First the ReachTEL polling. Yesterday morning the Seven Network brought us a big sample automated phone poll of 3018 respondents which broadly corroborated the Morgan SMS poll in returning the Coalition lead to margin-of-error territory. The poll had Labor at 38.3% on the primary vote, the Coalition on 45.1% and the Greens on 8.7%, panning out to 52-48 in favour of the Coalition after preferences. Now Fairfax brings electorate-level ReachTEL polls of Maribyrnong (located in western Melbourne and held by Bill Shorten), Chisholm (eastern Melbourne, Anna Burke), Blaxland (western Sydney, Jason Clare) and McMahon (western Sydney, Chris Bowen), which have Labor’s two-party vote at 58.6%, 55.2% and 58.9% for the first three, with McMahon annoyingly not provided but Labor evidently in front. Earlier ReachTEL polling showed Labor losing all bar Maribyrnong. Now on to a Seat of the Week I’ve been holding back for a special occasion …
Kevin Rudd’s electorate of Griffith covers inner city Brisbane immediately south of the Brisbane River, from South Brisbane east to Bulimba and Queensport, south to Annerley and south-west to Carina Heights. The seat was called Oxley until 1934, the name later being revived for an unrelated new Ipswich-based seat in 1949. Highly marginal historically, Griffith changed hands between Liberal and Labor in 1949, 1954, 1958, 1961, 1966, 1977, 1996 and 1998. Don Cameron won the seat for the Liberals at the 1966 landslide and then had his position strengthened by redistribution, enabling to hold on to the seat through the Whitlam years. A redistribution at the 1977 election moved the seat heavily in Labor’s favour, resulting in Cameron switching to the new Gold Coast seat of Fadden and Griffith being won for Labor by Ben Humphreys.
When Humphreys retired at the 1996 election the Labor preselection was won by Kevin Rudd, the former diplomat who wielded great influence as chief-of-staff to Wayne Goss during his tenure as Queensland Premier from 1989 to 1996. In doing so he established a factional association with the locally dominant AWU sub-faction of the Right, which secured his preselection despite grumblings that the state branch was failing to meet affirmative action standards. However, the statewide rout that Labor suffered at the 1996 election saw Rudd fall it his first electoral hurdle, with Graeme McDougall gaining Griffith for the Liberals off a 6.2% swing. Rudd returned for a second attempt amid the far more favourable circumstances of 1998, picking up a 3.9% swing to unseat McDougall by a margin of 2.4%.
Rudd established a formidable electoral record in Griffith, picking up a 3.3% and 2.4% swings against the trend of the 2001 and 2004 elections. The electorate was substantially reshaped by redistribution at the 2004 election, absorbing inner city areas at East Brisbane, South Brisbane and Dutton Park while its eastern parts were hived off to the new seat of Bonner. In what may have been an early portent of Rudd’s electoral impact, the booths which were transferred out of the electorate contributed to a surprise defeat for Labor in Bonner by swinging heavily to the Liberals in his absence. As his party’s candidate for the prime ministership in 2007 Rudd enjoyed a further 3.8% swing in 2007, and as its recently spurned ex-leader in 2010 he suffered what by Queensland standards was a relatively mild swing of 3.9%.
The Liberal National Party candidate for the coming election is Bill Glasson, former president of the Australian Medical Association. Glasson’s father, Bill Glasson Sr, was a state National Party MP and minister in the Bjelke-Petersen, Cooper and Ahern governments.
[Kevin Rudd has suggested holding a referendum on same-sex marriage if Coalition MPs are not allowed a free vote on the issue.
Mr Rudd said he believed he was the first Australian prime minister to be a ”fully signed-up supporter of marriage equality”.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/pm-suggests-referendum-to-legalise-samesex-marriages-20130628-2p2x9.html#ixzz2XYSKLSqT ]
If he really was a ‘fully signed up supporter of marriage equality’ he wouldn’t propose a referendum to resolve the political impasse. The surest way to see marriage equality set back decades is for it to become the subject of a bitter, divisive referendum.
Perhaps a referendum is the new leader’s sop to the shoppies in order to be elected leader again?
