I’m Kevin and I’m here to…..Plus, this week in feminism

16 Feb

Is Kevin Rudd planning a come-back? Are there enough supporters now to return him to the job he so ignominiously lost?  Will Julia Gillard get her comeuppance? Will Kevin get the ALP across the line again like he did in 2007? Is Michelle Grattan making it all up?

Personally,  I’d back anyone with a chance of keeping the government the government  when Tea Party Tony is our only alternative, so who’s it going to be, Julia or Kevin? As we now know, we don’t have to keep the leader who wins the election, we can get another right after, so all we need is the one who can decisively win, and out of the two of them, history tells us that’s Kev. Who is still the most popular Labor politician in the country.

Let us hope that the ALP will use their heads and throw their weight behind whoever is most likely to win, because the alternative is simply too abhorrent to contemplate.

Of course much of this could be avoided if punters would do as I do and vote for the local member who does the best job, in my case the ALP member, instead of imagining we’re in some kind of presidential system in which only the leader matters.

Should women keep their own names when they marry, rather than taking their husbands’? This was one of the more profound questions posed by feminists for consideration last week.

For a start, what woman has her “own” name to keep? Most of us have our father’s names. If we have our mother’s names they are usually our grandfather’s names. The only way a woman has her own name is if she changes it herself. I’ve had my father’s name, my stepfather’s name, my first husband’s name and then I chucked them all and changed my name by deed poll to my grandfather’s name. When I married again I kept that name instead of changing it to my husband’s, mostly because I was sick of the paperwork.

Now I’m considering taking a last name that has nothing to do with anybody, like Peony, or Seagrass, or Waterlily or Dugong. Also I’m not Miss, Ms, or Mrs anymore, I’m Dr. So I have thrown off all the naming shackles of patriarchy, or will when I tackle the paperwork.

Unfortunately it’s too late to give my children my name instead of their father’s. This is a pity, because then all my grandchildren would have my name instead of their grandfather’s. There would be generations of Dugongs, Waterlilys, Peonys or Seagrasses instead of boring old whatevers. These generations would be shackled by the matriarchal instead of the patriarchal, and it’s about time.

I could continue in this querulous vein, explaining how in my opinion sacking Kevin in the manner they chose was the dumbest decision ever, and bound to seriously taint Ms Gillard’s Prime Ministership and the entire party for a long, long time, however, I have to go to the dentist. So have a good Saturday, and may all your troubles be very very small.

Yours, as ever, Dr Dugong.

199 Responses to “I’m Kevin and I’m here to…..Plus, this week in feminism”

  1. Noely (@YaThinkN) February 16, 2013 at 7:55 am #

    Pretty much spot on, both counts… Who really cares who leads as long as Mr Abbott doesn’t get the top job.

    Names, don’t really care… I always assumed feminism was about choice, I chose to take my husbands name when we got married, not for any old fashioned reason, just because it was shorter & easier to spell then my surname, plus was going to have a kid, so was not going to saddle her with my maiden name either. Boring I know, but hey, a name is a name. Then again, if we had married earlier, I would not have bothered changing my name, as even though my maiden name was a pain in the butt, I reckon changing all my work stuff at that time, passports, business cards, you name it, would have been more of a pain, so would have stayed the same.

    Maybe I am just a lazy bloody female 🙂


    • Jennifer Wilson February 16, 2013 at 8:04 am #

      Well, we are known for our lack of initiative aren’t we? LOL 🙂


      • paul walter February 16, 2013 at 2:29 pm #

        I shouldn’t be sucked in to taking this bait. For all I know, Noely could be my worst enemy, but it is such a beautiful cameo of a comment, completely conscious, intelligent and human.
        Jennifer’s ironic comment frames it sweetly; its actually about resourcefulness an essence of humanity.
        It encapsulates everything I love most about women and other people.


    • hudsongodfrey February 16, 2013 at 11:16 am #

      Just as one example I know a few couples who’re of different races, and to pick one example she’s Chinese, he’s Irish. Now granted Lin O’Brien isn’t a weird name, but the minute she puts a face to it people have a fair idea that she’s married to a white guy. And it’s not that she ought to be ashamed or that some wouldn’t say she might have chosen to be and exemplar of something that isn’t particularly extraordinary in our society, but she says she just feels that it offers strangers more information than she wants to share with them at first blush.

      This woman had two choices, choices that in part were given her by the progress feminism brought society, and she chose one. You may disagree with what she picked, though I’d rather you wouldn’t, but if you disagree with her having and exercising the choice? If we say as Clementine Ford appeared to want to in The Drum, that all women should keep their surnames, then I think we’d be sorely missing the point that equality was meant to promote choices that women might formerly have been denied. So telling them what the choice has to be is clearly the antithesis of that!


  2. Di Pearton February 16, 2013 at 8:04 am #

    Yes, the concept of House of ‘Representatives’ doesn’t really exist. Has it ever? My first vote was for Whitlam, but I can’t remember the local ALP member I actually voted for.

    I don’t care if a drover’s dog leads the ALP, if it keeps Tony Abbott out of the lodge.

    On name changing I didn’t change my name 27 years ago, although of course ‘my’ name was my Dad’s, as you say. I like ‘Dugong’, but I think I’ll use ‘Vonnegut’ 🙂


    • hudsongodfrey February 16, 2013 at 11:02 am #

      So it goes…..:)


      • Di Pearton February 16, 2013 at 8:29 pm #

        I urge you to please notice when you are happy, and exclaim or murmur or think at some point, “If this isn’t nice, I don’t know what is.”


        • hudsongodfrey February 16, 2013 at 9:14 pm #

          Touché 🙂


          • Di Pearton February 16, 2013 at 9:27 pm #



  3. Ray (novelactivist) February 16, 2013 at 9:10 am #

    I neither like Rudd or Gillard, they are both creatures of the right beholden to religious conservatives. However I do think Gillard and Swan ought to be sacked over the mining tax debacle. It seems that Gillard and Sawn, in league with devil, Martin Ferguson, had a meeting in which they surrendered to the large mining corporations (bend over a little more so we can screw Australia in the proverbial).

    It’s hard to know who would have kowtowed more, the Libs or the treacherous Labor party.

    Which is why I’ll vote Green.

    As for names… Why not invent your own? We certainly now have plenty of bogan inventions and variant spellings for first names, why not surnames?


    • Hypocritophobe February 16, 2013 at 11:23 am #

      I’m with you to a dgree.faux-Labor are unwilling to listen.
      Even the smartest in their ranks have now totally admitted defeat.The time frame for Rudd is running out.10 days at the most before it’s too late.
      So it looks like Abbott has an 80% chance.
      The millions of votes Labor has lost (destroyed) under the NSW right will go all over the place.
      Mine will be going Green, and every single square will be numbered, as per usual.
      Gillard will be as low down the list as I can place her(as will Abbott).
      ( Lemon or Turkey salespersons need not apply)

      Were it not too late.
      A united Labor party under Rudd could win nothing led by Gillard can win.
      As I have previously said blame the NSW right.And the usual Gillardophiles, can scream all they want.You won’t change reality.

      What Abbott will do to unions in the first term will not only destroy workers rights etc, but he will set us all up for community division, yet again.
      This is alo the fault of the NSW right.
      Hopefully they will be greatest collateral damage,because in the years ahead, should a new workers party emerge for the massacre ahead, none of it’s remnants will be welcome.
      If Abbot forces a double dissolution under the guise of Workchoices2,100 rivers dammed or the gutting of the public service we could all be in for extended misery.
      (1)Thanks to Julia,Wayne and the NSW right for putting your egos ahead of your people.


      • hudsongodfrey February 16, 2013 at 11:38 am #

        All I can say is that I’ve never seen an incumbent government behaving so much like an opposition… Maybe that’s the job they wanted, because they’re certainly headed the right way to get it.

        I still reckon they’re better to swap leaders later than sooner, and wonder really at whether a Rudd resurgence can be explained in terms of an orderly transition within the responsible running of an effective government….as opposed to Blood-letting II, Revenge of the Ruddy.

        My better case remains Gillard steps aside graciously and apparently willingly in favour of someone other than Rudd who is prepared to lead and unite the party in leading up to the election. The timing is towards mid year and the election is called straight away, and slightly earlier than September 14th to appease a couple of groups who really hated that date.


        • zerograv1 February 16, 2013 at 11:55 am #

          Ok alternatives to Gillard are Rudd, Roxon (Quiet rumour of a challenge being cooked last week but probably just a rumour), Carr, Shorten (Unlikely but perhaps Deputy material) Smith (Also Unlikely), Crean and Swan are probably the only other two senior enough but very very unlikely. Of the realistic alternatives I think Rudd (because he is marketable) and Carr (because he has experience) are probably he only two the ALP can seriously consider taking to an election. Now I don’t expect Gillard to step down, she will hang on and fight any challenge to the last fingernail….A challenge would be useful though, if only to air the feeling inside the party on how they believe they are going and would certainly be more interesting than the twaddle both majors are babbling in media releases lately.

          On name changing, I’m a bit of a family history buff….although its everyone’s right to use any name they like its a real pain trying to find people that have changed their name frequently at whim. None of this matters to most people until 3 generations later your enthusiastic niece or some other descendant tries to put your family tree together – and suddenly you have a host of ancestors forever lost to history as they hit a blank brick wall on your family line – just saying.


          • zerograv1 February 16, 2013 at 12:23 pm #

            One other thing Jennifer, there’s nothing wrong with the surname Wilson – look what it did for Tom Hanks!


          • hudsongodfrey February 16, 2013 at 4:34 pm #

            Do you reckon Carr would have a go?


            • zerograv1 February 16, 2013 at 5:24 pm #

              Tough question, we know Kevin for instance would grab at it if it was offered and the numbers were there. Carr on the other hand has had a good leadership stint at State level and might not have the taste for it any longer. The same can be said for people like Crean….it seems once they sit in the chair they only want it for so long – there are exceptions of course – Howard being one, but more than a few are happy to enjoy the fruits of retirement – Hawke and several premiers spring to mind. Electorally I might not be as positive as you in terms of Carr leading the campaign – he is popular in NSW but gets an indifferent reaction outside that state, They don’t dislike him – its more of a “meh” reaction. I supposed that can be fixed with a bit of marketing though.


              • hudsongodfrey February 16, 2013 at 5:33 pm #

                Interesting I’d have thought Carr might have more baggage as an ex-premier dragging him down in NSW, but that he has always seemed to be the most competent media performer in the Labor camp. Whereas Rudd who I’ve nothing against probably brings too much baggage back to the job to be as safe a bet.


                • zerograv1 February 16, 2013 at 5:54 pm #

                  Rudd’s baggage is within the party, not externally, the polls have proved that – from a marketing point of view Kev is the man despite perceived baggage. He’s very much a “your for him or against him” kind of guy and I think still capable of winning it for the ALP – convincing the hard noses in the caucus is his problem, I think the ALP potential voter doesnt have the same problem (Just my opinion though). Carr is at least respected, far more than say Gillard, Abbott or any of the other ALP alternative leaders with the possible exception of Rudd. It’s anybody’s guess though as to whether he would throw his hat in the ring should there be a spill prior to the election…..and thats probably what we should be discussing – will there or wont there be a challenge? How long can the ALP stare at the gloomy poll figures without acting? The only joy they have is that Abbott is the alternative PM which puts sufficient Labor voters off switching sides….If the Libs got smart enough to put Turnbull in the leadership chair it would be game over (but they wont)


                  • Hypocritophobe February 16, 2013 at 6:32 pm #

                    Grondhog Day 111
                    It’s not the rusted on faux Labor supporters who need to be convinced.
                    They can read through the’ Abbott will disembowel you’ crap.If Labor cannot offer a better choice (so far they have not) they have less chance than last time.
                    Can anyone here the list the ten extra DQ seats Labor will deliver over the last elections results?
                    Keeping in mind the number needed is closer to 20.

