… SO IT’S DIFFERENT …
Cross-posted from Truth Seekers Musings – with many thanks to Truth Seeker!
It never ceases to amaze me that, according to the LNP and their complicit MSM/ABC, when the ALP does or says something, they are dishonest, dysfunctional, in disarray, untrustworthy, incompetent etc, but when the LNP are any of those things, for real, there’s nothing to see here! Likewise when the ALP changes leader, it’s a political assassination, but when the LNP do the same it’s in the best interests of the party, the state, the nation and in fact the entire history of mankind!
This question of changing leaders has reared it’s ugly head again, as a result of the unexplained resignation of Ted Baillieu as Vic Premier.
At the risk of reopening old wounds, I think that it’s worth asking “what’s the difference, between what the ALP and the LNP have done?”
We still hear about how K Rudd was knifed in the back, how “Gillard has blood on her hands” etc etc.
Now , in the interest of full disclosure, I for one was less than happy, at the time, with the
ALP’s decision to replace Rudd, but then I, like most, only saw the public face of Rudd, and was unaware of the difficulties of working with him which, with the benefit of hindsight, there were murmurings of, prior to the spill.
Now like Baillieu, Rudd did quit, the only difference being that Rudd had a second chance to put himself up for the position and was defeated by a clear majority vote of the caucus.
The MSM are reporting that Baillieu came to the decision on his own, after becoming aware that he no longer had the full support of his parliamentary party. The same could be argued for Rudd, who made the position of leader vacant of his own volition, returning to caucus later, determining to test the numbers.
Now I can hear all the right whingers, crying foul, and saying there’s no comparison. But who can say with any certainty that Baillieu was not in the same situation whereby if he didn’t jump, he would have been pushed? The very fact that he “Became aware” that he did not have the support he needed, alludes to the possibility that he did get some type of tap on the shoulder.
The LNP also summarily dismiss the comparison with Abbotts actions against Turnbull by saying that Turnbull was not an elected leader of the country, but he was the elected leader of the LNP, as Rudd was the elected leader of the ALP who happened to win an election and became subsequently the PM, in the same way that Baillieu became Premier.
It could also be argued that Rudd, at least had the guts, ego, determination or whatever, to test the numbers, whereas Baillieu, so far, has just capitulated, and the future will tell whether he gets the opportunity, and has the guts etc, to do the same.
Abbott on the other hand deposed Turnbull by one vote, and his motivations were definitely not altruistic, but rather as a way to fulfil his personal ambitions, with the added bonus of being able to renege on the deal Tunbull made with Rudd on the ETS.
The irony of ironies was that the one vote that got him over the line, was almost certainly from his good mate (?) Slipper, another friend and colleague he tried to destroy. (Turnbull given the poison chalice portfolio of destroying the NBN, to further erode what, if any, credibility he had left after the Gordon Gretch affair.)
There is a generic term which is “Right wing projection”, which alludes to the fact that those of the “Right” regularly accuse others (anyone not from the “Right”) of doing what they themselves are guilty of:
And the list goes on.
So, over the statement “It’s Abbott and the LNP, so it’s different” the question remains … WHY?