EDITORIAL THURSDAY 05.08.10.
As James Grubel, the senior political correspondent from Reuters, said today, this is becoming a most unusual election in that it now appears to have two underdogs. Historically speaking, a Tony Abbott victory might seem to be unlikely for a number of reasons. Simply by being in opposition he is already starting out from behind, needing a significant swing to win enough seats to take power. Secondly, it would be highly unusual for any government to lose office after just one term. Even Gough Whitlam managed to win two elections before being sacked by the Governor General in 1975. Thirdly, for all the shortcomings of the government, the opposition isn’t exactly immune from fumbles and stumbles of their own. For all these reasons, Tony Abbott could rightly expect to be considered the underdog. But this is no ordinary election.
History might mean nothing, because history has already been made by the Labor Government’s own unprecedented decision to cut down a first term Prime Minister, taking all of us into uncharted territory. Just how voters respond to the lingering disquiet that they have somehow been robbed of the right to make their own choice can still play a big part in deciding the outcome of this election. That the leadership change was itself triggered by a decline in support for the Government in the polls has become something of an irony with those same polls now delivering even worse news for the new Prime Minister. With the polls showing Labor ranking at best level with the Coalition, and at worst well behind, it now seems that Julia Gillard has become the underdog.
Thomson Reuters Poll Trend Analysis shows that boiling down all the major poll figures gives the Government a two party preferred figure of 51.5% and the Opposition 48.5%. On those figures the Government might just scrape back into office, but it is by no means guaranteed. There is a risk that there will be a hung Parliament with independent members, and maybe even a Green, holding the balance of power in the lower house, something which hasn’t happened since 1941. There is also the prospect that the Government might be ahead on the two party preferred popular vote but still lose the election anyway. It has happened before with both Kim Beazley and Andrew Peacock winning more than 50% of the vote, but still not securing enough seats to take government.
In this environment, it is conceivable the entire fate of the nation could hinge on the most unlikely of circumstances. It could be that voters in a handful of marginal electorates could swing one way or the other based on local issues. It could be that opinions about the Prime Minister’s religious views or marital status actually do make a difference to the outcome. It could be that resentment over the treatment of Kevin Rudd is enough to tip the balance. That’s why Mr. Rudd’s decision to break his silence and unreservedly support the Gillard Government is crucially important for Labor. It won’t necessarily remove all concerns over the impact of the ghost of his leadership hanging over the campaign, but no matter what he does, or even if he does nothing, Kevin Rudd will remain an influence over this election.
That’s why, as a Labor Party member, the best thing he can do is attempt to use that influence for the benefit of the Party.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Hijacking The Language
EDITORIAL WEDNESDAY 04.08.10.
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has been accused of having difficulty keeping his foot out of his mouth, and it would seem that yesterday has provided us with yet another example. In response to questioning over his refusal to accept Julia Gillard’s invitation to debate the economy, he pointed out that the Prime Minister had previously and repeatedly rejected any further debate, and suggested that she had only changed her mind because her campaign was flagging. In the interim, the Opposition had taken the Prime Minister at her word and made arrangements for their own campaign accordingly. When the questioning continued he said, ''Are you suggesting to me that when it comes from Julia, no doesn't mean no?''
The reaction was both rapid and rabid. How dare Tony Abbott make a reference to a phrase which is widely associated with the campaign against sexual harassment and assault? How dare he trivialise the issue of violence against women? How dare he use those words to attack the Prime Minister who happens to be a woman? How dare he play the so called “gender card” in the election campaign? Tony Abbott, screamed the feminist lobby, just doesn’t “get it”. Of course, the issue of violence against women is a very serious one, and deserves to be addressed accordingly. But to suggest that Tony Abbott’s remarks trivialise the issue, or display a lack of respect for women, or could be construed as in some way condoning abuse is not fair or reasonable.
Even Tony Abbott’s harshest critics have admitted that they understand clearly the meaning of Tony Abbott’s comments. They acknowledge that he was criticising the Prime Minister for saying “no” one day, and “yes” the next. They recognise that he was suggesting that the word of the Prime Minister could not be relied upon, and not intended to be any kind of attack on women or their rights. But surely, if they are capable of understanding what Mr. Abbott was saying, without misconstruing it as an endorsement of antisocial behaviour, than any other reasonable person could too. If there is no doubt about what he meant, how then could the comments be considered inappropriate?
Of course, the critics have taken issue with the choice of words rather than the actual meaning, claiming that it was an attempt to make a joke about violence against women. Comparisons have even been made with Alexander Downer’s infamous joke about the “things that batter”. But that’s not what Mr. Abbott has done. He has used a commonplace expression, one which is widely applied in many contexts, to make a point about the veracity of his opponent. Just because it is a phrase which has been used in a social issues campaign doesn’t mean that the politically correct brigade has the right to hijack the English language and prohibit the use of particular words and phrases for purposes other than their own. It verges on the Orwellian.
