The Labor Frontbench

[Contra Mundum]

I'm thinking that Victoria could lose two spots. Sercombe and O'Connor will be replaced by Anna Burke and Catherine King. Alan Griffin will lose out - the Socialist Left have four spots for six Victorian members. Someone (maybe Thomson or even Macklin if Gillard intervenes to save Crean) is going to be squeezed out from Labor Unity too, if Burke gets her speculated promotion.

Anna is a nice women but is she up to it? She has had the inside Grouper running for a bit too long for my liking

 

[DaveW]

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,20878093-5005361,00.html

'New look' team Rudd to have old faces
By Maria Hawthorne
December 05, 2006 05:35pm

LABOR leader Kevin Rudd's new-look front bench looks likely to have only three new faces on it – and possibly only one who has never held a shadow portfolio before.

As Mr Rudd and his deputy Julia Gillard prepare to go on a 10-day campaigning tour around the country, four MPs are fighting for three vacancies in the 32-member shadow ministry.

Only one of them – former Midnight Oil frontman Peter Garrett – is a certainty.

The other three – Chris Bowen, Bob McMullan, and Craig Emerson – are waiting to see whether the final decision will be up to the new leader or decided by factional pressure.

Mr Rudd has vowed to choose the front bench he wants, raising expectations of a mass shake-up which would defy the wishes of the party's powerful factions.

"Look, I'm leading this party and if I want some new talent on the front bench of the party, I intend to get it," Mr Rudd said on Macquarie Radio today.

But it appears only minor changes to personnel will take place when caucus votes on Thursday morning – although a major switch of portfolios is expected.

There are three vacancies, caused by the departures of dumped leader Kim Beazley (of the Right faction), and disendorsed MPs Gavan O'Connor and Bob Sercombe (both from the Centre/Independent alliance).

Mr Garrett will take one of the Centre/Independent vacancies, despite not being a member of any faction.

Mr McMullan, trade minister in the Keating Government and an opposition frontbencher until he was sidelined by Mr Beazley, should technically be entitled to the second Independent vacancy.

That would leave Mr Bowen and Dr Emerson competing for the remaining Right vacancy – unless another frontbencher can be talked into making way for new blood.

Mr Bowen has gained respect within Labor ranks for his work with the party's industrial relations taskforce, but has never held a front bench position.

Dr Emerson, an economist, was a frontbencher under Simon Crean and Mark Latham, but quit after the October 2004 election in frustration with Mr Latham.

However, party sources say it has not yet been decided whether the second Independent vacancy will be allocated along factional lines.

"It should be the leader's call, pretty much within reason," one frontbencher said.

No one was prepared to speak publicly about potential portfolios today, although Simon Crean is rumoured to be a contender to replace Mr Rudd in the foreign affairs portfolio.

Lindsay Tanner is expected to be promoted to treasury spokesman, with Ms Gillard taking on industrial relations.

Until today, Ms Gillard had been thought to be pushing for the treasury role, leading Health Minister Tony Abbott to mock her in Parliament.

"I can understand why the new leader of the opposition is terrified of making the author of Medicare Gold his shadow treasurer, but the member for Lalor should not be allowed to wimp out of this challenge," Mr Abbott said.

"She should be given the chance to shine in treasury, just like she shone in health – and hasn't she shone in health?

"I leave it to caucus members opposite to judge how brilliant she has been."

 

[CharlieG]

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,20878093-5005361,00.html

'New look' team Rudd to have old faces
By Maria Hawthorne
December 05, 2006 05:35pm

LABOR leader Kevin Rudd's new-look front bench looks likely to have only three new faces on it – and possibly only one who has never held a shadow portfolio before.

This would be a major disappointment.

I'd *like* to see Garrett, King and A.Burke all enter the Front Bench for the first time. I actually don't mind at all seeing a few older faces - some mix of Faulkner, Kerr, Lawrence, McMullan and Emerson - return, but there needs to be a balance.

