I tend not to rate Lenore Taylor as one of the best journalist going around. Although it’s my humble opinion I tend to find she buys a bit into the narrative views of politics eg Howard was a formidable campaigner, conviction politician, stuck rigorously to his beliefs, down to earth guy, completely unpretentious, man of steel, knew how to get things done, tenacious political warrior blah blah blah. Most of her work (including to some extent her most
recent article about the tremendous freefall of Kevin) reflects this and like many opinion writers she come across as someone who develops an idea on instinct, articulates it then researches retrospectively.
None the less she does research well and I recommend people have a squiz at her most recent article in which she discusses the inner divisions of the ALP on the CPRS. The liberal party is quite open about who sits where on climate change and generally where the alliances are but most oppositions are quite transparent except when they appear headed for government (eg NSW liberal.) The government is more opaque so it’s always interesting to get these little peaks. Peter Garrett, the man who Rudd in 2007 said would be delivering an ETS was not consulted at all but was apparently inclined to see the double dissolution trigger.
Mark Arbib somehow had a voice in the matter which perhaps indicate how reliant Rudd is on the NSW right faction if Julia moved against him, or rather how close the NSW right are to leaving him. Arbib was supposedly in favour of scrapping the whole thing, Lindsay Tanner, a member of the so called “gang of four” was naturally consulted and deadest against such a thing.
Swan who in some corners is rumoured to be a climate skeptic and is probably the most senior man in the right wing branch of the QLD ALP is apparently the architect of the delay. Or atleast the senior minister most strongly in favour of it. Gillard agrees with Swan but was less emphatic in her views.
Wong thank god was consulted and was aghast at Arbib’s proposal and I gather was in favour of reintroducing the legislation and going to the polls like Tanner and Garrett. I got the impression watching insiders this morning (Taylor was on the panel) that Combet was not initially consulted in the same capacity as Wong and the gang of four but got wind that the Kitchen cabinet plus Wong was going to decide and after it became apparent he knew, he was consulted and argued in favour of the election trigger.
Rudd himself was allegedly unsure, I think Taylor is wrong and that he probably had an idea but by claiming indecision he was more able to get honest and candid feedback from his inner sanctum. It fits in with the “Rudd is a coward” image that he didn’t voice a firm view, but that’s different from him having no opinions of his own which would be quite extraordinary given his position.
Like I said I think the conclusions Taylor draws are not that great and probably drawn before the research was done but the research is quite good.
