The Australian Ugliness (2)
If at times of great national drama book titles could be requisitioned and redeployed, like merchant ships on the eve of war, The Australian Ugliness might offer the neatest summation of the events of the last few months. With the elevation of the country's first female prime minister, the 40th anniversary of Germaine Greer's The Female Eunuch has clearly come to mind, but it is Robin Boyd's opus, now celebrating its golden jubilee, that provides a timely epithet, if not an entirely accurate thesis. Ruminating on the schizophrenic streak in the national character, Boyd described his fellow countrymen and women as "cruel but kind". When applied to Australian politics, his analysis is surely two words too long.
I'm actually in America, where the relatively few people who had heard or took much notice of Kevin Rudd appear to have been shocked by the speed and brutality of his departure. After all, he was President Obama's best pal on the world stage (although, alas, the best book on Obama's first year in charge, The Promise by Jonathan Alter, does not even mention Mr Rudd,).
Perhaps they might have read that the removal of Kevin Rudd was a bloodless coup. But it was bloodless in the same way that water-boarding is bloodless - a process that simulates drowning, and thus near death, which leaves the body unblemished but the mind riven with scars. When Kevin Rudd braved the cameras to haltingly bullet-point his legacy, its effects were plain to see. But I wonder what the nature of his abrupt departure, and indeed that of others like the former Liberal leaders Malcolm Turnbull and Brendan Nelson, says about the health of the nation's body politic?
Any audit of Australian politics right now surely takes on the feel and stench of a triage, a sifting of the wounded and slain. For to describe the bush capital as a killing field not only makes for an apt headline but half-decent analysis. Along with a once prodigiously popular prime minister, two opposition leaders have been dispensed with in a single parliamentary term. In the space of just forty months, Australia has seen four Liberal leaders, and three from Labor. In New South Wales, the spiritual home of the Australian political ugliness, there have been four different Labor premiers in the past five years and just one election.
If both major parties could boast more talent, this casualty rate would still be alarming but at least vaguely sustainable. But the ranks are thin already. The voluntary departure of Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner, a well-liked politician of undoubtedly high calibre, depletes them even further. So, too, did the former Treasurer Peter Costello's decision to leave. By any normal reckoning, all of their careers ended prematurely.
To outside eyes, Australian political leaders are being held to a ludicrously high standard. It brings to mind that hoary old adage about Louisianan politicians: that they could survive anything apart from being found in bed with a dead woman or a live boy. All it takes in Australia, apparently, is to wake up on four consecutive Monday mornings with a lacklustre poll. Curiously, the headline in the Washington Post this morning was another slump in Barack Obama's approval ratings, with support for his economic stewardship at an all-time low. But it's hard to detect any great sense of crisis, for the polls ebb and flow.
Certainly, the brutopia of Rudd's departure adds to the sense that Australia is out of kilter with the rest of the political Anglo-sphere. Its cadres of professional politicians have become more tribalistic, clannish and intensely partisan at a time when office-holders in America and Britain are heading in the opposite direction. By design and through necessity, Barack Obama, David Cameron and Nick Clegg are fashioning a new politics that is more ecumenical, less clannish and genuinely bipartisan. Australian politics is in danger of looking like a throwback. While lawmakers operate still within the Washminster system, the politics is Tammany Hall, right down to the faithful recreations of its bullying ward bosses and brutal machines. If ever the actress Tilda Swinton gets to play her doppelganger in the movie version, it will be a watch-from-behind-the-sofa affair. Animal Kingdom might have fitted as a working title, had it not already been purloined.
This has been an ugly phase in national and state politics, and I suspect we are on the verge of an ugly campaign. The messy debate over asylum seekers, which never arouses the nobler aspects of the Australian character, is a sign of what we will see over the coming weeks. Both Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott are political street-fighters, and the next few weeks will be a brawl,
To finish where we started, this year has already been cluttered with literary celebrations. The 50th anniversary of The Australian Ugliness, the 40th of The Female Eunuch. Yet it is also 60 years since A.A. Phillips first noticed that listeners of a programme called Incognito on the ABC tended to pick the outsider when asked to adjudicate between the performance of a foreigner and a home-grown musician. Nowadays, little remains of the cultural cringe, and it is easier to identify Australia's cultural creep. But what of its politics? Is it now possible to speak of Australia's political cringe?
UPDATE 07:23 UK time, Thursday 14 July 2010
The comments include some persuasive arguments about the impact of three-year terms, and how they lend themselves to perpetual politicking and thus fuel the sense of frenzy. Faced with a run of bad polls, there is not much time for an unpopular leader to turn them around, hence a sense of panic, which is commonly followed by putsch. I would also add the impact of continuous news, whether it be on radio, television or online. Concertinaed news cycles have led to concertinaed politics. And Camo makes a good point.
On the question of the US comparison, it would be daft to deny that American politics is a bruising and bare-knuckle business - which is why I chose my words carefully. I said that a new cadre of politicians was emerging, like Barack Obama, who find partisan politics rather tiresome, counter-productive and ugly. Obama told the American Sixty Minutes programme in September 2009 that he was worried about "a coarsening of our politics that I've been running against since I got into politics". I'd also suggest that American politics does not have the same cannibalistic fury that Australian politics has right now. In Washington, the knives tend to be aimed at partisan opponents rather than between the shoulder blades of their own. When a party moves against an unpopular senator or congressman, it usually happens in the primary process through which real-life voters get to choose which candidates will fight the election.
I'm 
© 2012~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~50~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Tilda as Julia - I can see it now!
As an Australian abroad I see it much in those terms too Nick but I find it hard to discuss with my compatriots at home as they are too partisan and close to one faction or the other. I felt Rudd should've been given a full term at least.
Perhaps Australians don't feel any sense of national emergency as things are going well and they can afford the luxury of squabbling politicans.
Three year (or often shorter) terms don't help, either.
Complain about this comment
Partisan politics tends to follow in the footsteps of uncertainty. At the moment, there is still some concerns about the economy, as well as climate change (what to do) and Australia's increasing economic dependence on a rising China and India, among other things.
Loudspeaker style politics with its apparent certainty can be appealing for some people but it never lasts. All politics goes in cycles whether it is between parties or communication styles.
Both Australia, the UK and the US have recently (ish) had elections where a party that has been in government for a long time has lost badly. The extremes of the losing party will generally blame the moderates for the loss and the party will lurch to the left/right, increasing the chance of partisan politics.
As the old proverb says, this too shall pass.
Complain about this comment
It's Darwin Nick...survival of the fittest.
It is the Australian character, love it or leave it.
It is the fight from the start against a harsh and alien environment.
It is fighting against overwhelming odds whenever we have been called to War.
Cruel as it is we wouldn't have it any other way.
Our leader has to be the toughest of the tough.
But of course, that leader must also have an intellect that is outstanding and appreciation for all that is beautiful and exquisite in life.
It's a tough gig...but someone has to do it.
And BTW, we've done pretty well so far.
There are far more problems in the UK and the USA than in Australia.
Perhaps we are doing something right.
Complain about this comment
Political leaders in most countries are in trouble. The great banking swindle has left most people feeling that their governments protected the interest of the bankers at their expense and the economic stall worldwide has been the result. The political believe that short memories of the public save them from responsbility, but this time it is different as it was no isolated incidence but rather a worldwide collusion of bankers and politicians that made the fiancial crisis an economic crisis. Remember the global economy was sold as an opprtunity to shelter national economies from down-turns...apprently that didn't work. The general feeling that governments place the interest of the citizens far below those of banking and big business has created a disinterest in the political games of politicians as most feel the outcomes really do not effect their lives. Leaders come and go and who is presented is a decision not made by the people but rather by the parties and their patrons so why should people care when they have no personal investment in any of them.
Complain about this comment
Mr Bryant, it often takes an outsider to see the inside more clearly and you have done so perfectly.
So many people believe Gillard's promotion to the top job is some kind of victory for gender equality. It was only a victory for the mining companies and the right wing faction within the Labor Party. When they've done with her she'll be thrown on to the scrap heap with all the others.
Complain about this comment
Nick, as an Australian resident in the UK I would broadly agree with your analysis. There is another factor which you missed that Bren54 touched upon, namely the three year (and a bit) parliamentary terms. Utterly unconducive to any long term planning and encourages short term thinking with, a blatant 'what's in it for me?' mindset in a large part of the electorate.
Furthermore, the environment in which politics in Australia has envolved has encouraged a very tribal and brutal politician to evolve (political Darwinism?).
Add an electorate that is usually suspicious of the suggestion that simple solutions won't solve everything, and you can see that the sort of people and thinking required for good leadership tend to be 'killed off' early on.
Often, any criticism of this (or anything about Australia) invites a rather thin-skinned jingoistic response of the sort which politicians are ready to exploit for any and every purpose.
Looked at in this light the election of Rudd was a blip that has now been corrected.
Complain about this comment
Yes, politics in Australia can be brutal. Some posts have bemoaned the 3 year terms of Federal parliaments and I'd agree with that. A number of attempts over the years have tried to introduce 4 year terms but they have been unsuccessful. Some State parliaments have the 4 year terms though. Contrary to Nick Bryant's comment about the US going to the centre, I'd say that politics in America is much nastier than Australia and extremely polarised. Obama got the briefest of honeymoons before the 'birther' movement started claiming he was ineligible for presidential office. Congressmen have 2 year terms and have to defend their seats with yet another slew of attack ads. And some of the electoral nasty tricks in US politics are beyond belief:the claims that Bill Clinton murdered people such as presidential aide Vince Foster, ads in American South states just before a presidential primary claiming that Senator John McCain fathered an illegitimate black child (just the thing to put the redneck vote off), the Swiftboat 'veterans' campaign to 'prove' that presidential candidate John Kerry lied to get a Purple Heart come to mind. Compared to this, the Australian shenanigans are mild. And the insults by former prime minister Paul Keating (e.g. 'perfumed gigolo', 'feral abacus', 'like being attached by warmed lettuce', 'a political carcass with a coat and tie on') seem almost endearing.
Complain about this comment
I blame the media. I find myself more and more identifying with Hunter S Thompson's "high pitched chattering whine" and can see fear and loathing writ large over pretty much everything in our press.
I cannot stand and have swiched off pretty much all mainstream news press, radio or television. We had for eleven years a media culture of fat chooks fed from the benevolent hand of a thankful federal government - happy to allow access to its sage leaders in exchange for promoting the desired sound bite. Make 'em scared, they'll vote for us if we sound tough. Large print dissections of the other team's failings... small page 13 articles about ours, if you please. Heaping praise for a 20bn surplus (its YOUR money, people!!! 20bn surplus = 20bn too much tax... unless you read/watch/listen to the embedded reporters in the political war) gained by refusing to invest in infrastructure or health or education - three things that cant be tied to favourable voters, everyone benefits from this expenditure. It has no political cache, and thus was not done. Compare with tax cuts for high end earners, family payments to single income households with a stay-at-home carer (WHO can afford this??? Oh yeah.. high end earners who just got a tax cut.. and usually vote for our side), abolition of indigenous services & cutting tertiary education spending by 1 billion.
Then the nation decided en masse that they dont care what the embedded reporters say, they'll elect the other guys. And now those reporters have lost the ears of the mighty - and are screaming and squealing and clambering to promote a return to their favoured leaders.
The press hated Rudd - oh yes they did and disbelieve any who say otherwise - and now he's gone. Kah-loo kah-lay how happy were they - except that now they dont have Rudd the person to skewer... they'll have to support ham fisted backwards liberal policy if they want their press club all stars back in the drivers seat, heading flat out in reverse to a better yesterday for the future..
Complain about this comment
Can anyone recall seeing, as the heading of an ABC blog, the heading:
The British Ugliness....1 and 2....
In previous blogs Stirling has complained of critical comments about Brits made by Aussies in London.
Yet Nick, who is a visitor to Australia, from Britain, can make such a public statement.
The media indeed....
Complain about this comment
Good analysis, Nick, I think with 1 missing element in your comparison with the Anglosphere,..... compulsory voting
We all vote
Sometime in the next few months the Federal government has to go to the polls and face the whole electorate. Not just the Labor/Coalition party faithful, the political junkies, but the disaffected, the folk who feel they 'voted for Rudd', the people who couldn't give a damn who leads the country...
It puts an added pressure on Australian politics that you don't get so much elsewhere and creates a sense of urgency in a government which is dropping in popularity and with an election looming
I'm also not sure that the 3 year cycle means much, NSW has a fixed 4 year cycle and has had 2 changes of leader, are widely viewed as incompetent and corrupt and are limping to what looks like a defeat at the polls.
Also that it means only short term planning compared with overseas experience in the rest of the Anglosphere - it all looks like short term planning, if any planning at all.
I think Rudd's problen was that he was perceived not to deliver on his plans. The electorate here, given the whole electorate votes, is likely less forgiving of that than elsewhere
Complain about this comment
Interesting comments Nick.
As a pom who's lived in Oz for 10 years I don't know that the brutality of politics is so different here than in the UK. The Conservatives were quite happy to skewer their three-times elected PM once it became clear she would not renounce her commitment to the Poll Tax. Similarly three Conservative leaders were dumped in quick fashion in the 2000s.
One of the problems here is the narrow focus of political commentary: so many of the opinion writers have similar views (of a right wing, somewhat "combative" style lacking in a great deal of intellectual depth). Once they all lurch off in the same direction, buffered by like minds in blogs and on "talkback" (whine back would be a better description), the political world appears unable to mount any half way sensible and decent response. Instead politicians view these half-baked rants as "opinion" to be carried, even if the views are inhumane, ill-informed or just plain wrong. As has been said earlier, 3 yearly elections place governments in election mode for far too long and do not give them enough time to really plan ahead. However, I am not convinced that many of them have the depth of either conviction or intellect to really sustain and "sell" a long-term policy: it's all short-term and it's all "focus on the marginals".
One other thing: please don't refer to the idea of split personality as "schizophrenic". I know it's a common use of the term but it's basically wrong and continues to mislabel people with schizophrenia as having some kind of "Jekyll and Hyde" character - which is not the case. (www.sane.org gives fuller details on this).
Complain about this comment
Keating's letter to Hawke today in the Australian!
Extracts from Mandelson's memoir of the Blair-Brown divide!
It's all gone feral, I tell you.
Complain about this comment
Err do remember it's an election yr.
And Ruddy did mess-up on the mining tax, carbon emissions and immigration (legal and illegal. And what gd did speaking Mandarin do for the Rio Tinto executives?
He had a gd wind behind him which he tot was due to him. Other Labour leaders knew better.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
Kenny64 mentioned that US politics is not being pulled to the center, and I agree with that (#7). Partisan politics is alive and well in the US, and it seems to be growing stronger. If President Obama's label of the Republicans as "the party of 'no'" is in any way accurate, it's a sign of partisanship.
Thanks for the interesting blog, I enjoy reading your perspective (and posters' perspectives) on Australian life/politics.
Regards
Complain about this comment
Nick,
Rather than looking down on AUS & AUS politics from a lofty perch, perhaps the Anglo-sphere & your good self could learn something valuable from what happens here.
Like others have pointed out above, the Anglo-sphere seems to be in a bit of bother comparatively.
"3. At 2:46pm on 14 Jul 2010, Greg Warner wrote:"
Spot on, Greg!
Complain about this comment
Nick,
This comment is good insight. If only the local yokels could see it as well. It has been around a long time in Australian politics - just ask John Hewson or even (once Gov. General) Bill Hayden what it felt like. It is not limited to Rudd. But making matters worse, it has crept into much of Australian life - and public service. Like Bren54 mentioned, as an expat who has been abroad for a long time, it is easier to recognise the "changes", but for those "insiders", unless willing to critically evaluate what is going on, the comments will only be heard as "whinging and complaining".
Complain about this comment
Generally Australians loathe, or at least have an instinctive mistrust of all politicians. Unless of course some foreign reporter seems to be casting aspersions on Australia's own...or the Australian way of doing things.
Complain about this comment
#16
I think Malcolm, the issue is that long term 'expats' may once have had a connection with Australia but that's an Australia of the past.
So what might seem like a critique of current Australian issues to the ..er...local yokels...is often unintelligible
Complain about this comment
We have this strange thing called "perspective" wollemi.
I'm back in Australia at least twice a year, talk to Australian relatives, friends and colleagues constantly who are affected by all these issues and get round more different places and people in Australia than most Australians I know when I'm there.
It could be that your stereotype of "expats" is what is stuck in the past
Complain about this comment
Partisan schmartisan. There is little to choose between the two main parties. Leaders are spinelessly removed when they threaten the bipartisan consensus on sacred cows such as mining, climate and being America's BFF.
Complain about this comment
#19
Bren54
No stereotyping. I was offering Malcolm a different explanation for the response which he described #16
I think for some long tern expats - Nick mentioned Greer above, - there comes a point when they're not going to return to live in Australia and it's better off for all if they acculturate to their preferred homeland,
Complain about this comment
Great Blog Nick. I agree that an extraordinary feature of Aussie politics is the vicious public infighting that goes on within parties as opposed to between parties. Far worse than the Federal scene is that in NSW. Bob Carr was one of the best political leaders Australia has ever produced. He led a stable and successful government for 10 years until 2005. Smart, tough, pragmatic and the sort of guy many would like as a friend. Many hoped he would move to the Federal level and were sorry he didn’t. Compared to him, the likes of Latham and Rudd are political blowflies.
The NSW ALP is now riddled with sleaze, e.g. Tripodi, Della Bosca, Meagher, etc. I was in OZ when Meagher’s official driver ran up a huge overtime bill after she neglected to tell him to take off during a party for her journo squeeze and their night of bliss that followed. She combined arrogance and incompetence and was a disaster as the Health Minister. Unfortunately the NSW Liberal opposition politicians seem engaged in a race the bottom with their ALP opponents.
Overal, I don’t entirely accept your comparisons with the USA and UK scenes. Political infighting is alive and well in both countries but is conducted in a less public manner. Does that means it’s any less vicious and bitter? I’m not sure it does. Some quotes to bear in mind:
Aneurin Bevan (UK Labour Party) – ‘Politics is a blood sport’
Jim Callaghan (UK Labour Prime Minister) – ‘The first priority of a politician is to get elected, the second is to stay elected’
Bob Dole (US Republican Senator) – ‘If you want a friend in Washington, get yourself a dog.’
I agree with those who say that three year electoral terms are too short. The two year term for US Members of Congress is even worse. A four or even five year fixed term makes more sense. With short terms, politicians remained focussed more on doing whatever they think necessary to win the next election rather than providing sound public leadership and management. Furthermore, elections are expensive exercises and the funds saved could be returned to the taxpayers or better spent elsewhere.
I’m also concerned about the increasing presence of professional politicians. The scenario is familiar: a good university degree; followed by a brief period with jobs in the media, consultancies or think tanks; entry into a political party as a researcher and/or adviser; and making the right contacts to eventually be nominated as a candidate in elections until successfully elected to a safe seat. Reba Meagher is a classic example of this. Ditto for Cameron and Clegg who even look alike and talk alike. David Milliband is in the same mould. Competent people maybe, but how representative are they of the populace at large and should there be so many of their ilk in the body politic?
Finally Nick, I see your use of the term ‘Anglo-sphere’ seems to have upset the ‘thin skins’ on the ‘whinge fringe’. I’m sure that most Aussies know you mean Australia, USA, Canada, NZ and UK and that you are not trying to subvert the precious Aussie identity. If you had used a phrase such as: ‘predominantly white, English speaking democracies’ those same clowns would have been getting their knickers in knots on this site for days on end.
Complain about this comment
21 wollemi
What you really mean is that it makes you, 11pete11 and others on the whinge fringe feel better. I’m not a big fan of Greer but if she’s still an Aussie citizen, she can come and go as he likes and say what she likes when she’s in OZ. If you disagree with her, you can contest her views of ignore her.
If Greer has problems maybe it's because she's acculturated in many places, with many people and in many positions.
Complain about this comment
Greg: "There are far more problems in the UK and the USA than in Australia. Perhaps we are doing something right"
11Pete11: "Can anyone recall seeing, as the heading of an ABC blog, the heading:
The British Ugliness....1 and 2....
In previous blogs Stirling has complained of critical comments about Brits made by Aussies in London.
Yet Nick, who is a visitor to Australia, from Britain, can make such a public statement.
The media indeed...."
Andy T: "Nick,
Rather than looking down on AUS & AUS politics from a lofty perch, perhaps the Anglo-sphere & your good self could learn something valuable from what happens here.
Like others have pointed out above, the Anglo-sphere seems to be in a bit of bother comparatively"
Wollemi: "I think Malcolm, the issue is that long term 'expats' may once have had a connection with Australia but that's an Australia of the past"
Well boys, you're certainly making a concerted effort to restrict who may and may not offer their opinions here. What is it down to now? 4th gen Aussies who have never lived abroad?
The typical defensive response of 'let's focus on Britain's problems instead' and the attempt to dismiss Nick's piece based on his nationality has predictably materialised, again.
I know I get criticised here for my general perspective, but seriously, if there weren't people like me here, it would just be a group of partizans patting each other on the back and agreeing that there are no problems with Aus, and ensuring Nick knows his comments, while permitted and acknowledged, are firmly second class.
I do have a question, however. Where were the comments about Nick and his 'Anglosphere' when he wrote about Geoffrey Gurrumul Yunupingu? You weren't so keen to focus on Britain then. Why not? Are foreigners allowed to praise you? Is it just comments with a vague aroma of criticism that get your backs up? Greg, you weren't looking to raise the subject of British singers, in that blog. Why not?
Complain about this comment
#23
Greer has not 'acculturated in many places, with many people and in many positions' Peter She is a self described anarchist.
You've also misinterpreted what I meant -it's what she says about Britain, not about Australia. On this I agree with stirling - you don't behave offensively to the country where you choose to live,
Don't take this as a 'whinge' but it is getting away from Nick's topic
Complain about this comment
24 stirling222 wrote: "Well boys, you're certainly making a concerted effort to restrict who may and may not offer their opinions here."
Don't you know the difference between having an opinion in opposition to yours, and 'making a concerted effort to restrict"?
Complain about this comment
"Any audit of Australian politics right now surely takes on the feel and stench of a triage, a sifting of the wounded and slain. For to describe the bush capital as a killing field not only makes for an apt headline but half-decent analysis"
Half-decent would be a pretty generous way to describe that 'analysis'. Try 'overblown' or 'cliched'. While Rudd's departure was unprecedented in many ways (it was his first term, other PMs had done worse in the polls without being challenged), there's nothing novel or particularly savage about unsuccessful oppositions getting rid of leaders quickly. As for the relative civility of politics in the US or UK, well, I think you'd have to give that flip judgement a bit of time.
