Mega Thread Tony Abbott

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Caesar said:
Based on what do you say this? Coalition polling was through the roof even when Abbott's personal numbers were rock bottom. People may not like him that much, but clearly they don't hate him enough to let it change their vote. It strikes me as what they are saying in ALP campaign HQ to reassure themselves.

The Liberals are attacking Rudd because last time around, when Rudd's personal approval ratings dived, so did Labor's vote. And it's turned out the same this time. Correlation, causation - who knows. But it makes it a decent strategy for them. Government not so much.
Click to expand...

The Liberals are attacking Rudd because it's the obvious strategy if you want to present a very small target for criticism. You can criticise the government without putting anything on the table that can be attacked.

Rudd's got nothing to campaign on since he's thrown out Labor's record and Abbott's not been in government which doesn't give much to attack. The only real option is to attack Abbott personally.

In contrast Gillard had a basis to run a pretty effective campaign. There was a little while there when she was starting to get some momentum based on her policies. If she'd stuck with that tactic at the time I think she'd still be leader and would have a good platform to campaign on. The problem was that, whether it was her decision or her advisers, she changed tack to attack Abbott more. The misogyny speech in itself was very effective but it seemed her team was desperate to get that sort of knock-out punch continually.

Basically rather than being a campaign based on Abbott, Abbott, Abbott it should've been NDIS, NDIS, NDIS. Add in the NBN, Goneski reforms and finally getting in a carbon price with the negative campaign Abbott had run on it looking like a joke and it's a fairly solid record. Of course Abbott would point ot other, less positive things but at least Gillard could've basically said "we've delivered these. We've done a lot of good stuff. Do you really want to risk that by giving Abbott a shot?" At least then the question marks over Abbott actually contrast to a concrete platform of what Labor's achieved. The main reason Rudd's attacks on Abbott are useless is because nobody knows what he'll do either. Why not elect one leader who flies off the cuff and hasn't got a record to stand on when your other option is the same but with a party that's an absolute rabble. Right now there's no reason to vote for Rudd. At least Gillard could've presented a mildly plausible argument.
 
Footy Smarts said:
In contrast Gillard had a basis to run a pretty effective campaign. There was a little while there when she was starting to get some momentum based on her policies. If she'd stuck with that tactic at the time I think she'd still be leader and would have a good platform to campaign on. The problem was that, whether it was her decision or her advisers, she changed tack to attack Abbott more. The misogyny speech in itself was very effective but it seemed her team was desperate to get that sort of knock-out punch continually.
Click to expand...
Was it? IIRC it had very little impact on the 2PP vote trend. Gave her a big boost in her personal approval rating, but that was about it. Labor's actual vote improved slightly, but that was following a trend that had been happening before the speech.

This is the issue I have with it. For the last four years, Labor has seemed convinced that attacking Abbott is a winning strategy. But I don't think it's ever really worked. See this analysis by K-Bon back in May:

http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/the-abbott-factor-revisited-abbotts.html

abbott+vs+alp.jpg


That's a graph of Abbott's net satisfaction rating vs Labor's 2PP. Very little reason there to think that Abbott's fortunes have anything much to do with Labor's.
 
Pessimistic said:
Baddies v Baddies has a distinct reaganish feel to it, the excuses are the most entertaining

Pyne 'i wish people called me bad'
Click to expand...

Oh dear, turns out both Hilary Clinton and David Cameron have referred to "good guys and not good guys" in relation to Syria. Going Abbott on this rubbish hasn't been a fertile path for Labor to follow, Pess. Like so much of what else they've tried over 4 years..

Do we think Labor and their fans and followers will ever grow up, show some maturity?

Agree it's a hard ask, given so much of the social media is infantilised, especially the twits on twitter, but really the next gen of Labor leaders are going to have to break with the Hawker/McTernan era and start behaving like adults. Start by never, ever, employing another spin doctor.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

GuruJane said:
Oh dear, turns out both Hilary Clinton and David Cameron have referred to "good guys and not good guys" in relation to Syria. Going Abbott on this rubbish hasn't been a fertile path for Labor to follow, Pess. Like so much of what else they've tried over 4 years..

Do we think Labor and their fans and followers will ever grow up, show some maturity?

Agree it's a hard ask, given so much of the social media is infantilised, especially the twits on twitter, but really the next gen of Labor leaders are going to have to break with the Hawker/McTernan era and start behaving like adults. Start by never, ever, employing another spin doctor.
Click to expand...


Anyone who has Pyne and Mirabella in their corner has some gall to talk about "growing up". Their behaviour in QT is kindergarten level at best.
 
Footy Smarts said:
The Liberals are attacking Rudd because it's the obvious strategy if you want to present a very small target for criticism. You can criticise the government without putting anything on the table that can be attacked.

Rudd's got nothing to campaign on since he's thrown out Labor's record and Abbott's not been in government which doesn't give much to attack. The only real option is to attack Abbott personally.

In contrast Gillard had a basis to run a pretty effective campaign. There was a little while there when she was starting to get some momentum based on her policies. If she'd stuck with that tactic at the time I think she'd still be leader and would have a good platform to campaign on. The problem was that, whether it was her decision or her advisers, she changed tack to attack Abbott more. The misogyny speech in itself was very effective but it seemed her team was desperate to get that sort of knock-out punch continually.

Basically rather than being a campaign based on Abbott, Abbott, Abbott it should've been NDIS, NDIS, NDIS. Add in the NBN, Goneski reforms and finally getting in a carbon price with the negative campaign Abbott had run on it looking like a joke and it's a fairly solid record. Of course Abbott would point ot other, less positive things but at least Gillard could've basically said "we've delivered these. We've done a lot of good stuff. Do you really want to risk that by giving Abbott a shot?" At least then the question marks over Abbott actually contrast to a concrete platform of what Labor's achieved. The main reason Rudd's attacks on Abbott are useless is because nobody knows what he'll do either. Why not elect one leader who flies off the cuff and hasn't got a record to stand on when your other option is the same but with a party that's an absolute rabble. Right now there's no reason to vote for Rudd. At least Gillard could've presented a mildly plausible argument.
Click to expand...


Completely agree
 
A campain on Gonski and NDIS would have been weak considering the Liberals both agree with them (after originally saying they were a 'con' and class warfare). The only difference is the Liberals haven't committed to continue the new funding model beyond the forward estimates. As for Labor being a rubble, Gillard and her supporters are doing the right thing for the greater cause and retiring from politics to allow Rudd a clean run should he win.

And Labor has been campaigning on its record plenty but the media isn't reporting it. Instead they're obsessing over 'presentational issues' like the made-up make-up artist story, cameras not being allowed in to the GP super clinic and Barry O'Farrell ambushing Rudd with a complaint and walking away. It's easier for them to focus on the small stuff because it involves having no knowledge of policies. It's politically convenient to ignore policy if you want Abbott to win, but media companies are also very stretched, with less-and-less money, so they don't seem to be able to cover policy properly.

Ask most people what Gonski is and they won't know.

Also, campaigning on Abbott does make sense, no matter what the Lib-lovers on BF want to say. He is a very old-fashioned social conservative with no interest in economics. He is a bad option for the country.
 
Ratts of Tobruk said:
Also, campaigning on Abbott does make sense, no matter what the Lib-lovers on BF want to say. He is a very old-fashioned social conservative with no interest in economics. He is a bad option for the country.
Click to expand...

Even if this is true, it does not necessarily mean campaigning on him is a good idea. You can see the numbers in my post above. Hammering Abbott has done the ALP no good whatsoever in the last three years.

Rightly or wrongly, people simply aren't basing their voting decision on their personal opinion of the person who leads the Liberal Party.
 
If Rudd had said goodies & baddies in relation to what is happening in Syria there would be an uproar in this place from the right wingers & headlines from the Murdoch press with a photo of Rudd dressed up as the lone ranger.
 
Caesar said:
Even if this is true, it does not necessarily mean campaigning on him is a good idea. You can see the numbers in my post above. Hammering Abbott has done the ALP no good whatsoever. People simply aren't basing their voting decision on their personal opinion of the person who leads the Liberal Party.
Click to expand...
I don't understand how you can take that from the graph you posted. His personal approval drops consistently and is far below where it was in 2010. Support for Labor is obviously based on Labor party actions and support for Tony largely based on his action, but you cannot say the drop in his support isn't because what he did fit with criticisms Labor had made (and similarly the article you point to suggests that when the spill happened, justifying some of the Coalition's sledging of Labor's disunity, Abbott's approvals went up).
 
Ratts of Tobruk said:
you cannot say the drop in his support isn't because what he did fit with criticisms Labor had made
Click to expand...

I didn't say that. I said that there is no discernible causal relationship between Abbott's approval rating and the 2PP split.

The takeaway being that even if Labor's campaign against Abbott is successful in reducing people's opinion of him, there is absolutely no reason to think it will help them win them the election. Therefore it is a terrible strategy.
 
Caesar said:
I didn't say that. I said that there is no discernible causal relationship between Abbott's approval rating and the 2PP split.

The takeaway being that even if Labor's campaign against Abbott is successful in reducing people's opinion of him, there is absolutely no reason to think it will help them win them the election. Therefore it is a terrible strategy.
Click to expand...
I disagree. But thank you for pointing out how watered down your statement was. It might be a bit stronger to point out that Abbott's negativity campaign clearly didn't work either. He claimed debt and deficit would destroy us but now it's the election and all the Coalition supporters seem to have forgotten that... Spend, spend, spend!
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Ratts of Tobruk said:
I disagree. But thank you for pointing out how watered down your statement was. It might be a bit stronger to point out that Abbott's negativity campaign clearly didn't work either. He claimed debt and deficit would destroy us but now it's the election and all the Coalition supporters seem to have forgotten that... Spend, spend, spend!
Click to expand...
You disagree based on... what exactly? As K-Bon pointed out several months ago, there is no reason to think that Abbott's poor approval ratings will have any impact on their ability to win the election. 5 days out, we are seeing that validated.

Going negative makes more sense for the Opposition because last time around Rudd's ALP displayed a strong correlation between 2PP and his personal approval rating. Sure enough, this appears to be repeating itself this time around as well. Far from causal evidence but it's not exactly a damning result.

WA ROO said:
No,no she isn't

Sooner we get rid of her from WA the better
Click to expand...
Your loss, the federal ALP's gain. I suspect you'll be seeing a whole lot more of her on the front bench in coming years.
 
Gough said:
Abbott is a terrible choice, but there's no f***ing way Rudd should be rewarded with another three years after his treachery towards the Gillard government.
That's the shit thing about this election.
Click to expand...

I pretty much agree.

Last time was good when the whole lot went quiet for a few days in the hung parliament situation
 
Maybe the strategy is to turn undecideds into risk averse incumbency vote.

I think most would agree the conditions are pretty good here right now and the issues people are focussing on are irritants at best
 
So, the media has no influence on voters. Campaigning on leaders of the opposite party doesn't influence voters. Attacks on the opposite parties doesn't influence voters. Costings don't influence voters. Having inconsistent policies doesn't influence voters. Lack of policies doesn't influence voters.

What influences voters?
 
I never said the media has no influence on voters.

Campaigning on leaders usually influences voters to a degree. The analysis shows that this has not really been the case for Abbott in the current environment. Why this is, I do not know. Nonetheless, the numbers do not lie.
 
Pessimistic said:
Is it too much to ask for threads to make sense ? Where did the last four posts come from ?
Click to expand...
I replied to you with information on why this thread makes no sense, but Caesar deleted it. I will await a call by Chief before repeating that info as it will just get my post deleted again.
CM86 said:
So, the media has no influence on voters. Campaigning on leaders of the opposite party doesn't influence voters. Attacks on the opposite parties doesn't influence voters. Costings don't influence voters. Having inconsistent policies doesn't influence voters. Lack of policies doesn't influence voters.

What influences voters?
Click to expand...
Haha. ***king genius.

Unfortunately, pointing our Caesar's errors has no influence.
 
Caesar said:
Was it? IIRC it had very little impact on the 2PP vote trend. Gave her a big boost in her personal approval rating, but that was about it. Labor's actual vote improved slightly, but that was following a trend that had been happening before the speech.
Click to expand...

On its own it was effective. Going at Abbott once for treating sexism as a political plaything was cutting and caused Abbott a bit of a hit. It also, more than anything got Gillard a bit of attention when much of the country had turned off her. Previously their slow gain had come from promoting good policy with their "deal with the facts" and "getting things done" mantra. This was really good base political campaigning about building up your record in government. And it was working, slowly but surely.

The problem with the misogyny speech was that it caused her (or her advisers) to think that was the solution to all their problems. It meant that as soon as they started going south again they looked for the hail mary of something similar but it had lost its sting and just looked desperate. I was particularly disappointed by their change in tactics since for a short while there they were actually running a very good message of competence and delivery.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top