Why the Liberals lost:

John Goldbaum writes: Re. Yesterday’s editorial. Your editorial about the reasons for the Liberal Party’s electoral thumping included “the abandonment of any principal that stood between the Howard Government and the merest whiff of a critical vote”. Amanda Vanstone was one such principal, so she was shifted from Immigration to avoid critical votes, but being sent to Rome isn’t really being abandoned. Ian Campbell was also such a principal and he was most definitely abandoned when he got between John Howard and Kevin Rudd following Peter Costello’s pronouncement that “anyone who deals with Mr Brian Burke is morally and politically compromised!” However, those votes might have been critical of Mr Rudd rather than Mr Howard. Of course, you might really mean the sort of principles of which Groucho Marx said: “These are my principles. If you don’t like them, I have others.” I share Peter Costello’s belief that the Liberals lost because they abandoned the principle that you only need to abandon the principle principal.

Robin Wingrove writes: Very well encapsulated. This bunch still don’t get it that their basic political, moral and personal corruption was the reason that many were turned off. Their basic premise that only greed motivates the greater number of Australians as we are an ignorant people demeans the lot of us but also describes the “Liberal” party’s basic motive, one that they should examine closely. A very poor set of leaders thankfully now departed. It was the “Liberals” unholy desire of power for only power’s sake that became obvious to most and ultimately so distasteful. The rest of their stupid actions merely underscored their lack of principle (other than greed of course).

David Havyatt writes: “Three moments in Conservative politics yesterday” should have been four moments – you missed the outrage expressed by environmental spokesman Greg Hunt that the Government wasn’t being tough enough on Japanese whaling, which followed up his “bear of Brisbane, lamb of Bali” criticism of Kevin Rudd for not committing to targets for 2020. That was an even faster turn around than WorkChoices!

Labor induced motion sickness:

Chris Johnson writes: Re. “Who needs the feds to fix federalism?” (Yesterday, item 1). Will someone please call in the ALP spin-doctors. The Party’s rhetorical obsession with “locomotion” has me well and truly suffering something worse than motion sickness. This ongoing use of propulsion imagery started when Rudd ram-raided Beazley and announced the nation had reached “a fork in the road”. The use of mobile metaphors kept rolling with the NSW Left jumping on board to adopt ‘heading in the right direction’ as its slogan for the NSW state election. Then Wong emerges from Bali clutching her “roadmap for combating climate change” and it was then I started feeling a bit queasy. Yesterday when Anna Bligh embraced the COAG Labor love-in for giving her a “clear road map to drive economic reform” in her timeless State, I threw up.

Japanese whaling:

Chris Davis writes: Re. “The Tele follows in a great, yellow tradition” (yesterday, item 3). Richard Farmer is drinking too much sake I think – Australians like myself thought that the whales had been saved, from in my teens (now 41). I remember the classic protest joke, “Land rights for gay whales”, and 25 years on it had seemed that we had made real progress on these issues, particularly whales which seemed an obvious and easy fix. Let the Japanese, Norwegians and whoever else wants to hunt whales to do so in their territorial waters, and leave us to just watch these magnificent creatures cruising past ours. Full marks to the current Australian government, and no doubt Peter Garret, for taking this issue up.

Matt Andrews writes: Step this way, Richard Farmer. Might I interest you in a weapon hewn of finest yew, of a length akin to your own height? Because that there bow of yours is, ahem, a touch above your size, as demonstrated by your utter failure to convincingly fire a bolt (a well named missile, in this case) from the deck of the dread pirate ship Warmongerer (captained by the foul William Randolph Hearst) to a customs vessel monitoring the internationally condemned slaughter of whales.

Tony Barrell writes: Richard Farmer can pooh-pooh the anti-whaling crowd but does he really understand the culture of Japanese whaling? For a start, up until the mid-nineteenth century very few Japanese would have known much about whales. Local hunters might set out from remote fishing villages to harpoon them by hand and feed the village, but there was no way the nation as a whole was dependent on whale meat in the truly “traditional” sense. It wasn’t until the USA sent its navy to Japan in 1853 to demand bunkering facilities for US whalers (the reason why Japan had to be “opened”) that the population as a whole got a glimpse of “commercial” whaling. The next time would have been at the end of the war when whale meat was given to semi-starving children deprived of other sources of protein. The belief that the Japanese have some kind of atavistic attachment to cetacean meat is false, fostered by the fishing industry and its supporters.

Dave Horsfall writes: Richard Farmer writes about a “P&O vessel with customs men armed with nothing more lethal than video cameras”. That would be the first time I’ve seen .50 caliber machine guns described as being non-lethal.

