More mongrel required
My preference on pure policy to take over as PM remains Tony Abbott, but my reservations do exist and are not small. His greatest weakness when PM and leader was an inability to take a hard line with others. Sentimentality in the role of a leader is not an asset but a fatal debility. This, on the day after the election, irritates me endlessly: Turnbull ‘gave it everything’. Abbott doesn’t have to say what I say, that Malcolm is a far-left incompetent and if we are going to have a hung Parliament he should be the one to be hung first. On the other hand, Abbott doesn’t have to say this either:
Tony Abbott has urged his Coalition colleagues to “take stock” and reflect on what’s occurred over the past several months, calling on them to “carefully, calmly consider what’s best” going forward, Jared Owens writes.
“(Malcolm Turnbull) gave it everything and good on him for giving it everything,” Mr Abbott said. “I guess there are a lot of people who have got a lot to reflect upon as a result of what’s happened over the last little while.
“Rather than rush out and pontificate on a whole lot of different subjects, I think we need to carefully, calmly consider what’s best. All I think we can do today is take stock, to think, to reflect, rather than just come out with snap judgments.”
Asked about the impact of his own removal as leader last September, Mr Abbott told reporters: “I’m just not going to go back and dwell on events of nine months or so back.
“The important thing is good people who tried hard, who did what they thought was the best for our country … are no longer in the parliament and it’s sad for them and it’s sad for the rest of them that remain.”
I suppose if you are running to be leader again, you don’t want to alienate anyone, specially fools who are fireproofed in their individual seats to such an extent that they could withstand this latest disaster. Nevertheless, Abbott is only worth putting in as leader if he has truly learned the necessity of a high degree of ruthlessness in the pursuit of the ends he wants pursued. Machiavelli was seen as immoral for saying in print nothing more than what has been perennially standard practice for anyone who has succeeded in politics. Instead of saying that others were doing what they thought best and they should be congratulated for trying to achieve their ends, more to the point would be something like, these people are so far off the planet that it is hard to believe they actually thought this was the way forward.