It looks rather like the Liberals are going with the Gadarene swine option. If Joe Hockey becomes leader, then no doubt it will be characterised as a “save the furniture” tactic. But how persuasive is a party that will have churned through three leaders in three years, and is now crumpling in the face of a campaign led by climate change denialists and newspaper pundits (who are pretty much the same people, when you think about it)?
I wonder if Kevin’s picked out an ambassadorship for Malcolm yet.
Peter Hartcher gets it right in the SMH:
THE Coalition has entered a cycle of despair over its leadership. The more a frustrated Malcolm Turnbull tries to assert his authority, the more Coalition MPs carp about him to reporters.
The more they carp about him, the more the media report on the Coalition’s problems.
And the more the media report on them, the harder it becomes for Turnbull to talk to the public about anything other than his leadership.
The worse the funk becomes, the worse the Coalition’s poll numbers become.
And there is nothing like poor polling to make MPs anxious and angry at their leader. The cycle begins anew.
It is a cycle many failing leaders have discovered, to their dismay. The leader cannot land a blow on the Government because, as one Liberal remarked this week: ”We’ve successfully made it all about us.”
… And the one point that the Liberals just don’t perceive:
A new Liberal leader would break the party out of its cycle of despair, but it would face the same problem. The problem has a name. Kevin.
I still think the Liberals don’t get it. The baseline assumption appears to be that their appalling poll numbers are all about them, and there’s some natural centre of gravity which will exert its pull, if only they get rid of their leader.
Who would want to lead this mob? Is it even possible?
A plan to pay off Labor’s debt? Hahaha, good effort, Turnbull.
The Turnbull presser is unbelievable given the circumstances. They have to be kidding, unfortunately I think, they think they are serious.
At the root of the Liberals’ problem is the Howard legacy.
Howard prosecuted a kulturkampf inside the Liberal Party. He eradicated the small “L” liberals from the party.
The problem for the Liberal Party is that many Liberal voters are small “L” liberals. Howard effectively disenfranchised these folk.
The front bench of the Liberal Party contains many Howardites. However, many of them have enough perspective to understand that the Party is facing an electoral cataclysm. Many are prepared to hold their noses and to negotiate on ETS, a trademark small “L” liberal issue.
However, the back bench contains many ideologues who are more committed to Howardite ideology than they are to electoral survival.
Unless this issue is resolved in Turnbull’s favour, the Liberals could do the unimaginable and lose the forthcoming Higgins by-election on the issue of ETS.
That would spell the end of the Liberal Party
Further to Katz’s comment, Howard’s ideological affinity for hard right ideology was tempered, most of the time, by an intuitive understanding that the Australian electorate is existentially conservative rather than ideologically right-wing, although this intuition failed him in relation to IR and climate change during his final term. The Howardistas on the back bench have never had any such understanding to begin with.
What Katz said. The Liberals need someone with proven leadership experience, a well-articulated sense of political beliefs, demonstrated energy, and the necessary youth to separate the Party from the Howard years.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Alex Hawke will be leader.
Q: What’s the difference between the Federal Liberal Party and Jurassic Park?
A: One is a movie, the other is a theme park full of dinosaurs.
Anyone using the words “Howard” and “hard right ideologue” in the same sentence should be disqualified from commenting on Liberal leadership issues. It shows a basic misunderstanding of “hard right” and the policy legacy in the Liberal party of JH.
I actually disagree with Hartcher’s final point: they DO know that Kevin is the issue.
What do you think Strippergate, Healthgate, Utegate, Foulmouthgate etc were all about? They have been trying, without success, to land a punch on him for 2 years.
The problems in the Liberal Party are chronic and they won’t go away unless they make MAJOR changes to both policy and personnel.
And wot Katz sed.
Yeah I disagree with Hartcher’s final point as well. It’s one of those neat little summations that journalists are so fond of, but doesn’t really measure up apart from sounding good.
Rudd is part of the problem obviously, but let’s face it, any reasonably competent PM and front bench could make this mob look like the rabble they are. They are the main problem, and until they begin to actually develop policies, stop waiting for some miracle to deliver them government, and stop believing that they are the natural party of government, nothing will change.
And yes, most of it is Howard’s fault.
I watched the Libs sad desperate press conference rthis morning -or, some of it. I was mainly in the press pursuing the three Liberal clowns on the leadership issue.
