It seemed the media had found a new term of endearment – ‘cut-through’ was being used more and more often to describe the ability of a policy or a politician to ‘connect’ with voters. Tony Abbott’s comment that the $250million rebate offered to commercial television stations recently by the Rudd Government was an election year bribe was a case in point. He had made the comment, waited for it to ‘cut-through’ and left the hard work to the media to advertise it for him and work their magic with those voters that were tuned in to the day to day activity of the federal political scene.
The media were onto the story as soon as the word ‘bribe’ passed Abbott’s lips. Was this a form of defamation? Had Abbott just stated that he thought the Rudd Government was in some way corrupt? One could make up their own mind. The term surely gained traction with voters. Another poll showed Abbott and the Coalition favoured over the Government in terms of their ability to manage the economy, and only five percentage points behind the government in terms of who was best able to manage the issue of climate change.
The policy of the week was sure to be that of Abbott’s intention to introduce local hospital boards to take ownership of policy in public hospitals and to better affect improvements in the ability to provide doctors, nurses, and beds where and when they were needed. Again, Abbott’s interest was in announcing a scheme that would ‘cut-through,' creating a popular reaction with voters and a reaction of some sort with the media. The latter was guaranteed.
The media loved terms that would resonate with voters. ‘Quick-fix’ was one used to describe Abbott’s local hospital board(s) policy and a term unlikely to engender a positive response from readers of the paper that day. Health was always going to be a big issue in any federal election. But it was no less so currently as a result of promises made by the Rudd Government to address deficiencies in the public hospital system directly. All care taken but no responsibility was the way the role of the federal government could be interpreted at present. Promises made were sure to be broken within Rudd’s first term. Did this mean he would take the issue of health and the public hospital system generally to the election with broken promises hanging over his head?
The media had, for decades, rightly or wrongly, considered health to be a strength for Labor, a weakness for the Coalition. Thus any Coalition proposal would likely be met with negative headlines such as ‘Abbott’s Quick Fix.' It was just par for the course.
But Rudd seemed to be segregating himself from the electorate. When asked in mid-February why further progress had not been made on health reform, his response was ‘lame’ to say the least. He said his government had been working hard over the past 18 months to alleviate the affects of the Global Financial Crisis on the Australian economy (by spending billions of dollars of the taxpayers' money).
Excuses, not reasons, abounded. His ability to ‘cut-through’ (there’s that term again) with the electorate was diminishing as the week’s progressed. The latest polling in Queensland showed the federal government losing ground by as much as nine percentage points. And Queensland was the state in which Rudd had a home ground advantage. Mind you, he also had in office a rather unpopular Premier in Anna Bligh.
Rudd’s health, so to speak, was in question.
The week also saw Peter Garrett escape to Coffs Harbour in northern NSW, to show concern for potentially at risk species of one kind or another whilst meetings were being held in Canberra in his absence. These meetings related to the catastrophe that the insulation program had become for Garrett, Rudd, and the federal government.
Meanwhile, Abbott’s IR spokesman, Eric Abetz, was interviewed by David Speers during the week, on Sky News PM Agenda. Someone should have told him before his appearance that a striped tie does not go well with a striped shirt.
Speers was as objective as can be expected in such circumstances. When asked if anyone would be worse off under the Coalition’s proposed IR policy, Abetz all too readily said he didn’t believe anyone would be worse off. Abetz must have been living in an ideal world. Speers had his man. A good day’s work. Another political scalp. Speers would sleep well that night.
Tony Abbott was more effective than his spokesman when commenting on potential policy ideas, and the likelihood the Coalition would espouse support for greater flexibility within work practices, a reduction or change to unfair dismissal laws as they applied to small businesses, and the ability for workers to once again sign non-unionised individual contracts.
Julia Gillard, somewhat quiet of late, keen not to be seen as complicit in the total failure the insulation program had become, was in this instance happy to talk... about ducks. She was of the view that if it walked liked a duck, and looked like a duck then it probably was a duck. In other words, she was doing her best to call Abbott’s IR policy ‘Work Choices,' the one policy more than any other that had brought John Howard undone in 2007. Abbott was smart, pragmatic, and progressive. He and Gillard would fight a good fight over IR in coming months. It would be a fight not to be missed. One thing was for sure – they had a keen respect for each other. Abbott had even said at one time that once they got off the topic of politics, Gillard made a fine companion. Gillard was the Prime Minister in waiting. Abbott held a similar position.
Yet the Rudd Government’s bad luck continued. Stephen Conroy was announcing details relating to the $42 billion National Broadband Network – locals seemed to think such expenditure was clearly an example of the government of the day making poor use of the taxpayers' hard-earned money.
Abbott’s comment about an “election year bribe” led to Rudd attempting to deflect attention from the negative by holding a press conference on homelessness and government programs designed to improve it. But none of the issues causing the government harm seemed to be going away.
As the end of the week arrived, Peter Garrett held a press conference to announce the end of the insulation program as we knew it and a reduction in the solar panel rebate. Penny Wong announced that Bondi Beach could dissipate to nothingness over the course of the 21st century. Wong even went into bat for the IPCC, stating that the climate science on which global warming was based was indeed true and correct, save for the odd error associated with published reports. There’s nothing like a ‘true believer’ to pedal a false premise.
In The Australian on February 19, it was reported that “the UN’s top climate change official announced he would resign”, Kevin Rudd’s promise to build 260 childcare centres at schools had led to only three being completed by the end of the week, with a new promise to build only thirty-eight. The Federal Government suddenly decided the $250 million “election year bribe” to commercial television stations would have to be handed back if, as The Australian announced that same day, commercial television “didn’t produce enough Australian content.” This issue was covered in their licensing agreement anyway.
And then in the Weekend Australian on page four, there were six negative headlines, all associated with the insulation program. They read as follows:
“Law firm warned Garrett”, “Ill-fated scheme goes out with a whimper”, “Lives lost in haste to be seen as green”, “Staff left burnt by Rudd workload”, “Arsonist worked despite fire”, “PM stands by minister as roof plan scrapped”.
If Rudd’s paper had been delivered to Kirribilli House that morning, it may have been beneficial for him to have left his glasses at the office.
No comments:
Post a Comment