Here we go again. From the pages of news.com comes this surprising bit of news:
Kevin Rudd would catapult Labor into an election-winning position if he was to be reinstalled as leader, according to a new Galaxy poll.
A comeback by the former prime minister would deliver a 14 per cent boost to Labor’s primary vote in Queensland, putting it in line to seize two-thirds of the state’s seats.
The poll of 800 Queenslanders, taken on the evenings of February 20 and 21, found that federal Labor’s support, with Prime Minister Julia Gillard at the helm, was stuck on 33 per cent – close to the primary vote Labor received at the last election.
They have even provided a photo of Kevin Rudd holding a baby. All potential Prime Ministers need to kiss, cuddle, nurse or hold a baby. The photo, on this occasion, adds some shine to what was really a pathetic attempt at a story.
Basically, 800 Queenslanders were asked if they prefer a Queenslander as our Prime Minister and they said “yes”. Of course they’d prefer a home-grown boy. What state wouldn’t. The results of course are then catapulted on to the national stage and the voices of those 800 souls are shouted like it was the national anthem.
Why do the media keep harping on about a Rudd challenge? It’s not as though they want a Labor victory. My educated guess is that they want turmoil in the house of Labor.
The last Rudd challenge came not only after 18 months of media speculation about a possible move, but also at a time when Labor was losing support as indicated by the polls. It was highly suggestive that Labor
Kevin Rudd would still be prime minister if not for Tony Abbott’s rise to the Liberal Party leadership, according to John Howard.
Mr Howard, Australia’s second-longest-serving prime minister, said Mr Rudd was “spooked” by Mr Abbott on climate change, his poll ratings dropped, and his own party – spooked by that – installed Julia Gillard in his place.
“If Abbott had not been elected (Liberal) leader before the last election, Rudd would never have been thrown out by the Labor Party,” Mr Howard said.
Is Howard trying to give Abbott a psychological edge, knowing he has ‘beaten’ Rudd before? Or maybe he is trying to stir up electoral emotions as this piece would suggest:
Former prime minister John Howard says Kevin Rudd – the man who beat him in 2007 – could make a move for the Labor Party leadership before the federal election.
Mr Howard says Mr Rudd’s ousting as prime minister in 2010 by Julia Gillard was very unusual.
“The extraordinary thing about the politics in the last few years was Kevin Rudd’s removal,” he told the Nine Network today.
“It’s very unusual for somebody who wins an election and then they get rid of him before he’s got the chance of going to the next election.” (My bolds).
John Howard has been a very busy man in political chatter lately. What happened to his pledge to keep out of politics after his humiliating loss in 2007? He must have forgotten.
Here’s something else he’s forgotten (as have the media):
Kevin Rudd’s 18-month bid to regain the Labor leadership has been smashed after he lost a ballot against Julia Gillard by a record margin.
Everybody has short-term memories by the looks of it.
The last Rudd challenge came not only after 18 months of media speculation that he’d make a move, but also at a time when the polls weren’t looking good for Labor. It was suggestive of the media that Labor would receive a bump in the pools and electoral success with Rudd at the helm. But the party thought otherwise and stood overwhelmingly beside Gillard.
That, at the time (and still does) made me pause to consider the message behind this. Either:
- they don’t believe what is read in the mainstream media
- they were happy with Gillard’s direction, leadership and vision
- they wanted to end media speculation once and for all
- being in a Rudd Government was not a preferred option over a Gillard Opposition.
It must be remembered that Rudd is famous for being impossible to work with.
Your views on all of these suggestions?