: Tony Abbott sings the 'I did it my way but I'll mend my ways' song again

Remember the promise to be “more consultative” after an “injudicious” knighting of Prince Phillip? Recall the promise of no more captain’s picks and to run a more "collegiate" party room in future?  What about the promise after the first “chastening” Libspill  that “good government starts today”?

Former prime minister and MP for Warringah Tony Abbott has been admitting his mistakes and promising to do better – over and over and over again – and now he’s doing it once more and still expecting to be believed.

His latest siren song has silly lyrics and he is singing off key.

The Australian, 23 April 2016:

A contrite Tony Abbott, in a unique exercise in self-criticism, has conceded a long list of mistake­s and misjudgments in relation­ to policy, public opinion and dealings with colleagues that were instrumental in costing him the prime ministership.

Mr Abbott’s admissions constitute­ a deep personal reassessment. He pledges to try to rectify­ in his future public life the lessons from his inadequacies as prime minister.

He concedes that the Abbott government failed to rise to the challenges of “greater fairness, more thoroughgoing justice and deeper empowerment”.

The litany of admitted failures, large and small, has no parallel as a public confession for a deposed prime minister, even though most are made in hindsight. Mr Abbott says: “I made some unnecessary enemies and left too many friends feeling under-appreciated.

“I can’t let pride in what was achieved under my leadership blind me to the flaws that made its termination easier, even if claims were exaggerated or exploited in self-serving ways.”

He concedes “there were some issues the Abbott government could have managed better or not pursued at all”.

Mr Abbott’s comments are made in an article, obtained by The Weekend Australian, to be published in the May issue of Quadrant magazine. It is the third and last in a series reviewing his government….

Signalling a willingness to remain in public life, Mr Abbott says that he hopes to address his failures “in my future public life”….

Australian Federal Election 2016: a picture's worth a thousand words

Financial Review 28 March 2016

Australian Federal Election 2016: John Stone points out that Malcolm Turnbull is the same as Tony Abbott

Turnbull & Abbott morph courtesy of 
Robbo

Former Shadow Minister for Finance and Leader of the National Party in the Senate (1987-1990) and former secretary to the Treasury (1979-1984), John Stone, is not a happy man.

He has joined a growing number in Liberal-Nationals ranks who are publicly pointing out the disappointing co-joined nature of those political bedfellows, Prime Minister Malcolm Bligh Turnbull and former prime minister Anthony John Abbott MP.

This excerpt is from an article he wrote in the Australian Financial Review on 7 March 2016:

Before the successful conspiracy against him, Abbott had made four decisions. One, under no circumstances would the Coalition raise the GST. Two, it would not meddle with the basic taxation principle that investment income qualifies for deductibility of costs incurred (so-called "negative gearing"). Three, established superannuation arrangements would remain. And four, he would take income tax cuts to 2016's election.

Neither Abbott nor his lazy Treasurer Hockey mentioned that the fourth undertaking could be achieved only through significant spending cuts. On those, Hockey's 2015-16 budget was virtually silent…..

in September 2015, Turnbull spoke eloquently about our needing "a new economic narrative", were there grounds for hoping for a government that would now mend its ways?

Well, no, apparently. After five months of dithering, Turnbull has emulated Abbott's first decision. He will arrive soon at Abbott's second decision. He and Treasurer Scott Morrison are still havering over Abbott's third decision. Both agree with his fourth decision. But as for the spending cuts without which that can't happen responsibly, they are silent.

On usurping the prime ministership Turnbull was endowed, justifiably or not, with plenty of political capital. Rather than expend that capital by taking an axe to what was now his government's wasteful spending he has chosen instead, in John Howard's recent words, to "dissipate it by sitting around and doing nothing".

Let's see, come July, what the electorate thinks of that.

Turnbull was "given the opportunity of a lifetime and in five to six months it appears he has blown it"

Amid all the election timing speculation, former Victorian Liberal premier Jeff Kennet, a strong critic of Tony Abbott, is highly critical of the current Liberal prime minister Malcolm Turnbull.

The Australian, 10 March 2016:

There are only seven Saturdays Malcolm Turnbull can realistically choose to send the nation to the polls.

Football grand finals, the Olympics, school holidays and constitutional reasons mean that if the Prime Minister passes on holding a double-dissolution election on July 2, the only workable dates to choose are August 27, September 3, 10, 17 or 24 and October 15.

