As one of Tasmania’s constitutionally mandated five House of Representatives seats, Franklin has a lower than normal enrolment (72,500 compared with a national average of about 96,000) and has existed without interruption since the state was first divided into electorates in 1903. With Denison accommodating central Hobart and the suburbs on the western bank of the Derwent River, Franklin covers the eastern bank suburbs and areas immediately south of Hobart, starting from the outskirts township of Kingston, together with the unpopulated southern part of the World Heritage area in Tasmania’s south-west.
Labor first won Franklin at a by-election held two months after the election of Jim Scullin’s government in 1929, before losing it again amid the party’s debacle of 1931. It subsequently changed hands in 1934, 1946, 1969 and 1975, before remaining in the Liberal fold throughout the Fraser years and the first 10 years of the Hawke-Keating government. Labor finally won the seat when colourful Liberal member Bruce Goodluck retired at the 1993 election, which together a strong statewide shift to Labor delivered a 9.5% swing to their candidate Harry Quick. Quick maintained the seat with only mild swings either way at subsequent elections, although there were occasional suggestions he might be brought undone by internal party machinations. When his preselection appeared in danger ahead of the 2004 election, he was able to see off the threat partly by indicating that he might run as an independent.
After choosing his own time of departure at the 2007 election, Quick sought to keep the seat out of factional hands by promoting his staffer Roger Joseph as his successor. This was thwarted when a deal assigned Franklin to Kevin Harkins, state secretary of the Left faction Electrical Trades Union, and Bass to the Right-backed Steve Reissig. Objecting that Harkins was a “right thuggish bastard” who would lose the seat, Quick declared he would vote for the Greens. His attacks drew blood as newly anointed Labor leader Kevin Rudd sought to distance the party from unsavoury union associations, with Harkins carrying baggage from the 2003 Cole royal commission into the building and construction industry. Harkins’ position ultimately became untenable in July 2007 when the Australian Building and Construction Commission brought charges against him over an illegal strike. When he won preselection for the Senate ahead of the 2010 election, he was again rolled by the intervention of Kevin Rudd.
With Harkins gone and the election looming, the preselection was referred to the party’s national executive, which maintained the factional balance in choosing the Left’s Julie Collins, state party secretary and a strongly performing though unsuccessful candidate at the March 2006 state election. The loss of Quick’s personal vote combined with the manner of his departure resulted in Collins suffering a 3.1% swing to the Liberals, one of only four swings to the Coalition at that election. Coming off a suppressed base, she went on to enjoy a 6.8% swing at the 2010 election, the selection highest recorded by a Labor candidate. Collins was made a parliamentary secretary after the election, winning further promotion to the outer ministry in December 2011 as Community Services Minister.
The Liberals have preselected Bernadette Black, a Kingborough councillor who according to the Mercury “has made a name for herself as a spokesman for teenage mums after having her first child aged 16”. Black won preselection ahead of another Kingborough councillor, Nic Street.
The Narrative bandwagon has moved from “PM GORN” to “PM CRIPPLED CANT WIN”
ModLib
we can revisit this in 5 years if you want to – my position won’t have changed.
‘What is good for the party’ and ‘winning elections’ are not always overlapping sets (although, of course, one would want them to be).
Yesterday was good for the party, for example. It might not be good for winning the election. It is highly unlikely to be good for the polls.
Good governance and good polling (alas) do not always go hand in hand.
Zoom, I reiterate, I don’t care what you have done that you believe adds credibility to your argument.
It is a desperate and shallow tactic to attempt to couple experience to your argument.
If you actually believed your BS, you would not need to do so.
Display name – yet another tactic of using irrelevant information happily stated to discredit the points I am making.
What mechanism could Rudd have used to take leadership that would not have been considered a challenge? An answer would sound like this – The mechanism that could have been used …..
“@Jackthelad1947: If we accept Abbott may be our next PM we had better ask about his policies & how he will fund them. #ABCNews24 more light on the dark side.”
Katharine Murphy gets to the heart of the problem, IMO. The Rudd supporters never stopped leaking and undermining, and therefore Cabinet became unworkable through lack of trust.
Just as Rudd made the govt vulnerable through appointing some Howard backers, the PM was too forgiving towards Rudd supporters.
Let us hope that the new cabinet will support the governing.
[The media package was not the first Gillard government policy to be held tightly within the leadership group, dumped on the cabinet without warning, and then shunted through caucus.
As internal trust has corroded progressively (largely because of leadership tensions), a number of policies have followed precisely this same trajectory.
Why? Because many ministers hold contentious things out of cabinet until the last possible moment because of concern about leaks.
Trust within the cabinet has broken down, not because of paranoia, or people jumping at shadows (although there is plenty of that), but because of quite rational reasons.
Ministers will not have full and frank discussions around the cabinet table if they think they will wash up in a media outlet. And that has been the reality often enough to create a self-defeating dynamic.
The cycle feeds itself. Broken trust feeds bad process which fuels broken trust.]
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/bad-day-on-top-of-a-debacle-20130322-2glh7.html#ixzz2OJVaj1BB
[zoomster
Posted Saturday, March 23, 2013 at 10:19 am | PERMALINK
ModLib
You are as delusional as any Ruddista.]
I see
[You are far less likely to get Malcolm (who you can’t defend even a tiny bit, apparently) than we are to get Rudd.]
You still have not told me what I need to defend Turnbull against!
Those claiming the inevitable Abbott Prime Ministership will be a disaster, are by default claiming that his leadership will be under threat, no? Who is next in line?
[You are arguing in support of an Abbott government.]
I am arguing that Gillard is a dolt. The evidence seems pretty compelling there!
[That’s why I despise you.]
Yes, not an uncommon approach from the left bloggers here.
Your hate it your problem.
[I can understand arguing for another leader, but to run interference day after day in support of one you profess to hate is totally incomprehensible to me.]
To criticise Gillard is to support Abbott is it?
A quaint little superficial world it is here isn’t it.
Can I suggest the occasional venture into the real world before returning here? There are deeper views out there you know. For example, it is not illegal nor immoral to dislike both options before us……WOW, that concept must have blown your mind, eh?
I’ll give you a minute or two to mull over that one, as I know you have never considered that approach :devil:
“@zackster: Thank you old media for persistently fanning a leadership challenge which had no chance of succeeding… get a bullshit detector #auspol”
“@Volvo_of_doom: Headlines should read: “Facts directly contradict Peter Hartcher””
[PS. how do you do the devil emoticon?]
colon devil colon
[You are arguing semantics. From what I have seen of ALP politics such semantics cut no ice. People know its an attempt at a leadersihp challenge.
No ifs buts or maybes.]
So why is this argument only realised now, rather than picking apart Rudd’s original pledge?
radguy
No, I’d already won the argument with you, which is obvious because you’ve given up arguing.
My point is that there is a code of behaviour within the Labor party. It’s known and accepted. Rudd’s actions need to be seen in that context.
Anyhoo, Rudd has stated emphatically that he is never coming back as leader, under any circumstances.
It’s sad that you can’t take the man at his word.
Finns:
http://powerhouse.theglobalmail.org/define-no-circumstances/
FWIW
Radguy
Oh lighten up, it was a joke.
ML
How about Turnbull saying he stands for gay rights and equal marriage. Until he votes against it in Parliament.
You can start with that one.
Radguy, actually you didn’t provide a quote so perhaps you were referring to another post?
Tell me muttley, Rudd was called “Chicken Kev” because he didn’t challenge.
[Rudd was called “Chicken Kev” because he didn’t challenge]
Finally you get the point
There is nothing more likely to result in Gay Marriage legislation than a Turnbull Prime Ministership. I suspect it will be a conscience vote with lots of Libs and an ALP uniform block vote in support giving a considerable majority.
In Opposition Cabinet he has no choice but to support it or resign. I would not have resigned on that issue either.
ModLib
not being as fascinated with you as you are with me, I can’t be bothered dissecting your post.
Clearly you’re unable to read comments in context; I’m talking about your posts on a daily basis, not today’s discussion.
You are as one eyed as any Labor supporter. You admit you despise your leader, don’t appear to be able to support any of his policy positions, and yet you defend the Liberals up hill and down dale, whilst pretending you’re balanced and objective.
To make it easy for you re Malcolm: As a politician, do you accept that he has lied? (It’s a simple yes – no proposition, you should be able to manage it).
[zoomster
Posted Saturday, March 23, 2013 at 10:25 am | PERMALINK
radguy
No, I’d already won the argument with you, which is obvious because you’ve given up arguing.
My point is that there is a code of behaviour within the Labor party. It’s known and accepted. Rudd’s actions need to be seen in that context.
Anyhoo, Rudd has stated emphatically that he is never coming back as leader, under any circumstances.]
Yes, Radguy, there would be more chance of Rudd playing full forward for the Bombers than him becoming Prime Minister again.
ModLib
[n Opposition Cabinet he has no choice but to support it or resign]
Thanks. So, by the criteria you apply to Gillard, he lied.
ML
No excuses. Turnbull said he was going to vote for Equal Marriage while he is shadow Communications Minister in Opposition.
That is at the vote that was taken. Where it is recorded he voted against Marriage Equality.
He lied.
[To make it easy for you re Malcolm: As a politician, do you accept that he has lied? (It’s a simple yes – no proposition, you should be able to manage it).]
I am still waiting for the statement from Turnbull that you are claiming is a lie.
Your inability to provide it is quite telling!
ModLib
Oh, I’m happy to accept that Rudd is lying about that — it’s radguy who thinks he isn’t.
zoomster @ 169
You’ve nailed that fraudster.
(I realise my 174 sounds contradictory — you’ll have to read it in context…)
I am glad to provide you guys with a little joy on this sad weekend for you! 🙂
zoom, it’s entirely possible that Mod defends the Libs so vigorously because he thinks that’s the best stirring method :P. Providing views with subtlety and nuance wouldn’t be half as effective, right Mod?
PS. Mod, I’m still waiting for you share with me the secrets of devil emoticons!
Adam Carr @AdamCarr2013 7m
@Thefinnigans A Gillard-Rudd Qld tour would be one long media Ruddfest. This is just another selfish tactic from a man who can’t shut up.
From everything I have read this morning, Rudd is still trying to have his cake and eat it.
He’s beating up Chris Bowen as a future PM (hidden message – look at the talent Julia’s lost in her cabinet); he’s volunteering to help in Queensland, standing beside the PM (message – I’m still the most popular and when I get the cheers it will show); he’s insisting that it was all Crean’s fault (all more in sorrow than in anger).
He’s re-grouping.
Fascinating to see the OO go Fairfax over last weeks reporting. No publication has been as relentlessly negative toward Gillard and beating up Ruddstoration than the OO.
How ironic
@GCobber99: IA EXCLUSIVE: Slipper and Perrett discuss the AFP’s Brough probe suspension
http://t.co/LzmMMQ2zbo
Tom, thanks for proving my point, now tell Zoom and Mark.
Oh shit, Tom, you’ve breached the new team Gillard line.
They believe that Rudd did challenge, given that counting numbers equates to putting one’s hand up for the leadership ballot, which makes him all those bad thing you all describe him as.
Friendly fire?
So much for your stupid argument Zoom and Mark, backed up with arrogance and vitriol.
Display Name
Oh, you’re right there – ModLib is a little like bemused, and needs people to argue with to give him a sense of self worth and achievement.
It’s a bit sad, really.
[PS. Mod, I’m still waiting for you share with me the secrets of devil emoticons!]
I told you earlier:
colon (as in “:”) devil colon
Finns @ 179
Ah, I see Psephos agrees with me 🙂
“@ABCNews24: Live next RT @kumitaguchi: Coming up on Weekend Breakfast, @bobjcarr speaks to @abcAndrewG on Warren Rodwell and politics #abcnews24”
Fess, i will do my Nelson Mandella moment for the time being. PM’s authority is now unassailable now that is the most important.
“@ABCNews24: Crossing to @bobjcarr as soon as we can re-establish a link… now the #weekinreview http://t.co/3YXdj8bPNi @ABCNews24”
Mod
Ah, sorry, missed it. Ta!
“@AustralianLabor: Tony Abbott says this Parliament has “long outlived its usefulness”. The #NDIS passed this morning. We think that will be fairly useful…”
I have a sneaking suspicion the ALP vote improves whenever it looks possible that Rudd will take over, and worsens whenever Rudd looks unlikely to replace Gillard (look at the Feb 2012 to April 2012 Newspolls)
Lizzie, i am in my Zen Nelson Mandella mood atm
FM Senator Carr on now 24
I accept Rudd will not be ALP leader ever again. That is his word.
Why would that stop me pointing out logical fallacies here?
Can I bet on a “Would you have voted for Rudd?” question?
Radguy @ 183
You are delusional if you think I support your position
DisplayName@190
Display Name, are you running cccp? If you are, then click on ‘Show Help’ and a whole lot of emoticons and other useful information is revealed.
If you are not running cccp, then you should be.
To use the Crikey Clear Comment Preview script, install in order:
Firefox
Greasemonkey
cccp
or:
Google Chrome
Tampermonkey
cccp
ML
I have confidence polls for Labor will improve without leadershit at polling time
lizzie
I’ve no doubt Rudd won’t stop trying to return to the leadership for as long as he has breath in his body (probably be plotting in the nursing home…)
but you’d really have to be crazy brave to do the numbers for him now, and that will be his biggest problem.
We’re asked to believe that those plotting with him did so in the belief he could win. In other words, they did so out of self preservation.
Given the damage done to their careers, anyone who truly has any sense of self preservation will be avoiding Rudd like the plague from now on.