Will Shorten get the short shrift?

[Black Orchid]

Christopher Pyne has always enjoyed the theatricality of politics and he didn't miss the opportunity this week presented by Anthony Albanese's notorious speech. “The bloodied dagger masquerading as a speech," Pyne called it, "plunged into the chest of the Leader of the Opposition." Was Albanese's speech really so treacherous? It didn't need to be.

In the careful assessment of his inner circle, Albanese already had the support of most of the Labor caucus to become leader in the event that the party were forced to make a choice. The events of this week only confirmed that conclusion.

The first thing to know about Albanese's Gough Whitlam Oration is that he sent the text of his speech to his leader's office on Friday afternoon, hours before he delivered it to the Shellharbour Workers' Club south of Sydney that evening.

Shorten's staff sent back two suggested changes. Albanese incorporated both. Shorten had every opportunity to read the speech and to propose edits. He took the opportunity and Albanese obliged. So much for treachery.

The second thing is that the speech was a positive and uplifting appeal for a big, broad, reforming Labor government. Most media coverage interpreted it as a critique of Shorten's leadership. This is a reflection on Shorten's shortcomings, not Albanese's apostasy.

The main news angle was that Albanese had obliquely attacked Shorten by speaking of the importance of working with business. Two brief samples:

One: "Successful Labor governments collaborate with unions, the business sector and civil society to achieve positive outcomes in the national interest. Strong leaders like Hawke and Keating understood that engagement with interest groups is a crucial pre-condition for change."

Two: "Our job is not to sow discord. It is to bring people together in the service of the national interest. Labor doesn’t have to agree with business on issues such as company tax rates, but we do have to engage constructively with business large and small."

That was enough to fuel the charge of disloyalty. The speech was positive, it was common sense, and it was about the national interest. He didn't utter a syllable of dissent.

But the contrast between Albanese's approach and Shorten's was enough. He was positioning as the alternative leader. It was "the bloodied dagger". For such mild-mannered positivity to be considered subversive reveals how narkily negative Shorten had become. And how angrily anti-business.

The media and political response to Albanese's address was enough to send Shorten into a panic. On Tuesday, with a single word, the Labor leader created a world of woe for himself.

In response to a perfectly sensible question from Fairfax's Eryk Bagshaw asking Shorten to clarify his party's policy on company tax, Shorten aggravated just about his entire caucus.

Will you repeal it, he asked Shorten at a media doorstop? "Yes," came the reply in full. Problem No.1. Shorten hadn't consulted his colleagues, not even his shadow cabinet. Poor form.

If Albanese had advocated working with business, Shorten had just committed Labor to an intensified war against business. Even smaller businesses, anything with sales over $50 million a year.

Problem No.2. Shorten walked into question time to discover that he could no longer read from the same script he'd been using for months.

He'd been attacking Turnbull for favouring the "big end of town" with tax cuts. Labor had long excoriated the government for wanting to give tax cuts to the biggest corporate titans, and the biggest banks in particular. This had the government on the defensive.

But Shorten's announcement had changed everything. Most of all, it had changed the topic. Why was Shorten trying to destroy family businesses and crush enterprise? One after another, ministers produced case studies of modest-sized local businesses that would be hit.

More at https://www.smh.com.au/national/the-rea ... 4zol7.html

[Black Orchid]

On Friday Shorten reversed his position of three days earlier. He convened an unscheduled meeting of his shadow cabinet and he put forward the option of leaving in place any company tax cut that had been already implemented by the time Labor took office. There would be no tax rollback.

He'd reversed himself for fear that his colleagues would roll him. "He rolled himself," remarked one of his colleagues. "He's the owner of the rollover on rollback."

Why did Shorten panic so readily in the first place? He knows that his leadership is precarious.
According to Albanese supporters, the internal caucus numbers look like this. There are 95 member of the caucus. Of those, 41 are members of Albanese's faction, the Left. Assuming that the Left loses one of its members in the July 28 byelections, there would be 40. Of those, at least 35 are counted as votes for Albanese.

The Right, Shorten's faction, has 48 members. Of those, at least 14 are Albanese votes, all from the NSW Right, in the event that they were forced to choose.

That's 49, a majority, on the count of the Albanese camp. (Other than the Left and Right factions, four caucus members belong to Kim Carr's pro-Shorten group and one is non-aligned for a total of 95 before the byelections).

If so, why isn't Albanese leader already? Labor has been ahead of the government in the polls for two years by a pretty consistent 2 to 3 percentage points. This makes the case for a change of leader hard to make.

Albanese's people concede the point. But they argue that a poll lead of 2 to 3 percentage points over the government is not enough to be sure of victory, that Shorten's unpopularity is a constraint on Labor's vote and that Albanese would break open the dam of potential votes for Labor.

Is this true? The veteran pollster John Stirton, head of Nielsen polling for 17 years and now independent, says it sounds broadly correct: "Shorten is not popular – his most recent net satisfaction was minus 20 and he has been consistently recording negative ratings. There is no doubt voter reservations about the opposition leader are depressing Labor's vote.

"Oppositions that have defeated governments in the last few decades have held big and consistent leads on voting intentions in the polls over an extended period," Stirton tells me.

"Howard in 1996, Rudd in 2007 and Abbott in 2013 all fit this pattern. While Labor has won 34 consecutive Newspolls its recent lead, averaging 52 per cent to the government's 48 per cent, is not as decisive as those seen in elections where governments have been defeated. Governments have a history of being able to win if they go into a campaign not too far behind."

But he warns that while he agrees with the Albanese group's diagnosis, its solution is not so obviously correct. "The Labor ‘brand’ was damaged under Rudd-Gillard-Rudd. The impact of yet another leadership spill will remind voters of the instability of those years. If Albo could be ‘magicked’ into the leadership or Bill Shorten gracefully stands aside then perhaps the strategy works."

The Albanese advocates concede that the Rudd-Gillard bloodletting, one prime minister after another destroyed by internal rivalry, was deeply harmful to Labor. But "we're not in government now - we're in opposition now and nobody really cares" about a leadership change, says a Left faction member.

Nonetheless there is scant appetite for the trauma of a hostile campaign and the violence of tearing down another leader. Not because there is any sympathy for Shorten, himself instrumental in the betrayal of both Rudd and Gillard, but because of the personal animosities that would be involved and the electoral harm that could be inflicted. This is euphemistically called the "transaction cost".

This is the real reason Shorten is still in the job. Not the Labor leadership rules, designed to inhibit leadership change but readily circumvented. After two ugly family murders, there just isn't much stomach for a campaign to kill Bill.

"Albo is making people aware he's available," says one supporter, "but he doesn't want to be seen to be undercutting the leader and hurting the party's chances in the byelections."

But, should Labor lose one of its seats to the government in the byelections, the situation could change fundamentally. Till then, at least, Albanese isn't stabbing Shorten. The one left holding the "bloodied dagger" is Shorten, guilty of stabbing himself.

[Redneck]

My Thoughts:

He has looked stupid with his "Captains Call" this week certainly!

I dont like him much personally!

If they lose seats after the bi-elections it will reflect badly on him (them) after not taking up Turnbull's offer to refer all the questionable members to the High Court!

If he is knifed, Turnbull will no doubt call an early election and Labor will lose!

So being a long term leftie I hope he stays!

[cods]

I hope he stays as well red... no I am nothing like a lefty

but he is the Libs best asset.......

the coming elections will let us know how many fools are out there with votes...

if he wins and increases his lead well all I know is... SERVES US BLOODY RIGHT>> we deserve what we get..

[The Mechanic]

You will note that every time Bullshitten opens his mouth they go down in the polls.. '


Hense, of lately, he never speaks to the media.....

and when he does... BOOM!!!!

he makes a total jackass out of himself...

[sprintcyclist]

My Thoughts:

He has looked stupid with his "Captains Call" this week certainly!

I dont like him much personally!

If they lose seats after the bi-elections it will reflect badly on him (them) after not taking up Turnbull's offer to refer all the questionable members to the High Court!

If he is knifed, Turnbull will no doubt call an early election and Labor will lose!

So being a long term leftie I hope he stays!

Fairly good points.

I find it unsatisfactory that Shorten wanted to repeal what the Libs had done, just because it was what the Libs had done.
This is a repeat action that labour at the state and federal level have blocked what the Libs have wanted even though it was a good idea.

Labour have acted against our own national benefit repeatedly. Just to thwart the libs.

[cods]

now he has Wayne Swan putting in a good word for him



hes toast...

[Neferti]

My Thoughts:

He has looked stupid with his "Captains Call" this week certainly!

I dont like him much personally!

If they lose seats after the bi-elections it will reflect badly on him (them) after not taking up Turnbull's offer to refer all the questionable members to the High Court!

If he is knifed, Turnbull will no doubt call an early election and Labor will lose!

So being a long term leftie I hope he stays!

I voted NO, twice, for the ACT to NOT become "self-governing". Hawke said "stiff luck". Immediately, items at the Supermarket were increased ...

Now, Canberra pays as much, or more, than Sydney prices for food, energy, registration and so forth. Do we have new schools, new roads, new health, new hospitals? No.

Not everybody is a Public Servant in Canberra.

Having Bull Shitten as the Prime Minister and living in The Lodge?

[AnaTom]

I wonder if he supports any Australian prisoner extradition treaty with China?

[AnaTom]

.
The new Chinese order will be inclusive, so we can all participate in recommending someone for deportation.