Tony Abbott’s performance in question time today, and the timing of his parental leave thought bubble more generally, suggest that his major imperative was to switch the topic of debate from health. That’s despite the Coalition running a very active scare campaign about hospital closures in the bush, but it’s probably because of the polling on Rudd’s initiative. I suspect also that it wouldn’t be going out too far on a limb to venture a modest prediction that that Labor might be headed for an uptick in the polls.
Some Coalition MPs have suggested that this plan came about so suddenly because Abbott had become privy to private party polling.
I strongly suspect that the Labor Party might have had a bit of a turnaround – perhaps related to the National Curriculum and health, and Abbott might be responding to that. It could also explain why he felt he had to release some ‘positive policy’. It could well be that his negativism has had an impact; I note that Labor Ministers have been reiterating the ‘Senate obstructionism’ line again this morning.
In short, on where the parties actually stand, one shouldn’t believe what one reads in The Australian.
Meanwhile, whether or not Abbott makes health a focus of his parliamentary attack, the Premiers continue to ponder the National Health and Hospitals Network. Kevin Rudd has wrought his own ambush, confident that there’s no political skin to be lost picking a fight with the states on this battleground. But that doesn’t mean that some of the Premiers haven’t been posing some good questions – interestingly, probably more from Kristina Kenneally than John Brumby.
And while the headline politics might have been the primary focus of media attention, some good work continues to be done on analysing the policy itself. I’ve posted some salient links over the fold. Continue reading ‘So, how about that hospitals plan?’
Even the devil sometimes speaks true? Rudd, Labor and the 2010 election
We have it on good authority, that of St Thomas Aquinas, that demons and evil spirits can sometimes speak the truth. Now, I’m not saying that Janet Albrechtsen falls into either of those categories, but for once I was interested to read something she wrote:
Much of Albrechtsen’s analysis is inflected with the spleen one would expect (and the illusion that to introduce WorkChoices is to do good), but I suspect she has something of a point. I’ve been critical myself of Rudd’s ‘big tent’ strategy – the accumulation of political capital for its own sake. As I’ve also commented, the Labor Party, in the face of Abbott’s leadership, is likely to downplay climate change as an issue. In an election year, the theme will move to an accentuation of the argument that Abbott and his frontbench waxworks represent a return to Howardism; but a nastier, more brutish version. And don’t be misled, they’ve hardly even begun to fight on this front. In many respects, the smart political move is to let Abbott prepare his own noose, as his negatives are already very much defined in the public mind.
But any election theme that Abbott represents the past requires painting Rudd as representing a brighter future. I’m not so certain Labor can just run on its record – a la the first term Hawke government, which got a nasty surprise in the 1984 election. Continue reading ‘Even the devil sometimes speaks true? Rudd, Labor and the 2010 election’