Continuing an irregular series commenting on how the election looks to commercial tv viewers: commercial free to air is the biggest single source of information for voters.
After almost disappearing last night, the election was back on Brisbane’s Channel Nine news tonight – big time. The PM was in Brisbane, appearing with Anna Bligh to announce around $700 million for that hardy election perennial, a rail line to Redcliffe. (For background, see Andrew Bartlett.)
It certainly is a slog to get to Redcliffe by public transport, involving a long bus trip from either Petrie or Shorncliffe station. There was a bit of scepticism expressed on the vox pops, because this promise is regularly made by both major political parties in both state and federal campaigns, and nothing ever happens (it was first mooted in the 19th century, and land was resumed in 1978).
What this does tell us is that the electorates of Petrie, Longman and Dickson are still very much in play. Gillard and Bligh were flanked by first term Petrie MP Yvette D’Ath (as well as the Moreton Bay Regional Council Mayor). Petrie is obviously shaky, being the site yesterday of not just Tony Abbott’s childcare announcement, but also a visit from Simon Crean. More confirmation that there are quite a few closely run seats in Queensland…
The second election story was a Laurie Oakes “bombshell”. He claims that Julia Gillard, as Deputy Prime Minister, opposed the ALP’s paid parental leave scheme in Cabinet, on purely electoral grounds. She’s also said to have expressed reservations about an aged pension increase, commenting that older people didn’t vote Labor. The leaker? “Government sources”, according to Oakes.
Tony Abbott has his own parental leave problems, confirming that men taking leave would be paid at their female partner’s pay rate. That presumably conforms with Action Man’s ideology that raising kids is women’s work, and indeed, he said that the payment was “primarily to allow mums to bond with their baby”. So much for Joe Hockey’s blather about productivity…
I saw that. Gee, Julia has a problem with someone who was senior in the cabinet who is prepared to sing to Laurie the Leaker. Is it the Member for Griffith?
“Could you be that man, councillor?”
A bit of Kevinology, Terry – does KRudd count as “government sources” any more?
I wouldn’t assume that all Julia’s current ministerial team are happy campers at the moment.
6:33 pm. Right now on Channel 9, ACA is focusing on the Gold Coast and running an anti-Muslim, anti-Arab scare campaign. Racist dog-whistling at its worst! They’re even pushing Pauline Hanson!
ALP problems, real or confected, are ‘bombshells’ or ‘blunders’ or ‘gaffes’.
Do you recall Garretts comments to some shock jock at the airport last election?
Whereas similar are …well…invisible or nearly so.
Do you recall the Environment Minister of the COALition admitting many businessmen are ‘bullies’ on radio last election [the context of the time was 'union thugs' remember?]
Or the Lib member for Tassie who stated to a journo that the Lib hospital proposal in his electorate was a ‘disaster’ [or similar] and it was only revealed by the journo because there was a Labor flunky present?
You do recall these don’t you?
Is there any good policy that labor enacted that Julia didn’t oppose. She seems to have an almost unerring ability to come down on the wrong side. But you can see why her poll driven realpolitik got the factional heavyweights hot for her. Why give the f… pensioners a rise. They don’t vote for us anyway.
This leaking is getting ridiculous. It can only be someone that dislikes Gillard and/or the plotters so much that they are prepared to risk Labor losing the election. There aren’t that many people that fit the bill.
Mike, the quotes lack context. For example, Gillard might have said that increasing the age pension without increasing other welfare payments (such as unemployment) isn’t necessarily good policy, especially when unemployment benefit recipients are much more likely to vote Labor and are doing it tougher than most pensioners, who in many cases have substantial assets to fall back on. Who knows? But the leaker is hardly going to give Oakes the context, if it indeed exists.
Yeah, what Labor Outsider said. Plus also, just because Oakes claims it doesn’t necessarily make it so
Just to reiterate the point about Kevinology – KRudd surely isn’t a “senior government source” at the moment. There were a stack of articles a while back where cabinet members had obviously been briefing the press they didn’t want Rudd back on the frontbench. It’s very possible this leak comes from one of Rudd’s enemies, hoping he’ll be blamed for it. Or just to ramp up the “get rid of Kevin, or we’ll always have this stuff” push.
There have also been a few reports that caucus is very divided, and I think that was probably why the “deal” leak came out.
I agree with LO that it’s impossible to make any judgement on the remarks (if they’re accurately conveyed) without their context.
I also thought Penny Wong looked quite uncomfortable last night on Qanda defending the citizens assembly thing. She did everything she could to avoid answering that question. It’s clear that it wasn’t her idea, and she’d have been happier taking the work done in her department on a carbon price to the election.
I would have thought that a lot of this stuff that Oakes gets is third hand. It’s not the people who were in the room who are leaking, but they tell other people (of course) who don’t have quite the same commitment to the cause (or confidentiality). Wouldn’t take long for this sort of stuff to circulate around. After all, Oakes hasn’t said: “I heard it from someone in the room…”
Why on earth would one of Rudd’s enemies leak this? All it does is make things more difficult for Julia and reduce the chances of Labor winning the election. I really find that thesis very difficult to believe. I agree that Rudd himself is unlikely to have leaked this, but it is more likely that a Rudd supporter leaked it than a Gillard supporter.
@11 – MIKE, I think that’s pretty likely to have been the case with the “deal” leak. It’s not likely to have come from Rudd, Gillard or Faulkner, but a lot more likely to have come from some other member of caucus who heard something. Part of the story was that both Rudd and Gillard briefed supporters on what had occurred in the gap between the two evening meetings.
Rebekka,8.
That’s blasphemy.
Not the LO comment, the other one. Watch out for low flying lightning bolts.
Besides, you might have a case of mistaken identity since both Andrew bolt and Albrechtsen, amongst many of that second oldest of professions, exhibit the same tendency.
You’d think, great minds think alike, fools never differ..
@12 – LO, not every Labor “hard head” is necessarily smart. They could be complacent about the election, and obsessed with going after Rudd.
I’m not seeing a plausible reason for it coming from Rudd himself or one of his supporters.
Unless it’s payback for the National Security leak.
Politics can be pretty childish and stupid sometimes.
http://today.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=7934644
You want a real ‘bombshell’ from Oakes?
Try the above.
In it Oakes exposes Joe as …. well have a read, the longer it goes the worse Joe presents.
Remember, this is not second [or third] hand and this is the alternative Treasurer.
I think the reason
Wong looked “uncomfortable” on QA was that she was being asked questions she knew the answer to and didn’t want folk to know.
@Paul walter, lol. If I repent d’you think I can avoid the lightning?
You don’t think revenge is a more plausible motive for someone that will be excluded from the next government than for somebody hoping to form the next government?
Rudd leaked regularly against Beazley in the run-up to that leadership spill. Why wouldn’t he leak against the person (or have his proxies leak) that deposed him as leader in humiliating fashion and has subsequently trashed his policy legacy?
Looks like Abbott and Hockey worked out that the only way to afford their policy is to underpay people i.e at women’s wages.
As for the leak – OMG someone in the ALP leaked against the sitting PM?
Hold page 10.
Anyway, this episode is going to make for a very interesting (but ultimately depressing) book or documentary one day. You remember Labor in Power? That was brilliant.
Wong looked uncomfortable on Q&A because nobody likes eating a shit sandwich, particularly on national television.
And what Kim said. To assume that all the political actors are acting rationally is to ignore the history of politics, particularly recent history.
LO @ 20 you interest me strangely … Gillard has watered down a tax, announced a process to defer action on climate change when Rudd preferred a bald deferral without doing anything in the mean time, and claimed she’s having talks with the East Timorese about asylum-seekers which they apparently don’t know anything about. You seriously consider this ‘trashing Rudd’s policy legacy’? I would have thought the Gillard Government has been conspicuous in its ability to avoid making policy decisions about anything at all.
I just cant rouse myself to even care if someone in the ALP leaked it at this point (they can hardly complain about it with a straight face) – I just hope the story itself is wrong.
That’s what worries me more.
If Gillard did oppose this – she has very suspect political judgment, and a dreadfully conservative approach to policy reform.
Hopefully a more “cabinet” oriented approach will minimise that tendency. It tends to back the “dump the ETS” story.
‘when Rudd preferred a bald deferral without doing anything in the mean time’
I thought the situation was that Gillard and Swan pushed hard for a deferal (then one of them promptly leaked it) and Rudd wanted an October election so he could produce an interim policy. So the statement would be wrong on all accounts.
The disturbing thing is that Gillard from an earlier time was against an ETS and seems to from what she has said and done since, not to be interested in substantial action.
Anyway it was both stupid and risky to grab power so close to an election without any defensible reason, apart from wanting to jump to the right.
Anybody who doesn’t like Gillard and had some bare knowledge could have leaked this, and that would be a number of people.
LE – “I just hope the story itself is wrong.”
Me too.
At this stage it’s looking like Labor are going to do what John Howard needed the control of the senate to do – that is, live up to every ugly stereotype that exists about them. First and foremost the dominance of right-wing union self-interest. Jobs for the boys in the mines at whatever cost to anyone else.
I’ll vote informal in the House of Reps, I can’t stomach the idea of giving the passionate advocate of welfare quarantining, Rishworth a preference.
I’ll vote Greens in the senate [I really hope Penny Wright gets in] and put Labor’s number one pick last. I don’t even know who it is, but I know enough about SA Labor to know it’ll be a bloke, a right wing unionist, and Don Farrell’s chosen one. I suggest putting Labor last in the senate may actually be a more credible form of protest than risking it in the Reps. It’s the senators that are the biggest problem anyway.
At this stage the only glimmer of hope I have is that Gillard might actually do something meaningful post-election, because this campaign is utterly depressing.
Maybe the leaker is Tim … they’ve had a falling out and that’s why he’s not standing by his woman at the appearances … now there’s a REAL bombshell remember you read it here first.
Hannah’s Dad
Loved Laurie Oakes calling Clive Palmer a mining magnet ….
JH got himself into a tangle didn’t he? Curious those initials
Can everyone understand that if the ‘gang of four’ or cabinet were meeting, there wouldn’t be just them in the room? Secretarial services would be provided by the PM’S Department, surely. And within that department there could well be a lateral transfer of information.
I can’t see Rudd leaking, because if he does he’s toast.
Someone trying to turn him into toast would risk Labor losing. It wouldn’t be Tanner or Swan.
The most likely source seems to me from the former PM’s Department, which could be construed (spun?) by Oakes as a “senior government source”.
Kim’s notion of irrational action by someone is also possible. There may be some other clown in Cabinet with no brains.
Does Oakes hate Julia, or is this just his MO anyway? I’m sorry, I usually turn off when he comes on the box. I can’t help myself.
Internal politics always seem very important. I’m sure Arbib of Bitar, or someone like them is willing to tarnish Labor’s record to completely destroy Rudd.
Strange isn’t it Fran?
Here is a bunch of people, lefties apparently, idly speculating about a second hand or third account for which there is no real hard info and yet they prefer to swap possibilities rather than analyse and highlight first hand info, there is a transcript you see, that shows all sorts of stupid coming from Joe who, last I heard, was the ‘enemy’ and therefore worthy of attack.
Sometimes I find the denizens of LP hard to figger out.
I’ll hide for a while now.
LO, I thought the current position from Julia was that Rudd would be invited to take a senior frontbench role in the new government…
My money is on Rudd or one of his supporters in Cabinet, or someone in Cabinet who just really doesn’t like Gillard. This smacks of pure vengeance. And if it endangers Labor’s re-election prospects? Meh.
The real danger however is that the entire next term will be a leak fest as discipline breaks down completely. It should be fun, though the chances of any policy or program being implemented over the next three years would appear remote. Not that there was much of that anyway.
I doubt that it does, frankly.
That’s more than possible.
The scars won’t heal all that easily. It’s pretty clear that not everyone shares Shorten/Feeney/Arbib/Farrell’s estimation of themselves as political geniuses. It’s also pretty clear that there’s division on policy. And there will be winners and losers from whatever happens to the frontbench.
Plus the government won’t have a mandate to do anything much, except implement bite sized policies, and hold all those enquiries, citizens assemblies, working groups, etc. (Wasn’t that meant to be Rudd’s big problem?)… If they lose a bit of skin seats wise on the way, it’s not hard to envisage the whole show going off the rails pretty quickly.
And they can’t paper over all the cracks forever – eg. population/immigration. You can’t make both big biz and the much touted denizens of Western Sydney happy simultaneously. Lots of chickens coming home to roost…
Kim @ 35 – such a scenario is all too plausible I’m afraid, and that’s where the potential significance of this and other leaks lie – Labor’s second term, particularly regarding the mandate, or lack thereof.
@36 – That’s the problem with the Hawker Britton/Sussex Street style geniuses, adrian. They’ve shown some successes in getting ALP governments in NSW and Qld re-elected, only to have the wheels fall off almost immediately after.
Right on, Kim. Can’t see what she might have said or not said at a cabinet meeting a year or so back having much campaign relevance . It will be lost in the hurley-burley of the campaign – same as Oakes’s last ‘bombshell’ about an alleged deal.
With cabinet confidentiality and solidarity she cannot confirm or deny, and she won’t. And it’s a normal course of cabinet discussion to canvass a range of views before reaching a consensus – so nothing unusual anyway without having the context. Overall just a desperate attempt by Oakes for relevance.
Assuming election, however, there may be a case for tightening up things a bit.
My, my for someone alleged to be a do-nothing, she has made a lot of enemies. Bob Ellis has vented yet more spleen.
There was never going to be much of mandate for the next term anyway. Rudd’s second term agenda had already fallen apart because of the cave-in on CC and the rejection (or deferral) of most of the Henry Review. Usually it takes at least two terms for a government to look as terrible as this one does before even the third year is up.
