Saturday salon 3/6 (late edition)

1. Leadership traits

The major polls currently have Labor ahead 53-47 at both Newspoll and Essential Report on a Two-Party Preferred basis. Andrew Beaumont has commentary. Labor would have 82 seats to the LNP’s 63, with 5 Other.

Essentially Turnbull and the LNP are going nowhere. However, the leaders approval ratings are dreadful. In Essential Turnbull is net -11 and Shorten -14. In Newspoll Turnbull is -19, and Shorten -20, both up a bit, with Turnbull’s the best since September 2015.

Newspoll took a look at Leadership traits across the years since Rudd in September 2008 and Gillard in July-August 2010. Their ratings are simply stellar compared to what we think of our leaders now.

On Understands the major issues Rudd was on 76, Gillard on 77. Now Turnbull and Shorten are on 57 each.

On Likeable, we have Rudd 80 and Gillard 77. Now Turnbull is on 55 and Shorten on 49.

On Decisive and strong, Rudd was on 73, Gillard on 81. Now Turnbull is on 55 and Shorten on 48.

On Cares for people Rudd was on 79 and Gillard on 77. Now Turnbull is on 50 and Shorten on 59.

For In touch with voters, we had Rudd on 69 and Gillard on 72. Turnbull is on 49 and Shorten on 51.

On Has a vision for Australia, Rudd was on 80 and Gillard on 79. Now Turnbull is on 59 and Shorten on 56.

Only 47 per cent thought Rudd was Arrogant, Gillard scored 45. Compare Turnbull on 64 and Shorten on 50.

70 per cent thought Rudd Trustworthy, Gillard having knifed Rudd scored 61. She’s still well clear of Turnbull on 50 and Shorten on 44.

Finally, Rudd scored 70 for Experienced, and Gillard 72. Here Turnbull pips both on 73, but, oddly, is seen as less experienced the longer he stays. Shorten trails on 61.

Something has degraded our politics. I think it started with Abbott’s ‘leadership’ in opposition, and continued with Rudd’s undermining Gillard. I believe Turnbull had a chance of rectifying matters, but blew it when he chose politics and scare campaigns on negative gearing rather than rational debate over policy.

No doubt there is more to be said, but the pattern is startling. Leadership is not what it used to be.

2. Uluru statement – take a closer look

Under the Mabo judgement, 25 years ago on the 3rd of June, 1992, the High Court ruled that the land title of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders be recognised at common law.

On 27 May we passed the 50th anniversary of the 1967 referendum.

That referendum, I understand, essentially performed two tasks. Firstly, the provision which said that Aborigines were not to be counted in reckoning population was struck out. Aborigines had no doubt been seen as a dying race by the founding fathers. In any case they were not part of “us”.

Secondly, the Commonwealth could make special laws concerning ethnic groups, but not for Aborigines. I gather Aboriginal affairs was seen as a state matter. The constitutional change struck out the Aboriginal exception.

Therewith Aboriginal affairs became a federal matter, but the benefits of this have been less than satisfactory.

The expectation now was that indigenous peoples would receive recognition in the preamble of the constitution. That is “they” were there before “we” came along. Now we are all one, and the ancestral culture just remains as a flavour.

The Uluru meeting rejected this as tokenism, and the prospect of an extinguished identity through absorption. Karen Middleton has an instructive piece on the making of the Uluru statement in The Saturday Paper (you get one free article per week). I thoroughly recommend it along with the article by Gabrielle Appleby at Inside Story.

There are essentially two proposals in the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The underlying concept is that ancestral sovereignty did not exist over the land, rather it lies in a spiritual connection between the land and the indigenous peoples for over 60,000 years. This sovereignty has never been ceded or extinguished and co-exists with the sovereignty of the Crown.

Now is the time for this ancient sovereignty to shine through in a fuller expression of nationhood.

First, that the constitution provide for a “First Nations Voice” to advise the parliament on laws that affect indigenous peoples. It could not be disbanded as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) was in 2005. This in itself would constitute permanent recognition and the on-going aspirations for cultural continuity.

Secondly, there would be a Makarrata Commission, a Yolngu word meaning “the coming together after a struggle”, established by parliament, not the constitution. It would establish a national framework for truth and justice, and would “supervise a process of agreement-making between governments and First nations and truth-telling about our history.”

