top of page

Election Options...

Looking like Tarzan… playing like Jane.​...

Week three of the federal election...

By Richard McEncroe

 

I’m not sure if I’m using a footy analogy to describe politics or a political analogy to describe footy, when I compare Labor’s campaign effort to date and the recent on-field performances of the Essendon Football Club.  But, being a footicopolitical junkie, I don’t really mind.

 

When they should be hitting top gear, preparing to ‘breast the tape’ so to speak, both Labor and Essendon are limping to the line, offering seemingly token resistance.  In Hird and Rudd both camps are led by men fiercely confident they will be vindicated, but who are also becoming increasingly isolated, in charge of a collectiion of individuals marking time as opposed to a team.  Like Essendon players these past three weeks, with a few exceptions, Labor candidates seem to be going through the motions, listless.  Bill Shorten answers questions from the media with all the enthusiasm of an exhausted midfielder with a dodgy hammy chasing his opponent down the wing.  

 

After a great start to the year, Essendon have lost their last four games by a total of 39 goals.  Two of those losses were to teams that won’t make the finals.  The way they played in those games is much more interesting than the scores though. The Bombers players have lost their mojo and they are getting cut through like butter.  There is a yawning gap between the rhetoric and the reality at Essendon.  The more determined and ferocious the denials of wrongdoing become off the field, the more lacklustre and defeated the performances have become on it.  For every over the top emotional message of unity and “love for the Club” there is a corresponding underwhelming physical reality at play on the park. 

 

Footballers these days are so good, so fit, and work so hard off the ball to chase, tackle and make position that it becomes a matter of course.  You hardly even notice it.  But boy you notice when it doesn’t happen.  It stands out like the proverbial when blokes just don’t chase opponents out of defence, don’t make that second effort.  The Bombers this last month appear deflated, depressed even, as though barely able to bring themselves to turn up. 

 

Football, like politics, is a game you can’t win if your heart’s not in it.  You can have all the skills, all the talent you like; you can mouth all the right words, and send cool selfies, but it is passion and belief in what you are doing and saying that will get you the chockies.  Ask an Essendon player or a Labor Candidate and they will happily tell you that they are right behind their respective icon.  Hirdy’s a legend after all and hence infallible, Kevin, well, he’s the best we’ve got and he’s not Tony Abbott so of course we’re behind him too.  And sure, the Players, and the Candidates will all turn up when required, but it’s what they are bringing, or don’t bringing to the fight, that is telling right now. 

 

That the rank and file of both Labor and Essendon are a bit sub-prime and jaded right now is not hard to understand.  Both have torn themselves to shreds over the past year or three.  Both, in a pathological determination to gain an edge on their rivals, perceived or imagined, internal or external; have pushed ethical and moral boundaries.   In parallel slow motion own goals, both organisations have cannibalised their leaders and jettisoned their ethics in the quest for short term advantage.  Prime Ministers and Board Chairs, Treasurers and CEOs have been terminated and supporters and voters alike have been left confused, disenfranchised and disillusioned. 

 

The heavy casualty toll the internal bitterness has taken on Labor is only now really being appreciated.  Several proven and experienced Labor players who would otherwise be on the field in this campaign are either sitting on the bench or have been carried off on stretchers.  The polls reflect this self administered ‘talent-ectomy’.  Gillard, Emerson, Roxon, Crean, Garrett, Combet have all been either injured or omitted on form. Swan is on the bench for the duration and Shorten, the Jobe Watson of the line up, is allowed to play but only if he promises not to get a kick – oh, and Peter Beattie is the Sub, yet to be activated. 

 

To the extent that coach Rudd does have a strategy it goes something like...big Kev wins the ruck tap down to little Ruddy who dodges three rabid Libs, baulks an Asylum Seeker and kicks a long bomb inside the 50 meter special economic zone where Keeeevviin Ruuuud You Beauty! takes a screamer and slots one straight through the chop sticks. 

 

If there is a bright side for the Bombers and Labor in all this, it is perhaps that there is still time before Grand Final day to turn things around - but only if they want it badly enough.  There is still time for Shorten to decide, stuff this, I can’t just stand by and let Abbott win, and force himself into the contest. 

 

There’s time in this season and this campaign for Brendan Goddard to tear some games apart and for Greg Combet and Tania Plibersek to get into the game by waking the electorate up about what an Abbott Government would mean for low paid workers.  There is still time for Michael Hurley to show some presence and demand the ball inside 50 and for Penny Wong to do the same and demand Marriage Equality become Labor policy.  There is still time for Paddy Rider to switch on and time to stop the electorate from switching off on the environment.  No point looking like Tarzan and playing like Jane. 

For both Labor and the Bombers there’s still time. 

 

As they search themselves for inspiration, they could do worse than to reflect on the immortal words of the legendary St Kilda and Hawthorn coach Alan “Yabby” Jeans when he implored his players to “DO... don’t think ...don’t hope...DOOOO!”.

Drab meanderings and suppositories...

Week two of the federal election...

By Richard McEncroe

 

On ABC TV’s QandA this week Adam Bandt, the Federal Member for Melbourne and Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens, made a rare meaningful contribution to the public debate when he described the first leaders debate of the 2013 Election Campaign as “drab meanderings around ever decreasing points of difference”.  He could just as well be describing the entire campaign so far.

 

The electorate was briefly startled from its slumber in week two of the snore fest when Tony Abbott inserted his unique style of clumsy sexism, enema style, into the gloom.  Tony showed he certainly was not the suppository of all knowledge and wisdom when he decided to list the main attributes of a female LNP candidate as young, feisty and having sex appeal.  Gee, thanks boss! But Tony’s penchant for mangling the language now and then and his patronising and belittling attitude to women are not new developments, are unlikely to be vote changers, and serve as nothing more than a brief respite from the drabness. 

 

In stark contrast to earlier versions of himself, especially Kevin 07, Kevin 2.0 is adding to rather than alleviating the drabness.  Earlier Rudds have been high energy, here to help types, relentlessly happy and positive.  But, like a Melbourne Cup runner that has drawn a wide gate and had to be ridden up early to find a position in the field, Ruddy is looking tired coming to the halfway mark of the race.  Rudd is off the bit and chasing and his performance in the debate exposed his lack of spark.  He struggled to get to the nub of his points and lapsed into waffle under pressure; resorting to notes to supplement his once famous capacity for detail.  With Rudd flat, to the extent that there has been any colour and movement in the campaign so far, it has been from Abbott, which is really saying something.

 

The meanderings have been just as drab as the meanderers.  Principally this drabness of content comes about by similarity.  Whether it is asylum seeker policy, climate policy, taxation or education policy the differences between the two parties are visible, but only just.  With a determined eye or a good pair of glasses you can spot some differences at the margin of the major parties policy positions, but it’s hardly worth bothering.  Neither party has a policy which meets our moral obligation to resettle our share of the world’s displaced people.  Neither party think climate change is important anymore apparently, and both think health and education is good, taxation is bad.  Yawn.

 

The similarities, the lack of difference and therefore electoral engagement, is as much to do with what issues are on the agenda as it is with which issues aren’t.  Not only do both parties have almost identical positions on the issues that are considered “key”, they have apparently agreed which issues are not on this year’s electoral menu.  Indigenous Policy has not been mentioned so far by either camp.  Reconciliation with Australia’s first peoples through Constitutional recognition is not an issue, nor is addressing the entrenched levels of disadvantage, neglect, abuse and poverty in Indigenous communities.  Homelessness in Australian cities, the crisis in youth unemployment, regional structural unemployment; are examples of issues which will be for discussion at another time apparently.   If there is no real difference between the parties on the issues that are on the agenda and common ground on which issues are not, how can the debate be anything but bland?

 

The campaign certainly needs an injection of energy – a suppository of substance perhaps.   Having neutralised Abbott on asylum seekers and carbon pricing, Kevin needs to drive some points of difference for the remainder of the campaign.  Marriage Equality is a potential candidate, but Kevin has to go further than promising a conscience vote to galvanise the support within the community for this way overdue reform.  Were Kev to make Marriage Equality party policy he could leverage his existing support from Gen Y, enliven voters in safe seats and drive home his advantage in the future versus the past dichotomy with Abbott.  Issues like Marriage Equality can have a wild card effect in the electorate too because people tend to divide along generational rather than socio-economic bases.  This could be a big plus for Labor.

 

Also a plus for Labor would be “positivising” their messaging for the run home.  There is no doubt Rudd did draw a bad barrier but he can’t focus on the negatives.  It is true that, unusually for an incumbent PM, he has to come from behind to win this election.  It is also true that the Murdoch press are, and will continue to be, merciless in their treatment of him and his party.  But by pointing those facts out all the time, as he and others have done extensively in the first two weeks of the campaign, he runs the very real risk of sounding negative and more than a little bit “poor me”. 

 

You can’t complain your way to an election victory.  Time to get positive Kev!

Chewing the electoral cud...

