Prime Minister Julia Gillard visited Yarralumla this morning to see Governor-General Quentin Bryce and the 2010 Federal election will be on 21 August. Writs will be issued on Monday, and enrolments close at 8pm. You can enroll, or update your enrollment here.
This will be the first election since 1993 when neither major party leader has ever led their party to an election. The contest is finely poised, with Queensland in particular a key battle ground: 16 seats in that state are held with margins less than 5%, and Labor’s result in 2007 was only the third time since WW2 that the party has gained a majority of the two party preferred vote.
In her press conference at midday today, Julia Gillard sought to relate the narrative she’s been constructing about her personal background and value to wider election themes. She framed the election as a back to basics one, seeking to entrench the risk factor of voting for the Coalition, and particularly Tony Abbott. The PM is also triangulating between the opposition and Kevin Rudd, defending Labor’s record while distancing herself from the perception that Rudd eschewed the largely quotidian concerns he exploited so well in the 2007 election campaign for a grand narrative which ended in disappointment.
Julia Gillard only sketched out a policy framework, with important questions on climate change and other key policy areas remaining to be filled out during the campaign. She sought to take the asylum seeker issue out of play, emphasising the points of agreement between Labor’s stance and the Coalition. Gillard tried to neutralise the Liberals’ debt and deficit message by painting the Coalition as the party of cuts and austerity, and much of her rhetoric centred on certainty and stability – minimising the impact of Kevin Rudd’s overthrow and trying to reclaim the government’s incumbency advantage.
She offered some contrition for first term stuff ups, promising that lessons of poor implementation would be redressed. The PM emphasised the closeness of the election in order to fend off protest votes.
Her key themes for the campaign are a strong economy, equality of opportunity, working together and dispelling fear, summed up in the ubiquitous phrase “moving forward”. The pitch is to the suburban marginals, on economic management and values in a time of uncertainty. Trust is a major theme, and no doubt we’ll be seeing a lot of Tony Abbott’s notorious 7.30 report interview during the campaign.
Julia Gillard’s performance was assured. Tony Abbott, by contrast, speaking from Brisbane where he’d ambiguously promised to embrace Labor’s Fair Work Act (but with a bit of “tweaking”), got off to a very shaky start, with a surprisingly quick address to the media. He didn’t convince as an alternative PM, struggling to move beyond the posture of carping opposition leader. He also emphasised trust, pointedly asking whether Julia Gillard could be trusted by the people if Kevin Rudd could not trust her. Abbott has a parallel problem to Gillard: just as she needs to both embrace and distance herself from her predecessor, he wants to claim that the Howard government gave us competence and security, while avoiding the very real negatives which led to its rejection in 2007.
But one thing is certain in this campaign: both parties will emphasise cost of living pressures and the “lived economy” concerns of suburban marginal voters. We shouldn’t expect much inspiration or grand dreams from either side, but a focus on the quotidian and a contest over which party can convince the electorate that it’s a pair of safe hands in a turbulent world. The asylum seeker issue is very much intertwined with that set of concerns, but it’s unlikely to dominate the campaign as much as it has the lead up.
Update: The complete audio of both press conferences is online – Julia Gillard, Tony Abbott.
Elsewhere: The Poll Bludger and Mumble.
Update: Antony Green identifies suburban and regional seats in Queensland and NSW as the key contests, with less likelihood of seats changing hands in WA, SA and Victoria.
Elsewhere: Tim Dunlop, Guy Beres and Alex White, and Peter Martin posts the text of the PM’s presser.
Update: The complete audio of both press conferences is online – Julia Gillard, Tony Abbott.
I find both leaders very droll and uninspiring with not much to offer on substance or even in terms of character
Julia Gillard’s press conference was exceedingly slick and polished -full of the cliched buzzwords and PR gimmicks which have characterized her whole tenure in office so far. She seemed to have nothing new to offer in terms of policy beyond the usual catchphrases which she has recycled over and over again with nothing to define her as a leader in her own right. Her attempts to contrast herself favorably with Abbott were weak and fell flat. Her “moving forward” rhetoric was painfully transparent for what it was -an effort to make voters forget about her deceitfulness and treachery in knifing Rudd and to try and excuse her amateurish posturing under the pretense of leadership that she has been engaging in over the past few weeks
Abbott was even worse. He couldn’t even be bothered to make a proper opening statement at his press conference beyond a few rushed and garbled tired old cliches. He sounded like he hadn’t prepared for his press conference properly and made no effort to present a convincing case to voters on why he should be regarded as a credible alternative or to dispel perceptions that voters had about him and his personal style. He sounded like he was effectively, for lack of a better term, attempting to “cut and run” and avoid closer scrutiny of his agenda and his persona. I think his press conference was perhaps one of the worst I’ve ever seen from a political leader
Not a good start for either of them but I think it painted a very accurate picture of both of them -they are both unfit to handle the responsibilities of government and are both amateurs in their most transparent form
I was very unimpressed by both performances. Gillard’s constant use of phrases like “moving forward” “taking Australia forward” etc make what she is saying sound much worse than even some of the more ridiculous Ruddspeak that I have witnessed. She sounds like an Artificial Intelligence that is failing the Turing test. Gillard does have that capacity to be an excellent communicator and make important points in a plain-speaking sort of way, so I am somewhat surprised by this debacle. It seems like someone in her office is stuffing up her communications strategy.
Abbott’s speech signalled that there will be a lot of scare-mongering about taxes and boats – in other words a fundamentally dishonest campaign, a form of dishonesty that was fine-tuned in the Howard government. I agree with Mark that he sounded like a carping opposition leader. When he took questions, he would, ah, sound nervous and give what sounded like a “standard response” which he sounded like he did not necessarily believe.
I think Gillard’s election slogan should be; “I think I’m a more normal person than Tony Abbott”.
Why do they think that saying ‘moving forward’ 22 times is effective in getting a message across? I simply don’t get that. I think she came across as very warm and articulate. But, no policies yet.
The ABC’s video package about Abbott was highly unfavourable. It was all about his stuff-ups last campaign and his admittance that he can’t be trusted to tell the truth. Whereas the package they put together about Gillard was far more favourable.
In response to spana, not that I would describe myself as an ALP defender, I would say that the short answer is that the ALP is either slightly better than the COALition in some key issue areas eg health, environment, education, infrastructure and slightly less bad in others eg indigenous affairs [just] same sex marriage, immigration.
In some areas the ALP is clearly superior eg issues that relate more directly to women [gendered violence, welfare to work, family law reform, noting that the COALition is a complete disaster in these areas], economic management [miles ahead of the near total incompetence of the Libs and Nats], maybe water and sustainable environment/economy.
Foreign affairs basically little difference but managed by the ALP far more professionally.
Basically the ALP is the slightly less bad, or putting it the other way, the slightly better alternative of the two.
We deserve a government better than the ALP, we do not deserve to be punished by the horror that would be the Abbott COALition.
Which is why I will be supporting the party that is clearly the best on most of the issues and that is the Greens.
Vote 1 Green.
Vote 2 ALP
Indeed, Fine.
We get it. You have a slogan Julia. You don’t have to cram it into every sentence. I remember a 2004 Chaser radio phone-in prank where Chas got “ease the squeeze” in about a dozen times in under a minute – that was satire then but Gillard just did it for realz.
@Fine “Why do they think that saying ‘moving forward’ 22 times is effective in getting a message across?”
They don’t. But most people will see a 30 second extract of the speech on tonight’s news, if they see it at all. Most people are not like me, and I assume you, who were glued to the ABC coverage of the election being called.
JG is the master of the sound bite. If she wants there tonight’s news to have her saying “moving forward” she’ll simply make sure she says it often enough that whichever 30 seconds they use, it’s got the key phrase.
HANNAH’S DAD – totally agree. This election is going to go down as the one that the Libs threw away: the freebie election. Malcolm Turnbull must be crying his eyes out right now.
I’m trad labor but would love to see the greens pick up three or four inner city seats. Think that is quite possible, because labor really is treating its progressive wing with contempt.
