Coaltion nutters attack Turnbull

imgres

Ahh, bring it on Malcolm! From the SMH:

Anger is rising within the Abbott government over Malcolm Turnbull’s advocacy for gay marriage, with the Communications Minister publicly criticised by two backbench colleagues.

South Australian Senator Cory Bernardi has urged Mr Turnbull to either resign from the frontbench or stop commenting on “fringe issues outside party policy”. And West Australian Liberal MP Dennis Jensen said Mr Turnbull’s comments on gay marriage were “unhelpful” and not befitting a cabinet minister.

Mr Turnbull frustrated some of his more conservative colleagues when he told an interviewer on Sunday that Australia was getting out of step with similar countries on gay marriage.

He said Britain, Canada and parts of the US and South Africa had taken steps to allow gay marriage.

”So people of the same sex can get married in Auckland and Wellington, Toronto and Ottawa and Vancouver, in New York and Los Angeles, Baltimore and Cape Town, but not Australia,” Mr Turnbull said.

If there’s one thing that gives me the shits about the Coalition it is its insistence that we be economically liberal but socially conservative. In other words, we’re allowed (expected) to do whatever we want at work but at home we have to toe the line.

One wonders how much pre-emptive strike there is here given the poor performance of the Prime Minister.

Comments

  1. I’m all for gay marriage and whatever else anyone wants that doesn’t hurt me or those I love…….

    However, this man’s a capitalist pretending to be a socialist……way out of touch with majority of Australians…….Good riddance pretender….You lost me with your pro population BS……

    • so if business partnerships register for marriage are you ok with that? and why not extend it to single people who commit to being single? it doesnt hurt me or anyone i love after all …. but it might be kind of pointless.

      we could also give knighthoods to random people on the street. That wont hurt anybody.

      i see a real logical disconnect in pro gay marriage arguments. Exclusion does not equal discrimination. Equality is not the same thing as uniformity. Some things really are different – celebrating this difference is actually what diversity is all about.

      • @squirell……..I didn’t say I understand it. It’s not like we heterosexuals have done a good job of marriage….. but there’s people in society that really want it, so for me, it doesn’t hurt me, so why oppose it?

        There are far bigger battles I’d rather politicians busy themselves with. Have a vote and move on.

        Writing that makes me realise, that’s exactly what politicians want. Distractions that polarise the population. We could dither with this for another decade while everything else goes to sht…..

        Hey…talk about dithering………IT WAS TURNBULL that was the big republican while he peddled in whatever way he extracted huge amounts of wealth from people,.

      • It’s not like we heterosexuals have done a good job of marriage

        Where does the guilt in regards to this area stem from?

      • no Hixtar, squirrels eat nuts – a ha ha.

        but seriously rich42, thats silly to say that because enough people want something then we should grant it. Marriage doesnt exist to make people feel good about themselves or validated, its to reconise a unique relationship type. Extend it and you water it down.

      • Water it down more than Britney Spears’ 55-hour Las Vegas marriage, do you mean, Squirell?

        Or more like, the Family Law Act 1975 – which introduced Australians to the no-fault divorce?

      • i see a real logical disconnect in pro gay marriage arguments.
        Er, what ? The argument is trivially simple: two people should not be denied the right to enter the legal contract called marriage because of their gender.

        Any more than they should not be denied marriage because of the colour of their skin. Or their religion.

        Not allowing this is about a textbook example of discrimination as you can get.

        If you want to see a “logical disconnect”, look at every argument against gay marriage.

      • Dr smithy, your arguments are illogical. Colour of skin or religion does not impact an ability to procreate, sexual orientation does. I guess that might be why the vast majority of religions and races have a form of marriage that does not extend to gays. So you miss the basic point, there is nothing wrong with treating different things differently when they really are different.

      • Dr smithy, your arguments are illogical.
        The irony !

