Julie Bishop’s been copping it from unnamed “senior Liberals” for her poor performance as shadow Treasurer, who’ve helpfully implied Malcolm Turnbull shares their worries, and suggested a few names to replace her (Dutton, Robb, Hockey) for good measure.
While Bishop has been massively unconvincing in the Treasury portfolio, it’s not only the Deputy Leader who should be concerned over this latest outburst of leaks to The Australian. Malcolm Turnbull and the rest of the Libs should also recall that Brendan Nelson was brought down as much by the constant dripfeed of negative stories to their mates in the press gallery, as by his own hapless efforts as Leader. What is now being done to Bishop (and the articles have been cleverly framed to keep the “narrative” alive for quite a while – by forcing her putative replacements to deny an interest, and thus further fuel the story) could be done to Turnbull tomorrow. As if to lay down a few markers, Peter Van Onselen published an otherwise bizarre op/ed on Saturday praising Peter Costello as the best available leader.
I’ve observed before that the opposition’s coziness with the press gallery does them no favours. It shouldn’t be too difficult to find a way of resolving problems internally rather than in newspaper columns.
Bishop is the Lib’s gift to Swan. As long as Bishop’s in the job, Swan will look better regardless his gaffe’s.
Now that industry has largely moved offshore the old ‘military-industrial complex’ has slowly been overtaken by a ‘military-entertainment complex’, no less dangerous.
Beware of powers, sought, or unsought, by this military-entertainment complex.
Beware the Jabbermoch.
Swanee aint so bad .. he is a durn site better than the last guy, at least he knows economics and works a helluva lot harder than the last guy eva did. Grunt.
Bizarre indeed. Ms Bishop now accuses Van Onsolen of being obsessed with her.
In which case, I’m obsessed with Mercy Otis Warren and Abigail Adams.
Still, if one is going to write about the Libs and their sort of current politics I guess you have to be prepared for these things when ewverything goes pear-shaped.Were they unhappy with his work on Howard? Didn’t he bow down low enough? (he was objective, I gather. I ain’t read it.)
“The unlimited bank guarantee has been a disaster”
On the contrary, it has been a political masterstroke. Perhaps News could do a poll?
If Bishop gets the arse then it’s Robb, right?
Geography alone gets him shadow treasury under Turnbull.
Which makes me wonder; did anyone hear the Member for Goldstein on the Insiders yesterday, pushing the notion that the govt shouldn’t have to even consider going into deficit, all they have to do is change SuperFund capital investment laws and voila, there’ll be a trillion dollars flooding into the Australian market, infrastructure projects will be awash in filthy (AU$)lucre that hitherto is going to waste in funding American enterprise…
He was pushing it really hard–I have to wonder if instead of being official Lib policy might it not just be Andy’s hobby-horse at the shadow Cabinet table. If the latter then Malcolm might want to stick with sunburn as treasury spokesperson. (Though Robb’s irrational ‘we’ll all be ruined by the deficit’ line sounded Turnbull approved.)
Glenn Milne chivalrously comes to Bishop’s defence in today’s OO; well sort of, by saying that Gillard’s gaffes are worse.
Leaving aside the irrelevance (Bishop is judged by her ability to score points against Swan, not Gillard) it is interesting to see different Murdoch courtiers lined up by the pro and anti-Bishop forces in the Liberal Party.
“Ms Bishop now accuses Van Onsolen of being obsessed with her.
In which case, I’m obsessed with Mercy Otis Warren and Abigail Adams.”
She’s right about van Onselen if nothing else. I really couldn’t comment on your obsession with Abigail Adams. Paul.
Julie Bishop gets tangled in her own lack of logic. On Agenda on Monday afternoon, she said Federal Labor was panicking by not waiting to see if the $10.4 billion stimulus program was working because the first cheques would not be received until 8 December. This fails to take into account the fact that both the G20 and the APEC meetings since that stimulus package was announced have reported the global financial crisis is getting worse. Changed circumstances demand changed approaches. Bishop apparently cannot recognise for this. Then she said there was no need for a deficit because the Reserve Bank still had room to lower interest rates. But she should know that the effect of interest rate cuts can take six-nine months to have a positive effect in the economy. This raises the question as to whether she knows what she is talking about or is being deliberately misleading. Looking at her recent form it could be both!
For a zillion years these people could run off at the mouth incoherently saying the most godawful stupid ignorant and immoral crap and the media duly reported it with a straight face and approving nods of the head, sort of like the flunkies in the background when a pollie is interviewed.
But the people were smarter than that, ‘you can fool some of the people ……etc’ and got rid of them from their limelit rostrums.
The media is catching up, slowly, painfully, to the public and Bishhop and her ‘mates’ have yet to catch on.
Not bright sparks.
Julie Bishop’s performance is poor. She never answers a question rather she attacks a person, speculates or relates to the past all the time.
She comes across as catty, is not in touch with her feminist side and does not fit with many of the boys clubs. She tries to be one of the boys but it is obvious many of them don’t relate to her methods. As a politician her ambitions exceed her qualifications for anything but a minor portfolio.
I keep hearing the line, even from people otherwise sympathetic to Labor, that Swan is somehow incompetent, prone to Gaffes, or otherwise not Labor’s best selection as treasurer. Why?
As far as I can see he has not made one policy error, has sailed his ship dead on course through stormy seas, and, to continue the metaphor, has left his opposite numbers, both in parliament and in television debate, floundering in his wake.
What does the poor sod have to do to convince people of his exceptional abilities? True he does not have film star looks, but neither does he resemble a dead fish like his current counterpart (the eyes, the eyes), and his monotone delivery has substance, unlike the empty thought bubbles emanating from his previous treasury rival, the leader of the opposition.
Any opinions?
Mary, “her feminist (sic) side”?
Takes a bit of mental adjustment to think of her as a feminist.
The media chose Swan as ‘the weak link’ for two reasons, his [perceived] key role as treasurer ['its all about the economy dontcha know?'] and more significantly cos of the lack of a real candidate. The comparative [to the previous mob] competence of Rudd, Albanese, Faulkner and Tanner made them unassailable and fire proof in the short term and the shining stars of Plibersek, Roxon, Gillard and Wong was a real surprise to the media [who woulda thunk these women could wipe the floor with their Coalition counterpoints?].
So Swan got the description by default.
Sombody had to.
So why didn’t they pick on Garrett? Swannie’s okay. Bishop can’t lay a hand on him, and she’s reduced to pretending she’s a clawing cat in her efforts to deal with Gillard. There are surely monents pollies must regret Question Time is televised, and for the Libs that was surely one of them. Bishop’s finest moment in the Parliament was “You naughty boy!” She’ll never surpass it.
Bishop’s finest moment in the Parliament was “You naughty boy!” She’ll never surpass it.
One of the most toe-curlingly embarrasing moments I’ve seen in Parliament.
“Mary Jenkins” @ #11, that seems to be a dodgy link you have there (dialog box: “This may be an attempt to trick you”), but I like the way you think. You have however left out Bishop’s utter inability to get through a single sentence on her feet without either (a) stumbling or (b) successfully looking as though she really is talking extempore and not reciting talking points or things she’s practised in the mirror.
If we must compare her to Gillard (and whatever is the point of that, except that they are both women, which is of course the only thing about them that most male journalists can register — they’re women and therefore they must be the same, right? It’s the obvious basis for comparison) then perhaps we could start with the fact that Bishop can’t think her way out of a Harrods bag and Gillard has a mind like an embroidery needle.
Bad idea, making a token appointment to such an exposed position. The Libs should have given it more thought. Bishop got deputy because she’s a woman. Gillard got deputy because she’s Gillard.
I heard the tail end of Gillard making mock of Botox Barbie during Question Time on the radio this morning, but didn’t hear the beginning (although Gillard seemed to be having a ball – she really does have the Keating touch). Unfortunately, when she was being interviewed a bit later she refused to elaborate.
Does anyone know what it was about?
DI – 18. The only thing Gillard said in QT was in speaking of the ratio of computers to kids in schools. Said words to the effect that ’someone may have to explain ‘ratio’ to the Shadow Treasurer”. Gillard said it with a wicked little smile, but not nasty, and immediately went on with the rest of her answer.
In response Bishop made her clawing motion. Very tame by Gillard but very silly response by Bishop.
Like Sarah Palin, Ms Bishop makes many women cringe. She seems to have a very nasty streak underneath that flirty look of hers, e.g. taking the axe to the family swing.
I think the reason poor old Swannie is kicked around is because Costello and Keating were such accomplished performers in the role (especially in Question Time), and were fun to listen to. Swan, like Rudd, is really difficult to sit through. I’m sure he’s doing a good job, but I just don’t want to hear him doing it.
Meanwhile, didn’t Bishop say the editor of the Australian had a close relationship with the ALP?!? That’s right, the left-wing bias of the Australian is becoming very hard to bear…
Thanks, BH – that explains why Gillard basically told Fran Kelly to piss off (in the nicest possible way). I’d heard her playful tone, but not the actual words.
Michelle Grattan explained the other day that as Deputy Bishop has her choice of portfolios. Lord help us (and them) if the creepy Andrew Robb succeeds in replacing her. The alternative would surely need to be someone like Joe Hockey.
Brian, its the Liberal Party. Of course it’ll be Andrew Robb. creepy is a good way to describe him. A real Howard nasty, that one.
Boy are there some peurile minds working down at News Corp:
Turnbull seeks to end Bishop bashing
I LOL but probably shouldn’t. I suppose it’s better than “Turnbull seeks to end Monkey Spanking” but not much.
It’s interesting to note the undue pre-occupation with measuring the effectiveness of a shadow minister by their ability to “score points” against their counterpart. This seems fine if in the process of doing so, a shadow minister proffers something by way of intellectual or policy merit to an issue.
Consider for example, Keating’s vicarious agitations for Howard and Costello’s tax cuts to be re-directed to superannuation. Evidently, he was right. Australia’s super funds, of which Andrew Robb on the Insiders program (30th Nov 2008) so fondly spoke of as a source of economic liberation, with some regulatory tweaking, was a far-sighted piece of public policy and an economic mitigation scheme du jours.
The problem is however, that both the Government and opposition have drifted into what may best be described as “howzat! I caught you out, Howzat!” mentality, to borrow an old 70’s pop lyric-come de facto sporting creed.
Where are the creative thinkers? And moreover, where is the policy engagement by politicians? The extraordinary world events of late; the chaos and mass hysteria, require talented, visionary and most importantly, forward-thinking people. Against the backdrop of a world in disarray, people look to our leaders to replace order and structure back to their lives. Alas, a cursory scan of the faces of the opposition benches reveals a line-up of blasé, apathetic and horrendously jovial faces. On the other hand, look at Minister Penny Wong speak about a water issue, or the uneasy countenance of Wayne Swan as he makes a commentary on an economic event. Their faces appear sombre, their hearts heavy, their brows furrowed, reflecting the seriousness of their respective portfolio areas, and yet they offer poise and the re-assurance of the most elemental grasp of their brief. They engender a feeling that “Hey, I’m on top of it”, or “I’ve been working on this all night..”. No clever jibes, or thin-veneer of humour to divert lack of ability, just plain no-nonsense deliveries.
Incidentally, the so-called gaffes and slip-ups which the Liberals are peddling, show me essentially that these people are human. Howard did it when he couldn’t recall the name of a Tasmanian liberal colleague. Rudd allegedly did it in sniping at Bush, and Bishop really did it when she couldn’t recall the official interest rate of the period. There are, after all faux pas, minor errors, or outright blunders.
When either Keating or Costello (excuse me mentioning the latter in the same sentence), attacked someone, there was an underlying respect or dare I say it quite perversely, a certain affection for their unfortunate target.
With minor exceptions, the opposition ranks, are bereft of anyone remotely formidable in their area. Dr Nelson, a bright star on the team was given a celebrity makeover with a done-over variation. Equally, Kim Beazley, an intellectual giant given a Work-Choices-esque voluntary redundancy, and who could forget Peter “the amputated spirit” Costello?
The Bishop agitations have highlighted more than anything else I think, the over-abundance of unintelligent, slow to comprehend, rapid-fire drivel front-benchers of the opposition. The liberals are caught in a rip, a vortex shedding gravitational drag pool of talent. She occupies a position, whose occupants were a colossus, and despite a palpable erudition, it is difficult to see and any economic policy coming from her.
I’m with you Tariq. We need proper debate and vision, not point scoring. Add to that the fact that in the adversarial climate we have, any change of direction or abandonment of an ill-thought-out policy is gleefully referred to as a “backdown” by both media and the other side. With the implication that it is a Bad Thing.
This is bad, because a lot of policy statements are made which subsequent events show are poorly thought through (Rudd’s never ever deficit, for instance? The Victorian desalination plant?) Rather than recognising that sometimes one has to rethink ones’ positon, changes are always referred to as backflips or backdowns and so to change ones policy has come to be seen as undignified. This can only further ossify government and society.
Acording to Julie Bishop, the cat’s claw is, quote: “Just a little thing I do.”
Well, I’m glad that’s cleared up.
Tariq +1