Craig Emerson’s seat of Rankin has been held by Labor without interruption since its creation, but like all the party’s Queensland seats has looked precarious during the worst of its polling during the current term. The seat came into being with the enlargement of parliament in 1984, at which time it extended far beyond the bounds of the metropolitan area to the south-west, encompassing Warwick and a stretch of the New South Wales border. It is now located wholly in the outer south of suburban Brisbane, covering the northern part of Logan City from Woodridge and Kingston north to Priestdale and west to Hillcrest. The redistribution before the 2010 election drew it further into the metropolitan area, adding Algester, Calamvale and Drewvale north of the Logan-Brisbane municipal boundary. This territory accounts for much of Brisbane’s mortgage belt, and furnishes the seat with the equal lowest median age of any electorate in Australia. The Logan area is the source of Labor’s strength, but it is balanced by naturally marginal territory around Calamvale to the west and Springwood to the east.
Prior to the 1996 election, the seat was a highly marginal combination of Labor-voting outer suburbia and conservative rural areas, which Labor held by margins of between 0.6% and 5.5%. It was then transformed with the transfer of the rural areas to Forde and the compensating gain of low-income Brisbane suburbs, which boosted the margin by 9.8%. In the event Labor needed every bit of it to survive the Queensland backlash of 1996, which in Rankin manifested in an 11.1% swing. An unfavourable redistribution ahead of the 2004 election cut the margin by 5.3%, but there followed a 0.8% swing against the statewide trend at that election, followed by a 8.8% swing when the Rudd government came to power. The backlash of 2010 produced a swing to the LNP of 6.3%, cutting the margin to 5.4%.
Rankin has had only two members since its creation: Craig Emerson since 1998, and David Beddall beforehand. Emerson emerged through the Labor Forum/Australian Workers Union sub-faction of the Queensland Right, working over the years as an adviser to Hawke government ministers and then to Hawke himself, before taking on senior state public service positions in Queensland under the Goss government. After one term in parliament he rose to the shadow ministry, serving in the workplace relations portfolio in the lead-up to the 2004 election. He was then contentiously dropped after losing the support of his faction, a legacy of his defiance of powerbroker Bill Ludwig in supporting Mark Latham’s successful leadership bid in December 2003 (which by no stretch of the imagination spared him the lash of The Latham Diaries).
Emerson’s career returned to the ascendant after Labor came to power in 2007. spent the first term in the junior small business portfolio and further acquired competition policy and consumer affairs in June 2009, before winning promotion to cabinet as Trade Minister after the 2010 election. On the morning of the July 2010 leadership coup he announced he would support Kevin Rudd if it came to a ballot, but he took a very different tack during Rudd’s February 2012 challenge, accusing him of having undermined the government ever since the election campaign. Emerson achieved, for better or worse, considerable penetration of the soft media in July 2012, with his semi-musical critique of the Coalition’s campaign against the carbon tax.
An LNP preselection in July 2012 attracted six candidates and was won by David Lin, a 39-year-old Taiwanese-born solicitor who founded the Sushi Station restaurant chain at the age of 22.
It just occurred to me that in parsing the word “misogynist”, the OM is attempting to plea bargain with the public.
The Indonesians might turn their boat around or Abbott get’s arrested for punching someone?
victoria@133
Because the ‘context’ is Coalition tactics and whether they work or not.
The argument ought to go:
ALP: We don’t think Abbott ha any right to lecture anyone on attitudes to women.
MSM: Are you calling Abbott a misogynist, then?
ALP: I’m saying his behaviour towards women is demonstrably worse than Slipper’s. Happy to detail it for you right now…
MSM: My question was, are you calling Abbott a misogynist?
ALP: Let’s define the term, seeing as you brought it up. Are you calling Slipper a misogynist?
MSM: That’s beside the point.
ALP: It’s exactly the point. We’re talking about equivalence. We’re saying to Abbott and the Coalition, ‘don’t set standards for others you can’t conform to yourself’. In that context, how they’re defining Slipper is crucial.
MSM: Are you defending Slipper, then?
ALP: I am saying the Coalition have set standards for him they refuse to apply to themselves. That’s not a defence of Slipper, no. If he goes, Abbott should go too.