        Colour of skin or religion does not impact an ability to procreate, sexual orientation does.
        The contemporary construct of marriage – both in legal and religious contexts – is demonstrably independent of “procreation”.

        I guess that might be why the vast majority of religions and races have a form of marriage that does not extend to gays.
        No, that’s because most of them think homosexuality is a sin.

        So you miss the basic point, there is nothing wrong with treating different things differently when they really are different.
        No, I get the point just fine, I’m showing you why it’s wrong.

        You haven’t identified anything that’s both different and relevant.

      • Yeah, to say “it’s not like we heterosexuals have done a good job of marriage” clearly infers you view the performance of pair bonding amongst heterosexual couples as substandard.

        To assert such a thing can only come from framing the starting point in a poor manner, and that is pretty much shaped by guilt.

      • I think we live longer than MOST marriages can survive. That’s sadly my overwhelming (and personal) experience. I hope gay people do a better job of it. Given they are not going to have a genetically common child (that I would think encourage people to give it more effort), I doubt it very much. Not sure why they want it, but good luck to them.

      • I think we live longer than MOST marriages can survive. That’s sadly my overwhelming (and personal) experience.

        Why would you say that? We does one calculate a longevity date for marriage?

        I for one point at diminshed libido and the potnetial for familiarity and respect to say marriage’s survivability should increase, if not for dysfunctional cultural forces.

        I hope gay people do a better job of it. Given they are not going to have a genetically common child (that I would think encourage people to give it more effort),

        Well the latter has been the cornerstone for pair bonding. There is no such thing as a successful species that does not breed, in line with there isn’t much reason to pair bond for large tracts of time other than nurturing offspring.

        It’s positive feedback loop in other words.

        After the raising of children, the decision to remain together has to do with pursuing common goals in old age, as I said, the impulse to drive reproduction diminshes.

        I doubt it very much. Not sure why they want it, but good luck to them.

        Well it’s to capture a powerful and symbolic insitute from traditional forces, the perceived enemy of Team Progress [tm], as it thinks it will disempower said traditional forces.

        If the government looked after tha “department of births, deaths and civil unions”, and the religious bodies looked after marriage, and they ran as parallel insitutes, with the government awarding homosexuals each and every right and entitlement of pair bonding, would that not suffice?

        Well that’s pretty much where we stand.

        All that is being pursued is to encroach into the realm of religious bodies, and ‘take what’s theirs’.

      • “Why would you say that? We does one calculate a longevity date for marriage?”

        Till Death do us part.

      • Yeah, to say “it’s not like we heterosexuals have done a good job of marriage” clearly infers you view the performance of pair bonding amongst heterosexual couples as substandard.

        Or simply less than perfect.

        Divorce rates don’t appear to be going anywhere but upwards. To say nothing of the percentages of people who admit to being unfaithful.

        Why would you say that? We does one calculate a longevity date for marriage?

        I for one point at diminshed libido and the potnetial for familiarity and respect to say marriage’s survivability should increase, if not for dysfunctional cultural forces.
        […]
        Well the latter has been the cornerstone for pair bonding. There is no such thing as a successful species that does not breed, in line with there isn’t much reason to pair bond for large tracts of time other than nurturing offspring.

        I listened to a quite interesting podcast a year or so ago – which I’m unfortunately unable to find now – talking about research finding that it’s completely normal and expected for relationships to dissolve after 10-15 years, outside of cultural norms like marriage “until death do us part”.

        Which is about how long it takes to raise a few children from a biological perspective.

        I find it odd that someone so focussed on “marriage” for the purposes of procreation, insistent that it should continue to be relevant to the individuals once the biological urge has completed.

        Which brings me to the question of why anyone should think “survival of the species” is even vaguely relevant to a discussion about gay marriage…

        If the government looked after tha “department of births, deaths and civil unions”, and the religious bodies looked after marriage, and they ran as parallel insitutes, with the government awarding homosexuals each and every right and entitlement of pair bonding, would that not suffice?

