PDA

View Full Version : Rudd's Going Down



Basil
05-06-2010, 09:18 AM
Three years ago, I started this (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=6742) thread. The 'Rudd's Going Down' thread is the corollary.

If I were in Rudd's shoes, I wouldn't want to be waking up with this (http://www.news.com.au/national/queensland-turns-against-kevin-rudd-over-mining-tax/story-e6frfkvr-1225875742696).
Soundbytes include:


A Galaxy Poll - conducted exclusively for The Courier-Mail - warns that, if an election were held today, Mr Rudd would lose in his own backyard.

On the crucial two-party preferred vote, the poll has Labor in Queensland on 48 per cent to the Coalition's 52 per cent.

It also revealed Mr Rudd is in a virtual dead heat as preferred prime minister with Tony Abbott, and that Labor now trails the Coalition on the question of who would be the better economic manager.

The poll revealed Labor's primary vote had dropped four points since February, to just 35 per cent, compared to 42.9 per cent at the federal election.

If preferences were allocated as per the last election, Labor would lose 2.4 per cent off its two-party preferred vote.

Mr Rudd's personal brand also took a hit.

Only 39 per cent of voters now think Mr Rudd is in touch with everyday issues, a staggering fall of seven points in the past four months.

Only one person in three now supports Labor on a primary vote. This, to my biased, twisted but otherwise excellent mind is appropriate, given that once one removes

a) children aged between 18-24,
b) lily-whites who couldn't find their commercial ares-olhes with a mirror and stick, and
c) those with an IQ in double digits;
Labor is left with a couple of dearly-loved archaic old-school true believers and nothing more. And that's pretty well all Brand Laba ever deserves, on its merits. Oh - and that stupid tree of knowledge, of course.

Basil
05-06-2010, 09:21 AM
At this stage of the game, I reckon the incumbent might scrape its backside over the line, but who knows? Is Rudd's time as PM finished (dead man walking) or are we looking at Lazarus with triple bypass mark II?

Rincewind
05-06-2010, 11:23 AM
At this stage of the game, I reckon the incumbent might scrape its backside over the line, but who knows? Is Rudd's time as PM finished (dead man walking) or are we looking at Lazarus with triple bypass mark II?

Personally I still can't see him losing at this stage but there is a lot that can happen between now and whenever the election is called. However, on balance I think the Labor team is more cohesive and professional than the coalition at the moment so if there was going to be a stuff up it would probably come from the opposition.

Garvinator
05-06-2010, 03:10 PM
On the crucial two-party preferred vote, the poll has Labor in Queensland on 48 per cent to the Coalition's 52 per cent.
That 48 per cent is also very shaky because it is based on about an 80 percent greens preference vote from 2007, which after Rudd dumped the ETS means that green voters may not preference Labor in such numbers, meaning it could be about 46 or so, instead of 48.

Of course the easiest way to get rid of Rudd is to have him voted out of Griffith. :lol:

Kevin Bonham
05-06-2010, 04:51 PM
A number of points on this poll.

1. The projected Queensland 2PP swing is only 2.4 points since the election. Queensland was 50.4:49.6 last election. Assuming a uniform swing of 2.4% only two Queensland Labor seats are lost and another is lineball. Granted, the swing is not likely to be uniform and seats outside the 2.4% like Leichhardt could go (and having just been there I reckon it will!) but it is also notable that with a non-uniform swing Labor is in the hunt for Coalition seats like Dickson (notionally Labor 51-49 following redistribution) and Ryan (Coalition 51-49 but just a teensy problem with the sitting member). So the indicated swing is no big deal.

2. The sample size is 800 voters. The margin of error is 3.4%. The poll does not even establish that there is a swing against the ALP in Queensland at all.

3. Garvinator's point about the possibility that Greens voters will probably not preference the ALP so strongly as last time is well made. However, the counter-point is that many of those claiming they will vote Green at the moment are actually disenchanted Labor voters parking their vote with the third party when they talk to the pollster. The Greens polled 5.6% at the last election in Queensland. According to this poll they are supposed to be polling 13 now. Does anyone really believe the Green vote in Queensland will jump to 13%? The problem of overcooking the Green primary vote is a rampant one in Australian opinion polling and this 13 looks overcooked as hell to me. 8 or 9 of it is real, the rest are Labor voters, and so real Greens voters preferencing Labor less strongly is cancelled out by 4 or 5 points of that "Greens" vote being Labor voters who will not only preference Labor but vote 1 Labor. As such the real Labor primary is probably 39 or 40.

4. There is usually a swing back to incumbent governments of a few points during the campaign compared with pre-campaign polling.

The write-up is a beat-up. Rudd waking up and seeing this would probably see that it was useful because it allowed him to make every politician's favourite this-election-will-be-very-tight and we-are-the-underdogs-here noises. The polling has to get a lot worse before there is serious danger - the danger being though that if it should get much worse in the next couple of months, it will be a tough task to recover in time.

At the moment I find it very hard to credit that Rudd is in great danger given that his polling record over his first term is better than Hawke's and Howard's and given that his opponent has a negative net approval rating. A combination of deliberate Coalition strategy and Labor overmanagement has created a situation where the voters are quite disenchanted with both parties but that is not a circumstance in which oppositions conventionally triumph.

Basil
05-06-2010, 07:17 PM
A number of points on this poll...
As is usual, I am better informed for having read your assessment on the numbers.


The write-up is a beat-up.
On this I'm not convinced.


At the moment I find it very hard to credit that Rudd is in great danger given that his polling record over his first term is better than Hawke's and Howard's ...
At this moment none of us has a clue, however Rudd's biggest problem ATM, and it is unique (in its breathtaking degree), is M.O.M.E.N.T.U.M., unless one wishes to posit that the record dumping of approval has ceased.

Kevin Bonham
05-06-2010, 07:48 PM
At this moment none of us has a clue, however Rudd's biggest problem ATM, and it is unique (in its breathtaking degree), is M.O.M.E.N.T.U.M., unless one wishes to posit that the record dumping of approval has ceased.

I think there is some evidence suggesting that the 2PP slide has now bottomed out at around or slightly better than 50-50 average for Labor nationwide as measured by reliable pollsters. However, this is only the evidence of polls over the last month and another month is needed to establish if the slide has really halted.

Garvinator
05-06-2010, 08:28 PM
At this moment none of us has a clue, however Rudd's biggest problem ATM, and it is unique (in its breathtaking degree), is M.O.M.E.N.T.U.M., unless one wishes to posit that the record dumping of approval has ceased.His momentum is in dumping policies :lol:

Goughfather
06-06-2010, 01:19 AM
I always thought that Queensland was going to be problematic for the ALP, even before the obfuscation of the mining companies. The primary reason for this was my belief that the ALP had overperformed in the state last election and could only go down from their 2007 election numbers.

I think the thing that Howie overlooks is that the biggest asset the ALP has at the moment is Tony Abbott. The polling seems to be as good for the Coalition as it is at the moment because Abbott hasn't had that much of a chance to strut his stuff on the national stage. It seems that his minders have kept him fairly well hidden at the moment (with a couple of notable exceptions), but this won't be possible during a six-week election campaign. Six weeks of Tony Abbott effectively campaigning for the ALP is certainly a prospect to relish.

Capablanca-Fan
06-06-2010, 01:33 AM
I always thought that Queensland was going to be problematic for the ALP, even before the obfuscation of the mining companies.
Typical of leftards to whinge when people rightly object to government confiscation of more of their hard-earned wealth to fund more of its reckless spending. And it's not just the miners, but the sharemarket and Aussie dollar that are suffering because of this government greed.


I think the thing that Howie overlooks is that the biggest asset the ALP has at the moment is Tony Abbott. The polling seems to be as good for the Coalition as it is at the moment because Abbott hasn't had that much of a chance to strut his stuff on the national stage. It seems that his minders have kept him fairly well hidden at the moment (with a couple of notable exceptions), but this won't be possible during a six-week election campaign. Six weeks of Tony Abbott effectively campaigning for the ALP is certainly a prospect to relish.
Unfortunately, judging by his stupid idea to tax our best businesses more to fund a paid maternity scheme (except for stay-at-home-mums), and his other silliness like claiming that they should have supported the Kyoto farce and the Sorry Day fraud, you might well be right. But if he consults first and continues to oppose Labor moronicity like the Enormous Tax Scam (unlike Talkbull), he could do well.

Basil
06-06-2010, 11:22 AM
I always thought that Queensland was going to be problematic for the ALP, even before the obfuscation of the mining companies.
And now given that Rudd is exposed as a blundering, arrogant, toss, it can only get worse!

The primary reason for this was my belief that the ALP had overperformed in the state last election and could only go down from their 2007 election numbers.
I don't recall anyone with leftist sympathies giving this up at any time over the last three years.


Six weeks of Tony Abbott effectively campaigning for the ALP is certainly a prospect to relish.
I look forward to your commentary on Rudd - in the 'Rudd's Going Down' thread. When you're ready.

Oepty
06-06-2010, 12:10 PM
1. The projected Queensland 2PP swing is only 2.4 points since the election. Queensland was 50.4:49.6 last election. Assuming a uniform swing of 2.4% only two Queensland Labor seats are lost and another is lineball. Granted, the swing is not likely to be uniform and seats outside the 2.4% like Leichhardt could go (and having just been there I reckon it will!) but it is also notable that with a non-uniform swing Labor is in the hunt for Coalition seats like Dickson (notionally Labor 51-49 following redistribution) and Ryan (Coalition 51-49 but just a teensy problem with the sitting member). So the indicated swing is no big deal.


One of the two seats is Longman where young Wyatt Roy is running. It will be interesting to see how he goes, but if it backfires then it might only be one seat and that is only just.
If the poll overstates the swing or Labor rebounds a bit, Labor might also be in the hunt for Herbert as it is now also slightly in Labors favour and the sitting Liberal member is retiring.
Scott

Goughfather
06-06-2010, 02:07 PM
And now given that Rudd is exposed as a blundering, arrogant, toss, it can only get worse!

Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, regardless of how incoherent it might be.


I don't recall anyone with leftist sympathies giving this up at any time over the last three years.

I'm not sure whether I made this point clear, but when everyone thought that the next election was a fait accompli for Rudd, including yourself, on the basis that new governments automatically get two terms, I put on the public record that I dismissed this, based on Rudd having the smallest first term majority in post-WWII history. I can assure you that Rudd losing back the gains he had made in rural Queensland were at the forefront of my mind.


I look forward to your commentary on Rudd - in the 'Rudd's Going Down' thread. When you're ready.

Whether or not Rudd goes down will largely depend on Abbott's performance, so my comments are quite relevant to the title of your thread.

Basil
06-06-2010, 02:37 PM
Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, regardless of how incoherent it might be.
While this is a true statement, it is redundant. More of your moving your lips on the pretext of being relevant. Not only is Rudd all of those things I stated, I appear to hold a position held by the majority, and the position is supported by the facts.


Whether or not Rudd goes down will largely depend on Abbott's performance, so my comments are quite relevant to the title of your thread.
That Abbott's performance has an impact on Rudd's re-election is a given. But it's not an exclusive factor. And when you're ready to talk about Rudd's performance, this is the thread to do it.

Goughfather
06-06-2010, 03:18 PM
While this is a true statement, it is redundant. More of your moving your lips on the pretext of being relevant. Not only is Rudd all of those things I stated, I appear to hold a position held by the majority, and the position is supported by the facts.

We all know what you believe on the subject, but I'm more interested in your seemingly pathological need to repeat this mantra ad nauseum. It's pretty clear to me that you believe in your own rhetoric, so I don't really think it's a case of protesting too much out of a fear that you might be wrong. Probably more so an attention-seeking device with the rationalisation that even if people take very little of what you say seriously, at least they'll know you're around saying it.


That Abbott's performance has an impact on Rudd's re-election is a given. But it's not an exclusive factor. And when you're ready to talk about Rudd's performance, this is the thread to do it.

I'd suggest that it is currently the dominant factor and probably will become even more influential the closer we come to election day. Regardless, my original post fits in very well with the title you gave the thread. If you simply wanted this to be a thread for you to spew more inane vitriol concerning Rudd while engaging in mutual back-slapping with the other two stooges, then perhaps you should have called the thread "Does Rudd Make Your Stomach Queasy Mk II?"

Basil
06-06-2010, 03:34 PM
It's pretty clear to me that you believe in your own rhetoric,
Now you're just dribbling. Firstly, my opening post had nothing to do with rhetoric. It was an open question based on a newspaper poll and article (OK low-level lefty insults at the end :D but hardly the thrust of the post). As for my subsequent rhetoric which you're hopelessly trying to paint as both unintelligible and left-field, you're a miserable failure at both. My message is both clear and substantiated. Polls. Majority.

By comparison, your rhetoric on Kevin Rudd's fortunes in any thread seems to cover just about every topic, except for ... Kevin Rudd.


Regardless, my original post fits in very well with the title you gave the thread.
Agreed. It was just that your post didn't discuss Rudd at all. I simply observed that when you're ready to talk about Rudd, we're ready ;)

Kevin Bonham
06-06-2010, 03:49 PM
[..]based on Rudd having the smallest first term majority in post-WWII history.

I don't think this is actually correct. First term majorities since WWII were:

Menzies 1949 seats 74-47 2PP 51*
Whitlam 1972 seats 67-58 2PP 52.7*
Fraser 1975 seats 91-36 2PP 55.7
Hawke 1983 seats 75-50 2PP 53.3
Howard 1996 seats 94-49-5 2PP 53.6
Rudd 2007 seats 83-65-2 2PP 52.7

Rudd's first-term majority is larger than Whitlam's and his 2PP is identical. Rudd's 2PP is almost certainly better than Menzies', although this is a little bit tricky because not all preferences were distributed in the 1949 election.

Goughfather
06-06-2010, 04:04 PM
I don't think this is actually correct. First term majorities since WWII were:

Menzies 1949 seats 74-47 2PP 51*
Whitlam 1972 seats 67-58 2PP 52.7*
Fraser 1975 seats 91-36 2PP 55.7
Hawke 1983 seats 75-50 2PP 53.3
Howard 1996 seats 94-49-5 2PP 53.6
Rudd 2007 seats 83-65-2 2PP 52.7

Rudd's first-term majority is larger than Whitlam's and his 2PP is identical. Rudd's 2PP is almost certainly better than Menzies', although this is a little bit tricky because not all preferences were distributed in the 1949 election.

