June 16, 2004

COLUMN LACKS COURTESY

"In an ideal world," writes Emma Tom, "changes in political direction wouldn't be seen as intrinsically good or bad – they'd be assessed contextually on a case by case basis. But in the real world, Garrett is unlikely to be afforded this courtesy."

It’s an injustice, it is! Mentioned in this week’s Continuing Crisis column for The Bulletin are Peter Garrett (x 17), Mark Latham, Cheryl Kernot, Paul Keating, Gary Johns, Nick Prassas, Mark French, Anthony Martin, Seen Lee, John Birmingham, Jackie Stewart, Mark Webber, George W. Bush, Carmen Lawrence, Arthur Chrenkoff, and John Howard.

Also in The Bulletin: Tony Wright says the Garrett installation looks "designed to be the moment the ALP under Latham became Australia's version of Tony Blair's New Labour during its golden period."

Posted by Tim Blair at June 16, 2004 12:59 PM
Comments

To the left, it just depends on who does it.

Remember the onanism in the media when Howard was accused of doing a 'back-flip'?

See, when lefties flip-flop, its a "contextual change in direction". I wish we can be spared the " Contextual bovine droppings"

Posted by: nic at June 16, 2004 at 01:05 PM

I think Tony Wright has been popping the funny pills. By his own admission, Wright claims Tony Blair's New Labour was created after having cleaned Labour of its socialist detritus (a job one could easily argue was left unfinished to Blair's great detriment).

Latham's own rightwing views have been galloping left at a great rate of knots ever since he obtained the leadership of the Labor Party, and just how exactly would one characterise Peter Garrett's political views (such as they once were - or remain - until another day)? Certainly not rightwing. Note also that Faulkner is apparently the kingmaker of the ALP and also from the Left.

All in all I can't see much relationship at all with New Labour though one could certainly argue that they should jettison their socialist detritus if they ever want to be taken seriously again.

Posted by: Stan at June 16, 2004 at 01:35 PM

Cant wait to see Laurie Oakes interviewing Peter Garrett. Or do you think that he will chicken out?

Posted by: Rob at June 16, 2004 at 01:42 PM

Thanks for the racist disdain, Tim.

I happen to be of Greek background (both my parents are Greek). I live in the Kingsford Smith electorate and I have never voted for a liberal candidate, Greek or not. And I don't intend to start now. I don't support Nick Prassas' policies and i did not vote for him in the recent local council elections.

By your estimation, my next door neighbours, who are of Portuguese, Chinese and Italian backgrounds will also vote for Nick Prassas, simply because he is Greek. Taking your argument one step further, I can thankfully say that there are enough people of Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Celtic descent in my electorate who will only vote for an Anglo candidate, thus ensuring Peter Garrett's fate as the next Federal member for Kingsford Smith.

Perhaps John Howard might consider moving Nick Prassas to an electorate with more wogs?

Posted by: Arthur at June 16, 2004 at 01:46 PM

It's Labor which has always curried the multicultural vote, Arthur. Tim's point was exactly that - Labor's Johns would be impressed.

The Liberals appointed Prassas because he's a good local member, not because he's Greek. Or multicultural.

Posted by: ilibcc at June 16, 2004 at 02:04 PM

That's not the way I see it, ilibcc. That the ALP has often and sometimes cynically chased the ethnic vote is true enough. The same can also be said of the Liberal Party.

My point is that Tim Blair has accepted it as a given that the multiculturalist and ethnic vote is won by the Liberal candidate on the basis of his Greek background. This speaks volumes on Tim's attitude towards, and i daresay ignorance on Kingsford Smith's savvy multicultural electorate.

best,
Arthur.

Posted by: Arthur at June 16, 2004 at 02:39 PM

My point is that Tim Blair has accepted it as a given that the multiculturalist and ethnic vote is won by the Liberal candidate on the basis of his Greek background.

If what he was saying was serious, he'd also be guilty of saying that Prassas's lack of a top 40 hit was a real problem.

Posted by: Andjam at June 16, 2004 at 03:05 PM

Tim,

What were you trying to say about performance-enhancing drugs?

Posted by: Andjam at June 16, 2004 at 03:06 PM

Thanks for the racist disdain...I happen to be of Greek background (both my parents are Greek). I live in the Kingsford Smith electorate and I have never voted for a liberal candidate, Greek or not. And I don't intend to start now.

That wasn't racist, Werris. If he'd cast aspersions on your early model Valiant, made fun of the brocade pillows and the little dog with the waggly head in the back window, or said your mum should shave more often, that would have been racist.

It's a shame the Wogblogger is taking an extended break. Compare and conmtrast: Sensible wog-v.-ethnic arsehole. (Sorry about that anatomical reference; don't want anyone to think of greek-style or anything).

Posted by: superboot at June 16, 2004 at 04:12 PM

There are two ways of looking at Peter Garrett's recent policy flips. One is to take them at face value and believe him when he says that he has changed his mind.

The other approach is to not believe him at all, and treat him like the lying liar that he is.

For heavens sake, he blatantly lied about his voting record and electoral enrolment after only 24 hours on the job.

My money is on the second approach. Does he seriously expect voters to believe that after holding stupid views on national defense, environmental policy and the role of government in a free society for more than twenty years, that he would just change these views at the drop of a hat because some boofhead from Werriwa asked him to?

If so, what is to stop him changing his views back again if he wins Kingsford-Smith?

Posted by: Alex Robson at June 16, 2004 at 05:13 PM

Is Garret going to get fined for not being on the electoral roll? That is what woiuld happen to the rest if we had committed the same offence.

Posted by: Toryhere at June 16, 2004 at 05:51 PM

Um...take a chill pill, Arthur. I am of italian heritage, but I found nothing offensive about Tim's description of the Liberal candidate.

The ALP has been known to indulge in ethnic politics, (remember Keating in the 1996 election?), and Tim was just using a little bit of irony to make his point.

Posted by: Quentin George at June 16, 2004 at 05:53 PM

I understand that Kingsford-Smith is now becoming quite gentrified (after all it borders Australia's wealthiest and smallest electorate of Wentworth). In the last election there was a 5% swing against Labor in this seat. Another 8% and the Liberals could gain the seat. In 1996 the Liberals achieved 10 and 12% swings around Sydney in lower middle class areas, as the voters became bored by the ALP's socialist tendencies. Could this mean that if the disenchanted local ALP types run dead at the next election, Mr Garrett will lose to the Liberals?

Posted by: Toryhere at June 16, 2004 at 06:06 PM

Unlikely Toryhere, but then again, its happened before. There are some formerly safest of the safe seats that are now safe for the opposite side.

Posted by: Quentin George at June 16, 2004 at 06:13 PM

..my point is that Tim Blair has accepted it as a given that the multiculturalist and ethnic vote is won by the Liberal candidate on the basis of his Greek background...

You're not denying that political reality, are you?

Posted by: Byron_the_Aussie at June 16, 2004 at 07:31 PM

Yes, the Oakes interview will be worth waiting for - but I'm even more interested in the subsequent revelations about who in the Labor shadow cabinet Pete was fucking when he made the decision.

And we shouldn't be surprised by the "moral equivalence" arguement - Garrett considered the world's greatest democracy to be the same as the world's worst totalitarian dictatorship, so why shouldn't the complete overnight repudiation of everything you have publicly stood for and preached about, be considered to be a mere "backflip, similar to changing your view on parlimentary superannuation?

Posted by: Waste at June 16, 2004 at 09:22 PM

does this prassas guy run a diner? he's not really greek unless he does.

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at June 16, 2004 at 10:30 PM

Waste, I have heard a rumour that Oily Pete, Cheryl Kernot and Gareth Evans formed a menage a trois after Cheryl spat the dummy. Maybe Oily Pete's shift to labor is all part of her devious plan for revenge. Warning: visualisation of this scenario may cause spontaneous and uncontrollable projectile vomiting.

Posted by: tripebuster at June 16, 2004 at 10:56 PM

Arthur, the only thing Tim B has done wrong is to mention Emma Skeletor Tom.
Tim I told you before not to mention that skull faced haggis again, Ill have nightmares.

But there is no doubt Pete Garrett could easily get a job with the Flying Fruit Fly Circus with the amount of acrobatics he's done lately. As I said before, He's perfect for labor, he's already got the lying down pat. That'll save on training!!!

Posted by: scott at June 16, 2004 at 11:31 PM


From the Bulletin column:
"It's better to die on your feet than to live on your knees," sang Garrett, back in the old days, before the attractions of Labor Party membership became apparent.

As the Roman whorehouse's amoral old man in the movie version of "Catch 22" observed when presented with the identical saying by Nately:
"No! You've got it backwards. It's better to live on your feet than die on your knees."

Posted by: mojo at June 17, 2004 at 07:47 AM