Prime Minister Tony

Alex Pollard writes: Re. “Tony Abbott’s uncomfortable resemblance to Labor” (yesterday). Taking Bernard Keane’s analysis a bit further, it looks like the real surprise out of an Abbott-“led” government would be how quickly he will be forced to fold under pressure from the extremist WorkChoices gang in his own ranks. Voters may be under the impression that when push comes to shove, he will buckle to *their* interests and *their* needs. Maybe he will instead buckle to the interests and obsessions of the people who brought the Howard government undone … Could be a potent Labor talking point come the election.

Peter Matters writes: Tony Abbott is a likeable chap and I would be happy to share dinner with him. However, his shortcomings define the opposition.

Firstly, he feels that by going to church on Sundays, he can buy the liberty to break every basic Christian precept. Secondly, his attitude towards women arose early in childhood when his hang ups were dinned into him. His current change in outlook is not due a change of heart but to advice from the Liberal Party’s invisible men who pointed out to him that his stance alienated the half the electorate. Thirdly, he is a man with a 19th-century mind set, totally incapable of understanding the lethal danger to our small planet, our one and only home, because of the man-made global pollution.

The facts are very different from the spin. The Prime Minister was informed of the plot against her predecessor one week before her predecessor was toppled and when she was literally pitched into power without preparation, she — a mere woman — had to deal on her appointment with  pressures far more deadly than any previous incumbent. The axis between a maliciously destructive and negative Opposition Leader, driven by an overwhelming obsession of having been tricked out of the top job when it was within his grasp, and Murdoch’s News Ltd relentlessly presented the Prime Minister as a no-hoper by dancing on her many mistakes totally ignores her much more important achievements. Yet, for all that the Gillard government managed the minutiae of administration as well as the business of a great deal of legislation with more aplomb than anybody had a right to expect.

The regular mix of conservative and Labour governments has served Australia well in the past, but are we going to entrust government at the most critical time in Australia’s history to a pair of has-beens or a woman who has exhibited strength of mind and purpose, a unique toughness, high intelligence and a vision of the future?

Defining employment

Marcus L’Estrange writes: Re. “Searching for the ‘real’ economy on Cape York” (yesterday). Jon Altman, Professor at ANU’s Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, should have gone on to explain why the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR) regards Aboriginals who work for 15 hours per week on a CEDP as employed but non-Aboriginals only have to work for one hour or more in order to regarded as being employed. Countries such as Singapore and Germany use the 15-hour-plus rule. Why Australian governments and Crikey commentators give the person working one hour the same status as people working 40 hours plus is beyond me. However, Sir Humphrey of Yes, Minister fame has come to the rescue in his Secret Diary:

“The language of government: Restructure the base from which the statistics are derived without drawing public attention to the fact”. Translation: Fiddle the figures”

A genuine alternative

John Richardson writes: Re. “A lost opportunity” (yesterday). Thanks John McCombe for echoing my point about the need for a real political alternative to both Labor and the Coalition parties, but not one that is all hat, no paddock, like Clive Palmer, Bob Katter, Pauline Hanson or, dare I say, the Greens. But even if there was a genuine alternative, how many would take the opportunity to support it when we have correspondents like John Kotsopoulos who seem to naively believe that the major parties would really act in the best interests of ALL Australians, if it wasn’t simply for the sad but tragically unavoidable fact that they’re helpless “captives” of their current financial sponsors and vested interests?

And thanks Mike Daube for his comments on the Victorian Cancer Council’s pro-active efforts to reduce alcohol advertising targeting young people; a bit different to their NSW counterparts, who were busy running a fundraiser at the Tathra Hotel on the NSW south coast a week or so ago.

First Stooge on the Moon

Cam Smith writes: Re. “Chief bloodnut in bratwurst brouhaha” (yesterday). I normally enjoy the whimsical illustrations in your publication by First Dog On The Moon, a seemingly knockabout bloke with a slightly skew-whiff take on things. However, now I see he is nothing more than the First Stooge On The Moon.

The first thrown sandwich was dismissed as the action of a “lone shooter”, was it, Farce Dog? Tell that to Kyle Thomson, who probably languished for days in the gulag of lunchtime detention plus maybe rubbish duty, and who has stuck to his claim that he was an innocent patsy, that he was merely trying to knock the sandwich from the hands of a student with more malicious intent.

Never mind the facts, Fraud Dog. Never mind the truth. We must have our little jokes. Shameful.