CAAANBRA: GRIFFITH

Originally Posted August 2013

612ABC Brisbane’s Steve Austin interviewed Kevin Rudd’s LNP opponent in Griffith, Dr Bill Glasson this morning, and frankly, Dr Glasson is talking through his ophthalmoscope. It was an enlightening interview, not because it was the first interview with Dr Glasson since Kevin Rudd was restored to the position of Prime Minister, but because Dr Glasson is absurdly out of his depth. 

For starters, Dr Glasson was out of Australia during the blustery hours leading up to Wednesday’s spill, returning this morning just before his chat with Steve Austin. Dr Glasson may have expected the leadership change, and even have planned for it, and I’m sure his LNP team has briefed him, but he wasn’t here. He hasn’t had time to smell the earth he’s so proud of treading in search of votes.

Like Dr Glasson, I live in Griffith and my workplace draws many of its staff from Griffith. Senior Management, tradespeople and white collar workers are here together on a daily basis. Surprisingly, yesterday morning's water cooler topic was not Queensland’s huge victory in the State of Origin, it was Kevin Rudd. The feeling in the staff canteen yesterday morning was  that the spill had made things right. It was nothing like the sad scene described by Dr Glasson, who suggested that the spill had “neutralised the element of sorrow that had persisted in Griffith” since the Ms Gillard took the Prime Ministership.

This "sorrow" business is news to me. I haven’t been aware of any Griffith-specific “sorrow”. Instead, there has been anger, there has been confusion and there is been disengagement, side by side with pride in having a female Prime Minister, and in what she achieved.

Kevin Rudd is adored by many in his electorate, probably even moreso in the last year, during which time he settled into the backbench and become one of the hardest working local MPs I’ve ever known. Unfortunately, Dr Glasson seems to equate the public face of politics with an attempt to deceive the electorate in some way. He even spoke of his campaign, and that he will continue to promote “grievances”. 

What grievances? I hear you ask. According to Dr Glasson, some of us in Griffith are aggrieved by Mr Rudd’s “tendency to use his division for little more than photo opportunities”. I guess that means he’s using his constituents as props?

If Dr Glasson knew about PR, he’d know that voters hate negativity, so here’s a free tip: leave the "grievances" behind. If Dr Glasson knew about media, he'd realise that it’s inevitable for a former Prime Minister who is still in parliament and incredibly popular with the public to attract media interest. Every one of Australia’s former Prime Ministers attracts media attention. Like Whitlam, Hawke and Keating, Mr Rudd is a senior member of the ALP, a former Prime Minister, but unlike them, he’s been a sitting MP and for the past three years, he's been Prime Minister Emeritus.The only way Mr Rudd could avoid the media would be to lock himself inside his house and close the curtains.

Dr Glasson needs to understand that the local member must be visible to the people in his electorate, that he will be a minor celebrity, and that he will need to maintain a high profile. He will be expected to show up at speech nights, cake stalls, junior sports days, sausage sizzles, churches (and mosques), military ceremonies, random openings and closings, community groups, retirement homes, and if that’s not enough, the local member is expected to take on local issues, as Mr Rudd has in Griffith with the proposed sell-off of school land by the Newman government. Getting your face out there is a big part of being the local member. These are not cynical photo opportunities, as Dr Glasson seems to believe. This is the bread and butter of a politician’s life. It’s something which Kevin Rudd does very well, which is one of the reasons the people around here like him so much.

Dr Glasson questioned Mr Rudd’s track record and said “He [Rudd] was not performing.” Dr Glasson was referring to Mr Rudd’s previous tenure as Prime Minister, not his performance as local MP. 

Another free tip: All politics is local. Its a truism for a reason. 

Dr Glasson also stated that the electorate was polarised. On Wednesday, it may have been polarised. By Thursday, I’d say the polarisation had all but disappeared in Griffith. I experienced none of it – every single person I work with was thrilled with the leadership change.

It’s fair to say that a lot of people in Griffith and around the country disliked and distrusted Julia Gillard. Many couldn’t even tell you why. Australians can be very cruel that way. There was the feeling was that they wanted to vote for Kevin Rudd, but couldn’t support Ms Gillard as Prime Minister. Now, that conflict has been removed, and the clearer choice in no way benefits Dr Glasson’s cause.

Like his leader Tony Abbott, Dr Glasson dug his pit even deeper when asked about policy. Carbon Tax, Carbon Tax, Carbon Tax. Cost of living pressures are related to the Carbon Tax, or course...at least according to Dr Glasson. Cost of electricity – not even a federal issue. Productivity cost of doing business, Carbon tax…but not a solution, a policy or even an idea in sight.

In fairness, I did check to see if Australia does have the second worst productivity rating in the world, beating only Botswana, as Dr Glasson claimed. That’s not really true either. Australia does rank 50th out of 51 in a study of productivity growth, which is not the same as productivity. Details are important.

Dr Glasson has already refused to take part in a local debate against Mr Rudd because in Dr Glasson’s opinion, Mr Rudd has too much debating experience and it would be an unfair contest. It appears that Dr Glasson is entirely unprepared for this political campaign, and even less ready for the life he’d be expected to lead if he was to defeat Mr Rudd.

Dr Glasson still believes that Kevin Rudd is beatable in Griffith. I think that’s unlikely, but in any case, I doubt that Dr Glasson is ready to be a federal politician. 

Follow the Leader

What you see depends on where you stand.

You know what I mean? If I sit at my desk, I can see the palm trees and the giant Moreton Bay fig in the yard. It’s a vista of rich green shapes that fills the window. But if I move about 5 steps to my boss’s desk, the green growth that fills my window is only a small part at the edge of his vision. He sees mainly blue-grey sky, grass, and beyond that, the river reflecting the mood of the sky.

Former Prime Minister Julia Gillard is in a very different place now to where she was just a month ago, and I imagine her view is very different from the back benches. More importantly, Ms Gillard’s view of the future has changed too. I don't know what it is that she sees, but I know it's different, because her perspective is different.

Kevin Rudd has been Prime Minister before, so the view is distantly familiar, but the environment and challenges are different.

Remember  that our views have changed too. Where a month ago our leader was a red-headed woman, it’s now a silver haired man. Change is emotional, for those involved and for those looking on. As a Change Manager, I should be aware of this, and in a professional capacity, I certainly am. As an observer and biased commentator on the political situation, I seem to be less astute.

There is still so much bad feeling lingering after the spill. I had thought that perhaps the Rudd fans who’d been so depressed after the June 2010 spill would have regained their equilibrium and be ready to get on with the job. Equally, I hoped that the Gillard supporters would accept that whether this year’s spill was right or wrong, warranted or not, restoring Rudd to the Prime Ministership has given the ALP a genuine opportunity to win the election and retain government.

The acceptance, the unity I was hoping for just isn’t evident. There is still pronounced ill-feeling, most of it aimed at Kevin Rudd. Those who supported Ms Gillard while Mr Rudd – in their opinion - destabilized the party and white-anted the leader refuse to forgive and forget. Some vow to boycott the ALP and vote Green. Others are still incoherent in their rage at what was done to our first female Prime Minister.

Perhaps we should take notice of how the Australian cricket team has behaved since their spill. South African-born coach Mickey Arthur was never well accepted by Australian cricket fans, so after a string of disappointing performances by the Aussies, Mr Arthur was sacked by Cricket Australia.

The Aussie fans were pleased to see the end of Mickey Arthur, particularly when he was replaced by Aussie bloke Darren Lehmann, better known to all as “Boof”. Boof doesn’t say much to the media. He gets results, and grotesque failure by the Aussie top and middle orders notwithstanding, we almost beat the Poms last weekend in the first Ashes test. No-one expected that.

Unlike politics, the cricket spill seemed to be surgically precise. Mickey was gone, Boof was in, and everyone was happy.

Except Dave Warner. And Mickey Arthur. And Michael Clarke and Shane Watson. First of all, Dave Warner, banished from the Australian team for two tests because of unacceptable off-field behaviour, admitted that his poor attitude and resulting booze-fuelled larks may have been a factor in the decision to give Mickey Arthur the boot. Very perceptive, Dave. Actions have consequences... but the coach failed to manage Dave's behaviour. I'm not making excuses for Dave Warner - he's old enough and experienced enough to know better - but when it became obvious that he had a problem, he should have been counselled and disciplined.

And now, Mickey Arthur is suing Cricket Australia for four million dollars, for wrongful dismissal. Now I don’t know what was in his contract, but if his employment was to coach the Australian team to victory, he failed in most of his objectives. If his contract included doing nothing to damage the reputation of the Australian cricket community, he failed on that measure as well as his team repeatedly made headlines for boozing, blueing, and failing to do their homework.

In his media statements, he has indicated that he was the hapless victim in a feud between Aussie Captain Michael Clarke and opener Shane Watson. Respected senior players like Brad Haddin are falling into line to support their team, denying any kind of contretemps between Pup and Watto. Boof, of course, has remained silent, as he should.

Whether there is or was any klnd of conflict between Pup and Watto is fascinating in light of Arthur’s claims. If there was no feud, Arthur is lying and looking for high profile scapegoats and a big payout. If there was a real feud, Arthur, as coach, should have intervened and managed the situation in whatever way was appropriate. In both cases, Arthur is wrong. I fail to see any "wrongful" in CA's dismissal of the former coach.

Mercifully, whatever had been going on within the Australian Cricket Team under Mickey Arthur is being dealt with, and team is behaving as a team (except for the regular batting catastrophes) and everyone, from fans to players to the Cricket Australia management group is united behind the bloke called Boof.

In the meantime, Labor supporters are still venting their bitterness all over social media. Julia Gillard isn't suing anyone for wrongful dismissal - she's got way too much class for that. In any case, if part of her role as parliamentary leader of the ALP was to lead the ALP to an election victory, she would have found herself soundly defeated. Another female Labor leader would be brought undone.

I understand that her supporters might abhor the way that Mr Rudd replaced Ms Gillard, but that’s done. My loathing is for the way she was treated while in the top job, but standing here at the boss's window, I can see that there was little option but to replace her. Continuing to focus energy on the spill appears as ALP disunity, and helps no-one. Ms Gillard's supporters need to move to a bigger window with a different view. It’s not Rudd versus Gillard that they should be seeing; it’s the Rudd versus the Coalition in the coming election and the view from that window is tinged with hope. 

CAAANBRA: LIBERAL TURDUCKEN

If I had to take a guess, I’d say Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, his trusty Chief of Staff Peta Credlin and her husband, Liberal Party President Brian Loughnane are holed up under a bed somewhere, rocking back and forth and sucking on their thumbs. The unthinkable has happened – again.

First time around in 2010, they lost the election they were supposed to win, because Mr Abbott was so desperate that he scared off the crucial independents and couldn’t form a minority government. Julia Gillard became Australia’s first female Prime Minister.

But the Liberals were not defeated. They simply chose to ignore reality and spend the duration of the 43rd Parliament calling for an election, calling the members of the Government names, and creating the most negative political environment in living memory. With assistance from a largely sympathetic media, the Coalition came into the last three months of the electoral cycle as the unbackable favourite for a landslide victory. All they had to do was not fuck up and victory was theirs. Mr Abbott could be drinking shandies in the Lodge.

Complacency is never a sensible strategy.

Ruddmentum arrived and less than two weeks later, the Coalition’s election winning lead in the polls has evaporated to literally nothing. On current numbers, the election of September 14 looks to be as close as the 2010 election. Having said that, Mr Rudd has momentum on his side right now, and Mr Abbott is struggling to find a media strategy that works in this strange, post-spill world. Mr Abbott is, and always has been, a very effective Opposition Leader. Now that the game has changed, what can he do to regain impetus?

