tony abbott asking for weekly list of national security "announcables" between now and the next election

[DiscoStu]

jesus christ this guy's a douche. you can bet the next elections going to be an absolute shit show.

fuck tony abbott and fuck australia for giving him the prime ministership

It has been a noisy, out-of-control week in Canberra: the Liberal Party has imploded over same-sex marriage, the government has announced a farcical climate change policy, the credibility of its trade union royal commission has been shredded. But in the hallowed space of the cabinet room, and even in the Parliament, it's been much quieter.

Ministers reflect on the painfully thin agenda before the cabinet: thin in subject matter as well as substantive submissions. Parliament has not been overwhelmed by major legislation to debate.

A meeting of the National Security Committee of the cabinet has, however, recently asked for a list of national-security-related things that could be announced weekly between now and the election.

How much scrutiny has gone in to these "announceables" is unclear.

National security being the new religion, it's a bit rude to ask any questions, to the point where senior ministers insisted during a bid for funds by a national intelligence agency some months ago that the "bean counters" from Treasury and Finance be kept out of the room.

Perhaps this new environment helps explain why a lone government backbencher, Dan Tehan, has decided all by himself that we should bomb Syria. One might have just imagined the small but significant pause before Tehan said 'No' on radio on Thursday when he was asked whether he had discussed the bombing idea with the Prime Minister before he launched into print with it in that journal of defence strategy record, the Herald Sun in Melbourne.

Implicit in the subsequent discussion has been the idea that, once again, the US has been asking us behind closed doors to join the bombing raids in Syria.

But very senior sources say that Defence has been telling the Prime Minister's office to stop saying the Americans have been asking for help on this because it is not true.

Bombing Syria. Messing with the constitution to get a political outcome on same sex-marriage. These are now the playthings of a prime minister so desperate, so out of control that he is overseeing the complete surrender of proper governance to day-to-day tactics.

The problem is that it isn't even working for him. Every issue that is running in politics at present is highlighting the bitter divisions, or policy confusion, or both, within the government.

Cabinet ministers are publicly brawling over the appropriate legal vehicle, and timing, for deciding the question of same-sex marriage. Attorney-General George Brandis dismissed Scott Morrison's suggestion that there should be a referendum, and was publicly backed by two other senior ministers. Six MPs indicated they would cross the floor to vote in favour of same-sex marriage.

Coalition MPs recognise that Tony Abbott's suggestion this week that the issue of same-sex marriage issue should go to "the people" was a purely political gambit to get it off the agenda short-term, shore up his support with conservatives in the party room, and bury it all together long-term.

But the glaring tactical flaws in this idea – the belief it would both stop the debate and could somehow stop same-sex marriage being an election issue – are so spectacular that even some of those close to Abbott are scathing.

Then again, the Prime Minister is now at war with his own party. His tactics are as much directed at his colleagues as his political opponents. He was quite happy to allow a party room debate to take place that saw 16 of his ministers argue against his position on same-sex marriage.

It's not just on issues of social policy, however, where things have gone off the rails.

The government continues to announce policies that are long on columns of smoke, large in cost and short in detail.

Last week, the government announced it was spending "$89 billion" on "a strong and sustainable naval shipbuilding industry". It was often reported that this was what it was spending in South Australia, even though that $89 billion includes $50 billion on submarines (which the government has generally suggested would be built in Japan) and is an estimate based on contracts that have not even got to tender yet, let alone have a start date. Defence analysts argue that all this spending is within the existing envelope of the defence budget so isn't a huge issue. But they also concede that projects are now being furiously reshuffled because on the current trajectory, the spending will blow the supposed return to surplus.

This week, the government announced a climate change target that overwhelmingly relies on policies that have not yet been announced but which the government says can reduce our carbon emissions by 26 per cent by 2030 at a cost of $60 billion, compared to its claim that Labor's policies (also not announced) to cut carbon by 40 to 60 per cent would cost $600 billion.

The reckless nature of the political calls being made within the Coalition at the moment must be based on the view that, whatever happens, voters will ultimately never be able to cop Bill Shorten and Labor. But that view is based on the idea that voters still rate the two political parties' competence – and that of its leaders – differently.

If you hang around in Canberra long enough, you start to recognise the point where a government has become terminal, where the death spiral is irretrievable. It's got nothing to do with the polls, or leadership rumblings.

It's the point where the sheer stupidity of its decisions is so obvious, so craven, so contradictory, that everyone involved – ministers, backbenchers, the opposition, the media, voters – just know it can't go on like this.

Some would argue that most of the Whitlam government's time in office was like that. But the days when Malcolm Fraser warned voters their money was safer under the bed than it would be under a Labor government, the days of forged faxes under the Keating government, the days when John Howard pledged $9 billion of spending in just one campaign speech, when Kevin Rudd announced the moving of the Sydney naval base to Queensland, all smacked of that time when everyone knew all was lost.

But with the exception of Whitlam, all these things happened with just days or weeks to go before polling day.

We are as much as 12 months from the next election. Abbott's conservative supporters might not want to abandon him. Scott Morrison is clearly positioning as an alternative conservative candidate.

But at some point the conservatives – and the Coalition more broadly – will have to decide not just whether they are prepared to lose an election, but whether they are prepared to have the Coalition's reputation for good government become likened in history to that of Whitlam's.

