Latham likes to refer to Rudd as a machine man, an elitist in the Rodney Cavalier / Bob Carr mould – but one with constant ambition and “insatiable for publicity”. A key moment that reveals Rudd’s ambition on p. 249, where Latham is referring to the leadership ballot where Latham was made leader, he thanks “Heavy Kevvy” for staying in the ballot, despite never having more “than six or seven votes” and mentions him “kicking along the generational change argument”, ending with the comment that it was “amazing that journalists couldn’t see through him. Two factors: they are dumb and lazy, and Rudd is a fanatical media networker. He is addicted to it, worse than heroin”.

Rudd’s propensity for self aggrandisement is covered on p. 256, where we have the story of Rudd wanting to be made “Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Security”, but then threatening to go to the backbench because Robert McClelland’s job title also had the word security in it. Latham “thought it was some kind of joke, but the crazy bastard was serious”.

The suspicion people currently have about Rudd’s relationship with the media is explored in the later stages of Latham’s diary. We have on p. 280 an interesting passage “I’ve had a suspicion for some time now that Rudd has been feeding material to Oakes. Decided to set him up, telling Kevvie about our focus groups on Iraq. No such research exists… Today, right on cue, Jabba (Oakes) was written in the Bulletin: ‘The Labor Party’s polling firm has…’  Oakes seems to still have that relationship with Rudd.

Latham also reveals some interesting insights into the idea of Rudd presenting a facade with little going on inside, with his assessment of Rudd’s performance in the 2004 Election Campaign. (p. 356) “Publicly, he promised to produce a White Paper on foreign policy. Privately, he told me he had been hoping for an early election, so he wouldn’t have to do it. Finally, he produced a draft document… the material was unusable; wads of commentary about world events but next to no policy. As [National Secretary of the ALP Tim] Gartrell points out from our polling, the public like Rudd, but they think he’s a commentator, not a political advocate… more than anyone else in Caucus, Rudd has worked the media, trying to convince them that my policy ideas are inconsistent… He doesn’t write books or policy material, and never will.”

The most telling and damning part of Latham’s description of Rudd comes with his response to a story in The Australian which said that Rudd was saying that if he didn’t get the job of Shadow Treasurer, he would go to the backbench (p. 364). When Rudd saw Latham in order to lobby for the job, Latham says Rudd “went into a long explanation of why he’s so wonderful. When he finished, I put my cards on the table: that I regard him as disloyal and unreliable, and he only holds his frontbench position because of his media profile and public standing among people who have never actually met him.”

When told of Latham’s intention to make him go to the backbench, Rudd “broke down badly, sobbing over the recent death of his mother, just before polling day. Rudd was in a very fragile condition. I told him to leave work and go back to Brisbane to rest with his family. But he wouldn’t give up. Even though he was crying, he kept on lobbying to be Shadow Treasurer. It was becoming quite sad. Then he said words that I will never forget: ‘I swear on my mother’s grave that The Australian’s story is wrong, totally wrong, and that I’ve been loyal to you and will continue to be loyal to your leadership.”

Latham responds to this comment with “I don’t mind people bullshitting to me in politics, but not this. Last week, he rang around Caucus to gauge the mood after our loss, and told Trish Crossin that my leadership was on notice: I had until the Budget Reply speech next May to prove myself. He’s always bagging me to journalists and that’s not going to change any time soon. I don’t trust him, no matter what he says.”

When I read Latham’s Diaries for the first time, I wondered why he ever wanted to become leader. But he was a fighter, a maddie and power hungry like most other politicians appear to be.  Unlike a lot of ALP supporters, I didn’t mind Latham, due to his background as a outer suburban politician – though, in retrospect, he would have been a disastrous PM – and probably would have been toppled before the end of a first term. When Rudd became leader instead of Gillard in 2006, however, Latham’s words rang like an alarm bell for me in regards Rudd. When Rudd ran his risk averse, Howard-lite, everything focused on Kevin campaign in 2007, Latham’s words stuck like glue. They still do. Rudd has done very little that would distance him from what Latham has said about him in his diaries. Rudd’s media cheer squad haven’t changed that much from the judgment and commentary Latham offers. We can expect to hear a lot more from them in the next four days.

In addition, my kids have fully bought into the Giants fun – they love the song. As do I. This extended version shows how much Harry Angus from The Cat Empire enjoyed writing the song and its instrumental solo.

The media coverage I have seen about the Giants, however, has not inspired confidence that a new, enthusiastic supporter like me, my kids or those around us matters much in the way this team will be covered. Already, it’s all about TV ratings numbers and crowds, as reported here by Sydney Morning Herald league writer, Brad Walter. He, along with AFL media people, is reporting mostly TV watching numbers and crowd comparisons.

Problem is with comparing the crowd numbers – indeed using the word “dwarfed” between the NAB Cup and Charity Shield games is one of stadiums.  The Blacktown Sportspark only fits 10,000. It’s a suburban hill ground with a moderate grandstand – one to which tickets were not being sold.  The ANZ Stadium figures for the Charity Shield aren’t that good – 1/4 full – for a game featuring two teams with large supporter bases, Souths and St. George Illawarra.

All in all, it doesn’t bode well for the way the game will be covered.  It is natural that crowd wise, GWS will have a lean first year. They are a brand new club who might win one or two games.  Yet we will hear all about crowd and TV numbers from the NRL, who clearly feel threatened.  Proof of this can be found in the Walter article, where reference is made to the NRL putting up “giant billboards on the motorway to Sydney’s west and near the airport that will make it clear this is a league town” as being evidence of league’s supremacy. I would have thought that if people from other places were to judge Sydney by its billboards, they would think we were a city full of men who can’t “get it up” and need some nasal spray.  I can understand the strategy of selling rugby league to people stuck on Sydney’s motorways – but saying it’s a response to the “threat” of AFL is stretching the significance a little too far. League crowd numbers for the next few years won’t be threatened by AFL in anywhere near the capacity written about by the likes of Roy Masters and Walter.  League is still No. 1 in the west and will continue that position for many years.

If it wasn’t enough to get reasoned treatment from league writers, then there is the SMH’s resident funnyman, Richard Hinds, who wrote this snarky piece about the Giants. He basically writes in a bitter tone about the way the Giants have been set up, as well as throwing in the predictable jokes about acts who perform at Rooty Hill RSL. Hilarious. We have never heard those before.   I can’t really say anything else about the quality of the piece, because there is nothing to say in that regard.  Hinds seems to have some scores to settle with the AFL Commission and is using criticism of the Giants to carry that bitterness. If this is setting the tone, I can’t really see much analysis of any meaning from Hinds during this season.

As with the field full of derp that is in the way Federal Politics is reported, I can predict the Giants won’t get much better. I personally am looking forward to the games and atmosphere of the new members. That will be enough for me.

The problem for Australia right now is that Canberra – and more specifically our parliament – is also a greenhouse. Our parliament members of both sides are being propagated in a greenhouse where little to no contact is made with the outside world by those members. Instead, they are fed nutrients and fertiliser by their advisers, internal polling people, focus group results. Somewhere along the way, the ability to control the temperature inside the greenhouse was delivered to the members of a press gallery who seem to enjoy turning up the heat inside the greenhouse with their assertions, high modality language and conflating. The claque of Oakes (slapstick politics), Hartcher (it will happen; collapse), Grattan (“crisis”), Maiden (“revolt” – a favourite of hers), van Onselen (Four Corners interview a terrible look) and various other chatterers are delighted to be given the space to tell us – and the plants inside the greenhouse – who should be leader and why. They know that the plants inside the greenhouse would be absorbing the heat they create.

The Four Corners story last week provided us with an ideal way of seeing how the greenhouse works. It was a nothing story, featuring an ex staffer with a book to sell, the SDA Catholic Crusader, Joe de Bruyn, Con Sciacca and Graham Richardson – again. Basically using The Drum / Q and A method of analysing politics. The only irrelevant commenters needed were Peter Reith and Mark Latham. Shots of Kevin Rudd attempting to look popular file sipping Peronis in Darling Harbour were shown as evidence of his popularity. The story was a tiny shift away from being hosted by Tracy Grimshaw. Questions were asked, though, as to why Julia Gillard graced the show with her presence. She was a victim of the greenhouse effect. If she said no, she would be accused of being evasive and scared of Rudd. She said yes, however, and so every tiny thing she said was analysed and placed in planter boxes built by the press gallery.

The end result of this greenhouse effect is that the growth process is halted and all hell starts to break loose. Then we see absurd lists of people who are voting for one side or another, individual plants (even ones that taste like cheese) buckling under the pressure, as well as videos released of one of the plants swearing

Personally, that video puts me in mind of one of the most famous plant based TV show in history, which makes more sense than the current show in Canberra

All sorts of stuff that gets the journalists very excited. Then those journalists sitting outside the greenhouse will retweet comments like this as some kind of “nyah, nyah” comment to those of us who tire of the turning up of the temperature inside the greenhouse

Michael O’Brien @michaelobrienmp

Funnier than the uncivil war of embattled Labor PM v embittered ex-Labor PM is TwitterLeft realization that it’s *not* all a media beat up.

Leadership seems to be almost always bubbling inside any government. That seems to be the nature of the egos inside the greenhouse. So, this is not about any “beat up”, it is more about the way journalists become the anointers of new leaders after their own actions in turning small disturbances into full blown wars.

