The second federal poll conducted for the Fairfax papers by Ipsos is somewhat less bad than what they’ve been accustomed to recently, while still giving Labor a lead of 52-48 according to preference flows from the 2013 election (up from 51-49 in last month’s poll) and 53-47 on respondent-allocation (steady). The primary votes are 40% for the Coalition (down two), 37% for Labor (steady), 12% for the Greens (steady) and 2% for Palmer United (down one). Ipsos was also about two points below trend on the Coalition primary vote last time, and landed a little high for them in its last poll before the Victorian election.
However, the poll corroborates other recent polling in having Tony Abbott’s personal ratings slumping, with approval down four to 38% and disapproval up eight to 57%. Bill Shorten is up three on approval to 46% and one on disapproval to 41%, and he now leads 47-39 as preferred prime minister after a 41-all result last time. The poll was conducted Thursday to Saturday from a sample of 1400.
D and M @ 73
[Yet, Greens preferences flow 80% to Labor. So Jules, I think that there are quite a few Labor supporters of the Left variety who are adopting your strategy of 1 Greens and 2 Labor, in seats where Labor is not under threat from the Greens.]
Thats a good thing imo. Judging by their comments I think BW and bemused should follow their lead.
The coalition’s problem is not Tony Abbott. The coalition’s problem is policies. They are willing to sacrifice Australia’s prosperity for the sake of ideology. Changing leaders won’t help if they are dead set on destroying Medicare, the NBN, universities, renewable energy industries, any scientific research, or any industry at all that doesn’t involve digging it up and shipping it out.
What Zoomster said at 199.
Morrison believes he is PM material.
If Pyne or Hunt think they have any shot (and I can’t believe they really do) they should get psychiatric help pronto.
Pyne is simply a charisma vacuum.
Hunt has suffered basically continuous contempt and disrespect from his colleagues since they gained office (and presumably before then). That he might imagine he enjoys any support at all in the party would be completely delusional. And he can’t even pretend he’s riding out the current fashion of climate denialism to come back when the moderates stage a comeback in the party … he has so thoroughly burnt whatever moderate cred he might ever have had (like Turnbull, except Turnbull at least has some popular public following to fall back on – Hunt, not so much.)
[138
Jackol
Posted Monday, December 8, 2014 at 10:18 am | PERMALINK
I support the reccomendations.
Yup, Murray – despite early concerns about his big bank pedigree and old-white-man-establishment appearances – seems to have delivered the goods, and congratulations to him and the FSI for doing so.
What the government does in response will be very interesting.
They could turn it into the start of a new narrative, or they could try to bury it and put up some token action while not doing anything to upset the big banks. My money is on the latter, but maybe the political opportunity will be too appealing for Joe to let it pass.]
Murdoch’s Oz reckons the government’s main response wil be to try and get rid of unions on the boards of industry super funds.
Abbott completely rattled on 7 Sunrise. Calling David Koch “Chris” twice!
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/tony-abbotts-parental-leave-backdown-is-meek-and-messy-20141207-121x4a.html
What a surprise – not!
zoomster
Exactly so This is why I have no conflicting loyalties. Parties change leaders when in government as an emergency measure to stop the bleeding. (Other rgan real health reasons of course.)
NSW Labor did it with panache. Changing leaders kept NSW Labor from suffering a Queensland style rout. Pretty good considering how much damage the likes of Obeid had done.
Labor got a second term by installing Gillard as it brought stability in public almost up until the election. A damage control measure.
These changes are nade because the party has to change direction and a new leader can bring a real reset with a change of policy.
Just like with Gillard you then get how you are throwing overboard previous policy. For Labor not a major problem as it was only a few policies changing and then only to degree not direction.
With Abbott going the policy change have to reverse direction and admit the whole philosophical basis on which the budget was done is wrong. A whole different kettle of fish and will in fact be almost suicidal for the whole party.
Bill Shorten gave a tribute to Stella Young and his condolences to her familyu during his ABC Radio interview this morning. I am assuming he met her through the NDIS process.
RIP, we have lost a great person.
Comment navigation
[If Pyne or Hunt think they have any shot (and I can’t believe they really do) they should get psychiatric help pronto.]
I’ve suggested before that Pyne could be a smokey in a leadership ballot but it would require
a) both Hockey and Bishop to think they could not win, and throw their support behind Pyne; and
b) something to nobble the hard right candidate (Morrison?)
