Et tu Polonius?
The pond had resolved to spend a Gough-free weekend, but has a soft spot for the pedant, especially as the reptiles cast him in a minor supporting role, a kind play on that Stoppardian riff, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead.
Tossed out on a Friday, buried, dismissed, without any fuss about the dismissal.
His effort, a walk down memory lane, was entirely stripped of distracting snaps.
This is how it looked, sans opening snap, sans opening flourish...
What a miserable presentation.
How cruel, and yet probably fair, because the text had a faint whiff of doddering mustiness, a bit like Joe remembering his Scranton days, or the pond recalling Peel street, a kind of mind-numbing form of navel-gazing and fluff-gathering ...
...In November 1975, I was a senior tutor in the La Trobe University politics department. Among my colleagues, I was closest to Hugo Wolfsohn. We were two of the few political conservatives in what was a typical social sciences faculty of the day, replete with left-of-centre and leftist types. Nice people for the most part but many were quite naive. Like most Australian campuses then, academics and activists were overwhelmingly opposed to the Dismissal and hostile to Fraser and Sir John Kerr. Some academics reported the event as a constitutional crisis from which Australia might never recover.
At the time Max Teichmann, a left-wing academic at Monash University, put out a pamphlet titled Don’t Let History Repeat Itself. He maintained that Kerr’s dismissal of Whitlam had similarities with the events that occurred before Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party came to power in Germany in 1933. In his rant, Teichmann made reference to Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels before predicting that if the Coalition were elected in December 1975 it would establish a dictatorship.
The Monash academic’s political hyperbole annoyed Wolfsohn. On December 4, 1975, The Age published a joint letter signed by Wolfsohn and Rufus Davis, who was professor of politics at Monash University. They were well equipped to identify political hyperbole in a modern democracy.
Wolfsohn was a Berlin-born Jew who fled his country of birth as a young man in 1937 and arrived in Australia some time later. Many of his family died in the Holocaust. Davis was a Jewish Australian of Ukrainian background who arrived in Fremantle as a young boy in 1927 with his family.
The duo expressed concern at the pronouncements of academics containing alarming statements about a crisis in democracy and references to a coup d’etat. They wrote: “Australian democracy is neither in crisis nor has it come to an end.” They said “coups d’etat are not usually followed by elections” and dismissed comparisons of Australia and Nazi Germany as “merely comic were it not for the fact that these people are occupying responsible teaching positions in our universities”. Australia was merely facing a “temporary technical difficulty in the working of our parliamentary system which lacks adequate provisions for the satisfactory resolution of deadlocks between the two Houses of Parliament”.
Looking back after half a century, the Wolfsohn-Davis analysis holds up well. Australian democracy survived the events of November 11, 1975. Whitlam lost to Fraser again in December 1977 and stepped down as Labor leader. He was replaced by Hayden, who won seats from the Coalition at the October 1980 election.
Labor was back in office, under Hawke’s leadership, in March 1983 – and won five elections in a row. Howard led the Coalition to victory in March 1996 and won four elections in a row. Sounds like an efficient functioning democracy, don’t you think?
In the event, Australian politics was mugged by reality. The Fraser government was adversely affected by the way it came to office. A general feeling emerged within the Coalition that attempting to block supply to force an early election was not worth the trouble.
For its part, Labor refused to acknowledge that, when in opposition in the late 1960s and early 70s, Whitlam had advocated blocking supply to bring down the Coalition government. Whitlam had advanced such a tactic in his budget-in-reply speech on August 25, 1970.
As it turned out, the main victim of the Dismissal was Kerr, who was forced to resolve the dispute. Whitlam became a Labor hero. This hid the fact, despite high intelligence, Whitlam was a failed leader who was incapable of dealing with economic downturns that afflicted Australia in 1974 and 1975.
There was some political violence in late 1975 and into 1976. Fraser and Kerr were the main targets until the former stepped down as governor-general in 1977. From the mid-80s Fraser became a critic of the Liberal Party that had made it possible for him to become prime minister. In time Fraser became a hero among the leftists who had hated him years earlier.
But the important point is that Australia escaped virtually unscathed from the political crisis of October-November 1975.
At the time Max Teichmann, a left-wing academic at Monash University, put out a pamphlet titled Don’t Let History Repeat Itself. He maintained that Kerr’s dismissal of Whitlam had similarities with the events that occurred before Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party came to power in Germany in 1933. In his rant, Teichmann made reference to Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels before predicting that if the Coalition were elected in December 1975 it would establish a dictatorship.
The Monash academic’s political hyperbole annoyed Wolfsohn. On December 4, 1975, The Age published a joint letter signed by Wolfsohn and Rufus Davis, who was professor of politics at Monash University. They were well equipped to identify political hyperbole in a modern democracy.
Wolfsohn was a Berlin-born Jew who fled his country of birth as a young man in 1937 and arrived in Australia some time later. Many of his family died in the Holocaust. Davis was a Jewish Australian of Ukrainian background who arrived in Fremantle as a young boy in 1927 with his family.