                    Faux Labor have to one simple thing which they have not done since the decision to process offshore.

                    Give us a reason to vote ‘for’ them.

                    We all know what an areshole Abbott is/will be, but if that’s all they have I am afraid it will backfire, like you wouldn’t believe.It is an insult and an affront to voters, especially true Labor and swinging voters.No-one but desperate dreamers believe the spin any more.
                    I’m starting to think Gillard and the NSW right are being paid by the Libs.


                  • hudsongodfrey February 16, 2013 at 6:37 pm #

                    Sorry but I just think the narrative of we had to get rid of him because he was so bad seems completely hypocritical when replaced a couple of years later by we had to bring him back to save us.

                    If Rudd does comeback then it is transparently for poll driven reasons and personal ambition rather than better government or to better represent the electorate’s interests.

                    It will also be acrimonious. So much so that I tend to think only a third party can go to the election in Gillard’s stead, that many probably wouldn’t relish the likelihood of certain defeat, and few may even be inclined to challenge for that very reason.


                    • Hypocritophobe February 16, 2013 at 6:56 pm #

                      Then like I said.
                      Practice gritting your teeth, and bending over.
                      (That’s me being cheerful.)

                      You never know,HG, it may only be a three and half year nightmare.
                      (That’s me being optimistic)

                      I’m still interested in DQs take on which seats the faux Labor camp will gain.Because if the polls are are even partially accurate, I can actually see a few sitting members getting binned.And possibly some Indies as well and a few seats going to Katter, who is not likely to work with Labor or the Greens(ever).Old Bob will jump at 100 dams in FNQ.
                      Perhaps DQ and Anthony Green can bang heads together.
                      Somehow I think their results may vary a tad.


              • Hypocritophobe February 16, 2013 at 6:18 pm #

                No one in Labor would trust let alone support the seat warming Crean.
                The guys a sleeping pill.
                As far as support and loyalty he is the town bike.
                They may as well draft Julie Bishop.
                Crean should have stayed in the union movement.He would have done better work there and possibly saved us from the NSW right we have today.


                • zerograv1 February 16, 2013 at 6:29 pm #

                  Hawke was cut from the same cloth as Crean….does your opinion brush Hawke the same way?


                  • Hypocritophobe February 16, 2013 at 6:44 pm #

                    Cheese and chalk.No comparison.Man and boy.Statesman and errand boy.

                    But then I thought Latham was the new Keating.He should have head butted Howard, and made it worth his while. Only in Australia would a potential PM be thrown out because he spoke his mind, and offended little Johnny, who went wailing to the media with his bruised little toddler hand.
                    FMD, The Oz Political Circus.

                    Zero, can you direct me to Crean saying anything consistent when it comes to leadership loyalty, which still remained his view five minutes after a leadership change?

                    Crean is like the fourth biggest male roo in the troop, or the silver back three leaders down from the top.
                    He might look every bit like the others, (‘cut from the same cloth’) and fetch a banana now and then, but that’s where it ends.His political genetics won’t be troubling the gene pool of the descendants of the group.The A I specialists in the current NSW right have that process stitched up.Beware the guys with the arm length plastic gloves.


                    • Paul Smith February 18, 2013 at 1:06 pm #

                      Latham still has a fan? Thank god that prat self destructed beyond all redemption.

                      I would back a prime Johnny over pork chop Latham any day – in fact i think the record shows Johnny KO1 with Latham retired on stool. Or was that the taxi driver? Or the journalist? Or ALP members? LOL


            • Hypocritophobe February 16, 2013 at 5:25 pm #

              I reckon Carr ‘might’.
              He would certainly change the dynamic,with Abbott.


              • Hypocritophobe February 16, 2013 at 5:28 pm #

                When I say might, I mean ‘consider it’.
                But he would need to acquire a vital organ off everyone in the party as a down payment on loyalty.
                So in reality you’d have to ask the NSW right if he has permission.
                Does anyone know what Carr’s allegiances or values are?
                (On a federal level?)


              • hudsongodfrey February 16, 2013 at 5:35 pm #

                It’d make a change from Dumb and Dumber! That’s for sure. I think Carr has his problems and may not change some of the thinks I’d wish that he might, but one thing you can’t accuse him of is ignorance!


          • Marilyn February 17, 2013 at 3:57 pm #

            Carr is a waste of space, blaming the entire NSW ALP over the unproven behaviour of a few is ridiculous but it makes no difference.

            The last time I voted ALP was 1983 and was going to again until Hawke sold the country to Rupert.

            There is only one natural leader in the ALP, the man who can burn the beds (but not houses as Abbott claimed), a man who has been the pied piper of old.

            A man who can still inspire if not nobbled by racists and other losers in the ALP.

            And Rocksoff will not be challenging, she is retiring to be with her own daughter while punishing single parents and jailing thousands of refugee kids.

            The ALP I voted for under my own personal god in 1973 does not exist.


            • doug quixote February 17, 2013 at 4:26 pm #

              True, Marilyn; a person like Gough only comes along very rarely. If only we could find such a person. (sighs)


              • Marilyn February 17, 2013 at 5:20 pm #

                We agree, be still my heart. Even at 96 and in nursing home without the magnificent Margaret he has more guts and brains than the latest spivs. and shonks put together.


                • AnnODyne February 17, 2013 at 6:48 pm #

                  Dame Leonie Kramer is in the same home (reported by friends who visit their mother there). I like to imagine the two of them at gin o’clock, muttering about the bits of the good old days they can remember.


                  • paul walter February 17, 2013 at 9:06 pm #

                    Not much dignity in it, is there?
                    I’d have thought Margaret Thatcher could have attended also, except that gin o clock started much earlier with her.


                    • Hypocritophobe February 17, 2013 at 9:25 pm #

                      Well discussing euthanasia like adults, is something Pell’s Abbott and Wallace’s Gillard, won’t be offering up for the next 3 terms at least.
                      If anything retirement ages are set to increase as the cost of living spirals,pensions drop off and 457 slavery,part time and casual contract jobs rule the roost.
                      “Topic Euthanasia” is the sort of contemporary dialogue Roxon and Plibersek were perfectly positioned to get on the agenda.
                      No chance now.


                    • paul walter February 18, 2013 at 3:31 am #

                      Agreed.. keen observation, should be pointed out to people with responsibility within the Labor Party. I don’t think Evans leaving has been of much help, another moderate gone probably replaced by a faction hack.
                      This is the ageing of a culture in slow-mo.
                      Funny, once its gone, you won’t know it.


            • Paul Smith February 18, 2013 at 1:12 pm #

              Agree with Marilyn – Carr is not the answer and never was. The only thing going for him seems to be a coating of teflon that allows him to slink his way out of responsibility for one cock up after another.


        • Hypocritophobe February 16, 2013 at 12:01 pm #

          That election date is awfully close to September 11.Ooooooh

          Honestly HG I think we better all brace ourselves.Because as I said above a UNITED Labor under Rudd is their ONLY chance, and it appears that is totally beyond them.Not only that,if Rudd the man is as narcissistic as people claim (especially the psychics here) who will have no intention of leading Labor to a massacre.And a massacre it would be if he led Labor, and one distant critical internal voice piped up.The machinations of a leader leading a group of partially loyal ,(not his personally) appointed group, is fraught with media problems too.
          Rudd’s enlistment is looking less likely now, simply because Rudd would need enough to time to restructure the party,ride the waves of MSM coalition attacks, and come out the other side with his team and his strength front and centre.
          Start sharpening your green pencil and practising your Lords prayer.
          And if I was a commonwealth public servant, I would race out today and take out employment insurance.
          If they are anything like health insurance policies, there is a six month period before they kick in.

          From today on the Libs will probably run with the easiest strategy.
          They won’t need to do much at all.Just look united and let Labor self destruct, even further.The panic has well and truly set in, as it should.There are dark days ahead.
          I think DQ’s ten seat victory looks more like a fantasy plot than a political thriller.


          • Ray February 16, 2013 at 2:26 pm #

            All Labor progressives ought to consider these alternatives:

            A Liberal victory in both houses.

            A Liberal victory in the lower house with the Greens holding the balance of power in the senate.


            • Hypocritophobe February 16, 2013 at 3:01 pm #

              Those who are happy to live with another term of Gillard will inherent the next round of Tea Party policies anyway, so to me this crap about better than Abbott does not cut the mustard.And whichever of them governs will not undo the vile and toxic policies Gillard has implemented.
              The Greens are probably this country’s socio-political life vest.

              Currently the other 2 are anchors, who both weigh the same and both dangle over the right side, of a rusting hull.It’s a race to the bottom,with whichever of the two, you cling on to I’m afraid.

              And Labor progressives need to also consider a DD if Abbott gets the House of reps, with an unfriendly senate.He will want to destroy the Greens and the Union movement ASAP, if there are any hurdles, and grab any excuse to call one.Conservatives are well known for abuse of process.
              Ironically if he singled out and named the NSW right, as his prime target -prior to the election- , he’d probably smash a few more thousand votes in NSW.


            • Marilyn February 17, 2013 at 3:58 pm #

              Yes but have you noticed that when it comes to race persecution, persecution of the poorest and cuts in overseas aid both packs of spivs. vote in unison?


            • doug quixote February 17, 2013 at 4:22 pm #

              A half-Senate election will see 6 Senators from each State up for election. Almost inevitably Labor will win three from some States, coalition will win three from some States and Greens and/or Xenophon will win the rest. In other words, little will change either way.

              The Greens will hold a balance of power position until at least 2016 given current trends.


          • hudsongodfrey February 16, 2013 at 4:34 pm #

            Can I do a Tony Jones and take that one as a comment?


  4. helvityni February 16, 2013 at 10:32 am #

    No, no, no to Abbott…as long it’s some one, any one from the Labor side, I’m happy…

    As for names, I used to get letters addressed to Mr Helvi, maybe if I were called Helva, it would have been Ms or Mrs.
    As for surnames I should have stuck with my maiden name. I spell my married name to the office girl; double O, s,t…..There are no Wostermans here….she replies.
    I try again, Oos….
    Oh, she says and then I get what I asked for, addressed to Mrs Ostermann….who cares, it’s close enough, only that’s is a German name, and I married a Dutchman, Oosterman…


    • hudsongodfrey February 16, 2013 at 10:59 am #


      Please ask Gerard to confirm or deny something for me. Ray above mentions silly Bogan given names and ponders the possibility for even sillier surnames, and that reminded me of something I’d heard about Dutch surnames that may just be the stuff of urban myth fit to set the claxrons ringing on QI.

      The story I heard was that at some stage, possibly due to conquest, the Dutch were forced to register surnames in a move which displeased them and so in order to take the piss many registered names they considered either ridiculous or offensive. As one who cleaves to the Australian sense of disrespect towards authority I find the idea appealing, but suspect it is probably either bogus or exaggerated?


      • gerard oosterman February 16, 2013 at 11:38 am #

        Yes, there is some truth in that story. During the Napoleon Period it became law to chose a surname in Holland. Before that, people mainly used their first name only, Pieter, Jan,Gerardus, Willem etc which then progressed by also incorporating the father’s first name. So, Jan became Jan Pietersen. ( Jan,son of pieter; Gerard Willemson; Gerard son of Willem)
        There were also many names relating to the name of the property (farm) or village where they were born. Borgman or Vredeshuis (house of peace) etc
        After it became law to get a surname, many protested and took on silly names;sa ‘nakedborn’ (naaktgeboren) or ‘without ears’ ‘zonderoor’.
        My surname is fairly rare and translated means ‘man from the east’. I suppose Eastman would be the closest translation.
        If your surname is Godfrey I wonder if it means ‘free of God.’


        • hudsongodfrey February 16, 2013 at 4:33 pm #

          Okay thanks Gerard, good to know that one for QI if ever I have the need. It is interesting how we named ourselves. I’d go with your interpretation of Godfrey except that it actually just means Good – Peace which is nice but less edgy for what it’s worth.

          Now I’ll have to explain the porn names meme I suppose which is just a favourite pet’s name and the street you lived on when you owned it. The theory is that it tends to come out sounding like the names porn stars are apt to go by.


        • doug quixote February 16, 2013 at 7:07 pm #

          The explanation I got from a Dutch friend was that the money-conscious Dutch have so many names because they were free!


  5. hudsongodfrey February 16, 2013 at 10:45 am #

    Reads like the conclusion to a Rocky & Bullwinkle episode….

    “Is Kevin Rudd planning a come-back? Are there enough supporters now to return him to the job he so ignominiously lost? Will Julia Gillard get her comeuppance? Will Kevin get the ALP across the line again like he did in 2007? Is Michelle Grattan making it all up?”

    Tune in next time won’t for Tweet Tweet you’re dead, or Ruddy Redhead Wrecking Ball rides again!

    In fact I hope as you do that common purpose and unity descend over the Labor party before its too late, but I think it probably is too late already. I think Gillard calling the election eight months out was a horrible move in hindsight, simply due to the extent to which the business of politics has now completely taken over from that of governing.

    My advice for what it is worth, to Labor, remains much the same as always, you didn’t back Beazley, Crean or Rudd and now you’re not backing Gillard….Maybe you need to reorganise yourselves along the lines of an Anarcho-Syndicalist commune (with no leader whatsoever) or join the bleeding Jedi and use The Force, but whatever you do you’d better do it later rather than now. Everyone knows new leaders have a finite honeymoon period, and that this is used to best effect by a change in the run-up to an election… not eight long hard months out!

    As for women keeping or changing their names; isn’t this only really a feminist issue if what is being argued is that the patriarchy only allow you to have names so you’ll come when they call you? Or in other words, since I am using that statement about patriarchal attitudes is a pre-feminist parody, I think that isn’t a post feminist reality. Please everyone feel free to call yourself whatever you feel comfortable with. Try not to just make up names with ridiculous spelling to piss the rest of us off unless they’re really interesting like Dweezil or Moxy Crimefighter, and avoid pretentious hyphens and Roman numerals where possible. And please know those last few things may just be my taste and don’t really speak to obligations on your part in any sense other than my sincere hope to save you the embarrassment of ill-concealed laughter.


    • Jennifer Wilson February 17, 2013 at 5:29 pm #

      Rocky & Bullwinkle are clever & funny. That is all.


      • hudsongodfrey February 17, 2013 at 5:33 pm #

        As opposed to “Hey Julia! watch me pull Mr Rabbit out of my hat”….”Oh Kevin you know that trick never works!”


      • Hypocritophobe February 17, 2013 at 5:35 pm #

        You have rocket fuel formula, Doktor or even Moozberry Bush for Boris and Natasrzha?

        I wonder if Kevin can pull a rabbit out of his hat, or whether he will need to get a new hat?
        I don’t think Julia gets ANY fan-mail these days, except maybe the occasional one from some ‘flounder’.

        Sadly the role of beavers in comedy has changed over time.Sigh.


        • Hypocritophobe February 17, 2013 at 5:37 pm #

          HG, you beat me to it while I was drafting my response.


  6. Hypocritophobe February 16, 2013 at 11:43 am #

    Obviously Clementime was named after a car.Or a river crossing?
    As Jennifer said names go way back.Taking your mothers, or not taking your husbands,leaving it unchanged etc.All worthy choices.
    All big top of the list items for the feminists to fight to the death over.
    (i) I hope Clem can get in on the federal election agenda.I’m sure it’s something Abbott would fight for.(Can’t have his daughters losing the Abbott number plate when they marry a good Catholic boy and begin breeding dozens more good Catholic boys)
    And here’s me thinking feminism had lost sight of the big picture.


    • helvityni February 16, 2013 at 12:39 pm #

      I’ll come back as Mercedes, but if I have a choice, never as America…
      My Greek girlfriend is called Laskarina, Rina fo me.


  7. AnnODyne February 16, 2013 at 2:44 pm #

    All politicking is a crapshoot – the UK and USA are just the same as here – I have been voting Green for the past few. My electorate needs about 8% to swing away from the non-Green incumbent of years.

    My surname was an adjective and I married a noun so I have been revelling in the amusing hyphenation since he shot through with that homewrecking hussy and I have been free to do as I like.

    Jennifer thanks for “may your troubles be small” and in return I wish you a small account from your dentist.


    • Jennifer Wilson February 17, 2013 at 5:31 pm #

      I have NEVER had a small account from my dentist! Chemo left me with trashed gums & it’s a fight to keep every tooth in my head.


  8. 8 Degrees of Latitude February 16, 2013 at 4:09 pm #

    I’ll leave the politics aside because, Dr Dugong, we’d never agree, except on asylum seekers and some other fringe issues, like same-sex marriage, where I am a VUC (Very Unusual Conservative), but I”d like to comment on the other tranche of your offering.

    I have been married for 30+ years to a woman who has never carried “my name”. It used to be a problem checking into hotels, in the days when unlicensed nookie was still frowned upon, but no more – and especially I’m happy to say in Asia where we now live and where quaint Anglo Saxon naming rites are unknown or ignored.

    I think your birth name, whatever its provenance, is your name. The act of marriage is a private compact that actually changes nothing, nor should it change a woman’s name, unless of course she wants to do that. How children are (sur)named should be a matter for their parents to agree and decide on. We’re all out of the same primaeval slime so it really doesn’t matter.


    • Hypocritophobe February 16, 2013 at 4:30 pm #

      Everyone should be numbered, not named.Then we could keep track of important stuff.
      Like,” how many billion too many there are of us”.

      Population.The untouchable political topic.
      Every party, apart from the Greens seems, to be bullshitting about needing growth.
      (Even though we are running out of food in some countries,water in most, and energy is coughing and spluttering across the globe.)
      Sadly the ‘desired’ growth has been malignant for quite some time.
      I guess there’s always the ‘radiation’ treatment solution.The chemical one seems to be taking a fair while.


    • Jennifer Wilson February 17, 2013 at 5:34 pm #

      I have to agree it doesn’t really matter, and there has to be some system of naming. I know women who wanted to take their husband’s names, and IMO ought not to be ridiculed for it by feminists, or anybody else. I don’t know what happens when women keep both names & then their daughters keep four names & their granddaughters six names….


      • 8 Degrees of Latitude February 18, 2013 at 11:48 am #

        It gets very complicated :). Unless common sense intervenes…


      • Hypocritophobe February 18, 2013 at 1:49 pm #

        How about bar-codes, or maybe take a leaf out of “Prince’s” book and just use a combination of symbols?


  9. paul walter February 16, 2013 at 4:32 pm #

    I need not remind others that the reason Gillard called the election comes from an agreement with the Independents that this date is closest to what a fixed three year term would be, from the previous election.
    Basically, it was out of her hands…


    • Hypocritophobe February 16, 2013 at 5:32 pm #

      Quite so.But she owns all her political decisions, or claims to.
      If another leader is chosen before the election, what does that do to the Indies support?
      Early election I guess.

      We definitely need fixed terms.It makes more sense.
      Getting in should be about policies,not timing or distractions.


    • Hypocritophobe February 16, 2013 at 6:10 pm #

      Just to add that the date was negotiated,but the actual announcement was made early for political advantage,which as we now know was folly.
      It was a pretty poor attempt at pretty pleasing the opposition into laying off till July /August.Yeah,like that would ever happen.
      The gap in dates is likely a backup scam, so that if they have to jettison Gillard they can play with the date a bit.
      So in the end Gillard has kept her side of the election date deal, that’s about it.
      It could well be her last.
      However if we have an early election by way of other reasons,(and there are plenty of possibilities) it won’t mean anything.


  10. doug quixote February 16, 2013 at 7:08 pm #

    Any thought of a Rudd comeback is a Liberal wet dream.


    • Hypocritophobe February 16, 2013 at 8:12 pm #

      Funny bugger.
      If that’s the case…..
      That would make any thought that that faux-Labor,can win, let alone by 10 seats, look like auto-fellatio, for Labor’s old guard rusted ons..
      But I guess that it’s nice for people to have a hobby.It keeps them occupied.

      Can you explain how /why faux Labor tried to smuggle 457Visa Filipino welders and construction workers into Werribee DQ, when all the local qualified workers needed were a stones throw away?
      Who has enough money to fly workers in over fences with choppers?
      Does that sound like your Labor party, or Gina’s version?
      Where is faux-Labor’s massive training program for our citizens?
      Pissed up against the wall in flat screens and school cash handouts, so the flat screen can be upgraded.That’s where.
      Training workers??? What’s that?Can the real Simon Crean stand up.
      Twiggy Forrest, much as I cannot stand him has probably put more indigenous people into work on mines than any faux Labor borne campaign has, for the community as a whole.


      • zerograv1 February 17, 2013 at 12:23 am #

        Well your right about one thing – It costs a LOT of money to train ANYONE as you probably already know, and those with high labor needs and healthy cashflow are obviously more motivated to employ and train than any government will regardless of political stripe or how keen they are on employment policy simply because policy needs change as do budgets and media popularism deflecting dollars elsewhere. Twiggy being an entrepreneur will simply have costed how many dollars he can make off each trainee and made that the target. Where they come from is relevant in some mining areas as deals, royalties and supplies the mine needs are partly contingent on employing local labor. The NT is the same – you don’t get a licence unless you can guarantee local jobs. Gina is a whole new ball game but she’s not typical anyway.


      • doug quixote February 17, 2013 at 9:35 am #

        I imagine it is hard to get people to go to these isolated mining places to live and work. So why not try to use the ones who live there already? I doubt Twiggy is doing it out of the goodness of his heart, and his example is there for Gina and others to follow.


        • Hypocritophobe February 17, 2013 at 3:10 pm #

          Further wishy washy, window dressing.Where are the teeth?


          “If it’s alright with you Mr Multinational, could you consider(when you have time) throwing some crumbs our way.

          Meanwhile the 457 conveyor belt strains away to keep pace with the back door,under the RADAR entry regime, and we whinge and moan about illegals.


          • Hypocritophobe February 17, 2013 at 3:23 pm #

            Combet, on the Insiders today (16/2/13) said flat out, that no business can be forced to award local contracts no matter what.
            The requirement is only to;
            To Quote Gillard;
            “When there are projects worth more than $500 million, **they will need to have an Australian industry participation plan**,” Ms Gillard told a press conference in Melbourne.

            “They will **need to look**to how they can involve Australian businesses and create Australian jobs in what they do**.”

            Having a a rule which says you must “plan, and have a look” is not a solution, it is not a policy, and it is certainly not worth the paper it is written on, or the time/energy wasting on presenting it.It looks like the MRRT with a lobotomy.Faux-Labor’s ‘dalliance with corporate idealism’ has so many loopholes and out-clauses,it beggars belief.
            Still suffering the bruises of that failed tax Gillard and her minders still think big business responds to requests, as opposed to laws.
            Governments are supposed to legislate for the people, not pontificate to them as they politically fellate the biggest section of tax avoiders on the block.


          • Marilyn February 17, 2013 at 4:00 pm #

            They are not illegals, shame on you.


            • Hypocritophobe February 17, 2013 at 4:30 pm #

              Sorry, I should have used inverted commas.”Illegals” is not my term.It is what “they” use.And you more than most,know who “they” are.
              Try not to ‘always’ shoot the messenger as your first response.


              • paul walter February 17, 2013 at 5:03 pm #

                Naughty Hypo. Marilyn will get you everytime on sloppy framing language.


                • Hypocritophobe February 17, 2013 at 5:04 pm #

                  DIY Kit for pedantics




                  • paul walter February 17, 2013 at 5:07 pm #

                    If Marilyn doesn’t want to “shoot the messenger”, perhaps she could hand on the rifle to one of the many who would.


                    • Hypocritophobe February 17, 2013 at 5:12 pm #

                      Well taking your comment on face value,pw,I’d say,
                      You’re as subtle with your violent tendencies as DQ, and just as endowed with cyber-bravery.


                    • paul walter February 17, 2013 at 5:18 pm #

                      Not so Hypo-unlike Doug and Marilyn, I would give you an anaesthetic first.


    • doug quixote February 17, 2013 at 9:38 am #

      There is enough material on Rudd, from those who were and would have to be be his senior ministers, to carry an entire Noalition election campaign.

      Liberal and Murdoch headkickers are just itching for the chance at a returned Rudd.

      Licking their lips, with runnels of saliva cascading down their cheque books and onto their bovver boots.


  11. AnnODyne February 17, 2013 at 8:34 am #

    anyone but Abbott really. Warney would be a better PM, hell Kochie would be a better PM, and Chrissie certainly would.
    Please allow me to introduce to you a blog I always read and think you’ll really like
    Number One Bag A Melbourne Australiapost insider with robust and knowledgable opinions. I’m not smart enough to comment on Dastyari and ICAC but the usual suspects here might like to.


    • doug quixote February 17, 2013 at 12:44 pm #

      No, sorry can’t go that far. Abbott for all his many faults has at very least come through a selection process. Howard, Costello, Hewson Reith and the like have had a chance to observe him over a decade or so, and if he was really that bad he would not be where he is today.

      The reason he has not been rolled as Opposition Leader is that he is probably the best they have available.

      Frightening, but true.

      And still unelectable, as shall be seen within 7 months. 🙂


      • paul walter February 17, 2013 at 5:05 pm #

        “Come through a selection process”. Obviously the one designed to separate the wheat from the chaff.


  12. Marilyn February 17, 2013 at 5:30 pm #

    I don’t see any difference yet between Gillard or Abbott, they are twins.

    But what if Lalor and Warringah both did us favour and voted them out.


    • Jennifer Wilson February 17, 2013 at 5:36 pm #

      That is my dream


      • Hypocritophobe February 17, 2013 at 5:40 pm #

        Careful, DQ may lecture you about nocturnal emissions.

        (I guess if you are going to dream,you may as well dream big.)


        • doug quixote February 17, 2013 at 7:22 pm #

          If you want to dream big, you could at least put yourself in charge as dictator and sole judge, with powers to do whatever you wanted. And while you are at it, that we have several alternative planets within easy range, or some sort of wormhole to get there. Dream Big!

          (I suspect you of soggy emissions in any event; you may as well use them 🙂 )


          • Hypocritophobe February 17, 2013 at 7:32 pm #

            No-one is dictating in this country, but several coalition state governments and one federal NSW right Gillard one, but I appreciate your foray into the space race,DQ.
            It beats the Sputnik era you usually orbit.


  13. Hypocritophobe February 17, 2013 at 6:15 pm #

    Test Embed:(1)
    Here goes

    [url] http://www.prosportstickers.com/product_images/a/rocky_bullwinkle_boris_and_natahsa_sticker__26605.jpg [/url]


  14. Hypocritophobe February 18, 2013 at 1:46 pm #

    @Paul Smith February 18, 2013 at 1:06 pm #

    Your naivety shows no limit.
    The MSM was responsible for his spiral out the back door of public opinion.Most of your limited memory of any of his major (which were minor) occurred after he was long out of any role in the political milieux.
    The trouble with zealots is their limited memory and their addiction to the mediocrity of selective journalism and bad sci-fi fantasies.

    BTW Latham did not take us to a war based on a lie.
    That war still continues to kill innocents.Barrack for ‘little war monger Johnny’ all you want, Paul.They’re your morals.(sic)

    Cite the Bible.


    • Paul Smith February 18, 2013 at 1:57 pm #

      LOL at Hypocritophobe.

      Your forgiveness (or hypocrisy) shows no limit – Latham was responsible for his acts, his utterings and his violence. His pariah status is his own doing. If Abbott had cone any of these things you would hang him high.

      Interesting you bring up morals when you seem to be giving Latham a pass. To quoye you “They’re your morals” (sic).


      • Hypocritophobe February 18, 2013 at 2:10 pm #

        Umm, You mean Abbott the wall puncher?

        The weasel who went on to deny it?
        His other behavioural forays speak for themselves(at least to those who care to SEE)
        Did I say I gave Latham an A in morals?
        But compared to Howard he comes through in flying colours.
        So A+,in comparison.

        So it seems you support the new Howard man who was a part of the govt who took us to that illegal war.But that’s OK it wasn’t a Christian stronghold,eh? Hypocrisy level exceeded.Reminder Abbott=Howard=illegal war=your morals.Unlike you I don’t worship anyone/anything.Especially politicians.
        Lecture over.


        • Paul Smith February 18, 2013 at 2:20 pm #

          Better to have allegedly punched a wall than allegedly break a taxi drivers arm, discriminated against the handicapped, verbal a staffer or bully boy an older man? Some role model you have there.

          Latham = nothing but a bully boy gone to water anytime he was stood up to. Would have loved to see him try any of that with someone more his own age and weight.


          • Hypocritophobe February 18, 2013 at 2:30 pm #

            You’re not listening.

            War monger or bad tempered gimp?

            Remind of Latham’s death toll, Paul?
            Now the Iraq war death toll,since the 3 amigos dragged us in?

            You chose the wrong lemon,dude.
            You’re like Howard.(Abbott’s spiritual father/mentor/role model)
            In need of a morality bypass.

            You just keep worshipping,Paul.


            • Paul Smith February 18, 2013 at 2:51 pm #

              If I am not listening it would only be that I don’t care to recognize your red herrings. My comment was on Latham getting a behaviour pass so OT points are bypassed.

              Keep stereotyping Hypo. At least you did not resort to the usual allegations of all dissenters being the same poster.


              • Hypocritophobe February 18, 2013 at 3:23 pm #

                Got the results of the body bag count yet,Paul?


                • Paul Smith February 18, 2013 at 3:32 pm #

                  Latham’s body bag? It is an odd assortment – one taxi drivers arm, an old pollies hand, a smashed camera or two and a discarded walking stick.

                  I forgot the final ingredient – Latham’s personality. Adds just the right bitterness.


                  • Hypocritophobe February 18, 2013 at 3:45 pm #

                    Now how about the deaths since Howard led us to his illegal war?
                    (Come on Pull, don’t be a yellow bellied sap sucker).


                    • Paul Smith February 18, 2013 at 3:47 pm #

                      You crack me up Hypo – albeit unintentionally with a typo.

                      “Come on Pull” – LOL.


    • Di Pearton February 18, 2013 at 2:01 pm #

      I have no problem with Latham. He was passionate, at least about the importance of the public school sector in a progressive society. We cannot lift people out of poverty without a strong and well funded public education system. This ALP gov’t continues to fund elite private schools and grow the gap between outcomes for private and public students.

      Even if you go nowhere near a public school, we all benefit from a well resourced public education sector, socially and economically.


      • paul walter February 18, 2013 at 5:41 pm #

        Di Pearton- agreed!


      • helvityni February 18, 2013 at 8:20 pm #

        Is Abbott going to give us a well funded public education system?
        We can badmouth Julia and Labor but what are you going to get from Abbott that’s more and better?


        • Di Pearton February 18, 2013 at 8:50 pm #

          Yep, clearly Abbott & Co will be a disaster for education except for the elite.


          • Hypocritophobe February 18, 2013 at 9:10 pm #

            Well we might all soon know.
            I won’t give him my vote.But I will give him full credit for taking back the ridiculous cash bribe Gillard handed out under the excuse of school fees etc.
            Taxpayer money for any purpose aimed at benefiting children, should be handed over in a format whereby it reaches its target.The fact that not one single Gillard supporter has criticised this pork barrel and cash money waste is abysmal.
            Bad money managers will waste this money as always, and the kids will get squat.It is a cynical bribe as bad as any Howard did, or Abbott proposes.

            What you can guarantee from Abbott is private schools won’t be worse off.
            Which to me indicates that public ones will.Because they start out and run with a much lower budget.


            • Di Pearton February 18, 2013 at 9:53 pm #

              Yes, the money would have been much better going directly to the schools in the lower socioeconomic areas.

              The National Partnerships funding of these schools has been a wonderful Rudd/Gillard/ALP intitiative, but our media prefers to talk about polls, and the general public never hears about these really good government achievements.


              • zerograv1 February 18, 2013 at 10:06 pm #

                Diversity of media opinion is vital to a healthy democracy, that is self evident – but MSM consolidation into large media groups unfortunately now has a narrow spun dominance. We can all be very thankful for the blogosphere to provide a more wide ranging viewpoint on events….especially where facts are blindly ignored by the MSM looking for a good angle to get the dogs barking. The good old days of real journalism with things like the Bulletin, National Times, The Age in past eras etc are unfortunately gone and replaced by sensationalist nitpicking. And the even more sinister outcome is people actually believe what is written (eg Boat people invasion beat ups) – whatever happened to the real backstory – the real news behind the news as it were, and facts to support the story?


              • Hypocritophobe February 18, 2013 at 10:41 pm #

                You have to be kidding Di.
                This may be a great initiative, but I find it is stretch to say Gillard has not got her message out about education.She’s a broken record.People have statred going la la la la la with their fingers in their ears.

                Right on cue over the next few days she and Baldy will roll out another education plan/vision.It’s all she has.All she ever talks about.It’s her go to security blanket when the polls drop.
                What will this week bring free Wiis in all schools for PE on rainy days?
                Or will they save a few of them for the retirement villages.

                (Memo to Joollia =Edhe-oo-kayshn. announcement ASAP, the polls have plummeted.)

                Maybe Julia could do a quick trip to WA and find a faux-Labor friendly school to cut her next ribbon? She will have a hard time finding one, I think.


              • helvityni February 18, 2013 at 11:19 pm #

                Good on you , Di Parton, a refreshing Voice of Reason.


                • Hypocritophobe February 18, 2013 at 11:25 pm #

                  Helvi,you obviously think giving out thousands in taxpayer cash without any preconditions is sensible policy?
                  So for all the alcohol and cigarettes and TVs bought, that’s OK by you?


                  • Di Pearton February 19, 2013 at 7:24 am #

                    We are talking about two different education fundings here. I agree with you Hypo about the money given directly to parents. It appears to be blatant vote buying, but the National Partnerships money goes directly to schools with a disadvantaged demographic. It has funded many many effective programs in literacy and numeracy.


                  • helvityni February 19, 2013 at 8:01 am #

                    No Hypo, I’m not thinking of little hand-outs, about few dollars spent to have babies made ,one for the family and one for the country,(Costello), I’m talking about fixing our public education system so that every kid learns to at least to read and write, I want it be at least half as good as it is in Scandinavian countries.

                    All sides buy votes, that’s the Aussie way…buy a TV, or fall pregnant, that’s up to you. I want people educated so they will see what kind of leaders are best for this country, that’s all.

                    Who do you think I am; get rid of the bloody private schools, pay more tax(every one) and have ONE good system, that educates all Oz kids, FREE…


                    • Hypocritophobe February 19, 2013 at 11:40 am #

                      That’s good to know,Helvi.For a while I thought Labor’s failures were invisible to you. Hidden amongst Gillard’s wonderful perfection, her fiscal genius and humanitarian decision making, achievements.


                    • Di Pearton February 19, 2013 at 1:11 pm #

                      This what the Fins did, to improve a poor performance in Literacy to second best in the world. No private option.


  15. Hypocritophobe February 19, 2013 at 12:55 am #

    @ Paul Smith February 18, 2013 at 2:51 pm #

    If you look here

    you will find info and stats all those irrelevant Iraqi people and US soldiers/personnel etc slain under the curtain of the illegal war your mate Howard and his foot soldier Abbott.
    You will even find out how the US economy was broken by the outrageous cost of this illegal war.
    This is the first and last time I will provide the information you deny is relevant, when setting a bar for contemporary examples of immorality.

    In comparison to the lethal results of your role models, Latham is more saintly than Mary Mackillop.


    • Paul Smith February 19, 2013 at 9:32 am #

      Wow Hypo – you really don’t want to let go of this red herring do you? Not sure why it is so important to you. Somehow in your inner dialogue my disapproval of Mark Latham translates into Iraq stats, the US economy, John Howard, Tony Abbot and other tangent’s.

      Lets not forget it is you whose initial statement gave Latham a blanket pass and who is obsessed with “comparisons”.

      Perhaps give the internet psych evaluation / morals judgement a rest as well. I have noticed a real strident manner from you lately, the outrage almost flows out the screen that someone with a different view may visit your blog. Darn those different people!


      • Hypocritophobe February 19, 2013 at 11:43 am #

        Thanks for the free psych test,Paul.
        Was that your version or Gods?


        • Paul Smith February 19, 2013 at 11:53 am #

          LOL at Hypo – I think I used the “psych test” first so line 1 sorry, fail.

          Line 2 is more of what has been offered recently – is sarcasm the lowest from of wit?

          It is a poor person who attempts to use religion to denigrate. One wonders if their pithy “God” insults would be used with Islamic Australians and with such spite.


          • Hypocritophobe February 19, 2013 at 1:34 pm #

            I leave anti Muslim campaigns to racists and Christian zealots.
            Not surprised you palyed that card after hypocritaically attacking me for pointing out that your Christian God steers your mouth.


            • Paul Smith February 19, 2013 at 2:01 pm #

              LOL at Hypo. Sorry – Christianity is not my religion.

              Your obsession at sterotyping and quantifying me via carefully crafted insults is backfiring rather badly, not to mention painting you in a rather unfavourable light. You seem to be lashing out at quite a few here – Jo, Doug and myself feeling the blowtorch. No need to get so worked up.


              • Hypocritophobe February 19, 2013 at 2:17 pm #

                Who spends too much time on the net?


    • hudsongodfrey February 19, 2013 at 10:13 am #

      Seriously Hypo,

      Latham was right about the “conga line of suckholes”, but it did go downhill quite a bit from there.

      It isn’t apologetics for Howard etc al to argue that the MSM didn’t have to work very hard to discredit Latham when the guy wrote a poison pen memoir that did all their work for them.

      Granted that Paul could do better to argue this from a perspective that regrets the damage Latham did to his party over his short rather ignominious journey in politics. Perhaps what we’d like to ask is why not and whether our interloper here is simply pot stirring for the parties in opposition. A willingness to acknowledge the wrongness of Iraq might have been more welcome than evasion on that question, but the herring may nonetheless be red here.

      Apart from a one issue reason argument to support Latham’s legacy as a politician what is there that would make you so keen on him? Is he really so salutary in Australian politics for having done stood against the Iraq war, or have you heard of the Greens?

      I believe these debates would end far quicker and more amicably if people would address themselves to the facts of the matter than to trying to argue it on different terms.

      Paul, Are you really saying that Iraq doesn’t matter?

      Hypo, Are you really saying that Iraq was the only thing that mattered?

      Otherwise, to both of you what does matter and why?


      • Paul Smith February 19, 2013 at 10:46 am #

        It is hard and fruitless work addressing anonymous posters who put their own spin on your words, thoughts, deeds, motivations, allegiances, etc. and then try to state them as fact.

        So I will repeat what I written several times now for you Hudsongodfrey – not interested in the red herrings / off topics / pissing contest that Hypo has introduced. My opinion of Latham stands and stands alone.


        • hudsongodfrey February 19, 2013 at 3:32 pm #

          You haven’t even bothered to state an opinion of Latham coherently much less address the two clearly asked questions that were put to you.

          What sort of conversation I wonder, do you think you’re engaging in here? If its one where you just get to slag off and then defend your vitriol over the course of several subsequent posts without adding in the least to the substance of what you think and why you think it then I think you’re more than likely to be mistaken for a veracious poster here.


          • Hypocritophobe February 19, 2013 at 3:46 pm #

            Perhaps Mr Smith’
            With his declared disdain for anonymity, has (himself) a famous pontificating alias floating prominently in the net somewhere?
            That would be hypocritical wouldn’t it,Paul?


            • Paul Smith February 19, 2013 at 4:18 pm #

              It would be hypocritical indeed. Now in plain English?


              • Hypocritophobe February 19, 2013 at 4:40 pm #



          • Paul Smith February 19, 2013 at 4:15 pm #

            I have answered your question and done it reasonably. If you cannot understand my initial post re my opinion of Latham than that is your problem. it seems pretty clear cut to me.


            • hudsongodfrey February 19, 2013 at 5:38 pm #

              Oh its pretty clear that you don’t like the guy, and nor am I his first fan. But when I try to discuss it with you or question you as to why you think as you do, as one might in a cordial kind of discussion, you simply retreat into this rather blunt refusal to be drawn on the matter, and frankly its just the very sort of thing that makes me think you’ve something to hide. I begin to wonder what kind of views and opinions they are that might be less excusable than conducting yourself evasively in what’s meant to be a friendly discussion here.


              • Hypocritophobe February 19, 2013 at 7:24 pm #

                I’m sure there’s a lot more to Pull, than meets the eye.
                And he seems a little too eager to rush to a certain damsels **defence**


                • hudsongodfrey February 19, 2013 at 8:50 pm #

                  Ah is that what it is?

                  Maybe I guessed wrongly. I thought he might be a Liberal supporter. And if I may say it did take me a fair while to get out of you, and I think Zero, that you’d prefer that Rudd was still the PM.

                  Say what you will about Doug, at least his allegiances were never in doubt.

                  For my own part today was interesting with Milne backing the Greens right away from Labor over the mining tax issue. I’m in a bit of an awkward position because if the Greens and Gillard could’ve worked together I’d have less to choose between them. Now I’m not so sure whether we’ve to cut our losses with Labor, something I regard as a little unrealistic, or look much harder at getting leadership that can work with the Greens again, because I regard that alliance as such a crucial one. I don’t know what will emerge, but I’m very much given to a view Jennifer expresses that the priority must be to avoid an Abbott government.


                  • Hypocritophobe February 19, 2013 at 9:33 pm #

                    I think you’re showing your allegiances with your wording.
                    Clearly it was Labor who backed away from the Greens on the Clayton’s mining tax.This is a sleazoid tax anyway.Designed by the end users.After Gillard massaged the ACL she confirmed she will do anything to keep Howe’s power base pulsating.No-one with any principles can actually claim that Gillard is a voice for the people.The people are the only ones she has not listened to.Until proved as a success by the victims I also think the diluted ToR of the RCom will also turn out to be another failure in terms of outcomes.
                    Labor have no chance at all under Gillard.It’s over
                    The last act of her side of the bargain with the Indies was announcing the election date.They too have been use and abused.
                    I am utterly astounded that so many of the brightest lights in our community still defend Gillard,knowing full well she is only a shop front for a power cult who are every bit as vile as the big business Labor used to accuse the coalition of Kowtowing to.
                    Short of a miracle it looks like greens for me and many,many more ex Labor voters.I’ll steer my own preferences though.My hunch is the Greens will have their how to vote structured spot on this time around.

                    Abbott must be creaming himself.

                    Yes I think we all know where DQ stands.Sandwiched somewhere between Gillard and Little Johnny as they set the Made in USA mine fields in the Timor Sea.


                    • hudsongodfrey February 19, 2013 at 10:54 pm #

                      I think you’re being unfair. All of Gillard’s woes aren’t her doing she leads a party of others who also back the policies we hate most on refugees and foreign wars. She is having to hold together a minority government, and she has done some good.

                      The others who assented to knifing Rudd were equally to blame, And nor do I think a Rudd resurrection is the solution to all our woes.

                      But losing the Green’s support is bloody careless. The watered down Mining Tax has been a debacle that it does seem she caused. And it isn’t the only one. She’s been a profound disappointment on same sex marriage and a few other similar issues, though I do think the Royal Commission into child abuse is better than nothing and a damned sight more than Abbott would’ve ever done.

                      So if I’m disappointed in the only party that can truly stand between Abbott and power then it’s not just because of the leader. But another thing it isn’t is the weak mindedness of so called progressives who seem to feel vindicated by appalling behaviour as long as their political enemies are to blame, despite the suffering of others. Labor for all its faults is still preferable to Abbott, and I preferred the Greens also on a good many policy points if only my choice reflects responsibility to get the best possible outcome we can manage despite some people’s less than pragmatic protests about their shattered ideologies,


                    • doug quixote February 19, 2013 at 11:46 pm #

                      Hypo being unfair! Never let it be said.

                      Have I mentioned that I detested Howard with a vengeance, Hypo? And that whilst I am grateful for his removal by the Party which was led by Rudd at that time, I believe that Bill Hayden’s famous “drovers dog” might have won that election.

                      And did I mention that I favour onshore processing of asylum seekers, and the acceptance of all that satisfy the definition of refugee?

                      What’s that, you never bothered asking?

                      Now about that comprehension . . .


              • Paul Smith February 20, 2013 at 11:22 am #

                You are reading way too much into the situation I am afraid.

                Simply I am of the belief I won’t get cordial or friendly discussion from yourself hence my brevity. After the last discourse where I was moderated for far less than many others (still unsure why) I am trying not to fall into the pit again.

                Again just MO but reading your paragraph above it goes from reasonable enquiry, moves to speculation of my motives then what sounds like a conviction. Not very encouraging.


                • Paul Smith February 20, 2013 at 11:24 am #

                  Sorry DQ – wrong order of response. Word press gremlins again!


                  • Paul Smith March 4, 2013 at 9:38 am #

                    Latham unable to control his comments once again. According to his logic depression now renders one unable to be considered for any sort of meaningful position.
                    Media still desperately portraying him as some voice of the ALP which is nothing but a beat up IMO.


                • hudsongodfrey February 20, 2013 at 12:30 pm #

                  I don’t understand what you’re afraid of. I’m assuming your pseudonymous, or at least have a fairly common name, so you should feel free to enter the conversation proper by ending speculation about your opinions and motives to only way any of us can, simply feel free to disclose and discuss them. You have after all nothing to lose and no reason to take part in the conversation otherwise.

                  Frankly if any of us fail to do that when challenged they will get short shrift, because basically they lack all credibility. They come along make brief often provocative comments, eventually somebody calls them a troll, tells them to go forth and multiply, and depending on how the forum’s moderated, things are usually wound up fairly quickly without result.

                  And if you think Hypo’s your problem, let me tell you we’ve had the same conversation and agreed to disagree on certain things. But none of us can reach that point with you because of your strange attitude of apparent distrust towards those you ostensibly mean to engage.

                  One last chance.. Troll or honest interlocutor?


                  • Paul Smith February 20, 2013 at 1:11 pm #

                    See above response.

                    “One last chance” caps off what comes across really badly IMO. Sorry, but just comes across as you and Hypo nominating yourself as the arbiter of all things nosheep.


                    • hudsongodfrey February 20, 2013 at 1:33 pm #

                      Nobody is arbitrating anything except you!

                      If I have to describe to you how to basically hold a conversation in the spirit of openness and the free exchange of ideas and yet still be rejected then when you’re arbitrarily unwilling to enter into that spirit its your loss.

                      The only price you pay for any behaviour you exhibit while here to me, Hypo or anyone else, except Jennifer, is measured by you standing among those of us who’ll either think you’re making an contribution or not.

                      So in the kindest kind of way I can muster, despite your frustrating attitude towards us, I’ve been trying to say your contribution leaves a little to be desired and that I wish you’d confront those concerns and questions honestly and openly.


                    • Hypocritophobe February 20, 2013 at 1:39 pm #

                      Grow up.


      • Hypocritophobe February 19, 2013 at 11:53 am #

        Well HG, whatever you think and however you translate it,Mr Smith was espousing the virues of Abbott as compared to Latham and it went from there.
        Pull went willingly into the discussion, and I merely questioned as eveyone seems to do here the age old question worn to the quick.
        “Which is the lesser of two evils.”Pardon me for reminding Smitty of the baggage we carry as a Nation because of the illegal war Howard et al,foisted upon the world.
        Given the reams of data here convincing me that Abbott was the son of the anti-Christ, I thought I was onto something.Obviously not.
        Smithy likes to give free reviews, but if you ‘can’ be arsed, review some of his previous posts (Hint – refugees) and you find him with hi M.O. clenched firmly in his thin bony hands APU.
        I appreciate the fact that Pull thinks I am a worthy disciple, malleable and ready to convert to his New Religion, but my diary is chocka.
        By the way Pull, if you’re still out there Latham was not the Messiah, I agree with you there, but as you would know, more than most, nobody is.


        • Paul Smith February 19, 2013 at 12:02 pm #

          There are some truly strange expressions above – almost seems like someone has been storing up for this outburst.

          You spend far too much time on the internet lady, fella, – I don’t know which. The three tepid apologies you have offered me in the past seem to have really stuck and rankled.


          • Hypocritophobe February 19, 2013 at 1:47 pm #

            Oh dear, the standard parental lecture about how/where I spend my time.
            Should I reciprocate about the narrow church approved views you espouse from your time poorly spent?

            Your previous posts speak loud and clear about your own attitude.
            That’s why your do as I say lectures never rise to the occasion.

            I have apologised in the past when appropriate.So what?
            Do you think I owe you one now?


            • Paul Smith February 19, 2013 at 2:04 pm #

              When you have to ask for an apology then that offered is worthless IMO. I don’t expect anything from you – just putting the context that you have regularly been rather an anonymous, nasty piece of work.


              • Hypocritophobe February 19, 2013 at 2:18 pm #

                Says the supreme narcissist.
                Listen to yourself.


        • hudsongodfrey February 19, 2013 at 3:42 pm #

          I think I see where you’re coming from more than Paul, whose attitude to my line of questioning seemed dismissive to be mild.

          However I am, I hope inoffensively, trying to fathom whether you really think that Latham had more than one redeeming feature, a rather populist and some would even say naive attitude to the “coalition of the willing.” Because I’d have to say that as a qualification to becoming PM I don’t think that platform alone was sufficient. He’d have been better to take a firm but polite view of the situation and get us out of there more quickly without perhaps quite the cocksure bravado that he seemed to bring to almost everything he attempted. And it was that personal character that the electorate rightly saw through and that has come out since in his writing about the party that gave him his best opportunity.


          • Hypocritophobe February 19, 2013 at 3:59 pm #

            Let’s put it like this HG.
            The MSM created /prodded into shape, most of the persona Latham was thrown out for.
            They could see another Keating coming,only this time, the guy came out swinging.it scared the shit out of them, so they shut him down ASAP.
            I saw but was denied his potential in the same way we were all denied a second term of Keating.
            We were told something often enough to believe it.
            The difference in the case against Howard/Abbott/Gillard is that we don’t need to be told,because such is the enormity and display of their massive social failings and betrayals,it’s there for all to see.
            And on top of that,what we now know is that Latham’s demise may have even had a little help from his fiends.
            At the time he was not only everything Howard was not, but he was prepared to dismantle Howard’s community destructive policies like a tiger shark, and with no delay.Not being Howard is a good starting point for a potential PM.
            Hence my total rejection of Gillard and Howe’s experiment.

            However as you would know, the greater enemy is not the MSM or even those who betray us, it’s ‘us’ and our apathy and tolerance thereof.


            • hudsongodfrey February 19, 2013 at 4:13 pm #

              I don’t consider myself a person so easily fooled or indeed taken in by the MSM, and I regarded Latham as something of a mere pretender to Keatings crown as the acerbic wit of Australian politics much less the Prime Ministership! He might have been better than Howard at a time when almost anyone could have been. If the question had to be asked and answered as to why the campaign failed then I think it lies with few of Latham’s obvious shortcomings much as the nature of what the Australian public are sadly willing to vote for.


              • paul walter February 19, 2013 at 8:58 pm #

                Yes Hudson, a bit of right advice and a couple more years to think things over and Latham would have made an excellent cabinet minister,
                Labor was all over the shop after the Children Overboard election and went through a long period of cannibalising its own instead of fostering them for a better time in the future.


                • hudsongodfrey February 19, 2013 at 9:24 pm #

                  I think you’re fairly right there, they made a hash of things when they’d the opportunity to end Howard’s run at least one term earlier than they did. Were there signs even then of trying to go for a man of stuff rather than substance I wonder?

                  What do you think of our little dilemma today, what with the Greens walking out on Gillard though?


                  • Hypocritophobe February 19, 2013 at 11:53 pm #

                    “the Greens walking out on Gillard ”
                    They walked away from a broken contract, and still offered to allow supply.That is the reality.
                    They may yet block supply if Labor continues to shit in our nest and I for one would recommend they do, even with the risk they lose some support.
                    The Tarkine decision has probably lost Labor enough votes which will head straight back to the Greens.Fracking will also play a part in many local electorates.There are equal and opposite issues in rural areas where greens are gaining ground, and the majors are losing votes.FNQ is the obvious exception.NT will probably slam Labor.WA will slam Labor.Tas is anyone’s guess, but no way a clear Labor win.As the demograph shifts Gen X(if enrolled) might see an activist gain, for Vic.NSW? Don’t know.
                    SA?Hopefully Gillard will lose her seat emphatically.
                    As for leadership rumours,the rumbles have begun today in earnest.
                    It is now obvious that the likes of Howe wanted the election date called early to flush out Rudd or any other aspirant.No matter what happens or how the cards fall,Gillard still cannot win.When a fish goes off,it stays off.That is reality.


                    • hudsongodfrey February 20, 2013 at 12:08 am #

                      Fair point that the Greens had reason. And those other environmental concerns may not necessarily be factors for everyone on a federal level, but they do keep the Greens relevant.

                      As for changing leaders I wasn’t for it then and I’m not for it now. I think if you’re elected you’re expected to spend your term governing not electioneering and poll watching the whole time.


                  • paul walter February 20, 2013 at 9:16 pm #

                    Good timing by the Greens- and good for both them and the ALP. They have been short of identity due to press misrepresentation and Bob Brown’s departure and they have had the nous to realise that they need to reposition themselves back in the public spotlight, as an alternative to the neolib parties; also show their leader as decisive rather than just a limb for an ALP that has drifted from the roots it shares with the Greens. So it’s just politics as usual, nothing personal, as are msm attempts to beat it up,
                    It is another symptom of the dominance of the rump right faction within Labor, obscurantist,unwilling to consider new ideas (eg science) and inward looking, that alienates progressives and Labor’s refusal thus far to institute internal reform within itself, which is its gravest threat to its re-election and survival .
                    It should be added that I don’t blame Labor itself entirely, there are constitutional and globalising issues that limit its capacity for action in exactly those areas where many people want to see action. But the lazy Australian People WILL cut off their noses to spite their faces by electing the even worse Abbott opposition, because that’s all we’re fit for.


                    • Hypocritophobe February 20, 2013 at 10:45 pm #

                      Wasting your time on this circular message.
                      Unless and until Gillard goes, and Labor reinvents itself, they must justify the betrayals and fuckups and offer a feasible alternative than the current morph.And to do that they must also abandon the infantile ‘spielage’ of “we are not Abbott”.

                      Ranting that “we are not Abbott”, whilst acting exactly as he does/would is a not a policy position.It’s not an ethos.it’s not a quality.It’s nothing.
                      It’s less than nothing a vacuum, because at least vacuums have the ability to invite things in.

                      You probably offended a shit load of people who want a Real Labor govt by calling them lazy.
                      Punishment and retribution may not be your solution, but as has happened many times before, if you ‘shit the mob’, by God you’ll pay.

                      Labor have several ‘mob-shitting decisions’ to justify, before a huge swathe of voters even look their way.

                      To put it in context, Howe is the Labor equivalent of Grahame Morris.


                    • hudsongodfrey February 20, 2013 at 10:46 pm #

                      Seems like a welcome possibility. I hope you’re right, about the part at the beginning if only the outcome at the end could be avoided 😦


                    • Hypocritophobe February 20, 2013 at 11:01 pm #

                      BTW I agree.The separation is a win win.
                      And it will be a long time before Labor gets to set up any deals like the current one.The ‘best’ (?) Aust can expect is likely to be a slim Lib coalition, because Labor are gone.Lots of strange Indies ratios, as well.We desperately need the senate to be hostile, but sensible and communicative, which brings with it a DD risk, which may be a good thing.


                      As sleazy as we all know the Libs are, they are likely to use a soft reason for a trigger and implement harder policies on the other side-if the restructure favours them.
                      Harder policies which we know will come , but which won’t be overt.
                      (Westminster has as many good points as it has bad.)
                      The problem being sometimes we have to endure an entire term of misery before we get to throw the scumbags out.
                      Hence the current Gillard/Howe scenario.(Kudos to a few good decisions, which were mainly a result of multi-faceted negotiations.Most of the straight out Labor decisions were unLabor.


                    • Di Pearton February 21, 2013 at 8:05 am #

                      Great article on Greens leaving ALP, particularly first comment by John Newton, Tarkine was one frog too many! http://theconversation.edu.au/government-didnt-walk-away-from-the-greens-but-milne-needed-to-ditch-labor-12308


  16. Hypocritophobe February 19, 2013 at 11:44 pm #

    @HG February 19, 2013 at 10:54 pm #
    (No REPLY button)

    I know you think I’m being unfair.
    But I think you miss the point.It is clearly unacceptable that a vote for the blow in PM is a vote for another round of polices from those who blew her in, big business/polluters and mining, and a willing sycophant to the ACL and anyone else who can ensure their political survival.
    I think MY unfairness is justified.I think the eradication of this brand of Labor may have been a long time coming, but it here now, and it will be dealt with electorally.
    Best you pray Howe gets hit by lightning,Gillard and Abbott lose their seats and Labor win a very tenuous Green alliance Govt..
    That is about the only thing between us and living in a dry lifeless Chinese owned river bed in 20 years time.

    Gillard has never apologised for a single one of her toxic decisions, so she obviously believes in them.In fact she has bragged some were her own personal idea.By voting for her you also support those decisions.I thought at your age you’d know that’s how it works.


    • hudsongodfrey February 20, 2013 at 11:48 pm #


      I don’t think much of what has been said about the faceless apparatchiks of the Labor party could be characterised as unfair. They deserve their reviled reputation. My point would simply be that any assumption that they’re using Gillard rather than she them leads to the conclusion, should they replace her, that policy will nonetheless remain unchanged.

      But I think what we’d both be in danger of missing if I were to let you get away with saying a vote for Gillard is a vote for poor decision making is that there have been some points of light on the one hand whereas there’s a big descending cloud of darkness called Abbott waiting to assail us on the other. Being something of a realist I keep coming back to the fact that what my experience does afford me are memories of the number of times we’ve voted rather for the lesser of two evils than for the ideological embodiment of sweetness and light. This case is just made a little bit tougher by the degree to which both parties are evil 😦


      • Hypocritophobe February 21, 2013 at 12:50 am #

        C’mon HG,
        You’re weighing up what we know to be true, with what ‘you’ assume will happen.And you’re also assuming that it’s a two horse race.You(we all) can send an emphatic message at any election we choose to do so.You’re basing a case on projections, and mounting it by saying that we should accept all of Howe/Gillards betrayals and sleazy opportunistic privately arranged back-flips and assume that we will get full contrition and suitable repairs at a later date.A back-flip on the back-flips???Fuck that wishy washy shit!

        And I disagree that if Gillard goes,Howe et al continue to wreak havoc.I assume there are stalwarts and statesmen(women) still in Labor who would gladly use the chance to do good and gut the rot.
        Otherwise Labor are worth abandoning forever, which is a real possibility, which I have already considered and which you show zero capability of even imagining.You (and many others) spend too many waking hours masticating about the Abbottised version of the end of the world.

        If your public signals to Labor were clear, loud,widespread and often you could change your viewing angle, and alter the outcome.For some reason there’s a big lump of resistance there that contributes to the inevitable downfall of Gillard anyway.
        I sense it’s a game to a,of of mouth pieces /apologists defending Gillard, knowing (hoping) that a certain senate composition may save them, or the Greens might save the day etc.
        Let’s seriously hope so.In the volatile battlefield we have, that may actually NOT be the end result.
        And at the risk of attracting a repetition tax, and losing everything I own …



        • hudsongodfrey February 21, 2013 at 9:53 am #

          If you honestly think that the Greens are capable of taking government at the next election then I think you’re as certifiable as the mad Katter!

          This is I think the bone of contention and difference between us.

          I think the priority has to be ensuring we avoid an Abbott government.

          You seem to put a combination of ideology and personal politics ahead of that goal. Though I note you argue that Abbott and Gillard are precisely as bad as one another I think that it patently false albeit to a lesser degree than any of us would prefer.

          So yes we might prefer the Greens, so why not vote for them because they’re only going to either direct preferences or form coalitions with Labor anyway.

          As for change within a political party that has lost its way; well I think it is still easier to change when you’re in government than to be saddled with the twin necessities of both changing and regaining lost ground.

          This is why leadership considerations kind of matter, and why I think a well managed transition to a new Labor leader at the next election might be a good thing. I don’t think Rudd’s the man for the job, because was largely the one who got them into trouble to begin with. Gillard hasn’t in my view been strong enough to resist pressure to compromise, and thus we have to look further afield. I’ve suggested maybe Carr, others maybe Shorten. Either we somebody of stature needs to stand up for something better than poll watching and actually lead the damn change.


          • Hypocritophobe February 21, 2013 at 10:33 am #

            Gawds sake.I am not saying the Greens can form govt in their own right.I am saying your entire existence should not revolve around one single fucking scenario.The slab of Labor who connected with their glacial shift left have fucked right off now Gillard has gutted that value set.
            Last night Howe showed those who are that way inclined, can stick their votes where they fit, and they will.Can you imagine what sort of deal a Green party will want if the history repeats?
            I cannot see any room for Howe et al,let alone his silly little 2 faced hypocrisy.
            The greens scoring a big hit here, is a better outcome than you think, and yes it can become a one term circuit breaker if need be,If you and DQ want to fill evey single crib room in Australia with black and white choices,go for it.I can tell you now the outcome heading for Labor now won’t change by your strategy because quite simply (you know already) to a proportion large enough to obliterate Labor, their are people(even genuine Labor value people) who will not give Labor their vote under Gillard)

            Other points,Rudd is not simply the man for the job,it’s a bout timing and goodwill, so you’re right.Labor has none, and he is unlike to want his name on a bloodbath.You have completely forgotten all the other sub groups who Gillard has pissed off big time, months ago.Do the maths.

            Or better still;

            (i) Seriously HG, stick to Gillard.You’re on a winner mate.
            There is no bone of contention here,HG.Rudd had a slim chance of turning things around and a tiny window of opportunity.That’s as much as gone,his mates were unsupportive,and Howe now admit a mere 140,000 of the millions who vote,run the shop of Australia.

            It’s too late to save Gillard politically.Wishing for a leadership change later is a fantasy if you think it will be IN govt.
            We are about to see the most toxic and divisive campaign in our Nations history.All I ask is that you consider that the outcome WAS at one point avoidable, and that for very good reason the vessel who claims ownership of the actions at hand is usually held accountable.This country votes people out regularly.With the baggage Gillard has, the alliances she has made she will be politically eviscerated, and justifiably so.


            • hudsongodfrey February 21, 2013 at 10:50 am #

              Nice dance around the Mexican hats there Hypo, but you should really try lifting a few to see what’s underneath…. No, on second thoughts don’t bother it’s just the usually players for you. Rudd versus Gillard isn’t it?

              I can’t even get you to acknowledge that Abbott is under one of those hats or that extra ones might be thrown into the ring!

              So do I think Gillard will loose? Pretty much.

              Do I think Rudd can come back? No I don’t it won’t work because we’ve seen the bill of goods and its faulty. Move On!

              Do I think Labor could win, work with the Greens and be massively better than Abbott? That’s the real question, and the answer is always yes, but they’ll have to try to pull off a miracle to make that happen.

              Okay SO! Anyone interested in how those miracles happen form a line on the left (seems appropriate), and the rest of you please direct your attentions to whatever projects you otherwise feel to be worthwhile since you’ve long since stopped helping this one.


              • Hypocritophobe February 21, 2013 at 11:13 am #

                You’re desperate to lock it in aren’t you?

                So (me) speaking from the line to the left (is your neck playing up HG? HEY! OVER HERE)

                So do I think Gillard will loose? Guaranteed.

                Do I think Rudd can come back? No I don’t it is too late.Labor blew it, *Howe told them to blow it.

                Do I think Labor could win, work with the Greens and be massively better than Abbott? Yes, but NEVER while Gillard and Howe breathe air.Howe underlined that last night.(Now who’s biting off their nose to spit their face)

                Come on HG!!
                It’s just a jump to the left…..

                (Or you could vote for Abbott and do the time warp again! Oh dear, I think I just invented a very catchy electioneering media strategy!)

                *The world according to Howe.
                Gillards minder and executive director has deemed that working people have no right to connect to the natural world, nor call for it’s protection.You either work,and therefore vote (1) Labor and do what he says or you are a communist,protesting, human hater. All greens are stuck-up, inner city, born again, solar panel owning environmental hypocrites.With a large slab of feral dole bludgers thrown in. People with such an ethos are violently unwelcome at Labor and their vote will be rejected outright no matter what! Oh,unless we have a hung parliament, and then it’s on)

                We need to start talking about the coalition Green hung parliament soon HG.
                That’s the one with a real shot,now.

                I am still waiting for DQs list of the 20 seats Gillard is going to gain.


                • hudsongodfrey February 21, 2013 at 12:34 pm #

                  Yes I know you’re probably further left than me on some issues, it was a joke I get it!

                  But seriously the scenario I think you’d need to create for a Coalition-Green hung parliament NOT to deliver power straight back to Labor is infinitesimally small. Mainly because even if Greens and Liberals of this world did join hands any remaining nationals and Katterites would simply bail and tilt the balance back the other way. And nor could they work together, not really because Abbott thinks climate change is “crap”!

                  If on the other hand you just meant A Liberal led government with a Green controlled Senate, then that does seem likely. What doesn’t seem so clever is the fact that as I already said this would be an Abbott government and I think we know from the Howard years that the Greens didn’t manage to stop some fairly awful policy arising from the same kind of circumstance. Unfortunately sometimes Labor in the Senate will pass what the Greens would not.

                  Never mind Gillard, Labor doesn’t have to gain 20 seats it has to win back three or four without losing too many, hopefully in seeing them go to Greens be forced into a coalition that helps steer it back towards more progressive thinking…. Or maybe not? Have you noticed that in trying to differentiate itself from the Greens Labor’s done itself quite the disservice?


                  • Hypocritophobe February 21, 2013 at 12:51 pm #

                    You keep turning a blind eye to reality HG.Or maybe your turning to comedy?
                    You have reverted to what ‘enviro outcomes’ Howard approved by ignoring what Gillard has ticked off on by way of Ferguson.Then you ‘just know’ Abbott will be worse.
                    It astounds me that a few marine sanctuaries, which can still be explored and possibly mined/drilled have bought the souls of the readily convinced, that Labor has filled the role of environmental watchdog/champion.
                    This govt is the one who wants to mine Tarkine(yes I am ware that you said not everyone gives toss, but that does NOT eliminate the actual significance of the asset and the value of keeping it’s integrity intact)
                    I can think of no previous govt who has approved so many massive expansions/new projects-most foreign- and our return has never been less pro rata than now.

                    The minerals are going nowhere. China is landlocked too.
                    In WA Barnett has pleaded to their population to ‘mine and develop now’, or miss out based on what?
                    The same bullshit all big businesses espouses.Unlimited growth.
                    The big businesses Howe and his mates are busy shaft drenching.

                    And as an example,do you think that discussing population and sustainability should issues at the table,then do you think Gillard and Howe speak for you?

                    I think that may be 100% rhetorical,don’t you?


                    • hudsongodfrey February 21, 2013 at 2:57 pm #

                      You’d freak out if I called you an Abbott supporter, so what is it that you expect me to do or say other than that I don’t necessarily accept your interpretation or Gillard’s or Howes’. I just want better policies.

                      So what I’m saying is, lesser of two evils, Greens can’t win in their own right, you can’t by now be too ignorant to work it out!

                      I’d rather have Gillard & Howes than Abbott. Period!


                    • doug quixote February 21, 2013 at 7:41 pm #

                      To HG : Hypo is very much a cracked record lately, as if by the sheer repetition his strange take on the these issues may come true.

                      I think it is time to suggest he STFU about this obsession.

                      I doubt that that there is any point discussing the issues with him unless and until he calms down and accepts that the only likely results are a narrow Labor win or a narrow coalition win, with the Greens sitting in a balance of power position in the Senate.

                      That is the stark choice; there is no third way.


                    • Di Pearton February 21, 2013 at 7:54 pm #

                      I’m sure that if Abbott wins and doesn’t get the senate he will call for a double dissolution as soon as possible.
                      If ALP gets that out successively they may be in with a chance, because Australians are so fucking lazy they hate to vote.
                      What do you think??


  17. Hypocritophobe February 20, 2013 at 12:28 am #

    @ doug quixote February 19, 2013 at 11:46 pm #

    You are Sooooooo Johnny Howard.
    So much so, that you proudly re-uttered, (for all to see) his infamous speech of we decide who comes here etc.
    + a free lecture about how your ancestors personally went to war to keep us all safe from refugees burdening the budget.
    (Mine fought a war to protect the value called a ‘universal’ fair go.The one Howard and Gillard killed/buried and cremated.)

    You are about to waste a vote on one of the two tea-parties who DEMAND off shore processing.Waste it wisely.


    • doug quixote February 20, 2013 at 1:02 pm #

      He uttered one good line in 12 years as PM, you fuckwit.

      I have no problem with refugees.

      The fair go is alive and well. It is the very core of the difference between Labor and the conservatives.

      I differ on policy wherever I wish, and I am under no pressure to be consistent, unlike the politicians. That both Parties seem determined to process offshore is a drawback, but policies may be changed, especially those of the Labor Party. Don’t expect that there is any change likely from the conservatives, certainly not the way you and I would prefer.


