One Line: responses to the Gillard minority government

Single sentences that struck me forcefully over the last few days:

Pondering new paradigms

Annabel Crabb:

In this environment, in this glut of disagreement, perhaps we in the media can wean ourselves off the quick headline, and MPs can free themselves of the fear of speaking plainly.

The Piping Shrike:

Consensus is not about the major parties coming together, but the independents choosing which policies of either party they want.

PM Julia Gillard:

Our challenge is to get out a clear agenda of what we stand for – not be worried about each day’s 6 o’clock news

Cautiously critical

Michelle Grattan:

Gillard will have to be sure that caucus members (the Labor family) don’t come to feel they get less attention than the PM’s new-found friends.

Peter Hartcher:

By calling the Gillard government illegitimate, [the Coalition] was attacking not its political rivals but the framework itself.

Peter Beattie:

The central weakness of our political system is that there are no electoral rewards for long-term planning and policy.

Spitting bile

Anita Quigley:

For all this talk of sunshine and beautiful politics, [Rob Oakeshott] would be better suited behind the lectern as a pastor at a group-hugging happy-clappy church.

The Australian (editorial):

We believe [Senator Brown] and his Green colleagues are hypocrites; that they are bad for the nation; and that they should be destroyed at the ballot box.

Bob Ellis:

The independents, by discussing things of real concern (like how the rural half live and what we do with our water) and restoring the old Athenian practise of thoughtful public discussion of things on the public mind have shown how wrong, how crashingly wrong has been the prevailing technique of whatever-it-takes and winning-the-24-hour-news-cycle and parroting-the-focus-group and dumbing-down-our-future-expectations and returning-to-surplus-by-2013-whatever-the-cost-to-our-civilisation, and she is the old-fashioned epitome of all that is wrong with media-tortured politics (as Faulkner, Debus, Turnbull, Tanner, Swan, Brown, Stott Despoja, Xenophon, Wilkie, McKew and, oh yes, Beazley, Hawke and Whitlam never were) and she really shouldn’t be there.

UPDATE: Amber Johnson at Crikey has a thorough round-up of responses to the ministry announcements.

FURTHER UPDATE:  Two sentences from Tim Dunlop, critiquing Tony Wright’s weekend piece (defending the press gallery from the criticisms of Grog’s Gamut).

Sure, politicians want to hide from close scrutiny, and journalism is about holding them to account regardless. But politicians are also hiding from bad, dishonest, ideological, intellectually lazy and petty journalism too.



Categories: media, Politics

Tags: ,

11 replies

  1. How ingenious of Ellis to find a way to contort his own ideology so as to damn a Labor government the minute it happens to have a woman leading it.

  2. Indeed yes, and that he managed to marshal so many commas, portmanteaus and parentheses to get all that out before reluctantly pulling out a period.

  3. Woah. The Australian certainly doesn’t pull any punches, does it? “[T]they should be destroyed at the ballot box?”
    Ellis is typically unreadable. I read that sentence three times, and I’m still not sure what’s trying to say, except that he doesn’t like Gillard.

  4. Peter Beattie seems to have missed the success that The Greens had this election. It might take longer to get them, but there are eventually rewards for long-term planning and policy.

  5. Two sentences from Tim Dunlop, critiquing Tony Wright’s weekend piece (defending the press gallery from the criticisms of Grog’s Gamut).

    Sure, politicians want to hide from close scrutiny, and journalism is about holding them to account regardless. But politicians are also hiding from bad, dishonest, ideological, intellectually lazy and petty journalism too.

  6. Am I right in seeing the ex-Status of Women portfolio of Tanya Plibersek and the department known as the Office for Women as now being integrated into Kate Ellis’ portfolio of “Childcare”?
    If so, who decided that, Tony Abbott?
    If its [OfW] not in “Childcare”, where is it?

  7. Kate Ellis has a separate portfolio as the “Minister advising the Prime Minister on the Status of Women”, so I presume it will be part of that portfolio?

  8. Righto tigtog, I missed that addition and that seems OK.
    I just came from LP where I asked the same question which you have answered here.
    Still not happy with ‘women’ only being in the outer ministry tho’.

  9. Fascinating round-up of sentences.

%d bloggers like this: