« profile & posts archive

This author has written 139 posts for Larvatus Prodeo.

Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

366 responses to “Weekly Election 2013 Roundtable”

  1. Ambigulous

    Consider ourselves herded.

    Thanks Paul Norton for #122 on the previous thread.

    PS: Bennelong time since avid attention was paid to the seat of Bennelong.

  2. paul burns

    Jumpy,
    Will suspend judgement until further information comes out on that Bennelong pre-selection. I’ve been around politics long enough to know that where there’s smoke there’s liable to be fire with NSW Labor. I have also been around politics long enough to know that dark and evil forces are always reigning supreme in the Liberal Party.

  3. Jumpy

    Paul
    You seem very selective when it comes to ” reserving judgment “.
    Anything new in the Armidale Express?

  4. philip travers

    Cannot compete with Paul Burns and the Armidale Express! It ‘ ain’t’ my New York New York ! Come to think of it,out of seat Don Dorrigo Gazette isn’t either! Even if I tried throat singing! So as a non bobby-soxer in any form,unless its to put a circular piece of paper in my socks to stop blood circulation cut off,there is no-one I would even dream voting for if paid to do so.Democracy has died for me.I had to laugh at the ALP Hopeful at the Drum ABC giving us all the low down on the median strips. Thanks ALP! 1975 is so long away now ,I wonder why they even have the temerity to postulate they will make a difference….THIS TIME.Self Love I suspect. Maybe in old English.Trying as it is!?

  5. Brian

    Chris on the other thread:

    Gillard threw away the opportunity for real pokie machine reform…

    I understood that the votes from the indies simply weren’t there. Windsor and Oakeshott couldn’t/wouldn’t do it.

  6. Brett

    I, for one, am very appreciative of Paul’s Armidale Express updates, since I’ll be moving up there myself in a couple of months! New England politics sounds very, very dirty, and Joyce will soon be my MP, but (depending on when the election is held) at least I’ll have a month or two in Windsor country.

  7. Jumpy

    Brett
    Would that be the part of Windsor country that he sold to Whitehaven Coal?

  8. Terry

    Queensland appears to be well and truly back in play in the 2013 federal election with the return of Rudd.

  9. Pavlov's Cat

    I have a question for the Rudd-supporters who lambasted Julia Gillard when she was still PM for having ‘lurched to the right’ of Rudd on several issues: what do you think of Rudd’s current actions regarding asylum seekers and coal seam gas?

  10. Liz

    So, who’s going to be the first bloke here to notice Rudd’s ‘lurch to the right’, with all his talk of ‘no more class welfare’ and Carr’s pronouncement that all Sri Lankan refugees are only economic refugees?

    Any condemnation? Any concerns? Or are we just overjoyed to have the Ruddster back?

  11. Pavlov's Cat

    Liz, snap!

  12. Liz

    *Snap* Dr. Cat. I remember well the long threads full of odium about Gillard and her ‘lurch to the right’. Fascinating, isn’t it?

  13. Pavlov's Cat

    Actually he said ‘No more class warfare’, but that was an understandable slip of the keyboard, considering some of the other things he’s doing.

  14. Liz

    Oops. Well there are similarities.

  15. Peter Murphy

    I have a question for the Rudd-supporters who lambasted Julia Gillard when she was still PM for having ‘lurched to the right’ of Rudd on several issues: what do you think of Rudd’s current actions regarding asylum seekers and coal seam gas?

    I can’t speak for the asylum seekers: I’ve been too busy this week to follow exactly what he’s doing and not doing. But on coal seam gas, I can say with a lot more confidence: they’re shit.

  16. Chris

    PC @ 8 – I’m definitely not happy about the direction Rudd is taking on asylum seekers. I’d much rather he revert the changes in policy that Gillard decided to take the government. Coal seam gas I don’t have any strong views on, except that I think there should be more research/monitoring done. There was a really good episode about the issues on the ABC Science radio show recently and they did not seem to explicitly condemn CSG.

    Liz @ 9 – I don’t see why ‘class warfare’ needs to be a part of the ALP platform. And I do think Gillard/Swan were doing a bit of their own dog whistling in an effort to push up the polls.

    Brian @ 5 – that was the excuse used at the time, but I don’t think its particularly credible. Neither Oakshott or Windsor are dependent on pokie money, unlike the major political parties and I think unlikely they would not respond to the very clear reports about the damage that the pokies do. And Gillard didn’t try particularly hard, not even bringing it up in parliament. I think its much more likely that having found an extra vote in Slipper Gillard decided she could break her agreement with Wilkie as there was sufficient internal ALP pressure to drop the issue, partly out of poll concerns but also financial concerns because the pokies in some states are a financial source for the ALP.

  17. paul burns

    Brett @ 6,
    Contact me when you get up here. e-mail address is on my blog about which I have been incredibly slack lately, as I have with the writing.

    Not entirely up to date with Rudd asylum seekers policy yet. But presume it merits as much condemnation as Gillard’s and Abbott’s as it seems more of the same. Has nothing to do with gender – the policy is fucked, whoever promulgates it.
    Not up to date on CSG policy at all.
    And btw its not that the Ruddster is back. Its that Abbott probably won’t be PM now and the Libs will remain where they belong – in the wilderness. Which would not have been the case with Gillard.

  18. paul burns

    Have just read an article on Rudd, Santos and CSG in the Guardian. Santos is pressuring Rudd over new CSG law. Rudd, as yet, has not given into them. Of course, the Guardian journalists could be out of date, slack, and under-researched, and Rudd may well be bending over for the big gas companies, and it hasn’t been reported yet. Lets wait and see before jumping to conclusions.

  19. Pavlov's Cat

    Paul, as you may have noted, I was not jumping to any conclusions, nor have I mentioned gender*. I was asking a question.

    *However, the ploy of trying to silence women by accusing them of ‘playing the gender card’ is one that most of the women who might want to do such a thing can see straight through.

  20. paul burns


    has nothing to do with gender

    </strong

    ‘has nothing do do with whether its proposed by Gillard or Rudd’

    Better?

  21. Liz

    I find it interesting that the criticism of Rudd here for his right wing policy positions is muted and and only occurs when someone asks a question about it.

    Whereas, criticism of Gillard here was intense. Whole posts full of condemnation. Why is that? Is it because Rudd looks like he could win the election, so people consider it wiser to keep quiet about his more unpleasant policy decisions? Would criticism of Gillard be similarly muted if she had been doing well in the polls?

  22. Liz

    So, Paul Burns when people criticised Gillard for her right wing policies, it wasn’t because they were right wing, it was because they weren’t winning the punters over? Is that correct? Otherwise, surely there would be similar criticism of Rudd now?

    Meanwhile I see Rudd is donning the track suit and going for early morning walks. Just like Howard. And Rudd has employed his twenty something son as a chief advisor. Are we feeling relaxed and comfortable about that?

  23. paul burns

    Liz !@ 21.
    If she was doing well in the polls, definitely yes, IMHO. Though I think its too early to argue criticism of Rudd is muted. He’s not out of his honeymoon period yet. I recall lost of positive comments on Gillard before she revealed she wasn’t up to th job in communicating with the public.
    But some thoughts on CSG policy via Rudd, now that I’ve begun to look into it. Based on the assumption that the Guardian article here
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/12/coal-seam-gas-project-environment
    is accurate re the present state of play.
    Being for CSG loses more votes than it gains, right across the spectrum -rural, environmentalist etc etc, as Gillard no doubt realised. Unless he’s mad – and that could be an open question – I would expect Rudd to follow Gillard’s anti CSG policy, regardless of how much pressure Santos puts on him.

  24. paul burns

    Liz @ 22,
    I couldn’t give a stuff about the tracksuit. I imagine he’ll open himself up for some pretty heavy satire because of it.
    Thanks for reminding me about the son. Its absolutely rotten nepotism of the worst kind. How does Rudd expect the electorate to believe he’s going top clean up the NSW ALP, or the ALP elsewhere when he himself commits one of the Party’s most besetting sins. Its not as if he doesn’t have a wide pool to choose advisers from nowadays. Appointing his son to his staff as a political adviser is both wrong and stupid.
    It ain’t the 1890s or even the 1930s or 40s where you could fit most of Labor’s influential people front and back room into a small hall and that’s all you had to pick from.
    This, I think is Rudd’s first big mistake this time round and I wouldn’t be surprised if it causes such a fuss he has to back down on it.

  25. Chris

    Liz @ 22 – good polls will buy a lot of forgiveness. Rudd would have been fine in his first term if his polling had been a little bit higher. Gillard would have survived to the next election even if it was looking like just a standard election loss rather than a wipeout.

    Gillard got a reasonable honeymoon period after becoming PM, as is Rudd. It wasn’t universal from the ALP side, but then neither is Rudd’s – see the recent Anne Summers article for example. Happily dumping on Rudd for not recognising Gillard’s achievements (he mentioned Hawke, Keating and himself and the NPC but omitted Gillard) whilst conveniently ignoring how Gillard acted in a very similar manner towards Rudd.

    paul @ 24 – I agree, the problem here is the appearance of nepotism even if he is well qualified. At least the role is within the context of a re-election campaign where its more common for family to get involved, rather than a government one.

  26. Liz

    Ok. So, in fact the the intense criticism Gillard got here wasn’t really about how right wing she is, it’s because she wasn’t winning the polls. That wasn’t what people wrote at the time of course. I refer you to several threads here back in March and April.

    I also sit here fascinated with the idea that it doesn’t really matter how right wing Rudd is, as long as he wins.

    As for Gillard not being up to communicating with the public; I recommend you read ‘The Stalking of Julia Gillard’, which builds a compelling case for how Rudd and the MSM successfully destroyed her PMship. She never received a honeymoon period. It was all bullshit about how she was ‘treacherous’ , a ‘back stabber’ etc. And yes, I’m looking at a lot of people at LP. Whereas there is very little criticism here for three years of Rudd’s destructive behaviour.

  27. hannah's dad

    http://www.weaveinc.org.au/

    The ‘feature story’ at the front page at this site has an article on Julia Gillard’s replacement by the MSM and Team Rudd.
    “A Response to the Replacement of our First Female Prime Minister
    ……
    But it is her treatment as a woman in the Prime Minister’s role that reflects on the sexism and misogyny within Australian society. And it is important to look at the context”

    read more

  28. Liz

    http://www.afr.com/p/national/rudd_plan_targets_power_prices_CxfT2zO0JufHK5gJ2fnmCP

    It’s reported here that Rudd wants to lower power prices by a whole slew of anti-environmental measures.

    Cue: outrage, condemnation, opprobium. Anyone?

  29. Helen

    Yeah, me. But I’m one of those damn Greens voters.
    Seems the difference between Labor and Liberal is just in the distribution of the spoils of completely denuding our resources and environment. Both of them favour trashing it completely and have no idea of what to do once it’s all gone/despoiled.

  30. Jumpy

    Rudds bounce will be lessened by every boat person that drowns.
    Tragically, more today.

  31. FDB

    What Helen said.

    I’ve never liked Rudd’s personality or policies – he’s a smarmy blowhard who’d rather do politically what will make him popular than make popular what needs to be done.

  32. Liz

    Yep, Helen and FDB.

    But, I’m waiting for some of the commentors here who were so vehemently anti-Gillard to offer up the same vehemence against Rudd.

  33. paul burns

    I’m still waiting for Rudd to put single parents on the full pension and increase Newstart. Or at least promise to.

  34. Liz

    That would be nice, Paul. Remember Rudd had almost three years to increase Newstart. Gillard’s policy is regards to single parents was wrong. But, that policy already applied to many single parents already. It was changed under Howard. I can’t remember too many progressives clamouring for the single parents who had been penalised under Howard to be returned to the full pension. Rudd could have done that when he was PM.

  35. paul burns

    1. Re CGS. Government has no plans to abandon Gillard’s ‘water trigger.’

    2. Plan to remove duplicating environmental red tape was promised by Gillard. Rudd seems to have promised to implement it. Therefore both of them appear to be RWDBs on this issue.

    So, is it a contest as to which one of them is more rightwing than the other, or more rightwing than Tony Abbott? And who outed them when?
    Given my limited comprehension of most things scientific it seems to me they’re all up the proverbial creek.

    Did anybody really expect anything different? I mean, did anybody actually think Gillard or Rudd were genuine socialists? Give us a break.

  36. Pavlov's Cat

    before she revealed she wasn’t up to the job in communicating with the public.

    She wasn’t up to the job of sweet-talking and conning journalists into reporting what she had to communicate, which is not the same thing. Again, I refer you all to The Stalking of Julia Gillard, and if you weren’t able to get a copy before it sold out within days of its publication, let me remind you-all of Gillard’s first major policy press conference after she became PM, when she and (I think) Jenny Macklin were announcing major changes to Aged Care policy, and NOT ONE JOURNALIST in the press pack said anything apart from Kevin Kevin yap Kevin yap yap leadershit yap yap yap. Not. one. question. about. the. policy. And that was somewhere around July 2010. I assumed this was because the change at the top was so recent, and it never occurred to me, as I listened on the car radio with growing dismay, that this would be the pattern for the next three years. She’d introduce policy and get legislation through and stitch up international relationships and deals … and the media would ignore it and bang on about Kevin and leadershit. When she had her moment in Question Time in reply to Tony Abbott’s grotesquely hypocritical name-calling of Peter Slipper (for it was he, that day, not Gillard, who introduced the words ‘sexism’ and ‘misogyny’ into the conversation), I don’t think anyone was left in any doubt about her ability to communicate.

  37. paul burns

    Liz @ 33,
    Well, I was clamouring about it as a member of Socialist Alliance. And protesting. And sending e-mails.
    But its not really a concern to expect the middle class to have , is it, since it doesn’t touch them personally.
    As a wise old socialist once told me years ago,

    You can trust the rich and you can trust the poor, but the only thing you can trust the middle class to do is stab you in the back whenever its to their advantage.

  38. Pavlov's Cat

    Rudd and CSG

    It’s the Fin Review and the Rudd-booster Philip Coorey to boot, so of course there’s a positive spin on it — oh goodie, Kevin will fix your electricity bill — but the gist is pretty clear. NB the final paragraph.

  39. Chris

    I’m still waiting for Rudd to put single parents on the full pension and increase Newstart. Or at least promise to.

    Given that reverting the decision would require recalling parliament I’m guessing that the best you will see is an election promise. It’s a pretty weird situation where over the last term of government we have had even business leaders calling for an increase in Newstart, but due to the obsession with delivering a balanced budget before the election an ALP government was unable to do that.

    Ok. So, in fact the the intense criticism Gillard got here wasn’t really about how right wing she is, it’s because she wasn’t winning the polls.

    I think you’re forgetting that Rudd mk1 also endured a lot of criticism from the left when he squibbed on important issues such as climate change. I’ve been consistently critical of how the ALP creates boom/bust cycles for green related industries. No doubt Rudd will cop a lot more criticism if he for example brings forward the introduction of the floating carbon price.

    I find the power price issue quite fascinating. The vast majority of people seem to want the climate change issue addressed, just at no cost to themselves.

  40. paul burns

    PC @ 37,
    That’s what big business wants. I’m not sure they’ll get it. Cf. the ambience of that Guardian article and even bits and pieces of Coorey’s article.
    I don’t think Rudd can take a negative backstep on environmental policy politically. He still has to make up for backing out on the CPRS. If he backed the petroleum interests on CGS the shit would really hit the fan, so many divergent interests are against it. I hope I’m right, but the cynic in me tells me I’m probably pipe-dreaming.
    Maybe the petroleum interests are just putting up an ambit claim. Looks like one its so huge.

  41. Charlie

    You’ve gotta wonder why anyone – let along a supposed senior political leader – would a post a selfie of himself with a shaving cut. Look at moi!

  42. hannah's dad

    “Life of Brian”

    Remember the scene where the 2 groups of revolutionaries meet in Pilate’s palace on their way to kidnap Mrs Pilate?
    And they start fighting each other until Brian asks them to combine against the ‘common enemy”, so they look for the” People’s Front for Judea” whoever [I forget the exact name]?
    Meanwhile the common enemy, the Romans, are watching in amusement and puzzlement as the 2 groups destroy each other?

    Could I suggest the following who’s who from the film and their counterparts with respect to the current state of affairs?

    Reg is …Rudd?
    “The Welsh tart”, Judith is Julia.
    The Romans are big business,/the patriarchy/ the media [minus the aqueducts etc].
    Brian is the Australian public [he gets crucified in the end ].

    The groups in the palace are, perhaps [says he tentatively], LP?

    I’ll run for cover now.

  43. Terry

    47 parties registered to run in the 2013 Federal election, the highest number since 1984, with another ten being open for objection.

    Thos familar with the history of Australian Nazism may be interested to note James Saleam’s name alongside something called the Australia First Party. Patricia Petersen’s name will also be recogisable to some Queenslanders as the registrant for the Australian Independents party.

  44. akn

    PB @ 24:

    This, I think is Rudd’s first big mistake this time round and I wouldn’t be surprised if it causes such a fuss he has to back down on it.

    Yep.

  45. faustusnotes

    Today’s Herald has a big front page thingy (on the website anyway) questioning Abbott’s tow back the boats policy, giving nuanced discussion of whether it’s possible and the consquences from a variety of people with experience in the issue, and describing the policy in very unfavourable terms.

    They never did this kind of critical policy discussion during Gillard’s leadership, and most especially not on the stupid “stop the boats” mantra. Yet somehow Gillard is held to blame for not “communicating policy.” The press’s hatred of Gillard is transparently obvious.

    Which ultimately is why she had to go. Whether or not her communication issues were her own, they weren’t going to change (in fact, the fact that they weren’t under her control makes her more of a liability, since she couldn’t change anything about the situation herself).

    If Rudd wins this election and has any sense, he is going to have to find a way to reduce media power over politics. Diversification is the obvious first step, and a stronger and more independent ABC. Is that going to happen, while he has the media in his pocket? I doubt it …

  46. akn

    FDB @ 30:

    I’ve never liked Rudd’s personality or policies – he’s a smarmy blowhard…

    Rudd’s success, as a ‘slimy blowhard’, tells us all a lot more about the National Character of Australia, (like the Caps?), than is apprannt at first glance.

    The real value of Manning Clark’s history lies in the truth of Australia and slimy blowhards.

  47. Liz

    Charlie@40. The answer is a narcissistic media junkie. But, at least he’s not Julia Gillard. Imagine if she’d posted something similar?

  48. GregM

    Terry@42. The Mainstream Party isn’t listed. They were very sound on fluoridation, if a little off-centre on multiculturalism (and everything else, come to think of it).

  49. Mila

    Far as I’m concerned the only thing Rudd has going for him is that he aint abbott.

