Will The Abbot Government be Re-Elected? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Australia.

Moderator: PoFo Asia & Australasia Mods

Forum rules: No one-line posts please.
#14495965
With the Victorian Elections showing that one term governments are possible and the electorate is getting less patient.Can the Abbot Government hold on?

The PM Tony Abbot is being slammed by breakfast TV hosts, a sign that even the failed male models/economic commentators has realized the public really don't like this government, that there is blood in the water and good ratings in ripping into it. The mass of broken promises. the extreme smugness and cretinish denials that they have broken promises, the inability get much of the measures through Parliament, the totally inadequate unfair budget (which is still failing to pass parliament) which has totally failed to deliver any improvement on the bottom line, in fact that budget position has worsened. They are poor media performers, cant negotiate in Parliament, cant perform economically and are rapidly diving to new depths of all time unpopularity.

And this with a pretty pathetic opposition led by a poor cardboard cutout.
#14496077
I think they will be re-elected. This for me is eerily reminiscent of the Howard govt's political trajectory. The Abbott government certainly is unpopular, but I think people will still be wary of returning a Labor led parliament. The six years of Rudd/Gillard/Rudd played out like an embarrassing soap opera.

People will vote for the Libs begrudgingly, with many thinking they're still the lesser of two evils. There's generally an incumbency bonus too, especially during a first term. People generally prefer some consistency, and when faced with two options they don't like, tend to go with the party that is already there.
#14496828
Ornate Placebo wrote:I think they will be re-elected. This for me is eerily reminiscent of the Howard govt's political trajectory.


The current situation is not comparable to Howard's first term. Firstly the polls - no government in the history of polls has polled as bad as this government. Howard certainly burned a lot of political capital in his first term, but the polls were mostly positive for him. Abbott on the other hand had a honeymoon period lasting about a month, and since then its been labor ahead consistently - 14 newspolls in a row and counting. This is completely unprecedented.

Secondly there's the fact that Abbott's opposition style is coming back to bite him. He campaigned so relentlessly against Rudd/Gillard on key leadership issues: trust, stability and no-surprises - with the mantra "put the grown-ups back in charge". What has Abbott done since forming government? He's broken so many promises people have lost count, his government is completely chaotic, and the budget have been full of bad and unpopular surprises. Its not that a government wouldn't normally be able to get away with these things - but after selling himself so hard as the man who would end all these things, they are now a devastating albatross around his neck.

Victoria is proof that one term governments are now possible - and I believe the electorate will now be in a different state of mind because of it. I have always believed that to the extent that there are government 'cycles', the electorate didn't really feel ready to ditch labor at the last election, but felt compelled to because of the extraordinary dysfunction of the government. They wanted to get rid of the Rudd/Gillard circus, but they never really wanted to vote Abbott in. The polls are now confirming this - and it could be that they are regaining their trust in labor now that the trasher Rudd and the 'liar' Julia are gone.

In short, a one term Abbott government is a distinct possibility.
#14499938
GandalfTheGrey wrote:In short, a one term Abbott government is a distinct possibility.


Yes, I agree and I certainly hope so. The only problem is the inability of the opposition to capitalise on the self-afflicted failures. ALP is rising on the polls largely because how bad the LNP is. The Rudd/Gillard ticket was much more popular than Shorten has been. One possibility to guarantee a ALP win will be replace Shorten, tainted as he was with the Rudd/Gillard debacle, with Plibersek. A female leader with centre-left politics who has stayed above the fray throughout ALP self-destruction will be much more popular given the electorates' anger at the austerity budget.
#14501723
HoniSoit wrote:One possibility to guarantee a ALP win will be replace Shorten, tainted as he was with the Rudd/Gillard debacle, with Plibersek. A female leader with centre-left politics who has stayed above the fray throughout ALP self-destruction will be much more popular given the electorates' anger at the austerity budget.


