Look, we all do it. We hurl about terms like psychopath and narcissist with reckless abandon and almost always without fully understanding the nature of the terms and the subtlety and nuance that goes into a clinical diagnosis.
Former PM Kevin Rudd was labelled “a psychopath” by former MP Steve Gibbons, and “a psychopathic narcissist” by former NSW premier Kristina Keneally. Peter Garrett ratcheted it up a notch by calling Rudd “a megalomaniac”. And that’s just the diagnoses from within Rudd’s own party. Why, the man must be a veritable walking copy of the psychiatric bible, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
It is arguably true that Canberra is a magnet for narcissists of various stripes. In fact, anyone who wants to get into the caper knows that getting elected to parliament involves a bevy of posters featuring their name and smiling face being nailed to lampposts and wedged in front gardens all over their home suburb. It has to be more satisfying than looking in the mirror for hours.
The trouble is, once these narcissists get to Canberra, they find themselves outgunned by bigger, badder, more vain, more hollow, more manipulative narcissists. Interacting with narcissists more narcissistic than they are must be a real blow to their bloated egos.
Full column here.
What a load of crap blaming penalty rates for business failures. Their costs are the lowest (like wages growth) in Yonks. Company profits +26.2% Wages & salaries +1.0%…DING!
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6427.0
Looting Party leader at the next election odds:- Turnbull $2.00/ Dutts $4.00/ Bishop $6.00/ Tonez $7.50/ Morrison/ $7.50/ Hunt/Andrews/Frydenberg all $16.00
Australia: Private sector business investment:-
Rudd/Gillard +67.5% (Q4 2007 to Q3 2013)
Abbott/Turnbull -34.7% (Q3 2013 to Q4 2016)
741,100 people are unemployed; 1,059,400 are underemployed and wages growth has never been lower
Govt debt just hit $477.7 billion: Up $204.5 billion since the 2013 election….SAD CAFE!
Who are/were the better economic managers. Average quarterly GDP:- Fraser 0.54%; Abbott-Turnbull 0.58%; Rudd-Gillard 0.62%; Whitlam 0.76%; Howard 0.89%; Hawke-Keating 0.90% Note that in today’s dollar terms, 0.01% difference on GDP is approximately $42.3 million per quarter or $170 million a year.
Under the Liberals, not once in 33 months has unemployment rate been below 5.7%. and under Hockey hit 6.3%. Under the previous Labor government, in only 3 months out of 69 was unemployment above 5.7% and at one point as low as 4.9%.
Under the hypocrite Abbott, taxes rose from 21.4% of GDP to 21.9% of GDP, and spending rose from 24% of GDP to 25.6% of GDP
This is a baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad government Fran. Do your homework!
Well, JB, PVO reckons that Turnbull will have to pick up the phone and have a chat to Tony. Goodness he even mentions offering him some sort of promotion! A notion you shot me down in flames for :(.
My own feeling is that it’s too late for that now. Give TA the feeling that he is holding the trump card and God knows what will happen. Agree?
I found it interesting that you reckon MT could still save his party.
I guess one bit of positive news is that he seemed to be getting on quite well with Widodo.
Turnbull would have to be a crazy to give Abbott one inch. The latter is a secret pom with an “English Complex” ie, superior to and destined to rule over inferior colonial types, read also “infantile omnipotence and delusional “. For God sakes the man loves Downton Abbey! Promoting Abbott would be like bending over the kitchen table.
Abbot was the attack dog backed by vested interests, his work here is done, they were never interested in refugees and security furphies, they will cast him aside and go with Turnbull.
If Turnbull calls Abbott it should only to be “Once more and you’re gone Bozo.” If they turf Abbott, his only future is the possibility of a Senate seat and a cozy relationship with the likes of Hanson, Bernardi etc. And he’ll queer the pitch for them too unless he runs the show.
Well I see this morning that Bernardi is making overtures to him. Which demonstrates how dumb Bernardi is really.
