Why are we obsessing over Peacock. I’ve either read this article recently, or it a copy cat.

It takes little self reflection for me to dig up my conclusions to Peacock from the past.

I’ve always known Peacock was just that, a peacock. If anybody in Peacocks position cared about public perceptions, it would be reckless risking their political reputation by hanging with the Bjelke-Petersen Queensland mafia figure of Russ Hinze.

Hinze was notoriously corrupt.

A good article.

Dan

Hardly surprising given anyone who doesn't agree can label even moderates like a patently pragmatic Andrew, a left-leaning liberal, Or even a commie socialist? And often "shout" the same asinine ideological response at me!

Depends on how far to the right the critique comes from? Even so, come election time, those who don't like Andrew and what he stood for, suddenly have an, on road to Damascus, epiphany? Which generally, only lasts until the election is decided?
Alan B.

I vaguely recall Andrew Peacock as a charismatic
politician. Great charm. A "show pony."
I don't recall any substantial policies or attempts
to fix anything. Actually I recall his former wife
Susan with fondness. We shared the same hairdresser,
Lilian Frank. I also remember the excellent job his
daughter did in promoting the Melbourne Casino.
But as far as Andrew Peacock was concerned - the only
thing that stands out - is his "relationship" with
the American actress - Shirley McLaine. Which was good
for self-promotion as well.

Ah those "charmers" in politics. Where would we be
without them? Bob Hawke comes to mind - As does
Gough Whitlam - neither men were lightweights.
And academics did get them right.

As for Malcolm Turnbull? I guess history will be the
judge. Loved his leather jacket though.

Andrew Peacock was a prize prat; certainly not recognisable from the the gushing of those barriking for their team. Some people, Liberal or Labor, can only say nice things about the worst politicwl figuresjust because the are/were in their team.

There's so many other worth mentioning in both
houses that may have a future. There's the
"batshit crazy" (Hello Pauline H) who knows
what she has and how to spin it. There's
Jacqui Lambie (straight shooter) there's of
course - Barnaby Joyce - if he'd only kept his
hat (and pants) on. But he's still well liked
by the Nats (and those Aussies who don't live
in the elite burbs of cities). Barnaby still
has some sway and swagger.

Of course Julie Bishop is now gone - she would
have made a great PM. Penny Wong would be good
in Foreign Affairs. Matt Canavan - is smart,
articulate and very necessary for the Nats.

But enough said. There's plenty of choices
today and interesting times ahead - in the
future.

Sorry foxy, but they're all politicians. Bob Hawke stands almost alone as the genuine article (authentic) who cried openly when he viewed images of the massacre of unarmed protesters in Tiananmen Square.
In the last interview I saw, openly regretted our policy on not becoming a nuclear repository for nuclear waste. And therefore stood alone as one of few pragmatists in living memory, given the economic upsides involved.

And don't we need those now and a bit of hard-won from real life, pragmatism. The thing is, we can burn nuclear waste, very safely in MSRs to one provide virtually costless carbon-free power as well as reduce the half-life from thousands of years to just 300.

With the final waste product being far less toxic. And possibly suitable as long life space batteries that burn up with reentry.

MSR technology can also burn up weapons-grade plutonium! And last but not least, thorium. And as thorium is burned and continuously recycled, again and again, producing the miracle cancer cure, the alpha particle, bismuth 213.

Pragmatists would look at that and invest public money in all the above! Because it would guarantee a turbocharged recovery and the resuscitation of our exported industrial base! And a can't lose win-win all round.
Cheers, Alan B.