September 04, 2004

SHOUTY AND COMMON

John Howard went for a walk today, and apparently ran into a gang of Sydney Morning Herald employees:

One outdoor diner demanded Mr Howard explain why Australia had not ratified the Kyoto protocol on climate change.

Mr Howard replied: "As far as Kyoto protocol is concerned, if we sign it in its present form, we will disadvantage industries and export jobs to other countries".

One woman yelled the Prime Minister was a "stinking piece of dog excrement", while a third resident criticised Australia's involvement in the war on Iraq.

"You claimed the lives of thousands of men, women and children just to get rid of one stupid, guilty one, Saddam Hussein," he yelled at Mr Howard.

"I do not expect the policy of killing the innocent to get at the guilty and that is a policy that you accepted and that is despicable."

Nice people. Rather a lot of yelling, though. On a related theme of polished political commentary, listen to spaz-balladeer Martin Richardson's tuneful indictment of the war against Saddam.

Posted by Tim Blair at September 4, 2004 07:36 PM
Comments

Anyone know which countries HAVE signed Kyoto, and of those which have signed what plans they have about implementing it?

Posted by: Chris Josephson at September 4, 2004 at 10:18 PM

"You claimed the lives of thousands of men, women and children just to get rid of one stupid, guilty one..."

I wonder if the mental midget has the same profound attitude towards WWII.

Posted by: Bulldog at September 4, 2004 at 10:40 PM

Nice git-pickin', but the boy shouldn't quit his day job on the strength of his voice.

Posted by: Rebecca at September 5, 2004 at 12:26 AM

Canada has signed it - and is no where near their targets.

Japan has signed it - and is no where near their targets.

France has - you get the picture.....

Posted by: Rob at September 5, 2004 at 01:20 AM

I'd listen to the song but I've got the "Singers and Standards" channel on the digital cable playing. Right now they're playing June Christy singing "That's All." So it will have to wait, I'm afraid.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at September 5, 2004 at 01:56 AM

Rob ó But... but... they signed it! They have papers! Just like Kerry signed all his action reports!

Posted by: richard mcenroe at September 5, 2004 at 10:00 AM

No need for any comparisons to WW2. The war in Iraq is justified enough to stand on its own terms.

If this fool had had his way, Saddam would still be in power killing and torturing thousands. T o hell with the lot of them.

Posted by: gaz at September 5, 2004 at 11:19 AM

"Stinking piece of dog excrement"?

What I want to know is how that woman got back from NYC so fast...

Posted by: richard mcenroe at September 5, 2004 at 01:06 PM

A pretty good emulation of Mississippi John Hurt's style of three finger picking, whose song (scroll down to "Frankie" on the samples list) I think he's parodying. But, man, does Blues sound weird in an Oz accent!

Rebecca - Yeah, it's a weak voice, but so is Hurt's. Hurt gets away with it, because he was an authentic cotton picker. The link, by the way, is to a 1928 recording. By the time I heard of him in the 1960s, his voice was considerably more gravelly, due to a lifetime of booze, cigarettes, and Mississippi dust. My classical guitar instructor, who paid his way through grad school by playing Rock and Roll in the Georgetown section of D.C., loved Hurt. He stated that, like any Folk/Blues singer, Hurt would mess around with the melody/words/syllables in a line to make it fit, but that you could calibrate your metronome with his bass beat.

Posted by: CGeib at September 5, 2004 at 04:03 PM

Sign Kyoto, why???

Let me see, Kyoto has let Russia increase it's output of emissions by around 26%, China by around 32% and many other pissant little third world backward nations have also been granted an increase under Kyoto.

Man that's targeting world polution problems.

Australia refused to sign yet we are the only nation in the world that has meet the Kyoto goals of emission reduction.

Why sign???

As for the War in Iraq, I'd suggest to any Prominant people who need to critique the government to first read the Security Council Resolutions 678, 686, 1441 and 1382 [banned weapons materials] and then see what they say!!!

Posted by: scott at September 5, 2004 at 05:17 PM

"I do not expect the policy of killing the innocent to get at the guilty and that is a policy that you accepted and that is despicable."

I think the SMH meant "accept".

Posted by: Andjam at September 5, 2004 at 08:49 PM

Well, The Darpster was there as Honest Johnny took a stroll through Eastwood:

I don’t think John Howard will be showing his head in my Eastwood for the rest of the campaign.

