Former ABC journalist Maxine McKew announced yesterday that she plans to contest the seat of Bennelong, currently held by the PM. She plans to sell her house in Mosman and buy within the electorate within weeks. Strongly supported by Kevin Rudd, she is almost sure to win Labor party pre-selection.
Mr Howard has held the seat since 1974, winning it in 13 elections, but his margin of victory has been declining.
In 1996 he won his seat with a two-party preferred margin of 10.1 percentage points. This fell to 6.1 points in 1998, rose to 7.7 points in 2001, and then fell to 4.3 points in 2004.
A Morgan poll of 400 voters in Bennelong found Labor would have won the seat if an election had been held earlier this month, with 55 per cent of the two-party preferred vote in the seat.
Howard is going to find beating McKew a really tough assignment, although Peter Hartcher argues that:
For McKew locally, as for Rudd nationally, it will be exceptionally difficult to unseat a reasonably well-liked Prime Minister during an economic expansion.
But the advent of McKew, like Rudd, is politically galvanising because it turns a foregone conclusion into a real contest.
Will it really be “exceptionally difficult”? I don’t entirely buy the breath-of-fresh-air explanation for Labor’s recent jump in the polls: there’s a deep, deep dissatisfaction emerging from the national subconscious, and Howard senses it, thus his uncharacteristic nervousness of late.
Back to Bennelong: if Howard had perhaps harboured visions of announcing his retirement in the lead-up to the next election while ushering a handpicked protege into extending the Liberal Party’s grip on Bennelong for another electoral term, who on earth could the Libs draft to contend the seat who’d have a better chance against McKew than the PM? McKew’s announcement puts any possible graceful retirement almost entirely out of Howard’s reach unless he wants his legacy to be accusations of leaving the Liberal party in the lurch in a marginal seat.
As John Valder just said on Radio National, this is sensational news.
More “playing with his mind” from Labor, and an arrangement from which McKew can only benefit.
Her biggest challenge, I suspect, will be that her face is probably more familiar to the Liberal voters of Bennelong than the Labor ones (though even this could work in her favour).
Plagiarised from the BBC’s “House of Cards”
Mr Costello, is there a danger Maxine McKew could win in Bennelong?
(Wouldn’t be at all surprised if Maxine received some of Ratty dirty secrets in an envelope inside her morning papers–a week before Rattus Extinctus day)
[BTW, off topic a tad, Ratty's Implied Quote of the Week on Cheney's "diplomacy"]:
McKew would be at very long odds to beat Howard but still would have more of a chance than any other potenrial Labor candidates. McKew and Bnnelong are a good fit.. She is a small l liberal in an electotate that is full of them.
A long-shot perhaps but a smart idea which capitalises spectacularly on the ever-dwindling Bennelong margin and also avoids the celebrity safe-seat parachuting which tends to irritate the party faithful.
From McKew’s point of view, it’s win-win-win.
If she defeats Howard, she’ll be the most feted Labor hero ever, and probably fast tracked into the Cabinet.
If she loses, meh, she can continue her very successful media and public speaking career.
Best of all, she doesn’t have to move to the western suburbs. All she has to do is move from Mosman to Hunters Hill, not exactly a hardship post.
She’ll do a lot of dough though in real estate agent’s fees and stamp duties when she sells and buys. Oh well. these are the acrifices one makes for the labour movement.
Hunter’s Hill isn’t in the Bennelong electorate any more (at least I don’t think it is).
Maxine is beaming, $weets is smirking and Rodentissimo’s right brachial twitch is as uncontrollable as a Strangeloveian reflex fascist salute.
How could anyone possibly suggest that Pixie Tin-Tin is messing with a mind as fine as that of the Member for Bennelong? A Federal Member who is above all else honourable, faithful and just to the constituents whose votes have made him what he is today.
Whatever happens one thing’s a given. (I so do love a good “known known”).
Max “The Knife” and proven brainstruster, Hubby Hoggie, arn’t going to die wondering how to slip the stiletto betwixt a bit of ageing costal cartilage.
How long may a House of Cards remain on a sandy foundation, Grasshopper?
This will be very very interesting.
Good pickup on the impossibility of a graceful retirement now as well. For JH to go out by the will of his own electorate would be sweet indeed.
It’s so audacious it’s almost silly. Much as I would love to see high flying media ace Maxine McKew win, on sober reflection she can’t just fly into a seat in the last 3/4 hour before the election, do all the hustings work like a seasoned pro and just win it. She may be well known, but her experience of polly work is zilch. She is up against a towering granite monolith who has been in that seat for God knows how long and has been in politics for God knows how long. Sure there might be a deep-seated dissatisfaction with Howard out there, but are you sure Tigtog, that a good part of your appraisal is not coming from some fantasy born of an urgent personal desire for change? There are loads of people out there – an entire wasteland of silent majority zombies in fact – who are quite happy with the status quo and all this stuff about bright new faces hardly blows ripples on the surface of their interest in politics.
She’ll be lucky if she almost wins it.
Doesn’t take long and irresistible ain’t it for some men to make reference to the propective female candidate’s hubby and her Svengali party leader, implicitly the main players here.
Tactical moves aside, Ms McKew will be an excellent candidate, one of the better candidates nationally for any party in terms of smarts, empathy, communicative ability,popularity and street recognition. Her candidacy in itself, regardless of outcome at the ballot box, can only give a big boost to the growing perception, extending way beyond Bennelong, that the power of this government is finally seriously contestable.
This is grave news for Howard. Poor thing, he’s been having a bad run lately. But says he will ‘work harder’. Oh PM, PLEASE DON’T. Its not as though anyone is accusing him of being a slacker, although maybe as the member for Bennalong he’s been a bit distracted lately.
He’s had a double whammy these last few days, with Cheney probably sensing his demise and assuring the preferred PM and everyone else, that our alliance with the US would not be damaged if we pull our troops, pulling the rug out from under Howard. My respect for Cheney went from 0 to 1 with this statement, not because I care particularly for our military alliance with the States but because it showed him looking beyond the palsy-walsy relationship between Bush and Howard into the future when neither of them will be particularly relevant.
Now can we not just get on with it? Maxine is an extraordinary person. Her role as an advisor to Rudd was heartening, now as a probable front bencher, as someone has alluded, — fantastic.
Megan, she may be something of a johnnie-come-lately, but a political ingenue is something she ain’t.
Enthroned granite monoliths? Hordes of faceless zombies? Been up all night reading H.P. Lovecraft, Megan?
her experience of polly work is zilch
She is married to BOB HOGG. THE MAN WHO WAS THE FORCE BEHIND MANY OF LABOR’S WINNING FEDERAL CAMPAIGNS.
I loved Howard’s response – ‘I’m going to work harder’ sounded like a concession he hasn’t been working hard enough.
Well it is a good day for $weetie but also for Sir Henry, an unashamed Maxine infatuate. Maxine would make a fine communications minister, who will probably give the ABC board a thorough tidy-up and disinfection.
As a credible threat to the Rodent, just watch the media sluts get going. I am so looking forward to Hendo’s next column (Hey Gerry, time to uncap a fresh bottle of poison ink).
The last 3/4 hour? The Federal election is a minimum of 6 months away, and most likely not until next year. That’s quite a bit of stumping time for her there.
Although her name recognition won’t be high amongst a whole lot of the recent immigrant population and non-Auntie watchers, everywhere she goes in the electorate there will be enough fans from her ABC years that a crowd will gather, and other people will see the crowd and come to see what it’s all about.
As others have said, her husband is hugely experienced in “polly work” and it was even speculated more than once during her time at Auntie that she was too closely involved in his work to be non-partisan, a speculation about the truth of which I have no idea, but it was made often enough that trying to claim she’s a naif rings very hollow now.
“give the ABC board a thorough tidy-up and disinfection.”
The ABC Board needs a thorough search-and destroy, not a tidy up and disinfection.
All this is moot, however. McKew isn’t going to beat Howard. The Labor Party knows this. The timing of the announcement was without doubt for Morris Iemma’s benefit. It’s given Labor in NSW a filip that should last for a few days.
Spiros: appointing a high-profile candidate to face Howard will increase his workload and distract him from his national responsibilities.
McKew might lose the battle but help win the war.
My initial thoughts here. I think Robert is spot on when he talks about the possibility of McKew losing the battle but helping Labor to win the war.
When people are put under pressure, they make mistakes. It’s hard to concentrate on the bigger picture if you’re busy with your own little turf war. Regardless of what John Howard says publicly, having someone of the calibre and profile of McKew challenging Howard in his own seat will put him under considerable pressure.
Bennelong may nominally be a safe Liberal seat, but it is not a blue ribbon Liberal seat in the same way that some other seats in the affluent suburbs of Sydney are.
Howard said work EVEN harder, for those who bothered to listen.
I’m not convinced that Howard is as vulnerable as the poll that was published last week suggests.
However, even if I am right, this is an excellent move on McKew’s part if she has a long-term plan to get on the Labor front bench.
Unlike Garrett, Delahunty, and Kernot, she’s not getting a safe seat as her first tilt. That gets her brownie points with the non-celebrity candidates who have to line up, vote as they’re told and wait their turn for pre-selection.
She’ll get publicity anyway, and even if she loses can claim to have done some hard yards.
Are the conditions right for a change? Is it Time? The SBS doco on Britpop on Sat night highlighted the role Thatcherism played in creating the conditions for the cultural wave that rolled across Britain in the mid 1990s, preceding the 1997 election of Boy Wonder Tony Blair. Got me thinking. Apart from their longevity, their arch conservatism and their radical social agendas, what else might the periods of Thatcher and Howard have in common? Surely GB was filled with Megan’s “silent majority zombies” just as much as Howard’s Australia, but Britain was not riding on the back of a record breaking minerals boom. Many would like to think It’s Time (and wouldn’t it be delicious to see the Little Rat in a Hat mugged in Bennelong) but if we were searching for signs of cultural revolt in the spirit of Britpop I’m not sure the indicators are there for overthrow of the Howard junta in 2007. Not while Australian Idol is still rating its socks off.
A 4% margin makes it nominally a marginal Liberal seat, Guy.
I’m with Robert and Guy. Putting McKew up for the seat will fuck with Howard’s plan, forcing him to spend more time protecting a safe seat. It also sends a very clear message to the Libs that Labor is ready for a serious contest this time – they’re even willing to put up a star candidate in a seat that will be incredibly difficult to win, because that’s how confident they are overall.
It’s a brilliant move.
If the ALP wins, Max is a shoe-in. If she fails to put the sword through the less preferred PM in Bennelong, she will cake-walk the seat when he retires soonafter. It’s a win/win, premised on a vote of confidence in Rudd.
(Re gregb, in a world where “Australian Idol is still rating its socks off”, television personalities are more real than reality, which is of course a good sign for Max.)
