The unfair dismissal of Hodges who merely told a black woman where Abbott was on a day — an Australia Day — when it was widely known where he would be, in the Lobby handing out medals to heroes, is troubling me more, perhaps, than it should.
It’s like sacking someone who told Lee Oswald, ‘Hey, The President is driving by our building tomorrow, isn’t that cool?’ Or gaoling Haneef for leaving his sim-card with a man who did not blow up Scotland with it, preferring another sim-card, and blew up only himself. It was not as if anyone was endangered by a few thumps on impenetrable plate glass.
On another Australia Day a man approached Prince Charles with a starting pistol and a Premier tackled him to the ground and lost the election anyway; but it is fair to say he had grounds for concern as the gunman ran at the heir to the throne. This Prime Minister had none, and her guards were idiots to pretend that gunfire was imminent and drag her shoeless by the nose across the front pages of the known world.
But she was wrong to sack Hodges, who I keep imagining is an oyster-eating cat, for passing on common knowledge to a black woman who overstated, or overrated, or exaggerated, what Abbott had said. How could he possibly know she would do that? And how could he possibly prevent her from doing it, when the knowledge came to her from someone else?
Murdoch is beating it up into the sort of ‘what did she know and when did she know it’ headline that is lately afflicting him and his son, and putting lots of his pantie-sniffing confederates in the slammer, or is it the Tower, in Great Britain. Whatever the Prime Minister knew shouldn’t matter, because whatever she knew, whenever she knew it, however she heard it, was not illegal. No law was broken. No falsehood was published by her office. No lie was told.
There should be no problem but the Murdochist skull-and-crossbones flagship The Daily Telegraph has fabricated one, they way they do, and it may hurt Gillard mortally. It’s a poll taken on January 27-28 when no-one under seventy was home, that gave Rudd 44 percent, Gillard 27 percent and Shorten 14 percent on the question of who best should lead the Labor Party.
1001 voters were in the sample, the kind of people who stay at home on the Australia Day long weekend — the old, the ill, the maimed, the mad, the friendless, the loveless, the grimily eccentric, the Filipino babysitters, the old age carers, the devil-worshippers, the autistic, the senile — including, unsurprisingly, 540 Coalition voters.
Of these, 237 preferred Rudd. Of course they did. They knew he’d lose, and they really liked that. The sooner we get Rudd back as Labor leader, they reasoned, the sooner we get Abbott up as Prime Minister.
Or do you think they named Rudd because they wanted him to win? Why would they want that? The 237 Coalition voters in the sample? Want Rudd to win the election? What a strange idea.
On the Labor side of the ledger, the Shorten-plus-Gillard aggregate outscored Rudd by 253 to 197. These were the people who wanted Labor to win, and the non-Rudd vote outscored the pro-Rudd vote by, well, about ten percent. Yet the Telegraph headline says ‘Rudd a wanted man for the voters’. For the Liberal voters, absolutely. Sure he is. Of course he is.
But not the Labor voters, it seems, by a margin of 56 votes in a total of 450: eleven percent. Which means the non-Rudd vote would win in a landslide a leadership contest conducted across the nation by even the ill, the old, the friendless, the maimed, and so on. Cream him. Wipe him out. Send him sobbing home to Nambour, or is it Yeppoon.
The Telegraph also says ‘invisible Shorten not the answer’ because of his alleged low profile and low visibility; Bill Shorten, this is; ‘he is not even on the voters’ radar’, the Telegraph says. He would certainly become visible if he were Prime Minister, I imagine, as visible as he was at Beaconsfield a few years ago, and even more visible when his mother-in-law swore him in and offered him and her daughter scones. There would be no chance of him seeming ‘faceless’ then.
Or now. He’s quite recogniseable now, I would think. Ask anyone. The old, the ill, the maimed …
What lies they tell.
The poll they don’t take, of course they don’t, they’re Murdochists and their purpose is the defeat of Labour and Social Democrat governments across the world and the extinction of the Labor Party forever here and the impotence of every union leader now working, is a poll that asks how well Gillard, Rudd and Shorten would go against Abbott in an election; who Australians would prefer as Prime Minister.
They don’t dare do that poll because the real question would then arise of how liked Abbott is as Prime Minister against two other considerable male contenders, or three, or four. Or five. Or six. Or seven.
And the poll would show he was easily defeatable. And that would never do.
I ask them to publish that poll forthwith. Put up against Abbott in one-to-one contests Rudd, Swan, Smith, Combet, Shorten, Albo, Burke, Faulkner, Roxon, Plibersek and Gillard, and see which one does best.
Is there any argument against this?
What is it?
Liars and cheats, the lot of them
And one by one they’re going to gaol.