Day two under the leadership of Malcolm Turnbull and the social media trial continues. The witch-hunt for the ‘turncoats’ is in full swing, ably supported by the shock-jocks. The opposing Liberal camps are ripping into each other. I have a personal view that some of the comments would probably be best left unsaid, but expression is good and we do believe in free speech.
What is really interesting, is the tactics now being used by our Labor chums. They are doing their level best to compare the Labor years to what happened on Monday. For them to suggest there is any comparison between Rudd-Gillard-Rudd and Turnbull-Abbott is ludicrous. But, it’s a deliberate tactic to brand Liberals as no better than Labor. We must not let them get away with it. Mr Abbott’s situation is very different.
In February, Mr Abbott survived, as one journalist described as a ‘near death experience’ when MP’s called for a change of leader. This challenge came after months of the government's inability to gain support for key budget measures and to explain their vision to the electorate. People were also becoming frustrated with what they perceived were broken promises. Whilst I understood the reasons for actions taken, it would be fair to say the government did a very poor job of selling the reasons to the electorate. The electorate was very angry including many staunch Liberal supporters.
I remember having discussions with some LNP social media activists. We were trying to defend broken promises, but we were losing the battle. The communications from HQ was almost non existent. Polls were declining and our elected members of parliament were trying to deal with the disenchantment in their electorates. Months of this finally led to the demand for a leadership spill as referenced. Mr Abbott survived, but he had received the most public and direct warning possible from the party room that he had to change. Mr Abbott was given six months.
Over the ensuing months little improvement has been made. Mr Abbott has received multiple warnings of the potential consequences of failure. Elders of the party, i.e. Former Prime Minister John Howard (who by the way was an advocate of carbon pricing, but who had a change of heart), Peter Reith and Peter Costello also pleaded him to change and to make changes. Mr Abbott refused.
I am well aware of some of the substantial help and advice that was offered to help bring the two warring camps together. Likewise, advice was given to change the line-up so that some of the performance gaps could be closed. That was also ignored.
Mr Abbott’s stubbornness got in the way of good judgement. The merciless media attacks on him continued and the white-anting from within, grew in intensity and frequency as anxiety levels increased because nothing was changing.. Now, I am not supporting white-anting, but I do understand the frustration felt by many.
Mr Abbott could have made necessary changes, but he didn’t. Not because he couldn’t but because he chose not to. I’ve read all sorts of comments related to the swiftness of the spill, but once again it was Mr Abbott, who called the vote for Monday evening, a few hours after Mr Turnbull made his announcement. Mr Abbott could have delayed the spill motion to give his supporters more time, but he didn’t. Unlike the first spill that Mr Abbott won, he was unfortunately not victorious a second time.
Now we have an active campaign by some Liberals to paint Mr Abbott as a victim. He wasn't and isn't a victim. I'm sure he wouldn't want to be remembered as a victim either. And we have Labor and their ‘pointing the finger’ campaign; “see, see your party is no better.”
I’m sure Mr Abbott was deeply hurt by what happened on Monday. No one likes rejection. But as we would expect from him, he was gracious in his departure. And, he would NEVER do anything to wreck his party. We should respect that. We owe him that.
And, the next time someone from the Labor side tries to tell you the Liberal Party is as bad as Labor, put them straight. There is NO comparison, not even close. Assassinating someone behind closed doors is very, very different to extending the courtesy of giving someone six months to fix the problem, knowing full well what the consequences of failure are.
As for the view, that the only the public should have the right to decide the fate of a Prime Minister, that simply isn’t how the process works. The Prime Minister isn’t The President. The Prime Minister's electorate vote him in, we vote for our own candidates, their party policies and local issues. The party room appoints the Prime Minister. If people vote for a party based solely on the leader, that probably explains more about them and their lack of understanding of the Westminster system than anything else. And it clearly explains how we ended up with the Rudd Labor government. We know how that worked out.
One last comment. I happened to pick up 2GBS Alan Jones comments about both Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten last night. I was frankly disgusted. That sanctimonious so call 'King of Radio' branded the The Prime Minister hypocrite over what he said about Mr Abbott when addressing the parliament. It might pay Mr Jones to play back some of the things he himself has said about Mr Abbott.
What really sickened me was Jones fawning over Bill Shorten!!!!! The same Bill Shorten who played a major role in knifing, not one but two Prime Ministers in a most sinister manner. Who himself has said some dreadful things about Mr Abbott. So if we are handing out Hypocrite Awards I think Mr Jones and Mr Shorten might be very worthy recipients.