  50. paul burns

    Liz @ 40,
    The imp in me can’t resist observing that if Julia Gillard had cut her face shaving and posted it on Instagram it would have been front page news at home and abroad. :)

  51. Terry

    The Australian Tea Party are also not there.

  52. Douglas Evans

    Liz, Paul Burns, Pavlov’s Cat
    Why waste time discussing the minute policy differences between two right wing leaders of a centre-right party? Surely the differences are functions of which way the wind is blowing at the crucial time of policy formation.

  53. Douglas Evans

    Helen and FDB absolutely agree with both of you. Makes ypu want to weep for this country really.

  54. Pavlov's Cat

    ‘Why waste time discussing the minute policy differences between two right wing leaders of a centre-right party?’

    For a start, I don’t accept the terms of your question and don’t regard discussion as a waste of time. You may not be aware that Gillard has been personally traduced up hill and down dale for three years on this blog by Rudd supporters, largely on the grounds, or so they said, that she had ‘lurched to the right’ of Rudd on various issues. I am genuinely curious as to what they think now, given his behaviour/decisions to date regarding asylum seekers and CSG. Can’t speak for Liz and Paul, but if you think that is a waste of time then you are entirely free — nay, encouraged — not to read my comments.

  55. wantok

    Let’s not forget that until Rudd regained the Prime Ministership, it was almost certain that Tony Abbott would win the next election. There is, at least, now a contest and with a good wind Rudd could be triumphant despite the efforts of the Murdoch media empire.

    I’m feeling far more relaxed about our democracy now and whilst I am sorry that Julia Gillard could not cut through (and I offer no suggestions on how she might have done so) I am sure that her hard work and commitment to Australia will be recognised; an ambassadorship would seem appropriate.

  56. Russell

    If the Liberals win the next election I will console myself with the thought that Rudd was not triumphant.

  57. Russell

    PC – Rudd might move to the right on some issues, but he’ll move to the left on others, like gay marriage (after noting what the polls say) – he’s cleverer than Gillard on creating a public persona.

  58. alfred venison

    sheesh whatever happened to merit selection? he’s finished uni and has been working three years in international arbitration and he’s enthusiastic.

    honestly, you’d think from the fuss it was a senior government advisory position or a job on the alp executive. he’s working for the election campaign.

    remember when john howard’s boy finished uni and went to work for george w bush’s election campaign? well he did. then after absorbing the republican’s ways he came home & was paid by the liberals to work on his dad’s campaign.

    do you think these guys go out of their way to bring weak links on board. of course not. i’m sure both john’s boy and kevin’s boy were brought on board because they were seen to have something to contribute to organising and running the election campaigns. -a.v.

  59. GregM

    alfred do you think Kevin’s boy advised him to do the selfie?

  60. Pavlov's Cat

    “It became clear that Nicholas was among a group of about four key people who now form his top level travelling campaign advisers.”

    In the Tele today.

  61. Robbo

    Appointing his young son as his chief of staff emphasises Rudd’s chronic lack of trust. It means he prioritises control and is paranoid about keeping it. His son will be neither threat nor challenge to him. Why does he care about that so much? It’s all a bit meglomaniacal.

  62. Robert Merkel

    Is this funny? I’m not sure. But bloody brilliant nonetheless.

  63. Pavlov's Cat

    Yes, definitely funny.

  64. alfred venison

    if he did advise the selfie, it was smart advice in my opinion. social media is an important front. and he’s not the chief of staff, hawker’s the chief of staff. from the link above:-

    “He is very smart, and is of enormous value to us, for many reasons,” said one senior insider.

    so, really, do you this he was hired for his apparent smarts or because he’s his daddy’s boy? -a.v.

  65. Russell

    Not funny for me. Superficial, cheap.

  66. philip travers

    That ABC matter lacked only one thing.The Avalon repetition.So they could do it again next week until the election until the election thing is in overdrive.Add, some of the woeful enunciation by Rudd,and occasionally morph the story into Abbott.And a heckler a video of a pigeon.

  67. Chris

    I am genuinely curious as to what they think now, given his behaviour/decisions to date regarding asylum seekers and CSG

    From what Paul has stated, it sounds like Rudd has not moved the ALP to the right on CSG, just endorsed what Gillard had already promised to do. Did you criticise Gillard for those decisions previously? I didn’t but then CSG isn’t really an issue around where I am, and from what I’ve seen the science is far from settled (one thing to note is that the CSG mining in Australia is quite different from that in the US).

    Re: social media, I hope the ALP are taking advice from the guy who visited Australia who ran part of Obama’s social media campaign in 2012. The ALP don’t appear to have anything comparable going on.

  68. philip travers

    I am always saddened by election time,I would like to see someone I know.Never happens.I guess that maybe everyones’ problem.

  69. paul burns

    Douglas Evans @ 52,
    a) because its fun.
    b) because PC and Liz raise issues as to the tone of the narrative about Julia Gillard on LP over the past 3 years that mostly vociferous Rudd supporters like myself are (I think) obligated to try and address (though I was briefly a Gillard supporter until I became disillusioned.)
    c) because one of the reasons LP was restarted was to give political junkies like myself and others the opportunity to discuss policy of left right or centre, if and when we think we might know what we’re talking about. And I, for one, am grateful for the opportunity, on this and every other occasion I choose to enter the debate because you can’t find in very many other places on line (or i simply don’t know where they are.)

  70. Liz

    Merit selection, Alfred venison? Do you really think there isn’t anyone of greater merit to take a job as advisor to the PM, than the PM’s son? As Robbo pointed out, it speaks to Rudd’s control freak persona and paranoia.

    There’s something that really irks me about wantok’s comment. The subtext seems to be, “you tried hard love. But, it’s time to go, so the men can take over. But, we’ll give you a nice little consolation prize, like an ambassadorship”.

    If you don’t know why Gillard couldn’t cut through, you haven’t been paying attention. And like Dr. Pav, I’m really interested to hear what people here who said some truly nasty things about Gillard, have to say about Rudd’s move to the right now.

  71. paul burns

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-13/baby-boy-dies-after-boat-capsizes-near-christmas-island/4818474

    Ten hours from the moment of being advised the vessel was in danger? I do recognise ships take time to cross water but what about helicopters etc if they were in range? Can somebody with more knowledge fill us in here?
    There are probably lots of questions here, but those are the first two that come off the top of me head.

  72. alfred venison

    honest to god. have a look at rudd & abbott’s face book pages. get them up side by side and scroll through each. and tell me who between them looks hip & happening & comfortable in the gutenberg 2.0 environment and who looks like yesterday’s gutenberg 1.0 fuddy duddy square uploaded to facebook?

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/kevin-rudd8217s-instagram-selfie-shows-he-is-razor-sharp-when-it-comes-to-social-media/story-e6frg6n6-1226677286779

    yes i think labor are already onto the social media front, but don’t wait for the mainstream media to tell you about it. and remember, those smart democrats, hillary clinton’s daughter worked on her campaign. -a.v.

  73. alfred venison

    Liz, do know there was someone of greater talent who was passed over? it demonstrates he thinks the talent his son has will help his campaign for election. he’s as much a control freak in this as hillary clinton was when she thought the talent her daughter had would help her election . -a.v.

  74. Brian

    Chris @ 16, I remember clearly that the legislation on pokies was held back and then modified because Oakeshott and Windsor felt they couldn’t vote for it. Oakeshott I think has quite a few retirees in his electorate who were habituated to the cheap tucker subsidised by the pokies. Windsor also, I recall, had concerns about his small business constituency. I never heard either of them talking about the issue, however.

    So I remember the sequence differently.

    Gillard didn’t proceed because the votes weren’t there. Wilkie didn’t like it and withdrew support. Gillard found an extra vote by appointing Slipper.

    A major point of difference was that Gillard had a clean record of getting legislation through that she brought to the parliament. Wilkie wanted her to test the parliament.

    Yes there were concerns in the caucus, but on this one I think Gillard was prepared to go where the indies wouldn’t. That’s what I think until some investigator convinces me otherwise.

  75. Brian

    Robbo @ 61, Rudd’s son is definitely not chief of staff.

  76. Brian

    FDB @ 31, one-liners of that type might make you feel better but I honestly don’t think they add to the debate.

  77. Brian

    PC and Liz, my recall of posts criticizing Gillard in March and April is one on Eva Cox’s critique of Gillard and a series of posts on the implications of taking funds away from the universities.

    Liz, electricity pricing is very complex. I can’t say I understand it. I do have the presumption that everyone who writes on it has a bias. If I find an article I can recommend I will.

    I would like to return to the issue of refugees some time, but I’m not going to rip one off in haste. I’d also like to do one on what happened to Gillard and why, but didn’t score in the first print run of the Walsh book. Mark Latham’s article is worth a read, not just for the story of Laurie Oakes running away from him. Oakes possibly thought Latham was crazy.

  78. Brian

    Chris @ 67, CSG usually refers to ‘coal seam gas’. In the US it is mostly shale gas. Fracking is sometimes used in CSG and will be more so as the seams empty out. Fracking is routine with shale. We do have some shale gas and could have more, but it is mostly in remoter areas and grazing lands, whereas there is a lot of CSG in areas that are cultivated for crops. That’s not a good mix even apart from the issue of aquifers.

  79. Pavlov's Cat

    Paul @ 69: yes.

    Alfred Venison: if you are using a Mac, the shift key is at the extreme left of your keyboard, second from the bottom. If you hold it down while you strike a key, the letter represented by that key will appear as a capital letter. Dunno where it is on Other keyboards but I’m sure it is clearly marked ‘shift’. No, no, don’t thank me.

    Brian @77: I have always had great respect for your calm and measured presence here, but are you seriously saying that the only posts critical (explicitly or implicitly) of Julia Gillard here at LP that you recall are the ones you mention? Really? Really really?

    I think Gillard’s appointment of Slipper (or agreement to the appointment — from what I can glean from the Walsh book and other sources, this was actually an Albanese initiative) was, strategically speaking, the single biggest mistake of her Prime Ministership. I mention her Prime Ministership because it is very clear to me that her Prime Ministership, her three-year Prime Ministership, is in immediate danger of being airbrushed out of history unless some of us go on remembering it. Along with its education reforms, its NDIS, its NBN, its fixing of the river, and its price on carbon.

  80. zorronsky

    Rudd definitely is full steam on claiming the tremendous successes of Gillard’s time as PM. What’s more the MSM owes him bigtime and not just Oakes so they will assist for all the’re worth. It’s true too that , as pointed out repeatedly by Liz, Pav, Helen and others, the Rudd forces here are not comprehending, possibly through lack of effort or plain bias, those successes. Yes Gillard will be airbrushed out of those 3 years and Rudd and his supporters will claim her legislative victories as has already been started started. Such is the Aussie way these days.

  81. zorronsky

    There you’ve got me started!

  82. Ronson Dalby

    “Kevin Rudd’s support for same-sex marriage could significantly lift Labor’s vote in the election, a new poll shows”

    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/rudd-take-on-gay-marriage-pulls-in-voters-20130713-2pwst.html

  83. Jumpy

    Anyone running a book on Rudds “Royal Baby” welcoming gift stunt?
    If so I’ll have a tener on a Archibald inspired self portrait.
    Possibly in the Aboriginal dot style, in a thinker pose.
    Size ? small at 500mm x 500mm, don’t want to seem over the top.

  84. Liz

    Pav @79 and Brian @ 77. I would also mention the posts about 457 visas in which Gillard was bizarrely accused of racism. That was until Terry Flew pointed out that the Greens and unions were in largely in agreement wirh this policy. Then there was silence. The point is that snide remarks about Gillard’s hopelessness, the dreadful nature of her government etc, etc appear in post after post.

    OTOH, scant credit has been given to her successes such as DisabilityCare, Gonski, the NBN, the Murray/Darling agreement, the Royal Commission into child sexual abuse. These are major reforms. None of them are perfect, but they’re significant.

    There has been no posts about what many people in Australia consider a major issue that’s been going on for years. The misogynist savaging of Gillard by the MSM and the years of whiteanting and destabilising by Rudd. Where’s the discussion of the fact that large swathes of the Australia population couldn’t cope with a female PM? Instead we get in post in March from Kim about Gillard as an enabler of right wing men, who only the most deluded can support.

    When Gillard was replaced three weeks ago, there was no recognition of any of this past history and what it means. As Pav has said, just a potential rewriting of history’s pages, which is sad. But, apparently we’re supposed to be happy that Rudd is riding high in the polls and we have a choice between two conservative, Christian men. The world has righted itself.

  85. Liz

    I should also add, I’ve always been impressed by your fair minded balance about Gillard and in all things, really.

    I guess the post I would have loved to see at LP is one taking Rudd to task for his deceit and cowardice and the way that adversely affected the Gillard government. But Gillard has always been the one largely painted as treacherous here. It’s beyond me.

  86. wantok

    Evidently the coalition are launching a highly negative advertising campaign from tonight on commercial TV. It is now becoming clear why Abbott has refused to debate the Prime Minister on ‘Debt & Deficit’ as much of their advertising will be targeting the PM’s previous policies and talking down the economy; so why ruin a good negative advertising campaign by debating the facts.
    It will be interesting to see if there are any positive policies in the coalition’s onslaught.

    Liz @ 85 I can understand that Rudd felt that he had been shafted by the Gillard supporters in seizing the leadership in the way that they did and then there was the release of the ‘angry Kevin’ footage which evidently came from the Gillard supporters to undermine Rudd. I think that Gillard was an amazing PM and a very strong and visionary leader but she always had to live with the coupe and, of course, Rudd was never going to go away; why would he ?

  87. Liz

    Why should Kevin have gone away? For the same reason Julia did. For the good of the party and to ensure there was no more destabilisation.

    Given that he stayed, he could have swallowed his wounded pride and worked with Gillard. But, no he plotted, undermined and did his best to help the Gillard government fail. That was his choice out of many possible ones. So, I find it gobsmacking when people refer to Gillard’s ‘coup’, with the inference of treachery and violence, yet shrug their shoulders over Rudd’s actions.

    On ‘Four Corners’, Peter Beattie in an interview recorded before the 27 June coup (see what I did there), stated regretfully that Labor had to switch to Rudd. His argument, “Julia would never do to Kevin, what Kevin did to Julia.

  88. jules

    If Rudd caves on CSG we’ll burn him in effigy at the next blockade.

    Interesting what fn says about the hun @ 45 – sums it up really. I seem to remember Sheehan saying he refused to listen to what Gillard had to say less than 3 months ago. What a joke. And Cassidy the other month saying he’d actually listen to Rudd and report what he had to say. So the ABC, Fairfax and News refused to give her a fair go.

    i worked with a guy thew other day and on the way to the site he was listening to Lawsy (mate!!) – he loves Lawsy, yet even he said the obvious – that Australia is too immature a country to have a female pm.

    BTW To those of you that forgot – Gillard pandered to racists and showed no leadership at all on the issue. She was the one who said publically that not liking boat people didn’t mean you were racist. Total crap imo – still she was a heaps better pm than the two candidates we have right now.

  89. Brian

    On CSG, in Queensland largely the bird has flown and with something like $60 billion investment approved compensation would rule out going back on what’s happened. Largely the fault of the Bligh government. A lot can be done around the edges and unfortunately the Newman government is not as trustworthy on this as you might expect. There aren’t many electorates west of the ranges and the voters there are rusted on.

    Jules and others, it’s more than about fracking. In broadacre farming these days they have very wide machines. Manoeuvring around a network on pipes and wells on a 600m rig can be a nightmare. Also the land becomes almost unsaleable.

  90. Brian

    Liz, Pav, I have to go to work today and tonight my brother is here with follow up stuff tomorrow on his open heart surgery. I’ll will say a bit more about the issues you raise, but not much, when I get the chance. Right now the pressing issues are that Bowen is going to announce an early move to a carbon tax. Can they do it without recalling parliament, and where will the find about $4 billion in the budget?

    Then there is the negative LNP advertising blitz about to be released. It’s been mentioned by Phil Coorey and more particularly by Laurie Oakes. If anyone could find the link to his opinion piece this weekend it would be helpful. That’s where my priorities lie.

  91. Ronson Dalby

    Liz @ 87,

    Even if Rudd had ‘gone away’, Gillard would still have had to go herself, I believe. The party would still have been in dire straits.

    Gillard’s failure with the general public was not totally Rudd’s fault but Gillard’s own. The public just did not like her for whatever reason.

    I don’t think you’re really looking at the big picture but looking through a militant feminist telescope from the wrong lens.

  92. Brian

    Further to @ 89, the critical issue seems to be about Santos and the Liverpool plains. Drilling wells and changing the relative pressured of the aquifers as water is extracted (CSG is produced by dewatering) can affect the aquifers without fracking. And the effect may not show for decades, perhaps after the gas is gone.

  93. Linda

    Zorronsky@80
    “Yes Gillard will be airbrushed out of those 3 years and Rudd and his supporters will claim her legislative victories as has already been started started. Such is the Aussie way these days.”

    No. Such is the patriarchal way these millenia, when it comes to women’s participation and contributions in this male-dominated society. Erased, ignored, misrepresented, diminished. You name it. Then when women point this out to men, such as on this thread, this too is ignored in order to maintain a dominant narrative that benefits male interest at the expense of women.

  94. Liz

    Ronson Dalby, you can ‘believe’ what you like. But, you supply no evidence, just a silly dig at me that reflects poorly on you.

    Brian, as I said, I appreciate all the careful, fair minded work you put in here. I guess Rudd wouldn’t need to recall parliament if he just puts forward this change as an election promise.

    If he wants to actually change legislation pre-election – well good luck with that. As for the 4 billion that needs to be found; I can’t see any increase to Newstart or the single parents’ pension happening.

  95. Linda

    Ronson Dalby @ 91 “I don’t think you’re really looking at the big picture but looking through a militant feminist telescope from the wrong lens.”

    Sure. The “big picture” being the legitimate male perspective.

  96. Linda

    hannah’s dad @ 42 ““The Welsh tart”, Judith is Julia.”

    I’m well familiar with the scene you refer to here but why couldn’t Rudd be “The Welsh Tart”?

  97. Chris

    Brian @ 74 – I may well be wrong, but my recollection is that Gillard had Slipper’s vote before she forced the issue with Wilkie and he withdrew his support. FWIW I don’t think the Oakshott’s and Windsor’s reasons really stand up to close scrutiny. Pokies pull money out of local small businesses (except for the owner of the pokies) not put money in and put extra pressure on local services. I think its more likely they were just being supportive of the government’s decision but they could have been persuaded otherwise.

    Why should Kevin have gone away? For the same reason Julia did. For the good of the party and to ensure there was no more destabilisation.

    That is why there is a convention that the ex-PM resigns from parliament. Its bad to have 2 leaders in the party. And I expect that the people who plotted removing Rudd mk1 just assumed he would leave parliament. But they too broke with convention by removing a first term PM.