Complain about this comment
"24. At 12:09pm on 15 Jul 2010, stirling222 wrote:
Well boys, you're certainly making a concerted effort to restrict who may and may not offer their opinions here. What is it down to now? 4th gen Aussies who have never lived abroad?"
FWIW, personally (as I don't know about the others you mention) I HAVE lived abroad (substantially) in the UK, mainland Europe, North America & Asia, so maybe I don't qualify as YOUR typical "4th gen Aussies who have never lived abroad".
If Nick wishes to put his opinion in such a fashion on a blog, then he (and his supporters) should accept equally-valid contrary opinions. Or are you suggesting WE shouldn't be able to express OUR different opinions?
Complain about this comment
11pete11: "Don't you know the difference between having an opinion in opposition to yours, and 'making a concerted effort to restrict"?"
Yes, Pete, I do. But you've made it clear you don't believe opinions from non-Australians should be paid any heed, at all, and your reaction to these opinions is invariably defensive and ocassionally aggressive. I have never read a comment from you that takes an objective viewpoint on any subject Nick writes about.
My own opinion is that politicians such as David Cameron are a disgrace, and I hate the way they deliberately set out to scare and depress the public in an attempt to paint themselves as some sort of potential saviour. I don't see British politics as setting any kind of example.
However, that does not mean I shouldn't be allowed to criticise the system in your country. I live in a free society and am perfectly entitled to express my feelings without having them thrown back in my face, or dismissed as those of an ignorant foreigner, simply because of my nationality.
Why are you and the others so reluctant to talk about potential flaws in your political system with anyone who isn't an Australian living in Australia? You can't even admit to there being any potential problem. Are you aware one of the major criticisms of George Bush and his cabinet was that he refused any input from anyone who didn't already agree with him 100%?
I see little difference between him and you.
Complain about this comment
No Andy, I think you should be expressing your opinions on the SUBJECT, but most opinions from Aussies here, so far, are based on attacking Nick's country and the problems IT is experiencing. Do you deny your post #15 starts with a defensive sneer (lofty perch) before moving on to a gloating tone when you raise Britain's issues?
At what point - I really want you to tell me - does your post express any opinion on the topic Nick raised?
Complain about this comment
#24 stirling222 wrote:
"Is it just comments with a vague aroma of criticism that get your backs up? Greg, you weren't looking to raise the subject of British singers, in that blog. Why not"?
Hi Stirling...I've spent the whole day working and bashing this keyboard ...but thought I'd come in here for a look see.
Will come back on some other issues you raised but for now...YES, comments with a "vague aroma of critiscism" get MY back up...as well as anything that smacks of pomposity, didacticism and incomprehension of the 21st Century informed Australian psyche and aspirations.
Meanwhile, regarding Nick's blog about Geoffrey Gurrumul Yunupingu, I did manage to squeeze in the comment that I thought his voice and presentation is sublime, but I spent much of that blog fending off the unseemly attack by AllenT2 on Nick's use of the word "indigenous"...I also see you have the odd fracas with him too...good on you : )
British singers?
My God, I was raised on them!
Consider this from Fairport Convention..."Away with the buff and the blue, Away with the cap and feather, I'm off to see my lass who lives in Hexamshire, Her father lovers her well, Her mothers loves her dearer, I love her better than the both but man I can't get near her" : )
Still one of my all time favourites.
I was 13 years old when The Beatles sang "I want to hold your hand"...ah puberty...when I could get "no satisfaction" Mick just happened to sing it : )
But tell me, what did you expect when Nick wrote that blog?
That somehow posters should have changed the subject to swing it back to an appreciation of British singers?
Such as...Ruby Murray?
God bless you Stirling...you'll be a Beefeater at the Tower one day I'm sure.
Complain about this comment
31 Greg Warner
“YES, comments with a "vague aroma of critiscism" get MY back up...as well as anything that smacks of pomposity, didacticism and incomprehension of the 21st Century informed Australian psyche and aspirations.”
Mate, this is very heavy duty stuff. On the other hand, could it be just a bunch of BS? Do you really mean what you say? Do you even understand what you say?
Complain about this comment
Boyd described his fellow countrymen and women as "cruel but kind", but I saw nothing kind (or even understanding) about Rudd’s “booting”.
On the world stage, Rudd was President Obama's “best pal”; yet, when Obama could have helped, he twice cancelled visits. I wonder what Mr. Rudd that about these cancellations and his “good pal” President Obama.
From where I sit, the best of the best Australian politicians are gone. I wonder how the Australian public feels about that, or if they care, being such American sheep that they believe a total shift in power will solve all problems tomorrow, if not tonight.
Barack Obama's approval ratings are slipping, but the western media spins the ratings as it spins everything else. Sometimes I think, the media run the country, but that would be wrong. This honour belongs to corporate America – the Wall Street boys as you can tell from the latest financial reforms coming out of the United States, which are no reforms at all.
Australian professional politicians may have become more intensely partisan but I beg to disagree that this is not lock-step with Britain and The United States. In the United States you have Republicans bad-mouthing Democrats and Democrats bad-mouthing Republicans and the huge topic of conversation is can the Republicans outseat the Democrats in the next round of voting. In the UK, what was mostly desired was the unseating of Gordon Brown & Labour. As for any good ideas Brown & Labour might have had, well...there goes the baby with the bathwater.
It seems people tend to believe: change the Government, change the economy.
It must be sad to boot politicians, thinking your world will change, and subsequently wake to the same-old world with the same-old economy...or maybe worse. I believe Australia is worse off with Julia Gillard’s sell-out to the big mining interests. Further, she doesn’t seem to realize what she has done - almost like prostituting Australia’s land and resources.
The Australian Ugliness was primarily a book about ugly architecture and aping the United States; I guess you could say Australia is still aping the United States – in Afghanistan, in foreign policy…
If I had replaced Rudd, I would’ve handed him back the job acknowledging his experience and his right to at least full time in office. I would have encouraged him to realize that the United States was perhaps not the best friend to Australia. I would have most certainly left the mining provisions alone.
Do not kid yourself. I'd counter-suggest that American politics has more (worse) cannibalistic fury that Australian politics has right now.
Boyd rallied against Australia's promotion of ornament, decorative approach to design and slavish imitation of all things American; well, Australia has finally reached the culmination of politcal slavery to all things American, but this is not where Australia should be. She belongs in Asia; her future is in Asia..
'The basis of the Australian ugliness,'Boyd wrote, 'is an unwillingness to be committed on the level of ideas.” That’s right on! Australians are bright and innovative and should be in a fury to unlock their lock-step with the Americans and get on with Australian ventures.
Complain about this comment
Greg, that's not what I meant. My point was that if someone is praising Australia you (and the majority of your compatriots) are happy to lap it up, yet if comments are questioning Australia somehow, you don't appear able to consider the point they raise, only hit back immediately with an attack on the country of that person. I don't think Nick - a BBC journalist - is just having a pop at Aussies.
I genuinely (honestly) don't mean the following to sound patronising or condecending, although I accept most people here will not be able to see that, but I (me, not all Britons) regard this attitude as an indicator of an immature society.
You see, due to the Empire (regularly thrown at us in discussions) and our contribution to the most popular sports, the British - the English in particular - are regularly told by anyone and everyone what is wrong with our culture, society and country. We don't request the denigration but it comes anyway. If the points made are valid*, people generally look abroad, and if an aspect of another culture looks preferable to what is happening here, it is accepted and questions are raised about what we can do about it. Of course there are exceptions, as the pig-ignorant exist in every culture, but generally this is the case.
As I stated above, I don't imagine Nick was looking to do you down, he was giving you the chance to discuss a potential issue in Australian politics, and helping you compare the way it done in your country to the way things happen in comparable countries.
An inability to acknowledge positives in other societies that your own could take something from is not a positive trait, more a weakness. It seems sometimes that too many Australians love their country like a child loves his mother: unconditionally with no tolerance for anything but positive observations from anyone else. Should he encounter someone who doesn't share his love, he becomes instantly defensive, aggressive and unable to debate coherently.
*You may have noticed from my posts I regard a good percentage of the points made to be notable only for the absence of any validity - just insulting and often vitriolic. That tends to get our backs up, too!
Complain about this comment
#15 Andy T:
Thanks Andy T.
#32 At 3:41pm on 15 Jul 2010, PeterD wrote:
"Mate, this is very heavy duty stuff. On the other hand, could it be just a bunch of BS? Do you really mean what you say? Do you even understand what you say"?
Are you into psyops mode again Peter? Couldn't your questions be asked of you? Do you have "benefit of the doubt" in Canada?
#30 stirling222:
I know you have written about the Australians you have encountered in London who "rabbit on" about how great things are in Oztraylia...and I feel sorry for you...yes, people like that can be incredibly boring.
As I have mentioned before, I have travelled to and lived in many parts of the world, and quite often I too am embarrassed by some of my countrymen.
However, I am sure such behaviour applies to all nationalities, especially in the young...far from home, lonely, unfamiliar surroundings etc...the best approach IMHO is to look on with a wry smile and a tad of compassion.
However, moving on to "ugliness", and noting BluesBerry's comments above (thank you BluesBerry) regarding architecture and the slavish copying of Americana, I would like to return to concepts of "ugly/beauty" from the British and Australian perspective.
Understanding the "beauty" of Australia requires a different eye, for Australian beauty is unlike British beauty - neither one is better, they are just, well, different.
Let me quote if I may from an Australia poem published a little over 100 years ago..."My Country" by Dorothea Mackellar.
This poem is taught in Australian schools to boys and girls in their early teens, but while most Aussies can quote the words that begin the second verse..."I love a sunburnt country, a land of sweeping plains, Of ragged mountain ranges, of droughts and flooding rains"...the words of the first verse are often overlooked.
They read..."The love of field and coppice, of green and shaded lanes, Of ordered woods and gardens is running in your veins, Strong love of grey-blue distance, brown streams and soft, dim skies - I know but cannot share it, my love is otherwise".
Mackellar expressed (while staying in Britain and quite homesick) what every Australian feels about the Australian landscape when compared to the British landscape...it is just so very different, so compelling, so much a part of the Australian soul.
As you may love your "ordered woods and gardens" we love our "sunburnt country".
We are different, but as I am sure you know from my posts, I for one enjoy that difference, enjoy our two peoples and our different perspectives on life.
As far as the "ugly" side of politics go, has it ever been different?
The same children who are learning the words of Dorothea Mackellar are also discovering Shakespeare..."Et tu Julia?"
No togae, no blood, no knives falling in slow motion, clattering on the marble of the Senate floor, just life and politics Australian style.
As Mackellar also wrote..."a wilful, lavish land"...
Bring on the election...this is going to be fun!
Complain about this comment
29 stirling222: Nearly all of your early posts involved you initiating criticism of my posts. That is, I posted a point of view, and then you attacked it. You mostly took what I said out of context, and basically put words in my mouth..er...text.
I retaliated to your attacks on me, and now you're saying "But you've made it clear you don't believe opinions from non-Australians should be paid any heed, at all, and your reaction to these opinions is invariably defensive and ocassionally aggressive."
You can't ankle bite a person without expecting to receive a kick. Not that I'm suggesting violence is justified here...but that if you start aggression on another....FIRST....they you must be prepared to receive their reaction.
Complain about this comment
Bluesberry:
You know very well that President Obama canceled the visits because of the BP oil spill. Rudd and the internal workings of the party and their patrons were the forces that caused the change. Blaming outside nations for internal political deals is not something reliable. Political allies mean very little these days as big business and banking have run everything and we all now live with the results. The stalled global economy based on the short-term profits demanded by investors and the banks willingness to gamble away individual retirements has created an economic crisis. I do not see a single country that has offered a resaonable solution and in fact they are all relying on the very people who created the problem to solve it...they of course are proposing the same instruments that caused the problem. The thieves have robbed the house and now want to sell you back what they took at a higher value but will loan you the money with interest. This is current economic theory. There are times in history when the people are faced with the fact that we are not as smart as we think we are and that our politicians are simply bad stage acts paid by the man who owns the theater.
Complain about this comment
Greg, I looked up that poem and think it's brilliant. It would make me sick to think of people being forced to share the ideals of others in an oppressive way, even though I know it happens all the time. This looks like not only a great poem, but also I imagine also represents an important stage in Australia's history. Interestingly enough, and quite aptly, It's also a poem I personally can relate to.
'Best beaches in the world' is probably a cliche you've heard and likely used when discussing Australia's positive features, and it came up once during a conversation with a group of old colleagues (English, Australian and S. African). Being a Geordie, many of our family holidays were taken on the Northumbrian coast where we would enjoy the outdoors, run our whippets (Geordie stereotype) up and down the beaches (Bamburgh, Embleton and Dunstanburgh) and, though I didn't appreciate it fully at the time, enjoy my halcyon days. Nowadays I prefer to just walk, admire the breath-taking views of the castles right on the coast and imagine the history, but they are still my favourite beaches in the world. A concept some of my colleagues were unable to grasp, to say the least. Image search them, see if you can grasp it. 40c and clear blue seas aren't the be all and end all.
So while telling the British to eff off and being liberated enough to love your own country, and be proud without restriction was vital, I would suggest the liberation has gone as far as it needs to now, because from my angle it has become more of a tendency to put down and belittle other countries' virtues. It also gives the impression of having something to prove.
Pete, I said "But you've made it clear you don't believe opinions from non-Australians should be paid any heed" because that's what you've done, intentionally or not. I imagine if you asked any other regular contributor to this blog their opinions, they'd sympathise with my viewpoint.
Complain about this comment
On the face of it, I'm not really concerned about comparing the political environment in Australia with the US or UK, although I do agree that the bipartisan arrangement in the UK that came out of the last election there is quite a contrast. Can't really see that happening here, can you?
But what does concern me is the complacency here about the prime minister merry go around. Actually, some parts of the community appear to encourage it. I mean, even without looking overseas I can see we've got a problem in the system - can't you?
And its not a question of trusting or not trusting the politicians, or blaming the personalities currently involved. They have simply evolved to succeed in that political environment. For example, I recently heard straight from the mouth of an ex-Aussie politician that the system here is ugly compared to what they had seen overseas in other Westminister based systems. So are we just getting what we deserve?
The whole situation is very tiresome.
Complain about this comment
Spot on analysis Nick.
Most of my mates here see politics as a bit like the Ford or Holden question! A tribal and automatic response to what matters in life.
I don't blame them though, when you see what clowns we have to endure here in Perth...take Troy Buswell (somebody please!) The guy's a male chauvinist dinosaur, and therefore an automatic 'good bloke' with the voting members of the above tribe.
Politics in OZ is shameless and run by sinister backroom boys from the unions. Gillard is a puppet and Rudd was stabbed in the back in my humble opinion. The parallels with the UK are scary... Come to think about it, a lot of UK union thugs are alive and well here too. You'd think we'd learn from their mistakes?
Complain about this comment
I don't know where to write this so I'm writing it here. I absolutely hate the new BBC website look.Nick can you please give some feedback to whoever it is that is "in charge"?
Complain about this comment
38 stirling222 wrote: "Pete, I said "But you've made it clear you don't believe opinions from non-Australians should be paid any heed" because that's what you've done, intentionally or not. I imagine if you asked any other regular contributor to this blog their opinions, they'd sympathise with my viewpoint."
I have repeated stated that I "don't believe opinions from non-Australians should be paid any heed" when they are written by non-Australians, particularly Brits, about Australia with little to know knowledge of us and our country.
Had you written more beautiful descriptions, as above, of the Britain you know, instead of bagging an Australian, and an Australia you don't, you'd earn a lot more accolades, certainly from me.
Complain about this comment
"30. At 3:01pm on 15 Jul 2010, stirling222 wrote:
No Andy, I think you should be expressing your opinions on the SUBJECT, but most opinions from Aussies here, so far, are based on attacking Nick's country and the problems IT is experiencing. Do you deny your post #15 starts with a defensive sneer (lofty perch) before moving on to a gloating tone when you raise Britain's issues?"
Rose cloured glasses, mate. The blog's title "The Australian Ugliness (2)" isn't pejorative to start?
How about "Certainly, the brutopia of Rudd's departure adds to the sense that Australia is out of kilter with the rest of the political Anglo-sphere" showing a lacking of understanding how different AUS is to all things Anglo, and why should we NOT be so?
"At what point - I really want you to tell me - does your post express any opinion on the topic Nick raised?" You must have missed my "Spot on Greg" in confirming (from my Aussie perspective) that Greg's post #3 was (in my opinion) an accurate reflection of the real situation, wrt the subject matter of Nick's topic.
Complain about this comment
Why does Nick Bryant always look so upset?
Is there anyone out there who could give Mr. Bryant a hug?
Complain about this comment
#38 stirling222:
Your description of the beaches where you spent such halcyon days in your childhood, and which you still visit, sounds exquisitely beautiful to this old beach boy's eye.
I think I mentioned my Scottish ancestry at one point, but there's more to the story...on my father's side I am a mix of Scottish and German, on my mother's, Irish and Polish...and there must be something in my DNA that adores the beach in winter...North and Baltic Seas, Atlantic Ocean...sand dunes swept by cold winds, grey skies and water, gulls and terns buffeted, pale sun shining.
My spiritual home in Australia is Sydney's northern beaches, Whale and Palm, beautiful in summer but gorgeous in winter in that grey and bleak way I describe above, yet with the might of the Pacific rollers flinging salt spray into the air, further filtering the weak sun.
And as to people, and different kinds of people, at some stage a couple of decades ago, someone painted a white line across one of the roads leading to Whale Beach and the words, "Westies go home"...those "westies" being people from Sydney's western suburbs, Sydney's great urban sprawl, land of the too high mortgage and the swinging voter.
I don't agree with the painted line and the words on the road which I describe above, but mention it as an example of loving something that other people perhaps do not appreciate, and wanting to preserve that that thing against "philistines" wherever they come from.
To Nick Bryant...appreciate the update.
Just one thing though...Obama's partisan politics have already seen sitting Republicans lose out in the primary process for being seen to be too partisan, as well as the rise of the Tea Party...and Palinism.
In the UK, I believe Cameron and Clegg's partisan plan for the referendum on voting slated for next May is still not a done deal.
Isn't that plan meant to go to a personal vote in the Commons?...or have I missed something on that matter in the past few weeks?
Hope a poster or two could update me on that.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Ha ha! Love it! My post gets removed because it apparently is a personal attack. Wow, some of you have no sense of humour, eh?
Complain about this comment
Moving on...to the upcoming election...this is something that really should be on the agenda, especially if you are a businessman or woman.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/libs-pose-threat-to-competition/story-e6frg6zo-1225892366837
Not too much partisan politics here!
Complain about this comment
True that the Austrlian politicians have generally become tribalistic, clannish and intesely clannish.Frequent change of leaders does not augur well for democracy, and a Australia needs to entrench democracy in its social system. Australian democracy cannot be as mature, stable and resilient as American or Brtish democracy within a decade or so. After all the years also know, and Australaia needs somme years.But the good sign is that despite the musical chair for leadership,the country's rule of law is quite satisfactory.Citizens do have their fundamental rights.The country can acquire the other virtues of the Westminster democracy with the passage of time.
The good news is that a new cadre of politicians who are emerging find Australian politcs "rather tiresome , conterproductive and ugly". Such sense of discomfort and unease will impel them to take to reforming the Australian political system . This will eventually make Australia one of the best democracies in the world.
Complain about this comment
#49
Ahsan
You cannot speak of a democracy whilst 50% of the population - women - do not have the vote
As Australia was the second nation to give women the vote (NZ was the first) it is an older, more 'mature, stable and resilient' democracy than other countries
Complain about this comment
re the update, Nick
I think I would like to see what happens with the 'new cadre of politicians' emerging in the US and the swing away from 'partisan politics' over time before comparisons are made with the local scene. Ditto the current coalition in UK politics
Particularly as it's still very early in the election cycle in both these countries
The guess is here that we go to the polls on August 28
Complain about this comment
Compulsory voting? Wolliemi when will you and the vast bulk of the Australian population learn that we DO NOT have any such thing! We have compulsory attendance at the polling booth..you are NOT forced to vote by anyone!
Complain about this comment
Patrick
That's not the issue with compulsory voting - the Parties have no foreknowledge of who is going to spoil their vote at the booths and who is not.
In other words - policies have to appeal to the whole electorate, hence the pork barrelling pre election. We should see plenty of that before August 28
Complain about this comment
I see 11pete11 is still pommy bashing and Greg Warner still cheery picking his news articles, not to mention how the two combine in an assault of epic posts that are so boring to the point they are illegible.
Complain about this comment
54 nick01 wrote: "I see 11pete11 is still pommy bashing and Greg Warner still cheery picking his news articles, not to mention how the two combine in an assault of epic posts that are so boring to the point they are illegible."
....And the prize for the most intelligent post of the week goes to....
Sorry nick01, you weren't even nominated...keep trying...maybe next time you'll say something that people will want to read :)
Complain about this comment
52 Patrick wrote: "Compulsory voting? ..... we DO NOT have any such thing!"
Yes we do. It compulsory by law to vote in ALL elections in Australia.
However until recent times it has been impossible to enforce such a law without breaking another law, namely to allow a person to vote secretly.
However if we were to introduce voting machines, as they have in other countries, there would be no changes to the law, and persons not voting would get a letter from the AEO asking to give reason why they didn't vote or pay a fine.
Complain about this comment
Interesting views on how the Australian political situation is viewed from a foreign correspondent living in Australia. I think the Australian media has a disproportionate influence on Australian politics in that they tend to drive the political agenda with such effect that it drags the politicians along that path i.e. they tend to create the subject of debate - even when there is no meaningful substance in their creation. For example they have been chasing Julia Gillard in relation to discussions about agreements purported to have been made with Kevin Rudd on the eve of his fall from power. Politicians, almost by definition, will have shifting positions on just about anything for infinite reasons - that is the nature of politics. Whatever these private discussions were, is of little national significance and even less of popular interest. Who cares what was discussed? The fact is that Julia Gillard is the PM. Let's get on with governing Australia - there is much to do! Yet the Australian media will peddle and push this non-story to saturation point. It is little wonder that the general Australian population is apathetic towards politics.
Complain about this comment
I've just read post number 8 from Camo - it resonates with my impression of the situation with the Australian mass media.
Complain about this comment
Rudd was selected by the ALP to be the leader. Then he was dismissed.
So what? That is how parties work. It was exactly the same in the UK with Blair and Brown, with the only exception that their deal behind closed doors lasted a decade or more. So Bryants point seems to be that the Uk is more civilized because the party makes longer term deals behind closed doors.
It seems Nick would prefer to see a nice, stable government. Perhaps a monarch! Long to reign over us, and so on and so forth.
But it seems to Nick that the low breed colonials are just too unrefined for that sort of grand civilized gesture.
Complain about this comment
democracythreat wrote: "It seems Nick would prefer to see a nice, stable government. Perhaps a monarch! Long to reign over us, and so on and so forth.
