Grrrrrrrrrrr
Okay, I know I said I wasn’t sure when I would write more stuff, but as it happens, I’m far too cross to keep quiet, and it’s all thanks to this. You can find some more detail here, and here, and even over here. Yes, our State government is inspiring, just not in a good way.
I have been thinking a lot about Peter Garrett lately, mostly thanks to Melbourne Girl’s very fine post about his sudden support for US bases. The debate about his comments seems to centre on whether it’s better to have politicians who used to stand for something but take a pragmatic approach and compromise in order to get into power, or whether we would prefer to have politicians who never stood for anything, ever, in their whole sad lives.
These are, of course, not the only two options. It would be possible to set out what you stand for, stick to it, and see what happens. Wouldn’t it be fun if someone tried it, just for a change? Anyway, if the choice comes down to a pragmatist like Peter Garrett or a non-entity stands-for-nothing-ever idiot like Steve Bracks, I’m voting for the pragmatist.
In any case, here’s what may be considered the first draft of my next letter to our Premier.
Dear Mr Bracks
Everyone who knows me knows that I celebrated the end of the Kennett government in 1999. The celebrations lasted for months. And nobody would be surprised that I was unenthused by the prospect of Denis Napthine or Robert Doyle as premier of this State. Ted Ballieu seems like a reasonable sort of guy but I couldn’t vote for him without also voting for the rabble he leads, so, uninspiring though you are, you have had my solid support for many years.
You have not really done much as far as I can tell, other than stay in power, hold a few enquiries in order to then do nothing, bore us all with a pointless sporting event involving many countries and of course place a truly ridiculous roof on a train station, but I always thought you were basically a decent and generally inoffensive type of guy.
Not any more.
Your letter to the police association, promising taxpayer funded defences for police officers convicted of corruption type activities, was bad enough. Maybe it’s the ten years I have spent in the Courts defending people, but I always believed everyone was equally entitled to a fair trial. What I do not believe in is special treatment for those who have sworn to uphold the law but yet have already been convicted of corruption. Nor do I believe it is a particularly good thing to do a deal to this effect, in secret, for your own political advantage.
But that’s not all.
In a week when I though Today Tonight had sunk as low as it was possible to go when it comes to stuffing up and then providing an explanation that is so ridiculous that it amounts to treating the public with utter contempt, you went one better. It’s a big achievement, but I’m not sure how proud, exactly, you should be.
You actually thought you could talk your way out of this by arguing that it was not a secret deal between you and the police because the police did not sign the letter you sent them.
That is so far past stupid that you can not longer even see stupid out the back window of the car on a straight road in flat treeless country on a clear day with a truly well manufactured set of binoculars.
Let me just see if I understand your argument.
You wrote a huge long letter to the police promising to do a number of this for them, but it’s not a secret deal because they did not sign the letter.
The things you promised to do were things the police clearly wanted you to do and you had discussed this with them before, but it’s not a secret deal because they did not sign the letter
You did this shortly before an election and didn’t make it public, but it’s not a secret deal because they did not sign the letter
The police association came out in support of your campaign for re-election a few days after they got the letter, BUT IT’S NOT A SECRET DEAL BECAUSE THEY DID NOT SIGN THE LETTER.
My goodness you must think we are amazingly thick, or just too apathetic to care at all no matter what sort of stupid crap you come up with. Out of curiosity, which one is it?
I have voted for, or at least preferenced, the Labor party in every election since I became eligible to vote. That was 1992, which means I voted for Joan Kirner. And Mark Latham. But your recent disgraceful contempt for the electorate is the last straw. If anyone ever comes up with a half-way credible alternative to your appalling government, I will vote for them in a heartbeat.
If I do ever vote for you again, it will be solely due to a lack of any decent alternative, and I will probably slap myself in the head with some sort of waffle immediately afterwards. Then I will feel depressed and eat the waffle.
Please go away soon.
Yours in absolute disgust,
INC
I have been thinking a lot about Peter Garrett lately, mostly thanks to Melbourne Girl’s very fine post about his sudden support for US bases. The debate about his comments seems to centre on whether it’s better to have politicians who used to stand for something but take a pragmatic approach and compromise in order to get into power, or whether we would prefer to have politicians who never stood for anything, ever, in their whole sad lives.
