The real leadership story: Abbott remains unelectable

Carter says:

09:17am | 22/06/10

Thank God, Brian Taylor, a man who’s travelled in time and has come to grant us the answers to mankind’s greatest questions!

Or are you guessing? Without anything more substantial than you uninformed, biased opinion?

Bill007 says:

04:00pm | 22/06/10

Based on out comes, Rudd still leads. All the rubbish about talk and no action is just a slur from Abbot. Abbot had ten long years but did nothing worth mentioning. We will judge these two men on the results of their actions and knowledge of economics

Bill007 says:

04:14pm | 22/06/10

Based on Brian Taylor’s intelligence?, stupidity?
You would have lost your job if not for the economic stimulus.
You must be one of those who like to repeat ‘all talk and no action.’ What about ‘not doing anything for the last ten years’ when you had all the chances.

Brad of Bentleigh says:

05:57pm | 22/06/10

All that really says is that each party’s supporters would rather someone else lead the party they don’t support.
IMHO not a very useful poll , and the assertion that Abbot is unelectable is unsound…
Where this will be won and lost is in the marginals… poll these seats and every ALP sycophant (and I’m not suggesting Peter Lewis is one of those, but they’re fairly well represented on The Drum) will wet their pants.

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

06:24pm | 22/06/10

There has been a Newspoll survey conducted since last weekend’s national poll which shows support for Rudd and Labor has crashed in marginal Qld. and western Sydney seats.
The poll , published in today’s Australian Newspaper , shows the federal government would lose an election in these areas alone.

The key federal seat of Lindsay in western Sydney , which the Liberals won in 1996 and lost in 2007 , has sufferred a 12 percentage point swing against Labor on a 2 PP basis.
61 percent of voters in the seat are dissatisfied with the Prime Minister.

Lindsay incorporates much of Penrith , where the N.S.W. Labor party sufferred a crushing defeat on the weekend.
Clearly the state by-election result can be translated to federal voting trends .

In the three marginal Qld. seats , Dawson , Flynn and Longman , the A.L.P.‘s primary vote is 34 percent compared with the Coalitions 45 percent. 

Overall , the Newspoll survey , which also covered the N.S.W. seat of Page , shows Labor’s primary vote is even lower in some marginals than the 35 percent it was in the national Newspoll taken last weekend.
The National poll also showed Tony Abbott is rapidly closing the gap on Kevin Rudd as preferred Prime Minister.
There is a similar volatility in the electorate to that which removed Whitlam from office in 1975.

Eddie says:

09:54pm | 22/06/10

So long as Abbott and Tucky are kept quiet and only make statements that written for them, the libs will do alright.

Molly Daveson says:

04:18pm | 23/06/10

No matter Rudd or Gillard, they are both suffering from spenditis and spin. I do not know who you polled but penrith was a good indication of what looks like happening.

acker says:

08:21am | 22/06/10

Perhaps the Coalition has the chance to make it a certainty, I think a Greg Hunt/Sophie Mirrabella leadership ticket would make happen

Nonsense says:

08:35am | 22/06/10

Are you an idiot? It says he is behind Rudd in the two party preferred poll.

Greg says:

09:12am | 22/06/10

52 - 48 to the ALP. The ALP has increased the margin in each of the last 3 newspolls while they are getting beat up by the miners and newspapers trying to rock the leadership boat.

Bob says:

12:09pm | 22/06/10

@ Eric, What polls are you reading? The Coalition hasn’t been ahead since shortly after the 2004 election.

Greg says:

12:47pm | 22/06/10

Bob - Sorry but that isn’t actually right. The coalition have been ahead in 3 individual polls since 2004, with the most recent in May this year.

Bob says:

01:01pm | 22/06/10

@ Greg, Sorry mate, no they haven’t. They’ve had a spurious claim to the lead because of a movement to the Greens, but we all know in real terms they have not had an election winning poll yet.

annie says:

02:24pm | 22/06/10

Greg my friend dont put your trust in the Essential poll results, Peter and his team are staunch labor supporters and some would say part of Rudds advisory team. And all the most recent Newspolls have had Labor primary support at just 35 percent, thats seriously low and the majority of Marginals are showing significant swings to the opposition and they are the electorates that will deceide who governs next term

Greg says:

04:21pm | 22/06/10

Annie, Newpoll (owned by The Australian newspaper which no one would ever describe as Labor friendly), is the pollster I quoted.  Neilsen / Essential and Newspoll are usually within the Margin of Error of each other. Newspoll generally favours Libs, Essential I haven’t worked out a bias and Neilsen is pretty accurate.

