Talking Through The “Ten Steps” To A Turnbull Turnaround

THIS COLUMN has — over the past five years — made little reference to conservative Murdoch press columnist Andrew Bolt; partly because other opinions are often preferred and partly because Bolt is too right-wing at times for us to stomach, little comment has been passed here on the issues he champions. Today, however, he has published the “ten steps” for Malcolm Turnbull to turn his fortunes around, and some perspective is warranted.

Novel, isn’t it: and despite the crazed taunts of some detractors, I can only think of having based a piece on an Andrew Bolt column a few times, and would have to actually go looking for the resulting articles to ascertain exactly what they covered.

But Bolt — an even more strident critic of Malcolm Turnbull than I am, although his perspective on the Prime Minister is fairly close to the mark — has made some comment this morning, in a piece being carried by all of the state-based Murdoch news portals, ostensibly canvassing the differences between Turnbull and opposition “leader” Bill Shorten, and the “ten steps” Turnbull can take to save himself from “humiliating defeat.”

Being on the run and in Brisbane for the day today, Bolt’s article offers an opportunity to publish a relatively concise piece of my own; he asks the question of whether “someone so left wing” should lead the Liberal Party at all — on account of the lack of advocacy it saddles conservatives with — and whether there’s any real distinction between a government led by Turnbull and one formed by Shorten if the Liberals lose this year’s election.

One difference between myself and a lot of conservative Liberals — whether in the Liberal Party, elsewhere in the commentariat, or in the community at large — is that I don’t think any useful purpose is served by losing this year’s election (although it could happen, for Turnbull seems to be making an excellent fist of turning people off).

These would be what Miranda Devine calls the “Del-Cons” — delusional conservatives, pissed that Tony Abbott was overthrown, and by Malcolm in particular — who think three years of ALP mismanagement and economic pillaging is preferable to giving Turnbull three more years to strut the national stage as a reward for his act of bastardry.

Needless to say, I am not one of those. But the possibility Turnbull could lose an election is a different matter.

The “one term in opposition” some seem to think is an acceptable price to pay to kill Turnbull off is nothing of the sort: one term could easily become two, three, or God knows how many — it is not for nothing that no first-term government has lost office in 85 years, although Julia Gillard gave it a shake — and with a look around the Liberal Party’s prospective leadership stocks, the kindest thing one could say is that the best candidates (with Josh Frydenberg’s name near the top of any hypothetical list) need at least another term or two on training wheels before they are even credible propositions.

And even if more vocal conservative opponents of Turnbull were persuaded to back off, there is no guarantee he won’t lose anyway; left-wing or just a misjudged moderate version of the rest of us on the Right, policy isn’t even the problem right now: the turgid, clay-footed political touch of the Abbott government seems alive and well when it comes to the Turnbull regime, and as we have discussed at length — as recently as Tuesday — there is ample evidence voters increasingly do not like what they see.

Even so, the “ten steps” Bolt outlines are actually sound, and today I’m simply going to make a couple of additional points and observations on each. If you didn’t read it at the outset, here’s the Bolt article once again. Here we go.

1. Attack Labor

This is a no-brainer that seems to have been lost in the general confusion that goes with a lack of obvious direction.

The fact is that Labor’s record in office has never been fully exploited by the Coalition — the debt, the waste, the domination by unions, the budget boobytraps still waiting to explode — and another Labor government now could well bankrupt country.

There is, to put it indelicately, a rich seam of shit to mine here. Turnbull should be leading, e’er gently, from the front.

2. Stop Talking About Raising Taxes

I agree to a point: the GST represented a missed opportunity to advocate for genuine structural tax reform that if properly designed would have made no overall difference to the vast majority of people. In fact, many would have been better off.

So much for reform.

But in the main, Labor is the party of new and increased taxes — in fact, Bill Shorten is promising little else — and the blowtorch should be directed there rather than letting him off the hook with half-arsed schemes for state income taxes and other nonsense.

3. Attack Labor’s Carbon Tax

Just like Groundhog Day, another federal election (the fourth in a row) stands to feature a fight over carbon pricing.

Unlike Julia Gillard in 2010, Shorten is quite open about his intention to reintroduce carbon pricing if he wins; unlike Gillard, he promises not one carbon tax but two, in a pathetic attempt to pander to the Greens, with one pricing regime for the electricity industry and one for the rest of the economy.

Power prices for ordinary folk and small businesses will rocket, irrespective of anything Shorten and his mates insist.

This is a big chance for Turnbull to show a little fidelity with the Liberals’ conservative flank, and is well justified by science accepted on all sides that shows no warming has occurred in nearly 20 years.

4. Be Focused

As Bolt intimates, the message of the government has changed with monotonous frequency: from various tax reforms (all quickly abandoned) to a hit-the-unions narrative (that I don’t disagree with at all) to “historic” reforms lasting two days, the Coalition under Turnbull is all over the shop.

Multiple messages and themes are fine to enable the election to be fought on multiple fronts, but it would be a smart thing to do to work out what those themes are — and hammer them.

5. Cuddle Up To Conservatives

It’s a no-brainer, this one, when nearly two-thirds of the Liberal rank and file are conservatives, and when so many conservative commentators are prepared to try to help Turnbull to succeed.

Instead, he has seemingly been happy to send “head office” delegates into preselections in conservative areas to overturn local votes in favour of moderate candidates — a clear “fuck you” to the Liberal Right if ever there was — and has mostly steered clear of the conservative commentariat altogether.

It isn’t rocket science, but Malcolm is going to need all the friends he can get; his penchant for acting as a one-man band went a long way to costing him the Liberal leadership in 2009, and its consequences are currently being writ large in the Coalition’s falling poll numbers.

And a thought that should be sobering is that if people want a government that pursues trendy, pinko, finger-in-the-wind socialism, they will vote for the Greens and Labor. Any doubt about this should be dispelled with a glance at recent opinion polls.

6. Stop The Waffle,  Develop Slogans With Content

Endless blather to overfill a soundbite achieves nothing, and nor does running through the arcane lodes of your vocabulary to demonstrate to the masses how clever you are.

Everyone knows Malcolm is clever. The pains he goes to in making sure nobody forgets from one minute to another is a big part of his problem.

Muzzling his similarly inclined cohort and mouthpiece, George Brandis, wouldn’t hurt either: the Attorney-General might be a smart bloke but he is a public relations disaster. Waxing lyrical before the masses on the finer points of nothing they give a shit about isn’t the way for him to win friends.

Tony Abbott took the three word slogan template to a silly extreme but nobody denies it worked. Perhaps Messrs Turnbull, Brandis and Co need a little help in punchy dialogues without verbal sludge. My door is open.

7. Be Authentic. Get Serious

Vacuous stunts are Labor’s forte, so gimmicks like having Turnbull walk to a car with Scott Morrison to show “solidarity” are cretinous.

And as Bolt says, going to meet the punters at the pub doesn’t work unless you are prepared to get on their level and at least appear as if you genuinely care what they tell you.

Either Malcolm and his mates want another term in office or they don’t. If they don’t, they can bugger off now but if they do, it’s past time to begin to look as if they want to win.

8. Play For The Team

Whoever had the brilliant idea to marginalise Treasurer Scott Morrison doesn’t deserve to remain employed: after the disaster of Joe Hockey and in light of the Prime Minister/Treasurer axis being the most important relationship in any government, attempting to hang Morrison out in the wind ahead of a critical federal budget was reprehensible.

Just get over yourself, Malcolm, for like it or not, you actually need your colleagues more than they need you.

9. Get Over Abbott

This includes humiliating known conservatives; trying to knock off Abbott supporters at preselections using “Prime Ministerial imprimatur” vested in head office goons sent to rig votes; and denying the bleeding obvious when a conservative policy response (Brussels, for example) is warranted. Doing so only invites Abbott to interject.

