This is an edited for corrections version of a transcript originally posted at Australia.to News. The interview took place on Channel 9 on Sunday morning (August 1st). Oakes showed Abbott up as the lightweight he is, and (surprise!) the interview has hardly made a blip in the MSM, so I’m signal-boosting (and crossposting on Kim’s request).
TA: Nice to be with you Laurie.
LO: In light of that latest poll, have you started measuring the curtains at the Lodge?
TA: Look, Laurie, this isn’t about me and my chances. It’s about our country and its future. That’s why I keep saying that we’ve got to end the waste; we’ve got to pay back the debt; we’ve got to stop the big new taxes and stop the boats.
LO: And stay on message. Which you’re doing there, I notice.
TA: Thanks.
LO: Now, there’s a story in some of the papers today about allegations that party officials, Labor, but some Coalition too, apparently, are gambling on this election, betting on the results in some seats. What’s your attitude to that?
TA: Look, I don’t think it should happen. I’ve never put a bet on an election result, and I would certainly want to discourage it.
LO: Nick Xenophon says that you and Julia Gillard should ban your people from doing that. Will you impose a ban?
TA: I am a reluctant bann-er, but I would certainly be very happy to say that it should not be happening.
LO: While we’re talking Sunday papers, what’s your comment on Alexander Downer’s claim that the Coalition used to feed information to Kevin Rudd so that he could use it against party rivals like Laurie Brereton?
TA: My understanding, Laurie, is that Alexander has disputed the story, and I doubt that it’s true.
LO: So, why did he say it? Are you saying that he didn’t say that?
TA: Well, he’s put out a statement and he disputes the story.
LO: OK. Well, you told Malcolm Turnbull once that you were a weather vane. Does Australia need a weather vane as a Prime Minister?
TA: Um, it was a bit of light-hearted banter.
LO: It was followed by the word, “Mate”.
TA: Yeah, it was light-hearted banter, and obviously, I want to do what I’m saying I’m going to do, and that is, as we said earlier, it’s to end the waste, it’s to repay the debt, it’s to stop the new taxes and it’s to stop the boats Laurie.
LO: That was specifically about your attitude towards climate change and the Emissions Trading Scheme. You’ve had more positions on that than the karma sutra haven’t you?
TA: That’s an old joke Laurie.
LO: It’s true!
TA: Look I’ve always thought that climate change happens. The important thing, though is how do you deal with it? And I think that the best way to deal with it is to take practical action that will achieve the 5% emissions reduction target by 2020.
LO: That’s now, but last year, you wrote a “op ed”? piece in a newspaper saying that the best thing that for the coalition to do was pass the emissions trading legislation, get it out of the way?
TA: I was trying to support the leader, and obviously, the leader, then, had a rather different position to me on this.
LO: Then you said that climate change was crap?
TA: I think what I actually said was the idea of the settled science of climate change is a bit aromatic.
LO: And then you said you only said that, in fact, on this program, you said you only said that climate change was crap because you were trying to persuade a group of Liberals in Beaufort Victoria that negotiating an improved ETS scheme would be the best thing to do?
TA: Sure, Laurie. Look we can go …
LO: That’s four positions so far?
TA: We can go over all the history, but the important thing is…
LO: The important thing is that then you had another position where Malcolm Turnbull did negotiate a compromise, you pulled the rug out from under him and you became the leader and said no ETS now or ever.
TA: The important thing Laurie is what will happen if the Coalition wins. We will achieve our 5% reduction through some direct action measures. What will happen if Labor wins? If Labor wins, we will have a carbon tax. Simple as that and that will put up the price of everything. A $40 a tonne carbon tax will double the price of electricity.
LO: But, isn’t it important if you become Prime Minister, that Australians can believe what their Prime Minister says?
TA: It is and I am very happy to pit my record against that of Julia Gillard. Why should the public trust the Prime Minister when not even Kevin Rudd could?
LO: All right, but I’m interviewing you today, not Julia Gillard? Another weather vane example, you said that you would not have a new tax under any circumstances? A month later, you announced would be a 1.7 % tax levy to pay for the paid parental scheme. Weathervane!
TA: Well Laurie, the point is that paid parental leave is not only a visionary, social change, but it’s an important economic forum..
LO: You’re talking about the broken promise on taxes within a month. You couldn’t hold a position for a month?
TA: The point I’m trying to make Laurie, is that paid parental leave is a very important social change and an economic reform and if we’re going to get it any time soon, it does have to be paid for. LO: So another example where people couldn’t believe what you said?
TA: I think it was a situation where I changed my mind about how we were best going to achieve a very important social change and a very important economic reform.
LO: There’s a lot of mind-changing. On paid parental leave itself. First it would only happen over your dead body?
TA: Look, I’ve been quite upfront about the fact that I did change my mind on this issue but …
LO: A lot of issues.
TA: That’s what people do when they are mature people. They are capable of growing and changing in response to changing circumstances.
LO: But it keeps changing. In your book, “Battle Lines”, you said you’d come around to believe that in a paid parental scheme, which was a modest scheme funded by a small levy on all business. Then you produce something that’s not modest at all, very generous people – get full pay, up to $150,000 a year, and it’s paid for on a tax only by big business?
TA: And, I think if you go back to the “Battle Lines” Laurie, you’ll see that the scheme the Coalition has proposed is quite similar to the scheme that I came up with in “Battle Lines”.
LO: The scheme you came up with is not modest, let alone ? Modest.
TA: Well – Look, people can argue the toss backwards and forwards, but do we or do we not want a fair dinkum paid parental leave scheme? Years and years ago I didn’t.. I have grown into this position and I don’t apologise for growing out of old-fashioned positions and coming into better positions, which better reflect the enduring values of the political movement that I now lead.
LO: They say people change their minds, but you change yours a lot for someone who wants to be Prime Minister. I mean, now, you’re talking about changing the paid parental leave scheme again and you haven’t held that position through you the election campaign?
TA: Labor can’t have it both ways. On the one hand, they can’t say that I’m an old-fashioned ogre, and on the other hand, say that I change my mind too much.
LO: Do we want a Prime Minister who changes his mind all the time? And you can’t believe what he says because he’s a weather vane?
TA: As I said, I’ll leave all of this to the public to judge. I mean, on the one hand, you’ve got the Labor Party saying that I’m desperately old-fashioned and reactionary and on the other hand you’ve got the Labor Party saying that I change my mind all the time so I think the Labor Party needs to…
LO: It’s not the Labor Party saying it, I’m saying it.
TA: I think that Labor needs to get its story straight, Laurie.
LO: You know that I’m not spouting Labor Party lines. This is fact, I’m quoting you, not the Labor Party. Let’s look at immigration. Where do you stand on immigration at the moment. You announced a week ago that you wanted to halve the instake?
TA: What we need – we need to get the intake down from the current unsustainable levels. We had 301,000 in 2008. We had 277,000 last year, and we’ll get it down to a maximum of 170,000 in the first term of a Coalition Government.
LO: So you’re a small immigration man?
TA: I’m an appropriate immigration man. And I want a strong Australia. Over time, a strong Australia will be a bigger Australia, but not nearly as big as the kind of figures that recent levels of immigration would give us. We don’t need 43 million people by 2050.
LO: Well, in May 2008, you said, and this I’m quoting you again, not the Labor Party. You said, “One of the Howard Government’s greatest but least recognised achievements was to rehabilitate the immigration program, increasing numbers to record levels.” Woopee, big immigration.
TA: And the interesting thing about the Howard Government’s record in immigration Laurie, is that public support for the program increased at the same time as the numbers increased, and one of the reasons for that was because the Howard Government stopped the boats. One of the problems at the present time is that public support for immigration is falling away because the Rudd/Gillard Government has not been able to control our borders.
LO: But you know that the asylum seeker boats don’t affect the population, because refugees who arrive that way are taken off the top of our program, so it’s got no impact on population. Now, let me put this to you. In January, you said, “There’s no reason to think that Australia has a fixed carrying capacity. My instinct is to extend to as many people as possible, the freedom and benefits of life in Australia.”
TA: Of course, I said that. But the point is, – the point is Laurie, recent immigration numbers have been unstainably high…
LO: But that was only January?
TA: Yes, but one can be in favour of an immigration program. I mean, I was born overseas myself, Laurie. I support an immigration program. I support migrants. The Liberal Party always has and always will be a pro-immigrant party. But it’s got to be a sustainable program, and that’s the whole point of bringing the numbers down from the current unsustainable figures to a sustainable figure. And unlike Julia Gillard, who tries to have a population debate without talking about immigration, I’m being upfront with people and I’m saying that if we are elected…
LO: You’ve done a total 180 degree turn since January?
TA: The point that I make…
LO: Weathervane!
TA: The point I make Laurie, is that there’s got to be public support for the immigration program, and with out of control borders, it’s very hard to have public support for the immigration program. If the people think that a component of our program has been subcontracted out to people smugglers, they’re not going to be very supportive of immigration.
LO: Another weathervane issue WorkChoices. Your current policy is not to touch Julia Gillard’s industrial relations laws. You say that they deserve a fair trial and business deserve certainty. That wasn’t your view, only – what – two months ago?
TA: The point is that I have been absolutely crystal clear…
LO: About changing your mind?
TA: Because I accept the verdict of the people in 07. And over the last few months in particular Laurie, I’ve been talking a great deal to the business people who live under these laws, to the people who work under these laws and they say that they can live with imperfect laws, what they can’t deal with is constant change, and that’s why I say I’ll give them a period of certainty and stability.
LO: But as recently as your Budget Speech in May, you said these the laws would destroy small business.
TA: That’s not quite what I said. What I said is I would like to see more flexibility, and the interesting thing about the legislation is that it does provide for flexibility.
LO: You said a few months ago that it’s massively unfair to small business?
TA: And as I said to you Laurie, I’ve been talking to small business and they say…
LO: Why wouldn’t you talk to them before you said that it was massively unfair to them?
TA: They make the point…
LO: Off the top of the head?
TA: They make the point, Laurie, that there are aspects of the legislation that they don’t like. But what they want above all else is a period of stability and certainty, and that’s what they’ll get under me.
LO: So, are you a weathervane?
TA: I’ll leave others to make their judgments. What I am trying to do is the right thing by the Australian people and as circumstances change, sure, the appropriate policies will change, but at the moment, what we need above all else is to end the waste, to pay back the debt, to stop the big new taxes and to stop the boats.
LO: In the notorious “7: 30 Report” interview, with Kerry O’Brien, you said in the heat of discussion… I can’t read my writing. But you said, – no “but in the heat of discussion You go a little bit further than you would if it was absolutely calm, considered, prepared, scripted.” Now, that’s an exact quote. A lot of people leapt on that as questioning your truthfulness. I was more concerned what it said about you, the admission that in the heat of the moment, you go further than you should. Is that a good quality for a Prime Minister?
TA: It’s something that has got to be kept under the best possible control Laurie, and that’s something that obviously I’m very, very determined to do.
LO: All right, now, you’ve got a policy out there today on aged care. Can you tell us about that?
TA: Yes, sure, it’s $935 million. And our objective is first of all to get more beds, and second, to get more high-care beds, and third, to cut the red tape, which is such a practical problem for the nursing home operators.
LO: Now, Julia Gillard’s also announcing a policy today. She’s going to allow super funds to offer a simple low-cost product called MySuper, which she says will give average workers an extra $40,000 when they retire. Do you favour that system?
TA: I understand that this is one ever the recommendations of the Cooper Review. What we’ve said Laurie is that we will carefully consider those recommendations. We haven’t given a formal response to them, but we will carefully consider them.
LO: What are you going to do about Parliament? I know this is not a mainstream issue, beltway issue.
TA: It’s important to me Laurie.
LO: Well, I think that it is probably important to Australians.
TA: I think it is..
LO: Are you going to do something about it?
TA: The problem in Parliament Lauris is that all people see is Question Time, and Question Time is basically adults, responsible adults, shouting at each other. It’s not a good look and it doesn’t actually enhance our system of Government. So what I want to do is to try to get away from the ferocious adversarial partisanship of Question Time, and one way to do that or — to help do that, is to limit the length of ministerial answers, to limit the length of questions. To try to ensure that the answer is directly relevant to the question. And to make sure that we go straight out of Question Time into the matter of public importance debate without waffly ministerial statements on things like the accessibility of cinemas. So I will change or I will seek to have the standing orders changed.
LO: Kevin Rudd used to sometimes go for 12 minutes with a boring answer to a question. What limit will you put on it?
TA: He was, as you said Laurie, the Bradman of boredom. An excellent line! I think four minutes is more than ample time to get out a ministerial answer. If you need more time than that, you have a ministerial statement. So, there’ll be a one limit on questions and four minute limit on answers. This is the system that’s worked pretty well in the Senate and I think it can work well in the House.
LO: A quick final issue. The Greens look like having a balance of power in the new parliament, could you work with the Greens if you were Prime Minister?
TA: I don’t know Bob Brown well. But we have got on well on those occasions where we’ve needed to talk about things. I think he’s sincere. I think he sincerely wants a carbon tax, which is one of the reasons why…
LO: Which you I don’t?
TA: Which is one of the things that a re-elected Gillard Government is going to be a real problem. But I will do my best to work with whoever I have to work with. But I’ll have my objectives and they’ll be clear ones. To end the waste, to pay back the debt. To stop the big new taxes and to stop the boats.
LO: Again on message. We thank you.
TA: Thanks Laurie
So LP has run up the white flag I hear? Bunch of useless academics analysing but never doing!
Fuck you lot, goodbye!
I agree the interview provokes a strong reaction, but I wasn’t expecting that one!
That’s a bit fucking harsh Political Animal, what the fuck do you expect a blog to do besides analyse – carefully butter your tea and crumpets and take the rubbish out for you on bin night? I call rank, steaming bullshit on your pious ratbaggery! If you’re pissing off we won’t fucking miss you. Perhaps you wrote the above in haste at commencing a new career for August, like training to be the hygiene and wash liquid assistant to Philip Ruddock’s burly-forearmed proctologist.
I hope the Sphere of Influence’s chat with People Skills gets disseminated widely, as the Monk does come across as a bit of a tool therein.
Maybe Oakes has a conscience problem. His one-time-student-cleaner is now dumped/hospitalized though (understandably) bitter yet.. Mr O’s loyalty may be commendable but certainly not professional.
Huh?
Okay Tigtog, this is seriously a non partisan post but how can you accuse Abbott of being a lightweight after the debacle of Gillard’s campaign. I am not defending Abbott (though I think he would be better than Gillard) but to accuse him of being a lightweight whilst ignoring the joke of Gillard “ripping up” the campaign manual in light of polls, backflipping on a second debate, suggesting a citizens’ assemble, cash for clunkers, the school uniform bribe to parents. Gillard is a policy free zone and if the left put as much effort into attacking the lightweigt, spin based, no policy ALP campaign then we might actually force them to stand for something next time.
Instead the left attacks Abbott and ALP apologists use the tired mantra of the ALP being at least slightly better. They are not. They are worse than the Libs because they use workers to get elected and then govern for the bosses. This is treachery and it is disgusting.
I’ll answer that Spana.
We have a promise to reduce Australia’s immigration intake to a level that it is already projected to fall to.
We have a climate policy that won’t go close to reducing Australia’s emissions by 5% by 2020 and it was the opposition that blocked Labor’s actual policy from being passed.
We have a parental leave plan that is just plain inequitable and then financed by a new tax, when Abbott has promised no new taxes.
We have ridiculous claims about public debt that every sane Australian economist knows is false.
Would you like any more?
And for you, because you have obviously not actually read any of the moderators posts and comments, very few Labor people on LP are uncritically praising Labor’s policies, or their campaign. Almost all of us have significant reservations and concerns.
However, it is undoubtedly the case that Abbott’s policy inconsistencies have received very little scrutiny in this campaign so far. And that is what this post is about. Highlighting an interview that, if Gillard (or Rudd) had given it, would have been decried for its weaknesses.
On Topic, it’s not so much that the main Liberal campaign rhetoric is a joke, it’s that it has received no critical attention by our media.
Either the meeja are (a.) waiting, working their shaping of the narrative to a schedule we plebeians aren’t supposed to understand—and the grilling of the Opposition is to start presently, or,
(b.) really only into clayton’s news reportage, and democracy in this country is in peril yadda yadda yadda.
The optimist in me thinks (a.) is still viable. I saw the interview in question, yet I plain forgot about it in all the excitement about the leak nonsense.
Oakes was on form: ‘Well, in May 2008, you said, and this I’m quoting you again, not the Labor Party. You said, “One of the Howard Government’s greatest but least recognised achievements was to rehabilitate the immigration program, increasing numbers to record levels.” Woopee, big immigration.‘
I have to say, I can’t stay mad at this old hack.
The BS ‘scoops’ are what he has to do to remain where he is. Remember, his employers shitcanned the Sunday programme, so this interview was the only meat in the very unfilling sandwich that is the Today Show.
Serious journalistic interrogations are his sideline, not his main gig.
Bookends.
This interview is virtually identical to that Oakes did with Joe a week ago,
In each case the interviewee has been shown to be an incompetent fool who, once away from the slogans, has nothing worth saying.
Really this should be an election losing interview.
Shouldn’t it?
I think this thread is about a television interview of a conservative political leader in 2010, not about any pressing Fordian-society, father-knows-best, cloth-cap socialist issues.
I broadly agree with that Nick. The thing that has struck me in this campaign so far is that the media’s usual gotcha stuff has bypassed the coalition campaign. Things like the Abbott interview, or the Hockey interview, or the policy inconsistencies, just aren’t being widely followed up. The mistakes, when they occur, aren’t being amplified in the normal way. There seems to be room for only three narratives – the knifing, the leaks and the narrowing – and none of them are helpful to Labor. Much of this is Labor’s fault, but it will be incredible if we wake up on the 22nd with a new government whose policies have been subject to as little scrutiny as the coaltion’s have been…
I can’t stay mad at the Sphere of Influence either. He’s at least well-versed enough in politics to recognise bullshit answers and wryly smile when he’s being lied to whereas I’m never sure with the younger press gallery that they actually understand what’s going on.
I’m coming to think more and more that it’s not bias, it’s that the media who’ve been ticked off to follow the election simply aren’t qualified or literate enough to be able to judge what they’re seeing and hearing.
To the interviews with Hockey and this one of Abbott I’d add everything that Barnaby Joyce has said since March. It really ought to be a qualification for a job as opposition finance that you know more about finance than I do.
@Spana
This blog has covered plenty of Gillard’s shortcomings in other posts – I’m not about to repeat what has been said already by others here.
That should read “before” March when he was sacked. Sorry.
Yeah, like the hysteria one journobot tried to start when Gillard mentioned Rudd’s seat as “Griffiths” instead of Griffith.
Cast your mind back to 2007 when Beazley was ALP leader. Those mediocrities on “Insiders” spent 3 weeks discussing the outrage of the Leader of the Opposition mistaking some tabloid media non-entity with Karl Rove.
What a rotten interview – it’s all mindless “gotcha” crap and actually made me feel sorry for Tony Abbott, which is a first for me. I think Laurie Oakes comes out of it worse than Abbott.
I learn nothing from interviews and political reporting like this.
Where are the “Tony Abbott backflip!” headlines for this inconsistent idiot.
A sobering read. I’m trying to work out whether Tony Abbott is a complete idiot or a complete sociopath (shiver!). God knows what he’s got in mind for Australia once he gets in. Thanks for the post. Laurie Oakes is gold.
“Oakes showed Abbott up as the lightweight he is, and (surprise!)the interview has hardly made a blip in the MSM, so I’m signal-boosting…”
What do you mean by “surprise”?
The real problem with Abbott is he’d probably have to be caught on camera doing the (ahem) traditional catholic thing with a live boy before anybody noticed, since he’s got such a long history of stupendously stupid public announcements.
Most people are just immune. He’s unfortunately still got one major advantage as evidenced above: nobody gives a damn.
The real question is: why should they? This years ALP is an appallingly degraded version of the revolting festival of semi corruption and “say anything” bullshit politics of NSW Labor. Nobody wants that, and despite the widespread understanding that Abbott is an idiot and a tool, it’s better than being a corrupt deceiver.
John Quiggin points out that LO missed the opportunity to further skewer the weathervane (hmm, quite a mixed metaphor) on his claim that a $40 carbon tax would double the price of electricity.
By putting the exclamation mark after it, I was employing a common method of denoting sarcasm. HTH, HAND.
If you think this is a bad interview, blame the Labor Party HQ operator that wrote the questions for Laurie.
Which, incidentally, makes his comment that he isn’t “…spouting Labor Party lines” a bigger lie than anything Abbott said in the whole interview.
Why isn’t this stuff in an ALP advertisement?
Come to think of it, I’ve yet to see an ALP ad out here in country WA.
Plenty of Tones biff bang bow plan of action and the lamearse ACTU ‘can’t trust Tony n workchoices’
Thanks tigtog!