But it seems to Nick that the low breed colonials are just too unrefined for that sort of grand civilized gesture"
Yes DT, that's exactly what we all took from the piece, too! I love the way anyone from Britain is automatically assumed to be a raving royalist Hell bent on re-conquering the globe and upholding the Monarchy.
I would venture your comments speak volumes about your own insularity and insecurities.
Complain about this comment
@democracythreat
We may as well have a monarch. I don't feel particularly enfranchised by the current system, but your argument appears to be lets not change anything because we're no worse than anyone else. And even more so, if some pommie guy happens to make a critical observation (in a blog that is all about his perspective as an expat Brit living in Australia), then lets definitely not change anything. Talk about cutting off our collective nose to spite our collective face. I hope our national sporting teams never adopt that attitude.
Complain about this comment
Put me down as one of those so called "thin skinned Australians". That's because I find Nick Bryant's comments on this subject a pile of rubbish.
It's the Labor Party who elected Kevin Rudd and it's their right to throw him out. This is the way it's always been done and long may it continue. It's the way Paul Keating did it to Bob Hawke and Australia never missed a beat. Also, Kevin didn't have a problem white anting Kim Beazley and before him, Mark Latham. The phrase "live by the sword, die by the sword", springs to mind.
I suppose Nick would have Australia model itself on the British system where the Labour party didn't have the guts to get rid of Gordon Brown. Their latest election made it fairly clear that the British public would have much preferred some other Labour candidate than Gordon Brown. Unfortunately the Labour Party deigned not to give the public a more preferable and palatable candidate than Gordon Brown. May be somebody can tell me why foisting a more unpopular candidate on the electorate is more democratic than the Australian model.
As far as terms of government are concerned I find it staggering that the American model is more preferable. Even though the US has a four year term this is simplistic in the extreme. Just consider how long they spend time campaigning. For example, Barack Obama had to spend close to a year just to become the Democratic Presidential nominee. The US needs four years just to squeeze in all the campaigning. Don't even get me started on K Street and the lobbyists. For the record, Australian election campaigns are limited by legislation to six weeks. If you want to look further at four year terms I would site NSW as an example. They shouldn't be given four months let alone four years.
Complain about this comment
#54 nick01 wrote:
"Greg Warner still cheery picking his news articles..."
Nicko...assuming you meant "cherry", I feel the link provided in my post #48 gives a clear picture of the choice facing businessmen and women on August 21.
If you did mean "cheery", yes it is good news if you support Labor.
Anyone who believes the Coalition is the "party of business" should read it and they are sure to change that opinion.
Cheers.
Oh, and BTW, would you like to give YOUR opinion on the link I provided?
I mean something constructive...
Regarding "partisan" politics in the UK, interesting questions being raised in the Lords on the cost of the AV Referendum...I believe the issue will go to a personal vote in the Commons...in "the autumn".
Some interesting comments also in the UK regarding the Australian "Republic Referendum" of 10 years ago.
#59 democracythreat:
Good on you! Point well made.
Complain about this comment
Absolute Delight!
Where did all this come from? Oh that's right....more commentators than delegates at a free lunch....
My only comments at the moment are
1. that the various election cycles of local, state and federal government give us a unique perspective on decision making and the ability to give decisions at each level. Defining each choice by lockstep (date or period of term) of vote will decrease our awareness of what we decide.
2. NSW politics go from apotheosis to cataclysm with regularity
3. You have until 2000 Monday 19th july to enrol to vote.
Will browse other posts and comment at my leisure :-P
Complain about this comment
interesting to hear the make work created before the announcement of the banns...grin....how frustrating that the media has to mark time
Complain about this comment
By the way, will check Phil Mercer's quote of "tough and close" in the transipt of PM Gillards press conference. And WILL find the most appropriate avenue of recourse if this quote is incorrect. Not that it means much, but still, an Australian political party's catch phrase still resonates.
Complain about this comment
As far as I'm aware, this is a BBC employed journalist blog, written for the benefit of all but mainly for the Britsh people who are interested. Nick is British, so it's written from a British pespective.
There's another blog on European affairs, as well as US.
ALL from a British perspective and again for all, but mainly for British people.
Some Aussies need to stop being so precious when someone has a different opinion, and stop quoting war figures and providing obscure links.
Complain about this comment
Hmmm...the decision has been made... August 21.
Thought there'd be a lot more activity in here.
Also, or alas, no new update from Nick.
Again...hmmm...Nick will become the new USA BBC correspondent?
If YES...good luck Nick...go get 'em.
If NO...how about your prediction Nick on the upcoming election : )
Complain about this comment
#67 _Everton_ wrote:
"As far as I'm aware, this is a BBC employed journalist blog, written for the benefit of all but mainly for the Britsh people who are interested".
I think you should take this up with the BBC, Everton if you think the BBC is just for "mainly British people".
Not universal, not global, not all mankind embracing?
So we who are not British should confine our comments to CNN or similar GLOBAL news organisations?
I feel you should contact the BBC's marketing department and enlighten them on your opinion.
Complain about this comment
#67 _Everton_ :
Good on you! Point well made.
Although I really think it's what makes the BBC so special.
Complain about this comment
I agree that the politicians are 'Tammany Hall' but the back-room blustering has no sway in; and is unpalatable to, the electorate. This tactic seems to be more 'usual' in the Labor Party, especially in NSW where the constant change in members/ministers has presented an ineffectual and very unstable government. Now, I don't have any misconceptions that this type of thing doesn't happen in any other governments because politicians are ousted or 'resign' all the time - It's just that ours is not hidden. It makes you wonder why other things are hidden though.
I would also agree that there is a tribalistic attitude in the Australian community, much like the Ford/Holden question at Bathurst, but it is waning from highs in the Fifties, Sixties and Seventies. There are pockets of the community today, that may have previously been staunch Labour or Liberal voters; and this is sometimes almost hereditary, that won't travel to what they might consider 'The Dark Side' yet. They will however, vote Independent or Greens to register their dissent but ultimately that will be based on where that vote is preferentially funnelled.
I don't like the fact that the debate is already being lead out by vapid jingoistic slogans without much content. That the initial direction taken by both major parties is downward and we have inevitably landed at the issue of Asylum Seekers, again. Just on that... If Julia wants a UNHCR Camp in a signatory country, "Julia, you're standing in one...". I'd prefer us to be operating it than a third party gobbling our dollars and please, invest in some oversight this time.
I think this will be a campaign waged on personalities because most of the electorate feel that Tony Abbott is a bad choice and Labor WILL go there. I still don't see anything about: Renewable Energy; Climate Change; Equal Rights in the Community; Infrastructure for NSW, Vic (this has been touched on with the "sustainability" aspect but still seems a bit jingoistic). Health has suddenly disappeared off the radar.
Just a point of order @ #59 Australia is a Constitutional Monarchy and as such (for good or bad), we already have a Monarch.
Of note, Will Anderson tweeted yesterday that "Perhaps if Kevin Rudd had been moving forward (as Julia has been spouting since yesterday), he would've missed the knife in his back".
Complain about this comment
#67 Everton, please post your comment on each of the geographic blogs available on the BBC.....would love to hear howls of laughter ringing through the ethernet.....
Have never seen any official BBC comment that gives notice that its media is just for Island (and a bit) comment and that we may only make comments on sufferance.
Taxing televisions is clearly better than taxing windows..more to see...and I thank the population that chose the people that chose that.
Would have to agree on one point though, I get really bored of wading through quote wars, chips on shoulders and petty threats of complaint on comment....that boredom extends indiscriminately. It is a blog, though....
Back to the point, we have had for quite some, a period of unprecedented party political stability - states and territories for one, federal for another. That strangeness has been tipped now, Labour for federal - WA for Liberal - other states (SA and TAS) struggling for equilibrium (other states still stalling for time)
With two new leaders (not new to each other) pitting for our votes, this will be fascinating for us...and Everton - our opportunity to show you our fascination.
Nick, your claiming of coalition righteousness smacks of leaping on a wagon already on the road to Damascus. The sense of frenzy....easy feed for media sharks.....watch out! Laurie Oakes has surfaced...
Kevin Rudd is the classic case of a woodsman who mistook legs for timber and got hacked by his own axe.
Lastly, I didn't know that Manx made watches. I wonder, Everton, what they would make of your comment?
Thanks for the milestones though - Greer still stands a test of time
Complain about this comment
moving right along, tribes are and have been, always in Australia. We do club together. Something to do with landscape, no doubt. What escapes us now is scope
Complain about this comment
_Everton_ wrote:
"Some Aussies need to stop being so precious when someone has a different opinion, and stop quoting war figures and providing obscure links."
It's their country so they have every right to comment, especially when it comes to things exclusively having to do with their country where, lets face it, in the end it is none of your business.
The problem is not an exchange of ideas or opinions it is that too many Britons on this site are incapable of respectfully sharing their opinions and use such a forum as a place to express anti-Australian, not to mention their favorite, anti-American, sentiment.
There is a big difference between respectfully sharing an opinion and acting as if you, as a foreigner and non-Australian, somehow have a right to tell them how they should run their own country and lives. It boggles the mind that so many on this site and in the UK have trouble understanding and accepting something that ultimately boils down to simple respect and consideration for the people and culture of other countries.
Complain about this comment
Not anti British nor anti USA (sorry, I forgot the great white North..not) Whatever, we just are and history begets its own defenders....of these, we choose our own defenders from a black and white.
Who pressed the world first?
Complain about this comment
This is a very astute commentary on Australian politics in the 21st century.
It is regrettable that the electorate is now offered, particularly from the Labor Party candidates who have devoted their lives to politics of one kind or another. Not surprisingly often they have come from relatively privileged backgrounds, or political dynasties, albeit via the trade union movement . Generally, these days, they are university educated and have been student politicians. Similarly they have often served their time in the offices of other politicians. They have worked effectively to learn the influencing skills that politics requires. But they do not always have a talent for public policy as opposed to political machination.
Julia Gillard is a case in point. She has made no discernible good contribution to public policy or administration and since her successful coup she has stumbled clumsily over taxation, immigration and foreign policy issues in her efforts to court popular opinion. Her latest bizarre contribution is an ill-considered initiative to use the tax system to promote the purchase of school uniforms. Her plan for the future is "moving forward".
Given the paucity of talent and experience available in Government it would have been better for the Australian community if the ALP cadres had used their political skills to restrain and contain Kevin Rudd rather than resort to assassinating him in this unprecedented way.
Complain about this comment
#74 AllenT2:
Haven't always agreed with you but this time feel your words hit the mark...spot on!
Complain about this comment
This is spooky. I've fallen down Alice in Wonderland's rabbit hole. I, like Greg Warner, find myself in furious agreement with Allen2. When us three agree, you know someone's wrong. More specifically, I refer to Nick and his "Rule Britannia" cheer squad.
Complain about this comment
78 sydneycynic: Aww I s'pose I'd better agree also...don't want to be left out :)
Complain about this comment
76 reekieatb wrote: "Julia Gillard ... has made no discernible good contribution to public policy or administration ... since her successful coup
The Lib Nats had 11 years in which they did little to nothing for this country.
Nothing much was said in the media, and talkback/blogging gave Howard a clean run.
Gloria Parrot and The Golden Microphone would go into melt down if anyone dared take Howard to task on their radio shows.
Labor has been in three years, and Julia has only had three weeks, yet the media bagging and harassing has been scathing.
Assuming Julia gets elected, I think its only fair she be given half of Howard's time before we start criticising her performance.
Complain about this comment
Interesting commentary. The most important point was left till last. Australians don't get to vote for their Leaders. Despite a strange national delusion at Federal elections which seems to convince the individual and the nation that they are voting FOR a Prime Minister not a one of us here has ever cast a vote for a leader. Leaders are made and despatched by backroom intriguers. Julia Gillard and her Deputy Wayne Swan plus their faceless backroom King-makers simply shook us all out of our dream-like state for a few days and they're now intent on renewing the facade. Following this election there will be an urgent need to rectify this deficiency in Australian democracy. Australians need legislation to change the system so that at each Federal election the ballot papers include a ballot to elect the PM for the approaching term. Quite simply, if the Opposition or an outside Party win government their leader is by default the new PM. But the incumbent administration must nominate through a prior internal process a challenger. When a House Representatives ballot paper from a voter is won by the Opposition it defaults to the Opposition Leader. But when a House of Representatives ballot is won by the Government the PM ballot that was cast is tallied. The backroom boys are then kept busy intrigueing for a challenger but we the people make the final decision.
Complain about this comment
Actually I only jokingly agreed with Everton to pay Greg back for his departing quip in post #63. I think I expressed my true feelings in the same post.
However, just read the comments here. How many of these free-to-comment Australians are discussing the subject? The matter of Nick's nationality is just too much to get over for most of you.
I'm in danger of repeating myself, but I am curious as to why Nick's Brtitishness is of no concern to the majority on here when he raises a subject that portrays Australia in a positive light e.g. the indiginous singer. If you are prepared to accept complimentary opinions from him and other Britons, without questioning their motive. I don't see how it is then acceptable to condemn him for it when he raises a topic (I don't belive he even expresses an opinion) which could attract criticism for Australia.
I don't believe anyone here has said anything about Australians' right to comment on their country's issues, but I'd say I too have that right, and I also have the right not to have my nationality thrown in my face if someone disagrees with me. Most on here clearly disagree with this.
Complain about this comment
Part and parcel of a parliamentary system is that a political party (not the public) chooses its parliamentary leader and this leader becomes the PM when the party has the most seats in Parliament either on its own or as part of a coalition. This is the case in the UK (and in PeterD's beloved Canada) as well as in Australia. HarryS seems to arguing for an elected, executive presidential system. Please, please we DO NOT want an elected, executive presidential system in Australia. We DO NOT need constant fights between an elected, executive president and parliament (which usually goes under the name of Congress in such systems).
With elected, executive presidents you vote for personalities (often bad) rather than policies. The USA has a dysfunctional political system at both state and federal levels (campaigning with its attack ads and general nastiness for 3 out of every 4 years) which SHOULD NOT be a model for other countries. The US may have had Roosevelt and JFK but it also had Nixon, Johnson, Reagan and everybody's favourite George W Bush. All elected, executive presidents. And Palin may be next......(God help us if she is). The Phillipines has a similar system and most of their presidents were corrupt, same for Latin America until recently.
Australia has had 110 years of stable, federal, parliamentary, democracy (the states had 40 more years of democracy when still colonies). There have been leadership challenges for all those years and even party splits and fusions. Yet we still had political stability even in the Depression years. The UK, Canada, Ireland and New Zealand all have parliamentary systems in which political parties choose their own leaders and they have been similarly stable over the years.
Complain about this comment
May be sterling222 is reading another blog or perhaps I'm dyslexic. When the subject in question starts off with the heading "The Australian Ugliness (2)" I can assume it's not a complimentary article. When the article goes on to say Australian politics is some kind of throw back to times the UK and US left behind years ago it's a bit hard to take. When the inference is that we are some kind of backward,undemocratic and despotic country I know I'll take offence. It's even more galling when you consider the British Parliament is presently discussing the possible introduction of preferential voting. A system which is intended to be modelled on Australia's current system.
If some one wants to take pot shots at some of my fellow Australians feel free to do so. I may or may not agree with you. For example, this article makes reference to Germaine Greer. If anyone wants to have a go at her I'm sure I will heartily agree with you. A more over-rated Australian there's never been. She's like many foreign visitors who come to this country and profess to know it better than the people who live here. I like to think I treat all blow hard overseas know it alls the same. It doesn't matter to me what kind of passport they're carrying.
Sterling222 is right about me not criticizing some one who pays you a compliment. It's called good manners. Maybe sterling222, you can tell me the last time you abused someone who said something nice about you.
Complain about this comment
#84
I think Nick has been caught up in a different part of the election cycle in the US.
The mid term elections for the US Congress are due in a few months and it remains to be seen just how 'partisan' politics will be after the results are known, particularly if - as reported - there's a possibility the Democrats will lose seats, even lose their majority in the House of Representatives. Not good news for Obama
In the UK, this coalition of Conservatives/LibDems was a post election 'marriage of convenience' and has yet to be tested over the course of an election cycle. The referendum to change to AV (preferential voting) due next year will likely have the Conservatives opposed to change and the LibDems supporting the change. It's questionable of the strength of a coalition when it does not have a unified approach on such a fundamental change in politics
So....maybe the topic of comparisons should be revisited after those events
Complain about this comment
Julia Gillard has moved quickly to call a Federal Election for 21 August 2010, causing considerable excitement and comment in Australia. This will be the first Winter Election since 1969 and neither Ms Gillard nor Mr Abbott have previously fought an Election campaign as respective Party leaders. Presently, opinion polls and punters say Labor is ahead of the Liberal National Party Opposition, though one wonders how long such an early lead will last during the next gruelling and bruising five weeks of a campaign in which Ms Gillard and Mr Abbott will mercilessly batter each other. Nevertheless, one (usually highly reliable) opinion poll, conducted on 11 July 2010, found that Labor enjoys a 10 point lead - 55% to 45% two party preferred - over the conservative Coalition. Translated into Parliamentary seats, this lead would give Ms Gillard a thumping 99 seats in the 150 seat House of Representatives and Mr Abbott a paltry 48 seats, with three seats going to others. This happy circumstance for Labor and equally dispiriting one for the Opposition, in my view, is most unlikely. Of all the issues that will be canvassed in this campaign, two in particular stand out - the soundness of the economy and appropriate policy for asylum seekers. Labor's economic credentials are strong - with Australia having the highest growth rate in the OECD and a low level of unemployment. Labor, though, is vulnerable on the sensitive and complex issue of boat people - with the Opposition whipping up fears of ever-increasing numbers of refugees arriving in Australian waters and promising to "stop the boats." One wonders what the LNP will do to make good this irresponsible and unrealizable claim - use machine guns at sea or fly desperate arrivals immediately back to countries like Burma, where they face torture and death? This Election will, in fact, be hotly contested and will probably go right down to the wire. My own view - which I admit could be entirely incorrect - is that there will be an overall national electoral swing to Mr Abbott and the LNP, delivering 11 ALP seats into the hands of the Opposition. This will leave Ms Gillard still in office, but with a dramatically reduced majority of only two seats, one of the narrowest in Australian political history. Thus, in the end, I believe that Australian voters will want to punish Labor for its perceived shortcomings but at the same time will realize that Mr Abbott is even worse than the defeated Mr Howard and consequently will not vote him into government. Much is at stake and everything is now in the hands of the people.
Complain about this comment
#78 & #84 sydneycynic:
Agree...and thanks #79 11pete11 for "joining the party".
#82 stirling222 wrote:
"I am curious as to why Nick's Brtitishness is of no concern to the majority on here when he raises a subject that portrays Australia in a positive light e.g. the indiginous singer".
Stirling...let me try to get to the heart of the matter..."the indigenous singer".
There was a time when you could visit Fiji and throw coins to young boys swimming in the water who would then dive for those coins.
There was a time when men pulled rickshaws in Hong Kong and Singapore and European tourists could have their photos taken in this "quaint" scenario.
I have no problem if Nick wishes to spotlight a particularly fine example of Australia artistic talent...he does it regularly...before Geoffrey there was his blog on "A Streetcar Named Desire" with Kate Blanchette and more recently "Animal Kingdom".
All well and good...and well received...but it smacks a little at times of the coin divers of Fiji and the "quaint" oriental rickshaw men.
It is LIGHTWEIGHT when compared to Australian politics and the direction of Australia over the next three years, at least.
Everyone knows the economies of the UK and USA are a mess, with hard and harder times coming for citizens of those nations.
Australia IS doing OK...and that is what is missing in Nick's current blog.
You see, another writer may have put the point that the UK and the USA could have something to LEARN from Australia, and if anyone takes issue with what Nick has written, that is the point with which they take issue.
The fact you mention "the indigenous singer" makes me believe that is what you see Australia as capable of being...an interesting source of "world music" and not a society that has something to contribute beyond the beautiful, yet constrained, aspirations of the arts.
I am an avid reader of at least half a dozen BBC blogs...but the point I make is that I don't comment in those blogs, I read and learn...all sides... however I am not telling you or anyone how to run your lives...just sharing my perspective...in THIS blog, Nick Bryant's Australia.
How cynical am I?
Nick is in the USA...he usually likes his blogs to attract more than a 100 comments...he wrote something controversial because he is out of town.
I also get the feeling he may not be long for Australia...usually the BBC refers to Nick as their Australian correspondent but recently I saw a new name referred to in the same way...and YES I can imagine the BBC has more than one correspondent in Australia.
But from a BBC "career" perspective... where would you rather be?...Australia or the USA?
Don't get me wrong...I have really enjoyed Nick's blogs over the past year since I joined this community...he always raises interesting issues, he writes like a real pro and, personally, I always enjoy reading and analysing the comments of other posters, including those who do not agree with my opinions.
How else can I, or perhaps even we, learn?
Complain about this comment
'Abused', Sydneycynic? Are you saying that in your head raising the topic of someone's nationality is tantamount to abuse? I didn't mention abusing or criticising people who compliment you, I simply asked why Nick's nationality only becomes an issue when he raises a topic that doesn't paint Australia as wonderful.
My only point here is that we are all contributing to an international blog with people of different nationalities. Nick is British, as am I. In order to have a mature debate all members should feel free to speak their own mind without worrying about having their nationality unfairly used against them. The Australian contributors are happy to accept complimentary pieces as accurate and considered, without raising questions about the author's nationality or motive. However, when the topic is more questioning, few of the Australian contributors even attempt to address the topic, they just immediately turn on Nick because of where he was born.
I assume you regard me a member of Nick's '"Rule Britannia" cheer squad'? Is that in spite of the opinion I expressed earlier about British politics being no example for anyone, in terms of progression? You see? It makes no difference to people like you. You simply cannot see beyond a person's nationality.
No one here knows my own or any other British contributor's views on the Monarchy. But to the Autralians here, we are all staunch royalists who lament the passing of the Empire. You talk in stereotypes then express contempt for the stereotypical characters you create for the British contributors. If I were to use your debating strategy, instead of addressing criticisms of Britain, I would simply refer to your own support for hunting Aboriginals, and attempt to ridicule you for it.
Oh, and AllenT2? Please may I have your permission to quote you on your very thoughtful and mature comment "simple respect and consideration for the people and culture of other countries"? It really touched me, and coming from you, I just know it was meant in a heartfelt way with no malice or ulterior motive. It was a beautiful remark from a man who has graced the BBC blogs with his cultural wisdom and balanced viewpoint.
Complain about this comment
86 Dr Michael Vaughan: A very interesting reflection on the political theatre currently being acted out Here in Aussie. It is early days yet, and the various players are yet to find their footing.