It seems that his strategy has barely changed in the two weeks since Mr Rudd regained the Prime Ministership. Despite no longer being the clear frontrunner, Mr Abbott is still trying to control the game. He is trying to force an election, which he’s been trying to do for the past three years. He’s trying to convince us that he can ‘turn the boats around’, despite the Indonesian government rejecting the policy. He’s stating that he did nothing wrong in the promotion of his book Battlelines, and yet repaid nine thousand dollars that he had claimed for travel expenses while promoting the book. He’s blaming the Carbon Tax for everything and promising to repeal it, without repealing the compensation or reverting to previous taxation arrangements. He’s supporting his copper-wire broadband programme, even though it’s inferior by every measure. Just look at his wishy-washy performance on 7:30 last night:

But for the first time in about three years, not everything is going Mr Abbott’s way. He is being challenged for refusing to appear on the more serious current affairs programmes, and being mocked (yes, by me) for refusing to debate Prime Minister Rudd outside the structures of a political campaign.
Abbott is also being challenged regarding a matter of $9400 in travel expenses which he may or may not have claimed while promoting his book. He has repaid the money…but denies any wrongdoing, and today, tried to blame the ALP for reigniting the issue. In fact, it was journalist Margo Kingston who campaigned hard to bring this issue to the attention of the mainstream media. The ALP was nowhere near it.

Mr Abbott’s biggest challenge is that his strategy for winning the election in September was based on three mainstays:

His opponent would be Julia Gillard
The Coalition would have a comfortable lead in the polls
He – and the media sympathetic to his cause – controlled the national agenda

The re-emergence of Kevin Rudd has knocked those pillars to the ground, and the Coalition strategy with it. Most damaging is the inability of Tony Abbott to continue to campaign in sloganistic notions. Against Kevin Rudd, a re-energised Labor front bench and a less sympathetic media, vague slogans and references to the “glory days” of John Howard’s government will make him look insubstantial and unprepared.

On the other hand, if he continues to avoid real debates and searching interviews, he will be perceived as weak and cowardly.

CAAANBRA: THE CHICKEN DANCE

Dada dada dada Duh, dada dada dada Duh, dada dada dada Duh Duh Duh Duh Daaaahh!

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has refused to debate Prime Minister Rudd in the Press Club until Mr Rudd names the date of the election, and then, he will debate within the context of a political campaign.

I call fowl. In fact, I call chicken. Just two days ago, former Prime Minister John Howard introduced Tony Abbott at an event in Melbourne. The event? It was a pseudo campaign launch, an Address to Victorian Federal Campaign Rally, complete with American style flag waving and banners. Unfortunately for Mr Abbott, the news media was more interested in the born-again Prime Minister, and Mr Abbott’s big media event ran a poor second.

Mr Abbott ended his address with the following call to action:

I say to the Australian people: we are a great people. You are a great people. We are a great country. There is nothing wrong with this country that wouldn't be improved by a change of government and our duty, our duty, every day between now and the election is to work to give that better government to the Australian people. That is our duty and we must pledge every fibre of our being to bring that about.

There is no doubt that that is a campaign speech. Therefore, if Mr Abbott is making campaign speeches, can we not just assume that the campaign has commenced, and start scheduling debates?
I can’t help but wonder why the Leader of the Opposition, whose party is still in a winning position in the polls, choose to avoid participating in the debates Mr Rudd has proposed. Isn’t this an opportunity for Mr Abbott to show off, to illustrate all those points he keeps making about the ALP Government’s financial mismanagement. Isn’t this an opportunity to wrest momentum back from the ALP?


While we’re talking debates, can we please adopt a format that means something? SkyNews Australia’s Town Hall Forums in Western Sydney are interesting, but as one politician follows the other, there’s no opportunity to see the two politicians debate a policy. The traditional Sunday night Channel 9 Debates, with Ray Martin and the Worm are almost as bad.

Let’s have a series of serious conversations between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, each with a topic to be decided on the night. The combatants have to speak to each other, answer each other’s questions and remain civil and respectful throughout. One moderator is there to ensure the conversation remains ‘on topic’ and doesn’t disintegrate into the kind of appalling behaviour we’ve seen in Question Time.

I think the Prime Minister would be willing to give it a go, but I doubt Tony Abbott would be in favour. In fact, he’d probably be happiest with no debates at all.

Dada dada dada Duh, dada dada dada Duh, dada dada dada Duh Duh Duh Duh Daaaahh!

And of course it’s Monday night, and with that, comes QandA. It’s 1050 days – or if you prefer, 2.87 years – since Tony Abbott appeared on QandA, despite what I’m sure is an open invitation. QandA rates well, and is a show which is considered to have gravitas.

I’m sure that the good people at QandA would offer Mr Abbott the same conditions as his last appearance, when he was the sole guest. Surely QandA without a panel to challenge what he says would be a perfect vehicle for Mr Abbott to display his charm, his engagement with the electorate and his knowledge of Coalition policy.

Should we be making plans to mark the third anniversary of Mr Abbott’s last appearance on QandA? Roast Chicken seems appropriate.

Dada dada dada Duh, dada dada dada Duh, dada dada dada Duh Duh Duh Duh Daaaahh!

If I had any interest at all in assisting Mr Abbott, I’d be telling him that he has to change his game plan. The ALP is within the MoE, and the momentum is with the left. Constant negativity is out of favour and the electorate wants more. Mr Rudd is ready.

What are you waiting for, Mr Abbott?

CAAANBRA: Leadership

When I started writing on Wednesday morning, I was considering the loss of two independents from the Australian political scene and what it might mean for future independents. Now, I’m contemplating the loss of at least six remarkable Australian parliamentarians, and even more from the front bench.

Alongside the devastating loss is the restoration of hope – just a tiny shard of hope - that perhaps the good people from the Left can keep Tony Abbott out of The Lodge.

Bringing us this drama was a media that ranged from slick and innovative to angry and partisan.

Extraordinary Gentlemen

Australia is poorer as we contemplate a future without the calming influences of two true-blue gentlemen who for many years have steadied the daily drama within Canberra’s galleries of power.

For many, this hung parliament has brought out the worst: from the leadership instability within the ALP to the mean-spirited Liberal decisions around when they would or wouldn’t grant a pair, from the revelations about Craig Thomson and Peter Slipper to the accusations hurled across the floor, from the political convenience of benching former speaker Harry Jenkins to the empty sloganeering of Tony Abbott, we have seen some of the lowest behaviour imaginable.

Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor gave us the very best they have. They were elected as independents in traditional National Party heartland seats, but the actuality of the hung parliament elevated their roles beyond their electorates. To the disgust of some who thought they should behave as National Party stand-ins, both of these men realised the weight of their added responsibility and made their decisions accordingly.

Their retirements are a double blow to the integrity of our political system. Without the requirements of a political party to drive their vote, these remarkable men were free to vote for what they believed was right, instead of what was politically required. Every vote was a conscience vote.

Most memorable during this period of consistent negativity and nastiness is the dignity these two independents carried with them. Rob and Tony are the examples all of our politicians, all of us, should emulate. Regardless of the stresses of their positions, the daily frustrations and the torrent of malice directed their way, these gentlemen remained good humoured, honourable and humble.

It seems unfair that as independents, these two just walk out of public life. If they belonged to a political party, they’d be Elder Statesmen, choosing which Embassy they wanted to run for a few years. Instead, they go home, which I’m sure is what each of them wants.

Go well, gentlemen, with our thanks. You made a difference.


Spudd

In twitter style, each event gets its own hashtag to identify tweets which relate to that event. When Gillard toppled Rudd, it was #Spillard. Following that logic, last night’s leadership challenge should’ve been Spudd. But we all settled for #spill, it trended worldwide on and off for hours during the evening.

We know the story now: A petition was circulated to pressure Ms Gillard into calling a spill. Mr Rudd did not go to China. The spill was called for 7pm. Bill Shorten switched camps and voted for Rudd, as did Penny Wong. In fact, enough people changed sides to get Kevin Rudd over the line and back into the Prime Ministership. The best blow by blow description has been compiled by the ABC from Wednesday's tweets, mainly by ABC reporters.

