Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

I don't get it.

Is it just me - or are there others ot there who have no idea what this order actually means? Can we have a translation please?

Looks like I read it correctly. With great respect to the Court, this is totally unsatisfactory because it leaves everything up in the air. That would not matter if the clients (the Government, the Opposition and the Unions) could be trusted not to put a political spin on the orders which does not exist. Obviously, they cannot. Batten down the hatches for interminable drivel from journalists about the 'implications'. In fact, I'm prepared to bet the first five takers a lottery ticket that Maxine McHugh uses the word 'implications' tonight. Unless of course she reads this and takes the bet.

Ah, the majesty of the law.

It would have been much better to leave the parties in limbo until reasoned judgments could be delivered. After all, there is nothing pressing about advertising. It is probably the parties themselves who are to blame - both pressed for an urgent determination and, at times, our High Court can be very determined.

Now who wants to bring an action for the 'Australian Government', whatever that may be, to repay to consolidated revenue the cost of the advertising campaign? A much more interesting action I should have thought. Might even be available under the Trade Practices Act (a favourite of the learned Solicitor-General and mine - ah, the hours we have spent discussing its scope).

News from the Russian front, eh?

The fruits of the Howard stacking of the High Court start to exhibit themselves?

What they seem to be saying is it's not the High Court's business to rule on this. If so, I agree with the ruling in this context. These issues should be up to Parliament to decide for itself. While I never believed the action by the ACTU was motivated by anything more than politics, I do hope that this prompts the relevant Parliamentary Commitees to enforce stricter, clearer guidelines on what is and what isn't classed as "advertising", to prevent this sort of thing cluttering up the High Court in the future. If the politicians themselves can't agree on this, then what hope does the legal system have?

I agree with David Eastwood and Phil Uebergang. Without looking up the earlier thread, it is difficult to follow this. One day, lawyers will be required to write in English.

In the meantime, here is an attempt by this non-lawyer to translate this. I am sure that Malcolm Duncan or someone else legally expert will correct any serious misunderstandings.

My overall reaction is:
(i) what a waste of time!
(ii) isn't the High Court being a bit shifty?

Translation follows.

(1) Q. Do ACTU and the ALP have any business asking the High Court to declare that:
(i) the bit of the Appropriations Act covering the relevant department actually is insufficient to authorise the government to spend Treasury funds on advertising;
(ii) the drawing rights delegated by the Minister for Finance to authorise this spending are not valid?

A. No comment.

(2) Q. If ACTU and the ALP are actually allowed to ask the High Court for an answer, then does the departmental appropriation cover advertising expenditure?

A. No comment.

(3) Q. If no to (2), have ACTU and the ALP established that there is any need to ask their questions?

A. The plaintiffs have not established a basis for any of the relief sought in the amended statement of claim or the alternative relief foreshadowed at the hearing of the Special Case, namely, declarations concerning payments to meet expenses incurred by the Commonwealth under contracts and arrangements for and in relation to certain past advertisements.

(4) Q. Even if ACT and the ALP do have cause to ask their questions, then should their case just be thrown out anyway?

A. No comment.

(5) Q. Who should pay the costs of the proceedings?

A. ACTU and the ALP.

Given the result of the last election we as a nation have surrendered any pretence to a democracy to proven sociopaths. Should we be surprised then that the democratic system is once again abused?

Congrats Malcolm on calling it.

I am going to hazard a guess and say that the High Court has used the well worn "this issue is not justiciable in the courts" line. Personally, I think the court will be split 5-2 (with Kirby and McHugh JJ, dissenting) and the five majority justices writing a short and simple judgment.

Without written reasons, its hard to know what it means exactly. I for one will go back to the books in my spare time and think about it.

"We always thought it was legal and proper and I'm glad the High Court has ruled in our favour ..." John Howard to the ABC.

Notice that he doesn't actually say either that it was legal and proper, or that that is what the High Court has ruled. But if you weren't paying attention, there's a fair chance you'd think thats exactly what he said. Ain't language grand?

Predictably the Government stands 'vindicated' by a 'decision' that - as it stands without details of the judgement - is unsatisfactory, in that it clarifies nothing. Maybe it was the 'wording' of the application by the plaintiffs that was the problem?

Malcolm B. Duncan, feel free to correct my legally untrained perception, but off the top of my head the 'Australian Government' is a convention that is a construction upon the Constitutional 'Governor-General in Council'. Not surprisingly this construction followed the adversarial Westminster model, where winner takes all (if they can), albeit with no substantive Constitutional basis.

I also want to add my congrats to you, Malcolm, for your correct call on this.

Mark Connell, you're essentially correct in saying that "these issues should be up to Parliament to decide". However, the terms under which Parliament authorises these expenditures appear to be very incompletely framed. A more transparent and rational basis for such expenditures might be something the Government would like to add to its reform agenda, after they've 'reformed' the Senate and abolished compulsory voting.

Overall it's gratifying that 'the Government' (aka, John & Mary Q Taxpayer) didn't have to foot the bill for this decision, the 'reasons' for which are eagerly awaited.

Que?

First, I never claim to be an expert, Andy Christie, I just labour in the field. The suggestion that we field labourers should write in English is almost as offensive as the idea we should abandon wigs and gowns. Gosh, if you can’t dress up and use a bit of foreign lingo from time to time, where’s the fun in life?

Secondly, it should be the Attorney explaining this but the gutless, unspeakable little bastard will just spout the party line as usual. No, the Court is not being shifty. It is frequent in cases where the parties want a quick decision (usually because there is some commercial consequence) that the orders will be pronounced and reasons given later. This is not a simple case because it involves some difficult constitutional questions not the least being the interaction of the parliament, the Executive and the Court.

What has happened is that the seven of them have said which way they are going to go and what the practical result is. The majority has agreed on the orders. They will now circulate draft judgments for comment and divide up into either a majority and minority judgment or, depending on their individual opinions, deliver separate reasons.

For the way in which it is done, see McHugh J’s lecture to Newcastle University here.

The process by which questions are reserved for the full bench is that when a matter comes before a single judge, in this case Heydon J in the High Court’s original jurisdiction, that single judge can, with the assistance of the parties, formulate a series of questions to be answered.

In this instance, those are the questions set out in the orders with the answers given by the majority.

To try to explain for the layman, locus standi (there I go again) or “standing” means nothing more than whether a person has a right to institute his action.

In this instance, because the majority decided no relief would be given by way of a declaration or injunction (and remember it is the parties not the Court that decide how the “dispute” will be formulated so it is always wise to ask for what you think you can get otherwise the case might be dismissed on the grounds that an alternative form of relief which might be possible had not been asked for), it was not necessary to bother about whether anyone could bring the action because the result was that they weren’t going to get the relief anyway.

That disposes of Q1.

It will be interesting to see why the majority decided it was inappropriate to answer Q2. My guess is that it is because this was not the right case to do it in because the relief sought could not be granted.

I have not seen the Contracts but Q3 is the nub of the case. For some reason the majority has decided the relief sought s not either appropriate or available. That may, of course be because, in this instance, an injunction will not lie to restrain past behaviour (that is a loose way of expressing the principle but I am just trying to explain not give a dissertation on the law of injunctions).

As to Q4, if the relief was refused on substantive grounds, the question of discretion does not enter into it.

One of the beauties of our legal system is that the loser usually pays. It makes for careful consideration as to whether to sue and discourages much fruitless litigation.

There is nothing so far in this that should have the Government crowing. By the same token, there may be a great deal of truth in some of the comments of the “sauce for the goose” type. It may be that the lawyers for the plaintiffs were instructed not to run the case in a way which would open a future Labor [sic] Government to the same sort of challenge.

Gary Suter Given the result of the last election we as a nation have surrendered any pretence to a democracy to proven sociopaths. Should we be surprised then that the democratic system is once again abused?

No Gary, we as a nation would have given up any pretence of democracy if we gave in to a sociopathic minority who seem to think they are superior to the majority.

We've had 4 elections now and 4 times we hear the same whining from people who won't take the umpire,s decision and then have the affront to say that democracy isn't being done. Get over it.

I wonder which idiot advised the Unions and Labor to go to court. I’ll bet that was a nice little earner for them.
I can understand Combet and Burrows playing silly buggers with somebody else’s money, they have nothing better to do with their time.
However for a possible alternative government to waste money in this way, just shows up once again their incompetence in handling money.

You are always going to get the coat-tail hangers thinking they are riding the triumphal wave but in fact drowning in the temporary surge of the bile of their own hubris.

Just watch the petrol price rise impact on everything from transport costs to food prices to manufacturing. When the inevitable interest rate rise occurs to pull back the inevitable inflation the first pinch will hit the overcommitted and the profligate who voted for Howard in droves and who believe that he will rescue them from their own foolishness. The US economy which unfortunately glues most of the rest of the world economies together has yet to feel the full impact of Hurricane Katrina but is living on borrowed time and money as it struggles to reward the rich and to fund an unwinnable and expensive war.

Is this going to be the fatal flaw of progressives? That if you put people and their welfare at the centre of your political understanding that those whose preferred political model is mendacity, pandering to corruption and absence of ethics then expect you never to question or challenge?

Or is it that some like to use the anonymity of the Internet to parade their position in the form of cowardly content-free snipes?

I have seen strong and forceful debaters on the Left here insulted, I have seen attempts to intimidate some of the more reticent and polite posters and we have the nightly procession of Howard's Cowards with their pointless, idiotic content-free gloats going on about "umpires' decisions" and "the people decided" and whatever other robotic bilge the late hours seem to bring on.

I am not sure what they want - is it that they want us to join them in their unthinking Howard-worship? Or to make cheap, nasty and ill-informed racist remarks pretending they are something else then issuing shrill denials when challenged? or to alternatively ignore, patronise and demonise those who are poor, refugees or indigenous? Or to jeer at those who support the disadvantaged? Or to defend unjust and unnecessary warfare because secretly their warped little minds long to feel the cold deadly weight of the gun in their own inadequate hands, but because they are so inadequate they can only see our soldiers sent perhaps to die in the stupidity they have created?

There are just over 50% of Australians who did not vote for Howard.

Get over it, those who did. You will only have yourselves and your own stupidity to blame.

Dee,
Very nicely put, and I thoroughly endorse your comments. You seem to have hit a nerve judging by the attack dog response!
I suspect they actually believe you are right, but cant bring themselves to admit it, so they attack you. That’s what the soccer followers would call an "own goal".

I guess that slightly more than 50% of voters who did not endorse Howard at the last election are not part of what the cult of Howard lovers would have us all believe is "mainstream Australia".
Personally, I'm glad I'm not in it, I like it out here on the margins.

Alfred Stimoli. Bravo! Editors. Why on earth have you published dopey Dee Bayliss's hateful, spiteful, spray of misrepresentations and sheer bloody ignorance? The woman needs to be **** ***. Actually, no. Keep publishing her, so the whole world can see what vile worms the far left are.

What a *** ***!
Terrence Ed. Noelene, we publish opinions, and views of the opinions of others. Not personal attacks.

Dee Baylis: "Just watch the petrol price rise impact on everything from transport costs to food prices to manufacturing."

What you're describing is Economics 101. I'm surprised you think this exceptional. Oh, by the way most of us realise that domestic policy has nothing to do with the factors dictating international petrol prices. I'm sorry if that comes as a shock to you.

Dee Baylis: "When the inevitable interest rate rise occurs to pull back the inevitable inflation the first pinch will hit the overcommitted and the profligate who voted for Howard in droves and who believe that he will rescue them from their own foolishness."

Most of us have long memories and we realise that under the alternate government interest rates would more than likely have risen earlier and higher. At least we've been spared another recession we had to have.

Dee Baylis: "The US economy which unfortunately glues most of the rest of the world economies together has yet to feel the full impact of Hurricane Katrina but is living on borrowed time and money as it struggles to reward the rich and to fund an unwinnable and expensive war."

The damage and cost due to Hurricane Katrina would have still occurred regardless of which government was in or is GWB so good he can control the weather? As to struggling under the weight of debt I guess being such a tyranical despotic regime as most of the left seems to describe the current government maybe they should immidiately take back all that foreign aid they fork out each year. I mean it seems strange that such a vile evil empire should still give out money when it has so much debt to contend with.

Dee Baylis: "I have seen strong and forceful debaters on the Left here insulted, I have seen attempts to intimidate some of the more reticent and polite posters and we have the nightly procession of Howard's Cowards with their pointless, idiotic content-free gloats going on about 'umpires' decisions' and 'the people decided' and whatever other robotic bilge the late hours seem to bring on."

As opposed to referring to those people who voted for this current government as racists, red necks, Nazi's, stupid, ignorant etc etc etc. Amazing what you call polite discussion.

Dee Baylis: "I am not sure what they want - is it that they want us to join them in their unthinking Howard-worship?"

Actually most of us want reasoned debate not statements verging on hysteria and conspiracy theories. And certainly not insults decrying we are racists or that we lack in intelligence for our beliefs.

Dee Baylis: "Or to make cheap, nasty and ill-informed racist remarks pretending they are something else then issuing shrill denials when challenged? or to alternatively ignore, patronise and demonise those who are poor, refugees or indigenous? Or to jeer at those who support the disadvantaged? Or to defend unjust and unnecessary warfare because secretly their warped little minds long to feel the cold deadly weight of the gun in their own inadequate hands, but because they are so inadequate they can only see our soldiers sent perhaps to die in the stupidity they have created?"

We can see how much this government hates refugees and foreigners in general by increasing the immigration quota (what a darstardly way of showing you hate foreigners eh?). We can see how much this government hates welfare by trying to get people into jobs, much better to leave them on welfare so people can feel superior tp them, is that right Dee? Even Mark Latham and Juliett Gillard acknowledge that we shouldn't become a welfare state. But hey, you can't use that argument otherwise you'd be agreeing with JWH. As to racism, they must be despicable after all look how they turned their backs on the Indonesians at their greatest time of need. Unlike other more generous oil rich countries of the Middle East who emptied their treasuries to help their Islamic brothers in need. Er, how much did they donate?

Dee Baylis: "There are just over 50% of Australians who did not vote for Howard."

Most of those 50% who did not vote for Howard get on with their lives. They realise they will have the opportunity to get rid of him at the next election, it's called democracy. But no, we can't have that. Instead lets pile vile and scorn at the government and everyone who voted for them.

Dee Baylis: "Get over it, those who did. You will only have yourselves and your own stupidity to blame."

Great to see what you believe to be polite discussion, learn it from Mark Latham, did we?

Ps. Have a nice day.

Alfred Stimoli : “Most of us have long memories and we realise that under the alternate government interest rates would more than likely have risen earlier and higher. At least we've been spared another recession we had to have.”

There is no doubt that interest rates rose under the previous Labor Government however if you are going to beat anyone over the head with this fact please tell the entire story and not just the bit that you like.

The king of high interest rates is Mr. Howard. During August 1982 ATCR rate reached 19.93%. At that time Mr, Frazer was the Prime Minister and Mr. Howard (the current Prime Minister) was the Treasure. Labor’s high water mark for interest rates was during November 1989 when the ATCR reached 18.18%.

Alfred, it is clear that some of us have longer memory and the ability to do a little research. These facts demonstrate the unsoundness of you claim concerning the likely change in interest rates and the like hood of another recession as well as the misleading nature of theme of the Government’s last election campaign

Dee Bayliss I agree with your assessment, at least in part. I believe that what we are seeing with regards to both the war in Iraq, and Hurricane Katrina’s economic ramifications, are the development of some very serious chinks in the once impenetrable ideological armour of neo-conservatism.

Neo-conservatism, at its core, is based on the forceful projection of US military power abroad. Such a projection has thus far failed in Iraq. While I do not wish for the US mission in Iraq to fail, and I do not believe it will entirely fail, the idea of US hegemony at the heart of neo-conservatism looks very shaky indeed when one sees reports like these on the new ltd website, both on the same day.

Blast Kills 11 Ahead of Poll
A CAR bomb exploded in a crowded market in the southern Iraqi town of Hilla today, killing at least 11 people and wounding 30.

85 Dead in Triple Car Bombing
AT least 85 people were killed and more than 110 wounded overnight when three car bombs exploded within minutes of each other in the mainly Shiite central Iraqi town of Balad, police said.

It is no wonder that US support for Bush and the Iraq war is plummeting.

Hurricane Katrina, while I do not believe it was in any way the Bush Administration's fault, has demonstrated another flaw in neo-conservative ideology. It has proved that no amount of expensive (in terms of both dollars and lives) foreign wars can compensate for sound economic management and a domestic focus.

However to try and translate this to a domestic context is not strictly accurate. John Howard is not a neo-conservative, although he has borrowed from them. Furthermore the primary neo-conservative idea he has appropriated, that of political correctness, which first appeared in academic circles in the mid 1980s and had wriggled its grotty way into the public imagination by the mid 90s, has yet to be discredited, although this would not be terribly hard to do.

Now for your issues Alfred Stimoli.

You repeated the Big Lie of 04, that is that “under the alternate government interest rates would more than likely have risen earlier and higher.” This is, as I said, a lie. During the 2004 election the Coalition's advertising pointed out the prevalence of high interest rates during the years between 1972 and 1996. Gough Whitlam, Bob Hawke and Paul Keating all had their names attached to the highest interest rate over which they presided.

Unfortunately for the Coalition the year 1975 did not, at least as far as I know, precede the year 1983. In fact between the years 1975 and 1983 the Coalition, with Malcolm Fraser as Prime Minister and Philip Lynch followed by John Howard as Treasurer, were in office and also presiding over high interest rates.

Tell me, Alfred, if high interest rates were a product of the Australian Labor Party why did Malcolm Fraser and John Howard preside over high interest rates? If all Governments in office between 1972 and 1996 presided over high interest rates, regardless of party, perhaps it has something to do with the period itself. Ever thought of that?

Now on to US foreign debt. In 2004 the US military spending came to a grand total of $437.111 billion. Aside from Iraq much of this military spending goes towards the maintenance of Cold War era global military infrastructure (in spite of the notable lack of a Cold War) and the building of an untested missile defence system.

In contrast to this in 2004 the US spent $19 billion on development aid. Certainly that’s an impressive amount but I would suggest its not the source of America's budgetary black hole.

And finally about that welfare state. Julia Gillard, Mark Latham and the other ALP figures who have been singing a similar tune are right. John Howard, who has overseen a massive expansion of the welfare state and the highest taxing Government in Australia’s history is wrong. Under John Howard 38.5% of Australia’s richest households are claiming some form of welfare, on average $680 a year

PS: Poor form Noelene. Not one mention of “multi-culti” or “the blue stocking class of 75”.
Terrence Ed. Good to see the standard of debate lifted by all.

I second Michael Lines (30/09/2005 11:02:16 PM): Well said, Dee Bayliss (29/09/2005 11:56:41 PM) - the content-free gibbers of protest suggest not only that you have indeed struck home, but that the "mainstream" is in fact a shallow, narrow creek, albeit a noisy one.

To reply to Malcolm Duncan (29/09/2005 6:56:59 PM):

I am unrelated to authoresses or mass murderers, so that will be "Christy" with a "y", please. We're the ultimately-Irish ones, not the Scottish. And it is disingenuous to say the least, a lawyer claiming to be nought be a "field labourer". But I shouldn't whinge. At least there were no "herewhithertofores" or such like. Many thanks for the further analysis, in any case - appreciated!

Well yes, Dee Bayliss, rising petrol prices will flow onto all other prices. Why? Because for the past few centuries, modern societies have based the production and distribution of the goods, foodstuffs, and material comfort that make up our lives on fossil fuel energy. I agree that there are very strong reasons to make finding alternatives to this dependence a matter of high priority.

It’s a bit hard to work out exactly what you are most angry at. Is it the fact that we have a responsible and independent setter of monetary policy in the Reserve Bank whose primary legislative obligation is to keep inflation in check; you know, so we don’t we end up with the economic conditions faced by Germany in the 1920s and 1930s that led to Hitler’s rise. Or is that you loathe people who do not know their place, and that you think they should stay poor and humble, and not work and strive for a better life?

I am interested in your psychological profiling of the “foolish” and “overcommitted and profligate” who voted for Howard. On what basis have you deduced that these poor saps did so out of a belief that Howard would ask all those who voted for him to send their credit card bills to Kirribilli House, and that Janette would write a check for them?

You are correct on the coordinating role that the US economy plays in the global markets. You seem to think this is a bad thing. It would be interesting to hear what those who grew up in post-War Japan and Germany think of your analysis or of those in the formerly Eastern bloc societies. I would also be interested to know if you still hate Keating for Australia abandoning its economic sovereignty by allowing in foreign banks, and floating our currency, thus “gluing” us to the US economy?

OK, Dee, it’s time for and your ilk to put up or shut up. By what standards have you now decided that the label “progressive” deserves to be bestowed upon you? What are its standards? Who decides? Is everybody who votes Greens or Labor “progressive” or only some of them? Are there any “progressives” who voted Liberal or National? Is Margo [a] “progressive?” After all, she voted Liberal in 1996? And what on earth does it mean to “put people and their welfare at the centre of your political understanding?” I cannot imagine that there is a single Australian who does not vote like this.

You have this perplexing delusion that left-wing political agitation is driven by an almost religious fervour of moral rectitude. I swear Dee, often your posts are laced with exactly the same moral narcissism that one reads from right-wing fundy Christian Republicans in the US!

Dee, Webdiary is a free cyber-discussion group that has quite stringent, and enforced, ethical and quality control standards. No post is published without those standards being met. Do you think that Webdiary is little more than a free-for-all of “cowardly snipes?” In what way is it “cowardly?”

Perhaps you think that the only legitimate forum for debating ideas and politics is face to face in Martin Place? I think that would be a very boring world. And, if you are honest Dee, you must concede that you are right up there when it comes to snipes at other Webdiarists; usually your snipes are delivered with passive-aggression, as you have delivered this bizarre spray.

Are you suggesting that just because a debater is “on the left” that they should be spared being insulted? Why do you think this? Do you think that people “on the Left” are, by definition, so deserving of our universal awe and respect? Or perhaps, you are cheesed-off that Webdiarists who are not “on the Left” are spared from being insulted? If this is your beef, I would be very interested in hearing the views of other Webdiarists on the disproportionate insulting of debaters “on the Left.”

Your allegations of intimidation of “the more reticent and polite posters” is quite a serious one. Are you suggesting that there is sympathy among the editors for posting intimidating posts? I would be interested to know how many Webdiarists are these alleged “reticent and polite posters” and what percentage are not. Which camp do you fall into Dee?

Is there really a “nightly procession of Howard’s Cowards?” Do they only post at night? They didn’t seem to stop your own midnight epistle. Dee, I have been posting on Webdiary for a few months now, and I am stunned at any implication that Webdiary is a vehicle for nightly processions of Howard-lovers.

While I don’t have a socio-psychological profile of every Webdiary member, I think I could probably count the number of rusted-on Howard devotees on one hand. In fact, I would argue that Webdiary is overwhelmingly contributed to by Howard-haters! My guess is 50% Green voters, 30% Labor, and 20% Liberal/Swing voters. You seem to have been much longer than I have; do you think I have completely misread Webdiary? If so, I would greatly appreciate having this pointed out, as I like to think of myself as being quite perceptive!

I agree that some Webdiarists will point to, what you may think are “pointless” and “idiotic,” aspects of Australia’s democracy, Constitution, and legal system to bolster their arguments on some issue. But Dee, I’m afraid that I cannot side with you here. You see, I have a funny, maybe old-fashioned, respect for the Australian electoral system and Constitution.

Now, I am not saying that they are perfect, or that they always produce the most “moral” outcome, but I am flummoxed that any Australian could hold them in such contempt that they would react so viciously, as you have, when other Australians express their respect for these institutions.

Dee, tell us who they are, and we might be able to help you. Oops, better not try that because we have been told that “personal” attacks are not welcome. I haven’t really encountered anybody trying to encourage other Webdiarists to make “racist” remarks. Though I have detected an inordinate amount of energy spent demonising Jews.

In fact, I think if we counted up the number of words and/or posts that are devoted to demonising groups, whether they be Jews, Muslims, Asians, Americans, Christians, Howard-voters, gays, Russians, Chinese, Pakistani, Indian, Rwandan, Greens, and so on, the rankings would be extremely interesting. How do YOU think the ranking might look, Dee? Do you think it would reveal any “racist” or “nasty” elements on Webdiary?

Would you prefer that Webdiary not publish posts that are judged to be “patronizing or demonising?” Or would you like to see restrictions placed on posts that address issues that might offend the “poor, refugees, or indigenous people?” What if the person is a rich, half-caste who has voted Liberal? Does “supporting the disadvantaged” instantly sanctify one; placing one outside criticism? If so, do I get such an immunity from criticism and jeering?

Dee, there are a hell of a lot more than 50% who didn’t vote for Howard, as only about 20 or 30,000 can.

You see Dee, your final sayonara really says it all. Do you really think that you are going to endear yourself, let alone your “ideas” and “hopes” for Australia’s future, when you publish late-night sprays that demonise unnamed people as stupid, racist, cowards, nasty, ill-informed, full of bile, mendacious snipers who waste your time with their deluge of content free posts which intimidate angelic left-wingers who are on their way to Heaven even as we speak?

I look forward to enlightenment, Dee. Take care. It’s a beautiful day. Go outside, get a tan. Ask your hubby to fix you a Gin and Tonic and rub sun-screen into your back. Rent Breakfast at Tiffany’s and Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner, order takeaway and chill!

Dee, Life is Beautiful if you let it in.

Michael and Andy I actually like to think people like us are the true mainstream Australia but unfortunately centre stage has been temporarily captured by those and their followers who would import some of the nastier trends operating elsewhere, principally from the US. A bit like what happened in China in the 19th Century when the West forced opium trade on the Chinese, except in this instance the poisonous substance is ideology. The effect on the addicts is somewhat the same, the social effect on Australia could be equally as troublesome in the short term.

Chris it is not so much that Howard has fully embraced neocon beliefs. In fact neo-conservatism as such is probably due to vanish. It takes a lot of money to maintain an interventionist approach to foreign policy especially when you are the only superpower.

Howard has no ideology to sustain him. He has cut and pasted elements of mostly home-grown Right-wing populisms and political philosophies which are trotted out at appropriate moments - a dash of Bob Santamaria here, a soupçon of Keith Windschuttle there, a subtly disguised Hanson in the mix - and he also has neither apprehension nor comprehension of the broad Australian society but relies on Chauncy Gardener-like sound bytes to convey the impression that he is the Great Leader and In Control. Which unfortunately seems to work with many people.

It's almost as if he had suddenly realised that too much uncontrolled public exposure was firstly a bad thing and secondly was not something which his predecessors did until recent times. Radio broadcasts and newsreel segments were carefully stage-managed. Prime Ministers were reported in the print media but simply not interviewed. They were remote figures who appeared only at times of great national importance.

And public appearances are likewise managed because Howard's personal awkwardness when confronted by indigenous people, the poor or those of another culture is obvious. Just watch him closely on TV. He is comfortable with old people since most of them are uncritical and many would have diminished powers of memory, which is the way he would like the electorate to be.

It is right and proper that a Prime Minister under a Westminster system consults with his or her Ministry and Parliamentary colleagues before making policy. This is supposedly what the electorate gets when they vote for a party. What we do get with Howard is his opinion.
He has a habit of making almost Presidential-style declarations of his own opinions in answers to media questions, and these declarations seem to have replaced consensus policy development for the Coalition.

But his harmless enough "sports tragic" image would be merely amusing if it did not also serve to explain his worshipful attitude towards Washington, his ensuing enthusiastic support of its neocon-influenced foreign policy and his attempts to remake important parts of Australian society after the US model.

The interesting thing about the IR changes is that they are one of Howard's only truly ideological stands. Virtually everything else this naked mannequin does is spin, without any personal belief behind it except for the desire to maintain power. For instance Howard often alludes to Menzies but his middle-class fistfuls of dollars and pork-barrelling activities would, given the current economic climate, never have been countenanced by a Menzies Government. Nor would Menzies have attempted to tamper with the notion of a minimum or "basic" wage, much as he probably would have preferred not to have had to deal with the powerful and militant unions of the time.

The recent Four Corners programme on the IR changes highlighted both their unworkability in an Australian context and Howard's personal commitment to them. Howard is shown in one segment repeating the mantra "flexibility and fairness" where we know full well that should IR changes go through there will be too much flexibility and not a great deal of fairness.

Noelene, I'm (certainly) not wanting to interfere with your argument with Dee, but, can you please tell me what the evidence is that we have, "a responsible and independent setter of monetary policy in the Reserve Bank whose primary legislative obligation is to keep inflation in check"?

Unless this has been changed, I thought that the Reserve Bank in this nation had two responsibilities - the other one being to keep unemployment in check...and that neither (formally) had priority. Trouble is, I'd have to say, that the neo-liberal/monetarist consensus - now severely under attack (see the last fistful of Nobel Prize-winners) - has severely undermined the latter, to the extent that 'full' employment is a joke, and underemployment a way of life...in EXACTLY the way that Adam Smith would have foreseen, given his wise words on inherent labour market inequalities...

Which is not (at all) to say that I advocate turning the clock back, merely that we (and all democracies) need to have a democratically-accountable balance between capital and labour markets...and - as far as I'm aware - there isn't a single nation on earth that has even attempted this. Perhaps Australia needs to re-invent its century-old reputation as an innovator here...but, I'll be damned if our current political 'elites' appear up to the task (including the Greens & the Democrats)...

But, for those of us trapped in the dismal nether regions of said 'employment' markets, unthinking praise for 'our' Reserve Bank is merely the reflection of a comfortable financial/employment situation...something that many don't share.

But... I refuse to spit the dummy here - as you so commonly do - and ask you merely to reflect. And respond...

All the best.

Dee Bayliss, “The recent Four Corners programme on the IR changes highlighted their unworkability in an Australian context”.
Don’t you mean the Unions think they are unworkable. What the hell would they know, they have let things slip over the years to a point where they are a joke.
Instead of writing all this bile about Howard you should leave the keyboard and go out and speak to as many Labor Members as you can.

Tell them to get off their backsides, get rid of Beazley and Macklin and the rest of the deadwood and do a day's work for a change.
If you are pinning your hopes on Gillard for the next election, you are in for a shock she just does not have what it takes. She could not manage to sell Medicare Gold to the electorate, how the hell is she going to run the Labor Party.

Malcolm B Duncan, shame on you! Are you trying to undermine the whole raison d'être of the dairy industry? And I suppose you feed your cat cake. Dastardly behaviour, sir!

BTW, Dee Bayliss, congratulations on a piece that has called out the attack dogs and bitch (used only in the canine sense, of course). Even more so because your post has elicited some negative responses that have actually had some content deserving serious analysis, rather than mere petulance. More of this and we might even have a worthwhile debating forum.

Milk up 8%, Andy Christy? Just do what we did years ago - feed the cat water.

A few comments for Alfred Stimoli(30/09/2005 3:48:37 PM), who seems upset by Dee Bayliss calling a spade, a spade.

How many million times do we have to demolish the old furphy that high interest rates in the 80's and 90's were anything to do with the Hawke or Keating governments? Here is a graph of base lending rates against year for the UK for 1985-2005. Note the descent from outrageous highs in the early 1980's, the sudden ascent to another peak (15%) in 1990, and the rapid drop to single digits in 1993.

As far as I remember, the government under which I was suffering in the UK at the time was that of the Fascist Old Bat Thatcher, followed by her Grey Puppet Major. So, Alfred: please tell me which is true:

1. Were Thatcher and Major actually Trotskyite secret Labour operatives, plunging the UK into high interest rates and bankrupting millions of over mortgagees? (the high rates happened at the end of an engineered house price bubble; I know people who were repossessed, and others who lost a lot of equity in their homes).

Or

2. Was The Evil Paul Keating actually the Secret Master of the UK economy at the time?

Or

3. Was the interest rate blip a worldwide phenomenon that was largely out of the control of any national government, rendering ridiculous and dishonest attribution of responsibility for it to the ALP?

Interestingly, Alfred seems quite happy that governments have no control over petrol prices (even though they can hold them down by reducing excise), and is not the slightest concerned about the knock-on effects on other prices, and hence the cost of living, etc etc. It appears that milk may be about to go up 8% or so, for instance, and this is probably just one example of many.

Alfred may be rich enough not to notice this, but many people will find their wallets noticeably emptier, and their bills and credit cards harder to pay off. The inflation rate and interest rates, and pressure for wage increases are all on the way up. And this is the climate in which Howard wants to crank through his IR reforms, reducing people's job security, work conditions, and ability to negotiate. A recipe for unrest, if ever there was, except that now any strikers or protesters can be disappeared for 14 days as "terrorist suspects", can't they?

Without slagging off anyone specific, I note that the current government has a history of chronic lying, whipping up of fear and xenophobia, erosion of human rights, abuse of those who disagree with it while tolerating corruption and incompetence in its supporters, and has plunged Australia voluntarily and unjustly into our first war of aggression. None of that is nice, moral, or responsible government. I agree with Dee Bayliss that support for such a government is pretty objectively stupid, unless one gains some overweening personal benefit which for oneself transcends the overall damage to the country. I have asked Howard supporters before how they benefit from his regime, and have had nothing in return except a flurry of abuse followed by silence. How about you, Alfred?

AS to DB: "Most of those 50% who did not vote for Howard get on with their lives."

Beautiful. Argument by authority-of-the-supposed-masses, with an implication of "agree or shut up". Nice to see how tolerant you are of dissent, Alfredo. Another believer in elective tyranny, I see.

AS: "They realise they will have the opportunity to get rid of him at the next election, it's called democracy."

So is making constant input into public debate. Democracy is not something that is confined to one day every three years, however much you would like that to be the case. Even if I agreed with you, I'd insist that no legislation was passed that was not fully presented in the election campaign!

AS: "But no, we can't have that. Instead lets pile vile and scorn at the government"

They deserve it at the moment, and why are you taking it personally?

AS: "and everyone who voted for them."

Because it is extremely frustrating seeing people swallow Howard's lies again and again, and giving him further opportunity to devastate their country. As Dee said, eventually they'll suffer for it. In the mean time, some of the rest of us are getting shafted first. Naturally the government is the main target of our anger, but it is only in power because some people listen to lies rather than reason, and prefer delusions to facts, and our capacity for being patient and polite with such people has its limits.

The amazing spray by Noelene Konstandinitis (01/10/2005 5:18:43 PM) contains little that I'd want to comment on, except:

NK: "Dee, there are a hell of a lot more than 50% who didn’t vote for Howard, as only about 20 or 30,000 can."

Tedious argument by petty semantics. I think it quite likely that most Coalition voters across the country had an inkling that maybe putting their local Coalition candidate first might result in Johnny becoming PM.

NK: "I look forward to enlightenment, Dee. Take care. It’s a beautiful day. Go outside, get a tan. Ask your hubby to fix you a Gin and Tonic and rub sun-screen into your back….Dee, Life is Beautiful if you let it in."

In other words, "I disagree with you, so why don't you switch off?". Wow. I'm convinced.

People like Dee and myself are trying to stop Howard and his thug friends from making life less beautiful, Noelene, even though it is a losing battle. It is obvious that you won't believe just how pernicious he is until you experience the effects first hand, but we'll keep trying.

1961, Michael Lines.

Malcolm,
I guess its conceivable he would go that early - after all, he does hold all of the cards, and the ALP is in some disarray so he's almost guaranteed a win. I wonder how he would view the long term cost/benefit though? Not that JW is renowned for having a long term vision - he'll guarantee an extra 18 months in office, but sooner or later he is going to face the consequences of his actions. Although, having said that, he is the luckiest politician I have ever seen and you can almost bet your last dollar that another Tampa or Mark Latham book will heave into view just in time to save his skin.

In politics, Michael Lines, timing is all. We are now within the window of a Federal election. The last date he can go is just after the statutory 2007 NSW election on 24 (I think it is) March 2007.

How quickly do you think these things like oil and terrorism feed in? If it precipitates an immediate crisis, wouldn't he go in March next year? Forgive me, but for reasons which may become immediately apparent, I have these considerations constantly in mind.

We are about to live in interesting times, petrol prices at record levels, wages pressure, inflation threatening, and the Reserve Bank is no longer talking about interest rate drops, indeed there has even been talk of a rate hike as early as November.

While I can recognise the sound of economic chickens coming home to roost, and much as I'd love to be able to, I'm not going to blame this on the current OZ Government - its happening everywhere else too. As described by Andy Christy, its a global phenomenon, just as it was on the previous occasions.

The question on my mind is how are the Howard and Costello team going to explain all of this away, given their own trumpeting of their economic "credentials" in the past? Do they really expect the punters to believe that this time its the rest of the worlds fault, but previously its all been the ALP's fault? Maybe they do - it worked last time.

Against this background, perhaps its no accident that they are ramming through the IR changes now - I wonder if the logic runs something like: "if we make it easier to sack people, we'll also make it easier to cut their wages when times get tight".

Hmmmm - somehow I don’t think any of this is going to work in their, or our favour. I suspect JW Howard may have miscalculated on this. Either that or this is the biggest flag waving exercise in Australian political history.

Malcolm B Duncan, Are you the same who has started a new political party to run in the NSW elections? If so congratulations. I understand the party intends to raise the issue of Private Public Partnerships. Is this right?

BTW, Dee Bayliss, you are right about Howard and his lack of real ideological position other than his mad jihad against Australians who are members of trade unions and who want the right to collectively bargain with their employers. Judith Brett's recent article was very good on this aspect of Howard’s formative political experiences (or rather his family's views) and the issue of trade unions. He has always been a pathetic little 'kiss up, kick down' suburban solicitor. His economic chickens are coming home to roost, and so are the people he has assured he is best friends with. None of them believe it. Trust me. Focus groups, opinion polling, direct empirical experience (that means actually getting out and talking to people for the information of Noelene et al), are all saying the same thing. Howard is neither trusted or loved.

People were and are spooked by the thought of interest rate rises. Yes I know about Howard's time as Treasurer but most people don't remember that far back and anyway, reason doesn't cut it in electoral campaigns. However they are just as spooked by the thought that Howard is on their case at the workplace. They know all about this aspect of him. They just forgot last year, because usually you can deal with only one scary thing at a time, and in any case, no one actually remembers him telling them what an excellent adventure individual contracts would be. I have asked around 2000 blue collar workers this question. They all agree. He never told us about this 's**t'!

Don't get angry with people, just remember the old adage about fooling people, once etc; As we say around here to members who are simply gob smacked about what is being planned for them at work-'Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me'. Forget Tampa and 2001. He got that one-he won't get it again. Even people who own up to holding the views they did at the time about refugees and children overboard now join in derision at the lies and the deceit of 'children overboard'. That phrase has entered the popular lexicon as a term for a lie designed to scare people into doing what you want them to do. He has no credibility on trust.

However, he is ahead as preferred Prime Minister in the polls. That is not about Howard and the love affair of the electorate for him and his wretched cronies who actually 'run him' as Prime Minister. It is all about Beazley and the hapless and hopeless state of the ALP. The message is for the ALP-stand up and speak plainly and clearly to people about the issues that concern and worry them. Howard, appears to, by using weasel words and choosing what he says carefully. He has spun a web of b*****t about everything, and it is only a matter of time before he is called to account. Why not do it by telling the truth about the economy, our prospects, and about the link between the way people are treated at work, and the kind of society we have? People can tell the difference between the truth and evasions-eventually. But they will never be able to exercise this faculty, if the ALP is absolutely incapable of speaking the truth to itself.

The same, Jane Doe, but I'd rather your vote than your congratulations. Where does your information come from? That is not a specific policy but the issue needs to be addressed. I really don't care where the money (responsibly) comes from to rebuild the State as long as it is done. My experience with the Cross-city Tunnel, however, makes me sceptical about PPPs.

Further detail on this site awaits the whim of Kerri Browne who has the copy but hasn't posted it yet.

You can email mbduncan@tpg.com.au for a copy of the Constitution.

(08/10/05) ed Kerri: readers looking for Malcolm B Duncan's article and information, see A time to break down, and time to build up.

Noelene, I'm surprised that you didn't respond to your least abusive respondent here - in any way. Personally, I always put such queries first... albeit I suspect you've been 'spoilt' by the furore you've raised via earlier - much less temperate - responses.

Still looking forward to a reply.

Fiona Reynolds/Andy Christie. Would you please show me the courtesy of explaining why you think it is OK for you to dismiss me, call me a "bitch" and dismiss my post as "tedious argument by petty semantics?"

Could you also explain to me by what possible standards you could judge Dee Bayliss' extraordinary, but VERY telling post, as worthy of "congratulations" while my own post is dismissed as "an amazing spray" that is "not worth commenting on?"

I gave a lot of time and thought to trying to engage with Dee's post. In fact my post is 1,300 words long, very calm and respectful, and shows a very close reading of Dee's "argument." In fact, not one word was edited by the Editors.

Fiona, are you suggesting that my post is not an example "More of this and we might even have a worthwhile debating forum" and yet Dee's is? Could you please explain this?

I would like to be thought of as a worthwhile Webdiary contributor, but if what I think is a very sincere and thoughtful post is not appreciated by Webdiarists, I would greatly appreciate being given some guidance so that I can improve the whole Webdiary experience for all.

Cheers.

Noelene Konstandinitis, to begin with, let’s get the trivia out of the way. First, as indicated in my post, I was using “dog” and “bitch” purely in their canine context, where the former indicates the male, and the latter the female. Second, you have applied the term to yourself on several occasions. Third, if you don’t accept these arguments, you may prefer the possibility that it was a matter of tat for “tit” – yes, I did read your mid-morning post of 28/09/2005 on The future of fair dinkum journalism thread before it (your post, that is) mysteriously disappeared.

To a point of greater substance, where in my post did I imply that I thought your post was anything other than a reasoned response to Dee Bayliss? On the contrary, I was both delighted and impressed to see a contribution which obviously contained some careful consideration of the issues, even if there are lacunae. Specifically, those lacunae include
(1) a lack of awareness of the RBA’s dual role (see John Henry Calvinist post), and
(2) a failure to take into account that it is at least plausible that many voters may decide on the basis of their own perceived best interests, rather than taking into account the position of others. (“I’m not Aboriginal, so it doesn’t affect me…” (my apologies, I’ve not had time to identify the Webdiarist whose work I have attempted to paraphrase) etc., etc.).

Noelene, when you engage seriously with an issue you are always worth reading. While in general I tend not to agree with your position or conclusions, I do from time to time. Moreover, I have explicitly stated my agreement when appropriate. What would be even better for Webdiary as a vigorous debating forum would be if you responded explicitly to requests put to you, such as John Henry Calvinist's most recent one.

In the meantime, all the best with the essay. It is a horrid time of the academic year.
Fiona Reynolds

OK, Noelene. I’ll bite.

NK: (03/10/2005 3:22:16 PM): “Fiona Reynolds/Andy Christie. Would you please show me the courtesy of explaining why you think it is OK for you to dismiss me, call me a ‘bitch’ and dismiss my post as ‘tedious argument by petty semantics?’”

1. A request for courtesy could surely include the courtesy of spelling my name correctly.

2. My exact terms of “dismissal” were “contains little that I'd want to comment on, except:...” (AC, 02/10/2005 4:56:57 PM), which actually implies that I’d read your post, considered it, and for whatever reasons only wished to make comments on some selected parts. I am perfectly entitled to address what I want to and not what I don’t, and your demand for an explanation is at best plain rude. It could be construed as over-the-top attention seeking.

3. I have not even used the term ‘bitch’. Be very careful how you bracket questions and questionees togther. Fiona did not call you a bitch in the sense that you are implying. Be careful to bear in mind the context of what is said. See Fiona Reynolds (03/10/2005 8:23:22 PM) for an explanation which, hopefully, you will be able to follow.

4. I quote again from my 2/10/2005, 4:56:57 PM post.

“NK: ‘Dee, there are a hell of a lot more than 50% who didn’t vote for Howard, as only about 20 or 30,000 can.’

Tedious argument by petty semantics. I think it quite likely that most Coalition voters across the country had an inkling that maybe putting their local Coalition candidate first might result in Johnny becoming PM.”

I was not “dismissing” your whole post as “‘tedious argument by petty semantics”. I was referring to one specific point which you raised. Again, please stop taking things out of context, exaggerating, and using them as an excuse to fly off the handle. I’ll rephrase what I was saying:

(i) Yes, it is true that only Howard’s supporters in the electorate of Bennelong voted for him as an MP directly.

(ii) This is argument by petty semantics because Bennelong is a relatively safe seat, he was going to be elected as an MP, was going to remain leader of the Liberal Party, and therefore, any vote transferring to the Coalition, anywhere in the country, was a contributor to Howard being returned as PM. Therefore, the votes of about 40% of people did so. Claiming that the Coalition-voting 40% outside Bennelong did not vote for Howard or his tight control of the Coalition is just silly.

(iii) I have nevertheless seen this point brought up so many times by people trying to downplay their support for Howard that I do indeed find it tedious.

NK: “Could you also explain to me by what possible standards you could judge Dee Bayliss' extraordinary, but VERY telling post, as worthy of ‘congratulations’”

Because I agree with her in general, and it was obvious that the post would attract considerable negative response, and hence that the poster deserved some positive reinforcement?

NK: “while my own post is dismissed as ‘an amazing spray’ that is ‘not worth commenting on?’”

I didn’t say ‘not worth commenting on’. Stop mis-representing, and stop attention-grabbing.

As far as ‘spray’ is concerned, and note that you used this same word to describe Dee’s post:

Some quotes from Noelene Konstandinitis (01/10/2005 5:18:43 PM):

“OK, Dee, it’s time for and your ilk to put up or shut up. By what standards have you now decided that the label “progressive” deserves to be bestowed upon you?”

“You have this perplexing delusion that left-wing political agitation is driven by an almost religious fervour of moral rectitude. I swear Dee, often your posts are laced with exactly the same moral narcissism that one reads from right-wing fundy Christian Republicans in the US!”

“Do you think that Webdiary is little more than a free-for-all of “cowardly snipes?” In what way is it ‘cowardly?’”

“And, if you are honest Dee, you must concede that you are right up there when it comes to snipes at other Webdiarists; usually your snipes are delivered with passive-aggression, as you have delivered this bizarre spray.”

“I have a funny, maybe old-fashioned, respect for the Australian electoral system and Constitution....I am flummoxed that any Australian could hold them in such contempt that they would react so viciously, as you have, when other Australians express their respect for these institutions.”

Sure looks like spray to me. Combine that with the apparent refusal to understand the difference between self-interest and public interest, the repeated use of “those of the left” stereotypes, and the insinuation that Webdiary is full of Jew-haters, and frankly, I think I did you a favour by passing over most of your post which you claim is “very calm and respectful, and shows a very close reading of Dee's ‘argument.’”

NK: “I would greatly appreciate being given some guidance so that I can improve the whole Webdiary experience for all.”

Genuine close reading so as to avoid misrepresentation and misunderstanding, interpreting things in their proper context, displaying less need to grab attention, and not operating double standards would all help. Examples of all of these faults can be found in the quotes above.

ed Hamish Alcorn: I am sad to announce that until Noelene a) calls me about some matters as I have requested (or gives me her phone number), and b) demonstrates that she is a real person, she is banned from Webdiary. My email requests for her to call have been answered with layers of abuse. At this time we are assuming that she is a fraud.

Now for more important matters....

This is both a recap of the possible effects of IR changes and an indication of possibly the way in which the Government will spin the ads it is going to load up the media with for at least the next three months.

In view of the ambiguity High Court decision described thus by Greg Combet:

"... But we do understand that it is a split decision of the court, but that a majority of the judges have decided that it's not appropriate for the High Court to decide whether or not the Government has lawfully appropriated taxpayers' funds to pay for the workplace relations advertising. So the court's really sidestepped the issue here."

I wouldn't mind some sort of legal forecast of what is actually in the High Court judgement, whether it will be handed down before Howard rushes the legislation through and what possible legal remedies could be pursued (e.g. an injunction).

Christ, I don't know how I managed to miss this car-crash for so long. I vote 'No' to banning Noelene.

ed Hamish: she's banned until she calls, and demonstrates she is a real person (or, as per Webdiary Ethics, gives a reason for using a pseudonym). That she has answered requests to do so with torrents of abuse seems to indicate she is fraudulent. It is a shame, yes.

Thanks Andy for defending the thrust of my post. I had come to the same conclusion as did Hamish some time back but it is not my place to say so on someone else's forum, therefore I decided on a policy of ignoring the said poster since a lot of his/her attention-seeking was designed to engage me specifically, but also several other female posters who might be variously classified as centre-left-progressive, since the thrust of the vitriol was also directed at them.

A good run, Terrance ? Many of my posts have been published, if that is what you mean. I've read that little phrase before and just shows that you people fundamentally misunderstand the nature of what is happening here. If I write something, I give something to you , not vice versa. If anything, I compromise myself by posting here. I did it because I respected what I thought you were trying to achieve here.

No, I'm not leaving because you've occasionally censored me. I couldn't give a damn about that and have never complained once about it. I'm leaving because you have decided to embrace mediocrity, for the sake of your own perpetuation. You're no longer entitled , to anything from me, because you've stepped over the line in what I think is basic decency, in the way you've handled one of your contributors here, who I'm quite certain was only trying to assist webdiary in what it pretends it wants to achieve. You can't encourage someone at one time, then cannibalise them later for doing what you wanted them to do. It's immoral and I'm leaving on principle.

GM David: to repeat the detail, Solomon, so it's all in one place. When we were trying to finalise the content of a proposed post by Noelene, she made some unfounded and incorrect allegations, and then refused to provide us with any contact details other than an e-mail. It has always been a rule here that we only publish pieces from people who supply a true name and contact number - in fact the same simple rule that the SMH applies to its letters column. She refused to do that, and over the next few hours provided a small torrent of unpublishable abusive comments which probably would have got her banned regardless of the other problems. I have reviewed all the interactions and believe that we did the right thing at each stage.

Ok, I've slept on it and I'm just as appalled by what I have read on this thread as I was when I went through it for the first time last night. Webdiary is policing its dogma in a way that I'm not comfortable with and wont ever be comfortable with. I've always spoken in favour of increased editorial control, so it would be hypocritical of me to back off from that now, but I don't think I can stay here anymore in good conscience. Rather than take my aggression out on other posters, as I inevitably will do, if I try and grit my teeth and stay, I'm going to retire from this place and wish you all well, down this road, which I refuse to follow.

I've never used a pseudonym here and put my name to everything I've written, because I believed it, and because I thought it was important to say. More than that I've given more of myself to Webdiary than I think anyone really wanted, or deserved, and I'm just, through with it.

Thank you, Jane , for your hard work and compassion. It's people like you that make a difference in this world. I've taken your advice on board and will dispense with my tone of world-weary cynicism and try to look for the good in the world and in people, rather than look for faults. Despite what you may have read of my posts recently, my instinct has always been to humanise and look for the good in people, but Webdiary, including Kingston, has tended to herd me back in to its dark little corner. I'm not going to allow that, anymore.

Terrence Ed.: Sorry to hear that Solomon. Judging from the many posts I have seen from you, you've had a good run. Maybe you can be specific about how you're being herded.

Farewell, my would-be Boswell.

How dry my handkerchief?

David, she's intemperate, that's all. Everyone here is aware of that and she was quite obviously provoked. I don't like this at all.

GM David: she believes herself to have been provoked, as can be seen from running around making the same completely unfounded allegation in other places. But it didn't happen except in her head.

Adieu Solomon

And thanks for all the fish...

"It's pay day"? What a snappy, upbeat bit of smoke that is. Is The Age on the IR sell publicity bandwagon?

Just in:

The IR changes: fistfuls of dollars revisited?

Hamish, Noelene’s torrents of abuse may indicate she is fraudulent, but they could also indicate she is offended that her authenticity is being doubted, and by what has been said to and about her.

ed Kerri: Hi Robyn, you’ll notice I have truncated your post. To keep this thread on the IR laws I have published your post in full in the more appropriate All things in moderation thread, with an editorial comment.

This won't do Solomon. I have become accustomed to your 'face'. Pweese considerrr :)