On another point: at the last election the libs had to pay backpackers to man some of their booths. Labor will soon be so soulless it’s hard to imagine the grass-roots getting very active.
I guess you’re right Rebekka. Irritating, though.
Elsewhere: The Poll Bludger and Mumble.
Well, I don’t trust Abbott. Wouldn’t believe a word the Hairy Ape says. That said, so far, Gillard is less than inspiring. This ain’t gonna be an ’07 election. And what’s with August 21 instead of August 28. Seems to me Labor is running scared.
Update: Antony Green identifies suburban and regional seats in Queensland and NSW as the key contests, with less likelihood of seats changing hands in WA, SA and Victoria.
With her new hair style and pearls (I wonder if they are real), PM Ranga is morphing into Jeannette Howard. She look she’s just stepped out of the 1950s. I don’t like it, but I presume the strategists have advised her that it is a good idea to look as conservative as humanly possible. The better to hold those Quensland seats, I suppose.
@Paul Burns, a six week campaign is the unusual option, she’s gone for what governments almost always go for, so I can’t see how you could possibly read “running scared” into that.
Abbott is presenting austerity as the disempowerment of bureaucrats and as a way of putting the economy back into the hands of regular people. In his mouth it is meant to sound progressive, almost like worker’s control. If Labor were not themselves a neoliberal party, they could easily say: yes, Abbott is right, people and not bureaucracies should make major economic decisions. Let’s let the people decide directly whether the money should be spent on the occupation of Afghanistan, or on hospitals and renewable energy; on whether Telstra should be a public utility; on whether medical care should be free at the point of delivery. But they don’t want that any more than the Liberals do.
Abbott really wants economic decisions to be made, not by the conscious democratically expressed will of the people, but by the market – an inhuman Leviathan even more terrifyingly faceless and unaccountable than the ALP bureaucracy. Labor are not equipped to make a real counterargument, not least because the home insulation scheme now lets the media talk about the stimulus as if it were the Great Leap Forward.
@sam, never takes anyone long to start commenting on what a woman’s wearing, even if she is the PM and such things should be irrelevant.
Rebekkah, the point is she is obviously trying to change her image to uber-conservative. That is relevant.
The one and only reason to vote Labor (or at least preference them slightly higher) is that the other side is worse. That’s it. There are only reasons to vote against the Liberals, there are precisely no reasons to vote for Labor, at least as they stand today. Tony Abbott is a horror of a man, so right wing, immature and intellectually lazy that he makes John Howard in hindsight look fairly reasonable, which is saying something. The ALP stands for nothing other than pure unadulterated political ambition, and holding on to power for its own sake. Whilst this is obviously true of the Liberal party too, it’s a shame that we can’t expect more from the ALP. As it is, the very best that can be said for Gillard is that she is an excellent politician. But so what.
If Gillard had taken over but Turnbull was still leading the Liberals, Labor could be in serious trouble with this election. Alas, the only thing holding back the Coalition’s chances now is Abbott, the man himself.
The sweetest victory of all would be The Greens taking Granyndler, but not one seat more.
The bizarre thing about this election is the extent to which one can see Rudd’s error. Basically — he blinked.
In mid-2009, the opposition was in near total disarray. When Garnaut came out, all the government had to do was insist they were going to implement it, put it to the senate and then declare that with Copenhagen looming, the Australian people were entitled to declare their confidence in the policy framework to be taken to that meeting. The government would have run on carrying out its 2007 promise against an obstructionist senate and having saved the economy from the worst of the GFC, against the ideological objections of the pro-recession and pro-workchoices, climate change divided opposition. Rudd would have won a smashing victory against the opposition and got control of the senate alongside the Greens and Xenophon. He would have been impregnable.
Instead, he hesitated and began to trash his man of conviction brand. He became another politician and suddenly, he didn’t look like such a good one because the other side wouldn’t play ball.
Was there ever a time when the aphorism: he who hesitates is lost seemed more clear?
@samh, “Rebekkah, the point is she is obviously trying to change her image to uber-conservative. That is relevant.”
(a) she didn’t look any different today from how she always looks – suit and necklace.
(b) both male Labor and male conservative pollies wear suits and ties – does that mean male Labor pollies are “obviously trying to change their image to uber-conservative”??
(c) wtf does whether her pearls are real or not have to do with whether she’s trying to convey a more conservative image or not?
Keep digging.
FRAN – You’re totally right. But to add a nuance, he didn’t just blink, HE LISTENED TO JULIA. Bad, bad mistake.
But funnily enough, the mining debate was starting to restore some of his credibility as a man of conviction and then he got knocked off.
Sam
Women have been wearing pearls long before Janette Howard’s 21st birthday party you know.
Rebecca @ 16.
Oh. well, I guess I goofed. But why didn’t she go to August 28 as every one was tipping.
Paul @24, six week campaigns are interminable, and a five weeker is a safer option. Also, aren’t the Bulldogs playing for a finals slot on the 28th?
Rebekkah, if a male pollie changed his suits from ordinary ill fitting off the rack (see Beazley, K), to bespoke pin stripe, then that would an attempted change of image to conservative.
If you think Gillard doesn’t look at any different then you need to see an optometrist.
I was wrong about Jeannette Howard. The PM looks like Margaret Thatcher, circa 1981. It’s all so in keeping with the – I really hate this word – narrative that she has been projecting over the past week or two. She’s the hard working battler made good who understands how difficult life is for other hard working people.
And she is definitely no radical threat to anyone – just look at those pearls and drop earrings – unlike that wild crazy man,
Mark LathamTony Abbott.Its only been 10 minutes, and Im already over the ALP slogan. Mind you, I haven’t seen the coalition’s yet.
My major critique thus far: I cant imagine why Julia would reject the 3-debates format, when Abbott’s only real chance of victory is hiding from the public for as long as possible.
Get him in front of the cameras, ALP.
@samH, here’s Gillard in 2007. Here’s another one. Here she is in 2009.
Explain again how this suit and necklace thing is a radically new look for her?
LEFTY E – Because the labor apparachiks believe this election is a gimme because Tone isn’t electable. Therefore, the whole campaign should be about risk-minimisation.
Indeed, getting rid of Rudd was basically about (they thought) risk minimisation. Rudd had a few too many policies “up in the air” so he had to be dumped for someone “without a past”.
Maybe that’s the influence of the NSW right which (let’s face it) hasn’t had to fight a serious liberal contender for years.
But I think Labor is playing with fire and getting too cynical by half. Sometimes the most dangerous thing is to do nothing.
Sam, I’m with Rebekkah – she is wearing nothing different from her standard look – a waisted suit-jacket and a necklace. The only thing slightly unusual is the jacket colour of white, but its style and shape is totally Gillard’s trademark look.
With regards to her hair, she’s been mocked for changing her hairstyle frequently for years now – showing up with a different hairstyle than she sported a few weeks ago is absolutely nothing new.
I can only conclude that you simply were not paying attention to her “look” before, and are making assumptions from ignorance of her pre-existing “baseline” image.
Also, how many decades out of touch are you with wondering whether the pearls are real? That was a snide question asked in the days before mass-production of cultured pearls made real pearls affordable for the average ‘working family” (to employ a hackneyed phrase). The question has been absolutely irrelevant for at least 30 years.
And strictly speaking Mark, what the leaders have done do not constitute “gambits”. Neither of them have offered a sacrifice in order to lure the other into a positional error large enough to cost them the match.
If I were doing chess analogies I’d say this was headed into a very passive line of the Four Knights opening (or possibly at best, the orthodox lines of the Ruy Lopez. The battle is clearly over the control centre of the board, and the capacity of white to safely make the strategic advance, e5! Both will castle kingside and Black will try for counterplay on his right (the Queenside) to restrain the advance.
Had Gillard been making a gambit, she’d have called a double dissolution on health rebates and climate change. Perhaps we’d have called it the Queen’s Gambit, in keeping with the chess theme.
Hmmm … perhaps this isn’t the place for meta-chess commentary.
