In the wake of Utegate, The Age reports:
Mr Turnbull’s approval is his lowest ever, and the lowest for an opposition leader since the final weeks of Brendan Nelson, the man he toppled.
Mr Turnbull’s net approval — calculated by subtracting disapproval from approval — is minus 28 per cent. The last opposition leader to reach this sort of level was Simon Crean, shortly before he lost the Labor leadership in 2003. Mr Turnbull’s 60 per cent disapproval is the worst for an opposition leader since Mr Crean.
Possum has all the graphs and analysis of a plethora of polls.
This is the salient point:
Malcolm Turnbull’s personal ratings have, quite literally, fallen off a cliff in a way that has never occurred in the modern history of Australian political polling.
Elsewhere: More at The Poll Bludger.
Hockey would be mad to challenge now – or if he did, he’d have to tell the party room explicitly, and the people of Australia implicitly, that he’s expecting to lose the next election and that this is not a one-term government.
If the Libs want a one-term strategy, they may as well put Abbott or Minchin in charge. Go down really fighting.
Turnbull’s problem is greater than simply his involvement and use of the forged e-mail – it’s his reaction to being caught out, which involves simultaneously staying on the attack and whining that Labor were smearing him.
As a strategy, you’ve got to admire its audacity, but otherwise it’s just plain stupid. Imagine what a simple apology and a stop to the mud slinging would have achieved.
Don’t celebrate yet. I’m old enough to remember the jokes about Howard and his ambitions.
I can imagine Dennis Shanahan’s first column after Hockey gets in as leader:
“Joe Hockey has made a positive first impression with voters, recording the highest levels of avuncular in the 25-year history of Newspoll. Truly he is the Uncle of the Nation”.
The Rudd honeymoon is back!
Whatever they do with the deckchairs, you can bet that once the Opposition regroup, they will go hammer-and-tongs at Swan every week from now until the next election. Rudd will enjoy for a while an “aura of invincibility”, but having outed Swan as the weakest link, the Coalition will bring an ungodly amount of pressure to bear on Swan and try to make him crack.
Will it work? Who knows. Would that be enough in any case to save their electoral hides? I doubt it — The Labor frontbench proved itself to be (surprisingly) deep and adroit last week in Gillard’s absence.
Don’t you think Swan will take his narrow squeak as a warning, Mercurius?
And yes, Turnbull would have come out of Utegate much better if he’d apologised. I don’t think he has that kind of greatness, though. I detect a touch of the old Howard whinge creeping in with the “Well, it’s not my fault it was a fake!” line.
Oh undoubtedly Chookie, it’s a warning for Swan. Will he be on notice to lift his game? Of course he will.
But having been caught flat-footed the once, it doesn’t take much to reinforce the perception. He’s now vulnerable to any repeat performance. Watch for the Coalition to take the next gaffe, however inconsequential, and start shrieking “he’s hiding something, again!”
Not (quite) a fatal blunder to be sure, but as the years go by, the camel’s back gets gradually loaded up with baggage like this, until one day somebody adds a straw…
Merurius, I find some flaws in your analysis at 6. If the Opposition persists in
targeting Swan, it will give the Government the excuse to contrast Turnbull’s actual $10 million to Matt Handbury for the rain-seeding adventure and Swan’s actual zilch to John Grant. Somehow, I think the $10 million Turnbull gave to a member of his re-election campaign for bodgie technology will have more resonance with voters than the fact that Swan gave John Grant a two-minute phone call, which at this stage is the most serious thing they have on Swan.
~ copied (not concocted) from a related thread ~
The polls now confirm the public think that it was a shocker of a 12-day stretch, if we start the count at the Midwinter Ball, and end yesterday with a morning TV interview by Mr Turnbull.
So much for the idea being put about last week: “the public isn’t interested in this political shouting match”. So much for Kevin Rudd’s prediction that the Govt would be damaged because some mud would stick.
But in yesterday’s defence by Tony Abbott, I think one point was valid. He claimed that Govt Ministers had mounted a “smear campaign” against Malcolm Turnbull. IMO this is accurate.
It began a day or so before Godwin appeared at the Senate hearing. There was a flurry after the Co$tello retirement announcement. It was done during Question Time. Instance after instance from Mr Turnbull’s colourful business/legal career pre-Parlt. were touted. (I’m not sure whether they got onto his rolling of the sitting Liberal in Wentworth; perhaps that’s being saved for August….)
There was even a reference to “the cat story”. Merciless, heavy punches. Concerted and planned.
It reminded me of the cruelty of Co$tello in full flight [Nick Sherry, anyone?] I also thought some of it seemed as irrelevant as Co$tello’s repeated Parliamentary references to the minutiae of student politics/union politics/communist&trot&maoist party intrigues.
OK, so they were doing to Malcolm as the Libs had done to them, and Godwin should have been baptised Godsend, but…..
Anyone else here more interested in policy than deft work with stilletos?
****************
I suppose “smear” may be too strong, as the Labor chaps were attacking his past performances in pre-Parlt work rather than (say) revealing peccadillos a la Cheryl Kernot, or lying, or retailing faked “documents”, but still…..
Hehehe. That’s gold. Talcum’s live-to-air political harakiri pays off.
Normally Id have more to add to that chuckle with schadenfreude motif, but the internets are slow over here in Dili.
I think that you’re right JohnL. The more the coalition whine about Swan, the more it emphasises the fact that they are a negative, carping, policy free zone whose hypcrisy is patently obvious. It simply leaves them wide open to the sort of attacks that you are talking about.
It’s really hard to believe how stupid they are.
I think the whole problem for Turnbull in this, is that the perception that ‘Malcolm deliberately and knowingly used a fake email’ has been created. Because lets face it. Joe Average does not give two hoots about political stoushes like Utegate. But when it appears someone has been dishonest, they start taking a different view.
The silvertail slips on a banana peel.
One of the oldest tropes in popular culture…
…and one of the funniest.
Silvertails never recover from their encounter with a banana peel.
Find a new boy, Libs.
First thging I saw on Tv this morning was the Newspoll results. Made my day.
And that straw that broke the camel’s back – it weghs about ten bloody ton -the camel is the Liberal Party and the straw is a slight little thing called Malcolm.