Thought the asylum seekers subject has been popular with the press, it has yet to feature with either Abbott or Gillard. They both have too many weak spots for it to be used as a solid tool for one to use against the other.
There will be dirt flying, and contrary to Abbott's claim that it will come from Labor, I'm more inclined to see it coming from the Lib Nats.
There will be the 'Who do you trust' mantra made famous by Howard, and lampooned so well by Mike Carlton in his Friday News Review.
There will be the 'Unions are the real power behind Labor' slogans, which most Aussies know is as genuine as 'the Commies are coming, the Commies are coming.'
They will try to undersell the economy credibility of the Labor government at a time when Australia is riding high through the worst financial crisis since the great depression, by claiming it was their good management under Howard that gave Labor the surplus in the first place.
To which Labor would be wise to counter with the fact that infrastructure was ground to a halt because of this unwise inaction.
The big issue that Labor needs to address and quickly is the 'Dismissal of Rudd'.
Frankly I believe Rudd needs to wait till around the end of this coming week, or the early stages of the following week at the latest, and then to publicly kill the whole discussion as to what was said and done by who in the circumstances of his dismissal.
Rudd can't keep allowing this situation to continue if he expects his party to win the next election.
He would know, and I'm sure there are those telling him, that it is in the best interest of the party that he 'free' Julia from responsibility, including stating exactly what was said in their final meeting, in a way that neither loose face and the Labor party comes out looking reasonably clean.
The reason I believe it is best for Rudd to wait till late in the week for this declaration is it will have the Lib Nat wasting valuable time chasing a rainbow, and allowing Gillard to gain valuable ground swell support.
Of course the worse case scenario is if Rudd declares that he won't be standing.
If it is possible for this to happen at this late stage,...I am not sure when the close off date happens....the result would be devastating for Labor in Queensland in particular where there a high number of marginal seats.
I guess we will just have to wait for this week to pass to see which way this unpredictable 'train' travels.
Complain about this comment
Sterling222, I'm toying with the possibility of wasting my time responding to your latest misguided posting. So far I'm not convinced as I consider your last comments aren't worthy of a response. May be you can prove me wrong by explaining just one of your last comments. If a believable and rational response is forthcoming I'll then devote more time pulling apart the rest of your posting. My question is : "At what point did I and all other Australian posters label you and all other English people monarchists/royalists"?
While I'm waiting I'll go back to "hunting aboriginals". I won't take offence to such a comment as it's too dumb to take seriously. By the way, I don't think such a comment is dumb just because you're English. If it came out of an Australian's mouth I'd think it was dumb also.
Complain about this comment
Sydneycynic, I'm glad you find my Aboriginal hunting remark too dumb to be offensive. Maybe you'll understand why comments using WWI generals and empirical atrocities against British contributors, using terms such as ""Rule Britannia" cheer squad", and an underlying presumption you know a person's views simply because they hail from a certain country are equally dumb. You see I had to use an extreme example as there are so many generalisations on here you probably wouldn't have noticed otherwise. I am not going through the archive to seek out direct quotes, for you. Sorry, I can't be bothered.
There seems to be an underlying feeling here, in all topics, that Australia's business is Australia's business, and foreigners should mind their own. Well don't come on here to discuss it then! Talk about things on Australian sites where no one will bother you. It's not like the posters on here are likely to actually address anything in a practical way. It's all just opinions.
Oh and, by the way, it is absolutely, blindingly obvious to anyone regularly exposed to competent journalism that Nick Bryant is not expressing an opinion in this piece. He is presenting a possible view of Australian politics from an outsider's perspective. I know there is great interest in Australia in how it is perceived abroad, so I would suggest a piece using this direct style as opposed to a sterile presentation of facts, is more debate-provoking and, generally, of more interest to the average reader of BBC blogs.
Complain about this comment
Thanks sterling222. I'm glad to see you weren't able to come up with any support of your statement that all Australians believe everyone from England is a monarchist/royalist. I'll just put your comments down to your gift for hyperbole.
I've already given plenty of reasons why Nick Bryant's comments were beyond the pale. I'm not restating them now. I will however repeat the fact that my criticism of his comments are not based on any anti-Britishness on my part. If anybody made similar comments about Australia being backward and undemocratic I would take similar offence. That would include,say, a fifth generation Australian from Bullamakanka. I suggest you try and get over your anti-British paranoia.
Complain about this comment
I had the misfortune of watching Q and A on the ABC tonight. Talk about bullying and rude. A journalist for Murdock Piers Akerman, and Deputy Opposition Leader Julie Bishop, totally ran the show and the hose Tony Jones did nothing to control them.
It was a slaughter house, with Akerman, who is obviously a Liberal party member, interjecting when anyone went to say something he didn't like.
I have noticed this swing to the conservative side of politics in a number of ABC programs, including the 7.30 Report, and I wonder if they realise that they are loosing viewers at a very fast rate.
I wonder what other Aussies that may have seen tonight's program thought?
Complain about this comment
OK, SC, first off I never made reference to 'all Australians' I said 'Australians here'. Quite a difference, I think you'll agree.
So, I had a quick scoot through my good friend Pete's archive (sorry Pete, he made me) and thought this quote summed up a common attitude:
"A large number of Brits that come to Aussie still see Australia as an extension of their country. And they vote accordingly."
To be fair to Pete he does say 'a large number' rather than 'all', but if you take into account the context in which he was speaking: that these Brits are responsible for Australia retaining the Queen as your head of state, his conjecture demonstrates a common belief that a British person will automatically vote for the Monarchy.
Add to this many other comments, including your own remark about the Rule Britannia Cheer Squad, which gives away your own feelings about the British posters here, and a theme becomes evident. A British person disagrees with the likes of Wollemi, Pete and you and their comments are dismissed as those of an ignorant European or derided as the opinions of someone hankering after the good old days of the Empire.
Complain about this comment
Let me try to explain my thoughts differently. If you want Australia to be important in the World, and have influence, then you should get used to this type of article. Like I said earlier, the World and his dog spout offensive and regularly unfair pieces about Britain, the US, France, China etc and their own dealings, and few take much offence. We're used to it. Perhaps you are only used to seeing Australia in travel articles or in quality of life surveys, where the author mentions your lovely climate and sports culture, but is that all you want? I don't see many international articles about New Zealand's political system. No disrespect to the Kiwis, but you catch my drift.
Greg Warner mentioned once that, in future, he sees Australia as being a some kind of beacon for the World to follow, well if that is ever to come to fruition, a lot more questioning articles will need to be penned, first, and if you are to keep sane I suggest you develop a thicker skin and allow others to have their say, whether it's their business or not.
Complain about this comment
For the first time in 55 years and since voting at 18, thanks to Gough Whitlam, I feel sickened and ashamed by Australia.
Internationally people were stunned. Internally I felt nauseated by the superficial attitudes and mores of what Australia has become.
I am working with people with real needs as we try to free Burma and dislodge the strangled hold on silenced Tibet. I often wonder what Australian would do if they had to read more than the Daily Telegraph and go shopping!
Julia would have been the first female PM anyway. As a woman I feel sick that it happened like this. That Australians could take the likes of 'the great swinging D's' Abbot, Pyne and Hockey seriously says more about the state of the country than I feel inclined to investigate further!
Sad, sad, sad.
Complain about this comment
94 stirling222 wrote: ""A large number of Brits that come to Aussie still see Australia as an extension of their country. And they vote accordingly."
To be fair to Pete he does say 'a large number' rather than 'all', but if you take into account the context in which he was speaking: that these Brits are responsible for Australia retaining the Queen as your head of state, his conjecture demonstrates a common belief that a British person will automatically vote for the Monarchy."
But Stirling222 to see my post as relating to the monarchy shows, as I have repeatedly said, you are not looking at what I am saying.
To influence our country does not mean a Brit is necessarily a monarchist. In fact quite a few influential ex Brits are strongly opposed to the monarchy.
I'll try and give an example.
Imagine if the majority influence in England was Scottish. That Scots were more the number than any other of the English population. That doesn't mean that all Scots would favour wearing a kilt. There would be the pro kilt wearers, and the anti kilt wearers.
BUT...the whole debate on a kilt would not exist if the Scots weren't there in the first place.
The point I have tried to make concerning British influence on Australia, is that Australia never gets a chance to develop its individuality, because our migration consists mostly of those coming from Britain...pro and anti monarch...pro and anti England...pro and anti EU...pro and anti independence....etc
But we generational Aussies are no longer interested in those pro British interests; we no longer have a strong interest in those debates.
We want to offer an Australia that is a mix of ALL nations, not a representation of nations that must bow to the British influence of the past, as being the main influence of the present.
And again I repeat...to quote an old Moody Blues song...its a question of balance.
Complain about this comment
96 kerry: Er...the election hasn't been held yet. "Abbot, Pyne and Hockey" are still the Opposition. There is no need to be sickened yet. If however the Mad Monk's Mob gets in after the 21st of next month...I'll join you in being sick...
Complain about this comment
Elections seem to bring out the worst in people. Hopes and dreams dashed by the reality of the candidates and their supporters. The rethortic is different but the actions generally end up being pretty much the same. I never understand why Britain still has a monarch much less why Australia would be assoicated this directly. It is diversity that produces new ideas and results. It is good for nations to look at themselves more closely every one in awhile and make some changes. It usually spurs the nation on to greater things. The status quo never wants change.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Oh dear, I broke BBC house rules in 100.
I should have known not to mention titi monkeys, a Mexican smuggler, Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard in the one piece.
Oh well, you'll just have to guess what funny mix this could have been.
Complain about this comment
I'm not sure why I'm again bothering to respond to you Sterling222. Your last posting was based on what you imagined I said rather than what I in fact said. For example, when, pray tell, did I ever express any desire for Australia to be a significant player on the world stage. I couldn't give two hoots and I think Australia and New Zealand (which you chose to malign), could do worse than be middle powers who, in the main, sit quietly in this part of the world and mind their own business.
For once you quoted me correctly as I did say the "Rule Britannia cheer squad". You quote me in support of your earlier allegation that all Australians think all English people are "monarchists and royalists". Since when does believing in a king or a queen mean meddling in the affairs of another country. I think you're getting your words mixed up and I think you might have meant "imperialists". In this respect there are some english people who still have problems with the idea that they lost their empire a hundred years ago. These people still like to pass judgement on how Australians run their own country. These people are a small minority of the English population so don't respond by saying I'm tarring the entire population with the same brush. That is a figment of your own imagination and a symptom of your anti-British paranoia.
Finally, you seem to take exception to people like me responding to Nick's, yours and others comments. You seem to think that anything other than meek and silent submission means that we are sensitive thin skinned creatures. We should just accept your criticisms and take it as advice from an older and wiser superior. Why else would you seek to deny an Australian's right of reply. This is where the imperialism comes in. I hope you can appreciate the irony in your attitude. The article's central tenet was based on the supposed undemocratic rolling of Kevin Rudd. You however have no problem trying to restrict my freedom of speech.
Complain about this comment
Interesting link to Reserve Bank of Australia Governor Glenn Stevens' recent speech...anyone who doubts that Australian LABOR took the correct measures to keep the impact of the GFC away from Australia's shores should read it.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/higher-government-debt-unavoidable-rba-governor-glenn-stevens/story-e6frf7ko-1225894593367
Anyone who believes "yesterday's economic mantra" from Abbott, Hockey and Robb should get to grips with the economic reality of the world today.
If Labor's ability to handle Australia's economy is perceived to be in any way "ugly", we need to redefine our concepts of beauty.
Complain about this comment
Ah dear, what started out as an interesting blog and an interesting discussion has turned into a group of my fellow Australians who can't accept any form of criticism about any part of their own country, culture, or society. Even politicians and the political system, which is something that Australians themselves love to bemoan.
The Australian political system is not perfect, and the current 'goings-on' are far from impressive. I am an Australian, I'm currently on a working holiday in the UK and I have travelled a bit but I am not in the 'expat' category, I still call Australia home, etc, etc. If I need to qualify myself any further to anyone questioning the validity of my opinion as a true blue Aussie, my heritage includes a convict and a Gallipoli war veteran. So am I allowed to say you guys are acting like a bunch of muppets by telling people their opinions aren't valid because they don't live in Australia?
Sometimes I think it takes an outsider to look at things more objectively. Sure, there are nuances and every country has its issues which are multi-layered enough that you would have to have at least spent some time in Australia to have enough of a sense of the reality of the situation in order to pass really thought-provoking comment. One such issue is the treatment of, and reconciliation with, the Aboriginal people. Likewise, I am currently living in Northern Ireland, and it would be unfair for me to tell people what they should do in terms of fixing the Protestant/Catholic divide. But at the same time, I think the views of objective outsiders putting questions to the people of Northern Ireland (or the North of Ireland, if you prefer) are useful. Sometimes one can be so used to things 'the way they are' that they don't stop and see it from another perspective.
In any case, I don't see Australian politics as beyond the comprehension of an outsider any more than I would think British or American politics would be outside of the sphere for my comment.
And I don't think it's an admirable trait of the Australian character to adopt the 'we grew here, you flew here' vein of attitude in any aspect of life whatsoever. A bit of world perspective is always useful in any facet of life. The countries who become too insular and don't wish to accept any views of 'outsiders' tend to go off on weird and extreme tangents. I don't want to see my home country, which has been made so great because of all the infusion of cultures, become insular and basically a little too precious about itself!
Complain about this comment
To post a bit more on-topic, I would say that I don't think it says a lot about our political parties that they're so quick to dig the knife into their own. Australia does not directly elect its prime ministers but it would be difficult to argue that a great proportion of voters wanted 'Kevin 07' to head the country and voted accordingly in the last election. And it smacks of childishness that Gillard's excuse for usurping Rudd was that 'I told him I wasn't going to try to take his job but then he went and asked other people what they thought so I turned around and did it after all'. It's not too far from a Home and Away storyline... like omg Sharon asked Tom if he was cheating, he said like no way, she asked his friends, but Tom found out, so he decided if she was going to do that he like WOULD cheat after all just to show HER... haHA!
To bemoan Rudd for being underhanded and then praise Gillard would be somewhat hypocritical. It was all a bit too schoolyard for my liking and certainly not the way I wanted to see our first female PM come into office.
If it weren't for the fact that I loathe Tony Abbott as a human being and would rather have Chopper Read as PM than him, I would hope for Gillard to lose the next election. The irony in the ever-changing leaderships of both parties is that I might have been less certain had it been Malcolm Turnbull. I wouldn't have said I liked the guy but I didn't hold his ideals in quite the same contempt as I do Tony Abbott.
And let's be honest, with the Gillard stance on asylum seekers from the Labour mining (yes, wording intended) well into Liberal territory, it may be about voting for the lesser of the two evils.
Ah, where did the Democrats go... we need to bring back someone to "keep the b*****ds honest" and somehow I don't think the Greens are ever really going to get there, their words don't quite have the same currency...
Complain about this comment
SC: OK, mate. You appear to be deliberately misunderstanding what I am trying to say, so we'd better leave it. Although I need to address a few issues you raise.
I did not 'malign' New Zealand. I think the word you were looking for was probably 'exemplify', unless you can give me another definition of the word?
I am 34 and can't recall ever meeting anyone who even has an opinion on Britain losing its empire, never mind having a problem with it. You obviously believe there are many parents raising their children with stories about how Britain once ruled the seas, and how everything was wonderful, but in reality the only time the Empire enters people's conscious is when the likes of you use it as a way of justifying your prejudices.
I think your accusation of paranoia followed immediately by your final paragraph is either a demonstration of your sharp satirical edge or merely unintended irony. After all, who is telling who they should mind their own business? At no point in this blog or any other - unless you can point out something I've forgotten - have I expressed any desire to limit the freedom of people to post whatever they like, I simply reserve the right to criticise you for attacking the author merely on the basis of his (and now my own) nationality. You have made it clear that that is absolutely acceptable in your eyes, so, as this is an Australian subject I'd better yield to you on this one.
Finally I feel compelled to point out that despite Nick being a BBC journalist who is heavily scrutinised for partisanship and bias, and I, having never expressed any pro-British opinions on the actual subject, are having terms such as "low breed colonials" and accusations of attempting to "deny an Australian's right of reply" falsely used against us. Do these seriously sound like the comments of people without chips on their shoulders?
Complain about this comment
105 melissakp: Interesting perspective.
SO you are saying that thought it was obvious to a blind man that Labor...er not Labour by the way...would have lost the election under Rudd...not one poll had said he would have won by the way...he should still have remained leader?
Wouldn't that be the perspective of a Lib Nat supporter?
If, as all the opinions and polls of the time were saying, Labor was haemorrhaging badly, and getting worse, do you honestly believe it was in the best interest of the party to keep Kev as leader?
As to the "'I told him I wasn't going to try to take his job but then he went and asked other people what they thought so I turned around and did it after all'."
Since when did Laurie Oakes become Julia Gillard?
Complain about this comment
107 11pete11
I don't believe I really qualified an opinion about whether or not Kevin Rudd would have succeeded in getting a second term. I just don't agree with the way in which Rudd was booted, and nor do I accept the explanation. If Gillard wants to claim it was because Rudd was being underhanded, her own response to that should also be put under the magnifying glass as morally suspect. In that regard I would not be any more encouraged to vote for Gillard than I would have been to vote for Rudd. So far the discernable differences between the two are few, and I am disappointed in Gillard's stance on asylum seekers. I think it's about time politicians stopped playing on fears in order to make themselves the saviour, and I have always seen boat people as that kind of political fodder considering the reality of the number of non-genuine asylum seekers that come to our shores by sea. I'd like to see at least one of the major parties tackling this issue based on the cost to the people it helps vs the actual cost to the Australian public. There is a redneck element in our society who would probably vote for any policy to stop non-white refugees (even genuine ones) from entering Australia, even if it cost more than taking on such refugees. But I am going off on a tangent so I'll get back on track.
Whether the polls agree with me or not, I don't accept that Gillard's entry into the top job shows her in any glowing light by comparison to Rudd. And I take no joy in seeing our first female PM come to power that way. If these are the kinds of shenanigans that win the very same party a second term in office that they wouldn't have otherwise won, I think it's a shame that that brand of ugly politics actually works.
And whilst I appreciate the correction on Labor rather than Labour, I think it's a poorly veiled attempt to discredit my opinion because of one incorrect spelling. I'm sorry that I met the criteria of being Australian and then still disagreed with you, but in general I don't think my spelling or grammar point to me being someone who can be pigeonholed into the merely uneducated.
Complain about this comment
I'm not replying to you anymore Sterling222. If you can't be bothered reading my past postings I can't see any point in wasting my time. I've reached this conclusion because you still think that the only reason I disagree with Nick is because he's English. It appears as though to be English is to be infallible. I am not permitted to question his and other outsiders conclusions about Australia and it's people. Again, to do so makes me some kind of xenophobe. It looks like I'll have to move overseas before my opinions on Australia will gain any legitimacy.
Before I go I note you think I made some kind of baseless accusation with regards to your penchant for censorship. I'll draw your attention to your 91 & 95 postings. In future you'll have to do your own research into your own opinions. Your anti-Australianism is clouding your judgement and rendering this discussion unsustainable.
Complain about this comment
Allow me to clear the air here.
If we can remove your flag from the top left hand corner of ours...if we can legislate that your Queen or King is not our Queen or King...if we can legislate so that new members of the Australian Parliament and members of the Australian Army and Air Force do not have to swear allegiance to your Queen or King and their descendants...you can say what you like about Australia, the way we think, the way we do things.
But while the current situation exists, every negative comment made about Australia by those who are not her citizens, especially those who hold British citizenship stings and burns with a pain that knows no comparison.
We cannot, through our common decency and shared history, and the great attachment we bear for the British people achieve our Republic and freedom through the "usual" means, accompanied by the bark of AK47s and blast of cannon, God forbid, that is not the Australian way.
But we will not be talked down to by any man or any nation.
We will do things our way.
How pathetic of the Coalition to announce they will pull back from pursuing reform of the UN Security Council and belittle Australia's place on that world body.
Advance Australia Fair!
Complain about this comment
104,105,108 melissakp
Very good posts and well written. I believe that your opinions are far more representative of a large and often silent group of mature and intelligent Aussies than some of the twaddle that appears on this blog. Ignore the idiocy of the 'labor' - 'labour' comments. This is a recurring thing for him and is typical of the inferior stuff he proudly posts while believing that he opines on behalf of so many Aussies. Truly pathetic.
Complain about this comment
SC: "Before I go I note you think I made some kind of baseless accusation with regards to your penchant for censorship. I'll draw your attention to your 91 & 95 postings."
I read them again and have no idea what you are talking about. However, in light of your vow never to reply to me again, I'm happy to remain ignorant about my 'penchant'! Thank you.
Greg, you know I know what you are talking about, and I hope you know that I know if I were Australian I would be campaigning to change the flag and become a republic. I should, however, remind you and the others who are inclined to refer to 'the English' and 'the British', often in a mildly self-pitying way, in historical discussions, that Australia's historical mistreatment is no worse than that experienced by the overwhelming majority of British people outside the aristocracy. If you hold the belief that the British people were afforded better treatment, somehow, you are mistaken. To the aristocrats the poor are the poor are the poor, and to be used to get richer. Nationality didn't enter into it.
I could bore you about the Jarrow Crusade - of personal interest to me as my granddad was there - which only happened in 1936, or the revolting treatment of employees by the factory and land owners over centuries, but if you have any interest you can look up more articulate and better-informed pieces than I'd be capable of. All I'm saying is Australians don't have a monopoly on ancestors who suffered at the hands of unwanted rulers, and if you think I look at issues through the eyes of someone who sees his country's past dominance as entirely positive, you are very much mistaken. Being criticised is not the same as being talked down to. People here have chosen to take it as condescension.
Indeed, I believe this is probably the reason why I am absolutely intolerant of having my opinions dismissed as those of 'a Brit', and react accordingly. My comments are my opinions and I have no problem with people disagreeing with them and picking them apart. Ocassionally I even acknowledge being wrong and I change my mind (I think my girlfriend makes a note of these instances), but I live in a free society and will not be told which topics I may and may not voice my thoughts on, particularly if the reason is my nationality.
Complain about this comment
Dear Stirling,
You wrote..."Indeed, I believe this is probably the reason why I am absolutely intolerant of having my opinions dismissed as those of 'a Brit', and react accordingly. My comments are my opinions and I have no problem with people disagreeing with them and picking them apart".
Good on you my friend/nemisis...if a man's excellent and noble efforts could be descibed in one word it would have to be, STIRLING...should a Queen or King have reason to touch a sword upon a man or woman's shoulder...it must be because of a STIRLING effort.
But we Aussies reject that sword on the shoulder stuff.
We reject any concept of inherited aristocracy.
Of course we understand that nobility is a rare and splendid thing...but for us it is a facet of the individual, not the family.
My dear friend...I could not feel for your sentiments more when you write..."I could bore you about the Jarrow Crusade - of personal interest to me as my granddad was there - which only happened in 1936, or the revolting treatment of employees by the factory and land owners over centuries".
Dear Stirling...I feel we have progressed somewhat since you suggested I was an "insane Stalinist" and I challenged you to what may well have been the first "internet duel"...pistols at five paces was my call...why miss? : )
You love your Britain...but promulgate a better Britain as I see from your posts.
I love my Australia...as I have made clear in the "odd" post.
As those dear and beloved remains of our "men" were interred in the sacred soil of the Fromelles cemetry today, may I say to you...I like and respect you...long may we differ...long may we agree.
Complain about this comment
108 melissakp wrote: "If Gillard wants to claim it was because Rudd was being underhanded, her own response to that should also be put under the magnifying glass as morally suspect."
No where have I heard this as a reason for why Gillard replaced Rudd. There has been heaps of media speculation...myths in other words...fed by the Liberals, but none supported by any of the players involved.
The reason and the only official reason for Rudd being replaced by Gillard was every reasonable person could see Labor would have lost at the up coming election under Rudd's leadership.
Re your refugee tangent, compared to the previous Labor one and the disastrous Liberal one, this process...the long term properly thought out option offered by Gillar....is probably the best by far.
"And I take no joy in seeing our first female PM come to power that way"
What way? Didn't Keating become leader this way. Didn't previous sitting Liberal PM's also get toppled while PM's? Why in particular this instance other than Rudd being a first termer?
It is the system. It has NEVER been questioned before, why now?
"And whilst I appreciate the correction on Labor rather than Labour, I think it's a poorly veiled attempt to discredit my opinion because of one incorrect spelling."
Please read no more into my correction other than what I posted. You seem to be more concerned with what it could have meant than I ever intended.
Complain about this comment
Yeah, Greg, I know. I hope things don't get boring around here, mate. The likes of AllenT2, MarcusaureliusII and some other Americans are fine for a spot of mild goading, but I find a their general attitudes a fraction too objectionable, and actually a little unpleasant.
Now I feel I have at least one Australian's permission to speak, I would like to question Nick on his "less clannish and genuinely bipartisan" claim for David Cameron. Cameron's recent comments about being frightened to chose a state school for his children made me clench my fists so tightly blood began to drip onto my coffee table, almost. This is a man who deliberately chooses to further demoralise an entire profession - one of the most important professions - and further worry parents, already beleaugured from our ridiculous, fear-peddling, tabloid press, in order to score a few points on his recently defeated rivals. 'Less clannish'?
Watching Prime Minister's questions is definitely the most entertaining way of watching a nation's leader answer questions on policies, and I am happy for it to stay, really, but is it a good example to set? I hate seeing Nick Clegg sitting next to Cameron, backing up the Tories. I did not vote for a Tory government, but that's what we've got. 50/50 could be OK, but this is so heavily balanced in favour of the Conservatives it's not worth it. The Lib Dems appear to have sacrificed everything to get PR, including the NHS. This is not a coalition that is wanted by either party, and it doesn't seem to make anyone else happy either (except Cameron). Now we have to rely on Labour politicians to ask tricky questions of unfair policies, and their questions aren't as tricky as they should be.
Oh, by the way, Pete, do you recognise these sentiments? "Personally, I believe we all need to be constructively criticising our nations and the nations of others, because we are no longer independent sovereignties"
Just asking, that's all...
Complain about this comment
As an American I'm loathe to criticize Australia's political system, we certainly have enough problems of our own that could be pointed out in reply. I would say though that in comparison with other country's rapid turnover of party "leaders" there is something comfortably stable about fixed terms of office and the certitude of the next election taking place on a fixed schedule instead of a snap election when the current leader thinks this/her poll numbers are up.
A big share of the problem in democtratic countries might be the creation of a professional political class who look out for number one instead of the people's and nation's best interests. It's almost to the point that anyone who wants the job shouldn't be trusted with it.
Complain about this comment
115 stirling222 wrote: "Now I feel I have at least one Australian's permission to speak, "
Of course you don't need anyone's permission to speak, but if it helps to understand where I stand, I would be offended and insulted to think anything I've said prevented you, or caused you not to speak your mind and express your opinion.
It's attacking a person, or making rash statements to another person's post, then being offended when the original poster protests to which I have always aimed my protests....and no I'm not referring to you in this statement, but I'm sure you know the posters to whom I refer.
"Oh, by the way, Pete, do you recognise these sentiments? "Personally, I believe we all need to be constructively criticising our nations and the nations of others, because we are no longer independent sovereignties""
Yes I do and I repeat them, particularly in the context from which they were taken.
When you think about it Stirling, your comments concerning Aussie in Britain are similar to my comments concerning Brits in Aussie. We are on a similar wave length here.
It is when I start to look at why Aussies criticise Brits, and give my opinion, that we start the blogs lighting up.
What frustrates me is when I have in the past mentioned the British influence over Australian decisions, unknown posters jump all over me without looking at what I have previously posted on the matter, and the subject goes completely away from my original intention...and I have found the same happens to you and your posts...and yes I'm as much to blame there as you are with me.
The problem is this site...the BBC...it has extremely limiting rules, particularly to American and Australian blogs, where to even make fun of our political leaders, a common occurrence in Australia, can be removed because it is seen to offend a public person. Heavens its no wonder Nick's blogs are so bland.
And this brings me back to another of your comments; "already beleaugured from our ridiculous, fear-peddling, tabloid press, in order to score a few points on his recently defeated rivals."
One only has to look at any of the critical comments above concerning Kevin's demise and Julia's replacing him, to see that most got their information from the tabloids, particularly Murdock's worldwide gutter press.
The days of genuine news reports and opinions died the day that man was permitted to run the media.
Complain about this comment
116 Scott0962: Often when the topic of us becoming a Republic is raised in Australia, the American model gets bandied around, and usually as a reason NOT to have a Republic, the closet monarchists are much stronger that most Aussies realise.
There is no doubt in my mind that the American Republic ideal has merit for America, but as you say, it certainly needs tweaking.
For example your Presidential position is so close to being that of a dictator, as we have seen under a number of Republican Presidents.
There is argument for and against having set dates for elections as you suggest.
We have a set date for our general election, which is usually three year terms, and can be held from the end of the third year into the early months of the fourth year.
Speculation had Rudd holding an election in Feb next year, well over his three year term.
Of course we don't elect our equivalent to your President...The Queen of Britain is our head of state, and her representative, the Governor General is appointed by the Australian Government at the time he or she chooses when to retire. The people of Australia have absolutely no say as to who occupies either position.
What makes our system different to most, as others have stated here, is we have compulsory voting.
All citizens MUST vote at our general elections, although for the purest, it is very hard to police who votes and who just registers.
The selection of our Parliamentary leaders, who then get voted into the position of Prime Minister, or leader of the Opposition, is and has always been done by the party.
To have that position determined by the people would be worth looking into, but interestingly enough, the very people complaining about how Julia toppled Kevin, are the very group who would hold to the status quo...conservatives by nature dislike change for change sake.
Personally I prefer a system where by law the running, base of constitution, and general concepts of a parliamentary system should be reviewed by the people over say a 10 year period, and it should be compulsory for all citizens via a referendum.
The trouble we have with our current system is best likened to an original tapestry piece, never intended to last very long, which has had so many holes repaired in it, that it has become frail and close to disintegration.
It no longer serves the Australia of the new millennium, and onwards.
We certainly need a new, vibrant and original model to bring us into this new century.
Sadly however, it usually takes a war or a revolution to bring about such a necessity, and Aussies by nature are not inclined to break the status quo, best summed up in our expression 'she'll be right, mate,' to which is added 'Go grab yourself a tinny (beer).'
Complain about this comment
114. 11pete11:
"No where have I heard this as a reason for why Gillard replaced Rudd."
That's funny, because I have.
"There has been heaps of media speculation...myths in other words...fed by the Liberals, but none supported by any of the players involved. The reason and the only official reason for Rudd being replaced by Gillard was every reasonable person could see Labor would have lost at the up coming election under Rudd's leadership."
Look, I don't believe everything I read, but nor do I ignore everything I read because of an 'official reason'. I know better than to just take official party statements for things as the black and white truth. And I also know a lot of political journalists know much more than they are probably ever going to put in print. The fact is, Gillard stated her support for Rudd then backstabbed him. I don't see honour in that. I know it's politics but I think it's time they woke up and stopped giving people reasons to question their word.
"Re your refugee tangent, compared to the previous Labor one and the disastrous Liberal one, this process...the long term properly thought out option offered by Gillar....is probably the best by far."
I'm not disagreeing previous policy has been suspect. I just don't think this is enough of a new idea to be giving Gillard a pat on the back. But that's a policy issue and we can agree to disagree.
"It is the system. It has NEVER been questioned before, why now?"
Um... because if systems are never questioned because that's how things have always been done, then nothing ever changes! I think that's a really poor way to view things, personally. And I do think it makes a difference that Rudd was in his first term, as well as the fact that I think a PM should have to do much more to be dumped whilst still in office. Opposition party leaders changing constantly doesn't so much sit well with me but I expect it, particularly in the leadup to an election. But a PM in his first term of office? No, I do believe that's undignified.
"Please read no more into my correction other than what I posted. You seem to be more concerned with what it could have meant than I ever intended."
Let it slide, then. I don't pick up on your typos just to be a smart a***, and it comes across as petty.
Complain about this comment
Pete, you are melissakp's bunny. Sorry.
OK, so you stand by your comments, fair enough. Do they really fit with your post #9, here, though?
"The problem is this site...the BBC...it has extremely limiting rules, particularly to American and Australian blogs, where to even make fun of our political leaders, a common occurrence in Australia"
I've never attempted to make fun of any politicians, on here, so I'm unsure about what gets referred. However I hope your not insinuating that in the UK, having created such shows as 'Yes, Minister', 'Spitting Image', 'Have I got News For You', 'The New Statesman' and the BBC's own groundbreaking 'The Thick of It', we're unfamiliar with gently ribbing our politicians.
Complain about this comment
119 melissakp wrote: "And I also know a lot of political journalists know much more than they are probably ever going to put in print."
And they also bait politicians with myths in the hope that the resulting explanation in clarity brings them a news story.
"The fact is, Gillard stated her support for Rudd then backstabbed him."
No it is not fact because no one has proved this actually happened. Until it is confirmed, it is nothing more than media speculation, or myth.
"I know it's politics but I think it's time they woke up and stopped giving people reasons to question their word."
And I think its time we stopped believing everything we read in the media, especially the commercial media.
"Opposition party leaders changing constantly doesn't so much sit well with me but I expect it, particularly in the leadup to an election. But a PM in his first term of office? No, I do believe that's undignified."
Then how do you suggest a PM in his or her first term be brought to the people's attention when they are under-performing, under the current system, other than to have them bomb at a election, dragging the party down with them?
And it could be argued that when Malcolm Turnbull was replaced....with a difference of one vote, compared with the majority in the Gullard/Rudd case....we the people didn't get to have our say. There are a huge number of people out there right now that won't vote for the Mad Monk in a fit, but would have voted for Turnbull.
""Please read no more into my correction other than what I posted. You seem to be more concerned with what it could have meant than I ever intended."
Let it slide, then. I don't pick up on your typos just to be a smart a***, and it comes across as petty."
If you have been a regular reader of Nick's blogs you will see that I and others, have corrected many who referred Aussie Labor to British Labour, as opposed to correcting spelling errors.
Complain about this comment
The idea would be to become something uniquely Australian. The US model is a corrupt congress owned by special interest. The British system is a corrupt Parliament owned by special interest. Both have entrenched bureaucracies that represent special interests. Australia should recognize what has become of both of those systems and if constructing something new decide how a government can actually represent the interest of the people..that would be unique in this day and time or maybe any day in time.
Complain about this comment
120 stirling222 wrote: "OK, so you stand by your comments, fair enough. Do they really fit with your post #9, here, though?
My post at 9: "Can anyone recall seeing, as the heading of an ABC blog, the heading: The British Ugliness....1 and 2....
In previous blogs Stirling has complained of critical comments about Brits made by Aussies in London.
Yet Nick, who is a visitor to Australia, from Britain, can make such a public statement."
What is constructive in the heading 'Australian Ugliness'?
In what part of the article would you claim Nick has been constructive?
What suggestions do you find that could be open to agreement by Australians from a helpful perspective.
As to my piece, removed because it broke house rules, I have already tried to explained as best I can its context without having THAT piece removed.
It combined news items of the day which included the smuggling of titi monkeys, Tony Abbott's budgie smuggler and his mimics and Julia Gillard's seeming reduction in bra size.
My same piece has appeared in two ABC blogs, unedited.
Complain about this comment
Very successful wind-up by Nick Bryant.
The UK still doesn't have an elected Upper House or an equitable voting system and the Americans elect a monarch but not their government,rather a case of pot and kettle isn't it? As to US indifference to Oz,so what? Let's be realistic, the average American doesn't know or care about Europe either,only China matters (as a rival) and of course,Israel is 'family'.
And for the umpteenth time, we don't elect Prime Ministers,the claim that we do is a conceit adopted by local politicians who should know better.
Complain about this comment
#115 stirling222 wrote:
"Now I feel I have at least one Australian's permission to speak, I would like to question Nick on his "less clannish and genuinely bipartisan" claim for David Cameron. Cameron's recent comments about being frightened to chose a state school for his children made me clench my fists so tightly blood began to drip onto my coffee table, almost. This is a man who deliberately chooses to further demoralise an entire profession - one of the most important professions - and further worry parents, already beleaugured from our ridiculous, fear-peddling, tabloid press, in order to score a few points on his recently defeated rivals. 'Less clannish'?"
Hi Stirling...really appreciated this comment...as mentioned it really helps me get a better idea about British politics to read such a cogent and personal opinion.
From what I read when the Commons reconvenes in the autumn, the whole issue of the AV referendum will be up for debate...from what I perceive, that's when the strength of the coalition will be put to the test.
Also appreciate the little dig at Nick...I enjoy reading what he writes and he does create food for thought...but when he travels outside Australia he will often drop in something "controversial" to get us all going...very clever Nick, we forgive you : )
Please note #124, Treaclebeak's opinion above...from that perspective you can see why he calls Nick's piece a "very successful wind up"...and it is what some of the Aussie posters in here have been objecting to.
Appreciated Treaclebeak...also, Stirling...I get the feeling you'd support an elected UK Upper House...am I close to the mark : )
Complain about this comment
123. 11pete11 wrote:
"What is constructive in the heading 'Australian Ugliness'?"
I think it's worthwhile remembering that Nick Bryant did not come up with the phrase, it is just borrowed/paraphrased from the title of (Australian) Robin Boyd's book. I have to say personally that even if he had created it himself, I wouldn't have been offended, because I don't read it as a personal or malicious phrasing towards Australians. Not in this blog, and certainly not in the greater context of his writing about Australia. The reasoning for the headline is qualified and justified in the ideas put forth in the article.
In essence, I think taking offence to that is just that - *taking* offence. Being a tad too precious.
121. 11pete11 wrote:
"And they also bait politicians with myths in the hope that the resulting explanation in clarity brings them a news story."
My heart bleeds for the poor politicians. This is a group of people who pay other people to spin the truth so they can effectively lie by omission or by clever wording. If they are caught off-guard or outwitted by a journalist, I've little sympathy.
"No it is not fact because no one has proved this actually happened. Until it is confirmed, it is nothing more than media speculation, or myth."
So what is the alternative, that she was conspiring against him for some time? I don't agree with either scenario. Gillard wouldn't be where she is if not for Kevin 07. Live by the sword, die by the sword. I voted knowing full well my vote was going towards trying to get Kevin Rudd into the top job and I feel duped.
"And I think its time we stopped believing everything we read in the media, especially the commercial media."
And I think it's time people stopped blaming media conspiracy or corruption when a story doesn't suit their own agenda. Of course news reports should always be taken with a grain of salt. But I don't believe that all our media is sensationalist in nature. Some of it is a little tabloid-esque, yes, but I still think in comparison to news sources in some other countries (and I would include the UK in that) there is more integrity in the more respected newspapers (you will note I certainly don't include all newspapers in that statement) in Australia. It's too easy to always blame the media when you don't agree with what is reported.
"Then how do you suggest a PM in his or her first term be brought to the people's attention when they are under-performing, under the current system, other than to have them bomb at a election, dragging the party down with them?"
Brought to the people's attention? If the polls are down, didn't they already notice? Well for a start, don't make it all so swift. If there's a leadership challenge in the works, and you want to see what people really think of a change of leader, give some notice and see how the public reacts. As for the polls, I am cynical about Gillard rushing in an election while her poll results are still up, because I think she knows she isn't different enough to Rudd to sustain the poll boost. The honeymoon period will be short-lived. So to swoop in and take the PM role and then call an election to try to get in before the public mood calms down is pure 'ugliness' in my eyes. It's politics for the sake of winning, not for the betterment of the country. In my opinion, that stinks to Tony Abbott's high heavens.
"And it could be argued that when Malcolm Turnbull was replaced....with a difference of one vote, compared with the majority in the Gullard/Rudd case....we the people didn't get to have our say. There are a huge number of people out there right now that won't vote for the Mad Monk in a fit, but would have voted for Turnbull."
I agree with you, but that's the opposition, so I do think there's a slight difference. The opposition leader hasn't been elected-by-proxy (in a manner of speaking) to lead the country. I think it's more common for an opposition to be trying out different leaders to see what the public thinks. I think it's safe to say it was an error of judgment to put Turnbull out in favour of Abbott. I definitely agree with you there. I voted for Rudd and probably would have voted for him again in the coming election because I don't think his time was up, but if anyone would have swayed me out of the Libs it would have been Turnbull. For all his arrogance, I didn't despise him. I wouldn't have been embarrassed if he'd been PM. I would be horribly embarrassed for Abbott to represent my country on the world political stage.
"If you have been a regular reader of Nick's blogs you will see that I and others, have corrected many who referred Aussie Labor to British Labour, as opposed to correcting spelling errors."
I often read his blogs but don't always have time to read many of the comments. In any case I don't think there's necessarily a need to correct people if their error makes no difference to the actual argument. Nitpicking over things like that will always come across as petty.
Complain about this comment
126 melissakp wrote: "...the phrase..(was)... just borrowed/paraphrased from the title of (Australian) Robin Boyd's book."
And that is where it should have stayed. It is a bit like saying other nations are justified in insulting Brits by taking Noel Coward's 'Mad dogs and Englishmen' and using it as derogatory remark, as many do.
"In essence, I think taking offence to that is just that - *taking* offence. Being a tad too precious."
You are taking what I said in reply to a comment by Stirling, are you saying he is not 'too precious' and that I am?
"My heart bleeds for the poor politicians. This is a group of people who pay other people to spin the truth so they can effectively lie by omission or by clever wording. If they are caught off-guard or outwitted by a journalist, I've little sympathy."
Interesting. And who, in the main, are the 'other people' politicians use to create their spin? Mostly from the journalist profession.
"So what is the alternative, that she was conspiring against him for some time? I don't agree with either scenario."
If she had been conspiring against him at all, wouldn't it have been in the interest of all for her to have bought this to a head much earlier? Had she done that the messy aftermath could well have been avoided. I believe she truly believed she didn't have the numbers to topple Kevin, until the right factions notified her a few days before she made her decision.
Had it been a conspiracy as you suggest, there would have been at least one or two other members who would have voted for Rudd. As it turned out, they ALL voted against him.
"I voted knowing full well my vote was going towards trying to get Kevin Rudd into the top job and I feel duped."
Well with respect to you, that was your mistake, and your lack of understanding of our system.
The majority of Aussies got the Labor party into Government, they currently have the Labor party in Government, and now they are about to have the opportunity to either keep the Labor party in office, or to put the Lib Nats into power.
We never have, and never will have the right to vote for the party leader/PM.
There is nothing to say, in the event the people should voting the Lib Nats into power this election, that the party doesn't decide to replace Abbott with another leader, such as Julie Bishop, or Malcolm Turnbull again.
You may not like it, and many of us don't, but that is the system we have inherited, and until we change it, that is how it will stay.
It is interesting to hear those that parroted the phrase 'ain't broke, don't fix it,' are now amongst the loudest in their condemnation of the very system they claimed was not broke.
"And I think it's time people stopped blaming media conspiracy or corruption when a story doesn't suit their own agenda."
This rings a little of being a cliche, when I was originally referring to a media statement that to this point has not had a ounce of support so far in it's favour.
"Brought to the people's attention? If the polls are down, didn't they already notice?"
Polls, other than the government run one at election time, are not official, and are poorly run with a fraction of a percentage of the majority of the population being canvassed, usually by a particular persuasion and often with an intended result.
And even with this very poorly run poll, the overwhelming response was that Labor would loose with a landslide against them.
"So to swoop in and take the PM role and then call an election to try to get in before the public mood calms down is pure 'ugliness' in my eyes."
Well then you are certainly seeing things different to the many commentators, both in favour and against her who are saying she did the right thing by giving the people the right to vote her in or out as soon as possible.
As to the honeymoon, if I was a bride under the circumstances of what she is currently going through in the media here, I'd be calling the wedding off.
She is being roasted at every turn. It is anything but a honeymoon time for her.
"The opposition leader hasn't been elected-by-proxy (in a manner of speaking) to lead the country."
No, they are "elected-by-proxy (in a manner of speaking" to ensure the elected government stay on course. It is a highly privileged position, as is the position of running the country.
Many were watching Malcolm to see how he performed as opposition leader, with a view to voting for the Lib Nats under his leadership. Now that Tony has taken his place, those votes have gone away from the Lib Nats, possibly to Labor, but more likely to Independents or other smaller parties.
"I voted for Rudd and probably would have voted for him again in the coming election because I don't think his time was up, but if anyone would have swayed me out of the Libs it would have been Turnbull."
Well I voted for Rudd, but it was becoming painfully clear that Labor was heading for a ditch the size of a black hole. Had Turnbull been the Lib Nat leader, and Rudd stayed leader of Labor, I would have voted Turnbull. Many here are saying similar.
"I would be horribly embarrassed for Abbott to represent my country on the world political stage."
As would I. Primarily because he is too arrogant and too self righteous to be a good leader. To me he is the Mark Latham of the Liberal Party.
"In any case I don't think there's necessarily a need to correct people if their error makes no difference to the actual argument."
When referring to the Labour Party, a person is not seen to be referring to the Australian political party of a similar name...it is assumed they must be referring to the British party...hence why I made that...and only that...correction.
Complain about this comment
Greg: "Stirling...I get the feeling you'd support an elected UK Upper House...am I close to the mark : )"
I may surprise you here, Greg, but I'm not convinced an elected upper house is a good idea. I know we are now conditioned to see anything undemocratic as automatically negative, but I am beginning to question that theory in some cases. I'll try to explain why.
