Gillard 71, Rudd 31
Phillip Coorey of the Sydney Morning Herald reportedly reports that Julia Gillard’s winning margin over Kevin Rudd in this morning’s Labor leadership vote has been 73-29, coming in at the higher end of market expectations.
UPDATE: The official announcement has actually been that the margin was 71-31. Headline amended. Apologies that comments are currently off, which has been necessary to manage Crikey’s notoriously shaky bandwidth.
UPDATE 2: Ongoing apologies for the offness of the comments. Essential Research has come in at 56-44, up from 55-45 last week and 54-46 the week before. Labor’s primary vote is down a point to 32 per cent and the Coalition’s is up one to 49 per cent, with the Greens steady on 11 per cent. Further questions have 39 per cent blaming Julia Gillard for Labor’s problems against 18 per cent for Kevin Rudd, 23 per cent for others in the party and 10 per cent for the media. Reactions to the Gonski report are typically social democratic, with 61 per cent preferring more education funding to a return to a budget surplus and 68 per cent supporting the report’s recommendations as described against 13 per cent opposed.
Categories: Federal Politics 2010-
Seeing as her child was born to Satan (who has never paid taxes in his life) I don’t think she opinion is all that relevant.
by Tom Hawkins on Feb 29, 2012 at 4:18 pm
I read it. It clearly says it is between Gillard and Swan (“the ALP”), and Windsor and Oakeshott (“The Independent Members”).
Now of course any fool can tell you that “the ALP” is not just “Gillard and Swan” – but referring to them as the ALP in this manner is a mere notational convenience – what it means is that where “ALP” appears later in the document, you should substitute “Gillard and Swan”. This is a common practice in contracts and agreements.
The agreement is between Gillard and Swan and the Independents. It is not with the Australian Labor Party.
Also, when it says “Parties” it means the “the parties to this agreement” (i.e. Gillard and Swan). It does not mean “political parties”. Again, this is a common practice in contracts and agreements.
Your whole argument seems to rest on the title of the agreement. Good luck with that one!
by Oscar on Feb 29, 2012 at 4:20 pm
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sport/i-can-form-my-own-league-clive-palmer-says/story-e6frg7mf-1226285237601
by Leroy on Feb 29, 2012 at 4:21 pm
If you want to see the truly disturbing consequences of Howard and Abbott’s flag waving, military glorifying jingoism, behold the comments on “The Circle”‘s wall on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/CircleTV?sk=wall
by Patrick Bateman on Feb 29, 2012 at 4:22 pm
All this hair splitting over words in a written agreement when it’s quite plain what the intention of Oakeshott and Windsor is/was by reading subsequent statements.
As if the leadership changes Oakeshott and Windsor are going to say “I can’t swap my support because I signed an agreement that had “The ALP” written in it”.
by ltep on Feb 29, 2012 at 4:27 pm
billie @ 2686 and Oakeshott @ 2697
I agree with both of you on Mundine. As I said earlier he will add no value to Labor.
It was said yesterday that he would announce his intentions within 24 hours and as yet no announcement has been made. Maybe there is some re-thinking going on in the NSW ALP headquarters.
by MTBW on Feb 29, 2012 at 4:27 pm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/28/arab-first-ladies-of-oppression
Good article
by Leroy on Feb 29, 2012 at 4:28 pm
mtbw
Have you heard anything about Michael Fullilove getting the spot in the senate?
by victoria on Feb 29, 2012 at 4:29 pm
Bemused, Tom , Oscar…..instead of this interminable debate about the interprtation of teh Agreement with the Indies (this is not, after all, a commercial litigation forum), perhaps you could all ante-up, wrap a pink ribbon around a copy and send the damn thing of to some competent commercial QC for an opinion.
And I don’t mean George Brandis, Shadow Minister for Annoying the Police with Frivolous References.
I mean a real solid commercial silk.
I could give you a few names, if you like.
by smithe on Feb 29, 2012 at 4:29 pm
Vic
Heard his name mentioned but nothing else.
by MTBW on Feb 29, 2012 at 4:32 pm
mtbw
Same here. Was curious if he had a shot at the senate seat. He seems like a good fit
by victoria on Feb 29, 2012 at 4:32 pm
I’m sure Fat Boy could set up a local league but if he wants to have international matches / recognition he might have a spot of trouble with FIFA.
by This little black duck on Feb 29, 2012 at 4:33 pm
ltep 2803. There’s a deeper reason. Confidence motions and G-G’s commissions are not party-based as such: when it comes to the crunch, a ministry and a particular PM are voted on in parliament and sworn in, not a ‘party’.
by Graeme Orr on Feb 29, 2012 at 4:33 pm
smithe
I always enjoyed wrapping pink ribbon around a a Brief. It always meant my part of the job was done
by victoria on Feb 29, 2012 at 4:34 pm
This is worth a read! May not come to anything much but at least it is worth a trial:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/let-sydney-pick-labors-town-hall-candidate-20120228-1u0uh.html
by MTBW on Feb 29, 2012 at 4:36 pm
With blackjack! And hookers!
by The Claw on Feb 29, 2012 at 4:39 pm
Thanks for that Graeme.
by ltep on Feb 29, 2012 at 4:39 pm
Ok by me. Who pays
by Oscar on Feb 29, 2012 at 4:41 pm
Missed QT again. Seems it was another one where Slipper flexed his muscles.
by confessions on Feb 29, 2012 at 4:44 pm
Ah victoria,
Pink ribbon….one of the more useless traditions of the Law.
There are others, of course.
Back in the old days…(I mean really old days, before my time) when a barrister was briefed to draft soemthing, say a Statement of Claim, the lazy sod wouldn’t even be expected to type it-up.
No siree, he’d hand back a handwritten draft which his instructing solicitor was expected to have typed.
In extreme cases of indolence, sometimes the barrister would appoint a conference with the solicitor, drag the poor sod into his chambers and then proceed to dictate the document to him, obliging said solicitor to write down the Great Man’s golden words, then scurry away to his office and get them typed.
by smithe on Feb 29, 2012 at 4:46 pm
When Harry Jenkins was in the speaker’s chair I wondered whether the speaker was lacking in power to control the house – modern times, disprespectful members etc meant that the tools the speaker had at his or her disposal that might have worked 50 years ago were now inadequate.
Well, Peter Slipper has shown that up. The tools are fine, Harry Jenkins just didn’t use them effectively. A bit of self belief, a bit of mongrel, and you can have order in the house…
by Jackol on Feb 29, 2012 at 4:48 pm
smithe
Why would I need a QC when I know I am right?
by Tom Hawkins on Feb 29, 2012 at 4:48 pm
Mr Slipper is developing a nice rhythm and should go the full 42.195 km with no trouble at all.
by This little black duck on Feb 29, 2012 at 4:50 pm
Victoria, speaking of Barristers and their briefs, was the term “Querist” ever used by the barristers you instructed when they provided their advice? I haven’t seen the term used for many years.
by Lynchpin on Feb 29, 2012 at 4:50 pm
Famous last words.
Didn’t Gordon Wood say something similar before his trial?
by smithe on Feb 29, 2012 at 4:51 pm
Tom Hawkins @ 2793
Well I never said it was but the dictionary seems to think they are much the same.
So I really think you have a distinction without a difference.
The fact is they agreed in writing to an arrangement with the ALP for the ALP to form a government with their support.
The ALP is not a natural person and cannot pick up a pen so it’s leadership signed on it’s behalf.
by bemused on Feb 29, 2012 at 4:54 pm
http://prestoninstitute.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/abbottsteam/
Good article
by Leroy on Feb 29, 2012 at 4:57 pm
Jackol:
Slipper is a far more effective Speaker. He’s more consistent and not prone to waffling on too much.
by confessions on Feb 29, 2012 at 4:57 pm
This little black duck
Some yummy reading to warm up with before the Leveson fun starts.It looks at three questions.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/can-leveson-inquiry-get-any-worse-for-key-players-7462649.html
by poroti on Feb 29, 2012 at 4:58 pm
I would have thought this generally accepted definition would automatically distinguish between a generic “agreement” vs a “contract” being enforceable by law.
Uh, no, there’s a difference.
The independents have made it clear how they interpret the agreement in the context of a leadership change, and at the end of the day it is how they interpret it that matters, not you, not a lawyer, not Freddy next door.
by Jackol on Feb 29, 2012 at 5:00 pm
victoria @ 2798
This is just bizarre!
So if the ALP changed it’s leader the Independents would want the Liberals to change theirs and then they would support the Liberals because they had done what they didn’t like the ALP doing?
Or alternatively, they would support Turnbull with Abbott remaining Lib leader? And then you expect Abbott to meekly lead the Fibs to fall into line with the Indies and Turnbull?
The Fibs do not support the things the Independents want. Not even Turnbull!
by bemused on Feb 29, 2012 at 5:00 pm
smithe/Lynchpin
I have been out of the legal loop for a few years now. The term querist was used many moons ago.
And yes some barristers used to provide handwritten advice and/or statements of claim. Did not stop them charging like wounded bulls!!!
by victoria on Feb 29, 2012 at 5:00 pm
bemused
Do you even understand what I am talking about?
by victoria on Feb 29, 2012 at 5:02 pm
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/02/28/politics/brokered-convention/index.html
good article
by Leroy on Feb 29, 2012 at 5:03 pm
Heh… 2GB have got a hold of the Ben Robertson-Smith “He’s a dud root” case. They’re crucifying Negus at the moment. Bimbo also involved seems to have gotten off scott free as she is just Pay TV Trash.
I can’t imagine what came over Negus for him to suggest that a Victoria Cross winner was in a swimming poll diving for his brains.
SAS guys may be brawny, but they also have to have a lot of smarts about them.
But then to suggest that he was impotent or similar because he and his wife had had an IVF conception was just plain bizarre.
Negus’ only saving grace was that he wasn’t the one who put the cherry on top with the “dud root” comment.
A lot of punters ringing in with, in my opinion, pretty good cases for a whinge (for once). This could end Negus’ career.
by Bushfire Bill on Feb 29, 2012 at 5:05 pm
confessions @ 2817
Hey, you also missed answering the questions I posed earlier.
Or do you decline to answer?
by bemused on Feb 29, 2012 at 5:08 pm
It is illegal to induce someone to vote a particular way in parliament.
Those “agreements” with the independents are purely political documents, they aren’t legal documents.
The Greens could sign one of those agreements and then vote in the complete opposite way to what is specified in the agreement. The thing that stops them from doing this is political rather than legal pressure.
by ShowsOn on Feb 29, 2012 at 5:08 pm
It doesn’t say they are signing “on behalf” of anyone. However, in the interests of other PBers who have moved on from this interminable and pointless debate, I am happy to defer to a High Court decision on this one.
by Oscar on Feb 29, 2012 at 5:10 pm
Well given there is no legal issue at hand, there’d be no cause for any court, let alone the High Court to consider it.
by ltep on Feb 29, 2012 at 5:12 pm
True, it’s not a natural or legal person. There was an AEC recommendation last year to the effect that registered political parties be deemed incorporated associations, but so far as I know, it hasn’t be acted upon yet.
They’re unincorporated associations (like Clubs before the Clubs incorporation legislation).
Such bodies can enter contracts and agreements, but only via their office holders acting on behalf of members. They can’t do it in their own names.
And such office holders become personally liable under any such contracts with, at best, a right of indemnity from the members of the association for any liabilities incurred on their behalf and at their behest in entering into any contracts or enforceable agreements.
If any such agreement is breached by the unincorporated association and the aggrieved party wants to sue on it, thay have to sue the office holders (however styled eg: President, Treasurer, Board Members) representing the members from time to time of the association.
They can’t sue the unincorporated association itself as it has no legal existence.
The real question is whether the Agreement with the Indies is a contract which is legally enforceable by any of the parties to it, unincorporated association or not.
In my view, it clearly is not.
by smithe on Feb 29, 2012 at 5:14 pm
victoria @ 2831
I know what you wrote but have to take it on faith that it reflects what you mean.
by bemused on Feb 29, 2012 at 5:14 pm
I’m just delighted that the defeated Ruddistas have something of monumental insignificance, yet of total unimportance to be banging on about. It gives them something to focus their inconsolable sadness and bitterness through, I suppose.
by Greensborough Growler on Feb 29, 2012 at 5:16 pm
Exactly. The only relevance to the question of whether the agreement was with “The ALP” or with “PM Gillard and Deputy PM Swan” is whether or not the independents can be beaten over the head with it politically if they were to abandon it after a change of ALP leadership.
by The Claw on Feb 29, 2012 at 5:18 pm
Harry Jenkins was a good bloke but geez he was weak and couldn’t control the opposition at all, whereas Slipper is much stronger and asserts more authority to the position.
So Clive Palmer has got enough money to buy his own soccer competition? Yeah, well what a pity he hasn’t got enough money to make him lose all that blubber.
I wouldn’t swap places with him and all his dough in a billion years
by Centre on Feb 29, 2012 at 5:20 pm
Is Black, White yet?
by ruawake on Feb 29, 2012 at 5:20 pm
The Claw @ 2841
I agree.
by bemused on Feb 29, 2012 at 5:20 pm
The basic thing to understand with the agreement between the “Labor Party” and the “Independent Members” is that it is not legally enforceable, and is certainly not a contract, as there is no consideration (an item of monetary or tradeable value used to seal the deal). Such consideration would be illegal in any case as it could be said to be offering an inducement.
The agreement is enforceable honourably, ethically and morally, ironically enough to fomr the basis of a Governor-General’s decision to appoint a Prime Minister, but you couldn’t take anyone to court over it.
So, as far as the Indies are concerned, they can tell Rudd or Gillard, for that matter, to shove it without any comeback. However, the next agreement they signed and presented to the G-G might not be taken so seriously. That’s the risk.
by Bushfire Bill on Feb 29, 2012 at 5:21 pm
You have got to be kidding, are some still going on about Rudd
Get it through your thick heads
I would rather put my money on Peter Costello being drafted back into the Liberal Party and leading them at the next election than Rudd ever leading the Labor Party again 
by Centre on Feb 29, 2012 at 5:26 pm
Sky now confirming Bob Carr saying he never had any conversations with Gillard or any Government representative. Had spoken to Daystiari only.
Looks like PM is vindicated again.
by Greensborough Growler on Feb 29, 2012 at 5:27 pm
i loved this from the PM today
by victoria on Feb 29, 2012 at 5:28 pm