@4 and 5 – I believe the reference is to the fact that a young Kevin Rudd used to work as a house cleaner for Laurie Oakes when he was a student at ANU in the 70s.
I’m sorry but I really don’t see why this is supposed to be such damaging material. Abbott doesn’t respond directly to the awkward questions, but he puts forward a reasonable case not unlike that of other Australian politicians in a similar situation. Or to put it another way, it’s a lot of self-serving bullshit but no worse than most other politicians churn out in these kinds of interviews.
I’m sure if this was used in ALP advertisements it would not change a single vote. There seems to be a quite startling amount of wishful thinking on display in recent comments by die-hard Labor supporters.
Sure, Ken. Increased accessibility for people with a disability is just a waffly matter of no public importance. But you know…nothing to see here, and all that.
The point, Ken, is that he’s running as some sort of pillar of consistency, and on trust, whereas in fact he’s all over the shop depending on his moods and/or where he thinks political advantage lies.
ZOMG Nick I’m mortified to have missed such an earth-shattering part of the interview. Run it in prime time and it will turn Labor’s fortunes around in 24 hours. Or alternatively, it will leave people wondering WTF Abbott is on about.
My money is on the latter.
@29 – It did feature on prime time news, Ken, and it was pretty clear that Abbott was in effect saying that access for people with disabilities was trivial piffle. He later apologised.
Kim @ 28 isn’t that just a boilerplate observation about contemporary politicians? I mean does anyone seriously want to argue after the last week that Gillard is NOT ‘all over the shop depending on … where [s]he thinks political advantage lies’? (I’ll leave out the bit about moods; I have no idea if Abbott’s moods play any role in his public statements.)
@ 23:
You looking at the bizarro universe version of Larvatus Prodeo RE this interview, eh? This Oakes interview is lauded here by the contemporary posters. More of it and your budgie-smuggler wearing freak should be delegated to the dustbin of history.
Better reading comprehension, please.
@31 – Abbott is particularly egregious on this. The only things he is consistent about are (a) hard line social conservatism and (b) realpolitik to get power.
Thanks Kim @ 30; not watching the MSM I didn’t know. But if it featured on prime time news, it leaves me nonplussed to read people implying that the interview was ignored. How can it have been ignored if it was on prime time news and Abbott apologised? What do people want, ABBOTT PUT SHIT ON THE DISABLED to be a running headline for the next three weeks?
@34 – It featured on SBS, not ABC and Ch. 9, if I recall correctly, Ken.
But the point is more about where the press pack takes the narrative. It’s most instructive to watch the pressers live on ABC News 24. You get a real sense of who’s being put under pressure, and who’s getting soft treatment, and what lines are being pushed that then get translated into “where the story is going”.
No argument about that Kim @ 36. My observations were directed at those who seem to think this transcript is some sort of smoking gun that would destroy Abbott if only more people were aware of it. To me, it’s just common-or-garden pollie crap.
Well, Ken, I listen pretty carefully to what Gillard says and she runs a pretty consistent line on most things.
Ken, what we need is for Abbott to agree to the debate Gillard has proposed this evening.
The refusal his office has issued could just be about screwing with Labor for a couple of days, or it could be a more serious stalling tactic.
Why would they stall? Perhaps because their internal polling/market research told them that he did poorly with swing voters in the last debate, and the Liberal campaign has wisely extrapolated that, realising that another debate on a single issue will go even more badly with that not-unimportant demo, and therefore the meeja will soon figure things have gone pearshaped. (You don’t think the ALP is the only party that leaks like a sieve, do you?)
If the Coalition machine believes their man has had a bad debate then the MSM will know about this only slightly less quickly than instantly.
I thought you were exactly the kind of person who wouldn’t mind seeing Abbott do nothing but repeat “stop the… er… waste, stop the… er… taxes, turn back the… er… boats” for a full hour in the face of Gillard showing us exactly what a millionaire Slater & Gordon solicitor can do with a well-prepared brief? Surely you don’t think he gets to shine against _that_?
I think he only got a passing grade from the commentariat at the last debate because he was relatively coherent across a series of divergent topics. Make him try and establish dominance on a convergent issue—kitchen table economics—and I foresee him going to water, as he either relies too much on his slogans or he goes off script to behave like a dick. As per the Oakes interview. As per the dickish Abbott we’ve known and loved these many year.
Ok, Ken. I’ll just ignore all those “accessibility of cinemas” Google results, the 5-10 times I heard it mentioned on the radio and morning tv today, and completely dismiss the fact many voters, including many elderly voters, have disabilities, and/or friends and loved ones with disabilities.
Here was I thinking electoral fortunes were entirely won and lost within 24 hours on the back of a single heartless gaffe, and not influenced to any degree by the accumulation of said gaffes over months and years, every one a reminder and reinforcement that Abbott, a former Health Minister and good Christian soldier, doesn’t give a flying fuck about the sick and disabled.
Heaven forbid my wishful thinking it should become Labor’s entire election platform for the next 3 weeks, and not simply 2-3 seconds of an election ad knocking Abbott’s health credentials…health, iirc, being merely the issue the majority of people have nominated as their number one political concern in every poll I’ve read for the last few weeks.
And yes, I think there’s room for more than one election ad related to health – one dedicated to the kind of economic rationalism his government applied, and another a personal measure of the man and his stated beliefs.
Excuse the overbaked and far too lengthy sarcasm.
And ditto, Nickws. Absolutely, Gillard should keep calling for the debates to happen.
Labor might note that Christopher Pyne can be found in Hansard running the very same line last October.
Agreed, Adrian @16
Laurie conducts this as if he’s a “player”.
Why isn’t this stuff in an ALP advertisement?
Or to ask the same question in a more suggestive format: “Why not have this stuff in an ALP advertisement?”?
Tony ‘Weathervane’ Abbott. I like it.
Down@out @43, Spooner’s cartoon on the editorial page of the AGE today takes it up.
Nick @ 40 either ‘the interview has hardly made a blip in the MSM’ as tigtog states in the post, or it got on prime time news, morning radio and TV etc as you and Kim say. I don’t see how both versions of events can be true. I note, following your advice to Google, that it also seems to have been a story in ‘The Australian’, ‘The Age’, ‘The Sydney Morning Herald’, ‘The Daily Telegraph’ and so on.
The post originated as an illustration of the alleged free ride Abbott is getting in the MSM. Not reading the MSM, I assumed the allegation had some substance. It appears this is far from the case and the perceived media bias is just the usual selective blindness experienced by some fervent followers of all political parties.
Ken, the interview and weathervane stuff no, that one line I mentioned yes…apologies again for the sarcasm and overreaction. Sick in bed the last few days with too much time on my hands, and sleep patterns all over the place.
No worries Nick.
Ken, are you serious? Tony Abbott’s (non)treatment by the media is the one issue where you want to show us some ‘nuanced’ analysis?
What about all that “the major parties have been treating the people like mushrooms, keeping ‘em in the dark and feeding them shit” that you’re always going on about? Just because you fervently hate both big political establishments doesn’t mean you’re anymore objective than those of us who give the Coalition heat, you know.
And buggered if I can see how someone who avoids the professional meeja can keep track of the reporting they’ve been doing since at least the demise of Turnbull. That’s a year’s worth of material to catch up with.
Nickws I’m touched that you follow my humble contributions with such close attention. I’m sure yours also provide a lot of insight if only I could remember what they were.
That would be because I aim to be inoffensive, Ken.
Nick @ 32,
“Reading comprehension”…? Turn it up.
I was responding to posts like Adrian @ 16 and Simon @ 21, who seem to think Oakes missed opportunities or went for ‘gotcha’ questions. Better contextual criticism, please.
As for Abbott being “my” candidate, well, all I can say to that is LOLz. Many LOLz.
I love the way the Left think I’m a Tory and the Right call me out for being a Labor loyalist. Can’t please everyone any of the time, I guess…
I have seen some nice critical thinking here, so for me it begs the question : Does the coalition have a comprehensive view of where they want to take Australia, and is Tony across it sufficiently to speak consistently and eruditely, or does he lack a vision and subsequently makes it up as he goes along?
Where can I find the video footage of this interview?
Why doesn’t Gillard just play the footage of this interview over and over and over again? Election over! Landslide to Labor. If you’re stupid enough to vote for Abbott and Hocking then you’re one of three things; a turdling Liberal voter regardless of which idiot is running, or just a dumb c*#t that should be deported, or just too wealthy to give a f*#k!