on 07-05-2013 10:27 PM
WHEN Julia Gillard stopped the crowd at the National Press Club in January with an election announcement seven months early, the consensus called it a smart move.
Within 36 hours the charging of backbencher Craig Thomson with fraud and a messy Cabinet reshuffle turned those reactions around.
Yesterday's smart became today's chaos.
Nothing has improved and the failure of Gillard and Labor to move the cement-like 30 per cent primary vote has caused Labor strategists to observe that nominating the date made a bad situation worse.
"Naming the date in late January had a frightening impact," said a Labor official. "Lots of voters just painted a big target on the Prime Minister and put it away for September, deciding not to think about it until then."
This strategist suggested Gillard's public appearances serve to remind voters how long it is until they vote.
"They already know what they're going to do," he said.
This explains why Coalition politicians keep spelling out how many days there are until polling day, as Christopher Pyne did yesterday when seeking to divert attention from Sydney Liberal Alex Hawke's assessment of Abbott's paid parental leave scheme as an albatross around the Opposition's neck.
Gillard admits to self-doubt Abbott under pressure on parental leave policy Libs' levy may see mums miss jobs
Liberal pollster Mark Textor reflected this assessment in his Australian Financial Review column:
This is not what Gillard and Labor intended.
on 07-05-2013 10:39 PM
The next truly smart decision JOOLYA!! makes will be her first 🙂
on 07-05-2013 10:57 PM
At least they let the good news out early, of her forthcoming landslide departure 😄
on 07-05-2013 11:01 PM
Nothing like inflicting mental anguish as retribution for the mess we are in huh ?
on 07-05-2013 11:06 PM
What happens next is the big question
Abbott, Turnbull, or Palmer?:|
on 07-05-2013 11:11 PM
Even Co Co would be a step in the right direction 🙂
on 07-05-2013 11:24 PM
Hmmmmmm
Here we go again
AUSTRALIA faces at least a decade of debt until the billions in borrowings under Labor can be wiped from the Budget books, according to economists.
Treasurer Wayne Swan declined to comment yesterday on when he thought the current $144 billion net debt level could be repaid while shadow treasurer Joe Hockey would only say reducing debt was a "medium-term'' proposition.
The Howard government took 10 years to pay down the $96 billion net debt inherited from Labor in 1996.
CommSec chief economist Craig James yesterday said circumstances could change quite dramatically, such as if China ramped up again, but that surpluses still looked three or four years away at best.
"And then you have to look at using those surpluses over a number of years,'' he said. "Conservatively we are looking at 10 years.''
AMP Capital Investors chief economist Shane Oliver also estimated a decade.
"The economy is bigger but we don't have the tail wind at our backs which helped the Howard government,'' he said.
"It is unlikely we will have that over the next decade so I'd say about 10 years.''
on 07-05-2013 11:36 PM
LOL since there are no viable alternatives anything could happen. Until the opposition come up with real policies I'm not sure people will be as keen to vote for them either. This will be a tough election for many voters as there is nobody with the skill required to run this country to vote for....
Sadly I suspect there will be lots of donkey votes, informal votes or people who simply refuse to vote this election.
on 07-05-2013 11:41 PM
Thats why I am thinking it might even give Clive Palmer half a chance
on 08-05-2013 07:30 AM
Thats why I am thinking it might even give Clive Palmer half a chance
Don't even joke about it X-(