Candidate stays at home:
Ryan Moore, Labor Party candidate for Glass House, writes: Re. “Tips and rumours” (yesterday, item 7). I would appreciation a retraction on a false rumour you printed in your daily email to subscribers today.
I recently visited Melbourne for an internship and study externally. My partner and I have a long distance relationship. At one point we had planned to move together but that was and is not feasible for me. I have lived here for all of my life, something I’m quite proud of. As for some campaigning, I’ve been out every day since the writs were dropped speaking with locals, letter boxing, door knocking and taking media requests.
Crikey writes: We were told by a source close to Moore that his shift to Melbourne was permanent. We’re happy to clarify his situation.
The bloody Labor leadership cage match:
Lee Emmett writes: Re. “Rudd’s hit-and-fly tactic works, but no avoiding a pitched battle” (yesterday, item 1). Kevin Rudd failed to present for the leadership ballot when Cabinet lost confidence in him, and because of his weakness, forced Julia Gillard to wear an unjustified media-tag of illegitimate PM. Rudd’s gutless action, together with his ongoing petulance at being deposed has undermined Labor in government. His resignation as Foreign Minister, without consultation, is totally irresponsible.
His parliamentary colleagues, and indeed the electorate, can have little faith in his judgement when making important decisions. His failure to properly explain the Henry recommendation for a Mining Tax enabled the industry to mount an aggressive advertising campaign against the tax, while raking in super-profits. His political incompetence on this issue, as well as causing his demise, also deprived Australia of additional revenue which could have been used to improve social programs.
Julia Gillard’s superior consultative, communication and negotiating skills have seen important reforms being passed with co-operation of the independents. I hope he graciously accepts defeat this time if a ballot goes against him.
Grant Corderoy writes: Well, here we are — our former and current Prime Minister’s re-writing (or justifying) history and their respective roles, even to the extent of Ms Gillard now asking us to respect her stoicism as she wanders down the martyrdom path of detailing how she virtually single-handedly kept the Rudd government from self-destruction until she had to unseat Mr Rudd for the “good of the country”.
Recent vision of Kim Beazley in Washington served to remind me that here was a person of significant intellect, compassion and integrity that was cast aside by the Labor party and political journalists alike as not being a “strong leader”.
I hope we have learnt from such misjudgements and we quickly let the likes of Gillard, Rudd and Abbott drift into oblivion, to be replaced by people who will properly represent all of the community values that we should aspire to.
Lee Boldeman writes: Can I suggest that the present crisis in the ALP is also an opportunity and Labor could do well out of it. The electorate has never felt good about Kevin’s knifing. His restoration would right what has been perceived as a wrong. But if Caucus were to really insist on a reformed management style we could get a very good PM.
I suggest that that involves devolving power away from the PM’s office and central agencies. Can he be found a very good Chief of Staff? No more children in his office. Can he be found a very good deputy leader without further ambitions i.e. like John Faulkner?
Can we give Heads of Departments real tenure again so that they can stand up to ill-advised Ministers and silly staffers?
John Thompson writes: Re. “Richard Farmer’s chunky bits” (yesterday, item 12). I have to agree with Richard Farmer regarding the “trustworthiness” of Julia Gillard, but, surely more relevant is the fact that were Gillard to lose, she would never have any cause to try to make a comeback — she is already completely on the nose with the electorate, if she loses her colleagues there is no way back for her.
Alternatively, if Rudd loses, but with a support base of 30+, there is every reason for him to challenge again, in three-six months time, when the execrable Gillard is languishing on 27% support.
Gillard’s demand for a tit-for-tat promise to not challenge in the future is as hollow as most of her pronouncements, promises, and perjury.
Paul Arnott writes: Surely it’s all about payback. Even if Rudd loses on Monday he will stay around on the back bench to make sure that those who deposed him continue to bleed and suffer along with the party, and maybe, Keating-like, have another crack at Gillard in a few months when things have gotten even worse for the government.
Or he will resign and bring about the inevitable defeat of Labor 12 months earlier than expected. Or, which is highly unlikely, he will win the leadership. Whatever happens, he gets his revenge.
Phylli Ives writes: Politicians and the media who are attacking our Prime Minister Julia Gillard, are not doing so because they are attacking something wrong, it isn’t even political, it’s PERSONAL.
If our PM had actually done something bad they would be delighted to have something to actually attack. I mean what has she done wrong? Tony Abbott can only come up with the pink batts.
Niall Clugston writes: Perhaps this current crisis could be an opportunity for political commentators to admit that, for all his faults, Mark Latham was telling us the truth. But, then, they have egos bigger than politicians.