Rudd reverses the mud

The ALP under Kevin Rudd’s leadership has broken more opinion polling records. The AC Nielsen poll has the ALP an unbelievable 22 points ahead on the two-party preferred vote, at 61/39. Let me say that again. The AC Nielsen poll has the ALP 22 points ahead on the two-party preferred vote! In other scores, the ALP is an incredible 15 points ahead on the primary, at 50/35. Rudd’s personal approval is 21 points in front of John Howard’s, at 67/46; and the opposition leader is 14 points ahead as the preferred prime minister, at 53/39. These scores have all broken the previous records set under Rudd’s leadership, and have broken or at least equalled all-time polling records.

acpanamahat.jpg

I don’t believe opinion polls are a reliable guide to the forthcoming election. Yet they do distribute the day-to-day pressure in politics. These results follow extraordinary attempts by the government to shift the pressure onto Rudd over the past fortnight, with relentless personal attacks on the opposition leader’s character. The attacks failed, causing massive self-inflicted damage on the government itself, which is now under more pressure than it has ever experienced in its 11-year rule. If the government maintains its current rate of political hyperventilation, we may well see its senior ministers explode live on television this week. Of one thing we can be sure. If this government is torn down, it’s going to be a very ugly sight. Go the Ruddster!

Update: The prime minister responds: “I don’t think we should overanalyse the connection between the Burke issue and the polls”. So, which connections do you think we should “overanalyse” Mr Howard, pray tell? Meanwhile, Michelle Grattan says the “results will panic the Government about the failure of its onslaught”.

Update: (13 March) The conventional wisdom holds, despite the polls. The Herald says: “Whatever the stratospheric poll ratings of the Opposition Leader, Kevin Rudd, point to, it is not the result of the federal election later this year”. The Australian says: “It would be wrong to interpret the opinion polls as showing Labor can expect an easy election”. The ALP retains underdog status.

Update: “Oh, that $12,000 in shares that I owned last year in conflict with my official responsibility and the prime minister’s code of conduct”, says the minister for ageing, Santo Santoro, or words to that effect. “How can I be expected to keep track of every pesky $12,000 that I own? As everyone knows, directly contravening the pm’s long established code of ministerial conduct is not the same as retrospectively contravening the pm’s freshly confected code of conduct about meeting Brian Burke. Don’t be silly. Who do you think I am? Kevin Rudd?”

Update: John Howard has confirmed that Santo Santoro is not Kevin Rudd, and therefore his forgetting about where he put $12,000 last year in contravention of the PM’s ministerial code is piffle compared with the Ruddster being unable to recall dinner chit-chat a year before. Ominously, in the same report, Peter Beattie has raised the Santora-Printgate connection, which doubtless the PM believes should not be “overanalysed”. Also, dig this Santa twist.

Update: (15 March) Tim Dunlop has the story on Santogate. Meanwhile, the PM has been sprung dining with a porn king facing charges of torture and grievous bodily harm, and claims not to have had a clue, as always.

This entry was posted in Politics - national. Bookmark the permalink.

107 Responses to Rudd reverses the mud

  1. whyisitso says:

    Leave some gloating until October/November. Or are you getting some in while the getting’s good. Remember Latham ’04.

  2. whyisitso says:

    Actually the condition is called ‘gloating deficiency disorder syndrome’ – GDDS. Becomes more pronounced after four disappointing drubbings in the big ones. Can be crippling after five attacks. Treatment – take a bex and have a good lie down.

  3. cs says:

    Like any fair-minded citizen, I’m happy to see the mud reversed. Yet it is too soon to predict the election result, let alone gloat, and no ALP supporter should get carried away. There is a lot of work to be done yet. Heads down, bums up, stay focused.

  4. Don Wigan says:

    Well, it seems pretty clear now that the mudslinging has if anything weakened Government support.

    True, as whyisit says, it’s a bit early to gloat (remember 1993?), but then we leftists haven’t had much to cheer about in recent times.

    True also that it’s a long time yet before the actual vote. The comparison with 04 falls down a bit when you realise that the primary vote under Latham in the polling never really got beyond 42% consistently and actually went backwards by election time. Now it has been above 45% and this poll has it at 50%.

    I think the Libs and their supporters are in for a lot more sleepless nights.

    Couldn’t get into either SMH or Age sites this am which may indicate a lot of interest in this latest poll.

  5. Link says:

    Ooooh! I saw the news item and came rushing over as fast as the dial up and Troppo’s server would go, (which is not very), to see if you’d put up a post, (knowing of course, how little you read into these poll results cs).

    Coalition front benchers have had a gutful either way. There’s nothing that Howard can do now. (Extraordinary external events playing into his hands not withstanding and preferably not happening).

    It is not in his nature to pull a rabbit out of a hat that’s not half dead from myxomatosis already, and finally after ten, long, years, the punters now know this.

  6. The poll numbers are looking good for independents too. Mood for change and all that.

  7. Sacha Blumen says:

    The poll figures remind me of those when the ALP under Hawke was at its polling nadir – I remember one poll of 33% (primary vote) for the ALP, with the coalition at about 50%.

    These are extraordinary figures – no doubt coalition MPs are feeling concerned!

  8. Geoff Honnor says:

    It may be the conventional wisdom not to call it this far out but I really can’t see Howard pulling this one back. They may well be firing up Bill Heffernan’s little sleaze factory on William St as we speak but, looking at these results, even if they come up with photos of Rudd, nude, with a collection of midget Brazilian hookers and a couple of goats, the punters are going to have the Coalition for invading his privacy.

  9. Amanda says:

    It’s interesting that most people think Kevin was less than fully truthful about the Burke thing, but they do not care. Finally, the infuriating apathy of the voting public which has served the Rodent so well, lo, these many years is coming back on him. Go, infuriatingly apathetic public!

  10. Guise says:

    And yet there’s nary a mention of this in today’s Oz.

  11. Amanda says:

    ACNielsen is a Fairfax poll, they’ll be all over their Newspoll which should be … tomorrow (?)

  12. Sacha says:

    Go, infuriatingly apathetic public!

    laugh

  13. Geoff Honnor says:

    I think it’s tomorrow week, Amanda.

  14. Amanda says:

    Yes, that makes more sense. Thanks Geoff.

  15. Pappinbarra Fox says:

    Yes the separate polls come out on alternate fortnights. Maybe Costello will do a Keating?

  16. Mr Denmore says:

    The media commentariat’s lazy and jaded analysis of this remarkable poll trend is getting rather tiresome – “It could be a flash in the pan, remember Latham,” they all ritually intone.

    But it seems the herdlike journos are making their usual mistake of failing to sniff the wind. I’m surrounded by traditional Coalition supporters who now openly express their contempt or at least dismay for Howard and his mendacious, sleazy bunch.

    Howard’s political judgement, always seen as his strong point, now appears to have deserted him, as it appeared it would when his long-standing chief of staff Arthur Sinodinis quit earlier this year. For me, the Obama/Democratic slur was the turning point.

    Their only strong card left is the economy. But if Rudd plays it right, he can win that debate too by showing that the government does not “run” the economy. Rather it should be setting the foundations for future growth and investing the windfall from the commodity boom for leaner times. In that sense, Howard has failed.

