The Pickering Post
Friday, 15th December 2017

If you would like to be involved or support the upkeep and further development of this site, it would be very welcome no matter how small.


A VOTE FOR ABBOTT IS A VOTE FOR SHORTEN

Larry Pickering

Four-time Walkley Award winning political commentator and Churchill Fellow, has returned to the fray over concern that the integrity of news dissemination is continually being threatened by a partisan media.

BLOG / FACEBOOK



And that’s the quandary the Party Room will face on Tuesday. The word “loyalty” is not listed  in the political lexicon but the word “survival” is explained in full. As suggested here many posts ago Tony Abbott has no way out at the Party Room Meeting but to take the lead and call for a vote of confidence in his leadership. He says he won’t, and for good reason.

But if he does, and wins, then he continues on with hardly a ripple of dissent... for now, no further damage done. If he doesn’t win that vote the position of leader will automatically be declared vacant, all bets will be off and hats will start flying into the ring... but not his!

If he were to pointlessly recontest the position, then he would damage his close supporters by forcing them to declare their allegiance to him in the face of the new leader, causing possible damage to their current (or coveted) Cabinet positions.

It’s not a matter of whether you like Abbott or not, it’s a matter of whether voters prefer a bloke like Shorten over him. And it appears they do. The Party has been seriously spooked by the Victorian and Queensland results and most now believe it’s too risky to continue with Abbott.

Abbott is playing the loyalty card but it will be trumped. Unfortunately Abbott spent all his political capital getting rid of Gillard and now he’s headed for the scrap heap.

How is it possible for a Liberal leader to so utterly destroy a dysfunctional ruling Labor Party and yet 18 months later be seen as a liability? It seems unthinkable and yet here we are. But it’s happened before; an otherwise unelectable Labor Party used a despised Rudd to gain them Office only to dump him prior to the next election.

A Prime Minister who is disliked by his Party tends to isolate himself, building a wall (Peta Credlin in Abbott’s case) between himself and his Party and that was the same suicidal move adopted by Rudd.

If the Party elects Malcolm Turnbull as leader then it thoroughly deserves to lose the next election and the ABC thoroughly deserves to be refunded. Turnbull is a ticking time bomb, 0.5 of a degree to the right of Labor’s Left and he would ensure the rise of an angry new Right Party leading to the emasculation of an isolated Liberal Party.

There is an infuriated Right out there in voter land currently without a voice but it is determined to have one. Disaffected Labor voters can embrace the Greens. Who can disaffected Conservative voters embrace?

There’s a massive void begging to be filled, and if Pauline Hanson can still be in the race for Lockyer despite a Newman wipeout then the message should be loud and clear.

Desperate volatility is pervading the electorate and giving rise to otherwise unelectable dolts like Daniel Andrews and Annastacia Palaszczuk and, heaven forbid, a possible Bill Shorten.

If the Libs turn to Turnbull it reinforces a perception of ideological dysfunction. If they stay with Abbott it’s merely a stay of execution.



Comments

Well done Tony, ... as wrong as all this was, it has many positives.

A tick goes to Luke Simpkins, who was quite chastened, and spoke well. he won't be doing it again.

if we can't have Morrison , we'll have to hang on to TA for a bit longer .

alpinist - the federal government does apply a levy (it is called a tax) to companies and every other tax payer in the country to fund the PPL of public servants, employees at many semi-government organisations, including those at the ABC, which is paid at the rate of their salary, and the Gillard scheme which is paid at a base rate for everyone else. TA's scheme is not going ahead so we are lumped with this gross inequity in the PPL in this country. Clearly someone on $100K has a lot more to lose if they take PPL at the Gillard rate than someone on $40K who receives their salary rate to take PPL. OK Milo, that's it from me today. Thanks for your thoughts.

http://australianlibertyalliance.org/downloads/ALA_MANIFESTO_OG14001R1.pdf

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE I BEG YOU!! If anyone is looking for the answer it is in a new political party called Australian Liberty Alliance. It is well funded by highly intelligent people. The party launch is in October please take a look and join if you think their ideals are like yours.

