There is only one Australian Prime Minister who has no blood on his hands, who has knifed no-one and leaked on no-one. From Billy McMahon to Malcolm Turnbull, including all Labor leaders in between, a torrent of blood has flowed from the slippery corridors of power. It is as if no-one has the right to be an Australian Prime Minister without first having conducted a bloody coup.
Howard and Peacock had to send out for more knives as they battled for supremacy.
The only Prime Minister with clean hands in the past half century is Tony Abbott and he is the only Prime Minister the media’s Left set out to kill with a conviction bordering on hysteria. Yet he did more for Australia and Australians in a short two years than any of the dozen before him.
Hawke flew into a wild rage when asked during a TV interview if he had blood on his hands over the knifing of Bill Hayden.
Fraser refused Whitlam supply
Turnbull, used Bishop to undermine her boss Tony Abbott. Rudd, a hopeless incompetent with female hands. Gillard, a Labor Lawyer and AWU crook. Rudd, no change, Howard a loser with messy beginnings who refused to leave. Keating killed a dishonest Hawke. Hawke had plenty of blood on his hands, he also refused to leave. Fraser co-opted the GG to kill Whitlam.
McMahon set out to kill Honest John Gorton who eventually was forced to fall on his own sword… and on it goes.
On each occasion the killings could only have happened with the cooperation of trusted insiders. Abbott trusted his deputy Julie Bishop but she worked with Turnbull to overthrow her boss. On each occasion it was one faction against another. And up until now it’s the Libs’ Left faction and the ALP’s treacherous NSW Right faction that have succeeded.
A delighted Julie Bishop celebrates immediately after killing her boss.
Turnbull and Bishop then set about wasting almost all of Abbott’s hard won capital. Still Abbott hid his bitterness. Instead he pragmatically supported his deposer in the interests of the Party. And that seems to be the superior mark of the man, when compared to the petulant treachery of Rudd and Gillard who together squabbling led Labor to its greatest ever defeat, despite the ABC's and Fairfax’s best efforts.
Some paid a high price for the knifing of Abbott
Modern history can claim Abbott as the only Australian Prime Minister with clean hands. Media’s notion of his criminality amounted to a wink, biting an onion and that maybe, 30 years ago, a female Labor student is fairly certain she might have seen him punch a wall.
I wonder how students of politics will interpret it all in 50 years' time.
Media demands a rap sheet like Gillard’s or Shorten’s before they will endorse a Prime Minister. Perhaps it’s our atavistic history that defines unabashed criminality as a passport to leadership.
What chance did a good Catholic man with a loving family and a clean slate have?
His pristine record was reviled, he needed to have had an alcohol problem, a wandering appendage or a dodgy banking record to qualify to lead we grubby Australians.
"How dare such a cleanskin covet the throne", demanded the media? "WTF can we write about now? Surely a wink and an onion will be insufficient to kill him"… and it was insufficient. It took internal treachery and betrayal to depose him as has been the political case since the Roman Empire.
Yet a stoic Tony Abbott, despite a hostile Senate, has reversed more wrongs in a short two years than any previous Prime Minister. And he did it with a wry grin that served only to further enrage the media.
I don’t share his beliefs or his religion, I’m far too average to be that good! But I still think he was the most genuinely decent Prime Minister. In my living memory, only a wonderful friend and mentor in Bob Menzies approached his constancy, ethics and faithfulness.
Now his slayer has a majority of one as a deserved millstone around his neck… he is neutered, impotent and unable to lead a once great Party to anywhere other than back to Opposition.
So, are we likely to see Tony Abbott emulate John Howard’s triple bypass? Andrew Bolt seems to think so, but I don’t think so.
He reckons he's no chance. And even if he is drafted? He can't see that happening either.
But didn't John Howard and Malcolm Turnbull say roughly the same thing?