Kernot didn’t get a safe seat. She also took a marginal.
The previous likely ALP candidate for Bennelong (whose name I’ve forgotten – bloody McKew!) admitted on NewsRadio this morning that while it would have been nice to finally have a chance to knock off Rattus Vulgaris himself, Maxine would have a far better chance of achieving that aim, and was also pleased to see a high-profile candidate go for a tough assignment rather than the Garrett route of a safe seat – to use someone else’s words, to take a run up the middle rather than skirting the flanks. (No doubt he’s buttering himself up for a tilt somewhere else – Lindsay, anyone?) And, of course, having the megatonne resource of Hoggy at ready disposal is always going to be helpful – any bets on him authorising Maxine’s material?
And, of course, the Libs are whining that a journalist should stay clear of politics – just as they did with Mary Delahuntly back in 1998 (unsurprisingly after she tore Kennett a metaphorical new arsehole on air), and pretty much every other journo that’s had a tilt. Probably hasn’t stopped them from keeping schtum when a hack has a tilt in Tory colours, though.
Still, it great seeing the Libs runing around with brown trousers again – better back up with regular truckloads of Napisan from now until election day!
True, but then whinged about it on national TV on election night, which is even less palatable to the non-celebrities.
This is a most encouraging development for those of us thirsting for a change of government. Labor is awash with talent and strategy, all the Libs have going for them is a minerals boom not of their making, and great swathes of voters they have alienated with their extremist social engineering.
Last election Bennelong was one of the few seats that swung to Labor (swing of about 3.38%).
One part of this was a swing to the Greens with high profile Andrew Wilkie (16.37% of primary vote) who is running in the Senate this time. The John Valder led-moderate liberal spoiler campaign also helped – heavily backing the Greens. (and 1000 Green 1st preference votes went back to Howard)
The Labor candidate Nicole Campbell was a local councillor ran a very good campaign on the scent of an oily rag and a bit of the on the ground smarts.
She was also nominated by Andrew Leigh as the sexiest candidate in his December’s Beautiful Politician piece which got some run in the Age and Sydney Morning Herald. (and as the ALP candidate in Epping for the state election is argueably the NSW State Elections sexiest candidate)
The real story in Bennelong is that Labor needs to eat into the Liberal’s primary vote – even with the redistribution it needs roughly 3000 people who voted Howard 1st preference last time to vote ALP this coming election.
OK she didn’t come down with the last political shower, but Tigtog and Link – what about all the doorknocking? What about all the visiting and the handshaking and the hobnobbing with the movers and shakers in the locality, the listening to all the little people in Bennelong that Howard has done over the years? What about all the accumulated intimate knowledge that Howard has amassed of his electorate in 30 years of representation? And I mean you can hardly say this man is complacent or lazy either. When he says he is going to work even harder for the electorate, it means working harder than just hard.
I sent Howard a letter about his industrial relations agenda (now looming as work choices) when lived there in the 1990s (before he became prime minister), asking him about what was in it for women. In reply I got a personally signed letter and a detailed copy of his said industrial relations policy – AND he wrote an article in the Sydney Morning Herald specifically spruiking the supposed advantages for women in his brave new(old) world (more flexibility for families rhubarb, rhubarb – As you can see from recent stats, women get an appalling deal). And I was just a tree hugging left wing maniac. I shudder to think what it might have been like if I was a swinging voter. He would have been all over me like an octopus.
So do you see what I mean? This wily old Luftwaffe air pilot circles continuously and tirelessly and it’s really asking a lot for even Maxine McKew to collect her licence, don her flying togs, loop the loop and gun him down in what really is 3/4 hour to his 30 odd years. A four percent margin is really quite high for an incumbent like Howard. For instance Beazley was battling razor thin margins in his electorate for years and he always managed to muddle through. I think there’s a case for her going to a 2 percent marginal seat because it would be a shame if her unique talents were wasted.
ALL VERY GOOD COMMENT SO FAR ABOUT MAXINE MCKEW.
I WISH HER ALL THE BEST OF THE BEST AND GOOD LUCK ON HER NEW JOURNEY.. SHE IS VERY CLEVER, INTELLIGENT AND PROFESSIONAL.
THE LABOR PARTY IS VERY MUCH RICHER WITH MAXINE AS CANDIDATE.
ONE THING THOUGH, AS WE ALL KNOW, ONCE A MEMBER OF A POLITICAL PARTY, ONE’S OWN FREE THOUGHTS AND SPEECH WILL BE SOMEWHAT CURTAILED BY PARTY CONSTRAINTS WHICH MAY TAKE MAXINE A LITTLE GETTING USED TO.
YOU HAVE COMMENCED THE HARD WORK OF POLITICS AND CONGRATULATIONS TO YOU FOR TAKING IT ON!!
ELIZABETH
Megan – 6 months is an incredibly long time in politics. Here in WA we just preselected the candidates for the marginal seats we intend to win last week.
One of the reasons McKew is running is because of a change in mood of the electorate. I doubt a year of doorknocking before that mood change would have made any difference. More than 6 months out from an election it’s about name recognition and she already has that.
As well, she’ll be working on this campaign basically full-time from now until election day. Some candidates may start earlier, but they’re usually doing it around their day job.
John ‘ratty’ Howard may well the political genius of his time, but he is now pitted against McKew AND Rudd AND Hogg. This is going to be a lot of fun.
I think that while the times may well have suited him up till now, that ‘aint no longer the case.
Sit back and enjoy
As I’ve said elsewhere, the key is McKew’s ability to fit to the area. It’s one thing to network around the corridors of Parliament House, but does she actually like ordinary people? Will she rub people up the wrong way? Can she handle an avalanche of shit, not as a spectator but a target? Answer those questions and McKew’s future in Bennelong (as goes Bennelong, so goes … etc.) becomes clearer.
Matt Price doesn’t see the difference between high-level and grassroots politics, fnaar!
If Howard does quit before the election (and I hope he does) it will be on health grounds, either himself or Jeanette. I can hear the speech now, bitterly regret not being able to carry on, unfinished agenda, great leader to take his place, wish the party well for the future blah, blah.
One thing for sure if the polls continue on as they are say up to August, both nationally and in Bennelong, Howard will be feeling very sick. His ego would not allow him to go into an election he was certain to lose. Maybe the party would dump him anyway in those circumstances but I don’t see a comparison to Hawke taking over from Hayden at the last minute.
According to Glenn Milne, the ALP is enjoying staggering success appealing to business, having already sold out its quota of $6,500 seats at the party’s national conference, and preparing to sell a second round.
This might translate into support for McKew even among traditional busines voters in Howard’s electorate. I think McKew’s success, good looks and pleasant persona would all encourage this. And among north-shorers, a Mosmanite is regarded as a fellow traveller.
I don’t think I fully agree. Rudd has done a great job of simultaneously emulating and differentiating Howard on strategically key issues. He has, for example, emulated Howard on economic management, thus diffusing this as a Liberal strength and bolstering his cred as a reliable leader. He has distanced himself, for example, on Iraq in a measured fashion (well, compared to Howard, at least), which has helped the electorate see his moral leadership. McKew’s preselection for Bennelong is more than good strategy, as everyone has been mentioning. It demonstrates that Labor is both serious about winning and acting like they can do it. Rather than present themselves as an opposition party, they are presenting themselves as a party deserving and capable of office. Something they have been thoroughly incapable of doing in previous campaigns.
Its a real blow for Howard. Even if McKew doesn’t actually win the seat Howard is gonna have to spend a lot more campaign time and energy in Bennelong, which will really hamper him elsewhere.
rossco, I’ll believe Howard quits when I see it. Both he and Janette love his job, and his stubbornness/tenacity is legendary. He’d genuinely rather lose than resign.
That Costello has dreamt for years of a Howard retirement just goes to show what a poor judge of character Costello is.
“Rather than present themselves as an opposition party, they are presenting themselves as a party deserving and capable of office. Something they have been thoroughly incapable of doing in previous campaigns.”
This is quite true. Rudd is positioning the Labor Party as a party of grown ups, which certainly wasn’t the image being projected when Latham was leading it.
Unusual! the Terrograph is running political commentary on the story. In a multi-media clip Malcom Farr reckons Maxine McKew is not just there as a candidate – but to add some ‘glamma’ to the Rudd image and you can be sure there’ll be a lot of photos of the two of them between now and the election….He seems to be of the argument that Labor reckons it will be a long shot, whether she is a North Shore lady who lunches or not. I wonder if some detractors will be crying out ’stunt!’ soon? Oh, but what a daring and magnificent one!!!
I can’t escape thinking it’s silly to put ‘celebrity candidates’ into marginal seats (like Kernot and David Hill in 1998, and Kernot’s then opponent Rod Henshaw.) McKew will be spending all her time doing the ‘local candidate for local people’ thing and not participating in the “national campaign”, or vice-versa. It’s not possible to do both when you’re trying to win a seat off the government.
d
Darryl, I doubt they are treating it as a truly marginal seat. On paper it is, but not in real life. I think it’s Rudd’s more intelligent, less absurd version of a crazy-brave attack on Howard. He’s saying we have so many great candidates that we can run someone as high-profile as McKew in your seat. That’s how good we are…
This isn’t Kernot Mark II
I agree with Peter at Mumble
Wishful thinking.
Sympathy? For the Man of Steel?
Furthermore, even if he did get sympathy, it would be the last thing he’d want – it’d just play into the emerging “Howard off his game” narrative.
Surely, as everyone says, this is a move to force Howard to fight on both the Eastern and Western Fronts at the same time. McKew will give it a red-hot go, no doubt, but she won’t be blamed if she loses – as long as she brings the fight to Howard.
Until recently I’d agree with Megan but over the last couple of months I’ve sensed a return to the error-prone John Howard of the 1980s. I’ve never bought the Master Politician of His Age nonsense, anyone who took 12 years to persuade his party that he was a capable leader is no wonder man. He’s been suited by the times and had some incredible luck, but the times have changed and his luck seems suddenly to have turned bad.
After 30 years circling the old Luftwaffe pilot might finally be losing a bit of enthusiasm for the fight, there’s a nasty knock in the motor and just maybe he’s had one too many boozy nights in the officers’ mess.
What is going to be thrown at her? She has been in the public eye for decades, can handle anything, has no damning secrets, and an impeccable cv. She is a vocal feminist, a great female role model, has one of the smartest lateral-thinking brains in politics and the media and the ability to communicate depths of perception and insight that are beyond most political candidates, particularly male. Many know all this, especially in a seat like Bennelong.
MM could win the seat and perhaps is the only person who could. Shame that it takes a non-ALP member (until recently) to pull something like this off, but then the moribund ALP hasn’t been attracting talent for yonks.
