Prev
Next

Recording a moment in history or self indulgence?

Tory Maguire

by Tory Maguire

05 Oct 09:15am

Must Reads

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project - this is a caption

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

84

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics - this is a caption

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

68

Please enter your password - this is a caption

Please enter your password

41

Filed under: 4 Corners, Abc, Bob Katter, Hung Parliament, Journalism, Rob Oakeshott, Tony Windsor

103 comments

There was a moment in last night’s brilliant episode of 4 Corners that might have undermined Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott’s argument the whole filming exercise was about posterity.

Bob Katter points out the presence of a TV crew means the discussion is not entirely confidential. Still: 4 Corners

As the deliberations over the hung parliament arrived at absolute crunch time Bob Katter got uncomfortable with the ABC camera and said he would rather the crew left the office where he was meeting with his fellow regional independents.

But Windsor and Oakeshott had other ideas. You can watch the whole episode here.

The ABC was right to push as hard as it could on this as we learned more last night about how the decision to hand government to Gillard came about than we could from a dozen Oakeshott speeches.

But there was something a bit weird about this exchange.

It came after Katter had informed his two fellow “three amigos” he had decided to go with the Coalition and they were yet to make up their minds.

The three are in Windsor’s office, when Windsor looks presumably at 4 Corners correspondent Sarah Ferguson and says: “Anything we say now is highly confidential of course.”

Katter responds: “It’s hardly confidential if we’ve got the mike there ... I think we want to speak freely, I don’t want the mike here please fellas.”

The camera crew leaves, then minutes later Windsor is shown ushering them back into the office. Katter is clearly uncomfortable and again asks them to leave.

Windsor to Katter: “We’re just trying to record the moment.”

Oakeshott then looks down the barrel of the camera and gives some running commentary on the negotiations.

Katter then asks for a third time for the camera crew to leave (it’s not made clear if it does), then leaves himself.

It’s riveting stuff but it’s also understandable that Katter might have been a bit put out with his two co-horts, and people watching could be excused for wondering if Windsor and Oakeshott were more concerned about their camera angles than the views of their colleague.

The access 4 Corners had to the offices of the independents, particularly Windsor, ensured a report that was mostly candid and sometimes incredibly raw. There’s a spot where Abbott pops into the office and is clearly taken aback at the sight of the ABC crew, and he reacts badly to a question from Ferguson.

As long as it had Windsor’s permission to be in his office, the ABC was correct to stay. Whether or not giving that permission hindered the final negotiations is another question.

Maybe there is no way for someone who recognises they’re in the middle of a historical moment to ensure it’s properly recorded without looking a bit up themselves.

If you watch just one episode of the program this year make it this one.

Most commented

431Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
390There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
336Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer
313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
266Who murdered the Arts degree?
246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.

103 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • sue says:

      08:37am | 05/10/10

      I agree Tory the 4 Corners show was brilliant. Thanks to the Independents for agreeing to film this piece of history.

      Reply

    • Joan says:

      01:41pm | 05/10/10

      Windsor and Oakeshott - the fool and the clown brilliantly exposed the mediocre standard of independent pollies. Prodded by Ferguson. and before cameras .. they dithered, clowned around like performing monkeys at a circus- no wonder they dragged any decision making, out to 17 days. Abbott of course looks stunned and annoyed to find himself in the middle of an ABC , Windsor, Oakshott circus ring… Abbott was there for serious business, not play to the stunts and tune of ABC…. enter to Abbotts left biggest clown of all Oakeshot…as he .turns Australian politics into the biggest joke in Australian history. .  Australia waited and expected serious decision making and what we got is a circus decision making process orchestrated by ABC- turned to a Chaser style event .... this should not happen again - interference with political decision making process- I believe all film footage ... including that not shown on TV should be reviewed by a body that in fact undue interference by Ferguson and ABC did not take place.

    • Sven Gali says:

      03:20pm | 05/10/10

      It was very well done, Sue, and the “post decision” interviews with each individual were also great, (the Bob Katter one is predictably hilarious). Here’s the link for anyone who hasn’t yet seen those >

      http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20101004/deal/

      Personally, I would like to have seen more from Andrew Wilkie. Although he secured his seat well after the others, his timing and execution were impeccable. Firstly, because when he sided with Labor he rendered Bob Katter rightfully irrelevant, and secondly, by highlighting that he’d decided against Abbott because of the uncosted “billion in a paper bag”, he let Windsor and Oakeshott know that Abbott would promise them anything, with no intention of ever delivering.

      Of course everyone saw that proven when he subsequently refused to honour the agreement he signed with them on parliamentary reform, which they’ve since confirmed as validation of their distrust, and that they made the right decision. Not that they needed any more proof than the 11 billion reasons Treasury found for why Abbott had refused to have his costings assessed before the election. To make matters worse, he’d confirmed that he already knew the numbers didn’t add up by initially refusing to have them assessed when the Independents requested it.

      No wonder he was livid when he “popped in” to attempt some damage control, Joan. He knew then that the jig was up, and that everyone was onto him. As was shown, anything he tried after that was treated with the suspicion it deserved, even by Katter.

    • Mike T says:

      05:56pm | 05/10/10

      Thanks Sven…

      You are right that Abbott most likley promised things he could/not deliver. Thank God Our Julia would NEVER do that…

      Try to be a little balanced please

    • Will Young says:

      08:24pm | 05/10/10

      It seems incredible a few of our bloggers have an issue with 4-corners amazingly open and above board media coverage of one of the most significant political events in the past several decades.
      Perhaps they prefer the mine is bigger than yours style which vomited from the commercial TV networks dashing around the country looking for Kevin and his gnomes under every rock. As for a body to “review” the media coverage process? I always thought freedom of the press was a part of the democratic process.

    • Reg says:

      11:47pm | 05/10/10

      May I be the first to suggest that, judging from his portrayal of the confused politician, friend Tony had had the odd alcoholic beverage.

    • Sven Gali says:

      12:55am | 06/10/10

      You should watch the program, Mike T, or if you don’t have time, read the full transcript here >

      http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2010/s3029262.htm

      ... from which here are a few quotes to get you started.

