It is wrong to assume that because you have hit a nerve with some people you are therefor correct, does this even need to be explained to you? you should understand this already, especially if your a teacher

What about some research into the Ashby/Brough affair? A Fed Court Judge accuses them of trying to manipulate the legal system to adversely influence our democracy!

Yet this story has sunk without a trace. The media murdered the AWU "scandal" - unsupported and 20 year old gossip - for over a year.

Ashby/Brough? Less than a week. Address the media bias, Michelle, you have been a long term insider, have you not?

Why should Rudd explain himself to you? WE know he has no faction other than the ALP as a whole and he was right to complain about Gillard's worthless tax.

And her inhumanity towards refugees, gays, lesbians, single parents and other minority groups she is brutalising in ways Howard only dreamed of.

Hear, hear. Please let's see some focus on serious defects in Liberal policy, especially "...how about putting some of the opp climate change policy up to the light. Not only would the policy not work all of the people supposed to be implementing it do not believe in the science..."
Last night on ABC's Q&A Greg Hunt asserted that electricity demand was 'inelastic' as if that were true and relevant to his argument that a carbon pricing scheme was inappropriate. Electricity demand has fallen -it is a fact- and even if Hunt had been correct on that point, a carbon price levels the playing field so that more carbon intensive generation does not get to pollute for free. Why are the liberals really opposed to a market mechanism? Cynical populism? Refusal to accept the science that demands urgent action? If they won't accept expert advice on this, on what other serious matters might they ignore expert advice? Please apply the flame torch of scrutiny to Abbott and co.

I concur. This article is a beat up. Go way Ms Grattan until you can get it right. Simply not good enough.

Agreed, it sounds more like a snitchy comment that slipped out more than a tactical move. It isn't the electorate he has to convince.

Agreed. I came to read the Conversation to get away from this sort of "blather, wince, repeat" nonsense. Grattan is an embarrassment to what was a worthwhile forum for ideas.

It seems as if Michelle has just changed offices, not briefs. I agree whole heartedly, this 'commentary' does not meet expectations of The Conversation. Disappointing.....if not annoying.

Completely Agree

Glad the message is being sent to Ms Grattan and "The Conversation". No need to lower the standards.

I agree completely and repeat the reasons for emphasis as per preceding comments:

This is the third article from Ms Grattan on The Conversation, and all have been woefully short of the standard expected from this site.

Is this is to be the level of analysis put forth for the coming election from The Conversation, I shall know to look elsewhere.

I completely agree - a vacuous piece on a tedious subject.

There is no insight, substance or understanding provided, just a series of mundane observations laced with asinine insinuations and rendered utterly worthless by the sheer number of unverifiable sources.

Yes, it does rather read as if MG was sitting at the table listening to the tactics being formulated by Rudd and his supporters. Hard working academics must feel pissed off. I think a tipping point has been reached by The Conversation.

It's not important in any real sense. It's important for Michelle Grattan, because it provides an excuse (any will do) to denigrate the P.M. She's been doing it for the last three years, and getting away with it because it sells papers or clicks for The Age.

Many commenters have complained repeatedly about this ongoing personal smear campaign by Grattan, with no effect. Perhaps we will have more impact here.

I agree, only a very petty and shallow person would zoom in and focus on this and then use it in a character assasignation

I'd like to see la Grattan reply, or attempt to answer, critics of her leaden prose and dubious evaluations. In the ether now, no longer protected by deference to decrepitude for prejudice & poor comprehension of the "real" world.

Like most in Australia, Bishop would not get within bargepole reach of Rudd,

You must forgive the delusional Michelle for her use of
"hyperbowl" It goes with the politics.

Agree, the sooner the ALP passes as much of their social policy as possible the better, and then in 12 or 18 months time the liberals want to call a double dissolution so be it. Bring it on.After all what can they then say, the oposition is only being negative. or that they are only representing the people who elected them. Cheers

What dismal performance - it's on track after having to sort out some contractual issues which were more Telstras doing than anything else.

Meanwhile the tech industries are behind the plan in a huge majority.

