I see from my Twitter feed that the viewpoint I expressed a year or so ago is becoming more widespread. Of course, it’s too late now for anything but damage mitigation.
Repost follows:
How Gillard could win for Labor
By resigning gracefully. If I were advising Gillard on how best to secure her place in history, I’d suggest waiting until the 1st of July and then making a speech along the following lines
The carbon price, legislated by my government is now in place. It will soon become obvious that the scare campaign run by Mr Abbott and the Opposition has no basis in reality and that our plan will achieve cost-effective reductions in carbon emissions, while making most Australian households better off. I am proud of my government’s achievements in this and other areas. Nevertheless, I recognise with sadness that I am not the best person to take this message to the Australian public. I have therefore decided to resign the office of Prime Minister and advise my Labor colleagues to support the return of Mr Kevin Rudd to this position. Mr Rudd and I have had substantial disagreements over matters of managerial style, but we are agreed on the need for a Labor government with Labor values, and on the need for action in key areas including the carbon price, the mineral resource rent tax and the successful management of the Australian economy. I will give the new PM my enthusiastic support, and work for the re-election of a Labor government.
Would this work? I’m not really sure. But given Abbott’s failure to achieve any popular support at a time when Labor has plumbed unheard of depths of popular support, it would have to be worth a shot. At a minimum, it would help avoid the Queensland-style wipeout that is currently on the cards. And if it worked, history would certainly look kindly upon a PM willing to give up the job for the sake of her party and, more importantly, in the best interests of the country.
John Quiggin 
@John Quiggin
I agree. this applied to rudd too. the electorate switched off. On gillard, they switched back on just enought to get back in and then switched off again on a larger scale. Rudd the did himself in with an inept challenge and then lacking the ticker to challenge again .
same switch-off factor for Qld and NSW Labor. if the current ICAC hearings were before the last NSW elections, NSW labor would be a cricket team as well.
I don’t understand why Labor is facing electoral oblivion – if that is indeed true. I’m not even sure where to go for enlightenment, but I’ll try here… So first, is it fair to say that this has very little to do with the economy? We’re supposed to be one of the better-performing OECD countries, yes? So what exactly is it about? People are more irritated by Gillard than they are irrirtated by Abbott? Are there two or three key issues that are responsible for the Coalition’s lead?
Mitchell
1. Perceptions of disunity/dysfunction, ruthlessly exploited by the Murdochracy to become a a rubric within which all policies are to be interpreted.
2. The trust thing, dubbed ‘Juliar’ by the trolling media
3. Minority governmentcasts a pall over process and amps up
4. Capacity for all problems to be the consequence of one simple event – here the ‘knifing’ of K Rudd and embodied .in .one person, the Juliar. It helps that she is a woman because dirty dealing by women is especially horrible and can be located within traditional misogynist narratives
Beyond the above of course Mitchell, one must factor in the extraordinary political ineptitude of the ALP in essentially acting in synergy with the above memes, (most obviously on the carbon “tax”, boats, RSPT, Wilkie, Slipper etc), their failure to make best use of new media, the ignorance and disengagement of wide layers of the public and their consequent fragility in the face of Murdoch-coordinated trolling and the longstanding debauched quality of political discourse, exacerbated by the now ubiquitous 24-hour news cycle.
Local factors have also played a part — in NSW the Obeid-MacDonald and Thomson affairs, both of which represent a live link to the discredited NSW state regime which was in part responsible for the Gillard ascendancy — at least in the public mind — and likewise the collapse of the Queensland ALP regime around issues of privatisation, management problems in health and of course there own corruption scandal linked to a minister and mining.
In some ways, it’s surprising the ALP is doing as well as it is, given the multiplicity and coherence of the counter-narrative. The Liberals only have to say they are not the ALP to appear credible to low-information voters.
@Mitchell Porter
“is it fair to say this (ALP’s imminent obliteration) has very little to do with the economy?”: Yes, that is fair to say.
