21 Million Australians And Counting

I actually thought we'd hit this figure last year, but there you go. Australia now lays claim to
more than 21 million people, with immigration at near records levels and Australian women pumping out babies like never before:

An extra 315,700 people in the three months to June 30 pushed Australia's population growth rate to 1.5 per cent.

Immigration accounted for 56 per cent of Australia's growth, while 272,900 births minus 134,800 deaths made up 44 per cent of the increase.

Western Australia was the fastest expanding of the states and territories, recording a 2.3 per cent growth rate.

Australia's fertility rate is on the rise, with 272,900 babies born in the year to June the highest ever annual number of births.

Some other stats of interest :

One new Australian is born every 1 minute and 56 seconds.

One Australian dies every 3 minutes and 59 seconds.

We gain one new international migrant every 3 minutes and 15 seconds.

In 1788, there were an estimated 350,000 settlers and convicts. At the time of first settlement, there were an estimated 500,000 Aborigines broken up into some 500 tribes, or nations, speaking hundreds of languages.

In 1901, the population had swelled to some 3,788,000 Australians.

In 1931, there were 6,526,000 of us.

In 1971, there were 13,00,000 Australians.

In 1991, there were 17,00,000.

Although we have two square kilometres of land per person, much of it is arid desert. We are one of the world's most highly urbanised populations, with more than 91% of us living in urban areas. The vast majority of these urban areas are close to the coast.

There are more than 850,000 Australian citizens living abroad.

One in five Australians cite "no religion" when given the choice on census forms.

Nelson's Liberals : Sorry, We Still Won't Say Sorry

With the 'New' Liberals me-tooing on gay rights, canning the election-losing bits of WorkChoices, ratifying Kyoto and acknowledging that Australians had stopped listening to John Howard's ideas, about the only key issue they've got left that separates from Rudd Labor is the Nelson-led objection to saying "Sorry" to the Aboriginal people for past crimes and injustices.

Nelson's explanation that they shouldn't have to apologise for something they didn't actually do, because none of them were born during the worst of the Aboriginal land-stealing, massacres, rapes and slavery, is both sad and bizarre. That Nelson's Liberals won't say "Sorry" because they fear an onslaught of compensation claims is cold, calculating and downright offensive to most Aborigines.

The "Sorry, No Sorry" position now hangs over Nelson's Liberals like a curse. During the 2004 election, an Aboriginal elder pointed a bone at Howard, cursing him. It clearly took a few years for the curse to come to fruition.

But it will keep acting on Nelson's Liberals until they follow the will of the majority of Australians and make this modest, and painless, gesture of reconciliation.

Philip Adams points out here that you cannot claim the 'Feel The Pride' parts of our generations-past history, Gallipoli for example, and then refuse to claim the dark and ugly parts as well :

The brave bits of history, the proud moments belong to us all and we collectively bathe in the glory. It's the nasty bits of the past we don't acknowledge. They had nothing to do with us. They were no part of our business.

This is a lopsided view of history. Let us share in past glories while shunning past guilts. Moreover, we will do our best to deny that they happened. Enter the historical revisionism of a Keith Windschuttle. Massacres of Abos? Where? When? Show us the documents! Show us the receipts for the corpses! If there's no paperwork, it never happened. Oral histories of Aborigines? Vivid, detailed accounts of slaughter and atrocities can be discounted. They're not worth the paper they're not written on. No need for sorries there.

Howard's classic cherry-picking of 'We Own This' bit of history but 'We Don't Want That' should be left behind with the (hopefully) old Liberal Party, and its blinkered view of this nation's history, he led to such a shattering defeat ten days ago.

More from Adams :

(Howard's Liberals) want to choose the bits where our ancestors behaved decently, bravely, selflessly, and turn them into mythology, sentiment and, from time to time, the worst sort of patriotic pap. Look at us! Look who were are! In the same breath they turn their backs on our shames and crimes. They've got nothing to do with us. We weren't there. We hadn't been born. Sorry, Brendan, but that's not on.

Britain has to live with the potato famine in Ireland, Germany with the Holocaust, Japan with Manchuria, Turkey with the Armenian genocide and the US with slavery. You may be able to mount a convincing case that Australia's history, colonial as well as recent, in regard to Aborigines hardly compares. But the atrocities and tragedies occurred and continue to affect Aboriginal lives and Australia's sense of itself. And saying sorry is such a small thing.

Greener Than Green

Paul Sheehan strips some bark off The Green's Bob Brown for his tireless, and tiresome, attacks on the new Australian environment minister, Peter Garrett, during the election campaign.

Some of Bob Brown's dozens of prominent media blasts at Garrett, mostly because he refused to say that he opposed the building of a new pulp mill in Tasmania, on his way to seizing control of the government's environment ministry :

"Peter Garrett and Malcolm Turnbull will get together and say more uranium mines," Brown postulated on ABC Radio's PM on October 15. The previous week, he told a rally: "Peter Garrett claims he is 'perfectly comfortable' with the pulp mill … Peter Garrett, we're not perfectly comfortable with you!" (October 7)

"This is the Labor hierarchy gagging Peter. Labor [including Garrett] … needs to get a backbone." (Bob Brown media release, September 7.)

"I can't see Peter Garrett at all. Where is he? Peter used to be such a defender of Tasmania's forests … but he is missing in action," Brown told ABC Lateline on August 29.

"Peter Garrett must not stand on the sidelines while the environment is trashed." (Media release, August 23.)

"He [Garrett] hasn't affected the Labor Party one iota; but the Labor Party machine has taken him over and turned him into an anti-Green campaigner," Brown said on ABC's Background Briefing on March 4.

Sheehan points out that Brown nearly gassed himself on his own hyperbole, and probably did some damage to the Green vote in the election :

This is all pretty rich, given Garrett's long track record of effective environmentalism. Garrett did not respond to Brown's hostility, he just won the war. As of this morning, Garrett sits in cabinet, as Minister for the Environment, with the confidence of the Prime Minister.

Brown, in contrast, has squandered one of the greatest political windfalls given to any political party in Australia since federation. At the 2007 federal election, climate change, global warming and water shortages were part of the mainstream debate for the first time, along with a prime minister who appeared incapable of understanding the critical political importance of these issues to a new generation of voters.

When Garrett emerged as a threat to Brown's power base, he was subject to a steady stream of claims that he had "sold out". Brown dismissed him as Little Red Riding Hood. Now, just three years after entering Parliament, Garrett sits in federal cabinet with his hands on the machinery of policy and power. He has always practised the art of the possible.

