http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/groping-for-leadership-in-an-hour-of-darkness-20120203-1qxsy.html

HAS there been a bigger lost opportunity in modern Australian politics than Kevin Rudd's decision not to go to an election in early 2010? Rudd and his government were still popular back then and could have expected to win that election, which would have been fought over the Coalition's abandonment of an emissions trading scheme under its new leader, Tony Abbott.

Importantly, the ALP would have almost certainly won a second term in its own right. There is every likelihood that Rudd would still be prime minister and the whole nightmare of the past two years would have been avoided. From Rudd's failure to call that early election, the whole sorry tale of federal Labor in 2010, 2011 and these first few weeks of 2012 flows.

Typically, there is disagreement within the government about how the decision not to pull that election trigger came about. People close to Julia Gillard say it was all Rudd's work. Those who have talked to Rudd say that, while he takes responsibility for the decision, it was made at the urging of Gillard who, as his deputy, advised him in the strongest terms not to go to an election until later in the year. Two months later, Gillard succeeded in persuading Rudd to put the emissions trading scheme on ice, hastening his demise as PM.

The question of responsibility can be something for the historians to sort out. What we can say for certain is that as a result of Rudd's mid-2010 political collapse and Gillard's move to the prime minister's chair, the federal government, in its fifth year of office and with only 18 months to go before the next election, is in an incredibly bad place.

Some Labor supporters have complained about the media's treatment of Gillard and the leadership issue this week, saying it is a chimera dreamed up by mischievous, irresponsible journalists and editors.

They could well be right about Gillard getting rougher-than-usual media treatment during her time as prime minister. But the same could be said about the media's portrayal of Rudd as PM, something from which she personally prospered with apparently little or no compunction, realising her life's ambition to become prime minister. In any event, the performance of the media cannot be entirely responsible for the things that Labor MPs are saying privately.

They speak of two things: Gillard's performance - really, shorthand for her judgment - and what their electors say about the Prime Minister. On the latter, what the MPs report back is scathing. The general feedback from voters is that they believe Gillard is void of policy credibility, or a genuine belief system, and that she ranks low on personal integrity. It is, of course, not a monolithic view, but it is, according to many MPs, widely expressed, more often than not with a good deal of vehemence.

Caucus members have been back in their electorates for two months and they have had plenty of time to soak up voters' feelings. Now that they are returning to Canberra this weekend before the resumption of Parliament next Tuesday, some are admitting, away from the microphones and the cameras, that they cannot see how they can continue to support Gillard as their leader.

On Gillard's performance since she shone, briefly, during Barack Obama's November visit, many profess profound frustration and disappointment. In their eyes, her desultory showing at the ALP national conference in early December eroded her standing as leader. Her ministerial reshuffle in mid-December left them confused. They, like the press gallery, were briefed privately by people supporting the Prime Minister that the reshuffle would sharpen up the government's ability to deliver messages about its achievements.

Unfortunately, the fallout from Gillard's decision to cut her losses and pull out of her agreement with independent MP Andrew Wilkie to legislate for mandatory precommitment on poker machines and the brouhaha over the Australia Day protest have rendered moot this new era of improved messaging.

The truth is that many MPs know what was behind Gillard's standing-up of Wilkie, a move that has apparently surprised and disturbed many Labor voters. The move was driven by her increasingly shaky hold on the leadership and her knowledge that unhappy backbenchers were starting to drift to Rudd.

Originally, Gillard had been looking at a May deadline to realise her deal with Wilkie. Ostensibly, she still had four months to go before her final reckoning. Instead, she pulled the pin in the middle of January, arguing that a bill proposing mandatory precommitment technology was not worth pursuing because it would not get through the lower house. She was right about the bill's fate. But her decision to pull out was based on the fact that the longer she held on to the policy - which belonged to Wilkie, not Labor - the angrier Labor MPs in New South Wales and Queensland were getting as they faced aggressive campaigns by licensed clubs in their electorates.

