Childish storm in the Facebook teacup?

I think it doesn’t matter who writes what, or says what. Childish behaviour grabs the attention – Labor or Liberal, voters don’t like it, and for good reason.

On the other hand, is there any point in expecting statesperson-like behaviour as a matter of course from politicians? Parliamentary conduct is simply a reflection of changes in standards of public and private conduct across society. in a world where Paris Hilton is considered newsworthy, Clive James’ vision of the future is here. If people can be famous just for being famous, the notion of earning public respect by behaving in a responsible manner is meaningless.

Bread and circuses.

Having thought about this episode some more, I am a confused Furry Jesus.

If the issue is the quality of the comments, then as I recall, when Mr Hargreaves insulted Mr Coe in the Assembly because of his age, there was complete silence from Mr Stanhope and Ms Gallagher.

Do the rules now work so that if one of Mr Coe’s staff had made insulting remarks about Mr Hargreave’s age on Facebook, then that would be a serious offence that would require their sacking?

But that if insulting comments are made in the Assembly then that’s okay?

Or is the situation more specific than that?

Is it fine and acceptable to insult young people because of their age?

It might be that I am just getting confused here, but there does seem to be some inconsistency.

No wonder the Liberals went backwards in the last election despite the Stanhope govt being on the nose.

Steady Eddie, I suspect you’re logic is flawed. If the liberals went backwards then by definition the Labor party could not be on the nose. Under the ACT electoral system government is formed by the candidates who are most preferred by the electorate (a little wrangling with the loony greens aside).

Furry Jesus you are probably right.

I guess that if the comments were an incisive and reasoned critique of ALP health policy then there would be much less enthusiasm for drawing attention to them.

No wonder the Liberals went backwards in the last election despite the Stanhope govt being on the nose.

I’m sure the quality of the writing is a hidden factor in this. What if it had been at a standard equivalent to some of our better journalists instead of the ‘poo-poo you’re a wee-head’ standard he thought was so incredibly funny? we might be seeing a different story and perhaps no news at all.

You’re blonde and stupid and have a vagina and cooties so there and John Howard could kick your dad’s bottom he’s so dreamy.

Where’s my Liberal staffer pay cheque? Where’s my applause for upholding democracy?

I am concerned about what is starting to look like an ongoing witch hunt for people who make comments in public debate.

This could be a problem for politicians staffers but mostly because it might confuse the message rather than because it is in itself some outrageous heinous crime.

I think that Canberra needs robust debate and respect for the role of robust debate in a democracy.

That means respect for the right of people to say things that politicians don’t like being said. I think that citizens have a responsibility to say what they believe and to voice their concerns in a democracy. And that right must be respected by politicians, Otherwise demoacracies don’t work.

So, I think that Canberra needs people willing to speak out, and respect for that right to speak out, much more than it needs people who have been intimidated into shutting up.

And what do Stanhope and all the others involved in this saga think of Alfred Deakin?

According to Wikipedia, Alfred Deakin “wrote anonymous political commentaries for the London Morning Post even while he was prime minister”.

(I think Wikipedia is accurate on this. I think this is general knowledge for those who have had a passing interest in Australian history.)

Nevertheless, again according to Wikipedia, “Alfred Deakin was almost universally liked, admired and respected by his contemporaries”.

Does anyone think that any of the current players in this saga are in line to be accorded the same respect and standing in Australian history as Alfred Deakin.

Should Alfred Deakin have been rooted out and hung?

I think that if politicians don’t like what’s being said about them, then the best response is reasoned argument, or even better, obvious performance.

Nothing makes me shudder more than those two seemingly innocuous words “young” and “liberal” put together.

Any time there’s an outing of this sort of stupidity, there’s always the risk that it just gets people digging and digging for more.

And so it seems with coverage in CT today about anonymous postings on RA (possibly as alluded to by Jakez?). Staffers in Gary Humphries’ office this time it appears. His Chief of Staff Louise de Domenico has left “to pursue a career outside politics”, and Gary is vigorously claiming it had nothing to do with RA posts.

And that was always on the cards after Gary went hunting for the guy on Kate Lundy’s staff for writing (NOT anonymously) to CT Letters pages on matters political.

Gary has apparently thought since then to ask all his staff whether any of them have been posting on websites, and apparently was assured by all that they had NOT. Guess this is something only the RA overlords could confirm from RA’s perspective. But perhaps such a staff grilling would have been smarter to do before launching onto Lundy’s staff?