Abbott: look over there, I see a boat

Photo: news.com.au

Follow @MinkelCT

Since being elected, Tony Abbott has gone into hyperdrive on the asylum seeker issue. Without a doubt irregular maritime arrivals are not the ideal way for those seeking asylum to arrive into Australia, however to all but the most ignorant, logic states that in order to put some order into disorder that a primary goal is the goodwill and cooperation of Indonesia.

In 2009, Kevin Rudd and Indonesia were in close cooperation on the issue:

AUSTRALIA is preparing to dispatch police across Asia to fight people smugglers and expand intelligence and security ties with Indonesia under a landmark deal that could be unveiled within weeks.

From the same link, it was none other than John Howard who recognised that a diplomatic solution was the prime solution:

But the Immigration Minister, Chris Evans, said yesterday the so-called Indonesia solution had begun in ”about 2002” under the former prime minister John Howard, who provided millions of dollars to Jakarta to assist with processing refugees and preventing illegal migration.

I wonder where all that cooperation went to? Gone like the wind under hamfisted, egotistical and inept handling by the Abbott-led government.  Completely at odds with his mentor John Howard, one of Tony Abbott’s first actions as Prime Minister was to enact the opposite, and instead of providing “millions of dollars to Jakarta” . . .

Australia will cut $75.4 million from humanitarian, emergency and refugees programs, including $8.5 million from the International Committee of the Red Cross, $4 million from planned donations to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and $1 million from the United Nations Peacekeeping Fund.

Therefore with a diplomatic solution effectively thrown in the wastepaper basket by Abbott and Morrison, what remains?  What else but Turn Back the Boats, irrespective of the wishes of the other party, Indonesia.  Some of a more bogan bent might stand on their soapboxes shouting loud “Huzzahs!” that we white fellas are showing those others a thing or two – here Indonesia; you can like it or lump it!

Stopping the boats has rather interesting history, and it took close to a year before anyone in the mainstream media got around to asking the question, “How?” clearly being far too interested in the politics of it all rather than the policy and that policy’s practical application.

December 31, 2009:

…the Opposition Leader declined to say what specific policies the Coalition would implement to stop the boats.

August 16, 2010:

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott believes he can ”stop the boats” entering Australian waters within three months of a coalition government being elected on Saturday.

Decisions would be made by Mr Abbott personally and on a case-by-case basis, based on the advice of naval commanders making contact through a hotline to the prime minister’s office.

Although the idea of a Boat phone caused a great deal of mirth, expressed in headlines such as “Holy asylum seekers”, the fact of the matter is that Abbott originally came up with this idea when cornered during an interview. Abbott when asked the question; if or when it did occur that people did die at sea due to his turn back the boats policy whether they be asylum seekers or enlisted personnel, then who is it who is going to be taking responsibility for these deaths? Whose responsibility would it be to turn back the boats? Abbott’s sudden and quite odd explanation is that he would have a Boatphone to the commanders, “In the end it would be a prime ministerial decision,” he said.

So where has this Prime Ministerial responsibility suddenly evaporated to?

Mistakes by sailors blamed for breach of Indonesian water

Senior navy officers and customs officials face possible disciplinary action over six incursions into Indonesian waters while turning back asylum-seeker boats under the government’s border protection regime.

And what might this quotation be construed as meaning?

However some blame was placed on headquarters, which while knowing the importance of respecting Indonesian territory, had ”effectively devolved the obligation to remain outside Indonesian waters to vessel commanders”.

How can respect for another nation’s territorial waters “devolve”, and under what circumstances were orders given, and by whom, that this should devolve?  But of course, this is none of Tony’s business, as after all it’s nothing more than a cricket game or a football match.

During a press conference at Parliament House on Tuesday, the Prime Minister was asked how it could transpire that professionally trained and highly skilled naval personnel could mistakenly sail, more than once, into Indonesian territorial waters.

“Even people who are at the very top of their game… will occasionally make mistakes,” Mr Abbott replied, while praising the skill and professionalism of the Australian navy.

A game?  A match?  Apparently not, it is now a devolution.

What they said

Follow @MigloMT

The news from Jakarta that Indonesia is stepping up its military presence in the region has by now been widely reported. Some key – and frightening – messages in those reports include:

“The greatest threat will obviously be from Australia”

Australia’s “tow-back” policy may soon ignite conflict.

“Now that we have three frigates on the border, a clash could be imminent as our Navy will prevent the towing back”

It’s all because of Abbott’s “tow back” policy! Pathetic, really.

It is interesting to look at what both Kevin Rudd and Julie Bishop had to say about the Australia/Indonesia relationship in June last year. Rudd, a former Foreign Minister, had just won back the prime ministership and Bishop was Shadow Foreign Minister. Here’s a recap:

KEVIN RUDD: I’m very concerned about whether, if Mr Abbott were to become prime minister and continues that rhetoric and that posture and actually tries to translate it into reality, I really wonder whether he’s trying to risk some sort of conflict with Indonesia.

What I’m talking about is diplomatic conflict, but I’m always wary about where diplomatic conflicts go. Konfrontasi with Indonesia evolved over a set of words and turned into something else. Let’s just, let’s just call it for what it is.

If the ambassador of the Republic of Indonesia in Australia says that the policy of the government of Indonesia is not one which would faintly support the policy put forward by Mr Abbott, and secondly if Mr Abbott as prime minister then seeks to do that, you end up with a pretty robust diplomatic conflict and I become a little uncertain as to where that heads.

I’m not suggesting that Mr Abbott would intentionally head in that direction at all. But I’m saying very clearly that you have a policy collision here between what he says and what the government of Indonesia says.

You’ve got to ask this question; so what happens on day one when field marshal Tony puts out the order to the captain of the Australian naval frigate X to turn back a bunch of boats? And you’ve got naval frigate from the Indonesian navy on the other side of the equation.

JULIE BISHOP: Kevin Rudd has revealed the ugly tactics that he intends to use in his new government, and that is to make absurd and wild claims that the Coalition would trigger a conflict with Indonesia over people smuggling.

It is utterly irresponsible and reckless for the Prime Minister of this country to try and use our bilateral relationship with Indonesia for base domestic political purposes. He tries to suggest there’s going to be a conflict with Indonesia under a Coalition government? It’s outrageous and it should be utterly and absolutely condemned.

Guess which one’s the idiot?

Image courtesy of Margaret Morgan.

I can’t think of anything that Tony Abbott has going for him

Follow @MigloMT

I don’t remember too much about Paul Keating. I do remember his arrogance, which many argue was the driving force behind his 1996 election loss. Nobody likes an arrogant politician. But I will say this about him: he was a brilliant economist and outside of politics a straight forward, normal bloke. No pretenses. You got what you saw. He had a lot going for him and his legacy is being widely hailed.

John Howard, well, I remember too much about him. What sticks in my mind the most was that he was a mean-spirited, lying little prick. I’m being honest here. But I will say one thing about him: he had some dignity. There was no way that he would have allowed his senior ministers to stand under “Ditch the Witch”signs at public rallies. He would have been silently appalled at the behavior we’ve seen from Abbott et al on that occasion.

I worked under Kevin Rudd and he was a hard task-master, verging on being a control freak. And he had difficulty grasping the concept that not everyone was as brilliant as him. But he was only doing what he thought was best – in the long run – for society’s battlers. He also had the strength to stand firm and stand by his convictions. A couple of his political decisions were monumental stuff-ups but all in all, he did try very hard to understand and deal with other people. And he listened to them.

Julia Gillard should be ashamed of whoever headed up her public relations department. She, personally, gave the impression that she was above all the criticism that she and her government faced. However, there was no way that she was above it. It was a misconception. But I’ll give her lots of credit where it’s due: she had guts and she had dignity. And having also worked for her I can vouch that she worked diligently to improve the lives of all Australians.

Tony Abbott. Well, he has nothing at all going for him. He has nothing in the bank. He is devoid of any of the good human qualities that the above are remembered for.

I want to hear the good things about Tony Abbott

Follow @MigloMT

On John Lord’s excellent appraisal of Tony Abbott at The AIMN, in It Goes to the Character of the Man, someone asked (which I have slightly edited:

. . . could you please inform us about the positive things that Abbott has done since being elected?

This is a question I have asked often and have yet to get a proper answer. The usual non answer has been how bad Labor was. I want to know what policies have worked for the Coalition. Asylum seeker policy is claimed as successful (by them) . . . but I want an honest appraisal . . .

I have been asking similar questions on this blog for well over a year. I’ve never received an answer, except that “Julia Gillard or Kevin Rudd are bad therefore Tony Abbott must be good”. The “good” Tony Abbott is Prime Minister now. Here is the chance for his admirers to give us an honest appraisal of his performance to date as PM.

Come on, let’s see if you can conjure up with something valid and honest. Of course, it’ll be a first and it’ll be new ground for you, based on your arguments to date.

Here’s your chance. I’m waiting.

Tony Abbott – Caricature (Photo credit: DonkeyHotey)

Guess who’s doing something to address climate change?

Follow @MigloMT

From the moment the Labor Party introduced policies to tackle the ravages of global warming, first with Kevin Rudd’s ETS and then Julia Gillard’s price on carbon, the Coalition have used just about every excuse to oppose them.

Prominent among these are the shallow arguments that Australia’s contribution to the carbon footprint is small, and more lamely, that while the big polluters like China and India sit idle in addressing climate change then why should Australia even bother.

I won’t myself bother with providing any links to their argument. Anybody who has read a newspaper, visited an online news service or listened to news radio would by now be well aware of these claims.

In government for less than a week, we have seen the Coalition try everything possible to send our efforts to address climate change back at least a decade.

Meanwhile, from one of those countries that they claim is doing nothing, India, comes this news: India Plans To Build The Largest Solar Plant In The World. In the Climate Progress online journal Andrew Breiner writes that:

Indian utilities plan to use 23,000 acres of land to build the largest solar power plant in the world, at 4 gigawatts of power, bringing prices and production of solar energy closer to competitiveness with coal.

The plant in Rajasthan is expected to commission its first phase in 2016, providing 1 gigawatt of power, enough to make it India’s largest solar power project ten times over. It will be a joint venture of five government-owned utilities. The other 3GW would be produced in an arrangement determined by the success of the first phase.

The finished plant would be comparable in power production to the four in-progress coal-fired Ultra Mega Power Plants (UMPP) under production, at 4 gigawatts of power. But those plants are struggling to hold prices low due to reliance on imported low-carbon coal. The solar plant’s operations won’t be subject to any such constraints.

In addition to cutting carbon, getting off of coal would help India reduce the 100,000+ deaths each year caused by coal plant pollution.

Jasmeet Khurana, of Bridge to India, said that these solar mega projects were intended to reduce the price of solar to INR 5 per kWh (USD 0.08/kWh), bringing it close enough to typical coal prices of INR 3.5/kWh to INR 4.5 kWh for solar to be truly competitive. In fact, coal’s relatively high prices made it so that even India’s largest coal company is turning to solar panels to lower its electric bills.

This comes as IBM and the Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor Development Corporation finalized a plan to link technological infrastructure in a massive stretch between India’s business and political capitals. Grid improvements will be necessary to fully take advantage of the new solar plant, as India’s often experiences outages and rationing, especially outside of big cities.

Meanwhile, another effort is underway to use solar energy in India in an innovative way. A company called Sarvajal is developing solar-powered “water ATMs” for remote villages, where tens of millions of Indians drink contaminated water on a regular basis. The ATMs would allow entrepreneurs to profitably sell water in smaller villages where transporting bottled water is prohibitively expensive.

As coal and water stress in India drive prices higher, wind is already competitive with new-build coal, and solar parity is getting closer as well, with cost-competitiveness expected sometime between 2016 and 2018. A future of renewable energy may be within reach for India.

Gosh, those people in our government are fairly good at telling lies, aren’t they.

Image courtesy of Associated Press

Media mud chuckers

Follow @MigloMT

It appears that no matter who leads the Labor Party, whether in Government or Opposition, the media always manage to dredge up some mud to throw at them.

When Rudd took over the leadership in 2006 they went into a frenzy over the story about him visiting a strip club in New York years earlier, or that he lunched with former WA Premier Brian Bourke. Bourke was painted to be evil, a disgraced person, therefore Rudd was not a worthy Prime Minister because, gulp, he had dined with him.

The Government at the time, led by John Howard, naturally chimed in. Howard was producing dirt files quicker than he was producing policies. Senior managers in my department were asked to gather as much mud as they could on Rudd’s wife, Therese Rein, who had had dealings with the department through her business interests.

Then there was Julia Gillard. Just look at how she was treated. Her achievements as Prime Minister were less important than who she slept with 17 years ago. And of course she was a ‘commie’ because she was a member of the union in her university days. The list of her alleged crimes of the past was endless, with each entry encouraging and attracting another mud chucking session.

She also had to cope with being labelled a back stabbed for replacing Rudd, aided of course by faceless men. Tags that never left them.

Rudd’s return was met with reminders that he was not popular with Gillard’s backers. He was a psychopath, if you were to believe the media.

There could be another election in six months if Abbott calls a DD. Whoever leads Labor going into it needs to be squeaky clean or the media will go in for the kill. If he is one of the so-called faceless men he’ll be murdered for it. If he or she was openly a Rudd or Gillard backer they’ll be exposed as someone who helped destroy the other’s leadership.

In a nutshell, the media will screw them on whatever flimsy evidence they can dig up. God help them if, at some time in the past, they had provided a personal referee for a priest later charged with pedophilia of had a history of pissing in shoes in Canberra restaurants, among other noteworthy ‘çrimes’.

At the moment there aren’t too many people in the party who’d be safe from the mud chucking. But anything will do. Kissing the wrong baby in 1985 or dumping a girlfriend as a teenager would be enough get the sharks circling.

In your opinion, given my assumption that the media would want political blood, who could thus be ruled out as the person to lead Labor at the next election?

Good luck

Follow @MigloMT

Good luck to whoever wins the election.

Most people know I support Labor but if Tony Abbott wins, as he has been tipped to do, then I wish him all the best. Whilst I can’t imagine how horrible this country might become under his leadership I hope, sincerely, that he serves us well.

All he needs to do to become a good Prime Minister is to finish the great work Labor has done for six years. In Government he does not need to be a wrecker. He won’t need to say “No” to everything, good or bad.

He won’t lose any friends if he keeps the NBN. Most voters want it even though they’ll most likely vote for the man who threatens to demolish it.

He won’t lose any friends either if he changes his antiquated views on same-sex marriage. Again, most voters approve of same-sex marriage even though they’ll most likely vote for the man who wants to close the door on it.

Neither will he lose any friends if he continues with the Gonski reforms. Again, funnily, most people want a good education for their children yet they’ll most likely vote for the man who will ignore their wants.

I doubt he’ll lose any friends if he doesn’t stop the boats, though he will definitely lose credibility because of it. Many people in this country don’t mind the boats coming. They’d rather see them drift safely to our shores than be turned around at sea.

He definitely won’t lose any friends if he keeps to his word and not reintroduce WorkChoices. Dare I say it again, but funnily enough the strugglers who will suffer most under WorkChoices will most likely vote for the man who probably can’t wait to rob them of their rights at work.

I could go on and on, but my main point is that if Mr Abbott wins then I wish him well. And he would be wise to remember what John Howard said in 1996 that he inherited a good economy from Paul Keating. Tony Abbott will be doing the same: inheriting a good economy. No, a great economy.

He would be wise not to stuff it up.

We’ll be watching him. Closely. We’d be happy to turn him into target practice if he ruins this great country.

If Kevin Rudd defies the odds and pulls off a surprise win then good luck to him too. His predecessor has left him some of the greatest reforms of the last decades to build upon. He has been part of a team that has seen Australia leap to the top as one of the most economically sound countries in the world.

I hope he is rewarded with another term. This photo (origin unknown) succinctly sums up why I want his team rewarded.

There’s something in those numbers

Follow @MigloMT

The social media has been a frenzy of activity over the last week as people voice their disgust at the grubby antics of the Murdoch media. The Murdoch media has not only come under fire for its gutter journalism and personal attacks on Kevin Rudd, but for its ‘go soft’ approach on Tony Abbott. If only they could hold Abbott to account. And if only they could ask Abbott the questions that we of the social media would like the opportunity to do.

It’s fitting, nay deserved, that the daily sales of Murdoch’s newspapers continue to plummet. At the same time, independent media sites and blog sites continue to grow. It’s a clear message that many people seek an alternative to the traditional media. We of the new media, sadly, at this stage cannot provide news. We lack the resources in both money and personnel. But we can provide opinion – an alternate opinion – and one that represents how many people feel. You won’t find this in the Murdoch media, where only one opinion counts: Rupert’s.

The sites I am associated with, Café Whispers (CW) and the Australian Independent Media Network (The AIMN) have enjoyed record months. The AIMN recorded a huge 24,000 visitors in one day earlier this week, dwarfing the mere record of 8,700 here at CW. It is significant that these figures were achieved in the wake of Murdoch’s grubby blitzkrieg. It is also clear that people like what our authors are delivering.

I think it is safe to assume that the combined readership of the independent blogs could nationally outnumber the readership of a major city newspaper. They would easily outnumber the listeners of say, Alan Jones.

One could argue that the same people read all the individual blogs, but my statistics show otherwise. The statistics record the number of visitors to our sites and where they have visited, or ‘clicked’ from. Very rarely will they come from similar sites, suggesting that each blog, to a large extent, has its own distinct group of loyal readers.

On both CW and The AIMN the percentage of visitors from similar blogs is very small. Facebook, Twitter and Google provide 95% of our visitors while the remaining 5% is made up of a dozen or so from other blogs or media outlets.

There’s something in those numbers.

The question no-one can answer

Will Tony Abbott be a good Prime Minister?

I’m yet to find anyone who can answer that in the affirmative. No-one from the ‘right’ side of politics has been able to come up with a simple ‘yes’ let alone anything of substance to back up the claim. Instead, we hear how bad the recent Labor prime ministers have been.

