Rudd, Cameron and leadership rumours:
James Burke writes: Re. “Labor Senator brands Daily Tele’s Rudd front page a red herring” (yesterday, item 2). Doug Cameron for PM!
How about it? Someone capable of speaking honestly about reality? Someone capable of pointing out how things actually are and suggesting they should change for the better? Someone capable of suggesting that those who oppose such change aren’t just innocent citizens with legitimate “concerns”, which politicians should “hear” and “understand”, but corrupt wormtongues bought and directed by immoral parasitic gangster warlords?
I won’t hold my breath. The rats have the run of the place these days. But when the next split happens, its pattern is clear. The genuine Labor Party will regroup around the likes of Cameron. The Right will cringe behind the gnomes, the amoralists such as Arbib and Thistlethwaite, the pseudo-Christian godfathers such as De Bruyn and Feeney. Maybe they’ll form a new DLP-style party, and when it is revealed that they have no actual constituency, retire comfortably with their taxpayer-feathered nest eggs.
And in the meantime, the axes shall be bundled, the reeds bound together, and the defeatists and degenerates shall be put in their place. Hail Caligula!
Niall Clugston writes: Before dismissing percolating speculation about a possible Kevin Rudd challenge, it’s important to realise that members of the parliamentary press gallery produce the most accurate reportage of any journalists. They are so close to their sources and absorb so much observations, off-the-record briefings, rumours, and tip-offs that they are often more aware of the real situation than the main players.
After all, they were right about the highly unlikely, highly unorthodox, and highly ill-advised installation of Julia Gillard. Why should we doubt that the Kevin the Happy Little Vegemite will return to the Lodge? Menzies was PM twice. And if a first-time PM can be removed by his own party, anything can happen.
Qantas:
Dave Sag writes: Re. “Tips and rumours” (yesterday, item 7). I read Virginia Lee’s email response to the Qantas email and my main thought was hey, I’m a Gold frequent flyer and have been for at least seven years (the past three were Platinum in fact) so how come I never got an email from Qantas? Clearly not all Gold frequent flyers were being contacted. Perhaps it’s because I actually booked a flight next week on Qantas and so they assumed I had no need of mollification.
I share Lee’s sentiments mostly, and if Virgin was even close to the same price as Qantas (or if it actually offered direct flights from Canberra to Adelaide) I’d have used them out of protest. But convenience and price won out alas. And Alan Joyce is certainly right that I can at least be guaranteed a flight without industrial action due to the intervention of the FWA people.
I understand that the management wants progress and that progress may come at the expense of Australian jobs. I am wary of the unions playing the race-card and implying that work done offshore is necessarily shoddy; I have no reason to believe that is true. But I am scandalised that a CEO can demand such extravagant pay while his company’s stock price is sliding, and the company claims to be unprofitable. Bonuses ought to reward performance. And I found the timing of the shutdown deeply cynical.
That said, to be honest I have always been very loyal to Qantas, (despite having doubts about the veracity of its offset scheme.) When I injured myself on a work trip to the US, the Qantas team was super helpful in getting me home safe and sound and I have always been grateful for that. They went above and beyond for me. But I know friends who have been treated so badly by Qantas they will never fly it again. So I guess I am lucky.
I was also lucky to have returned from my holiday the day before the shutdown. A day later and I’d have been stranded in Bangkok and facing immanent deluge. I doubt I would feel so charitable towards the airline in that case.
Bernard Keane writes: Michael Moy (yesterday, comments) invites me to correct my statement that the protected industrial campaign by three unions was not a significant threat to Qantas. As grateful as I am for his concern, I have to decline.
As Moy himself concedes, Fair Work Australia clearly stated that the industrial actions did not threaten “significant damage” to the air transport industry. Last I checked — and as Moy should know given he’s an IR lawyer who has represented an airline in a case against its employees — Qantas is 65% of the domestic air transport industry.
Perhaps Moy has an update on how successful Qantas has been at losing market share lately?
Julian Assange:
Ken Lambert writes: Re. “Rundle: Assange needs to turn his predicament into a wider cause” (yesterday, item 4). Guy Rundle is seemingly obsessed with the Assange case and all its delicious twists and contradictions.
The erstwhile cool Swedes who used to be liberated and leftist are now run by a feminazi fatale cabal capable of jailing the hapless carriers of Y chromosomes who fail to copulate in the approved Swedish way. Clearly WH&S forms were not filled out before Assange assignations; which breached multiple EU laws.
Assange plays the victim with trappings like nice suit with Remembrance Day poppy instead of his usual kit of cords and a work-shined suede jacket. Plummy voiced Aussie Geoff Robertson turns celebrity hypothetical into street theatre — bringing the best of British justice for the well connected into full view. Thank God Gaddafi did not live to have Geoffrey harangue us all for years in the Hague about due process for the mop-topped murderer.
And above it all sails Assange — serene, silver haired and about to serve a Swede imposed sentence.
The Hamster Wheel:
Megan Stoyles writes: Re. “Last night’s TV ratings” (yesterday, item 16). Your TV correspondent Glenn Dyer writes under “The Losers” that The Hamster Wheel is “fading”. Wednesday night’s episode showed the Chaser boys were getting back to top form with the satire and laughs coming continuously, especially the “Turkey Slap” send up of the much promoted Slap on the ABC.
However, their sharpest comments came on the Qantas dispute where they referenced the management shutdown to the planned removal of staff and operations to cheaper offshore locations. This was a much more nuanced analysis than that on Gruen Planet, where the well-off hucksters discussed how Qantas should be using staff at risk of losing their jobs offshore, to win back the flying customers in thought, word and deed. Puhlease. Go The Wheel!
Assange playing the victim: I think not.
Contrary to what one person has written about Assange playing the victim because he wears a nice suit and wears a poppy. Bad Julian how dare you wear a nice suit , how dare you have consensual sex with a woman, how dare you speak the truth and expose liars to the world, how dare you exercise your right to free speech and most of all how dare you be different to the rest of us. Julian why cant you just get up and go to work and be caught up in capitalism like the other 99.9% of the so called enlightened western world For god sakes Julian stop having silver white hair because clearly that must be illegal too!!!
And as for likening Assange to Gaddafi well that’s a bloody stretch of a billion miles. Assange is a supporter of humans rights to know the truth, however much it may embarrass our two faced governments, while Gaddafi is one who is known for starting several wars and aquiring chemical weapons. It makes me wonder how you knew of such things that both these men are “guilty”of you must travel the world and see it all first hand. Or would it be trial by media?
Well said, Debra, thanks for that. Oh, and as for Doug Cameron for PM, I’d vote for him.
I would like to echo Debra’s sentiments, adding that Mr Assange has in fact not been charged with any crime. Mr Assange, acting either alone or through the vehicle Wikileaks, has committed no illegal act in publishing material which informs the citizens of this world honestly.
The indictment to extradite Mr Assange to Sweden to face QUESTIONING concerning his prior conduct in Sweden ( along with a media fueled assumption that he will be charged ) is problematic when any attempt is made to find some just cause for this action. Mr Assange offered himself to Swedish authorities prior to departure from Sweden and prior to interference from one Swedish prosecutor following the refusal to do so by a different Swedish prosecutor who handled the original complaint. Mr Assange’s extradition request comes not from a judicial body but from one deeply partisan police prosecutor. Effectively the hearsay of a Swedish police officer.
There is evidence of coercion of the complainants by the police prosecutor, referred to above, to reconstruct the original complaint so as to add to it and substantiate a cause for extradition. The partisan leanings of this particular police prosecutor are known to be towards extreme right wing capitalism.
None of these facets of Mr Assange’s legal predicament were ever considered in the decision to permit extradition proceedings to be carried out by the United Kingdom justice system at either level of consideration thus staged.
As I understand it, the Australian Government have an obligation to assist its citizens facing legal matters in foreign jurisdictions and to date I have not seen a valid legal argument to relinquish this obligation. Yet I have seen no evidence of the Australian Government moving to fulfil this obligation.
At this point I wish to declare that I have no professional or other interest in agitating for Mr Assange other than to see that justice is done.
I do believe Mr Assange is being manipulated into a situation where he can be victimised by the illegal intentions of extremists who control and influence foreign policy in the United States of America. I have no confidence that Mr Assange will be treated legally once in USA. Mr Assange may be taken from Sweden to the United States to face charges which are currently being concocted with oversight being given to such endeavours by one Karl Rove, a key aggressor for war and a known and publicised right wing extremist within the USA’s corporate military policy oversight regime ( otherwise known as “the crazies”). Or worse, Mr Assange could be rendered to the United States and denied even the thin veil of justice which exists in that country, which I might add retains the death penalty and who are guilty of practicing torture.
I would urge all Australians to source their news and information in places other than the PR wing of the CIA. This happens to be the view of many who know the history of News Ltd. Have a look at the links and associations between the money laundering operation which was the Nugan Hand Bank in Australia and Mr Murdoch during the relevant period. Have a look at the type of activities from where the laundered proceeds came. It is a very instructive example of form for organisations with Intelligence connections such as this evidence would suggest.
I personally have no doubt that legal technicalities are being used and manipulated to have Mr Assange made “an example of” in the United States for having acted contrary to the largely obscured intentions of Anglo American Geopolitical powers dictating world events ( read wars and the overthrow of sovereign governments ) in a fashion which is well outside both sovereign law in states such as Australia and the United Kingdom and also international law giving consideration to a valid interpretation of Tyranny.
PS Doug is closer to the truth than many realise!