Just ignore him. His contribution will either yield ideas that can be poached and used, or be publicly seen as defective. Either way, engaging in comment and games will end in tears. Malcolm is supposed to be Prime Minister now — and should behave accordingly.

10. Don’t Panic

Possibly the best advice of all — the flurry of activity invariably ending in backdowns, U-turns and abandoned plans not only makes the government look silly, but it reeks of panic.

There is an argument that says that after seven months as Prime Minister Turnbull should have a comprehensive slate of election policies ready to go.

If he doesn’t, speed is now of the essence. But showing your hand when it remains half empty is not the way to go.

As for ignoring Twitter’s “steaming mound,” I have long thought that the Coalition’s social media strategy is, in a word, SHITHOUSE, if it even exists at all.

To properly play in the 21st century, something has to be done about this, but merely playing on the terms and turf staked out by the Left simply won’t cut it.

Again, my door is open…

And that’s it: just a few brief thoughts on each of the 10 Bolt points.

I will be back with something a little more orthodox tomorrow.

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “Talking Through The “Ten Steps” To A Turnbull Turnaround

  1. I enjoy Andrew Bolt very much – other than when he goes on a “Yes to a Republic” tirade”; and I don’t find him ‘too’ right wing.
    Your assessment of him surprises me Yale.

  2. 1: You would only do this if you wanted to stop spending like it was 2009.

    2: If you were doing 1, you could be talking about cutting taxes.

    3. When you’ve kept the 10 billion dollar Green Bank, tossed another billion on the Carbon pyre and plan to introduce an ETS in your next term?

    4: To focus, you need something to focus on…like a plan. See 1 and 2.

    5: This shouldn’t even make sense. Isn’t it one party? Perhaps the current government may wish to ponder some words from the founder of the party who never described himself as a conservative:
    “The main trouble in my state is that we have the State Executive of the Liberal Party which is dominated by what they call ‘Liberals with a small l’ that is to say, Liberals who believe in nothing but still believe in anything if they think it worth a few votes. The whole thing is tragic.” (Menzies, letter to daughter, 9 July 1974)
    No cuddles for anyone until the party decides whether it has principles to which it will firmly adhere…or is just another party of the soft Left.

    6: See 4.

    7: See 4. Perfect opportunity right now: Getting rid of the RSRT sham would not only save tens of thousands of jobs, it would actually show you are, after three years of inaction, now deadly serious.

    8: Yes, but which one? See 5.

    9: See 4.

    10: As we are continually reminded, almost daily, Turnbull is the smartest man in the entire universe. The very idea of panic is ludicrous.

  3. Tony Abbott had goals to:
    a) stop the boats
    b) abolish the tax on air
    c) abolish the mining tax
    All three accomplished. The RET would have gone as well if it weren’t for idiots in the senate.
    Two big FTA’s in place.

    Turnbull had goals as well:
    He’s achieved what he set out to do when he rolled Abbott
    a) sign the UN climate change agreement in Paris
    b) let his deputy Judas Bitchop sign Agenda 30 without any consultation with the Australian people
    c) He’s added Prime Minister to his CV and reinstated the Gold Card when he prorogued Parliament.
    d) destroy the Coalition

    The Member for Golden Sax’s work here is done – the bankers are happy, the Greens are happy, Labor is happy – why wouldn’t Chairman Mal be feeling pretty pleased with himself?