        I imagine most people arguing for marriage equality would be satisfied if “marriage” was removed completely from the legal code and replaced with civil unions (or nothing at all).

        All that is being pursued is to encroach into the realm of religious bodies, and ‘take what’s theirs’.

        No-one advocating marriage equality in the mainstream, that I have seen, is trying to encroach into the realm of religious bodies (eg: requiring them to perform marriages between non-hetero couples).

  2. On the bright side we are at least seeing real conservatives act like conservatives – i.e. dislike change of any type.

    It is a good reminder that the term neo-conservative was not very helpful as for the most part the neo-cons were the anti- thesis of conservative (not surprising considering many were trots in the 1960s) and were keen on radical change economically and socially.

    John Howard was a lot less conservative than he could have been. Conservatives dont rush into nutty middle eastern wars and launch big new taxes and pick rock fights with unions.

    It will be good to see a battle of ideas in the liberal party between the real liberals and the conservatives.

    The ALP will be praying for the conservatives to win the fight and shift the LNP away from middle Australia.

    • 18 months, when the Liberals are doing really badly in the polls and the rest of the party starts getting twitchy about the next election.

      I suspect Tony and Malcolm have had an understanding ever since the original leadership challenge, when Tony came in as the smoky and spived Joe for the top job.

    • i have been wondering for ages why malcolm is still there. Surely working in a submissive position to that pack of tools can’t be an easy task. i reckon it can only be a matter of time ’till a challenge….

  3. yea I forgot, anyone who opposes the “progressive” left is a nutter. Newsflash lefties, marriage is a form of societal recognition. ALL forms of recognition exclude in order to recognise special characteristics (eg knighthoods, prizes at school etc etc etc). Straight relationships ARE unique and special. Without them the human race would not exist …. hence special recognition is granted across the vast majority of societies throughout history.
    …. and dont forget the current definition doesnt just exclude gay relationships – how about business, platonic, fraternal, maternal, fiduciary etc etc etc. What is so special about sex per se that warrants the exclusion of the these types of relationships?? And while we are at it, why cant single people marry themselves? they can have sex with their hand and even raise kids!

      • “Team Progress [tm] isn’t about thinking, it’s about equality”
        yes RP – but i prefer to use the word uniformity.

      • yes RP – but I prefer to use the word uniformity.

        Well that is the outcome, but it’s premise is framed from a moral high ground, hence ‘given’ as to acheive equal outcomes for all.

        But I agree with your premise.

        “Straight relationships ARE unique and special”

        ….thus they are not equal.

        I was about to send, then I can imagine the the uproar from the soft-headed members of team progress. I don’t mean inferior, I don’t mean they deserve to be subject to duress, I mean they are not uniform.

    • Straight relationships ARE unique and special. Without them the human race would not exist …. hence special recognition is granted across the vast majority of societies throughout history.
      So you do not think those who are not intending to have children, or incapable of doing so, should not be allowed to marry ?

      and dont forget the current definition doesnt just exclude gay relationships – how about business, platonic, fraternal, maternal, fiduciary etc etc etc. What is so special about sex per se that warrants the exclusion of the these types of relationships?? And while we are at it, why cant single people marry themselves? they can have sex with their hand and even raise kids!
      WTF are you talking about ? Which of those legally binding relationships currently discriminates against anyone based on the gender of the other party ?

      • I reckon the whole marriage as a definition debate as presented in the media is a bit disingenuous however.

        The undercurrent of children, and access to the legal protections/rights associated with marriage under the current laws, are a structural part of the philosophical and ethical debate – even if the parties from both sides of the debate aren’t fully aware of this.

      • The undercurrent of children, and access to the legal protections/rights associated with marriage under the current laws, are a structural part of the philosophical and ethical debate – even if the parties from both sides of the debate aren’t fully aware of this.
        Why would you say that ?