But, really, unless the viewer was some kind of political tragic, or a desperate Liberal hoping for Jesus to arrive on clouds of glory to save The Party, it really was the some old boring stuff they’ve been going on with for months. All across the country tonight (if the press conference gets on the news tonight – one never knows what that Liberal bete-noire, Mr. Rudd might have up his sleeve to horn in on the news cycle -) people will be reching for their channel changers within minutes of Turnbull opening his mouth.
“Anyone using the words “Howard” and “hard right ideologue” in the same sentence should be disqualified from commenting on Liberal leadership issues.”
Well, you’re the only one who’s done it.
Although perhaps the quotation marks excuse you from the application of your own rule.
Should be ‘interested in the press pursuing @ 9.
Well, yep, but I still think the assumption lurks around the joint that there’s no positive reason why Australians would like KRudd and the Labor Party in government. That’s just demonstrably not so.
FDB has you there Wozza. You didn’t read the text properly, did you?
Time to paraphrase an old quote:
When I read the term “hard right” I reach for my keyboard …
Hawke may look very good standing on a mountaintop singing Edleweiss with his fellow supermen or whatever, but the man’s a droog of the highest order and has gone on record as saying some truly appalling things.
If Howard’s legacy is too hot for the public to handle, unless Hawke has suddenly discovered some subtlety next to his iron crosses, he’s gonna be about as popular as Tony Abott’s abortion opinions.
I think Liam’s joking, patrickg.
Oddly, I rather suspect Mark that one of the reasons people like Rudd is for his similarity to Howard. The people who are responsible for changing governments in this country like someone who seems anodyne and competent. Charisma is much overrated because although the hard core supporters may be impressed, those votes are in the bag anyway. People who arouse strong passions almost always bother as many people as they motivate. And even when they are a net positive, sooner or later, there is buyers’ remorse as the hard reality that one person isn’t really able to rewrite the world as you would like it sets in.
When Howard lost, it was in strong part because he began playing to openly to the core supporters through work choices, trying to be a leadership and charisma guy which he never was. Doubtless this was driven by thoughts of his legacy, fear of Costello and the very real prospect that winning a fifth term was going to be hard because his support base was ageing and even people who like anodyne and competent eventually get bored of looking at your face on the box, especially when your main claim to competence — keeping interest rates low, starts to melt away.
Rudd, wisely from his POV, if not of political progress, ran a Howard-lite campaign, in essence saying that with him you could have a newer fresher Mandarin-speaking Howard without workchoices and who wasnt’ Bush’s buddy and who wouldn’t make us look like ignorant gits on the international stage. This was perfect for an electorate whose swinging voters were looking for something else.
I am reminded of that episode from The Simpsons in which Lisa tries to repackage Barbie as Lisa Lionheart only to be outdone by a new Barbie who appealed because she had a new hat.
Heh heh, my apologies. Internet, sarcasm etc etc.
The Liberals could certainly lose Higgins, which would be the mother of disasters. This is exactly the kind of wealthy green-conscious electorate that could turn on them over climate change. (In contrast, in wealthy Bradfield, voting Liberal is like having a bowel movement. It
is something people do naturally their whole lives with little if any thought.)
The Libs are in huge trouble and there is no solution. At present they look like the British Labour Party circa 1980 with a weak leader and with not one but several Tony Benns running amok.
That’s a trifle unfair to Tony Benn, Sam. He’d pretty much lost his political touch by the early 1980s, but he remained an intelligent person with principles.
Half-facetious, I think, at the most, Mark and Patrickg.
Alex Hawke might be a droog, but he’s organised, capable, disciplined, and he’s got a clear (if objectionable) message. I wouldn’t underrate those factors in today’s Liberal Party.
I wouldn’t rule anything out in the longer term, Liam. If they go with Hockey and he loses, who knows who would get up? Once you’ve used up anyone from the Howard ministry who’s vaguely plausible, you end up with a lot of unknown unknowns.
Safer seats might also really be a factor if the expected decimation occurs. Severe election losses tend to eliminate some high fliers (ie Chrissy Pyne), and also shift the factional/ideological balance within parties.
I think Liam’s joking, patrickg
Oh, thank the Great Flying Spaghetti monster for that. I misread him as well. But never underestimate the Australian electorate. After all, they kept Mr 17% Howard in power all those years. And brainless alpha bullies seem to have an inexplicable popularity for much of the population (think Sam Newman, Kyle Sandlilands – Alex Hawke fits into that popular mould).
Liam #5,
I can’t wait for the stoush when the Hillsong faction takes on the Brethren faction. I mean, you’ve gotta get the right people to vote on your behalf when you don’t vote yourself. Stacks on the hill!
Helen, one of the reasons I think Hawke’s going to go far is exactly because he’s not just a bigoted boofhead with knuckle-scars from the footpath—he’s a great deal more intelligent and well-read than most of the rest of the Parliamentary Liberal Party. Lefties like us underrate the motivated Liberal Right at our own risk.
As Mark says, a lot of people are going to move on soon, and the Liberal Party in 2013 is going to look very different to 2007′s model.
Countdown to Andrew Elder telling me I’m utterly wrong: 5, 4, 3, 2…
Liam you might well be on the money. Already his colleagues accuse him of leftist tendencies in the persuit of power. And there is no way the liberals will become palatable unless they move from their now most conservative position.
Alex Hawke could well turn out to be the Steven Bradury of the Liberal Party.
BRADBURY not Bradury, whoops.
I think that the answer might be a shared leadership thing like they tried at St Kilda (FC). This way they don’t need to keep churning through them, and the media pack can play a different game: rather than keep up the pretence that this or that leader matters, they can talk about which one is the most effective.
Mark, ask Michael Foot (but soon, he is 96) about Tony Benn. But if we must depersonalise, it is entirely fair to describe a large slab of the Liberal Party today as the re-birth of UK Labour’s Militant Tendency.
Labour’s 1983 Election Manifesto was famously described as the longest ever suicide note. If Turnbull gets rolled by the climate change deniers, that record may soon be broken.
Sam, I’m not disagreeing that Benn showed deteriorating political judgement by getting too close to Trots. But the 83 Election Manifesto wasn’t entirely the result of “Bennism”. I think it probably is worth depersonalising these sorts of analyses – political parties in dire trouble are in that slough of despond for many more reasons than the misjudgements of individual pollies (though obviously the causality is somewhat iterative or circular).
Hillsong versus the Brethren…
In a sun-dappled elysian glade the shade of Sir Robert Gordon Menzies, KT, AK, CH, QC, struggles to understand the 21st century Liberal Party.
Sad that Turnbull didn’t work out. I was really hoping he’d do a David Cameron and move the Libs to the centre, and push the ALP hard on environmental issues. Unfortunately is party is infested with denialists, and its just way too easy to run a populist scare campaign on emissions trading.
Unfortunately, I think this is the path Hockey will follow.
So ‘anonymous’ Liberals reckon their salvation lies in The Minister for WorkChoices and Party Pies Joe Hockey.
Nick Minchin says he doesn’t know who these anonymous sources are.
That’s because they’re f**kin’ anonymous you moron!
I thought Liam might be at least half serious. It’s very obviously Hawke’s ambition, and let’s face it, nobody thought he would ever get as far as he already has.
Mark, I like the way you snuck Abbott into your subject line there and then didn’t elaborate, and nobody else has either. Any takers? I was assured by a Coalition insider ten years ago, when Howard seemed unassailable, that Abbott was ‘the next Prime Minister but one.’ That is still technically possible, but only if they can work out a way to revert to 1902 and take the vote away from women.
He’s certainly got someone capable ambitious, etc. working on purging that wikipedia page you linked to of all negative connotation, lol.
I suspect Hawke’s leadership of the party may be limited by not just his own… bullish position on the political spectrum, but also by his alleged place on other spectrums, too. I doubt that Australia would be ready for that, the libs themselves certainly aren’t (see Pyne, Chris).
Is it just me, or does anyone else think that the Coalition’s dumbed down economic rhetoric is, to use American idiom, uniquely bad ‘retail’ politics for 2009? They have everything riding on ‘Labor debt’ and ‘Labor interest rates’, and it doesn’t make any sense to me. And it hasn’t made any sense for some time now.
How can they not suspect that even low info voters might think that government debt in a global downturn isn’t a huge concern, and that interest rates rises from all-time lows doesn’t change the fact that interest rates are still near all-time lows?
The best explanation I can come up with (apart from them being lazy, or wanting to get media airtime with an aggressive message, or just being stuck in the Keating backlash nineties) is that they’re only interested in appealing to those half-arsed economic conservatives who don’t contemplate their beliefs much. I’m talking of the folk who reckon they’re sophisticated enough to see a trend emerging under KRudd, yet apparently have no opinion whatsoever about the downside of the Howard/Costello economic record and what that means for Liberal policy making (debt truck, debt truck, where art thou, debt truck?)