      “TONY WINDSOR: I didn’t pick anything up from J, ah, from Julia Gillard, ah, but Abbott he when he, he got into a few tough spots there. He [mumbles imitating Abbott] [laughter] you know he’s ah gives himself away.”

      “BOB KATTER: Well I mean, the initial reaction, not the initial reaction, the reaction of everybody in Australia would be, you know, what’s Tony got to hide here?”

      “ROBERT OAKESHOTT: Coalition. So Treasury advice is ah, Labor’s pretty close to the mark um, but there are significant questions about ah, the Liberal Party economics.”

      “TONY WINDSOR: I think there’s some explaining to do and that’s obviously why Tony Abbott’s, you know, climbing up the walls wanting to get us before, before we obvious ah, ah say anything. But I think it does indicate that they knew that there were issues here in terms of the accountability process.”

      Alternatively, I can save you the trouble by assuring you that nowhere in it do any of the Independents mention any doubts about Julia Gillard delivering on anything she promises. Nor will you find anything similar in any of the interviews conducted with the Independents 3 weeks later, but I strongly recommend you watch them here >

      http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20101004/deal/

      ... because they all have a lot more to say about Tony Abbott.

    • Mike T says:

      06:35pm | 06/10/10

      @ Sven…

      I make the statement that Julia never lies, sarcastically of course.

      And you put me in my place by citing that the independents had less concern about the honesty of Julia??? thats prrof that Julia never lies is it champ??? well you centainly put me in my place, i was silly enough to think that statements such as “no carbon tax” may be a lie, but if Tony Windsor dosent think so, then i guess i have no where to go…

    • Sven Gali says:

      12:36am | 07/10/10

      Get back to me when you’ve watched the program, Mike T.

      And don’t forget to explain why you always refer to Tony Abbott as Abbott, yet always refer to Julia Gillard as Julia.

    • AdamC says:

      08:39am | 05/10/10

      I thought the show was interesting, but hardly earth-shattering. It confirmed two things for me:

      a)  Rob Oakeshott isn’t actually a complete tosser, he just has unfortunate mannerisms and an insincere, pasetd-on smile that makes him seem like one; and
      b)  Tony Windsor always wanted to back the ALP.

      I couldn’t help but note a lot of Windsor’s then-private comments about ‘stability’ and broadband, and his generally complimentary comments about Labor all through the process (much more so than Oakeshott). It made me wonder what would have happened if Katter had made a serious attempt to convince Oakeshott to back the Coalition, rather than bailing out of the triumvirate.

      It looked to me that Oakeshott could have gone either way when pushed by one of the bigger personalities of Katter and Windsor. In the end, it seemed Oakeshott backed the ALP (and Windsor) to prevent the need for a further election at Windsor’s urging.

      (Of course, this 4Corners special won’t do anything to counter the view that these indies are attention-seeking media narcissists. Though, it must be said, the thing did humanise them as well.)

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      02:28am | 06/10/10

      ‘I always thought freedom of the press was a part of the democratic process.’
      So is ‘cash for comment’?

    • Tex Ranger says:

      08:40am | 05/10/10

      Did the ABC approach Windsor or vice versa?  The answer to this question would be telling.

      Reply

    • Will Y. says:

      07:26am | 06/10/10

      As the reporter stated when interviewed on Radio National the day of the 4-Corners broadcast, the program approached the Independents.

    • Steve says:

      08:42am | 05/10/10

      It is clear that Katter was there to secure the independents support for the Liberals and was keeping Abbott well informed on the “bidding”.  In the end it was Abbott’s “do anything for power” approach which was not credible and drove the two independents to support Labor.

      Reply

    • Reg says:

      09:28am | 05/10/10

      A good summary. Given Katter’s determination to say nothing in front of the camera and all his pacing and vanishing, he was clearly distracted by something else. That had to be his electoral image or his Tony Abbott attachment. Assuming of course that he’s not a double-agent. smile

    • frank robb says:

      12:25pm | 05/10/10

      yeah steve, and labor stuck to all their principals to maintain power, right. they just got into bed with the ex national independents coz it felt warm and fuzzy. as i have said on these pages earlier. the alp formed a coalition with the fairies at the bottom of the garden, a snitch and two turncoats, but according to your unbelievably naive opinion, this facade was done for the best interest of the nation. not labors hypocritical do anything to stay in the game. i cant believe we have commo julia now being at the forefront of supporting our troops. was she one of the laborites spitting on the vietnam vets when they came home?

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      12:30pm | 05/10/10

      Steve and Reg   :  Heh heh heh , your perceptions are unbelievable ! 
      If anything was clear , it was Katter’s discomfort at the camera being at what was supposed to be a confidential meeting.
      Oakshott and Windsor were quite comfortable with the fame and publicity .
      Windsor had no intention of supporting the Coalition in the first place ,
      Oakshott was simply drawing out the farce to justify backing Labor.

    • Reg says:

      01:27pm | 05/10/10

      Frank’s in a frenzy and Wayne is stuck in the time of the interview. Are you casting aspersions on the integrity of MY ABC Wayne?

      The whole thing was obviously intended as an historic recording of a unique electoral moment. Do you think for one instant that the cameras would have been there if all three had not agreed to their presence?

      Katter obviously had a brain-storm or was suffering under the impact of a Liberal onslaught., which is the same thing.

    • neil says:

      02:48pm | 05/10/10

      In the end it was Windsors determination never go with the coalition and Oakeshotts determination not to have another election which he knew he would lose.

      Windgers revengefull pettiness and Joakeshotts fear and greed gave us this hopeless government.

    • Adam says:

      03:43pm | 05/10/10

      Oh, Frank! are you for real, or just a parody? “Commo Julia”?! She’s only a communist in the eyes of those to whom everyone to the left of Attila the Hun is “a Commo”. And that final, frothing sentence is priceless: “was she one of the laborites spitting on the vietnam vets when they came home?” Seems unlikely, she would have been, what, eight or nine years old? But do keep it up, your comments raised an enormous laugh around my place!

      PS Bring back national service! Kids today don’t know how lucky they are! This country is going to hell in a handbasket! etc, etc

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      07:02pm | 05/10/10

      Reg :  Are you really using the word integrity and A.B.C. together.  ?
      Reg , i lost any respect for the A.B.C.‘s integrity and balance many years ago. If you chose to regard their presentations on political matters as gospel truth , that is your problem , not mine.

      “intended as an historic recording of a unique electoral moment. “

      Mmmm , i did not see it that way at all Reg . What i saw was Bob Katter seething with anger at the presence of the A.B.C.‘s cameras.
      Those cameras were there at Oakshotts and Windsor’s wishes and Katter made it quite clear he did not want any part of their power tripping
      recorded for posterity.
      Every dog has it’s day , and the conservative electorates represented by Oakshott and Windsor will deal with their case at the ballot box.

    • Reg says:

      12:10am | 06/10/10

      Sorry, all uncorroborated twaddle Wayne. Has Katter announced that he did bot agree to the cameras, or are you making that up too?

      I gather from what you’ve written that instead of the ABC you regard biased commercial sources as gospel. Should I assume you are a fan of FoxNews and the local shock-jocks, which would be distinctly undiscerning of you.

    • Macca says:

      08:53am | 05/10/10

      Are we still talking about them?

      Reply

    • Majority says:

      08:53am | 05/10/10

      the exercise was a charade and protecting self interest was the key determinant. It was obvious to me that Windsor and Oakeshott were looking for justification for a decision they had already made,

      Reply

    • acker says:

      09:25am | 05/10/10

      If Windsor and Oakeshott’s electorates voted Liberal - National rather than Independent the Coalition would have had 2 extra seats in the House of Representatives and probably have been in government. But they didn’t and the Coalition failed to acheive a “Majority” smile

    • ibast says:

      08:53am | 05/10/10

      “and people watching could be excused for wondering if Windsor and Oakeshott were more concerned about their camera angles than the views of their colleague.”

      Or perhaps how Katter would have chosen to influence his colleagues had the camera not been present.

      Reply

    • Anthony says:

      09:04am | 05/10/10

      Katter was the only winner from last nights program. Oakshott and Windsor will hope last nights program does not stick in their constituents minds. A great program that certainly did record the moment.

      Reply

    • acker says:

      09:29am | 05/10/10

      Katter did not end up voting for the party which won government so I think your assertion fails to stick. But the biggest losers I saw on last nights program were the Nat’s who barely got a mention and News Limited for overly biased reporting in print and on TV.

    • hugh says:

      10:25am | 05/10/10

      @ acker
      Great purposeful misinterpretation of the comment.
      It does not matter to Katter who won the election - he is in a safe seat and is an independent

      He is a winner as he came off as a genuine and thoughtful politician not interested in playing to the cameras. He said it best in the show when he is being constantly interrupted by reporters wherever he went - he doesnt have time to continuously talk to the Press - there were much more urgent matters at hand

      Interestingly - I did not once hear an independent query what their constituents would expect from them in their decision making

    • David says:

      11:48am | 05/10/10

      Hugh - the lack of consultation of their constituents may not have been covered by the program for whatever reason or it may come down to the political style of the independents themselves.

      Not everyone expects their elected representative to ask their electorate what they should do in any given situation - no less one so difficult as deciding which major party to support for government. The independents will be judged on their decisions next election, its why we hold them.

    • acker says:

      01:18pm | 05/10/10

      @hugh…just in case you failed to notice Windsor and Oakeshott are also in safe seats and are independents who are supporting the side of politics “Governing”

    • Mike T says:

      02:13pm | 05/10/10

      @ David. I agree that the elected member has the right to choose, even if it does go against his electorate. However i must agreed with Hugh, that surley it should have been one of the many items that should have been considered!!

      The other things that didnt seem to get a mention was the performance of the govt over the last 3 years….. I am not going to get into a debate on wether they have done a good job or a bad job. However, how can the independents view of there performance not weigh heavily into thier decision making??? surley the best was to see the capabilites of a person/party is to look at how they have performed in that role over the last few years.

      The fact that these points were overlooked just adds weight to the fact the decisions were made VERY early on, and this was just around justification of the decision.

    • David says:

      05:25pm | 05/10/10

      Mike T - I’m not convinced they didn’t consult their electorates (in fact I seem to recall them returning to their electorates during the 17 day negotiation period). Without having seen the program perhaps it’s focus was more about the goings on in the political circles, not really what they got up to on their own or outside Canberra.

      On the performance of the government in the previous term: it probably didn’t get a mention because the Coalition never made a case for it’s capacity to perform. The entire campaign from the Liberal party was about how terrible the Labor government was (of which several points of citicism are justified such as wasteful programs, most are frankly laughably hypocritical or idiotically disinegenuous, like the debt issue).

      I’ve been saying since before election day that the Liberals only ran half a campaign, they forgot to build a case for their own election to government and only made an argument for ending Labor’s time in government. This potentially influenced more than just the electorate’s mindset but also the Independents’ views of the two parties.

    • Mike T says:

      12:29am | 06/10/10

      @ David.


      1) returning to the electrote hardly constitutes proof that they considered there preference. It is where they live, so that by it’s self is a good enough reason to return. If they had considered the electroates wishes as being a factor, then surley they would have raised it when they were considering the factors. Granted it was hardly as important as such major issues as TA’s body languge.
      2) i agree with you that the libs ran a negative campaign. In fact both parties were probably produced the most negative campaigns from recent memory. In saying that it hardly excuses people of the (supposed) intelegence of the independents for not considering the performance of the govt over the last 3 years when making thier decision. Surley it;s just common sense?? if i was interviewing somone for a job as a pumber and they had been working as a plumber for the lst 3 years, then would i consider how well they had been doing that job over th last 3 years??

    • acotrel says:

      02:32am | 06/10/10

      Oakshott and Windsor shouldn’t be in Australian politics.  They’re not keeping their end up by spouting poison and downright nastiness!

