Gillard vs Rudd – the re-match
The government is down a Foreign Minister this evening (the Canberra Times reports on the likely shape of the looming reshuffle, in case you were wondering), and by all accounts the Prime Minister will seek to clear the air tomorrow by calling a leadership spill for Monday. This makes the timing of the next Newspoll very interesting indeed: usually it reports on Monday evening, but it occasionally emerges a day earlier. The Prime Minister would presumably prefer that the matter be resolved before it comes out rather than after.
Beyond that, I do not venture to guess what will occur, beyond observing the consensus view that Kevin Rudd will be seeking to wound rather than kill, as he starts far behind on most caucus head-counts. Two such have been published: an error-ridden effort from The Weekend Australian which was corrected the following Monday, and this from the Sydney Morning Herald. The former was rather kinder to Rudd. There are 51 out of 103 whom The Oz and the SMH agree are firm for Gillard, and 30 whom they agree are firm for Rudd. There are four agreed Gillard leaners and four agreed Rudd leaners. The Oz has six down as undecided, but the SMH has everyone as either firm or leaning.
Gillard supporters: Albanese, O’Neill, Combet, Clare, Fitzgibbon, Owens, Arbib, Thistlethwaite, Garrett, Bird, Grierson, Plibersek, Burke (NSW); Shorten, O’Connor, King, Feeney, Macklin, Gillard, Dreyfus, Danby, Roxon, Marles (Vic); Ripoll, Emerson, Perrett, Ludwig, Hogg, Neumann, Swan, D’Ath (Qld); Evans, Gray, Sterle, Smith (WA); McEwen, Farrell, Ellis, Butler, Georganas (SA); Julie Collins, Sidebottom (Tas); Leigh, Brodtmann, Lundy (ACT); Snowdon (NT).
Oz says Gillard lean, SMH says firm for Gillard: Rowland (NSW), Livermore (Qld), Gallacher (SA).
Oz says undecided, SMH says firm for Gillard: Hayes (NSW), Jenkins, Jacinta Collins, Kelvin Thomson (Vic).
Oz says Rudd lean, SMH says firm for Gillard: Craig Thomson (NSW), McLucas (Qld), Rishworth (SA).
Gillard leaners: Craig Thomson, Bradbury (NSW); Bilyk, Polley (Tas).
Oz says undecided, SMH says Gillard lean: Symon (Vic), Singh (Tas).
Oz says Rudd lean, SMH says Gillard lean: Laurie Ferguson (NSW), Champion (SA).
Oz says firm Rudd, SMH says firm Gillard: Melham (NSW).
Rudd leaners: Murphy (NSW); Pratt (WA); Adams, Lyons (Tas).
Rudd supporters: Bowen, Cameron, Husic, Saffin, Hall, Faulkner, Elliott, Kelly, McClelland, Jones, Stephens (NSW); Griffin, Burke, Byrne, Cheeseman, Marshall, Carr, Smyth, Vamvakinou, Ferguson (Vic); Moore, Rudd, Furner (Qld); Bishop, Parke (WA); Zappia (SA); Urquhart, Brown, Sherry (Tas); Crossin (NT).
If you’re in the mood for diversion, as many have been lately, here is a review of some recent preselection action, in keeping with this site’s brief (together with an even more diverting diversion to New Zealand).
• The Liberals are mulling over whether to proceed with the endorsement of Garry Whitaker to run against Craig Thomson in Dobell, following allegations he has lived for years without council permission in an “ensuite shed” on his Wyong Creek property while awaiting approval to build a house there. Whitaker won a preselection vote in December, but there is talk the state executive might overturn the result and install the candidate he defeated, the Right-backed WorkCover public servant Karen McNamara. As for Labor, Imre Salusinszky of The Australian reports there is “no chance” Thomson will be preselected again, “with party strategists favouring the nomination fo a young woman to create maximum differentiation from the tainted MP”. One possibility is local councillor Emma McBride, whose father Grant McBride bowed out as state member for The Entrance at last year’s state election.
Page 1 of 2 | Next page
Categories: Federal Politics 2010-, New Zealand politics
Burgey @ 736
When I last checked, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry didn’t have a vote in Caucus. Their influence on the leadership will be zero.
by bemused on Feb 23, 2012 at 1:58 pm
Diogenes @ 739
I would not have expected you to get sucked in by that nonsense.
He would have 1 vote in Cabinet in the unlikely event the did want to pursue such a course of action.
by bemused on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:01 pm
Tom Hawkins @ 740
My “Gillard bashing” has largely been a response to “Rudd bashing” by a cult group on PB.
I will not change my views on the leadership.
I would prefer to focus on policy issues.
by bemused on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:03 pm
greentard
They already know it will show that.
P.S. Great name.
by triton on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:05 pm
Yeah Gillard will win on Monday, if Rudd challenges.
But that just delays the leadership change to sometime later this year.
by Greentard on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:06 pm
TheFinnigans天地有道人无道 @Thefinnigans Reply Delete Favorite · Open
I say it’s un Australian to be un Australian
by The Finnigans on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:07 pm
746 – then Bemused, you have misunderstood completely the nature of the campaign Rudd is running. He knows he does not have the numbers in caucus, so he’s making his pitch to the voters directly. His approaches to business groups and to the Clubs lobby indicate an approach of that nature has been on his mind for some time.
I suppose his idea is that there will be published polls out Monday which will show him ahead of Gillard by quite some margin, and those polls might persuade a few more votes his way. Enough to make it close enough for him to have another crack down the track.
by Burgey on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:07 pm
Rudd should announce that he will vote for ending marriage discrimination. That would get him some extra votes.
by Greentard on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:08 pm
Yeah Diog, how dare you sucking up to Clubs Australia
by The Finnigans on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:08 pm
Apparently Rudd is the godfather is Swan\’s son.
It makes that statement Swan released last night all the more Lathamesque.
by Greentard on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:10 pm
Haven’t you heard? He can vote that way if he wishes. The PM is allowing a free vote on the matter. His vote is worth no more and no less than any other Labor MP.
by Tom Hawkins on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:10 pm
And lose a lot more by withdrawing the conscience vote.
by triton on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:10 pm
So what?
by Tom Hawkins on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:11 pm
Latika Bourke @latikambourke Reply Retweet Favorite · Open
Jason Clare will be supporting Julia Gillard if Kevin Rudd contests her in Monday’s ballot. #respill
by The Finnigans on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:11 pm
New Essential Research website, Essential Vision:
http://essentialvision.com.au/
by Greentard on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:12 pm
And while we’re having this little tussle in our insular society, the US Senate is introducing legislation that would force the USA to war with Iran the moment they build a nuclear weapon.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/senators-iran-war_b_1294305.html
It kind of puts it in perspective doesn’t it? All of Australia bickering over leadership while the pieces are being moved into place for a war with a country 4x as big as Iraq in size, strength and manpower, at a time when the last 2 long wars have left the USA and allies weakened.
Oh well, at least this legislation is unlikely to get up. Obama would probably veto it, which requires 66% of both houses to overrule. Still, the war drums are getting louder, and it frightens me.
by Von Kirsdarke on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:13 pm
Is every Gillard supporter going to publicly lock in his vote by Monday?
by triton on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:13 pm
No this is wrong. It is a very bad look for Labor to say they support same sex marriage but to be lead by someone who is against the policy that an overwhelming majority of Labor members, MPs, and the general public supports.
Is a song written by Miles Davis.
by Greentard on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:14 pm
Did rudd just pull the pin on telstra???? Its gone down across the country lol.
by wal kolla on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:14 pm
I’d say it has a fair bit to do with the Australian people. The role of Prime Minister is a function of membership of the parliament, not a function of membership of the Australian Labor Party.
One thing I agree with Rudd on – the factions need to be smashed. Smashed into such irrelevance that they never come back. But I don’t believe he’s the man to do it – he wouldn’t be a player in the first place without them.
by Patrick Bateman on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:15 pm
Burgey @ 752
Business Groups and Clubs are not voters but otherwise I agree with much of what you say.
Any political leader worth his salt would not stand back and watch while his party was “led” to an electoral train wreck.
And I think the people who now squeal about loyalty must be quite unaware of the irony in such calls directed at supporters of the man they betrayed.
by bemused on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:16 pm
Good idea. Hawkers – get on it.
Its already clear this wont be the decisive win Gillard needs.
Rudd will try again late 12 or early 13. Thats better timing for everyone. Good chance of a 3rd contender then I should think.
the bg losers here will be Swan and Crean and the other bozos who couldnt keep their sick, boring, voter-alienating, insider turkey slaps in their pants
by lefty e on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:18 pm
Frankly beating Iran’s conventional forces would be child’s play for the US compared to beating an unidentified mix of insurgents, conventional forces and the general civilian populace in Iraq or Afghanistan. If there’s one thing the Americans are quite good at, it’s blowing up conventional armies who are prepared to meet them in open battle (see the 1990s version of the Iraq War, for example).
I assume the US would have no intention of occupying a defeated Iran. Probably just toppling its government and letting the ‘Arab Spring’ continue.
by Patrick Bateman on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:19 pm
Was has martin fergueson called a press conference????
by wal kolla on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:20 pm
Greentard, it’s a single policy, a blip in the life of a government, and it’s not so damaging that the leader opposes it. They’ll have a vote. It’ll go down and they’ll move on.
by triton on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:20 pm
Martin for PM?
by wal kolla on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:21 pm
Which is why Rudd was thrown out the first time…
by Patrick Bateman on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:21 pm
The problem is that most of the public hates Gillard and want her gone.
If Labor re-endorses her on Monday, then for most voters their hatred will go from Gillard specifically to Labor generally which means they will still have no hope of winning the next election.
by Greentard on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:21 pm
If Oakeshott and Windsor were to come out next week, following the confirmation of Gillard as leader and declare that they would withdraw their support for the Govt, in the name of stability, if the Labor party were to change leaders before the election, it would kill any further leadership talk stone dead.
by TheLastWord on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:22 pm
He already pretended he might support same-sex marriage at the time of the national conference. It was a completely transparent play for caucus votes.
by ltep on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:22 pm
Even though he was AT LEAST even in the polls, whereas Gillard has been way behind.
by Greentard on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:23 pm
767 – lefty – the big loser here is the ALP, no matter the result. It’s a sad thing to see.
by Burgey on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:23 pm
I disagree. I think Crean especially has sent a clear message to the movement – I’m prepared to take whatever people throw at me if it means doing something for the good of the party.
Finally shutting down this Rudd b.s. is definitely for the longer term good of the party.
When the time comes, Rudd will not be an appealing choice to many. If the view is that Gillard is terminal, I expect Crean might be in the running for a ‘damage minimisation’ Prime Ministership lasting a few months (up until the next election).
by Patrick Bateman on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:23 pm
Why exactly? Do you think they allow too much pressure to be exerted from external forces, such as unions? Or are you against collective decision making?
by ltep on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:23 pm
No this is wrong. Since the leader opposes it it is as if the entire party opposes it.
by Greentard on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:23 pm
Not if they get polls 55/45 57/43 all the time.
by Thomas Paine on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:24 pm
and lol @ Gillard running over a journalist… one down, 149 to go…
by wal kolla on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:24 pm
Greentard,
Isn’t it a significant problem that if Rudd wins, he has virtually no one who will sit on the front bench with him?
by Burgey on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:24 pm
No, Crean and Swan have just sounded like nutcases, and unsuited to being cabinet ministers.
by Greentard on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:24 pm
This is nonsense. When ministerial positions are up for grabs politicians will just jump all over themselves to get them.
Gillard supporters will SAY they won\’t serve in a ministry with Rudd simply to scare tentative Rudd supporters into backing Gillard. It\’s a tactic that is often used in leadership contests.
by Greentard on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:26 pm
780 – I hate to say this because I know marriage equality is a big issue for a lot of people, but I just don’t think it’s much of an issue at all to the majority of voters. I really can’t see someone who has their vote parked with the Tories at the moment deciding to bring it back to Labor because they suddenly support gay marriage.
Genuinely think it’s an electoral non-event.
Though i still think it should happen.
by Burgey on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:26 pm
Maybe not. But she’ll deserve all the credit for getting the government’s legislative program through the parliament.
by Darn on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:27 pm
Burgey
Nearly all the current ministers would sit in a Rudd cabinet – except Swan and probably now Crean, and maybe Roxon The rest would be OK.
by daretotread on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:27 pm
All the hysterical criticism of Rudd by the right-wingers seems to me a feeble attempt at justifying (and excusing) the horrible mistake they made in deposing him in the first place. It was such an arrogant thing to do – I still remember the image of that vile little man Bill Shorten sitting in a Chinese restaurant counting numbers on two mobile phones, and that tool Paul Howes boasting about his influence on Lateline. Urgh.
The further away from the event the more wild their claims about Kevin Rudd and his Prime Ministership become. I don’t know the whole truth of the matter (I’m sure there is some truth in what they say) but I do know that they backed a loser in Julia Gillard. She stinks of failure, insincerity and ineptitude.
The whole Labor Party is a disgrace for getting itself into this mess. I thought I’d be enjoying the DRAMA much more than I actually am. It’s all quite depressing really. Is this current crop of politicians (Labor and Coalition) really the best our nation can do? No wonder I became an anarchist.
by Leisure Suit Larry on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:27 pm
“…if Rudd wins, he has virtually no one who will sit on the front bench with him?”
No one we’d miss. Swan? Crean? Emmo? – baha. Smell ya later guys.
Gillard, sure – but that one obviously cant work now. Aide from that, Burke’s the only talent
I note Shorto hasnt burnt his bridges. Smith hasnt said boo. Combet merely ‘supports Gillard’ (hasnt waved his testies in the air like some idiots) – Albo too. Again, bridges intact.
by lefty e on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:28 pm
I just don’t know where this idea that Rudd will be an electoral saviour comes from. He was on the nose last time – he’d dropped from being quite popular to having horrible personal numbers and poor polling in marginals very quickly. Why would he be any more popular now, after everyone’s got dirt on them from this latest round of nonsense?
by Patrick Bateman on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:29 pm
This is pointless if the government can\’t win elections and stop the otherside from unraveling the reforms.
by Greentard on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:29 pm
Without wanting to rehash this whole debate again, I think it’s a bit insulting to suggest marriage equality should only be legislated if it will win the ALP votes or is ‘a big issue for a lot of people’. Sometimes things just ought to be done because it’s the right thing to do.
by ltep on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:29 pm
Based on the statement Swan released last night, I don\’t think he is mentally stable enough to sit in cabinet.
by Greentard on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:29 pm
You must be joking. The back room right wing power brokers running the government destroying everything that threatens their power.
This anti Ruddism pro Gillardism is nothing to do with the good of the party. People here don’t want to see what this is about. They have their hatreds and don’t want a bigger picture to interfere.
No matter who replaces Gillard, Rudd will be there on the backbench, free to do whatever it is he wants. And you can be sure he doesn’t like to sit on his hands. He will be that skeleton of the right wing faction’s dirty work.
I am sure he will be working against the factional mafia until the next election.
by Thomas Paine on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:30 pm