Abbotts shouldn't live in a greenhouse

[Tannin]

Tony Abbott and his minders must be feeling very sorry that they abandoned political decency last month and went hunting in the distant past for dirt on the Prime Minister. That turned out to be a blind alley - they found no evidence of wrongdoing and looked very sleazy indeed.

The PM did a bit of convention breaking of her own when she set aside a whole afternoon and told the press that she would answer every single question they had, and keep on answering 'till they had nothing left to ask. Clearly the public responded well to that - her approval rating went up several points immediately afterwards. Abbott and his minders had gone too far and been caught out.

But it gets worse for Tony Abbott. Much worse.

Earlier this week we learned that Abbott had violently intimidated a young woman who was opposed to him in a student election back in his university days. Abbott approached her in a threatening way, advanced till he was one inch from her nose, and threw punches at the wall on both sides of her head.

You and I may not have heard this tale, but it's been common knowledge in some circles for 30 years. The only surprising thing is that it's taken so long to come out into print - perhaps because it wasn't considered fair or decent to bring up things in someone's youthful past to attack them with .... until Abbott and the Liberals tried to do exactly that last month.

At first Abbott said he "couldn't remember" any such incident.

Then, presumably on the advice of his minders, he changed his story and made a flat denial. "It never happened", he said.

Too late, Abbott, the story is out, and the evidence has become overwhelming.

First we had the victim's statement - originally made 30 years ago when Abbott was no-one and not even a member of the Liberal Party. (Abbott cut his political teeth in the extreme religious-right National Front and stood for the DLP, and only went to the Liberals later on.)

Second, yesterday we saw a prominent barrister speak out - Barrister backs woman's claim of Abbott 'intimidation' "''I did not see the incident, but I was nearby. The count had just finished. Barbara found me. She is a small woman, and Tony Abbott was (and is) a strong man. She was very shaken, scared and angry. She told me that Tony Abbott had come up to her, put his face in her face, and punched the wall on either side of her head. So, I am a witness. Barbara's immediate complaint to me about what Abbott had just done had the absolute ring of truth about it. I believed Barbara at the time, and still do.''

Strike three came just today - another eyewitrness came forward - 'Abbott's goon squad threw me against a wall' "The man, a student at the time, said he was outside the Student Representative Council's offices photocopying when "Abbott's famous flying squad of goons crashed down the stairs, threw me against the wall, kicked in the doors of the SRC, and started creating havoc". The man, who emphasises that he was not involved in the SRC election, said it was extremely scary, as they were clearly looking for a fight. But he was so angry he followed them into the building. "I saw Abbott throw a punch at Barbara Ramjan, but didn't see it land ... when next I saw her, she was in an extremely shocked condition, leaning against the wall ... I thought he had actually struck her, but I can see that was simply my assumption and rationalisation. If Ms Ramjan says the punches were aimed next to her head, I can't actually in fact contradict that ... simply I saw Abbott swinging punches, and certainly indulging in serious argy-bargy. I saw him swing a punch, I saw her in great distress."

Abbott's credentials as a violent woman-hating arch-conservative religious nut are looking a lot stronger now. And - given his flat denial just the other day- any pretence he had to being honest and truthful is no longer tenable.

[David]

I tend to take a dim view of this kind of stuff. It's newsworthy, sort of, but I think this (along with the Gillard, Slipper and Thomson stuff) marks a low point for Australian political debate.

Personally, I don't actually give a shit whether or not Abbott is or has been a bully, uni student thug or wall-puncher. I'm not interested in electing a personality, I'm interested in electing a politician who acts as a representative for a party with certain policies and an overarching societal paradigm. We're still a long way from the American model — a system so personality-oriented that it can be jeopardised by a sex scandal — but small-fry stuff like this is still permitted to dominate the newspapers.

At the end of the day, our politicians are entrusted with the massive responsibility of making sure the country functions and that economics, international relations and everything else are kept under close scrutiny. Tedious shenanigans aside, this is still what they mainly do. We don't want or need good blokes in those positions, we want competent professionals. When viewed in that light, the question of whether or not the opposition leader used aggressive intimidation tactics in an incident 30 years ago gains the importance of approximately nine-tenths of #$@% all.

As it happens, I think the Liberal Party are a bunch of reactionary populists and that their (and Tony Abbott's) election would be an unmitigated disaster. Stuff like this does not impact on that one iota. To put it another way, though, I would hate to think that an incident like this would cost a talented politician his or her career, because once you've sifted through all the sex scandals and controversialists and wall-punchers, you might just be left with a bunch of spineless incompetents — like, say, Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott.

Once you play the muckraking game, the standard of political discussion and media coverage are cheapened, and "He started it" doesn't really wash. The real losers are the Australian public.

(And yes, part of me might secretly hope that this little incident brings about Tony's demise and leads to the installation of the one current political leader with vision and principles, M. Turnbull. But I mean what I say above nevertheless.)

[HAL]

Oh I get it. Thanks for explaining that. Uh

[stui magpie]

I'm still struggling with the mechanics of how someone can be nose to nose with someone and throw punches at the wall either side of their head.

I loved the quote when i read about this in the Age by someone who said they didn't see it, but was told about it straight afterward so therefore they were a witness. Ehhh, no you're not, you didn't actually see a thing, someone told you their version of what happened. You're no more a witness than I am for reading about it 30 years later.

he apparently managed to knock out Joe Hockey with a single punch in a Rugby match, so he can hit.

Agree that this is the dumb result of the Libs trawling in Jools past trying to drag up muck, which she managed well, but I really don't see it having much of an impact.

All the people who already hate him will just treat this as confirmation , those who support him will say it was 30 years ago. Can't see it actually changing many opinions.

[HAL]

Perhaps there are a few exceptions.

[David]

[Tannin]

[Tannin]

[David]

Object? Sure. Do I care? Not really. I think you'd have to be new on the scene to be seriously offended or surprised by a politician lying.

Keep in mind, if you're arguing for Abbott's actual lie as the main issue here, what did you think of Bill Clinton and the ol' "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" line? Neither of us like Abbott, but let's be clear: we'd be in a bad state if that was all it took for a political leader to get booted out on his arse.

Am I too jaded?

[Tannin]

yes

[stui magpie]

[David]

[Tannin]

The friggin POINT, Stui, the point you seem to be having trouble understanding, is that he WAS there. He IS in a position to give evidence as to the immediate effect of the assault and has done so. Why don't you write about the ethics of a Prime Ministerial candidate who assaulted a young woman and now has lied about it instead of buggerising about nit-picking?

In any case, there is also a third witness, one who saw the Abbott goon squad in full flight, was assaulted himself, and SAW Abbott throw a punch.

[stui magpie]

[David]

He was a witness to her emotional state in the aftermath. He wasn't a witness to the actual incident. He can testify that she was upset but can't say why with authority. Let's not get bogged down in semantics here!