A Guide To The Australian Pandemic - The Last One And This One

What To Expect In An Australian Pandemic: Villages, Towns, Cities Quarantined...Churches, Schools, Workplaces Shut Down...Social Chaos...Food And Medical Shortages...Normal Life Ceases...100,000+ Australians Dead...Mobile Healthcheck Teams...Die In Your Homes

By Darryl Mason

Tony Abbott was Australia's Health Minister when Avian Flu threatened to become a global pandemic, in late 2005. The Howard Govt took the threat, and the advice of the World Health Organisation, seriously enough. They prepared. They had plans, and made them public. There was a Influenza Pandemic Worst Case Scenario and Tony Abbott was one of the ministers dispatched to the media to Get The Message Out.

Which he did. In some nighmarish late night TV interviews about "The Biological Tsunami", Tony Abbott stepped his way through the "inevitable" and very deadly influenza pandemic Australians would have to eventually face, and deal with.

If you thought he was rough as guts as Prime Minister, in 2005 Health Minister Tony Abbott was even more raw. He spilled on his knowledge from briefings on what The Worse Case Pandemic Scenario would look like in a kind of shocked awe. The scope of how daily life would be transformed in Australia during the "inevitable" influenza pandemic in the 21st century seemed to overload his mind.

"We don't know when a pandemic might happen, but if one does happen it will be a public health disaster, the magnitude of which this country has not seen at least since 1919 when we had the last flu pandemic."

Abbott expected a new, more virulent influenza pandemic in Australia to become a "Public Health Disaster" when he was Health Minister. He admitted to this, on TV. How prepared is the Morrison Govt today, in 2020, for a COVID-19 pandemic? 

On 'Australia During A Pandemic', Tony Abbott in 2005 blurted a The Scenario the Americans had put together (presumably via the Centre for Disease Control) and on which he said he'd been thoroughly briefed:

"(in the scenario) medical facilities couldn't cope and there was widespread social breakdown, as people abandoned their posts concerned about their health. 

"Now this is a pretty scary scenario, and just so people don't think it is entirely in the realm of science fiction - back in 1919, Australia had a Spanish flu pandemic outbreak and that killed some 13,000 Australians, in a then population of about 4 million and at different times in the first half of 1919, schools were closed, churches were closed, places of public gathering were off limits. Normal life had pretty much ceased in large parts of Australia. We have little folk memory of this though..."

The actual Australian death toll may have been closer to 25,000, by the time the virus seemed to have faded away in the early 1920s, as human immune systems adapted.

In 1919, when at least 15,000 Australians died from the virus, the annual death rate of the nation jumped by 25%.

But Abbott was right about the rest. Most Australian families have no, or little generational memory, of 'The Great Influenza/Spanish Flu' Australian Pandemic 100 years ago. It was never up for much discussion around the dinner tables.

When 'The Great Influenza' reached Australia in 1919, schools, churches, concert halls, theatres, train stations, public squares, pubs, were all locked down. Farms, factories and city business districts ground to a halt as people fled to the country to escape the pandemic. They only succeeded in transporting the virus to rural Australia, where it killed as effortlessly as it had in heavily populated city centres.

What did "abandoning their posts" actually mean in 1919? It meant police, soldiers, firefighters, ambulance drivers, nurses, medical professionals eventually having to choose between caring for sick family members at home, or those in public care. Or leaving when they themselves became sick.

Abbott raised this the 'abandonment of posts' in 2005 because the American Worst Case Scenario proposed the same would happen in the 21st Century, in the United States and Australia.

'The Great Influenza' or falsely named 'Spanish Flu', swept the globe from 1918 to early 1920. Quarantine systems in Australia did delay the arrival of a vast spread of the new virus for a few months.

More than 300 Australian soldiers who had somehow survived the European slaughter fields of World War I died from the influenza pandemic within weeks or months of finally making it home.

The extraordinary global death toll as more than one-third of the world's population became infected, killing some 80 million or more people, saw the loss of so many essential workers, doctors, hospital workers, nurses, police, public servants, teachers, production line workers, welders, craftspeople and children, the impacts rapidly transformed 20th century society in the West, and saw the surviving workers in the industrialised world become, suddenly, very valuable and not so disposable anymore. The politics of all Western countries were impacted by The Great Influenza, not only because of the death tolls, economic impacts, but because politicians, their advisers, their donors, died along with the rest of the people.

There was little warning before The Great Influenza exploded into reality. Unlike most flu epidemics in the 1800s, this one killed without discrimination. It laid waste to infants, old people, healthy young men.

Here's how The Times of London dealt with the rising panic about the spread of The Great Influenza in early 1919, shortly before the virus rapidly killed 200,000+ across the United Kingdom:

If you caught The Great Influenza H1N1 virus, death could come within a matter of days. Your lungs filled with fluid, as your immune system battled the invader and overdid the defences. Survivors described H1N1-affected lungs as 'like trying to breathe through wet sand.' There was no cure.

Back then, for the first year, they didn't even know what exactly was killing millions of people. Was it a virus? Many experts thought it was a bacterium. A conspiracy theory raged in the the Allied nations of World War I that the Germans had invented a biological bomb in revenge for losing 'The Great War'.

In 1919-1920, doctors, hospitals, morgues and graveyards were overwhelmed by the endless casualties. In the US city of Philadelphia, 5000 people died in one week. Mass rioting broke out, whole streets full of cramped dwellings were torched and corpses were piled in mounds a dozen bodies high. They were tossed into carts and transported to mass burial sites. This was the United States in the age of cinema and radio.

In some European cities, entire towns were burned to the ground, with the dying still in their homes, to try and contain the spread of the virulent flu. Ships at sea were blocked from entering ports and became "floating caskets." Other ships were torched in harbours before passengers could get to land.

'The Great Influenza' is believed now to have originated in animals (chickens and/or pigs) but mutated quickly and crossed over into humans. A Kansas farm next to a military base is now often cited as The Great Influenza's Ground Zero.

The influenza virus mutating, plus a lack of capable medical facilities, unsanitary hospitals, towns and cities, a shortage of doctors and nurses, also helped the 1918-19 death toll to move into the tens of millions, globally.

And yet, there are few countries in the world today that can honestly claim to have a universal public health system that could cope with a full-blown influenza pandemic, like COVID-19. There aren't enough hospital beds, or isolation wards.

In Australia in 1918-1920, after hospitals were overwhelmed, as was common around the world, the infected were quarantined in their homes and left to live or die. You were either going to make it, or not.

The way govts of 2020 will cope with a COVID-19 Pandemic are not so distant from 100 years ago. As we've already seen in China, Japan, Korea and Iran, the United States and Italy, and other countries, by mid-February, 2020. Home quarantines and 1000s isolated in 'Medical Care Camps' outside of major cities has quickly became normal, as they did in 1919. And now, as back then, deaths outside of hospitals or medical facilities are forgotten, missed or ignored, left off the official numbers.

In one late night, chilling interview, in 2005, Health Minister Tony Abbott revealed the federal govt expected and feared a 'beyond normal' flu pandemic could kill more than 100,000 Australians: 

"A pandemic if it hits Australia and it is of the severity of the 1918 outbreak, will potentially kill many thousands of people and it's hard to imagine any terrorist attack - short of a nuclear bomb in a major city - that would have a comparable impact. 

"Back in the time of the Spanish flu there was much less international travel, people coming to Australia had to arrive by ship. Thanks to the then Commonwealth quarantine authorities we were quite effectively protected for many months. Certainly New Zealand, which put a much less stringent system of quarantine in place, was impacted very early and had about double the death rate of the flu outbreak in Australia, which is why in New Zealand they have a stronger folk memory of this than we do. 

"We have plans for an escalating health response, including mobile teams, home quarantine, home treatment, so that only the very serious cases have to go to public hospitals. We would certainly be alerting people to the potential dangers of doing certain sorts of things. Whether we needed to close down public institutions would depend upon the virulence of the virus and who was most susceptible to it."

In 2020, it's become a bit more obvious the limits to which the spread of a highly contagious new influenza virus can be contained, by any method, particularly when it can hide away inside a new human host for up to a month, rendering the host infectious before symptoms begin to show, like the COVID-19 strain is now believed to do. And this is all before the new virus has undergone any dramatic mutation. 'The Great Influenza' began its killing spree in 1918. The vast majority of deaths came in 1919, after the H1N1 virus had mutated.

