Arguing about Abbott

Harry Jordans writes: Re. “Labor goes the biff on Abbott’s electoral weak spot” (September 12, item 1). Bernard Keane stated:

“Abbott, who does seem to have once harboured views on women straight from the 12th century, has undergone a significant change, best exemplified by his dramatically changed position on paid parental leave, on which he now advocates a vastly more generous scheme than the government.”

It occurs to me, that rather than a change of view, it may have been a deliberate strategy to scuttle Labour’s scheme, by putting up a pie-in-the-sky scheme that he knew he would never have to implement. He could merely have been trying to split the vote in the knowledge that — because many radicals might have gone for it, and most conservatives would have been appalled by it — the number willing to support it would have been substantially reduced. Further, I don’t believe for a minute that Tony Abbott, if he were to gain power, would be willing to adopt a strategy that is guaranteed to blow out a budget he maintains he is determined to bring back into the black.

Martyn Smith writes: In Crikey and elsewhere there have been adverse comments on Tony Abbott and his suitability to be Australia’s next prime minister. David Hand (comments) wasn’t impressed and presented an excellent graph last Friday that made the case for Tony reaching the Lodge. I compliment him on it, he could be right and add that I think Abbott is in all respects a worthy representative of Liberal philosophies. Turnbull was dismissed for failing in this important respect. In Abbott we have a man who represents what Liberalism is all about and I hope that the Liberals stick with him. It’s not just Tony but his team of like-minded men and women who will join him on the government benches if the graph is correct.

Abbott admitted in an interview that unless his words were written down they couldn’t be relied upon, and to be fair he hasn’t yet said much about his policies but the actions of his state-based colleagues are a good indication of what a Liberal, Abbott-led government will do. Australia will thus have a crystal-clear choice between the parties in about 10 months, based on actions not words.

The question is, will Australians will go for “balance” at the next federal election? We usually have a government with a majority in the Representatives but that has a brake on it in the Senate and when there is a Liberal federal government we vote for Labor in the states, and vice versa. On past performance, with a majority of state governments now Liberal we might vote for Labor federally .. as a balance. It will be interesting to see what the Australian electorate decides to do on election day in 10 months.

Niall Clugston writes: Re. “Abbott’s biffage par for the course in student pollie sandpit” (Friday, item 1). Andrew Crook poses as “versed in the wild machinations of campus brawling”, but merely throws together a list of dirty student laundry, mostly non-violent.

The National Union of Students is not the same as the Australian Union of Students (which collapsed in the 1980s), Socialist Alternative is a splinter group which didn’t exist in “yesteryear”, “reluctant” students are not compelled to vote, and the “remnants of the Trots” hardly add up to a voting bloc on today’s campus.

The decline in student activism, for which Crook finds “some evidence”, is in fact glaringly obvious, but it has no correlation to changes in legislation and funding. Rather it reflects broader social changes, paralleling the decline in memberships of trade unions and political parties.

What has this got to do with Tony Abbott? Very little, unless it is an attempt to excuse him by smearing all student politicians as “campus brawlers”.

Georgie Smith writes: Crook’s argument boils down to the assertion that everyone else is doing it, ergo it’s OK. This is preposterous.

First, assaulting or intimidating an opponent is at minimum the expression of shaky morality. I don’t know exactly what the law’s view was way back then, but my guess is what Tony Abbott is reported to have done would constitute assault even in the ’70s.

Secondly, Crook’s argument references the actions of many different unions over the span of more than 20 years. While this is interesting from a historical perspective and does speak to a cultural problem, incidences separated by time and space can hardly be used to justify Abbott’s actions.

Punching walls, intimidating opponents, “palming”, severe arm injuries — whatever the nature of the transgression, neither their frequency nor the youth of their perpetrators should be put forward — in a national rag no less — as justification.

Queensland public service no laughing matter

David Best writes: I read your article today, which included “Life as a public servant — I won’t miss it… or the ugly chicken” (tips and rumours, Friday).

I am quite offended by this story. Although the “public servant” who wrote the article is obviously happy about losing his/her job — I am sure that many thousands are not. It also makes a mockery of the hard work that many public servants do. I also note there is no name attached to this story.  Where did it come from? LNP headquarters?