None of the Indonesians I’ve talked to mentioned Turnbull. 😉
We see beleaguered Liberal WA Premier Colin Barnett is copying POTUS Trump and having a big dig at the Media, Mr Insider. Two weeks till the WA Election and we may see a change of government and a few surprises too like a solid One Nation vote, tile will tell.
Its NOT Turnbull. It’s the policies (What policies?)
They are Abbott’s…still! T.Bull needs to Man Up
and invest in the policies we know he believes in and are
in the national interest. He is a PM with no authority.
He needs to take on The Hard Right soon
or he is dead meat. He can’t go on side-stepping them for another
2 years. Filling his house with renewables (a huge14kilowatts) was madness
with the current debate raging. No political nouse as Keating said. Like Godwin Gretsch
If they changed leaders the polls would STILL be the same
Why? Bad cruel policies that target low wages, the sick, the poor the barely employed
rather than the corporate mob who are drowning in tax cuts and billions in subsidies.
One mad poll in the USA has Trump at 86% support. What a lie! This must be some right wing
Conference where a poll was taken?
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/02/25/cpac-straw-poll-86-percent-approve-president-donald-trump
His problem Bassy is that the right of the party are deserting in droves.
They cannot stand him or his latent policies.
IMO “droves” is a bit of an exaggeration, but it’s certainly enough to make it hard for him to govern. However, if he moved the party to the Right, supposing he would and could, he would likely lose votes from moderate Liberals who cannot stand ON, Bernardi and the rest of the menagerie. He’s pretty well stuffed.
You could say this mirrors what happened over last few decades with Labor and the Greens, but that situation is much more stable now.
I wish they would do something like that with Shorten. He is more hopeless than Turnbull. When he talks he sounds like he is on hormone therapy. A VERY unconvincing speaker. Does not have “it”
How do you sound like you’re on Hormone Therapy Bassman? A lot of women are much nicer people after being prescribed HRT, so does this mean he sounds like he’s not going to kill the next person who looks at him sideways?
But I agree with you, Bill Shorten needs to go
PENNY:-In 2013 The Looters were elected on a 6 year tirade against debt and deficit. It is $200billion MORE than it was under Labor. If Shorten could not win on a lie like that he will NEVER win…he does not cut through. He needs Mathia ConMan to make him stay on message.
Don’t worry Bassman, that poll was taken at the Conservative Political Action Conference. I’m surprised it wasn’t 100%, but I suppose you have to allow for the contrarians.
Always invigorating to wander along the coast after heavy rains. It’s so refreshing and allows one to shed one’s concentrations and enjoy the vitality it brings to the soul.
There’s no disadvantage at all, even on Sundays, FWC or no FWC.
Welcome back, Carl! I hear what you say about being in a beautiful place. Chicken soup for the soul.
Cheers Boadicea, sure is.
Chicken Soup for The Soul…. a GREAT series of books for young kidz Bald
Did someone suggest that neoliberalism is the failure and the very same person went on to suggest Keating for President of Australia?? It was Keating and Hawke who introduced neoliberalism into Australia.
No Milton Bill Hayden was the first Neo- Liberal treasurer of Australia and incidentally that was the last time Australia had No debt. The nation still had 7% of net debt under Howard abbott and Costello show. Another lie the cons continue to spew. At least under Hawke and Keating the country progressed together as a nation. The coalition continue to try and divide sections of society. Oh and it was no suggestion. It is fact. Keating for President of Australia. He will make Australia great again.
Wouldn’t Keating be a dinosaur in your eyes Dismayed, one of those deplorable baby boomers?
Bill Hayden? What did he do in the 5 months, up until the dismissal, when he was treasurer that would be considered neo-liberal?
“introducing monetarist measures in 1975 Bill Hayden became notorious for cuts in public spending, public works, social welfare and the budget deficit, setting a pattern for the Fraser Liberal government to follow” Try to keep up it was only 42 years ago.
Mr Dismayed, If I may, I bought my first business in 1974. I remember the turmoil of 1975 well. My youngest had just turned 16 and become quite contrary. Having moved from the country and my wife having joined a new church it was very hard to fit in . Trying times but nothing serious.
