4 ms·

>I thought he was going too hard on Turnbull (current PM). The problem with Turnbull appears to be that either: 1) He has to balance his rather more radically

>I thought he was going too hard on Turnbull (current PM). The problem with Turnbull appears to be that either: 1) He has to balance his rather more radically right wing members of his party while keeping his further centre members happy else he loses his position. (Many peoples explanation). or 2) He has significantly changed his opinions and position on many issues over the last 5 years. And this is a problem because people cant really tell which it is. Turnbull hasn't really changed many of the policies of his predecessor, he just wraps it up nicer and in a more statesman like fashion. He was previously a more moderate right wing (by australian standards) but has since gone significantly more right wing. Im not going into specifics because I don't want to go beyond the realms of the overall topic and end up talking about Gonski or something, but thats my take on why people are a bit bemused by Turnbull and not particularly forgiving despite his inheritance.

dibstern 9y ago
I'm well aware of those two popularly perceived problems, but I don't see how either justifies him being a bad PM. I believe proposition (1), there being more evidence that supports this view and more rhetoric that supports (2). If he were elected with a significant majority of both houses, and the party returned to a more centrist state, such that he didn't need to appease the more Right-wing faction of his party in the same way, would he not still be the perfect PM many of us thought he might be? An aside -> his election strategy was mostly: (1) use data to find popular buzz-words ("JOBS", "GROWTH", "INNOVATION"); (2) repeat those ad infinitum; (3) shy away from any compelling political narrative or vision for the future of the country (e.g. "MAGA" narrative); (4) ???; (5) Lose House seats to Shorten and Senate seats to Pauline et al.

dibstern 9y ago

I'm well aware of those two popularly perceived problems, but I don't see how either justifies him being a bad PM. I believe proposition (1), there being more evidence that supports this view and more rhetoric that supports (2). If he were elected with a significant majority of both houses, and the party returned to a more centrist state, such that he didn't need to appease the more Right-wing faction of his party in the same way, would he not still be the perfect PM many of us thought he might be? An aside -> his election strategy was mostly: (1) use data to find popular buzz-words ("JOBS", "GROWTH", "INNOVATION"); (2) repeat those ad infinitum; (3) shy away from any compelling political narrative or vision for the future of the country (e.g. "MAGA" narrative); (4) ???; (5) Lose House seats to Shorten and Senate seats to Pauline et al.