You've got it right here friends... if, indeed, Turnbull gets the gong, then we (as a family) won't get the Liberal vote. Shame really!

alpinist comrade - I have read your first sentence in your previous post. You apparently agree that the rates paid for PPL can vary if they represent a negotiated workplace condition. Tony Abbott envisaged his PPL as a workplace entitlement (NOT a social security benefit) that should be available to all women in the Paid workforce who do not already enjoy PPL as a negotiated workplace entitlement. It is for that reason that the actual sums involved varied with the woman's salary up to a set amount, in the most recent version up to 50% of a salary of $100,000. The scheme introduced by the Gillard Government which is taxpayer funded encourages women who are in low paying employment with poor educational attainments to take maternity leave with the resultant increase in children in this social strata while women who are in high paying jobs with high educational attainments are not encouraged to have children.
The Australian taxpayer, therefore, is funding most women who are taking maternity leave at a set low level while simultaneously funding public servants and employees at many semi-government organisations, including those at the ABC, at a much more generous level.
Unlike the Gillard Government which was happy to spend and commit to ever increasing government expenditure, regardless of the increasing budget deficit, Tony Abbott has realised that his PPL scheme is not affordable at this time, when the interest bill on the government debt is so high and has deferred it.

alpinist comrade-I could ask you the same question. Does it cost more for someone on $100K working at the ABC or in the Public Service to have a baby than someone on $40K?

marigold, I'd go with your first impression

You took my questions about Morrison the wrong way and jumped to all sorts of nutty conclusions. If people want a man to be Prime Minister of Australia don't you think they have the right to know if he is married or not? As it turned out, all the paranoid carry on you did was for absolutely nothing because the answers to my innocent questions were in the public arena anyway. Go and find someone else to annoy. I don't like unhappy, pedantic , paranoid nitpickers. It's a shame you've been absent. You missed the big discussion about YOU! I have given you enough chances marigold. You are now on my IGNORE list.

tt where is Hockey on the spill? Has he, like Cormann backed TA?

marigold when I first came here, you called me all sorts of things and then deleted your posts. Don't start again!!!

I like the Nationals. They are solid and dependable, and they have the welfare of our land front and centre in their thoughts. Only thing is, its some of their mavericks who have gone off and started crackpot parties or become independents like Windsor and Katter; and now Katter has his very own nutty party. At least the Nationals shed their rubbish instead of keeping them in the fold.

Abbott's PPL scheme would have run for 26 weeks. It was based on salaries up to $100,000 a year. And it was to be funded by a 1.7 per cent tax levy on the top 3200 businesses not the tax payers of Australia. Let’s not forget company tax is about 30% so with a 1.7% levy it would still have only been 31.7%. And Big Business is very good at minimising its tax liabilities.
So what have we got. Every single taxpayer in Australia is paying for the previous Labor Government's PPL scheme that goes to every woman in paid employment. However, public servants, both state and federal, and those at the ABC already receive a far more generous PPL again paid for by the taxpayer, than that proposed by Abbott.

Greece is my heritage. AUSTRALIA is MY country. I don't want my country to go down the drain for some treacherous global socialist agenda. I wish we, collectively wake up to all this stupidity and think of our immediate and LONG TERM future. Let's forsake a little, in the short term for the sake of sustainable LONG TERM.

Maybe the QLD election was rigged?

I have heard on the news that Greek people are sick of the government's austerity measures and have voted to scrap them. That means they will have to default on their debt. They are talking about leaving the EU and looking for an alliance with Russia. Poor Greece, once a major power in the Mediterranean and the cradle of modern civilization. How the mighty have fallen.

We've a LONGTERM debt that needs IMMEDIATE attention. Otherwise we'll lose it all. Again refer to Greece. They had a "She'll be right, mate", attitude. Not anymore! By the way, they had their own ABC, (ERT) niggling at their social conscience. It doesn't exist now.

My bags are packed

That's why "Bureg" stated, " PPL/Child Care". Tony is trying too much to please others while back-peddling on the "emergency budget" in addressing the dire debt and deficit. Well hello Greece , "here we come".