What a difference a month makes.
Tony Abbott, 13 October:
“Look, I’m going to shirt-front Mr Putin — you bet I am. I’m going to be saying to Mr Putin — Australians were murdered and they were murdered by Russian-backed rebels using Russian supplied equipment. We are very unhappy about this. We accept that you didn’t want this to happen, but we now demand that you fully cooperate with the criminal investigation, and if the criminal investigation identifies suspects that you have some influence over, they’ve got to be produced and justice has got to be done.”
Tony Abbott, yesterday:
“The first point to make is that there is a big agenda here and conversations with the Russian President on a very important subject are only part, and by no means the biggest part, of the agenda that Australia is following here in Beijing and subsequently in Brisbane. But as is well-known, 38 Australians were murdered when flight MH17 was brought down. It wasn’t a tragedy; it was an atrocity, it was a crime and Russia has said that it will do everything to bring the perpetrators to justice. Good on Russia for saying that and I will just be looking for an assurance from the President that what they said then, they meant, and what they said then is still what they say now.”
From shirt-fronting to “good on Russia” in just four weeks. You weren’t saying one thing for crass domestic political considerations and then quite another when faced with the realities of international relations were you, Prime Minister?
I’m fascinated to know how the author of this crap would have handled it, and why it’s even noteworthy that a politician would turn a phrase differently for different audiences. It must have been approaching deadline with nothing prepared.
Hard to see that Abbott can expect Putin to keep his word given his own world reacord breaking performance of breaking promises
Do as I say not as I do I suspect is one of our most dishonest ever PM motto’s I suspect
Whilst there is truth in a Politician, of necessity, framing his/her message to discrete audiences . . the problem resides around a) a specific individual b) that individual’s pervasive track record.
On his own word he defined his position as requiring it be in writing. Anything less by inference, may not be the truth.
Reasonable persons concede ‘wriggle room’ when it comes to the absolute truth. However, individuals that wield significant power over lives of others are generally held to a greater responsibility/accountability.
Previously, Media routinely exposed excesses. Today, the Australian Media is either intimidated, politically biased or lacking essential resources to provide appropriate scrutiny of senior public figures.
Whatever . . Most people can recognize Crikey’s gentle reproach compared to earlier Media scrutiny of a previous female Prime Minister. But then again that was more about Gender . . than “Lies”.
Damien McBain @ 1
“…why it’s even noteworthy that a politician would turn a phrase DIFFERENTLY for different audiences…”
Abbott actually turned the phrase 180 degrees from ‘shirtfront’ to ‘cheerleader’. A complete reversal is noteworthy and the audience is the same, i.e. all Australians.
How would I handle it? I wouldn’t be swinging my manhood about and threatening to shirtfront the leader of a superpower… and a martial arts expert to boot. It might be a wise move for our glorious leader to put the hummingbird smugglers back on and behave like a stateshuman for once. What’s the point in chasing votes if the consequence is Australia’s reputation flushed down the shi++er?
More like shirt-lifting – and for similar outcomes