"Latham's emphasis on self-determination in foreign policy may yet prove to be a vote-winner."

John Kerry went on record opposing the Spanish pullout from Iraq. If Latham loses and Kerry wins will Howard will be accused (indirectly or otherwise) of following orders from John Kerry? If Latham and Kerry both win and Latham keeps troops in Iraq, will he be accused (indirectly or otherwise) of following orders from John Kerry?

I'm just trying to figure out how much of this is about Iraq, how much of this is about America, and how much of this is about Bush. Maybe we'll find out.

It should be interesting to see how willing the Austrailians are to buy plastic turkey stories this election. I suspect that the detachment from reality of the press, like the Sidney Morning Herald, is going to play less well this season due to the pervasiveness of the Internet in Australia.

Of course, I could just be whistling in the dark and hoping that character will matter in Australia this election.

Actually, it's about the impact on the Australian political scene in an election year, given how much our current government has tied up its political capital in marching lock-step with Bush once he set his sights on Iraq.

Latham is a relatively new leader for the Labor Party, and he's carefully marking out alternative positions on issues like Iraq, given an electorate that is still pretty conflicted about our ongoing involvement in the messy occupation. And Bush is very very clearly trying to put pressure on a member of the fragile coalition whose government may well change hands.

As for Patrick's intervention, well, that's just Patrick being Patrick and will be taken as seriously as Patrick deserves to be taken on the basis of his track record.

Millions of people protested and no one listened. Elections are here and people are getting even for being ignored, it wouldn't surprise me if Blair, Howard and Bush all lose their leadership positions. I think more countries should stop being 'yes men' to the USA. We will have to wait and see. What is the status with elections in the UK?

wow, sinisterbhvr and i are starting to agree all over the place..................

now i'm scared.

Who cares about Australia? As an ally they have certain propaganda value, but in reality they are less of a world power than the state of California.

Also, their wine sucks.

Just to add some context -- the relationship between politicians and public servants in Australia derives from the "Westminster system" of independent public servants (not political appointees as in the US) serving the government of the day "impartially".

(Since Patrick likes to bring his father into these discussions, full disclosure is warranted: my father has been a very senior public servant over a number of years, when he hasn't been an academic, and he's served various ministers from different parties in the course of his career. He's been friendly with politicians across the spectrum, despite having definite views of his own.)

The Westminster system brings with it the doctrine of "ministerial responsibility" which is kind of the political equivalent of the legal doctrine of ignorance being no excuse. Ministerial responsibility says that if a politician misleads the public, it does not matter whether or not they knew they were misleading the public. Ignorance is no excuse. The minister must take responsibility for being incorrect/untruthful and resign.

As long as this is understood and adhered to, it provides the minister with a strong incentive to stay well informed. Their job depends on it.

This has, effectively, now been abandoned. Here's how Margo Kingston describes it.

Kingston makes the point forcefully that the old Westminster tradition no longer applies. Someone's head will roll, but it won't be the politician's in question. It might be the senior public servant (like Chris Barrie, in the "children overboard" case), or they might get sheltered (like Ric Smith and Peter Cosgrove in the latest instance) and it'll be someone further down the line who'll fall on their sword.

What matters is the effect this has. Now, public servants know not to pass on awkward information to their political masters. They keep it to themselves to give the politicians "plausible deniability". The rules of the game have changed.

You think we send the good stuff to you?

You're even dumber than I thought.

Yeah, the best wine i ever had was from this place in Tasmania called Freycinet Valley. Damn good stuff and i'd give anything for a bottle of it...well most anything that is.

Funny thing about Australia though. While there i never met one person who had anything good to say about John Howard. Most comments were along the lines of him being a "cockhead," "dickface," or "cunt."

So how'd he win re-election?

Good damn question. I'd struggle to find many people I personally know who admire him, let alone even vote for him.

But we had a crucial election in the second half of 2001. Polls were close, then in the month before the polling date, something happened. A ship called the Tampa picked up survivors afloat from the wreck of a small boat smuggling refugees from Indonesia (many of whom had arrived there from the Middle East).

The Howard government immediately ordered the Navy to prevent the boat from landing in Australia, because if that happened the refugees would be protected and able to apply for permanent entry. Howard's stance was taken as "strong" -- he talked over and over about "border security", and being able to determine who would and would not be able to enter the country.

And then, September 11 happened, and Howard rode into victory on the basis of national security. He's ridden that wave ever since, which is the context Bush's comments need to be understood in.

Hahahaha, then for a Californian you know fuck all about wine. There are some damn fine Californian wines but usually the expensive ones. Fantastic wines in Australia come from all price brackets. I'd go as far as to say that the Australians have outclassed the French except for at the very top of the scale.

Ummm... that was a bit off topic wasn't it...

Blair might not even survive till the next election. They haven't been scheduled yet anyway.

i like your shiraz

it's like me.......bold and peppery yet slightly fruity...........

Well, as I write this, Dubya has been in Paris the past two days, trying as best he can to smooth things over so France will at least drop opposition to a UN resolution recognizing the new Iraqi government, and, at best, kick in some aid to the effort. If Dubya has turned around to the degree that his administration is thinking you just can't insult governments opposed to the war anymore, then losing a leader who actually did aid you is a Very Bad Thing.

Sometimes Australian wines can be a little bit " jammy", but there are some fabulous choices at reasonable prices. All in all, I would suggest that they provide much better value for the $ than California Cab's or French Bordeaux.

I suggest:

Chateau Reynella Shiraz
McLaren Vale - Basket Pressed

Jim Barry Shiraz
The McRae Wood

There is a fair amount of plonk on the market, but there are lots of world class wines - some of which the Aussies actually cough up for export. the web site link provided by jake_lex above provides some good suggestions.


[Edited on Jun 06, 2004 by Pauillac]