With all respect Mr Hayden had to cut spending and get more money into treasury. There was some profligacy leading up to his short tenure which necessitated this. Arab loans featured in the press. You may not have been alive then but they were trying times. Mind you Gough Whitlam gave us free health care and that was worth much. We no longer had to rely on MBF. Anne remembers getting our receipt book stamped at the agency at Barry & Roberts. Mind you I got back into private health a few years ago and thank god for that. I think we did alright. There’s some odd bods in those public wards.
Here’s a voice of reason:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/jennifer-oriel/style-was-wanting-but-tony-abbotts-substance-is-right/news-story/de7e96665ee9a38aacbdb7058deb7059
I thought it was delusional, Milton. HK Jack commented before that being popular in Paddington won’t win you too many elections and that is true but being popular with IPA apparatchiks is going to get you precisely nowhere.
Fair enough. We’ll see how it pans out Jack and such a long way out from the next sausage sizzle. I thought Abbott made some good points. And if not good for some, vote winners.
As an aside, my local butcher, and a good one, does a $2 a kilo version of sausage, which I quickly eschewed. A good mate reckons it is responsible for most of the house fires in town!
Not sure if that is a parable but I like telling it.
And I caught up with the Insiders gig and agree, you looked like a bundle full of side steps. I only hope the reality coincides with the visuals. From your account still a road to travel. You are in many a persons thoughts. Go well, Jack.
And for what it’s worth I predicted, years back, Abbott as the next coalition PM and recently for the aussies to beat India. I hope might latest prediction has more longevity than my earlier one. Looking forward to Saturday.
He has no support base left, Milton. It’s sad to see this. He needs to move on.
He certainly should move on and if he shares the same extreme right views as Bernardi, can you see Abbott joining him?
Even I feel a bit sorry for him ATM.
Bella
IMO it would be political suicide for Trumble to take Abbott’s advice. It is evident from the polls that the mainstream is to the left of the where the Libs are already.
But personally, I hope Abbott does make a comeback!
Mr O’Hagan on a small point if I may. If you added the Hansonite vote to the LNP vote would the mainstream still be to the left of Turnbull? Or, would it just be, the majority of voters are to his right with your mainstream are to his left? Just a bit confused and would love the benefit of your observations.
I’m not distinguishing between mainstream and majority. I’m just basing it on two-party-preferred polling. A simple measure I know, but it takes account of the Hansonites etc on the one hand and the Greens on the other once the preferences are distributed.
A career-path seems to be developing these days for young academic conservatives with the right look: straight from politics-related uni studies to the IPA, and from there straight to the Liberal Party, sometimes via the opinion pages of The Australian. The better-looking ones also get gigs providing off-the-rack “balance” on political TV panel-shows, where they parrot ideological aphorisms while the rest try to discuss the issues. Generally they are terribly young, naive, and overconfident.
I gather there is a similar path into the Labor Party via the unions, but it is evidently a lot more competitive. And at least the unions actually do something.
Another quick point Mr O’Hagan. Could you advise where you draw your conclusion regarding the evidence of the competitiveness of the union path to Labor preselection. From recollection I recall a man called Craig Thompson and a lady named Belinda Neal as successful Union ordained appointees. I personally think there have been train wrecks on both sides but unsure where the IPA as a recruiting base matches the machinations of the trade union movement. I could be way off the mark and am more than happy for you to educate me. Numbers on how many people the Coalition historically doesn’t draw from the IPA as opposed to how many Labor doesn’t draw from the union movement could get you on your way to justify or otherwise your well thought out and no doubt well intentioned comment. Dear me I would hate to think it was a throw away line.
I would assume the union-to-ALP path was more competitive that the IPA-to-LNP path simply by virtue of the fact that the union movement is bigger than the IPA by a factor of approximately 100,000! The striking youth of the IPA’s top crop also suggests it doesn’t take very long to reach that status.
I’m not sure of the relative numbers in each party but given that difference in size, the IPA’s clout is sure to be bigger per head than the unions’.
The IPA has close ideological and personal links with the Liberal Party stretching back to the Party’s origin in the 1940s, much like the even older link between the unions and Labor. But the situation is far from symmetrical in other ways. Bear in mind that the unions are a mass movement with millions of members, while the IPA is an elite think-tank with a couple of dozen employees, supported by corporate funding including from oil and tobacco companies.
