tip off

Labor goes the biff on Abbott’s electoral weak spot

What is it with Tony Abbott and brick walls,” quipped (if that’s not overstating it) Wayne Swan yesterday to caucus, alluding to the claims that 35 years ago Abbott punched a wall next to a young woman in the aftermath of losing a student election.

We know Swan made the comment because it was pointedly reported to the press gallery by the caucus spokesperson in the post-caucus briefing.

Several times in question time Swan accused Abbott of “going the biff” and called him a “thug”, which didn’t pass Parliamentary standards and had to be withdrawn. Another new offering was “aggressive negativity”.

Seeing a pattern here? There’ll be more of this language from Labor — a lot more, emphasising Abbott’s aggression.

People within the government genuinely think Tony Abbott and many in the Coalition have a problem with women. They leap on every single piece of evidence that might support it, however tangential, even complaining when Christopher Pyne refers to the Prime Minister as “she” in question time, demanding he use her title. It has frustrated them that the media has, they believe, failed to focus on s-xism from the Coalition.

And Abbott does have an electoral problem with women. His already-low voter approval is consistently lower among women than men.

That’s why Labor is keen to play up his aggression. It reinforces negative perceptions that female voters already have about Abbott based on his stint as health minister, his language (particularly to Nicola Roxon during the 2007 election, which was a shocker for Abbott), his Catholicism, his physicality (the now-abandoned Speedos).

That’s why the stuff from 35 years ago is manna from heaven for them — it reinforces the Abbott stereotype. And Labor is going to pile the pressure on Abbott. They can sense a break in the electoral weather, a respite from the ordeal they entered in February 2011 when they signed up for a carbon price. And they know doubts about Abbott’s political gifts beyond the negative slogans are spreading, even in Coalition minds. A few points’ slippage in the polls, and the mutterings about Malcolm, or perhaps Joe, will start. Hockey is a more substantial figure (no pun intended) now than he was in November 2009.

The Coalition’s handling of the vicious smears of Julia Gillard over the Slater and Gordon business from The Australian leave Abbott vulnerable on the student-era stuff. They never pursued it in Parliament — probably couldn’t under standing orders anyway — but initially said the PM had “questions to answer”. Indeed, one of the (many) questions on which Abbott got into difficulty in that fateful 7.30 interview was what exactly those questions were.

Thus Anthony Albanese was quick to claim that Abbott had to explain himself on Monday. It was a fair cop.

But Gillard shouldn’t have had to explain herself about non-allegations about non-political matters from before her time in Parliament, and Abbott doubly shouldn’t have to explain himself for events in his distant past. What kind of people are we going to attract into public life if something you did at uni can be held against you permanently, to be dredged up as though relevant to the sort of person you are in your 50s?

The excuse for dredging up Abbott’s distant past is that it’s supposed to be relevant to his current views on women. In fact there’s considerable evidence that Abbott, who does seem to have once harboured views on women straight from the 12th century, has undergone a significant change, best exemplified by his dramatically-changed position on paid parental leave, on which he now advocates a vastly more generous scheme than the government. And he’s likely also to have learnt from the example of John Howard, that a leader has to leave behind some personal views if they’re going to lead effectively, and doubly so if they’re prime minister.

Politicians with long careers are allowed to change their views. In fact, it is good that they do. It reflects maturation, life experience and the gaining of wisdom. On this score, Abbott isn’t getting the benefit of the doubt from voters, and particularly female voters. But from the government’s perspective, given he gets away with so much else, it’s hardly unfair that he struggles on this.

And they intend to make sure he does.

31
  • 1
    cairns50
    Posted Wednesday, 12 September 2012 at 1:24 pm | Permalink

    of course people can change there views as they grow older and wiser as life goes on

    but do are you seriously suggesting that tony abbott has ?

    i think not, his change in position is due to one thing and one thing only

    the pollitical imperative that he perceives that he has to portray

    abbott is getting found out time and time again of being simply not able to tell the truth

    does anyone suggest that the lady is lying concerning his conduct to her many years ago ?

  • 2
    The Pav
    Posted Wednesday, 12 September 2012 at 1:31 pm | Permalink

    Bernard,

    Perhaps what happened in the 1970s is or isn’t relevant today, afetr all we all made mistakes in our youth but Abbott has said he is consistent as opposed to the PM and cited his consistant track record including student politics so on one level he has introduced it as eveidence and it is thus admissable.

