Bill Rowlands writes: I for one will not have my TV or radio on during this medieval nonsense tomorrow night (“The embarrassingly obsequious coverage of King Charles’ coronation”). With the cost to taxpayers of about A$190 million and the Brits doing it hard, that money would be better spent on an upgrade to the NHS.
I will pay some sort of homage only to an Australian head of state and not to a non-Australian living in a foreign country. It is about time we left our colonial cringe behind.
Maire Männik writes: In addition to the medieval crapology of having an oath at all, making it to the heirs as well is really bizarre, since the heirs include Prince Andrew and his parasite daughters but not Princess Anne’s son because he married a lapsed Catholic, nor Princess Michael’s husband, Prince Michael, because he married her when she was Catholic and divorced.
I predict plenty of oaths will be shouted in Australia, just not the official one.
Andrew Hingeley writes: I was disappointed (to put it mildly) by Charlie Lewis’ article on King Charles III’s coronation. By no means do all Australians consider the coverage of the coronation to be “embarrassingly obsequious”. I listened to the late queen’s coronation on a gigantic old AWA Radiola radio, presumably on the ABC, using the BBC’s short-wave transmission. I’ve waited 70 years for another one, and I won’t be able to get enough of it.
And stop knocking Charles. He has been ahead of his time for a good deal of his life, promoting causes that were initially ridiculed but are now mainstream.
With friends like that…
Matt Townsend writes: Re “The latest revelations from Tucker Carlson and Albo’s new bestie Piers Morgan“, I think Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has enough mongrel in him to stand up for his principles in Piers Morgan’s nasty environment. And, to a certain extent, it’s his job.
David Murr writes: How senior politicians choose how to interact with the media and what parts of the media to interact with are more complicated than the simplistic approach implied in Charlie Lewis’ article. The most effective coverage is not necessarily achieved by only talking to “nice” people.
An evaluation of what Albanese said would, of course, have been a bit more difficult but much more informative. Referring to Morgan as Albanese’s “bestie” was a cheap shot that reflects poorly on Lewis and Crikey.
Ian Radnell writes: When the PM declared he would be PM to all Australians after the election he meant all of us, including those who enjoy Piers Morgan and those who don’t read Crikey — which is quite a lot of voters. Perhaps you should accept that he is in for the long haul not a one-Parliament wonder.
Catherine Fernon writes: Albanese appears to have lost the ability to judge what’s worthwhile and how to use his time to act in the best interests of most of the Australian public. The interview with Piers Morgan is of the same low level as his decision to go to Kyle Sandilands’ wedding. Morgan and Sandilands have made their living by punching down on the most vulnerable and generating fake outrage and don’t deserve a prime ministerial timeslot.
John Biggs writes: I have a problem with Albanese talking to a far-right shock jock and showing himself up to be a right hypocritical prawn. It seems his winning the prime ministership has gone to his head. He has completely let down those who elected him. His fawning to the right and neglect of the poor, the homeless and the unemployed is treacherous. He must go.
Colin Fitzpatrick writes: As a republican and Australian citizen I have no problem with our existing prime minister talking to whoever he sees fit. But I do have a problem with him pledging allegiance to the monarchy of a foreign country on our behalf, without our nation’s consent.
Hard Labor
Susan Berryman writes: Given the prime minister’s personal history, with which we are all familiar, the lack of empathy for those struggling to feed and house themselves and their families is stunning (“On welfare, can Albanese rescue his relationship with the past?“).
It is disgraceful that a Labor government should abandon the needy while at the same time going ahead with the stage three tax cuts, continuing to subsidise the fossil fuel industry in the destruction of the planet, and committing indefinite billions to purchase some submarines.
We don’t need another conservative party. I was politicised as a teenager during the “It’s Time” election campaign. What would Gough Whitlam think about this lot?
Margaret Ludowyk writes: Guy Rundle’s opinion piece claiming Albanese’s Labor is not the party “of old” and is in decay sounds like the rant of a frustrated and disenchanted Greens voter (“Labor’s rusted-ons can’t deny the decay any longer“).
Labor of old was led by uneducated rednecks and muscle men. It’s now a progressive party with more than 50% female representation in federal Parliament and is led by competent people with a genuine vision to improve the lives of Australians. Such a refreshing change after the previous nine years.
As someone who Rundle would no doubt describe as “rusted on”, I’m far from having a hard time. I’m delighted with the progress that has been made so far by the Albanese government and only wish it had more control of the Senate. As for the Greens, most of their policies are absurd and unrealistic and they have no understanding of economics. They really are impossible to support. I did vote for them more than 20 years ago but never again.
Albanese is playing the long game and wisely “keeping his friends close and his enemies closer”. Long may he reign.
Open secrets
Ben Rose writes: Re “Hundreds of anonymous people flood Parliament each year, but you’re not allowed to know who“, it should be compulsory for every politician to keep a logbook of visits with summary information publicly available. State bureaucrats must fill in a vehicle logbook stating trip purpose, mileage, fuel etc. Politicians’ logbooks of visits would be no more onerous.
Both sides now
Keith Gregory writes: The media need to take politics out of the debate, focus on facts and call out the coercive emotional blackmail (“On the Voice, ‘both sides’ journalism risks giving racism a platform“). Changing the constitution should be about what is good for all people and what changes it will support. Not a vague wish list but evidenced-based change that it will achieve.
Peter Anderson writes: When it comes to government, federal, state and local, we all need a referendum to get a voice. Just try talking to a politician. Forget it. Try writing — they never read it. Democracy that requires a voice to Parliament recognised in the constitution is a dead one.
Politicians on all sides are well known for leading us to believe what they want us to believe and not what is the truth. The media need to get tough with everyone, no matter their skin colour or their political persuasion. That’s what good journalism is about.
People are scared to talk about the Voice for fear of being called racist. The media need to focus on Australians not as racists, but as people who have to make an important decision.