Mr O’Hagan many thanks for your kind reply. I understand your point but if what you say is correct then surely, due to small numbers than everyone in the IPA should go on to become parliamentarians. Yet it would appear the number of Liberal’s who have taken this path is minuscule. Conversely I imagine it is nigh impossible to become a Labor parliamentarian without a Union background or affiliation. Does this not strike you, a man who is clearly a deep thinker, as odd? Perhaps some churches are just meant to be broader than others.
No Mr Oath, it doesn’t strike me as odd at all. The Labor Party grew out of the union movement, so a large proportion of Labor MPs have a union background. Not as exclusive as you imagine though, the figure is about 45%.
Similarly, the IPA was instrumental in the formation of the Liberal Party, and has long been a source of personnel (especially staff) and policy, particularly since its renaissance in the 1990s. As far as elected MPs go, there have only been a handful; this is quite natural because it is a tiny organisation (although there have been quite a few unsuccessful candidates as well, which suggests perhaps that the electorate dislikes ideologues). Policy wise, the influence is stronger, because it is very well-resourced, well-connected and amplified beyond its level of grass-roots support. There are no surprises in any of that.
Your inference that all IPA members should somehow become Liberal MPs is frankly baffling. If your point is that there are other paths into the Liberal Party, well of course there are, I was merely pointing out the existence of that one.
But I think I’ve played along with your ingenue routine enough now. Yours is a very polite form of trollery, but I’ll let you do your own research for now.
Mr O’Hagan, on a quick point. Can you be a Labor MP and not affiliated to a Union? Can you be a Liberal MP and not be a member of the IPA?
I am confused on your point regardimg ideologues. You say the small amount of IPA people that get elected reflects the fact the electorate doesn’t elect ideologues. Yet you also must agree that those union members that are Labor members, 100% since Kevin Rudds demise, follow an ideology. So are they not ideologues? I am far from a troll. Just an old bloke currently in dock enjoying reading Jack the outsiders blog.
My apologies, then, for accusing you of polite trollery, which on reflection was too harsh a way to describe your way of asking ostensibly wide-eyed questions on topics on which you clearly already have well-formed views. Don’t get me wrong, as a rhetorical technique I quite like it.
I’m not sure why you asked your first two questions as I think my comments made it clear that the answers are yes, and yes, respectively. If they were rhetorical, I’m afraid you’ll have to spell that out for me.
On your third question, I don’t believe for a moment you are confused, but IMO the suggestion that the millions of ordinary Australians who are union members are necessarily ideologues is absurd. Unlike the IPA which has a narrow, explicitly ideological agenda, the unions are a diverse mass movement whose only common “ideology” is the pursuit of workers’ interests (in principle, if not always in practice). Naturally this is political, and so it should be; but inherently ideological, no.
Anyway, I wish you a speedy recovery.
reason HAHAHAHAHAHA.
the problem the Liberals have is that Malcolm wasn’t much chop as Leader first time around, and he hasn’t got much better this time.
you don’t win an election in Australia by being Popular in Paddington.
Nor do you win an election by being popular in Maranoa.
Where was all the complaints years back when Turnbull was constantly undermining Abbott, constantly going on q&a and making coy comments. Comments that appealed to the “progressives”, and suggested that if he was PM he’d be different to Abbott. It was Abbott who did the hard yards and got the coalition into power. Under Turnbull the coalition are giving torpor a bad name. And sure enough Turnbull comes out today and blames Abbott for another slump in the polls. The nerve, the gall of that posturing self-promoter!
Are you Eric Abetz honey?
Hahahaha…good one Kathy.
I can be anyone you want me to be, sugar.
In that theatrical vein, what a laugh when they called out the wrong best movie at the Oscar’s. Some wrong Mum’s, God’s and besties were thanked and then oops…exit stage left.
Poor America – so confused at the moment……….
…also when Turnbull used to burst into Brendan Nelson’s office unannounced swearing his head off calling him hopeless etc…how to save his leadership or what is left of it.
