I confess to being confused about the contradictions coming from the anti Turnbull DelCon movement.
When Labor started their Leadership Roulette many on the Conservative side of politics smugly declared we don't behave like that. It's fair to say removing any Prime Minister sends shock waves through the electorate. It hasn’t been a common practice in Australia. But Labor's revolving door of Rudd/Gillard/Rudd was on a completely different scale. I'll fess up in stating that after Rudd toppled Gillard I joined the Conservative chorus claiming our side would never do that. Let's face it, Rudd was still ahead in the polls. The removal of Rudd by Gillard was carried out with the precision of a Valerie Solanas cold blooded assassination.
Tony Abbott was given a ‘written warning’. He didn’t improve so the party replaced him. I agreed something had to change and I make no apology for saying that, at the time. However, as we all know, some sections of the so called conservative movement erupted. Claims of we are just like Labor reverberated down the corridors of social media. Comments to media columns were full of seething DelCons declaring revenge. This has gone on for seven months. The fact is the process and the environment surrounding Tony Abbott's removal was vastly different to that of Labor. This is a very relevant point that has been expunged from the DelCons repertoire.
I’m not sure if DelCons are deliberate in ignoring how the system of electing the leader works. Or if there is some other reason. I sense it's the ‘other’ which I will get to shortly. But the fact is, the Australian Prime Minister is not directly elected by the Australian people. He or she is appointed by the party room. There is no fixed tenure for the position of Australian Prime Minister and any serving Australian Prime Minister may have his position challenged and removed from him by members of his party or coalition. Tony Abbott was given notice by his party. Rudd and Gillard were not extended that courtesy.
Now let's go back to my challenge; the contradiction of the DelCons. We've endured seven months of their whining about our change of LNP leader. Cries of we are the ones who decide when in fact we don’t. We are as bad as Labor. Well, we are not. And, if all that were true, why in heaven's name are those same people openly advocating turfing Malcolm Turnbull out and bringing Tony Abbott back!!! Abbott/Turnbull/Abbott, the game of LNP Leadership Roulette. I’m confused. The DelCons are now advocating behaving just like Labor whom they condemned.
I listened to a caller on the radio yesterday. It highlights the point perfectly. This guy is very prone to bleating about the leadership change and how the 54 traitors had no right. So I was gobsmacked to hear him suggesting that Turnbull should be kicked out and replaced with Scott Morrison. Wait, it gets better. He also suggested that Julie Bishop is kicked out and replaced with Tony Abbott as Foreign Minister. So, when the party made the decision to change based on certain factors all hell let loose. But many of the same people are now advocating the same thing. Shaking head.
The DelCons claims of superiority in holding the moral high ground and accusing everyone else of being traitors and lacking in principle merely highlights their own lack of credibility. They have no claim to the moral high ground. If the party did listen and turfed Turnbull out and replaced him with Abbott they'd be cheering. Some might even cheer for Morrison. They wouldn’t be labelling those within the party room traitors. They'd be declaring them heroes. You can see why I’m confused.
It's also rather ironic that the caller yesterday was championing Morrison’s cause. Many DelCons have labelled Morrison a traitor despite voting for Abbott. As for Abbott as FM. Does anyone seriously think Abbott would simply slot into that role and support Scott Morrison after what Abbott said about Morrison? Hell would freeze over first. I’m not sure Foreign Affairs is an Abbott strong point. You need finesse and diplomacy in that role. If Abbott was to settle down and take a cabinet role he would be much better suited to defence in my humble opinion. He could have a lot of fun ‘shirt-fronting’ foreign incursionists (not sure that's a word but you get my drift).
The bottom line is simple. The DelCons hate Turnbull the rest of their carry on is simply mouthing off and framing their argument so they can assault others based on their narrow views. It's a bit sad, but it makes for a fascinating study.
Martin Luther King once said, “For the person who hates, the true becomes false and the false becomes true. That's what hate does.” I think he was right and we are seeing some of that being played out now. There certainly isn’t a lot of logical thinking being applied to some of the suggestions.
