Intellectual dishonesty @ The Age … or just dumb?
The front page of today's Age newspaper ~ click on image to enlarge
It’s bloody obvious that a great majority of the Australian electorate would prefer Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister over Julia Gillard … as all the polls show. Including the one conducted by The Age and highlighted on their front page above: 58% Rudd, 34% Gillard. It’s decisive. Why then has The Age also chosen to highlight the much closer poll that says voters are evenly split on whether or not the ALP should change leaders (48% & 47%)? And what does it mean?
VOTERS would overwhelmingly prefer Kevin Rudd over Julia Gillard as Labor leader but are split over whether Labor should make the swap when caucus votes on Monday, according to a Saturday Age/Nielsen poll.
Why? Well, it’s either deliberately misleading or just plain dumb. Don’t they know why there is an apparent contradiction in the two results? I’ll try to explain it for them:
When 1,000 or so people (probably about the size of The Age sample) are asked the question, “Who would be the better PM, Rudd or Gillard”, it is not a political question per se, in that it’s just about who people see as the better PM. Period. It’s devoid of any further ramifications. Therefore, most people, regardless of their political leanings ALP or Liberal, would answer it honestly and without prejudice.
HOWEVER, when you then ask the same group of people a secondary question being, “Should the ALP change from Gillard to Rudd”, some of the Liberal supporters might say “No” on the simple premise that it would give the ALP a better chance of staying in power.
The second question is a politically based one and, therefore, the almost line-ball result merely indicates that the respondents have answered pretty much in keeping with their political leanings. It’s irrelevant and shouldn’t have even been asked, let alone highlighted on the front page of The Age.
You have to wonder what possessed The Age to make such a blunder. On its front page. In the middle of the challenge!
Promoting 'Beautiful Bright'.
Click 
Ray,
If you can fathom the editorial mindset of “The Aged” you are much wiser than me. I gave up buying it years ago and now get the “Oz” . It strangely enough seems to have a lot more balance and objectivity than one would expect from a stablemate of the Herald Sun and the notorious Daily Telegraph. Perhaps Rupert is not quite as “hands on” as we are led to believe? Any way it will all be over for Round 1 on Monday morning and after he loses we can all sit back and wait for Kevvie be “drafted” in Round 2 in about August after the polls continue to go south for Julia. That’s unless his super ego raises his bile level to such a degree that he resigns and tries to take her and her government down. Like most people I am heartily sick of this circus and wish that Windsor and his cronies would just pull the plug and we the electors can decide this in the place where it should be done – the polling booth.
Herb, did you see Albanese’s emotional speech and announcement that he will back Rudd today? It could push momentum Rudd’s way. At the least, I expect Rudd will get enough votes to have another crack at it later, only next time there may not be a spill and the caucus might just tell Gillard to step down (it’s looking that way, going by the polls).
As for your other scenarios, I would bet my house on Rudd NOT bringing down the government as you suggest. And Windsor & Oakeshott won’t do that either, nor should they. It’s not their call. The electors already decided on the government 18 months ago and they’ll get another vote in another 18 months time.
Is it really a “circus” or is it just politics? It’s not the first time a sitting PM has been challenged. There was: Rudd (challenged by Gillard), Hawke (by Keating), Fraser (by Peacock) & Gorton (by McMahon). Howard would (and should) have been challenged too, if Costello had had the balls to do it.
And in this case, there’s more justification for it, being that Rudd is (as he states) merely trying to finish the job he started. Albanese spelled it out very clearly: “Removing Kevin Rudd in June 2010 was wrong”.
I see Krudd did a street walk this morning in “Brizzy”. Predictably he was mobbed. As one young intellectual remarked:
“Wow,” said one young man.
“He touched me. I am soooo tweeting that.”
Gawd help us!
While Julia spent the day with the sycophants at a Country Labor meeting in NSW. My guess is that the Albanese move would have shaken her. Not because he’s backing Rudd (that was expected) but by the way he explained it in that press conference. She’s had a bad day and the news can only get worse for her. She’ll probably still hold on but who knows?
I agree Albanese’s decision has rocked the boat. Given his reputation as a straight man some of Gillard’s waverers might swing across.
My guess at this stage is Rudd 35, Gillard 67. That is messy.
If you’re right then it’s a good result for Rudd, given the campaign against him.
I found it somewhat embarassing to see in tears the man who in his own words loves “fighting Tories” and further more proudly adds “thats what I do”. This is the chief govermnent headkicker in the House of Reps who has no problem dumping scorn and vitriol on the oppostion at every opportunity. Were they just tears of the crocodile kind from the frustration of having to disclose his intentions? Despite Julia’s rejection of his resignation does he now really fear the loss of his powerbase in some form of payback after this is all over? He is well aware that politics is a ruthless business, particularly on the left.
Predictably, the Mad Monk has weighed in: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/abbott-the-circus-will-continue-20120226-1tw4c.html
For once, his summary is pretty spot on. I doubt though that the independents will agree to move across as they would commit hari-kari if a snap election was called (well, maybe Bob the Hat & Wilkie might survive).
He has a very poor sense of history, Noel. The only PM who hasn’t faced a challenge since Whitlam is John Howard. And there was an implied leadership battle going on there for what, 5 years? He can call it a “circus” as much as he likes but the circus has another name – normal politics.
As for Rabbott saying ‘They got us into this mess. It’s their responsiblity to get us out of it,” what a load of rubbish. It implies that if the independents had gone with him then he wouldn’t have had any problems governing the country. Yet if they had gone with him he’d have called another election. That’s what he’s always wanted, a grand final replay … because he didn’t win the real one.
Spot on!
10.49am CONFIRMED: JULIA GILLARD HAS WON THE LEADERSHIP BALLOT, 73 votes to 29.
Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national/gillard-expected-to-win-despite-polls/story-e6frfkvr-1226278761878#ixzz1nXFt7zd1
I didn’t expect such a big margin in the votes.
It was 71 – 31. Someone jumped the gun.
Maybe some one demanded a recount? News.com still have it as 73-29.
No, according to the official announcement there was no recount. Some journo jumped the gun with the earlier reported result. I’d like to know if it was truly a secret ballot. There was a lot of intimidation and sycophantic behaviour going on on Gillard’s side.
I normally don’t enter Politic debates but I think Abbot summed it up fairly well.
“I think it is embarrassing and for a Labor supporter humiliating to listen to people who you thought you could admire and look up to tearing each other to pieces like this,’’ Mr Abbott said on Saturday without having to resort to hyperbole
Souce : News.com
and this comment
We need to move past all of this poison. You see, it doesn’t matter what happens on Monday, this will still be a hopelessly dysfunctional and divided government.’’
Source News.com
Abbott only won his own leadership by one vote. And if it were not for Gillard’s poor performance in the polls, he’d have probably been challenged himself. I am not embarrassed by the fact that Rudd tried to get his position back. He was always going to have another crack. Gillard engineered this spill because she realised that to leave it much later would work in Rudd’s favour. There’s still a long way to go until the next election and, likewise, there’s still a long way to go on whether or not Rudd eventually returns to the job.
I agree that Gillard has damaged the brand here with all the revision of Rudd’s history. I mean, there were no specific examples given of Rudd’s so-called incompetence as PM, only rhetoric & vitriol. The only way that can be healed is for Gillard and her inner circle of sycophants (Crean, Burke, Roxon, etc) to be the ones to go. Give it another 3 – 6 months.