What a great night to be Labor. As the Party swept back into office with a mandate to lead global action on climate change it seemed like the entire nation had grown a few inches taller.

Winning smile….if only. Photo: Gary Ramage

The energy on the ground made the excitement of Kevin 07’s electoral triumph seem like a mere entrée to the main, as thousands of young people on booths around Australia literally enthused swinging voters into embracing the future.

Forgive my hyperbole just this once, but this was a night when the rules of politics were rewritten, where principle drove politics and the people responded by voting to reject fear and confront the reality of global warming.

The Prime Minister stared down a concerted negative campaign funded by the mining industry, riding through high levels of disapproval as Tony Abbott’s attack on a “big new tax on everything” and turning the debate around over the final two weeks of the campaign.

By the campaign’s final days, the mining industry attack had been neutralised by a series of senior business leaders who came out in favour of putting a price on carbon, arguing that delaying action would deliver a worse economic outcome.

Through the campaign, Australia became a global focal point as scores of the world¹s most eminent scientists travelled here to participate in a series of public lectures that not only exposed the sceptics, but put science at the centre of our public debate for the first time.

If scientists provided the intellectual grunt, they were powered by a grassroots campaign driven by younger Australians who see their future linked so tightly with that of the planet. Around the nation, the cream of Australia¹s music industry held “get out the vote to save the planet” gigs, the show-stopper coming when the PM joined Pete Garrett and a who’s
who of the industry to belt out Beds are Burning. No-one who was on the steps of the Opera House, or at venues around the nation will forget the night.

But it was ordinary Australians too - thousands of “Nannas for Our Grandkids” organising pre-postals in nursing homes, groups of school parents organised by students too young to even vote, a sense of inter-generational connection never seen before.

Campaign strategists played a key role too the campaign slogan “moving forward” captured the mood of the nation and left the sceptics looking tired and scared of the future. Their use of focus groups to frame a message that moved voters from fear to hope has rewritten political campaigning, with TV ads inviting Australians to look their children in the eye before they voted, hitting the perfect emotional note and totally trumping the Opposition fear campaign.

Of course there were sections of the media who were hostile, and the concerted campaign by some to elevate climate denial bordered at times on the interventionist, but as the campaign built momentum, even the most cynical members of the gallery twigged they were covering something special.

The Prime Minister dominated the five-week campaign, each campaign event building on the previous as the narrative of the dangers of inactions
giving rise to the story of hope that the benefits of moving first to shift its energy model would accrue to the nation.

The clean energy economic plan will be the centrepiece of the next term of government -  major expenditure on solar, wind and thermo-nuclear projects
jointly funded by the government and Australian super funds.

The “workers capital” idea was another game-changer, giving voters a personal stake in the clean energy economy that Labor built their election pitch around. But the winning play was the way that those opposed to an ETS were slowly drawn in with the facts, then invited to think about the impact of inaction, then finally to embrace the possibilities of change.

In the face of this grassroots momentum, the Opposition imploded - splits between the sceptics and the realists went public with the leaking of the Turnbull memo just days from the ballot. It didn¹t decide the election, but it underlined a miserable campaign for a party with no vision for the
future. One can only wonder where it goes from here.

The Greens would have been disappointed by their smaller vote, but heartened by the fact that their agenda has been adopted by the entire nation.

But ultimately the winner of Saturday night was politics - for so long seen as cynical and tired, the campaign has infused energy and hope into our national debate.

And all it took was one person to say: “This is hard, but this is the right thing to do. If I can¹t convince the people of Australia to act for their
kids and grandkids, what point is there in leading?”

Most commented

51 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Eric says:

      05:52am | 24/08/10

      So this is how you deal with crushing failure - a retreat into outright fantasy.

    • Julie Coker-Godson says:

      10:53pm | 24/08/10

      Whose election was he reporting on?  It certainly wasn’t the same one that I took part in and followed religiously for the past 5 weeks.  I wonder what he’s on!

    • Evan says:

      06:58am | 24/08/10

      I just threw up in my mouth

    • Against the Man says:

      07:22am | 24/08/10

      Gillard keeps saying she can form stable government. Yes if stable is code for destroying your own leaders and wasting money without any real policies.

    • Jane says:

      02:36pm | 24/08/10

      Yes, the faceless men got it wrong but the campaign wasn’t all about them, and they don’t own the whole blame.

