Not to labour the point, but I think The Age today illustrated my point beautifully.

Gillard firm as MPs waver

MPs waver? So Labor MPs have expressed doubt about Gillard’s leadership? A challenger is counting their numbers? Anything?

No. Nothing of the sort.

That’s not to say Labor MPs aren’t feeling a touch of dispair. They have been getting nowhere in opinions polls, and the two biggest media stories of the week are how the government is incompetent (High Court ruling) or just plain stuffed (Craig Thompson). This despite the Parliamentary Budget Officer bill being introduced to parliament.

SOME of Julia Gillard’s own MPs have declared she is stuck ”spinning her wheels” and predicted an election rout ”in varying degrees of diabolical”, as Labor’s internal despair spills out into public view.

That’s not leadership speculation. That’s not MPs wavering on leadership. That’s a feeling that has been expressed for months. They’re not getting anywhere in the public’s mind, and it’s frustrating the hell out off them.

The Age then reports that the ALP is feeding information to the opposition on the Craig Thompson affair, but then The Age tells us that “Both sides agree the leaks do not appear to be motivated by a desire to damage Ms Gillard”. So not wavering on leadership then.

And this is where the story enters self-perpetuation mode,

Both sides agree the leaks do not appear to be motivated by a desire to damage Ms Gillard; but the Thomson affair, along with the High Court’s ruling last week against the Malaysian refugee swap deal, has intensified speculation about Ms Gillard’s future as Prime Minister.

Speculation from where? The media. But that doesn’t matter, by this point the idea of media speculation is so entrenched that they don’t need to justify it, they just need to say it. The Age is reporting on the media’s own speculation.

The only reason that Gillard has even commented on matters of leadership (or anyone has commented on it, for that matter) is because the media has asked about it.

Then the article come crashing to a close almost contradicting the first half of the article,

Sources across the party insist there is no imminent move against her, citing a prevailing view that she should be given time to pass carbon price laws and sort out Labor’s stoush over gay marriage.

Former New South Wales premier Bob Carr insisted the party was not considering a change of leader. ”I know they’re not. There’s no basis for leadership speculation,” he said

Bob Carr is probably right, or at least he was. There wasn’t any basis for leadership speculation. The point I am labouring here is that the media may have been imagining all of this leadership speculation, but the media has the power to imagine it into reality. Leadership speculation is very real now even though it wasn’t before.

Our media has a painfully short attention span. This is not a problem that exclusively ours either. During the current Republican presidential primaries, Jon Stewart described the US media as the dog from Up. The American media was bored with the current crop of Republican candidates so they started speculating about Rick Perry entering the race. He did, and the next day the media started speculating about Paul Ryan entering the race.

“Mum, can I have a Paul Ryan?”

“I JUST GOT YOU A RICK PERRY. AND YOU ALREADY BROKE YOUR MICHELE BACHMANN.”

This week the Australian media got bored. Bored of Julia Gillard, now they want a new Labor leader to defame (seeing as this one won’t let them).

All week, Gillard’s leadership has been “under threat”. From who? Doesn’t matter. The media is now is self-perpetuating-story mode. The media is reporting on the media’s speculation about the media comments that Gillard’s leadership in now under fire.

And that is the narrative. It doesn’t matter if the story doesn’t really have anything to do with leadership, the media applies their new narrative to it anyway.

This, for example:

“Left jab forces Gillard to defend her leadership”

Julia Gillard’s leadership is being further damaged as Labor’s Left faction demands she drop all plans for offshore processing of asylum-seekers.

The Left’s revolt follows the disastrous outcome for the Government from the High Court’s refusal to allow the proposed people swap with Malaysia.

As the row over Prime Minister Gillard’s judgment continued, the faction insisted cabinet return to Labor Party policy that excludes sending boat people to another country to process their claims for refugee status.

But Ms Gillard is defying her critics within the Government, vowing to remain in her post until the election in two years.

The story has nothing to do with leadership. Nothing. The left faction of the ALP wants a change in policy, not leadership. So how did we suddenly make the jump to “But Ms. Gillard is defying her critics within the Government, vowing to remain in her post until the election in two years”? A policy dispute is not a leadership dispute. But of course, the press gallery has spent all week building this narrative, so any story about the government will now be framed with questions of leadership.

All this leadership talk seems to be based on is some remarks by former Labor minister Graham Richardson and an unnamed Labor sources who said Gillard has “lost authority”. Hardly enough to justify the current media frame which has dominated every story about the government this week.

You’d be forgiven for thinking that the entire party is in disarray and demanding a new leader immediately.

After a week of apparent leadership troubles the media is now free to speculate on who would replace Gillard. Even Andrew Bolt has his suggestions (I’m sure that the ALP will be returning his calls soon). Combet, Shorten, the Rudd revival, even Peter Beattie was being thrown around as if the media is so bored with the current options they need to inject leaders that aren’t even in Parliament into the debate.

