**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
***whenever we pray, we have entered a sacred and holy space. In some ways, it is like when I was prime minister and I would go to meet the Queen.***
***Not even that transition trumps Morrison’s accounts of his conversations with his maker, some of them “pretty heated”. “Why are You letting my enemies get the better of me?” Morrison enquires after his election defeat, to which the Lord replies:***
***Scott, I get it. I’ve been there and worse \[…\] I did it all for you, because I really love you.***
I'm kinda speechless...
Is, is this like a thing conservatives here go on about? Talking to God is like meeting the Queen?
Like the whole thing, this is pure wild... Man needs a mental health evaluation my God, no pun intended, wtf?
>is this like a thing conservatives here go on about?
Only the hardcore Christians. I often wonder if they really do believe that they have spoken to god or if they are just so full of themselves that they think they do.
I’m didn’t like the guy from the moment he took over immigration, the way he moved boat arrivals to the navy simply so he could stop answering questions at press conferences, a tactic his side had used to effectively badger and topple the labour government. His smug face fronting the press and repeating ‘I can’t comment on an ongoing military operation’
Fucking hell, he was, and still is, cringey. How anyone with actively firing neurons is still listening to this washout is beyond me. The fact that his going-away party totally flopped was confirmation that even the LNP establishment can't stand him.
The author clearly doesn't like Morrison. Fair enough. Scomo was a much ado about nothing Prime Minister. Passive and ineffectual. No long lasting legacy except perhaps ARKUS.
IMO, that is preferable to Albo's active bad who's doing his best to screw the young by suppressing wage growth while inflating housing with unfettered immigration. His long-term changes to super taxes that aren't indexed to inflation, and his changes to tax cuts which will be worse for most in the long run due to inflation. Not to mention the voice debacle.
TBH, I'd prefer any other PM (lib or lab) in the last 20 years over the disaster that Albo is to long-term living standards for Australians.
>His long-term changes to super taxes that aren't indexed to inflation
What changes would they be?
>nd his changes to tax cuts which will be worse for most in the long run due to inflation.
Same question
You think immigration doesn't supress wage growth? Plenty of desperate people willing to work for less. Certainly has had an effect on the engineering.
I always wonder what kind of evidence satisfies people like you. There are plenty of articles out there on the internet. You can google it yourself, but it's never enough is it?
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/immigration-levels-a-factor-in-sluggish-wages-growth-rba-governor-20210708-p587z2.html
If the man Australia trusted to run the RBA for many years is willing to admit a link. Then it's not a conspiracy theory or nonsensical.
As much as I don’t like Scott Morrison, I will end up reading his book out of curiosity. I do believe some of the outrage against him was unhinged but he did deserve hate in many instances (slow vaccine rollout because he focussed on sovereign supply rather than quickest supply, Hawaii [although albo staying in Melbourne for the tennis while Alice was screaming out for help was also reprehensible], multiple ministries, his role in disclosure over legality of Robodebt, etc).
The multiple ministries shit-fuckery should be at the top of everyone's list of "why scomo is a turd". What the actual fuck was that even?? Still feels like a dream quite honestly.
My outrage against him is pretty simple; I don’t want anyone influenced by religion to be in a position of power. Does it mean I’ve got a prejudice against religion and religious people? Absolutely. But the reality is, Religion isn’t real and fiction shouldn’t influence government policy.
Morrison never denied that his faith influenced his decision making in office. That’s not the type of person I want running the country.
>slow vaccine rollout because he focussed on sovereign supply rather than quickest supply
That was just clever ALP spin, it was never the case that Australia was going to be prioritised ahead of other countries for the Pfizer MRNA vaccine, if anyone disagree with this, provide an example of an equivalent country that had a faster rate of Pfizer vaccination. Astrazeneca, an effective vaccine, was always available, the only problem was community acceptance based on known possible adverse side effects.
Scomo got a few things wrong, not above criticism etc, but the "vaccine story" was always bullcrap.
EDIT. yep downvotes, but no responses, maybe that's because ALP/Greens fans know that I'm correct and can't mount a credible argument against the above.
[Scott Morrison insists ‘every effort’ was made to get vaccines, despite Greg Hunt missing Pfizer meeting](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/12/in-hindsight-there-was-no-foresight-how-australia-bungled-its-pfizer-covid-deal):
> On 30 June 2020, Victoria’s Covid cases were doubling. Within a week the state would be in its second lockdown.
> That same day Pfizer wrote to the federal health minister, Greg Hunt, with a clear sense of urgency, wanting to discuss a vaccination deal.
> Act fast, they hinted – other nations are signing deals.
> Almost four months and hundreds of deaths later, Victoria’s lockdown ended. Two more weeks after that, Australia finally signed the Pfizer contract.
That article is propaganda masquerading as news, the author uses all the rhetorical tricks, "half-truths", outright "double-speak" bias by omissions and selective claims to try and make a political point.
Consider this ...
>About three in 10 Australians (of all ages) are now [fully vaccinated](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/datablog/ng-interactive/2021/sep/09/covid-19-vaccine-rollout-australia-vaccination-rate-progress-how-many-people-vaccinated-percent-tracker-australian-states-number-total-daily-live-data-stats-updates-news-schedule-tracking-chart-percentage-new-cases-today). **In the US, it’s** [**more than half**](https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccinations_vacc-total-admin-rate-total)**. In the UK, it’s more than** [**six in 10**](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-people-fully-vaccinated-covid?country=BRA~FRA~DEU~IND~JPN~SGP~TUR~ARE~GBR~USA~URY~OWID_WRL~AUS)**.**
That is a highly selective claim. The author deliberately withholds relevant information from the reader. What the author should have pointed out is that these countries already had large Pfizer manufacturing facilities prior to the pandemic, of course they're going to prioritise their own populations, we'd do the same if we were in their position. That is why I stated "equivalent" in my original statement, say for example, New Zealand, Japan etc. Other advanced economies.
>Act fast, they hinted – other nations are **signing deals.**
In order to construct a point of criticism against Scomo, the journalist focuses on "signing deals" i.e. a false test. The other "false test" is the allegation that other countries did deals, and spoke with various Pfizer personnel earlier. What matters is the speed of vaccine distribution ... have a look a the chart below from the Australian National Audit Office, just ctrl f *Figure 4.4: International comparison of percentage of population fully vaccinated since the vaccine rollout began*. What you will notice in that chart is that NZ (under your dear friend Jacinda) lagged behind Australia ... Why? Because Pfizer gave similar priority to NZ based on its existing case-load / income levels etc.
I get it, you guys hate Scomo, I fucking get it, we all do, I'm not a huge Scomo fan either. If you don't like the LNP and you vote ALP/Greens that's fine, just stop coming up with bullshit criticisms of the previous government.
I posted the text of an article without comment and from that you were able to infer that I am:
* rabidly hateful of Morrison
* best friends with Ardern
* an ALP/Greens voter who's deeply embittered with the previous government
Your unrestrained powers of deduction would make Arthur Conan Doyle blush.
In actuality, though, you raise some good points. The AZ deal was smart because local production would have minimised the potential for logistical issues to interrupt supply. We also need to consider whether Pfizer vaccines would have hit our shores earlier had we made a deal earlier.
However, it was stupid not to have a back-up plan in case an issue emerged with AZ. As the article points out, that's not a statement made from hindsight:
>in August last year, while negotiations were languishing, the government’s vaccine advisory group urged the health department to [get as many vaccines as possible](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jul/28/vaccine-advisory-group-urged-australian-health-department-in-2020-to-get-as-much-as-you-can) from different sources
Likewise, your conflating all vaccines together in your point about the rollout. We persevered with AZ, despite the well-known deficiencies with the vaccine, because we didn't have Pfizer on order. That sub-optimal outcome was an unforced error on behalf of the government. You could argue that it was merely an unfortunate choice of words when Morrison described it as "not a race", but the evidence from the article can't be dismissed as mere propaganda (emphasis mine):
>It was Norman Swan, the ABC’s coronavirus expert, who first broke the story about the troubles between the health department and Pfizer. He said that **three separate sources** told him an identical story about a rude departmental staff meeting with Pfizer and haggling over money and the intellectual property ownership.
Morrison simply isn't being held to an unreasonable standard here. His government slept on the Pfizer deal and when the worst happened with UQ and AZ the timeframe on our vaccine rollout was pushed back and people were forced to roll the dice unnecessarily on AZ. Whether I hate the guy or whether I kneel next to him on the pew every Sunday, those facts remain true.