You’ve got to watch Media Watch tonight; 9:20 PM on ABC1.
Jonathan Holmes promised to shed more light on the so called “Utegate scandal”. Can’t wait. Steve Lewis is just as culpable in this as Turnbull and Abetz.
You can also catch it on iView if you miss it tonight.
Whether Swan suffers from this also depends on the Auditor- General’s report. If it gives him a clean bill of health – no problem. Even if he’s seen to have transgressed to a small degree I don’t think it’ll matter much.
Surely no-one in the Liberal Party would want the leader’s job at this stage. Surely you’d wait until after the next election in the hope that the government loses it in its second term and that the Liberal Party comes up with something like – oh, I don’t know – a policy, about something, anything
Malcolm Turnbull is a volatile power broker and it shows more often than not. He tends to be arrogant which goes along with being a power broker. Some people can hide that side of their nature when needed but not Malcolm Turnbull.
He might very well have the best interests of this country at heart but you can’t pull strings in public life like you can in your own private enterprises, the average Joe tends to get a bit pissed off.
I’m not sure Swan is the weak link the opposition narrative would have us think. Seemed to me he countered the charges against him last week reasonably effectively and comes across to me as an OK media performer. Not the most charismatic of men but hardly the bumbling fool you would think from reading the opposition gazette.
Is there any real point in shuffling the front bench? Is it just to put more enforcers up front? Yeah, that’ll help.
Sorry Ambigulous can’t agree with you that the relentless reminders of Turnbull’s actual form was smear. Malcolm has come out smiling from one dodgy deal after another. All they had on Swan once the email sank was innuendo and a concocted story around very selective statements. Now that was smear. And the Coalition would be wise to drop it.
Even if AFP and AG reports come up with anything to touch Swann, which one doubts, the record is now clear and the public have been reminded of the character and past actions of the man who would be Prime Minister of this country. Or he seemed to want to be last week. I don’t think he has much stomach for the job now. It will be interesting to see if he really does have strength of character rather than brazen effrontery. If he stays then I’m sure the government still have plenty of fire power in reserve.
Going forward Dept.
Labor strategists would probably want to wrap Mal in cottonwool now, he is their best asset and they wouldn’t necessarily want to encourage the $mirker to cancel his retirement plans, although this may already be in the pipeline. While Malcolm’s imminent demise is being greatly exaggerated in the learned broadsheets, one look at the polls tells the (alternative, horror) story re foreman material: Schreck and People Skillmeister, both of whom are even less popular than Talcum, Utegate and all. Steady as she goes, slowly drip out the unknown knowns about Eric “the Smell of Excrement Excites Them” Abetz’s role as the email’s midwife then call an early election for February. A double dissolution would give the now wiser Victorian electorate splendid opportunity to put Family Last and perhaps give the Tasmanians a break to have a more sensible lash at their senate representation vis a vis the odious Eric. What a piece of work, fair dinkum.
Sir Henry is quite correct. The Labor ads for 2010 will be centred around the theme of Turnbull as the Liberal Latham, only with worse judgement; a man who thinks he can buy his way to the top; and with a background (nudge nudge, wink wink) in investment banking. Cue the image of $10 million of taxpayers’ money raining down on his rain making friend. It will be vicious, at best half true and unfair, as negative political advertising almost always is, and it will work brilliantly.
Provided, of course, that Turnbull still is the leader at the next election.
Hang on a mo! Swannie’s crime was a 2 minute phone call fellow ALP MP Bernie Ripoll (reportedly) asked him to make. I’d have to reread Hansard’s every word; but I do recall (and recorded live blogging QT) his admission he made many phone calls, only some of which he recalled …adding something like “I may have …” Phone call or no phone call, John Grant got not a cent!
After Malcolm aggressed Charlton, the Gov. fired the first shots of its counter attack – Turnbull’s slick business deals. In the last few QTs, the gov shifted from defence to full-on attack, raking up Howard Gov’s, in particular Turnbull’s, scandals (“rainmaker”, the dead cat). Turnbull opened the door, and it’s no good Abbott’s crying “nasty smear campaign” after the Libs started one. A smart political party would have let sleeping dogs lie, at least until they were absolutely sure of the facts. After all, Howard’s gov had survived umpteen far worse scandals before it gained control of the Senate. But no, Turnbull’s Mob had to create a perfect storm for themselves!
Rudd’s attack dogs had kept admirably quiet about Howard Era scandals from the years Opposition members were part of government. ALP supporters, baying for blood, wondered why Rudd didn’t rake up scandals like the public bailout of Howard’s brother’s company (and all Grant got was a 2 min phone call!) … Turnbull’s “rainmaker” support for a Liberal mate, and many in between. Well, thanks to Utegate, those scandals are likely to be resurrected regularly. And Liberals have the hide to cry “smear campaign”.
Don’t start a fight unless you’re prepared to be pummeled senseless.
DeeCee at 24 raises issues which persuades me to regurgitate a response I made to a Glenn Milne story headed “Winners, lose both show ugly sides” in The Australian today. The response, submitted about four hours ago, has not been used.
The following is what I wrote.
Glenn, Still practising smear journalism, I see. The most notorious occasion was the Scores “scoop” or more accurately the leak where you dutifully published, without checking with the nightclub management, the lie that “according to some sources, Mr Rudd was warned against touching the dancers by Scores management”.
Glenn, you apparently did not try to get a comment from the Scores management. News Ltd runs a newspaper in New York, so it would not have been a difficult task. The ABC did get such a comment which contradicted your report!
Now, you put a favourable spin on the fact that the Howard Government decided not to prosecute Rudd in 2003 for referring to “a top-secret Austeo-coded document” which “caused immediate alarm inside the Howard Government which was about to go to war”. You say: “It was noted in the Parliament by then Liberal MP Greg Hunt that prima facie being in possession of such a document put Rudd in breach of the Crimes Act.”
The Government’s decision not to prosecute was undoubtedly due to the spotlight it would have put on the false reasons for going to war. Any correspondent with any intelligence would know this.
But this does not prevent you from making the ludicrous comparison that “no such leniency has been shown by Rudd in his determination to use all available police powers to go after Turnbull”.
Glenn, what is it about the fact that the Australian Federal Police are investigating a faked email that you do not understand?
In meeting Australian Federal Police, Turnbull apparently has followed the commitment he made after the announcement that the AFP would be investigating the matter that he would co-operate fully with their inquiry.
Your last example follows on with your tradition of sloppy reporting. You say: “Stories are beginning to filter through. For example, a commentator who publicly questioned the government’s economic policy was told that a senior member of the government had made a direct representation to the chairperson of a private company asking that the company no longer use the commentator’s services. A senior minister followed up with the chief executive of the same company to see whether the government’s wishes had been complied with.”
What about some facts Glenn? Why so coy in revealing names? Who was the commentator? Who was the senior member of the government who made a direct representation to the chairperson of the private company? Who was the senior Minister who followed up with the chief executive to see if the Government’s wishes had been complied with?
And Glenn, you cannot hide behind the fact that it would be damaging to the company or the commentator. Put simply, the Government would know all the details if they were true.
So. as you say in your intro, it is time for you to put up or shut up.
That is where the response ended. With hindsight, I would add this to what I asked Milne, but for which I am not holding my breath for an answer. Milne has said “stories are beginning to filter through …” Unless Milne sees himself as nothing but a stenographer, then proper journalism demands that he check the stories. Has Milne checked with the senior member of the government or the senior Minister who followed up with the chief executive? For example, he could not refer to a senior Minister without having some idea of who that Minister is.
Yet, his report is conspicuously silent about what efforts he made to check the stories that “are beginning to circulate”.
All in all, it’s not a very impressive effort at substantiating claims by someone who, at least, has credentials as a pushy journalist.
The link with what DeeCee said is that Liberal apologist like Milne have now shown a new approach in how they will attempt to use more smears to exonerate their failed champion – the peerless Malcolm of Wentworth
Milne also used the word precipitous in today’s column when he meant precipitate. There is only one thing worse than journalists use big words when small ones will do, and that is using big words incorrectly.
Tomorrow is the closing deadline for nominations for the seat of Higgins. I wonder if…
‘I think the whole problem for Turnbull in this, is that the perception that ‘Malcolm deliberately and knowingly used a fake email’ has been created.’
You write it as if it’s only a perception.
We will probably never know all the facts but on the evidence available so far, the ‘perception’ is also quite likely to be the reality. At the very least he seems to have been recklessly negligent in failing to inquire about its authenticity; at worst, he or someone in his office was involved in a conspiracy in which the email played a part. Turnbull’s problem therefore is in his own behaviour, not in some perception created by others.
The thing about Turnbull is that he’s much further to the Right economically than many people understand. Sure, he represents a seat that takes in some inner-city types, sure he owns two Bill Henson pictures, he wanted to be father of the Republic, and left to his own devices he’d like to take a trendy position on various of social issues.
But what were talking about here are things that don’t make a lot of difference to the lives of most people. On the really important stuff – economics – Turnbull is as dry as they come.
His first smart alec question in Parliament to Swan after the election was about the NAIRU – an evil economic concept. He’d skew the tax system to favour the wealthy like any other Liberal. His response to the GFC has been indistinguishable from that of the Republicans in the US.
Don’t be fooled by the press gallery: Turnbull is no centrist.
This whole tawdry episode is one of the Liberals own making.To now have to suffer the mad monk, the skirt and various others all going in to bat for the arrogant member for wentworth simply displays: 1. The dearth of talent in the Liberal Party.They have no other. NO OTHER. 2. Yet again we hear these drivelling incompetents blaming everyone bar themselves for the shit pit they are now immersed in.Listen up, you idiots, this was your idea and you have stuffed up in a monumental manner. No amount of drivel from any of you will make any difference now.Continuing to attack the PM and Labor will be counter productive.Do you never learn?
And underestimating the electorate will once again prove fatal.
P.S. I don’t actually know if left to his own devices he would like to take a moderate position on some social issues. If you look at the position the Libs have taken on refugees, there’s not even any evidence for that.
“The response, submitted about four hours ago, has not been used.”
Nice work JohnL@25. Do not hold your breath waiting for publication. Weez has been doing some interesting tests on News commentator strike rates…
“As an experiment, I placed 20 comments under differing usernames and through various proxy servers to prevent the comments editors from knowing all of them were coming from one computer……”
http://machinegunkeyboard.com/?p=645#comments
tssk @3, I would argue that Howard was a much smarter operator than Malvolio.
adrian @2, if Trunchbull had any political acumen or listened to advice, he wouldn’t be in the position he’s in now. Unfortunately, I don’t think he’s capable of realising he’s ever made a mistake or taking advice; he’s too busy blaming someone else for his stupidity and too large-headed to heed advice.
DeeCee, couldn’t agree more. I think we might hear more about money for mates if Trunchbull doesn’t shut up.
Fine, I also agree that it has to be very unlikely that anyone could possibly want the opposition leader’s job, but I’ve no doubt that there will be contenders lining up. Nothing like a good old fashioned poisoned chalice!
I wouldn’t count Trunchbull out, though. I don’t think he’ll relinquish the Libtard crown of thorns without a fight to the death. I noticed in the interview with ABC news after the he had given a statement to the AFP, that he was still presenting himself as the victim of an ALP smear campaign over the forged email.
His colossal arrogance and attempt to rewrite actual events were writ large. How he managed to carry it off with a straight face, is beyond me, but it’s possible he really does believe the story he has now concocted in an attempt to save face. This bloke just doesn’t know how to keep his stories straight.
Mark, I love the title for this thread.
“…now there are some who would like to rewrite history—revisionist historians is what I like to call them.”
Yes indeed
So, to recap: Rudd threw everything he had at Turnbull and it didn’t work. Albanese’s scorn, Tanner’s unction, and Rudd got far, far more upset than he ever did when Turnbull actually had a go at his wife. They’ve emptied the magazine at him and he’s still standing. Oh. Shit.
We were promised a rollercoaster ride with MBT and we’ve got one. At this point Crean, Downer or Hewson would have been thrown clear but Turnbull is still in there.
Either that, Ginja, or it proves the point very well. All you suckers pining for Abbott and Minchin just so you can feel ideologically pure – all that and worse is what you’re actually pining for, people.
Jane, try and apply that quote to every single Prime Minister, every US President, every successful politician you can think of: every one of them could be described that way, every one.
Turnbull’s real weakness is his shallow roots in the Liberal Party. If he were a real politician now he’d convene a meeting of all Tasmania’s Liberals and tell them: it’s me or Abetz and you’re not having Abetz, so vote for absolutely anybody you like and get that vicious troll out of my face. Then to Adelaide and do the same to Minchin, and by the time he got back to Sydney Abbott would have scurried back to the monastery. There’s the real Achilles heel.
Tip for yez: gloat after he’s gone, not before. The air is fresh and clear afterwards, and there is no risk of looking anything but wise after the event.
Huzzah!!! Well put sir!
Malcolm? Malcolm…. are you paying attention?
Andrew E, Trunchbull’s real weaknesses are he doesn’t have the wit to know when he should keep his mouth shut, blames everyone and anyone for his mistakes, is sloppy and completely lacking in political nous, won’t take advice and whines petulantly and incessantly when caught out.
The only reason he’s not out by the dustbin, is the Libs only have more lame ducks, tainted by old scandals, to replace him.
I’d also say the latest opinion polls show who is still standing and who’s slumped on the ropes.
And just quietly, Minchin and Abetz would make mincemeat out of him if he gave such a stupid ultimatum, although it is the sort of thing he’d be dumb enough to try.
They’ve been in the game a lot longer than he has and would quietly slip the stiletto in while staring into his eyes and promising to respect him in the morning.
The Mad Monk’s delusions in defending Malcolm have been amusing – there was a “firestorm of smear”…..from Labor!
The lad has career in stand-up awaiting him.
From phil Correy’s missive today “Turnbull hammered by voters” with a five liberal optional pie chart on display, Costello 37%, Hockey 21%, Turnbull 18%, dont knows 14%, Abbott 10% it really is “Malcolm in the middle”, of the crosshairs perhaps, one must get 100% behind a person before you can stab him in the back aka Sir Humphrey Appleby
I reckon ‘don’t know’ would be best to lead the Libs.
Andos on Media Watch
Yes it was a good media watch. I like the part on the Canadian Journalist stance on protecting sources is off if information is revealed to be deliberately misleading.
“a journalist has a responsibility to reveal, not defend, a confidential source if it becomes clear that the potentially damaging information they were given was false”
Last night ABC Media Watch did the timeline forensics on the fake email (that the MSM and dancing bears like the poison dwarf are incapable of doing) and nailed Steve Lewis from News Ltd as having serious questions to answer. Now that’s what I call journalism.
How can there still be people out there who think Turnbull had a hand in creating the fake email? Why assume a deliberate conspiracy when you can assume plain old incompetence? I know the former is somehow more satisfying, but really.
Turnbull has been shown to be the rankest of rank amateurs in politics. Incompetence in the purely political sense might be forgivable if you’ve got a solid, coherent, defensible policy platform and a credible team behind you, but Malcolm’s got a very bare policy cupboard indeed and…ummmm…Joe Hockey, who must surely rate as the Sarah Palin of Australian politics and who is, to rip off a very bright spark, utterly unversed in any of the needful political discourses but easily trained to utter preposterous lies and to appeal to the basest element of his audience.
BBB
You’re correct BBB.
But the point is that the email in question is the product of someone’s nefariousness.
It is highly unlikely that Grech, alone and unbidden, concocted this email. He was clearly operating in league with someone else, either willingly or under duress.
The common or garden conspiracy would be that this someone is a particularly dense and boneheaded person inside the Parliamentary Liberal Party — no shortage of possible perps there.
The juicy conspiracy is that someone with malign intent toward the Liberal Party in general, or the leadership of the Liberal Party in particular, confected this email to entrap their victim(s).
Meh, that’s much less interesting than the issue of Turnbull’s suitability to lead the alternative government.
BBB
Just wondering what would happen if someone in public office fabricated an email to discredit a poor yob who was NOT an influential politician with the AFP on call? What are the chances of that dirty trick being dragged into the light?
But…. if you’ve done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear. Riiight???
Grace @ 42, Media Watch also made it clear that under Australian ethics Steve Lewis shouldn’t and indeed can’t reveal his sources. His hands are tied.
And Mars08, good point. Pity the government won’t run an inquiry. (yes I know, senate blocked it. Hardly the ALP’s fault but I think the Libs can have it both ways on that.)
That’s not accurate, tssk.
MediaWatch pointed out that some interpretations of the MEAA code of ethics would preclude Lewis from revealing his source, but emphasised that the source had given him false and/or concocted information, and cited Chris Masters in support of an argument that sources could be revealed in such circumstances:
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s2611572.htm
This is at issue?
And surely his suitability to lead a government is in part assessable by how he behaves in things like this?
WTFnF? You’re taking the piss, surely. How can you possibly summarise Turnbull’s massive failure on this issue in that way.
“Still standing” – heh.
Perhaps by borrowing the theme from Tony Abbott? It’s what he was spruiking on Sunday.
“WTFnF? You’re taking the piss, surely.”
Either taking the piss or on the piss.
Either Abbott, or Piers Akerman (apparently Rudd was the only one damaged in this affair)…
Look guys, the honeymoon is almost over. The cunning opposition have sown the seeds in the minds of the electorate, who will eventually become aware of the enormity of the mistake that they made in upsetting the natural order and electing Rudd.
The opposition realise that they can take a short term hit in the polls and regroup because eventually the natural order will reassert itself. If they mention debt and defecit in every utterence that they make that will hasten the inevitable realignment. Even better if they mount a scare campaign against illegal immigrants, queue jumpers and people smugglers. Why waste time developing policies when a few well chosen words repeated endlessly will do the trick.
It’s just as well that we have an intelligent, impartial and forensic Canberra press gallery to hold them to account.
I think Turnbulls problem is that the establishment will always see him as an arriveste. He is a try hard ruling class wannabe but he will never be part of the inner circle. His money is too new and comes from sources not understood by old money. He is destined to always flap around the outside shouting “let me in, I am smarter than all of you”.
Howard by contrast was always the ruling class toady,the lickspittle who knew his place. Did what he was told to do without complaint or fuss.
Rudd on the other hand is a very smart apparatchick who knows he will never be part of the ruling class, he is the contracted in smiling assassin who understands his position and will stay in power until he is of no furthur use.
Unless Turnbull wises up to all this he is finished.
Huggy
Adrien 56
“It’s just as well that we have an intelligent, impartial and forensic Canberra press gallery to hold them to account.” thats classic.
Michael 41 the “dont knows” have it then and perhaps the donkey vote for deputy
Mark @ 49 from the transcript
There is an argument that changes need to be made but Steve Lewis is bound. Pure and simple. This isn’t Canada.
Adrain @ 54, it’s not piss, it’s Kool Aid. Yum yum.
And @ 56…brilliant! You are now qualified for a newspaper blog and the comfy lone seat on The Insiders! Congrats!
Thanks Mark@49, for making the point that apparently went over tssk’s head (and who in any case made a false inference about my meaning).
Media Watch and the blogosphere are so far doing a good job in holding Steve Lewis to account and asking the hard questions, some of which should also be directed to Lewis’ boss, that weird creature with the exploding hair, Chris Mitchell.
sorry, maybe not “Lewis’ boss, but same stable anyway
From the AJA code of ethics:
’1. Report and interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness and disclosure of all essential facts. Do not suppress relevant available facts, or give distorting emphasis. Do your utmost to give a fair opportunity for reply.’
What did Lewis do to comply with these obligations? What inquiries did he make in an attempt to verify the email’s authenticity? Did he give a copy of the fake email to the purported author before writing his story and invite him to comment? If not, why not? What reason was there not to get all the relevant information before rushing into print? Was he afraid the email would be demonstrated to be a forgery and his wonderful front page story would evaporate?
’3. Aim to attribute information to its source. Where a source seeks anonymity, do not agree without first considering the source’s motives and any alternative attributable source. Where confidences are accepted, respect them in all circumstances.’
What conclusions did Lewis reach about his informant’s motives that persuaded him to agree to anonymity? What evidence did he rely on in reaching those conclusions? If it turns out he was seriously and deliberately misled about the informant’s motives, and if he had known then what he knows now he would never have agreed to anonymity, on what possible ethical grounds can he insist on maintaining confidentiality? Surely long-standing principles of basic common law that wrong-doers should not profit from their wrongful acts take precedence over an institutional code of ethics?
It seems to me these are the questions that Lewis should be invited to answer, hopefully by the Pres Council. Codes of ethics should be read in their entirety and not have individual clauses cherry-picked to justify anonymity and unaccountability.
Moreover the Code has a ‘guidance clause’ which, while arguably self-contradictory, recognises that it must be read as a whole:
‘Basic values often need interpretation and sometimes come into conflict. Ethical journalism requires conscientious decision-making in context. Only substantial advancement of the public interest or risk of substantial harm to people allows any standard to be overridden.’
I wonder if Lewis would care to make full and frank disclosure of events and then argue that his conduct reflected ‘conscientious decison-making in context’.
Talcum may or may not have known that the email was fake, but this is only one issue. There is the other issue of him and Erica meeting with Grinch before the Senate Estimates trial. It certainly looks like Talcum and Erica are guilty of attempting to pervert the course of justice.
It wasn’t a trial, it was a hearing.
….may have looked like a trial, Erica prosecuting
tampering with the processes of the Senate? misleading the Senate? misleading the public? dealing in forged documents?
but not “perverting the course of justice”
“tampering with the processes of the Senate? misleading the Senate? misleading the public? dealing in forged documents?”
+ being really creepy.
Regarding journalists’ “ethics” – Mr Lewis is in danger of being hauled up before the disciplinary committee and struck orf the roll of media practitioners, is he? Har har, haw haw, “ethics”, chortle. “Oh noes! Nobody expects the Press Council! Our main weapon is utter toothlessness!” Tee hee. Oh Lord, my sides. Journalists’ ethics. Stop it!
I agree with Ambigulous re the senate estimates aren’t a judicial process, but it does seem rather dodgeroonie to have private meetings with someone just before you’re about to question them, Malcolm in attendance, in the circumstances of the fake email that Malcolm knew about that day which was the day before it was printed in the papers etc etc. Crooked as a dog’s hind leg in fact.
joe2 and Sean,
the whole sorry episode is shedding some light on interesting little crannies in the Canberra “system”, eh? Background briefings, leaks, informal chats, leaks, Dorothy Dixer questions in Senate hearings, journalists’ practices. leaks, rumours, etc.
Skulduggers the lot of ‘em. Rinse ‘em off and hang ‘em all out to dry.
“Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. The Daily Sheet called me a crooked, lying, insinuating, low-life, creepy, shameless, barefaced MP.”
“How were you misrepresented?”
“Mr Speaker, I possess facial hair. My face is not bare. In all my days representing the good folk of Budgeree, never Mr Speaker, never have I been accused of having a nudie face. I have become a laughing stock. This must cease!”
“The Member for Hanrahan, on a point of order.”
“We’ll all be rooned!!”
“There is no point of order, the Member for Hanrahan will resumne his seat. I ask the honourable members on my left to desist from their plaintive cacophony.”
To understand the opposition leadership issue, consider a dichotomy between “smoking guns” and “perfect storms”.
To quote from Lindsay Tanner in the Hansard (22nd June, after 2pm) in regards to accusations made by Malcolm Turnball against the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd:
“We have lots of people who all happened conveniently to be connected to the Liberal Party whispering around the corridors that they have the smoking gun, and as soon as it becomes clear that the smoking gun they think they have got could be blowing up in their faces, they scatter at 100 miles an hour away from it.”
Then, in relating this smoking gun backfire to a historic event like “weapons of mass destruction”, Tanner went on to say in regards to a pattern of Liberal Party conduct:
“…something they embraced enthusiastically without really being too careful to worry about whether there was any factual information to back up the assertions.”
So now the focus is on Opposition “conduct” more than the smoking gun accusation against the Government, well reflected in yesterday’s voter polls.
Leadership is only one of several functions needed to achieve a political party’s stated purpose (the management theory books suggest planning, organising and controlling are the others).
Now that the Liberals have been reminded of this after the crisis, it’s little wonder The Australian newspaper’s Christian Kerr writes today that “The opposition must be cautious – cautious in its conduct, but bold in its attack.” (in other words…planned, organised and controlled boldness. Does that really sound like Malcolm Turnball to you?)
If this double-speak concept of “cautious boldness” sounds like a lot to expect from the brash Mr. Turnball, it might be time to consider exactly where in the political positioning map the Liberal Party need to be (which does lead to my opinion that Joe Hockey is the next Opposition Leader, whether sooner or later).
Christian Kerr is half right in saying “Smart Liberals know a rightward swing after their election loss was not an option. It would have differentiated the party, but only by marginalising it further.”
Then he goes on to defend the present opposition leader that has been caught holding a backfiring smoking gun:
“They know that Turnbull is their leader, that he is undeniably talented—and that there is no obvious alternative”.
Oh, come on. The Mainstream Media was more than willing to speculate on leadership alternatives to Kim Beazley even when Beazley was already managing Labor towards leading in the opinion polls. Yet the best our Media collective has achieved in terms of leadership speculation since Turnball was discovered to be less than what was initally promised is take a “rear vision” view towards Peter Costello.
Lacking imagination, the Mainstream Media has declared debate on this issue to be closed.
You find indicators of this attitude in several locations. The Australian newspaper has effectively declared our latest Mr 18% Prefered PM as here to stay (The Tina declaration – There is no altenative), while The Age released another one of those “our standards are higher than theirs” articles, comparing reader comments sections of news websites to other cheap online thrills like porn.
In the event that the common public is giving Malcolm Turnball a big collective thumbs-down, I found The Age article ironic, if not offensive.
Such an article as that published by The Age (titled Thanks so much for your comments, Mr Barking Mad by Michael Lallo) risks confusing “cheap” with “quick”.
It doesn’t take that long at all for me to go and fetch Lindsay Tanner’s comments about the backfiring smoking gun and then go fetch something to compare it to.
For example, consider this prediction made by Kim Beazley when speaking with Radio National’s Geraldine Doogue on 10 February 2007, many months ahead of Kevin Rudd’s election as Prime Minister:
“The capacity for John Howard to leap free from what I see as the perfect storm of issues coming at him, is far less now than it was last election or the election before that”.
Note that Shaun Carney wrote in The Age last weekend that:
“Some politicians accept the role of opposition leader out of a sense of duty — think Kim Beazley in the wake of Labor’s defeat in 1996, although he ended up absorbing his own publicity and convinced himself that he was more than a political yeoman.”
However, I would debate that in fact Kim Beazley was only absorbing a perfect storm of issues and the evidence of that perfect storm was already clear before Kevin Rudd took over as Opposition Leader. Rudd wasn’t the leader that sailed the Labor ship into the storm. It was the “yeoman” that did that.
Given the Mainstream Media’s “Tina Declaration” on Mr 18% Prefered PM ’09, I just have one key question to ask, along with some supplementary questions:
Is Malcolm Turnball a political yeoman?
Able to set in place the building blocks of a future win, even if coming in short of the actual win?
The sort of comparison you’d make with the political experience of a Kim Beazley?
Or are the comparisons between Malcolm Turnball and Mark Latham closer to the truth?
…From Justin
In a strange way I agree with Andrew E.
Turnbull was never going to be trusted by the Liberal Party for one reason: the Republic.
It may sound strange to normal people, but monarchism is actually a burning issue for the Right of the Liberal Party. Truth be told, one of Costello’s problems was that he was a Repbulican. Sure, you can be viciously right-wing on every other issue, but unless you’re a monarchist, you’re not truly “one of us”. Monarchism keeps the scary, alien modern world at bay – especially for Young Libs.
Understanding the Liberal Party nowadays is like studying some obscure Marxist sect: issues that don’t seem important to normal, well-adjusted people become huge ideological issues.
Sorry Benedictus….I was just put under your name. Dunno how that happened.
DeeCee @24
Cannot agree that Swan has no case to answer in regard to misleading Parliament. Quite an array of the commentariat from left to right concur.
As far as I am aware there is no testimony that Ripoll asked Swan to call Grant. Swan has said he asked Ripoll to get Grant to call Swan. I would be interested in any citation you have for your version.
The special treatment afforded to Grant is:
Of all applicants, ONLY Grant got a personal phone call from the Treasurer, though other cases were bought to the Treasurer’s notice.
Of all applicants, ONLY Grant received phone calls from the Treasurer, the Treasurer’s personal staff and Mr. Grech on the same day.
Of all applicants, ONLY progress on Grant’s was emailed directly to Swan (NB different to fax) see Coorey, “Rudd swerves on car scandal”, SMH .
Grech was especially informed by Andrew Thomas in Treasury that Grech’s progress reports were being sent to the Treasurer’s home fax. Grech testified in Senate Committe that this is the ONLY occasion that he was informed that emails were going to Swan’s personal fax. The implication is that Swan is especially interested in Grant’s application.
Grech testified that the manner and style of approach and correspondence from Thomas made it clear to Grech that Grant’s file was a priority case and should be proactively managed with the aim of a favourable outcome for Grant if at all possible.
The relationship between Grant and Rudd, as we now all know is that Grant donated a ute to Rudd and that he is a member of a club that does fundraising for Rudd, the Brisbane ‘51 Club’. Members of the 51 Club also claim Rudd met Grant in China on two occassions and conversed about Grant’s business dealings. Rudd has spoken at the 51 Club on one occasion. The 51 Club also visited Rudd in Canberra and received a very personal nice tour from Rudd of Parliament House including areas off-limits to the general public.
Grant’s Rolls-Royce handling by Swan is a direct result of Grant’s favours for Rudd both personally and through the 51 Club, which Rudd honours with occasional personal visits.
Further indications that Grant received special consideration from Grech based on Swan’s wishes are found in that Grech raised Grant’s file with Ford Credit in a meeting in which Ford Credit was seeking access to $500 million of Treasury finance. It is true that Grant was not the only dealer discussed at that meeting but Grant’s file was the only one “substantially discussed” in the words of Greg Cohen, Ford Credit’s Managing Director.
Prior to the meeting, Grech identified Ford Credit as a ‘fallback position’ for Grant and Ford Credit speedily contacted Grant to see how he could be accommodated despite the fact that they did not handle any other Kia dealerships. Ford Credit were willing to make an exception for Grant. It seems naive to think that this was completely unconnected with their hope to access half a billion dollars in Government money after a meeting in which Grant’s file was ’substantially discussed’.
Cohen testified that ONLY Grant’s phone number was provided to Ford Credit despite three or four other dealers being mentioned in that meeting of Feb. 23rd
From the above it is plain that Swan has a prima facie case to answer of ‘help-for-mates’ (nepotism) and of misleading Parliament.
More excuciating detail here
Regards,
Barra
Baraholka@71 – Suggest you do some fact checking before you post a comment in the way you have. Perhaps some better acquaintance with the Hansard reporting of the Senate Committee might set you straight about one or two things, and in particular who said what about the email going to Swan’s home fax. Grech was not “specially informed” as you claim, nor should you allow the obvious pushing of Liberal Party propaganda cloud your own ability to read and interpret matters. The raising of the 51 Club is another red herring where the true facts will not be shown but will be swamped with innuendo and slime.
Baraholka if the horse hasn’t moved for several hours, and its bodily fluids are leaking out in unattractive fashion, and it’s getting colder and stiffer by the minute, and passers-by are holding their noses and moving to the other side of the street … put the whip away and go flog something else.
Breaking News is the, can’t be missed, Andrew Bolt take on all this.
Under the headline- “Beaut ute: Was it a Labor sting?”- the just arrived home from Israel, conspiracy theorist, has come up with a line of reasoning bound to gain further support amongst fringe groups. See below for my favourite comment which looks to have been posted seriously…
“Here’s another thing ….. Andrew, were you asked to go to Israel with Gillard? …. Could it be that Labor wanted you, Australia’s only investigative journalist, out of Australia when their little set up hit the airwaves?”
they tell me Mal’s thinkging of buying a ute from the western subs to try and get in touch with the utegaters’, (they?) are usually wrong.
Mal, a three star Euro auto,is more your style I reckon.Go libs somewhere, yep.
Mediatracker @72
Thanks for the correction. Andrew Thomas from Treasury told Grech that Grech’s emails were going to Swan’s home fax on Feb 27th, 4 days after the Ford Credit meeting.
I will amend my blog post.
This however does not make any difference to the evidence that Grant was treated better than all other OzCar applicants. I would be interested in your thoughts if you feel otherwise.
But Grech was especially informed that his emails were going to Swan. Thomas did so in the aforementioned email. If it were merely standard practice why did Thomas bother to mention it ?
The 51 Club and Grants other meetings with Rudd establish Rudd relationship with Grant. That is why they are relevant.
Regards,
Barra
Jane, you overestimate how tough Minchin and Abbott are. Put it this way: this week you have not seen Turnbull sucking up to Abbott, but the reverse.
Mark, the question is: can he learn from this? Do you get what he has by being completely incorrigible all the time?
Well, perhaps he can, Andrew. There’s hope for us all this side of the grave. But I think the point about different forms of behaviour and practice in the worlds of business and law (or the sorts of bits of those worlds he operated in) and politics is a salient one. And people in their 50s who see themselves as ‘self made’ and have done very well don’t always assume they have anything further to learn.
The same could be said of Hawke, Mark (53 when became PM).
The difference is that Hawke had a bunch of people who Knew What He Was Like and made up for his weaknesses – some he drew to himself, others were foisted on him by the ALP (esp. NSW Right). That process hasn’t happened with Turnbull to the same extent. He seems to trust – and treat – his wife better than Hawke did his, and Hockey and Abbott particularly seem to be recalibrating themselves to Turnbull rather than doing what most Libs are doing and pining for Howard.
Blaming others is one thing – but I still hope he wrings Abetz’s neck.
Someone should, to be sure, Andrew. In a political sense, of course.
But let’s not forget Hawkey made a very determined effect to mend his ways for a few years prior to becoming leader. I don’t think the parallel’s that good.
Ken @ 73…
How was Baraholka supposed to know it was a stolen horse??? I was a gift, after all.
RJL Hawke apparently “gave up the grog” once he arrived in the Lodge. Not sure that he spent a couple of years drying out before that, but perhaps he needed to?
I heard that when he was a prominent backbencher and shadow minister before grabbing the leadership, one of his staff said “You don’t seem to be trying very hard, Bob.”
Bob replied, “Don’t worry, I will when the time comes,…..”
Which he did.
I think it was actually when he entered parliament in 1980, Ambi, but I don’t seem to have kept my copy of Blanche’s fine bio so I can’t be totally sure.
Perhaps more important than any drunken behaviour Hawke may have been known for was his curbing of his more egotistical impulses professionally – he wasn’t known as a highly consultative leader who acted more as a facilitator than a control freak for nothing.
Keating might actually be a better comparator for Malcolm. In some ways.
I’m sure your memory’d be better than mine, Mark.
I think he got back on it after leaving the Lodge, Ambi. But good luck to him – he probably deserved a quiet drink by then!
There are a lot of good stories around about his exploits pre-PM-ship. Even when his behaviour was over the top, most of them seem to be fond. I don’t know if that’s true of too many people who become PM.
I think there are some parallels between RJLH and MT.
Chiefly because Bob Hawke had a very prominent role in the public spotlight before entering Parl’t. Of course he probably MADE it more prominent by being a more energetic and effective ACTU leader. He was bright, articulate and a moderniser.
Ran a successful campain against ‘resale price maintenance’ in the retail trade. (1970?) Strategic, and certainly became “the workers’ friend” when retail prices were lowered through increasing competition. Not a socialist method, but smart; and it helped educate the public about the retail system.
IIRC he helped modernise the union hierarchy. He had already done good work as a research assistant. Modernising the unions and moderating their stances helped with ALP election campaigns. He was voted in at the ACTU with Left support but soon had such appeal to the public that I reckon they could never have dumped him.
His achievements before Parlt included tweaking Tories, negotiating during big strikes, pushing social democratic policies, etc etc. Quite a list. Not a narrow ALP hack at all. He won battles.
MT on the other hand won some, lost some. Many of his battles were for rich persons. Chalk and cheese, Bob and Malcolm.
Yes, some good points, Ambi, but I’d emphasise the differences. Hawke succeeded in part because he parlayed what was usually seen as a sectional interest role as ACTU president into one that was perceived as acting in a broader public interest. Perhaps the only thing Turnbull did which might have had similar resonance was the Republic campaign, but we all know what happened there. Sure, Hawke was building his own career – but it coincided with a genuine public good. Some of Turnbull’s current apologists might trumpet him for “standing up to Kerry Packer” but what was he standing up over?
I don’t think making a bucket of money and being a legal/business gun for hire is all that comparable to Hawke’s pre-parliamentary career.
I agree entirely that Hawke became well known and well repected because he was seen to be acting in the broader public interest. Even many business persons could see (for example) that resale price maintenance = restrictive, monopolistic behaviour, was bad for the economy overall.
He was not sectional or sectarian. Another example: it’s hard to believe now, but in the 60s and 70s we had national strikes that went for weeks or even months. Not good for anyone; they were settled by negotiation or arbitration eventually. Wages lost. Production lost. Delays. As ACTU leader he tried to dampen this folishness. In Govt, he did more. Generally a satisfactory outcome for the nation and the workers.
LP: raging limerick fight one day, quiet chat the next.
Goodonya Mark.
Ambi, I think we will know the Liberal party has stopped breathing when the member for Budgeree falls off his perch.
@89 – I should go take a limerick writing course and then I could play in both sandpits!
Ginja, I must admit your post had me wondering how much I had to drink.
The sentiments in your post were something I could well have expressed, but couldn’t remember expressing!
Hehehe Mark, joe2
Now here is the story with a likely shelf life of 10 minutes.
“Gillard hammers media over OzCar email”
I mean, you would not want to allow a wider debate over the media role in Utegate. Rudd’s earlier attempt at questioning Steve Lewis’ part in all this has fallen on deaf ears and my guess is Julia’s strong words, on the matter, will be buried by Newscorp as well. Same for Aunty, where the story originated, since she now only takes her lead from them.
http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/gillard-hammers-media-over-ozcar-email-20090701-d46a.html
You’re right about the ABC joe2 – I think it’s getting worse if anything.
Don’t know where my lift gets its news from, but this story was featured this morning along with a rather fetching pic of Ms Gillard.
Uhlman and Trioli were actually boasting about how conservative they were, or how conservative society was on ABC morning Tv. I didn’t think they’d actually be that brazen about it.
joe2@94.
John Hartigan has made a rapid response to Julia Gillard’s comments at today’s Press Club lunch.He seemed to link his newspaper’s recent coverage of her portfolio in some way to her comments as if it were somehow payback on her part rather than a comment on the paper’s coverage of the email issues. He has made the interesting comment that possibly the press gallery should be removed from the hotbed of Parliament House and that there should be some turnover of the press gallery journalists from time to time. Fat chance of that happening.
Also of interest to note the presence of Graeme Morris (Liberal Party heavyweight) among the audience with a few other notables. Interesting timing.
There’s more.
Madonna King, an Aunty “personality”, who I believe is the wife of the editor of The Courier Mail, unless he left that job, took the axe to Rudd demanding to know if he would sell his ute.
Esteemed journalist Christian Kerr reported on the matter under the headline ….
“Kevin Rudd ducks questions on loaned ute, rants at media over coverage”
It is worthy of a link because the longish quotes, actually given by Kerr, show Rudd did no such thing on both counts. Apparently he is not meant to question the media role in utegate or explain that the ute was well and truly officially declared. Kerr does not, of course, declare King’s connection to the Newscorp owned curious snail that Rudd had in his sights when commenting.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25712433-601,00.html
This is very interesting because it shows that the two most senior figures in the Government are willing to take on News Ltd about their partisan political coverage. Maybe they think that it can’t get any worse, as they’ve thrown everything that they possibly can at Rudd, and the only damage thus far is to their own credibility.
I really don’t think that they understand the extent to which the game has changed as the slide ever deeper into irrelevancy.
Pshaw! It was like hitting Rudd with a wet lettuce. But at least he’s telling people how incompetent the meedja is. Though I think it’ll take a while for them to get the message, that unless they’re the Chaser Boys, they ain’t players.
Of course, Mark.
My earlier point about Turnbull was that it’s not possible to have achieved all he has by being on the front foot all the time. I know people who’ve worked with Turnbull and been burned, so I’m not being starry-eyed – but quite simply if he had been as egocentric and bullying as legend has it, he’d at least be told to piss off by the great and good, if not be fish-food at the bottom of Sydney Harbour somewhere.
I think there are parallels between Turnbull’s courting of the well-heeled during the ’80s and ’90s and the same by Hawke in the late ’70s. If I had made the exodus all the way across the political spectrum I’d point out that Hawke’s Prime Ministership saw union membership plummet and social inequality skyrocket to levels from which they have not recovered.
One of the most interesting things about this crazy affair is the more public role of Eric Abetz. Normally, he stays in the back rooms. Why oh why do Tasmanians keep voting for him? It can’t be that they’ve ever met him because if they had they’d recognise him as the evil little creep from school who had no friends because his favorite activity was picking his nose and wiping it on others (sorry for the repulsive image but …). It would be good to see a thorough analysis of his record. Skin crawling.
Godwin Grech has fessed up to writing the faked Utegate email.
Tanya @102: re. Abetz. Indeed. Howard’s Special Minister for Head-Kicking, and possibly still active as such? PLEEASE can we have his head over this!
It’s the ute I feel for in all of this.
It’s not an exaggeration to say it’s disappeared from the media narrative. Why is that? The ute has feelings too!
But no, in the Gadarene rush to apportion blame, sift motives, establish mere “facts”, the Forgotten Ute stands alone and sorry.
This isn’t just due to the ongoing (and invisible) sedanarchy. It goes much deeper.
I do not think so Ambigulous@105. I heard a media star continue to wonder why Kevin “the multi” would have taken such a gift as that ute just the other day. That it was clearly reported and acceptable (as would, the value of the ute, given as a reported cash equivalent gift) by existing parliamentary standards, apparently does not come into the matter.
New post:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/08/04/utegate-open-thread/