“Except that communications haven’t changed very much at all in the last 3 years, and neither Bush nor Howard saw any such rapid changes in popularity despite making what I consider some monumentally wrong decisions, such as children overboard, the entire Iraq War/WMD fiasco and so forth.”
They didnt ‘bite’. My point is more that when something does bite it can change things extremely rapidly. Howard went from being thought to be virtually unassailable to history with Rudd in a somewhat similar vein in my view. Communication in the form of twitter etc have changed in the last few years in my view, and how they are part of the political process. Sudden changes arent the complete new norm but are becoming more frequent in my view.
Rudd had a very good run with the media/internet but at some point he lost them and things changed very rapidly after that point in my view.
This does not mean it was ‘the medias fault’. Simply that changes can come through far more quickly now in my view, similar to movies now potentially dying inside the first weekend when previously word of mouth might take a week or two to kill it. I would agree that there are parallels with Obama in the form of promising a level of change they almost certainly couldnt come through with and a backlash was almost certain.
Another point is that Rudd never understood why he was so popular in the first place, it came completely unexpectedly. So that meant that a/ he overvalued it and became too frightened to do anything he thought might threaten it, but b/ didn’t correctly judge what would actually threaten it. For instance I’m willing to bet he thought that toughening up the treatment of boat people and delaying the ETS would gain him popularity from the right, when all it did was lose him votes from the centre and left.
The ETS just marked the ned of the honeymoon, that’s all. He had a prolonged honeymoon, and once that was over he was shown to have no principles and no ability to lead, instead choosing to chase the polls.
Even without the ETS debacle he could have chosen to deal with the insulation cock-up, rather than his famous “I understand, I’ll take care of it” and then hiding routine. He could have avoided the supertax altogether. He could have refrained from using taxpayer funds for his political adds after describing them as a cancer on democracy.
The ETS was certainly a defining moment, but if it hadn’t been that then he would have been nailed on other issues. He backed down on so many moral issues as soon as he was even slightly pushed it became clear that he believed in nothing at all. His whole administration was a house of cards. He fooled the electorate for long time by carfeully avoiding doing anything. Aside from the apology he did nothing for 18 years months. As soon as he was *forced *to act everything he touched turned to shit. The insulation scheme, illegal entrants, schools infrastructure, Japanese whaling, supertax, Copenhagen, health care reform, taxpayer funded political ads. The list is endless. When literally *everything *that a PM gets involved with blows up in his face in some way and/or forces him to back down very publicly on his own ethical positions, he can’t survive.
Rudd made a big mistake with the ETS, but he made equally big mistakes with the all the other activities I listed above. The apology and maternity leave are the only things I can think of that he actually touched that didn’t turn into an utter disaster for him. And the maternity leave issue is telling insofar as what should have been a gimme, a triumph for any politician, is seen largely as being barely adequate and way to late.
There has also been at least one poll that showed that a great many people wished they had voted for Howard/Costello. Which is sad to me. At the time most people were voting *against * workchoices, now it seems that Rudd’s performance has made that seem less worrying than it actually was.
But not letting things “bite” is and always has been a key political skill. Howard and Bush had that skill, Obama has less and Rudd has none at all. The lack of that skill has isn’t the result of technology.
Thing happened fast in the past too, when leaders didn’t know how to keep a situation in hand. Look at Hewson’s poll results in the in the early 90s. Look at Whitlam’s results in the mid 70s. Those events were well before internet, and in both cases leaders went from unassailable, shoe-in winners to utter failures within 6 months, just like Rudd.
I’m not seeing any evidence here that communication methods are playing any role at all, or that the falls from grace are happening any faster now than in the past.
Howard’s popularity had been falling steadily for years before his defeat. Hardly surprising after nearly 10 years in office and a series of almost-but-not-quite leadership challenges. While Workchoices certainly caused a big drop in his results, it wasn’t the total reversal of trends as seen by Rudd.
Better comparisons to Rudd would be Hewson or Whitlam, who also went from then-historic highs to shocking losses within less than 12 months. And both in an age where the nightly news and the morning paper were the primary sources of information.
I’d have to see some evidence before I’d buy it. Most people still get their news from newspapers or TV, although often via the websites Very few people get news from Twitter.
I agree with that entirely. But it wasn’t as though he was unfairly judged by the media. Everything he touched really did blow up in his face. The media reported the explosions, they didn’t trigger them.
It was a profound worry that whenever problems arose his immediate response was that he and his team would have to work harder. Kevin 24/7 was an apt moniker.
The line from **Yes, Minister **"*Politicians like to panic, they need activity. It is their substitute for achievement." * fits well.
What I was hoping was that he’d actually start to work smarter, consult more, have a dialogue with his Cabinet, not just make all decisions within his cabal of Gillard, Swan and Tanner. Curiously enough the very same people who are going to correct the problem of the government not being able to sell the message created under the Rudd governance style.
Well I have to admit its mostly a subjective impresson Blake and you do make some good points. Does feel like we’ve had quite a run on fairly quick leadership changes, but it could just be a run rather than a quantitative difference.
Howard had been sliding consistently for years. Even before Workchoices he had faced at least two almost leadership challenges and some serious vitriol from Costello. Everybody said that the election would be close even before Workchoices. Workchoices caused a massive slump in his personal popularity, but his end had been on the cards since he gave his word to Costello that he would hand over the leadership, and that before the 2004 election.
Keating’s end was anything but fast. People were astounded that he won the 93 election, and that was only because Hewson handed it to him. After 13 years of the same party in power, an unelected appointment and the economy in ruins, his demise was widely predicted 5 years before he went.
Hawke’s end was the result of 2 years of bitter, public infighting and came after 3 leadership challenges. Not in any way fast.
And that takes us back 20 years for the leaders.
I can’t remember all the opposition leaders, but Peacock, for example, came and went as leader something like 5 times over 20 years, so nobody could say it was fast. Beazely had been on the nose since before he was appointed, they just couldn’t find anyone better to take the poisoned chalice and replace him. Latham never had serious support, so can;t be said to have had a swift end. Turnbull was in the same position as Beazely, having been elected by something like 2 votes and presiding over continual factional infighting. While I guess his end was quick, it was not unexpected or and he only “fell” by two party votes, his public polling was static. Hewson did indeed fall astonishingly fast and far, but that was over 15 years ago.
I don’t know about her religion, but she’s the first unmarried Australian Prime Minister. That’s not going to endear her to the (relatively small) conservative religious element in Australia. I remember back in the 1960s Billy McMahon being told to get a wife if he wanted to be PM. Things have changed a bit since then
Not enough, if the rumours that she is gay are true, or even if they are promoted: Single woman, powerful position, long term relationship with a man who is a muscular hairdresser with a Village People 'tash who, quite frankly, acts a little camp. And the nature of the internet age is that such rumours can be rapidly and widely circulated anonymously.
Personally I neither know nor care if she is gay, though if she is covering it up with by pretending to be straight, that concerns me a little. However allegations of being gay are not the type of thing that’s likely to help her chances of winning an election. And while an unmarried PM may not be as much of an issue, even for the religious conservatives, I suspect that a gay PM is going to be a major issue for a great many voters,
She seems vulnerable to me. Labor appoints a new prime minister on the orders of the unions. That is what they will say and this sort of thing has a record of hitting home.
I was hoping you might expand on what data you were using to establish a trend/run of run of sudden demises. That’s all.
Once perhaps. It didn’t seem to bother Hawke at all, and he openly admitted that he was put in place by the unions. Hell, he was ACTU president for umpteen years, so it’s not like anybody could be oblivious to his union ties.
It really depends on how it’s played. The Labor party is, or more accurately was, the party of the unions. That isn’t a secret nor is it shameful. Just as the Liberal party is the party of industry and business. The electorate doesn’t seem to care if the Labor leader is put* in *power by the unions. I know I don’t give a toss. the objections start when they cross the line after they get into power.
If you voted in a Labor government you must expect them to pro-union. On top of that, the current government got voted in largely on a platform of reforming IR legislation to make it fairer to workers. So unless Gillard does something monumentally stupid, like re-introducing compulsory union membership, I really can’t see the union support being much of a factor at all. It surely can’t surprise anybody.
Of course if she does cross the line on IR then yes, it will hurt her, but only as much as Howard was hurt by his business connections when *he *crossed the line on IR.
There hasn’t been a substantial sectarian voting block in Australia since the demise of the DLP in 1978, and their claw marks didn’t extend much outside of Victoria and Queensland. The Rev Fred Nile wouldn’t have a hope in his rightful home of winning a lower house seat in Sydney.
It might cost her the Sydney Anglican diocese vote, but that would only be a few hundred votes and Tanya Plibesek holds the electorate by nearly 20%. It’s Labor’s third safest seat and been held since 1969.
An unmarried Gillard could certainly win her own seat, it’s a Labor safe seat. However that is very different from being able to win at being PM. Rudd is safe in his own seat too, but he was a millstone around the neck of the party nonetheless.
A factor like the party leader being unmarried might swing 5% of the voters nationwide in close election, probably more like 2 or 3%. That might be insignificant in most seats, but in a close election, which it would be if it were held tomorrow, that 3% will cost several marginal seats, and likely cost power.
In that way the leader can drag down the entire party, even though the factor on its own wouldn’t lose many seats.
And remember, it’s not just the religious conservatives who present a problem. In Australian politics people vote for leaders, even though they can’t directly elect them. And people vote for leaders who they can identify with. Most voters are married, and all things being equal they will vote for people who are married over people who are not.
Hawke was the unions approved candidate and won his elections fair and square though. In contrast Gillard has parachuted in which seems high-handed. I cannot see the population warming to a prime-minister they were not given the opportunity to vote on. Of course it is an exaggeration, but you take my point.
An election is due this year, is it not? Today’s whole narrative is bursting with places for the opposition to damn the govt. Tony Abbott pass them up? I do not think so.
Indeed, and it is an excellent, intelligent and insightful point. And I say that knowing that I made the same point in post #18.
Sorta, kinda. Because the laws stipulate parliamentary terms it can be held as late as match next year if the ALP want engineer it that way. But Gillard has promised an election in the next few months, so she’d be committing suicide if she actually tried that.
If Abbot were an effective opposition leader, I would agree. But so far his performance has been fairly pissweak.
The other point to keep in mind is that female pollies are notoriously difficult for males to attack personally. Anyone doing so looks like a bully. That may not be fair, but it’s true. So scope to attack Gillard personally is somewhat limited.
in a few years time, when the minerals are all gone, mostly to China, it will be the Governments Fault,
wont matter whether they be left or right, the cry will be, the Govt let them be sold too cheap, woe is us.
and the opposition will echo the cry, you did us wrong.
and the mining magnates will merely nod, count their $billions…
life goes on.
and the common ppl will be as usual be left empty pockets hanging out, subservient, to the whims of the rich and powerful.
RIP, Kevin Rudd, best thing that happened for Australia for quite some time.
Funny thing, opinions, saw a female mp on TV, before the ballot, said she was going to vote for Gillard, no mention at all of the issues, the importance of them, but here was a chance to have a female PM, a moment of crowning glory of woman’s liberation.
behead the male, lay him down,
go figure
Totally fanciful.
Marital status is an issue capable of swinging 2-3% of the actual primary vote? Not simply “2-3% of voters polled said it would be a factor in determining now they would vote”.
Look at the ALP seats within that margin. They include Bennelong held by Maxine McKew, and Robertson held by Belinda Neale.
It wouldn’t be the decisive issue of the election if it was a factor of that magnitude. And it isn’t 1/10 of that magnitude.