These are, of course, not the only two options. It would be possible to set out what you stand for, stick to it, and see what happens. Wouldn’t it be fun if someone tried it, just for a change? Anyway, if the choice comes down to a pragmatist like Peter Garrett or a non-entity stands-for-nothing-ever idiot like Steve Bracks, I’m voting for the pragmatist.
In any case, here’s what may be considered the first draft of my next letter to our Premier.
Dear Mr Bracks
Everyone who knows me knows that I celebrated the end of the Kennett government in 1999. The celebrations lasted for months. And nobody would be surprised that I was unenthused by the prospect of Denis Napthine or Robert Doyle as premier of this State. Ted Ballieu seems like a reasonable sort of guy but I couldn’t vote for him without also voting for the rabble he leads, so, uninspiring though you are, you have had my solid support for many years.
You have not really done much as far as I can tell, other than stay in power, hold a few enquiries in order to then do nothing, bore us all with a pointless sporting event involving many countries and of course place a truly ridiculous roof on a train station, but I always thought you were basically a decent and generally inoffensive type of guy.
Not any more.
Your letter to the police association, promising taxpayer funded defences for police officers convicted of corruption type activities, was bad enough. Maybe it’s the ten years I have spent in the Courts defending people, but I always believed everyone was equally entitled to a fair trial. What I do not believe in is special treatment for those who have sworn to uphold the law but yet have already been convicted of corruption. Nor do I believe it is a particularly good thing to do a deal to this effect, in secret, for your own political advantage.
But that’s not all.
In a week when I though Today Tonight had sunk as low as it was possible to go when it comes to stuffing up and then providing an explanation that is so ridiculous that it amounts to treating the public with utter contempt, you went one better. It’s a big achievement, but I’m not sure how proud, exactly, you should be.
You actually thought you could talk your way out of this by arguing that it was not a secret deal between you and the police because the police did not sign the letter you sent them.
That is so far past stupid that you can not longer even see stupid out the back window of the car on a straight road in flat treeless country on a clear day with a truly well manufactured set of binoculars.
Let me just see if I understand your argument.
You wrote a huge long letter to the police promising to do a number of this for them, but it’s not a secret deal because they did not sign the letter.
The things you promised to do were things the police clearly wanted you to do and you had discussed this with them before, but it’s not a secret deal because they did not sign the letter
You did this shortly before an election and didn’t make it public, but it’s not a secret deal because they did not sign the letter
The police association came out in support of your campaign for re-election a few days after they got the letter, BUT IT’S NOT A SECRET DEAL BECAUSE THEY DID NOT SIGN THE LETTER.
My goodness you must think we are amazingly thick, or just too apathetic to care at all no matter what sort of stupid crap you come up with. Out of curiosity, which one is it?
I have voted for, or at least preferenced, the Labor party in every election since I became eligible to vote. That was 1992, which means I voted for Joan Kirner. And Mark Latham. But your recent disgraceful contempt for the electorate is the last straw. If anyone ever comes up with a half-way credible alternative to your appalling government, I will vote for them in a heartbeat.
If I do ever vote for you again, it will be solely due to a lack of any decent alternative, and I will probably slap myself in the head with some sort of waffle immediately afterwards. Then I will feel depressed and eat the waffle.
Please go away soon.
Yours in absolute disgust,
INC
posted by I'm not Craig at 9:52 PM
7 Comments:
The problem with SB is that he fell into the job. It wasn't "expected". As much as there was joy at the exit of Jeff, SB wasn't truly ready for the job, shown by the fact that Justin Madden can become a Minister.
I don't usually comment on political stuff, so don't get used to it.
Young man, you are very excellent with the writing of words, unfortunately, I'm not absolutely positive that Bracksie is heaps good at reading them. I've never got the impression that he was too bright.
His comment that offended you so righteously is hopefully just the start of his reinvention into Major Quimby. At least he'd have some character then...
