Andrew Bolt’s new civil war on Newscorp writers goes on today:
Niki Savva, Malcolm Turnbull’s biggest media booster, sounds scared about his future.
Remember, by the way, that Savva’s husband works for Turnbull, a fact Savva yet again fails to disclose:
Turnbull unwisely provided a measure against which he can be judged on the day he ousted Abbott by pointing out Abbott had been behind in 30 Newspolls. Turnbull has been behind now for several polls. Only one thing will turn it around: performance. And better political management.
But that is the very last paragraph of her piece. The rest is an extraordinary mishmash – a howl of rage or a tantrum that seems to come straight from Turnbull himself, blaming everyone but himself for his own disasters.
Of course, as ever there is the great AbbottAbbottAbbott monster than must once again be ritually slaughtered and declared dead forever, as if Savva (and Turnbull) can never actually persuade themselves of what they so loudly claim – that Abbott is finished and can never return. But note the double standards here:
Myth three: Abbott would have won the election because the polls are not believable… [I]n the week before the election, as polls showed the parties neck and neck (precisely how it panned out), the Galaxy poll asked people which way they would vote if Abbott was still leader. It was 53 to 47 Labor’s way. Massacre loomed, which MPs knew and which is but one reason Abbott was removed.
What an incredible own goal. What does the latest Essential poll show? Exactly the same result: 53 per cent for Labor, 47 for Turnbull’s Liberals. Why doesn’t Savva then conclude that Turnbull is exactly the loser she claims Abbott is?
But the most astonishing part of Savva’s rant is her defence of Turnbull’s betrayal of Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg, falsely presenting him as a stupid minister who went out on a frolic of his own by suggesting by new form of carbon tax on power stations – an emissions intensity scheme.
As you read Savva’s defence, note that she never actually denies that Turnbull had a secret plan for an emissions intensity scheme. Like Paul Kelly, she instead attacks Frydenberg for letting the cat out of the bag – making her the second senior journalist to argue that it was legitimate for Turnbull to try to fool the publi:
Myth one: Let’s begin with the freshest, the one that says Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg was deliberately sent out by Malcolm Turnbull to wave a bright red flag to provoke angry bulls into charging at it. It sparked the predictable delconic frenzy.
The simple, straightforward explanation is there was no conspiracy, there was no set-up. Frydenberg stuffed up when he opened Pandora’s box, allowing carbon pricing to escape. He knows it, and so do his cabinet colleagues, including Christopher Pyne, who pounced on him when he did it, helping the delcons damage the government by making it look dysfunctional and disunited.
Frydenberg was a klutz, not a picador, courting attention when there was no need for it, creating an almighty mess for himself and dragging his boss back into a bog he had fought years to escape.
Extraordinary. This is the kind of journalism – Kelly’s effort, too – that has made the media-political class so contemptible in this Trump era. It’s this arrogant assumption that voters are fools who need to be tricked into accepting what the far wiser media-political class has agreed is good for them.
Straya needs Tony! Pass the popcorn.
