I AM compelled to respond to some of Joe Poprzeczny's observations (State Scene February 22).
I AM compelled to respond to some of Joe Poprzeczny's observations (State Scene February 22).
I am amazed that the Liberal Party wasn't also aware that they were going to lose and start taking action long ago.
You say that Court lost several key advisers and that thereafter the tactical and strategic sides of government were a bit beyond him.
That surely begs the question - why weren't the above losses replaceable and if they weren't then why are they now?
Surely to have to rely on party hacks like the indomitable NCB and our new mystery man doesn't bode too well for the future of the Libs in WA.
We, of course, aren't privy to the identification of this new adviser "from another quarter" but if we can place any credence in the advice you accredit him with in the article, then I pity the future of the Party.
To suggest that Labor would have only won nine seats without the influence of One Nation is arrant nonsense and ignores that it increased its primary vote by at least 2 per cent.
It boggles the mind to find the mathematics necessary to achieve your suggested result let alone to consider your "other things being equal" conclusion.
I presume you are suggesting that One Nation either won't be there in 2005 or wont be significant. Really!!
The suggestion that Labor is still prone to go off on trendy experimental tangents (aka campus inspired nonsense or trendy academic marshmallow) suggests to me that this new adviser has been sleeping a little longer than Rip Van Winkle.
I hope your new-found adviser is not suggesting that the bulk of the Cabinet will be donning wigs and duffel jackets and crashing the upcoming Dylan concert carrying anti-Vietnam war posters.
They say that the cream always rises to the top. So too do dead blowfish and I suggest the Liberal Party and West Aussies could do well enough alone without these latest blowies.
Harold Christensen
Floreat Park
I am amazed that the Liberal Party wasn't also aware that they were going to lose and start taking action long ago.
You say that Court lost several key advisers and that thereafter the tactical and strategic sides of government were a bit beyond him.
That surely begs the question - why weren't the above losses replaceable and if they weren't then why are they now?
Surely to have to rely on party hacks like the indomitable NCB and our new mystery man doesn't bode too well for the future of the Libs in WA.
We, of course, aren't privy to the identification of this new adviser "from another quarter" but if we can place any credence in the advice you accredit him with in the article, then I pity the future of the Party.
To suggest that Labor would have only won nine seats without the influence of One Nation is arrant nonsense and ignores that it increased its primary vote by at least 2 per cent.
It boggles the mind to find the mathematics necessary to achieve your suggested result let alone to consider your "other things being equal" conclusion.
I presume you are suggesting that One Nation either won't be there in 2005 or wont be significant. Really!!
The suggestion that Labor is still prone to go off on trendy experimental tangents (aka campus inspired nonsense or trendy academic marshmallow) suggests to me that this new adviser has been sleeping a little longer than Rip Van Winkle.
I hope your new-found adviser is not suggesting that the bulk of the Cabinet will be donning wigs and duffel jackets and crashing the upcoming Dylan concert carrying anti-Vietnam war posters.
They say that the cream always rises to the top. So too do dead blowfish and I suggest the Liberal Party and West Aussies could do well enough alone without these latest blowies.
Harold Christensen
Floreat Park