INCraig,
I agree with you that it is better to have a pragmatist than a "stands-for-nothing". I also think that when leaders attempt to be a bit "out there" (aka PROGRESSIVE) on issues they get labelled crazy pretty darn quick.
I also think that it's difficult when you agree with an MP (or a Party for that matters) wholeheartedly about some things and they let you down on others. I know for myself that I'm not the most consistent in terms of my worldview, but I'm not sure if this is what we should expect of political parties...maybe. It would be good, for example, if an insistence on not having nuclear power also meant not having a uranium mining industry or uranium exports.
I got an anonymous comment on my blog last time I talked about civics and citizenship which argued that citizen initiated referenda are the answers to some of these problems. I'm still thinking about that. But I still argue that it's worth people participating at least in the voting process, beecause I believe (in my own naive way) that it is worth making the effort, to help get the kinds of government and accountability we want.
There you go - not a joke in sight. Must. Stop. Being. So. Earnest. About. Politics.
Far out! I'm going to try and say something, but it won't be nearly as articulate as your other commenters.
Anyway.
It hurts like a personal betrayal - putting your trust in a certain party, having defended them in many a dinner party conversation, and then have them do something like this. Or, as is the case here in NSW, just faff about for 12 years without actually fulfilling any of the promises that put them into power in the first place...
The Garrett thing, I don't know... I accept that to be part of the ALP you do need to compromise, as indeed to be part of Life you need to compromise... I think he's a humble and principled man. I'm going to have to trust him.
And I think politics is something we're allowed to be earnest about. Think about how the legacy of the Howard years have tainted the very air we breathe - it's not naive earnestness that makes us want to breathe freely again, but the primal urge to survive...
Do you seriously expect more from a politician? Would you rather Ted Baillieu?
hey inc. thanks for the plug. i am trying to not expose myself to the grief and anger that caring about politics in this state, and this country, creates in me. so i don't buy the paper every morning like i used to, and i don't listen to faine. now i listen to a bunch of comedians called the cage on mmm. people who know me think this is hilarious - me, listening to bridge, berner, um... see i know two of the names. while they are inane and there is no politics, it means that i can drive around without my head starting to heat up and then feel like it's going to explode. i don't find myself pulling over to write a note in my little pink notebook i carry everywhere in my bag, or to call 774 (it's in my speed dial). so this is a long-winded way of saying that i haven't read about the bracks issue, so i can't comment.
but i agree with you. all the way. keep up the good work, and please tell me who to vote for when the time comes.
i figure i'll be overseas anyway which will either be a good or very very bad thing as it means i won't be able to hang with fits on election night.
Clokeeeey!
You have identified the biggest objection I have to this government, which is that it has any association at all with the Carlton Football Club.
So wrong.
Adam
Spot on as ever, young man. Mayor Quimby as premier would be, as they say, heaps good.
Gigglewick
Don't worry about there being not a joke in sight. The post you were commenting on was not exactly laugh a minute stuff.
It was also a bit light on for musical references, which I will correct by pointing out that Bracks clearly failed to listen carefully enough to John Cougar Mellencamp and ended up believing that you gotta stand for nothing and hope like hell that the voters will fa-a-all [beat] for anything.
Actonb
That was not only articulate, it was beautifully poetic.
As it happens, I had been defending Bracks in a dinner party conversation a couple of days before that post was written, and you are absolutely right about that feeling of personal betrayal.
The man at the pub
Great to have you here, thanks for stopping by.
Do I expect much from politicians? No
Do I expect something better than absolute contempt for both democracy and my intelligence? Yes
Would I prefer Ted Ballieu? Not yet, but Bracks would not want to push his luck much further.
MG
Totally with you on that 'head feels like it's going to explode thing, but even that would not make me listen to The Cage. Fortunately I catch the train to work so it's not an issue.
Is that idiot James Brayshaw still on The Cage? If so, doesn't five minutes of that guy make your blood boil far more than any political story ever could?
You need to switch to Jay and the Doctor before it's too late.
And what's this about being overseas at the next election? It had better be a country with excellent internet access.
Post a Comment
<< Home