If anyone has sold out in this contest it is Brown, for using the environment as a screen for other obsessions, and for failing to grasp the enormous political opportunity presented by the 2007 election.

It hurts, but it's also true enough.

Global warming, protecting the environment, renewable energy - all these things were vote-changing issues at the election. 2007 should have seen The Greens make massive leaps and bounds, and they should be easily in control of the Senate. But they didn't.

Garrett has gone from radical conservation activist and wild rock star in the early 1980s to Minister For The Environment in 2007.

You won't see them say it in print, or in press conferences, but there are legions of old right-wing conservatives, and anti-Garrett old schoolers, whose jaws are still hanging to the floor today at what Garrett has achieved.

What he does with his new power remains to be seen. But it's a shocker that Bob Brown has not been cheering Garrett on, and celebrating his extraordinary win.

The conservationists and pro-environment crowd have won. And one of their own is now in a real position of power in the federal government. The highest position of power, short of prime minister, that any of them who were lashed to logging trucks and protesting uranium mines in the early 1980s could have ever dreamed of achieving.

It would be a terrible thing indeed if mere jealousy was the main reason Bob Brown went on the Garrett attack all the way through the election campaign.

TheArtzzzz : Show Us The Money

Peter Garrett is the new Minister for the Arts. Well, he officially becomes Minister for the Arts today, when he is sworn in. To celebrate, the Sydney Morning Herald runs a nice big fat story on how the Artzzz community is already antsy and impatient with the new minister for not spelling out how much moolah they'll be getting :

Peter Garrett talks about the arts like a therapist staging an intervention. In his first interview as arts minister-elect, the language is positive but short on detail - building confidence before the rehabilitation, it seems.

"Labor's starting point is to recognise that the arts are as big and as broad and as deserving of support as the country is," he says. "It's certainly a signal that from the prime minister, right through the whole of the government, the integral role that the arts plays in our society will be recognised, encouraged and applauded."

Garrett is not prepared to commit to funds allocated in the May budget, and will not use his position to influence the states on support for the arts - as has been promised in areas such as health.

"The role that the national government has is to ensure that the responsibilities in relation to film, to the administration and direction of the Australia Council [are met] … I'd expect to work closely with the states where there are shared programs for delivery," he says.

"I think the critical thing is to be unabashed about recognising the absolutely critical role that the arts plays, in all its branches, in all its forms of expression," Garrett says. "I'd use an expression such as opening up the shutter for a whole new landscape of possibilities."

WTF?

Now the election is over, is Peter Garrett actually going to start talking like a human being again, anytime soon?

Though they will cut out their own tongues before they freely admit it, most of the Australian arts communities did very well, funding-wise, under John Howard's reign.

Neither Kevin Rudd, or Peter Garrett, have given any indication whatsoever that they plan to fund Australian Arts beyond the levels outlined in Peter Costello's May budget, or even match those Howard government allocations.

Might be time to mulch up some paper-mache in preparation of building some Rudd and Garrett big puppet protest heads, just in case.

The New Liberals Slash And Burn Howard-Era Ideals

Kyoto? "Me Too!" Gay Rights? "Me Too!"

We've already seen that the new Liberal leader Brendan "We Went To Iraq For The Oil " Nelson believes symbolism on Kyoto is important, mostly so they won't be totally isolated from the majority of Australians, but now Nelson wants to drape his 'revitalised' party in pink and come out for gay rights :

Brendan Nelson has backed equal legal rights for same-sex couples in a move that immediately distances the new Liberal leader from the conservative social policy of the Howard era.

"...I believe in addressing the social and economic injustices affecting homosexuals the length and breadth of this country.''

You can now toss the issue of the Liberals & Gay Rights into the flaming cauldron of dissent and chaos already blazing away over what stance they should be taking on WorkChoices and the whole "Sorry" issues.

Nelson also neon-signs what he clearly hopes will be the underlying philosophy of his New Liberals :

"We must have social and human ideals, which are the ultimate objectives of our economic development.

"I've sometimes said that, even if all our economic problems were solved, all our fundamental questions would remain unanswered.''

The New Liberals should consider a coalition with The Greens. Then they could isolate Labor as being out of touch and "Howard-like" in their conservative approach, under Kevin Rudd, to Australia's problems.

Nelson has also pledged not to just listen to what Australians have to say, but to really, really listen :

"I say to all Australians … to the men and women of Australia in every walk of life: My commitment to you is to provide you with an inspiring alternative government and a liberalism you can identify with," he said.

"I will work my damndest to see that I and my colleagues have earned your vote in three years' time."

The Opposition Leader agreed that the party needed a fundamental ideological rethink and promised to travel the "width and breadth" of the country seeking the views of ordinary Australians.

Let's hope he does a better job of it than John Howard, who, when confronted by those who opposed him or challenged his views, often had his security muscle them away, or instead became snappy,robotically recited mantras and took on the appearance of someone who was being forced to sniff a fresh dog turd.

It sounds like Nelson wants to reshape his party philosophy based on what the Australian people have to say. Which is certainly better than the way Howard shaped his political Liberal philosophy - by listening to histaliban of extremist and ultra-conservative media hacks, lackeys and Quadrant fetishists.

Speaking of which, rehabilitated Howard hugger Miranda Devine shows she knows how to go with the new flow with her rapturous praise of Brendan Nelson's performance as the New Liberals leader, only two days after he won the top job :

"He would make a wise and compassionate prime minister if ever he had the chance."

Nelson can rest assured that Devine will do everything she can to make sure Nelson gets that chance.

Troops To Withdraw From Iraq Within Months

Prime minister Kevin Rudd will keep his election promise and begin withdrawing Australian combat troops from Iraq in the new year. The last of the troops are expected to be home by July 2008.

Next week PM Rudd begins discussions with the American ambassador to sort out the timing of the troop withdrawals.

The United States is planning to withdraw a substantial number of troops from Iraq in the first half of 2008. It doesn't have a choice. They don't have enough troops left to keep up the current numbers of more 160,000. The British are pulling out its troops. The Danish contingent is also withdrawing.

Some defence industry watchers now claim that regardless of whether Labor won, or the Howard government was returned, in last Saturday's election, the results for Australian troops would have been the same : withdrawal of most of the combat forces, and a new emphasis on training Iraqi troops and police.

The Iraq War is over?

More on all this from ABC's PM here.

Oooh, Tough Talk From Costello The Big Quitter

Costello Blames Howard For Losing The Election, But Some Liberals Blame Costello

Look out, Peter Costello's tossing blame around for the Howard government's humiliating election annihilation, and he's claiming he could "neutered" Kevin Rudd.