    • nosthow says:

      09:17am | 05/10/10

      Oakeshott and Windsor have both said of late the way Abbott has behaved since he was shown the Opposition benches, justifies the decision they made to support Labor. First Abbott tears up the agreement on pairing then he goes back to the sad small minded ways he knows best - to wreck and dismantle. As a failed Heath minister in the Howard govt he wittled aweay at the Public heath system and did absolutely nothing to promote the Health portfolio in a positive direction. A Howard “Yes” man was all he was at his peak !

      Reply

    • MarK says:

      09:40am | 05/10/10

      Thanks again for commenting on the story to hand.

      I always look forward to your witty and incisive comments regarding the OP and its relevance as a whole. You truly do bring something to the blog.

    • Notus says:

      09:57am | 05/10/10

      Yep, Abbott dropped his bundle as Health Minister during the closing days of the Howard regime and has dropped his bundle after not getting his own way. Time for the Libs to ditch this loser.

    • G. David. says:

      11:27am | 05/10/10

      Not that the Left leaning Oakeshott and Windsor would be looking for as many excuses as they can come up with to justify their decision to support Labor against the wishes of their conservative electorates!

    • nosthow says:

      11:44am | 05/10/10

      @MarK - my pleasure MarK - just glad you are happy fella. Whats this about Abbott not wanting to pop by and see our troops in Afghanistan - what a shocker this lad is ! Must be getting harder and harder to defend Abbott old buddy ?

    • David says:

      11:54am | 05/10/10

      I amused at the couple of people commenting on this story who have referred to Oakeshott and Windsor as being “left leaning”, when did this assessment arise?

      Given they’re both former members of the National party and self-described conservatives I don’t know why anyone has suggested they’re lefties - unless its just a sore loser mentality.

      Maybe those who find the two independents to be lefties need to realise where they (and the prevailing authority of the Liberal party) are on the political scale, you’re sliding further and further to the right. Just because someone is closer to center than you doesn’t mean they’re on the left.

    • Mike T says:

      02:23pm | 05/10/10

      @ Nosthow

      Really the indipendents have made comments believing they made the right decision.

      On behalf of all readers of the punch, thank you again for posting amazing, thought out comments

    • nosthow says:

      04:14pm | 05/10/10

      @Mike T - pleasure Mikey - are you related to MarK ? Or TimB ? hahahah

    • acotrel says:

      07:44am | 06/10/10

      ‘Yep, Abbott dropped his bundle as Health Minister during the closing days of the Howard regime and has dropped his bundle after not getting his own way. Time for the Libs to ditch this loser.’

      And don’t the kiddies love him?  The fact that he’s still leader demonstates the power of dogma over the masses!

    • MarK says:

      09:43am | 05/10/10

      Windsor is retiring and wanted to make sure The Nats had something to remember him by.

      Oakeshott looked meh. I hope he has a gig lined up for after the next election.

      Katter looked at least he was making a decision based on a thought process and not an agenda.

      Was a good program.

      Reply

    • Andrew says:

      10:44am | 05/10/10

      You’re kidding right? Katter based his decision on which side would meet the most of his 20 point list. How is that not an agenda?

    • MarK says:

      11:22am | 05/10/10

      Nope not kidding.

      Let me rephrase.

      Katter had an “AGENDA” written out on a piece of paper.

      This “agenda” didn’t include the following

      1. How do I install the Labor party into office to payback the Nats while still maintaining an aura of credibility about the process being fair.

      Does that clarify things Andrew? So sorry for the mix up with semantic interpretations of agenda. I really really must be more careful in future. Well probably not. I will toss a preconceived in next time. Maybe in caps too do you think?

      Thanks for confirming my ponit though. At least you agree Katter was concerned with a number of things. Not looking for an excuse.

      By the way all when are we going to see the new reality show starring the one and only Robbie Oakeshott?

      We need a name for it as a camera crew trails around behind him 24/7 for “posterity”, you know, since he is really important and relevant and stuff.

      No Lies in Lyne

      Lyne and Pyne Just Don’t Rhyme

      How I Shaped The Nation Trustori

      Oakeshot….Just All Me

      Oakeshott…The Man…The Reality

      I need help with more. What would we call the show about nothing starring Rob?

    • Andrew says:

      11:52am | 05/10/10

      Did you actually watch the program? Oakeshott and Windsor spent most of the 17 days in meetings with government departments, rural and regional community groups, experts like Ross Garnaut etc. Why waste so much time gathering information to then just announce their predecided position?

      P.S. If you only have one point to make you probably don’t need to put it in the format of a list.

    • MarK says:

      01:34pm | 05/10/10

      First to your PS

      1. It is my post so I will do it like I want
      2. You missed the irony that Katter had a 20 point plan/agenda as you so brilliantly put and I was juxtaposing against the agenda/plan of the other 2 seeing how they had only 1 point
      3. Filler spot to ensure I meet your ideals of using lists that I guess need more than 2 points
      4. Just in case I was wrong at point 3

      Now to the rest.

      The show? Yes I watched it.

      It was a show for sure they put on. Did you actually get the feeling Windsor was considering anything but Labor?

      Why would you meet with Stern and Garnaut to discuss climate change? Why didn’t they meet with people more balanced on the issue?

      The 17 day timeframe was there to stroke their own egos and to hopefully give Oakeshott a chance at re-election it is even more obvious to me after watching the show that Oakeshott and Windsor had a predetermined position. In other words why take 1 day to decide when you can the limelight for 17? Oakeshott loved every second of it.

    • Andrew says:

      02:11pm | 05/10/10

      Can you name a source to prove that Oakeshott and Windsor only had one point on their agenda other than your own personal feelings about “the vibe” of their decision?

      My personal view from watching Four Corners was that Windsor was leaning slightly towards the Labor party all along but was happy to negotiate with both sides and that subsequent events such as the Liberal costing issue, meetings with rural and regional health experts talking about why they want the NBN, the ever increasing amount that the Liberals were willing to throw at them for their support etc pushed him even further towards supporting Labor. I think Windsor was justified in his skepticism of the Lib’s 180 turn around from proposing cuts in rural/regional spending during the campaign to their offers of huge amounts of money after the election.

