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 2 of 20
1 2 3 20
  1. my say – it’s a landmark issue for me – it will tell me what this party stands for.

    Further, blind allegiance to a party only produces a degenerate party.

    But don’t worry, I’m quite sure that Julia understands the issues. She won’t back off.

  2. and by disproportionally i mean that they get their chance on election day like the rest of us. just because they are rich shouldn’t mean they have more say – which is what they did with their ads. when the system is explicitly allowed to be owned by those with money, we are doomed.

  3. Rosa,

    I’m sad to hear you threatening to vote Liberal. There is no surer way to make this country a colony of the multinationals than to support the party that has that as their overt objective.

    For me the prevailing consideration is this: The mad monk must never be PM.

  4. Socrates @ 36

    The modus operandi were no doubt always there and were forgiven whilst seen as an election winner but from all accounts, the political and administrative mismanagement got worse the deeper the retreat into the bunker. As anybody with experience of the workplace (and parliament and the cabinet are a workplace) knows, people will only put up with so much for so long.

  5. I agree with mysay about Rudd. I think some are attempting to blacken his name now to justify their own actions. He was an ambitious and ruthless egotist at a personal level. But he is hardly Robinson Crusoe in politics for that. He was also hard working and genuinely cared about the national interest which, on the whole, he served well. Plus, some of his worst decisions were made with the advice of some of the very people now attacking him. I think there is a lot of historical revisionism going on now.

  6. The dignified departure from high office of former PM Kevin Rudd speaks well of him, and the fact that he came to the House for QT yesterday in a show of support for the new leader was also greatly to his credit.

    I believe, and I have said so since posting on previous threads on Tuesday evening, that Rudd will put party before pride and petulance, and accept the position to which he is now best suited to serve the Government – Foreign Minister. Not only does this utilise his skill set as a trained diplomat, former Shadow Foreign Minister and former PM to best advantage, but also allows his considerable network of personal relationships with world leaders to leverage Australia’s favoured policies and positions on various issues, the equivalent of Hillary Clinton (a beaten rival) as Secretary of State to US President, Barack Obama.

    I just saw former Labor leader, Mark Latham being interviewed on SkyNews by David Speers, and whilst he was, as usual, a trenchant critic of the Labor factional bosses, he predicted that Julia Gillard would win the coming election easily against the unpopular and reactionary Tony Abbott.

    I also have heard about some preliminary ‘topline’ results of some research done overnight on the question of ‘Preferred Prime Minister’ between Gillard and Abbott – small numbers so far (only about 600, as the research is still in field) but Gillard is ahead of Abbott to the tune of 58% to 42%.

    Interesting times …..

  7. Pebbles – if labor can’t deliver on an essential issue like that, and will let mining companies effectively depose an Australian Prime Minister, it has descended into a swill of cynicism which gives me no confidence it can properly represent average Australians. There really won’t be any difference between labor and the libs. Zero.

    I’m actually not upset about Julia becoming PM. Doesn’t really bother me. That’s politics. She’ll be a better candidate.

    But do you really think that heartland Labor voters will cop a Labor govt kow-towing to people like Clive Palmer and Twiggy Forrest. A few tactical concessions yes. But no more.

    Look what happened when Labor “backflipped” on the ETS and BER. Destroyed it.

    Julia needs to show spine – and I’m confident she will.

  8. Paid Parental Leave was a good example of where it all went wrong. This was a ‘good news’ story for the government – no doubt – but it was all drowned out by:

    1. The silly comment about the reporters dress – which showed bad political judgment.
    2. The ongoing sore of the RSPT

    Note the change of language from “consult” to “negotiate” – that is the means of getting things done.

  9. “Loss of freedom doesn’t happen overnight. It doesn’t stand in the doorway with a Swastika armband and toothbrush moustache. It happens insidiously, step by step, until, before the citizen knows it, it is gone.”

    Lord Lane.

  10. [Itep – mining companies are NOT CITIZENS. They are fictitous entities. So why should they be allowed to throw tens of millions of dollars into political advertising campaigns to boost their bottom lines.]

    I just don’t agree with you. Citizens often want to protect their financial livelihoods too. There’s nothing wrong with that. There’s no reason corporations should have to sit back idly and let government policy be implemented that they believe is against their own interests.

  11. I would say those that get to the top come replete with any number of character flaws and bad habits, they are usually the things that get them through the brick walls. It is pointless to criticise them now when you probably would have supported them before the last election. Political leaders are usually bad ass persons in one way or other.

    Rudd showed that he amazing managerial skills in the way he took Howard apart during the last election, maintained discipline against and toxic media and had a well laid out plan. It is nonsense to say that he is lacking in this. What people really mean is that he wasnt kind or went out to seek pals in the party and his prickly manner pissed them off. The poor snookums.

    I would think Rudd’s only critical problem was a lack of a factional base / a close group that looked out for his back as I gather you would usually have. I doubt that the behind the scene activity of politics is all sweet words, honesty and smiles.

    Frankly I think it was great for politics and for the party to have somebody like Rudd come along and shake the shit out of them and be very successful without being a factional toy boy. Ineed it was/is that anti politics sentiment of the community that helped Rudd along. The ALP should forever thank Rudd for remaking/reinvigorating the party.

  12. Rosa, I believe the big advertising blitz came from the ALP

    All the “internal leak” poll that Marginal seat slaughters

    All the “internal leak” that Rudd do not consult, especially from Crean, friend of Gillard

    All the “internal leak” working that the gang of 4 controlled everything

    All these can only have came from the ALP

  13. [I think some are attempting to blacken his name now to justify their own actions]

    As I noted the other night, it is not good to try and rationalise your guilt by continuing to attack the victim.

  14. rosa 56

    I don’t oppose your disenfranchisement, and if you were to support 3rd parties that would be fair enough. But to support the greater of two evils? That’s the strange part.

    I doubt Gillard will scrap the tax. I think she is taking the right attitude and negotiating it. By looking reasonable and diplomatic about it, it is harder to justify militantly opposing the government. Also makes the Abbott hate squad look naked.

    As for the ETS (or another carbon reduction scheme), from what I am hearing, she wants to sell the idea to the electorate, presumably at an election. So it looks like it may be on the term 2 agenda (and she may be toying with the DD option)

    One really doesn’t know. We’ll all watch with eager eyes over the next few days, I think.

  15. [The resources super tax as we know it will now be laid to rest. Sure our new Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, will not call it like this, because up until yesterday she was a vocal supporter, and it wouldn’t look right to undertake a massive about-face.

    But the reality of the mining tax is that it is binary. The government either stays with this large, complex tax that raises enough money to fill a hole in the budget, or it redrafts a tax that the miners can live with but one that will not fill the coffers to anywhere near the same degree.

    The latter is the only way that Gillard can proceed because she cannot face an election with the mining industry waging a media campaign against her.]

    http://www.smh.com.au/business/super-tax-is-dead-long-live-the-tax-20100624-z3og.html

  16. I am not sure that Foreign Minister is the best place for Kevin Rudd. It always seems to be the place in Australia where former leaders are parked – Bill Hayden and Aleaxander Downer being the obvious examples. Trade or Defence might be better – both may utilise the experience better, and they are still senior.

  17. Everybody should read the link that Middle Man has provided. The miners are sitting in their boardrooms right now gloating over deposing an Australian Prime Minister.

    But nobody cares.

  18. Itep

    Hear, Hear. Today I could not be fagged getting into a debate with Rosa about her view of corporations not being citizens. I was there a few weeks ago.

  19. Even though I’m disappointed over what’s happened, there’s no way I could ever bring myself to vote Liberal.

    rosa: if the RSPT is important, why not the Greens? As I understand it the support the tax.

  20. Pebbles – I don’t think we are far apart. I’m just expressing how deeply concerned I am about this issue, because it is so fundamental.

  21. Rosa and others

    A major part of the problem with the RSPT has been the whole policy formulation process and the political delivery of that process.

  22. blackburn – rubbish. People who don’t like something (but don’t want to explain why) always argue about process and say “let’s start again.”

  23. Itep. Have you ever read The Social Contract or Discourse on Inequality by Rosseau? They are great discussions on how people and society’s interact. have a go, you might find you change your opinion on the role of corporations. I would also suggest either Voltaire’s Bastard or On equilibrium by John Ralston Saul as great reads about modern society, the function of a corpoartion and their influence on democracy.

  24. Rosa, given your anger at the mining lobby sitting in their boardrooms congratulating themselves on deposing a PM, I don’t understand how you could contemplate rewarding their political partners, the Liberals, with your support.

  25. Redraftng the RSPT and coming to an accommodation with the miners would be the politically savvy outcome … some egg on the face, a budget hole of some size … but it screws the Libs well and proper.

  26. confessions – nope. Don’t think much of the greens. Like I said: at least the libs are honest about being mining company stooges. I know what I’m getting.

    But don’t worry. I would be amazed if Julia came out and tossed the mining tax overboard. She’s be committing political suicide. I don’t even mind if she gives them concessions or rebrands it, etc etc. I’ll accept lots of tactical manouevering But it can’t be dumped.

    She’s in power because people thought Rudd wouldn’t stick to his guns. Be insane if she committed the same mistake. Sure it won’t happen.

  27. blackburnpseph 69

    I actually think he seems his happiest when he is on the world stage. And his biggest visions are of Australia’s place in the international arena. He used to have cheap shots fired at him for being a “holidaying PM” by the hate squad for the attention he gave the rest of the world.

    Foreign Affairs was made for him, I think.

  28. Rosa

    Well said. This is not a victory for democracy. the real score is:

    Big Business 2 Factional Bosses 1 Democracy 0

  29. Gillard to give a press conference at 10am.

    ANy ideas what this could be about?

    Wayne Swan rolled her! 😆

    Sorry.

  30. [or it redrafts a tax that the miners can live with but one that will not fill the coffers to anywhere near the same degree.]

    The writing is on the wall globally, the minining industry will be giving up more of its profis to countries.

    As I said last night Gillard will stick with this tax in some amended form that still gets some billions from the industry that they will find more palitable but still hate, and if they still wanted to fight it then Gillard will fight them.

    The mining industry should note that the only problem with Rudd’s approach to this was the headling figure of 40%. This on the face of it sounds like a huge amount to the average person in the street. A remaking of the tax that gives a lower headline figure will sound like Gillard has gone half way.

  31. Pebbles

    Trade and Defence are also on the world stage. The Mandarin speaking would be especially useful at Trade.

  32. ltep
    [I just don’t agree with you. Citizens often want to protect their financial livelihoods too. There’s nothing wrong with that. There’s no reason corporations should have to sit back idly and let government policy be implemented that they believe is against their own interests.]
    Using this argument to justify mining companies actiosn is quite spurious. For starters, several of the biggest are not even majority Australian owned. Foreign shareholders are NOT Australian citzens. Imagine what people would say if, say BP engaged in a media campaign to influence the next US presidential campaign. There would be uproar.

    Secondly, citizens who are shareholders already get to vote. Giving Corporations extra ability to influence votes effectively gives their shareholders more than one vote/degree of influence. At that point, kiss one-vote one-value goodbye. Hence Rosa is right – this is a bad day for democracy. This is not just a matter of opinion either – political philosophers have been warning for years about the danger of large corproate interests having too much sway over politics. This example proves them right. The fact that the Labor party now cares more about working class billionaires and their money than working class people, is rather sad.

  33. It is bad enough that corporations are allowed to lie to us whilst selling their over-hyped products, let allow twisting the truth of a national debate which is being conducting between and government and its voters (ie corps are not voters.)

  34. Pebbles

    Maybe she will make cabinet announcements.

    Probably. Just thought a little humour might lighten the mood a bit.

  35. Rosa

    Process is integral to successful outcomes – public policy formulation in a democracy cannot go from idea to outcome in one giant leap – you need to get parties on board – especially when you are dealing with major stakeholders and you don’t have a majority in the senate.

  36. What Labor should do now with the RSPT is to make any concessions public, tell everyone how many billions less will be taken in and then signal which of the spending measures they will need to cut.

    And the first thing should to go should be the cut in the company tax rate and see how that goes down. If 90%+ of business are scared shitless of the mining companies then they deserver the government to cave in.

  37. rosa: I agree that the tax won’t be dropped, and I too will be very disappointed if the government gives in too much to the industry. They already caved in to the industry on the CPRS, and still got screwed in the end. This is the issue on which to take a stand that says: we govern in the national interest, not the interests of large, multinational companies and their overseas-based boards of governance.

  38. Mithrandir. Great suggestion. That way they can keep the 12% SG and claim Australians are getting their fair share. They should also cut the infrastructure spending that might have been used by mining. screw them!

  39. yeah i hope the behaviour of the miners is remembered when it comes time to introduce an ETS or carbon tax. pricks.

  40. rosa, hold your fire.

    [BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto slid in London trading on speculation new Prime Minister Julia Gillard will pursue a new mining tax, even after she pledged to consult companies on the plan.

    BHP, the world’s biggest mining company, dropped 1.6 per cent to 1,920 pence and Rio declined 3.2 per cent to 3,282 pence. The stocks earlier rose in Sydney after Ms Gillard agreed to talks on the proposed levy.

    In New York, the falls were even bigger, with BHP off $US1.63, or 2.3 per cent, to $US 67.98, while Rio Tinto stock sank $US2.06, or 4 per cent, to $US48.99.]
    http://www.smh.com.au/business/world-business/mining-stocks-retreat-on-gillard-tax-fears-20100625-z434.html

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 2 of 20
1 2 3 20