Abbott’s ominous form (letter)

Adam Rope writes: Re. “Abbott’s answers raise more questions” (yesterday). Did anyone else think that the final sentence of Abbott’s letter to a Crikey reader yesterday (“Be assured that the government is purposefully , methodically and effectively delivering our plan for a strong, prosperous economy and a safe, secure Australia”) is not only completely and ridiculously off topic, but chillingly totalitarian and akin to some form of Newspeak communication from 1984? Don’t you the individual person worry your silly little head about the minor and unimportant issue which  caused you to write in, we are purposefully following our plan for the greater good of a safe Australia?

John Newton writes: I got exactly the same letter after having written to Abbott regarding monstering the CEFC.

Shorten’s future

John Richardson writes: Re. “Shorten a waste of an opposition leader“. As Crikey muses over the apparent ineptitude of Opposition Leader “Dill” Shorten to take advantage of an even more inept Prime Minister, “Phony Tony” Abbott, the underlying but incorrect assumption is that there are material differences between the two leaders and the two major political parties that have dominated Australian political life for almost 100 years. Shorten’s problem isn’t his non-performance at the star chamber hearings into trade union dealings, nor his apparent inability to take advantage of Abbott or his incompetent government. The sad truth is that there is no light between either neo-liberal leader or either neo-liberal party when it comes to the interests that they represent at the expense of the majority of Australians and their country.

At the heart of voter frustration in Australia is the sense that there is no real alternative to the lazy, self-interested, arrogant elites from both sides of politics who prance and posture on the nation’s stage without a care in the world: hence the fact that more than 20% of the primary vote at the last federal election went to neither of the major parties. It is often said that Australians are not stupid but the fact that they are content to switch machines but stay in the same club suggests otherwise. Sadly, until Australians learn that neither Abbott nor Shorten, Labor nor Coalition can or will deliver for the “Lucky Country”, there will be no imperative giving rise to a real alternative.

Gerard Butler writes: Hi just a pointer  on Bill “mates rates” Shorten. Surely the key issue is not whether Shorten and the AWU accepted benefits from the various employers but whether they advised the AWU members who were covered by the EBAs of the assorted side deals including the direct payments to the union and funding for Shorten’s campaign manager. At the time Shorten rose to prominence the AWU National had just gone through an internal ruckus and a financial brawl involving Steve Harrison, the previously Sydney based national secretary. From memory part of the ruckus was the old FIA v AWU brawl but also to do with loans and other arrangements that allowed long term officials to access the accumulated long service leave benefits without resigning. Might be worth a look particularly given the length of service of some Queensland officials who appear to have gone very quiet.

Les Heimann writes: What was the name of the guy who stood for ALP parliamentary leader and got 60% of the members votes? Oh yes, Anthony Albanese. Wonder why he isn’t in the job. Ask the factions, they know everything about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Can you imagine just what sort of fever the conservatives would be sweating were Albanese in charge?

John Kotsopoulos writes: Re. “After royal commission, Shorten crashes with voters” (yesterday). There is no doubt about it when the media senses blood the narrative becomes relentlessly negative. Shorten’s appearance  before the royal commission was reported in a mostly negative fashion and to an audience that  would not have had the time to watch proceedings for themselves. It has had an effect as the Essential Poll shows. That Tony Abbott has never declared donations in kind, late or otherwise hardly got a mention. If the royal commission shines a light on the murky world of political donations it will have achieved an outcome we can all applaud. Abbott may rue the day he set this hare loose.

Board reform? No way

Mark Freeman writes: Re. “Mayne: the deck is stacked against my Macquarie board tilt” (yesterday). Stephen Mayne has spent weeks supporting access for professional company board gravy trainers to industry super boards. He now bemoans the actions of the same club for shutting him out, this time from Macqaurie. Wise up old chap, you just don’t cut it in the “one of us” stakes. No amount of sucking up like your industry super efforts is gong to change things. And if you think the current captured feds are going to reform board voting, you really are dreaming.

Will the real Tim Stephens please stand up?

Professor of International Law Tim Stephens writes: Re. “Common sense v cash” (yesterday). In response to Tim Stephens in yesterday’s Crikey, I don’t deny I’m Tim Stephens, I just deny I’m the other Tim Stephens. But, happily, I fully agree with him that Australia should warmly embrace renewables, and phase out fossil fuels.

On Greece

Tamas Calderwood writes: Re. “Would France accept Greece’s new micromanagement? Mais non!” (yesterday). Glenn Dyer claims the Franco-German insistence on Greek economic reforms is “utter hypocrisy” because those countries refuse to implement such reforms themselves. But I think Glenn misses the point: Germany and France are meeting their obligations to their creditors so they can’t be told what to do, whereas Greece is asking for more money even though it can’t meet its current obligations. In order to be extended more loans, Greece’s creditors insist on reforms that will increase economic activity by doing away with restrictive government rules. Sure, the creditors themselves don’t want those reforms, but they don’t need them to remain solvent. If Greece wants more cash it has to prove it can pay that money back (cough, cough) and without some serious economic reforms, who would believe it can?