You're quite correct - Whitlam's majority was indeed smaller. That said, I think that those figures bear out my theory that the general tendency for newly elected governments to be given second terms owes far less to a mentality in the Australian electorate that they wish to give the new government a "fair run" and far more to the fact that new governments obtained fairly significant majorities that could not be retrieved by the opposition in the space of three years. Of course, the flip side is that with the obliteration of the newly demoted oppositions, including mass retirements from the more senior members in the ranks, it generally takes two terms to become a cohesive and electable force again.

Kevin Bonham
06-06-2010, 04:21 PM
And the performance of the first-term oppositions:

Labor (1951) won a net five seats from the government and +0.3 2PP
Liberal (1974) won a net two seats from the government and +1.0 2PP
Labor (1977) won a net 3-4 seats from the government (a few seats were abolished) and +1.1. 2PP
In 1984 the House was expanded. Liberals gained +1.46 2PP and a net six seats from the government once gains by both parties as a result of the expansion are taken into account.
Labor (1998) won a net 18 seats from the government and +4.61 2PP.

The general pattern is that first-term oppositions make modest gains and, indeed, usually start too far behind to win. The exception is that Labor in 1998 won a number of seats and a swing that would have been sufficient for many other first term oppositions to win but in their case the deficit in seats was especially severe.

By the way the pattern of first-term oppositions always gaining goes back to Federation with no exceptions. But not since the Depression have they won.

arosar
07-06-2010, 08:14 AM
Perhaps he really is going down (http://www.smh.com.au/national/labor-faces-wipeout-20100606-xn7v.html). But when you've got a moron for an opposition leader (http://www.smh.com.au/national/labor-faces-wipeout-20100606-xn7v.html), maybe there's a chance. The ALP can only hope that Hockey doesn't step up as that guy's really popular. Even I like him.

AR

Igor_Goldenberg
07-06-2010, 09:21 AM
Perhaps he really is going down (http://www.smh.com.au/national/labor-faces-wipeout-20100606-xn7v.html). But when you've got a moron for an opposition leader (http://www.smh.com.au/national/labor-faces-wipeout-20100606-xn7v.html), maybe there's a chance. The ALP can only hope that Hockey doesn't step up as that guy's really popular. Even I like him.

AR
Lefties that like Hockey more then Abbott are still not going to vote for him, so it's not that important. The real question is about swinging voters.

Garvinator
07-06-2010, 09:37 AM
Lefties that like Hockey more then Abbott are still not going to vote for him, so it's not that important. The real question is about swinging voters.I think if anyone was going to take over from Abbott it would be Andrew Robb atm.

Now there have been a couple more polls saying that Labor is behind, the polls in another month or so will be the most meaningful ones this term. Because by that time, it may become clear that Labor are a genuine chance of losing the election, so those that just wanted to give Labor a kick by saying they will vote Green will start deciding once and for all which way they are going to vote and why.

Igor_Goldenberg
07-06-2010, 11:33 AM
I think if anyone was going to take over from Abbott it would be Andrew Robb atm.

He'd be a good choice. The Libs have to ask themselves two questions:
1. Who is going to be better qualified as PM
2. Who has a better chance of winning election.
Unfortunately pollies are more worried about the latter.

Kevin Bonham
07-06-2010, 12:29 PM
That Nielsen poll is a very poor poll for Labor, their worst of their entire term of office at a time when it looked like the rot was stopping. However once again the 2PP for the Coalition is exaggerated because Nielsen asks respondents to allocate their own preferences, but generally following the pattern of the last election works better, and that makes it more 52:48. And the Nielsen poll is taken over a month so some of what it is showing may be old news.

Also again the Greens vote is absurdly high (they only got 7.8% last election, they're just not going to double that) and the following statement in the reporting is clearly false:


However, Labor's primary vote is now so low that even if it received 100 per cent of Greens preferences, it would still lose.

Nope, if you do that you get Coalition 43 Labor 48 Ind/others 9. Given that a lot of the 9 would be bottled up reelecting the three conservative-leaning independents and hence never redistributed, Labor would win very easily.

Capablanca-Fan
07-06-2010, 02:43 PM
Perhaps he really is going down (http://www.smh.com.au/national/labor-faces-wipeout-20100606-xn7v.html). But when you've got a moron for an opposition leader (http://www.smh.com.au/national/labor-faces-wipeout-20100606-xn7v.html), maybe there's a chance.
But then, Andrew Bolt suggests a slogan for the Coalition (from Beattie warns: Rudd’s bungling raises fears of sovereign risk (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/beattie_warns_rudds_bungling_raises_fears_of_sover eign_risk/)):

Vote Abbott. He couldn’t possibly be worse.

The ALP can only hope that Hockey doesn't step up as that guy's really popular. Even I like him.
Not surprising, given that his statements about God were so illogical, and he, like the unlamented Talkbull, wanted to appease KRudd's mad Enormous Tax Scam. As IG says, leftards are still not going to vote for such a Labor-Lite pleaser when they can have the real thing.

Desmond
07-06-2010, 04:12 PM
Perhaps he really is going down (http://www.smh.com.au/national/labor-faces-wipeout-20100606-xn7v.html). But when you've got a moron for an opposition leader (http://www.smh.com.au/national/labor-faces-wipeout-20100606-xn7v.html), maybe there's a chance. The ALP can only hope that Hockey doesn't step up as that guy's really popular. Even I like him.

ARI'm starting to wonder if Rudd will get rolled before Abbott does.

Garvinator
07-06-2010, 06:15 PM
I'm starting to wonder if Rudd will get rolled before Abbott does.Unlikely, but if internal Labor polling starts showing that people will be more likely to vote Labor is Gillard is the leader instead of Rudd and the percentage is quite wide, then it could be all on.

Kevin Bonham
07-06-2010, 07:12 PM
Even 47-53 is no disaster for an incumbent Government. Howard was polling that during the campaign itself in 1998 and still won, albeit losing the 2PP vote. It still has to get much worse before Rudd gets in genuine trouble. Multiple 54s and 55s for the Coalition two months out and we have more of a game on our hands. We might not be much further out from the election than that, some speculation about August now.

CameronD
07-06-2010, 07:56 PM
I think the laws should be changed so that elections occur on a fixed weekend every 3 years unless theres a double dissolution etc. None of this election chosen at the last minute dribble.

Basil
07-06-2010, 09:53 PM
Also again the Greens vote is absurdly high (they only got 7.8% last election, they're just not going to double that)
If it's the kids pissing about while searching for a clue then they'll return to Labor. A month is a long time in politics and they'll go back to their heartland/ birthright (until they get much older).

If it's the swingers, I don't think they'll return to Laba in numbers over 50% (of the Labor deserters). Rudd is toxic. Whether they vote for Big Ears (take the plunge) or stick with the Green vote (as extraordinary as it may seem), I don't know. Interesting times.

'Taking the plunge' pretty well means they'll have to believe that WorkChoices isn't coming back. These people were conservatives after all, at some stage in their life. All the hype and hoopla of lefty election dribble that suckered them in, which included following, is now moot.

Pre Election Poop
- shun from the americans
- hug a refugee
- save the homeless
- revitalise the indigenous
- education revolution
- broadband mindlessness

coupled with

Post Election Poop
- fuelwatch
- grocerywatch
- batts watch
- booze watch
- cigs watch
- copenhagen watch
- schools rorts watch

Kevin Bonham
07-06-2010, 09:55 PM
I think the laws should be changed so that elections occur on a fixed weekend every 3 years unless theres a double dissolution etc. None of this election chosen at the last minute dribble.

I'm not a big fan of fixed terms. Firstly when you get a truly awful government it can cling on for the full term and argue that it has no choice under fixed term laws, whereas without fixed term laws there is more of a chance that it will end the rot and put itself out of its misery before term in order to avoid more lasting derision for clinging on to power.

Secondly if a government calls an early election to try to gain an unfair advantage then the voters can punish it for do so if they disapprove of such an action. Hawke got a pretty big slap from the electorate for doing so in 1984 (he was not defeated, but the Coalition's position improved markedly which would have helped them in 1987 but for the interference of Sir Joh) and Carpenter in WA basically got the boot from the voters for going early in a manner considered unfair to the Opposition Leader.

Another point is that when you have fixed terms there is basically a longer period of both parties in election mode before the election, because everyone knows exactly when it will be.

Kevin Bonham
07-06-2010, 10:02 PM
If it's the kids pissing about while searching for a clue then they'll return to Labor.

It's primarily the 18s-34s so far. They are probably 70% of the supposed swing to the Greens.

Tony Dowden
07-06-2010, 10:08 PM
I agree they will largely return to Labor as they are the ones most susceptible to the advertising power of the two main parties (watch for it as a Green makes some kind of mistake) but they probably won't be able to bring themselves to vote for the Libs/Nat

Garvinator
07-06-2010, 10:14 PM
I'm not a big fan of fixed terms.I am interested in the concept of the recall election, but I do wonder how it works.

Davidflude
07-06-2010, 10:16 PM
I have almost finished drafting a letter to the Financial Review. It is a scorcher so they may not publish it.

I was a rusted on Labor voter. Now I feel like a janissary for the coalition.

My main concern is that neither of the Leaders of the coalition since the election look like foreman material.

I know that he is about as likable as Paul Keating but this country needs to draft Peter Costello. Remember while all the other countries were becoming hopeless debt addicts he paid off nearly all government debt. This has stood Australia in great stead.

Garvinator
07-06-2010, 10:28 PM
Pre Election Poop
- shun from the americans
- hug a refugee
- save the homeless
- revitalise the indigenous
- education revolution
- broadband mindlessness

coupled with

Post Election Poop
- fuelwatch
- grocerywatch
- batts watch
- booze watch
- cigs watch
- copenhagen watch
- schools rorts watch
You can add Whale Watch to that list, both as pre election and post election.

I recall him very clearly saying before the election that he was going to take Japan to court regarding the whaling issue. He was going to do this and that. Then when it came time to make his first major overseas trip and Japan was left off the itinerary, Kevin Rudd was asked about this and he responded that he had not even spoken to Japan since his election.

So much for pushing the issue of whaling really hard.

Kevin Bonham
07-06-2010, 10:59 PM
I am interested in the concept of the recall election, but I do wonder how it works.

A set percentage of the voters have to sign a petition calling for a recall election to be held. If this happens, then usually a fresh election is held at the same time as the recall vote, and if the recall vote passes then the fresh election determines the new member. In some versions there is a recall round then a new election.

I don't know of any systems that apply this to the whole parliament rather than to specific officials as in the US.

I don't like this concept either, as it makes it difficult for politicians to make courageous but momentarily very unpopular decisions, that given a full term in office they may be able to overcome initial resistance to. It also means that people may be more willing to vote in dodgy candidates thinking (not necessarily correctly) that they can always vote to recall them later if necessary.

Kevin Bonham
07-06-2010, 11:36 PM
Essential Report just released has Labor ahead 52-48. I consider this outfit to have a slight Labor sample method bias so let's call that 50-50.

Capablanca-Fan
08-06-2010, 03:38 AM
I know that he is about as likable as Paul Keating but this country needs to draft Peter Costello. Remember while all the other countries were becoming hopeless debt addicts he paid off nearly all government debt. This has stood Australia in great stead.
This is something that the Coalition spokespeople must shout from the rooftops. Now Chairman "spending addict" Krudd has not only used up the surplus that helped us so much, but also put as back into serious debt.

Igor_Goldenberg
08-06-2010, 09:28 AM
This is something that the Coalition spokespeople must shout from the rooftops. Now Chairman "spending addict" Krudd has not only used up the surplus that helped us so much, but also put as back into serious debt.
In the case of second wave of recession the government (whoever in the office at that time) will be in a much worse position to cope with it.

Garvinator
08-06-2010, 01:50 PM
I think the only real purpose of all these polls that try to measure the 2PP across the whole country is that it might create a situation where voters believe that the government might lose, so people can feel more comfortable voting for the opposition in the hope that they might actually get rid of the government.

This is not just related to Rudd, but is an overall, every poll measurement.

I would be more interested in seeing 2PP in a lot of the marginal seats, because a 20 percent turnaround in a seat held by 25 percent does not mean much in terms of tossing out the sitting member.

Kevin Bonham
08-06-2010, 04:14 PM
I think the only real purpose of all these polls that try to measure the 2PP across the whole country is that it might create a situation where voters believe that the government might lose, so people can feel more comfortable voting for the opposition in the hope that they might actually get rid of the government.

Actually the reverse. Governments always want there to be a perception that they might lose, since when there is no such perception they will always lose some votes to protest voters - the sort who will vote against the government only when they're sure it does not matter. Hence the generally very poor outcomes for governments in by-elections where the fate of the whole government is not on the line.


I would be more interested in seeing 2PP in a lot of the marginal seats, because a 20 percent turnaround in a seat held by 25 percent does not mean much in terms of tossing out the sitting member.

Some batched polling of marginals is usually done in the leadup to an election. Often it doesn't tell you all that much because only small swings in marginals are needed to unseat sitting members, but small swings are inside the poll's margin of error. For instance if a seat was won by a handful of votes last time and your polling sample size is 500 voters in that electorate, you don't have significant evidence of a change unless the 2PP for the losing side is over 54. And marginals usually just don't swing that much.

Igor_Goldenberg
08-06-2010, 05:20 PM
Some batched polling of marginals is usually done in the leadup to an election. Often it doesn't tell you all that much because only small swings in marginals are needed to unseat sitting members, but small swings are inside the poll's margin of error. For instance if a seat was won by a handful of votes last time and your polling sample size is 500 voters in that electorate, you don't have significant evidence of a change unless the 2PP for the losing side is over 54. And marginals usually just don't swing that much.
Sometimes there is a significant difference between different pockets of the same seat. But pollies do study marginals extensively!

Goughfather
09-06-2010, 01:04 AM
And marginals usually just don't swing that much.

Interesting observation. Any theories on why this might be the case?

Off the top my head and simply hazarding a guess:

(1) Generally speaking, swings occur against the incumbent more often than toward the incumbent;

(2) Because both parties campaign more heavily in the marginals, the outcome of the vote is influenced more heavily on proposed initiatives that directly affect the electorate, as opposed to the broader metanarratives that capture the attention of the national media;

(3) Greater exposure and increased campaigning of the candidates diminishes (albeit only slightly) the significance of party identification and the leaders of the major parties within the electorate; and

(4) Pork-barrelling really does work and given that promises to these electorates from the major parties will be broadly similar i.e. neither party can afford to look too stingy or too extravagant in their promises - this ensures a relatively tight race.

It would be interesting to see the results of those electorates in the 2007 election that were at a relatively early stage conceded as lost by the Howard government, for instance those seats held by the then government by margins of around two percent. I don't know off the top of my head, but my guess is that those the eventual swing in those electorates ending up blowing out quite significantly.

Kevin Bonham
09-06-2010, 01:30 AM
Interesting observation. Any theories on why this might be the case?

(2) and (4) especially.


It would be interesting to see the results of those electorates in the 2007 election that were at a relatively early stage conceded as lost by the Howard government, for instance those seats held by the then government by margins of around two percent. I don't know off the top of my head, but my guess is that those the eventual swing in those electorates ending up blowing out quite significantly.

The Coalition had ten seats held by under three percent and lost the lot with an average swing of 5% - which is actually around the national swing average, so probably the porkbarrelling early in the piece was cancelled out by the "give up" factor later in the election. Swings were larger in the SA marginals in this range and those were generally abandoned as hopeless really early; I remember they were showing at 90+% to change hands on betting and the government just let them go. Quite a few other marginals, like Bass, Braddon, Hasluck and Solomon, only had swings of a few percent but that was enough to hand them over.

What was amazing in 2007 was the way the usual "hold the line" type strategy by a government facing a big swing (concede the super-marginals, allow big swings in the safe seats, and hold the swing down in the more defensible marginals) failed. And the main reason it failed so badly was that Labor was winning seats in Queensland with swings that in some cases were well into double digits, in seats that until quite close to the election were just never on the radar. The swings were so large that the concept "safe seat" almost disappeared (except for seats held 70-30 and the like). A government in that situation has too many fires to put out at once.

Kevin Bonham
10-06-2010, 12:16 AM
For those interested in the whole thing going on with the surge to the Greens and likely Green preferences there are some very detailed discussions going on at http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2010/06/08/labor_green_preferences/ and particularly see post 24 by Andrew Olexander in comments.

This is all based on Nielsen polling where the pollster asks the supposed Greens voter to allocate a preference, and the proportion of preferences being allocated to Labor has been crashing over the last 6-8 months. As Labor's primary has gone down so has its Greens preference share as allocated by the polls.

Of course those preference allocations might turn out to be nonsense but on the assumption there is something real going on, Olexander suggests that there are really several movements going on here at once:

1. Conservative voters who might otherwise vote for Fam First or independents rather like Abbott and are moving to the Coalition.
2. Left-Libs don't like Abbott and are switching to the Greens but still preferencing the Liberals.
3. Labor is losing primary votes off both ends - lefties to the Greens and a few "conservatives" to the Liberals.

Olexander concludes:


The Labor “Brand” appears to have wedged itself into this situation – and is very much “stuck in the middle” in the midst of a pronounced and significant conservative / progressive political realignment taking place right now. This is benefitting the most strongly identifiable conservative (Coalition) and progressive (Green) political “Brands” in the political marketplace today.

If this is true this is similar to what happened to Labor in Tasmania where a once sprawling centre party with 50+% primary support managed, largely through a succession of scandals, stuffups and backflips, to lose both wings off the aeroplane resulting in a 12% swing against the party at this year's election. But that was a very old, very tired government (and surprisingly it's still there!)

I'm not convinced we're seeing a real ideological realignment so much as the centre party trying to move to the right for pragmatic reasons when in doing so it alienates the left more than it comforts the centre-right. And we don't know if these claimed preferencing decisions will turn out to be real. If they do that makes Labor's task a fair bit harder.

Garvinator
10-06-2010, 12:45 AM
I think compulsory preferential voting could really come to help Labor in some seats where the Greens are getting high first votes.

Because the choice ends up being between who to put ahead on your ballot slip between Labor and Coalition and most of the Green voters will still believe that Labor is a greater chance of delivering something close to Green beliefs than the Coalition will.

If the feds had optional preferential voting, then it would be a totally different story.

Kevin Bonham
22-06-2010, 11:42 PM
I have expressed what I think is due scepticism about the whole Labor-is-in-serious-danger on a few other threads. I'll add to that that while Rudd may turn out to be a short-term PM, to couch this as definite fact as van Onsolen does is premature and risks another addition to his VEXNEWS blooper list. As I noted on one of the other threads, long-lasting PMs Hawke and Howard both endured much worse polling positions than this and in Howard's case it was during his first term. Howard went on to be Australia's second-longest serving PM.

I would like to quote from my favourite marsupial again about the extent to which the current media narrative about Rudd is nonsensical and a typical instance of Canberra-bubble babble:


Speculation has been rampant of late that the momentum has all been with Tony Abbott and the Coalition – assisting them in their final drive home to the 2010 election. Although just what such a thing actually means in terms of anything *but* gallery journalists filling what would otherwise be dead air with noise, is a little bit of a mystery. Big tests for Rudd before the election are said to include the RSPT, mental health and BER value for money – although not in the history of Australia has a Federal government ever been kicked out over a set of policies so far removed from the actual and perceived living standards in the real economy of the general population.

So as we head into the 2010 election, beware the stories you read and hear, because most of them will surely be a whole lot of something about absolutely nothing.

original here (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2010/06/21/beware-the-substance-of-nothing/#more-8144)

My assessment at this stage of the Coalition's chance of winning: 10%.

Garvinator
23-06-2010, 12:25 AM
My assessment at this stage of the Coalition's chance of winning: 10%.And the betfair market agrees with you. Labor $1.55 Coalition $2.74.

Kevin Bonham
23-06-2010, 12:46 AM
And the betfair market agrees with you. Labor $1.55 Coalition $2.74.

Well not quite because that comes out at something like a 36% chance for the Coalition. But that sort of thing is pretty normal in election betting. The odds tend to be closer than they should be, except where the market is distorted by old money and something has happened to change things. On my understanding of how Betfair works Betfair is immune to that sort of distortion.

Capablanca-Fan
23-06-2010, 01:15 AM
Makes sense. After all, Australia doesn't have a Presidential system where popularity of the leader is vital.

Garvinator
23-06-2010, 10:17 AM
On my understanding of how Betfair works Betfair is immune to that sort of distortion.Betfair works on the concept of matching bets. So if I want to place a $20 bet on Labor winning at $1.60, this bet will sit in the system until someone decides to play bookie and takes that bet, so they agree to pay out $32 if Labor wins.

If no one takes my bet, then it becomes void and the money is returned.

I used betfair prices as a guide because they do not have the factor of a bookie trying to decide at what prices will he/she get the most amount of people betting, which is different from trying to work out what the real odds of Labor winning the next fed election.

Igor_Goldenberg
23-06-2010, 11:01 AM
And the betfair market agrees with you. Labor $1.55 Coalition $2.74.
That puts the probability of Labor win at 63.8% (and Coalition 36.2%, which is higher then Kevin's 10%).
www.iasbet.com has Labor 1.5 and Coalition 2.52, which puts Labor at 62.7% (quite close to betfair).

Kevin Bonham
23-06-2010, 07:35 PM
Oh dear. Shamahan might have been right this time; the Lemmings (http://www.mumble.com.au/federal/lemmings.htm) are once more on the march according to breaking reports on the ABC. Details sketchy at this point.

The possibility that a Lemming insurgency is real is the reason I said the Coalition's chances were 10% rather than zero. If it's really on then that makes things much riskier for Labor, although they could hold off on the election if they needed to establish a new leader.

Disclaimer: Suicide by actual lemmings is an urban myth but pointless electoral suicide attempts by Labor faction-hacks are not unprecedented.

Kevin Bonham
23-06-2010, 08:57 PM
Rather hard to know what the hell is going on this evening. Either there really is a spill on or a lot of journos from many different sources have collectively lost the plot in a very big way. Check this out from the Illawarra Mercury editor on Twitter:


TWITTER FLASH: If #krudd does not stand aside tonight, leadership will go to vote in special caucus meeting tomorrow. #jgillard has numbers.

Oddly enough this doesn't seem to have anything to do with Shanahan's stuff from a few days ago and is supposed to have started with reports that the PM had been having one of his henchmen sound out numbers on his behalf because he wasn't sure Gillard wasn't trying to knife him. This in turn was interpreted as distrust (not surprisingly). That plus another round of, on the surface, bad marginal seat polling out today.

Another strange report from the Courier-Mail says David Feeney and Bill Shorten are the culprits. Which is odd because Feeney is way right by Labor standards and as I understand it estranged from Shorten's mob.

No Australian Prime Minister who won office at an election has ever been rolled by their own party before the next election or, so far as I can tell, even faced a formal leadership challenge. (The nearest thing equivalent is probably Billy Hughes, who took over the Labor leadership mid-term and was expelled from the party before the next election, but remained Prime Minister and won it as a Nationalist anyway.)

Desmond
23-06-2010, 09:20 PM
What's with the party's right wanting Gillard? I thought she was at the other end. Or is it a case of my enemy's enemy...?

Kevin Bonham
23-06-2010, 09:46 PM
What's with the party's right wanting Gillard? I thought she was at the other end. Or is it a case of my enemy's enemy...?

Rudd has never really been much of a factional operator and in any case nervous politicians will clutch at anything that makes them think they'll save their seats. The Right has a particularly cut-throat approach to this process.

In my view, Labor would probably still win with Gillard as leader, and might win more easily than they would win by with Rudd. But it's risky and it needs to be a clean install, either he quits or she knocks him out in one go. A failed challenge with speculation dragging on through the campaign would be a disaster for Labor.

Anyway whether or not this is all real is still unclear. It may still be silly season stuff on an epic scale because the meeja know that if they don't get it going tonight, Rudd toddles off overseas and they miss their chance forever. Then again the factions may be seeing it the same way.

Desmond
23-06-2010, 10:19 PM
The punch blog reports:

Update 10.10pm: Kevin Rudd is about to hold a press conference and Sky is reporting there will be a challenge first thing tomorrow morning.

ER
23-06-2010, 10:22 PM
PM speaking now!

ER
23-06-2010, 10:32 PM
Stuck at work! Live reporting please. In da shoutbox pliss.
I was doing it, then again it 'll be published allover the place soon!
Mr Rudd will put his job on the line tomorrow morning
most likely Ms Gillard will challenge
No compromise to the right in climate & immigration policies!
"I was elected by the Australian peole and not by factional leaders" emphasised Mr Rudd

Desmond
23-06-2010, 10:34 PM
Rudd v Gillard showdown 9am tomorrow.

Garvinator
23-06-2010, 11:09 PM
Apparently all this started this morning when it was revealed that Kevin Rudd's chief of staff started counting numbers. Gillard was furious about this, taking it as a statement that Kevin Rudd was not trusting her denials about wanting the leadership and would not challenge for it.

Kevin Bonham
23-06-2010, 11:26 PM
Apparently all this started this morning when it was revealed that Kevin Rudd's chief of staff started counting numbers. Gillard was furious about this, taking it as a statement that Kevin Rudd was not trusting her denials about wanting the leadership and would not challenge for it.

Yes, it was a considerable blunder on the part of the incumbent control-freak because he has allowed Gillard to get to this point with no blood on her hands whatsoever (very unusual in a leadership challenge) and seeming as if she has only allowed herself to be reluctantly recruited for the spill for the good of the party. And that might even all be absolutely true. Up til then, while it seems that Arbib and Feeney had been plotting for weeks, it wasn't going anywhere; so many MPs were completely surprised by what happened just tonight. But now Rudd has created the opportunity.

I'm surprised too; I never thought Labor would ditch its leader before the election in what from the polling available publicly was an eminently winnable electoral position. Apparently Labor's internal polling was worse, but that could be just propaganda from the pro-spill camp.

It would appear that CU's thread title was indeed on the money. I side with the prevailing view that Rudd is most likely doomed and Gillard will probably be PM by midday tomorrow.

ER
23-06-2010, 11:27 PM
Apparently all this started this morning it.
no it started here (Howie's Rudd nauseating thread)


It's been revealed that key Labor MPs are prepared to move against Kevin Rudd's leadership to make way for Julia Gillard as early as next week.
To which Kev replied:

Given that the source is News Ltd, it's probably a beat-up. If it's real, it's madness.
Seconded by

Indeed. I'll start believing News Ltd sources of this nature when ministers come out on the public record declaring their support for Gillard.
With additional comments by

Today's Newspoll is 52-48 for Labor so I reckon most of the media hype of the last two weeks is now fit for use only as toilet paper.
:owned: :P :owned:

Kevin Bonham
24-06-2010, 12:37 AM
Labor firming in election betting. Gillard 1.20 vs Rudd 4.20 to win spill tomorrow.

Capablanca-Fan
24-06-2010, 12:49 AM
If Gillard wins, does that mean that the mining tax grab will be rescinded?

Kevin Bonham
24-06-2010, 02:01 AM
If Gillard wins, does that mean that the mining tax grab will be rescinded?

I suspect it will at least be radically reshaped.

ER
24-06-2010, 06:43 AM
... I side with the prevailing view that Rudd is most likely doomed and Gillard will probably be PM by midday tomorrow.

That's exactly what I got from Canberra earlier this morning in the form of a strong rumour.
Seems like Mr Rudd is losing support from everywhere in the political, business and union spectrum.


If Gillard wins, does that mean that the mining tax grab will be rescinded?

It will not be mentioned ever again. It will pass in history as the catalyst for Mr Rudd's downfall!

Coaltiion's deafening silence on the matter! :) Is it a let them do it all by themselves policy? :)

Libs will attack Ms Gillard on the following grounds:

She was decidedly involved in Labor's policy formation mainly in:

abandoning the emissions trading scheme and causing
cost blow-outs on the school building projects.


Labor firming in election betting. Gillard 1.20 vs Rudd 4.20 to win spill tomorrow.
A minute ago betting was Gillard 1.15 vs Rudd 5.00

Capablanca-Fan
24-06-2010, 07:06 AM
How Labor would have lost under Rudd (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/how_labor_would_have_lost_under_rudd/)
Andrew Bolt, 24 June 2010 (05:41 am)

The internal Labor polling that brought down Rudd (actual figures withheld on request) showed a wipeout on the way:

Labor-held marginals:

Macarthur - huge loss
Macquarie - big loss
Swan - huge loss
Dickson - retain
Corangamite - big loss
Hasluck - huge loss
Bass - narrow retain
Bennelong - big loss, Bye bye, Maxine
Robertson - big loss
Solomon - big loss
Gilmore - huge loss
Herbert - huge loss
Deakin - narrow retain
Longman - big loss
Eden Monaro - big loss
Flynn - big loss
Page - narrow loss
Dawson - huge loss
Braddon - retain
Forde - loss
Franklin - retain
Brisbane - retain
Dobell - either way
Leichhardt - huge loss
Petrie - either way
Kingston - big loss
Hindmarsh- loss
Adelaide - loss. The photogenic Kate Ellis.
Wakefield- loss
Makin - retain

Coalition marginals

Bowman - Lib win
McEwan - Labor win (Fran Bailey retired)
Patterson - Lib win
La Trobe - Lib win
Cowan - Lib win
Hinkler - Lib win
Hughes - Lib win
Sturt - Lib win
Ryan - Labor win (that sacked idiot Michael Johnson)
Cowper - Lib win
Stirling - Lib win

Labor’s net loss of seats predicted under Rudd: 19. And that’s presuming all the 50-50 contests went his way. Comfortable Liberal win.

ER
24-06-2010, 07:21 AM
Electorate would still be reluctant to trust Tony Abbott.
If Peter Costello had stayed in politics he would be the next Australian PM regardless result of today's spill!
I don't know about that. Peter was a formidable force in Aus politics, however, he was never the common voter's favourite either.

Igor_Goldenberg
24-06-2010, 09:44 AM
I don't know about that. Peter was a formidable force in Aus politics, however, he was never the common voter's favourite either.
I'd prefer him over Abbott. Suspect it applies to swinging voters as well.

Desmond
24-06-2010, 10:47 AM
I'd prefer him over Abbott. Suspect it applies to swinging voters as well.When he was a Minister I thought he was a bit of a gimp, but now as I find out more about him I respect him more.

Trent Parker
24-06-2010, 11:11 AM
Macarthur - huge loss


I think Macarthur is being broken up!

Picton is currently in Macarthur but is going to be a part of Hume come the next election :(

Kevin Bonham
24-06-2010, 02:20 PM
The internal Labor polling that brought down Rudd [b][(actual figures withheld on request)/b] showed a wipeout on the way:

And with the figures withheld we'll never know if it really showed this or not, and a possible reason they've been withheld is that they are actually not so convincing. (Another of course is that they are so bad they show some of the seats to be going whoever the leader is.) It's interesting, for instance, that they show Page as a loss when Newspoll showed it as a retain. But I'll see if I can find a leaked version of the actual results. In any case if Labor's 2PP picked up before the election as it nearly always does for incumbent governments, many of those seat trends would have disappeared - or if they didn't, unexpected wins would have popped up in seats that were not even on the radar.

By the way compared to the version now up on Bolt's site you have the following in the wrong party:


Dickson - Labor win (Peter Dutton’s dithering.)

The seat is Liberal-held but notionally Labor following redistribution, which is why Dutton was so keen to evacuate it, only the LNP wouldn't let him.

Garvinator
24-06-2010, 08:02 PM
The seat is Liberal-held but notionally Labor following redistribution, which is why Dutton was so keen to evacuate it, only the LNP wouldn't let him.He tried to bail on Dickson, attempted to get pre-selected for a seat on the Gold Coast, lost that pre-selection and was not able to get another seat to stand in, so had to back to Dickson.

If the Dickson voters do not punish him for his attitude of, I will do anything and go anywhere to not represent this electorate, then they really deserve everything that get.

Also, I recall Peter Dutton making a big song and dance about how Cheryl Kernot was not happy getting stuck with a marginal seat when she went from the Dems to Labor and had to win an election against Dutton.

Capablanca-Fan
01-07-2010, 07:06 AM
Turnbull on Rudd (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/axed-and-humiliated-someone-should-give-this-poor-bastard-a-hug-20100629-zium.html?autostart=1).

Spiny Norman
01-07-2010, 04:57 PM
Shall we close this thread now? "Rudd's going down" has become "Rudd's gone".

Capablanca-Fan
04-07-2010, 02:21 PM
Rudd undone by the enemy within (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/rudd-undone-by-the-enemy-within/story-e6frg6z6-1225887059051)
Helen Trinca and staff writers
Australian, 3 July 2010

The opposition did not bring down Kevin Rudd, nor the Labor Party's factions. The answer lies within the man's complex personality

WHEN a light aircraft carrying 13 people, including nine Australians, went missing deep in the treacherous Owen Stanley Range on its way to the Kokoda Track last August, our High Commission in Papua New Guinea knew exactly what to do.

Staff, including a large military deployment, swung into action on the ground. An operations room was set up in Canberra to co-ordinate with the families.

In question time, Foreign Minister Stephen Smith said everything was being done to locate the Twin Otter turbo-prop.

But no one had reckoned on Kevin Rudd. As the day wore on, officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade began hearing that ships and planes were being redeployed around the region.

Without their knowledge, the prime minister had launched one of the nation's biggest overseas search-and-rescue efforts.

HMAS Success, with a Sea King helicopter aboard, two Black Hawks, a Caribou short take-off and landing plane and a search and rescue aircraft from the Australian Maritime Authority had been called in, even though the advice from PNG was that there were unlikely to be survivors.

Around midnight, Rudd called senior DFAT and military brass to the Lodge. The Prime Minister was in shirtsleeves, standing over topographical maps of the Owen Stanley Range.

Rudd had famously walked the Kokoda Track a few years before. Now he was planning the routes for the rescuers. It was, says one source, an extraordinary example of his micromanagement.

And of Rudd's belief that he was the smartest guy in the room. ...

Capablanca-Fan
08-07-2010, 02:21 AM
Rudd the one-man band was out of tune (http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/rudd-the-oneman-band-was-out-of-tune-20100706-zyva.html)
Peter Costello
Age, 7 July 2010

...

A leadership switch gives a government the chance to bury its mistakes. In this case the idea is not just to bury the mistakes of Rudd - the mining tax, the insulation batts, the blowout in the deficit - but to bury Rudd himself.

It is extraordinary that having been the leader, having announced he is standing for re-election, having asked for a position, Rudd is now refused an appointment to Labor's frontbench. He is not in Labor's top 20.

It illustrates how touchy the current cabinet is about the record of the last two years. We know Gillard and Wayne Swan supported the resource super profits tax, the wasteful spending on insulation batts and school halls, and softening border protection. But they are so keen to distance themselves, they have loaded all the policies into Rudd's basket and buried him with them.

Any keen reader of weekend papers would have noticed how many stories there were to the effect Rudd was a one-man band. Kevin '07 is Kevin 0'zero: a loner who consulted no one and listened to no one. Unless he is made solely to blame, there will be collective responsibility shared around to people who do not want to be accountable.

So the Prime Minister has dropped the resource tax. Now she will stop the boats. Last financial year we had a record number of unauthorised boat arrivals (5600) so there is a problem. But who was responsible? It is hard to blame the previous government because Labor says it was too harsh on unauthorised arrivals. It cannot be the fault of the current Immigration Minister because he is still in his post. No fault can be ascribed to the Deputy Prime Minister - then or now. So it must have been … Kevin Rudd. It is obvious why Rudd cannot be brought back into cabinet.

...

TheJoker
08-07-2010, 02:25 PM
Rudd the one-man band was out of tune (http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/rudd-the-oneman-band-was-out-of-tune-20100706-zyva.html)
Peter Costello
Age, 7 July 2010

...

Last financial year we had a record number of unauthorised boat arrivals (5600) so there is a problem. But who was responsible? ...

Interestingly I wonder who was to blame in the 2001 calendar year when we had 5,516 boat arrivals? Surely not the then Deputy Prime Minister Peter Costello:lol:

Capablanca-Fan
08-07-2010, 02:33 PM
Interestingly I wonder who was to blame in the 2001 calendar year when we had 5,516 boat arrivals? Surely not the then Deputy Prime Minister Peter Costello:lol:
At least his government put a stop to the problem. The Rudd government re-opened the problem.

TheJoker
08-07-2010, 03:18 PM
At least his government put a stop to the problem. The Rudd government re-opened the problem.

Well the Howard government certainly didn't inherit such high levels either.

I'd be interested to see how arrivals track with other countries in the region, to determine whether it is internal or external forces that attribute most to number of arrivals Australia's. Doubt will see any such analysis from the current circus media

Kevin Bonham
09-07-2010, 02:36 PM
It is extraordinary that having been the leader, having announced he is standing for re-election, having asked for a position, Rudd is now refused an appointment to Labor's frontbench. He is not in Labor's top 20.

I don't think it is that extraordinary at all and I think this is a bit of a beatup by Costello since there are other explanations. Since the wounds of being sacked are still raw, Rudd's political behaviour is unpredictable. It would be folly to appoint him to a cabinet position when he might very well change his mind and quit politics after the next election. Having a person appointed Foreign Minister (for instance) for three months is just embarrassing. They need to wait til after the election and see whether he is still wanting to carry on then.

Plus a deposed leader may lash out at their successor. That's really not a problem if they're on the backbench but if they're a major part of the team going into the election it's a problem.

Igor_Goldenberg
09-07-2010, 02:43 PM
What I found strange is that John Faulkner is quitting cabinet, going to back bench, yet is going to re contest his seat at next election. Any comments?

TheJoker
09-07-2010, 02:49 PM
What I found strange is that John Faulkner is quitting cabinet, going to back bench, yet is going to re contest his seat at next election. Any comments?

Good on him for not being as fickle as some other politicans who only want to be in parliament if they are in one of the top jobs, rather than simply representing their electorate.

Kevin Bonham
09-07-2010, 03:00 PM
I find it a little odd that it is couched as "generational change" when Faulkner is only 56. Whatever the reason for it, it's not surprising that he would want to remain for another term as he is one of their best strategists and cooler heads and has probably been persuaded to stay because they reckon they need him.

As for him staying on bear in mind that Faulkner is a Senator. This means if re-elected he will serve about six years. It also may mean that if he wanted to step down, the process of determining his replacement would be more convoluted than if it was just a Lower House member stepping down.

I get the impression the decision has come suddenly and I don't think it is anything to do with Gillard/Rudd.

Igor_Goldenberg
09-07-2010, 03:10 PM
I find it a little odd that it is couched as "generational change" when Faulkner is only 56. Whatever the reason for it, it's not surprising that he would want to remain for another term as he is one of their best strategists and cooler heads and has probably been persuaded to stay because they reckon they need him.

As for him staying on bear in mind that Faulkner is a Senator. This means if re-elected he will serve about six years. It also may mean that if he wanted to step down, the process of determining his replacement would be more convoluted than if it was just a Lower House member stepping down.
I forgot he is a senator. Does his term expire this year?

Kevin Bonham
09-07-2010, 04:36 PM
I forgot he is a senator. Does his term expire this year?

Yes. He was last elected in 2004 when he was #2 on the Labor ticket. This year I believe he has been preselected #1 on the Labor ticket.

Oepty
10-07-2010, 12:08 PM
I find it a little odd that it is couched as "generational change" when Faulkner is only 56. Whatever the reason for it, it's not surprising that he would want to remain for another term as he is one of their best strategists and cooler heads and has probably been persuaded to stay because they reckon they need him.

As for him staying on bear in mind that Faulkner is a Senator. This means if re-elected he will serve about six years. It also may mean that if he wanted to step down, the process of determining his replacement would be more convoluted than if it was just a Lower House member stepping down.

I get the impression the decision has come suddenly and I don't think it is anything to do with Gillard/Rudd.

Faulkner has been in Parliament since 1989 and was a Minister under Keating so in the polictical sense he has come from a different generation although seeing he entered into parliament at 35 he is not that old.
He did go the back bench after Latham lost in 2004 and came back to be a minister so perhaps it will happen again. A quote from an ABC article back in 2004 said "He is now expected to serve his next six years in the Senate as a backbencher."
Scott

Basil
27-07-2010, 08:08 AM
Barry Cohen (minister in the Hawke government) has written this (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/no-one-assassinated-rudd-he-simply-topped-himself/story-e6frg6zo-1225897188218).

No one assassinated Rudd, he simply topped himself
THERE must be two Kevin Rudds. The one being elevated to sainthood by the commentariat and the one described in The Sydney Morning Herald by former press gallery doyen Alan Ramsey, as a "prissy, precious prick".

There is no shortage of Rudd believers, many of them prominent citizens, who have sprung to his defence to portray him as a victim "assassinated" by a duplicitous Julia Gillard, backed by Labor powerbrokers.

Nonsense. Rudd's "assassination" was all his own work.

In my column on June 28 I described how our relations got off to a rocky start 18 years ago when I responded to an article describing K. Rudd, or Dr Death as he was affectionately known, because it was he who determined what went through cabinet.

I suggested he should join a political party, run for office and, if successful, seek the premiership or prime ministership. It appears he took my advice.

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
Related Coverage

* Gillard, Rudd 'welshed' on leadership deals The Australian, 5 days ago
* A succession that may have a happy ending The Australian, 4 Jul 2010
* Continuity but questions remain The Australian, 30 Jun 2010
* Fear and loathing of Rudd was his own doing The Australian, 28 Jun 2010
* Gillard first female PM The Australian,

End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.

When we met years later, he made it clear he did not appreciate my comments.

We had another altercation when he misunderstood an article I wrote for The Age about the Middle East.

Despite repeated attempts to clear up the misunderstanding, my letters and requests to his office were ignored.

He found it impossible to admit to a mistake.

Both prior to the 2007 election and for almost two years afterwards it was clear the public had fallen in love with K. Rudd. His popularity ratings at 70-plus matched those of Bob Hawke.

However, nasty stories began to emerge about his treatment of staff and public servants. The first was his appalling behaviour towards a stewardess on his VIP plane when he was served the wrong meal, and later when a hair-dryer was not provided for the prime ministerial locks.

The press gallery gradually got a different picture of the all-smiling Mr Nice Guy appearing nightly on television.

At a Parliament House dinner late last year with three prominent Labor MPs, I was stunned by the fear and loathing directed at their leader. Having served with eight prime ministers and seven leaders of the opposition, I was familiar with unflattering remarks about leaders but nothing to match the vitriol heaped on Rudd.

It was not ideological but personal. In time there was hardly anyone he hadn't insulted.

Nor was Rudd helped by the three 28-year-old neophytes who were clueless about running a prime ministerial office and acted as a praetorian guard to ensure that nobody, including senior cabinet ministers, got to see the man himself.

One senior backbencher recounted how he had been screamed at by one of the three amigos for issuing a press release the prime minister didn't like.

I asked why he hadn't told him where to go. He replied, "I was too stunned."

The rudeness of Rudd and his cohorts to almost everyone in caucus was legendary. One told of walking through the house and regularly being totally ignored by the PM. "It was as if I didn't exist." And he had supported Rudd against Kim Beazley.

Another story that has become part of Labor folklore is the experience of a senior minister, born in England, who, scheduled to speak at an international conference in Europe on a Sunday, decided to leave on the Friday and, at his own expense, spend a couple of days with his family.

With his luggage checked in, he was waiting in the VIP lounge when he received a phone call -- not from the PM, mind you, but from one of the three idiot flunkies -- telling him that he was to abandon the trip and return to Canberra.

The piece de resistance, however, was the celebrated "printing allowance" episode. John Faulkner, then the special minister of state, had decided to cut the overly generous printing allowance in half.

A delegation of eight senior Labor MPs and senators went to see the PM, to be greeted with a screaming rant that included every imaginable expletive from the man himself. It was not only rude but incredibly stupid.

He chose to insult the most influential members of the Labor factions and the trade union movement. Some will consider these events of minor importance but, despite opinions to the contrary, politicians are human beings and resent being treated as excreta.

How had it come to this? How had this Jekyll and Hyde character not previously revealed himself? Simple. After almost 12 years in opposition and five changes of leadership, Labor was desperate to return to the Treasury benches.

Rudd had charmed the electorate and the caucus with the cheesy Luna Park grin and it was clear he would defeat John Howard. Prior to the 2007 election, Rudd, aware of the euphoria building up, decided to break with Labor tradition and announce that he would select his own ministry. No one had the balls to deny him. After taking over caucus he then started to pick his own candidates. The ALP became the RLP.

With any other leader it may have worked but not with an egomaniacal control freak who not only believed he was a genius but considered his colleagues to be his intellectual inferiors.

Why was he not stopped? Because caucus was prepared to overlook his appalling rudeness, his egomania, his vindictiveness and his dictatorial control of caucus and cabinet in the expectation he would give them a second term. That all changed when the polls indicated that support for Rudd had dissipated. He was now a loser. Enter Gillard. Which brings us to those who are wailing that Rudd was "brutally assassinated?" Rubbish! Rudd committed political suicide. Had he treated his colleagues even halfway decently, he would have survived.

All political leaders have their friends and their enemies. In the end Rudd had only enemies.

Barry Cohen was a minister in the Hawke government.

antichrist
27-07-2010, 08:42 AM
Well Howard, I never the respected the guy because as a follower of politics I had never heard of him. And if I have not heard of him that means he is about nothing in particular and not an activist and fighter. But he did us a favour in getting rid of Howard - a fifties reject.

Capablanca-Fan
28-07-2010, 07:56 AM
Labor fear a vengeful Kevin Rudd may be behind Cabinet leaks (http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/national/labor-fear-a-vengeful-kevin-rudd-may-be-behind-cabinet-leaks/story-fn5z3z83-1225897719853)
The Courier-Mail, 27 July 2010

JULIA Gillard's campaign is bracing for more embarrassing claims and Cabinet leaks in the wake of Labor's destabilising leadership change.

Senior Labor sources have pointed the finger at ousted former Labor leader Kevin Rudd, and are concerned he has moved from denial to revenge.

...

Hobbes
02-09-2011, 09:59 PM
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/gillard-government-leaking-itself-to-death-beattie-20110902-1jotv.html


"The reality is if these leaks continue they will basically destroy the federal Labor government."

Mr Beattie said he believed whoever was responsible for damaging leaks during last year's federal election campaign was also involved in recent leaks.


And still there are Labor people (or at least KRudd + a journalist) who are thinking about bringing KRudd back!

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/julia-gillard-versus-the-high-court-as-the-pm-takes-aim-at-chief-justice-robert-french/story-fn59niix-1226128214000


THE Labor caucus is split over Julia Gillard's long term future as Prime Minister, with MPs admitting discussions are underway over the possible resurrection of Kevin Rudd as leader.

Basil
26-06-2013, 10:12 PM
And still there are Labor people (or at least KRudd + a journalist) who are thinking about bringing KRudd back!

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/julia-gillard-versus-the-high-court-as-the-pm-takes-aim-at-chief-justice-robert-french/story-fn59niix-1226128214000

Really?

Basil
24-08-2013, 12:35 AM
What the thread title said. Again. Doubt that will happen again in a lifetime!

Capablanca-Fan
27-08-2013, 01:20 AM
u-5RgFe9OX4

Kevin Bonham
27-08-2013, 09:49 PM
Re Cassidy at 2:40-odd: Gillard's supposed lead of 55-45 was on Newspoll; other pollsters had lower. In any case it was a bounce caused by leadership transition honeymoon effect (same thing we're seeing wash out of the system now), it was never going to hold at such a level til election day even if Rudd built 100 personal shrines to Gillard in the middle of Brisbane and thanked her for getting rid of him. The leaks helped it down but it would have gone down anyway; I greatly doubt she would have got more than 52 on the day under any scenario.

When Gillard was lining up to replace Rudd, Coalition supporters said she should replace him.

When Rudd was lining up to replace Gillard, Coalition supporters said he should replace her and she had cut him down, stabbed him in the back, etc.

Now that Rudd's back, Coalition supporters say Labor should have kept Gillard and tell everyone what a terrible monster Rudd is compared to that nice Julia person.

Basil
27-08-2013, 10:09 PM
When Gillard was lining up to replace Rudd, Coalition supporters said she should replace him.

When Rudd was lining up to replace Gillard, Coalition supporters said he should replace her and she had cut him down, stabbed him in the back, etc.

Now that Rudd's back, Coalition supporters say Labor should have kept Gillard and tell everyone what a terrible monster Rudd is compared to that nice Julia person.
'Not I', said the cat. I'm not sure I've ever had an opinion on whether any change should be made. I know that I dislike both as politicians, but only detest Rudd as a human.

Kevin Bonham
27-08-2013, 10:30 PM
Yes, those are just generalised figures from polling and do not apply to all individual Coalition supporters.

That said the patterns are quite strong. The flip-flop rate would be close to half the total.

Labor supporters also tend to get behind whoever their leader is at the time, in a version of the reverse pattern. I've seen Labor apparatchiks who said they would quit the party if Rudd came back switch to loyally supporting him once they could no longer stop him doing so.

antichrist
27-08-2013, 10:50 PM
'Not I', said the cat. I'm not sure I've ever had an opinion on whether any change should be made. I know that I dislike both as politicians, but only detest Rudd as a human.
His big struggle for international climate change action deserved acclaim . Great leadership best in world maybe.

Capablanca-Fan
28-08-2013, 08:55 AM
Rudd's delusional world is crashing around him (http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/rudds-delusional-world-is-crashing-around-him-20130826-2sm3d.html)
Nicholas Stuart, Canberra Times, 27 Aug 2013

Perhaps accidentally, but Bill Shorten got it absolutely right when he said, ''I know who's more popular. It's Tony.'' Make-up artist Lily Fontana got it totally right when she said, ''I've never had anyone treat me so badly while trying to do my job.'' A third of the cabinet got it completely right when they resigned rather than work with Kevin Rudd.

They didn't judge him politically—their conclusions are personal and based on the belief that Rudd only cares about himself. According to them the rhetoric and the fine words simply serve to camouflage personal ambition, detached from reality.

Indications that Rudd is living in a delusional world came when he allowed the perception to grow that he'd stopped campaigning to ''undertake, in a calm and measured fashion'' briefings on the situation in Syria. ''These are troubling times in the international community,'' he said, ''and we need to focus carefully and squarely on unfolding events as they affect Australia's core national interests.'' Well, it seems we've done nothing. Perhaps our interests weren't involved after all.

Rudd may have no policy principles, but we can live with that. But sociopathology (the absence of a moral compass and the belief that reality can be defined to suit yourself) is another thing altogether. To justify overthrowing Julia Gillard, he claimed she was ''leading Labor to a catastrophic defeat''. Now he says: ''I will not be engaged in any character assassination of her or her political … record.'' Both statements can't be true.

antichrist
28-08-2013, 02:33 PM
Rudd's delusional world is crashing around him (http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/rudds-delusional-world-is-crashing-around-him-20130826-2sm3d.html)
Nicholas Stuart, Canberra Times, 27 Aug 2013

Perhaps accidentally, but Bill Shorten got it absolutely right when he said, ''I know who's more popular. It's Tony.'' he cabinet got it completely right when they resigned rather thanMake-up artist Lily Fontana got it totally right when she said, ''I've never had anyone treat me so badly while trying to do my job.'' A third of t work with Kevin Rudd.
...............


now Jono, the place is full of head banger toughies like Rudd, some of us - for better or worse - even have them for partners,they are like they just escaped from the Ultimate Fight Challenge caged arena

we are allowed to joke and laugh some times

Kevin Bonham
28-08-2013, 02:56 PM
I disagree with Stuart's claim about a contradiction in Rudd's claims re Gillard. That she was leading Labor to a catastrophic defeat was in very little doubt but it is possible to say that without criticising her character or her policy record. Character and policy record are not all it takes to be popular with the electorate.

antichrist
28-08-2013, 03:22 PM
I disagree with Stuart's claim about a contradiction in Rudd's claims re Gillard. That she was leading Labor to a catastrophic defeat was in very little doubt but it is possible to say that without criticising her character or her policy record. Character and policy record are not all it takes to be popular with the electorate.

I heard Juliia BIshop for the first time the other day - struth was she hopeless, would only deserve to be Gilliards cook or something

Capablanca-Fan
30-08-2013, 12:07 PM
Signs of panic at Their ABC (http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/qed/2013/08/signs-of-panic-at-their-abc)
by Roger Franklin
Quadrant, 28 August 2013

Next, with Media Watch, Murdoch was back and how! Andrew Bolt has posted on new host’s Paul Barry’s one-eyed exposure of the press lord’s alleged abuse of his papers’ pulpit, but the show’s summation of News Corp stories reporting Kevin Rudd’s demeanour and deficiencies all boiled down to a sentiment expressed in just four words:

…this is character assassination!

Apparently, if you work at the ABC, reporting and documenting that the Prime Minister is rude to make-up artists, plucks policies from thin air, is petulant, a bully, and has sawn into kindling the planks of the platform on which the ALP stood for the previous six years, from the Carbon Tax to boat people, is no reflection on his character. As Australians – those who do not work for the ABC, at any rate – are likely to observe on September 7, the very man whose white-anting and back-stabbing has been key in driving his party to brink of ruin has no character worth assassinating.

Barry kept it up for the full 15 minutes, commenting not so much on the news and its coverage, which is his brief, but giving birth instead to the palliative mythology from which supporters of this government will draw comfort two Saturdays from now, as the tally of fallen seats grows by the hour. As viewed from the ABC’s ivory tower, Labor will not have lost because voters seized the chance to end six years of shambling incompetence, internecine feuds, party-room betrayals and general chaos, but because the electorate is composed of dim bulbs whose passions are turned on and off by Murdoch’s claw-like hand upon the switch.

Arrogant? Elitist? Condescending? All of that, you bet, but instructive all the same, as that smarter-than-you attitude goes some way towards explaining why Rudd’s flaws go unremarked in the ABC’s newsrooms, especially its Current Affairs unit. Tape worms are ugly creatures, but not to each other.

Capablanca-Fan
01-09-2013, 04:10 PM
Team Rudd fears thud as leader gets lippy
Chris Johnson and Jonathan Swan
September 1, 2013
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, at the Parap Markets in Darwin on Saturday, is suffering from a series of setbacks in his election campaign.

With both Kevin Rudd and Labor's election campaign appearing to unravel, senior staff admit they have given up hope of winning the election.
While Mr Rudd is publicly forcing a positive spin on poor polling results and the fallout of a dysfunctional campaign, behind the scenes he is furious at how events have soured for him.
His travelling party has witnessed familiar outbursts of anger and an increasingly cranky demeanour as events have come unstuck.

Kevin Bonham
01-09-2013, 05:24 PM
Rudd in recent weeks is reminding me a lot of Evatt; not that I was around when Evatt was but there is a certain kind of received image (mainly from the portrayal in an ABC miniseries - albeit one scripted by Bob Ellis back when he was still partly sane.)

This kind of picking fights with the Murdoch press and endorsing Media Watch is not doing him any favours. Yes some of the Murdoch outlets are spectacularly biased but they are part of the scenery and the job description for political success in this country is that you work with them or you work around them. A PM praising Media Watch in public just doesn't realise that for the vast majority of even remotely unattached voters, Media Watch is just some left-wing thing on a station they don't much watch.

Big part of the problem here is that they brought Rudd back too late to work out how a relationship between him and the campaign team was going to operate, how new policy was going to be generated for Labor under Rudd and so on.

antichrist
01-09-2013, 07:31 PM
.............
Big part of the problem here is that they brought Rudd back too late to work out how a relationship between him and the campaign team was going to operate, how new policy was going to be generated for Labor under Rudd and so on.

you are the first person to come out with that and seems spot on. I thought Julia should have jumped early in the year but of course the ladies lobby was all against it. Right to the end they supported her except her fellow (haha) female MPs.

In one way a sad tragic end to an extra-ordinary political life, as she is not contesting the election.

But I never respected her partner. And I don't think he deserved to travel the world with her holding her handbag. He was a nobody, not intellectual nothing, not a political animal as far as I know. Not a political philosopher. Hard to believe what she seen in him.

Capablanca-Fan
02-09-2013, 03:38 AM
Labor Party must pay for its sins at federal election (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/labor-party-must-pay-for-its-sins-at-federal-election/story-fni0ffxg-1226708197118)
ANDREW BOLT SUNDAY HERALD SUN SEPTEMBER 01, 2013


Sin one: Labor lied. All governments lie under pressure, but I cannot think of one that has lied so often and shamelessly. …

Sin two: Labor cheated. Rudd won the 2007 election after promising to stop "reckless spending", take a "meat axe" to the public service and get the navy to turn back boats of asylum seekers.

In fact, he blew the Budget with wild spending on waste. He made the public service bigger. Instead of stopping boats, the navy ferried in their passengers. …

Sin three: Labor smeared. It's not wrong to question the character of politicians because character counts, but smearing them with lies is when scrutiny turns to savagery. …

Sin four: Labor divided. Labor has deliberately and recklessly incited hatreds for political gain.

Under Gillard it pitted workers against "greedy" bosses, poor against rich, Australians against foreign workers and women against men. …

Sin five: Labor bullied. I work for a newspaper group, headed by Rupert Murdoch, that has criticised these sins of Labor.

Labor's response has been sinister. It has vilified Murdoch and his papers.

It has threatened the group and demanded critical stories be censored. Worse, it tried to put newspapers under a state-backed media policeman. …

Redmond Barry
02-09-2013, 03:48 AM
Poor Rupert.

Always the victim. :confused:

Capablanca-Fan
02-09-2013, 10:45 AM
Voters to cut loose hot-air PM (http://www.smh.com.au/comment/voters-to-cut-loose-hotair-pm-20130901-2sytd.html)
Paul Sheehan, SMh, 2 Sept 2013'


Then there is Rudd's penchant for micromanaging the economy via public announcements that the federal bureaucracy then could not deliver. The list of debacles is long.

