“The ‘most substantial threat’ to press freedom in his five decades”

facial-discrimination-act

I will start with this from the papers today: Bill Leak cartoon probe biggest threat to press freedom.

Media proprietor Kerry Stokes has launched a blistering attack on a controversial ­investigation by the Australian Human Rights Commission over a cartoon by The Australian’s Bill Leak portraying an Aboriginal father and son.

Mr Stokes, the Seven Group executive chairman, said the probe was the “most substantial threat” to press freedom in his five decades of owning and running media businesses.

And then there is John Spooner, himself a cartoonist, asking why should a satirist like Bill Leak be forced to explain himself?. His advice:

Rather than argue against the government’s right to interfere with our freedom (they can legitimately do so in cases of criminal conspiracy for example) Leak should defend himself if possible with satire.

He should force everyone to focus on the dangerous overreach of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. After all the right to offend and insult are, in part, necessary ingredients of serious argument. How else can we combat racism? And don’t tell me about exemptions in 18D. The overall intent of the act is intimidatory. You need an expensive lawyer to rid yourself of the stigma of prosecution. Look at history. Read Ben Wilson’s The Laughter of Triumph, a life of William Hone, friend of William Hazlitt, publisher of the great cartoonist George Cruikshank, and admired by Charles Dickens.

Hone should be famous. In 1817 he courageously defended himself against charges of blasphemy and seditious libel; over a satire that offended and insulted many people. He wrote a parody of the Book of Common Prayer and the Athanasian Creed. He also libelled the Prince Regent and his corrupt government for good measure. A jury acquitted him to great public acclaim.

And to add to the defence, Mark Steyn has also again weighed in on our Human (Last) Rites Commission: Punching Back Twice as Hard (Oz version).

I’m glad to see, following the latest attempt to use Australia’s disgraceful Section 18C to throttle freedom of speech Down Under, that The Australian’s Bill Leak is introducing the concept to the Antipodes. His latest cartoon (above) features Tim Soutphommasane, the totalitarian hack who trousers a third of a million a year as Oz’s “Racial Discrimination” Commissar. Mr Leak invites Commissar Tim Jong-Un to sue him for “facial discrimination”.

Free speech should mean you can say anything you want short of incitement to violence – or, if you like, shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre – without the full weight of the law falling on your head, in fact without even the most minimal weight of the law falling on your head. According to the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, under the entry Freedom of Speech, there is a lengthy discussion of the Andrew Bolt case and human rights in Australia. And in spite of Spooner’s advice, I will mention this since it seems important. According to the entry, in Australia, apparently 18C is delimited by 18D, which states:

Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith: (a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or (b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or (c) in the making or publishing: (i) a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or (ii) a fair comment on any matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment.

This attack on Bill Leak really does look like an underemployed HRC Commissioner trying to find some purpose in life, as discussed in August in The Oz: Tim Soutphommasane may be drumming up work as race hate cases fall.

When it comes to discrimination, context is everything. Words that might appear completely innocent can take on a very different character when the full context is understood.

Which brings me to the words of Tim Soutphommasane, the Race Discrimination Commissioner who encouraged people to complain about a cartoon by Bill Leak that appeared in this newspaper.

The commissioner advised the public that complaints should be directed to the organisation where he works, the Australian Human Rights Commission.

His attempt to drum up work for the commission was followed by a torrent of abuse against Leak, whose cartoon depicted an Aboriginal policeman returning a delinquent Aboriginal youth to his equally delinquent father. On Soutphommasane’s Facebook page, the commissioner reproduced Leak’s cartoon and invoked the heads of liability in section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act: “If there are Aboriginal Australians who have been racially ­offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated, they can consider lodging a complaint under the ­Racial Discrimination Act with the commission.”

He had seemingly prejudged those complaints, which raises doubts about whether the commission itself can now deal fairly with this affair.

It appears to be his job to be offended on behalf of the community. If no one else will take offence, then he will just have to do it himself. But to be quite frank, when it comes to being offended by what other people write and say, I would rather do it myself. I don’t need or want some government agency to do it on my behalf.

WILLIAM HONE ADDITION: From areff in the comments who guides us to this book on Hone: The Triumph of Laughter. This is the description of the book at Amazon and perfectly parallel to our own situation, except that this is the supposedly more enlightened 2016 and that was back in the Dark Ages of 1817.

William Hone is the forgotten hero of the British Press. In 1817 he was compelled to defend himself against a government determined to enforce censorship. His fellow journalists, opposition MPs and the ministers believed that a verdict against Hone would silence all critical voices. It was a show trial, and Hone – a self-educated and obscure Fleet Street journalist who had to defend himself against the Lord Chief Justice and the Attorney General and in front of a jury hand-picked by the ministry – was the underdog, a supposedly easy victim for the state. Hone’s crime was ridiculing the government. He was a noted satirist, who used laughter as a weapon to destroy censorship. His humour captured the imagination of the public; his satires sold in the hundreds of thousands. They were symbols of resistance for an angry public and were genuinely feared by his enemies. The Laughter of Triumph looks at the history of the struggle for free expression against repressive laws through the life of William Hone. Could the state push the law so far that humour was a crime? Or was it the only way to subvert censorship? As Hone implored his jury on the second day of his trials, ‘Is a laugh treason? Surely not.’

Shotguns at twenty paces

I have to say that I am unable to follow the rights and wrongs of the specifics in this ridiculous tantrum from the PM in regard to anything related to Tony Abbott. My instincts are always to think that Malcolm has messed things up but this business with who offered who what about guns is a murky question that can only distract. What I am doing, therefore, is to put the issues before the people, that is, to those who comment here. I have taken the four comments from Andrew Bolt’s blog piece, Turnbull vs Abbott: the war is on. I will start with a couple of comments that take the PM’s side, one that is more neutral and then finally one that takes Tony’s side. But I do have to say, to find those who back the PM at Andrew’s site is difficult. Here’s the first:

If Mr Abbott did not know he should have. He is ultimately responsible for his staff and his office. Ignorance is no excuse. If he truly did not know he condemns himself for being slack and incompetent. Of course the reality is that Mr Abbott was being loose with the truth. He has selfishly remained in parliament to act as a lighting rod for a rag tag band of disgruntled Coalition MP’s in order to sabotage his successor and his party in a crazy bid for revenge. After the Leadership farce of the Labor government it would seem obvious that the public will not tolerate such behavior. Unfortunately the Mr Abbott in his quest to do or say anything to regain power has not learned the lessons of recent history. With a one seat majority and disastrous polls it is unlikely that the warring Coalition will last a full term.

And then there’s this:

Abbott gave Turnbull him no choice and in fact I think it was well overdue. Good for Turnbull to make a stand. Abbott “Mr Goody Two Shoes” but skulking in the background and constantly causing issues and creating diversions for his own party. Abbott should go and go fast. It wasn’t Turnbull who dumped him, it was his party and the people of Australia, that’s right, the voters.

This one is more neutral:

They deserve each other.

Neither of them is addressing this issue on the basis of whether it is good law. Neither of them is asking whether it is justified by the evidence.

When John Howard brought it in, it was a piece of bullying – attacking and vilifying g a poorly-understood minority in order to gain political advantage.

Now both Turnbull and Abbott are continuing in the same vein. Either one of them could take the moral high ground by admitting that the policy was mistaken, and pointing to the facts as justification. Neither of them is likely, because the politics of fear and personality take precedence over good government.

Facts

– Formal advice to the Justice Minister is that the Adler is not a matter for public concern.

– This type of firearm has been available and legal in Australia for well over a century, without being a problem.

– The NSW Police have been unable to find even a single crime committed with this firearm over the last 5 years.

– It is not of the type preferred by criminals and cannot be reasonably modified to suit.

– Martin Bryant, Man Monis and Marc and Gino Stocco all acquired their firearms illegally. The problem has never been lack of legislation, but lack of enforcement.

And this one takes Tony’s side.

Had Malcolm Turnbull, when interviewed on this issue Monday from memory, ignored what a Howard or a Hawke would have done, and answered with a simple “no” when the question was put to him, all this that has followed would have been avoided.

The government, with Turnbull to his credit and his willingness to prosecute a core Liberal Party ideal at last trying to get the critical ABCC Statute through and obtain the first real, and to be objective a substantial piece of real reform, albeit yet another Abbott era policy and initiated policy, Turnbull could have dominated the rabble of the alternative ALP Opposition and really won the week and the political optics.

Yet Turnbull’s mouth, his non political smarts again deserted him. The default when answering ANY questions to Barrister style verbosity is not only an own goal, it does not help Turnbull in an era where cut through delivery is the name of the game, more so nowadays in the gotcha 24/7 media cycle.

If Credlin says Abbott was not aware of this issue then that is it in my opinion. Given her power, the micro managing, her over reaching remit as Chief of Staff, there is simply no way arguably Abbott is not telling the truth even if some documented evidence exists. The Press Gallery know full well how Minister’s and the PMO works.

A Senior Advisor’s emails to the PMO [if it was a SA] would have – should have ended up with their PMO counterpart, and then forwarded on to the Chief of Staff. There are internal staffing protocols that have existed for decades, period.

The Gallery again have invoked the term “smoking gun” as they try yet again to tear at their nemesis, the MP they loathe and want kicked out of public life, Abbott.

The lack of critical commentary on their messiah’s consistent, now systemic inability to give short, concise and cut through answers is again missing. Hypocrisy and ‘barracking’ is still all the collective way for the Turnbull Gallery cheer squad.

The thumping of the desks applause from the backbench [some of it] for Abbott last night would have the Oakes and crew in a furious rage. Abbott rising is like arsenic for the Gallery elites.

Turnbull needs to more disciplined. He also needs to stop traducing a man who has since being deposed acted reasonably, when he could have done real damage if he was so inclined.

Showing Abbott even a modicum of decency and respect has been absent since the day Turnbull took over the leadership.

If these two Leaders worked together they’d be a solid team, and would, could demolish this Shorten led social engineering rabble.

Abbott is not blame free in all this if one is objective.

Seriously, who in their right mind wants Wong as Foreign Affairs Minister or Dreyfus anywhere near the AGs Department.

This really is a mess thast must be addressed, and given Turnbull has had this morning his senior NSW wets put up a ‘pushing back Party reform again’ in NSW for this weekends meeting, Turnbull and his ideological leftists like Sinodinas, the inept Payne and Hawke have just thrown gasoline on the fire.

Turnbull really needs to get out more and listen to the base of this party he leads cos everything he has and has not done to date just hammers home the political optics of a PM who is so very uncomfortable leading a centre right political party.

Mark Steyn discusses Bill Leak and the HRC

It only occurred to me in writing the heading that HRC are also the initials for Hillary Rodham Clinton. Unbelievably appropriate, but in this case we are dealing with the Human Rights Commission. It’s an obscure title – Complications and Curating – so let’s get to the point:

One of the reasons I’m in favor of Hillary Clinton being decisively defeated next month is because a Democrat victory, bolstered by a five-four (or six-three, or seven-two) majority on the Supreme Court, will be disastrous for free speech in the United States. President Obama has just declared that the “wild wild west” of the Internet has to be “rebuilt” to “flow” through “some sort of curating function” – because apparently the ever less subtle filtering of Big Social (the Twitter and Facebook monopolies, the Standard Oil of our time) are no longer enough. What’s next? As I had cause to remind the Democrats during my Senate testimony, too many prominent members of their party are already wholesale enthusiasts for the criminalization of dissent – a position that renders politics both irrelevant and impossible. Think of the most repressive safe-spaced college campus in America: that’s where the whole country’s headed.

And some advice on how The Australian should run its case:

The likes of Commissar Soutphommasane are not interested in a debate with you; they’re interested in eliminating you from the debate, banishing you from public discourse, and shriveling that discourse to the ever tighter bounds of a state ideology. I hope Bill Leak and The Australian fight this outrageous system not through narrow lawyerly arguments but out in the open – shining a bright cleansing sunlight on an ugly regime that cannot withstand exposure to the light of day.

Fascism and state socialism are not two sides of the same coin, they are the same coin on both sides. They pretend to be about equality and economic justice but it is essentially about achieving power and grinding opposition into the dust. Free speech is all you have to keep you safe and when it’s gone, so is pretty much everything else.

“I know who needs to shut up and it ain’t Abbott or Credlin”

I’m not sure if anyone can get through a Niki Savva column any more – I certainly don’t – but the comments section is pure entertainment. The latest: In the time of moderate Malcolm, Abbott must shut up. The first six of the top comments:

(1) This Abbott whom Niki despises is a regular bloke with a mortgage, a working wife and a history of community service who, on his first Christmas break as PM, took all the family to France in economy and paid for all of them including himself. At the same time Bill Shorten (quite reasonably) flew to Europe in business class at the tax payers expense. The rest of the world would be dumbfounded to hear of the nations leader footing his own bill to fly down the back end of the plane. The world needs more Abbotts.

