- Posted by Ad astra on July 2, 2009
The Coalition is close to a black hole, and if it doesn’t change course, it will be sucked in. If it had any doubt about whether its behaviour and that of its leader were being observed by the voters, that should now be dispelled after this week’s polling. That such a rapid reaction to the last two weeks was so dramatically reflected in the poll results should convince Coalition members that the people are watching and drawing conclusions. The fall in Malcolm Turnbull’s net satisfaction rating of 40 percentage points in one month is the greatest in the 20 year history of Newspoll.
This piece examines the appropriateness of the Coalition’s attitudes, strategy and tactics since the election.
First its attitudes
Repeatedly, Coalition members talk as if they did not deserve to lose government, because as Tony Abbott put it so plaintively, ‘we were such a good government’. They felt it was unfair as times were so prosperous; everyone was well-off and should have been grateful to the Coalition for this state of affairs. They accept that John Howard should have been replaced long before the 2007 election, but scarcely ever publically flagellate themselves for their sheer gutlessness in not doing so. They consider the election loss was bad luck, and an underserved rebuff from an ungrateful nation.
When will they learn the real reasons for their defeat? When will they accept them and remedy the mistakes they made?
Then there is that upstart Kevin Rudd. They seem never to have carefully examined why Rudd is so appealing to the public. Tony Abbott’s analysis is that he is a fraud, that most of what he says and does is a front for who he really is. This week Abbott categorized him as a scheming, Machiavellian, ruthless gutter politician. Previously he classed him as a fake Christian, a dubious Bonheoffer admirer, an ersatz economic conservative, a master of spin, and a nasty, bullying type under his ever-so-nice exterior. He has been saying for over two years that the electorate is sleepwalking and that when it awakes it will see Rudd in all his ugliness. Sadly for Abbott the people seem to be asleep to his declarations.
Until the Coalition analyses and accepts Rudd’s strengths and how he generates consistent public support month after month, it is they who will continue to sleepwalk in a dream-world of unreality. Tony Abbott and other Coalition members who push the ‘Rudd is a fraud’ line need to give it a break. If he is a fraud, the public will know soon enough. Only rusted-on Coalition supporters enjoy this sort of talk; the rest of the people aren’t listening.
Then there is the ‘born to rule’ attitude many Coalition members seem still to harbour. The corollary is ‘Labor is not fit to govern’. The Coalition considers itself as the natural party to govern – well educated, well heeled, and well connected. In contrast they see Labor as having its roots among the working class, the unions, not the governing elite. That most Labor parliamentarians are now as well educated as Coalition members has not filtered through – stereotypes die hard. The old slogans ‘Labor can’t handle money’; ‘Labor always runs up debt’; ‘the Coalition is the better manager of the economy’ are still trotted out. But if the polls are any indication, the public no longer believes the Coalition is the only party that can manage the economy.
So this talk falls on deaf ears, and should be abandoned.
The burden of anger
Because of these attitudes and persistence of the ‘we were robbed’ attitude, Coalition members continue to exhibit anger about their situation. This is particularly seen at Question Time in the House, when heated reactions and aggressive gestures are exhibited for all to see. Malcolm Turnbull’s sneering accusations, Joe Hockey’s livid, loud-mouthed interjections, Julie Bishop’s irate demeanour and her now-famous cat-claw gesture, and Christopher Pyne’s aggressive points of order are seen every sitting day, and although few watch QT live, short grabs are on public view on TV news bulletins. Voters dislike such behaviour, on either side, but because it is the Coalition that is in Opposition, it is they who exhibit it most. Anger is counterproductive, and is marked down by the public.
The Coalition would appeal to the people more if became less angry, less aggressive, less confronting. Sweet reason would gain it more.
Strategy
The overriding strategy of the Coalition seems to be to condemn virtually everything the Government says and does. In a contribution to Liberals and Power: The Road Ahead, edited by Peter van Onselen, Tony Abbott says: "At one level, the Opposition's most urgent job, between now and the next election, is to publicise the government's mistakes. Randolph Churchill once declared that oppositions should oppose everything, propose nothing and turf the government out. He was right in this fundamental respect: the opposition's job is to get elected. Intelligent oppositions have no unnecessary enemies. They make the government rather than themselves the issue by ensuring that everyone harmed by government decisions well and truly knows about it."
