The Australian‘s flavour of the month: Tony Abbott
|
Perhaps it’s something about winter in Canberra. It was around this time last year that The Australian began trying to get a boom for Peter Costello going. Brendan Nelson had endured months of polling humiliation. Malcolm Turnbull loomed as his replacement. So the national broadsheet began a Peter push. “Voters want Peter Costello as leader” and “Costello may agree to ‘friendly takeover’ of Liberals” were some of the headlines. Even when Costello made clear he wasn’t interested, that was jujitsued into evidence that he was merely waiting to be invited to become leader. A leadership contest in which Costello declined to participate eventually resolved the issue, although there was a brief flurry again earlier this year until Costello appeared to kill it finally by saying he’d be bailing out at the next election. The Oz didn’t give up, though. They’ve found a new man to spruik: Tony Abbott. Not merely did they offer an extract from his forthcoming book on the weekend, along with a magazine cover and some nice photos of Abbott — one a sort of film noir tribute, the other a movie star shot in the middle of a studio — but four articles, including an editorial, written as always in what seems to be that newspaper’s ponderous house style. For a book that so far has offered a return to fault-based divorce and an in-depth account of how Abbott’s girlfriend cheated on him, it seems a bit OTT. We’ll find out tomorrow if there’s any more substance to it. But it’s only a few days since Abbott was also given an op-ed piece on climate change, while he was refusing to comment on an issue within his own portfolio for fear of upsetting his publisher (it was the sort of issue, too — indigenous housing — in which they take an interest at that paper if nothing else, The Oz consistently devotes considerable space to indigenous issues, something that other outlets could learn from). Coupled with what appears to be an enthusiasm for undermining Malcolm Turnbull with opinion polls and frantic claims that he is mere days away from being ousted, this appears to be a particularly shameless piece of political “agenda-setting” from The Oz. They do like a campaign, though. Nuclear power is now the issue de jour. The Government can’t avoid a debate on the issue, according to the Solons at News Ltd. Well, it can, actually, by pointing out that an Australian nuclear power industry would be hugely expensive, take decades and need to be developed from the ground up, when we already have rapidly-developing solar and wind power industries and are investing billions in carbon capture and storage that would enable us — if it ever proves viable — to continue to rely on coal. Nuclear power might make sense for the Japanese or the French, but it’s a dud option for us. It’d be nice if occasionally, just occasionally, there was some consistency of economic argument from News Ltd. At Fairfax on the weekend, they had someone altogether less interesting than Tony Abbott. Kevin Rudd got two full broadsheet pages to go on at mind-numbing length about the economic crisis. There’s a Goodies episode where the most tedious people in the world go to France to compete in “Le Boring” competition, and the most formidable entry is a six-hour mimed version of Murder on the Orient Express. Rudd’s truly, awesomely boring essay could have been a late and successful entry. At one stage he almost caught my attention with the word “bold” but it was only a reference to his plans for improved infrastructure planning. Even his attacks on the Liberals barely roused roused the reader from an inevitable coma. It wasn’t a patch on his Monthly effort — which wasn’t exactly a page-turner itself — since it consisted of pretty much the same things he’s been saying over and over again for most of this year. Fairfax should have knocked it back and told the Prime Minister unless he was prepared to write something other than a recycling of every speech he’s made this year, he could find another outlet — or stick it on his blog. But the real point of the Rudd essay was to assure readers — those who made it past the first paragraph — that he is the sort of bloke who may not be the most exciting person in the world, but he sure as hell knows what he’s doing when it comes to managing the economy. Voters want competence, not excitement, at this stage, and Rudd fits that bill perfectly. Tony Abbott, on the other hand … well, he’s always good for a quote. |
|
|
|
12 Comments
So there’s a proposal (nuclear power), and you offer a few points the Government can use to rebut it. Sounds awfully to me like you’re having a debate, not avoiding it.
That being the case, some rebuttal of the negative case: Solar, wind and CCS will also be hugely expensive and take decades at the scales required. At least we can be sure that nuclear will actually be effective (in contrast to the aforementioned options).
The ABC conducted a lengthy i/v with the Rev Tony on AM today. If he talks any slower and continues the umms and ahhs between every second word the ABC will have to devote the entire half hour to him to get a 5 min cut of anything to get our teeth into. You want boring? Abbott is boring personified to listen to.
Bernard, you’re sounding like ‘a government spokesman’ on nuclear energy. Is this what you intend? I’d really like to hear some sensible debate on the subject - can you manage a reasoned case supported with credible evidence?
i don’t understand why Abbott and the Oz would write/run something that exposes him for the complete thug and hypocrite that he really is. no wonder the rudd machine spent most of its waking hours during the last election campaign to get this neanderthal into the limelight (remember the Nicola Roxon barney?)
Maybe both Rudd and Abbott should do a tag-team review of “The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy”.
Michael, me thinks Ruddo would want a report on the terms of the review first,check if the Monk would want his pal Pell as a second and what angle would Kevvie be allowed to take, Catholic, as he was originally brought up, or a cross section of devotees to enable him to get the feeling of the faiths before embarking on a lengthy discourse. Of course depending on what mood the great Antonio was in, it could result in a bit of biffo, Antonio being a handy boxer in his youth. Ironbar Tuckey would be the ideal adjudicator, he is familiar with a bit of the ole jaw crunching. God the mind bogles at such a meeting of minds. Crosses at 10 paces……..
Mar’nF’gson had his name attached to some appalling boilerplate recently which proclaimed that Krudd has allocated squillions to
accelerating efficient coal technology… not indication WTF that even opreternds to be. Basically it was a screed preparing the True Believers to clamour for backyard nukes. For the 123rd time, imagine if a fraction of the billions thrown at nuke, coal and CO2 sequestration were spent on home improvements, insulation, solar hot water and PhV. Oh wait, we don’t have to imagine coz they’ve just shut down, early, such schemes coz too many people were keen. Funny dat.
rudd would have much in religious common with abbott (remember rudd’s gibberish about believing in intelligent design), but i doubt he’d ever go so far as to be an apologist for priestly pedophilia.
Your dismissal of nuclear power is glib superficial and obviously fallacious in the sense that your argument is flawed. You have no reason to suppose that nuclear power on the French or Japanese model would be more expensive than the carbon capture and storage coal power model that we so desperately cling to in hope. At least pretty reliable estimates could be made of the cost of nuclear power stations built under contract by companies using the established foreign technology whereas carbon capture is still pie in the sky. Talk of rapidly developing solar and windpower in Australia is frivolous as they are still at insignificant levels, very expensive and still almost useless for base load. Solar thermal is looking promising in other countries but not as well proven as nuclear. Nuclear’s supposedly daunting time frame is, again, not so bad when you compare it with other long term energy projects and surely people who think we have an urgent AGW problem in which Australia has to be a heroic example could learn a thing or two from performers like Hong Kong where an underground railway system can be built in about a third the time it would take here.
Brian Toohey AFR journo for Fairfax on Sunday’s ABC Insiders Princeton ex Clinton arms control expert, re 25% nuke power globally would amount to terrorist existential threat
“Mixed reaction within Opposition to climate-change announcement”
at
http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2009/s2636525.htm
and then consider Oz is effectively courting an international nuke waste dump.
Then Toohey refers to the oh, coincidence of huge natural gas supplies here. Nuclear?
Joke.
Oh for the love of God, all you nuclear lovers, the last Government solved this problem. Go read the Switkowski report or if that’s got too many words for you, read Ian Lowes summary of this document in The Quartetly Essay from a year or so ago. It should still be available on their website.
Further, nuclear is politically impossible. A lot of residents don’t even want windmills in their backyard. Do you think they’ll support a nuclear plant and the associated waste and transport in their backyard. You can bark on all you like about it being safe, I might even believe you, but try and explain that to every man woman and child. Then try and explain that it’s necessary because of global warming and you’ve also got to convince 15% of Aussies it even exists.
You can’t take a softly, softly approach with the nuclear option!
On the other hand, gradual expansions (a wind farm here and there along established regional transmission lines) and occasional showcase openings of grander renewable electricity installations (gigawatt-scale solar thermal power stations), together with CCGTs and small-scale gas- or wood-fired cogenerators can indeed gradually displace coal without anyone much objecting — and once the ball is rolling and the FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) regarding the technology is dispelled, prices will come down and CO2 capture and storage will seem a silly boondoggle.
It isn’t properly happening yet, but the expanded MRET (get on with it already!) would push it forward, as would any effective emissions trading scheme. It remains to be seen if Rudd + Wong’s CPRS will be effective.