By ABC's Barrie Cassidy
Posted November 10, 2011 07:37:25
Some Gillard Government MPs – those not yearning for a return to Kevin Rudd – have often, more in hope than expectation, mused on what it would take to dramatically change the political dynamics.
What would be the magic primary vote figure that would cause, if not panic, then at least a degree of anxiety in Opposition ranks?
What would it take to bring about some self-examination within the Coalition about its political and policy strategy, and maybe even change a narrative in the media that for so long has assumed the slow death of the Government?
For some of them, it was a catharsis exercise. When the primary vote through August and September languished at an abysmal 27 per cent (26 per cent in one poll) the accepted target for government - a minimum 37 per cent - seemed so far out of reach that they needed to set a more realistic shorter-term target that might bring about its own momentum. The consensus on that target was 34 per cent.
The release this week of a Newspoll showing Labor at 32 per cent is evidence that the target – two years out from an election – is both about right and achievable in the short term.
Even at 32 per cent there has been a subtle but important change in perceptions, both within political circles and more broadly within the media.
But the real experience of the past week is that the arbitrary polling figure might not have been needed as the catalyst for a swing in attitudes. It was starting to happen anyway.
Tony Abbott and his team are being inundated with advice to change tactics; to move away from constant negativity and to start spelling out a road map for the future. The advice stems from a series of Abbott judgments in the past few weeks.
It started with his refusal to throw the Government a lifeline on asylum seekers, even though both major parties want legally protected offshore processing. Then came Abbott's siding with Qantas and Alan Joyce on the grounding of the airline. (And of course, that shone a light on the Coalition's lack of resolve on industrial relations generally.) Next was Abbott's extraordinary dismissal of Australian support for the IMF and its reserves; then the reversal of his opposition to an increase in superannuation; and now, given sharper focus this week, his unwillingness to further tax mining companies at a time of unprecedented wealth.
Tellingly, the advice in the media to rethink some of these strategies is not coming from people that Coalition supporters can easily dismiss as raving lefties. Let's go through them, keeping in mind all of them wrote their hard hitting analysis before Tuesday's opinion poll was published. They were neither emboldened nor influenced by that significant shift in sentiment.
On Saturday, Laurie Oakes was critical of Abbott's stand on the mining tax, suggesting his refusal to share the wealth around stems from a belief that the miners can't afford to pay more taxes.
"Those deprived of the benefits … will see that for the nonsense it is," he wrote.
Oakes said of Abbott that his style "is pure attack dog, as feral as you'd get. Everything, irrespective of merit, has to be opposed and torn to pieces."
Then in The Australian on Monday, well-respected economics writer David Uren in a comment piece (alongside a story headed: Robb ropeable for being excluded) got stuck into the Opposition Leader for his stand on IMF funding under a headline: Abbott's distortion of IMF role beggars belief.
On Tuesday (written Monday) in the Age, economist Michael Pascoe accused Abbott of being guilty of "a gross failure of economic credibility" (on the mineral resources tax). Pascoe wrote that "either there are no brains or the leadership is so pathetically shallow that they are prepared to damage the country to get the keys to the Lodge."
Finally, Wednesday, Paul Kelly in The Australian (after Newspoll, but consistent with a theme that he has been developing for some weeks) called on the Coalition to replace outright opposition with ideas of its own.
Kelly suggested the Coalition should come up with its own alternative mining tax.
He wrote: "How can he (Abbott) campaign to have no mining tax whatsoever when the big three miners accept the principle of such a tax anyway? At that point his policy becomes absurd."
The fact is Tony Abbott and the Coalition devised a short-term strategy - a strategy that could last just 12 months - because they expected an election by now. Chances are this Parliament is going to run full term after all. That means no election for another two years.
Now the tide is so gently turning. The Gillard Government trails the Coalition two-party preferred 47 per cent to 53 per cent. That's no cause for Government celebration, or even optimism. But neither is it any longer an unusual position for a government to be in at this stage in the political cycle. That's what has changed. Bob Hawke, Paul Keating and John Howard all recovered from similar polling deficits. A competitive election contest is now as much in prospect as the doomsday scenario. It could go either way.
The political leaders who gained high office from opposition in the last 30 years – Hawke, Howard and Kevin Rudd – all put up strong, positive ideas for government. None of them relied only on the failings of the government of the day.
That now has to be the next step in Abbott's claim to the top job. If he rises to that challenge, with credibility, then he is still a red-hot favourite.
If he doesn't, then the more faint hearted in Labor ranks can thank their lucky stars that in August, September and October, Julia Gillard kept her head while so many around her lost theirs.
Barrie Cassidy is the presenter of ABC programs Insiders and Offsiders.
