Just a quick post today, as we’re all still recuperating from the ‘flu down here. I guess we can’t ignore the goings on in the British media; James is on the case, so I thought I’d give you all a chance to vent.
I made my own opinion clear last thread in a response to Izen; while I don’t hold any brief for the one private magnate at the centre of the current scandal, at least his network supplies some counter-balance to an otherwise uniformly left-of-centre MSM. His Fox Network in the U.S. has plenty of entertaining stuff, but aspersions are constantly cast upon it there; I recall this being parodied once on the Murdoch-owned animated series Futurama; in one episode, as a news helicopter flashes by in the introductory credits, the Fox News logo on the side is seen for a fraction of a second, together with a slogan: Not racist, but #1 with racists. Pretty funny, I thought—and rather daring.
I gave them bread and circuses - why are they all so angry?
So where would the mainstream media be without the Murdoch empire? Down here, it often seems he still owns the place, and has done ever since he inherited the Adelaide Advertiser from his old man way back in 1953. These days, Australian Prime Ministers pay courtesy calls on him whenever they’re in the States, not the other way around. And when he’s in Australia, visiting his mother (yes, he really has one; Dame Elisabeth Murdoch turned 102 this year and is still going strong), he is accorded the status of a visiting head of state. He’s no longer an Aussie anyway, having taken out U.S. citizenship many years ago. So I should care less—except that politics in Australia would be a very different beast without him.
What do you all make of this lot?
Be Responsible - Be Free! 
Well I have a different tack on the whole story…..
http://knottedprop.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/what-are-they-trying-to-bury-in-the-news/
I think the left have always hated him in the UK because of his backing for the Tories during the Thatcher years they parodied him as the dirty digger on spitting image an obnoxious farting man of few manners.
He is said to be really ruthless in business but beyond that I really don’t know enough about the real Rupert Murdock to know what he is really like as a person. However he gives more artistic license to his TV stations to push boundaries than any of the left wing owned stations would ever dare.
The MSM are making hay but I find all of it rather absurd, so say the least.
From ‘The Anatomy of Absurdity’:
“But what should I spend my ink, waste my paper, stub my pen in painting forth their ugly imperfections and perverse peevishness, whenas how many hairs they have on their heads, so many snares they will find for a need to snarl men in; how many voices all of them have, so many vices each one of them hath; how many tongues, so many tales; how many eyes, so many allurements. What shall I say? They have more shifts than Jove had sundry shapes, who in the shape of a satyr inveigled Antiope, took Amphitrio’s form when on Alcmena he begat Hercules, to Danae he came in a shower of gold, to Leda in the likeness of a swan, to Io like a heifer, to Aegine like a flame, to Mnemosyne like a shepherd, to Proserpina like a serpent, to Pasiphae like a bull, to the nymph Nonacris in the likeness of Apollo. For cruelty, they seem more terrible than tigers; was not Orpheus, the excellentest musician in any memory, torn in pieces by women because, for sorrow of his wife Eurydice, he did not only himself refuse the love of many women, and lived a sole life, but also dissuaded from their company? Did not merciless Minerva turn the hairs of Medusa, whom she hated, into hissing adders? Therefore see how far they swerve from their purpose, who, with green colours seek to garnish such Gorgon-like shapes.”
by T. Nashe. At London.
Printed by I. Charlewood for Thomas Hackett, and are to be sold at his shop in Lombard Street, under the sign of the Pope’s head.
Anno. Dom. 1589.
G’day, OL. Perfect – Oz 🙂
Oz – best of luck with that Flu……honey and whisky mate. 😉
Thanks mate – Bundy and Coke is my medicinal; Ozgirl’s got a bad croup cough so we’re not getting much sleep – Oz
Ozboy,
Have y’all actually been diagnosed with influenza or are you applying the term “flu” to encompass all viral upper respiratory infections? Was the Oz household vaccinated? I had a cold last January that took me a good 10 days to shake. I was miserably sick but it wasn’t influenza. Influenza can wipe you out…it can kill you. I learned a great trick for influenza and terrible colds in adults (adults only). Plain, ordinary aspirin. Not acetaminophen (or paracetamol if you prefer) or ibuprofen, but just plain aspirin…about 1,000 mg per dose every 4 hours. You can feel it kick within 20 minutes of taking it and you can feel it wear off about 4 hours later. I swear it works better than almost anything for that “feel like death” feeling. Other than that all you can do is get plenty of sleep, drink plenty of fluids and wait it out.