Meanwhile, far away from the artificially controlled greenhouse, there is a nation. A nation that needs a government to formulate good policy and legislation in order for that country to progress. It appears that the people who gleefully turn up the heat inside the greenhouse know or care little about those policies or the people – instead focusing on the “winners and losers” and “what is means for Kevin”. In other words, using them as another way to fiddle with the heat. The truth is a casualty of this manipulation. I laugh at the dumb that is said about the “Western Suburbs” by journalists who wouldn’t be seen dead there, until I realise how a whole community is pigeonholed and then used.

The end result of this greenhouse activity will not be the glorious flowers of Floriade, more like a browned off bunch of leaves.

I have this picture above my desk at work, just to remind me of how those from the inner see the outer.

For us who live and work in the actual west, we find this mildly amusing for its stereotyping. For people who think Leichhardt is the limit of their idea of Sydney, it summarises their understanding of life in the Mythical West. The only thing is missing are the angry mobs wanting to Stop The Boats.

For them, there is this kind of political propaganda, placed in the letterboxes of voters living in the poorers areas of Lindsay in the last Federal Election, assuming that people won’t read any kind of facts in relation to the issue.

As with any set of stereotypes, there is some truth to the things said about The Mythical West. There are cashed up bogans. There are flanno wearing people on welfare payments. There are racists. There are groups of newly arrived immigrants who have had little to no help in settling into life in a completely new country and culture. There are also groups of dedicated people – teachers, nurses, social workers, pastors, priests and so on trying to do their best to help the suburbs maintain a good and happy balance. Yet you almost never hear their voice in the “National Conversation”.

Read newspapers, watch ACA, Today Tonight, 730, Q and A, watch or read The Drum and The Punch, Things Bogans Like and virtually everything else. The authors are almost exclusively people from the inner city, talking about The Mythical West as an abstract concept, not a real place. You’d never see David Marr or Robert Manne out at Penrith Plaza or Chadstone, for example. You’ll see Gemma Jones from the Daily Telegraph get in a car to find someone on $150,000 in Baulkham Hills for a story, but that’s feeding the Mythical West stereotype as well. The same goes for Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt – even though their mendacity is pretending to know the outer suburbs whilst all the while scuttling to their fortresses away from the unwashed.

This Mythical West image won’t change, though. Media outlets like to perpetuate the myths, as do the new hipsters and those who like to furiously define things like feminism. In the case of feminism, we recently have had endless arguments about who or what is a feminist. Whilst they jump on each other in such arguments, people in the actual west still like Charlie Sheen and Chris Brown, despite their appalling actions. This is because those people cannibalising each other in the inner don’t seem to be interested in fighting the good fight to change perceptions and people’s lives in the vast heaving outer. But don’t worry. There are people who are doing their best to work in those areas. And most of them read the guff and sigh, knowing that the media merry-go-round has very little to do with them and their daily toil.

Our Future

The globe is sadly groaning with debt, poverty and strife
And billions now are pleading to enjoy a better life
Their hope lies with resources buried deep within the earth
And the enterprise and capital which give each project worth
Is our future threatened with massive debts run up by political hacks
Who dig themselves out by unleashing rampant tax
The end result is sending Australian investment, growth and jobs offshore
This type of direction is harmful to our core
Some envious unthinking people have been conned
To think properity is created by waving a magic wand
Through such unfortunate ignorance, too much abuse is hurled
Against miners, workers and related industries who strive to build the world
Develop North Australia, embrace multiculturalism and welcome short term foreign workers to our shores
To benefit from the export of our minerals and ores
The world’s poor need our resources: do not leave them to their fate
Our nation needs special economic zones and wiser government, before it is too late.

Here is the stone

And here is the video version.

As her favourite commentator, Andrew Bolt would say, this material arrives without comment.

Flash forward to the late 90s and we had the Howard Government, in a very non-neoliberal move, ensuring in 1999 that the Government was to prop up the ailing private health insurance (PHI) industry and the private hospital network it was supporting. They began the 30% government rebate to those wealthy enough to pay for private health insurance. As a result, the government set up a system that ensured that a considerable about of money going into the health budget was not being placed in public hospitals, instead it was to be used as an incentive for more people to take out private insurance. Even better, the same government punished those who were considered to be earning too much to not have private health insurance by starting the Medicare Levy Surcharge (MLS). In other words, forcing a large sector of the population to take out private health insurance. It’s a social coercion scheme that any old Communist leader would admire for its ingenuity. Imagine if the government did the same for independent schools.

As a result, many of us are forced to take out private health insurance most of us barely use or need. Most of our health needs are serviced by the Medicare system, with the exception of optometry, dentistry and elective surgery. Even in those cases, if we didn’t have to pay the MLS or for PHI, we could save and pay for most procedures many times over. It has also instituted the belief amongst many people in society that they now must have private insurance no matter what, that to have a private room and choice of doctor is a right, not a privilege. It’s now become almost an article of faith that we should have a subsidised private health establishment. That it allows people avoiding public hospital waiting lists for needed “elective” surgery – and that if there was no private health insurance or hospitals, the public hospitals would be overflowing.

