Peter Hartcher is a Ruddist now. He buys the nonsense that Rudd’s poll numbers mean something. He quotes these numbers: Rudd 44, Gillard 19, Smith 10, Crean 8, Shorten 5, Combet 4. They shake down, for what it’s worth, to Rudd 44, Anti-Rudd 46, Undecided, or Other, 10.
But for all we know Crean’s 8 might be Liberal voters, wanting a proven loser as Labor leader, as they would. And 20 of Rudd’s 44 might be Liberal mischief-makers too.
And why those names and not others? Where is Plibersek? Roxon? Albo? It is likely that if they were in the mix Rudd’s vote would fall to 38, or 18 likely to vote for him, and 32, after preferences, for Plibersek. Or Shorten. Or Swan. Of those likely to vote for Labor, that is, whom Hartcher, the high-stepping klutz, has forgotten.
Or, if you add to the first list Beazley (another ex-Leader some yearn for), the numbers might be as follows: Beazley 31, Rudd 22, Gillard 7, Smith 6, Crean 4, Shorten 4, Combet 4. So if you yearn for a leader who on the day of his exit had Labor on 54 two party preferred, why not Beazley? Slot him into McLelland’s or Melham’s or Garrett’s seat and give the banished bunny the US Ambassadorship and have Kim by in place as Prime Minister overseeing his good friend Swanny’s Budget by Mayday, Labor on 52 two party preferred and all well. Why not? No reason. No reason at all. Would Kim say yes? Of course he would.
Rudd, a classic Asperger’s Syndrome child, my expert old friend Ramsey tells me, is like all so afflicted utterly convinced that no-one else exists on earth and he is, as it were, the star-child of the universe, the Messiah, the Chosen One. And Hartcher, the drongo, has bought this. Rudd is the only choice, he swears. No, he’s not, Peter, no he’s not. He’s nowhere near it.
Beatty at 59, Carr at 62, Rann (the most successful Premier ever) at 58, Gallop at 60, Refshauge at 62, Goss at 64, Dawkins at 67, Keating at 67, Richo at 61, Tanner at 57, Faulkner at 57, Kerr at 58, McMullan at 61, Beazley at 64 would all say yes to the big gig, or nearly all would, and so would Hawkie at 82, and all beat Abbott easily, in a walk, in a doddle. But Hartcher has bought this Asperger’s nonsense that the known universe contains only one celestial body and we must all therefore cravenly crook the knee before its radiant mightiness and bring Rudd back. And have half his Cabinet walk out, Thomson cross the floor, the Government fall and be wiped out because of the squabbling disunity in a June election which quadruples the number of Greens and ends the Labor adventure altogether.
I ask Hartcher, the bright fool, to answer this in these columns, or debate me anywhere. He is only one of many sufferers of the Rudd Resurrection Retrovirus, and he needs to take the cure.
Name:
And just when it seemed nothing could look any dodgier for Gillard and her minions, today SMH’s best investigative journalist, Kate McClymont, who has been connecting the dots between the four year delay by the Health Services Union and the hints from Kathy Jackson of government pressure on HSU to stall revealing the truth abut Craig Thompson until after the election, someone drops in Kate’s lap the rumour that Jackson has been laundering money. What an extraordinary coincidence…possibly more hamfisted skullduggery by Gilllard’s staffers?
So no matter which way the numbers for the others stack up, (and I like your Beazley scenario) Gillard has to go.
Kate McClymont ruined my family’s life and I don’t like her.
Mention her again at your peril.
If she’s onto something, it’s probably wrong.
Or, more likely, over-cooked.
You’re right Bob; what if Rudd actually does not desire it?! And what if all of this is really background manoeuvering by Shorten? …the papers are FULL of cliched hear-say-wankery of the highest order.
All paper talk : as we used to say, the need to fill column inches and all that.
Gillard is rock solid to the next election in late 2013 and for two terms after that, with a working majority.
Prove me wrong.
Quadruple the Green vote – I love the sound of that. Then we would have a socialist party in power for once. Which surely Bob, as a protectionist, you would approve of?
They would need a few useful policies suitable for a party of government first.
Then they would need some credible candidates; other than Bob Brown they are a rag tag which makes the Liberal Party look like worldbeaters.
Perhaps in 10 years, if Brown can do a Winston Churchill and still be credible at 75 or so.
You sound more and more like a Gillard spin doctor. You know full well that Bandt and Milne and Hanson Young would be good ministers, and Brown’s backroomer Ben Okwist is one of the best in the country. You’re following the ‘yes, but not yet’ Murdochist line that kept Shorten, McMullan, Kerr, McKew and Faulkner out of the Ministry and the incompetent Gillard and McLelland in it.
Why not look at the truth, flat on? Why be such a tedious propagandist? How dare you say the Greens have inconsiderable policies?
Heeded, they might have saved the world.
Not guilty Your Honour! I just detest the alternative government. Unlike most I have clear memories of the Howard ministry, and many of them are still there, eager for their trotters to get back in the trough.