Well, that's what Costello claims he could have done, if he hadn't been such a big coward, and if he hadn't cut and run from the leadership of the Liberal Party, that is.

So why didn't he challenge Howard for the leadership? Not enough support. How did Costello know this? His colleagues told him so. Of course, with the full backing of the Murdoch media behind him, if Costello had actually challenged Howard last year, or even earlier this year, there would have been such a wave of momentum and excitement around mounting a fresh front to fight Kevin Rudd, Costello would have found himself enormously popular with his colleagues, who were growing more desperate by the week as the polls sunk into the sewer.

According to now ex-foreign minister Alexander Downer, they knew they were not going to win with Howard in charge for most of 2007.

If Costello had tried to push the old man aside, of course the party would have rallied behind him. They wanted to win the election.

So why didn't Costello make his move? Why didn't he finally take a crack at the golden ring after pissing on year after year after year about how Howard wouldn't give him a go, like he promised?

John Howard wouldn't let him. The big meany :

The Liberals were continuing to play the blame game last night as Peter Costello handed John Howard responsibility for the party's massive electoral defeat.

The Treasurer, who aspired to be prime minister, was denied his opportunity after Mr Howard refused to retire despite diminishing support in cabinet.

Costello's first post-election interview with Lateline is now up here. Very wussy. He blames Howard, without saying "John Howard" and says they would have had a better chance with a "fresher face"...Costello is talking about himself? That battered, hang dog old mug of his is a "fresher face"?

Was he planning on hitting the Botox harder than Howard?


After spending a week blaming John Howard for losing the election, other Libs are now turning on Peter Costello :

A senior Victorian Liberal has hit out at former federal treasurer Peter Costello and his "factional henchmen", accusing them of stacking the party with yes-men and women...

Senator Judith Troeth said the faction, led by Mr Costello and his close friend, Melbourne businessman and former Victorian Liberal president Michael Kroger, was a "cult of personality" devoted to "Peter's ascension to the Lodge".

She said now that Mr Costello had decided to quit politics after last Saturday's devastating election loss, Victorian branch members should rise and rid the party executive of the Costello-Kroger henchmen.

Fight! Fight! Fight!

So much time wasted on their petty little internal brawling.

No wonder so many young people show absolutely no interest in getting into politics. Life is too short.


Here's here's Costello talking tough about what he woulda, coulda, done to the Labor Party :

"We could have neutered that appeal of Labor..."

Sure you could have.

Did it ever occur to Costello that one of the reasons why the Liberals were falling out of favour with the public was because of his ranting, sneering, smug head yelling all over the news from Parliament every couple of days?

Costello's antics might have made for big laughs in the former boys club of Parliament House, but it's no stretch to imagine that his yelling, and yawning, was pissing off more Australians in their living rooms than it was entertaining.

"We Can Change The Way The Public Thinks..."

Rupert Murdoch Admits He Does Tell His Newspapers Who To Back And What To Print

By Darryl Mason


Okay, prepare yourselves, and try not to be too shocked by this revelation :

Rupert Murdoch has admitted to a parliamentary inquiry (in the UK) that he has "editorial control" over which party The Sun and News of the World back in a general election and what line the papers take on Europe.

Mr Murdoch's comments were revealed in the minutes from evidence he gave behind closed doors on 17 September in New York, during the committee's inquiry into media ownership.

But the News Corporation chairman said he took a different approach with The Times and The Sunday Times. While he often asked what those papers were doing, he never instructed them or interfered, he said.

The minute stated: "For The Sun and News of the World he explained that he is a 'traditional proprietor'. He exercises editorial control on major issues – like which party to back in a general election or policy on Europe

Which raises the obvious question, how many of the 70% of all Australian newspapers that Rupert Murdoch controls does he instruct to back or attack chosen politicians, political parties or political causes?

Is the Sydney Daily Telegraph as editorially independent of Murdoch's influence as the London Sunday Times?

Or can The Australian newspaper claim that honor?

Was the Herald Sun free to back Howard over Rudd in the elections? Or was the Herald Sun's pro-Howard line more for reasons of 'balance'?

Perhaps the UK parliamentary enquiry revelations explain why Murdoch blogger Andrew Bolt (whose blog features on the main news.com.au portal, as well as the Herald Sun and Courier Mail websites, reaching hundreds of thousands of Australian online readers) was so enthusiastically pumping the fact that, just before the election, the Sydney Daily Telegraph backed Rudd, while the Herald Sun did not, and why Bolt was earlier so vehemently denying that Murdoch's papers went hard after Howard when he refused to step down.

Murdoch's revelation of purposeful editorial control should not be a revelation to readers of The Orstrahyun blog.

As regular readers would remember, Murdoch clearly admitted, back in June during his climate change awakening, that not only did he instruct his newspapers to push a certain reality that he favoured, but he could also muster the entire forces of his internet, newspaper, cable and TV empire to push his belief systems onto the world and change not only what they believed, but how they behaved.

Here's Rupert Murdoch explaining how this would be done on the issue of 'waking up' his readers to the reality of climate change :

"We need to reach (our audience) in a sustained way. To weave this issue into our content-- make it dramatic, make it vivid, even sometimes make it fun. We want to inspire people to change their behavior.

"The challenge is to revolutionize the message.

"We need to do what our company does best: make this issue exciting. Tell the story in a new way.

"Now... there are limits to how far we can push this issue in our content."

"...we can change the way the public thinks about these issues..."

Within weeks of Rupert explaining how effectively his vast media empire can wage a psychological war on its viewers and readers to influence their beliefs and behaviour, most of his dozens of Australian city and suburban newspapers became champions of fighting climate change, launching special liftouts, dedicated websites and awareness campaigns over the next few months, under such Al Gore mantras as 'Saving Planet Earth'.


UPDATE : On September 10, 2001, John Howard had a long, private dinner with Rupert Murdoch in Washington, DC. Howard was suffering some of the worst poll numbers of his career, and the Liberal Party was scoring its worst poll ratings since the mid-1970s. But Tampa was heating up the front pages back home, and 9/11 was about to shock the nation.

Murdoch allowed himself to be interviewed by the media when he exited the restaurant with Howard, in scenes that were repeated in early 2007, in New York City, with then Labor prime ministerial hopeful Kevin Rudd.

From an ABC Radio report on the Howard-Murdoch 2001 dinner :

For two hours the two men sat alone in the upmarket Oxidental Grill deep in conversation. At 10:00pm local time they emerged and Mr Murdoch was asked by waiting journalists who'd win the next election.

RUPERT MURDOCH: No, we never discussed it.

REPORTER: Do you think Mr Howard deserves a third term in Office, Mr Murdoch?