I would add c) the collective party to leave their senses but the precedent for that has been well and truly established.
Guytaur
[NSW Labor did it with panache. Changing leaders kept NSW Labor from suffering a Queensland style rout. Pretty good considering how much damage the likes of Obeid had done.]
None of this is right.
All the changes were done malevolently.
NSW ALP did worse on the TPP in NSW than Qld.
The den of iniquity that was/is Obeid was only fully revealed after the election. The greater cause was general shithouseness as a government between 2007 and 2011 which precipitated 20 or so MLAs not recontesting.
[Just as they blamed the sales pitch not the product, the Liberals are now blaming the leader not the government.
Abbott isn’t the problem, he’s the symptom.]
Yeah exactly.
I suspect most Liberal members know this too. The party’s overall view is the problem, and they seem to expect reality to change to support their opinions and beliefs/prejudices.
Senators Xenophon, Muir, Wang, and Lazarus were misguided about the location of moral responsibility. An Immigration Minister has immense discretion, including the discretion to release an immigration detainee at any time for any reason. Instead of caving in to a kidnapper, they could have organized a Senate motion demanding that the Minister release certain categories of detainees. Even if it didn’t secure the release of any children, it would at least have created several news cycles reminding people of how it’s Morrison’s call – he doesn’t need this legislation to be able to release people. If he didn’t fulfil that demand, the Senate could have censured him for using children as bargaining chips. It would have chewed up the government’s Senate time on matters completely off its preferred message. It would have inflicted a political cost on the government for acting like kidnappers.
But what do we have instead now that the TPV legislation has passed? Detainees will exchange one form of stressful limbo for another. Morrison gets to strut and look powerful and effective. The Government gets to pretend that it is getting useful stuff done. The Senate looks weak.
The cracks certainly are appearing!
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-08/tony-abbott-defends-governments-performance-in-wake-of-sa-poll/5950938
Abbott completely rattled on 7 Sunrise. Calling David Koch “Chris” twice!
That’s less embarrassing that calling out “Peta” when at home with Margie
Me on Twitter
[Kochie gets right up @TonyAbbottMHR, and Abbott flounders around – calls Kochie Chris twice ROFLMAO http://youtu.be/efFNMtCP0bY #LibSpill #auspol ]
AA
Norty!
Dan G
Did you look at the YouTube comments?
Our PM is now at the stage of being ridiculed widely.
[Abbott isn’t the problem, he’s the symptom.]
Bit of both.
Getting rid of Abbott is not going to solve their problems, but it is a necessary first step.
Real problem for the Libs is that they can’t just simply move back towards the economic and social centre, which they have to do to pick up votes, because that ground is now largely occupied by Labor, whose overall policy suite is clearly preferred by the majority of voters.
Self-wedgie, I believe.
208
I would dispute that it was the leadership change, at least from Rees to Keneally, did not help the NSW ALP stop a Queensland style defeat.
The reason that the NSW ALP retained 20 seats, rather than the 7 the Queensland ALP did, is that NSW has an electoral geography that means there are more very safe seats. Queensland has fewer really safe seats, at least in urban areas, compared to NSW, Victoria and South Australia. Maybe this is to do with the proportion of the state in the capital city region (the more of the population in one city, the more separate ALP and Liberal voting areas become?)?
If anything the dumping of Rees cost the NSW ALP several seats. Polling under Iemma was heading downward fast, it stabilised under Rees and resumed the decline under Keneally.
rossmcg@197
I favour the theory that it is congenital. 😛
I think Abbott is disliked over and above most other Lib leadership contenders and his (and Hockey’s) attempt to implement their agenda has been more ham-fisted than we might expect frim say Bishop or Turnbull, but yes, it’s hard to see how a new leader could make big changes to the agenda now.
shellbell
Rees was shafted due to stability. He rocked boats sacking Tripodi for example.
Obeid took advantage of the desire for stability,
Of course he was the cause of the instability and the out of touch ant Labor sentiment before the ICAC revelations.
I was going on Seats held not TPP. My argument os only that leadership change prevented damage being more in the case of NSW.
BK
I did indeed notice them. If I were a betting man, I’d put money on Abbott being gone by the end of this financial year.