    Rudd needs to ignore the mud-slinging and keep hammering away about the future – challenging people to think about what kind of Australia they want. And he needs to counter-act the market fundamentalists and libertarian wingnuts by emphasising that free people have choices, they are not the puppets of market forces.

  17. Beju says:

    It certainly is a very good sign for Rudd. However, complacency is a killer and we are still a very long way out till the next federal election.
    Still, one can’t help but get excited by the prospect that this evil Howard regime may soon fall.

  18. Geoff,

    So you know about the photos?

  19. Robert says:

    The key thing in these numbers is that the mud chuck was not appreciated by the public.

    That obviously puts the Coalition in a difficult place to throw more – but they’ll be more tempered about it. The shrill Costello left a little distaste in peoples’ minds, I’d say, along with the PMs over-urgent need to go Rudd. So my guess is they’ll merely say “we have to do this better” when setting up to throw Rudd some muck. The Coalition I believe would be prepared to suffer polls like this if in the end they deliver enough doubts. They’ll be throwing more.

    Rudd’s big problem is he’s so new. It’s fair to imagine this high level polling could desert him quickly should he blunder through self made error or pressure. Perhaps this has been offset mildly by his Sunrise background.

    FWIW, I don’t think these polls matter a jot, except to see Howard under more pressure which is rather enjoyable (it’s good to see who he really is after an Opposition-free incumbency and all those accolades not accounting for it). Eleven years of the Coalition and a new boy on the block – one who after eleven years could possibly be the goods – and here we are. Plenty more mud chucks coming, low divisive blows etc and the economy yet to be forefronted in peoples’ minds by Howard.

    Having said all that, the factor which could play out in the immediate future on account of these numbers is bad backbencher discipline. These guys are looking at their seats turn to sisterns and bluggalugbluglug down they go. They might have something nasty to say about their own members in the meantime – and that will really do some damage.

    Too early yet to talk about that final flush.

  20. Amused says:

    Quite right Mr Denmore.
    It’s the future and the kind of country people want to live in that is going to be the clincher. The mood out there, in the land of the fabled battler, the one captured and conquered by Mr Howard and his conservatie cultural warriors apparently in 1996 is very interesting indeed. I work in its interstices, and cs, whyisitso and the rest have let their underlying contempt for the ‘culture’ go to their head. Australia is not the backwoods of Kansas or Texas. It is a bird of a very different type indeed, as Howard and his Cabinet are beginning to discover.

    Antipodean versions of Karl Rove won’t help here, and nor will the ususal politcs of downward envy. The election will be tough, there is no doubt, but Howard is going to lose. He has reached his own personal March 1996. The punditocracy should forget theri recent conversion ot right wing post modernism, and get out an dtry a bit of bracing empirical research.You know, get out there and ask a few people who don’t earn $100 plus pa, live on the North Shore or the Eastern Suburbs, and who don’t know Murdoch’s family, you know, personally.

  21. Robert says:

    I have to wonder, too, to what extent these two factors have played a role: a) US citizenry decrying Bush’s strategy in Iraq (I think it’s the strategy: is it personal?. No: strategy); b) Democrats winning control of the Senate.

    The Iraq war is not just one issue: it holds in it in Australia matters not only of direct foreign policy but also the overall alliance as well as a general mood about who we are and how we see ourselves. Leadership style is heightened in this as well. Rudd is a lightning rod for that overwash of alternative sentiment.

    As those changes happened in the US, Australia was undergoing it’s own reflection on the Iraq imbroglio. I’m wondering if what happened in the US formed an underpinning of Australian sentiment, which otherwise may have remained at more of a loose end. Would US changes have altered singular minds over here? Hard to say, perhaps not likely. But those US changes may be embedded in our domestic politics in subtle ways which have either firmed up support against Howard (not as definite for Rudd, though) or have opened peoples’ eyes politically here.

    In this way, if so, the Iraq war as an issue has evolved or transformed into domestic politics directly against Howard in purely domestic (non-Iraq) terms: “is he who we want to represent us”, “is this how we want to be, as subservient”, “is this how we want to be seen”, etc.

    These are background or underground elements to today’s events, yet I wonder…

  22. Hugoaugogo says:

    People are right to urge caution when looking at these results, but for the the Libs to go backwards after two weeks of chucking all that mud at Rudd does suggest that a “time for a change” sentiment is building out there in the community. If that is really true (and I guess we won’t know for sure for another 6-8 months), then Howard is basically stuffed, and there’s probably no much hge can do about it. But I wouldn’t go writing the old bastard off yet.

    The issues are certainly starting to turn against the government – Iraq, Hicks, climate change, interest rates, IR. In fact, I suspect that it was WorkChoices that first got the bal rolling against Howard. Many of his so-called “battlers” see these laws as a bit of a betrayal, and it’s interesting to note that the ALP have been in front in just about all published polls since last March, which is when WorkChoices was formally introduced. These IR changes freak people out, both for themselves and their kids, as they rightly see WorkChoices as a sop to big business. If Howard had have tried for more modest IR reform, he probably would have got away with it.

  23. Bring Back CL's blog says:

    interesting to see A C Neilsen agreeing with Morgan. Newspoll is an outlier at 57%!

    Reminds me a lot of 1995/6. Amazing how quickly people have forgotten.

    Howard is very much like Keating back then.

  24. whyisitso says:

    I understand these polls are conducted by means of unsolicitated telephone calls. This must result in a much larger refusal rate in the last year or two as people increasingly refuse to accept spam calls. I certainly respond to every one with “Sorry I don’t take these calls. Goodbye.” Even if the caller is a “worthy cause”. I think I’m far from alone in this. A large increase in refusals must introduce a large bias in the stats which must render the results very suspect.

  25. Jacques Chester says:

    And he needs to counter-act the market fundamentalists and libertarian wingnuts by emphasising that free people have choices, they are not the puppets of market forces.

    1. He made a foray into critiques of liberal theory. It was embarassingly shallow, inaccurate, incomplete and ill-informed.

    2. Howard is hardly a liberal. See Andrew Norton’s stuff on “Big Government Conservatism”.

    3. With respect, you do not understand what the market fundamentalists and libertarian wingnuts are trying to explain. Neither does Rudd, see 1.

  26. cs says:

    He made a foray into critiques of liberal theory. It was embarassingly shallow, inaccurate, incomplete and ill-informed.

    Jacques, you may be interested (or not) to know that this is a very long way from a consensus view. Kevin Rudd’s intervention against ‘market fundamentalism’ has been reviewed here by Andrew Gamble, the professor of politics at Cambridge University and author of a highly regarded intellectual biography of Hayek. As far as I can tell, the only ones who have criticised Kevin’s intervention are hidebound Hayekophiles (who would say that wouldn’t they?). A little less dogmatism may not go astray.

  27. Mr Denmore says:

    . With respect, you do not understand what the market fundamentalists and libertarian wingnuts are trying to explain. Neither does Rudd.

    This is the standard response to criticism from libertarians and efficient market boffins. No matter how many times you point to flaws in their elaborate theories of human nature, they will argue that you haven’t properly grasped what they are saying. This, of course, leads to the counter-argument that what they are saying makes no sense at all.

  28. Paul Frijters says:

    The market doesnt seem to believe these polls, or at least think they may be a temporary phenomenon: http://www.ozpolitics.info/election2007/betting.htm still shows the coalition is deemed more likely to win the next election than labour by the people who put their money where there mouth is.

  29. Jacques Chester says:

    cs;

    As far as I can tell, the only ones who have criticised Kevin

  30. cs says:

    my understanding of the problem was that Hayek was held up as an uber-fundamentalist and as the archetype of liberal theory before being attacked. Neither is quite true, as a legion of CIS scholars and hangers-on have pointed out.

    As Professor Gamble points out (in the article linked above), Hayek was both a social theorist and an ideologue. The critics defended him and attacked Rudd on the basis of the former, whereas it may be argued that Rudd attacked him in his capacity as the latter, quite reasonably imho. Certainly the contention that “It was embarassingly shallow, inaccurate, incomplete and ill-informed” is over the top.

  31. harry clarke says:

    You are right the polls show an overwhelming preference for Labor.

    But the betting markets still don’t – this morning Sportingbet was paying $1-90 for a win on both Coalition and Labor for a $1 bet. Over the past few weeks the market has moved from being pro-Labor to pro-Liberal and now ranking each equally likely prospects for a win.

    See: http://www.sportingbet.com.au/uipub/sport.aspx?l1id=34&l2id=189195

    Moreover historically the betting markets outperform the polls.

    If you believe your analysis you should sell your house and invest the lot on Labor – you shouldn’t be getting this terrific price.

    Something weird is going on here. Either the market is crazy or the polls are. I wonder if the market is factoring in the fact that so far Rudd has said nothing specific about policy – its all cliche – yeah ya gotta do something for manufacturing and for education. Once he gets to policy maybe the market is supposing the Labor cupboard will be bare or just full of riff-raff illogic. Its happened before.

  32. Robert says:

    I wonder if the market is factoring in the fact that so far Rudd has said nothing specific about policy – its all cliche..

    I reckon that’s close to the money, Harry: the polling is early, breezy, stuff, with a protest thrown in. Except, as mentioned, that there may be a (growing?) solidifying groundswell against Howard – but does that translate to fixedness on Rudd: no way.

  33. cs says:

    The betting market has been wildly variable of late Harry, which is probably explained by the fact that the pool is apparently very small at this stage. At different times, the ALP’s odds have been shorter than the LNP’s in recent weeks. Apparently just two bets shifted the odds on one day. This is an indicator to be watched, not banked on, at this stage, I would suggest.

  34. CS you may not have intended to mislead anyone – but you certainly misled me with this comment.

    Jacques, you may be interested (or not) to know that this is a very long way from a consensus view. Kevin Rudd

  35. Jacques Chester says:

    Certainly the contention that

  36. cs says:

    Depends how you read it, Nicholas (and I assume you clicked through to the full article). That’s how Andrew described it to me, and how I read it. The essay also takes into account Howard’s response and the response from the guy from CIS. I was impressed by the way it all hangs together around the concept of market fundamentalism, or neo-liberalism, but no doubt the review itself is amenable to review.

  37. It does depend on how you read it cs. I guess it also depends on what you think a review of speech is.

    Gamble’s piece is an article about ‘Neo-liberalism’ – the expression which begins the first two paragraphs of a 700 odd word piece. Nearly half way through the piece the expression “as Kevin Rudd has pointed out” appears. The same expression then appears again toward the end of the piece. It’s also reproduced in the ‘breakout’ quote (presumably) chosen by the editor.

    That’s it. The sum of references to Kevin Rudd – two asides.

  38. cs says:

    I’m sorry Nicholas, but I think you must have failed to click through to the full article (“Read More”), as it is more than twice the length you say, and has more references to Kevin than you cite. To make a slight adjustment to my description, it does not review Kevin’s intervention, and nor was it described to me as such. Rather, it was described to me as a review of the debate between Howard and Rudd, with reference to the CIS bloke’s intervention in the same (as indicated by the references). As such, I think it hangs together very well, each participant being marked out according to Andrew’s central concept.

  39. Thanks for the clarification cs. I hadn’t read the rest of it. Having now done so, my original claims remain, which I think you have conceded.

  40. cs says:

    Heh. My original point in raising the article also survives. It’s a long time since I blogged regularly, and I am, as always, reminded of Monty Python:

    Chapman: Trouble at mill.
    Cleveland: Oh no – what kind of trouble?
    Chapman: One on’t cross beams gone owt askew on treadle.
    Cleveland: Pardon?
    Chapman: One on’t cross beams gone owt askew on treadle.
    Cleveland: I don’t understand what you’re saying.
    Chapman: [slightly irritatedly and with exaggeratedly clear accent] One of the cross beams has gone out askew on the treadle.
    Cleveland: Well what on earth does that mean?
    Chapman: I don’t know – Mr Wentworth just told me to come in here and say that there was trouble at the mill, that’s all – I didn’t expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition.

    [The door flies open and Cardinal Ximinez of Spain enters, flanked by two junior cardinals. Cardinal Biggles has goggles pushed over his forehead. Cardinal Fang is just Cardinal Fang]

    Ximinez: NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!

  41. Well cs, I raised the matter not out of idle pedantry but because I thought that your use of the article was misleading in the context you used it. Jacques accused Rudd’s speech of being shallow, inaccurate and various other things. It is, though I also agree with you that Jacques’ line was exaggerated and indeed greatly so. I thought Rudd’s speech on Hayek was pretty good – though a little inaccurate in some respects. It was a bit of a rushed job like most political speeches are.

    You then offered Gamble’s piece as a refutation by a Hayek scholar of Jacques’ view. Now the piece just doesn’t comment on the quality of the Rudd piece. It’s a piece about the subject matter that Rudd raised (it having become topical I guess) that occasionally references Rudd’s position and what he said. It’s also sympathetic to Rudd’s position. So am I. It simply doesn’t bear on the quality of Rudd’s appreciation of Hayek which was Jacques’s initial allegation.

  42. cs says:

    Yes, I remember your position Nicholas, but I guess we disagree, for I see the key refutation of the Rudd critics by Gamble as implicit in the recognition that Hayek was both a theorist and an ideologue. Jacques’ position, as I read it, rested on the Hayekosphere’s defence of FAH on the basis that he was purely a theorist. Gamble reverses the anti-Rudd resort to The Constitution of Liberty.

    But, nuff said; nay, more than nuff.

  43. I think we agree cs. Your comment 29 is on the money at at any rate I agree with it. Comment 26 is misleading as you’ve generously conceded.

  44. Robert says:

    Here’s another point about Hayek and Rudd. For the fun of it or for what it’s worth or not.

    Rudd mentioned him. Howard and his subleaders have mentioned nothing of ideology or ideologues towards whose feet they have built their ideas. That alone is a key factor in understanding not only Rudd’s ideology but also Howard’s – and their electoral placement of those ideas and needs.

    I believe that context has to be taken into account when assessing both of them.

    So in the one context we have a studious pocket of continual dialogue about Rudd and Hayek et al, and on the other we have the putting forward to the nation something of a framework upon which a contending leader [and Howard is one] is basing their platform, and not – and how that is received.

