Last week we took a look at how Piers Akerman had twisted changes in MPs printing allowances into a claim of Orwellian censorship. It seems that a section of the Liberal Party have outsourced their thinking to Piers, and used The Punch as a venue to continue their campaign of confusion.
It kicked off yesterday with Bronwyn Bishop.
The old Soviet Union would have been proud of such a policy. It has all the hallmarks of aiming for a one Party state.
Then it was followed up today by Liberal Senator Chris Back.
This is Australia 2009 and as of a fortnight ago, as a Senator representing the State of Western Australia, my right to comment on flawed, reckless or irresponsible Government policy is threatened. I cannot accept that.
Unfortunately for these members of the Liberal Party, just because Piers said it does not make it true. This isn’t the first time that Bronwyn Bishop has championed one of Piers’ crusades in The Punch, she has previously written about the so called Heiner Affair as well.
The Liberal Party has had an awfully difficult time making the transition to opposition, however if they truly believe that the best way for them to plan assaults on the government is by parroting the talking points of conservative columnists in the Murdoch press then they’ll have plenty more time to get used to being there.
Update: Make that three days in a row that the Liberals have repeated this on The Punch. It seems that Peter Phelps message must be sinking in. (H/T – Dotty Daphon)
13 Comments
I think it’s actually rather poetic that the Libs would feel the choleric ramblings of some grey old duffer are so worthy of their acute attention. Says a lot for their relevance to today’s voters, doesn’t it?
“It kicked off yesterday with Bronwyn Bishop.”
Ha!
“Unfortunately for these members of the Liberal Party, just because Piers said it does not make it true.”
And being regurgitated by Bishop pretty much assures that it’s nonsense.
“Bronwyn Bishop has championed one of Pier’s crusades in The Punch”
I’ve seen a few of her articles at the Punch, she gets routinely dismissed by the majority of posters as the out of touch dinosaur that she is…
And vice versa.
Repeat after me:
Piers Liberal. Liberal Piers. Piers Liberal. Liberal Piers….
I didn’t think it was possible for the Libs to be worse in opposition than they were last time, but they really are excelling themselves.
I would love to see the voters give them a royal boot up the freckle at the next election. It might wake them up. They’re a bloody disgrace atm.
I think we should encourage the Liberals on this one, my bet is it will cost them a whole lot of votes. The public don’t trust pollies when it comes expenses, even if it is postage, they remember Brian Burke.
Piers , Bishop and the Liberal party are PUNCH drunk without their man of steel. Ha Ha love watching this happen.
I haven’t been able to confirm it yet, but I’m pretty sure I’ve read that the Opposition supported these changes.
You’re right Bertus. Just the fact that they’ve allowed that silly reactionary old cow to raise her head again is evidence of how low they’ve sunk. If Wilson is the crazy old uncle she’s the cranky old auntie that all the kids try to avoid. Turnbull should slap her down.
all they need now is some tea bags and lapel pins
The Liberal party is pretty much the party of old men (pollies and voters) at the moment so it’s serendipitous they look to piers for inspiration.
“The Prime Minister has changed the rules for Parliament forcing MPs to clear everything they send by mail to their constituents to ensure it does not criticise the government. ”
This is starting to spread like the contents of a blocked sewer pipe:
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/the-column-on-kevin-rudd-you-wouldnt-get-in-the-post/
Is it just me, or is the idea that I have the right to expect government funding for anything I want to do not a very conservative one?
In other words, it doesn’t seem very culturally Liberal to be claiming that “having to pay for my own mail-out” = “being banned from doing a mail-out”.
Agreed. Maybe they want a government that’s small enough to fit into their pamphlets.
On the issue of support for these changes – these are regulations, i.e., delegated legislation. Unlike primary legislation (Acts), these are implemented by the government and don’t have to be voted on in parliament. But these days there are rules requiring (i) consultation processes before implementing regulations – and Dave’s previous post on this mentioned some of the findings that had led to it, and (ii) tabling of the regulations in parliament – after which either House has 15 sitting days to vote to disallow them.
In other words, the opposition may not have given active support in the sense of voting for the changes – but there were plenty of opportunities to speak out and/or vote against it. It makes me wonder why they’ve suddenly decided it’s a problem now.