The Commonwealth Police don’t think any harm was done by poor Hodges when he told a woman where Abbott was and, accurately, what he had said. Nor do they think much harm was done by the elderly demonstrators banging on some glass that did not break. It has all the lineaments of what we used to call a victimless crime except it is not a crime; a victimless sin, perhaps.
Yet the Liberals want an enquiry into what the Prime Minister knew, and when she knew it, of an incident in which no-one was hurt and only a shoe was lost, and that shoe given back and the Prime Minister and her opposite number together fled out of harm’s way, not that any harm was likely, as it turns out, in the same white car. They want to spend, oh, a million dollars on this public enquiry into what the Prime Minister knew of a non-crime that was eventually not committed, from which she and Abbott, like absconding lovers, escaped by the skin of their teeth in a shared getaway limousine.
What are they really up to? What are they really doing?
Well, the Karl Rove method is to go after your enemy’s strengths, not his weaknesses, and once you look at what has occurred through that particular cunning inverted lens you realise it was Tony Abbott not poor Hodges that probably incited violence, and should probably go to gaol.
He used Australia Day to tell the first Australians to ‘move on’. It’s a not too subtle way of saying, ‘Get off the earth.’ Or how else would you read it?
He said the Apology and the new Constitutional Amendment had pretty much done it all and they should be satisfied with that and get off the lawn. Compensation for being stolen? Forget it. Compensation for being raped, enslaved, impregnated, deprived while lactating of a child of rape? Forget all that. Move on. Get off the lawn.
So the whole frantic move for an enquiry into what the Prime Minister said or what Hodges said or what the staffers knew or let on is a desperate cover-up of what Abbott did when he said what he said, which was incite racial hatred, or racial contempt. He may not have meant to do it, I’m sure he didn’t, but that’s what he did. Otherwise they would not have come after him.
On Australia Day, which is also known as Invasion Day he told the invadees to ‘move on’. Get off the lawn. Get off the earth.
Or perhaps you disagree.
Name:
Bob, I don’t recall ever seeing you remark on Abbott’s lack of fluency when speaking other than rehearsed lines. It emerged again on Australia Day. As reported, a journalist asked Abbott if he thought the tent embassy was still relevant, or it should move? Abbott ended his characteristically inarticulate reply by saying “… I think it is probably time to move on from that”. What “that” meant is obscure. Nor is it clear that Abbott’s ramblings were conveyed accurately to either Kim Sattler or the tent ambassadors.
I’m not entirely sure what the latter are seeking, but I wonder if there is a useful model across the Tasman. Since 1868 every part of New Zealand has been covered by a Maori electorate and a general electorate. Originally there were four Maori seats in the House of Representatives. Now there are seven out of 70. In 1893 the first Maori won a general seat. This was James Carroll, who went on to be twice acting prime minister and be knighted. Numerous other Maori have won general seats since Carroll and nowadays many Maori enrol to vote in general electorates. Incidenally, the co-leader of the Maori Party has proposed that an additional Maori electorate be created to cover Australia. It would not be unprecedented for an Australian resident to sit in a foreign parliament. The Italian parliament includes a member of the lower house and a senator from Australia.
A fair summary; the media are desperately concentrating on the red herrings loosed by spokesthingys like Brandis and Pyne.
When the smoke from the herrings clears, what is left is a typical Abbott kite flying exercise : put a statement out there and see the media spread out with the message. Then when mischief is the result, ‘clarification’ follows : “I didn’t really say that”, or “I was misquoted/misinterpreted”.
He has done it before and he will do it again.
He is unfit for office – any office.
I AGREE; what you have outlined/depicted, Bob, was exactly my initial instinctive reaction to the raw news of his speech — and the devastatingly disrespectful context of the moment. It’s only in the media ‘bubble’ and noise following that people have been led to think otherwise (“was he really that harsh…?” “Wasn’t the AFP response pretty much on the money?” “Didn’t Gillard -in her lawyer hat- do the appropriate thing?”; etc; etc). Any self-respecting Australian can see that it’s an outrage.
You’re a bit harsh. He’s a skilful politician, a bushfire fighter, a good writer, a Catholic Socialist, a fit athlete, a fond father and a witty man.
There’s nothing morally wrong with him. He’s not John Howard. He was nearly in the Labor Party when Carr and Johnno Johnson wooed him, and he would have made a good Labor Premier or Federal Minister.
It’s a pity he fetched up in the Liberal Party at a time of universal racism, and budget-slashing Thatcherist sado-monetarism.
He deserved better. And so so did we.
He’s trapped now, and he’ll prevail as a populist monster, or not.
And it’s a pity.
Nothing morally wrong with him, you say.
His first instinct is to lie. The umms and ahs are strategically placed whilst he turns over which lie might serve the purpose, or whether some version of the truth would work best.
The 72 second meltdown occurred when none of the reviewed lies would work, and the truth would not serve, even as a last resort.
After all is said and done, I remain optimistic that the polls are soft, if not actually faked, and that the one Poll that matters will deliver a workable majority for a decent, hardworking an competent Gillard Labor government. The scare campaigns are reaching their use-by date, as is Abbott.
Some may disagree.
No, I think Gillard is gone. If the NSW right is deserting her, as is currently alleged, she cannot survive, and Crean is right, Rudd won’t have the numbers in a challenge. Which leaves us with Smith, Shorten, Crean, Swan, Combet…..Plibersek? Roxon looked really good last night.
It’s fluid, and Abbott could be PM by Thursday week. Rudd could flounce out. Thomson demand a ministry. Rudd become Abbott’s Foreign Minister …
Gillard should have offered Debus and Kerr good jobs and so kept them in parliament and their two seats Labor and not lost both, one to Wilkie, and Labor’s absolute majority.
And so it goes.
You seem to be blind to the fact that Abbott seems sometimes to be telling the truth and Gillard seems always at a distance from it or in denial of it. This is true of no other Australian politician, and it has to be fatal.
Imagine a truth/lie meter and into it put Bob Brown, Tony Windsor, Tanya Plibersek, Maxine McKew, Bill Shorten, Bob Debus, Mike Kelly, Albo, Apbbott, Hockey, Tanner, Wilkie, Bandt, Abetz, Scott Morrison, Mirabella, both Bishops and Kim Carr and you’ll find, I think, they all outscore Gillard on both kinds of credibility — truthfulness that is, and knowing what she’s talking about.
This has to be a worry, surely.
Discuss.
I have my doubts about Hockey, Abetz Bishop and half a dozen other likely candidates, but many of the others have yet to be tested under the spotlights.
As for Abbott, he’ll only tell the truth when a lie won’t do the job.
Abbott’s truths are facile. He would be far better off going beyond them.
What are you talking about? Facile? Beyond? Abbott’s truths? How do you go beyond a truth? Where do you go beyond a truth? Into fantasy? Ideology? Scientology?
If you were a man, I’d call you a tosser.
Explain yourself.
That is sexist, Bob – why can’t a woman be just as big a tosser or wanker as a bloke?
Equality and all that.
Thankyou, Doug. Of course you can go beyond a truth, it’s called philosophy. There are truths and then there are truths. And then there are the truths to be derived from those truths. Jesus, Bob, read a book, will you.
I’ve read seven thousand books, including Abbott’s.
Have you?
I’m just guessing you’ve never read Nietzsche or Foucault. You don’t have to but the ideas exist whether you are aware of them or not.