The Coalition seems to be following Abbott’s admonition, but has spectacularly ignored the need to avoid unnecessary enemies, and the advice of Niccolò Machiavelli in his book on political strategy, The Prince, where he says: “A prince should command respect through his conduct, because a prince that is highly respected by his people is unlikely to face internal struggles." The Coalition is not commanding respect; it is losing it.
People tire of the constant negativity that pours from the Opposition. Turnbull has been given the mantle of Mr No. This obstructive behaviour holds up legislation and wastes parliament’s time. This is impacting voters who want their elected politicians to get on with improving the lot of ordinary people, not getting in the way of every Government move to do so.
Coalition members seem unable to grasp that the public would prefer them to come up with positive suggestions about how to improve legislation, to move sensible amendments, and engage in collaborative discussion, instead of blocking almost everything. The public cannot believe that virtually everything the Government does is wrong.
A second and related strategy, one personally advocated by Turnbull, is to attack incessantly. He does it with venom, venom which had been starkly caught on camera and displayed in the media for all to see. It is a style he has often used in the past, and it has usually worked for him. He seems not to have realized that there is a limit to the value of attack in politics where he is on public display. People don’t like the attack-dog strategy and mark it down. We saw during the last few weeks relentless attacks over the OzCar affair. Dozens of questions were directed to pursuing this, and no matter what answers were given, the questions kept coming. It was tiresome for anyone watching and a monumental waste if time. Yet in Turnbull’s ‘keep on punching’ style the questions continued unremittingly. There were no questions on the economy, climate change, health, industrial elations, or any of the other important matters facing our nation, just a focus on one issue, OzCar. People noticed this. Essential Research polling this week show that two-thirds of those polled believe Turnbull is ‘out of touch with ordinary people’ and less than half those polled feels he ‘understands the problems facing Australia’. Around a half think he is ‘narrow minded’ and ‘too inflexible’. Why do they think this way – his behaviour is the answer.
In pursuing this attack strategy, Turnbull has ignored Machiavelli’s advice to command respect and make no unnecessary enemies; the polls show how much respect he and his party have lost, and how many enemies he has made.
Tactics
Turning to tactics, Malcolm Turnbull has decided to use personal attack as his main tactical weapon. Instead of focussing on legislative matters, he has concluded that to destroy confidence in the Government, discrediting the individual is quicker than attacking policy. This started with the persistent attack on Joel Fitzgibbon until his resignation. Then Turnbull decided that he’d go for the big prize, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. On the basis of what has now been shown to be a fake email, he levelled corruption allegations at them both, called them liars, and insisted on their resignation. In this particular instance, this tactic of personal attack backfired spectacularly and left Turnbull battered publically by the Government, the media, the polls and the cartoonists, and privately by his colleagues.
Unless he and his party realize that this sort of personal attack is not approved by the people, they will continue down this destructive path to their political detriment. When will they learn?
To conclude, this piece argues that the Coalition has been too slow to accept and recognize why it lost government, unwilling to learn why Kevin Rudd is popular, too focussed on painting him a fraud, and too convinced that it is the only party suited to govern. It needs to dissipate the anger that permeates its ranks and shows in unseemly aggressive behaviour.
The Coalition needs to take a positive approach, discard negativity and make a contribution to the governance of this nation through constructive discourse. It needs to command respect and make friends, not enemies in the electorate.
Finally it needs to abandon its relentless strategy of attack and the pernicious tactic of personal attack. In particular it would be wise to cease attacks over the OzCar affair, but if past form is any guide it will find this impossible.
Unless it makes these changes, it will find itself unable to make any significant contribution to improving the lot of ordinary Australians, and will continue to flounder in the polls. The choice is for Coalition members to make. The question is will they ever learn, indeed are they capable of learning and changing, or will hide-bound attitudes and approaches propel them inexorably towards a political black hole?
- Posted by Ad astra on June 29, 2009
Open letter to the people of Australia
There have been a lot of nasty things said about me this last week, so unjust, so scurrilous. You’d expect the Government to indulge in gutter politics, they’re Labor after all, but for journalists and even some of my Coalition colleagues to suggest that I messed up badly is just so unfair. It’s not my fault – so don’t blame me. More...
- Posted by Ad astra on June 28, 2009
Cronyism refers to giving appointments of authority on the basis of friendship, or in this country mateship, regardless of qualifications, rather than through the practice and principles of meritocracy. So to accuse Labor, and in particular Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan of cronyism over the OzCar affair is wide of the mark; they have offered no appointments. Despite cronyism being a badly chosen descriptor, Tony Abbott was using it again this morning on Insiders accusing Labor of ‘capitalist cronyism’, whatever that is.
A more appropriate accusation would be that they used political power to do ‘favours for mates’. Whatever label political opponents choose to use in such circumstances, it will always be pejorative. It will be used to condemn and to seek penalties, such as an apology, or a resignation. More...
- Posted by Ad astra on June 24, 2009
The events of the week have given new significance to the title of Annabelle Crabb’s Quarterly Essay about the ‘Life and Adventures of Malcolm Turnbull’ – Stop at Nothing. This piece is to draw comparisons between Turnbull’s past behaviour and that which he has exhibited in the last week. More...
- Posted by Ad astra on June 20, 2009
‘Where there’s smoke there’s fire’ might have been more apt as a title, but no one will mistake what ‘The old rusty ute’ is about. But as we know, it’s not really about the ute at all. Those who know the story well might wish to skip to the analysis at the end. More...
- Posted by Ad astra on June 17, 2009
Given his past history, it might not be unreasonable to query whether this is really his exit. There is still eighteen months to go, so unless he becomes mute until the next election, or retires soon and brings on a by-election, we will hear more from him. There have been several articles since Costello’s decision. There is Dr Peter and Mr Costello by Tim Colebatch in The Age; End of an era as Costello goes by Phillip Coorey in the SMH; Howard damns Costello with faint praise by Peter Hartcher in the SMH; What will we do now that he's no longer not there for us? by Annabel Crabb in the SMH; an editorial in the SMH, He gave much, promised more; a Paul Kelly piece in The Australian, The great contender; and Lenore Taylor's Former treasurer nails debate. More...
- Posted by Ad astra on June 13, 2009
Prime Minister. Listen carefully. The media is powerful, very powerful. Our journalists write newspaper columns that lots of people read; they create news bulletins and current affairs programmes that many people hear and see; they conduct talkback to which countless people listen. We have enormous influence. We can make and break governments and bring down prime ministers. You should not get us offside. We call the shots, not you. You’re beginning to make us annoyed. Watch it, we can get you, and probably will.
So here’s some advice. If you take it, we might let you run a bit longer, but if you don’t, remember you were warned. More...
- Posted by Ad astra on June 11, 2009
Can you believe it? Here we are having public discourse about Kevin Rudd’s use of the phrase ‘fair shake of the sauce bottle’ – used three times in the one interview!!!!
First there is an academic argument about what the phrase really is. Is it ‘fair shake of the sauce bottle’ or ‘fair suck of the sauce bottle’? As an ex-Queenslander, I’ve heard both, but an academic, Sue Butler, whom I understand has something to do with the Macquarie Dictionary of Slang, insists the latter is correct, and patronisingly explains that Rudd has mixed two expressions ‘fair suck of the sauce bottle’ and one of the following: ‘fair shake of the dice’ or ‘more than one can shake a stick at’. Her subtheme was that poor Kevin has got so much going on in his head running the country, he got his expressions mixed up. More...
- Posted by Ad astra on June 9, 2009
Last week was one of the most politically eventful since the election of the Rudd Government. But how crucial was it to the future of the Government and the Opposition?
The National Accounts for the March Quarter showed a seasonally adjusted growth in GDP of 0.4%, avoiding two quarters of negative growth and denying oxygen to those who wanted to call a recession. Moreover, there was evidence that the fiscal stimulus packages had contributed significantly to that outcome, although favourable terms of trade had contributed even more. Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan were delighted, like parents of a lost child on its return. They had feared the worst and the onslaught of criticism that would have followed. Their relief was palpable. In contrast the Coalition was frustrated. While it might be unfair to assert that Malcolm Turnbull and Joe Hockey wanted recessionary figures, they were clearly disappointed that one of the main planks supporting their debt and deficit platform, namely that the stimulus packages had not been successful in avoiding a recession, had been denied them, at least for the time being. In a media conference Turnbull took less than a minute to say he was pleased with the figures and several trying to make the point that the result was mainly due to the trade figures and had little to do with the stimulus packages. The tiny graph he exhibited to the media to reinforce this point seemed to attract more amusement than enlightenment. More...
- Posted by Ad astra on June 6, 2009
They got their man. But who are ‘they’?
First it must be accepted that Joel Fitzgibbon shot himself in the foot – several times. So when it all boils down he has only himself to blame for his exit to the backbench. The first-revealed misdemeanours of not recording gifts on the pecuniary interests register betrayed lack of attention to such requirements, an air of carelessness, but were forgiven. The one that brought him undone was lack of probity in his relationship with his brother and his colleagues seeking Defence Department contracts for health care. More...
- Posted by Ad astra on June 5, 2009
Just Me has provided me with the link to Barack Obama's speech in Cairo yesterday. For those wishing to read this important and well-received speech, click the title: Barack Obama’s prepared remarks to Cairo, Egypt
Your comments, as always, will be welcome.
- Posted by Ad astra on June 2, 2009
“[His] answer, as always, is work and persistence. His schedule of travel and engagements reads like an election itinerary. Government sources say his advance teams are going flat out. He never misses an opportunity to grab a headline, giving opinions on everything from Arthur Boyd to rugby league to the troubles of Phil Coles. And day after day he is on talkback radio, striving to develop some kind of matey relationship with ordinary Australians that, Hawke-like, he so obviously craves. [He] is unlikely to achieve that bond with the electorate that, for a few years, Bob Hawke enjoyed, but it will not be for the want of trying.”
Who is he? More...
- Posted by Ad astra on May 31, 2009
The weekend papers have furnished us with yet another episode in the Joel Fitzgibbon affair. On March 26 the Sydney Morning Herald splashed the headline Defence leaks dirt file on own minister’ The Age and The Canberra Times did similarly. The story, by Philip Dorling, Nick McKenzie, and Richard Baker, alleged that an officer from the Defence Signals Directorate had accessed Fitzgibbon’s IT system, a move that was said to have arisen from concerns about ‘possible security implications’ of Fitzgibbon’s friendship with a ‘Chinese-born businesswoman’ Helen Liu, a long-time friend of the Fitzgibbon family. The concerns were said to have been passed on to top Defence officials but had been ignored. The saga was commented upon on The Political Sword first in The China intrigue on March 28 and followed up with What has become of the Fitzgibbon affair? on April 27. More...
- Posted by Ad astra on May 29, 2009
This is a follow up to a piece posted on 7 February Kevin Rudd’s essay on the global financial crisis and another piece posted a month later The Turnbull answer to the Rudd essay.
The Monthly, which published the Rudd essay, has published in its May issue The Rudd Essay & the Global Financial Crisis in which the opinions of what it describes as five ‘influential thinkers’ from the international scene are given. Its reason for doing this is stated as being its disappointment at the media response to the essay: “The overwhelming majority have been carping and superficial. Virtually no one has offered a penetrating critique or proposed an alternative account of the most significant economic calamity since the Great Depression.” Even the ABC comes in for criticism for not conducting an interview with the PM on the essay. More...
- Posted by Ad astra on May 25, 2009
What was intended to be a two part piece needs another – this is about TV and radio journalists.
Some of these are the most acerbic and intimidating interrogators. They look for and enjoy the gotcha moment, and because they are well known for this propensity, politicians are wary of them and cautious with their remarks for fear of them returning in a disadvantageous video clip. I am most familiar with national journalists. Let’s start with Kerry O’Brien. More...
- Posted by Ad astra on May 21, 2009
The last piece How should we rate the quality of our political journalists? outlined the criteria that might apply when judging their quality. This piece reflects on individual journalists. Your views are invited.
First let’s deal with editorials which are a particular problem in appraising quality in journalism. When there is a named author it is possible to compare any particular piece with others by the same person; with editorials, the author is usually unknown and often changes. Editorial writers hide behind the paper’s banner, yet their words are meant to reflect the paper’s stance and potentially have an important influence on readers’ opinions. Maybe because they are generally anonymous they seem to be bolder in their assertions and opinions. They often speak with the authority of Moses descending from the mountain with wisdom engraved on tablets of stone. It’s pretty hard to hold them to account; the only recourse for readers is ‘Letters to the Editor’ published in the newspaper; there seems to be no online opportunity for this. More...
- Posted by Ad astra on May 17, 2009
Bell-shaped (Gaussian) curves abound in nature and human endeavour, no less among political journalists. They are scattered along a normal distribution curve in more ways than one. Their political orientation varies from the extremes of conservatism on the one hand, to extremes of socialism on the other. The vast majority lie between these extremes. In terms of quality, they vary from the excellent, several standard deviations above the mean, to the bulk that could be described as ordinary or maybe even mediocre, to the shabby, several standard deviations below the mean.
In his 1974 book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance – An Inquiry into Values, in which he explores the metaphysics of quality, Robert Pirsig asserts that quality is indefinable, but goes on to say "But even though Quality cannot be defined, you know what Quality is!". Put another way, you recognize quality as soon as you see it. In the area of rhetoric Pirsig singled out aspects of quality such as unity, vividness, authority, economy, sensitivity, clarity, emphasis, flow, suspense, brilliance, precision, proportion, depth and so on, but found them too difficult to define. Pirsig also reminds us that the Greeks equated quality with truth, a notion that might help us to discern quality among journalists.
This piece confines itself to journalists who focus mainly on politics. More...
- Posted by Ad astra on May 13, 2009
Although it might be hard to conjure up an image of Malcolm Turnbull, Joe Hockey and Helen Coonan doing the Coalition’s Budget Rap, it would not be difficult to imagine the words that would flow from their throats:
Deficit and debt,
Deficit and debt,
Deficit and debt as far as you can see
Labor deficit and debt that will leave us all at sea.
Do not expect to hear anything positive from Coalition members unless it is prized painfully from them by persistent journalists. Chris Uhlmann on ABC radio this morning did well to have Turnbull reluctantly concede that the loss to revenue of over $200 billion over four years resulting from the GFC would necessarily result in a deficit. Only the most determined interviewers will achieve any such concession. Gloom, disaster, devastation, irresponsibility, incompetence, profligate, reckless, panic, spin, ‘spendathon’, spending spree, cash splashes, casino economics, Pollyanna, nation-wrecking and other pejorative words and phrases will be Coalition members’ stock in trade.. More...
- Posted by Ad astra on May 11, 2009
This book, edited by Peter van Onselen, is a mixture of good articles and several of indifferent quality. The introduction by the editor does not indicate how the authors were selected, nor whether those selected were given an open assignment to write what they pleased or whether the titles were assigned to them. The book reads as if the former applied, leading to a somewhat disjointed assembly of pieces that do not hang well together or form a coherent whole.
The book would have been worth reading if only to read the piece by George Brandis, which is head and shoulders above the others. Several articles are the poorer for the partisan comments they contain. Some authors seem unable to mount their arguments about how the Coalition might regain power without making disparaging remarks about Labor, often using weary slogans and stereotypical mantras. Yet others are able to make their case free of these unnecessary encumbrances. More...
- Posted by Ad astra on May 8, 2009
He’s a Rhodes Scholar with a monumental brain. Yet when Malcolm Turnbull rose to speak at the National Press Club this week he seemed to have a memory lapse – he forgot the GFC. Read what he said and see if you can spot where he acknowledged it and the massive loss of revenue resulting from the downturn, a loss whoever was in Government would have suffered.
He mentioned ‘global recession’ only once, in the sentence referring to Kevin Rudd: ”They’ve cut him a lot of slack because of the global recession.” He didn’t use the word ‘crisis’ at all. So that made it easy for him to lambaste everything, I do mean everything the Government has done to ameliorate the effect of the GFC on this nation. Every action was portrayed as simply debt accumulation, deficit building and fiscal disaster for decades to come. There was no acknowledgement of the need to borrow money to cover the shortfall in revenue resulting from the GFC which is well past $100 billion, without which regular Government services could not be sustained. It was as if the revenue loss did not exist. More...