Should Rudd be backed for the UN Sec General Job?

[Subprime]

So I was wrong to assume you just didn't know and should've back my instinct that you were just trying trying to spin something which we all know the detail of. Good for you. But it's wasted space aiming it at me.

While the Liberals bicker over things so small and insignificant, they aren't concentrating on the country.

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' decision.

Oh and someone told someone who presumably told Laurie Oakes.

All that probably took about 5 minutes so I dare say the country will be ok.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

I thought you may have had something beyond Laurie Oakes 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' decision.

No, you didn't think that. I explained the situation clearly and you asked for sources. Then I gave sources and now you're saying:

Oh and someone told someone who presumably told Laurie Oakes.

Sure, mate. Let's all believe you over Laurie Oakes and every other political journo actually in the corridors of Canberra.

If you are one of these types who are ready to believe the whole media is conspiring against you, then you'll find lots of threads for you in SRP. But if you are just trying really hard to pretend that the Liberals haven't been in-fighting over an utter non-story all week then I don't think you're fooling anyone.

 

[Subprime]

No, you didn't think that. I explained the situation clearly and you asked for sources. Then I gave sources and now you're saying:

Sure, mate. Let's all believe you over Laurie Oakes and every other political journo actually in the corridors of Canberra.

If you are one of these types who are ready to believe the whole media is conspiring against you, then you'll find lots of threads for you in SRP. But if you are just trying really hard to pretend that the Liberals haven't been in-fighting over an utter non-story all week then I don't think you're fooling anyone.

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 against Rudd out of 23.

A story where cabinet votes 12 to 11 not to back Rudd isn't much of a story when you boil it down.

However when its 'Cabinet voted 11 - 10 for Rudd before Turnbull's Captain's pick' there's a headline and click bait which is what the media wants. If you can't see the difference then that's up to you.

If the vote had gone the other way the same journo's would have found a way to make it intriguing for you.

You'll have to forgive but I just don't see the commotion.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

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 against Rudd out of 23.

A story where cabinet votes 12 to 11 not to back Rudd isn't much of a story when you boil it down.

However when its 'Cabinet voted 11 - 10 for Rudd before Turnbull's Captain's pick' there's a headline and click bait which is what the media wants. If you can't see the difference then that's up to you.

If the vote had gone the other way the same journo's would have found a way to make it intriguing for you.

You'll have to forgive but I just don't see the commotion.

Nah, you're living in a fantasy land.

The media hasn't invented it. The Liberals themselves are leaking about it. The gallery will report what they are being leaked and backgrounded on. We only know the detail of the meeting due to the leaking. It's not like journos just spouted random numbers and suddenly the Liberals were tricked into agreeing they'd got the numbers right.

Joyce and you are trying to claim that the decision was made in the room. Everyone else says otherwise. As I've said before, maybe it was a calculation by Turnbull so he could be seen to make a move that the right-wingers wanted. i.e. A PR stunt. But that lack of clarity in the room is what the different sides in the party room have jumped on to claim that they won.

There is no need for there to be a commotion. As I said (before you said it). But that hasn't stopped the Liberals fighting over it. That's the problem.

The instability was predicted pre-election, but to be doing it over Rudd? Over a position he has no hope of winning anyway???

This sh*t is bananas. B-A-N-A-N-A-S.

 

[Subprime]

Nah, you're living in a fantasy land.

The media hasn't invented it. The Liberals themselves are leaking about it. The gallery will report what they are being leaked and backgrounded on. We only know the detail of the meeting due to the leaking. It's not like journos just spouted random numbers and suddenly the Liberals were tricked into agreeing they'd got the numbers right.

Joyce and you are trying to claim that the decision was made in the room. Everyone else says otherwise. As I've said before, maybe it was a calculation by Turnbull so he could be seen to make a move that the right-wingers wanted. i.e. A PR stunt. But that lack of clarity in the room is what the different sides in the party room have jumped on to claim that they won.

There is no need for there to be a commotion. As I said (before you said it). But that hasn't stopped the Liberals fighting over it. That's the problem.

The instability was predicted pre-election, but to be doing it over Rudd? Over a position he has no hope of winning anyway???

