That’s a bit of irony, by the way! But I was interested to see Crikey come out with this:
But you get the sense Turnbull also gets worried whenever he’s out of the headlines for any length of time. In politics, sometimes a low profile can be useful. Sometimes it’s best to let attention focus on your opponents. But Turnbull may not have worked that out yet.
That’s actually what we’ve been saying for a very long time, most recently in this post.
What I’d add to it is that Malcolm also doesn’t realise that people aren’t all that enamoured of politicians constantly being in their face. That was one of the big things that played against Howard last year – people finally got sick of all the ranting and raving, the constant “changes of the national conversation”, bombastic personal attacks, etc, etc. This is why Kevin Rudd’s measured and calm style works politically – he’s positioned as the safe pair of hands, and the opposition come across as the permanent politicians. And guess what? (As KRudd might say) – Australians don’t like politicians as a rule.
“And guess what?”
nah, Kevin’d say “And y’know what?” or “Let me level with the Australian people”
or “We’ve appointed a review of this vital area of policy responsibility aiming to end the blame game and the – quite frankly – pointless buck-passing that passed for government under our predecessors, and may I just say that I and my Ministers have declared war on …….”
Consider how John McCain focused on ‘winning’ the media cycle: Palin, the Obama-Paris video etc. it counted for zip in the end.
Yes, a good point, Geoff. There was an article in the Fin yesterday or the day before arguing that the Rudd mob have become less focused on their initial obsession with “winning the media cycle” and maybe if that’s the case, then it’s a good move!
Huh? Rudd isn’t in peoples’ faces? He was more in peoples’ faces than Howard even before he became opposition leader. Further, at least Howard let his ministers speak on his behalf. Finally, Rudd has this celebrity fetish which he insists on flaunting at every opportunity.
Even the most vainglorious leader we’ve had – Whitlam, wasn’t this bad. His trick so far is to do it without Whitlam’s Foghorn Leghorn arrogance, but the beaming, teachers pet act will wear itself out eventually. Personally, I was worn out while he was still shadow foreign minister.
I think any damage is cumulative. 11 years is about as long as the public will put up with any single politician running things. You need to be in peoples’ faces to get elected in the first place, but then that starts putting people off from the get go. It would make an interesting graph.
Rudd is in people’s faces being Prime Ministerial, Craig, or at least that’s the public perception, no matter what political junkies think. Those approval ratings come from somewhere – contra the punditariat, they’re meaningful. The contrast is with the highly politicised style (negativism, personal attacks, nitpicking, etc) that began to envelop the Howard government in its dying days, and which has been continued on by the Liberal opposition.
I have my criticisms of Rudd, but his media style isn’t one of them, To put it bluntly I was mightily impressed to see a jet-lagged PM in storm-ravaged Brisbane, and I’m sure the victims of the storm felt a little bit better he was there. I mean, Beaseley managed to go to Port Arthur and various other scenes of tragedy in his tenure as Opposition leader. Where was Malcolm? watching a movie in Cunnamurra. Not Sydney, where he wouldn’t have got a look in. Cunamurra! Not hat I’ve got anything against Cunamurra.
Come on, Mark. Howard was being as ‘Prime Ministerial’ when he was Prime Minister as Rudd is now. People got sick of the sight and sound of Howard after 11 years, and they will do so with Rudd for the same reasons, given time – regardless of how Prime Ministerially he gets in their faces. Howard had good approval ratings early on as well. Over time, the 47% will grow to 51% and the Libs will get back in. Some balance, please.
All that may be true, Kymbos, but I think we’re talking about the current political situation, not (reasonable) conjecture about what might happen in five or ten years or whenever.
Agreed, Mark, but you seem to be suggesting that Rudd is a different species to Howard, and he’s not. Rudd being everywhere is Prime Ministerial, but Howard doing the same was highly politicised? I’m sorry, but that doesn’t bear close scrutiny. Already, I can’t watch Rudd on telly, and I’m rusted on. It’s nauseating watching him, and I think his approach to the media has many similarities to Howard.
For mine, most people just don’t watch and they don’t care – as long as he doesn’t f*ck up too badly, they’ll not change their votes in a hurry. But stick around too long and they’ll get sick of the sight of you.
Meanwhile, Turnbull has to try to get noticed and he’s doing it the only way an opposition leader can. I maintain that you’re being harder on Turnbull than he deserves, and I reckon the electorate will give him more of a chance than you do.
To clarify, Kymbos, I think Rudd is being more Prime Ministerial in the sense of the earlier Howard – so maybe we’re in agreement there. I think Howard began to lose it in the last term when he really started to seem alternatively shrill and confused.
I’m not a huge fan personally of Rudd’s public persona either.
I’m not sure I agree with you on Turnbull – I’d refer back to the thread we had earlier in the week on him and the polls. I think he’s played a poor innings so far, and I suspect Possum is right that he’s turned off some support that was potentially his for the taking. The problem with opposition leaders is that they really have to fill in their image early, and if a negative or an indifferent image takes hold in the public mind, it tends to stick. That’s not to say that he’s incapable of turning it around, but I do think he needs to take a very different tack.
Fair enough, Mark. There has been a lot written about Turnbull here recently. We shall see. I think he’s on a learning curve and has a chance to make the Libs a true ‘liberal’ party over time. Not a huge chance, but that’s primarily due to circumstance. They’ll be a while in the wilderness, and it’s unlikely any leader at this stage of the cycle will take them to victory. But I don’t think he’s the numpty he’s described as being here at LP.
I think they should use the double team of Rudd followed by Swan far more. First Rudd’s either beaming/solemn but pleasant visage, followed by the instant soporific that is Wayne Swan with the details. It’s perfect, as nobody stays awake long enough to find out exactly what the initial pleasantries were softening us up for.
I think the Liberals could do something similar with Joe Hockey and Christopher Pyne.
The old Phil Ruddock formula. Why not? It worked extremely well for him.
Nah Craig, Ruddock was simply unpleasant to look at, like any rotting corpse. Swan has an incredible gift for inducing drowsiness – he should probably come with a warning label about not using heavy machinery etc. after contact. It’s a pleasant change from the last lot however, who couldn’t do a press conference in their last year without getting the camera flecked with indignance powered spittle.
I remember Bracks before the ’99 Victorian election had a policy of rarely attacking Kennett. He just kept pleasantly repeating what the Labor Party had to offer and after Kennett’s abrasiveness, it worked a treat. But I guess that’s a difference in personality between Turnbull and Bracks. Bracks must have a strong ego to become Premier, but he kept it tightly under wraps.
Malcolm was in the West yesterday supposedly stirring the possum ahead of the COAG meeting. Whether the pivotal West Australian players in the new Great Game were listening intently or with bemusement to his suggestions of tactical moves to derail the process remains to be seen. Perhaps he has changed his modus operandi to a more backroom role but I doubt it. He loves to display his prosecutorial style in order for the voters to understand and learn what it “really really” means to be really really great.