Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

The one point that I did find interesting in Tim Andrews article was his statement that he is on an AWA which he "negotiated" and that so are many of his friends. He criticises the Labor party as having a "One size fits all" approach. There may be some truth in this.

Consider this: I got a call from the Workplace authority yesterday. I applied for a job as a "Fairness test assessor" thinking it might give me an insight in to an important policy consideration in the coming election. The chick that called me seemed happy with my history (being a law student and having worked in an employment law firm) but negotiations fell down when it became clear I couldn't study full time and work full time hours, especially living as I do, way out from the CBD. According to the workplace authority full-time is "8am-6pm" and with the expectation that sometimes I would work until 7pm. My personal objection is not to the exploitative hours (some people like to work long hours) but in its "One size fits all" approach.

From media reports the Workplace authority has a heavy back-log of cases, is hungry for staff and has taken to employing "English backpackers". This doesn't bother me, since I have no particular prejudiced against the travelling classes or the English, but it would seem to warrant at least some effort to find employment scenarios that suit individual applicants. The public service is much maligned as not being part of the "real world" but I am confident I would have much more luck in negotiating hours and conditions in the corporate world, than here. In fact there is no maybe about it, I have had more success with the corporate world. The Workplace authority was a brick wall. A bureaucracy.

The Workplace authority would suit casual work (if for no other reason that it may no longer exist past the next election), with a heavy pool of casual workers to draw from. This way the expectation of long, perhaps irregular hours (required by the governments political fortunes - a political service if ever there was one), can be applied without placing the burden all on one individual.

Like Tim Andrews, I form such views as a university student, with unpredictable and irregular attendance requirements (sometimes requiring evening classes) from semester to semester, and, the inability to work much more than part-time hours without greatly risking my academic progression and sanity. Individual rather than collective bargaining would suit me (essentially people of my demographic are conditioned to expected to work and study exploitative hours.This is more amongst themselves than by external forces. The chicks love it) for the short-term but not for the long-term, where job security, stable hours and all such desires will increase with my responsibilities.

I struggled with unemployment for a long time and it lead me to the conculsion that de-regulation of industrial relations would be beneficial, thinking even bad pay and conditions would be a way out of the hole I was in. This is short-term thinking, and, eventually I admitted that in the long-term I would want more than just to stay afloat. The debates about the past/present/future are important in this election, it is the foundation on which we make decisions. The last election was a short-term fix, "Now is not the time.." said Howard, but in this one the public are going to demand some resolution of the long-term issues.

And I mean a resolution, not a loss and a victory. All that does is change the faces. It will be no great thing if we can't get some answers, some truth and some real direction out of this process. Don't just think who you want to win, ask yourself what you want out of the party that will lose and the needs of all the people who wont vote as you do. If your interests conflict with theirs, then this election ought to lessen, rather than increase that conflict.

Ernest, perfection is the art of change, there is no change when jumping between the lib/lab, who have clearly failed the future and disenfranchised the people of their assets and resources.

Rudd is a confessed economic religious conservative, who supports current elitist superiority. There's nothing within Labor policies which will help the majority who are struggling with life, just repeats of “me to” and throwing money at brick walls. What is more disastrous than a collapsed ecology, nothing but all out nuclear war, which will become more and more viable as the lib/lab's strive to sell more and more uranium to anyone who wants it.

Rudd fully supports the coal industry, oil cartels, monopoly retail, agriculture and industrial control. As well as global corporate control and providing religious schools with more money that public ones. He supports the status quo of heavily propping up corporate health providers to the detriment of the real people who need health care.

Rudd supports the current tax regime which is heavily orientated to the well off. Name me one policy which adequately addresses and helps anyone but the rich, academic and bureaucratic elite.

Why are people so scared of independents in our parliaments, after all, political parties only elect those who will submit to the will of the part, not for their ability, strength or positive idea's, as we clearly see every day.

If we are realistic about which Party should take our nation into the future, we should consider the following:

There seems to be some propaganda coming from the "New Order" about the possibility of "wall to wall" Labor governments.

That seems contradictory to the fact that Howard has, at all of his elections after 1996, stated that the Australian people are not stupid, they know the difference between State and Federal elections!

Was he lying? This was repeated, ad nauseum, by his robots - verbatum of course.

As I understand it, the purpose of Federation was that all States would have equal representation in the Senate to scrutinise the legislation of the more powerful National House of Representatives.

This gave the States the possibility of a Senate which would be guarding the rights of those they represent regardless of the population, provided it was purely a State issue.

Additionally, the Federation provided that the States would have their own legislative bodies, (their own House of reps and their own Upper House) this so that they could function in the best interests of their own State. But, contingent upon the Commonwealth Consititution.

This envisaged in 1901, the distinct possibility that our population would expand significantly over the years.

This is also a critical part of Federation's intent of "shared power" so that the Federal Government could not enforce control of purely State issues by "take-overs" but with the flexibility that agreement could be reached.

Without that shared power, a corrupt Federal Government could emasculate the State powers until there was no resistence at all to whatever they want to do that may disadvantage the States jointly or individually.

The Howard government, who already controls the Senate, ASIO and the AFP, and has remarkable "influence" on the High Court, has betrayed the States under agreements made by them in good faith, and set itself on a course of total power, without even a thought of a referendum.

While claiming they believe that the Australian people are "not stupid", the "New Order" expect us to believe their taxpayer funded ads to the contrary.

No matter how we try to explain it, it seems that our choice is to remain a democracy with State checks and balances or:

A Fascist system with total power and everything run as a Police State.

Since his election in 1996 Howard has demonstrated his objective of complete and unaccountable power - there is no other explanation.

As a member of the Labor Party I would nevertheless welcome a Senate controlled by one of the minor parties - but not an independent. 

The Liberal/Nationalists have used that as a device to obtain some unhappy "New Order" voters' preferences. 

Alga - I believe that this is not an election for a perfect government but rather an election to avoid an absolutley disastrous one.

NE OUBLIE.

The anniversary of Mr Howard's defeat of former Labor leader Mark Latham is set to intensify calls for the prime minister to get on and name a date for this year's poll.

Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd is urging the Prime Minister to call the election before the next scheduled sitting of parliament starts on Monday.

Mr Rudd says it would cost millions of dollars in flights and accommodation to bring 150 MPs, 76 senators and thousands of their staff to Canberra next week.

Time's up, Mr Howard. You were elected for three years and it's time to go. Call in the packers, it's time to leave Kirribilli. Why waste more of our hard earned money on those terrible ads?   Why call all your mates back to Canberra? We know you have run out of ideas. Show some courage, and face your judgement day.

I hope to high hell that NSW Young Liberal vice-president Tim Andrews is not representative of the rest of the Young Liberal movement. His article is so atrociously written that it beggars belief. Full marks to the ABC for exposing this illiterate ghoul.

An example:

"As an active Liberal-supporter, I shall be voting for the Coalition at the upcoming Federal Election, but not solely because they are the only party that can guarantee a strong and stable economy. Such a statement may seem incongruous to many – after all, the Howard-Costello partnership has eliminated more than $90 billion of Labor’s debt and delivered the lowest unemployment rates in 30 years, whilst keeping inflation and interest rates at record lows."

This sentence makes me want to scream. Incongruous to many? That is to say that you believe that "many people" would believe that we should vote for the Coalition solely because they are the only party that can guarantee a strong economy?

Good God, what happened to poor, sweet, Jonathon Hyde-Page and the kinds of young cynics he depicted in the Liberal party? Christ, what about Alex Hawke who at least had a certain shrewdness and charm to match his ultra-right views?

I find it difficult to believe either would be capable of a phrase like this:

"The success of the Howard Government has been driven not only by its passionate commitment to freedom, nor solely by its exemplary economic management. Rather, it is the commitment to do what is principled and what is right that has ensured its continued success. To say otherwise is mere folly."

Help! Mere folly? Even Alexander Downer is not quite so full of pompous banality. Worst of all he attacks "American election consultants" for no particular reason. Why don't you try starting your own election consultancy firm and see how far you get, little fish. Not even your own party would accept any of this as remotely resembling competent electoral strategy.