As for door-knocking and the like: I doubt that MM would need to. Anyway, who would be home? Point is, everyone knows she is running already and why. Her campaign will be one of the most scrutinised in the country. And she knows exactly how to pitch her media campaign and has plenty of allies in the MSM too.
Exactly. And apparently someone is spreading the rumour that Steve Waugh is thought by some to be going to run in Bennelong too.
I haven’t heard yet of the rumour that Terry Hicks is going to run as an independent (but then I can’t be expected to have heard of everything that’s happening, so maybe there is a rumour.)
The more the merrier. Howard is in deep trouble. The Greens need a star candidate. Tim Flannery?
And The Democrats? Jamie Dury?
Howard’ll be lucky to get his deposit back.
“He’s saying we have so many great candidates that we can run someone as high-profile as McKew in your seat. That’s how good we are…”
Oh please. If that’s the underlying message, they should just announce their campaign slogan is “Kevin Rudd: You just don’t understand how smart he is” and get it over with.
d
Is Maxine’s hide thick enough to handle what’s about to be thrown at her? Would anyone’s be? Tony Abbott’s on the phone to someone or other as we speak.
Heh. As a sidelight, I noticed that Rudd has been sitting on this for two weeks. What does he do? He released the item as a breaking story in time for Sunday night’s ABC News, sweeping the front page and Monday news cycle, which is notoriously slow in Australia due to the lack of nothern hemisphere feed. It’s now the only story in town.
Howard’s hide is very thick, there’s no doubt about that; but if this is a sign of the wrong-footing to come, it will have to be to handle what’s apparently about to be thrown at him.
Ken_L – If that is true, I want to see it in slow motion!
But seriously, I didn’t mean to say he is super ace or anything like that legendary German daredevil fighter pilot was. Just that he’s very assiduous at keeping people happy and is always working on it. That’s why I say Maxine is up against a lot. However if she loses this time (hopefully having nicked his plane and he sustains some serious injuries in his blackened spiralling plunge downwards) she’ll parachute to earth, join the Resistance forces and snap up the seat if he goes for the honorable discharge, having limped home for the last time…
Well sarcasm is always helpful, Darryl.
This sends a message of confidence, of belief that Labor can win the election and that we can even take the fight to Howard in his own territory.
If you can’t see how that differs from the interpretation you’ve just given, well…
I don’t think this is about getting McKew into Parliament (although I’m sure everyone involved would be thrilled if that happens). It’s bigger than that, and admonishments about star candidates always needing to be given safe seats completely misses the point.
Andrew Wilkie got a 12.5% swing against Howard for the Greens last year and 2.5% of that came from the ALP. That tells us that a high profile candidate would work in Bennelong. Factor in the fear and loathing. Now, Maxine is not only an ALP candidate but a high profile one and a woman with spirit, as Mr O’Reilly told Sybil.
The Rodent holds the seat with a 3.2% majority, not 4%. Ryde is held by the ALP in the state parliament with a huge majority which swung decisively in its favour.
My bet is she will take him out if the Green preferences hold. You heard it here first. Go Max, you Good Thing!
I think McKew is headed into Parliament, one way or another. She will win Bennelong in 2007, or if by chance Howard prevails, it is only a matter of time before he hands over to Costello (or Turnbull). Bennelong is then subject to by-election, which McKew probably wins.
From there it a likely quick ascendancy to Labor’s frontbench (hopefully in a Labor government).
Bad timing on Pauline’s part!
Pauline who?
“This sends a message of confidence, of belief that Labor can win the election and that we can even take the fight to Howard in his own territory.
If you can’t see how that differs from the interpretation you’ve just given, well…”
maybe I’m too cynical or something Anna, but I read your description as a message of over-confidence. Labor has half a dozen deadweight, going-nowhere backbenchers in safe as houses seats in Sydney, right? Yet they’re gambling a ’star’ candidate in a seat they may not (probably won’t?) win. It looks like needless waste.
Maybe our disconnect is explained in your sentiment that ‘this is bigger than getting a candidate elected’. As I see it, there nothing more important in an election than getting your candidates elected. Everything else is misdirected effort.
But I’m a simple man, who’s never won an election nor worked on a winning campaign (although I got a bigger swing than Kevin did in 2004. Thank-you ballot order ;^). I hope it works out, but i don’t like it so far…
d
He’s got command of a Fokker, but the long runways he’s used to are under attack. The fuel supplies (Islamophobia, Terrorphobia and Economic Liebensraum) are running short.
Now Maxine the Merciless Ace has got him in her sights for a rat-a-tat-tat… simple as ABC, —could be a sitting rat who has ruled the skies for so long…but wait, is he going for a bail-out, is that shoulder twitching nervously as he clips on the parachute? Base Commander Costello packed that economical parachute, will it work? Is rat-cunning enough to get him out of this scrape?
Will Maxine shoot that Fokker or just clip his wings???
Stay tuned for the next exciting episode…
“My bet is she will take him out if the Green preferences hold”
Not a chance. Howard is the Prime Minister, for heaven’s sake. There is no way known the good people of Bennelong will vote out the Prime Minister. Never. Not in a million years. Not even if was facing charges a la Orkopoulos.
A reality check is needed here. The country is in the midst of unprecedented prosperity. The stock market is up and unemployment is down. No amount of wishful thinking by activists who are (quite rightly) angry about Iraq, the treatment of David Hicks, children overboard and Howard’s myriad other Crimes Against the People means that the PM is going to lose the general election, much less his own seat.
It’s time to get a grip on reality.
SHC, maybe the Greens could withhold direction of preferences in Bennelong till the Howard Government signs the Kyoto Protocol. Al Gore gets to pass him the document for scrathing “Live” before the cameras or the deals off.
I do hope poor Janette is coping with the prospect of possible change. C of A’s are such a pest. Nothing but a distraction from her from tireless fund-raising efforts on behalf of her fellow human beings. But stand by her man she will, as she has, in this, and oodles of other crises. Besides, that AB friggin’C were always going to be trouble. She was right all along.
Sir Henry, it’s not highly useful to compare State and Federal seats for any given geographical area, especially in Western Sydney. NSW voters tend to like it both ways.
Whoa, Tony, I really disagree. Bennelong’s a very different social strata, proudly suburban rather than metropolitan. In fact I have a feeling that the word ‘Mosman’ might just end up being used to the same purpose as ‘The Member for Vaucluse’ is now working wonders for Peter Debnam. Never underestimate the finely-honed inter-snobbery of the Sydney real estate-owning class (aka homeownersexuals).
Derrida derider hit the nail on the head, by the way—a better analogy might be McKew as the lead pilot of the intercepting flight that forces Howard’s Dawn Patrol to decide between engaging at the risk of running low on fuel, and jettisoning excess ordnance and heading for base and safety.
<nasal>Tallyho!</nasal>
I adore Maxine MacKew and as the Dear Leader of Luvvies R Us, she has an excellent chance of winning a borgeois seat like Bennelong. And the poor dear doesn’t have to risk having some working-class bogan spill his tinnie of VB all over her Armani suit!
You Go Girl!
Daryl, I’m not “over-confident�. I’m just putting my opinion forward, which is that I think the whole star-candidates-should-get-safe-seats thing is an oft-repeated truism that I don’t believe applies here. It isn’t the point of the exercise.
As for “wasteful� – the announcement alone was huge news. The media will follow the campaign and the story will be about not only Howard’s chances of becoming PM, but about his chances of keeping his own seat. That sort of speculation will probably rattle him – which is great – but also, it will influence his message, and change the terms on which he fights the election. It helps reinforce the idea that Howard should have gone already…
Not a chance. Howard is the Prime Minister, for heaven’s sake. There is no way known the good people of Bennelong will vote out the Prime Minister. Never. Not in a million years. Not even if was facing charges a la Orkopoulos.
We need many more comments like this. Max must stay the underdog to ensure her best chance, and this sublimely arrogant level of certainty about the utter invincibility of the less preferred prime minister is pure political gold. Thanks Spiros. Go Max.
Sorry Anna – I didn’t mean to suggest that you personally are over-confident. If your description of Labor’s message is accurate, then Labor’s message is one of over-confidence and I think voters will see that and they won’t like it. And the ‘wastefulness’ is wasting a ‘prize’ candidate like McKew in a seat she probably won’t win. If her value is maximised by a few days of publicity six or more months out from the election, and the occasional ‘colour’ story then OK. If she can keep the PM discombobulated for half a year, terrific. But I’m not sure either of those things are true.
d
I’ve got some sympathy with Darryl. While Chris Sheil believes that Labor won’t be perceived as the underdog until the punditariat declare it so -
http://www.clubtroppo.com.au/2007/02/24/underdog-rides-a-bandwagon/
I think the perception of over-confidence (which I’m not attributing to Anna, but it’s a theme that’s out there – cf. Howard’s “full of himself” comments last week) is dangerous. There’s a fine line between appearing ready for government (which ALP oppositions haven’t looked like in the past) and being vulnerable to the attack that the government will make – Rudd already acts like he’s PM and he’s taking the electorate for granted.
That’s why I think the shuttle diplomacy with the premiers last week was a mistake. In my view, it would have been better to have come up with an alternative policy approach.
1. It’s been a while since Bennelong was a safe Liberal seat. It now includes the housing commission belt in Gladesville, meadowbank and Ryde. And there’s been a big influx of Koreans and Chinese into Eastwood and Marsfield.
2. Maxine’s hubby Hoggy is no fool. He has the runs on the board.
3. This is winnable according to John Valda. He should know.
Perhaps, we should go and lend a hand and our expertise EC? She’s a much better candidate than Brian and a lot easier to keep off the piss.
Spiros: I don’t think anyone assumes Maxine is going to win. I think most people believe there is and will be a contest. This means she *could* win. There’s nothing inevitable about the campaign thus far.
I personally disagree with your argument that unprecedented prosperity vs. wishful thinking will win the Liberals the election. I think Howard is quickly losing the monopoly over economic management. Take these comments from his Sunday statement reported on News:
The auto pilot thing is a classic straw man argument – this is not what Rudd has suggested. Rudd went out of his way earlier this year to draw the parallels between his own and the government’s monetary and fiscal policy, saying that these were uncontroversial points of general agreement and consensus. This means that Howard is unable to criticise Rudd on economic management without implicitly criticising himself. Nor can the government claim that they can do it better, if Labor is largely claiming they will do the same. While Howard can lay claim to having led Australia’s prosperity over the last 10 years, he can’t monopolise a projection of this claim into the future since Labor are more or less trying to promise the same thing. And this last point in particular counts at election time.
Although I don’t have an opinion on exactly how the ‘wishful thinking’ issues are going to play out, I don’t think the ‘unprecedented prosperity’ argument is that strong since it’s not really working for Howard at the moment.
“This is winnable according to John Valda. He should know.”
Valda, the Sage of Seaforth, gets excited at every remote possibility that something bad might happen to John Howard. Valda also thought that Andrew Wilkie was a real shot at beating Howard.