Kim,
The wheels of NSW ALP had well and truly fallen off before the last election but:
1) The electorate perceived Debnam to be a dill;
2) Debnam did not ‘enjoy the confidence of business’ i.e. Capital had invested heavily in the donations-for-favours backscratching swill that feeds such as Richo and Tripodi
3) Debnam was a bit unlucky – He said ‘Transport is not an issue in this election’ the day before a train breakdown on the Sydney Harbour Bridge thus reinforcing his perception as a dill.
So Arbib and Bitar’s contribution to getting NSW ALP elected was the maintenance of the NSW Inc system of swill merchanting that bought ‘the confidence of business’ in NSW ALP…that and Debnam was a weak candidate.
This looks more and more like tit for tat for the Rudd didn’t attend national security committee meetings leak.
I expect Chris Uhlmann will now be on the phone to his source to get more dirt on Rudd.
Usually it takes at least two terms for a government to look as terrible as this one does before even the third year is up.
Yes, the accelerated ageing process is quite shocking. The strange thing is, with other decrepit governments, it is the ministers who go bonkers while the PM/Premier looks OK. With this government, the ministers look fine; it is the PMs who have lost it.
Let’s hope that Abbott’s first term is better than expeced eh?
I hope everyone here rips into Julia about the sheer hypocrisy and ignores the fact that the parental leave thing is policy.
I think it’s important to focus on the leaks that may or may not be happening (let’s face it…it must be an ALP source with an axe to grind….I’m sure the Libs would never ring up journo’s pretending to be ALP insiders) and how it shows the ALP IS NOT FIT TO GOVERN!
etc etc
tssk, Oakes has been around the block a few times. If he says it was a government source, it was a government source.
Fair enough Sam. QED.
Yep Kim: good chance of two one-term ALP govts in a row the way this is headed.
There’s only so long you can walk on a fence.
On the “irrationality”: sadly i dont think its a stretch at all to claim that (the NSW Right at least) is more interested in controlling the party than in retaining government.
The real wild card for ongoing instability is this: since Gillard’s ascension, there’s been an easy presumption made that most of caucus supported it. Yet in reality, as we have discussed at length – they weren’t really given any other option but to support it once it rolled with some numbers.
What if some 40-50% were never that keen, and felt uneasy, possibly railroaded? Could get very ugly.
I struggle to imagine how Julia could get any worse on the policy front. Gawd I hope this is just election mode and it all morphs afterward.
What if some 40-50% were never that keen, and felt uneasy, possibly railroaded? Could get very ugly.
Could get ugly? It will get ugly. And that is if they win. If they lose, it’ll be Beirut, circa 1976.
I struggle to imagine how Julia could get any worse on the policy front.
That’s an easy one. She could be Tony Abbott.
Don Wigan @ 38, that’s probably right.
Sam @ 34, that’s a big load of cynicism, and there is a fair bit from others too.
My wife said straight away, it’s probably Rudd’s office. I thought the same.
They say that when you are old one advantage is that you are not so easily distracted by a lot of shite.
We’re old.
I think I’m with hannah’s dad @ 32.
He’s probably old too.
This leak will have little effect, the die is well and truly cast and this is just blathering from a superannuated press gallery member who has reached retirement weight and (unlike Bluey) is unable to keep up the pace.
Laurie Oaks deep throat: Godwin G.
“If they lose, it’ll be Beirut, circa 1976.”
LOL. I see Rudd’s already running as an independent. http://www.theage.com.au/federal-election/no-labor-in-rudds-campaign-posters-20100727-10t6e.html
“I struggle to imagine how Julia could get any worse on the policy front.
That’s an easy one. She could be Tony Abbott.”
And that’s the money, Sam. A you may have gathered, plenty of us here have never thought Rudd – or Gillard – would lose to Abbott.
Despite the fact that the public polls on “who’ll win” and gambling markets have agreed with us throughout, its a view that’s met surprising amounts of resistance.
@37
The sort of NSW style politics isn’t really the case in Queensland. That was more the case that the Old Guard and the Left collaborated to keep the AWU less powerful.
@38 –
Over the top doesn’t begin to describe Ellis’ recent writing, Don!
@50 – My point, john, is that one Mike Kaiser was behind both Iemma and Bligh’s last campaigns.
@52
Kaiser is hopeless, though. He isn’t that powerful in the party, and I’m pretty sure he just did what he was told. Anna Bligh won because there was she was always competent, and genuinely no other legitimate choice.
@46
I think what you’re seeing is the ongoing effects of the coup. Both sides will seize any opportunity to rub the others nose in it. Come on! it’s a great ALP tradition. I think the defense of Gillard @7 is a case in point, a rather lame attempt to postulate a reason why the preferred candidate may have said what she is alleged to have said. Likewise those who would condemn the tyrant are quick to cry that now we see her true colours. The ALP will win, and who needs a mandate anyway? The bickering here ATM is a proxy for the sort of discontent and discord seeping into the FPLP ranks that, as others have said, could wreck the second term.
@55 – Spot on, patrickb.
Lots of quotes in various articles I’ve read from MPs saying they’re appalled at the short term-ism and cynical bite sized policy that’s the modus operandi du jour. Of course, LO is also right to say that the second term agenda, Rudd style, was already looking shaky.
Some of what Gillard is coming out with could be justified if it was wrapped up in a bit of a vision for what could be done under better budgetary circumstances. Plibersek made a reasonable fist of doing that tonight on Lateline. The problem is that the ALP’s official campaign rhetoric seems completely allergic to any suggestion that the party stands for anything beyond “easing cost of living pressures”, blah blah, blah.
@54 – Make no mistake, the ALP re-election campaign was masterminded by Lucas and Kaiser. Bligh was the one just spouting the lines.
Have followed Plibersek for some time, because of her defence whilst in opposition of boatpeople and Palestinians.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but taking her on face value, she appears to be a truly formidable mhr.
Of course am aware that she has gone a bit quiet on some issues I mentioned earlier, but don’t they all when once in government.
There appears to be at least some substance to this woman, but I’ve been fooled too many times already with politicians so its hard to accept that even politicians like Plibersek ( or Faulkner or Brown, say ) might be exceptions to the general depressing rule.
@57 – I’ve got a lot of time for Plibersek. She’s got some dignity, talks intelligently and seems to actually care about stuff.
@58
Oh, no. I didn’t mean he did what Anna Bligh told him to, but the party. Lucas and Schwarten were pretty senior, I heard.
LE @ 50, that shite about the Ruddster’s posters was on the front page of the CM today.
And shite it turned out to be.
The ABC sent a reporter out there. First up, there are hardly any posters up in Rudd’s patch. The ALP is not going to waste money on one of the safest seats. Then the reporter asked about 25 people what they thought. An overwhelming proportion hadn’t noticed and couldn’t give a stuff. Except those that were going to pay out on Rudd anyway.
The real stunner came when Kelly Higgins-Devine put it all to air. At least two other seats have posters without the ALP badge. Dead ringers of Rudd’s apart from the photo.
The evidence is that there was some kind of stuff-up in the production.
Nothing to see here. Move on!
Nice detective work Brian! Its been reported as fact in The Age online. See if makes the paper tomorrow.
