There are indications Scott Morrison as prime minister sought to be a quiet Australian echo of France’s Louis XIV who grandly declared: “L’état c’est moi” – I am the state.
King Louis never said those words – grandly or otherwise – at any time during his long life.
The better analogy would have been ‘I am science’ Fauci…
Why is it a Stan Grant cosplay and why did you ignore the essence of Farr’s article
Anybody who has read a Stan Grant column will get the joke.
There was no “essence” to the article.
Farr is a bamboozled clown and has been for a long time.
Regarding Morrisons actions passing the proverbial Pub Test, no one in the pub would know what you are on about.
This is a complete Canberra/MSM bubble story.
If your not a political junkie and actually have a life, you don’t know and don’t care.
It just seems certain segments of the political class just have to copy everything the Democrats do in the States. Jan 6/ impeach Trump, lets have a trial for Scotty! Doesn’t matter what he’s done, the modern way is the old way: show me the man, I’ll show you the crime.
Riversutra
Doesn’t matter what he’s done, the modern way is the old way: show me the man, I’ll show you the crime.
More the Queen of Hearts way: “Execution first, trial later.”
This has now been modified to avoid the tiresome necessity for evidence at the trial.
Farr may well be a bamboozled clown. Morrison, though, has been a most dangerous clown, the kingpin amongst a pratfall of nasty clowns, all dealing treacherously with the nation. At least, that was the experience.
I prefer his brother, Jamie.
And, Snot, don’t ask what that means. 🙂
And, Snot, don’t ask what that means.
Well, you see, Tan Grant had a brother – Jamie.
Farr and his fellow left wing journos would have far more credibility if they applied the same sort of scrutiny and ethics to Stairman Dan, an obsessively secretive premier, who spends taxpayers’ money like a drunken sailor and hides it, and who runs a virtual one man, “My way or the highway” government in Victoria.
I find it extremely hard to summon up any sympathy for Morrison, a man who has, along with Turnbull, set back the Liberal cause many years, possibly irreparably.
Having said that, the MSM double standards are despicable.
Farr isn’t especially left wing. He is fat. Lazy. A drunk. He plays the politics of networks and favour without doing a lick of actual work. One of those folk venerated in media for his “experience” and so on. In short he rose without trace and likely will disappear in the same manner.
Passing Wind
Farr might or might not be “especially left-wing”, that is a matter of perspective. Perhaps you could define “left-wing”, so we know your perspective?
Whatever he is, he is over 70. Time to hang up his editor’s eyeshade, and go blogging.
BJ: I defer to your incomparable knowledge. Everyone you bump into seems to be left wing. Unless they agree with you. Or aspire to be the king of the US.
Passing Wind
It was you who raised the topic of Farr’s political position. I don’t read the Australian (sorry to disappoint you). Note also my exact words. I did not say that Farr is left wing. I don’t know his work well enough to say. You seem to.
‘Unconstitutional’ bombed quicker than the Pfizer Covid vax.
The entire “National Cabinet” was unconstitutional … and obviously unconstitutional … that tells you what the average Australian thinks about our Constitution.
There’s no power for any Prime Minister to take over other departments without the support of Parliament and at the very least that requires an announcement. We are a parliamentary system, and although Parliament can delegate power it cannot do so in a completely open ended manner, so was there any Act delegating unconditional power to ScoMo.
Prime Ministers more or less control all departments anyway, though, Tel.
One phone call and your grand idea is scrapped.
The office of ‘Prime Minister’ actually doesn’t exist in the Constitution.
Nor does Cabinet.
Morrison was a doofus on multiple levels in multiple ways but he’s obviously being set up here as the scapegoat for the generalised lawlessness (mostly by the states) during that disgraceful period. In some ways, I’m OK with that, though, because he actually should have stood over them and controlled them with all the means, financial and otherwise, at his disposal. Politically, however, the population itself was nuts at the time and would have sided against him. Even so – as I said at the time (and others) – it was a hill a great leader would have died on. Morrison wasn’t that man.
Parliament is sovereign and as such can create any office that suits the government of the day … that’s why we get Minister for Polished Brass, Shiny Shoes and Encouraging Homeless People to Wash Regularly … at any rate you know the sort of things we get. The Constitution does not need to enumerate such things.
Parliament is also a forum that exists only under public scrutiny … therefore although the government of the day can invent any kind of Minister for Silly Walks they want to … at a bare minimum must announce who has each delegated power.
I would have applauded Morrison for it.
It would have been worth it to see the smug look wiped off Stairman Dan’s face for one.
But as Sir Humphrey Appleby would say, “it’s a very courageous decision, Prime Minister.”
Morrison was more concerned about being popular than showing leadership and doing the right thing.
I don’t buy the argument that Morrison couldn’t have overruled the premiers on border closures, for instance, because the High Court would have backed the premiers against him.
Probably another fictional quote but on Albanese’s form so far, Morrison might have said “Apres moi le deluge“.
Indeed. Our media are so far through the looking glass that yesterday they were reporting in shock-horror terms that Morrison as PM had the final say on some project or other. I notice the same media have no problem with Morrison personally deep-sixing a gas exploration project.
there was more essence to Farr’s article than yours but that would not be hard.
Please notice Morrison’s power play was only to ministers who could make a decision without cabinet agreement. Morrison used that once perhaps twice we shall see.
Which is why the ‘Voice’ referendum will pass, probably overwhelmingly. (Always happy to be proved wrong on this.)
Just to belabour the obvious, the same commentators who are shocked…shocked at Morrison’s high-handedness have no problem with Andrews running a puppet ministry in Victoria, whose members are only trotted out when there’s bad news to be announced or as human shields when there’s blowback.
There appears to be a great lie at the heart of the attempts to discredit Morrison. That the appointment of Ministers is somehow a system the enables checks and balances on the power of the government.
The constitution provides no indication that this is actually the case and if the legal advice suggests that it will be a modern interpretation.
The senate was intended to be the checks and balances along with the institution of democracy itself.
Appointing of ministers simply appears to provide a sitting government with a way to create an executive that helps the sworn government execute their duties more effectively.
A compliant media and many gutless opposition MPs not wanting to be smeared, has made this an ongoing saga about really not very much.
Not to mention they have noting to say about Stairman Dan obsessive secretiveness.
The only reason we found out about the $75 billion (so far!) cost overrun on Melbourne’s suburban rail loop was because the government couldn’t legally stop the details from being released.