'We have lost 30 Newspolls in a row'

Of all the things that have been and will be said about the latest in our cycle of prime ministerial changes, it is this quote by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull (get used to that) that defines what this is all about. 

Read it again.

'We have lost 30 Newspolls in a row.'

If you need to know how politicians treat their position, there it is. It is not about serving in office, as decided by the people; it is about 'winning power', about being in front at all times, regardless of what that means for the nation in the long term. It is about style over substance, even if that requires using the idea of substance as your style, as Turnbull seems eager to do. 

There is plenty more that can be said about this event. As I type, the Prime Minister has claimed that he is 'humbled' by his party's choice. This is hardly a shining example of humility. But, also occurring as I type, Turnbull is making clear that he desires a traditional Cabinet style of government. If he manages to balance the modern stylism with traditional Cabinet government, he will have done well.

But it is curious to claim that this was not about leadership style tonight, but instead about internal culture, after claiming only hours ago that the Australian people had pronounced judgement on the government...which is primarily, today, a matter of style.

'We have lost 30 Newspolls in a row.'

I suspect Turnbull will be hoping this quote disappears into the ether. He must demonstrate that his government is not purely guided by the polls, if he is truly about 'the future'.

Australia joining the air-strikes in Syria was only a matter of time

Last week we were told that the United States had formally asked Australia to join the coalition of nations bombing the Islamic State in Syria, with Australia already participating in air strikes in Iraq. Today, Fairfax reported that the Prime Minister's office had lobbied for the United States to ask Australia in. This has been denied by the PM and the Treasurer, while a spokesman from the US government refused to comment.

I don't see how it matters which country asked which first. ISIS does not care about national borders, so there is very little reason to engage in air strikes on the western side of their territory, but refuse to do the same on the eastern side. All it really achieves is that it allows ISIS more breathing space in Syria than in Iraq. How could it possibly be a big deal if Australia decides to cover Syria as well?

Some would say that the government is lying to the public if they claim that the US government asked for assistance, and that they intend to carefully consider the request, if they had in fact lobbied to join in in Syria. If this turns out to be the case, then they certainly are being loose with the truth. However, you would expect that they would only request such a thing if they believe the ADF is fully capable of doing the job. Furthermore, it isn't the same as asking to join a war. The war is already joined, it's simply a matter of how far the operations are going.

To be honest, I don't see how there is any way countries could realistically attack ISIS in Iraq but not Syria for a prolonged period of time. ISIS simply can't be beaten that quickly, and the ground troops fighting against them need support on all sides of their territory. There is no point wasting time on figuring out who said what to whom, and the fact that it is being brought up at all makes it sounds suspiciously like another leak from somewhere in the government.

The question that we should really be asking is whether we should be in the Middle East at all, as that it is a topic that is genuinely worth debating, and of importance both for us and for the world.