[Surely all those who were critical of Gillard for doing poses like this will criticise the new leader doing the same thing…. ]
No doubt, confessions. Haven’t seen anything yet, but it can’t be long now.
Lynchpin:
The events of June 2010 were about removing a dysfunctional leader who was leading a chaotic government.
Vastly different to the events of june 2013.
Dtt 98
A good summary. There is no point Labor now trashing Gillard, but equally, it is absurd to say she was not a self-motivated active part of the Rudd coup. Ergo, if you live by the sword…
I also strongly agree with your previous comments on Swan and especially Conroy. Conroy was simply not adequate for a key cabinet post, as he proved far too many times.
daretotread
I wasn’t. I was focussing on the lack of logic ML is displaying.
[Unsurprisement that the new leader has to drag out the family in order to prove his credentials as a PM. Like Abbott: peas in pods etc.]
And that (if accurately reported) Kev’s claim wtte better to forgive than be bitter & twisted is all about spin-spin-spinning a “created” legend, not reality & truth.
As his early 90s’ undermining of Beattie, and 2010+++ of Gillard showed, he has NEVER swapped substituted “forgiveness” for “Bitter & Twisted”.
Confessions
I can give you a list of male and female politicians as long as your arm who have done stages photos with the family and the dogs.
Ros Kelly former member for Canberra was a master of it, and it was widely rumoured that Billy McMahon ONLY married Sonia for the photos (and to remove suggestions he was gay.
Abbott wheeling out Margie and the girls is standard political stuff, just as Rudd wheeling out Theresa, Jessica and the boys is standard stuff.
Mod Lib
I have no doubt that Thatcher was subjected to comments that would very much be seen as sexist in todays society.
Drawing a comparison between what happened (I have not researched to check if it did happen) to Thatcher and the treatment of Gillard is tenuous at least.
In the 20+ years since Thatcher was in power society has moved forward and changed its values. Sexism (along with a lot of other “isms”) is no longer seen as acceptable.
That was until Abbott was defeated at the 2010 election and the world’s longest ever dummy spit commenced. Abbott brought the childish behaviour we have see in the schoolyard into our Parliament
On the day Abbott stood n front of those banners with “ditch the witch” etc he set a standard, a low one at that. He condoned the vilification of the Prime Minister on the basis of gender.
“The standard you walk passed in the standard you accept”
Abbott did not condemn those banners and gutlessly claimed he didn’t see them. And by not condemning them he set the standard. Every sexist, racist, redneck, xenophobe or homophobe leapt onto the bandwagon and used Abbott’s standard to lower the tone of political discussion.
Scrolling through the previous posts from last night, the debate on ‘what should Labor do about the boats’ was very depressing to read.
Have we really come to the point whereby to deal with this issue we opt out of wider commitments to being a world-class nation? Is opting out of UN conventions the way to go? Can we really build a wall around this huge continent – 22 million of us here and 215 million in Indonesia on our doorstep?
Seems those on the right wing fringes of Labor think this is the path for the future.
While I accept politics is the place where pragmatism beats the hell out of idealism and policy purity, at what point do principles have any value at all?
To keep the so-called Western Sydney votes does Labor have to become the party of Archie Bunker and Alf Garnett?
On present indications this seems to be the case.
For years Labor has held what vaguely may be called the “moral high ground” on so many issues. This is what separated Labor from the more rapacious approach of the conservatives.
If all this is to change to stay in office, then truly what difference does it make if we have a right-winger in Abbott leading a right of centre set of conservatives or a right-winger in Rudd leading a right of centre Labor party?
The differences between each will be marginal rather than significant.
Still, the Oz electorate can’t seem to cope with other than a ‘set and forget government’ so I guess we all get what we get.
[Kevin Rudd has suggested holding a referendum on same-sex marriage if Coalition MPs are not allowed a free vote on the issue.]
Whatever the reasons for this about face by Rudd, I think it is a good idea. Same sex marriage is a just cause supported by the majority of he Australian population. If a referendum is what it takes to get it in place then let us do what it takes.
