On the life and death of Malcolm Fraser
Ken Lambert writes: Re. “Rundle: farewell to Fraser, a political exile and the last of his kind” (Friday). As Crikey’s resident Liberal Imperialist I was always unconvinced by Fraser’s conversion to soft left causes. Was it simply a guilt trip for all that he was, up until 1975? Easter Island countenance grimly set against the leftist unconstitutional rabble Whitlam’s crash through experiment with government became. Or was it the glorification of his actions regarding refugees from Vietnam? Does anyone remember Malcolm’s warehousing of Vietnamese in Indonesia? His was the first offshore processing line and the fact that most of the resettlement took place after his demise in 1983? Of course Gough — a fellow new age venerable — was even more beneficent in his magnanimity toward Vietnamese refugees when he famously rejected them with “Comrade — these people will never vote Labor” or words to that effect. Or was it just his insufferable hypocrisy of later years in embracing the Leftist analysis of everything in the face of facts which render his guilt trip light years from the Liberal mainstream he once tried to represent?
Les Heimann writes: Guy Rundle’s piece on Malcolm Fraser portrayed him as a very Methodist rich and upper-class landowner in his heyday and a disillusioned apologist in his layday. From my experience of the man he was the embodiment of a class of person who genuinely believed his background and origins of entitlements made him one who was born to rule. This was a natural state for him and interestingly a state the Liberal Party father R.G. Menzies believed he himself had acquired, even though an imposter. For Malcolm Fraser to be praised for his humanitarian/ egalitarian actions and “positions” misses the point.
Fraser was of that class that believed in duty to the lower classes. So he held fast to ensuring he did his bit for those of a lower class than he. It may have pained him to stoop but this was his duty. He certainly never realised he was irrelevant and the class he believed he belonged to was a myth; certainly in these times. Unfortunately, apart from those inglorious and irrelevant English appendages, the royals, we still have a number of prominent Australian “wannabes” still kicking around. They float throughout the Liberal party and even hold elected office and we know them for what they are. A catch cry could be used to describe them “a right to be a bigot because we are”. Thankfully Australia has largely rid itself of the Malcolm Frasers of yesteryear. I felt sorry for the man who believed he was serving his subjects to the best of his ability as he was a tragic figure in his later years. Still we shouldn’t speak ill of the dead — best say he acted according to his class.
On Abbott’s St Patrick’s day message
John Shailer writes: Re. “Rundle: the Tony Abbott guide to cock-ups in three easy steps” (Wednesday). The drivel that passes for political comment by the feral Abbott-haters is a disgrace! They sweat on every word he utters for a “gotcha”, and ignore the same quotes from Labor politicians. Do they really believe Irish don’t like Guinness or you can’t mention the Nazis? Meanwhile they mostly support the Senate rejecting sensible measures to prevent our slide into a Grecian quagmire. What will their children think in 10 years, saddled with Labor’s projected debt of $100,000 a household and high youth unemployment?
Re Tony Abbott. I am an Abbott hater. The reason? I met him on a Pollie Pedal that we all thought he was paying for, but of course we were. He turned out to be one of the most arrogant, egocentric, ignorant(in fact as well as attitude)boofheads I have ever met in my 60 years. Never would that man be fit to lead a nation. His daily cringeworthy ineptitude and incompetence simple amplify my first impression. He never had the plot to lose as best I could tell.
John Shailer calls the political comment on Tony Abbott’s constant gaffes “drivel” and a form of “gotcha” on everything that proceeds from the PM’s mouth, then offers this “…ignores the same quotes from Labor politicians” . Forgive Mr Shailer, however which Labor politician in the House referred to his opposite number as a member of the Nazi elite? Which Labor politician smeared one ethnic and national group as a nation of drunkards?
As for the comments about the Senate not passing Government measures (which Mr Shailer calls “sensible measures” when no-one else in the country apart from the Government & their risible cheer squad call them “sensible measures”), Mr Shailer and the PM seem to be of the same mind – that this Senate dropped off the Moon and is there just to thwart “good Government”. Let’s be sensible – this Government of “no surprises” launched a raft of surprising legislation, none of which was taken to the electorate in 2013 and this “adult” Government has behaved in a juvenile fashion, since the beginning of 2014, dealing with opposition to its legislative program. The same electors who gave Tony Abbott’s party of “adults” Government also voted for a Senate that would temper and review the “adult” government’s legislative program. I believe that’s how our Constitution and electoral system works. Or is that analysis also just “drivel”?
It still puzzles me, the difference between “Howard/Abbott haters” as employed by conservatives, and the very much less (if ever?) heard/seen “Rudd/Gillard/Shorten haters”?
One (“Howard/Abbott haters”) seems to be derogatory, with a woody overtone of implied irrationality in said “hater”?
The other, much rarer/subliminal(?), seems to be perfectly reasonable?