The great prime ministerial ­advantage in an election year is having the power to name the day to face your destiny and Mr Turnbull yesterday teased journalists about the “fascinating sport” of speculation, saying: “I’m not going to give you the election date.”

Yet his options are squeezed by a unique combination of Senate consequences and a deal with the Greens on Senate voting reform that means the new rules the ­government desperately wants to use will not take effect until July 1.

While some ministers believe July 2 is “locked in”, some say Mr Turnbull is keeping open the option of a regular half-Senate poll. The first available date is August 6 but that coincides with the opening ceremony of the Rio Olympics, which also makes an election for most of August problematic. Aug­ust 27 is the best option for the month after the Olympics finish.

September 3 is emerging as the favourite option if Mr Turnbull does not have a July 2 election. It is close to the anniversary of the 2013 election on September 7 and Mr Turnbull would not need to make a decision until August 1 allowing the early stages of the campaign to be during the Olympics, with a two-week blitz to polling day.

The other three Saturdays in September are a reasonable chance but there’s no possibility of an October 1 election as it clashes with the AFL grand final and the NRL grand final is the following day while October 8 risks being messy as it falls during school holidays. October 15 is the last realistic option for the Prime Minister, who would start to face claims he was afraid to face the people.

A double dissolution must be announced by May 11 for constitutional reasons but to take advantage of the new Senate rules the government needs the poll to be on July 2, meaning an official campaign period that would be 20 days longer than usual. While Assistant Science Minister Karen Andrews said yesterday a marathon seven-week-plus campaign could have “real positives” for the government and give it time to “explain what our vision for the future is”, others fear almost two months in winter could be high risk.

As Newspoll showed a slide in voter satisfaction with Mr Turnbull and the Coalition has lost its poll advantage from the start of the year to be deadlocked with Labor at 50-50 in two-party terms, Liberal elders have begun to sound the alarm. Jeff Kennett yesterday blasted Mr Turnbull, saying he was “given the opportunity of a lifetime and in five to six months it appears he has blown it”.

The former Victorian premier said Mr Turnbull had no plan for the future of the country and took over the leadership from Tony ­Abbott for “his own self-interest”. He said speculation about an early election was designed “simply to cover up their own failings”…...

Why Abbott's sex life is my business

Cross-post with North Coast Voices' thanks and permission from No Place for Sheep:

6 March 2016

Why Abbott’s sex life is my business

Mr & Mrs Abbott

There’s only one circumstance in which I consider the sexual lives of politicians to be my business, and that’s when they legislate about what goes on in other citizens’ sexual lives.

Failed Prime Minister Tony Abbott operates from a platform that is largely based on his personal morality, drawn from Catholic dogma. This morality advocates traditional heterosexual monogamous marriage, and argues fiercely that this is the only circumstance in which children ought to be raised.

Abbott supports the current Marriage Act with the amendment added by John Howard specifically to deny same-sex couples the right to marry.

Same-sex marriage will, in Abbott’s view, destroy what he perceives as the “sanctity” of monogamous heterosexual marriage.

Abbott foisted the notion of a plebiscite on same-sex marriage on his party, a completely unnecessary, extremely expensive and likely barbaric exercise in which citizens vote on whether or not other citizens are permitted to legally commit themselves to each other in marriage.

As health minister in the Howard government, Abbott refused Australian women access to the non surgical abortion pill known as RU 486 because his personal morality is offended by abortion. RU 486 had been declared perfectly safe, and was widely used in many parts of the world. Abbott directly interfered in the sexual lives and futures of women who did not wish to have a child, by denying us access to this drug should we need to use it, thus restricting our options in the event of unplanned pregnancy.

Abbott has paraded his wife and his daughters as evidence of his personal morality: he is a traditional, heterosexual married male, and therefore we assume him to be upholding monogamy as a significant value in our society and in his personal life.

Tony Abbott has made it his business to comment on, criticise and exercise legislative control over the sexual practices and commitments of Australians. If he is not living up to the ideals he demands are enforced, if Abbott is himself desecrating the perceived sanctity of monogamous marriage by infidelity with a married woman, I have a right to know about that hypocrisy.