I'll vote for that! I also would have preferred Albanese. Even so, although I don't see Shorten as a great leader, I'm willing to tolerate him if it means getting rid of Abbott at the next election. I think the most important thing now for labor's chances is to maintain unity and stability. As uninspiring as he may be, Shorten doesn't seem to be doing labor's chances any harm at the moment, and I would be loathe to risk disunity within labor with another leadership debate.
#14502620
GandalfTheGrey wrote:I think the most important thing now for labor's chances is to maintain unity and stability.


Yes, a leadership change is not in the cards as long as ALP can afford to sit back and ripe the benefit of LNP's unpopularity. A year ago, few would have predicted a first-term government would be so unpopular. But Shorten comes cross as someone not believing in anything, and has not really come up with much reason for the electorate to vote for him except for the fact he is not Abbott. One possible outcome is more vote to the minor parties and possibly Greens as well rather than to ALP. What do you think?
#14502634
GandalfTheGrey wrote: I'll vote for that! I also would have preferred Albanese. Even so, although I don't see Shorten as a great leader, I'm willing to tolerate him if it means getting rid of Abbott at the next election. I think the most important thing now for labor's chances is to maintain unity and stability. As uninspiring as he may be, Shorten doesn't seem to be doing labor's chances any harm at the moment, and I would be loathe to risk disunity within labor with another leadership debate.


I completely agree here word for word.

Mind you, we haven't reached the point in time where polls are being seen as a actual indication of the next election result. Once we do reach that point their may be all kinds of reassessments of the situation at hand and possible squabbling.
#14518020
Abbot is now being castigated by Andrew Bolt. The Knighthood for Prince Phillip is a dumb move, it was never going to go down well with anyone. Abbot really is struggling to be effective politically let alone running the nation. The Government is still to pass much of it's budget measures, has been generally incapable of passing it's legislation and has massively ballooned the budget deficit, the 'crisis' that was their whole focus that they have managed to make worse not better. Abbot, bad politics of symbols, impotent in the parliament, incompetent with the economy, and lying bastards during the election. Really the only ting they are not doing wrong is descending in an orgy of back stabbing and leadership crisis. Well we can hope. Is there any measure by which this government isn't simply bad?

(mind you even all this Shorten is still struggling to be effective as a cardboard cutout)


http://www.theguardian.com/australia-ne ... ndrew-bolt

"Tony Abbott’s decision to grant a knighthood to Prince Philip “verges on fatal” for his leadership, the conservative commentator Andrew Bolt has said.

Bolt told Macquarie Radio on Wednesday night he was “flabbergasted” by the knighthood decision.

“This is just such a pathetically stupid – gosh, I didn’t mean to be that strong because I actually like Tony Abbott very much – but this is just such a very, very, very stupid decision, so damaging that it could be fatal,” Bolt said. “I thought it was verging on fatal already but this is too much.

“This is a friendless decision, where his friends would feel stupid defending it,” he said."
#14520098
He's being subtly criticized in overseas too. Even in the US;

Australian Leader Alters Course After Losing State Vote

The New York Times

SYDNEY, Australia — Prime Minister Tony Abbott, struggling to keep unhappy political allies from toppling him, said on Monday that he would abandon some costly and unpopular policies and refocus his attention on the economy.

Mr. Abbott, who leads a coalition of Liberal and National Party members, has been in office less than two years, and the next national election is not due before October 2016. But the conservative coalition took a beating in a state election in Queensland over the weekend. A series of missteps and setbacks have dented Mr. Abbott’s popularity so badly that his party’s state candidates there asked him not to campaign with them.

In a speech at the National Press Club in Canberra on Monday, Mr. Abbott said the Queensland election delivered “lessons for us all.” As he reset his policy agenda, he said he would consult with his party colleagues more often, rather than make major decisions on his own.

“These are testing times for our country,” Mr. Abbott said, mentioning slowing economic growth among Australia’s trading partners and rising government debt. “Building a stronger economy is the fairest thing we can do, because it means more jobs, higher wages and more government revenue to pay for the services we need.”