Valda v. Howard is just some ancient intra-Liberal bun fight between Howard and someone he kicked aside when he climbed to the top of the Liberal party, way back when.
So she gets done by a whisker but Labour wins ,the rodent cuts and runs and she takes the seat in a landslide by-election.
Actually, a lot of people aren’t enjoying “unprecedented prosperity” once you factor in the underemployment statistics, housing unaffordability, the credit binge, the 500,000 plus middle aged men on the DSP, the difference between the “average wage” and what most people actually earn, entrenched pockets of disadvantage, stalling real wage growth, flat housing markets, etc, etc, etc.
cs, I’d like to see it happen, but that doesn’t mean it will.
Max McKew has as much chance of beating Howard as Max Headroom.
‘Think we should take Spiros’ advice and get a grip on er..reality
Agree Mark, things aren’t so brilliant for the most. Although nearly every afternoon I hear that the ASX has closed at another record high. Nice for some, although surely it must have blown a foo-foo valve by now.
Its an odd sort of race to the bottom for underdog status in Australia. Rudd was talking up Howard’s political savvy this arvo. There are no known knowns, lets just hope the terrirists can hold off until after the election. Everything crossed.
Spiros: I don’t think the electorate of Bennalong will have any probs voting out their member, PM or not, indeed swinging voters will vote against the incumbant because they are fed up with his rat nature. The economy however, regardless of who wins, is probably on way to big downturn, which if kicked out of office will be timely for the Libs to take another run at it in 3 years. Hope the ALP can steer us towards are more sustainable economy quicksmart.
Link, I think abend is right about Rudd’s tactics on the economy. However, the obvious counter to this is “if you’re going to do the same as we are, then stick with the ones with experience”. However, I anticipate that Labor will flesh out its economic themes as the year goes on and broaden the attack. I hope highlighting issues of poverty and structural disadvantage is one of those themes, but I’m not holding my breath. While people like Wayne Swan are very good at pointing out the fact that many people are not prospering, I fear that such issues may be consigned to the “class warfare” Latham bin. I hope not, and I hope Rudd sticks to what he said about social justice in his Monthly article last year.
tigtog claims to channel the national psyche:
Next he will be asking to try to remember our dreams.
Enough with the psychobabble. Rudd is enjoying the normal honeymoon granted a new opposition leader. Howard is suffering a mid-term slump plus the recession of the electoral pendulum.
At the moment the polling indicates that in Bennelong the LN/P is running behind the ALP 45-55 on two-party preferred vote. So now is a good time for Howard-haters to put their money where their foaming mouths are.
If tigtog really knows something about Howard’s political future he will lay an even money $20 bet that Howard will lose the election. I will take it.
Tigtog is a “she”, Jack, not a “he”.
Jack,
I’m not much of a punter on politics. Instead, I’ll bet you $20 that tigtog is female.
I think Bob saw her coming before we did, SHC. This one is a clear step up in class; Encourage To Group One sort of thing. MM’s prospects are better than our erstwhile candidate’s though.
Is it true, Sir Henry, that as an officer and a gentleman, you are punching out an essay: “The Pied Piper of Bennelong” as a special favour related to your self-described “infatuate” status, with respect of the esteemed Dauphine De Longueville, formerly of Mosman?
Mark on 26 February 2007 at 6:00 pm
That explains it.
The doomers have been prophesising a cataclysmic, economic down turn right about the time the ALP will have been in power, presuming they win, circa 2009. I just hope they are abreast of this possibility. Keating had a ’steady as she goes’ approach to managing an out of control economy. Not inventive or radical enough, and it sure blew its lid.
I was glad to hear the utter bullshit about our supposedly low unemployment rate being given some oxygen on ABC’S P.M. tonight. About time. Real unemployment, underemployment is running at around 20%. The people benefitting from the resources boom, comprise about 5-10% of the population. These are the realities of our ‘economy’ that the Coalition have been glossing over ostrich-like.
There is nothing particularly clever about the way the Howard government have managed the economy. They have nit-picked on the weakest, tightening screws, removing freedoms and upping taxes by stealth. Thank God the ALP have some creative brains onboard.
mark
its win-win-win
if MM wins – then it’s likely as part of a significant national swing and therefore Govt.
if she loses but the ALP wins – she’ll still have a job in Canberra at top policy level or whatever she chooses for a rudd govt.
and both she and the ALP lose – then she can choose from a whole range of options.
the only real loser position for MM (and what she might have got if she chose to contest a safe ALP seat) – ie. she wins, but the ALP loses – and therefore life as an opposition frontbencher with a triumphant howard/costello/downer/nelson/ruddock govt sitting opposite.
EXCEPT a triumphant howard (a very happy costello tho) – doh!
Tofflenosh, Jack.
I don’t buy Tigtog’s comments about the ‘national subconscious’ either (I think it’s Workchoices, pure and simple), but to suggest, as you appear to, that poor and imprecise argument is an especially female thing to do is just rubbish.
That’s why I think the shuttle diplomacy with the premiers last week was a mistake. In my view, it would have been better to have come up with an alternative policy approach.
What alternative policy approach, exactly, would that be? The one that only Bracks would have signed up to? Good look that! Or do you have another alternative he should have embraced to avoid the “mistake”, one that would presumably have got more than a 15 point ALP lift in Queeensland on Sunday? Or are you saying he should have just gone out and made one up? To play politics for politics sake with water would certainly be taking the electorate for granted. As it was, he was in the mix all the way, and credit for Howard’s plan was spread across many parties. In short, it was as well played as it could have been, imho.
More generally, there’s a long way to go folks. Cold showers all round, as Ruddy would say.
The Poll Bludger has a much more pessimistic take on the McKew move:
http://www.pollbludger.com/448
I thought you were saying that the polls were as meaningless as chickens’ entrails, cs? Strange how there could be a connection between what Rudd was doing and the Galaxy poll then…
In any case, the poll was taken on Wednesday and Thursday nights, before the water summit was held.
It’s not up to me to suggest what Labor’s water policy should be, since I’m not an expert. But a lot of people who are were saying that Howard’s “plan” was flawed, and could indeed be counter-productive.
I don’t see that the only alternative was to involve himself in the negotiations over Howard’s initiative, or as he said, to look like a carping opposition leader. Surely Labor has done its own policy work and could have had something else to put on the table? Rudd left himself open to the risk that he would be accused by Howard of playing politics with it, and also of providing fodder for the government’s developing attack that he “is acting like he’s already PM” which is being echoed by several columnists such as Matt Price, for one.
Now, cs, I don’t know if you intend to suggest that Rudd can do no wrong. I imagine not. But I think that part of the cold shower is to look at what political negatives the government can generate from Rudd’s tactics, as well as what Rudd thinks he’s achieving with them.
And if you think that I’m adjudicating on all this, or knocking Rudd, as your comment seems to imply, then you’re wrong. I just think some prudence in evaluating how he’s travelling is called for.
Pinched from Geoffrey at Poll Bludger.
Just to back up the claim that housing costs are up in Lib time.
“The folowing statistics represent a time series of Loan repayments as a percentage of family income – (September Quarter)
2002/2003 26.1%
2003/2004 28.6%
2004/2005 32.0%
2005/2006 32.1%
2006/2007 33.8%
I think that this may indicate that the mortgae belt seats are more vulnerable than has been supposed thus far.
Source: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/mesi/mesi54.htm
The economy is not a safe place for the Libs..
Media may ignore it as an issue but the victims on the receiving end of the economy experience reality.
And many will vote accordingly.
“Rumours of my demise have been greatly exagerated”
More’s the pity
I look forward to reading Gerard Henderson’s column tomorrow morning in the Herald.
I just had a look at Pollbludger and drilled down to Oracle Farmer’s commentary. This is what happens when people start believing their own bullshit. Or Farmer, who has ALP sympathies, is playing thre fifth columnist.
Indeed, an earlier Pollbludger reckons that Bennelong after the latest redistribution that will now move the seat west to take in real battler territory of Ermington, will take just a 3% drift to turf Rattus out. But Maxine’s candidacy would make things worse, would it.
Here at LP we are adults Mark and we don’t play childish games. We are serious political pundits, right?
Bennelong has been changing demographically not only because of the boundary changes but also because there has been a huge influx of migrants into the area. Particularly from Asia (esp. Korea). This is not a good thing for Howard because of his previous form as a dog whistler. Of course, if he does lose his seat, we’ll have to dust off the word “karma” and press it back into use.
The Volkische Beobachter, in an article by Brad Norington, and dated February 20, and, nota bene: before the announcement of MM’s candidacy, quotes a Roy Morgan poll that found a 55% two party preferred for Labor and 45% for the Liberal Party. Significantly, On preferred PM the good burghers of Bennelong gave Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd a 75 per cent approval rating compared with 44 per cent for Howard.
Norington also points out that Peter Coleman ($weetie’s dad-in-law) lost his state seat which pretty much covers the Bennelong area. And he was state Liberal leader.
The demographic profile of Bennelong has changed considerably even since 2004. This is plain to see with the naked eye if one looks at the change to Eastwood shopping centre. When I worked at the nearby Macquarie University in the late 90s the Asia precinct was pretty much on the Blaxland Rd side of the railway line. Now it is pretty much most of it.
Most demographic data is based on the 1996 and 2001 censuses and the 2004. But Bennelong is a different place now. And what is more, very hard to poll.
Maxine will win the seat, a double serving of bul guggi with rice and kim chi on the side to a lamb cutlet and two veg.
I get the impression that this is all about just creating something else for Howard to worry about. While Howard is on the road trying to win back the nation McKew (and all the others) will have a free hand to campaign locally. It won’t be crushing to Howard but it will concern him. It will also creat pressure on him in the coming months as it might cause another round of last-minute “regime change” discussions amongst the Libs.
Well, I could have predicted Jack Strocchi’sresponse to the revelation(!) of my gender. I’m bemused at how an attempt at a bit of vivid language was interpreted as some claim to metapsychic channelling powers, but whatevs.
The electoral dissatisfaction I was referring to, which yeah all right is not that subconscious (yes, very bad choice of words earlier), is mostly WorkChoices, some concerns over inflation, some doubts on Iraq, and a soupcon of fair go for Hicks.
The Daily Terrorgraph’s online poll of Howard vs McKew http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/ today – 53% to 46% in favour of McKew. That’s almost the Morgan poll result for the seat of Bennelong. Spooky!
ROFLMAO – Piers Akerman’s attempted finger in the dyke strategy is this:
LABOR’S habit of recruiting candidates with no local knowledge is bad news for the constituency.
That’s clutching. At thin straws.
The constituency? As if slobber-guts’d recognise a constituent unless it was poached lightly and presented to him wrapped in thinly sliced prosciutto.