    It might be hard for some people who actually have a grasp of Hayek et al to step outside of the immediate effect to see another: that Rudd is attempting at least in some way to own up to an ideological position.

    Obviously I know bugger all about Hayek, and probably less about much else. But like other punters it seems who’ve received the placement of Rudd’s early platform for the basis of his desire to contribute to the national cause, prior to leadership: it’s been a welcome fresh inclusion to the national debate.

    One of the great disappointments of Howard’s time in office has been his intensely guarded need to (sorry, have to say it again) dumb down the national debate, but in this thread’s particular terms: to not ever enter into an ideological dialogue about where he wants the country he’s elected to represent to go. Moreso, that he takes pains to deny it.

    So what results are pockets of discussion about him and his ideology, how it’s compromised etc for political gain, all overtly shunned by him.

    As a mere punter, there’s been precious little telling of the breath of fresh air – call that inspiration: a leader inspiring? those were the days – Rudd has brought to the national debate on account of his outlaying at least some of his ideological basis for wanting to lead, howsoever flawed that maybe. Remember, us punters have no idea one way or the other on the veracity of it. But we get the gist he wants to give it to us.

    And to say punters are not interested in ideology is fair, too: but we’re certainly interested in someone who’d speak more openly of the reasons for what drives them, and wary of those who would shun it. That I use the term ideology here is not to be mistaken for the overall effect.

    Now, also, for what it’s worth, cs is an interesting contributor in debates like the one developing on this thread because he has a keen eye on the electoral strategics as they come into play, and often enough beforehand. Whether his contributions are agreed with or not is not my point, but if I’ve made any sense here it would be that the average punter is not caught up in the crunch of the Hayekan matter but instead gets an overall sense of it: and that is where Rudd has made a mark in peoples’ minds and therefore to understand the effects of that is to subsume the crunch into that overall picture.

    Again, that is not to take anything away from those who debate the crunch of Hayek and others – but nor is it to take away from us unknowledgeables who are appreciative that Rudd has opened up in a drought of otherness and that, having done that, eyes and ears open and a light and nourishment beckons.

    Whether the pockets of knowledgeable debate – in msm and blogs inclusive – force the issue of Howard and Rudd espousing more of their ideological platform might be interesting, might be academic (the latter my bet). Whether veracity is proven or unproven is more questionable.

    That Rudd has begun to do so is what matters, so far.

  45. Thanks Robert,

    I think I understand what you’re getting at and I agree with you. However don’t underestimate the extent to which people really do speak their mind. I think Howard’s ideology is fairly clearly on show. Like a lot on the right these days he’s mainly anti-left rather than standing for much more. And the electorate having felt that there was a need to address the horrors of PC and all that (or to put it another way, having been brought along for the ride by Howard’s success in hanging onto power – itself obviously a function of persuading enough people to vote for him – that anti-left postition – call it the culture wars – has been the dominant political trend of recent times). Perhaps that’s changing and people want a bit more than that now.

    Who knows?

  46. Robert says:

    Thank you, Nicholas. A question if I may: to be anti something, does that speak clearly of the basis for what drives you? Is that a clear outlay of the platform upon which you’re standing?

  47. Jacques Chester says:

    I think Howard

  48. Robert,

    No I don’t think it is. But I think this has led many on the right badly astray. We have the spectacle of a lot of people on the right going way out on a limb on things like climate change for no other reason than that the left – who are clamouring for ‘something to be done’ really pisses them off!

    Today Janet Albrectson does the same on private equity dusting off some ‘in principle’ deregulationist objections to stopping private equity deals without looking at any of the contrary evidence. Her reason – because she can deploy a bit of left bashing rhetoric.

    Costello

  49. Robert says:

    OK.. we’ve established that to be anti something does not define the platform upon which ‘you’re’ standing, or have stood. (Incidentally, to do so requires defining the anti position itself, which I’d hazard is altogether too cumbersome).

    My assumption here is that Howard indeed has an ideological position. That is, that he represents something other than an anti belief. I’m assuming the government he’s lead is working towards attaining something of ‘that’ ideology, in albeit necessarily compromised pragmatic achievement. Obviously few would disagree with that: his suite of recent laws certainly tell that story, while previous laws attended to it. That Howard is ideologically driven can be agreed upon: to which extent and that an electoral agenda over-rides it has been well discussed. Those assumptions then stand, given this government has fudged on that clear ideolgical declaration.

    So what we have is appearing again through what you’re saying. What we have is that Howard has not defined his ideological platform to the Australian public (other than in obscure, electorally-(the Coalition’s)-effecting terms. Yet as Jacques says, his deeds have overcome his denial of that.

    This means Howard and the Coalition cannot advocate their own ideological position.

    Nicholas, again thanks for entering the world of the unwashed: this is where it’s also disappointing for what good the current Government has done. Not having defined clearly what vision they have for Australia other than through, effectively, a grab bag of media clips, what they “deserve” to have discussed is all too often relegated to the messengers you mention.

    As a consequence, the punter gets an obscure view of what good the current Government has done, because its reference points for public dialogue are outside of it. What the government itself says, on account of its fudging, is relegated too quickly to cynicism in the public mind, or shot off into the studious pocket.

    On track with the thread, it’s fair to say that Rudd has identified these shortcomings, or if in the current Government’s support, their pragmatic achievements, and he’s opened up a difference, provided something of an alternative, and is perhaps reaping those rewards.

    While people in general know what Howard is not about, perhaps his main challenge right now is to tell them what he is about, in believable terms.

  50. Pingback: OPINION POLLS « DUCKPOND

  51. Ingolf says:

    Jacques, one small comment re von Mises. While I entirely agree with you that much criticism of the “liberal” position is ill-informed, if I’ve understood the following comment properly, I think it’s mistaken:

    . . . having taken to heart von Mises

  52. Jacques Chester says:

    Ingolf, you’ve caught what I was driving at. Thanks for pointing out the ambiguity of my remark.

    However I stand by my meaning: no logical edifice of any useful complexity is flawless, no matter how brilliant its creator. Computer science has attracted legions of rolled-gold ubergenius types who have nevertheless produced flawed and error-laden code. They produce better code, with fewer flaws, but they are still flaws.

  53. Ingolf says:

    Jacques, I’m certainly not advocating the view that anybody’s view is flawless. My point was intended to be a narrower one; namely that von Mises accepts that human action is driven by a multiplicity of factors, of which reason is just one.

  54. C.L. says:

    It does have to be conceded that Ratty Rudd’s ability to baselessly slime eminent people in Parliament (while cleverly cowering away from being accountable to it – so as to go on lying about his Burke meetings), while also lying about the WMD in which he was the Australian body politic’s most unequivocal believer, AND while slandering the bewildered members of a good family who kept he and his Mother housed after his drunk-driver Dad died in a car accident, WHILE being portrayed as a victim – this is indeed astonishing. Forget what this creep owes Burkey – he owes far more to Michelle Grattan and the gang.

  55. Fyodor says:

    Not nearly as unastonishing as your peculiar little crusade to slime the Womble yourself, CL. Blimey, you’re panicky about this bloke.

    CS is understandably suffering from poll-related premature extrapolation, but it’s your relentlessly snide fearleading that suggests the Rudder has a chance of winning.