The duo expressed concern at the pronouncements of academics containing alarming statements about a crisis in democracy and references to a coup d’etat. They wrote: “Australian democracy is neither in crisis nor has it come to an end.” They said “coups d’etat are not usually followed by elections” and dismissed comparisons of Australia and Nazi Germany as “merely comic were it not for the fact that these people are occupying responsible teaching positions in our universities”. Australia was merely facing a “temporary technical difficulty in the working of our parliamentary system which lacks adequate provisions for the satisfactory resolution of deadlocks between the two Houses of Parliament”.
Looking back after half a century, the Wolfsohn-Davis analysis holds up well. Australian democracy survived the events of November 11, 1975. Whitlam lost to Fraser again in December 1977 and stepped down as Labor leader. He was replaced by Hayden, who won seats from the Coalition at the October 1980 election.
Labor was back in office, under Hawke’s leadership, in March 1983 – and won five elections in a row. Howard led the Coalition to victory in March 1996 and won four elections in a row. Sounds like an efficient functioning democracy, don’t you think?
In the event, Australian politics was mugged by reality. The Fraser government was adversely affected by the way it came to office. A general feeling emerged within the Coalition that attempting to block supply to force an early election was not worth the trouble.
For its part, Labor refused to acknowledge that, when in opposition in the late 1960s and early 70s, Whitlam had advocated blocking supply to bring down the Coalition government. Whitlam had advanced such a tactic in his budget-in-reply speech on August 25, 1970.
As it turned out, the main victim of the Dismissal was Kerr, who was forced to resolve the dispute. Whitlam became a Labor hero. This hid the fact, despite high intelligence, Whitlam was a failed leader who was incapable of dealing with economic downturns that afflicted Australia in 1974 and 1975.
There was some political violence in late 1975 and into 1976. Fraser and Kerr were the main targets until the former stepped down as governor-general in 1977. From the mid-80s Fraser became a critic of the Liberal Party that had made it possible for him to become prime minister. In time Fraser became a hero among the leftists who had hated him years earlier.
But the important point is that Australia escaped virtually unscathed from the political crisis of October-November 1975.
And that was that, and the pond had done its Gough duties, and stayed true to Polonius, and best of all, the old codger's outing contained not one mention of ancient Troy's tome.
Good old Polonius hadn't even been distracted by any attempt to be present in the new world ...
... or by the terrible doings of those cardigan wearers at the ABC.
Sure there was a plug for Sky Noise down under, but Polonius was so restrained he didn't mention that Ughmann was to be the star ...
To mark the 50th anniversary, Sky News Australia will premiere an exclusive one-hour documentary, ‘The Dismissal: 50 Years On’, presented by award-winning journalist and Sky News Political Contributor Chris Uhlmann on Tuesday 11 November at 7.30pm AEDT.
Now there's a date the pond can be guaranteed to miss, but oh, there was a breathless hush in the reptile crowd ...
...Chris Uhlmann said: “Like every Australian old enough to remember, I know exactly where I was on the afternoon of 11 November 1975. I was a 15-year-old Canberra schoolboy walking down the third-form corridor on the way to class when a breathless friend ran up to me. 'Whitlam’s been sacked,' he said."
"That night on our black-and-white TV I saw for the first time the words and images that would echo through time.
“This November Sky News will wind back time to revisit the Dismissal and relive the day that split the nation and left a scar, a legend, and a lesson that endures fifty years on.” (the pond doesn't link to Sky)
"That night on our black-and-white TV I saw for the first time the words and images that would echo through time.
“This November Sky News will wind back time to revisit the Dismissal and relive the day that split the nation and left a scar, a legend, and a lesson that endures fifty years on.” (the pond doesn't link to Sky)
And if that doesn't give you a clue as to the failing lizard Oz's demographics, nothing will.
Cue a tip of the hat to Christopher Warren in Crikey ...
...To understand Lachlan’s challenge is to understand that Lachlan’s business is not his father’s: Different power play. Different content. Different business.
Rupert built advertising-supported monopolies with mass audiences that threatened governments with their apparent power to move votes via the dark arts of journalism, while always (well, usually) pulled back by the hard constraints of pesky facts. Now, the family media are in the opinion business — distributors of talking points and ideological hard-men for the Anglophone right. Now, “news” is harnessed to the service of political outrage — like this week’s New York Post horror at the communist takeover of the city.
It leaves Lachlan Murdoch with more of a second-hand power, with the strutting family media now more like cut-price street-corner touts for the larger-than-life personalities with real power on the right, like Trump in the US or Nigel Farage in the UK — or whoever emerges to fill that gap in Australia.
Not all the elements of the father’s business retain their value for the son. Last summer, the Foxtel network that the Murdochs shed blood to get off the ground back in the 1990s was swapped out for a small shareholding in the Saudi-backed sports streaming play DAZN. According to News Corp’s mid-year report, the big city tabloids like Australia’s Herald Sun are sliding, with subscription numbers well back behind their Nine competitors The Age and SMH, their audience, all too literally, dying.
Getting the siblings out of the company has left Lachlan in a weakened position, with control of just a third of the voting stock and lacking the hard-earned reputational heft of his father. The ISS-recommended vote against the reelection of sitting directors is just one pointer to Wall Street unease. News Corp shares are down about 15% since the family buyout seemed to take the company out of play.
But since the collapse of Project Harmony 12 months ago, the minority voting shares in the company have leapt in price relative to the majority non-voting shares, after about five years of the two moving in step. On Wall Street, pricing is messaging in an arcane insider code — so what’s the market saying?
The big buyer of News Corp shares is, well, News Corp. Earlier this year (and confirmed again this week), the company announced that it would be spending up to US$1.3 billion to buy back shares this year — that’s just under 10% of the total market value of the company. Still, might be a small price to pay to keep share prices up and the Murdochs in control.
After years of chasing, Lachlan has locked his teeth onto the bumper of the family car. But with all his worries, the siblings might just be happier to be walking away with the cash.
Couldn't happen to a nicer feller...
...but that doesn't help the lettuce ...
For that, the pond turned to the bouffant one for another dalliance with the greengrocer.
Usually Shanners could be relied to turn in 2 or 3 minutes of copy, but somebody up stairs must have told him to improve his productivity, or else AI, so this day he managed a goodly, bigly 6 minute read ... (or so the reptiles clocked it)...
The header: Liberals are quietly withdrawing support from Sussan Ley, hoping she’ll quit, There is even a suspicion that some Coalition MPs are ‘running dead’ to speed up the process as they abandon their first female leader.
Apologies, this is the only way this sort of errant misogyny could make it into the pond: Cartoon by Johannes Leak (so now they're ogling 71 year olds?)
The pond should say up front that it has absolutely no interest in any of this, save insofar as it helps promote the lettuce's cause ...
There is a growing gloomy expectation, a forlorn wish and an unlikely hope within Coalition ranks that Liberal Party poll support will sink through the bottom of the barrel, that resignations of Liberal Party branch members will persist and that opposition parliamentary tactics will continue to fail so Sussan Ley will resign as leader.
There is even a suspicion that some Coalition MPs are “running dead” to speed the process: not going to question time to leave vacant seats behind the isolated Opposition Leader; publicly not backing her personal attacks on Anthony Albanese; sitting sullen and silent when she is ridiculed; and simply becoming engrossed on smartphones and tablets instead of being actively involved.
Labor ministers who have lived through similar experiences even posit that some of Ley’s “friends” are complicit in letting the ship sink under her.
With only one scheduled parliamentary sitting week before the Christmas break in this 2025 election year it is likely that a slow implosion of Liberal leadership will see Ley limp into next year.
All of this is based on two assumptions: first, that Ley’s leadership is doomed and it is only a matter of time before she is replaced; and, second, it is better for the party and her successor, whoever that may be, if the first female federal leader of the Liberal Party is not removed in a bloody political killing season.
There is even a suspicion that some Coalition MPs are “running dead” to speed the process: not going to question time to leave vacant seats behind the isolated Opposition Leader; publicly not backing her personal attacks on Anthony Albanese; sitting sullen and silent when she is ridiculed; and simply becoming engrossed on smartphones and tablets instead of being actively involved.
Labor ministers who have lived through similar experiences even posit that some of Ley’s “friends” are complicit in letting the ship sink under her.
With only one scheduled parliamentary sitting week before the Christmas break in this 2025 election year it is likely that a slow implosion of Liberal leadership will see Ley limp into next year.
All of this is based on two assumptions: first, that Ley’s leadership is doomed and it is only a matter of time before she is replaced; and, second, it is better for the party and her successor, whoever that may be, if the first female federal leader of the Liberal Party is not removed in a bloody political killing season.
To be fair, it's also not about ancient events of the Gough kind, even if it sounds repetitive and tedious, Victoria Liberal Senator Sarah Henderson discusses the upcoming Liberal Party meeting regarding net zero as well as the future of Sussan Ley’s leadership. “I can’t pretend things are good,” Ms Henderson told Sky News Australia. “We’ve had a dire Newspoll result … things are not travelling well. “I do think Sussan is losing support, but I do believe in miracles.”
So much navel gazing, and yet every bit helps the lettuce, though the pond was shattered at the bouffant one's time line, what with the pond plunging heavily on a New Year makeover ...
The first assumption would seem to be correct; few MPs say they believe Ley can survive until the middle of next year and some think she could be replaced well before based on when the critical policy decision on a 2050 target for net-zero carbon emissions is made and how it is received.
With a series of Liberal and Nationals meetings next week, the Liberals plan to make a net-zero decision and Coalition position announcement on Sunday, November 16, a full week before the return of parliament for the last week of November.
It is expected that the Liberals will dump the net-zero target – which already has been dumped by the Nationals – but with some caveats.
All this week, as expectation turned to anticipation of a dumping of the 2050 target, Ley made it clear that she had always said “No net-zero target at any cost”, but the process has made her seem captive to the Nationals and conservative Liberal MPs.
“I said when I became leader that we would not have a policy that was net zero at any cost. When it comes to cost, this government has got it all wrong,” she said. “I’ll sit down with the Nationals and we’ll work out a Coalition position together because the objective of this is to hold this government to account for its trainwreck energy policy and right now.”
Some conservatives who support the dumping of the net-zero target have started to argue that Australia’s reduction of carbon emissions of 28 per cent below 2005 levels – a reduction far ahead of most of the rest of the world, including our major trading partners – should allow for a pause to reassess the impact on the economy, especially agriculture, that can’t even be attempted until there is a policy declaration.
With a series of Liberal and Nationals meetings next week, the Liberals plan to make a net-zero decision and Coalition position announcement on Sunday, November 16, a full week before the return of parliament for the last week of November.
It is expected that the Liberals will dump the net-zero target – which already has been dumped by the Nationals – but with some caveats.
All this week, as expectation turned to anticipation of a dumping of the 2050 target, Ley made it clear that she had always said “No net-zero target at any cost”, but the process has made her seem captive to the Nationals and conservative Liberal MPs.
“I said when I became leader that we would not have a policy that was net zero at any cost. When it comes to cost, this government has got it all wrong,” she said. “I’ll sit down with the Nationals and we’ll work out a Coalition position together because the objective of this is to hold this government to account for its trainwreck energy policy and right now.”
Some conservatives who support the dumping of the net-zero target have started to argue that Australia’s reduction of carbon emissions of 28 per cent below 2005 levels – a reduction far ahead of most of the rest of the world, including our major trading partners – should allow for a pause to reassess the impact on the economy, especially agriculture, that can’t even be attempted until there is a policy declaration.
Again there came more middle of the year year talk in the caption, Few MPs say they believe the Opposition Leader can survive until the middle of next year. Picture: NewsWire / Martin Ollman
Why wait 6 or 7 months? If it were to be done, best do it quickly, and give the lettuce its moment of fame and glory ...
This week opposition finance spokesman James Paterson urged a settlement as soon as possible so the Coalition “will be able to scrutinise the government’s failures on energy, which are manifest and significant, as soon as we lock in our own policies and positions on these issues”.
Liberal MP for the Melbourne seat of Goldstein Tim Wilson, the only Liberal to gain a seat in the May election – and from a teal independent – also recognised the need for a decision to be taken to shift the focus from the Coalition and back on to Labor’s energy policies.
“While we are in Coalition, we have our own identity, we represent cities, suburbs and rural and regional Australia. The National Party explicitly says they are there for regional Australia, that’s their slogan,” Wilson said.
“We’re there to build the whole of the country and we have to reflect the full diversity of Australian opinion in how we’re going to build out the future of this country.”
Either way, Ley is not guaranteed support as her own mistakes, splits between the Nationals and Liberals, divisions within the Liberals and a record low 24 per cent primary support for the Coalition and a net personal approval rating of minus-33 for the Liberal leader as well as poor parliamentary performances spur discontent with her leadership.
After three days of ineffective Coalition tactics and strategy in parliament Ley faced the humiliation of a dressing-down from house Speaker Milton Dick and a lecture for beginners on politics and parliamentary procedure.
On Wednesday, the opposition hit a nadir in question time. There were poorly framed questions, name calling, ignorance of parliamentary procedure and pointless points of order.
This led to the first refusal of a point of order by a Speaker in more than a decade.
These silly interjections allowed an already dominant government to get away with murder. Manager of opposition business Alex Hawke, Ley’s biggest supporter, failed the leader on the floor of the parliament and angered even moderate Liberal MPs with poorly crafted questions that let ministers off the hook and wore out the Speaker’s tolerance.
Liberal MP for the Melbourne seat of Goldstein Tim Wilson, the only Liberal to gain a seat in the May election – and from a teal independent – also recognised the need for a decision to be taken to shift the focus from the Coalition and back on to Labor’s energy policies.
“While we are in Coalition, we have our own identity, we represent cities, suburbs and rural and regional Australia. The National Party explicitly says they are there for regional Australia, that’s their slogan,” Wilson said.
“We’re there to build the whole of the country and we have to reflect the full diversity of Australian opinion in how we’re going to build out the future of this country.”
Either way, Ley is not guaranteed support as her own mistakes, splits between the Nationals and Liberals, divisions within the Liberals and a record low 24 per cent primary support for the Coalition and a net personal approval rating of minus-33 for the Liberal leader as well as poor parliamentary performances spur discontent with her leadership.
After three days of ineffective Coalition tactics and strategy in parliament Ley faced the humiliation of a dressing-down from house Speaker Milton Dick and a lecture for beginners on politics and parliamentary procedure.
On Wednesday, the opposition hit a nadir in question time. There were poorly framed questions, name calling, ignorance of parliamentary procedure and pointless points of order.
This led to the first refusal of a point of order by a Speaker in more than a decade.
These silly interjections allowed an already dominant government to get away with murder. Manager of opposition business Alex Hawke, Ley’s biggest supporter, failed the leader on the floor of the parliament and angered even moderate Liberal MPs with poorly crafted questions that let ministers off the hook and wore out the Speaker’s tolerance.
The reptiles even made the bouffant one do telly work, Dennis Shanahan joins Claire Harvey to break down an eventful Question Time.
The bouffant one sounded like he was on the verge of tears ...
In the dying hours of Thursday’s parliament Dick became even more exasperated as Ley unsuccessfully tried to take on the Prime Minister. Dick sat her down and once again lectured the opposition on politics and procedure.
Ley misused a point of order, after asking a question on food for the poor that gave Albanese room to drive a truck through. “Sledges don’t feed people,” she declared. “Can the Prime Minister give a straight answer?”
After weeks of frustration, forbearance and courtesy beyond the call of any Speaker, Dick told Ley her behaviour was “absolutely unacceptable” and “We just can’t have question time descend to where people just get up and say what they feel like”.
“I’ve been trying to deal with this all week in terms of appropriateness of points of order and I’ve been more than generous with the Leader of the Opposition,” Dick said as he pointed to the failure of the question to limit the Prime Minister at all in his response.
“No more frivolous points of order,” he said the day after refusing Liberal frontbencher Dan Tehan the right to a point of order.
But even with this run of losses and inability to get colleagues to back her political stunts – calling for Kevin Rudd to be removed as ambassador to the US or suggesting Albanese was wearing an anti-Semitic T-shirt – the record low polling, divisions and the nightmare of settling a climate change dilemma, the second assumption of Liberal MPs that Ley may resign and avoid a bloodletting is probably wrong.
Liberal MPs concede that removing the party’s first female leader will damage any male successor – and there are only male pretenders – and fervently hope Ley will resign under the weight of failure.
This quiet departure is akin to the removal/resignation of Alexander Downer after a similarly short, tumultuous time as Liberal leader in 1994 when an agreed settlement, implemented over the Christmas break of 1994-95, saw John Howard’s return to the Liberal leadership in early 1995 and election victory in 1996.
Ley misused a point of order, after asking a question on food for the poor that gave Albanese room to drive a truck through. “Sledges don’t feed people,” she declared. “Can the Prime Minister give a straight answer?”
After weeks of frustration, forbearance and courtesy beyond the call of any Speaker, Dick told Ley her behaviour was “absolutely unacceptable” and “We just can’t have question time descend to where people just get up and say what they feel like”.
“I’ve been trying to deal with this all week in terms of appropriateness of points of order and I’ve been more than generous with the Leader of the Opposition,” Dick said as he pointed to the failure of the question to limit the Prime Minister at all in his response.
“No more frivolous points of order,” he said the day after refusing Liberal frontbencher Dan Tehan the right to a point of order.
But even with this run of losses and inability to get colleagues to back her political stunts – calling for Kevin Rudd to be removed as ambassador to the US or suggesting Albanese was wearing an anti-Semitic T-shirt – the record low polling, divisions and the nightmare of settling a climate change dilemma, the second assumption of Liberal MPs that Ley may resign and avoid a bloodletting is probably wrong.
Liberal MPs concede that removing the party’s first female leader will damage any male successor – and there are only male pretenders – and fervently hope Ley will resign under the weight of failure.
This quiet departure is akin to the removal/resignation of Alexander Downer after a similarly short, tumultuous time as Liberal leader in 1994 when an agreed settlement, implemented over the Christmas break of 1994-95, saw John Howard’s return to the Liberal leadership in early 1995 and election victory in 1996.
As expected, the only solution was to turn to brooding about the past, John Howard celebrating his election victory in 1996. Picture: Michael Jones
As the pond joyously, happily never stops noting, the man who not only lost government, he managed to lose his seat ... as the bouffant one kept trying to spoil the lettuce's Xmas fun ...
This remains unlikely in the Christmas break of 2025.
A likelier scenario is the messy process of the removal of Malcolm Turnbull that began 16 years ago this weekend, an anniversary perhaps more relevant than a 50th political anniversary next Tuesday, where Turnbull’s support for Rudd’s climate change emissions trading scheme led to a revolt in the party room and mass resignations of Liberal members.
Turnbull rejected his party room’s wishes and insisted on supporting the ETS.
Former Nationals’ leader in the Senate Ron Boswell told Inquirer that he had reported mass defections of Liberals to the Nationals and warned the Liberal leadership that Turnbull’s support for the Labor policy would leave them without a party.
“I warned Tony Abbott after the meeting that the issue was turning people off, the Liberals would be left without a party and that he had to stand as leader,” Boswell said.
Despite the party room revolt Turnbull held on, fought two ballots in two weeks and lost to Abbott in a party room that endorsed the dropping of the ETS.
Abbott went on to almost win in 2010 and to return the Coalition with a landslide victory in 2013.
Whichever course the Liberals follow on climate change policy and subsequent leadership choices and challenges, it is likely to be a messy political landscape and an ugly leadership showdown, although Abbott proved it was possible to turn things around in two elections.