The Oz is notorious for poor interpretation of the polling numbers. For example, the marginals you quote are the Queenslanders where the RSPT is biting much harder than the marginals in say Vic. You are welcome to place your trust in The Oz interpretations of the figures, but I wouldn’t.

Luke says:

01:54pm | 23/06/10

Can we all agree polls arent that good?

Matthew says:

10:51am | 22/06/10

I love the way this one started: “Let’s look at the facts hey?”. The next sentence then goes on to mention “nowhere man” and no convictions nd no courage. In fact there is not one “fact” in the above comment.

People make the mistake of comparing the Rudd government’s first term with ALL of Howard’s terms in regards to reforms and successes. If you compare Rudd’s first term with Howard’s first term only, then you see far more promises being delivered, far more progress and a much more popular government with Rudd. Due to the unfavourable senate Rudd is unable rather than unwilling to deliver on a so called “broken promises”. Its a bit rich for Coalition to block legislation in the Senate and then harp on about “broken promises”. Unfortunately it seems to be eventually working.

KH says:

11:22am | 22/06/10

Matthew - that is because the majority of voters are not that intelligent (or so it seems). The hostile Senate, and the constant interference and blackmail by a couple of so called ‘independent’ Senators has seriously hampered the governments ability to do many of the things they set out to do, forcing them to either abandon or water down legislation to a point where it wasn’t effective any more.  That is what happens when you allow minority groups (and in this case, the loony right) to gain that kind of power.

Added to that, the GFC was unexpected (maybe not in hindsight, but at the time, no one saw it coming) - Rudd had to deal with an extraordinary circumstance that Howard never had to.  He did the right thing - if there was any lesson learned from the Great Depression, it was shutting up shop was the wrong way to go, and only made things worse.  Spending is the answer, so that is what he did.  Its what everyone did because it was the only way to avoid catastrophe.  There is a lot to be said for learning from history.  That is why most of us managed to keep our jobs.  That is why we are still paying ridiculous amounts for houses instead of street after street of mortgagee auctions, as has happened elsewhere. 

No one is ever thanked for avoiding something - because it is easy to imagine that ‘it probably wouldn’t have happened’, so you might as well have done nothing.  If Rudd had done nothing, and we had an unemployment rate of 18% and people losing their houses all over the place, I’m guessing he would be beaten up for that too!  Damned if he did, damned if he didn’t.

Ben81 says:

03:11pm | 22/06/10

Matthew - “People make the mistake of comparing the Rudd government’s first term with ALL of Howard’s terms in regards to reforms and successes”
No Matthew, people are merely comparing his rhetoric and promises before the 2007 election with the abysmal performance that’s actually been delivered.  The rest of your post is hyperbole, but I’ll give you his quick delivery on Kyoto, the 2020 summit and the apology, all of which did absolutely nothing. 
Also luckily for us the senate (which includes more than just the Liberals you know) isn’t there to rubber stamp all of Labor’s ideas for a damn good reason and happen to represent a lot of people, and can’t be invoked to brush off mediocrity, non delivery and of course waste caused by poor planning and rushing to shovel around as much cash as possible.

n_dude says:

06:37pm | 22/06/10

@Ben81 I guess you are referring to the likes of Steve Fielding and the Greens who obviously represent a vast majority of Australians

Ben81 says:

12:41am | 23/06/10

n_dude I was referring to the senate which does include those parties, and also the Coalition.  What’s the part you don’t get?

persephone says:

08:07am | 22/06/10

Mike,  polls exist because individuals asking their mates what they think is a notoriously bad way of judging the public mood.

We tend to hang around with people who think like we do. Obviously, this not only distorts our view of what’s going but can lead us to the belief that what we’re thinking is the way others are.

Labor does need to do better on primaries than it is at present - more as a reassurance than anything else, as it simply won’t lose on the current 2PP - but this also means that a lot of people who are saying they won’t vote for Rudd are giving Labor their preferences.

In a 2PP system, that’s exactly the same as voting for Rudd.

Carter says:

09:21am | 22/06/10

Mike H,

Lawyers, doctors, engineers, graduates… Believe it or not, these are the core conservative base professions who are more likely to vote Liberal anyway (it was probably more of an anomaly that they voted Labor three years ago…)

It also doesn’t take a genius to work out the Government economics is a pole away from business economics (the accrual aspect is just the most obvious).