    Be that as it may another issue is veracity. He has denied th incident took place. Either he is lying or he isn’t. Abbott has made truthfulness a central plank with his consistant calling of the PM a liar.

    If the incident did not take place then out side the protection of Parliament he should say so and call his accuser a liar.

    If she does not seek redress through the courts then the truth of his position can be implied.

    If it is tested through the courts then we will find out the facts.

    If he doesn’t do it what is he scared of?

    As a plus for him it would make the issue go away as it could not appear the papers as it would be sub judice. Given the time taken ibn courts it would not be heard before the election anyway so it is a risk free strategy for him.

    But if he doesn’t challenge his accusers then he will continue to be open to attack & it will be a running sore as further accusations are made

  • 3
    zut alors
    Posted Wednesday, 12 September 2012 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

    Every time Pyne refers to the PM as ‘she’ it registers sharply with me.

    In ancient times in Adelaide there used to be an old saying trotted out by parents to encourage polite speech ie: ‘she’ is the cat’s mother. It never made sense to kids but certainly got the point across.

    Pyne knows better - which makes it doubly insulting.

  • 4
    drmick
    Posted Wednesday, 12 September 2012 at 2:08 pm | Permalink

    Zut,
    Poetic justice would be served if a hairy chested lobor man put on a Freudian slip and referred to the poodle as “she” ?

  • 5
    David Allen
    Posted Wednesday, 12 September 2012 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

    The Catholic church hasn’t changed its views on women and their rights and, hence, neither has, or will, Abbott.

  • 6
    Sue11
    Posted Wednesday, 12 September 2012 at 2:20 pm | Permalink

    I don’t like Mr Abbott’s conservative social views, however, I personally feel that his behaviour was that of a aggressive immature young man who was trying to save the world from the dreaded left wingers and who also can’t bare to lose. He would have probably done the same to a man in the same circumstances, he may have even challenged him to a fist fight knowing Mr Abbott’s proud pugilistic background.
    I don’t feel this is any more important in deciding whether to vote for Mr Abbott as Ms Gillard’s involvement in her law firm 17 years ago. One thing this does show me is I could never run for political office because I was fined for jay walking about 35 years ago!

  • 7
    klewso
    Posted Wednesday, 12 September 2012 at 2:29 pm | Permalink

    Is “considerable evidence” predicated on that short leash he’s allowed out on in public, by his “minders” - afraid of what he’s going to say if given too much rope/time?

  • 8
    klewso
    Posted Wednesday, 12 September 2012 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

    And surely “promises/undertakings” are much easier made in Opposition - when “non-core” isn’t applicable, because it’s not as though you’re in a position to be able to honour/implement them?
    By the time you do have to honour them, and your position has changed (to government) those selectively hand-picked facts and semantics could be running in your favour, enough to allow you to change your mind and not have to worry about “Mr Consistency” - let alone your constituency?

  • 9
    Scott
    Posted Wednesday, 12 September 2012 at 2:50 pm | Permalink

    Unless there is an independent witness, it is pure “he said, she said” from an incident 35 years ago recalled from the memories of those in their 50’s, which to be honest, can get a little hazy on both sides. At least the Gillard affair had a hard copy transcript of an employment exit interview.
    Labor can run with this story, but it doesn’t have legs.

  • 10
    Holden Back
    Posted Wednesday, 12 September 2012 at 3:00 pm | Permalink

    Scott, I wish I could agree with you on this not dominating the political landscape for the next little while. But it’s a perfect story- relatively few facts, froma time long ago, of the second-hand variety, which allow everyone to have a self-confirming opinion about an incident which they didn’t witness.

    It means we don’t have to form an opinon about hard stuff like policy.

  • 11
    Hamis Hill
    Posted Wednesday, 12 September 2012 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

    An impressionable adolescent displays remarkable behaviour.
    All these years later it is the forces which made those impressions on Abbott that matter.
    Whose creature is Abbott?
    If he becomes PM will he be the “creature” of the Australian people or the “creature” of those who made such a questionable impression on him during his “formative” years.
    A very reasonable and pertinent question which, for the sake of the nation, must be answered.
    Who does Abbott answer to? Us or “Them”?

  • 12
    drmick
    Posted Wednesday, 12 September 2012 at 4:27 pm | Permalink

    Form on the board.
    Swears at Roxon, is dismissive of his own female deputy and has never given the PM respect at any level. His unscripted opinions on women and their subservient role has been expressed with such success that his own party’s ` polling shows there is a problem. His “faith” wont permit him to change his views, we find that he has a blood oath with his mentor (santaclaus), and he owes them more than he owes anyone else as he see it. No room for the view of the population who are not RC or willing to see things his way.
    See you in Hel!