McKew in a landslide. Just wish those buggers at Centrebet had the nous to put up a book. I’ve got some cash that says McKew is home and hosed. Unless Steve Waugh runs.
Rudd did very well with Howard’s water plan, playing straight against Howard’s strongest suite (i.e. $10 billion). Any other play would have left him on the side, and if Howard hadn’t made the concessions he did, Rudd would have pounced and made hay. How silly would he have looked if he had produced his own plan, after talking to the Premiers and knowing they would not buy it over Howard’s? Very. It was, in the end, something of a meaningless political draw.
Rudd, as far as I can read it, has not put a foot wrong yet, and has put many right. The acting like a PM is a brilliant and amusing play, and subliminally helps people imagine him in the role, which they obviously like. I still have no sense that Mark has any mature idea of the Labor leader, and seems to have somehow positioned himself in competition, leaping upon any half-baked criticism that goes by, and inventing more of his own all to boot. Good luck. Whatever. Everyone will make their own call.
All that said, there is a very long way to go. Labor is fighting the most ruthless conservative politician in my lifetime, possibly ever, who has tremendous advantages in his incumbency, a fat treasury, a massive legacy to fight for, very strong media proprietor support on IR, and an active Pretorian Media Guard that will die in the ditch for him. Rudd and the ALP look good in the present polls, but they are a very, very long way from home – Rudd and the polls. Looking good in the polls six months out is not going to be any consolation for another three years in opposition. In view of his record and advantages, Howard remains the strong and entirely justified favourite to win the election. Given how good he is, Rudd may go close. No-one else would have a hope in hades.
Re polls. Anyone with a experience must treat them with great scepticism. I can give you examples of every possible election result with every possible poll position just prior to that election result. Polls mean something, but no-one has yet been able to figure out what, exactly. Relying on polls is characteristic of lazy journalism. Anyone can make a story up out of polls.
As for the status of “underdog”, it derives from what is known as the “conventional wisdom”. When you begin to see that professional pundits, experts and insiders start to revise Howard’s position as front-runner, you will begin to be able to make a case for a change occurring in that “wisdom”. It hasn’t happened yet, and I doubt that it will for some months, if at all. Personally, I hope it never happens. Howard fights best when he is written off. Write him off at your peril.
There’s no need to personalise this, cs.
I don’t think you understand what I’m trying to do with my commentary on Rudd. I’m not attempting to “invent” criticisms, and I have no idea what positioning myself “in competition” might mean. I’m simply trying to anticipate what the attack on him might be from the government, because, as you rightly say, Howard is a very ruthless and tough opponent.
You may well believe that he “has not put a foot wrong yet”, but to disagree, and in this instance to disagree with the claim that “acting like a PM is a brilliant and amusing play”, is surely valid. Not everyone has the same interpretation as you, and I’m quite happy to engage with others’ interpretations. You don’t seem to be in the habit of offering a lot of argument in support of your own interpretation, which appears to be an argument from (your own) authority and experience. No doubt your experience and your opinions are worthy of respect, but others’ different experience and opinions are too.
As to his leadership, I worry that he has taken the party’s rhetoric to the right. Again, that’s not criticism for its own sake, but a reflection of what my political beliefs are.
I’m sorry, but I find whole tone of your comment, including the reference to a “mature” opinion and “anyone with any experience”, to be patronising and condescending. You’ve been consistently attacking me, for instance on another occasion referring unfavourably to my writing style in a very dismissive manner, whenever I make any comment about Rudd. You’ve also previously made snide comments like “those who can’t, teach” and claimed that no one who hasn’t had Rudd’s level of experience in government (and I presume you’re also making a point about your own) could possibly judge him. Again, I’m sorry, but I don’t believe that in order to form an opinion on Rudd and his strategy, I’m obliged to have had a certain type of career.
I’d prefer it if you stopped doing so. I certainly want Labor to win, as you do. But I don’t believe that requires me either to defer to your insights on every occasion they’re proffered, or to stop offering my own as I see them. I am, as I say, always happy to sustain them with argument. I am certainly not enjoying these disputes with you, and as life is too short, I think I’ll stop commenting on your posts at Troppo.
I do not mean to be either patronising nor condescending. I mean to be deadly serious. From a left of centre perspective, this is certainly the most important Australian election since 1993, and quite possibly, even probably, the most important election since 1907. For people who care about the labour movement and what it stands for, this is not a time to be flouncing about indulging fanciful discretionary criticisms of the leadership from the left. That’s the message I’m trying to get through, obviously without success.
I’d hate to see what you’d write if you were trying to be patronising or condescending, then, cs.
I agree this election is very important.
I don’t agree that what you appear to be saying – that any criticism or critical discussion is to be equated with breaking ranks or disloyalty.
I observe that those who disagree with you have apparently been judged by you not to “care about the labour movement and what it stands for”.
I’m not interested in carrying this conversation further.
So much early days. So much need to acknowledge it, question it. And fair to say: feel it.
cs, the ALP is not what it was. It’s no longer presenting as the party of compassion, for one big instance. “To reach out and pull me through” cannot be sung in unison as it once was. Where the party is going is of valid concern to those who wish to see Howard out. What alternative?, they ask. Even just to ask it, from the blogosphere, is as though on the sidelines, when players on a crooked field long created over there hear the whistle of a bum referee and a crowd buzzed by blood and guts.
That Howard be gone is not enough! Ever the seeking! Onward that path lays out.
Mark, to which goalpost are you looking? You call up cs’s punctures as you see them, and as you see them, are understandably rightly called – but what ground are you bedded on? I’m with you, too. You want Howard out, and you want more from those who would do it. Yes?
There’s been a diminishing, for many long tiresome years. That drought ridden barren economic-focused numbness has worn its paddock footsore of soldiers and trampled with bullshit. How difficult it is now to see the lights go on, that there are players elsewhere, and the announcement of more games to be had.
For once, Howard has opposition. He has it federally, and he has it in his own seat. He may not have it in an upcoming NSW. At the end of the day, the lights have gone on, there are players and moves newly coming to light, and at any time those lights can be dimmed and the brighter game diminished.
Of course, to even speak of these things, is to rip oneself open that lunacy shines amid, and to have no cohesive idea for what an alternative future may hold.
To that, I say welcome. Seems, for now, we’re all in that very thing.
Yes, Robert.
Hmmm. I wonder if the person with the most to (potentially) lose is Gillard…….
Hmmm. I wonder if the person with the most to (potentially) lose is Gillard…….
I doubt it. She’s the one with years of experience in the parliamentary party to draw on, while if Maxine does get in I would expect her to take some time to learn the ropes, despite her advantages. Having another high-profile woman on the ALP team might actually help Gillard because she wouldn’t stand out like a sore thumb so much.
tigtog
Does anybody know if Maxine will be included in the Emily’s List quota? Or will she count as a merit candidate?
There should be some fabulous opportunities to watch the fur fly as La Hanson has also thrown her hat into the ring!
Pauline’s days of causing any fur to fly are long past. Yawn.
Amanda
You are probably correct. I think even the Luvvies are Hansonites nowadays.
Sir Henry said a few threads back that Morris would romp in. Now the latest poll suggests that he may even get back with an increased majority by taking Terrigal back.
Sir Henry predicts that Maxine will win the seat of Bennelong from John Howard. And that Liberal Party will lose to Labor in the upcoming election.
All this, plus Helen Mirren winning an Academy Award has scrambled Sir Henry’s brains and given him a bad case of illeism.
For someone purported to give good Rat’s arse, King Rodent’s backdoor mouthpiece, Pal Gerry, was remarkably subdued in his column today. Gerry had almost a full day to react, but ponced around throwing powder-puff light jabs.
Seems conservative dog whistlers and waggers alike are waiting for the poison to dry on their generic hymn sheets before bursting forth in chorus vitriole. If they fluff their first salvo against The Max Factor they’ll end up with more powder on their faces than the cast of Les Liasons Dangereuses, while Tomb Raider, Lara McKew Croft hand feeds the paparazzi from Lane Cove Latee Lounges to Eastwood noodle nosheries.
Shiny black leather verses tired old tracksuit. Daylight second who’s going to nail the Bennelong Emo vote.
Like all tickerless spritz artists, Gerry has to check upstairs before discharging his weapon.
Piers Ackerman is winning the contest so far for nastiest column:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21294397-5007146,00.html
I’m sure this is nothing compared to the whispering campaign about to be launched on the ground in Bennelong
Does Maxine have any fruit in her bowl?
Mark, if this is the best recidivist self-baster, Piers, can splutter, then the Max Factor will easily retain its radiant complexion. Accusations of dilletanteism, nepotism and out-of-shireism arn’t going to cut much ice in an electorate like Bennelong, where The Rodent’s, indeed The Nation’s future will be decided later this year.
The Rodent’s essential ugliness lies in his soul, and that’s where Team Rudd and The Maxster are going to shine the spotlight.
Compulsive viewing?
Certainly, even for some who don’t normally like to watch.
Yeah, it was pretty lame EC. Ackwit doesn’t appear to have been around for a week or so. Being a Top Person maybe he’s been helping out with the Debnam campaign.
Tim Dunlop’s take, especially on Abbott’s “Mr Bennelong” vs “Ms Blow-In” remark: [link]
Are you really this ignorant about the people you spend your life attacking, or is this just a weak attempt at “humour”, John Greenfield? For someone who spends all their time attacking the Labor Party, you really don’t seem to know an awful lot about its rules. Perhaps you should learn a bit about them before casting yourself as our advisor…
“Being a Top Person maybe he’s (Pal Piers) been helping out with the Debnam campaign.”
Oooh La-La! If anyone knows how to get a good grip on a fresh flagellum, Grand Piers does. No point in the boy Deb popping off for a discrete lunch-time visit to The Flog, without appopriate schooling in the very latest techniques, I suppose, Miss Keeler.
One keeps forgetting what remarkable facility of access the Tories have to Top People when the whips are cracking.
Slight digression, but I have to respond to Sir Henry’s point that:
Citing the Korean community as a strong Howard-hating one is pretty shakey ground, imho.
The Eastwood Korean community is highly involved in pentecostal church groups (e.g Hillsong, but that’s just one of _many_). The idea that these people are, en masse, going to vote against Howard is untrue.
At best, I would think it will be around 50/50, more likely, however, the Korean populace of Bennelong will vote like their white pentecostal brethren which is – make no mistake – for Howard.
You may have a little bit of a point there Patrick. But I wouldn’t equate Hillsong with Korean Eastwood Baptists (Hosanna Korean Baptist Fellowship etc), I think they are some form of branch Davidians. And there are many other Christian Koreans in Bennelong including Anglicans and Catholics. Then there are Ch’ondogyo and Buddhists.
But having said all that, that is just component in the new make up of Bennelong. There is the shift west which is going to make the Hon. Mr Howard, MHR, PM twitch his shoulder.
Like you, I am shooting the breeze Patrick. Neither of us knows anything but Mr Howard is on record as saying that there were too many Asian migrants coming into this country, and perhaps some Australians of Asian background may remember…
Maxine may do well to tie in the immigration outrages into her campaign, too. Someone should make the Rodent wear it personally (he used to be proud of it, after all, when he was dogwhistling to the Hansonites) now that Phil has changed portfolios and Amanda has been discarded like a used tissue.
It depends how personal Kevvy, the Labor machine plus Hoggy and Maxine want to make it. I bet they are thinking about that right now.
EC, I think we better stay out of this one, and no innocent macropods will be hurt.
Damn skippy HC, I agree completely that it’s very hard to call. Both of us are inclined, it seems, to take claims either way with a big pinch of salt (or at least Kim Chi).
Suffice to say, it will be an interesting seat to watch over in the coming months….
There’s a long and tragic story to the marsupial, Patrick. Enemy Combatant and I accepted an offer to assist in the direction of a political strategy for an aspirant who wanted to unseat a prominent sitting member. To cut to the chase, the aspirant vaccilated between our advice – fight dirty, go head to head, make it personal, one on one; and careful-does-it, don’t want-to-upset-anyone advice from a late (ex-News Ltd) ring-in spin doctor(yes, we smelt a rat also). It all ended ignominiously for our candidate, although the sitting member concerned once before had had a close call in what is ostensibly a very safe seat.
We stole away in the dead of night, with Enemy insisting on driving my car, no doubt reliving his days as a derring-do, afro-haired, patchouli-oil scented, bead wearing kamikaze taxi driver in the streets of Sydney of some years past. Sadly, an eastern grey crossed our path and slow reflexes plus overconfidence meant that the animal ended up visiting us via the windscreen.
lol! What a great story! I actually meant damn skippy in the somewhat less literal sense, but I’m glad it was read the other way.
Ahhh patchouli-oil, is there anything it _can’t_ do?
Maxine and things getting hit or nearly hit by cars. Coupled with Aussie Bob’s reminisce on Surfdom, sounds like some odd feng shui going on there….
Well there ya go. Maxine doing the rounds of Bennelong in a VW. There’s the campaign right there.
BTW.,,did anyone else hear that Ms June Dally-Watkins (sp?)
will be standing for Fred Nile’s party?
I really must find a link for that one!!!
Anna Winter
“Our party?” Oh, luvvie, you poor dear. To be sure, PLU (People Like U) have been responsible for the specatcular failure of Labor over the past ten years. My aim is to rid Labor of the dominance of the excerable luvvies and return it to working class people. Why don’t you and your Emily’s Listers go and start your own party and leave ours alone?
So it wasn’t “humour” then.
JG, $weetie, your Billy Lane pyjamas are all packed anytime you wish to make the trip to Paraguay, you old Labourist, you.
Yes, John, you’ve mentioned before that Anna caused the downfall of the Labor party at age 17.
Whatevs.
Are you a member?
JG, ya wanna provide a link to the comment where Anna said “our party”? (the date/time details are a permalink to each comment)
‘cos I’m not finding it. Not that it would matter much cosmically speaking if she had, but seeing as she didn’t you’re mocking empty air there fella.
Also, the “luvvie” shite is looking so tired and predictable it wouldn’t raise a halfhearted chortle from a professional sitcom soundtrack squad.
Yes, last election I was both a “luvvie” and a “hater” … or something. How do I do it for the price, you ask?
Whaddya reckon the chances are of Max and Johnny having a debate in front of the Bennelong electorate at the town hall or whatever? I’d pay a dollar to see that.
But do you come with a free set of steak-knives, Lefty E?
About as much chance as having it on the ABC moderated by either K O’B or TJ
Oh dear,
Real working class. That would the working class that John Greenfield and the rest of the old fakers say they would really prefer. That’s the one where the men are men, and the woman shut the fuck up I think. That’s the one where you do as your told at work, vote as you are told at church, and generally have the level of education that is deemed appropriate for horny handed sons of toil. No pomo there, in fact nothing that might smack of any enlightenment at all. After all, once you start that kind of nonsense, people just believe any old thing they like, and worse, want to do what seems like a fun thing. Shame, have they no shame! Right John, er Gerry or is it Tony??
Sir Henry Casingbroke on 26 February 2007 at 9:27 pm
No. Howard’s dog-whistling days in dis-respect of Asians are long gone. Howard renounced his anti-Asian immigration views years ago:
Most Asians are savvy enough not to take a general political point too personally. In any case, North Asians will likely trend pro-Howard because they tend to vote economicly, not ethnicly. Being high-IQ they have less trouble integrating into a modern economy: its the smart move. Since they are upwardly mobile this means they will tend to vote the right-wing party.
“I find with migrants in my electorate, those of Asian background, that many of them do share those small business, family (values),” Howard said in 2002. It also helps that “many Asians, of course, come from an English-speaking background”, he said.
Howard has seen his vote drop twice, in 1998 and again in 2004. But he did achieve a swing to him in 2001, when the defining issue was border protection. The Asians swung with him then, albeit not as strongly as the WASP areas of Bennelong.
Howard’s cultural policies at grass roots level are essentially politico-economic: keep the neighbourhood nice so that property values point north. This is the kind of politics that speaks to pragmatic North Asian immigrants.
It is a carnard, put out by delusional or disingenuous Wets, that NESB’s must automaticly hate-Howard. Those NESB’s that do well tend to have more time for his home-spun wisdom on cultural matters.
Sir Henry Casingbroke says:
Wanna bet? $20 says Howard will beat Mckew. Come on, dont any of the Larva Prodders have a bit of sporting life in them?
“A debate in the Bennelong electorate at the town hall or whatever?”
On the steps of the Epping Club ? Or perhaps the Ryde Civic center ?
No – the North Ryde RSL would be the place I think.
You’re on Strocchi. A brick.
But do go easy on the straw man, old chap. I can’t recall saying that non-English speaking migrants automatically vote Labor. Migrants tend to vote according to their economic status, as they always have. Even refos, especially the ones from so-called “captive nations” who voted against the ALP en masse because they equated Labor with Communism. Ditto for the Vietnamese in the 70s. (But this is not true for Vietnamese now, with Fairfield being Labor heartland.
Asians involved in small business would, logically, vote for the party thought to be more friendly to small business – the Liberals. But even this is probably in doubt as the ALP loses its long-held anti-business colouring. Could there be a greater friend of the small bsuinessman than that ALP business identity Joe Tripodi?
But I reckon, Jack, that in Bennelong enough Asians may just vote outside of their demographic interest, to affect the vote for Howard, and that will be because you can’t trash people racially when it suits you in one election and then try to paper over that with mealymouthed platitudes later and expect people to think that this nothing more than self-serving bullshit.
You bring up a quote from George Megalogenis that says, in part: “that his overall vote has fallen because of the Asian influx”. That, plus Howard being a much less attractive figure than last time, older and hence now slightly senile – he’ll be 68 in July – deafer, more prone to errors, with a very worrying shoulder twitch that could very well be the beginning of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; he is confused and rattled, with a prostate problem, erectile disfunction, prolapsed intestinal fistula, indigestion, set irascibly against a very, very attractive and intelligent woman who is known from TV; add to that the fact that the electorate has moved west where people who hate Howard live (Meadowbank and West Denistone with its masssive low-cost housing units); taking all that into account, it is a fair bet. George Megalogenis, Paul Kelly or even Frank Devine – I mean who cares what they think?
Good luck Jack.
PS I am not a “disingenuous wet”. I’d describe myself as a firm believer in slow and moderate progress within the bounds of the law, but never a wet.*
Indeed, I am disappointed Jack that you would stoop to couching your argument in terms of a generic ad hominem attack against some pejorative collective noun or rather and then try to draw an evidently false inference that I belong among them. This puerile debating technique does not advance your argument one iota, although some of your comments put earlier are fair enough and intelligent.
* Wets I think was coined by Margaret Thatcher against some in her cabinet who were characterised as such because they wanted to spend money on single mothers, the crippled, street children and the old and infirm. Of course, Margaret had her admirers – Henry Kissinger, Augusto Pinochet and Conrad Black were some.
Jack Strocchi says – ‘It is a carnard, put out by delusional or disingenuous Wets, that NESB’s must automaticly hate-Howard. Those NESB’s that do well tend to have more time for his home-spun wisdom on cultural matters.’
You might be right about that. You might also even have bolstered your case with the possibility that since immigrants from China would not be coming from a country with a history of a strong trade union movement, then maybe the Work Choices legislation might be a non event for a lot of them too. However, when you consider that Kevin Rudd speaks fluent Mandarin, has a lot of experience as a diplomat in China, has been in business himself, is married to a successful businesswoman AND puts such a lot of policy emphasis on Education of especially our children (a very, very important thing for many of our Chinese immigrant families) you might find that many of them might plump for Mr Rudd at the next election.
In any case if you were so right about how all Asians vote, then how would you explain the safe Labor seat of Barton (held by McClelland) in the South Sydney area of which by far the biggest slice of immigrants are from China? And don’t tell me they’re ‘not doing well!’…
I think Jack means warmed over cliches roadtested by focus groups.
I’ll take the bet for $20, Jack.
Look at all the other electorates where more than 20% of voters were born in NES countries. What do you notice about them? They’re all Labor. Yes, all of them, even after Latham and all that, all except Bennelong. If people can be persuaded that voting Labor won’t cause the economy, education system and entire structure of government to collapse, McKew might be in with a chance and Bennelong may comply with the laws of political physics.
Whether or not they hate Howard is one thing – they sure don’t vote for him. WASPs in Bennelong go Liberal two to one. The decline in the Liberal vote in Bennelong over the past 33 years isn’t just due to Howard’s silly comments in the ’80s.
There is no way Howard would agree to a debate with McKew. She’s better off showing how well she handles the steady grind of small-scale events, assuming she likes non-influential people. However, she might end up pissing off Bennelong people with stunt after media stunt.
And now Choc is going to stand against Morris in Lakemba.
Mundine, is allegedly going to be bankrolled by Sheik Hillalyand will stand on some sort of Muslim power ticket
This means that Anthony is Australia’s Malcolm X.
Is Warren Mundine, Anthony’s cousin, still the ALP president? Dear oh dear, a family feud coming up.
To extrapolate, the Block will soon be a car park.
wbb on 28 February 2007 at 11:40 pm
Your’e on.
Sir Henry Casingbroke on 28 February 2007 at 8:40 pm
I know a “brick” is a wad of 100 x $100 = $10,000 notes. Outta my league.
Lets make it one cool “C” note.
Sir Henry says:
I retract any blanket imputation that Sir Henry does not know whats what on the subject of migrant voting tendencies.