Question Time (political TV show) ocassionally has ex-MPs on the panel, and it used to be the case that when ex-MPs and Lords such as Roy Hattersley and Michael Heseltine came on I would roll my eyes and mumble expletives under my breath. But as I listened to what they had to say I found myself agreeing with a lot of it, and, not only that, I also believed they meant what they were saying. They were voicing their own opinions, and coming across as fair-minded and balanced, even when discussing the parties they are affiliated with.
I realised this freedom to speak their minds must come as a result of not having to 'toe the party line'. They weren't terrified of saying something that might alienate their traditional support. They didn't have to go and explain themselves to the boss the next morning. If they had to worry about keeping their seat I'm not sure this freedom of expression would continue.
For those in Australia who know what the House of Lords is, it may just be assumed the members are crusty old posh blokes without a clue about the 21st century world, and many in Briain hold that opinion, too. There are certainly a few of that type in there, but they are far from being the majority, and a lot of comments about the lords are little more than blatant ageism. I often find myself agreeing with most of their rulings. The decisions they make I find to be generally fair and balanced, even if I don't agree with them. If it weren't for the lords the previous British government wouldn't have just eroded the freedoms of its citizens, it would have decimated them.
Of course I can't truly support any privilege that is merely hereditary, and I think that side needs to be addressed, but we already have a house dominated by career-driven politicians who'd do or say anything to remain in - or achieve - power. I'm not convinced being directly answerable to the electorate would be any major step forward for the upper house. Ensuring we have a lower house representative of the wider population is a more pressing priority... In my mind.
Complain about this comment
Pete: "We never have, and never will have the right to vote for the party leader/PM"
"Well I voted for Rudd, but it was becoming painfully clear that Labor was heading for a ditch the size of a black hole. Had Turnbull been the Lib Nat leader, and Rudd stayed leader of Labor, I would have voted Turnbull. Many here are saying similar"
Pete, these two are from the same post, lad!
We all know our electoral systems, but that doesn't stop the American-style personality driven politics creeping in. I know here in the UK the majority cast their vote based on one or two soundbites from the leaders. I bet a good percentage wouldn't even be able to name their local MP.
As for your preciousness, this takes us back to what I was attempting to explain to sydneycynic, the world's media regularly spits out insulting headlines about my country. We're used to it. 'The English Disease' and 'The English Patient' are two favourites, neither of which bother me in the slightest. They are, along with 'the Australian Ugliness', merely snappy little headlines.
Your own media is different and that's why it irritates me. 'Poms Humiliated!' screamed a typical headline which preceded a bitter, nasty and overall gloating piece about the World Cup defeat. It was more enthusiastic than I can imagine an article about an Australian victory would have been, and the journalist should be embarrassed about that. So should right-minded Aussies, as it betrays your collective need for such articles.
Complain about this comment
127. 11pete11 wrote:
"And that is where it should have stayed. It is a bit like saying other nations are justified in insulting Brits by taking Noel Coward's 'Mad dogs and Englishmen' and using it as derogatory remark, as many do."
To the Brits in the reading audience, would any of you be offended if the term 'Mad dogs and Englishmen' was used in reference to your politicians? I'm pretty sure British politicans have been referred to as worse, from my recollection of the recent elections. I am sure there would be someone to take the hump about it (there are people who tend to get in a bother about anything these days) but I can't think of any Brits I know who would really get actively bothered about it.
"You are taking what I said in reply to a comment by Stirling, are you saying he is not 'too precious' and that I am?"
Yes. That is what I am saying.
"Interesting. And who, in the main, are the 'other people' politicians use to create their spin? Mostly from the journalist profession."
Exactly. They will use journalists to their advantage whenever they can, then cry foul whenever the shoe is on the other foot.
"I believe she truly believed she didn't have the numbers to topple Kevin, until the right factions notified her a few days before she made her decision."
So she jumped at the first possible chance? I'm not *saying* that, just asking, since you seem to know exactly how everything happened, albeit without any use of media sources which are apparently full of twaddle.
"Well with respect to you, that was your mistake, and your lack of understanding of our system. ... We never have, and never will have the right to vote for the party leader/PM."
With respect to you, you know full well what I meant but you want to make me sound as though I don't get how the system works. I know I didn't tick a box next to the name 'Kevin Rudd'. I know we do not directly elect our PM. But when I went to the local public school to lodge my vote, I wanted to vote for the ALP because what Kevin Rudd was offering sounded better than what I felt was happening with little Johnny. It meant much less to me that I was voting for Tanya Plibersek than the fact that it was a federal election and my vote for the ALP would help Kevin Rudd get into office. I am quite considerably sure that a large proportion of the voting public had the same reasoning in mind. As such I think it's naive for anyone to claim that the voting public outside of the seat of Griffith are being stupid in feeling as though they voted for Kevin Rudd. You can talk technicalities all you like but I *did* vote largely *for Kevin Rudd* and my vote *did* count towards him getting into office. That's why 'How to Vote' cards are offered, in order that you number correctly in order to get not only the vote for the specific MP but the preference voting to help the greater party cause. And why there were people with Kevin 07 t-shirts and paraphernalia at the polling place. Because people understand that the party that wins the seat in their electorate counts towards the majority. Right or wrong, people do vote with that in mind and it does work.
"There is nothing to say, in the event the people should voting the Lib Nats into power this election, that the party doesn't decide to replace Abbott with another leader, such as Julie Bishop, or Malcolm Turnbull again.
You may not like it, and many of us don't, but that is the system we have inherited, and until we change it, that is how it will stay."
You're right, I don't like it. And you're right, it's up to the voting public to push for change.
"It is interesting to hear those that parroted the phrase 'ain't broke, don't fix it,' are now amongst the loudest in their condemnation of the very system they claimed was not broke."
I don't know whether you're including me in this, I'm not an 'ain't broke don't fix it' kinda person. We live in a very different Australia to the one constitutionally established at the time of Federation and I think we need to realise we're all grown up and it shouldn't be a scary thing to move forward. I'd like to see Australia become a republic, and I think people need to stop thinking about it as something that will probably happen later and start the wheels properly in motion. Even if we, as a nation, do decide to 'take the plunge' it will take time to sort everything out. But I think we've proven we can manage to do things in our own way and have it work. It may not be broken but it could still be better (and more fitting), so bring on the change.
"Polls, other than the government run one at election time, are not official, and are poorly run with a fraction of a percentage of the majority of the population being canvassed, usually by a particular persuasion and often with an intended result.
And even with this very poorly run poll, the overwhelming response was that Labor would loose with a landslide against them."
So polls are flawed but the polling was flawed but correct whereas other polls are flawed and incorrect? Again, like your knowledge of the non-media-hyped goings on within the government, I'm enthralled as to the certainty of your insights. Either polling has an intended result, or it's worth paying attention to enough to kick out a PM. So which is it?
"Well then you are certainly seeing things different to the many commentators, both in favour and against her who are saying she did the right thing by giving the people the right to vote her in or out as soon as possible."
Are these commentators journalists? Again, you seem to want it both ways.
"As to the honeymoon, if I was a bride under the circumstances of what she is currently going through in the media here, I'd be calling the wedding off.
She is being roasted at every turn. It is anything but a honeymoon time for her."
Asked for and got. You don't make that kind of political move in circumstances where I don't think the public saw it as clear cut and expect everyone to stand up and applaud.
"No, they are "elected-by-proxy (in a manner of speaking" to ensure the elected government stay on course. It is a highly privileged position, as is the position of running the country."
A lot of the time it's less about doing that and more about just automatically disagreeing with everything the PM and his/her party put forward. I don't doubt it's a privileged position but it's not above being quick and dirty in terms of building and tearing down leaders. It's not any more noble and I still don't agree with it, but when you're fighting for the top spot from the back foot, I have a tad more understanding for trying different things in the form of different leaders.
"Well I voted for Rudd,"
... despite the fact that it's a mistake to think that we vote in our PM?
"When referring to the Labour Party, a person is not seen to be referring to the Australian political party of a similar name...it is assumed they must be referring to the British party...hence why I made that...and only that...correction."
Considering you corrected rather than querying, that must mean you knew what I meant. It was obvious within the context. Hence, no need for correction.
Complain about this comment
129. stirling222 wrote:
"Your own media is different and that's why it irritates me. 'Poms Humiliated!' screamed a typical headline which preceded a bitter, nasty and overall gloating piece about the World Cup defeat. It was more enthusiastic than I can imagine an article about an Australian victory would have been, and the journalist should be embarrassed about that. So should right-minded Aussies, as it betrays your collective need for such articles."
I am embarrassed when this kind of headline emerges. I do admit to taking a quiet delight in seeing England out of the World Cup, but it was just that - a quiet delight. I believe I ribbed some English football fans about it but I didn't gloat and go on about it, and I got plenty of it back over the Socceroos, which could only be expected. A bit of banter is good fun, after all.
Whilst I am ashamed that there was a headline and article like that in an Aussie paper, I think both the Aussies and the English can be a little on the snarky and over-the-top side when it comes to sport. And it goes beyond a healthy rivalry and banter in many cases, which is a shame, but it's hard to shake. I know I still feel a bitter, burning pain when the 2003 Rugby World Cup is mentioned, as it often is mentioned to me by English rugby fans. :-) And I think my only beef with the English when it comes to talking it up in terms of sport is how long they can go on about a win for. If I heard one more reference to 1966 in the football I was going to go bananas, and I have to say I was incredibly put off by the back-slapping nature of the media in the lead up. I understand supporting a sporting side, I understand the passion that comes with football in England, I really do. But there is a point where national pride turns into something more ugly. And it was more that in itself that made me will England out of the World Cup than anything else. Perhaps that's the old tall poppy syndrome manifesting itself in me, that anyone who builds themself up too high deserves to have the biggest fall. I'm not sure. But I think it's a chicken-or-the-egg thing... would anyone so fervently relish English sporting demise if they didn't have to hear the boorish gloating that goes on when England win? Or is it more the reverse, where the English sporting fan gets that much of a hard time they feel they need to overcompensate when things go their way?
Anyway. I don't disagree with you, that is the kind of headline that does warrant people getting their nose out of joint because it is just malicious. Not clever, not catchy, just catty and bitter.
Complain about this comment
#130 melissakp wrote:
"I'd like to see Australia become a republic, and I think people need to stop thinking about it as something that will probably happen later and start the wheels properly in motion".
Hear...hear...pete, he's on side...work out the differences in Nick's next blog : )
#128 Stirling...your points are well taken regarding regarding the composition of an Upper House however, ultimately they must be elected.
Democracy, diluted, is something else again.
As well, in the Australian and US systems, the Upper Houses elect an equal number of Senators based on STATES...no matter how small or large the population of a state is, each state has the same degree of representation.
The question becomes, in today's connected world, is the concept of "states" within a federal concept still relevant?
If you think about it, why have an Upper House at all?
Perhaps answering my own question, and referring back to your comments on the Lords, the Senate allows the odd exceptional and independent person to be elected to form part of the government, as you say, without the restriction of the "party line".
Then again, it could be argued that without a Senate or Lords, and more, smaller constituencies, more exceptional and independent people would make the effort required to gain elction to the Lower House, which would of course become...the House of Parliament...singular.
#129 Stirling:..."They are, along with 'the Australian Ugliness', merely snappy little headlines".
Yes they are snappy...and little...it's just Nick being controversial while he's out of town.
Don't worry...there'll be a new one soon for us to get our fangs...sorry teeth into...
Complain about this comment
Melissa, I would compare the British tabloid press to a bi-polar alcoholic on a night out. He/she starts off in high spirits (reflecting on a positive qualifying campaign) and has a double whisky. He/she then becomes hysterically happy and embarrassingly tries to be the 'life and soul' of the party (articles about our group being 'easy' and our path to the final). Another couple of drinks and the mood changes again. Dirty looks and some grumbling about others in the group (complaints about the performances so far, and singling out individual players for criticism) Eventually, now messily drunk, our boy/girl becomes highly aggressive and ends up spending the night in a cell (vicious personal attacks on players and damning the team as the worst in the world). The press sets up England's failure. By building the team up so much they're planning their mock disgust and outrage before a ball has even been kicked. They always attempt to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
Most genuine fans didn't believe England would win. How could we after so many years of build up and disappointment? But it is worth pointing out that pundits and experts of all nationalities (even Platini who HATES us) listed England as potential winners, not just the English ones.
Anyway, don't worry about banter, I afforded myself the briefest of smiles at the sight of Ponting's ugly chimp face after Aus were bowled out for 88 yesterday. And, understanding your desperation to beat us, makes the fact that we currently own you in all forms of the game even more gratifying. Tally ho!
Complain about this comment
Greg, sometimes I wonder if Britain's politicians wake up, read the Daily Mail and launch a knee-jerk policy based on that day's topic of hate. I have a feeling Australia's politicians are frequently led by loudest voices, too.
I would say the upper house is absolutely vital.
Complain about this comment
129 stirling222: Yes that was sloppy of me, too long a day. I used the word 'vote' in place of I hoped for or my money was on.
As to ''Poms Humiliated!' compared to "Australian Ugliness", I can't see the similarity. The term 'Pom', which I only use as a quote, is actually not used as a world of insult but as a replacement for 'Brits', English, Welsh etc...it is easier to say Pom than to get into battles with those that don't want to be called Brits, or English etc.
Complain about this comment
Crikey, it seems my earlier post (67), has rattled a few cages.
Right...
Is The BBC a British organisation? Yes.
Is Nick Bryant British? Yes, possibly Australian too seeing as his good wife is Australian.
Is this blog written with a British perspective? Yes.
Who is this mainly written for? The British.
Who is it open and available to? All.
We Scousers are looked on as being a little defensive back home, but some of you lot are hysterical.
Complain about this comment
130 melissakp wrote: "To the Brits in the reading audience, would any of you be offended if the term 'Mad dogs and Englishmen' was used in reference to your politicians?"
The article title is Australian Ugliness, not Australia's Political Ugliness, and opens with a general comment about Australians including Germaine Greer, not just our politicians.
""You are taking what I said in reply to a comment by Stirling, are you saying he is not 'too precious' and that I am?"
Yes. That is what I am saying.?
Interesting. Naturally I disagree with you, but I'll leave it up to others to decide.
"Exactly. They will use journalists to their advantage whenever they can, then cry foul whenever the shoe is on the other foot."
You wrote 126: "And I think it's time people stopped blaming media conspiracy or corruption when a story doesn't suit their own agenda. Of course news reports should always be taken with a grain of salt. But I don't believe that all our media is sensationalist in nature. Some of it is a little tabloid-esque, yes, but I still think in comparison to news sources in some other countries (and I would include the UK in that) there is more integrity in the more respected newspapers (you will note I certainly don't include all newspapers in that statement) in Australia. It's too easy to always blame the media when you don't agree with what is reported."
Seems to me you are inferring journalist, and by association the media for who they work, are innocent victims of the powerful overbearing politicians they get paid to write spin for. Strange.
"So she jumped at the first possible chance? I'm not *saying* that, just asking, since you seem to know exactly how everything happened, albeit without any use of media sources which are apparently full of twaddle."
The night of the event, I was watching the ABC 7.30 Report when Kerry O'Brien was interviewing I think it was Senator Faulkner. It was a question to the Senator from Kerry asking what the Senator knew of the challenge by Julia as they spoke, that the Senator was thrown by. After the program the interviews with different Labor polies, not the opinion of reporters or journalists, that made it quite clean the whole matter was happening on the spot, and not something that has been planned. In fact, now as I recall, she didn't know she had the numbers until that day, possibly that night, not that week as I said originally above.
"With respect to you, you know full well what I meant but you want to make me sound as though I don't get how the system works."
I was simply replying to your statement. I am not supposed to assume what it is you may have thought, as opposed to the facts.
I know many Aussies think they are voting for a PM, and I am aware that by due process we do select a PM as a result of majority vote of that particular party.
It is the outcry, primarily pushed by the Lib Nats that have many Aussies convinced that some law or rule has been broken by this event that I originally objected and commented to.
"I don't know whether you're including me in this, I'm not an 'ain't broke don't fix it' kinda person...It may not be broken but it could still be better (and more fitting), so bring on the change."
No, I didn't intend this to apply to you, it is obvious from your comments that you are not a National party supporter.
As to the ain't broke bit, as I have said in other postings in other blogs, in my opinion there is nothing that we humans make, invent or create that ain't broke...in the sense that everything we instigate needs up grading, maintaining, fixing. I guess we are in agreement on this and the Republic model.
"So polls are flawed but the polling was flawed but correct whereas other polls are flawed and incorrect? Again, like your knowledge of the non-media-hyped goings on within the government, I'm enthralled as to the certainty of your insights. Either polling has an intended result, or it's worth paying attention to enough to kick out a PM. So which is it?"
I found this very confusing and hard to fathom what you are trying to say.
Maybe I didn't make myself clear in the first place, so I'll re run it past you with a bit more clarity. I stated that there were two kinds of polls. The Morgan, Galaxy kinds that are usually run by commercial networks etc, and I said they take very small samples in relation to the total population, they are then used to assume all Aussies feel this way.
Then there are the political polls where parties run their own polling. These party polls usually get far better scrutiny than those intended to sway a particular point of view. If a trend shows in the first poll, the political party will then run a second, third even fourth poll within a very short time of the original, to ensure they aren't being mislead by the first. The Galaxy etc polls only even take the one and then the media generally speculated on that one...till the next poll is taken some weeks or months later.
"Are these commentators journalists? Again, you seem to want it both ways."
The last part first, you tend to assume a lot when it comes to what I say. You should just have stuck to the first part.
And as to the first part, no they were representatives of the Institute of Public Affairs, the financial wing of the Liberal Party, professors of political studies at Universities, political commentators such as Antony Green, and numerous other informed, not journalistic, commentators.
All were readily available on Radio National, News Radio, and current affairs programs on such shows as AM, PM, World Today etc at the time.
"Asked for and got. You don't make that kind of political move in circumstances where I don't think the public saw it as clear cut and expect everyone to stand up and applaud."
You are the one said she should have waited. Waited for what. How can she be in a honeymoon phase yet have the public against her?
"A lot of the time it's less about doing that and more about just automatically disagreeing with everything the PM and his/her party put forward."
I totally and absolutely agree with you on this one. From day one the Lib Nats took the approach of obstructionists instead of opposition in the political sense. And I believe Rudd should have called a double disillusion election instead of ploughing on as he did.
""Well I voted for Rudd,"
... despite the fact that it's a mistake to think that we vote in our PM?"
I've explained this in my reply to Stirling above...
"Considering you corrected rather than querying, that must mean you knew what I meant. It was obvious within the context. Hence, no need for correction."
All those posts from 107 where I originally posted "...obvious to a blind man that Labor...er not Labour by the way..." to this. And you still call me precious? Please look in the mirror.
Complain about this comment
132Greg Warner wrote: "Hear...hear...pete, he's on side...work out the differences in Nick's next blog : )"
Nick? Nick who? Oh that Nick. Mate, he's left the universe so we're just filling in the gaps till he returns...if he returns :)
Complain about this comment
134 stirling222 wrote: "I would say the upper house is absolutely vital."
Yes Stirling I fully agree with you. Here in Queensland we don't have an upper house. If a particular party have a large majority in the government, as we do with the Bligh Labor government, there is no one to check the stupidity of any rash decisions they may make. And here in Queensland one would be mistaken for thinking the Labor government were actually Liberal, the way they're selling of State assets.
Complain about this comment
#136 _Everton_ wrote:
"Who is this mainly written for? The British".
As I said in reply to your post #67..."I feel you should contact the BBC's marketing department and enlighten them on your opinion"...because the reality as I see it is your opinion would be the LAST thing the BBC wants.
All news is global now...the BBC's major competitor is CNN and to an increasing extent Al Jazeera...anyone who tunes into the BBC around the world, either through TV or the net, wants a GLOBAL update, from a news organisation which has earned its stripes over many years of fair and accurate reporting.
If I for one moment thought that the BBC was disseminating a British POV for "mainly British people" I would switch my preference, where ever I travel in the world to CNN or Al Jazeera...whose English service continues to improve and be extremely fair minded.
#134 stirling222 wrote:
"I would say the upper house is absolutely vital".
Thanks for your comment, but is it "vital"?
If you think about it the House of Lords was originally set up to allow the British aristocracy a way of checking (in both meanings of the word) the aspirations of the "Commons".
But surely in today's world, the lower house is capable of managing a nation such as the UK in a way that reflects the majority of the nation's people.
Following on from that, what is the purpose of the Senate in the USA and Australia?
I would assume that both Senates were an extension of the British TWO houses concept, with the difference that in each case the Senate was meant to be the place that assured "state" influences.
Case in point, in the US, Rhode Island has the same number of Senators as California...in Australia, Tasmania has the same number of Senators as NSW.
However, how much of the legislation examined by either of these two Senates is directly related to "state" matters in the 21st century?
Granted, when the American Constitution was framed it was based on a collective of states...and in the case of the Australian Constitution, state rights were paramount at the time of Federation in 1901.
But today?...an anachronism?
Anyway, thanks for your comments which got my thoughts going in this direction.
#139 11pete11...perhaps an Upper House is required in State politics ...but please refer to my comments above in reference to Federal government...also, nice to see you and stirling agree on something...I liked his..."I would compare the British tabloid press to a bi-polar alcoholic on a night out"...I'm sure we ALL agree on that : )
#138 11pete11...good one...actually when THAT Nick gets back, be good to see a blog on the USA...contrary to what _everton_ feels, it would be great to get a truly global response to that blog...even though Britain was a junior partner in 1940 : (
Dear me...what a gaffe!
Complain about this comment
140 Greg Warner wrote: "but please refer to my comments above in reference to Federal government"
Yes I realise you were referring to the Fed system, I was just adding a point for discussion. I don't know how the British system goes, other than the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Nor do I know what the intended changes to that system will mean, maybe Stirling or other Brits could enlighten us. This is a great 'hands across the water' form of education.
"also, nice to see you and stirling agree on something"
Same here. I like it when he and others put a piece or a point of view that inform us, as he did with that piece on the beach...I very much enjoyed it.
"I liked his..."I would compare the British tabloid press to a bi-polar alcoholic on a night out""
Ha ha so did I. That one is a hard one to top..without being censored by the BBC I mean :)
"even though Britain was a junior partner in 1940 : ("
You'll burn in hell fire for that one boyh (in my best southern States accent...and failing miserably)
Complain about this comment
Something I forgot to mentioned Greg, and anyone interested, our ABC had launched a new 24 hour continuous news service on their free to air HD station.
As a part of the process, they dropped a bombshell last night concerning Kevin Rudd's attitude to nation security meetings.
