Paula Matthewson theguardian.com, Thursday 22 August 2013
Far from being the pivotal point at which the election swings Rudd's way, it's more likely Abbott's comment was a tactical move that will benefit him
'Does this man ever shut up?' asked Abbott during the debate.
Earlier this week, Guardian Australia’s Lenore Taylor speculated whether opposition leader Tony Abbott’s blokey and non-PC language is a deliberate strategy to appeal to certain voters. She may well be right. I’ve thought the same about some of Abbott’s so-called gaffes.
If there’s one thing the Coalition campaign team knows how to do better than Labor, it’s to tap into how voters think and feel, and to make connections with them in a way that delivers the coveted number one on ballot papers come polling day. This is predominantly due to the work of Coalition pollster Mark Textor, who has perfected values-based communication over the past 250 campaigns on which he’s worked.
That’s why it’s important not to misinterpret last night’s "Kevin’s a windbag" moment – during which Abbott asked "does this man ever shut up?" during his debate with Rudd. Far from being the pivotal point at which the election swings Rudd’s way, it’s more likely to be a tactical move on the part of the opposition that will benefit Abbott.
How? Didn’t Abbott’s exasperated plea demonstrate that Rudd had penetrated Abbott’s steely veneer?
Well, no. It’s more likely Abbott was deliberately reflecting what focus groups are saying about Rudd – that he’s the same old "talk under wet cement" technocrat they remember from his time as prime minister. The spontaneous applause that followed Abbott’s remark reinforces this interpretation.
This is the key to Abbott’s campaign – to ensure voters remember what they don’t like about Rudd. The Coalition campaign is focussed on "helping" voters realise they’d rather take a chance on a guy they feel vaguely uneasy about than the one they know for sure is a nasty, aloof, prolix bureaucrat with a tendency to make ill-considered and politically expedient decisions that can have serious implications. You could call it the reverse “devil you know” effect.
Meanwhile, Rudd is doing the opposite, trying to turn voters’ gazes away from the shambles that was his government and his culpability in the ugly destabilisation of his successor. Initially Rudd tried to do so by delegitimising Abbott’s negative approach, promising to end the "wall to wall negativity", but this vow has begun to ring hollow since Labor’s campaign advertising has taken an increasingly negative tone.
Rudd has also hamstrung own positive pitch for the future by downplaying Labor’s traditional strengths in health and education, because drawing attention to the Labor government’s accomplishments in these areas would likely rekindle voters’ memories of Julia Gillard (and not in a good way for Rudd).
All that is left for Rudd is to shatter voters’ perceptions that an Abbott government would be more economically responsible than a Rudd government.
But even more than that, Rudd’s success on polling day depends on voters buying his story about the future. Abbott’s depends on them repudiating Rudd’s vision on the basis of his tarnished track record. Former Rudd media adviser Lachlan Harris suggested as much on the night of the first leaders’ debate.
The problem for Rudd is that voters may have already stopped listening to him. This is suggested by Abbott’s improving approval rating and his closing the gap on Rudd as preferred prime minister.
Rudd needs a breakthrough moment, undoubtedly, to catch voters’ attention again. But it will take a lot more than a mis-speak from Abbott (particularly when it is really a calculated jibe) to make that happen.