I doubt anyone with half a brain couldn't now see, there's no difference between Howard/Turnbull the cowards and Rudd/Garret the cowards. In this time of impending ecological disaster, we have the corporate/union slaves fully supporting an industry which will clear fell 200000hectares of some of the last temperate rain forests in the world, as well as hundreds of thousands of hectares of regrowth and dead monoculture plantations. This mill will pump 60000 lt of effluent a day into an area of Bass Strait which has seal, scallop and penguin breeding grounds. To add to this brilliant decision, the mill will get its energy from a wood fired power station. Then you have to add the massive amount of precious water (which we don't have up there), the huge increase in the number of trucks destroying already narrow fragile roads, air pollution in a place which already has a big air pollution problem, the damage to the wine and tourism industry and the smells associated with this debauchery. One can only concede we are doomed under this failed duopoly of these moronic ideological despots. World's best practice, yes world’s best practice as to how the lib/lab coalition has railroaded again the passive enslaved ideologists and gullible people. This is an example of their world’s best practices and environmental guidelines:

 “VALDIVIA, Chile - After the death toll of black-necked swans began to surge by the dozens at the Carlos Anwandter Sanctuary, a wetland on the lower Cruces River near this southern Chilean city, thousands of residents took to the streets.

Hoisting placards such as ''No More Poison, No More Cellulose,'' last November residents began directing their fury at a wood pulp mill, located 20 miles up river from the sanctuary. Owned by Celulosa Arauco y Constitución (Celco), one of the world's largest producers of pulp and a unit of the Chilean conglomerate Empresas Copec, the mill went on line in February 2004.

The protesters blamed the die-off of this city's signature swans, which once numbered in the thousands, on the mill dumping its waste in the river.

A government-sponsored scientific study released in mid-April confirmed their suspicions: The $1.2 billion Valdivia mill was, indeed, at fault for the ecological devastation, it said. “

If you need any more evidence of the cowardly complicity and brother-in-arms connection between these two factions, then you live within a fatally flawed delusion and are probably just as cowardly as they are in your approach to the future.

Almost all union members these days are in state unions. It is the union movement that has created decent working conditions for most Australians, it is a right to join a union, and the bloody politicians are in their own unions.

If you are not a member of their union you cannot stand for parliament.

There is another small issue. They are Australians and not creatures from outer space and I have never yet come across a union that wants to make the life of workers worse but I have come across many bosses in their own union who do.

 Alan Curran in a candid moment earlier admitted that employers are not saints and we who support the existence as part of a civil society should have no problem admitting that workers can be delinquent and ( some) union officials  can be overbearing and arrogant; even corrupt.

Is there a Labor supporter alive who isn't fed up with the faction system, cronyism nepotism and opportunism  interfering with the real job of Labor which is as advocate of the majority. Neither Labor or the Coalition parties are remotely acceptable as to best practice, the only thing we do gain is an occasional  choice of throwing one lot or the other out when they become too lazy and cheeky. Still, better a hand brake than no brake at all.

The question with IR must be how to ensure genuine fairness for workers and bosses. IR outcomes swing from one extreme of the pendulum to the other and always seems to need fine tuning or compensatory action. The federal government has acknowledged a problem and made changes ( through gritted teeth?  ). Do these go far enough?

If, like myself, you think not,  you may entertain a Rudd government overhaul as the next step, should the ALP win government. But then you will hope, should this eventuate, that  Alan Curran and other employers are not subjected to similar unfairnesses as many workers appear to be now subjected to now , because it will only continue the conflict and put a drag on small business participation in the economy.

What if we contemplate that the major problems with IR "reform" came after the  Howard gained control of the senate and felt it finally had carte blanche to do as it and its supporters pleased as to IR.

Alan, do you think there are parts of the current IR system that employers could forgo that might have workers feeling a little more secure? What would those be?

How far would be too far as to any roll back of  Howard IR in the future?

Like wise, do any ( pro union )  people feel that there are good or necessary components to  Howard's IR? Does  Howard IR address the changing structure of the workforce and economy or  not?

Most reasonable people would admit that the situation Alan described as to himself- if taken at face value as accurate- is no more acceptable than a worker being booted out without appeal because a boss was in a lousy mood on Monday morning for no better reason than bad bets at the races, say.

Alan Curran, while you whinge about union snouts in the trough you are forgetting the big business thugs who have put contracts to tens of thousands of workers that actually breach the law, the $2 billion of our money this government has spent trying to smash the unions, the $300 million AWB stole from the Iraqis to give to Saddam Hussein, James Hardie ripping off dying workers until Greg Combet stepped in, Alan Bond, Chris Skase, the HIH crooks, McArthur trucking who just sacked 700 people and nicked off.

Get a grip you foolish man.

You won't hear Howard admit this, but one of his key motivations for the Work Choices reforms is the tangible prospect that the new rules will hurt his Labor opponents by crippling their financial backers in the union movement....so far, Democrats senator Andrew Murray has been the only significant political figure to point out the obvious: "There is a political motive in play … Given that unions are one of the ALP's largest donors, reduction in union membership will impact financially on the ALP."

