How we describe things, lacking Macron's Gallic bluntness

We Australians haven't had the Gallic bluntness to be this confrontational, given our defamation laws. We of course recognise that our Mr Scott Morrison is frequently very economical with verifiable factualness. For us he regularly seems to present a managed presentation of perceptions by providing diversionary interpretations through a process of reframing. He exerts repetitive efforts to divert attention away from any negative impacts, so that we won't have adverse mental imaging about the state of our nation.

He may at times be disingenuous, he may prevaricate, manipulate our understanding of the issues, refocus our attention away from situational reality, be misleading or be transparently deceptive. We often call it "spin". However, it really just comes down to US President's Biden's salient and simple assessment: "Clumsy." He is often "clumsy" with the actual status of any particular matter under consideration.

So, Mr French President, we have nicknamed him "Scotty from Marketing". It is our Aussie way of not being forthright and making light of the sadness in our hearts and the pain in many of our collective backsides.

Perhaps one good thing our politicians have done for us in recent days is to demonstrate the long-term advantages of telling the truth.

We can appreciate how Gladys Berejiklian would have felt reluctant to confess her lengthy affair but, in retrospect, and in the light of ICAC's revelations, most of us can see it would have been the wiser course of action.

With respect to the cancellation of the French submarine deal, we can appreciate Scott Morrison's reluctance publicly to let down another world power in a way that would cause it much hardship - but again, look at the political disaster it might have saved him!

And finally, we can see how the leaders of the Coalition would have been reluctant to tell the coal lobby, on which they depend for electoral funds, that its product is making this planet unliveable - but if they'd been honest about this much earlier on, Australia might have led the post-COVID order.

Many of us are now left deeply depressed as we experience our country being seen as a world laggard, unable to look beyond its own short-term self interest.

Our PM is increasingly wrapping himself in a verbal national flag to deflect criticism of his personal or government policy behaviour. Samuel Johnson's aphorism, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel", springs to mind. Might I suggest that preparation be substituted for prayer to enhance our countries future prospects?

Diversion and obfuscation are in the Prime Minister's DNA. He just can't help it. In response to President Macron's assessment of his character, Morrison diverted by saying he was "not going to cop sledging of Australia". Macron had made no sledge of Australia. In fact he made several positive references to Australia and Australians. His obviously thoughtful intervention was directed clearly and exclusively at the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister's diversion is seeking to take the odium from him and transfer it to President Macron. Diversion, obfuscation and secrecy are trademarks of Scott Morrison's politics. How significant were these traits in the shemozzle now being played out before us?

What an example of morality, honesty and integrity the federal Liberal Party is to us Australians. Under the Howard government, the bugging of rooms during negotiations with Timor Leste, one of the world's poorest countries, to secure a better deal was no problem. The International Court of Justice was not impressed with us.

The Morrison government sees no problem in cancelling, without consultation with the French leader, a $91 billion contract. He can spin it as much as he can (and wants to), but it was a disgrace and an embarrassment. We felt enough of a bond with the French to build the Sir John Monash Centre in Villers-Bretonneux.

I pity any Australian trying to do business around the world.

I was angered but not surprised to see that not one letter or article critical of Australia's response to the Glasgow summit in last Saturday's CT even mentioned the world's biggest emitter, China (30 per cent), whose president is not even going to Glasgow. This begs the question: are all your columnists stupid? Are they scared of China? Do they all hate the current government so much they deliberately ignore the blindingly obvious fact that without China we can't get to net zero by 2050?

Very little if anything was also said about the fact the third (India) and fourth (Russia) biggest emitters are not going as well, and also won't sign up to anything.

I would suggest that the only way Australia can do anything useful now is to go nuclear. I would also suggest Scomo and Albo meet a few times over the next month or so and make a joint announcement to this effect. Australia would be the winner, and I suspect Albo would be too in 2022.

Closing the AIS Fitness Centre because it is "no longer commercially viable" ("AIS Fitness Centre closure 'devastating''', November 1, p3) is short-sighted.

While the AIS's primary function is to support high-performance athletes, prioritising commercial gain neglects the much larger and sustained value of keeping this fitness and social outlet open for elderly and infirm clients - not to win ephemeral medals, but to put a real shine on our golden years.

This year, local community groups - the Kingston and Barton Residents Group and the Women's Shed, plus community volunteers - planted 6000 bulbs and 6000 annuals in front of the shops on Kennedy Street in Kingston.

It was great to see Floriade in the Suburbs brighten our local shops once again, with many tulips also popping back up on Jardine Street.

However, it was so disappointing to have reports, and see the aftermath, of someone deciding to remove the tulips in one of the garden beds to take home for themselves.

This behaviour goes against the community spirit of Floriade in the Suburbs and disrespects the hours of work that volunteers put into brightening up our local shops and the investment by the ACT government.

I'm amused and dismayed by the apparent hysteria from a number of politicians and media reports on the proposed requirement for presentation of ID in order to vote.

It has variously been described as racist, biased, a Trump-like conspiracy of right-wing parties, and on it goes. A quick internet search shows that Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Finland, Switzerland, Greece, Israel, Argentina, Mexico, Brazil and 14 states of the US have ID requirements of one sort or another to enable a person to cast a vote.

Like many, I am suspicious of the motives of the Australian government in introducing ID requirements in the lead-up to a general election. But let's face it, in Australia you need ID for just about everything, most things being less important than casting a vote. I guess the old Australian way of "she'll be right" is what people are used to, and any change is, like many things in Australia, opposed for opposition's sake.

Bradley Perrett suggests China could be planning to set up bases on South Pacific islands ("China's Pacific moves call for concern", October 29). According to Perrett, the possible objectives include isolating Australia from US supplies and bringing us within range of Chinese cruise missiles. It behoves Perrett to explain why these attacks might happen, but as usual he mentions nothing specific apart from a supposed Chinese plan to invade Taiwan.

Perrett's conception of this invasion seems to involve secure assumptions on the part of China and the US that the invasion, interdiction and retaliation will all be safely limited to non-nuclear warfare. This sets the scene for Australian military involvement, but it is surely unrealistic.

And what could possibly be the strategic objective of isolating Australia from the US? The Chinese are no more set on invading this country than the Japanese were in 1942. As for plundering our natural resources, they are our biggest trading partner, and have been for decades.

There is a paranoid circularity in Perrett's writing that needs to be called out. His constant message is that we are in danger of attack, but he can't explain why.

Memo to the acting Prime Minister (Barnaby Joyce):

It is for the aggrieved party to decide whether to "move on" from a diplomatic slight. Common courtesy, not just in international relations.

Your comment, if it reaches Paris, will incense, not calm.

In 1789, the impoverished French peasants used the guillotine very effectively to execute their cause against the uncaring elite, and a fairer France was born. Our PM should throw this analogy back at the French - they did not perform the submarine contract, so "off (came) their heads".

What a different Australian image to the Glasgow gathering Julie Bishop would have cast in a glamorous red dress had she been elected federal Liberal leader.

The question for Scott Morrison shouldn't have been whether to go on his present overseas trip, but whether to get out of bed.

The tone of despair, expressed in this forum, suggests a wide acceptance that there will be no prime ministerial climate change before our nuclear submarines are delivered. Welcome to the Mo Dynasty.

The Australian Deputy Prime Minister, currently acting PM, is reported as telling the French President to "move on".

What a coincidence. A lot of Aussies would like the Deputy PM to move on.

Our Prime Minister wants us to believe he has been as truthful and straight with the President of France as about anything. That might well be true.

The Prime Minister brings to international relations the same grace, honesty and compassion that he took to Cobargo during the bushfires. Beyond embarrassing.

Dear anti-vaxxers, can I put alcohol into my body before I drive a car? Surely it's my body, my choice.

I am shellshocked after a day spent watching our Prime Minister and the former premier of our largest state repeatedly and emphatically lying about their work performance. Do we truly get the politicians we deserve?

Climate inaction is NOT political. It's criminal. Beware the Nuremberg approach.

Incredible though it seems, it looks increasingly likely political leaders, faced with the opportunity to salvage the human species from extinction, will fail to do so.