Vignettes July-August 2003 For as long as Howard remains in politics he will never, ever escape his "never, ever" insistence in 1995 that the Liberals would "never, ever" introduce a goods and services tax ("A GST or anything resembling it is no longer Coalition policy. Nor will it be policy at any time in the future": John Howard, May 2, 1995). Like "core and non-core", a miserable abuse of language that came into vogue after the Coalition came to office and began retreating from its promises, "never, ever" will forever blight Howard's name and blacken his word, just as his shameless behaviour over Iraq and the two Australian "non-persons" incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay will hound him until he leaves public life. Alan Ramsey: Invective to live, laugh and die by Why John Howard remains invincible Well may Malcolm Fraser and the Reverend Professor James Haire (The Age, 14/7) rage at the abysmal moral standards, and complain that many things in this nation, frankly, are rotten. Let's face it, the great Australian public couldn't care less: they ask nothing, see nothing, know nothing. And John Howard is correct in believing that he is politically secure, and that most Australians know his way is the best way. If you need any confirmation of the moral decay in Australian society, and the prevalence of the "I'm all right, Jack" attitude, just ask your mate, neighbour or cousin for their honest opinion on such issues as refugees, their social obligation to the less well-off, or the national interest - they couldn't give a toss. Tim Purbrick, Letter to The Age What the hell? A major indigenous community has lobbied John Howard to stay on indefinitely as Prime Minister, dismissing the left of politics as "clueless" and calling for a new alliance between Aborigines and conservatives. Annabel Crabb: Stay for our sakes: black council plea to PM Is John Howard a Jinx? He was in Washington on September 11. He was signing a counter-terrorism treaty with Philippines President Gloria Arroyo when the Jemaah Islamiah's top explosives expert escaped jail almost down the street. And now he flies into Seoul as South and North Korea exchange gunfire across the Demilitarised Zone. Is John Howard a harbinger of doom? Or doom itself! Most importantly, is there a possibility he could test his teflon coating by paying a visit to the DMZ before hostilities subside? Bill Leak, The Australian 19 July 2003 What Labor needs is a Lincolnesque 'vein of sentiment' Like Shaun Carney (Opinion, 26/7), I think Simon Crean is Labor's best, if not only, bet as leader. Like both of them, I'm all for policy. But if the leader is not charismatic and the policies are not bulletproof, as the past seven or eight years have shown us, these are not terminal failings. What might be life-threatening is the absence of character, signs of belief, a philosophy, ideas for the country - or, to use an expression used of Abraham Lincoln, a "vein of sentiment". Carney wants to call this "waffle". Mark Latham thinks it's "romantic" and "old-fashioned". I would call it a fundamental condition of trust: even for these newfangled voters who, according to Latham's desperately myopic reading of history, are unlike any before them because they might be workers, commuters, consumers, owners, parents and members of the community all at once. It is wise to study the polls. But standing for nothing that conflicts with your last reading of them can leave an impression of some perennially feckless suitor muttering words that are not his own, and fantasising that the object of his desire is a creature of unprecedented mystery. It can put you, in other words, at the mercy of public opinion - however misinformed, manipulated or plain nasty that opinion might be. Devotion to the polls is a very professional thing, and as we know, Labor is a very professional party. It is so professional that hardly anyone of influence in the caucus has ever done, or even aspired to do, much else. This might be why just now, nationally, Labor does not ring true: it looks like a party that wants to please, or at least not offend, more than a party that wants to govern and to lead. With policy, something similar applies: it is one thing to say what you intend to do, but before they will believe you, people need to know why you will do it. Latham might call this "claptrap"; but it concerns persuasion, which concerns power, and while voters might change, power does not. Policy of itself does not tell us what Labor stands for, only what it will do if it wins and if the circumstances are favourable. It is not a moral or intellectual position with which to oppose a radical right-wing government. It will not, by itself, excite the young, or people of ideas, character, passionate belief etc - which, sorry to be old-fashioned, national parties need. If it is true that for a while in office Labor failed to pay enough respect to the electorate, these days, to many people who would like to send the Coalition packing, it looks like a party that does not quite respect itself. Carney thinks such opinions are making life difficult for Simon Crean. In fact - and I'm sure Crean knows this - the problem, like the solution, lies within. Don Watson, Letter to The Age, 29 July 2003 Has there ever been a trickier prime minister, nay politician, than John Howard? According to reports in American newspapers, the US asked Australia to take Guantanamo prisoner David Hicks back, but the Federal Government was reluctant to do so because it knew that Hicks had not violated any Australian law. Britain, Afghanistan and Pakistan have all lobbied hard on behalf of their nationals. But not Australia. Are we puzzled? Not at all. As Mr McArdle says, our politically astute PM has it all figured out. Leave David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib to languish until such time as maximum political benefit can be derived from the situation. Moral turpitude? You bet! Jane Oldfield, Letter to The Age, 27 July 2003 John Howard is now on record saying internal inquiries aren't good enough. "I guess it's inevitable if you have an internal review assessment, there's always a tendency to declare yourself not guilty," Mr Howard said. "Probably it's better with the public broadcaster to have some kind of arm's-length assessment of these things. I think that is better." Fantastic! He's an old hand at calling internal inquiries when he or his government is accused of lying, misleading parliament, rorting travel allowances, abusing fair process and favouring its mates. Now that he acknowledges the unsatisfactory nature of such inquiries, perhaps our national government will finally get a national version of the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC). Allegations of substance could go to this body for independent review and report to Parliament. Margo Kingston: Good one John, but why stop at the ABC? Top

SCUM AT THE TOP is not copyrighted and may be used in whole or in part for any purpose the reader chooses.
Published in Melbourne, Australia by the Political Prisoners of the Future.