For all the ‘bombshells’, can anyone remember a more shit boring federal campaign? Its like a state election out there: politicians talking to journos, dutifully reported door stops, micro-issues to the fore, school uniform announcements etc.
First election story has come up 4th item two nights running on ABC News Melbourne (tonight behind train stuff up, Carl Williams investigation, Brumby announcing something).
No wonder we’re all talking about the coup still.
Thanks, LE. At your service!
#18, Rebekka, you have nothing to repent on, unless its learning to think for yourself.
A pity a lot more Australians out there didn’t make the same effort, most of all the cynics who write for Murdoch, because of all people, these DO “know better”.
Although, if you are like me, thinking upon it, there are things you probably would “repent” on, but these things are private, for adults, unless we choose otherwise.
Paul Walter at #57
She is the real deal Paul.
I know several people who have been working with her for some years now and she is quietly putting into place as best as possible under difficult circumstances some badly needed progressive stuff.
If I lived in her electorate I would vote ALP 1 and Greens 2 rather than the reverse.
That is the only electorate I would do so [I think Albanese is safe in his seat anyway].
One part of me thinks that Oakes has done a Shirley Sherrold on Gillard. “I oppose this parental leave scheme because it’s based on a regressive levy / has regressive features and needs to be changed” could morph into “I oppose this parental leave scheme”. Easy.
The other part of me thinks this is consistent with Gillard trying to demonstrate that she’s not a scary scary Atheist socialist feminist by appealing to the rightiest in her potential voting base.
66 The Shirley Sherrold analogy is quite appropriate, Helen, How easy it is to misrepresent without the context.
Nearly a century back Lloyd George got hammered once about opposing Pankhurst bill to extend the franchise to women. His response was “She’s a snob and only wanted the vote for wealthy, privileged women. If the franchise as extended to all women and all people, I’d support it.”
LO is right on this, and all else is merely speculation about bills that she ultimately supported. Nothing much to see, even if The Age leads today with it.
I’m another oldie, too, Brian. With much the same attitudes to this. I’ve never been able to get caught up too much in the rights or wrongs of the coup. Of course Rudd deserved a better fate for outstanding services, but the damage needed to be arrested. Not much good taking it out on Gillard.
Personally, I find the claim that Gillard opposed pension rises or paid parental leave utterly implausible. What would be the ratiuonale for considering such a position? It’s not as if this would play well with rightwingers, which is the usual rationale for ugly policies.
So I am going with one of the following hypoitheses:
1. Godwin Grech v2.0; Gonzo journo on The Australian or The Australian’s Broadcastin Corporation
2. Laurie Oakes lying
More broadly though, it does seem as if the boss class is coalescing around the idea of a restoration of Coalition rule. This porbably explains the ALP’s apparent aimlessness. They can’t work out exactly what the bosses want.
You can never out-right a right winger.
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says a Coalition government would look to extend welfare quarantining across Australia.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/27/2965921.htm
No mention of quarantining half of people’s old age pension, funny that.
@fran 68 can only agree – quite amazing how Oakes just says some rumour and it’s front page gospel
“More broadly though, it does seem as if the boss class is coalescing around the idea of a restoration of Coalition rule.”
for sure
“This porbably explains the ALP’s apparent aimlessness. They can’t work out exactly what the bosses want.”
they want the other guy
Paul @ 57 & HD @ 65
I know Tanya personally, used to be the same branch before I moved to Qld, also at uni, she is a genuinely great person, a hard working member and an excellent minister. Her commitment to issues and decent policy outcomes for the disadvantaged of her electorate and Australia is second-to-none and I rate her highly, she has an excellent critically switched-on analytical mind.
A vote for Labor is a vote for Minister Plibersek! So Just Do It.
Agree with Kim at 35 and 37. Very worried that if Gillard wins, support will collapse for Labor similar to NSW and Qld following the change of long term leaders. I wonder if this plays on voters minds in those two states – that they might vote Coalition as a result? Who will replace Gillard then?
Agree about the general consensus on TP.
This is all over ABC news and AM this morning. Would you believe they devoted half the program to it!
Still Labor’s only got itself to blame. Had they collectively had a few moments reflection (or the opportunity for reflection) this would have been entirely predictable for anyone with any experience with politics in this country.
Rudd did it. It’s as obvious as Tony Abbott’s ears. Vengeance is his motive. There’s no need to look for complex explanations when a simple one is so apparent.
This is all in the great tradition of intra-Labor Party hatred, though as far as I am aware this is the first attempt at active sabotage of an election campaign.
Rudd is also daring Gillard to exclude him from the cabinet as punishment. If she does, she breaks her commitment and looks petty and untrustworthy. If she gives him a job, she looks weak. Plus, Rudd will then have the opportunity to leak everything from inside Cabinet to Oakes. Gillard might as well save Rudd the trouble and put have Sphere of Influence attend Cabinet meetings.
The fact that these leaks are being brought up by Laurie Oakes at strategic moments doesn’t necessarily mean that each leak is being dripfed one by one on the eve of such moments. I think we should consider the possibility that somebody seriously upset with Julia Gillard, in a paroxysm of hatred and vengeful rage, offloaded a lot of assertions (whose truth or otherwise we are not in a position to judge) to Laurie Oakes all at once shortly after the leadership change as payback on Gillard, without thinking through the further consequences for Labor as a whole in an election campaign.
There are precedents for this sort of thing, notably ten years ago in Queensland the leaking to the Liberals of internal Labor documents incriminating Karen Ehrmann by an internal sub-factional opponent seeking (successfully) to bring her down, but not thinking through the further consequences of such an act (which included the Shepherdson Inquiry and the bringing down of a great many other people, possibly including the person who leaked on Ehrmann).
This is what Plibersek said on Lateline last night:
The first thing to note is that when Plibersek said “the first thing to say is I have never heard her express anything other than support for paid parental leave” there was no exclusion in relation to cabinet discussions.
When she said “but Cabinet discussions are always held in confidence” she was clearly defending Gillard’s ‘no comment’.
End of story, I would have thought.
Fran Kelly and Michelle Grattan failed to even mention Plibersek and Grattan came up with the dopey view that Gillard could easily knock it on the head. Grattan failed to realise that once Gillard did that once there would be an expectation that she would do it again and if she didn’t the allegation, whatever it was, would be confirmed by her refusal.
In the case of Labor having told Nauru not to see Bishop and Morrison the Nauruan bloke denied ever having received such a message. Is he less believable than some unidentified “source”?
The doubts expressed in this thread that Rudd could have been the leaker are pure wishful thinking. Two anti-Gillard leaks to Oakes sourced from someone in the kitchen cabinet. A former Rudd staffer is most unlikely to throwing anti-government bombs without approval. A description of a ‘government source’ would apply easily to someone who is on the government side of politics. And, for her admirers, what does Plibersek think? From Lateline last night:
Leigh Sales: Are you confident that he [Rudd] is not undermining Julia Gillard in any way?
Tanya Plibersek: I think he’s campaigning strongly in his own seat and he said again today that he is working very hard for the re-election of the Labor Government and the election of Julia Gillard as Prime Minister.
