This week, former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull
released a new tell-all autobiography.

The memoir titled - "A Bigger Picture," details his
career in politics.

On Monday night, the former prime minister sat down with
journalist Leigh Sales on the 7.30 Report to discuss his
memoir. Much of what he said sounded like something out
of a soap opera rather than the inner workings of
federal parliament. There was talk of aphrodisiacs, of
being turned on by power, control freaks, and a
"sea of paranoia." He described how his last week in
office really went down,
to his views on our current prime minister Scott
Morrison and those of former prime minster Tony Abbott,
and other politicians. It dealt with the good, the bad,
and the very ugly.

It was cringe worthy but compelling viewing.

I have his book - and am only now starting to read it.
It's going to take a while because it close to 700 pages
with small print and very detailed - beginning with
his childhood. It's not like anything I've seen before
from a former PM. But then neither was his TV interview.

All this from a man who when he took over the nation's
top job there was a sense of excitement in Australia.

The infighting that had dogged politics for the best
part of a decade looked to be over. But a right-wing
insurgency brutally cut-down Turnbull's time in office
after three years leaving many of us asking, "Why?"

He believes that the "right wing have taken the
liberalism out of the LIberal Party." He said -
"The liberal Party... it has become so tribalised.
The right wing have taken the liberalism out of the
Liberal Party and Abbott and his friends and the
Murdoch media, the right-wing shock jocks, they would
have preferred Bill Shorten to be Prime Minister than
me."

"A Liberal Party that they could not control was not a
Liberal Party they wanted to have. It was... it is all
about raw power, I'm afraid."

Your thoughts please?

Foxy,

I watched 7.30 and I think that what Turnbull said must have ruffled a lot of feathers in the LNP.

It is obvious that Turnbull has an axe to grind with some of his former political colleagues and has chosen to destroy the careers of a select few of them.

PS As well as install mistrust among the LNP: They stabbed me in the back fellas. Who's next?

Hi Mr O,

Mr Turnbull likened the right-wing operatives in the
Liberal Party, including media tycoons Rupert Mudoch and
Kerry Stokes, and Alan Jones, to terrorists.

He said:

"The right-wing operates in the Liberal Party - and this
is something that Morrison has to confront, because they
would do exactly the same to him, if they thought they
could."

"The way they operate is to basically bully and
intimidate people. And what they do, they operate like a
terrorist. Now, they don't use guns and bombs, I hasten
to add, but it is the technique of terrorism, where you
create enough mayhem, enough damage, that people in the
middle say, "It has got to come to an end, how can I
stop this terrible horror?"

Mr Turnbull then went on to describe of working in
Canberra as being in a "sea of paranoia."
Ultimately he believes he put his trust in the wrong
people, despite his good intentions.

Personally, I found all this highly disturbing. It is
definitely not the Liberal Party that I grew up with
that he's describing. But I do agree with you -
undoubtedly his remarks would upset many people.
Not only the ones he referred to, but members of the
public who support the Liberal Party.

What disgusting rubbish.

Turnbull was a traitor to those who elected him, being a full lefty in disguise, & all those who put the effort into getting rid of him are heroes for endangering their careers to do so.

Thank god there are still some decent people in parliament, & lets be thankful that most of the other closet lefties in the Liberal ranks have been forced out. At least we have a chance of some good government with that bit of garbage gone.

It is only a chance, with too many conservatives cowardly paying lip service to green stupidity & propaganda, but it is a chance. Perhaps some of them will finally grow a pair & become full blooded men in the future. We can only hope.

Hasbeen,

You don't like Turnball simply because he is an honest man.

All i can say is politics is a very dirty game.

As for Turnbull, some of the comments were almost defamatory, but I am sure there is a lot of truth to what he said.

i like him. Besides the earlier stuff up with the Treasury official, he was a supporter of doing much about global warming, albeit he could not quite pull it off given some of the dipsticks he had to work with

The liberal party were either totally naïve or totally stupid to allow Turnbull to join the party let alone lead. He was championed by the abc so that says it all. No surprise that he helped get the leftist garbage paper Guardian established. Most globalist/gw fraudsters are deceitful about their agendas. Turnbull was no different. He and Rudd would both rank as Australia's worst PM. Given the choice I would even pick Gillard ahead of Rudd.

Politics certainly sounds like a blood-sport.

Turnbull believes right-wing Liberals and their allies
in Rupert Murdoch-owned media sought to end his
leadership because they couldn't control him.

"The one thing those plutocrats knew, the billionaire
media proprietor knew, is that I did not belong to them,"
he said.

"The truth is that when I was prime minister, everybody
told me not to trust everybody else. There was virtually
nobody that I wasn't being warned against."

"So you could easily, in that sort of environment -
where you are literally being told by this person,
"Don't trust him", that person, "don't trust her,"and
that person, "don't trust any of them"- you could literally
become convulsed in a sea of paranoia. I was determined
to look past that and place my trust in everybody in
order to get the job done and get things done."

I wonder if Julie Bishop would disagree with any of this?
Or any of the other Liberal pollies who are not longer
with us?

A great deal to take in.

I've only just begun to read Mr Turnbull's book.

I have to admit that he writes very beautifully.
He's very easy to read, expresses himself with
great imagery and so far it is a real page-turner.
Of course I'm only at the beginning - dealing with
his childhood. It's so descriptive:

"...Alastair Mackerras, John Sheldon were two of the
most charismatic teachers I ever had. Between them
they could make Latin and Greek interesting for 12-and
13-year old boys. Both were eccentric, and thoroughly
Australian in an Anglophile way that was common with
academics of that era...long before you saw Sheldon
you knew he was there. Hanging like a smoky whisper in
the cool air of the morning, the unmistakably sweet smell
of his tobacco left a trail through the panelled corridors."