But I’m so glad your children and their friends have decided Rudd hsould go and therefore he will. That settles it, someone get the cattle prod, we’ll have him out of there by dusk!

R says:

10:06am | 22/06/10

Rudd’s strength: 50% of the population are below average intelligence.

Rudd’s weakness: 50% of the population are above average intelligence.

Should be a close one methinks…

Chris L says:

02:02pm | 22/06/10

R, the Coalition campain at the last election seemed to comprise of “If you don’t vote for us you’re a stupid head” and it didn’t work. As it tuns out, being called stupid by an idiot doesn’t hold much weight .

Andrew says:

07:58am | 22/06/10

It is nigh on impossible to win two elections on the same scare campaign. I hope Labor continue to attack Abbott it will only make them look small and petty. Rudd needs a Tampa.

persephone says:

08:52am | 22/06/10

Sherlock

strange that you portray a party which is committed to taking action on climate change, is committed to reforming the health system, is upgrading Australia’s telecommunications system, has just introduced Australia’s first paid parental leave plan, has invested heavily in education (and thus in our children’s future), made huge commitments to infrastructure improvement, is taking action at improving the nation’s savings and is looking at further ways of boosting productivity as being behind the times.

Whereas apparently the Liberals, whose leader doesn’t believe in climate change, who wants to slash education and and health spending, who oppose the NBN and have - sorry, but I’m going to say it again - made it clear that they want to go back to Workchoices (but change the name) are apparently progressive.

Look at the numbers, Sherlock - and these aren’t the only polls around showing this - even Liberal voters don’t want Abbott.

That’s why, if Labor points out that voting Liberal means Abbott becomes PM (a straightforward factual statement), the Liberals accuse the government of running a scare campaign.

That’s because even Liberals find the thought of an Abbott PM scary.

Carter says:

09:25am | 22/06/10

Sherlock, the Libs are defined as conservatives (by the very definition committed to not moving forward… And if you’re interested in talking scare campaigns, I havn’t seen any great increase in inductrial action since Labor returned, despite Howard’s rhetoric in 2007. Or a general glut of refugees all wanting to blow something up. Or the Australian economy head to ruin (before you interject with the debt argument look at the independent reports from the IMF, etc that attribute Austalia with one of the best economies in the world thanks, as much, to Rudd/Swan as Howard/Costello)...

Andrew funny you should mention Tampa. Which Government ran that scare campaign? And used it as a platform for at least two elections?

Sherlock says:

09:27am | 22/06/10

persephone says: strange that you portray a party which is committed to taking action on climate change

Oh that just has to be the funniest thing I’ve read in weeks. I said before the last election that opposed as I was to an ETS I was comfortable that the ALP had it as a major part of its election platform because I didn’t think the had the backbone to implement any scheme that might actually achieve something.

When the structure of the ETS was announced it was obvious that I was right and I said then, which was well over 12 moths ago, that Kevin Rudd was Australia’s number one climate change sceptic.

I stand by that comment. Kevin Rudd obviously thinks that climate change is a load of crap (to borrow a phrase). As the one man who has the power to actually do something about it he ran away when it became politically inconvenient. If he believed, even for a millisecond, that the apocalyptic scenarios his own government put forward in their advertising campaign, that cost Australians tens of millions of dollars to push nothing more than an ALP policy, were even remotely possible, there would have been nothing that would have stopped him from not only introducing an ETS but implementing any other policy that would have changed the way we lived.

Instead we have a typical wishy washy Rudd non-policy that we’ll have a look what everybody else is doing in a couple of years and then we may, or may not, do something as yet undetermined. What a joke.

Yet persephone has the gall to come out and tell us that the ALP is “a party which is committed to taking action on climate change”

That’s so funny

Andrew says:

09:39am | 22/06/10

Pers, Is this the same party which was committed to ending child poverty by the year 2000?

I’m sure the Labor manifesto has them committed to a million efforts, truth is a committment by the Labor party is the political equivalent of a bloke telling his wife “I’ll do it this weekend when asked to fix something round the house.” If he ever does get round to it he “fixes” it with chick wire and gaffa tape turns to the wife and says with a wink “there’ya go, good as new luv.”

The only thing Labor is truly committed to is clinging on to power.

Andrew says:

09:48am | 22/06/10

Carter, re tampa, just making a point. I am not ignorant enough to believe that one party is holier than thou and one party is the party of dirty tricks. Politics is a dirty game and full of unethical backroom boys. Tampa was a political boon for John Howard and he milked it very well. It doesn’t make him any different from any other polly.