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has been accused of having difficulty keeping his foot out of his mouth, and it would seem that yesterday has provided us with yet another example. In response to questioning over his refusal to accept Julia Gillard’s invitation to debate the economy, he pointed out that the Prime Minister had previously and repeatedly rejected any further debate, and suggested that she had only changed her mind because her campaign was flagging. In the interim, the Opposition had taken the Prime Minister at her word and made arrangements for their own campaign accordingly. When the questioning continued he said, ''Are you suggesting to me that when it comes from Julia, no doesn't mean no?''
The reaction was both rapid and rabid. How dare Tony Abbott make a reference to a phrase which is widely associated with the campaign against sexual harassment and assault? How dare he trivialise the issue of violence against women? How dare he use those words to attack the Prime Minister who happens to be a woman? How dare he play the so called “gender card” in the election campaign? Tony Abbott, screamed the feminist lobby, just doesn’t “get it”. Of course, the issue of violence against women is a very serious one, and deserves to be addressed accordingly. But to suggest that Tony Abbott’s remarks trivialise the issue, or display a lack of respect for women, or could be construed as in some way condoning abuse is not fair or reasonable.
Even Tony Abbott’s harshest critics have admitted that they understand clearly the meaning of Tony Abbott’s comments. They acknowledge that he was criticising the Prime Minister for saying “no” one day, and “yes” the next. They recognise that he was suggesting that the word of the Prime Minister could not be relied upon, and not intended to be any kind of attack on women or their rights. But surely, if they are capable of understanding what Mr. Abbott was saying, without misconstruing it as an endorsement of antisocial behaviour, than any other reasonable person could too. If there is no doubt about what he meant, how then could the comments be considered inappropriate?
Of course, the critics have taken issue with the choice of words rather than the actual meaning, claiming that it was an attempt to make a joke about violence against women. Comparisons have even been made with Alexander Downer’s infamous joke about the “things that batter”. But that’s not what Mr. Abbott has done. He has used a commonplace expression, one which is widely applied in many contexts, to make a point about the veracity of his opponent. Just because it is a phrase which has been used in a social issues campaign doesn’t mean that the politically correct brigade has the right to hijack the English language and prohibit the use of particular words and phrases for purposes other than their own. It verges on the Orwellian.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
To Debate Or Not To Debate, That Is The Question.
EDITORIAL TUESDAY 03.08.10.
It’s eighteen days since Julia Gillard drove to Yarralumla to ask the Governor General to dissolve the Parliament so that an election could be called. It is eighteen more days until that election takes place, so this is the half way mark. The first half of the campaign has been filled with more trip-ups than triumphs, especially for the Government, leading to the promise to unleash the “Real Julia”. At the same time, the opposition also had a few wobbly moments, especially in the first week of the campaign when Tony Abbott seemed to be tying himself in knots to kill off work choices without actually promising not to give it mouth to mouth after the election. It has given rise to the perception that while Labor wants us to see more of the “Real Julia”, there might be concerns that the “Real Tony” can’t be trusted not to put his foot in his mouth.
Of course, the real question is not whether not Tony Abbott might sometimes stumble on his words, because let’s face it we all do that from time to time, but whether he can be taken at his word. Even on that score, his own words can be used to condemn him after his confession that not everything he says can be considered to be the “gospel truth”. To be fair, that indiscretion was also the result of mangling his own message, but even so it is a less than reassuring performance. But the real measure of his intent should be found in his policies. While the Government has been suffering in the polls as a result of its own shortcomings, Tony Abbott has been enjoying a relatively free run, getting away with a series of inconsistencies.
Having said that climate change is “crap”, he now wants to spend taxpayers’ money on “direct action” against climate change. Having denigrated the Government for introducing a “Great Big New Tax”, he announced his own Big New Tax on business to pay for a parental leave scheme to which he had previously been opposed. Having imposed that Big New Tax he then announced that he would cut Company Tax by a similar amount, at the same time gazumping the Government’s own plan to cut Company Tax. Having done that he has now changed his plan for parental leave to start a year later and reduced the tax increase so that it exactly matches the tax cut for companies. Having demanded two more Leaders’ debates during the campaign he has now refused the challenge from the “Real Julia” to engage in a debate on the economy.
Now that the Opposition appears to have the upper hand in the opinion polls, perhaps Tony Abbott can afford to reject the opportunity for another debate. Perhaps he is right to claim that the invitation is nothing more than a stunt, especially as the date would conflict with his own campaign launch. Perhaps he is unconcerned that he will be accused of wanting to avoid a debate or that he is afraid of the outcome. But the bottom line now is that he can no longer accuse the Prime Minister of the same thing. If he really wants a second or even a third debate, it now appears that the Prime Minister would be prepared to accommodate him. Having said no, it would now seem that the “Real Tony” really doesn’t want a debate after all.
I wonder if he ever actually did.
It’s eighteen days since Julia Gillard drove to Yarralumla to ask the Governor General to dissolve the Parliament so that an election could be called. It is eighteen more days until that election takes place, so this is the half way mark. The first half of the campaign has been filled with more trip-ups than triumphs, especially for the Government, leading to the promise to unleash the “Real Julia”. At the same time, the opposition also had a few wobbly moments, especially in the first week of the campaign when Tony Abbott seemed to be tying himself in knots to kill off work choices without actually promising not to give it mouth to mouth after the election. It has given rise to the perception that while Labor wants us to see more of the “Real Julia”, there might be concerns that the “Real Tony” can’t be trusted not to put his foot in his mouth.
Of course, the real question is not whether not Tony Abbott might sometimes stumble on his words, because let’s face it we all do that from time to time, but whether he can be taken at his word. Even on that score, his own words can be used to condemn him after his confession that not everything he says can be considered to be the “gospel truth”. To be fair, that indiscretion was also the result of mangling his own message, but even so it is a less than reassuring performance. But the real measure of his intent should be found in his policies. While the Government has been suffering in the polls as a result of its own shortcomings, Tony Abbott has been enjoying a relatively free run, getting away with a series of inconsistencies.
Having said that climate change is “crap”, he now wants to spend taxpayers’ money on “direct action” against climate change. Having denigrated the Government for introducing a “Great Big New Tax”, he announced his own Big New Tax on business to pay for a parental leave scheme to which he had previously been opposed. Having imposed that Big New Tax he then announced that he would cut Company Tax by a similar amount, at the same time gazumping the Government’s own plan to cut Company Tax. Having done that he has now changed his plan for parental leave to start a year later and reduced the tax increase so that it exactly matches the tax cut for companies. Having demanded two more Leaders’ debates during the campaign he has now refused the challenge from the “Real Julia” to engage in a debate on the economy.
Now that the Opposition appears to have the upper hand in the opinion polls, perhaps Tony Abbott can afford to reject the opportunity for another debate. Perhaps he is right to claim that the invitation is nothing more than a stunt, especially as the date would conflict with his own campaign launch. Perhaps he is unconcerned that he will be accused of wanting to avoid a debate or that he is afraid of the outcome. But the bottom line now is that he can no longer accuse the Prime Minister of the same thing. If he really wants a second or even a third debate, it now appears that the Prime Minister would be prepared to accommodate him. Having said no, it would now seem that the “Real Tony” really doesn’t want a debate after all.
I wonder if he ever actually did.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Will The Real Julia Please Stand Up
EDITORIAL MONDAY 02.08.10.
On Friday I offered the opinion that the first two weeks of the election campaign had been won by Tony Abbott and the opposition. That opinion has been born out by the poll figures released over the weekend, with the credible Neilson poll showing the opposition with a winning lead in the two party preferred vote of 52 to 48 percent. This morning, the Newspoll gave a result which has the two major parties neck and neck at 50 percent each, which represents a dramatic advance for the opposition in past fortnight, and an equally dramatic decline in the fortunes of the Government. On Friday I observed that the Government had lost control of the agenda, and that seems to have been reflected in the polls. In response, the Prime Minister has announced that it is now time to “unleash the Real Julia”, to borrow the headline from today’s Telegraph.
Over the weekend, Julia Gillard said it was time to “make sure the real Julia is well and truly on display”. She said, “I'm going to step up and take personal charge of what we do in the campaign from this point". Maybe that’s a good idea, given the difficulty that seems to have overcome the Government, but it does raise a couple of very curly questions. If Julia has not been in charge of the campaign up until now, just who exactly has? And if it’s time to unleash the “Real Julia”, does that mean the Julia we have been watching is some sort of fake? After sternly warning all Australians to beware of falling for the forked tongue of “Phony Tony”, talk of the “Real Julia” could be seen as somewhat precious.
Of course, the truth is that the “Real Julia” has been there all along, but any political campaign is run by the Party, not just the Leader. In this case, the Party is still being driven by the very same people who decided to dismiss Kevin Rudd and install Julia Gillard as Prime Minister in June. Those people, including Senator Mark Arbib and Party Secretary Karl Bitar, are also responsible for coaching and grooming the Leader, whoever it might be, to lead the campaign. And that’s where the lines can become blurred. How much of what we see, of any politician, is the real person and how much is the focus group driven result of polling can become difficult to determine. What Ms. Gillard seems to be telling us is that for a while there even she had trouble telling the difference between the two.
