Australia - 7 September 2013

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Yeah - something MUST happen before the end of next week.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Been in New Zealand for the last week with dodgy Internet availability.

I'm not shocked all if this happened and the kind of hysterical reaction from the Libs (I'm talking to you Senator Cash and Ms Bishop) shows they are worried... and I think rightfully so. I still don't think Rudd can win, but it will make it close and probably save the Senate from Coalition control.

It was funny watching Paul Murray Live last night with his pompous attitude mixing with Miranda Divine's never ending stream of vitriol. She was very offended that Rudd was acting like the opposition leader, but all things considered, I think that's exactly the right strategy. If polling remains close things are going to get hilarious.

I'll just warn against too much 'oh this will wear off' - it might, but remember how much of the swing against the ALP was a personal anti-Gillard vote.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The Indonesian thing is a bit silly - the core of the Coalition's arguments is that they will 'just do what Howard did' except at no time did the Indonesian government say the policy wouldn't be accepted/tolerated... This is Howard's policy, operated in a different and more complicated scenario. And it's plausible to say it could increase diplomatic tensions with Indonesia... 

No, a SSM marriage referendum would be a huge mistake and set a horrendous precedent...

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Actually... the "hasn't changed" thing is a very badly managed question. Because that also includes people who didn't believe he needed to change. It's only asking "has Rudd changed?"

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

It was a bump in comparison to the snap poll taken after the leadership change... so there's been a sizeable swing from the last Morgan Poll with Gillard - (56-44 Coalition), so this has the ALP at a 2% stronger position from the snap poll ... not since the last Gillard poll.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Am I not properly reading? It's only a bump, I suppose?

That and Roy Morgan are pretty ALP-leaning.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I think one is certainly more likely than the other...

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I think the ALP is more likely to win the election than Rudd be forced out after 6 months IF they win.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Eh no big loss.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Considering Fraser's decades-long support for aid and refugees... and the Coalition's hard right-ward shift since his leadership (on practically everything) - I don't see why he should be smacked around for following his conscience (quite a few moderate Liberals should be doing the same thing).

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Is there a source for the election discussion... I don't doubt that the Cabinet is divided, most people are divided.

But I'd be surprised if he announced at the same time as going to Indonesia for serious talks on a high-profile issue.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Why does this read like it was written for Hello Magazine? Trust me this has been all over Facebook for the last few days and there's a lot wrong in it.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I can't help but feel sheer sympathy for Julia.

I absolutely do, but as she herself said to her staff "s*#t happens" ... She was leading the ALP to a decade in opposition and handing the Senate over to the Coalition, and sadly so much was down to her personally (before RougeBeaver hops in to remind me about the carbon tax... the background of the 'promise' was at the heart of the public outrage). Looking at the situation more and more a 1975-esque result was definitely on the cards. As much as I admire her ability and talents and like her immensely personally, she had to go.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

It's actually a pretty decent ad... considering the last 3 years has been dominated by angst and negativity, it's pretty calming and balanced. The fact that it's not exactly based on fact won't really hurt it.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Funny thing to note, and I did mention this a couple of times, watch the preferred PM number.

On election day, whichever party's leader has the lead, will win.

1993: Keating led Hewson (despite the ALP being behind)
1996: Howard by a mile
1998: Howard (note the biggest swings to the ALP happened in their own, or notional so, seats, Howard held the swings seats that decided it)
2001: Howard
2004: Howard was clearly ahead of Latham, and while the polling showed a close race or even an ALP lead, the preferred PM number didn't waver much (in fact moved in Howard's favour during the campaign)
2007: Rudd led Howard 48-41
2010: Gillard led Abbott....

So my thinking if the polling is close and Rudd is ahead of Abbott by more than 5 or 6% as preferred PM, the ALP will squeak home with a baby majority or a minority supported by Wilkie and Bandt.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Looking at the polls it seems that even given how unpopular Gillard was, Abbot was not able to get a consistent lead over Gillard on the question of who is better PM.  Now that Rudd is back it seems that Abbot is losing by a mile.  It is most likely too late but did not the fact that Abbot was not able to win in 2010 and given the fact that Abbot was not that much more popular than Gillard despite ongoing Labor civil war mean that the Liberals should have thought about dumping Abbot and replacing him with someone more likely to be more popular.  Or were the Liberals sure they would run against Gillard so it does not matter.

Oh come on.

The Liberals are in a tricky spot with Abbott, he's a good wrecker, but not a vision guy. That's not a bad thing, politics needs people like that. But there is a risk attached to leaders like that. I think one reason, regardless of where polling might go, to keep Abbott on until the election is to say "we're better than them, we don't flinch when things get tight"...

I don't think anyone can reasonably say that the Coalition were in the position they were in because of superior policies. It was their assuming the small-target strategy that worked in QLD and NSW, focus all of the attention on the government and their problems... as Peter Van Onselen correctly said, "the problem with a small-target strategy, is you need to make sure people don't realise you're doing it"

But FTR, I think Turnbull would crush Rudd.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

There's also the Howard/Beazley '07 precedent- Abbott could trail in PPM for a while but still lead in 2PP. As for vision, that's partly the partywide post-WC scare to run as Generic Liberal... to my knowledge no one's seriously proposed revisiting said decision.

The problem with that theory is that Rudd took over from Beazley almost a year before the 2007 election, we don't actually know then, which way the PPM would have ended up had Beazley stayed on.

And... that's not a vision.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

There's also the Howard/Beazley '07 precedent- Abbott could trail in PPM for a while but still lead in 2PP. As for vision, that's partly the partywide post-WC scare to run as Generic Liberal... to my knowledge no one's seriously proposed revisiting said decision.

The problem with that theory is that Rudd took over from Beazley almost a year before the 2007 election, we don't actually know then, which way the PPM would have ended up had Beazley stayed on.

And... that's not a vision.

Re vision: that's my point. Boldness has gone.

Fair point, but that's only looking at one area...

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Rudd looking more and more towards an October election with a two-week sitting period.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Greens aren't fans of that idea, but I highly doubt they vote against Lab on confidence matters.

Considering the swing against the Greens is sitting at about 3%... not the wisest plan.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Two new polls out... both with a roughly +2% ALP house effect...

Essential (unchanged)
Coalition: 52%
ALP: 48%

Essential has some interesting numbers on issues, including only 29% wanting to scrap the mining tax and 39% wanting to bin the carbon tax outright...


Morgan (self allocated preferences)
ALP: 54.5% (+3%)
Coalition: 45.5% (-3%)

Morgan (based on 2010 preference flows)
ALP: 52.5% (+1%)
Coalition: 47.5% (-1%)

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

That preferred PM number is terrible and wouldn't shock me if it became THE story tomorrow.

Edit:

Preferred PM
Abbott: 31% (-4%)
Rudd: 53% (+4%)

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Surely the ALP has room to improve as well?

A lot of opposition is surely built on what voters see as a fractious, divided party. If they can get rid of that image, they can grow.

That's the issue - was the first set of polls ' a sugar high ' that would wear off or was it somewhere to grow from. I don't think we have a clear idea yet... But only Essential hasn't shown some further improvement from the initial kick.

The ALP of course has room to move, but that could be up or down.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Whoa.

That's true treachery.

Surely JG didn't know.

Sorry, but I don't see this as that big of a deal... EVERYBODY knew something would happen that week.

Discussing realistic contingencies eh... Plus Swan didnt vote or move against her.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I'd still wait for more polls...but the signs are good that the bounce is sticking with the ALP largely.

I think the media might be waking up to the fact that the biggest single driver of the turn against the ALP was a personal anti-Gillard vote. I know I keep harping on about this.. but to me, preferred PM is the killer number, since the change, Rudd is a full 20 points ahead of where Gillard was and Abbott has dropped 14 points and is two points lower than Gillard was when she was dumped.

Oh and additional numbers...

Satisfaction
Rudd: 43% (+7)
Abbott: 36% (nc)

Dissatisfaction
Rudd: 36% (nc)
Abbott: 56% (nc)


The other thing is that this election could well cost the Greens dearly... they're polling in high-single digits. As a rule, the Greens have consistently received 2-3% less than polling suggests. I've been arguing for a while that 2010 was the Greens high water mark, it was a protest election, which tend to be the ones that see the strongest third-party results.