"No one else smoked Balkan Sobranie, a blend of tobacco
from Virginia, Macedonia and Syria. John Sheldon, like
his tobacco, was a blend of the conventional and the
exotic. He was entranced by the ancient world. In aid of
Latin, Greek, or indeed Sanskrit. He made no claims of
utility or relevance - although many could be made. But
you couldn't help feeling that without a more than
fleeting acquaintance with the classics, John Sheldon
wouldn't regard you as, well, adequately educated."

"He radiated a love of learning that was, for me at least,
quite irresistible."

Wow! Mr Turnbull certainly writes well.

I think he would have made an excellent teacher.

Foxy,

He's an Arts graduate. That would explain it!

No doubt Turnbull is a very smart man, and a man with strong normative aspirations(and personal drive).

Who do I rank the best PMs since Howard.

Very hard to assess.

Have to say though, Howard was a great PM and did some tough reform (guns and GST), but also fortunate to benefit from mining boom.

In political terms, Turnbull is now a homeless hobo with nowhere to go politically.

Which makes him chief Hobo among a collection of untrustworthy vagabonds.

That pretty much describes the political scene.

Dan

will be interesting net few years to see what Morrison government does in terms of economic recovery after coronavirus.

I am hoping.

Sadly, Chris Lewis has flawed perception of reality on the worth of Howard.

Howard was actually moronic. A moron with an overlaying psychopathy geared at achieving doubtful outcomes by using up available cannon fodder.
Why he was eventually fired from his own cannon by the electorate, was as a consequence of his sacrificial offering of the working class, as a means to his own advancement. Pathological union bashing!

As for his gun control. Everybody but his National Party mates lost their guns. But of course, they were all good people of like mind, and were trustworthy.

Dan

Chris,

I know the answer to your question: Taxes, taxes, taxes, taxes, and you guessed it ………. more bloody taxes!

And who is going to pay all these taxes in a post-Wuhan Pandemic economic recess why simple! The millions upon millions of cashed up Chinese migrants they will start bringing in for their people driven growth program.

diver dan,

ok, but why is he a moron.

please explain.

i did not agree with many of his policies, but he did win four elections and repaid debt.

It's interesting that Mr Turnbull said that he
always regarded our current PM Scott Morrison as
his most likely successor. That "he is a much
safer pair of hands than Peter Dutton by far and
I always regarded him as my most likely successor."

Speaking about whether he knew Peter Dutton was
planning to take his place as the Liberal Party
Leader, Turnbull admitted he didn't twig right
until the end.

I read Peter Costello's memoir and his was so different.
His would not have ruffled any feathers or upset anyone.
But perhaps Costello was advised by his father-in-law -
Peter Coleman,(writer, journalist, federal parliament
member), who wrote the Preface to Costello's book.

Still we need to give credit where credit is due.
Malcolm Turnbull's prime ministership did legalise
same-sex marriage, established Snowy Hydro 2.0,
and many other achievements - delivered in the face
of so much opposition. Who knows what else could
have been accomplished had he remained as prime
minister.

Peop-le will accuse his memoir as being a form of
"pay-back." I guess we'll have to read it and make up
our own minds.

Turnbull was always the ABC's pick to lead the Libs and remains the best Labor leader the Libs have ever had. Little wonder that Sales gave him a fawning interview.

He twice knifed sitting Liberal leaders using the very tactics he complains of and now whines that the same things were done to him.
As a politician he was a disaster. He utterly botched the Republic Referendum because he didn't trust the Australian people's good judgement. He had no idea how to combat Rudd and instead wanted to cave into Rudd's climate change policies against the wishes of most Liberal members.

As a PM he was a mess. He blew the majority that Abbott had created and had only one vision for Australia - that being Mal as leader. I think he was and remains astounded that everyone doesn't hold him in the same high esteem he holds himself.

One can only shudder at the thought of him as PM in the current crisis.

Turnbull has acknowledged how well the Australian
governments, state and federal, have worked
in fighting the current global pandemic. He also
went on to say he always regarded Morrison as his most
likely successor and that Morrison was a much safer pair
of hands than Peter Dutton by far.

Terry Barnes writing for The Drum in 2016 - tells us
that John Howard read the mood of the Australian people
better than anyone. That not one of his successors came
remotely near him in terms of his grasp of people,
politics and policy and his rapport with mainstream
Australia.

Barnes tells us that Rudd was too arrogant and obsessed by
elite opinion and his own brilliance. Julia Gillard was
fatally diminished by how she became PM and the political
disaster that was her 2010 election. That Tony Abbott
never adapted to positive government instead of negative
opposition and finally that Malcolm Turnbull brought a
sense of entitlement to the top job but was not given the
chance to produce much of any substance beside.

Barnes says that each of them had elements of Howard PM,
but none match the whole package.

Interesting insights.

Andrew Clark, Senior Writer for the Australian
Financial Review pointed out in 2018 - the five political
successes of the Coalition Government under
Malcolm Turnbull's leadership were:

1) Securing an exemption from tariff increases for
Australian finished steel exports to the US.

2) Steering the passage of same sex marriage postal
survey and enabling legislation through Parliament.

3) Kick-starting a high profile Australian program
of hi-tech innovation.

4) Presiding over a highly successful skills-based
immigration program against mounting opposition.

5) Maintaining good relations with a volatile,
unpredictable US President, Donald Trump.

Turnbull's political failures Clark lists as:

1) Not politically burying Tony Abbott.

2) Failure to deliver a comprehensive reform of
Australia's tax system.

3) The Coalition's almost continuous flat-lining
in the polls.

4) Failure to communicate and set a clear narrative
for his government.

5) The policy collapse around the National Energy
Guarantee.

To be fair, Clark says that Malcolm Turnbull was
also operating in a political party where a large
group were opposed to considering policies which
acknowledged the reality of man-made climate change
and so Australia gragged its feet in attempting to
mitigate and navigate global effects.