There are international precedents. Also Middleton points out that care was taken to consult with conservative legal experts on what would pass muster with conservative people.

So in time, if people like Barnaby Joyce don’t fly off half-cocked, as he already has, we may have a satisfactory settlement following the invasion that occurred from the late 18th century.

3. Corbyn in with a show

Jeremy Corbyn has shocked the world and the Brits by making a go of the election called by Theresa May to wipe him out.

Seems women vote for Corbyn, and in one poll he was ahead with young people by 70 votes. Unfortunately the young are the least likely to vote at all.

In a recent poll Labour closed the gap to six points. YouGov came out with this graphic, signalling a possible hung parliament:

Please note that there are 650 seats and the numbers in the brackets come up 14 short. I think there should be 18 NI (Northern Island representatives) and there are four missing elsewhere.

Under those numbers Labour could have a crack at a coalition, but the Conservatives would struggle for partners.

We can but dream, but the UK polls are notoriously inaccurate, partly because of the undemocratic first past the post system.

People actually like Corbyn’s policies. May on the other hand has made UKIP redundant, I’m told, and upset the oldies by demanding the use up they value in their house down to 100,000 pounds before they get social security support (known as the ‘senility tax’). It was universally pilloried and I believe has been withdrawn.

Breaking news has the Conservatives’ lead down to one point in a late Labour surge to the poll next Thursday.

4. In One Nation done for?

Crikey says she is.

There is a problem over who owns the plane, and was it declared, a second problem in James Ashby suggesting he use his printing business to rip off Electoral Commission funding, and now that:

    for several years, Hanson’s personal bank account details were listed on the One Nation website and she was collecting donations instead of the party, with no indication from funding disclosures that she spent of it on campaigning expenses.

Crikey is normally pay-walled, as is the Tele in this case. Here’s an article in The New Daily.

62 thoughts on “Saturday salon 3/6 (late edition)”

  1. A few thoughts on (degraded) leadership:

    Head of Party no longer implies “leader”. The lead seems to come from hazy influences lurking a little our of sight and scrutiny.

    Bipartisan government has gone. Both parties guilty.

    Instant media (including so-called social media) has such rapid expression that there is no time to moderate the input or gather factual evidence. The public get a contrary view the moment any view is published and is told the other is wrong or inadequate. In the end, many reject all media. Leaders are only leaders whilst they are being followed.

    Australian pathos. As citizens I think we could fairly be described as political sloths. We don’t shake our fist outside and holler how “I’m mad as hell and I’m not gonna take this anymore” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGIY5Vyj4YM

  2. Geoff:

    Instant media (including so-called social media) has such rapid expression that there is no time to moderate the input or gather factual evidence.

    On many occasions now we have an announcement by Turnbull & co accompanied by a demand that Labor should support it. This is dutifully picked up by the media, including the ABC who then demand an instant reaction.

    Labor under Shorten typically waits for the documented proposal which is then given due consideration by shadow cabinet and the party room. This makes them look bumble-footed and obdurate.

    They are often critical on minor points, which makes them look nit-picking, and political.

    Other parties like X, the Greens, ON plus the randoms are much more nimble in their response, and sound more credible on the airwaves.

  3. On One nation a state ReachTel poll in the CM shows ON still doing well at 15.9%, better than that in NQ and the regions.

    The poll has LNP ahead 51-49 TPP, which is a worry for Palaszczuk. However, I’m suspicious of robo-polls like ReachTel, so I’ll be interested in the next Galaxy poll.

    Lack of jobs is said to be the biggest gripe, and that can’t be denied.

  4. Didn’t the High Court in the Mabo decision find Native Title existed only because it was a settlement and had Australia been, as you say ” invaded” ( conquered ) then Native Title was extinguished ?

  5. Jumpy the British declared this country “terra nullius”. That means “nobody’s land” so on that basis they (the Brits) claimed it as theirs.
    The High Court rejected terra nullius, effectively acknowledging the “place” of Australia’s first people. Later on, the Native Title legislation was passed.
    Sadly, the record of actually returning lands and permissions to use the land is pretty poor.
    We owe a lot more than money to those peoples, I suspect it is our most wicked problem.

  6. Another terrible attack in England.
    May could have boosted her election chances if she called it just after ramadan killing spike ended.

  7. We owe a lot more than money to those peoples, I suspect it is our most wicked problem.

    England may have culpability, not current non-indiginous Australians.

