Comments on: Turnbull and Nelson edge to the endgame

By: David Sanderson

David Sanderson — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Current ABC headline: “I Enjoy Turnbull’s Full Support: Nelson” If he enjoys that then he would enjoy anything. Roast Nelson anyone?

By: David Sanderson

David Sanderson — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

It is pretty pointless to give Turnbull the benefit of the doubt. The circumstances strongly suggest that Turnbull wrote the email solely for the purpose of proving afterwards that he opposed Nelson’s excursion (never to return?) into cheap populism. Turnbull is planning a ‘Christmas in July’ party and Brendan is the designated roast pig, expertly slow cooked over a slow fire.

By: davo

davo — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

The Howard supporters are politically dead. Bishop’s approval rating would make Nelson’s look good.

By: Ray

Ray — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

It is surprising how journos keep concentrating on Nelson and thereby extend Rudd’s honeymoon. Give Nelson a fair go! Unlike Nelson’s hypothetical 5c petrol excise reduction, Rudd’s Budget measures are real. Where is the journo diligence when it comes to considering, for example, the real impacts of the Alcopops heavier taxing (not affecting binge drinking because of other alcholic drink substitution ) and removal of solar panel rebate for ‘rich’ consumers (discouraging change to green alternative energy)? The Government cannot believe its luck.

By: Jamesk

Jamesk — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

The “Turnbull Shapes Up” cartoon is a beaut!

By: Venise Alstergren

Venise Alstergren — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

JamesK: I’m with you. I get the feeling that Tom McL’s comments have been translated from Urdu before being fed into a meat grinder.

By: JamesK

JamesK — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Tom I think you should hold off burning that first bong until AFTER you share your comments even if that means typing first thing when you come to.

By: frank

frank — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I thought for a while that Turnbull was no fool but that will be proven wrong if he takes on Nelson so soon.
There is at least one more try hard to be expended before the Liberals find someone to lead them out of the wilderness and for Turnbull to stand up now would be foolhardy, particularly if he has to endure long term scrutiny of his ability, which lately has appeared to be pretty average. His best chance would be to do a Bob Hawke and jump in just before an election. Costello is the mystery bet but if past performance is the best indicator for the future he won’t have the guts or the support. A wise Turnbull would leave Brendan in the job for as long as possible but I suspect his impatience is brought about by the fear that if Julie Bishop gets in the job before he does she might actually be the one to lift their game. tThat would spell the end of his PM ambitions and hand the Liberal Party back to the conservative pro- Howard forces.

By: JamesK

JamesK — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

That is an emphatic and clear cut statement by Turnbull, if accurately reported. Should that denial be demonstrated to be dishonest, it would undoubtedly end the possibility of leadership for Turnbull. I therefore believe him. The Liberal party is a mess and Labor should be attacked with respect to Medicare levy fiasco and the open-ended nature of the $40 billion “investment” funds. One could reasonably describe the budget as “uninspiring”. The present opposition is even more uninspiring however.

By: jeebus

jeebus — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I don’t understand why the Libs don’t use this time in the wilderness to ditch the short term populism and develop some vision for Australia’s future. In the case of energy independence, this is a hugely important issue that neither party seems to be addressing properly, and a five cent petrol “holiday” isn’t going to solve anything. Why not mandate that cars sold in Australia must run on LPG to take advantage of our massive reserves? Or mandate a percentage of all cars sold must be electric? We have the technology to do this relatively quickly, and while people may say that electric cars only move the pollution to coal stations, it’s far easier to capture carbon at a power station than from the tail pipes of 100 thousand vehicles. We also end up with the benefit of making transport completely clean as our power generation moves to renewable baseload sources like solar thermal, and making our power grid more efficient because plug in cars can give back to the grid during peak hours.

By: mike smith

mike smith — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

“This is a man who called John Howard on the way to his concession speech on election night to tell him how well he’d done in Wentworth.”

- Now *that* is funny.

By: Tom

Tom — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I’m against all drugs except black coffee which I like alot.

By: JamesK

JamesK — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Sorry! I guess they just seem to ramble a little…

By: Tony Papafilis

Tony Papafilis — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

It is a shame the Libs are a couple of years late with the petrol tax issue. They should have slashed the petrol tax in response to the rising price and made it a contrast of great political importance against a left wing mob that is just itching to bring in its carbon taxes that will push the price towards European levels of $2.50 plus a litre. Unfortunately this idea did not get off the ground as Libs were manouvered by green bureacrats into the global warming corner whereby talk of cheaper petrol was denounced as green and political heresy. Blame every Environment Minister Howard ever had, especially the nutcase called Ian Campbell who elevated the issue so well for the left. If Libs want to make an impact, promise at least 20cents per litre cut.

By: Paule

Paule — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

What is it with these Libs, impatient with leadership aspirations but too gutless to actually take up the fight except by undermining?
Other things to consider, solar panel rebates and gas conversion rebates are industry subsidies, if electricity and petrol were taxed to reflect total cost rather than just production/extraction costs and if the panel maker/gas converter could make a compelling case then there would be no need for subsidies. Anyway gas is only cheaper because it is taxed at a lower rate, you may wonder where the economic sense lies in pricing a directly competitive product so cheaply.
Further, top up welfare paid to the (full time) working poor is another industry subsidy. If a company can only survive by paying below the poverty line wages then it should go to the wall rather than taxpayers making up the shortfall.
Finally of course the alcohol in alcopops should be taxed at the same rate as alcohol in other drinks. Derr!

By: Tom McLoughlin

Tom McLoughlin — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

The fact remains it’s bad policy to cut excise on petrol. Full stop. Why bother go the next step and ask who leaked? What really counts is, as blogged last week, the Sydney press by rather sly juxtaposition, burned Nelson in their coverage accordingly. The mechanism of that press burning was to place the big big story of the bashing/petrol dousing victim Lauren Huxley ie conviction of thug after a year or more of public interest, next to Nelson’s petrol excise. As Christian Kerr used to say, when the Sydney Daily Telegraph goes feral on the Coalition, their natural Howard Battler constituency, you know they are on the slide. The headline on centrist Farr piece was ‘Nelson’s nitwits’ - an editor’s headline. The Liberal Party brand can’t survive that. True the press today a slow Monday have been kinder by attacking the Rudd Govt with ‘Swan dive’ and ‘Winners and losers in funding for drugs’ the petrol split thing is very big too. Serious net loss for brand, 6 months in.