@fred “LEFTY E – Because the labor apparachiks believe this election is a gimme because Tone isn’t electable. Therefore, the whole campaign should be about risk-minimisation.”
That’s obviously not true. They dumped Rudd because it was looking like Tone was going to win. They cannot therefore think he’s unelectable.
I’d let Tones speak for himslf. Really I would. He’s borderline barking – and has difficulty hiding it.
Are we forgetting how Rudd toasted himin the health debates. Ive never seen an oppo leader get such a bath.
One debate is a mistake.
REBEKKA – I should have clarified: they think Tone is unelectable against Julia. So Julia has has to whisper sweet nothing in our ears until polling day and she’ll head straight to the lodge.
Commenting on the clothing worn by a [woman] politician.
Pitiful.
And only relevant in how it reflects on the commnter.
No Rebekka, they dumped Rudd because they couldn’t control him.
But really this is old news, you should be moving on moving foward
Lefty E, not to mention the swearing at Roxon on television incident. Didn’t that just leave him looking like a glowing hero of the people.
REBEKKA – Hell, actually, now I think about it, maybe they even thought Tone was unelectable against Rudd, but they just wanted to get rid of him before he had another election win under his belt. Wouldn’t be surprised.
FRAN – Looks like five weeks of tortuous end-game to me as both players hand the advantage to the other, but neither seizes the chance because they’re too busy trying not to lose rather than to win.
@fred, ah, thanks for clarifying.
@adrian, really, coming from the person who has whinged on every single thread since Rudd was dumped about Rudd being dumped and how you’re not voting Labor anymore because of that dastardly Ms Gillard, you telling me to move on is somewhat ironic.
I have no comment but to simply congratulate Malcolm on the brilliant Freudianism “droll and uninspiring”.
I think a lot of Rudd’s problem was/is that he is/was a sartorial catastrophe.
Will the Electorate remember what they voted for last time and all the promises unfulfilled, all the waste of their tax dollars, all the failed policies and backflips?
Will the Electorate learn from the last ACT, NSW, QLD, VIC, TAS, SA and NT state/territory elections – don’t believe all the apologies, mea culpas and promises to fix the wrongs – you will still get the same old ALP – it’s not the policies so much as the culture that is sclerotic, cancerous and rotting at the core.
Somehow I doubt it.
Just don’t let the Greens get the balance of power. Australia is better than that.
adrian
I am with Rebekka. Really! Also, for someone they could not control, you nevertheless insist they had no trouble dispensing with him.
I just hope that Malcolm Turnbull manages to retain his sanity between now and 21 August as he watches both leaders bumble their way towards the finishing line, throwing policy and principle overboard. Still, if Tone does win, I reckon he’ll last about a year before Malcolm knocks him off.
I’m not so sure Fred. This is a timed game (not quite Blitz but maybe Lightning) and moreover, a draw is out. In the end, one side will be timed out.
Gillard has the initiative can force a won end game by putting Abbott in time trouble and drawing the error.
I want to clear the air a little on comment about appearance and demeanour of our presidential candidates. I say presidential because there is so little to differentiate the parties of neoliberalism that the election will be substantially one of style over content. On that basis I think that comment on appearance and demeanour is fair enough especially as Abbott has played up his manlness so much. This is a gendered election and we may as well face it. That said, it would be good if comment actually addressed the nuances of the gendered presentation of the candidates otherwise we will ave to constantly defend against accusations of sexiam where waht we may (hopefully) be doing is attempting to factor in the gendered element.
So far one commenter has noted that the PM has adopted a conservative dress code. Fair enough, it seems to me, as she’s not able to adopt the standard business suit of dominant masculinity. Abbott will invariably be athlete Abbott or bloke boy if he goes for a winter swim as well as building site boy (hard hat, shirt sleeves) or farm boy (shirt sleeves and hat with ‘lastic sides). Politician’s drag.
As to demeanour – I spent several hours last night editing old footage of Thatcher whose fiercely icy manner caused me no end of trouble extricating my testes from the inguinal canals this morning. That’s the way I’d be advising the PM to go: anaesthatize the facial muscles, clip the vowels, dress like a 1950′s child removal specialist. That’d be a winner I reckon.
FRAN – I concede.
A couple of people on this thread seem to have an humour bypass. Understandable I suppose.
anthony nolan
That cost Thatcher (or the Conservative Party) tens of thousands of pounds to perfect.
@anthony nolan “So far one commenter has noted that the PM has adopted a conservative dress code. Fair enough, it seems to me, as she’s not able to adopt the standard business suit of dominant masculinity. ”
Yes, agreed. Except said commenter was trying to claim she’d done it in the last five minutes when she’s been dressing in conservative suits for years.
ANTHONY – The big problem with Julia emulating Maggie is that Maggie actually stood for a few things. The mining tax debacle immediately showed that Julia is for turning (180 degrees sometimes)
@Razor,
Preposterous. I’ve long been of the opinion that having a Senate with the balance of power not held by either major party is the best of all possible House of Review configurations.
For those of you who don’t get the sydney morning herald, the editorial today was headlined: “THE HOLLOW WOMAN MOVES US FORWARD – TO WHERE?”
I think that’s self-explanatory.
@adrian, yeah, because it’s so darn funny listening to people carping about what a woman looks like.
Oh no, wait, it got old about 50 years ago.
I wasn’t referring to that Rebekka, but to your misinterpretation of my earlier comment.
hannah’s dad:economic management [miles ahead of the near total incompetence of the Libs and Nats],
Bwahahahahahaah
Sadly, I don’t think you were joking when you said that
Actually neither was highly competent PeterTB but Howard/Costello’s incompetence was a matter of doctrine and constituency whereas Rudd/Swan’s was down to error driven by exigency.
Rudd/Swan did a less bad job than Costello, on the best available evidence, would have done.
tigtog:Preposterous. I’ve long been of the opinion that having a Senate with the balance of power not held by either major party is the best of all possible House of Review configurations.
Agreed tigtog. It got an excellent result in terms of tax reform under John Howard.
Fred – yes, well it is my view as I said that as this is a matter of style over substance then the issue of gendered appearance and identity will probably become the substance of both the campaign and the media coverage so we may as well get in early.
Rebekka – see above. I agree with a lot of your prior comments that there is a tendency for commenters to collapse into or at least sail close to the wind of old fashioned sexism. The appearance of parliamentarians and their presentation is nevertheless significant.
My great delight, for example, is watching Barnaby Joyce go red in the face and foam at the mouth as his brain goes duck hunting the English langaue. Apparently this does not alarm his electors which makes me want to avoid that electorat after dark. Almost equally I enjoy watching Ironbar Tucky trying to emulate a human being. I occassionally watch Richo but only when in need of an emetic.
Himan communication is subtle, complex and we respond intuitively to all sorts of messages that the parliamentarians cannot control because it is beyond the capacity of anyone to contain the cognitive/body dissonance of their message. If they are absolutely authentically committed to what they are saying there is no dissonance.
So far then – Abbott looking like he wants to be somehwere else and the PM looking like she might have recently realised that girlish charm is not the go when you’re outside the party room.
In an ideal world the appearance of women parliamentarians would not be subject to any level of scrutiny or at least the appearance of both male and female parliamentarians would be subject to equal attention. As we don’t live in an ideal world we may as well at least try a critical gendered analysis of how it is all playing out.
I think Abbott should be unelectable, but sadly I don’t think it’s true. After all, that’s why Rudd was deposed.
Now, I’m waiting for the weird conspiracy theories about how Labor dumped Rudd because he was going to win the next election and how such a mad radical couldn’t be allowed to stay in power.
Mark, thanks for that — I caught bits of Gillard’s speech but none of Abbott’s, so, v. useful and helpful. This is one of those posts vastly superior to its comments thread, thanks largely to an early Sam derail. (NB Sam: Rebekka’s name, which contains no terminal H, is right in front of you.)