If it feels like some govts are already in a 'Hey Man, Flu's Gonna Do What The Flu's Gotta Do' headspace, that may not be far wrong. 

Maybe the biggest cities in the US, Europe, Australia, the UK are planning to shut down for a month or two or more, and are prepared to take a massive economic hit, like China has. Maybe the 2020 Olympics will be cancelled. 

Or maybe these govts won't do that. Maybe they won't inflict extended mass disruption on their people and their economies.

Maybe our Western govts already at 'Flu's Gonna Do What Flu's Gotta Do.' because some of their experts and advisers are telling them that even shutting down cities is an an action that will, ultimately, have only a limited effect on stopping the new influenza strain eventually reaching most people on the planet.

As the COVID-19 influenza virus clearly intends to do. 

---------

Tony Abbott interview quotes, September, 2005:

Source: https://www.abc.net.au/lateline/tony-abbott-speaks-on-the-threat-of-avian-flu/2103424

Once Were (Political) Warriors

Prime minister Kevin Rudd has succeeded, once again, in getting the past and present stars of the Liberal Party to waffle on defending decisions made one, two and three decades ago. Just as he intended.

Dennis Shanahan in The Australian :

John Howard and Peter Costello have struck back politically and personally at Kevin Rudd's characterisation of their government as indolent and uncaring neo-liberals, declaring the Prime Minister has reached "new heights of political mendacity".

Stirred from his sick bed, Australia's second-longest-serving prime minister has accused his successor of politicising and demeaning 30 years of continuing Australian government reforms, including those of the Hawke-Keating era, for partisan benefit.

On Monday, Mr Rudd, at the launch of The March of Patriots, by The Australian's Paul Kelly, said the Howard government had been "indolent" and the Coalition could not claim to be partners with Labor in Australia's economic reforms of the past 30 years.

"The Liberals' failure to advance a framework for increasing national productivity is not a minor blemish on their economic record," Mr Rudd said.

"It reflects a fundamental failure of long-term economic reform and casts legitimate doubt over the extent to which the Liberal Party can be regarded as partners with Labor in the great project of economic modernisation."

Even social reforms that "endured through long periods of Liberal rule" survived, according to the Prime Minister, only because of political expediency and not because of any genuine support or belief.

Rudd has effectively pulled off this kind of caper, of forcing Liberals to go on the defensive about their most important claims to economic success and major reform, from the very first week of his leadership of the Labor Party. Rudd's strategy of getting the Liberals all hackled up succeeded all the way through the 2007 election campaign. And it's still working now for Rudd.

As John Howard proves, as he desperately seeks to remind Rudd that he used to be someone important :

In one fashion or another we are all political warriors, but we have a superior obligation to the national interest. That obligation obtains in opposition as well as in government.

No side of Australian politics has a monopoly of either virtue or merit. Each according to its own value system has attempted to improve the lot of Australians.

In failing to acknowledge this last Monday, my successor diminished himself, and not the Liberal and National Parties.

This 24 hour wonder must have been worth a few good laughs for Rudd.

.

"Chasher Style Prank" Cost An Election, And $3300

By Darryl Mason

He helped get the Rudd government elected, he screwed up his wife's career, it cost him $3300 in fines and court costs, a blanket of shame, people shouting at him "you're a fucking dickhead!' in the street, an acre of humiliation :

Gary Clark was convicted last month of breaching the electoral act by handing out the bogus leaflets in his wife's seat of Lindsay, just before the last election.

The pamphlets claimed to have been published by a non-existent radical islamic group, and praised the Australian Labor Party for supporting the Bali bombers.

He has been fined the maximum penalty of $1,100 and ordered to pay more than $2,000 in court costs.

This event sucked the life out of the Liberal Party, on the eve of the 2007 election.

The day the Lindsay Leaflet Scandal erupted, John Howard delivered his last big speech, and it was a pretty good one, but the entire Q & A at the National Press Club was devoted to going hard on Howard over the Lindsay Leaflet Scandal. It was ugly, and across Sydney, you could feel rusted on Liberal voters peeling away by the thousands, throughout the day, in disgust at the filthy sabotage politics that had been attached to their brand.

Clark's wife, retiring Liberal Party member for Lindsay, claimed she knew nothing about it, and when she did, she thought it was, you know, just a bit of a laugh and infamously, a "Chaser style prank".

ABC journalist Chris Uhlmann delivered a dawn phone call interrogation on Jackie Kelly, less than seven hours after her husband was busted hand-delivering the leaflets linking the Labor Party to support of terrorism :

CHRIS UHLMANN: Well, Jackie Kelly, good morning.

JACKIE KELLY: Hello. How are you?

CHRIS UHLMANN: Was your husband involved in the distribution of this pamphlet?

JACKIE KELLY: Well, I've read the alleged pamphlet and when I first read it I had to laugh because I think everyone who reads it has their first instinct is to laugh, pretty much everyone who's read chuckles in terms of the parody it does make of various things that have happened during the campaign.

So my view is that it's a bit of Chaser-style prank that an ALP goon squad, which I understand was is led by some unionists, have chased down and hunted down and tried to intimidate and I understand there was even a fight, so yes, I think it was all a very…

CHRIS UHLMANN: But just to establish it, your husband and two colleagues were handing out this pamphlet?

JACKIE KELLY: Well, my understanding is they were letterboxing…

CHRIS UHLMANN: This pamphlet?

JACKIE KELLY: Well, I don't know. Well, I don't know, allegedly. Allegedly.

CHRIS UHLMANN: And this pamphlet says it comes from an Islamic organisation that doesn't exist? It says the ALP wants the Bali bombers forgiven and supports the construction of a mosque in western Sydney. What's funny about that?

JACKIE KELLY: Oh, look, it makes a parody of Robert McClelland's gaffe and those sorts of things. I think its sort of, I think its intent is to be a send-up but it obviously hasn't worked.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Isn't it its intent to drive people away from the Labor Party? Isn't that the intent of this?

JACKIE KELLY: No, well, I think if you read it you'd be laughing. I think it's quite… most people who've read it have sort of said, "Oh, well, that's a Chaser-style of prank."

*************

CHRIS UHLMANN: Alright, who printed it?

JACKIE KELLY: Oh, look, I don't, I don't - I'm not, I don't know enough about it.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Was it from your office?

JACKIE KELLY: No. Absolutely not.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Who funded it?

JACKIE KELLY: I don't know. I don't know.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Who authorised it?

JACKIE KELLY: Well, look, there isn't any authorisation on the alleged document, but certainly our anti-union material has all of our stuff all over it.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Can you guarantee that no funds came from your office, or from the Liberal Party for this?

JACKIE KELLY: Yes. Yes. Absolutely.

CHRIS UHLMANN: So where did the money come from? Someone must have printed it.

JACKIE KELLY: Look, everyone's got home printers and whatnot. I mean, you can do up dodgy flyers how you like. Anyone could have… even the goon squad following.

CHRIS UHLMANN: So you're saying that the goon squad following then printed it, then put it in their hands so they could letterbox it?

JACKIE KELLY: Look, I could send you a number of material that has been put out by "dear residents et cetera" on exactly these same issues or similar issues related to the campaign. I mean…

CHRIS UHLMANN: Was the Liberal state office involved in this joke?

JACKIE KELLY: No, not at all.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Was the Federal office involved in this joke?

JACKIE KELLY: Not at all.

***************

CHRIS UHLMANN: So now you're saying that he - you knew that they were going to be expelled?

JACKIE KELLY: Where is this conversation going?

CHRIS UHLMANN: I rang and I've identified myself as a reporter and I want to know how much you know about this particular document?

JACKIE KELLY: I don't know anything about it, right? I know basically what my husband has told me, his version of events, and obviously what the papers are alleging, and obviously what the ALP is putting about. Now I think there's a certain modus operandi in the ALP that is showing its face here in terms of unionism, using its standover tactics and thuggery. They're on the way back. I mean, they're coming back.

********

CHRIS UHLMANN: Jackie Kelly, thank you.

JACKIE KELLY: Cheers.

Cheers. Jackie Kelly and her husband, Gary Clark, destroyed the last chances of the Liberal Party at the 2007 election by what he did, and then what she said.