  4. “because Bolt is too right-wing at times for us to stomach.”
    Oh good one Yale!
    This from a bloke:
    Who calls names like “Billy Bullshit”;
    Who crosses out “Communist” to replace it with Green;
    Who says, “Pardon my French, but if you fuck enough things up, repeatedly, for long enough — and go out of your way at times to be a smartarse about it — then sooner or later, you are going to come a cropper”;
    Who says, “It comes as no surprise that the latest half-baked, half-arsed “reform” proposal cooked up by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull”;
    Who says, “It comes back to one of my most consistent criticisms of this Coalition government: it couldn’t organise the purchase of sex in a brothel.”;
    Who says, “And the would-be Prime Minister — Labor’s so-called “leader,” the ethically deficient Bill Shorten — is the most inappropriate candidate put forward for high office by either major party since the 1960s, if not ever: at least Bill McMahon wasn’t shrouded in a smelly trail of accusations of misconduct, even if he was a national joke, and at least Doc Evatt actually stood for something, even if he was insane.”;
    Who says, “State Of Health: Turnbull Tax Plan A Stinking, Festering Turd.”
    Bolt’s comment section only proves that if he is regarded as “too” right wing, it’s not by too many of that persuasion.
    As for yourself, I read you every time, but I often roll my eyes at your own “too” right wing words. I don’t know how many others read you. Your comments section isn’t all that comprehensive.
    No worries Mate, you’re doing OK. Tell it like it is, but for goodness sake, to call Bolt “too” right wing for many people, with the unspoken insinuation that you yourself are not, is just delusional!
    No offense.

    • With respect, CofA, your comment embodies the now-common flinging of the term “right wing” with little or no apparent comprehension of what it means, or simply using it as a term of abuse when it is inappropriate to do so.

      In my view, someone who is “too right-wing” is exactly that: too far along the ideological spectrum to the Right, past conservatism and toward authoritarianism or further. I openly identify as sitting on the mainstream Right as an advocate for moderate conservatism and economic liberalism. Based on your remarks, I just wonder if you know what these concepts actually relate to.

      This column is unapologetically pitched as conversational in nature and presented in a way that includes ordinary voters with perhaps a cursory interest only in politics. It is not intended as a highbrow, highly sophisticated or technical forensic analysis of that transpires in our polity. I could indeed present such a column, but few people would read it. My interest is more aligned with getting people talking about political life in a way that includes them, rather than alienating them with the programmatic specificity (a term used deliberately in this context) that would simply sail right over their heads.

      Now let’s have a look at your purported examples of my alleged excesses on the Right of the spectrum.

      Describing Bill Shorten as “Billy Bullshit?” Nothing ideological in calling out a bullshit artist for what he is. Again, conversational rather than ideological and/or highly technocratic discussion. But Shorten’s positions on most Coalition measures are deliberately misleading, bereft of fact, or sometimes pure fiction. How is being blunt about calling him a bullshit artist “right wing?”

      As for the Greens, I suggest you do some research. Not only are the ranks of the Greens partly populated by real-life actual “former” Communists, but their policy platform (which never sees the light of day in order to hide it) is a doctrinaire, prescriptive template for state socialism that in turn exactly resembles the command-and-control model of governance practised by the Communist Party of the USSR. Further, its ideological weighting is squarely to the hard Left of the spectrum: just like the Communist Party. Whilst some readers view my caricaturisation of them as Communists absurd, it is in point of fact accurate.

      But again, how is calling that out “right wing?”

      “Pardon my French, but if you fuck enough things up, repeatedly, for long enough — and go out of your way at times to be a smartarse about it — then sooner or later, you are going to come a cropper.” This assertion, which might refer to a schoolyard bully as much as to someone as smugly satisfied of his own superiority as the incumbent Prime Minister, is only “right wing” if you accept that what Turnbull has been doing is entirely valid and undeserving of criticism. Which, for the record, it isn’t.

      Your citation of my description of “the latest half-baked, half-arsed “reform” proposal cooked up by Malcolm Turnbull:” what would you call it? The Prime Minister has peddled, aerated and discarded a multitude of “reform” proposals this year; some not even fully developed, most unbecoming of a government nominally of the mainstream Right, and all of them jettisoned forthwith — especially the one the passage you quote refers to, which didn’t even last two days despite its pompous billing as “the greatest reform in the history of Federation” when it was nothing of the kind. But again, how is calling this out excessively right wing (or even “right wing” at all?) Come on, CofA, unless you are merely making the same rudimentary mistake of attaching that label where it is inappropriate to do so that so many others make, you are in error here.