As for paying attention to appearance, for the eleventy millionth time because apparently some people still don’t get it, comments on men’s appearance are made only when their appearance is in some way unusual. Comments on women’s appearance are made as the traditional default position. Comment on people’s appearance doesn’t happen on a level playing field.
Fine, I don’t know why you find such theories ‘weird’ or conspiratorial. Many respected commentators have suggested that it makes a lot of sense, including commentators on this site. The Piping Shrike has some particularly good analysis in this regard.
By all means disagree, but how about engaging with the issues rather than use the tired conspiracy theory line.
I suspect Fine@64, that it’s more likely they felt that while they just weren’t sure what would happen, neither of the plausible results — a loss or a Rudd win, appealed.
He was chosen to beat Howard and as a compromise between the factions. That job was done, but was now at best, a marginal risk. And if he did win, they’d be stuck listening to him sermonizing to them for another three years.
PeterTB
Nope I definitely wasn’t joking about the ALP having far geater economic competence than those well known economic dolts Barnaby, Abbott and Joe.
Those 3, and others in their parties, have never shown the slightest glimmer of understanding how to run an economy and if they were running the show when the GFC hit we would still be in recession with high unemployment and the select few having nice tax cuts [the COALition knee jerk response to matters economic] and the OO chortling away.
It helps not to blindly swallow the guff emanting from the OO you know, don’t you?
if they were running the show when the GFC hit we would still be in recession with high unemployment and the select few having nice tax cuts
Oh I see. Speculate on how they might have performed, and form your beliefs based on that speculation.
That’s clear then
if they were running the show when the GFC hit we would still be in recession with high unemployment and the select few having nice tax cuts
Oh I see. Speculate on how they might have performed, and form your beliefs based on that speculation.
That’s clear then
Rebekka and tigtog
I didn’t say Gillard never wore necklaces. But she has never worn a pearl necklace like the one she is pictured in in today’s OO. If don’t understand the difference, then you really need to talk to June Dally Watkins.
And of course I’m not suggesting she should rub the pearls against her teeth to check their authenticity. But I would like her to rub Abbott against her teeth in the campaign (metaphorically only, of course).
And PC, as to mens’ appearances — I was something of a fan of Al Grassby, who would today be seen as a train wreck, fashion-wise. He’d look like a retro pimp. He was your archetype “colourful character”. What ever happened to Al anyway?
I just loved it that he was willing to be so in your face about it, and there was something utterly refreshing about his whole flamboyant love me or hate me multicultural stance.
Fine: I know it is not a level playing field so why pretend it is? Why not engage in critical commentary that incorporates a reflexive knowledge of how gendered appearance plays out? FFS – we’ve already been exposed to so much footage of Abbott’s lightly clad nuts that refusing to acknowledge the gendered nature of the current contest is denial.
Oops. PC @65, not fine. Sorry about that.
Sorry to copy this from The Piping Shrike, but it seems relevant to Fine’s earlier comment:
Is anyone buying this crap? Apparently so.
What you can be certain of, in my opinion, is that both leaders will lie, give deliberately false impressions and dissemble throughout the campaign. I’m pretty certain that it will be the most negative yet, a trend that has been exacerbating for years,following the lead in US politics,particularly on the Republican Right, where the ‘politics of personal destruction’ is now the default setting.
I expect the Liberals to run numerous ‘dog-whistles’, at which they are adept,including misogynistic whisper-campaigns. The Liberal ‘heartland’ really doesn’t buy women leaders, unless they are far far Right class warriors like Thatcher.
One thing I am particularly confident about is, that, if Abbott wins, there will be the greatest ever era of slashing and cut-backs in our history. The template will be the UK, where the Conservatives pretended, with some aplomb,for years, that they had changed their spots since Thatcher. Now they really loved the ‘chavs’ at the bottom of their viciously inegalitarian society, and loved the NHS and other remnants of an earlier, humane, era.
Of course,once they had conned their way to power, joined by those other Tories, the LibDems,led by Nick Clegg, the mask quickly dropped. Now there were to be cuts of up to 40%, billions ripped off public services and the NHS privatised, but by the back door, with a mask of ‘plausible deniability’. Naturally, addressing the deficit built up in saving the bankster kleptocrats would come,not from taxing the rich (the horror!!)but from taxing the poor (VAT up to 20%, with more, surely, to come)and slashing social expenditure. Not that the rich could not afford it-the wealth of therichest few per cent of UK citizens went up by 30% in one year last year, while everyone else was retrenching. It helps, in understanding the mentality at work, to remember that nearly all the Cameron Cabinet members are millionaires, much given to solemnly intoning ‘We are all in this together’.
The options for taxing the rich are legion. Wealth taxes,increased high income taxes,land taxes, financial transaction taxes, carbon taxes etc, but, to the unrepentant, unregenerate, eternal class hater that is your average Tory (as much here as in the UK) these are anathema. Much more fun doing work that Daddy and Granddaddy back through time would understand and approve-kicking the crap out of the oinks. The UK is already the second-most unequal society in the OECD, after that other Friedmanite paradise, the USA. This inequality grew by the largest amount ever under Thatcher, Blair did nothing and now there are to be cuts and retrenchment even greater than under Thatcher. That, I believe,is our future under Abbott, leavened by a little vulgar Roman Catholic bigotry.
“the parliamentarians cannot control because it is beyond the capacity of anyone to contain the cognitive/body dissonance of their message”
what can happen is that people are so concerned to control their ‘message’ that they reduce variability and look ‘stiff’. Also you get pauses and reduced language flexibility because of the extra cognitive load involved in self-monitoring. The best pollies / con artists sincerely believe whatever it is that they think will get them what they want at the time.
On the mantra of moving forward someone over at Crikey quoted “Kodos” …
Not bad …
@Sam says: “But she has never worn a pearl necklace like the one she is pictured in in today’s OO.”
Rubbish. Click on the three links I posted earlier. One is a picture of Gillard wearing pearls in 2009, on the front of the Good Weekend magazine.
“And of course I’m not suggesting she should rub the pearls against her teeth to check their authenticity.”
So tell us again why you bothered posting the irrelevant ponderings about whether her pearls are ‘real’ or not?
@adrian, so let me get this straight, you were telling me to move on as a joke? I don’t think it’s me that needs to get a sense of humour in that case. You might try making your “jokes” (and I use the word in its loosest possible sense) less obscure.
Adrian – nope, never bought it for a second.
Try this romantic comedy instead: Party outsider leads 4-time proven losers to victory, pays insufficient heed to useless and clueless hacks from South Wales, they undermine him through hostile press, outsider stupidly takes their rubbish advice on key issue, dips in polls, recovers ground by returning to ignore hack mode.Prince Shorten decides he’d rather be 2nd in line for the kingdom of Bupkiss rather than 3rd in line for throne. Naked ambition leads to ugly palace coup installing Hack Princess.
Everyone ‘moves forward’ happily ever after.
@fran barlow – re Kodos – “don’t blame me I voted for the other guy”
I think that just about sums it up, Lefty E.
But moving forward as we must, Peter Hartcher has an interesting take on the election timing: Gillard’s election gambit pure opportunism.
Sorry, stuffed up the link
I have just seen Gillard going on about how passionate she is about education. Come to my school Julia which under your time as education minister continued to have oversized classes, holes in walls, and appalling resources.
Do you expect all those teachers who were under threat of $4000 fines for opposing your right wing education agenda to vote for you??
No way Julia.
No, I don’t believe that Adrian. What I believe is really straightforward. The Caucus believed it has a much stronger chance of winning an election with Gillard as PM, than with Rudd. So they went with that option. It’s really simple. Otherwise you’re going with an alternate reality that Labor would rather lose than win an election, without a skerrick of evidence.
As for Gillard being the ‘Hack Princess’, I’m so over of this demonisation of her.
Anthony Nolan @ #72, the key word there is ‘reflexive’. I was mainly addressing Sam, who was being wholly unreflexive.
As for ‘Don’t blame me, etc’, I don’t think anything can top the First Dog on the Moon’s ‘Don’t blame me, I voted for the ABC Interpretive Dance Bandicoot.’