As much as it might disturb the sensibilities of what remains of Labor's support base to see this reported, a showdown in the party room between Gillard and Rudd is imminent. Just how it will come to pass is not clear.

Rudd is deeply, deeply reluctant to challenge. Gillard might pull on a ballot. In the strictest sense, numbers are not being counted. That is to say that no one has been appointed by either contender to sit down at a phone and work their way through a list of MPs asking for support.

But to the extent that MPs are talking to each other, the best assessment is that of the 103 Labor parliamentarians, neither Gillard nor Rudd can definitely be sure of having 52 votes. Significantly, backers of Gillard this week have been telling reporters that there is a solid core of ''at least'' 40 MPs who will never support Rudd.

Forty is well short of 52. It is quite an admission, given that only two months ago, the same people were putting Rudd's caucus numbers at around 15.

The timelines are fluid. The Queensland state election, set for March 24, is not a powerful impediment to the federal caucus having a leadership ballot; Parliament will sit for five weeks before the election, so there will be many opportunities. Rudd is the highest-profile Queenslander in the country and he will be campaigning regularly in the state seats that are encompassed by his federal seat of Griffith. The view of some of the most senior people in the Queensland ALP is that it would not harm the Bligh government if Rudd was to resume the prime ministership before March 24.

It would be wrong to view the cold war between Rudd and Gillard as being entirely about personality and ambition. Clearly, those are big elements of the contest. Rudd feels that he was double-crossed by his former deputy and Gillard feels that she has been undermined by her former leader.

But there is also a dimension to this fight that will go to political values, or at least that is how Rudd is likely to try to shape it. Rudd's pitch to his colleagues will be on policy, on Labor values and beliefs and of the possible demise of the ALP as a mass-based organisation that can seek power in its own right.

In taking this course, Rudd is borrowing a leaf from Paul Keating's book. After Keating lost his first leadership ballot to Bob Hawke in mid-1991, he moved around the party and developed an alternative policy agenda designed to fight the recession and distinguish himself from Hawke's policy approach.

Regardless of the merits of anything Rudd might say about this, Labor's parlous condition cannot be denied. The orthodoxy for decades was that 40 was Labor's magic number; if it could not secure a primary vote of 40 per cent - its rock-bottom level of support - it could not hope to hold government. The most reliable polls have for months been showing Labor's primary support around 30 per cent.

What Rudd is likely to be saying to his colleagues is that the ALP's future is at stake, that in effect the party has to be saved. Rudd will share his assessment of Gillard, which is that, reflecting her background as a lawyer, she is a gun for hire when it comes to policy - sometimes strong with a brief but not a natural generator of ideas in the Labor mould. It is a polite way of saying that she stands for nothing. Not coincidentally, that is a criticism made of her by many swinging voters.

Rudd's policy pitch will be built on a charged-up version of his 2007 election themes, involving more equitable education spending, the need to open up Australia to more markets in its region and the necessity of not wasting the economic opportunities created by the resources boom. There could be room for a different approach on asylum seekers and a heightened emphasis on supporting high-tech manufacturing, although in recent weeks Gillard has taken up that area with enthusiasm.

It is truly bizarre that a government that has steered a growing economy through a global financial crisis during which most of its biggest trading partners have suffered deep recessions is not only met with indifference but open hostility by most voters. Something is profoundly wrong with the public's comprehension of the contemporary Labor Party. The malady demands extensive treatment.

Changing the leader might do the job, or it might require something much more radical.

The other interesting issue will be who Rudd will appoint as his next Deputy and Treasurer

Both will have to inherit a mess - the Deputy will be asked by the press to give guarantees that they won't betray Rudd like Gillard did. While the new Treasurer will have to pick up the pieces Swan has broken

Maqqa wrote on Feb 4^th, 2012 at 11:15am:

The other interesting issue will be who Rudd will appoint as his next Deputy and Treasurer Both will have to inherit a mess - the Deputy will be asked by the press to give guarantees that they won't betray Rudd like Gillard did. While the new Treasurer will have to pick up the pieces Swan has broken

That's just an academic point now because labor is a spent force. I for one won't ever vote for them again. They have proven that they are bad managers of the public's money and everything they touch turns to custard. I won't ever vote for the libbos either. The major parties have been corrupted.

