Sep 7, 2017

Hinch’s Senate Diary: why Bill Shorten shouldn’t be picking curtains for The Lodge just yet

Derryn Hinch's citizenship dramas and section 44 questions are put to bed, and the Coalition's Kill Bill strategy seems to be working.

Derryn Hinch — Senator

Derryn Hinch


Over the weekend, we were at that venerable Sydney watering hole, The Lord Nelson, at The Rocks, for a reunion, 20 years on, of people who worked in the newsroom and on the Hinch and Clive Robertson programs at John Singleton’s 2GB.

I was also celebrating the fact that over the same weekend it was decreed in Canberra that I really am an Aussie, not a Kiwi, and certainly not whistling Dixie as a pseudo-Yank.

Free Trial

Proudly annoying those in power since 2000.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

12 thoughts on “Hinch’s Senate Diary: why Bill Shorten shouldn’t be picking curtains for The Lodge just yet

  1. lykurgus

    “This is not a 17% rush of blood to the head”
    No, it’s a 17% alc/vol.
    Now go catch up to the wagon you say you didn’t fall off, dole-bludger.
    Because if you’d relied on Brandis for legal advice in the past, you’d STILL be in jail.

  2. paddy

    Sheesh Crikey. I know times are tough and you probably think that a freeby from Hunch is a good way to fill up the daily newsletter… But trust me, it’s not!

    1. lykurgus

      I haven’t renewed; I’m just running my subscription out. Make of that, what you will.

      1. MAC TEZ

        So that makes two of us that I’m aware of.

  3. Itsarort

    Michaelia Cash – denizen of frippery and rambunctious enunciation. She is seriously going to need someone else to do the dirty work for her.

  4. Dog's Breakfast

    “This is not a 17% rush of blood to the head. But Malcolm Turnbull’s increase in his lead over Bill Shorten as preferred prime minister may be a sign …..”

    that in spite of all evidence to the contrary, pundits and commentators still put some value in this, the most useless of all polling questions, indicative of nothing at all.

    And how is Mal going in the poll on who makes the best opposition leader? That would be an equally stupid question for pollsters to be asking.

    1. Nudiefish

      Wasn’t John Howard a permanent wooden spooner in the “Best PM” category poll after poll? And didn’t the same JH keep rolling all comers until Rudd took him down?

  5. Nudiefish

    This is some seriously silly stuff. I don’t come to Crikey to get my own views confirmed, but not am I interested in nonsense either.

    The coalition has been trying to criminalise Shorten for years and all they have done is piss money down the drain with nothing to show for it. If Hinch has something meaningful to say on the subject he might simply say it.

  6. Barbara Haan

    I have stood up your articles in Crikey before Derryn, but this latest display of name-dropping and nonsense speculation, is too much, even for me. You and Michaelia make a great pair – you’ve both got helmet hairdos to cover your empty thought processes.

  7. AR

    Only the HumanHeadline would use Port Arthur as a set up for yet another self advertisement.
    We know HH has no shame but, FFS Crikey, enough!

  8. Wallywonga

    Is, and always has been a shameless self promoter. This article once again says more about Derryn Dick than any useful senate insights. Forgot to mention that the last kill Bill campaign, the Union Royal commission cost taxpayers $46 million dollars and, despite the commissioner’s apparent bias, was a complete waste of time; good Newscorp fodder though! We can look forward to your Cash interjections about this?

  9. The Curmudgeon

    Re the prospect of a “get Shorten” campaign. I thought the Royal Commission was going to do that, and then the 2016 election campaign would do that, but gosh, the punters are really craving an extended attack based on personalities, aren’t they? Yep, that should get the coalition over the line, along with ritualistic attacks on pro-equality/fairness policies increasingly embraced by said punters. Genius.
    The voters are trending towards a change of government; they are not too keen on Bill Shorten, but there is no obvious attractive alternative candidate (no Whitlam, no Hawke, no early Rudd) whose clear superior electability makes the case for a change of leader. As with Howard in 1996 and Abbott in 2013, the voters know that if they want to to change the government next time, they get Shorten as PM- that’s factored in, it’s a given. (As an aside, what the polls tend to suggest is that the voters want Turnbull as PM, but they want an ALP government- too late now for Malcolm to make the switch?) Shorten ran a solid campaign in 2016, he got close to a majority of seats, he’s electable. Doesn’t mean he’ll win, but the coalition option of doing a Latham on him is gone.
    The preferred PM/leader thing comes down to this. Are there voters out there, who preferred a coalition government in 2016 who would change their vote to a higher preference for Labor over the coalition if only Labor would change its leader? More to the point, are there enough of them to compensate for Labor’s loss of credibility if it reinstates the revolving door mode of leadership?
    Finally, in my nearly fifty years observing the political circus, I cannot recall a leader who so often has had to utter views and thoughts which the vast majority of voters know he simply does not believe as does Turnbull. Two can play the personality game.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details