      Didn’t Fake Julia declare after week 1 that she was throwing the ‘Labor campaign’ out the window and doing it ‘her way’?...Rool Jooolia’s way?

      Rool Julia must accept a large percentage of that blame personally. Afterall, it was she trying to sell the notion that the campaign was about fair dinkum Jools and no BS.

      Labor as an entire entity are a sham….at State AND now Federal levels.
      Rudd a failure - the knifing a failure - Fake and then Rool Jools a failure…the whole lot.
      Don’t blame State ...don’t blame leaks…don’t blame Rudd…don’t blame Bitar etc…they all endorsed the Labor brand and defended the process/ tack they all took all the way as Labor the entity…and all failed.

      Proof they never should have won ‘07 and only did so by default and deceit.

    • Phil says:

      07:30am | 24/08/10

      WTF. What a load of bullsh1t.

      Why dont you just come on here Peter and admit that you, Karl Bitar, Mark Arbib, David Feeney, Paul Howes, Bruce Hawker and many others got it wrong. Take a slice of humble pie and concede that whilst you didnt win, you certainly lost.

      See, being humble and real, is what Tony Abbott managed to do. You may disagree even hate the man, but he has regardless of the end result bought down two polular leaders for the ALP. Firstly Kevin Rudd and now Julia Gillard. She may yet get to form a minority government, who knows, but she is forever stained by her knifing of KRudd. She would not last the 3 years no way.

      A great deal of your voters disaffected to the greens, that means they went left, whilst Julia, the Sussex Boys tried to go right to counter the Libs.

      The campaign was a total bore, Julia’s monotone voice chanting focus group slogans with manotonous repetitive drawl, was the stuff to turn off viewers. To political junkies, many like me would not have watched the campaign launch as they like me didnt want to have a broken TV by the end of the speaches.

      I think her blantant lie about her notes, was a major factor, if they will lie about something so simple as that, what else are they telling lies about.

      The last minuite Julia looked desperate, like a rabbit on heat, trying to stem the flow to the Libs following the lying launch. Workchoices, really. It was a complete lie to think the libs could have even if they won the lower house in a majority gotten the legislation through the upper house and it wouldnt have occurred on the Monday.

      I look at Global Warming a bit like Christianity. If I believe in it and I turn out wrong, I have lost nothing, If I believe in it, and im right those that dont lose everything. It is better to be cautious. Yes KRudd had a massive ego, that was half his problem. But to go on about the greatest moral challenge of our time, then renig cause the focus groups want something different was a joke.

      Labor im my opinion will never be credible on GW till they look into Nuclear. They dont have to build plants, but the rest of the world is building Nuclear Plants, we ahve the Uranium to power them, and whilst expensive they produce much less pollution. Even the gas drilling off the Central Coast and Newcastle Beaches. Labor seemed to appear to say no to these. Simply drill extract them pipe to the heavily polution Hunter Valley Coal Mines which if converted would reduce emissions.

      What about a small flat carbon price$ 2-5 a ton, all in no exceptions, no compensation, not much, just collect a few bob with it all going into Solar, Wind and renewables. Not some grandeous scheme in for life but a small one. Put in it for 3 years flat them to be looked at. In that time if the world has not moved on, delete or retain in for a further period.

      Labor did not win cause they wasted money. Australians love to waste their own money be it on pokies, beer, gambling, cigs etc. They dont like to see government blantant wastage. Surely with every school building, enough tradies/builders would have gone to each school to build the buildings etc, saved us stacks of cash, and kept the local communities working. Cut out the multi nationals paid massive fees and waste.

      But to not admit to failures means people look at you with synicism. Abbott made it clear workchoices was gone for at least 3 years and if he wanted to amend it he would take it to the people at the next election. He saw that in 2007 it was as much a workchoices referendum than a win for KRudd.

    • Darren Parker says:

      11:27am | 24/08/10

      amen brother

    • MarK says:

      07:41am | 24/08/10

      What a waste of a column. Just goes to prove the fantasy land your intellect occupies.

      Why was this even printed?

    • libertarian vegetarian says:

      07:44am | 24/08/10

      That campaign never was because there aren’t enough stupid people to swallow it.
      Finish off whatever you’ve been drinking and put yourself to bed.

    • The Scarlet Pimpernel says:

      07:55am | 24/08/10

      Actually, this says it all - Labor are high on rhetoric but their follow-through consists solely of taxing everyone else. An Emission Tax Scheme would mean the consumer footing the bill yet again, as the cost of compliance was allowed to trickle down to the end consumer. Show me a scheme where those that pollute actually pay and I will vote Green or ALP myself.

    • iansand says:

      08:28am | 24/08/10

      We all pollute.  Every consumer.  Hypothetically, if we all stopped consuming there would be no manufacturing, and no emissions.  So the cost should trickle down.  We can then make a personal decision.  Do we keep buying those products, or do we find alternatives that are cheaper?  The whole point is to make products with high underlying pollution more expensive so there is an economic imperative to use cleaner products.  You are either too thick to understand that, or understand it and deliberately distort the message.

      There is not a separate polluting class.  I have seen the enemy, and it are us.

    • Rocket Surgeon says:

      08:39am | 24/08/10

      The polluters are the consumers. We drive the cars, we use the electricity, we but the goods made in the factories that consume the electricity. Business does not exist in isolation, it exists to fulfill the needs of consumers. The ETS was designed to make carbon more expensive for consumers and other energy sources cheaper so the demand for them grew. Simple market economics, which is why I can’t understand why the “Free Market” party rejected it. Show me a Liberal Party that embraces proper free markets supported by national infrastructure and rejects a middle class welfare state and the demonisation of the weak and I’ll vote for it.

    • The Scarlet Pimpernel says:

      08:45am | 24/08/10

      I probably needed to phrase this differently. There is no DIRECT impetus for the heavy polluters to invest in reducing pollution when they can simply purchase carbon credits and pass on the cost to the consumers. They win and the carbon traders win because they take a percentage of every deal; the only loser is the consumer.

      Find me a way to penalise the actual polluters.

    • iansand says:

      10:11am | 24/08/10

      They buy carbon credits.  Their products cost more because they have to recover the cost of buying the credits.  A competitor produces more efficiently, or with lower emissions.  Their product is cheaper, so a rational consumer buys the cheaper product.

      It’s the market.  Remember market forces? 

      Option 1 looks the more likely explanation.

    • A Bob says:

      10:23am | 24/08/10

      There are a fixed number of carbon credits. They can’t just go and buy more if none are selling. This is why it is called ‘cap and trade’. More efficient organisations that reduce their pollution can sell their credits and gain a competitive advantage. That’s why it’s called a trading scheme. It works using free market principles.

      It is not a tax.

    • David C says:

      01:18pm | 24/08/10

      iansand I am sorry but I disagree with you , the answer is not to make fossil fuels more expensive, the answer is to make renewables cheaper. Look to the ozone experience for the answers

    • iansand says:

      02:15pm | 24/08/10

      David C - Why wouldn’t renewable become cheaper?

    • Joe Blow says:

      08:25am | 24/08/10

      I for one would have voted for a party that was going to take action on Climate Change.  I voted Labor in 2007 for this reason and this reason alone, having never voted Labor previously.  I would have voted Labor in a double dissolution if there had been one on teh CPRS/ETS.  I would even have given Kevin Rudd another go had Labor wanted to still do something on climate change.  BUT - faced with neither party offering anything; I defaulted to the party that would waste less of my taxes.  When the $%#^ inevitably hits the fan on climate/energy/resources etc, countries with with money in the bank will come out better than countries that are broke.  Simple as that.
      Note:  Gillard saying she believes in climate change yet is waiting for 150 random people to be convinced is ridiculous.  Labor had a huge mandate to do something on climate change and they squibbed it.  This issue does not need ‘focal group’ leadership and citizen’s assemblies.

    • Joe Blow says:

      08:29am | 24/08/10

      I voted Coalition on Saturday and think this is an excellent article.  Clearly some of the readers here don’t get that it is intended to mock the Labor Party (as well as the campaign as a whole).  Funny thing is that it isn’t all that far from the 2007 campaign - Rudd actually did instill a new hope in the electorate.  It really highlights just how much political capital Labor threw away over the past 3 years.

    • Paul H says:

      08:32am | 24/08/10

      Peter, your column should have started with “once upon a time”. I don’t know which campaign you were watching but it certainly wasn’t the one most of Australia saw. Labor was thrashed in the election and if we had a first past the post system, would be relegated to history. It was only the watermelons who saved them. If you are going to write a column, please at least try and tell it with some semblance of truth, not the fairy tale you just dribbled.

    • Macon Paine says:

      08:51am | 24/08/10

      Yibada Yibada thats all folks!

    • Freeman says:

      09:07am | 24/08/10

      Does any one else see the election result the way I do?
      as I see it, Gillard did run to the polls as Abbott accused her of. Calling for a short 5 week campaign in an effort to capitilize on her honeymoon period, knowing that the later she set the election date the more chance she had of loosing. I think at the point of the election the electorate was moving from the ALP to the Libs and if abbott had an extra few weeks the libs would have taken more than 76 seats

    • Majority says:

      10:11am | 24/08/10

      no, this isn’t right. She gave up incumbency and would have done better with a longer stint as PM prior to the election. Check out Mumble in the Australian.

    • HipChic says:

      10:11am | 24/08/10

      You are correct in stating that Julia Gillard was counting on the honeymoon period to gain the majority of seats and it did back fire.  But I think you are mistaken to think that if the campaign went any longer than it did would have given Abbott a majority.  The swinging vote went to the Greens or the informal vote. If the election campaign went on any longer there would have been more Green votes and informal votes.  Both major parties need to wake up and realise the Austraiian people are sick of the spin on both sides.  Australia is in a position where we do not have a person who is a strong leader of either major parties let alone a person able to lead a government.

    • gug says:

      09:13am | 24/08/10

      Correct me if I’m wrong, but this is meant to be fantasy. I think he’s writing from the perspective of what he thinks the campaign SHOULD have been from the Labor side.

    • Dewey says:

      10:19am | 24/08/10

      The problem is that fantasy is not real. You can’t win a political campaign in the long term just by pretending.

      So now we have fake Julia, real Julia, and fantasy Julia.

    • gug says:

      10:41am | 24/08/10

      Its a writing device used to Criticise from a different angle. Thats all. He’s criticising the labor party. Isn’t that what Lib supporters want??

    • Peter Lewis says:

      02:42pm | 24/08/10

      Correct gug, you seem to be the only person commenting on this piece who got the joke and who has the wit not to revert to churning out bile .... pearl before swine, I guess!

    • MarK says:

      07:18pm | 24/08/10

      Oh come on Peter you might have thought you were critising but in reality you were pining.

      Pining for that “progressive” mindset that makes Brad Pitt want to oppose the death penalty for murderers etc but use it on BP executives. That has those upper socio-economic idiots in Melbourne and Balmain voting Green to somehow assuage their guilt at getting so much dirty lucre. You really cannot believe that Gillard lost. You really think it was as simple as “doing it right”.

      Pro tip Peter. They have not got it in them. They are heartless, cowardly, follow the leader idiots on your side. Bitar as national Secretary? I laughed when he got the job and I am a layman. When was the last time a Labor government gave us anything other than a calculated and plotted course to return to power for its own sake? NSW is a mess, Bligh lies outrageously, Rann wqas so so lucky and Victorians are weird. That fool in WA couldn’t knock off a chair sniffer ffs!!

      Anyone that tries to to do anything in the party is cut off at knees, I give a big shout out to Iemma, Rees and especially Michael Costa here - hi guys, you were shocking but you had a go.

      You still cling to the belief that there is something half decent in the Labor which has been easy to see given the myopia of you postings.

      Lets us remember such classics as

      “Government won’t be turfed out for taxing miners”

      “Rudd has already won today’s health debate”

      And there is plenty more.

      Out of all the posters here on The Punch you seem to get it wrong more than any other. Take a hard look at yourself.

      it ain’t us that got it wrong. It is you. Yes I recognised what you were attempting but reading it in the context of your mindset - well you saw my response. Hitler would have been a good guy according to your though process except for little things like the holocaust and WWII.

      It is not bile we toss at you. It is scorn. And sympathy. Really get over yourself.

      Pearls and sine - god help me.

    • Charles says:

      09:26am | 24/08/10

      Your take on Gloabl Warming and the Precautionary Principle is a bit simplistic. 

      Humans are resonsible for and have influence over about 12 ppm of the 390 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere.  Your position is the ultimate tokenism which has widespread ramifications for all the economies on the globe, and subsequently the livelihoods of everyone on the planet.  It might help if you think things through a bit more.

    • iansand says:

      10:19am | 24/08/10

      Pre Industrial Revolution concentration ~270 ppm.
      Current concentration ~370 ppm.

      Therefore the fairies are responsible for ~88 ppm.

    • Freeman says:

      10:49am | 24/08/10

      The fairies along with Mt pinotubo, agung and el chicho.
      Charles is right, if AGW did really threaten the enviroment then the scientists and lefties would be more willing to accept, or would be pushing for, carbon regulation instead of an ETS (or guilt tax, or slush fund) which is tokenism at it’s best coz as long as coal is cheaper than the alternatives which it could be even with an ETS, the energy industry will continue to burn it,  emitting the same levels of c02, the only difference is that they would pay the carbon tax as if that makes a difference.

    • iansand says:

      12:17pm | 24/08/10

      Find me the research that says that Mt Pinatubo had a significant effect on carbon dioxide levels.  That would be scientific research - not made up blogs.

    • Charles says:

      04:34pm | 24/08/10

      @iansand: pre-industrial levels of CO2 being ~ 270 ppm is another urban myth that requires dispelling. 

      This figure is taken from the Vostock ice core in the Antarctic, where according to people who know, once ice is under some metres of ice, it hydrates to an equilibrium level of CO2 which is, Goodness, Gracious ~270-280 ppm.

      The reality is that from real figures taken from people on the day, is that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere over the last 180 years they have been testing it, varies from about 310 ppm to 425 ppm.  In 1945 it was ~ 415 ppm.

      The figures I quoted above relating to the anthropogenic amount of CO2 in the atmosphere ~ 12 ppm, is a figure taken from the IPCC 2001 report.  Look it up for yourself, perhaps you might think it is a credible figure.

      It is also interesting to see that in 2001 the amount of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere was about 3.7%, now it is down to 3.4%.  We are probably doing too much restriction of emissions, we better stop soon or it will go the other way.

    • Shaun says:

      09:42am | 24/08/10

      If only. It would make an amazing difference if Labor just stood for something. The party’s must eventually change and actually lead, so why not now.

    • Majority says:

      09:57am | 24/08/10

      I read this as a strong criticism of Jooolya.  “And all it took was one person to say: “This is hard, but this is the right thing to do. If I can¹t convince the people of Australia to act for their kids and grandkids, what point is there in leading?”  Citizen’s Assembly, what a joke.

    • Mike S says:

      10:10am | 24/08/10

      Gillard does not have a clear mandate from the people no matter how hard she tries to spin it. She has lost face and the Rudd factor will always haunt her. We need a fresh new start without the old ALP and ‘real’ Julia holding us back while trying to ‘move fwd’!

    • Mikko says:

      11:24am | 24/08/10

      And the real joke here Peter is a lot of lefties out there will actually believe it’s true. What they thought had really happened was just a bad dream.

    • Xavier Maxicon says:

      11:29am | 24/08/10

      The only mandate Joolya has is her defacto

    • Peter says:

      12:01pm | 24/08/10

      This election was about “stopping the boats”, I hope the next election is about stopping the bullshit that we saw during this campaign..

      Neither party deserved a majority and neither got it. Never have i seen an election where no one wanted to debate. What a joke! Debates should be made compulsory during campaings and include parties like the Greens (despite what we might think of them).

      Town Hall meetings / debates should be held every second day during a campaign, it should just be the norm.

      People are sick of these party power games. I honestly believe that people were just venting when Rudd was going bad in the polls, i still believe he would have won. Alternativly, if Turnball was oppossion leader he would have romped it home. Both parties shot themselves in the foot..

      It’s time country was put ahead of party politics. I would love to see a mixed cabinet where the best talent in the WHOLE of parliament made up the ministries.

      We have to improve how things are done…

    • Jane says:

      12:17pm | 24/08/10

      I hope the next election is about getting rid of the Union influence in our Government! That means getting rid of Labor. Labor are letting these idiots run our country.

    • Peter says:

      01:35pm | 24/08/10

      @ Jane, if you heard Malcolm Turnball on Q&A last night, he proposed similar reform. Ban union from donating to labour and ban business from donating to the Liberals. Only individuals on the electoral roll should be allowed to donate and it should be capped at $1,000.

      Enough is enough!!!!

      Ps. Malcolm for PM…

    • jf says:

      06:07pm | 24/08/10

      Surely Malcolm can’t be suggesting that the Unions use their members fees to represent workers rights.

      Maybe they would have spent more time raising hell when workers died in ceiling fires than trying to get the ALP re-elected if that was the case.

      And now, you can bet a fair bit of that dough fighting a bloody civil war.

      I just don’t know why union members just don’t save their union fees and use the savings to pay for a bloody good QC if they need industrial representation.

    • Dale Peterson says:

      02:26pm | 24/08/10

      And, of course, this splendid campaign would have employed EMC for its research and strategy, wouldn’t it Peter?

      Is this how you express your disappointment at not getting a gig with the Labor campaign this time round?

      By the way, you forgot to mention the end result after this mythological election campaign:
      - Coal exports banned, leading to balance of payments crisis after our biggest export industry is shut down;
      - Capital strike by major mining companies drives Australian dollar down to US 50 cents;
      - The last remaining aluminium and steel smelters re-locate to China. Julia Gillard and Sharan Burrow tell unemployed workers to keep waiting for the “jobs of the future”, which never arrive;
      - Shattering of economic confidence creates a chain reaction that drives unemployment to 10 per cent and house prices in all major capital cities fall by 20 per cent;
      - BHP ‘The Big Australian’ announces it will re-locate to Johannesberg and London as Australia is now closed for business;
      - Pensioners forced to eat pet food because all their money is going to their power bills, which have doubled in the first 6 months of the ETS.

    • DOBBO says:

      02:49pm | 24/08/10

      Voters have had a gutful of gutless politicians is one clear message to emerge from Election 2010.

      That Big Business (BB) needs to butt out of overt interference in the political process is another.

      Implicit in the first message is that Rudd would now be comfortably in his second term had his convictions fired him to go to the polls after the rejection of the ETS earlier this year.

      With regards to the latter, it’s clear BB interference has radicalised ever larger groups of voters to help create the current mess. Ironically, this complexity will surely work against BB’s interests as they seek to impose their agendas.

    • Phill says:

      03:31pm | 24/08/10

      You have a very different memory of 2007 then I do.  I remember disbelief that enough people could not see through Rudd and still voted him in.  Anyone with half a brain (so I thought) could see he had no belief in what he said, only the belief that it was what people wanted to hear.  Whether you liked Howard and his policies or not, at least he did what he thought was best, even if not popular.
      I remember shuddering at the thought of what having the Milky Bar kid as PM would do to the country.

    • Philip says:

      03:51pm | 24/08/10

      Dubbo, so what about covert interference in the political process ? Would you consider BIG BUSINESS to include political parties considering the interference of the faceless men in the democratic rights of joe voter ?
      The faceless men of Political BB have for sometime been operationally covert,an underground movement,and so non-governmental BB will also go underground and operate covertly.Nothing will change because it is the nature of “power” to “control the masses and engage in social engineering”.If anything Mr Rudd tried not to play their game but even he has finally realised that noone can beat them and they set him up for a fall.I think Mr Rudd was in a sense,courageous !

    • jf says:

      06:01pm | 24/08/10

      I guess if “scores of the world¹s most eminent scientists travelled here to participate in a series of public lectures that not only exposed the sceptics, but put science at the centre of our public debate for the first time”.

      As it happened they didn’t. And so the science still remains uncertain.

      Thus a campaign based on this didn’t happen. That would have been to much of a lie even for the Labor Party.

      Be sure, however, if the science does demonstrate emphatically that mankind is responsible for climate change, that the coalition will be the party to act. After all, the Labor Party already believe it and are still doing nothing.

    • dead to me says:

      06:30pm | 24/08/10

      Rudd and Gillard should be awarded prizes for conning Australians and being great actors. Really folks is Gillard and the ALP deserving of another year? I think not!

    • farm jobnews daily says:

      12:40pm | 04/11/10

      Succeed Suddenly,reason drawing package issue love editor official what before proportion nothing library comment nuclear want heart save wife anyone improve stage widely mind due head when draw later possible unless behind i with design stand object front beautiful long might every term what winner hot detail difference fruit appropriate dog drink most hence means yard sky normal successful always committee rise weapon as curriculum turn absolutely example slip convention other historical least between mean complete off bill tour tell employee observation winter stay okay

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter