Come off it. Maybe the Liberal Party only has one opinion and only allows one opinion to be voiced internally but any reasonable person would expect a real political party to contain strongly held and advocated views and have a process by which such views can be subjected to a process of determination, which you typify as 'lobbying'. I didn't know lobbying was a sin, evidently you think it is, been in politics long?

You use the first third of your article to try to make a normal internal party debate and democratic decision making process look like a problem by using all kinds of alarmist terms and prejudicial framing. Using a thesaurus to find scary synonyms doesn't make your position any more credible.

You use the rest of your article to try to build a looming crisis on the basis of the non-existent authority problem you imagined up for your own benefit.

Surely you've got better things to be doing with your time than this kind of transparent verbal manipulation? Oh, sorry, politician...proceed....

Last time I remember the LNP showing disagreement in the ranks it was met with Mr Abbott spinning a positive as something like '...we in the Liberal Party are a broad Church and we encourage discussion on all sorts of issues and we won't always agree'.

It is not a collapse in authority for a PM to be persuaded or influenced to change her decision. This is called a democracy. It is only in dictatorships where the supreme leader has all power. North Korea anyone?

Hasn't the LNP worked it out yet. That people are sick of the maliciousness and trite that comes out from the two major parties. We need to sweep the lot out now and bring in some new candidates who will rise above the petty politicking and point scoring and actually hold whichever government is in power to account on policies.

Agree with Pelican. The only fall in authority in this case is that of the Canberra press gallery who consistently has misread the public's total disinterest in this case or indeed, any matter which does not directly pertain to policy and governing the nation.

As much as the deputy opposition leader may try, the smear campaign isn't working like it didn't work for the ALP, although some mud stuck to Abbott.

It's no wonder circulation for mainstream papers is crashing (Internet aside). Its because political reporters lack news sense. They are tribal pack hunters who are writing much which few read and even fewer care about.

I agree with the previous comments and would add that after the debacle of the case against the speaker being thrown out of court, maybe the coalition should actually do some serious thinking about alternative policies and not spend so much time craving for power and trying to blacken the government.
The job of an opposition is to offer alternatives and not to continuously whine about losing the last election and not having a go at the trough.
Julie, why do you keep writing to this forum with your anti government articles?
Would it not be better to be looking at ways to improve the running of the country/

Julie perhaps you should dis-endorse the member for Murray for going against your position om the Murray Darling plan Imagine the treachery of going against your leaders position on that matter.

Agree with Cheryl, Robert and Pelican!
They say a drowning man will clutch at a straw? This seems to be the political equivalent of that? Enough already!
Time to inflate the Mae west, and or, roll out some fully costed and differentiation policies, Julie!
But only, if your side of politics has anything actually in the fully costed policy locker, except more of the same old same old, and patently divisive, puerile muckraking?
The stuff your side of the isle dredged up on Slipper has back fired in a very big way, leaving lots of very smelly egg, on some very red faces?
[So, he is exceptionally candid in "allegedly" totally private telephone conversations, who amongst us isn't?]
Didn't you folks learn anything from the patently self-harming Gordon Gretch affair, and its, reportedly, manufactured evidence?
And when will your side of the isle, realise the lower house is not a kangaroo court, let alone judge, jury and executioner?
I could suggest that all politicians go back home and search for and find, your manifestly missing good manners, then put them back in?
[After all, common courtesy and civility costs nothing!]
It would make so much difference to a vastly improved question time?
The only problem is, I think most pollies could probably search the rest of their lives; and, never ever find them?
Rhrosty.

This article is so wrong on a number of levels. It is constitutionally inept. The PM is only primus inter pares. Unless of course one wants a PM whose own views are absolutely enforceable even when they are manifestly wrong. One can think of several views held by Tony Abbott that one sincerely hopes the caucus will roll him on.

Secondly, Ms Bishop persists in clinging to the position that Australia's craven abstention was wrong: that we should have joined the 9 who were overwhelmingly out of step with world opinion and voted against the resolution.

Thirdly, she persists in the bizarre claim that this vote impedes the so-called "peace process". There is no peace process worthy of the name. Israel has no intention of entering meaningful negotiations for a settlement, as has been obvious even to blind freddy for at least since the 1967 war.

The fact that immediately after the vote Netanyahu announced the annexation of yet more Palestinian territory for Jewish settlers, thereby effectively killing any possibility of a viable Palestinian state, tells one more about real Israeli intentions than meaningless blather about the "peace process".

Ms Bishop's appalling ignorance on foreign affairs makes one tremble at the prospect that she will actually get her hands on the levers of the foreign affairs portfolio.

Julie Bishop continues the strategy laid down by Abbott, attack the individual using anything to destroy their character. It back fired when they applied it to Kevin Rudd. They learned nothing. They have used the parliament through out the year applying the strategy, bringing the House to an altime low. It has damaged Abbott as the polls show causing him to pass the baton to a willing Bishop.

The latest fiasco of the strategy, like the Gretch one, has back fired. But a determined Bishop continues the strategy convinced it will win them the next election. A future parliament led by the macho Abbott strategy is fearfull to contemplate

As a long term Coalition supporter I'm adding my voice to those who have criticed the article.

