Crikey readers used the weekend to respond to our question of whether Bernard Keane was too harsh in his evisceration of the Morrison government. The consensus: he wasn’t nearly harsh enough. There was, however, dissent among many readers on the subject of the Berejiklian government’s competency. Meanwhile, the shaky situation for Theresa May got the Rundle and reader treatment.
On the misfortunes the Liberal Party
Robert Smith writes: I would have thought the Liberal strategists would want to bury the Jerusalem issue. The review could have been as brief and included as much consultation as the original decision. Instead they seem to have doubled down. They can’t control Abetz but the rest should have been advised to skate around the issue with a few bland nothings.
Peter writes: I won’t argue about decency; the NSW Premier probably deserves this tag, particularly when compared to her male counterparts, state and federal. But she’s hardly competent. Her government’s performance in managing metro, light rail and freeway infrastructure is the opposite of competent and costing us unnecessary billions in cost overuns and disruption. Environmental protection has been gutted on her watch while NSW lags most other states in renewable energy. And don’t even get me started on sports stadium rebuilds, and drug policy, lock-out laws.
Judy Hardy-Holden writes: I used to be afraid of the “No Information on On Water Matters” Minister because of his astringent, ideological, determined attitude against openness and accountability. I used to be afraid that he might conceivably become prime minister. Now he has, it’s like cracking open a solid chocolate Easter egg only to find it full of empty air, a plastic toy and a joke written on a piece of paper. While I feel a sense of relief at evidence of his ineptitude there is also a sense of disappointment in my own lack of perspicuity.
Phen writes: At the risk of agreeing with Sky shock jocks, it is ridiculous that the feelings of Indonesia are supposedly a factor that we should consider in relation to Australia’s dealings with Israel. I cannot imagine a situation whereby Australia pressuring Indonesia to act in a certain way towards an unrelated third country would be considered anything other than inappropriate.
On the struggles of the Tory Party
Jerry Henderson writes: Strange as it may seem, I actual feel some sympathy for May. Implementing the Brexit people voted for is the equivalent of changing the laws of cricket to ensure both fair play and that England must win every match!
TheRabidHamster writes: May, another woman handed the poison chalice by the same gob-shites that now threaten to take her down, would do well to threaten the recalcitrant leavers in her party with the specter of another vote on the whole Brexit idea.
Send your comments, corrections, clarifications and cock-ups to boss@crikey.com.au. We reserve the right to edit comments for length and clarity. Please include your full name.
I think Phen has overlooked the fact that something like 16 Muslim nations have lodged official protests with the Australian Government. It’s not just an Indonesia issue. This stupid thought bubble was a hamfisted attempt to influence the Wentworth by election and is now being used by the reactionary right to pressure test ScheMo. Serves him right
Agreeing with shock jocks is a risk not worth taking; Phen should be more wary of doing so. Their argument is nonsense, for the following reasons:
1. It’s supposed to be FOREIGN policy, Phen; it’s all about conducting relations with ‘foreign’ countries, including and perhaps especially neighbours with whom the Aus government is attempting to seal a Trade Agreement, and ‘third party’ countries. Phen and the shock jocks are retrospectively and mistakenly pretending this is REAL foreign policy, not cynical domestic electioneering. That Morrison and his cronies in cabinet had not previously discussed this either with DFAT or at a diplomatic level with such a country, one which reacted in the most predictable way, is merely further evidence of this whole thing being a smart-arsed brain fart of Morrison’s which back-fired spectacularly.
2. In reality, Australia always considers – historically in a servile fashion – the feelings of other countries in its ‘foreign policy’, notably the USA, but also including Britain and the EU; should we include Israel in that list? Does Phen really think Morrison would even have emitted his brain fart – Wentworth election expediency notwithstanding – if Trump had not already done the move?
3. When all’s said and done, what good, sound reasons are there for the mooted move? Most of the world’s countries oppose it; only three are in favour: Israel, USA and Guatemala.