      The contention that the government, collectively, “couldn’t organise the purchase of sex in a brothel” under Malcolm Turnbull’s leadership is a widely used adage and colloquialism to observe general dysfunction and incompetence that renders rudimentary tasks that are otherwise impossible to stuff up impossible to complete. Is that “right wing?”

      I am perfectly entitled to state that Shorten is the least appropriate contender for the Prime Ministership put forward by either party in decades, and whilst it’s a subjective call, I believe he is: this is a man who is on the record as having blatantly lied when it suits him to advance his own interests. Who can’t utter a sentence on government policy without it containing some kind of omission or falsehood. Who has shown himself to be contemptuously cavalier about the law in two road safety incidents in Melbourne last year, one of which resulted in tens of thousands of dollars’ damage to other people’s property. Who, despite being cleared at a Royal Commission, presided over deals at the AWU that nonetheless sold out the rights and entitlements of the workers he was pledged to defend. Whose blatant politicking and sense of entitlement singularly ignores the parlous state his own party left the country’s financial affairs in when it departed office in 2013. On and on and on…but you have insinuated I am too right wing in drawing these distinctions so come on, CofA, how am I guilty of being excessively “right wing?” And more to the point, how am I at all in error in this critique of Shorten?

      If you don’t think Turnbull’s tax plan was, metaphorically, a “stinking, festering turd” (and not least when it had the summary lifespan of about 45 hours) then prove me wrong. Don’t just carp, and whinge, and call me names — how am I at all in error in denouncing this silly idea as the doggerel it was? And AGAIN, how does such a denunciation make me “right wing?”

      If I think, myself, that Andrew Bolt is too right wing, then that assessment is made with an eye to some of his more extreme pronouncements — particularly on racial issues — but this is an opinion I am perfectly entitled to form. How does it make me a hypocrite to say this? I prefer reading Simon Benson, Tim Blair, and (especially) Miranda Devine and Piers Akerman to Bolt, but others will prefer Bolt. It is called “freedom of choice.” In turn, the far Right is as dismissive of choice and freedom as the far Left, so how does even this qualify me as “too right wing?”

      Since you are such an authority on this column, what I publish in it, and apparently my own thought processes, you will know that I periodically receive and refuse to publish comments that make such calls as for the extermination of Muslims, physical violence against gay people, forcible sterilisation of lesbians, the criminalisation of all abortions (including victims of rape, incest, or in cases that would endanger a mother’s life or that of the baby if carried to term) and a whole slew of other ugly, extreme, hard-right views that border on fascism. Actual fascism, not the misuse of that term as an instrument of abuse. But I censor very little and have banned only two people in five years from commenting, and that’s from almost 300,000 visits to this site. Given your concern about how well frequented the comments section of the site is, the average comment rate for this kind of media is about 1-2%. With a tick over 5,000 comments from 300,000 visits, that is bang on average. But never mind such distinctions: you are trying to be insulting by raising it, and I’m happy with where my readership numbers sit. This site began as a pastime, after all, from a three-way discussion with two mates, one on the hard Right (the actual hard Right, not the one that is flung around like confetti as an insult) and the other on the hard Left. Last year it had 90,000 visits. Not bad for what was only ever intended as a bit of a chat about politics, eh?

      But don’t come here and insinuate that I am “too right wing” when there is little to warrant such a charge. I support the reintroduction of the death penalty in certain cases, yes, and I think something needs to be done to screen out the less desirable elements from some immigrant communities better than they have been; if that makes me “right wing” then fine. But unless you’re happy with the increasing prevalence of hardened recidivist criminals raping and murdering people whilst on parole, or the increasing levels of violence perpetrated by immigrants — SOME immigrants, not the vast bulk of them — I don’t see how these views are unacceptable in a mainstream context.