Also Hockey is an idiot of Bishop like proportions. When attacking Swan’s budget be made so many errors (factual errors, that is, nevermind strategic) a stint in the leadership will only further expose his basic ignorance.
Not true. When push came to shove the non-Bennites were at least able to put Dennis Healey into the job Wedgie put his hand up for (deputy).
Well According to the genius at the Telecrap,Ackerman Rudd was elected by the deft hand of the Chinese,not sure how but is this bloke getting madder by the day.
I dont recall seeing any PLO guards at the polling booth,anyone??
The Liberals are truly lost in the wilderness. It seems to me that the Liberals are behaving more like a football team desperate to return to premiership form by sacking the coach and retiring a few of the older players for “younger legs”.
There’s no one in the Liberals that can lead this unruly bunch and who ever is left with the chalice will have to be an expert in herding cats.
As an iconic sporting personality, a mother and a resident of regional Australia I think that as Federal Liberal leader I would be able to appeal to a range of constituencies which the Coalition needs in order to improve its electoral fortunes.
I, for one, would most likely vote for a horse that could herd cats.
Are the climate change deniers threatening violence now?
Fran Barlow and FDB @11 and 14
Hardly worth an argument but the post @4 claims Howard had an affinity for hard right ideology, which may not be exactly my words but is close enough to them to make a “gotcha” a litte harsh.
Don’t worry, silkworm. I think philip’s just off his meds for the moment.
A little harsh, perhaps, Wozza because you could argue that the distinction between “affinity” and being was subtle and perhaps more apparent than real, and still what it would mean to “temper” it in practice, but as Mercutio once said:
Tis not so deep as a well, nor wide as a church door, but mind you tis enough
especially when your claim of exclusion depended on it.
@43, silkworm, I’ve deleted the comment you’re quoting for obvious reasons.
And what on earth does this have to do with Turnbull vs Hockey for the Liberal leadership???
Seriously, if you’re going to be a troll, at least comment on the right post. Sheesh.
@34 – thanks, Pav! And agree about the conditions of (im)possibility for his electability.
I’d love to see Abbott lead the Libs into an election. It would be hilarious.
Mark @47
Raises a question for me about whether you should just moderate out all denailist trolling on posts that are on climate policy issues (as opposed to posts on the science itself). It does get annoying!
To get back on topic, it seems to me the fundamental problem is that there seems to be little recognition that getting back in govt in 2010 was always near-impossible (only one historical precedent, from the Great Depression, etc).
That and what people above have said about Howard’s legacy and the general, well-accepted point that the Libs don’t do opposition well.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised by Abbott as leader, it would complete the turn the Liberals appear to have taken in the same direction as the U.S. Republicans. We even had our own “birthers” blathering on about Rudd’s childhood memories at the last general election.
@51 – josh, insofar as most of it’s trolling, I wouldn’t mind doing it at all, except that it’s time intensive and trying to do it via various semantic alers tends to capture non-trolling comments as well.
Indeed Mark and then there Poe’s Law types to contend with too …
Speaking of hard-right, Libs extremist Cory Bernardi is on Q&A tonight along with Belinda Neal, Germaine Greer & Planet Janet.
Jacques, I was almost tempted to watch it when they said Our Germs was going to be on, but the thought of having to put up with little Cory and Planet as well puts me off.
Still, if I get really pissed and break out the popcorn, it might be fun.
Turnbull, Hockey or Abbott? Why not all three!
What about a sweepstakes on which Liberal leader can score the lowest ratings?
All but one, Katz, who he converted to the dark side of the force with the promise of great powers.
The one small L liberal who still insisted on wearing his Galactic International Amnesty badge after he joined that dark side.
The one whose sinister countenance is so reminiscent of watching a movie based on a certain character in Transylvania that people instinctively think of rings of garlic, a mallet and a wooden stake.
And have Ratzo’s compelling Rottweiler in charge of the Electoral Commission.
Robert Hill and Amanda Vanstone, and Michael Woolridge for that matter, were also considered wets.
DI(nr),
that would be REALLY pissed and should involved moving any throwable object harder than a nerf ball out of arm’s reach
But imagine the pulp that Germs will make of Janet. I’d like to see that.