Most of you have probably read reports or seen footage of Honest Johnny traipsing through his electorate on Saturday and copping a good heckling.

Whilst most journalists have done a good job by providing a nice running commentary on some of the better insults bandied the PM’s way, none of them have been able to give an insider perspective on how liberating it felt for the residents of Eastwood to give Howard a gobfull.

I remember when he wandered through Eastwood during the last election and generated the odd heckle and much polite hand clapping. What a difference three years makes, Johnny copped it big time.

Sure, politicians deal with hecklers and protesters every day of the week but what made his recent walkthrough my home suburb so significant is the spontaneous manner via which the locals confronted him.

There was certainly a Green and Labor presence trailing in his wake but the majority of the abuse was launched at him from incognito locals. I hovered around the edge of the media scrum trying to hear what was said, Howard looked as if he wanted to sink into a deep, dark hole and just wait for everything to blow over. This wasn’t the brazenly confident Howard of prior campaigns, this was running scared Ronnie Corbett.

I suppose this all gets back to what I was saying in my Thursday entry, that being that there most certainly is a buzz in the air for this election. Most commentators seem to be unwilling to make the kiss of death this early in the campaign but everyone seems to be hoping that the kiss of death will be made at some stage soon. Does that make sense? No one is writing him off but most Australians seem to be crossing his fingers and hoping that he is on the way out.

Apart from this general “vibe” that is in the air, what makes me say that?

The debacle over Iraq war intelligence and children overboard are starting to seep through to the generally ignoramus voting public. Howard’s traditional ducking and weaving strategies to prevent any mud sticking are not working anymore.

It IS sticking.

The media have seen the writing on the wall and are not being anywhere near as friendly to HJ as they were during the last election. They’re broadcasting and printing as much negativity they possibly can without being too obvious about which side they’re on.

Having a viable and charismatic alternative PM in Mark Latham is providing the media with the balls to back the other horse.

It’s early days yet, but Darp is making the call. I am openly backing the horse from the Campbelltown stable. Honest Johnny Howard is Goooooooooooooooooone!

I guess you just had to be there on Saturday. Here was Howard walking through the suburb where he had his campaign office for the 2001 election. It’s traditionally safe Liberal, it’s his seat, his turf.

But you wouldn’t have thought so by the reception my local brethren dished out to him. I had to rub my eyes and make sure I wasn’t suddenly transported to King St Newtown or Oxford St Darlinghurst.

I was on Rowe St and John Howard looked like the sick man of Eastwood.

Posted by: Darp Hau at September 5, 2004 at 10:20 PM

Nice Darp
The voting public are ignoramus's (or is that ignoramii??), how DARE they have the GALL to vote for a Coalition Government. And thrice!!!
Howard ducks and weaves to prevent mud sticking unlike oh, Bill Clinton, Paul Keating, and any other politician???
And all the screaming etc MUST be an indicator that he is a goner, and couldnt possibly be a reflection of the usual shrill self-righteous dickheads that infest the ranks of supporters of his political enemies.
Not that we know anyone like that round here....

Posted by: RhikoR at September 5, 2004 at 10:51 PM

Well ..considering what took place happened smack in the middle of HIS ELECTORATE, on the same street where he had his campaign office last election.....sheesh...

Are the semiotics of this lost on you?

This wasn't rabid trots having a bit of shrill verbal, this was every day, normal Eastwood folk. I was there, I watched it unfold.

Posted by: Darp Hau at September 5, 2004 at 11:49 PM

Wow, bully for the bullies, Darp. Those "everyday, normal Eastwood folk" have shown themselves proud. They truly get the big picture of this post 9/11 world and have lovely manners to boot. The liberation of Iraq and some alleged "children overboard" inaccurate statement might bring down John? You'd think the Coalition were Saddam and that John had thrown those kids himself.

Posted by: charlotte at September 6, 2004 at 12:03 AM

Darp, I'm curious.....was the entire population of Eastwood out in force for Mr. Howards' walk? Did the hecklers out number the well wishers?

In other words, is this being "sexed up" to reflect certain prejudices?

If you're going to report, an objective answer would be appreciated. Not one filled with gloating, please.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at September 6, 2004 at 01:40 AM

Poor Mat Hau cant get but a few people to visit his blog has to copy 'n' past it hear. Living of others is his ambition.

Posted by: Gary at September 6, 2004 at 01:56 AM

Let me see, Kyoto has let Russia increase it's output of emissions by around 26%, China by around 32% and many other pissant little third world backward nations have also been granted an increase under Kyoto.

Kyoto has done no such thing.

China, India, & the rest of the 3rd world are classified as 'developing nations' under Kyoto. They're not granted increases- they're entirely exempt from any requirement to reduce emissions.

Posted by: rosignol at September 6, 2004 at 05:42 AM

"They're not granted increases- they're entirely exempt from any requirement to reduce emissions. "

Agreed. But the effect is exactly the same as being granted increases. Hence the attempt by the Kyoto treaty to haul back on current world economic powers, while allowing third world nations to catch up.....economically and in pollution.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at September 6, 2004 at 07:15 AM

Darp, anecdotal evidence does not a reliable poll make.

Posted by: Quentin George at September 6, 2004 at 08:11 AM

On a side note, Darp's confidence reminds me of my cousin's confidence in John Hewson during the 1993 election.

Posted by: Quentin George at September 6, 2004 at 08:18 AM

Thank you, Quentin! That was the point I was working around to. I have this bad habit of trying to make people think about their position.

But I should learn -- with some people (like Darp) that's a wasted of effort.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at September 6, 2004 at 09:42 AM

Darp,

The oppinions of bitter, twisted and morally confused leftoid freaks make not a jot of difference to the end result. Howard returned, Bush returned and Blair returned. Then see how the likes of Phil Adams will dissolve into paroxyms of rage and increased paranoia... I cant wait personaly.

Posted by: Dog at September 6, 2004 at 09:44 AM

On a related theme of polished political commentary, listen to spaz-balladeer Martin Richardson's tuneful indictment of the war against Saddam.

His site says:-

M.Richardson specialises in the development of database and WWW applications.

Based in Australia and operating since 1995, some of our many projects include solutions for business, government departments and government funded organisations.

I guess he is aiming for increased business when the Howard Government is re-elected

Posted by: Andy at September 6, 2004 at 10:26 AM

Yeah it was just down the road and I was totally shocked by the reaction.

I didn't detect any of the usual suspects and obviously both howard and his team was totally taken aback by this.

VERY different from 2001.

also of interest is that if one didn't know better then you would think Andrew Wilkie from the Greens is the person with most of the reources in the electorate.

Posted by: Homer Paxton at September 6, 2004 at 11:15 AM

Objective perspective? Certainly.

What you have to take into account is the way that Eastwood reacted to Howard during the last campaign and compare it to what happened on Saturday.

Last election he was politely hand-clapped and recieved the odd cheer. Remember, this is a fairly sleepy northern Sydney suburb. Middle Class, families, aspirationals etc. No unwashed, dreadlocked feral trots to speak of in this part of town, capiche?

Saturday was a bolt from the blue, *I* was not expecting it one iota. The hecklers, were for the most part; people who dumped their shopping bags with the hubby or missus and chased down the press scrum ready to let rip.

And boy did they. Hecklers far outnumbered supporters by 70/30. I'm judging anyone who wasn't abusing him as being a supporter, and not even sure on this as they weren't saying anything pro-Howard. They weren't saying anything it all actually, so I've no idea if they're pro-Honest Johnny or not. There were that many people giving him a gobfull that I'm presuming anyone who wasn't - likes the bloke.

Eastwood is normal, PAINFULLY normal. I grew up here. I've never seen the locals that fired up (except when the 1997 Granny Smith parade caught fire).

I don't think that a display helps Howard, obviously. Going to Eastwood was a major miscalculation on his part.

Maybe some of you guys are miscalculating things too?

Objectively again: I don't see a way back for Howard. Not since the FTA backdown and CO2. If you guys read anything other than the Hun or the Terror, you may realise that the majority of press has seen the writing on the wall. They have a sniff.

Posted by: Darp Hau at September 6, 2004 at 11:27 AM

Homer Paxton was there as well, he's just posted over at Rob Corr that the viciousness of the normally placid locals shocked him too.

Posted by: Darp Hau at September 6, 2004 at 11:48 AM

Mat

Its was hardly the spontaneous thing you seem to be implying if this is was the attention grabbing stint you hinted at last week. And nice references you have in "Islam is satanic"--Paxton and "same-sex relationships' is surely sinful in itself"--Homer.

Posted by: Gary at September 6, 2004 at 12:17 PM

Gary,
What point are you trying to make.

sunday was a great shock to me.
Thisis solid Liberal territory. have a look at the local pollbooth results if you don't believe me.

I would have thought such hostility would have occured last election when emotions were on the boil not this one.
Also the people doing the objecting were middle class ordinary looking people not your typical unshaven barefoooted loony red.

Posted by: Homer Paxton at September 6, 2004 at 12:39 PM

The point I was trying to make, dearest Gary is that there are people more geared towards YOUR ideological side of things who are backing up media reports of what went down in Bennelong.

It's not a media beat-up
It's not another Darpism

It happened. Honest Johnny got slammed hard by his own electorate. Can you not admit that this doesn't bode well for him?

Posted by: Darp Hau at September 6, 2004 at 12:43 PM

by the way Gary ask Steve Edwards his opinion on those two subjects.

you might end up banning him from his own blog!

Posted by: Homer Paxton at September 6, 2004 at 12:46 PM

Darp -- as Quentin pointed out, anecdotal evidence is not reliable. Nor are you objective by any stretch of the imagination.

As the saying goes, it ain't over until the fat lady sings.

But you'll ignore this as well, I expect. Your problem.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at September 6, 2004 at 12:54 PM

So it was reported in the major newspapers, and then two bloggers who were there verify the story, but you still say "anecdotal evidence is not reliable".

Take off the blinkers, Jeff, then come back.

Posted by: Robert at September 6, 2004 at 12:58 PM

Not to mention Sky news showing actual footage of the whole debacle.

"anecdotal" ..Pfffffffffffffffffffffft

Posted by: Darp Hau at September 6, 2004 at 01:05 PM

"by the way Gary ask Steve Edwards his opinion on those two subjects."

Steve's is far removed from the Philip Adams like qualities you have Homer.

Posted by: Gary at September 6, 2004 at 01:08 PM

Robert, "anecdotal" means "based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis". As opposed to polls, which are still have a margin of error even after a rigorous analysis.

Two newspaper articles and two blogger reports are still anecdotal, and thus subject to doubt, not just a margin of error.

Think before you type.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at September 6, 2004 at 01:23 PM

And the Sky news footage? Where does that fit in?

Why can't you handle the fact that Howard copped a serious bollocking in his own electorate?

Oooops, I said "bollocking" - there's me banned again.

Posted by: Darp Hau at September 6, 2004 at 01:30 PM

Mat

I haven't denied "what went down" just sceptical on how much local content.

Posted by: Gary at September 6, 2004 at 01:33 PM

Well, Darp, I do accept Howard had problems with a walk in his district.

What I don't accept is your comment:

"Itís early days yet, but Darp is making the call......Honest Johnny Howard is Goooooooooooooooooone!"

As you say, "It's early days yet". The news stories are anecdotal. Your word ain't final.

Live with it.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at September 6, 2004 at 01:41 PM

Hey, Darp and Homer and any others hoping to see the end of the Howard Government, unfortunately for you the news ain't so good. Labor has just had a fortnight of taking their biggest swing at Howard's credibility and the polling shows he has improved in the preferred PM stakes. At the same time the coalition is edging ahead in the two party preferred. And the marginals are looking like shit. I have extremely close personal links into the ALP Leadership and the faces in private are very glum.

And that polling occurred before this election's Tampa/Sep 11 incident - the Breslan slaughter. Time to start rolling out the time tested "We wuz robbed" line becuase. . . ". Latham is toast and I've got money on it.

Looks like Bush is gonna beat J.Flip-Flop.Kerry too.

Brilliant! (Said in Irish brogue and toasted by the black mothers' milk.)

Posted by: Razor at September 6, 2004 at 02:00 PM

Howard will have a fight on his hands in Bennelong but he will win. Then when he loses the election he will resign. Simple.
His main problem as I see it is that a lot of his core voters are decent ethical people who hold traditional views about morals and correct and proper behaviour. The revelation of Howard as a cross between Richard Nixon and Graham Richardson has come as quite a shock to these type of people. Well a real shock actually. The type of shock Tories got in the 90s when people like Lord Archer and Aitken were exposed.
Gone are the decent Liberals like McPhee and MacKellar - these days the whatever it takes ethos that a Howard scarred by years of opposition has driven will bring down this Government and propel the Liberal party into a round of hate and internal division not seen since the days when Victoria's Gorton and NSW's McMahon hacked each to bits.
Should we draw a parallel between Victoria's Gorton and NSW's Abbott here? If we do, there's no National half the calibre of Black Jack McEwen behind the scenes this time.

Posted by: the common good at September 6, 2004 at 02:01 PM

I should have said Victoria's Costello in the second last sentence - apologies.

Posted by: common good at September 6, 2004 at 02:02 PM

Hey, Razor. I'm not going to dispute what you're saying, but the way you're saying it could use some improvement. Firstly, using polls as evidence? I think there was a discussion on this very blog about polls a few weeks ago and I clearly remember everyone agreeing they were a load of bunk (then again, that was when they were favouring the ALP). Second, your statement about people in the ALP Leadership ... Did someone say something about anecdotal evidence? Looks like you really showed Darp with those convincing arguments, huh?

Care to disclose the names of these glum-looking ALP figures or was it all BS (I've studied media law extensively - there's no risk to you if you disclose)?

I must say, as a swinging voter, I've almost had it with this blog and its absolute inflexibility when faced with arguments against the government, even those presented rationally. There's way too much gloating, and unnecessarily bullyish ridiculing of leftist views, not to mention the gangbanging of anyone holding a view which even slightly differs from Tim Blair's 'Howard is holy' yesmanship.

I'm going to find a pro-Lib blog where the posters think a bit more and aren't so attracted to the smell of their own BS. If Howard does win, it won't be because of you lot.

Posted by: Karl at September 6, 2004 at 02:52 PM

(rubs eyes and promptly cacks himself stupid)

Posted by: Darp Hau at September 6, 2004 at 03:02 PM

the thing I like abou you Gary is that you are ironic without knowing it.

By the way I am not surprised that the only two people who saw this back up the story and everyone else who wasn't there want to believe it didn't happen.

I didn't comment that this was the ending of howard I only stated how amazed I was it happened and who were giving howard a hard time. also it wasn't a large crowd and most were shopping or having coffee.

no they weren't having coffee at homers for those who know Eastwood

Posted by: Homer Paxton at September 6, 2004 at 03:11 PM

Karl

Good for you for joining the rest of the urbanite martyrs. And whatever ethnic group you belong to, be sure Mat will have an ancestor to match.

err Homer when did say "it didn't happen"?.

Posted by: Gary at September 6, 2004 at 03:22 PM

I fail to see what my ancestry has to do with the current argument.

Gary,

Again, you couldn't challenge Karl on the strength of his argument so you resorted to schoolyard insults.

Homer - the coffee at Homers sucks.

Posted by: Darp Hau at September 6, 2004 at 03:41 PM

"Again, you couldn't challenge Karl on the strength of his argument so you resorted to schoolyard insults."

Mat you poor child, the same could said about many other blogs including yours. Your little demands will not be taken seriously until you can demonstrate an alternative.

Posted by: Gary at September 6, 2004 at 04:05 PM

Karl

Interpret the polls however you wish. I know that the poll I trust the most are the on-line bookies and Howard is looking good.

As for disclosing my ALP cotacts - I don't know anything about media laws, but I do know that I have to live in this family for the rest of my life and once I disclosed either my or my source's identities, I would be ostracised from the family (the lefties are really good haters - ask Latham) and all the juicy inside stuff would dry up. There is a lot of stuff I know that the Liberals would give Latham's left nut for but family loyalty and the risks of identification are just not worth living with. Plus the ALP are doing a bad enough job themselves.

In terms of how the reliabilty of information is rated - a few passers by mouthing off in public versus "from the horses mouth" inside information, I know which one I back.

And for all those lefties out there, I have another comment to add to your current woes:

Electrolux (6-1 I believe).

Brilliant!

Posted by: Razor at September 6, 2004 at 04:09 PM

And your little alternatives will not be taken seriously, Gary, until you can demonstrate a demand.

Posted by: floopmeister at September 6, 2004 at 04:10 PM

Darp Hau

Hey, dude, have you been using Margoyle's dealer lately? Hun, I hate to tell you , but 2 hecklers a revolution does not make. More lies, diversions, and hysteria from the rancid bourgeoise left.

Posted by: neoconchick at September 6, 2004 at 04:20 PM

I not the one whingeing for others to provide an alternative, floopmeister. Just in case you missed that.

Posted by: Gary at September 6, 2004 at 04:23 PM

What amuses me about the sceptical reaction to some of the recent incidents critical opf the govermment is the attempt to label things a beat up if they dont suit John Howard. Like the Scrafton affair - well that guy was a Liberal Party adviser, he wasnt an ALP adviser or appointment. Then the 43 signatories to the letter calling Howard loose with the truth over Iraq - mainly conservative ex military types in that 43. Military types tend to be conservative one would venture to guess but a total lack of morals and integrity still offends some old school conservatives it would seem.
Then we had the Liberal Party senior state figure in Queensland who swore a statement that Brandis caleld the PM a lying rodent. As well we had Turnbull express doubt about the annexation of Iraq and that woman MP in South Australia, I cant remember her name, the one who take her bit of shag overseas at taxpayers expense, you know the one - she questioned the asylum seeker policy.
These incidents would be all easy to dismiss as ALP inspired attacks on the Government - the only difficulty is that they are coming from the Government ranks. Makes it a bad harder to dismiss it as some sort of conspiracy when its spewing from your own ranks, doesnt it chaps?

Posted by: the common good at September 6, 2004 at 04:49 PM

No Mr Common Good: they're examples of "More lies, diversions, and hysteria from the rancid bourgeoise left."

Or words to that effect.

Posted by: floopmeister at September 6, 2004 at 05:01 PM

I live in John Howard's electorate too, just up the road from Eastwood and I've got news for Darpie: John Howard will easily retain Bennelong. Electors here, like elsewhere, don't give a fuck about children overboard (they were going to end up in the water anyway); they don't trust Mark Latham; John Valder is just an eccentric; and Andrew Wilkie is a bitter and twisted, passed-over, ex-public servant, ALP stooge, a blow-in who wouldn't where Rowe Street is or what our local problems are. As soon as he loses his deposit, we'll never see him again.

Darpie, you're in the wrong electorate: go back to Newtown, under the flight path, kick the druggies out of the doorway, mind the dog excrement on the footpath, and stew in your bile about the Iraq war.

Posted by: Freddyboy at September 6, 2004 at 05:08 PM

Yes I think on reflection there is something to that Floopmeister. After all Peter Reith was one of the leading left wing figures in Australia in the last 50 years. It therefore follows that his adviser Scrafton was also a pinko stooge.
Same with 43 military and diplomatic ex top brass that signed the letter making the outrageous claim that PM Howard misled us over the reasons for the invasion of Iraq. Well this is a set up too. Need I say it is common knowledge that military and diplomatic types have been long haired bleeding heart lefties for as long as I can remember now. And anyway their letter was rubbish - the Government has given at least 5 different reasons for invading Iraq at different times from WMD to keeping the US friendly to Saddam is a bad man. At no time has the Government told a deliberate lie about why we invaded Iraq - it's more that Washington sent us muddled instrcutions.
As for Turnbull - well anyone who married a woman whose father was a Minister in Gorton's Government has to be a leftie bleeding heart. Gorton was the most disgraceful Liberal PM there has ever been - why do you know he actually tried to increase Australian ownership of our mineral resources - traitor - traitor to this great foreign owned country and traitor to his own party.
Anyway floopmeister - you are correct - all the usual left wing suspects have come forward from their bourgeois cribs to bag the Howard Government. They have no credibility at all, the lying rodents.

Posted by: the common good at September 6, 2004 at 05:14 PM

agreed but the coffee at Centro is excellent

Posted by: Homer Paxton at September 6, 2004 at 05:19 PM

Hey Freddyboy, you forgot to mention 'dole bludgers'; 'cappucino mafia'; 'pinko-commo-lezzo-professional ratbag-bleeding hearts'; and even 'Chardonnay Socialists'!

Hmmm... standards must be slipping...

Posted by: floopmeister at September 6, 2004 at 05:39 PM

Newtown is too up market for that these days Freddy Boy - why dont you read Title Deeds? - the place is partly full of tax dodging corporate types . Their dodgy ranks are supplemented by the trendy renovation set with their Sydney University degrees paid for by daddy's offshore Nauru account.
The drug addicts and the other lower class types who make you feel so much better about the great person that you are moved to Marrickville some time ago.
But dont worry Freddy - if you cant you keep up with the times, then the seat of Bennelong has the perfect candidate for you.

Posted by: the common good at September 6, 2004 at 05:45 PM


Yeah, Commo, and it's not whingeing Wilkie: JH suits us fine. As for those druggies, check out King Street on a Saturday night; otherwise any other day, try Dulwich Hill, not Marrickville. Either one, unfortunately you can't escape your local archetypal champagne socialist, Anthony Albanese. So sad!

Posted by: Freddyboy at September 6, 2004 at 06:03 PM

You seem to know a lot about finding druggies Freddyboy - whats the problem - too much disposable income is it?
Beware the pitfalls of being one of the idle rich. They have claimed better men than yourself.
Oh and for your information the term common good derives from Scripture, not from Das Capital

"Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. [1 Corinthians 12:7]"

It was then taken up by English thinkers in the 17th century and developed from there.
The term has nothing to do with being a member of the Communist Party commonly called Commos as you just did.
Gee, and why am I having to educate someone like you? I thought the affluent people of Bennelong were the ones who could afford an education. Maybe they are spending their money these days on luxury imports if the latest yawning trade gap is anything to go by. Whats an education compared to a decent Gucci toothbrush. Ask Andrew.

Posted by: the common good at September 6, 2004 at 06:19 PM

Freddyboy,

No shit Howard will retain Bennelong, that's very politically astute of you to say so. But it won't be by anywhere near as big a margin as in previous elections. Were you down there on Saturday cheering on your man? I didn't see/hear anyone cheering him.

Neoconchick,

Hmmm...I wasn't bourgeoise last I looked. Hmmm...state school education (check), working class background (check). I wouldn't touch whatever gear Margoyle is on with a ten foot pole.


Posted by: Darp Hau at September 6, 2004 at 07:33 PM

They're past Dully now Freddyboy and on to Hurlstone Park - next stop Canterbury and soon to mingle with the folks who follow the "M" religion - should be interesting.
And Darp - if you had bothered to walk a couple of blocks from the action with JH you would have seen an unusual number of non-local busses parked about - a tourist boom obviously.

Posted by: graboy at September 6, 2004 at 09:12 PM

uhm...in which streets were these busses parked? I did my daily mountain bike around the area during the afternoon and didn't see squat.

Posted by: Darp Hau at September 7, 2004 at 01:05 AM

Oh please, Darp is now trying to pass himself off as "working class." Honeylumps, if going to a "state school" makes one "working class" then so am I. And no one who owns a mountain bike gets to claim membership among the proles anymore, or didn't you read the fine print on the sales slip?

Posted by: Andrea Harris at September 7, 2004 at 12:52 PM

Razor, Razor, Razor. How strange you are. The poll you trust is the online bookies, eh? Can I just say, ha ha ha ha ha ha ha? First of all, that's not a random cross-section of society, just gamblers. I won't bother going into the accuracy issues of a survey where people seek to participating rather than being cold-polled. Second, when you place a bet, you're not indicating who you're going to vote for, but who you think the nation is going to vote for (more accurately, which party you think will win most seats - not always the same as highest primary votes). For instance, if I thought the ALP was going to win, but wanted to vote for Howard, I'd bet on the ALP. You don't have to agree with what a horse says to back it in the Melbourne Cup.

Now balance that against the Eastwood situation, where ordinary folk who happened to be in the area - ordinary Bennelong voters - felt moved to confront Howard in numbers which were impressive enough to give Howard a worried look, anger Tim Blair and start stories among his yespeople of buses parked a few streets away (why would they have to keep their buses out of sight and who told them Howard was going to be going for a walk in time for them to hire them?). I've lived in Bennelong myself and I have to say that sort of demonstration is unheard of, but understandable considering the current climate. There's no point sticking our heads in the sand about it - it's a fact that every MP's popularity fluctuates from one election to the next. What I will agree with is that there's no evidence that any of these Bennelongers ever voted for Howard in the past. Still, a strange occurrance for Eastwood (they do great BBQ pork round there if anyone has a hankering).

Now back to these glum-faced ALP leaders you claim to know. I wasn't asking you to disclose your identity or that of your source - just the names of these ALP bigwigs who've been looking glum. I mean, you're not even posting under your own name. How could that get you in trouble with friends or family? Hell, you wouldn't even have to know the glum politicians in question to have that sort of information. You could have overheard them in a cafe. I suspect the only reason you're not disclosing is you don't actually have any dirt to dish. I mean, why would an ALP dude suddenly become glum now, after 8 whole years in opposition?

Or maybe you were thinking state politics. I can understand Mr Carr looking glum.

Posted by: Karl at September 7, 2004 at 07:29 PM