    From the findings;

    Rejection of terra nullius: The decision recognised that the indigenous population had a pre-existing system of law, which, along with all rights subsisting thereunder, would remain in force under the new sovereign except where specifically modified or extinguished by legislative or executive action. The Court purported to achieve all this without altering the traditional assumption that the Australian land mass was “settled”. Instead, the rules for a “settled” colony were said to be assimilated to the rules for a “conquered” colony.

    Also;

    native title could be extinguished by the valid exercise of governmental powers provided a clear and plain intention to do so was manifest.

  8. Jumpy, I don’t think anyone said it was Mabo v The Commonwealth. Can you give a link to what you are quoting from please?

    I’m not all that interested in the legals. When you conquer a place ethically you have a responsibility to look after the people you conquer, not rob or displace them.

    Start from there.

  9. BTW I should have pointed out, there was no mention of the word “treaty” in the Uluru statement.

  10. Jumpy –
    “England may have culpability, not current non-indiginous Australians. ”
    You think we non-indigenous owe nought to anyone Jumpy? Go read Tim Bottoms Conspiracy of silence: Queensland’s Frontier Killing Times. Or visit Yarrabah just south of Cairns.

    Despite throwing a lot of money to “help”, we have stuffed it up in big lumps. Can you see that?

  11. Jumpy, fortunately we as a society have moved past the “do to others as they would do to you” principle, but as the aggressor against aboriginals our responsibility to our victims is far greater as a result. In principle we are all benefiting from the proceeds of the crimes of a century or so ago and are proportionally bound in responsibility as a result.

  12. For a different approach (reserved seats in Parliament) fishing and other rights retained by local Maori groups; further land claims in recent decades, see Aotearoa (New Zealand) just over there, across the Ditch.

    By no means perfect, but different.
    They too had their ‘frontier wars’.

    There were newspapers in Maori, published in the 19th century.
    Introductory Maori language lessons are optional in Govt schools. Bilingual signs everywhere; Maori on Govt websites. In that respect, it feels like bilingual Quebec.

  13. Ambigulous thanks for that. Do we do none of that? If not we it is definitely time to try something like that.
    My eldest daughter has just received her approval to do a PhD on the topic of “decolinisation”. Worthy as that is she has not picked the easiest option I think. Her second uni is JCU Cairns where there are some pretty good resources here for her research. Hopefully her work will cast light on new ways to bridge the terrible gap between our peoples.

  14. Brian

    When you conquer a place ethically you have a responsibility to look after the people you conquer, not rob or displace them.

    The High Court found it was settled NOT conquered !
    Feel free to challenge that, have it overturned and Native Title is extinguished as a result.

    BilB
    I have never been an aggressor toward Aboriginals ( except if he chose to wear an opposition jumper on the footy field ) and I don’t know if you have but how far back in ancestry do we go with this ?
    3 generations, 7 generations, 40 generations ?
    What have you, Brian, Geoff, zoot or Ambi done that requires recompense ?

  15. Jeez Jumpy, where do I start?
    For beginners, I have enjoyed a great life on their land. We came and forced them off it. That it was not my hand that did it is one thing, but they are dispossessed just the same. Try and reverse the situation, suppose someone arrived here and not only bumped you off your land, shot and killed your family and gave them disease (that killed you) and then went and shafted the land you occupied without damaging it for around 50,000 years. Or did the 50,000 years not really count because you were not there for most of it?
    Do I need to mention how we withheld their pay right up into the 1960’s? Or mention the so-called stolen kids that were torn from their families, few records kept so they lost their “place”.

    Tell me Jumpy, can you say we don’t owe them, just because we did not squeeze the trigger, or hunt them down, make them slaves…do I need to continue.

  16. Geoff, if you want to self flagellate over the sins of others, that’s up to you.
    But first consider a first generation immigrant ( legal ) with 16 Swedish Great Grandparents.
    What does he owe to an Australian with 15 Indian Grandparents + 1 Aboriginal Grandparent ?

    Sweet FA I recon.
    Until you can point to some instance of aggression perpetrated by an ancestor of mine that I inherited guilt for, I’ll continue regarded myself as not indebted.

  17. Yep, the past has no relevance to today, we should leave it in the past. It’s time we abolished Australia Day and Anzac Day and started living in the present.

