A lot has been said about Mr Abbott and loyalty. I've referred to it myself, many times. But as I'm prone to do, I analysis things to death and as a result, a few of the claims are not working for me anymore. As a result, I'm beginning to wonder if Mr Abbott really was that loyal or was it simply a matter of stubbornness, distrust, self protection, not having your successor to close or simply politics. Or combinations of all of them.
I'm not making a judgement because, like many, I'm still a bit confused. I'm merely trying to rationalise things in my mind and to try and make sense of all of this. In doing that, I've looked at past actions, related some current actions to personal examples and asked myself some tough questions. I find committing things to paper and seeking input from others helpful, hence this update.
Let's look at the Treasurers role.
Mr Abbott was strongly advised to make Malcolm Turnbull treasurer. Scott Morrison as treasurer came much later. Whether you like him or not Mr Turnbull does have a sound economic brain. He sits much further to the right on economy than Mr Abbott. He comes from the business side of the divide. He isn't a career politician and he is certainly not a union plant. He is popular with the broader community (albeit he is extremely unpopular with the right side of the Liberal ledger). Mr Turnbull is a masterful orator (watch question time) and he can sell a vision. But it would be fair to say he has always posed a threat to Mr Abbott. So why give him the portfolio that would allow him to shine. So you keep your likely successor at arm's length? This happens a lot in business. So could this happen in the biggest business of the lot; government. It wouldn't be the first time it did.
After the February challenge Mr Turnbull was branded 'turncoat' Turnbull. History will show that he wasn't, not then, but that is for another day. Turnbull was damaged. But Mr Morrison's star was rising. Brilliant job on border control. Although some are suggesting now that he really just reintroduced Howard's plan (I shake my head). But as usual, I've digressed. Despite pleas from inside and outside the party, Mr Abbott persisted with Mr Hockey and whilst the second budget was reasonably well received, we soon lost momentum and never really capitalised on the uplift. Remember, Mr Morrison was openly being spoken of the future PM. So once again, perhaps there was a reluctance to place Mr Morrison in the Treasurers role. The closest role to that of Prime Minister.
Mr Morrison was left in the Social Services Portfolio. Nothing gets much profile, there anymore. However, the night of the spill, Mr Abbott offered Scott Morrison the treasurer role. He turned it down. I would have as well given the circumstances. So was that offer merely an act of self-protection by Mr Abbott? He had defended Joe Hockey to the hilt for months but he was prepared to throw Joe Hockey under the bus at the last minute. So the question is. Protection v's Loyalty? Up to you to decide what you think.
Poor Bronwyn Bishop. Now we have a new speaker who is doing a brilliant job we realize that Bronwyn wasn't the best speaker we've ever had. But did she deserve to be 'thrown under the bus' for doing what it seems nearly every other politician does. By the way I'm not condoning ripping off the tax payer, merely stating fact. Bronwyn's executioner Burke did far, far worse and unlike Mrs Bishop he never paid they money back. Mrs Bishop was Mr Abbott's friend. He executed her in the most brutal way and he lost a lot of respect from the middle of the road conservatives in the process. That could have been handled so much better but because in the end Mr Abbott was forced to act more as a result of Labor attacks, Bronwyn was just chopped; razored. So the question is. Self preservation v's Loyalty?
Then we come to the Father of the House, Philip Ruddock. Another good friend who was dumped in the most humiliating fashion for supposedly not warning Mr Abbott of the level unrest. I think I can safely say, it wasn't for the want of trying on Mr Ruddock's part. So the question is. Retribution v's Loyalty?
People had spoken at length about the dysfunction and leaking from the PMO. Ms Credlin was openly and behind closed doors discussed as being a problem and that she needed to go. Now some chat may be just that, chat and stirring. But when the chat reaches the level of an avalanche you have to start to think it's more than just chat. Mr Abbott refused to act. In fact he threatened others. He shut the door so to speak. The question is. Protection vs Stubbornness v's Loyalty?
I don't profess to have the answers. I'm just looking a various scenarios and trying to make some sense of all this. To help me understand why certain actions were taken and when they were taken. And more importantly, why. I'm not sure if I am any clearer, but it helps to write it down.
The question is loyalty, stubbornness, self-protection, retribution or simply politics. And why was loyalty afforded to some but not others. Loyalty does imply you don't act. You can be loyal and still deal with problems. The key is why, how, when and for what purpose. And most of all respect.