The audio of Uhlmann's interrogation of Kelly is here. A remarkable piece of historic political journalism, and a classic example of why so many Australian conservatives so often hate the ABC.

This is how The Chaser reacted to Kelly trying to associate their comedy stylings to the monumental dickheadry of her husband, and mostly unnamed fellow conspirators.

And here's why Conservatives Don't Do Comedy.

John Howard knew when he stepped up to the podium in the National Press Club in the early afternoon the day the horrible story hit all the headlines that disgust was spreading fast through his Bennelong electorate. It was a nasty story, and it was everywhere. It was the biggest Liberal Party story of the entire election campaign, and the hardest to dampen down, or dismiss.

But Howard knew an even bigger story was breaking as he began his final speech. He'd already lost the election. Bennelong was gone, and with it the prime ministership. His political career was dead.

The text of the Lindsay Leaflet that Tony Abbott knew absolutely nothing about, at all :

"The role of the Islamic Australia Federation is to support Islamic Australians by providing a strong network within Islamic Australia.

"Muslims supporting Muslims within the community and assisting and showing christian Australians the glorious path to Islam.

"In the upcoming federal election we strongly support the ALP as our preferred party to govern this country and urge all other Muslims to do the same.

"The leading role of the ALP in supporting our faith at both state and local government levels has been exceptional and we look further to further support when Kevin Rudd leads this country.

"We gratefully acknowledge Labor's support to forgive our Muslim brothers who have been unjustly sentenced to death for the Bali bombings.

"Labor supports our new Mosque construction and we hope, with the support or funding of local and state governments, to open our new Mosque in St Marys soon.

"Labor was the only political party to support the entry to this country of our Grand Mufti reverend Sheik al-Hilaly (sic) and we thank Hon Paul Keating for over-turning the objections of ASIO to allow our Grand Mufti to enter this country."

A scan of the leaflet :

Book Wars : Howard Vs Costello

Biographer : "Howard Is This Automaton"

Costello The Messiah...No Wait, He's Not The Messiah

Former prime minister, John Howard, apparently has five publishers interested in his autobiography, but former treasurer Peter Costello has already got his deal done, the writing has begun and it is expected to briefly hog shelf space in bookstores from early October.

The betting, before the books are even completed, is that Costello will turn in the better tale, which will mostly be written by his father-in-law, Peter Coleman, a former editor of The Bulletin.

The hope is that the book's publication will mark the end of Costello's political career, instead of a new beginning. Why?

If Costello intends to take a run at leader of the Liberal Party (and really, why would he?), you would expect the book to go easy on Howard, on the Liberals in general, mock Labor generously and ramp up the potential of a victorious return to power for the Liberals, starting anywhere. That means, not a lot of sales outside the hard core ranks of Australian conservatives.

But if Costello is heading for the door (and really, why would he stay?) we might get a conservative rival to Mark Latham's spectacular napalming of Labor in The Latham Diaries, full of bite, bile and venom.

That is no doubt the hope of Costello's publisher, Melbourne University Press, and whatever newspaper will fork out $30,000 to $60,000 for the serialisation rights.

More here :

Peter Costello may finally take the top slot from his old boss John Howard in a battle of memoirs, according to a biographer of the former prime minister.

ANU academic Wayne Errington, who co-wrote last year's controversial John Winston Howard: The Biography, said Mr Costello was the more attractive prospect.

"Howard and Costello both gave us a lot of their time and, generally speaking, Costello was much more interesting," he said.

"He's more human. Howard is this automaton who is hugely focused and disciplined while Costello, and I know this is a terrible cliche, is definitely the bloke you'd rather have a beer with."

Interestingly, the writer of the Costello book, Peter Coleman, ripped into John Howard after the Liberal Party's election massacre.

"What was once seen as his gritty determination started to look like an almost animal egomania and he seemed to be blocking progress and regeneration, rather than advancing the cause," Mr Coleman said.

He claimed that Mr Howard destroyed Mr Costello's chance to be prime minister. "There is no doubt that this man of great promise and great ability was blocked by Howard's egomania," he said.

It'd be hard to imagine Coleman won't entrench those views, obviously shared with Peter Costello, in the new book. The publishers are clearly expecting this, and much, much more.

John Howard, eating his breakfast alone and reading the papers, as is his daily morning habit, must have a few seconds where he found it hard to swallow when he read the news of Costello's book.

What will he say about me? Howard must have wondered, What will he reveal?

Winter began early for Howard yesterday morning.


The best coverage on the surreal hyping of Peter Costello returning to lead the Liberal Party and the announcement of his book deal naturally comes from Andrew Bolt, the Murdoch paid Liberal Party propagandist, and talking points provider, who can't even rely on the Liberals to leak him early news of actual interest anymore.

This is fantastic stuff from Bolt. Hail! Costello The Messiah Returns!

Costello retains a lot of respect in the electorate, making him preferred as Liberal leader to Turnbull, who is still inexperienced, unwilling to take advice and an ideological work in progress.

A Costello/Turnbull team would give the Liberals terrific credibility...

Costello has to get over his past resentments and seize his future.

...the Liberals must en masse ask him to take over.

...the leadership is there for his asking. And truly, his party needs him.

What news that Bolt didn't know was coming could turn that rancid fluff into pure bogwater? This - Oh Wait, The Messiah's Not Returning And...He's Taking Cash From The Publisher of Mark Latham and Antony Lowenstein :

Costello might be about to burn bridges rather than build them, unless he resists the impulse to get square:

Melbourne University Publishing (MUP) today said it would publish Mr Costello’s memoirs of his 18-year political career.

But you can at least gather from this Costello isn’t going anywhere that will demand plenty of his time, if he’s settling down for a long write.

Absolute bollocks, but pure comedy gold.

Costello wouldn't get more than $50,000 for his biography (he's believed to be getting around $150,000) unless the publisher knew in advance that Costello was going to use the book to leave at least a mildly impressive trail of smoke-belching burning bridges in his wake, heartily embracing the opportunity to get square, in public, and well before Howard's own tome wheezes onto the shelves.


The best part of the 2007 federal election remains the moment when John Howard had declared defeat and announced he would back Peter Costello as the new Liberal Party leader, with Howard all but begging Costello to come up onto the stage and allow Howard to officially anoint him.

Cut to Peter Costello standing in the crowd, looking casual and pissed, grimly grinning his answer back to the man who had done so much to make his life a frustrating, humiliating existence : Not fucking likely, mate, not fucking likely.

Howard Speaks...More Guff And Twaddle

'Conservative' Losers Claim Victory, For Losing

By Darryl Mason

John Howard has given his first interview since his humiliating election annihilation in November last year. Don't get too excited there, Howard's interview is about as dry and lifeless as a warm glass of salt and sand. But then, that shouldn't come as a surprise.

More interesting than most of what Howard has to say, is who he decided to say it to. That would be Janet Albrechtsen of The Australian newspaper.

You remember Janet, surely? She was the one who told Howard a few months out from the 2007 election that he had to quit, for the good of the Liberal Party, and for the ultimate benefit of Australian conservatism.

Here's a little flashback from Janet :

Under Howard it became cool to be a conservative. He rebuilt a political philosophy of individual responsibility for a new generation. His legacy is profound...

But now he must go. The Howard factor is there. Where once it meant success, now it presages defeat.

Of course, that column from Janet, back in September, 2007, didn't come as a complete shock to Howard. How could it? Janet rang Howard's office to let him know what she was publishing, before she even wrote it :

She's not an independent columnist, with scant regard for the impact of her opinion, as a truly fearless and uncompromising columnist must be. She is a propaganda outlet for John Howard, and has been a key player in the current game of "Howard Must Quit"/"Howard Must Stay" that has dominated political media coverage for the past eight days. The Game that is meant to show just how tough and resilient Howard can be, and how ready he is for the Big Fight in the coming election. And it all took place just when Howard needed it the most, when he is absolutely tanking in the polls....

In trying to fill in the gaps around the dull Howard quotes in her story - it being painfully obvious that he has little of anything fresh or interesting to say - Janet sprays a fresh coat of much-needed varnish on her Monty Python-absurdity level theory that Howard's hammering in the election, and the evisceration of the Liberal Party in general, actually means that conservatism is victorious in Australia :

Howard’s critics still don’t get it. In the sweep of history, conservatism has triumphed.

