From The Oz, Subsgate: Malcolm Turnbull fires shot across Tony Abbott’s bow. It begins:

Malcolm Turnbull has fired a warning shot at Tony Abbott over the growing disunity within government ranks, calling in the federal police to investigate a ­security leak as MPs worry about the political damage from the former leader’s actions.

Despite Mr Abbott’s denying he leaked classified documents, his colleagues criticised him for lending weight to a report in The Australian yesterday that highlighted delays in the development of a new submarine fleet.

Liberals warned that the “sniping” from the former leader had turned into a “full-frontal ­attack” that could lead to the ­destruction of the Turnbull government if it continued into an election campaign.

“This is not about a return to power, as with Kevin Rudd, this is a full-frontal attack,” said one MP, who believed Mr Abbott was intent on “blowing the place up” even if that meant the polit­ical death of his colleagues.

The thing is, these are issues people such as myself look on as high priority. And while you cannot entirely trust the author of the leaked story to be telling the truth, maybe he is:

The author of the report, The Australian’s foreign editor Greg Sheridan, told Sky News Mr ­Abbott was not his source.

“I can say this much to you … the source wasn’t Tony Abbott,’’ Sheridan said. “I went to Tony Abbott with my information and interviewed him on the record and, as he says, what he says is on the record.”

It is possible that the community does prefer an extra $10 a week than a stronger national defence, or maybe it doesn’t. But whichever it is, there is no percentage in hiding the debate until the election. What is clear, of course, is that the delay in building our submarine fleet is not universally popular, which is why there are those who would prefer to avoid the entire issue altogether.

Here’s the distinction:

“Repellent” and “Repulsive” both speak to dri­ving oth­ers away, but REPULSIVE is more REPULSIVE than REPELLENT is REPELLENT.

Repellent is more about distaste.

Repulsive is more about disgusting.

Here’s the context:

Malcolm Turnbull risks punishing more than nine million workers with higher taxes on their retirement savings as he prepares a drastic change to superannuation alongside controversial plans to increase the GST.

The super changes would hit every worker earning more than about $18,000 a year if the government proceeds with a tax ­increase on super contributions, highlighting a grave political danger at a time when Coalition MPs are nervous about a GST hike.

Modelling obtained by The Australian shows the government would have to scale back the super reform — and sacrifice $6 billion in extra revenue — in order to limit the damage to millions of workers on average incomes.

The modelling also highlights the challenge the government will face to ensure 200,000 Australians earning more than $300,000 are not left untouched or even better off under the key super ­reform plans being considered.

Angry MPs are pushing back at the Prime Minister’s reform ambitions amid fears of a voter backlash against a GST increase, but the increase in the consumption tax and the separate overhaul of super tax breaks remain the leading ways to pay for generous cuts to income taxes.

I get it, they are going to raise taxes so that they can cut taxes. Makes as much sense as the rest of it. Cuts to spending are for a parallel universe. Taxing superannuation so that they can blow more of our money on projects of their own choosing is not only a loser so far as the economy is concerned, it is a vote loser as well.

The fact that Labor is worse only works for someone like me since there are lots of other issues that matter. But this business how Julie prefers Rudd to Helen Clarke as Secretary General of the UN only makes her marginally preferable to Tanya, and that is only because of the party she represents and whose standards she must more closely conform to. What she personally believes about anything at all I have almost no idea. How Tony must have suffered having to deal with such people over the years.

When you finally get down to it, this is the Turnbull strategy for the likes of us. To be less repulsive, if even only by the slimmest of margins, than Labor. But you try for a 50% increase in the GST and then raise taxes on super, even if you did get my vote you will lose millions more along the way at the same time. Malcolm has the worst political instincts of anyone I have ever seen in politics, with the possible exception of John Hewson, whose own fate he may soon himself mirror.

Picked up on Instapundit where the story read:

PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE “NOT RELATED TO TERRORISM” IN SIDNEY, AUSTRALIA: Sydney Opera House evacuated and Manly ferry cancelled during police operation.

So they can’t spell Sydney in America. This, however, is what they were referring to:

The Sydney Opera House precinct reopened to the public Thursday afternoon after a police operation caused staff and tourists to be evacuated from the landmark.

Police simultaneously conducted an operation across the harbour in Manly as a “precautionary measure” following information on social media.

“Following information on social media, police conducted an operation in the vicinity of the Opera House and Manly as a precautionary measure,” police said.

It is understood the operation, which began just after lunchtime and was over by mid-afternoon, was not related to terrorism.

Well, that’s a relief. One suggestion of what it was all about is found at the comments thread at Instapundit: “It was probably militant feminists driven berserk by the name ‘Manly’ Ferry.” You never know, these days, you never know.

The actual headline to the story is Jamie Briggs, Peter Dutton see error of their ways: Julie Bishop but that is not the real point. It is the PM and his Deputy who have seen the error of their own ways. The opening para:

Deputy Liberal leader Julie Bishop says fallen junior minister Jamie Briggs and Immigration Minister Peter Dutton have “recognised the error of their ways” over a late-night bar incident and accidental text, insisting it’s time to “move on”.

After creating quite an unnecessary tempest over an “incident” that has still not been detailed, they have decided to “move on”. Good, and I hope they have learned some useful political lessons in the process about how to manage a party supposedly on the right side of the divide. Hopefully, they will also now move on to doing something useful, like getting public spending under control or trade union reform, the kinds of things that may not run so well on the ABC.

It is hard to believe that Malcolm is the leader of any political party of significance. The latest instalment of the Jamie Briggs saga in The Oz defies belief. This is from the latest episode.

As the fallout from Mr Briggs’s resignation continues to rattle the Coalition, The Australian can also reveal that Right-aligned MPs in South Australia will today discuss potential replacement candidates for the blue-ribbon seat of Mayo held by Mr Briggs on a 12.5 per cent margin. The move comes amid heightened speculation that Mr Briggs, 38, may not want to recontest the next election and as Liberal strategists fear losing the seat, which is threatened by Nick Xenophon’s decision to run lower house candidates in South Australia.

Supporters of Mr Briggs say he is considering his future in par­liament and “waiting for the dust to settle”, but feels aggrieved by the process put in place by Mr Turnbull.

The Australian understands that on December 10, after the formal complaint had been lodged by the consular staffer about Mr Briggs’s “inappropriate” behaviour at the Stormies Bar on Nov­ember 27, Mr Turnbull phoned the then cities minister to discuss the complaint against him and his decision to launch an independent investigation.

In the phone conversation, it is understood Mr Turnbull suggested to Mr Briggs that while the investigation would run its course, it was likely that he would need to consider resigning his frontbench role. . . .

While some MPs say this is evidence that the investigation was a “stitch up”, others suggest Mr Turnbull made the assessment that there was little room for leniency because Mr Briggs had failed to apologise to the consular staffer before she complained formally. . . .

There was also an assessment that it would have been more damaging for the government if Mr Turnbull had not acted decisively against Mr Briggs for the breach of ministerial standards, which may have later come to light. . . .

Another senior federal Liberal MP said the Right faction needed to prepare a contingency plan. “One of the things that genuinely has to be discussed is the likelihood of the state executive reopening preselections in Mayo, because I don’t think Briggs will hold the seat.”

How could the fallout have been any worse than it now is? A seat with a 12.5% margin is now at risk. For me, whatever the PM may say, this is political stupidity of the highest order which has destabilised his own side.