MSM: But are you defending Slipper?
ALP: No, I’m condemning Abbott, along with millions of others, including the international press.
I think the central point of the speech is the peddling of double standards – the inconsistency of the MSM in applying standards, whatever they may happen to be, i find appalling. I cannot remember a sitting week where it does not happen.
And so, this week is no different – the Oz exhorts the PM to focus on its achievements not on the gender – lord, how long have they been trying to that, only to have it always being dragged back to some character issue.
I still get a goosebump or two when she stares him down and says I will not be lectured , not unilaterally, just not by someone who peddles double standards – the point is not whether he is a misogynist or not – that is almost moot – but that he does continually display double standards.
For some time now I have had no doubt that history will be much much kinder to PMJG then we can scarcely imagine- and this speech has just became the touchstone .
Those who assert that Abbott is not misogynist clearly do not see – or do not wish to concede – the malice, spite, conceit and anger that is on display on a daily basis. These are Abbott’s instinctive reactions.
He also patently believes the Government is illegitimate because it is a Labor Government and because the leader is a woman. “Illegitimacy” was his first evocation after the election. This, together with his cries of “shame”, his other deprecations and his arrogance, amply demonstrate how he goes about his hating.
He is misogynist in the same way a white supremacist is a racist – because he is unable to concede the fundamental equality of “the other.”
He may love his own women in the same way that slave owners could love their slaves. Feelings of love can obviously exist alongside self-righteousness and self-superiority. But the existence of these feelings do not challenge Abbott’s misogyny any more than they remove racism. Indeed, at a certain interior level, they simply affirm or validate it.
janice2
How are you?!!
PM vouched for union body caught in corruption scandal’
OK, let’s analyse that statement, absent of any ‘context’ employed by the ‘journalist’ writing the article.
PM vouched for union body
The Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, leader of the federal Labor Party, founded by Union members over 100 years ago, vouched for a Union.
Well, ‘Stop the Presses!’
Has Tony Abbott ‘vouched for’ an ‘Employers Association’ recently? Or some subsequently found to be corrupt prominent member of the Business Elite? Or has any other member of the federal Coalition done likewise?
Off the top of my head I can safely say that, apropos the evidence, Tony Abbott’s great mate, Michael Lawler, is sailing close to the wind there, and subsequent outcomes may indeed put the LOTO in a similarly invidious position to the PM, as far as it goes.
Not to mention Malcolm Turnbull’s friendships political largesse directed towards, and support of, various people in his life, such as Rodney Adler and Matt Handbury.
Finally, the union body was caught in a corruption scandal . Yes, and the union body was subsequently dealt with by the law.
Also, fine but important distinction, Julia Gillard was NOT caught in a corruption scandal wrt that same union body.
So, rosemour, if you want to peddle this ‘Guilt by Association’ crap that is in the ‘crap media’, go ahead.
All I know is that your so-called support of the Labor Party is feeble, at best.
Labor needs to modify its attack on Tony Abbott. They have amplified womens existing feelings about Abbott but that has a limit before it blows back on them. They need to amplify his inability to play the Domineering Parent role. His relentless negative attacks are not what is expected from a parent.
I am going back to a previous post in March where I talked about George Lakoff’s ideas on the Right needing a Domineering Father figure and the Left needing a Supporting Mother figure in a leader. Back then I said Tony Abbott doesn’t do the Domineering Parent role well. Superficially he ticks all the boxes, but he does not set rules or boundaries and stick by them. He plays dress ups and complains a lot. He tries to please everyone.
Labor needs to target this aspect of his work rather than the other. I am not sure how to do this but they do need to recalibrate the attack. If they can find something that undermines his “Parent Authority” it will impact on conservative voters.
c@tmomma@156
Feeble?
I would say it is non existent!
Had two years of that, dull boring technically correct government. You also need a bit of art.
@GrogsGamut: All this railing against Twitter in The Oz’s editorial. @JuliaGillard’s speech was spread mostly via Facebook, blogs & news sites.
Hah. The Oz so used to doing distortion they cannot help themselves.
