The ABC’s balance police have brought forth their first fruits.
A Difference of Opinion premiered tonight. It was specifically tagged as the ABC show that would provide “balance” after the new Board imposed policy came in last year.
Personally I would have preferred the original Gerard Henderson suggestion of a couple of demented ideologues shouting over each other. (That might be stretching Gerry’s words a bit, but I’m sure he had something in mind not too unlike the Fox News model of demented far right nutters ranting and raving with a token liberal who’s actually also a right winger.) I mean, couldn’t we debiasify the ABC by spending the entire current affairs budget on making Sean Hannity an offer he couldn’t refuse? (For those not familiar with Mr Hannity’s work, check out his show’s website for an idea of what constitutes balance in Foxspeak).
What we got instead was tedious piffle.
The robotic and stilted former 60 minutes presenter posed questions in the most simplistic possible terms. All the talk of “new arrivals” and the excerpt from some 60s film of “They’re a weird mob” complimented nicely the timewarp feel of the terms of the conversation. If the differences of opinion on offer were at all illustrative, as one audience member pointed out, John Howard’s done a superb job of winding back the clock. The panellists stuck to the anodyne and the cliched, ranging from the managerial multiculturalism of “risk analyst” Julian Heath to the polished soundbites of CIS Prof. Helen Hughes. Little of the political context was brought out, and few hard questions asked. Ameer Ali tried to actually ground the thing in reality by mentioning the post s11 backlash, while Anita Heiss had some reasonable things to say amid long anecdotes about how she was a fabulous example of multicultural success (go Anita! And love those red glasses, girl!) The point of the unfunny cartoonist entirely escaped me. Before they got onto their third discussion topic, I tuned out. I hope Janet and Gerry enjoyed it though.
Watched about 10 mins and then tuned out by falling asleep unitl the end. I would much rather a good solid 4 corners type set up where they get a few right wingers and let them at raw meat, as there’s plenty around. This setup was horrible so I have to agree.
At least they’re trying though. It’s new to them so we have to cut them some slack as they learn that the political center is not the Australian Greens party mainfesto and that Bob Brown is not necessarliy the face of mainstream Oz. We need to be patient and sympthetic like when an accident victim begins to learn the use their limbs again. I’m sure it will take a while to get it going.
It was so 80’s, wasn’t it?
I didn’t bother with it. The promos were dreadful (all that lame ‘asking the tough questions’ with the hands. Wow! Hands, people!).
And the subject matter – “Are Australians racist?” Yeah, no, whatever.
You missed a great pair of red glasses, Christine.
Kimno says:
“The robotic and stilted former 60 minutes presenter posed questions in the most simplistic possible terms.”
I stopped listening to the questions as I was trying to figure out if he was wearing a rug. Did you notice the back shots of his hai’/head. Like the upper was was this goldern color and the baseline was sort of 50’s grey. I didn’t seem as though he had highlights but the front part of his hair looked like it was fimrly attached to his scalp.
I’ll revist next week just to try and figure this out. My wife thought it was rug and then changed her mind. I’m very curious now.
The colour difference is probably due to the Brylcreem, Joe.
i caught glimpses. they were all far too articulate, or rather too practiced at speaking. what I like about insight on SBS sometimes is the way people who don’t normally have the opportunity to speak in that sort of context are given the opportunity to find a voice and the voice they find is cracked and shaky and often wrought with the utter and complete truth of what they are saying. I find it hard to believe anyone who says something like it has been said a 1000 times before, because nothing is true a 1000 times. If you get what I mean…
and, kim, where you been?
no, not really, at least I don’t think so. If he was using “product” (great term) and he obviously was it would have uniformly highlighted the entire scalp/hair. It would all have glistened up.
It was like the top/rear and the bottom rear wear two different colors that you only see when a dude has on a rug. But the front part looked real.
It could actually be a rear ended rug for all I know…. if there is such a horrible thing.
Hmm, I had a maths teacher at school whose white hair had gone a kinda sickly yellowy green at the front from hair oil…
glen, agreed about Insight. I’m not a huge fan, but having “ordinary folks” and pollies/academics/pundits/experts sprinkled through the audience is a better model than having a “panel” up the front to frame everything (already framed by the host that is…) The audience members sometimes showed some potential to make it interesting, but McMullen robotically insisted they “stick to the topic”. He should read some of the better blog threads!
I’ve been on a pirate skills refresher course
Couldn’t agree more, the show was piffle.
The comments from the studio audience were even more mostly piffle. The panel full of twittery, the compere pussyfooting around everything.
Ameer Ali & Helen Hughes both tried to put some substance into the show, but were outnumbered. That Turkish cross girl in the glasses only wanted to hear the sound of her own voice talking about herself, and the ex-army officer was a pinko.
Not sure of the point of the cartoonist, certainly he can draw a lot better than me.
Satp
That “risk managment” dude (military guy?)lefty was really irritating wasn’t he? He kept looking from side to side making silly comments.
She wasn’t Turkish. Austrian/Indigenous Australian, as she told us at one point when saying how “fabulous” she was.
Was that the chick on the panel with the red zappers? She was irritating as well. Friggen whole thing was annoying.
The old gal on the right looked like she ought to have been behind the screen getting ready for bed rather than in front and looking like she was gonna fall asleep. It was late for an old person.
She was the right winger, Joe.
Oh, I see, that’s why she was sporting a German name.
Just shows how much got lost by tuning out due to all her chattering. She was talking ninety to the dozen about herself, must have overdone it on the pre show dutch courage.
Though one look at her indicates there is more to her than a straight cross of Austrian/”Indigenous” (as she did point out, there are more than 300 separate ethnicities of indigenous Australians, & lots of them don’t bear much resemblance to each other)
The old gal? Yea I know. But red zappers wasn’t I don’t think.
No, she wasn’t.
Like I said, steve, she had some reasonable things to say but they got lost in verbosity and she did come across as enjoying the sound of her own voice.
Comment #1 by jc was a most apt summing up of the show.
Helen Hughes was great wasn’t she? A barrel of laughs the old chestnut! It was nice to see the revival of the “queue jumper” too, despite Helen admitting there aren’t illegal immigrants any more. Can anyone spell “politics of fear”?
Anyway, it was pure and utter crap I thought. The format is far too constraining: four expert panellists, a studio audience and (I agree with Kim here) an unfunny cartoonist. And, if they keep trying to solve world peace in one television hour (which equates to about 40 minutes of content in between posturing and posing for the camera) then it’s only the talking heads and their sound bites (e.g. Helen Hughes and her “queue jumpers”) that are going to make any sense. I could swear I saw steam and sweat ushering from the rug on Jeff McMullen’s head – poor guy was desperately trying to create some cohesion and foster a debate.
I’m sorry, but I think that the format coupled with too broadly defined topics will spell the doom of a Difference of Opinion.
If I had heard another cliche my head was going to explode. From “queue jumpers� to “multiculturalism is great! We have falafels!�, I don’t think a sentence was uttered where one wasn’t trotted out.
“The point of the unfunny cartoonist entirely escaped me.”
That was Warren Brown from the Tele. He’s a certified “funny guy” and ABC celeb in his own right, having starred in the ABC travel epic about the old cars travelling from Beijing to Paris plus his regular relieving presenter gig on the “Insiders” segment – “Talking with Pictures.” But the raison d’etre behind his gig last night proved elusive for me as well.
Surely the whole thing was just a less successful “Insight” facsimile. Geoff – questionably tanned, wooden, heroically portentous – was no Jenny Brockie. It’s actually really hard to engage with “Big Questions” in a five second vox pop format – unless you’re playing it for laughs.
This maybe is the decendant of ‘Monday Conference’ Does anyone remember it? The host was great. I forgot his name.
“Does anyone remember it? The host was great. I forgot his name.”
Bob Moore. Died of a heart attack in 1979, aged just 46.
Oh come on – Hughes on how global warming would affect North India and Southern China – creating a beneficial climate which would draw population to those areas – was brilliant. Classic comedy from Club CIS!
Yes, but nobody was laughing. What’s the point of a studio audience if they don’t get the jokes?
Loved the 80’s going on 50’s graphics, though.
And what is it about so called experts these days. Most seem to specialise in the trite, the cliched and borderline moronic. The comedian Helen Hughes was introduced as one of Australia’s greatest minds (marks for satire, Jeff, but I didn’t get it ’till later when she opened her mouth) and could barely string a coherent sentence together.
She at least knew what she was talking about, unlike the clueless studio audience, who all sounded like a doll which has just had the speaking string pulled & came out with a pre-prepared, out of context piece of twaddle.