Turnbull has nothing to lose by taking the Hard Right on and strolling to the media courtyard and announcing:-
1. His love of the Republic..and take action on it
2. His love of renewables and a carbon tax…and take action on it
3. His love of same sex marriage and act upon it-parliament vote
4. Settle the asylum seekers here-why? Would save billions AND the fact
that it was never imprisonment that ‘stopped the boats’. It was ALWAYS the turnbacks.
The same turnback policy would prevail and so would the continued ‘stopping of the boats’.
5. And the riskiest one-bring our troops home and save more billions. 15yrs is enough. He has the public onside with this. Even when Howard took us to war he only had 6% support. Every poll I have seen says we should finish fighting America’s wars.
These are all the things T.Bull believes in ….how do we know? He has said so…even crossed the floor for some of them.
I would bet my last cent he would go up in the polls/his leadership and authority would be enhanced
and the hard right would be so stunned they would not know what to do. They would not replace
him…what three leaders in such a short time? No way. They would have to wear it.
This is well worth the risk rather than fizzing out. In the eyes of the public this would make him
look stronger…OR….is it all too late. Maybe they have stopped listening as they say?
Fair call, Bassman. Those are roughly the beliefs that had won him support in certain demographics. And yes, he has nothing to lose. Sadly your points, 1-5, and Turnbull’s popularity points,1-5, are not going to improve our economic situation in the short or long term. These niche issues, like Trump’s hair and his mental state, are as valid as the size of Warren Beatty’s meaty and Faye Dunaway reading out a non-winner at the Oscars. Geez, actors can only read lines, or follow the party line! And there’s Reagan…whom along with Thatcher and Keating, adopted neo-liberalism.
As non-economic issues are too “niche” to warrant discussion, I look forward to the day the AWMs stop banging on about 18C, the AHRC, Safe Schools, halal, mosques, immigration, gay marriage, abortion etc
You cannot do the hard economic yards until you have the confidence of the people and your party. U get that by doing what I have suggested and walking over the hard right . THEN you take on board what you said Bald.
Look. He should try it. Obviously unlike Abbott he is not in it for the money. Hed has better things to do and he is worth millions so he must be there to ‘make a difference’. To be a change agent one must take risks. He will eventually have to take them on olr he will be dead meat by the end of the year anyway.
I agree Bassy
Nothing at all to lose.
BUT possibly a few hundred thousand to One Nation. Becoming hard to judge the mood of the electorate. But if he did say all those things he may just get those who can’t stand Shorten?
Big Biz spent a lot of money getting Abbott into the PM’s office, in spite of Abbott! He’s done the dirty work for them. He is yesterdays man. Used and discarded. Redundant! A liability! He’ll never see it, he thought he did it all himself.
Having said that, I would be delighted to see Tony Abbott back in the PM’s chair. Fulfilling the noble destiny of leading Australian conservatism into the brawling wilderness till AGW does us all in.
He will never be PM, JB
They certainly did. I heard yesterday Rio Tinto and BHP spent $21million getting rid of the mining resources tax…..only to have it being re-installed by a Western Australian Looter…BUT…. not a peep from the miners this tyme!
Milton says:February 25, 2017 at 12:52 pm”Speaking of cons:” I am sure Milton will be highlighting and supporting old Gitto’s column today backing up what the research released last week says about cutting penalty rates to the lowest payed and proportionally more female workers. That is that profits will increase between 4% and 12% on the pay cuts alone but will not produce more jobs just a couple more hours for people earning less per hour. No extra capital expenditure is expected either. Retail job increases have been running at double the National average for most of this decade. The cuts to lowest payed will not increase employment and will not grow the economy. Just continue to grow profits. Note the bumper profit season business has enjoyed this year. Treacle down, it all gets stuck at the top. Fewer benefit more struggle. It has also been highlighted these pay cuts to the lowest payed will lead to a further increase in the casualization of the workforce.
http://www.theage.com.au/business/the-economy/cut-in-penalty-rates-another-win-for-bizonomics-20170226-gulhuo.html