Erm, we ain’t been diagnosed, Doc… but it’s going around down here, and we’ve all got it. Our Cold and Flu tablets the pharmacist dispenses have some pseudoephedrine, codeine and paracetemol. Plus I’m dropping some vitamin C and garlic tablets. I’ve got some aspirin around here somewhere, I’ll dig it out and give it a go – Oz
How many of you think this whole Murdoch business is related at least in part to lack of diversity in media ownership? I certainly do. I think media ownership should be as diverse as possible and should give voice to all legitimate political sentiment in a country; as per the Yes, Prime Minister clip at the top. The fact that in Britain and Australia we’re forced to pay for a left-of-centre government organ we neither chose nor want, makes it doubly frustrating. In an ideal liberal, free-market society, papers and other media which best reflect the public’s sentiment will prosper, while those which reflect niche opinion will shrivel into niche products (albeit possibly very good ones). Monopoly or cartel ownership of the mass media, which is then used as a blunt political tool, is profoundly illiberal – no matter who’s pulling the strings.
Murdoch is a hero in my estimation. For a long time there really wasn’t a conservative voice in American media. The “news” was decided upon and driven by left wing ideologues at NBC, ABC and CBS. Then CNN was added but it was (and remains) just as left-wing. The “papers of record” were the NY Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times and eventually USA Today. All ultra-liberal rags. The media were king makers (except for Reagan who they loathed).
Then in the late 80s Rush Limbaugh virtually reinvented AM talk radio. Finally, there was a conservative voice in the wilderness. I believe FOX News came into existence in 1995 and offered not just a conservative viewpoint but unfiltered, factual news. FNC routinely beats the ratings of all their cable competitors combined. AM talk radio now features nearly 24/7 availability of conservative commentary. By 2000 a whole of folks had access to broad band internet and blogs sites with alternative views. This has proven most disconcerting for our MSM. The dead tree media is slowly dying. Left wing newspapers are closing all over the country. The WaPo, NYT and LAT are losing readership. Fewer and fewer folks rely on broadcast media for their news. The left wing has attempted their own forays into AM talk radio and these ventures have all failed. Their target audience is listening to music on the FM channels.
The media is still stacked in favor of the left but they no longer have a monopoly and this a source for constant consternation for them. Glenn Beck left FOX (he wasn’t fired). He pulled up stakes and moved to Dallas. He’s planning on building his own media empire in (mostly free) Texas. He speaks glowingly of Rupert Murdoch.
Yes, the internet is the great leveller all right. Anyone can set up their own site for free, and broadcast away. Not just news or opinion but music, literature, anything. Plus the fact that search engines mean anyone who wants to can find you.
And the MSM don’t like it at all – Oz 😀
Ten years ago I had a ritual. I would drag myself out of bed, grab a cup of coffee and plop down in the living room and watch CNN until the caffeine kicked in. The next year broadband became available where I live and it changed my life. Now my routine is to drag myself out of bed, grab a cup of coffee and plop down in my home office in front of my computer. I canceled my subscription to the local ultra-liberal rag years ago. I get virtually all my news from the internet. I really didn’t discover the rich and varied content of the blogosphere until about 2005. That discovery changed my world but not necessarily my world view. If more people turned to the Drudge Report every morning as I do, we’d have a much better informed populace.
Juliar and her ventriloquist are milking this story down here too, just as much as they can. Scary times.
Well, if that is getting just a bit too heavy, Farmer braun found this floating around the ether; the sound is not flash but it gets there, I think:
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=185501741465446
Seems to load better if you click off the HD.
Get well soon mate!
Thanks O God Emperor. Thanks too for doing an Australian thread; this is one case in which where Australia goes, Britain may well follow – Oz
DrDave I recently cut off the cable TV access after I decided $160 a month was way too much for getting Mexican and Religious TV as filler so they could claim X number of channels. Not being into sports I also objected to getting sports channels I don’t watch. I also stopped watching CNN, MSNBC so when I sat down and thought about what I was actually paying for and getting I just canceled it. If I want to watch a series I will wait about 3 to 4 months then rent it from Netflix.
The only person I did watch on Fox was Glen Beck purely for the entertainment value as for Bill O’Reilly he really is a closet lefty if you watch him closely.
I’m all for diversity of the press, But as that great clip that Ozboy put in at the top says they pander to the views (prejudices) of their target audience.
