I’m not always in tune with the political zeitgeist, but my decision to run a post advocating a dignified resignation for Julia Gillard was made just ahead of the rush. Of course, the option of voluntarily stepping aside has now been foreclosed. When Gillard goes (I don’t think there’s a remaining question of “if”) it will be as a result the usual messy and unpleasant process of assembling a sufficient number of votes (not necessarily a majority) to render her position untenable.
Both because I don’t want to see any last-minute stuffups, I hope the carbon tax and mining tax legislation is passed before she goes. Certainly, whether or not she supported these measures, she did the hard yards to get them through.
On the question of her replacement, I had previously dismissed Rudd, on the basis that his abrasive personality and micro-management tendencies (not apparent in his public persona, but well-attested) would make him unacceptable to his colleagues. However, the High Court decision on asylum seekers changes all that. Rudd has more credibility on this issue than anyone else in the party. Labor has no choice but to revert to a more humane position and stress the point that the Court decision undermines Abbott as well as Gillard. It now seems highly unlikely that a policy based on long-term detention of people who have already been assessed as refugees can stand up, wherever they are held.
Stephen Smith seems like the natural choice for deputy, and it would be sensible to find a ministerial spot for Gillard, all of which would permit a reshuffle.
No one can tell for sure, but I think the return of Rudd would put the spotlight on Abbott’s total fraudulence, maybe even paving the way for the Rudd vs Turnbull election we should have had last time.
John Quiggin 
Fran – if this was purely tribal then we would not see the carbon tax (or carbon price) being so opposed in the polls. And we would not have seen it shifting support from the ALP to the coalition. Nor would we have seen the primary vote of the ALP go down like a lead balloon. You may be right in suggesting they should tough it out on this policy but if so they should tough it out with Gillard. Dumping Gillard without dumping the policy would be daft. If they dump Gillard it has to be because they are changing direction. If they dump Gillard but keep all the same policy settings then the dumping has no credibility and nor does the new leader. Not that this one has a lot left anyway.
I was disappointed to see Prof. Q buying into the “Gillard’s gone” meme. I really thought he’d know better.
This was started (if memory serves) a few weeks ago by Christopher Pearson suggesting Simon Crean as Gillard’s replacement. Since then we’ve been through various other alternatives, and now we’ve come full circle (I hope): http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/gillards-a-goner-shortens-still-bloody-stand-up-simon-crean-20110904-1js5s.html
As they used to say of Wagner’s operas, “it isn’t over until the fat lady sings”. Now she’s sung; please let this be over.
@Mr. Eyesore
Vanstone is no lady.
I thought it wasn’t over until the shadow treasurer sings?
Having read today’s take on the refugee arrival by boat problem, I am more firmly of the opinion that the ALP need to initiate a test case for/against Nauru or any other off-shore processing – if they don’t do that, the coalition will hammer the line that the Nauru solution works (based on getting away with it under Howard’s Liberal government) and they will omit the bit about whether it is legal or not. If a test case is passed through to the High Court, and if it is rejected as unlawful, then that slams the door shut on the Abbott Nauru solution. On the other hand, if Nauru is deemed lawful, the ALP take it on the chin and implement it. This is political strategy without taking the morality of the stance into account.
To take the moral stance at this late stage, the ALP need to try a “reboot”, whereby they state they are honouring international and humanitarian obligations by treating all asylum seekers onshore, etc etc. The greatest danger for the ALP is that if they don’t make a line-in-the-sand stand and soon, the opposition will be able to shove the “Nauru solution” as front and centre of an election campaign. How come in 2011, the 21st Century, we cannot treat refugees humanely and fairly, as also required under our (willingly agreed to) international obligations?
The ALP were voted in on policy pledges yet appear to have failed miserably in executing them. The high court has dealt Gillard a killer blow as she should have known better, immigration was once her portfolio. No good blaming Murdoch, the ALP are kicking most of their own goals.
@rog
The ALP was NOT voted in on policy pledges.
A coalition government was voted in with various and conflicting policy pledges.
Of course the ALP is kicking goals; the Liberals and fellow travellers are just throwing tantrums on the sidelines.
Well OK, Rudd was voted in on policy and Gillard was given a second chance.
@rog
I don’t think Rudd was voted in either based on policy or based on himself. The ALP vote seems less boosted by the Kevin07 madness than it was by a huge, long-running, trade union funded right-to-work campaign including very effective and hard-hitting TV political adds.