  18. Zoot I think, with respect, that is too subtle, even if one has 16 grandparents.

  19. You can argue that the past does not exist, nor the future, so we only have the present as a tangible reality. Yet the present changes, even us, molecules in motion, so effectively it doesn’t exist, only the past and the future make any sense.

    Obviously we need all three to construct meaning and purpose, without which we are stuffed, not meeting the minimum requirements of being a part of a big-brain species with a viable future, a species which excels in conscious social behaviour that takes account the life trajectory and aspiration of other humans.

    Germany invaded 22 countries in WW2, has acknowledged the past and worked hard for a better future. It has pretty good relations with all 22. Germans may not be loved, but they are respected, with the possible exception of the Greeks, but that has nothing to do with the war.

    I think we can do better than Anzac day and Australia Day,but how they should be changed is not a small matter.

  20. Hear, hear Brian. I second Geoff’s appreciation.
    (And I hope other readers have discerned the sarcasm in my comment re the past).

  21. zoot, I thought you were being sarcastic, which is why i made a general remark, not directly in response to you.

    have to fly. Seeya tonight.

  22. Brian, apologies for my poorly expressed comment, I didn’t mean to imply that you had missed the sarcasm.
    And let me reiterate my appreciation for your elegant analysis of history’s importance. I think it sums up (and extends) what I was trying to get at with my clumsy citation of white Australia’s “obsession” with the past.

  23. It is easy to misunderstand the “lessons of history”. For example, Vietnam was in many ways a reaction to the myth that WWII was caused by the weak reaction of the UK to what happened to Czechoslovakia before WWII. (More recent interpretations say that the “weak” reaction gave Britain more time to prepare for WWII and possibly avoid a defeat.)
    Then we have the “Vietnam lesson” that may have influenced US decisions for better or worse.
    Yep. History can help decision making provided there is a good understanding what was behind the stories of history and how situations then and now differ.

  24. I don’t even know why Anzac day and Australia Day were brought into this.
    Australia Day is a celebration of all Australians and ANZAC Day is an appreciation of all Australians and New Zealanders that served in conflict, both are all exclusive.
    What has that got to do with the non-Aboriginal guilt trip folks are on that everyone is supposed to join ?

    I would have hoped the objective is to bring together rather than divide with this discussion.

  25. Interesting points about WW2 and Vietnam.

    Here are some “lessons” I’ve seen drawn from the latter.
    i) “Nothing is more important than national independence” (poster at Melb Uni, after April 1975, taking the North Vietnamese position)
    ii) The US should never have sent troops to South Vietnam
    iii) Ditto Australia
    iv) The US Govt could have won, if it had committed more troops and not been “stabbed in the back” by Congress
    v) The North had an advantage in using staging posts in Laos and Cambodia (tolerated by Sihanouk) to send supplies into South Vietnam.
    vi) Much of the war materiel used against the ARVN was either lost, or captured (or even sold!!) US supplies
    vii) The North was a brutal dictatorship which sacrificed tens of thousands of its soldiers, and civilians in a massive war effort
    viii) The locals are always going to win a guerilla war; they know the land and are immersed in the population; they don’t get homesick
    ix) Communist propaganda painted it as a ‘southern uprising’ when it was in fact largely directed and supplied from DRVN; only after victory was this admitted
    x) The US should never get involved in another land war in Asia
    xi) The ‘re-education camps’ for conquered ARVN officers and soldiers gave the lie to protestations of peace and harmony by NLFSVN before their victory; ditto seizures of property etc. [not the wholesale scorched earth tactics of the Khmer Rouge, however]

    There are many more…. various viewpoints, widely varying “lessons”.

    The Lesson to End All Lessons?

  26. Mr J at 6.48pm

    It was a point about commemorating past events, compared with erasing memories of them.

  27. Vale Kirsty Boden,
    Australian nurse [London Bridge, London, England]

    ***As she ran towards danger, in an effort to help people on the bridge, Kirsty sadly lost her life.

    Some people are so brave.
    Rest in peace.

  28. Jumpy, in this comment you said:

    The High Court found it was settled NOT conquered !

    I think we must have crossed wires. Are you saying that the Brits just came to this land and settled here?

    My understanding is that the High Court found that the place was already settled.

    What I’m saying is that if you come to someone else’s land, barge in, set up camp, destroy their economic base, and then in the constitution that establishes your control and dominion specify that the original inhabitants should not be counted in determining the population, then justice demands that this be set to rights in some way. It should be a way that is acceptable to those who were wronged.

    If that is not done sooner, it needs to be done later. We inherit the responsibility to do the right thing.

  29. Recognising the truth of our history, from the frontier wars, ugly violence and rape, to the dictatorial control of the 20th century concentration camps,[iii] euphemistically called missions and reserves, we can more honestly acknowledge these, as well as the aspects of which, we can more readily, be proud.

    This is what a 21st century Australia has to synthesise and honestly come to terms with.

    It is essential as contemporary Australians that we acknowledge that we are not responsible for what happened on our colonial frontier, but we are responsible for not acknowledging what happened. If we do not, our integrity as a nation is flawed and we are shamed as a people for perpetuating a lie – ‘Lest We Forget’.

    Timothy Bottoms My all Creek Memorial Talk

    To put it into perspective, there is now very good evidence that in the Queensland frontier war alone more Australians died than than Australian casualties during WW1. Think how that loss has has affected our nation. It didn’t stop there, we ran them like in some concentration camps, stole their wages and kids. And now, after all this time, brush it all under the table, like a bit of fake history?
    Forget about guilt, try honesty!

    Umm jumpo … I think first time we discussed this subject in the early days of Larvatus we also discussed our sewerage treatment at the same time. You had some modified bio-cycle system from memory and I a Biolytix. Fair dinkum, at the end of our discussion I pointed out to you that your tank outlet size was to small and that you are full of s…t
    Done anything about it yet? 🙂

  30. Noel Pearson argues that native title was part of the English common law that arrived with the first fleet. It’s behind a paywall but can be read in screen captures here (scroll down a little).
    I am not competent to judge the validity of his argument but it seems quite convincing. (And it’s only a preamble to his masterful evisceration of Greg Sheridan).

  31. Apparently the British Parliament, at various times in the 19th Century, became concerned that some settlers out in the Australian colonies were treating Aboriginals unfairly.

    Had the local colonial authorities made enquiries, it may have been difficult to get truthful accounts of what was being perpetrated in far flung settler areas (I mean far from Sydney Town, Melbourne, Hobart…).

    In Gippsland, it is said that well-armed weekend hunting parties sallied forth with murderous intent. Not likely to tell Melbourne folk what they were up to??

  32. COMEDY SPOT

    From the UK “Daily Telegraph online”

    “A former special branch officer, who does not wish to be named, said that the Labour leader was monitored because he was “deemed to be a subversive”.

    The Special Branch definition someone who is subversive “consists of activities intended to undermine or overthrown Parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means.”

    Mr Corbyn would have come under the “undermine” category as if there was evidence anyone was about to overthrow democracy they would have been arrested.”

    I should bloody well hope so!!
    🙂

  33. I Googled and Ootz’s figures appear to be about right. Around 60,000 killed in WW1 and around 65,000 killed in Qld. I remember an older man when I was young saying he was told when he was young by an older man about a man who was licenced to take revenge for blacks killing someone in his family, may have been the Hornet Bank massacre. He shot every black person he saw, and they took the license off him when he shot an Aboriginal stockman sitting on the cattle yard rails near Toowoomba, about 200 km away. My bro said once that in Central Qld Aborigines were shot as vermin.

    One of my wife’s ancestors was Henry Dangar, who owned the property on which the Myall Creek massacre took place. Dangar still has an island named after him, but is famed for his efforts to pervert the course of justice.

  34. Interesting link on indigenous progress with education. Lots of good graphs. Short message – progress is being made but a long way to go.
    I think that the 1967 referendum achieved more than a few changes in the constitution. The strong support from the Australian people expressed a view that Aborigines were being mistreated and things had to change. the consequence of 1967 was a flow of changes that got rid of the legal discrimination against Aborigines that existed at the time. It also meant that more effort was put into Aboriginal health and education.
    However, like many I was disappointed that more progress hasn’t been made. Part of the problem here was that my vision of what should happen and what the priorities should be weren’t the same as those held by many Aboriginal people.
    During the seventies we spent 8 yrs on Groote Eylandt and my wife in particular spent a lot of time with Aborigines. One of the things we learned was that the locals, (whose lives were still strongly influenced by traditional culture) were extremely foreign. Their priorities were very different, their ways of making things happen were different and what they valued was different. We had trouble understanding their culture just as they had trouble understanding our culture.
    We also found that the flow of power in the community was different from how it worked in our society and often very hard to work out. The real power often belonged to someone who didn’t make much sense at all.
    The point I am making is that I don’t really know what the Groote Eylandt people really thought about the changes that happened as a result of 1967 and can only wonder what they would have thought of an essentially European symbolic construct like the Uluru statement.
    What I think is that in the end it is the individual Aborigines and local communities that really have the power to decide what “improving their lives” means to them and to make the changes they want happen.