I use the net for news, usually the further away from a story the reports come from the less biased they are – although you have to allow for the local slant… So China, India S American press for anything in Europe/US and Europe/US for anything outside that area.
Not that US media has much about the rest of the world unless they can tie it to a ‘human interest’ angle with an American. A trait the MUrdoch press brought to the UK….
Funny to see people here grading the media from left to right with BBC Guardian ABC MSM as LEFT wing…
I guess it depends on your perspective, IU would view the BBC as cravenly pro-establishment and defenders of the status quo. I wouldn’t grade ANY of the printed/broardcast media as left-wing. About as far as it gets is a sort of watery liberalism which wines about making the pro-corperate, anti-collectavist system ‘fairer’ rather than calling for any change.
To use a sports metaphor…both sides are unhappy with the game and how it is played at present
The right want to return to the old rules of the game and old style of play to recapture a past, mythic golden age…
The left want to reform and modernise the rules of the game to recapture a future golden age….
Neither side show any interest in playing a different game entirely….
A mythic golden age? Not me, Izen; manipulation of the press has always been rife, and as I’ve said, diversity of ownership is a large part of the solution. The internet is democratizing it anyway: in a few years, we’ll be the MSM.
BTW I haven’t forgotten about your AGW post on the last thread; I’ll address it eventually – Oz
@- Ozboy -A mythic golden age? Not me, Izen; manipulation of the press has always been rife, and as I’ve said, diversity of ownership is a large part of the solution. The internet is democratizing it anyway: in a few years, we’ll be the MSM.”
I was not suggesting you were that type of conservative Ozboy – g-
How well the net performs as a solution for corporate repression of diversity depends on how much control governments and business persuade us is needed to protect us from terrorism sex and copyright infringement. That should get you blog noted by all the keyword scanners!
“BTW I haven’t forgotten about your AGW post on the last thread; I’ll address it eventually – Oz”
Neither have I, am looking forward to it when you are well enough, but just to make the task harder have added claim 2…-GRIN-.
James seems to be relishing the prospect of an Australian tour, he’s combative enough. I trust his landing, at least, will be unopposed. It will be a sad day for democracy if he doesn’t get that far.
I’m sure he appreciates all your support.
Good luck in your struggle !
Thanks Bufo Mio. If you’re lurking James, drop me a line if there’s anything I can do to assist – Oz
James, Ozboy can supply you with all the Vegemite sarnies a man could ever want washed down with some heathen brew.
It seems Geoffrey Lean gave the game away in an article on page 30 of to-day’s Telegraph. He says ‘Might Greenpeace rename one of its ships ‘Samantha Cameron’, after its former supporter’.
So it isn’t the pathetic Dave who wants ‘The Greenest Government Ever’, It’s the hippy Samantha, her mate Geoffrey and the lads from ‘Greenpeace’ who are determining our energy policy.
Oz,
Get well soon!
Thanks Ian – we’re getting there; another day or two I reckon – Oz
Breaking story (I’ve posted this at DT as well):
Huge betting plunge on Simon Crean replacing Julia Gillard as Australian PM saw the market come down from $101 to $11 before betting was suspended –
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/crean_firming/
It’s about to happen folks…
Laurie Oakes is the dean of the Canberra press gallery and Australia’s most senior political reporter. He knows everyone in Canberra and has them all on his speed dial. Here’s the transcript of his interview with Gillard on this morning’s Today show on the Nine Network. Compare with his Gillard interview on 27th June last year; her first since becoming Prime Minister (and being swarmed by the image doctors and makeup artists).
It’s pretty obvious in hindsight that Oakes’ mates in the ALP had given him the word that she’s finished, which makes this morning’s interview somewhat surreal.
Ozboy,
I hope I don’t offend you but…your PM is a dolt. She sounds like a back bencher FDR. For a year or two (maybe 3) Julia can bribe the electorate with their own money but the net effect will be that the net cost of all goods and services will increase for Australians. Swell! You get $10.05 in payola for every extra $9.50 you pay in taxes but EVERYTHING will cost more. Carbon dioxide is NOT pollution! Even if it was, Australia doesn’t produce enough of it to stick in your eye. ANY country would be hard pressed to produce a worse leader than Obama, but I have to hand it to y’all. Oz and the UK are making this a tight race.
