Tag Archive for 'Elections'

Rudd unwhacked

Newspoll came in last night with essentially a status quo result, with both parties one point up on primaries (and the 2PP changing one point down each way to 52-48 because of a measured fall in The Greens’ primary.)

I doubt that Kevin Rudd ever expected the ‘whacking’ in the polls he trumpeted. Rather, this was part of the rhetorical structure of the weekend of apologies – convincing the public that he’d already taken his medicine, and that they should think again about the government’s virtues (which he, and Ministers, have used the sorry-fest to remind everyone of) and think harder about the Coalition. A very similar line has been working wonders for Gordon Brown of late.

In other words, rather than offering the proverbial commentary on the polls, Rudd’s remarks are part of a set piece of political manoeuvring aiming to draw a line in the sand, and to establish a contrast between the government’s new policy announcements (the national curriculum and health) and the opposition’s negativity. That’s potentially quite an effective play when everything we’ve seen of of Abbott et al over the last few weeks has been pure opposition.

Incidentally, I’d repeat the point I’ve made a number of times before – among all sorts of other influences, commentary on the polls has an underlying and perhaps unexamined premise that a Liberal majority is the natural state of affairs. Otherwise, it’s hard to explain the narrative of trouble and crisis when Labor is still comfortably ahead. It’s as if the Coalition ever overtaking Labor spells doom and destruction for the Rudd government. It would not. It’s worth underlining the fact that governments are often behind in the polls, and come back to win elections. John Howard frequently appeared headed for defeat in each electoral cycle after his first win.

Trevor Cook provides a useful reminder another point of comparison – to the Rudd opposition of the late Howard years.

Speaking of which, those who talked about Howard’s comments and policy changes around the time of the Aston by-election in 2001 were making the better comparison than the chorus of ‘Beattie reborn!’ songsters. The difference, of course, is that Howard appeared headed for a genuine whacking in early 2001, while Rudd is sitting pretty.

While we’re talking polls, I’d also recommend a squizzy at Possum’s fascinating tables on the Essential Research questions about the assessment of leaders’ attributes.

Keeping the New Labour faith, even unto death

2010 is going to be a year of elections. In Australia, we have three state elections – Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania, and almost certainly a federal poll*. In Britain, the Labour party’s future is on the line; the same party which was variously cited as inspired by the Hawke/Keating government and an inspiration for the ALP in opposition.

Writing in The Guardian, Seamus Milne has an interesting piece on the failed coup attempt against Gordon Brown last week. Theatrics aside, he sees it as a contest for the future of the party, with the Blairite forces trying to enforce the New Labour line through a proxy contest over personalities and electoral tactics:

But by exploiting the coup attempt to demand a change of direction, and making the prime minister’s closest ally, Ed Balls, their fall guy, the cabinet’s anti-Brown majority has unmistakably called time on the Keynesian-inspired and progressive tax measures that have won public support but caused such alarm in the City, Treasury and media.

Milne goes on to argue that the (now) Brownite position makes more economic and political sense.

There’s a big irony here, given that New Labour’s success derived from an argument that the Labour party had sacrificed electoral success on the altar of ideological purity.

There’s also an Australian parallel, as the Coalition appear determined to avoid competing for the centre at any costs, all in the name of ‘defending the legacy’ and ‘differentiation’. So, it seems that the tendency for parties to curl up in an ideological ball in the face of defeat afflicts those of the right, as well as those of the left.

*In theory, Rudd doesn’t have to go to the polls til April 2011.

Elsewhere: Ben Eltham on the year ahead in politics.

“Clones and drones” versus Sturm und Drang politics

One of the points I’ve made over and over again, before, during and after the 2007 election was that the electorate had tired of the noise level; the ranting and raving and constant theatrics of the Howard government. In voting for Kevin Rudd, people were voting, among other things, for someone who appeared safe, reassuring and confident; someone who wouldn’t constantly be in their faces with culture wars, wars and the politics of fear. Now Tony Abbott is taking us back to the future, and not just through the resurrection of the Madame Tussaud gallery of Howard front benchers. All the masculinist rhetoric we’re currently hearing (including that of “Abbott’s army”) is precisely what most people don’t want from their pollies at this point in time.

On Lateline tonight, Liberal frontbencher and new Immigration shadow minister Scott Morrison, claimed, in defending Barnaby Joyce’s mad ravings, that folks didn’t want “clones and drones”.

Let’s make a number of further points about this claim, and Joyce’s effusions. Continue reading ‘“Clones and drones” versus Sturm und Drang politics’

The politics of austerity

In an interview with the Financial Review a little while back, Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner commented that governments might face some difficulty down the track when the need for economic stimulus has passed, but when also public revenues are not flooding into the coffers as they were at the height of the mining boom. It’s not terribly surprising to see Tanner thinking ahead – and no doubt the government is also thinking about what sort of narrative might be utilised to justify an era of diminished expectations to the voters.

It’s interesting to set these remarks aside a leak from the Coalition party room yesterday – apparently Malcolm Turnbull mentioned that there may be a need to raise tax in the future. Predictably, this was howled down as being “contrary to Liberal philosophy”.

Therein lies the rub.

Aided and abetted by a quite unique set of economic circumstances, the Coalition’s “economic management” over the last few terms of the Howard government basically translated to reducing personal income tax while maintaining the rate of corporate tax. Add to the mix a crazed melange of transfer payments and electoral bribes, and for a while they had a winning electoral strategy.

It did, of course, trash “core Liberal philosophy” if that meant what John Howard supposedly stood for in the 1980s – ‘dry’ economics. Reduced to a few slogans, the Liberals have proved themselves completely incapable of arguing any economic direction which even vaguely makes sense ever since their defeat in November 2007. Turnbull’s comments, and Tanner’s remarks, suggest that the political playing field of the economic game will be a much transformed one over the next few political cycles. Labor seems to understand this. It’s highly questionable if most Liberals even grasp what’s going on. That absent centre at the heart of their ideology and their political strategy will prove a bigger problem for them than their leadership and their day to day political tactics and messaging. The dysfunctions of the latter are only a symptom of the underlying disease.

The vigilance of (il)Liberalism never sleeps

Probably one of the most laudable steps taken by the Rudd government has been the attention given by Senator John Faulkner as Special Minister of State to cleaning up the electoral system. Admittedly, this isn’t one of the funky and sexy issues the media likes to highlight, but the importance of the Green Paper on Electoral Reform is profound.

But while most Australians probably had other things on their mind, John Howard’s former Workplace Relations advisor and Alexander Downer’s replacement as Mayo MP, Jamie Briggs, found time on Boxing Day to denounce third party campaigns as a “a growing cancer in our democracy”.

Briggs named GetUp! and the ACTU’s Your Rights at Work campaign as examples of what he was talking about.

I don’t have any particular problem with disclosure of funding for third party campaigns, though I would object to caps on donations. But the hyperbole from Briggs (and no doubt his views are shared by Nick Minchin and others) is absurd and dangerous. Props to Andrew Norton for sounding the alarm. Norton refers to Briggs’ call for disclosure and observes:

Continue reading ‘The vigilance of (il)Liberalism never sleeps’

Now this is what I call a netroots base

Running for Office: It’s Like A Flamewar with a Forum Troll, but with an Eventual Winner

Sean Tevis’ innovative method of raising internet funds in his venture to oust and replace his current State Representative (basically equivalent to one of our State MPs?) in Kansas is an online comic strip.

When Sean Tevis decided to run for a seat in the Kansas Legislature, he faced a serious problem: money. Local political advisors warned the campaign novice that he would need a war chest of at least $26,000 to compete against his entrenched Republican rival.

Having calculated that if he could get 3000 people to donate $8.34 each, he would reach that target, he created the comic strip to garner attention from potential online donors. He’s sort of a one-man Get Up! campaign.

Apparently, no other candidate for State Representative in Kansas has ever had more than 644 donors, so there was a built-in news narrative if he could make it work. So did it? Well, there’s a bunch of news coverage online, as well as many bloggings.

How many similar efforts are we going to see in election contests in the immediate future, do you think?

H/T to one of my Best Mates on a mailing list (and crossposted on Hoyden About Town)