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 4^th, 2012 at 11:25am:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 4th, 2012 at 11:15am: The other interesting issue will be who Rudd will appoint as his next Deputy and Treasurer Both will have to inherit a mess - the Deputy will be asked by the press to give guarantees that they won't betray Rudd like Gillard did. While the new Treasurer will have to pick up the pieces Swan has broken That's just an academic point now because labor is a spent force. I for one won't ever vote for them again. They have proven that they are bad managers of the public's money and everything they touch turns to custard. I won't ever vote for the libbos either. The major parties have been corrupted.

Nothing wrong with custard.

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 4^th, 2012 at 11:25am:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 4th, 2012 at 11:15am: The other interesting issue will be who Rudd will appoint as his next Deputy and Treasurer Both will have to inherit a mess - the Deputy will be asked by the press to give guarantees that they won't betray Rudd like Gillard did. While the new Treasurer will have to pick up the pieces Swan has broken That's just an academic point now because labor is a spent force. I for one won't ever vote for them again. They have proven that they are bad managers of the public's money and everything they touch turns to custard. I won't ever vote for the libbos either. The major parties have been corrupted.

--

Please explain who, in the coalition, is corrupt and who, of the big-play independents smell sweetly - Oakeshott? Windsor?

Wilkie seems to have a backbone but, is he a candidate on your list?

Many of the voters that cannot stand either Gillard or Abbott will turn to the only honest party in this country...the Greens
Commie Bob Brownshirt should have everyones vote  :)

The whole bloody lot of them are useless, mindless, spineless weak followers and none of them has a right to blame a leader they refused to go up against and challenge if they disagreed with her - p!ss weak! http://phumphries.com/forums/images/smilies/homer.gif

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 4^th, 2012 at 11:25am:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 4th, 2012 at 11:15am: The other interesting issue will be who Rudd will appoint as his next Deputy and Treasurer Both will have to inherit a mess - the Deputy will be asked by the press to give guarantees that they won't betray Rudd like Gillard did. While the new Treasurer will have to pick up the pieces Swan has broken That's just an academic point now because labor is a spent force. I for one won't ever vote for them again. They have proven that they are bad managers of the public's money and everything they touch turns to custard. I won't ever vote for the libbos either. The major parties have been corrupted.

But it will be fun to watch though

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/prime-minister-julia-gillard-in-for-the-chop/story-e6freuzr-1226262309080

A LEADERSHIP war plan is being mapped out by key Kevin Rudd backers, with senior NSW MPs demanding the deputy leadership in any new Rudd government.

Planning for a Rudd comeback will mean an inevitable showdown with Treasurer Wayne Swan, with the NSW camp wanting Immigration Minister Chris Bowen to take his job. Sources close to the Foreign Minister confirmed that planning was well under way for the make-up of a possible Rudd cabinet.

However, in a sign that Mr Rudd was prepared to forgive his assassins, Bill Shorten's name was also being touted as a possible treasurer in a new Rudd government.

And Greg Combet was being put forward as a possible candidate for deputy leader, to appease the Left faction.

The NSW Right has split, with at least half the 18-strong faction falling in behind Mr Rudd and only five rusted on to Julia Gillard

"Momentum is building," one NSW MP said yesterday.

Senior Labor figures also urged Mr Rudd to make his run before the March 24 Queensland election.

"Labor is more than just about the federal party and every time we lose a state government, we lose valuable staff and resources," one senior Labor strategist said.

"Kevin as PM could help Anna Bligh and give Labor a chance at hanging on."

Ms Gillard's backers have rejected a ploy that the PM call a snap ballot for the leadership to capitalise on wavering MPs who have not committed to Mr Rudd.

"That's a stupid idea and would only demonstrate a position of weakness," one said. "She is not going to do that and no one is suggesting to her that she should."

The tensions are expected to cast a pall over Ms Gillard's summit of MPs in Canberra on Sunday to discuss her agenda and strategy for the year before Parliament resumes. That will be followed by a 5pm barbecue at The Lodge.

But up to 10 MPs - including Mr Rudd, who will be in Germany - have confirmed they will not attend, citing short notice and commitments rather than a boycott.

"This was sprung on us at the last minute," one MP said

So we have

Bowen who stuffed up Immigration replacing Swan who stuffed up the Budget

Or the other option of Gillard backer Shorten

And union boss Combet as Deputy

I am so over this instability.

The Media and Coalition have been banging on about this supposed Leadership challenge for almost a year now - nothing has come of it. Why are we meant to believe them?

The Labor party have denied this time and time again. The likes of Shorten, Swan and Gillard have denied this every time. They also expressed full loyalty in Rudd, we all know what happened then. So, why should we believe them, either?

Either have the bloody challenge, or don't. I am sick of the whole thing.

john_g wrote on Feb 4^th, 2012 at 2:24pm:

I am so over this instability. The Media and Coalition have been banging on about this supposed Leadership challenge for almost a year now - nothing has come of it. Why are we meant to believe them? The Labor party have denied this time and time again. The likes of Shorten, Swan and Gillard have denied this every time. They also expressed full loyalty in Rudd, we all know what happened then. So, why should we believe them, either? Either have the bloody challenge, or don't. I am sick of the whole thing.

But haven't you heard? The challenge will definitely take place before then end of October 2011. You can bet your house on that because we have it on good authority from some of the righties here. The problem with the righties is that a lot of 'em are still struggling to get beyond 1950 so 2011 is a long way off for them.

It may have missed your notice - but the Labor Party in Australia are about as popular as a case of herpes right now with the people.

Consistently polling 30%.

Julia Gillard has been in charge for all this time and the main reason for this drop - a hated carbon tax - is her doing.

Like a manager of a football team consistently in the relegation zone.
People may say 'yeah i support the boss' but in reality they are on borrowed time.

Quote:

and the main reason for this drop - a hated carbon tax

I disagree, it was the complete betrayal of the electorate with what the article states, the shevling of the greatest moral challenge of our time.
So the issue of Carbon is the reason NOT because it's been introduced but because it was originally shelved.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2012 at 6:15pm:

Quote: and the main reason for this drop - a hated carbon tax I disagree, it was the complete betrayal of the electorate with what the article states, the shevling of the greatest moral challenge of our time. So the issue of Carbon is the reason NOT because it's been introduced but because it was originally shelved.

In surveys the vast majority of people responded they wanted to see something done on carbon emissions but did not want their cost of living to increase.

That is totally my view.

This carbon tax will increase cost of living.

In an opinion poll over 70% thought their cost of living would increase as a result.

Put two and two together, people don't want it.

I think we should do something about emissions but I don't want to pay for it.
Everyone else agrees - the polls show that - as do surveys.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2012 at 6:15pm:

Quote: and the main reason for this drop - a hated carbon tax I disagree, it was the complete betrayal of the electorate with what the article states, the shevling of the greatest moral challenge of our time. So the issue of Carbon is the reason NOT because it's been introduced but because it was originally shelved.

if that was soooooo...then why did Abbott score so well... he was obviously dead set against any ETS..

smithy hate to say this but I reckon a lot of GW believers are now looking at the BIGGER picture..they are changing their minds....not you of course and woody..but who the hell are you?? two votes..

if it was the case gillard would have gotton no votes as it came out during  the election that she was behind Rudd giving up on the ETS

cods wrote on Feb 4^th, 2012 at 6:31pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 4th, 2012 at 6:15pm: Quote: and the main reason for this drop - a hated carbon tax I disagree, it was the complete betrayal of the electorate with what the article states, the shevling of the greatest moral challenge of our time. So the issue of Carbon is the reason NOT because it's been introduced but because it was originally shelved. if that was soooooo...then why did Abbott score so well... he was obviously dead set against any ETS.. smithy hate to say this but I reckon a lot of GW believers are now looking at the BIGGER picture..they are changing their minds....not you of course and woody..but who the hell are you?? two votes.. if it was the case gillard would have gotton no votes as it came out during  the election that she was behind Rudd giving up on the ETS

If Abbott had been taken to the DD Rudd squibed he would have lost.

I like most have given up any hope of us getting our crap together and doing something before its too late.
I will point out Abbott supports the targets and intends to achieve them thru his direct action plan.
The difference is most are too stupid to realise the money he intends to use is tax dollars, and BTW uncapped, so god knows how much we as tax payers will end up forking out.
But mr i don't follow politics doesn't realise he still will be paying and thinks its free.
The carbon tax might not be the best option but it is the option that makes those responsible pay and give mr average some choice on how much he pays.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2012 at 6:15pm:

Quote: and the main reason for this drop - a hated carbon tax I disagree, it was the complete betrayal of the electorate with what the article states, the shevling of the greatest moral challenge of our time. So the issue of Carbon is the reason NOT because it's been introduced but because it was originally shelved.

thats too overly complex. its quit simple. she promised something and broke that promise without even breaking a sweat. and has now done it repeatedly. the woman is a liar and even her own party says she has an 'integrity problem'.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2012 at 6:45pm:

I like most have given up any hope of us getting our crap together and doing something before its too late. I will point out Abbott supports the targets and intends to achieve them thru his direct action plan. The difference is most are too stupid to realise the money he intends to use is tax dollars, and BTW uncapped, so god knows how much we as tax payers will end up forking out. But mr i don't follow politics doesn't realise he still will be paying and thinks its free. The carbon tax might not be the best option but it is the option that makes those responsible pay and give mr average some choice on how much he pays.

Yes. Dumb Tony will take our money and give it to the polluters so they can "find a solution". I can tell you what their solution will be - they'll organise bean counters like Andrei to make the money disappear without even touching the sides.

Speaking of which....


Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 4^th, 2012 at 6:03pm:

It may have missed your notice - but the Labor Party in Australia are about as popular as a case of herpes right now with the people. Consistently polling 30%.

For a bean counter, you're not very good with numbers are you? Lastest polls are around 46% on 2PP and they've been there for months.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2012 at 6:45pm:

cods wrote on Feb 4th, 2012 at 6:31pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 4th, 2012 at 6:15pm: Quote: and the main reason for this drop - a hated carbon tax I disagree, it was the complete betrayal of the electorate with what the article states, the shevling of the greatest moral challenge of our time. So the issue of Carbon is the reason NOT because it's been introduced but because it was originally shelved. if that was soooooo...then why did Abbott score so well... he was obviously dead set against any ETS.. smithy hate to say this but I reckon a lot of GW believers are now looking at the BIGGER picture..they are changing their minds....not you of course and woody..but who the hell are you?? two votes.. if it was the case gillard would have gotton no votes as it came out during  the election that she was behind Rudd giving up on the ETS If Abbott had been taken to the DD Rudd squibed he would have lost. I like most have given up any hope of us getting our crap together and doing something before its too late. I will point out Abbott supports the targets and intends to achieve them thru his direct action plan. The difference is most are too stupid to realise the money he intends to use is tax dollars, and BTW uncapped, so god knows how much we as tax payers will end up forking out. But mr i don't follow politics doesn't realise he still will be paying and thinks its free. The carbon tax might not be the best option but it is the option that makes those responsible pay and give mr average some choice on how much he pays.

except of course the carbon tax has zero chance of working even in the slightest - just as the european ETS has failed.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2012 at 6:45pm:

If Abbott had been taken to the DD Rudd squibed he would have lost. I like most have given up any hope of us getting our crap together and doing something before its too late. I will point out Abbott supports the targets and intends to achieve them thru his direct action plan. The difference is most are too stupid to realise the money he intends to use is tax dollars, and BTW uncapped, so god knows how much we as tax payers will end up forking out. But mr i don't follow politics doesn't realise he still will be paying and thinks its free. The carbon tax might not be the best option but it is the option that makes those responsible pay and give mr average some choice on how much he pays.

Too late for what?

It's called GLOBAL warming ie not isolated to just Australia

With Australia emitting just 1.35% of total carbon emission - there's nothing that Australia does that will guarantee lowering of GLOBAL temperature

So this comes back to why Gillard is implementing the carbon tax - it's because we RATIFIED KYOTO and created a penalty that Australia MUST PAY

Unless of course we can meet those useless targets.

The direct action plan will help reduce the penalties

So all actions taken by the Coalition is limiting the damage caused by Rudd and Gillard

I doubt Rudd would still be PM even if he'd gone to an early election. He was/is a control freak and plainly incompetent. Most (if not all) of Labor's current problems - such as border protection - are due to Rudd's term as PM. That there are any people who want this imbecile back shows just how stupid some people really are.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 4^th, 2012 at 6:18pm:

That is totally my view. This carbon tax will increase cost of living. In an opinion poll over 70% thought their cost of living would increase as a result. Put two and two together, people don't want it.

The Abbott direct action plan would deliver less at a higher cost and have a greater impact on cost of living.

Just a few months before the election Mr Abbott was suggesting a carbon tax as the best option. The Gillard carbon tax is one where nobody actually pays any additional tax. Abbotts plan was to directly tax us all in order to compensate those who produce carbon dioxide emissions. i.e. The Abbott carbon tax was going to be a real one also with a greater impact on the cost of living.

The current plan is the one which should produce the best results for the lowest cost of living increase.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 5^th, 2012 at 7:24am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 4th, 2012 at 6:18pm: That is totally my view. This carbon tax will increase cost of living. In an opinion poll over 70% thought their cost of living would increase as a result. Put two and two together, people don't want it. The Abbott direct action plan would deliver less at a higher cost and have a greater impact on cost of living. Just a few months before the election Mr Abbott was suggesting a carbon tax as the best option. The Gillard carbon tax is one where nobody actually pays any additional tax. Abbotts plan was to directly tax us all in order to compensate those who produce carbon dioxide emissions. i.e. The Abbott carbon tax was going to be a real one also with a greater impact on the cost of living. The current plan is the one which should produce the best results for the lowest cost of living increase.

you just dont get it, do you? the vast majority of the strong opposition to the carbon tax is because she promised NOT to have one and then immediately turned around and gave us one. This tax is a rallying point for people sick of Gillard repeated lies and breaking of promises. her term as PM is replete with them and even begun with her promise to support Rudd and then knifing him in the back 24 hrs later.

Maqqa wrote on Feb 4^th, 2012 at 11:13am:

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/groping-for-leadership-in-an-hour-of-darkness-20120203-1qxsy.html HAS there been a bigger lost opportunity in modern Australian politics than Kevin Rudd's decision not to go to an election in early 2010? Rudd and his government were still popular back then and could have expected to win that election, which would have been fought over the Coalition's abandonment of an emissions trading scheme under its new leader, Tony Abbott. Importantly, the ALP would have almost certainly won a second term in its own right. There is every likelihood that Rudd would still be prime minister and the whole nightmare of the past two years would have been avoided. From Rudd's failure to call that early election, the whole sorry tale of federal Labor in 2010, 2011 and these first few weeks of 2012 flows.

Stating the obvious?


Maqqa wrote on Feb 4^th, 2012 at 11:13am:

Some Labor supporters have complained about the media's treatment of Gillard and the leadership issue this week, saying it is a chimera dreamed up by mischievous, irresponsible journalists and editors. They could well be right about Gillard getting rougher-than-usual media treatment during her time as prime minister. But the same could be said about the media's portrayal of Rudd as PM,.  something from which she personally prospered with apparently little or no compunction, realising her life's ambition to become prime minister.

So The media bias is OK because it was given equally to Rudd, Anyone miss the point that the media bias has been aimed against Labor and any Leader would do as a target.


