As our 'friends' in Canberra dive snout first into the final week of Federal Parliament, it's a good time to reflect on the dog shit of a year that was 2010. A year that has consisted of progression, followed by regression and is ending in stagnation. In fact, we are without a doubt behind where we finished up last year. The country is split, one side says this, the other says that, and the vast majority says so what.
In the year up until now, we've gone from a popular, if dictatorial, Prime Minister, challenged by a progressive and thoroughly wet Liberal Opposition Leader, to a fledgling PM finding her feet amongst a hung parliament and up against a hard line conservative member of the A-team.
We've gone from almost certainly having an ETS, to almost certainly not knowing what the fuck is going on. We've gone from quiet resentment of refugees to full blown yelling at town meetings followed by leaflet dropping fits of hysterical fear. We've gone from patting ourselves on the back for how our banks got through the GFC, to wanting to rip them apart. We've gone from kowtowing to the mining industry, to kowtowing to the mining industry. We've gone from having polls every month, to having one every five minutes, despite the fact that they all tell us the same thing: We don't know what we want, but we want it now. Fast.
We have to start all over again. Issues that had consensus last year are now back to square one style bickering. Everything is back in committee. The status quo is fighting back, and it's winning. 2008 and 2009 were epitomised by the word 'change', 2010 introduced the qualifier 'as long as I don't have to'. It does not bode well for 2011.
In the mean time, you can look forward to some interesting announcements over the Christmas break. They usually slip them out while people are still too busy digesting their stodgy Christmas lunch, and the media are obsessed with fluffy cat-stuck-in-a-tree-happy-good-times. As for myself I will take a break until the New Year, or until something interesting happens, and by interesting I mean bad.
Merry Christmas and my God have mercy on us all.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
The Tides They Are a-Changing
At the end of 2006, a somewhat surprising thing happened. John Howard went on the 7.30 Report and completed a very slow u-turn on the issue of climate change.
"I accept that climate change is a challenge, I accept the broad theory about global warming…[t]he truth is, I'm not that sceptical. I think the weight of scientific evidence suggests that there is significant and damaging growth in the levels of greenhouse gas emissions."
The cynics on the progressive side of politics, myself included, immediately thought that these were the words of a man spooked by the imminent rise of Kevin Rudd, a man that looked almost exactly like him, except almost 20 years younger. The conservative side of politics however, seemed stunned, almost…sad. Andrew Bolt looked lost, confused. He didn't know what to say, and he always knows what to say.
It was the same for numerous other conservative, slightly camp talk back radio hosts who spent a large amount of their air time laughing up the 'bullshit' scenarios of the climate change believing nut bags. All while the John Howard battle standard remained hoisted proudly atop their station's AM transmitter. All of the sudden, JWH had said something that conflicted with their views and they were punch drunk. When Rupert Murdoch joined the climate chorus the whole of 2GB went on suicide watch.
That was four years ago and since then we've had a change of government with climate change as a major issue in the election, an abortive attempt to do something about it, wrist-slashing and nashing of teeth from the opposition, and now a concerted fight back from the climate sceptics.
Momentum was lost, and many people have started to second guess themselves. People have tired of hearing the same thing over and over again. There has been a sudden realisation that things would have to change, that stuff would cost more, and that lifestyles were at stake. Then someone mentioned Australia's population and immigration figures, and climate change policy was well and truly fucked.
It's not surprising that the asylum issue has again raised its predictable head, as the 'other' is always first to cop it when lifestyles are under threat. The only way to protect an unsustainable lifestyle is to prevent anyone else from getting it. It seems that many people have decided that it's time to get selfish.
It's become fashionable because people believe it is unfashionable. Believing in climate change has become akin to that horrible thing of being politically correct. Believing in climate change will soon be in the same social dust bin multiculturalism, tolerance and basic human decency. It's the easy decision to take, and above all it's comfortable. It's easy to be sceptical, because then you don't have to do anything.
We're back where we started, an argument between a side desperate for action, and another who have decided they just don't care.
Everything is fine, now what's on TV?
"I accept that climate change is a challenge, I accept the broad theory about global warming…[t]he truth is, I'm not that sceptical. I think the weight of scientific evidence suggests that there is significant and damaging growth in the levels of greenhouse gas emissions."
