AAP, for some reason, reveals that the Newspoll to be published in The Australian tomorrow will have the elastic jerking back after the 50-50 anomaly of three weeks ago, with the Coalition now leading 54-46 on two-party preferred from primary votes of 33% for Labor (down three), 45% for the Coalition (up four) and 10% for the Greens (down two). However, Julia Gillard has improved further on her strongly recovering personal ratings last time, holding steady on approval at 36% and dropping two on disapproval to 50%, producing her best net approval rating since April last year. The wide gap which opened on preferred prime minister last time has narrowed only modestly, coming in at 43-33 in Gillard’s favour rather than 46-32. Tony Abbott’s personal ratings have also improved, his approval up three to 33% and disapproval down five to 55%.
Today’s Essential Research had Labor gaining a further point on the primary vote to 37%, with the Coalition steady at 47%. Essential has shown Labor gaining five points on the primary vote over six weeks, to reach a level not seen since March last year. The Coalition’s two-party preferred lead is unchanged at 53-47. Essential has smartly chosen this week to repeat an exercise from a year ago concerning trust in media personalities, finding Alan Jones among the most famous but least trusted (22% trust against 67% do not trust). The others best recognised were Laurie Oakes and George Negus, with the former slightly edging out the latter on trust (72% compared with 69%). Only 17% registered support for funding cuts to the ABC, with around a third each wanting funding maintained or increased. Opinion on government regulation of the media was fairly evenly spread between wanting more, less and the same.
UPDATE (9/10/12): The latest Morgan face-to-face result, combining its surveys over the past two weekends, has Labor down half a point to 37%, the Coalition up 1.5% to 43% and the Greens up half a point to 10.5%. The Coalition’s lead on respondent-allocated preferences is steady at 52-48, but they have gained a point on the 2010 election preferences measure to lead 51-49.
Senate-heavy preselection news:
• Barnaby Joyce’s lower house ambitions for the next election have foundered with Bruce Scott’s determination to serve another term as member for Maranoa. Joyce will not challenge Scott for preselection, saying to do so would be “self-indulgent personality politics”, despite the impression many received from his declared opposition to the locally contentious purchase of the vast Cubbie Station by a consortium led by Chinese interests. Unidentified Nationals quoted by Dennis Shanahan of The Australian “maintain Joyce had the numbers for preselection over Scott but it was going to be an ugly and drawn-out affair”.
• Two of the Queensland Coalition Senators whose terms expire after the next election have announced they will not seek re-election, leaving only 2007 ticket leader Ian MacDonald. Ron Boswell, who has been in the Senate since 1983 and was re-elected from number three in 2007, surprised nobody by announcing that at the age of 70 the time had come to bow out. Andrew Fraser of The Australian reports those in contention to take his place on the LNP Senate ticket include David Goodwin, the Boswell-backed president of the Queensland Chamber of Commerce and Industry, along with LNP vice-president Gary Spence, LNP treasurer Barry O’Sullivan, and Barnaby Joyce staffer Matt Canavan. Liberal Senator Sue Boyce today announced she would not contest the next election as she wished to spend more time with her family, while acknowledging her preselection would have faced opposition from forces who perceive her as too moderate. Steven Scott of the Courier-Mail reported that other applicants are likely to include David Moore, who worked on Campbell Newman’s election campaign. Steven Scott of the Courier-Mail reported that hopefuls for a Senate position included David Moore, an LNP operative whose activities as a lobbyist were recently criticised by Clive Palmer.
• Chris Ketter, state secretary of the Right faction Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association, has been preselected to top the Queensland Labor Senate ticket. The number one candidate from 2007, Senate President John Hogg, will retire. The second and third elected candidates from last time, Claire Moore and Mark Furner, will retain their old positions, a gloomy prospect for Furner in particular.