      • Hypocritophobe February 20, 2013 at 1:54 pm #

        You say you differ on policy,where you wish.
        Fair call.Don’t we all.That’s the thing about all parties.But what a tragedy that Labor now has no room for policy positions outside of what Howe, et al, demand.Have you not seen him with his bat wings wrapped around Gillard at every occasion possible?
        You backed a lemon this time and you know it, DQ.
        There is nothing Labor about the current govt.Therefore there is nothing to defend.Real Labor is about a section of the community and their COLLECTIVE values,principles aspirations.Not those demands of the few hidden power brokers.
        Their political loss will be our gain as a scoiety, DQ.Because it means they will be forced to rebuild to their former value system.Howe et al are blaming the greens for the natural evolution to the left, where the bulk of the fair in our society had moved.He lives in a world of big business handshakes.
        That pisses off the arse wipes who want to set up their retirements by sleazy deals with big polluters,big miners,big bankers,big business,big construction.
        There is nothing worker about Howe or Gillard.They are the antithesis of the fair go.
        When (looking more likely than if) Abbott gets in,the one thing I hope he does in his single term glory, is put the whole issue of the corrupt side of the NSW union movement under a white hot blow torch.What about you?
        What will you do?Keep denying there’s a problem?
        Gillard will be gone within a fortnight.The longer she lasts the more of the attention she draws to those who installed her.


        • doug quixote February 20, 2013 at 6:43 pm #

          Thank you Hypo. I think we are all frustrated with the state of affairs.

          The difficulty I see is that we are, here, faced with a straight choice : Gillard Labor or Abbott conservative.

          You see them as all the same, I do not.

          At the very least, you must agree that man for man and woman for woman the Labor ministers are better than the alternatives.

          “The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence” just does not apply, and I think that the electorate when faced with a rational choice in September will vote for Gillard Labor.


          • Hypocritophobe February 20, 2013 at 6:57 pm #

            There are more than 2 choices.There is only one Gillard.She has only one political destiny.
            To choose her is to unequivocally also choose Labor’s final destiny.
            The rest of the jigsaw is easy peasy.
            Her cool off the cuff dismissals today, about the Greens waking up, is another example of the fact she is all someone else’s tactics and has no desire to be the Nations true PM.
            You’re right in saying that when the sheep head to the yards that half will be drafted into the paddocks and half to slaughter.
            I don’t think your prize ewe has enough leg power to make it that far.I sense she will perish at the trough with the rest of the flock who have an incurable ailment.
            They were offered a drench, but escaped the drench gun.All we can hope is that their festering carcasses don’t drop in the trough and poison the water for any length of time.
            As for any ‘good’ (read have integrity) talent left in Labor, they need to speak out now or their fate is sealed.
            Even at this late stage, the electorate is likely to respect a show of strength from those whose true Labor values are front and centre.Currently all they care about is doing what they have been threatened and bullied into doing, by the one faction and you know who.


    • hudsongodfrey February 20, 2013 at 12:13 pm #

      Well at least the content they pinched from Python was amusing 🙂


  18. Hypocritophobe February 20, 2013 at 11:20 am #

    Before DQ rubs his hands with glee at Howe’s wet dream of a green divorce.here’s quick reminder of the 100% Wayne Swan, Penny Wong(surprise surprise) Gillard, carbon tax in full flight.

    “The report says the brown coal power generators are set to reap between $2.3 billion and $5.4 billion profit from the compensation package.”


    Who (as a PM,treasurer or govt) in their right mind would sign off on this tax structure?
    This could be another very justifiable reason why Milne has accepted Labor’s separation gladly.
    This is the mining tax all over again.
    Designed by the people who pay the tax,or should I say are compensated by billions FOR the tax.

    And so it goes.As voters who wanted action on climate change, we argued and defended Gillards supposed back-flip, in the face of a mocking opposition.Now we cop this AND the failed MRRT, which Swan has steadfastly refused to adjust, and hence the green divorce.If Gillard supporters cannot smell the connect between these decisions,the end results,Howe and his cronies,donations to Labor and the unions via big business through cosy deals,Obeid etc, they are not awake.

    Abbott scores another free hit.Australians lose out,The world gets hotter and dryer and bushfires continue to rage,Our cost of living soars, for what?

    I sincerely hope the greens release a full copy of the agreement they signed,including the preamble, with Labor so as voters we can see once and for all, how sleazy Howe,Gillard et all, are and will continue to be until they go.
    And go they will.Abbott would need to start eating babies to lose now.


  19. Anonymous February 20, 2013 at 3:20 pm #

    For the record, my maternal grandmother’s maiden name was Snowball, and I’ve never met anyone with that last name since. Might be time to bring it back?


    • hudsongodfrey February 20, 2013 at 3:30 pm #

      I don’t think you need to “bring it back” so to speak. Snowballs it seems are only a Google search away 🙂


    • Hypocritophobe February 20, 2013 at 3:35 pm #

      The head of WA Health,
      Kim Snowball.
      You need to get out more!


      • Rebecca S. Randall February 21, 2013 at 12:26 pm #

        Well I am happily entrenched in QLD, I don’t particularly feel like crossing coasts. 😛


    • paul walter February 20, 2013 at 11:44 pm #

      An amazing resemblance to the long considered lost Rebecca S Randall. Orwell tried to restore dignity to the name Snowball in Animal Farm, but the Trotsky like demise of the porky character ended up sabotaging the attempt.


      • Rebecca S. Randall February 21, 2013 at 12:25 pm #

        Yeah it was me, but my account is stuffing up for some reason. I don’t know why it showed my name as Anonymous. when I plugged in my email and it said “OI, ARE YOU REBECCA? YEAH I’M SURE YOU ARE, GIMME YOUR PASSWORD.” I did, and it still listed me as an Anon even after it dredged up my pic. Weird.


        • paul walter February 21, 2013 at 5:55 pm #

          Know the sort of problem, from Table Talk.
          You are the sweetest lil nonny-mouse…
          Must head off to see if you have commented on Wilson’s latest excursion into the world of tits.


  20. Hypocritophobe February 21, 2013 at 3:20 pm #

    @ HG
    “I’d rather have Gillard & Howes than Abbott. Period!”

    Good luck with that.After seeing and hearing last night I see him as a master clone of Gillard.I will be glad to see their backs.
    Lets face it if ever a future opportunity of Labor/Green negotiation pops up, he will be barred completely.I see him as another wrecker.A puppet of big business.
    ICAC NSW should help paint a picture of what that looks like.

    If you look at the last election and the spread of votes, you will see that the community was pretty diverse in in that spread.Now they get to appraise what sort of govt that hung parliament delivered under Gillard.
    I am saying,and I am hearing that voters are not going to risk that again.
    Wanting and wishing won’t change that.

    Gillard betrayed.(at a minimum and let’s call them demograph 1)
    Labor values(members and their beliefs etc)
    The Independents, as soon as their votes were expendable or she got her(Howe’s) way
    The Greens
    Single parents
    Local job seekers on big projects
    Refugees and their advocates
    Left leaning Labor voters (and swinging voters, so inclined)
    Many of Rudd’s supporters who were good Ministers

    Now let’s see.
    Gillard is loyal to;
    The AWU
    Anyone who ditched Rudd
    *Slipper (while their votes counted, no matter how inappropriate their behaviour and notwithstanding pending charges, Notwithstanding they are both hot spuds sitting in the ejection seat should the need arise)
    The ACL
    Big polluters and industry
    Big Mining
    Let’s call them demograph 2

    Of the 2 demographs who do you think will be driving the pencils?
    (and do you think demograph 2 will really come out swinging for or lobby for Gillard?Really?)

    The way I see the election result is like AGW, there is a great big lump of optimistic fools and pseudo religious zealots deny all the evidence before them.
    Neither of those definitions are meant to describe you,HG.
    But I am going to assume that you are one of those proud and angry idealist types, with a very half full glass!Nothing to be ashamed of, in fact quite the opposite.
    And just in case there isn’t a warp in the space time continuum any time soon, carry some tissues with you.


    • hudsongodfrey February 21, 2013 at 7:51 pm #

      An engineer would probably tell you that the glass is twice as big as it needs to be!

      If only there were such a trite and easy way out of Australia’s political dilemma.

      We shouldn’t BOTH turn into broken records but you know my position isn’t that I support Gillard so much as that I think the Greens aren’t realistically a solution in themselves and Abbott is simply unacceptable.


  21. Hypocritophobe February 21, 2013 at 8:14 pm #

    @ doug quixote February 21, 2013 at 7:41 pm

    STFU yourself.
    You’re a severely scratched CD, gshk,gshk,gshk,gshking at the moon about Gillard winning by ten seats.
    You have yet to name 1,you’d battle to find any.
    There is not one intellectual in this country that gives Howe’s angelic Gillard a half-a-hope.

    And to Di,Pearton yes I have also discussed several times the very possible DD election shortly after (if-more likely when) Abbott gets in.He will use a real tame trigger to make the greens seem extreme so they lose senate seats straight after.He wants control in both houses in order to do whatever he wants.
    A pity Gillard is the unelectable trash bag of the AWU.We could have had a real choice.


    • doug quixote February 21, 2013 at 10:19 pm #

      No prizes for second, Hypo.

      There is hardly a comment made on this blog where you do not feel the need to repeat your spiel.

      Ad nauseam.


      • AnnODyne February 22, 2013 at 7:26 am #

        It’s so early in the day for this off-topic squabbling.
        There is absolutely no point in detailed analysis of the AUS political climate because all you analysers are so completely outnumbered by all the REALLY really DUMB VOTERS.
        In Warringah a gorilla marked LIB on the ticket would prevail.


        • doug quixote February 22, 2013 at 7:42 am #

          If you didn’t notice, this thread is “I’m Kevin and I’m here to . . .”, which seems to invite political discussion.

          I think “a gorilla marked Lib” has been the member for Warringah for the last 19 years. There is no accounting for taste, but I still think he is unelectable.


        • Hypocritophobe February 22, 2013 at 10:34 am #

          If it’s OK with you I’ll take my electoral advice from someone a little further to the left of your view.
          You need to get yourself an umpires whistle Ann.
          You can have Gillard and Howe,Abbott too.
          I’ll remind you of your allegiances and how their ethics and morals are going over time,before during and after the election.
          However, I sense Gillard may not even make the distance.Her pig-faced boss,the ever increasing screecher, has declared that people who back stab our PM are gutless.See if you can you muster up the brain-power to see how even the DUMB (your term) people you like to look down your nose on as REALLY DUMB, can see through such ironic and hypocritical rhetoric ?
          If the voters who disagree with your view are dumb….what does that say of those who support this tool and his female lackey?

          I’ll let you figure that bit out.


          • AnnODyne February 22, 2013 at 2:39 pm #

            I did not intend to imply that anyone disagreeing with me is dumb. I was referring to The General Electorate. You may accuse me of intellectual snobbery, but I can find you dumbass people, young and old, who have No Idea.
            They are not reading the journalists we read, they are watching Australia’s Biggest Farkwit or similar. They know the NAMES of the contestants, and they engage. Those people vote. They outnumber the ‘considered opinions’.

            I have no political allegiance. I have campaigned for various candidates, handed out HTV cards at many elections, I have voted Green, Independent and Labor.
            Di Pearton understood what I meant. Hi Di.


            • Hypocritophobe February 22, 2013 at 3:32 pm #

              Maybe we need an Australian Apathy Party, and see if the electorate gets the irony?

              Vote 1 Status Quo


        • Di Pearton February 22, 2013 at 10:56 am #

          Yes, not so much dumb as not interested. Most people are just really really busy with their lives. It is a challenge to get them engaged.


          • Hypocritophobe February 22, 2013 at 2:04 pm #

            It’s a lot harder to round the sheep up if they are concentrating on something else, unless the something else is the dog yapping at their heals.

            Whilst we may be slightly less apathetic, than we used to be, the level of sloth /gullibilty is equal to, or greater than, ever.
            That doesn’t make us dumb, it just makes us semi-conscious human beings.


  22. hudsongodfrey February 22, 2013 at 1:50 pm #



    • Hypocritophobe February 22, 2013 at 2:00 pm #

      Reading the results from the top, I see it as; Realists,optimists,idealists,*Queenslander’s’.
      ( * Optional apostrophe configuration )
      (You must admit, I have an above average comma-usage skill-set.)


      • hudsongodfrey February 22, 2013 at 2:12 pm #

        A fair analysis, yes.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: