So, the Australian today has a lengthy article on how Shorten was instrumental, and brought across the late votes that swung it for Rudd – he was actively working the phones. The Fairfax media, namely the Fin, is saying that Shorten was not the king maker people thought, in fact he had hardly any impact at all, only 3 votes (2 people came across with him) and Gillard would have gone either way.
So, whose interests are being looked after here? My guess is that Shorten would like to have it both ways – he was decisive and on the right side of history so he’s clearly leadership material, but he is also not guilty of knifing a second PM in the back because that would make it hard for him to be leadership material.
It’ll be interesting to see if either paper changes their story over the next few days.