Some Political History

It's sad when a former Prime Minister is reduced to ranting and raving on Twitter.

A medical professional might diagnose a combination of narcissistic personality disorder and relevance deprivation syndrome driving attention-seeking behaviour.

The rest of us might wonder why they feel the need to do what they do.

It's even more interesting when they feel the need to target me and my work on Sky News!

While a couple of PMs may fit the bill, I specifically refer to Kevin Rudd on this occasion.

Here's what he tweeted yesterday.

What is so special about this is how Rudd ignores the factual nature of my editorial. Everything I said is referenced and entirely defensible.

Sure, they might be inconvenient truths for any globalist bureaucrat, but being unhappy with facts doesn't make them any less factual.

It may be that Rudd didn't even watch the editorial and was bored and took his frustrations to Twitter.

Now, I don't really do Twitter, but on this occasion, I couldn't resist. Here is my response, and again, everything I wrote is accurate.

Malcolm Turnbull and Julie Bishop had both agreed to back Rudd for the top job at the United Nations.

Here's my initial letter to Julie Bishop when I first heard about it.

This was followed up in the Party Room at the first meeting after the election some months later.

I distinctly recall at the time that Prime Minister Turnbull didn't want any discussion of this matter because Cabinet was scheduled to make a decision in the next week or two.

This was confirmed in Rudd's reflections in the Australian newspaper in August of 2016.

Mr Rudd continued his international campaign on the basis of a subsequent assurance by Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, who told him she had struck an agreement with Mr Turnbull for cabinet to consider the issue after the election.

Despite Turnbull's protestations, I put the case to the Party Room, citing some of Rudd's own words and reminding them of Rudd's erratic history.

With hearty support from colleagues for my position, Turnbull and Bishop had nowhere to turn. They were forced to break their promise to Rudd to keep their own positions.

I have no doubt he is still bitter about it today.

On occasion, some jokingly remind me that getting Rudd to the UN's top job might have been a clever ploy to destroy the UN from within. If only that were the case.

Unfortunately, we are stuck with both the United Nations and Kevin Rudd. The best thing we can do is ignore the pair of them.