      “Why would you meet with Stern and Garnaut to discuss climate change? Why didn’t they meet with people more balanced on the issue?”

      Stern and Garnaut are not climate scientists they are economists and the nature of their discussions would have centred around the fact that if climate change is occuring as the majority of scientists say it is, then a market mechanism is the best economic response to it. The only “agenda” that Stern and Garnaut would be pushing is how to use the market to deliver an economically efficient solution to an externality, something that I thought the Liberal party once valued.

      As for the issue of “balance” the climate change debate is not balanced because the MAJORITY of scientists are in agreement about the role of carbon emissions in causing it. Giving equal weighting to the consensus of the majority of the science community and a small number of climate skeptics (who usually aren’t scientists but merely opinion columnists and/or neo-con bloggers) would not provide this so called “balance” which you speak of.

    • MarK says:

      05:14pm | 05/10/10

      Hmmm Andrew

      So my vibe is wrong and yours is right. Great stuff. You win a lot of arguments with that amrite?

      And the majority of scientists beieve in so called AGW or whatever you want to call it.

      Really?

      You have facts numbers and precise counting to back this up. Along with a recommodation form this majority that is necessary to get the market involved in Australia, to go it alone, to make a difference?

      No?

      Didn’t think so.

      What you have is a gut feel from the msm that gosh darn it this AGW stuff is bang on and since The Age and SMH say we should do lots about it it must be correct.

      Well sorry to rain (hahahaha get it rain) on your parade but there are a lot of people that don’t agree with your view. Here is a idea for you to pursue. If we in Australia can make a difference by going it alone in imposing a carbon tax surely you yourself can make a difference by doing your bit. Go on mate. Take one for the team and pay more now. After all the world will thank you soon.

      So again, because youget lost in detail easily, as you rightly point out they are economists. Go look up the Stern report. It was laughed at by economists through the amount of errors it contained. Good news he is advising us. His reputation is trashed everywhere else. Besides Flannery said we have a heap of time now after finding a random woman crying in the aisles of the supermarket as you do and having a think about all this doom stuff.

      Thanks for playing though. I now get you win arguments because you have a better vibe than others. And because you think AGW is happening we better tax carbon real quick. Conveniently this view is backed up by two economists and some scientific majority you believes exists.

      Awesome work. /golfclap

    • Greg says:

      10:02am | 05/10/10

      There’s a Catch-22 that makes all such peek-a-boo documentaries invalid. They purport to show what happens in confidential meetings, but by definition a meeting with a camera crew in the room is all for the camera.

      Reply

    • MarK says:

      11:05am | 05/10/10

      Bah Greg.

      That comment is so pre August 2010.

      This is the age of the new paradigm where in confidence means let in the ABC. Wish we could have had a bit of a live stream back to us good voters in Lyne.

    • Brad Coward says:

      02:38pm | 05/10/10

      I’ve yet to watch the entire program.  However, whilst I surfed the channels last night, I paused on the ABC for awhile.  At that particular moment a very angry Tony Abbott was on screen with Rob Oakeshott smiling and bouncing around behind him like the frontman for the Doug Anthony Allstars searching for his other two sidekicks.  I was half expecting him to deliver some salient comedic line to the proceedings.

      But he didn’t.  My wife then switched over to the C’Wealth Games.

    • Sven Gali says:

      03:30pm | 05/10/10

      Oh but Brad, he did ! I don’t want to spoil it for you when you do watch it, but he told Abbott to “get outta the way”, and he couldn’t have put it better !

    • Sven Gali says:

      10:10am | 05/10/10

      Notwithstanding that the program didn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know, it was terrific viewing. What was made crystal clear was that it was the fact that the Independents didn’t trust Abbott, (even less so the more promises he threw at them), which sunk him, and as they said, their decision was vindicated when he then reneged on their signed agreement for parliamentary reform.

      Windsor was particularly level headed throughout, and as for Katter, as he said, nothing would surprise.

      Reply

    • Reg says:

      10:02am | 06/10/10

      As the final hours of what we must assume was a rattling good taste of political gymnastics, I think it was only fair that the Australian people should have been provided a few moments for posterity.

      Putting myself in Oakshott’s position, if I’d returned to the room from having a nervous pee, to find the Leader of the Opposition fronting the camera, I’d have been MORE than a little angry. This was their sanctuary with the ABC representing the Australian people, invited to be there for documentary purposes.

    • Andrew says:

      10:15am | 05/10/10

      You seemed to have brushed over one of the more interesting Katter related parts of the piece Tory. I found it very interesting that, despite claiming for the whole 17 days that he was undecided, virtually all of the people he chose to surround himself with as advisers were former members of the Joh Bjelke-Peterson government. One can only imagine what kind of virtuous impartial “advice” would have been provided by these people. Much is said about how Windsor and Oakeshott wanted Labor and spent 17 days looking for the validation for it but they didn’t surround themselves with a bunch of pro-Labor folk to “advise” them.

      Reply

    • hugh says:

      10:47am | 05/10/10

      Noting Katter was undecided is like noting that Wilkie was undecided - they were both always going to go to the side they ended up,
      the only question was how they were going to get there.

      Katter waited it out, and Wilkie showed his hand to force that of Oakshott and Windsor

    • TimB says:

      11:52am | 05/10/10

      Windsor and Oakeshott didn’t have pro-Labor folk to advise them? I suppose Bruce Hawker just dropped in for a beer then.

    • Andrew says:

      01:37pm | 05/10/10

      @TimB, I forgot about Bruce Hawker. However it was my understanding that the role he played was mainly to do with acting as a go between from the Independents and the Labor party about the parliamentary reform agreement and other aspects of the negotiations. A role which Arthur Sinodinos, John Howard’s chief of staff, did for the Liberal party as well. So unlike Katter who seemed to have his circle of people stacked with one side Oakshott and Windsor talked to both sides throughout the process.

    • MarK says:

      01:38pm | 05/10/10

      “but they didn’t surround themselves with a bunch of pro-Labor folk to “advise” them. “

      Snicker.

    • jeffb says:

      01:58pm | 05/10/10

      Mark, Arthur Sinodinos is pro-labour? The history is there for all to see, its a shame it doesn’t match your particular world view.

    • The Badger says:

      02:02pm | 05/10/10

      Obviously, Katter was an independent until the Liberal minders surrounded him and he saw the light. (Scientology style)
      Katter was always going to go conservative.

      The other two not sure they had a predisposition.

      I think what convinced them go Labor was that the coalition:
      Screwed their costings up and deceived the Australian public
      Haven’t got a clue about Broadband and believe that the private sector can solve all the bush problems.
      Wanted to further erode education and health in the bush through budget cuts.
      Treat the Nationals who are supposed to represent the bush - like their bitches.

      That’s what I got out of it.

    • Steve Putnam says:

      10:16am | 05/10/10

      For me the most telling point was when a clearly rattled Tony Abbott responded to a question from the ABC journalist about the gaping holes in his election policy costings. Abbott obviously thought he had kept a tight lid on things and you could see the look of horror on his face when it became apparent that the schoolboy errors, gross blunders and out and out deceits this document contained were there for all the world to see.
      Re Anthony above, I don’t see what Oakeshott and Windsor have to worry about; they’ve achieved more for their electorates in a couple of weeks hard bargaining than a lifetimes worth of National Party representation!

      Reply

    • Sirro says:

      04:27pm | 07/10/10

      What a crock ... The Libs just knew ahead of time exactly what should be clear to anyone who isnt a moron. The Australian Treasury are a bunch of Labor leaning turds (e.g. Ken Henry). They were always going to trash the coalitions economic policy as worse than the Governments simply because they wrote the governments policy. In terms of what the inds. have achieved for their electorate? Clarity .... it should be now clear to anyone in New England and Lyne that a vote for Windsor or Oakshot is a vote for Labor.

      I predict that the only Ind. in the next parliament will be Bob Katter. Windsor will either retire or die from the drink. Oakshort and Wilkie will lose their seats. The independant in the state seat of Pt. Macquarie must surely be looking for another job at the moment.

    • Steve Putnam says:

      10:28am | 09/10/10

      @Sirro Ken Henry, who you describe as a ‘Labor leaning turd’ was described by John Howard as ‘a man who has served his country extremely well’ (George Megalogenis article Australian 7/4/07) and was twice appointed Treasury head by Peter Costello during the life of the Howard government.
      The mistakes contained in Liberal Party election costings were there for all the world to see like the proposal to sell Medibank Private without noticing that there would be no continued revenue from it once it was sold.
      Only a fool or an imbecile would blame Treasury for some conspiracy to white ant the Tories. Windsor and Oakeshott went with the side that could do the maths.

    • John C says:

      10:42am | 05/10/10

      I always thought Bob Katter was a bit of a ratbag but I believe that he was one of the few people who came out of this exercise with any vestige of integrity. He clearly knew Oakshott and Windsor were going to back the ALP and that, if he went for the Coalition, he would be on the losing side. Yet, instead of jumping on the bandwagon, he decided according to his conscience.

      With Windsor, it is clear that as soon as he invited his cousin, Bruce Hawker, the master of spin, to advise him, he was always going to go with Gillard. This guy is so full of puffed up self importance, it is nauseating.

      Oakshott is a total tosser, trying to give the impression of thought and gravity, but just coming off as a giggling lightweight.

      I did not vote for the ALP but would prefer that it had a clear majority without having to rely on these dills, the wanker from Melbourne, who seems to think that Australia’s most pressing problem (social or economic) is gay marriage, and the United States of Andrew Wilkie.

      Reply

    • hugh says:

      11:01am | 05/10/10

      Too much is made over the costings of the Liberals and Abbott rightly shut down a journalist who thinks they understand costings and Treasury analysis - all they heard was ‘black hole’ and jumped on it - and pretty much accused Abbott of lying to the electorate during the campaign

      There were a few assumptions they used which the Treasury forbids in its analysis and costings (ie Liberals always run leaner governments - therefore knock off 5%.... which of course is rubbish)

      An issue i take up with the focus on policy costings is the inability of anyone to properly review the $43bn NBN, The public share of this is around $29bn. Given that its future cashflows etc (used in calculating asset values) show it is more likely to be worth $20bn over the course of its useful life - there are $13bn worth of impairment write downs that need to occur within the first year of it being fully operational - maybe if someone wrote “thats a 13bn black hole in the NBN” there would have been more focus on it.

      This was never a topic of discussion - and i cant understand why

      (Also, dont get me wrong - i’m all for the NBN - our country is no where near leveraged enough…. 3%???? Waaaay too low - we need to pump up to 50 or 60% - dams, water, rail, shipping, communications, hospitals, defence etc etc etc)

      Reply

    • Bernard says:

      11:57am | 05/10/10

      “This was never a topic of discussion - and i cant understand why”

      Maybe because the Liberal Party never understood the concept of costings to begin with otherwise they would have been shouting it from the hilltops.

    • David says:

      12:07pm | 05/10/10

      Probably has more to do with your earlier comment Hugh - they wanted to make different assumptions to the Treasury assumptions. This amounts to changing the rules of the game.

      Regarding the NBN, it is also worth having a review now that there is a deal with Telstra - all the figures we have are prior to this deal being secured and without any assumption of such a deal.

      In fact, these kinds of figures and numbers are exactly what Turnbull should be calling for so he can mount a credible case against it but I doubt he will. Conroy will end up flopping the report out on the table after Turnbull has used all his material against it and will only look a fool (again).

    • Steve Putnam says:

      05:26am | 06/10/10

      Utter rubbish hugh! As an example take the policy the Liberals had of selling Medibank Private. Apart from factoring in an optimistically high price for its sale, these great business savvy Tories forgot to factor out continued revenue from it once it was sold.If my accountant made a mistake like this he would loose my business on the spot. What would you do?
      Then there are other things like the $3.3 billion in cuts they quietly slipped in without telling anyone. Much of this was tied up with rural projects so Abbott was in effect giving with the left hand and taking with the right.  Windsor and Oakeshott saw Abbott for the fraud that he is.

    • Zaf says:

      11:07am | 05/10/10

      Why on earth didn’t Katter want the cameras there?  What was he trying to hide?  I smell conspiracy!!

      Reply

    • Reg says:

      12:00pm | 05/10/10

      Especially as the contents would have been reliably embargoed and only of historical interest. He’s probably expecting a better offer from one of the commercials.

    • Jon says:

      11:16am | 05/10/10

      Windsor and Katter to me came out the best, Oakshott was OK. There something about Wilkie self-righteous manner that is annoying. All and all, 4Corners did good on this one!

      Reply

    • Mik T says:

      11:22am | 05/10/10

      I have no problems with any of these members haivng a view which side to back from the get go (as i believe they all did, as most of us would have in the same position). However, the camera being present and the DRAWN out deliberations tells me this was simply to SPIN a picture of impartiality…... These guys (in particular Oakshott) have bashed on about new paradigms and a greater sense of transperencey in politics, however, how they have come across during this process is to play the political game to a tee…...


      PS. I think it’s time Mr Oakshott drops the Holier then thou attitude, you know the one where he scoffs his nose at how politics plays out in Australia. He seems to be playing the political game better then some of the best i have seen

      Reply

    • David says:

      12:01pm | 05/10/10

      The DRAWN out deliberations might have had something to do with trying to get as much of the promises and changes they wanted from the few people who are actually in a position to secure them too.

    • Mike T says:

      01:54pm | 05/10/10

      Sadly i agree with you David…. which adds to my point that these guys who were so dissapointed in the lack of transparency and dishonesty of the major parties, yet they proceed to play the same games to feather thier own cause….. what is it they say about power corrupting

    • Reg says:

      02:18pm | 05/10/10

      I’d like to know why Tony Abbott popped in. What was he expecting to achieve by his presence? Did I miss something? Did it come as a shock to find the cameras there or is that why he came in?

    • Sven Gali says:

      03:46pm | 05/10/10

      Abbott “popped in”, Reg, because the jig was up. He’d just found out that the Independents were about to go public with the 11 billion reasons that Treasury had found for why he’d refused to have his costings assessed before the election, and because the Independents also now knew that he’d initially refused their request to have them assessed because he knew that the figures didn’t add up.

      As was shown, anything he tried after that was treated with the suspicion it deserved, which Abbott subsequently confirmed by reneging on the agreement he’d signed with them on parliamentary reform.

    • Mike T says:

      06:04pm | 05/10/10

      Yes Sven…

      Abbott popped in because the “jig was up” yet Julia was calling just to say Hi and see what they were up to on the weekend.

      I will spell it out nice and easy for you…Abbott was calling to try to get them to vote Liberal and Julia was calling to try to get them to vote labour.

      How was that, let me know if you want me to drum it down a bit….

    • MarK says:

      11:42pm | 05/10/10

      I approve of Mike T’s comment.

      Best comment in this thread.

    • Sven Gali says:

      01:11am | 06/10/10

      Reg asked why Abbott popped in, Mike T. You really should watch the program sometime.

      When you do, you’ll hear Windsor say just before Abbott “pops in”,

      TONY WINDSOR: “I think there’s some explaining to do and that’s obviously why Tony Abbott’s, you know, climbing up the walls wanting to get us before, before we obvious ah, ah say anything. But I think it does indicate that they knew that there were issues here in terms of the accountability process.”

      SARAH FERGUSON: “Minutes later, the Liberal leader surprises everyone by arriving in the office himself.”

    • Sven Gali says:

      01:19am | 06/10/10

      p.s. Interesting quirk you’ve got there, Mike T.

      You always refer to Tony Abbott as Abbott, yet you always refer to Julia Gillard as Julia. Care to spell that one out ?

    • Reg says:

      10:25am | 06/10/10

      I think you’d be safe interpreting it as gender condescension Sven. smile

    • Rob I says:

      12:04pm | 05/10/10

      Someone who write’s cheat notes on their hands, should not be in such a position of power.

      What is in the water in Queensland, that they vote for these types of idiots?

      Katter would like to take this country & the world, back to 1960.

      Thank god for Tony Windsor & Rob Oakeshott. They have all of my support & congratulations.

      Reply

    • iansand says:

      12:44pm | 05/10/10

      The bit that stuck in my mind was what seemed to be one major deciding point for Windsor and Oakeshott.  One of them said something like “Abbott will be there and call an early election.  If we want this to stick we need to go with the status quo”. 

      If I heard that correctly it meant that Gillard got up because, with her apparent electoral weakness, the Indies would have more time to get their agenda through with Labor than with the Coalition.  Gillard would be less likely to go to an early election to entrench a majority. The Indies grip on influence would be extended. Abbott was seen as an opportunist who would use the Indies only for so long as it suited him.

      Reply

    • MarK says:

      01:36pm | 05/10/10

      “the Indies would have more time to get their agenda through with Labor than with the Coalition”

      Don’t beat around the bush (pun intended)

      The Indies would have more time to remain relevant with Labor than with the Coalition in their estimation. in other words the backed the weakest horse in the knowledge it would try afloat the longest.

      Great way to pick your government.

    • Reg says:

      09:50am | 06/10/10

      Typically short-sighted MarK. You’re suggesting that from their points-of-view, that to have gone with the Liberals would have meant a return to the polls, while going with Labor opened a bright horizon of the possibilities of achieving something for their electorates.

      Apparently, from you view, they should have sacrificed their position of power for the good of Australia. How grand of you.

    • Elizabeth says:

      01:08pm | 05/10/10

      I thought Katter look and sounded ridiculous throughout most of the program. 
      The moment when Rob Oakeshot comes back to Tony Windsors office and slams into Tony Abbott (whilst Abbott is tearing into the ABC reporter) and then nudges him and says something like “get out of theway” with that goofy look on his face is VIEWING GOLD!!!!
      I loved it . Thanks 4 corners (and the players) for a riveting bit of TV.

      Reply

    • Anjuli says:

      01:15pm | 05/10/10

      My understanding of how Oakeshott became a member of the National party is that he worked for them after university then just fell into the party proper ,just because he was already there.That is my mind makes an opportunist, watched the programme and I think their mind was made made up in the first 3 days,also Oakeshott to be kind has an unfortunate manner is that he seems to laugh at every thing.

      Reply

    • Bryan says:

      02:51pm | 05/10/10

      I didn’t need the Four Corners show to tell me about what was happening and how these two reached their decision. Within minutes of watching the election night results for Oakeschott and Windsor it was absolutely clear who they would support. I think they knew it all along and they dragged the process out to get the limelight and maximize their returns from the ALP. Gillard become so flexible one would have thought she was a gymnast. As far s Katter goes, I think he decided against going with the other two Amigos because he could not bring himself to side with the ALP.

      Also, the bru hu ha over the Speakers role was a scam. Oakeschott and Windsor both knew that they would support the ALP/Greens combination and then tried to tie up the Coalition into a deal that would make them look bad if they backed out on it. The “home spun” agreement and the entirely fake group hug was act designed by Oakeschott. Politically, this was done only to optimize their position (ALP/Green & Independents) once it was officially announced.

      How good an acting performance did Windsor and Oakeshott give? I would suggest best actor in a supporting role for Windsor and best actor in a Drama for Oakeschott. When will they get their awards – I would suggest in about three years!

      Reply

    • Ryan says:

      08:02pm | 05/10/10

      Can we please stop entertaining these two fools, not only does it lower the collective IQ of the country but it really does make us look to the international community like a bunch of complete and utter clowns, really!

      Reply

    • cam says:

      08:23pm | 05/10/10

      Rob and Tony looked throughout like they were trying to find reasons not to go with Abbott. Katter might be a bit “unusual” but I think he genuinely assessed both sides, albeit via his wishlist of 20, but at least he looked ambivalent.

      On a slightly different tack, I wonder why the three independents didn’t ask for a list of proposed ministers and their portfolios from both leaders. Surely mere policy isn’t enough, surely some kind assessment about who might execute policy would be appropriate, particularly given the poor execution of policy by Garrett etc and certainly the history of the Libs and their execution of policy hadn’t been flawless either.

      It’s kinda like, there are two teams playing football, we’ll assess the strategy of each team, but we won’t assess the players ability to execute the strategy…who does that ?

      Reply

    • John Dark says:

      09:01pm | 05/10/10

      It’s the point where Katter tells them his decision, that you can see the greedy light of base opportunism come into the eyes of Oakeshotte and Windsor, realising how much more valuable their votes have now become, especially to Julia Gillard.

      Reply

    • Me and my Left Wing Chevy says:

      09:51pm | 05/10/10

      No prizes for guessing who Joanie-dear voted for. Perhaps Joanie dear you should read some of the work others have done on and about your moron leader and prize chicken.
      One question; when will your type put up a proper candidate for PM? Are you giving Malcolm a little breathing space?

      Reply

    • Dallas Beaufort says:

      10:50pm | 05/10/10

      Oakeshott exposed himself for what the thinking person already knew, a bunny, caught in the headlights, not knowing where to run, turns left,right and left again (fence sitter), and then runs into the table drain, straight into a strainer post and nearly knocks himself out all under his own misguided steam, to get anywhere but where he should have gone in the first place.

      Reply

    • Lurch of Perth says:

      12:26am | 06/10/10

      The only thing longer than a Independents decision making process is a spurned suitors memory.

      Reply

    • Michael says:

      11:09am | 06/10/10

      There are some very interesting comments here, but what get’s up my hooter is, how the hell can three so called “Independents” tell us who is going to govern the Country? I believe Gillard is a “psuedo” Prime Minister as is the Government. Why worry about having an election when we can just ask all the independents to choose. The pork barrelling would be ferocious, but would cost less than an election.  Independent politicians are illegitimate representatives, no more,no less.

      Reply

    • David says:

      01:46pm | 06/10/10

      “how the hell can three so called “Independents” tell us who is going to govern the Country?”

      The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australian… that is how government is formed, by the collection of a majority of votes in the House of Representatives. Either by a pre-arranged political party or by a coalition of willing members of the House of Representatives. If you have an issue with a Coaltion government then you should take issue with every single Liberal government in Australian history as far as I know.

      If Gillard is a “psuedo” PM then so is every PM we have ever had - because we don’t elect one, the PM’s office is virtually a convention of the House of Reps, it just happens that we rarely have minority governments and the PM is usually pre-determined by the victorious party.

      “Why worry about having an election when we can just ask all the independents to choose.”

      That is what we do with every election, the only difference is how members of the house are labelled by their political allegiance. It is only parties which stipulate rules about how to vote on legislation - there is no consitutional basis for preventing or forcing a member to vote one way or another on any issue.

      Michael, you display the biggest problem with Australian politics, the ever increasing disconnect between the constitutional arrangements which dictate how our parlaimentary system operates, the nature of how election campaign and modern politics is performed and the way in which the electorate perceives things should be instead of how they really are.

      In short, you and most Australian’s are letting themselves be played for the morons, fools and ideological sponges they are or aspire to be.

    • Phil says:

      08:37am | 07/10/10

      If Abbott wasn’t a conservative the media would have hunted him from office by now. How much evidence do you need to prove what a blatant liar Abbott is and the gutlessness bias in this countries private media. Thank God we have the ABC to give us a small taste of the truth.

      Reply

    • Sirro says:

      04:35pm | 07/10/10

      Yep thank God ....

      My regret is that I wasted part of my evening watching these wankers blather on .... and I had to pay 8 cents for it!

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 27 May 12 07:38PM

@MelanieTait I was thinking the same thing!

Malcolm Farr

farrm51 27 May 12 04:24PM

@AndrewCatsaras Agreed. Kills more people than AIDS. Yet tolerated. Meanwhile: Good Insiders piece again Andrew.

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 27 May 12 02:08PM

RT @JamieTravers: I'm in Europe and don't care for Eurovision, why is my twitter feed filled with Aussies recounting the bloody thing!?

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 12 09:27PM

Dementor doing a good job for sweden #sbseurovision

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

by David Penberthy

180

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

by Paul Toohey

27

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

by Angela Mollard

3

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed