Burma:

Marcus L’Estrange writes: Re Burma. I seem to remember that multi millionaire Comrade Bob Hawke, after ceasing to be PM, couldn’t get to Burma quick enough to make money. Rather than Hawke his way around marginal electorates for the ALP any chance of him using his commercial influence on the military in Burma? Just a thought.

Matt Hardin writes: Given that China has so many issues that it needs to address from human rights to the environment to Burma, maybe we should boycott the Beijing Olympics until it picks up its act. It causes the leadership to lose face without hurting the ordinary Chinese citizen.

Polls, election timing et al:

Marilyn Shepherd writes: Why is it that the Crikey team and Morgan continue with the furphy that 20% of the voters are “soft” labor because they say the country is going in the right direction? What the hell is the correlation and what does the question mean? We are rapidly turning our backs on the coalition government and heading towards a government with more compassion and a sense of fair play. If we are more and more heading away from a bad government to the hopes of a better government just what is this crap about “soft” votes? Newspoll did something more sensible and came up with about 19% who voted liberal last time who have switched their votes to labor due to increases in interest rates. So what on earth is this lame “going in the right direction” and what is it supposed to mean?

Keith Williams writes: I can’t help but think the Coalition, or in this instance the Prime Minister, is making a grave error of judgment. While you understand his thinking in waiting a period of time after the APEC weekend of disaster, to gain momentum and strengthen his and the Coalition’s footing before calling the election, perhaps he is way too narrow in his view and can’t see the forest for the trees. In other words whilst focusing on himself (mostly) and his party he has overlooked one overriding factor in the big picture. Most people believe, whether Liberal, Labor or swinging voters, that Labor will win. We have been told that for weeks and months. Well maybe the mistake is that whilst everybody thinks Labor will win the longer the delay to the election the longer we look at Rudd from the perspective of the winner and become more comfortable with what we see as the inevitable. The delay in the election means we are getting more and more comfortable and familiar with him. It’s almost like he is on his first 100 days honeymoon in the job. We are getting used to the idea of him as the leader and conversely getting used to the fact that Howard WILL be gone. Perception is reality and this is a major miscalculation on behalf of Howard.

Geoff Perston writes: Contrary to Crikey’s assertion that “It’s shaping up to be the most riveting election in a decade” I reckon it’s gonna be a lay-down misere for Labour. Who’s trying to sell what to whom for $49 at Crikey?

Drought relief:

Farm Radio’s Chris Brown writes: Re Ian Farquhar on corporate agriculture (Friday, comments). There is one big difference between a failed farming business and any other type of failed small business. It’s called the family home. Inevitably if a farming business fails, the farmers not only lose their business, but also their home. It is beyond the pale for so many reasons to equate the business of farming with other types of business. Ian, if you owned a widget factory and I owned a peach orchard we both have the right to refuse to sell below a certain price. Unfortunately, my peaches don’t have a long shelf life and with only two major buyers of food in Australia I don’t have much choice other than to take what I am offered. That’s the case now – not at some point in the future. If growing peaches, or beef cattle or potatoes is no longer profitable, sure farmers will survive doing something else in town – they are very handy people. But who is going to go hungry first? Claiming farming is like any other business simply displays a lack of travel opportunities in one’s own country.

Peter Scholl writes: Why not do a comparative news story, to assess the justice of the Feds allowing farmers to earn $20,000 off-farm income without losing any benefits, while as part of their NT intervention they tax Aborigines anything up to 70% of the dollar if they get work while on the dole? (See recent comments by Bill Moss.) They (Peter McGauran to be precise) call the problem for farmers severe and longstanding – what is it for Aboriginal communities? I guess there is votes in one and not in the other.

Niall Clugston writes: A lot of the debate about drought relief ignores the fact that Australian agriculture is the most efficient in the world. The first farm was Experiment Farm, and Australian agriculture has been scientific ever since. The wool industry started on the backs of Spanish Merinos, not some English imports, as Green parrots would have us believe. This efficiency was because, not despite, of the arid conditions. ‘Western’ agriculture started in Egypt and the not-so-Fertile Crescent: they got organised because they had to, and so has Australia. So let’s acknowledge this. Any academic who advocates Australia shutting down its farms is a fool. The question is: has Australian agricultural output suffered in terms of money or volume because of overseas subsidies? If so and to that extent, it should be subsidised. Anything else and we destroy the strength of our industry.

Christian Kerr v The Greens:

Paul Bullock writes: Re. “The Greens won’t work with Labor” (Friday, item 11). Christian Kerr’s continually biased and derogatory articles about the Greens are the only thing in Crikey that ever makes me question seriously whether I will subscribe again when the time comes. Last election 1 in 14 Australians voted for the Greens, more than voted for any party other than the Liberals or Labor (and significantly more than the Nationals). Phrases like “shrubhuggers” and assertions that the Greens will “always just be a minor party” are needlessly insulting, personal opinion, and also show a remarkable ignorance of both the philosophy behind representative democracy and the lessons from other parts of the world – particularly Europe, where green parties have successfully participated in governing coalitions. Kerr also seems particularly ignorant of the purpose and history of proportional representation in the Senate. Furthermore, none of your (on the whole good) analysis of the preference situation has considered in depth what should be the real issue: are the Greens philosophically more consistent with Labor than Family First? Even a cursory examination of their respective policies will show that preferencing the Greens is by far the most ideologically sound position for Labor – not that that is a concept much in favour in current political analysis.

Glen Daly writes: Is Christian Kerr being paid to be the Devils Advocate in order to stir controversy? Or is he just plain stupid, ignorant and arrogant? I don’t pay a subscription to Crikey to read this biased nonsense and in future, won’t. If I want to read crap I can do it for free on the websites of the MSM.

Louise Crossley writes: As I read the responses from various Greens advisers and Senators yesterday, they were simply correcting the factual inaccuracy of your story the day before, about their record in parliamentary committees and Senate votes. Putting the record straight is hardly “squealing”.  And it seems to me your “harlot” metaphor is not only offensive but inaccurate;  the Greens’ position is currently the reverse, responsibility — evidenced by their Senate record —  without power.

A new Magna Carta:

Ian Price writes: Re. “Corporations welcome to advertise in Australian classrooms” (Friday, item 2). Governments of all persuasions have sold us and our very souls out to big business, the rich and powerful. Governments are supposed to govern for us, but they are totally in the pockets of big business. They only think of the perks they can gain for themselves and their families. A life of free breakfasts, lunches, dinners, holidays, jobs for the boys, you name it. It’s gone full circle back to the days of bad King John and his nasty barons; oh, and we the peasants. A new Magna Carta immediately please.

Canberra airport development:

Alan Hatfield writes: I think Bob Winnel (Friday, comments) overlooked mentioning that he is the owner and developer of the land in question under the flight path from Canberra Airport. It appears to me (as someone with little technical knowledge in this area but a long-term resident of Canberra who doesn’t want inappropriate development to occur in our fair city) that Bob has been intent on claiming that his proposed development at Tralee meets all relevant standards in relation to acceptability of airport noise. But I suspect that most of these standards relate to acceptable compromise in cities already blessed with airport edge housing before the standards were set. I doubt that they are the standards that a reasonable (and disinterested!) person would adopt for an area where there is no current airport edge development! Bob also continues to argue that Canberra Airport is wildly overestimating the volume of future aircraft movements but can this possibly be an issue if Bob’s development at Tralee meets all airport noise standards? Is Bob actually admitting that, under some circumstances (even if not all that likely) airport noise WILL be unacceptable at Tralee? If Minister Sartor does end up deciding that this development can go ahead it must be on the condition that all buyers forgo the right to complain or receive any compensation for any claim in relation to noise from Canberra Airport in perpetuity. I am sure the legal eagles can draft a suitable caveat to be included in every deed of sale. Imagine what a boost it would be for Bob’s argument for him to announce immediately that he is voluntarily arranging for such caveats to be included. Go on, Bob. Don’t be shy!!

Send your comments, corrections, clarifications and c*ck-ups to boss@crikey.com.au. Preference will be given to comments that are short and succinct: maximum length is 200 words (we reserve the right to edit comments for length). Please include your full name – we won’t publish comments anonymously unless there is a very good reason.