Julia Gillard: day two

Australian politics has entered uncharted waters after yesterday’s brutally efficient leadership coup, but the consensus view is that Julia Gillard is favourite to lead Labor to a victory which might have been beyond Kevin Rudd. One naysayer is Peter Brent of Mumble, a man who has been known to get things right from time to time. Brent’s assessment, published in The Australian yesterday, is that the odds now slightly favour the Coalition, whereas Labor under Rudd would most likely have increased its majority. I think he has it the wrong way around.

Certainly there is a view abroad – Mark Bahnisch of Larvatus Prodeo being one proponent – that changing leaders, particularly when in government, is inherently destabilising and destructive. The New South Wales state government’s game of musical chairs is usually offered as a cautionary tale. However, it is a mistake to compare the federal government with one whose problems are underlying, terminal and, most crucially, age-related. Through Morris Iemma, Nathan Rees and Kristina Keneally, NSW Labor’s primary vote has been super-glued to 30 per cent in the polls, for the simple reason that the leadership hasn’t been the problem.

It was a different story entirely with Kevin Rudd, who led a first-term government with a strong economic record that ought to be well ahead. The main problem lay with a leader whose credibility in the eyes of voters had been irreparably damaged by the celebrated series of policy backdowns followed by the government advertising fiasco. As is now well known, such problems were mirrored within the party. Stunning as events of recent days have been, there has been no mystery about their underlying cause: when Rudd’s poll lead evaporated, so did his authority in the party. All that remained to be answered was whether the party still felt he could struggle through to an election win, allowing the matter to be dealt with less bruisingly after the event.

Key to the decision that he couldn’t was internal polling which reportedly showed Labor headed for a net loss of 18 seats. Purported details of such polling were provided by a party insider to Andrew Bolt, and they tell a believeable story. Included are Labor seats on less than 5 per cent and Coalition seats on less than 1.5 per cent – about 40 all told. The broad picture is of Labor facing swings of 4 per cent in New South Wales and Queensland and as much as 8 per cent in South Australia, but no change in Victoria or Tasmania. In Western Australia, Hasluck would be lost, but no swing can be determined as Brand and Perth weren’t included in the poll. Also said to be a lost cause for Labor was Darwin-based Solomon.

Twenty-one seats in all were identified as Labor losses against three gains, which coming off 88 seats notionally held by Labor would leave them five seats short of a majority. This would involve an overall swing of about 3.5 per cent and a Labor two-party vote of about 49 per cent, slightly below the trend of published polling. Taken together, the evidence pointed to a worrying but by no means irretrievable situation for the government. What proved fatal to Rudd was a lack of confidence, based on recent performance, in his capacity to turn the ship around.

With regard to the likely electoral consequences, Peter van Onselen in The Australian pretty much bangs the nail on the head as far as I’m concerned, as does Niki Savva at The Drum. This from Lenore Taylor the Sydney Morning Herald also caught my eye:

Tony Abbott put a brave face on Labor’s last-ditch leadership change but privately the Coalition was desperately disappointed that it would not face an election against Kevin Rudd.

And it was utterly dismayed the mining industry had – as one source put it – ”succumbed to [Gillard’s] guile” by agreeing to her offer of a negotiating truce in the mining super profits tax war and to take the industry advertisements attacking the government off the air.

The Coalition has gone out on a limb in support of the mining industry and the prospect of a deal between the miners and the government has left it edgy.

Some developments from the upheaval:

• In what would be red-letter news on any other day, Lindsay Tanner made the shock announcement he would quit politics at the next election, making Greens candidate Adam Bandt a short-priced favourite to take his seat of Melbourne. VexNews reports “talk” that Tanner hopes to be succeeded in the seat by academic, commentator and occasional broadcaster Waleed Aly, who would seem just the thing to defuse the threat of the Greens, and Socialist Left warlord Andrew Giles, who wouldn’t.

• Shortly before the spill, VexNews reported that if Rudd went, so might two Queensland marginal seat MPs: Chris Trevor in Flynn and Jon Sullivan in Longman. Trevor said yesterday that Gillard would “always have my full support”, but Emma Chalmers of the Courier-Mail reports from Labor sources that he was contemplating quitting. Chalmers also quotes Sullivan expressing disappointment at the result, but going no further than that.

• According to The Australian’s Jack the Insider, “Liberal Party polling tells (Abbott) that he is starting this contest against Gillard from a long way behind. Kevin Rudd may have had his nose in front but the polling tells Abbott that Gillard would win the next election by the length of the straight.”

