April 15  The sad situation of Brendan Nelson

Call it momentum, blood in the water or a vicious circle. We've seen it before, and poor Brendan won't be around for long. 

It's a little surprising that his approval rating remains healthy - 36 in last week's Newspoll - given the wall-to-wall media negativity, which tends to feed into survey respondents' estimations of whether he's doing a good job. Downer and Crean got about half that number.

Tony Abbott leadership?

Glenn Milne suggested yesterday (and on Sunday's 'Insiders') that Tony Abbott might be trying to churn as many people as possible "through the system" of opposition leader. With the new government in the ascendancy, whoever is opposition leader will "flame out", and eventually, somewhere down the track, they'll have to turn to Tony. I like that idea, but surely you'd have to go through a lot of alternatives before contemplating Mr Abbott.. 

Most in the partyroom must know he is unelectable. (Nelson is not unelectable; just in the wrong place and time. I can't think of anyone else in serious consideration who is unelectable like Tony is.)

Michael Duffy was on to something (although not what he thought) when he lumped Abbott with Mark Latham. Anyone who thinks the Coalition can win from opposition with Tony Abbott as leader is confusing their own preferences with those of voters.

• Morgan phone poll says 63.5 to 36.5. Pollbludger notes this is a record high for a Morgan phone poll. 

April 12  Bye bye Brendan

The Oz, or at least the Weekend Oz, has gone after Dr Nelson. Dennis the political editor is o/s with the PM, so foreign editor Greg does the job. Is this normal? Or does it mean we should interpret Tony Abbott's fingerprints? [Update: yes.]

Anyway, poor Brendan's days were always numbered; that number has now shrunk. In February I entered this Monthly Magazine competition, nominating (I think) May 2008 for the date and Peter Costello for the replacement. You never know. 

This bet is still tricky, because although Turnbull currently appears the likely successor, I doubt whoever replaces Nelson will still be there at the next election. As well, one suspects there's still an "anyone but Turnbull" rump in the partyroom.

Everyone makes fun of Brendan's little homilies and clichés, but this was how he got the job in the first place. All that schmaltzy stuff impressed the Howard fans. 

The more leaders the Libs go through between now and the election, the more people they will trash. 

April 9  Political cartoonists Just off the presses, this book, edited by Haydon Manning and Robert Phiddian, looks a ripper. More, including contents page/contributers (Moir, Pryor, O'Neill et al), here Publisher's book blurb here Disclosure: Haydon Manning = a friend of mine

April 8  Nelson's approval rating still ok!

According to Newspoll, it's 35%. That's not too bad,  and there was a time when commentators advised us to look at approval ratings and nothing else (not even voting intentions). Opposition leaders Lord Downer and Simon Crean clocked in a few in the low 20s, which Brendan Nelson has hitherto not come close to.

To pretend that Nelson is doing badly in approval ratings, a new term has evolved: "approval rating ... (as better Prime Minister)" - not by the Oz, but by secondary sources. 

As you know, the most important numbers in terms of electability are voting intentions. They're at 59 to 41 - a huge deficit neither Crean nor Downer remotely approached. However, Kim Beazley did register such scores several times in 1996, and as you know, Labor went on to be highly competitive at the 1998 election.

But for that to happen again the Rudd government would have to (a) perform as poorly as the first Howard one, and (b) promise to introduce something very unpopular in 2010. 

The first condition is of course always possible, but surely not the second.

A Nelson Prime Ministership?

I reckon Brendan Nelson is an electable opposition leader, and is not doing too much that's terrible. But he's in the job at the wrong time. Surely they'll knock him off, probably this year, and in a couple of terms, after they've been through Bishop, Turnbull, Abbott and others, maybe Brendan can make a successful comeback - just in time for a Coalition win.

April 4 Peter McGauran quits

His seat of Gippsland looks safe, with a healthy on paper 5.9 percent margin. But see its two party preferred graph, which is adjusted for redistributions, up to the 2004 election. The folks there swung against Latham by 5.1 percent and only came back by 1.8 last time. (The graph stops at 2004.) Maybe they're ready to swing some more.

Nationally, the Rudd government tends to sit on about 59 percent two party preferred in the opinion polls, compared with 53 percent at November's election. Howard was similarly riding high at the time of the Lindsay byelection in October 1996 when he scored a five percent swing.

Lindsay was seven and a half months after Howard's election win. With the Gippsland poll "tipped for June", that's about how old the Rudd government will be.

Could be a contest.

April 1 No Newspoll today? But the latest Morgan has 63.5 to 36.5. Two random pictures at right.

March 30 The next Liberal leader?

Above are Sportingbet's odds on who will lead the Libs at the next federal election. I would throw some dollars on Julie Bishop, except we can't be sure the person who replaces Brendan will themselves still be there on polling day.

I favour something like this unfolding: Nelson is knocked off later this year and replaced with Bishop. Bishop is knifed next year and replaced with ... Turnbull or Costello. If it's Costello, the change will be seismic: Labor trembles, Libs rejoice, commentators comment, for example:

"We now have a contest." Malcolm Farr, the Tele.

"Kevin Rudd has the fight of his political life on his hands - and he knows it". Alan Ramsey, SMH

"The Liberals have finally chosen the best person for the job." Gerard Henderson, SMH.

"Peter Costello is a conviction politician". Paul Kelly, The Australian

Then Rudd increases his majority in 2010. 

But we get ahead of ourselves.

March 25 Rudd's ministers

Stephen Mayne in Crikey on another AFR Boofhead column.

It pains to admit, but Joel Fitzgibbon is handling himself well - at least with the media. Gone is the funster who (according to Great Man's diaries) found (along with Great Man) nothing funnier than leaving messages on Bob McMullan's voicemail about his comb-over. 

Gillard as minister is like a duck to water, but she always was brilliant in front of camera. Tanner too. 

Swannie is of course the disappointment. And a surprise; had expected the prefab politician to at least have an idea of what is required in government. But he's still the same. Swannie needs an acting coach: get in the space and show some personality, Wayne.

Opposition versus government

Mind you, Mr Rudd's tendency to retreat at the whiff of grapeshot is also something good for opposition but not government. Governments take unpopular decisions, that's one of the things they do, and in the end people like them for it. (They become "conviction politicians!")

Alan Ramsey suggests that Swan might not be Treasurer if Rudd hadn't gone to water last year. A better world would indeed see Tanner as Treasurer and Swan in Finance.

Workchoices: stating the bleedin' obvious

If by the next election the Liberals have not buried Workchoices - any hint of it - if any of their members are still publicly reminiscing about the good old IR days under John Howard, they will suffer terribly. The election will be about them, not the government. 

Rudd & co obviously know this, but obviously quite a few Liberal partyroom pennies remain undropped.

March 19 Two tables: how those seats swing

First table is ranked by seat swing minus state swing in 2007. 

Second table: cumulative seat swing minus state swing 1996 to 2007 inclusive. 1993 was the last time Labor won a federal election, so it compares the situation at the two elections 1993 and 2007.

Time is short; comment to come! (But one glaring point: mortgage belt seats tend to sit near the top of first table, but at bottom of second.)

March 17 Spending my winnings

Way back in October 2006, when Kim Beazley was still Labor leader, Tasmania's Peter Tucker and I had a wager. I put up $20 and he put up $200 and if Labor won the next Australian federal election, Nationals won the next New Zealand one and Tories got home in the next British one, I win. If any of the three incumbents retain office, I lose.

The first part fell into place, and it looks set to happen in NZ this year; the weakest link from my point of view was always Britain - due by 2010 - where a hung parliament is always a possibility.

Still, a four year investment, but a good one.

March 14 Possum's pollercoaster

Labor's two party preferred vote 2000 - 07, here

Every government question is a Dorothy Dixer, the opposition behaves appallingly, (nearly) everybody on both sides tries to show how tough they are, fighting for something called "the psychological advantage"; raucous laughter at unfunny jokes etc.

It was all supposed to change. But change doesn't come easy.

March 13 A referendum on fixed terms?

There must surely be arguments against fixed terms, but James Allan in the Oz obviously has trouble finding them. Silliest of his suggestions is the "Trojan Horse for a Republic"; his "leave it to the market" argument (comprising about half the article) about voters naturally punishing governments who go early is easily refuted by the historical record.

The only one that makes sense is the scenario of a close result resulting in an unstable administration having no choice but to stumble on for three/four years. Maybe this could be guarded against by having fresh elections if two-thirds of parliament agree (just off top of head.)

Allan implies that he's for four year terms rather than three. I reckon the opposite: four years is too long (look at NSW!), but flexible terms unnecessarily make the length of term a plaything of whoever is in power at the time. Fixed and three years might be the way to go.

Anyway, fans of the status quo needn't worry. The Coalition in opposition has never, ever supported a constitutional referendum (which hasn't stopped them later putting the same proposal up from government). They can't help themselves: the perceived political advantage of opposing something that is, because of that opposition, doomed to failure proves irresistible. (The record doesn't provide grounds for that enthusiasm, for example the Howard opposition crowed about its success in helping thrash the Hawke government's 1988 referendums, but Howard lost the leadership the next year and the Coalition lost the next two elections.)

An insecure leader like Nelson would be especially attracted to opposing. It is just so easy.

Margaret Thatcher reckoned referendums were "a tool of demagogues and dictators". That's taking it too far, but our constitutional amendment device (S128) is a shocker. Hardly any other country has constructed such a high hurdle.

More here.

March 12 Comfortable and relaxed: straightening the record

As you know, the phrase "comfortable and relaxed" (or, as it became known, "relaxed and comfortable"), became, to Grand Narrators of the Howard years, emblematic not only of his reign, but of his political genius. Like Menzies' "forgotten people" (also surely over-analysed, being uttered six years before he retook government) it is seen as important and explanatory: Howard understood what middle Australia wanted, the elites just didn't get it, etc.

What rubbish. It was a lame answer to a prefab 4 Corners question and the meaning at the time was obvious: it was about Aboriginals, in particular all the hand-wringing under the Keating years about past injustices. The first part was the most important: "I would like to see [Australians] comfortable and relaxed about their history". The present and future were thrown in as a bit of camouflage. It was droning and tinny, like the rest of the answer, which was about not going on about Asia so much. (Read the transcript here.)

Yes, he was prodding at things people didn't like about Paul Keating. But to bestow greater power onto a boring bunch of words is silly. Some folks even identify that as the moment they knew Howard would win the election!

Ego-driven narratives ("read/hear me explain what's going on; I do it so well") blow all sorts of stuff out of proportion.

So what fairytales will the Rudd years throw up? We'll have to wait and see. 

"The most friendly welcome possible"

.

Nicholson in the Oz. 

(A proud boast: "the most friendly welcome possible.")

March 10 That smelly old Iemma government

Me in Crikey today on how NSW Labor will hurt Rudd in 2010.