Australian lawmakers have been known to change prime ministers in midterm when they become disaffected. The previous Labor government did it twice, replacing Kevin Rudd with Julia Gillard and then, as the next election loomed, switching back to Mr. Rudd again. Mr. Abbott noted on Monday that “the chaos” of those days was a major reason voters turned away from Labor in the 2013 election, and he warned his colleagues not to go down the same road.

“The previous government appeared to be a perpetual soap opera,” said Dr. Geoff Robinson, a lecturer in history and politics at Deakin University in Victoria State.

Mr. Abbott dismissed speculation that his deputy party leader, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, would garner enough support to replace him. “Julie is a friend of mine,” he said. “She has been a terrific deputy. I believe I have her full support.”

But he acknowledged that he had made mistakes in office. He said the days of “captain’s picks” — decisions made without input from allies — were over.

Mr. Abbott’s missteps — including an unpopular decision to bestow an Australian knighthood on Prince Philip, the husband of Queen Elizabeth II, and a threat to “shirtfront,” or charge into, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia at the Group of 20 summit in Brisbane — have left him open to criticism that he is out of touch both with voters and with his allies in Parliament.

His government has struggled to enact measures he promised in his budget announcement last May, including deregulation of Australia’s universities and co-payments for doctor’s visits. But discontent with Mr. Abbott’s performance seemed to crystallize around the knighthood, announced on Jan. 26.

Senior members of his cabinet refused to endorse the decision. “I’m always of the strong belief that all awards should be for Australians,” Barnaby Joyce, the agriculture minister, said in a radio interview. The Australian newspapers owned by Rupert Murdoch, normally supportive of Mr. Abbott, were roundly critical.

“His own troops found that one very difficult to explain,” said Grahame Morris, a former adviser to an earlier Liberal prime minister, John Howard.

In Queensland, postal ballots were still being counted on Monday, and final results were not expected for up to 10 days. But it was already clear that Campbell Newman, the state premier and Liberal National leader, had lost his seat. Labor, which went into the election with just 9 lawmakers in the 89-seat state assembly, appeared to be headed for a majority of 45 or 46 seats.

John Wanna, a professor of politics at the Australian National University, said that in the past, new prime ministers were generally given a few years to get governing right, while cabinet ministers were free to express dissenting views. “Now, they are all focused on being on-message,” Mr. Wanna said, “and when it is the wrong message, they are all wrong.”
#14520560
According to Jeff Kennett 'it's on'. With cabinet meeting and a bungled (IMO, but not just mine) National Press Club address speech making thing worse.

But then, the 'contenders' such as Bishop and Malcom Turnbull are hardly better. And who wants to lead a government to a electoral defeat? They'd need to re-capture the swinging voters that only barely delivered the 2013 fed. election victory no doubt mostly lost after one broken promise and indiscriminate-anti poor policy after another
#14520612
It's hard to see any more this coalition Government can make to improve things significantly.

In a election campaign they may well do Ok as how the labour Party approaches things will be important.

But the problems are
(1) Unpopular policies. Cuts to services, attacks on medicare. They have failed to sell the need or the fairness of their policy program. It's on the nose, it's seen as unfair and is unpopular.
(2) Credibility. They lied. They promised and them they broke their promises, they they refuses to admit they had. Arrogance. Once the perception with the public has settled on this little can be done.
(3) The Senate won't pass a lot of their budget and polices. Part the makeup of the senate but also the senators don't want to support unpopular policies.
(4) The Budget deficit continues to grow.
(5) Unemployment looks to be getting worse.

They really can't pork barrel and buy votes as this would destroy whatever credibility they have left.
They could just tread water and muddle through but the do nothing option is was part of the Liberals getting rolled in victoria.
They could scrape their policies and try to do something else, but everything they want to do is unpopular and now discredited.


They really painted themselves into a corner in opposition, they have a set program that they have failed to sell, (and in fact is now massively unpopular) and they have failed to get much through the senate with little likelihood they will (so they is no time for the "benefits" of their policies to bite to turn popular opinion around)
#14522687
Abbot is now left hoping for a change somewhere. IF Turnbill is patient he might get through to the NSW elections, a bad result there and he is gone.

Desperate statements but beneath all the bull in the media statements Abbot is not going to change anything. Listened and learned, crap his policies are not popular the only thing that could change the basic popularity of this Government is a change of policies.

"Good Government Starts Now" -- PM Tony Abbot today. So it's been Bad Government before this? Really how long til some interviewer asks him that one?
#14522698
Poll numbers show that Abbott is destined to become a one-term prime minister and the ALP completely turned the tables on the Coalition, leading 57% to 42% this month. The economic situation could be a factor and it's expected that low export earnings and a weak jobs market will hold the country's gross domestic product growth to 2 per cent this year. To make matters worse, Abbott has been mocked for proposing to give an Australian knighthood to Prince Philip and his Oxford education may have made him too pro-British, while the majority of Australian voters have negative views on the British monarchy. William Shorten, the current Leader of the Opposition, seems to be much more popular than Julia Gillard, Australia's first female prime minister, who had to step down prior to the last general election.

[youtube]A11_dlhTUe4[/youtube]

The coalition recorded their worst polling-figures since Communication Minister and leadership rival Malcolm Turnbull last led the Liberal Party in 2009 according to the Newspoll published in the The Australian. The figures reveal that Labor leads the two-party-preferred vote by 14 points, with 57 points to the Coalition’s 43. The Coalition’s two-party preferred rating has dropped three points since December and almost ten points since their election in September 2013.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... eader.html
Last edited by ThirdTerm on 09 Feb 2015 07:23, edited 1 time in total.
#14522699
"the ALP completely turned the tables on the Coalition,"

disagree strongly. the ALP have done nothing. The Coalition government deserves all the "credit" they have made themselves very unpopular by bad policy. Shorten and the ALP have been underwhelming. The Coalition was elected in the main because that ALP tore itself to shreds with Rudd and Gillard. The Coalition electoral victory was primarily due to the ALP.
#14522700
pugsville wrote:The Coalition electoral victory was primarily due to the ALP.


Obviously that's not true, otherwise Paul Keating would not have led the ALP to victory in 1993, after taking down Bob Hawke. The chief factor was logically Murdoch's press hounding of Gillard & then Rudd to pressure swinging voters in 2013.
#14524712
What I wrote originally now seems silly. How the Liberals have unravelled has truly been a sight to behold. Even the conservative media outlets are hammering Abbott and co. relentlessly; and their increasingly occasional defences of him seem half-hearted and watered-down.

You were right, Gandalf - a one-term government is a distinct possibility.
#14524721
Credit to you for be willing to revise your opinions in the light of new facts, pity the Abbot Government can't. (yes cheap shot)

The Sheer stupidity of their behaviour is staggering.

After there poor PR performance is selling their message/budget /policies in there early months of government they have been forced to say that they need to "RESET" , renew , "Good Government Starts Today" (really dumb statement).

But After all the mea culpa's and throwing themselves abjectly before the media and promising "to do better". They still refuse to admit to any mistakes or do anything different. Their plan B seems to being exactly the same as Plan A just talking a faction slower and more loudly to the public can understand (as the public have been somehow dumb in not recognising the sheer brilliance of the Abbot government) how brilliant they are and getting more annoyed when it doesn't.

Policies aside their Media handing is crap. If they were trying to the "we'll be better" renewal argument they really needed somewhere to go from their rather than simply trying to bull through their unpopular policies again.

Mr Hokey is saying they need to have a conversation with the Australian Public,

Mr Hokey, a conversation involves listening.
#14524757
Policies aside indeed. The narrative is so fixed on the internal dramas (the same dramas which the Liberals rightly hammered Labor for only a year or so ago), suicidal and hypocritical backflips and idiotic political moves (the knighthood drama was something I've never seen an equivalent of in my life) that actual policy discussion doesn't even get a look in.

And they only have themselves to blame for removing political discourse from politics.

They keep saying they need to have a conversation with the public. Their effort at this is like having a staffer at the doorway of the Liberal party room speaking quietly on policy while the MPs are all screaming at each other in the background - of course no one is listening to the conversation.
#14526243
The Council on Foreign Relations calling for his resignation/removal;

But competence and popularity are not necessarily the same things. Even conservative Republicans would admit that Obama has achieved major accomplishments in office – they just do not like those accomplishments at all. And Obama, Rajoy, and other rich world leaders, whatever their problems, usually seem to be making their policy decisions based on advice from a retinue of advisors and after careful consideration of policy options. Even leaders criticized for acting too slowly, and offering uninspired policy ideas, like French President Francois Hollande, appear to be capable of running their countries’ day-to-day policymaking. There are world leaders who appear dangerously unhinged, making policy based on whims, advice from a tiny handful of advisers, or some other highly unscientific formula. Argentina’s president, Christina Fernandez de Kirchner, comes to mind, as does Ecuador President Rafael Correa, North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, or Russia’s Vladimir Putin. But none of these leaders run a rich and powerful democracy.

Tony Abbott, however, is in charge of a regional power, a country that is the twelfth largest economy in the world and the only rich world nation to have survived the 2008-9 financial crisis unscathed. Yet in less than two years as prime minister, Abbott has proven shockingly incompetent, which is why other leaders within his ruling coalition, following a set of defeats in state elections, may now scheme to unseat him. They should: Abbott has proven so incapable of clear policy thinking, so unwilling to consult with even his own ministers and advisers, and so poor at communicating that he has to go.

Abbott’s policies have been all over the map, and the lack of coherence has often made the prime minister seem ill-informed and incapable of understanding complex policy issues. In press conferences, Abbott has offered mixed public messages about some of the health care reforms that were at the center of his agenda, and sometimes has seemed unsure himself of what health legislation has actually been passed on his watch. He also has seemed unsure of what he promised in the past regarding Australia’s major public broadcaster – he promised not to touch it – before he went ahead and made cuts to it. He also looked completely baffled on climate change issues at the G20 summit in Australia last year.

Abbott also does not seem to think it necessary to even discuss policy proposals with his top ministers and other leading members of his conservative coalition. His lack of consultation has made it harder for him to pass some critical legislation. In addition, he appears to have one of the worst senses of public relations of any prime minister in recent Australian history. At major economic summits, he has embarrassed Australia with his coarse rhetoric. He recently decided to give an Australian knighthood to Prince Philip, husband of British Queen Elizabeth II, even though nearly half of Australians would prefer the country to be a republic, and even those who support the monarchy disdain actions that look like Canberra sucking up to the British royals. Australia had not given out its own knighthoods for nearly decades, and even to many monarchists the very idea of Australian knighthoods seemed archaic. And if Abbott was going to give out archaic knighthoods, Prince Philip was a bizarre choice. Even among the conservative supporters of Abbot’s coalition, giving a knighthood to the notoriously gaffe-prone and fusty Prince Philip went down badly. Abbott did not appear to have consulted with most of his top ministers before deciding to give Prince Philip the accolade.
#14528270
I think (most of) the coalitions problems were made for themselves back at the last election.

They made promises not to do a whole bunch of things they really wanted to do.

So now when they are trying address the issue of the structural deficit, not only are their actions a bit unpopular but the actions break promises.

This is something that a changed leader is going to suffer from too.

Pretty clear France will be taking a leading role […]

He is even less coherent than Alex Jones. My gu[…]

Yes, and it did not order a ceasefire. Did you ev[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

A new film has been released destroying the offici[…]