Jun 28, 2012

Coalition’s talking points delve into a bag of rhetorical tricks

The Coalition's daily talking points obtained by Crikey provide an insight into the basics of political spin.

Bernard Keane — Politics editor

Bernard Keane

Politics editor

When you spin, make sure you spin alliteratively. It’s much easier to remember.

Crikey has obtained yesterday’s and today’s internal Coalition talking points, distributed daily to MPs and staff by Abbott media adviser and veteran PR man Paul Ritchie (who declined to respond to Crikey). And you can’t move for alliteration. “Labor chose a stalemate and not a solution,” today’s points insist about the asylum seeker bill passed yesterday. “The government is divided and dysfunctional.” The Coalition supports “offshore processing” and “offshore protections”.

Free Trial

Proudly annoying those in power since 2000.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

20 thoughts on “Coalition’s talking points delve into a bag of rhetorical tricks

  1. khtagh

    Did you notice if S.B. was on the mailing list too?

  2. khtagh

    Good article too, not that we all didn’t know how the Mad Monk & mincing poodle worked anyway

  3. bill.wilson

    They are a disgrace and masters of dirty tricks and half truths.
    It all works a treat on dumb-as-crap populace though and so the Monk will make the lodge

  4. form1planet

    “Consistent and principled”? That’s rich coming from a party that gets all trembly with indignation at the thought of sending individuals to non-signatory Malaysia, but is happy to tow entire boatfuls back to Indonesia (a tactic ruled by European court to breach international law).

    If it’s alliteration they’re after, I’d suggest petty politicking and breath-taking bullshit sums it up.

  5. CliffG

    The Howard government thrived on punishing and deterring refugees by denying them human rights. The driving core of it all was Ruddock who was lionised. Nauru was not then a signatory of any UN conventions. Did that matter? Not a bit.
    This is just appalling (but not at all surprising) Coalition hypocrisy. Do what we say or we’ll stop you. Then we’ll call you “divided and dysfunctional” completely ignoring the fact that , one of their own, Mal Washer, was prepared to walk across the floor of parliament.
    And it seems when you vote Green, once again, you allow Abbott to play petty, vile, political games with your vote.

  6. Holden Back

    I’ve said it before for the Coalition any political tactic goes because “When WE do it, it’s funny”

  7. Dogs breakfast

    “We support turning boats around where it is safe to do so. (to a country that has not signed the refugee convention)
    We do not support the Malaysia people swap because it will not work and it fails the test of a good and decent people. (because they haven’t signed the refugee convention, even though the convention was ignored when we set up policy to go to Nauru)

    “We offered to increase Australia’s refugee and humanitarian intake ” although that really will have no effect on the boats, at all, and we know it.

    “We believe it makes sense to offer people who are prepared to try to come to Australia the right way rather than the wrong way” in spite of the fact that there is no ‘right’ way for the vast majority of these people, that we have never explicitly said what was the ‘right’ way adn we never will because that would involve putting out an actuall policy.

    “The coalition is determined to pursue policies from the past which will have no deterrent effect because the dumb voters can’t distinguish shite from putty.”

    There. Fixed!

  8. robinw

    What I would like to know about the Coalition’s promise to tow the boats back to Indonesia is this:

    If the boat is in Indonesian waters, then surely we can’t intrude there to ‘turn it back’?

    If the boat is in international waters, then surely any attempt to hook a tow line on it could be construed as illegal under international maritime laws? (Yes, I know, hollow laughter about the Tampa and wilful disregard at the time by Howard et al of those very same laws). And even if the boat was returned to the Indonesian territorial boundary, we couldn’t enter it unless invited by the Indonesians (which, given Tony’s golden tonsilled way with the Indonesians so far would mean that they would be jumping over themselves to do his bidding immediately). Therefore the boat would have to be left at the boundary of the Indonesian border just waiting to resume its voyage to Australia.

    If the boat is in Australian waters, then surely we can only tow it to the Indonesian border and then would have to drop the tow (see above)? What’s then stopping the boat from attempting to re-enter our zone and the whole sorry farce to continue until the boat got into strife and we had to save those on board anyway?

    Lastly, I am certain the Navy would just love to be placed into such a situation. I can see them now practising their towing and boarding techniques in anticipation for those most glorious and illustrious events that await them in their future.

    Where am I going wrong in this scenario as it appears to me that the whole business of ‘turning them back’ is just so much piss and wind and Abbott and Morrisson must surely know this. Another ‘non-core promise’ perhaps?

  9. Barbara Boyle

    Tuose are SCRIPTED ‘talking points?

    Ye gods.

    Poor,pathetic poltroons;all puff , no stuffing.

  10. eric

    Nothing new here the LNP have been doing this since Menzies.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details