Rudd reniged on his advert promise at the first sign of trouble. Am I surprised? No, Does he deserve to be castigated for it? absolutely.

Don’t you think the “he did it first” excuse is wearing a little thin?

In any event, my view, for what it’s worth is that in the seats where it counts Labor is in real trouble. They could well lose 2 seats in W.A. (almost certainly), 4 seats in S.A., and 4-6 in QLD. I don’t know the numbers in Sydney but would suggest western sydney is slipping away. When pollies look like losing their jobs, they become very different, very worried and will do or hook on to anything. Hence, Rudd (and his marginal MP’s) need a Tampa.

Jezabel says:

10:22am | 22/06/10

UUummm…..Persephone….what about all the outrageous stuff-ups? And the incredibly inept waste of tax payers money? Rudd is a lost little boy who doen’t know where his mummy is so he’s just wandering around with the labor party trailing behind him.  But the thing that frightens me & I know a lot of other people who are saying the same thing, is Rudd’s comment about the Labor party having “a long memory.” That is a threat & is so childish it’s pathetic. Threatening people is not the way adult, reasonable politicians behave….it’s the way that thugs & bullies behave. But then that’s the labor party & the unions for you! And as for Mrs Rudd’s performance on Channel 9 on Sunday night….....well, I suppose it’s better than getting your Mum to stand up in front of a camera & say what a lovely good boy you are. The sad thing for Mrs Rudd is that we already know that Kevin is a spoilt brat who has massive hissy fits, & calls people disgusting names…..so that little channel 9 episode made the woman & her smug husband look like they’re a pair of lunatic or even worse, liars! This entire household voted for Rudd….on Sunday night we all “voted” for Abbott….because anything will be better than Kevin Rudd!

Richard says:

06:37pm | 22/06/10

@Carter, infact the word ‘Liberal’ means the exact opposite of conservative~ look it up in the dictionary. If the Liberals were conservative and committed to not moving forward they would be named ‘Conservative Party of Australia’ (just like the one in England). But that’s not their name, is it? Their name is the ‘Liberal Party’, so stop trying to force them into your own little ideological box. As Malcolm Turnbull has said, the Liberal Party is a large congregation, and their are some conservatives in it, (including Tony Abbott), but don’t label every Lib that way because its an inaccurate notion.

Down the Back says:

06:50pm | 22/06/10

Dear Persephone

The voters might well decide they don’t like Tony Abbott.  The Labor Party’s problem is that the voters now seem to be deciding they don’t trust Kevin Rudd.  As much as that chokes, it’s real and it’s not going anywhere between now and Christmas.

Next election:  Is trust more important than like?

We can’t rely on Tony Abbott to lose this.

He has a killer team and mountains of funding that he would not have got six months ago.  Labor has a disaffected union movement that feels dudded after coughing up the dough last time, and some politically poisonous tax-payer funded ads that don’t say anything. Mr Rudd is going to need to scare the bejesus out of the unions about what will happen under a Liberal Government without spooking the swinging voters.

If the PM had gone to an election on the ETS he would have survived with respect, but would have dropped some of the seats (seats he is now likely to lose anyway) in WA, SA and QLD. All the same, he would have held the base.  He would have been trusted.

The PM might have taken enough momentum to rebuild his image over the next three years and in all likelihood would have handed over to Deputy PM before the next election.

Julia Gillard would have held at least two more elections, making it a Labor Decade.
The six or seven seats that he would have lost on the ETS poll would have been mainly represented by people who held out little hope of surviving beyond one term anyway. 

Now, apparently because he did not want to take a risk while his polls had been so unbelievably good, he risks losing everything.  He’ll be okay, he’s rich, but that’s not the same for the people he represents. 

Would that our loyal members had not been so dazzled by one man to the point where they threw out the very checks and balances that have kept Labor strong for a century.  With NSW imploding, this could be the end.

We should have stuck with Beazley.  We must all now stick with Rudd and pray for another Liberal disaster, or at least the Greens preference deal coming off.  The team is locked in, for better or worse, and we should brace together.  Stick together.  Try to maintain a sense of humour, I guess.  Perse, you’re about the only bright spot in a very bleak sheet.

Anyone have Godwin’s number?

persephone says:

09:07am | 22/06/10

Terry

You fail to point out that that Bulletin cover was in 1988. He didn’t prove everyone wrong until 1996.

