This cartoon is grossly misleading and based on a falsehood — even by the looser standards of cartoon drawing.

I have no intention, and have never been approached about, rejoining the Liberal Party.  The Party I support — the Australian Democrats — best represents the values of fairness, equity and progressive politics to which I subscribe.

Greg Barns
Taroona

As notoriously tricky as Cartoon Analysis can be, if I may…

1. Even by the loosest standards of cartoon drawing, I doubt that being returned in a box implies the return was the returnee’s idea.

2. The caption “Over my dead body!” isn’t saying to me that the Liberal Party (or at least the nice lady on the Returns and Refunds desk) has approached the returnee about rejoining, or is particularly keen on the idea of the returnee’s return.

3. I suspect the cartoon is in fact saying that the Democrats have returned Greg and that the Liberal party don’t want him. Whether this is grossly misleading or not is up for discussion, but if you’re going to be grossly misled by a cartoon, it’s only polite to be grossly misled in the way the cartoonist intended.

This sort of personal attack is distasteful. Grow up. Stick with discussing the issues, not the personalities.

Maybe hypoxia has made Barns a bit delirious and grumpy. Perhaps next time the cartoonist should put a few more air vents in the Box

Just thought readers would appreciate some of Greg Barns’ contribution to the debate regarding Spirit of Tasmania III on 7ZR Friday 4/2/05:

GB: Well I did see last year the fiction writer Richard Flanagan, who suddenly became a business expert in The Age, um, god knows how ...
Kerry Gay: hahahaha ...
GB: ... ur, make the point that it was a bad business decision.  Richard obviously doesn’t understand that business, ur, decisions, ur, are often made for the long term and I think we have to wait and see.  The short termism of a lot of people like Richard I don’t think is what we need in this debate.”

Well Greg, how do you explain Treasury’s recommendation to lease the ferry, as buying it was seen as a risky investment?
Come on mate, we can’t criticise Treasury for “suddenly becoming business experts” or “[not] understanding business”, so how does one explain their position on the business of SPIRIT III?  Or the apparent similarity between Flanagan’s opinion and Treasury’s.
Hmmm.
Given the insulting use of “fiction writer ... who suddenly became a business expert” to describe Flanagan, who is a self-made man, I think we should refer to Bahnes as “Failed Liberal Party Member”.

cheers all,
Jason