Howard's End

by Mick Sawyer Mon 18 Feb 2008, 23:03

I didn't bother looking at the extended interviews on the ABC website but credit to all involved. Costello aside, there was freshness & openess without bitter retribution in mind. A good view.

Hockey said something that I couldn't work out - perhaps others have a handle on it. He said that they didn't want to push Howard because of his strong personal following - that if they stabbed him it would have been absolute decimation. Would it have been that way? Surely the "strong personal following" had just about evaporated by that time.

by Fred Nerk Mon 18 Feb 2008, 23:14

I think it had something to do with the lateness of the hour - Hockey was concerned that replacing Howard with anybody at that stage was only going to piss off the Howard rump immediately, which was about all they had left, without giving the new bloke (who as I think Abbott said, wouldn't have been that new anyway, whoever he was) any time to recover the droves that had already gone.

(I'm a bit disappointed 4C couldn't come up with a more original name for the report than 'Howard's End'.)

by Mick Sawyer Mon 18 Feb 2008, 23:24

Fred Nerk wrote:I think it had something to do with the lateness of the hour - Hockey was concerned that replacing Howard with anybody at that stage was only going to piss off the Howard rump immediately, which was about all they had left, without giving the new bloke (who as I think Abbott said, wouldn't have been that new anyway, whoever he was) any time to recover the droves that had already gone.

(I'm a bit disappointed 4C couldn't come up with a more original name for the report than 'Howard's End'.)

hmmmm. Yeah - thanks Fred. In terms of freshness Costello, Downer, Abbott, Ruddock and others would never have done but Turnbull, Bishop, even Hockey may well have picked up more than what was lost in the withered rump.

Edit: I think the drab, unimaginative, dated "Howard's End" was perfect.

by Invader Zim Mon 18 Feb 2008, 23:36

There was certainly a bit of re-writing of history going on...especially Hockeys assertion that ‘most of the Cabinet' didn't know what Work Choices would do to workers. Whata crock of shit.

by Mick Sawyer Mon 18 Feb 2008, 23:37

............ but Turnbull, Bishop, even Hockey may well have picked up more than what was lost in the withered rump.

Of course, getting any of these to accept the poisoned chalice would have been another matter altogether & perhaps this alternative was floated & just not mentioned last night.

by Mick Sawyer Mon 18 Feb 2008, 23:41

Invader Zim wrote:There was certainly a bit of re-writing of history going on...especially Hockeys assertion that ‘most of the Cabinet' didn't know what Work Choices would do to workers. Whata crock of shit.

Didn't he retreat & amend it with "some of"?

I read a newspaper story, post election, where the journalist told of dining with a minister who held the belief that everyone would be OK under Work Choices. The journo then suggested that minister actually talk to the waitresses. The poor, stupid, out of touch minister subsequently came back to the table with a whole new perspective.

by Invader Zim Mon 18 Feb 2008, 23:44

It's more like they suddenly cared when the polls shot to shit.

by Fred Nerk Mon 18 Feb 2008, 23:51

Until quite recently I preferred Costello, smirk and all, to most of the others, but over the last 18 months his standing has dwindled to nothing. Even the smirk was unconvincing last night, he was trying to come across as philosophical and able to laugh in hindsight and all that crap, but it didn't work at all. He's finished. The voters of Higgins will be out again before they hit the snowfields.

Hockey, as always, came across as a reasonable bloke in an unreasonable situation. They should look at him but most likely won't - he just doesn't seem the type they make a party leader, just the Charlie Muggins that cops all the dirty jobs.

by Mick Sawyer Mon 18 Feb 2008, 23:57

Invader Zim wrote:It's more like they suddenly cared when the polls shot to shit.

Costello made the point about the numbers in the Party Room who'd never known a leader other than Howard - those that found their place in parliament through the force that created Howard's battlers. These types would not have the savvy of a Minchin who realised that the Howard balloon was leaking badly. An effective Plan B to find a leader with relevance to the electorate couldn't get off the ground due to the naivette of Howard's members

by Mick Sawyer Mon 18 Feb 2008, 23:59

Fred Nerk wrote:Until quite recently I preferred Costello, smirk and all, to most of the others, but over the last 18 months his standing has dwindled to nothing. Even the smirk was unconvincing last night, he was trying to come across as philosophical and able to laugh in hindsight and all that crap, but it didn't work at all. He's finished. The voters of Higgins will be out again before they hit the snowfields.

Hockey, as always, came across as a reasonable bloke in an unreasonable situation. They should look at him but most likely won't - he just doesn't seem the type they make a party leader, just the Charlie Muggins that cops all the dirty jobs.

aye (Edit: or Me Too) to every syllable Fred!

by Invader Zim Tue 19 Feb 2008, 00:04

As bodyline would say...the next Liberal PM hasn't been born yet.

by Mick Sawyer Tue 19 Feb 2008, 00:06

Invader Zim wrote:As bodyline would say...the next Liberal PM hasn't been born yet.

PMSL

by Mick Sawyer Tue 19 Feb 2008, 00:09

Invader Zim wrote:As bodyline would say...the next Liberal PM hasn't been born yet.

He better turn his attention to the State scene. Bligh is Beattie with tits - she/they are dooooomed.

by Paul Keating Tue 19 Feb 2008, 00:41

Hockey comes across as a decent guy, on Sunrise, on the election night and on FourCorners. But he keeps harping on about how JWH is Australia's greatest PM. For that comment alone, I hope he remains in opposition for the rest of his Parliamentary days.

by Mick Sawyer Tue 19 Feb 2008, 00:53

Paul Keating wrote:Hockey comes across as a decent guy, on Sunrise, on the election night and on FourCorners. But he keeps harping on about how JWH is Australia's greatest PM. For that comment alone, I hope he remains in opposition for the rest of his Parliamentary days.

A good bloke, but imperfect. He's a feckin tory to begin with.

by JGK Tue 19 Feb 2008, 01:24

Hockey seemed to contradict himself a fair bit last night.

by Invader Zim Tue 19 Feb 2008, 01:24

This blogger must be reading my stuff:

Still, Joe Hockey’s assertion that, “I don’t think many ministers in Cabinet were aware that you could be worse off under WorkChoices and that you could actually have certain conditions taken away without compensation,” remains the single comment that most causes the jaw to drop. It is almost impossible to believe. If he’s just trying somehow to rewrite history in his own favour—as the person who did understand the problem and tried to fix it via the “fairness test”—then that’s one thing. If it’s actually true then it is stark indication of, not as Andrew Robb suggested, a government out of touch, but of government steeped in incompetence. The single biggest legislative program of that term of their rule and Cabinet didn’t understand how it worked. What an indictment.

by tac Tue 19 Feb 2008, 01:24

Mick Sawyer wrote:
Invader Zim wrote:There was certainly a bit of re-writing of history going on...especially Hockeys assertion that ‘most of the Cabinet' didn't know what Work Choices would do to workers. Whata crock of shit.

Didn't he retreat & amend it with "some of"?

I read a newspaper story, post election, where the journalist told of dining with a minister who held the belief that everyone would be OK under Work Choices. The journo then suggested that minister actually talk to the waitresses. The poor, stupid, out of touch minister subsequently came back to the table with a whole new perspective.

I knew I should have stopped right there . . . rather than bother reading another apocryphal story by a journo showing how clever they are (post election, of course).

by Mick Sawyer Tue 19 Feb 2008, 01:50

JGK wrote:Hockey seemed to contradict himself a fair bit last night.

That was my initial impression as well - that there were quite a few. Since then I've crossed a number off as OK - Joe doesn't use the most precise language & editing may have left out a clarification or two.

by Mick Sawyer Tue 19 Feb 2008, 01:54

tac wrote:
Mick Sawyer wrote:
Invader Zim wrote:There was certainly a bit of re-writing of history going on...especially Hockeys assertion that ‘most of the Cabinet' didn't know what Work Choices would do to workers. Whata crock of shit.

Didn't he retreat & amend it with "some of"?

I read a newspaper story, post election, where the journalist told of dining with a minister who held the belief that everyone would be OK under Work Choices. The journo then suggested that minister actually talk to the waitresses. The poor, stupid, out of touch minister subsequently came back to the table with a whole new perspective.

I knew I should have stopped right there . . . rather than bother reading another apocryphal story by a journo showing how clever they are (post election, of course).

I'm happy to believe the minister had NFI. Hockey seems to agree. For some reason Kevin Andrews is coming to mind.

by Paul Keating Tue 19 Feb 2008, 02:41

That Julie Bishop isn't too bad looker either for someone her age.

by Mick Sawyer Tue 19 Feb 2008, 02:58

Paul Keating wrote:That Julie Bishop isn't too bad looker either for someone her age.

phurt, she's a protestant, tory, lawyer ponts. She once allowed her boyfriend at uni to cup her breast with his hand. She didn't like it, so they went back inside to the sherry and gowns.

by bodyline Tue 19 Feb 2008, 03:20

Invader Zim wrote:As bodyline would say...the next Liberal PM hasn't been born yet.

Probably true - the opposition front bench is a rabble.

by bodyline Tue 19 Feb 2008, 03:23

Anyone who believed Hockey has been on the wacky weed for far too long.

by Mick Sawyer Tue 19 Feb 2008, 03:47

bodyline wrote:Anyone who believed Hockey has been on the wacky weed for far too long.

Can a non-smoker tell me what he should have said if he were truthful?

by Sponsored content

Howard's End

Howard's End

Re: Howard's End

Re: Howard's End

Re: Howard's End

Re: Howard's End

Re: Howard's End

Re: Howard's End

Re: Howard's End

Re: Howard's End

Re: Howard's End

Re: Howard's End

Re: Howard's End

Re: Howard's End

Re: Howard's End

Re: Howard's End

Re: Howard's End

Re: Howard's End

Re: Howard's End

Re: Howard's End

Re: Howard's End

Re: Howard's End

Re: Howard's End

Re: Howard's End

Re: Howard's End

Re: Howard's End

Re: Howard's End