(2) Nope. He must not shut up. His voice and the contributions he makes are too valuable. Some examples:

> Let’s be under no illusions the carbon tax was socialism masquerading as environmentalism.

> The prime ministership of this country is not a prize or a play thing to be demanded. It should be something which is earned by a vote of the Australian people.

> Your hard-earned savings – yes, they might be tax advantaged – but your hard-earned savings, they belong to you. They aren’t a piggy bank for government to raid whenever it’s in trouble and this is one of the key differences between us and our political opponents right now.

> The nature of politics has changed in the past decade. We have more polls and more commentary than ever before. Mostly sour, bitter, character assassination. Poll driven panic has produced a revolving door Prime Ministership which can’t be good for our country. And a febrile media culture has developed that rewards treachery. And if there’s one piece of advice I can give to the media, it’s this: refuse to print self-serving claims that the person making them won’t put his or her name to.

> Our moral obligation is to receive people fleeing for their lives. It’s not to provide permanent residency to anyone and everyone who would rather live in a prosperous Western country than their own.

We are indeed fortunate to have a politician of the credibility and the calibre of Tony Abbott in our parliament. And long may this boat-stopping, trade-deal-signing, tax-repealing, union-corruption fighting former prime minister continue to rise above the play-the-man grubs.

(3) Did you ever tell Malcolm to shut up when he was white anting Abbott for 2 years ?

(4) Yet another installment of Niki Savva’s rivetting 437-part series on “Why I don’t like Tony Abbott”.

Dull. Predictable. Boring.

I still keep looking for the disclaimer that makes known the bulk of the Savva family income is derived from being directly employed by Malcolm Turnbull.

This clear conflict of interest undermines any pretense of objectivity and impartiality.

(5) Honestly, this is not bordering on, this is demented. Who edits this and allows it to pass for supposed reasoned commentary? It’s blatant propaganda, straight from the PMO. This commentary is sub par (at best), and the diatribe towards Abbott is unhinged, undergraduate, and unfit for public comment. The fact of the matter is this; Turnbull isn’t a leader. Intelligent, in some capacity, sure (yet to see any evidence of this although the MSM seem to bang on about how brilliant he is) but a leader, neigh. He doesn’t command respect, his emotional intelligence is non existent and his political judgment is inherently flawed. He is not a conviction politician. He simply sways with the breeze, intent on appeasing the populist minority. Abbott however was a conviction politician. What you saw was what you get. You knew where he stood on Small Government, Super, Border Protection, Fiscal Responsibility and just about every other matter of government business irrespective of whether you liked him or not. Who knows what Turnbull stands for? I certainly don’t and that’s the problem that Niki and her ilk cant’ seem to grasp. The majority of Australian’s don’t like feeling left in the lurch. He’s been in the job for year and coupled with the significant political capital he had at his disposal following the coup, achieved what? He won an election by one seat? Wasn’t he supposed to romp home because everybody loved Malcolm? Ah, that’s right, it’s the fanciful reasoning of the press gallery who pursued this narrative and who seem to be completely divorced from reality. Turnbull has achieved nothing other than backstabbing a sitting Prime Minister for his own personal gain. I’d be happy for Niki to debate me on this, but alas, I can only dream.

(6) I know who needs to shut up and it ain’t Abbott or Credlin, but rather you Niki.

There is no more pressing need than seeing Malcolm leave Parliament

Damn the deficit, full speed ahead. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull tackles climate change, disaster mitigation at ASEAN Summit:

THERE is “no more pressing need” in the region than climate change, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has told Pacific leaders in Micronesia.

Mr Turnbull announced $300 million to help the Pacific “manage climate change and improve disaster resilience”.

The Prime Minister landed in Pohnpei on Friday for his third round of regional talks — having visited Hangzhou in China for the G20 and Vientiane in Laos for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) summit.

“Over the next four years we’ll provide $300 million to Pacific island countries including $75 million for disaster preparedness. This is an additional $80 million on the current levels,” he said.

Mr Turnbull also said Australia would ratify the Paris climate change agreement this year or early next year.

“We will ratify it as soon as parliamentary processes allow … Its ratification is not controversial,” he told the Pacific Island Forum in Pohnpei.

Via Andrew Bolt who points out there is a sucker born every minute, except that in this case it’s not even his own money.