She could very easily have voiced her confidence, had she felt it.
Plibersek is not in the Cabinet, so if Gillard said it in a Cabinet meeting, Plibersek would not have been there to hear it.
Sam #74, what about the possibility that it is one of Rudd’s staffers? I raise this because such an action/s bears the hallmarks, as well as vengeful hatred, of immaturity, inexperience and a certain kind of tunnel vision born of being constantly in the internal Labor hothouse and not considering the wider or longer view.
Sam @ 74, unless you have evidence, and clearly you don’t, that is simply outrageous.
Lacking evidence you are not entitled to make things up.
There are callers on local radio that do this all the time. It’s a major source of irritation but more that that puts the broadcaster in the position of purveying false information, which is a serious problem in a democracy.
Paul, yeah, it bears all those hallmarks. I doubt that Oakes would run with secondary sources, however. (Although if the staffers were in the Cabinet room when Gillard said it, then that makes them primary sources.)
Don Wigan @ 67, I closed the tag for you.
What i said was based on research that shows that older people tend to sort out more quickly what is irrelevant and get to the guts of a question. It makes up to some extent for a less reliable memory.
I think it is from recognising dry gullied, having been up more than a few.
It’s for others to judge whether you and I are beneficiaries of this phenomenon. I’m just saying what I heard about the research.
Brian, according to Michelle Grattan the leak came from the kitchen Cabinet. Unless Gillard is suffering from teenage girl self mutilation syndrome, it wasn’t her. That leaves Rudd, Swan and Tanner. (Or maybe, just maybe, as Paul said, a Rudd staffer who was there.)
Swan? No motive.
Tanner? Hates Gillard, but not his style.
Which leaves you know who.
That’s what Chris Bowen has just told Madonna King. But because he won’t specifically say what was said in cabinet she’s saying he’s squibbing it.
He’s told her why you can’t start this game.
He also said Gillard is about to make another statement.
Craig Emerson is now patiently explaining to her that leaks often turn out to come from places other than you might think, and motivation can’t be implied.
Sam you go back and check, but the assumption is clearly that it was a cabinet leak.
But I go back to my comment earlier that secretarial services to these bodies being supplied by the PM’s office.
A disturbing aspect of this affair is that Peter Hartcher is reporting the leaks as settled fact rather than assertions.
Whoever leaked – Kevin Rudd, a Rudd staffer, some idiot backroom boy trying to discredit Rudd in some convoluted, back-handed way, or some other Byzantine thinker in the Parliamentary Party. they should definitely not be on or near the front bench if Gillard wins, and if she loses, they should be immediately expelled from the Party. And that includes Rudd.
Sam, what I’m saying is that if Grattan thinks it was from kitchen cabinet, she’s the only one saying that and is almost certainly wrong.
Craig Emerson has just pointed out that you can’t simply deny something was said and not breach cabinet confidentiality.
George Brandis has just said you can make a simple denial, and Emerson has quietly skewered him by quoting an instance where Abbott wouldn’t confirm or deny something that was said in the party room.
Brandis continues to carry on like a pork chop pretending he didn’t hear Emerson.
What Paul Norton said @ 75 and 86.
Brian, Bowen also is not in the Cabinet, or kitchen Cabinet, so, like Plibersek, he would not know first hand if she said it there or not.
It beats me why anyone thinks this is so un-Gillard-like, just because she has publicly said she supports paid parental leave. Gillard also supported dumping the ETS in Cabinet. Arguing against a policy because there are a no votes in it is entirely in character for her.
Heh progressives everywhere are applauding the transparency provided by WikiLeaks but when it comes to Labor cabinet discussions and knowing what our elected representatives actually believe, transparency is apparently a Very Bad Thing.
It would be a great step forward for democracy if cabinet proceedings were transcribed and published online.
Ken 91, if that were to happen, then nothing of substance would be said in Cabinet and all the interesting discussions would occur elsewhere.
Paul Norton at #86, snap, I just read that myself. I’m so appalled I’ve written and deleted five different but all equally incoherent frothing-at-the-mouth blog posts. We might as well resign ourselves now to an Abbott government, given that the various media-and-politics people apparently dedicated to destroying Gillard are starting to join up like pond slime. If anyone’s looking for me, I’ll be in New Zealand.
PC, relax, Labor will win the election. 2013 may well be a different story, but Abbott will probably be long gone by then.
Speaking of PM Ranga, she’s on the front cover in the latest Women’s Weekly, with a fluff story, all tarted up. Of course, she’s wearing the pearls.
Isn’t this leak just the Rudd camp latest retaliation? I mean, after Gillard and her mob were character assassinating him with leaks about managerial style, then the a Ruddite leake the thing about Gillard reneging on a deal, then one of hers leaked the thing about senior defence officials being angry at Rudd, then this leak, hitting back at Gillard. Looks like it’s Julia’s move.
An Abbott win is assured now.
For all we know Rud isn’t the leak but after watching The Insiders where everyone agreed that Rudd playing the loyal ALP guy campaigning for his seat was a passive aggresive slap in the face to Julia I’ve given up.
Abbott will be the next PM I have no doubt. He should bring Howard back as a policy advisor just to rub it in our stupid stupid faces.
Just to add Rudd has denied being the leaker.
By his denial the narrative is either
“He is the leaker. LOL ALP!”
“He is addicted to media attention and is therefore damaging the party LOL!”
If this leak had come from a Coalition government I don’t think the media would have handled it any differently. It is easy to shoot the messenger in these situations but really the fault sits with the ALP itself.
There seems to be a cotinual cycle of backgrounding journalists and damaging leaks, someones always being undermined. Since the ALP took government their behaviour has not changed, they have continue to act like a party in opposition. They have just moved on to a new phase,undermining the new leader.
Sam @ 92 you think that’s not what happens already? No politician is going to speak frankly in a meeting with a big bunch of other politicians and staffers. But if cabinet discussions were published, it would at least force ministers to state and justify their positions for the record. It would save us from all these nonsense stories based on purported leaks and let us judge the extent of evidence and analysis that has been taken into account in the decision-making process.
It makes sense to me that Rudd is doing this for revenge. He has a record as a a serial leaker, and was notorious for undermining past leaders.
Trenton the ALP will get their wish. They will be in opposition. For a term.
I predict the ALP will not exist by 2013. Starved of new talent from the Uni’s or ABC they will be consigned to the wastebin of history.
And good riddance.
We don’t need two Liberal parties.
Sam, Rudd has denied it so you are left with calling him a liar I guess.
What I don’t understand is why anyone is suprised. After the removal of Rudd we had, as john points out, we were subjected to a series of leaks denigrating Rudd in an atttempt to justify the overthrow. IF this is coming from Rudd supporters, then it is hardly surprising that they might feel some retaliation might be in order, who knows? Maybe the power brokers should have just STFU and can the denigration and lame justifications.
What is certain is that you would have to be living in dreamland to expect that getting rid of a PM weeks before an election would have no consequences within the party. Particularly when you initiate a campaign of denigration against that PM.