From his first days in government, Howard wanted to reshape Australian universities. His first budget contained dramatic cuts to higher education, and he has since gradually starved universities of public funds.

By gutting the nation's arts faculties, Howard will successfully stunt the development of the next generation of Australian intellectuals.

Howard's health-care policies have contributed to the decline in the quality of the public system and produced a colossal waste of money on "business class" hospital accommodation.

The same is true for schools policy, where more funding for the private system, especially for "low cost" private schools, will attract the children of aspirational voters away from public schools.

In each of these policy areas, Howard's record seems almost incoherent from an economic point of view, but clinical and logical from a power perspective.

Andrew Charlton is right on the money, Howard is all about power, his policies have done nothing for the economy. Australians are now paying the price of a broken public health system and a second rate education system.   

Costello's been treasurer since Day 1. He's been a climate change sceptic since Day 1. Just ask Meg Lees - in 1999 his jaw dropped with disbelief when she demanded assistance for renewable energy industries as her price fro the Democrats passing his GST.

[extract]

AIR New Zealand will start ground-breaking aircraft testing of biofuels as early as next year and believes the technology could become commercially viable for airlines sooner than expected.

The airline is partnering with aircraft manufacturer Boeing and engine-maker Rolls-Royce to test a biofuel blend on one of its Boeing 747s. It will be the first real-world test of biofuels for the Rolls-Boeing combination.

The test will be aimed at determining the commercial viability of blends and how they affect existing jet engines.

It will also help validate on a real engine predictions emerging from laboratories.

The Kiwi flag-carrier said yesterday the Boeing 747 test flight would originate in Auckland but not carry passengers. Only one of the plane's four engines would run on a biofuel-kerosene mix.

Howard and Costello's scepticism on renewable energy have denied Australia many opportunities. The Kiwis are way in front of us. This partnership between Air New Zealand ,Boeing and Rolls Royce is a great example of the opportunities that renewable energy will create.

We must get rid of these troglodytes.

Paul: "I hate to do this to you, but I love somebody new, what can I do, I can never ever etc”. Yes he was a bit dry, but at my age then he was kool as my older sisters were into him. I've played quite a bit of his stuff in bands over the years, hence the albums. I think he released it in 1961.

I see Howard has done the coward act again by now saying he may not stay in office if the libs are defeated and he is elected, but he would do the right thing by his electorate. He could do that now and withdraw from the election on the grounds of ideological insanity. Actually, all political party candidates should do the same.

An eleven year old government has to stand on its record. No choice. Howard's record is Costello's record. Costello's been treasurer since Day one.

AUSTRALIA is losing up to $360million in coal exports a year because the federal Government has failed to spend just $5million to upgrade a "Third World" signalling system on train tracks between the Hunter Valley and the Port of Newcastle.

The system, dating back to the 1920s, is helping to make the port one of the biggest infrastructure bottlenecks in the country.

I do recall one Liberal party ad that was ruthlessly effective. The one with the footage of Keating berating students with the line: Go and get a job! I was very young then and politically oblivious but it still thunders through the decade in my memory. In fact it makes me wish I could vote him out of office. Why can't we have something of that desperation in the modern Liberal party? Why this sterilised and dehumanised pap? I really hope the ensuing election campaign will give us something with more bite to it than "Least objectionable party" style advertising, that we've seen in the last few elections.

I correctly tipped the way the NSW government would approach industrial relations, using nurses and similar professions to win people over. Admittedly this a continuation of Carr's technique of praising certain professions as inherently noble, as if they were special interest groups. I hated Carr more than I ever hated Howard and, again, I wish I had the opportunity to vote him out of office. The last NSW election gave me nothing to vote about and so I didn't bother. I crave an election with teeth.

Eliot, I have yet to find a bank or an insurance ad that I approve of. The closest is the one with the baby that gives the other baby a dummy. The weakness is that I can't, off the top of my head, remember the brand. This can often happen with otherwise effective advertising. I think "Not Happy, Jan!" was for paper but I am not 100% sure. It is not enough to say: great line, though!

It also irritates me when ads use popular song but undermine their meaning. There is an ad containing babies and the song "You're gorgeous" which omits the parts of the song which appear to be about homosexual sex. Alternately there is an ad that uses "If it makes you happy" by Sheryl Crow, the chorus of which concludes with "Then why the hell are you so sad?", which is perhaps a fitting enough response to financial institutions.

The worst advertising in the world, if you ignore fascist propaganda, comes from the Federal government. The ads on being "climate clever" are an example of what I would call thought-bubble advertising, whereby whoever drafts it is so bereft of ideas that the best they can come up with is to decide what they want the audience to think and to put it in to the mouths - or brains - of stereotyped depictions of who they think their audience is. It is highly generic, in that you could put anything in the thought-bubble and it would have equal persuasive weight.

"Kill the Jews? I can do that!"

Gene Pitney was the son of an oil tycoon? Was sure I used to listen to Pitney singing it on my old "Radiola" valve radio as a kid, when Pitney was "on a roll" ( Alga!!).

Paul, was that a pianola “roll”? I remember Pitney from when I was a teen, so can't be sure when he recorded it, I could look at the albums. I remember playing the desert song on a pianola, but don't think Gene would fit into a roll.

Hands off  Ellis, cads!

Hey, who is the dark haired, dark eyed sheila who usually sits next to or behind  Ellis, who always stares straight at the camera? That is, right through the viewer, causing you to avert away from the politician speaking.

Gambaro and Draper on the Tory side, also have this obnoxious habit . As  Gary  Sauer Thompson at  "Public  Opinion" says, parliament is "all theatre". But the artificing of  tTV parliament is a truly a weird thing. Gary thought the main rthing was to try to salvage question time.

Gene Pitney was the son of an oil tycoon? Was sure  I used to listen to Pitney singing it on my old "Radiola" valve radio as a kid, when Pitney was "on a roll" ( Alga!!).

Re Richard's comment, Leak,  I think, has Gillard as a small, dark, solemn raven, prophetically consigning   W...........s.  "Shred it, tear it, rip it ...". As to  Rudd, perhaps a bush baby as much as a rabbit. Don't forget the sheilas apparently think  Rudd is cute (polls), which is what  Queenslanders thought of him before his public service razor work.

If you’ve got a bit of advice you want to give me about running the country, you please go right ahead and give it to me.

Prime Minister John Howard, addressing his constituents in Bennelong.

Fiona, Gene Pitney recorded "down in the Boondocks", I have it on a couple of his albums. Billy Joe Royal did a cover version of Pitney's take. 

I think there's very little difference between the definitions of, “boondocks” and boondoggle, when you relate them to politicians. They all eminently fill those definitions to a tee.

Fiona: Thank you for the correction, Alga.

Fiona says: 

But heaven help us all if you, Eliot, as an apparently intelligent individual, are basing your voting decision on style ahead of substance. On an entirely different matter, by the way, how's that Halle Berry lunchbox going?

Well, there's no practical or significant philosophical difference between Labor and the Coalition at the Federal parliamentary level, so I don't really see there's a choice to be had.

And generally speaking, I don't mind either of them too much.

But as far as personalities go, name two?

Rudd's mob look like the cast of a reality television series based on a boatload of NSW Teachers Federation members being marooned on an island somewhere. At tribal council, the first person to mention the 'republic' is voted off.

We have a very large fruit bat in my back yard at home called Peter Costello, which is unfair given the fruit bat has at least a bat's chance of becoming prime minister some day. Costello has as little personality and charm as a dead child's doll.

What's with the Halle Berry lunch box? Did I say that?

I wouldn't mind being Halle Berry's lunchbox, come to think of it.

Fiona: I'm almost certain that you are not the first person to have said that, Eliot.

Gillard is actually very charismatic when she is in a room giving a talk about something. She tries always to answer questions and who the hell cares how she speaks because when she does she has the ability to slice and dice clowns like Ruddock in glorious style.

And I don't even personally like the woman, but I do speak from personal knowledge rather than your ugly and superficial rant.

As for Kevin Rudd, he has more intelligence in his little fingernail than Howard and Costello and the whole pack of clowns put together which is why he scares them to death.

There is a new Foo Fighters album out and after spending a day with it I think it is the best in years. It contains an instrumental "Ballad for the Beaconsfield miners", in response of course to one of the trapped miners requesting their music whilst waiting to be rescued. It is an interesting case study in benevolent celebrity, in contrast to the malicious approach taken to the subject which Miranda Devine criticised, suggesting that celebrity worship has evolved into contempt for the object of worship.

Dave Grohl, Foo Fighters frontman, is a kind of survivor himself. He survived the drug-addled grunge movement, which was anti-fashion, anti-celebrity and in its own way anti-music. After Kurt Cobain shot himself in the head in '94, Grohl, the drummer of Nirvana, pulled himself together and became a different kind of role-model. He maintained his sense of humour, professionalism and love of music, without losing his ability to express genuine emotion. Nirvana bassist Krist Novoselic went in to musical obscurity but has developed an interest in politics and has published books about it.

In '97 Grohl released a song called "My Hero" which he said was inspired by Cobain - a hopelessly talented but self-destructive indvidual, of whom William S Burroughs said, "There is something wrong with that boy. He frowns for no good reason." - but which subtly and without preaching undermined the notion of Kurt as hero by making the film clip about a man racing in to a fire to rescue trapped people. Grohl's work is a quiet, ethical argument against the attitude that brought down his friend. The Beaconsfield episode is simply a continuation of his charitable instincts and good conscience. Cobain himself once described Grohl as the most "well-rounded" person he had ever met and this is apt.

Politically these are important figures in a minor sense. MTV ran a platform called "Rock the vote" to try and get Clinton elected. The popularity of MTV was heavily boosted by the success of Nirvana's '91 hit "Smells like teen spirit" which contained a video clip (which the band hated) about teenagers destroying their school. It was anti-pop anthem with the grunge poetry of lines like, "I feel stupid and contagious. Here we are now entertain us." Cobain had no party-affiliation and the song had nothing to do with the election (though he did express, retrospectively, a preference for Clinton over Reagan) and was a piece of social criticism. He hated the spectacle his popularity caused and thought he had "sold out", so much so that his suicide note betrayed an anxiety about breaching the "ethics" of "punk rock".

The Bush administration appropriated one of Grohl's later songs to use in their commercials, without permission, and it led Grohl to support John Kerry in the next election, when otherwise he would probably have tactfully remained apolitical. The Foo Fighters website, at one point, nevertheless contained some rather bizarre and left field information criticising the link between HIV and Aids, which is the only example of celebrity weirdness I can find in relation to the band. The argument may be legitimate (I don't know) but why this and nothing else?

The "Rock the vote" platform has persisted with "Rock against Bush" albums and concerts in America and "Rock against Howard" enterprises in Australia, with the support of a lot of significant Australian pop-rock bands like Something for Kate, Frenzhal Rhomb and the Whitlams. I also recall some only-in-America weirdness called "Fuck the vote" of which the less said the better.

The normalisation of celebrity politics is probably what inspired the rebellion in Team America. My ethics in regard to celebrity go back deep in to the past in to the writings of F. Scott Fitzgrald, who developed a pro-Hollywood stance in his later work. I don't by definition think celebrities are stupid, though, I prefer them to make their political points in the exercise of their craft. Matt and Trey could have broadended their attack on to targets like Bruce Springsteen, who tried to use his "working class" credibility to attack Bush. I recall Albrechtsen criticising Sheryl Crow for having an opinion on climate change, whilst praising Peter Garrett for bowing to political pragmatism and as such "facing reality".

Speaking of media tarts, the other day I caught Miranda Devine in the telegraph declaring that we live in a "Post-Warholian era", displaying some comprehension of who Andy Warhol was and what he stood for. I take this as an absolute, personal victory over the right-wing commentariat's bastardisation of Warhol over his Mao Tse-Tung portraits (including the charmless Keith Windschuttle). I recall lobbying her on this specific point as well as anyone else I could find. Hurrah to her for consistently being the best-informed critic in the gallery and for declining to insult her audience (even if she defines who this is within certain narrow limits).

Nicola Roxon is far prettier than Julia Gillard. In fact Jules darling is starting to lose any claim to prettiness at all: she looks tired, like Kevin Rudd has woken her up at 4am in the morning every morning to discuss industrial relations, which he probably has. Substance is so rare in politics that if we don't take joy in the superficial, then it would be unbearable.

I wonder what "dirt" they could find on Julia at all. I expect she is a perfectly ordinary woman with a perfectly ordinary private life, distasteful only to those without a life and a discomfort with human experience - for example, Bill Heffernan, who is a national disgrace. As much as I would hope that Julia is privately a lesbian dominatrix who visits "lesbian bathouses" and sexually harasses her female colleagues, her male partner seemed typically gruff and masculine and ordinary, based on the glimpses we saw of him on television.

The women's media dolled up and glamourised Pauline Hanson, which was the ethically and aesthetically correct thing to do. It was in fact reminiscent of Warhol, who took ordinary people off the streets and gave them a celebrity treatment. We rarely give men such compassion about their looks. Think of poor Paul Keating and his zegna suits, Kim Beazley with his instincts to dress-down, or John Howard and his notorious eye-brows. You are damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Actually, I've been giving this a lot of thought. And I think Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister with Julia Gillard as deputy could be really, really funny.

Not as funny had Mark Latham won, of course. But funny, still.

Julia, whose distinctive diction carries so much potential for caricature, is going to be a delight. Her tinny, staccato, whining, mechanical speech pattern is so close to actual nagging in tone I'll be surprised if she isn't forever portrayed by cartoonists leaning over a back-fence with curlers in her hair. Probably with barbecue tongs at the ready.

And Kevin gives dimensions to the phrases 'dead -pan' and 'bland' unthought of even by the great Buster Keaton.

He's like a totally lifeless version of Benny Hill.

Emile Mercier would have shown him doubtless with a dead parrot hanging around his neck bearing the likeness of Peter Garret.

And then there's Peter himself. My God. Every video clip he ever did is going to be endlessly re-edited and spliced in with every press statement and every public appearance between now and when he's given a job at the UN or made Governor of Tasmania.

Fiona: With respect to your analysis of Ms Gillard, Eliot, have you read Julia Baird’s Media Tarts? If not, I commend it to your attention.

When we revisit our pictures of the massive arrogance in Howard's demeanor during his last three tenures in the highest Office in the land, it is embarrassing to observe his begging of the voters to give him another chance because he has more to do! Struth.

Even the fact that he will stoop to that device clearly indicates what he is prepared to do to maintain the power he has so dishonestly achieved.

While Kevin Rudd's reported back flip on the safety net had his typical and justifiable concern for the public who have factored in that nevertheless paltry assistance, he must have known that he was giving the depraved "New Order" another chance to ridicule him?

But, he had the courage to do it and explain it.

Howard made a deal with the Costello camp to once again avoid a fight (vote) and made the core or non-core promise that he will stay the course on the back-bench should he be re-elected. He said he would not do what Peter Beattie and Steve Bracks had done!!!

Now, according to the Fairfax press, he is begging some half a dozen of his retiring robots to remain until after the election. Fair dinkum.

Doesn't that, like most everything he does, fly in the face of his criticism of being elected and then retiring?

But he wouldn't do that to his electorate. Pigs.

If everyone could only accept that this person, virtually from the first time he entered parliament, has undermined, manipulated and bad-mouthed his colleagues, especially his leaders, to sleaze his way to the top, then only the extremely wealthy would vote for him.

Money is power and he must have known as a spoilt child that if he wanted power he had to foster money.

Like all dictators, he has maintained a distinct and servile attitude to the US and all corporations foreign or not.

Currently, he is backflipping on a number of his unpopular issues; even those that he stated were ridiculous like climate change.

Does anyone really believe that Howard has changed his spots?

Or that the proposal that he and Costello (deputy Liberal leader not deputy PM) are now a team like Rudd and Gillard. Fair dinkum.

And where is the Deputy Prime Minister National's Mark Vaile? Will he deliver his 12 seats to the Howard regime, or does he only care for his own seat?

In 1998, Howard was saved by the Nationals who won, I believe, 15 seats. However, due to his naturally untrustworthy character, Howard has repeatedly threatened to further subjugate the Nationals, claiming that the Liberals could win in their own right.

So much for loyalty.

Bring on the election.

NE OUBLIE.

IMHO at the height of the massive public distrust of the Howard "New Order", the media, especially the Murdoch bunch, were very close to giving the Australian Labor party a fair go.

I just wonder if that was, at least in part, due to Kevin Rudd's meeting with Rupert some time ago.

However, being greatly interested in Federal politics, I notice a perceptible move in political coverage leaning more and more to the "New Order" Liberals. Perhaps Howard's IOU's being callled?

Strangely, this doesn't seem to include the Nationalists of that partnership, who hold something like 12 of the massive 89 seats in the Coalition government. Where are they? Are they another Howard deception?

Outside of Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard, the Shadow Ministers of the Australian Labor Party are only shadows indeed. Interviews on the most favoured TV shows clearly discriminate against the proposed Ministers who are alternatives to the current mob of trained monkeys.

If there are any current or past detectives in this forum, what do they think when every single witness to a crime not only testifies to the same observation of the crime, but uses the exact same words and in constant repetitive fashion? Like Howard’s front bench robots?

Since Kevin Rudd was unable to quote a tax threshold figure, the media has made a great fuss about it. Yet Howard has done it on several occasions and so have Costello and Downer. So why the difference?

For a country once noted throughout the world as sport lovers and believers in a fair go, the media fall short of their responsibility to report the news without fear or favour.

All of the sports enthusiasts in this forum would likely agree that at some time, no matter how dedicated they may be to their chosen competitor, they have said or demanded a fair go from the referee or umpire?

Surely it is better to have an umpire who, even if mistaken in the interpretation of a particular rule, applies the same principle to all contestants in every like circumstance?

I hope it isn't that the media are engaging in their past practices of convincing the voters that there is really no obvious alternative to the one man band that we currently have.

Australians should note that Howard, Costello, Abbott, and Downer (and their conga-line) have succeeded in past elections mainly by crucifying the leaders of the Australian Labor Party - and with the support of the media.

Over the weekend on Insiders, Abbott replied to every question by denigrating Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard while, at the same time, indignantly claiming that accusations of just another dirty and negative campaign was the furthest thing from their minds.

Even though, on Insiders, the trio included two of the most extreme right wing journalists in Australia - Gerard Henderson and Malcolm Farr, I thought that, even while critical of Kevin Rudd, Annabel Crabb was constructive and as such, one shouldn't ask for more.

Let's keep our eyes on the ball for the repetition of grubby dirt that will be the main political weapon of the Howard "New Order".

They have no real policies at all, just tinkering at the edges while throwing our money around without worthwhile objectives and indulging their normal US style negative politics.

Bring on the election - the public votes, the public elects and the public are entitled to know when that democratic opportunity is to be theirs!

NE OUBLIE.

Round and round the ideologists go, on their merry-go-round to nowhere. I wonder if the people of Aus will wake up and become mature enough to realise there's no difference between lib/lab or for that matter any party? What amazes me is most politicians holding power are lawyers from the religious right and all sides meet regularly for prayers at parliament house. Considering the verifiable veracity of them all, it's no surprise to see them undertaking scaremongering and accusations. This just takes the gullible fools or our society away from the direction both factions are heading: totalitarianism, nuclear and coal powered energy, privatisation of every commodity, service and asset, allowing corporate control over all aspects of our lives. Hasn't the religious Rudd just dropped adopted policy designed to support the rich, whilst depriving the majority of good medical care by supporting the Medicare rich safety net?

Just watch, by the time the election is held, there will be virtually no difference between the lib and the lab faction, if there is any now, which I doubt, in reality. For anyone to ever believe anything said by a politician, or academic bureaucrat, surely shows a deep non-understanding of the reality that surrounds us. Maybe that's makes them cowards alongside Rudd, Howard and Co. But I'm as sure, as their mythical god, being real and its adherents being credible, I'll be proved wrong. I won't hold my breath waiting, I'd laugh at this primitive infantile society’s demise, if I wasn't involved and can see the reality of the catastrophe ahead for most of us.

Yeah, yeah, 46% prefer Rudd/Gillard and 49% just don't trust Howard.

If you want to throw around dirt about anyone I have three letters for you.

AWB - $300 million to Saddam Hussein. The union thing looks like a perfectly legitimate 1% for training that has always existed.

You need to stop grasping at these silly little straws.

Perhaps someday the AWB people can spend time in the same cells as those nice chappies like Alan Bond, Ray Williams and Rene Rivkin.

Since when is sexual harassment not a matter for concern and investigation? Just because the victims are men does not make the behaviour okay. Whilst I have no interest in the private lives of Liberal MP's, if it crosses the line into harassment then it becomes a question of character and ought to be exposed in the public interest. Howard's disinterest in Oakes/Milne's revelations are symptomatic of moral obliviousness.

Rumours of gay bathhouses are, in my opinion, illegitimate territory to attack a minister, as this falls within their private life, but sexual harassment is a very different kind of behaviour. I have no particular reason to believe the allegations are true, but it is worth looking into, at least behind the scenes. Howard's response has been mystifying, he seems unable to form any coherent response except denial. He is hanging desperately onto Labor's faux pas of the other day but has absolutely no idea what to do about the wholly new situation brought about by Oakes/Milne.

I long for a few empty words, as we might have heard in the past, for him to bother to pretend he cares.