Turnbull explained that:

"" ...this is something that Morrison has to confront,
by the way, because they would do exactly the same to him,
if they thought they could. The way they operate is to
basically bully and intimidate people... you create mayhem,
enough damage, that people in the middle say, "It has
got to come to an end, how can I stop this terrible
horror?"

Not sure what the answer to that is.

Turnbull's major failing was that he considered himself to be smarter than anyone else in the room and failed to realise that he was supposed to be a leader among peers and not subordinates. Both times after becoming leader of the party he made the fatal mistake of attempting to push through policies that he strongly believed in but which were strongly opposed by the majority of the party.

The first time he tried to pass Rudd's carbon cap and tax and was booted out, the second time he tried to craft the NEG into a de facto cap and trade policy and got booted out.

Both were supremely predictable and a surprise to no one. He had no one to blame but himself.

P.S. he is kidding if he thought he could win the up coming election after he stuffed up the previous one.

Turnbull is a perjurer, 'nuff said.

I find it interesting how we can look at the
same phenomenon in life and see it with
totally different eyes. But listening to each
other and hearing a variety of opinions hopefully
we can learn and grow.

Joshua Black writing in The Conversation,
April 22, 2020 says that:

"Ultimately, "A Bigger Picture"is not the compendium
of revelation that some may perceive. Instead, it is
another picture of politics in which "character"and
"leadership"reigns supreme at the expense of all
other political forces."

In Black's opinion "Turnbull's book is another addition
to the history of incendiary political memoir publishing
in Australia."

"Political parties and their media associates have
confirmed once again that a successful parliamentary
memoir requires is deft political management."

And that is something in which Malcolm Turnbull should be
undoubtedly a pro. So far his book has sold out at least
at the Dymocks stores here in Melbourne as of Tuesday.

The book has generated so much political controversy.
Turnbull's been accused of hypocrisy and championing
socialism. All old chestnuts. He's even been threatened
with expulsion from the Liberal Party.

All in all this was expected - but of course none of it
would please the current government or the Party.

But is the book really more inflammatory than previous
prime ministerial memoirs?

Looking back into the past it would appear that
political controversy is a trade mark of political
memoir publishing in Australia.

Is Joshua Black correct when he says that Malcolm Turnbull's
"A Bigger Picture" is just another page in that story?

You can read his comments here:

http://www.theconversation.com/secrets-and-scandals-where-malcolm-turnbulls-memoir-fits-in-the-rich-history-of-prime-ministerial-books-136730

Could someone tell me who their favourite PM was/is - and
why?

Is Mise,
>Turnbull is a perjurer, 'nuff said.
Any actual evidence of that?
Or are you bearing false witness yourself?

Aidan,

Turnbull is an avowed Republican, to take his seat in Parliament he swore allegiance to our Queen of Australia, that was perjury.
The fact that he would not be paid if he had not done so reflects not on our Constitution but on the man himself; therefore a perjurer and a liar.

Someone said;
He's an Arts graduate. That would explain it!

It does explain much especially why he got done on his renewable energy
policies. The people, both in his party and the general public who had a
clue understood only too well what he wanted to attempt.
Perhaps if he had been an engineering graduate he would have been more
down to earth and with more common sense.

That he tried to shop himself to the Labour Party and the Liberal
Partysays it all.
If that was known, then I would not have had a bar of the insincere so and so

Bazz,

After seeing your last post I must change what I wrote to:

He's an Law graduate. That doesn't explain it!

Is Mise,

How did Malcolm Turnbull lie in taking the
oath of office to the Queen? That was the
requirement at that time. And he upheld it.

He met the queen at Buckingham Palace when
he was Prime Minister and stated:

"Even republicans like myself can be, and in
my case are, very strong Elizabethans."

And, he paid tribute to the 91 year old monarch
as having embodied, "selfless public service,
dignity, wisdom,
and leadership for longer and more magnificently
than anyone else today."

Raising the question of having an Australian head of
state does not make a person out to be a liar.

It's a question that should be discussed as the 2017
constitutional storm of dual citizenship debacle
proved where we got rid of 12 senators who were kicked
out due to dual citizenship while at the same time
we have a foreign head of state.

Strange conundrum.

That does explain things Mr O.

After humanities graduates, the next most gullible people on earth are law & economics graduates. Rather than thinking they all just parrot what they have been told to believe for the rest of their misinformed lives.

Just a quick look at our fool Victorian judges or reserve bank actions confirms that.

Dear Bazz,

Malcolm Turnbull's career spans journalism, law,
business and politics - often pursued simultaneously.
He graduated with an Arts Law degree from Sydney
University and went on to Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar.

He made his name as a lawyer defending clients as
diverse as Kerry Packer and former MI5 agent Peter
Wright where Turnbull defeated the British government
in the "Spycatcher" trial in 1986.

His business career in his own firm, and later Goldman
Sachs, saw deals ranging from media takeovers to
Russian gold mines and internet start-ups.

Politics was always part of his life.

The man was not a dictator as PM. He did try to
bring the party together and perhaps that was his
mistake in that he put his trust in the wrong people,
despite his good intentions.

I believe that unlike so many politicians Turnbull
placed his trust in everybody in order to get the job
done and get things done. He saw a future in
renewables. He understood the importance of innovation.

He was not in it for "power for power's sake,"like many
others. As he explained to Leigh Sales:

"For me, power without purpose was pointless, the idea
that you would sit in the prime minister's chair or
the premier's chair or minister's chair and not actually
get things done seemed to me to be mad. Why wouldn't
you be better off sailing or paddling a kayak or
reading a book?"

Turnbull never saw a big, or any picture in his life. He was too dam busy admiring himself in any mirror he could find.

The 2 cretins Turnbull & KRudd both saw themselves as great leaders, showing us the way, rather than our employees hired to do a job of managing

Dear Hasbeen,

Turnbull has been accused of all sorts of things.
Misconceptions abound. As they do with any
leading figure. All in all this is expected.

But is his book more inflammatory than previous
prime ministerial memoirs?

Political controversy is a trade mark of political memoir
publishing in Australia. And the general feeling seems
to be that Turnbull's book is just another page in that
story.

However, the fact that it's sold out speaks for itself
because reading it, I can tell you is quite a challenge.
Close to 700 pages in all. Whew! However, it is a
real page-turner. Unlike, some others that I just
couldn't force myself to finish. You've got to give the
man credit where credit is due - he's one talented,
smart and very literate person. Not many like him in
the world of politics.

Foxy,

He lied by swearing allegiance to the Queen of Australia when he was prepared to undermine her position as our Head of State.

Elizabeth II is Queen of Australia and thus an Australian not a foreign monarch as the illiterate or the conniving would have us believe.
http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item-sdid-99.html

All Republican members of Parliament perjure themselves to take office, perjurers are, by definition and their own actions, liars.

A decent candidate would inform the electors of his/her stance before an election and if elected would refuse to swear a false oath/affirmation and would thus not take the seat, and forego the perks.

The slogan of the anti-Monarchist members could be "Perjury for Perks".

Is Mise,

How was Malcolm Turnbull going to undermine
the British Queen? By the way her title is
Queen of Australia - but she is British.
Australia in the 21st century no longer is.

Foxy,

In simple language, anyone who pushes the Republican barrow helps to undermine the position of the Queen.

Just as those who pushed the Stalinist line tried to undermine Australia.

Is Mise,

I forgot to add that - federal MPs and Senators are
LEGALLY obliged to swear allegiance to the queen before
being allowed to represent us, the people who
elected them.

There are many MPs and Senators believe Australia should
be an independent country free from the British monarchy.
As do many constituents who voted for them.

They didn't send their MPs to Parliament in order to see
them pledge "allegiance to a queen, her heirs and
successors according to law."

Our MPs should be pledging allegiance to "Australia and
its people" instead of the British monarchy.

The current pledge is an anachronism that needs to change
in the views of many. And it probably will after the
queen dies.

Foxy to make the point that is why the lady is Queen of Australia.
While on swearing oaths;
The Koran has a verse that allows to lie to unbelievers if it is to the
advantage of moslems.
Where does that leave moslem MPs and witnesses in court ?

'The Koran has a verse that allows to lie to unbelievers if it is to the
advantage of moslems.Where does that leave moslem MPs and witnesses in court ?'

exactly the same doctrine as secularism Bazz. Secularist deny killing an unborn baby is murder. The end result of having sex with whoever and whenever is far more important than even biological truths for secularist. Just twist and redefine as the Nazis did. That is why the likes of Turnbull and Rudd were happy to be dishonest about their intentions. In their eyes the importance of having such 'brilliant' people were more important that honesty and integrity. The abc have demonstrated this doctrine time and time again. Even having an innocent man jailed for the sins of the Catholic church was another example of this doctrine from secularist who hate truth.

Hi Bazz,

Your concerns are unwarranted regarding Muslim
MPs or for that matter any other non-Christian
MPs.

Ed Husic - first Muslim MP to take on a front bench
position in Australia took his oath on the Koran.

As a result he received negative posts and abuse
on his Facebook page. It came (as it usually does)
from a small number of extremists and did not
reflect mainstream Australian society.

"I think that people...may have questions and they may
have concerns, and people are right to raise that.
But I also think that you'll have from time to time people
of the extremes. The important thing is that mainstream
Australians want everyone to work together. Mainstream
Australia wants people to join as one to make this country
better than the way (it was when) they first got here."

Also let's not forget that - wearing a yarmulke and
holding a Hebre Bible - Josh Frydenberg was sworn in
on the same day as Husic.

Josh carried the Hebre Bible loaned to him by former
Governor-General Sir Zelman Cowan. It was the Old
Testament Zelman was sworn in on in 1977.

I hope this helps put to rest your concerns.

Runner,

Could you please continue to spread your hatred elsewhere?

Hmm spreading hatred ! Best you task the moslems with that.
Daily they are murdering Christians in Africa by the dozens and it does
not even get a mention.
So, you think it is OK for a moslem to swear allegiance in parliament on
a book that allows the oath giver to lie ?

Really, your reasoning is in need of repair.

When someone pledges allegiance to Liz, they aren't pledging allegiance to that person, but to the office of head of state of the nation "according to law."

The allegiance is to the office not the actual person. Otherwise, when the person passed, all new oaths would be required. But they aren't.

So there is no reason why a person can't pledge allegiance to the person holding the office while at the same time working to change the person holding the office.

That Turnbull was hopeless at organising that change when he had the chance and was made the fool by Howard is an entirely different issue.







"Mainstream Australia wants people to join as one to make this country better than the way (it was when) they first got here."

Well I think that was very much the view of Arthur Phillip. He certainly wanted to make the place better than the way he found it. (cheeky grin).

Bazz,
>The Koran has a verse that allows to lie to unbelievers if it is to the advantage of moslems.
Exactly which verse is that?

Hi Bazz,

Ed Husic was born in Sydney to Bosnian migrant
parents and although he describes himself as a
Muslim he does not involve himself with
activities that are part of his faith. He's
close friends with Josh Frydenberg.

Another thought:

How many of us really and realistically follow
or even know what's in our Holy Books? And can
quote from them? Very few of us I imagine.

So, as I said previously - your worries about
Muslims should only concern extremists. The same
applies to all religious fanatics.

BTW : Any religious concept - its meaning may vary
significantly among religious sects, scholars, countries,
and political regimes. Applying a key term is usually done
in the case of Muslims by anti-Muslim extremists.
So beware how you want to be perceived. Perhaps it's your
reasoning that is in need of repair?

mhaze,

Thanks for the information regarding the oath of allegiance.