The whole strategy of attack without offering a better option has gotten very old and tired. The outcome of the court case yesterday does not help (shades of Utegate ). The dismaying performance of the new Qld government who had a chance to turn things around and chose more of the same (more jobs for family and mates, more broken committments after getting into office, more ministers who don't understand the basics of personal accountability etc ).

I get that announcing policy well ahead of the election is very risky, the government has control of treasury and the use of the taxpayers resources to run a fear campaign against your proposals but what you are doing now is turning all but the most welded on away from you.

If you don't want to risk the economic traps of treasury costings of you policies perhapsmyou could start by telling what legislative steps to intend to take to provide a more honest and accountable government.

If you are stuck for ideas here is a couple of starters
-The removal of cabinet secrecy except where it's determined by a non-partisan oversight that the secrecy is in the national interest rather than party political interests.
-Legislation which makes political parties and their representatives accountable for their promises and committments in a meaningful manner.
-A meaningfull way of stopping whoever is in government using that to provide affirmative action for family members, mates and long term party hacks.

TBC
R0bert

Part 2
You could also take a bigger risk and do some creative thinking about how to address some of the government interventions into peoples lives which all to often are a massively destructive force. On a personal note I'd really like to see the Austalian government do the whole family law, child support thing in a way that is far less destructive of those caught up in it?

Can we deal with the issue of refugees in a way that does not encourage a flood yet creates a far healthier start to Australian life for those who do come and who are accepted? Mistreatment upon arrival is hardly a great way to build good members of the community. There are raft of issues which an opposition could consider doing far better than recent governments have done.

The way you are going you could just loose what was looking like an unloosable election. I want my next vote to mean something, not just the defeat of Labor but the installation of a government I can be proud to have voted for. At this stage I'm not optimistic.

R0bert

Where is your authority Julie? Been deputy a number of times, done and said not one thing of interest.

Champion comments RObert

What you wrote reflects the feelings many people I have spoken with on Australian politics regardless of which party one normally supports. There is a lack of choice and instead of the major parties lamenting minority government they should start asking why.

Can I heartily support your calls for greater transparency, an end to needless secrecy in governing and a halt to growing intrusions into private lives.

Sadly no-one in power is listening they are more concerned about winning the next election so it will be more mindless middle class welfare no doubt and important issues will be ignored.

Hi pelican,

Yes, it's so hard not to be cynical.

I have no doubt that the next federal election will again be overshadowed by the biggest float as it careers down the main street of election central...that is the "middle-class pork-barrel float"...(it's always a winner:)

Did the UN General Assembly get their vote wrong? Perhaps the overwhelming UN vote in favour of recognition, endorsed by the Australian public opinion reflects the sense that the only way a settlement will move to a resolution over Palestinian boarders will be with the Palestinians seeking redress through the international courts and achieving a court ruling rather than waiting for a conversion by Israel's leaders on the road to Damascus.

its taken a long time but people are finally waking up to the corrupt nature of man despite political persuasions. Maybe a few character checks before elections might help instead of pretending we are surprised afterwoods.

"Afterwoods" Runner have you considered Speech Therapy!

A great stateswoman - Margaret Thatcher, back in 1983 addressed her party. Here is a quote from part of her speech. "One of the great debates or our time is how much of your money should be spent by the State, and how much you should keep to spend on your family. Let us never forget this fundamental truth: the State has no source of money other than money which people have earned. If the State wishes to spend more, it can do so only by borrowing your savings or taxing you more. It is no good thinking that someone else will pay - that "someone else" is you. There is no such thing as public money - there is only taxpayers' money".
We as individuals attempt to balance our finances and live within our means and debt free. Our children will suffer for years trying to pay off the billions of dollars debt which this government has incurred in just 4 years. From surplus to huge deficit at a time when our economy has been booming is surely a sign of complete and utter incompetence and failure by the present government to manage our money wisely. Instead of managing the economy, our money is being wasted on schoolyard style personal mudslinging. What must other government leaders think of us?

I forgot to say Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister of England when she made the speech from which I quoted. Maybe some of the younger Forum members are unaware of how highly she was regarded by the heads of other governments, and those who were in her own Parliament. She obviouly never thought gender should enter into her arguments - she was too self assured to feel threatened by anyone. Her title as the Iron Lady was well earned. She did what all good P.M's do - made decisions which would benefit her people and the country as a whole. Never vacillated, and always stood by her decisions. While not everyone agreed with all her policies, she earned the trust of the people. The words in her speech have lost none of their relevance, and should apply to every government in the world, including Australia.

Of course the converse of this situation was the fact that not one single member of the Howard government ever expressed a dissenting view when the Lying Rodent joined up in the coalition of killing shock and awe invasion of Iraq, and by extension the never-ending war on terror (whatever that could be).
Then of course the Lying Rodent was duly awarded a "freedom" medal by the lying village idiot from Texas.

@Daffy Duck. It is a measure of how far we have declined as a democracy that the fundamental principles laid down by the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials 1946-1948 and the Geneva conventions that were established in 1949 have been allowed to diminish to vanishing point insofar as those principles could be applied to the actions of western governments, including the US, UK and Australia.

Those principles meant that persons who waged wars of aggression (i.e. not coming within the defences of Article 51 of the UN Charter); committed war crimes or crimes against humanity, were held to account.

Not only did all the members of the Coalition, including the erstwhile Julie Bishop, agree to the attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan, they have been conspicuously silent on issues of war crimes or accountability. Labor to their undying shame have been no better. Indeed, there is presently no more fervent supporter of the US and Israel than the current PM.

Unless and until we recover the notion of accountability for crimes waged by the state our democracy is doomed. OLO ought to be offering an alternative view to the supine mainstream media but as long as it goes on regularly publishing articles as manifestly awful as those by the Member for Curtin that may be a vain hope.

James "OLO ought to be offering an alternative view to the supine mainstream media but as long as it goes on regularly publishing articles as manifestly awful as those by the Member for Curtin that may be a vain hope."

I don't think you understand one of the basics of OLO which makes it such a refreshing change from a lot of whats out there. It provided one of the most open forums for putting differing perspectives on contentious issues that I've come across. Not perfect but you will struggle to find genuine evidence that views are censored based on the ideas behind them. OLO publishes articles by Julie Bishop but it also publishes articles by John Pilger. Those who comment on either author pieces can be confident that they won't be censored for expressing a contrary view, if the view is expressed in abusive terms they may be censored but I've never seen evidence that view put within reasonable bounds of politeness are removed.

Thats something those who value freedom should cherish.

I didn't like this article but it gave me a space address some of whats bothing me about the way the side of politics I normally support is currently behaving. If enough use this space constructively perhaps it may give some inspiration for some of our elected representatives to do better whatever party they are from.

R0bert

RObert: Point taken. I do not seek to censor anyone's views, but there is a distinction in my mind between publishing material that is someone's opinion, and imposing some degree of editorial standard. My objection to most of the pieces that Ms Bishop publishes in OLO is not that I disagree with them but that they are so often appallingly ignorant.

That wouldn't really matter but for the fact that she is the Opposition spokesperson on Foreign Affairs and presumably will be the FA minister in the next Coalition government. It is then that those views get translated into policy, and I firmly believe those policies are not in Australia's best interests.

Similarly I don't expect everyone to agree with my stance on issues. I like to think that my views have a basis in historical reality and actual facts. People may challenge my interpretation but I am rarely successfully challenged on facts. I also only comment on topics of which I have some knowledge. I often wish many OLO commentators were similarly constrained.

Does this mean you'll be voting labor, greens or independents in the vein of Oakshott and Windsor in future Robert?

Or should the Opposition behave as John Hewson acted ... totally positive ... releasing alternative policies early only to be crushed by the antic's of labor and the backflipping and lying Keating, well before the election? Would you like to see a repeat of that?

Of all the muck thrown this year most has been by Labor. At Rudd by most of the labor cabinet, at Abbott by nearly every labor member led by Gillard and at Gillard by labor members who raised and pursued the AWU disgrace.

I'm sure my view is a commonly held view and reflected in current poling. However I think a great many people have disengaged with the process and won't express their disparaging view of the lying Gillard and the corruption in the labor party.
At question time I'd love someone to show me how you can dish out personal abuse when asking a question. It is in the answering where abuse occurs.

Julie while I disagree with the Coalition policy on Israel and Palestine I have read your contributions over time with interest. I've seen a growing confidence and broadening understanding of nuance and diversity. I'd like to see that applied in evaluations of the mid east, in future.

James O'Neill is right about the illegal war mongering both major parties in Aust have been indulging themselves in.NATO is seems is resolved to invade Syria under the pretext of humanitarian grounds and according to this article is going to bypass the UN and start another illegal war.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/meetings-in-london-plotting-secret-war-on-syria-without-un-authotisation/5315176

Both Russia and China have warned the West against expanding these wars since they fear for their own loss of sovereignty.

Once Syria goes down Iran knows that it will be next.Both the West and East have developed these stategic mini nukes in which they think war can be won without destroying the planet.The USA has these defence shields which they think can repel most attacks.Add into the mix an over riding opinion by the elites that the planet is over populated and WW3 can be justified more so. It is about time both major parties here stopped this insane march to WW3.

Arjay and James, Australia will follow the U.S. into WW3 because it hasn't got a clue about what the U.S. agenda really is.

Australia once followed the British Empire just as slavishly and so it is only natural for it to follow the American Empire.

Australia is a country peopled by flat-earthers, one lost and drifting towards oblivion with the help of the intellectually-challenged, America-worshipping Julia Gillard.

Abbot is no better!

David G, Leon Panetta is sending 2 batteries of Patriot Missiles + 400 military to Turkey.Syria does not want a fight with Turkey.They are needling Syria to attack and this will be the test of Russia's resolve to limit this Imperialist by the West.

Putin is a strong leader and I doubt he will let Syria go down like Libya.