Very important to remember, as this article mentions, that the Coalition did not win the last election. Labour lost it thru the perceived gross political mismanagement of Rudd and Gillard.
It looks like Abbott will stop the boats, but at what cost to our regional friendships? And once the boats do stop, how will he repair some real damage to our north? He's not a mug, a fact the ALP misjudged from the start of his leadership, so perhaps he will pull a regional balance out of the mix. However, his fixation on all things USA might not be a great help in this.
The economy is volatile. Good luck with all that.
And other than Abbott? Malcolm is waiting quietly in the wings for another call. If the Libs give him a chance, I expect he would lead with more circumspection the next time around.

It has to be remembered that Tony Abbott only won his party's leadership ballot by one vote. This is not a ringing endorsement and serves as an indicator to possible challenges in the future. Although the Liberal Party is generally better than Labor at keeping their internal squabbles behind closed doors with only an occasional peep at what is happening behind.

But would a change of leadership make difference? Would there be a shift in improving transparency, something this government appears to hold with disdain.

My biggest concern is the lack of transparency around the TPP negotiations and the risk that corporations will be able to sue governments should their laws and regulations affect profit potential (ISDS). The leaked chapters of the TPP give cause for concern but is there any information coming from the government? Not a brass razoo. In fact DFAT banned media from an 'open' public consultation on the TPP in Sydney at the end of 2013.

I can't say if Labor would have been any better on this front either. It seems we are determined to corporatise governments, a further affront to democracy of 'we the people'.

Graham it's very easy in giving political analysis of this kind to overlook the appalling behaviour of the Left and Greens, and the failure of their governance in Australia. It is also easy to repeat the Labor argument that Abbott is unpopular. This attack on him for several years is why it is easy to repeat it. Where is the analysis of this, compared with Rudd/Gillard, whose performances were patently disgraceful. Another point is that the Rudd/Gillard v Abbott is a very polarising debate in which the writer automatically loses a large percentage of the readership, who might be fed up with writers pushing one view or another ( as if they belong to one side or the other). We have a new government, we have a terrible previous government, we have a long a public record of misgovernment from Labor/Greens. Too early yet to be judging, in my view. But don't you feel we are already winners with the boats being stopped and not having a frantic PM on the news every night and day, or national and domestic issues managed in a mature way?

Amazingly, Labour did not actually create the mess everybody is talking about. It is easy to forget the appraisals of the treasurer's EU counterparts, when they praised his handling of the Australian economy through the GFC. The then Labor government invested in the economy from the bottom up. This created cash-flow and therefore jobs. They did so by borrowing, a normal business strategy, in order to keep the impacts of the GFC from our doorstep. Compared to other countries, Australia's debt was relatively low and for this Wayne Swan received the accolades. It was only the Liberals that predictably, once seated at the desk, set out to paint a gloomy picture that was supposedly hidden from the eyes, even of treasury... I think not. Before the election Abbott said he would turn back the boats, cut the carbon and mining taxes and put the economy on an even footing, aiming at a return to surplus. Well, he has started to turn back the boats, offending our northern neighbours and the UN. He has attempted to cut the carbon tax and in doing so, make a start at cutting funding for sustainable projects that actually create sustainable jobs. He did not lie to the public and has attempted to do what he said he would do. The wrecking ball is swinging but after the demolition, what will follow? I absolutely agree Graham, a good article that asks some serious questions.

<< Abbott won the last election in a landslide >>

Not really. Labor lost in a landslide and Abbott’s team was the only alternative. And a pretty ugly one for most voters.

<< The first problem is the nature of the win >>

Absolutely!

<< The second problem is the electorate's expectation of performance >>

Is it? I mean, how many people expected Abbott to do well? He’s doing about as well as expected, I would think.

With the political doctrine that the Coalition holds, he never had a chance of becoming a good and/or well-liked PM.

And therein is the REAL problem. The absurdity of never-ending rapid growth, especially in population, which means that we have a never-ending rapidly increasing demand for everything and increasing pressure on all our resources, services and infrastructure.