Regardless of just who is really running the campaign, or whether the ‘Real Julia” will now step up, there’s a very good chance that it’s already too late to make a difference. The underlying disquiet about the ability of a Party to callously discard a Leader in an apparent attempt to win at all costs has only been amplified by the events of the past fortnight. After displaying contempt not only for their own former Leader, but also for the people who voted for him three years ago, the Party now appears to be desperate to appear not to be desperate. With almost three weeks of the campaign still to run, it’s too soon to say that they have lost the election, but unless there is a dramatic turnaround that will be the outcome. Labor hasn’t yet fallen to the bottom of the cliff, but they have tripped at the top.
If they don’t grab a safety rail there can only be one result.
On Friday I offered the opinion that the first two weeks of the election campaign had been won by Tony Abbott and the opposition. That opinion has been born out by the poll figures released over the weekend, with the credible Neilson poll showing the opposition with a winning lead in the two party preferred vote of 52 to 48 percent. This morning, the Newspoll gave a result which has the two major parties neck and neck at 50 percent each, which represents a dramatic advance for the opposition in past fortnight, and an equally dramatic decline in the fortunes of the Government. On Friday I observed that the Government had lost control of the agenda, and that seems to have been reflected in the polls. In response, the Prime Minister has announced that it is now time to “unleash the Real Julia”, to borrow the headline from today’s Telegraph.
Over the weekend, Julia Gillard said it was time to “make sure the real Julia is well and truly on display”. She said, “I'm going to step up and take personal charge of what we do in the campaign from this point". Maybe that’s a good idea, given the difficulty that seems to have overcome the Government, but it does raise a couple of very curly questions. If Julia has not been in charge of the campaign up until now, just who exactly has? And if it’s time to unleash the “Real Julia”, does that mean the Julia we have been watching is some sort of fake? After sternly warning all Australians to beware of falling for the forked tongue of “Phony Tony”, talk of the “Real Julia” could be seen as somewhat precious.
Of course, the truth is that the “Real Julia” has been there all along, but any political campaign is run by the Party, not just the Leader. In this case, the Party is still being driven by the very same people who decided to dismiss Kevin Rudd and install Julia Gillard as Prime Minister in June. Those people, including Senator Mark Arbib and Party Secretary Karl Bitar, are also responsible for coaching and grooming the Leader, whoever it might be, to lead the campaign. And that’s where the lines can become blurred. How much of what we see, of any politician, is the real person and how much is the focus group driven result of polling can become difficult to determine. What Ms. Gillard seems to be telling us is that for a while there even she had trouble telling the difference between the two.
Regardless of just who is really running the campaign, or whether the ‘Real Julia” will now step up, there’s a very good chance that it’s already too late to make a difference. The underlying disquiet about the ability of a Party to callously discard a Leader in an apparent attempt to win at all costs has only been amplified by the events of the past fortnight. After displaying contempt not only for their own former Leader, but also for the people who voted for him three years ago, the Party now appears to be desperate to appear not to be desperate. With almost three weeks of the campaign still to run, it’s too soon to say that they have lost the election, but unless there is a dramatic turnaround that will be the outcome. Labor hasn’t yet fallen to the bottom of the cliff, but they have tripped at the top.
If they don’t grab a safety rail there can only be one result.
Friday, July 30, 2010
The Wrong Bloke Got The Sack
EDITORIAL FRIDAY 29.07.10.
As the second week of the election campaign draws to a close, it’s incredibly ironic that the Gillard Government finds itself struggling to retain control of the agenda. In the past week much discussion has been focused on Kevin Rudd, asking whether he was behind the infamous Cabinet leaks alleging that Julia Gillard opposed last year’s pension increase and the paid parental leave scheme. Much was made of Mr. Rudd’s campaign posters failing to include any reference whatsoever to the Party which dumped him from the leadership, prompting speculation that he might be deliberately distancing himself from his successor. Even in the first week of the campaign much media attention was focused on Mr. Rudd not making appearances, and when he finally did show up in public to simply launch his own local campaign in Brisbane the media coverage overshadowed the national campaigning of the new Prime Minister.
The Sydney Morning Herald has today reported that the ALP is now desperately pleading with the former Prime Minister to actively campaign for the Party outside his own electorate to help it shore up support on the national stage, especially in his home state of Queensland. The Herald reports that the Party is worried about a Queensland backlash against they way “their” Prime Minister was treated. In 2007, Labor won more seats in Queensland than they ever had before, largely on the strength of a campaign based on the “home town boy”. Three years later and the very same sentiments in Queensland could very well be working against Labor. But it’s not just Queensland that Labor has to worry about. Right across Australia there remains a lingering disquiet about the way in which Kevin Rudd was removed from his position, along with continuing concerns about the competency of a Government which managed to take a series of good ideas, like home insulation and a school building program, and turn them into perceived disasters.
It’s easy for people to arrive at the conclusion that the Party has tried to fix the poll results rather than fix the policies, by simply changing the leader rather than changing the approach. The opposition is right when they say that it might be a new leader but it is still the same party, with the same policies, and the same problems. But really, it’s worse than that because the process of brutally beheading the Party in the effort to cure the disease has revealed it to be far more focused on the pursuit of power itself rather than the purposes to which that power should be directed. And that is driven by the so-called faceless men who orchestrated the leadership change, responding to poor opinion poll results by scapegoating a leader who relied upon them for the very policy advice which led to the poor polls in the first place.
The accepted wisdom is that Kevin Rudd’s popularity collapsed after the decision to delay an emissions trading scheme until 2013. There were other factors, but this is seen as the turning point. After having told us that climate change is the “greatest moral challenge of our time”, many people were left wondering just what Mr. Rudd believed in when the suddenly became something that we could afford to put off for three years, and possibly indefinitely. But the truth is that the decision came from the Party not from the then Prime Minister. As reported previously, and confirmed again today in the Sydney Morning Herald, it was the tow Labor powerbrokers Senator Mark Arbib and Party Secretary Karl Bitar who insisted that Mr. Rudd must delay the emissions trading scheme. They clearly based their decision on what they thought the electorate wanted to hear rather than on any moral imperative to address the national interest. It’s enough to make you think that the wrong bloke got the sack.
As an unnamed source is quoted in the paper today, “Mark and Karl were absolutely insistent that Rudd had to dump the ETS. They pushed, prodded, cajoled and would not take ‘no’ for an answer. That was the big turning point in Kevin’s standing with the voters. It’s breathtaking now for Mark and Karl three months down the track to say, ‘Well, you’ve lost the people, you’ve got to go.’” Voters are entitled to feel not only that Kevin Rudd has been cheated by this shabby treatment, but more importantly that the voters themselves have been cheated too. That alone is enough for many people to feel that the Labor Party should be punished, regardless of any qualities that Julia Gillard may or may not have. The net result is that, at the end of the second week of the campaign, it appears that the opposition is not only gaining ground, but is also benefiting from a free ride. The constant focus upon the foibles of the Labor Party has meant that Tony Abbott has been able to get away with blatant inconsistencies without being subjected to the sort of scrutiny we might normally expect.
On that basis, Tony Abbott has won the first two weeks of the campaign, and is a hot contender to finish the job and win the election. Perhaps then Mark and Karl might see the error of their ways.
As the second week of the election campaign draws to a close, it’s incredibly ironic that the Gillard Government finds itself struggling to retain control of the agenda. In the past week much discussion has been focused on Kevin Rudd, asking whether he was behind the infamous Cabinet leaks alleging that Julia Gillard opposed last year’s pension increase and the paid parental leave scheme. Much was made of Mr. Rudd’s campaign posters failing to include any reference whatsoever to the Party which dumped him from the leadership, prompting speculation that he might be deliberately distancing himself from his successor. Even in the first week of the campaign much media attention was focused on Mr. Rudd not making appearances, and when he finally did show up in public to simply launch his own local campaign in Brisbane the media coverage overshadowed the national campaigning of the new Prime Minister.
The Sydney Morning Herald has today reported that the ALP is now desperately pleading with the former Prime Minister to actively campaign for the Party outside his own electorate to help it shore up support on the national stage, especially in his home state of Queensland. The Herald reports that the Party is worried about a Queensland backlash against they way “their” Prime Minister was treated. In 2007, Labor won more seats in Queensland than they ever had before, largely on the strength of a campaign based on the “home town boy”. Three years later and the very same sentiments in Queensland could very well be working against Labor. But it’s not just Queensland that Labor has to worry about. Right across Australia there remains a lingering disquiet about the way in which Kevin Rudd was removed from his position, along with continuing concerns about the competency of a Government which managed to take a series of good ideas, like home insulation and a school building program, and turn them into perceived disasters.
It’s easy for people to arrive at the conclusion that the Party has tried to fix the poll results rather than fix the policies, by simply changing the leader rather than changing the approach. The opposition is right when they say that it might be a new leader but it is still the same party, with the same policies, and the same problems. But really, it’s worse than that because the process of brutally beheading the Party in the effort to cure the disease has revealed it to be far more focused on the pursuit of power itself rather than the purposes to which that power should be directed. And that is driven by the so-called faceless men who orchestrated the leadership change, responding to poor opinion poll results by scapegoating a leader who relied upon them for the very policy advice which led to the poor polls in the first place.
