Let’s start with a little quiz.
I suspect there are now quite a few of us who think Professor Doctor Peter van Onselen got his various degrees, doctorates, other academic gongs, etc, in political science out of Kellogg’s packets.
And there’s nothing wrong with that. A lot of people do. And good luck to them. As a court reporter for some years at The Curious-Snail, I watched many barristers in court who clearly got their law degrees the same way.
But what Kellogg’s packet is the question I want to pose here and now. Was it:
A. Coco Pops
B. Fruit Loops
C. Honey Smacks
D: Other (please state).
So please send it your suggestions – I’ll be very interested to read them – but you’ll probably all guess this: I’m going for Fruit Loops.
And not only but largely on the basis of a tweet this absolute master of the political arts posted on May 31: “I’m not foolish enough to assume that the next federal election will be held in 2022, but I am convinced Scott Morrison will win it…you can take that prediction to the bank!”
How’s that for the breathtaking analysis of the fruit-loopiest of kinds. If a week is a long time in politics, 156 weeks is an absolute eternity.
Yet somehow, Professor Doctor Peter van Onselen has cast his unparalleled, unmatched academic gaze to those far horizons and beyond and decided that our much-loved daggy-dad prime minister, having won this election on a mountain of lies with fuck-all policies of his own, is going to replicate that victory three years hence. You can bet your house on it.
Right, Peter “I see a Labor victory, but then, the real unknown is the size of it” Onselen (just before counting started on May 18)?
We mere mortals who have not had the privilege of a sandstone university education and who therefore weren’t able to immerse themselves in Machiavellian theory and the thoughts of Mao Zedong to the point where they’d instinctively know that Germany’s national socialists weren’t socialists are left to our own petty devices, such as gut feelings.
Like the gut feeling that Morrison is a lightweight fraud. That he got re-elected promising two-thirds of four-fifths of bugger-all. That he’ll have the times-up factor to contend with next time. And no Bill Shorten to soften up with the vilest of personal smears before applying the coup de gras. We mere mortals would call it bullying; political experts such as our Pete wet their pants and call it Goebellian. Oh, and, hopefully, no $60 million anti-Labor ad blitz from the Fat Man.
I definitely see a Fruit Loops packet behind van Onselen’s stupid, illogical and, worse of all, uneducated comments.
If I were chancellor of the University of Western Australia, I’d be urging my academic board to boot his sorry arse out the university’s portals today if not sooner.
This faux-contrition by Labor shadow ministers that I’ve written about before is really starting to give me the squirts.
Sorry for the imagery if you’re breakfasting, possibly over a bowl of nutritious fruit loops, but really: enough is enough!
Take Jim Chalmers, now the Treasury spokesman just to confirm to us all that Labor got it so terribly wrong these past three years, being blowtorched by Fran Kelly on Radio National the other morning.
What’s there to like about Fran eh? And, yes, I have left out a word there. On purpose.
I’ll paraphrase Fran here but here’s basically what she asked Chalmers: where to now for Labor, seeing the Australian electorate had totally rejected the party’s economic policies?
BAAARRRRPPP! See, that’s what you could have done in reply to Kelly if Chalmers and generally Labor had a klaxon horn ready for such bullshit.
Oh, to have been in Chalmers’ seat that morning, and gone in close to Fran, face to face, and given Fran the bird as you began your assault on her stupid, vacuous statement.
“Really, Fran? Let me turn questioner and ask what Labor economic policy the Australian public rejected?”
Give her time to respond; more than she ever gives her political guests.
She might say “retirees’ tax”. Laugh in her smug little face.
She might say car tax. Laugh in her face.
Death tax: laugh in her face twice as long.
Sadly, Chalmers can’t. Because of some old-fashioned notion Labor is pathetically clinging to that they must be humble, prostrate themselves and show contrition after the great Australian public has voted them down.
They must confess their sins; that they’ve got everything entirely wrong. That they must go back to square one.
Go back there, my dear Labor friends, and you might not make it to the finish line first next time either.
And it hasn’t just been Fran from our fair, totally balanced and Australian Federal Police flavour of the day, the ABC.
Listen to Patricia Karvelas on her program on Monday afternoon, also trying to take Chalmers apart.
What’s there to like about Patricia, eh? And, yes, I have left out a word there. On purpose.
“With respect, Jim Chalmers, where’s Labor’s plan to grow the economy?” Karvelas asked. Or should that be ‘sneered’.
“That was one of the main charges against you and what you offered at the election….. that there wasn’t a growth plan; there was a redistribution plan.”
To be fair, Chalmers shot back: “Complete rubbish! and then listed some of Labor’s policies that were specifically aimed at lifting wages and worker participation.
Bear in mind that Karvelas on the ABC’s Insiders last Sunday berated Labor for not realising that at any election they’re up against it – money, media, blah blah blah – and they’ve got to adapt to prosper.
I’d love to hear Karvelas explain how Labor was supposed to defend the biggest lie campaign in this nation’s political history, backed by Clive Palmer’s unprecedented $55 million (the fat bastard’s figure) anti-Labor ad blitz.
Fran and Patricia, could you move in close pets because there’s something you need to hear?