J de M @56, Belinda Neal AND Germaine Greer, together?!!
How scintillating!
I might even take the dog for a looong walk.
The producers must have a wicked sense of humour?
It’s always so instructive to hear Greer pontificate on the art of child rearing.
As for the topic’s question of “Turnbull, Hockey or Abbott?” I say none of them.
Well Soccrates I imagine the lack of direct experience of something has never stopped you pontificating on it.
Q&A this week was way below last week’s standard. Let’s have more pollie-free Q&A’s.
Agree that Hockey is out of his depth on economics topics. As is Julie Bishop: heard her on radio this week, very uncomfortable on economic policy, only got into her stride after the questions moved on to the ETS.
Nickws, I think it’s conceivable that Tony Benn was ‘running amok’ despite the fact that he failed to secure the Deputy leadership. I recall reading about his public pronouncements week after week in “The Guardian” in those years. Likely the best-known Labor pollie in the UK then?
Wilson Tuckey “runs amok” on the backbench, that nice Barnaby runs amok on the front bench.
Interesting to see Julian McGauran wielding the meat cleaver today. He the turncoat ex-National, now metamorphosed into the disloyal Liberal. (Brother of retired Nationals ex-Minister Peter McG.)
et tu, Julianus!
Adrian, imagine all you like but I leave the business of pontificating on child rearing to childless media types as they do it so well.
And it’s Socratease.
Oh c’mon, Socratease, she wasn’t ‘pontificating’. Anyone less like the Pope could scarcely be imagined. And honestly, do you really think people with no children ought not to be allowed to make general remarks based on their observations of children? Not even when they’re on a talking heads TV panel where the issue has been specifically raised and they’re been invited on the show to, you know, talk?
I actually disagree with Hartcher’s final point: they DO know that Kevin is the issue. What do you think Strippergate, Healthgate, Utegate, Foulmouthgate etc were all about? They have been trying, without success, to land a punch on him for 2 years.
Chinda63 @8, the Libs know Kevin is a problem, but they don’t realise the nature of the problem. Utegate made clear that they perceive Rudd as evil and stupid, but a smooth talker who has seduced a naive electorate. The real situation is more like a happy pair of newlyweds with the bride’s ex-boyfriend hovering jealously in the bushes at the end of the driveway. It’s a bad look, and the bride is increasingly sure that she’s made the right choice. In fact, the bride dumped the old boyfriend because she disapproved of his morals, and his peculiar behaviour since has not made her regret the decision.
The actual ‘Kevin problem’ is that Rudd exploits the Libs’ weak points in a steady, subtle manner. He can stir them up with a single sentence, then sit back for a week of media fun. Even if they were not in policy disarray AND they understood Rudd properly, I think they would find it very difficult to cope with him; he’s inserted wedges into every crack in the LPA and just taps one of them lightly with a maul when it suits him.
Rudd’s only serious danger is that the electorate will realise how calculated some of those innocuous little actions are, but I don’t think that will happen.
Pavlov’s Cat said: “Anyone less like the Pope could scarcely be imagined.”
I agree, but then the verb has a broader meaning these days, as I expect most people here would realise.
As Greer would be the first to assert, she is free to say anything she likes about anything she likes. What value I place on her opinions on various subjects is another question.
I succumbed and watched Q&A, and was pleasantly surprised. Germs was, as usual, extremely interesting, and the advertising bloke was amusing. Belinda Neale was surprisingly dignified, and Planet was marginally less psychotic in person than in print.
Young Cory, otoh, is just an arsehole.
*Nods*
Pontificating can actually refer to celebrating mass in a certain fashion.
Though I have no idea whether that sense of the word throws any light on Q&A.
I think that some right wing columnist claimed that was why Gillard shouldn’t be education minister.
That Q&A wasn’t that bad and it was funny seeing Janet Albretschen pull Bernardi into line though. Gee he was on good behaviour tonight that’s for sure I was waiting for him to do a Minchin and start frothing at the mouth about climate change. I thought Germaine Greer was excellent and even though Belinda Neal’s responses were very sensible it’s just hard to warm to her.
I agree with whoever made the point above about Q&A needing to be politician free. Last week’s pollie-free episode with Christopher Hitchens, Waleed Aly etc was popcorn stuff.