Why can’t they answer it? Do they have no confidence in him themselves? Do they think he’s a dud, but acceptable purely because at this stage he is the alternate Prime Minister?

Are they satisfied with a politician who keeps raising the bar of stupidity?

The election is around the corner and I’d like to hear from those people who think he will be a good prime minister and of course, from those who think he will not. But there is one simple rule: Tell us why.

In November last year I gave the right-wing loyalists the opportunity to be heard, commenting that:

No doubt inspired by their hero Abbott’s performances (which can be likened to a mad banshee), right-wing bloggers come here imitating his behaviour from the sidelines with the most outrageous comments about how evil and incompetent the Gillard Government is whilst at the same time hoisting Abbott as the new Messiah.

They fail miserably on both counts. All bluster with no evidence.

I’m giving them the opportunity to redeem themselves. I devote this thread to them where they can add some substance to their claims that Gillard is evil, the Government is toxic or why Abbott would make a better Prime Minister.

They failed miserably again:

The post received over 620 comments and the ‘right’ were out in force, however, their responses were merely parrot-fashion repeats of what we hear from the opposition and the media.

But now it’s a different playing field: We are nearing the election, Abbott has the chance to replace Rudd instead of Gillard, and we have a wider variety of contributors to the site now compared to last November.

It would be refreshing if those who think Abbott would be a good PM could attempt – as hard as it might be – to rise above the level of idiocy so evident in the right-wing newspapers and right-wing social media forums that tell us that Rudd eats babies, kills kittens, talks to trees or costs the tax-payer money to simply do his job. If I wanted to hear that you only like Abbott because Rudd can’t comb his hair properly (yes, the media do talk about that) then I might as well just head straight to the Murdoch media and read what people have to say there.

I imagine, going by the history of what the right-wing commenters have been saying on this site, that they might be intellectually challenged to come up with something original and meaningful. Here’s the chance to prove to us you are an intelligent voter or conversely, provide us with further evidence that you simply aren’t.

Another reason I’ve re-visited the opportunity to ask people why Abbott might be a good PM is because he has done nothing to convince me he could be, and because the anti-Rudd brigade has been rather feral in both the mainstream and social media forums. There must be at least one voter out there who can tell us why Abbott would be a good PM. I’m yet to meet him or her. Come on, show us your face.

BTW, I’ve heard some very good reasons as to why Abbott won’t make a good PM and they all have merit. A recap can be found here.

Follow @MigloMT

The media must be seeing a different Tony than me

Follow @MigloMT

Like everybody else I’ve been reading the papers with interest over the last couple of weeks.  I’ve noticed that they’ve been falling over themselves in a rush to tell us how evil Prime Minister Rudd and his Government are and luckily for us, the future PM, Tony Abbott, is as pure as the driven snow. Over the next couple of weeks he is sure to be elevated to deity status. If not already, he will be enshrined as the greatest human being to have walked the earth.

Under an Abbott Government there will be no unemployment, poverty, boats or blood-sucking unions. Businesses will prosper and huge wages will be thrown willingly and recklessly around. And of course, mining will boom. Billionaires will be made.

Everybody loves Tony Abbott. Mothers line up with their babies to be kissed by his golden lips. He is the perfect father, the perfect husband, the perfect man. Under his prime ministership Australia will win a record haul of Olympic gold medals. We’ll win the World Cup of whatever sport you can name.

And world leaders, it goes without saying, will want to rub shoulders with him.

OK, I’m exaggerating, but you can’t disagree that he’s the media golden boy. He’s the Prime Minister we have to have. Well, who they want us to have, at least. That’s why they promote him as the man who can do no wrong.

But it’s not how I see him. This is what I see:

• A leader who displays breathtaking incompetence.
• A leader who policy barren.
• A leader who has not shown he is fit to be the alternative Prime Minister.
• A leader who is totally unprepared for the election.
• A person who regularly embarrasses himself on both the national and international stage.
• A politician who shows more loyalty to the elite few ahead of the wider electorate.
• A politician who has no interest in the opportunities of the future.
• A person who is out of touch with the majority of Australians.
• An extreme radical.
• A leader who can’t sustain media and public scrutiny without ‘cracking’.
• A habitual liar and back-flipper.
• A person who is out of touch with reality.
• A political leader who lacks direction.
• A politician who ignores that we belong in a global community and wants to remain isolationist.
• A gutless person.
• And finally, a complete idiot who cannot make a public appearance without being stage managed.

The media definitely must be seeing a different Tony Abbott to the one I see. How do you see him?

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)