Who can we find to deal with political parties that pander to grievance?

In comparison with the ditherer-in-chief, we have this: Tony Abbott speech warns on lack of power to reform. The article begins:

Tony Abbott has backed Scott Morrison’s warning about the number of Australian households that do not pay tax, in a major speech that steps up the case for budget and economic reform despite the challenges of the new parliament.

The former prime minister rebuked Labor for its “relentless negativity” and urged Malcolm Turnbull to fight for the Liberal Party’s core beliefs rather than giving up on spending cuts.

Mr Abbott defended his legacy, including his firm line on business welfare when Qantas sought a commonwealth guarantee, given the airline announced a bumper profit this week without the help of government aid.

He also warned of a lack of government power to enact reform, given that Julia Gillard’s administration was about to legislate 90 per cent of its bills with its alliance with the Greens but that this fell to 80 per cent in the next parliament when Labor and the Senate crossbench blocked the Abbott government’s plans.

“In other words, it was not the hung parliament that suffered from ‘relentless negativity’,” Mr Abbott said.

“This will also be a challenging parliament for reformers because every difficult change will have to run the gauntlet of political parties that pander to grievance.”

And his final word:

“Our challenge is not to move closer to Labor in the hope of being a smaller target,” he said.

“It’s to make the differences crystal clear so that voters can choose a party that puts its faith in empowered citizens rather than empowered officials.”

There are a few of us out here who might agree with this from the comments:

Tony Abbott is still the predominant voice in politics which speaks with the most clarity of purpose.

Now that voters have had a year of Turnbull, his waffling, meandering policy, his lost sense of purpose and his lack of performance … surely there is no one left who would still prefer Turnbull over a return to Abbott as the national leader.

Well, other than Niki Savva, there is probably no one left like that at all.

“Turnbull has to be relentless and show he is the one in charge”

Were it not for Andrew Bolt, I would have no idea that Nikki Savva is still going on about Malcolm, but there she is: As the real game begins, Malcolm Turnbull needs quick runs. You would think she would finally get the point why anyone who had previously seen Malcolm in action could not possibly have supported him. And to tell the truth, though I tried, I could not get through her column, but I did manage her hilarious first para:

As he approaches his first anniversary as Prime Minister, the number of items on Malcolm Turnbull’s to-do list continues to multiply. His singular achievement so far has been to win the election, if only by a whisker, but it would help his standing inside and outside the government if he could score a few more runs and quickly.

If that is all he has done, he has done less than nothing, his contribution has been entirely negative. He won only because of Tony, but his almost losing the lot was entirely due to his own incompetence. I eventually skipped to the end of her column where there was this exhortation:

Individual ministers have to drive their issues, but they can do it only if the Prime Minister is in the forefront. A year into the job, and almost two months since the election, he needs to pick up the pace. He cannot give eloquent speeches (unfortunately marred by protesters) or drop ideas, then vacate the field for a few days before reappearing.

He has to be a persistent as well as persuasive advocate using all media, particularly radio and from the office, not home, so that there are visuals as well as audio. He needs to convince the public, then, having convinced them, use that to exert pressure on parliament. It is circular and never-ending.

Turnbull has to be relentless and show he is the one in charge, not Abbott, not Shorten, not Xenophon, not even Barnaby Joyce.

By now, Malcolm is completely gun shy since he has shown time and again that his own ideas are poison for most of those who vote for the Coalition. Every time he opens his mouth, three-quarters of the back bench roll their eyes. He’s in the wrong party, should not even be on the back bench, never mind its leader.

Australian journalists could learn a lot from it too

It’s Margo Kingston, in the Guardian Australia on Pauline Hanson takes centre stage again but this time we should listen not lampoon cited by Glenn Reynolds on Instapundit under the non-ironic heading, AMERICAN JOURNALISTS COVERING THE TRUMP PHENOMENON COULD LEARN A LOT FROM THIS PIECE. This is his chosen quote:

“Her supporters were by and large nice people with little money who were largely uninterested in politics. They were suffering badly from the effects of competition policy, which had seen basic services and jobs stripped out of their towns. They loved Hanson’s grit and plain speaking. Most of all, they loved that she listened. . . . When I tried to converse with supporters about politics I misinterpreted everything they said, and likewise. I thought they were racists and they thought I was a racist. Communication was impossible without getting to know each other first. . . . Western democracies are splitting up into warring tribes. I think Hanson’s return to our parliament is a chance to bring ours together a little bit. If we try.”

