It was either going to take someone as bent as Abbott or someone who is capable of selling out any moderate ideals. We've got the second one.
This was the way Turnbull's PMship was always going to go. The Lib party is a lot more conservative than it was when he signed up - Howard and Abbott spent a lot of time easing the moderates out. That's why he got rolled the first time round - too willing to accept climate change is real and something should be done about it. The lib party room didn't want the leather-jacketed socially liberal technologically minded attitude that Turnbull projected when Abbott was PM. They wanted the approval ratings that Turnbull had, but the policies that Abbott had (with fewer self-inflicted gunshot wounds to the foot...). The lib party room wanted Abbott in a Turnbull mask. When turnbull challenged, he had to sell out everything that'd ever made him popular in the electorate in order to win the vote in the party room. And even THEN it didn't appease Bernardi, or Abbott, or the rest of those flakes, and when was PM and changed his tune on everything he'd ever believed in, surprise surprise, he's not as popular any more.
Truth be told I'm not sure there was a winning hand for turnbull to play, not if he wanted to be PM. He could have said to the lib party room 'if you want me to be leader then it's my way or the highway on policy' but then they would have replaced Abbott with Hockey or Bishop or someone and probably lost the election anyway and he'd never get a go. He could have let Abbott lead the party to the election, and the libs would have lost in a landslide, which would have meant that they'd lose a heap of marginal seats which would have weakened the lib moderates even further because lib safe seats tend to be in conservative electorates and have conservative MPs. The party room would have been reduced to a handful of conservatives in safe seats, and that mob would never ask Turnbull to lead. But instead of these options, he chose to bargain everything just to get his backside in the big chair, for a little while. Lose-lose for him. .
When hasn't the Liberal Party been conservative ? Nothing has changed from when Menzies started it.
It's got a lot more conservative. It's more conservative than when Fraser was PM. And he was more conservative than Menzies.
Can't imagine the LNP today voluntarily introducing welfare payements unless like Howard they wanted to buy votes. Even then they probably wouldn't.
Meanwhile the Labor party that used to stand for something has got themselves so bogged down in political correctness that they are wallowing in a sea of nothing.
yes but a sea of nothing will be at the helm after the next election!
The meaning of 'conservative' has changed a fair bit since then. And more to the point, the electorate has changed a lot since then, and they haven't been moving to Menzies-style conservatism. So even though 'conservatives' (when they can agree on what that word actually means...) make up a lot smaller section of the population than they used to.
When did the Liberal Party introduce any welfare payments ?
Family Allowance payments were a Fraser iniatiative weren't they? Albeit lost in a sea of pretty frugal budget years and cost slashing.
Fraser and Turnbull might actually be quite similar, in that their personal views may be largely at odds with their Party in key area's. I suspect Turnbull is facing a far more recalcitrant large-L Liberal party than even the previous Malcolm had to deal with. But i was quite young then and my views are shaped more by the memory of my Dad's opinions from that time.
Think you will find that it evolved from child endowment payments that started with John Curtins Government in 1941.
Liberal Government have made changes to welfare payments but have never started any.
Most welfare payments we already well established before the Liberals existed.
Yep. A quick google check.
Fisher government introduced a maternity payment in 1912.
Menzies in 1941 brought in a child payment scheme for families of more than one child.
Curtin the year later introduced Widows pensions and a coverage for the first child of widows.
A blanket policy of Child endowment was brought in in 1950.
It then evolved, changed, renamed at various times from then till now.
Here endeth a boring History lesson summation.
Boring, but at least there was facts.
If Menzies did it in 1941 before John Curtin was elected in 1941, then it was the United Party and not Let verbals which did not exist until after WW2.
I remember " child endowment" payments, as my Mum put all mine from when I was born into the Bank and at 18 presented $500 to me to buy my first car.
The one good thing Fraser did was up our intake of refugees from Vietnam.
But that's about it for him having a conscious from my memory
You're clearly forgetting about the Hotel Foyer / No Pants thing....
Didn't he claim the South African secret police set him up? As if fark Carlton supporters need to be set up in the "losing their pants" scenario.
I think the Fraser strides fiasco was in Memphis.
Fraser was more conservative as PM than Abbott. he mellowed a bit as dementia set in.
And you are correct about only accepting Vietnamese boat people because of our involvement in that " war".
Facts ! Facts ! Who is using facts in the politics thread ?
Fraser supported armed struggle ( referenced to Africa) , which today risks being classified as terrorism against the government in power.