@dlowan,
I don't know about that, Deb.
I think Cheryl K's affair with a prominent Labor politician at the time had a lot to do with the flack & fall-out which occurred.
My recollection was that that her problems with the ALP came to a head when she complained publicly about landing a
very marginal seat to contest in the following election. The ALP was in the business of recruiting "celebrities" (with little history in the party) at the time & gave most of them them a pretty easy run. Not so for Cheryl Kernott. I believe she was treated pretty shabbily at the time by the ALP, for whatever reasons. She had considerable credibility as a Democrat prior to the debacle with the ALP. Her political career was ruined.
As to Julia & the "Carr issue":
Yes, she denied that Carr was being considered for the foreign affairs position... just before Carr was endorsed in the position.
Who knows what happened & why?
I certainly don't.
But, when you think about it ... why
shouldn't the ALP leadership be talking to those
they consider the best replacements for Mark Arbib? What is actually wrong with having done that?
Nothing, really
Bob Carr is a respected part of the ALP establishment.
He would be considered a viable & respectable choice within the ALP.
The real question, I think, is WHY is considering him as a replacement for Mark Arbib should be considered some sort of conspiracy by the likes of Michelle Grattan & co?
What were the alternative replacements?
Possibly he was the best alternative available.
As to Gillard denying he was being considered ....
Perhaps at that stage of negotiations it appeared that he would not take the position?
In any case, political parties conduct these sorts of behind-the-scenes negotiations all the time.
Usually they are kept
within the party until the negotiations reach some conclusion the party is happy with.
Not so in this case.
It seems to me that the the Gillard government is being subject to highly unusual scrutiny. Special treatment. I can't recall too many other governments (or opposition parties) being subject to the same level of day-by-day scrutiny.
Something very different is happening here.
And if the political commentators apply the blow torch to Labor in this way, why are they not doing exactly the same to the Liberal Party?
Why are they not relentlessly pursuing Abbott & co about what their (so far) wishy washy "policies" will actually
mean for ordinary Australians?
Why are they not relentlessly querying the LNP about the likely losses of jobs as a result of their policies?
Why are they not doggedly pursuing Tony Abbott to explain how he is actually going to fund his promises to the electorate (if the "mining tax" goes out the window if his government is elected)?
I am sick & tired of the
one way blow torch.
And I am sick & tired of any issue within the Labor government being blown totally out of proportion by the media!
-
