Kev invites the wingnut to this debate at the press club.
The wingnut distainfully refuses to attend.
• What use, in even this pretend democracy, is a politician who doesn’t admit his agenda?
• Why doesn’t he want to admit his agenda?
• Does he think, or has he been advised, that admitting his agenda will drive his ‘popularity’ into negative figures?
• Most importantly – what IS it about – an Australian politician knocking back a feed and pissup?
Anyway he didn’t attend the shindig even after all those gracious invitations.
So Kev gave a speech about what is needed to improve the national destiny - the 'social contract'.
Okay; he’s been PM again for only a few days.
Before that, as we all know he’s been stabbed in the back, kicked in the guts and sent to Coventry for the last couple of years.
Yet despite that the press can only mumble something about his speech ‘lacking substance’.
A million comments could be made about that from as many angles – however the first that comes to mind is what little of his speech I managed to hear on the stupid radio news contained one hell of a lot more substance than I’ve heard from the opposition in years.
‘Actions speak louder than words’ – or so it is said.
It is also a principle at law that an act of omission that causes detriment is nonetheless deemed to be a detrimental act.
It may be that Abbott’s act of omission will be detrimental – an act of self-harm equally as detrimental to his perceived popularity as whenever he opens his mouth and spouts some more of the same from that ‘artesian basin’ of negativity of his.