    I wonder if in retrospect they would have approached the issue differently. Eg got someone like Garrett or even Gillard to resign from the ministry to the back bench and talk publicly about the reasons why. To give the public time to absorb what problems they saw and a reason for a leadership challenge rather a very sudden surprise for many.

  98. zorronsky

    Linda @93
    I’d like a quid for every woman who has backed the ‘ patriarchal way these millenia,’in much the same way as two-bob millionaires back capitalists.

  99. alfred venison

    no, no thanks, Pavlov’s Cat, i know where it is & i choose not to use it, except for the names of people i’m addressing, punctuation and “&”. e. e. cummings used a few upper case, that was his prerogative. -a.v.

  100. jules

    Brian, de-watering and the associated hydrological disasters, fugitive emissions, actual GHG emissions for the whole project including associated infrastructure as opposed to the so called “green-ness” of CSG are some of the issues. Then there’s the potential for poisoning ground water and air in the local area – there are allegations of CSG causing illness from Qld and poisoning ground water in the Pilliga. As well as loss of productive land, loss of people’s quality of life, and damage to actual land values.

    Then there’s the pricing issue. CSG won’t mean cheaper gas, it’ll mean more expensive gas as production increases and export to Asia where prices are much higher, becomes feasible. This is a major motivation for CSG companies.

    Tho I don’t think this is news to anyone here.

    Both parties are sell outs wrt to CSG but one of Rudd’s main supporters – Janelle Saffin – is vocally opposed to CSG production and may keep her seat because of it. Its a seat the ALP gained in 2007, for the first time I think.

  101. Helen

    Gillard’s failure with the general public was not totally Rudd’s fault but Gillard’s own. The public just did not like her for whatever reason.
    I don’t think you’re really looking at the big picture but looking through a militant feminist telescope from the wrong lens.

    See, this is the perfectly circular argument I see everywhere at the moment, not just from Ronson.
    Don’t claim that Gillard’s “failure” to “cut through” the media noise and “get her message out” had anything to do with institutionalised sexism! … People just didn’t like her… For “whatever” reason!

    The “whatever” is that society is just not used to women in power and maintains a double standard when they are in power. That’s the Whatever reason.

  102. eilish

    Way to go Liz and Pavlov’s Cat.
    I note that no-one has actually responded to Liz’s question. That’s what happened when I asked a similar question a couple of weeks ago.
    Ronson, I believe the question is “why did the public not like her?” Did it have anything to do with the relentless criticism and negativity she faced? Was that relentless criticism and negativity due to her gender?
    At this site, I have seen the three commenters with female usernames dismissed as feminists with nothing to contribute. Hmmmm.
    Don’t make me mention the Sheik again.

  103. paul burns

    Listening to Gillard’s voice, I’ve been wondering if its timbre had something to do with her failure. Before some of you jump down my throat hear me out, and bear in mind this is only a hypothesis.
    Billy McMahon had a terrible voice. So did Arthur Calwell and Doc Evatt. (though in 1951, I think, Evatt got more votes but not more seats than Menzies.) All failed to be elected.
    My hypothesis doesn’t entirely hold up. Curtin had a very nasally voice though when he was actually elected the default PM was Billy Hughes who by that time would have been seen as incompetent as McMahon.
    My hypothesis is not entirely based on the aesthetics of the voice. With the exception of Evatt all the above PMs were not solidly middle class in the electorate’s perception (which is not to say they weren’t middle class) and in those days (eg 1969-72) MCMahon would probably have not been considered by the Libs as the right sort of person to lead them.
    So my argument is class perceptions, even within the ALP, may have seriously influenced Gillard’s misfortunes, not just the fact she was a woman.
    Having put the argument forward, I have no idea if it stands up.

  104. hannah's dad

    From Linda
    “hannah’s dad @ 42 ““The Welsh tart”, Judith is Julia.”

    I’m well familiar with the scene you refer to here but why couldn’t Rudd be “The Welsh Tart”?”

    I thought Judith was a strong character, she has a go at Reg, the authoritarian leader, she begs the boys to ‘get up and do something” to which they give a sexist response [I forget what exactly], in short I reckon she challenges Reg and the fellas, until the very end anyway when “Reg has explained it all to me”.

    I’m sure lots of other interpretations are possible.

    I brought up that scene and ‘Life of Brian’ generally cos it seemed to me to encapsulate some of the features of the in-fighting of ALPers [using the term loosely, 'progressives' if you wish] whilst the common enemy gets a pretty free run.
    I’m a bit of a fan of Julia’s, not uncritically so, but get caught up in excusing the almost inexcusable Rudd cos the COALition, led by Abbott [or not] is such a terrible alternative.
    All in all I reckon we’ve gone backwards. women’s interests in particular, in the past few weeks cos really the dominant point is that the Murdoch mob have cracked the whip, got what they wanted and taught Oz pollies and the public just who it is that runs parliamentary politics in this country.

  105. Luxxe

    What happened to the “greatest moral challenge of our generation” line on climate change, Mr Rudd?

  106. alfred venison

    you talk as if murdoch’s mob had no role in the removal of rudd. -a.v.

  107. alfred venison

    as for the greatest challenge my understanding is that gillard & swan wouldn’t support it & talked rudd out of it. -a.v.

  108. Linda

    zorronsky@98 “Linda @93
    I’d like a quid for every woman who has backed the ‘ patriarchal way these millenia,’in much the same way as two-bob millionaires back capitalists.”

    This in no way diminshes my point, which was that you attributed the erasure to “aussie” culture but I’m saying it’s not an aussie thing, it is a well-documented male culture thing. It’s happening right here on this blog, right now.

    hannah’s dad@104: I reckon they’re pretty much all Reg.

  109. Ronson Dalby

    Things could be worse: we could have Rudd’s sister in politics. I guess she and Abbott might have a lot in common:

    http://www.news.com.au/national-news/federal-election/exclusive-rudd8217s-sister-wants-putinstyle-homosexuality-ban/story-fnho52ip-1226678897017

  110. Brian

    Linda, “militant feminist telescope”. Feminist telescope, fine, but I’d question whether militant is a good idea. I’m reluctant to engage if I’m continually aggressively accused of my constitutional deficiencies.

    Gotta go now.

  111. Ronson Dalby

    Brian @ 110.

    Linda was quoting my post at @ 91.

  112. Linda

    Brian @ 110: That was Dalby’s quote, not mine.

  113. Helen

    Gosh, no, we wouldn’t want a brand of feminism which might actually make a difference.

    Reminding men of their privilege as the “default” human (and the lowest difficulty setting) isn’t reminding them of their “deficiencies”, quite the other way around, unless you mean the way in which a man of less ability than Gillard would have been able to get his work done without the forensic scrutiny of his every flaw either real or perceived… then a qualified yes. But a no to the idea that your tender psyche should be protected from it. After all, we’re used to having our “constitutional deficiencies” (pseudo-scientific essentialism based on popular notions of hard-wiring and misreadings of evolutionary biology) pointed out, daily, ad nauseum. Welcome to our world.

  114. Ronson Dalby

    The comments against men on this blog just get tedious, Helen et al. It doesn’t matter what we are discussing somehow people find a way to inject feminist arguments into the topic.

    I swear that if we were discussing a piece of steak, the comments would come down to whether it came from a bull or a cow.

    I no longer care about who is the best or the worst – Gillard or Rudd. It’s politics and it all comes down to who has a chance at stopping an LNP government in September. I say again, for whatever reason, Gillard wasn’t the one who was going to do it. On those grounds, I totally support Rudd whatever his faults might be.

  115. Ronson Dalby

    My post (113) was in reply to a comment which was deleted while I was writing it.

  116. Helen

    Reply moved to Saturday Salon as it’s not strictly on topic for the Roundtable. Well it is, but I for one have made my point already and don’t want to continue it here as it is wider than the 2013 election.

  117. Helen

    I’m so sorry that our discussions of an entrenched culture which marginalises us, disdains us, and even kills us, is tedious for you, Ronson. Teams of masseurs and interpretive dancers have been dispatched to your lounge room.

  118. paul burns

    With his lack of enthusiasm for Tony’s Little Blue Book on Q&A last Monday and now this WTF is Malcolm up to? Any guesses?

    http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/turnbull-says-many-prefer-him-to-abbott/story-e6frfku9-1226679127565

  119. hannah's dad

    Laying the groundwork for the immediate post election spill Paul.

  120. paul of albury

    I thought Rudd Mk1 was better than Howard, but really just a softer version – Howard lite. I have previously described Labor as very similar to the Liberals but generally with more competent implementations. I think Gillard exemplified this (how many of Gillard’s achievements would Howard have died in a ditch to prevent? Or even Abbott if he wasn’t conveniently locked into saying NO to everything). At least Rudd went where Howard would not with Sorry.

    I have to concede Rudd’s lurch on Carbon and CSG works against my view that his earlier failure on the great moral challenge was because he was overly influenced by the gang of four.

    As far as the feminist argument goes I think we men have learnt that anything other than unthinking agreement with whatever is put forward will almost always be responded to with the argument that we have no right to an opinion. It is not worth engaging.

    And I have to agree with Ronson that keeping Abbott out looks more likely with Rudd. I thought there’d be an increase in polling but never expected it to be as large as it’s been.

  121. alfred venison

    well, its a good thing you didn’t refer to it by number, Ronson Dalby, or you would now be replying to a completely different comment, after removal without trace and re-indexing. i know its the collective’s blog & its discretion but it reflects poorly on that discretion imo when comments are removed without indication & the thread re-indexed. i’ve just had a winston smith moment. -a.v.

  122. Charlie

    Accentuate the positive!

    Just musing that if the ALP tried to replicate that wonderful “Ashton Agar” feeling that washed the country earlier this week they may stand a chance. A rare time when everyone was talking about something good and positive.

    Looking at the LNP print adverts today the headings for their “Real Solutions” read like hollow gongs that make some noise, but have little substance. We will do better just because of who we are. Indeed the ABC skit featured above hits the nail on the head. seems to be all they can bang on about. When Tony Windsor was asked about the worst thing of current Parliament term, he said ‘Sophie Mirabella’. The last couple of interviews with Abbott on TV have been pretty vacuous with little leadership shine apparent.

    Some Qld election ago, Peter Beattie spoke about his “new” government. (mind you I think it was after they had won, not before) They had heard the people’s voice etc…

    So maybe King Kevin the Return has some sort of chance if …. the feel goods, the selfies, the inclusion and the joy manifests itself over the country.

    On another thought, how many books and reports have been written about what the Labor Party should do with itself?? Work backwards from Bowen, didn’t Tanner have a go, Bracks et al, mighty mouth Latham and so on.

  123. Helen

    AV, 1) the thread has not been re-indexed, that is not even a thing in WordPress, the thread is still the Weekly Election Roundtable. 2) The comment which was removed was my own. You saying I don’t have the right to remove my own comment? 3) The comment was republished on the Saturday Salon thread to continue the discussion there, as you are welcome to do, since the Overflow Threads seem to be deadibones. 4) Reference to yourself as Winston Smith? Really?…REALLY?… *raises eyebrow*.

  124. eilish

    Here’s hoping whoever gets in has another minority government and has to make deals with Christine Milne.
    I’m loving her new totally Bolshie ‘tax the banks’ plan. First laugh I’ve had all week.
    There’s something about knowing you are never ever going to be PM that it makes it possible to stick to your political principles. It’s so much more amusing and edifying than watching pollies compete for the racist vote.

  125. alfred venison

    no Liz, i wouldn’t dream of interfering with your editing as i said, i’m saying it would be better to leave a marker even when you remove your own comment. -a.v.

  126. Chris

    I have to concede Rudd’s lurch on Carbon and CSG works against my view that his earlier failure on the great moral challenge was because he was overly influenced by the gang of four.

    What lurch is that? It appears that all he has done has continued on the promises that Gillard already made.

    Helen @ 122 – I think he just means all the numbers against the comments after the deleted one changed. Which ends up being a bit confusing for people because non admin people can’t edit their comments to point to the new number and people who replied to now non existing comments can look a bit stupid. However, your blog, your rules ;-)

  127. Chris

    paul @ 117 – I was surprised that Turnbull would be that openly critical of LNP policy so close to an election. It would be nice if the LNP had a last minute leadership change, but I really can’t see it happening. The LNP poll numbers would have to get a lot worse very quickly.

  128. Liz

    Alfred Venison, I’m not Helen. Amazing that there’s more than one woman commenting

    Ronson Dalby, if you find the discussion of Gillard and misogyny tedious, you don’t have to take part in it. It’s not actually your role to dictate, or even suggest, what’s allowed to be talked about here.

    Damn these feminists, never shutting up and letting the blokes have a free go.

    Paul Burns, issues of class and voice may have something to do with it. But, how do you account for Hawke’s popularity and his very Strine accent, which apparently at least partly put on?

  129. paul of albury

    Chris, they’re bringing forward the move to a floating price, expected to drop the cost from $24 to $6-10 a tonne. This may be Rudd thinking his way was the right way all along, but it’s a significant step away from what has been an effective policy in terms of its outcomes.

    Forgot to also mention Carr’s Scott Morrison impressions, which a week ago were thought to be out of sync with Rudd but which now seem approved. I guess there’s no hope for a refugee policy which isn’t shameful until we can get a Green government.

    Against that same sex marriage looks better. So socially more progressive perhaps but still ruthlessly pragmatic about what they think plays to the electorate.

  130. paul burns

    OMG! Liz @ 127, I forgot Hawke. Really!
    Hawke, (like Abbott to a certain extent) is defined by his Oxford Rhodes scholarship. So I think that more or less explains him. He was part of the ruling elite, which is also why they could also more or less entertain Evatt even though he never actually made it to PM.
    What is really interesting about the Gillard saga, from this class perspective is the relatively huge amount of time the establishment spent denigrating her Law degree/qualifications through the AWU ‘scandal’, which (like the ‘Khemlani loans affair’ with Whitlam) was so obviously a put up job, this time through Fairfax rather than Murdoch. The stinging tentacles of the ruling elite spread far and wide, always using different arms to spread its poison.

  131. paul burns

    oops! I haven’t completely explained Hawkie. I guess its that old-fashioned idea called charisma or even, nowadays, the star quality of coming alive on camera. Menzies sort of had it, Whitlam Fraser and Hawke had it, Howard developed it – initially he was worse than McMahon – Rudd has it.
    Natasha Spott Despoye had it, several of the Labor women have it – and its not all just good looks – Joan Kirner, the Victorian premier, had it among others.
    Gillard didn’t have it, except occasionally in Parliament, but definitely not when she was consciously in front of the cameras – or whoever was coaching her in performance art just wasn’t very good at their job.

  132. faustusnotes

    So, Rudd has squibbed a second time on the “great moral challenge of our time,” as I predicted he would. He hasn’t killed the ETS, just going to move to a floating price that will be < half as much and will lead to a huge gap in funding for the compensation. Anyone want to bet he'll reduce the compensation? My guess is his "razor gang" will target the direct action funds – it's easy money really isn't it?

    So, cue the outraged howls of how right wing he is, how he has "gutted" one of Gillard's commitments to please his corporate mates, how the faceless men of the ALP are dictating policy to him, he only knifed Gillard so he could get in and change things for his corporate mates …

    I guess we won't hear that particular round of strident squeals this time, will we? Instead there'll be discussion of polls and careful realpolitik and how he is only bringing forward something that was going to happen anyway, and the policy was originally his in the first place and he only dropped it because Gillard told him to so she'd have an excuse to knife him …

  133. Liz

    Exactly, faustusnotes. Expect excuses, obfuscations and minimisations.

    If Gillard did this, it would be outrage, opprobrium and snide abuse.

  134. faustusnotes

    I think you meant to say JuLiar then, Liz.

  135. Liz

    My bad, fn.

  136. Chris

    faustusnotes @ 131 – wasn’t the floating price going to drop significantly in 2015 anyway because Gillard linked it to the European scheme? What impact will a single year’s difference in the carbon price have on environmental outcomes in Australia? There is a big budget impact and I really wish they hadn’t repledged the whole “this must be revenue neutral” thing again. I think my main concern about this is how it will affect green related companies who have already made plans on the carbon price remaining high until 2015 then dropping sharply rather than that happening in 2014.

    If he doesn’t reduce the compensation (and I hope he doesn’t promise to do so as that will make it much easier for Abbott to promise the same) then he’ll have essentially delivered a payment increase to low income earners (including those on Newstart) of several hundred dollars a year.

    Liz @ 132 – actually I was really hoping Gillard would have followed this line earlier once it was clear the european carbon price had collapsed. It neutralises a lot of the LNP attack whilst having minimal impact on the actual environmental outcome.

    Paul @ 128 – I agree the carbon price change will be seen as a move to the right, but what are the CSG changes you are thinking of?

  137. Jumpy

    Are there any policies, by any party or independent, that addresses the life expectancy rate gap between women and men?
    At present men die 5 years sooner, on average, than women !!
    Is there even a discussion on this tragic inequity ?

  138. wantok

    I may have missed something here but isn’t Rudd merely bringing on the ETS a year earlier than scheduled and in doing so he is calling Abbott’s bluff as I really can’t see any merit in the coalition removing Australia from what will become a global ETS: it wold be pointless.

    Yes, there will be a revenue hit and Rudd has said he wants it to be revenue neutral so that’s what we have to work towards. Surely there aren’t people out there who still don’t accept that carbon pricing was necessary as a gateway to an emissions trading scheme ?

  139. faustusnotes

    … aaaand my first prediction is in. Chris, if the carbon price worked at the price it was set at (and we have evidence it did) then halving it is going to reduce its impact. I don’t really give a rat’s arse about the EU ETS, which isn’t working, and so long as it isn’t working there is no reason why we should drop our prices to match it. And yes you’re right, green companies that had made investment plans for a certain price in 2014/2015 are now going to get shafted, and those companies that didn’t will benefit.

    One interesting benefit of this shenanigan will be that we get a natural experiment to test the effect of the carbon price. The denialists are trying to claim that the observed drop in Aussie emissions is not due to the price, but if from July next year the price drops by half we can follow the change in emissions and see what will happen. Then the following year it will drop again, assuming that the entry into the EU system will affect local prices, so we can observe further effects.

    My suspicion is that given the observed effects of the price over the past year, dropping it by more than half will render it largely ineffective. Well done Rudd, responding well to the “great moral challenge of our time.”

    Also, if Rudd wants to give low income earners (including those on Newstart) a pay rise, he’s welcome to work through a range of welfare and industrial relations mechanisms to achieve that worthy goal. The purpose of a carbon price is to respond to “the great moral challenge of our time,” not to redistribute wealth. Responding to that challenge equitably is a grand idea in the tradition of labour, but let’s not kid ourselves that that is what Rudd is doing here. He’s running scared from a LNP fear campaign.