These arguments have their flaws, however. This is public money being put into the hands of private individuals – away from hospitals that could expand their elective surgery departments. Could be put into a dental scheme. If the Howard Government was really interested in a neoliberal agenda that involved small government, it should have prosecuted the argument that people who want to choose their own doctor, have their own maternity room or have elective procedures quicker than others should have been paying for that privilege. The private hospitals would still continue to provide their limited range of services – as well as pay their nurses considerably less than those who work in the public system.

This is a point that is crucial about private health cover. While there is a cogent argument for the extras cover for things like optometry and dentistry, the biggest proportion goes to the private hospital system. They, unlike independent schools, will never provide a full alternative for the public version, especially in terms of emergency and accident care. If they did, there could be some argument for governments subsidising them in the same way they support independent schools.

As a result of the Howard Government’s largesse, we are still paying many billions of dollars each year for various forms of middle class welfare like the private health insurance rebate. It is difficult, nigh on impossible, for any government to stop these forms of payments, for fear of an electoral backlash. And so we arrive at the Gillard Government means testing the rebate, which will save governments many billions of dollars into the future – in addition to increasing the punishment for people for people earning a certain amount who don’t take out PHI.

The Australian has performed what seems to be a regular job of attempting to whip up battler anti-government sentiment through a Verity Edwards article featuring a family who will be forced to pay the full commercial cost of PHI. As is usual with such articles, Edwards found people earning that money who were performing a job that we associate with the working class – concreting. These battlers, earning more than $258,000 p.a, may be forced to pay somewhere near $800 each year more for it. It’s a curious article, especially this quote

“It’s ridiculous – the better we do, the more the government takes,” Ms Richards said yesterday. “Every time we try to get ahead and don’t rely on the welfare system, we get a guarantee they’ll hit us again.”

They are relying on the welfare system. The rebate is a welfare payment. In addition, the comment “the more the government takes” is also a clear inaccuracy, as company taxation rates have steadily fallen over the years and will continue to do so when the MRRT kicks in. It would be interesting to see if any columnist at the Australian or any other paper would point out that inaccuracy. The article also includes this curious quotation -

“I think if they’re going to take away the 30 per cent, I would be looking at what we’d spent, what we received back with Josh, and whether we need it,” she said.

The difficulty for them is that they would be punished if they didn’t take out the insurance, because they would pay the MLS. Not that this is pointed out by Edwards in the article. There is no way they would do it, based on the stratospheric costs associated with orthodontistry and physiotherapy.

I believe that the government should kick away all the props from the private health industry, but I understand the difficulties that would flow from that action. In terms of the changes they have made, however, I think governments should be using public money to fund hospitals and health care for as many of those who need urgent medical care. Better that trying to bribe a family that takes in more than a quarter of a million dollars a year to support private enterprise. I look forward to seeing people from the IPA supporting the Government on this issue. It is exactly what a libertarian would be doing.

This seems to be what passes for political coverage in Australia – degrading images of humans depicted as animals. They not only degrade the person in question, they degrade us as a nation. This was the lead story on the Telegraph – and it then turned out to be inaccurate in any case. At the same time, we had the the Herald’s story about the catering company that provided the Coalition’s costings on Nauru, which raised questions about the reliability of costings and policies coming from the opposition. It has turned out the story has more dimensions than first reported, but yesterday it was more important to our national agenda than the Speaker wearing a wig.

Such a story about the costings did not appear in The Telegraph, neither today or yesterday. Instead, it was Slipper. Slipper with the wig – and when that was shown to be a fabrication, it was Slipper going to NZ. My view of the degrading nature of the rat picture was part of a Twitter conversation that featured Alison Rehn, Greg Jericho and the National Affairs Editor at the Australian, Ben Packham. It was started by a comment by Packham about Greg Jericho – to which I retweeted with my own comment.

Media = Commodity. RT @bennpackham @GrogsGamut @alisonrehn love to see a newspaper edited by Greg Jericho, but who’d buy it?

After he agreed with me that media is a commodity, I responded with:

Me – @bennpackham @GrogsGamut @alisonrehn Therefore, Slipper in wig depicted as a rat takes prominence over catering company providing figures.

Packham – @prestontowers @GrogsGamut @alisonrehn Slipper IS a rat. You dispute this? Labor is tarnished y it’s association with him

Me – @bennpackham @GrogsGamut @alisonrehn It is fine for media outlets to quote people who believe he is a rat. It’s not for the media to judge.

Packham – @prestontowers @GrogsGamut @alisonrehn no, he’s a rat by common definition

Me – @bennpackham @GrogsGamut @alisonrehn I am not sure when society said yes to people being depicted as rodents on front pages.

Packham – @prestontowers @alisonrehn @GrogsGamut Coalition says yes, his electorate says yes, Labor says you bewdy

Me – @bennpackham @alisonrehn @GrogsGamut You did not address my point – the depiction of a man as a rodent on the front page of a paper.