A likelier scenario is the messy process of the removal of Malcolm Turnbull that began 16 years ago this weekend, an anniversary perhaps more relevant than a 50th political anniversary next Tuesday, where Turnbull’s support for Rudd’s climate change emissions trading scheme led to a revolt in the party room and mass resignations of Liberal members.
Turnbull rejected his party room’s wishes and insisted on supporting the ETS.
Former Nationals’ leader in the Senate Ron Boswell told Inquirer that he had reported mass defections of Liberals to the Nationals and warned the Liberal leadership that Turnbull’s support for the Labor policy would leave them without a party.
“I warned Tony Abbott after the meeting that the issue was turning people off, the Liberals would be left without a party and that he had to stand as leader,” Boswell said.
Despite the party room revolt Turnbull held on, fought two ballots in two weeks and lost to Abbott in a party room that endorsed the dropping of the ETS.
Abbott went on to almost win in 2010 and to return the Coalition with a landslide victory in 2013.
Whichever course the Liberals follow on climate change policy and subsequent leadership choices and challenges, it is likely to be a messy political landscape and an ugly leadership showdown, although Abbott proved it was possible to turn things around in two elections.
Did the pond note a snooty note of dismissive haughtiness in the bouffant one's tone? an anniversary perhaps more relevant than a 50th political anniversary next Tuesday
Ouch ... perhaps another step to the right, and a chance to give the spawn of a creationist young earth home a chance?
Here's a little help from caring neighbours ...
And so to a bonus.
The pond realises that it dismissed garrulous Gemma out of hand yesterday, but today felt in need of an inspirational text to boost its Sunday meditation offering ...
The header: A ‘Fortress Australia’ mindset still shapes national policy — and holds us back, What will it take to bring down the walls and return to being risk-takers and innovators?
The caption for a snap designed to downplay Covid: Public health and policy advice imposed on us all during Covid, for the most part, was bunkum. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Dylan Coker
Grating Gemma went full Killer of the IPA for her opening, as if all those deaths pre-vaccine were just a dream provoked by government ...
I lived through Covid in the great state of Westralia. The almost, would-be sovereign nation of Westralia, for those who remember. A time when the name State Daddy was coined for Mark McGowan and at least one person publicly and proudly admitted to getting the premier’s face tattooed on their calf. Tell me you’re from WA without actually telling me … Years later it has been confirmed what many of us suspected at the time. That public health and policy advice imposed on us all was, for the most part, bunkum.
Pure politics, polling, power and fear. Weaponising it. Turning Australian against Australian. Queensland hospitals are for Queenslanders. The worst of us, on so many levels. Sadly, though, most people were blissfully happy with life in Fortress Australia.
That name spoke of a physical barrier but I’ve come to believe Fortress Australia remains. We are open, we can come and go at will, but are we one and free? Not on your life. Not if you’re talking about freedom of thought, enterprise and industry; openness of mind, attitude and world view.
Australia may no longer be impenetrable in a physical sense but Fortress Australia remains as a state of mind.
Let me give you a couple of practical examples, starting with energy. I’m not talking about net zero (though everyone else is). I’m talking about this government’s ideological prison that is driving productivity, affordability and stability off the end of a cliff while the rest of the world has wised up.
Pure politics, polling, power and fear. Weaponising it. Turning Australian against Australian. Queensland hospitals are for Queenslanders. The worst of us, on so many levels. Sadly, though, most people were blissfully happy with life in Fortress Australia.
That name spoke of a physical barrier but I’ve come to believe Fortress Australia remains. We are open, we can come and go at will, but are we one and free? Not on your life. Not if you’re talking about freedom of thought, enterprise and industry; openness of mind, attitude and world view.
Australia may no longer be impenetrable in a physical sense but Fortress Australia remains as a state of mind.
Let me give you a couple of practical examples, starting with energy. I’m not talking about net zero (though everyone else is). I’m talking about this government’s ideological prison that is driving productivity, affordability and stability off the end of a cliff while the rest of the world has wised up.
When reading this, it's best to put aside all attempts by the reptiles to mount a valiant defence of fortress Australia.
As soon as the bromancer goes MIA, this is what happens.
Luckily, this being a reptile outing, there was a compleat lack of irony about fortress Australia, what with the garrulous Gemma preoccupied about ways to power the fort.
Inevitably there was going to be talk about nuking the country to save the planet, though devoted readers of the lizard Oz will know that climate science is a hoax and a fraud - a religious cult only practised by zealots - down there with masks and social distancing - but will be relieved that the back orders of an SMR in every back yard will soon be fulfilled, at least if gabby Gemma has her way ...
Last week, some news broke that proves my point. Reuters reported that nuclear power was on track to become China’s fastest growing source of clean energy between now and 2040. Is it any wonder? The unstoppable demand for 24/7 power in the age of artificial intelligence and data centres can’t be met without it. Meanwhile, here in Fortress Australia, we’re mowing down prime agricultural land in Victoria’s King Valley to put up solar farms and our government scoffs at nuclear with arguments that are as dated and unsophisticated as the “evidence” on which it relies. The government protests that 10 to 15-year timelines to develop nuclear power are too long. By that logic, best we immediately stop funding all medical research.
