Jack Hynes

latham taps mat

2005-01-18T16:41:00.000+11:00

Bob Carr is reported to have said, Mark Latham as leader, that will be an interesting six months. Well Bob, you seriously underestimated your former staffer.

more labor hijinks

2005-01-17T13:53:00.000+11:00

The Latham story has been great fun, except if you are Labor MP.

The poor buggers agonised over the last leadership vote because, although many of them believed Latham to be barking mad they doubted that Beazley could or would change; after all who can forget him telling Maxine McKew, ‘ I have learned my lesson, from now on simplicity will be my talisman’.

One shadow minister said a couple of nights before the vote, explaining why he was reluctant to vote for Latham despite having no faith in Beazley, ‘mate, you don’t know the half of it, he (Latham)’s a f.......... lunatic’.

I expect that right now the next generation will be thinking hard about whether they can or should run if there is a contest in the next month or so.

Tanner probably has to, he needs to get out there and gather some solid support around him, even if it is only to direct preferences to the winner. He needs to establish a solid base of support.

Gillard I suspect has seen Latham as the best chance to advance her own interests, whatever his shortcomings. A sort of ‘riding the tiger’ tactic. Tricky to know what to do next, is it better to stand and maybe just miss, but be well placed for next time, or to cut a deal and deliver votes for the winner in return for the deputy's job.

Rudd probably figures that if Beazley runs Smith and Swan won't, so he then must decide if this is his great opportunity to gather those right votes who are wary of going back to Big Bomber.

It is always tricky to know whether your current level of support marks a stage in enexorable growth, and you can afford to be patient, or whether it's a high water mark best cashed in while you can.

Young Prince Hal

2005-01-17T13:25:00.000+11:00

One interesting juxtaposition in the weekend papers, a few pages on from Prince Harry getting a bollocking for his lack of taste, Bigpond were using a photo of Lenin as the comedy hook in an ad for it’s online music store.

I don’t know, but if I were an elderly Russian Jew, or a Lithunian, etc, sipping my coffee in St Kilda or Double Bay on a Saturday morning, I might find that equally distasteful.

UN and the Tsunami

2005-01-03T13:46:00.000+11:00

it'll take billions and 10 years:UN

well it will if the UN is allowed to run the show

2004-12-22T13:55:00.000+11:00

Did Abraham Lincoln spend his nights trawling the gay bars and nightclubs of early Washington, or did he simply meet a special friend for the odd quiet moment together. For the record, I’m tipping that reliable witnesses will be rather hard to find.

From my reading I understand that it is a matter of considerable conjecture,and I wonder why.

Is is that one's sexual preference is really so much at the core of one's being, or is it just part of that touching insistence on the part of the gay brotherhood that nearly all important figures are or were, well, one of them.

Here in Sydney, or at least in the eastern suburbs, every second gay chap will, confidentially, tell you that (insert name of married prominent public or political figure here) is definitely gay. Why, he will say, Public Figure is well known at (insert name of gay venue here), and a bloke I know well goes out with a bloke who used to go out with him.

Over the years I have heard this about almost every prominent Sydney figure, especially of the left. Indeed, one hears it of everyone except those with such well-earned reputations as pants-men as would cause such an allegation to be risible. It is, of course, all great fun, and part of Sydney's obsession with gossip and inside knowledge, and it doesn't seem to do any damage at all to anyone involved.

But do we learn anything new about old Abe if we know with whom he played hide the sausage, or that he preferred to do it with other blokes. Did he bring a gay sensitivity to his conduct of the Civil War, for instance? Would it change our assesment of him, or his part in history?

I thought I knew a bit about Abe, and why he was an important historical figure, and I knew it without knowing anything about his sex life at all. I guess I knew that there was a Mrs Lincoln, but all I know of her is the wonderful old joke, “but apart from that Mrs Lincoln, what did you think of the play?”

