The Super Saturday electoral results should lead to
some serious critical reflection for the Liberal Party.

It should have a debate about what it can do to get better
results.

The party infighting needs to stop. They must get
united behind the leader that they have and present a
united front.

I would like to hear your views on what the party can and
should do prior to the next federal election.

Thank You.

When the Liberal Party turned it's back on Costello in favour of Howard they lost any continuity of leadership in it's ranks and they've paid dearly for their self serving gutless attitude
Since then the Liberals have only gained govt. through Labor screwups and the short memory 'gimme gimme now' voters.
Since then we have had saints who have fallen sinners and pigs at the trough waiting their turn. Any real new blood leaves for other destinations and who can blame them.
Now I ask you, would you follow any of them into battle? No? well, that tells you what you have running the country.
As for Labor, the govt you get as an alternative and if Shorten gets to be Prime Minister I would suggest someone start a petition to have West Australia succeed from the Commonwealth.
We don't need any more slick sleazes

Well my honestly held view is they need another leader but another direction too,if we learn anything from their continuing polling it is they are headed away from large sections of their base

Dear SP,

The Liberal Party for a start needs to spell out
the values that define them and apply these
values to issues that concern wider groups in
the community. By addressing these issues they
can widen their constituency.

For example, addressing the issues of the day and
convincing voters what will improve their lot and
improve the fortunes of those they care about.
Also since most Australians care about their country,
it also means showing what this will do for the
nation. They need to explain their policies in terms
that the average voter will understand. They need to
really listen to the concerns that people have.

Dear Foxy,

«I would like to hear your views on what the party can and should do prior to the next federal election.»

What they can do is to declare martial law and cancel/rig the elections.
What they should do is to shut down their office and throw its keys in the ocean.

So should the other parties.

«The Liberal Party for a start needs to spell out the values that define them»

1. Stay in power.
2. Rob the people.
3. Hand the ransom to their family and friends.

Same for any other political party.

Dear Yuyutsu,

In a democracy the citizen is supposed to be in charge,
not the bureaucrat. How much (and what kind) of information
(and education) should the citizen have if he or she is to
have an effective vote in a democracy?

If he or she is to be the "master" of the public servants?
Bureaucrats, given their job description as public servants,
you would think exist to serve the public.

Let these thoughts remain on the table. The reality is that
the citizen has had to delegate to elected members of a
parliament the task of directing and overseeing the
bureaucrats.

The citizen has no direct control and his or her influences
is remote and irregular - occurring only when the people's
representatives are chosen in elections. With so many of us
in this country, when each and everyone of us reach the
age of maturity and are citizens - we deserve the right to
be heard.

Can we design a more democratic system than the one that
we currently have?

That is something that bears thinking about.

Hi Belly,

My wholehearted congratulations to you as a 'True Believer' for Labor's stunning victory yesterday, particularly in the seat of Longman, where incidentally I found myself yesterday, campaigning for the Greens candidate.

The rabid right wing gutter press up here, had been attacking Labor at every opportunity. Even to the extent of producing a phony poll claiming Shorten was dead meat.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-29/coalition-losses-prompt-company-tax-cuts-debate/10048736

I recall our debates about your man Shorten, back in the good old days before your departure. Well, I was wrong, he is a good bloke, and a fair dinkum Labor leader, please don't sell him short(en).

The Liberals and their Coalition cohorts, look more like stunned mullets rather than politicians, dead men walking!

Dear Foxy,

«In a democracy the citizen is supposed to be in charge, not the bureaucrat.»

Chuckle, chuckle... have you ever seen anything like it actually happening other than in propaganda school-books?

«How much (and what kind) of information (and education) should the citizen have if he or she is to have an effective vote in a democracy?»

If it is democracy that you want, then it should be up to each citizen to decide whether they have sufficient information and education: if they believe that they don't, then they can abstain from voting.

«Can we design a more democratic system than the one that we currently have?»

If you want to have a democracy, then what we have in Australia is a complete joke, a caricature of democracy.

In Australia, your only chance of being represented, is if:
1) Over a half of the people who live in some arbitrary area around you want to be represented by the same person as yourself.
2) That person wants to represent you.
3) That person is available to represent you, including by flying regularly to Canberra.
4) That person is not barred from representing you by reasons such as age or Section 44 of Australia's constitution.
5) That person is willing to swear allegiance to the commonwealth of Australia (rather than have allegiance to you, the voter).

What are the chances?!

In practice, some voters have a slight influence, but only over which among two, very similar parties, will come to power. Other voters who live on the other side of the street do not have even that because they happen to live within a "safe electorate".

Nothing short of proportional representation can begin to call itself "democracy" and even such a democracy would be lame.

For there to be a true democracy, people must be able to vote on the issues - directly if they wish, or otherwise through someone they appoint and can change at any time and even per issue. This was technically impossible for about 2000 years, but now, with current technology, it is possible again.

Thanks Paul, yesterday he won back my deep admiration, and he will be our next Prime Minister, Liberals will find another John Howard, but he like John,, who may still have been PM had it not been for work choices must not fall on the sword/policy that cutting penalty rates is other than class warfare

Dear Yuyutsu,

"Democracy" comes from a Greek word meaning "rule of
the people," in practice, no such system has ever
existed. Pure democracy would mean that every citizen
would have the right to participate in every decision, a
situation that would lead to complete chaos and would
leave little time for all kinds of other activities.

This ideal form of democracy has been approximated only
in very small communities, such as ancient Greek city
states. Even in these cases, however, the right of
participation was denied to certain people - specifically
both slaves and women in Greece.

In practice, the societies we consider democratic are those
that have institutionalised procedures for periodically
choosing among contenders for public office. They have
"Representative Democracy"; that is, the voters elect
representatives who are responsible for making political
decisions. In all democracies the right of the individual
to choose among alternatives is held in high regard, and
this right presupposes such basic civil liberties as freedom
of speech, et cetera.

Anyway, the topic of this discussion is - The Liberal
Party and Its Future - and what suggestions do you have
what can they do to improve their chances of winning the
next federal election? Do you think that the Liberal Party
should become more inclusive? That is - should they make
room for more women and involve the ethnic communities?

Should they form closer relations with ethnic leaders?
Small business people, together with their families -
should their concerns be better addressed? And so on.

Should the Liberal Party state their values and define
them and then apply them to issues that concern wider
groups?

I'm sure there is a wider audience that would be interested
in hearing your views.

The Super Saturday electoral results should lead to some serious critical reflection for the Liberal Party.
Foxy,
Yes, they have been letting us down ever since Abbott & I predict that if Shorten gets in he won't serve a full first term. The funding is simply not there to buy the votes he needs to stay in power.
Qld is in the process of proving that right now.

individual,

What can Turnbull and the Liberal Party do to get Queenslanders
on side?

Dear Foxy,

«Pure democracy would mean that every citizen would have the right to participate in every decision, a situation that would lead to complete chaos and would leave little time for all kinds of other activities.»

With the technology we now have, citizens could delegate voting on the issues they are less concerned about to like-minded others and only vote directly in those decisions that are most important to them. See one way how it can work: http://voteflux.org/about

While no country has direct democracy (yet), some do at least have proportional representation, a step in the right direction.

---

«The Liberal Party and Its Future - and what suggestions do you have what can they do to improve their chances of winning the next federal election?»

Why would I volunteer suggestions that might help any major party to win?
I want both of them to lose! I want both dinosaurs to disappear!

Dear Yuyutsu,

I must have misunderstood your intentions for coming into this
discussion as - the title is quite clear.

The Liberals should get some real policies that benefit the wider community for the long term instead keeping of their corporate sponsors happy.

The sole reason for their existence - like all neo-cons - is to deregulate and remove legislative obstacles and whatever else it takes to unleash unrestricted free market capitalism, in the belief that "the market" will fix everything.
Unfortunately it can't.

Everything else they do is just window dressing in order to remain in power but they've always been about "the main game".
Spending on education, health and the environment only happens begrudingly and in a reactionary manner, to match what the opposition may propose.

All they have been doing is to continue the flow of wealth from the public sector into fewer and fewer private hands, plundering the accumulated assets created by previous generations plus widening the gap between the rich and the "undeserving" poor.

They need to develop a social conscience to ensure a better life for future generations and think beyond the next election and a fairer distribution of wealth for all.

They should also abondon their usual distraction strategy of creating division with the community to keep groups fighting among themselves and selectively scapegoating groups as required.

They should use policies to earn votes for a change rather than resort to the "Kill Bill" plan they use on every opposition leader.

Since that is extremely unlikely (not in the DNA), they will have to depend on the ALP typically shooting itself in the foot and rallying the traditional media bias that gets them across the line every time.

Hi Foxy,
If improving democracy is what you want then first you must understand its limits and flaws.

Let's say you want Muslims and I don't.
If you have it your way, then I cannot have it my way.
If I voted against Muslims, but get Muslims anyway how did democracy work for me?
Was there any compromise on that issue?

Similar to the flaws of capitalism.
2 people go for the one job; there's always going to be a loser.
1 person will get a job, the other gets to remain unemployed.
How did Capitalism help the loser?

Freedom of religion, the flaws built in.
Democracy and western ideals support freedom of religion, but do those religions support democracy and western ideals?
What happens to western ideals when westerners in the west become a minority?

How does democracy compare to a dictatorship?
What can a dictatorship do a democracy cant; and vice versa.

Is it efficient to have 2 parties always squabbling over everything, never going in a unified direction and never really achieving anything except debt spiral?

Do people truly benefit from democracy or do they suffer for it?

If only half of the people get what they want half of the time...
Then that doesn't seem all that great a policy.

Always look at the pro's and cons and make sure your standing back far enough to see the bigger picture and ask the right questions.

Hi Belly,
Are the parties moving away from their base;
Or is the base moving away from the parties?

If you change the base, you change the government.
Therefore if you want to change the government change its base; by demographics and with immigration.

ArmChair critic put the need to be a smart you know what away for this subject, I really honestly think these things,if both our party's stop feeding minorities within their structure both will improve, Labor just before the big man took over and gave us 1972, was fractured, the left had stopped it being elecable, a purely left party will never lead this country, LNP/Liberal needs to stop winning over the Tony Abbott faction at the cost of its own true Liberals,it will happen, and after that they will be to tough nut to crack, until Labor too [after the Shorten Government] reforms,small l vs big L branch stacking, not unknown to my party,is harmful, John Howard, until he won control of the senate was in all truth a man who knew the voters and was never going to be removed, he now supports the very people he would never have when in office

Thank You for your contributions thus far.
I've read them all with great interest
and found much food for thought.

The Labor Party's unified strategy thus far seems
to be putting them ahead of the disunited
Liberals. But it is
still a while to go before the next election and
as rache pointed out they could still shoot themselves
in the foot. The Liberals need to seriously listen
to the concerns of the voters - and again as rache
points out - reach out with their policies.
They can no longer afford to take things for granted.
People are demanding more from their politicians.
Party loyalties are declining.

Hi FOXY...

A good and timely topic thank FOXY. Personally I don't think the LNP have much chance at all, with Mr Malcolm TURNBULL at the helm. I don't believe he can be trusted. His ego has a lot to do with why he cannot connect with people, together with the way he seized power.

We keep hearing he's the preferred PM over Mr SHORTIN, well maybe he is, but no one in our small circle of LNP Voters will vote for him. In fact we'd all rather have a term or two of Labour then see Mr TURNBULL elected again. Some claim he's more Labour than some Labour MP's are?

I'm not saying Malcolm TURNBULL is all bad, far from it. His altruism isn't all that well known, I believe. He doesn't draw his PM's salary, it's all donated to charity. Major refurbishments were made at the Lodge, as is his entitlement, yet most of the expenses were met out of his own pocket. His donation's to charity are also little known, other than he does give quite large sums to charitable causes.

As bad as Mr TURNBULL is, to change leaders again would prove nothing. The traditional core values that were central to LNP doctrine, seem to have evaporated under the current PM's watch. Increasing Immigration numbers, without ensuring all the necessary infrastructure is in place, is absurd.

The only front bench member that's doing a reasonably good job is Mr Peter DUTTON, with the Immigration/Home Affairs portfolio. But if he goes ahead and signs the Paris accord on Immigration, well our borders will come under the aegis of the United Nations, who'll then in turn will tell us who can come and go, without Australia having very much input into it. That would be very unfortunate indeed in my view, surrendering control over our already porous borders to the United Nations.

Dear O Sung Wu,

What do we really know about our politicians?

Elections have become increasingly personalised.
Most voters don't comb through policy documents
rather, they use the party leader as a means of
making judgements about the things that matter to
them.

Therefore we're influenced by what we hear about the
leaders. Take Malcolm Turnbull. He's presented as -
"Mr Harbourside Mansion," amd "The slick merchant
banker." And the sad thing is that it's a measure
of the unhappiness in the Coalition that not all
of these labels were invented by Labor.

Bill Shorten, on the other hand has been described as
a "sycophant," a "groveller," a "man who abandoned
workers," while he tucked his knees under "the table
of billionaires like the late businessman Richard Pratt.

Ihese labels are meant to work. To influence voters.
The Labor Party hopes that if it can make mud stick to
Turnbull by presenting him as unqualified to make decisions
about the welfare of ordinary people - by being so rich
that he's out of touch with their concerns.

While the Coalition hopes if it can make its mud stick
Shorten will be seen as a self-serving opportunist who
built a union and political career by taking advantage of
the workers he was supposed to represent.

These tactics are nothing new. They existed for decades.
Paul Keating's reference to John Hewson as "The feral
abacus," and to Andrew Peacock as a "souffle," springs
to mind. Then there's "Silver Bodgie" Bob Hawke, and
even "Pig-Iron Bob," (Menzies), and "Honest John" (Howard),
and so it goes. I'm sure you can think of a few.

The federal parliament is often a very difficult and
challenging place to work in. You need to have tough skin
to survive.

There is another John Howard in the Liberals future, if he/she is in this cabinet they are in hiding, both sides have the Howard like ability to bring the center and even some from across the road to them, that road has many pot holes and Turnbull is one of them those wanting a Trump like right are in effect calling for a war the west may not win sanity will win out long before then

The PM in exile, Tony Abbott gave Turnbull a serve today in a radio interview.
"Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott says the government needs to change policies, following its disastrous showing at the weekend by-elections."
"Mr Abbott tells Ray Hadley (2GB) the government’s policies are just as big an issue as the leader."

“One of the things you learn as leader over the years is don’t set yourself up to fail, don’t set tests for yourself that are going to be very hard to pass."

There was talk that a good Coalition result would see a snap election in September, looks like that gone out the window.

“I guess 30 Newspolls is another one.”

I'm pleased that Malcolm Turnbull is playing down
Super Saturday and I do wish that Tony Abbott would
stop braying at the PM's heels. The man deserves a
black eye. He's not helping his party one iota -
he's simply just out for himself.

Turnbull needs to take command - and marshall the troops
into line - and get them to stand united behind him.
Also he should tell Abbott to simply shut up. That he's
hurting the party other that or get out. He's not helping
anyone except himself.

Hi Belly,

You fellas are in a very good position politically. The government is a disorganized rabble, all and sundry are jockeying for a "life preserver" in the sinking boat. If Turnbull has to be thrown overboard, well politics is a dirty business.
The Murdoch press and the rest of the right wing media will attempt to continue to wedge Shorten and Albanese at every opportunity, they simply can't target policy. It failed Saturday, and is not likely to succeed while ever Labor is flying high. Of course a week is a long time in politics so keep the fingers crossed.
Even Abbott recognized the Coalitions Big End of Town tax handouts (policy) is a stinker, and as popular with voters as a dose of caster oil.

o sung wu,

Don't be deceived by Malcolm's alleged largesse.
He claims to donate "every cent" of his PM salary to charity but what he doesn't say is that charity is The Turnbull Foundation.

The Foundation is what is called a Personal Ancillary Fund and is used to channel donations to other charities. These funds were set up by Howard as a way to get the wealthy to become philanthopists but the Tax Office regards them as a Tax Avoidance mechanism.

For some reason, the wealthy are unable to reach into their pockets and hand over a tax-paid donation like the rest of us. There has to be something in it for them too.

To maintain the Fund charity status, it has to donate at least 5% of it's total (or $11,000 - whatever is the greater) per annum. The rest can be used for "other purposes" - such as paying yourself Director's Fees and whatever expenses you choose. Because it's a private fund he doesn't have to tell the public - or even the tax office - what he does with the non-donation component, just pay at least 5% to recognised charities.

The average donation from all the private Funds nationally is only around 8% so it's unlikely all of the Funds are being used entirely for charitable purposes but to minimise tax.

I don't know if the Fund payouts are tax deductable but his salary going into it certainly is.

Therefore he's avoiding paying any tax on his PM salary but converting it all into a tax deduction against other income and controlling the payout to be a possible minimum of 5%. His other investments are also avoiding tax in Australia by using the Cayman Islands tax haven.

That's not a good example for someone who talks a lot about the importance of taxation for the country.

And who leaked this information about his donations and alleged generosity?

Malcolm Turnbull himself.

Kerry Packer once said to "never get between Turnbull and a sack of gold" and considering his other ventures, he was probably correct.

Right now things are tough, many can not buy a home many cannot even rent one in our city's,current Liberal policy includes negative gearing and tax cuts for the banks, cuts to penalty rates, working age raised to 70,very tight control, sometimes unfairly, to welfare cards imposed on some welfare receivers in what increasingly seems a war on those in need, most of us are old enough to know the party's founder Sir Robert Menzies, clearly, bought blue collar workers to his brand of Liberalism,only Howard from that side of politics understood his voters, and too bought them to his tent, can any , any one truly tell me this current surge to the right Liberal party care even a little about other than its well off base? thinks ordinary hard workers are other than a target? them and us, still has meaning when talking about this government

Hi there RACHE...

It shows how much I know about things doesn't it, being the proverbial mushroom. I make no bones about it; how much I dislike Malcolm TURNBULL and everything the bastard stands for. Treachery is something that very few can abide by, most assuredly the Australian People.

Being a 'far right' devotee all my life, I cannot in good conscience ever vote for TURNBULL, even for the position of Assistant Dog Catcher in the Great Stoney Desert somewhere. It's really terrible RACHE, we've really got so little choice from whom to vote, for a genuine Conservative? Thank you for explaining the tax dodge, our PM employs, to reduce his taxation obligations.

I imagine that many wealthy and successful businessmen
and women get legal advice on their taxes - and what
they can or can't do. I doubt if Malcolm Turnbull is
the only one taking advantage of the loop-holes
available to him. I think that's par for the course.

I watched "Q&A" last night (30/07/2018) and what did
bother me was the replies that came from the Members
of Parliament on the panel to the questions asked.

Mitch Fifield was asked some relevant policy questions
that he was unable to answer. He went on and on that
the young school=-boy who asked the questions began to
nod off and looked like he was going to fall asleep -
while Fifield continued with the usual party spin.
In all it really showed a vast disconnect between some
of our politicions and the general public. Which makes
one wonder - how did these people ever get elected?

Shouldn't we demand more from our representatives?

Another things that became obvious - was that the current
policies of the Liberal Party - need a major overhaul.
They certainly don't look like they've got much of a chance
of getting in at the next election - ion their current policies.
And a change in leadership is not going to fix that.

A change in policies might help.

IF if I was the leader of this government, and if I wanted it re-elected, policy would be the tool used not leadership and not needless insulting attacks on the other side, first? negotiate the Malaysian solution,close every offshore detention center ,but increase refugee intake, kill tax breaks for a few years until we know what direction the world economy is heading, replace the retiring age of 70 to 62, but insist every collector of superannuation in the hundreds of thousands range live off it until 65, hence more jobs,add to current super rules both more tax cuts for contributors and a law stating some self funding rather than all welfare be part of it,stop! the war on wages, over time is the extra cash that gets some from poverty to living a bit better truly see wage earners as other than the enemies of capitalism

Dear Belly,

What you're suggesting makes a great deal of sense.

Thank You.

I actually like Malcolm Turnbull. Like Malcolm Fraser, he provides proof that the Liberal Party includes forward thinking, progressive people. He is surrounded by the other side of the Liberal Party. People like Tony Abbott are sneaky, manipulative, over-entitled and self-serving. John Howard trained and promoted those type of people and it will take a few years to undo his legacy.

The liberal Party just needs a few years for those people to retire.

The Liberals, if they are brave enough, couls again become Liberal, in the Menzies mold, why do they tell us for the benefit of a thing called the economy workers must no longer get penalty rates? why lift retirement age to 70? why the war on unions? tax cuts for the banks? no pension rises? in what way can the current Liberals justify this economy overriding the word community? is the world's future more poor and more for the already rich, can you be a Liberal party that demands less for more be the norm?

Well Benk proves you can fool some of the people ALL of the time.

Well it seems the consensus is that the Liberals can save themselves by becoming Labor-lite. So two parties having essentially the same policies fighting over the minutia and each having their turn at governing every second election or so. Seems like a plan.

Australia is in a downward spiral of economic decline and as that deepens the fights over the shrinking pie will become fierce and shrill. Governments, unable to meet the claimed needs of the populace will be increasingly under pressure and will be replaced by oppositions who claim to know the location of the magic pudding. And they will in turn be overturned when its found that they indeed know no more about how to satisfy growing demands than their predecessors. And down the spiral we'll go.

Perhaps, rather than trying to hold onto government by becoming more like the opposition, a truly bold conservative party would be bold enough to advocate conservative policies:

* that the fetishism over climate will be dispensed with. That Australia will no longer seek to be a world leader in CO2 reductions but will do what the rest of the world's doing and go for economic growth instead.

* that power prices and the reduction thereof will be the top priority and any form of power is acceptable so long as it can survive without subsidy

* there will be a halving of immigration this year and again in three years and that priority will be given to immigrants from cultures and sub-cultures compatible with current Australian culture.

* that there will be massive personal tax cuts fully funded by reductions in the size of government. That the Federal departments of education and health will be closed and all functions returned to the states. That all spending not directly related to the well-being of citizens will be curtailed. The arts, sport, cultural activities, mardi gras etc will no longer receive federal funding and all such funds will be used for the tax cuts.

/cont

/cont

* that all efforts will be made to remove government impediments to the mining and agricultural sectors.

* that all infrastructure spending must henceforth be fully self-funding.

The current corporate tax cuts should be abandoned and abandoned with a flourish. Labor in cahoots with the MSM have so poisoned the water that the cuts can never be sold in the current circumstances. Conservatives could console this loss with the knowledge that the cuts will become inevitable in the medium future as the rest of world follows the Trump corporate cuts. As with most things Australia will eventually do the economically responsible thing here, but only after we've tried everything else.

Currently both parties are infested with people and leaders whose main aim is power and career and prestige. Few are there because they have a notion of how to best organise things and a desire to do what's necessary as opposed to what's immediately popular.

But as we've seen in other countries where things become dire, true leaders can arise and be accepted and followed. But we've got a way to go yet before we start to climb out of the hole we've dug over the past decade or so.

rache,

re Private Ancillary Funds...

"Because it's a private fund he doesn't have to tell the public - or even the tax office - what he does with the non-donation component,"

That's rubbish.

Here's the ATO Private Ancillary Fund Guidelines ....

http://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2016C00435

In particular go to sections 24-29 about how everything must be disclosed. But a reading of the whole thing might assist your understanding.