  35. In Queensland the situation was unique in many ways. For example the white shoe brigade ruled from the beginning. According to Raymond Evans the first Government financed itself by a land grab being stone broke and what little they had got knocked off. The Colonial office did know about the goings on but could not do much. They finally stopped it by not allowing Queensland to annex New Guinea in 1883. Also unique was the para military force of brigade strength armed with Snider rifles, modern rapid firing carbines and 500 000 bullets (all well documented). The leaders of these murderous Native Mounted Police troops usually became local Magistrates who smothered any reports of injustices. Journalist who repeatedly reported and lamented these killings got chucked out of the country. The first Premier was a silent partner of the Station where the Valley of Lagoon massacre occurred. I personally know a man who recounts the story of his great grandfather as young man walking back into his mobs camp amongst a terrible stench and bloated bodies of his poisoned extended family. Up into the 60s if any indigenous person wanted to visit his relatives or mates in another place they had to get permission to travel from the mission or reserve. Here in the Atherton Tablelands we have an industry around incarcerating Murries in Lotus Glen prison, it’s huge. We have imported and outdone the American incarceration industry with a world record of Indigenous Australians the most incarcerated by percentage of their population (2,346 per 100,000). About 340 Indigenous people have died in prisons and police cells since the 1991 royal commission report. Can’t we at least be honest about these things?

  36. JD that’s interesting about Groote. In those times assistance or intervention was almost always a top-down approach, often planned with little regard to what was actually needed.
    These days development practitioners adopt, or should adopt what is called a landscape approach associated with Theory of Change (sorry if that sounds odd). Essentially though a project firstly scopes out what is needed, what is the goal, then reverse engineers the steps needed to achieve. Actual implementation remains flexible so that changes to the program can be made as the project goes on. This contrasts with the top-down approach (sometimes called log-frame) that is very prescriptive and makes change quite difficult.

    I’m just guessing that the Groote Eylandt initiative may have been a package deal by the government but did not take into account the perhaps unique values of the original dwellers. Hopefully the newer techniques that are bottom up and employ polycentric governance will be more effective.

  37. Ootz your post is horrible reading. Timothy Bottoms book arrived yesterday. I have not looked at it yet but a quick leaf-through last night showed maps of massacres, mass poisonings, shooting parties and more.

    I’m ashamed at what our fore fathers did even if I was not yet born. It’s a worse stain (Howard would call it a blemish) than supporting Nazi Germany.

  38. zoot
    On the Comey matter…. just wondering how your popcorn supplies are holding up….

  39. I got up to watch live – but after a while it seemed like an iteration of his written testimony. I may have missed something because I nodded off at some point…
    Yes it is grand theatre I guess. Lots more to come I suppose.

  40. just wondering how your popcorn supplies are holding up

    Must whip out and get some more.
    To tell the truth, I’ve been a bit distracted by happenings in the Old Dart. Entertainment at its best 🙂

  41. Must be the Special Relationship at work…. General Election and Washington Follies as a double bill.

  42. [phone rings] Hello?

    Oh hello, it’s Gerald Brightley-Smyles here; Office of Undesirable Imports. Just doing our annual ring-around to Overseas Friends to bring us up-to-date.

    Yairs? How can I help, Gerald?

    Well, you know, just give us a bit of a hint if any of your exports might be, shall we say, rather less than desirable here in Great Britain. Just a nod and a wink so we can keep our guard up, so to speak. If you could just give me your Top Three, that’ll be something to be going on with.

    Yairs. Well, I don’t keep a list as such, Gerald.

    Oh, no matter. Just off the top of the old cranium will do.

    Right you are. Well, I’d reckon ya should keep Edna Everage away from any Royal Command Performances. She’s pretendin’ to be a Dame!!

