Wayne Sanderson emails to provide an update to this story.
First he denies that he was MichaelF.
Second, and more importantly, he confirms the major aspects of the story in a letter to the Australian
ANDREW Fraser was right (“It wasn’t Kevin, it was me”, 27-28/3) to debunk the clumsy attempt by Piers Akerman to directly link Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan to the disingenuous hospital attack ads run by state Labor in the 1995 Queensland election campaign.
In this regard, Akerman attributed to me comments that I did not make, then put his own interpretation on them, and I’m pleased Fraser has highlighted the discrepancy.
But Fraser then goes on to claim responsibility for having told me, as the then state political reporter for The 7.30 Report, about the “rancid turd” theory of political campaigning. I accept I may have had a conversation with Fraser about the subject, but my source for that particular insight was the then ALP state secretary, Mike Kaiser. Which is to say, I did not exaggerate the standing of my source, as Fraser suggested.
Finally, while it’s true as Fraser says, that Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan “weren’t involved in the day-to-day work” of Labor’s failed campaign, they were key members in the brains trust behind it, and regularly attended morning meetings of the “A-Team”, held in the Executive Building, to plan and coordinate strategy.
and also in a post at Pure Poison.
In fairness to Kaiser, he did no more than explain the thinking. He did not own the tactic, nor the scatological title that he passed on for it – the “rancid turd’ theory – nor did he say who was involved in putting it together. He merely explained the thinking behind it.
About three weeks later, I included reference to that theory in my talk to the political wonks who gathered on August 15 for the APSG forum and have never mentioned it publicly before or since. There it stayed until Akerman came across the forum transcript on the internet and linked Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan to the tactic in his article.
Now, I did not make that link in my talk, and I have no knowledge of what involvement, if any, Rudd or Swan had in implementing the “rancid turd” theory. To be fair, perhaps one or both argued against it behind closed doors, although as members of the A-Team behind Labor’s failed campaign, they have to carry some of the collective responsibility for it.
Sanderson has outed his source of information as Mike Kaiser and confirms (what we already knew) that Rudd and Swan were involved in the 1995 campaign and must take some responsibility for the “rancid turd” strategy adopted at that election.
still no evidence but Sinkers lives in hope.
A person who is behind this theory is a lot more involved than being at the A team meetings.
that is politics talk for overall grand strategy.
Both Rudd and Swan needed to be out in the electorates they were hoping to win/retain.
A certain tollway proved more important than ads about hospitals
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
1 Apr 10 at 4:59 pm
Health and hospitals were the key issue that won it for Borbidge. Antony Green also argued that voters were vicariously clobbering the widely hated Paul Keating. The tollway was a local – albeit metripolitan issue – not a state-wide one. Homer is wrong again.
I don’t quite understand why all this is considered remarakble. It has been reported that Rudd’s inner spin doctors still use the approach now. They’ve deployed the politics of personal denigration to attack Hockey, Joyce, Pyne and Abbott. This is not an accident. It’s strategy.
C.L.
1 Apr 10 at 5:29 pm
At some point in time someone will tow CL out to sea and sink him, as a fish sanctuary he might finally prove to be of some use
rog
1 Apr 10 at 8:34 pm
Sinclair, for a supposedly edificated professorial type you seem to be just a wee bit short of inspiration viz
you quote certifiable non luminaries like Bolt and Monckton
you quote deniable sources (I am not him) on non stories (he did what?)
you quote dead people’s opinions (like von Mises) on current events (dont blame me, I was dead at the time)
you use talkback footie commentators as expert opinion on economics (she was askin’ for it)
Time to smell the turds
rog
1 Apr 10 at 8:46 pm
rog – this is a blog FFS. It’s supposed to be fun.
I don’t get the reference to the talkback footie commentator.
Sinclair Davidson
1 Apr 10 at 9:56 pm
No Sinclair, you wouldnt.
Ray Hadley
rog
1 Apr 10 at 10:06 pm
you quote certifiable non luminaries like Bolt and Monckton
Rog cites North Korea and Zoo magazine.
HAHAHAHAHA!
Hey Rog, if I do go to sea, it would only be to marvel at the whale slaughtering for tourists idea you proposed at Jennifer Marohasy’s blog. Who knows, with you doing the books, it could become a $310.58 billion concern.
C.L.
1 Apr 10 at 10:21 pm
Ray Hadley isn’t a celebrity in Victoria. I’d never heard of him until I read the op-ed this morning.
Sinclair Davidson
1 Apr 10 at 10:41 pm
Hey Rog, you hypocritical venomous loon. For you to be criticizing any… any freaking source used by sinc or others after you linked Zoo magazine as an authority ought to get institutionalized next to homer’s cell.
JC1
1 Apr 10 at 11:48 pm
Akerman and Sanderson are now fighting it out over at Pier’s blog. Reckon they should both give it a break. No-one wins a debate like this, everyone emerges looking and smelling soiled given the subject.
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/piersakerman/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/sanderson_and_rancid_turds/
The Dirty Digger
2 Apr 10 at 3:46 pm
I have never “linked Zoo magazine as an authority” – another absurd construction from a deluded underachiever.
rog
2 Apr 10 at 4:22 pm
Ray Hadley isnt a celebrity anywhere – just another shock jock – and whats this about quoting celebrities?
rog
2 Apr 10 at 4:24 pm
For CL being all at sea is his natural state.
rog
2 Apr 10 at 4:26 pm
Why didn’t Sanderson come onto this thread if he was happy to post over at Akerman’s? Is he afraid of Catallaxy matching his IP?
Michael Fisk
2 Apr 10 at 5:37 pm
Rog, here’s that sentence re-written by someone who proceeded beyond junior certificate level:
“Being all at sea is CL’s natural state.”
Keep working on it, Zoo man.
C.L.
2 Apr 10 at 5:42 pm
That sounds better CL, nice of you to offer your services
rog
2 Apr 10 at 7:26 pm
To set the record straight-
Goss actually won the 1995 election – but only just. The central reason for the poor Labor result was the loss of the so-called “Koala” seats in Brisbane’s Bayside area. Goss had announced that a major toll road would go thru the local bushland which, according to the Greens, destroy koala habitats.
It was extremely unpopular in the electorates and the Greens recommended their members not to second preference Labor.
And the rest is history – Labor a third term with a one seat majority (which lasted about 6 mths).
Although there were other factors – there always are – the central reason for the poor electoral result was the proposed toll road thru the “Koala” electorates. Nothing in particular to do with hospitals!!
ennui
3 Apr 10 at 11:32 am
[...] commenter Ignatius Reilly on the basis that he was the latest manifestation of Michael F – the usual legal threats from journalist Wayne Sanderson arrived. Mind you not addressed to me but the Rafe, Judith and [...]
Ignatius Reilly at Catallaxy Files
10 Jun 11 at 1:54 pm