Since the election of the Rudd Government, the familiar refrain is that conservatism is beat. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has said that the right-left labels no longer apply. Yet, Rudd eagerly embraced much of the conservative agenda.

Yes, she's right. Rudd did embrace "much of the conservative agenda". That would be the "conservative agenda" of saying 'Sorry' to Aborigines, ratifying Kyoto, culling politicians' perks, pulling combat troops out of Iraq, nixing nuclear power, ramping up renewable energy programs, rewiring the Australian economy to deal with climate change, embracing carbon trading, obliterating WorkChoices and on and on.

You know, the 'New Conservatism'. It's not much like the old Howard conservatism, but it's far more popular and reflective of the Australia that most Australians want to live in.

Janet actually sums up the John Howard of 2008 perfectly in the story's intro :

For Howard, it is history that counts. And he is confident that history is on his side.

As long as people like Janet are writing the history, that is.

Some more desperate myth-making from Janet :

To be sure, Howard bears much of the blame for the final stain that tarnishes his record. After all, a leader is inevitably defined by their last act in office. Howard’s failure to heed the advice of his senior Liberal colleagues to hand over the leadership to Peter Costello last September will always be remembered as a final act of hubris. Deciding to stay on, preferring to be remembered by history as a fighter, not a quitter, knowing that electoral defeat was ahead, his leadership record would be indelibly marked down.

Keep spinning the myth, Janet, that if Costello became leader in September, election victory would have been in the bag. Dozens of polls in Janet's own newspaper reported all through 2007 that while Howard remained largely popular with voters, the Liberal Party, as in the primary political entity of Australian conservatism, was dying a long overdue death.

If the following quote from John Howard is anything to go by, he might want to check with medical professionals to see that at least a few of his neural pathways are still lighting up before he opens his mouth :

“The most constant comment made in the lead-up to the last election is that Rudd was trying to be a younger version of me. And there is some truth to that ... He did not win because he was different. He won because he was like me.”

Actually the most "constant comment" in the lead-up to the last election was that Howard was a tired old man, fresh out of ideas.

Poor John. He really did believe all that crap about Rudd being "a younger version of Howard" spouted by the likes of Janet, Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones and most of the op-ed writers of The Australian.

For those who were recently claiming that John Howard will never become like former prime ministers Paul Keating, Gough Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser, popping up in the media waffling embarrassing piffle, it's too late. Howard's clearly ready now to take his place in the all-singing, all-dancing cast of Nutty Old PMs Who Can't Stop Talking Absolute Bollocks.

It's hard to decide what is more pathetic, and sad. The delusional propaganda from media-stacking conservatives like Janet Albrechtsen that they really won the election by losing the election, or the fact that Howard now clearly believes the line that Rudd is "a younger, better looking Howard" and that's the only reason why Labor was victorious.

Doesn't John Howard know that irony-rich line was dreamed up and distributed, via phone calls and boozy lunches to Howard Huggers, like Janet, by his own media strategists?

They say you shouldn't believe your own press. But in Howard's case, he shouldn't believe turd-polishing propaganda that originated from his own office and PR people, no matter how attractive and ego-inflating it may be.

Expect John Howard to be writing a weekly column for The Australian by June. He should feel right at home.

Howard Just Won't Go Away

Former Prime Minister Ready To Collect His Iraq Blood Money From NeoCons And American War Industries

Yet another example of the incredible arrogance and utterly oblivious-to-reality character of former prime minister John Howard. Within weeks of losing the federal election, all but destroying the Australian conservative movement and bailing out as leader of the Liberal Party, Howard was on the phones begging to be installed as party president. Incredible :

Party sources confirmed that Mr Howard put himself forward as the next Liberal Party president to replace outgoing Chris McDiven.

One source said that "Howard contacted people to make it known he wanted the presidency", but his candidacy was scoffed at by senior Liberals.

They were amazed he seemed to want a role so soon after the Liberals' worst defeat. "They told him, 'Don't be ridiculous'," a senior source said. "Howard wanted the presidency so he could control the review process the party was conducting into why the Howard Government lost and what needed to be done," another said.

"He wanted to control the way the history of the Howard Government was written."

Like his buddy George W. Bush, Howard is obsessed with how history will view his years in power, and how he will be portrayed by historians. It's already bad, and it's going to get much worse as official government records and reports of the Howard years are declassified.

It's not all bad news for Mr Howard, of course. He will be spending a few weeks, if not months, this year on tour in the US, gigging at NeoCon think-tanks, institutes and universities. Many of which, by sheer coincidence, receive millions in funding from American and Israeli war industries, arms dealers and bomb makers. Howard will likely receive at least one or two million dollars of Iraq War blood money for 'speaking engagements' as payback for his relentless help in creating the reality of the never-ending and very, very expensive 'War on Terror'.

Don't be at all surprised to see Howard scoring at least high six figures, or low seven figures, for his opinions and memories from a Rupert Murdoch publishing company while he's in the United States. If not for a book, then for a contract writing op-eds for the Wall Street Journal.

Murdoch, like the world's biggest arms contractors, owe Howard big-time and Howard won't hold back from taking every dollar of blood money he can get.

After all, he's earned it. Hasn't he?

Howard Legacy Not So Pretty, Liberal-Party Loving Media Got Screwed

This piece by Michael Duffy, writing in the Sydney Morning Herald is one of the better short pieces looking at the Howard legacy, and it is a marker for Howard really will be remembered by historians and political addict alike. Duffy is particularly harsh on the Howard lackeys, propagandists and spin masters in the mainstream media for rarely holding Howard to account, or to even shine a harsh light on some of his more questionable policies and lack of reform :

There's a real possibility that people in the future, especially those on the right, will look back on the Howard years as we now view the Fraser ones: as a time of wasted opportunity.

The main achievement of both men was to bed down the reforms of their predecessor, in Malcolm Fraser's case Gough Whitlam's social policies, such as multiculturalism and changes to divorce law; in John Howard's case Bob Hawke's economic reforms.

The main claim made for the government is that it managed the economy well for 11 years, but the notion on which this is based, that governments these days actually do run the economy, is largely false. One reason it's false is that the Howard government gave the Reserve Bank more independence: it deserves credit for this, but the action further reduced the extent to which government can be said to "manage" the economy.

The main influences on the economy are various national and international trends, plus the hard work and ingenuity of the Australian people.

The Howard government deserves little credit for these.

Duffy then details how Howard failed to deliver on a number of nation-changing reforms, including the Aboriginal intervention, until it was all but too late...

Howard was able to get away with all this partly because we were in a boom where there was little demand for reform, and partly because the intellectual right did not criticise him sufficiently. Conservative and liberal commentators, think tanks and magazines got too close to the government and generally allowed the agenda of public debate to be set by politicians, rather than themselves.

In contrast, conservative governments in other countries receive more vigorous and wide-ranging comment and criticism from friends outside their ranks - just as Labor does in Australia.

Howard attended conservative and liberal functions and told those there how important they were. His attendance was most useful for fund-raising, but in the longer term I suspect he played the conservative movement for suckers.

They got played all right. Howard told them exactly what they wanted to hear, and the reaction from the committed-Liberals media was like that of a cult hearing from their leader about how he was going to lead them to paradise. Yet again.

The genuinely bizarre Quadrant dinner where John Howard basically said that those on the right were the saviours of the nation (from all those Evil Lefties) received not a word of caution or criticism from the likes of Andrew Bolt, Tim Blair, Miranda Devine, Janet Albretchson, Piers Akerman or Dennis Shanahan. They all fervently lapped up Howard's praise and lock-step agreed with him : "Yes, the prime minister is right. We really are wonderful and important!"

Of course, Howard screwed them all, in the end, and destroyed the Liberal Party as a political force for years to come.

Which is probably why so many once-proud Liberals are repeatedly referring to themselves as 'conservatives' instead of 'Liberals'.

Howard's Final Betrayal

Try explaining the meaning of "non core promises" "caretaker period" and "election commitments" to a kid concerned about the fate of endangered orangutans in Sumatra and Borneo.

During the election campaign, Howard promised the kid he would help save the orangutans. Now the kid has been told Howard's bitterly cynical election stunt was meaningless :

The father of a Sydney boy with cerebral palsy claims his son was used for an election stunt by former prime minister John Howard.

Mr Howard paid a visit to the Terrey Hills home of 11-year-old Daniel Clarke on November 5, in the midst of the election campaign, to announce funds to save endangered orang-utans...

Daniel's father, Rodney Clarke, 40, said he has now been informed the $200,000 is no longer going ahead because it was an election promise.

"The prime minister looked into my son's eyes and made him a promise," he said.

"Daniel had worked so hard and faithfully to make a difference and at no time did the prime minister indicate that this commitment would be an election promise.

"My wife and I raise our children on values in which your word is your bond, which made it particularly difficult for us to explain the prime minister's actions to Daniel."

A letter from Malcolm Turnbull, dated November 9, confirms the funding and does not specify it as an election promise. It reads: "I am delighted to advise that the Australian Government has agreed to provide funding of $200,000 in 2007/08 to the Australian Orang-utan Project (AOP) to continue the valuable work of the orang-utan protection units."

Heritage Strategy Branch assistant secretary Greg Terrill withdrew the funding commitment in an email.

Turnbull's names on the letter saying funding had been agreed to, so why shouldn't he and Howard reach into their pockets to keep the promise made to Daniel?

Howard, of course, made sure the media was with him when he went to see Daniel Clarke and made his promise of funding to help save the orangutans. The media pit stop resulted in literally hundreds of newspaper stories, radio and television reports.

The bastards. They didn't even have the guts to send someone to see the kid face to face and explain what had happened.

That's downright cold.

"We Can Change The Way The Public Thinks..."

Rupert Murdoch Admits He Does Tell His Newspapers Who To Back And What To Print

By Darryl Mason


Okay, prepare yourselves, and try not to be too shocked by this revelation :

Rupert Murdoch has admitted to a parliamentary inquiry (in the UK) that he has "editorial control" over which party The Sun and News of the World back in a general election and what line the papers take on Europe.

Mr Murdoch's comments were revealed in the minutes from evidence he gave behind closed doors on 17 September in New York, during the committee's inquiry into media ownership.

But the News Corporation chairman said he took a different approach with The Times and The Sunday Times. While he often asked what those papers were doing, he never instructed them or interfered, he said.

The minute stated: "For The Sun and News of the World he explained that he is a 'traditional proprietor'. He exercises editorial control on major issues – like which party to back in a general election or policy on Europe

Which raises the obvious question, how many of the 70% of all Australian newspapers that Rupert Murdoch controls does he instruct to back or attack chosen politicians, political parties or political causes?

Is the Sydney Daily Telegraph as editorially independent of Murdoch's influence as the London Sunday Times?

Or can The Australian newspaper claim that honor?

Was the Herald Sun free to back Howard over Rudd in the elections? Or was the Herald Sun's pro-Howard line more for reasons of 'balance'?

Perhaps the UK parliamentary enquiry revelations explain why Murdoch blogger Andrew Bolt (whose blog features on the main news.com.au portal, as well as the Herald Sun and Courier Mail websites, reaching hundreds of thousands of Australian online readers) was so enthusiastically pumping the fact that, just before the election, the Sydney Daily Telegraph backed Rudd, while the Herald Sun did not, and why Bolt was earlier so vehemently denying that Murdoch's papers went hard after Howard when he refused to step down.

Murdoch's revelation of purposeful editorial control should not be a revelation to readers of The Orstrahyun blog.

As regular readers would remember, Murdoch clearly admitted, back in June during his climate change awakening, that not only did he instruct his newspapers to push a certain reality that he favoured, but he could also muster the entire forces of his internet, newspaper, cable and TV empire to push his belief systems onto the world and change not only what they believed, but how they behaved.

Here's Rupert Murdoch explaining how this would be done on the issue of 'waking up' his readers to the reality of climate change :

"We need to reach (our audience) in a sustained way. To weave this issue into our content-- make it dramatic, make it vivid, even sometimes make it fun. We want to inspire people to change their behavior.

"The challenge is to revolutionize the message.

"We need to do what our company does best: make this issue exciting. Tell the story in a new way.

"Now... there are limits to how far we can push this issue in our content."

"...we can change the way the public thinks about these issues..."

Within weeks of Rupert explaining how effectively his vast media empire can wage a psychological war on its viewers and readers to influence their beliefs and behaviour, most of his dozens of Australian city and suburban newspapers became champions of fighting climate change, launching special liftouts, dedicated websites and awareness campaigns over the next few months, under such Al Gore mantras as 'Saving Planet Earth'.


UPDATE : On September 10, 2001, John Howard had a long, private dinner with Rupert Murdoch in Washington, DC. Howard was suffering some of the worst poll numbers of his career, and the Liberal Party was scoring its worst poll ratings since the mid-1970s. But Tampa was heating up the front pages back home, and 9/11 was about to shock the nation.

Murdoch allowed himself to be interviewed by the media when he exited the restaurant with Howard, in scenes that were repeated in early 2007, in New York City, with then Labor prime ministerial hopeful Kevin Rudd.

From an ABC Radio report on the Howard-Murdoch 2001 dinner :

For two hours the two men sat alone in the upmarket Oxidental Grill deep in conversation. At 10:00pm local time they emerged and Mr Murdoch was asked by waiting journalists who'd win the next election.

RUPERT MURDOCH: No, we never discussed it.

REPORTER: Do you think Mr Howard deserves a third term in Office, Mr Murdoch?

RUPERT MURDOCH: Mm?

REPORTER: Do you think the Prime Minister deserves a third term in Office?

RUPERT MURDOCH: It doesn't matter what I think. You ask my editors.

REPORTER: Mr Murdoch, how do you think Kim Beazley would go as Prime Minister?

RUPERT MURDOCH: It would be very interesting.

REPORTER: Were they productive discussions with Mr Murdoch?

JOHN HOWARD: Well, we had a pleasant dinner.

REPORTER: Did you talk politics?

JOHN HOWARD: We talked everything.

MARK WILLACY: There's little doubt about that, given Rupert Murdoch's interest in media policy and the extraordinary influence of his Australian print empire. His response when asked if John Howard deserved a third term is well worth another listen:

RUPERT MURDOCH: It doesn't matter what I think. You ask my editors.

Rupert Murdoch was far more forthcoming on Kevin Rudd when he was asked by a journalist in early 2001 whether or not he thought the contender would make a good prime minister. The reply then was, "Oh, I'm sure..." Big smile.


A note we received yesterday, from a person who claimed to be a former staffer in John Howard's office, said that it was common gossip within many government departments that when John Howard refused to hand over the leadership to Peter Costello at the end of 2006, Rupert Murdoch was less than happy. And that editors of at least two Murdoch Australian city papers, likewise, were less than happy.

The self-claimed former Howard staffer said that when Rupert Murdoch publicly appeared with Kevin Rudd in New York City in April, 2007, laughing and grinning after a long meeting at the News Corp. headquarters, and then dinner together, a climate of doom descended amongst many in the prime minister's department. The belief was that Murdoch had given Kevin Rudd the Big Tick, particularly after the "Oh, I'm sure" quote was aired, which meant Howard was probably finished.

The Sydney Daily Telegraph soon became very obvious champions of Kevin Rudd, and Howard suffered a sustained stream of extremely negative Daily Telegraph front pages, featuring large photos showing Howard looking old, stressed and confused.

But then again, one city newspaper doesn't win an election. Does it?


"We want to inspire people to change their behavior....The challenge is to revolutionize the message...We need to do what our company does best: make this issue exciting. Tell the story in a new way...we can change the way the public thinks..."

Bolt : My Readers Are Dumb

For months before the election was called and on a daily basis through the entire election campaign, hundreds of stunned, shocked, horrified, hopeful, teary, desperate, confident and faithful conservatives, Howard Huggers and Liberal Party voters gathered at Andrew Bolt's blog and talked up the reasons why, and the chances of, John Howard pulling off another major big election win.

Even when the polls were desperately hopeless, the Howard Huggers rarely lost hope. They'd list the reasons why Howard should win, and would win. And Andrew Bolt encouraged them to keep on believing the end was not so very nigh.