RUPERT MURDOCH: Mm?

REPORTER: Do you think the Prime Minister deserves a third term in Office?

RUPERT MURDOCH: It doesn't matter what I think. You ask my editors.

REPORTER: Mr Murdoch, how do you think Kim Beazley would go as Prime Minister?

RUPERT MURDOCH: It would be very interesting.

REPORTER: Were they productive discussions with Mr Murdoch?

JOHN HOWARD: Well, we had a pleasant dinner.

REPORTER: Did you talk politics?

JOHN HOWARD: We talked everything.

MARK WILLACY: There's little doubt about that, given Rupert Murdoch's interest in media policy and the extraordinary influence of his Australian print empire. His response when asked if John Howard deserved a third term is well worth another listen:

RUPERT MURDOCH: It doesn't matter what I think. You ask my editors.

Rupert Murdoch was far more forthcoming on Kevin Rudd when he was asked by a journalist in early 2001 whether or not he thought the contender would make a good prime minister. The reply then was, "Oh, I'm sure..." Big smile.


A note we received yesterday, from a person who claimed to be a former staffer in John Howard's office, said that it was common gossip within many government departments that when John Howard refused to hand over the leadership to Peter Costello at the end of 2006, Rupert Murdoch was less than happy. And that editors of at least two Murdoch Australian city papers, likewise, were less than happy.

The self-claimed former Howard staffer said that when Rupert Murdoch publicly appeared with Kevin Rudd in New York City in April, 2007, laughing and grinning after a long meeting at the News Corp. headquarters, and then dinner together, a climate of doom descended amongst many in the prime minister's department. The belief was that Murdoch had given Kevin Rudd the Big Tick, particularly after the "Oh, I'm sure" quote was aired, which meant Howard was probably finished.

The Sydney Daily Telegraph soon became very obvious champions of Kevin Rudd, and Howard suffered a sustained stream of extremely negative Daily Telegraph front pages, featuring large photos showing Howard looking old, stressed and confused.

But then again, one city newspaper doesn't win an election. Does it?


"We want to inspire people to change their behavior....The challenge is to revolutionize the message...We need to do what our company does best: make this issue exciting. Tell the story in a new way...we can change the way the public thinks..."

Liberals Suddenly Very Interested In The Government Being Held To Account

The Rudd Government, That Is

Libs Helen Coonan and Christopher Pyne now believe that an Australian government should keep its promises, should be held to account for its actions and should face heat and intense scrutiny when it acts dishonestly. Nothing like being kicked out of power to make politicians champions of integrity, honesty and substance :

Helen Coonan : "It's very important...that the Rudd led Labor party is made to fulfil their promises to the electorate and be kept accountable."

Christopher Pyne : "....the one thing that counts, which is holding Kevin Rudd accountable for his promises and his frontbench accountable for their incompetencies."

Helen Coonan : "I think it is very important to hold Kevin Rudd accountable..." "Can I just say one thing about holding Kevin Rudd accountable...eventually somebody's going to have to actually implement what they say and we will be holding Labor accountable, I assure you."

Great. But what about holding the Liberal Party accountable for the past 11.5 years? Christopher Pyne explains how that works :

"...we have to forget about the past."

Well, you can have your dreams.

Former foreign minister, Alexander Downer, is all for forgetting the past as well :

"...what’s the point of going back over the last 12 months, we can't relive that. It's all over. We just, I think for the Liberal Party, it won't be doing itself much of a favour by a constant retrospective."

It's no wonder Downer, and the rest of the survivors, want to forget about the past year, and the past11.5 years, of Liberal/National government.

Tim Dunlop runs through some of the numerous ways the Howard government shafted the Australian people and ducked and weaved their way through some of the most outrageous and shocking events, boondoggles, double standards and outright fabrications of recent decades :

I can’t remember the number of times we were told that Mr Howard doesn’t lie and that even if he does, so what, all politicians lie; that “core promises” was a perfectly legitimate way of dealing with election commitments; that any government or prime ministerial fudging in regard to “children overboard” was a figment of the “Howard haters” vile imagination; that there were absolutely no problems with the government’s handling of AWB scandal; that the Haneef matter was dealt with strictly according to the law with no eye to political advantage; that David Hicks deserved everything he got and that the government were always perfectly upfront about their dealings with the Bush Administration on the issue; that we were told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the invasion of Iraq; that the subsequent change of position of why we were in Iraq and how long we were staying there was perfectly reasonable; that the former government did have a mandate for WorkChoices because they mentioned something about in passing on their website before the 2004 election; that the “fairness test” wasn’t a backflip contradicting their previous commitments to make no fundamental changes to the legislation; that the business union ads the previous government demanded were a completely honest assessment based on sound econometric research; that Mr Howard’s multi-billion dollar splurge on government advertising was justifiable down to the last cent and that the ads themselves never had any political intent...

Dunlop has more on all this here and makes this final, extremely valid point :

Thank you, Mr Howard. By running the most dishonest government in living memory you seem to have converted a generation of your own supporters to the cause of integrity in government and this is, apparently, going to be a key theme of the new Coalition Opposition...This is a good thing for the country, something some of us having been arguing for some time.

Indeed.

Liberals Go For Brendan "We Went To Iraq For The Oil" Nelson

Nelson's First Betrayal Of The Wing Nuts : "We Love Kyoto, Too!"

Uh oh. Paul Kelly will not be happy, but the wing nuts will be. The Liberals have voted in former Labor Party member and one time union leader, Brendan Nelson, as their new messiah, with Julie Bishop as deputy.

Nelson has managed to fight off the Malcolm Turnbull Leadership Coup, but only just, winning his spot at "the worst job in Australian politics" by only a handful of votes.

This means the Liberal Party will rumble with chaos and "Did Turnbull do it?" leaks undermining the new leader for months, or even years, to come.

Brendan "We Went To Iraq For The Oil" Nelson can be counted on to make life a little bit difficult for the Rudd government, but will remain a figure of public mockery, and will continue to provide plenty of gaffes and jaw droppers to keep the Liberal Party In Chaos entertainment coming.

So much for the Liberals taking a message from the election and creating a new, more appealing front line team and set of themes. They will isolate themselves even further from the Australian mainstream, with Nelson now free to air his wacko views on education, religion and the 'War on Terror' whenever he likes.

It's now time for all of those who confidently predicted Turnbull would win the leadership to quickly distance themselves from their previous comments.

UPDATE : Maybe the wing nuts won't be so happy with Nelson, after all.

Brendan Nelson is podiuming and announcing...Kyoto Is Good!

"I have heard the message from Australians that was delivered on Saturday and whatever some critics of the Kyoto Protocol might actually think, it's symbolically important to Australians," he said.

Now symbolism is important to the Liberals?

Here's Brendan Nelson hating Kyoto in 2005, and cheerleading nuclear energy :

"Australia has rightly refused to sign the Kyoto protocol."

"...is it not time to consider in the longer term the most obvious power source, nuclear power? It is not only in electricity production that nuclear energy offers potential for Australia. It could also be used to fuel water desalination on a large scale."

The Labor Party will have lots of fun with those quotes.

Let's see how Nelson's We Love Kyoto, Too declaration today compares to those that The Australian's Paul Kelly instructed the next Liberal leader to utter :

"The Liberal Party believes in Kyoto ratification and a post-2012 system that binds developing nations into the compact."

Kind of close.

It looks like Nelson will be uttering plenty of "Me Toos!" in the coming months, on WorkChoices (goodbye), on withdrawing combat forces from Iraq (good luck) and on embracing the fight against climate change (our members own waterfront properties).

The more the wing nuts rip into Nelson for not being as demented, bigoted and extreme as they are, the more isolated they will become in Australian politics, and Australian society.

"Listen Up, Turnbull, This Is How It's Going To Be"

Esteemed Journo Offers Broken, Desperate Liberal Party A Helping Hand


The announcement will come within hours that Malcolm Turnbull has 'won' the leadership 'battle' to apply the jumper cables to the barely flailing corpse that is the Australian Liberals.

The Liberals are in big trouble, as every columnist in the country is telling you. These are desperate times for Australian conservatives. Not only will they have to publicly acknowledge that Al Gore was right on global warming, they will have to shut the hell up about "Evil Lefties", lest the Australian public think they are the party of John "That Stubborn Old Bastard!" Howard.

If Malcolm Turnbull hadn't launched his leadership coup, Brendan Nelson would be in charge tonight. Now while that would make for some spectacularly hilarious entertainment, it's not good for Australian democracy.

There has to be the illusion, at least, that the Labor Party will not rule the land for one or two generations to come and that we have, at the minimum, a viable two-party democracy.

Turnbull will be the new Liberal Party leader, as so many in the Australian media have already made clear. The Liberals don't have a say in this. The media decided it. It's Turnbull, or it's pitiless mockery from the front pages, opinion pages and probably the sports pages as well until the London Olympics.

But even choosing the new leader for the Liberals is not enough for the media. So thoroughly shipwrecked is the party of Australian conservatives that the big players in Australia's media are even writing talking points for the very first speech of the new leader who is, on early Thursday morning, still yet to be elected.

This from Paul Kelly, esteemed Editor At Large for The Australian, funneling new policy directly into the brain of Malcolm Turnbull, who is no doubt listening carefully :

Now is the time for the Liberals to be politically and intellectually ruthless. The new leader must burn the dead wood so furiously and symbolically that a new Liberal era is signalled. Nothing else will suffice.

"The Liberal Party accepts the new industrial relations settlement as voted by the people at this election." This should be Turnbull's pledge at his first press conference.

It will be a difficult retreat, but this is democracy.

A democracy where journalists write speeches in a national newspaper for political party leaders not yet elected? Yes.

"The Liberal Party believes in Kyoto ratification and a post-2012 system that binds developing nations into the compact." This needs to be Turnbull's second pledge at his media conference.

Whatever you say, boss!

Can anybody have a go at this? My turn :

"The Liberal Party believes in free video games and cannabis for old people who won't eat and are bored mindless, and will better the Labor Party in their planned national 'Sorry' to the Aboriginal people by saying 'We're Really, Really, Really, Really Sorry'."

We'll come back later today to see if Turnbull has delivered what his political masters in the media have demanded of him.

Whitewashing Howard's Iraq War Legacy

By Darryl Mason

In a long, glowing tribute to John Howard, 'the most influential foreign affairs commentator in Australia', Greg Sheridan, decides the debacle and horror of the Iraq War is hardly mentioning. Well, not beyond a weighty 42 words worth of whitewashing.

Regardless of how Sheridan tries to spin it, in two or three decades, Howard's involvement in the Iraq War will be one of the three key reasons why his name will be mentioned in the history books, along with his, reportedly, platonic man-love affair with President George W. Bush.

Historians care little for "the economy" in the long term, they always write at length about the controversies and dramas, the wars and conflicts and the big historical events that divide and unite the nations that prime ministers and presidents lead.

Howard's larger national and international legacy is not "the economy". It is the Iraq War. Without Howard's shameless appeals to President Bush, from early 2002, if not earlier, that Australia was right behind the Iraq War, Bush would have had one less key member of the Coalition of the Willing, which was thin enough to begin with, outside of the involvement of the UK and Spain.

The Iraq War has occupied five years of Howard's 11.5 year reign, almost half of the total years Howard served as prime minister, if you consider the Iraq War began for Australian when it sent in special forces troops in late 2002.

The lead-up to the Iraq War saw the largest gatherings of people opposing a government policy in the nation's history. And it some of the most foul and odious columns ever written by Australian opinionists, in a disturbingly co-ordinated effort to try and dampen down the overwhelming opposition to the coming invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Many so-called journalists, including Sheridan, followed Howard's psy-op line that if you opposed the war you were giving "aid and comfort" to Saddam Hussein. Tell that to the many thousands of Australian war veterans who marched and spoke out in early 2003 against the brutal violence and mass civilian slaughters they knew, from experience, were coming to the people of Iraq.

Before the Iraq War began, Australian, British and American intelligence agents broke protocol, and cover, to warn Howard directly against backing the extremely dodgy 'Saddam Has Nukes And Lots Of WMDs' NeoCon fakery, most of which was built around the claims of the infamous 'Curveball', who turned out to be nothing more than a desperate Iraqi who was being paid to tell NeoCons what they wanted to hear, so they could use it to try and sell their war to the people.

None of it worked to convince even a thin minority of Australians that the Iraq War was necessary. Regardless of the mass opposition from the people, Howard sent his nation to war, knowing full well the NeoCon-packaged WMD intelligence was pure crap.

So here's how Greg Sheridan, supposedly one of our most respected and highly regarded foreign affairs journalist, sums up Howard and Iraq :

Howard made the right call on the information available, and it took incredible guts to do it. There were certainly no lies involved - every responsible authority was convinced Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction - and Howard will be vindicated by history.

This is whitewashing at its best, and most shameless.

The lies from Howard about the Iraq War were many, and Sheridan knows this.

