Features Australia

Lord High Protector

The Liberal party has fallen into the hands of kleptoparasites

3 October 2015

9:00 AM

3 October 2015

9:00 AM

It is indeed ironical that the first policy initiative of a government born in treachery and dishonour would be about the honours system. Unlike Cromwell’s ‘cruel necessity’, this coup was a human manifestation of the kleptoparasitism found among robber birds who ruthlessly take over other birds’ nests.

The only reason why the Lord Protector has the keys to the Lodge is because of Tony Abbott’s dramatic resurrection of the Liberal Party and his delivery of policies crucial to the nation. These are policies to which the Lord Protector was strongly opposed and would never have delivered. Abbott is a rarity: a statesman with the courage to fulfil the leader’s first duty, securing the borders and defending the nation. Even Europe’s celebrated conservative, Angela Merkel, is an abject failure on this.

Contrast Abbott’s strength with the Lord Protector’s reaction to the merest hint of resistance to crucial Senate voting reform. He wilted just as flowers do in high summer, even in air conditioned harbour-front mansions. His suggestion of a softer approach to the border control achieved by Abbott and his team, Scott Morrison and the brilliant General Jim Molan, was received with delight by the world’s people smugglers. Then he astounded the defence establishment by appointing a left wing republican ally as minister. Consistent with Lord Monckton’s warning that global warmists would engineer a coup, an inquiry into the ‘homogenising’ of historical temperature records was closed down, with hints our CO2 targets may be increased.

On becoming leader, Abbott was forced into what De Gaulle described as défence tous azimuts, defence in all directions. He was the subject of increasingly hysterical and often lying campaigns not only from Labor but also from an agenda-driven commentariat with a direct line to a cabal of cowards treacherously seated behind him in parliament.


The commentariat’s assessment of Abbott is, unfortunately, correct. For a Canberra politician today, his character is wanting. He has long undertaken good works, of which lifesaving and fire fighting are but examples. His sin is to perform them in private. Contrast that with the Lord Protector, whose every condescending trip on public transport is recorded by an adoring media. In addition, Abbott is intensely loyal, clearly an outdated virtue. Worse, instead of merely mouthing the words of the Lord’s Prayer, he forgives his enemies. The commentariat was never going to let him get away with this. The Lord Protector knows how media approved political behaviour should be rewarded. Every one of those treacherous plotters, all with blood on their hands, has been rewarded with status, money and titles, even one minted for the occasion. These are not titles of chivalry. The miscreants sold their souls for the glory of being, at least, an ‘assistant minister’.

Which brings us back to the Lord Protector’s first policy initiative – to remove that scourge of the commentariat, knighthoods. It’s not that politicians are against knighthoods as such; they revel in them. The only condition is that they be awarded by anybody other than the Queen to whom they regularly swear allegiance. Both the Lord Protector and the Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition have placed this at the very top of their priorities, well ahead of defence, the borders, law and order and the economy.

In this they follow the commentariat, who had decided that the minor, gracious and fully justified knighting of Prince Philip was sufficient reason to incite a coup d’état. It is extraordinary that in not one of the more than forty countries which have similarly recognised the Prince’s many achievements did anyone in the media or politics bat an eyelid. It was only in Australia. The difference is that we live under the nefarious influence of a left-wing Canberra commentariat drunk with power.

As our New Zealand cousins have recognised, knighthoods remain an internationally recognised method of acknowledging those of the calibre of our greatest general, Sir John Monash, our greatest cricketer, Sir Donald Bradman and our greatest opera singer, Dame Joan Sutherland. In addition, by mindlessly ending the award of knighthoods, the nation will be denied a most useful and costless courtesy in diplomatic exchanges with friendly powers. If knighthoods remain the highest level of the OA, but are no longer awarded, we can hardly award the second class to a foreign head of state whom we wish to honour. That would be a diplomatic insult.

If the Lord Protector, Mr Shorten and the commentariat are so outraged by Mr Shorten’s mother-in-law being addressed as ‘Dame Quentin’, the solution is simple. Do what many countries do. Keep the highest level of the order, whatever they’re called − knights, dames, chevaliers, principal officers or indeed, first mates. Abolish the titles ‘Sir’ etc., or better, make them optional. There’s a precedent. Anglican bishops usually refused the accolade − being dubbed with a sword − because this used to mean they had to bear arms for the sovereign. That upset their wives who were denied the courtesy title ‘Lady’, as well as their congregations when celibate Catholic prelates were addressed as Cardinal Sir Norman Gilroy, Sir James Duhig etc.

In the meantime, we’re told the Lord Protector is enjoying a honeymoon. While polls in several countries have recently failed, sometimes spectacularly, to predict election results, those registering the boost from the coup are all over the place, from 1 per cent by Essential, 5 per cent by Newspoll and 12 per cent by Roy Morgan. Before he said the opposite to justify his coup, the Lord Protector would often insist that the only poll to take notice of is an election. He was right; just look at the Canning by-election. Pre-coup internal Liberal polling indicated the seat would be held by up to 57 per cent. So if there were a honeymoon, the Liberal vote would have been higher. At 55.28 per cent, it was lower. In other words, there has been no honeymoon at all. Except, of course, in the minds of the adoring commentariat.

It was always likely that the coalition would be returned at the next election. This is still probable, absent a serious recession. In such a case a PM who claims such economic expertise would no doubt be held to account. In the meantime, rank-and-file Liberals continue to be outraged by those treacherous and opportunistic politicians who like cockroaches have inserted themselves into the party founded by Sir Robert Gordon Menzies.They will not be forgiven. Expect that the rank-and-file will organise themselves to take back and to restore their party.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10


Show comments
  • Gramus

    WTF

  • Gilbert White

    Before we vote Brexit we need to know if the Australians are going to put up with Charlie boy who most Australians would regard with disdain. Australians might except William. We could have a Commonwealth in or out tick on the same referendum all politicians all over hate simple democratic principles. Abbott could be back via the Aborigines. Bemused by the faux muslims who went to posh Sydney suburbs asking for a refuge!

    • Colin

      Australians will accept the next in line to the throne whoever it is. Unlike the British, we actually voted to retain the monarchy and agreed to the laws of succession. Charles has certainly had a long apprenticeship, so should know by now how to do a good job.

  • lazypete

    Truly bizarre. Abbott was leading his party to a defeat, after benefiting from the opposing party’s lack of leadership talent. Unfortunately, there is balance in the Liberals.

    When promised a government of grace and substance, citizens expected more. Failure to deliver meant that Liberal politicians were exposed to the scutiny they ducked in opposition while the ALP circus show was playing. Indeed exposing the cracks in the veneer of competency is what pays media salaries. Solid boring competent performances don’t generate revenue for the media. Campbell Newman has yet to realise what a gift he was to the media, and Abbott was a gold mine that will continue to deliver.

    There’s a groundswell against the conservative class. Betrayal of the compact where capital and labour cooperated enough to lift their living standards will rebound. The gouging by the pirates and robbers threaten the basis of a stable society. Assets are only worth what someone will pay for them. If the assets are destroyed in a civil war, everyone loses.

    The notion of a honorific or suffix denoting a person’s worth reaches back to feudal times, not Cromwellian. The trading of honours for cash in the UK system is why we must kick back against the system. It cheapens the honour and renders it worthless.

    • Gilbert White

      Get real your head of state is an old Queen. If the husband of your head of state could not be honoured who could? Abbott should not have backtracked.

      • Colin

        Perhaps you should check the Australian constitution – we have one you can read. Our Governor General has all of the Queen’s powers, not delegated from the Queen, but granted by the constitution – a document fully under the control of Australians. The Queen can not review, change, counsel, or in fact do anything to a decision made by the GG. She has no say whatsoever. The GG is cited as the Queen’s representative, but it is the GG who has the power, not the Queen. So it follows that the holder of the power is the head of state, not that we actually need such a title on anybody’s office door.
        And I agree the award of a knighthood was warranted. Nobody batted an eyelid when the Labor PM, Bob Hawke, awarded Australia’s highest honour in the Order of Australia to Prince Phillip, but all hell broke lose when Abbott did precisely the same.

      • pocketfrog

        The Queen’s husband is not an Australian citizen, so awarding him a knighthood on Australia Day was a blunder that even Abbott’s media allies refused to defend. I think that was the final straw that brought about the February spill.

      • pocketfrog

        The Queen’s husband is not an Australian citizen, so awarding him a knighthood on Australia Day was a blunder that even Abbott’s media allies refused to defend. I think that was the final straw that brought about the February spill.

    • Colin

      A knighthood does not denote a person’s worth. It simply honours past achievements.
      I think Flint’s use of the Lord protector is apt in that the holder of that title, Turnbull, has fought a long campaign against everything royal, being prepared to ditch as many other traditions and links to our past as he can along the way.

  • pocketfrog

    “The only reason why the Lord Protector has the keys to the Lodge is
    because of Tony Abbott’s dramatic resurrection of the Liberal Party and
    his delivery of policies crucial to the nation.”
    *The only reasons
    *are because of

    You stated two reasons, not one. In any case, I can’t say that I follow your logic. If Tony Abbott dramatically resurrected the Liberal Party and delivered crucial policies, then why would they be the reasons he was replaced? Something doesn’t add up.

  • pocketfrog

    What’s with the “Lord Protector” nonsense? Can’t you even type the name Malcolm Turnbull?

  • pocketfrog

    What’s with the “Lord Protector” nonsense? Can’t you even type the name Malcolm Turnbull?

Close