Packham – @prestontowers @alisonrehn @GrogsGamut so what, he is

Tasmanian journalist Alex Johnston (@swegen31) then came with this comment:

Johnston – @prestontowers don’t agree with you on this one mate. There’s no arguing he’s a rat. @bennpackham

Me – @swegen31 I know he’s a “rat” – but I object to his physical depiction as one. It’s puerile. @bennpackham

Packham – @prestontowers @swegen31 don’t buy the feckin’ paper

Me – @lloydois @bennpackham @GrogsGamut @alisonrehn Going back to my original point. Coalition costings story is much bigger than Slipper’s wig.

Packham – @prestontowers @lloydois @GrogsGamut we reported coatings and wig

Me – @bennpackham @swegen31 If the paper had front page stories like the coalition costings story, wouldn’t that sell papers as well?

Packham – @prestontowers @swegen31 get real. Not tabloids

Me – @bennpackham @lloydois @GrogsGamut What page was costings on?

Packham – @prestontowers @alisonrehn @GrogsGamut we reported costings online I dunno about paper. When is Labor going to deliver surplus anyway?

Alex Johnston @swegen31: @bennpackham @prestontowers the fact we are still talking about the rat shows it was the right front page.

Me – @swegen31 @bennpackham I think the fact we are talking about the rat is because it shows a low watermark of our media.

And that was it. The most illuminating comment – other than “so what, he is” was that about tabloids not publishing such a story. Having seen how the Daily Telegraph works, I would have thought that if the Government was being accused of using faulty costing mechanisms like that, we would be seeing a front page featuring a McDonalds or Cafe sign superimposed on a picture of the existing Nauru facilities. The most absurd from Mr. Packham was throwing in the irrelevant issue of the Labor surplus – perhaps showing us how much of a one track mind is being developed at The Australian.

I’m still not sure when we all thought it was good and acceptable to depict people this way – and for journalists to play such a partisan and immature game of name calling and liking the 14 year old style of scribbling on pictures. Perhaps the naughty boys up the back of our classrooms have become our journalists – not the “nerds” sitting up the front.

But perhaps I could just not be concerned about this style of political coverage and ignore the feckin’ paper.

Scenario 1. ALP Majority. The ALP pick up Boothby, welcoming Annabel Digance; hold onto Hasluck with Sharryn Jackson; pick up Aston, welcoming Rupert Evans; hold onto Brisbane with Arch Bevis.

This scenario sees the ALP having a clear majority – though, it unfortunately means that Ken Wyatt, one of the Coalition’s better recruits, has another three years to wait.  This narrow, but enthusiastically received victory for the ALP, allows the ALP to pursue its agendas on its own terms – to an extent. It would also cause some angst and anger due to the close nature of the battle and a realisation that removing a PM before an election – even if he is widely disliked – isn’t a good move.  The NSW Right Wing, though, would breathe the biggest sigh of relief and it perhaps realises that it has an image problem that needs to be fixed. Or perhaps not.

The policies the new ALP Government pursues has one hurdle to cross – the soon to arrive Greens in the Senate.  The Greens are delighted, having got their first HOR rep since Michael Organ – but this one seems more of an activist than Organ. The Senate team is also much larger. The Government wish to continue with a modified version of their first term program – there is a belief that it was a bit too ambitious in some areas.  Their core focus, IR Reform, continues, as does the Federalisation of Health and the spending from the stimulus packages. MPs continue to open BER projects, though will still fail to counter the 2GB / Opposition lines about “waste” on public infrastructure.  Education will continue to be Federalised and welfare reform will continue.

Offshore processing would still continue to be an issue, with DIAC suggesting the Malaysia Solution. The ALP rebuff it, knowing the Greens would never pass the legislation. Carbon pricing would become a vexed issue, with the Greens wanting a fixed price and the Government trying to stick to their “No Carbon Tax” line from Gillard. As a result, the ALP continue to defer, consult, go to world conferences and blame the Greens for not passing the CPRS scheme suggested in the first term. As a result, the Greens would be left with a difficult decision. Whether to drop their desire for a fixed price, instead compromising and suggest a few amendments – such as increased money for solar thermal plants – or continue to block, hoping the ALP will change their position. The ALP play the waiting game, knowing that a fixed carbon price would be political poison. As Gillard is more of a political game player than Rudd, she is more than happy to wait for the Greens to relent. Some more politically savvy Greens would be pushing for the compromise position, finding themselves at odds with the hardliners. Due to the less disciplined structure of the Greens, the media report these fissures – many with relish.

Someone within the Greens suggests that there are many ALP policies that some Greens don’t like – especially in relation to funding for independent schools, economic reform and IR reform – but that they need to compromise and instead make palatable amendments can be made in return for Greens core policies. This is especially in relation to environmental issues, such as power generation subsidies for renewables as well as a suggestion for a $1 bet limit on poker machines. Former Green in the HOR, the independent Andrew Wilkie, is also enthusiastic about that and they work on lobbying the Government about that issue. The ALP, sensing a need for reform in that area, suggest instead a trial of pre-commitment technology, knowing that a $1 bet limit would cause a lot of pain in clubs situated in marginal ALP seats.  This reform process begins, to quiet public acclaim.   There isn’t a great amount of optimism, however, that anything will actually come of the trial. But at least the ALP have been seen to have tried.

The Greens also lobby the Government about marriage equality, which finds many welcoming ears amongst the progressives of the party. Those progressives, however, know the barriers that would exist to block it. This is a reform that is fudged and delayed. The Greens decide, however, to introduce a private member’s bill via Adam Bandt. It is defeated along party lines, but not without lively discussion in the ALP, forcing the anti-equality union bosses and faction leaders to come out into the light of scrutiny, before scuttling back away from sight.

The slowly, softly approach from Gillard gains a grudging “meh” from voters, not bringing her the approval ratings that Rudd received in the first year of his government. There is a feeling that her government still isn’t delivering what Rudd promised in 2007, disappointing a lot of its base – many of whom are still migrating to the Greens.  There isn’t however, the level of hate that would have accompanied a fixed price on carbon, forced poker machine reform and other less popular policies. There would be, however, many people putting the Greens under pressure to pass the CPRS – including Gillard, who would make the point frequently that a scheme with environmental benefits – no matter how modest – is better than none.

The not so bad, not so good figures still keeps talk of a Rudd Return around, but not uppermost in the media’s mind. There is a feeling within the ALP that once things like tax cuts to accompany the CPRS, the completion of projects and the return to surplus in the economy will help to establish the reputation of Gillard as a “fixer” and a person who competes tasks, unlike her predecessor, who promised much but delivered little except stress and panic.  The election in 2013 would be hard fought – probably against Tony Abbott, whose relentless No would still play well in the media. The ALP would probably lose, however, but not as much as they would if there was a minority government.

Scenario 2. A Liberal Minority Government. The Liberals pick up Corangamite and welcome former ABC presenter Sarah Henderson. 

This scenario would give the LNP 74 seats, requiring them to do a deal with Bob Katter and at least one between Wilkie, Oakeshott and Windsor.  The point is made that the LNP do have more MPs than the ALP and assurances are made that projects can be delivered to the various seats. Oakeshott and Windsor agree that it would be the more appropriate pathway, considering the larger number held by the LNP.

The Abbott Minority Government has an ambitious agenda of rolling back a lot of what the ALP have done in the previous 3 years. It finds it difficult to achieve, however. A number of the projects in the BER and other stimulus related activities are still be paid for and completed – the legal costs involved in stopping projects half way through would be prohibitive. The same goes for work already signed up for in the NBN project – the signing of private contractors for completion of public works has created this hurdle for the new government. The irony isn’t lost on more cluey journalists.  There is a demand, however, that rural customers are supplied with superior cabling by the independents, still costing the government many billions.

The new government is very busy trying to push through legislation before the new Greens controlled senate arrives in July. Abbott faces the issue at this time of having to do deals with the still unpredictable Fielding and Xenophon, as well as having to listen to long dissertations and demands from Katter and Oakeshott about all sorts of rural issues.   Oakeshott and Windsor are also very wary of the Direct Action plan in relation to the environment. There are a lot of infrastructure plans and policy reviews that need to be commissioned in order to keep these partners happy.  After such deals in the early days, Offshore processing occurs again in the political basket case of Nauru, which welcomes the injection of funds. The Indonesian Government, however, demonstrate a strong objection to having asylum seeker boats returned to their shores. They refuse to accept them, creating a diplomatic impasse. The Australian Navy, too, experience very risky situations with boat captains deliberately sinking their boats when asked to turn them around. Abbott’s Boat Phone doesn’t look as good an option as he was hoping. The Nauru solution also leads to overflowing in that centre as the still understaffed DIAC and ASIO struggle with the number of claims. Asylum is granted, however, as it was in the Howard era, leading to people being resettled in NZ and Australia. Therefore, it doesn’t act as a deterrent to people smugglers. The boats don’t stop due to continuing push factors in the Middle East and Sri Lanka. This causes problems for Abbott and Scott Morrison, who can no longer Blame Kevin.

Meanwhile, the new Treasurer and Finance Minister are left wondering how they can produce tax cuts, get back to surplus, a new very generous parental leave scheme, the expensive direct action plan as well as promised rural infrastructure whilst doing away with the mining tax. There is also the issue of the gap between their promises and actual revenue, which was fairly invisible during the election, but is very real and looming. Plus, the issue of Europe hasn’t gone away, leading to questions of where to make cuts in expenditure. The APS seems a logical start, but they find there aren’t a lot of cuts to be made, because the staff numbers haven’t increased enormously since the Howard years. They do make cuts, however, leading to a degrading of services in some areas.  They do need, though, to increase spending on public infrastructure, with demands for the Pacific Highway upgrade  to happen after more accidents. They are more than happy, though, to grant Barry O’Farrell’s request to direct Federal money to the North West rail link. The residents of that area breathe a sigh of relief that all of the train line will be underground, not be an eyesore.

Abbott finds it hard after July, 2011 to get his agenda through the now Green controlled Senate.  They do offer compromises, though, as long as he makes major modifications to his Direct Action plan, which has been declared both very expensive and next to useless by pretty much every scientific body that is asked to scrutinise it by savvy journalists. There is even a brief conversation amongst Greens to allow for some more aggressively conservative policies in return for a CPRS. This is rejected, however, on both sides. In the end, Direct Action is quietly cut back and cut back, until it is barely there.

There is frequent talk of a double dissolution election, which doesn’t happen because the Greens rise in polls, on the back of their position of being a principled opposition – especially in terms of the environment and asylum seekers. There is a great amount of tension between Abbott and the Greens, due to Abbott’s abrasive and blunt manner.

There are grumblings, however. First of all, there isn’t a clear idea of what the new government is actually wanting to do, other than continue the legacy of Howard and strip away some of Labor’s reforms and projects. This question dogs the new government after the first year – especially as voters begin to realise that the NBN isn’t being built, leading to customers being mostly at the mercy of companies that only increase internet speeds in affluent areas, just as they did before. The second issue that dogs it is from within, with the neoliberals, already unhappy with the large amount of money provided in the parental leave scheme and rural infrastructure, wanting a Liberal Government to get back into IR reforms, bringing back AWAs and being in the business of reducing union power.  Abbott remains firm on this point, preserving Fair Work Australia and the Fair Work Act – which has many elements that business likes. There are more ructions, however, each time FWA issue an independent wage rise decision. Abbott is forced to weigh up the calls from within his party with his populist instinct, which would be scream to not bring back WorkChoices in any form. There isn’t a large amount of leadership talk, however, until 2012, when it is clear Abbott isn’t coming up with a great number of new ideas.  There is also talk of Malcolm Turnbull being better at being to negotiate with the Greens in order to get the agenda through.  As a result of all this, the LNP go into the 2013 election with some big questions over their ability to govern and have new vision.

In media news, there is a quieter attitude at The Australian and Daily Telegraph, with much of the problems with the Government blamed on Katter, Oakeshott and Windsor as well as the Greens. With the cutting back of Direct Action, the clime sceptics don’t see a need to talk down climate change as much. There is constant talk of a double dissolution, which would wash the Greens away from the Senate.  The IPA has also changed in style, with many former members now consulting various government departments. Chris Berg is still there, however, writing articles criticising Abbott for his spend, spend, spend policies and refusal to bring more flexibility into the workplace.  Fairfax Papers are often found talking up the activities of the Communications Minister, who still likes to make a comment about non portfolio policies from time to time.  These articles occur more often as the question of who to negotiate with the Greens comes up. Meanwhile, the new editor of The Drum, Gerard Henderson, has ensured that right wing voices are finally heard on the ABC. In response, prominent independent writers like Chas Licciardello, Marieke Hardy and John Birmingham, set up a new website, The Village Square, which features news and views from a range of interesting and engaging voices. It is edited by a team headed up by Jane Shaw.

On the opposition side, the leader, Bill Shorten, makes his points frequently and often about the new Government having nothing to advertise itself but the word “no”. His Education Spokesperson, Julia Gillard, runs rings around Christopher Pyne, who is frozen on the National Curriculum – wanting on one hand to push through a “Liberal” education agenda but not knowing how to get the states onside with each other and him.

In all this, Bob Katter is a big winner. There are new subsidies for cane farmers to continue their activities and he’s the Chairman of a Supermarket Review Commission. The hearings of said commission are packed out by journalists – they are so popular that a ballot is taken for seats. Laitka Bourke and Annabel Crabb, however, always get a seat, because of their peerless tweet broadcasting skills.

Scenario 3. A Liberal Majority Government. In addition to Corangamite, holds Greenway and welcomes Jaymes Diaz, picks up Lindsay (thanks partially to a split in Greens preferences) and welcomes Fiona Scott.

This is a bit like Scenario 3, but without Bob Katter and Rob Oakeshott. The LNP doesn’t have to spend as much money on rural infrastructure and the rural NBN.  It still has large issues with the Greens, but Katter disappears, along with the accompanying #bobkatterfacts hashtag. I therefore don’t have the awesome present prepared by my partner – a poster in my office adorned with the best examples of the contributions to the hashtag. That would be sad. However, there is much discussion held amongst the Greens nationally and in the media about the decision made by the Nepean Greens not to direct preferences to David Bradbury in Lindsay.  That helps somewhat to communicate the idea that perhaps the Greens aren’t in total lockstep with the ALP but also to force the question in the ALP of why the Greens didn’t preference in Lindsay. They just might learn something in the process.

There’s the sliding doors. In 2010, my partner and I thought that it would be a better long term outcome for Labor if they lost in 2010 – especially if there was a Liberal National Minority Government. I still think that’s the case.

Of course they do. It’s like the Labor voters who prefer Turnbull. Always prefer the person who isn’t in the chair. It’s just der stuff. What has happened with these journalists is that they are now stuck in a very narrow groove. While they are unable to produce factual responses to the points of Tony Abbott (as highlighted by Grog’s Gamut) nor be able to highlight Malcolm Turnbull producing inaccurate statements about the NBN, they just have the following settings: Speculate about Rudd. Quote from Tony Abbott. Boats. BER. Pink Batts. Rudd. Pyne. Gillard’s Shoe. Abbott stunt. Gillard looking wooden. Rudd. Boats. Economy in Trouble (when it’s not). Debt Big (when it’s not). Carbon Tax. Greens are Watermelons. Rudd.

The ABC, who used to have some kind of distance from this stuff, have stepped into the fray. “Increasing speculation” they say.  They don’t mention who is speculating – though the media like speculating. Every. Single. Day. Apparently, there is “no escaping speculation that Julia Gillard’s prospects in the job are terminal”.  No there isn’t. It’s on the news Every Single Day.  According to media outlets, Gillard has been terminal for months.  Then we have that unnamed sources in the ALP -  ”are now concluding that Ms Gillard’s leadership is in ‘deep trouble’”. Of course they would be. If you read the newspapers and watch TV news every day like politicians do, you would conclude that the nation is in dire trouble and Gillard’s for the chop. Especially if you read the stories that appear everyday that start with “The Opposition Says”. Never before in Australia have we been so informed about the opinions of an Opposition as we are today.

The article reveals the repetitious nature of the journalists on the political round, by including questions directed to Kevin. “The journalist asked if 2012 would not only be the Year of the Dragon, but also the Year of Kevin Rudd”.  Kevin wouldn’t have heard a question about him taking the leadership back before. And gee, how would he answer that?  ”Mr Rudd would only smile before giving a version of his stock-standard answer to leadership questions”.  Yes, stock standard BECAUSE THEY ARE THE SAME QUESTIONS HE HAS RECEIVED FOR THE LAST YEAR.

The article continues with the silly, by just verbatim quoting of other Labor figures answering the same questions they have been answering for a year.

The best comment about our media is contained in the article, however, from the ever “sober” Stephen Smith – “I don’t worry about chatter in the media. I get on with the job and I think we’ve got to be very focused”. Indeed. Chatter. That’s all it is.

I have threatened that each time a Rudd Leadership Story is mentioned on Twitter, I’ll put up a Justin Bieber video in response. Both are ridiculous and irrelevant.  However, perhaps it’s just better that every time Rudd is mentioned, we need a rebadged version of the old MC Hammer hit, You Can’t Touch This – especially the refrain “Stop, Hammer Time.” That’s how our Canberra gallery work. Except it’s Stop. Ruddy Time.

One of the more remarkable inclusions in the story was mention of the ad campaign that Coles was launching in conjunction with the price discounts. Not only mention – it actually featured chunks of it during the story. The campaign had nothing to do with the rest of the story -it just makes the claim Coles’ fruit is fresher than anything else in the world – even rebadged songs about show business. For those who don’t watch commercial TV, it looks like this:

It was a standard Today Tonight / A Current Affair story, managing to include an ad inside a story for a company that spends a lot of money placing ads in the advertising breaks.  It is an ingenious way to plant brand and ad recognition. A solid piece of NewsAdvertising. What was ingenious, however, was the way that ad managed to stick inside news reports about the story.

Watching Nine News breaks during Tuesday night’s programming, there were snippets of a story about Coles discounting fruit and its impact on farmer – whilst in the background TV viewers could see Curtis Stone and the Freshness Dancers.  By this stage, the very real concerns held by farmers has become mere background fodder for what seems to be the true purpose of this “news” – to advertise Coles.

The most disturbing element, though, came on the ABC’s AM program this morning, where the story of the price discounting by Coles from Michael Edwards started with the jingle. A Coles ad, playing on the ABC. Yes, it foregrounded a story about Coles reducing prices – but the jingle still had no relationship with the story and managed to include a piece of commercial advertising on the ABC. In terms of marketing, this would be considered a piece of NewsAdvertising Gold.  The ABC should be more resistant to the type of reporting structures used by commercial TV – especially current affairs programs.  However, it seems that it too can succumb pretty easily.

Mind you, so do I. I now have that Coles ad on the blog. My partner may kill me.