I always felt that Julia was well suited to the Education portfolio as, with her measured delivery, she often sounds as though she is lecturing children.
Actually, I think the analogy between having had kids and being Education minister is about as strong as Thatcher’s “balancing the household budget” line on economic policy. Note also that no one ever enquires whether male Education ministers have kids, or have much to do with said kids.
But this is straying off topic.
Michelle Gratten in The Age quotes a Lib critic of Hockey as a “…lightweight…”.
Wow! I’m still a bit touchy about my own weight. Maybe it’s not too late for me to join the Libs and be regarded as skinny.
Loved Q&A. Time to send another e-mail to the ABC and ask them to get reid of the pollies mostly for good. Maybe one week in ten.
As always loved Germaine, but the advertising geek stole the show. It can’t have been anything but good for Belinda Neal. I really warmed to her. It makes me wonder whether the campaign against her was a malevolent RWDB plot.
For that matter is the media plot against malcolm an evil Minchin plot or som clever backgrounding by kRudd?
Re: @78 and @80. I went to Sydney Uni with both Joe Hockey and Belinda Neal and (1) yes, Joe Hockey is a lightweight (ideas wise), and (2) it is not a malevolent RWDB plot against Belinda Neal. It would not be hard for anyone even modestly left to find themselves on her wrong side.
Terry #80, that would also be around the same time that people like Anthony Albanese, Peter Colley, Adam Rorris and Kiri Evans were involved with the left at Sydney Uni.
My response was sort of the opposite — I saw it as the ABC helping her make a very focused attempt to rehabilitate her image. Agree with you about the advertising geek though.
Socratease, what, so now even Gillard’s ‘measured delivery’, which most people regard as an excellent thing, is to be held against her? If you can’t find anything worse than that to say, you can’t have much of a case.
And not for the first time! Remember Australian Story after the whole restaurant incident?
M. Jacques
I said I hoped Q&A could be pollie-free more often, but several other LP posters said this before me, and several letters published this week in The Age TV guide made similar points.
What is it about current pollies? I think the main factor is what Mark indicated on another thread. Since the mid-1980s, the main daily focus of AusPols has been to flay each other (spin, sound bites, simplistic forays, pouncing on anything) in the press, TV, radio.
As we can observe, some AusPols are very skilled at this fairly childish, tedious, low-intellect pursuit, and the media transmit it (with litttle filtering or nuance) straight into our homes.
Yes, Kevin tweaks and prods and the Frothers go forth and froth all over again.
I kind of fell a little in love with advertising geek. So cute, so geeky and so great at calling Bernardi in his shit.
Germs is always great even when I totally disagree with her. I thougt Belinda Neal was just making politician noises, but in quite a pleasant, soothing sort of way. I think she’s getting a positive response just because she didn’t rip the head off a live chook and drink its blood.
I kind of fell a little in love with advertising geek. So cute, so geeky and so great at calling Bernardi on his shit.
Germs is always great even when I totally disagree with her. I thougt Belinda Neal was just making politician noises, but in quite a pleasant, soothing sort of way. I think she’s getting a positive response just because she didn’t rip the head off a live chook and drink its blood.
At the root of the problem is that the supposed ‘conservatives’ of this country are gambling with the future of the world. Gambling goes against all ‘conservative’ philosophy and that, my friends, is why they are looking death straight in the eye!
The one and only “Planet Janet” is trying to tell the mushrooms that the philosophy is actually about being pragmatic: they know they are in deep deep trouble and looking for the best way to explain themsleves!
The ‘free-market liars’ aren’t called such for nothing. They shamelessly keep looking for publicity in any form by playing charades with the leadership and making it look like they are wrestling with the big stuff when in fact they are well and truly shot with an overload of big business honchos who will always refuse to pay for the negative externalites of greed!
Julie Bishop is tieing her Nuclear argument in knots aswell by forever talking about Australias small contribution to emissions!
I thought Belinda spoke well actually! She doesn’t say too much but still gets right to the matter.
Apologies for just about turning this thread into an ABC plug fest but felt it was my ‘umble duty to let everyone know that the “couch collective” on Insiders this Sunday will be consisting of Annabel Crabb, David Marr & Andrew Bolt.
Oh yes there will be blood.
Alex Schlotzer @ 40 thinks “There’s no one in the Liberals that can lead this unruly bunch and whoever is left with the chalice will have to be an expert in herding cats.”