BTW, Hartcher’s article (which followed a pro Gillard article the other day) claims that the sources are ‘government members’. I think that we can safely conclude that it’s not Rudd.
Gillard is on Sky news at the moment and has confirmed that she raised concerns about the PPL and the pension rise.
Fine, on what do you base your claim that Rudd was a ‘serial leaker?’ Even if it were true, a Yr 11 law student could tell you that is not evidence that he has done it this time.
Most here are debating who leaked and why, but few are questioning that the actual story is accurate. I wonder why that is.
Again, as with the alleged deal with Rudd over resignation, which sounded utterly implausible, we have an implausible story which simply can’t be reliably corroborated.
And I say that as someone who will be voting informal and who thinks Gillard, like Rudd before her, is simply a tool of the boss class.
That aside, when did we stop demanding that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof? Before we speculate, let us establish that the substantive claim (Gillard opposed paid parental leave, opposed rises in pensions, claimed there were no votes in it) is correct.
It’s one thing to dump policies popular with leftists and quite another to dump policies popular with rightists and use arguments that would outrage rightists. That makes the claim extraordinary and until I see something more impressive than some puffed up toad wittering for the amusement of the airheads in talk radio, I am going to call bulls**t, just as one used to in those all night card games in high school.
Read Latham’s diaries, Adrian. Read many articles by journos saying he was constantly on the phone to them when he was rising to power.
Gillard has said that paid parental leave and an adequate old age pension were core positions of hers from way back.
But when they came up for consideration the cost was $50 billion over 10 years. Of course you have to ask whether it was affordable and that is what she did. To do otherwise would be irresponsible.
I think she was very angry, but very controlled. She made it clear that she is making no assumptions whatsoever about who said what to whom. Go ask Laurie, she said.
Affordability is central to responsible government, she said.
Need is infinite was what I was told by the financial controller early in my PS career. The public purse isn’t.
She said directly that no, she didn’t question these issues on political grounds as to who votes for whom, as alleged.
If you start talking about what was said in cabinet, you won’t get free discussion in cabinet, she says. She is just clarifying her own position. She’s talking about what is going on her mind, not what was said in cabinet.
Yes, Rudd will be offered a senior cabinet position.
Yes, she was angry when Oakes did his bit, but she’s not going to be diverted by it.
I make decisions on values, not politics, but we need to look at the practical feasibility, she says.
Will there be more leaks?
Obviously, I don’t know she says, but I will be up front about what my position is.
See how the media is circling Gillard tryin’ to bring about another ASSASSINATION.
Corporate SCUM.
N’
It still doesn’t prove that he did it this time, plus he’s denied it, so I suppose you’re calling him a liar as well.
While I wouldn’t go quite as far as tssk, this debacle is all Labor’s doing, no use blaming the leakers or the media, they’ve only got themselves to blame.
@105
Because if it wasn’t true she’d deny it, and she might even bring a defamation action.
And populism and realpolitik seems like fairly believable actions from someone who took the PM’ship because the previous one was dipping in the polls.
As tho the woman who came up w/ Medicare Gold to help oldies & has so much luv for her elderly parents would make a comment so negative.
I’m watching on ABC 24 hr news. The SKY NEWS stream was DREADFUL.
The FOCUS needs to go on Laurie Oakes now. He’s been sh*t stirring for awhile now. We know that Ch.9 has no luv for Labor. Ray Martin is a mate of John Howard. They spent an inordinate amount of time bringing down Keating. I don’t trust Ch.9 workers.
I feel that this is media-oriented AMBUSH again of a Labor leader.
N’
“I think she was very angry, but very controlled.”
I agree Brian. Imagine if the media pack AMBUSHED Abbott…he’d crack, like he did w/ O’Brien.
But I doubt that lot of softly spoken scumbags in the media would ever do to Abbott what they have to so many Labor leaders.
Gillard now needs sleep.
N’
Marius Benson of NewsRadio said she turned the negative of the story into a positive by emphasising fiscal responsibility.
Oakes and Hartcher are both close to Rudd, he said.
The implication is that the revenge agenda comes from them.
As to whether the leak is true or not, all I can say is that during our far too brief acquaintance (while she has been PM) almost everything Julia has done has suggested that she is a cold, hard vote-calculating machine. Indeed, you can see why the factional warlords got the hots for her, because she really speaks their language. But, on the other hand, that doesn’t necessarily prove the leak is true. However, I note that nobody with gravitas seems to be briefing the press, off the record, that it was cobblers. It would be very easy, for instance, for Lindsay Tanner, Rudd, Swan, Julia, etc to pick up the phone and tell Hartcher, off the record, that it is complete cobblers and he shouldn’t be peddling it.
As we’re having so much fun with the forensics, perhaps it’s not a coincidence that the leak against Gillard came after Barry Cohen tipped another bucket on Rudd yesterday morning?
john @ 110, I agree that there could be a case for defamation, but I don’t know enough about the law.
She said, yes, she was curious about the source, but she hasn’t ordered an investigation and won’t be diverted. She doesn’t have time.
Sam at #94, this is devastating! How can you be sure Labor will win? An Abbott win is too beastly to even contemplate.
So is it ok to talk about what was not talked about in cabinet
Which appears to be what she just did. I don’t think there’d be much damage if she just opposed the schemes on financial grounds, only if she did it on political grounds (not enough $/vote. Which is probably why the spin today.
Yes Paul it’s called cause and effect. No use blaming the media this time nasking.
Barry Cohen eh? Would it be the pro-Israel crowd?
N’
Mike @ 114, she’s a very smooth performer, but I think she is a conviction politician about quality public services being available to all, and about inclusive processes in government.
You can’t communicate white hot passion over 36 days.
Well, they’ve been encouraged to think it possible, Nasking.
Who knows who leaked it – more worrying, as I said last night, is the idea it might be true. Sadly, Gillard has more or less confirmed it now – but I wouldnt be too concerned: the “I checked it for affordability first” line will actually play ok with substantial parts of the electorate.
For me, its another worrying sign about the non-agenda, moving forward.
As for why its been leaked: I suspect someone in the Gillard camp (or perhaps more accurately, the Bitar/ Arbib camp) made a HUGE blunder when they leaked against Rudd on the NSC – totally gratuitously, after he’d already gone.
My bet is someone who hates that mob saying “be careful how many dumps you take on the ex-PM, because this cuts both ways”. Who, I wouldnt know.
I personally doubt it’s Rudd – it can’t help his chances of getting the FM job.
Caveat: as someone above says, its quite possible Oakes has sat on some of these things for longer than we suspect.
Chris @ 117, she went about as close as you can go to talking about what went on in cabinet. But nothing less would have satisfied the wolves in the media pack. Which it seemed to do.
I agree with Nasking and disagree with Adrian. The media and the boss class got what they wanted. They fooled the ALP into dumping Rudd.
They can fool most of us again.
The difference is I’ve decided to go with tradition. Blame the ALP. It’s just like the shoolyard. The only way to feel empowered and not feel helpless in the face of seeing the class nerd getting seven shades of crap kicked out of him is not to question or challenge the bullies or the impotant unseeing school admin.
It’s to blame the victim.
Rudd and Julia are getting kicked to death by the media and the mining companies. It’s their fault for being too smug. It’s their fault for being gutless. It’s their fault for not standing up fro themselves.
(I’ll be voting Green or maybe even spoiling my vote unlike most of my ALP friends who have decided to vote for the Lib’s just to spite their former leftist heroes.)
BTW, does anyone know who is actually running this campaign for the ALP? As a lifelong ALP supporter I would like to know who is responsible for this mess.
maybe you can’t communicate ‘white hot passio’ over 36 days, but you should be able to communicate a bit more than bland nothingness and meaningless slogans. And nobody forced her to go to an election so soon after becoming PM. At least I don’t think that they did.
@121
Is it really the kind of thing a journalist sits on? It’s fairly big news, so they would run it as soon as they could, I would have thought.
@113
I don’t think any journalists were close with Rudd, except maybe Paul Bongiorno. Oakes was a Liberal mouthpiece for 11 years, and Hartcher writes with default extreme cynicism with politicians, and thinks they should run everything past journalists first.
@124
It would be a few people. Karl Bitar, Mike Kaiser.
“IF this is coming from Rudd supporters, then it is hardly surprising that they might feel some retaliation might be in order, who knows?”
Using your own logic Adrian, if this is coming from Rudd supporters because they’re mightily angry, might it not also be coming from Rudd? And shouldn’t he be telling his supporters to STFU? Or is destabilising a Labor government okay?
It’s been noted that Oakes and Hartcher are close to Rudd and they’re been absolutely vicious in their denigration of Gillard. I read Hartcher’s earlier article about what happened to the ETS as Rudd’s justification for his dumping of it.
Hmmm…something doesn’t add up tho.
Just speculation…but…
Barry Cohen attacking Rudd in The Australian yesterday…saying Rudd brought the ASSASSINATION on himself. Interesting timing.
Weird that so much of this happened as Rudd’s government punished Israel.
How strong are Hawke & Cohen’s views on Israel?
We know the Murdoch empires.
What’s Oakes view on the so called “Long War?”
Might be more here than we originally thought.
Hope not.
Seems weird this is happenin’ just as the damagin’ Wikileaks come out.
I’m thinkin’ about Labor donors too.
We know Abbott is a CRUSADER.
N’
@John- Right, that would be the same hacks who sunk Goss in 1995 against all odds; or brought you the NSW govt clownshow (CV includes victory over some of the worst oppo leaders ever known to OZ politics).
Great. If I were Gillard, Id be sacking them now and going with instincts. They’re terrible campaign strategists.
‘ And nobody forced her to go to an election so soon after becoming PM.’
Exactly. What was the panic all about? And now we’re all being terribly unfair for judging her when she hasn’t had time to establish a track record? Gimme a break. The election could have been held next year when everything had settled down and we’d had 8 months to evaluate the Gillard Government. But no, that wasn’t in the script, which apparently envisaged a nice bounce in the polls from the new leader, followed by a comfortable early election win, followed by smug self-congratulations all around by the machine men for their own brilliance.
Sorry Nas and others who are trying to blame this shambles on the media or big business or some other external bogeymen. This is all Labor’s own doing.
I expect BTW that the script will play out pretty much as planned. Regrettably, the unanticipated consequences will occur in Labor’s next term, which is likely to see nothing but internal bickering and bugger-all good governance.
No chance.
@tssk, “unlike most of my ALP friends who have decided to vote for the Lib’s just to spite their former leftist heroes”
And they will totally deserve the Abbott government they may well get as a result.
Making voting decisions based on spite seems like a pretty stupid way to make any decision, let alone a decision about who you want running the country.
Fine, I don’t know why you’re so keen to denigrate Hartcher, I’ve always though of him as one of the better journos. And your claim that he’s anti-Gillard is not born out by the facts. Did you read his article after the debate? It was actually quite positive about Gillard, for example:
“Gillard’s performance was not compelling, but she was positive, self-possessed, at ease, and, vitally, she had a plan”.
In any case, this is standard MSM fodder, and they’ll lap it up, particularly during a tedious campaign.
What’s the old cliche? You reap what you sow. In this case the cliche’s true.
Have just re-read the Cohen piece and he may have clumsily identified Stephen Conroy as a source of a negative anecdote about Rudd:
Didn’t Barrie Cassidy of ‘Insiders’ work for Hawke? And why does Cassidy suck up to Bolt (pro-long war)?
Interesting that Gillard gets hit just as she moves on Pyne’s area in Adelaide. Derails those big announcements.
Chris Pyne is a big Israel supporter. Remember his views durin’ the bombing of Lebanon.
Again, just speculation.
N’
“Sorry Nas and others who are trying to blame this shambles on the media or big business or some other external bogeymen. This is all Labor’s own doing.”
So Ken, why did much of this same media fail to stop the Iraq War?
Interesting that Hans Blix spoke today. Weird timing.
Remember yer fave female journo used to be favoured over at the BBC durin’ the Blair reign? Even she’s sh*t stirrin’ here now…on The Drum.
N’
Nas @ 128 Paul Howes is a rabid neo-con who thought using a forged Australian passport to assassinate alleged terrorists was a terrific idea – ‘I’m proud that our nation has played a small, and accidental role, in the removal of the terrorist al-Mabhouh from our planet’. He and Julie Bishop ought to date.
He writes this in his capacity as the national secretary of Australia’s Weakest Union, which must have an odd position description. I’m sure it is all in the interests and expressing the considered opinions of the members.
Interesting:
Peter Hartcher is an Australian journalist and the Political and International Editor of the Sydney Morning Herald. He is also been a guest editor of The Diplomat, an Australian foreign affairs journal,
and a visiting fellow at the Lowy Institute in Sydney.
(wikipedia)
N’
Ken, useful link. Didn’t realise that.
Just like old RTS days.
N’
Indeed, just as Joe De Bruyn’s views on abortion, homosexuality and stem cell research are in the interests and expressing the considered opinions of Australia’s shop assistants.
Brian @ 122 – I don’t think cabinet confidentiality (perhaps with the exception of actual written minutes) is much more than a political convenience these days because governments leak when it is politically advantageous (eg who opposed the CPRS delay).
Nasking. Barrie Cassidy has to give everyone kicking Rudd a fair go. It’s all about balance and the ABC is balanced perfectly now. They time just how much time is spent praising the ALP and how much time is spent criticising the Coalition. Easier to do neither now but hardly a conspiracy.
I’m over it. The Lib’s and the media have wedged the ALP wonderfully. Anyone of us here could do a better job.
As one of my mates keeps telling me “you lefties don’t count. They’re both courting my vote and either way…I get the policies I want. You can have your leftie cakewalk all the way up George St but in the end your gay mates aren’t going to be allowed to get married, boat people will still be seen as a force to be repelled and the unemployed will finally be told to get their crap together. Even if Tony loses we still win!”
Gee Ken, that’s a scary quote. Can’t quite bring myself to read the whole article.
Murdoch empire invested alot in the “long war”. Look at Murdoch & his family visiting Jordan recently.
Anyway, just speculating.
I still believe the GFC was orchestrated from various sides of politics & certain corporations in order to create mass unemployment & drive younguns into the military to continue to prosecute the “Long War”.
N’
There’s just been a social demographer on the radio who says that focus on parental leave plays to Abbott no matter what because it supports the ‘family’ meme, which is being played up in images. Gillard doesn’t have one, according to that narrative and hence doesn’t understand ‘our’ concerns.
The empty fruit bowel has even turned up apparently.
I beg your pardon Brian? I know this election is a load of shit, but that image is messing with my mind.
Backed up with a poll on one of the major newspaper sites. Can an unmarried PM understand family issues?
80% saying no naturally.
No, of course not. Because she grew up in a big plastic bubble herself, and has never met any other human beings.
Exactly. Have they forgotten how Abbott got to be leader of the Coalition?
@tssk, “80% saying no naturally.”
Yes, who’d have thought, in a totally unscientific online poll with a self-selecting sample, which as any fule kno proves absolutely nothing at all.
Gillard’s press conference:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2010/07/28/2966317.htm
One bomb defused. Nice one Julia.
Shoter Tssk:
Blah Blah Blash
Vote Liberal.
The problem is, of course, Oakes has form. I’m sure everyone remembers how he stitched Kernot up.
Maybe he just doesn’t like women.
Yep, Julia has done well, using it to prove how responsible she is.
Yes, but you need a colonoscope to see it.
As it turns out, it’s full of prunes.
Tony Wright on some of the conspiracy theories circulating among Labor MPs:
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/whos-the-rat-in-gillards-ranks-20100728-10va9.html
That’s an interesting article, both for what it says and what it doesn’t say.
At least their not talking about her ear lobes anymore.
Yep – Wright doesnt think Kev O’Sev is behind it.
Sounds like he knows something he aint saying.
(…anyone else get the feeling he’s pointing a finger at Tanner here?)
“But what if such a figure was so unimpressed by Ms Gillard – and perhaps didn’t mind if Kevin Rudd got the blame – that they had decided their political career was no longer worth pursuing, anyway?”
But would Tanner have that much anger towards Kev that he would be happy to destroy his career too?
Of all the theoretical possibilities, in my view Lindsay Tanner is the least likely to be responsible for the leaks.
Dunno Mindy. Just trying to guess what Wright is driving at.
@ LE – He seemed to have someone in mind. I wonder if he is getting calls asking him to identify that person?
Who do you think it might be Paul?
Mindy #166, if you read my comments at #75 and #79 you’ll get an idea of my best guess.
Word, Niall.
Well, Wright puts two theories, neither of which is Rudd.
a. Pro-Gillard plotter trying to prevent Rudd getting Ministry with a frame-up: “The result of that would be that a desirable frontbench seat would be freed up for an ambitious plotter.
b. “a very senior minister .. privy to conversations during high-level decision-making” with added clue that maybe they no longer care about their own political career.
Difficult to see who that could be aside from Tanner (known conflicts with Gillard) – or at great stretch Albo?
@ Paul, I did wonder about that, but are they still around or where they given their marching orders when Rudd was deposed? I suppose if Oakes has an axe to grind he might take them at their word, but they leaked to Chris Ulhmann as well. Is Chris as anti-Julia as Laurie?
This has become like The Name of the Rose. Soon Cabinet members will start murmuring about The Beast of the Apocalypse. Better send in Sean Connery to investigate.
Mindy, I suppose part of the point I was making at #75 is that quite a lot of disparate stuff might have been leaked in one big dummy spit around the time of the leadership change, and that Oakes and whoever else it was leaked to have been keeping their powder dry until opportune moments arose.
The question of Chris Uhlmann’s role is interesting. He is believed to have significant Liberal connections, but his other half is the Labor candidate for Canberra.
Barrie Cassidy:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/28/2966627.htm?site=thedrum
Annabel Crabb:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/28/2966788.htm?site=thedrum
In a way it doesn’t matter who leaked it, though it seems pretty damned clear that it wasn’t someone closely aligned with Gillard. What is clear is that the level of emnity between Gillard and her backers and Rudd and his backers is so great, that Rudd, as the symbol of the discord, can never serve as a minister in a Gillard government. It simply isn’t going to happen.
@ 174, this may be a distancing technique by Gillard herself?!!? Who knows!
Thnx for the links Kim. Very interesting.
Didn’t fail to notice how negatively focused Annabel Crabb & Barrie Cassidy were towards PM Gillard & Labor on on this:
Crabb:
It’s an audacious reframing of the charges levelled against her by one of her own.
Audacious, because “fiscal rigour” is not a term that perfectly describes the way money was squirted around in Building the Education Revolution, the scheme of her own design.
Cassidy:
It may be that just one – or at the most – a handful of malcontents within the Labor Party are driving the campaign against Julia Gillard. But it’s happening, it’s relentless, it’s vicious and it’s got powerful media support. If it keeps up, that’s enough to create at least a whiff of disunity within the Government. Disunity in its pure and naked form is death. Just a whiff of it is enough to make serious inroads into Labor’s numbers in some key marginal seats, particularly in Queensland.
At the very least, again if this is sustained, Labor cannot achieve the emphatic victory that they need to put to rest any historic argument as to whether they were right to replace Rudd with Gillard.
The leaks have thrown an element of uncertainty over the election, no matter what the bookmakers say.
——–
SUSS. Very suss.
N’
Or nobody leaked and the press is manufacturing the story to stir up trouble in the government’s ranks. Either way, is the unsubstantiated gossip of the MSM worth all the obsessive naval gazing?
More important to me, and I would have thought anyone concerned with the shite pouring in a constant stream from Smuggles Set lips, is Hockey’s abysmal performance in his interview with Oakes, which seems to have been completely ignored in favour of nitpicking and reading tea leaves.
At least Crabb noted that it was one of Gillard’s best performances of the campaign. At last, a bit of passion. Finally a departure from the banal manicured scripts saying next to nothing.
A bit more of this type of passion on education and health and she may well get the 2pp up to 54+.
“naval gazing”
Up periscope!
“At last, a bit of passion. Finally a departure from the banal manicured scripts saying next to nothing.”
Yep, if it stops her “moving forward” for a day or two, it will have been worth it.
In fact, hell: I admit it. It was me. I leaked the damn cabinet details and Im glad!
Council on the Ageing CEO Ian Yates says Swan and Tanner also queried the cost of pension rises. [Link]
So a lot of senior cabinet members had reservations about an increase in the pension but Rudd presumably carried the day. No wonder they shafted the bleeding heart do-gooder.
“I would have thought anyone concerned with the shite pouring in a constant stream from Smuggles Set lips, is Hockey’s abysmal performance in his interview with Oakes”
Good point Jane.
Hockey is lookin’ real shonky. Like a second-hand car salesman. His budget reply was pathetic too.
And he looked crook & unconvincing in that “tax cut” speech today…sick in fact.
I think Joe knows he’s sold his integrity down the drain.
N’