http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/02/22/picking-hatreds-in-oz/

Malcolm Turnbull ‏@TurnbullMalcolm

@R_Chirgwin what fascinates me is this. You are a journalist. You write for the register a UK blog. Yet you won’t call anyone at BT.

R_Chirgwin ‏@R_Chirgwin

@TurnbullMalcolm Detail on the analytical decisions made in scoping out FTTN for Australia, based on BT: http://bit.ly/11YWzNT <1/2>

R_Chirgwin ‏@R_Chirgwin

@TurnbullMalcolm I remarked this morning that e-mail is perfectly adequate in seeking confirmation of documented facts.

Turnbull also continues to question Mike Quigley, since his appointment of NBNCo, when originally the Coalition were trying to frame Mike Quigley on past conduct and that he did a crime when no jury found a crime at all:

http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/homepage-speeches-articles/nbns-latest-bizarre-twist-quigley-decides-to-examine-broadband-options-four-years-too-late/

Thank you for your reply.

My argument is simply that the word “narraive” in this context has been bandied around only recently ( from mid 2010, about June as I recall) by those seeking a new approach in criticising JG.

And as evidence of this they invent “narratives” retrospectively for past PM’s.

For example, as I wrote @4711 (P95) earlier today:

“Who ever wrote about Howard during 1996-2007 that ” isn’t it great that Howard’s taking us into the Iraq war, and we understand and accept it so much better because it fits under his overarching “narrative” ( did I ask what the fark this means yet?) of “nationalism, security and the triumph of capital over labour”. It’s a nonsense.”

Wahleed yesterday quoted this “narrative” to explain how Howard had one.

Well despite what Wahleed and others say, I believe JG has an overarching perspective under which all her work sits, and you have rightly pointed this out in regard to the NBN.

It is obvious to anyone who wants to see it ie social justice and future proofing the nation.

“One of those changes is that the ALP’s traditional constituency is disappearing.

The “constituency” may well be disappearing but the constituents are not.

To reiterate, they are merely grouped differently.

Whether they are conned to vote for Abbott or not is a different matter. Clearly some of them did between 19-56 72, and 1975-83 when there was no falling union membership and the associated “we’ll all be rooned” hyperbowl we see now.

All the things they’ve done and/or plan to do, such as the NBN, gonski, NDIS, even going back to the reforms of BH and PK (opening up the economy) and the original union base are systems/platforms/processes for enabling Australians.

This goes beyond the Coalition’s bare “government should stay out of the way” narrative (when they’re in power) and counters the “government are intefering busybodies getting in everyone’s way” narrative (when someone else is in power).

I think this is consistent with the history of actions taken by Labor.

I have always assumed that sleeping with someone creates a “bond”, however fragile

With polling of 800 vs the usual 1000-1200 isn’t that a larger margin in error % wise?

Oh I see the story is going to be in tomorrows newspaper, funny how they already know the results. Did they consult a Ouija board?

“Oui. Ja. What resuslt do you want?”