After my post recently (link) about the media blow-up of the Labor leadership crisis, it seems that I will have to eat my words now that Rudd has resigned as Foreign Minister.
Wait what? Not so much.
What has actually happened? Kevin Rudd has responded in a typically sooky manner to criticisms against him by Simon Creane and Wayne Swan. He resigned as foreign minister because ‘I cannot continue to serve as Foreign Minister if I do not have Prime Minister Gillard’s support.’ However the PM has said that Mr Rudd was ‘a strong and effective advocate for Australia’s interests overseas.’
(An irrelevant side note; were the PM to re-appoint Mr Rudd as foreign minister, and publically endorse him again in that position, would that end the ‘rumours’ of dissent? Probably not, but it would go a long way to convincing Joe Bloe that there was some stability at the top.)
But even after the monumental and unexpected resignation of Mr Rudd as foreign minister, there is still no indication (asides from the media) that Mr Rudd has ANY ambition to become PM again.
I note Mr David Penberthy’s article in the Advertiser today (23.02.12). Mr Penberthy seems hell-bent on talking up the ‘dissent’ in the Labor party. How about this.
“The undeclared leadership contest” … Ok, so not an overt leadership contest, just something that you think is occurring, is that right Mr Penberthy?
OR this: “By sacking himself, Rudd is trying to make sure that he is the victim here.” “He has not done this because he wants to skulk away and wallow in his apparent sadness. He’s done this because he wants to destroy Julia Gillard.” (“Kevin plays the lead role in political soap opera”, in pg 4-5 The Advertiser, 23 February 2012)
Penberthy makes an interesting comment; “He has written much of its script with his destabilising tactics and consistent denials of any complicity on the day the leaks emerge.” So… Mr Rudd says he has nothing to do with these leaks. Can you point to anything conclusively showing (or even reliably hinting) that Mr Rudd has leaked these stories? Mr Penberthy’s article seems to be aimed at inciting dislike of Mr Rudd, rather than reporting on actual facts. I know this is The Advertiser, but surely a little bit of journalistic integrity isn’t too much to ask? This newspaper is looking more and more right-wing every day. (See my rhetoric? Unfounded! Did you pay any attention to it? Not really.)
Mr Abbot (Bless his cotton socks and speedos) has once again pulled out the ‘faceless men of the labor party’ line. This line is getting pretty old, just like the sound-bite of Ms Gillard saying there wouldn’t be a Carbon Tax in her government. This line of reasoning offends me greatly. Two points:
1: Abbot’s usurpation of Turnbull was no less bloody than Gillard’s of Rudd.
2: I seem to recall similar sound-bites of Howard saying there would be no GST.
Ok, so, politicians change their minds, and situations change. Get the hell over it! You are fast losing any political capital you gained out of that reversal.
The media’s response to this still seems very long on rhetoric, and very short on facts. (To use some rhetoric myself.)
And another thing!
Have a look at Terry McCrann’s article on pg 6 of The Advertiser. “From dysfunction to brink of disaster.” He has the GALL to label it ‘Analysis.’ What a load of shit.
Listen to this:
“Between Australia’s worst prime minister and our second worst.” (fragment of a sentence, just like this one) or “They jointly gave us all the disastrous policies – from the waste of Pink Batts and school halls, to restarting the boats, and the two big ones.” “There’s nothing to suggest that either camp has a clue about the challenges – and potentially worse – posed by the turbulent world out there.”
I’m sorry… what turbulent world out there? I didn’t think there was anything outside our borders except water. Oh, and China, which is apparently propping up our economy. Get over yourself!
FFS… this is an opinion piece, not an analysis. If you want to make an alalysis, you have to examine facts objectively, not produce sound-bites that are aimed at persuading an audience. That is why in high-school english, you were taught 'persuasive writing' and 'analysis' and they weren't in the same lesson.