That's a frankly baseless assertion. It's a good thing you've retired, you don't seem to be following things to well nowadays.

I agree that Labor should cut Rudd loose. He's done a lot of damage to the Labor Party by serving his ego above all else. Really sad.

Read my original comment and see if you can respond to any of it.

That would be known as having a "Conversation" ... not just testing.

well it's more like shooting a messenger who left the note back at home. If there was any substance to the article, I would agree with you, but there just isn't.

There is a difference between criticising someone's comment or view and just criticising someone for commenting

You have posted 3 or 4 times this "Dont shoot the messenger" nonsense, you havent actually made any valid points yourself except to tell people to shut up

Actually, what is the meaning of "there is less certainty about how his play will end"? As time runs out and he doesn't challenge, it could be said there is more certainty that his time has come and gone. I suspect this has no meaning in MG's mind, it's just stock in trade meaningless blather .

I would LOVE to discuss the character, and what he was up to, and who he likes, and all that good stuff. Trouble is, this isn't a gossip column. I am not attacking Michelle when I ask that her articles be more objective and well researched. I really mean I want that. "The trouble with Kevin" is just not a pressing issue for the nation. I know she missed the scoop last time, but she should really keep her powder dry on this until she has some firm evidence of a spill. It's just bland reporting and offers nothing to an inquiring mind or a conversation that leads anywhere. I'm giving it two stars John.

Nick's Rating:**

Hey John, there's a cut off here for "Read More". I made the cut, so my post wasn't "verbose" as you call it.

Grattan rarely, if ever, had comments enabled for her columns in The Age, and I never ever saw her respond to one of them.

She likes to pontificate from on high. Unfortunately The Conversation is a relatively fact-based publication.

The best suggestion I saw here was for her to write one column per week, properly researched, not just rehashing publicly available information and giving it political spin.

That's why I started reading The Conversation. the writers here have to back up what they say, AND provide a disclosure of interest, which Grattan has not.

I disagree. Comments in MGs articles in the Age were rarely disabled. I know because I have made many many comments on those articles over the last 2 or 3 years.

Elder is by far currently the best political commentator writing on Australian politics. The really funny bit is that he isn't even a left winger,( he is centrist at best), but his criticisms of the right and the manipulations of the mainstream media are devastating. To top it all off although he does often analyse personalities in depth he does it in a context of also analysing policy positions in depth and walking through the social implications and possible variations of outcome. Grattan should take lessons from him on how good journalism can be done in the post-MSM era.

"Journalist Interviewing Journalist" is a general term for journalists arrogating to themselves the status of being the only worthwhile commentators on political issues.

Your previous post supported this by putting the proposition that since Grattan is some kind of "Journalism Professor" were were not entitled, or even qualified to disagree with her. We should just lap it up like good kindergarten kiddies and nod furiously.

Many readers come here to get away from the MSM horse race rubbish. They're sick of being spoon fed slanted commentary on what is already public data. They're sick of gaffes, gossip and convoluted obsessions with trivia.

OK John let's talk about petulant Kevin... but not for long - yesterday's man - especially after this silly little pompous session yesterday.

First up - OK Rudd back as leader - so what? What would be different? A surplus? Sole Parent Benefit restored and doubled? A totally re-engineered front bench and Cabinet a few months out from an election? Tear up the deal with Tony Windsor? All for been-there/done-that Kevin?

In other words, really who cares?

Kevin's immense bureaucratic ego cannot let a chance go by to puff up his own personal interests. And - on cue - the Press Gallery leaps to fan the flames of this sad little bloke's delusions. There should be a law - arguably they are contributing to and encouraging his madness.

This week several senior Labor figures raised the prospect of Rudd playing a more active role for the Government this year. Not now he won't. Stupid little kid.

See if Rudd was serious - if he really had something to offer - he'd cop one for the team and gradually make himself invaluable again and be re-admitted into the team. But no - this is all about Kevin - and his messianic calling and his immense injured pride.

But increasingly impossible as a return to the Lodge might now be (other than in the fantasies of the Press Gallery and a delusional Rudd) the real issue is - what difference would it make?

How would our politics be actually different - what decisions would be reversed or altered? None. Not now. Too bloody late Kevin and not enough in it to make it worthwhile.

Sadly this self-perpetuating cycle of unsourced gossip is what the 24 hours News Cycle and the "end of history" has done to run-of-the-mill journalism... it just grinds on noise.

PS if you want a smile - have a google of "Who are the Rudd backers".... page after page of references to unnamed or anonymous "backers", October 2012 deadlines, Rudd backers claim numbers ...not a single name - not one.

It trivialises politics and insults the Australian punters to feed up this sludge as news or even political commentary. It is shallow, ill-informed and ill-considered gossip.

But it is extraordinary to watch our national press - our fourth estate - being dragged around by the nose by this bitter and ambitious Tin Tin. Outa be a law.

Fair comment mate, I think we will be destined to disagree about how accurate Michelles Observations and Framing are and how much they reflect of reality as well as how productive that is, but I appreciate the response

An astrology column for The Conversation... the possibilities are endless.

"Madame Mesma and her Crystal Ball" perhaps?

Of course we'd need a lonely hearts section too. Perhaps Michelle could do that?

"Dear Michelle,

Two years ago I was dumped by my party. Since then life has been pretty meaningless. I just sort of drift in and out of TV studios and keep bumping into cameras outside church. People take everything I say the wrong way. To take my mind off things I even cut up some old stumps after the latest floods. But none of it really helped. I keep hearing voices whispering in my head that I should try and get my party back.

What should I do?

KR of Queensland"

Perfect reply Lisa.

Time to start donating to IA, conversation has now been infiltrated by the right wing media. What were you guys thinking? Did you actually think MG would attract viewers/hits?. I think you will find the opposite. She was a dud investment. Tony Dummet aka Bushfire Bill would have been a better investment, at least you would have got the truth not Lieberal spin.

I don't think Michelle wants to "get stuck into" Abbott somehow. Judging from some of her recent columns in The Age, giving him friendly advice on how to jazz up his act, just the opposite actually.

There was also the recent comment from Bob Katter that Michelle gave him a lot of advice during the Hung Parliament negotiations. As Bob went with Abbott, one wonders what that advice was.

On the one hand we have a government, governing, with hundreds of pieces of legislation passed - itself an achievement with the numbers the way they are - versus an Opposition who could have passed legislation but didn't, whose leader literally turns his back on journalists at pressers and who has done only soft interviews over the past two years, and who says he has policies "ready to go" but months later they're still being written.

The MSM tells us the government is lame-duck, so their policies are moot, and that Oppositions don't "do" policy. Neat eh? No need to discuss policy, only belly fluff.

Trevor,
Not sure what this has to do with what I wrote but I'll give it a shot
1) Agreed. Lower prices equals lower profits equals lower tax revenue. When revenue goes up (in the next reporting period?), tax will go up, one assumes
2) The allowable depreciation should be constant. Is this the case or was it part of the deal? I'm not aware of this but that doesn't mean it is not the case
3) Agreed. Basically, this is the old "states rights" in play. The sooner we get rid of the states, the better off we'll be. But try to get this through to the Tories. They go spare when councils get amalgamated
4) Agreed. They have way too much say for foreign owned entities
5) Rubbish. Do you think she wasn't advised?
6) Rubbish. Childish rubbish at that.
7) Probably. However, we are dealing with a public that in the main doesn't want to educate itself and will vote against it's own interests. You only have to look at the polls when Abbott revealed just how much he is going to screw the little Aussie battler - so far. Doesn't seem to bother them. So why wouldn't they side with a Swiss owned miner?
8) Maybe, but I think you're over-simplifying things here. Just because Abbott says it doesn't mean it's true. And it's not like the MSM is going to pursue it, or anything else that might derail Abbott's campaign. Which brings us back to this column and the value of it. I don't see any value, particularly when the writer quotes the lead actor as saying "that he was “unfamiliar” with what undertakings the pair had provided to the mining industry at the time". End quote. Meaning he is admitting he pretty much doesn't know what he's talking about. Not going to stop Michelle in her crusade, though.