As Scott Morrison explained last week, mateship is crucial to his conception of government. “Remember, my value is: we look after our mates”. And not really “mates” in the more modern, graciously inclusive, non-gendered sense; this is a boys’ club government, with Scott and Josh, and Mathias and Birmo in the Senate, all top blokes, of course, with Julie Bishop gone to the backbench and complainers like Julia Banks told to harden up and “roll with the punches”. Morrison is less Prime Minister than First Mate, Primus Inter Amicis.
One mate was conspicuously missing when parliament reassembled yesterday, of course: Malcolm Turnbull had left the building he’d graced since 2004. And as pretty much the entire political class knows, the Liberals have no real explanation why; the only explanation on the public record is that of Turnbull himself, who blamed a right-wing insurgency that engaged in the political equivalent of terrorism, to which senior figures caved. When pressed by Labor yesterday on the why, Morrison offered:
… the privilege of serving as the leader of your parliamentary party is the decision of your parliamentary party. That’s what it is. That’s who decides who the leader of the parliamentary party is.
And then:
The party chooses the person they want to lead to ensure that we can put the best foot forward at the next election and to ensure that we are connecting with Australians all around the country.
The “why” is that Scott’s mates, “the boys”, made him leader. Many politicians like to point out that voters don’t pick the PM, parties do, which is constitutionally correct but politically completely tone-deaf (and rather at odds with the election campaigns of the major parties). Australians believe they should pick the PM, regardless of the parliamentary niceties. And they haven’t had a chance to re-elect or reject a prime minister they voted in since 2007.
Peter Dutton, as we’re told, has never needed any prime ministerial imprimatur to look after mates. Whether it’s an au pair or a polo player, Dutton and his office are seemingly happy to help, even on the weekend, and happy to help, too, with jobs, it’s alleged, directing mates to the head of a massive new agency to get some hot tips on getting a gig. Dutton’s troubles, it seems, proliferate every day, no matter how forthrightly he denounces suggestions of misconduct and rails against disgruntled former public servants.
The thinking behind the push to make Dutton PM was that he had the populist touch, that he’d be able to win back errant One Nation voters who loved his hard line on brown people trying to enter the country; that he’d have to lighten up a bit, of course, but he could stop the free-falling LNP vote in Queensland. Alas, Dutton’s throwing the switch to vaudeville only lasted from a rictus half-smile at his post-resignation presser to a radio thought-bubble about GST on electricity prices, before his numbers men knocked off and went to dinner, thinking they had it in the bag. But the greater problem is that, far from being a perceived solution to what ails the disaffected and disengaged in the electorate, Dutton is part of the problem. What better illustration of a political system that works not in the public interest but in the interests of the influential, the connected, the donors, the mates, than an immigration minister’s office dropping everything to help an erstwhile colleague, a former staffer, a prominent public figure, with a problem at the border? Or men who use their connections with a minister to tee up possible job opportunities?
This is everything voters suspect about modern politics and the modern economy, and why they’re deeply pissed off, even if they haven’t shifted their votes to shonks and spivs like One Nation, which lies that it will make the system work for them again. Morrison’s ‘my mates picked me’ answer to the ‘why’ question is more of the same. Morrison telling them they should just cop his ascension sweet is another demonstration of a political system unrelated to the interests of the electorate. It’s all about what mates want.
What do you think of the apparent nepotism of the Coalition? Let us know by writing to boss@crikey.com.au.
Where the bloody hell is the Governor General?
Shouldn’t he have sacked this lot by now?
No. The Governor-General is correctly keeping out of the political circus. Getting rid of these clowns is the right of the voters and it’s times like this that you don’t want to extend Parliamentary terms out to four years as some have suggested.
I’m just impatient for the opportunity.
No doubt the LNP will try to extend their government to the last possible moment.
In theory he could have only a half Senate election early next year and have the election for the House of Representatives later in the year. That would give him almost a year in which to delight the voters and achieve great things. Or not.
Morrison will vacuously lead the Liberal Party to electoral oblivion as surely as Dutton would have frog-marked the LNP to electoral oblivion.
If voters are so keen to elect the Prime Minister, why did they reject a republic?
A republic would not replace our Prime Minister with a President, it would replace our Governor General with a President, as it should under our Westminster system. The reason the referendum was rejected was because the Howard government didn’t want a republic and biased the wording of the referendum accordingly.
Howard is Conservative which is Code for Monachists and being English without admitting it. Does anyone know what happened to Lang and why that Uniformed Monkey rode onto the harbour bridge waving his pathetic sword. Ever hear of Military Take over or threat of.
