Tis the Season to be Mickey
Check out this Daily Telegraph piece with leaked polling by Liberal guru etc Mark Textor which got a good run on television and radio yesterday. It shows Tony Abbott is … wait for it … “more popular” then Kevin Rudd in four marginal NSW seats.
Mark didn’t measure voting intentions. Only approval. Gee that’s useful. (He possibly did get voting intentions but didn’t like the results.)
It’s election season so this sort of dodgy stuff will increasingly grace our papers.
Narrative schmarrative
Lots of people reckon Rudd needs to get or regain something called a “narrative” about why they’re there to win the election.
Rubbish: the only narrative in town is that Abbott & co are dangerous and we government are by contrast safe and doing what governments do, which is govern. There’ll be plenty of time for wild stories from around 7:10pm AEST election day, whichever way it goes.
And media narratives tend to reflect current wisdom about how the parties are travelling – which largely comes from published opinion polls.
The prime minister’s unhealthy interest in fluff and nonsense has bored our beloved country stupid for three years and gotten his government into its current pickle. It should not be encouraged.
Tony Abbott is a “risk”
Correct message Labor. But you’re repeating the word so much it’s in danger of losing power. Why not give the tale some interest, let people join the dots to come up with the word/concept themselves, that way it’s more likely to stick.
Abbott’s task is, naturally, to negate the idea of “risk”. No-one really cares if you’re “authentic” or “real” or have “convictions” or whatever; if they’re tired of the incumbent, the main thing they want from you is that you won’t make a mess of things.
Shadow cabinet was right to kybosh his handout to stay-at-home mums.
The forgotten Rooster
Mr Oakes in the Tele reminds that Treasurer Wayne Swan is a possible Labor leadership contender (in Wayne’s mind at least) if a vacancy arises. But what about Mark Latham’s other “Rooster”, Stephen Smith?
He may be out of the country half the time, but don’t forget Smithy!*
Anyway … a prediction anticipation
My best anticipation of election result remains an increased seat total (ie more than 83) for Labor. There.
*Stephen Conroy was I think the third Rooster but he’s not a contender.
Are you sure you have not been brainwashed by the msm etc bootstrapping utterings.
Kev is solid with a full team behind him who are to busy running the country to have time to play games of who’s next.
Leave that to the Libs the past masters whilst in opposition and spineless when in power, a veritable policy and moral vacuum aka Yes Minister “whiskey Priest” episode I think. And where are the Libs likely to find a choice of alternate from, not their front bench of no hopers.
“Shadow cabinet was right to kybosh his handout to working mums.”
Erm, i think that was “stay-at-home” mums. [Peter: fixed, thank.]
http://www.theage.com.au/national/im-a-wimp-for-not-telling-says-a-coy-abbott-20100514-v4mz.html
What would be news is if Tony Abbott decided to give money to mums who work over those that don’t. That would be one right up Howard’s legacy. In other words, not in a million years.
I don’t know if there was a missing irony alert but nonetheless I think (and have long thought) that if Rudd’s ship seemed to be going down quickly and the Beazley faction of the party wanted to challenge Gillard’s right to the throne that Smith was the ablest man for the job. No idea what his numbers would be like I just think he’s a fairly competent politician.
No, I was serious about Smith: photogenic, seems sensible, articulate etc.
The tears and fears on the Labor blogs point to something else.
All calm down, please. And look at Newspoll disapproval ratings and 2pp standings for past governments heading towards elections…Hawke in 90, Keating in 93, Howard in 98, Howard in 01, for example. They were ALL well down on Rudd’s current position. Far too early to be talking about election losses or replacing a PM.
If Rudd got what Hawke got in 1990 or Howard in 98 he’d lose the election Phil. A better point to make is who on earth would want to knife the prime minister in a bloody coup a few months out from a general election with no likelihood of winning it.
I’m still confident that Rudd will win 90+ seats though.
I recall in 2008 centrebet had odds for liberal leader at the next election which had Nelson, Turnbull and Costello all between 2.50 and 6 dollars thereabouts, Bishop and Hockey around the 12-15 dollar mark I think but Abbott was all the way up in the 30’s. I happen to think there was a reason he was in the 30’s.
Yes, but Rudd is nowhere near where Hawke and Howard were at the same stage is what I’m saying. My point, Lentern, was that Rudd’s position is still way better than several eventually-successful PM’s looking at an election within 6 months. The only two who lost in the past 25 years were so hopelessly behind that the outcome was pretty well a given well ahead of time [and they'd been around for a decade or more]. The current frenzy might, of course, be justified eventually, but not yet.
So Phil,
How many swallows do you need to make a summer? 2 days before polling day? 6 newspolls in a role?
When is “yet”?
Well, a hell of a lot more swallows before you start changing leaders [which was the original issue in this string]. If political parties had changed leaders as soon as a PM hit negative territory in polls, there’d have been a lot of short-termers. And maybe ‘yet’ arrives when the PM is consistently way behind rather than neck and neck a couple of times. Almost all PM’s have been [much] worse off on Newspoll at some stage than Rudd is now; most recovered to win.
Phil, I wonder if those previous PM’s had demonstrated such sheer incompetence and lack of spine that led to such poor polling? After all, numbers are just that…. numbers.. they are caused by somthing. At the moment they are caused by a PM that is paralised by polling and appears to stand for whatever is popular on the day. I dont think as some say its lack of his communication skills, its more like bloody piss poor execution…. aka BER, Insulation among others… A little more focus on doing as opposed to talking might pay dividends.
Wiggo incompetence and lack of spine is in the eyes of the beholder. Presumably though if even less than 50% of people thought John Howard or Bob Hawke should have been prime minister at certain points in their premierships, there was something equally if not more problematic than Rudd’s cowardice and “sheer incompetence”.
Unpopularity can be caused by two things though. Making unpopular decisions that are good for the country and following through with them. Or secondly promising everything that is popular, and doing it either poorly or not at all.
In the end people might punish the former in the short term in opinion polls but will reward them come election time for doing taking the supposed tough decison. As for the latter, I guess we’ll find out at election time.
Just a theory from an average joe voter:)