Comments on: Why Turnbull is an uncomfortable fit

By: Frank Shankley

Frank Shankley — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 08:01:04 +0000

Actually it was Labor that killed Holder, specifically Hughes (who went on to kill another 60 000 Australians in the next decade) who claimed that unlike Judas who had betrayed for silver also, Deakin did not have the decency to kill himslef after the deed. This proved the final straw for the former methodist lay preacher.

By: Bullmore's Ghost

Bullmore's Ghost — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:11:12 +0000

Get real folks, Malcolm would demand to play himself.

Nice piece Mungo. I’ve printed it out for keeping.

By: james mcdonald

james mcdonald — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:33:25 +0000

Bruce Willis as Abbott.

By: Jillian Blackall

Jillian Blackall — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:02:28 +0000

Sean Penn would be good as Malcolm, as he was in the movie Milk.

By: beachcomber

beachcomber — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:00:17 +0000

As an observor of politics, the disintegration of the Liberal Party is the best entertainment of the Non Ratings period.

I can’t wait for the Four Corners expose, the TV Mini Series and the Blockbuster Movie. Mungo, can you write it?

The Movie should star Robbie “Hagrid” Coltrane as Joe Hockey, Chopper Reid as Senator Minchin, & Sylvester Stallone as Tony Abbott. Sean Penn could star as Turnbull and Paris Hilton as Julie Bishop. And they are the sane ones. There are dozens of rolls for loopies like Tuckey and Schulz, to Bronwyn Bishop and Helen Coonan.

The bloodbath scene would be awesome.

By: Jillian Blackall

Jillian Blackall — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:33:56 +0000

Note: I said it first. Mike Steketee in the Australian on November 28. Jillian on facebook on November 25.

By: Jillian Blackall

Jillian Blackall — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:32:27 +0000

“On far too many questions we have found our role to be simply that of the man who says ‘No.’ …There is no useful place for a policy of negation.”

By: james mcdonald

james mcdonald — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:27:57 +0000

Menzies, quoted by Mike Steketee in the Weekend Oz:

’ “We took the name Liberal because we were determined to be a progressive party, willing to make experiments, in no sense reactionary but believing in the individual, his rights and his enterprise and rejecting the socialist panacea,” [Menzies] wrote.

‘… One of the points Menzies made at the party’s founding conference,’ Steketee writes, ‘was that the non-Labor side too often had allowed itself to be portrayed as resisting political and economic progress. “Once this atmosphere is created, it is quite simple for us to be branded as reactionaries … There is no room in Australia for a party of reaction.” ‘

By: james mcdonald

james mcdonald — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:24:53 +0000

Menzies on the original Liberal Party vision, quoted by Mike Steketee in the Weekend Oz

' "We took the name Liberal because we were determined to be a progressive party, willing to make experiments, in no sense reactionary but believing in the individual, his rights and his enterprise and rejecting the socialist panacea," [Menzies] wrote.

'… One of the points Menzies made at the party's founding conference,' Steketee writes, 'was that the non-Labor side too often had allowed itself to be portrayed as resisting political and economic progress. "Once this atmosphere is created, it is quite simple for us to be branded as reactionaries … There is no room in Australia for a party of reaction." '

By: John Bennetts

John Bennetts — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:56:10 +0000

Great stuff, Mungo.

There’s nothing wrong with a bit of one-eyed analysis and gloating… especially when I agree with every word.

‘Tis a pity, though. Australia’s Federal Government must have a credible Opposition if it is to achieve.

By: pollietragic

pollietragic — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:24:30 +0000

Usual high quality analysis, Mungo. Like Frank Birchall, I see parallels to 1975 Liberals preparedness to throw out any inconvenient long held principles or conventions in order to oppose Labor party initiatives. or horror of horror, major reforms. Don’t they just hate opposition and endlessly fail to comprehend why they are thrown out of office. This self laceration also has overtones of the Peacock Howard wars in opposition, once again after numerous years in office.

By: Jillian Blackall

Jillian Blackall — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:17:20 +0000

“Where it has policies of its own (the GST, WorkChoices) these are more often that not arrived at by looking at what Labor would do and then proposing the reverse.”

That’s maybe a bit harsh, but still… it looks like we are on the brink of a significant change, so it may not matter as much what the Liberal Party Mark II has been like.

By: pertina1

pertina1 — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 06:54:05 +0000

Always enjoy your contributions Mungo; this one is a classic.

By: JamesK

JamesK — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 06:27:22 +0000

@BAAL
It’s not Rundle but yet another voluble Crikey left wing loon.

They both are usually inebriated but never quite enough.

Personally though, I find MacCallum much the more amusing.

By: Jean

Jean — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 06:11:50 +0000

Crikey needs more of Mungo’s even-handed, dispassionate analysis.

By: Ravenred

Ravenred — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 05:45:55 +0000

Very nice Mungo.

The question is still whether the anti-Labor forces will splinter and then re-form into a new party(imaging the conservative wing of the Libs allying with those agrarian socialists in the Nats based on a shared loathing of AGW policy) or whether the Liberal Party will once again limp through a period of irrelevance (think the Things-That-Batter period) until the next messiah comes along to unite the party. Given the current talent on offer, it might be a while.

By: Frank Birchall

Frank Birchall — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 05:35:40 +0000

Excellent piece, Mungo! Now that it appears Turnbull is for the tumbrel, one realises how poor his likely successors are; good news for Rudd, of course. Since the Fraser/Kerr coup of 1975, I’ve seen Liberal Party ambition as nothing more than power at any cost, whatever it takes. Long term interests of Australia and “principles” are only a means to that end. As Mungo says, oppose anything and everything initiated by the ALP if there’s a (perceived) vote in it. Minchin and co. would be entirely at home with the Liberal Party plotters of 1974/75. The big difference this time around is that the ALP will win the next election.

By: Paul Flynn

Paul Flynn — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 05:19:24 +0000

Love it. Not a word out of place.

By: james mcdonald

james mcdonald — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 05:06:08 +0000

Actually Mungo, you do slightly miss the point that liberalism is not about changing the world. The theory of classical liberalism is to protect people from each other, protect private property, free enterprise, make contracts transparent and enforceable, maintain competitive free markets, keep taxes down and beaurocracy small. In classical liberal theory, the big ideas are supposed to come from free enterprise, not from government. Liberalism is a form of institutionalised under-achieving for government, because whenever government starts thinking it is the solution, it becomes the problem.

By: john2066

john2066 — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 04:26:24 +0000

Um, Baal:

- this article is actually written by Mungo MacCallum not Guy Rundle
- Its actually a pretty good read

By: Daniel

Daniel — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 03:34:59 +0000

words?!?! in MY crikey!??!

By: baal

baal — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 03:25:10 +0000

Heavens, another overlong and digressive history lesson which would have been much better had its insights been fewer and pithier. C’mon editors, can’t you tap Rundle about the need for incisive brevity?