Rudd then ignored union interests, kept the ABCC, and his government played silly-buggers, with the minimum wage deficit left-over from Harper.
Unions had no real interest in an ALP campaign at the last election and the ALP vote plummeted, so the ALP lost government. The replacement regime is indescribable.
The ALP was not given a second chance – it was deserted, but saved government nominally only by splits in the right – Oakeshot plus Windsor.
Nonetheless the ALP has bravely faced-off huge media storms over; super profits tax, pokies controls, climate change and refugees. All these benefit Australians and prepare society, industry and the economy for the future.
Rudd was an opportunist of the first order – Gillard is an opportunist of the second order, and Abbott has been rightly described by Hewson on ABC Radio, as a ‘mongrel’.
Great piece on this topic:
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Gillard-government-asylum-seekers-High-Court-Austr-pd20110905-LDRQZ?OpenDocument&src=sph&src=rot
@Sam
World population growth rate is still 1.2% p.a. At this rate, the population would still double in 60 years. Perhaps more appropriate is consideration of projected population for 2050. This will be 8.9 billion according to the U.N. Considering that all credible ecological footprint calculations show we are in overshoot now (and have been so since about 1980) this is very concerning.
I predict that there will be no change in ALP leadership over the next twelve months, give or take a month or so. At least until the faceless men have had a look at party and leadership polls in the wash-up after implementation of the Carbon Tax. This has been more or less my prediction over the past six months, since the Gillard-ALP started to get antsy, since Abbott-LNP started to make solid inroads into the ALP’s primary vote.
@TerjeP
The heavy lifting in the propaganda war is purely tribal and centred around the Murdochracy as an organising point. This sucks all of the metaphoric oxygen from the room and replaces it with the dank and malodorous air of an open sewer. Most people find it repulsive and of course, they blame the government rather than the media or their mannequins in the LNP. If the Murdochracy were not campaigning for regime change, it’s hard to imagine the LNP would even be in the contest. Then again, if the ALP had been politically competent from 2007 onwards, the Murdochracy‘s campaign would at best be worth a couple of points to the LNP and maybe not even that.
I think dumping either would be daft, but if you force me to say which is the more daft, I’d say dumping the policy would be. They might dump Gillard in order to enact more robust “core values” policies (though not necessarily in carbon pricing).
@Ikonoclast
That’s the point though; “at this rate” is misleading, because the rate is declining and expected to continue to decline. So our population won’t double. In fact, by 2040 the world will be down to replacement fertility. I certainly agree global population is a problem, but fertility data does give us some cause for hope. Also, the decline is happening in the highest resource-consuming areas, which is the best possible outcome from a total consumption point of view.
It means non-catastrophists (like me) only have to be moderate techno-optimists, rather than extreme ones.
For what it’s worth, I think Kevin Rudd’s support for a Big Australia (among other things) makes him rightly unpalatable to the Australian public. Though notionally a state issue, cost of living pressures are a big part of the federal government’s present unpopularity, and these pressures are due almost entirely to population growth (which is at least partly under their control). Even the least politically aware person instinctively knows this to be true, and they react with anger when told otherwise. This is especially so when it is those who represent the owners of scarce natural resources (who stand to benefit greatly from these cost pressures) doing the telling.
I think Malcolm Turnbull has the same fundamental problem; he is identified even more strongly with the plutocrats who have a clear interest in making (for instance) housing unaffordable to the majority.
If Gillard wanted to do something really brave on her way out, she could turn off the mini-baby boom by getting rid of this disastrous baby bonus.
Also for what it’s worth, I think a lot of the public’s anger is because of the carbon tax, but that dumping it would make things even worse. It would paint Labor as a party that doesn’t stand for anything (more so). There simply aren’t any good options for them politically, so they may as well do what’s right. Hopefully next time they won’t run such a deceitful election campaign.
@sam
You are deliberately being deceitful.
You know that the ALP campaign was based on there being an ALP government.
You know there is not.
You also know that Parliament decides what legislation is rolled-out.
You also know that the Greens, plus rightwing independents, control policy, which forces changes compared to pre-election campaigns.
Hopefully from now on you will stop propagating such nefarious disinformation.
I haven’t been able to understand how anyone can claim that Gillard was ‘lying’ when she said, prior to the election, that her government wouldn’t bringing in a carbon tax. Clearly, at that point in time she had no intention of bringing in a carbon tax, and has only agreed subsequently to a carbon tax transition to an ETS because it has been forced on her minority government.
