Peter Costello:

John Goldbaum writes: Re. “Costellogy: Why Malcolm Turnbull should call Pete’s bluff” (Friday, item 3). Peter Costello is the Beazley option. He’s popular among the Liberal faithful but disliked by the swinging voters he would need in order to become PM. As opposition leader, he could staunch the loss of seats which would be caused by Brendan Nelson but winning government in 2010 is extremely unlikely. Interest rates will fall in 2009 and the economy will pick up again prior to the election. It is unusual for reasonably competent governments not to win a second term. Australia has moved on from the Howard-Costello years. Peter is part of the conservative past and would be disbelieved if he expressed more moderate views. He may have some economic credibility but he also has some smelly laundry in his baggage, such as industrial relations extremism. If Costello is drafted, Malcolm Turnbull should wait for him to fail, which he certainly will. Costello was an integral part of the big-taxing, big-spending Howard-Costello government whereas Malcolm Turnbull is a true believer in tax reform. Brendan Nelson’s failure was due to taking angry pills and opposing everything sensible the government proposed. If Costello wants to lead and lose in 2010, that’s up to him and his party, but the post-election recriminations would see Turnbull installed as leader. Malcolm Turnbull can win in 2013 on the back of good policy and an amiable personality.

Martin Copelin writes: I am certain Peter Costello is waiting to be drafted by the Liberals. After the loss of government at the last election, he probably wanted out, merely waiting for a year or so to pass before resigning. However, he is a political animal, probably the Liberals best performer in parliament, at least the next best thing to a Paul Keating. Malcolm Turnbull as leader would be white-anted by a section of his party, Costello would have a better run and people associate him with good economic times. Make no mistake, while the majority of Australians want action on climate change, they will not be prepared to pay for it. As soon as the electricity bills increase by around 50%, petrol and diesel taxes forcing prices up way past the $2 mark with petrol and even more with diesel, than it’s goodbye Labor. Costello with his skills will be seen to be the saviour.

Peter Small writes: If you watch carefully the machinations of the Victorian Liberal Party machine you will quickly conclude that all is on the “ready” button for “Peter for the Lodge”! But Costello won’t make a move until both Nelson and Turnbull have destroyed each other, he will only accept the leadership when all other contenders have destroyed themselves and he is the only option. At the moment time is on Costello’s side, but he may be panicked into action if his age and the election cycle start to work against him.

Robert Bromwich writes: Costello won’t contest the Liberal Party (or whatever they call themselves now) leadership — his political courage/spine is as strong as soggy mashed potato. Whatever happens, the conservatives seem to be in the wilderness for a long, long time (one hopes that they have compasses and other stuff that will aid their return to political civilisation).

The Olympics:

Niall Clugston writes: Re. “The IOC is not nice. We knew that, didn’t we?” (Friday, item 5). Without commenting on whether the IOC is one of the most corrupt organisations in the world, I’d like to know how Bernard Keane would run the Olympics. He obviously thinks only approved liberal democracies should host the games. Would other countries even be allowed to compete? Who would make the judgement call and where would they draw the line? Was South Korea in 1988 a “barbarous regime”? And what’s the point of an international competition if it isn’t international?

Wikipedia:

Matt Andrews writes: Unlike Ian Farquhar (Friday, comments), I don’t see Bernard Keane’s Wikipedia vandalism (“Keane: This Wiki sh-t is really Whack“, 30 July, item 3) as particularly serious. In fact, it could be in some ways justified — vandalising Wikipedia is not illegal in any way and is somewhat interesting as an investigation into how well Wikipedia corrects such things. What I do object to is that the editor appeared to completely misunderstand the results by bizarrely including “Wiki corruptible” in the Crikey email subject line — if anything, the opposite of a reasonable conclusion from the exercise. The fact that Bernard’s various exercises in schoolboy vandalism were fixed so quickly, given the mind-numbingly huge scale of Wikipedia, is testament not to a failing but to how extraordinarily well the Wikipedia system works. And yes, Wikipedia is largely maintained, and vandalism removed, by independent volunteers, not by the subjects of biographical articles. Given Bernard’s cynical opening remarks, I draw his attention to the intriguing study done by Nature into the quality of science articles on Wikipedia and Britannica: it found they had essentially the same level of accuracy.

Danu Poyner writes: It must be difficult for a publication which is mostly about politics (a world of out-of-touch old farts) to embrace new media (a world of cutting-edge ideas and possibility). The two are poles apart. I think Crikey has done a great job of embracing new media as a publication over the last 12 months, but your chief Canberra correspondent seems out of place and frankly quite bitter about almost everything. I still wonder if Crikey will stand the test of time. I hope so, but some days it seems doubtful.

Nuclear power:

Robert Bruinewoud writes: Re. “Ok folks, it’s time to talk about nuclear power” (Wednesday, item 10). To Bernard Keane and all the other nuclear-energy boosters and their enthusiasm for taking on the nuclear waste burden, I suggest you read the article “This Place is Not a Place of Honour” on the Damn Interesting site. The article examines the difficulty of protecting future generations from our nuclear waste, when we have no idea who they might be and how they might think. Despite the ingenuity described in the article, the mindset that allows people to think that we can successfully project our will 10,000 years into the future is frightening in its arrogance. But, unfortunately, this über ‘she’ll be right’ attitude is typical of the pro-nuclear lobby. Even the article itself concludes by noting that the problem is far from resolved, but that we still have time to get it right. And so ignores the very real possibility that a successful solution may be beyond us due, either to the problem itself, a lack of moral will or to the chance that our civilisation itself will be overtaken by a catastrophe – leaving these nuclear dumps unmarked and unsealed. In the end, burying our nuclear waste is little better than those governments who, after littering landscapes with mines and unexploded bombs, knock up few warning signs and trust that the children will keep out. Understanding these issues and then making MORE nuclear waste is simply unforgivable.

Attila Nagy writes: I’m so sick of the “strong moral argument” that we should consider taking back nuclear waste since we sell the uranium. We also sell lots of coal, which releases the CO2 which has caused this whole problem in the first place. What about the “strong moral argument” that we take back the waste product (CO2) from our customers and stick it in the ground. There is NO strong moral argument that we accept back depleted uranium.

Monetary policy:

Bill Forwood writes: Re. “Reserve Bank still shy of cutting rates too early” (Friday, item 1). Back in the 1960s, the legendary Melbourne University economics Professor J.O.N. Perkins used to say that Australia’s monetary policy was a history of too little, too late followed immediately by too much, too often, for too long. So what’s changed?

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.