The day that a political party sees this as the core issue and goes to the polls with a platform of sustainability, rather than gross and utterly absurd antisustainability, is the day we might just be able to regain a bit of respect for our politicians and welcome a leader that can both do a lot of good and be well-liked.

But until that happens neither the Coalition nor Labor have got a hope in hell of doing significant things to improve the lot for ordinary Australian citizens.

It appears the popularity of Shorten is also because he seems to care about the health of middle income families and Australian manufacturing and how this helps create a more moral, inventive and patriotic society.

The other side seems more interested in the global economy.

The polls are probably right about Abbott, but is it really likely that voters would kick out the Coalition after just one term, and return to the most incompetent and dim-witted mob ever to hold office in Australia – Labor?

And if “… electors actually like what Labor was promising”, why didn’t they return Labor to office? Perhaps because many in the electorate did not want billions spent on NDIS and Gonkski, but did not say it aloud before the election because it’s not the done thing to deny anything to the disabled or the kiddies, but they thought Abbott would cut the big spending and big government.

And, as Graham says, Abbott has gone quiet, and people are generally peed off with his switch from tough guy to wimp. That sentiment, however, could hardly lead to the desire to replace Abbott with Shorten, one of old gang we had for 6 years, with his bleating and baaing and telling the electorate that he will stick with the carbon tax no matter what the people want.

Anything, including Abbott and the Coalition, is better than going back to that.

As for the “open hostility” to Clive Palmer, the hostility comes from the media, not necessarily from the voters who don’t get much chance to air their views publicly; and we all know whose side the media is on.

From the Liberals' point-of-view, they played their cards well: As in many card games, knowing that their opponents replaced a '2' (Julia) with a '3' (Rudd), it was a good tactic to hit them with a '4' (Abbott) - why place an ace or a joker on the table when it's possible to keep them for later?

Politicians are there to serve themselves and will always remain the enemies of ordinary people. We should get rid of them all and vote directly for the issues at hand rather than for personalities.

*they don't understand they didn't win, Labor lost*.

That says it all.

Peter Clack, my analysis is based on polling. I report what the respondents are saying, not my own views. What you say may be true, but if it is not what is coming through in the polling, then it won't appear in an article like this.

NTP, I tend to think that Abbott will win the next election fairly easily, but only if he changes his approach. He's shown adaptability before, and no reason to think he won't adapt again.

Shorten is travelling well partly because he hasn't been tested. That will come as well.

But nothing is for certain, and Abbott's fall from grace appears to be pretty rapid. I can't check because Newspoll doesn't have results on the web back that far, but I don't think Howard faded this quickly post 1996.

it amazes me how people keep saying that Abbott did not win the election but Rudd/Gillard lost it. Usually it it those who insisted Turnbull would replace Abbott and then through sour grapes could not graciously concede defeat who sprout this line. How slow to remember that after only one term Gillard knifed Rudd and then had to do sleazy deals with Greens, Independants, and Slipper in order to form what many considered a total sleazy illegitimate Government. Shorten was a large player in that Government. If ever a Government 'won'by default it was Gillard and her sisterhood.

Very interesting that this article in The Australian of 18th january is accompanied by a bar diagram which shows that Bill Shorten is now, by a narrow margin, Australia's preferred prime minister. Strangely, no mention of this noteworthy fact is made in the text (see above). But in case any readers are left in doubt, there is a picture of Mr Shorten, with the caption "Bill Shorten has made a weak impression on the electorate."

Such is the environment in which Australian politics is conducted today, in the Murdoch press and, sadly, elsewhere.

I seem to remember Abbott was quite prepared to do some sleazy deals to win power too, including a Carbon Tax. I reckon all the backroom discussions and deals should be done in the open and on record so the public can see what is going on.

