Re Garrett- Albanese, maybe Ruddster ought to find room for both to stitch up some more votes.

this quote starts with a description of today’s Sunday Sunrise interview:

The Team basked in the glow of approval, Rudd repeating his “bucketload� soundbytes ad nauseum and Gillard looking competent and compliant, and thus they were slightly wrongfooted when at the end of the interview Lisa Wilkinson said something like:

“Well, the two of you have very strong body language. You look very comfortable together”

leaving Rudd and Gillard looking slightly embarrassed, like two daggy divorcees caught snogging by their teenaged children.

This is an emerging issue for the two, who are increasingly presenting themselves using the same language, imagery and tactics as the dynamic husband-wife team who run the local Lions Club, yet are seeking to distance themselves from the sexual implications of such a partnership.

Fellow federal Labor MP Wayne Swan was two years ahead of Rudd at Nambour High and one of the cool kids and school captain. Rudd graduated as dux of the school in 1974. They are not friends.

From The Age: 20 things you need to know about Kevin Rudd

The challenge is a complicated matrix, given the front bench spill. Faction leaders (actually, they are all sub-faction leaders these days) have to secure their own caucus positions and negotiate their portfolios all the while simultaneously working the leadership numbers. In opting for one leader or another, they may find their faction splitting underneath them; in securing their own numbers, they may find themselves forced to a different leader, or putting their portfolio at risk, etc. At the same time, opportunities for kingmaking etc will likely loom.

Re Plibers, my guess is that her position in support of the Beazer yesterday goes to these underlying and overlaying complexities. It seems clear that one of the key inside contests is between Albanese and Garret for the position of the frontbench environment shadow, and my guess is that Plibers is working for Anthony. If Anthony moved to Kevin, Plibers and the rest of his support would move, and it’d be game over.

The Ruddster, a cautious man, has claimed the numbers in the latest battle of the press releases (read: “I’m ahead at this point”), while the Beazer is pleading for a “fair contest” (read: “I’m now playing dirty”). The chicken gizzards at this point thus appear to favour the Ruddster. In the same release, Kevin has sharpened the Garrett-Albanese battle, which seems close to the nub of the tensions:

Mr Rudd said Peter Garrett, Labor’s parliamentary secretary for reconciliation and the arts, would be promoted to the frontbench under his leadership.”He has a bucketload of talent, a bucketload of ability,” Mr Rudd said. “Let me tell you, he’ll be up there in Labor’s frontbench team.”

Remember, the vote is already being counted, and Monday’s meeting really only amounts to a deadline. If it becomes clear earlier that one candidate has an unassailable lead, the other may well withdraw to save the humilation of a ballot.

Go the Ruddster …

The Rove thing is silly.

The interest rates scare campaign was outrageously silly and empirically unsupportable.

Conventional wisdom is that it had an impact.

Just sayin’

They should put the bloody caucus rules up on the web.

An article in the Oz by Sam Maiden (not online) suggests Rudd agreed to the spill of the frontbench, but wants it at the regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday after the special Caucus meeting on Monday.

The differing implications of the two methods are left as exercises for the readers.

I’ve been out on the intertubes arguing about all this with people and the only conclusion I’m coming to is that they all suck. I’ve tenuously supported Rudd, but I really would like to give him a swift kick in the head. I’ve seen people put a convincing case that Rudd has been given airtime and failed to impress anyone other than the easily impressed (I guess like me). Beazley on the other hand has had heaps of time to get his image to improve and has failed to do so. Really, I don’t know who to back, I keep swinging between the two. I’m glad I’m not in caucus and my job doesn’t depend on who to back…

mick, I’m not at work and not in a bad mood but really pissed off by it all too.

Tax cuts for child care ‘tipped’
December 02, 2006 10:25pm
Article from: AAP

THE childcare system is on the verge of major reform with tax deductions tipped to be introduced, as federal politicians examine a plan this week.

An 18-month government inquiry has found the system in need of a big overhaul and many key Liberals have demanded change, Fairfax newspapers said today.

Under the proposed reforms, child care would be tax deductible and fringe benefits tax on the service would be wiped out.

The inquiry, chaired by federal MP Bronwyn Bishop, recommends other big changes.

Child care provided by employers, including salary-sacrificing arrangements, would not incur fringe benefits tax.

Child care not located on an employers’ business premises is subject to the tax – a major disincentive to employers wishing to help working parents.

The changes are expected to cost billions of dollars.

Hmm, this sound like a diversion to wedge the ALP on ??

It is rather co-incidential that it’s happening the week of a leadership challenge.

The plot thickens.

Then again, maybe I’m just in a bad mood because it’s a Saturday and I’m stuck at work.

So, I intend to recommend to Caucus that there should be a spill of all Caucus Executive positions, which, effectively, means the entire front bench.

which suggests that a spill needs a majority vote of full caucus to set it off.

In Chapter 6 of The Whitlam Venture, Alan Reid says:

But in 1975 Whitlam was eager for a Cabinet reorganisation but unable to organise a Caucus majority for a “spill” motion, the motion which, under ALP rules, declares all ministerial posts vacant and necessitates Caucus voting in a new Ministry.

Howard has set the tone with leaders having a view on everything. Beazley was probably told by an adviser – “Rove’s wife has just died of cancer – you should say something – Howard has”. Is it really to his massive discredit that as a pollie he might have thought of Karl Rove? Is it compulsory for him to be reading glossy mags and watching channel ten talk shows?

Just askin…

I couldn’t find them on the net, but I think someone should check the Caucus rules. I suspect the Leader has the power to spill all the positions without a motion. Therefore the Rudd forces would have no choice.

If you want to accuse him now of being lazy on the policy front you need to check out and critique his blueprints, his policy speeches/releases and those of his shadow ministers. But that is maybe too much like hard work for commentators, or even blog commenters.

I note that they are a bit short on foreign policy and trade at this stage. What have you been doing, Mr Rudd?