Also, on the Kochie video, did everyone catch that Abbott wants a PPL “based on a woman’s wage”.
Still looking after “women of calibre, and sod everyone else”.
[Queensland has fewer really safe seats, at least in urban areas, compared to NSW, Victoria and South Australia. Maybe this is to do with the proportion of the state in the capital city region (the more of the population in one city, the more separate ALP and Liberal voting areas become?)?]
This resulted in a much stronger Nats representation in Parliament, which drove urban voters to Labor. Brisbane just did not want Springborg or Seeney to be Premier.
As soon as a Brisbane-based Liberal leader showed up, the LNP were able to topple a very old government.
AA
Norty
yeah, in that sorta mood today….I should stay away from the other blog sites.
Its hard work trying to have a discussion with the ideologically/intellectually stunted right wingers
From Latika’s article in Fairfax this morning:
[Speaking in a pre-recorded interview aired at the same time on the ABC, Mr Abbott said the government’s controversial $7 GP co-payment and plan to deregulate universities were not surprises because he never ruled them out prior to the election.
“Well the GP co-payment was very extensively talked about in the lead up to the budget,” Mr Abbott began.
“Not before the election,” interjected host Chris Uhlmann.
“Well it certainly wasn’t ruled out before the election,” Mr Abbott protested.
“You weren’t asked about it,” replied Uhlmann.
“Well that’s right,” Mr Abbott finally agreed.
When speculation about a GP co-payment was raised before the budget, Mr Abbott said: “Nothing is being considered, nothing has been proposed, nothing is planned”.
As opposition leader, Mr Abbott often terminated media conferences despite journalists still attempting to ask him questions about his plans for government.]
So journalists like Uhlmann and Latika knew all along about Abbott pre-election but they said and did nothing at the time. Are they now trying to clear their consciences?
citizen
That’s why Bill Shorten at his parliamentary Christmas sppech thanke the press gallery for their hindsight.
Strewth! The declaration votes so far counted in Fisher are favouring Liberal TPP at 57.4%.
Re Insiders, and the voters, and Abbotts popularity
Abbott was never very popular to begin with, he got the results he did because the ALP were polling so badly.
If wasn’t the ALP policies that lost them the election, it was the leadership and their lack of defense on the deficit, and the campaign on the boats.
The coalitions campaign was all about keeping the popular policies but putting the adults in charge.
So if you have a new, unpopular leader junk popular policies , replace them with unpopular ones, but not explain why, how do you think the polls would go.
In a lot of the commentary, what is forgotten is that most of the ALPs policies were very popular.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbott-shrugs-off-bad-polls-and-leadership-speculation-20141208-1229gv.html
[Mr Abbott brushed aside the speculation on Monday, comparing himself to the iconic late conservative leaders Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.
“This is not the first government to have a rough patch in the polls,” Mr Abbott told Channel Seven’s Sunrise. “The Howard government, the Thatcher government, the Reagan government all had rough patches in the polls and I guess I’m not the first leader to be subjected to a bit of speculation.”]
If Abbott thinks he should be compared to Thatcher and Reagan, or even Howard, he is seriously delusional. This will strike voters as yet another attempt at self-flattery by a disingenuous fraudster.
Guytaur
Something you might care to read.
I don’t think it supports your point
http://insidestory.org.au/how-labor-lost-new-south-wales
citizen
That conversation @ 228 is damning and said in his own words.
What a fool!
I have a lot more sympathy for Ricky Muir than I did before:
[This has been an extremely difficult process for me. I agree with the remarks made by my colleague Senator Xenophon, who I know has been working extremely hard on this issue. There are many parts of this bill that I am not comfortable with. Whilst I have not had the opportunity to visit detention centres to hear their stories personally, I cannot ignore a joint letter written by refugees on Christmas Island. In that letter, they state that, if a TPV was the only option this government was going to offer, to accept it, because the mental anguish and pain cannot go on. It was a plea, a loud cry for help.
Tonight I have also spoken with people who have worked closely with detainees on Christmas Island. They told me that this bill is not completely fair, but that the detainees are tired. They told me that the detainees have had enough and that they want out. They are desperate. She told me that they have watched the news and they know it is down to one vote, and that vote is mine.
While I was speaking to these people and they were informing me, they started to break down and cry as they were speaking about children who have been in detention since they were born who are two years old. They speak about the word ‘out’. To them ‘out’ means going to church on occasion, and that is it. When they hear the word ‘out’, they cannot begin to associate it with freedom.
They told the people in detention that they rang the office of the man whose decision it was to decide whether they would be out of detention before Christmas. That man wasn’t the minister for immigration; it was me. It should not be like this but it is. The crossbench should not have been put in this position, but it has. ]
He is right.
It should not be like this.
Its times like this I kind of hope the fundies and religious weirdos are right, cos Morrison should burn in hell for eternity.
[Also, on the Kochie video, did everyone catch that Abbott wants a PPL “based on a woman’s wage”.]
That was one of the things that exposed their “it’s a workplace entitlement” argument as a big, fat lie.
The whole policy is predicated around a woman earning a lower wage than her partner. If, for example, a man chooses to stay and home and be the primary carer for the baby in question, he only gets TWO WEEKS at his own salary, and after that at his partner’s wage … provided it is lower than his.
In the case of same-sex parenting (which sounded like it was added as an afterthought in order to avoid accusations of discrimination), it is paid at the rate of the lowest wage-earner in the house, regardless of who is providing the care.
The policy is, and always was, about nothing more than fixing Abbott’s problem with women voters.
Thankfully, most remain unswayed by his “charms”.
shellbell
It reinforces my point. Rees was the clean up guy. To save their butts at the election they dumped Rees and went with Kennealy rather than have open wafre and public disunity going into the election
oops sorry wafre should be warfare
zoomster@199
Great post. As you say, the problem is not Abbott. We have a whole generation of leading Liberals (with the partial exceptions of Turnbull, Macfarlane and Hunt) who have picked up one or both elements of that unholy alliance of extreme libertarian economic views and social conservatism that has come increasingly to dominate the Liberal Party’s consciousness since the return of Howard to the leadership in 1995.
As is becoming increasingly apparent, this leading group has long convinced itself that the economic and political successes of the Howard Government was largely due to the power, and overwhelming rightness of the libertarian/socially conservative perspective. So most of them really do seem to have believed that, once they were back in office, they would be able to fix the deficit problem, boost the economy and ride high in the opinion polls.
The failure of this group to fully appreciate the extent to which Howard’s success was underpinned by the Chinese economic boom has been widely canvassed. But, of equal importance, has been the extent to which they have misinterpreted Howard’s success as being assisted by his right wing views on both economics and society: whereas I believe that Howard succeeded in spite of his holding these views.
It must be remembered that Howard’s best result was his first election win and that, while the 2004 result was also a huge success, this came about through a relatively late swing caused by public concern about Latham. Although they respected him as a capable leader, a large part of the electorate never really warmed to him: and his political views played an important role in this. But, after his earlier disappointments, Howard had learned that – while it was ok for him to continue to hold his personal views – it was essential for him to occupy more ground in the centre of the political spectrum in order to put some of his views into action.
It was only when the blood rushed to the heads of some of his Cabinet Ministers and he foolishly went with the down the primrose path of Work Choices that he lost touch with the political centre: costing him a humiliating annihilation by Rudd.
(I should add that I realise that a lot of the more biased PBers will be unable to see how Howard was in any way a centrist, but I ask you to bear with me on this.)
Abbott and co just don’t seem to get the need to try to occupy centre ground. I guess this is the indirect result of the Rudd-Gillard catastrophe, which enabled them to win government without having to soften any of the rough edges of their views. They thought they could get away with keeping them quiet until they were elected and then springing them on everybody with the excuse “the budget is so much worse than we thought”. Given that a number of them – Abbott, Hockey, Andrews and Abetz among others – were all closely involved in the Work Choices train wreck – it’s almost incomprehensible that they could ever have thought that it was a good idea to spring far right reform agendas on the public after an election having said nothing about them beforehand. But that’s what happened.
There’s a lack of political maturity and toughness at the top of this government which is rather alarming. It feels like they were all rather spoilt by the relatively easy time they had under Howard, who was a very strong leader who set the agenda at all times and was able to bail out Ministers who got into difficulties.
What the Libs need desperately now is a strong leader who can identify a forward-looking agenda for them. I agree wholeheartedly with this guy from the Centre for Independent Studies
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/tony-abbotts-budget-strategy-must-be-about-getting-back-to-basics-20141207-120ziz.html
the only way forward for the Libs is to focus on structural budgetary and economic problems. But this must be in a totally disciplined way. No more splurges on PPL and futile searches for missing aircraft. No more savings measures which do not go towards fixing the budget bottom line because they are hypothecated to medical research institutes and road-building. No more arbitrary budget cuts designed to torment the segment of the community whose attitudes you don’t like because they were on the other side of you in student politics: ie, universities, the ABC and SBS, etc.
You can make structural reforms to things like universities and the health sector if people can trust you to be fair (which tends to flow from occupying the centre ground) and if you can find ways of bringing them with you: the Hawke Government was really good at this and the way they went about it (lots of white papers and summits and review panels to pave the way for policy nasties) is worth reviving: the introduction of HECS in 1986 would be a classic case study.
Can Abbott take this sort of agenda forward? In my view, it would be very difficult for him to move towards the centre in any sense. I feel that Hockey and Bishop would have the same problems: while they are more moderate in their own personal political views than Abbott, they are now quite closely tied to him in the public mind.
I can only see two alternatives. One is Malcolm Turnbull, who would undoubtedly be seen by the public as the harbinger of a move to the political centre and would enjoy a significant honeymoon period. The other is Morrison, whose credibility with many voters is locked-in by his success in stopping the boats and whose personal political views are far closer to the centre of the spectrum than many PBers believe. And he also looks like a doer.
I still think that Morrison lacks some of the personal gravitas which makes a truly successful political leader: to me he looks a bit like a pushy kid trying to get his own way all the time. But he’s a helluva lot better option than any of the other contenders other than Turnbull, who I continue to believe would be unacceptable to the parliamentary party.
Perhaps Morrison as PM and Turnbull as Treasurer/Deputy, taking forward a new, inclusive strategy of leading Australia towards long-term economic stability in an uncertain world.
[ Murdoch’s Oz reckons the government’s main response wil be to try and get rid of unions on the boards of industry super funds. ]
I noticed that. How much surprisiment!! And, you know what? I really hope that the Govt do exactly that with all the Liberal front-benchers waxing lyrical on the matter as much as much as possible.
I mean…look how well their “Unions…..BOO!” campaign working in Victoria? 🙂
Apart from that, they will be made to look like fools. The natural first response is to point to the generally better performance (from the members perspective) of the Industry Funds over the Retail Funds.
Then ask the question…what actually ARE “Independent Directors” and how do you ensure they are not in the pockets of the Banks or Fund Managers. You know, the spivs that have been shown recently to be ripping people off left right and centre??
And it will ALL play into the “fairness” theme that the Govt has created and is so toxic for them.
But if as i suspect the Libs will pursue the “Unions….BOO!” line as their first response then the most powerful argument will be to simply point out that they are pursuing the measure LEAST likely to help members returns and increase their balances for their own political purposes, when they could be cracking down of fee’s, making the tax treatment fairer and helping budget revenue at the same time.
And, it will be interesting where they go with the lump sum / pension argument.
Makes sense to have some requirement for an adequate pension product to be mandatory. But….some ability to take a lump sum, particularly to pay off any debt / mortgage owing on retirement will need to be part of it. Lots of people are planning around that now that mortgages are so high.
If any changes in the system lock people out of being able to do that then it will be seen as clearly a gift to the banks and super funds which is probably not acceptable at the moment.
The Murray report is interesting. I dont have any faith that this Govt will not bungle its response to it AND may well leave the door open for the ALP to push the aspects of it that are actually beneficial to the ordinary punters while shelving the bits it may find politically difficult. That would be the ALP offering constructive bipartisanship on what will be a significant economic issue for a lot of people and could lead to them being able to effectively seize control of the agenda on this. 🙂
I must say that Mr Abbott did not look his usual chipper self on the Koch interview.
There was a hint of five o’clock shadow. Pancake makeup only partially hid the dark shadows around his eyes. Nor did it hide the bags under his eyes, noting also that the saggy bag under his left eye looking rather larger than that under his right eye. Such assymetry is not beautiful. There was a general, odd sort of hang dog look about Abbott as well.
All this did nothing to disguise the rictus in the muscles surrounding his mouth. This may have contributed to the mouth-open look and the carp-like gasping for political oxygen.
Koch finished the interview with a reasonable, specific question about the Murray Report.
(See the link to Kohler above about why the Report is a shit-sandwhich for a Coalition Government which is seeking to look after the Big Four Banks, and the finance industry spivs).
In a self-destructive attempt to build up further trust with his adoring public, Abbott opened his response to Koch’s question by stating that the Murray Report was a report TO Government, not a report BY Government. (They only paid Murray and also gave him his TOR.)
Uh huh. Uh huh. Got that. So, what is in the Murray Report Abbott hiding from or running from, already? Trust me, Abbott was spinning like a top. Someone should tell Abbott that when tops stop spinning they just fall over where they were spinning all the time.
I am sure that Credlin has debrifed the Koch interview with her prime minister, and that he is now writing one thousand times, DAVID Koch, DAVID Koch, DAVID Koch…
And a final embarrassment, when called ‘Chris’ Koch asked Abbott to call him ‘David’. Twice. So what does Abbott do?
Why, Abbott calls him ‘Kochie’.
Considering that ‘Chris’, ‘David’, ‘Kochie’ or perhaps all three, were eviscerating Abbott, the hey mate ‘Kochie’ did not quite ring true.
I reckon the Koch interview is the most damaging interview Abbott has done since he became prime minister.
There may be other possibilities that I have missed that rival it for sheer political damage.
Oh dear
The Liberals are running an advertising campaign on Uni fees. How to remind voters of one of your most unpopular policies over the summer holidays
226
However the same lack of safe seat phenomenon can be observed in Tasmania. In 1984 all 5 seats were held by the Liberals and in the ALP held or gained all 5 seats. Tasmania has a population that is less concentrated in the capital than the non-Queensland mainland states.
[ The Liberals are running an advertising campaign on Uni fees. How to remind voters of one of your most unpopular policies over the summer holidays ]
Absolute tactical genius on their part. You can see why they are considered such an adult Govt wot?? 🙂
Abbott’s much more like Reagan – rhetoric about smaller government whilst racking up record debt and giving tax cuts to the wealthiest. However, Reagan was never deeply unpopular -his folksy style and surviving an assassination attempt after only a few months in the job saw to that. Having mondale as his 1984 opponent helped too. Thatcher did both the rhetoric and the action in neo-liberalism, and was hated. she survived due to the falklands war, a pathetic opposition and tabloid media support. abbott needs:
– an assassination attempt
– a war
– a worse opposition
he has the tabloid media
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/politics-news/abbott-thatcher-reagan-and-howard-were-unpopular-too/story-fn59nqld-1227148345026
Abbott’s much more like Reagan – rhetoric about smaller government whilst racking up record debt and giving tax cuts to the wealthiest. However, Reagan was never deeply unpopular -his folksy style and surviving an assassination attempt after only a few months in the job saw to that. Having mondale as his 1984 opponent helped too. Thatcher did both the rhetoric and the action in neo-liberalism, and was hated. she survived due to the falklands war, a pathetic opposition and tabloid media support. abbott needs:
– an assassination attempt
– a war
– a worse opposition
he has the tabloid media
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/politics-news/abbott-thatcher-reagan-and-howard-were-unpopular-too/story-fn59nqld-1227148345026
[I reckon the Koch interview is the most damaging interview Abbott has done since he became prime minister.]
At least Koch was speaking with Abbott unlike Beasley who got Carl Rove and Rove McManus mixed up when speaking to a third person. Abbott is rattled.
I think the getting of DK’s name wrong by Abbott – or anybody else – is just a slip of the tongue. Just proves Abbott is fragile.
However, given that we saw the commercial media show FPJG’s fall/trip/shoe fail what seemed like a zillion times, and when ever they wanted to stick the knife in, I’m afraid Abbott will just have to cop it sweet.
Its a shame that the media are just such cheap tarts.
Politicians use the 24/7 news cycle to suit their own ends and live and die by it…pity really, as this kind of slip of the tongue/prat fall stuff demeans everyone.
[Just as they blamed the sales pitch not the product, the Liberals are now blaming the leader not the government.
Abbott isn’t the problem, he’s the symptom.]
Labor used exactly the same strategy. Blame the selling not the message, and then blame the PM, either Gillard or Rudd.
I heard Abbott’s approval rating described in radio as “Gillardesque”.