NESB is not always a useful classification because of the clashing social interests therein. As indicated in the comment I noted that NESB voting tendencies were complicated by the intersection of ethnic and economic factors. Lower-status (Southern Hemispheric) NESBs tended to vote on ethnic segregation lines for the Left.
Since the parliamentary ALP lost organic connection to the Christian-Caucasian married working class families it has relied on lower-status (Southern hemispheric) NESBs to entrench safe seats. Branch stacking and ethnic lobbying is how the Culture War pans out at the grass roots.
Higher-status (Northern hemispheric) NESBs tend to vote on economic stratification interests for the Right. They are potential fodder for a savvy L/NP Class Warrior, depending on the prosperity of the economy.
Sir Henry says:
For many people, Sir Henry, these infirmities would be a good reason to sympathise with geezer Howard against a chardannay-sipping Madam Blow-in parachuted in from leafy Mosman. Never underestimate the tall-poppy lopping sympathies of Australians, New and Old.
Sir Henry says:
* Wets I think was coined by Margaret Thatcher against some in her cabinet who were characterised as such because they wanted to spend money on single mothers, the crippled, street children and the old and infirm. Of course, Margaret had her admirers – Henry Kissinger, Augusto Pinochet and Conrad Black were some.
I unreservedly withdraw any implication that Sir Henry is a Wet of any kind of description.
A Wet, as now generally understood, is someone who lists Left towards the fashionable, but lower-status, cultural/racial/sexual minorities in the Culture War. They are invariably antagonistic to the traditional and, possibly higher-status, cultural/racial/sexual majority. And, as a corollary, the Wets are partisans for emerging individual autonomies over established institutional authority.
More generally, Wets favour cultural diversification/segregation over cultural unification/integration. With a preference for an accelerated, rather than moderated, pace of social change. This means that they are social constructivists, as opposed to social conservatives.
Clearly Sir Henry is not a Wet.
Sir Henry says:
I regret that this term causes offence. But I see no alternative to using it since Wetness is a pervasive and persuasive factor in conditioning partisan political alignments (witness the so-called “Doctors Wives” syndrome).
Wets have been the motor driving the liberal West’s cultural ambience ever since JS Mill had his nervous breakdown. Turning the Biblical dictum upside down, the sins of the sone were visited on the father. He decided to break with his past by turning his personal issues into a fully worked out political philosophy.
There is a little bit of the Wet in all of us. One has to be constantly on ones guard lest one fall for this siren song oneself, let alone for everyone else.
Jack, you’re overtraining. A “brick” is $20. And it used to be 10 pounds before decimalisation. It is called that because of its colour.
Does the phrase “London to a brick mean anything to you?” It was first coined by Mr Howard.
Admitting to ignorance of such elementary idiomatic Australianism indicates to me that either there is a lot more wet in you than you will admit, or you are a recent arrival to this wonderful country of ours.
In the case of the latter, may I say “benvenuto”, Jack. If you need a place to stay I have a room for you until you are settled and the use of my car to look for a job.
It sounds from what you say that you are a Culture Warrior. Personally, I think this Culture War you talk of is a lot of bullshit, Jack. It was invented by media conmen who work for Rupert Murdoch. In America there is a TV show run by a ponce called Bill O’Reilly who appeals to the lowest common denominator and his patriotic outrage is synthetically manufactured to draw in the suckers and it turns a buck for Rupert. O’Reilly even has a test to see if you are a true Culture Warrior. Have you taken the TEST? There are only 5 questions. One wrong answer and you are a WET!
I think we should let out arguments speak for themselves because all this wet business is a load of bollocks. I mean how is a wet differ from a lefty? Or left-leaning. Or left-of-centre. There are many bloggistas who share your views and use wet as a term of abuse interchangeably with elites, baby boomers, inner-city trendies, luvvies, etc. Every day there is an new term of abuse. It used to be pinko, commo (commie in the US) and funnily enough it was used by the now very wet Malcolm Fraser (he used to be a prime minister in Australia in the 1970s, Jack). It is easy to get confused, I tell you.
As I said in my earlier blog, wet once meant a a tad more compassionate member of the Tory cabinet. Its converse, dry, then came into circulation and it meant someone who subscribed to the Chicago school of economics theories. So anyone who didn’t was a wet. Like Scandinavia.
Now it seems wet is someone who doesn’t vote for Mr Howard.
We have a bet of $20 not 10 grand, Jack. Or $50 if you want to take both the best – one from each thread, plus $10 surcharge for instructing you.
Fie, fie, Sir Henry! What a naughty kerniget you are, not to mention which Mr Howard.
You’ve shamed me there, Sir ‘enry. I’ve gawn and done taken a bet with a New Australian who doesn’t know his Malcolm Fraser from his Errol Flynn ‘pparently.
You, on the other hand, have not only given the bloke a bed but the keys to the FJ.
You can cancel the bet Giacomo, if you like. As a Wet I wouldn’t like to be taking advantage of a ya, you being a NESBY and that.
Northern or southern – it don’t matter one iota to me.
Sir Henry Casingbroke on 1 March 2007 at 8:49 pm .You are one funny fucker,another outburst like that I will sue your arse. My heart can’t take it.
He is that, Gaz.
I’ve got my feet up, snacking on stilton and water crackers, inhaling some Bowmore 18 year old and throughly enjoying the show..for a change.
A handy tip Sir Hank. Edge Jack into posh quotes in other languages. He always fucks that one up too.
Indeed Nabs, but preferably with Fyodor in attendance
” Does the phrase “London to a brick mean anything to you?â€? It was first coined by Mr Howard. ”
Sir Henry, you are being a tad disingenuous. It was first coined by Mr Ken Howard, the caller of horse races, not the Prime Minister
Sir Henry Casingbroke says on 1 March 2007 at 8:49 pm
I plead guilty to missing one Australian colloquialism. Otherwise I am as dinky-dy as the next man, born and bred in this nation, speak English in the main and became bored with the Wets mantra by my late teens. It grows old fast to those who value empirical understanding over ethical grandstanding.
A brick, as I understood it, is “a wad of hundies…equals…$10,000 dollars that’s…100 [x $100] bills and measures…3 inches in height.”
This is casino-speak. Looks like you haven’t spent much time in Vegas, a town famed for the contribution of NESB’s to local culture. You need to get out more, Sir Henry.
Sir Henry Casingbroke says
I will take $50 off you when Howard holds his seat at the next election (assuming he stands). And it is I who will be charging you for instruction, see below.
Sir Henry Casingbroke says
I have already bought and sold a couple of properties over the past decade, thanks very much. But I am in the market for another one right now, if the price is right.
My Dad was a great fan of Nino Culotta and his experience paralleled that character in more ways than one. That is, they were both “New Australian” success stories.
Since then the term “New Australian” has ceased to become a phrase of praise and turned into a polite sneer rolled out by condescending Wets eager to place themselves above their “ocker” cohorts and antecedents. With the result that we now have a Culture War over how to handle NESB migrants. To turn Nabakov’s words against his own type, they “always f*ck that…up too”.
Sir Henry Casingbroke says
Yes, but not only that. I am just one guy trying to make sense of the crazy, mixed-up world of cultural politics. Up until the mid-seventies things were going smoothly with the integration of NESB migrants into Australia.
Then the Wets – the bahnischs, nabakovs, kim types etc – got in on the act and messed things up with a bunch of happy-clappy, touchy-feely, multi-culti clap-trap. They appear to have osmotically absorbed this rubbish whilst toddling about at the lectern of some continental wanker whilst still impressionable undergraduates. And missed the stage where they jettison it through “growing up in public”.
Sir Henry Casingbroke says
The Culture War is not bs. It had real policy causes and political effects when it beagan. And, for students of the political culture of the USA and USA in the age of globalisation, it has a demographic momentum of its own now.Socio-biological demography is destiny in politico-cultural terms.
O’Reilly is a right-wing hack alright. But he is not a principled conservative since he supports revolutionary democratic regime change and unconstrained finance capitalism. These things rock the boat. Therefore he is not a person one would want to rely on in the Culture War.
It is Tricky Dicky, not Bill O’Reilly, who is John Howard’s true mentor. The Culture War was launched in 1968/9 by Richard Nixon (Law & Order/Silent Majority). Nixon’s so-called “Southern strategy� was the first major counter-attack in the Culture War.
The policy causes were the adverse effects of Great Society programs associated with Civil Rights and Immigration & Nationality Acts of 1965. The political effects became apparent as the unruliness of some minorities provoked a right wing political backlash and white flight. Thus the Democratic party, in LBJ’s words, “lost the South for a generation.”
The intellectual side of the Culture War was launched by the first generation of neo-conservatives. These were top-notch, mostly Jewish, social scientists (Bell, Lipset, Glazer, Moynihan) former “liberals mugged by reality�. Once again, these guys were not flaky right-wing pundits. They were former Left-wingers who had reached the top of their intellectual professions.
Sir Henry Casingbroke says
If you says so. A Lefty is a catch-all term for political agents who support those in low-status social groups eg poor, coloureds, women, indigenes, animals etc. Lefty’s are mostly less-established critics, except when they get cushy public sector jobs, in which case they become apologists.
A Righty is a catch-all term for political agents who support those in high-status social groups eg white, male, rich, powerful, top-brass, holier-than-thou preachers etc. Righty’s are mostly establishment apologists, except when they concern themselves with the Lefty establishments, in which case they are become critics.
A Wet is someone who concentrates their political support on the culturally defined formerly low-status groups, the so-called “race, gender and sexuality� crowd. The members of these “victimhood� minorities may or may not be down-at-heel (eg ethnic lobbyists, femocrats and conspicuously consumptive gays are well enough off). But they are definitely resentful of the higher status putatively enjoyed by the vindictive majority.
A Dry defines himself in opposition to the Wets diversity policies and identity politics. That is a Dry wants institutional authority to enforce more unity–cum-integration. Given the unruliness of certain minorities this is preferable to letting individual autonomies indulge in diversity-cum-segregation. Don’t rock the boat.
I would call the Dry cultural platform “communitarianâ€? had not New Left hi-jacked this useful word. So I tend to characterise Dries as “cultural conservatives” and Wets as “cultural constructivists“.
The Culture War is the New Left’s pollitical modus, comparable to the Old Left’s Class War but revised in the era of post-industrial multiculturalism. The democratic Left morphed from the Old Left supporting a “majority of the majority� to the New Left supporting a “majority of minorities�.
Over the post-war period the majority of lower-status workers started to lose interest in the Left owing to political ambivalence brought about by changes in the nation’s economic stratification and ethnic segregation. The advantageous effects of post-industrialism got them rich quick, so they moved up socially (“embourgeoisment�). Then the adverse effects of multiculturalism got them running scared, so they moved out geographically (“white flight�).
The more post-modern Wet is simply a reformist, rather than revolutionary, New Lefty who has decided that it makes more political sense for their constituents, and professional sense for them, to “work within the system�. Obviously the New Lefties wanted to improve their status at the same time. Not being all that keen for the harder slog of a private sector job they embarked on the “the long march through the institutions�.
All Wets tend to be sympathetic to the New Left in that they tend to give notional political support to the (culturally) low-status minorities. But not all Lefty’s are Wet since the Old Left were much more interested in improving the condition of the (financially) low-status majority.
So the political motor of the Culture War is the fight that the New Left has waged for the votes and soul of what remains of the Old Left’s white, married working class. It is the latter that so-called “wedge politiciansâ€? like Howard are inclined to blow their bigoted “dog-whistlesâ€? for. Personally I think that dog-whistles should be shelved and a spade called a spade.
Now the Culture War has its own demographic momentum as the more or less barren cultural elites who were the top-brass give way to the more fertile cultural populi who provide the foot-sloggers. Thus the “long march through the institutions” led to “the battle of the cradle“.
Sir Henry Casingbroke says
You have to think clearly to pierce the fog of self-serving ideological obfuscation belched out be partisans. And be ready to engage in ideological revisionism as circumstances change (look what has happened to the word “liberation”.)
True, the initial sense of Wet v Dry was economic. But that usage has now pretty much fallen into desuetude with the lapsing of the Class War and the grudging acceptance of social-democratic political-economy by politicians of all parties. I have suggested another short-hand for opposing sides of the fiscal Class War: Santas for and Scrooges for regressives.
Fraser is very much the god-father of the Wets since it was he who broke with integrationist immigration policy and embraced multiculturalism, mistakenly thinking he could grab the grateful ethnic vote by relaxing immigrant selection and settlement policies.
The political wisdom of a Righty espousing these policies is doubtful, given the Left leanings of most NESB electorates. Of course they are anathema to any conservative.
“My Dad was a great fan of Nino Culotta and his experience paralleled that character in more ways than one. That is, they were both “New Australianâ€? success stories.”
Jack, let me give you a tip, wog to wog.
Nino Culotta was fictional. He was the invention of the novelist, John O’Grady, and was meant to embody a certain post war anglo celt view of how migrants ought to conduct themselves in Australia, which was to shed all their heritage and to assimilate fully. This meant, amongst other things, not just the sensible idea to learn to speak English, but to not speak at all their first language, certainly not in public.
The fictional Culotta was a good Italian migrant because he married an Australian girl, made freinds with salt-of-the-earth Aussie blokes, learnt to body surf and so on. And he was a devout Catholic. Best for all, he was a blonde northern Italian who didn’t much like the swarthy Southern Italians.
What more can you ask for in a migrant?
Being a “wet” or a “dry” has nothing to do with that morally-vain pose – “compassion.” A wet is somebody who believes in Keynesian pump-priming, literally flooding the economy with government printed money. A “dry” is somebody with sufficient education to comprehend Milton Friedman’s analyses of the catastrophes that usually follow such flooding.
A “luvvie” is most definitely not a Socialist. Socialists are respectable in my book, whereas luvvies are not. Luvvies are people like Judy Davis, Maxine McKew, Robert Manne, Harold Pinter, Barbara Steisand and the whole gaggle of anti-Socialist leftists whose main political aim is to redirect more tax dollars to themselves and their class -”human rights” and multiculti beauracrats and the 3Rs basically.
It is the luvvies who stole and destroyed the Labor Party.
And here I was thinking it was entirely me age 17. Thank God I get to share the blame with Judy Davis, Maxine McKew, Robert Manne, Harold Pinter and Barbara Steisand. I feel less guilty now.
No Anna – our resident little ray of luvvie sunshine – it is not all about YOU. If I recall, further up the thread you counted yourself as part of an “our.” I must say I was a little startled that you did not put scare quotes around this particular use of the 1st person plural. Perhaps an oversight in your rush to listen to Phillip Adams interviewing Robert Manne or Hanan Ashrawi? “We” will let this one pass without any further comment. It will just be “our” little secret. OK, luvvie?
As you’re now discovering Sir Henry, if you prick Jack, does he not bleed? And bleed and bleed and bleed and bleed and bleed.
And as you can also see, his monomanical pursuit of his grand unified theory of wetativity has left the poor lad quite unable to distingush between facts and opinions anymore.
I did get a chuckle though out of Jack’s sudden familiarity with handling 5 figure cash sums at Vegas casinos.
Jack; you’re boring, dude.
Nabakov on 2 March 2007 at 3:47 pm
Maybe, although Sir Henry asked for it.
But grand unified theories based on diverse sources of evidence certainly beat Nabakovian methodological princples. I am ashamed to admit that I cannot resist re-cycling a recent summation:
Nabakov’s sudden scrupulousness with facts in the Culture War is rich coming from someone willing to give a free pass and more to the ALP’s cultural rorting and racketing in the course of his careerism. Perhaps he did not really get suckered and was only going along for party hackery purposes. Either way it is nothing to be smug about.
Which only goes to prove the validity of Kim Beazley Snr lament: the Labor party has gone from the cream of the working class to the scum of the middle class.
What is it with those apostrophe’s Jack?
Anyhow, I think you make it up as you go along. Al Grasby kicked off multiculturalism in Australia, borrowing the concept from Canada, where it was a sort of serious notion on account of them having a French-speaking province.
Anyhow, as Sgt Preston of the Yukon used to say, this case is closed King (or was it Rex?)
And as you’ve worked out by now Sir Henry, one of Jack’s less endearing habits is slapping false, misleading or irrelevant labels on his interlocuters so he can then score points off strawmen instead of off real people or real arguements.
For example, he’s cast me as a career Labor hack who gives a free pass to “cultural rorting and racketing” ‘cos that’s that his personal demonology calls for at this point in order to appear to stay afloat on this thread.
The fact I’ve never been a member of any political party, am far too lazy to be a careerist and the only rorting and racketing I’ve endorsed has nothing to do with culture or the ALP is immaterial when Jack’s clenched jaw pursuit of the Great White Wet leads him once more into…what’s the phrase I’m looking for?…oh yes…”gossip-mongering, falsehood-spreading and nit-picking” as what he thinks is an appropriate response to having the piss taken out of him again.
But we shouldn’t be too hard on the poor old bugger. Imagine going through life unable to dance with teh funny.
He’s not as boring as John Greenfield.
I think he should not spend so much time on the computer, as his mother said numerous times, but get on with his schoolwork and tidy up his room.
Close but no Dominican cigar, Sir Henry. It’s true that Al Grassby shook down the Quebecois settlement under Trudeau for his ‘family of the nation’ paper, but the origin of the peculiar Australian multiculturalism was in the community organising of the 1950s and 1960s, and in the small-welfare states of a few Labor and non-Labor State Governments. If anyone was to be credited with multiculturalism as it’s practiced in Australia it ought to be Hubert Opperman, tolerant and forgotten Immigration Minister par excellence.
The Canadian system used to rest on a universal idea of dual Canadianness, which no more reflects the Australian multiculturalism than pancakes and maple syrup with snow outside and guns on the table reflects Australian breakfasting.
Flasco, dear boy,
1. Neill Wright, the regional representative of the UN
High Commissioner for Refugees at the National Press Club, Canberra (28/4/06)address directly and explicitly credits Al Grasby as being the “father of multiculturalism” in Australia.
2. Paper published by National Symposium Responding to Cronulla: Rethinking Multiculturalism, Published by the University of the Sunshine Coast 2006, credits Al Grasby as having set out the policy in his speech entitled “Family of nations” as part of the Whitlam government’s change agenda.
3. p.10 “HORDES OR HUMAN BEINGS?” paper published
in March, 2000 by the Catholic Commission for
Justice, Development and Peace credits Al Grasby quite explicity as having developed, coined and put into effect multiculturalism in Australia.
4. p.24 “INTER-CULTURAL STUDIES A FORUM ON SOCIAL CHANGE & CULTURAL DIVERSITY” a paper published by the department of Inter-Cultural Studies in the
Department of Modern Languages, University of Newcastle (Vol. 1 FEBRUARY, 2001) ISSN 1445-1190, credits Al Grasby with introducing multiculturalism as policy and concept into Australia.
5. Wikipedia says this: “Grassby (sic) quickly became one of the more high profile members of the Whitlam ministry as he gained a reputation as a one person propaganda unit for the benefits of multiculturalism…”
6. Herald/Age obituary credits him as being “father of multiculturalism”.
The right-wing commentariat always made sure Al wore that one.
Which would tend to explain the dominance of that assertion amongst the sources you’ve cited, but that doesn’t mean it’s actually what happened. I recommend to you Mark Lopez’s Origins of Multiculturalism in Australian Politics (2000), which argues that the Whitlam government simply encoded as ‘multiculturalism’ four patterns of public policymaking which academics, community groups, public servants and think-tanks had been developing for years: in what he called ‘ethnic rights’, ‘ethnic welfare’, ’structural pluralism’ and ‘cultural pluralism’. I’d also argue that the critical no-turning-back dates for Australian multiculturalism weren’t 1972 and Whitlam or 1973 and the ‘family of the nation’ speeches, but 1978 and the Galbally Report into migrant services, and 1960 and the publication of Control or Colour Bar by the Immigration Reform Group.
Sorry, no hyperlinks.
In multiculturalism as in any other field, policymakers start and the Federal Government follows: Al Grassby simply shining as a Minister who had the ability to ’spik academik’. In any case, I don’t think you can make the case for a multiculturalism pinched wholesale from Canada—a country with very a different ethnic landscape, as you’ve said—and imposed down on a populace by Smooth Al: that’s a fairytale for paranoids.
Well, of course that invalidates my assertion (sottto voce snigger at the sources). Perhaps he borrowed the term from Canada and called for work that’s been done up to that point, stirred the stick and made it public policy. Hmmm?
Was that a snigger at your sources or mine? You went to wikipedia first, for the publicly-editable record.
Perhaps. Certainly the word itself was first used by Trudeau’s government. The question of what it means in public policy remains open (ouvert en Québec).
w/r/t multiculturalism as it plagues us in the world today, the Canadian example, at least insofar as it concerns mainly anglophone/francophone relations and the status of Quebec, strikes me as sort of irrelevant. Both French and Anglo communities had anciently settled in Canada, and both had a sort of claim to primary legitimacy in terms of having, well, built the place. If the Francophones had shown up en masse out of the blue in Montreal in 1955 and made similar demands, then there might be a point. That was not ‘multiculturalism’ as we know and love it now, it seems more like simply a practical entente emerging from Canada’s history as it was lived.
“3. p.10 “HORDES OR HUMAN BEINGS?â€? paper published in March, 2000…”
False dichotomy. Surely, “hordes *of* human beings”, c’est le mot plus exacte.