The cross-benchers get in on the speculative action too, as the media turned to them to justify their narrative when the Labor party wouldn’t. Lenore Taylor wrote:

Mutterings about leadership change within the Labor Party usually end with the assertion that the three crossbench independents did their deals with Julia Gillard and would bring down the government should anyone move to depose her.

For so long we wanted to fantasise about a new Labor leader, but the independents wouldn’t let us.

But the independents themselves say that’s not necessarily true. The three independents are still backing the government, and the Prime Minister, but at least two don’t rule out supporting a Labor administration led by someone different.

See! See! We were right! The ALP could change their leadership!

As an aside, I will say my love for Tony Windsor grows each and every day.

“I don’t think I can conceive of a situation where I would impose Tony Abbott on the Australian people – they might choose him and if they do then that’s their choice, but I would never impose such a person. I have severe doubts about him as an alternative prime minister, always have had, but he’s compounded that in my mind by his absolute negativity and dog whistling. He’s encouraged that nasty edge with the Tea Party talkback people and it’s quite dangerous in my view. He’s making extraordinary claims in the climate debate … he’s denigrated Parliament with a deliberate strategy to make it look dysfunctional when the reality is it is not.”

Of course, I don’t think it is only Tony Abbott who is giving the impression that Parliament is dysfunctional. He is aided in no small way by the media, who have been more than willing to report on the alternate reality that is Abbott’s version of Parliament.

Rather than reporting on the policy, or even the substance of the High Court’s ruling (you had to go looking pretty hard to find out on what grounds the policy was deemed unlawful) the media has turned this week into a week of leadership speculation. A circus.

Much has been written about the Sideshow since Tanner released his excellent book back in May, but nothing seems to have changed in the way the Australian media reports politics.

And it’s hard to see it getting better.

The Australian Mediation Association, your resolution experts.
The Change Agent Network, experts in negotiation and conflict resolution.

Acme Firearms.

But all those analysts and commentators are wrong. Plain wrong.

Instead, it’s only the brave economic and social warriors at the Citizens Electoral Council who have successfully cut through the spin and bullshit and have highlighted the real reason behind Rudd’s downfall in their latest press release (not online): a planet-wide mass-strike.

Rudd falls in global mass-strike; who’s next?

One year after Kevin Rudd’s infamous outburst, “I regard Mr LaRouche as right off the planet”, he’s fallen victim to the planet-wide mass-strike that only LaRouche saw coming.

On 30th June, 2009, Rudd had reacted to CEC Queensland Secretary Jan Pukallus asking him why he didn’t heed LaRouche’s advice on the global economic crisis that his government falsely claimed nobody saw coming.

[...]

That outrage was identified by Lyndon LaRouche in his 1st August international webcast, as a global mass-strike. It has sparked an extraordinary wave of mass protest inside the U.S. against Barack Obama’s bailout of Wall Street and his gutting of healthcare, a wave that has claimed many sitting U.S. politicians and threatens to oust Obama himself.

On the unfolding dynamic of the mass-strike, Lyndon LaRouche commented yesterday, “most people do believe in the idea that history is shaped by events. And on the contrary, history shapes events. That’s the way it works, and you see this in the process of the mass-strike … .”

Oh, well. Too late for Rudd. Hopefully Gillard will heed these dire warnings of … well, whatever it is those freaks are warning us of.

“We are absolutely focused and united behind Kevin,”

“Mr Rudd will remain being Prime Minister and leader of the Party, and I hope we will win the next election and he’ll be Prime Minister next term.”

Just like Malcolm Turnbull.

And Brendan Nelson.

And Kim Beazley.

“Kim Beazley has had my consistent support since his return to the leadership in January 2005, there is no change in my position. My support continues for him as leader.

“Like all Labor members I am working hard for the election of a federal Labor government.”

- Kevin Rudd

__________

Let me tell you, weeks like last week don’t come along every week. Calling it extraordinary would be the understatement of the century, as even seasoned political observers would attest. For starters, this nation’s government considered a number of highly important issues and my speeches in the Senate were some of the most passionate, articulate and emotional presentations the Parliament has ever seen. They had everything: shouty voice, soft voice, pauses for effect, graphs as props, and moral appeals to right and wrong. I’m exhausted just thinking about them. One of my speeches was so powerful that I went to do it again for Susan and the staff back in the office but Susan yelled at me to get down off the desk.

Those speeches, on a range of topics, were also highly effective. Sometimes I can’t believe how many words people waste trying to prove a point, like that something is wrong, when that thing is just self-evidently wrong. For instance, men shouldn’t have relations with other men for no more complicated reason than they just shouldn’t; it’s unnatural. Even a twelve-year-old has enough anatomical knowledge to know that if God intended one piece of the jigsaw to connect naturally, without awkward and unnecessary force, to another piece of the jigsaw, he would’ve made the sticky-out bits and the gappy bits match up. It’s not rocket surgery.

But there was obviously one event last week that eclipsed even my speeches for sheer extraordinariness: the coalition leadership explosion. No matter where you sit on the political horseshoe there was no possible reaction to the Liberal meltdown last week other than disbelief and shock. As I write this article Malcolm Turnbull seems to be a dead man walking, and there’s even a chance that by the time you read this article he won’t be leader of the opposition anymore. Momentous times, these are; history in the making.

And I have tried as hard as possible to write myself into that history. After it became clear that Turnbull was being rejected by his own party I sent him an email proposing that he quit the Liberals and join Family First, offering him the incentive of deputy leadership of the Parliamentary Family First party. Malcolm’s wealth and fundraising prowess is well known and Family First could really do with a bit of help in the cash department. I felt quite pleased with myself for having such a good idea and taking the initiative so I excitedly told Susan about it, however she informed me that Turnbull is a follower of the anthropomorphic global warming faith — a faith I simply cannot share. I have very little time and respect for people who throw themselves so fully into something for which there is no actual proof, letting it shape their lives, guide their thinking, and act as their intellectual and moral compass. The global warming faith, as we all now know after the shocking revelations of ClimateGate, revolves around nothing more than some words and symbols of dubious authorship and authenticity masquerading as fact. Kicking myself for defying my scientific training (did you know I’m an engineer?) and letting my impulses run away with me, I called the IT department and asked them to intercept the email before its delivery. It’s lucky I sent it after 5pm.

But then I had a better idea: why not run for the opposition leadership myself? I’m a global warming sceptic, I’ve got lots of leadership experience, and I scrub up pretty good on the telly. I decided not to let Susan in on this one because my name already had two crosses next to it on the whiteboard so I ran it past Nick Xzennophone instead. Nick said it was an awesome idea and I should totally throw my hat in the ring, and even though he wouldn’t be able to say anything publicly I had his complete and total support. He said that Australian democracy had been waiting for a leader like me since Federation in 2001. Buoyed by Xzennophone’s words, I launched myself instantly into campaigning and networking, going from office to office through the House. None of the secretaries would let me through to see their respective MPs or Senators so I just left each of them one of the “Vote 1 Steve Fielding” posters that I made on Xzennophone’s photocopier (Susan deleted my code from the one in our office.) On the back of each poster I wrote a personal message, thanking the recipient in advance for their support and promising them a Big M next time I see them at the cafe.

Looking through the numbers I can obviously rely on Xzennophone’s vote, while the Greens wouldn’t vote for me even if they put down their bongs long enough to vote. Barnaby is a possible while the rest are totally up in the air. That makes two definites, half-a-dozen negatives, one possible, and lots of unknowns (I must remember to go and count the chairs in both the green and the red chambers.) One thing I am definite about, however, is that a lot of people are disinfected by their own parties’ policies and I reckon I stand a decent chance of picking up their support.

So now I wait. The media seems to believe that Joe Hockey and Tony Abbott are the frontrunners, going so far as to give them affections such as “cuddly” and “avuncular” (they’re just euphemisms for “fat”) and “pugilist” (I don’t know what that means but I can be it too), but as usual the overwhelming Leftist bias of Australia’s political journalists means that they refuse to even consider the chances of a humble boy from Resevoir, despite the fact that the boy from Resevoir fought his way into Parliament against the odds. The media has had many good laughs at my expense over the years, but I think there’s a fairly decent chance that come 10am tomorrow morning I’ll be the one having the last laugh.

Until next time.

Imagine you are a husky fellow of simple tastes and modest abilities. Imagine that, until now, you’ve been a long way back in the queue to the throne, but that suddenly the whole line of succession has been catastrophically blown up, leaving you as the heir apparent.

Where would you turn to find a precedent for your frightening situation? Could there perhaps be a work of cinematic art that might provide a way for you to understand your predicament?

Joe Hockey: The King Ralph of Australian politics.

It's time

With the Coalition seriously lagging behind the government in poll after poll, and with constant white-anting of leader Malcolm Turnbull within his own party, it’s a reasonably safe bet that Turbull will never be Prime Minister of this country. Not only will it take a miracle for the coalition to win in 2010, it will take a Herculean effort from Malcy to remain Opposition leader until 2013. So with that in mind, Groupthink has opened a Book and it’s time for you to take a punt: on what date will Malcolm Turnbull lose the leadership of the federal opposition?

Place your bet in the comments of this post, ensuring that you nominate a full date: day, month and year. For bonus points, also nominate the person you think will take over as leader upon Malcolm’s departure. The eventual winner will win something that will be determined at the time of the winning. A mystery prize, if you will.

Have at it!