The less said about the arrogant narcissist the better. He wrecked the Liberal party, and on his way out, he made sure someone incapable of repairing the damage he did got his job. He will always be remembered as a nasty blot on our history: a villain who disenfranchised half the population by dragging the party he infiltrated to then left. A very, very nasty piece of work.

"The less said about the arrogant narcissist the better."
Yes it would have been.

As an opinion piece, this risible rubbish trys to sell a crock. Conflates every issue and then reinvents every action to give them new invented meaning.

Should have been headed, Disgruntled former Journo seeks revenge, hates the middle and most of what Australia stands for or represents?

This by far, I believe, the least accurate opinion piece that has come from the pen of this perpetually disgruntled garbage tosser. Who has gotten so far offside with the world and western style democracy? He's left with this juvenile effort as his best effort?

F for failed and can only give a minus score this time Binroy.
Suggest you get in touch with the alt-right and offer your services as a speechwriter. And in so doing, help them limp back into the lunatic fringe, where they and all their disgruntled ilk belong!
Alan B.

Turnbull from Wentworth
Spouts bull of no worth

rewriting history.

Lets face it folks - the old guard, notably Abbott
and his tiny band knew how to cause maximum disruption
with minimum numbers. Abbott was determined to see the
end of Turnbull's leadership even if he couldn't
personally be the replacement.

Malcolm Turnbull enjoyed a generally sympathetic
reception on Q&A the other evening. There was a fleeting
moment when the crowd did turn on him and that was when
an audience member, Louise Dunbar delivered a rather
searing indictment of his record as PM.

Needless to say Mr Turnbull did not agree with the
indictment and went on to list his achievements.
He then moved on to a more contentious issue -
same sex marriage. Many viewers felt it was a bit rich of
Mr Turnbull to take credit for same-sex marriage after
hardballing the decision to the public with the postal
survey instead of simply legalising it. It was only
legalised in parliament after 7.8 million Australians
more than 60% of respondents - voted in favour of it.

Still Mr Turnbull proudly mentioned same-sex marriage
several times during that evening.

It was not a disgruntled former PM that we were seeing.
It was a defiant leader who refused to accept his
mistakes as PM - and who was still waiting for answers
as to why he was dumped.

We're all waiting for the WHY - from the fragmented
Liberal Party - thinking, was it worth it? Apparently
it must have been for some.

Indeed Foxy, cur tones may well have succeeded in banishing the Libs to, hopefully, eternal obscurity.

the last time I looked Bill Shorten and Tanya leads the Labour party. Turnull was rejected by the Labour party. Ha ha.

But the long Turnbull honeymoon was an age of Gruntlement !

http://youtu.be/uirBWk-qd9A

Of all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these,
"It might have been."
(quoting John Greenleaf Whittier).

I think if there was a poll on Turnbull & Rudd's narcisissm it would be a draw !

individual,

Tony Abbott would win the top prize.

Former Coalition frontbencher - Amanda Vanstone stated
on channel 7's "Sunrise" program that Tony Abbott was
a "narcissist" accusing him of breaking his promise that
there would be no "sniping" and "wrecking"
of the Turnbull government.

"How low can you go when you make a speech saying I'm not
going to snipe and then hop on the phone and organise for
a group of people to meet regularly and do the sniping."
(2GB - Ray Hadley springs to mind).

"The truth is out... people see Abbott for what he is -
a narcissist and it's always been about Tony - from the
minute he was born."

Now we all know - including his colleagues in government.

Labor was in power for 6 years and was approached many times to consider gay marriage, and steadfastly refused to do so. The liberals got it over the line following a blocking motion by labor and greens over the Plebiscite in spite of both labor and the greens steadfastly proposing a referendum previously.

It is sheer hypocrisy for either the greens or labor to try and claim moral superiority over this issue that they bungled whilst in power.

Tony Abbott would win the top prize.
Foxy,
I agree, i's like all the academics in the ALP telling us they're only there for the workers.

Individual,

Or like the Libs telling us they are not for the big end
of town. Do they have any academics in their ranks?

Foxy,
Grasping at straws time again ?

Or like Juliar's iron-clad promise that there would be no carbon tax under the government she led?

Agree with most of that Foxy and can only wonder at the forbearance with which you deal with the inordinately immature drivel that is invariably slung in the direction of anything remotely resembling fair-minded comment.

You write with both compassion and empathy and to the point where all the adults in the room, having to agree with most of what you write. It would seem there are lots of disgruntled folks pursuing you through these pages if only to find out, why you are so "gruntled"?
LOL Alan B.

Alan,

Why is that those on the left feel the need to blow smoke up each other's backsides?

Foxy,

Given the 6 years, Labor and the greens had to implement SSM but failed, then tried to block the plebiscite, the rank hypocrisy of the left whingers stinks to high heaven.