I think it is a far more worthy topic of a referendum than constitutional recognition of local government. The latter seems to be an issue of as much interest as watching paint dry. There is little or no public discussion about it outside political focus groups, so why not have a referendum about something people actually care about instead?
[zoomster
Posted Saturday, June 29, 2013 at 9:08 am | PERMALINK
daretotread
I wasn’t. I was focussing on the lack of logic ML is displaying.]
Bzzt….wrong!
[…don’t you mean “Prime Minister”? You were critical of people not referring to Prime Ministers that way- why the change? :devil:]
That’s your best post in a long while ML
Good stuff from Mike Carlton:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/kev-the-phoenix-rises-for-the-ashes-20130628-2p1ue.html
Confessions, yes, you may be right about that. I respect your views, always have. But I just want to beat the Tories and for that I am prepared to forgive Kevin his trespasses. At any cost? No. But I don’t think his trespasses warrant me turning my back on the Party.
Mari – yep, posting from Portugal.
Shorter Rudd to Abbott: ‘I’m gonna do you quickly’.
[Indonesia has dismissed Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s suggestion that the Coalition’s asylum seeker policy could cause “conflict”.
Indonesian foreign affairs spokesman Teuku Faizasyah would not be drawn on Mr Rudd’s suggestion, saying it is a matter that the Prime Minister can discuss during diplomatic talks next week.]
Oh dear. But this is particularly telling:
[He made the comment while being grilled by journalists on Labor’s asylum seeker policy]
Remember that leopards don’t change their spots.
[I can give you a list of male and female politicians as long as your arm who have done stages photos with the family and the dogs.]
I’m sure you can. But my point is that if you only criticise those you dislike for engaging in it, you look a bit hypocritical.
An aside from politics, as someone who loves good red wine, I’d like to mention the passing of Peter Lehman, one of the true pioneers of the creation of the Australian premium wine industry. This man deserves recognition for helping build an industry that has survived by skill and hard work, not subsidies. It also employs more South Australians than the car manufacturing industry, and creates more valuable exports.
[Legendary winemaker Peter Lehmann, who was pivotal in shaping the Barossa wine industry, has died at the age of 82.]
For those of youu who enjoyed “Borgen” here is a great interview with its leading actress (who I have fouund to be totally captivating). Three series of 10 episodes have been made.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2012/feb/01/sidse-babett-knudsen-borgens-appeal
dtt
[Abbott wheeling out Margie and the girls is standard political stuff, just as Rudd wheeling out Theresa, Jessica and the boys is standard stuff.]
But being photographed knitting is way out of line, evidently.
Socrates:
A referendum on an issue like same sex marriage where one side of politics is opposed to it is a very bad idea. We know that bipartisanship is a critical factor in successful referendums in the past.
We also know that if bipartisanship doesn’t exist on an issue, the debate is very likely to be divisive, and the vote fractured along party lines.
I also do not agree that social policy and matters of equality should be decided by referendum. We have a parliament, that’s what it is there for.
Confessions
I will however agree that politicians need to be careful with the staged picture- family, doggies, babies and budgies.
There is a fine line between being good PR and being positively spew making.
In he week following return to being PM piccies of family are OK as they are on other big formal occasions. HOWEVER Rudd does need to be careful not to make it too spew making.
Been absolutely loving it, BK. I hope season 2 will be on soon.
Socrates – so local government isn’t exciting enough to be worthy of a referendum?
What a load of bunk.
If a reform is worthwhile then supporting it shouldn’t depend on how exciting it may or may not be.
If you don’t think local government should be able to be funded directly by the federal government – fine, say that and explain your reasoning. Otherwise commenting on how boring it is is just symptomatic of the fact that political debate has fallen to such a piteous level that we discuss the entertainment value of reform rather than whether it is good policy or not.
AussieAchmed @ 108
You make good points.
[Abbott did not condemn those banners and gutlessly claimed he didn’t see them. And by not condemning them he set the standard. Every sexist, racist, redneck, xenophobe or homophobe leapt onto the bandwagon and used Abbott’s standard to lower the tone of political discussion.]
Howard legitimised Pauline Hanson’s racism. Remember?
Evidence of sexist abuse:
[Gillard has faced serial abuse as a woman on a scale I believe is unprecedented in modern politics. I know that the phrase “The Iron Lady” was coined by the Russians as an insult to Margaret Thatcher, but it became a mark of their admiration. That negative, corrosive, anti-woman rhetoric that Gillard endured for so long has damaged Australian politics, and public opinion. So last year, when David Farley, head of one of the country’s largest agricultural companies, compared the prime minister to a “non-productive old cow’’, there was no public outcry.
Instead of apologising, Farley remarked that he was sorry if the prime minister had been offended, as though somehow this was her problem. The leader of the opposition did nothing to stop this coarsening of political discourse. Quite the opposite. Tony Abbott encouraged negativity. So he was happy to stand in front of groups holding banners that labelled Gillard a “bitch” and a “witch”. His presence legitimised such abuse.
Then there was the recent fund-raiser for another senior opposition figure, Mal Brough, where a menu produced for the restaurant owner said it served “Julia Gillard Kentucky Fried Quail – small breasts, huge thighs and a big red box”. The next day she was asked live on air by radio host Howard Sattler if her partner Tim was gay. Just imagine. That question was asked of the prime minister of Australia. It took me back to Britain in the 1980s, where a largely successful battle was fought to end the use of racist or sexist abuse in public discourse. Australia is 30 years behind.]
As a woman who knows what misogyny can do, I had tears in my eyes as I read this:
[The irony is that, though she could have done so, Gillard never sought to gain advancement in her career by playing on being a woman. She ended up reaping all the disadvantages and none of the benefits. And it was only late in the day of her career, in that extraordinary speech, that she spoke the truth about misogyny in words that men and women alike in Australia and beyond knew to be true. She may just, as she said in a valedictory speech that was typical of her calm reason, have made it easier for the next woman prime minister of Australia.]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/10148550/Julia-Gillard-Australian-blokes-have-done-their-country-down.html?utm_source=buffer&utm_campaign=Buffer&utm_content=bufferb94c7&utm_medium=twitter
Soc et al
If you want ssm legislated as quickly as possible, then (as a Labor leader) you commit to taking the issue back to National Conference ASAP.
National Conference made it exceedingly clear that it was making the issue a conscience vote to fit in with the wishes of the (then) Prime Minister. NC would make a ssm vote binding on all Labor MPs without any quibbles whatsoever.
If all Labor MPs are bound to support ssm, and Labor wins the election (thus having a majority on the floor of the House) ssm is basically in.
A referendum needs bi partisan support to succeed and it won’t get it. Even if it did, it is a costly and time consuming exercise compared to the simpler solution I’ve just outlined.
Confessions @101 If he really was a ‘fully signed up supporter of marriage equality’ he wouldn’t propose a referendum to resolve the political impasse. The surest way to see marriage equality set back decades is for it to become the subject of a bitter, divisive referendum.
I agree. It would put a kibosh on the issue for years or even decades. In any case, as I understand it, unless Kevin Rudd wants to include it in the constitution, where it would never get up, it could only be an indicative plebiscite. We would still need legislation. In any case, it takes only a few well organised opponents to sink even the most innocuous referendum, as the fate of the Local Government referendum will probably soon illustrate.
…but nice to see that posters who wouldn’t give JG an inch are already backflipping nicely!
Generally speaking, Australians dont like the idea of conflict with Indonesia.
‘Turning back the boats’ – whether in international waters or otherwise – will shit the Indos up the wazoo. Fact. Its so true that it wont ever actually happen – and everyone knows it.
Im glad he said it. Both parties are terrible on the issue, but it ought to be said that the LNP is just a bunch of crap to boot.
No you wont, and even if you were stupid enough to try, Indonesia wont accept it. End of story.
I might add, 90% of boar arrivals are found (by us, that is, by Australia’s own determination processses) to be convention refugees. So dont listen to Carr or anyone parroting his latest garbage here.
[In he week following return to being PM piccies of family are OK as they are on other big formal occasions.]
When Gillard first became PM she appeared in Womens Weekly, which you have criticised loudly and repeatedly.
But now it’s okay. I’m assuming because the photo on the front page of the DT conforms to your stereotypical image of a political leader: a man with a wife and children?
OPT
‘poor widdle mod lib’
*Ding!*
Correct
Triton
The knitting photo was out of line because
1. It was too staged – in a studio etc
2. It includes the doggie like something out of a parody
3. Gillard was in a 1950s dress (NOT HER NORMAL CLOTHES) – if she had been in jeans and a soft shirt it would have seemed more realistic
4. Who in the mame of heaven chose a garish bright orange chair – which she sat in in a patterned 60s black dress. Cruel. Simple rule: Patterned chair plain clothes. Patterned clothes plain chair or background. Now possibly it is a youth age thing – I find pattern clashes in clothes ghastly. My daughter less so. Still why take the risk in a PR photo.
5. A republican knitting for the royal baby – Spew, spew, triple spew.
ML
If I’m wrong, explain why.
Gee, at least i did you the courtesy of a (quite long) dissection of your argument.
think 1/2 journalists and commentators in this country should be sacked … too many for work they do and for population
as long time ruddista here and founder of term have avoided much light talk for last days with the momentous outcome happened.
assume all suitable mea culpas done here.
rudd will do the trick.
…and, of course, not everything that needs fixing in the Constitution (about 2/3rds of it….) is glamorous and interesting – and very few issues to do with local government are, anyway!
[As a woman who knows what misogyny can do, I had tears in my eyes as I read this:]
Ditto from me too, lizzie.
On whether Gillard has made it easier for the next woman leader to emerge, Eva Cox was interviewed on local ABC radio on Thursday morning. She said no women had followed Kirner, Lawrence or Thatcher and it remains to be seen what happens in NSW.
She might have a point about Australia and the UK, but that isn’t necessarily the case in other countries.
MB is going to be hard to live with when Labor wins 🙂
Confessions
Yes I criticised the WW spread by Gillard. I have a long standing rule (learned by personal experience) that whatever you do in PR photos, BE YOURSELF.
The WW spread for Gillard failed because it was not herself. She was being a girly girl, when her former image had been strong and powerful – a woman in a male world. She was a pants suit woman shoved into a girly outfit for WW.
If you are going to do WW pictures, make sure they are as close to reality as possible – OK you brush the hair and choose clean clothes. If at home you remove the mouldy fruit and dirty washing BUT wear clothes in which you are comfortable and have things around you you actually do use or enjoy.
Mind you if you are a left of centre female politician I might say avoid WW. Cheryl Kernot!!!!!
[…but nice to see that posters who wouldn’t give JG an inch are already backflipping nicely!]
DTT is already tying him/herself in knots trying to explain why the Tele front page today is acceptable, but similar efforts by Gillard in the past were not.
Spin, spin, spin!
confessions
I left a link the other day (and time has moved so fast I can’t remember when) from a writer who described her inability to “cut through” at Board meetings because he suggestions were ignored but when a male board member suggested the same thing it was applauded. Not a new story, but so common. In that situation, I would make sure that a man immediately spoke in support if I was determined to get the item through.
No-one, no-one, is going to tell me that JGPM didn’t suffer from that attitude for most of her career.
[zoomster
Posted Saturday, June 29, 2013 at 9:28 am | PERMALINK
ML
If I’m wrong, explain why.
Gee, at least i did you the courtesy of a (quite long) dissection of your argument.]
Its quite fascinating to read posters who think they have “dissected” other’s arguments here! I cant count the numbers of times posters have told me that they have “proven” me wrong (because they have posted a differing opinion here!!!).
Your lengthy post can be summarised as follows: “Mod Lib says claims there is no criticism of Gillard that is sexist”.
Given that I have never claimed any such thing I have not seen any need to respond. Its not as though I have any reputation of respect in PB land to defend after all! :devil:
I am quite happy to cop that given the respect I have in the real world, which will do me just fine! If you care to read my repeated posts on this matter I have often said that I acknowledge that SOME of those criticising Gillard are sexist. However, in my view, and it is only a view, the number of voters who voted for Gillard in 2010 BECAUSE she was going to be Australia’s first female Prime Minister (in itself a sexist vote) outnumbered the number voting against Gillard BECAUSE she was a woman.
[DTT is already tying him/herself in knots trying to explain why the Tele front page today is acceptable, but similar efforts by Gillard in the past were not.]
Simple:
It is hypocrisy to say any criticism of you is sexist, while at the same time appearing in women’s magazines to garner the female vote.
She is claiming that gender should not be an issue while simultaneously trying to make gender an issue.
[No-one, no-one, is going to tell me that JGPM didn’t suffer from that attitude for most of her career.]
Yeah- like it wasn’t the support from three men that put her in the Prime Ministership in the first place.
…..oh dear….hang on a second…. :devil:
Confessions
Rudd does have a family and they are clearly VERY close. There is nothing too wrong with a picture. AND YES the public does like politicians in a traditional mode – families etc.
I think it would have been much easier for our first female PM if she had had some photogenic kids around. It would have been easier if she had been fatter and plainer.
BUT
I would agree if there are too many Rudd family photos it is at a risk of being too schmultzy. We will see.
ML
[screw that, go to the British Museum]
On this at least we can agree – it’s gem. No other museum its equivalent.
Do we know what part of Europe Psephos has flown to?
BK
[For those of youu who enjoyed “Borgen”]
I missed just enough episodes that I decided to stop watching it on TV and got the DVD of series one.
Series 2 must be almost finished on TV here and I’m looking forward to buying that.
[Do we know what part of Europe Psephos has flown to?]
Where are the grapes sour?
the only problem with lg constitution is that in terms of fundamental rewrite of constitution needed it is bit irrelevant or outdated. we dont need to legitimate three tiers when what needed is two fundamentally reformed tiers. state and local levels need complete overhaul. who will do that and when?
[I echo the words of Penny Wong – there is a higher loyalty here, and that is to the Party.]
Lynchpin: I’d substitute loyalty to long-held belief in a set of principles: continuation of dedication a belief, established before 1850, that we could be the World’s Leader/Best, with no limitations; a fair go for all egalitarianism: full equality, full employment, zero tolerance of discrimination (inc against migrants/ refugees), decency, charity, volunteerism, international obligations, environmental protection, access to world class free medicine & schooling, support for those who need it, national infrastructure etc
Until Howard, Liberals remained loyal to those principles – though Menzies’ use of personal & military aggression as re-election strategies, esp to keep Grouper/DLP preferences flowing (in the despicable way Abbott’s Mob use Boats, Batts & antiGay-Rights) turned a majority of my gensWar/Boomer into Labor voters they remain to this day. And that was despite the deep respect we had for Holt’s huge steps towards recognising our Indigenous people, their culture & progress – LIBERAL Senator Bonner was the first Indigenie to be elected to Parliament, and in dismantling White Australia Policy, though he died before he could implement it – Whitlam did that; with due tribute to HH’s work.
The traditional Liberal Party, whatever it was called before Menzies embedded the name, is near dead; with some of its last true “l”Liberals having made their valedictories this week.
A couple of quick things
1. SSM — While I do favour the ALP seeking to make it a binding matter for all their MPs to support it in parliament, if the status quo — conscience votes on both sides — persists — I’d favour a referendum. I doubt that it would fail because while the LNP wouldn’t want to endorse it they’d have to run dead on the issue to avoid being wedged. If the LNP win, we won’t see one anyway — for that very reason — but the ALP should poress for one, because that will still wedge the LNP and keep the issue as a running sore for them, shoring up their own ranks as well.
2. Sexism, misogyny and Gillard.
There’s no doubt in my mind that misogyny was adduced against Gillard and was a factor in her loss of support. Murdoch wanted to subvert the regime, and misogyny, which has a long history (including here in Australia) was a tool that was ready to hand. ML draws the matter much too narrowly in focusing on voting intent. The framing of issues within the MBCM was informed by this very thing, problematising her rule in a way that would not have occurred had she been a male. While I’m not sympathetic to her agenda, it was entirely apt for Ms Gillard to draw attention to that, IMO.