This sh*t is bananas. B-A-N-A-N-A-S.

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 Turnbull's decision.

That's from your sources.

The vote in the room shows 11 votes for Rudd and 10 votes against with Turnbull and Joyce apparently yet to vote but having a legitimate vote as members of cabinet. And everyone knows how they are voting at that point in time.

So how does anyone say there was a 'majority' of cabinet for Rudd when everyone knew at the moment the first 21 votes were cast what the final outcome would be? There is absolute clarity at that point.

How is it a 'Captain's pick' as reported, when Turnbull's vote had the same value as everyone else in cabinet?

A 'Captain's pick' implies the Captain has a disproportionate say in matters but the numbers as stated in your links don't support that. It was in fact a 'one vote one value' poll with a 12 - 11 split against nominating Rudd.
.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

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 Turnbull's decision.

That's from your sources.

The vote in the room shows 11 votes for Rudd and 10 votes against with Turnbull and Joyce apparently yet to vote but having a legitimate vote as members of cabinet. And everyone knows how they are voting at that point in time.

So how does anyone say there was a 'majority' of cabinet for Rudd when everyone knew at the moment the first 21 votes were cast what the final outcome would be? There is absolute clarity at that point.

How is it a 'Captain's pick' as reported, when Turnbull's vote had the same value as everyone else in cabinet?

A 'Captain's pick' implies the Captain has a disproportionate say in matters but the numbers as stated in your links don't support that. It was in fact a 'one vote one value' poll with a 12 - 11 split against nominating Rudd.
.

Why don't you change your story one more time so we can continue this chat for even longer? And then email it out to all the LNP members so you can try and claim that this was the only story the whole time along...

 

[Subprime]

Why don't you change your story one more time so we can continue this chat for even longer? And then email it out to all the LNP members so you can try and claim that this was the only story the whole time along...

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.

 

[Juddism]

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 against Rudd out of 23.

A story where cabinet votes 12 to 11 not to back Rudd isn't much of a story when you boil it down.

However when its 'Cabinet voted 11 - 10 for Rudd before Turnbull's Captain's pick' there's a headline and click bait which is what the media wants. If you can't see the difference then that's up to you.

If the vote had gone the other way the same journo's would have found a way to make it intriguing for you.

You'll have to forgive but I just don't see the commotion.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...-turnbulls-captains-pick-20160802-gqjlqz.html

The sources said Nationals Leader and Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce said he would support whatever decision Malcolm Turnbull supported. This is when the Prime Minister aborted the cabinet discussion and said he would make a "captain's call" instead.

 

[Subprime]

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...-turnbulls-captains-pick-20160802-gqjlqz.html

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 belonging to Mr Turnbull and Mr Joyce swung the decision against Mr Rudd but only after more of the Cabinet said they were in favour of Mr Rudd's bid compared to those opposed.

 

[smokingjacket]

Nah, you're living in a fantasy land.

The media hasn't invented it. The Liberals themselves are leaking about it. The gallery will report what they are being leaked and backgrounded on. We only know the detail of the meeting due to the leaking. It's not like journos just spouted random numbers and suddenly the Liberals were tricked into agreeing they'd got the numbers right.

Joyce and you are trying to claim that the decision was made in the room. Everyone else says otherwise. As I've said before, maybe it was a calculation by Turnbull so he could be seen to make a move that the right-wingers wanted. i.e. A PR stunt. But that lack of clarity in the room is what the different sides in the party room have jumped on to claim that they won.

There is no need for there to be a commotion. As I said (before you said it). But that hasn't stopped the Liberals fighting over it. That's the problem.

The instability was predicted pre-election, but to be doing it over Rudd? Over a position he has no hope of winning anyway???

This sh*t is bananas. B-A-N-A-N-A-S.

Just emblematic of the greater fight over policy in the party room one would think. Maybe a few noses put out of joint that they're not guaranteed unqualified support for international positions anymore either.

 

[Juddism]

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 belonging to Mr Turnbull and Mr Joyce swung the decision against Mr Rudd but only after more of the Cabinet said they were in favour of Mr Rudd's bid compared to those opposed.

The sources said Nationals Leader and Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce said he would support whatever decision Malcolm Turnbull supported. This is when the Prime Minister aborted the cabinet discussion and said he would make a "captain's call" instead.

not clear enough for you??

someone is lying..yeah?

 

[Maggie5]

There is no need for there to be a commotion. As I said (before you said it). But that hasn't stopped the Liberals fighting over it. That's the problem.

The instability was predicted pre-election, but to be doing it over Rudd? Over a position he has no hope of winning anyway???

The bold is the funniest part, Rudd is carrying on as if he was in with a chance.

Maybe Rudd has said to Shorten, you attack on policy I will carry on and do what I do best, leak.

 

[pazza]

Meanwhile good old Kev has decided to dump on from a great height.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...e/news-story/78d475c6b493658d4b0d219cdbea3867

 

[nicky]

Meanwhile good old Kev has decided to dump on from a great height.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...e/news-story/78d475c6b493658d4b0d219cdbea3867

Can you copy and paste the article?

 

[Juddism]

Can you copy and paste the article?

Malcolm Turnbull has fired back over Kevin Rudd’s exclusive interview with The Australian, saying the former leader’s “interpersonal skills and temperament” made him unsuitable to lead the United Nations.

Mr Rudd has revealed key details of four meetings with the Prime Minister last yearwhen he was encouraged in his global campaign to become UN secretary-general and accused the Prime Minister of a breach of good faith and trust.

Mr Rudd revealed that after the Prime Minister told him in early May this year that the government would not back him, the former leader continued his international campaign on the basis of a subsequent assurance by Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, who told him she had struck an agreement with Mr Turnbull for cabinet to consider the issue after the election.

Mr Rudd warned that Mr Turnbull’s decision a week ago to veto his nomination to be a candidate for the UN’s top post will damage the Prime Minister’s international standing. He said the decision will be seen internationally as a “monstrous intrusion” of domestic politics into the process.

Mr Turnbull today confirmed he told Mr Rudd that the former leader had “neither the interpersonal skills nor the temperament to be a candidate”.

“I’m not going to get into a debate about Kevin Rudd and his various assertions. The facts are pretty clear and the decision was a correct one,” he told Melbourne’s 3AW radio.

• MORE:Rudd tells all on UN job stoush

“At all relevant times he knew that this was a matter for the cabinet, he knew there would be no guarantee that he would be nominated if and when he asked for such a nomination.

“He was certainly told in absolutely unequivocal terms in May that my estimation was that if he went to the cabinet he would not be supported and I told him why.”

Mr Rudd also said Turnbull had initially supported his bid as Mr Rudd spent two years unofficially lobbying governments around the world to support his campaign.

Turnbull said he was aware that some of Rudd’s former center-left Labor Party government colleagues had described their former prime minister as a “control freak” and a “narcissistic psychopath.” But Mr Turnbull declined to say whether he agreed with those descriptions.

“I have noted that. ... I’m not going to get into a commentary on Mr. Rudd. I was very frank with him,” Turnbull said.

Mr Turnbull, asked about the schism between Ms Bishop and her cabinet colleagues, refused to comment on discussions between cabinet ministers.

“We all know the reasons why the government didn’t nominate him and we should all move on.”

Cabinet minister Christopher Pyne criticised Mr Rudd for drawing the country into “a myopic discussion of Kevin Rudd and his future”.

View image on Twitter

Follow
Kevin Rudd

✔@MrKRudd
Picking up your 4yo granddaughter from Kinderballet one of life's great joys.Lots of little possums in pink...KRudd

11:03 AM - 5 Aug 2016

• https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?in_reply_to=761366940694622208
  
• 
  4949 Retweets
  
• 
  422422 likes

“It’s all about Kevin, as usual with Kevin Rudd,” the Defence Industry Minister told the Nine Network.

“Since the announcement that we wouldn’t nominate him for secretary-general of the UN he has underlined why he is not a suitable candidate, because his behaviour has been quite extraordinary.

“The cabinet decided not to support him because, like you write a reference for a former employee or a friend, you shouldn’t do that if you don’t think that person is suitable for the job.”

Mr Pyne denied reports that a majority of cabinet ministers supported Mr Rudd’s candidacy.

“I’m not going to get into what Kevin Rudd wants … which is a myopic discussion of Kevin Rudd and his future. The truth is he’s no longer the prime minister, he’s no longer in parliament, the cabinet is not nominating him for secretary-general of the UN, and everyone needs to move on including Kevin.”

Senator James McGrath, a close confidant of Malcolm Turnbull, denounced Mr Rudd was a “whiner” who should “shut up”.

“Australia should get the Nobel Peace Prize for saving the world from Rudd,” he tweeted.

“I’ve raised my Rudd ‘wouldn’t (have my) trust to use a toaster’ warning to include jaffle irons, kettles and the remote control.”

Bill Shorten said Mr Turnbull’s apparent reversal in his support for Mr Rudd demonstrated his lack of authority within his party.

“Mr Rudd is clearly of the opinion that Mr Turnbull made a promise to him and Mr Turnbull has now defaulted on it because Mr Turnbull doesn’t control his own party,” the Opposition Leader said.

“If Mr Turnbull could do a deal with someone and then has to come back and say ‘sorry, I couldn’t convince all my right-wing minders to do it’, well what sort of stability does that promise us on all the other big issues in Australia?”

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share on email

 

[Power Raid]

all that money provided to African and Caribbean nations in an attempt to buy votes..........$100+m wasted

oh well..........it's only money

 

[CM86]

all that money provided to African and Caribbean nations in an attempt to buy votes..........$100+m wasted

oh well..........it's only money

What was the money used for in those nations?

 

[Power Raid]

What was the money used for in those nations?

Given it was Australia's money we should look at it from our perspective. If we wanted to fund schools, hospitals or infrastructure in foreign nations, then we should measure the success against the goal.

Unfortunately Rudd didn't have that intent.

Wouldn't it be great to waste $100+m on buying your next job?

 

[CM86]

Given it was Australia's money we should look at it from our perspective. If we wanted to fund schools, hospitals or infrastructure in foreign nations, then we should measure the success against the goal.

Unfortunately Rudd didn't have that intent.

Wouldn't it be great to waste $100+m on buying your next job?

So, what was the success vs the goal?
What was the goal?

What was the money used for in those nations?
You said it was wasted, so what was it used on?

 

[Power Raid]

So, what was the success vs the goal?
What was the goal?

What was the money used for in those nations?
You said it was wasted, so what was it used on?

It was used to buy Rudd his next job, by buying votes in the Carribean and Africa to secure votes.

 

[Power Raid]

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2012/s3613880.htm

 

[CM86]

It was used to buy Rudd his next job, by buying votes in the Carribean and Africa to secure votes.

So you don't know what the money was spent on in those nations, but it was definitely a waste?
What if the money has been used to save at least one life?
Or improve the life of at least one family?
In these impoverished nations.

Don't we have a possible position on the UN, but our PM blocked the appointment?

 

[Power Raid]

So you don't know what the money was spent on in those nations, but it was definitely a waste?
What if the money has been used to save at least one life?
Or improve the life of at least one family?
In these impoverished nations.

Don't we have a possible position on the UN, but our PM blocked the appointment?

in positions of power you have what is called "proper purpose"

like ambulances are allowed to speed and run red lights under certain conditions. they are granted this power for a "proper purpose". In the case they do the same thing under the same processes (lights on etc) but for another purpose, they have broken the law.

This is no different.

 

[Maggie5]

So, what was the success vs the goal?
What was the goal?

What was the money used for in those nations?
You said it was wasted, so what was it used on?

You know you wont get an answer. Waste of time.
Amazing though the Libs thought it a waste of money trying to get a seat on the security council but certainly took full advantage.
Not that I am a fan of Rudd though.

 

[Power Raid]

You know you wont get an answer. Waste of time.
Amazing though the Libs thought it a waste of money trying to get a seat on the security council but certainly took full advantage.
Not that I am a fan of Rudd though.

you are welcome to review DFATs reports on the matter but that isn't the issue.

Whether it is a Lib or a Lab is also not the issue.