SM,

The history of same sex marriage in Australia includes
its expressed prohibition by the Howard government in 2004.
And, it was the Howard government that introduced the
Marriage Amendment Act in Parliament, 27th May 2004.

As for broken promises? Why only mention those of Labor?
There's Howard's "core" and "non-core" and never ever GST.
There's Tony Abbott's no new taxes, no cuts to education,
no cuts to health, no cuts to the ABC or SBS, just to mention
a few. The Abbott government then went on to make changes in
all these areas. We have Malcolm Turnbull's promises
of a first rate - less expensive - NBN - promise (what a joke
that turned out to be) -
and the same-sex marriage plebiscite 2016. And what a fiasco
that turned out to be - and guess who abstained from the vote?
Barnaby Joyce (Nationals)
Tony Abbott (Libs)
Andrew Hastie (Libs)
Michael Sukkar (Libs)
Kevin Andrews (Libs)
Scott Morrison (Libs)
George Christensen (LNP)
Rick Wilson (Libs)
Stuart (Libs)
Bert van Maren (Libs)

What about no votes?

Bob Katter (Independent)
Russell Broadbent (Libs)
Keith Pitt (Nationals)
David Littleproud (Nationals)

Interesting isn't it.

In any case - we can always find something to finger-point at
in politics. But you prefer not to see that, and only see things
from your one-eyed, rusted on political agenda.

C'mon Foxy. Be fair. Howard didn't ban gay marriage. He just ensured that the marriage act dealt only with male-female couplings. And it was a bipartisan measure, it passed with Labor support. It was never illegal to get married to someone of the same sex, it is just that the government wouldn't register the relationship. They don't register relationships for heterosexuals either, unless they explicity want it registered, and registered or not, there is no difference between how all the important things are treated - children, property, estates between registered and non-registered relationships.

I don't think you are in a good position to criticise others for allegedly being politically rusted-on. You exhibit the same traits yourself.

Hi Graham,

Discussions on this forum are not
about being fair. I don't think the fairness issue plays
into them. Because it would not be fair to ask some, what
we're not willing to ask of others who post here.

Anyway, I tend to base my posts on facts as much as I am able,
usually with links that I provide to back them up. And the link
given below backs up the fact that the former Prime Minister
John Howard did target gays. The article from the Sydney
Morning Herald makes it quite clear that - "Gay couples will
be banned from marrying or adopting children from overseas..."

We're told that less than an hour after PM John Howard announced
changes to the Marriage Act, the government rushed legislation
enabling the changes into Parliament.

Mr Howard said the Marriage Act would be changed to include
the definition of marriage as the voluntarily entered into
union of a man and a women to exclusion of all others. The laws
prior to that did not define marriage.

Mr Howard stated - "We've decided to insert this into the
Marriage Act to make it very plain that is our view of a
marriage and to also make it very plain that the definition
of a marriage is something that should rest in the hands
ultimately of the the Parliament of the nation." This Mr
Howard stated to reporters. "It should not over time be
subject to redefinition or change by courts, it is something
that ought to be expressed through the elected representatives
of the country."

They also outlawed the recognition of same-sex marriages
lawfully entered into in foreign jurisdictions and they prevented
same sex couples from adopting children from overseas countries.

They deliberately amended the Marriage Act to define marriage.

The following link explains:

http://www.smh.com.au/national/pm-targets-gays-in-marriage-law-20040528-gdj0cp.html

Alan B.,

Thank You for your kind words.

The art of reasoned, intelligent argument is a skill not
easily acquired - you've got it in spades. Therefore receiving a
compliment from you on my postings is very heart-warming and much
appreciated.

Graham,what I would like to remind certain people of the historical fact that 'the general public' is NOT informed or educated enough to influence the making of laws at a federal level, (or any level for that matter).
I would one day, like to see, that the pollies will go back to being mature, in charge, adults, and not the 'YES MEN' we have today.
Look at the public and the level of maturity, common sense and reason.
These people are incapable of making well informed decisions.
They are self serving and puerile.
As much as I have NO respect or time for any of the major parties, their actions and decisions, as of some years now only confirms my disgust for them and their real lack of leadership.
As the politicians come from the 'people', I believe I've made my point.

As for broken promises? Why only mention those of Labor?
Foxy,
That kind of argument serves nothing because Governments of either persuasion can not govern fully as long as an opposition can sabotage for the sake of political sabotage.
How many times do we here "if we can get this past the senate". So, sabotaging a new policy & then crying broken promise is as silly as the system itself.
Labor always get the upper hand at sabotage & mismanagement as they're finely tuned in hypocrisy. LNP though of late have been giving the ALP a pretty good run for their money in matters of un-reason but considering that the public service is some 90% ALP it is not surprising that any Coalition Govt has serious difficulty in governing for the whole Nation whereas Labor can always forge ahead full steam in ruining this Nation's economic prospects.
Morrison needs a massive dose of pragmatism & once the deadwood are gone he'll have a good chance of governing well prividing the australian people can muster the integrity & patience needed.

