The real Election we ought have had.

The Liberal Party has lost its best chance of returning to Government.

If it had not rejected Malcolm Turnbull, when it did, what a head-to-head contest we might have had.

Gillard Versus Turnbull?
That would have been a genuine choice

Whatever one might think of Mr Turnbull, his credibility on Climate Change is far greater than Tony Abbott's or Julia Gillard's.

Strange to think that all of those of us who believe that "Climate Change" and in particular, carbon emissions, ought be serious issues in this election, have no serious candidate to consider in this Election.

If the Liberals were to abandon Tony Abbott immediately and select Malcolm Turnbull (yes I know it will not happen with a 5 week campaign already underway) but what an election choice we might have had.

Having been raised in Melbourne, under the shadow of Dr Mannix, and B A Santamaria, his right-hand man, I could not possibly vote to return to those dark days.

So, what is my genuine political option, this election?
To me, my choice appears to be between a
"Union Hack" and a clone of B.A. Santamaria.

Such appalling poverty of choice is a dreadful indictment of the state of Politics in Australia.

The Australian Body Politic is once again seriously ill.

Keep your nerve, Mr Turnbull

Dear Mr Turnbull

You are entirely right to stick to your guns and not cave in.

The Liberal Party needs to have a policy on Climate Change.

In all seriousness, how could it not?

As Chairman of the Save Water Alliance in the Southern Highlands, I still recall with great respect your decision to declare the Upper Nepean (Kangaloon Aquifer) Borefield proposal by the Sydney Catchment Authority a "Controlled Action" under the EPBC Act.

Indeed it is that which has prompted me to write to you on this other matter, as many of the local "movers and shakers" (who personally lobbied you on our behalf re the Kangaloon Aquifer) speak very highly of you.

You did well then, and I am convinced you are on the right track now.

You supported us then, and for what it is worth, I am supporting you now.

*****

After all, as "Crikey" pointed out today, the policy you are defending now is pretty much that which you took to the last election, and which was developed under the Howard Government.

So what really were your opponents thinking, several years ago, when that policy was developed?

I conclude that they were not prepared to oppose Mr Howard (on anything).

Therefore, it is clearly not a matter of principle with them at all - but political point scoring pure and simple.

The Liberal Party cannot surely face the people without a policy on Climate Change?

Yours sincerely

Denis Wilson

Robertson, NSW 2577

www.peonyden.blogspot.com

Rudd vs Turnbull

Am I the only person in Australia who thinks Rudd is being short-sighted in persisting in chasing Turnbull over the Auscar fiasco?

Surely if Rudd pushes too hard on Turnbull, it is more likely that the libs will panic and dump Turnbull.

Short -term victory for Rudd might sound attractive, but lets not forget that Costello has not yet left Parliament. Rudd's strategy could play into Cossie's hand - sitting there, sulking, and just waiting to be "drafted" by the party which refused to go begging to him before.

With the prospect of drafting Andrew Robb being seriously considered (apparently), then the prospect of drafting Costello must surely be a better alternative (for them).

Costello would give Rudd a much closer run (if not be a walk-up start for victory) than Turnbull.

So, in my opinion, Rudd is better served by leaving a weakened Turnbull sitting there, than pushing the Libs so hard that they panic and dump Turnbull and go begging to Costello.

The desire to rub Turnbull's nose in the ignomy of an abject apology is understandable. But Rudd risks over-playing his hand.

Beware the Media in a "Feeding Frenzy".

How quickly they forget - the Media, I mean.

I am sure that you will recall, that Dr David Kelly, a British Weapons Expert, got caught up in a Media interview about the so-called Weapons of Mass Destruction which were supposed to be in Iraq. He subsequently was grilled in Parliament, in a hearing which resembled in style the grilling handed out to Godwin Grech last week in Canberra.

The substance of the David Kelly matter was much more serious:
... "David Christopher Kelly CMG (May 14, 1944 – July 17, 2003) was an employee of the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence (MoD), an expert in biological warfare and a former United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq.

... "Kelly's discussion with Today Programme journalist Andrew Gilligan about the British government's dossier on weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq inadvertently caused a major political scandal.
... "He was found dead days after appearing before the Parliamentary committee charged with investigating the scandal."
... Source: Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly_(weapons_expert)

The matter at hand the other day relates to a supposedly fake email, purporting to have come from the Prime Minister's Office. The subject matter is by all reasonable assessment - trivial - supposed assistance to a car dealer in getting finance.

However, the manner of the Media's treatment of the poor guy at the centre of this "Storm in a Tea Cup" is far from trivial. He was grilled last Friday in a Senate Estimates Committee hearing, for about two hours. His immediate supervisor and the Minister presiding over the hearing both sought to prevent him from answering questions. By all accounts they "monstered him".