This story contains the original details and Rudd's reply:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/23/2962519.htm?section=justin
Complain about this comment
137. 11pete11 wrote:
"The article title is Australian Ugliness, not Australia's Political Ugliness, and opens with a general comment about Australians including Germaine Greer, not just our politicians."
Did I ask the Brits whether the term 'Mad political dogs and Englishmen'? No. A headline is there to spark an interest. So you click the button and read the rest. And then you discover the context.
I disagree that Nick is personally making a "general comment about Australians", and the reference to Germaine Greer in the opening paragraph is only in reference to the fact that the 40th anniversary of The Female Eunuch has coincided with the first Australian female PM.
In referencing Robin Boyd's book (with a handy link to the previous article he wrote, which I have just now re-read - although I haven't made it to the comments, and frankly I'm scared to look) and linking it back up to recent political dramas I think it is entirely suitable and not at all to be taken personally by Australians. If you want to be offended by either the title or the quoted text in Nick's earlier article, realise that you're being offended by Robin Boyd, a fellow Australian, not by Nick Bryant, BBC journalist.
As a side note, from what I read of Boyd's book in Nick's other article, I would have to say I agree with him. And I love Australia and am proud to be Australian. But we have flaws in our national character. The worse thing you can do when you have those kinds of flaws is have a tantrum when someone points them out!
"Seems to me you are inferring journalist, and by association the media for who they work, are innocent victims of the powerful overbearing politicians they get paid to write spin for. Strange."
Well what it 'seems' to you is, not surprisingly, not the actual case. I merely reject any notion that politicians should get my sympathy when journalists bait them for quotes/stories. Why do you think journalists feel the need to push and query and bait? Because politicians will rarely give up the truth willingly. I don't have the violins out for the journalists but I certainly don't have them out for the pollies either. And that is all I meant.
"The night of the event, I was watching the ABC 7.30 Report when Kerry O'Brien was interviewing I think it was Senator Faulkner. It was a question to the Senator from Kerry asking what the Senator knew of the challenge by Julia as they spoke, that the Senator was thrown by. After the program the interviews with different Labor polies, not the opinion of reporters or journalists, that made it quite clean the whole matter was happening on the spot, and not something that has been planned."
Interviews by journalists and the media? What made it quite clear? That the politicians said so?
"I know many Aussies think they are voting for a PM..."
I don't really believe that as a blanket statement. I think there was outcry by people saying they voted for Kevin Rudd but if they all voted they know as well as I do that they never ticked a box next to his actual name. They may have voted as I did, with the end result in mind. And, by accounts above, as you did as well. It has been a real bore to have all these people coming out and attempting to condescend to people by saying 'Oh but you don't understand, we don't vote in our PM'. People are aware roughly how it works. But they understand (correctly) that their vote for the ALP went towards Kevin being in power.
"It is the outcry, primarily pushed by the Lib Nats that have many Aussies convinced that some law or rule has been broken by this event that I originally objected and commented to."
I don't know that many people think a law or rule has been broken. Perhaps some questioned that. I didn't. I knew it was all entirely legal. I just find it disappointing that it can happen that quickly and without any kind of public consultation. I understand full well that it is the system and it is how it is, that doesn't stop it feeling like it's not the right thing to do or, indeed, that it's ugly.
"I stated that there were two kinds of polls. The Morgan, Galaxy kinds that are usually run by commercial networks etc, and I said they take very small samples in relation to the total population, they are then used to assume all Aussies feel this way.
Then there are the political polls where parties run their own polling. These party polls usually get far better scrutiny than those intended to sway a particular point of view. If a trend shows in the first poll, the political party will then run a second, third even fourth poll within a very short time of the original, to ensure they aren't being mislead by the first. The Galaxy etc polls only even take the one and then the media generally speculated on that one...till the next poll is taken some weeks or months later."
Thanks for almost clarifying which polls your originally were referring to. Just a question, because I am one of those people who never gets polled... is it just a straight out 'Would you vote X or Y if an election was called for Z' or is there more detail involved about what the issues concerning people are which make them think that way?
"The last part first, you tend to assume a lot when it comes to what I say. You should just have stuck to the first part.
And as to the first part, no they were representatives of the Institute of Public Affairs, the financial wing of the Liberal Party, professors of political studies at Universities, political commentators such as Antony Green, and numerous other informed, not journalistic, commentators.
All were readily available on Radio National, News Radio, and current affairs programs on such shows as AM, PM, World Today etc at the time."
I'm still a little unsure as to your categorisations of professions there. Who employs political commentators? And would you ever take a view from a member of an Opposition party as being the necessary truth?
"You are the one said she should have waited. Waited for what. How can she be in a honeymoon phase yet have the public against her?"
Let's turn that around. How can the public be against her when polling suggests she will win?
"All those posts from 107 where I originally posted "...obvious to a blind man that Labor...er not Labour by the way..." to this. And you still call me precious? Please look in the mirror."
I'm not being precious, I'm just not accepting poorly constructed excuses for silly behaviour.
Complain about this comment
136. _Everton_ wrote:
"We Scousers are looked on as being a little defensive back home, but some of you lot are hysterical."
Please don't think it's a large number. It is only 'some'.
Complain about this comment
143 melissakp wrote: "Did I ask the Brits whether the term 'Mad political dogs and Englishmen'?"
This makes no sense to me at all, other than to be provocative for provocative sake. And I'm not biting. Instead I refer back to my original point in mentioning it.
"If you want to be offended by either the title or the quoted text in Nick's earlier article, realise that you're being offended by Robin Boyd, a fellow Australian, not by Nick Bryant, BBC journalist."
I can't recall saying I was offended. What's your point?
"The worse thing you can do when you have those kinds of flaws is have a tantrum when someone points them out!"
I agree. SO whose having the tantrum?
"Why do you think journalists feel the need to push and query and bait? Because politicians will rarely give up the truth willingly."
You have a very cynical attitude to politicians. Are you saying all politician evade the truth?
I'm not saying that there are politicians that don't do that. I'm querying your inference that ALL politicians are like that. A recent interview of John Hewson showed a truly honest man who was ripped to shreds by Mike Willesee, with the result he lost his family to divorce and then lost his standing within the Liberal Party. Willesee has never apologised.
"I don't have the violins out for the journalists but I certainly don't have them out for the pollies either. And that is all I meant."
I am the same. However I also try to look fairly at scenarios when injustice becomes the bully. And in my opinion this whole Gillard/Rudd matter was something that really should have been left for later...when one or other will inevitably write their memoirs.
"Interviews by journalists and the media? What made it quite clear? That the politicians said so?"
Did you watch/listen to the event. IF not, no sense in discussing it because you are not making sense to me in the context of what I originally said.
"People are aware roughly how it works. But they understand (correctly) that their vote for the ALP went towards Kevin being in power."
Not from the comments on talk back radio in the major capitol cities of late, or to the many blogs at many sites across the spectrum of the Aussie media.
"I don't know that many people think a law or rule has been broken. "
Based on what? I beg to differ.
"I didn't. I knew it was all entirely legal."
And I get accused for speaking for all Australians????
Thanks for almost clarifying which polls your originally were referring to."
You're welcome:)
"Just a question, because I am one of those people who never gets polled..."
Neither am I.
"is it just a straight out 'Would you vote X or Y if an election was called for Z' or is there more detail involved about what the issues concerning people are which make them think that way?"
From the break down of the polls there are usually basic question asked, as I understand it. Questions like who would you vote for, who did you vote for. Given certain policies would vote this way or that.
Of course it depends on who is running the poll and what they are looking for.
"Who employs political commentators? And would you ever take a view from a member of an Opposition party as being the necessary truth?"
Well there are some who are members of political organisation and those that are not. My reference was to the ones used on that particular day and ones that I know who are usually non political in their comments.
"Let's turn that around. How can the public be against her when polling suggests she will win?"
Ha, if that's the case, then why are we going through this five weeks of hell. No, there is no guarantee either will win. The old saying, 'many a slip twix cup and lip' comes to mind.
"I'm not being precious, I'm just not accepting poorly constructed excuses for silly behaviour."
Now you are REALLY showing your female side :)
Complain about this comment
"Who is this mainly written for? The British".
"As I said in reply to your post #67..."I feel you should contact the BBC's marketing department and enlighten them on your opinion"...because the reality as I see it is your opinion would be the LAST thing the BBC wants."
I see you like abusing people to eh Greg? Take anything out of context and it can be twisted anywhere.
Would you care to read and answer the whole thing and not just what you want to jump on? The following line would be a great place to start.
Melissa, thanks for your comment, you seem like the many chilled out Aussies I met when I was in Perth.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Sorry Everton...did I rattle YOUR cage?
Perhaps if you did not use expressions like that...which implies you are somehow superior, I may not have answered the way I did.
Abusing people? Not really, putting forward a different opinion to yours.
I disagree with most of what you said...for example, is the BBC British?
Not really...it has gone beyond any concept of nation state...it is an example of what we now call the stateless global corporation...it exists for the world...and as I mentioned, I am convinced the BBC wouldn't have it any other way.
Can you imagine if advertisers on the BBC website thought they were only talking to the British?...not much revenue in that strategy.
And regarding the "many chilled out Aussies" you met in Perth...good luck to them.
However, not all of us like to have our "cages rattled"...we chill out when it is chill out time...the rest of the time we are "hot" to pursue the issues that matter to us...including as I said the concept of global media and a global perspective.
Look around you?
Where are British mororbikes these days?
Where are British cars?
If you cannot think globally, your industry will continue to disappear and you will continue to fade as a relevant nation and people.
Complain about this comment
melissakp wrote:
"Ah dear, what started out as an interesting blog and an interesting discussion has turned into a group of my fellow Australians who can't accept any form of criticism about any part of their own country, culture, or society."
As it pertains to issues of purely domestic concerns of a free and democratic country is it even a foreigners place to be engaging in "criticism" of said country?
I don't think so. It is disrespectful, arrogant, rude and insulting.
As I have said before there is a big difference between that and simply offering a respectful opinion. I don't see any evidence of your fellow Australians here not being able to accept the later.
"So am I allowed to say you guys are acting like a bunch of muppets by telling people their opinions aren't valid because they don't live in Australia?"
Offered in the way they often are by the many Brits in this forum you shouldn't be surprised when an Australian, or in my case an American, responds in a dismissive manner.
In the end, on matters that are purely of a domestic concern, it is also their right to simply dismiss and ignore the "opinions" of foreigners.
"Sometimes I think it takes an outsider to look at things more objectively. Sure, there are nuances and every country has its issues which are multi-layered enough that you would have to have at least spent some time in Australia to have enough of a sense of the reality of the situation in order to pass really thought-provoking comment."
Do you have such little faith in the millions of your fellow Australians that you feel it is necessary to accept the arrogant intrusion of a foreigner?
Sorry, but such a thing, as you often see on this site and the rest of the UK, is simply arrogance on the part of the "outsider" forcing his or her opinion on the people of another country, as if somehow they should have a say on how a free and democratic society should choose to live in their own country.
"In any case, I don't see Australian politics as beyond the comprehension of an outsider any more than I would think British or American politics would be outside of the sphere for my comment."
Concerning political issues that are to do with only America, and no one else, then of course they would be beyond your "comprehension" because they would based on *how Americans choose to live in their own country.*
"And I don't think it's an admirable trait of the Australian character to adopt the 'we grew here, you flew here' vein of attitude in any aspect of life whatsoever."
It's always interesting that such an attitude is almost always upheld, especially by the left, when it comes to cultures that are not as prosperous or as dominant as Western cultures, for example.
"A bit of world perspective is always useful in any facet of life. The countries who become too insular and don't wish to accept any views of 'outsiders' tend to go off on weird and extreme tangents."
What is "weird and extreme tangents" to you may be things that are quite acceptable and desirable to another culture.
"I don't want to see my home country, which has been made so great because of all the infusion of cultures, become insular and basically a little too precious about itself!"
While it is true that your country has many Australians that are the descendants from the people of many different cultures, as is the case with America, you seem to think that that somehow means there is no distinct Australian culture that should be viewed as "precious."
I don't know your politics but you come across like the typical leftist liberal that sees foreign cultures, especially those of poor and minority countries, as "precious" while ignoring and dismissing the distinct culture of your own country.
It is that kind of attitude today that has lead to things like unchecked immigration and problems with integration and assimilation of immigrants into western societies and cultures. And for some of those countries it may end up destroying them.
Complain about this comment
# 147. At 08:08am on 24 Jul 2010, you wrote:
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
_________________________________________________________________________
So moderator why not explain what on earth was in my post that you obviously found so disturbing? This new Have Your Say format was supposed to cut down on BBC bias.
Obviously not.
You guys are getting out of control, again, as I predicted you would.
Complain about this comment
Ah, AllenT2. I hope you're well. You are a passionate defender of keeping 'foreigners', especially the British, out of other nations' business. In fact I think it is the only point you ever make.
As you are such a passionate defender of free and democratic societies right to to choose how to live in their own country, and their right to make decisions without interference from others, I'd be highly interested in your views of the American senators demands that Scotland, or the UK send someone to explain the Al Megrahi release.
After all, this is a Scottish issue concerning a crime committed in Scotland and a prisoner kept in a Scottish jail. As I see it, even taking into account the large number of American victims, this was a Scottish decision to make, yet that doesn't stop the arrogant Americans thinking they somehow have the right to summon democratically elected politicians from another country to explain themselves.
What's your view of the situation? Would you say they would be beyond your "comprehension" because they would based on *how the Scots* choose to live in their own country.*?
Complain about this comment
I kind of agree with you AllenT2. My only reservation is that some people like to display their ignorance and who am I to stop them. I find it amusing whenever this happens as they profess to know more about a subject even though their level of knowledge is clearly lacking. I especially like it when English people say Australians are just a bunch of convicts. Some are trying to be funny and this is despite the joke being so old it needs to be carbon dated. Others use it as an insult when they are unaware that Australians are quite proud of their convict past. Most Australians think our convict past further emphasises the degree of their subsequent achievements. This frame of mind escapes many English people as they are still straining under the class system.
Other so called overseas Australiana experts also seek to denigrate this country by referring to it as some kind of backwater where all we do is drink beer, play sport and lay around in the sun. As in this blog subject, they also think we only have a passing acquaintence with the concept of democracy. Also, when we need some money they seem to think we just nick out to the backyard with a shovel. We then dig up something and send it off to China. That's where the derisory comment about us being the "Lucky Country" came from. If it was so easy, why is Africa such a mess. They seem to think we're a bunch of dolts and this is really due to their ignorance of our achievements. For example, the Australian inventor of the "black box flight recorder" died this week. I bet these overseas Australiana experts didn't know this and this is more of a poor reflection on them than Australians.
From an anthropological point of view I find it interesting to see how ignorant some overseas people are of my country and how willing they are to display this ignorance to anybody who'll listen. Sometimes this ignorance is so breathtaking I'll respond. Not that it seems to do much good as the same old stuff will be trotted out in no time flat. Censorship tends to hide some of these people's deficiencies and I'm not sure this isn't doing them a favour.
Complain about this comment
Greg, you attempt to portray me as a xenophobic little Englander, and then go on to pour scorn on my country by knocking our society.
Some people might call you defensive, I think I'll just ignore you.
Complain about this comment
#153 _Everton_ wrote:
Everton, I did NOT call you "a xenophobic little Englander".
I was responding to YOUR comments about the BBC.
I also expressed that if Britain does not take a "global view" it runs the risk of being marginalised and I gave the examples of the British car and motorbike industries, which have sadly disappeared.
Then again you may not have had the pleasure of driving a Sunbeam Alpine or Triumph TR3A, or riding a Triumph Bonneville or Norton Commando as I have done.
So, ignore me, no problem.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#148 Greg Warner wrote:
"Look around you?
Where are British mororbikes these days?
Where are British cars?
If you cannot think globally, your industry will continue to disappear and you will continue to fade as a relevant nation and people.
What about Triumph & Aston Martin?
Follow your own advice Greg and have a look around for an Australian manfufacturer of motorbikes & car's.
We may be suffering some economic issues as all industrialised nations are, but our economy is larger and more diverse than yours could ever hope to be.
your economic output is dominated by minerals & wheat, not finished goods.
Have another look at British manufacturers Greg and you'll find companies like BAE systems, one of the worlds biggest arms manufacturers. Rolls Royce, worlds second largest jet engine maker. JCB, one of the worlds largest construction vehicle makers. Aneos, one of the worlds largest independent chemical companys. Glaxo smithkline, one of the worlds largest drug makers.
Just a few British companies Greg with a "global view" and i haven't mentioned any companies from the finance & creative sectors. Not to bad for a country about to "fade from relevance"
No doubt to be replaced by Australia.
Complain about this comment
I don't see that anything has changed in 30 years. Remember the speed with which Bill Hayden was despatched and Bob Hawke took over the Labour leadership when Malcolm Fraser called an election back in '83? Maybe that is the problem.
Complain about this comment
11pete11, your arguments are starting to sound entirely reasonable. Partly because, at times, we don't actually disagree. And also partly in light of AllenT2's posts which are actually borderline scary.
149. AllenT2 wrote:
"As it pertains to issues of purely domestic concerns of a free and democratic country is it even a foreigners place to be engaging in "criticism" of said country?
I don't think so. It is disrespectful, arrogant, rude and insulting."
See, I'm more of the belief that to tell someone 'You can't comment on politics in my country' is arrogant and rude. Of course, it depends a lot on the context, and how things are said. I'm not offended by any part of Nick Bryant's blog. Not the content, not the tone, not the topic. I don't find, either in this article or at any other time, that Nick Bryant is disrespectful or rude towards my country. I think insulting would even be pushing it. Criticism is not always insulting.
I don't think free and democratic societies should be outside of the scope for comment. In fact, I think it more bizarre for a free and democratic country not to want to at least look at others' comments and, where they might ring true, take said comments on board.
"Offered in the way they often are by the many Brits in this forum you shouldn't be surprised when an Australian, or in my case an American, responds in a dismissive manner."
I've honestly (and I mean this) been more offended by comments from my fellow Australians in this forum than I ever have by any of the British or otherwise. I have to ask, given your view, as an American why are you commenting at all in a British website forum on Australian issues? If everyone is supposed to keep their own to their own, how did you get your free pass to jump in and set the rules?
"In the end, on matters that are purely of a domestic concern, it is also their right to simply dismiss and ignore the "opinions" of foreigners."
Dismiss and ignore, perhaps. Or if they disagree, respond with their reasons for why they think the person is incorrect. And no, I don't think 'You don't live here' is a reason, generally speaking. That's just being pig-headed and precious.
"Do you have such little faith in the millions of your fellow Australians that you feel it is necessary to accept the arrogant intrusion of a foreigner?"
You'll note, for a start, I said 'sometimes'. I don't see any harm in taking in ideas from outside. It has nothing to do with how much faith I have in my fellow Australians and indeed I have enough faith in them to think they should be able to hear a bit of criticism and not go and sulk in the corner about it. I think my fellow Australians are (for the most part) better than that. To me, Australia is very much a country where you can dish it out a bit but you have to be able to take it, as well.
"Sorry, but such a thing, as you often see on this site and the rest of the UK, is simply arrogance on the part of the "outsider" forcing his or her opinion on the people of another country, as if somehow they should have a say on how a free and democratic society should choose to live in their own country."
I notice you have to keep qualifying 'free and democratic' societies as being the only ones above the scope of criticism. Is this how you get out of being bothered by the foreign policy decisions of your own country in recent times? That it's ok to stick your bib in and criticise (or in fact invade) another country so long as you've established it's not free and/or not democratic?
"Concerning political issues that are to do with only America, and no one else, then of course they would be beyond your "comprehension" because they would based on *how Americans choose to live in their own country.*"
I would agree it would not be my place to come in and change anything. It is up to Americans how (or indeed whether) they elect the people who run their country. But I can still give an opinion on it if I like, and I don't think it's rude as long as my manner and tone are not rude. I would also think it would be either naive or purely obstinate to not realise that how any nation, but particularly any comparitively wealthy/developed nation runs itself domestically does have some impact on other countries. In this instance, how the leader of my country is chosen will obviously sometimes (as in this case) affect who the leader will be, and without my fellow Australians needing to having any formal say in it. This affects who represents us, as a leader, to the world. Who can make final decisions to press buttons here or there or sign this agreement or say X or Y to another foreign leader. The ripple effect could cause disagreements, trade issues, diplomatic issues, etc. When a decision such as this could affect our involvement in world affairs, I think it's fair for other people to take the time to understand and/or question how things are done in Australia. And if their ideas or comments are valid, I do think we should stop and think about it. I don't see the point in sticking our heads in the sand and saying it's our country, we'll run it our way or no way.
"It's always interesting that such an attitude is almost always upheld, especially by the left, when it comes to cultures that are not as prosperous or as dominant as Western cultures, for example."
It's a two-way street. I do expect people who move to live in Australia to be expected to take on a certain set of values. As someone who has myself lived in other countries, I've always accepted the changes. Most recently, it hasn't been too much of a stretch as I've been in the UK & Ireland, and the culture is reasonably similar. As a teenager I was an exchange student in France, which was still not completely exotic but it did involve a few changes. I accepted the things I had to change and for that year, even at 15/16 years of age, I understood that I was on their turf and things were to be done their way. But having had that experience at a relatively young age (especially for being in a new country on your own) I also understand what it is to be 'the foreigner'. How comforting it is when you find someone from your own, or closer to your own, culture. How easy it is to slip into grouping up with those people, with whom you can speak your own language and feel more at ease. It was a constant mind-check for me to stop myself letting it happen too much. I have never sought out other Australians or similar, and I've always tried to have more local friends and experience the full life of the country I'm living in. I just do appreciate what it can feel like to be on the wrong side of a cultural barrier or indeed a language barrier.
Travelling has also made me realise what is both great and not-so-great about my country. World perspective does that. And it's a positive thing.
"What is "weird and extreme tangents" to you may be things that are quite acceptable and desirable to another culture."
Perhaps, and if so, they should be able to be big enough and secure enough to just say 'Well this is how we like doing things'. Like the French do, about pretty much everything they do. :-) I think the French people are great for that. They just do what they do and if you don't like it, meh! It's their country and they're happy with it, so they don't let it bother them.
"While it is true that your country has many Australians that are the descendants from the people of many different cultures, as is the case with America, you seem to think that that somehow means there is no distinct Australian culture that should be viewed as "precious." "
Wow. That's quite an assumption. Of course Australia has its own culture. Of course America has it's own culture. And I do think what we have as a national character is largely something to be treasured, but it's not perfect, and it's not above criticism. I would never be so arrogant as to assume it was.