And no offence taken. As I said earlier though, the confidence trick she pulled on the Australian people at the last election is the sort of thing you can only get away with once. Labor are hoping against hope that with a competent leader like Crean, we’ll just let bygones be bygones and forget about how close they brought our nation to economic ruin. We won’t. Obama is finished in America too, and for much the same reason – Oz
UPDATE 18 July 0700 – when even the warmist Fairfax press is writing her off (check out today’s SMH lead story) you know it’s all over. Parliament is currently in its winter recess and MPs are scattered across the country; the logistics of recalling them to Canberra for a spill motion is all that’s keeping Juliar in office today. Or maybe she’ll accept the inevitable and fall on her sword.
Ozboy,
Humor me…what’s a spill motion? What would have to happen to replace Julia the Red? See, we’re stuck with our jug-eared idiot until Nov 2012 (technically until Jan 2013). We don’t get any “do overs”. We (and the rest of the world) have to suffer through the mistakes of our electorate. What has to happen to change things in OZ?
OK, a bit more Australian civics: unlike in the USA, where you elect your head of government directly, and for a four year term, here the head of government (PM) is chosen by the Members of the House of Representaives (MHRs) and senators who form the government, by virtue of their majority in the Lower House. In practice, the leader is well-known beforehand by the public; this has lead to our federal elections starting to resemble your personality-driven presidential ones. The MPs who form the government, however, are free to dump their leader at any time and choose a new one (sometimes ostensibly over policy differences, but inevitably due to poor poll results). They do this by proposing in the party room, a leadership ballot, or “spill” motion. In my lifetime, this has happened six times: in 1969, William MacMahon challenged Liberal PM John Gorton (unsuccessful) and again in 1971 (successful); in 1981, Andrew Peacock challenged Liberal PM Malcolm Fraser (unsuccessful); Paul Keating challenged Labor PM Bob Hawke in June 1991 (unsuccessful) and again in December that year (successful); and in 2010 Julia Gillard successfully challenged Labor PM Kevin Rudd. Similarly, the Opposition can and does change its leader from time to time, and for the same reasons.
What this means is that, as per your question, once we elect a government they are there for the full three-year term; although that government may change its leader. The Prime Minister may seek an election before the three-year term runs out, if he or she believes the polls favour re-election; first-term governments have often done this, before their “honeymoon period” runs out. An election may also be called if the government loses “the confidence of the House”; more on this in a moment.
Right now though, we are in a highly unusual situation. At the 2010 Federal election, neither major party won an absolute majority (76 of the 150 seats) in the House of Representatives: a “hung parliament”. After 17 days of negotiations following the election, Julia Gillard reached an agreement with Adam Bandt, who won the seat of Melbourne to become the first and only MHR from the Australian Greens, and three independents: Andrew Wilkie, former Green candidate and Member for Denison (the electorate centred on Hobart), plus Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, two former National Party members in conservative rural NSW electorates. God only knows what Gillard offered them, but I do know that hundreds of millions have been invested in southern Tasmania since, out of all proportion to our population. In return, these four agreed to vote with the government on all policies specified, and not to side with the opposition on a vote of “no-confidence”; such a vote, under our system, requires a change in government, either of sitting members who can gain a confidence vote, or (if one cannot be found) by recourse to the Governor-General who will issue the writs for a general election.
Clear as mud? – Oz
Dr Dave it’s a parliamentary democracy (constitutional monarchy) the PM is selected by the party this is the party leader. They are one MP among many. As such they can select and deselect anyone at any time depending whether they have the confidence of the party.
Note the role of head of state is Queen Elizabeth the 2nd via her governor general in Australia.
In the USA the King is elected every 4 years which is what a President really is only the title is different and the time in office.
I think a spill motion is what they call a vote of no confidence in the PM’s leadership, if they lose that then the party can if it wants select a new leader as the old one is a dud and will obviously bring them to electoral defeat.
Ozboy,
Thanks. Yep…like mud. In practice we here in America directly elect our leader. In theory the states do. This is the source of the every four year fevered debate regarding our electoral college. The system is deeply flawed but it’s still better than selecting a President purely on the basis of popular vote. We have states with a population greater than all of Australia. The Founders’ vision was not to allow a few big cities to select the head of state.
I sort of “get” how y’all choose a PM. I believe it is every bit as flawed as the system used in the UK (which is also whacked). My question is what procedural process would lead to Julia’s removal. As I see it, Labor has formed a weak minority coalition government with all the winning ALP reps, one Greens and three independents. These four outliers don’t want to call for a new election as they would almost certainly lose all the power they now currently enjoy. ALP members all vow to vote as a bloc. So what has to happen (and by whom) to affect a change?