 

[DaveW]

Emerson's hardly an old face. Like Rudd and Gillard, he's from the class of 1998.

Routinely described - along with Tanner and McMullan - as one of the only Labor caucus members with genuine economic credentials. PhD in Economics from memory.

He must be returned to the front bench.

 

[CharlieG]

Emerson's hardly an old face. Like Rudd and Gillard, he's from the class of 1998.

Routinely described - along with Tanner and McMullan - as one of the only Labor caucus members with genuine economic credentials.

He must be returned to the front bench.

I was lumping all former frontbenchers in together, as opposed to those who haven't been there before.

Hurley, O'Brien, Lundy, Griffen and maybe Ludwig would all have to be struggling to hold on... or at least, you'd hope so.

I'm starting to think the numbers just don't stack up for a Lawrence return. Remove her from Ageing, Disabilities and Carers and retore Jan McLucas to her present position.

Who to put in the death slot of Vet's Affairs? Could potentially fall to Arch Bevis, who can't really miss out as Rudd's closest factional ally.

 

[evo]

You fellas didn't really mention Dr.Emerson.Economic analyst to the united nations.Sounds handy.

 

[CharlieG]

You fellas didn't really mention Dr.Emerson.Economic analyst to the united nations.Sounds handy.

I've got him in what I see as the fourth main economic portfolio, ahead of Crean in the fifth. You can't put him ahead of Tanner in the Treasury, or Gillard in IR. It then comes down to McMullan or Emerson for Finance, and I think McMullan has the points there.

 

[DaveW]

Wasn't Hurley, along with Tony Burke, one of only two promoted to the front bench during Beazley's reign? I'd say she's safe.

She was deputy leader under Rann. So she must have something going for her. [Interesting story actually: Hurley boldly abandoned her seat to contest a 'must-win' marginal. She lost. However, Rann scraped over the line into minority government. For this she was rewarded with a Senate spot.]

 

[GuruJane]

I understand what you're saying. I was simply putting things in context.

Might I respectfully suggest the context you raised - whether it was only one or more seats they lost - wasn't relevant. The context was that prior to election the Libs had heaps of marginals, Labor far less. After election the position is now reversed. Furthermore all Lib seats are now in category of "safe" - or "semi marginal". And many Labor seats have become marginal.

And well they might have been expecting to do well. (Although my recollection is that Labor was more excited about their chances in Queensland and South Australia.)

Wasn't privy to their private polling, but the grave, dismal face of the ALP secretary or whoever it was who appeared on TV at about 6.40 trying to put a good face on it, said it everything to me - ie that it was a wipeout for them no matter what he was saying. Saw the same expressions in 1975.

It was a depressing story indeed. But like I've asked before, have Labor (semi-)permanently lost these marginal seat voters to the Liberal fold? Or was it just an anti-Latham/anti-Scoresby backlash which will correct itself?

If it's the latter, then exaggerated margins are nothing for the ALP to be slitting their wrists over.

Look, I know must sound like a Jeremiah, but I can't help being very hard headed in political things. Historical precedent - swings of 5 per cent or above simply don't happen in Federal elections. It's damn hard enough to get a swing of 3 per cent. (The Libs didn't get 5 per cent swings in these seats, for eg)

So, you're right, Labor hasn't permanently lost these marginal seat voters - all I'm saying is, on the history, to get them back will take two elections, not one. And if we don't make inroads next year, then we're looking at 2013.

(Which is the major reason why I'm arguing with Charlie that Garrett in Environment is not the right appointnment - ie, imo, too much potential risk in an election that's going to be hard enough when Garrett can be employed more than usefully elsewhere)

Ok, this just isn't right. The boundaries of McMillan had changed. The more fertile Labor area around Morwell and Traralgon had been excised from the seat. More conservative area around Leongatha was added. Based on the corresponding 2001 booth, this was judged to be a notional Liberal seat of 3%. In that context, the swing in McMillan was much more modest.

Yeah, you can argue that from looking at the figures.

But I can say with (supreme! as always! ) confidence based on my own knowledge and experience that Labor would have been confident of holding the seat, regardless of the redistribution and even in event of statewide swing to the Libs, for the following reasons:

1. Incumbency is a huge advantage in regional or rural seats, more so than in urban.

2. State Labor held at least two State seats to my knowledge in the area with all the staffing, local knowledge blah blah.

3. Personal contact and understanding of their issues in regional/rural is ALL. And Labor had that understanding.

4. Altho am not privy to their private polling, my sense is that up until the timberworkers disaster they felt they were on track to hold.

5. Emotiona factor. Labor people were really responding to Latham's successes in the debate; his appeal to the Whitlamism that resides in all of us (although once it didn't, Dave! Whitlamism was once grounds for ex communication!), his refreshingly different and very-old Labor-in-new-generation-style, the published polls indicated not out of reach..

Was affected by it myself. Bought Latham's national security line - we should be defending here not Iraq (have never seen Iraq as an OZ problem), bought Medicare Gold as brilliant political stroke (maybe cos am closer t0 that age than would like to be, and also had aged parents still alive) responded his style because it seemed real, thought he was connecting to families on pertinent isssues... and so on, and so forth.

Hell - I was even going to actually vote for the first time since 1977 instead of informal.

Then Tasmania. Timberworkers. Howard's embrace for cameras. Knew instantly Labor was gone, the result would be dire ... on that issue ALONE but because it suddenly threw into relief for me how all of Latham's other policies - sheer reversion to Whitlamisim/Keatingism were one of a piece and would be DEATH in the marginals. Revelation: Latham was in the mould of Keating opportunist: he was electing a righteous appeal to the emotional Labor base (which is easy) instead of hard headedly pursuing a strategy to win and going out and selling it.

Didn't just vote informal as had been used to, was so angry had conned myself by Labor emotionalism, ripped the papers to bits.

Cumulatively a swing of that size might be rare. But within seats themselves it's no extraordinary feat.

Would be interested if you could substantiate this? Perhaps go back to the Howard "landslide" in 1996? How many of those seats were won by swings of 5 per cent or better?

I think this is unduly pessmistic. But again it comes back to whether you feel 2004 was some sort of 'base', or just an anomalously poor election.

All am saying is on precedent Labor ijn Vic has to rebuild over 2 elections now to get these seats back. Emotionally you might want to believe it was a "one off", but actually "one offs" don't happen across the board as this one did. It was actually a significant shift to the Right, underlined by the reduction in Dems and rise of Family First - and Howard winning the Senate.

Well we'll agree to disagree about their winnability.

Fine. But can you produce past evidence of Oppositions winning seats off the Government by swings of 5 per cent in a general election (ie not a by election OR as a result of extraordinary local factors)?

Yes some of the Labor margins are depressing. But to put a pro-Labor spin on it you might say that even in a poor election they still hung onto these seats.

Yes you could if you were putting a spin on it. But the fact is Labor had far less "marginal" seats at risk in Victoria in 2004 than the Libs did. Far less.And now they have infinitely more at risk in 2007 while all the Lib seats are "safe".

Maybe, maybe not. If momentum is with Labor (and it certainly should be), then the Liberals will put more resources into saving their own seats. They wouldn't want to make the mistake Kennett made in targetting the Dandenong seats in 1999!

Sure, if the momentum is with Labor, that's what the Libs will do. The point is they are defending a minimum 5 per cent buffer which normally puts seats in the safe category, so in Victoria they are pretty well placed, as they would know very well.

 

[Dry Rot]

You fellas didn't really mention Dr.Emerson.Economic analyst to the united nations.Sounds handy.

I've seen a bit of him on Lateline.

As useful as an ash tray on a motor cycle.

 

[DaveW]

Would be interested if you could substantiate this? Perhaps go back to the Howard "landslide" in 1996? How many of those seats were won by swings of 5 per cent or better?