Turnbull is reputed to be a cat killer, of course. That might be a more useful skill in dealing with the likes of Wilson Tuckey. And we’d all be very grateful.
Paul @ 79 I too was pleasantly surprised by Belinda Neal, and I really don’t care if she is trying hard to re-jig her image, which may well be true. There’s a certain bullish strength about her and I can imagine her being a straight talker and a really rough/tough hockey player too, all of which would have invited the usual “ballbreaker” descriptions throughout her life, to which I have no doubt she would have responded robustly. Add to that her evident intelligence which would have caused a fair bit of resentment and we can have some sympathy for the way her persona has developed and been perceived. All credit to her for apparently taking the “anger management” directive to heart. Let’s hope she’s reaping some personal reward from it beyond hopes of salvaging her political career.
Having had my own struggles with being too strong and too clever by half for a girl in a family of boys I can sympathise with her. All that energy, drive and intelligence continually thwarted by the pressure to conform to other people’s expectations. Hope she manages to hang onto her true self through this. She was looking very “groomed” and she’s an attractive enough woman not to need any Woman’s Day make-overs.
Talking of grooming it was good to see Natasha Stott Despoja in the earlier Adelaide Q & A. Sharp as ever, but elegant and a far cry from those Doc Martens stomping around the Senate Chamber. Interesting to see how she goes from here on.
I am happy to see pollies on Q&A, striking poses as just normal folk. Its quite interesting to watch and sometimes pleasantly surprising (as per PatriciaWA above).
As voters, we have a responsibility to know our pollies better than most of us really do. They “represent” us, after all. And now that door-knocking, tub-thumping and soap-boxing are no longer really feasible, an amiable and mostly intelligent television chat show is as good a way as any.
My real complaint with Q&A is the empanelling of the likes of Planet Janet. We hear and see enough of these over-paid opinionistas through their own media columns and on the internet. I can’t see any reason why the ABC should be boosting their already expansive profiles on Q&A (and the Insiders). Frankly, the right wingers are pretty well old hat these days, and mostly boringly predictable.
I am also mildly irritated by the stacked audiences and the silly clapping. I assume the ABC thinks that making sure half the audience is Young Liberal makes it a “balanced” audience. Not.
Otherwise, Q&A is developing into a fine program worthy of our tax dollars. Good luck to Tony Jones et al.
And a final ramble, since this thread is already derailed.
Did I imagine it or did Germaine really come out in support of nuclear power to combat climate change in Australia? I wish she would brief herself a bit better before she blasts off on some complex issues way outside her usual remit. Nuclear power might be OK for the UK and much of Europe for various historical and resource reasons, but it is not the best option for Australia by a long shot (as many estimable LPers have pointed out at length in previous posts).
And I notice Mr Shallow Thinker himself, Peter Van Onselen, jumped on the nuclear bandwagon in his column this Oz morning, presumably post Greer. Gaaah, what would he know, and why should we care? He will be on Q&A next.
Phew, this is gooood thread. I love your mind Fran Barlow.
I can’t reist having a spray about La Albrechtsen arguing that Australia can’t be all that racist because it so succesfully integrated all those migrants. Which was hardly a counter-argument, was it? Pity nobody asked her about Howard and his dog whistling. But I digress.
Point 1. Because of deep-seated racism in Australia, and the attendant political sensitivity by successive governments postwar, migrants were preferred to look as if they could pass for white people from a distance; albeit as Europe progressively recovered economically after WWII compromises had to be made. The concentric circle of “Wogs start at Calais” moved ever outwards.
Point 2. Governments have done the bidding of employers’ needs first, especially when they have been of the Coalition flavour; so even if your average anglo-Australian was a bit unhappy about all the wogs flooding into god’s own country it was a mixture of cultural xenophobia (what is it with you wogs and cash?) and anxiety about the fact that wogs will work for less money and worse conditions, thus competing in the labour market unfairly. This isn’t entirely without substance. Nowadays, some industries – that pay very low rates indeed and yet are vitally important to us all – have been abandoned by Aryan anglophones entirely: hospital kitchen work, taxidriving, cleaning of suburban railway carriages and public lavs, and of course overlock machine outwork…
Pavlov’s Cat @82: Most people? What are you basing that on? And what case do you refer to?
Maybe we should be able to pick our leaders like this – http://bit.ly/41uVyG – Spotted in a shop window in Perth but not such a bad idea I think…..