Here's but one of the many bold and outrageous lies from Howard on Iraq : He told us he had not committed Australian forces to war in Iraq, literally 48 hours before the 'Shock And Awe' bombings of Baghdad began. But Howard knew, as Greg Sheridan knew, that Australian special forces had been working away in Iraq's west for months, and many Australian troops had been told in October and September, 2002, that they were going to Iraq to fight a war, and that they were prepare for war, and that they were prepare their families for that fact.

That Sheridan would even think he could float such an absurd paragraph in a major newspaper and that people would believe him is just bizarre.

Perhaps Sheridan is so mortified by what has happened to the people of Iraq, in a war that he relentlessly promoted through the last half of 2002, and right through 2003, that he really wants to believe his own twaddle. Maybe he has to. Perhaps it is easier then to sleep soundly at night, and not think of the millions of innocent people, mostly young people, killed or maimed or driven from their homes.

And don't think for a moment that Sheridan was some of sort of apologist, or PR flack for Howard. God, no. Sheridan himself admits he was "savagely critical" of Howard during the former prime minister's 30 year long political career. How many times was Sheridan "savagely critical"?

I'll let Sheridan reveal the vast extent of his savage criticism for himself :

"Twice in Howard's career, I have been savagely critical of him."

Twice!

Sheridan was relentless in holding Howard to account for his foreign policy decisions and disasters, and you would expect nothing less from 'the most influential foreign affairs commentator in Australia'.

How did Howard stand all that pressure and scrutiny from Greg Sheridan?

It must have been tough.


Janet Albrechtsen : I Don't Even Mention The Word "Iraq" In My Howard Whitewash

September 2007 : Greg Sheridan's Shameless Anti-Democracy, Anti-Free Speech Propaganda

February 2007 : Sheridan Helps Dick Cheney Make His Case For War On Iran

Sheridan Predicts "Outside Chance" Victory For Liberals In 2010, With Tony Abbott In Charge

NO! Abbott Cuts And Runs On Liberal Leadership

Dammit, former health minister Tony "Too Raw" Abbott has withdrawn from the Malcolm Turnbull Liberal Party leadership coup...sorry, the very competitive Liberal Party leadership race :

Mr Abbott says after talking to his colleagues it is clear he does not have enough support to be a credible candidate.

"It's pretty obvious to me that Malcolm and Brendan have more support and so I am announcing today that I will be withdrawing my candidature and I won't be running tomorrow," he said.

His colleagues, eh?

Surely Abbott's decision to cut and run had nothing to do with this massive headline plastered across The Australian newspaper this morning :

The Liberal Party's Future Lies With Turnbull


Former defence minister Brendan "We Went To Iraq For The Oil" Nelson is now taking on Malcolm Turnbull for the leadership. He thinks he has a solid chance.

Or, to put it another way, Brendan Nelson is pretending he has a chance against the Turnbull-Julie Bishop juggernaut so as to give the appearance that the only person left in the Liberal Party with the money to pay for the 2010 campaign, Malcolm "Australia's richest politician" Turnbull, is not being handed the Liberal Party leadership on an eco-friendly hemp-fibre platter.

Do you think all those news stories about the terrible death of Bernie Banton that featured Tony Abbott saying Banton did not "necessarily have a good heart" might have affected Abbott's chances?

The Murdoch media didn't give the shell-shocked Liberal Party back roomers the slightest chance of a fair fight against the Turnbull coup. Turnbull was the Murdoch media's man from the moment Peter Costello quit on Sunday morning. Or perhaps even before then.

It will be interesting to learn in the post-election books if Costello was encouraged to quit because Turnbull was already chosen by the higher powers to lead the Liberals into defeat in 2010 and 2013.

It will also be very interesting to watch as the far right inside the Liberals try to shatter Turnbull by spreading the stories that it was Turnbull's people who leaked some of the most damaging anti-Howard stories over the past year.

The chaos inside the Liberal Party will continue for years under Turnbull.

It's going to be fascinating watching the Libs and Labor battle each over in Parliament over who can claim the mantle as the most anti-global warming party in Australia. Outside of The Greens, of course.

It's going to be even more fun to see how Andrew Bolt, Dennis Shanahan and Piers Akerman sing the praises of Turnbull in the coming months.

Tony "Reasonable People Skills" Abbott will quit Parliament and "go home to his wife" by July 2008, if not sooner.

Bolt : My Readers Are Dumb

For months before the election was called and on a daily basis through the entire election campaign, hundreds of stunned, shocked, horrified, hopeful, teary, desperate, confident and faithful conservatives, Howard Huggers and Liberal Party voters gathered at Andrew Bolt's blog and talked up the reasons why, and the chances of, John Howard pulling off another major big election win.

Even when the polls were desperately hopeless, the Howard Huggers rarely lost hope. They'd list the reasons why Howard should win, and would win. And Andrew Bolt encouraged them to keep on believing the end was not so very nigh.

Now the election is over, now that Howard has led his party to the most devastating loss in the history of the Liberal Party, now that the party founded by Howard's hero Sir Robert Menzies lies in tatters, Andrew Bolt tells his mostly conservative, Liberal Party devoted readers what he really thinks of them :

"The phoney election is over. Only the dumb or desperate Liberals ever thought Labor would lose."

What a rude and obnoxious shithead Andrew Bolt is.

But then, you probably already knew that.

Talk about sticking in the knife and giving it a twist.

This is Julie Bishop. She will probably be the deputy leader of the Howard Hating Liberal Party by Friday morning. If you don't behave, there will be consequences. Dire consequences.

I'm sure she's actually a very nice person. The men in Parliament will be shrinking in terror when Bishop and Labor deputy Julia Gillard go at each other across the big desk.

Australia Finally Gets A Viable Third Party

The Greens Scored More Than One Million Votes At Election 2007

The success of The Greens at Saturday's election would have been much more impressive if both the Labor and Liberal Party had not adopted soft version of their climate change key platforms in the past twelve months.

The Greens put climate change on the map as a key election issue. Labor got serious about climate change when around 30% of Australians said they were concerned about how global warming would affect their childrens' and grandchildrens' future. The Liberals Under Howard suddenly became climate change disciples when that percentage tipped over 70.

It's also refreshing to see that despite a concerted anti-Greens campaign in Murdoch daily papers in Sydney, Brisbane, Adelaide, Hobart and Melbourne, The Greens still polled remarkably well. More than one million votes.

In some locales, they blasted the Nationals out of the water and also managed to match, or at least came close to matching, the number of votes cast for the Liberal Party.

No doubt, Bob Brown's appearance on Rove, six days before the federal election, killed off a lot of the negativity and scare campaigns hurled at The Greens by the Liberals, Family First, the Exclusive Brethren and the Murdoch media.

Bizarrely, for a party that we were told want to end all coal-mining within three years (they don't), The Greens managed to pick up thick slabs of votes in coal mining districts like Kalgoorlie.

When Australia undergoes a generational change, and transformation, they really go in hard :

The Greens have declared themselves Australia's third-largest political party claiming to have out-performed the Nationals by a "country mile".

The party says it attracted nearly 1.1 million (9.02 per cent) senate votes at Saturday's federal election compared with less than 6 per cent for the Nationals.

And, in claiming a definite five seats in the Senate with a chance for two more, the Greens have also seen off the Democrats whose four senators all lost their seats.

"The Democrats' famous aim was to keep the bastards honest but our long-term vision is to replace them," Greens leader Bob Brown said.

"All the epithets and abuse have boomeranged and people valued the big environmental issues around climate change, the pulp mill and drought."

Senator Brown said the party's rural vote had increased along with its pensioner vote after the party campaigned to increase pensions by $130 a week.

Tucker still chances to secure spots.

The Greens surpassed the Senate quota barrier (14.2 per cent) in Tasmania for the first time, meaning they won a Senate seat in their own right and didn't have to rely on preferences.

Labor could not have won the election without the help of The Greens. They will demand, and should get, some of their wishes fulfilled.

The Greens deserved one million votes if only for their pledge to do something about the appalling poverty that hammers elderly Australians, many of whom worked themselves into the ground for decades for the good of the country, besides going to war and having to cope with that emotional and physical fallout.

In their last days, the elderly should be treated with far more respect and regard than John Howard ever felt they were worth.

Bob Brown Hugs Trees "Very, Very Often"

Turnbull Will Win Liberals Leadership, But Abbott Will Supply A Few Days Of Comedy

UPDATE : The Liberal Party have voted in former defence minister Brendan "We Went To Iraq For The Oil" Nelson as their new leader. Nelson defeated Turnbull by only three votes. More here.

The Liberal Party meltdown must, by now, be one of the most spectacular and entertaining in Australian political history. The election defeat was devastating, but the fallout has been absolutely nuclear.

And it continues.

Malcolm Turnbull will be the new leader of the Liberal Party by the weekend. I know this because the Murdoch media keeps telling me it will be so. And who in the Liberal Party would be brave enough to defy Rupert? The price paid for such insolence will be heavy. Newspoll derived headlines will shred any choice other than Turnbull.

The federal Liberals will move fast to distance themselves from WorkChoices and will repeatedly blame John Howard's decision to stay on as leader as the main reason for their shattering election loss.

If they don't do these things, they will draw too much attention to the other horrors of the Howard Liberals era that so many of those remaining so heartily, enthusiastically backed all year, and in some cases all decade, long.

As we mentioned here yesterday, Tony "Too Honest" Abbott has decided to offer up some comedy for the rest of the week, as he challenges Turnbull and the other contender, Brendan Nelson, for "the worst job in Australian politics", as the position of leader of the opposition is more commonly known in Canberra.

Tony Abbott kicks off the laughs by claiming he has much to offer the Liberal leadership, not the least his "people skills". Yes, really :

He admitted did not have the best of campaigns, but said he had demonstrated "reasonably good people skills"...

Here's but one example of Abbott's people skills.

"I had some tough times on the campaign trail and I would be the last to say that I was prince perfect,'' he said.

"We badly mishandled the politics of the fourth term [but] I’m not going to be repudiating the Howard government," he said.

That's why he won't get the job.

The Liberals are heading to the centre, and will rebrand themselves as far more tolerant understanding of the tough economic times faced by the millions of Australians who live in poverty, and the millions more who will be facing a fairly new kind of Australian poverty - they'll live in nice houses, have good jobs, but will have trouble paying for rising mortages, petrol and food bills.

Abbott was still singing the praises of John Howard :

"[He] will go down in history as a very great prime minister."

Very great? What happened to the Greatest Prime Minister In Australian History? Or at the very least, the Greatest Prime Minister Since Robert Menzies?

Here's Paul Keating explaining why Abbott won't be the new opposition leader :

"Well I don't know who should lead the Liberals, but I mean, I know who I wouldn't be going for. If they take Tony Abbott they're just going to go back down hill to wherever they've been. He's the one most like Howard ideologically....he's what I call a young fogey.

"Howard was the old fogey. He's the young fogey."

You can bet the Malcolm Turnbull backers are already calling Tony Abbott "The Young Fogey" behind his back as they try to scuttle the former health minister's support.


"I Want To Lead The Liberal Death March Into Greater Political Oblivion"

Tony Abbott : What A Scumbag

Tony Abbott : What A Scumbag Part Two

Goodbye Ma'am

The things you learn reading London newspapers. Apparently, under the Rule Of Rudd, we're gearing up to get rid of the Queen, and Malcolm Turnbull's installment as head of the Liberals will make the shape of the Republic something of an election issue come 2010, or 2011.

You can go here to read the comments from the London Times, a few of which from the Old English are hilarious.

Apparently we are "ungrateful Aussies" who are "always whingeing" and "whining" because we want to dump the Queen. We should all be left to "roast on the beach" and are little more than "organic malcontent." Whatever that means.

Some of the Old English have never forgiven our convict forefathers for striking it somewhat lucky with deportation to Australia, at least as far as the weather goes, and then destroying British rule. More than a century later, we're still a pack of feisty anti-authoritarians. We've never been forgiven by the Etonian class for that, either.

It's a strange choice for the key issue of quite a large story in the London Times on the change of government. I don't think I heard any politician mentioning dumping the Queen at any time during the election. If they did, they didn't do it very loudly, or very often.

Becoming a Republic certainly wasn't an election issue. But it is very likely to be, come the end of Rudd's first term.

John Howard's Humiliation Now Complete

Maxine McKew Takes Bennelong


Knocking on 8000 doors, and sitting down for hundreds of cups of tea and actually listening to what the locals have to say, and doing it all without a crush of media and security in tow, really does pay off.

Maxine McKew has won the seat of Bennelong from John Howard. Her victory is the final grave marker in John Howard's political career.

For the first time in three decades, Bennelong has a new local member of Parliament, and for the first time in history, that MP is from the Labor Party.

Consider this : Bennelong was, until recently, one of the most conservative and safest Liberal seats in the entire country.

John Howard was comprehensively beaten by a woman, a Labor Party true believer and a former ABC Television news journalist. The triple whammy.

Could Howard's humiliation be any more complete?

Only if Kevin Rudd had dispatched removalist vans to Kirribilli House at 6am on Sunday morning.

McKew's win is a repudiation of everything Howard claimed his Australia was all about.

If Howard had even dared to raise immigration-related issues during the election campaign, in search of a new Tampa, as he desperately campaigned to hold onto immigrant-rich Bennelong, his defeat would only have been more massive.

The media consensus is that the disgusting Lindsay Leaflet Scandal cost Howard dearly in Bennelong, where the immigrant-strong local population got all-too-real and rare glimpse at the racist dark heart of the Liberal right wing conservatives Howard had proudly allowed to blossom under his decade long rule.

The international media headlines on Howard's total defeat have been brutal :

Howard's Final Humiliation - Out Of Parliament And Out Of Government

Rupert Murdoch Admits He Does Tell His Newspapers Who To Back And What To Print

"We Can Change The Way The Public Thinks About These Issues"

By Darryl Mason

Okay, prepare yourselves, and try not to be too shocked by this revelation :

Rupert Murdoch has admitted to a parliamentary inquiry (in the UK) that he has "editorial control" over which party The Sun and News of the World back in a general election and what line the papers take on Europe.

Mr Murdoch's comments were revealed in the minutes from evidence he gave behind closed doors on 17 September in New York, during the committee's inquiry into media ownership.

But the News Corporation chairman said he took a different approach with The Times and The Sunday Times. While he often asked what those papers were doing, he never instructed them or interfered, he said.

The minute stated: "For The Sun and News of the World he explained that he is a 'traditional proprietor'. He exercises editorial control on major issues – like which party to back in a general election or policy on Europe

Which raises the obvious question, how many of the 70% of all Australian newspapers that Rupert Murdoch controls does he instruct to back or attack chosen politicians, political parties or political causes?

Is the Sydney Daily Telegraph as editorially independent of Murdoch's influence as the London Sunday Times?

Or can The Australian newspaper claim that honor?

Was the Herald Sun free to back Howard over Rudd in the elections? Or was the Herald Sun's pro-Howard line more for reasons of 'balance'?

Perhaps the UK parliamentary enquiry revelations explain why Murdoch blogger Andrew Bolt (whose blog features on the main news.com.au portal, as well as the Herald Sun and Courier Mail websites, reaching hundreds of thousands of Australian online readers) was so enthusiastically pumping the fact that, just before the election, the Sydney Daily Telegraph backed Rudd, while the Herald Sun did not, and why Bolt was earlier so vehemently denying that Murdoch's papers went hard after Howard when he refused to step down.

Murdoch's revelation of purposeful editorial control should not be a revelation to readers of The Orstrahyun blog.

As regular readers would remember, Murdoch clearly admitted, back in June during his climate change awakening, that not only did he instruct his newspapers to push a certain reality that he favoured, but he could also muster the entire forces of his internet, newspaper, cable and TV empire to push his belief systems onto the world and change not only what they believed, but how they behaved.

Here's Rupert Murdoch explaining how this would be done on the issue of 'waking up' his readers to the reality of climate change :

"We need to reach (our audience) in a sustained way. To weave this issue into our content-- make it dramatic, make it vivid, even sometimes make it fun. We want to inspire people to change their behavior.

"The challenge is to revolutionize the message.

"We need to do what our company does best: make this issue exciting. Tell the story in a new way.

"Now... there are limits to how far we can push this issue in our content."

"...we can change the way the public thinks about these issues..."

Within weeks of Rupert explaining how effectively his vast media empire can wage a psychological war on its viewers and readers to influence their beliefs and behaviour, most of his dozens of Australian city and suburban newspapers became champions of fighting climate change, launching special liftouts, dedicated websites and awareness campaigns over the next few months, under such Al Gore mantras as 'Saving Planet Earth'.

UPDATE : On September 10, 2001, John Howard had a long, private dinner with Rupert Murdoch in Washington, DC. Howard was suffering some of the worst poll numbers of his career, and the Liberal Party was scoring its worst poll ratings since the mid-1970s. But Tampa was heating up and 9/11 was about to shock the nation.

Murdoch allowed himself to be interviewed by the media when he exited the restaurant, in scenes that were repeated in early 2007, in New York City, with then Labor prime ministerial hopeful Kevin Rudd.

From an ABC Radio report on the Howard-Murdoch 2001 dinner :

For two hours the two men sat alone in the upmarket Oxidental Grill deep in conversation. At 10:00pm local time they emerged and Mr Murdoch was asked by waiting journalists who'd win the next election.

RUPERT MURDOCH: No, we never discussed it.

REPORTER: Do you think Mr Howard deserves a third term in Office, Mr Murdoch?

RUPERT MURDOCH: Mm?

REPORTER: Do you think the Prime Minister deserves a third term in Office?

RUPERT MURDOCH: It doesn't matter what I think. You ask my editors.

REPORTER: Mr Murdoch, how do you think Kim Beazley would go as Prime Minister?

RUPERT MURDOCH: It would be very interesting.

REPORTER: Were they productive discussions with Mr Murdoch?

JOHN HOWARD: Well, we had a pleasant dinner.

REPORTER: Did you talk politics?

JOHN HOWARD: We talked everything.

MARK WILLACY: There's little doubt about that, given Rupert Murdoch's interest in media policy and the extraordinary influence of his Australian print empire. His response when asked if John Howard deserved a third term is well worth another listen:

RUPERT MURDOCH: It doesn't matter what I think. You ask my editors.

Rupert Murdoch was far more forthcoming on Kevin Rudd when he was asked by a journalist in April, 2007, whether or not he thought the contender would make a good prime minister. The reply then was, "Oh, I'm sure..." Big smile.

A note we received yesterday, from a person who claimed to be a former staffer in John Howard's office, said that it was common gossip within many government departments that when John Howard refused to hand over the leadership to Peter Costello at the end of 2006, Rupert Murdoch was less than happy. And that editors of at least two Murdoch Australian city papers, likewise, were less than happy.

The self-claimed former Howard staffer said that when Rupert Murdoch publicly appeared with Kevin Rudd in New York City in April, 2007, laughing and grinning after a long meeting at the News Corp. headquarters, and then dinner together, a climate of doom descended amongst many in the prime minister's department. The belief was that Murdoch had given Kevin Rudd the Big Tick, particularly after the "Oh, I'm sure" quote was aired, which meant Howard was probably finished.

The Sydney Daily Telegraph soon became very obvious champions of Kevin Rudd, and Howard suffered a sustained stream of extremely negative Daily Telegraph front pages, featuring large photos showing Howard looking old, stressed and confused.

But then again, one city newspaper doesn't win an election. Does it?