Is Julia Gillard a dead woman walking?

[You kip if you want to...]

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2011/07/17/nielsen-61-39-to-coalition/

It can't get much worse for her, although she's far more preferable than Abbott.

If there was to be a leadership spill, who'd step up to the plate? Would Rudd be asked to have another go or would it be Wayne Swan or somebody else?

[Smid]

Preferable to Abbott? The Nielson poll has the opposite, as did the previous Newspoll.

As to who would replace her, there was a flood of money backing Simon Crean last week. He moved from $101 to $11 on two sites, one of which has suspended betting on Labor leadership.

[You kip if you want to...]

Preferable to Abbott? The Nielson poll has the opposite, as did the previous Newspoll.

As in, my own opinion

[redcommander]

She's doomed. I'd be surprised if the current parliament even lasts its full term.

[Sibboleth]

Depends if anyone else wants the job right now; might make more sense to wait until the fuss over the carbon tax thing has blown over just a little bit. Even if we're talking in terms of (say) weeks rather than months.

[Smid]

She's doomed. I'd be surprised if the current parliament even lasts its full term.

I can't see an election being called early (this has been my opinion since, well, since both sides were negotiating with the independents). It's not in Labor's best interests, it's not in the Greens' best interests, and it's certainly not in the best interests of the independents, who will either be unseated, or at the very least lose their balance of power position. A double dissolution requires the passage of legislation in one house, with the same legislation being blocked or unacceptably amended by the other house (and for this to happen with the same piece of legislation a couple of times). With a minority in both houses, I can't see anything passing one house but not the other - I suspect anything will almost certainly fail to pass both houses, or would pass both houses.

[Platypus]

I doubt it. Once this is over, there'll be two years where Abbott has to come up with policy, which is definitely not his strong suit. He can't keep on this issue for that long, I don't think, unless it really does destroy our economy (and it won't).

As far as the ALP leadership goes, the brand is damaged enough without a spill. If there were a spill, Rudd wouldn't be chosen by the same people who hated him enough to oust him last year. Crean would be an excellent choice, but wouldn't be chosen even if it did, somehow, happen.

Oh, and she's clearly, clearly preferably to Abbott.

[Swedish Cheese]

I wouldn't be so sure of it. I hate to always bring up Sweden 2010, but here the goverment were trailing the opposition by 17% two years before the election. Tony Abbott appears to have the makings of a Mona Sahlin, and I'm not saying that only because they're both increadibly ugly.

As for wether Gillard is done as leader, I have no idea as I don't know much of the inner workings of the ALP. But I think I'd be unfortunate for them if they become known as the party who changes leader like other changes underwear.   

[Senator Barnes]

Meh, I think she'll loos much of her unpopularity once the carbon tax debate is over, but I think that the Coalition will still be the natural favorites in the 2013 election, although a lot can change in two years!

She's doomed. I'd be surprised if the current parliament even lasts its full term.

Why would that be exactly?

[redcommander]

Meh, I think she'll loos much of her unpopularity once the carbon tax debate is over, but I think that the Coalition will still be the natural favorites in the 2013 election, although a lot can change in two years!

She's doomed. I'd be surprised if the current parliament even lasts its full term.

Why would that be exactly?

Because the carbon tax debate isn't likely to go away anytime soon, and even if it does, the Coalition could run a campaign pointing out how Gillard was dishonest in her past statements about implementing a carbon tax in the first place.

[You kip if you want to...]

I wouldn't be so sure of it. I hate to always bring up Sweden 2010, but here the goverment were trailing the opposition by 17% two years before the election. Tony Abbott appears to have the makings of a Mona Sahlin, and I'm not saying that only because they're both increadibly ugly.

Was the right as unpopular as the ALP are though? In terms of Mona Sahlin, Ed Miliband will probably end up being another 'her'.

[Sibboleth]

Mona Sahlin was/is a party hack who got the top job because no one else wanted it. Say whatever you like about Abbott and Miliband (and isn't it odd to have them mentioned in the same breath?), that's not them.

[Platypus]

Meh, I think she'll loos much of her unpopularity once the carbon tax debate is over, but I think that the Coalition will still be the natural favorites in the 2013 election, although a lot can change in two years!

She's doomed. I'd be surprised if the current parliament even lasts its full term.

Why would that be exactly?

Because the carbon tax debate isn't likely to go away anytime soon, and even if it does, the Coalition could run a campaign pointing out how Gillard was dishonest in her past statements about implementing a carbon tax in the first place.

The thing is, it is going away soon. Certainly before the next election. Once it does go, Abbott actually has to start presenting policy. So far almost every time he has done so, his fundings are wrong, it's unpopular, it contradicts other policy or it's proven to be ineffective, so Gillard is happy to wait for that to bite him on the arse.

The biggest concern for Gillard would be the Liberals getting a brain and dumping Abbott after the Carbon tax debate is over. Putting in someone who the doctor's wives could actually vote for, as well as Cranbourne Man.

[Peter the Lefty]

Based on polls, it seems unthinkable that Julia Gillard will have been replaced by the end of 2013, either through a Liberal victory in the election, or some coup against her putting Kevin Rudd back in his old job.  Either way, it would take a MASSIVE poll comeback for her to stay on.  If the ALP is decimated at the next election the way polls suggest, who might end up leading the party in opposition?  I guess it'll have to be Wayne Swan, Stephen Smith, or Nicola Roxon because I can't possibly imagine it being someone from the left of the party like Penny Wong, Jenny Macklin, or Chris Evans, given Gillard's record. 

[Secretary Polnut]

You mistake thinking the ALP is really about left and right... because in the end, they want a face that will argue their points and win them the election.

I mean, Gillard was installed by the right factions....

The Australian voting public is just as fickle as the US one... can the ALP win the next election... perhaps... but can the Coalition lose it? Absolutely. I think the ALP poll numbers will re-bound a little, as the carbon price issue has been slightly neutralised for some.

And Hugh is absolutely right, Abbott is the Libs Achilles's Heel - he's a reason why Rudd lost his mojo and his job - but he's also the reason they didn't win enough seats last year... people just don't like him... consider that there's about a 17-20% gap in Primary votes and about 16-18% TPP gap... yet Abbott is only JUST ahead of Gillard as preferred PM. He's an outstanding Opposition Leader, he goes for the jugular at every opportunity and will just be as negative as possible. But when you're in a minority government situation, the term 'Alternative PM' really matters.  And it seems to me that Gillard's big drop in popularity is more about disappointment than genuine dislike for most.

Consider this argument, I have been harassing friends relatively high up in the ALP for weeks over this... imagine Gillard making this comment...

"Under our carbon pricing arrangement, we have made sure that almost 80% of households will be fully compensated for any related price increases, in fact, with increased pensions, family assistance and tax cuts, many will be financially better off under this arrangement.

Tony Abbott says he will deliver those benefits and bring the Budget into surplus without either the super-profits mining tax or the carbon price on our biggest carbon emitters.

How?

As usual, he's making promises to the Australian people, without a clear plan as to how he's going to do it. He says he'll sack hard-working Australians in the public service, up to 12,000... but even that wouldn't even reach 5% of the money he'd need to keep all of his promises. Either he's confused in his maths, he's lying to us or we will see a bloodbath of vital services and programs cut... so I ask all Australians to ask Tony Abbott, how will you do this? and if you're not lying to us... what are you going to cut? What vital services will be on the chopping block? "

I personally think that's the best way to get the ALP back in the driver's seat - play on public unease over Abbott and actually have the balls to do something really dramatic.  

[Secretary Polnut]

She's doomed. I'd be surprised if the current parliament even lasts its full term.

I can't see an election being called early (this has been my opinion since, well, since both sides were negotiating with the independents). It's not in Labor's best interests, it's not in the Greens' best interests, and it's certainly not in the best interests of the independents, who will either be unseated, or at the very least lose their balance of power position. A double dissolution requires the passage of legislation in one house, with the same legislation being blocked or unacceptably amended by the other house (and for this to happen with the same piece of legislation a couple of times). With a minority in both houses, I can't see anything passing one house but not the other - I suspect anything will almost certainly fail to pass both houses, or would pass both houses.

Exactly right - there's virtually no chance for an early-election. The Independents have made their beds and Andrew Wilkie who I think is a self-aggrandising fool, wouldn't dare handing Abbott Government, because his seat is a left-wing seat and he'd be out on his arse.

[Smid]

Wilkie's an interesting one... I know he realises that his seat would not return him if he backed Abbott, however he may have painted himself into the corner with the deadline he set for the implementation of compulsory pre-commitment on pokie machines by next year's budget. He could always back away from that, but it seems he's serious enough about the issue that he'd rather lose his seat but feel that he stood up for his beliefs, than not lose his seat but have backed away from the most primary issue for which he stands.

More likely, he'd not necessarily install Abbott as PM, rather advise him that he'd support a no-confidence motion and try to trigger an election. His seat may forgive him for that, although he'd probably still need Liberal preferences to get across the line, and who knows whether or not he'd get them. Regardless, if he decided to try to bring down the Government, it would probably be after the budget, because I can't imagine Hockey wanting to push through Labor's budget (since that would confuse the message of whether or not the Coalition supports the budget), and there would not be time for a newly-installed Liberal Government to write a fresh budget and have it pass both Houses before 1 July, and there would certainly not be time to call an election, have a 36-day campaign (I think that's the minimum length, Constitutionally), wait for the declaration of the poll in all the seats, swear in the new House, introduce new Appropriation Bills and then have them pass both Houses... there's just not enough time to do that. Therefore I can't see the Opposition using a vote against the Budget as a defacto no-confidence motion, nor see them wanting a no-confidence motion prior to the passage of the Budget. After the Budget, there is the winter recess for a couple of months, so the first real chance after Wilkie's deadline for the Government to fall would be August or September, I think, which would only be a couple of months short of full-term anyway (enough so that I don't think it would count as an early election), indeed if there was any rumour surrounding the possibility of that happening, I think the PM would just take a drive up to see the GG before it happened.

I don't have any inside knowledge or anything, that's just my speculation.

[Secretary Polnut]

What I'm arguing isn't that Wilkie could trigger the election which would install the Abbott as PM.

Mind you, by locking himself into a rock-solid position he's shown his lack of political instinct and I think has guaranteed his losing however the election happens... in order to survive in politics (despite all of those 'liar and flip-flop' taunts) is to be flexible - and he's about as inflexible as it comes.

[You kip if you want to...]

Mind you, by locking himself into a rock-solid position he's shown his lack of political instinct and I think has guaranteed his losing however the election happens... in order to survive in politics (despite all of those 'liar and flip-flop' taunts) is to be flexible - and he's about as inflexible as it comes.

The flip side that you describe would be to pull a Clegg, again guaranteeing defeat.

[Platypus]

he was incredibly lucky to get in in the first place, and he knows he's unlikely to have the same luck again in any case, so he's pushing to get everything he wants in his time in parliament done ASAP. If Abbott were able to guarantee passage of the pokies reform measures, I wouldn't be surprised at all if Wilkie backed him. It isn't likely, of course, but certainly a possibility.

For Labor to win (which is certainly still a very real possibility), it needs to go for the legislative jugular and start governing. Force the BoPpers to support it or oppose it, but keep presenting legislation with real, popular support and effects. At the very least, policies which truly reflect their base. Start with the social policies - gay marriage, something for the indigenous groups, a humane asylum policy, raise the disability pension etc; and enthuse the base. You can't win Western Sydney and SE Queensland off Abbott with 'conservative-lite', but if you can sure up the 45% of seats that are naturally labor you go into the election with the ability to focus money and attention on say 8 seats for government. As it is, there is no enthusiasm at all for Labor, and while they won't lose seats like Gellibrand or Batman, they're tracking badly to lose places like Lyons and Lilley largely due to apathy. Give those seats a genuine enthusiasm about Labor and they'll automatically reject Abbott, who is entirely outside the ideological range for either place.

Australians don't want to vote in the coalition, particularly under Abbott, but they see absolutely no reason to vote for Labor. Give the left a reason to vote for Labor and then focus on the swing seats in a genuine contest between left and right, not Julia and Tony.

[Secretary Polnut]

I agree - they waste too much time trying to show how similar they are to the Coalition, when, considering Abbott is leader, the ALP's best chance is to show a strong contrast to them.

[You kip if you want to...]

he was incredibly lucky to get in in the first place, and he knows he's unlikely to have the same luck again in any case, so he's pushing to get everything he wants in his time in parliament done ASAP. If Abbott were able to guarantee passage of the pokies reform measures, I wouldn't be surprised at all if Wilkie backed him. It isn't likely, of course, but certainly a possibility.

For Labor to win (which is certainly still a very real possibility), it needs to go for the legislative jugular and start governing. Force the BoPpers to support it or oppose it, but keep presenting legislation with real, popular support and effects. At the very least, policies which truly reflect their base. Start with the social policies - gay marriage, something for the indigenous groups, a humane asylum policy, raise the disability pension etc; and enthuse the base. You can't win Western Sydney and SE Queensland off Abbott with 'conservative-lite', but if you can sure up the 45% of seats that are naturally labor you go into the election with the ability to focus money and attention on say 8 seats for government. As it is, there is no enthusiasm at all for Labor, and while they won't lose seats like Gellibrand or Batman, they're tracking badly to lose places like Lyons and Lilley largely due to apathy. Give those seats a genuine enthusiasm about Labor and they'll automatically reject Abbott, who is entirely outside the ideological range for either place.

Australians don't want to vote in the coalition, particularly under Abbott, but they see absolutely no reason to vote for Labor. Give the left a reason to vote for Labor and then focus on the swing seats in a genuine contest between left and right, not Julia and Tony.

Alas, will the ALP ever follow such sound advise? I doubt it...

[Sibboleth]

Almost certainly the professional advisors would be advising something else, yes. Alas.

[Peter the Lefty]

You mistake thinking the ALP is really about left and right... because in the end, they want a face that will argue their points and win them the election.

I mean, Gillard was installed by the right factions....

The Australian voting public is just as fickle as the US one... can the ALP win the next election... perhaps... but can the Coalition lose it? Absolutely. I think the ALP poll numbers will re-bound a little, as the carbon price issue has been slightly neutralised for some.

And Hugh is absolutely right, Abbott is the Libs Achilles's Heel - he's a reason why Rudd lost his mojo and his job - but he's also the reason they didn't win enough seats last year... people just don't like him... consider that there's about a 17-20% gap in Primary votes and about 16-18% TPP gap... yet Abbott is only JUST ahead of Gillard as preferred PM. He's an outstanding Opposition Leader, he goes for the jugular at every opportunity and will just be as negative as possible. But when you're in a minority government situation, the term 'Alternative PM' really matters.  And it seems to me that Gillard's big drop in popularity is more about disappointment than genuine dislike for most.

Consider this argument, I have been harassing friends relatively high up in the ALP for weeks over this... imagine Gillard making this comment...

"Under our carbon pricing arrangement, we have made sure that almost 80% of households will be fully compensated for any related price increases, in fact, with increased pensions, family assistance and tax cuts, many will be financially better off under this arrangement.

Tony Abbott says he will deliver those benefits and bring the Budget into surplus without either the super-profits mining tax or the carbon price on our biggest carbon emitters.

How?

As usual, he's making promises to the Australian people, without a clear plan as to how he's going to do it. He says he'll sack hard-working Australians in the public service, up to 12,000... but even that wouldn't even reach 5% of the money he'd need to keep all of his promises. Either he's confused in his maths, he's lying to us or we will see a bloodbath of vital services and programs cut... so I ask all Australians to ask Tony Abbott, how will you do this? and if you're not lying to us... what are you going to cut? What vital services will be on the chopping block? "

I personally think that's the best way to get the ALP back in the driver's seat - play on public unease over Abbott and actually have the balls to do something really dramatic.  

So who do you see as people who could lead the ALP after 2013, assuming what we all expect to happen will happen? 

[You kip if you want to...]

I personally think that's the best way to get the ALP back in the driver's seat - play on public unease over Abbott and actually have the balls to do something really dramatic.  

That only ever works if the government hasn't crossed the threshold between "unpopular" and "toxic". Is the ALP toxic or just unpopular?

Worth noting that British Labour was about 25 points adrift two years out from an election, they "only" lost by 7 after unease began to bubble about Cameron.