And while I’m here, here’s a piece I wrote for Crikey last week on the electoral state-of-play in South Australia. It might be showing its age in some respects.

South Australia was Labor’s forgotten triumph of the 2007 election, replicating on a smaller and less spectacular scale the decisive tectonic shift in Queensland.

The statewide two-party swing to Labor of 6.8% was only slightly below Queensland’s 7.5%, which was borne out in the proportion of seat gains: three out of 11 in South Australia, nine out of 29 in Queensland.

Labor’s resurgence put an end to a slump which dated back to 1987, the last time they had won a majority of the South Australian two-party vote, and 1990, when they last won a majority of seats.

Before that the state had been a source of strength for Labor in the post-war era, notwithstanding that a dubious electoral boundaries regime kept them out of office for much of that time at state level.

This was partly because the state party branch was spared the worst of the 1954-55 split, but also because of the large blue-collar workforce required to service an economy based largely on manufacturing and industry.

The difficulties experienced by these sectors meant the state was hit hard by the economic upheavals of the 1980s, which together with the damage done to Labor by the 1991 State Bank collapse led to a fundamental electoral shift in the Liberals’ favour.

At federal level this was manifested in a series of grim federal election results that reduced Labor to two seats out of 12 in 1996, to which only one seat was added in later terms of the Howard Government.

With one seat having been abolished in 2004, Labor’s doubling of their representation at the 2007 election gave them a bare majority of six seats out of 11, and left the Liberals without a safe seat in Adelaide.

The two Liberal hold-outs in the city were Christopher Pyne’s seat of Sturt and Andrew Southcott’s seat of Boothby, which cover the traditional party strongholds of the east and inner south.

In a tale that will become increasingly familiar as this series proceeds, speculation about the coming election was long focused on the Liberals’ chances of retaining these existing seats, but such talk faded as the new year began and disappeared with Labor’s poll collapse over the past two months.

Labor’s main strength in South Australia lies in the coastal plain north of the city centre, which makes a safe Labor seat of Port Adelaide and marginals of four others which are leavened with more conservative areas beyond.

The electorate of Adelaide covers inner suburbs both north and south of the city, which are respectively strong and weak for Labor, and the growing inner-city apartment population in between, which has proved highly volatile in its electoral habits of late.

In a rare sighting of the “doctors’ wives” effect, Labor’s Kate Ellis bucked the trend of the 2004 election to win Adelaide from Liberal incumbent Trish Worth, and she emerged from the 2007 election with what seemed like a secure 8.5% margin.

However, the Liberals are talking of internal polling showing them “closing the gap”, after staggering swings were recorded in the electorate at the March state election (at which Education Minister Jane Lomax-Smith lost the state seat of Adelaide with a swing of 14.4%).

To the west of Adelaide is coastal Hindmarsh, which combines Labor-voting inner city areas with prosperous and conservative Glenelg in the south. Labor’s Steve Georganas won by the narrowest of margins when popular Liberal member Chris Gallus retired in 2004, before picking up a relatively modest swing in 2007.

North-east of the city centre is Makin, home to newer suburbs in the hills along with the eastern part of Salisbury on the plain. Makin is the only seat in the state which has form as a bellwether, being held by Labor from its creation in 1984 until 1996, Liberal through the Howard years and Labor’s Tony Zappia since 2007.

Further north is Wakefield, which offers even starker contrasts: deep red Elizabeth in the south, rapidly growing Gawler just past the city’s northern limits (where change is favouring Labor, if the state election is anything to go by) and conservative rural and wine-growing areas beyond.

Wakefield was a safe Liberal country seat until it absorbed Elizabeth at the redistribution before the 2004 election. Liberal candidate David Fawcett unexpectedly retained it for the Liberals on that occasion, but his narrow margin was eliminated by Labor’s Nick Champion in 2007 (Fawcett now stands poised to enter the Senate).

The only seat in Adelaide which conforms neatly with the mortgage belt marginal seat stereotype is Kingston, covering the city’s outer southern coastal suburbs. Labor’s Amanda Rishworth recovered this seat for Labor in 2007 after it was lost in 2004, interest rates having had a lot to do with it on each occasion.

The diversity that characterises the other marginals is significant, as it leaves their members as susceptible to rebellions in party heartlands as to the normally more decisive ebb and flow of the mortgage-payer vote.

This is where the mining tax could cause problems for Labor, as many blue-collar workers perceive a connection between the mining boom and the industrial and manufacturing sectors which employ them.