Maybe, just maybe, this obsession with proving the sexuality of some long-dead person is identity politics gone a bit more potty than usual.

the speech the leader should have given tonight

2004-12-03T01:52:00.000+11:00

We have had a tough month or two. We lost the election, which was terribly disappointing to all on our side of politics.

Since then we have indulged in a bit of old-fashioned labor bloodletting.

Well, that’s pretty much in the past now; as much as bloodletting in the labour party is ever in the past.

Now, we look forward.

We acknowledge that the policies we put forward in the last election were not, in total, embraced by the Australian people.

Consequently, our policies are up for review. We do listen to the Australian people.

Our principles, however, are not up for review.

They are the principles which have always underpinned the Labor party. We know the Australian people trust our principles. They did when they elected the Hawke and Keating governments.

The principles?

We believe in opportunity, in a fair go for all Australians, in a fair chance for all Australian children.

We believe in an open economy, in competition, in a fair go for consumers, workers and employers.

We recognise that the markets will not always get it right; that sometimes governments will have to intervene on behalf of consumers, or workers, or in the interests of a competitive and vibrant economy and society.

We believe all Australians deserve access to a good education and competent health care, and should be able to look forward to old age with a degree of security.

We believe that we should leave our environment in a better state for our children than our parents left it for us.

We have great faith in the Australian people. We believe that they are hard-working, forward-thinking, tolerant, inclusive, and generous. We believe that the history of Australia, is, by and large, a proud one.

We have built a society which we can be proud of. A society, a way of life, and a culture, which is the envy of many, and a beacon to people from far-off lands.

Nevertheless, we have one great national failure.

The fate of our indigenous peoples troubles all Australians. For all the efforts of many Australians of good-will, many aspects of indigenous life are worse, or no better, than they have been.

As Michael Long has pointed out, indigenous life expectancy is too low, or as Michael was reported to have said, he is going to too may funerals of young aborigenes.

Figures for health, education, school attendance, employment, crime, incarceration, are all depressing to read.

Well, do we have solutions?

Land rights

We believe land rights are important, but note that there have been land rights in extensive areas of Australia for twenty years, without significant improvement in outcomes.

An Apology

When we are elected to government, we will apologise to those who were taken or stolen from their parents. We believe that such an apology is important, but we don’t kid ourselves that such an apology will have any immediate effect on aboriginal disadvantage.

Money

We also suspect that just throwing money at the problems won’t solve it. Again, a fair bit of money has been thrown at the problem, with patchy results.

We listen to Noel Pearson and Michael Long and other indigenous leaders and say that they are right, all Australians must travel this road together.

We know that there is no easy solution. If there was, governments of the last twenty of thirty years, who have been looking, would have found it.

We call on the government to make real improvement in the life of indigenous Australians the Great National Project of the early part of this century.

Let us make it the Snowy River Scheme of our time.

Let us do what we did then. Let us recruit the best people for the task.

Let us devote the necessary resources.

Let us make this a non-partisan, non-political, goal for all Australians.

Again, we call on Prime Minister Howard to call the states in and make this a national priority.

the UN

2004-12-02T23:56:00.000+11:00

Hard to know what to conclude re the proposed UN reform.

Not to doubt that it needs reform. I have mates who done and do work for the UN and it’s agencies. The stories one hears, well I have no doubt that the UN is riddled by cynicism, incompetence, nepotism, corruption, sexual harassment and sexual assault.

Indeed, rumours abound that an agency head was finally nailed because he groped a Hollywood star who is a UN ambassador. Apparently it was thought he had finally gone too far. Perhaps Roger L Simon knows more.

I guess the real question is whether it is better to make a fundamentally flawed organisation better, and perhaps enhance it's power, or acknowledge that it has it’s uses, but better it has no real grunt.

KIm Carr

2004-12-02T22:44:00.000+11:00

Kim Carr, Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs, and a nice fellow so far as factional warriors go, is attacking the Liberal government for it’s proposed mutual obligation welfare for aborigines.

Kim writes,

Consider this scenario: you live in a remote desert community, in a house owned by the Commonwealth. Fifteen people share the house, including six school-aged children. Water pipes to the house are broken and the toilet is blocked. The closest working tap is 100 metres away.
There are not enough beds and so family members sleep four to a bed, or on the floor. You have no washing machine; your clothes are washed in a bucket.

Electricity supply is by means of a generator, which sometimes breaks down. When this happens, any fresh food in the refrigerator is spoiled. In any case, fresh produce has to be air-freighted in, for sale at the community store, and is prohibitively expensive for those on low incomes and benefits.

The family tends to eat bread and canned food, as these are affordable and will keep without refrigeration. Some of the adults, especially the older ones, don't enjoy good health. The lack of fruit and vegetables in their diet contributes to chronic illness.

You want the house's plumbing fixed and the broken windows replaced. You ask your landlord, the Commonwealth, to fulfil its responsibilities for household repair and maintenance. But the Commonwealth refuses to help. It won't help because your community has signed up to one of the new "Shared Responsibility Agreements" (SRAs) saying that, unless the kids go to school 80 per cent of the time and are bathed every day, there will be no maintenance for the house.
It's Catch-22.

Something like this will soon be the reality for many thousands of indigenous Australians. According to advice contained in leaked cabinet documents, government services and welfare benefits will be dependent on "behavioural change" on the part of indigenous clients. The "incentives" will reportedly include "carrots and sticks". "Carrots" might include a pool of bikes that children can ride after school, or a film screening (with Commonwealth-supplied DVD players) for children who have good school attendance.

The Government apparently blames indigenous people for their ill health, poverty and lack of education.

Of course, the sticks as well as the carrots will be justified by the Commonwealth as freely entered into, mutually agreed arrangements.

But the question is this: how is it possible for the Government to coerce indigenous citizens into Shared Responsibility Agreements in return for the provision of basic services and welfare benefits that are their rightful due? How can it do this while not also placing similar conditions on service provision to other Australians?

These proposals smack of blatant discrimination and paternalism at their very worst.
Only 30 per cent of indigenous Australians live to 65 years, compared with 87 per cent of non-indigenous Australians. Sixty per cent - twice as many - people in Bangladesh can expect to live to that age. Bangladesh, of course, is one of the world's poorest countries.

The world's highest rate of the eye disease trachoma occurs among Australia's indigenous people - and this is the only developed country where blinding trachoma remains. Other countries where trachoma is prevalent include Ethiopia, Burkina Faso, Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam.

Deaths from cardiovascular disease among indigenous people are about five times the rate of those for all Australians. Indigenous people are far more likely to die from accidents, violence or suicide. They have high rates of diabetes and obesity. Aboriginal babies have a significantly lower average birthweight than Australian babies generally.

Infrastructure in many indigenous communities is poor, due to distance, climate and maintenance problems. Employment and training opportunities are often non-existent, and many isolated communities can provide no secondary schooling. Despite the Government's rhetoric about entrepreneurial individualism, there is no genuine talk about economic independence for indigenous people.

And yet the Howard Government apparently blames indigenous people themselves for the ill health, poverty and lack of education that prevail in their communities. They are to blame, and so they must undergo "behavioural change" to remedy their situation and overcome their disadvantage.

Support should be given to all genuine, locally forged partnerships between government and indigenous communities and groups that aim to improve lives and opportunities. In fact, without community support, genuine social change won't happen. We can't have a top-down approach. There are many proud examples of achievement by indigenous Australians working together with government and non-government organisations. We should all want to see indigenous Australians participating in an economy that genuinely includes them.

But that is not what the new Shared Responsibility Agreements are all about. These new-style agreements will be imposed upon people who are not in a position to withstand bureaucratic coercion. They are not about respect, reciprocity or mutual action.

Australia is the only colonising country not to have apologised to the indigenous people who were dispossessed. Many indigenous people still suffer directly as a result of that dispossession. Now our Government, on top of its refusal to say sorry, wants to humiliate its indigenous citizens by denying them services unless they conform to behavioural standards that many, because of their disadvantage, cannot possibly meet.

John Howard believes in the freedom of the individual in a free market: yet in this area of public policy he would prefer, apparently, to adopt an authoritarian, coercive stance that denies the freedom of indigenous people to determine their own lives.

From what we have seen so far of this new approach to indigenous welfare, it runs the risk of shaming Australia in the eyes of the world.

Thanks Kim,

But really, the scenario he paints is full of all the unasked questions that permeate liberal approaches to indigenous affairs.

Note, the house, in a remote desert location, where there is presumably no pospect of employment, is provided by the Commonwealth, why?

The water pipes are broken and the toilet is blocked, who or what caused this?

It is the responsibility of the Commonwealth to fix all these things, why?

fifteen people share the house and no-one fixes the pipes or the blocked tiolet, why?

fiteeen people in the house and they can't organise to carry water a hundred meters, why not?

The children are unable to attend school, or be bathed each day, why?

PJ O’Rourke’s mum told him. ‘no-one is so poor that they can’t pick up their yard’.

I know life in remote Australia is tough for all who undertake it, but no-one is so poor that they can’t bath their children and send them to a local school each day.

To blame poverty is a defamation on the poor.

tanner

2004-11-29T01:56:00.000+11:00

"We've actually got to get fair dinkum about who we are, what we stand for, who we represent, and ensure that we put a clear, coherent picture across the board to the Australian people. And although, if you look at what we've done in the past seven or eight years you'll see examples of good things, good policies and specific positions, there's too much blurring, too much confusion, too much inconsistency and it's the total picture that's the problem. That's what we've got to work on, issues. Dealing with issues on their merits, standing up for who we are and what we believe."

So says Lindsay Tanner, former member of Mark Latham’s shadow cabinet, a man of real talent, and a born leader. He and Julia Gillard are two of the best of the best in Labor’s federal caucus. Naturally, this being Labor, they have fought in the past. Gillard lost a fierce contest for the labor endorsement for the seat of Melbourne to Tanner in the early 1990’s.

What a waste we make of our best people.

Stephen Conroy is also a talent, but he seems to be being humiliated to cover some over-sensitivity on the part of our leader.

Really, Labor doesn’t have enough men and women of real ability to do anything but have them all on side, and of course there is no conflict between seeking the votes of the middle ground and good policy. Indeed, generally speaking the two are so-existent, given the good common sense of the ordinary punters.

Labor postmortems

2004-11-28T23:40:00.000+11:00

Labor’s post-election debriefing has been entertaining.

As usual the silliest contribution has come from Barry O Jones. Oh, I know he was a quiz champion, and has written well received books, but, really, as a political thinker the man is an idiot.

Who else but Barry would think that, having just lost an election to a more conservative opponent, the solution is to swing further away from the centre.

Doug Cameron for one. Doug thinks the ALP needs to stick close to the unions to preserve it’s ‘brand’, and, coincidentally, to give Doug some much needed relevance.

As I understand this theory, it is that if the voters are offered a choice between an open economy, free trade Labor party and a Liberal party offering the same, they will go for the real conservatives, ie the libs. Hence, the smart move for Labor is to differentiate themselves from the Libs , and create a strong Labor brand by adopting public positions at odds with middle ground policies.

This is, of course, nonsense. It is nothing more than an invitation to shore up a stranglehold on minority support. In terms of ‘brand’ it is like Coke being happy with, say, thirty per cent of the drinks market. Fine for Coke, who would be happy with that, not much use if you need fifty per cent of the market to be successful.

It is also at odds with recent history. Hawke and Keating both won elections as the leaders of an open economy, free trade, de-regulating Labor party of the consumer.

In all fairness, Hawkee won the first one by being Hawkee, and by not being Fraser or Whitlam. You may recall that the punters had been cured of Whitlamism by exposure to the Whitlam governments, and had never really liked Malcolm either, voting for him only becaue he wasn't Whitlam.

Hawkee,the punters loved, as he loved them;; though not quite as much as he shared their love of Hawkee.

And really, Keating only lost when he abandoned his emphasis on the importance of running a good economy and ongoing economic reform, and embraced the politics of the warm inner glow.

Labor’s challenge now is to convince people who have voted for Howard that they should change their minds and vote Labor next time. Sadly for Labor, there are more of them than last time, and many of them have now voted for Howard four times.

Telling them they are morons for having done so is unlikely to persuade them to change their future vote.

No, the answer is to do what Gough did between 1969 and 1972. Gough developed polices which addresses the needs of those voters who generally decide elections in Australia.

And who are they?

Well, they’ve been called Menzies forgotten people, Gough’s swinging voters, and Howard’s battlers.

They live in outer urban suburbs of our big cities, in regional centres, and up and down our coastal strips. They are small business people, they are lower level public servants, blue collar workers, independent contractors, and domestic demons, like me.

They are generally good people, hard working, tolerant, good natured, generous, happy to help out in times of need but protective of their own. They are ‘old Australians’, migrants, Asians, Euros and Skips, Catholic, Anglican, Methodist, Buddhist and Muslim. They are generally not political activists, and are not often part of the political debate.

The biggest problem Labour has is they have no dialogue with these people. Indeed Labor apparatchiks despise them. If you have spent any time at all with Labor insiders you will have observed the sneers.

An example of the disconnect; every Labor adviser I speak to quotes economists to prove that the present unfair dismissal laws have no effect on the employment of additional staff by small business. Every small business proprietor I speak to disagrees. The Labor people can't be convinced, but hey, who would you believe?

Let's remember, Gough took on those in the party who favoured the politics of class and envy and division, and insisted on state aid for independent schools. He proposed that the federal government step in and fund the sewering of outer suburbs, as state and local government had failed to do so. He favoured opening opportunities for all, not just for those dedicated as outsiders. He fought hard to make the party a party of broad appeal. He and Mick Young made it electable after years in the wilderness.

Hawke and Keating did the same. They supported consumers ahead of entrenched interests, be they business or unions, and we are still reaping the benefits.

Oh, and anyone who doubts the benefits of banking de-regulation or the privatisation of Telstra has a memory problem. Obviously they can’t recall the pre-bankloan interview, or waiting weeks for Telecom to install a phone.

Hawke was strong on national security, and a vigorous supporter of the US alliance. He stood up to the party and backed George H Bush in Gulf War 1. He was a strong and unequivocal supporter of Israel.

You see, even recent history supplies us with the lessons which can take us out of the wilderness.

Death of a Leader

2004-11-11T21:57:00.000+11:00

He lived in Jordan, trashed it; Lebanon, trashed it; Palestine, trashed it.

He was a thief and a murderer on a massive scale.

Surely the Palestinians deserved better, and will be better off for his passing.

Super Tuesday

2004-11-01T10:10:00.000+11:00

Well tomorrow is the big day. The Melbourne Cup and the US election.

Easier to pick the winner of the latter. My hunch is that Bush will win easily. It seems that like the media here are generally Howard haters and so unwittingly exaggerate the anti-Howard vote, so the mainstream media in the US are generally Bush-haters and exaggerates the anti-Bush vote.

I suspect that there are many Bush supporters who have kept their opinions to themselves, to avoid ridicule and save friendships, who will vote for George happily enough tomorrow.

My tip, a win big enough to frustrate the lawyers.

Now, if only the Cup was so easy, more homework needed, is it raining down there?

the hobbits in Flores

2004-10-28T19:27:00.000+10:00

In the early 1990’s I spent a week on Flores. Travelled there from Bali on the MV Kelimutu.

Former President Soekarno was held in house arrest in the capital, Ende, before he became President. You can visit the house; and climb Mt. Kelimutu, an active volcano, if that is your thing. It also has great beaches and is a stepping off point to visit Komodo for a look at some seriously big lizards.

Flores is a largely Catholic island. Much better being awoken at six by the church bells, than at four by the call to prayer, at least if you take a drink, as I do. It is poor and compared to Java, Bali or even Lombok dry and infertile. If memory serves me right, just the one rice crop per year and hard to grow veg and raise stock.

As a result the people are quite short. As a mere six-footer I found that as I walked around the crowded markets I was looking across a sea of heads.

Interesting too that eastern Indonesia would have been cut off from Java and Bali, even in times of lower sea levels. The Lombok trench is quite deep and divides eastern Indonesia from the rest.

Post race analysis

2004-10-18T16:10:00.000+10:00

No blogging for a while, have been adjusting to life as a domestic demon.

For a rusted on labor voter like myself the election was a bit of a disappointment, though an unsurprising result in the end.

I had thought Latham was travelling OK during the run. He settled well, and the pacifiers seemed to be working.

It seemed that the punters had quite warmed to him, though perhaps blokes more than the women. In fact the punters seemed to have a kinder view of him than those who have known him well for years, or those who have worked with him.

There was no discernable push for a change, nor would you expect there to be in such golden economic times, but I figured we were in it with some kind of a show. Some of us were beginning to eye the $3 plus and say they weren't bad odds in a two horse race.

Sadly, as they straightened up for the run home, the labor mistakes started to come. They started to hang out under pressure. As they tried too hard they started to lose their action.

Let’s look at the mistakes.

Medicare Gold

Punters I talked to liked the idea of doing something for the old, though one bloke wondered why the taxpayer should pick up the bills for Dame Elisabeth Murdoch, but not one of them believed that a Federal Labor government could do anything much about hospital waiting lists, except swap the names on them.

Education

I reckon that was a huge mistake. Taking the money from wealthy schools got cheers from the treacherous bastards in the teacher unions and from some of the party faithful, but it looked petty to the punters. It also worried some of us who are old enough to remember how divisive an issue state aid was, and how damaging to labor. The policy had a hint of sectarianism and the discredited DOGS about it. This was pre-Whitlam labor.

Politically it was also a poor choice. It pleased people whose support we were guaranteed on a two-party preferred basis, but lost some swingers.

Interest Rates and Economics

We are still suffering on this issue because of the Keating legacy.

Following the 1993 election Keating allowed his government to cede the economic authority that the Hawke and early Keating governments had had and we have not yet got it back.

I guess it was partly as a result of the recession, but also because Keating and his office were captured by the Balmain Basketweavers. The very people he had previously publicly despised.

Indeed, in so far as Keating helped cause the recession, it was because he was beginning to think that his views on architecture, music, the arts, aborigines, and history were more important than interest rates, jobs, and economic opportunity.

Gittins from the SMH is right, since 1996 the ALP caucus has not had the guts to be outright opponents of an open economy, which is what I suspect most of them want to be, but nor have they had the sense to understand that it is only by embracing the Hawke legacy and being the party of consumers and competition and economic growth that they are likely to be re-elected to government .

I can recall an impassioned speech that Treasurer Keating, way back before he became Captain Wacky, gave at the San Remo Ballroom. He made exactly this point, and the even more important one, that it was by being a government dedicated to competition and economic growth and jobs that the Hawke government could directly and indirectly do something good for the Australian battlers.

The difficulty is, as pointed out by Loosely in the Sunday Tele, that Labor in government generally adopts rational economic policy but in opposition it feels it has to oppose and is too heavily influenced by the flat-earthers in the union movement and the economic Neanderthals in the Greens.

That problem is compounded by the almost total absence of any Caucus members with experience in the commercial world.

and finally, a near fall in the shadows of the post.

Forests

As with education it pleased people whose support had nowhere else to go, two-party preferred, and lost labor voters and seats, and well, the swingers care about the environment but they aren’t really green, so we got nothing in return.

The finish.

With those sorts of mistakes, that much Keating lead in the saddlebags, I guess we were doomed to wallow home in Howard’s wake. While he was always likely to win it would have been nicer to be finishing strongly, neck stretched for the line, showing promise for the next race.

What to do now, now that we have recovered from the post-race festivities.

I have said this before, but if labor is to win, it must ignore the Howard-haters and the ‘we waz robbed by a lie’ lobby and look at this sensibly.

Oh, that stuff is understandable enough. It is more enticing to say 'we were robbed' than 'we were wrong', but it’s short term. As my brother-in-law used to say, it’s like a kid pissing his pants, it feels warm and satisfying at first, but in no time he’s cold, wet and uncomfortable.

We could begin by giving Howard due respect. He has knocked off three Labor leaders. One might be luck, etc.

Howard’s great strength is that he genuinely likes and respects ordinary Australians. That puts him at odds with many in our party and in the media. Just look at all the commentators and letter writers railing against the idiocy of the general public. Just listen to the same tripe coming from people within the party.

If anyone is going to be able to contribute to the ALP turning this around, their reaction to the loss should be not ‘what idiots the punters are’, but rather, ‘what does the punter see that we do not?’

It seems to me that the punters see a reasonable competent government doing OK in terrific economic times. They reckon Howard has probably told the odd porky, he is a politician after all, but they don’t see him or his government as immoral or bad, or untrustworthy. They don’t love him but they do trust him to do what he thinks is best for the country. They don’t agree with all his choices but reckon on balance that he does OK. They see him as ok, but not great.

Well, was there any good news from the election. Any little thing with which a trainer could placate a disappointed owner on return to scale. You know the thing. We might try him with blinkers; he jumped nicely and settled well; he might need a bit more ground; there’s a race in two weeks which might suit her better.

Well the punters seem to like Mark, though the worry is that those who know him well like him less. Perhaps as the punters get to know him better they might agree.

Anyway, a loss like this gives an opportunity for some renewal. It would be good to see Gillard, and Tanner, and Smith and Rudd and Conroy given a bit more of a run. I suspect a group like that might understand that government can only be won by fighting for the middle ground.

They might understand that government can be finessed from the left only if the cards fall just right. A recession or a bad period for Howard like early 2001.

Time for school pick up.

It truly was easier being a judge than a domestic demon.

Murali v Warne

2004-07-14T19:44:00.000+10:00

As Tony the Teacher would have it, there will always be an asterisk next to Murali's name.

Of course, the boy from suburban Melbourne would have claimed the record first, if he hadn't been so determined to get buffed, so that his got buffed to a shine.

Beazley. Yes.

2004-07-14T19:17:00.000+10:00

Putting Beazley back in Defence is a good move. Not that I share the popular opinion that he was a star there last time. I still recall the subs. Nevertheless, it is a general view, and the Yanks like him, and the move, and Latham's speech yesterday, will reassure people that Labor do know we are at war with the Islamists, and that at least some in Labor do know which side we are on.

That should of course, be a no-brainer. It is a measure of how lost much of the left is that the question needs to be addressed.

It should be a puzzle why so much of the left opposed the war in Iraq. Let's face it, the Baathists were pretty much a reprise of standard 1930's fascism, and one of the things the western left got unequivocally right last century was it's early opposition to the 1930's fascists.

Sadly I reckon the reason so many on the left didn't support the war in Iraq, or the war in Afghanistan, was that they cling to anti-Americanism like a shipwrecked man to a bit of flotsam. It's all they have left.

They spent years barracking for the Soviets and Chinese and their puppets against the Americans, always, of course, without having to worry about the Soviets or Chinese winning any place close to themselves. Then, with nobody except the North Koreans believing in the socialist state, the western left had nothing positive to cheer, so they held on tight to their last belief,remnant anti-Americanism.

Nobody in their right mind would think the US is perfect, or doesn't act in its own interests, or hasn't made some terrible mistakes, but anyone suffering from anti-Americanism should ask themselves a simple question. Would we be better off, if the Nazis, or the Japanese Empire, or the Soviets, or the Chinese Communists had prevailed.

Of course, we in Australia can say to ourselves, well maybe we are far enough away, they may not have not bothered with us, or such a rule would have been doomed to implode by now, as some lefties and righties now assure was inevitable in Iraq. (To which I say, mmm).

To the extent that we do live under an American Empire, it is a relatively benign rule. Of course, people are free to rail against it, or to pretend, like many of the Europeans, that the Americans are no more important that anyone else. So the UN, and "multilaterism", and "international law" are great fora for them, for there they can pretend that they punch with the same weight as those uncouth colonials.

As we Aussies would say, it's all bullshit.

Anyway, from our point of view, if the Americans are the biggest, smartest, toughest, richest kid in the schoolyard, we should be pleased that we have been allies of the big kid in all the big fights, we share many values and views, and he and we are pretty good mates.

aus politics

2004-06-11T15:38:00.000+10:00

Tim Blair has rightly pointed out that it is risible to suggest that a fifty-one year old, eighties rock star is likely to attract the youth vote.

If the ALP are really after the youth vote perhaps they should endorse Paris Hilton. At least my eighteen year old knows who Paris Hilton is. Let’s face it, all the young blokes will have seen the video, and the young chicks will have read about her in Who Weekly. Of course Paris is not enrolled to vote.

No the comrades are more hardnosed than that. The theory, as I understand it, is that they want Garrett because they believe that many if not most of the marginal Federal seats have developed a greenish tinge. E.g Richmond in northern NSW, the sugar seats, regional NSW, SA.

The idea is that they will be more likely to win coastal and regional seats, particularly in NSW and QLD, with Garrett on board. Mmm. Personally, I reckon that even those seats will be won by battling it out in the middle. The green vote has nowhere else to go two-party, and the party who wins the middle tends to win in Australian elections.

So who do I think will win the next Federal election.

First, my tip is for a mid-October election. It is not in John Howard’s nature to go early. He will work his way towards the election, attempting to placate any unhappy parts of the electorate one by one, spending the surplus as he goes.

Howard would have to be favourite. The economy, with some geographical, meteorological and structural adjustment exceptions, is going gangbusters. This is pretty generally a golden age, and electors don’t generally toss out governments in such good times.

There are of course exceptions to that rule, but the government is reasonably competent, not excessively accident prone and Howard has not turned into Captain Wacky.

Against that. Well a sizeable minority hate Howard. Importantly, the level of trust in him is gradually being worn down. A lot of people are intrigued by Latham. They like the third way messages he sends, although there is no general groundswell for change yet. And I suspect Iraq has given the ALP a lift short term.

Can Iraq carry Labor over the line. No. I have thought all along that Iraq may cost the ALP an election and I still think so.

Iraq is a limited success, and eventually that message will come across. It has gone about two-thirds as well as it could have, which is still well worth it. I suspect that notwithstanding that there will be further violence it will keep getting better and importantly it will be seen to be getting better.

Besides. George W holds the best card in the deck.

Saddam.

My guess is that about October 1, or at any event after the Olympics, he will stick Saddam on trial.

It will be toenail curling stuff. Having spent much of the last ten years reading the relevant reports, and indeed having taken evidence from real political prisoners from the Middle East, I can safely say that when the trials of the Baathists starts, Lyndee England and her mates will become footnotes in history.

The Americans and the Iraqis will be able to call weeks and weeks of revelations of real torture, note, not sexual humiliation but real torture, castration, death, rape, the knock on the door, the grabbing off the street, the disappearances, the killing of children, life under real tyranny, etc.

Bush and Howard will then invite the opponents of the war to ‘remind me again, why we should have left this bloke in power’.