In 1922 DH Lawrence spent a fortnight in Thirroul, NSW and it was enough for him to grasp that a nascent movement with military ties was a real danger.
It was only the rise of Labor that stymied the bunyip aristocracy’s born-to-rule sense of entitlement.
As in 1975, the right tried to use the Army but the NCO class refused.
The Libs sounded out the military in case the dismissal caused riots and mayhem. Gough’s behaviour was a stablising influence (c.f. to the Cronulla riots that were caused by talk-back chat). The “maintain the rage” was not intended to incite physical action – beyond the demos at Parliament House.
Interesting to observe that the military were used in NZ in 1950 to break a waterfront strike and threats of military use occurred during the 40s (anti-establishment unions) on Australian waterfronts – and to combat the sabotage and theft.
For what is is worth military personnel receive all manner of discounts in the USA and most airlines will discount tickets to those in uniform or in some cases with ID.
Being young and having short hair in the 70s implied either a job in the military or recently released from the can. Being in uniform and in a pub in the 70s was somewhat un-cool (and one did have to be on ones guard; there was always one idiot petitioning one round or two).
Despite appearances to the contrary the “reaction” in the USA to their military was considerably less than what one encountered in Oz or NZ during the 70s. Now, their military possesses a distinct mark of respect. Here, there is hand-wringing over the wearing of uniforms in public.
As an aside the English/British (after 1703/7) public schools (read private) underwent revolutions on occasion; especially over beer rations etc. In 1838 matters got out of hand at Eton. A company of infantry were called to the school and the order to fix bayonets had been given. Having regard to the currency of the day the platoons would have charged had the pupils not surrender. What would happen if an aberrant kid got bayoneted in a classroom nowadays? Having regard to the title of this post the answer might be contingent as to “whose kid”?
For those that are interested in this kind of stuff there is
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/11517193/Gunpowder-swordfights-and-military-rebellion-the-secret-life-of-public-schools.html
I wrote an essay on classroom discipline 30 odd years ago citing this stuff which has not become a comprehensive book. Yeah – do as the Don says : arm the teachers! We’ve tried everything else in education to no effect whatsoever so why not adopt this suggestion?
A tad more. The major players had preconceived pet models. When it became apparent that those models were unlikely to get the nod the players deserted the cause; Turnbull being one (of many). As for censorship particular models were presented (the handouts still exist) but no all models (or rather only a selection) were reported in the press.
Australians did not reject a republic. Australians rejected Howard’s rigged ‘republic lite’.
Morrison’s speeches are inauthentic US styled populist preacherman bullshit. Using the word mate repetitively does not Australianise this fools content poor statements.
Pity there is not really an alternative leader, or party for that matter interested in the citizens well-being.
Albanese needs to depose Shorten prior to the election if he wishes to become PM, Shorten is also a dis-likable sleezey conman who may not last a full term as PM.
The ALP cannot remove Shorten if they wish to present a united party to the voters. At the moment that is their most attractive point of difference to the Liberals. They did learn the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd hard lesson.
perhaps but I don’t think shorten will be effective enough a PM to overcome the huge dislike for him personally in the community.
Morrison is already preferred PM??
Albanese would be a far more palatable choice, but they need to act now 6 months pre election, I realise that the ALP has new party laws regarding deposing a PM, which I think Libs should also look at.
Shorten will be very unlikely to last a full term, unless he proves to have far more ability to lead than he has so far shown.
Pilbersek would not just throw him under a bus she’d want to drive it over him given the right opportunity.
Bear in mind John Howard was known as Mr 18% reflecting his popularity in Gallop polls for years prior to winning government. He became the second longest serving PM.
Only because he was the only one who would follow Bush, Howard was a puppet who bought his way in.
Ng GJB, typical panic stricken lib supporter response when faced with the obvious destruction of the liberal party, blame bilis , pathetic response to a self induced 10 years in the wilderness staring the coalition in its face, give shorten his due, he`s seen off Abbott, turnbull and Dutton, now its scummo`s turn to go down, at every turn the coalition has under estimated Shorten and so now they pay the penalty.
haha… I don’t support either liberal or labor. I’d prefer a mostly benevolent (plenty of heads need to roll at first) dictator at this point in time. Sulla, Gaius Julius or Octavius my favourite.
sorry to burst your bubble you sad party hack.
‘sorry to burst your bubble you sad party hack.’
Democracy is obviously too difficult for lazy hacks who always defer to fascism rather than trying to work things out for themselves. Humanity has spent an eternity fighting for freedom, only to be frustrated by those who can’t handle freedom!
Sulla, in full Lucius Cornelius Sulla or later Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix, (born 138 BCE—died 79 BCE, Puteoli [Pozzuoli, near Naples, Italy]), victor in the first full-scale civil war in Roman history (88–82 BCE) and subsequently dictator (82–79), who carried out notable constitutional reforms in an attempt to strengthen the Roman Republic during the last century of its existence. In late 82 he assumed the name Felix in belief in his own luck.
OK Everybody wants to get on the ‘Kill Bill’ bandwagon. I really don’t get it. Tell me what I am missing. Just what is the problem with Bill Shorten that so many will not give him a LIKE. Is it the politically motivated Royal Commission or are the majority taken in by the Lib’s campaign to make up for their lack of policies so decided it is best to go for the man.
OK. Go for it. I am listening.
He has spent his life shifting his allegiances to promote himself. Catholic converts to Anglican, he has to have a religion for the public to relate to.
He used unionism as a vehicle in his pursuit of more power and never once achieved a outcome for workers that did not benefit himself to a greater degree. His great mate roskam is a IPA exec director. He’s a disingenuous liar who negotiated a work place agreement on behalf of members while accepting “financial benefit” from the employer involved in the agreement. He is not at all interested in anything beyond power, he will fail dismally while the country and citizens continue to lose out.
Howard, having the freedom to volunteer for death as a soldier so that our Landed Gentry can remain rich for another year does not mean you have either freedom or Democracy. You don’t have either when you devide the country into 149 seats for the express purpose of giving voting power to the few.
And you don’t think that Rupert’s Rags don’t have a campaign ready to attack Albanese waiting in the wings should he become leader?
Shorten is doing a fantastic job as Leader of the Opposition. He has seen the demise of two PM’s already. Do not believe the PPM. It is just bumkum. Turnbull was ahead of Shorten for over 35 Newspolls,the Liberal party still got rid of him.
Shorten is hard working, earnest and has policies that will benefit ordinary people. no matter who the LOO is the Murdoch press will gang up against that person. Albanese will not be getting a rail run. They will find something about him to keep going after him. Shorten is battle hardened and ALP is ready.
Agree. I have heard that Plibersek can also claim some credit in stabilising the Labour leadership, which has been like that now for 5 years. The shadow cabinet in terms of capability, application make the current lot look quite inept. Wong is a standout.
Shorten has already been given a rough time, but has survived with credibility intact.
Albanese seems to be the sort of candidate that some sections of the press would love to promote, just so they could tear him down.
I think the fact that there is such a widespread “Kill Bill” campaign in the Government and the media suggests that they see his low-key competent approach as the main threat to the Coal-ition’s survival. Would they campaign so hard against him if they thought he wasn’t an asset to Labor?
Morrison crawled out of the parasitic societal slime that is advertising (selling rubes/marks/suckers what they don’t need) to scheme “his mates” way to the top job…..
“Vote for our Limited News Party and we’ll throw in a matching set of asbestos cigarette holder and worry-beads!”?
As if we didn’t have enough to worry about with what this mob is doing?
Brilliant! A corrupt shambles of a coalition Government which is now arguing the merits of jobs for the boys and aupairs for the rest of the gang, is somehow morphed into Shortens fault.
You wouldn’t be Murpharoo in disguise would you?
Thanks Rabid, for some words of sanity. Shorten is not the messiah but he is competent and hard working and thoughtful. As for charisma, Shorten has at least as much as John Howard, and he seemed to get by on what he had.
Would someone please remind us of Australia’s history. Australia always was a corrupt nation. British robber Barons used slave Labour to become the third richest Landed Gentry in the world. It was only basically the first 20 years that gave us a fair and reasonable life. But those in power were already plotting to do away with the New Deal given to the world economies by Roosevelt and he only did it to save Capitalism from itself. From 1971 we so a steady decline in worker rights and it started with the Governments destroying the railways and therefore the railways unions, the RTA, wharfie.
The rich need poverty same as that old boys club the Catholic Church. Don’t forget 77% of what the church collects goes into Admin.
Sorry meant to say first twenty after WW2
Morrison’s self-evident new title is surely Prime Mate, pronounced the Australian way as a single word.
… not forgetting the elongation (tm Richo) of the second vowel, yea even unto the third or fourth power.