    When Gillard changed the mining tax (so that it worked!) everyone accused her of blinking in the face of a vicious mining company campaign and delivering the mining companies a windfall. How is this any different?

  140. paul of albury

    Chris, it looks like I’ve jumped the gun on CSG based on PC’s earlier challenge @9. Looking at the AFR article provided it seems the critical quote comes from the Petroleum explorers and producers. So hopefully Paul Burns is correct and Rudd will resist this industry pressure. Apologies.

  141. alfred venison

    sorry Helen, sorry Liz, for conflating you, no malice was intended, i will take more care in future. dear Helen at 122, like Chris said at 125, it would be nice to not conceal necessary excisions. transparency assists trust and the proximate cause of a person’s otherwise unexplained outburst assists understanding. -a.v.

  142. Chris

    … aaaand my first prediction is in. Chris, if the carbon price worked at the price it was set at (and we have evidence it did) then halving it is going to reduce its impact.

    If Rudd’s proposal gets through it is only halving it for a year. Then it will be exactly as Gillard wanted. So I ask again, how much environemntal impact will that have?

    I don’t really give a rat’s arse about the EU ETS, which isn’t working, and so long as it isn’t working there is no reason why we should drop our prices to match it.

    So were you critical of Gillard when she decided to link the Australian carbon price with the EU one? The other thing to note is that part of the reason that the carbon price is much lower than expected is because the demand for emission permits is much lower than expected (eg emissions are not as high as expected) because of the various recessions. Now recessions are not the way that you want to decrease emissions, but it is entirely expected outcome of an emissions trading scheme that if demand decreases then the price will drop. When the EU comes out of recession the price will rise again.

    paul @ 138 – np. I was actually wondering if you had any other information. There’s not a lot of coverage about it in the news (perhaps because nothing much has changed).

  143. Helen

    No probs AV – will revert to the “leave comment with a note as to where it has gone” technique to save your numbering.

    But it’s not often I have to move a comment.

  144. hannah's dad

    http://andrewelder.blogspot.com.au/

    Andrew Elder on Rainman’s little announcement.

  145. Jumpy

    It seems my new gravitar is getting me caught in the spam filter.
    I shall revert to the old one.

  146. akn

    Liz @ somewhere above demands answers to a question posed to writers and readers here. She receives no answers, or answers that are inadequate to her purposes, and then imputes meaning to the silence that greeted her demand for answers.

    I’m wondering then, Liz, whether you also believe in guilt by association along with guilt imputed by silence?

  147. Liz

    No, I believe your question is silly and irrelevant.

  148. Russell

    Liz – it’s interesting that the book The Stalking of Julia Gillard sold out immediately – lots of bookshops never even got the copies they had ordered. Suggests that there are a lot of people who feel there is more to know and consider than that given to us by the MSM.

  149. akn

    Really Liz? Silly and irrelevant? I’ve been around all sorts of Stalinists in my day, especially in the CPA, even after the split, to reckon I know one when I see one. Imputing meaning to silence is real scary shit.

  150. mindy

    Well you could answer Liz’s question akn.

  151. Liz

    Recently, I’ve been called a Labor hack, a Green and a Stalinist here. It’s fascinating how presumptuous people can be.

    Listen, akn you want to show where I’ve imputed any meaning to silence?

    Or instead of silence, you could, as Mindy suggested just answer the question. Can’t be that hard.

  152. silkworm

    There is no way Fraudbull will challenge Punchy for leadershit of the Oppn. before the election. If Fraudbull were to become leader, Ruddy would call an immediate election, and the Fibz would be in total policy disarray. Their election advertising would be shot to hell. They would be a cert to lose the election.

  153. Debbieanne

    Wonderful and interesting discussions, many thanks. I wish we didn’t obsess so much on leaders but more on ‘real ideas’ for th future . And that we saw that future as substantially more than three years from an election,

  154. Chris

    Russell @ 148 – Walsh could not have hoped for better timing for her book launch! From the print numbers I wonder if it is the best selling politics book in Australia for a long time? Numbers appear to be better than Howard’s book.

  155. Pavlov's Cat

    “The comments against men on this blog just get tedious, Helen et al.”

    I’m just going to let that sit there so people can look at it. But tell me, when you write a sentence like that, do you honestly do so in the belief that serious people will take you seriously afterwards? Do you really expect anyone to respect you in the morning?

    One of the most common responses to any discussion of gender at all is for individual men to assume it’s All About Them and promptly take personal, knee-jerk umbrage. But as Anne Summers has pointed out, it’s not about individual men; it’s about a heavily entrenched set of beliefs and practices in society, and they way that they determine individual behaviours and beliefs. Which also answers Zorronsky’s point way upthread about women who are complicit. But it really is not about who has which individual set of bits.

  156. Terangeree

    akn:

    Silence has been imputed with a meaning for millenia:

    Qui tacet consentire videtur.

  157. Debbie Oppenheimer

    My favourite (amongst many) from Yes Minister:

    “It used to be said there were two kinds of chairs to go with two kinds of Ministers: one sort folds up instantly, the other sort goes round and round in circles…”

  158. akn

    Mindy and Liz:

    I think the question @ 70 was…

    And like Dr. Pav, I’m really interested to hear what people here who said some truly nasty things about Gillard, have to say about Rudd’s move to the right now.

    Ah, but, don’t you see what a toxic question it is because anyone who answers it commits themselves as having been a person “who said some truly nasty things about Gillard…”.

    I haven’t ever made any such ‘truly nasty’ comments about Gillard here or anywhere else for that matter. So, I won’t be answering the question despite the Star Chamber authority of the demand.

    Finally, FWIW, Rudd isn’t Howard, nor Abbott, and the electorate seems to approve that he’s not Gillard either. That’s good enough for me right now given that the ALP was heading into the mother of all hidings under Gillard.

  159. Pavlov's Cat

    Liz at #70: “I’m really interested to hear what people here who said some truly nasty things about Gillard, have to say… ”

    akn at #158: “the Star Chamber authority of the demand

  160. akn

    PC, see Mindy @ 150.

  161. mindy

    Yeah whatevs akn, not going to get involved in a threadjack.

  162. faustusnotes

    Mindy @150: you could answer Liz’s question
    akn@158: the star chamber of demand

    You know akn, for someone who thinks that climate change is the great moral challenge of our time, you seem to have suddenly come over all sanguine about the weakening of the ETS.

  163. Liz

    The Star Chamber of the demand…. Oh yes, I am an all powerful dominatrix. And a Stalinist.

    Why does my question make you so nervous, akn? I do remember you described Gillard as looking like “an organ grinder’s monkey”. I, for one, consider that nasty.

    But, again we have someone who actually doesn’t care what Rudd’s policies are, as long as he beats Abbott. I have some sympathy for that view. But, it does rather make a farce of all the complaints about Gillard moving to the right that appeared here. I remember Mark writing several times, in relationship to Gillard, that as progressives we shouldn’t just unite behind the leader, but, instead interrogate their actions. That attitude certainly seems to have disappeared here.

  164. akn

    Liz: well you’d need to take up the ‘organ grinder’s monkey’ comment with Greer, who initially made it. I think Greer was right about Gillard’s appearance but only because she reminded me of the organ grinder’s monkey in the original Ginger Meggs comics. I thought at the time ‘heavens, Greer’s right’ and then wondered about whatever deep trough of cultural symbols and images Greer had been trawling when she realised the resemblance. But it is not at all in the same league as Pickering, Jones, Brough, Hadley at al, is it now?

    fn @ 162. I wouldn’t care to hazard a guess as to what Rudd might be up to; does he know himself? Possibly not.

  165. Chris

    I remember Mark writing several times, in relationship to Gillard, that as progressives we shouldn’t just unite behind the leader, but, instead interrogate their actions. That attitude certainly seems to have disappeared here.

    I don’t know about that – I see plenty examples of interrogation of Rudd’s actions here! :-)

    you seem to have suddenly come over all sanguine about the weakening of the ETS.

    Only the fixed price period has been weakend. The floating price remains the same so the long term result should remain the same.

    And on the upside it has forced Abbott into making even more ridiculuous claims about paying people to not create “invisible stuff”. When that’s exactly what he’d be doing with a direct action scheme anyway.

  166. Liz

    Akn, I don’t care whether that it was a quote from Greer. It was a very nasty thing to say.

    Chris, the criticism of Rudd has been very muted here, in comparison to the way Gillard was routinely derided in post after post.

  167. Tim Macknay

    And on the upside it has forced Abbott into making even more ridiculuous claims about paying people to not create “invisible stuff”. When that’s exactly what he’d be doing with a direct action scheme anyway.

    Yes, the Opposition appears to be tying itself in knots as a response to the decision to bring forward the ETS. Their other claim is that the change will “cost the budget $6 billion” – a funny thing to say when they’re planning to abolish it entirely, which would presumably cost even more.

  168. Chris

    Chris, the criticism of Rudd has been very muted here, in comparison to the way Gillard was routinely derided in post after post.

    Really? 2 weeks after becoming PM Gillard was routinely derided for policy changes she made? IIRC there was unhappiness about her climate change citizens assembly – what else was there a few weeks into her PM’ship?

  169. faustusnotes

    Here is another example of how the media have changed their tune since Rudd returned. Abbott’s “invisible substance” speech is out fresh today, and already the Herald has a detailed analysis of how ridiculous it is, that includes several paragraphs parsing every single word of the key soundbite. I don’t remember hte last time he received such a critical hearing in the Herald – a year ago? And suddenly the Herald has front-page articles supportive of carbon markets? Where has their blithe acceptance of the carbon “tax” moniker gone?

    It’s unbelievable how shallow their analysis and how deep their hatred was when Gillard was PM, and fascinating how rapidly they have switched sides.

  170. Russell

    “the criticism of Rudd has been very muted here”

    Exactly. I might have thought he was a psychopathic, sociopathic, narcissistic, treacherous little creep, but I’m sure I wouldn’t have said anything so nasty.

  171. Liz

    Chris, I recommend that you read ‘The Stalking off Julia Gillard’, for a bit of context

    When Gillard became PM, there was much grief about how wrong it all was and that she just a pawn of the faceless men. There’s no equivalence here.

  172. Ambigulous

    A sentient organism in this vicinity today mocked an ETS by describing it as a market to reward folk for not producing an invisible substance.

    The organism may not be aware that his existence depends on two invisible atmospheric gases, one to breathe and the other for its role in invisible nitrogenous fertilisers. His utterances are enabled by invisible brain currents; and brought to us via invisible electomagnetic signals.

    His own biology involves thousands of invisble biochemical processes; the soil farmers rely on teems with invisble organisms; invisible magnetic fields deflect invisible particles streaming through space towards the planet I share with him.

    And millions of organisms similar to him are able to understand that science, engineering, architecture depend on human knowledge of dozens of invisible worlds.

    ***
    Does he cling to Phlogiston Theory? Invisible too.

  173. faustusnotes

    Apparently this idiotic organism was asked if financial markets are also not real markets, but just repeated the same line. I think this might be his biggest fluff in months …

  174. Jumpy

    Russell, exactly.

    I might have thought he was a psychopathic, sociopathic, narcissistic, treacherous little creep, but I’m sure I wouldn’t have said anything so nasty.

    But you forgot megalomaniacal and media slut.
    As you will know the terms Kev Jong ill and Kevin Kardishian are being bandied about and soon to catch on more widely.

  175. GregM

    Apparently this idiotic organism was asked if financial markets are also not real markets, but just repeated the same line.

    Well he would, wouldn’t he?

  176. Martin B

    Apparently this idiotic organism was asked if financial markets are also not real markets, but just repeated the same line.

    Well he would, wouldn’t he?

    To be fair, that’s better than rocking back and forth in silence…

  177. akn

    Liz:

    Akn, I don’t care whether that it was a quote from Greer. It was a very nasty thing to say.

    No its not. It was a very funny comment by Greer.

    Besides, I’m not sure that you know about Ginger Meggs, or my reference to it, following Greer. Do you?

  178. alfred venison

    well, i didn’t say julia gillard had lurched to the right, i said that she sold her country short to further her career. akn, its a pretty common image, but if you can produce a picture of the ginger meggs version i’d be pleased to see it, and bully for germaine greer. but the organ grinder’s monkey image is incomplete because it does not capture the mentality dilemma. which is that either the organ grinder’s monkey knew that the p.m. was being taken out in the middle of a protracted crisis in order to appease the miners, and is therefore as much a knave as the organ grinder, or the organ grinder’s monkey did not know the p.m. was being taken out in the middle of a protracted crisis to appease the miners, and is therefore a fool. she didn’t need to stand by her man, she needed to stand by her country, and i will despise julia gillard for the rest of my life for her part in a disgraceful capitulation to corporate pressure over a matter of national policy. -a.v.

  179. mindy

    av that isn’t what happened at all. That is so far from what happened it is astounding. But if that is what people need to tell themselves in order to make it okay for Rudd to have spent three years getting us into a position where Abbott may still become PM then so be it.

  180. adrian

    But if that is what people need to tell themselves in order to make it okay for Rudd to have spent three years getting us into a position where Abbott may still become PM then so be it.

    That’s right folks – nothing to do with Gillard, she was only PM after all.

    This beautification of Julia Gillard is truly nauseating. She was a bloody politician, a mixture of good and bad like most of the rest of them.
    Why people seek to airbrush her time as PM is mistifying.

  181. akn

    Jayzuz, a.v. Right effin’ on mate!

    Mindy – look at the timing of Rudd’s sacking in relation to the democracy busting campaign by miners (Forrest and ors) and the industry in general because of the super profits tax. What Rudd proposed scared the living daylights out of the resources/extraction industry – miners – all over the world but especially those operating in South America where there has been a surge of democracy over the last two decades sufficient to produce rebellious social policy.

    Yes, its about gender, but always look at the money. Gillard and Rudd’s executive shafted Rudd on behalf of big capital. There’s the lesson.

  182. faustusnotes

    So I have to ask again – how come Rudd’s decision to drop the carbon price by more than half is not a sign that his return was orchestrated by industry, but Gillard’s decision to change the RSPT was? There is zero criticism of Rudd here for reneging on (remember, his words!) “the great moral challenge of our time.” Meanwhile, Gillard was in the pocket of hte mining companies for changing a tax that would have delivered money to the mining companies.

    WTF is that?

  183. Pavlov's Cat

    Why people seek to airbrush her time as PM is mistifying.

    The only person seeking to ‘airbrush’ her time as PM is Rudd, who is trying to airbrush it out of existence. What some of us are trying to do is to scrape off a little of the totally unwarranted shit that has been being flung at her with great force for three years, much of which has stuck. There is a very long distance between those two extremes.

  184. Liz

    Yep. People are answering my question without even realising it. Sheer bloody minded and stupid condemnation for Gillard. Gentle and half-hearted chastisement for Rudd.

    Gillard still gets flogged unmercifully for replacing Rudd. No-one criticises Rudd for doing the same. And lots of evidence free conspiracy theories all round. The mining companies used Gillard to get rid of Rudd, even though Rudd’s tax was going to deliver money to the mining company! Tell me how that works again?

    So, another simple question. What do you think of the way Rudd white anted and destabilised Gillard for three years?

  185. Nick

    “Meanwhile, Gillard was in the pocket of hte mining companies for changing a tax that would have delivered money to the mining companies.”

    fn, I don’t know where you’re getting this from, but Treasury calculated a $60 billion loss in revenue over 10 years as a result of the changes.

    Why would the mining companies spend tens of millions opposing the RSPT, but choose not to oppose the MRRT?

    You seem to be suggesting they like throwing away money.

  186. alfred venison

    Does the MRRT, as implemented, still command the support of the 22 economists who signed the original open letter? We emailed all of them to find out. (the economist, july 2012)

    The modified MRRT is inferior to the original proposal in all respects. (john quiggin)

    I would, however, have much preferred to see the RSPT go through, a tax that would have raised far more money, far more efficiently and far more equitably, than the MRRT. While the RSPT was designed by independent experts over a long period of time, the MRRT was negotiated between a small number of vested interests and the newly installed Prime Minister Gillard during a time of incredible political upheaval. A once in a generation opportunity to reform the tax system and collect a fair share of the benefits from the mining boom was negotiated during a once in a lifetime period of political instability. The results were obviously very good for the big miners and very bad for Australian citizens and the vast majority of non-mining businesses that would have benefitted from the reform. (Richard Denniss)

    Rudd government proposal for an RSPT retained the royalty, and essentially represented a top-up, with royalty payments being a credit against the measured economic rent. The MRRT is an even more distorted tax … [s]ome sweet transition deals were done for the three large mining companies. (John Freebairn)

    Yes I’d still support it, but it’s a lot worse than the original proposal … [t]he original design was an inspired piece of public policy but it also needed some tweaking. (Nicholas Guren)

    I was very disappointed with the modified MRRT as it is not comprehensive and is not a rigorous resource-rent tax (RRT). However it is better than nothing. (John Langmore)

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/07/australias-new-mining-tax

  187. Russell

    The mining company conspiracy may be interesting …. but what we know, from all accounts, is that when the leadership challenge came on Rudd had so little support amongst his colleagues that he didn’t even stand.

    For him to have lost the support of so many of his colleagues, to the point that they would take the extraordinary step of replacing a first term PM, signifies that there was something profoundly wrong with his style of leadership. It was surely more than anything to do with just the mining tax?

  188. Luxxe

    Russell I am sure you are right. Rudd is insufferable. People blame the factions for hating his factional neutrality, but anyone who has seen him in action understands why the senior cabinet left end masse.

  189. Russell

    Actually would someone who understands the ALP factions tell us if it’s likely there was any collusion between the mining companies and the factions that supported Gillard?

    If we look at the Rudd fall and suspect the mining companies were behind it, could we not look at the Gillard fall and suspect that the coal miners/electricity generators were behind it, because she brought in the carbon price?

  190. Russell

    In the past I’ve stated on LP that I was no fan of Gillard, and I was still criticising her Gonski negotiating tactics when she fell.

    But, one of the things that annoys me is that when Carmen Lawrence took over from Peter Dowding as W.A. premier and went on to lose the election, the feeling was that the ALP had lost the election. Mention Carmen’s name and people would roll their eyes and say “Oh, Carmen!” but it was the ALP that lost and there was no feeling that the chances of another woman becoming premier had been diminished.

    But somehow Julia is totally to blame for the last three years of Labor woe. Julia was unpopular, Julia was a liar, there was no chance that Julia could ‘redeem’ herself? Where did the ALP go? Where did the cabinet go? There is somehow this story that having a/this woman as PM was a disaster, which is surely a stupid simplification.

  191. m0nty

    Keep punching, Liz. You’re making good points. The silence is deafening on a whole “bunch” of fronts within the left at the moment.

  192. paul burns

    Liz @ 184,
    I think it was karma.

  193. alfred venison

    one of my best akn, glad you liked it, succinct & with arty parallelisms. but i’ve been chiselling away on it for three years so i ought to get it right sometimes by law of averages.

    Russell, i doubt gillard was removed by big coal or electricity generators over the carbon tax. but i’m pretty sure the premier of alberta was removed in 2010 by his executive under pressure from big oil, again after trying to reform the royalties regime. and that, while corporate profits remain largely unaffected, the richest province in canada runs a deficit budget to pay for schools & hospitals, and australia robs universities to pay for gonski.

    new south wales labor is corrupt to the hilt, its there to look for pressure points. who or what entity owes favors to whom and who or what entity has evidence of corruption in office they/it could leak. maybe icac will ask. or not. -a.v.

  194. Chris

    So I have to ask again – how come Rudd’s decision to drop the carbon price by more than half is not a sign that his return was orchestrated by industry, but Gillard’s decision to change the RSPT was?

    Perhaps because the drop in the carbon price is only temporary, just bringing forward what was going to happen in 2015 anyway, but in 2014 instead, whereas the mining tax change was a permanent one into the forseable future? From the PM show:

    Professor of Climate Law at the Australian National University, Martijn Wilder, says the decision to remove the fixed price a year early is not a significant policy change.

    Liz @ 171

    When Gillard became PM, there was much grief about how wrong it all was and that she just a pawn of the faceless men. There’s no equivalence here.

    You’re right. At the time pretty much the only excuse Gillard could come up with for changing leadership was that the government had “lost its way”. Gillard made a deliberate decision not to tell the public what they really thought the reasons were at the time. They made a deliberate decision to do what they thought at the time would be quick and painless without trying to prepare or inform the public for an upcoming leadership challenge. Even the Gillard camp at the time was trying to push the line that the leadership challenge was something she didn’t actually want to do to try to insulate her from any responsibility for bringing down a first term PM. So is it any surprise that the public reaction is different?

  195. paul of albury

    So, another simple question. What do you think of the way Rudd white anted and destabilised Gillard for three years?

    Have you managed to find any actual evidence for this yet, as you demanded of those who made similar claims against Gillard? Or is it still journos quoting each other, ‘everyone knows’, and ‘you’d expect that of Rudd, wouldn’t you’? The sort of thing we’d normally call truthiness when it comes from News Ltd.

  196. Martin B

    The other inconvenient fact for the mining company conspiracy theory is that Martin Ferguson – hardly a firebrand of anti-corporate activism – assures us that just before getting dumped, Rudd and he were busily negotiating with Andrew Forrest to water down the mining tax.

    Now it may well be that Rudd’s negotiations were better or that Gillard and Swan made a bigger mistake. But the picture of crusading Rudd vs sell-out Gillard is way too simple. In fact both ALP leaders were perfectly happy to ‘sellout’ to industry for political comfort. Which is hardly surprising…

  197. Adrian

    ‘Have you managed to find any actual evidence for this yet, as you demanded of those who made similar claims against Gillard? Or is it still journos quoting each other, ‘everyone knows’, and ‘you’d expect that of Rudd, wouldn’t you’? The sort of thing we’d normally call truthiness when it comes from News Ltd.

    You’ll find at times that the word evidence acquires a surprisingly elastic meaning.

  198. Liz

    What do you count as evidence, Adrian? I refer you to the statement from Peter Beattie; “Julia would never do to Kevin, what Kevin did to Julia”. I refer to “The Stalking of Julia Gillard”, which is full chock full of examples. What sort of behind the scenes work do you think goes into mounting three challenges in three years?

  199. Pavlov's Cat

    If Adrian counts as evidence the kind of thing a court would demand, then of course nobody here is going to be able to provide any — what a ridiculous notion — so let me ask him this: why would rumours of Rudd white-anting and plotting, which began almost as soon as he lost the non-ballot in 2010, have arisen and persisted if he had not been doing it? What would have been the point of inventing and spreading such rumours, when they could only do damage to all parties? And of course, there’s such a thing as plausible deniability and it can be put to good account by people who don’t want to be seen to be doing what they’re doing.

    But here you go, here’s an account of something that was witnessed by many. A tiny moment, like one drop in the Chinese water torture.

    ‘Opposition spokewoman Julie Bishop rises to her feet and directs a question to Rudd about Australian diplomatic relations with East Timor, PNG and Malaysia in the wake of Labor’s latest asylum seeker policy. Wild cheers erupt from the bench behind her; this will be fascinating. Rudd is happy to respond … When Bishop winks at him [my emphasis] and asks a supplementary question, inquiring when he’d be returning to Bougainville, he responds with deadpan delight: it is a ‘most sensitive’ issue that remains ‘contested territory’ … his back straight, eyes wandering to the public and press galleries … The Opposition benches rock with glee at the obvious sub-text. Bishop’s question was no polite inquiry about Rudd’s travel plans: ‘Boganville’ is the former Prime Minister’s searing put-down of The Lodge’s current inhabitants.’

    (Just as an aside, I can’t help wondering where Rudd gets off calling anyone else a bogan. Indeed, I can’t help wondering how any Labor politician worth the name could use the term at all; if accusations of class warfare are to be thrown about, surely the word ‘bogan’ is on the list of defence materiel.)

    And here’s a similar performance of collusion with the Opposition to undermine and mock Gillard, also with witnesses, on the day the Clean Energy Future Bill’s eighteen pieces of legislation (the carbon “tax”) were passed:

    ‘As the Labor troops erupt in a collective embrace of hugs and hand-shaking, Kevin emerges from the back-bench bleachers where, unusually for a minister, he’s been sitting while the votes were counted. As if in slow motion, he walks to his leader and airbrushes a faint kiss on her cheek, his back to the press gallery. With both hands on his shoulders, she responds guilelessly. It’s the money shot, and Rudd knows it. Opposition MPs guffaw with laughter; Rudd grins cheekily and gives them the thumbs up.’

    My emphasis, again. Footage exists showing both of these moments, exactly as Kerry-Anne Walsh describes them in The Stalking of Julia Gillard; I know this because I happened to see both of them. Perhaps you’ll say that winking and thumbs-up could mean anything. I’m sure Rudd would.

  200. Liz

    Well, some of the work isn’t that behind the scenes.

    The book also lists numerous articles by journos such as Peter Hartcher, which includes quotes along the line of Rudd loyalists state that they’re gathering the numbers. Two pollies specifically mentioned are Alan Griffin and Mark Bishop, Rudd loyalists who spent a lot time working the phones to favoured journos. Do you think this stuff happens by accident? Who benefits?

  201. akn

    So effectively, Liz and others, you are saying that Gillard’s disastrous poll numbers wouldn’t have been bad at all without the massive bullying campaign against her or without Rudd white-anting her.

    That’s a big call. Her first election as PM wasn’t exactly a resounding vote for her or Labor, was it? After which it just got worse. She was genuinely unpopular with many sections of the electorate but it is hard to argue that the entire electorate is merely a dupe of the MSM?

    Several things are clear: the male establishment went after her and largely succeeded in traducing her reputation as a woman and a politician; it succeeded because she was represented as an ambitious and treacherous woman, first and foremost a woman. I think this suggests an intolerance of a particular type of woman, especially ambitious ones, by the male establishment. On top of this, the campaign of slur and insinuation resonated deeply with the electorate, both male and female.

    Shocking as it is, that’s the current state of play around gender in Australia. Yes, it’s a double standard, no, we would prefer it otherwise, but there you have it.

  202. Liz

    Here’s just one quote from many. Michelle Grattan in the the Age in October 2011.

    “The personal strategy of Rudd-who is driven these days by the desire for vindication as much as rational ambition-is the one he always adopts. He is omnipresent. In current circumstances, this serves several purposes. It keeps him in the public’s mind (useful for those surveys of preferred Labor leader;) it sucks attention from Gillard; and, when he is received as a rock star in MP’s electorates, it shows caucus members how popular he is, and how useful he could be to helping a lot of them hold their seats.”

  203. Sam

    Her first election as PM wasn’t exactly a resounding vote for her or Labor, was it?

    True, but let’s not forget the leaks against her during the campaign by Rudd and/or his cronies.

  204. zorronsky

    Ignore it and it will go away?

  205. Sam

    Rudd has announced $4 billion of expenditure cuts to pay for cutting the carbon tax, including

    “Reforms to APS management structure and more efficient procurement of agency software ($248 million)”.

    Which makes me wonder if this kind of saving is available (especially the more efficient software procurement), why wasn’t it done before?

  206. Brian

    akn @ 201 and Liz @ 202. I dropped out of this thread after I saw Helen’s comment about mine. Other stuff to do and wanted to think about it. I’ll get back to the original issue raised by Pav and Liz’s question, but later. I haven’t read the intervening stuff.

    akn, Gillard was doing quite well before 2010 election until the second leak – about the aged pension and parental leave which she was said to oppose in cabinet, but didn’t.

    After the election her ratings plummeted with the carbon price/tax announcement but started to recover from July 2012 until she was nearly on terms by the end of October and trending up. Then we had the 2-week assault by Julie Bishop over the AWU affair – cynical, based on innuendo mostly and lies, completely unethical. Her ratings went down from there.

    Liz, I’m not convinced Rudd had a direct role in the undermining during the 2010 election campaign or up to the Feb 2012 challenge. There is an interesting letter from Laura Tingle to Jonathan Holmes around 2012 that seems to indicate Rudd had no role in any backgrounding of journalists to that point. At that time he was a minister of the crown and couldn’t be blamed for being active in his campaigning against Abbott. Others saw it differently. Truly to give Gillard a real go he should have left politics.

    That’s not the whole story and the story this year becomes quite complex. I think this year Rudd’s ethics cannot be defended, but in politics it seems the end can justify the means, something I’m very uncomfortable with.

    I need to read a couple of books I’ve ordered before reaching a more settled view.

  207. Liz

    Akn, I think it’s impossible to know how the counter factual would have played out exactly. But, we can see how Turnbull has been conspicuously loyal toward Abbott (at least until now), which must be extremely difficult for a person with his self-regard. Abbott hasn’t had to cope with such disloyalty and I’m sure that’s helped his polling numbers. There’s been no back grounding against him, no articles stating, “Senior Oppostion forces say…” That’s a huge difference.

    Gillard made an awful hash of some policies and made strategical errors. But, she also had to cope with being leaked against from day one her PMship, she had to cope with having two Opposition leaders; Abbott and Rudd and she had to cope with structural sexism and misogyny. It makes it very hard to win.

    Those issues you pointed to above in regards to how Gillard had to cope with structural sexism also played out here. The disloyalty from Rudd she had to cope with has largely been given a free pass. Many of the people who post and comment here seem blind to that and blind to the double standards they’ve held Gillard and Abbott to.

  208. hannah's dad

    “So effectively, Liz and others, you are saying that Gillard’s disastrous poll numbers wouldn’t have been bad at all without the massive bullying campaign against her or without Rudd white-anting her”

    I dunno about Liz and others but I sure as hell would say that.

    Some evidence.
    The Newspoll immediately before Crean’s fiasco had the Gillard government at 48: 52.
    On the day of the fiasco PM Gillard gave a most eloquent and very well received speech at the sorry for forced adoption day event.
    Just one of many examples that bely the ‘poor communicator’ label slapped on her by her decriers.
    At the same event Abbott bombed badly and the media had to go into damage control on his behalf for the umpteenth time.
    The day should have been a triumph for the government and for the PM, [and the audience in the Hall], and a disaster for the COALition and Abbott and contributed to a better Newspoll down the track.

    What happened?

    The Crean/Rudd fiasco the same day.

    Gillard should have been lauded by the media as a strong leader stamping her authority on a weak internal opposition. That’s how Howard was portrayed with respect to Costello. [ I borrowed these observations from Andrew Elder].

    Instead we had a cacophony of ‘Labor in disarray, Gillard under pressure’ and all the usual bleating from the media.

    Next Newspoll?

    58:42 in favour of the COALition – disunity is death.

    Then along comes the Rudd resurrection, misogyny and PM bullying not to be seen, poll numbers skyrocket etc and where were we immediately after that?

    Newspoll 50:50

    Where we could have been IF Rudd white anting, media and other misogyny had been attacked, not encouraged, by Gillard’s detractors.

    I’m pissed off by the blatant, still ongoing FFS, gender war AGAINST not just Gillard but women in general.
    Gotta stop.

    [Sorry for shouting -I dunno how to use emphasis otherwise].

  209. Pavlov's Cat

    So effectively, Liz and others, you are saying that Gillard’s disastrous poll numbers wouldn’t have been bad at all without the massive bullying campaign against her or without Rudd white-anting her.

    “Effectively”, we are saying nothing of the kind; we are saying what we are saying. Verballing much?

    What we are saying said, however, and moving on, and speaking now only for myself: yes. In response to your quite separate point about polls, the unrelentingly negative and usually untrue representations of Gillard in the media certainly did affect the poll numbers, of course they did, and then the poll numbers were reported with words like ‘disastrous’ attached to them and they got worse, of course they did. If you have read neither The Misogyny Factor nor The Stalking of Julia Gillard you may not be aware of the extent to which this has been demonstrated again and again and again.

  210. Liz

    Sorry Brian, but I find it impossible to believe that Rudd wasn’t directing the whiteanting which occurred.

    If Ministers or Caucus members were whiteanting autonomously, without Rudd’s approval, surely he could have just told them to stop. Why didn’t he?

  211. Sam

    If Ministers or Caucus members were whiteanting autonomously, without Rudd’s approval, surely he could have just told them to stop. Why didn’t he?

    Quite so.

    It’s just like Game of Thrones, only without the incest.

  212. akn

    Brian @ 206 and others on down including Liz, PC:

    I wouldn’t disagree with any of what you say about Gillard’s treatment or Rudd’s intense desire to be back as PM.

    But what did you expect Rudd to do? Take one for the team? Yes, Turnbull is quiescent under Abbott in opposition, but then he’s not Rudd.

    I think had Gillard stayed on as deputy PM and Rudd been replaced by a bloke then this situation would be very different. That’s the nature of the gender wars, especially as prosecuted by the male establishment, at the moment. I’m not being judgmental about Gillard’s manner of accession, just sayin’…

  213. Brian

    Liz, yes at some point Rudd could have called off the dogs.

    Awaiting to read The Stalking of Julia Gillard I’m not sure there was a coherent destabilisation campaign before Feb 2012. The press is another matter. There did seem to be a quite coherent and concerted campaign from the return of parliament this year which Rudd must have known about and was probably active himself. To do that at that stage in the electoral was quite destructive but there is a justification of a kind if it’s successful in winning the election or saving the furniture. Left alone and with a reasonable go Gillard would probably have done as well or better. But that’s quite speculative.

  214. Pavlov's Cat

    But what did you expect Rudd to do? Take one for the team?

    Yes, of course. Just like Hawke, Beazley, Crean and Latham before him. (Ask yourself exactly what happened to those blokes, by the way, and why it happened, and who was involved. Walsh can tell you that too.) That’s what defeated leaders do. Gillard didn’t wait to be defeated — she called the spill herself, if you remember, but I bet you don’t, because the meeja made nothing of it. It was a crazy-brave ‘Bring it on.’ And she was beaten, and not only did she take one for the team, she stood up in the Lodge later that night with Swan and addressed those who had been loyal to her, and what she said, in effect, was ‘Never mind, shit happens. Now you have to get behind Rudd so that we win the election.’

  215. Liz

    Further to that, I remember that when Gillard bought the spill on, several commenters here wrote that she was being unfair for bringing it on so quickly. She should have called it for the next day to give Rudd time to get organised. As if they hadn’t been organising for weeks, or months. That’s just another example of the unfair criticism Gillard has received here.

    Yet, when Rudd behaved unethically, the response is a shrug of the shoulders. What else can we expect? That’s also tacitly admitting that he’s untrustworthy and unethical. But, hey that’s okay. It’s KRudd. It’s how he rolls.

    OTOH, when Gillard gets rolled, she leaves as she said she would. And leaves without bitterness and rancour, telling people to get united behind Rudd.

    That’s what he could have done akn. And history may have been very different.

  216. Sam

    she called the spill herself

    She called it one day early, and did so knowing she was dead meat after Shorten’s announcement. It wasn’t that crazy brave.

    But, still, there’s no question, Gillard beats Rudd in a character test, though this more about him that her.

  217. Pavlov's Cat

    She called it one day early, and did so knowing she was dead meat after Shorten’s announcement. It wasn’t that crazy brave.

    (1) ‘One day early’ for what? One day earlier than Rudd and his media stooges thought she would and had said she would and had told her to? Oh yes, dreadfully sneaky.

    (2) ‘after Shorten’s announcement’? You have your timing arse-up. She called the spill before Shorten made his little anouncement, which he made as a consequence of Gillard’s call. It was a result of what Gillard did, not vice versa. I know this as I was glued to the innertubes all afternoon. But I see we’re all busily rewriting history to say that it was the blokes that made all the moves.

  218. Liz

    “One day early”. This is what I was referring to above. In what way was it early? Because it didn’t fit in exactly with Rudd’s desired schedule?

  219. alfred venison

    some questions about 2010 for to (re)write the history

    what meetings did the relevant ministers attend, with lobbyists or anyone else, during the crisis? who came to lunch? who dropped in at the office? who was at all or most of the meetings & business lunches ministers went to? i.e. e.g. where’s marius, et al. in re. where the people’s representatives were?

    who fist hatched the conspiracy, where did they meet and when did they first resolve to remove the p.m.? who did they have lunch with during the crisis?

    was gillard one of the first or was she brought in later? if later who brought her in?

    who did they recruit second and third, when and where?

    tanner: was he approached? -a.v.

  220. Sam

    PC and Liz

    whatever the timing, it was all over Red Rover for Gillard, and she knew it. When did she know this? Maybe she’ll say in her memoirs. If it wasn’t when Shorten announced, it might have been when Wong told her a week or two earlier that she had switched to Rudd.

    Anyhoo, Rudd is still hated in the party, and will continue to be hated even if he beats Abbott (and that is a very big if). There’s no reason to think he’ll last a term. Why? Because he is Rudd. He will alienate everybody, again.

    Tanya Plibersek, step forward.

  221. Chris

    Yes, of course. Just like Hawke, Beazley, Crean and Latham before him. (Ask yourself exactly what happened to those blokes, by the way, and why it happened, and who was involved. Walsh can tell you that too.) That’s what defeated leaders do.

    Beazley didn’t give up. He was opposition leader twice, though I think there’s a big difference between having an ex-opposition leader and an ex-PM in the party. As for Hawke as an example – how many terms did he have as PM before he was rolled? Latham exploded at an election and I don’t think Crean ever really gave up his ambitions, just that the opportunity never arose. The Gillard camp broke with convention by replacing a first term PM. So they were pretty much on new ground when it came to what Rudd would do. I’m sure they were expecting him to just leave but they didn’t have any plan or leverage when he didn’t.

    No one believes Turnbull has given up wanting to be PM. He’s been fairly quiet because he has no chance as long as the LNP are doing well in the polls. Even then in shadow cabinet he takes the occassionnal pot shot at Abbott like on Q&A recently.

    It keeps him in the public’s mind (useful for those surveys of preferred Labor leader;) it sucks attention from Gillard; and, when he is received as a rock star in MP’s electorates, it shows caucus members how popular he is, and how useful he could be to helping a lot of them hold their seats.

    Yes, it’s Rudd’s fault that he has commonly been much more publicly popular than Gillard? He should just go hide in a corner?

    Further to that, I remember that when Gillard bought the spill on, several commenters here wrote that she was being unfair for bringing it on so quickly. She should have called it for the next day to give Rudd time to get organised. As if they hadn’t been organising for weeks, or months. That’s just another example of the unfair criticism Gillard has received here.

    Gillard played the internal ALP politics really well. Much better than the politics against Abbott. She called one spill while Rudd was still overseas which obviously put him at a disadvantage. But hey, politics is brutal. Yes with the last spill, Rudd’s supporters had been organising for a while, but the time issue was more about being able to lobby openly with other members of the caucus. She called the spill early to get as much advantage as possible – as is her right.

    I think this is where the proposed reforms will really help. A month long process will ensure that no one is taken by surprise and the party will be forced to let the public know what is going on – a repeat of 2010 where they just make some hand-wavy excuses won’t fly.

  222. Liz

    Chris, why did you leave out the start of Grattan’s quote, which puts Rudd’s actions in a specific context. That context is his strategy to regain the PMship through disloyalty and whiteanting. What do you think Grattan is referring to when she writes “the personal strategy of Rudd…” Strategy for what? To get Labor re-elected with Gillard as PM?

  223. Mindy

    a.v. all your questions are answered in other threads. Gillard was reluctant until Rudd sent his Chief of Staff to check on her loyalty. That was when she had had enough. That was right at the end. There was no conspiracy. Rudd fucked it up royally. Maybe it would have been better for them to let him have a breakdown or completely gum up the works but they didn’t. But this conspiracy theory is complete crap. It is quite telling that so many people are prepared to believe anything in order to believe that Gillard knifed Rudd, but are not prepared to believe that Rudd spent 3 years deliberately creating the position we are in now.

  224. Tim Macknay

    Rudd has announced $4 billion of expenditure cuts to pay for cutting the carbon tax

    No cuts to the Renewable Energy Agency or the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, thankfully.

  225. David Irving (no relation)

    I hope you’re right, Tim @ 224. I thought I heard on the radio this morning that those programmes were being cut.

  226. akn

    Mindy: the left has on many occasions been accused of launching conspiracy theories. We were usually right, too.

  227. Tim Macknay

    Hi DI(NR). Yes, unfortunately my initial information wasn’t entirely correct.

    It does seem that, contrary to the Government’s announcement, some clean energy programs will be cut. According to Climate Spectator, $162 million will be cut from the Clean Technology Program (which funds solar installations on commercial premises), and a further $200 million will be deferred. Apparently around $213 million in unallocated funding for the Biodiversity Program will also be withdrawn.

    Significantly better are the withdrawal of $770 million in handouts to brown coal electricity generators, $186 million cut from assistance to coal miners, the further deferral of $200 million in funding for “clean coal” and, according to Crikey, around $1.8 billion in savings from changing the fringe benefit tax status of company vehicles.

    I’m not entirely convinced by the political value of this proposal, given the trade-offs involved and the fact that the public dislike of the “carbon tax” seemed to be substantially abating. But then, I’ve always been a strong supporter of carbon pricing, so I’m almost certainly out of touch with majority views on the subject.

  228. Martin B

    She called one spill while Rudd was still overseas which obviously put him at a disadvantage.

    Rudd resigned as FM and all but challenged Gillard while he was overseas. Gillard called the spill in response to that.

  229. adrian

    ‘He will alienate everybody, again.’

    Absolute bullshit. Doesn’t pass the most cursory common sense test.

  230. Martin B

    Anyhow, back to the Invisible Man.

    It’s possible I’m over-reading this, but I find this significant because:

    a) Abbott is trying to rev up the climate denialist base with poorly coded signals. But this is surely a defensive move, a retreat from the middle ground of politics.

    b) The sloganeering is wooden. Partly this is a consequence of a) insofar as he is willing to risk some damage to his standing with the centre in order to solidify his base. But it’s a poor catchphrase beyond that. Abbot’s success to date has been largely based on his considerable skill in fashioning soundbites, and the indication that he is not on top of his game here is, I think, interesting.

  231. Martin B

    I can’t imagine the ALP would try hatchetting KR again if they win* but I imagine there will be some pressure put on for a managed transition strategy.

    * there’s been a lot of things the ALP has done that I couldn’t imagine, so what would I know?

  232. adrian

    To answer Liz and Pavlov’s Cat.

    My first point is that it is ludicrous to blame Rudd for all or most of Gillard’s problems, as someone appeared to be doing.

    Secondly, of course I don’t mean evidence admissible in a court of law.
    I mean evidence that names names, dates and specific events. That kind of evidence is thin on the ground, notwithstanding The Book.

    Thirdly, any allegations of whiteanting against Rudd conveniently ignore the destabilisation against Rudd before and after the 2010 election.
    On the one hand we are supposed to believe that Rudd was responsible for most of Gillard’s problems, but that she and her colleagues had nothing to do with Rudd’s.

    I don’t think politics works that way.

  233. Sam

    Absolute bullshit. Doesn’t pass the most cursory common sense test.

    Adrian, a leopard doesn’t change its spots.

    Also, a fool and his money are soon parted and look before you leap.

  234. Paul Norton

    The SEARCH Foundation has published a guide to the right-wing micro-parties that will be contesting the election.

  235. Liz

    Adrian, there’s a huge amount of evidence. I’ve posted a couple of instances, so has Dr. Pav. You just don’t like it. Can you explain who was it who was constantly back grounding journos if it wasn’t Rudd and his colleagues? How do you think those stories occurred? Can you explain the quote from Peter Beattie above; “Julia would never do to Kevin, what Kevin did to Julia”?

    Whereas, I haven’t seen any evidence that Gillard destabilised Rudd for nearly three years have you? Name specific actions, dates and people please?

    Do you really think that long term destabilisation isn’t going to be a strong factor (not the only factor) in running her PMship into the ground?

  236. Liz

    And btw Adrian, have you read The Book, as you call it? Do you know what it says?

  237. adrian

    And every cloud has a silver lining…

  238. Martin B

    Thanks Paul, interesting.

    Anyone know what actually was the genesis of the split between the Fishing Party and the Fishing and Lifestyle Party? (Not that I care that much.)

  239. Russell

    “On the one hand we are supposed to believe that Rudd was responsible for most of Gillard’s problems, but that she and her colleagues had nothing to do with Rudd’s.”

    But isn’t the interesting thing there, that whereas the media maestro Rudd was allowed to escape his reputation for stuffing up, every fault of Gillard’s was endlessly repeated by the media? Does the general public remember that Rudd couldn’t negotiate a carbon reduction scheme with the Greens? Is Rudd now portrayed as ‘treacherous’ or just doing stuff that politicians do?

  240. FDB

    There was no conspiracy. Rudd fucked it up royally. Maybe it would have been better for them to let him have a breakdown or completely gum up the works but they didn’t.

    Who are “they”, these non-conspirators, who were non-conspiring to replace Rudd, and didn’t non-include Gillard?

    I share your bafflement that anyone could believe either coup was achieved without significant behind-the-scenes plotting and destabilisation, but frankly you look to be suffering from the delusion yourself Mindy.

  241. Terangeree

    Meanwhile, the leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, when asked who the Liberal Party candidate for the seat of Denison was, confessed that he did not know.

    Her name is Tanya.

    Tanya Denison.

  242. Helen

    That’s a great list, Paul.
    It’s funny how many overlapping huntin’, shootin’ and fishin’ parties they are. Makes me afraid to head for the hills sometimes.

  243. Tim Macknay

    whereas the media maestro Rudd was allowed to escape his reputation for stuffing up

    That’s not how I remember it. I seem to recall that the last 12 months or so of Rudd’s first stint were reported more-or-less as “a government in chaos”. “Pink batts”, “BER rorts”, etc.

    Does the general public remember that Rudd couldn’t negotiate a carbon reduction scheme with the Greens?

    You mean with the Opposition – the Greens didn’t have the numbers to deliver legislation in the pre-2010 Senate, as you well know. Heaven knows there are plenty of real things to criticise Rudd about – why make stuff up?

    Dammit, I told myself I wouldn’t get into this interminable “Rudd vs Gillard: Who Did What to Whom, First?” debate. I just hate it when people make stuff up.

  244. Sam

    Scene: On the footpath outside a polling place, a throng of how to vote cards thrust by party volunteers towards an oncoming voter.

    Voter: “Are you the Hunting and Shooting Party?”

    Volunteer: “Fuck off, we’re the Shooting and Hunting Party”.

    (With due credit to …)

  245. Mindy

    FDB I’m not contesting that people were planning to replace Rudd. I am contesting that they were planning to replace a popular PM who had done nothing wrong simply because Gillard wanted to be PM. Rudd made himself very unpopular with his colleagues and they could not work with him. Gillard was convinced to challenge at the very end. There was no conspiracy.

    Rudd micromanaged everything. He would not meet with Ministers, hid office demanded everything Rudd asked for to be done that instant and when everyone turned on a dime to do it Rudd never looked at it. People would ring up 3 weeks later to ask what was happening and be told that things had moved on and it wasn’t going to happen anymore – I have a first hand source for this. I have also heard from Fed Public Servants that Rudd is starting to do it again.

  246. Paul Norton

    Martin B @238:

    Anyone know what actually was the genesis of the split between the Fishing Party and the Fishing and Lifestyle Party? (Not that I care that much.)

    I’d say that such parties, by their very nature, have a tendency towards fission.

  247. Mindy

    Is it true that voters in Victoria will have a magnifying glass to see their voting papers there are so many minor parties?

  248. Sam

    I’d say that such parties, by their very nature, have a tendency towards fission

    Did the Nuclear Disarmament Party have a tendency towards fission?

  249. Liz

    So, Rudd makes cuts to environmental programs; the Clean Technology Fund, the Biodiversity Fund and the Carbon Farming Futures Fund. The Greens are up in arms about it.

    I don’t know enough about these programs to know how valuable they are. The cuts for funding for ‘clean coal’ sounds good.

    But, overall it sounds like a Rudd Labor Party might be less environmentally friendly than a Gillard Labor Party. That’s not in the script, is it? Of course, to some extent, Gillard was forced to play as nice as possible with the environment, because of the Greens.

    It’s not beyond the bounds of possibility for Bandt and Katter to be holding the balance of power in the next parliament. A long shot, I know. But, the polls look really close, so anything’s possible. That would be entertaining.

  250. Mindy

    Less $$ in the Biodiversity fund spells bad news for lots of people and their jobs in the environmental sector.

  251. FDB

    It’s not beyond the bounds of possibility for Bandt and Katter to be holding the balance of power in the next parliament. A long shot, I know. But, the polls look really close, so anything’s possible. That would be entertaining.

    First order of business – buy shares in Big Popcorn.

  252. David Irving (no relation)

    They’re Splitters, Paul …

  253. FDB

    There was no conspiracy.

    There were people conspiring to dump Rudd as leader.

    Hence: a conspiracy.

    QED.

    I’m not arguing that Gillard was involved in the conspiracy from the get go. While I realise it can get hard to separate out the claims people are making in such a fraught conversation, I think I’ve been pretty clear.

  254. paul burns

    I have also heard from Fed Public Servants that Rudd is starting to do it again.

    More details please.

  255. Tim Macknay

    Less $$ in the Biodiversity fund spells bad news for lots of people and their jobs in the environmental sector.

    Well it would if the withdrawn funds had been allocated to projects. One of the most irritating characteristics of recent Federal Governments (including Howard’s, Rudd’s and Gillard’s) is their apparent inability to actually spend the money hypothecated to environmental programs.

    I don’t know if it’s a problem of administrative incompetence or pure political cynicism (i.e. deliberately not spending the money so they can re-announce it later on). I’m also not sure which would be worse, although I’m leaning to the latter.

  256. Tim Macknay

    Did the Nuclear Disarmament Party have a tendency towards fission?

    It seemed to have more of a tendency towards annihilation.

  257. Helen

    We are all in agreement that there were Gillard supporters and Rudd supporters, yes? So there were at the very least two bunches of “theys” in the Labor party. The use of the word “they” does not constitute a conspiracy theory (and we’re well aware of how accusations of conspiracy theory-mongering makes your opponent look a bit loony, a bit tinfoil hatty… Mmmmhmm?)

  258. Chris

    Chris, why did you leave out the start of Grattan’s quote, which puts Rudd’s actions in a specific context. That context is his strategy to regain the PMship through disloyalty and whiteanting.

    That’s just her interpretation of what he was doing. He turns up at an electorate – whether it be his own or another MP’s – he’s pretty popular – and suddenly that his “strategy”. So I ask again – is he meant to just hide in a corner? It’s an implicit problem with having an ex-PM around, especially one who was still pretty popular amongst the public even if the ALP caucus didn’t like him.

    It’s not like he can just decide to be publicly popular – if it was that easy Gillard would have done the same to push up her poll numbers. Just by getting around doing standard MP stuff because he had both high public popularity already and being an ex-PM he got a lot of media coverage.

  259. adrian

    According to The Guardian the cuts seem to be mostly justified and justifiable.

    Good politics, generally good for the environment.
    However good her policies, Gillard was hopeless at politics, and her policies were not going to last long if Abbott became PM.

  260. Russell

    “the Greens didn’t have the numbers to deliver legislation in the pre-2010 Senate, as you well know. Heaven knows there are plenty of real things to criticise Rudd about – why make stuff up?”

    Tim, I might not remember something accurately, that’s not the same as just making stuff up. I’ve just looked at the Senate Hansard for Nov 30, 2009 and the vote against the CPRS was 32 Ayes and 41 Noes. Among the Noes were the Green senators Brown, Milne, Ludlam, Siewert and Hanson Young. What would have happened if those five had voted with the government?

  261. Liz

    Chris, do you really not think that Rudd had a strategy to get back the PMship? You might want to argue that he had every right to do so (I’d disagree), but to deny that’s what was going on is ludicrous.

  262. Chris

    So, Rudd makes cuts to environmental programs; the Clean Technology Fund, the Biodiversity Fund and the Carbon Farming Futures Fund. The Greens are up in arms about it.

    Apparently the Clean Technology Fund reductions are being funded by lower payments to energy generators because they will be paying a lower carbon price. So no loss there. The biodiversity fund cuts certainly sound bad. Carbon Farming futures is apparently related to carbon sequestration – so what you think of that probably depends on your view of the viability of carbon soil sequestration – something that the ALP has been pretty critical of the LNP over, but probably does deserve some research dollars.

    The car FBT cuts are something I strongly support and they are almost half the savings, but suspect they are electoral poison. There are so many people out there with car leases subsidised by the tax system. And the car lobby will certainly not be happy.

    I don’t know if it’s a problem of administrative incompetence or pure political cynicism (i.e. deliberately not spending the money so they can re-announce it later on). I’m also not sure which would be worse, although I’m leaning to the latter.

    They get to announce the total allocation once, and then for each individual project. Plus they build a buffer into their budgets to find magical savings in an emergency.

  263. Chris

    Chris, do you really not think that Rudd had a strategy to get back the PMship? You might want to argue that he had every right to do so (I’d disagree), but to deny that’s what was going on is ludicrous.

    He certainly had a strategy to become again. I’d imagine there’s quite a few MPs on both sides who have similar goals. Whether or not they actually end up with a real opportunity or not is a different matter. If Gillard had managed to get half reasonable polling numbers she’d still be PM. At the core of the debate I guess is how much impact Rudd had on them. I think other factors were much larger, but pretty obviously others here disagree with me on that.

  264. Chris

    Russell @ 260 – 2008-2011 senate numbers were:

    ALP – 32
    LNP – 37
    Greens – 5
    Xenophon – 1
    Family first – 1

    As much as I like Xenophon, his position on climate change has not been great (he does not support an ETS or direct action, but some weird thing in between). Thus Rudd really needed either the support of the LNP or a double dissolution. I think Rudd made two mistakes there – he pushed Turnbull too hard – he would have been better off doing a half decent deal with a Turnbull led LNP. But instead he ended up with Abbott. And then when that failed he should have gone for the DD.

  265. FDB

    we’re well aware of how accusations of conspiracy theory-mongering makes your opponent look a bit loony, a bit tinfoil hatty

    Helen, that’s one of the reasons I haven’t used the term. Mindy was arguing against a specific conspiracy theory - that Gillard’s ambition for power drove Rudd’s overthrow – but what she’s actually been saying is that there was NO conspiracy involved in his overthrow.

    Which obviously would be somewhat loony.

  266. Pavlov's Cat

    If Gillard had managed to get half reasonable polling numbers she’d still be PM.

    And if Gillard had not been undermined and white-anted from Day 1 by Rudd in collusion with a compliant media already fuelled by its own independent hatred and fear of women or at least of women leaders, as both (she said again) Anne Summers and Kerry-Anne Walsh have demonstrated in great detail, using facts and evidence, at book-length, erm, length, Gillard would indeed probably have managed to get half reasonable polling numbers, even after three years of fighting against not one Opposition Leader but two, both fighting dirty. That is precisely what some of us are arguing.

  267. Russell

    Chris – aren’t the numbers of the actual vote on the CPRS more relevant than the numbers in each party in the Senate? Two Libs voted with the government.

  268. Chris

    Russell – I don’t think so because when its clear what the result will be parties care less about party discipline. Not everyone even bothered to turn up

  269. Tim Macknay

    Tim, I might not remember something accurately, that’s not the same as just making stuff up.

    OK, you misremembered. But given how easy it is to check these things (as you just demonstrated), it was a bit careless.

    I’ve just looked at the Senate Hansard for Nov 30, 2009 and the vote against the CPRS was 32 Ayes and 41 Noes. Among the Noes were the Green senators Brown, Milne, Ludlam, Siewert and Hanson Young. What would have happened if those five had voted with the government?

    The trouble with that fantasy scenario is that it would have required an entirely different strategy from the Government, which would have been irrational at the time.

    The overall numbers in the Senate meant that the most realistic option for getting an emissions trading scheme bill through Parliament was to seek bipartisan support for the bill. That was a perfectly reasonable position to take, because the Opposition officially favoured an emissions trading at the time.

    Doing it without the Opposition would have required getting the support of the Greens, Nick Xenophon and Steve Fielding. At the time it was generally agreed that this would be virtually impossible (in hindsight we might now say that Gillard could have done it, given her skill at stitching together a government with the support of Greens and conservative independents, but who knows? Even she might have had trouble with Fielding).

    Given that the Greens were dealt out of the game because of the numbers, they (sensibly) took the position of arguing for a stronger policy, and criticising the Government’s policy on the grounds that it was too business friendly (later, they signed up for a mildly different scheme that was just as business-friendly, but the numbers, and the politics, were quite different by that stage).

    If the Government couldn’t get Xenophon and Fielding on board, its only hope would be if not enough Opposition members showed up on the day to vote it down. That’s hardly a likely scenario.

    History shows that the Opposition didn’t need to have the requisite numbers on the day because it knew it could rely on the Greens to defeat the proposal. If the Opposition hadn’t been sure of that, it could easily have ensured enough members were present to deny the Bill a majority.

    And sure, a couple of Opposition members crossed the floor, but it’s entirely unclear that they would have done so if they hadn’t known the Greens would vote the Bill down.

    And sure, there are plenty of other speculative what-if’s, like what if Rudd had pulled the bill instead of letting it be voted down, and tried to renegotiate something with the cross benches. How long is a piece of string, etc.

    I can’t believe we’re going over this again. Aargh.

  270. Jumpy

    The last straw in 2010 election was the ” Real Julia ” presser that had nothing to do with Rudd.
    And Gillard has nothing to do with the 2013 election so all comments about her are off topic.
    What is on topic is Rudd shadowing the oppositions policies as Abbott lite.
    On boat people, on reducing the PS by natural attrition, getting rid of the CO2 tax…..
    Mining tax still up for grabs but why bother, it raises nothing anyway.
    All that’s left is to fool the public that he’s a fiscal conservative ( again ) and he’s out of ammo.
    ( my first sentence is off topic and I agree to its deletion if mods see fit )

  271. Russell

    Chis – you can see how close the numbers were (if, the Greens had supported the CPRS) when there were Libs who would cross the floor.
    It’s all conjecture because for the Greens to have supported it, it would have been a different CPRS.

    All I said in my original comment was that Rudd was unable to negotiate a CPRS with the Greens, which Tim claimed was making things up. But had Rudd been successful in doing so, who knows what impetus that united front might have had. The scheme he stubbornly stuck to wasn’t liked by most of the right, or by the Greens/environmentalists.

    Anyway, seems like ancient history now …..

    [can we have a new thread please, this one is becoming slow to load all the comments]

  272. Tim Macknay

    Hmm. I see Chris has already responded, and using far fewer words. I’ll have to think about that.

  273. paul burns

    PC,
    I’m sure if a compliant media ever has to choose between a woman Liberal leader and a male Labor leader, they’ll choose the woman.
    Give it a few weeks and I’m sure they’ll treat Rudd much the same way as they treated Gillard. Different arguments and tactics but the same purpose – to end a Labor government and replace it with an inferior Coalition government.

  274. Peter Murphy

    And if Gillard had not been undermined and white-anted from Day 1 by Rudd in collusion with a compliant media already fuelled by its own independent hatred and fear of women or at least of women leaders, as both (she said again) Anne Summers and Kerry-Anne Walsh have demonstrated in great detail, using facts and evidence, at book-length, erm, length, Gillard would indeed probably have managed to get half reasonable polling numbers, even after three years of fighting against not one Opposition Leader but two, both fighting dirty. That is precisely what some of us are arguing.

    I doubt that, Pavlov’s Cat. To be clear, I’m not 100% certain you’re wrong, but I’m about 60% sure. I base that on what my wife tells me about her friends’ opinions and also the opinions of her workmates in aged care. I know the first lot are fairly apolitical and don’t follow politics too closely. Many in both groups are from overseas, and there’s a high proportion of women in her workplace, including in management. Let’s just say that misogyny and NewsCorpse would not be high factors among the people my wife knows.

    (I’ll also add that Newman sacked a lot of people who had their elder relatives in the aged care facility, forcing them to be withdrawn. Staffing hours went down. It’s not a pro-LNP place; quite the reverse.)

    I’m afraid that the consensus is that people didn’t like Julia Gillard. They’ve never taken to her. They didn’t find her genuine. Actually, it’s almost more like unamity rather than consensus: nobody has admitted to liking her. One of the aged care nurses is from New Zealand, and liked both her female PMs, but couldn’t stand our former PM.

    My impressions are completely anecdotal, and by no means based on statistics. But there it is. My friends are a different story: politically knowledgeable and engaged. Some of them liked Julia Gillard, and almost all respected her. But I reckon their opinions would be less representative of community attitudes than those of my wife’s acquaintances and friends.

    ‘Leadershit’ made a difference, definitely. Murdoch made a difference. Misogyny made a difference. Without those factors, Gillard would probably have a greater percentage of the polls with her leading 2PP. Possibly even a two-digit percentage starting with “1″ or “2″. But few more than that. Unfortunately, there appears to be too many people who disliked her unrelated to these three reasons above.

    Am I wrong?

  275. Pavlov's Cat

    Peter Murphy at #274, I take your point absolutely and I agree that many women dislike Gillard, but I do think you may be making a very, very common mistake, which is to assume that a bias against women is a very simple matter of who has which set of bits.

    Many women are dead-set against other women in positions of power, for a start, and many women judge other women by the standards that men have traditionally set for them. (Conversely, a growing number of men do neither of these things.) And many women hold their own entire sex in the kind of contempt expressed in the phrase ‘handbag hit squad’ which, as you may remember, was coined by a female journalist. When Anne Summers defines what she calls ‘the misogyny factor’ (though I would argue that what she says here is more true of patriarchy than it is of misogyny, and also more true of sexism) she says it’s a set of beliefs and practices that’s deeply entrenched in our social structures and behaviour, and that applies to women as well as men. These things are basics of Feminism 101.

    Please don’t now assume that I am arguing that Gillard’s downfall was All About Gender, either. I agree with her, when she said in her gracious and generous concession speech (I’m paraphrasing, but this is the gist of what she said) that what had happened to her didn’t have everything to do with gender, and neither did it have nothing to do with gender. And that at least seems to be something that most people on this thread have agreed with.

  276. Pavlov's Cat

    Peter Murphy, I also have a question for you: do these women say why they “don’t like” Gillard? is it about her voice and her clothes, or about her policies, or have they drunk the ‘Ju-liar’ Kool-Aid? I presume none of them know her personally, so they are basing their judgements on what they’ve seen in the papers and on TV; if so, are they aware that they, like everyone else, have been heavily manipulated into seeing her a certain way?

  277. Charlie

    Query re: today’s ETS, terminate Carbon tax etc announcement?

    Was this policy change discussed in caucus? If so, when?
    Or discussed by a full ministry? If so, when?
    Or Cabinet, if so, when?
    Or just Kevin, Jessica and Nicholas?

    What was the structure for discussion and debate about such a change? Grass roots involvement in this decision making?

    Oh yeh.

  278. paul of albury

    So we have some evidence. What looks like a character reference from Beattie. File that under it’s the sort of thing you’d expect of Rudd (but not Gillard).

    And then there’s the conspiracy deduced from a wink and a wave. Seriously I hope you would not accept this as evidence if it was against Gillard. It may fit a narrative, the same as Grattan’s framing statements, but that isn’t evidence, as was demanded by Liz for anyone with the gall to accuse Gillard of disloyalty.

    And Rudd could have just told his supporters to stop and they would have? Just like that? roflmao. People who’ve invested themselves and their careers don’t let their champions off that easily.

    Rudd could have retired, that would have stopped his supporters. if you want to say Rudd is treacherous because he didn’t throw in his career I guess you could. But I think by the poll bounce there’s over a million people out there would consider that a betrayal too. Of course they may all be driven by sexism, and Rudd may yet disappoint them too.

    I’m not saying Rudd did not undermine Gillard. But I still haven’t seen any evidence that supports it. it’s quite plausible, but that’s the point of truthiness. And I think Rudd is held to a different standard than Gillard.

    It does seem, on the plausible narrative side, that Rudd may have greater loyalty to his supporters than to the Labor party. This may be what makes him successful but means he may not fall on his sword for the good of the party organisation.

  279. David Irving (no relation)

    Probably focus groups, Charlie.

    Fuck me dead! I know Abbott Must Never Be Prime Minister, but Rudd’s making it really difficult to give the ALP any higher than about 3rd or 4th preference (depending on the card on the day, of course).

  280. FDB

    do these women say why they “don’t like” Gillard? is it about her voice and her clothes, or about her policies, or have they drunk the ‘Ju-liar’ Kool-Aid?

    PC – I think that when someone, male or female, “doesn’t like” a female leader, they are (sometimes unfairly) assumed to be against women in positions of power in certain circles.

    It can be very difficult for someone in this situation to exhonerate themselves, and if they try it can look like they protesteth too much, whereas they might merely be stepping on a procession of carefully placed rakes.

    Then again, there are plenty of misogynists and patriarchy enablers who can’t admit or even see that that’s what they are.

  281. FDB

    Charlie, you fell for Rudd’s trick.

    The grass roots get to vote on who leads the party, and then all bets are off.

  282. Liz

    Peter Murphy, I think there’s many factors come into play. One of these is geography. George Megalogenis has pointed out that the further south you travel down the east coast the better Labor did, in the 2010 election. In fact Labor got 53% of the 2pp in Victoria. So, certainly the ordinary Victorian punter liked Gillard in 2010. If they’d performed as well in the rest of Oz, it would have been a landslide. Parochialism may come into play here, with Gillard being a Melbourne girl. Rhere’s also evidence that Victoria is probably more progressive in its politics than places further north.

    In 2013, we see large swings to Labor, post Gillard. Except in Victoria. The Neilson poll has the two parties 50/50. So, Labor’s vote certainly dropped here the last couple of months. But there has been zero swing back to Labor, now Rudd has taken over. This maybe because the vote was already higher than in other States. It maybe because people aren’t nearly so enamoured of Rudd here. I don’t know that his twee country vicar persona goes down so well. I don’t know anyone who likes him. But, my friends are hardly a representative sample.

  283. Liz

    Charlie!!! He’s changed. Get with the narrative.

  284. Jumpy

    Rudds FBT on cars “ savings ” does what to the car manufacturers they spend billions to prop up.
    Another Rudd of the cuff fucup.
    Kev Kardshian needs Therese Moneybags to tutor him. Tax deductible of course.

  285. mindy

    @Paul Burns – I have heard that staffers have been pulling all nighters again at Rudd’s request. I haven’t heard anything else yet. So it may be nothing. We will see.

  286. Chris

    Charlie – IIRC the idea was floated publicly by Doug Cameron just after Rudd became PM again. At the time there were some people here criticising Rudd for spending time reviewing the budget saying it was a waste of time. But it’s clear now why he wanted to get a better grasp of where they could find some more money.

    Liz – being her home state you’d expect Gillard to be more popular in Victoria. And given her childhood some extra support in SA as well.

  287. Liz

    Gees Chris, did you read what I wrote? I already said that! But, it doesn’t mean it’s necessarily the only reason. I’ve read other qualitative surveys that suggest that Bictoria is more progressive in its politics.

  288. faustusnotes

    Interesting point, Charlie.

    I remember now in his first QT after regaining the poisoned chalice leadership, Rudd waffled on about how many briefings he was going to read on the weekend before he made some decisions. I think he was brandishing his love of briefings about as proof that he is a serious policy thinker. I found myself wondering how on earth he was going to properly assess the contents of those briefings if he was going to read them all in two days (with time for church of course).

    Back to his old tricks already?

  289. Pavlov's Cat

    I’d still like to know what the pro-Rudd people at this blog think of his current stance on carbon and asylum seekers after having been outraged by Gillard’s ‘lurch to the right’. Haven’t seen that much in the way of answers yet.

  290. Bernice

    As this seems to be doing the rounds as a FB meme, I suspect many of you will have come across this particularly interesting piece of education policy from the Libs. But don’t go looking for it in the ed policy docs on their website as most of them are still PDFs from 2010.

    No, this little snippet appears on page 40 of the PDF Real Solutions for all Australians, released by the Libs in January and available in all of its non-compressed glory from their website, as Our Plan. (though they seem to have left off the bit about world domination)

    And the offending quote?

    We will work with the States and Territories to encourage State schools to choose to become independent schools, providing simpler budgeting and resources allocation and more autonomy in decision making.

    I can’t locate any responses to this statement of intent. Doesn’t anyone find this at least mildly appalling? Their response to the Gonski reforms should I suppose leave us in no doubt as to their overall philosophical bent re education but to turn public schools into independent schools? FFS.

  291. Chris

    I’d still like to know what the pro-Rudd people at this blog think of his current stance on carbon and asylum seekers after having been outraged by Gillard’s ‘lurch to the right’. Haven’t seen that much in the way of answers yet.

    Actually a few people have commented on the change in policy on carbon emissions here. The cuts to the FBT exemptions for leased and company vehicles is a big improvement not just on environmental grounds, but also equity grounds. The ACF and WWF have publicly supported the early move to an ETS even though there is a temporary drop in the price of carbon and despite the cuts to environment programs (though of course they’d prefer they didn’t happen). And Garnaut has said that with the ETS scheme it is highly probably that Australia will meet its stated emission targets. Do you think they’re just saying that because they’re Rudd supporters?

  292. Martin B

    The policy is based on the WA ‘independent public schools’ model, also being taken up in Qld. It doesn’t mean privatizing schools – they remain part of the public system (and really the Federal government has no mechanism for doing so).

    That’s not to say it’s a good idea, but people are over-reading it slightly.

  293. zorronsky

    Bernice that’s straight from dimsim Tim from the IPA

  294. Bernice

    Thanks Martin B for the info but I don’t think being appalled by the notion of different models for the delivery of publicly funded education is ‘over-reading’. Frankly, if the current model is adversely affecting outcomes for the students – the end-client after all – then all schools should be involved in processes of change, not those that “choose to do so”.

    And I don’t think it’s accurate to state that “really the Federal government has no mechanism for doing so”. Funding models provide exactly that ability; hence the Coalition’s refusal to support the Gonski reforms.

  295. Brian

    Bernice @ 290, Robert Merkel noticed and did a post.

  296. Russell

    Bernice – Robert did a post on this recently

  297. Martin B

    Bernice: a lot of people are suggesting that the Libs want to literally privatize public schools. As awful as it is, that is not what the policy is aimed at doing.

  298. akn

    PC @ 276:

    I presume none of them know her personally, so they are basing their judgements on what they’ve seen in the papers and on TV; if so, are they aware that they, like everyone else, have been heavily manipulated into seeing her a certain way?

    But, but, surely you’re not saying that women who didn’t like Gillard as PM were suffering from false consciousness?

    Like looking at things as if looking at a pencil inserted in a glass of water? Or through a camera obscura?

    Everything old is new again.

  299. Bernice

    First rule of internet politics – check to see if someone has already been outraged on Larvatus Prodeo. Thanks for the links to the piece.

  300. Pavlov's Cat

    Everything old is new again.

    Some things are just true. For instance, “I don’t need to see you wearing a blue tie to know that you are a pompous git.”

  301. Peter Murphy

    Peter Murphy, I also have a question for you: do these women say why they “don’t like” Gillard? is it about her voice and her clothes, or about her policies, or have they drunk the ‘Ju-liar’ Kool-Aid? I presume none of them know her personally, so they are basing their judgements on what they’ve seen in the papers and on TV; if so, are they aware that they, like everyone else, have been heavily manipulated into seeing her a certain way?

    Pavlov’s Cat: in general, these women (plus a man or two among my wife’s workmates and friends) don’t explain why they don’t like Gillard. None say her nose, none say her clothes, and there’s been no ‘Ju-liar’ nonsense either. There’s no hatred or disgust, as far as I can see. They just don’t like her. My wife thought she was not so much dishonest but more contrived in manner.

    The topic came up on Ruddstoration night. My wife had some friends over for dinner that night. I asked them what they thought of Gillard. None of them liked her, but they couldn’t even explain why (and were half-embarrassed at being tongue tied). But one could tell by the shaking of heads and facial expressions that they weren’t exactly fans.

    I’m not certain if I accept your premise that they “have been heavily manipulated into seeing her a certain way”. What if they don’t read newspapers or watch TV either? Many of my wife’s workmates (and nearly all of her friends) are an English-as-a-second-language-speaker, and are more likely to turn to the Internet than the tabloids or talkback. I guess they’ve just encountered enough clips and photos along the way to make up their mind about our former PM.

  302. alfred venison

    ah akn, “false consciousness”, just what i thought. you old existentialist you. -a.v.

  303. alfred venison

    actually with the existentialists its “bad faith” as you probably know akn, but either way the subject is said to be living a lie and believing it. but anyway bully for you for getting there and making the point. -a.v.

  304. Patrickb

    I think the feminist outrage is reaching “Stan that is called Lorretta” levels. Rudd is the best chance to beat Abbott that’s the important thing. There’s no malice against Gillard, just her govts policies as there will be against Rudd’s and Abbott’s. Gillard’s big mistake was listening to the initial coup backers and agreeing to take out Rudd before he was re-elected. We all make mistakes.

  305. Patrickb

    @214 of the 4 ALP leaders named only one was sitting PM. That’s hardly an argument from similar facts. Fairly weak.

  306. Charlie

    Chris @291.
    “The cuts to the FBT exemptions for leased and company vehicles is a big improvement “.
    As of tomorrow, sorry, make that today – there will be a complete hiatus in anyone buying a vehicle. A complete question about salary sacrifice (nurses, teachers, workers with novated leases etc). I’m not sure how that is such a big improvement. There was no discussion about this change. And it was implemented immediately! Is this policy? Okay, forget about that. The nature of the announcement smacks of MRRT MarkII.

    Now that may please some, but it is quite likely that by EOM people may well be losing their jobs because of this completely unforshadowed “improvement”. Glad I didn’t just take out a mortgage.

    Moving on to State of Origin. Has he only been there since the last game. I was watching the politics on telly and getting texts from Qldrs about the game, so at least I wasn’t worried about that.

    But yes Liz, he’s changed. I will take myself to the river now.

  307. Charlie

    Actually thinking election dates, given today’s announcements, it would seem unlikely that parliament will sit again before the election.

  308. Chris

    Charlie – I doubt there are many teachers or nurses out there on a salary high enough for a novated lease to be worthwhile. I did the calculations myself not long ago.

    Work related tax deductions should be for just work related expenses. The FBT discount for private car use has been a tax minimising tool for high income earners and a hidden subsidy for the car industry – both local and overseas.

  309. Pavlov's Cat

    @214 of the 4 ALP leaders named only one was sitting PM. That’s hardly an argument from similar facts. Fairly weak.

    If you’d bothered to read the actual conversation instead of making puerile jokes about feminism (so much for Gillard’s optimistic parting call to think about these things in sophisticated shades of grey), you would have seen that it was specifically about ‘taking one for the team’. All of the four-named, plus Gillard most of all, accepted their fate, without making trouble (no, I lie, Latham made a lot of trouble — three then), for the good of the party, rather than being prepared to utterly destroy the party for the sake of personal revenge.

  310. Chris

    Charlie – just to add to my previous comment – I think it’s pretty silly that we effectively give people a tax deduction for their car, but won’t allow them to do so for public transport. And because of this its not only a financially good change but an environmentally good one.

  311. Brian

    I’ll have to give it away now, but I should have a new post up on the emissions trading move by mid-morning.

  312. David Irving (no relation)

    Re novated leases for cars, I know several people who have them. I don’t think any of them have an Australian-built car, so I doubt if it’s ever been much of a boost to the local industry. (Yeah, yeah, anecdata.)

    It’s also only worth doing, AIUI, if you’re earning over $100K, so that exclude most of the population. Getting rid of it is a step in the right direction, as it’s basically most of us subsidising a few people who are already quite well-paid, and want to own an exotic foreign car.

  313. Mindy

    Salary sacrificing vehicles was a option that was available to staff in a private sector charity I used to work for. The idea was that you could boost your reasonably low income by paying for things, legally, from your pre-tax income. This new tax will affect those people too as well as the high flyers. When I was still teaching teacher were offered salary sacrifice options for vehicles so there may be some teachers too who will be hit by this. This smacks of the old policy on the run shit that Rudd did before.

  314. Ronson Dalby

    I would like to know how the charity managed that Mindy @313 because, as David Irving said in the comment above your, you have to be earning above $100k to make it work.

    Perhaps the charity got some extra dispensation from the ATO?

  315. adrian

    We recently did the sums and as a result of changes Gillard brought in it was not really worth if you are on 80k or below.
    It was always about middle class welfare and couldn’t be justified on environmental or equity grounds, so good work there Rudd and Bowen.

  316. Chris

    Ronson @ 314 – the exact rules may have changed in the last few years but some charities, especially in health are able to get a general exemption from FBT (up to a certain amount) for their employees. At least at the time when I knew someone who had access to the scheme they could pay off a certain amount each month pre tax for pretty much anything – eg mortgage, car payment, credit card. It’s basically a way for the federal government to increase take home salaries in the health sector without increasing payroll costs for the states.

    It’s a different FBT exemption from the one that Rudd is proposing to change. That one you do need to be on a high marginal rate otherwise you don’t save any money.

  317. Ronson Dalby

    That explains it, Chris. Thank you.

  318. Chris

    adrian @ 315 – yea the FBT exemption for cars has long been very hard to justify on both financial and environmental grounds. When Howard raised all of the marginal tax thresholds it meant that it was only worthwhile to do on higher incomes.

    One bit which has been made better in the last few years is the tax advantage used to be much higher the more kms you drove each year, regardless of whether they were done for work or not. I know people who used to complain about having to do very very long drives just before the end of the financial year in order to get the tax benefit ;-) However, maintenance and especially fuel can still be paid pre-tax so it totally changes the equation for people when deciding for example to use public transport or their car to work. One gets them a tax deduction, the other doesn’t.

    Its definitely an example of Rudd taking on a big lobby group again though, who not surprisingly are already complaining loudly. I’d love this change to get through – though I think its unlikely because of the protests from the car lobby groups and the ALP have to actually get re-elected which I still don’t see happening.

  319. wantok

    Abbott’s silly comments on an ‘invisible gas’ were not, as you may imagine, his own; he cheated them from the UK daily Telegraph:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/16/tony-abbott-climate-change-denial

  320. Bernice

    The immediate response from automative industry is to be expected but doesn’t really stack up to scrutiny:

    1. As the collapse in Aust made cars sales over the last 10 years has shown, the majority of people aren’t leasing Aust. made cars
    2. Most car brands in Aust, regardless of place of manufacture, make most of their profit in after-sales servicing and parts provisioning, not on the initial sale of a new vehicle. So it is reasonable to assume that an increase in the age of vehicles held will in fact direct more revenue into Aust based servicing providers.
    3. After-sales servicing of vehicles sees a larger proportion of revenue stay on-shore than occurs with new vehicle purchases. More jobs, more tax revenue.
    4. And if the car brands had something other than rocks in their heads, they’d be arguing that fleet replacement reduces greenhouse gas emissions and should be supported by a continuance of the existing arrangements. Which is spurious given the small proportion of the Aust car fleet this applies to, but rocks are themz.

  321. mindy

    Thanks Chris, that is exactly how it worked. Glad that those people won’t be affected by this.

  322. Brian
  323. Nick

    Abbott has commented today that he’s more of a Queenslander than Rudd. I guess this means he’s decided he can just LOLlercopter his way into the Lodge.

  324. Nick

    Excuse me, I meant “ROTFLcopter”. He’s been on LOLlerskates for some time now.

  325. Helen

    Ich bin ein Queenslander…

    …We are all Queenslanders now…

  326. hannah's dad

    Rumours of ructions within the reactionaries.
    Nasty internal polling, Hockey and Turnbull whispering loudly.

  327. David Irving (no relation)

    No, I am a Queenslander.

    This is fun!

  328. Martin B

    I’m a Queenslander, and so is my wife.

  329. faustusnotes

    hannah’s dad, more info please.

    re: tax deductions on cars, over here in sunny Tokyo employers pay for your monthly travel expenses on top of your salary. Some also give you a rent subsidy (my employer gives both of these but the rent subsidy is really piss-poor). If you’re clever you tell the employer that you catch a bus to the railway station, then ride your bike every day and pocket the difference. I think these payments are untaxed, or taxed differently, or don’t count towards your overall social insurnce contributions, or something, so they’re a kind of salary packaging, and they can make a fairly sizable contribution to your salary – I think mine is about $300 a month, and my employer has a terrible rental subsidy.

    I think it would be a really really good idea if Australia introduced some sort of salary packaging for public transport expenses, rather than doing it for cars. Or better still if employers started offering this perk routinely. It really works well over here.

  330. paul burns

    Karl Stefanovic (Channel 9) stormed off camera this morning when he was outed as being born in Darlinghurst NSW. Will Tony Abbott do the same?

  331. Liz

    ‘Feminist outrage’, patrickb.

    It’s always grimly amusing when someone who, I imagine, thinks of themselves as progressive reveals themselves not to be, when faced with uncomfortable politics.

    How dare women have an opinion! (Especially if it differs from yours).

  332. hannah's dad

    faustusnotes
    C’mon mate – you know sources are meant to be anonymous and confidential to protect the guilty.

  333. hannah's dad

    Addition to 332

    Its funny, I’m reasonably well known, by sight at least, in my district, there’s not that many people in it. I’ve organized
    ‘meet the greens candidates’ meetings [one was 'the biggest political meeting in the town ever' according to the venue manager], I’m involved in 2 greeny type local groups, I/we hand out HTVs for the Greens at the main booth every election with me in a Greens T-shirt and I self identify as a tree huggin’ greeny type when I meet people.

    And yet local COALition insider worthies still gossip to me when I’m in the butcher shop or walking, with dogs, down the main drag when I’m doing the weekly shopping.
    Weird.

    Incidentally it seems Dorothy at the loon pond may have caught a whiff.

    “And if Malcolm Turnbull got the nod, who knows what might happen (and just why did big Mal duck away from a public gathering last night for an urgent meeting of his faction, even if they don’t have factions in the Liberal party? Could the faceless men be up to something?)”

  334. Liz

    Lachlan Harris (ex Rudd staffer) has sent some interesting tweets. To paraphrase; in 2007 the campaign strategy was about “change the PM, without changing the government. In 2013, it’s change the government, without changing the PM”.

  335. paul burns

    Hockey seemed very rattled and pissed off when interviewed by Fran Kelly on ABCTV/RN this morning. I couldn’t help watching with a certain morbid fascination. Normally if a Lib (or Gillard) came on, I’d just flip channels.

  336. Pavlov's Cat

    Andrew Elder. Perhaps this book will be less lightly dismissed by the keyboard warriors now that someone called Andrew has endorsed it, although I do know that in some circles it’s always been a fashion statement to slag a book you haven’t read.

  337. Helen Davidson

    I think it would be a really really good idea if Australia introduced some sort of salary packaging for public transport expenses, rather than doing it for cars. Or better still if employers started offering this perk routinely.

    Don’t know if it still happens, but about 15 years ago my employer in Sydney (large bank) would provide an interest free loan to buy a yearly rail ticket, then deduct payments from your salary over the year. My ticket cost about $1200, which I repaid around $25 per week – much cheaper than the weekly ticket price of around $40 at the time.

    Would be a great idea if all big city employers did this.

  338. Liz

    Yes, Dr Pav. Example after example of Rudd’s colleagues back grounding journos about his re-election strategy, whilst Rudd publicly lied through his teeth about his intentions. Plausible deniability, indeed.

  339. Helen

    My employer does this, Helen D.

    Back when I moved to a 48/52 mode of working (yes it really is a good employer!) I went to Excel to work out whether it would still be worth my while, given I don’t take PT every day when on leave. Still cheaper than buying tickets!

  340. faustusnotes

    Helen Davidson, that’s a tiny benefit. What would be better is if the whole thing was paid by the employer. And I don’t think the deductions come from pre-tax income do they? Though obviously it’s better if they do.

  341. Moz of Yaramulla

    Helen @325:

    Ich bin ein Queenslander…

    you’re a bungalow on stilts?

    Karl@329: which is all very well, but my commuting bicycle seems to be right off the radar. My partner can claim a certain amount of their PT as work-related (work from home has its perks), but again, not on yer bike.

    I would like to see the whole commuter subsidy thing looked at from a more unified social engineering point of view. What do we want people to do, and what should we do to encourage them? The “you should drive as far as possible” message seems poorly thought through.

    BTW, I was briefly eligable for the “charieties don’t pay FBT” thing and it was generous as far as it went, done correctly you could drop your effective tax rate quite a lot. From 25% to 10% or so… which does not go anywhere near to making up for a salary that attracts only a 25% tax rate. I did as well out of the salary sacrifice into super scam until they changed the rules on that.

  342. Russell

    “What do we want people to do, and what should we do to encourage them?”

    Might it be a good idea, before you address those questions, to ask what people want to do, and why?

  343. Liz

    And here’s the view who saw Rudd’s first stint up front, as a political lobbyist in Canberra. I don’t agree with every view she puts forward, it’s an interesting read.

    http://dragonistasblog.com/2013/07/09/kevin-fool-me-once-shame-on-you-fool-me-twice-shame-on-me-2/

  344. adrian

    Liz, what is the point in going over this again and again? I could just as easily copy a link to an article in the SMH from an ex Rudd staffer saying what a great guy he is.

    But what’s the point?

  345. Moz of Yaramulla

    Russell@342: I don’t think that’s one of the options. Government will definitely do something that will affect people’s behaviour. Even if that is the libertarian “get out of the way”. Cutting PT subsidies, cutting road subsidies, fiddling with car subsidies, you can guarantee they will do something. Probably several somethings all at the same time without actually studying the situation before or after, because government is not about real effects so much as polling number effects.

  346. Chris

    Helen Davidson, that’s a tiny benefit. What would be better is if the whole thing was paid by the employer. And I don’t think the deductions come from pre-tax income do they? Though obviously it’s better if they do.

    Why should the government subsidise transport through the income tax system anyway? Wouldn’t it be better to instead spend the money on direct subsidies to public transport or improving it?

    Karl@329: which is all very well, but my commuting bicycle seems to be right off the radar. My partner can claim a certain amount of their PT as work-related (work from home has its perks), but again, not on yer bike.

    So a work colleague looked into it and IIRC technically it appears you can lease a bicycle and get FBT concessions for it. It’d have to be a very expensive bicycle in order for it to be worth it though!

    BTW, I was briefly eligable for the “charieties don’t pay FBT” thing and it was generous as far as it went, done correctly you could drop your effective tax rate quite a lot. From 25% to 10% or so… which does not go anywhere near to making up for a salary that attracts only a 25% tax rate.

    Its not only lower income earners who qualify for it though. Its also used to boost incomes of doctors working in the public system.

  347. adrian

    Andrew Elder. Perhaps this book will be less lightly dismissed by the keyboard warriors now that someone called Andrew has endorsed it, although I do know that in some circles it’s always been a fashion statement to slag a book you haven’t read.

    Unnecessarily snarky. Presumably you don’t see yourself as a keyboard warrior, as its usually a pejorative term.

    I wonder, if not, why not?

    Also, please give an indication of where anyone on LP has ‘slagged’ a book that they haven’t read, assuming that LP comes under your definition of ‘some circles’.

  348. adrian

    Lord please forgive the apostrophe error…

  349. paul burns

    Can we please have a special Rudd v. Gillard stoush thread, for the keyboard warriors, because its getting a bit repetitive on both sides, and more significantly makes comments not connected with the Rudd v. Gillard stoush a little hard to follow on this thread.

  350. Liz

    Adrian, perhaps you could tell me the benefit of not going on about it?

    I read the SMH article. Where it lost all credibility is where he wrote, from memory, that Rudd only ever thought about other people and didn’t think about himself at all. No-one is that saint like.

  351. adrian

    I agree that it’s a pretty good review BTW.

  352. adrian

    ‘Adrian, perhaps you could tell me the benefit of not going on about it?’

    Sanity?

    I read the SMH article. Where it lost all credibility is where he wrote, from memory, that Rudd only ever thought about other people and didn’t think about himself at all. No-one is that saint like.

    You mean you didn’t find it credible? Now that’s a surprise.

  353. Liz

    Adrian, do you think anyone is that saint like?

  354. adrian

    I don’t think the article portrayed him as ‘saint like’.

    By the same token, no-one is quite as much of an unmitigated bastard as Rudd is sometimes portrayed.

    But I need to preserve my few remaining vestiges of sanity.

  355. tigtog

    paul burns: Can we please have a special Rudd v. Gillard stoush thread, for the keyboard warriors, because its getting a bit repetitive on both sides, and more significantly makes comments not connected with the Rudd v. Gillard stoush a little hard to follow on this thread.

    Paul, this is exactly the sort of stuff that should be happening in the Overflow thread, agreed – thats what it’s there for.

    Rudd vs Gillard is not directly on topic for this thread concerning the upcoming election unless one is quoting an actual electioneering soundbite or an op-ed holding forth directly about electioneering. All other post-morteming should be taken to Overflow from this point onwards, mmkay?

  356. Peter Murphy

    I’m more of a Queenslander than Tony Abbott, and I was born in Ottawa.

    But if he’s so big about the state, someone should ask him who he barracks for in the State of Origin tonight. I don’t really care about League, but my default is to go for the Maroons. Can he even say the same?

  357. Luxxe

    Peter@356 surely he was riffing on the “ich bin ein Berliner” meme rather than expecting to be taken seriously!

  358. Luxxe
  359. paul burns

    Well, this going to make for some interesting politics on the FBT changes after the election should Labor win.
    I get the impression Xenophon is the sort of guy who will die in a ditch for his principles. Or the SA car industry.
    http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/07/17/15/04/xenophon-criticises-car-tax-changes

    A different topic – a day or two and the rug gets pulled from Abbott on asylum seeker panics. That, I can hardly wait for. Not that I expect over much to get through the SEnate if Labor wins the H of R. The Libs will be so pissed off they be not just obstructionist, but insanely obstructionist – unless led by Turnbull.
    One aspect I do find very worrying is Rudd’s proposal to renegotiate the international Refugee Agreement. I’m well aware there are differences in the type of refugee common nowadays to the refugees common in the immediate post WWII era, but a new international refugee policy negotiated in a climate of fear, racism and religious intolerance can only be far less humane that what we have now. (yeah, I know. I’m just being a paranoid lefty. Trouble with paranoid lefties is that time almost always proves them to have been right.)

  360. Luxxe

    Something to put our refugee “problem” in perspective came up on local radio this afternoon. Jordan has a refugee population the equivalent of 10 per cent of Jordan’s entire population that has arrived from Syria in the last year, which was illustrated by the ABC announcer as the equivalent of the entire population of New Zealand arriving on our shores without notice, seeking asylum. And Jordan has not closed its borders.

  361. GregM

    which was illustrated by the ABC announcer as the equivalent of the entire population of New Zealand arriving on our shores without notice, seeking asylum.

    Nooooooo! Not that!

  362. Jacques de Molay

    Speaking of Xenophon watching a bit of him on Kitchen Cabinet last night I found it pretty weird that no one (in political circles I assume) has ever been to his house.

    It’s weird because Annabel Crabb usually shares a meal with the guest pollie at their place but he insisted the meal be prepared in his display like kitchen in his office and then cooked & eaten at a greek restaurant in Adelaide.

    When pressed by her he tried to get around it then said he lives alone and his place is pretty messy. Very strange. There has always been something I’ve found a bit funny about Xenophon but have never quite been able to put my finger on it.

  363. Ronson Dalby

    “There has always been something I’ve found a bit funny about Xenophon but have never quite been able to put my finger on it.”

    The more I see of him, Jacques, the louder my gaydar pings.

  364. paul burns

    True, Luxxe, but there’s this thing in white Australia’s psyche, which goes back to Governor King, and maybe even Phillip, depending on how one reads La Perouse, that we are under threat of Invasion from “the North”, whether its the French, Russians, Chinese, Germans, Japanese, post war refugees, Malayan Communists, Indonesians, Vietnamese, the Middle East, Sri Lanka etc etc. The fact that it is bullshit, and with the arguable exception of the Japanese during WWII, doesn’t mean that deep down in our bones we believe it fervently, and we transfer that fear holus-bolus to new migrants, including those who have come as refugees themselves. That’s the fear Abbott exploits, and because he’s an educated man who in between being a jock and having his brains bashed out at Oxford, read history, so far as I’m aware, he knows exactly what he’s doing. That’s what Rudd has to contend with, and what Gillard had to contend with. Its why we used to have the common sense, until that racist little shit Howard, to have a bipartisan immigration policy mostly.

  365. Chris

    Jacques – maybe its because of his giant statue of Zeus :-) Or perhaps just a rule he has to protect his privacy?

  366. David Irving (no relation)

    moz, up a ways, it’s better to be a house on stilts than a sticky bun.