Phillip Coorey of the Sydney Morning Herald reportedly reports that Julia Gillard’s winning margin over Kevin Rudd in this morning’s Labor leadership vote has been 73-29, coming in at the higher end of market expectations.
UPDATE: The official announcement has actually been that the margin was 71-31. Headline amended. Apologies that comments are currently off, which has been necessary to manage Crikey’s notoriously shaky bandwidth.
UPDATE 2: Ongoing apologies for the offness of the comments. Essential Research has come in at 56-44, up from 55-45 last week and 54-46 the week before. Labor’s primary vote is down a point to 32 per cent and the Coalition’s is up one to 49 per cent, with the Greens steady on 11 per cent. Further questions have 39 per cent blaming Julia Gillard for Labor’s problems against 18 per cent for Kevin Rudd, 23 per cent for others in the party and 10 per cent for the media. Reactions to the Gonski report are typically social democratic, with 61 per cent preferring more education funding to a return to a budget surplus and 68 per cent supporting the report’s recommendations as described against 13 per cent opposed.
Zoid
Ego problems are shared by
Julia Gillard
Tiny Abbott
Julie Bishop
Wayne Swan
Chrissy Pyne
Malcolm T
John Howard
Paul k
Bob Hawke
Gough W
Need I go on
Why just pick on one of them?
leone, the Constitution was changed after the Joh/Field fiasco.
[How is it not news that the PM said talk of her talking to Bob Carr was “completely untrue, completely untrue” only to find today it was “completely true” that she talked to him?]
Modlib — it was mostly crap and you know it.
[Modlib — it was mostly crap and you know it.]
What Gillard said?
Yes, I know…
[ billie
Posted Thursday, March 1, 2012 at 5:16 pm | Permalink
A casual perusal of Bob Ellis blog http://www.ellistabletalk.com shows that he thought Bob Carr had been offered the NSW Senate vacancy and had been offered Foreign Affairs. Ellis takes pains to establish his closeness to Carr and the centre of Labor power broking]
Taking tips from Ellis about what’s going on inside the Labor Party is like getting tips from Malcolm Fraser on the inner workings of the Libs these days.
Ellis is an un-reconstructed Ruddista who has had at least one excruciatingly maudlin and boring paean to Rudd published on The Drum website in the last 12 months. Fair dinkum, it read like a print version of Don Mclean’s The Day the Music Died, dedicated to The Great Man hisself.
[‘A long long time ago
I can still remember how that leader used to make me smile
And I knew if I had my chance
That I could make the Party dance
And maybe they’d be happy for a while….’]
Jacko
Sorry, I’ll talk about anything I like, if you don’t like it then scroll past.
The 1977 referendum intended to ensure that the balance of power in the senate could not be upset by the appointment of a new senator to fill a casual vacancy. It didn’t quite solve the problem. State parliaments can decide not to elect a candidate. In 1987 the Tasmanian parliament rejected the Labor candiate in a tied vote, saying that they did not have to accept the nomination of any candidate. No new candidate was elected to fill the vacancy until the next federal election.
Garry and Mod lib
For our own edification how does the faction system work in the coalition
Ie who belongs where and how tight are they.
Now I guess that on the
Dripping and very wet side there is :Broadbent
Wet: Hunt,Pyne,Turnbull,Hockey, Brandis
Damp: Abbott (except on social issues)
Dry: Bishop, Bishop,Robb??
Dessicated: Heffernon, Bernadi, Mirablella
Am I right and can you expand the list please
Mod Lib, lets say you called jenauthor and discussed with her the potential of joining your knitting class. A journalist then asks you whether you offered jenauthor $1 million to join your knitting class but you were bullied out of it by a passing pack a hyenas. You say “that is completely untrue”. Would someone who described your statement as ‘legalise’ be stretching it just a little bit?
Gary Sparrow – how could Julia Gilliard’s legitamacy be destroyed since the Monday ballot as a result of a nothing story about filling a Senate vacancy?
Clutching at your avatar picture ‘pork pie’ (lie) hat old boy!
[ Modlib — it was mostly crap and you know it. ]
Mod Lib’s argument (like Shamahams) seems to refer to the use of the word “completely” – i.e. it was not “completely untrue”, it was just “untrue”.
But as roaldan1000 correctly pointed out, the story was not “completely untrue”. For example, I think the reporter spelt their own name correctly, and possibly even got the date correct.
However, it was “completely untrue” with respect to all the facts salient to the story.
Carrgate. Not sure that one’s going to catch on.
I’m viewing it as an unhealthy public obsession with what is an internal ALP matter, at this stage. Certain interested parties, in the press and the Coalition, are scouting about for anything they think they can conflate into yet another insinuation.
In this, as with most topics we’re being asked to treat as “urgent”, I see no connection with issues to do with policy. There might be some interest in who is best to fill the FM position, but the process by which they come to that choice is of no real interest to me.
[ In this, as with most topics we’re being asked to treat as “urgent”, I see no connection with issues to do with policy. There might be some interest in who is best to fill the FM position, but the process by which they come to that choice is of no real interest to me. ]
But, Aquirre – the story is not about who would be best as FM – the real story is about how Jula can’t even fill a simple senate vacancy without completely confusing Shamaham! So it logically follows that she must be a lying, conniving, untrustworthy b*tch!
I see no stringent defence in those words Aguirre, just a desire for another topic.
If I were you I would hope the media was discussing something other than the PM’s use of words to mislead as well!
Its just good news that the media (since 4C I think) are cottoning on to the fact that you cannot take anything Gillard says at face value- look for the deception.
What makes me laugh (until I cry) is that the Oppsotion just says ANYTHING and it gets printed/shown.
I saw JBish on doors this morning and the PM would be well within her rights to sue – JBish talking like she has ‘privilege’ like inside chamber.
If it was me, I’d be going her with a ‘meat axe’ lawyer!
@D2D/3951,
Never said any politician listed didn’t have an ego, it’s just that Rudd’s showed it more open than others.
In my view, All politicians have ego’s.
Now go back to you’re box and stop trying to put other people’s words in their own mouths.
Aguirre
[Carrgate. Not sure that one’s going to catch on.]
It’s Carr Crash. 😀
So, ModLib, how do you explain the way the ABC reported the “Completely Untrue” quote?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-29/carr-foreign-ministry-speculation/3860482
Your accusation that Julia Gillard was referring to whether she talked to Bob Carr is simply incorrect, and the fact you persist with this tells me you have no interest in the truth, only what you can do to assist propagating spin and, fundamentally, lies from the opposition and some parts of the media.
Gillard was dishonest, simple.
People trying to spin their her way out of it.
She was unnecessarily stupid in going the absolutely completely didn’t didn’t offer Carr FA.
She could have said that she spoke him in general terms…etc… but that it wasn’t in her power to offer anybody a Senate position.
Seems she likes to choose the sneaky route.
Where is Julia Gillard quoted as denying talking to Bob Carr about a Senate Position and FA?
Mod Lib
[Its just good news that the media (since 4C I think) are cottoning on to the fact that you cannot take anything Gillard says at face value- look for the deception.]
I thought you were more sensible than that.
ModLib, TP and others:
Were you there? FMD – you people talk like you were sitting in the room and know exactly what was said.
It says a lot about anyone’s ability to discern fact from fiction if you simply believe the first thing you see that reinforces your bias.
Am out of here – I’ve got no time for this rubbish on a daily basis. Invite me back when you are willing to discuss politics without playing up the idiocy dished out by our media.
[ltep
Posted Thursday, March 1, 2012 at 7:00 pm | Permalink
Mod Lib, lets say you called jenauthor and discussed with her the potential of joining your knitting class. A journalist then asks you whether you offered jenauthor $1 million to join your knitting class but you were bullied out of it by a passing pack a hyenas. You say “that is completely untrue”. Would someone who described your statement as ‘legalise’ be stretching it just a little bit?]
I have a better one:
Oz front page about Carr offered FM job but ALP blocked it
[JULIA GILLARD (at press conference): The story that’s on the front page of the Australian Newspaper today is completely untrue.
JOURNALIST: Were you …?
2ND JOURNALIST: Can you give us some details?
JULIA GILLARD: I’ve just said completely untrue.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible)
JULIA GILLARD: I’ve just said completely untrue. ]
The next day Julia admits she talked to Carr about the reshuffle
Or this one:
[ (wtte: There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead]
Then she introduces a carbon tax and agrees with Heather Ewart when she asks:
[HEATHER EWART: With this carbon tax – you do concede it’s a carbon tax, do you not?
JULIA GILLARD: Oh, look, I’m happy to use the word tax, Heather. ]
Or this one:
Gillard and Wilkie have a pact for an ALP government if she passes a pokie bill
Gillard walks away when she gets a Lib defector to be speaker
How would you describe such an individual?
[How would you describe such an individual?]
A politician?
You can play these games with just about any person who has held a senior ministerial or leadership role with a political party.
I can think of a fair few for Mr Abbott, for instance.
[jenauthor
Posted Thursday, March 1, 2012 at 7:13 pm | Permalink
ModLib, TP and others:
Were you there?]
Run away if you wish Jen…
I wasn’t there, but I don’t need to have been there, I am only commenting on what Gillard herself said yesterday versus what she said today.
TP is absolutely right. JG should have been very specific.
She should have said:
“The bit about me taking to Carr before the weekend was completely untrue.
“The bit about me offering him the FM position was completely untrue.
“The bit about the mutiny was completely untrue.
Some of the sentences in between might have been true, who knows these days with NewsLtd?”
No wonder she seems shifty and untrustworthy to the public, she takes fefuge in smenatics and literal translations. Is unable to speak straight and direct.
If the people in Labor did something, then she has to mention that if she knows it when answer a question on it. No, I absolutely didn’t blah blah….knowing full well that others have. It is dishonest. It means reporters will have to ask their questions in such a way to cover every possible angle they think Gillard may find to weasel out from answering in good faith.
IMHO, Mr Abbott would have contemplated a reshuffle many a time.
The first question would be who do you keep? Being generous:
(1) Himself
(2) Ms Bishop the Elder (for sentimental reasons)
(3) Mr Morrison
That leaves all those who have failed to make their marks because:
(1) they have come up with no policy at all
(2) what they have come up with is a crock
(3) they have failed to lay a glove on their opposite numbers.
ModLib:
You’re absolutely right. That’s been my general attitude lately. If it didn’t happen in parliament or isn’t policy-related, I struggle to maintain interest. I know you’re into the gossipy rumour stuff, and I don’t want to hold you back. I just may not give you the bickering you’re after.
You asked for my take on it. I don’t know why though, since you’ve made up your mind about what I think already by the sound of it. \
Let me know if I change my mind at any stage. 🙂
[Mod Lib’s argument (like Shamahams) seems to refer to the use of the word “completely” – i.e. it was not “completely untrue”, it was just “untrue”.]
What i cant work out is what they think is the story here? Its a beat up they are madly spinning to support the proposition that Julia Gillard lies. Direct, personal attack on the PM over something which is so amazingly trivial, and unimportant as to beggar belief.
I mean, she has no responsibility to report on her conversations with anyone about internal ALP matters.
And the idea they have introduced that if Smith is re-appointed FM it somehow reflects badly on her authority is simply absurd. Cant these people actually find REAL things to write about??
Like, for one example, there are two big floods in the East at the moment. Wot, thats so last fracking year is it?? Bet the people who are getting hit by them dont think so? So, maybe the jouro’s or even Dog forbid the Opposition could be asking what the Govt is doing to help and pressuring them to do even more??
But seems like, according to the MSM thats not even worth discussing while they can navel gaze and debate how many times you can print the word “completely” on the head of a pin and what did she mean by it anyway.
New depths for trivial irrelevance to real life are being plumbed here people.
ModLib, what was the story in the Australian about?
Let’s take the headline:
“Mutiny Kills PM’s Bob Carr Plan”
Saying that was untrue would imply what? That there was no mutiny.
Let’s take the sub heading:
“Rebellion by Ministers Undermines Gillard’s Newfound Authority”
Saying that was untrue would imply what? That there was no rebellion.
So at what point does saying the story was “completely untrue” come to be about denying talking to Bob Carr?
[Run away if you wish Jen…]
Sorry Modlib but I cannot abide deliberately nonsensical arguments for the sake of arguing. I also don’t need to witness people arguing against their own best interests. If anyone is that deluded, I might feel sorry for them, but I am not going to waste my brainspace with such ludicrous nonsense.
[A politician?
You can play these games with just about any person who has held a senior ministerial or leadership role with a political party.
I can think of a fair few for Mr Abbott, for instance.]
Absolutely you can, and you can criticise both sides as I do….
Or you can claim Gillard has done nothing wrong and then thrash about wildly when Howard did the same thing…
Those Morgan figures appear to undercut the meme that Labor got a lift because the punters thought Mr Rudd was going to get a guernsey.
Maybe what actually happened was that they thought an election might have been in the offing and they finally had a bit of a closer look at the Coalition.
Or maybe, with less than a 1,000 polled, the MOE is a bit larger than usual.
[Or you can claim Gillard has done nothing wrong]
I’ve never said such a thing. I just think this particular instance is a complete beat up. I’ve criticised Labor, under both Rudd and Gillard, many times – sometimes on issues where I’ve been severely outnumbered on here.
The sole function of the current “scandal” will be to add to the “list” of Gillard “Gaffes”, as in,
* Labor Party Conference catastrophe
* Reshuffle debacle
* Australia Day cover-up
* Cabinet mutiny over Carr.
[Sorry Modlib but I cannot abide deliberately nonsensical arguments for the sake of arguing.]
You realize Jen you have have just counted yourself out of EVER qualifying for a spot on the Fib/Nat front bench? 🙂
Boerwar, or maybe it’s a Morgan F2F 😉
[So at what point does saying the story was “completely untrue” come to be about denying talking to Bob Carr?]
Don’t bother jakol. It’s nothing more than the latest confected Fiberal talking point.
They’ll try and keep the focus on anything but their own empty policy cupboard and tawdry threadbare leader, a self-admitted liar.
And that’s ‘completely true’.
[So at what point does saying the story was “completely untrue” come to be about denying talking to Bob Carr?]
Jackol:
Was Bob Carr offered the FM position by anyone in the ALP?
[So at what point does saying the story was “completely untrue” come to be about denying talking to Bob Carr?]
What was completely untrue was that Bob Carr was offered the role of FM. Only Gillard can offer that. If she did not, then the story is completely untrue.
Morgan has some interesting baromoters such as its confidence meter and its own way of measuring unemployment
Modlib:
Ok, now this interests me. Give me some examples of Howard doing the same thing.
Sorry, I’ve got to fight on this one: this one is so clearly twisting Julia Gillard’s words.
When a story in the Australian is about “Mutiny Kills PM’s Bob Carr Plan” and “Rebellion by Ministers Undermines Gillard’s Newfound Authority”, and Julia Gillard rejects the story as “Completely Untrue”,
How on earth does that equate to her denying talking to Bob Carr?
Honestly? It’s so absurd. And in defending Julia Gillard there are accusations of “weasel words” etc – there’s nothing tricky or ambiguous or polly speak here. The article in the Australian about a “mutiny” was completely untrue.
BW
While you are here, on the assumption that Mr Rudd is not reappointed as FM, do you expect changes to foreign policy or just approach?
Amazing to see the attack of the vapours the PM’s supposed “porkies” have caused the Coalition supporters here. I feel concerned for their health considering the word of the leader of their party cannot be trusted as “the gospel truth” unless it is written down on paper and signed by him. He signs SFA these days.
Carr says he wasn’t ModLib. SAre you saying he is lying?
It was canvassed.
Julia Gillard has not denied this – please provide a quote where she denies discussing the Senate position and FM job with Bob Carr.
The story in the Australian that she rejected as “completely untrue” was talking about “Mutiny Kills PM’s Bob Carr Plan” and “Rebellion by Ministers Undermines Gillard’s Newfound Authority”. There was no mutiny, no rebellion; the story was completely untrue.
[Ok, now this interests me. Give me some examples of Howard doing the same thing.]
Howard was a master of using specific phraseology to skirt along the edges of the truth. He would say what he needed to say to get out of a hot spot “Never ever GST” or “We won’t abuse our Senate majority to pass contentious legislation” etc etc….I am sure you guys can come up with rheems of this stuff (beware Crikey bandwith limits!!!!).
The complete blindness to Gillard’s failings here, with the associated need to imply that the entire Australian electorate is stupid and the entire Australian media is corrupt, is what intrigues me!
Except that in this specific case, your accusations (and the opposition’s and the Australian’s) are clearly wrong.
The reason the Noalition is so worked up about “Carrgate” is that is yet another reminder that they are not in government and are irrelavent when real decisions of state are made :). That and they have nothing else in the locker.