Christian Kerr is just another oracle wannabe pretending he can read the future by joining other pundits in the latest ‘insights’ to reinforce the perception that they are, like, in the know, you know. Two more gems from yesterday’s piece:

“This could finally spell the end of the honeymoon …”

What, another end? But wait, not only is it the end of the honeymoon:

“This might be the beginning of the end for the Labor leader.”

Yep … all because he accidentally left behind some notes at a function.

File under ‘Meaningless drivel’. My word that folder’s getting big!

When things are uncertain, who can say what will hold, and what won’t, electorally?

I want very much to understand these words:

There is a complete disconnect between what is largely a speculation, which even if true would become just one factor in a situation with many things going on, and the air of incontrovertability that he invests his statement with. A disconnect between the body language with which he wants to invest his utterance - one of inconvertibility - and the nature of the speculation he’s offering which is anything but incontrovertable.

I’ve tried several times to receive what seems a push, and context, and come up with in response to that questions and ideas. This is in respect of many of your other writings.

Can I share a thought, meanwhile? What power of conviction? Or, even, seemingly so? Sit around (personally) a table, and spoken words become absolved into another language - one I imagine might be missing from the blogosphere - wherewith words of seeming conviction may become portals into something else and may speak of askance, or fear.

Let me take some time, to receive your thoughts again.

You say that “behind Kerr’s statement is a feeling the larger portion of the electorate has grown tired of Howard.” Well that is probably true (though it’s far from clear - it happens to be the sound bite du jour. But even if it is true how in God’s name does that make his position ‘untenable’. For his position to be untenable and self evidently so one would have to show that no-one was elected when ‘the larger portion of the population has grown tired of them’. Churchill, Adenaur, Thomas Playford. I mean really it’s ridiculous.

As I tried to say said in my comment I have nothing (in particular that is) against Kerr’s general feelings on the matter - though they’re not much more worth listening to than anyone else’s. There is a complete disconnect between what is largely a speculation, which even if true would become just one factor in a situation with many things going on, and the air of incontrovertability that he invests his statement with. A disconnect between the body language with which he wants to invest his utterance - one of inconvertibility - and the nature of the speculation he’s offering which is anything but incontrovertable.

If you want punditocracy from me on the subject you raise, I’d say that a bold switch to someone like Turnbull might do the trick for the Liberals - that the electorate are showing voting intentions against Howard rather than for Rudd, but that people don’t like Costello and switching to him wouldn’t be a good move for the Libs. But who knows? The thing is you can’t get that much from what people say - because many of them don’t know themselves till they step into that ballot box!

Christian Kerr made some very interesting observations of Rudd at Crikey, and I agree with his suggestions that Costello and the Lib’s have to decide during the break what to do about their leadership.

At any rate, my guess is that behind Kerr’s statement is a feeling the larger portion of the electorate has grown tired of Howard.

I know you’re not given to puntidocracy, sensibly, but care to have a gaze into the yonder, Nicholas?