If Tony Abbott would care to lose his interest in controlling the sexual practices of adult citizens, I will be more than happy to lose my interest in his. Until then, everything Tony Abbott does that can be seen to affect the sanctity of the ideals he espouses and imposes is my business, and yours, and everyone else’s.

Who will the country be supporting in 2016 - Bill Shorten or Tony Abbott?

This is Leader of the Opposition and Labor MP for Maribyrnong, Bill Shorten.....

And this is the Janus-faced Australian Prime Minister and MP for Wentworth, Malcolm Anthony Abbott Turnbull.......

Video courtesy of Clarrie Rivers

Setting the record straight on one of Tony Abbott's phantasies in 2016

Malcolm Turnbull’s first official visit to the U.S. since becoming Australian Prime Minister occurred this year. He met with President Barack Obama at the White House in Washington DC on 19 January 2016.

The occasion was attended by an obligatory White House press release and photo opportunities:

At the end of January sacked former prime minister Tony Abbott hotfooted it to Washington and then briefed News Corp to the effect that on 30 January he attended an exclusive banquet and had a private meeting with President Obama.

There was no official White House media release and the only photo opportunities with the president were outside the lunch venue and did not feature Abbott:

The casual shot above of lunch guests leaving the venue does show Tony Abbott at the top of the stairs, but the only other image that was offered to backup Tony Abbott's bae phantasy was file video of he and Peta Credlin wandering forlornly in what appears to be a park in the UK:

The real facts are that Tony Abbott attended a 100-seat lunch as a guest of one of the members of what is essentially a powerful old fogey’s group, the Alfalfa Club, which meets one day a year.

That club member was newspaper mogul Rupert Murdoch.

This year President Obama attended the lunch. Knowing the pattern of such gatherings it is safe to assume that Tony Abbott would have been lucky to speak with Obama for 10 minutes before the president’s skillful aides separated him from Abbott.

Abbott also attended the club’s annual dinner that night which Obama had politely declined to attend. Obama has only ever attended two of these annual dinners during his presidency.

When Abbott was finally sprung fibbing and it was revealed that there were no private meetings with Obama at that lunch, this was the response from a member of Tony's staff on 8 February 2016:

Mr Abbott was pleased to have the opportunity to speak with President Obama privately at a lunch on Saturday 30 January, 2016. 

It seem that he will not give up his pork pie without a fight.

NOTE: Photographs were found at The Guardian, The Malay Mail Online, Twitter, UPI, Sky News.

Tony Abbott and his captain's picks continue to haunt Australia

It would appear that when he was prime minister the MP for Warringah, Tony Abbott,  was not only telling political lies of omission and commission to Australian voters – he may also telling them to his own government.

The Australian, 1 February 2016:

Sharp tensions between Tony Abbott and Foreign Minister Julie Bishop were exposed yesterday with the revelation of a rock-solid pledge in writing by Mr Abbott to back former New Zealand leader Helen Clark as the next UN secretar­y-general.

The Australian has obtained the late-2014 exchange of letters between the then Australian prime minister and New Zealand Prime Minister John Key in which Mr Abbott commits to a joint strategy between the two countries to try to make Ms Clark the successor to Ban Ki-moon.

Ms Bishop signalled last week that the Turnbull government felt its options were open to support former Labor prime minister Kevin Rudd if he nominated for the post and that no firm commitment to any other candidate had been made by the government.

Yet Mr Abbott had made such commitments and the assurances offered by Ms Bishop were wrong.

It emerged last night that Ms Bishop as Foreign Minister, dealing with the UN on a regular basis, was not informed by Mr Abbott­ of his 2014 commitment to back Ms Clark for the post.

Ms Bishop is astonished that Mr Abbott as prime minister was exercising his personal authority with Mr Key without ­consulting her or keeping her “in the loop”.

Abbott supporters in turn are suspicious that Ms Bishop is positioning the Turnbull government to support Mr Rudd for the post when Mr Abbott had made a formal commitment to another candid­ate through the letter.

Ms Bishop, in response, has made it clear that the decision on Australia’s support for any candid­ate will be made by the Turnbull cabinet and not by herself as Foreign Minister……

Tony Abbott was quick to deny that he had acted unilaterally in endorsing former New Zealand prime minister Helen Clark’s candidature. However, Ms. Bishop insists that “Any letter to the New Zealand Prime Minister was not shared with me, my office or my department…There was no discussion in cabinet about supporting Helen Clark …No New Zealand official ever raised this with us.”

On 3 February 2016 The Australian expanded on Abbott's motives:

Tony Abbott sought an exchange of letters with John Key to support former New Zealand prime minister Helen Clark for the top job at the UN to head off Kevin Rudd’s push to get Australia’s backing for the post…..

In November 2014, Mr Abbott was aware of Mr Rudd’s interest in Australian government support should he declare as a candidate for UN secretary-general and, after discussions with Mr Key, gave a written guarantee he would support Ms Clark if she ran.

After earlier discussions, Mr Abbott and an ­adviser approached Mr Key at Darwin Airport in early November on their way to an APEC meeting in Beijing. The two prime ministers discussed the issue, with Mr Abbott offering his support for Ms Clark and seeking an exchange of letters to formalise the agreement. On November 10, Mr Key wrote to Mr Abbott about their conversation about Ms Clark and said he would welcome “any support from the Australian government”…..

Yesterday in Wellington, Mr Key said he had discussed the matter only with Mr Abbott.

“I didn’t have any discussions with Julie Bishop,” he said. “We thought at the time there was a possibility Helen Clark would put her name forward, and I had a discussion with Tony Abbott about Helen being a very strong candidate and that the New Zealand government would back her. He said … if she put her name forward, he thought Australia would support her.”

Mr Key said the situation changed when Mr Turnbull became Prime Minister. “What I said (to him) … was once the change of prime ministership happened, we wouldn’t consider it a binding ­obligation.”

This situation poses two questions:

(1) What other previously unannounced captain’s picks by Tony Abbott will surface in the coming months and will they also have the potential to cause domestic or foreign policy difficulties?

(2) Can the Turnbull Government afford to go to a general election this year with a divisive Tony Abbott still in its ranks?

Perhaps sacking him as prime minister was only half the answer and the NSW Division of the Liberal Party needs to go further and not support his pre-selection.

Abbott the hysterical historian

There’s no doubt about Tony Abbott – he’s the gift that keeps on giving

Matt Golding cartoon.

This is Tones the historian giving a definition of marriage though the ages.

Forget cultures which practice polyandry or polygamy. Ignore “walking marriage”, “fixed term marriage”, “ghost marriage”, “marriage to a deity”, “woman-woman marriage” and marriage involving a “two spirit” person.

No, it has definitely been lifetime monogamous marriage between one man and one woman since time immemorial, according to the MP for Warringah.

*Sound of  thousands of anthropologists laughing out loud*

Excerpt from Tony Abbott’s speech to an assembly of right-wing extremists at an Alliance Defending Freedom dinner on 28 January 2016:

Marriage, actually, was never just about two people who love each other. Siblings love each other. Parents love their children and vice versa. Friends can love each other. You don’t need to be married to love someone.

It’s only in recent times, that marriage has been about romantic love. Marriage arose as a way of dealing with human imperfection. It was to keep men more committed and less likely to abandon their wives and children – and I doubt that we have become so flawless that this no longer matters.

In Australia, just a decade ago, almost unanimously, the parliament affirmed that marriage was between a man and a woman…..

Indeed, around the world, some 17 countries now provide for same sex marriage. But 176 don’t – and few of them are likely to change any time soon.

Now, I know that numbers aren’t the only test – but it’s hardly self-evident that the 17 that have changed are right and that all the others are wrong.

Not long ago most gay activists rejected marriage as an oppressive institution.

Now they demand as their right what they recently scorned; they demand what was unimaginable in all previous times and still is in most places. They are seeking what has never been and expecting others to surrender what always has. It’s a massive ask — for me, an ask too far.

I support people’s right to make a case for the things they ­believe, and want them cour­teously heard, but policymakers should strive to hold the common ground.

In today’s world, we need less ideology and more common sense; we need less impatience and more respect; we need less shouting at people and more ­engagement with them.

We shouldn’t try to change something without understanding it, without grasping why it is that one man and one woman open to children until just a very few years ago has always and everywhere been considered the essence of marriage and the heart of family.

Of course, we can’t shirk our responsibilities to the future, but let’s also respect and appreciate values and institutions that have stood the test of time and pass them on, undamaged, when that’s best.

Some readers might also question Abbott's notion that in the West traditional marriage evolved as a way to protect women and children. Rather than as a way for men to protect their own political, property and inheritance rights.