Tony Abbott

[j.a.]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> To be fair, I don't think the government is

> reallty on the hook for trying to confuse the

> public on this one. What should have been a

> relatively low profile advisory board appointment

Nothing concerning Brexit is low profile any more!

> has turned into a massive hoopla the past week,

> driven by the media latching on to his potential

> appointment, and then getting hysterical about his

> 'homophobic' and 'misogynistic' views

To be fair, those are views you yourself felt you had to distance yourself from at the top of this thread, so I think you can agree they were always going to be part of the conversation.

(Matt

> Hancock didn't go on to sky to talk about Tony

> Abbott, the sky news reporter just cornered him

> with a bit of sensationalist questioning)...so if

> anyone has conflated anything is the broader press

> I'd say....

If Hancock didn?t think he was going to get asked then he?s an idiot. Oh, wait....

The whole thing is typical of Johnson?s governance, where they don?t think through the whole detail of an issue, and are then surprised when they don?t entirely control it. Witness the multiple u-turns over Covid, for example.

Look, the points Effra makes are good ones - Abbott may well have a broad strategic view that can benefit us, certainly we need more brains where trade is concerned; only time will tell I guess. However, like so much else, the govt has been caught out again with the message.

[TheCat]

j.a. Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> To be fair, those are views you yourself felt you

> had to distance yourself from at the top of this

> thread, so I think you can agree they were always

> going to be part of the conversation.

>

Can't agree that they really should be part of the conversation. Perhaps always likely someone would mention, but my whole point at the start of the thread is that they really shouldnt be relevant.

>

> The whole thing is typical of Johnson?s

> governance, where they don?t think through the

> whole detail of an issue, and are then surprised

> when they don?t entirely control it. Witness the

> multiple u-turns over Covid, for example.

>

> Look, the points Effra makes are good ones -

> Abbott may well have a broad strategic view that

> can benefit us, certainly we need more brains

> where trade is concerned; only time will tell I

> guess. However, like so much else, the govt has

> been caught out again with the message.

Can agree with this though. Perhaps they should have expected such illogical attacks from the left, and been prepared to squash it early. But in anycase, you're right, symptomatic of a lack of thoroughness in decision making it seems....

[j.a.]

Viewed from a purely ?trade? point of view, no of course they shouldn?t have been, but that isn?t the world we live in, is it? As the phrase now goes, ?there is always a tweet?, or in this case a speech.

We aren?t disagreeing here. I didn?t say they should have been part of the conversation, I said they were always going to be. And as you say, they weren?t ready for it. Plus ca change....

[JohnL]

Suddenly I remembered this morning that once Glenn Hoddle was England Manager until someone found out that he believed that disabled people were punished for something they'd done in a past life - he was gone before you could say "penalties"

Would we accept him as a member of the board of trade now ?

and here's the link from 20 years ago in case you youngsters don't believe it happened (The Guardian keeps these) - https://www.theguardian.com/football/1999/jan/30/newsstory.sport7

Claire Fox has SUPPOSEDLY defended the IRA bombing of Warrington in the past yet she's been made a Lord (link here - https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/claire-fox-blocked-peerage-ira-warrington-bombings-a4517291.html.) - so we seem not to really mind.

Where is the line - there must be one or we'll be appointing truly evil people.

[j.a.]

A lot of people really do mind about Claire Fox. That?s cronyism, pure and simple. She?s a nasty piece of work, and there?s no ?supposedly? about her support for the IRA or her denial of genocide in Bosnia.

[Sephiroth]

?

As one of the articles below suggests many religious folk (Muslim, Catholic etc) hold similar views (again, which I personally disagree with)....but does that mean we should bar them all from any public office? ?

Regardless of their religion, if they personally hold and express those beliefs then yes, they are unfit for government representation. Johnson himself holds some of those views and he too is unfit. Corbyn held some repulsive views and he was deemed unfit

Not sure what the hard part is

[TheCat]

Re-read what you just typed Sephiroth...

Regardless of their religion, if they personally hold and express those beliefs then yes, they are unfit for government representation.

That's not miles away from textbook fascism....

[Sephiroth]

No it isn?t

The lesson we learned from fighting fascism was to tolerate people and not tolerate them he views of people who seek to oppress others. If you are homophobic, mysoginist etc, go about your day, maybe educate yourself but keep well away from government

Now, you allow people with views like this as a government? Then you get fascism

[Sephiroth]

Not all opposing views are equally valid. They just aren?t. And far equivalence of them is tedious and unhelpful

[Sephiroth]

As I pointed out - Corbyn held views unacceptable to people and was rightly condemned as unfit to govern because of them. Was that a path to fascism?

[TheCat]

I think JohnL raises and interesting point, which goes to the heart or this matter....where is the line? And how much does the position of the line depend on the role in question...

This isn't black and white issue, it's evidently a nuanced conversation. I'd guess it has much more to do with the profile of the role, than what is actually said...

I.e. it evidently wasn't acceptable to have an England Football manager who thinks disabled people are being punished for a previous life, but I imagine there's plenty of faceless public servants who object to gay marriage for example......

[TheCat]

Sephiroth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No it isn?t

>

> The lesson we learned from fighting fascism was to

> tolerate people and not tolerate them he views of

> people who seek to oppress others. If you are

> homophobic, mysoginist etc, go about your day,

> maybe educate yourself but keep well away from

> government

>

> Now, you allow people with views like this as a

> government? Then you get fascism

Australia...that well-known fascist state.....

[TheCat]

Sephiroth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As I pointed out - Corbyn held views unacceptable

> to people and was rightly condemned as unfit to

> govern because of them. Was that a path to

> fascism?

Come on Sephiroth.....apple's and organges.....

Man with unpopular views gets national platform to attempt to ingratiate himself to the public, then gets democratically voted down, perhaps partially due to those views, but also on his ability to do the broader job he was applying for....

How is that in anyway similar to saying that people with certain views (unrelated to the skills of the job being applied for) cannot hold any role within the public service/government?

[j.a.]

In fairness, a close reading of the relevant comments from Abbott indicate that he somehow recognised that his personal views weren?t widely reflected in society. All in all it was pretty ?Australian?.

There certainly is a line, but as Cat says, a lot of it will be relative to the position held. However, given comments widely accepted (or maybe insufficiently challenged is a better way of putting it) by various nation-state leaders (including Johnson, viz. ?picaninny smiles, letterboxes?), perhaps we?ve allowed ourselves to become tolerant of such language in general for whatever reason. Probably not a good thing.

[Effra]

j.a. Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> (Not quite sure what you mean by ?spare us the

> details?, but I suspect you?re trying

> ineffectually to have a dig at me, whatever...)

Nothing sinister. Just an attempt to keep the discussion on the main topic ie Tony Abbot and his credentials for being a strategic advisor.

[Sephiroth]

I did like that clip from Aussie tv about the appointment ?beggars can?t be choosers?. They get it

[Sue]

seenbeen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Homophobes and misogynists are everywhere and

> plenty of them are closet cases. At least we know

> his views and as TheCat pointed out

> "As one of the articles below suggests many

> religious folk (Muslim, Catholic etc) hold similar

> views (again, which I personally disagree

> with)....but does that mean we should bar them all

> from any public office?"

>

> -especially the ones that are face to face with

> the public in their jobs?

>

> A friend had a bad experience in hospital here in

> SE London. She is admitted regularly as she has a

> GENETIC disease that makes her susceptible to

> serious problems. While she was in there a 'nurse'

> came to her and said that she should go to the

> nurse's church as it would make her well!

> Fortunately my friend is not desperate as she

> knows all about her disease so was not beguiled by

> this.

Your friend should complain about this nurse.

That is really worrying.