And this from the comments at Instapundit:

:”…One Nation’s policy. Its vote collapsed..” Actually, that is wrong. What happened was the main parties, LIB, Labour, DEMs , Greens, NATs all “preference’d” her at the bottom, as that is what you used to be able to do Down Under. The final vote is your actual vote plus preferences from others…..The smart Rich Guy who did a hostile takeover of the LIB/NAT Coalition party decided that he would change the system to get rid of the “kooks” from the Senate. He did that with the support of the Greens (never a good sign). What he did not understand was that the parties like One Nation get pretty solid *primary* voter support. Once people could pick their own preferences, the independents like Hanson and others leaped above the Family First and Palmer party types… They are now here to stay, for at least the next 3-6 years…

More than likely, the smart rich guy is going to need the support of Bob Katter (Google his videos!) and Hanson to get anything done…Good Times!

Whatever kind of times they are, they are certainly a changing.

The immovable object

That Malcolm is a dud with the worst political instincts in Australian political history was evident from a long way back. That he is shallow to the point that he actually believes global warming is a problem only emphasises how pathetic he is. That he has no idea how an economy works was clear long before he said during the GFC that he would have done the same as Labor. That he knows nothing about our infrastructure needs was made plane by his inability to lay a rhetorical glove on the NBN. But while all this is plain as day to me and thee, to the man himself, he is all that stands between us and ….

It should of course be what stands between us and another Labor Government. What he really thinks is that what he stands in the way of is something worse by his lights, a return of Tony Abbott. I’m afraid articles such as this How the Liberals could win with Abbott will only make him dig in more.

But Malcolm’s crass and obnoxious willingness to take the ship down with the captain comes across even more in reading these absurd post-election polling statistics from the other day:

The latest Morgan poll of 3587 electors, conducted yesterday following the weekend election, shows 51 per cent regard Mr Turnbull as better prime minister, just ahead of Opposition Leader Bill Shorten on 47 per cent.

That’s a decrease of six percentage points in a month for Mr Turnbull and a 23 point increase for Mr Shorten in the same period. But Mr Turnbull is clearly preferred as Liberal leader over Tony Abbott by 71 per cent to 25 per cent.

But when only those who identify as Coalition voters are asked who they would prefer as party leader, the result becomes closer — 60 per cent for Mr Turnbull and 38 per cent for Mr Abbott.

Whatever doubts we might have about the numbers, suppose they are right. That means that 38% of Coalition voters prefer Abbott. That is a very large part of the Coalition’s voter base. Anyone with an ounce of common sense, never mind the slightest whiff of political calculation, would understand that to strengthen the party and its appeal, those 38% should be appeased. Instead, he remains stubborn to the point of mulish in not even considering a return to cabinet of the man who for many of us was the main reason making the Coalition worth our vote. Now that everyone can see how politically stupid Malcolm is – even those who have tried to defend him in public since the election – the facts of political life will need to be explained. My worry is that he really is just as stupid as he seems.

Why would he?

The fact is that Malcolm in the election just past ran against Tony Abbott. Had he been as hard and angry dealing with Bill Shorten and Labor it would have been a different story. But it was all anti-Abbott and hardly much of an anti-ALP.

My doubts about whether Tony will come back were increased by Peta Credlin’s answer to Andrew Bolt about whether he would try for another go as PM. She said, “Why would he?” Why would he when there were so many ungrateful and politically stupid fools that remain inside the party room. And perhaps outside as well. In this story, 2016 Federal Election: Australia faces another ‘week’ without government, we find this:

The latest Morgan poll of 3587 electors, conducted yesterday following the weekend election, shows 51 per cent regard Mr Turnbull as better prime minister, just ahead of Opposition Leader Bill Shorten on 47 per cent.

That’s a decrease of six percentage points in a month for Mr Turnbull and a 23 point increase for Mr Shorten in the same period. But Mr Turnbull is clearly preferred as Liberal leader over Tony Abbott by 71 per cent to 25 per cent.

But when only those who identify as Coalition voters are asked who they would prefer as party leader, the result becomes closer — 60 per cent for Mr Turnbull and 38 per cent for Mr Abbott.

Well, if that’s what they think, they got what they deserved. But the notion that there is a more conservative Liberal Party just waiting to be formed from the ashes of the present mob is just fantasy.