Leave Bindi alone:

Barbara Harland writes: Re. “The 20 Most Appalling People of 2007: Crikey’s choice” (yesterday, item 10). Bindi Irwin is a child and it is unacceptable to put a child in this list; the adults who make the decisions for her maybe but not the child.

An appalling list:

John Mair writes: Re. “People’s Choice: The 20 most appalling people of 2007” (yesterday, item 8). I really don’t know what to make of your Appalling/Appealing people awards. If it reflects your readership, we’re all in serious trouble – mind you “Other” was half of all the rest, so it would be interesting to see a cross section of these. Crikey’s Choice was much more relevant to the realities of the year as they were played out.

David Hand writes: Reading your people’s choice section confirmed what I have suspected for some time, I seem to have become an appalling person. Seeing as having right of centre views makes one appalling, this appalling subscriber wishes all you appealing Crikey subscribers a happy festive season. Enjoy your latte’s and chardonnays. I’m told they are best in the inner city. Don’t be too disappointed if, in 2008, Kevin and Julia govern for all Australians. To all at Crikey, thanks for an informative enjoyable daily read. All the best for 2008.

Gerard Henderson and the culture wars:

Andrew Whiley writes: Re. “Henderson: Howard’s culture wars are greatly exaggerated” (yesterday, item 12). Gerard Henderson is having yet another sooky about the culture wars. High rotation appearances in the SMH, Radio National, Lateline, The 7.30 Report, Radio 774, 702, Insiders and Crikey whinging about the lack of conservative comment in the media just aren’t enough. Now it’s now the comedians turn for making us smile. Yes Gerard, it’s so very very unfair that they poke fun at right wing pollies… It’s even more unfair that those rascally comics lampooned WorkChoices! Smashing unions and exploiting workers is no laughing matter as you keep reminding us. Weren’t the Sedition laws supposed to end this type of left wing anarchy?

Martyn Smith writes: I admire Henderson’s style, who else could so ably argue that black is white and that the sun will henceforth rise in the west and set in the east. But fair go, I do wish he would stop piddling down our collective backs and telling us it’s raining. Howard and his subordinates politicised our public service (using Max the Axe as the weapon of choice), foisted Jonathon Shier (a mate of Richard Alston) on the ABC, sent thugs and Rottweilers onto our docks (whist negotiations to resolve the dispute were still ongoing and near completion), set up a deliberately narrow enquiry into the AWB (which cleared him and his advisors of any wrongdoing), gave us non core promises and yammered on incessantly about something called “Political Correctness” as some sort of smokescreen. Of course this was at the very least a cultural war. No Gerard, the Howard era’s cultural war can’t even been guessed at. Howard was pushing what some people are calling conservative correctness, which gave us such gems as the Iraq war, water boarding, climate change denial and lots more. Henderson was in the middle of this and should understand that his credibility is shot, along with Howard’s. Oh yes, I didn’t like Keating much either, but Keating’s behaviour is no justification for Howard’s. Like Howard he is in the dustbin of history.

Frank Golding writes: Gerard Henderson assesses (yesterday Item 12) Howard’s right-wing warriors – David Barnett, Christopher Pearson, P.P. McGuinness, Janet Albrechtsen, Ron Brunton and Keith Windschuttle – as ‘pretty thin pickings’. The situation would scarcely improve with the inclusion of Henderson himself, or Bolt or Shanahan, or your own lightweights Flint and Faris (although I must concede that Christian Kerr has become more lively lately). What is it about the lack-lustre right? Have they suddenly become pedestrian, or are we just now taking more notice of their mediocrity?

Deborah Hurst writes: Members of the right wing commentariat (let’s not name names, Gerard Henderson) have, from time to time, sniggered at other writers when they pointed to similarities between the Howard government and your average Fascist regime. Yet as your editorial points out, WorkChoices has — within a mere few weeks — gone from the missing link on the chain of our continued prosperity, to rotten idea of the century. No doubt the talk in the gentlemen’s clubs is that Howard was ahead of his time, but Liberal Party members must ask themselves how did just one man conceive, give birth to, and then nurture a policy which was so clearly all is own, without the heartfelt backing of the Party as a whole? In the meantime, perhaps the Liberal Party of Australia could reimburse the Commonwealth for the tens of millions (billions?) it spent selling an idea it never believed in the first place.

Thanks:

Alicia Pearce writes: Re. “Portrayal of women in media is still pants!” (Yesterday, item 13). Just a note to say how glad I am that you’ve engaged Julie Posetti to contribute to Crikey. Considering the wide spectrum of views available in the publication, it’s been a source of irritation to me in the past that opinion on some of the issues she’s raising has been largely absent. Thanks.

Montague Gate:

Laura Sigal writes: Re. “Demetriou’s denials don’t change the facts” (yesterday, item 5). Your reporting on the alleged conversation between Andrew Demetriou and Brendan Gale led me to doubt all of your reporting. Not only do the parties to the alleged conversation assert that it did not occur, but the conversation reported does not make sense. If you accept the reporter’s conclusions, you need to believe that the AFL made the extremely lucrative offer to the Kangaroos knowing it would be rejected. A more reasonable conclusion would be that the AFL made the club an offer it did not believe the Kangaroos could turn down to get it to take action it did not wish to take, but underestimated the club’s price to move. Whether you think the Kangaroos were right or wrong, you must accept that the offer that was made was substantial. Moreover, I know Brendan Gale to be a deeply ethical and honest man who acts in the best interest of AFLPA members. Your reporting on this matter has made me doubt Crikey’s journalistic integrity on all issues.

Tips and rumours:

Karen Ingram writes: Re. “Tips and Rumours” (yesterday, item 7). Crikey published: “Julie Bishop is having trouble coming to terms with being in opposition. Her website STILL describes her as Minister for Education, Science and Training.” … it seems Bob McMullan hasn’t got used to the recent massive changes and still thinks he’s in Opposition…

Chris Kaias writes: Crikey published: “Foxtel has already removed CNBC from its platform even before the Sky News Business Channel starts airing on 2 January…” Just to correct this, Foxtel has two frequencies that channels are broadcast on, Horizontal polarity (H-Pol) and Vertical polarity (V-Pol), some old satellite buildings can only view H-Pol and CNBC was moved last week to the V-Pol frequency to make room for the new Sky News Business Channel, which means a small amount of people wont see it anymore but it hasn’t been removed from the platform.

Telemarketing:

Adam Schwab writes: Re. “Telemarketers use the Privacy Act to bully customers” (yesterday, item 30). Stephen Downes was spot on with his criticism of companies misusing the Privacy Act. Recently, I tried to lend an acquaintance funds but was not allowed due to money-laundering provisions. The funds never hit my acquaintance’s account, were never refunded to me and were illegally retained by the company in question. When I called the company to enquire as to why they had not returned the funds (three weeks later), I was told they couldn’t speak to me due to “Privacy Laws”. This was despite the fact that it was my funds in question and those funds had never actually touched my acquaintance’s account. I told the representative that I was a lawyer and was curious exactly which Privacy law was being relied upon. No answer was given – presumably because no such law existed. Here’s a suggestion – any company who wrongly claims they cannot provide information for ‘privacy’ reasons be fined $10,000 – maybe that will stop the offences which Downes accurately described from occurring.

The VFT:

Rod Metcalfe writes: Gavin Findlay (yesterday, comments) ought to do the sums of the VFT. If it comes from Canberra and has to join the existing rail network at Campelltown, then any time saved is largely lost. One can imagine the public outcry at any proposal to build a high speed rail line (not to mention cost) from Campelltown to the city – who wants a 200 kph train passing through their suburb. Oh, and of course, the underground option would only cost a lot more. Sorry, can’t see the VFT being an economic or social alternative.

The truth:

Ken McLeod writes: Sorry to correct Chris Ward (yesterday, comments) in the debate about the The Oz op-ed page. The two major Soviet newspapers were not TASS (news) and Pravda (truth). They were Pravda (truth) and Izvestia, Russian for “delivered messages”, derived from the verb izveshchat (“to inform”, “to notify”). In the context of newspapers it is usually translated as “news” or “reports”. The TASS Chris refers to was the Telegraph Agency of the Soviet Union at the USSR Cabinet of Ministers (Russian: Телеграфное агенство Советского Союза при кабинете министров СССР, ТАСС). TASS was the central agency for collection and distribution of internal and international news for all Soviet newspapers, radio and television stations. It had a monopoly on official state information which was delivered in the form of “Сообщение ТАСС” (Soobshcheniye TASS), variously translated as TASS Report, TASS Communiqué, TASS Statement, or TASS Announcement. TASS was established in 1925 by decree of the USSR Central Executive Committee Presidium. Does this qualify for Crikey’s “Most Pedantic Correction of the Decade Award”?

Send your comments, corrections, clarifications and c*ck-ups to boss@crikey.com.au. Preference will be given to comments that are short and succinct: maximum length is 200 words (we reserve the right to edit comments for length). Please include your full name – we won’t publish comments anonymously unless there is a very good reason.