The cynics on the progressive side of politics, myself included, immediately thought that these were the words of a man spooked by the imminent rise of Kevin Rudd, a man that looked almost exactly like him, except almost 20 years younger. The conservative side of politics however, seemed stunned, almost…sad. Andrew Bolt looked lost, confused. He didn't know what to say, and he always knows what to say.
It was the same for numerous other conservative, slightly camp talk back radio hosts who spent a large amount of their air time laughing up the 'bullshit' scenarios of the climate change believing nut bags. All while the John Howard battle standard remained hoisted proudly atop their station's AM transmitter. All of the sudden, JWH had said something that conflicted with their views and they were punch drunk. When Rupert Murdoch joined the climate chorus the whole of 2GB went on suicide watch.
That was four years ago and since then we've had a change of government with climate change as a major issue in the election, an abortive attempt to do something about it, wrist-slashing and nashing of teeth from the opposition, and now a concerted fight back from the climate sceptics.
Momentum was lost, and many people have started to second guess themselves. People have tired of hearing the same thing over and over again. There has been a sudden realisation that things would have to change, that stuff would cost more, and that lifestyles were at stake. Then someone mentioned Australia's population and immigration figures, and climate change policy was well and truly fucked.
It's not surprising that the asylum issue has again raised its predictable head, as the 'other' is always first to cop it when lifestyles are under threat. The only way to protect an unsustainable lifestyle is to prevent anyone else from getting it. It seems that many people have decided that it's time to get selfish.
It's become fashionable because people believe it is unfashionable. Believing in climate change has become akin to that horrible thing of being politically correct. Believing in climate change will soon be in the same social dust bin multiculturalism, tolerance and basic human decency. It's the easy decision to take, and above all it's comfortable. It's easy to be sceptical, because then you don't have to do anything.
We're back where we started, an argument between a side desperate for action, and another who have decided they just don't care.
Everything is fine, now what's on TV?
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Stand for Nothing, Win at Everything
There's nothing like a big foreign visit to perk up a Government that's a bit down in the dumps, and Hilary Rodham Clinton's bright orange pants-suit is just the distraction the PM needs at the moment. The Gillard Labor Government have copped it in the last few weeks, because despite being in Government, and having technically 'won' the election (because the side in Government are the people who won - always), they apparently lost it. And people who lose are losers. And losers suck. Winners are the ones we like, and the people who won are in Opposition, even though they lost.
In the weeks following the election people have spoken of Labor like they are in Opposition, like they are once again in the political wilderness, wherever the fuck that is, probably somewhere in South Australia.
However strange or unfair as that may be, as sure as higher socio-economic tax avoidance and everyone's inevitable lonely death, the Labor Party are once again having a good old soul-search. Young up-and-comers are providing hints that things could be better. Greg Combet, still basking in his post Bastard Boys ABC jerk off session of three and a half years ago, has declared a need for a return to core Labor values. Fan-fucking-tastic, lets do it. That sounds great. Parties should stand for something, right? So lets stand up and do it, for something! YAY SOMETHING!
People always claim they want parties to stand for something, particularly Oppositions. But do they? Does that ever work? If that were true then the small target strategy position occupied by the majority of Oppositions would have been dumped decades ago. When Rudd won the 2007 election, he stood for not being John Howard, when Howard won in 1996, he stood for not being Paul Keating etcetera. Governments love to be known retrospectively as 'reformist', because that is code for 'achieved something', but they do not necessarily win Government by preaching reform. They win it by being competent, standing still and allowing the other mob to run themselves into the ground. Governments stand for governing, Oppositions stand for being in government. What occurs in between is completely dependent on the public, who are so filled with trepidation, that second terms are almost a forgone conclusion.
As time goes on the Major parties bleed votes to minor parties like The Greens, because they do stand for something. This usually does not last. In 2010 The Greens won 11.7% in the House of Representatives and 13.7% in the Senate, because they stood for something. In 1990, the Australian Democrats won 11.2% and 12.6% respectively for the same reason, but as soon as they got to the big table and had to put their name on decisions their vote went south. Quickly.
The Greens are not the Democrats, but they are at the big table. And we'll see very quickly what, and how much, people want them to stand for.
In the weeks following the election people have spoken of Labor like they are in Opposition, like they are once again in the political wilderness, wherever the fuck that is, probably somewhere in South Australia.
