If Morrison, Turnbull and Abbott combined, would we have one functional PM?

Crikey readers never turn down an opportunity to vent about the state of Australia’s leadership, this time addressing Bernard Keane’s question about who, in fact, we are meant to assume is the leader of the country (with Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison jostling for attention). Elsewhere, readers pointed out that with all the noise of the Australian Research Council grant fiasco, it’s easy to forget that real people are being affect ed.

On the question of who is steering the ship

Nigel Abbott writes: Your line “… that few people in parliament have shown Abbott’s engagement with Indigenous issues over a long period”, is the most charitable possible view on that man’s relationship to our first people. It’s like saying “The torturer’s rapt attention shone devoted on his charge”. Except Abbott could never be devoted. Obsessed maybe. His desire always was and always will be to corrupt Indigenous culture. Indigenous people know and feel that keenly, even if commentators may not. The affront in the “Indigenous Envoy” stunt is how much further it goes than just the idea of Indigenous Australians not needing or wanting another white person acting as an “envoy”. After the harm Abbott’s done to black Australia, the appointments an outright insult.

124C4U writes: Can we trade in the three dysfunctional ones and get one good one?

DF writes: So now we have an ambassador to Indonesia, Gary Quinlan, and an envoy to Indonesia, Malcolm Turnbull. Widodo should feel chuffed. If only Indonesia could join the Commonwealth we could send a High Commissioner too.

On the continued ARC funding fallout

Griselda Lamington writes: Of all the pissant dumbfuckery this particular piece of bastardry is especially irritating. There’s a whole bunch of people who have worked their tits off to get their grant applications as far as the ARGC. They’re real people. In some cases years of work has been flushed so a failing government can get a brief headline and a quick rush for their rusted on constituents. It’s the political equivalent of beating up toddlers. What a hero!

What’s the point of research? Isn’t it about finding stuff out; finding out stuff that we don’t know? How does Simon Birmingham know in advance if the stuff these projects was going to find out is “useful” or not? Anyway, define “useful”. I can come up with a pretty good example of useless…

Send your comments, corrections, clarifications and cock-ups to boss@crikey.com.au. We reserve the right to edit comments for length and clarity. Please include your full name.