from crikey.com.au newsletter Jan 7 2005

7. Brent, Henderson, Craven and Crikey traffic

Mr Mumble Peter Brent writes:

Crikey,

Gerard Henderson writes in Thursday’s crikey email: ‘Peter Brent asserts (without evidence) that I have “been known to write after elections” that I had “privately predicted” a particular result. This is not so.’

Let me refer Henderson to a post-election-1993 column, where he wrote: ‘Now I will let you on a little secret. I determined some time ago that John Hewson would not win.’

I’ve [illegally?] reproduced it in full here, and readers can see for themselves that while the tone is jocular, the impression is certainly that GH was one of the few who privately expected Keating to win.

Gerard Henderson also reckoned: ‘Peter Brent also accuses me (again without evidence) of having made “strident aspersions on others’ patriotism in the lead-up to the Iraq war”. This is not true.’

Go to this early 2003 Fairfax column in which Henderson takes Phillip Adams and Terry Lane to task for opposing the recent invasion, before claiming: ‘No doubt such views have some appeal, primarily within sections of the intelligentsia. But they conflict with the basic patriotism of the vast majority of Australians.’

Ok, it’s not ‘strident’, but I think that’s an aspersion.

And speaking of aspersions, here’s Henderson on my predictive prowess.

‘Peter Brent is not the worst offender here [in falsely predicting] – but he is not without fault. Remember Mr Brent’s comment in the Canberra Times on 9 June 2003 that “John Howard…will almost certainly lose the next election”? Little wonder that he is sensitive at fun-pokers and the like.’ [The full piece is on the mumble site here.]

Ouch. Is the word ‘almost’ a large enough loophole? Probably not.

Cheers, Peter Brent

[Update: I changed my mind about Howard's demise, of course, the minute Mark Latham got the Labor leadership.]