There's a world of lies embedded in that unlinked, unreferenced, un-footnoted line quoting Reuters ...nuclear power was on track to become China’s fastest growing source of clean energy between now and 2040
Instead of any of that, the reptiles reverted to an old favourite, Satanic Solar, We’re mowing down prime agricultural land in Victoria’s King Valley to put up solar farms. Picture: Catherine Sutherland/Tourism Victoria
What's dumb about this?
Everybody and his back yard dog knows that anybody with half a clue, and the cash for solar and a battery, represents the real surge in solar ...
Sure it's tough if you're old or poor or live in an apartment block, but the suburbs - supposedly the place where dinkum lizard Oz hive minds dwell - have already spoken with their rooftops, leaving garrulous Gemma to squawk in some mindless bizarro world ...
In my mind’s eye I imagine Australia’s energy policy being written to the soundtrack of Midnight Oil’s hit song Blue Sky Mine. It’s turned up to 11. Don’t get me wrong, that’s a banger, but it’s in the past. The world, the science, the technology – they have all moved on.
Not in Fortress Australia. Here, it’s still 1990.
Australia must deliver the cleanest, most affordable mix of energy available to us that supports the economy and doesn’t plunge people into energy poverty and cripple industry – mix being the most important word.
Not in Fortress Australia. Here, it’s still 1990.
Australia must deliver the cleanest, most affordable mix of energy available to us that supports the economy and doesn’t plunge people into energy poverty and cripple industry – mix being the most important word.
The next caption pretty much summed it all up, Our government scoffs at nuclear with arguments that are as dated and unsophisticated as the ‘evidence’ on which it relies. Picture: NewsWire / Martin Ollman
Meanwhile, in another country ...
It's hard to resist the notion that the lizard Oz consists of stupid people writing silly things for hive mind readers ...
Luckily at this point grating Gemma got off the nuke the planet bandwagon, in order to nuke child care ...
And while energy offers one of the most potent examples, there are so many others.
Let’s look at childcare. The federal government is wedded to a policy that is out of step with the rest of the world. It prefers a one-size-fits-all, institutionalised, ideally nationalised approach that punts every kid into a cracked and cracking childcare system from the age of three.
This policy does not empower families with choice. It doesn’t recognise the vaults of data, including the government’s own, that acknowledge parents and primary caregivers are a better option. It removes parental agency and options. It doesn’t insulate children from risk.
Throughout Europe, namely Scandinavia, France and Germany, parents are allowed to choose how and where they spend their childcare subsidies. Not here in Fortress Australia. Here, we are not for turning. Here, we stubbornly refuse to adopt a flexible approach that gives parents choice. Perhaps it has something to do with it being a heavily subsidised $22bn industry. Call me a cynic, but I don’t think current policy has anything do with what’s best for children.
Let’s look at childcare. The federal government is wedded to a policy that is out of step with the rest of the world. It prefers a one-size-fits-all, institutionalised, ideally nationalised approach that punts every kid into a cracked and cracking childcare system from the age of three.
This policy does not empower families with choice. It doesn’t recognise the vaults of data, including the government’s own, that acknowledge parents and primary caregivers are a better option. It removes parental agency and options. It doesn’t insulate children from risk.
Throughout Europe, namely Scandinavia, France and Germany, parents are allowed to choose how and where they spend their childcare subsidies. Not here in Fortress Australia. Here, we are not for turning. Here, we stubbornly refuse to adopt a flexible approach that gives parents choice. Perhaps it has something to do with it being a heavily subsidised $22bn industry. Call me a cynic, but I don’t think current policy has anything do with what’s best for children.
The caption showed of the blithe way that Gemma has with generalities, The federal government is wedded to a childcare policy that is out of step with the rest of the world. Picture: Tony Gough
At this point grave Gemma turned deeply philosophical ... and went back to the future by reverting to Nate Silver in 2012 ...
It’s hard to hear the truth from the noise. So much noise from politicians, from invested interest groups, from so many sources. It’s hard to get a read on what’s real. It’s especially difficult when the collective mindset is set like Roman cobblestones, firm and immovable in the Eternal City 2000 years after they were laid.
So much of current policy relies on flawed predictors, ideology and the like. They come with noisy fanfare and are established as truth. Based on what though?
American author Nate Silver, in his book The Signal and the Noise, spoke about how predictions get it wrong and why. Silver primarily spoke of the use of economic data and financial modelling but the broader principle holds. He wrote that silencing the noise requires scientific knowledge and, critically, self-knowledge.
“The signal is the truth. The noise is what distracts us from the truth,” he said.
Never has Australia’s social and political discourse been so calamitously noisy. There’s a dearth of measured, fact-based, intelligent conversations on issues that matter; an abundance of shouting. Sadly, all too often it’s the squeaky wheel that gets the most oil.
Here’s another example. Last week, research published by peak body Meat & Livestock Australia painted a very different picture about Australian attitudes to red meat than the noise would have us believe. In my day job we work with the cattle industry, but not with MLA directly (disclosure is important), so I found this research especially interesting.
Noise would have us believe that Australians don’t want red meat and overwhelmingly blame red meat production for environmental harm. Wrong. That’s just the noise. The signal is in the data, which found there are fewer non-meat eaters than ever, and that of those who shun it overwhelmingly (60 per cent) blame cost-of-living pressures. Only 5 per cent reference environmental concerns. Even less, animal welfare.
So much noise on so many issues, how to turn it down? Perhaps it’s because of our geographical isolation that his noise seems so easy to amplify. Has Australia become one gigantic echo chamber?
Once we were a nation known as risk-takers and innovators. I absolutely believe that is still wired into the Aussie DNA, but we are contending with a pervasive, close-minded, almost bunker mentality.
The sunburnt country has become the subsidy country, a land of sweeping reliance on government funding. Of rugged, mountainous resistance to new ideas. Of droughts of courage, initiative and ideas. Resistance to change that comes in like a flood. Can the metaphorical walls of Fortress Australia fall like those in the biblical story of Jericho? In that story the Israelites marched in silence around the walls for seven days. Not a word was spoken. Based on that, it would seem that drowning out the noise is the first step to take.
So much of current policy relies on flawed predictors, ideology and the like. They come with noisy fanfare and are established as truth. Based on what though?
American author Nate Silver, in his book The Signal and the Noise, spoke about how predictions get it wrong and why. Silver primarily spoke of the use of economic data and financial modelling but the broader principle holds. He wrote that silencing the noise requires scientific knowledge and, critically, self-knowledge.
“The signal is the truth. The noise is what distracts us from the truth,” he said.
Never has Australia’s social and political discourse been so calamitously noisy. There’s a dearth of measured, fact-based, intelligent conversations on issues that matter; an abundance of shouting. Sadly, all too often it’s the squeaky wheel that gets the most oil.
Here’s another example. Last week, research published by peak body Meat & Livestock Australia painted a very different picture about Australian attitudes to red meat than the noise would have us believe. In my day job we work with the cattle industry, but not with MLA directly (disclosure is important), so I found this research especially interesting.
Noise would have us believe that Australians don’t want red meat and overwhelmingly blame red meat production for environmental harm. Wrong. That’s just the noise. The signal is in the data, which found there are fewer non-meat eaters than ever, and that of those who shun it overwhelmingly (60 per cent) blame cost-of-living pressures. Only 5 per cent reference environmental concerns. Even less, animal welfare.
So much noise on so many issues, how to turn it down? Perhaps it’s because of our geographical isolation that his noise seems so easy to amplify. Has Australia become one gigantic echo chamber?
Once we were a nation known as risk-takers and innovators. I absolutely believe that is still wired into the Aussie DNA, but we are contending with a pervasive, close-minded, almost bunker mentality.
The sunburnt country has become the subsidy country, a land of sweeping reliance on government funding. Of rugged, mountainous resistance to new ideas. Of droughts of courage, initiative and ideas. Resistance to change that comes in like a flood. Can the metaphorical walls of Fortress Australia fall like those in the biblical story of Jericho? In that story the Israelites marched in silence around the walls for seven days. Not a word was spoken. Based on that, it would seem that drowning out the noise is the first step to take.
The pond said it yesterday, and will say it again today.
If an ancient Dorothea Mackellar poem and a reference to an ancient biblical story about a town for which no physical evidence exists is the best that Gemma can come up with as an alternative to an alleged pervasive, close-minded bunker mentality, then the pond is content to stay in the bunker...
How weird is it to jump from this ...Roman cobblestones, firm and immovable in the Eternal City 2000 years after they were laid ... to blather about the walls of Jericho c. 1550 BCE?
That's your futurism? That's your advanced thinking? An even bigger regression?
The chance of any risk-taking or innovation coming out of that brand of ludditism is down there with those who fancy Susssan over the lettuce ...
And now, in closing, this, yet another tribute to Ken Burns...
And a little fun with the mini-Vlad sociopath, doing it live ...
Polonius - Australian politics’ very own Grandpa Simpson.
ReplyDeleteOf course the reminiscing dodderer neglects to mention the fact that Whitlam’s government was summarily dismissed without advance warning. But that’s not surprising.
Polonius’ mention of his days as a political staffer makes me wonder whether some sort of visiting fellowship could be arranged for him at the Museum of Australian Democracy. He could simply sit in a reconstructed office, gradually gathering dust, muttering away when the occasional visitor strolled by.
“Some political violence in late 1975 and 1976?”. Well, there was a lot of shouting and protesting, which I assume Polonius is referring to. The whole controversy was thankfully short on actual physical violence; that had to wait until the 1977 Tamworth Show, when a local cow expressed its outrage by stepping on the G-G’s foot, resulting in an undignified tumble. Sadly I couldn’t locate an online copy of the award-winning shot of that event, taken by Northern Daily Leader photographer Paul Matthews; it would be a perfect tribute to that worthy individual (the then-GG, not the cow).