      Yet for the most part, there is nothing to substantiate your attempt to depict me as being a creature of the lunar Right. Small government, an end to reckless spending, a clampdown on waste, the call for far more rigour in managing the national budget, lower taxes, reward for incentive and effort, and a friendly outlook toward families and small business people are not markers of being “too right wing.” Whilst I want something done to curb the embarrassment that one dollar in three of government spending is tied to welfare (and by the time the NDIS is fully operational, it will be nearer one dollar in two) I am explicitly clear that the only people I want thrown off welfare are the ones who rort the system and refuse to work. I don’t like unions, but there is a compelling case that unions, with their relentless drives to enforcing wage outcomes far above the rest of the population, are in fact job destroyers and wreckers of industry by pricing their workers out of markets. Is it “too right wing” to say so? Of course not. But tragically few more prominent figures are prepared to make the case in each instance because — in the current risk-averse, advisor-driven polity this country labours under — it’s verboten to pick a fight. So things just stagnate.

      I might use colourful language from time to time and I might make my points forcefully, or even in extreme terms, but my views aren’t extreme in themselves: and they do not withstand any attempt to characterise them as such, thank you very much. Once again, you have failed to offer a shred of proof that I am, myself, “too right wing.” All you have proven is that you object to some of the critiques made in this column and, quite frankly, so be it.

      I wouldn’t ordinarily respond to a comment like yours, but given it is made with so little apparent grasp of what it is even purporting to accuse me of, I think slapping it down is preferable to ignoring it and treating it with the contempt it richly deserves.

      I will indeed continue to call things as I see them, and thank you for the encouragement to do so, but if you want to talk about delusion with the direct accusation that I am some kind of right-wing wacko, then unfortunately the only delusion is your own.

      No offence, of course.

      • Your response to what was little more than a jesting attempt to point out your own Right-Wing writing is startling.
        Beyond startling!
        Admittedly, I did not read it all. It was too… I dunno, weird and wild eyed? Perhaps “raving” could be applied?
        Such a response would certainly not be forthcoming from the rabid, right wing, stick-it-to-em Bolt.
        Your last paragraph is merely a childish “I don’t stink, you do!” comment, when one reads the third last paragraph.
        I think it best I don’t comment on your writings from now on. It seems you’re too upset by them.
        karabar below, seems to have made an astute statement.
        I bid you a Good Day, Sir. We will not correspond again.

        • Actually, CofA, karabar is wrong: I merely took umbrage at your repeated “examples” of me being “far right” that were nothing of the sort.

          I wrote you a lengthy response to ensure each one was answered…nothing “wild-eyed” or “rambling” about it. You produced a lot of “evidence” to back a contention that I am, myself, “too right wing.” If you object to a rebuttal of a slather of incorrect statements, then it doesn’t really say much about the argument that underpins them. Does it?

          It is precisely because I have enjoyed the tete-a-tetes we have had — when I’ve had the time to participate in readers’ comments, what is, which these days is as scarce as the time to post at all — that I paid the courtesy of responding to your comments at all rather than ignoring them, and if this point was not clear I do apologise for that.

          Even so, CofA, your own missive was hardly brief — and predicated solely on attempting to prove an accusation that is completely unfounded. As I said, I may use colourful language in this column from time to time and I may make points with some pretty hefty language, but that doesn’t make me “far right” — and if you think it does, I merely encourage you to find out with a bit more clarity just what “far right” is.

          If Karabar is right at all in suggesting you hit a raw nerve, it isn’t because you have uncovered some distasteful truth, but rather that the accusation of being “far right” is a default taunt used by those on the Left who simply want to lob grenades of abuse with no consideration of their accuracy. I didn’t take you for one of those. As I mentioned, some of the lunar Right types who try to comment here never get their missives published — and I gave you some examples of those. That’s “far right” — much further Right than me, and further Right than Bolt, just to be clear.

          I would hope you stick around, but you can hardly blame a stout defence to your accusations (from someone I least expected it). I might be accused of all kinds of things, but being “far Right” isn’t credibly one of them. By the way, my observation that Bolt is “too far to the Right” for me doesn’t suggest he’s a wacko either: just that his views are a bit further along the spectrum from mine.

          Perhaps it’s best that we attend a little more closely to ensuring any communiques are reasonable. After all, we are now fighting, in essence, over an argument about name-calling. There are better things to talk about once we can agree the air has been cleared, don’t you think? There is an election coming up whose outcome really matters, and in my view apparently no suitable party or leader to contest it. That’s a weightier issue than a debate over the relative philosophical positioning of Andrew Bolt and myself, wouldn’t you say?

      • I prefer to call the Greens Cultural Marxist rather than communists. Although both have their roots in the doctrine of Karl Marx.

  5. I have ten steps for Chairman Mal that will help the Coalition get back on their feet, and help Australia as well.

    1. Resign from the position of PM before you are either embarrassingly defeated or removed.
    2. Hand over the reigns of power to someone else perhaps Cori Bernadi or even Abbott (maybe)
    3. Leave Parliament as soon as possible after you have done that.
    4. Apologize to the Australian public on your beloved ABC for being a total fraud.
    5. Use some of your millions to buy a ticket on a plane and fly away… very far away from Australia
    6. Buy a house in that foreign place, preferably Zimbabwe or some such place….transfer all your Goldman Sachs, HIH dubiously earned money and stay in that place for your final years.
    7. Take that sour puss that poses as a journalist called Nikki Savva with you, give her a job as a maid in your new mansion.
    8. Take also Julie Bishop as a gardener, perhaps Christopher Pyne too.
    9. Learn to play the ukelele while you are in your twilight years in that foreign land, that way you will be doing something useful for once in your life, its only got 4 strings, you can manage that, we understand that you cant manage much more.
    10. Don’t write your memoirs, your memoirs are others nightmares, this is called learning the art of respecting others, something you seem to have a little difficulty with.

    I like Andrew Bolt a lot, but in this case I think my 10 steps are far more appropriate for Chairman Mal.
    I feel better already, Australia will too.
    Cheers

  6. Thank you Karabar.
    I am really happy you agree with this 10 step recovery plan for Australia…I actually felt a sense of deeper inspiration when I was writing it, words just flowed, as if a higher power was guiding me LOL!!!
    Regarding Mugabe, you are totally right , he is a hard act to follow, but honestly I think the chairman is up to it, he is a little younger, so there is still some room to learn.
    Think about it, I believe Zimbabwe was one the richest places in Africa, Mugabe made it the poorest, he totally destroyed the place, took the profitable and fertile land and gave it to his cronies, then when that failed, I read a while back that he sold it to Monsanto…excellent move, and one that the world owes himan ongoing debt for.
    Plus this may have earned him that seat on the UN.
    What a blueprint for the chairman!!!! he could follow it to the letter, its a tried a proven method.
    But yeah its already been done in Zimbabwe, he needs a fresh country to ruin…so he would have go somewhere else I guess.
    Suggestions?

    • Apparently Malawi is the poorest country in the world, with a per capita GDP of $226.
      I think it would be an ideal spot for Chairman Mal and Lucy to study how that part of humanity denied the benefit of reliable inexpensive energy lives. It is already so totally screwed that even Talcum couldn’t do any more damage.

      • LOL!!!
        This is brilliant, I laughed long and hard at this.
        I believe Lucy is one of his inner circle of advisors.
        I feel she could really help Mr Turncoat get that GDP right down even lower than that.
        If Bishop goes with them, thenits a dead set Certainty , send her on a Malawi funded trip to the UN and she can discuss climate change and take her newest boyfriend too.
        This is sure to drain their funds…I agree tho, its a difficult place to screw, but Malignant Tomor could do it..,with a little help from his friends…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s