Dear Runner,

<<it amazes me how people keep saying that Abbott did not win the election but Rudd/Gillard lost it. Usually it it those who insisted Turnbull would replace Abbott and then through sour grapes could not graciously concede defeat who sprout this line.>>

I feel that I need to respond as one of those who in the recent elections gave their preference to Abbott in order to kick Labor out.

I am not in love with Turnbull or any other politician. ALL parties and all politicians have bad policies, so I had to choose the party with the least worse policies, which wasn't easy. When it came to choose between Labor and Liberals (somewhere towards the bigger numbers on the ballot papers), my clear priority this time was to stop the NBN.

Though I was part of the transition that brought Abbott to power, I never approved of many of Abbott's major policies, such as "stop the boats"; paid maternal leave; removal of the mining tax; his "direct-action" on the so-called "climate-change"; and his failure to bring back Workchoices.

Are opinion polls relevant at this stage in the election cycle? Anyone surveyed now knows that the election is more than two years away and it doesn't matter who they nominate as preferred Prime Minister. Is there a 'neither of them' option for preferred Prime Minister? That would be the first choice for many disenchanted voters.

Just don't vote for either of the two major parties or the Greens. They are all owned by the banking military industrial complex.

Nothing will change. We will just go into deeper debt because our private banking system creates our growth + inflation as debt. If we have any growth under this system,debt exceeds growth unless we sell off massive quantities of resources for a song.

While your poll indicates Abbott losing popularity I think it is way too early for anyone to forecast his demise. I do agree people are watching and I think Abbott has the goods to reinforce their support.

I think once people realise Abbott and Morrison have stopped the boats despite the hinderance of the Indo's and the ABC interference his popularity will rise.

On this issue Shorten merely bleats ever changing negativity. eg 'Abbott lied about turning back the boats.' 'Abbott is secretive about Asylum seekers.'

I think once again when people realise Abbott and Hockey took an adult and sensible view about Holden his popularity will rise.

On this issue again Shorten merely bleats ever changing negativity. eg 'Ford and Holden leaving was all Abbott's fault.' 'Uncompetitive industry should be supported by Abbott.'

I think once again when people realise Abbott and Bishop dealt with the labor mess in Indonesia in a mature and controlled manner his popularity will rise.

On this issue again Shorten merely claimed it was all Abbott's fault.

I think once again when people realise Abbott and Bishop have absolutely dominated the Indo's and returned the relationship to some sort of normality his popularity will rise.

Shorten cannot even acknowledge the Indo's, like the ABC, have gone all quiet.

The biggest single indication that Abbott has turned the tables on these issues is that the ABC no longer harps on about them. And Shorten has started his silly one termer attack.

Over the longer term people will realise Abbott has the policies and team to deal with the labor messes and in time will get rid of the carbon and mining taxes and fix the labor economic mess.

Shortens performance has not received anywhere near the scrutiny of Abbott both as Leader of Opposition or PM.

It will become patently obvious Shorten is inadequate, has no team, no policies and continually flip flops on populist stances and shows very little forethought or political nous.

And of course sometime prior to the next election Shorten will have to deal with the political machinations of a politician who destroyed two labour PM's, one twice.

Long-term Abbott holds all the aces, from union corruption up to Labor's overpromising and economic mismanagement. He will play them all. One-termer, no let's wait and see how many terms he wants to win. And let's see how the Labor Party continues to shred itself.

"Those who supported Abbott at the last election wanted the "mess" cleaned-up, but instead of immediately embarking on an energetic program Abbott and his government suddenly went quiet."

Exactly!
I enjoyed this article, because it is one of the most insightful I have read on the current Australian political landscape.

Abbott has disappointed many Coalition followers who looked to him to fix the obvious mess Labor made in their time in office, but that hasn't happened.
Except maybe the slowing down of 'The Boats', but at what price with our relationship with our closest neighbors? Certainly, they could have been more diplomatic.

One thing no one predicted before the election is that Abbott and Co would actually be quiet post election though...

Polls raise a lot of questions about polls.

Abbott is doing what he promised before the election, quietly going about the business of governing. The contrast with the human headlines, Kevin Rudd and Julia Whatshername, is obvious.

Acting the political celebrity, entertaining journalists and pursuing populism is not the way. Government has to manage well and that requires a steady hand on the tiller and lots of hard work. What will win for Abbott is his ability to use all of his team, which includes backbenchers. PMs who take the easy path and rely on the Executive as the sounding board, to avoid broader consultation and to make all decisions will pay a high price eventually. Abbott needs to take the high, hard road and keep all of his parliamentary colleagues busy doing real work and not sitting back for the 'Boss' to discover needs, make recommendations and carry the load implementing them.

Abbott appears to be doing that, ie involving his team, which again stands in stark contrast to the one man bands that went before. The massive egos of Rudd and Julia Whatshername saw them monopolising the stage. That suited lazy journalists, particularly where their own masters are busy trying to sort online publishing. However it is not the Westminster way of doing things, or of being accountable. Ministers need to make an appearance, but only where there is something concrete to announce. As well, they should be choosey about the forums to make announcements. Otherwise it becomes the circus that the previous government was noted for.

I would say that Shorten is taking the risky course of easy, unaccountable populism and he will pay the piper for that in the fullness of time.

I am sure the electorate prefers an effective, hard-working team with a leader who is willing to delegate, while insisting on solid results rather than brief flares of 'creativity' and 'initiative'.

At the next election we will be asked if we want more boats, more debt and deficit, more uncosted mega policies, more CO2 initiatives, more socialism, more ALP/Greens coziness and more Union corruption? By the time the next election comes round there will also be a long list of items ticked off.

Add to this the findings of the Royal Commissions, the Expenditure Review the Productivity Commission and the Court proceedings into trade union/ALP corruption and there will be little remaining of the political left to vote for.

TA is also about to “bomb” the Greens/ALP policies on de-carbonization as the Eurocentric remnants of the great CAGW scam continue to implode.

This weeks batch of headlines say all you need to know about just how quickly this is all collapsing, with even Jon Snow of the BBC getting “mugged by reality”.

Europe In Full Retreat: Re-Industrialization More Important Than Climate Change - Die Welt, 20 January 2014

Green Fade-Out: Europe To Ditch Climate Protection Goals - Spiegel Online, 15 January 2014

Panicky German Government To Cut Green Subsidies From Next Week - Reuters, 20 January 2014

Green Lobby Alarm: “Green Energy Switch Threatens To Be Derailed.” - Bloomberg, 20 January 2014

Jon Snow Mugged By Reality: ‘EU Energy Crisis - Prepare To Abandon Energy Targets’ – BBC Channel 4 New, 20 January 2014

Europe To America: We Want Your Shale Gas - National Journal, January 16, 2014

Russia Wakes Up and Smells the Shale - The American Interest, 19 January 2014

Obama’s Energy Secretary: UK Shale Gas ‘Would Last For 50 Years’ - The Times, 18 January 2014

Depressing reading for the warmertariat, but just wait until this is all made public and MSM get thrown to the wolves along with the rest of the liars and cheats.

The longer the MSM censors such news the greater the public reaction when they do find out.

Go get ‘em Tony.

What's going to be important is not so much
what's been happening in the past - but what will be happening
in the next few years. And, predicting that is
a risky business at the best of times.

One of the most interesting articles that I've read
on Tony Abbott in recent times is in the following link.
Others may also find it of interest:

http://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2013/july/1372600800/waleed-aly/inside-tony-abbotts-mind

Dear Spindoc,

<<Go get ‘em Tony.>>

Hasn't this Tony promised "direct action" against the so-called "climate change"?

Chicken don't catch mice!

@ Yuyutsu << Hasn't this Tony promised "direct action" against the so-called "climate change"?>>.

Absolutely, that is of course dependent upon there being “climate change”. If it is still around politically he has no choice but to implement direct action, he is stuck with that promise. He won’t spend much on it anyway as he doesn’t believe in it and it won’t require legislation.

On the other hand the way things are going he won’t have to do anything because the whole thing is imploding, which will let him off the hook. He knows that because he is not getting his information from the ABC or Fairfax.

When we do get information about any “need” for action on CAGW, it will be from TA and he will point out that it has all collapsed, point to the EU and say hey! Why are we doing anything when the EU is walking away from it?

Without anyone else responding to the CAGW scam, we won’t. Tony just has to wait whilst it all crumbles then do nothing.

Simples.

Sorry Graham, you've got this one wrong. Sure your poll may be telling you we are a little disappointed that Tony is going so carefully, but you didn't ask if we want another idiot Whitlam/Rudd like fool, rushing in with no thought or plan. We know we can't afford another one who gets everything wrong.

Sure we would like some things going faster. Sure we would like to have seen the NDIS & Gonski given the boot, but that is not what was promised.

Try asking next time will Abbotts caution lead to anyone voting for Labor/Green, & you will get a resounding NO.

In fact, if they were honest, the careful Abbott should be bringing praise from the left, for his perhaps overly kind approach, but we know this will never happen. A green/lefty admit they were wrong, cone on.

I used to teach kids how to sail. The biggest problem initially was getting them to look over the bow and not into the bottom of the boat or over the stern. Maybe the most threatening nimbus hanging over Australian political life, 'progressive pat', is the failure to have a global perspective. It's not that our pollies and and population seem to misunderstand global shifts: they just don't seem to understand them at all.

We can look forward to even more insular, tunnel visioned and just plain dumb initiatives, exemplified by the 'big issues' of every morning's news, that play into the hands of virtually everyone else.

Hi Nova986,

It’s admirable that you used to teach kids to sail and that by looking at the bow (the only way to sail), you could draw their attention to the bigger picture.

I’m not sure it’s true that our “population seem to misunderstand global shifts”. I think both the politicians and the population do understand global shifts, at least to the extent that they affect Australia.

I disagree that what you present as “misunderstandings” correlates at all with insular, tunnel visioned or dumb initiatives, not that you mention just what those dumb initiatives might be? Are you going to enlighten us by telling us what your agenda is?

Progressives constantly bombard us with the “global issues” that stimulate only them. The rest of the population are much smarter and focus upon only those “global shifts” that actually impact upon Australians. That way we don’t burn emotional energy on issues that do not “touch” Australians. The progressives on the other hand cover those issues that do not touch the majority, only the over sensitive, emotional, left wing progressives, just like “progressive pat”.

So when you respond on this thread relating to the focused polling about Tony Abbott, can you explain where your post fits into the context and relevance of this thread, how it responds to anything, what you meant by posting it, what you mean by “global shifts”, what you mean by “big issues”, what the “dumb initiatives” are and what is meant by “playing into the hands of virtually everyone else”?

Graham,
I think you are a bit too early with your criticism.

I expect the government has been doing a lot of homework into the mess left by Labor and I further expect the next year or so will se some severe belt tightening. It is most unfair to expect immediate fixes if we want a responsible government.

Have another look in a couple of years.

we should be applauding the reduction in the number of illegal entrants right now.

Graham,

I agree with Banjo, this is far too soon in the electoral cycle to have any significance for the next general election in 2016.

It is however, very relevant to upcoming State elections, particularly in Tassie and SA. The Squalk-a-tariat is going ballistic because this is their very last opportunity to score points against the LNP.

They know that TA will run up to the next federal election with points on the board and the results of various commissions of inquiry that will leave the ALP/Greens in tatters.

Interestingly, the Squalk-a-tariat has failed to realize that it was their outrageous and poisoned rhetoric that cost them the last election. I think this is great because they will guarantee the same result at the next election.

More Tassie and SA polls please.

Hello spindoc

You've pointed out that Abbott is no longer getting information about climate change from Fairfax and the ABC, and is presumably therefor better informed. Have you not noticed that he also ignores the views of the scientific community (when he thinks it appropriate), or are you unaware of them?

You also tell us that it was the squawkocracy's "outrageous and poisoned rhetoric" that cost them the last election. You obviously haven't heard of the Murdoch media, or its role in the recent election campaign. For one with such forthright views, there do seem to be some serious gaps in your information sources.

Hi rotsock,

What a charming collection of assumptions.

If you are a regular reader of OLO you would be well aware of all the international media publications I follow. They are regularly cited here.

You could research these for yourself of course, from both recent threads and from archive. When you have done that you can legitimately point to any gaps in my news gathering that you wish to draw to my attention to.

If you don’t research them and acknowledge them, I will.

Either way you have a choice, you can research the facts and offer an apology for being factually incorrect, or you can forever were the title of “Rude, Ignorant Prat of the Year”. Or as we like to call them RIPY.

There is nothing so pathetic as this fervent belief that the media is 'left-wing'. All media, except for the ABC, which is owned by the public, is owned by big right wing capitalists. Why would a media baron like Murdoch put out news with a left wing bias and promote progressive views when there is this conviction that the left or progressives are anti capitalist and anti business? Why would they undermine themselves?

Our big problem is actually that we do not get enough information from diverse sources with diverse viewpoints.

Thanks spindoc

I could say your response was predictably ad hominem, but the level of bombast and abuse was indeed astonishing. Wow!

As I am writing this I am listening to an interview with Bill Shorten. I must say I'm utterly surprised, that bloke is even more of a dud thatn I thought. He is pathetic with his even more pathetic attacking of Abbott. I can't see even ALP voters to be supportive of this bloke. Simply pathetic.

Wow spindoc, you can dish it out but you can't take it, can you? I don't think I have ever seen a contribution from you that didn't include snide and sneering put downs of those with whom you disagree, yet when you get a mild reaction from rotsock you lash out with yet another insult.

As you are keen on acronyms here's one for you: Spews Pathetic Insults aNd Demeans Other Contributors.

Individual

I agree Shorten is best described as inadequate.

Dear Individual,

<<that bloke is even more of a dud thatn I thought.>>

That's what they want you to believe, to lull you into sweet dreams, then they will replace him a week before the next elections and you will have no time to find an alternative to Abbott.

Graham writes; “While Labor portrays the Liberals as being in favour of the big end of town, they've actually held power since 1996 through the support of blue-collar conservatives in outer-suburban and regional areas.”

I actually think this should be the area of greatest concern for the Libs.

Being blessed so to speak with conservative, Christian fundamentalist, in-laws, with a good smattering of both blue and white collar workers, who live in our rural area, it has been interesting seeing the shift in support away from the government by this little focus group.

There have been three issues that seem to have bitten deeper than most, Hockey lifting the debt ceiling so dramatically which went to the validity of promises to quickly get the book in order, the threat to privatise student loans, and the Gonski retreat. Little mention of the areas I tend to focus on like refugees and climate change.

The statement I found quite extraordinary though was “I have never seem a government so blatant about looking after the rich”. Surprising because this is a reasonably affluent extended family. I would like to say their Christianity might be in play here but their brand is deeply American pentecostal. Further the word 'hopeless' appears to be the most recent adjective of note.

If these guys are taking this view of Abbott then I think he may well be in trouble because as sure as heck he got most of their votes in the last election, even if a few were purely because Gillard was 'living in sin' in the lodge.

While my in-laws probably wouldn't put it in these terms I think they, like most people, get disturbed when they see ideology trumping good governance and that good governance is for all Australians.

Hey Steelee

Is this another case of you employing your usual inaccuracy producing methodology to arrive at your assertions.

lol boy oh boy you are so witless at times

good governance is for all Australians.
SteeleRedux,
We all know that, you should tell the ALP leadership because they're obviously oblivious to that.

have no time to find an alternative to Abbott
Yuyutsu,
I don't think Abbott is any danger for a while. I do however think that policies such as the $200 counselling bizo is a pretty dumb thing. Is there a GST on those 200 bucks ?