Unfortunately, Mr Rudd’s victory is defeat for Australia’s first female Prime Minister. After the relentless attacks she’s had to endure, and the outstanding success she has had in reforming Australia’s education structures, introducing a price on carbon, brokering the MRRT, looking after the disabled in our communities and so much more, she deserves better than being dumped by the party that handed her the Prime Ministership.

Tony Abbott continues to describe the Labor Government as “dysfunctional”. It has certainly been entertaining, and I wouldn’t call it stable, but I can’t accept that a government which has achieved as much as this one has is dysfunctional. It’s highly functional, but like so much of the process of governing, it’s ugly. The best summation of the achievements of this Parliament is contained in Rob Oakeshott’s speech from earlier this week.

Prior to the vote on Wednesday evening, Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd both confirmed that if they lost the leadership vote, they would resign from politics, ending the question of leadership. Julia Gillard did lose, and has confirmed that she will not recontest the safe Labor seat of Lalor, in Victoria. Sadly, some of Ms Gillard’s highest profile supporters have taken this a step further. Former Ministers Craig Emerson, Peter Garrett and Stephen Smith will not be recontesting their seats either.

Former Treasurer and ex-Deputy PM Wayne Swan will move to the back benches, where he’ll be surrounded by his former colleagues in the Ministry including Joe Ludwig, Steven Conroy and Greg Combet.

And still, Julia Gillard is the only woman to have resigned from Parliament this week.


Hate Media

I am sad, and more than a little scared at the likelihood of a future Australia under Tony Abbott, but I am appalled at the level of hatred in some tweets that have come from the right today. Not all conservative voters behave like undignified rabble on twitter, but some do – and some of them should know better.

Chris Kenny, a former Liberal political operative and journalist, now commentator for Sky News, tweeted

Get your dig in there Chris. It doesn’t need to be accurate or honest, just snarky and calibrated to benefit the Liberal Party, right?

Of course, you know that neither Oakeshott nor Windsor is leaving politics out of any desire to duck what Mr Kenny believes would be unacceptable results. People who can’t handle rejection well don’t go into politics. The truth is that Mr Windsor needs to manage some health issues and Mr Oakeshott is done. He’s been 17 years in politics and he’s done. Has Mr Kenny ever worked in the same job for seventeen years?

Sky News Australia has become Fox News Australia in all but name, and as the drama amplified yesterday, the conservative bias became more and more obvious. Paul Murray, whose show airs nightly at 9pm is setting himself up as Australia’s answer to Rush Limbaugh. He is an angry, bitter man filled with and fuelled by hatred for the Labor Party in general and Ms Gillard in particularly. His guests are almost exclusively from the right and further right, turning what was once a reasonably balanced news-chat show into the proverbial echo-chamber of simpering agreement.

Regular guests include former Howard Ministers Gary Hargraves and Peter Reith, Sky News colleague Janine Perrett, serial Gillard insulter Grace Collier, broadcaster Derryn Hinch, conservative (News Limited) columnist Janet Albrechtsen and her partner, Liberal Party has-been Michael Kroger, 2UE talkback colleagues Jason Morrison and John Stanley, economics writer for (News Limited’s) The Australian Adam Creighton, former Liberal Party staffer Chris Kenny, Andrew Stoner, leader of the NSW Nationals…and a light smattering of progressive guests like Peter Bentley of the McKell Institute and former Rudd staffer (and now MamaMia Mama) Jamila Rizvi, and current Labor MP Ed Husic plus some generalist commentators like PR pundit Prue MacSween and editor of the Australian Womens Weekly, Helen McCabe.

Sky News Australia should take notice of some of the comments that were floating on Twitter last night about Mr Murray’s performance. I don’t know if his preference for conservative-leaning guests is the result of an instruction from his employers, or is a personal choice to support the Opposition, but it’s obvious, and it’s far too close a Fox News clone for my liking.

CAAANBRA: Cut and Colour

Some women rave about that hour or two or three that they spend in the salon being coloured, cut and tjuzjed. It’s special girl time, when a woman and her stylist can gossip about Taylor Swift’s army of exes, discuss the latest in nail art and hem lengths and transform a normal woman into someone with potential. Alternately, the client can close her eyes and pretend to be anywhere else while her trusted hair artiste wields chemicals, scissors and hot air blowers in a blur of smelly activity. In any case, a visit to the hairdressers is rarely an intellectual experience.


It looked as though my appointment at the budget salon was going the same way, until my stylist asked what I was reading on my iPad. It was twitter – my post-work preference for catching up with the political to-ings and fro-ings of the day.

I’ll admit, I was not shocked to learn that 20 year old Natasha isn’t interested in politics. She’s twenty, and hasn’t voted before. I was prepared to abandon the conversation in favour of some blessed silence (not that silence is ever popular in the hair salon on Thursday night) but no. Natasha had to tell me that she hates Julia. Hates her. Hates her with the heat of a thousand suns.

“Why”, I asked, genuinely interested to learn why a woman who is not interested in politics has such a vehement hatred for our first female prime minister.

She shrugged her shoulders and answered “Dunno.”

I followed up: “Has the PM done anything specific, passed any legislation that you’re not happy about?” I was giving her the chance to raise the Carbon Tax, or talk about Kevin Rudd’s exit from Prime Ministership, or Ms Gillard’s refusal to support marriage equality or her position on asylum seekers.

“Dunno”, she shrugged again, pointy-ended comb flying. “Dunno what she’s done. I just hate her.” Natasha made a disgusted, puckerface shudder that took over her whole body.

My inner Bryant Gumbel wanted to ask “But Whyyy?” when my true lefty self took over.

“Oh. Would you like me to tell you about some of the stuff she’s done?”

“Oh Gawd, No! I’m not interested in politics! Really I don’t care!”

The last thing in the world that I wanted to do was provoke the young woman who was cutting and colouring my hair…and who, in just a few minutes would be pouring heated wax onto my eyebrow area. I should’ve stopped.

I kept talking. “Is it the Carbon Tax?” I asked, moderating my tone to sound effortlessly neutral.

“I don’t like tax. Why would I want to pay more of it?” she asked hotly.

This one deserved an explanation, so I explained.

“Oh.” She paused. Even the frantic hair-related activity stopped for a moment….and then they started again. “Well, I still hate her. She’s vi-i-i-ile…but she’s better than the budgies bloke. He’s scary! I guess if you think Julia’s okay, you probably hate Abbott!”

I was impressed. I did not for a moment think that she would know the name of the Leader of the Opposition. I hmmmed an agreement.

Nodding is dangerous when you’re seated in at a stylist’s station. How every hair salon on earth hasn’t been classified as a major Hazard Facility is a mystery to me. President Obama could shut down Guantanamo Bay and replace it with a chain of salons and probably achieve the same result. There’s the too-hot/too-cold water torture, the unqualified agony of sitting for hours in an uncomfortable chair with nothing to look at except a poorly lit reflection of your own face. There's a horrifying selection of blades, lethal chemicals designed to change the molecular structure of human tissue, lots of electricity, hot wax, tweezers…

In any case, when your stylist is working on your hair, don’t nod, even if its to signal your agreement regarding the scariness of Tony Abbott. But that was just about the only time he was mentioned. Natasha thinks he’s nowhere near as good as the good Aussie bloke that Kevin was. Is.

“Fair shake of the sauce bottle, Sal! Kevin’s a great Aussie bloke. There aren’t any other great Aussie blokes in politics. We need more like Kevin. He’s awesome! I mean, who else would say ‘fair shake of the sauce bottle’?”

Aaahhhh, does Natasha’s hatred of Julia stem from the simple truth that here, in the heart of Griffith, Julia isn’t Kevin?

Natasha doesn’t think she’ll vote this time. She can’t bring herself to vote for her local member – even if it is Kevin – because that’s a vote for Julia. She won’t vote for the Liberal candidate, because that’s a vote for Budgie Boy. She wouldn’t vote for anyone else either: “Why vote for anyone else? Y’gotta be on the winner, doncha!”

I don’t know how much this little pocket of eastern Brisbane suburbia resembles the western suburbs of Sydney, but I suspect it’s more than many want to admit.

Meanwhile, one of Labor’s big problems is how to win the hearts and minds of people who hate Julia Gillard but have no clue as to why. I doubt Natasha is the only one. How do you argue against pure, illogical emotion?

I pondered this, though not hard. I was distracted by the off cuts of hair, clinging to my neck with maliciously itchy intent.

Crystal Balls

Today, many many political brains with far more wisdom than mine are staring at sets of polling data with all the intensity of a gypsy reading her crystal ball. The ALP folk are vacillating between private exaltation and disbelief, while the Coalition team are clinging to statistics of the past two years, discrediting the wavy images in the glass and looking to the left for someone to blame. Psephologists are trying to decipher two sets of polling data released in the dead of night and find something meaningful in it.

The answers is seems,are the same. Labor is gaining momentum, the Coalition is losing ground, but if an election was held last weekend, Tony Abbot would be Prime Minister…and many Australian voters would be unhappy about that.

The Polls – Newspoll and Nielsen – are shockers for Mr Abbott. According to Nielsen, Ms Gillard is starting to edge away in the Preferred PM stakes, as well as having a higher approval score and lower disapproval score. The Better PM measure, according to Newpoll, has Gillard jumping 7 points and Abbott falling 6 points in the last month.

But does it mean anything?

Previous Newspolls are showing a 2PP trend, with the ALP showing a slow, consistent climb. In the two years since the last election, the numbers have been bouncing around a fair bit, but the Coalition has been ahead for most of that time. I’m comfortable calling this steady climb a trend.

Bear in mind that there is still a deep dissatisfaction with both federal leaders, and close to one quarter of voters would shun the two major parties, according to Nielsen…which begs the question of whether a 2PP measure is even relevant anymore.

The psephologists are also stirring the leadership pots by predicting how the results might look if Kevin Rudd was Prime Minister, opposing Tony Abbott – and Labor would win, although Mr Rudd isn’t as popular as he used to be. Then switcheroo Malcolm Turnbull for Tony Abbott, and the pendulum swings back the other way.

But according to Newspoll, and assuming that Nielsen keeps trending the way it is, in another few months, we’ll be in the same place we were in August 2010, when we last tried to elect a federal government. A lot of polling distance has been covered in that time, but just how much has changed?

Move the statistics to one side, and rather a lot has been achieved:

Australia now has a Carbon Tax, and a Mining Tax, a new health system with a 50% increase to hospital funding, a new dental health scheme, a single national school curriculum, the National Broadband Network is rolling out, an increase in trades training, and in training places, and we almost have an National Disability Insurance Scheme. Oh, and Australia survived the Global Financial Crisis better than any other developed economy.

Our Government has also made an absolute hash of our approach to asylum seekers, has ignored one of our own citizens, Julian Assange, has failed to broker an acceptable deal to preserve the Murray Basin and has failed to act on Same Sex Marriage and Poker Machine Reform. It’s endured the Peter Slipper and Craig Thompson fiascos, and maintained the support of Rob Oakeshott, Tony Windsor, Adam Bandt and occasionally, Andrew Wilkie.

The polls might be close to our starting point two years ago, but Australia is looking very different.

I’m sure that right now, the ALP strategists (formerly faceless) are thanking Campbell Newman, Barry O’Farrell and Ted Bailleau for being so united in their mission to annihilate the Public Sectors in their respective states. There’s been talk of the Newman factor, but the three Eastern premiers together are far more effective at demonstrating current Coalition/LNP policy.

The fact that Whyalla has not fallen victim to a Carbon Tax Armageddon might also be a factor in lightening the ALP burden. Tony Abbott’s current problems with his past, and his dreadful performance on 7:30 a couple of weeks ago will be boosting the ALP’s stocks as well.

I can see the next six months’ worth of polling continuing to close the gap, although it won’t always be steady. After that, it’s anyone’s game. Mr Rudd will probably become less of a factor while Mr Turnbull, who has been biding his time, raises the roof.

Bring it on.