The accepted wisdom is that Kevin Rudd’s popularity collapsed after the decision to delay an emissions trading scheme until 2013. There were other factors, but this is seen as the turning point. After having told us that climate change is the “greatest moral challenge of our time”, many people were left wondering just what Mr. Rudd believed in when the suddenly became something that we could afford to put off for three years, and possibly indefinitely. But the truth is that the decision came from the Party not from the then Prime Minister. As reported previously, and confirmed again today in the Sydney Morning Herald, it was the tow Labor powerbrokers Senator Mark Arbib and Party Secretary Karl Bitar who insisted that Mr. Rudd must delay the emissions trading scheme. They clearly based their decision on what they thought the electorate wanted to hear rather than on any moral imperative to address the national interest. It’s enough to make you think that the wrong bloke got the sack.
As an unnamed source is quoted in the paper today, “Mark and Karl were absolutely insistent that Rudd had to dump the ETS. They pushed, prodded, cajoled and would not take ‘no’ for an answer. That was the big turning point in Kevin’s standing with the voters. It’s breathtaking now for Mark and Karl three months down the track to say, ‘Well, you’ve lost the people, you’ve got to go.’” Voters are entitled to feel not only that Kevin Rudd has been cheated by this shabby treatment, but more importantly that the voters themselves have been cheated too. That alone is enough for many people to feel that the Labor Party should be punished, regardless of any qualities that Julia Gillard may or may not have. The net result is that, at the end of the second week of the campaign, it appears that the opposition is not only gaining ground, but is also benefiting from a free ride. The constant focus upon the foibles of the Labor Party has meant that Tony Abbott has been able to get away with blatant inconsistencies without being subjected to the sort of scrutiny we might normally expect.
On that basis, Tony Abbott has won the first two weeks of the campaign, and is a hot contender to finish the job and win the election. Perhaps then Mark and Karl might see the error of their ways.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
The Knives Are Out
EDITORIAL THURSDAY 29.07.10.
Masterchef might be over, but the knives are well and truly out. Not only is Julia Gillard under attack from within her own Party, but elements of the media appear to have joined the fray with gleeful enthusiasm. The front page of today’s Daily Telegraph features a most unflattering image of our Prime Minister photoshopped to look like a senior citizen, alongside the screaming headline comparing Julia Gillard’s future pension to that received by ordinary Australians. It is, of course, a reaction to the allegation that, as Deputy PM, Ms. Gillard opposed last year’s increase to the old age pension. Despite the fact that the Prime Minister has vigorously defended herself and insisted that her position was misrepresented, it has been enough to fan the fires that threaten to consume her re-election campaign.
Of course, there is a long way still to go in this election campaign, but the early indications seem to suggest that whatever honeymoon period Julia Gillard might have enjoyed has already evaporated. The series of embarrassments arising from the well publicised cabinet leaks has been damaging enough to add to the existing discomfort over the manner of the Prime Minister’s assent to the top job. The notion that any leader is having difficulty commanding his or her own party is enough to call into question their ability to lead the nation. In this way, internal efforts to undermine the Prime Minister can rapidly become self fulfilling prophecies, aided by the salivating hounds of the press eager to pursue any scent of blood, so that the public very quickly begins to ask if the leader’s own colleagues are reluctant to give her their support, why should the people of Australia?
Already, opinion polls are reflecting some impact, with Newspoll and Neilson both showing a fall in support for the Government. A Morgan poll has today identified, for the first time, Tony Abbott as Preferred Prime Minister, and analysis of talk back radio has shown a decline in callers expressing support for Julia Gillard, along with an increase in support for Mr. Abbott. The Daily Telegraph further reports that an on-line poll has shown “more than a third of Sydneysiders believe that a Prime Minister should be married,” and while such things really shouldn’t make a difference to whether or not someone can be the Prime Minister, even reporting such a finding could be seen as validating and promoting it. All in all, it is starting to look grim for Julia Gillard, even though the bookies still have her as favourite to win.
The real question of course is whether or not the same blowtorch is being applied to Tony Abbott’s credibility and credentials. It’s all very well to examine the shortcomings of the Prime Minister and the government that she leads, but that should not be allowed to lead to a situation where Tony Abbott and the Coalition win by default. Why is it that nobody is running a media campaign to undermine Mr. Abbott on the same sort of spurious grounds applied to Ms. Gillard? Why are there not headlines decrying Tony Abbott for opposing increases to the Age pension for the 12 years that he was a front bench member of the Howard Government? Why are there no surveys published indicating how many people think that a Prime Minister should not impose conservative religious views onto the nation? That sort of questioning might not be fair or justified, but it is no less valid than the equally idiotic tripe being served up about Julia Gillard’s martial status.
Let’s not forget that Tony Abbott is the man who told us that we should not believe everything he says because he cannot be relied upon to always tell “the gospel truth”. He is the same man who promised to leave industrial relations policy alone, and then in the next breath said that he could not give a rock solid iron clad guarantee that there would not be some adjustment to the finer details of the Fair Work legislation. He is the same man who has lambasted the Government for planning to introduce a “great big new tax” and then promised to introduce his own great big new tax to pay for a parental leave scheme. And let’s not forget that there was a time when Tony Abbott was opposed to any kind of paid parental leave, but now he wants us to believe that he has been struck by lightning on the road to Damascus.
I have said consistently that Tong Abbott is in it to win it, and can win it. But if he does, I would hate to think that it was because of Julia Gillard’s religious views, relationship status or gender. That would be not just unfair, it would be un-Australian.
Masterchef might be over, but the knives are well and truly out. Not only is Julia Gillard under attack from within her own Party, but elements of the media appear to have joined the fray with gleeful enthusiasm. The front page of today’s Daily Telegraph features a most unflattering image of our Prime Minister photoshopped to look like a senior citizen, alongside the screaming headline comparing Julia Gillard’s future pension to that received by ordinary Australians. It is, of course, a reaction to the allegation that, as Deputy PM, Ms. Gillard opposed last year’s increase to the old age pension. Despite the fact that the Prime Minister has vigorously defended herself and insisted that her position was misrepresented, it has been enough to fan the fires that threaten to consume her re-election campaign.
Of course, there is a long way still to go in this election campaign, but the early indications seem to suggest that whatever honeymoon period Julia Gillard might have enjoyed has already evaporated. The series of embarrassments arising from the well publicised cabinet leaks has been damaging enough to add to the existing discomfort over the manner of the Prime Minister’s assent to the top job. The notion that any leader is having difficulty commanding his or her own party is enough to call into question their ability to lead the nation. In this way, internal efforts to undermine the Prime Minister can rapidly become self fulfilling prophecies, aided by the salivating hounds of the press eager to pursue any scent of blood, so that the public very quickly begins to ask if the leader’s own colleagues are reluctant to give her their support, why should the people of Australia?
Already, opinion polls are reflecting some impact, with Newspoll and Neilson both showing a fall in support for the Government. A Morgan poll has today identified, for the first time, Tony Abbott as Preferred Prime Minister, and analysis of talk back radio has shown a decline in callers expressing support for Julia Gillard, along with an increase in support for Mr. Abbott. The Daily Telegraph further reports that an on-line poll has shown “more than a third of Sydneysiders believe that a Prime Minister should be married,” and while such things really shouldn’t make a difference to whether or not someone can be the Prime Minister, even reporting such a finding could be seen as validating and promoting it. All in all, it is starting to look grim for Julia Gillard, even though the bookies still have her as favourite to win.
The real question of course is whether or not the same blowtorch is being applied to Tony Abbott’s credibility and credentials. It’s all very well to examine the shortcomings of the Prime Minister and the government that she leads, but that should not be allowed to lead to a situation where Tony Abbott and the Coalition win by default. Why is it that nobody is running a media campaign to undermine Mr. Abbott on the same sort of spurious grounds applied to Ms. Gillard? Why are there not headlines decrying Tony Abbott for opposing increases to the Age pension for the 12 years that he was a front bench member of the Howard Government? Why are there no surveys published indicating how many people think that a Prime Minister should not impose conservative religious views onto the nation? That sort of questioning might not be fair or justified, but it is no less valid than the equally idiotic tripe being served up about Julia Gillard’s martial status.
Let’s not forget that Tony Abbott is the man who told us that we should not believe everything he says because he cannot be relied upon to always tell “the gospel truth”. He is the same man who promised to leave industrial relations policy alone, and then in the next breath said that he could not give a rock solid iron clad guarantee that there would not be some adjustment to the finer details of the Fair Work legislation. He is the same man who has lambasted the Government for planning to introduce a “great big new tax” and then promised to introduce his own great big new tax to pay for a parental leave scheme. And let’s not forget that there was a time when Tony Abbott was opposed to any kind of paid parental leave, but now he wants us to believe that he has been struck by lightning on the road to Damascus.
I have said consistently that Tong Abbott is in it to win it, and can win it. But if he does, I would hate to think that it was because of Julia Gillard’s religious views, relationship status or gender. That would be not just unfair, it would be un-Australian.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Cabinet Leaks Could Make Or Break PM
EDITORIAL WEDNESDAY 28.07.10.
I have said it before and I will say it again. Never underestimate the ability of the Australian Labor Party to shoot itself in the foot. The series of apparent leaks from within the Party beginning with the allegation that Julia Gillard reneged on a deal to allow Kevin Rudd more time to improve his performance in the polls, and culminating in the accusation that Ms. Gillard opposed the last year’s pension increase and the introduction of paid parental leave, has given rise to speculation that there may be some within the Party actively attempting to sabotage the campaign. Naturally, the name Kevin Rudd immediately comes to mind, but he denies having anything to do with the leaks. Be that as it may, unless Laurie Oakes is making it all up, it appears that someone in the Labor Party is deliberately undermining Julia.
With more than three weeks of the election campaign still to come, there is ample time for even more damaging material to emerge, so the Prime Minister could be in for a torrid time. At the same time, Opposition leader Tony Abbott is most definitely in it to win it, and will seize upon any ammunition which might become available. Although Julia Gillard has been in office for three years, she is in the unique position of effectively having to prove herself all over again. People had readily accepted her as Deputy PM, but now that she has taken the top job, especially in the controversial circumstances that she did, people are assessing her all over again.
While most people are happy to put religious, gender , and relationship issues aside, there remains a substantial number of voters who still harbour some disquiet about an atheist woman with a live-in boyfriend moving into the Lodge. Others still have concerns over what they see as the unfair treatment of Kevin Rudd, not just because it is seen as a personal betrayal, but because it is also seen as a lack of respect for the office of the Prime Minister and the voters who feel that they were the ones who put Mr. Rudd in that office, and should have the right to decide whether or not to remove him from it. Some people are wondering whether the puppetmasters were motivated by the pursuit of good government or just good polling figures.
We will never know what would have happened of course, but I believe that Kevin Rudd could have and would have won the election, and that the move to dump him was the premature and desperate act of rattled numbers men who got cold feet in the face of a few negative poll results. Rather than fix the policies, they tried to fix the poll results, by changing the face of the leadership. It is a tactic which has been used repeatedly in New South Wales, and which has crated a succession of ex-Premiers without actually improving either the government or their popularity. It’s easy to arrive at the view that the powerbrokers have abused their power, and that Labor should be punished for it.
With the Prime Minister subject to those vulnerabilities, the ongoing attack on her leadership via this series of Cabinet leaks could well cost votes and perhaps even the election result. But while the Government might deserve to be punished, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the Opposition deserves to be rewarded. Thus far, if we are to believe the opinion polls, the coalition remains the less attractive choice, giving Julia Gillard enough breathing space to respond to this attack from within, which might actually turn out to be an opportunity for her to demonstrate just how effective she can be as a leader.
I have said it before and I will say it again. Never underestimate the ability of the Australian Labor Party to shoot itself in the foot. The series of apparent leaks from within the Party beginning with the allegation that Julia Gillard reneged on a deal to allow Kevin Rudd more time to improve his performance in the polls, and culminating in the accusation that Ms. Gillard opposed the last year’s pension increase and the introduction of paid parental leave, has given rise to speculation that there may be some within the Party actively attempting to sabotage the campaign. Naturally, the name Kevin Rudd immediately comes to mind, but he denies having anything to do with the leaks. Be that as it may, unless Laurie Oakes is making it all up, it appears that someone in the Labor Party is deliberately undermining Julia.
With more than three weeks of the election campaign still to come, there is ample time for even more damaging material to emerge, so the Prime Minister could be in for a torrid time. At the same time, Opposition leader Tony Abbott is most definitely in it to win it, and will seize upon any ammunition which might become available. Although Julia Gillard has been in office for three years, she is in the unique position of effectively having to prove herself all over again. People had readily accepted her as Deputy PM, but now that she has taken the top job, especially in the controversial circumstances that she did, people are assessing her all over again.
While most people are happy to put religious, gender , and relationship issues aside, there remains a substantial number of voters who still harbour some disquiet about an atheist woman with a live-in boyfriend moving into the Lodge. Others still have concerns over what they see as the unfair treatment of Kevin Rudd, not just because it is seen as a personal betrayal, but because it is also seen as a lack of respect for the office of the Prime Minister and the voters who feel that they were the ones who put Mr. Rudd in that office, and should have the right to decide whether or not to remove him from it. Some people are wondering whether the puppetmasters were motivated by the pursuit of good government or just good polling figures.
We will never know what would have happened of course, but I believe that Kevin Rudd could have and would have won the election, and that the move to dump him was the premature and desperate act of rattled numbers men who got cold feet in the face of a few negative poll results. Rather than fix the policies, they tried to fix the poll results, by changing the face of the leadership. It is a tactic which has been used repeatedly in New South Wales, and which has crated a succession of ex-Premiers without actually improving either the government or their popularity. It’s easy to arrive at the view that the powerbrokers have abused their power, and that Labor should be punished for it.
With the Prime Minister subject to those vulnerabilities, the ongoing attack on her leadership via this series of Cabinet leaks could well cost votes and perhaps even the election result. But while the Government might deserve to be punished, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the Opposition deserves to be rewarded. Thus far, if we are to believe the opinion polls, the coalition remains the less attractive choice, giving Julia Gillard enough breathing space to respond to this attack from within, which might actually turn out to be an opportunity for her to demonstrate just how effective she can be as a leader.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