Maqqa wrote on Feb 4^th, 2012 at 11:13am:

They speak of two things: Gillard's performance - really, shorthand for her judgment - and what their electors say about the Prime Minister. On the latter, what the MPs report back is scathing. The general feedback from voters is that they believe Gillard is void of policy credibility, or a genuine belief system, and that she ranks low on personal integrity.

and what their electors say about the Prime Minister.

Straight back to the media driven view that the Liberals and Media have been relentlessly pushing based on one or two incidents which would pale into insignificance compared to the Howard years where there was virtually no negative media comment and certainly no persistent follow up day after day - month after month.

It's easier to blame the media and the Opposition for 12 months of bad opinion polls than to accept the reality that she's a bad PM

Maqqa wrote on Feb 5^th, 2012 at 8:22am:

It's easier to blame the media and the Opposition for 12 months of bad opinion polls than to accept the reality that she's a bad PM

Well maybe if they were not regurgitating over 50 negative articles a week for the entire period their would not be the realistic argument that it was the major influence on the polls.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 5^th, 2012 at 8:26am:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 5th, 2012 at 8:22am: It's easier to blame the media and the Opposition for 12 months of bad opinion polls than to accept the reality that she's a bad PM Well maybe if they were not regurgitating over 50 negative articles a week for the entire period their would not be the realistic argument that it was the major influence on the polls.

Maybe it is because labor are that bad, they cant even fix their own stuffups without stuffing up the fix.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 5^th, 2012 at 7:30am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 5th, 2012 at 7:24am: The Abbott direct action plan would deliver less at a higher cost and have a greater impact on cost of living. Just a few months before the election Mr Abbott was suggesting a carbon tax as the best option. The Gillard carbon tax is one where nobody actually pays any additional tax. Abbotts plan was to directly tax us all in order to compensate those who produce carbon dioxide emissions. i.e. The Abbott carbon tax was going to be a real one also with a greater impact on the cost of living. The current plan is the one which should produce the best results for the lowest cost of living increase. you just dont get it, do you? the vast majority of the strong opposition to the carbon tax is because she promised NOT to have one and then immediately turned around and gave us one.

Its a point which during the Howard government would have been lucky to have got one mention in the media where in this case it is repeated multi times each day every day since the 2010 election.

The vast majority with the strong opinion is clearly media driven hype.


longweekend58 wrote on Feb 5^th, 2012 at 7:30am:

This tax is a rallying point for people sick of Gillard repeated lies and breaking of promises.

Yet it previously took 12 years for them to be sick of a substantially less honest government.

Howard never got the dishonest media treatment which this government have experienced in fact it was the opposite - they minimised reporting on significant failures.

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 5^th, 2012 at 8:28am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 5th, 2012 at 8:26am: Maqqa wrote on Feb 5th, 2012 at 8:22am: It's easier to blame the media and the Opposition for 12 months of bad opinion polls than to accept the reality that she's a bad PM Well maybe if they were not regurgitating over 50 negative articles a week for the entire period their would not be the realistic argument that it was the major influence on the polls. Maybe it is because labor are that bad, they cant even fix their own stuffups without stuffing up the fix.

They have made errors and clearly deserved critisism this is not what has been going on everything is spun into an anti Labor article and its done every day.

Its clearly the media deliberatly taking a political stance with no balance or hold on reality - much of what is printed does not fall short of being pure political propoganda.

much of what is printed does not fall short of being pure political propoganda.


Yep 99% of your BS here certainly is DNA.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 5^th, 2012 at 8:26am:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 5th, 2012 at 8:22am: It's easier to blame the media and the Opposition for 12 months of bad opinion polls than to accept the reality that she's a bad PM Well maybe if they were not regurgitating over 50 negative articles a week for the entire period their would not be the realistic argument that it was the major influence on the polls.

so from the ALP's point of view the 30% Labor primaries represent a group of people too smart to be influence by the media no matter how truthful it is?

really sad

the reality is if the government is competent then the media will have slim pickings. their articles will reflect trivial stuff

what the media have been reporting is NOT trivial

(1) cover ups
(2) billions in wastage
(3) incompetence
(5) mismanagement
(6) dirty tricks