As for Abbott, surely its been lie after lie, and by his own admission to only believe him if you get it in writing.
Gillards response to asylum seekers is neither ALP nor Greens policy, it is the Lib/Nat coalition.
She has wasted an awful lot of time and energy on this issue, trying to play politics.
@Chris Warren
There’s a lot of tribal pro-Labor defensiveness here. First, I’m not being deliberately deceitful, this is what I really think. You could say at most that I’m being foolish.
Gillard said “There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.” She currently leads a government that is trying to introduce a carbon tax. Ergo (assuming she gets her way) she did not tell the truth. she didn’t have to institute the tax because she could have refused the Greens agenda, and lost government. Her pre-election remarks could not have been more clear. They were intended to dispel any doubt in people’s minds that she was every bit the do-nothing, populist, focus-group focused, western-Sydney appeasing, middle-class welfare pursuing, labor reactionary we’ve come to expect in this country. The entire 2010 campaign consisted of two leaders trying to outdo each other in principled mediocrity. Gillard was trying to signal to the contemptible Australian swinging voter that she would always indulge their economically illiterate short term fears, and that she would die before doing anything remotely progressive, even by accident.
As it turns out, she is not committed *in principle* to being a terrible prime minister, and that if doing the right thing happened to coincide with staying in power, the right thing could be accommodated.
I’m very glad she is trying to institute the carbon tax, I think it’s one of the best pieces of public policy in the history of this country. As a green voter, I’m proud of the fact that I indirectly forced Gillard to change her do-nothing, populist tact.
None of this changes the fact that she reneged on her commitment to the odious and stupid swinging voter to be a deliberately terrible prime-minister. She promised she would be, but she hasn’t been. With pokies reform, the carbon tax, plain packaging, the NBN and so on, she’s actually been trying to do some good in power. The cretins in western Sydney are right to feel aggrieved. She campaigned as an indulger of childish fears and fantasies, she’s governing as a grown-up. The bawling, ignorant children have thus been betrayed. If she was genuinely committed to her stupid promises, she should have refused consultation with the greens, and accepted the loss of the election.
The real lesson for Labor in all this mess though, is that placating stupid people in an election campaign is actually a terrible long term strategy. Figure out what you believe, sell that to the people, and if you win, try to do some good.
@rog
Your playing politics is sickening.
The Government’s response to the new situation w.r.t. the (relatively wealthier) asylum seekers will emerge from a Cabinet discussion. Gillard’s response is the response of the Government. It will probably reflect a range of possible options developed by various departmental and ministerial staff.
You have wasted more time and energy than anyone else.
@Sam
Please stop this dishonesty.
Why did you not give the source of your Gillard quote … “There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.”
Obviously because such honesty would have included the date, and context of the statement.
You are now playing silly games by using the quote after the context is no longer appropriate. This is arrant dishonesty.
And you know it, because you were conscious enough to include the word “currently” when you instituted the subsequent attack on Gillard, because you knew the context HAD changed but you still wanted to use outdated material.
You obviously know the so-called current context and ‘government’ is different to the context and ‘government’ Gillard’s quote referred to.
@Sam
Stipulated: Not a carbon tax
That out of the way … I’d agree with the thrust of Sam’s remarks. I don’t agree she lied though, at least on this. I strongly believe she thought the ALP would win government in their own right, or that they’d lose and her promise wouldn’t be tested. Her promise can be criticised as being inadequately specified. She should have inserted the word majority before government. Events changed when the ALP failed to win in their own right, meaning that the promise was now dependent on other actors supporting it.
She might have course have declined to lead such a coalition and it’s likely that in such circumstances, that Abbott would have sought a new election on much the same grounds. That would jhave been irresponsible though as there was a clear mandate for an explicit price on carbon, and the parties supporting her were willing to support her preferred model — a cap and trade scheme, which has now been specified and will soon, one assumes, become law. Elections are expensive and even the protracted negotiations caused considerable angst. It is the duty of parties to make an honest attempt to respect the will of the voters by forming a viable executive, based on the composition of the parliament, and the new senate had not even had a chance to be seated. She did that and as we can see, the executive was viable. Nobody has had to resign from the ministry. Some 188 pieces of legisaltion have passed — more than in comparable periods of time this last ten years. The budget passed more quickly than the last Rudd budget. Even now, the Independents are continuing to support the executive as competent and clean. With hindsight, the decision was the right one.
Fran:
“That out of the way … I’d agree with the thrust of Sam’s remarks. I don’t agree she lied though, at least on this. I strongly believe she thought the ALP would win government in their own right, or that they’d lose and her promise wouldn’t be tested. Her promise can be criticised as being inadequately specified. She should have inserted the word majority before government.”
Except that she was never going to mention the possibility of a minority government during the election campaign, let alone fly kites about what Labor might feel obliged to do under those circumstances.
@Paul Norton
Except that she was never going to mention the possibility of a minority government during the election campaign, let alone fly kites about what Labor might feel obliged to do under those circumstances.
By an odd coincidence, I’ve just posted the following over at LP:
I agree that if it had entered her head, she’d have had a strong reason not to start sharing her “what ifs?” in public. There’d have been nothing but downside in that for her. That’s not to say that she took the prospect seriously though, or that Abbott, for his part, would have been keen on canvassing his options prior to August 21 2010. “I’m not going to speculate on hypotheticals” would have been the answer for both if those questions had been put.
@Chris Warren
I told you, I’m not being deliberately dishonest; the quote WAS placed in context to the best of my understanding. My caveats were deliberately placed to avoid obfuscation. You can disagree with me, you can think my analysis is way off. You can even say I know nothing about politics. But don’t say I’m being dishonest, this is what I really think.
To sum up;
Gillard promised stupid people she would be bad no matter what. She is now not being bad. She wasn’t forced to not be bad. She could have said to the smart people “I’m still going to be bad, so either support the even *badder* guy, or live with my badness.” This all means she lied to the stupid people. Given what she said to them, I’m glad it was a lie. Given how much everyone hates her for lying though, it would be better if her friends in the future just didn’t promise stupid people they would be bad.
By the way Fran, I’m thinking of doing what Alan Jones wants, and calling it a “carbon dioxide tax,” as though that distinction lays bare some important deceit. Whatever it’s called, it’s a really great idea.
Gillard promised: ‘There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead. What we will do is we will tackle the challenge of climate change.’ The date was 17 August 2010.
It was an exceedingly stupid thing to promise and there was no qualification about an ALP majority government. ‘the government I lead’ in fact any suggests any government not just a majority government.
The carbon tax is good policy, but the stupidity of the promise and the ease with which it was dumped after the election are good explanations for Labor’s primary vote falling to unprecedented historical levels.
The allegation that Gillard opposed proceeding with the Rudd ETS before she removed him from power is also one that needs answering.
@sam
There has been so much information posted that there is no way anyone could honestly claim that they used the Gillard quote “to the best of (their) understanding”. You deliberately propagated a misunderstanding.
You knew what the real understanding was, but deliberately ignored it when convenient, but indicated an awareness of it when you used the term “currently”.
Your statement “I am not being deliberately dishonest” conflicts with the evidence.
@Alan
Thanks for your 20/20 hindsight. You forgot to mention that this was before the election (21 August).
All commitments whether in politics or commerce, in like in general, are always made subject to forces beyond a person’s control.
Wilkie, Oakeshot, Windsor are forces beyond the ALP’s control.
My daughters and i often discuss the concept of “to lie” – to tell untruths
they are very keen on discussing this subject as you might well imagine if you have ever studied anything about the nature of humans (like sociology 101 level and beyond)
it always amuses me just how well developed the human mind is when dealing with dishonesty – go google “Wason Selection task” or read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wason_selection_task
so with the girls we might have a discussion along the lines of
what is the moral and ethical differences between lying knowing you are lying and making promises you know that are conditional on factors beyond your control – but not making that condition clear when making the promise
the examples they came up with were typically
1. you promised to take us to the movies but then did not and gave as an excuse that we had no money left after we’d been to been to Luna Park
2. you told us that you you had put aside money for the movies – no matter what else we were to do that day – only for us to discover that you had not done so
in the first case the girls agreed that even though they felt that i had let them down – it was not so much a lie as the consequences of events
in the second case they agreed i would be a liar
Now if i then changed the situation:
1. you promised you would not cut our allowance NO MATTER WHAT
in this situation – no matter what excuse i might come up with they thought i would be a liar because i had promised something and they had based their commitments on it
in all, we generally agree that a liar is someone who tells someone something knowing that what they are telling is false
and a scumbag sycophantic politician is someone who will promise anything at all to get into power
and then plead a change in conditions for whatever promise is broken
therefore the rule is simple – do not vote for politicians on what they promise – but on what they are likely to do based on who they serve
and first and foremost politicians serve themselves – by following the best of all available choices that lead to the rewards they believe they will get – whatever the nature of reward as that is often specific to the individual
pop
@Chris Warren
Looks like I messed up on ALP asylum policy 2010; it was to close Nauru only. Somewhere it is being reported that ALP policy was to make all processing onshore. It was the Greens who would abolish all detention of asylum seekers.
@The Peak Oil Poet
If you think “NO MATTER WHAT” was stated or is somehow relevant to Gillard’s pre-electoin statement, then you are completely lost and confused.
You are making stuff up.
In this case you will find the “scumbag sycophantic” behind the mirror in your bathroom.
@Chris Warren
No-one’s ever claimed that the promise was made after the election or that the election date was not after the promise. If we have to qualify every comment against all possible interpretations then comment threads are going tog et very long indeed.
The promise was made. There was no qualification about an ALP majority government even though the prospect of a hung parliament was by then widely discussed in the media and elsewhere. Trying to make the promise disappear or to cite invisible qualifications to it just demonstrates why the ALP is in such very deep doodoo.
For the record when I comment on this thread I am not claiming that Julia Gillard is being mind-controlled by the evil Grey space aliens from Zeta Reticuli.
@Alan
But isn’t that the basis of all your wingeing about Gillard’s pre-election statement.
If not what is?
Why does Gillard have to qualify every media comment against all possible future interpretations and exigencies ???
Hypocrites have one rule for themselves, and another for others.
At the risk of inflaming others, Gillard did say that there would be no carbon tax under a government that she led. Nothing about being ALP govt. This has been played over and over again to the detriment of the govt and it’s policy.
@Alan
Gillard unveils climate policy
Note date: July 23, 2010
There’s also this interview with Paul Kelly on 20/8/10:
On October 19 2009, Abbot made clear that he knew the difference between a carbon tax and the CPRS that Rudd proposed, saying:
She certainly failed her promise to introduce a citizen’s assembly and the timeline has been brought forward, but the substantive policy — a market based mechanism similar to the CPRS, has been delivered. This also had a (somewhat shorter) fixed price permit phase. Those paying attention ought to have known that if that, for them, amounted to “a carbon tax” then this was what she was proposing. There was no deceit here.
People voted to give the independents and Bandt, half of whom supported a price on CO2e, legislative influence. Bandt got LNP preferences in Melbourne. They also voted strongly for The Greens in the Senate. Overall, people giving 1st preferences to those supporting the Gillard government in the HoR exceeded those supporting Abbott by more than 500,000 votes. They won the 2PP (just). They commanded a majority. By any reasonable test there was a mandate for these policies.
In fact, it was Abbott who lied before the election saying that Gillard, supported by The Greens will introduce a Great Big New Tax on everything. He had reason to know that was not the case but thought this claim would damage the ALP. The conclusion is urged that those who believed him and objected surely voted for the LNP. Those who disbelieved him were entitled to do so and have not, by Abbott’s definition any business for grievance. Multiple lines of estoppel apply. No such tax has been introduced and no Abbott-defined carbon tax has ensued.
One might say that those who believed him and thought a great big new tax on everything was a good idea could be disappointed but that’s not Gillard’s fault. She never promised it.
Finally, it might be that there are some who somehow missed the LNP ads but one suspects these would also have missed those of the ALP and have not been across Gillard’s claims about the carbon tax and thus didn’t rely on it. Retrospectivity doesn’t apply to mandate giving.
@Chris Warren
I stand by what I wrote. I actually don’t know on what basis you are attacking me. Nothing you’ve said so far indicates to me that I was misrepresenting the situation. What do you say I’m being dishonest about? How am I being unfair to Gillard? How am I taking a quote out of context? I don’t believe any of these things are true. I also don’t believe what I’ve said merits the kind of aggression you’re displaying.
@sam
Dishonesty – “…a deceitful election campaign.”
Out of Context – “you knew the context HAD changed but you still wanted to use outdated material.”
Deliberate ignorance – “What do you say I’m being dishonest about? ”
Slow learning – “I actually don’t know on what basis you are attacking me”.
You are a troll.
Does anyone else think Chris Warren is being unreasonably abusive?
Usual trickery.
If you look at the date and context of her statement – it is a reasonable assumption that she was speaking about the prospective government she was working towards.
I leave it to you to try and work out the name of that then-hoped-for future government (which later did not eventuate).
:->sam
“Does anyone else think Chris Warren is being unreasonably abusive?”
does that mean you are going to tell the teachers?
really, if anyone gets upset about what appears on blog comments the only thing i can suggest is “get a life”
pop
When we are one the world will be a better place to live
there will be less unhappiness, more love around to give
more happy smiling faces will be seen about the land
and as time flies there will be more who simply understand
http://thepeakoilpoet.blogspot.com/2011/07/because-of-you-and-me.html
@The Peak Oil Poet
“does that mean you are going to tell the teachers?”
No, but I’d like it if we found some way of censuring anti-social behaviour. Ideally, this would come about by collective consensus without a central authority. We would simply agree that certain comments aren’t helpful, and oblige the infringer to pay some conversational cost.
I’m asking members of the forum if they agree Chris Warren is currently such an infringer, that he’s trying to shout down those who disagree with him, that he’s stifling debate. If the general feeling is that he is, we could politely ask him to stop.
I thought that ‘worst government ever’ and ‘incompetence’ were Abbott-Murdoch speak but now the ABC is joining in http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-31/crabb-high-court-climax-to-a-tale-of-rambling-incompetence/2864462
My question is this; why when Obama’s health plan met with setbacks in the US courts wasn’t it described as ‘incompetence’? Rugged Aussies seem to be getting a bit precious these days.
>>—->sam
correct me if i am wrong but wouldn’t the easy easy way to be just to ignore him?
pop
i seek a refuge of the mind
a haven of the soul
that place where standing i can rest
or sit in peace
there are no easy places
there seems no hidden parks
no solace in reason
no rest from who i am
but here and there an island
elusive
calls with salted tang of green and lush
and i am called to stroke
verdant green and coolness high
promise of clean and flowing crystal sounds of light
that break in splendor on harsh rocks
made luring, livid – splash of freedom
where others dwell in soft acceptance
there i go
and who will be there i don’t know
enormous clouds make play of my mind
perhaps you know
http://thepeakoilpoet.blogspot.com/2011/07/maim-chaim.html
@The Peak Oil Poet
I would if I thought Chris Warren’s comments were always valueless, but I’ve usually found him to be quite thought provoking. In this case we disagree on a quite minor political question, and I’ve been surprised to see such intense vitriol.
@sam
Crocodile tears do not impress folks much.
Your task is to review your claim – not look for diversions.
@Chris Warren CW, you only have to look at Frans post above
I rule out a carbon tax.” (The Australian, 20/8/10)
))))=====>Chis
reading back through your posts i’m wondering just what your motives are
you seem to purposefully misread peoples words – in such a way as to assume that you are dealing with very clever and very assiduous duelers
not that i give a hoot – but i do see that you made assumptions about my own posts which were in fact not implicit and certainly not explicit – as you would rightfully know if you did a little background checking (something you seem keen to assume others are doing and then attack when they show they are not up to your standards)
the only things i can think of to explain what is happening are along the lines of
1. you are indeed a troll working on behalf of some group – appointed or self appointed who can say or
2. you are high on something like crystal meth or have been drinking – hard to say what
3. you are just a nasty creep
anyway if you can supply a better set of options…..
pop
come to me oh Irish and do what you do well
i’ve hunger for your amber ways and with you i would dwell
i’ve many reasons good and bad with you to share some time
and you have never let me down but that’s true of your kind
so come and make me what i’d be and let me pain forget
and we will up and down a spell – you’ll be my best friend yet
i’ve never known the likes of you to fall below the mark
though emptiness between us both has drowned my vital spark
your heavy crystal friendship often finds me at my best
or worst maybe but that’s just half and you provide the rest
i guess that’s why i’ve loved your ways each time we’ve done our dance
there’s nothing that looks quite as good as that which you enhance
so let us do our best to make an effort to forget
and drown our troubled souls with what with you i always get
and so it seems my life will be as well it might or stop
but you my friend will always be, upon my shealth, the top
http://thepeakoilpoet.blogspot.com/2011/07/come-to-me-oh-irish.html
I agree with quite a lot of what Chris Warren is saying, but I also consider he is saying it with more vitriol than is necessary, and with not enough consideration of the arguments that Sam is putting. It is unfortunately the nature too often of electronic discourse, and a number of psychologists consider the evidence is that face-to-face will always generate more cooperative behaviour than electronic interaction. A pity, but I think its the way us humans are.
You can argue about the time and the place but the fact is that the horse has bolted on this one.