Mind the (gender) gap
|
How will the ascension of Australia’s first female prime minister influence female voters, if at all? And how will Tony Abbott fare with them now his opposite number is a woman? Following Abbott’s move into the Liberal leadership, a lot of us suggested he would have a problem with women voters, given his fundamentalist image and history in office of opposing women’s right to reproductive choice. But that simple analysis was complicated by the fact the Liberals appeared to be consistently under-performing with female voters before the right-wing putsch that installed Abbott. Back in January, my colleague Possum considered the issue and noted the Coalition under both Brendan Nelson and Malcolm Turnbull “had a problem with women”. This means the issue was more about whether Abbott widened or closed the gender gap as he first surged strongly in voters’ estimation, then fell back until he became even less popular than Kevin Rudd. In April, Possum drilled down into the Roy Morgan Reactor data for the Rudd-Abbott health debate and found that, if anything, it was men who had a bigger problem than women with Abbott, who performed disastrously in the debate — despite the perception women rank health issues higher than men in importance. In Monday’s Essential Report, Julia Gillard had a strong lead over Abbott as preferred prime minister — 53-26%. But the gap among men was significantly smaller — 48-31% — than that among women, among whom it was a mammoth 35 points, 57-22%. But Abbott has had a poor preferred prime minister rating amongst women for a long time. In June, only 23% of women preferred Abbott to Kevin Rudd. The male preferred PM gap was seven points in Rudd’s favour; among women 26 points. In March, 28% of women preferred Abbott as prime minister, compared to 32% of men — but both men and women preferred Rudd over Abbott by around 20 points. In short, Abbott does appear to have a problem with women, or at least has continued Turnbull and Nelson’s problem with women. Gillard’s ascension, at least initially, appears to have exacerbated it. A gender gap also opened up in relation to Abbott’s own approval ratings. His net approval ratings plunged back into the red last week, but only by four points among men, 41-45% approval/disapproval. Among women , it was -14 points, 34-48%. Previously, men and women have been almost identical in their disapproval of Abbott — for example, at the end of May his all-s-xes disapproval rating was 49%. But he has performed consistently slightly worse with women on approval — in June 41% of men approved of Abbott’s performance and 38% of women; in May, 38% of men approved of his performance and 33% of women; in March it was men 36%, women 31%. Whether this translates into voting intention is obviously the key issue. As Possum noted in January, the strength of support from women voters was, along with that of seniors, crucial in keeping John Howard in office. Essential’s numbers suggest that if Abbott’s consistently poorer performance with women wasn’t affecting the Coalition vote — over the last two months women have been consistently favouring the Coalition in voting intention more strongly than men. However, that started to reverse three weeks ago and under Gillard the Labor vote picked up significantly among women. Too much shouldn’t be read into this, though — these are raw numbers, which tend to bounce around a lot, and the Gillard prime ministership is in its infancy. In any event, even if Abbott does have a problem with women voters, his preferred PM and net approval ratings suggest it’s part of a bigger problem that voters just don’t like the guy. |
|
|
|
39 Comments
I hope, I hope I hope that women will NOT vote Labour simply because a woman is now PM - it would be so stupid. Surely the most important thing is policies and who has the ones that each voter likes the best? Is it just a bit patronising to assume that we will all rush off and vote Labour now that Julia is there? Quite frankly, so far I haven’t seen anything fabulous about the new PM that would make me want to vote for the ALP - terrible refugee policy, no change to gay marriage or internet filter - more of the same really.
Here are a couple clues why women don’t like Abbott -
1. he struts his testosterone
2. he is a self-confessed liar
Both guaranteed to leave the ladies cold.
The fact that Gillard is a woman is irrelevant, I will not be voting ALP this election because I can not afford for my Private Health Insurance to increase by 42.8% - yes 42.8% (which is the increase when you remove the 30% rebate), I can not afford an ETS even if it is deferred until 2013, I did not get any govt handouts including the $900 nor have I ever received any govt handout. I am trying to become self sufficient for retirement but this Govt capped my super contributions to $25k so I pay more tax again. I have not objection to paying tax but I can not afford to pay anymore. I am bleeding here and this govt does not care about anyone but the beloved “australian working families”.
Abbott abused Bernie Banton and Nicola Roxon on the same day. That should be enough to disqualify him from anything more important than running the local country dunny block.
Generally speaking, I don’t think women will necessarily vote for the same sex simply on that basis. I think that women can tend to pick fault with other women even faster than they do with men.
Gillard’s main advantage at the moment is that she has knocked the cockiness out of Abbott — and when it’s all boiled down, that’s about all Abbott has to offer.
Am I being racist or politically incorrect in asking if Australia really needs another redheaded politician who surfs towards an election on a tide of anti-boat people sentiment? I am a woman but the likes of Julia Gillard does nothing for me. She is behaving like a true doberwoman fawning over the powerful and putting down the weak. So much for social inclusion.
Bernard kicks off his article with a question about how Tony Abbott will fare with voters and finishes with the predictable conclusion that they “just don’t like (Abbott)”. The only thing that surprised me was Bernard bothered faking so much analysis in between the beginning and the ending.
As Jack the Insider pointed out she is pandering to the very rich and kicking the very poor.
I agree with socratease.
The Murdoch press has turned this election, more than any before , into a “presidential” style elction.
Dont worry too much about the policies, can the talking head sniff the air, dog whistle and run with the issue du jour, with the “issues” set by the murdoch press.
See the loop of the lady on the warboat ready to shoot the baddies as they enter our waters. Even the crew member in shot is a female.
See Y-Front man jauntily sizing up the interviewer, as he dips to scag him/her, then jump back and shape up, smiling knowingly that he can dribble anything.
Becaus he is from the right Murdoch will give him the headlines and then the prime minister has to defend, instaed of the prime minister getting the headline and the opposition having to do better. The rest of the sycophants follow suit and the real issues get lost. side tracked or worse.
The ALP told rudd to shut up and big business and the miners told abbott to shut up.
The reason being to lower their profiles when their popularity dropped. The sweet deal here was their popularity or otherwise, is determined by……… the murdoch press
I hope and expect that ‘women’ (and ‘men’) will make up their minds on the basis of policies - not on the basis of the sex of a candidate.
In my working life I had the misfortune of being 2-i-c to two female CEOs. If I were to extrapolate to all women my experience of their traits and behaviour, I would never ever vote to put any woman in a position of power!
But, of course, I won’t make such a silly judgement.
I will look at the policies of the candidates - and, as Abbott has none, the choice has to be Gillard.
As the outcome of elections are always gained by default, perhaps the question to the punters should be ‘Will you NOT vote for a female/male candidate?’
Whether this is a uniquely Australian trait, to be more eloquent about what we don’t want to see in politics, I have no idea. But I do believe there would be a different percentage answer.
I think the assumption women will now be more likely to vote Labor because of a female PM is incorrect. No doubt there will be those that do. But mostly, women - like their male counterparts - will vote on policy.
It was this assumption that led to Republicans in the US installing an unqualified female VP candidate in the hope that Hilary Clinton voters would vote for Palin. Completely ridiculous given how far apart their political positions are.
Voting for Abbott has nothing to do with his or your gender. He’s an ars*hole, is a good enough reason not to vote for him. So far Julia hasn’t demonstrated the sheer amount of ars*holiness that he has. But with the immigration debate, she seems to want to catch up.
I disagree somewhat with the assumption that you should vote for someone based on their professed policies. What we know from experience is that many policies that head into an election don’t get implemented due to senate limitations.
What we also know is that many of the most important decisions relate to “unforeseeable events”.
The Rudd economic stimulus package never went to the electorate. Its one of the key government decisions that occurred. Responses to terrorist attacks, natural disasters, financial crisis, etc… Many of the biggest decisions governments make are not contained in the electoral policy road-map.
You need to pick the leader who you think is competent dealing with unforeseen events and intransigent stakeholders not the one who’s policy gives you the most cash.
This is the idea behind the Hillary Clinton 3am phone call ads. Do you want Gillard or Abbot having to make those snap decisions?
It is all very well to say sex and gender are irrelevant, but one can’t help but react to them. I find Tony Abbott unattractive physically, which normally is irrelevant and which I would overlook. However, he continually displays himself almost naked which I find literally repulsive. This may not be an admirable reaction on my part, but I bet you’ll find many women agree with me.
At last, Andrea has mentioned gender, which is entirely different and more genteel than s_x.
Since this discussion is really about gender, my two bob’s worth is that I couldn’t give a hoot. Perceived policies, strength of character and avoidance of me-to-ism are the central characteristics. By all means, vote for someone who is insincere: That already lead to “non-core promises” during the 90’s and noughties from the LCP and backflip after backflip as the polls drove the dear departed Rudd to abandon his promises during the past couple of years.
AT this point in time, it’s chalk and cheese as far as I’m concerned and gender has nothing to do with it.
So far, most of the professed (scant) policies of Abbott & Co are all top heavy (i.e. pro those who have, over those who have not).
So far, Julia Gillard’s speeches have been inclusive (i.e. her asylum seeker speech tried to cater to most concerned people’s concerns, and her statement that she is an athiest does not put offside a large proportion of the public that is concerned about Abbott’s extreme right-wing religious crap).
It is very early days and we should take things as they come unti the election.
@ Lorrae
I’m sorry — I am offended that people on low incomes pay most of my health insurance — that happens automatically and I cannot stop it — but it was my choice and I should pay it.
I feel the same way about private schools. The term ‘private’ should be a hint … people who choose it, should pay for it. I worked in the public school system and helped photocopy textbook pages because there weren’t enough copies and the school couldn’t buy more. Yet I live smack dab in the middle of ‘private school central’ where the schools have olympic pools, artificial hockey fields, tennis courts and multi-story carparks for their staff amongst other over-the-top things. Yet the public purse funds much of this to the detriment of public schools.
These two are examples of Liberal policy and Abbott is leaning even further to the right.
The gender does not matter. The believe system one subscribes to is irrelevant. There are necessary requisites to become Australia’s PM.
Tony Abbott has proved time and time again that he hasn’t got it and he doesn’t get it! Get it?
Whilst Tony may well have an issue with female voters, Julia will have a bigger issue with pissed off voters seeking honest government.
Dear JENAUTHOR
I’ve been associated with parent ‘owned and operated” not-for-profit education for more then 28 years where schools own by parents educate their children in accordance with & support of the parent’s values & ethos.
I am sick and tired of the nonsense posted by people who have no understanding of how our education funding system functions, and by the content of your post you rank as amongst that group.
Infrastructure in non-government schools is funded by those that own the school by either their own donations or by borrowing money from financial institutions, like banks. The Block Grant Authority (BGA), which assess non-government schools request for a contribution to building programs, do not hand over millions of dollars, & you’d be lucky if they’d grant you more then 20% of the cost.
Anyone you thinks that State or Federal governments pay for non-educational facilities at non-governement school is living in cloud cuckoo land. Non-government schools have contractual obligations to report to the Commonwealth and their State or Territory governments for the use of public funds. As many independent schools are registered companies, they are also required to report to the Australian Securities and Investment Commission.
Can somebody kindly direct me to the web-page which addresses Julia Gillard’s policy for the homeless?
@ HUGH
Some of what you say might be true, but the Howard govt. gave massive ongoing grants to some of the wealthiest private schools in the country … a plan that was ongoing and has had to be continued by the current federal govt because of promises made during the 2007 election.
Those schools (and I live surrounded by several of them) are the ones I am talking about. I know a lot of non elite provate schools have to struggle for every cent, just like the state schools, but I am appalled at the ‘facilities’ these schools have and yet still have their hands out to the govt.
HUGHBP
Leaving aside the BER which went to private and public schools you address one side of government funding only. No mention of state or federal funds per student as opposed to funds for facilities which you commented on. The point Jenauthor made remains relevant and that is its their choice to opt out of the public system and it should be their onus to pay for it. To say otherwise is to take funds to buy a car because you choose not to use public transport. The model used to fund private schools was deliberately designed to ignore parents ability to pay but based on the area. The fact that that area may have only 10% going private counted for nothing, smoke and mirrors.
I do not think any political party in Australia has any serious policy program. They all behave like a meat in a sandwich squashed between opinion polls and pressure groups.
As for strong leadership?
I do not need yet another leader. I need a strong representation in the parliament.
Ironman Howard caused enough damage to democracy.
Otherwise, we will be discussing the Murray river, boat people and poor education standards etc. (and do nothing about it) for many years to come.
Can anyone ask Julia Gillard/Tony Abbot what they think about ceramic fuel?
HughBP
What about the substantial and ongoing cost of transport of the little dears past the nearest publicly funded school to the school of choice? And the subsidy of priv ate parents to bring their precious kiddies to the pickup point? I heard this week a lady gloat that she was paid $800 per year to drive about 1km CLOSER than the local school so that her kids could catch a bus for 60km each way to attend a school of her choice and how nice it was that she would be able to fit in a full 18 holes before they arrived back at the bus stop, two days per week.
Presumably, this student isn’t one of your bunnies. but we are all paying for the greenhouse gas that this daily travel adds to our nation’s load. Yet it is FREE to those who choose to send their kids to school in this way. Every other user on the highway pays for the resulting congestion, through less efficient vehicle operation, slower travel times and more urgent highway upgrades than would otherwise be the case.
Thanks, mate, but your pupils and their well-to-do families with disposable incomes are costing us more than just the up-front school costs. They are a substantial part of the morning and afternoon peak traffic.
In a word, private schools are for the incurably selfish. Got that? Selfish. All other so-called reasons for private schools are only window dressing or religious bigotry.
@ Rena Zurawell:
What on earth have you been rading to think that there are ceramic fuels? There are not and there is no need for a policy.
If you have been reading about ceramic fuel cells, then these are a type of fuel cell which uses natural gas or similar carbon-based fuel to produce electricity. Some might use hydrogen, but where do you think that most hydrogen comes from?
By far the most hydrogen produced in our world comes from natural gas. Some is produced by hydrolysing water. Both processes use carbon technologies, except for a vanishingly small percent of H2 produced in Iceland and similar countries using hydroelectricity. There is simply not enough hydroelectricity possible in the world for all the hydrogen currently needed to be produced this way.
Further, if hydrogen is the fuel of choice, transport and storage must be very carefully managed if safety is not to be severely compromised.
Yes, Daimler and perhaps a few other companies have operational fuel cell buses on the road, even a couple in Perth a couple of years back, but there is no need for a policy for uneconomic solutions which do not, of themselves, reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Every additional load on the power grids in Australia these days adds to carbon usage, because unless and until Australia embraces nuclear or some other energy source which is available in large quantities and at a reasonable price, we are locked into coal, with a smidgen of natural gas completing the picture.
So, ceramic fuel does not exist. Ceramic fuel cells are expensive and, in the Australian context, will rely on carbon sources of electricity for many years to come.
If I were King, my policy would be:
“Ceramic fuel cells? No way. They are niche players at best.”
@hughbp
If I built my own highway, only let people with my extreme religious views use it - would you think it fair that I recieved money from the government to help it run ? I mean it would be unfair to expect the people that didnt want to use the State provided highway right along side, pay for the upkeep of my highway right ?
All of NSW will be voting against Kristina (‘puppet’) Keneally… and the trick for Julia (“I am nobody’s puppet”) Gillard is to run an election well before the NSW’s one.
The lesson for both is that it won’t be at all about their sex, but how they got there, and (more importantly) who holds the real power.
For huge numbers of swinging voters, the attractive thing about Rudd was his true vision and the fact that he had not come up through “the Labor ranks” and was not ‘of’ the Labor Party.
Now that things have reverted to normal in the ALP, such people will need to assess the extent to which union promotees ought run the country, given unions are only slightly more representative of the typical Australian voter than the large-cap miners feeding Abbott’s bankroll.
Bring on a prohibition against all political donations and we might get an ALP not beholden to the unions, and a Coalition not dependent upon big business, to determine their advertising spend and consequently probability of winning an election.
The Greens must be the big winners… and for a more balanced approach, the Democrats could have done so well in the current circumstances (ALP too factional, Libs too religious, Greens too single-issue…) had Cheryl not slept with the enemy and thereafter turned the lights out for the once-noble party. Can’t we bring back Stott-Despoija?
The funniest comment about women in power was a recent comment in SMH letters asking what the [NSW] Primier, the [NSW] Governor, the PM, the G-G and the Queen all had in common - that none of them held a popular mandate!
Graeme Harrison (prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu)
??Private Health Insurance to increase by 42.8% - yes 42.8% ?? That indicates you are receiving a HIGH wage, and you expect the average JOE to susidise you, Sic.
Whether its name is Julia or Tony Australia doesn’t need a bigotted self-confessed b*shit artist with a penchant for body-hugging sports gear and a mouth like a sewer as its national leader. The chance that one summer’s night words such as ‘blood oath, shit sandwich and bullshit” could waft across Sydney Harbour from Kirribilli House is chilling. Let them both be warned.
I am so sick and tired of hearing people whine about Mr. Rudd being “knifed in the back”, and booted out of his position, etc, etc. HE CHOSE to STEP DOWN. He didn’t have to. There is a difference. Any fool could see that he was on a losing streak and that labor had “lost it’s way” (for lack of a better statement…!). Regardless of her gender, Julia Gillard was the best qualified and most obvious person for the job.
A female PM is clearly a novelty in this country, sad as that is, although I don’t think people will vote for her purely on the fact that she is female. If they have any sense they will vote on her policies. And if we have a female PM with some sound policies in place, all the better!
LauraJ
“HE CHOSE to STEP DOWN. He didn’t have to.”
Technically you are correct.
Are you suggesting Kevin Rudd had another viable option which we’ve overlooked? Would that have been the option of subjecting himself to the complete humiliation of a Caucus vote where he may have been lucky enough to score one vote in three?
Instead he chose the more gracious tactic to step down - because he’s not an idiot. I would be fascinated to hear any evidence refuting Rudd was not knifed - did you miss the Paul Howes ‘Lateline’ interview perchance?
Hi Zut Alors,
Thanks for your comment. I agree that stepping down WAS a very dignified and gracious action on the part of Mr Rudd. The only other option being, as you say, the humiliation of a loss if he chose not to step down. So no, I’m not suggesting there were any other viable options in this instance.
For the situation to come to this, there must have been great dissatisfaction with his leadership within the party - or that is certainly what I have heard, read and seen.
No, I didn’t see the ‘Lateline’ interview, although I will be watching it when I get a chance.
As for his being ‘knifed’ (the favourite word of the media), I don’t think it’s the correct term. I’m sure he was feeling immense pressure from his colleagues, but it’s just like any other job (albeit much more high profile) - if one person is not up to the job for whatever reason, and steps down, it’s up to the next person to step up.
@ LauraJ
“…if one person is not up to the job for whatever reason, and steps down, it’s up to the next person to step up.”
Except in this case another person stepped up before the incumbent stepped down. It would serve you well to do some research on this, starting with the Howes interview.
If you don’t like the word ‘knifed’ how would you describe (in one word) what happened to Kevin Rudd?
Gillard didn’t “step up” and become PM while Rudd still was. She challenged him for the leadership while he still was PM.
Also, I don’t have a problem with the word “knifed”, I have a problem with the media’s continued (unoriginal) use of it.
I think some better words would be that he “stepped down”, “felt forced to step down/resign”, or something along those lines.
I also don’t think watching one interview constitutes “research”, although I’m sure there is valuable information there.
Why wouldn’t you, all the men in the past 15 years have been useless. At least someone lacking some testosterone in the decision making might provide some stable government without their appendage doing the thinking may actually do some good for this country.
Policies ain’t worth anything because none of it is put on paper as a contract and signed. Much of the policy is thrown in the toilet when the candidate is elected.
Male or female is irrelevant. Why have compulsory voting? Why do we lack the basic democratic freedom NOT to vote?
You do have that freedom, you have the freedom to vote informal, and not vote, or not vote at all, and get fined. Not voting is an agreement that you’re happy with things the way they are…
Not voting and then get fined is not really being free not to vote, is it?