Now the election is over, now that Howard has led his party to the most devastating loss in the history of the Liberal Party, now that the party founded by Howard's hero Sir Robert Menzies lies in tatters, Andrew Bolt tells his mostly conservative, Liberal Party devoted readers what he really thinks of them :

"The phoney election is over. Only the dumb or desperate Liberals ever thought Labor would lose."

What a rude and obnoxious shithead Andrew Bolt is.

But then, you probably already knew that.

Talk about sticking in the knife and giving it a twist.

Australia Finally Gets A Viable Third Party

The Greens Scored More Than One Million Votes At Election 2007

The success of The Greens at Saturday's election would have been much more impressive if both the Labor and Liberal Party had not adopted soft version of their climate change key platforms in the past twelve months.

The Greens put climate change on the map as a key election issue. Labor got serious about climate change when around 30% of Australians said they were concerned about how global warming would affect their childrens' and grandchildrens' future. The Liberals Under Howard suddenly became climate change disciples when that percentage tipped over 70.

It's also refreshing to see that despite a concerted anti-Greens campaign in Murdoch daily papers in Sydney, Brisbane, Adelaide, Hobart and Melbourne, The Greens still polled remarkably well. More than one million votes.

In some locales, they blasted the Nationals out of the water and also managed to match, or at least came close to matching, the number of votes cast for the Liberal Party.

No doubt, Bob Brown's appearance on Rove, six days before the federal election, killed off a lot of the negativity and scare campaigns hurled at The Greens by the Liberals, Family First, the Exclusive Brethren and the Murdoch media.

Bizarrely, for a party that we were told want to end all coal-mining within three years (they don't), The Greens managed to pick up thick slabs of votes in coal mining districts like Kalgoorlie.

When Australia undergoes a generational change, and transformation, they really go in hard :

The Greens have declared themselves Australia's third-largest political party claiming to have out-performed the Nationals by a "country mile".

The party says it attracted nearly 1.1 million (9.02 per cent) senate votes at Saturday's federal election compared with less than 6 per cent for the Nationals.

And, in claiming a definite five seats in the Senate with a chance for two more, the Greens have also seen off the Democrats whose four senators all lost their seats.

"The Democrats' famous aim was to keep the bastards honest but our long-term vision is to replace them," Greens leader Bob Brown said.

"All the epithets and abuse have boomeranged and people valued the big environmental issues around climate change, the pulp mill and drought."

Senator Brown said the party's rural vote had increased along with its pensioner vote after the party campaigned to increase pensions by $130 a week.

Tucker still chances to secure spots.

The Greens surpassed the Senate quota barrier (14.2 per cent) in Tasmania for the first time, meaning they won a Senate seat in their own right and didn't have to rely on preferences.

Labor could not have won the election without the help of The Greens. They will demand, and should get, some of their wishes fulfilled.

The Greens deserved one million votes if only for their pledge to do something about the appalling poverty that hammers elderly Australians, many of whom worked themselves into the ground for decades for the good of the country, besides going to war and having to cope with that emotional and physical fallout.

In their last days, the elderly should be treated with far more respect and regard than John Howard ever felt they were worth.

Bob Brown Hugs Trees "Very, Very Often"

John Howard's Humiliation Now Complete

Maxine McKew Takes Bennelong


Knocking on 8000 doors, and sitting down for hundreds of cups of tea and actually listening to what the locals have to say, and doing it all without a crush of media and security in tow, really does pay off.

Maxine McKew has won the seat of Bennelong from John Howard. Her victory is the final grave marker in John Howard's political career.

For the first time in three decades, Bennelong has a new local member of Parliament, and for the first time in history, that MP is from the Labor Party.

Consider this : Bennelong was, until recently, one of the most conservative and safest Liberal seats in the entire country.

John Howard was comprehensively beaten by a woman, a Labor Party true believer and a former ABC Television news journalist. The triple whammy.

Could Howard's humiliation be any more complete?

Only if Kevin Rudd had dispatched removalist vans to Kirribilli House at 6am on Sunday morning.

McKew's win is a repudiation of everything Howard claimed his Australia was all about.

If Howard had even dared to raise immigration-related issues during the election campaign, in search of a new Tampa, as he desperately campaigned to hold onto immigrant-rich Bennelong, his defeat would only have been more massive.

The media consensus is that the disgusting Lindsay Leaflet Scandal cost Howard dearly in Bennelong, where the immigrant-strong local population got all-too-real and rare glimpse at the racist dark heart of the Liberal right wing conservatives Howard had proudly allowed to blossom under his decade long rule.

The international media headlines on Howard's total defeat have been brutal :

Howard's Final Humiliation - Out Of Parliament And Out Of Government

Eyes Show Devastation Of Shocking Defeat



Two excellent accounts of John Howard's last day as prime minister :

'That's How It Goes' - Howard Campaigns For Every Last Vote


And the day after, with a bit of the night before as well :

24 Hours In The Life Of An Ex-Prime Minister


The rage and bitterness on show in these stories from shocked Liberal supporters towards non-Howard voters is disturbing. What happened to graciousness in defeat?

So much for all that alleged violence of the Howard Haters.

Speaking of which, a whip around the online newspaper sites reveal that just about everyone connected with the 'conservative' side of politics this morning has already become one of the Howard Haters they used to so very recently revile.

Much of this New Howard Hatred comes from the dawning horror that the Liberals are in ruins, for the next few months at least, and that Howard purposely shafted Costello and destroyed any chance he had of becoming prime minister, or even an enthusiastic leader of the Liberal Party.

No wonder Costello decided to pass on the leadership. Who'd want to hang around this grim and explosive pack of bitterly sore losers for another six or ten years?

Howard "No Doubt Well Pleased At His Work" Of Destroying Liberal Party

The New Blame Game : Why The Liberals Were Massacred At Election

By Darryl Mason

The John Howard Liberals have been effectively destroyed at the 2007 Australian federal election. It's a stunning victory, and Kevin Rudd will go down in history as the Labor leader who brilliantly defeated the supposedly unbeatable John Howard.

The Liberals, and conservative media, will never admit it, but Labor won because they ran a smoother, far more effective campaign and had a better dream to sell, and they sold it with skill, focus and patience.

The Liberal Party is already tearing itself apart. Alexander Downer's interview on Sunday morning on Insiders was absolutely hopeless. Expect him to join the conga line of "fuck this, I'm outta here!" Liberals moving on to very greener pastures in the corporate world. Costello will be first, Downer most likely second, followed by Tony Abbott.

David Flint, salty monarchist and paranoid conservative, has kicked off the "We Wuz Robbed!" campaign, and previews the long months to come of rampant conspiracy theorising amongst Liberals as he decides to blame :

....internal Liberal fighting and media bias for the poor Coalition showing and giving Kevin Rudd "a dream run".

Ah yes, media bias.

Not the media bias from Andrew Bolt, or Tim Blair, or Miranda Devine or Piers Akerman or most of the editorialists at The Australian newspaper. They were all for shredding Rudd and Labor without pause, so that was fair enough in Flint's view.

He's talking about the 'media bias' of the dreaded ABC, Sydney Morning Herald and Melbourne Age. Curse those Evil Lefties!

But Flint has more theories than just 'media bias'. Dark theories. Of 'own goals' inside the Liberal Party. There was a plot, dammit! And Flint knows all about it. But he won't elaborate. Naturally :

He also blamed "a member of cabinet" who he would not name who he suspected of having leaked information detrimental to the Liberal cause, first that the Prime Minister had lost the confidence of Cabinet later APEC, and then that Malcolm Turnbull had tried to get him to ratify Kyoto. The Liberal party will be "shaken" for some time," he said.

This sort of stuff will be very entertaining to watch in the next few weeks.

Former foreign minister Alexander Downer has some theories on why they were slaughtered at the election as well :

(He) has put the Coalition's federal election defeat down bad timing for himself and his Liberal colleagues.

"I think people just think it's time," the outgoing foreign minister told a function in his South Australian electorate of Mayo, which he retained.

"People think we've been in for about 11-½ years, they are comfortable with Australia, they think we've done a good thing but it's time for a change."

Mark Vaile echoes Downer, as he offers his explanation for why the Howard government was nuked at the election :

“Our commitment to the war against terrorism, in some quarters, affected our vote,” he said.

“There seemed to be a sense of just wanting to change for change's sake in Australia.”

Ahh, yes. The Timing. It was all about The Change.

That's what Liberals will keep telling themselves and each other. We weren't voted out because people were sick of us, or hated what we were doing to the country, or that they liked Rudd's ideas and policies more. Hell no. We lost because...you know, the timing.

Or the It's Timing.

Mark Vaile succinctly summed up one of the reasons why the Howard government were tossed out : they think Australian voters are morons who don't vote for policies, but because they simply wanted different politicians in power. They really do think you're that stupid.

John Howard will cop plenty of blame for the utterly humiliating defeat that will shatter the Liberal Party.

In fact, it's already started. Liberals turned on Howard before he even conceded defeat :

Liberal Senator and former minister Ian Macdonald said Mr Howard should have stepped aside a year ago.

"I say that it's tragic that someone who's done as much for Australia as Howard ends up like this. I'm very sad for Howard - I wish he had gone a year ago."

Liberal Senator Gary Humphries said Mr Howard's decision may have hindered the party's chances.

"It may well be that the prime minister's leadership didn't help the Coalition at the end of the day. It may well have been better to have had a different leader going into these last six to nine months of the campaign."

This will get very ugly indeed. But that's what happens to Australian conservatives when they get flogged. Lots of infighting, hating, and even spitting :

Glumly watching television as the results unfolded, Liberal supporters at the main party event in central Sydney, where Prime Minister John Howard was soon to concede defeat, were devastated.

Some said it felt like a funeral.

Vitriol spilled out when Labor's Maxine McKew, who could unseat Mr Howard in his Sydney electorate of Bennelong, appeared on TV.

"I hate that woman," one young man spat.

With all that hatred and spitting, this young lad could have a new career as a conservative columnist.


More senior Liberals are now going after Howard for not stepping aside a year ago and giving Costello a proper chance at beating Kevin Rudd :

Senator (Ian) Macdonald says he respects Mr Howard but he should have gone a year ago.

"It's a tragic way for such an able, committed man and someone who's been so good for Australia to leave," he said.

"I think it would have been different had Peter Costello been leading the party for 12 months."

He says the cabinet ministers should have that ensured Mr Howard went earlier.

"I'm very confident the Coalition would have won had Peter Costello been leading the party," he said.

Murdoch journo, and decade long Peter Costello pimp-in-chief and cheerleader, Glenn Milne, absolutely guts John Howard in this scathing piece of vitriol and conspiracy theorising :

You have to hand it to John Howard. The man who immortalised himself as "Lazarus with a triple bypass" has reached from just beyond the point of political extinction to achieve his ultimate personal aim; denying Peter Costello his chance to lead the Liberal Party.

Howard has likely incinerated two generations of Liberal leadership on the bonfire of his own vanity.

The price of Howard's fatal misjudgment of his own worth is Costello's exit and the consignment of the Liberal Party to at least two and perhaps three terms in Opposition.

Howard is no doubt well pleased with his work. As the Liberal Party tastes the bitter dregs of defeat and digests the effective departure of Costello we now realise why the outgoing prime minister constantly lectured his party room against hubris. Because all along it was the dark whisper that fluttered at the core of his own being.

And on Saturday night he finally succumbed to that spirit by playing out the last act in a succession of acts of wilful pride that eventually took his party down with him. Having ignored the repeated urgings of his colleagues to go both in his own interests and those of his party, Howard's hubris saw him finally dare the voters to dispatch him. They obliged, ultimately convinced it was the only way to get rid of him.

We'll have to come back to Milne's toxic spew at Howard. It's too good not to dissect further.


John Howard knows who to blame. Himself. Well, kind of :

"I accept full responsibility for the Liberal Party campaign and I therefore accept full responsibility for the Coalition's defeat in this election campaign...."

Good to see John Howard taking "full responsibility" for one of his awful decisions (to stay on when he should have handed over to Treasurer Peter Costello).

Update : I've realised hours later that Howard only took "full responsibility" for the campaign, not for his decision to stay on past his use-by date

Of course, Howard's decision to finally take "full responsibility" for something came at the very same moment he was announcing he was going to be leaving Australian politics for good.

They will praise him for now. Maybe a day or two. But the first of many books featuring senior Liberal ministers and power brokers absolutely tearing Howard to pieces for staying too long and destroying the Liberal Party are about to head to the printers. Some will be on the shelves for Christmas.

Gillard To Challenge Rudd For Leadership Of Labor Party

I just wanted to be the first to put that into a headline. If Rudd makes a meal of his leadership, The Australian will be running headlines like that by March, 2009.

Now deputy prime minister of Australia, Julia Gillard, had some very nice and very respectable things to say about defeated PM John Howard :

"This is a man who devoted his entire life to public service, you've got to admire that, and I do," Ms Gillard said.

"He's led the nation through some difficult periods.

"I did admire the Prime Minister when under very difficult circumstances he achieved better gun laws in this country - it was obviously divisive amongst his own support base, and he stood up and did it.

"There have been times when this nation's obviously faced great tragedy, like Bali, and John Howard's led the nation in mourning, so once again I would acknowledge that.

"I think John Howard will be remembered ... with respect and, I suspect, some affection as well."

It's a shame that due to the absurd nature of Australian politics and media that Gillard couldn't have said such things about Howard before today.

Hopefully the nasty, sanctimonious nature of politics and media in Australia will change in the immediate future, off the back of a Rudd Labor government. But probably not.

The Liberals attack pack, with Costello at the helm (for now) will be even more savage and vile in opposition than they were in government.

The conservatives will have to change their attitude, nature and culture if they can even hope to have a fighting chance in 2010 or 2011.

Election Blogging And Drinking

I was wrong. Turns out I don't have a life.

This will be election night blogging mixed with a drinking game.

Every seat declared for Labor, one shot of Wild Turkey.

Let's begin.

6pm - votes are rolling in, some booths are counting slower than others. Bob Hawke has apparently called the election for Labor. Literally. He shouted it out the window of the car driving him to the Sky News studio while laughing maniacally.

Oohh, first couple of seats are being called for Labor with less than 1% of the vote counted. Good enough for me. Three seats, three shots.

7pm - more Labor seats, more shots. Is this dangerous? Decided each three Labor seat shots of Wild Turkey have to be balanced out with shots of orange juice or black coffee for Liberal seats declared.

Christ, is this eight Labor seats already, or twelfvve? Who cares....must eat something.

7.30pm - No. Mal Brough is being tipped to lose his seat. But Tony "Too Honest" Abbott will keep his seat. Of course, one of the only few decent Liberals loses. Howard & Friends will be finding Labor chewing gum under the opposition benches for months to come. Is it over for Howard & Friends? Yes.

8pm - Labor, shot, Labor, shot, Labor, shot, Labor, shot, Liberal, coffee, Labor, National, Labor, Lalorr, Layloooh..

8.20m - Bob Hawke has been calling it live on Sky for an hour. Kerry O'Brien has to cover the growing smirk with his hand, but his huge hand is not big enough. With the amount of hair Julia Gillard lost each week of the election to new makeovers, she's lucky it's finally over. Two more weeks and she would have had Peter Garrett's hairstyle.

8.40pm - Labor, Labor, Labor (let's go for just LR for Labor okay?) LR, LR, LR, Liberals...wow, Howard will lose to Maxine McKew. So paying personal visits to 8000 homes in Bennelong without the nation's media and a half dozen security in tow does pay dividends.

9-ish? - bluurg. Oh crap. whi is the rooom tilting to one syde? LR, shot, LR, shot, LR shiit.

Howard will concede soon. Costello is speaking now, so Howard will make his arrival at the hotel and cut into Costello's near-tears speech.

Howard arrives at hotel with clearly pissed off Janette The Wife. Howard's mere riding up the escalator is enough for every channel to dump Costello's speech just as he was getting to how awesome Australia is. Story of Costello's decade really.

Great speech from Mal Brough. He asks Labor to continue his work in Aboriginal communities. No doubt they will, but without handing over land to mining companies which was always Howard's plan.

9whenever - Howard is history. That's worth two shots. Interesting speech from The Loser but Janette's grimace is distracting. She's still interrupting and nagiiiinng him even when he's strying tto exit with class. Howard all but concedes Bennnelong to Maxine McKew as his farewells his extremely bitter supports. "NOOO!!!! WE LOVE YOU JOHNNN!!!" Fantastic. Someone in the crowd manages to shout "HOWARD IS A WANKER!!!" loud enough for it to be heard on the ABC. What a send off. Great speech from Howard. Pity he didn't talk up how awesome Australia is more often in the campaign instead of claiming we would plunge into living hell if Labor wins.