T-shirts available.
Further to Sam’s nonsense comment that Julia’s never worn pearls before, here’s Julia in 2007. What’s that around her neck, Sam?
Oh yes, and here’s Julie Bishop, in 2007, criticising Julia for wearing pearls.
@65 – Agree on that, Dr Cat.
If someone wants to start a thread on what leaders wear, start your own blog and do it there. This thread is about the 2010 federal election. I’ll be deleting further contributions about Gillard’s wardrobe, or hairstyle, or whatever.
It’s always interesting to see people bemoan the focus on personalities over politics, and then…
What I’m interested in seeing on this thread is substantive commentary about the election campaign. I went to the trouble of writing a post with a summary and some analysis of both leaders’ press conferences. It might be nice if comments were remotely germane to the post.
If you want to rehash the question of the Labor leadership, there are a ton of older threads on which you can do that.
I read the Hartcher piece. When hasn’t a PM called an election opportunistically?
The article misses the fact that Victoria has a state election in November and it kind of doesn’t work to run two elections concurrently or straight after each other. And that people don’t like elections in the summer holidays. And that she would be crucified electorally if she waited until next year, even though legally she could.
Oh, but it’s Gillard, so it’s more evidence of how horrible and useless she is. And of course, if she delayed the electorate would see that.
The woman really is the devil incarnate.
Sorry Mark. I posted before I saw your comment. My apologies.
“Otherwise you’re going with an alternate reality that Labor would rather lose than win an election, without a skerrick of evidence.”
Where’s the evidence Rudd would have lost, Fine? Ive never seen any.
Oh yeah, ‘internal polling’. Totally at odds with the public polling.
I still confidently classify the putative outcome of Rudd losing to Abbott in 2010 as ‘highly improbable’.
I just hope that’s also true of Gillard.
Julia says: “Trust me”
Kevin says: “I did”.
Indeed Turnbull must be crying his eyes out this election is there for the taking.
Gillard without the sense of authority and competence and energy that Rudd bought to the leadership team looks just another politician trying the same old boring vague tricks.
Ironically Turnbull with his Rudd like energy and intelligence would make life quite uncomfortable for Gillard and her dead pan dry style. Turnbull would overshadow her, as Rudd would.
It is possible a Turnbull could have pulled of a victory against Gillard. But an Abbott I don’t could. At the very least Abbott must bring Turnbull into the team as deputy or Treasurer, he needs his upfront bravado and intelligence.
Gillard’s personal greedy grab for power then the revelation of her strongly right wing politics means that Labor must lose if the political centre of this country is to be saved from being where Howard would like it.
Gillard has been a bit of a chameleon and charlatan behind the scenes, now she is out front people are getting an idea what she is really like.
Gillard should win this comfortably only because Abbott is incapable of winning over the extra votes required. One thing to be wary of though is that Gillard does not seem to be anywhere near as smart as we assumed. Her handling of the AS was truly amateur and badly planned and executed. If that is her standard then any stuff up is possible by Labor during the campaign.
Vote 1 Greens
Vote 2 independent
@88 – No probs, Fine.
But I do want to signal that I’m serious about keeping comments on topic. There’s been far too much of glib one-liners and endless rehashing of various themes on lots of comments threads lately. We can do better than that, so I’m putting everyone on notice that extraneous stuff will go straight into trash without any further notice, and that we want everyone to abide by the comments policy, talk about what’s actually under discussion, and to do so civilly and intelligently.
Otherwise, it becomes something of a waste of time to bother posting, since I have a variety of other things I’d prefer to be doing with my weekend.
Lefty E, the internal polling showing major losses in Queensland and WA has been widely reported and never denied. I’m sure you know that elections are won and lost in marginals.
Whether the Caucus was right or wrong, we’ll never know.
But today has been a policy free zone, sadly. People are saying Gillard won’t debate Abbott, but didn’t she say in her presser that it’s under negotiation? She’d crush Abbott in a debate.
@93 – We’re considering putting up a thread where people can rehash the leadership change and all the whatifs endlessly to their heart’s desire. But, in the meantime, all of us at LP would really appreciate it if we could “move forward”
Of course Gillard is going to the earliest possible election to increase her chances of wining. Her honeymoon is almost zero and she has gotten into a worse position than Rudd who was trending upwards and was never going to lose an election.
It must have been obvious from Gillard’s very poor start with polic attempts and revelation of her opportunistic personal grab for power that the public may quickly lose interest in her.
At the moment Gillard chances revolved around where Rudd had got the party, GFC and a bunch of other policy (some creds), and her being new and a novelty and having the reputation of being smart.
The novelty effect will wear off quickly and her reputation of being quite smart may on the front line turn out to be in some part a myth.
The long Gillard waited the more likely it was she would lose.
As an upper class resident of Bellevue Hill I am not really qualified to comment on elections, because I will thrive whoever wins. But what I have noticed in the commercial/finacial/artistic world in which I move is that no-one believes that the ALP has a clue on how to govern. Before the 2007 election many people in the upper echelons were sanguine about Rudd because he appeared to have learned that ALP philosophy of tax an spend was idiotic in the extreme. After Howard/Costello gave us the best period in Australia’s history, the movers and shakers thought that we could put up with a bit of Labor. But since Labor’s disastrous approach to the GFC, which has seen business suffering, they have changed their tune. I now hear daily from the M&S how terrible Labor is.
However, it is rightly the bogans in the outer suburban seats who will decide who occupies the Lodge. Will they vote for the boring Gillard or for the Rhodes scholar who has already brought down a PM and an Opposition Leader? We will have to wait and see, but on Today’s performances I suspect Tony has won the first round.
Ok, any comments which seek only to rehash the merits of the Labor leadership change, and have only a tangential relation to the topic of the post, can in future go here:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2010/07/17/the-endless-rehashing-of-the-labor-leadership-change-thread/
saw a report somewhere earlier today which I can’t find now that Abbott has reneged on his promise to ‘cremate’ Workchoices. This is the kind of unreliability that will guarantee his defeat. As for Gillard, all I can say so far is that she has not made much of an impression overe the past few weeks. On the hustings her Parliamentary charisma seems to be missing.
Day 1, unless something extraordinary happens tonight, its probably still Gillard’s game, if only by default.
Eric Abetz used exactly the same tactic with a reverse pike and a twist this morning on ABC radio where he actually said (and claimed he had always said: oh, please) that current Labor policy on workplace relations was “fairer” than former Coalition policy and that’s why they were re-burying theirs. Is this some kind of new political tactic, trying to get people to vote for you because you’re just like the other side?
@Thomas Paine “The novelty effect will wear off quickly and her reputation of being quite smart may on the front line turn out to be in some part a myth.”
Yeah, I’m sure she managed to get through a double law/arts degree at Melb Uni and make youngest ever partner at Slater & Gordon because her smarts are a “myth”.
@Rococo Liberal “on Today’s performances I suspect Tony has won the first round.”
Maybe you’d drunk too much Krug for breakfast this morning, but Tony’s performance was stuttering, umming and arring and then slinking away from the media pack before they could ask him any more questions about whether workchoices is really dead or just resting. He sounded, as others have observed further up on the thread, like a carping opposition leader.
@100 – What each side is trying to do here, Dr Cat, is to neutralise issues on which their opponent has the upper hand. So Gillard is trying to paint Labor’s policy as similar to the Coalition’s on asylum seekers, and Abbott is promising to maintain Labor’s Fair Work Act (with the ambiguity that the regulations might be “tweaked”).
@101 – Rebekka, the first part of your comment should go on the endless rehashing of the Labor leadership thread:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2010/07/17/the-endless-rehashing-of-the-labor-leadership-change-thread/
I’ll emphasise again that LP posters and mods want to draw a line under this discussion, and “move forward”. I’ll allow it to stand, as it was a response to Thomas Paine, but if that discussion is to continue, it should do so on the dedicated thread.
A final comment before “moving forward”: I suspect knifing a first-term PM has devalued the currency of all to follow.