BB – George Megalogenis and Judith Brett (LaTrobe Uni) spoke with Geraldine Doogue this morning. Great convo and reasoned debate. Well worth a listen.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/saturdayextra/politics-and-the-rule-of-engagement/4309972
Aguirre
Spot on
Aguirre
Spot on
zoomster
Julia has been mocked for not being ‘real’. Labor has been mocked for not having a ‘narrative’. The reaction “She shouldn’t have said all that because it might lose votes” only supports the cautious politics which has not helped Labor.
Coming out and saying what so many people think is being ‘real’. But apparently the RW don’t like ‘real’ either.
I am not having a good morning!!
Context. It’s lovely to see that context is now feted as the holy grail of political journalism. It seems to be a new discovery, as I haven’t noticed a lot of context reporting up until now, just the usual shallow ‘horse-race’ commentary we’ve had to put up with for years.
Well, there are two stories here. One is the political horse-race and we don’t know the outcome of that yet.
The other is that the Australian PM has been lauded world-wide for a ground-breaking stand against sexism and misogyny that has resounded around the globe.
The Press Gallery, with the usual few honourable exceptions, have chosen, as usual, to report the horse-race, dismiss entirely the global reaction, judge the horse-race in advance with the continuing unerring accuracy that has had the PM overthrown several times by now and charged to the defence of each other in a nervous bout of self-congratulatory ‘we know better’.
Julia Gillard’s speech will have a major effect on how we view sexism from now on. There’s a story there somewhere, but it’s largely escaped the Canberra Press Gallery.
I scanned The Australian’s website page. There were about seven or eight article headings on the topic, all claiming it was a terrible mistake. I didn’t bother to read any further.
Fair and Balanced.
William
I took out the offending word at least allow the body of my post to the catmoma idiot to get through.
BH@104
Once these thing start to run……you never know where they go.
If something even minor now surfaces to support that *there is smoke and fire* he will be gone.
As for texts and twitter how long before others in public life are caught out.
But we all know if its a tory they and the OM will all demand “due process”. Two sets of rules as usual.
Zoomster, I was commenting on political consequences. That was the raison d’être of this site. And in response to the glee club atmosphere here.
My post was clear about where blame lays.
If it had been a psychological blurt I wouldn’t have commented so. Or an essay in the Monthly. But it was a set speech in the highest forum of the land. If it becomes a Female Eunuch moment I’ll be happily corrected.
Catmomma
I’m merely monitoring a stroy/angle the Australian seems obsessed with.
Don’t be so sensitive.
Aguirre
Are you Tony Jones (I assume you’re not Alberici or Sales)?
That was a brilliant take on typical gotcha interviews.
Shanahan on the radio 2UE 9:40am this morning, proving the disconnect.
He said,
* the Gillard speech has nothing to do with peoples lives. Focus groups show people are concerned with living costs, traffic, and job security. Therefore her speech on sexism is narrowly targetted.
* Gillards speech was really defending Slipper and trying to equate his vile texts with Tony Abbott. (I don’t think so Dennis they were specifically targetting Abbott’s own statements)
* Gillards speech was a piece of theatre that was viewed as many times as Rudd’s earwax video. (repeating the 100K number)
* Australia is the big loser from this Parliaments misbehaviour focussing on misogyny.
He may have said this in print but I can’t look . Sorry if already covered, got to run.
dave
That moment is likely to be coming on Monday. Pamela Stephenson and Sophie Mirabella are on the QandA Panel 👿
Janice2 – agree. Many of the worst are such lovely family people. To be fair there are a lot of pretty nasty women around as well but Abbott has to be called to account. He is a leader and has to set an example.
Listen to the RN i/v if you can. It was refreshing.
BTW – how’s the BP going? Hope it’s OK for you now
janice2@149
hear hear!
He is also a wart on a snake’s bum.
Phil Vee@157
I said it yesterday, and I’ll say it again: the ALP aren’t driving this, and they aren’t the ones keeping it alive as an issue. The last thing they did to add to the debate was on Tuesday. Almost all the quotes on the topic since about Wednesday morning have come from Coalition MPs. Between them and the press desperately trying to steer the narrative back to where they want it, everything is swamped.
