from politicoz ….

what they knew before ….

Julia Gillard's speech on Tuesday is the subject of much debate, and for good reason. It was an important moment in the life of this parliament.

The press gallery interpreted the speech critically, describing it in these terms: to defend the government's numbers, Gillard was prepared to protect Slipper. Her attack on Abbott was a cynical diversion.

But this interpretation ignores one crucial piece of information. Government strategists, including Gillard, knew in advance of her speech that Slipper's position was untenable. According to several accounts, this was widely recognised in government ranks; Phil Coorey goes so far as to say his decision to resign was supported by the government.

Why is this important? Because it makes a nonsense of the notion that Gillard was 'protecting' Slipper. 

At no stage in her speech did Gillard defend Peter Slipper's conduct – actually, she said she was offended by the content of the messages. Nor did she argue that he should remain in the Speaker's position.

She used her speech to make the point that the parliament should not accept the Opposition's motion, because the government considered it hypocritical. She didn't want the Opposition to claim a moral victory – which is quite different from defending Slipper.

When Peter Slipper decided late Tuesday afternoon that he would resign, the government did not try and stop him. In fact, it encouraged the decision. Yet less than an hour earlier, it had voted along with key crossbenchers Tony Windsor, Rob Oakeshott and Adam Bandt, to defeat a no confidence motion moved by the opposition that would have forced Mr Slipper out. From afar, it looked inconsistent… It was all about a loathing for Tony Abbott."

Watching her, you saw her eyes narrow and her shoulders almost shiver. It seemed, to someone watching on television as I was, that she was almost convulsing as she alternated between rage and disbelief… Gone was the wooden, robotic figure who has puzzled and infuriated her supporters. But it was not just the passion of her delivery that was so electrifying. It was what she was saying."

When you have the likes of Michelle Grattan, Peter Hartcher, Peter van Onselen, Jennifer Hewett, Geoff Kitney, Phillip Coorey, and Dennis Shanahan all spouting essentially the same line in attacking the Prime Minister – a line at odds with the many people's own interpretation of events – people wonder what the point of such journalism is… The point is, the reaction of ordinary people on social media shows in a glaring, almost cruel way just how out of touch political reporters have allowed themselves to become."

This is where Marr’s essay is invaluable. It identifies the character trait which, above all others, explains the Abbott puzzle. He is a man of chronic hyperbole, an attention seeker who cannot engage in public debate without exaggerating the faults of his opponents and their policy positions.