Love this from the Onion:
Phil Waugh was one of the greatest Australians to set foot on a rugby field. Calling him a 'plodder' is laughable. Ha! Ha! I don't let it worry me. You're the only one who looks foolish when you disrespect an immortal of the game in that way.
If there was any justice in the world, Phil Waugh would still be leading the Wallabies to Tokyo, no doubt trying to win our third consecutive World Cup.
A few right-wingers using the election victory to strike another blow in the culture wars: https://www.smh.com.au/federal-election-2019/the-election-s-ultimate-lesson-is-about-mainstream-australian-values-20190520-p51pf3.html
I agree that the woke Twitter left in Australia consists mainly of out-of-touch morons, but I actually don't think that's why Labor lost the election.
My theory (and like every explanation of what happened, it's only a theory) is that the primary vote driver was economic management. People were uneasy about Shorten's proposed changes to taxation, and saw Morrison and the Coalition as a safe pair of hands with economically turbulent waters on the horizon.
Of course nobody appreciated the left wing of the Labor party trying to police the behaviour of everyone to their right, but I just don't think that was on anyone's mind when they entered the polling booth.
Whether it's justified or not, people still regard the Coalition as superior economic managers. Labor tried to fight the battle on economic grounds, which was the fatal flaw of their strategy. It was a field on which they could never win, outside of the inner-city progressives.
Labor succeed when they focus on social infrastructure- schools, health, welfare and yes even climate change. It doesn't succeed 100% of the time, but certainly suits them far more than fighting an election on taxation reform. It's the old mum/dad phenomenon that also happens in the States.
Abbott is an interesting one. 'Dick' is not a great word to describe him, but certainly you have to consider why a man with his parliamentary and local service record (as Mick correctly points out) was voted out so comprehensively, in an election where the wider populace swung the other way.
I just think time passed him by. His electorate has shifted a bit to the left, while he himself has shifted a bit to the right. Climate change, gay marriage, even the leadership of the Liberal party. He slowly became a dinosaur in the eyes of his own people, and the sniping interviews with Ray Hadley and co probably didn't help either.
I think he'll be remembered as someone who could have achieved so much more than he did. His concession speech on Saturday night was the best I've ever seen - gracious, profound, incisive and compelling. It left me thinking 'where was this Tony for the past fifteen years?'.
He never came across as warm or likeable, though behind the scenes he clearly was those things. But he never had any real self-awareness, and never saw Turnbull's bullet coming at his head. A warts-and-all autobiography would be fascinating, but only if he develops that self-awareness.
He's refused to compromise, he's blocking calls from the coach, he's not answering his door when RA staff come to his house.
Probably as a result of legal advice considering he'd been told he was going to be sacked and then had to front a code of conduct hearing.
All of that happened in the day after the tweet itself, before RA signalled their intent to sack him.
I guess my question to those people is did they immediately want him sacked, or would a simple statement from RA saying his comments don't reflect their organisation have sufficed? If they'd just pointed out people are free to express their own beliefs and then moved on, would those same people be taking to social media to demand his contract be cancelled? Starting petitions etc?
It certainly wouldn't surprise me. It happened last time he did it. If RA just put out a statement like that I think it would have angered a lot of people, and certainly would affect the way Folau was supported by Tahs and Wallabies fans.