Week one of the federal election

By Richard McEncroe

 

The 2013 Election Campaign is not yet a week old, but the flavour of the contest is starting to settle on the electoral palate.  To my taste at least, the offering so far is disappointingly bland, difficult to digest with the promise of a lingering bitter after taste.  Many ingredients have combined to produce this bitter stodge, but a few dominate for me right now. 

 

The first is that despite considering itself to be the government in waiting for three years, the Coalition is on the back foot and desperately lacking in policy depth or imagination.  Second K-Rudd and his oh so hip to the groove (social) media team will have to beat Rupert Murdoch as well as Tony Abbott to hang on to power.  A third thing that is becoming apparent is that social policy, in particular improving the lot of Indigenous and other Australians enduring serious disadvantage and poverty, is not a priority for either of the mainstream parties.  And lastly, and responsible for the bitter after taste, is the major party’s apparoaches to asylum seeker policy. 

 

Polling coinciding with the death rolls of the Gillard administration seduced the Opposition into believing their assumption to power was a fait accompli.  After all, Australians are known for voting Governments out rather than in.  Surely, they thought, Labor’s penchant for eating their own and their tax and environmental policy flip foppery, will combine with greed motivated official corruption in NSW to make Labor totally unelectable.  But, with Julia dispatched and Rudd back wearing the head chef’s hat the game has changed dramatically.  Kev has so far managed to excise himself from the disasters of his NSW colleagues and Australia from its own migration zone.  He has neutralised the carbon tax issue and, um guess what folks, he wants to talk about the future. 

 

This quite simple reorientation of the public debate from the past to the future has left Abbott flatfooted.  Tony wants to talk about the past as unwaveringly as Kevin wants to talk about the future.  Invoking the “Howard Government way” at every opportunity, Abbott is, and is seen to be, out of touch.  He and his mates have been exposed as being underprepared on several policy fronts.  On economic policy, the big LNP play exacerbates rather than addresses the core structural problem – not enough revenue.  Australia’s ageing population, groaning infrastructure, and ever increasing health care expectations means we need to be creative about new revenue streams.  Abbott has opted to reduce revenue by reducing the company tax rate.  The Opposition asylum seeker policy, such as it is, is confused, and has been developed in a consultation vacuum.  No criticism will be brooked, and even very senior defence personnel have had their concerns about the policy turned away – when it is safe to do so. 

 

The future versus the past theme of the election extends beyond the policy subject matter to the means of engagement between the contestants and their electors.  Both camps use social media, but Labor’s embracing of the medium contrasts with the LNP’s concession to it.  Abbott would always prefer a Murdoch tabloid to a Facebook page when it comes to pitching his messages – such as they are.  Kevin13 can’t get enough of social media, and doesn’t seem too fussed about having Rupert off-side. Given that the daily circulation of the Tele is about 350,000 and that 11 million Australians are on Facebook I’m not surprised - lol. 

 

And what of the policy ‘options’ themselves.  Tony keeps telling us there is something so terrible happening we need a ‘better future’.  They both want us to know they are ‘fair dinkum’ and want us to live in a ‘stronger Australia’ – whatever that is.  The trouble is, for all the people for whom life here is really crap, as opposed to just not quite as nice at it might be, our leaders have nothing. 

 

Homelessness in the big cities; the grinding poverty and disadvantage in Indigenous communities; and chronic double digit unemployment in regional centres are not election issues.  It seems as though in the eyes of the Government the NDIS has used up all the social policy air time and budget, and there’s no room for any more.  The LNP site their paid parental leave scheme as evidence of their social policy contribution.  Good policies both, but not enough, not nearly enough.

 

The electorate is being asked to chew on and somehow digest a pretty bland chunk of Australian political cud right now.  The convergence of political thinking to a point somewhere just to the right of centre has neutralised so many of the real issues such that there is no genuine contest of ideas.  But there will be a contest over the next few weeks and it will be between invoking the past and imagining the future and between new and legacy media.  Who knows, maybe Mr Murdoch is not quite as influential as he (and Tony) think he is?  Gotta zip!

McEncroe and Associates 2024  and Write Options © All Rights Reserved

McEncroe and Associates assists clients to communicate in writing.  We take all care to accurately represent the information provided to us accurately and in good faith.  We do not provide legal, financial or fact checking services.  McEncroe and Associates  accepts no liability for the accuracy or veracity of the information provided to it by clients. Our business accepts no liability for the content of transmissions, or for the consequences of any actions taken on the basis of the information provided.  If you are not the intended recipient of any transmissions or correspondence from McEncroe and Associates you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.
 

bottom of page