        The legal implications of being married vs not, are probably the single biggest force behind the drive for marriage equality.

      • I should be more clear – ‘access to the legal protections/rights associated with marriage, as it relates to and impacts on children’.

        In other words, at the heart of it, the debate is about children.

      • I should be more clear – ‘access to the legal protections/rights associated with marriage, as it relates to impacts on children’.
        Certainly a factor, but there are plenty of people interested in the next-of-kin aspect as well.

        Again, though, I question your argument that these are aspects of the debate most people are not aware of ? IME they are foremost in the minds of those arguing for marriage equality.

      • The intellectuals leading the debate from either side know exactly what they are fighting about – the word ‘marriage’ as legally defined is a key that opens up the door for access to children within our legal structures.

        The media does not present the complexity of the debate, and the youth/ignorance of many of the public participants show that they do not understand either.

      • The intellectuals leading the debate from either side know exactly what they are fighting about – the word ‘marriage’ as legally defined is a key that opens up the door for access to children within our legal structures.
        Yes, it opens a whole bunch of doors legally and socially.

        That’s kind of the point.

        The media does not present the complexity of the debate, […]
        I disagree with your premise.

        It’s not a complex debate. People try to make it complex with disingenuous, if not absurd, arguments.

        Should we, or should we not, allow couples to be legally and socially discriminated against based on the irrelevancy of their genders. It’s a simple question.

        It’s no more complex than asking whether or not two people should be allowed to get married based on the colour of their skin.

        […] and the youth/ignorance of many of the public participants show that they do not understand either.
        Being young means you can’t understand the principles at play ?

      • Well no. Even in that response, there is obfuscation. There is no discrimination left under law except for one area, and it is not the legal rights of property under marriage, this is well covered off. The debate is, should we allow married gay couples all the rights afforded to other members of society with respect to children, including access to the other areas of rights like IVF, adoption etc.

        This this is the debate we are having by proxy on the word ‘marriage’.

      • Well no. Even in that response, there is obfuscation. There is no discrimination left under law except for one area, and it is not the legal rights of property under marriage, this is well covered off.
        This is not correct. There are still areas where homosexual partners are not equal, eg: worker’s comp and carer’s leave.

        The debate is, should we allow married gay couples all the rights afforded to other members of society with respect to children, including access to the other areas of rights like IVF, adoption etc.This this is the debate we are having by proxy on the word ‘marriage’.
        No, in most states homosexual couples and individuals already have access to IVF and the ability to adopt.

        Even if that were the debate, it’s still not a “complex” one.

      • Actually there are notable exceptions even in Australia, and the world ‘marriage’ most-definitely would break down any of these last legal hurdles, in fact any of the issues would just go away because there would be no threat of a socially conservative legislature tinkering with these provisions again. It is in a sense a magic word legally because it imports social norms that were historically well understood.

        I’m not taking sides here, i’m just saying that the media most definitely does not present the true complexity of the debate that is going on, from quite ideologically opposed sides.

        You are saying the choice of side you take is simple, unfortunately so is the other side of the debate.

      • That’s right AJ.

        Why should there be s problem with providing access to IVF?

        I can imagine many accepting gay marriage – but not being quite ready to accept gay adoption.

        Now, do you have any evidence that gay couples make bad parents? Or are at least no worse at parenting than the average couple? Or for that matter, worse than the significant proportion of terrible parents?

      • You are saying the choice of side you take is simple, unfortunately so is the other side of the debate.
        The difference is my argument and justification is also simple, while theirs is either convoluted and fallacious, or transparently xenophobic.

      • I can imagine many accepting gay marriage – but not being quite ready to accept gay adoption.
        Ironically enough, that ship has already sailed in most jurisdictions.

      • I wouldn’t say that, i’d say you rely on a quite complex philosophical perspective lying on top of scientific and post-modern views of the world.