Foxy,

GY has got you there, you are as rusted on and one-eyed leftie as I have ever seen, the history of the SSM debate has seen firm and fast opposition from both Labor and the coalition incl Juliar, Penny Wong, Tanya Plibersek, etc. However, it was the Coalition that finally delivered the SSM after Labor's failure to do. And it was the Labor that first proposed a national vote.

Secondly, While Juliar essentially broke every election promise she made, her Lie in which she guaranteed that any government she led would not implement a carbon tax and then wantonly abandoned it within days is one of the most outrageous lies in Aus history and the one she will be remembered for forever. That her popularity plummeted and Labor never recovered after this shows that the public did not stomach her feeble excuses.

Individual,

Both sides of politics make mistakes, break promises,
and when in opposition - they - "oppose"
(the title gives it away) or if you will - hold
the government to account. My earlier comments were
merely meant to provide a balance because only one side
was being tounted for its broken promises. It needed
acknowledgement that both sides were just as guilty.
As for who's the better economic manager - that's up
to each of us as voters to form our own opinions on
that. Party policies are a significant factor in who
voters choose to vote for, as is the leader of a party.
Hence the upset for so many people to have the
previous PM dumped.

What happens next - we shall have to wait and see.
The Victorian elections coming up on Saturday will give
us a good indication as to where voters are leaning.
But as I've stated so many times on this forum -
predicting anything in politics is a risky business
at the best of times. A couple of things though need
mentioning - a united team with a long term plan
for the country, for a fairer Australia, would be a
good idea. Leaders need to remember that they are
members of a political team, not individuals mobilising
and running in and of themselves.

SM,

You obviously did not get anything out of my previous post and
list of the broken promises that the Coalition also made
during their time in office. I shall not continue to argue with
you.
We are so far apart in our thinking - that it is pointless to
continue.

Have a nice day.

cont'd ...

BTW: Calling me a "rusted on, one-eyed Leftie,"
is not accurate. I know who I am. You don't.
And, my presenting your consistent one-sided arguments
with additional facts and attempting to create a more
balanced outlook - simply because those
facts upset your political leanings does not make
them to be true. It is a pity that we are unable to
concede even minor points in our discussions.
I shall fight the urges to respond to you in the
future.

I do not subscribe to this 'team' mentality.
It does not carry the wishes and aspirations of ALL Australians, hence we end up with a govt that only caters to half the population.
The current structure of govt, is, amongst other things, self serving and unjustified in what I thought was a more informed society today.
Apparently I am wrong.
People keep displaying how inept and irrelevant they are by making stupid and inane ideas and ideologies.
Once upon a time politicians were a mature well meaning person with at least a modicum of respect for the people he represented.
Today, we don't exist past voting day.
Everyone puts such worship on Prime Ministers, as if they are dictators and only they and their decisions are running the country.
Must I remind everyone, he is just another polly, and as such carries no more sway than the rest.
He is merely a 'messenger', rather than have the whole cabinet come out to deliver a message, it is more expedient to send one person.
So the praise leveled at a PM is unjustified.
We have not had a viable govt since Menzies.

Foxy,

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck.

You get in a huff when I accuse you of the exact same thing you accused me of. I have yet to see you take a conservative point of view on this site ever. To a point you have sided with the commentators from the left.

I am aware that TA broke promises, but most of the promises that Labor accuses him of breaking he never did, for example they accuse him of stripping money out of the health and education budgets when he has actually increased them. What he has not done is keep Labor's election promises. And he did keep more than a few.

Similarly, Juliar never kept one of her promises, and broke a whole swathe of the ones that she made and her predecessors made.

SM,

Your accusations towards me are a bit rich considering
your own background on this forum.
All I can say is I shall stand by
my posting record and match it with yours any day of
the week. However, this is not a competition between
us nor am I willing to engage in providing you with
further links to disprove what you're saying. Frankly
I no longer care what you think. The difference
between us is that - you had the gall to make the comment
about blowing smoke and backsides. Well, therein lies
the difference - my focus is on the opposite end of
a person's anatomy - the brain - and not the backside.
You stick to your focus and I shall stick to mine.

Cheers.

Hence the upset for so many people to have the
previous PM dumped.
Foxy,
Only day dreaming idealists worry about that sort of scenario. Sober thinkers much prefer to get non-performers out of the way asap even a PM.
On one hand people complain about broken promises but as soon as the one who made the promises is being removed the same people complain again.
What matters most is to remove non-performers, it's as simple as that.

