What part of what he said do the luvvies think is inaccurate?
PS I note Fairfax now is in the sights as well as Murdoch?
Will the luvvies not accept that reporting on a shambles of a chaotic government is just that, reporting on a shambolic chaotic government?
Or has it all been good at the Labor helm and everyone rowing in the same direction?
And when it comes to censorship and muzzling the press I present Conroy and Roxon.
Quote:ROGER CORBETT: Well, the story is almost bizarre, isn't it? I think it's quite sad that the Labor Government made the decision to go with Kevin so late in the period. I think if they come undone in these elections it would have been much better that they come undone with Julia Gillard leading them than Kevin Rudd. In my view Kevin Rudd is a leader that has been really discredited by his own conduct. His colleagues sacked him because they judged him to be incapable as PM. He, it's alleged, was active against the Government during the elections, maybe true, may not be.
EMMA ALBERICI: In 2010, you mean?
ROGER CORBETT: Yes. The perception was that had a terrible effect upon Labor and probably put them into a position where they needed to enter into coalition with the Greens which was a very limiting factor in their last three years and they were destabilised in that last three years. Again it would be seen by a lot of Kevin's activities. So here's a man that really has done the Labor Party enormous damage, destabilised it and is now wishing to present himself to the Australian people as a PM and as the incoming PM. I don't think the Australian people will cop that, to be quite honest, and I think that's very sad for the Labor Party.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2013/s3840482.htm
Forum
Pages: 