And really, what can the ALP say? They defended process in relation to Slippper, they called out Coalition hypocrisy, and then they just got on with governing. Elsewhere all we’ve heard is:
– Tactical failure by Gillard
– What’s the meaning of ‘misogynist’
– Let’s put it all in ‘context’
– Will everyone please stop using social media
They’re all right wing talking points.
How would Shanahan know what focus groups are showing? Does he moonlight as a researcher in his spare time?
It’s more likely that he’s repeating what some Liberal backroom goon has whispered in his ear, in other words coalition spin!
“@watermelon_man: Do all News Ltd editors have WWRD?* tattooed on their wrists? Or do they just know by instinct?
*What Would Rupert Do?”
“@watermelon_man: Do all News Ltd editors have WWRD?* tattooed on their wrists? Or do they just know by instinct?
*What Would Rupert Do?”
“@laurieload: WTF-Radio 2GB hosted a quiz for callers to GUESS the number of #asylum seeker deaths in 2010?! #scum RT@MariamVeiszadeh http://t.co/mI5gAZcI
lizzie@171
🙂 No. But they do all follow a similar pattern.
has C@tmomma taken over Frank’s job of ALP-loyalty-police troll?
This from Malcolm Fraser
“@MalcolmFraser12: Walmart’s historic first strike: American workers are on the move | Amy Goodman
http://t.co/oRqxdTM8
via @guardian. Strong unions needed!!”
rosemour,
That job seems to have been taken already by you!
fess,
Shanahan would be right on the underlying issues that concern Australians and their families.
However, his context is that the PM’s speech won’t make any difference for which he has no evidence.
GG
find a post where I have besmirched another posters’ loyalty/alegiance to Labor politics.
Your retort is lame.
Graeme
but there was also a clear implication there that there should have been some kind of political evaluation of the likely impacts of the speech and that therefore it shouldn’t have been made.
It cheapens our political discourse considerably if our politicians are expected to only make statements which are likely to lead to a bounce in the polls.
And to decide – before we’ve seen any polling – that it IS a mistake politically is also a little premature.
(Restricting this site to mere psephology is also more than a little pedantic, too – it’s not only obviously out of sync with the reality of what happens here, but it ignores William’s repeated explanation that the name ‘pollbludger’ wasn’t a definitive term).
rosemour,
But effective.
Well I have done my bit this morning, went for my walk then coffee, 5 women, pretty sure I would be only ALP person amongst them sure of 4 anyway. So got around to work, all now retired and the put downs by men etc. so I said guess that why the speech by PM resonated so much with well over 1 million hits, they agreed and said it was good someone with a bit of power says it and different to the women in offices with the bosses being male, they are scared to. So came home quite happy
z,
Agree, we shouldn’t ignore the bludger part of this blog!
BH
Thanks for the link to the Mega interview on RN. Excellent
Aguirre
This is another example of the cloth ear the Liberals have – and that, now Plan A is gone, they’re exposed as hopeless tacticians.
Howard would have found a pink unicorn by now and pointed the media at it, and they would have all been off chasing it.
The ‘context’ is the citizenry. Not the Canberra Press Gallery’s perception wrt parliament.
Our Prime Minister stood up for us this week. The men and women of Australia that have seen the creeping, creepy Religious Right Conservatism descending like a 1950s pall over the nation again, and she called out it’s chief promulgator in the parliament for engaging in it relentlessly. Especially as it related to her, the nation’s first woman Prime Minister.
THAT was the ‘context’.
All else that the Canberra Press Gallery sought to witter on about, was merely parliamentary toejam.
I think when the majority of ALP supporters critisise an ALP Leader for arguing strongly for social justice because it’s not strategically wise is the day we know the ALP are in power for the sake of being in power.
CTar
Hear Hear
CTar1,
I agree with the sentiment. But, I don’t think it’s a majority of ALP supporters doing so.
GG:
The point is that neither are the opposition talking about these things. As others have pointed out, they’ve gone hell for leather on misogyny, sexism and nasty Prime Minister about Slipper.
Shanahan’s claims about focus groups equally apply to the opposition.
CTar1:
The criticism about the PM’s speech are coming mostly from Liberals and their shills in the OM.
I can see why many see it as an uplifting speech, but it is the theatre, I loved the theatre. Just so well presented.