Individual,

The fact was that the former PM was doing well in
the polls and most political commentators thought
that the Libs could win with him at the helm. It was
Mr Abbott who was determined to see the end of the
former PM's leadership even if he couldn't personally
be his replacement that caused all this. The old guard,
notably Mr Abbott and his tiny band knew how to cause
maximum disruption with minimum numbers.

Foxy, really?
'maximum disruption, with minimum numbers'?
Surely you don't actually believe that.
I can't see how someone can pull it off, WITHOUT the numbers.
But, I suppose anythings possible.
Are you quoting someone, or is it your opinion?

Foxy,

I have never made any claims that I am not a conservative, and I stand on my record as my posts are based on facts.

If you can provide any evidence that you have taken a conservative point of view on any issue, I would be very interested, however, cannot recall a single thread where you didn't take a left of centre position.

If I am one-eyed, you are the other.

Secondly, I find it amusing that you are pontificating about what was going on in the liberal party, especially since you seem to have missed most of the documentary at that time.

MT lost the leadership for pretty much the same reason he lost the party leadership pre-Juliar, in short, he tried to introduce a carbon trading scheme by stealth. He took the NEG which was a brilliant policy designed to guarantee network stability and minimise power prices and moulded it into a carbon trading scheme by stealth and in spite of several warning that the party room would not support him, he still tried to push it through.

ALTRAV,

This has been in newspapers, on radio, on television
and out of the former PM's mouth - who appeared on
TV and stated his case - over and over
again. He told us that -

"The reality is that a minority in the party room ...
sought to bully, intimidate others into making
this change of leadership ... it's been described
as a form of madness."

Mr Turnbull also blamed the madness on others outside
of parliament who supported the small band of right-
wing agitators led by Tony Abbott, Kevind Andrews,
and Eric Abetz... And there's so much more.
However it is all there on the web. All you have to
do is Google it.

I luv how much control Abbott has over Foxy. Her hatred has seethed now for over 12 years. If only he had as much power as she claims he has the country would be much better off.

Shadow Minister,

So it's back to the "duck test?"

Judging things solely by their walk, looks, and
sounds does not constitute good evidence. What makes
you think you could tell the difference between a
goose and a duck at first glance? Also what we see and
experience from the surface is not necessarily what
you'll find underneath the facade.

Here is a link as to why Malcolm Turnbull was dumped:

http://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/the-rise-and-spectacular-fall-of-malcolm-what-did-turnbull-get-so-wrong-20180823-p4zze5.html

Foxy, read your link.
I gather from it that MT did not engage with other ministers and pushed a lot of his own agenda through, possibly something akin to a 'captains call'.
This is a sure fire way to lose favour when you should be trying to garner favours.
From what I gathered in that link, MT acted more like a dictator and less like a Liberal.
In politics, you must do a lot back scratching before you get your back scratched.
MT acted like one of those arrogant Liberal pigs I spoke of that turned me away from them in the first place.
MT was actually working for another boss, and it was not the Australian public.
One example to prove my point; after attempting to play down the need for an enquiry into the banks and so on, he relented due to pressure from without.
The enquiry will reveal nothing worthwhile as the terms of reference were pretty much set by the banks, the system he 'actually' works for.
What went on in the party is of little relevance to us, the Aussie public, we could not care less who gets stabbed in the back or gets their throat cut, because in the end it demonstrates just how disgusting the govt really is.
Anyone who praises the individual is living in a dream world.
They should be promoting OUR wishes, NOT those of their damn party.
The other pollies knew that he was batting for another side and could see that his thinking was bias against even their own greedy wishes, never mind what the people thought, that he was actually helping them.
He never intended to, so the other ministers, with the help of some, just as twisted as himself, began a campaign to get rid of him.
Don't think there is anything despicable or rotten about MT's ejection, it is the dirty self centred low of the caliber of politicians today, and without some serious intervention, (like jail terms etc) it will keep getting progressively worse.

ALTRAV,

I can see that you got so much out of the link
that I gave.

Shadow Minister,

It does appear that as far as you're concerned there's
only one point of view. You have stated it. You believe
it. There's nothing more to discuss.

ALTRAV,
>One example to prove my point; after attempting to play down the need for an enquiry
>into the banks and so on, he relented due to pressure from without.
>The enquiry will reveal nothing worthwhile

Have you been asleep for the past few months? We have a Royal Commission into the banks and it's already revealed plenty!

Aidan, Aidan, the banks, or more precisely, their owners, need to be assassinated for the severe criminal activities they have engaged in since they first began.
$6 Billion in 6 months.
If you can ever come to terms with the amount then try and justify it over the 6 months period.
They are laughing at us.
I can't believe that I heard one bank was fined in the millions.
That's a joke, they made that much whilst they were writing up the charge.
I would demand that their fines be in the billions, which is a more relevant fine in accordance with the amount they have stolen from the public.
I cringe at the thought that these scumbags are making soooooo much money for doing, NOTHING!