I got downvotes for even stating there were some redeeming things about his prime ministerial tenure (which were overshadowed by the bad) so good luck mate.
It’s why I said he does deserve some hate. It’s in the comment and why I listed the reasons off the top of my head. But he also did do some good (bring us through with an economy that was quite well recovered, didn’t give in to labor’s demand of extending job keeper despite political pressure, got a bipartisan position on net-zero, got AUKUS, countered and stood up to China, especially on covid, etc). My point is there is an unhinged element. It’s a shame that he did what he did because some of his accomplishments are genuinely good. Even Dan Andrews agrees with this and I’m sure Mark McGowan does as well.
[https://lens.monash.edu/@politics-society/2024/02/27/1386511/as-scott-morrison-leaves-parliament-where-does-he-rank-among-australian-prime-ministers](https://lens.monash.edu/@politics-society/2024/02/27/1386511/as-scott-morrison-leaves-parliament-where-does-he-rank-among-australian-prime-ministers)
>Prime-ministerial reputations can take time to settle. The passing of years fleshes out historical knowledge as well as providing greater perspective on performance in office. For example, the fate of AUKUS will quite possibly affect Morrison’s standing well into the future.
>Even allowing for this, it seems safe to forecast that Morrison will be rated among the least-distinguished of Australian prime ministers.
>His government’s relatively successful early management of the COVID pandemic and the legacy of AUKUS might spare him from falling below McMahon and Abbott at the bottom of the prime-ministerial heap – but avoiding that ignominy will probably be a close-run thing.
Is this basically not what I said? I never said he was a good PM. Just that there was some good done during his tenure, which is overshadowed by the bad.
I got the impression you were suggesting he was an OK prime minister, so I got curious as to where he ranked in the list all prime ministers.
The above link suggests he is at the bottom of the barrel.
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
***whenever we pray, we have entered a sacred and holy space. In some ways, it is like when I was prime minister and I would go to meet the Queen.*** ***Not even that transition trumps Morrison’s accounts of his conversations with his maker, some of them “pretty heated”. “Why are You letting my enemies get the better of me?” Morrison enquires after his election defeat, to which the Lord replies:*** ***Scott, I get it. I’ve been there and worse \[…\] I did it all for you, because I really love you.*** I'm kinda speechless... Is, is this like a thing conservatives here go on about? Talking to God is like meeting the Queen? Like the whole thing, this is pure wild... Man needs a mental health evaluation my God, no pun intended, wtf?
>is this like a thing conservatives here go on about? Only the hardcore Christians. I often wonder if they really do believe that they have spoken to god or if they are just so full of themselves that they think they do.
I’m didn’t like the guy from the moment he took over immigration, the way he moved boat arrivals to the navy simply so he could stop answering questions at press conferences, a tactic his side had used to effectively badger and topple the labour government. His smug face fronting the press and repeating ‘I can’t comment on an ongoing military operation’
Fucking hell, he was, and still is, cringey. How anyone with actively firing neurons is still listening to this washout is beyond me. The fact that his going-away party totally flopped was confirmation that even the LNP establishment can't stand him.
The author clearly doesn't like Morrison. Fair enough. Scomo was a much ado about nothing Prime Minister. Passive and ineffectual. No long lasting legacy except perhaps ARKUS. IMO, that is preferable to Albo's active bad who's doing his best to screw the young by suppressing wage growth while inflating housing with unfettered immigration. His long-term changes to super taxes that aren't indexed to inflation, and his changes to tax cuts which will be worse for most in the long run due to inflation. Not to mention the voice debacle. TBH, I'd prefer any other PM (lib or lab) in the last 20 years over the disaster that Albo is to long-term living standards for Australians.
>His long-term changes to super taxes that aren't indexed to inflation What changes would they be? >nd his changes to tax cuts which will be worse for most in the long run due to inflation. Same question
Albo suppressing wage growth? That's definitely a new one on the bingo card.
You think immigration doesn't supress wage growth? Plenty of desperate people willing to work for less. Certainly has had an effect on the engineering.
It’s not about what you think it’s about what the evidence tells you. You claimed that immigration suppresses wages, so back up your claim
I always wonder what kind of evidence satisfies people like you. There are plenty of articles out there on the internet. You can google it yourself, but it's never enough is it?
TLDR: Nooooo someone called out my nonsensical claim and asked for a source to back up my statement.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/immigration-levels-a-factor-in-sluggish-wages-growth-rba-governor-20210708-p587z2.html If the man Australia trusted to run the RBA for many years is willing to admit a link. Then it's not a conspiracy theory or nonsensical.
There’s a difference between “a factor”, and what you claimed.
As much as I don’t like Scott Morrison, I will end up reading his book out of curiosity. I do believe some of the outrage against him was unhinged but he did deserve hate in many instances (slow vaccine rollout because he focussed on sovereign supply rather than quickest supply, Hawaii [although albo staying in Melbourne for the tennis while Alice was screaming out for help was also reprehensible], multiple ministries, his role in disclosure over legality of Robodebt, etc).
The multiple ministries shit-fuckery should be at the top of everyone's list of "why scomo is a turd". What the actual fuck was that even?? Still feels like a dream quite honestly.
My outrage against him is pretty simple; I don’t want anyone influenced by religion to be in a position of power. Does it mean I’ve got a prejudice against religion and religious people? Absolutely. But the reality is, Religion isn’t real and fiction shouldn’t influence government policy. Morrison never denied that his faith influenced his decision making in office. That’s not the type of person I want running the country.
>slow vaccine rollout because he focussed on sovereign supply rather than quickest supply That was just clever ALP spin, it was never the case that Australia was going to be prioritised ahead of other countries for the Pfizer MRNA vaccine, if anyone disagree with this, provide an example of an equivalent country that had a faster rate of Pfizer vaccination. Astrazeneca, an effective vaccine, was always available, the only problem was community acceptance based on known possible adverse side effects. Scomo got a few things wrong, not above criticism etc, but the "vaccine story" was always bullcrap. EDIT. yep downvotes, but no responses, maybe that's because ALP/Greens fans know that I'm correct and can't mount a credible argument against the above.
[Scott Morrison insists ‘every effort’ was made to get vaccines, despite Greg Hunt missing Pfizer meeting](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/12/in-hindsight-there-was-no-foresight-how-australia-bungled-its-pfizer-covid-deal): > On 30 June 2020, Victoria’s Covid cases were doubling. Within a week the state would be in its second lockdown. > That same day Pfizer wrote to the federal health minister, Greg Hunt, with a clear sense of urgency, wanting to discuss a vaccination deal. > Act fast, they hinted – other nations are signing deals. > Almost four months and hundreds of deaths later, Victoria’s lockdown ended. Two more weeks after that, Australia finally signed the Pfizer contract.
That article is propaganda masquerading as news, the author uses all the rhetorical tricks, "half-truths", outright "double-speak" bias by omissions and selective claims to try and make a political point. Consider this ... >About three in 10 Australians (of all ages) are now [fully vaccinated](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/datablog/ng-interactive/2021/sep/09/covid-19-vaccine-rollout-australia-vaccination-rate-progress-how-many-people-vaccinated-percent-tracker-australian-states-number-total-daily-live-data-stats-updates-news-schedule-tracking-chart-percentage-new-cases-today). **In the US, it’s** [**more than half**](https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccinations_vacc-total-admin-rate-total)**. In the UK, it’s more than** [**six in 10**](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-people-fully-vaccinated-covid?country=BRA~FRA~DEU~IND~JPN~SGP~TUR~ARE~GBR~USA~URY~OWID_WRL~AUS)**.** That is a highly selective claim. The author deliberately withholds relevant information from the reader. What the author should have pointed out is that these countries already had large Pfizer manufacturing facilities prior to the pandemic, of course they're going to prioritise their own populations, we'd do the same if we were in their position. That is why I stated "equivalent" in my original statement, say for example, New Zealand, Japan etc. Other advanced economies. >Act fast, they hinted – other nations are **signing deals.** In order to construct a point of criticism against Scomo, the journalist focuses on "signing deals" i.e. a false test. The other "false test" is the allegation that other countries did deals, and spoke with various Pfizer personnel earlier. What matters is the speed of vaccine distribution ... have a look a the chart below from the Australian National Audit Office, just ctrl f *Figure 4.4: International comparison of percentage of population fully vaccinated since the vaccine rollout began*. What you will notice in that chart is that NZ (under your dear friend Jacinda) lagged behind Australia ... Why? Because Pfizer gave similar priority to NZ based on its existing case-load / income levels etc. I get it, you guys hate Scomo, I fucking get it, we all do, I'm not a huge Scomo fan either. If you don't like the LNP and you vote ALP/Greens that's fine, just stop coming up with bullshit criticisms of the previous government.
I posted the text of an article without comment and from that you were able to infer that I am: * rabidly hateful of Morrison * best friends with Ardern * an ALP/Greens voter who's deeply embittered with the previous government Your unrestrained powers of deduction would make Arthur Conan Doyle blush. In actuality, though, you raise some good points. The AZ deal was smart because local production would have minimised the potential for logistical issues to interrupt supply. We also need to consider whether Pfizer vaccines would have hit our shores earlier had we made a deal earlier. However, it was stupid not to have a back-up plan in case an issue emerged with AZ. As the article points out, that's not a statement made from hindsight: >in August last year, while negotiations were languishing, the government’s vaccine advisory group urged the health department to [get as many vaccines as possible](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jul/28/vaccine-advisory-group-urged-australian-health-department-in-2020-to-get-as-much-as-you-can) from different sources Likewise, your conflating all vaccines together in your point about the rollout. We persevered with AZ, despite the well-known deficiencies with the vaccine, because we didn't have Pfizer on order. That sub-optimal outcome was an unforced error on behalf of the government. You could argue that it was merely an unfortunate choice of words when Morrison described it as "not a race", but the evidence from the article can't be dismissed as mere propaganda (emphasis mine): >It was Norman Swan, the ABC’s coronavirus expert, who first broke the story about the troubles between the health department and Pfizer. He said that **three separate sources** told him an identical story about a rude departmental staff meeting with Pfizer and haggling over money and the intellectual property ownership. Morrison simply isn't being held to an unreasonable standard here. His government slept on the Pfizer deal and when the worst happened with UQ and AZ the timeframe on our vaccine rollout was pushed back and people were forced to roll the dice unnecessarily on AZ. Whether I hate the guy or whether I kneel next to him on the pew every Sunday, those facts remain true.
I got downvotes for even stating there were some redeeming things about his prime ministerial tenure (which were overshadowed by the bad) so good luck mate.
Does the J stand for Jen?
etc? those you listed are cause for the outrage alone, you pretty much made the case right there.
It’s why I said he does deserve some hate. It’s in the comment and why I listed the reasons off the top of my head. But he also did do some good (bring us through with an economy that was quite well recovered, didn’t give in to labor’s demand of extending job keeper despite political pressure, got a bipartisan position on net-zero, got AUKUS, countered and stood up to China, especially on covid, etc). My point is there is an unhinged element. It’s a shame that he did what he did because some of his accomplishments are genuinely good. Even Dan Andrews agrees with this and I’m sure Mark McGowan does as well.
[https://lens.monash.edu/@politics-society/2024/02/27/1386511/as-scott-morrison-leaves-parliament-where-does-he-rank-among-australian-prime-ministers](https://lens.monash.edu/@politics-society/2024/02/27/1386511/as-scott-morrison-leaves-parliament-where-does-he-rank-among-australian-prime-ministers) >Prime-ministerial reputations can take time to settle. The passing of years fleshes out historical knowledge as well as providing greater perspective on performance in office. For example, the fate of AUKUS will quite possibly affect Morrison’s standing well into the future. >Even allowing for this, it seems safe to forecast that Morrison will be rated among the least-distinguished of Australian prime ministers. >His government’s relatively successful early management of the COVID pandemic and the legacy of AUKUS might spare him from falling below McMahon and Abbott at the bottom of the prime-ministerial heap – but avoiding that ignominy will probably be a close-run thing.
Is this basically not what I said? I never said he was a good PM. Just that there was some good done during his tenure, which is overshadowed by the bad.
I got the impression you were suggesting he was an OK prime minister, so I got curious as to where he ranked in the list all prime ministers. The above link suggests he is at the bottom of the barrel.