You do surprise at times.

Foxy,

"I forgot to add that - federal MPs and Senators are
LEGALLY obliged to swear allegiance to the queen before
being allowed to represent us, the people who
elected them."

You didn't need to add that, it is quite clear and if wannabe MsP tell the voters that they won't take their seat if elected and they still get a majority of the vote then the voters have sent a message. The first woman elected to the British Parliament refused to take her seat, she was a Republican.

Members swear allegiance to the Queen, to the person, and if they so swear whilst advocating a Republic then they commit perjury.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(Australia)
There is no requirement for a new oath on the death of the Monarch because the Oath is also to "heirs and successors".

"Perjury for Perks".

Is Mise,
>Members swear allegiance to the Queen, to the person, and if they
>so swear whilst advocating a Republic then they commit perjury.

You are assuming the two things are incompatible, but has that been tested in court?
I think it would be difficult to prove on balance of probability, let alone beyond reasonable doubt, that allegiance to the Queen requires taking the position that she must remain head of state. She has not commanded them to do so!

Aiden,
I have a list of verses, 36 of them, almost all about killing
Jews or unbelievers but I did not include the one about Taqaya which is where you lie to protect yourself.
I started to look for it and found an enormous amount of information
about what is meant when a moslem lies.
They have several different words for lying and each has a particular meaning.
There appears to have been a number of court cases and one I noticed
on the swearing in of a member of the Mississippi state legislature.
I have landed in a morass of information and when I find it I will let you know.

Is Mise,

You say - "Perjury for Perks?"

I say - "Rebuild and Reform!" -
and all of that good stuff.

"There is no requirement for a new oath on the death of the Monarch because the Oath is also to "heirs and successors"."

Well they still require new oaths to be taken in Britain.

Also note that the successor to Liz doesn't have to be a relative. There's no reason why an MP can't work to make sure that the successor is an Aussie and that that happens sooner than later.

Just getting back to the subject - Mal - we should remember that this whole Republican debate would be in the past if it wasn't for the fact that Turnbull had utterly blown the best chance we've had to be a republic. And he blew it because of his innate distrust of the good sense of the Australian people. Indeed his disdain for public opinion permeates his entire political life.

Foxy,

"You do surprise at times."

I only surprise those who don't know me.

Foxy,'

"You say - "Perjury for Perks?"

I didn't say that at all, what I said was "Perjury for Perks", it was not a question but a statement.

In general:
If anyone swears allegiance to the Queen whilst working towards undermining her position as Australian Head of State then they are swearing falsely and hence are perjurers and liars.

Our Republicans and the Greens don't have the guts to refuse to take their seats because they are not in there for the good of anyone but themselves.

I mentioned that the first woman elected to the British Parliament refused to take her seat and the electors were fully aware that she would not take the seat.
That's the way that moral people work.

"Perjury for Perks".

Revenge is best served cold.

"Former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's new explosive book has plummeted to just $8 online after pirated copies were allegedly leaked by a staffer at Prime Minister Scott Morrison's office.
Just two days after it was released, the book has been slashed to $8.38 on Kindle, a significant reduction from the original $23.99 price.

The hardback version of the memoir has also been marked down from $55 to just $29 at Kmart and Big W."

mhaze,

You said that you only surprise those who don't
know you.

That makes for a heck of a lot of surprised people
on this forum.

Turnbull blowing the republic debate?
He had a great deal of help from two staunch
monarchists - John Howard and Tony Abbott.

I question Turnbull's disdain of public opinion.

Opinion polls - are a different story.

Disdain for them was probably caused by the low ratings
that the Liberal Party received at the time.

We know that this was caused by
the infighting within the party, as well as the
groups of self-interested politicians jostling to get
to the top instead of getting on with the real job of
effective governing.

Turnbull has admitted his mistake in making opinion
polls a criteria for the removal of Tony Abbott as
leader. It ended up contributing to his own demise.

Is Mise,

You continue to say - "Perjury for Perks."
Despite given explanations. Fair enough.

I shall continue to say - "Rebuild and Reform," and all of
that good stuff.

That's the way that effective government works.

As for the question of morality and politicians...

Peter Coleman in his Preface to "The Costello Memoirs,"
Writes:

"Whatever they may say, most of them do not go into
Parliament to bring about particular reforms, they go in
because they find life is irresistible. They want to be in
it all their lives. They enjoy its exhilarating highs and
take its miserable (and tedious) lows in their stride.
They face long years in the wilderness with equanimity."

"They take for granted the slander of fools. They also
believe that the voters will get it right in the end.
Their day will come. They are politicians in the way others
are poets. They can't help themselves."

Coleman goes on to mention the seat-warmers, the hacks, the
careerists, and the adventurers. None of whom go into
Parliament to make a difference. Morality to most is
neither here nor there. Neither is the pledge of allegiance.
That's unfortunately the reality.

Bazz,
I did not ask about lying to protect yourself. I asked about the claim you made, which was lying to unbelievers if it is to the advantage of moslems.

Shadow Minister,

You can stop rubbing your hands in glee.

There's legal action pending the pirated copies
of the book.

Big W and Kmart always offer great deals on products.
I buy Lego sets for my grand-children there. So much
cheaper. The big outlets can afford to do that. And
buy go to them for that reason.

However you should know that the book had sold out
by Tuesday at good book shops like Readings and
Dymocks - which had it reduced to $42+ . People
were buying it. BTW - At Big W - the Doncaster store,
Box Hill, and South Yarra - all sold out.

I bought Peter Costello's Memoirs at the Post Office for
$5.00.

Turnbull's memoir considering it's close to 700 pages is
doing extremely well.

I know ! I know Aiden, just be patient.
Islamic lying is a big field !

Foxy,

"Coleman goes on to mention the seat-warmers, the hacks, the
careerists, and the adventurers. None of whom go into
Parliament to make a difference. Morality to most is
neither here nor there. Neither is the pledge of allegiance.
That's unfortunately the reality."

We agree, at last.

Is Mise,

I bet not for long. (grin).

Hi Aidan,

Wikipedia tells us that:

Yarden Mariuma, sociologist at Columbia University writes:

"Taqiyya is an Islamic judicial term whose shifting
meaning relates to when a Muslim is allowed under
Sharia Law, to lie."

Ït's a concept whose meaning has varied significantly
among Islamic sects, scholars, countries and political
regions. It nevertheless is one of the key terms used
by recent anti-Muslim polemicists."

Hope this helps.

Foxy,

"Turnbull blowing the republic debate?
He had a great deal of help from two staunch
monarchists - John Howard and Tony Abbott.

I question Turnbull's disdain of public opinion."

I've made this point before, but I'll repeat. The big question for the republican side of the debate was how the new head of state would be selected - popular vote or appointed by some group of so-called eminent people.

Most Australians who wanted a republic also wanted a popular vote. But the so-called elite, like Turnbull, didn't trust the people to vote in the 'right' type of head of state. So they opposed a popular vote.

The vote that was put to the people was Turnbull's favoured method. It failed. Had they instead put a popular vote as the method of appointing the head of state, it would have succeeded.

Turnbull and the other republican leaders utterly blew it. Howard knew that and utterly made fools of them.

Had they had even a modicum of faith in the people to make sober judgements about these issues, the republican debate would have long since been resolved.

mahze,

Malcolm Turnbull has written two books obout the
republic campaign. Over the 20 years that have passed,
he's remained of the view that we won't have
enough political interest or momentum to win a
referendum until after the end of the Queen's reign.

That will be the next big watershed. And before we have
a referendum Turnbull believes we should have a plebiscite
that offers a choice between direct election and
parliamentary appointment and allows that issue to be
thrashed out over months of debate and resolved.

He believes that with that done, the constitutional
amendment proposed would incorporate the mode of election
chosen in the plebiscite.

He feels that's our best chance of ensuring our head of state
is, at last, one of us.

"He feels that's our best chance of ensuring our head of state
is, at last, one of us"

Does he now?

Elizabeth II is one of us, she is as Queen of Australia as Australian as any of us, even migrants.

Typical of a millionaire politician that he would spend twice as much of the taxpayers' money to achieve that which could be done for half the cost.
The first question on a referendum re becoming a Republic should be,

"That no politician, past or serving, shall be eligible to stand for election as President".

Then watch the interest by the Pollies wither on the vine.

Is Mise,

The Queen is British. Australia is still legally
under the British. You are either ignorant or in
denial about this fact. The British government keeps
a Governor-General with "Reserve Powers"to oversee the
Australian Parliament.

Our Constitution is an act of Queen Victoria's parliament.
It states in the Preamble that the colonies are uniting
under "the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland." It adds that references to the Queen extend to
"Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of
the United Kingdom."

There is no reference to the "Queen of Australia."

Section 59 states that the Queen may disallow
any law within a year of its assent by the
Governor-General. This Constitution
is still very much in force, as was shown recently by the
High Court disqualifying MPs under Section 44.

Australian citizenship did not exist until 1949 and is still
not mentioned in the Constitution.

Over the past decades British citizens (or subjects) received
special status over other immigrants. In 1986 the Australia
Act abolished appeals to the Privy Council in London.

However decisions by British courts remain
binding precedents up to that point. However,
Britain still rules Australia through
the monarchy ((which is constitutionally defined as the
British monarchy) and through the court system, where
British decisions still hold sway.

Foxy,

MT is going to sue a lowly paid political staffer? Seriously? what ever he wins won't cover the legal costs.

I see all the major sellers have slashed the price of the book only a handful of people have paid full price. I guess that it will hit $5 soon.

Foxy,

"He feels that's our best chance of ensuring our head of state
is, at last, one of us."

Actually he feels that's the best way to get the type of republic he wants.

Kim Beazley had a similar proposal and I think its current ALP policy - funny how so many of Turnbull's views marry with ALP policy.

I'll try to explain. Very roughly, the electorate is broken into three equal groups - monarchists, republicans who want an elected presidnet, republicans who want an appointed president.

In the referendum, which put the appointed president option, enough of the 'elected' president supporters joined the monarchists to defeat it.

Equally, in a plebiscite where the option was just between elected and appointed, enough monarchists would join the appointed group that it would win.

The simple solution is to put the elected president option in a referendum. I believe , and previous polls have shown, that a majority of the appointed president people would vote for such a republic that it would get through. That was absolutely the case in 1999.

But those who disdain the opinions of the average voter, don't want that type of republic and work hard to ensure its never put as an option. Which is why the monarchists always win.

Turnbull just brings up the Liz factor as a way to cover his own incompetency. He utterly blew the referendum, played for the fool by Howard/Abbott

mhaze,

I read the chapter - "An Australian Republic"
in Turnbull's book.

There were then, as there are today, two big
questions. What should the powers of the president
be? How should the president be elected?

Turnbull encountered almost no support for a US-style
president who has executive head-of-government powers.

Most people agreed the president should have the same role,
powers and responsibilities as the governor-general.

It is however, not entirely clear what these are.
Not even the Queen's powers are clear-cut. The constitution
isn't helpful - it doesn't even mention the prime minister.

Anyway, Turnbull has remained of the view that we won't have
enough political interest or momentum to win a referendum
on a republic until after the end of the Queen's reign.

And before we have a referendum, Turnbull says we should
have a plebiscite that offers a choice between direct
election and parliamentary appointment and allow this
issue to be thrashed out over months of debate and
resolved.

With that done, the constitutional amendment proposed would
incorporate the mode of election chosen in the plebiscite.
He says that the best chance of success.

Elect a president and you elect another politician and another power centre.

Hi Bazz,

You're absolutely right.

I doubt if Australians will accept that.

I certainly won't.

I can't help but wonder - what if Dutton
would have succeeded in ousting Turnbull.
Could the Governor-General have intervened?

Does anyone know?

Foxy,

Gough Whitlam changed all that and removed any reference to the Queen being Queen of Great Britain and instead introduced the title "Queen of Australia", hence she is an Australian.

I do wish you'd catch up on things, it's do dreary having to continually correct you.

Is Mise,

Not according to the Constitution she's not.

The British royals are also the monarchs of
more than a dozen other countries and they
do not represent any Australian interest
internationally. But worse, we have a monarch
and royal family who actively work against our
national and international interests wherever it
suits their real constituency - Britain.

To support Australian interests is just not part of
their job description. And it never will be.

Foxy,

" Turnbull says we should
have a plebiscite"

Well as explained above, he wants that because he knows that's the only way he could get the type of republic he wants. And even that's no certainty.

"I doubt if Australians will accept that [ie an elected president]."

At the time of the referendum, polls showed that electing the president was the most popular option. Had Turnbull offered that option, we would be a republic now.

"I certainly won't.[ie accepted an elected president]"
There's the rub. So if offered the choice of an elected president or the current system, you'd vote for the monarchy?

You see that's what happened in 1999. Lot's of those who wanted an elected president voted to keep the monarchy rather than accept what they considered to be a second best republic.

I thought you might like this... (cheeky grin)

http://catallaxyfiles.com/files/2020/04/IMG_1932.jpg

mhaze,

I'm sure that when the time is right we'll be able
to work out the intricacies of the model for our
President.

Thanks for the link. Loved it!

Is Mise,

The Royal Style and Titles Act (19 October 1973)
altered the FORMAL title of Queen Elizabeth II
to refer specifically to Australia.

This was one of the few Bills of the Australian
Parliament enacted by the BRITISH monarch personally,
rather than by the Governor-General as vice-regal
authority.

Queen Elizabeth signed her assent during the Royal
Tour for the opening of the Sydney Opera House.

And in the event of a Republic referendum passing, what of the Sovereign Independent States that voted against it?

What is to stop such States from remaining Monarchies?

Is Mise,

To be successful a proposal must be approved by the
majority of voters nationwide and also by the
majority of voters "in the majority of the states"
(i.e. in at least 4 states).

44 proposals have been submitted to referendum, only
8 have been successful.

Malcolm Turnbull's book is proving to be a political
bestseller.

We're told by The Australian newspaper and other media
that the initial print run of 45,000 had almost
exhausted in just 4 days. So had the second run of
15,000 and the third of 15,000 was also selling well
across independent retailers and in bigger retailers
like KMart and Big W. As well as in digital sales where
its top of the charts on Apple Books.

Jo Lewin, Head of trade product - Booktopia has said
that the company had sold 3,387 copies over the past
few days and was trying to get more in stock.

Political memoirs are often not big sellers in Australia.
Malcolm Turnbull's memoir appears to be gaining ground on
the lifetime sales of other political memoirs.

John Howard's "Lazarus Rising" sold 103,000 in 7 years.
Julia Gillard's - 72,000 in 3 years.
Tony Abbott's - Battlines - 14,000.

Malcolm Turnbull's book had the disadvantage of the
coronavirus lockdown working against him. Many boo shops
have closed their doors. And yet his book is outdoing
them all.

Foxy,

"44 proposals have been submitted to referendum, only
8 have been successful."

The proposals may have been successful or unsuccessful but all of the referendums have been successful.

On Malcolm Turnbull, I see him as a person of overweening vanity who sees himself as the first President whatever the cost to the taxpayer.

Is Mise,

Correction:

44 proposals have been passed by parliament and submitted
to referendum, only 8 have been successful.

Obviously many disagree with your opinion of Mr Turnbull.
As the fact that his book is proving to be a political
best seller shows.

Foxy,

I'll say it again, "The proposals may have been successful or unsuccessful but all of the referendums have been successful."

I add that Turnbull wants a President selected by an elite few because even a millionaire can't bribe all of the voters when it's a free vote by the electorate.

Is Mise,

Correction:

19 Referendums - only 8 passed.

Mr Turnbull has written two books already about the
republic campaign. As explained earlier -
over the 20 years that have passed, Mr Turnbull
remains of the view that we won't have enough political
interest or momentum to win a referendum until after
the end of the Queen's reign.

And he firmly has expressed the view that before we
have a referendum we should have a plebiscite that
offers a choice between direct election and parliamentary
appointment and and allows that issue to be thrashed
out over months of debate and resolved.

With that done, Mr Turnbull says that the constitutional
amendment proposed would incorporate the mode of election
chosen in the plebiscite.

Foxy,

"And he firmly has expressed the view that before we
have a referendum we should have a plebiscite that
offers a choice between direct election and parliamentary
appointment and and allows that issue to be thrashed
out over months of debate and resolved."

As I said double the expense to the taxpayer when only a referendum will do, but what's a few millions of the taxpayers' money to a vainglorious politician.

No referendum in Australian history has been lost.

Is Mise,

Of course your opinion matters -
Especially to you.

I understand. (smile).

Foxy,

Do you dispute the fact that no referendum in Australian history has been lost?

As to Turnbull's book sales proving that he is right, it may equally be said that curiosity has caused sales; I'll wait till the remainders sale or better still when the library gets a copy.

Is Mise,

I tend to go with the historical facts.
Which I've quoted for you from reputable sources.

We're all entitled to our opinions of course,
as I indicated earlier - but not our own facts.
And as Mr Turnbull will attest - there was
one referendum that was lost in his time - otherwise
we would be a republic today.

But hey, as I told you - of course your opinions
matter.

Just not to me.