  56. C.L. says:

    Decoded: C.L.’s timeline and description of what went down is irrefutable so I’ll play the ‘Kevin is a victim’ card again.

    As for whether he’ll win, I don’t know and don’t particularly care. He’s a right-wing theologian-quotin’ conservative Anglican hubbie-of-a-(Howard-made)-millionaire. What’s funny is that people like Christopher and Phillip Adams have embraced this god-bothering, K-Mart version of Howard.

  57. Bring Back CL's blog says:

    I am interested in the eviction part of Rudd.
    my question is IF the landlord was so generous to Mrs Rudd then why did she abruptly leave the building in question and have to rely on friends welfare for young Kevin to go to a new catholic school for which there is ample evidence?

    It seems strange behaviour UNLESS Rudd was telling the truth

  58. C.L. says:

    More interesting, why did Rudd’s deadbeat Dad make no provisions for his family – in between spending money on the booze that ultimately killed him? Oh, I’m sorry – evil doctors killed him through their negligence, claims Ratty. (Also now proved to be a lie).

  59. C.L. says:

    No chance of Rudd being evicted from his Canberra digs, Homer. He told Laurie Oakes he was simply a rent-paying tenant, unlike Malcolm Turnbull. Turns out the owner of the flat was Teresa Heinz his wife. He leaves out the major detail of his present accommodation arrangements – lying by omission – but you actually believe his ‘I was brought up in a car-boot thanks to evil Mr Potter‘ narrative?

  60. Fyodor says:

    Decoded: C.L.

  61. C.L. says:

    Please provide link evidence of “obsession”.

    Come back with a coupla dozen.

  62. C.L. says:

    “…increasingly bizarre personal claims.”

    You’re referring, of course, to Rudd’s claims that negligent doctors were responsible for his Dad’s death (they weren’t), that he was thrown out on the street as a kiddie (he wasn’t) and that he accidentally wandered into three eateries where Brian Burke happened to be holding court (not true).

    Also amusing: Fyodor having an emotional meltdown defending sexy Kev!

  63. Fyodor says:

    Please provide link evidence of

  64. Robert says:

    You

  65. C.L. says:

    Emotionally overwrought Fyodor bails.

  66. Fyodor says:

    Emotionally overwrought Fyodor bails.

    Heh. Look in the mirror, Womblephobe.

  67. Bring Back CL's blog says:

    Rudd’s dad died from a car accident. No mention of drinking involved.
    back in 69 few people had the wherewith all to provide for much. IT appears Rudd’s dad improved the rented accommodation which was immediately claimed by the landlord on his death.
    My guess this is the major reason for the abrupt shift.

    CL sometimes mixes up his pills Robert

  68. C.L. says:

    Homer, I take it you’ve given up reading the daily press.

    Albert Rudd was as pissed as a parrot.

    Albert Rudd had been involved in a serious car accident and died from an infection he later contracted through the hospital system.

    Mr Rudd said in later years he heard reports that surgeons at the Brisbane Royal Hospital had failed to take proper care of his father. But according to Channel Nine’s Sunday program, which obtained a copy of the coroner’s report, the coroner had cleared doctors of medical malpractice.

    The report said Albert Rudd had been drinking before driving, that he kept falling asleep at the wheel, and that when the car hit a power pole, he was not wearing a seatbelt and suffered massive internal injuries.

    As you would…

    …the official coronial record makes it clear that Bert Rudd was involved in a single car accident in late December, 1968, after spending an afternoon playing bowls and drinking beers and whiskies and a dinner at which he had more beers before he attempted to drive the 120km home.

    About 3am his car swerved to the wrong side of the road and hit a power pole.

    The shorter version: Albert Rudd was a bloody idiot.

    The actual story of Car-Boot Kev’s status after boozer Bert’s demise:

    Breaking their silence, five members of the Low family claim that, far from “evicting” the Rudds, their father went out of his way to accommodate them.

    Acting as spokeswoman for her sisters, Daphne, Desley and Joyce, and brother Neville, Jill McCahon said: “He’s dragged our father’s proud reputation through the mud time and time again.

    “Dad was a caring, compassionate man with terrific family values. What pains us most is the fact that he thought the world of the Rudds.”

    Mrs McCahon said the family disputed Mr Rudd’s version of events..

    “He’s taken the Low family for fools. We are now seeking legal advice on the matter,” she said.

    Long-term Eumundi residents who spoke to The Sun-Herald last week said they had become increasingly mystified at the eviction stories.

    Daphne Greer knew Aubrey Low most of her life and regularly socialised with the Rudds. “The Aubrey Low I knew – and the Aubrey Low everyone else around here knew – would never have evicted Margaret Rudd,” she said.

    “He was a decent man. The whole tale is bizarre, to say the least.”

    Lovely bloke, Kev.

  69. C.L. says:

    Homer, I take it you’ve given up reading the daily press.

    Albert Rudd was as pissed as a parrot.

    Albert Rudd had been involved in a serious car accident and died from an infection he later contracted through the hospital system.

    Mr Rudd said in later years he heard reports that surgeons at the Brisbane Royal Hospital had failed to take proper care of his father. But according to Channel Nine’s Sunday program, which obtained a copy of the coroner’s report, the coroner had cleared doctors of medical malpractice.

    The report said Albert Rudd had been drinking before driving, that he kept falling asleep at the wheel, and that when the car hit a power pole, he was not wearing a seatbelt and suffered massive internal injuries.

  70. C.L. says:

    Albert Rudd was completely hammered.

    Albert Rudd had been involved in a serious car accident and died from an infection he later contracted through the hospital system.

    Mr Rudd said in later years he heard reports that surgeons at the Brisbane Royal Hospital had failed to take proper care of his father. But according to Channel Nine’s Sunday program, which obtained a copy of the coroner’s report, the coroner had cleared doctors of medical malpractice.

    The report said Albert Rudd had been drinking before driving, that he kept falling asleep at the wheel, and that when the car hit a power pole, he was not wearing a seatbelt and suffered massive internal injuries.

  71. C.L. says:

    As you would…

    …the official coronial record makes it clear that Bert Rudd was involved in a single car accident in late December, 1968, after spending an afternoon playing bowls and drinking beers and whiskies and a dinner at which he had more beers before he attempted to drive the 120km home.

    About 3am his car swerved to the wrong side of the road and hit a power pole.

    The shorter version: Albert Rudd was a bloody idiot.

  72. C.L. says:

    The actual story of Car-Boot Kev’s status after boozer Bert’s demise:

    Breaking their silence, five members of the Low family claim that, far from “evicting” the Rudds, their father went out of his way to accommodate them.

    Acting as spokeswoman for her sisters, Daphne, Desley and Joyce, and brother Neville, Jill McCahon said: “He’s dragged our father’s proud reputation through the mud time and time again.

    “Dad was a caring, compassionate man with terrific family values. What pains us most is the fact that he thought the world of the Rudds.”

    Mrs McCahon said the family disputed Mr Rudd’s version of events..

    “He’s taken the Low family for fools. We are now seeking legal advice on the matter,” she said.

    Long-term Eumundi residents who spoke to The Sun-Herald last week said they had become increasingly mystified at the eviction stories.

    Daphne Greer knew Aubrey Low most of her life and regularly socialised with the Rudds. “The Aubrey Low I knew – and the Aubrey Low everyone else around here knew – would never have evicted Margaret Rudd,” she said.

    “He was a decent man. The whole tale is bizarre, to say the least.”

    Lovely bloke, Kev.

  73. C.L. says:

    Last link here, sorry.

    Oh Robert, word of advice: don’t take too much attention to Homer when he’s been wolfing down the Porkie Pills. See also his long-running defence of Iron Mark’s “skanky ho” attack on Janet Albrechtsen.

  74. cs says:

    Currency, you are turning into an unbecoming hysteric. Sober up Lad.

    Your links prove nothing that you assert. It was common for folks to drive after drinking in those days, particularly in the country, as there was no specified legal limit as far as I know. If Albert was an “idiot”, so too were at least half the menfolk who lived in the Australian bush 40 years ago. It is not inconsistent for someone to actually die of a hospital infection after a major operation, rather than the injuries sustained in an accident – this was indeed the case with my own grandfather. If you want to get an infection, go to a hospital – an infection zoo. Nor is it necessarily inconsistent with having been kicked off the farm after his father died for the new dairy hand to have arrived 6 months after. He’s still kicked off after his father died. Nor, for that matter, is it necessarily inconsistent with having “heard” reports that some of the doctors were subsequently removed from medical practice for the coroner’s report to contain no suggestion of medical malpractice – what part of “subsequently” and “heard” (and for, perhaps, other instances of malpractice) don’t you understand? As for the dear Lows and the faithful Daphne, Rudd put it well:

    “I understand that the Low family will want to honour their father’s story and the good things I am sure that he did for the wider community, but when it comes to his business dealings with my mum after my dad’s death, it is exactly as I have described. Others from the time have exactly the same recollection.”

    OK, I know you are bursting to believe the worst, Currency. By all means do, and do it enthusiastically. But note that we are talking about the memories of an 11 year old boy here – not whether a full grown Senator Santo Santoro can remember where he left $12,000 last year, even though it was in a place that was in direct contravention of the prime minister’s own ministerial code of conduct.

    Don’t flood us now, Currency, just because I have replied. The subject is distasteful, yet your evidence is in, and everyone can be trusted to be able to read it for themselves, without having to be told about it in overexcited terms another 20 times. Be good. Be calm. The conventional wisdom still has Howard favoured to win the election. No need to burst your boiler just yet.

  75. Robert says:

    I guess there’s a little I could add. It’s pretty simple. We’ve an amazing election coming up. For my part, I’d like to share thoughts as we move along, and get into the thick of it. I do wish for C.L. to return thoughts and ideas as things develop. Be great to go the distance. Who knows what the end result of the election will be; certainly the journey will be awesome.

    It does call upon the ‘sphere to come into it’s own – what a way to go.

    Yet I’ve harboured some concerns. On paper as it stacks up this election year though highly unusual in its own way threatens, to me, to become a shitfight. There are probably humorous moments to be had in the blogosphere, and lots of insight and failings, yet on face value so far if the ‘sphere reflects what the political players engage in there’s little reason to be involved. I’m hoping for all our own inadequacies and failings, we can do better than that.

    May i suggest that due to the uniqueness of this election and its consequences, and the rising, validated, value of the blogosphere, that we acknowledge it will be an intense thing to be a part of and thoughtfulness and good humour will do us, in the face of our own shortcomings, a better return on what we invest?

  76. C.L. says:

    Masterful spin from Christopher – complete with meme-ish suggestions that only the crazy and the hysterical could dare to Criticise The Kev.

    Drunk-driver Bert stacked his car into a pole and the coroner cleared all doctors of malpractice. A sad, banal story. This, for Chris, becomes an olden days tale about the germiness of erstwhile hospitals, the blokiness of bush boozers, amongst other ephemera – which have NOTHING to do with the central issue: to wit, Kevin’s Birdseye-like production of Pork Pies to create a Log Cabin Myth about his ascendancy from the dark days of living out of a car. Case II: A bloke whose name is still a byword for honour in his home-town 40 years after the death of Bert owned a farm that required 120 cows to be milked every morning; still he gave the Rudds a period of generous grace but Ratty transforms even that into what locals regard as a “bizarre” lie about being “evicted”. The gentlemen’s daughters point out that Rudd has actually been dragging their Dad’s name through the mud for years – collateral damage for this most nasty and narcissistic of poseurs.

    Forget Santoro. Ratty slips his millionaire trouble ‘n strife thousands in rent per year but looks old Laurie Oakes in the eye and tells him he’s just a humble renter – on national television! We needn’t even return to the laughable confabulations about the Burke engagements to be disturbed by this man’s Munchausen’s Syndrome on crack. And what ever happened to the Secret Nuclear Businessmen Conspiracy Theory? For days close Burke pal, Kevin, was implying one of the country’s most highly respected citizens was involved in a shady deal with the PM to build nuke plants in Australia. Then, nothing. Odd.

    An attempt at a Log Cabin narrative was also wheeled out by Julia Gillard in her Australian Story interview last year.

    In a different time and a different age I’m sure dad could have been a history professor or something like that. Mum’s always been a great reader, and I think she you know could have been involved in teaching or something like that…

    God, they were both this close to becoming Kim Beazley Sr’s “dregs of the middle class”. What a shame.

    I got bronchial pneumonia as a child and that was going to mean, as I grew up – particularly in the really cold climate of Wales – that I would have been at constant risk of having chest infections.

    Oh, the humanity.

    I went to the local state school when I was growing up. There’s no way in the world that mum and dad could have afforded private school education for Alison and I.

    Yawn.

    A really great story: bespectacled kid with severe speech and hearing defects becomes the most successful Australian parliamentarian of the late twentieth century and the second longest-serving Prime Minister in history.

  77. rf says:

    A really great story: bespectacled kid with severe speech and hearing defects becomes the most successful Australian parliamentarian of the late twentieth century and the second longest-serving Prime Minister in history.

  78. rf says:

    oops.
    Let’s wait and see how it ends before we conclude that it’s more than just the prosaic and banal story of a man of modest talents and little vision.

  79. C.L. says:

    OT:

    Chris, forgive me for this but I’ve misplaced your email. Check out, if you haven’t already, Georgiy Starostin’s Stones album reviews. They’re quite brilliant.

    Onwards, then.

    Homer, my Porkie Pill popper, where’s that retraction and full apology?

  80. cs says:

    Currency, you have done well, earning the inaugural Tin Foil Hatter Award Celebrating Excellence in the 2007 election.

    For anyone else who has found themselves here at the deep – and deeply weird – end of this thread, here’s a something to lighten you up (via Mumble).

  81. C.L. says:

    I nominate Ratty.

    Burke story: made up.
    Eviction story: false.
    Dad knocked off story: false.
    Canberra accommodation story: false.
    Nuclear Businessmen Conspiracy Theory: false/abandoned.
    Acumen: appointed gangster’s moll shadow Attorney-General.

  82. Robert says:

    I recommend a music clip.

    Something to celebrate the journey.

    Who’d go the doof doof? Ah shit, Cunse.

    Lyric to be thrown up, caught. You guys argue over the riff thing. Could be good.

  83. Robert says:

    For the fun of it, going through the back of your head. And to relax, as we travel ahead, mind?

  84. Robert says:

    Here’s Hartcher’s recent take on the Rudd mud muck.

    WITH polls showing that voters are punishing the Howard Government for its tough personal attacks on Kevin Rudd, the Government’s response has now become clear – not to desist but to go harder.

    Tony Abbott today not only continues the attack, he takes it to a new and meaner level.

    Why? Although the polling seems to show that the public is indignant at the Government’s mean-mindedness, the Herald poll this week also showed that 62 per cent of respondents did not fully believe Rudd’s version of the Brian Burke affair… In this sense, Howard’s muckraking politics worked – it introduced the first germ of doubt about Rudd’s credibility.

  85. cs says:

    There is a real risk of “overanalysing” this result, as the pm would say, imho. I don’t think any Australian but a rusted on partisan would ever admit to a polster that they believed any politician told the full truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. 62 per cent looks about right for the non rusted-ons.

    Fine, Hartcher is running a tough book on the Ruddster, which is good … but reading what looks like timeless Oz commonsense toward all politicians as “a germ of doubt” about Rudd seems a stretch to me.

  86. Robert says:

    Hartcher is a weird kind of political editor: his fairly recent commentary regarding “hugging” Rudd etc was not good at all.

    I take your point regarding the polling, cs. The point still holds, though – the Coalition will go harder and lower, prepared to suffer interim damage, in the belief they’ll get enough Rudd doubts to puncture him.

    When Rudd was first elected I suspected the Coalition would do this – not only go Rudd in this fashion but take the whole thing low – and proposed it would be the making of Rudd. But it will hurt him, I believe, and he’ll have to show incredible fortitude in the dirty long months ahead to pull through. There exists, I believe also, a very real possibility the Coalition’s tactics will work.

    Perhaps it’s more hope than anything, but to see Rudd prosper given what he’s about to go through (and it’s barely started) will see also an end to this particularly dark national mindset.

    I think authoritative voices will rise up against the Coalition for this behaviour, but as they have in the past on so many matters, the LNP will just plough on regardless.

  87. Bring Back CL's blog says:

    what FACTs do we know

    1) Rudd”s mum left very very abruptly
    2) Rudd’s dad obviously improved the building in which they lived
    3) Rudd’s mother makes a very quick decision to put Rudd into a catholic school known for its ability to get the best out of ‘good’ students.
    4) NO mention of being drunk etc on death certificate.

    These facts at at odds with the daughter’s recollection but not Rudd’s.

    My guess is that the Landlord made a verbal agreement with Rudd’s father he would honour any building improvements which he reneged on.
    This leads Mrs Rudd to ensure she gets out of the place as soon as possible and ensure Young Kevin is never treated like this again!

  88. Robert says:

    A note on the politics of the Coalition’s mudsling and personal attack strategy. The public are already sick of this sort of thing, and that actually plays into the hands of the Coalition. For the strategy to work, it has to get airplay, so what happens is the media will naturally be selective about what is given to a rather disinterested public. In this way the Coalition can keep on attacking knowing that their grossness won’t take media precedence and that at any point Rudd or his team might respond poorly, or in fact break, and that will be what catches the big money coverage.

    This all happens against a background public awareness being covered as “meanwhile the Government is keeping up its intense attack on Rudd” thereby giving the subtle impression that Rudd deserves it, there’s something wrong with him, and he’ll break eventually therefore is not up to the rigours of Prime Ministership.

    There’ll be other takeouts of course, putting the govt on the nose, but overall and in time the attack strategy won’t play out as publicly as this latest media swamped outburst, which works for the Coalition’s strategy.

  89. Bring Back CL's blog says:

    I wouldn’t be taking the penguin’s musings as gospel CL

  90. C.L. says:

    Give it a rest, Homer. Bert Rudd was off his face and drink-driving – what he drank and its role in the accident is spelled out in the coroner’s report. That report also cleared doctors of doing anything negligent. Mrs Rudd probably acted in accordance with the calender dictates of the school term. All of the evidence from the township is against Rudd’s Evil Mr Potter story.

    Robert, Abbott is doing the honourable thing in calling Kev to account for dragging Aubrey Low’s name “through the mud” (his daughter’s words) FOR YEARS. Abbott and the Treasurer have also reminded people that Rudd is yet to apologise for, withdraw or explain his bizarre hatchet job on Ron Walker, a man who isn’t a convicted criminal – unlike Labor mates, Messrs Burke and Mokbel. Funny, as I recall, the nation’s sanctimonious lefties had the time of their lives making fun of Abbott and news of his adopted-out son’s alleged re-emergence. Then there was David Marr’s slime-job on John Howard’s dead father AND GRANDFATHER. And, of course, there was Beazley speech-writer Bob Ellis’s obscene attack on Peter Costello’s wife.

    But little Kev cops a serve (in response to the Nuclear Businessman Conspiracy Theory) and Julia and her skirts are quickly dispatched to defend the cry-baby.

  91. C.L. says:

    I haven’t read the Penguin Palooka’s latest, Homer.

  92. Robert says:

    Keating wasn’t averse to the odd shot, either, C.L. From your perspective these are not attacks but honourable defences of previously affronted persons with the added good service of bringing to the public mind the inadequacies and downright wrongness of someone who’d take their jobs run the country.

    ’twere ever. From a strategic point it’s interesting, however. How these things are publicly received can give a good indication as to where sentiment resides. At the moment, would you say the public receive the Coalition’s efforts in the same way you do? If so, how so? And if not, what happens then? Do people have to come somehow to learn what you know (if you know what I mean), or what then…

  93. C.L. says:

    Robert, we’re not talking about Campbell Report plagiarist, Don Watson script-reader and failed prime minister, Paul Keating. We’re talking about a man – Mr Rudd – who slimes people and then hides behind skirts when others intervene and say “but, hey, what about all those meetings with your criminal friend, Brian Burke?” “What about the impeccably credentialled businessmen you slimed under parliamentary privilege?” “What about the dead man whose memory you’ve been trashing for years by telling lies about being thrown out on the street?” That’s what this is about. What the affair has revealed is Ratty’s glass jaw, shaking leg, propensity to panic and his addiction to both attention and victim status.

  94. Robert says:

    Got that, C.L. That’s not what the public are getting, though. Just caught Lateline’s promo’s.. check it out if you can for what looks like some assessment of where the public is at with it.

  95. C.L. says:

    Yeah, Lateline’s take should be balanced and accurate. Remember Maxine McKew pronouncing Mark Latham’s ascendancy “inevitable”?

  96. cs says:

    Currency, we need to talk about your manners old chap. And comment number 97 is as good a place as any. Sorry to be boring, but I’m now receiving regular emails telling me to get rid of you because you are ruining discussion and becoming a generalised pain in the arse.

    You know I don’t want to do that, not only because we go back aways, but because I’m also averse to deleting folks generally, and especially folks who might think they’ve been deleted just because they’ve got different views to mine. Point of pride, that. A good discussion turns on welcoming as many views as are reasonable, distinguishing differences, carefully assessing evidence, conceding what you can and meeting people where possible – not knocking all comers on the friggin’ head and dominating the space through brute persistence.

    You know this, and you know you’re pressing it; and if you monopolise threads with repetitive, extreme polemic, I’ll appeal to the delete button and the Troppo censors. This is a group blog hosted by people of various political predispositions. It’s not my blog. It’s not your blog. Everyone should feel comfortable with contributing their view, however different – not only you, but including you, I hope. Equally, no-one should feel comfortable in demanding a monopoly.

    I reckon it behoves you to trust others to actually read your comments, and if you’re not supported, so be it. Don’t pull your punches, but if you cannot add anything fresh to what you’ve already said, there’s no point in repetition or upping the ampage on the same, for it will not make you any more convincing – only put people off and generally ruin threads.

    These sort of blogging tactics are oh so 2004. Move on, move up, and get with it Lad. This is 2007. This is the Era of the Rudd. Sorry. No inflame meant by the last.

    Alternatively, if you don’t wish to talk to grown-ups but roll around in the dirt for therapy, there’s always tim ‘The Real Turkey’ blair’s place.

    Cheers.

  97. C.L. says:

    Banning people now Christopher? My, but you’re confident.

  98. Bring Back CL's blog says:

    CL, you have provided NO evidence to back up your claim that Rudd’s dad died because of drink driving.

    The behaviour of Mrs Rudd and the ‘caring ‘ behaviour of Mr Low is contradictory.

    NO renter in the 60s would ever make improvements in the building they are living in UNLESS they received some guarantee they would see some of that improvement at a later time.
    Quite clearly that pillar of society did not do that.

    Hence there is every reason for why Mrs Rudd not only abruptly and extremely quickly left that place but why she ensured Kevin was put into a school where his education would ensure he would never need to rely on pillars of society.

    As for his daughter what else would he say!!!

  99. cs says:

    I don’t want to ban you or anyone, CL. I just want you to calm down a bit, so you stop pissing everyone else off.

  100. C.L. says:

    The coroner’s report is a public document, Homer. Bert was drunk on beer and whiskey. Made a 240 kilometre round trip to get on the sauce, seemingly flush with enough dosh to have a good time. Pity his irresponsibility left him dead and his family fatherless. He wasn’t a hero. He was a dill whose demise was banal. And it was a bit hard for Bert to see any benefits from the “guarantee” he was supposedly given – because he wasn’t alive. All of the local evidence contradicts Rudd’s inventions – just as the coroner’s report proves there was no malpractice. I note that, as usual, your version of a Christian interpretation involves trashing the non-Labor side of any narrative. Mr Low was evil. Reckless drink-driver Bert was hard done by. Mr Low’s daughter ‘would say that wouldn’t she’ but Mr A. Rudd’s son has no shameful episode he might be trying to airbrush with pathos – and so on. (You also defended Mark Latham after he called a woman journalist a whore).

    I’m perfectly calm, Chris. None of my assertions have included abuse or obscenities. You, Homer and Fyodor, however, have all abused me for providing the truthful analysis of the timeline and comparative issues involved. Robert’s nudge-nudge use of the moniker “cunse” has also been acceptable on two of your Troppo threads. (I don’t resent it – having no abhorrence of what he’s alluding to – but merely note the fact that you’re on-board with genital gags). You can behave like Soviet bullies all you like with talk of madness, “bizarre claims” and the pills I’m not taking. That’s all standard thread fare for the embattled. But I’m right: on the circumstances of Bert’s death; on the coronial clearance of the doctors involved; on the tendentiousness of Rudd’s ‘life on the streets’ nonsense; on his lies about Brian Burke; on his bald-faced whopper to Laurie Oakes about his living arrangements in Canberra; on the absurdity and sliminess of his ludicorous attack on three unimpeachable Australian businessmen (which he has now dropped).

    I’ll bow out, though, because Christopher’s nervously overwrought correspondents tell him they can’t cope. Fair enough.

  101. Bring Back CL's blog says:

    if this is such a public document then the Penguin would nor have implied drunkeness he would have made the direct claim like you just did.

    He drove to a bowling club to play bowls. He had both lunch and dinner.
    There is NO record of him being drunk at all.

    All I am saying is that Mrs Rudd behavioue is perfectly consistent with Young Kevin’s claim whilst the daughters claim isn’t.

    There is no question Mr Rudd built up goodwill in the dairyfarm yet there is no record of his family recieving that nor of gaining any recompense from the improved asset he owned. For such a ‘pillar of society’ that is pretty poor form.

  102. C.L. says:

    The coroner’s report makes reference to all that Bert drank. He was a drink-driving idiot. Shame he didn’t live more responsibly – he could have looked after his family if he hadn’t driven into a power pole after all those beers and whiskies. What Milne wrote or didn’t write has nothing to do with it. The stark booze factor has been reported by Fairfax, News Ltd and Nine.

    There is no contradiction re the daughter’s story. The Rudds were offered a generous period of grace but they moved at a time that suited them anyway – probably based on the school term. There is no evidence of improvement to the property in any case, except the claims made by Kevin. (And we know what they’re worth). Small communities of that kind have long corporate memories and tales of cruelty to widows become folkloric. The locals don’t agree with the Rudd mythology.

  103. C.L. says:

    And having been more or less asked to leave, I really will bow out now and leave Homer to give us another one of his die-in-a-ditch-for-Labor “skanky ho” snowjobs. A continued tit-for-tat about the late Mr Rudd’s intoxicated wheel-work and its aftermath would be somewhat unedifying, however, so enough said.

  104. Bring Back CL's blog says:

    CL, the penguin is not Milne it is Ackerman.You have quoted him quite liberally

    I think you better check your sources again because the coroner did not say Rudd died because of what he drank.

    You were not around in those times. No-one knew how much drink could affect you. You drove if you felt good.
    Rudd’s father was a keen bowler hence his trip. There is no evidence he over indulged.

    No CL Rudd was changed mid term, all of a sudden and needed assistance from friends to do it. Moreover you cannot explain why Mrs Rudd immediately left after this kerfuffle and the wonderful and generous offer.
    If you are correct then this act of behaviour is contrary to what she did all her life.

    No it is far mere likely this paragon of the community gained an improved asset he has spent nothing on and was not going to give a widow any compensation in lieu of.

    Why did she never ever speak to him again. Unlike Howard she understood what the word meant.

  105. Sacha says:

    Why is it any real interest to anyone how Rudd’s dad died? Why go on about it?

    As far as I can tell, people accept that politics is a bit of a murky game and things may not be completely clear. My reading of it is that even if Rudd is intentionally telling a bit of a porky (which I havn’t seen evidence of), well, people don’t mind. Especially if it’s a porkie that doesn’t matter, and especially as people assume that porkies are not unusual, from all sides.

    The strange thing is when people, such as some here, obsess over it. Doesn’t that strike people as a little odd? Don’t people have more interesting things in their lives to think about?

    BTW, Greg Rudd, Kevin’s brother who defended Kevin’s recollection of whatever happened when they were young, was my English teacher in Yr 10 in 1988 in Qld. He was a very good teacher and told us about this bright brother who spoke mandarin and who was or had been a diplomat overseas (or something). I did my best in the English subject in high school with him as the English teacher.

Comments are closed.