# Julie Bishop for PM



## drsmith (26 January 2015)

As much as I hate to say it, poor old Tones has done his dash and perhaps from this point, the best thing he can do for the party and the nation as a whole is facilitate an orderly transition to a new leader. 

While a favourite of the Left when he's a rung or two below looking enviously up, Malcolm Turnbull was a failure as opposition leader and while Scott Morrison was outstanding as immigration minister, we need to see his metal in a major domestic portfolio before he can be considered. For the period ahead, he's got that opportunity.

The government also needs to effectively steer the economic narrative and for that, Joe Hockey has demonstrated he's simply not up to the task. He has to vacate his role as treasurer as well.

My choice would be the long serving deputy Julie Bishop to lead the party and the country with Malcolm Turnbull as her treasurer. I'd first like to see how politically competent Malcolm is in his natural arena before he has another opportunity to step up to the party leadership.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 January 2015)

drsmith said:


> As much as I hate to say it, poor old Tones has done his dash and perhaps from this point, the best thing he can do for the party and the nation as a whole is facilitate an orderly transition to a new leader.
> 
> While a favourite of the Left when he's a rung or two below looking enviously up, Malcolm Turnbull was a failure as opposition leader and while Scott Morrison was outstanding as immigration minister, we need to see his metal in a major domestic portfolio before he can be considered. For the period ahead, he's got that opportunity.
> 
> ...




That is a fairly astute observation Dr Smith, I concur.

Both Abbott and Hockey are demonstrably not up to the job, and Turnbull's talents are wasted in Communications even though he has a lot of expertise in that area. He is a natural replacement for Hockey.

Bishop-Turnbull would be a strong contender to get the Coalition's ship off the rocks, and may force a leadership change on the other side too (I hope), as Shorten is proving disappointing.


----------



## banco (26 January 2015)

drsmith said:


> As much as I hate to say it, poor old Tones has done his dash and perhaps from this point, the best thing he can do for the party and the nation as a whole is facilitate an orderly transition to a new leader.
> 
> While a favourite of the Left when he's a rung or two below looking enviously up, Malcolm Turnbull was a failure as opposition leader and while Scott Morrison was outstanding as immigration minister, we need to see his metal in a major domestic portfolio before he can be considered. For the period ahead, he's got that opportunity.
> 
> ...




We haven't seen Bishop's metal in a domestic portfolio either.  Foreign Minister isn't that hard a gig as long as you remember the lines DFAT has fed you.

Plus it wouldn't take any imagination for Labor's spin doctors to paint her as an out of touch elitist (hey if the jimmy choo shoe fits).


----------



## IFocus (26 January 2015)

banco said:


> We haven't seen Bishop's metal in a domestic portfolio either.  Foreign Minister isn't that hard a gig as long as you remember the lines DFAT has fed you.
> 
> Plus it wouldn't take any imagination for Labor's spin doctors to paint her as an out of touch elitist (hey if the jimmy choo shoe fits).




As always Banco totally right Bishop is not that deep cannot remember anything intellectual that she has achieved and as education minister Bishop was fairly ordinary. 

Being from WA and delivering funds for the Liberal party she has been  rewarded with deputy....as a barren single female in the Liberal party for leader................. never.


----------



## Julia (26 January 2015)

IFocus said:


> ..as a barren single female in the Liberal party for leader................. never.



What on earth does her childbearing status have to do with her capacity to do a good job politically?

It was good enough for Labor to accept in Julia Gillard, similar comments about whom rightfully aroused an outcry.

She may have chosen not to have children, not that that is any of your business.  The use of the word "barren" is as awful now as it was when applied to Gillard.


----------



## banco (26 January 2015)

Julia said:


> What on earth does her childbearing status have to do with her capacity to do a good job politically?
> 
> It was good enough for Labor to accept in Julia Gillard, similar comments about whom rightfully aroused an outcry.
> 
> She may have chosen not to have children, not that that is any of your business.  The use of the word "barren" is as awful now as it was when applied to Gillard.




Makes her less marketable to the public. Do you think Abbott's four daughters have anything to do with his capacity to do a good job? Probably not but they are great props on the campaign trail.


----------



## sptrawler (26 January 2015)

From memory, under duress, Bishop was found wanting. 
The media has carved up Abbott. 
I tend to think Morrison is the only one, who seems to be able to think on his feet and stare down the press.

IMO Abbott hasn't done a bad job, playing with a crap hand, he just doesn't have the charisma and the press hate him.

C'est la vie.


----------



## IFocus (26 January 2015)

Julia said:


> What on earth does her childbearing status have to do with her capacity to do a good job politically?
> 
> It was good enough for Labor to accept in Julia Gillard, similar comments about whom rightfully aroused an outcry.
> 
> She may have chosen not to have children, not that that is any of your business.  The use of the word "barren" is as awful now as it was when applied to Gillard.




As usual  your points are absolutely 110% correct unfortunately I am re-quoting what leading power brokers in the Liberal party have said about Gillard ( Bill Heffernan) and applied the sentiment to their own.

The fact there is an under representation of talent and or females in the cabinet would seem to reinforce that sentiment.

Given the centre of power in the Liberal party currently exists in the right wing and Bishop is not a member of this group then there is a snow balls chance in hell of her becoming leader of the Liberal party.

I do share the opinion that out of a bunch of red neck Neanderthals on the front bench Bishop is a stand out but like Abbott far from PM material fit to lead this fine country of ours for all Australians.


----------



## sptrawler (26 January 2015)

IFocus said:


> As usual  your points are absolutely 110% correct unfortunately I am re-quoting what leading power brokers in the Liberal party have said about Gillard ( Bill Heffernan) and applied the sentiment to their own.
> 
> The fact there is an under representation of talent and or females in the cabinet would seem to reinforce that sentiment.
> 
> ...




That is the qualified opinion of someone who thought Rudd was good, sorry I meant Gillard was good, apologies, we'll go with the first loser again.lol
You really are funny.


----------



## Tisme (27 January 2015)

IFocus said:


> As usual
> Given the centre of power in the Liberal party currently exists in the right wing and Bishop is not a member of this group then there is a snow balls chance in hell of her becoming leader of the Liberal party.
> 
> .




I wonder how Liberal tragics would view labelling Julie with the same vile comments afforded Gillard by their heroes back in the day? Your "barren" comment is spot on in highlighting the indignation based on tribal loyalty. Political favourites aside, Bishop is not a shadow of the talent Gillard is and Julie's current success is in no small part due to the success of both Rudd and Gillard gaining traction on all things international in the foreign affairs portfolio. And for the record I don't like any of the three of them.

Bishop is not good Liberal Prime Minister material: she is a dinosaur Anglican in a sea of Catholics, she does not display any freedom of thought outside the party line, she is an indoctrinated public servant from an early age,  she does not have the support of her misogynist colleagues and she is a West Australian.  

The seat in the UN, the courtesy of neighbours regardless of her insults, etc are gifts from previous standout  ministers like Evans, Smith and Rudd and outward looking PM's like Hawke, Keating, Howard, Rudd and Gillard and credit must be given to Howard, Peacock and Hewson who gave support to Hawke and Keating with their reform agendas. 

It's very easy to be the brightest bulb in a pack when the rest are one shot duds.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 January 2015)

Tisme said:


> I wonder how Liberal tragics would view labelling Julie with the same vile comments afforded Gillard by their heroes back in the day? Your "barren" comment is spot on in highlighting the indignation based on tribal loyalty. Political favourites aside, Bishop is not a shadow of the talent Gillard is and Julie's current success is in no small part due to the success of both Rudd and Gillard gaining traction on all things international in the foreign affairs portfolio. And for the record I don't like any of the three of them.
> 
> Bishop is not good Liberal Prime Minister material: she is a dinosaur Anglican in a sea of Catholics, she does not display any freedom of thought outside the party line, she is an indoctrinated public servant from an early age,  she does not have the support of her misogynist colleagues and she is a West Australian.
> 
> ...




You may be right, but don't spread it around. 

I you were a Coalition supporter, who would you rather see as PM ?


----------



## Tisme (27 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> You may be right, but don't spread it around.
> 
> I you were a Coalition supporter, who would you rather see as PM ?




As you know I am not aligned to any party, but the way I look at who should do what is based on my shareholding in Company Australia..... in other words if Oz was a listed company and Government was the board of directors, what would I want the company to be doing e.g. growing, stagnating or going backwards, would I want them to slow the widgets being produced to reduce debt or expand based on increased debt, would I want to hear about a previous board's mistakes or hear about future directions, etc?


Of course that expands through the whole responsibilities of government, with the major requirement for good governance, social agendas, etc.

In am ocean of beige Catholics (tribally bound to a foreign power) on both sides of the political fence I can't say I am particularly fond of any of them. We seem to be going through one of those spells where nothing much happens and we are just waiting for someone with leadership qualities to surface.

Honestly I can't think of anyone PM material ATM  Rumpole


----------



## SirRumpole (27 January 2015)

Tisme said:


> As you know I am not aligned to any party, but the way I look at who should do what is based on my shareholding in Company Australia..... in other words if Oz was a listed company and Government was the board of directors, what would I want the company to be doing e.g. growing, stagnating or going backwards, would I want them to slow the widgets being produced to reduce debt or expand based on increased debt, would I want to hear about a previous board's mistakes or hear about future directions, etc?
> 
> 
> Of course that expands through the whole responsibilities of government, with the major requirement for good governance, social agendas, etc.
> ...




Yep, very sad. No Hawke, Keating or Howard around.

Turnbull is the only one with the brains to do the job imo, but the Libs won't have him.

Maybe we should hibernate for a while.


----------



## Logique (27 January 2015)

drsmith said:


> ...My choice would be the long serving deputy Julie Bishop to lead the party and the country with Malcolm Turnbull as her treasurer. I'd first like to see how politically competent Malcolm is in his natural arena before he has another opportunity to step up to the party leadership.



Leaning to this also Doc, but it's not without risk.

Turnbull for Treasurer I wholeheartedly support. 

But Julie Bishop hardly set the world on fire as Treasurer. Scott Morrison has the potential, but it is too soon in his career, he should not be thrown to the wolves.

The danger for Tony Abbott is that it comes to a point where his colleagues say '..what have we got to lose?'

Love to be a fly on the wall as incoming PM Bishop strolls up to Peta Credlin's desk...'I'm your new boss'


----------



## Tisme (27 January 2015)

Logique said:


> Love to be a fly on the wall as incoming PM Bishop strolls up to Peta Credlin's desk...'I'm your new boss'




The Credlin Govt  deserves a bit of a G Up for its incredibly poor KPI achievements.  Both Credlin and Abbott lack an established public brand as venerable as Howard (for instance) had, so while Howard was half the dynamo as each of his two predecessors he could get away with doing zip and making the odd faux pas along the way until he too delegated his responsibilities to public servants and trashed his brand by whimping out to Bush, lying about children overboard and the vociferously class war  "workchoices".

Howard was so good in centralizing LNP power in it's prime minister that without a long time in parliament learning how to wield that power there are just to many balls for someone like Abbott to juggle ... he just is not up to the task and he has abrogated in favour of his circle of trust ... and I can't think off anyone other prime minister except Rudd who was stupid enough to think he could trust his colleagues.

There is a good synopsis piece about Howard I managed to find from back in the day that gives a good idea of how Howard cemented his place so well, future LNP kings would have a hard time wielding the isolated power bestowed on them. It's one of those articles I remembered because of the abstract about Sir Frederick Wheeler and his disdain at the abuse against the tradition and office of the Prime Minister (regardless of tribe) by way of the dismissal in 1975.....which as it turns out set us free from the shackles of the British govt, bravo.

http://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2007/april/1298352657/brian-toohey/lone-ranger


----------



## moXJO (27 January 2015)

IFocus said:


> As usual  your points are absolutely 110% correct unfortunately I am re-quoting what leading power brokers in the Liberal party have said about Gillard ( Bill Heffernan) and applied the sentiment to their own.
> 
> The fact there is an under representation of talent and or females in the cabinet would seem to reinforce that sentiment.
> 
> ...




Actually I wouldn't be surprised if it was used against her. An upper class barren snob out of touch with mothers and families. Someone would throw it out there as a takedown.


----------



## moXJO (27 January 2015)

Tisme said:


> The Credlin Govt  deserves a bit of a G Up for its incredibly poor KPI achievements.  Both Credlin and Abbott lack an established public brand as venerable as Howard




Abbott has a very strong public brand. He has united labor and lib under the banner of dislike. Terrible can be a brand right?

Seriously is Abbott following some kind of tactic that will come into play at the final hour and stun us all. The only upside is he is not wasting billions on Ruddesque type policy every week. It's mostly gaffes. 
If in the libs position you would keep him as leader to take the heat, while raising the profile of potential PMs until closer to the election. I'm not sure who would fill the shoes of PM just yet, none of them seem up to scratch at this time. Labor needs another term in the wilderness to clear the deadwood as well.


----------



## Julia (27 January 2015)

IFocus said:


> As usual  your points are absolutely 110% correct unfortunately I am re-quoting what leading power brokers in the Liberal party have said about Gillard ( Bill Heffernan) and applied the sentiment to their own.



Fair enough and it was no more appropriate when applied to Gillard than it is now to Bishop.


> Given the centre of power in the Liberal party currently exists in the right wing and Bishop is not a member of this group then there is a snow balls chance in hell of her becoming leader of the Liberal party.



That's a good point.



Tisme said:


> I wonder how Liberal tragics would view labelling Julie with the same vile comments afforded Gillard by their heroes back in the day?



I'm not sure why a solitary inappropriate and vile comment by a character like Heffernan would constitute him  being characterised as a 'hero' by anyone.  
I'd imagine most of his colleagues were as appalled as were most of the electorate.

I just can't remember any other time when there was such a dearth of politicians able to inspire even a modicum of confidence.


----------



## Tisme (27 January 2015)

Julia said:


> I just can't remember any other time when there was such a dearth of politicians able to inspire even a modicum of confidence.




Remember the duumvirate Whitlam and Lance Barnard team? Even then we had more talent running the place and in opposition than we do now!!!


----------



## drsmith (27 January 2015)

IFocus said:


> As usual  your points are absolutely 110% correct unfortunately I am re-quoting what leading power brokers in the Liberal party have said about Gillard ( Bill Heffernan) and applied the sentiment to their own.



You presented it though as your own opinion.

Two wrongs in the minds of some I suppose makes a right.


----------



## banco (27 January 2015)

Apparently her paramour is a wealthy property developer. That will appeal to the Kath and Kim crowd.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 January 2015)

banco said:


> Apparently her paramour is a wealthy property developer. That will appeal to the Kath and Kim crowd.




I definitely won't be voting for her in that case.

Glad you bought these facts to my attention.


----------



## Julia (27 January 2015)

drsmith said:


> You presented it though as your own opinion.



Yes.  Surely if you're going to be offering your take on someone else's old comment it would be reasonable to state that, IFocus.



SirRumpole said:


> I definitely won't be voting for her in that case.
> 
> Glad you bought these facts to my attention.



As if you ever would anyway, Rumpole.

Ms Bishop is single.  She has been linked with various companions since being divorced.  How is it relevant and whose business is it other than her own?

  And why on earth would you, even if she were in a live in, confirmed relationship with someone who happened to be a property developer, allow that to affect any consideration of her capacity to do her job?

We happen to have some property developers on this forum, people with the initiative to see and take up opportunities.  Good on them.  It would be good if more followed their example instead of forever sitting back and expecting governments to create a living for them.


----------



## Bintang (27 January 2015)

Julia said:


> Ms Bishop is single.  She has been linked with various companions since being divorced.  How is it relevant and whose business is it other than her own?




You seem to have your 'ear to the ground' Julia. If Ms Bishop ever decides to ditch her current paramour please let me know. I'd like to try my chances.

PS: Doesn't mean I would want her to be PM though.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 January 2015)

> And why on earth would you, even if she were in a live in, confirmed relationship with someone who happened to be a property developer, allow that to affect any consideration of her capacity to do her job?




If she remained as Foreign Minister, there would be no conflict of interest. As Prime Minister she could influence decisions in the favour of her partner's business relations. 

I'm surprised that you think that such a thing would never happen. The political landscape is littered with property developers gaining advantage from both sides of politics.



> We happen to have some property developers on this forum, people with the initiative to see and take up opportunities. Good on them.




Yes of course as long as their developments are justified on public interest grounds. If it's just a cash grab as a thank you from their political mates for donations or relationships, then it amounts to corruption.


----------



## moXJO (28 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes of course as long as their developments are justified on public interest grounds. If it's just a cash grab as a thank you from their political mates for donations or relationships, then it amounts to corruption.




Yet corruption from unions and a PM is perfectly fine. Happy to turn a blind eye to that.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 January 2015)

moXJO said:


> Yet corruption from unions and a PM is perfectly fine. Happy to turn a blind eye to that.




No blind eye at all. A Royal Commission is now being held. If people are corrupt from whatever parties, I hope they get what they deserve.


----------



## Tisme (28 January 2015)

There's a constant theme amongst members here; if something is smelly in Denmark, it's Ok because there's a smell in London too. Just replace Denmark and London with the political party, sexual orientation, religion of your choice. .


And what is it with the apparent lack of understanding satire and irony when posts are so blatantly ridiculous they have to be tongue in cheek.... emoticons are superfluous. Our refugee Vietnamese member in particular has a field day with some of you guys.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 January 2015)

Tisme said:


> There's a constant theme amongst members here; if something is smelly in Denmark, it's Ok because there's a smell in London too. Just replace Denmark and London with the political party, sexual orientation, religion of your choice. .
> 
> 
> And what is it with the apparent lack of understanding satire and irony when posts are so blatantly ridiculous they have to be tongue in cheek.... emoticons are superfluous. Our refugee Vietnamese member in particular has a field day with some of you guys.




Nicely put.


----------



## banco (28 January 2015)

Well on the more substantive side she apparently defended asbestos firms as a lawyer.  The attack ads (with people with oxygen tanks dying of abestos related illnesses) write themselves...........


----------



## Julia (28 January 2015)

Bintang said:


> You seem to have your 'ear to the ground' Julia. If Ms Bishop ever decides to ditch her current paramour please let me know. I'd like to try my chances.



 Sadly, Bintang, I have no insider knowledge whatsoever.  I was just curious enough last night, following the assertion about her 'partner' to google "Julie Bishop's partner", the result of that search I duly posted.

The main article reported her having a day at the races with the gentleman in question and his two adult daughters.

No wonder politics attracts so few good people when a few outings with someone apparently invites speculation  that by association she could be open to corrupt decisions in a ministerial role.


----------



## moXJO (28 January 2015)

Tisme said:


> There's a constant theme amongst members here; if something is smelly in Denmark, it's Ok because there's a smell in London too.




Thats funny I was going to say the same thing.


----------



## IrishDigger (28 January 2015)

The fact is that we don't have much to chose from in the way of great leaders, from any side of politics.

It's a pity we couldn't advertise the job and even recruit from overseas.


----------



## Bintang (28 January 2015)

IrishDigger said:


> It's a pity we couldn't advertise the job and even recruit from overseas.




That would be extremely  dangerous if it was done in accordance with the principal of equal opportunity employment. We might end up with  Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.  Imagine the out-cry if we tried to avoid this by saying – _‘no muslims need apply’_.


----------



## banco (28 January 2015)

Bintang said:


> That would be extremely  dangerous if it was done in accordance with the principal of equal opportunity employment. We might end up with  Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.  Imagine the out-cry if we tried to avoid this by saying – _‘no muslims need apply’_.




You are pretty monomaniacal about the muslims. Do you dream about them?


----------



## Bintang (28 January 2015)

banco said:


> You are pretty monomaniacal about the muslims. Do you dream about them?




No. I suspect I'm just an Islamophobe outing myself.


----------



## Tisme (29 January 2015)

Bintang said:


> No. I suspect I'm just an Islamophobe outing myself.




Maybe you are like one of characters in a gay propaganda movie who rails against homosexuals because he is in denial?     Perhaps you are God imprinted to be a Muslim


----------



## banco (8 February 2015)

I look forward to the women's weekly cover:

Ms Bishop appeared in another photo opp on Sunday, featuring in the Sunday Age alongside Mr Panton and his daughters.


----------



## Knobby22 (16 February 2015)

I think Julie Bishop should be the next Prime Minister because:

1. She was a proven manager before she became a politician and the prime Minister is really a manager. I think Turnbull's patrician style will grate with the MPs..

2. She can help ease the fears of the *dinosaur wing *of the party who are scared Turnball might encourage action on climate change, help push the Republican issue, allow euthanasia, encourage science (instead of religion) and let gays get married. Julie would be seen as a more conciliatory figure and so therefore get better backing and achieve more as Prime Minister. 

Turnbull should obviously be Treasurer and should have a big influence in running the country.
They can let Tony Abbott retain the women's portfolio he loves so much.


----------



## Logique (16 February 2015)

How soon can she start.

Good post.


----------



## Julia (16 February 2015)

Logique said:


> How soon can she start.
> 
> Good post.



Agree.  But won't there be resistance to a female leader from the hard Right?

She is savvy, answers questions but within her own limits, articulate and calm.
Everything Mr Abbott is not.


----------



## basilio (17 February 2015)

The interesting thought about Bishop vs Turnball for PM is ... how certain everyone is that Tony Abbott will go. Dumping Phillip Ruddock as Whip was just another couple of days of furious grave digging for tones.

When the Liberal Party get around to replacing Tony the comparative merits of Julie Bishop and Malcolm Turnball will get a close analysis. As I see it currently
*
1) Politically Malcolm Turnball is worth at least another 4% over Julie Bishop.* A Turnball led government would attract a big swag of centre votes and probably keep them a lot longer than Julie Bishop

2) *Malcolm would probably be a better negotiator of Parliament than Julie Bishop. *There would be a better chance of getting legislation through. More significantly if the Senate did stay bolshie he could call a double dissolution with the realistic probability of getting a  total mandate.  That would fundamentally strengthen his hand and make him more likely to be successful in negotiations

3) *Objectively Malcolm  has better skills as a PM than Julie Bishop*.  He is a better thinker, more articulate and probably more strategic. I think Julie Bishop would probably agree. Most political observers would also acknowledge this.

Of course none of this means that Malcom will become leader.  There is plenty of evidence to show that the Liberal party as a whole does not seriously want an intelligent, articulate and inclusive centrist leader. For a start it would then become very difficult to defend a raft of current policies that would not stand up to serious critique.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 February 2015)

basilio said:


> The interesting thought about Bishop vs Turnball for PM is ... how certain everyone is that Tony Abbott will go. Dumping Phillip Ruddock as Whip was just another couple of days of furious grave digging for tones.
> 
> When the Liberal Party get around to replacing Tony the comparative merits of Julie Bishop and Malcolm Turnball will get a close analysis. As I see it currently
> *
> ...




Good post, especially the last paragraph.

The Liberal Party's attitude to Turnbull is similar to the Labor Party's attitude to Rudd. They don't particularly like him or his philosophy (like not cow towing to the Gina Rineharts of this country), but they can't ignore his electoral popularity.

If Turnbull became PM, Bishop would likely stay in Foreign Affairs where she has impressed, and Morrison would become Treasurer. Is that a better setup than Bishop as PM and Turnbull as Treasurer ? Turnbull has better qualifications to be Treasurer, but it's obvious that he has his eyes on the top job, so maybe he would decline the Treasury if Bishop became PM.

Meanwhile Abbott is doing the "tough on terrorism" routine, the last refuge of a scoundrel.


----------



## drsmith (17 February 2015)

I see in parts of the media this morning, the MT cheer squad is in full swing again after his appearance on Q&A last night. It's that same cheer squad that would then turn to tearing him down should he become Liberal party leader. 

Let's not forget that MT as leaded on his first attempt divided the party. He also showed poor political judgment.


----------



## Julia (17 February 2015)

drsmith said:


> I see in parts of the media this morning, the MT cheer squad is in full swing again after his appearance on Q&A last night. It's that same cheer squad that would then turn to tearing him down should he become Liberal party leader.
> 
> Let's not forget that MT as leaded on his first attempt divided the party. He also showed poor political judgment.



+1.  
Above we have the predictable preference of basilio for Mr Turnbull, echoed by Rumpole, both Left sympathisers, presumably on the basis that Turnbull reflects much of the Left philosophy and would be much more likely than Julie Bishop to accede to agreement with Labor proposals.

Mr Turnbull would likely be overall less acceptable across the broad Coalition, partly because the conservative Right would be against much of what he stands for,  and partly because of his previous failure as leader, as drsmith points out above.


----------



## Tisme (17 February 2015)

The original Liberal Party doctrine was non reactive progressiveness ...how does Malcolm Turnbull not fit that ethos? How is the present Liberal Party not an imposter to Menzie's ethos? The last true Liberal Party PM was Fraser, the last two have been Manchurian Candidates of sorts, like it or not.


----------



## Logique (17 February 2015)

Julia said:


> Agree.  But won't there be resistance to a female leader from the hard Right?
> She is savvy, answers questions but within her own limits, articulate and calm.
> Everything Mr Abbott is not.



She's to the left of Tony Abbott!  Poor opinion polls and the risk of losing your seat can do wonders for a backbenchers political tolerance. 

The Libs have to win back the conservative core to have any chance next time around. They've seen M.Turnbull in action as PM.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 February 2015)

Julia said:


> +1.
> Above we have the predictable preference of basilio for Mr Turnbull, echoed by Rumpole, both Left sympathisers, presumably on the basis that Turnbull reflects much of the Left philosophy and would be much more likely than Julie Bishop to accede to agreement with Labor proposals.
> 
> Mr Turnbull would likely be overall less acceptable across the broad Coalition, partly because the conservative Right would be against much of what he stands for,  and partly because of his previous failure as leader, as drsmith points out above.




If the supporters of the Liberal party want to stay with or elect another leader who is unacceptable to the electorate, that's fine by me.


----------



## moXJO (17 February 2015)

Tisme said:


> The original Liberal Party doctrine was non reactive progressiveness ...how does Malcolm Turnbull not fit that ethos? How is the present Liberal Party not an imposter to Menzie's ethos? The last true Liberal Party PM was Fraser, the last two have been Manchurian Candidates of sorts, like it or not.






SirRumpole said:


> If the supporters of the Liberal party want to stay with or elect another leader who is unacceptable to the electorate, that's fine by me.




Surprisingly I agree with the above two. In the current political climate I don't think Bishop will float. The only way the libs will win is by a move back to the center. Right now the country needs bipartisan cooperation from labor and libs. Tbull is more likely of achieving that.
My issues with Malcom are:
Has he learnt from his previous failures and arrogance.
Will he listen to all factions within liberals.
Will he drag liberal too far left of center.

The other thing is that Abbott would have to step down from leadership (yeah good luck). Abbott will have to achieve another massive stinker to be shaken out. For now he looks safe. Credlin needs to be ditched asap.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 February 2015)

moXJO said:


> The other thing is that Abbott would have to step down from leadership (yeah good luck). Abbott will have to achieve another massive stinker to be shaken out. For now he looks safe. Credlin needs to be ditched asap.




Sacking Ruddock was another stinker.

 Blaming the Chief Whip for his own autocratic style which distanced him from his backbench was arrogance.

 Doesn't he ever talk to his backbench personally ? If he did he would have known that there was dissatisfaction on the backbench and he could have headed it off (if he had the political skills to do this which he obviously has not).


----------



## Tisme (17 February 2015)

moXJO said:


> . Right now the country needs bipartisan cooperation from labor and libs. .




Holy crap! I agree with you 

Do you think they are grown up enough to argue, bend and compromise for the good of the nation?


----------



## Tisme (17 February 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Doesn't he ever talk to his backbench personally ? .




He's quite affable to his own tribe, which can compromise people talking frankly about goals and outcomes. No one wants to burst his bubble overtly.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 February 2015)

Tisme said:


> Holy crap! I agree with you
> 
> Do you think they are grown up enough to argue, bend and compromise for the good of the nation?




No. Neither side.

When you have Labor opposing the savings it introduced and the Libs bringing in silly policies like the co-contribution that does nothing to fix the Medicare imbalance, it doesn't give much hope that they have "grown up".


----------



## moXJO (17 February 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Sacking Ruddock was another stinker.
> 
> Blaming the Chief Whip for his own autocratic style which distanced him from his backbench was arrogance.
> 
> Doesn't he ever talk to his backbench personally ? If he did he would have known that there was dissatisfaction on the backbench and he could have headed it off (if he had the political skills to do this which he obviously has not).




The libs having to run everything through credlins office must have caused some waves. Realistically, he seems to be insulating himself or being micro managed by his minders from reality similar to Rudd.
Ruddock being fired reeks of a power move to control the room. But I don't think Ruddock will be his lynch rope.


----------



## Julia (17 February 2015)

Logique said:


> She's to the left of Tony Abbott!



Well, you could say the same for 99% of the population.  Mr Abbott has never properly represented the Liberal party.  He should more correctly run on a 100% Conservative ticket.



> The Libs have to win back the conservative core to have any chance next time around. They've seen M.Turnbull in action as PM.



Tricky, isn't it.  Abbott can't capture the centre small l liberals, and Turnbull - unless he develops some special quality hitherto not evident - won't be able to capture the conservatives.



SirRumpole said:


> Sacking Ruddock was another stinker.
> 
> Blaming the Chief Whip for his own autocratic style which distanced him from his backbench was arrogance.
> 
> Doesn't he ever talk to his backbench personally ? If he did he would have known that there was dissatisfaction on the backbench and he could have headed it off (if he had the political skills to do this which he obviously has not).



I suspect Mr Ruddock was the fall guy for the blow Peta Credlin should have taken.  From all I've heard and read it's she who blocks access to the PM.
Seems yet another example of how Mr Abbott is misreading not just the electorate but his own colleagues.

I might be quite wrong, but I think the sacking of Ruddock and the appointment in his place of the outspoken, unknown supporter is a much greater indictment of Mr Abbott than the silly Knighthood of Prince Philip, or any of the other so called captain's picks.
And that he could only a day or so before say that there would be more consultation, that there would be no more captain's picks, then he goes and sacks Ruddock demonstrates someone who has truly lost the plot.


----------



## SirRumpole (18 February 2015)

> The Libs have to win back the conservative core to have any chance next time around. They've seen M.Turnbull in action as PM.




I'm just wondering who these "Conservatives" are and what they actually believe in, if anything, apart from maintaining their own status quo, and how widespread they are in society as opposed to in the Liberal Party ?


----------



## noco (18 February 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I'm just wondering who these "Conservatives" are and what they actually believe in, if anything, apart from maintaining their own status quo, and how widespread they are in society as opposed to in the Liberal Party ?




They are probably Green/Labor party infiltrators posing as conservatives..LOL


----------



## SirRumpole (18 February 2015)

noco said:


> They are probably Green/Labor party infiltrators posing as conservatives..LOL




Absolutely Fabianous !


----------