Laura Tingle is the political editor of The Australian Financial Review

Read more: http://www.afr.com/opinion/columnists/laura-tingle/tony-abbott-determined-to-lead-the-whitlam-government-of-our-time-20150813-giy574?stb=twt#ixzz3ikoUzgea
Follow us: @FinancialReview on Twitter | financialreview on Facebook

[Minga]

And **@@## the numnuts who voted for him and will again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Sallubrious]

Maybe it's to detract attention away from his homophobic misogynist cabinet that's going into self destruct mode. Given the way they have put a security blanket over illegal immigrants arriving by boat and kids in custody etc it seems like a (another) serious case of hypocrisy. On one hand they want to frighten us but on the other hand they refuse to let us know the facts.

I'd put $100 bucks on Turnbull making a move on his job well before the election.

[FancyPants]

I try and keep hope that we as a nation will sooner rather than later dig ourselves out of our self-induced retardation. We've gone backwards in so many ways; what a waste. I like to watch news programs to keep sort of up to date, but man it can get depressing. Abbott needs to go; he's so obviously out of touch, stubborn, close-minded, dictatorial (even amongst his own "peers" in the Libs), etc etc. He has all the charm of string cheese. I just don't... can't, understand those who can't see right through his superficiality. I still wouldn't vote Liberal but I can only hope that Turnbull would bring a somewhat more enlightened change and BOTH major parties can stop acting like children and better this country through intelligent and lively debate and compromise; as I naively assumed the job description called for.

[Sallubrious]

I can't see Turnbull being any better than abbott. When I look at him I see a con man in suit. He's just got a more polished act than abbott and doesn't come accross as smug. To me he has the same format as berlusconi did in Italy for all those years - wear and suit and smile, people just lap that shit up.

His open support for a vote on gay marriage seem like nothing more than an attempt to gain popuarity with opportunity abbott has presented to him on a plate. He'd be silly not to oppose anything abbott does.

Whether Turnbull gets the job or not is another issue all together. It will depend on what james packer and his loyal band of followers at the chartwell society ordane.

[Slocombe]

Yeah, try and scare people until they vote for you. All that will happen is people will stop listening

[DiscoStu]

turnbull will never be lib leader, all of the conservatives hate him

edit: i have no idea who will be pm at the next election, i just want someone half competent for a change (and that means getting rid of shorten)

Edited August 14, 2015 by DiscoStu

[-RC-]

They are all fuckwits, as well as fucking sell-outs. Our 'democracy' was bought ages ago, yet we continue to act like it isn't all an act...

[Change]

They are all fuckwits, as well as fucking sell-outs. Our 'democracy' was bought ages ago, yet we continue to act like it isn't all an act...

I assume when you say "they are all fuckwits" you are referring to all Australians

Democratic voting is designed so the majority get their way

Considering the majority of Australians are uninformed idiots why is it so far fetched to believe that the idiots would vote for an idiot ?

[Sallubrious]

RC is an Aussie Change.

I think he was referring to politicians for sale more than Australians being fuckwits. Although not all Aussies are fuckwits I think we can all agree the mob mentality doesn't seem to be setting any high standards lately.

Edited August 14, 2015 by Sally

[-RC-]

^ this.

But also I really feel we need to recognise that politics en masse is a farce. The rich get the say, the poor suck it up and say "Bloody government" and then quibble over which of our 2 parties they will vote for next time. The point is it doesn't matter who they vote for. Whoever gets in doesn't answer to the people anyway, and both parties essential work for the same employers, which are not the Australian people. Our political system is broken, so therefore the parties involved are not the problem per se. The whole fucking system is the problem. The current spastic of a prime minister is case in point surely?

I like to posit the question, which would've been a big one back when democracy was founded, about our leader/s:

Is this the person who you would have represent you to the world? What kind of impression do they give of the Australian people?

and

Is this someone you would follow into war?

[DiscoStu]

^ this.

But also I really feel we need to recognise that politics en masse is a farce. The rich get the say, the poor suck it up and say "Bloody government" and then quibble over which of our 2 parties they will vote for next time. The point is it doesn't matter who they vote for. Whoever gets in doesn't answer to the people anyway, and both parties essential work for the same employers, which are not the Australian people. Our political system is broken, so therefore the parties involved are not the problem per se. The whole fucking system is the problem. The current spastic of a prime minister is case in point surely?

I like to posit the question, which would've been a big one back when democracy was founded, about our leader/s:

Is this the person who you would have represent you to the world? What kind of impression do they give of the Australian people?

and

Is this someone you would follow into war?

while they two majors differ little in terms of national security policy (never forget labor wash pushing for mandatory data retention for years), they differ markedly in social policy. if it weren't for labor we wouldn't have medicare right now, education would be almost completely privatised minimum wage would be much less or non existent tax policy would be even more in favour of corps etc. the greens introduced denticare scheme and were instrumental in getting the ndis to be a major policy discussion (even if the implementation is left wanting, to say the least). however i will say that everything labor does comes with a "government knows best" paternalistic ethos of social control which is one thing i'll give the small-l libs (i.e. turnbull) credit for, they do genuinely believe in personal freedom.

Edited August 14, 2015 by DiscoStu

[incognito]

Dick Smith for Dicktatorship!

[tangled]

Surely people can not be stupid enough to vote for this mob again?

[ThunderIdeal]

Cant tell if you're joking...