        Your logic seems simple to you because you have constructed a view of the world that allows it to be simple. The opposing side might seek to deconstruct the base you confidently rest on, and your logic will be far from simple, exactly as you have done to them.

        You are as ideologically attached to your base as they are.

      • So , deconstruct my simple logic then.

        And, no I’m not attahed to an ideology. If strong evidence evidence emerged that raised serious doubts about gay parenting or broader societal damage risked by gay marriage, I would happily change my position.

      • Drsmithy, laws don’t often deal we’ll with exceptions, they are about fulfilling a broad purpose. If u let in a relationship type that is always the exception then the broad purpose of marriage changes from a family focus to a romantic focus. If you are prepared to do that why not extend the purpose to include other human relationships eg platonic. What’s so special about romantic relaionships per se to the exclusion of others?
        As for the argument being about legal access to benefits I beg to differ, it’s really about saying a homo relationship is ultimately no different to a hetro one which is plainly false.

      • HRH – i’m actually all for total equality on all issues including children.

        My point is that the debate for many is much more complex than the simple romantic notion of marriage that is banally presented in the media, as you can see from the alternative views put in this pretty high level debate.

      • If you are prepared to do that why not extend the purpose to include other human relationships eg platonic.
        What prevents two “platonic” friends from getting married ?

        What’s so special about romantic relaionships per se to the exclusion of others?
        They currently have special treatment under the law that is not extended to all people in them.

        As for the argument being about legal access to benefits I beg to differ, it’s really about saying a homo relationship is ultimately no different to a hetro one which is plainly false.
        The only difference is the ability to conceive, and see contemporary marriage already is (and has been for decades) completely unconditional on breeding ability, that is not a relevant difference.

        The real question here, is, why are you so scared of gay marriage that you need to construct these ridiculous arguments against it ?

      • I wouldn’t say that, i’d say you rely on a quite complex philosophical perspective lying on top of scientific and post-modern views of the world.
        So do the people arguing for a very particular definition of marriage, so that’s a constant, and therefore not relevant.

        (At least, I haven’t seen many people asking for the right to have multiple wives, treat their wives as property, or abolish the no-fault divorce.)

        Your logic seems simple to you because you have constructed a view of the world that allows it to be simple.
        No, it seems simple because it is simple – it’s just not a complicated question: should people have equal rights before the law.

        The opposing side might seek to deconstruct the base you confidently rest on, and your logic will be far from simple, exactly as you have done to them.
        I would welcome it. That might actually be an interesting discussion.

        I’ve yet to hear a single coherent argument against marriage equality, however, so I’m not going to hold my breathe waiting for it to happen.

        You are as ideologically attached to your base as they are.
        No, I’m making a rational and reasoned conclusion based on one of the basic principles upon which our legal system is built: equality.

        You can call that “ideology” if you want, but considering it an “ideology” morally, ethically and intellectually equivalent to an “ideology” of religious homophobia, is not reasonable.

      • “No, I’m making a rational and reasoned conclusion based on one of the basic principles upon which our legal system is built: equality”

        Ideology mate.

        The western legal system is built on the rule of law, not laws that make everyone equal. Equality is a goal that has been rarely achieved, which you might notice if you looked at poor families trying to get by.

        You have your ideology and you believe it – fine – bully for you.

      • You would struggle to identify a more fundamental building block of our society and legal system than the principle of equality before the law.

        It is being denied in this case. For no good reason.

        You can call that “ideology” if you wish, but it seems a tad disingenuous to lump it into the same “ideology” as not liking someone because they have icky sex.

  4. Mining BoganMEMBER

    Turnbull picked to sell the dog that is fraudband. Turnbull embarrassed by dog that is fraudband. Turnbull goes against party line over SSM. Turnbull gets boot for going against party line and becomes martyr. Abbott looks like a meanie plus needs someone else to commit political suicide by selling the dog that is fraudband.

    Turnbull the only winner.

    • Turnbull the poker player vs Abbott the boxer. Short term vs long term. Frontal attack vs tactical attack.

      This isn’t to say that Malcolm will ever make it to be leader of the coalition / PM, as there are a range of other forces stacked against him, just that I expect he will continue to out-maneuver Abbott.

    • Of course Turnbull cares. He is deliberately differentiating himself from Abbott on policies that matter to a lot of Australians.

      • You almost got there. He might care or feign to care about gay marriage but he sure as hell doesn’t care what Bernadi or Jensen thinks.

      • Turnbull already knows what Bernardi and Jensen think, and they have reacted in a way he was hoping they would.

        Turnbull wants to distance himself from the wing nuts in the party who are completely out out touch with mainstream Australia.

      • I don’t claim to know MTs motivations but reckon he’d be reluctant to give up all that lovin’ from the left 😉

        Marriage. So yesterday.

      • I think those wingnuts may be more in touch with ‘mainstream’ Australia than Turnbull is counting on. The Marriage Equality machine has been pretty effective in inflating the importance of this issue to ‘mainstream’ Australians, while shouting down the merest suggestion of opposition. I don’t doubt Turnbull is attempting to shore up his vote with the suggestible warm centre of inner-city Australia, but this is pure distraction from the bigger issue of the looming economic policy failure the Coalition is going to be weighed down with.

      • Pit, a commentator recently questioned why the ABC put so much time and effort into the SSM (one S too many?) campaign, perhaps of particular interest to some, and yet paid far less attention to issues like the rising cost of electricity – something most Australians have a far closer interest in.

      • pithoneme, how old are you? For anyone under 40 its a total no brainer. Its certainly not just something thats fashionable in the inner city.

      • Why’s that Lorax…after a few years of marriage other couplings have a renewed significance 😉 even in the backwaters of some past it’s prime holiday town?

      • Not suggesting the grave importance of this issue is limited to inculcation among inner-city types, but only that this is Turnbull’s core constituency.

      • Pit. I hate to bother you with the facts, but every single poll on the gay marriage issue in the last 5 years has shown clear majority support for gay marriage, like 55% and higher. Even the poll commissioned by the ACL showed a clear majority in support.

        It’s this evidence that has me scratching my head about the Gillard and Labour position on gay marriage…

      • Most polls show more than 60% support for same-sex marriage. Among under 40s that would be closer to 80%.

        Turnbull (understandably) wants to distance himself from a policy that’s increasingly unpopular.

      • So Pit. I take it that you have some other EVIDENCE to support your claim that there is not majority support for gay marriage…?

        Or are not an evidence kind of person?

        Or one who only accepts evidence that supports your belief?….Rather than using evidence to form your opinion.

      • If Labor or the LNP thought there was genuine majority support in the community for this issue then it would be part of their policy platform. Given the relentlessness and efficacy of the Marriage Equality machine’s communication strategy, you couldn’t blame more poll sensitive MPs for blinking. But polling on a socially contentious issue like this just as equally evidences the propensity for people to be cowed by a professional media machine into a socially acceptable response. My socially unacceptable response is that homosexuals have no equal rights to the institution embodied by that word marriage– one that proscribes a union between a man and a woman. This is not a civil rights issue, this is about a minority group attempting to capture a perceived moral high ground to satisfy its own narrow interests.

      • The polling on this is way beyond the error margins and has been consustently and repeatably strongly in support of gay marriage for many years.

        Your’s is a minority view, as is Abbot’s.

      • pithoneme, there are two issues where I see an overwhelming majority view across the political spectrum, one it CSG and the other is same-sex marriage.

        You are dead wrong on gay marriage, and very much on the wrong side of history.

      • Some public polling suggests people are in favour of the Coalition dumping the carbon and mining tax. It doesn’t take a genius to recognise the extent to which the resource lobby’s communication and political strategy has shaped views on this issue. Does that therefore make it good public policy ? Thankyou for pointing out that I’m wrong; I will spare you the equivalent patronising. We will just have to agree to disagree on this particular aspect of public policy. I would prefer the issue is put to a referrendum to determine that it is in fact a majority view.

    • Oh and Pit, Malc is only doing what all good MPs should do and that is to relfect he views of his electorate. Wentworth, a safe Liberal seat is also particularly pro-gay marriage..

      And while were on it – i think they could allay the concerns of many christians but including in any legislation a condition that no body can be forced to marry anybody against their wishes. So specifically, a parish that adheres to marriage being between a man and a woman, will never be forced to act against their belief …. Seems fair, their belief is not forced on others and others beliefs are not forced on them.

  5. Oh FFS!! Can’t you people see this is just a game of shells?! Watch what the other hand is doing! Pay no mind to the noise and the flim-flammery – watch what the *other* hand is doing!

    Hurray – we’re all gay for Turnbull! The question is “what is really going on?”, “why has this come up now, and what are they trying to distract attention from?”

    (sits down and shakes his head in disbelief) I’ve seen this happening before guys… there’s the mob who’s only job is to distract your attention, and there’s the mob who then operates on your wallet. The two mobs are connected – and you’ll only find out when you reach down to pay for groceries.

    • ““why has this come up now, and what are they trying to distract attention from?”

      Exactly.

      Republic all over again. Same man, same tactic.

      • Rich42…sorry man, wasn’t responding to you. I was responding to “ino”. Was just wondering what he thought the “other hand” was holding. No hostility in this case and no agenda from me, just curiosity. For what it’s worth mate, i enjoy your posts 😉

      • Huh Muz21? I didn’t say I understand it all. I’ve given my opinion on what’s going on. It’s another smoke screen. What angle does your question come from? Turnbull couldn’t care less about anyone but himself, that I do know….I’m a student of the world and can see such things a mile off. Like I said, legalise gay marriage now and move on…I’ve said Turnbull rambling on is another stunt just like the republic……..

        What more do you want from me? What have I missed?

        If Turnbull had any conviction in what’s hurting us all we’d be hearing about it, but clearly he doesn’t. He’s a sneaky politician (former banker) with an agenda. When I manage to read between the lines what that agenda is, I’ll let you know.

      • His real job – the NBN, is a dog, and he is backed into a corner with that dog, and it is going to bite hard unless he can get out from under.

        That’s what he is trying to distract us from.

  6. I don’t support gay marriage, but it is a shame Turnbull getting lambasted for “not toeing the party line” – i’m not personally a fan of the notion of party lines as dogma…some intra-party disagreement, even in the public sight, is good for a party, IMHO.

    On the other hand, there’s probably more to this issue than just what we are hearing through the MSM.

    My 2c

  7. If only they were truly economically liberal.

    I’m fine with gay marriage, but I respect the views of those who aren’t. He should just bugger off and join Labor.

    He also lost my respect with his pro big Australia views and his handling of the NBN. Why couldn’t he show the same balls with the NBN?

  8. …sorry to be just a wee tad tetchy about all of this….but, if our recently elected honourable mp’s aren’t the biggest bunch of boring dead shits gathered together in one place, spinning spin hyping hype and being oh so very oz macho….then i’ll go swim naked at north bondi mid summer….and that wouldn’t be a pretty sight….but no worries, yur all safe down here….

  9. Taking any notice of someone connected to ALEC in the USA i.e. Cory Bernardi, is asking for a kooky conservative viewpoint ….. like other groups in same network as ALEC in Oz, at least they are consistent in their message, luckily with little agreement in the community?

  10. According to Bernadi and co, cabinet minster’s should leave these sort of social commentary to the backbenchers, and it is strange to see the Liberals eat their own. It leads me to think that MT was tasked with one job: trash the NBN, Now that he’s essentially done that, Abbot and his faction can potentially work towards removing a leadership rival.