...there is no Liberal government anywhere in Australia now. The whining of the conservatives begins. Naturally they will blame the ABC. And Channel Nine. And, hilariously, the Murdoch media. Blah blah blah

10pm - W-w-w-w-w-w-w-w-Wipeout! The Liberals 11.5 year reign is over. Finished. Australians clearly didn't believe Howard's bullshit. The world will not end on Monday morning. Another chapter in Australia's history will begin.


I said you sonn offa bitch! I never likkked yuuo....listen listen, listen, you are bloody great mate, really...no, no, listen....shit...I gotta ss ff what? .............fuckit.....woiw r rr rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr


1.58am - crashed out in a pile on the floor when Kevin Rudd started his victory speech a few hours ago. Sign of things to come no doubt. Children won't go to sleep? Put on the Kevin Rudd Best Speeches DVD and they will fall into a half-coma within minutes.

Liberals booed any mention of Labor when Howard conceded. The Labor faithful managed to mostly restrain themselves when Rudd praised Howard.

Good Christ! Alex Hawk won Mitchell. If you see him, splash him with holy water and watch him scream and writhe. Tony "Too Raw" Abbott now has competition for who will be the biggest arsehole on the opposition benches. We will watch this nasty piece of work very, very closely.

2am Sunday morning - so it's over. Conservatives have been absolutely routed in Australia last night. Labor wins by 22, or more, seats. One of the most complete and total victories in Australian political history.

Some fantasists are already claiming that seeing as Rudd outed himself as a conservative, the conservatives won regardless of Howard's loss. Yeah, okay. That's Howard quality bullshit. Remember what Peter Garrett said? "When we get in, we'll just change it all" or something like that. Clearly that's what Australians want to happen now.

Kevin Rudd, we're already being told, won his monumental victory off the back of catchy slogans and populist salesman pitches. Of course he did. John Howard completed the transformation of Australia into a consumer society, so why shouldn't Rudd win when he had the best buy-this-now slogans and the far more impressive marketing campaign?

The new age of Labor begins tomorrow. The bloodbath in the Liberal Party has already begun. Conservatives are in the vast minority in Australia today. Australia just became more Australian, once again.

Predictious

Here's some prophetic headlines for next week's election fallout, and the next six months, based on carefully researched wild guess work and five beers :

Labor Wins By Five Seats

Howard Loses Bennelong

Liberals Retain Wentworth

Greens Nail 14% Of National Vote

John Howard Brutalised In Media By Liberal Party Colleagues For Losing Election

Peter Costello Announces Retirement

Tony Abbott Announces Retirement

Malcolm Turnbull Fights For Liberal Leadership Against Demented Far Right

John Howard Embarks On $100,000 Per Speech Tour Of American NeoCon Think Tanks

Liberal Party Fractures, Descends Into Savage Infighting

Shelf Full Of New Books Reveal Dark Secrets Behind John Howard's Years As Prime Minister

John Howard To Score Knighthood From Queen

The Shape Of Rudd's 'New Labor Conservatism' Comes Into Focus - Lefties Grow More Nervous By The Day About Future

Peter Garrett Quits Politics, Rejoins Midnight Oil To Fight Rudd's Pro-Logging, Pro-Nuclear New Labor

Philip Ruddock Quits Politics To Take On Role As Mr Burns In Non-Animated Simpsons Movie

One Of These Men Will Wake Up Sunday Morning A Total Loser



Interesting photo. Note the handshake. Kevin Rudd's gone for the dominant, intimidation grasp, with his thump on top, pressing down on John Howard's hand, pinning him, which is a good way to sum up the entire campaign, or the whole year in fact.

Both John Howard and Kevin Rudd have supplied news.com.au with last ditch pitch columns to win your vote....unless you're voting for The Greens, or the Shooters Party. And let's face it, who isn't?

Not much new in either column, but Rudd definitely wins the battle of the headlines :

Howard : There Is No Risk-Free Change Of Government

Well duh. Snoooze.

Rudd : What's The Point Of Voting For Howard?

Ouch.

A two party, winner-takes-nearly-all-election like ours guarantees that either Kevin Rudd or John Howard will suffer a soul-crushing, spine-cracking, head-melting, brain-frying, spirit diluting defeat.

Which is great fun, if both of them give you the absolute shits.

The best part is when the loser has to front the media and try to act like they don't feel as though they've been run over by six consecutive road trains.

You will probably see John Howard cry if he loses. And Alexander Downer cry. And Peter Costello cry. Tony Abbott, meanwhile, will just look like he has eaten twelve raw kittens and is looking for more.

There will be no federal election live-blogging here. I do have a life. There may be an update early Sunday morning, but no promises on that.

Remember, if anyone tries to intimidate or threaten you on your way in to casting your vote, you are legally allowed to kick them. Probably.

Election 2007 : Before We Look Forward, A Look Back

Rudd, Gillard Had Howard's Number All Year

Going back over the 70 odd posts that have gone up on this blog on the 2007 Federal Election, one thing is overwhelmingly clear : Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard have had John Howard's number since December last year.

They were spelling out how "old" and "tired" Howard was from the start, hammering him over Iraq, climate change, his retirement and his "worn out ideas". Howard has been on the defensive, countering pinpoint Labor Party attacks, accusations and spin, since February.

We hope you enjoy this look back over the last 11 months, and give us a pass for not posting a Final Word piece on the election before its over (though we still might, if inspired later today).

There's not much more to be said. We think a review of the year is far more interesting :

December 2006 : Gillard Claims Howard's Best Days Are "Behind Him"

December 2006 : Howard Volunteers To Have Nuclear Power Plant Built Next Door To His House

February 2007 : Kevin Rudd Declares John Howard "A National Security Threat"

April 2007 : Howard's Last Days - PM Faces Devastating Defeat At Federal Election

May 2007 : What Terror Threat? Howard Spends More On WorkChoices Propaganda Than Raising National Security Awareness

May 2007 : Only 30% Can Think Howard Can Win - Prime Minister Set To Lead His Party To Devastating Defeat

May 2007 : John Howard Suddenly A Global Warming True Believer!

June 2007 : Culture Wars? Who Cares? We Want An Australian Renaissance

July 2007 : Howard Finally Admits That Iraq Was A War Of Oil

July 2007 : Howard's Fury Over War For Oil "Distortions" - Murdoch Media Hastily Rewrites Headlines

July 2007 : The Australian Newspaper Begins The Dooming Of John "Dead Man Walking" Howard

July 2007 : Howard & Friends Prepare "Better To Be Safe Than Sorry" Mantra For Coming Election Day

August 2007 : Interest Rates Hit Ten Year High - Journalists Laugh In John Howard's Face While He Trots Out Excuses

August 2007 : Alexander Downer Rattled By 17 Year Old's Climate Change Questions - Federal Minister Verbally Attacks Student For Asking Hard Questions

August 2007 : Drunk, Slurring Alexander Downer Makes A Clown Of Himself On Lateline

September 2007 : Conservatives Cut Off Howard's Head - Chant Begins "You Must Quit!"

September 2007 : Murdoch Journalist Denies Murdoch Media Conspiracy, But Rupert Admits He Uses Media To Shape And Change Public Opinion

September 2007 : Pressure Builds But Howard Refuses To Step Aside For Peter Costello

September 2007 : Howard The Bitch, Tells Liberals 'You're Nothing Without Me'

October 2007 : Bush Backs Rudd? "New Leadership" Refreshes Democracies

October 2007 : Rudd To Howard, Costello : 'I Can Do You Both'

October 2007 : Howard Tells Us We're Entitled To Believe What He Wants Us To Believe

November 2007 : Rudd, Garrett Betrayal Of Green Vote Comes At Heavy Cost

November 2007 : Howard Already Whining Like A Loser - Depression In Coalition Ranks Seals Their Fate

November 2007 : Why Conservatives Don't Do Comedy


It'll almost be worth a John Howard win on Saturday just to see how all the professional journalists, opinionsts and poll analysts explain how they got it all so very, very wrong.

Almost.