Tony Abbott the journalist "lacked fairness and balance"

Damien Murphy has some quotes from Tony Abbott's old editor at the now defunct The Bulletin in Tony Abbott's old editor says he lacked fairness and balance. Murphy writes:

In fact, he only arrived at The Australian after encountering problems as a feature writer with the Packer-owned magazine The Bulletin.

Mr Abbott's misadventures with a typewriter came to a head in 1988 when his editor, David Dale, asked him to rewrite an article five times.

"Tony couldn't seem to get the idea that a feature for The Bulletin had to be fair and balanced," Dale said on Monday. "I told him if he kept going like that he had no future on the magazine."

Mr Abbott went on to work briefly in a concrete factory before joining The Australian as an editorial writer.

I'm sure Tony Abbott fitted right in at the The Australian.

Direct Action is really no action

Lenore Taylor in Tony Abbott is no action man on climate change looks at the many problems with the Government's Direct Action policy.

In 2009, Turnbull, still smarting at his demise, wrote: “The fact is that Tony and the people who put him in his job do not want to do anything about climate change. They do not believe in human-caused global warming. As Tony observed on one occasion 'climate change is crap' or if you consider his mentor, (then) senator (Nick) Minchin, the world is not warming, it’s cooling and the climate change issue is part of a vast leftwing conspiracy to de-industrialise the world.”
Turnbull may have been wrong. Abbott may have revised his views since then. But on the basis of the available evidence, not by much. It may indeed be possible to meet credible greenhouse emission reduction targets in an affordable way using policies other than a carbon price. But on the basis of the available evidence, not by using this policy.

Abbott the leader

Jane Gilmore in Leading Abbott looks the contradictions in Tony Abbott and his government. She opens by quoting Tony Abbott on Kevin Rudd:

Too much political thinking is about winning or holding government, rather than about what might be done once you’re there. If our current prime minster had spent more time thinking about how to govern before winning the next election he might have turned out to be as effective a prime minister as he was an opposition leader.

Tony Abbott on Kevin Rudd, May 2010

She also makes a good point about Abbott as opposition leader:

The Coalition in opposition was not being led by Tony Abbott. A mob rampaging towards a single goal is not under control of a leader, they just happen be charging in the same direction; but this only becomes apparent when they arrive at their destination, destroy the object of their hatred and then disperse into chaos.

The non-conviction politician

Nick Feik in Tony Abbott: an unserious man explores Tony Abbott's lack of political conviction.

Turnbull on Abbott's climate change policy

Abbott's climate change policy is bullshit is an old op-ed by Malcolm Turnbull on Tony Abbott's climate change policy. Since it was written the Coalition has released its Direct Action policy. However, much of the criticism still stands.

Politics of Narcissism

Matthew Yglesias in Rob Portman and the Politics of Narcissism notes that Senator Rob Portman of Ohio has changed his mind on gay marriage after learning that his son is gay.

But what Portman is telling us here is that on this one issue, his previous position was driven by a lack of compassion and empathy. Once he looked at the issue through his son's eyes, he realized he was wrong. Shouldn't that lead to some broader soul-searching? Is it just a coincidence that his son is gay, and also gay rights is the one issue on which a lack of empathy was leading him astray? That, it seems to me, would be a pretty remarkable coincidence. The great challenge for a senator isn't to go to Washington and represent the problems of his own family. It's to try to obtain the intellectual and moral perspective necessary to represent the problems of the people who don't have direct access to the corridors of power.

Senators basically never have poor kids. That's something members of Congress should think about. Especially members of Congress who know personally that realizing an issue affects their own children changes their thinking.

Recently Tony Abbott was on TV explaining how his attitude to women had changed because of his daughters (this seems to have been a rather slow change). Likewise his attitude to gays had changed after his sister's recent coming out. This is exactly what Yglesias is writing about in his article.

Articles analysing Gillard and Abbott speeches at the NPC

In January Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Opposition Leader Tony Abbott each gave speeches at the National Press Club. Someone following the news might have been under the impression the only item of note in the speeches was the announcement of the date for the next election.

In actual fact the Prime Minister had much more to say. Unfortunately, I have only come across three articles that offer any in-depth analysis of either speech:

Bernard Keane: Gillard’s speech — the other 3500 words
Ross Gittins: Gillard talks tough in election year
Greg Jericho: Easy solutions and complex realities

Julia Gillard's speech - a timeline

Sally Baxter in Mussel flexing women destroy the joint has fleshed out some of the history to the recent controversy over Julia Gillard's speech in Parliament attacking Tony Abbott's sexism. Well done.

A young Tony Abbott on universities

An interview with Tony Abbott from his student days where he argued that there had been a "fundamental decline in academic standards". He argued that standards were slipping because of the the increase in the numbers of students, the "huge increase in education spending that took place in the late sixties" and "the influence of small but influential groups of Marxist academics who are actively promoting the corruption of academic standards"

Is Australia going it alone on pricing carbon?

In Get Fact: is Australia ‘going it alone’ on pricing carbon? Crikey looks at claims by Tony Abbott on Australia going it alone in pricing carbon emissions. They conclude:

We rate Abbott’s statement that the ALP is “going it alone” on pricing carbon as “mostly rubbish”.

The great unhinging as predicted

Possum Comitatus has another excellent article The Great Unhinging - Revisited in which he looks at how  qualitative polling in 2006 first identified some of the issues that are now causing dissatisfaction with the current Government. He identifies three threads that came out of that 2006 qualitative polling:

• A growing expectations gap and associated sense of entitlement.
• A growing aversion to complexity.
• A growth in a perception of uncertainty.

These three threads have combined with minority Government and the media to provide Tony Abbott with an ideal platform.

When the 2010 election produced a hung parliament — particularly one where two generally conservative rural independents backed the non-conservative prime ministerial option to form a government — this was uncertainty writ large. The complexity didn’t matter. The public was more predisposed to react against it than it was predisposed to act in support of it, simply because people saw it as yet more uncertainty. Not just a little bit of uncertainty — the biggest chunk of uncertainty the public had experienced in decades.

Thus it was that the more Abbott complained about the minority government and the more Abbott called for a new election — the easiest and most obvious thing for him to do regardless — the more public traction Abbott inevitably gained with these calls. Abbott was seen to be siding with stability, certainty and control — even though he was actually creating most of the uncertainty that was being sheeted home to the minority government. People blamed the government — confirmation bias — because the public had the predisposition to blame the minority government simply because of the uncertain nature of its very existence. With high levels of reactivity being manifest in the public — it was pretty clear to see just which hill this snowball was going to roll down.

Similarly, Abbott was never going to be struggling to find coverage for his attacks now that the media primarily exists to enhance conflict and sensationalise events to generate viewers. With the nosiest sections of News Ltd already firmly in Abbott’s corner and willing to wage war on the new government (let alone News Ltd’s production line of stories blaming the government for issues surrounding the sensitive expectations gap), Abbott could simply feed into the media cycle a constant stream of the very thing he was discovering worked — complaint. The more sensational and hostile the complaint, the greater the level of conflict it would appear as, hence the more coverage it would receive and the more support it would ultimately generate.

What distinguishes Possum Comitatus from other commentators is that he predicted this 18 months ago when the minority Government was first formed.

Recommended reading.

Some comments by Tony Abbott

In Don't give Gillard any free kicks, says Abbott Phillip Coorey writes:

Addressing his party room as Parliament resumed for the year, Mr Abbott cited internal divisions over the Murray-Darling Basin and subsidies for the automotive industry as examples.

''The fight you have over $500 million here and 1000 gigalitres is the type of fight you have in government,'' sources quoted Mr Abbott as saying.
Advertisement: Story continues below

''In opposition we can't fix these things so don't get bogged down in them.''

Tony Abbott is right, there's a limit as to what an opposition can do about these issues (with the reservation that when the Government does not have a majority in either house the Opposition does have some influence). However, the Opposition is the alternate Government. When they next go to an election they need to be able to tell voters what their policies are. It's better to have the debates (even if behind closed doors) and decide these matters now rather than have to do it in the middle of an election campaign. If the issues are controversial then the Opposition might not have the opportunity to postpone the decision until after they obtain Government.

Cutting the NBN won't save money

Renai Lemay writes in Correction: Cutting the NBN won’t save money that Tony Abbott was wrong when, in his speech to the National Press Club, he claimed that "cutting Labor’s National Broadband Network project would free up Federal Government money to be spent in other areas such as transport". This is because the Government, as per internationally accepted accounting standards, treats the NBN as an asset rather than an expense (see the note below). What does this mean in practical terms. Well, say the Government was going to give NBN Company two billion dollars this year (a figure I made up). Because this is money spent on an asset, the Government can't treat that $2b as an expense (that's the way accounting works). So, not spending the money won't decrease the budget deficit or increase a surplus. If Tony Abbott came to power tomorrow and immediately cut funding to NBN Co he wouldn't suddenly have $2b extra to add to the budget bottom line. Of course he could use that $2b to purchase other assets. Alternatively, he could not spend that $2b and so not increase Government debt. However, I doubt that would save much as the Government is able to raise money incredible cheaply at the moment.

Note
The reason the NBN is an asset is two fold. One: It will generate revenue. Two: It can be sold. To quote Wikipedia:

In financial accounting, assets are economic resources. Anything tangible or intangible that is capable of being owned or controlled to produce value and that is held to have positive economic value is considered an asset. Simply stated, assets represent ownership of value that can be converted into cash (although cash itself is also considered an asset).

Mike Carlton looks at Tony Abbott's promise to turn the boats back

Mike Carlton in Speedo politics scuttles any solution looks at Tony Abbott's latest promise to "turn the boats back". Where before he had a general promise to turn the boats back, but left the individual decision to the senior Navy officer on the spot, now he's saying that all boats will be turned back, even if the Navy has to repair and refuel them first.

It seems that Tony Abbott sees this as a test of wills between Australia and Indonesia. Macho stuff from Mr Abbott (brings to mind a Laura Tingle column). Unfortunately, I don't think this is a test that Australia can really win. As Mike Carlton points out, the people smugglers know how to counter this strategy:

The people smugglers have shown they will set fire to the boats or sink them to stop them being sent back.

I can't see our Navy repairing an Indonesian fishing boat that's at the bottom of the ocean or burnt to the water line. All this policy will do is risk the lives of asylum seekers and of our sailors that may have to rescue them. The only way to counter such people smuggler tactics would be to refuse to rescue those concerned. However, this would be, I think, a bridge too far. Such actions would be highly immoral if not illegal (wasn't Admiral Dönitz charged with war crimes for ordering his submarine crews to refuse to rescue stranded sailors).

So, how does Mr Abbott think we can triumph over Indonesia in a battle of wills?

Opinion leadership amongst Australian political leaders

Dr Richard Stanton looks at the different types of political leaders in Fleet-footed Abbott needs to be playmaker:

Homophily is a fundamental principle of human communication where ideas and innovations are more likely to be shared more frequently between people who are alike in beliefs, education and socioeconomic status.

The opposite of homophily is heterophily. This requires one to step outside ritual boundaries to take meaning from or communicate meaning to those with a different set of values or beliefs.

Monomorphic thought leaders tend to focus on a single issue. The alternative to a monomorphic thought leader is a polymorphic thought leader - obviously, one who is comfortable being across a variety of issues.

Abbott has accumulated several of the important characteristics of a thought leader - great exposure to news media; broad interpersonal networks; extensive contact with change agents; and the capacity to always be ''on the edge'', which means he is not on top of things but acts as a broker between groups.

These characteristics are representative of a homophilous monomorphic thought leader, which is not a bad thing in a business or corporate head. But it can be dangerous for a political head.

He goes on to write:

Abbott's monomorphic focus on specific issues during most of last year was a good strategy, but it will not hold for this year. He can no longer afford to act homophilously (preach to the choir) and expect to increase his coalition's vote.

The questions, however, are whether or not he knows he is on the brink and whether thought leadership and innovation really matter.

It's an interesting analysis. However, the Gillard Government seems to be so on the nose with the electorate that Tony Abbott probably doesn't need to change anything in his style to be re-elected. Even if, as the writer suggests, Tony Abbott does not have the appropriate characteristics to lead a nation he's probably going to win the next election anyway. The problem may well be what comes after.

Note, according to Wikipedia homophily is often expressed as "Birds of a feather flock together". The Wikipedia article on heterophily on the other hand notes that "This phenomenon is notable in successful organizations, where the resulting diversity of ideas is thought to promote an innovative environment".

Unfortunately I can't find entries for monomorphic or polymorphic in Wikipedia, at least in the context of opinion leadership. Wikipedia does have an article on the concept of opinion leadership. The opinion leader concept does, in my opinion, help explain the influence of people like Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt.

This website has definitions of monomorphic opinion leadership and polymorphic opinion leadership, although it's the context of marketing. Note that you can't read the entire page is parts of it are hidden by a login screen. If you disable JavaScript you should be able to copy the contents of the page.
BusinessDictionary.com defines monomorphic opinion leadership as:

A type of leadership in communication and media that leads to the spread of information concerning one particular, highly specialized topic rather than a broadly-based set of information. This can be a very narrow point of view and can lead to making decisions based on lack of full information. opposite of polymorphic opinion leadership.

It does not have a definition of polymorphic opinion leadership. I guess we just have to treat it as the opposite of monomorphic.

Some bad press for Tony Abbott

Over the last few weeks there's been a few columns that have been critical of Tony Abbott and the Coalition. I don't know if this is the start of a trend or not (something Drag0nista also ponders). He's a summary of some of the recent columns.

On October the 15th Laurie Oakes in Both sides in trust shortfall noted that Tony Abbott had form when it came to broken promises.

What's more, senior Liberals admit privately that their leader has made more promises than he can keep; he has made promises that are unaffordable.

On October the 21st Andrew Probyn in Future not so simple for Abbott noted that while Tony Abbott will probably win the next election, he's currently sowing the "seeds of his own destruction":

But unless he sets about seriously reconfiguring various policies, when he becomes prime minister he will either have to break promises, commit humiliating backdowns or attempt to wheedle his way out of controversy.

This could be the death of his prime ministership, as it was with Kevin Rudd. But more of that later.

He noted that the "simple message is what often hooks voters" but seemed to question the policies that lay behind them.

Stuff that sounds neat and well-packaged can pass muster on presentation but when unwrapped and analysed it is much more thorny.

On October the 22nd Peter Hartcher in Biz-bashing rewards Abbott looked at how Tony Abbott seemed to be upsetting the big end of town:

But Abbott's opposition shuts down debate about workplace reform, shows signs of being tempted away from a wholehearted commitment to free trade, proposes a new tax on big business to fund an expensive parental leave scheme, and, while it certainly monitors government spending closely, has yet to explain its own fiscal policy.

On the same day Lenore Taylor wrote in Ignore all facts and just run with the bluster that the Coalition seems to be avoiding facts when it came to carbon taxes or asylum seekers:

Whether it is because The Lie has given it cover or just a manifestation of the age of post-truth politics, the Coalition has proceeded to attack the carbon pricing scheme with virtually no reference to facts.

Shaun Carney in Blood oath reality is taking Abbott out of comfort zone noted that Tony Abbott's attacks on the Government had been "almost entirely policy free":

For the first time in a long time, a small window of opportunity has opened up for the government to go after Abbott. Now that what he calls the toxic tax is to take effect, he must at last move outside his comfort zone of highly charged rhetoric into the place where what he says has real consequences.

On October the 23rd Drag0nista's Blog asked Is the tide turning for Tony Abbott?

On October the 28th Laura Tingle in Labor hopeless, Abbott a hollow man (which I've quoted from before) called Tony Abbott a hollow man and noted that the Government's unpopularity shouldn't "stop some proper scrutiny of the nonsense Abbott keeps sprouting". She then tore apart his policies on refugee boats.

Yes, he has been there shielded from the implications of these views by the fact that voters like the PM even less. But two years is a long to get away with being such a negative, opportunistic and hollow man.

On October the 31st Alister Drysdale in Dr No cant' last forever noted that "over the past couple of weeks some of the more respected scribes who’ve make a life-long living from political reporting out of Canberra – and have seen the birth and death of dozens of Party leaders – have started to question the 'no' strategy of the Opposition Leader." Borrowing from the Melbourne Cup he's noted that this political race has turned out to be a "long distance endurance test" rather than the spring that Tony Abbott had wanted.

On November the 1st Geoff Gallop in Tony Abbott and the role of the Opposition looked at the problems created when Oppositions only oppose:

Firstly by opting out of so much policy consideration the ability to influence outcomes is diminished. I say diminished rather than sacrificed because oppositions can still have an indirect influence on policy through the public pressure they generate.

It guarantees an adversarial Parliament and can't be good for a legislative process which requires input from a range of sources. We live in a world of complexity that needs serious deliberation across the traditional ideological boundaries if solutions are to be found.

Secondly, it feeds into the populist culture and the short-termism it creates. If they are to act in the public interest governments will need to tackle vested interests opposing change. Bad opinion polls – at least in the short-run – may have to be accepted.

I hope to come back to this topic at a later date.

On the same day Marius Benson pondered what sort of Government Tony Abbott would lead in Passion-driven policy: picturing an Abbott Government.

On November the 5th Laurie Oakes in Mining tax has exposed Abbott questions Tony Abbott's stance on the mining tax. He also attacks the Coalition's response to the Government's support for improved resourcing of the IMF.

Politicians don't come any more ferocious and brutal than Abbott. He reverted to the wild the moment he got his paws on the Liberal leadership.

His style is pure attack dog, as feral as you'd get. Everything, irrespective of merit, has to be opposed and torn to pieces.

On November the 7th, Michael Pascoe in Abbott's gross failure of economic credibility attacks Tony Abbott's opposition to the mining tax and questions the need for a surplus at the moment. He opens with:

It's not just Europe and the United States where base politics can make for bad economics. There's a danger that cheap populism is about to lock in a bad outcome for Australia in the next financial year and, depending on the extent to which you can trust political leaders to lie, worse beyond that.

For all the opinion poll perceptions though, it's not the government that's guilty of a gross failure of economic credibility. It's the opposition, both in the short and medium terms.

And finishes with:

Further out, there are bigger worries if the likely events come to pass and Abbott is elected prime minister and Hockey becomes his treasurer.

Hockey's apologists claim he just has to run with the policies Abbott invents, but that excuse is wearing very thin. Hockeynomics looks like a dangerous cult – a world in which Canberra increases services but cuts taxes, while building up a massive surplus. No, it does not add up.

On November the 9th Paul Kelly in Super backflip breaks dam for Abbott argues that the Tony Abbott lead opposition has been running a negative argument for too long and is fighting on too many fronts.

Why is Abbott vulnerable? He is vulnerable because he has become Dr No, rejecting policies on populist grounds regardless of principle and past Coalition belief. By opposing virtually everything, he cheapens his case and credibility for opposing what matters.

On November the 23rd Phillip Coorey in Abbott victim of friendly fire as Liberals criticise Coalition leadership noted that there was some dissent within the party ranks. He also noted that "Mr Abbott grew testy and shut down the debate". That's not going to make the troops happy, although it is consistent with how he handles door stops and press conferences apparently.

On November the 24th Steven Scott in Disunity a jolt to Liberal leader Tony Abbott's lead in polls wrote that "Abbott faces growing criticism from within his party". He also reported that many Liberals believe that Tony Abbott is too close to Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce. I suspect Steven Scott's report was written before Peter Slipper became Speaker of the House of Representatives.

On November the 26th Michael Gordon in Bitter aftertaste ruins Abbott toast to future wrote that at last year's Opposition Leader's Christmas drinks Tony Abbott told attendees that he would "See you next year at The Lodge for drinks".

Peter Hatcher in Abbott's positively negative wrote that "The Liberal Party is waking up to the realisation that their leader's insistent oppositionism is not helping the cause".

Katherine Murphy asks The question for 2012: can this man go positive?

Laura Tingle on Tony Abbott

I've respected Laura Tingle's work since she was with the Australian (back when I regularly read it). Unfortunately most of her work is inaccessible behind a pay wall. Luckily we can see a recent effort for free. Last week she wrote Labor hopeless, Abbott a hollow man where she equates the Opposition Leader to King Arthur of Monty Python and the Holy Grail:

... in his chain mail and ill-fitting crown, riding an imaginary horse while porters walk behind him banging coconut shells together is more the ticket.

She then goes on to tear apart his policies on Asylum seekers and look at his recent pronouncement on poker machine reform. She finishes with:

But two years is a long time to get away with being such a negative, opportunistic and hollow man.

Edit 5/11: Ben Eltham discusses Laura Tingle's article in Will negative Abbott get a positive result?

Carbon tax starting to cause problems for Tony Abbott?

In Blood oath reality is taking Abbott out of comfort zone Shaun Carney observes that:

Climate change policy is the tar baby of Australian politics: get too close to it and you can really get into a sticky situation. The passage of the carbon pricing legislation through the lower house has forced Liberal leader Tony Abbott to finally place his mitts on it, and he is starting to get into strife.

Lenore Taylor on a fact-less Tony Abbott

Lenore Taylor in Ignore all facts and just run with the bluster looks at how Tony Abbott seems to be a fact free zone when it comes to pricing carbon and asylum policies.

She finishes with:

No politician would, or should, unthinkingly accept all advice they receive. But it's a bit worrying when they seem to reject out of hand, and without coherent arguments or reasons, all advice that contradicts their focus-group-tested case.

Tony Abbott a better fit in the DLP?

For the last month or so I've been wondering if Tony Abbott is politically closer to the Democratic Labor Party than he is to the Liberal Party. After all they have many things in common:

• A conservative Catholic outlook on life
• A lack of commitment to, or rejection of, the traditional Liberal Party preference for individual rather than collective bargaining
• A rejection of neo-liberal economic policies
• A role in the running of unions

If Tony Abbott had joined a political party some forty years ago, would it have the Liberal Party, or might he have sort out the DLP?

According to Phillip Coorey in Abbott must stick to values: Costello Peter Costello might well be asking the same question. Indeed, Peter Costello reports in Liberals must protect values of freedom and choice that:

Over that time, most of the DLP membership slipped away. Some went back to the Labor Party - their home before the split which led them to form their own party in the 1950s. Some joined the National Party and many joined the Liberal Party. In his recent memoir, the Coalition finance spokesman and former federal director of the Liberal Party, Andrew Robb, tells of working for the DLP at elections in the 1960s. Tony Abbott also worked closely with the DLP in his student days.

Mr Costello then goes on to write

The Liberal Party was also fiercely anti-communist. It didn't have a significant Catholic membership and Catholics in senior positions in the parliamentary party were the exception rather than the rule. The fact that many of the old DLP supporters were able to find a home in the Liberal Party indicates how it widened its appeal, at least in terms of religious background. Most senior players in the federal Coalition today were educated in the Catholic school system - the leader, the leader of the house, the shadow treasurer, shadow attorney-general and finance spokesman. This development is a credit to that education system and also, I think, to the leadership of the Catholic Church which has managed to retain the orthodoxy of its flock as the Protestant churches have drifted into theological liberalism and political trendyism.

I think Mr Costello might be showing his Baptist roots in that last sentence. Mr Costello then goes on to look at the statements of National Senator Barnaby Joyce on protectionism and against free trade, inferring that Senator Joyce might also be politically closer to the DLP.

So, it seems that the Liberal Party, at least at the Federal level, is now run by the DLP.