I just read an interesting article in The
Spectator where the author suggested that
Malcolm Turnbull should make Tony Abbott
Minister for Homeland Security. That leaving
Tony Abbott on the back bench is a waste of
talent.

What do you guys think of that idea?
Would that shut Tony Abbott up and stop him from
attacking the government and his own party.
Perhaps Malcolm Turnbull could have more control
over him and what he says then? And after all
the man did stop the boats - right?

But what would then happen to Peter Dutton?
Although that guy's not known for being the greatest
thinker out there - is he?

Hi Foxy,

Me thinks Turnbull would rather confine Abbott to HOME SECURITY not homeland security with a big gag stuffed in his gob!

I'm not very kind to the Coalition am I.

Dear Paul,

That's allright. The thought occurred to me regarding
how Malcolm Turnbull should deal with Tony Abbott,
and the article I read made sense. However I'm still not
sure if giving Abbott a job on the front bench would
really shut him up or make him much more troublesome.
Perhaps sending him overseas might help?

Malcolm Turnbull has approximately a year to work
on adjusting the current policies so that they
address the concerns of the voters. That is enough
time to make adjustments.
Of course that means the party needs to
stand behind their leader and back him. And he
needs to have a chat with Tony Abbott.

It's still anybody's game at this stage.

Hi Foxy,

Even the Liberal Party is not a one man outfit. Surprisingly the leaders foremost roll, besides carrying out the mundane duties of leader, is to articulate policy, not to make policy. A leader can exert significant influence within the party, and of course to have the ear of the leader is a valuable asset in itself. But at the end of the day it is the party and not the leader that formulates policy.

Dear Paul,

In that case Turnbull's got quite a battle ahead of him.

Hi Foxy,

The inner workings of government is extremely complex. Policy has to be compatible with party philosophy, not conflicting with it. The problem within the Liberal Party is not policy, no matter how bad it is, that can be rectified at the stroke of the pen. The real problem is the conflict between the two main factions, the "Wets" the soft liberal faction within the party that has long supported Turnbull over Abbott, and the "Drys", that conservative hard right faction which seen Turnbull correctly as electable, where their own preferred choice Abbott was seen as a looming electoral disaster. In the interest of self preservation, enough "Drys" through their support behind Turnbull for the top job. Now it is proving to be an unhappy marriage, and Turnbull's support from the hard right faction is deminishing day by day. who should challenge Turnbull, I believe Julie Bishop is the only creditable alternative, however, I'm sure Tony Abbott would not agree.

Dear Paul,

I can't see Turnbull being replaced prior to the next
election. That would be a big mistake. They have
to present a united front. However, if they get behind
Turnbull, and fix some of their current policies - like
the company tax cuts - they might be in with a chance.
It's still to close to call between Labor and Liberal.
Don't forget that Shorten is not the preferred PM.
As for Julie Bishop? I don't think that will happen.
But of course I could be wrong.

Hi Foxy,

I'll agree Turnbull appears fairly safe until the next election, but anymore disasters could change that rather quickly.

mhaze,
Of course a PAF must keep records to maintain its status but the only mandatory guidelines are that the fund cannot be used to run a business and the minimum $11,000 or 5% donation per annum payout and this loose arrangement has been a complaint of the ATO since the Funds were legislated. This is why they consider the funds to be a vehicle for tax minimisation.

Allowable "expenses" of the Fund are not specified and commonly disburse such things as Directors Fees to individuals and "administrative costs". Funds can and do employ family members for that purpose.

Just before it collapsed, the Shane Warne Public Fund was paying his brother "employee" more money than the Fund was distributing to charities and was running at a loss because "expenses" were taking up 86% of the revenue. Public Funds run lavish fundraising parties as an example of administrative costs.

As I mentioned, the average fund is only paying out around 8% to charities so where is the money going?

With the American Godfather turning off Malcolm's political life support, and anointing Dud Dutton as the next House Boss it looks only a matter of time before poor Money Bags is sent packing. Hasta la vista sucker.