However strange or unfair as that may be, as sure as higher socio-economic tax avoidance and everyone's inevitable lonely death, the Labor Party are once again having a good old soul-search. Young up-and-comers are providing hints that things could be better. Greg Combet, still basking in his post Bastard Boys ABC jerk off session of three and a half years ago, has declared a need for a return to core Labor values. Fan-fucking-tastic, lets do it. That sounds great. Parties should stand for something, right? So lets stand up and do it, for something! YAY SOMETHING!
People always claim they want parties to stand for something, particularly Oppositions. But do they? Does that ever work? If that were true then the small target strategy position occupied by the majority of Oppositions would have been dumped decades ago. When Rudd won the 2007 election, he stood for not being John Howard, when Howard won in 1996, he stood for not being Paul Keating etcetera. Governments love to be known retrospectively as 'reformist', because that is code for 'achieved something', but they do not necessarily win Government by preaching reform. They win it by being competent, standing still and allowing the other mob to run themselves into the ground. Governments stand for governing, Oppositions stand for being in government. What occurs in between is completely dependent on the public, who are so filled with trepidation, that second terms are almost a forgone conclusion.
As time goes on the Major parties bleed votes to minor parties like The Greens, because they do stand for something. This usually does not last. In 2010 The Greens won 11.7% in the House of Representatives and 13.7% in the Senate, because they stood for something. In 1990, the Australian Democrats won 11.2% and 12.6% respectively for the same reason, but as soon as they got to the big table and had to put their name on decisions their vote went south. Quickly.
The Greens are not the Democrats, but they are at the big table. And we'll see very quickly what, and how much, people want them to stand for.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
A United State of Election
It's times like these that I enjoy not being American. The current Midterm Elections are at the same time shockingly depressing and thoroughly unsurprising. It has been almost two years since Barack Obama took office, and America is still in trouble. Not good enough say the voters of America, who have promptly put back in power the people who got them in trouble in the first place.
What's worse, the misleadingly named Tea Party is the growing force in American politics, and moderate Republicans are quickly disappearing from the political landscape. There has been a Tea Party tidal wave which will end in a wet slap on the forehead of anything that is decent.
It was obvious that the hype surrounding Obama was overblown. It was like people forgot that this was politics they were taking about. He's not a God. One man cannot pull an entire nation out of an economic black hole of its own creation, reverse egotistical cultural malaise in months, not years, no matter how good his speeches are. People got disappointed very quickly when miracles did not occur immediately. Thus the Democrats have lost control because people could not be bothered voting for them. Used to instant gratification, they were disgusted when it was denied them.
This is the sort of thing that happens when the nation is kept in a near constant state of 'Election'.
In the US there is a Presidential Election every four years, which also includes House, Senate, Mayoral and Gubernatorial elections. In between these are Midterm elections, where every house bar the white one is involved. Prior to these proper elections, the major parties hold primaries, in which candidates are voted on by registered members of the parties, and any registered independents who lean that way. These tend to occur in the six months leading up to the election in question. So at the very least, the electioneering goes on for a year before hand. Recently it's been getting longer and longer, with every second of it picked apart and analysed by 24 hour cable news cuntery. Every poll means something, every misspoken word a disaster, every speech broadcasted all the time, constant attack ads paid for by some unscrupulous bastard, constant pleading for money, more money, WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY.
You can see why some people just say "fuck it, I'm not voting"? It's all too much. No wonder nothing happens. At all times, a large amount of people are trying to get re-elected. Everyone's playing defence.
Can you imagine an Australian campaign going for over a year? There would not be enough rope for everyone to hang themselves. People's life-force would ebb and disappear into a fog of bullshit. We'll get there in the end because it's already started. The official election campaign may only go for six weeks, but the unofficial campaign starts months before, and gets earlier every time. We now have two 24 hour news channels, and there are plenty of arseholes queuing up for both. Campaigns are becoming more negative, less informative and nastier.
America is our future, so watch, and get depressed.
What's worse, the misleadingly named Tea Party is the growing force in American politics, and moderate Republicans are quickly disappearing from the political landscape. There has been a Tea Party tidal wave which will end in a wet slap on the forehead of anything that is decent.
It was obvious that the hype surrounding Obama was overblown. It was like people forgot that this was politics they were taking about. He's not a God. One man cannot pull an entire nation out of an economic black hole of its own creation, reverse egotistical cultural malaise in months, not years, no matter how good his speeches are. People got disappointed very quickly when miracles did not occur immediately. Thus the Democrats have lost control because people could not be bothered voting for them. Used to instant gratification, they were disgusted when it was denied them.
This is the sort of thing that happens when the nation is kept in a near constant state of 'Election'.
In the US there is a Presidential Election every four years, which also includes House, Senate, Mayoral and Gubernatorial elections. In between these are Midterm elections, where every house bar the white one is involved. Prior to these proper elections, the major parties hold primaries, in which candidates are voted on by registered members of the parties, and any registered independents who lean that way. These tend to occur in the six months leading up to the election in question. So at the very least, the electioneering goes on for a year before hand. Recently it's been getting longer and longer, with every second of it picked apart and analysed by 24 hour cable news cuntery. Every poll means something, every misspoken word a disaster, every speech broadcasted all the time, constant attack ads paid for by some unscrupulous bastard, constant pleading for money, more money, WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY.
You can see why some people just say "fuck it, I'm not voting"? It's all too much. No wonder nothing happens. At all times, a large amount of people are trying to get re-elected. Everyone's playing defence.
Can you imagine an Australian campaign going for over a year? There would not be enough rope for everyone to hang themselves. People's life-force would ebb and disappear into a fog of bullshit. We'll get there in the end because it's already started. The official election campaign may only go for six weeks, but the unofficial campaign starts months before, and gets earlier every time. We now have two 24 hour news channels, and there are plenty of arseholes queuing up for both. Campaigns are becoming more negative, less informative and nastier.
America is our future, so watch, and get depressed.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Taming of the Shoe
Who throws a shoe? I mean really. You've got the old man sitting there, he's on a show called 'Q and A' which means if you ask him a question he has to answer it. You could have asked him anything you want. You could've stayed up the night before and concocted a question so pointed, so insightfully lancing, that the boil on the arse of society that is this old man would have burst live on national television. There would have been applause in the yawning gap between the end of your verbal bullet and the stammery spluttering answer of a man defeated by the weight of your profound inquiry.
Instead you threw a shoe.
You didn't even throw it well.
And to ask the prompt return of your shoes following their rather loopy expedition across the room in the general direction of John Winston Howard just smacks of lameness. It was kind of sad, like you just realised "I needed those shoes, I really did."
I'm sure people will talk about whether such acts are an effective protest, maybe they are sometimes. Certainly when an Iraqi journalist threw his shoes at then US President George W. Bush (a far better exhibition of shoe throwing in my opinion), he captured the growing frustration of a great deal of people with the war, the death and the injustice of it all. It was part of a greater debate about the war, it was at an extreme sure, but it was not isolated.
Throwing shoes at Howard however, three years out of power while he's attempting to protect his legacy on the ABC, does not achieve anything in my mind. In fact, I think Howard would find such an act far easier to deal with than a well-worded question addressing the many, many issues of the Iraq war. The nature of the act allowed Howard to dismiss it, and the reasons for it. It put the audience on his side and the protestor was roundly booed by other members of the audience, including fellow Howard detractors. What we're all reading today is 'man throws shoes at Howard', not 'David Hicks questions Howard on Guantanamo' or 'Howard defends actions in middle east'. Those are better things to be talking about than the merits of throwing footwear at former leaders.
Hell, I've seen more commentary on the quality of this guy's shoe-throwing ability than I have anything on the Howard book's defence of the war. The protestor said he wanted international attention to make his point known. He'd failed before the first shoe dropped.
Instead you threw a shoe.
You didn't even throw it well.
And to ask the prompt return of your shoes following their rather loopy expedition across the room in the general direction of John Winston Howard just smacks of lameness. It was kind of sad, like you just realised "I needed those shoes, I really did."
I'm sure people will talk about whether such acts are an effective protest, maybe they are sometimes. Certainly when an Iraqi journalist threw his shoes at then US President George W. Bush (a far better exhibition of shoe throwing in my opinion), he captured the growing frustration of a great deal of people with the war, the death and the injustice of it all. It was part of a greater debate about the war, it was at an extreme sure, but it was not isolated.
Throwing shoes at Howard however, three years out of power while he's attempting to protect his legacy on the ABC, does not achieve anything in my mind. In fact, I think Howard would find such an act far easier to deal with than a well-worded question addressing the many, many issues of the Iraq war. The nature of the act allowed Howard to dismiss it, and the reasons for it. It put the audience on his side and the protestor was roundly booed by other members of the audience, including fellow Howard detractors. What we're all reading today is 'man throws shoes at Howard', not 'David Hicks questions Howard on Guantanamo' or 'Howard defends actions in middle east'. Those are better things to be talking about than the merits of throwing footwear at former leaders.
Hell, I've seen more commentary on the quality of this guy's shoe-throwing ability than I have anything on the Howard book's defence of the war. The protestor said he wanted international attention to make his point known. He'd failed before the first shoe dropped.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Pulling Your Legacy
I think it can generally be acknowledged that arguments between individuals, conducted after a particular incident or period, as to who was right and who was wrong during said incident or period are boring. The fact that I mentally switched off halfway through that sentence is testament to the boringness of such situations. No one likes the sound of people bitching at each other over things that are past and unchangeable. Its pointlessness is amplified by how inevitable it is, particularly when the result of the incident/period is ambiguous and the high ground on the subject is therefore up for grabs.
When these arguments take place between retired politicians, usually former leaders, a new level of boredom is achieved as the nobody-cares pissing contest spills into the media and fouls the pages of already foul rags. Again, like so many things in politics, all sides are at fault and have recent examples.
Six or so months ago it was Hawke and Keating going at it. Not so subtle jibes were directed at each other's supposed mental states during the period in question, both desperately jockeying for credit from the successes and eagerly dolling out blame for the cock-ups. The jibes all had notes of warning in them, two people who obviously know many secrets about each other, threatening to reveal all in hardcover for $49.95. A book started the argument, and no doubt a future book will continue it.
Now it's Howard and Costello's turn to wop them out and cross swords, fighting over a legacy no one but the sad and loserish will take note of. The whole idea of building a legacy post government is childish and inherently egotistical. It conjures the image old men, sitting together at a retirement home for the politically insane, routinely soiling themselves while trading barbs about each other's fiscal discipline. Why this has to happen in the media is beyond me.
There is also the obligatory controversial crack at someone who was not expecting it. A cheap-ass blindside of someone everyone presumed you liked to add a bit of spice to book sales. I'm not particularly offended that Howard has claimed that Jeff Kennett was secretly a union-loving, commie-sympathising jar of wet-ones, but why has this been brought up other than to start a fight that produces free media for Johnny's book? Well for starters it's bullshit, so who cares? Controversy sells, so make some.
In ten years' time it will be Rudd and Gillard going at it, each blaming the other for Peter Garrett and who almost let Tony Abbott become Prime Minister. The only winners are Harper Collins and Random House.
When these arguments take place between retired politicians, usually former leaders, a new level of boredom is achieved as the nobody-cares pissing contest spills into the media and fouls the pages of already foul rags. Again, like so many things in politics, all sides are at fault and have recent examples.
Six or so months ago it was Hawke and Keating going at it. Not so subtle jibes were directed at each other's supposed mental states during the period in question, both desperately jockeying for credit from the successes and eagerly dolling out blame for the cock-ups. The jibes all had notes of warning in them, two people who obviously know many secrets about each other, threatening to reveal all in hardcover for $49.95. A book started the argument, and no doubt a future book will continue it.
Now it's Howard and Costello's turn to wop them out and cross swords, fighting over a legacy no one but the sad and loserish will take note of. The whole idea of building a legacy post government is childish and inherently egotistical. It conjures the image old men, sitting together at a retirement home for the politically insane, routinely soiling themselves while trading barbs about each other's fiscal discipline. Why this has to happen in the media is beyond me.
There is also the obligatory controversial crack at someone who was not expecting it. A cheap-ass blindside of someone everyone presumed you liked to add a bit of spice to book sales. I'm not particularly offended that Howard has claimed that Jeff Kennett was secretly a union-loving, commie-sympathising jar of wet-ones, but why has this been brought up other than to start a fight that produces free media for Johnny's book? Well for starters it's bullshit, so who cares? Controversy sells, so make some.
In ten years' time it will be Rudd and Gillard going at it, each blaming the other for Peter Garrett and who almost let Tony Abbott become Prime Minister. The only winners are Harper Collins and Random House.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Once Upon a Gaffe
Once in a while, the façade of modern political theatre comes crashing down in such a fashion that everyone just stares at each other awkwardly, waiting for the moment to pass. Of course, then there's the laughter, usually from the side who has just had something of unimaginable idiocy gifted to them by the other side.
Joe Hockey got up this morning and decided he was going to make a call for the Parliament to legislate a control on interest rates. How that would happen is unclear, the point is he said it, and it's presumably Coalition policy.
Meanwhile Don Randall got up this morning and decided that he was going to do a Parliament doorstop interview. This is where MPs 'accidentally' bump into the press on their way into Parliament via a particular door. A door that always has press outside of it, because of all the MPs they keep bumping into. Anyway, after calling into question the sexuality of the national broadcaster, Mr Randall took a question about the proposed policy of controlling interest rates. A very astute reporter asked the question without mentioning that it came from Joe Hockey, and promptly received reward in the form of a horrendous brain-fart from old Donny.
Randall thought the idea was shit, and he said so. In fact he said it was one of 'their lunatic fringe-type ideas'. Their ideas? Who's they, who's he talking about? The Australian Greens he says. Oh dear.
You have just put your foot in your mouth, and then shot yourself in the same foot, therefore killing you.
Randall just assumed that what he perceived as a ridiculous idea could only have come from the Greens, and jumped in with both feet. No doubt Gillard, Swan and Co. must have been splitting their sides. Joe Hockey must be furious, not only has he been bagged by one of his own, he's been compared to the Greens, surely the gravest of insults you could level at a conservative, wet or not.
Randall has since tried to cover-up his cock-up by promptly talking out of his arse. He has claimed he was speaking of something else. Something the Greens were doing, but something that had absolutely nothing to do with the question he was asked. An obviously horse shit back pedal brought upon by extreme internal-party rib-poking.
All this woeful episode reveals is the utter meaninglessness of most political attacks. It doesn't matter what the idea is, as the names and parties are interchangeable in any attack depending on who's in government and who's in opposition. A lunatic idea in government is a fantastic idea in opposition. Why is this the case? Because when it comes to these sort of arguments the only message you have to get across 'us good, them bad'. You either accept something or dismiss it, based completely on where it came from.
Fuck the facts, who said it?
Don Randall certainly wishes he had said nothing at all.
Joe Hockey got up this morning and decided he was going to make a call for the Parliament to legislate a control on interest rates. How that would happen is unclear, the point is he said it, and it's presumably Coalition policy.
Meanwhile Don Randall got up this morning and decided that he was going to do a Parliament doorstop interview. This is where MPs 'accidentally' bump into the press on their way into Parliament via a particular door. A door that always has press outside of it, because of all the MPs they keep bumping into. Anyway, after calling into question the sexuality of the national broadcaster, Mr Randall took a question about the proposed policy of controlling interest rates. A very astute reporter asked the question without mentioning that it came from Joe Hockey, and promptly received reward in the form of a horrendous brain-fart from old Donny.
Randall thought the idea was shit, and he said so. In fact he said it was one of 'their lunatic fringe-type ideas'. Their ideas? Who's they, who's he talking about? The Australian Greens he says. Oh dear.
You have just put your foot in your mouth, and then shot yourself in the same foot, therefore killing you.
Randall just assumed that what he perceived as a ridiculous idea could only have come from the Greens, and jumped in with both feet. No doubt Gillard, Swan and Co. must have been splitting their sides. Joe Hockey must be furious, not only has he been bagged by one of his own, he's been compared to the Greens, surely the gravest of insults you could level at a conservative, wet or not.
Randall has since tried to cover-up his cock-up by promptly talking out of his arse. He has claimed he was speaking of something else. Something the Greens were doing, but something that had absolutely nothing to do with the question he was asked. An obviously horse shit back pedal brought upon by extreme internal-party rib-poking.
All this woeful episode reveals is the utter meaninglessness of most political attacks. It doesn't matter what the idea is, as the names and parties are interchangeable in any attack depending on who's in government and who's in opposition. A lunatic idea in government is a fantastic idea in opposition. Why is this the case? Because when it comes to these sort of arguments the only message you have to get across 'us good, them bad'. You either accept something or dismiss it, based completely on where it came from.
Fuck the facts, who said it?
Don Randall certainly wishes he had said nothing at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)