"I don't know your politics but you come across like the typical leftist liberal that sees foreign cultures, especially those of poor and minority countries, as "precious" while ignoring and dismissing the distinct culture of your own country. "
Well, you're wrong. I think it's all give and take. No country, and in fact no religion, is above comment or criticism. It's not about whether you pass a comment or critique, it's about the tone and the context. I'm happy to pass comment and I'm happy to hear others' comments. If someone has an issue with my country in any way, they are welcome to raise it, as long as they are prepared for it to be discussed or debated. No problem. Sometimes I will think they are wrong and sometimes I will think they don't understand. But never would I say they aren't even allowed to say anything just because they're not from where I'm from. Surely even the experience of being 'Australian' is different for different people. I'm not afraid of different viewpoints.
"It is that kind of attitude today that has lead to things like unchecked immigration and problems with integration and assimilation of immigrants into western societies and cultures. And for some of those countries it may end up destroying them."
Aww, when they take our jobs and our women? Grow up. Australia was built by migrants and has evolved into something great as a product of the migrants who have come to our shores. And we've even, thankfully, grown up enough to have taken the steps to recognise Aboriginal people as more than 'fauna' and to take on non-white migrants. In my opinion we are all the better for both, but there is still more we could do and perhaps we will get ideas from outside of our big island. It is possible to tread the line between protecting what we have and taking on additional ideas. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Complain about this comment
election race - one seems to rely on her hair style And the other his physical fitness. Neither seem to be saying much. They are nice people though gillard called the election to endorse her own sense of popularity And self esteem. The liberals didn't have anybody else, as nasty. His attack on Garret, shocking, but thats the polarity of politics. Denigrate your opposition while playing the nice card publically. Keating never did that. Thats why he didn't last. Hawke was authentically australian bloke with keen acumen. Someone born in Wales leading Australia is a little weird but Australia isn't what it used to be. Multicultural while denying the right of entry of those seeking shelter on boats is an oxymoron.
Laurie Oakes, Australia's foremost political commentator refers to them both as 'pygmies' Oh my lady gaga. But the public gets what it deserves And Australians aren't that bright.
When the election fascination centres around gillian's earlobes, as it did, one has to wonder what are Australians worried about. Probably nothing.
It was a killing of the Ceasar. For that to be accepted or perceived as a 'fair go' is sick. Even for Australia to be regarded as 'fair go' has receded beyond the pale.
So surprised that climate change is an election issue there. So much land And so few people. Do they really think they have an effect on climate change?
They don't have much to think about And probably are seeking entertainment. Bored seeking attention, so lets have have another tv show called the election.
What a bunch of hounds they turn out to be, ALP.
Rudd was a Statesman. The general feeling there was he was out of the country too much.
So many tunnels in Australia, so many rabbits can only be the explanation for their vision. Tunnel vision.
But they're a happy bunch, aren't they.
Obamma would have seen Rudd if Australia had backed up USA in the middle east incursions. But they didn't.
At least his wife may now see the lady from Wales.
Though if the bloke gets in, everyone will be laughing.
They should probably have 'swap a politician' programme whereby ploiticians from one country can go to Another, like exchange students.
Rudd will swim in the U.N anyway so its a blessing for him anyways.
They are nice people though, sincere.
Sincere backstabbers for good of the public whole.
Its all about being a rhetorician.
Complain about this comment
158 melissakp wrote: "11pete11, your arguments are starting to sound entirely reasonable. Partly because, at times, we don't actually disagree. And also partly in light of AllenT2's posts which are actually borderline scary."
Ha, ha I'll take that as a compliment :)
Thank you.
Complain about this comment
Australian politics is not a presidential system. People vote for a Party, not a Prime Minister. It was clear that Rudd was going to take the Labor Party to defeat at the next election. Labor Party members had to decide whether their loyalty was to a leader who treated most of them with contempt, or to the people who elected them. Most of them correctly chose the latter. The alternative, with Rudd continuing as leader: loss to the Liberal-National coalition and probably a decade out of power - was unthinkable.
Politics is war by other means. One should not be surprised by its brutality, or "ugliness".
Complain about this comment
#156 xtcalex wrote:
"What about Triumph & Aston Martin?
Follow your own advice Greg and have a look around for an Australian manfufacturer of motorbikes & car's".
Suggest you follow the thread of my comments to Everton...I was using Britain's once powerful motorbike and car industries as examples of what happens when you DON'T think global.
Australia never had such industries...Britain did...see the difference?
Triumph and Aston Martin these days?
They occupy niche markets...they are not the British motor industry of old where half the world "drove British".
Yes you have some excellent globally competitive companies these days...but suggest you don't mention Rolls Royce.
Fine aircraft engines, but as you know, these days the cars are made by BMW.
Complain about this comment
Greg, are you seriously trying to suggest that if Britain had merely thought globally it would still dominate the world's manufacturing? You don't think the wealth of the US and Japan had anything to do with it? Or, Maybe, the financial state the country was left in after WWII? Yes, the government failed to react to what was happening with markets around the world, but there were many other factors involved, too.
And as for our continous fade as a relevant nation, you don't think, perhaps, Britain punched above its weight for a long time and the natural order is slowly being restored? I'd say we're now less influential than Germany, about on terms with France, Still ahead of Spain and Italy and light years ahead of Australia. Do you deny that? Or would you say Holden and Jacobs Creek are attracting worried glances from Europe and N. America?
You would naturally prefer to see Britain's decline as a sign that we're on the way to joining the likes of Nicaragua, in terms of international clout, and expect to see Australia catch up soon, but I wouldn't hold my breath, if I were you. Australia's global position, its small population and reliance on trade with China are all obstacles to your dream that won't be overcome any time soon.
By the way, you are wrong. Rolls Royce cars are built by BMW-owned Rolls Royce, in England.
Complain about this comment
Australian Election 2010
Life has promised citizens only two things the possibility of changing their future and death. Taxes are not as previously determined by some an inevatable burden, as we have seen throughout history to our current times, if you are rich and or powerful enough taxes are an option only.
At election time, Australians are told they have a choice between the past or the future. However, the future promised in reality is no different from the past. Lost opportunities, mismanagement of Australia’s scarce resources, and worse loss of life resulting from ill-considered policy initiatives. Loss of life for which neither politicians nor bureaucrats can currently be held judiciously accountable. That is Australia’s past, and it is Australia’s future unless Australia’s current model of Governance is changed.
Australians have a model of Governance where common sense is subverted continually by political advantage either against individuals within parties and or against other- whatever the other may be. A model which regards ruthlessness as a virtue and competence as a threat to sovereign position.
Societies and the communities which comprise them are formed and deformed by text. Australian society is no different, each of us is raised to conform to textual constructs which underlie models of behaviour by which our Australian society and community functions, whether this behaviour be personal, commercial, or political. Therefore within such a construct there can be no such thing as freedom, only the degree of independence our models enables each citizen.
The major tenet upon which the current Australian model of behaviour rests is of enabling self first. Continuing economic crises and Australian politicians concern more for position than progress underlines the acceptance and flaw of this tenet. Why then are we continually surprised and grieved by commercial, political excess and inherent societal mechanisms utilised so effectively to shield these individuals and groups from account?
If a democratic society’s aim is to maximise the independence of a citizen the question we have to ask is: has self interest worked to the benefit of human kind and the environment? Have wars and the threat of wars decreased, has terror or the threat of terror decreased, has environmental devastation been curtailed and reversed, has poverty and oppression of other been diminished?
Also Australians need to determine if textual constructs, be they secular or religious, should be allowed to exist within a Democratic society where they enable models of behaviour which are diametrically opposed to a democratic societies aim to maximise the independence of a citizen - such as text which enables the existence within Australia of “permanent terror” and the diminution of the rights of women?
My perception is maximising the potential of each citizen in a Democratic society can be achieved by creating a new textual construct based on enabling the independence of other first. For such a society, or institution, or citizen by seeking as a matter of course in our day-to day activities to help another be it community, family, friends, colleagues, clients or other to attain the best outcome possible for a given situation will lead to better outcomes.
This can be achieved by creating models of behaviour and laws based squarely upon well understood precepts of human rights and amendments to corporate law which demand societal benefit as a basis for a corporation existence rather than self-interest. Until this is done Australians will simply have to accept corporate exploitation, the existence of “permanent terror” as articulated by the so soon deposed leader of the Labor party Kevin Rudd and poor governance being repeated daily in the future.
Given there are no alternatives for change to a new model of political behaviour, which are invariably promised each election but are never delivered nor can be within the current model, the only thing Australians can justly do in the 2010 election, particularly in remembrance of those who lost their precious lives in the Labor inspired insulation fiasco, is to vote out the Labor Party for being as inept and disingenuous as any previous Government in the past.
Nothing changes except the gloating faces of those on the Government benches – ‘Power is ours’! - as usual almost half and sometimes more than half of the Australian citizen’s millions of votes for their version of the future become meaningless waste paper.
Consider text can change to create new models of behaviour and citizens can change text and with it their future.
Complain about this comment
Gosh Stirling, you are touchy today.
Yes I believe if Britain had started thinking globally, earlier, we may not have seen the global car and bike markets dominated by the Japanese, for example.
How much earlier?...I would say the '70s...surely Britain had recovered from WWII by then...it is a mindset I am talking about.
The Triumph Bonneville was a great bike but the vibration was terrible...not only that, the old British designs were over engineered...whereas the front forks of British bikes of that time were made up of 17 components, the Japanese used two.
Think about the Swiss...when faced with enormous competition from Japanese watches, the Swiss invented SWATCH, now an enormously successful company...it is that kind of mindset I am talking about.
And I am NOT gloating over the decline of UK industry, merely remarking on it... and "light years ahead of Australia. Do you deny that? Or would you say Holden and Jacobs Creek are attracting worried glances from Europe and N. America"?
I don't deny it, and my comments were never written from an Australia perspective...I was expressing a global perspective in relation to Britain. BTW, I enjoyed the very first vintage of Jacob's Creek in Melbourne in 1976, I think. It's not a bad drop, easy drinking mass market stuff and that is the context I see that wine...around 10% of Australia's wine exports are made up of Joseph Creek...as a marketing exercise, not bad.
As far as Holdens go, never really been in to them. My first car was an MGB, then a series of Alfas, Porsche 911 etc. Not so much into driving these days, which is why I now employ a driver. Then again, Holden was producing a fine vehicle which GM USA sold under the Pontiac brand, but even though that car received some great reviews from the American motoring press, when GM dropped the Pontiac brand, that "Holden" was also dropped.
BTW, now I have moved on to the US car industry, many of the same comments I made about the British motor industry also apply.
Interesting to see that Ford, GM and Chrysler are now pinning their hopes on "world cars".
And please stop suggesting I am talking up Australia at Britain's expense in this matter...I haven't and I wouldn't...
Regarding Rollers, I feel you are cutting a fine line when you say "Rolls Royce cars are built by BMW-owned Rolls Royce, in England".
On a BMW 7 series chassis, if I am not mistaken.
And where ever they are made, they are still owned by BMW, aren't they?
Who owns Jaguar now?
Or, from another perspective, where are the Morris, Austin, Hillman, Humber, Riley, Bristol etc factories these days?
Then again, perhaps this has to do with the other factors you mentioned...including hopeless Government policies at the time, mismanagement and...failing to embrace a global view of the world.
This is not personal Stirling...it is history.
I would be the first to agree with Britain re-engaging with the world.
In fact in another comment on the BBC web pages I said I agreed with your Mr Hague's view of a new and more globally engaged Britain.
Complain about this comment
165 Greg Warner: Interesting thought, after reading both you and Stirling's comments.
Both Britain and Japan were financial basket cases after the war.
Even though Britain was on the winning side, she still had a massive financial situation to rectify.
I think if I remember correctly both those nations received Lend Lease money from the US and both did extremely well building their economies and exports, thought British product was by far superior to the Japanese.
I can remember the O.mega watches that came out of Japan...the hands fell off the second time you wound them.
But as you said Greg it was in the late 60's to early 70's when things changed dramatically.
Our reliance on American and British cars, soon changed to the first of the old 'enemy's' cars, such as the German Volkswagen and the Japanese Nissan/Datsun range.
It is wonderful to wander through old car rallies or motor shows to see the best of British from the war up to the Japanese invasion...car invasion I mean.
My first car was a Morris Oxford, followed by a Morris 1,000 and then a Mini Moke.
I really loved those cars.
Damn, and I promised my cat I wouldn't get nostalgic.
Complain about this comment
Hi Pete...yes, interesting subject.
Actually I did have a Cooper S in the late '60s...fell asleep at the wheel driving from Sydney to the Gold Coast for "the weekend" : )
Car clipped a tree then started rolling/bouncing down the road end to end...landed on its wheels on the correct side of the road.
Passenger and I...not a problem except for one little scratch on my little finger where my hand went through the glass...amazingly, no seat belts.
I have never fallen asleep at the wheel again...even though have done some "heroic" night drives...like Adelelaide to Sydney in 12 hours in my Porsche 911 Carrera in early '90s.
Please also apologise to your cat on my behalf for this trip down memory lane.
Complain about this comment
167Greg Warner wrote: "Actually I did have a Cooper S in the late '60s."
Man they were a wild little machine...remember them at Bathurst beating the big, cumbersome V8 on the corners.
Hope there were no serious repercussions from you incident.
And I'm glad it was the Mini not the Porsche...I started saving for one back in the 80's...should have one by the time I turn 90. :)
As to the cat, it's gone ballistic...now where did I put that Valium :)
Complain about this comment
Yes, Greg, I accept your comments are not personal. However, I would suggest that you are always inclined to see the negatives when regarding my country. Of course no one would eny the British car industry has suffered over the decades, but you have chosen to use that example to enforce your overall point that Britain will 'continue to fade as a relevant nation and people'. You choose to ignore British successes such as The Body Shop, Vodafone, the Virgin Group, Dyson and others. Do those examples earn your approval as having embraced a global view of the world?
I would say they most certainly should. I would also say they are an indicator that British entrepreneurship is still at the forefront. And, in direct contrast to the picture of the faded, spent force you paint, they're helping to ensure Britain remains relevant.
Complain about this comment
melissakp wrote:
A bit of a late response but here goes.
"See, I'm more of the belief that to tell someone 'You can't comment on politics in my country' is arrogant and rude."
Of course you leave out the important parts of my comment. I have said more than once DOMESTIC policies that do not affect any other countries.
I also never said anything about not being able to "comment." You need to read my comments more carefully and/or you need to stop trying to put words in my mouth.
"Of course, it depends a lot on the context, and how things are said."
Exactly. If you had read my past comments more carefully you would know that the "context" I refer to are domestic policies that do not affect any other countries and the "how things are said" part would be expressing opinions and "comments" in a way that disrespects the right of a free and democratic country to chose how it wishes to govern itself and live!
"I don't think free and democratic societies should be outside of the scope for comment."
Once again, I never said anything about comments.
"In fact, I think it more bizarre for a free and democratic country not to want to at least look at others' comments and, where they might ring true, take said comments on board."
There is a big difference between someone asking for an opinion and others trying to impose their opinions.
"I've honestly (and I mean this) been more offended by comments from my fellow Australians in this forum than I ever have by any of the British or otherwise. I have to ask, given your view, as an American why are you commenting at all in a British website forum on Australian issues? If everyone is supposed to keep their own to their own, how did you get your free pass to jump in and set the rules?"
Why would you ask that? Are you now all of a sudden against ME "commenting?" I thought you were all for people being able to comment?
I obviously have an interest in foreign affairs but unlike people like you, and those at the BBC, my interests are non-interfering and respectful which explains my criticism and my "commenting." See?
"Dismiss and ignore, perhaps. Or if they disagree, respond with their reasons for why they think the person is incorrect. And no, I don't think 'You don't live here' is a reason, generally speaking. That's just being pig-headed and precious."
And such a response doesn't surprise me at all. I suspect you are either quite the socialist or a communist to think that you should have a say over the affairs of others outside of your own country.
"You'll note, for a start, I said 'sometimes'. I don't see any harm in taking in ideas from outside."
But you have a problem if they choose not to. That is your problem.
"It has nothing to do with how much faith I have in my fellow Australians and indeed I have enough faith in them to think they should be able to hear a bit of criticism and not go and sulk in the corner about it."
Oh stop it. I'm quite sure the Australians I've seen posting here are quite capable of taking criticism from their fellow countrymen. Intrusive, demanding and even hostile foreign "criticism" should get the reaction it deserves. Total rejection.
"I think my fellow Australians are (for the most part) better than that. To me, Australia is very much a country where you can dish it out a bit but you have to be able to take it, as well."
What does that have to do with what I just said??
"I notice you have to keep qualifying 'free and democratic' societies as being the only ones above the scope of criticism. Is this how you get out of being bothered by the foreign policy decisions of your own country in recent times? That it's ok to stick your bib in and criticise (or in fact invade) another country so long as you've established it's not free and/or not democratic?"
I see nothing wrong in criticizing a government or dictator for not giving his or her own people a say in how they live their lives. I'm sorry you feel differently.
"I would agree it would not be my place to come in and change anything. It is up to Americans how (or indeed whether) they elect the people who run their country. But I can still give an opinion on it if I like, and I don't think it's rude as long as my manner and tone are not rude."
One is also "rude" if they persist in having their view heard.
"I would also think it would be either naive or purely obstinate to not realise that how any nation, but particularly any comparitively wealthy/developed nation runs itself domestically does have some impact on other countries."
Oh really? So now everything America does domestically is somehow affecting other countries? And not just that, but to the extent that it requires the interference of foreigners like you?
Wow.
"In this instance, how the leader of my country is chosen will obviously sometimes (as in this case) affect who the leader will be, and without my fellow Australians needing to having any formal say in it. This affects who represents us, as a leader, to the world. Who can make final decisions to press buttons here or there or sign this agreement or say X or Y to another foreign leader. The ripple effect could cause disagreements, trade issues, diplomatic issues, etc. When a decision such as this could affect our involvement in world affairs, I think it's fair for other people to take the time to understand and/or question how things are done in Australia."
Why are you talking about foreign affairs? I was obviously talking about domestic affairs that have nothing to do with other countries.
"It's a two-way street."
Well, obviously I disagree or otherwise I wouldn't have said as much.
When it comes to the smaller or less well off cultures or countries of the world people from the left, such as yourself, will grant rights that you deny others that are from more larger or prosperous cultures or countries.
"Travelling has also made me realise what is both great and not-so-great about my country. World perspective does that. And it's a positive thing."
That's the typical kind of snobbery and self-loathing sentiment you get from the left that is supposedly well traveled.
I have traveled to over 20 countries and lived many years in Europe so don't assume that I have seen less of the world than you have.
"Perhaps, and if so, they should be able to be big enough and secure enough to just say 'Well this is how we like doing things'.Like the French do, about pretty much everything they do."
Americans do that all the time but it isn't good enough for the people I have been talking about, including you.
Has it not been clear to you by now when an American is not interested in your foreign view? Or does that message get through only if you are French, or simply not American?
"I think the French people are great for that. They just do what they do and if you don't like it, meh! It's their country and they're happy with it, so they don't let it bother them."
Why don't you persist with the French as much as you do with Americans when they reject you?
"Wow. That's quite an assumption. Of course Australia has its own culture. Of course America has it's own culture. And I do think what we have as a national character is largely something to be treasured, but it's not perfect, and it's not above criticism. I would never be so arrogant as to assume it was."
You are the only one mentioning perfection. And arrogance is thinking you, as a foreign national, should have a say in the purely domestic affairs of another free and democratic country.
"Well, you're wrong. I think it's all give and take. No country, and in fact no religion, is above comment or criticism. It's not about whether you pass a comment or critique, it's about the tone and the context."
The "context" I was addressing was quite clear until you tried to change it.
As for the "tone," your "tone" is intrusive, haughty and demanding and that became offensive a long time ago.
"I'm happy to pass comment and I'm happy to hear others' comments. If someone has an issue with my country in any way, they are welcome to raise it, as long as they are prepared for it to be discussed or debated. No problem. Sometimes I will think they are wrong and sometimes I will think they don't understand. But never would I say they aren't even allowed to say anything just because they're not from where I'm from."
And once again, I never said anything about not being able to comment. You have a real problem understanding my exact words.
"Surely even the experience of being 'Australian' is different for different people. I'm not afraid of different viewpoints."
Neither am I, but I know my place and I know what is respectful and what is not.
"Aww, when they take our jobs and our women? Grow up."
Unfortunately, I'm quite likely older than you. That may explain some things.
"Australia was built by migrants and has evolved into something great as a product of the migrants who have come to our shores. And we've even, thankfully, grown up enough to have taken the steps to recognise Aboriginal people as more than 'fauna' and to take on non-white migrants."
OK, so you wouldn't mind approximately 15-20 million Mexicans invading your country and then demanding that not only they be allowed to stay but also that their culture should be equal to or superior to Australia's?
The day people like you stop addressing certain Australians as "Aboriginal" and simply refer to them as Australians is when you will truly grow up.
"In my opinion we are all the better for both, but there is still more we could do and perhaps we will get ideas from outside of our big island. It is possible to tread the line between protecting what we have and taking on additional ideas. The two are not mutually exclusive."
As I already said. I have no problem with the exchange of ideas. What I have a problem with is your type of exchange. The type of exchange that is intrusive, haughty, and ultimately demanding, not to mention hostile.
Admit it, you have a real problem with me rejecting your comments or views simply because I am American. After all, you have no problem with the French doing the same, as you said yourself.
Complain about this comment
stirling222 wrote:
"Ah, AllenT2. I hope you're well. You are a passionate defender of keeping 'foreigners', especially the British, out of other nations' business. In fact I think it is the only point you ever make."
Some people only choose to see whatever reinforces their view of the world, or in this case another person.
We can talk about other things, if you really want to.
"As you are such a passionate defender of free and democratic societies right to to choose how to live in their own country, and their right to make decisions without interference from others, I'd be highly interested in your views of the American senators demands that Scotland, or the UK send someone to explain the Al Megrahi release."
I don't know the specifics of the case, especially the part of "demands" allegedly being made, so I can't comment. That said, it is obvious that an explanation as a matter of courtesy and consideration be extended to the country that by far lost the most citizens in that terror attack.
"After all, this is a Scottish issue concerning a crime committed in Scotland and a prisoner kept in a Scottish jail. As I see it, even taking into account the large number of American victims, this was a Scottish decision to make, yet that doesn't stop the arrogant Americans thinking they somehow have the right to summon democratically elected politicians from another country to explain themselves."
How do you go from referring to "American senators" to "arrogant Americans?"
Also, see my previous comment.
"What's your view of the situation? Would you say they would be beyond your "comprehension" because they would based on *how the Scots* choose to live in their own country.*?
Again, see my previous comment.
This is also obviously not a case where a domestic policy decision is not affecting the people of another country.
All my comments and opinions past and present are quite clear. There is nothing that needs interpretation. Please respond accordingly as it saves us time responding to each other.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS