tip off

Gillard’s good week undermined by Kevin ‘look at me’ Rudd

Julia Gillard has had a good week in foreign policy. But Kevin Rudd continues to behave as though her political demise is just around the corner.

So what’s the point of a UN Security Council seat? That will remain something of a mystery to voters even after the government managed to secure a seat.

Bob Carr (more accurately “a jubilant Bob Carr”) this morning promised “an Australian agenda”, possibly for those who might have assumed Australia’s election would merely mean a second vote for the United States, involving nuclear non-proliferation, women’s rights and arms control. He also mentioned Syria, perhaps assuming that the efforts of a loyal ally of the US would somehow tip the balance in a stand-off between Assad’s sponsors on the Security Council and the West.

Perhaps the real benefit to the government, unusually for anything related to foreign policy, is actually in domestic politics. The Coalition, which unless politically desperate (think John Howard hosting APEC in Fortress Sydney), regards multilateralism as a form of left-wing lunacy, has been left looking a tad churlish after opposing the bid (while “in principle” supporting it, whatever that actually meant).

A win’s a win,” Tony Abbott admitted today, with the sort of commitment to logical consistency and factual coherence that is frequently absent from his public statements. Labor gets to add a UNSC seat to its list of achievements the Howard government couldn’t manage — triple-A credit rating from all three major agencies, Finance Minister of the Year, 12th largest economy. All things that don’t mean a great deal to voters, especially with Labor’s lack of communication skills.

But while voters may be left wondering what the benefit of a chair “at the big table™” is, it caps a good foreign policy week for the PM, after she further eased the most problematic issue between Australia and India off the agenda. Labor of course would insist there’s no contradiction between working to supply uranium to a non-signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and its “Australian agenda”.

Abbott, meanwhile, managed to spoil what should have been the minor coup of securing a meeting with Indonesian President Yudhoyono by repeating his failure to raise the towback issue, an omission of sufficient concern that The Australian began circling the wagons in defence of its man.

Both Gillard and Abbott are foreign policy neophytes, and neither have a great deal of interest in the area. Gillard has herself admitted this; Abbott demonstrated it in his Battlelines book, in which his views on the importance of the “Anglosphere” read like an undergraduate parody of Greg Sheridan. Gillard, however, has the virtue of incumbency, the legacy of Rudd and having hit it off with our imperial overlord Barack Obama.

The Prime Minister being out of the country, that was Kevin Rudd’s cue to again politely request that we pay him some attention. Whatever thinking is going on within the Rudd brains trust could do with some re-evaluation currently: Gillard has lifted in the polls, Labor’s vote has been dragged out of the catastrophic position it was mired in for much of this year, but Rudd is still acting as if Labor’s on 29% and a nervous caucus might be ready to turn to him any moment.

It’s said to be driven by the perception that Gillard need only make it to the end of the year to be assured of leading Labor to the election. This is a strange new political rule from the party that gave us Bob Hawke the day an election was called. Even John Howard contemplated bailing out just a couple of months short of an election to give his government a better chance of survival. There’ll be plenty of time next year for Labor to contemplate its options if Gillard’s recovery isn’t sustained. Nicola Roxon’s struggles over the Peter Slipper case again illustrate that Labor’s talent for manufacturing unforced errors remains ever-ready to burst out again.

The Liberals, too, have plenty of time as well to consider their options if that talent fails to manifest itself and the Prime Minister’s recovery continues.

32
  • 1
    Jimmy
    Posted Friday, 19 October 2012 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

    Once agina BK struggle ot pay the PM compliments without finding the flaw in the diamond.

    This has been a very good week for the ALP, Gillards trip to India even got a very positive editorial in the Herald Sun today and the win on the UNSC has not only left the Libs looking churlish but foolish, Julie Bishop on 774 this morning was trying to make it a negative that Australia entered the race 6 years after the other 2 (which I would of thought was the Lbis fault) and spent too much time and money on it, surely if we spent 6 years less and still won that is a great example of productivity.

    On the negatives only the press gallery really seem at all interested in the Roxon-Slipper issue and Kevin Rudd’sook at me issues are only doing him a disservice.

    Also I see now that Abbott is back from his trip to indonesia he has transformed from a mouse back into a lion on asylum seekers.

  • 2
    gloria bennett
    Posted Friday, 19 October 2012 at 1:50 pm | Permalink

    2 years, so that will mean australia votes on wars with syria and/or iran. hmm, seeing as a neo-liberal war monger will be in the lodge by then, and quite possibly an ultra right wing president/congress that’s pretty much assured. peace loving nation indeed, pfft.

  • 3
    fredex
    Posted Friday, 19 October 2012 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

    Oh my dog!!
    Yet another headlined story and beat-up about Rudd vs Gillard.
    To go with all the others in the media obssession box.
    One could be excused for thinking there is a political agenda behind the constant flow of Rudd vs Gillard stories.
    Particularly when contrasted silence og only the rare occasional little whisper that sneaks through about Turnbull and hockey jockeying for the LOTO position.

  • 4
    Jimmy
    Posted Friday, 19 October 2012 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

    fredex - Completely agree, abbott would be under much more pressure as it stands and if the polls narrow any further there will have to be serious questions asked why the media aren’t asking serious questions!

  • 5
    GeeWizz
    Posted Friday, 19 October 2012 at 2:13 pm | Permalink

    Can’t wait to hear about bribing allegations… Gillard as usual will kick a goal but it was into her own goal.

    Just what did Labor do to win this bid? how many dinners? How many hands were greased? That is where the real story is at.

  • 6
    GeeWizz
    Posted Friday, 19 October 2012 at 2:22 pm | Permalink

    Jimmy,

    We don’t need to ask the Indo’s pliddy-please if we can turn back their boats, we just do it.

    I mean does Indonesia ask Australia for our permission on how to run it’s own borders?

    You talk about Abbott being a mouse, but Gutless Gillard has said Australia can’t protect it’s borders because the Indonesians say so. That is gutlessness to it’s core.

    BTW The Sri Lankans have said they are happy for Australia to turn back the boats, yet Gutless Gillard has failed to turn back 1 single boat to Sri Lanka.

    The day Australia can’t turn back Indonesian boats, flying Indonesia flags, crewed by Indonesians, sailed from Indonesia ports out of Australian waters is the day we lose our sovereignty as a nation… this is where Labor want to take us.

  • 7
    Jimmy
    Posted Friday, 19 October 2012 at 2:46 pm | Permalink

    Geewizz - “We don’t need to ask the Indo’s pliddy-please if we can turn back their boats, we just do it.
    I mean does Indonesia ask Australia for our permission on how to run it’s own borders?”
    You have summed up your lack of understanding perfectly, if Indonesia is running “it’s borders” it can refuse access to ourboats that are “turning around” the asylum seekers - so yes we do have to ask them permission.

    Just what did Labor do to win this bid? how many dinners? How many hands were greased? That is where the real story is at.” Grow up - Australia spent almost double on the failed bid for the Soccer World cup - you really are a petty man - how is that 56-44 newpoll looking by the way, still backing it in for Monday?

  • 8
    Hugh (Charlie) McColl
    Posted Friday, 19 October 2012 at 2:49 pm | Permalink

    Bernard, aside from the (completely unlikely) possibility that Kevin Rudd is positioning himself for another challenge, he almost always brings positive outcomes from his foreign excursions. He’s safe for Labor, he gets reported in the Australian media and he still has a following on both sides of politics. Rudd’s efforts do not in any way undermine Bob Carr, they may even provide a distraction for news media that go gangbusters about some things trivial (like the PM’s fall on the grass in India) and are always constructive and justifiable. So whilst they can be potentially risky - for those who are nervous about these things - the net result for Labor is that Rudd’s excursions show that the party is comfortable letting him off the leash on a roving commission.

  • 9
    paddy
    Posted Friday, 19 October 2012 at 2:50 pm | Permalink

    LOL C’mon Bernard, admit it. You were playing that UNSC bingo drinking game before you filed this, weren’t you?

    I distinctly heard numerous media instances of “punching above our weight”. Plus Joe Hockey’s “skull the bottle” zinger. “It’s good if it means the UN will help stop the boats”.
    But really…..Ruddstoration???? That’s a drink too far.

  • 10
    GeeWizz
    Posted Friday, 19 October 2012 at 2:53 pm | Permalink

    You have summed up your lack of understanding perfectly, if Indonesia is running “it’s borders” it can refuse access to ourboats that are “turning around” the asylum seekers - so yes we do have to ask them permission.”

    Jimmy, we don’t tow boats all the way back to Jakarta.

    We have Australian waters, then a stretch of International Waters and then Indonesian waters.

    We are completely within our rights to tow any boat that enters Australian waters back into International Waters. We don’t need Indonesia’s say so, we just do.

    I mean we’ve been doing it for 200 Years with Indonesian fishing boats and Labor have never batted an eyelid that we were “towing back boats”.

    Of course if any deal is to be reached with Indonesia it shall be done in a secret arrangement like what Howard had with Indonesia when it successfully sent back 7 boats. Not soapbox diplomacy like what Gillard wants. Abbott did the right thing by keeping his mouth shut, what was discussed in private conversations are private matters.

  • 11
    zut alors
    Posted Friday, 19 October 2012 at 3:02 pm | Permalink

    “A win’s a win,”

    Apart from stating the bleeding obvious, see how Mr Rabbott can get right to the nub of a subject - to the point, concise.

    Not so succinct when interviewed by Stefanovic this morning and asked, yet again, about whether he raised the Boat Turning Back policy with SBY. A rambling, obfuscatory response leaving the electorate with a non-answer. But we all know the answer.

  • 12
    Jimmy
    Posted Friday, 19 October 2012 at 3:12 pm | Permalink

    Gewwizz - “Jimmy, we don’t tow boats all the way back to Jakarta. We have Australian waters, then a stretch of International Waters and then Indonesian waters.
    We are completely within our rights to tow any boat that enters Australian waters back into International Waters. We don’t need Indonesia’s say so, we just do.” You realy are a dolt aren’t you, try looking at what the Libs policy is before you go on about yet another topic you seem to know nothing about.

    And just for giggles what happens when we get to this line of international waters, does the navy just sit out there indefinitely waiting for the boat to decide to sail back to indonesia? And at what point does the fishing boat simply drill a hole in it’s floor?

  • 13
    Jimmy
    Posted Friday, 19 October 2012 at 3:13 pm | Permalink

    Geewizz - “Of course if any deal is to be reached with Indonesia it shall be done in a secret arrangement like what Howard had with Indonesia when it successfully sent back 7 boats. Not soapbox diplomacy like what Gillard wants. Abbott did the right thing by keeping his mouth shut, what was discussed in private conversations are private matters.” So if Abbott does a backroom deal it is good but if Gillard odes one to get on the UNSC it is bad? And it is a bit hard to disclose what was said in private if it was not said at all, see the indonesian foreign ministers comments.

  • 14
    Jimmy
    Posted Friday, 19 October 2012 at 3:46 pm | Permalink

    Geewizz - Just so you are in no doubt about your ignorance I got this from the Liberal website -
    “POLICY
    1. TURN BACK BOATS
    Where circumstances permit and vessels can be safely secured, the Coalition will return boats and/or their passengers to their point of departure or an alternative third country destination.
    The Coalition will work to implement this policy through secure interception of vessels, whether in international waters, our contiguous zone or in Australian waters, consistent with the Migration Act, and by restoring relationships with regional neighbours to enable return of vessels and their passengers in a manner consistent with our international obligations.”

    SO not only is there policy to take the boats “back to Jakarta” but to get the Indonesians permission to do so. Dolt.

  • 15
    gloria bennett
    Posted Friday, 19 October 2012 at 4:25 pm | Permalink

    i posted this comment on the age website, but in typicall y the corrupt media wont allow the truth to come out. it’s disappointing and not remotel y surprising that the government controlled media wants people to be ignorant about the truth of US/saudi instigated war games.

    it’s amazing how many of these commenters have such a l imited understanding of the situation in syria. the situation, as it is, is caused by saudi’s and qatar arming jihadists to help implement a salafist state across the middle east. the us was initiall y complicit in this, in suppl ying training at least, if not weapons. this is of course having some obvious blowbacks (l ybia) as their l ittle war games always do (afghanistan: you’d think they’d learn), and is why the UN is now distancing itself from the conflict. of course, you people don’t know that the west regularl y arms and trains jihadists to do their dirty work, and australia is right up their with supporting this. of course this comment wont pass moderation as the state controlled media apparatus wont allow a dissenting voice,

  • 16
    CML
    Posted Friday, 19 October 2012 at 4:57 pm | Permalink

    The treatment of Rudd in the media (including Crikey) is roughly equivalent to the reporting/opinion on PM Gillard’s “speech”. None of you lot, including Bernard, get it!! Agree with Hugh (Charlie) McColl - Rudd always has something interesting to say, and he is still the most preferred PM in the country. Why shouldn’t the general public hear what Rudd has to say without this ridiculous nonsense of “leadership challenge”? After all, he is a previous PM, despite being a backbencher at the moment. We don’t get all this carry-on every time Hawke, Keating or Howard is interviewed by the media. I find the attitude of journalists tiresome, to say the least.
    And Rudd has every right to comment on the UNSC seat win. He initiated it, did most of the work for it and is acknowledged around the world as a foreign affairs expert. I truly resent Bob Carr’s attitude of taking all the credit on this one. He has only been Foreign Minister for 5 monutes!

  • 17
    drmick
    Posted Friday, 19 October 2012 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

    Hullo Wiz, Pat and all the other d#ckheasds. I see the “special” bus for TROLLS has pulled in again. Must be great to get to park in the handicap parking space? Looks like they have been with uncle jethro joyce by the level of their comments. This time though BK is just as bad.
    I still reckon you are no better than Jones and ab bot and all the rest of the haters. FFS give her credit where it is due.

  • 18
    GeeWizz
    Posted Friday, 19 October 2012 at 6:37 pm | Permalink

    Jimmy the question is what Dillard and Labor did to convince other countries to vote for Australia.

    We have heard about U.N shinanigans before, including the paying for thousand dollar restaurant meals, expensive bottles of wine and even HSU approved “entertainment”(aka. Hookers).

    Labor needs to tell us what they have been spending Aussie tax dollars on.

  • 19
    drmick
    Posted Friday, 19 October 2012 at 6:48 pm | Permalink

    If you have nothing constructive to add to this discussion. Get back on the bus, take you medication and get back under your rock with the rest of the parasites.

  • 20
    AR
    Posted Friday, 19 October 2012 at 9:20 pm | Permalink

    Abbott demonstrated it in his Battlelines book, in which his views on the importance of the “Anglosphere” read like an undergraduate parody of Greg Sheridan”.. err.umm.. how could one possibly parody Greg the Great Pontificator? As was said of el Duce, it is impossible to satirize a buffoon, the job is already done & dusted.
    So with the Oz’s empty vessel, unerringly and consistently, wrong every time his fingers dance their hellish roundelay upon the keyboard.

  • 21
    GeeWizz
    Posted Friday, 19 October 2012 at 11:05 pm | Permalink

    LOL, different country representatives wanting the U.N security council gig taking “goodies” bags for the other countries to vote for them.

    I mean what sort of dodgy organisation requires goodie bags for you to get votes.

  • 22
    Michael Hutak
    Posted Saturday, 20 October 2012 at 1:23 am | Permalink

    Do you have to be so cynical and nasty? I like Rudd. So do millions of others. Ditch your leadership meme. He’s off the leash and if he wants to get out and talk then that’s fantastic for the Labor Party and I for one want to hear what he has to say. If he’s a conniving arsehole in private he sure has worked out how to fake diligence and sincerity in public. Stop taking your intrigue pills. Your analysis is banal.

  • 23
    Hamis Hill
    Posted Saturday, 20 October 2012 at 9:28 am | Permalink

    Ji-U-Iz?. Translated from the context, this must mean “insult to the intelligence” or, for short, conservative.
    Where is that tow back policy when you need one?
    Couldn’t we bribe them to go away with some chocolate koalas?
    Shrill shrieks of desperatio; will we be getting our fourth LOTO for Christmas?
    John Howard, from outside parliament, like Can DO?

  • 24
    Hamis Hill
    Posted Saturday, 20 October 2012 at 9:40 am | Permalink

    JI-Uh-IZ: Labor needs to tell us why it isn’t spending all those Aussie Dollars on middleclass welfare?
    Can’t you see we’re dying here!
    And no, Chocolate Koalas won’t cut it, we want our Capital Gain and we want it now!
    Otherwise all that Howeird Mortgage debt pain is just too unbearable!

  • 25
    Madonna
    Posted Saturday, 20 October 2012 at 11:39 am | Permalink

    I think it’s a great achievement Australia has secured a seat on the UN, albeit temporarily.
    I’m particularly happy to hear Bob Carr’s ideas towards establishing peace in Syria.
    Being a global citizen means not forgetting to address the third world living standards in this country which many ignore.
    On the topic of the recent uranium deal with India, I’d like to know what impact this process will have on the Indian population. Where are their dumping grounds? How do the Indian population feel about this deal?
    I’d like to ask Mr Swan and Senator Wong what the uranium deal is worth to the Australian federal budget.
    I’m also wondering if the ALP strategy is to ensure the federal budget is in surplus in order to sell the ALP as a trusted brand at the 2013 election.
    On a final note, would anyone like nuclear waste in their backyard, or is it okay to dump it in your global neighbour’s back yard instead?

  • 26
    Hugh (Charlie) McColl
    Posted Saturday, 20 October 2012 at 2:18 pm | Permalink

    GeeWizz, you ask, “…what sort of dodgy organisation requires goodie bags for you to get votes?”. Joh Bjelke Petersen used to get bags of dollars from people who wanted something - I suppose that says something about those dodgy corporations. On the other hand, our federal government, of whichever stripe you like to follow, hands over a diesel rebate worth billions (repeat billions) to mining companies and other primary producers in direct return for them not saying anything nasty. And boy can they be nasty if they’re not fed their rebate.

  • 27
    michael r james
    Posted Saturday, 20 October 2012 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

    BK has it slightly but crucially wrong. While today the News Ltd usual suspects are attempting to spin the Gillard triple wins (viral video, India visit, UN SC seat) into sourness (classics are Sheridan crap, Kenny fluff and C.Kerr nonsense — and isn’t he a salutary lesson Bernard for Crikey journos!) the reality is that this has been a pretty astounding ten days for the PM.

    Watching K. Rudd on Lateline I didn’t for a millisecond (honest, despite a good performance by KR) think anything along the lines of his second or third coming etc. That is merely an absurd concoction of a tiny rump of disgruntled Ruddites, just like it was 8 months ago; can’t the Canberra press gallery distinguish between that futile, self-destructive tiny rabble and important events? Various journos, including BK if I remember but especially Lenore Taylor (who in her piece last week trying to justify her criticism of Gillard’s speech, is making a bad habit of this), after the failed challenge, gloated/claimed that the public were wrong in their complaints of the press obsession with trivia, and that the gallery were right about all the rumors of a “spill”. Err, no. A few disgruntled has-beens that didn’t have a snowflake’s chance in hell does not make it into something worthy of endless stories and beatups that they inflicted on us as “news” for month after month. It was and is exactly the trivia, the dandruff of poor journalism that we complained about.

    Anyway, George Mega, bless him, has written another one of the best analyses of the Gillard misogyny speech and its lasting significance. (Google “online sensation” and his name). A few excerpts:

    On present trends, the figure (YouTube views) will cross three million before the parliament rises for the summer break. … (compared to Rudd’s) apology to the Stolen Generations …. has had fewer than 200,000 clicks on YouTube in 4 1/2 years. This is the first example of the digital age where a genuine expression of passion from a politician was rewarded with numbers that a free press or even popular culture can’t compete with.
    .
    I looked again on YouTube this week … What I think I missed the first time is how the reaction of the Opposition Leader adds to the tension and, in turn, validates what Gillard is saying. Every man would recognise the flicker of panic in Abbott’s eyes, when he switches from blokey guffaw to “hang on, she might have a point”. This is the son being told off by the mother, the partner being given the ultimatum.
    .
    There was another look that crossed his face - exhaustion. He seemed to shrink as she approached her finale. Then, with a gesture that could never be scripted, she mocked him as he glanced at his watch. Abbott threw his hands up, the child protesting to the mother that he wasn’t guilty of that too. The theatre was the story; an irony given the self-serving critique that the press gallery has faced on social media. Wasn’t the problem of the 2010 campaign the reverse; that the press gallery ignored the context and focused on the trivia?
    .
    But there is a more serious question for Abbott. The odour of sexism will linger because he has been playing the gender card against Gillard. He drew it from the bottom of the deck, on behalf of the minority of men who may never get used to the idea of a female PM. What he never counted on was Gillard calling his bluff. Now that she has, the idea that Abbott can unify the nation if he wins the next election seems just that little bit harder to imagine.

  • 28
    michael r james
    Posted Saturday, 20 October 2012 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

    (Most of post is in moderation. third attempt with a shorter bit:)

    Anyway, George Mega, bless him, has written another one of the best ana l yses of the Gillard misogyny speech and its lasting significance. (Google “onl ine sensation” and his name). A few excerpts:

    On present trends, the figure (YouTube views) will cross three mill ion before the parliament rises for the summer break. … (compared to Rudd’s) apology to the Stolen Generations …. has had fewer than 200,000 cl icks on YouTube in 4 1/2 years. This is the first example of the digital age where a genuine expression of passion from a pol itician was rewarded with numbers that a free press or even popular culture can’t compete with.
    .
    I looked again on YouTube this week … What I think I missed the first time is how the reaction of the Opposition Leader adds to the tension and, in turn, val idates what Gillard is saying. Every man would recognise the fl icker of panic in Abbott’s eyes, when he switches from blokey guffaw to “hang on, she might have a point”. This is the son being told off by the mother, the partner being given the ultimatum.
    .
    There was another look that crossed his face - exhaustion. He seemed to shrink as she approached her finale. Then, with a gesture that could never be scripted, she mocked him as he glanced at his watch. Abbott threw his hands up, the child protesting to the mother that he wasn’t guilty of that too. The theatre was the story; an irony given the self-serving critique that the press gallery has faced on social media. Wasn’t the problem of the 2010 campaign the reverse; that the press gallery ignored the context and focused on the trivia?
    .
    But there is a more serious question for Abbott. The odour of s__ism will l inger because he has been playing the gender card against Gillard. He drew it from the bottom of the deck, on behalf of the minority of men who may never get used to the idea of a female PM. What he never counted on was Gillard call ing his bluff. Now that she has, the idea that Abbott can unify the nation if he wins the next election seems just that little bit harder to imagine.

  • 29
    Madonna
    Posted Sunday, 21 October 2012 at 10:15 am | Permalink

    Thanks everyone, I’ve enjoyed reading your interesting comments. Insightful.
    Cheers
    M

  • 30
    michael r james
    Posted Sunday, 21 October 2012 at 3:12 pm | Permalink

    Still in moderation. Fourth attempt at re-posting the first part:

    Posted Saturday, 20 October 2012 at 3:42 pm |
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    BK has it slightly but crucially wrong. While today the News Ltd usual suspects are attempting to spin the Gillard triple wins (viral video, India visit, UN SC seat) into sourness (classics are Sheridan crap, Kenny fluff and C.Kerr nonsense — and isn’t he a salutary lesson Bernard for Crikey journos!) the reality is that this has been a pretty astounding ten days for the PM.

    Watching K. Rudd on Lateline I didn’t for a millisecond (honest, despite a good performance by KR) think anything along the lines of his second or third coming etc. That is merely an absurd concoction of a tiny rump of disgruntled Ruddites, just like it was 8 months ago; can’t the Canberra press gallery distinguish between that futile, self-destructive tiny rabble and important events? Various journos, including BK if I remember but especially Lenore Taylor (who in her piece last week trying to justify her criticism of Gillard’s speech, is making a bad habit of this), after the failed challenge, gloated/claimed that the public were wrong in their complaints of the press obsession with trivia, and that the gallery were right about all the rumors of a “spill”. Err, no. A few disgruntled has-beens that didn’t have a snowflake’s chance in hell does not make it into something worthy of endless stories and beatups that they inflicted on us as “news” for month after month. It was and is exactly the trivia, the dandruff of poor journalism that we complained about.

  • 31
    Jimmy
    Posted Monday, 22 October 2012 at 9:52 am | Permalink

    Geewizz - “Jimmy the question is what Dillard and Labor did to convince other countries to vote for Australia.” Once again you change the question when you are shown to be completely ignorant of the facts.

    And did you see the Age/Neilson poll today 48-52 and Gillard further in front as PM, still hanging out for that 44-56 Newspoll tomorrow?

  • 32
    Jimmy
    Posted Monday, 22 October 2012 at 10:00 am | Permalink

    When those polled nominated how they would direct their preferences, rather than allocate them in line with how they fell at the last election, the two-party-preferred gap closed to 49 per cent to 51 per cent.”

    This is from the SMH site

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...