I apologize if I sound obtuse but your parliamentary system is completely foreign to me. Obama would be gone yesterday if we had such a system. Then again, we’re citizens, not subjects. But y’all have an excellent cause around which to rally. This proposed carbon tax is the proverbial turd in a punchbowl. The removal of Julia the Red (by whatever means) would be a tremendous boon to the US. It would be a clear signal to Obama and his merry band of socialists that AGW is NOT a winning issue…even in Australia. Barry & Julia have a lot in common. They are only a month or so different in age and both are committed socialists and have been since their youths. They’re also both lawyers and unrepentant liars. Neither was possessed of sufficient experience to equip them for the role they were elected to assume.
I’ll be watching what happens in OZ quite closely. All my best wishes are with you.
Dave
P.S. The sailboat race I mentioned in our email had their first tragedy in 103 years. A 35′ yacht capsized in a heavy thunderstorm off the coast of northern Michigan and 2 crew members drowned. The boat was in the same class as my friends’. Reports say that as many as 10 boats immediately gave up the race and rescued 6 of the 8 crew members of the afflicted boat. Without tracking I don’t know any details. I’ll have to wait while they leisurely sail from Mackinac Island back to Chicago and then drive back to Michigan to get the rest of the story.
OK, very quickly: if the heavies in the ALP machine decide Julia can’t retrieve Labor’s position, but that some other leader might, then the phones start running hot: they check the numbers, and if it looks like a leadership challenge might be successful, then it will happen. And really quickly, like within a day or two: Labor know that leadership speculation is even more electorally damaging than the Carbon Tax.
The problem with that is, it still leaves Labor in government until 2013; a Simon Crean or Martin Ferguson as PM might be able to back away from the tax with some grace, but Labor will still be massacred at the polls two years’ hence. Another scenario in which Julia might go is if a Labor MP or one of the three independents supporting the government gets hit by a bus, causing a by-election. The Liberals will probably win Denison right now, and the Nationals are a lock on the seats occupied by Windsor and Oakeshott. That gives Abbott a lower-house majority, but he will not control the Senate. What he will almost certainly do is go to the G-G the day after the by-election, get sworn in as PM and immediately present an unassailable case that his new government is unworkable, and that a general election must be held.
Did I say “very quickly” a moment ago? The G-G in that scenario might well tell Abbott to go back to Parliament and try again. But there is a joker in the pack that almost no-one in the press is mentioning, one which threatens to bring the whole temple down around their heads. I’m writing about it now, and will post it in a few days – Oz
izen says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
July 19, 2011 at 12:42 pm
@- Dr Dave
Briefly overcoming my reluctance to paddle in the political froth…..
The US system could be converted to the Australian/UK parliamentary democracy version by allowing the majority in the senate to select a ‘president’ from their members and form the government. Erm, no – a president selected from Congress, not the Senate, if you wanted it to resemble the Westminster system – Oz
Having a separately elected head of the government forces the political system to be a two party setup and avoids any possibility of coalition governments.
Having the government and leader emerge from a majority of elected representatives allows parties to change leader according to political expediency.
The rolling elections where only a part of the democratic caucus is up for re-election every 2 years would be an interesting modification of the Australian and UK systems. And of the US system if the head of government emerged from the senate (congress?) majority! That’s better – Oz 😉
No big national election, just an evolving balance as 1/3 were up for (re)election every 2 years. Much more leadership changes and multi-party cooperation, coalition and transient groupings I suspect. Greater response to local and topical factors perhaps ?
Whatever the ideological claims and justifications for all this civic governmental engineering, the end result, and probably the point of it all is to ensure reasonably stable civic government without disruption from democratic input for at least 3 or 4 years. That seems to be the median sort of timescale which social groups will accept leadership and government. Perceived failure for longer than that usually results in rejection. These democratic mechanisms ensure that leadership/government changes minimally disrupt ongoing civic management.
Is my face red…. I just accidentally posted this elsewhere! -pained grin!-
Reasonably stable civic government – yes, the Westminster system gives us that; and it is the result of a centuries-long process of trial and error. The wrinkle that Australia and the USA share, but which Britain doesn’t, is that we are formal federations; the Upper House is designed to be the States’ house – a check against the more populous states (who will naturally command the Lower House) trampling on the less populous ones. This really is a meaty topic, and bears heavily on the opportunity for Liberty to prevail in a society; we must do a dedicated thread on it one day, and you, Izen, can overcome your reticence to jump in! – Oz
I’m not sure I would ever use “reticence” to describe izen. izen is essentially correct in that our founders intent was for the various states (i.e. the Senate) to select the President, not the general population. Thus was born our Electoral College. Our Electoral College has been constantly corrupted through the years. The 17th amendment in 1913 changed everything. We no longer had the states (i.e. state legislatures) selecting US Senators but rather popular vote within each state. This changed the dynamics of the Senate. Senators no longer serve to represent the interests of their state so much as they serve their political party’s interest inside the beltway of Washington DC. They have become the federal government’s representatives in Congress. With only very rare exceptions, our Electoral College has chosen presidents almost always consistent with the popular vote.
I have wrestled with the 17th amendment issue for years. My state has a long history of largely Hispanic and (old fashioned) Democrat state legislature dominance. We would never have had some of our historic Republican Senators we had over the last 40 years if the State Legislature had selected the Senators. Then again, even a Democrat Senator who was answerable to the NM legislature might be hesitant to vote for an expensive high speed rail system in New York. Popular election shields them from much of this.
I readily admit that I am biased and USA-centric, but I believe that, flawed as it may be, the US system of government is superior to all others. In 2010 the American people decided we didn’t like where Obama was taking the nation and elected an overwhelming majority of Republicans to the House. This has cut Obama off at the knees. The Democrats still control the WH and the Senate…but the House controls the purse strings. Without money government is impotent.
Therein lies the difference: we get a government for a (nominally) fixed term, which can change its leader. You get a leader for a fixed term, but can change the parliament from underneath him. We really need a separate thread (or three) to do this justice – Oz
Oh yes for those of you with the bandwidth and an hour to spare:
No sooner said…
In breaking news, former PM Kevin Rudd has announced that he will be taking leave of absence for medical reasons: he is scheduled to undergo aortic valve replacement surgery on 1st August. He will be absent for two months, but remain a MHR.
Lots of potential scenarios now. First and foremost, regardless of political differences I wish Rudd and his family all the best for a speedy recovery. Parliament will rise from its winter recess while Rudd is still convalescing, so Labor’s one-seat majority becomes significant. Westminster convention in these cases dictates that Tony Abbott offer the government a pair; that is, one of the opposition MHRs will abstain from all voting, so as not to take advantage of Rudd’s enforced absence. To do otherwise would set any number of nasty precedents, and no-one on any side of politics here would want to go down that road. But we are in uncharted waters here: Abbott has stated consistently, vehemently, and absolutely correctly, that Gillard has no popular mandate to implement the Carbon Tax. Would (or should) parliamentary convention override what is self-evidently the will of the Australian people, democratically expressed at the ballot box?
Then there is the possibility that Rudd may decide to retire from parliament, on health grounds. It would be hard for anyone to argue with his decision on that score; however, Labor would exert every last pascal of pressure it could bring to bear on Rudd to dissuade him. Looking at the 2010 election results in Rudd’s seat of Griffith, it would appear on the face of it his 2-party preferred advantage of 58.46%-41.54% is unassailable; yet I would guess that at least half of that difference is attributable to Rudd himself, leaving a margin far less than recent state-based polling in Queensland suggests is the case. By this I mean that, were a by-election to be held in Griffith, the Liberal-National candidate (Rebecca Docherty in 2010) would romp home, causing a change in government as I discussed above.
Rudd himself, however, has three other significant reasons to want to retire, apart from his health. Firstly, he is fairly sure the Prime Ministership is now beyond his grasp for good. Secondly, in precipitating a change in government he would be exacting the ultimate revenge against the woman and the party who knifed him thirteen months ago. The third reason I’ll explain on the weekend.
Ozboy
Can you give me an ‘under the counter’ clue before the weekend?….(I’m working on a cartoon which is almost finished. you might have something which should be mentioned in some way)
Winging its way to you now – Oz
This the sort of thing you mean?…
Hey diddle fiddle….
http://fenbeagleblog.wordpress.com/
Brilliant yet again Fen! I’ve alerted Andrew Bolt, so hopefully he’ll pick this up too – Oz
Pingback: Parliament On A Knife Edge | Be Responsible – Be Free!