FuelWatch—dribbled away. Grocery Watch—dribbled away. Citizens' assembly on climate change—never happened. Cash for clunkers—abandoned. Computers in schools—poor outcome, cost overruns. Green car environment fund—scrapped. National network of childcare centres—paltry outcome. National Solar Schools Program—shutting down. Network of GP superclinics—paltry outcome. Family healthcare clinics—dribbled away. Poker machine reform—largely abandoned. GreenPower scheme—ineffective.

At least none of these failures involved significant financial loss but there have been mass-scale cost blowouts. The national broadband network has turned into a money sink, over budget and behind schedule. The Building the Education Revolution program was an exercise in spending $16 billion to get about $8 billion worth of building done. The roof insulation scheme become infamous, a byword for a billion-dollar cash splash that produced false billing, over-charging, unsafe houses and four dead installers.

The recycled 2013 edition of Rudd is more of the same, a font of uncosted policies that sound suspiciously as if they were created on the plane. The Manus Island detention centre that doesn't exist. The Brisbane deep water naval base that can't exist. The Northern Territory economic zone written on the back of an envelope. The high-speed rail system no one can afford. Rudd is not running on his record because he can't.

Rudd's great advantage is that the public has never warmed to the Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott. But the public has also now seen Rudd's hot air balloon.

pax
02-09-2013, 07:29 PM
Yeah, Bolt playing the victim card on behalf of Murdoch pretty much takes the biscuit for sheer bare facedness.

Capablanca-Fan
03-09-2013, 04:37 AM
Yeah, Bolt playing the victim card on behalf of Murdoch pretty much takes the biscuit for sheer bare facedness.
Why? Neither Bolt nor Murdoch have the power of government force behind them. They are also a small countermeasure to the leftard bias on the taxpayer-funded ABC and rags like the Melbourne Age.

pax
03-09-2013, 11:24 AM
Why? Neither Bolt nor Murdoch have the power of government force behind them. They are also a small countermeasure to the leftard bias on the taxpayer-funded ABC and rags like the Melbourne Age.

No other media outlet has so brutally broken the boundary between opinion and news. Yes, some the opinion writers in the Age are probably more left leaning, but the news is patently far, far, more neutral and balanced than any of the Murdoch papers. In the Murdoch papers, the political news articles run about 80-20 anti Labor.

Rincewind
03-09-2013, 06:17 PM
No other media outlet has so brutally broken the boundary between opinion and news. Yes, some the opinion writers in the Age are probably more left leaning, but the news is patently far, far, more neutral and balanced than any of the Murdoch papers. In the Murdoch papers, the political news articles run about 80-20 anti Labor.

I agree it has been a scandalous abuse of power by Murdoch. I see also that GetUp had an advertisement which was critical of Murdoch using his media interests to run a political campaign. The ad, which was going to air in Brisbane was refused by 7 and 10 but 9 did show it for one weekend and then had a change of heart and refused to run the ad any further. The reason being (from all networks) that they did not want to run ads which were critical of other media organisations.

So it appears media were allowed to run political campaigns but when it came to views critical of those political positions, there was no freedom of speech. This is even a more scandalous abuse of power because now you have other media organisations stifling contrary positions even though Murdoch is using his media to launch a partisan political campaign.

Murdoch needs to decide whether he is running a media organisation or a political organisation. Oh, wait, he already decided that with full page colour anti-Government headlines from day one of the election campaign.

You can see the ad here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-03/tv-networks-refuse-to-run-getup-anti-murdoch-ad/4932542

Capablanca-Fan
04-09-2013, 01:54 AM
No other media outlet has so brutally broken the boundary between opinion and news.
The ABC is a prime example of just that, in its far-left bias—even when it criticized Labor, it was because it wasn't leftist enough. And it's far worse because taxpayers are forced to fund it.

antichrist
04-09-2013, 05:52 AM
The ABC is a prime example of just that, in its far-left bias—even when it criticized Labor, it was because it wasn't leftist enough. And it's far worse because taxpayers are forced to fund it.

Jono, in the Philippines the press is not critical nor leftish, that meaning community minded and wanting to assist in uplifting the downtroddens'' heavy burden in life, therefore there are no programs on TV questioning widespread corruption or inequality of starvation wages etc. Corruption is reported upon but what has been going on for years, porkbarrelling, the extent of such - 40-60% was added onto Govt. contracts, was only released a week ago. There is no Four Corners etc to expose things.

Is that how you want Australia, with no media having a social conscious? The media sole blame the squatters for their rubbish blocking drains and causing flooding in Manila but a study found that the great majority of flooding was due to developments breaking govt control planning. But this was not reported in general news. Only in a debate on a station nobody watches channel due to success of brainwashing for generations.

If one happens to be a genuine leftard over there they are gunned down for trying to get their union members off starvation wages. Is that how you want Australia? We know the USA had gone that was for plenty of low paid workers. They still need food coupons, what a disgrace for USA

Capablanca-Fan
04-09-2013, 03:13 PM
Labor should have stuck with Julia Gillard instead of a 'discredited' Kevin Rudd, says Fairfax chairman (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/labor-should-have-stuck-with-julia-gillard-instead-of-a-discredited-kevin-rudd-says-fairfax-chairman-20130904-2t3x5.html#ixzz2dt5rcAsV)
Jonathan Swan, SMH September 4, 2013 - 10:33AM

Rudd was "discredited" as prime minister after being sacked by his colleagues and the Labor Party should have stuck with Julia Gillard, says Fairfax Media chairman Roger Corbett.
''Here's a man that's really done the Labor Party enormous damage, destabilised it, and is now wishing to present himself to the Australian people as a prime minister,'' Mr Corbett told ABC's Lateline program on Tuesday night.

Kevin Bonham
04-09-2013, 04:09 PM
I don't agree with Corbett. Firstly Labor would have lost badly under Gillard. Maybe they will lose just as badly under Rudd, or even perhaps a bit worse, but in a situation where keeping one leader will lead to certain heavy loss it is worth at least trying something else, even if it fails.

Secondly if Gillard had led Labor and Labor had lost heavily, then Rudd would still be around, and would be seen as vindicated by the loss. The good thing about the leadership change is that now if Rudd loses heavily he is discredited by the outcome and Labor has got rid of both of them and can put the whole Rudd-Gillard scrap behind them and move on. If Rudd does not lose heavily then that is better than what would have happened under Gillard.

pax
04-09-2013, 04:25 PM
The ABC is a prime example of just that, in its far-left bias—even when it criticized Labor, it was because it wasn't leftist enough. And it's far worse because taxpayers are forced to fund it.

Give us some examples of the ABC being pro Labor in its news coverage.

As for Murdoch, you can choose a random front page or political story over the last year and find at least one (more likely multiple) examples of anti-Labor bias.

Basil
04-09-2013, 05:29 PM
ABC tv and radio has been nagging left for eons — no question whatsover. I've been very pleasantly surprised by both in recent times. They put out a quality product.

For example 'The Insiders'; while guest bases are often well represented by the stereotypical gay left (not homosexual, read 'champagne left' if you prefer), the quality of Barry Cassidy's panel is as impartial as one could wish for.

Ditto for Q&A and radio National.

The Murdoch press has been mercilessly and unashamedly pro-Conservative. I have no issue with that either, just as I had no issue when it was promoting Rudd in '07. That is more extreme now changes nothing —*it's the principal that is at issue, not the degree.

Arse. Bow.

Kevin Bonham
04-09-2013, 05:47 PM
So it appears media were allowed to run political campaigns but when it came to views critical of those political positions, there was no freedom of speech.

It's a media bias issue but not a free speech issue. Free speech does not entail that a commercial television network must agree to air a paid ad by a lobby group. It is the TV station's right of free speech to elect not to, for any reason.

Papers like the Telegraph have declining political influence. Such blatant partisanship probably more effectively contributes to building brand loyalty from their existing biased reader base than to changing its opinions or convincing anybody else.

Getup! are far from low profile. They have no shortage of other ways to get their messages out there.

(I should disclose that I am working for a distant - and moderate - arm of the Murdoch galaxy on election night, but the point about free speech especially is something I've been saying here for many years.)

Patrick Byrom
04-09-2013, 05:54 PM
For example 'The Insiders'; while guest bases are often well represented by the stereotypical gay left (not homosexual, read 'champagne left' if you prefer), the quality of Barry Cassidy's panel is as impartial as one could wish for.
Ditto for Q&A and radio National.
The Murdoch press has been mercilessly and unashamedly pro-Conservative. I have no issue with that either, just as I had no issue when it was promoting Rudd in '07. That is more extreme now changes nothing —*it's the principal that is at issue, not the degree.
But you're missing the point - the problem is biased news , not biased commentary.

I don't remember any biased news reports in the Murdoch press in favour of Rudd in 2007, but there is definitely biased news reporting against him now.

Rincewind
04-09-2013, 09:04 PM
It's a media bias issue but not a free speech issue. Free speech does not entail that a commercial television network must agree to air a paid ad by a lobby group. It is the TV station's right of free speech to elect not to, for any reason.

I think the issue was a number of networks refused to run the adds because they were critical of a media organisation, even though that media organisation was running the political campaign.

The networks were running paid adverts for many different political parties so it wasn't a simple case of bias it seemed to be a conspiracy of silence when it came to being critical of media organisations. I guess you could call that bias but it wasn't political bias it seemed more of a concerted effort to suppress criticism regardless of political orientation.

Basil
04-09-2013, 09:41 PM
But you're missing the point - the problem is biased news , not biased commentary.

I don't remember any biased news reports in the Murdoch press in favour of Rudd in 2007, but there is definitely biased news reporting against him now.
I'm not missing the point – that's a different point.

If you'd like to make the case of one-sided biased reporting, go for your life. I'd be interested to see it. If you can show it, I'd have no problem accepting it — Murdoch is a worm!

Patrick Byrom
04-09-2013, 11:37 PM
If you'd like to make the case of one-sided biased reporting, go for your life. I'd be interested to see it. If you can show it, I'd have no problem accepting it — Murdoch is a worm!
Media Watch (http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3834127.htm) has already done that.

pax
05-09-2013, 01:18 AM
Here's a start:

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=sydney+daily+telegraph+front+page&um=1&client=ubuntu&channel=cs&hl=en&biw=906&bih=434&sa=X&ei=8U4nUqOeJYTVkAWHuoHYDg&ved=0CEUQpwUoAw&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A30%2F6%2F2013%2Ccd_max%3A4% 2F9%2F2013&tbm=isch

Capablanca-Fan
05-09-2013, 01:56 AM
But you're missing the point - the problem is biased news , not biased commentary.
I agree, but it's far more a problem of the leftist TV and newspaper is that their commentary masquerades as news. Polls have consistently shown a very leftist slant of journalists.

Capablanca-Fan
05-09-2013, 08:54 AM
Reverend Rudd's addition to the apocrypha (http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/qed/2013/09/reverend-rudd-s-apocrypha)
by Keith Windschuttle, Quadrant, September 4, 2013


Your average Q&A audience wouldn’t know, but even on this issue Rudd couldn’t tell the truth. The Bible doesn’t actually say what he claimed. According to biblehub.com, the closest phrase in the Bible to what he claims is from Colossians 3:22 which some translations render as: “Slaves, obey in all things your masters”. However, the most authoritative versions of the Bible in English do not use the word “slaves” in this passage but rather translate the statement as: “Servants, obey in all things your masters”. Here are the Bibles that use “servants”:

King James Bible
King James 2000 Bible
English Revised Version
American King James version
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
Douay-Rheims Bible
Webster’s Bible Translation
World English Bible
Young’s Literal Translation

I don’t know who all these different versions were written for, or who reads them now, but it’s clear that professed Christian Kevin Rudd not only doesn’t know his Bible very well but had to stoop pretty low to make the crack he did.

This is particularly so given the historical track record of Christianity in opposing slavery. In the English-speaking world the two great milestones were, first, when in 1102 the Archbishop of Canterbury, Saint Anselm, called a national church council and persuaded it to make slavery illegal and, second, when in 1807 the English Evangelical Christian movement led by William Wilberforce persuaded Parliament to make the slave trade in the British Empire illegal. [see my review of William Hague’s great biography of Wilberforce (http://www.sydneyline.com/William%20Wilberforce.htm).]

Rather than seeing it as natural, Christianity has been history’s most formidable opponent of slavery.

antichrist
05-09-2013, 10:12 AM
Rather than seeing it as natural, Christianity has been history’s most formidable opponent of slavery.

AC
In your world view God made us all slaves to his whims, to be worshipped, honoured, not blasphemed etc etc, esp the OT he was outrageous in his demands, even asking Uncle Abe to kill his son.

The Libs Nat wants us to be slaves to their dollar worldview

Basil
05-09-2013, 09:42 PM
Media Watch (http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3834127.htm) has already done that.
Yes yes yes ... but has it happened in reverse? This is your point (post #123). You are asserting that pro-leftist opinion, say on the ABC, has never been passed of as reporting!! I think the ABC runs a good ship these days, but in years gone by ... my God, it was embarrassing!

PAX, the Seargeant Schulz parody was my point (post #21), viz that media can parody/ opine all they like. I have no problem with that, and nor should you!

Patrick Byrom
06-09-2013, 12:05 AM
Yes yes yes ... but has it happened in reverse? This is your point (post #123). You are asserting that pro-leftist opinion, say on the ABC, has never been passed of as reporting!! I think the ABC runs a good ship these days, but in years gone by ... my God, it was embarrassing!
I don't recall using the word "never" (or any similar word) - it would rather difficult for me to prove that it had never happened.

But if there have been so many biased news reports on the ABC, it should be easy for you (or Jono) to provide some examples. :hmm:

According to this report (http://www.theage.com.au/business/study-finds-abc-bias-leans-towards-coalition-20090902-f8gm.html), the ABC is actually biased towards the Coalition.

Capablanca-Fan
06-09-2013, 12:10 AM
According to this report (http://www.theage.com.au/business/study-finds-abc-bias-leans-towards-coalition-20090902-f8gm.html), the ABC is actually biased towards the Coalition.
Certainly questionable even according to that source: "The findings of the latest research could be brought into question by the surprising categorisation of public figures Gerard Henderson and Les Murray as pro-Labor and Hugh Mackay as pro-Coalition." And we know how ABC's Maxine McKew stood for Labor.

In any case, with so many alternative sources of television news and entertainment, there is no case for the government to be funding the ABC any more.

Capablanca-Fan
06-09-2013, 10:36 AM
Reform of the ABC long overdue (http://australianclimatemadness.com/2013/09/06/reform-of-the-abc-long-overdue/)
6 Sept 2013

… we have had to suffer “Red” Kerry O’Brien (whose “old leather bag” visage will be gracing the ABC’s election coverage tomorrow, naturally), Tony Jones (adding another lefty voice to the already skewed Q&A panel every week), Fran Kelly (activist presenter of Radio National’s Breakfast show), News Radio’s political editor and resident Lefty, Marius Benson, Jonathan Green (editor of the Drum, which is banged repeatedly for Labor/Green causes) and Mark Scott himself—wilfully blind to the “groupthink” that is endemic in his organisation—to name but a few.

It is galling that taxes paid by all Australians go towards funding that Lefty/Green echo-chamber, which caters for a small urban elite, staffed with inner-city Ultimo types who couldn’t run a chook raffle. Privately owned media organisations stand or fall on their output, witness the enduring success of News Corp, and the rapid decline of Fairfax, as it too panders to the latte-sipping, sandal-wearing intelligentsia, and in the process ignores the vast majority of Australians.

But the ABC is paid for by all of us, and it should be representative of the views of all Australians, not just a mouthpiece for the Left. It is probable that a Coalition government will be elected tomorrow, sweeping away six years of Labor incompetence. Yet you wouldn’t believe it listening to the ABC this morning, with the majority of stories either puff pieces for Rudd and Labor, or criticism of the Coalition and Abbott. Maybe they realise that the clock is ticking, time is running out, so they have to make the most of it, like the last gasp of the Roman Empire.

Desmond
06-09-2013, 11:10 AM
I take it that "australianclimatechangemadness" didn't catch Rudd's grilling on 7.30 last night.

pax
06-09-2013, 12:07 PM
Why? Neither Bolt nor Murdoch have the power of government force behind them. They are also a small countermeasure to the leftard bias on the taxpayer-funded ABC and rags like the Melbourne Age.

It was interesting this morning that The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald (which are now to all intents and purposes the same paper) came out with opposing front page opinion editorials - The Age pro-Labor and SMH pro-Coalition. I wonder if this was a deliberate ploy, or a commentary on the way the winds are blowing in Victoria and NSW respectively?

Patrick Byrom
06-09-2013, 12:27 PM
Reform of the ABC long overdue (http://australianclimatemadness.com/2013/09/06/reform-of-the-abc-long-overdue/)
Another hilarious article from Jono (are you sure it's not intended as a parody?). There are no examples of actual bias quoted, just random fact-free statements - for example, Murdoch's newspapers are doing almost as badly as Fairfax's.

Desmond
07-09-2013, 07:43 AM
2329

Capablanca-Fan
07-09-2013, 12:18 PM
Another hilarious article from Jono (are you sure it's not intended as a parody?). There are no examples of actual bias quoted, just random fact-free statements - for example, Murdoch's newspapers are doing almost as badly as Fairfax's.
^^^ An example of what the former CBS journalist Bernard Goldberg argued in his book Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News and its sequel Arrogance: Rescuing America from the Media Elite that the liberal distortion is not usually conscious. Rather, these views are entrenched into people's thinking in these circles, and they so rarely encounter contrary views among their peers, that they think they are ‘normal’. Thus anything even moderately conservative, including in theological matters, is dismissed as right-wing fascism. So the problem is even harder to fix, because many of the most biased people are blind to their own biases. So ABC fans think that the far-left atheistic bias of the ABC is just normal.

Patrick Byrom
07-09-2013, 01:25 PM
So ABC fans think that the far-left atheistic bias of the ABC is just normal.
But most Australians (including most Coalition voters) don't believe (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/broadcast/most-people-dont-believe-political-bias-widespread/story-fna045gd-1226584587658)the ABC is biased.

Basil
07-09-2013, 06:12 PM
But most Australians (including most Coalition voters) don't believe (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/broadcast/most-people-dont-believe-political-bias-widespread/story-fna045gd-1226584587658)the ABC is biased.

Not any more.

Patrick Byrom
07-09-2013, 07:28 PM
Not any more.
And not in 2001, either: (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.122.2881&rep=rep1&type=pdf#page=3)

A Newspoll conducted by The Australian the following year, found that 58 percent of respondents believed there was no bias at all within the
ABC while 5 percent believed the national broadcaster was biased in favour of the federal government and only 11 percent believed there was bias against the Coalition (The Australian 2001).
That implies that there was no bias in the late 1990s, as otherwise the survey result would not have been so definite.

Basil
07-09-2013, 09:38 PM
Thanks Patrick, I didn't know that only 4 out of 10 of us thought the ABC to biased back then. That's a good result for teh ABC then, right?

Desmond
07-09-2013, 09:54 PM
Going down, but apparently not quickly according to concession speech.

Rincewind
07-09-2013, 10:22 PM
Thanks Patrick, I didn't know that only 4 out of 10 of us thought the ABC to biased back then. That's a good result for teh ABC then, right?

Only one out of 10 of us thought it was an anti-conservative bias.

antichrist
07-09-2013, 10:33 PM
Only one out of 10 of us thought it was an anti-conservative bias.

every time I heard Caroline Jones talk about religion I felt like blowing the set up - talking about projecting idiocy onto others

Capablanca-Fan
07-09-2013, 10:52 PM
Was the poll of only ABC fans?

antichrist
07-09-2013, 10:53 PM
Was the poll of only ABC fans?

well the other channels' fans did not know how to tick the boxes

Capablanca-Fan
07-09-2013, 10:55 PM
I guess this thread will be closed soon. KRudd has gone down. Crashing down! At least according to Reuters: Conservative leader Abbott wins landslide Australia election victory (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/07/net-us-australia-election-idUSBRE98503J20130907)

Election officials said with about 65 percent of the vote counted, Abbott's Liberal-National Party coalition had won around 54 percent of the national vote, and projected it would win at least 77 seats in the 150-seat parliament.

Party analysts said Abbott would end up with a majority of around 40 seats, ending the country's first minority government since World War Two. Labor had relied upon independent and Greens support for the past three years.

Basil
07-09-2013, 11:29 PM
I guess this thread will be closed soon. KRudd has gone down. Crashing down!
Yep, presided over the worst Labor result in a century, apparently. Arse. Ribbon.

Rincewind
08-09-2013, 12:08 AM
projected it would win at least 77 seats in the 150-seat parliament.

Talk about going out on a limb.

Rincewind
08-09-2013, 12:58 AM
Yep, presided over the worst Labor result in a century, apparently. Arse. Ribbon.

The result is seats won and on that measure it is not the worst in a century but something like the fifth worst in half a century. In terms of seats won and assuming the ALP get around 56 that is around 37% of the lower house seats and that is better than the percentages in 1996, 1977, 1975, and 1966 (just going back 50 years).

The primary vote is low but that is not 'the result'.

Also in terms of primary vote the worst result in the last hundred years remains Fadden in 1943 where the country/united coalition polled only 23% of the primary vote. But perhaps this has been the worst ALP primary vote in a long while. But despite correlation, primary vote is not a accurate proxy for seats won.

pax
08-09-2013, 01:20 AM
Yep, presided over the worst Labor result in a century, apparently. Arse. Ribbon.

Are you quite sure of that?

pax
08-09-2013, 01:33 AM
Rudd did the job he was supposed to do when they rolled Julia, and that was to avoid a total bloodbath. Current projections are around the 89-57 mark, with 53-47 2pp, which is miles better for Labor than it was looking a few months ago. Rudd has also had the grace and good sense to resign, because if there is one thing Labor needs, it's to rebuild without his destabilising influence.

Desmond
08-09-2013, 07:09 AM
After 3 years of undermining and destroying the party to get its leadership, now he doesn't want it. Does that about sum it up?

antichrist
08-09-2013, 10:18 AM
After 3 years of undermining and destroying the party to get its leadership, now he doesn't want it. Does that about sum it up?

he is a Qlder you know they must be treated with kid gloves and cotton wool.

pax
08-09-2013, 12:38 PM
After 3 years of undermining and destroying the party to get its leadership, now he doesn't want it. Does that about sum it up?

Pretty much. I actually think Labor winning this election could have been very bad for Labor in the long term, because they really did need to get rid of Rudd.

Rincewind
08-09-2013, 12:42 PM
They have had more than a decade of instability. Really since Keating it has been an issue. Is there a Bob Hawke in the next generation of leadership hopefuls?

Igor_Goldenberg
08-09-2013, 05:32 PM
Kevin Rudd "gotta zip"

Redmond Barry
08-09-2013, 06:19 PM
Give yourself a big pat on the back australia.

Well done !!

antichrist
08-09-2013, 06:21 PM
but he is the only one with a clear conscious with trying to save the biosphere for all creatures on this planet. At least he believed in something and fought for it - and what is Abbott's mission - to stop a few boats that Rudd has now already attended to. And if there is another Holocaust we can now with clear conscious and total consistency turn the boats back. Many of those boat people are boat people because of Australia's and her allies actions in the Middle East.

The word only came out yesterday that the Poles are melting much more than expected - us humans are disgraceful creatures

Basil
08-09-2013, 09:11 PM
Are you quite sure of that?

I said 'apparently'. Abbott first said it in his acceptance speech and SKY reasserted it today. I'm not across the minutiae, but apparently Keating was worse on one score, but the Parliament was a smaller one. Another metric I saw supporting the claim (or a similar one) was the Labor percentage of the primary vote, being the worst in a 100 (or 70) years.

Arse. Ribbon.

Hobbes
08-09-2013, 09:49 PM
The word only came out yesterday that the Poles are melting much more than expected - us humans are disgraceful creatures

Now AC, I don't know what is going on in Poland, but this should cheer you up:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/07/tough-times-for-sea-ice-melt-enthusiasts/

antichrist
08-09-2013, 10:31 PM
At least Rudd kept his seat, as opposed to Howard who got the boot - only the second time since federation. PUt that in your pipe Gunnar

Rincewind
08-09-2013, 11:35 PM
I said 'apparently'.

Is 'apparently' a license for repeating any old toss without understanding the import of what you're saying?


apparently Keating was worse on one score, but the Parliament was a smaller one

Yes 148 seats vs 150. Not a significant difference compared to winning 55+ seats, compared to Keating who won 49 in 1996. The swing was even more telling with Keating losing 31 seats compared to Rudd losing c.15.


Arse. Ribbon.

You really should see a proctologist about this condition of yours.

Kevin Bonham
09-09-2013, 12:18 AM
On the 1996 comparison:

2PP 1996 Coalition 2PP was 53.63. 2013 is currently 53.12 but we have late counting to come, which tends to boost the conservative side slightly; also, a few "non-classic" seats are not included in the 2PP as yet, and most of those lean Coalition. It's going to come out similar. Perhaps yet just worse, probably not.

Seats: ALP under Keating won 33.1% of seats to the Coalition's 63.5%. ALP this time have at least 35.3% (53). They can be confident of at least one more with another three dicey.

It's a slightly less bad result than 1996 in seat terms and the difference with the 2PP will be meaningless.

The historic primary vote comparison is not very useful because of this:

https://twitter.com/Pollytics/status/376544049353605120/photo/1/large

(Image: @Pollytics)

Indeed if we must compare primary votes let's note that the winning Coalition appears to have polled a worse primary than in 1987 and 1990 when it lost.

Igor_Goldenberg
09-09-2013, 09:35 AM
Indeed if we must compare primary votes let's note that the winning Coalition appears to have polled a worse primary than in 1987 and 1990 when it lost.

Primary votes for major parties have been in decline for quite some time, historic comparison is no longer valid (for either ALP or LNP).

pax
09-09-2013, 10:36 AM
I said 'apparently'. Abbott first said it in his acceptance speech and SKY reasserted it today.

That was an entirely unnecessary gloat from the man who will be PM. Someone should tell him the campaign is over. As for the numbers, primary vote is fairly meaningless in a preferential system.

Capablanca-Fan
10-09-2013, 02:35 PM
How Kevin Rudd’s campaign unravelled (http://www.afr.com/p/national/how_kevin_rudd_campaign_unravelled_MUATc7semL7gLrK 69U2OvN)
PAMELA WILLIAMS, 09 SEP 2013


The ruthless manner in which Rudd had been despatched by his own side in 2010 had laid the seeds. His successor Gillard had never explained why Rudd had been destroyed. Had she done so – invoking the tale of dysfunctional management which seeped out in any case – then Gillard might have at least partially headed off the public traction which Rudd was able to invoke later as a victim, and a prime ministerial victim moreover, unjustly dealt with.

The Liberal strategy to turn the focus to Rudd’s dysfunction was supported by a secret tactical tool.

Held deep within the top strategy group of the Liberal war room was a document which gave a name and a diagnosis to the personality of Kevin Rudd. It was a document provided to the Liberal’s strategy team on an informal basis by a psychiatrist friendly to the Liberals after Rudd had returned to the Labor leadership on June 26. In a nutshell, this document offered an arm’s-length diagnosis of Rudd as suffering a personality disorder known as “grandiose narcissism”.

antichrist
10-09-2013, 06:55 PM
How Kevin Rudd’s campaign unravelled (http://www.afr.com/p/national/how_kevin_rudd_campaign_unravelled_MUATc7semL7gLrK 69U2OvN)
PAMELA WILLIAMS, 09 SEP 2013


The ruthless manner in which Rudd had been despatched by his own side in 2010 had laid the seeds. His successor Gillard had never explained why Rudd had been destroyed. Had she done so – invoking the tale of dysfunctional management which seeped out in any case – then Gillard might have at least partially headed off the public traction which Rudd was able to invoke later as a victim, and a prime ministerial victim moreover, unjustly dealt with.

The Liberal strategy to turn the focus to Rudd’s dysfunction was supported by a secret tactical tool.

Held deep within the top strategy group of the Liberal war room was a document which gave a name and a diagnosis to the personality of Kevin Rudd. It was a document provided to the Liberal’s strategy team on an informal basis by a psychiatrist friendly to the Liberals after Rudd had returned to the Labor leadership on June 26. In a nutshell, this document offered an arm’s-length diagnosis of Rudd as suffering a personality disorder known as “grandiose narcissism”.


Did Gough Whitlam also possess it? And Bob Hawke? Would be the biggest joke if Howard had it

Rincewind
10-09-2013, 07:49 PM
Would be the biggest joke if Howard had it

If Howard ever considered himself the smartest guy in the room (let alone the planet) then "grandiose narcissism" was the least of his problems.

antichrist
10-09-2013, 10:13 PM
If Howard ever considered himself the smartest guy in the room (let alone the planet) then "grandiose narcissism" was the least of his problems.

I never respected him because I think it was economics he was academically poor at - whereas I loved it

Eva Cox had the same weakness and she never stopped opening her mouth about economic in society as a social commentator - she did not stop opening her mouth for food either, but then lost about 25G at least. (maybe did a Jamie packer and her stomach stapled )

Capablanca-Fan
11-09-2013, 01:26 AM
Voters crush the carbon tax and corruption — worst Australian government gone — Labor learnt nothing (http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/voter-crush-the-carbon-tax-and-corruption-worst-australian-government-gone/)
Joanne Nova

Finally Australia steps back from a porkbarrelling party that stood for nothing more than being in power.
They broke promises to anyone and everyone with Olympian success. And it was not just the usual politician broken promise of failing to solve a problem they promised to solve: they brought in The Carbon Tax after dishonestly guaranteeing they would not. Would they have won the 2010 election if they hadn’t made that promise? (It would only have taken 400 voters in Corangamite to rewrite history.) They’ve taken broken promises to an all new level, where nothing they say can be trusted. It was not a question of them trying and failing, it was a question of being elected through deception. Every single Labor member chose to break that promise; any one of them could have stopped it. This is not a “leadership” question. It’s a question of integrity, and it applies to every member of the party.

The Labor Party also told us Tony Abbott was a misogynist, relentlessly negative, and a denier, and in return the Labor Party received one of the lowest primary votes in history.

I wish I could say it was all blue sky and roses from here. It’s great news to be sure, but there are mountains to overcome. What is amazing is that — even after their lies were made into laws, billions of dollars were squandered, people died because of inept home insulation programs, and their promises to be fiscally conservative delivered deficit after deficit — still about 47% of Australian’s still thought they deserved a vote*. How bad would this government have had to get?

Last night the concession speech Rudd gave was delusional. It was quite unlike Whitlam in 1975 or Keating in 1996, after their heavy defeats. The triumphant, jubilant cries of vindication from Labor were blind to the fact that an incumbent government lost badly, and after only two terms. We know 70% of ABC journalists vote Labor-Green. Which one is trying to bring Labor back to a sensible position? Such a fog of illusion in the minds of the Labor Party can only be kept alive by active support of the media. Bizarrely, the journalist fans do the party no favours by allowing the delusion to pass as is. By ignoring the flaws, the soft media virtually filter for the incompetents to rise to the top.

antichrist
14-09-2013, 09:33 PM
Kevin Rudd may have had more influence in shaping US policies in Asia than any foreigner since Singapore's founder Lee Kuan Yew during the Vietnam War era, a US government official says.
from nine news
Kurt Campbell, who was the State Department's top official on East Asia during Barack Obama's first term, says the former prime minister left "almost ocean-vessel-size shoes to be filled" in helping the United States think strategically.
"Despite personal foibles and a complex relationship in Australia, I think in many respects Kevin Rudd has been the most important strategic thinker in Asia in the last generation," said Campbell, a key force in Obama's "pivot" of putting a greater US focus on Asia.
"He helped us join the East Asia Summit, he helped us think about the fact that the defining feature of modern international relations is China's arrival on the global scene and every aspect of our diplomacy has to be recreated and re-crafted with that in mind," Campbell said.

Hobbes
15-09-2013, 12:56 AM
Kevin Rudd may have had more influence in shaping US policies in Asia than any foreigner since Singapore's founder Lee Kuan Yew during the Vietnam War era, a US government official says.
from nine news

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2013/09/14/kurt-mate/

It's all good, if Rudd is still doing this we can be sure he plans to make another run for the leadership before the next election. We can look forward to more years of leaks and backgroundings!

antichrist
15-09-2013, 08:41 AM
http://catallaxyfiles.com/2013/09/14/kurt-mate/

It's all good, if Rudd is still doing this we can be sure he plans to make another run for the leadership before the next election. We can look forward to more years of leaks and backgroundings!

he is even accused of sabotaging Beasly and Crean - that nasty little fellow. I did not like Beasly how he would crawl up the USA''s crack. And Crean had no appeal same as his father, was lacklustre. Where is a Whitlam when we need one. I have turned off the TV on every PM since then, except Keating I was not in the country for. I have heard him speak at rallies and he was good.

antichrist
15-09-2013, 08:48 AM
Hobbes from SB that I cant access to reply:
Hobbes
Rudd family moves out, Lodge uninhabitable because it was infested by vermin.

AC
when John Gorton moved out he was not refunded the bond coz he had chundered all over the toilet walls and were stained. Just ask Norman Gunston

Capablanca-Fan
14-11-2013, 07:23 AM
And he's down: Emotional Kevin Rudd resigns from federal parliament (http://www.news.com.au/national/emotional-kevin-rudd-resigns-from-parliament/story-fncynjr2-1226759294219).

Desmond
18-11-2013, 07:12 PM
Does this guy ever shut up?
Yes.

Capablanca-Fan
19-11-2013, 08:04 AM
It will take 10 years to repair Labor’s damage (http://www.afr.com/p/opinion/it_will_take_years_to_repair_labor_1p7wKxjqQwdALYy Aa7tiFL)
MAURICE NEWMAN, Financial Review, 12 NOV 2013

Indeed, I am shocked that so much economic damage can be inflicted in just six years (of the federal Labor government). While the full effect and extent of it is mainly invisible to most Australians, as Henry Hazlitt once observed, “The long run consequences of some economic policies may not become evident for years. Still others may not become evident for decades. But in every case their long run consequences are contained in the policy as surely as the hen was in the egg.”

Think, six years to create, more than a decade to repair.

pax
19-11-2013, 01:03 PM
It will take 10 years to repair Labor’s damage (http://www.afr.com/p/opinion/it_will_take_years_to_repair_labor_1p7wKxjqQwdALYy Aa7tiFL)
MAURICE NEWMAN, Financial Review, 12 NOV 2013

Indeed, I am shocked that so much economic damage can be inflicted in just six years (of the federal Labor government). While the full effect and extent of it is mainly invisible to most Australians, as Henry Hazlitt once observed, “The long run consequences of some economic policies may not become evident for years. Still others may not become evident for decades. But in every case their long run consequences are contained in the policy as surely as the hen was in the egg.”

Think, six years to create, more than a decade to repair.

What a load of garbage. I was not a big fan of the Labor government, however Australia still has just about the strongest economy in the OECD, whether you look at growth, debt, unemployment or inflation.

Rincewind
19-11-2013, 01:10 PM
Think, six years to create, more than a decade to repair.

The time to repair the climate from continued carbon emissions is measured in centuries, not decades but Newman would have us do anything to curb emissions.

Capablanca-Fan
25-09-2014, 02:53 AM
'Coup plotter' and 'backstabber': Kevin Rudd's scathing attack on Julia Gillard after 2010 leadership spill, revealed (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2766722/Nothing-coup-plotter-backstabber-Kevin-Rudd-s-scathing-attack-Julia-Gillard-2010-leadership-spill.html)

Kevin Rudd labelled Julia Gillard a 'backstabber' after the 2010 leadership spill
The Australian obtained a secret submission by Kevin Rudd to Labor's election review panel in 2010
Mr Rudd wrote Ms Gillard made excuses, including the notion a coup was in 'national interest', to mask her overconfident ambition
Julia Gillard replaced Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister on June 24, 2010
In the assessment, Mr Rudd defended his government and its policies
Mr Rudd believes former minister Mark Arbib should be blamed for the botched home insulation program which led to four deaths
The revelations come as Ms Gillard's memoir, My Story, is published


By Amy Ziniak for Daily Mail Australia, 23 September 2014.

A scathing assessment by Kevin Rudd on Julia Gillard four years ago has revealed he thought she was nothing but a 'backstabber'.
The, not so glowing, report on Ms Gillard came months after Mr Rudd was ousted as Australia's Prime Minister in June 2010 and in the wake of a disastrous election campaign.

The blistering submission from Mr Rudd came in response to arguments by Ms Gillard and her supporters, there was a change in leadership needed.
'This was an entirely fabricated post-facto rationale for a leadership change that was driven in large part by political ambition, an attempt to elevate the reasons for leadership change above crude politics to the highest reasons of state,' said Mr Rudd.

He wrote that Ms Gillard ran an 'internal campaign' to abolish the carbon pollution reduction scheme, a Rudd government policy, and suggested the former PM or her supporters were the ones behind a damaging leak to a newspaper.
According to the Australia Ms Gillard was not a big supporter of many of Mr Rudd's policies but he wrote that she never had any 'credible' alternative ideas herself.

The former deputy Prime Minister Wayne Swan also didn't go without a mention, Mr Rudd hitting out at his botched handling of the mining tax.

He wrote there was a 'fatal error of communication' with the mining industry and fellow ministers including Ms Gillard over the negotiation of the tax.

Mr Rudd's assessment also criticised the controversial Building the Education Revolution program and lashed out at former minister Mark Arbib, who he believes should have been held to account for the disastrous home insulation program, which led to four deaths.

Kevin Bonham
25-09-2014, 12:50 PM
I realise this is just a strategic leak of an old report but Gillard and Rudd would both do their party a serious favour if they shut the hell up. Not that Shorten deserves an even break as he was in it all up to his neck at all times.

antichrist
27-09-2014, 03:34 AM
If Gillard was leaking to the newspaper to sabotage Rudd and get the leadership it explains Rudd leaking to the newspaper in Gillard's election campaign of 2010. Rudd spent his juice on climate change on international stage and when failed there (not due to him in any manner) he veered off writing a children's book over Chrissie instead of having a double dissolution over CC. Considering the originator of this thread is famous for his five cars (or was) he is being consistent to also oppose climate change control measures.

Capablanca-Fan
04-06-2015, 01:47 AM
The Killing Season: Julia Gillard accuses Kevin Rudd of physical intimidation (http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/the-killing-season-julia-gillard-accuses-kevin-rudd-of-physical-intimidation/story-fn948wjf-1227380496283)
3 June 2015

JULIA Gillard has accused Kevin Rudd of physically intimidating and bullying her in revelations that smash the idea the pair were ever a “dream team”.

Ms Gillard, Australia’s first woman Prime Minister, was the victim of an “angry performance” by Mr Rudd when in Opposition, she tells the new ABC series The Killing Season.

One of the most explosive revelations from the series comes when Ms Gillard discusses her role as leader of Labor’s tactics meetings.

“Kevin was always very anxious to strut his stuff in Question Time,” she tells the ABC’s Sarah Ferguson.

“And tactics hadn’t gone his way. I’d taken a view about something else forming the issue of the day.

“And after the tactics meeting broke up, he very physically stepped up into my space and it was quite a bullying encounter. It was a menacing, angry performance.”

Her accusations are rejected as “utterly, utterly false” by Mr Rudd, who was ousted by Ms Gillard and in turn removed her from the prime ministership during six years of Labor turmoil.

He insists they had good relations, even when Ms Gillard arrived at his office to “announce the coup”, which saw him cast out in his first term.

Capablanca-Fan
06-06-2015, 12:12 AM
Julia Gillard put her career before feminism
Julia Gillard wanted a known bully, a man who mistreated women in the workplace, to move into The Lodge.
Mark Latham, Australian Financial Review 3 June 2015

When I left federal Parliament in 2005, Julia Gillard had a carefully considered opinion of Kevin Rudd. She regarded him as a leaker, a manipulator and a narcissist.

Imagine my surprise when, in 2006, Gillard shifted her left-wing factional numbers behind Rudd and made him leader of the Labor opposition, deposing Kim Beazley.

This was a classic political compromise: supporting someone she despised in order to advance her own career, as Rudd's deputy.

Once the compromise no longer suited Gillard, she knifed Rudd, taking the prime ministership from him in June 2010. Since then Gillard has fed into the media case studies of Rudd's bastardry – a retrospective confirmation of her 2005 character assessment.

Gillard has jettisoned her own carefully nurtured feminist credentials to admit that she shoehorned a woman-bullier into the prime ministership. How must that high-profile misogynist Tony Abbott feel about such a confession? And what of Anne Summers and the rest of Gillard's feminist cheer squad?

Their champion was willing to abandon her principles and tolerate mistreatment by a man, as long as it elevated her on the greasy pole of parliamentary careerism.

At the bottom line, political feminism, or at least the brand practised by Gillard, is a con job on the Australian people. It is used as a way of pleading for political advancement on gender grounds, even when, behind the scenes, female MPs are willing to ignore inconvenient examples of gender abuse.

Capablanca-Fan
25-01-2016, 08:33 PM
Foolhardy Kevin Rudd might do us all a favour if he takes charge of the shameful UN (http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/foolhardy-kevin-rudd-might-do-us-all-a-favour-if-he-takes-charge-of-the-shameful-un/news-story/a77aaf17c733df5518c2e23794b870c2)
Rowan Dean, The Courier-Mail, 24 January 2016

THE United Nations is one of the most useless, corrupt, shameful and hypocritical organisations on the planet.

Kevin Rudd is one of the most hopeless, inept and foolhardy leaders Australia has ever had. Kevin now wants to run for the plum job of Secretary-General of the UN.

To me, it sounds like the perfect match – a marriage made in heaven, or more accurately, a marriage made in some turgid Left-wing bureaucratic hell.
...
Relying on half a trillion dollars from “Daddy” – the US – the UN over the past 70 years has morphed into a bloated, greedy, arrogant mega-bureaucracy that has spawned a plethora of ugly offspring, such as the vile UNHRC or the repulsive UN Durban Conferences on Racism which, instead of promoting peace, deliberately foment hatred.
...
In 2012 there were 22 UN General Assembly resolutions against Israel, but only four for the rest of the world combined. So, just to be clear, in the eyes of the UN, a tiny democracy on a strip of land the size of the ACT is responsible for five times the horrors of war, starvation, torture, imprisonment, and terrorism of Russia, Syria, Iran, China, North Korea, and all the Islamic and African states combined.
...
So who better to marry into this farce than Kevin Rudd?

After all, when it comes to siring inept, pointless, hugely expensive bureaucratic follies, Kevin comes well-equipped.

His precious Grocerywatch and Fuelwatch schemes cost a fortune and didn’t work. UN bureaucrats would be equally impressed by his “worthy” insulation batts scheme – designed to not only “grow our economy” but also to “tackle climate change” – also abandoned, but not until after four young men had tragically lost their lives.

Then came his grandiose NBN scheme, which he himself designed on the back of a beer coaster, still costing us billions in blowouts. (Best not to mention the $900 cheques sent to dead people).

By the end of Rudd’s brief time in office, the great work done over 12 years by John Howard and Peter Costello of successfully running the Australian economy and keeping it in the black had been reduced to a pile of smouldering rubble.
...