Here's every seat that changed hands from Labor to Lib/Nat in 1996, and the swing involved:

Eden-Monaro: 9.2
Gilmore: 6.7
Hughes: 11.4
Lindsay: 11.9
Lowe: 7.5
Macarthur: 12.0
Macquarie: 6.5
Page: 4.4
Parramatta: 7.1
Paterson: 3.7
Richmond: 8.5
Robertson: 9.2

McMillan: 2.5

Bowman: 8.9
Capricornia: 6.3
Dickson: 9.1
Griffith: 6.2
Herbert: 9.0
Leichhardt: 5.7
Lilley: 6.9
Oxley: 17.9 (disendorsed Liberal)
Petrie: 9.8

Canning: 0.9
Swan: 3.9

Kingston: 3.4
Makin: 4.8

Bass: 4.6

NT: 5.7

Here's EVERY swing
http://www.mumble.com.au/federal/tables/shr_swing96.htm

 

[CharlieG]

Caught guessing again, Jane?

 

[DaveW]

For what's it's worth, the following seats started with Lib 2PP of under 45%:

Hughes (43.5%)
Lindsay (39.7%)
Lowe (45%)
Robertson (44.4%)
Bowman (42%)
Lilley (43.8%)
Oxley* (37.4%)
NT (44.7%)

 

[GuruJane]

I would suggest that an even bigger issue might be Greens how-to-vote tickets. There are a lot of seats where the Greens' 6-8% of the vote will be critical for the ALP, and most will follow the Greens' card. On that basis, the ALP needs to be talking up its environmental cred as much as possible. Garrett's the best man to do that. Regardless of what it might or might not do in Bass, Braddon and McMillan.

So now we get to it. You think Garrett being in environment will encourage Greens to give their preference to Labor?

Charlie, that's risible. The bulk of Green prefs has always gone to Labor, How is Garrett going to make a difference to that?

You think otherwise Greens'll flock off to give their preference to John Howard?

Now if case can be made Garrett can attract a higher primary vote to Labor, then you might have some grounds for argument.

Where is it?

Nice mantra.

Labor wasn't expecting to lose seats overall. So whilst you might be right about them expecting to hold McMillan, it doesn't really *mean* much.

Allow me to let you in on an insiders secret: it means everything

[

Just moved from a semi-rural fringe seat into an inner-city seat. So in my relatively short time as a political pundit I've experienced two of the three demographic types of seat.

Regional? "Semi rural" sounds like Eltham or similar.

I'm sure you know Morwell much better than I do (something about mocassins and smokestacks doesn't attract me to the place, I must admit).

Yeah. Did a lot of hard yards there in days when there'd been no Labor Govt either State or Federal in my (and my friends) living memory.

Smokestacks, moccasins doesn't often attract middleclass Left yearners, it's true. Pity they have the vote, but there you go.

Now, can we get back on topic? Why don't you have a go at apportioning the frontbench portfolios?

Dunno that much about them now.

The ones I do ..

Crean would be a good choice for FM but he can do anything. Crean was one of the best and most effective ministers EVER in Hawke and Keating Govts. Would have really given Howard a run for the money, but the yappers won and indulged themselves with Latham.

Kimbo was rooly, rooly, and self defeatingly stupid in not being loyal to Simon and letting him have his go against Howard. Now he's paid price.

Trade would be another good place for Crean.

McMullin - would like to see him back in Treasury. Personally think he would have made a good leader against Howard, but you yappers wouldn't see it. If not Treasury, Finance. Whatever, should be part of Leadership Group, as should Crean. Both know what it takes to win elections.

Tanner - gets big tick from me as Treasurer or anything major.

Swan/Smith - front bench but in less prominent portfolios. Both competent enough but self inflated way beyond their capabilities. Truly roosters, crow loudly to conceal their lack of substance but are dexterous operators. .

Macklin - an ace on policy - but for you mindless post modern yappers that's obviously not enough given the way you've excoriated her here. Keep her where she is, you won't notice her beavering away so you'll stop whingeing.

Gillard: Industrial Relations - let her stand or fall on Work Choices, the girl is worthy of the challenge, or so you yappers think. Well, let's see. She'll go for the challenge for sure coz she's a fighter.

Defence needs someone credible both to forces and outside given the US/Israel/Iran situation and regional worries - bring back Robert Ray.

Falkner should also be resurrected in some senior capacity. Maybe Health even? Something unexpected that'd get his braincells reignited.

Garrett - should get Arts and something else maybe in social policy. Nothing major at this stage.

Environment - no idea - except that Rudd should choose someone he can ride shotgun on this isssue as it could make or break.

As to the rest ... who cares?

Heh. Am I obsessed with figures, or am I a victim of post-modernism? Make up your mind.

You read figures and extrapolate from them what you perceive without knowledge, or information, or even a tilt at others experience and then represent it as a verity? Isn't this the essence of PM?

I don't intend to have a political career, so there you are.

Well, am sorry to hear that. Does this mean you are going to forever remain satisfied with airing your prejudices, exerting your opinions on political matters, being derisive to those with long practical experience who question you .... without ever getting into the coalface of reality yourself because you believe it is worthless? Again very PM as I understand it.

If so, pity. But typical Gen Y from what I gather.

 

[Dry Rot]

Since we're off-topic discussing marginal seats...

IIRC many commentators claim that these stats are meaningless in many Liberal marginal seats held by women. ie Howard (not by design) has a small army of great local female candidates who got (at the time) marginal ALP seats pre 1996 with not a great chance of winning.

But win they did, and they are now great local members, difficult to beat.

Discuss.

 

[CharlieG]

Since we're off-topic discussing marginal seats...

IIRC many commentators claim that these stats are meaningless in many Liberal marginal seats held by women. ie Howard (not by design) has a small army of great local female candidates who got (at the time) marginal ALP seats pre 1996 with not a great chance of winning.

But win they did, and they are now great local members, difficult to beat.

Discuss.

There's certainly a few of them.

The following seats were gained by female women candidates in 1996:
McEwen - Fran Bailey
Makin - Trish Draper
Forde - Kay Elson
Petrie - Teresa Gambaro
Gilmore - Joanna Gash
Dawson - De-Anne Kelly
Lindsay - Jackie Kelly
Murray - Sharman Stone
Hughes - Danna Vale

Murray and Dawson were both Coalition seats before '96, though, and Bailey had previously held McEwen from 1990 to 1993.

Don't know that there's any particular gender significance, though. Deakin, MacQuarie, Dunkley, Longman, Page, Leichhardt, Moreton, North Sydney, Herbert, Robertson, Eden-Monaro, Bradfield and Boothby have all been held by Coalition members that came into Parliament in '96. Canning can be thrown in too - it was re-taken by Labor and then lost again in 2001.

 

[DaveW]

Murray and Dawson were both Coalition seats before '96, though, and Bailey had previously held McEwen from 1990 to 1993

Forde and McEwen were redistributed into notionally Liberal seats prior to the 1996 election.

 

[Corpuscles]

If the ALP faithful were honest about Peter Garrett then they simply hope that his popular appeal accross mid age population will attract support to a more radical and therefore contrasting stance on green issues and capitalise on the basically 'unknowledgable beating hearts' who consider that Environment is a major issue, but don't know much else.

It is a major issue and Pete will attract votes.

But if he is Minister for Environment in a potential government he will need to deal with a growing push to deal with uranium and nuclear power. He can't escape those issues and neither can ALP simply turn their back on the world ...... if so then he would be politically a sitting duck.....

I do not think he will get a very broad Environment potfolio, maybe aboriginal affairs and some parts of the Water issue V Turnbull.

He is also not experienced enough nor economically minded enough to deal with a major portfolio. But it will be interesting

 

[CharlieG]

So now we get to it. You think Garrett being in environment will encourage Greens to give their preference to Labor?

Charlie, that's risible. The bulk of Green prefs has always gone to Labor, How is Garrett going to make a difference to that?

You think otherwise Greens'll flock off to give their preference to John Howard?

Now if case can be made Garrett can attract a higher primary vote to Labor, then you might have some grounds for argument.

Where is it?

I don't know if you've noticed, Jane, but the Greens are starting to get smarter with their prefs. Might be worth throwing the odd bone their way.

But regardless - overall Garrett should get Environment because... wait for it... he's the best man for the job.

Regional? "Semi rural" sounds like Eltham or similar.

Semi-rural. It means that some of the seat is rural, and some of it is not. Geddit?

Yeah. Did a lot of hard yards there in days when there'd been no Labor Govt either State or Federal in my (and my friends) living memory.

Smokestacks, moccasins doesn't often attract middleclass Left yearners, it's true. Pity they have the vote, but there you go.

Still going for cheap points, Jane? Some things never change. I'm not going to bite - but there's a fair chance that I'm a more likely Labor voter (even though I'm not) than you.

Dunno that much about them now.

The ones I do ..

Crean would be a good choice for FM but he can do anything. Crean was one of the best and most effective ministers EVER in Hawke and Keating Govts. Would have really given Howard a run for the money, but the yappers won and indulged themselves with Latham.

Kimbo was rooly, rooly, and self defeatingly stupid in not being loyal to Simon and letting him have his go against Howard. Now he's paid price.

Trade would be another good place for Crean.

Trade it will be.

McMullin - would like to see him back in Treasury. Personally think he would have made a good leader against Howard, but you yappers wouldn't see it. If not Treasury, Finance. Whatever, should be part of Leadership Group, as should Crean. Both know what it takes to win elections.

Because they did a great job as part of the leadership team from '98 to 2001 - when it's generally agreed that the ALP sat on its hands expecting victory to fall into their laps.

Tanner - gets big tick from me as Treasurer or anything major.

Swan/Smith - front bench but in less prominent portfolios. Both competent enough but self inflated way beyond their capabilities. Truly roosters, crow loudly to conceal their lack of substance but are dexterous operators. .

I fear that Rudd might be *too* conciliatory, and that Swan at least is looking like holding onto Treasury.

Macklin - an ace on policy - but for you mindless post modern yappers that's obviously not enough given the way you've excoriated her here. Keep her where she is, you won't notice her beavering away so you'll stop whingeing.

Do I 'have a good mind' or am I 'mindless', Jane?

I know that things get fuzzy sometimes, but please do try to be consistent.

Defence needs someone credible both to forces and outside given the US/Israel/Iran situation and regional worries - bring back Robert Ray.

Retiring. Won't happen.

Garrett - should get Arts and something else maybe in social policy. Nothing major at this stage.

I think you'll be surprised come Thursday.

You read figures and extrapolate from them what you perceive without knowledge, or information, or even a tilt at others experience and then represent it as a verity? Isn't this the essence of PM?

There is no essence of post-modernism, Jane. That's the point.

Well, am sorry to hear that.

Why? I would be ill-suited to parliamentary life, Jane. If I thought I could achieve anything in Canberra I would do it.

Does this mean you are going to forever remain satisfied with airing your prejudices, exerting your opinions on political matters, being [derisive to those with long practical experience who question you .... without ever getting into the coalface of reality yourself because you believe it is worthless? Again very PM as I understand it.

It's really bugging you that I haven't fallen on the altar of your forty years of self-styled dedication to the cause, isn't it?

You said yourself you haven't voted since '77. So you're either an astounding hypocrite (plausible) or your 'long practical experience' is indeed long (ago).

 

[Frodo]

So... who will take what position?

My attempt:

Industrial Relations - Gillard. She has a background in the area, it's going to be the election-shaping portfolio and she'll tear Andrews to pieces. She eluded the question on Lateline last night as to whether she would be Shadow Treasurer, and insisted she was 'happy to serve in any portfolio capacity that adds to Labor's chances". Reading between the lines, she won't be Shadow Treasurer.

Treasury - Tanner. Swan and Tanner are the other two chances for the job. Of those, it's hard to see Rudd put Swan - his erstwhile friend but now greatest rival - in ahead of Tanner, who's both more talented and a key supporter.

Foreign Affairs - Burke. This is a tough one, as Rudd was the only *obvious* candidate. The Australian has today suggested Crean... well, that would be a shock and a half. Burke has drawn level in Immigration - no mean feat for a first-term Shadow in a portfolio seen as a natural Coalition strength.

Health - Swan. Again, no obvious candidate. My guess is that Rudd will want to extend an olive branch to the Roosters - all with the exception of Conroy look like being demoted, but they can't be demoted too far - and Swan will hold his own against Abbott better than Smith will.

Education - Albanese. I might be crazy, but being married to Carmel Tebbutt, Rudd might see education as one area where Albanese can help 'end the blame game' between the Commonwealth and the states.

Environment - Garrett. No brainer, really. Knows the subject intimately from years as head of the Australian Conservation Foundation. Will be interesting to see what effect putting Garrett in will have on relations with the Greens. From an ALP view, they'd be hoping he can both mend relations (that have been sour since Latham's fall) and pinch back votes at the same time.

Attorney-General - Roxon. Been there since the 2004 election and has a background in the law before entering politics. Looks like being one of the few portfolios that will stay in place.

Defence - Smith. Again, the Roosters need to be demoted but not too far. McClelland has made no impact in the role since Latham put him there - although he might yet be rewarded for supporting Rudd with Foreign Affairs. Either way, Smith shapes as a decent match for Nelson in a portfolio where his complete lack of personality won't really hurt him.

Immigration - Wong. This could be a surprise choice. Does the ALP actually have the guts to put an immigrant in the Immigration portfolio? There's no doubt that Wong would comfortably measure up to Vanstone (well, maybe not literally...), and she has the advantage of being able to tackle her head to head in the Senate. Hopefully Rudd's willing to risk shabby shockjock polemics.

Child Care, Youth and Women - Plibersek. No particular reason to expect a change here. It's a natural strength area for the ALP and if Plibersek is given the profile she deserves then she'll keep the ALP in the game for at least a share of the progressive vote.

Finance - McMullan. I think that Comb-over will return to the front bench, and this is the logical spot. Tanner is ahead of him for Treasury and McMullan will replace him here.

That'll do for now. Might add more later. Anybody else want to have a go?

Portfolio a, b,c, d, e etc,

= dud, dud, dud etc,

until they get rid of ACTU power

 

[CharlieG]

Portfolio a, b,c, d, e etc,

= dud, dud, dud etc,

until they get rid of ACTU power

Sterling contribution. Thanks Frodo.

 

[- PC -]

I do not think he will get a very broad Environment potfolio, maybe aboriginal affairs and some parts of the Water issue V Turnbull.

I read he was going to start of with ''Minister for Climate Control ''

 

[Murray]

Portfolio a, b,c, d, e etc,

= dud, dud, dud etc,

until they get rid of ACTU power

Your post is ignorant of how the ALP works.

It would be akin the the Liberals getting rid of Business power

 

[Corpuscles]

I read he was going to start of with ''Minister for Climate Control ''

Very appropriate.: "How can we sleep when our front bench is burning" , ...."some say thats progress I say thats cruel" , "your dreamworld is just about to end".... "short memory must have a.."


......can't wait for the debates

 

[Dry Rot]

Very appropriate.: "How can we sleep when our front bench is burning" , ...."some say thats progress I say thats cruel" , "your dreamworld is just about to end".... "short memory must have a.."


......can't wait for the debates

BTW, has he shown in parliament that he would make a good minister?