Can’t comment on how her mind stands as far as being one of the “greatest”, but she is capable of thought, as opposed to trotting out conventional wisdom, & she would certainly keep most cliche sprouters on their toes.
they should run it out of a studio and in the public domain at different venues and then pick topical issues relevant for those venues. The issue has to be constructed to challenge the ‘audience’. Have the ‘expert panel’ consisting of various experts in the field across the ideological spectrum and have the audience challenge them.
So at universities and on government vs private funding. At rugby league club and on boofhead machismo sport culture. At some theatre on irrelevance of the high arts. At taxi depot on the apparent common sense genius of taxi drivers. At cronulla surf club on reactionary racism. At a drop in/emergency housing centre on homelessness. At a union meeting/trades hall on the uselessness of conservative unions. At an economics club or some shit on the structural inequality of the market. And so on.
Monday’s my ironing night, so I’m kinda forced to look at something on teev. DofO was so uncompelling that I got through the whole pile.
One moment was hilarious though, when McMullen said that they would be putting highlights of the program on the ABC website. That’ll be a small file.
Great idea glen. But then you couldn’t stage manage the whole event into balanced monotony, so beloved of current ABC programmers.
This is probably the not so hidden agenda of the balance push. Make the programs so damned boring that nobody’s going to watch or listen to them anyway.
Glad I missed it. Which is my response to most tv these days.
I thought that Andrew Urban? guy with his street interviews on SBS used to get a better feel for australia and australians of all body types even though it was a bit innercitysydneycentric.
They should change the name of the abc to innercitysydneycentric
I actually missed the promos for this show, so when it came on I really thought it was a repeat of a show that aired a few years ago, the arguments were that topical.
The ABC should have had a warning on Monday night’s viewing.
I drifted off to the quavering sounds of the 60 minutes guy with the rug and his inane questioning of the audience. The boom mike was making me dizzy as it chased the speakers round the room…
“I…bu…migrati…illegal!” was what I could hear.
Then I woke up – only to see Brendan Nelson’s massive forehead looming over me like an evil clown in my other nightmares.
And then I laughed myself to sleep as Jones pulled his heart out.
The problem with the thing was that they were so constrained to avoid the two-ratbags-shouting-at-each-other trap that they went totally the other way. None of the panellists argued with each other. Everyone and everything was civil – but they achieved civility by devoiding their interventions of content. And, at one point, I swore that if one more panellist rabbitted on about what a wonderfully tolerant country we are I would spew.
Instead we had the elderly right-winger saying we’re tolerant. The we had the red glasses woman saying “yes but Cronulla was a problem” and that was it. Powerful polemic it was not.
I have a vague memory of Monday Conference from my childhood with real arguments and people intervening from the floor. It wasn’t tabloid or anodyne – I can even remember some young bloke burning a draft card. Those were the days.
Feral audience members. Water pistols. Electrified chairs. Voting people off.
You know it makes sense.
Didn’t watch it and probably won’t ever watch it.
Jeff Mullins is so earnest.
Frankly, I’m so bored by those political shows. I sat down to watch Insiders on Sunday and thought to myself, “I’d rather be in church”.
I managed to watch a few minutes and then the talking heads came on (you know the ones who are experts on everything even though they’re only journalists and not scientists or doctors or political scientists or whatever), and I thought, “nope”.
No Steve, Helen Hughes gave a very good impersonation of someone who knows what she’s talking about. Her remarks on the possibility of increasing numbers of refugees as a result of climate change was a classic performance in that mould.
First dismmiss the question: “It’s a nonsense question because it’s based on a false assumption …” (not her exact words, but my best recollection of them)
Then equivocate: “… if climate change happens …” (insert a little doubt on the reality of global warming – a dodge astutely picked up by the audience member who reminded everyone that climate change is happening)
Add some irrelevant speculation and treat it as fact: “… then northern India and sothern China will enjoy a great improvement in conditions …”
Her conclusion: there’ll be so much room in India and China that the problem won’t arise. Unfortunately, when the discussion turned to the effects of global warming on the Pacific region, she was stuck – she didn’t have a pat answer to that one.
Like any good impersonator of the knowledgeable, she maintained a confident tone throughout this piffle. It’s so much more impressive than having a genuine point to make, but making it hesitantly.
She also showed herself as very adroit at interrupting others before they have a chance to make a point that might challenge her ideas – for example when she started talking over Anita Heiss on the subject of mandatory detention.
I don’t know if Monday Conference is the program I am thinking of, but while doing “research” for an essay at uni, I watched a program about the so-called Queensland difference. It was a panel show.
Old man Sparkes was in the audience with a very young and very beautiful Rosemary Kyburz. There were some stereotypical radicals and a lady who was worried about communists.
It was quite amusing, but probably didn’t prove anything about the so-called Queensland difference.
“Don’t you worry about that”.
Darlene, wasn’t that the show where Russ Hinze talked about ‘casteration?’
I disagree. On first glance it was better than insight and moderated better too.
The panel seemed to be mostly “left” though with the exception of Helen Hughes.
The audience concerned me I didn’t see any “real” people there – just people in suits and ties that seemed to be only from the academic or similar community.
I think you’ll find if it gets a few episodes that blogger Andrew Leigh will be appearing on the teachers/education issue…unfortunately Kevin Donnelly will not be.
Tee hee, can’t remember big Russ being on the show, and big Russ was certainly memorable.
The first satirical thing that ever stuck in my small brain was a magazine cover (Cane Toad Times?) featuring a cartoon of Russ drawn ridiculously fat. He was saying something to the effect of “I was raped”.
I think it might have been at the time Russ was accused of frequenting brothels.
I always remember big Russ with a smile on his face telling a press conference – “there are no brothels or gambling dens in Brisbane – the Police Commissioner drove me round last night and showed me where they weren’t.”
Difference of Opinion – what everyone else said. Boring as batshit.
Turned it off after 30 minutes to have a smoke and a drink. SBS’s Insight is a much livelier format, and Jennie Brockie, while annoying at times is quicker and less earnest than McMullen. It was awful, boring and I bet Helen Hughes (who looks as though she has sucked on a lemon) spent her time doodling while the rest of them were talking. The woman in the red glasses was a perfect advertisement for the limitations of cultural studies programs as proper preparation for academic rigour. She was just dreadful. And my very expensive sound system picked up on the sound of her jangly bracelet. The topics were so ‘earnest middle class concerned liberal’. WTF is going on with people’s imaginations at the ABC? At least you get a decent laugh from Fox News.
Sorry glen, but that is precisely what the show was attempting to achieve but failed miserably. Insight is more successful at this because of the calibre of the audience and the fact that experts are part of the audience. Plus, Brockie does a better job of mediating the debate, whereas McMullen charges through the topics with the subtlety of a Sherman tank. Admittedly, Brockie has a better format to work with. The reasons why the Difference of Opinion format is flawed? Too many topics of too broadly defined in too little time. The panel vs. audience thing doesn’t work because panels don’t tend to foster debate – they lecture. And with McMullen hammering through the topics, there’s very little time for anything. As much as one may get some insightful and interesting comments from the show, it still makes for bad TV!
Gummo: spot on with Helen! I was really concerned about her 19th century colonial view of the ‘indolent natives’ in China and India. I live in Alice Springs and have yet come across this pattern of behaviour. Sure, the labourers building the new Imparja television studios start at dawn to avoid the heat of the day, but they still end up having to work through the heat. I’m sure the Club Troppo mob would also have something to say on the impact of climate on productivity. She’s adorable because she expounds some of the most certifiably lunatic and laughable views in a most serious and earnest manner – she either makes you cringe to your bones or piddle your pants with laughter…or both…simultaneously.
Sorry vee, I don’t agree. It’s just that Helen Hughes is soooooo far on the right, she makes the Pope look left-wing.
Sorry Abend, I am going to state categorically that you are wrong.
The panel WAS very left. Also read comment #1 on this thread by jc. Helen Hughes was not coming out with quotes which could be carbon copies of what Bob Brown would say. That does NOT make her “certifiably lunatic” or anything of the sort.
The entire audience was a bunch of witless stooges, they only wasted time when adding comments.
The topic was too broad, especially for the time the discussion had to be squeezed into.
The cartoonist, while able to come up with some cute cartoons, which were disarminly witty, either assumed his audience weren’t up on ozzi culture, or else isn’t himself, as he seemed to think Bluey & Curley are a couple of “bushmen”.
I always remember big Russ with a smile on his face telling a press conference – “there are no brothels or gambling dens in Brisbane – the Police Commissioner drove me round last night and showed me where they weren’t.â€?
Is that true?
honest question, mark. And I would believe you if you said you heard with with your own ears.
Yep, Joe.
That’s why they called it “the joke”.
People like my grandma (God rest her soul) would still vote National because “Joh is a lovely old man” and was keeping Queensland safe from sin and Southerners, while everyone else knew what was going on.
“People like my grandma (God rest her soul) would still vote National because “Joh is a lovely old manâ€? and was keeping Queensland safe from sin and Southerners, while everyone else knew what was going on.”
Everyone else except “dont you worry about that Joh”and the Queensland Police.Still how times change, NOT,except the names of course the song remains the same.
Because of the A.B.C. and its meddling investigative reporters,most mugs would believe ol Russ was just a fat happy poly,and butter would’nt melt in his mouth.But seriously, the crime rate has dropped so low in Queensland the criminals and Police ,have had to lay off about a dozen Judges.
Steve: fair enough. Let me, however, clarify, by saying that I think the Australian (institutional) political centre is centre-right on the scale of all political ideologies. I’m obviously not going to back that up here, suffice to say, it’s my own (debatable) opinion.
I won’t defend my assertion that Hughes is a lunatic. I think it was harsh of me to attack the person rather than the argument – an attempted funny cheap shot. I don’t think it’s necessary to be a carbon copy of Brown to be a lunatic or hold lunatic views. Therefore, please see the comments here about Hughes’ claims about climate change in China and India, internal migration and productivity. Can’t wait for next week’s episode, if only because it makes a great virtual water-tank conversation topic
Maybe we should organise a counter-debate on the topic!
Gosh, the first time I watch TV in eons, & there is a comments thread on the show!
Abend, I managed to accidentally tune out to lots of the rambling on the show, but did perk up at those mentions of internal migration in India.
Was wondering how this related to “Racism in Australia”. The compere fell down on the job badly, allowing even the panel of tame stooges to waffle on & diverge from the topic at hand.
Hi Daniel,
I’m booked to go on the show in a couple of weeks – education is the topic. Hopefully, no spelling and grammar questions.
Kevin
abend:
vee:
glen:
err, sorry abend, maybe I wasn’t clear enough with my suggestion. When I wrote ‘venues’ I assumed that people would infer I was implying ‘venues, plus audiences appropriate for such venues’. It doesn’t matter what the issue is for a venue is the audience at the venue is disconnected from it (i.e. apparent in the ABC studio). So I was suggesting that the programmers need to find a way to lock onto the relevance of particular issues, and represent this relevance on television, rather than have a mere exchange of informed opinion. Topical issues matter because they matter for certain groups of people, not because of what some ‘expert’ knows about it. It is the ‘mattering’ itself that needs to be interogated and explored.
For example, you could get some right wing libertarian types top defend free market economics as something that matters. Or right wing reactionary types to defend the current immigration policy. The legitimations of their points of view are also legitimations of why the issue even matters in the first place.
vee, suits and ties? do you know any academics?
oh, and the show should be called “Legitimate?” (lol, yes yes pomo jokes intended)
Steve, I think this relates to what glen and I have been saying about the show: the format sucks. I would say it’s hard to blame McMullen – I’ve seen him do an alright job back in the days when 60 minutes had specials with studio audiences. My point is that McMullen’s abilities as a compere are severely restricted by the format of the show: too many topics, too much focus on the talking heads and cartoonist, not enough time.
Glen: I think we actually agree. My gripe with the show is that it seems as though the producers have – to continue the pomo jokes – made the medium the message. The format (i.e. structure of the discussion, venue audience) emphasises, in my view, the processes of the discussion, rather than what acutally matters itself. In other words, the format takes the focus away from discussing what matters and why.
The thing I like about Insight is that they do have experts, but they are part of the ‘lay’ studio audience. I don’t believe experts are necessary, but they can ground a discussion in an informative way. Therefore, the talking heads get their chance and the punters do not get restless, so long as the mediator directs proceedings appropriately. In the end you have a robust and dynamic discussion that makes for good TV.
It was almost as bad as “Vulture.” And that chick with the “ooooohhh, I am sooo fabulous! I have like 40,000 years of culture on my mother’s side. isn’t that neat?” Where’s your revolver when you need it?
Ummm, can anyone explain to me exactly why the ABC needs to be more “Balanced”? I mean we already have 3 networks that are just a little bit right of Hitler (7,9,10) and what about the ubiquitous Murdoch Press? So why exactly can’t the lefties have at least one media outlet?
This show just goes to prove that there is an intellectual void in right wing politics and that Australian’s are so tired of the usual right wing dribble we here from the pro-war, pro-christian, anti-anything non-white, that no-one cares what they have to say. It only gets interesting when people slag off at the ruling classes (e.g. the Libs).
dazza, you mistake the ABC’s role as ‘balancing’ when it is meant to be ‘balanced’, ie the Howard governement are all neo-Hegelians expecting there to be an expressive causal relationship between who is in power and the composition of the national broadcaster. oh, but hang on (lol), correct me if I am wrong but didn’t the Liberal party only poll 46.7% of the primary vote which means more than half of Australia is NOT represented by the government. so, in fact, it should be biased against the government 53.3% of the time.
This is just a devious strategy to stuff the ABC by creeping boredom. Soon nobody will be watching, but there’ll be little outrage or opposition because its happening by stealth.
Evidence:
Spicks n Specks – Some of us remember when the ABC used to produce comedy that was funny, as opposed to witless game shows that only think they’re funny.
A Difference of Opinion – what more needs to be said? Worst show.Ever
7.30 Report – Tired, predictable and devoid of any sense of controversy.
Insiders – Murdoch Inc
Australian Story – Turning more tabloid by the week.
News – As above
etc. etc. etc.
Dazza
If the Lefties want a network for themselves. They should do what the alleged “righties” have to do. Pay for it themselves!
Dazza
On this point I shall have to agree with glen’s sophomoric Foucault-flagellation. It is only lefty-luvvies who are obesessed with “racism” in Australia. It is a form of moral masturbation for them. Like all porn, I think it should ve restricted to viewing after 11 p.m. on channel 10!
I find it bizarre that people equate lefties with latte-licking, inner suburb, theatre drones when most of the ones I know (and by the way all belong to unions) are blue collar workers, e’g’ tradespeople types. Alas John, I believe that the right have a monopoly on sensationalism and lowest-common-denominator tv which is popular with the unwashed masses, so there may never be a leftie channel.
Oh, and by the way, my taxes go to the government so surely I should be able to have a lefty ABC if they are using my money to fund it. And since good Glen pointed out that over 53% of Australians didnn’t vote for Howard than 53% of the ABC shows should be left. Makes sense.
I agree it is bizarre Dazza.
Is it that non-lefties make this equation, leaving the fair dinkum (blue collar) out of the equation altogether?
Or that the latte-licking, inner suburb, theatre drones themselves feel they are the true voice of the left.
and there wasn’t even a fist fight……….pity
Your family is waay behind some of my front bar John. They opt not only to stop muslim immigration, but for total repatriation (forced), including Australian born offspring, to the country of departure.
Steve, what a great idea from the pub…here here….And you raise an interesting point too……if they were all made to go home, how would most of them survive back in their perfect muslim world/countries? …no beer, no welfare, no roast pork and gravy sandwiches, no premarital sex (read: gang rape)and if they actually open their whingeing mouths back home…….get stoned or shot to death. All this and shitty mobile phone reception as well!
Typical stereotyping of front bar patrons…no, I’ll shut up. It’s the latte speaking.
- and there goes the neighborhood
The front bar not noted for considering such details Jim.
…. I was going to say these blokes not exactly noted for their research skills,… which would have been putting my foot right in it, as their diligence in studying the form guide & associated texts would be a model for any scholar.
This is way off the topic, though I note that the discussion was started by one of JG’s usual profound remarks about “luvvies”. But I don’t want there to be any more gratuitous comments about Muslims and immigration on this thread. Thanks!
I feel I know your front bar well, Steve.
I meant in a good way.
It is however, only the front bar which feels this way, the back bar, with its significant contingent of muslim drinkers, (and louder jukebox) has never made a comment. Not for fear of some sacred cow or of offending each other, but because concepts such as religion/immigration are probably beyond their comprehension.
Interestingly, the front bar were horrified, and made most speedily an amendment of their repatriation resolution to “sydney residents only” when one of the more switched on of their number pointed out that a policy of “repatriate ‘em all” would necessarily include several local identities, as the town has a significant muslim quarter, most of whom are 6th or 7th generation local residents/Queenslanders.
Well the thought of repatriating Queenslanders from Queensland is truly a thought to boggle the mind Steve.
Having been a fairly staunch (but no less sensible for that) denizen of a particular front bar in WA, I think I’ve got a pretty fair idea of what you’re talking about.
Still, it’s all part of the fun. You pick the people you can have conversations with; the ones you can reasonably challenge; and those who, when they demand “what we need is a national strike to (insert reason here)”, you just say “I absolutely agree with you mate. Buy us a beer.”
Human condition, eh?