• Mark Kenny of The Advertiser reports that Labor in South Australia will not promote Penny Wong to the top of its Senate ticket, despite the “bad look” of having the position instead go to one-time Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association state secretary Don Farrell on the strength of his Right faction’s control of between 55% and 60% of the votes at the party’s state convention.
• Long-simmering hostilities between the NSW Liberals and Nationals over the seat of Hume have come to an end, with the Nationals agreeing not to field a candidate against Liberal candidate Angus Taylor in his bid to succeed retiring Liberal Alby Schultz. Senator Fiona Nash had most frequently been nominated as a potential candidate, together with state government minister Katrina Hodgkinson.
• Bob Carr told reporters last week that were Robert McClelland to retire in Barton, he could not think of a better candidate to succeed him than his own successor as Premier, Morris Iemma. However, McClelland insists he has no plans to do so.
• As anticipated, former Australian Medical Association president Bill Glasson has been confirmed as the LNP candidate to run against Kevin Rudd in Griffith. Glasson’s father, Bill Glasson Sr, was once Nationals member for the rural seat of Gregory and a minister in the Bjelke-Petersen, Cooper and Ahern governments. Other names mentioned in relation to the preselection were John Haley, Alfio Russo and John Adermann, who stayed with the process to the end, along with Angela Julian-Armitage and Wayne Tsang, who dropped out at an earlier stage.
• The Mercury published extensive results on Saturday for polling of state voting intention in Tasmania, conducted on behalf of the Liberal Party by ReachTEL. The figures, which make for dismal reading for Labor, are detailed below, and have been thoroughly analysed by Kevin Bonham at the Tasmanian Times. The poll also found Liberal leader Will Hodgman favoured by 57.3% ahead of 22.9% for Premier Lara Giddings and 19.8% for Greens leader Nick McKim, and that 34.4% opposed the forestry “peace deal” against 28.2% support.
Lyons Bass Braddon Denison Franklin Total Labor 22.3% 17.4% 23.2% 18.5% 27.6% 22.7% Liberal 55.7% 62.9% 56.8% 36.5% 46.3% 51.5% Greens 13.6% 13.6% 14.6% 23.2% 19.4% 17.7% Other 8.4% 6.1% 5.3% 21.9% 6.7% 8.1% Sample 233 230 232 241 238 1174
Interesting thing too William, The Coalition Party attacked Mike Quigley for his appointment, and now they are trashing the PM based on sexuality,
The current Coalition are nothing but bigots, sexiest and “What about me” group party.
How do we take them down kezza?
Personally I am doing it the subtle way by being the househusband to two kids for more than 10 years now, disregarding a recent PhD.
Not super militant, but I’m sure my kids will have an impact on the next generation. 🙂
Mick Collins
[They dismissed the notion that “Social Media” had taken control of the “Narrative”, ]
The local yokel media keep trying to denigrate the reaction to the PM’s speech as just being a social media twitter blogosphere thang. They have yet to “please explain” about why it was taken so differently in “serious” media. The New Yorker, The Guardian,The Daily Mail,Die Welt,Le Monde etc.
Kinkajou some pages back:
Room 99????
101, I think?
Unless the party says that 99 = 101 etc etc etc
Rummel,
{Its wrong but its out there and it makes me look like a generally nice chap.]
😆
[It’s surprising to learn how much women are hated, isn’t it.]
They are not hated kezza.
It is attitudes and the culture of the day, the way things are.
Howard said we are not a racist nation because we did not see our attitudes to aborigines and other races as racism, it was just the way things are.
[AnonymousIRC @AnonymousIRC
Here is our statement on @Wikileaks http://pastebin.com/Juxb5M26 – A summary and explanation. #Anonymous #Wikileaks ]
[Space Kidette
Posted Friday, October 12, 2012 at 7:23 pm | PERMALINK
Don’t know if you have voted bludgers, what did you think of JGs speech? complete the poll
http://www.nationaltimes.com.au/opinion/gillards-fiery-retort-did-the-mainstream-media-get-it-wrong-20121011-27eqg.html#poll
Funny thing about that poll yesterday it was around the 51 to 54%in favour of the PM then suddenly in about half an hour it dropped to about the 42% mark in favour with a sudden leap in votes “obviously” all against the PM !!!
BH
You reminded me to have a look at Mike Seccombe’s piece. One of the few in the “media” who wants the msm to wake up to themselves. I’m a fan – have been since I saw him on Insiders. And he’s got a sense of humour – not all of them have (too many to list!)
{otally agree William. Big mistake. All it has done is let Abbott off the hook and leave Government members ducking for cover as interviewers line up to quizz them over whether Tony Abbott really hates women. Even I don’t believe that and I can’t stand the man.{DARN POSTTED}
MY GOODNESS ME YOU SOUND VERY CONSERVASTIVE.
the only people now talking about it si HERE and ordinary people on a friday night it may or may not be the conversation in pubs and clubs the PM is in BAlI
i dont think she her self has even mentiioned it.
and may be in the office, tell me today what minister mentioned it
i have not heard it mentioned in them main newes items
policies have been discussed was it yesterday
and the wild rivers ect.
who know what the wash up will be with this, the polls may be not effected.
But i can tell you DARN its helped a lot of young woman feel liberated in their jobs and their homes
with husbands who put them down,
they understand that the leader of our country understands
that woman are equels.
thank goodness i say
this subject has been swept under the carpet by men for the last 2012 years. we are not just the baby makers
there are those who no reason have not married
there are some who chose NOT to marry,
then there are those that do marry and are used at chatels
, may be they are in the minority.
but Julias speech was for all MEN and woman may make some men think twice now before saying a dirty joke in front of woman, or reading dirty book in front of woman
‘whistling as you walk down a road. how dare they do that.
yes womans lib came and not all us embraced it
men said we want open doors for you becauce you now feel liberatedl
what a cop out , we will not stand up for you in the bus when your pregnant, becauce you want to have woman lib.
well men have alway dont what they liked gone where they liked and and have always been liberated.
Of course the majority of men are like my OH sensitive caring and loving men and fathers.
this is also like my son in law.
thank goodness i have a lucky daugher and my sons partner is also very lucky
sometimes it begings in the home, My daugher to day
ask her son to go and get the garbage bin and wheel it in hes 6 he makes his bed in the morning and sets the table at night and gets his baby brothers bottle ready
she said i am not rearing a son that does not help his wife. i want his wife to say we share we do things on equal footing, in my opinion they are the marriages that survive and are called soul mates.
castle
[It is attitudes and the culture of the day, the way things are.]
I used to think that until I heard about a speech by an MP made at Federation about the Constitution. This was during the Centeneray of Federation. Dog I would love to track it down again. What he said about the racist “White Australia” aspects of it could have been written yesterday. So it was not that they did not know better it was that they chose to be so. Please please any PBer who knows who the guy may have been let me know.
You can get a good look at how the media hijacks issues this week. On Tuesday afternoon, nobody was describing Gillard’s speech as a defence of Slipper. By today, the various media-bots have been saying it to each other for so long that they’re treating it as a given. What was a question on Tuesday night, defended more than adequately by the ALP, has morphed into an undisputed fact.
We’re now at the point where media people can start a sentence with “Because Gillard defended Slipper in her speech…” and just take it from there.
Now, they do that because they want it to be true. Not necessarily because of a political leaning, often just because it conforms to all their previous assumptions and, you know, all the other journos are saying it. Journalists are shocking analysts precisely because they never go back to question the first assumption, they just pick up from where they left off last time, and bend whatever is happening to fit.
It’s assumptions like that – which they don’t notice while they’re chatting with each other, but which are questioned and dissected at length elsewhere – that define the gulf between the journosphere and reality.
William, I made a booboo in that post and accidentally pressed comment button (dam laptop ). would really appreciate if you could delete, thanks
kezza2@5710
I listened to that as well.
