Rather than nit-pic, perhaps all the dissenters, howlers and stuck-in-the-muds should read this article again - with a more open mind?

Alan Austin

No matter how you spin the recent events in labor, I think you are simply missing the obvious.

The Labor Party, the Parliament and the media in this country are being manipulated by a massive intellect.

That intellect is merely tapping all the right buttons at the right times. It has participated in jerking all the labor levers that resulted in disasterous decisions and then manipulates the parliament and the press into highlighting the dysfunction and chaos that's been created.

Let's see could that intellect be the intellect of a person with:

i. an arts degree in Asian studies whose major was Chinese language and Chinese history?

ii. a Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Laws degrees?

iii. bachelors degrees in arts and law and a masters degree in law?

iv. a graduate who studied Public Administration?

v. an Honours graduate in economics?

vi. a graduate in arts and law?

Or

a graduate with a degree in law and a degree in economics who is also a Rhodes Scholar with a Masters of Arts in Politics and Philosophy from Oxford?

I guess you understand my point.

This bloke has disposed of Rudd, is well on the way to disposing of Gillard and will make mincemeat of a pseudo intellectual with an Arts degree in History.

He's united the Liberal Party and mended the bridges, damaged by Turnbull, with the Nationals, and was cheated out of an election by a devious paranoid schizo and a couple of fake conservatives.

Julia and labor are right when they blame Tony for all their problems ... but not because he's negative ... but because he's completely outthought them, then manipulated circumstances to cause them, the ultimate dummies, the severest discomfort.

You labor people all the time supply him his greatest asset, you underestimate him. You also contribute to his greatest deception, you play up his opposition and believe that is a negative.

We punters out here are loving it.

Oh dear ...

When asked about this...

"Ms Gillard offered the job to Mr Carr, Labor's longest-serving NSW premier and respected national Labor figure, last week when Mr Rudd resigned to contest the leadership ballot, and before Senator Arbib announced his resignation from the ministry and Senate to create a NSW
vacancy" The Australian, 29th February, 2012

...Ms Gillard said this:

"The story that's on the front page of The Australian newspaper today is completely untrue."

[Reporter: Were you over-ruled though?]

"I've just said completely untrue. I've just said completely untrue." ABC1, Lateline, 29th February, 2012

If Alan Austin is across all the facts as he implies, would he be so kind as to explain why Julia Gillard was not prepared to answer along the same lines in Parliamentary question time? Also, could he throw light on whether Mark Arbib resigned of his own accord or whether he was "pushed"

Alan, what people like you do not seem to realise, is that however clever you think you are in concocting a piece like this, it still comes through as what it is: dishonest spin.

Of course there is no other type of spin.

The idea of producing this type of material is to have people contest what you say, which only gives it strength.

The other approach is to point out the basis of your piece, to demonstrate how ridiculous it is.

You want us to believe that on this occasion Julia is not a liar, that she has somehow, in this instance, changed her spots.

However you spin it, Alan, she is a proven liar, and this is just another instance of it.

Understanding the basis of your writing will assist me if I encounter any of it in the future. I will clearly understand that it is not based upon fact, but upon deception, aimed at concealing fact.

Thank you for the feedback. Interesting observations and questions.

@Don Aitkin, “Did Steven Smith object to being pushed aside again?” Well, he seems from his press conference to have accepted the reasons for staying put: (a) Defence has already had three ministers in three years and now needs continuity, and (b) Bob Carr was available for Foreign Affairs.
“Did Bob Carr buy a plane ticket and was told that the deal was off?” No evidence for this yet. If there was, it probably would have appeared by now.
“Was there a fuss within the party which the PM finally dealt with?” Certainly. Senators have always jockeyed for position ever since the first Roman republic in 508BC. It is always the Emperor’s task to appoint.
“The writer is very confident, but doesn't tell us why his account of it all is the right one. It might well be, but how are we to know?” Good question, Don. But I am not absolutely confident. Hence the genuine question at the start: Can anyone recall when the Canberra media pack has been more comprehensively wrong? So far, no suggestions.

@Raycom, “why was Gillard not prepared to answer along the same lines in Parliamentary question time?” Pretty sure she did, Raycom. She said the story was wrong both times. It was wrong. In all seven ‘revelations’. All of them completely wrong.
“Also, could he throw light on whether Mark Arbib resigned of his own accord or whether he was pushed". No, I have no idea. But it is not really relevant to this topic, is it?

@Leo Lane, yes, I agree completely that having people contest what we say gives it strength. So contest away. Please indicate why you think anything written here may not be right. And ask any questions you wish. Thanks.