  • 13
    Sean O Finn
    Posted Wednesday, 12 September 2012 at 5:31 pm | Permalink

    Sorry but the way I see it people like Abbott who are so desperate for power that they will lie, chop and change views in line with whatever populist tune is playing, insults the Prime Minister and others on a regular basis and is so relentlessly negative is undeserving of any more consideration that he gives others. That is zero, zilch. Its about time he reaped what he as sown.

  • 14
    Steve
    Posted Wednesday, 12 September 2012 at 5:34 pm | Permalink

    Bernard, you wrote, “And he’s likely also to have learnt from the example of John Howard, that a leader has to leave behind some personal views if they’re going to lead effectively, and doubly so if they’re prime minister.”

    Surely you haven’t forgotten WorkChoices - John Howard clearly didn’t leave his views behind, but rather waited until he gained enough power to implement long-held views. In a similar vein, I am sceptical as to whether Abbott’s previous attitudes towards women and homos_xuals have changed at all, and I wonder if his women-friendly policies are an attempt to mask his true views. With this in mind, it is perfectly valid to pursue his past. Abbott, on this issue, doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt.

  • 15
    Bill Hilliger
    Posted Wednesday, 12 September 2012 at 6:39 pm | Permalink

    Ah, Christopher Pyne - it - refers to the Prime Minister as “she”, And - it - is just a very mediocre performer in parliament. It - is however, a very high achiever in liberal politics.

  • 16
    AR
    Posted Wednesday, 12 September 2012 at 9:06 pm | Permalink

    BillH - the most painful thing about the Vertical Chihuahua, apart from his yapping & yelping, is that damned hair! It must really hurt and explains why he looks almost as red faced (apart from embarrassment) as Barnaby Rudge.
    It would be nice to think that one or both will simply explode into aneurysm, never to pollute the body politic again but then I also believe in of the people, for the peepel so wotta i no?

  • 17
    Jeremy Williams
    Posted Wednesday, 12 September 2012 at 10:47 pm | Permalink

    looking forward to the oz digging up abbott’s ancient history as it did with julia gillard ????
    yeah right !!!!

  • 18
    Mack the Knife
    Posted Thursday, 13 September 2012 at 5:08 am | Permalink

    If Crikey wasn’t so right wing these days they might want to point out the obvious that if Abbott gets elected the Greens will hold the upper house and give the LNP a taste of how they themselves operated as naysayers. The LNP will be hamstrung and doubtless whinge how unfair it all is.

    What is the point of the biased cheerleading for the LNP when the result will be hung parliament to hamstrung parliament.?

  • 19
    Filth Dimension
    Posted Thursday, 13 September 2012 at 8:45 am | Permalink

    Abbott hasn’t changed his views on women at all. He just realised that he can use our tax dollars to pay women to stay where he believes they belong - in the home. I can hear that god awful cackle.

  • 20
    Bill Hilliger
    Posted Thursday, 13 September 2012 at 9:10 am | Permalink

    Some say he sees them as a washing machine with a handy gadget?

  • 21
    IC-1101
    Posted Thursday, 13 September 2012 at 3:13 pm | Permalink

    The fact that this is dominating debate and discussion is truly pathetic. The worst the Labor and left-of-Lenin hot-doggers have on Abbott is that he…punched a wall with a woman in front of it…apparently…30 years ago.

    Someone says the PM uses union funds for illegal funds transfers, and it’s a “smear campaign with no substance” and sexist. Yeah, because, like, the unions in this country are at the forefront of honesty and respectability…it probably didn’t happen, but herein lies the hypocrisy:

    Someone comes out saying that Abbott punched a wall next to a woman, and…

    SEE! SEE! HE’S SEXIST! HE HATES WOMEN! SHAME! SHAME!”

  • 22
    Fiz
    Posted Thursday, 13 September 2012 at 3:33 pm | Permalink

    Abbott made sure his past became relevant when he stated categorically that the incident didn’t happen. Hence we now have two separate people saying that Abbott is lying and it comes down to whether he’s a liar or not - a trait he has consistently laid at the feet of the Prime Minister.