It was astoundiong just disconnected both Warharft (sp?) and Roskon (sp?) were. To them it was all about context, about Slipper, that the PM’s speech was a “fail” because wtte “she was defending the indefensible and arch misogynist Peter Slipper”, blah blah blah. They dismissed the notion that “Social Media” had taken control of the “Narrative”, and that regardless of what they may think, the “context” now was that this was brewing for two years and the PM, finally, put the sexist oppositionsfuhrer in his place. Nope, they new better, this was a “fail” and that Slipper was the only issue that mattered.
The response really rattled him, to the point that Faine had to show Roskam his emails; to prove that they were not merely alp “spam”
When Faine pointed out just how viral the PM’s speech was, by using the examples of the words press (The Guardian,Spectar et al, Roskom scoffed that they were just “Leftist rags”, and Wafhaft just dismissed them as being from “over seas” or wtte.
They just didn’t get what all their callers and texters did. They didn’t get what the rest of the world got. They have missed what the impact that that speech really made. Our PM struck a chord that was felt world-wide.
They, missed that, and now they are pissed off because of it.
Social Media stole their precious narrative.
By the way, what the ***** do they mean by “Context” ? That makes absolutely no sense as an argument.
rummel@5835
I can handle anything you throw at me! 😀
[New Speaker Anna Burke backs Julia Gillard in gender war]
So now we have a Gender War according to the Australian, what a crap rag it has become.
[h1
Posted Friday, October 12, 2012 at 7:24 pm | Permalink
I have been posting on the guardian site in relation to their editorial in praise of Julia Gillard.
They seemed to like this post so I thought I’d paste it here]
thank you for that post seems william and darn
not even the guardian agree with
either of you..
the guardian is the only paper i read these days
Mick
By the way, what the ***** do they mean by “Context” ? That makes absolutely no sense as an argument.]
That is the magic word at the moment I have been told that in tweets by Journos plus on audio (Lenore T & K Murphy) but when I asked what context meant no reply, whatever it is O/S papers don’t have it I was told
have the liberal woman been sent out
becauce thise story is getting to much news.
and they want to spread doubt.
i wonder what these liberal woman really think in the privacy of their own thoughts.
I think one of the most damning things about the current discourse is the desire to reduce a debate about sexism in Canberra to whether or not “it wins votes”
It was a really pathetic week.
I take the decision of Abbott over ru486 to be a prime example of misogyny. Using the power of his position as a Minister to try to deny women access to a drug which would save them from undergoing surgical procedures is beyond sexism. It qualifies Abbott as a misogynist in my book.
william i love the way bh nicley explained it
ruawake
[So now we have a Gender War according to the Australian,]
The Grattanosaurus started that.
[Now Julia Gillard has the gender war. Or the ”misogyny wars” ]
mari,
The liberal spambots have been flooding the international news sites as well. had me laughing.
gough1 5824
Very good summation of government’s record. The link is important. I’ve bookmarked it. It’s proof that Gillard didn’t mislead about intending to introduce a carbon price.
What’s also interesting is the comments following that article. There were 28, of which I think only 2 were supportive of Gillard’s position. But here is what is really fascinating:
Comment 1 was logged at 7.41am, and comment 28 at 11.28am.
In other words, either the article elicited virtually NIL interest from readers, or the editor only selected 28 responses to skew the reaction.
Either way, it’s not exactly an endorsement of the Oz’s influence on readers.
Ok, I want to try to articulate my take on what happened on Tuesday in an attempt to make more sense of it.
Drag0nista has posted on her blog This time, the MSM got it right that Tony Abbott wedged Julia Gillard with his motion to remove the Speaker.
She concludes with:
The best article I have come across in the media on what happened is by Laura Tingle in today’s AFR Complicated Canberra: drama compels, numbers count. Tingle starts by writing:
Further on she writes:
And:
And:
So what do we have? I think Drag0nista is right in that Tony Abbott was trying to wedge the PM. He put forward the motion in an attempt to embarrass the Government and the PM and perhaps even turn the numbers closer to his favour. I doubt the status of the office of Speaker was a consideration at all.
I’m not so sure that he succeeded. I think the PM had no choice but to oppose the motion. I’m also sure that she was aware of the meetings between Tony Windsor, Rob Oakshotte, Anthony Albanese and Peter Slipper. Given the reported mental fragility of Slipper, I think the compassionate and responsible thing to do was to oppose the motion. What was remarkable was the way she managed to turn such a position into such a spirited attack.
The Press Gallery of course see this through the prism of the game (as do us here, subject to the distortions of our own biases). So, they see that Peter Slipper is no longer Speaker, and that the PM was forced to defend sexism despite the attack by Labor on the issue over the last few months. They see that the cross benches now has one extra member, and the Government’s thin margin is potentially even thinner. How will the public see it? I don’t know. I guess this might be one case where polling will actually tell us something useful. If Labor goes down the MSM will tell us how they were right. If Labor goes up we’ll see the crowing on social media.
The gallery and the media also seemed to accept the Opposition line that in opposing the motion the Government, and the PM, were attempting to defend the indefensible. Nowhere in the speeches on the motion put before the HoR did I see or read the Government defend the actions of Peter Slipper. If anything the opposition was the case. However, this was the meme that the media seemed to adopt.
Labor cited as a reason to oppose the motion the lack of procedural fairness. Bob Katter abstained because he said that the Parliament should not consider itself a court. I’m not sure if the media normally places much store on procedural fairness – it often seems to act more like a kangaroo court. Could it be that the much of the gallery was blind to this defence? Did they only look at the politics (numbers, wedges) and not consider the institutions of Parliament, democracy, the rule of law and the separation of powers?
I do wonder though why the Government decided to grant leave to the Opposition to move the motion in the first place?
But let’s get back to the original reason for the motion. There were two of Peter Slipper’s text messages that were highlighted. One described women’s genitals as looking like an unshelled mussel. The other refered to Sophie Mirabella as “an ignorant botch”. So let’s look at these messages. Both text messages were sent when Slipper was still a member of the LNP and prior to his taking up the role of Speaker and employing James Ashby. I’ll deal with the second one first.
Tingle actually gave context (there’s that word) to the second SMS by including Ashby’s text messages leading up to it. She also wrote:
I can’t see anything in the above that would be grounds for Slipper to be removed from the office of Speaker.
Now onto the first text message. Let me say first that as a male, I’m not really qualified to say what is and isn’t sexist. However and given the context, I thought the message by Slipper was vulgar, but I’m far from convinced that it was sexist. It wasn’t directed at an individual woman, or even at women in general. It was a description of a part of the anatomy. Jane Caro, appearing on The Drum, was also of the opinion that it was not sexist. She went on to say that some women at times make similar comments about the male anatomy. That’s not necessarily sexist either.
When I say that given the context I didn’t think the message was sexist, I mean that this was a private conversation between two friends (at least I think Slipper thought Ashby was a friend).
So, I’m of the opinion (and I don’t think I’ve seen anyone else articulate this) that the text messages cited by the Opposition were insufficient reason to justify the removal of Peter Slipper from the role of Speaker. Of course that’s just my opinion.
one thing that cannot be forgotten
is there are some nasty woman out there
ive heard of awful things re ex husbands diverorce and their children my heart goes out to them
men love their children as much as a mother.
over my life time ive seen some very sad men
and my heart goes out to them/.
i now think thats not much left to say except
thank you Julia for being who you are, and just being you.
the best pm
[So it was not that they did not know better it was that they chose to be so.]
Poroti
That is the LNP, conservatism, don’t change, all is good.
labor challenges, questions, is this right, is it good.
Gough gave a vision of the way Australia SHOULD BE, Gillard is doing the same, whilst she may not win the next election she will inspire a generation as Gough did.
lizzie – So good to see Mike Seccombe back. He’s so reasonable.
mari – they can’t answer you re context. I think they know they’ve gone a bit overboard for some of us but it doesn’t matter. It’s still all about polling and while the polls are down for Labor the bad press will continue. None will want to offend Abbott or the likes of Abetz who was so vindictive towards the ABC during the Howard years. Catch 22 for Labor, isn’t it.
[deflationite
Posted Friday, October 12, 2012 at 7:43 pm | PERMALINK
How do we take them down kezza?
Personally I am doing it the subtle way by being the househusband to two kids for more than 10 years now, disregarding a recent PhD.
Not super militant, but I’m sure my kids will have an impact on the next generation.]
Good on ya, mate. (And, I actually think blokes are better at creating independent kids. What blasphemy!)
One of the things I impress upon blokes who have been separated from their children is to say how valuable their input it in raising children. And that, men in fact are really good at being house husbands (if they’re on the dole).
Once self-esteem is restored, the change is miraculous.
They’re outa there quick smart (hate being subject to the love of their children), get a job, and contribute to the upkeep of their children.
And, once established in a new relationship, can go to court telling of their stability and their wish to be connected and to contribute to their own kids. It’s great.
Men need to be recognised as fathers with something to contribute to the growth and maturity of their offspring, not just as pay packets.
BC
Firstly, I’ve been arguing for days that the Slipper comments weren’t offensive to women (I have made comparisons with jokes at children’s parties about ‘little boys’).
Secondly, a very very interesting aspect of the whole affair is that, brilliant though it was, there was nothing off the cuff about Julia’s response. She had direct quotes, with dates, at her fingertips.
Her use of them in that particular ‘context’ (a word I am beginning to loathe) was excellent, of course, but it appears to have been opportunistic.
One wonders whether, had Abbott not moved that standing orders be suspended, there was a Dorothy Dixer waiting in the wings…
(Which, of course, would explain why Albo et al, after a hurried consultation, gave Abbott’s motion the go ahead, on the terms they stated…)
finns
[Wow wow wow – Gillard labels Abbott a misogynist – 2 days ago | 922,453 views – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihd7ofrwQX0 … – 922,453 VIEWS!!!!!!!! ]
Now on 1,025,928 views (plus 340 views on The Daily Derp, plus eleventy bazillion views on other sites).
As I have not read much of PB today I may have missed the following being posted on carbon trading:
[China’s first steps to build what is destined to be the world’s second-biggest emissions market are boosting the prospects for fledgling programs from Australia to California.]
[Governments in California and Australia said they are working together to promote global carbon trading. Australia is also in talks with China, according to Mark Dreyfus, the country’s parliamentary secretary for climate change. Dreyfus said he met in New York last month with China’s National Development and Reform Commission Vice Chairman Xie Zhenhua.
“We have been working closely with China over the last year on a range of policy and technical issues to support the development of credible, robust and effective carbon markets,” Dreyfus said in Sept. 28 statement.]
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-12/china-carbon-debut-defies-emission-doubters-energy-markets.html
The story is also run in the China Daily http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2012-10/11/content_15810656.htm which can be taken as a mark of authenticity from the Chinese Government.
poroti
[New Speaker Anna Burke backs Julia Gillard in gender war]
Haven’t read the article but she was open to that attack after commenting favourably on the speech on RN this morning. Given that the speech attacked Abbott the Speaker should have been neutral.
About 6 months ago I had a great night at the local club. When I got home I opened a twitter acct. I haven’t been game enough to use it as I registered ‘ausjournosrscum’. In fact I don’t even know if I can change the name. Let alone how twitter works.
[Space Kidette
Posted Friday, October 12, 2012 at 8:06 pm | PERMALINK
mari,
The liberal spambots have been flooding the international news sites as well. had me laughing.]
Yes so obvious you would think they would be a little more discreet, but guess that not in spambots nature, a bit like wham bam thank you ma’am
B.C.,
[Labor cited as a reason to oppose the motion the lack of procedural fairness. Bob Katter abstained because he said that the Parliament should not consider itself a court. I’m not sure if the media normally places much store on procedural fairness – it often seems to act more like a kangaroo court. Could it be that the much of the gallery was blind to this defence? Did they only look at the politics (numbers, wedges) and not consider the institutions of Parliament, democracy, the rule of law and the separation of powers?]
Yes to both of your questions. And thank you for your considered comment – and thanks to everyone else who has commented thoughtfully over the past few days.
I wonder if it’s occurred to anyone that the Opposition seem to think that the vote of someone accused of committing a crime before entering Parliament is tainted and should not be accepted, whilst it’s fine to accept the vote of someone accused of committing a crime after entering Parliament?
If Australians decide they do not want Julia Gillard at the next election, I bet she gets some offers for plum jobs overseas. JG probably would not resign if the ALP do not form government next year but I reckon she will be headhunted by some major international organisations when she does leave politics.
Oops, I meant ruwake, though the quote was from neither.
Space Kidette @ 5820
The Liberal trolls have been busy judging by the latest result of the poll, 45% loved it, 47% hated it.
For what it’s worth, this was my email to J Maley earlier.
[Dear Ms Maley
I refer to your SMH web article “Did the mainstream media get it wrong?”
Well, yes, you did get it very, very wrong. However I expect nothing less from a bunch of toadying hacks who are in the pay of that megalomaniac Rupert Murdoch and his cohorts. I realise SMH is Fairfax but, in the main, you’re all in the same boat and your “hypocrisy” comment is rubbish and irrelevant. Slipper’s comments are not the story here, no matter how much you want to spin it.
It’s a pity that the few good writers are being tarred by the same brush as the hacks. Try putting Abbott in the same spotlight under which you have roasted the Prime Minister for almost two years now and see how quickly his support crumbles. The man is a bumbling idiot. Try counting each press conference where he has been asked inane questions only to walk away at the first sign of one which might suggest a tougher approach. The man’s a charlatan and it’s about time some of you all stopped kissing his backside and asked a few hard ones, not just of him but of the other incompetents in his shadow ministry
The quicker a Leveson type inquiry happens in Australia to weed out all the has-beens the better. It’s no wonder papers such as the SMH, the Australian and the ones I wouldn’t line the birdcage with are losing sales and revenue.
The quicker social media – which can’t be bought by the likes of Murdoch – takes over, the better. By the way, Paul Sheehan, whom you quote almost sympathetically, is well past his use by date.
Yours sincerely]
Ian@5884
Well you didn’t tweet anything, and now you have one follower. 😀
BH(5878) agree with you sadly
Puff
[If Australians decide they do not want Julia Gillard at the next election, I bet she gets some offers for plum jobs overseas. JG probably would not resign if the ALP do not form government next year but I reckon she will be headhunted by some major international organisations when she does leave politics.]
And Peter Costello had to rely on Kevin Rudd to give him a job.
Ian@5884
You are following one journo, Greg Jericho. Why couldn’t it have been Shammahan? 😆
B.C.
[Labor cited as a reason to oppose the motion the lack of procedural fairness. Bob Katter abstained because he said that the Parliament should not consider itself a court. I’m not sure if the media normally places much store on procedural fairness – it often seems to act more like a kangaroo court. Could it be that the much of the gallery was blind to this defence? Did they only look at the politics (numbers, wedges) and not consider the institutions of Parliament, democracy, the rule of law and the separation of powers?]
Got it in a nutshell. The msm decided their take on it, and ran with it, all the while protesting that we, the public, could not understand. BUT WE DID.
[I do wonder though why the Government decided to grant leave to the Opposition to move the motion in the first place?]
Voila. PMJG had had enough. Enough said.
The govt was sticking up for due process. And was a perfect storm of opportunity to stick it up the stench-filled hypocrisy that masquerades as her majesty’s opposition.
That the msm is busy running for cover, and have missed the real story, missed the opportunity to adeptly contextualise, is their epithet.
Ian
When I ventured on to twitter, I found several PBers invaluable – they gave me a heap of advice and feedback, which meant I learnt how to use it very quickly.
(Hint: when you go on, post your on line name here so that PBers can link up with you)
Dan Gilberry @ 8.15pm
Now on 1,025,928 views (plus 340 views on The Daily Derp, plus eleventy bazillion views on other sites).
Now 8.25
[Julia Gillard has used a call by Tony Abbott for the Government to remove Peter Slipper as Speaker to attack the Opposition Leader for hypocrisy …
1,037,995 views
by NewsOnABC]
WOW! + 12,000 in 10 mins!
Mick Collins@5863
‘Context’ is a clumsy way of putting it, but I can see what they’re trying to get at. Media types want to see it in terms of what is going to happen politically – by which they mean ‘the polls’.
They way they see it, everyone’s an operative in Canberra, and no-one does anything because they believe in it, only as a means to get leverage in ‘the polls’. So they can’t see Gillard’s speech as anything but a gambit. So it’s judged in those terms – does a speech absolve Gillard of the ‘crime’ of facilitating Slipper into the Speakership?
To put it another way: the media have accepted the Coalition line that Slipper is “Gillard’s problem”, ever since he took the Speakership. This debate was about Slipper – that was the subject Abbott raised – therefore Gillard is morally obliged to defend Slipper, therefore – no matter what she spoke about – that was what she was doing.
That, they believe, is the ‘context’ in which her speech must be seen. It’s false, but they do believe in it utterly.
What Gillard has actually done is transcend the issue at hand, and she has clearly touched a nerve both here and internationally. She expanded the scope of the discussion way beyond political point-scoring, to the manner in which politics is conducted and the place of the female within it.
The likes of Roskam and Warhaft simply aren’t equipped to cope with that. So they’re seeking to drag the issue back to areas they feel comfortable with. Who won, who lost, how’s it going to play in the polls.
BC – thanks for that post. I agree 100% and feel the same way about the texts in question. I was trying to work out how to articulate basically what you said but struggled with how to word it.
I actually just feel steamrolled by the whole media effort that just starts from the position that what Slipper wrote in his private texts was “indefensible”, unspeakable, horrid, whatever. The “botch” comment is laughable – that he felt disrespect towards someone who had behaved so badly as to be sin binned is hardly news, and he was repeating Ashby’s description back to Ashby while actually being equivocal about endorsing the description. The mussel reference – it’s vulgar, indeed, but if Peter Slipper’s cardinal sin was minor vulgarity in private conversation then we’re all in big trouble.
A sacking offence? I guess I must be the one to be so out of touch with mainstream Australia because I don’t see it.
Oh FFS. Of course there’s a gender war. More precisely a war on women. Yes, here in Australia too.
Not quite with the horrible drama of Taliban medievalists shooting little girls in the head for wanting to go to school.
But plenty of it just the same.
Seen the stats on sexual harassment? What’s that about? Sometimes men who just dont get how adults behave. Mostly men who know very well and are using power to try to exclude female competition
And then theres double standards about consensual conduct. Man = stud, woman = slut for the same behaviour. whats that about. Restricting the freedom of one group to the benefit of the other, hmm wouldnt be at all a warlike activity would it.
I have a tiny number of close friends and even so several of them have been r_ped and several more put in fear of r_pe or other attack by men.
Tell me what that is if not a war on women. keep them in their place. and all that.
And please, can everyone please put it away on the misogyny dictionary argument If someone says women arent fit to lead, that will do for hatred for mine. Separate but equal actually = subordination; actually = fear and hatred.