Search results for query: *

Hibbin's article mentions other members of the first rules committee, for instance, James Thompson, a journalist, is quoted in 1860 as saying "Football, as played in Victoria, is now fit to run alone...because we seem to have agreed on a code of our own". She gives Thompson credit for first...

From the latest article... For football's 150-year anniversary when the AFL commissioned the book, The Australian Game of Football since 1858, it went so far as to include a controversial piece by AFL historian Gillian Hibbins who labelled the idea a "seductive myth". "There is no mention of...

Fight for her Jonesy, she's sure the hell fighting for you!

From the same article, lower down the page... "I've seen some reports that this was a captain's pick, it was not. It was a decision of cabinet," Mr Joyce said. "I don't think it's giving too much away to say it was a majority." There are 23 members of Cabinet meaning the remaining two votes...

Changed the story? I think I've pointed out to you several times that cabinet voted 12 - 11 against Rudd and used the links you provided to support that. That it was a 'one vote one value' poll. Not a Captain's pick.

I haven't said the decision was made in the room although the numbers as reported were decided in the room. According to one of your links Turnbull made it clear to other members of the cabinet prior to the vote that he wouldn't be backing Rudd. Presumably everyone knew Joyce was backing...

So the 11 members of cabinet members who voted for Rudd thought they had 'won' and had a 'majority' despite the fact that Turnbull had made it clear to them that he wasn't voting for Rudd and presumably they all knew Joyce was backing Turnbull. They must have known that there were 12 votes...

I thought you may have had something beyond Laurie Oakes et al saying 11 cabinet members backed Rudd and this was somehow a 'majority' in a cabinet of 23. Then because Turnbull and Joyce held their votes back it was a 'Captain's pick' when in fact it was by all reports a 'one vote one value'...

Sorry I don't see 12 votes in favour of Rudd anywhere there. How you or anyone else thinks that 11 votes out of 23 constitutes a win is beyond me. Here's Barnaby Joyce confirming the result in case you missed it... "I've seen some reports that this was a captain's pick, it was not. It was a...

Do you have a source for any of that?

Sounds familiar...perhaps his view is what the PM's view is...perhaps he supports what the PM said...perhaps he's sure the PM's right...

12 votes beats 11 in a 23 member cabinet any way you look at it. Everyone gets a vote. Not everyone there met Rudd or knew him, some would have relied on Turnbull or Bishop's opinion others might have remembered Giĺlards. If Joyce relied on Turnbull's opinion so be it, its not abstaining.

Barnaby didn't say he abstained and he spoke publicly about this a few days ago. Where did you get that from? A vote is a vote and 12 beats 11. There's no need for a 'Captain's pick' so I'm not sure how that is confusing.

Errm according to the article there are 23 members of cabinet so even if you believe the number of 11 in favour of Rudd that leaves 12 members against. Why would you leave the PM's and deputy PM's votes out of a 'one vote one value' type poll? On those numbers cabinet voted in favour of not...

I think postal votes have to be applied for some weeks prior to the election by the voter. I doubt anyone could have picked one up on the Monday following election day.

I'd be surprised if this isn't wrapping fish and chips by Tuesday. Unless Turnbull made an unconditional promise in blood then it was always a matter for cabinet and Turnbull promised cabinet-style government when he took over. Letters from Kevin seeking to bind is hardly 'correspondence...

ta

Believe what you want. I've never seen any former leader opened up on like what happened with Rudd. Can't all be factional. No way in the world someone as divisive as that should be nominated to the UNSG job even if he is no chance of getting it.

Cox should be put in a taxi to the MCG

Excuse me if I don't buy the 'factional rivals who stabbed him in the back' guff. Rudd was swept to power after a decade in opposition and the ALP chose the hard road of getting rid of him and the opprobrium that went with that decision rather than keeping him. There is a list longer than my...

Turnbull had the choice of irritating a fair few in his cabinet/party/nation or drawing an angry tweet from Albanese and a rebuke from Plibersek. Not to mention the correspondence file. Pretty easy choice. If he 'did' Kevin slow on the way through well so be it.

Good decision Turnbull. Petty, my arse. There's been some comment from Albanese and Plibersek but I haven't seen comment from a number of Rudd's other former colleagues such as: Gillard Swan Conroy Roxon et cetera....oh wait...

Whatever.

Gee thanks for the abuse, you're a real charmer.

Well the Libs picked up the increase in the smokers tax in the last budget from the ALP so they do at times. The Libs also did a deal with the Greens last time to change Senate voting rules so I'm sure they're open to negotiation.

The Carbon Tax is gone. I won't hold my breath for the Medicare prospectus.

Not much point being a Coalition government if they have to adopt ALP policies to pass the Senate. I doubt the negative gearing or CG changes will be anymore popular next time around but we will see.

Of course, hence the use of 'privatise'. So when do I get my prospectus Mr Shorten?:):thumbsu:

If they reach 77 or 78 they have enough of a buffer to muddle through for a couple of years and make a late change if polls demand it. If the Senate wants to pass bills whoopie-doo, if not <shrug>.

I would have thought 'privatise' means what it has come to mean in ordinary usage, i.e. the selling off or floating of a publicly owned asset. Medibank Private and Telstra being the 2 major ones that spring to my mind. It certainly doesn't mean charging a co-payment because the word co-payment...