The NEXT coming Oz election thread!

I was wondering the same thing ...

deleted post

Hi Deb and Olgo, and anyone else who still looking at this discussion. Here's some original writing I did back in April 2004 - never knew what to do with it - circulated it to a few friends, but I thought I'd share it.


Peter Dodds McCormick
Composer
Chimera, ACT

Dear Peter

We have some concerns that the lyrics in the current version of the national anthem do not reflect the current state of affairs in the world and in our nation and we have a few suggestions that we'd like you to incorporate. We hope you will see the necessity in an Olympic year when we expect the world to hear the anthem at least twelve times (that's $24 million per spin) and it is important any ambiguities and misinterpretations are cleared up.

We hope you will take these suggestions in the spirit in which they are offered, not as criticisms, but improvements. You should know that John was pushing for a return to ?'God Save The Queen' but some highlights footage of the Gay Mardi Gras and a word in his ear have swayed him to make this request.

"Advance Australia Fair"
[Our legals tell us that this leaves us open to conflicts with ?'truth in advertising' legislation. In the interest of maintaining rhyme and meter and averting the risk of legal action we propose the use of ?'Fare' which we can defend on the basis of compulsory private medical care, HECS, the abandonment of CPI wage increases, GST, income tax bracket creep, one-off levies to pay for wars and defunct airlines.]

words and music composed by

Peter Dodds McCormick

proclaimed Australia's National Anthem by the Governor - General on 19th April 1984 [We might have known bloody Labour would stick us with this white elephant]


Australians all let us rejoice

[We think that we might have to include the yanks here (it's in the Free Trade Agreement). Just so you don't think these comments are all negative John wanted you to know he likes ?'rejoice', in fact any word that starts with ?'re' (retro, recalcitrant, reactionary, repeat, reversion, regressive et al]

For we are young and free

[Apparently we aren't that ?'young' (median age 36) and John is keen to keep that ?'age' thing out of the public eye. We're also a little worried about ?'free' given: (a) our previous suggestion on ?'fare'; (b) that David Hicks thing, and; (c) the fact that 20% of prisoners are indigenous while only 3% of the population is. Can you come up with something?]

We've golden soil and wealth for toil,

[Kempy in environment tells us that the ?'soil' is blowing into the sea and it's mostly red - maybe changing it now would save you a job in a few years? Also do you think we should mention we've also got ?'wealth' for our mates - like with cushy board appointments, and by turning blind eyes to breaches of legislation (like cash for comment)? And that there is no ?'toil' involved?]

Our home is girt by sea

[John loves this stuff, and he gets fan mail from the Medieval Re-enactment Society]

Our land abounds in nature's gifts

[We are a little sensitive about ?'gifts' - can we say something about payment in kind for services rendered?]

Of beauty rich and rare,

[We were concerned that what was ?'rare' is now ?'extinct' but Kempy assures that there are lots of formerly plentiful stuff that's now rare (like water and old growth forests).]

In history's page let every stage

[Great stuff - keep that emphasis on history - it's the future!]

Advance Australia fair, [See first note]

In joyful strains then let us sing
Advance Australia fair. [Ditto]

Pete, we weren't sure if we should bother with the second verse - no-one seems to know about it but decided to cover it because the lefties ragdoll every little detail (can you believe they still trot out Tampa and the ?'never, ever have a GST' line?).

Beneath our radiant Southern Cross,

[Should read ?'Union Jack', the Republic referendum gave us a clear mandate.]

We'll toil with hearts and hands,

[This is more an aesthetics thing - didn't you use ?'toil' in the first verse? Getting lazy?]

To make this Commonwealth of ours

[The AG is a little worried about ?'Commonwealth', it's a bit of an oxymoron, which is why we don't use it on Government web sites or printed matter anymore. Now we say ?'Australian Government' because it's a lot easier to manipulate the definition of ?'Australia'. We are still working through the implications of ?'ours'. To whit: should we let the singers delude themselves that we mean them or should we spell out who exactly is running the show and who we are running it for?]

Renowned of all the lands,

[This can stay - we're making steady progress toward this with the USA 51st state negotiations well under way, as well as lots of brand recognition in the Islamic world.]

For those who've come across the seas

[Whoa, Nelly! What the hell were you thinking when you wrote that? Please contact Vanstone and Ruddock for some advice on our approach.]

We've boundless plains to share,

[We've got some nitpicker details to sort out here, but if you can sort the entry requirements in the previous line we think we can swing ?'share' to be a legal equivalent of ?'bend over and be exploited by any multinational with cash']

With courage let us all combine

[We think Bushy would like us to mention the ?'Coalition of the Willing' as an example. Please don't be tempted, as one (former) departmental wag was, to say ?'Coalition of the Dying'.]

To advance Australia fair.
In joyful strains then let us sing,

Advance Australia fair.
[See first chorus notes]


Well that's it mate. Look forward to seeing your draft. We realize that you might have difficulty with this assignment, being dead and all, but we're working toward a solution. Since we got in in 1996 we've actually started moving the country back in time. You may have seen the evidence of this in the news lately with the move to get rid of ATSIC which takes us back to the 1980s, we're also making solid moves toward the marginalisation of Medicare, moving us back into the 1970s. Then there was ?'work for the dole' which softens the proles up for the reintroduction of conscription. In the future we'll be aiming at taking the vote away from the Abo's and making it illegal to be pregnant in the Public Service. It's just a matter of time and you'll be alive again, and then we'll have a go at reversing female suffrage.


Looking forward to it,


G.I. Ginthesky

Public Affairs Consultant to the PM





© Hingehead 2004

Bravo, hingehead!

Spot on.




And now I'm going out to jump off the nearest cliff, if I can find one in Melbourne....

Whichever way Latham turns he cops it
By Michelle Grattan
Analysis
November 25, 2004/the Age


Mark Latham might have sworn off crudity in public but at Tuesday's executive meeting he reached for his old direct language.

"Horseshit" was how he described some of the post-election analysis by Barry Jones, soon to become ALP national president, and influential union leader Bill Shorten.

Latham rejected their (different) views on how Labor needed to reposition itself. Shorten has criticised Labor's "big L left appeals"; while Jones thinks it went too far to the right. ....


...In its anger and pain, Labor is backing itself into a dreadful position. It is tearing down Latham, but it has no obvious replacement.

...Labor's trawling through its policies has a surreal quality. Does anyone think its policies in 2007 will necessarily bear the slightest resemblance to the 2004 batch? If Labor were sensible it would for the next few months act as an opposition, holding the Government accountable, doing policy homework quietly behind the scenes.

The general feeling in federal Labor is that Latham is not about to be ousted. But the sniping is likely to go on - and fewer and fewer would put money on his leading them into the next election.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Whichever-way-Latham-turns-he-cops-it/2004/11/24/1101219614401.html

Uhoh!

Here we go again!

Not Kim again, surely?

I'm getting sick & tired of all this. I wish they'd keep the differences in the family! For the record, I agree with Barry Jones & Bill Shorten, but all this bleating, back-stabbing & negativity is not doing Labor any good at a time when we're going to need the strongest possible opposition to to Howard & co's dastardly plans. To me, the more relevant question is can all the politicians who don't support the Libs get their act together to create a half decent counter to the horrendous stuff that's coming, post the new Senate in June? We need to have our act together! Howard has done enough damage already & the thought of what's ahead just makes me feel ill.

Latham has rivals: ALP frontbencher
November 25, 2004 - 10:25AM

There are still some members of the Labor caucus Opposition Leader Mark Latham has to convince he is the person to lead the party to the next election, a party frontbencher says.

Senator Kerry O'Brien, who supported Mr Latham in last year's leadership spill, confirmed there were others in the party who wanted the leadership.

"Mark will be leading the Labor Party to the next election on the basis that he proves to the caucus that he's the person who can lead us to victory," Senator O'Brien told ABC radio.

"It's five minutes after the event (the election loss). The Labor Party is engaged in the process of examining our future and I think the likelihood is that he will (win the next election).

"But he does have to convince all of the caucus that we're in the strongest position under his leadership."

Senator O'Brien said Mr Latham had made some statements which would ease some people's minds but there was yet more work to be done.

"There are always plenty of people with that leader's baton in their knapsack and I'm not going to speculate about what might be totally hypothetical," he said.

"At this stage, Mark's our leader. At this stage, we're working through the consequences of a loss and at the end of the day we're going to make decisions as a caucus, which will be about making Labor a real option at the next election."

© 2004 AAP

Hawke warns Latham over unions
November 25, 2004 - 7:49AM/the AGE

Labor should stop trying to distance itself from the trade union movement and instead be proud to be associated with it, former prime minister Bob Hawke said yesterday.

Speaking at a book launch in Sydney, Mr Hawke - who was ACTU president for 10 years - said no other organisation had done as much positive work for the character and richness of the country as the trade union movement.

"I believe that the leaders of our Labor Party should be talking about these things," Mr Hawke said.

"They should not be in any sense saying, 'We're a little bit worried about our relationship with the trade union movement'.

"They should be going out there and saying, 'These are the things that the trade union movement has done to create the quality of Australian life and we are proud to be associated with them'."... <cont.)


http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Hawke-warns-Latham-over-unions/2004/11/25/1101219642918.html

Apart from anything else, when the Libs bring in their anticipated industrial relations "reforms", surely Labor & the unions will be fighting the same fight? We are on the same side. Always were. It's logical that we should be working together. Eventually those mortgage belt defecters to the Libs might just discover that they're workers after all!

Latham's "long road" #3. The cartoonists are really taking to this one!
(Seems to be a week of long roads her, this week. I'm waiting for Leunig to do the Michael Long version.)

PM fashions return to medieval work practices
November 25, 2004

How is making it easier for businesses to sack people going to increase employment, asks Kenneth Davidson.

..How does a reversion to the "master and servant" relationship of the 19th century fit with contemporary notions of fairness and equity in the workplace? This question is not simply irrelevant, moralising claptrap.

In a coolie society where employers are buying muscle power and their employees are identical to the muscle power of five or 50 coolies waiting desperately for a job outside the warehouse gate, the question may be ignored by those obsessed with efficiency and economy, narrowly defined.

..The OECD's 2004 Employment Outlook provides little support for Howard's unfair dismissal "reforms"...... Elsewhere in the report, Australia is shown to have one of the least "sticky" Employment Protection Legislation regimes. The main reason is reforms introduced in 1997 which, as a result of Senate amendments introduced by a former small businessman, Democrat senator Andrew Murray, shifted the burden of proof of fair/unfair dismissal from the employer to the employee. This has meant that Australia has one of the lowest number of unfair dismissal cases brought before the authorities in relation to the size of the workforce.

Murray has had questions on notice for months seeking facts relating to unfair dismissals. The answers, which would illuminate the validity of these recycled "reform" proposals, could be easily provided by the Government. But then again, the facts will only get in the way of this medieval exercise in control of workers. ....

(Complete article)
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Kenneth-Davidson/PM-fashions-return-to-medieval-work-practices/2004/11/24/1101219612569.html

Lazarus with a triple bypass? - History repeating...

Remember how many times little Johnny picked himself up off the floor? If Beazles gets leadership again he only has to lose it regain it again once more to be in the same position Howard was in in 1996.

And hasn't it been a golden era since then....

Oh, forgot about that, hinge!

Something is DEFINITELY going on, though! How soon, do you reckon?

I can't see any obvious candidates. Lindsay Tanner was once a golden boy, but being Victorian left he's a dark horse.

I like the Shadow AG - calm and measured, but what I like and what the electorate will go for are apparently very different. Losing Faulkner to the back benches is unfortunate, but not catastrophic. Most of the ALP MPs you know the names of still have the smell of 96 on them. But Howard survived the stench of defeat in 83.

So building on my theory of history repeating. Beazles to get in, get out and get in again. Costello to challenge for the lib leadership, fail, and move to the back benches then mount another, successful challenge. Then to lead the libs to an election victory (and his speech he'll say something about 'true believers'). But in the election after Beazles will beat Costello, who in turn will leave his wife. This must seem convoluted to anyone not familiar with recent Australian political history - but swap Hawke for Howard, Keating for Costello and Howard for Beazley and you get the idea.

I hate this period of gradual erosion.

Makes me feel sick.

Yep. It's not about party lines to me. It's about the sort of country I want to live in. I don't think the ALP can deliver it but I'm absolutely certain the liberals can't.

S'right. Sigh.

I'm concerned that there's a viable opposition (as I keep saying) in the meantime, as well. The Libs cannot be allowed to have it all their own way, with barely a whimper of effective opposition. This is a dangerous & worrying time. I don't want Labor to put most of it's energy into navel gazing & factional disputes while Rome burns. Labor, the unions & others are going to have to fight back ... & involve other community groups in the process. We are going to have to fight back!

Maybe people power will be more effective opposition. Then again Howard doesn't much care about consensus (if he can get Alan Jones and John Laws on side) and most Australians are bloody apathetic....

Yes, there is that!