There is a possible alternative interpretation that they were trying to protect him from himself. Why?
Perhaps they already knew - what I believe - that this guy is too honest for his own good. He cannot bring himself to lie. If so, then I fear for him.

This morning's media reports that Godwin Grech's house was "egged" last night. That is hardly life threatening - unless one is already of a fragile psychological disposition.
By all accounts this guy is very quiet, very private.
Thanks to the Media exposure, any hooligan with a political motive knows where he lives and can go and harrass the poor guy.

Let us not forget the tragic outcome of the David Kelly case.

Before it is too late, the Media ought back off Godwin Grech's case.

I have deliberately not linked to any Media stories. If you have not heard of this story, I would be amazed. But I do not wish to add to the feeding frenzy, by posting any links.

If it transpires that someone with a political motive deliberately set up Godwin Grech, by sending the fake email to him - because they know he is so "straight" that he would not imagine it to be a hoax - then I hope that the full power of the law descends upon that person (and his or her fellow conspirators).

UPDATE: WEDNESDAY 24 JUNE
Well, I am glad that I gave Godwin the benefit of the doubt. But it now appears he might not have deserved it.
Today's papers say he has been a "Liberal Party Mole" for years - providing leaked information from Treasury to them.
If that is true, then the bureaucracy will deal with him.
And so they should.

As an old Public Servant I have known such people, and I despise them. Standards of service need to be upheld.
Traitors deserve to be punished - and the bureaucracy has a million ways of doing that.

Or else, he could do the decent thing, and resign. But then he would probably end up a Liberal Party hero.
Better that the Bureaucracy bury him in a room with no window, no in-tray, no out-tray, and especially no telephone or computer.
They can do that, you know!

DJW

Dreams of Kevin 07

Miss Eagle sent me a link to this article by Catherine Deveny, in "The Age" this morning.

It is funny, seeing someone just so enthusiastic, so rapturous, over a political event. (I confess I was, back in 1972.) Perhaps Catherine was born after the Whitlam election in 1972, or if she is a mere child, after the Hawke Government's victory in 1983. In that case the euphoric experience might be genetically inherited.

I went to Wikipedia for a quick check on those dates, and browsed their article on Bob Hawke, and my eyes hit on these words:

• Hawke benefitted greatly from the disarray into which the Liberal opposition fell after the resignation of Fraser. The Liberals were divided between supporters of the dour, economically and socially conservative John Howard and the urbane Andrew Peacock. The arch-conservative Premier of Queensland, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, also helped Hawke with his "Joh for Canberra" campaign in 1987, which proved highly damaging for the conservatives. Exploiting these divisions, Hawke led the Labor Party to comfortable election victories in 1984 and 1987.

There is surely a lesson to be learnt from history here, for the Liberal Party. Malcolm Turnbull might join Peacock as the best leader the Liberal Party had, who never got elected as Prime Minister.

Now there's something for the bloggers to contemplate.

The Day after D Day

Well, the news of the demise of the Howard "Government of Shame" is well and truly published. My Canadian mate, Leo has sent me this email critique (already).

Hi Denis,

Apparently you lot follow the great Can-eh-djun tradition of voting against, rather than for. Or do you only have 2 parties? Anyways, I hope your new b*stard works out better for you than our new b*stard has for us. ie keeps to the principles which he has espoused over the long term (not necessarily the same ones as he may have campaigned on!) More to the point, hope your new one has principles (and continues to have) ...

Its a timely comment (prescient, 0ne could say).
Miss Eagle and I have already have a similar discussion via her blog.

The really interesting thing is what is starting to happen in the Liberal Party, after Howard stubbornly led them to a crippling defeat.

Fireworks within the Liberal Party,
AFTER THEIR ELECTORAL DEFEAT

Alex Downer admitted on the ABC Insiders program this morning that he has expected the defeat. That admission begs the question as to why the Party power brokers were too pathetic to challenge Howard.

Peter Costello (Treasurer and Deputy-Leader of the Liberal Party) has today announced that he will not seek the position of "Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition".
What a wimp! It confirms the impression of how weak he always was (refusing to challenge Howard, when he had the chance).
But are we surprised? Hardly.

Costello enjoyed the power of office too much, and when looking at his "former Young Liberals" and Victorian Branch "power-broker" pal Michael Kroger, Costello must see it as being just too easy and too attractive to enter business, and make a killing.

• "I want to spend more time with my family ... They have paid a heavy price."
• Mr Costello inferred that he would enter business once he left politics, but said initially he would continue to serve voters in his Melbourne seat of Higgins and mentor new MPs.

Hmm, The prospect of Peter spending more time with them might be an even heavier price to pay...

I am predicting Joe Hockey might get the job, over Turnbull, and Abbott, Nelson (surely not even the Libs could be so stupid!) At least Joe looks cuddly, and won't scare the kiddies!

Pete - please keep a sock in it!

Peter Garrett has a big mouth. He also has big feet. Let's face it, he is a big guy. But when he opens his mouth and sticks both feet firmly inside it, you wish he would just "put a sock in it". What this about?

Garrett has taken the heat out of the Kyoto debate. Global warming is not that easy to solve, but Pete has opened his mouth, and taken the heat off Howard, who has spent the last few days squirming because of the leaked rumour that Turnbull had tried to get the Government to agree to sign the Kyoto Protocol.

The fact that Howard was (finally) defensive over the Kyoto issue was a remarkable breakthrough. And it was good for Turnbull (facing heat from Cousins, in Wentworth). But especially it was good for Labor to see Howard ducking and weaving under questioning from the likes of the ABC 7:30 Report host, Kerry O'Brien.

But by opening his mouth (Fools rush in ......) Pete has distracted from Howard's embarrassment, caused by the leaking of the Turnbull rumour.

So, the problem is not that he has been obliged to correct his own statement. It would have been far better if he had simply said nothing - leaving Howard still dealing with the Turnbull rumour.

"Clap - if you believe in Fairies"

In the final scene from the musical version of Peter Pan, Tinkerbell is in danger of dying. So the audience - usually kids who are in tears at this stage, are asked to: "Clap - if you believe in fairies".
Of course they do clap and Tink is rescued from the brink of oblivion.

There are so many parallels with the present situation in Australia.

Firstly, there is Howard as "Tinkerbell". With polls plummeting ever lower, his ability to keep flapping his gossamer wings is doubtful. He looks likely to expire at any moment.

Then there is the APEC charade: $350 million to produce what, exactly.....?

"I don't want to overstate it, but it is a big step forward to get China, Russia and the United States, the major polluters to agree on the need for an aspirational goal (to cut emissions by 2050)." Source: Fairfax Digital

Its like half the leaders of the world all hold hands, close their eyes, and say: "Yes, I believe in fairies too" - maybe something wonderful will happen and the world will survive without Global Warming. OK, can we go home now???"

The Americans don't believe in global warming, and carbon emission limits. They refuse to sign up for the Kyoto Protocol. India and China didn't sign up. Australia didn't sign up.
But its all right folks, we have a self imposed "Aspirational Goal" --- to do "something".

That's right boys. Hold hands, "Clap - if you believe in fairies"

Tinkerbell is still waving her little flimsy wings just a bit. Maybe Howard can survive the week. Maybe.

There, that was worth $350 million, wasn't it?
Sydney's reputation as a tourist magnet is in tatters.

Late news has it that Turnbull and Downer have decided that Howard has to go, (according to an ABC interview a few minutes ago, with a Sky News representative - David Speers). ABC 702 radio - 9:40am.
Read the story here.

What cost to the nation, to stoke the ego of a fading politician?
I don't think it was worth it, do you?
But then, to be honest, I never did.

Didn't you know? Hicks was trying to "destroy our civilisation".

Guantanamo Bay "inmate"
One leading Liberal is blaming the Hicks team for the "timing" of the plea bargain.

They may as well blame him for trying to destabilise the Government for the last 5 years, by limping round in shackles and an orange jump suit, just to look good on Television, and to attract sympathy.

He is even accused here of trying to "destroy our civilization".

*****

If you don't believe me? Read it here:

According to "The Age" website: "Mr Turnbull said he had been wondering for some time what the motivations were behind stalling a plea deal.
crikey.com.au
"As a lawyer the thing that I find interesting is that Hicks' lawyers did not seek to get a deal done a lot earlier," Mr Turnbull told ABC radio today.

"I mean David Hicks on a substantive test, on a factual test, was always guilty - he was caught red-handed," he said.

"Whether he was a foot soldier or more important than that nonetheless he was definitely working with the terrorists, he was seeking to destroy our civilisation."

"Given those circumstances, I've always wondered whether his failure to get a deal done and the apparent lack of interest to get a deal done, I've often wondered what their motivations were there."

*****

Mr Turnbull: I must ask you: Hicks was always guilty of what, exactly?
Under which set of laws, Mr Turnbull?
Australian laws? I don't think so - otherwise we could have charged him here, which we all know we cannot do.
American "made-up charges", which are not real laws on the US Statute Books?

How could he have been always guilty of laws invented after his capture, and incarceration?

As Crikey.com.au suggested (see their courtroom sketch above) Hicks was guilty "by incarceration".

*****

Mr Turnbull, you said it, so please explain!

Oh, and by the way, under which of your portfolio responsibilities are you commenting - Is it as Minister for the Environment or Minister for Water Resources? Surely you are not commenting on matters outside your portfolio responsibilities?

Or are you speaking, from jealousy, that John Howard, Alex Downer and Phillip Ruddock are getting all the headlines on this story? Surely not???