“so what exactly is it about?”: Roughly speaking, for many years this country divided votes about 50/50 between ALP/LNP. At a guess, about 30% of the population is ‘rusted on’ to either ALP/LNP and their votes can be guaranteed regardless of what their party does.
The remaining 40% are made up of lots of sub-groups, but most of them will ‘swing’ between ALP/LNP over time. In close elections like 2010 the 40% divide roughly down the middle. Each half will generally be voting for/against a couple of key issues (e.g. environment, war, refugees, jobs, public health, public education…)
To be facing electoral oblivion the likes of which have not been seen since last year in Queensland or the year before in NSW, the ALP must have pissed off just about the entire 40% – quite a feat!
“Two or three issues responsible?”: I don’t think it’s that simple and I think there are more than 2 or 3.
On being mean to refugees: The LNP did it quite well, ALP can’t compete.
On subscribing to neo-liberalism: LNP are better suited and although the ALP got there first with ‘economic rationalism’ LNP took ownership of it from 1996.
On doing nothing serious about the environment/climate change: LNP are naturals but ALP look clumsy when they try it, not to mention hypocritical.
On imperial wars: LNP have always done it better, ALP are alright if there is actually a genuine reason we should be involved in killing people but there hasn’t been since about 1945.
On giving Murdoch (and once Packer) everything dreamed of: They both get the photofinish on this one, the problem is the 40% generally see that as a bad thing.
On taking away civil liberties, privacy, rights: Again, the 40% know this is not a good thing but the natural party for protecting these has abandoned them.
There’s probably a lot more but I hope that helps.
@Mitchell Porter The coalition aren’t leading, the ALP are losing.
Over the present contenders Rudd remains the preferred PM, voters just don’t like the ALP party machine.
@Megan
Sadly, a perfect assessment, Megan. The think tank is empty, the PR department has been privatised, Keating took the key to the wit generator when he went and Rudd was the last one to inspire a majority of the swinging 40%.
They know how the gun works, they just haven’t worked out yet that you have to take it out of the holster first.
@Megan You are listing issues but most LNP voters that I speak to are not interested in issues, they just hate the other side. .
@rog
According to the polling about 70% “hate the other side”, my argument is that there are tangible reasons why.
If the ALP had different policies on those issues I believe they would be at least back to about 50/50 and probably even ahead. But they don’t and the people who run the ALP won’t – see complete lack of any change whatsoever in NSW & Qld after getting wiped out. I believe the ALP is run by people who really don’t care about the impending doom.
Megan, I ask them which policy and hiw they have no answer just repeat points like ‘waste waste’ ‘spend spend’ and ‘labor always go broke’. Look at the very effective campaigns by Barnaby Joyce and Tony Abbott, light on policy big on simplistic homespuns.
@Geoff Andrews
[chuckle] Nice 1 Geoff
@rog
And the remaining ALP voters I speak with also repeat empty points like ‘Abbott would be worse’. That’s more or less the point – if it comes down to brainless talking points and PR obviously LNP are winning hands down.
I still maintain that if they had a track record or even future promise of decent policies on those issues the ALP wouldn’t be heading down the shute.
@Troy Prideaux
There was no gun. At that point he was riding so high in the polls no one could touch him.
Notwithstanding, even if Gillard and Co did advise him to squib it (and there has been no evidence of that produced other than murmurs in News Ltd papers – which i take with a grain of salt) ultimately he wears the opprobrium for that decision and can blame no one else for it.
@DavidR
Au contraire, Gillard and Swan told him point blank – ‘we will be withdrawing our support if you don’t dump this’. Rudd finally came out during *his* crack at the 2012 spill and stated that publicly. Gillard was asked the next day at a press conference to confirm or deny and conceded it was true. Since that point, it’s no longer speculation, it’s an historical fact that’s substantiated on the public record.
see see http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2013/06/the-crucial-contest-for-the-senate-balance-of-power.html for a good analysis including of hanson’s chances in NSW. More than zero but not high. Hanson was a few hundred votes short in 2011 of winning in the state upper house.
Green thinks that a minor right party might win the 4th senate seat in WA.
I disagree. The WA nats have a good chance
Labor got 29% of the vote in the recent WA state upper house election – just on 2 senate quotas. Labor will not have any preferences to share with the greens.
the shooters, christian democrats and family first parties will preference the greens last. their votes combine to about 0.7 of a senate quota. their preferences will elect the WA Nat who got about 1/3rd of a quota in the state election.
each of the 3 cross-bench senators will have a blocking veto by splitting the vote 38:38
Precious few of you people can work out that Australians have been told to vote for the opposition if they have a problem with the incumbents.
They call it the ‘Hobson’s Choice’.
That is a major problem since three months into any regime anyone wanting a favour from the regime is told to go away.
They are told to go away by those useless bludgers ,who are for some reason, always employed by our politicians.
It amounts to this – total lack of representation always results in dissatisfaction.
But the raffle winners like that (their staffers stuffing people about endlessl;. Obfuscation.)
because it makes their time in ‘office’ nothing but an opportunity to make profit from their time there.
The entire system stinks to high heaven. That is the bottom line.
No point saying any more. No point whatsoever.
I forgot to mention that I hate backstabbers.
Voting is compulsory here in australia.
Shag me crosseyed. I have a choice between two backstabbers?
Abbott stabbed that Turnbull and Gillard stabbed Rudd.
Give me a bloody break!
In the meantime,I wonder of any of you people listened t a rather cynical Mandy Vandstone the last few weeks on ABC National?
Yep. That’s the girl. Even her colleagues called her ‘Junketguts’ when she was in politics.
By God, she comes out with some splitters on her radioshow these days.
She has a mind so honed to perfection that even her victims cannot see the edge come down on their necks.
I’m sure that she still believes that she is, herself, some sort of conservative.
But all too often the true lady comes out – despite her background.
What a profound shame that she could not be there as an alternative lady prime minister to that horrorshow, Gillard.
you could give yourself a break & vote green, Klaus Knoppke, bearing in mind they meet your criterion of having had an orderly leadership transition, without the “backstabbing” you deplore. -a.v.
Klaus, I haven’t listened to her for a few months, since they had cricket on my local ABC but was impressed back then. Will tune in on Monday on your reminding me.
I second what Alfred suggested.
the fine is rather low. plenty of other parties get into the upper houses and the state and federal level to hold the balance of power.
@DavidR
I would suggest a quick read of Maxine McKew’s book where the pressure bought on Rudd by Gillard and Swan (including a number of fairly spectacular leaks) is described in detail. It is all very well to adopt the watermelon-under-the-armpits approach and say Rudd should have told them to go jump, but the internal pressure to abandon the ETS was extreme. The really sad thing is that if Rudd has taken the issue to caucus Gillard and Swan would have been slaughtered because they had no policy case at all.
Gillard’s opposition to the ETS dates from about January 2010. You have a choice between deciding Gillard actually changed her mind on climate change 3 times in 7 months, or you’d have to think about what Gillard’s climate change demands did to Rudd’s electoral standing and how that opened the door for the coup.
Klaus, voting for the other side simple because you don’t like either is a bit like eating dog poo because you don’t like broccoli. It’s pretty tough when both have no appeal.
When Rudd mumbled his postponement of an ETS he showed the electorate that he wasn’t fair dinkum. And if McKews account is accurate he lost the leadership at the moment when Gillard and Swan talked him out of an ETS. He should have told them to get stuffed but he didn’t, he squibbed. And everybody knows that he squibbed. So it doesn’t matter what Rudd does and says now, he will never be PM again. Similarly Gillard is also tainted, after her statement on a carbon ax you can’t really believe what she says.
Voters will give Tony Abbott a go knowing the greens will block the senate on the carbon tax.
Why not vote for Rudd?
I just have a bad feeling about him. When you look at places like Egypt, Zimbabwe and Syria, you see leaders who may once have been good but ended up being downright destructive. They should have quit after 10 years. I’m probably totally misjudging him, but Rudd may be like them. A bit like Joh in QLD, but of course much more dangerous at the federal level.
As to where my vote would ultimately go if Rudd were leader – probably to the Libs before Labor, but since our member will be a Lib no matter how I vote, it doesn’t matter. Certainly Green in the senate.
@John Brookes I’m not a rusted-on Labor voter – I’m bolted and welded on, so I’ll vote Labor whoever is leader – but to address John Brookes’ rather extreme view of Kevin, the difference between Australia and Egypt etc is that the Labor Party leader relies on the support of their caucus, and are replaced when they lose that support – which the caucus demonstrated quite effectively by replacing Kevin.
Don’t worry you bludgers.
Your time will come sooner than you could ever believe.
I’ve had enough of this place.
But you lot shall reap the reward of your consummate greed.
Good luck; but by Harry, I hope your last breaths hurt.
Enjoy.
nice one, Klaus. painful death is what i wish on war criminals, but, hey, have a nice day & don’t let the door bang yr ass on the way out. -a.v.
@Ron E Joggles
And regardless of their policies and recent actions? (that’s a serious question, I am genuinely interested in how far ALP can go -eg: executing refugees at sea, full internet censorship and surveillance, open slather mining and drilling, another war etc..- before the rusted ons even start to arc up).
…. and eating babies and whales, Megan.
Labor’s problem is they’re trying to out-Herod Herod by copying the Liberal’s obscene policies but the rusted on Liberal voters just don’t trust them to carry out their word.
@Geoff Andrews
Quite right, although it’s not merely the rusted on Liberal voters who think that. The floaters also suspect (with good reason) that the ALP (and especially its core supporters) are more than a little squeamish at doing what they are doing. In a way, this is why many say the ALP now ‘stands for nothing’. Strictly speaking, they stand for the thing they are doing right now, which isn’t necessarily the same as the thing they were doing a little while ago or might find themselves doing in a little while.
Plenty of MSM interest in the Rudd is more popular than Gillard line. But in their case I doubt any intention of doing good for Labor; quite the contrary, especially as the election approaches. Labor needs renewed focus on it’s lines of division like it needs new holes in it’s head.
Pr Quiggin, I don’t think you do anyone in Labor – not even Kevin Rudd – any favors by pushing this line. I think it’s well past the point of this doing anything except encourage the public to view Labor as too divided to govern – under any PM. It may be only MSM selective editing and spin, but Rudd’s appearances never seem to be that of one of a Labor team player backing it’s leader. Whether intended or not, every high profile appearance he makes results in exactly this kind of discussion. Again. To no-one’s benefit.
@Megan I’ll vote Labor whoever is leader – despite our current difficulties and several policies and specific decisions I disagree with, because I am loyal to the institution and its inherent values, even when some of those values are not honored by the current leadership, and because I am loyal to the many friends and colleagues I have acquired since joining the ALP, and because after the likely outcome of the looming election we need to be in the best possible position to rebuild.
And of course the hypotheticals you mention – “executing refugees at sea, full internet censorship and surveillance, open slather mining and drilling, another war etc..” – are so far outside reality as to be ridiculous, and there’s no point indulging in such hyperbole in what is generally a rational discussion – on this blog I mean, which is why I read it daily and very occasionally contribute, when I have something apposite to say.
I had a chuckle at this tongue-in-cheek comment, but it’s essentially accurate, if a little pessimistic in timescale – we need to take a long-term view – though I’d rather occupy the time rebuilding union membership, campaigning on AGW and improving the lot of my Aboriginal countrymen – winery tours would be an inexcusable indulgence, fish murdering is so boring, and I haven’t the funds to renovate this old bush pavilion.
What would worry the Liberal Party more – Gillard staying put or Rudd taking over the leadership?
Today’s Sun Herald poll – saying what is blindingly obvious to those committed to a reality-based view…
@Ron E Joggles
Thanks, and I sincerely wish you and others like you every success in fixing up the ALP.
As for the hyperbole, only just a little bit!
-The government knew the latest boat was in distress on Wednesday and waited 46 hours before starting a rescue operation.
-The government already collects meta-data and recently blocked a whole bunch of sites.
-They got ASIO to spy on AGW activists, especially anti-coal ones, they have pretty much given the diggers and drillers everything they want wherever they want, and
-Bob Carr seems very keen on us being involved in Syria.
I wish my hyperbole wasn’t so close to reality.
@Mr Denmore
They probably (rightly) don’t much care either way.
Their only genuine fear at this point should be that they manage to give the ALP a “Steven Bradbury” moment – and that isn’t an impossible thing at all.
the most pertinent question on the topic – congratulations Mr Denmore ! i think the liberals dread a rudd return, given rudd continuously scores top rating in the preferred prime minister question while their man abbot scores no higher than julia gillard. -a.v.
@Mr Denmore
Neither would bother them because they have excellent attacking lines in either case, and we already know what they are. In theory, nuking the game (which is what Rudd would do) opens up the possibility of the contest changing, much as going the long handle when you are 8 down with 8 overs to go and a run rate of 12 in a limited overs fixture does. It hardly ever works though and the more likely outcome tends to be an early end to the contest.
If Rudd were to return as leader, regardless of whether it made no difference to the losses, exaggerated them or slightly staunched them, the results in the medium term for the ALP would be much worse, because it would show that the ALP really was the hollow shell many of us suspect. It really would have proved itself beyond doubt to be a creature neither of its membership nor even its parliamentary wing and organisation but a mere manifestation of the whims of Murdoch, and thus utterly useless to anyone with a contrary interest. The loss they would suffer would be existential in character. They would need to entirely reinvent themselves and purge themselves of pretty much everyone with a hand in the leadership of the party.
Who will be left to be leader of the opposition? Shorten?
@Jim Rose
Personally, if the ALP lose, which seems most likely, I hope they lose by a very very long margin. Let not one stone stand upon another.
The best vaguely plausible result would be a redux of the 43rd parliament, but that seems a forlorn hope.
@Fran Barlow If what Barrie Cassidy just predicted on ABC News comes to pass, we may find out whether your prediction is correct – though the journos do have a propensity for overexcitement – the poor dears are obviously bored.
Fran,
Your observations make sense if you believe the ALP can’t evolve. I think it can. Rudd, regardless of his clearly ego-driven campaign, represents a new vision of the centre left outside of the 1950s style industrial union social vision espoused by the Joe De Bruyns of the world.
Part of the reason Gillard can’t cut through is that she is a slave to the old school. Rudd, however he might imagine himself, represents how the Centre Left has changed. If he doesn’t challenge, a large part of the electorate will be disenfranchised.
Just read a recent article on leadership at Project Syndicate by US political scientist Joseph Nye (of the “soft power” idea), which reviews Obama’s foreign policy but I think has relevance here. http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/contextual-intelligence-and-foreign-policy-leadership-by-joseph-s–nye
He puts forward a dichotomy between transformational leadership drawing on inspirational and motivational abilities, versus pragmatic leadership based on incremental change and a transactional approach. In his view, leaders can and do develop from one to the other: either adjusting to the times or by developing in a different direction.
He goes on to say “leaders need certain soft- and hard-power skills to be effective. Among the soft-power skills are emotional intelligence (self-control and the ability to use emotional cues to attract others); vision (an attractive portrait of the future that balances ideals, objectives, and capabilities); and communication (the ability to use words and symbols to persuade both an inner circle and a broader audience). For the use of hard-power resources, two skills are particularly important: organizational capacity and a Machiavellian proficiency in bullying, buying, and bargaining to form winning coalitions.” I think we can see which is approximately which.
Nye says that in a crisis “a leader with transformational objectives faces better odds, and an inspirational style is more likely to find responsive followers and to make their role more relevant.” But we only have solvable crises: despite wicked problems, the ALP in disarray, and the voters’ crisis of confidence, the policy solutions are identifiable.
In the Rudd v Gillard contest both have shown their deficits, but only the inspirational type has any chance to strike a chord with the better side of voters, avoid a grubby Abbott government and possibly create a stronger constituency for positive change after the election. The fact that a switch based on the electorate’s preference is not a climb-down from the high moral ground makes the case compelling for those who reject the apocalyptic alternative and think there is enough potential within Labor to make reform possible, if the house is still standing after the fire.
Another thing to remember about the latest Fairfax ‘ReachTEL’ poll is that Fairfax radio is ridiculously ‘right wing’ (I would say fascist, but that would make me sound ‘extreme’) and ReachTEL is automated and only uses landlines.
ReachTEL itself seems to always skew to the right in all its polls.
I know this is pointless but to any ALP operatives observing: It doesn’t matter whether you knife Gillard and un-knife Rudd! It’s your policies that we hate. Please get some humanity, even if it is cynically to be popular and win elections.
Hey LNP, why don’t you try it too! That would be a real electoral contest.
@Megan
the anti-coal types do include a few people who go beyond protest. They damage property. watching criminal groups is a standard law enforcement function.
@Mr Denmore
Labor’s problem is the dominance of a corrupt and unaccountable faction. Fran apparently believes that only keeping that faction in power will lead to reform of the ALP and that Murdoch is a strong supporter of Rudd. Neither proposition is easy to accept.
Even though I doubt Labor can now win the election (doubt with Rudd, certainty with Gillard) I do not want Shorten to claim the opposition leadership after the election and prolong the dominance of the ALP right into the foreseeable future. I am particularly alarmed by the idea because I suspect Shorten Labor would announce that Abbot had a mandate and pass repeal of the carbon tax and the other reforms. A vote for Julia Gillard is a vote for such notable political progressives as Paul Howes and Bill Ludwig.
Thanks for the various replies.
I will adopt Megan’s rough division of the electorate into 30% diehard ALP, 30% diehard Coalition, 40% swinging – see the poll mentioned by Tony #36 http://bit.ly/105lAWU : 29% think Gillard is doing a very poor job and 27% think Abbott is doing a very poor job – that’s almost perfectly consistent with Megan’s numbers, if you suppose that in both cases, most of the real haters are the diehards from the other team.
And I now have a tentative model of what the past six years of politics have been about. First, it’s mostly about the 40%. Of course the “diehards” on both sides have undergone evolution too, but their basic allegiance hasn’t changed. The 40% do change, and they are the kingmakers.
Second, I will go with the thesis that Australian politics, in this period, has not been about the economy. Labor won in 2007 because the 40% were tired of Howard and Rudd seemed competent. Then came the GFC, but because we avoided tumbling into the chronic economic crisis besetting many other developed countries, Australia’s vacation from economic politics soon resumed. The 2010 Gillard coup soured many of the 40% on Labor, but not decisively, so we got an election about nothing and a hung parliament.
Then in the last few years, the 40% have slipped towards a net negative assessment of Labor in government, and while I will profess some agnosticism about the details, Fran covers a lot of it. From my perspective, the key fact is that it’s all about mood, malaise, and a patchwork of issues. During this period of Labor in power, we’ve gone from Rudd’s activism, to the crisis management of the GFC period, to the tactics of minority government, and now a period of treading water while the polls worsen.
It looks transitional to me. The period isn’t dominated by a single issue, like the war on terror, or a single sensibility, like everyone getting rich through the mining boom. Climate change was supposed to be the big new thing, but that was scuttled when the northern powers decided to focus on economics instead (I credit blogger Piping Shrike with making this clear to me). So politics is a little small-minded and scatter-brained right now. And we shall see how much longer history lets us get away with that…
@Alan
Nonsense. I’m voting Langer method, which is informal, giving up a vote for the Greens, so as to avoid supporting Gillard.
He is in a cold alliance and has been pushing this line for some time. He will drop Rudd the second the ALP loses and he gets the regime change he wants. Possibly by 2016, and probably by 2019 (or his successor if he is dead by then), he/she will be back supporting the ALP because he needs a strong opposition in order to manipulate the ruling party effectively.
1. It’s not a tax so the ‘tax’ can’t be repealed.
In practice the price can’t be repealed because that would entail destroying the value of the permits business puchased and the fixed price phase is about to finish.