Gerard Henderson, and crucial decisions to be made as Australia confronts a worrying period of war ...

(Above: Bob Menzies at the Sydney opening of War Savings Week 14th October, 1940, found here).

Today it is the melancholy duty of loon pond to advise officially fellow Australians that Australia is in a state of war, and that the dangers the Greens represent is roughly equivalent to the Japanese swooping south, and incidentally or perhaps coincidentally, beware the vorpal blade of the jubjub bird and the frumious bandersnatch.

Or you could listen to Robert Menzies declaring war here.

But what brought all this on?

Sob, yes, oh galumphing snicker snackers, it's time to catch up on what the inner city urban elite chattering classes are thinking, and as a key representative of the class, who better than Gerard Henderson to show us the way?

Oh dear, it's gloom city, as Hung parliament would be a pain in the neck for everyone.

A hung parliament would be a pain in the neck?

This of course depends on your definition of a hung parliament, since it would be quite possible to argue that the Labor government has been working with a hung parliament these past few years, with every bit of legislation subject to the whim of outright loons of the Steven Fielding kind, independents of the South Australian anti-gambling scattergun on everything else policy wonk kind, the Greens, and a Liberal party determined that opposition means to oppose everything in sight.

But let's forget about that unrepresentative swill dipping their heads into the upper house trough for some pleasant feed, to get down to a little forthright analysis with our resident prattling Polonius:

In his disappointingly flat and unoriginal report on 60 Minutes on Sunday ...

Disappointingly flat and unoriginal? Did I land back in an alternate planet? By all accounts, Latham's performance was a total, dismal, pathetic flop, a disgrace to the Nine Network, 60 Minutes - the ticking clock Skippy of current affairs - and just another outing for a sideshow in the circus freak tent. (Boredom the last original sin for Mark Latham, an old sensation).

Could it be that Henderson needs a vocabulary transplant? How about all bubble, no thought? Nihilist? Get this shit off the air? (Come back Kerry all is forgiven)

Or could it be that Henderson is going to go on and quote Latham approvingly?

Yep, you've guessed it ...

... Mark Latham commented that "in all likelihood Senator Bob Brown and his Green Party will control the next Parliament".

Oh dear, we can see where this is heading. Now of course as a prattling member of the chattering class elite, Henderson likes to take a fair and balanced view, which surprisingly manages to endorse the Liberal party 121% of the time (the 21% is a statistical aberration designed to cope with the repetitive posturing inherent in a Polonius world view). So first we must pause to make sure that while repeating Latham, one is making a principled stand, not given to exaggeration:

This is an exaggeration. The Greens can only exercise a balance of power role in the Senate if they have the support of the opposition of the day (whether Coalition or Labor).

Phew, thank the lord that's cleared up. But now it's possible, just possible, to endorse the Latham world view and announce that the sky might fall in, and very soon:

But it's possible, just possible, the Greens could have a say in determining the circumstances under which Gillard could form a government.

Oh dear, what does this mean? Is he giving up the ghost already, waving the white flag, putting the feather up over the trenches? Or is it beyond the pale to contemplate an alternate scenario?

But it's possible, just possible, the Greens could have a say in determining the circumstances under which Abbott could form a government.

Of course not. Because then Henderson wouldn't be able to fear monger about the Greens and Labor, and a push to the left, which curiously seems to overlook the singular failure of the Greens and Labor to agree on a carbon tax for the entire course of the previous parliament. So let's fear monger away:

In such an eventuality, the Greens would have the capacity to push Labor to the left. Such an outcome would be deleterious to the nation as a whole.

Of course you could write that another way:

In such an eventuality, the Greens would have the capacity to stop Abbott marching off to the ratbag right. Such an outcome would be beneficial to the nation as a whole.

Or how about:

In such an eventuality, the Greens would have the capacity to push Abbott to the left. Such an outcome would be tremendously ironic and wonderfully cheering for the nation as a whole, and might see him spring for a decent filter free NBN.

Settle! Remember that the gloom, the pall of despondency that afflicts the chattering classes and sees them affect suits of a dark hued kind, can be seen in every nook and cranny:

Moreover, it would not be in the long-term interests of the Liberal Party to carry the responsibility for putting Brown and his colleagues at the centre of government - especially since the Liberals do not receive any Greens preferences.

Yes indeed! Let's celebrate the dum and the dee:

The traditional Liberal support base is closer to the modern Labor Party than to Brown and his regulatory disciples.

But to be fair Henderson is just as outraged at the thought of National party renegades, who take a good agrarian socialist stance, holding the balance in the lower house:

The independents are not of the same mind. However, Katter, Oakeshott and Windsor give the impression of favouring greater government intervention in the economy along with special protection of, and assistance to, primary and secondary industries in their electorates.

There's just one problem with this.

Throughout his campaign Abbott has given the impression of favouring greater government intervention in the economy, along with the special protection of, and assistance to, all kinds of boondoggles and middle class welfarism in all electorates, including but not limited to an excessively generous paid parental leave scheme, and a hopelessly naff broadband scheme launched without any business plan or model, except that it's cheaper (but don't go trying to buy a bomb along Parramatta road or the Nepean highway or South road because it's cheaper).

Ah well let's sign off with a flourish of despair:

Both Gillard and Abbott would be able to negotiate with the independents. Yet such negotiation would invariably make the task of further economic reform even more difficult than it currently is. A hung parliament would make for interesting politics, but not good government.

There is of course a rich comic irony in all this as Henderson wrings his hands and worries about the Greens and the agrarian socialists:

It is likely the independents would deal with both the Coalition and Labor. But it is unlikely the Greens would deal with the Coalition. This underlines the magnitude of the mistake the Liberal Party has made in preferencing the Greens ahead of Labor in the seats of Melbourne, Sydney and Grayndler (all of which the Greens could possibly win on Liberal preferences).

It makes no sense for the Liberals to facilitate entry into Parliament of Greens politicians, who are well to the left of Gillard Labor on economic, foreign and social policy.

Yes, what joy if Abbott were to reach for the finish line, and discover that his side has just kicked an own goal (as they say in a huggy kissy game way too green for its good) in the manner of the Labor party helping Fielding to get a leg up and over and into the Senate.

Why it could mean three years of angst for the chattering commentariat.

And at a time when ht country is facing an epic crisis roughly equivalent to the beginning of world war two. Well at least that's what's implied in Henderson's opening tedious attempt to evoke Bob Menzies' plight in the early forties, and drag that unwelcome and inappropriate historical metaphor kicking and screaming across the years, and apply it to current circumstances.

This produces a howler, a canard which would ensure six of the best for Henderson in any decent history class:

There were many reasons for the political failure of the first Menzies government. However, the inability of the Coalition parties to win the seats gained in 1940 by Coles in Melbourne and Wilson in the Wimmera ensured the Menzies government's poor performance.

If Abbott falls just short of an absolute majority, his position will not be dissimilar to that experienced by Menzies in 1940.

Yep, somehow it's all the fault of the independents, never mind the total disarray of the U.A.P. at the time, and the feuding and the fussing going down.

On Lyons's death in April 1939, the U.A.P. elected Menzies to party leadership. Sir Earle Page announced that in consequence the Country Party would no longer work in coalition with the U.A.P., and launched on Menzies an attack described by the Sydney Morning Herald as 'a violation of the decencies of debate without parallel in the annals of Federal Parliament'. Page asserted that, with war threatening, Menzies was incapable of leading the nation, because he had been disloyal to Lyons and because he had failed to serve in World War I. Though the reasons for this animus are not altogether clear, Page was probably stung by the waspish comments Menzies had made about him behind his back. It is, however, extremely doubtful that—despite the failure of the promises made to him—Menzies was disloyal to Lyons, and that his behaviour was a factor in the latter's collapse. Dame Enid Lyons, whose hostility to Menzies simmered over many years, made the allegation covertly and, in the end, explicitly. Page shared her grief at Lyons's death, and believed the unproven story that Menzies was partly responsible for it. (Australian Dictionary of Biography).

Yes, there's a prime example of the damage independents can do, while all was bliss and hugginess amongst the big players.

Happily there are better historical sources on line these days than are dreamed of by the inner urban elite chattering classes, and happily there are thus ways to understand exactly how the ponderous, fatuous musings of Henderson manage to get it wrong in ways that are both big and small.

And now, since it's been awhile since we've had a reading, how about this offering from Robert Herrick, 1592-1674, under the title Passing By:

There is a lady sweet and kind
Was never face so pleased my mind,
I did but see her passing by
And yet I love her till I die!

Her gestures, motions and her smile
Her wit, her voice, my heart beguile;
Beguile my heart, I know not why
And yet I love her till I die!

Cupid is winged, and doth range
Her country; so my heart doth change.
But change the earth, or change the sky
Yet will I love her till I die!

Steady, we're not talking about Julia Gillard, we're talking about the Queen!

(Below: and here's Ming the merciless with that very Queen).