    The government, and especially women in the Labor party, have been pretty incensed by the way male members of the Opposition have spoken to (and about) the PM and other female ministers. A prime example was the ridiculousness of Pyne and Hockey as described by Phil Coorey in the SMH last November:

    As she strolled past opposition MPs’ offices, Christopher Pyne and Joe Hockey, like two schoolyard ne’er-do-wells, trailed about 10 paces behind, heckling. Hockey was bellowing the Engelbert Humperdinck lyrics: “Please release me, let me go, ‘cause I don’t love you any more …” Pyne, doing his best to affect a menacing gravitas, was taunting repeatedly: “You’re drowning Julia, not waving, you’re drowning.”

    Can you imagine any Labor MPs carrying on like that to John Howard in the last months of his Prime Ministership when it looked certain he would lose?

    The misogyny Labor women have commented on doesn’t just start and end with Abbott, it is infecting many in the Opposition.

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/angry-mobs-ready-to-face-off-as-mps-take-leave-of-trouble-20110821-1j4il.html#ixzz26KDUnCqI

  • 23
    joe2
    Posted Thursday, 13 September 2012 at 3:33 pm | Permalink

    ….has undergone a significant change, best exemplified by his dramatically-changed position on paid parental leave, on which he now advocates a vastly more generous scheme than the government.”

    Spare us Bernard. That old line that is dragged out all the time proves only that he is happy to finance the lifestyles of the rich and famous off the backs of all the rest of us, including the less favoured, poorer, female class.

  • 24
    The Pav
    Posted Thursday, 13 September 2012 at 4:19 pm | Permalink

    Dear IC - 1101

    So you accept that Abbott punched the wall.

    This means that you now accept that he has lied about the incident. That’s interesting.

    That it is an old incident is made relevant as Abbott strutted out his past record and introduced it as evidence therefore it is now perfectly accptable to bring it in to view.

    Basically there are three clear fualts with Abbot in this issue

    1 He lied
    2 He tried to bully & intimidate
    3 He is at any time close to violence as is demonstrated by punching the wall.

    This is the leader that the Liberals present. he fails at any level and the fact that his own partty knows this but is too scared to kick him out shows that they as a group lack courage

  • 25
    eric
    Posted Thursday, 13 September 2012 at 5:00 pm | Permalink

    According to Fairfax another person has come our confirming the incident - not looking good for the lying phoney Tony.

  • 26
    Fiz
    Posted Thursday, 13 September 2012 at 6:15 pm | Permalink

    IC-1101:

    Someone comes out saying that Abbott punched a wall next to a woman, and…

    Mark Latham was castigated and viewed as a loon because he shook John Howard’s hand with vigor. I think it’s fair to say that if Abbott punched a wall near a woman’s head that a large number of people will feel disquieted about that.

  • 27
    Malcolm Harrison
    Posted Friday, 14 September 2012 at 12:19 am | Permalink

    Normally I would agree that an event that took place 35 years ago is of little relevance, but as others have pointed out, this kind of violence is not unusual for Abbot to display. There was another incident, in the late nineties, I think when some disagreement on the floor of the House almost led to fisticuffs between Abbot and another member. I dont actually mind the odd display of physical expression, and neither I think does Tony. But to suggest that it is not relevant to point out his somewhat short fuse when frustrated in his aims is perhaps failing to recognise that in some things we dont change all that much throughout our life. Certainly I have no trouble imagining Tony doing what he is accused of doing, it seems quite in character.

    Also while we’re on this subject of Tony, it occurs to me that it was you, Bernard, who seemed to regard Tony’s campaign against the government as , I think ‘brilliant’was the word you used. Personally i found it the most destructive and irresponsible campaign I have watched a politician mount in fifty or sixty years of watching politics’

    In most other ways I find your writing informative and well expressed. Your support for tony, though, I find totally strange.

  • 28
    klewso
    Posted Friday, 14 September 2012 at 9:36 am | Permalink

    How does a cheetah change his spots?

  • 29
    Hamis Hill
    Posted Friday, 14 September 2012 at 9:48 am | Permalink

    Surely Abbott’s weak spot is the company he keeps, on his front bench and in the Mudorch press?
    It’s like the seven headed hydra, you can’t just cut them down, for multiples pop up in their place.
    Hercules solved the problem with fire.

  • 30
    IC-1101
    Posted Friday, 14 September 2012 at 3:03 pm | Permalink

    @The Pav

    I said no such thing. It was a hypothetical analysis of this garbage debate as it currently stands. Don’t put words in my mouth.

  • 31
    Hamis Hill
    Posted Sunday, 16 September 2012 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

    There’s the “Harvey Wall Banger” then there’s the “Tony Wall Banger”.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...