Moving more forwardly now, I agree with TP that Gillard has done the right thing in going early. I have this awful she could have gone pear-shaped by October, the way this was trending. The handling of the asylum seeker policy shift was plain incompetent. There’s no way to dress it up.
I really am grateful the LNP decided to install Abbott. He’s trying to dissociate himself from Workchoices far too late in the piece. Unlike most things, just about all publicity will be negative for Abbott – so keep him in the limelight.I suggest a 3 debate minimum, plus a treasurer debate for some real laughs. Let’s get Hockey on telly.
I know this isn’t relevent in the grand scheme of things but there is a reason why JG regularly tints her hair. Let that one go through to the keeper.
Why the Greens should love The Simpsons
re Mark’s one-liner policy. The Simpson’s were watched endlessly by millions of Australians of the marginal kind. One classic episode has the lines from Kodos quoted before
“My fellow Americans. As a young boy, I dreamed of being a baseball, but tonight I say, we must move forward, not backward, upward not forward, and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom.”
That particular ‘classic’ episode presents a deeply cynical/realistic vision of the major parties as being essentially the same and the voters being suckers for thinking that voting one way or the other actually represents a free choice between distinct options.
Millions of Australians have seen it – many times
Millions have thought – yeah, we are suckers – many times
By using the moving forward cliche the Gillard team leave themselves wide open to a Simpson’s attack that is only available to the Greens. If the Greens can put forward the Siposn’s link, any use of moving forward will activate the Simpson’s memory with the attendent cynicism about the major parties – that’s just the way brains work, whether people make an explicit connection or not.
Only the Greens can benefit from this cynicism as they are the only visible alternative to the majors. Thus the Greens should run with the Simpson’s quote as often as possible and convert Labor’s message into a Green’s message
It looks both sides are trying to do a Kev 07, Pav & Mark – neutralise difficult issues through strategic agreement, fight on to your preferred turf.
Its interesting to see whose playbook they’ve all learned from.
Hey, get this (from Possum)
How many votes would she get? 10? 20? And then there’s the question to her husband, John Della Bosca MLC:
“Mr Della Bosca, are you going to vote for your wife or for the endorsed Labor candidate”.
I’d like to see Neal run, if only because then she would be expelled from the ALP. The NSW Right would truly be vomiting up one of its own.
Gillard probably doesn’t need the distraction though.
@105 – James, indeed if there is a reason why Gillard tints her hair, you’re quite correct to say that it’s not relevant.
I’ve given people a bit of a lag to catch up with the moderation instructions, but please rest assured that we have our fingers poised on the delete button from now on in.
Elsewhere: Tim Dunlop, Guy Beres and Alex White, and Peter Martin posts the text of the PM’s presser.
Just saw a Labor ad during 7 news – Gillard talking about moving forward, sustainable Australia, strong economy. Mark, I may have to admit you were right, and they are going to campaign on the economy.
Seven also had brief interviews with both Gillard and Abbott, Abbott sounded like he wasn’t really sure why people should prefer him to Gillard.
As I suspected, there was only a very short grab of her initial speech, so most people won’t hear the 22 repetitions of moving forward – they just hear one sound bite. They didn’t bother playing a clip from Abbott’s at all.
Gillard’s personal greedy grab for power then the revelation of her strongly right wing politics means that Labor must lose if the political centre of this country is to be saved from being where Howard would like it…
I don’t see it that way at all, Thomas Paine. Given a choice between venal ALP factional warlords, and Opus Deists like Abbott, I’ll choose the back room boys almost every time. Because the Liberals as they currently stand are a clear and present danger now, while the ALP may be more amenable to the sweet, sweet voices of reason in a fresh, new, Fielding-less Senate. Fortunately, there’s more choices than that.
Vote 1 Greens
Vote 2 independent
Cool. I put noxious independents like the CEC at the bottom at the ballot, but otherwise we vote the same way. But here’s the big question: who are you going to vote 3? You have to, you know. And unless you live in the division like Melbourne, it’s a decision that will really matter.
After the coup, I considered voting a “sympathy” 1 to Rudd, him being my member and all. But after seeing Gillard’s form, Rudd’s getting the 3. Nothing personal, but he is representing the ALP in my electorate.
Mark, I think you are being too hard on James. His comment surely fell in a grey area.
Anyhoo, someone above said that Gillard should debate Abbott three times because the more he is exposed the better. Strangely, the Liberal Party thinks so too, to judge by their complaints about there being just one debate. Of course, Gillard is right. The more she debates Abbott, the more she lends legitimacy to the idea that he is a genuine candidate for PM.
And, comically, Bob Brown wants to be included in the debates.
I think we’ll see both leaders spend a fair bit of time in western Sydney as it seems that is where the election will be won or lost. I suspect we will be hearing a lot more about “border protection” and the “armada” of three boats arriving per week.
This election campaign will be shithouse with both sides in a race to the bottom. My only hope is the satirical gems that will be offered up from The Chaser guys with their new show on the ABC, “Yes We Canberra!” and van Onselen’s efforts on yesterdays Contrarians show making a mockery of the Libs border protection policy and the vile language they use to appeal to the “blow up the boats” crowd.
While I won’t be voting for them I still think Labor will win purely on the basis we don’t put unhinged extremists in as PM. I do hope Labor are able to win Sturt. The risible Christopher Pyne holds the seat by less than 1% now but still the Libs have held the seat for a good 40 years.
Would be good to see him wipe the floor with both of them but I suspect it won’t happen as neither of their advisers would want people seeing a Greens leader upstage them ala Tasmanian election debate.
More to the point, Jacques, once you admit the minor party riff raff like the Greens to the debate, where do you draw the line?
I think Bob Brown should be included. The Greens could potentially hold the balance of power, it would be good to hear them in a debate. It also means that they have to put their cards on the table as well and will help people firm up their voting options. Let him in I say.
gregh @76: I like to keep it simple. What you’ve just described in a very sophisticated way is satge fright. You are coreect in so far as it goes but in the message is the massage then what else is left. LP is election mode, hey? Great.
So, how’s life in the fickle world of hairdressing, RL?
Thanks for the link, Mark.
Regardless of what party you vote for, if you are progressive, you should contribute to the Tony Abbott wiki:
http://tonyabbottrevealed.org.au/wiki/
Cheers
Alex
Who needs opinion polls with stratified samples etc when you can get the (downstairs)view from Bellevue Hill?
“…they are going to campaign on the economy.”
They’d be mad not to. Wish the ALP hadn’t spent so long highlighting the unwinnable issue of border protection first.
The good news is, exactly as would have happened under Rudd – the minute the OZ public realizes Tones is no longer an entertaining soundbite in smugglers, but an actual candidate for the top job, his poll support will dive.
He’s also a very poor campaigner and debater.
“…they are going to campaign on the economy.”
I’ll put forward a different view – neither of the major parties will say anything of substance about the economy. They will not discuss in anything like realistic terms the existing social inequalities nor will they propose anything of substance to ameloirate those inequalities. They will not propose anything like a realistic asseessment of international relations and the flow of capital. Instead they will use emotive trigger terms they consider most likely to activate feelings of ‘trust in my leadership’ in the segment of the population they feel is most likely to be needed to gain power.This is not the place to go into how the mechanisms of leadership attribution can be activated, but the marketeers of ‘spin’ will be doing their darndest to exploit such mechanisms.
Fran @ 71
Al Grasby died 23 April 2005. He was certainly a colourful character known particularly (apart from his role as Immigration Minister) for the sartorial inelegance of his ties.
Does anyone have any strange or startling predictions of things that may happen during the next five weeks that could upset the applecarts? — For example, if E.G.Whitlam were to pass; or J.W. Howard to become involved!!!! Barnaby Joyce finishes a sentence – and make sense!!; or something completely out of left field that no-one was expecting? — just a thought that might lighten the tone a little. Any suggestions?
Abbott’s lack of dedication to actually doing something about teh blood sucking unions is something to keep an eye on, both for the election and into whatever future he has after August, 21. And I’m talking about how this plays with the enthusiasm of what the Americans call ‘the conservative base’, not about how this is a policy tightrope in an election fought when Workchoices is still toxic.
Whenever I get the feeling that the Coalition loyalists are uncomfortable with him as leader (something I’ve felt more and more recently) this just must be the reason.
I really think they would prefer he was 2IC, albeit second in command with responsibility for inducing culture war hategasms and savaging the Left scum.
Otherwise I think they really, really miss Peter Costello.
The Search For A New Sir Peter—keep this in mind whenever you look at basic Liberal desires in 2010.
Well, as far as I know there isn’t actually much of an overlap between Opus Dei and, say, Labor senators from the SDA and NSW Right, or Victorian Labor MHRs who were educated at Xavier, as Opus Dei is kind of like the Protestant Ascendency of the Catholic Church when it comes to socio economic status.
So, you knew that too, eh?
Grassby was famously the only Whitlam minister to lose his seat at the 1974 election. Colourful he was, but not in a good way. According to Wikipedia:
And some people say today’s Labor Party is grubby. It is, but it was ever thus.
Al Grassby also co-wrote an excellent book called Six Australian battlefields
@gregh “campaign on” != “saying anything of substance”.
ABC News just ran countless pictures of a confident smiling Tony Abbott with comparatively few of Julia Gillard. Did I imagine that?
I watched it Patricia WA, and I didn’t notice that…
Liberal = conservative
National = rural
Labor = marginalise-the-unions
Family First = Fielding first
Greens = red
Don’t know yet what sort of campaign Gillard is going to run but I would suggest she doesn’t run a vanilla small target campaign. If both run these types of campaigns it is to the benefit of Abbott as it blurs differences in policy and credibility. I would suggest Abbott would gain some votes from this.
I also question what incumbency effect Gillard will get. I gather incumbency comes from the electorates fear of changing. Where the government of the day is assumed to be competent enough on most of the issues, so why change.
But the Government for the past two years and in Opposition was Rudd. Rudd was very much the face of Government, he was the economic manager of the GFC, the international face and most other things besides. With Rudd pretty much the face that was the government has gone.
Gillard is basically a new face and not the old face of the Government. Many of the public will be seeing this as two new candidates vying for the role of PM. I guess there will be some incumbency effect but I suspect it will be quite small.
This then makes Labor’s position a little bit more fragile than maybe assumed. Galaxy confirms 52/48 today. I wonder if the fractions were rounded up or down to get the whole numbers?
This clearly puts the Liberals in striking distance. A 1.5% swing to the Liberals from here could give them government with the independents. Not out of the realms of possibility.
The Liberals however need to cut through or gains some added credibility and acceptance to get that extra percentage. I can’t see Abbott doing it, he is no salesman or tactician.
However as I have stated before Turnbull has a number of advantages over Abbott. He has money to spend, he is intelligent, he will have a strategy, he can be a salesman, he would have acceptance as a serious candidate and he has economic credentials. And has preferred leader rating was not far behind Abbott. And we know when you move into the job your support levels also jump quite a bit.
At the moment I see Labor as hanging out in the wind a bit, ready to be taken down. They are quite vulnerable.
The major issues are also ones in which Turnbull now has greater credibility than the Government. Rudd was the face of the GFC initiatives and with him gone has also gone much of the Govt economic credibility. The Libs already get the benefit of the doubt on managing the economy. With Rudd gone and Turnbull come into the position with economic creds would put the Libs firmly ahead in the electorates mind.
And of course Turnbull help agree the ETS with Labor and sacrficed himself to try and get it into place. This gives him pretty good creds on this issue as opposed to Gillard Labor whish is now seeming a bit weak. Then there is Turnbull being on record after the election saying Workchoices is dead. (he said other things since, but he did bury it)
Turnbull could well get the Libs that extra 1.5% or so to win the election.
In fact I believe if Turnbull became leader of the Libs they would win the election, just.
This of course assumes the current poll of 52/48 represents the current state of affairs.
I see John Quiggin is advocating a vote for The Greens:
http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2010/07/17/back-on-air-7/
Me too.
I think he and I are joining a fair few others who voted Labor in 07.
First poll since the announcement: Galaxy 52-48 to Labor -
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2010/07/17/galaxy-52-48-to-labor-3/
A couple of opening election ads at Tell Me Your Politik:
http://tellmeyourpolitik.wordpress.com/2010/07/17/let-the-campaigns-begin/
@4
Absolutely spot on, lowest common denominator politics at its best (or worst).
@35
“That’s obviously not true. They dumped Rudd because it was looking like Tone was going to win. They cannot therefore think he’s unelectable.”
Except that’s obviously not true as Rudd was going to win. You need to really check reality if you actually believe that statement. I assume you’re indulging in fairy chess.
Election timeUrrgh! I can’t look! Abbott will probably get in. I’m going off to the kitchen to bake some bread.
LeftyE @122
But conservative candidates in this country have never had to be terribly good, whereas Labor candidates have to be absolutely brilliant to win an election. Julia Gillard can’t put a foot wrong in her job and she’s just put her foot in a big green fresh cow pat on the asylum seeker issue barely five minutes into her incumbency. I’m afraid she won’t be forgiven.
Don’t think Abbott can win.
Howard, behind in his first term, made the tactical masterstroke of campaigning on the GST against Beazley’s ‘small target’ strategy.
In doing so Howard captured the debate. He gave the electorate an idea to kick around during the camapign – and it was a fairly safe one since the GST had been thrashed to death in the 1993 election. The GST was both new and familiar at the same time.
So, Howard behind in the polls gave the electorate an idea against the idea-less Beazley. The peepul voted for Howard almost out of sheer gratitude.
Abbott is behind but, unlike Howard, has no ideas – and I agree with the immortal Andrew Elder at ‘Politically Homeless’ that Abbott has not had an original thought for about quarter of a century. His career is based on headkicking and ripping people’s gutses out. He was Howard’s loyal and unquestioning servant: a voice-activated Frankenstein assassin. ‘Kill Hanson, says Howard. ‘Yes Master’ responds Abbott and puts the legwork into the secret slush fund that bankrolled the sleaze attacks on ‘One Nation’ – what was it ‘Australians For Freedom and Democracy’ or somesuch horror.
Abbott is like Herman Goering who once said ‘I have no conscience except the Fuhrer’ or the brainless servant of absolute loyalty who served the Corleone family in ‘The Godfather’: ask Abbott to put a horse’s head in somebody’s bed and he’ll do it without hesistation, as long as the interests of absolute power are served.
So, without any ideas, Abbott is powerless to wrest the initiative from a position of disadvantage. His simle strategy is to evince fear responses in the electorate by invoking the Full House of Lib/Nat shibboleths about the ALP.
You can’t trust Labor with Money
Tax and Spend
Great Big New Tax
Stop The Boats
Faceless Machine Men
This is powerful but limited. Scary bed-time stories only give children nightmares, not adults.
The Australian electorate has become more progressive over the years (the Lib/Nats core constituency is the Over 55′s), but the great unwashed middle will still flock to a safe pair of economic hands and Rudd was scaring the horses.
In one week Gillard has defused the RSPT and the Asylum Seeker issue. I am confident as the campaign contnues she’ll keep the masses calm and give out enough soft-left Dogwhistles to stop leakage on that side too.
Abbott’s only worthwhile idea in his opening election statement was that to give Local Communities more say over the spending of school funds, but that’s just a focus group grab in response to the BER.
How a Rhodes Scholar can be so vacant is flamin’ alarming. That scholarship committee needs to review its selection process.
Abbott’s backup attack lines are an interesting species of polly-strategem. They involve accusing Labor of things it hasn’t yet done so that when and if they do occur he can say ‘I told you so’. Two examples:
ALP will run a filthy campaign
ALP will attempt to promise/spend their way to victory in the campaign. (Surely what Howard did in his last two victories and also attempted in 2007).
So Abbott’s dead meat I reckon.
All JG has to do is keep the ship steady and say a couple of moderately interesting things and Abbott will be out of his depth competely.
I will predict white-eyed, spittle-foam desperation verging on the hysterical.
“In doing so Howard captured the debate. He gave the electorate an idea to kick around during the camapign – and it was a fairly safe one since the GST had been thrashed to death in the 1993 election. The GST was both new and familiar at the same time.”
I am no Howard fan but how can you say an idea that results in a return of tpp of 49% was a “fairly safe one”. That is a rewrite of history if ever I have seen one. If Gillard gets that sort of result then she certainly won’t be living at the Lodge.
Just getting away from all the fascinating discussion of hair tints and the political symbolism of twin-set and pearls forf just a moment, it’s worth reflecting on the likely impact of exogenous events on this election campaign.
The Reserve Bank holds its monthly board meeting on Tuesday, August 3rd, less than a week after the release of the June quarter CPI report. An unhelpful inflation outcome might force the RBA to increase the cash rate 18 days out from polling day and for the seventh time since October.
While the MSM and many political blogs obsess about the impact of asylum seekers on voting intentions in the fringes of the major cities, they overlook the much more potent and real impact of higher mortgage costs.
Consider also the not altogether remote possibility of a significant downleg in equity markets in the coming five weeks, with sentiment in the global investment community still distinctly fragile.
With interest rates in the major developed economies already near zero and little political will to push the envelope further on fiscal policy, the faith in policymakers to ameliorate the real economic impact of severe volatility in financial markets is at a low ebb.
Of course, an intensificiation in global uncertainty might play into the hands of Labor, being the incumbent government. But Abbott may be able to make a (dubious, but effective) connection between Australia’s relatively high and rising interest rates with the government’s fiscal response to the global crisis.
Personally, I think Labor should have been running harder on its response to the crisis. As it is, the problems in delivery might muddy their message.
There have been a few comments about preferencing from Down and out and Thomas Paine. One of the big problems with the voting system is that we must preference, except in QLD state elections where I have used the vote 1 option to deny the ALP and Libs a vote. As I have stated I will be preferencing to the conservatives to punish Labour for its constant sell outs, betrayal of unions and adoption of extreme pro capitlist, pro mining company policies. Preferencing to the Libs endorsed the sell outs and encourages them to do it again.
However, optional preferential should be introduced. I sense many dislike both Labor and Liberal and we should not be forced to ultimately pick one. This just keeps the two party system in place.
Sam at #127, not that I or anyone else would know the truth about Al Grassby whatever it is, but do you honestly believe everything that Wikipedia tells you?
While I believe either ALP leader would win, the main reason I remain to be convinced Gillard’s a net electoral chances improver is QLD.
I read somewhere that one of things that encouraged the ALP to move on Rudd was that she was “only 6 points behind Rudd” as preferred leader in QLD.
This must be some new meaning of the word “only” that Ive not previously encountered, as applied to this battleground state.
Meanwhile, the move hasn’t gone down quite as well with punters as with ALP insiders: 57 per cent of voters believe Mr Rudd’s treatment will harm Labor’s chances of re-election.
I have been having problems accessing LP directly since yesterday, and can only get in through another site. Process is very slow even when here. Is this just from my end? Very frustrating now the race is on!
LE @ 148, if the question was something like, “Do you think Rudd’s treatment will harm Labor’s chances in the election?” I would have expected at least an 80% affirmative response. Doesn’t ask whether it will effect that particular voter’s choice.
In short I found 57% quite encouraging.
Patricia @ 149, it’s crook for me too, even with my upgraded, supposedly super fast bigpond deal.
After watching last night’s TV I have to revise my opinion of who won the day. Tony Abbott by a whisker, and all because of that stupid, stupid ALP campaign slogan. Abbott was able to savage it very effectively, and his savaging of it had the effect of sabotaging his admission that the Libs would introduce Workchoices again the election after this one, if they win this election.
Nothing I’ve seen on TV this morning has changed my mind. (ie Insiders.)
I hope that’s right Brian. Just notin’!
I was listening to The Insiders a few moments ago and their soundtrack began with late 1970s-80s pop icon Blondie’s Call Me!. Personally, if we’re doing Blondie, I thought The Tide is High would have been more apt.
The tide is high and I’m mo-ving on
I’m go-nna be
Your num-ber one
I’m not the kinda girl
who gives up ju-ust like that
Oh no, oh ho no…
On a seprate and more serious matter, I noteded yesterday that Abott was pitching Australia borrowing $100million per day. Today Barnaby Joyce (who predictably again mixed up his millions and billions without noticing) pitched $150million per day as the amount.
Equally predictably, nobody from the pro-coalition ABC queried him on this. It’s all down the memory hole, apparently. Apparently, if you’re the coalition, you can make up any numbers you like and not even specify what they are based on, because it’s common knowledge within the narrative that the ALP is on a debt and spending binge and it’s not for us journos to challenge the narrative, but to adapt to it and echo it like parrots.
One day I’d like to know who it was who gets to write the story in the first place and how they get there. That’s not the least important thing that could be explored.
Paul B @ 152, I think Gillard won the day in a canter. Above all in how she said what she said. Calm, confident, precise, reassuring, warm, positive.
What pollies say is important but how they present themselves more so. Go back and read anthony nolan @ 63 about human communication.
If people are having trouble accessing the site, please email us and tell us exactly what’s happening. That helps to diagnose the problem.
It will be a very busy working Sunday at the Australian Electoral Commission. The un-enrolled have until 8pm Monday to sign up, a factor I find astounding given there are more than a million voters thought to be in this category. I took the AEC advice and tried to sign up my 20 year old by the internet. OK but you MUST have a driver’s licence number to proceed, no alternatives offered, so no print out to be signed and faxed by 8pm Monday. You must provide a signature and the post is not going to make that deadline. To repeat, I am astonished.
Hi, Brian.
I thought Gillard won the day at first, until I watched TV last night. The Labor slogan is terrible, if only because a) the Opposition will exploit it and b) it will drive the voter bonkers after 5 weeks if Gillard keeps using it. Its even more meaningless than working families. Sure, Abbott was nervous, and edgy, but, unlike Gillard, he wasn’t boring.
A few days ago I made a coimment somewhere about elections being a week long running show of light entertainment, so far as most of the electorate are concerned (though probably not political tragics). The one who entertains us the most and doesn’t make any major slip ups gets the prize. (and sometimes we get a bit of comedy and tragedy thrown in).
Anyway, see who wins today. Yesyerday was day 1 – hopefully Abbott will really stuff up a bit later in the campaign. (One doesn’t want him doing it too early – he might recover; and Julia gets her act together quickly.
Paul, I think there’s just as much danger for the Opposition in their continuous negative harping on the ‘Moving Forward’ theme. From body language, dress, sound bites etc. I am getting overwhelming positive from Labor and dark negatives from the Opposition. I think that same contrast will be there in full policy statements when both have their official party campaign launches.
Hi Mark, Further to my message @ 147 about access to LP since yesterday arvo couldn’t even get my email to go to your usual contact address just now. Emails returned immediately a couple of times with ‘error has occurred’ message. Below is message I get when I try direct access here. Got here just now through The Political Sword where movement is normal, except movement to LP which was slower than usual. Normally I would think it’s my inept IT skills, but if Brian is having problems too….
The following story has changed somewhat in the past half hour or so. I don’t believe the Liberal Party version.
LIBERAL PARTY THUG BEATS UP REFUGEE ADVOCATE.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/18/2956988.htm
Well Labor certainly won today if Abbott’s disastrous appearance on Australian Agenda this morning is anything to go by and good on The Australian journos for grilling him on his rhetoric.
It’s a good point: Turnbull would be a contest!!! SO…..?
….Gillard WINS!
Jacques & KeiThy,
That’s good news. Ch. 10 found the version of Altercation between Liberal Party and refugee supporters “incredible.” Seems they have all made up their minds on this opne: refugees = evil; oiks =
good. No surprises there.
According to Laurie Oakes, latest Galaxy poll 50/50 2PP with Labor’s primary vote down to 48%.