While South Australia is rarely given a guernsey as a “mining state”, BHP Billiton’s massive Olympic Dam project single-handedly allows the industry to punch above its weight, as it is associated in the public mind with the state shaking off its “rust belt” reputation from the 1990s.

Uncomfortably for Labor, BHP Billiton says the tax will jeopardise a $20 billion expansion to the project which is currently under consideration, a process that will certainly not be completed before the election.
Premier Mike Rann captured attention last week when he claimed any decision to stall the project would cost Labor four or even five seats.

For all that, the Liberals have big hurdles to clear if South Australia is to produce any of the seats it needs to overhaul Labor’s majority.

The problem is a lack of low-hanging fruit — even the most marginal of Labor’s six seats, Kingston, sits on an imposing margin of 4.4%.

Furthermore, the March state election suggests Labor has a trump card in the form of a ruthlessly efficient marginal seat campaign machine, which helped Mike Rann hang on to office with just 37.5% of the primary and 48.4% of the two-party vote.

The only seats in the state which swung to Labor were the two most marginal, Light and Mawson (respectively in Wakefield and Kingston federally), and the critical eastern suburbs seats of Hartley and Newland likewise held firm against a torrid tide. Elsewhere, Labor suffered double-digit swings nearly everywhere they could afford to.

Federal Labor will be hoping to achieve similar successes in working-class areas with a campaign to focus minds on industrial relations, thereby shoring up valuable support in Makin and Wakefield in particular.
Beyond Adelaide, the state’s three non-metropolitan seats are of limited electoral interest, notwithstanding the vague threat the Democrats and now the Greens have posed in Mayo, where Jamie Briggs struggled over the line in the September 2008 by-election that followed Alexander Downer’s resignation.

That leaves Barker in the state’s east, which covers rural territory which has never been of interest to Labor, and the outback electorate of Grey, which has transformed over the past two decades from safe Labor to safe Liberal — testament to the decline of the “iron triangle” cities of Whyalla, Port August and Port Pirie, and reflecting the experience of Kalgoorlie west of the border.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

966 comments on “Julia Gillard: day two”

Comments Page 16 of 20
1 15 16 17 20
  1. Yes, oh Dear. Poor Tony. It seems Red Kerry is the only oe that can make Tone admit the truth .. sort of.

    Abbott said the other night ‘categorically’ that he didn’t say ‘the famous victory in our grasp’ bit. He just admitted he did.

    He really is a class A toad.

    You can imagine the Liberal stalwarts on the sidelines shaking their heads. They came up with their ‘Poor assassinated Kevin’ strategy — so they CANNOT dump Abbott now, can they.

    All ALP fans should be rubbing their hands together with glee!

  2. If only Howard could do a Silvo.

    What rubbish leaders the Tories have had since Unca.

    Wish we had a Holt, Gorton or Lyons up our sleave…

    Will enjoy it when Julia’s numbers drop and Arbib and co knife her for Swanny I wont shed a tear for her.

  3. BK,

    [ This bloke is dead in the water.

    Time for Minchin and his shifty mates to get busy again? ]

    If I didn’t know better, I could easily get the distinct impression that Abbott is about to get the same media treatment the Rudd has sustained leading to his demise.

    The comparisons that Red Kerry was leading Abbott back to smack of a carbon copy of what we have just witnessed.

    A wounded Abbott, dissatisfied, unhappy caucus and a reinvigorated Turnbull just waiting in the wings for the call.

    We could be on the threshold of some real entertainment especially as it appears that Labor’s coup has gained the benefits it hoped to obtain.

  4. [We could be on the threshold of some real entertainment especially as it appears that Labor’s coup has gained the benefits it hoped to obtain.]
    Scorps
    Wouldn’t it be delicious!!!

  5. [Kind of puts the defence of ‘caucus regaining control over the parliamentary party’ into a new light.]

    It’s rare as hen’s teeth that I agree with Abbott, but I do unfortunately agree with him when he says NSW Labor has come to Canberra. NSW Labor unfortunately have an enormous amount of power over the federal party to the point where they near-run it. Unlike the old days when loss of factional support was a bottom to top process, it’s now a top to bottom process. Lose the support of a few key people, their people swing in behind them and the parliamentary numbers fall in to place. It was going to be an approx win of 70-80 votes from 115 federal Labor MPs who are mostly factionalised. It’s so rare that leadership spills are that lopsided, especially for a PM who has broken polling records and is still winning the 2PP, not to mention the other factors PBers so often point out.

    Federal Labor is now fixed by NSW Labor. Not good.

  6. [Will enjoy it when Julia’s numbers drop and Arbib and co knife her for Swanny I wont shed a tear for her.]
    I don’t know if I could vote for Swan if he was leader.

  7. @ Glen
    [Wish we had a Holt, Gorton or Lyons up our sleave…]

    Typical Liberal sentiment … lets go back to our childhoods when all was happy and safe.

    Selective memory much? Or just showing your age?

    Feudalism went out with European expansion.

  8. [And this occurred?]

    Rudd didn’t get an increased, decreased, or no majority. He didn’t even get to the election. So my major point about no govt ever being re-elected with an increased majority with noise from Labor fanboys was right. As to whether Gillard can win an increased majority, let people start proclaiming that too! But it is so unlikely to happen based on history and current events. 🙂

  9. Hey Bob1234 – Yes I have previously stated that Tanner would hold melbourne and now that he is gone the Green’s changes have been increased.

    I would now consider them to be favorites, if only Jane Garrett wasn’t taking on Brunswick for she would be a walk in for Melbourne

  10. Aristotle@741:

    [Fellow bludgers, I’m not sure if this has been mentioned, but I was on Radio National this morning. For those who are interested you can hear it here:]

    Yep, heard it live, I thought “I know that bloke from PB!”

    Onya, great grab.

  11. I am surprised that Arbib is a powerbroker. His preformances on TV have been very weak, he is certainly not ministerial material.

    Anyway cockroaches will receive their serving of justice eventually.

  12. Bob
    [Federal Labor is now fixed by NSW Labor. Not good.]

    Apparently it was Vic & SA right who set it up — and Arbib had to be convinced. So your argument has no basis (that Tony’s doesn’t goes without saying — his arguments rarely are founded in fact).

  13. People predicted that Rudd Labor would be re-elected with an increased majority and thus become the first Australian PM/government ever to do so.

    Bob, Howard increased his majority twice. Holt also increased his majority in 1966. Hawke also increased his majority in 1987, albiet with a smaller share of the vote.

    I will happily continue with the notion that the ALP will increase its majority. If their vote increases only a small amount there are a lot of Tory seats waiting to be lost.

    Abbott is a far less credible candidate than Howard was.

    I also find it intriguing that a Green such as yourself has remarkably little to say about anything policy wise. It seems like your role in politics is to vulture off the discontentment with the major parties, rather than actually gather any votes based on your parties own merits.

  14. I note the media as have picked up on my point about what was wrong with Rudd’s prime ministership. Its all sad and regrettable.

    Bob1234 up until October 2009 Rudd was heading for a big win, sadkly his leadserhip style and policy approach was found to be lacking and now we have a Gillard Prime ministership.

  15. Scorpio@753:

    [A wounded Abbott, dissatisfied, unhappy caucus and a reinvigorated Turnbull just waiting in the wings for the call.

    We could be on the threshold of some real entertainment especially as it appears that Labor’s coup has gained the benefits it hoped to obtain.]

    Scorp, would that it were so.

    We can but dream…

  16. [
    So my major point about no govt ever being re-elected with an increased majority … was right.
    ]
    Ah, a Prime minister does not a government make.

    The bookies will hold this pool, thanks very much.

  17. [Mon Dieu! What a mess Red Kezza made of the unhinged one. He’s hopeless under pressure.]

    That is why he has been hiding in the cupboard with his colleagues. But his colleagues on the front bench are no better. All crash & burn under pressure.
    This is why they had to dessimate & weaken Rudd’s character so they could fight him in election mode, an area where Rudd excells & Yabbott fails.

  18. ABC New update, wtte

    [Abbott sharpened up the attack on Gillard]

    showing film segment from the 730 Report. WTF – Sharpened???? What a joke.

    Rather than Abbott admitting, himself, that he lied on the verge of victory

  19. BK,

    [Scorps
    Wouldn’t it be delicious!!!]

    Absobloodylutely!

    One big difference I think you will find though, is if Abbott is put to the sword, there will be no mourners to grieve over his despicable corpse! 😉

  20. Glen, such assertions are merely your perspective. And history can either be kinder or nastier to a politician, depending on who records the history.

    For instance, the current MSM will ensure that Rudd gets more negative than positive press, and it will be up to the academics and biographers to get closer to the truth.

    But of course, time is needed so the mystique can be added, and people forget the emotion.

  21. Leftwingpinko at 772

    Why do the Liberals use the term ‘Party Room’ and not ‘caucus’?

    My understanding is that the ALP is the only one that calls it a caucus and this is becuase they caucus (ie. make decisions in secret which are then binding on the whole parliamentary party on pain of expulsion). In other parties you are allowed to cross the floor.

  22. Steve@784:

    [In other parties you are allowed to cross the floor.]

    If you dare, and if you are not hoping for preselection at the next election!

  23. [He’s just learnt about these old timers in books]

    And wikipedia lol!

    Who will be PM when Julia gets rolled??

    Tony Burke?
    Swanny?
    Bowen?

  24. My understanding is that the ALP is the only one that calls it a caucus and this is becuase they caucus (ie. make decisions in secret which are then binding on the whole parliamentary party on pain of expulsion). In other parties you are allowed to cross the floor.

    Okay, but what about the American use of the term ‘caucus’ for US Senators? For example, Joe Lieberman and that Socialist blocke ‘caucus’ with the Democrats but don’t actually belong to the Democratic Party and US Senators vote whichever way they like a lot of time. Anyways, off topic I guess…

  25. Sloppy Joe should talk:

    Unofficial NewsFeed 7NewsFanPage

    Gillard’s rise ‘brutal’: Hockey (AAP): Julia Gillard’s rise to prime minister was a “brutal” act against former le… http://bit.ly/b8Jt3A 3 minutes ago via twitterfeed

  26. Leftwingpinko at 789

    Okay, but what about the American use of the term ‘caucus’ for US Senators?

    According to Wikipedia the term means something slightly different in different countries. Just like they root and we barrack.

  27. How fortunate are the residents of Lawler to have had two giants (Jones and Gillard) as their member, for yonks?

    I read Jones’ ‘Thinking Reed’ recently. SUCH a magnificent book, a soaring, uplifting autobiography written without the faintest whiff of hubris.

    My own electorate (Ryan) has been cursed with morally and intellectually deficient, lazy, time-serving, self-serving, Liberal Party dross for generations, and they’ve just pre-selected another one from the same mould. 🙁

    Perhaps we should be trying to convince Kevin to take on one of the sitting Pineapple Party marginals like Ryan? Really give him something to get his teeth into!! I’d love him as my federal member.

    Also, just an observation, but everyone seems to have missed the role Peter Beattie played in the lead up to Wednesday night – every bit as critical but nowhere near as visible as Howes, Arbib and co. I think Peter sees ‘rangas in charge’ as somewhat the natural order of things.

  28. [Unofficial NewsFeed 7NewsFanPage

    Gillard’s rise ‘brutal’: Hockey (AAP): Julia Gillard’s rise to prime minister was a “brutal” act against former le… http://bit.ly/b8Jt3A 3 minutes ago via twitterfeed ]
    And what adjective would Joe use to describe the unhinged one’s ascension?

  29. [745
    confessions

    Laura Tingle (via)

    Arbib is one of a new generation of “powerbrokers” behind this coup who seem to have no respect for the traditions of one of the oldest democratic political parties in the world, nor any apparent commitment to its values.]

    This misunderstands the nature of Rudd’s leadership. Lacking any kind of firm base in caucus or the broader party, he was secure only as long as Gillard supported him. The moment she decided to call for a spill, Rudd was finished. This leadership change is completely in the vein of Labor politics. If there was a break with the traditions and values of the party, it was the Rudd ascendancy. Rudd – the victor of 2007 – wanted and was given a free hand by the party, but there was a condition attached: he would have the support of his colleagues and the caucus only as long as he could win. With likely defeat ahead, Rudd’s self-styled political isolation left him defenseless and vulnerable. The contrast with Gillard, who has cultivated her base and her connections in the party for decades, could not be more complete.

    Anyone who thinks that Gillard is a Rudd-in-waiting should think again. She is old school and the Government will be the better for it.

  30. “Brutal”, “Death squads” “Assassination” ….

    Get the picture? Who writes their material? Mel Brookes?

  31. According to Wikipedia the term means something slightly different in different countries. Just like they root and we barrack.

    Yeah right, but you might need to change that avatar.

  32. [I also find it intriguing that a Green such as yourself has remarkably little to say about anything policy wise. It seems like your role in politics is to vulture off the discontentment with the major parties, rather than actually gather any votes based on your parties own merits.]

    The best summary of bob infinitesimal I have ever read, thanks pinko

  33. [My understanding is that the ALP is the only one that calls it a caucus]
    The U.S. Democratic Party uses the term “caucus” too.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 16 of 20
1 15 16 17 20