You’re also wrong about the outcome of the 1987 election - Howard lost the 2PP vote.

And the preferred PM figures switched backwards and forwards between the two contenders, but generally favoured Howard.

http://australianpolitics.com/elections/1996/polls.shtml

Steve_of_Cornubia says:

09:18am | 22/06/10

The media is still letting Rudd off lightly. Only last week we saw yet another example, when Rudd’s petty nature and disdain for women again surfaced, making rude and sexist comments about a female journo who made him cross. Can you imagine the howling that would have ensued if Abbott had said those things? We would still be discussing it on Q&A today. Because it was Rudd however, the minor fuss it caused was over within 48hrs.

AdamC says:

09:22am | 22/06/10

Spot on, Luke. Rudd may have dug his own grave, but Abbott gave him the shovel, so to speak.

And on Tony Abbott being ‘unelectable’: gee, I’ve never heard that before, Peter. People are often unelectable, until they’re elected!

GC51 says:

10:25am | 22/06/10

Steve_of_Cornubia
The journalist wasn’t worried, it was an interesting outfit that merited comment.
You want rude and sexist, try this one!
I watched Abbott at a presser on the APAC channel on SKY with the Lib candidate for Corangamite. SHE was asked a question regarding her views on abortion, HE jumped in front of her and gave his usual answer. Ditto an attempt made to ask the woman about unflattering articles she wrote about the Libs in her role as a journalist. Abbott would not let her answer either question. The look on her face in the background says it all.  His best chance is to go into hiding until the election is over.
I am surprised it hasn’t been brought up, it was demeaning.
I don’t think he was expecting some serious questioning in the bush, he wasn’t prepared, (no script), and it showed his true colours.

LifeofY says:

10:50am | 22/06/10

Steve_of_Cornubia,

Abbott doesn’t believe in a woman’s right to choose!!
Is that not the basic right a woman should have? The right to choose what happens to her own body!

Before you bang on about woman and the disdain Rudd has for them (which he doesn’t), perhaps you should have a good hard look at Tony!!

NEFFA says:

11:46am | 22/06/10

Luke, these swinging voters aren;t voting FOR Abbott, they are voting AGAINST Rudd.
It could be a dancing monkey in the Liberal leadership, people would still say they prefer the monkey to Rudd. I dont thing the Liberals should be partying over this.

Ocean4 says:

11:56am | 22/06/10

NEFTA - You’re right, and I doubt the Liberals are dancing over this. This is exactly what happened to Howard. There could have been a dancing Monkey in the Labor Leadership and people would have said they prefer the dancing monkey to Howard. Hence Rudd won, a drovers dog could have lead Labor at the last election and they would have won. It had very little to do with Kevin Rudd. They were sick of Howard.

Adam Diver says:

12:08pm | 22/06/10

@ LifeofY what about the baby’s choice to live or not? I think you need to clearly define when a baby becomes human before this abortion debate comes back up again. As I see it there is no clear cut right and wrong on this issue, and anyone who thinks otherwise really does not ponder the issue enough.

Sherlock says:

12:28pm | 22/06/10

LifeofY says: Abbott doesn’t believe in a woman’s right to choose!!.

Really? I didn’t know that. Would you kindly paste a link to where he has said anything to that effect. Thank you

LifeofY says:

12:45pm | 22/06/10

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Abbott
See Bioethics and Family Values, then tell me he isn’t against a woman’s right to choose.

All woman have a RIGHT to choose what happens to their bodies.

Sherlock says:

01:08pm | 22/06/10

abortion should be “safe, legal and rare says Tony Abbot according to your link. Which one of those three criteria illustrates that “Abbott doesn’t believe in a woman’s right to choose!!.”

Safe and legal should be something we can all agree on. Rare? Well there may be some debate on that but it’s not exactly an invalid opinion.

Abbott apparently asked “Why isn’t the fact that 100,000 women choose to end their pregnancies regarded as a national tragedy”?

Frankly, when there is a decade long list of couples seeking adoption I would suggest that’s a fair question.

To my knowledge Abbott has never demanded the end of abortion but wants to ensure women are aware of all their options.

I think that most people would agree that a right to choose would include that.

LifeofY says:

02:29pm | 22/06/10

Sherlock,
He likened it to murder, that is a clear indication of what he thinks of it.
And you picked the wrong person to talk to about adoption. My mother is adopted and a firm feminist. She to believes in a woman’s right to choose.
Adoption should not even come into this argument for the simple fact that if you want to go down that path, your saying woman should put their bodies through carrying a child to term, giving birth, then the emotional trauma of giving it up.
At which point you should go stand with Steve Fielding.

Sherlock says:

04:04pm | 22/06/10

Well I believe in a woman’s right to choose as well but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t discuss the issue.

I agree with Abbott that there are far too many abortions done in this country and I’m of the opinion that women should be encouraged to go through with their pregnancies and put the child up for adoption. Note that I said encouraged not forced.

Frankly I think your comments display far more about your attitudes than those of Tony Abbott. Your opinion is valid and I respect your right to have it. However on this extremely complicated issue your opinion (and mine for that matter) is not the only right one.

GC51 says:

10:45am | 22/06/10

Joe
A case of the curse being far worse than the disease??

Nathan says:

01:04pm | 22/06/10

Did you watch Q&A last night. Turnbull still has it and would be a spectacular leader. I think he needs another term or so before he becomes this said leader though due to his fascination with the ETS. If he could get off the ETS and the republican bandwagons, i’d vote for him, so in the meantime Abbott is the man.

Andrew says:

10:09am | 22/06/10

Question is Tim, are they trying to convince us, the party base or themselves. The hard nosed back room boys on the left can’t really believe this spin can they? Say it ain’t so.

Geez, I would love it if they really thought they weren’t in any trouble and then got rolled. Oh the joy.

Of course, they aren’t stupid, they are great manipulators and they would be very worried. Hence the Tony Abbott is the anti-christ campaign.

“You know if you vote liberal Tony Abbott will be PM!”

“You know if we don’t we will be left with Kevin Rudd!!!!”

Peter says:

10:14am | 22/06/10

Holly its based on those same polls that had you trumpeting from the highest mountains when you fearless leader had the highest approval rating of any PM in this country.

Mick says:

10:15am | 22/06/10

Keep dreaming Holly ,Rudd is the one who is well and truly on the nose.Its must sad for you that the only way Labor is to be returned is through preferences from the greens.

Chris says:

10:25am | 22/06/10

I see you are still spruiking Rudd’s failed ETS as being a better policy than Abbott’s.If it was so good then why did Dudd dump it? Perhaps it had something to do with the majority of people not wanting a tax on business that was going to flow on to everybody and then have the government buy back votes by handing back money under the guise of compensation for the needy.Socialism is alive and well in this fake fiscal conservative.

Luke says:

10:33am | 22/06/10

“Abbotts unelectable allright”
I don’t think even Rudd and his Ministers believe that any more.

Greg says:

03:04pm | 22/06/10

I suppose Krudd and Kronies consider Abbott so unelectable that they put a target on him personally, another great performance from the Krudd ......Not!
You may want to label him the Mad Monk or whatever and for whatever feeble minded reason and whereas you can get differing views between liberal politicians, is that not a sign of a truer democracy rather than a Gang of four dictators led by a maniac.
Krudd would probably be welcome in North Korea as a leader.

Ish says:

10:54am | 22/06/10

And the flailing state Labor government had nothing to do with it? I think not, I’m in that area and I’m jack of the state government. Bring on a state election and they will be gone, but with a choice between Rudd and Abbott in the Feds, I’ll take Rudd as the lesser of 2 evils.

Kath says:

01:38pm | 22/06/10

Your source?

NSW Labor has been on the nose since the last state election; and the result in this by-election is similar to those in other NSW seats when Rudd’s popularity was consistently high.

Not saying that there’s no federal ramifications, but 50%? Dream on.

Andrew says:

10:00am | 22/06/10

Let me be the first to say you have stuck your neck out here. The rusted on labor true believers will now attack your post as either (a) one made up by a liberal party staffer or (b) claim your family is stupid or lazy.

The left hate criticism from what they consider to be their natural constituency hence they vilify anyone who breaks ranks.

Truth is that more than 45% of small businesses are (and have been for the last 18 months) working on negative cash flows. That is drawing down on equity in their home or selling assets to pay bills. But Hey, Kevin and the team saved you from that, Didn’t they?

Steve Turner says:

10:29am | 22/06/10

KRudd was going to ease the sqeaze. Don’t seem to hear much about that these days.

terry says:

12:52pm | 22/06/10

It’s very true.
Sure the pensioners got their rise but they got a rent increase too and the price of everything has sky rocketed.
Imagine if the ETS had come in ...we would all be living on 2 minute noodles.
Life was better under Mr Howard.
It’s a shocker under this mob!
I don’t care what rusted on Labor voters say ...it’s only the shonks and the public service that are having a good time under this BS Gov.
I can’t wait until they are gone.

Bob says:

12:59pm | 22/06/10

@ Doin’ it tough, I don’t doubt the truth of what you’re saying and you probably are a victim of the global downturn. But let’s not be too quick to blame Rudd just because he inherited a recession.
The fact is Australia’s unemployment rate is about 5.2% (I may be a bit off) but the US, Uk and most of the rest of the West is at plus 10%.
I think it’s a bit rich to call the most successful GFC policy in the world an utter failure. It’s a shame we couldn’t save everyone but the fact is without the quick spend from this Government we would have had a repeat of the half-measures of Keating and the failed 1930s response.

Chris L says:

10:31pm | 22/06/10

Andrew, are you sure that when a poster talks about personal financial difficulty that it’s the left that accuses them of being stupid or lazy?

Steve Putnam says:

09:26pm | 23/06/10

Give it a rest! According to all the economic indicators we’re in better shape than anywhere else in the world. As a self-employed person I sympathize and empathize with your husband’s circumstances, but could you please explain what government policies have caused you so much grief. I’m sure you’ve heard the expression “when America sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold”——-well that is what is happening big time. Three of the five biggest financial institutions in the US have collapsed, the once all powerful car industry has been nationalized and the shockwaves are being felt world wide.

Steve Putnam says:

09:26pm | 23/06/10

Give it a rest! According to all the economic indicators we’re in better shape than anywhere else in the world. As a self-employed person I sympathize and empathize with your husband’s circumstances, but could you please explain what government policies have caused you so much grief. I’m sure you’ve heard the expression “when America sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold”——-well that is what is happening big time. Three of the five biggest financial institutions in the US have collapsed, the once all powerful car industry has been nationalized and the shockwaves are being felt world wide.

Ricardo says:

06:04pm | 22/06/10

How big is Kevin Rudd’s majority anyway? If he loses 8 seats he’s out on his arse. I can see him losing 4 seats in WA, 3 seats in QLD and 1 seat in NSW. Surely this is the most likely scenario

GC51 says:

10:51am | 22/06/10

He was the little heard of 14th apostle,  Antonius the Mute.

Arnnie says:

01:05pm | 22/06/10

Ha ha ha that’s funny!
Rudd was missing for 2 years after he was elected.
off he went to tell the world how it should be run.

Now in an Election year we can’t get rid of him.
I think that is the trouble, Australia has had a good look now and does not like what they see or hear.
All the promises he made have come to almost nothing,
The ones they did start were shocking (excuse the pun)

He abused us for wanting more info on Global Warming, calling us heretics etc, then dropped his bundle on it because it would not win enough votes.
Tony Abbot may have his own views on religious matters but he said they would not influence Policy.
I believe that.
I also believe I could not trust the gang of 4 as far as I could throw them.

neil says:

01:53pm | 22/06/10

Thats exactly how to win an election just shutup and let the other side lose it.

Peter Lewis completely misses the point, Abbott will win by default. The big swing away from Labor has gone to the Greens who now poll at 16%, traditional Green voters give 80% of preferances to Labor. But these are not Green votes they are anti Rudd votes and indications are that 50% of these preferances will go to the Libs.

Abbott will win on preferances in marginals, votes from people that don’t want to vote for him.

Darin says:

01:47pm | 22/06/10

True Blue, the difficulty with the Newspoll is that the two party preferred figure is unrealiable at the moment. THis is due to the significantly higher than normal Greens primary vote and the way in which Newspoll distributes preferences, which is to replicate the split from the last election. At the last election Greens preferences went 80/20 in Labor’s favour, however, other polls that ask specifically where a person would put their second preference are seeing a split of 60/40 in Labor’s favour. So while the headline figure is 52/48, no one really believes that is how it would play out if the primary votes were repelicated on election day.

The second minor point I would make is that in 1996 the Liberals in fact won enough seats to form Government without needing the National Party members (albeit by one seat).

Tim says:

02:32pm | 22/06/10

Thanks AP, always nice to appreciated. Honestly, I don’t know whether Peter Lewis and his ilk are stupid enough to believe we’d buy their spin, or simply think we’re stupid enough to buy the spin. Unfortunately it’s probably a combination of both.

Regardless, more and more blatantly desperate spin pieces are coming, you can be sure of that. I’m going to enjoy picking them apart too.

Tim says:

02:37pm | 22/06/10

Mostly because Kevin is for those exact same reasons.

$900 cheques for all!

Diamantina Dick says:

03:14pm | 22/06/10

Just as well he is not appealing to thier gullibility, Rudd used all that up in ‘07..

Darren says:

03:40pm | 22/06/10

once again we have tories deriding Keynesian economics

disco dobblobar says:

06:12pm | 22/06/10

Yeah Darren, because Keynesian economics works so well hey? Come to think of it, I wonder how come Greece hasn’t discovered the virtues of Keynesian economics yet? Oh wait, maybe they tried that and it didn’t work and now they’re in a world of trouble: but mmm, that could never happen here hey?

Darren says:

09:51am | 23/06/10

@disco dobblobar (if that is your real name) - Greece did not try Keynesian economics - they just spent money they did not have -back to school for you - learn about economics - not just neo-liberal economics!

persephone says:

03:46pm | 22/06/10

Incredibly positive campaign platform there, Iona, and one I encourage the Liberals to adopt.

All well worn paths which have led the Liberals nowhere.

And not a single Liberal policy announcement!

I don’t think the Liberals will disappoint you, but will pretty much follow the campaign you’ve outlined.

It will see Rudd returned with an increased majority.

Andrew says:

05:40pm | 22/06/10

I love it. Labor runs the most negative fear campaigns known to man and its all good. Lib mention the government’s record and its a negative campaign.

By reference to the above campaign Pers you are admitting Labor has been abysmal. All Iona said was we roll out the Rudd gov’t list of achievements/bungles and you jump on it as a negative campaign. So now you admit that labor has been so bad no-one can mention their policies/programs without sounding negative? How depressing for you.

Anyway, I reckon Iona’s got it wrong, there’ll be at least another 2-3 massive Rudd gov’t stuff ups before the next election. That’s a “rolled gold” promise you can take to the bank.

Dane says:

07:37pm | 22/06/10

Sorry persephone, Iona has hit the nail on the head. Rudd has been an utter failure and a monthly campaign to remind and highlight Rudds, many, many, many, many failures is the key to his further downfall. And there will be more Rudd failures to come. Right now I’m hoping that highlighting the failure of Superclinics (from a health delivery and economic point of view) will be the next Rudd failure to highlight his lack of vision, understanding of economics and understanding of how health care works. I would also like the PM to stand up and tell me the truth about how he feels about climate change. Climate change was an important issue a year ago, but right now it isn’t on his radar. Did we already solve that problem mate?

persephone says:

09:41pm | 22/06/10

My point is that these are all old lines now.

The arguments about each of these issues have been well and truly thrashed about, and anyone whose vote was likely to be influenced by any of them has already decided where they stand.

And Labor is on 52%.

So, by all means, keep running on these issues. And don’t put out policies. And keep attacking the PM personally.

Because that way the Libs won’t win a single extra vote between here and the election.

antiperspirant says:

04:14pm | 22/06/10

Yes, because he wears them to the office all the time.

Just a question as I live on the beachfront in Port Macquarie. What do all your surf lifesavers wear as a uniform? Three piece suits? The boys at Port are in budgies on the beach. Bondi Rescue’s team seems to prefer them?

What should he wear while going for a swim and can you offer any alternative to the lycra for the bike given he is not exactly riding to the shops?

I like this argument about the budgies. It is so new and refreshing.

Rowdy says:

04:26pm | 22/06/10

@Billby….“The thought of turning on the tv for the next 3 years and seeing his hairy body in those budgie smugglers is a dead turn off.” This is the basis upon which you cast your vote? Unbelievable…...no wonder we are in the position we are in!  EPIC FACEPALM….

Nigel Catchlove says:

08:17pm | 22/06/10

Sorry dobbo, you’ve lost me with the hostile Senate bit.  Is that the same as the hostile Senate that John Howard had to negotiate with for the first three terms of his government?  If I recall correctly, he also had State Labor governments to deal with during most of his term in office and yet COAG seemed to function because of his consultation and negotiation.  Maybe Rudd can learn a lesson about that in the final months of his single term government.

Pollys says:

05:05pm | 22/06/10

Do not confuse this Polly with the other Polly. I will from now on add an s to mine. Cheers

Polly says:

09:47am | 23/06/10

Um, you believe him?

John McRipa says:

05:26pm | 23/06/10

Anyone else getting the irony in this post?