Foxy,

Read and learn, a Referendum is held to ascertain the will of the electors and whatever the outcome in relation to the question asked/proposals the will of the voters is shewn in the result; thus all Referendums are successful.

The Referendum to which you refer was not lost, it didn't belong exclusively to the Republican element and their perjured MPs, but belonged to all Australians and the people, in a successful vote decided that they wanted nought to do with a Republic as proposed by the elitist "we will decide what is best for you" brigade.

Turnbull lost the first big step in his campaign to become President, but that was the a gain for Australia.

Is Mise,

Since 1901 - 19 referendums have proposed 44 changes to
the Constitution. Only 8 have been agreed to.

These are recorded facts.

As for your opinion on Mr Turnbull? It's your opinion.
Just as you think the Queen is Australian, guns are
necessary, and violence is OK.

Take care and stay safe.

Foxy,

"Since 1901 - 19 referendums have proposed 44 changes to
the Constitution. Only 8 have been agreed to.

These are recorded facts."

Another fact is that Referendums cannot fail or be lost because they are not a competition but a means of finding out the peoples' will in a recognized and secure manner and this they always do.

All Australian referendums have been successful, 100% of them.

Is Mise,

You're arguing with yourself.

Give it a rest.

Foxy,

"Just as you think the Queen is Australian, guns are
necessary, and violence is OK."

and I'm right.

Don't you think that guns are necessary?

Violence when it is necessary is OK as you have demonstrated.
Unless, of course, you think that war is not violent, that policemen never have to restrain violent people by using appropriate violence.

What you do demonstrate is a complete unwillingness to recognize reality,
I took your advice and consulted two WWII veterans as to whether the New Guinea campaign was violent.
They both said, "You gotta be kiddin'" and one added that the Desert campaign was a picnic by comparassion.

How're you going on Weary Dunlop's pistols?

Still in denial?

Is Mise,

Anything else?

Because what you said about the New Guinea campaign
I found very interesting.

More please.

Just another fact about our former PM.

Malcolm Turnbull donated more than his entire $528.000 salary
to charity. The Daily Telegraph reported the PM in fact
donated $550,000. He also donated to the Sydney Children's
Hospital and the Wayside Chapel, as well as the Tribal
Warrior Aboriginal Corporation in Redfern to support
underprivileged Indigenous families, among other services
and charities.

He may have been a rich man but he had emotional empathy,
and intelligence, of placing himself in the shoes of
others less privileged.

Foxy,

As you seem to know all about it then it must have been common knowledge, it's known as buying votes.

The great Anonymous does it better.

Is Mise,

I take it that Malcolm Turnbull did not give you
any money? (smile).

Foxy,

I don't accept gifts from poseurs.

Is Mise,

So, the right people can buy your vote.

Interesting.

Foxy,

The right people get my vote gratis.

That is the ones representing the Farmers, Fishers and Shooters Party.

Is Mise,

That's not a wise investment.

You get back as much as you put in.

Surely there are better prospects.

Foxy,

As a firearm owner, keen target shooter and hunter, it's an extremely wise investment given that all Australian Governments are prone to treat firearm owners unfairly.

What's more, they are the only Party that, as far as I know, have not been tainted with scandal.

Is Mise,

I've always thought of the Shooters, Fishers, and Farmers
Party as a niche minor party - whose membership was
largely made up of gun enthusiasts.

A party looked upon with suspicion as a single-issue group.

I did not see it as a legitimate right-leaning option in
the bush.

Although I have to admit when the
Liberal Premier of NSW warns that the Shooters are a
danger to the state and that she's not prepared to work
with them. Can't help wondering - Why?

Foxy,

Because Glamourous Gladys is anti-firearm and is trying her hardest to get in backdoor laws that will harm firearm owners and many other people as well.
Gladys is big on road safety as well, but the State of NSW has some of the most dangerous and misleading centre lines on its roads, blind corners and crests where the "dotted' line allows the unwary to think that passing is safe.

She cares about Gladys and very little else.

Is Mise,

Not sure that your description of Gladys
Berejiklian is correct.

At least the voters don't think so.

She managed to return the Coalition for a 3rd
term - making her the first popularly
elected female premier in NSW history.

Foxy,

"Not sure that your description of Gladys
Berejiklian is correcT".

OK. I'll grant that she is not really glamourous.

Is Mise,

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

And as Judge Judy says - "Beauty doesn't last,
but stupid is forever."

Foxy,

Here is an example of stupidity that Gladys undoubtedly has a hand in, it's some proposed firearms legislation and here is a definition from it that I took from Australian Hunting Net in the following copy of a post there.

Quote:
"Not being in NSW but, the part that would worry me is the lack of specificity in the Firearm Precursor definition.
In this section and in section 51K—
firearm precursor means any object, device, substance, material or document used or capable of being used in the process of manufacturing a firearm or firearm part, including (but not limited to) the following—
(a) moulds for making firearm parts,
(b) milling, casting or rifling equipment,
(c) digital blueprints within the meaning of section 51F,
(d) computer software or plans.
(4) This section applies in relation to a person regardless of whether a firearm or firearm part is actually manufactured.

So I make ride on miniature steam locomotives and have a milling machine, lathe etc and am a LFO so according to that I would be in breach of the regulation.

Dick"

Note 4 above.

ANYONE possessing the means of manufacturing a firearm comes under that, and a firearm under the Act can be made with such basic equipment as a file, a hacksaw and a hand drill.
It is so open-ended that thousands of people would be instant criminals if it were enacted.

The SF&F Party exists to try to stop this totalitarian garbage.

And if anyone thinks that sophisticated machinery is needed to make guns then,
"In the arcades off the main road are workshops. Hundreds of closet-sized rooms where men and boys make working copies of the entire world's guns with nothing more than hand tools and a small drill press"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darra_Adam_Khel

Is Mise,

The more I read your current posts - the more
I'm really becoming very impressed.