    Ahhh, well, a bit late on that score, old chap.

    OK, well don’t let Sir Les Patterson anywhere near your diplomatic service.

    Ah, good point. Only thing is, we’ve already got Boris as our Foreign Secretary; so the horse has rather bolted on that one, too. What’s your third?

    Keep Lynton Crosby well away from election campaigns.

    [phone line goes dead]

  43. Looks like Mays PMship is about as legitimate as Gillards.
    Only she didn’t knife Cameron to get there…..

  44. Hahaha, do one on Bruce Hawker now Mr A.

    Reporting on our 2013 election, The Parliamentary Library wrote:

    Against the odds the Labor campaign led by Hawker resulted in Labor retention of 55 seats when 30 seats was the predicted outcome.

    That Bruce Hawker?
    To be honest, I can’t see any comparison to Lynton Crosbie’s sterling efforts on behalf of Jeremy Corbyn.
    Of course, YMMV.

  45. So 30 seats after the ruddslide to 55 of 150 makes Hawker a winner ? Maybe so, he had a shit product to sell.

  46. Jumpy, the text I quoted said that the ALP was predicted to only win 30 seats and in the event they won 55 seats.
    I’m not sure how you turned that into the word salad

    So 30 seats after the ruddslide to 55 of 150

    Please explain?

  47. Geoff, granted it is a bit of a shock when you first encounter the enormity of the actual events that occurred. However, I hope that the shame you experience will be followed by relief. Relief that the truth is finally out and that we are mature enough to acknowledge our unique history, warts and all. This is the point of Timothy’s book and speech I posted above:

    It is essential as contemporary Australians that we acknowledge that we are not responsible for what happened on our colonial frontier, but we are responsible for not acknowledging what happened. If we do not, our integrity as a nation is flawed and we are shamed as a people for perpetuating a lie– ‘Lest We Forget’.

    It truly is not about wearing a ‘black arm band’, to the contrary. When the conspiracy of silence on the horrible truth about the convict times got broken in the 80s, the stains of convict ancestry became a pride and we moved on as a nation richer and with more integrity. Modern Australia was founded on a lot of pain and loss, it would be a tragedy to deny us the whole truth with the understanding and maturity deriving from that.

  48. Yes Ootz, wringing my hands and weeping is not likely to help anyone. But as you said, there is relief at seeing the truth. Best thing is that it adds view-able complaint and appropriate justice to the world. Therein is the opportunity to show our greatness.

  49. About Adani and the apparent incongruity of his on-going pursuit of Carmichael.
    Two views, neither my original but I think contain some merit:
    The first, plaguiarised here from Quiggan:
    It goes that Adani Inc. is heavily in debt – some $2.5 billion and financiers are edgy about further lending. Adani does have some profitable working assets of course. The Carmichael mine sits on his books as an asset. If he withdraws from the project, that asset will be worth virtually zero. That will have an adverse effect on his balance sheet and have a very negative effect on his financial capacity. SO the theory is that by keeping the proposal “alive”, Carmichael remains a helpful asset on his balance sheet, even if it costs him money to keep it there.

    The second line is that money can be made by a developer during the construction phase of a project. Depending on the program of delivery of the various stages, draw-down on the loans can be manipulated so that monies can be claimed and paid without the work having actually reached that way-point.
    At some time, when the project emerges as no longer viable, there might be a series of bankruptcies, the project stops/ends and the lenders left empty-handed. That scenario played out in Ecuador some years ago when an oil refinery was proposed and commenced nine kilometers inland. Much of the early work was done, the site prepared etc. and then someone realised there was not enough oil available to feed the refinery. Just two billion dollars lost I think. My detail here might slightly skewed but it happened – a friend of mine worked on the project.

  50. Quiggin says he’s not certain what is going on, but he’s come up with what he sees as the best plausible answer he can think of.

    It seems to me that Adani will not be able to sell the coal in India. Not sure whether there are other opportunities, but there is currently plenty coal in the world and Galilee coal is high cost coal.

    I would also question whether taxpayer funds should be going to a debt-laden Cayman Islands entity. Parkinson is right, the Reputation clause should give pause.

    Geoff, I think we’ve got Adani on two threads now.

  51. I watched the Broncos last night and have to go out today. New Salon should be around day’s end.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *