Three safe Liberal city seats. One in Brisbane (Ryan) and two in Sydney (North Sydney and Warringah). All three seats have margins of around 10-11%. Here the adjective blue ribbon is not just applied to ice cream. The Courier Mail has listed Ryan as one of two seats the Coalition is in dire straits. Labor has released polling showing it leads 53-47 in North Sydney. Labor only released the candidate's name in Warringah after the election was called.
What is going on here? Perhaps it is Warringah's track record of never returning a non-conservative MP? True, North Sydney was held by the independent Ted Mack and Ryan revolted to Labor at a by-election in 2001. However, this ignores the 2001 election result in Warringah, where former NSW independent MP, Peter MacDonald forced the race to preferences, only losing on the back of the Tampa-September 11 kinghit.
Maybe the redistribution has put Warringah above even the high watermark of a tidal wave of Rudd support. Why then did Labor pre-select its candidate for Bradfield, margin 17.6%, weeks before Warringah?
In fact, Warringah was the last seat in New South Wales, and possibly the country, where Labor even preselected a candidate. Having latterly announced the candidature of Hugh Zochling, Labor appears to have cordoned off campaigning. One group of citizens is so concerned at the lack of interest by candidates that it has launched something called the Warringah worm to register issues of note in the electorate.
Certainly Labor has to ration its resources somewhere. With so many Coalition seats on the table, the chance to capitalise on a favourable redistribution in neighbouring Bradfield is probably more appealing. Or is there something more strategic at play?
The local member for Warringah is Tony Abbott, the Health Minister whose bedside manner clearly needs some work. Perhaps Rudd is banking on unpopular Coalition figures like Abbott keeping their seats and being the ugly face of an unelectable opposition. Given the somewhat questionable feelings of Peter Costello towards a long dark night of opposition, the tacticians may be looking at future contenders.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Playing Chinese Whispers on Climate
Climate change is a challenging issue. How does one adequately prepare for an unknown level of threat and instigate a major transition in the powering of the economy while minimising the impact.
These challenges are not helped by the sheer complexity of the instruments governing the emission of greenhouse gases. It's hardly surprising that Rudd and Garrett are tying themselves in knots on the issue. Rudd is a late convert to climate change action, previously driving a Ford Territory. Garrett's tenure in the Australian Conservation Foundation has given him a strong ideal policy standpoint. Unfortunately his natural stance is totally at odds with Labor's wedgeproofing policy of supporting coal interests.
The great tragedy of Australia's climate change policy under Howard is that a golden opportunity to cement our export industries in renewable energy was strangled. Australia has forfeited its role as solar leader to Germany and Japan. The Kyoto Protocol offered Australia an opportunity to play a leadership role on both the industrial and diplomatic level which Howard chose to misunderstand. It is a mistake that Rudd does not want to repeat. Instead of using the 8% increase on 1990 levels as an easy way to transition away from coal, Howard stonewalled. Thus the challenge to complete this transition effectively and painlessly is made immeasurably harder.
Rudd's climate change policy has three clearly defined key pillars: immediate ratification of Kyoto, a 60% reduction on C02 levels from 2000 levels by 2050 and a 20% renewable energy target by 2020.
The fourth pillar is the source of consternation. The question of the successor to Kyoto, an instrument which will have to have onerous binding targets and real teeth, is vexed. In the ultimate chicken-and-egg scenario, China won't accept targets unless the US and Australia do (or at least Australia), while Australia won't accept targets unless China does. This stalemate has more than the odd whiff of Neronian fiddlesticks about it. I suspect Rudd's intention is to negotiate with China and India a deal where Australia would accept binding targets on condition they also accepted them, but not necessarily to the same degree or starting at the same time.
The nuance in this is being portrayed as a backflip by a horde of eager Liberals who have descended upon the daylight offered by Garrett's comments like seagulls on a renegade chip. It is quite clear that Rudd would not negotiate future targets (which will have to be something like 30%+ reductions by 2030 at the rate of non-progress and doomsday reports from the IPCC) unless China and India were at least on a timetable to come on board.
Garrett's gaffe comes as much from the fact that he is the climate change guru of the Labor party and Rudd is the political master. Labor clearly want to place Australia in an influential position in future climate change negotiations, where we can show leadership by adopting an early target. Howard seems intent on leading negotiations up the garden path towards voluntary committments. This is rather like saying to a recalcitrant teenager to volunteer to do extra homework. It simply won't work.
Howard's tired old refrain that he will not support an agreement unless it includes the major emitters should be put to the test. What degree of cuts is he prepared to accept and on what basis. Climate change is an inherently complex beast and the public discussion of each party's approach should be subject to a commensurate level of scrutiny.
These challenges are not helped by the sheer complexity of the instruments governing the emission of greenhouse gases. It's hardly surprising that Rudd and Garrett are tying themselves in knots on the issue. Rudd is a late convert to climate change action, previously driving a Ford Territory. Garrett's tenure in the Australian Conservation Foundation has given him a strong ideal policy standpoint. Unfortunately his natural stance is totally at odds with Labor's wedgeproofing policy of supporting coal interests.
The great tragedy of Australia's climate change policy under Howard is that a golden opportunity to cement our export industries in renewable energy was strangled. Australia has forfeited its role as solar leader to Germany and Japan. The Kyoto Protocol offered Australia an opportunity to play a leadership role on both the industrial and diplomatic level which Howard chose to misunderstand. It is a mistake that Rudd does not want to repeat. Instead of using the 8% increase on 1990 levels as an easy way to transition away from coal, Howard stonewalled. Thus the challenge to complete this transition effectively and painlessly is made immeasurably harder.
Rudd's climate change policy has three clearly defined key pillars: immediate ratification of Kyoto, a 60% reduction on C02 levels from 2000 levels by 2050 and a 20% renewable energy target by 2020.
The fourth pillar is the source of consternation. The question of the successor to Kyoto, an instrument which will have to have onerous binding targets and real teeth, is vexed. In the ultimate chicken-and-egg scenario, China won't accept targets unless the US and Australia do (or at least Australia), while Australia won't accept targets unless China does. This stalemate has more than the odd whiff of Neronian fiddlesticks about it. I suspect Rudd's intention is to negotiate with China and India a deal where Australia would accept binding targets on condition they also accepted them, but not necessarily to the same degree or starting at the same time.
The nuance in this is being portrayed as a backflip by a horde of eager Liberals who have descended upon the daylight offered by Garrett's comments like seagulls on a renegade chip. It is quite clear that Rudd would not negotiate future targets (which will have to be something like 30%+ reductions by 2030 at the rate of non-progress and doomsday reports from the IPCC) unless China and India were at least on a timetable to come on board.
Garrett's gaffe comes as much from the fact that he is the climate change guru of the Labor party and Rudd is the political master. Labor clearly want to place Australia in an influential position in future climate change negotiations, where we can show leadership by adopting an early target. Howard seems intent on leading negotiations up the garden path towards voluntary committments. This is rather like saying to a recalcitrant teenager to volunteer to do extra homework. It simply won't work.
Howard's tired old refrain that he will not support an agreement unless it includes the major emitters should be put to the test. What degree of cuts is he prepared to accept and on what basis. Climate change is an inherently complex beast and the public discussion of each party's approach should be subject to a commensurate level of scrutiny.
Monday, October 29, 2007
More Canadian Club than Irish invention
A few months back, the mainstream media flirted with the idea that the remarkable recovery of one Bertie Ahern in the Irish election provided a pathway for Howard's Lazarus-with-an-artifical heart recovery. Yesterday, Michelle Grattan alluded to senior Liberals geeing up the flagging troops with tales of Bertie's heroics.
The problem with the Irish solution is that it is more Colm Begley than Tadgh Kennelly, offering the illusion of hope but no substance. Ahern did trail the opposition coalition early, but his opponent ran primarily on infrastructure problems in the burgeoning suburbs of Dublin and an attack on Ahern's credibility over shadowy loans. In reality, this was closer to Oz 2001 than 2007, because his Fine Gael opponent, Edna Kenny was seen as the weaker leader. Due to the complexities of the Irish voting system, minor party votes translate the preferred PM result into the final outcome. Ahern's record of growth and continued leadership outweighed the appeal of better services and Kenny provided no convincing case as to how the Celtic Tiger's prosperity could be improved. One could imagine a similar sense that Howard would defeat Beazley as the stronger leader in 2001, his common touch appeal aided by the children overboard scandal rather than diminished.
When musings of a late transition hit the airwaves, it recalled a rather calamatious political collapse. The Canadian election of 1993 featured a tired conservative party which came to grief by a combination of offending the ordinary voter over a political agreement on provincial autonomy and a deteriorating economy. In this respect it was as if Keating was leading the Tories straight off the cliff into the abyss. Having comprehensively offended almost everybody, the Tories had their support stolen by the opposition Liberals, and two new parties, one centred on Quebec and one composed of particularly anti-politician conservatives in the western provinces. Oh yes, and they put in a new leader who had no idea how to deal with the irate voters. The party's representation evaporated from 151 down to 2.
The Irish election is unhelpful primarily because the 'old-new dynamic' was not in play. Ireland has a tradition of short-lived governments rather than a trend for decade long governments generating an 'it's time' factor. The opposition leader was not particularly new and had no alternative vision other than providing services.
By contrast, Rudd's wedging of Howard's economic success provides a whole different paradigm through which his record is viewed. In this climate, the interest rate pledge and the workchoices insecurity become similar in many marginals to the Canadian sense of economic deterioration. The non-action on climate change does not so much offend voters as convince them Howard is not the man for the job. Thus his satisfaction rating reflects his past achievement, while he has no future support.
Howard has not been deposed simply because the Liberals are like a group of men who have locked the room, thrown away the key and started a fire from which they can't escape. Hence Costello (or anyone else) could not be strapped into the death seat in the same way Kim Campbell was in Canada.
However that does not detract from the similarities. Canada's conservatives were an amalgam of different interests which frayed badly when forces turned against them. The Liberal-National Coalition is a tight coalition of two parties, but the Liberal party itself is an amalgam of at least three competing groups, social/economic liberals, neo-liberal economists and blue-collar conservative nationalists. A fourth constituency, the 'moral values' right, bleeds over into the minor party Family First.
At first glance, the Coalition's implosion is nothing like Canada's but there are subtle hints that major fractures exist. The Nationals are running damaging three-corner contests in seats like Leichhardht, never mind their ongoing battle to win back seats like New England and Kennedy from independents. The social/economic 'true liberals' group is deserting to Rudd either directly or through preferences. The moral values group asserts disproportionate power for its voting base. And a wave of MPs are leaving off Howard from their campaign literature. The most serious rupture comes from ministers most notably Malcolm Turnbull leaving the Liberal party off campaign material altogether. Turnbull is now turning himself into the independent voice in cabinet on climate change.
This self-disendorsement creates the impression of a band of super-charged independents. Many campaigns are feigning a local focus, with reports of 'street hoons' being an issue from Perth to Brisbane.
If one was to add up the number of loyal-Howard acknowledging Liberal MPs left, Liberal HQ may not be much warmer than a winter's afternoon in Vancouver.
Team Howard is currently demonstrating what happens when the team loses form. Individual players play for themselves to the detriment of the team. The game plan goes out the window and the scoreboard can blow out depending on the killer instinct of the opposition. It is ironic that Howard was using that old football formula a team uses when the coach is heading for the dole queue: 'Mr Turnbull has the full confidence of the government'. It's pretty clear that the government, or even the Liberal party, does not have the full confidence of Malcolm of Wentworth.
The Liberals may not be routed as badly as the Canadian Progressive Conservatives were, but unless they come up with a core platform of values and beliefs that addresses the modern era and not the old battles of the 1950s, they will quickly find themselves replaced by parties that better represent the modern reality.
The problem with the Irish solution is that it is more Colm Begley than Tadgh Kennelly, offering the illusion of hope but no substance. Ahern did trail the opposition coalition early, but his opponent ran primarily on infrastructure problems in the burgeoning suburbs of Dublin and an attack on Ahern's credibility over shadowy loans. In reality, this was closer to Oz 2001 than 2007, because his Fine Gael opponent, Edna Kenny was seen as the weaker leader. Due to the complexities of the Irish voting system, minor party votes translate the preferred PM result into the final outcome. Ahern's record of growth and continued leadership outweighed the appeal of better services and Kenny provided no convincing case as to how the Celtic Tiger's prosperity could be improved. One could imagine a similar sense that Howard would defeat Beazley as the stronger leader in 2001, his common touch appeal aided by the children overboard scandal rather than diminished.
When musings of a late transition hit the airwaves, it recalled a rather calamatious political collapse. The Canadian election of 1993 featured a tired conservative party which came to grief by a combination of offending the ordinary voter over a political agreement on provincial autonomy and a deteriorating economy. In this respect it was as if Keating was leading the Tories straight off the cliff into the abyss. Having comprehensively offended almost everybody, the Tories had their support stolen by the opposition Liberals, and two new parties, one centred on Quebec and one composed of particularly anti-politician conservatives in the western provinces. Oh yes, and they put in a new leader who had no idea how to deal with the irate voters. The party's representation evaporated from 151 down to 2.
The Irish election is unhelpful primarily because the 'old-new dynamic' was not in play. Ireland has a tradition of short-lived governments rather than a trend for decade long governments generating an 'it's time' factor. The opposition leader was not particularly new and had no alternative vision other than providing services.
By contrast, Rudd's wedging of Howard's economic success provides a whole different paradigm through which his record is viewed. In this climate, the interest rate pledge and the workchoices insecurity become similar in many marginals to the Canadian sense of economic deterioration. The non-action on climate change does not so much offend voters as convince them Howard is not the man for the job. Thus his satisfaction rating reflects his past achievement, while he has no future support.
Howard has not been deposed simply because the Liberals are like a group of men who have locked the room, thrown away the key and started a fire from which they can't escape. Hence Costello (or anyone else) could not be strapped into the death seat in the same way Kim Campbell was in Canada.
However that does not detract from the similarities. Canada's conservatives were an amalgam of different interests which frayed badly when forces turned against them. The Liberal-National Coalition is a tight coalition of two parties, but the Liberal party itself is an amalgam of at least three competing groups, social/economic liberals, neo-liberal economists and blue-collar conservative nationalists. A fourth constituency, the 'moral values' right, bleeds over into the minor party Family First.
At first glance, the Coalition's implosion is nothing like Canada's but there are subtle hints that major fractures exist. The Nationals are running damaging three-corner contests in seats like Leichhardht, never mind their ongoing battle to win back seats like New England and Kennedy from independents. The social/economic 'true liberals' group is deserting to Rudd either directly or through preferences. The moral values group asserts disproportionate power for its voting base. And a wave of MPs are leaving off Howard from their campaign literature. The most serious rupture comes from ministers most notably Malcolm Turnbull leaving the Liberal party off campaign material altogether. Turnbull is now turning himself into the independent voice in cabinet on climate change.
This self-disendorsement creates the impression of a band of super-charged independents. Many campaigns are feigning a local focus, with reports of 'street hoons' being an issue from Perth to Brisbane.
If one was to add up the number of loyal-Howard acknowledging Liberal MPs left, Liberal HQ may not be much warmer than a winter's afternoon in Vancouver.
Team Howard is currently demonstrating what happens when the team loses form. Individual players play for themselves to the detriment of the team. The game plan goes out the window and the scoreboard can blow out depending on the killer instinct of the opposition. It is ironic that Howard was using that old football formula a team uses when the coach is heading for the dole queue: 'Mr Turnbull has the full confidence of the government'. It's pretty clear that the government, or even the Liberal party, does not have the full confidence of Malcolm of Wentworth.
The Liberals may not be routed as badly as the Canadian Progressive Conservatives were, but unless they come up with a core platform of values and beliefs that addresses the modern era and not the old battles of the 1950s, they will quickly find themselves replaced by parties that better represent the modern reality.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Signs the dynasty is dying
In 1998, 2001 and 2004, Labor got barely 40% of the vote. It did not even bother engaging with the Liberals on the economy and certainly did not go after Howard in any notable way. The Liberals raised Keating's interest rate bogy periodically, making it the focus of their campaign in 2004. The key feature about Liberal advertising was that it both reinforced a strong pro-government message (who can forget 'we will decide who comes into this country') and a strong anti-opposition message on the economy, and that anti-opposition message returned the voter's thinking to the Liberals' economic credentials. In Latham's case, the highly personal campaign tapped into the inherent volatility detected in his character.
This campaign they tried it again. It lasted five minutes before Rudd launched a guerilla reposte ridiculing it first on YouTube and then national television. It was a tired idea which was so predictable Rudd's counter looked like it had been produced after the attack ad. Having tried to attack Rudd, they are now ignoring his stratospheric presence and committing electoral suicide.
The Liberals' lack of an agenda is hurting them badly. Tax cuts are not an agenda, they are viewed in many quarters as a right. The Liberals have been caught out picking low-hanging fruit, seduced by the idea they can just take a chainsaw to a leader's character during a campaign. The only issue they can run on with surety is the economy, but...
there is an innate belief in Australia that the Liberals are better economic managers which makes it easy for the Liberals to tap into it. However, as Possum Comitatus noted this week, the economic primacy of the Liberals does not translate into votes. People assume that the Libs will manage the economy well, but people don't assume Labor will. Labor is viewed as the competent party for services and the Libs for the hard stuff. Ergo, if the Libs run a campaign solely on economic management, then it means they won't win. But, Liberal voters do vote for the better economic manager eight times out of ten, so it would be a good way to protect your base vote. Similarly, the union theme does not relate directly back to a government strength. Fears about union power are at historically low levels; after the Howard government's performance with Workchoices, only the most ardent supporter would agree unions were a risk.
The latest Galaxy Senate poll may point to an interesting side effect of the union fear campaign. Senate polls are temperamental beasts and the figures do suggest a very high Green vote. But one possibility is that vote-splitting is returning in the Senate. After the collapse of the Democrats and Latham Labor on 2004 gave the Coalition control of the Senate, a chastened electorate may hedge its bets. On the left, Rudd has consolidated a large chunk of Green voters behind him. They may still, however, be inclined to vote Green in the Senate, particularly if they are concerned about 'me-tooism'. On the right, former Liberal voters may be slightly spooked by the union-mongering (especially if they are first-time Labor voters) and want to ensure Rudd (or the unions) doesn't have unfettered power. If this is the result, it's quite possible that Labor's vote, while not as low as 33% in the Senate, certainly won't get anywhere near as high as in the House of Representatives.
In other news, Christian Kerr at Crikey is reporting that Brendan Nelson may have the numbers for the opposition leadership. This, despite the fact Kevin hasn't even vacated it yet.
This campaign they tried it again. It lasted five minutes before Rudd launched a guerilla reposte ridiculing it first on YouTube and then national television. It was a tired idea which was so predictable Rudd's counter looked like it had been produced after the attack ad. Having tried to attack Rudd, they are now ignoring his stratospheric presence and committing electoral suicide.
The Liberals' lack of an agenda is hurting them badly. Tax cuts are not an agenda, they are viewed in many quarters as a right. The Liberals have been caught out picking low-hanging fruit, seduced by the idea they can just take a chainsaw to a leader's character during a campaign. The only issue they can run on with surety is the economy, but...
there is an innate belief in Australia that the Liberals are better economic managers which makes it easy for the Liberals to tap into it. However, as Possum Comitatus noted this week, the economic primacy of the Liberals does not translate into votes. People assume that the Libs will manage the economy well, but people don't assume Labor will. Labor is viewed as the competent party for services and the Libs for the hard stuff. Ergo, if the Libs run a campaign solely on economic management, then it means they won't win. But, Liberal voters do vote for the better economic manager eight times out of ten, so it would be a good way to protect your base vote. Similarly, the union theme does not relate directly back to a government strength. Fears about union power are at historically low levels; after the Howard government's performance with Workchoices, only the most ardent supporter would agree unions were a risk.
The latest Galaxy Senate poll may point to an interesting side effect of the union fear campaign. Senate polls are temperamental beasts and the figures do suggest a very high Green vote. But one possibility is that vote-splitting is returning in the Senate. After the collapse of the Democrats and Latham Labor on 2004 gave the Coalition control of the Senate, a chastened electorate may hedge its bets. On the left, Rudd has consolidated a large chunk of Green voters behind him. They may still, however, be inclined to vote Green in the Senate, particularly if they are concerned about 'me-tooism'. On the right, former Liberal voters may be slightly spooked by the union-mongering (especially if they are first-time Labor voters) and want to ensure Rudd (or the unions) doesn't have unfettered power. If this is the result, it's quite possible that Labor's vote, while not as low as 33% in the Senate, certainly won't get anywhere near as high as in the House of Representatives.
In other news, Christian Kerr at Crikey is reporting that Brendan Nelson may have the numbers for the opposition leadership. This, despite the fact Kevin hasn't even vacated it yet.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Battle of the ages
Kevin Rudd is fond of saying that 16 seats is a virtual Everest. When he assumed the leadership, no one seemed to believe that Labor could win this election. The grand old Labor hero, the venerable Gough, said categorically Rudd would win the following election. For Labor to win, something truly historic has to happen...and something truly historic is happening. This election is not just between opposing parties or policies, but between different historical epochs.
Rudd's first speech as Labor leader contained the following statement:
The basic thrust boils down to this: Rudd Labor is not the socialists of the 1940s, 1950s or 1960s. It is the true baton-carrier for the Menzies tradition. This is an appeal that has been coming for a long time, and finally Rudd sees himself as the leader capable of making it.
Howard is about to be wedged by his own historical hero. If Rudd's philosophy does come to be known in the leafy streets, among the aged whose prejudice of Labor goes back to Chifley's nationalisation in 1949 and the sectarian divisions under Evatt and Calwell, Howard might just not have a party left to lead.
Kevin07 is an update of Bob49, workchoices is an extremist policy which undermines family life. The market fundamentalism of neo-liberalism is the new fit for socialism, chaining all aspects of life to the economy. The appeal to allow prosperity to flow more freely to those who have missed out is reminiscent of Menzies' call to drop post-war austerity measures. Working families seem to be the new 'forgotten people'.
Rudd has updated the Menzies era liberal values and reconciled them with current Labor right economic policy and progressive debates on multiculturalism and reconciliation.
In response, Howard is either by accident or design, hosting a Menzies policy revival tour. His solution to the productivity question is to champion the revival of technical colleges and his solution to health policy is community boards. His NT intervention is a pre-Gorton/ Whitlam style micromanagement exercise. Costello's mindless rantings about Gillard's links to the Socialist forum are about awaking the ancient ghosts of socialism. Costello couldn't take the hatchet to Medicare Gold (only 3 years old), but raised student politics of 25 years ago. Methinks Howard is terrified that Rudd might be getting into his political conscience.
At this election, we have the Liberals wedded to neo-conservatism on the economy (except for pork barrelling en masse) falling back on some long dead policy options to try and match Rudd's agenda. Rudd Labor appears to have a more coherent reconciliation of a liberal world outlook and more innovative policy approaches.
Rudd's first speech as Labor leader contained the following statement:
The great danger that we face with the modern face of liberalism, this modern Liberal Party, is that it is not the Liberal Party of old. If you go back and read what Bob Menzies had to say about social responsibility and social justice, there is no way that Bob Menzies would fit into the world view that we are now being offered. You see, the member for Kooyong recently delivered a speech on Bob Menzies’ legacy within the Liberal Party on these questions of social responsibility. It is quite clear when you read that clearly that there has been an ocean of change between that Liberal Party and what it stood for, despite our criticisms of it and our disagreements with it at the time, and the market fundamentalism which has overtaken the current Liberal Party.
The basic thrust boils down to this: Rudd Labor is not the socialists of the 1940s, 1950s or 1960s. It is the true baton-carrier for the Menzies tradition. This is an appeal that has been coming for a long time, and finally Rudd sees himself as the leader capable of making it.
Howard is about to be wedged by his own historical hero. If Rudd's philosophy does come to be known in the leafy streets, among the aged whose prejudice of Labor goes back to Chifley's nationalisation in 1949 and the sectarian divisions under Evatt and Calwell, Howard might just not have a party left to lead.
Kevin07 is an update of Bob49, workchoices is an extremist policy which undermines family life. The market fundamentalism of neo-liberalism is the new fit for socialism, chaining all aspects of life to the economy. The appeal to allow prosperity to flow more freely to those who have missed out is reminiscent of Menzies' call to drop post-war austerity measures. Working families seem to be the new 'forgotten people'.
Rudd has updated the Menzies era liberal values and reconciled them with current Labor right economic policy and progressive debates on multiculturalism and reconciliation.
In response, Howard is either by accident or design, hosting a Menzies policy revival tour. His solution to the productivity question is to champion the revival of technical colleges and his solution to health policy is community boards. His NT intervention is a pre-Gorton/ Whitlam style micromanagement exercise. Costello's mindless rantings about Gillard's links to the Socialist forum are about awaking the ancient ghosts of socialism. Costello couldn't take the hatchet to Medicare Gold (only 3 years old), but raised student politics of 25 years ago. Methinks Howard is terrified that Rudd might be getting into his political conscience.
At this election, we have the Liberals wedded to neo-conservatism on the economy (except for pork barrelling en masse) falling back on some long dead policy options to try and match Rudd's agenda. Rudd Labor appears to have a more coherent reconciliation of a liberal world outlook and more innovative policy approaches.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Rudd's vote as soft as corundum
Yesterday's Newspoll has Labor streaking away into the distance with 51% of the primary vote. Intrigued by Labor's consistently high primary vote, I had a perusal of Newspoll's primary votes from the halycon days of Hawke.
Newspoll's public record goes back to November 1985. In the following year, Hawke recorded 8 polls with a primary vote of 46% or greater. In 1987, Hawke recorded 14 46+ polls including 3 polls over 50%. In 1988-89, Hawke only scored over 46 twice and then Keating scored over 46% three times in 1992 during Liberal leadership strife. After winning the 1993 election, Keating had 4 succesive 46+ polls. After 1994, there is not a single Labor poll above 45% until 2000.
Labor's opposition record looks like this:
Rudd (2006-07) - 21 consecutive polls over 45% - 6 polls 50% or more.
Latham (2004) - 1 poll over 45%
Beazley (2000-01) - 6 polls over 45%
We can conclude that Beazley had a period where he did comparatively well from a flowback of One Nation voters and Latham was a truly ephemeral phenomenon, exploding in a magnesium flash shortly before polling day.
On the subject of streaks, Howard's second incarnation in 1995-97 received 35 46+ results, although it should be noted the Liberal vote tends to hold up more than the Labor vote. Streaks that long do not end overnight.
If pollsters and columnists want to muse on the softness of Rudd's vote, they may wish to avert their eyes from the data. If we look at the duration of these consecutive poll streaks for both parties above say, 10, we get the following:
Howard (Aug 1995 - Jan 1997) 35 [Number of opp polls less that 40% - 24]
Rudd (Feb - Oct 2007) 21 [18]
Hewson (Aug 1993 - Feb 1994) 15 [11]
Hewson (Aug 1990- Oct 1991) 14 [12]
Hawke (Mar - Sep 1987) 14 [1]
Rudd's popularity appears to have turned what are usually peaks in the electoral cycle into his base vote. Whereas the Labor vote collapsed over several years, going into marked decline in 1989 and 1990, via Democrat preferences (which went to Labor at the 1990 election), then residing with the Liberals under Hewson, the Liberal vote has been eroded from mid 2005 onwards, first going to Greens and other minor parties and consolidating with Labor under Rudd's leadership.
The chimera of hope these figures produce for the Libs (Hewson's implosion) should be tempered by the fact that neither of Hewson's runs came during an election year.
From the above, there is only one leader since 1985 who has had such sustained ratings in Newspoll and he didn't lose the election. Or the next three.
Rudd's vote is based on a consistent consolidation of voters disaffected with the Liberal/National parties for any number of reasons. A zephyr blew in in mid 2005, about the time Howard considered resigning. Clouds gathered with Workchoices and now a full-blown perfect storm is brewing, a decade of disappointment, resentment and grudges ready to unleash on the hapless government.
For Rudd to lose he has to be brought down below 45%, something that happened only once since he assumed the leadership. The Liberals and their country friends have to find a diamond out of the mound of rough they find themselves in otherwise they will find themselves between a rock and a very hard place indeed.
Newspoll's public record goes back to November 1985. In the following year, Hawke recorded 8 polls with a primary vote of 46% or greater. In 1987, Hawke recorded 14 46+ polls including 3 polls over 50%. In 1988-89, Hawke only scored over 46 twice and then Keating scored over 46% three times in 1992 during Liberal leadership strife. After winning the 1993 election, Keating had 4 succesive 46+ polls. After 1994, there is not a single Labor poll above 45% until 2000.
Labor's opposition record looks like this:
Rudd (2006-07) - 21 consecutive polls over 45% - 6 polls 50% or more.
Latham (2004) - 1 poll over 45%
Beazley (2000-01) - 6 polls over 45%
We can conclude that Beazley had a period where he did comparatively well from a flowback of One Nation voters and Latham was a truly ephemeral phenomenon, exploding in a magnesium flash shortly before polling day.
On the subject of streaks, Howard's second incarnation in 1995-97 received 35 46+ results, although it should be noted the Liberal vote tends to hold up more than the Labor vote. Streaks that long do not end overnight.
If pollsters and columnists want to muse on the softness of Rudd's vote, they may wish to avert their eyes from the data. If we look at the duration of these consecutive poll streaks for both parties above say, 10, we get the following:
Howard (Aug 1995 - Jan 1997) 35 [Number of opp polls less that 40% - 24]
Rudd (Feb - Oct 2007) 21 [18]
Hewson (Aug 1993 - Feb 1994) 15 [11]
Hewson (Aug 1990- Oct 1991) 14 [12]
Hawke (Mar - Sep 1987) 14 [1]
Rudd's popularity appears to have turned what are usually peaks in the electoral cycle into his base vote. Whereas the Labor vote collapsed over several years, going into marked decline in 1989 and 1990, via Democrat preferences (which went to Labor at the 1990 election), then residing with the Liberals under Hewson, the Liberal vote has been eroded from mid 2005 onwards, first going to Greens and other minor parties and consolidating with Labor under Rudd's leadership.
The chimera of hope these figures produce for the Libs (Hewson's implosion) should be tempered by the fact that neither of Hewson's runs came during an election year.
From the above, there is only one leader since 1985 who has had such sustained ratings in Newspoll and he didn't lose the election. Or the next three.
Rudd's vote is based on a consistent consolidation of voters disaffected with the Liberal/National parties for any number of reasons. A zephyr blew in in mid 2005, about the time Howard considered resigning. Clouds gathered with Workchoices and now a full-blown perfect storm is brewing, a decade of disappointment, resentment and grudges ready to unleash on the hapless government.
For Rudd to lose he has to be brought down below 45%, something that happened only once since he assumed the leadership. The Liberals and their country friends have to find a diamond out of the mound of rough they find themselves in otherwise they will find themselves between a rock and a very hard place indeed.
Template for victory
...and only one leader appears to have one at the moment. In the rush to praise Caesar's tax cuts (shortly before Newspoll arrived this week to bury him), there was one part of AC Nielsen's polling that the commentariat failed to lend their ears to.
On the tax cuts - only 8% of voters would probably change their vote - evenly split between Liberal and Labor. In other words, on the national level there was a strong suggestion that the tax cuts were a non-issue for the electorate and if Labor offered something different they would get a benefit.
Probably the only chink of light of the Liberals is that 42% are worried about Labor damaging the economy. It suggests that if they had used their brains a bit earlier and tied the future challenge of climate change back to their economic management and demonstrate some future planning, they might just have been back in it. Still 49% are not worried by Labor running the economy - the 9% undecided is not a very big base for the Liberals to work with. 49% looks suspiciously close to Labor's primary vote and Rudd's preferred PM rating. Their vote is unlikely to move much, except maybe between Labor and Green.
The fact that 61% responded positively to Rudd's call of new leadership as opposed to 36% who responded negatively suggests that those who have committed to Rudd are likely to stay there and that a lot of the minor party vote is leaning towards him as opposed to Howard. The talk is of Labor getting an average 69% of preferences which, allied with a high base of primary votes, produces stratospheric poll figures. Given the Liberals got 53% of the two-party preferred vote with the minority of preferences at the last election, it's quite possible Labor could get something close to 55-56% with a similar primary vote.
Given substantially Labor has all the issues on its side, sewing up both the former Liberal marginal seat strongholds (e.g. Lindsay, Makin, Bass, Eden Monaro) and making serious inroads into true liberal territory (e.g. Ryan, North Sydney), it becomes a question of whether the Liberals can salvage votes rather than hang onto enough seats to win.
By putting emphasis on the team, Liberal strategists are committing the cardinal sin: not attacking the leader. Failing to attack a leader is a concession you can't beat them: by withdrawing their 'L' plate attack, tired as it was, and resorting to the 'front bench bogey', Rudd is left unscathed by Liberal advertising which is hardly likely to damage his ratings.
Unless the Libs can come up with something comprehensive to support their tired old agenda of anti-unionism and tax cuts, they are at great risk of suffering a long, dark nuclear winter.
On the tax cuts - only 8% of voters would probably change their vote - evenly split between Liberal and Labor. In other words, on the national level there was a strong suggestion that the tax cuts were a non-issue for the electorate and if Labor offered something different they would get a benefit.
Probably the only chink of light of the Liberals is that 42% are worried about Labor damaging the economy. It suggests that if they had used their brains a bit earlier and tied the future challenge of climate change back to their economic management and demonstrate some future planning, they might just have been back in it. Still 49% are not worried by Labor running the economy - the 9% undecided is not a very big base for the Liberals to work with. 49% looks suspiciously close to Labor's primary vote and Rudd's preferred PM rating. Their vote is unlikely to move much, except maybe between Labor and Green.
The fact that 61% responded positively to Rudd's call of new leadership as opposed to 36% who responded negatively suggests that those who have committed to Rudd are likely to stay there and that a lot of the minor party vote is leaning towards him as opposed to Howard. The talk is of Labor getting an average 69% of preferences which, allied with a high base of primary votes, produces stratospheric poll figures. Given the Liberals got 53% of the two-party preferred vote with the minority of preferences at the last election, it's quite possible Labor could get something close to 55-56% with a similar primary vote.
Given substantially Labor has all the issues on its side, sewing up both the former Liberal marginal seat strongholds (e.g. Lindsay, Makin, Bass, Eden Monaro) and making serious inroads into true liberal territory (e.g. Ryan, North Sydney), it becomes a question of whether the Liberals can salvage votes rather than hang onto enough seats to win.
By putting emphasis on the team, Liberal strategists are committing the cardinal sin: not attacking the leader. Failing to attack a leader is a concession you can't beat them: by withdrawing their 'L' plate attack, tired as it was, and resorting to the 'front bench bogey', Rudd is left unscathed by Liberal advertising which is hardly likely to damage his ratings.
Unless the Libs can come up with something comprehensive to support their tired old agenda of anti-unionism and tax cuts, they are at great risk of suffering a long, dark nuclear winter.
I wonder what it says in Bass and Braddon now?
Newspoll have helpfully released the results of last week's Tasmanian marginals poll conducted on Wednesday and Thursday last week. Bear in mind at this stage Labor had no tax policy and the anti-union ads were going full tilt.
The poll revealed a 9.6% swing in Bass and only a 2.2% swing in Braddon. Liberals have painted the Braddon vote as support for the Mersey hospital and pulp mill interventions, and The Australian used all but one of its column inches to trumpet the 51-49 lead to Labor. It is a sad day for the Libs when the Australian has to promote a two percent deficit to the skies to get a positive angle.
Newspoll did not ask what punters thought of the Mersey, but the pulp mill question makes interesting reading. In Braddon, the decision is inconsequential to 77% of Liberal and 80% of Labor voters respectively. The net difference between voters less likely to support Liberal as compared to more likely is 7% and for Labor 6%, which equates to no real difference at all. Either the pulp mill is producing contended citizens or it has no impact.
In Bass, the mill is clearly a bone of contention. Around 65% of voters are not changing their vote over it, but a net total of 13% are less likely to vote for a major. Bingo! 13% say they will vote Green, which is a lot considering how Rudd has eroded the Green vote nationally. Bass had 8% vote Green, pretty much the national average. Bass' margin in this poll is somewhere between 52.5 and 61.5%. Quite simply, if the national trend continues as is, Bass is one of the many marginal seats locked in for Labor.
Braddon is clearly the Liberals' best bet, because it has an older demographic and a more forestry-orientated workforce. It also needs a desperate boost because it has the fastest rate of decline for any electorate in the country. However, remember the fear factor created by Latham's policy of locking up old growth forests was savage here with a 7.1% swing at the last election. No wonder Howard is putting his hopes on the Mersey and the pulp mill. Braddon is the only seat where this is a winner.
The timing of this poll makes the results even worse. Extrapolating the Braddon figures gives a range of 46.5-55.5 to Labor. 46.5% would give the Libs a swing of 2% on top of the 7.1% in 2004. That sounds unlikely. More likely is about 4% swing going back to Labor plus another 3-4% coming in support of Rudd. Factoring in the interventions probably cancels out the Latham swing, but that still put Labor pretty much in the 51-49 area.
The poll revealed a 9.6% swing in Bass and only a 2.2% swing in Braddon. Liberals have painted the Braddon vote as support for the Mersey hospital and pulp mill interventions, and The Australian used all but one of its column inches to trumpet the 51-49 lead to Labor. It is a sad day for the Libs when the Australian has to promote a two percent deficit to the skies to get a positive angle.
Newspoll did not ask what punters thought of the Mersey, but the pulp mill question makes interesting reading. In Braddon, the decision is inconsequential to 77% of Liberal and 80% of Labor voters respectively. The net difference between voters less likely to support Liberal as compared to more likely is 7% and for Labor 6%, which equates to no real difference at all. Either the pulp mill is producing contended citizens or it has no impact.
In Bass, the mill is clearly a bone of contention. Around 65% of voters are not changing their vote over it, but a net total of 13% are less likely to vote for a major. Bingo! 13% say they will vote Green, which is a lot considering how Rudd has eroded the Green vote nationally. Bass had 8% vote Green, pretty much the national average. Bass' margin in this poll is somewhere between 52.5 and 61.5%. Quite simply, if the national trend continues as is, Bass is one of the many marginal seats locked in for Labor.
Braddon is clearly the Liberals' best bet, because it has an older demographic and a more forestry-orientated workforce. It also needs a desperate boost because it has the fastest rate of decline for any electorate in the country. However, remember the fear factor created by Latham's policy of locking up old growth forests was savage here with a 7.1% swing at the last election. No wonder Howard is putting his hopes on the Mersey and the pulp mill. Braddon is the only seat where this is a winner.
The timing of this poll makes the results even worse. Extrapolating the Braddon figures gives a range of 46.5-55.5 to Labor. 46.5% would give the Libs a swing of 2% on top of the 7.1% in 2004. That sounds unlikely. More likely is about 4% swing going back to Labor plus another 3-4% coming in support of Rudd. Factoring in the interventions probably cancels out the Latham swing, but that still put Labor pretty much in the 51-49 area.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Debate's parts greater than its sum
The interloping worm awarded the debate to Rudd 65-29. 6% of the audience are believed to still be asleep. The winner of these affairs is about as important as a pre-season football match, it's important for the opposition to be competitive but other than that the key is how individual issues play out. By definition, the opposition should come out reasonably well as it has more new things to say. This is accentuated against Howard who runs on a few key messages hammered into the collective consciousness. In a debate, you can very easily get outflanked.
Rudd's early ratings were stratospheric while Howard's were neutral. Rudd scored extremely well on the refrain of working families and child care. His nuanced tax policy looks to have enough for health and education to balance the community's expectations in this area. At one point Howard got into a hectoring match with Rudd which made him look rather rattled.
This trend gradually changed, first with the issue of unions dominating Rudd's frontbench. This issue clearly has some traction. Labor may have to counter-campaign on Hawke's reform credentials and Combet's James Hardie work. Workchoices was not front and centre in the wormalaide's mind, with Rudd's scores in these areas not especially high compared with his stratospheric opening levels.
Rudd's major stumble of the night was his gaffe on the Kyoto target - a major part of Labor's attack should be that Australia's target is an increase on 1990 emissions, something Rudd Freudianly slipped on. It is clearly not his strength, as his attempts to waffle through his target timetable did not convince the audience. Howard's announcement of a fund to help pensioners pay increased power prices means at least he has considered a cost of emissions trading. Labor need to sure up their climate change policy and get some real concrete differentiating initatives.
On the reconciliation issue Rudd was in much firmer territory, by being the first politician to make the self-evident connection between an apology and practical measures for improving indigenous quality of life. Howard performed credibly on his history-technical college riff although this cobbling together of ideas exposed the preamble push as a ploy to invade true liberal strongholds by putting reconciliation on the agenda.
The upshot of all of this: Rudd won the debate, but has to be careful not to lose his grip on detail by overlooking key areas, particularly on the economy and climate change. He also has to counter the Liberal message on unions as it compromises his theme that Howard is out of touch. Howard needs to remain as relaxed and poised as possible and open to new ideas.
Such as seeing the worm as a tool for testing new policy ideas, not a threat to his stage managed campaign.
Rudd's early ratings were stratospheric while Howard's were neutral. Rudd scored extremely well on the refrain of working families and child care. His nuanced tax policy looks to have enough for health and education to balance the community's expectations in this area. At one point Howard got into a hectoring match with Rudd which made him look rather rattled.
This trend gradually changed, first with the issue of unions dominating Rudd's frontbench. This issue clearly has some traction. Labor may have to counter-campaign on Hawke's reform credentials and Combet's James Hardie work. Workchoices was not front and centre in the wormalaide's mind, with Rudd's scores in these areas not especially high compared with his stratospheric opening levels.
Rudd's major stumble of the night was his gaffe on the Kyoto target - a major part of Labor's attack should be that Australia's target is an increase on 1990 emissions, something Rudd Freudianly slipped on. It is clearly not his strength, as his attempts to waffle through his target timetable did not convince the audience. Howard's announcement of a fund to help pensioners pay increased power prices means at least he has considered a cost of emissions trading. Labor need to sure up their climate change policy and get some real concrete differentiating initatives.
On the reconciliation issue Rudd was in much firmer territory, by being the first politician to make the self-evident connection between an apology and practical measures for improving indigenous quality of life. Howard performed credibly on his history-technical college riff although this cobbling together of ideas exposed the preamble push as a ploy to invade true liberal strongholds by putting reconciliation on the agenda.
The upshot of all of this: Rudd won the debate, but has to be careful not to lose his grip on detail by overlooking key areas, particularly on the economy and climate change. He also has to counter the Liberal message on unions as it compromises his theme that Howard is out of touch. Howard needs to remain as relaxed and poised as possible and open to new ideas.
Such as seeing the worm as a tool for testing new policy ideas, not a threat to his stage managed campaign.
The importance of context
Survey the mainstream media, and you get a picture of a stalwart government exposing the softness of a feckless opposition. Labor must win 16 seats and yet is at risk of losing more in WA. There are even pro-Liberal blog posters suggesting Rudd will be sent to the scrapheap. Rudd's worst outcome will be like Whitlam in 1969. Unless he makes an absolute hash of things he will win no matter what.
Therein lies the problem. Survey the political landscape and the thing that is exposed is the lie of the land. Labor need 16 seats to win, but hold an extraordinary primary vote of around 48%. The Lib/Nats have only got above 40% on a handful of occasions. That primary vote, even allowing for Green defectors from 2004, suggests they are going to take around 5-6% of the primary vote off the Lib/Nats unless something dramatic happens. The stratospheric figures are based in NSW and Victoria where most of the seats are.
The Lib/Nats have been forced to run an in-out leaking campaign, creating the effect that the overall vote is either soft or concentrated in seats with little influence on the outcome. Anyone with a calculator can tell you that either someone's polls are dodgy or this is patently not true.
On paper, the Lib/Nats should be seeing WA as the great saviour. But even here they are reliant on dubious polling to push the idea the individual electorates are not following the state trend. The fact that WA statewide is swinging 5-7% to the ALP is a nightmare scenario for the government. Given WA is full of Lib seats, which seats are in danger - most probably Canning? If this is how the great pro-AWA boom state treats them, what about the weaker states?
The best poll in any marginal on the list for the government is Braddon - here they are just 2% behind. Given the Mersey hospital, the pulp mill and the tax cuts and the negative advertising on unions, Labor still lead with a swing of 3-4%. Ouch! I suspect they're not thinking about Bass next door, because Mr Ferguson is heading to the bottom of the adjoining strait. In fact, not one external poll has been released for a seat within the 16 seats that is not in WA that says the Libs are in front. We won't mention seats like Leichhardht in North Queensland, where you could swear it was Labor with the 10 point margin.
As for Bennelong and Wentworth, in a conventional election, Howard and Turnbull's opponents would be playing tagging roles keeping their key ministerial opponents at home. Because of the current climate, Bennelong, Wentworth and Sturt all feature winnable battles for Labor against ministers.
Conventional wisdom is predicting a polarising election. One very interesting nugget of information found in Newspoll's issues survey from last week found that 19% of voters preferred an 'other' party to run the environment - i.e. the Greens. An election run primarily on climate change, water and the pulp mill could actually lead to a understatement of the Green vote, rather than an overstatement. It may also lead to Green preferences going back to the Libs rather than straight to Labor.
Remember that Howard held the first week - mainly because Labor has set itself for a long campaign and kept its powder dry. The only potential risk for Labor is it is seen as unrepresentative, as that counters the 'out of touch' theme which Labor lays its store in. Labor has issues from interest rates to workchoices, climate change, health, child care and nuclear power to run on. It also has an awful lot of money left to spend.
The key is whether these polls swing back to Labor when their issues are on the table. If this is the Lib/Nat's high watermark, they are currently behind in all but 1 seat on the fabled 16, and in deep trouble in Dobell, Deakin, La Trobe, McEwen, Corangamite, Leichhardht, Sturt, Blair. That's not counting the great worries in seats like Ryan.
Another couple of bad weeks for Labor may tell us something, at the moment we should suspend judgment while the parties gear up for a long campaign
Therein lies the problem. Survey the political landscape and the thing that is exposed is the lie of the land. Labor need 16 seats to win, but hold an extraordinary primary vote of around 48%. The Lib/Nats have only got above 40% on a handful of occasions. That primary vote, even allowing for Green defectors from 2004, suggests they are going to take around 5-6% of the primary vote off the Lib/Nats unless something dramatic happens. The stratospheric figures are based in NSW and Victoria where most of the seats are.
The Lib/Nats have been forced to run an in-out leaking campaign, creating the effect that the overall vote is either soft or concentrated in seats with little influence on the outcome. Anyone with a calculator can tell you that either someone's polls are dodgy or this is patently not true.
On paper, the Lib/Nats should be seeing WA as the great saviour. But even here they are reliant on dubious polling to push the idea the individual electorates are not following the state trend. The fact that WA statewide is swinging 5-7% to the ALP is a nightmare scenario for the government. Given WA is full of Lib seats, which seats are in danger - most probably Canning? If this is how the great pro-AWA boom state treats them, what about the weaker states?
The best poll in any marginal on the list for the government is Braddon - here they are just 2% behind. Given the Mersey hospital, the pulp mill and the tax cuts and the negative advertising on unions, Labor still lead with a swing of 3-4%. Ouch! I suspect they're not thinking about Bass next door, because Mr Ferguson is heading to the bottom of the adjoining strait. In fact, not one external poll has been released for a seat within the 16 seats that is not in WA that says the Libs are in front. We won't mention seats like Leichhardht in North Queensland, where you could swear it was Labor with the 10 point margin.
As for Bennelong and Wentworth, in a conventional election, Howard and Turnbull's opponents would be playing tagging roles keeping their key ministerial opponents at home. Because of the current climate, Bennelong, Wentworth and Sturt all feature winnable battles for Labor against ministers.
Conventional wisdom is predicting a polarising election. One very interesting nugget of information found in Newspoll's issues survey from last week found that 19% of voters preferred an 'other' party to run the environment - i.e. the Greens. An election run primarily on climate change, water and the pulp mill could actually lead to a understatement of the Green vote, rather than an overstatement. It may also lead to Green preferences going back to the Libs rather than straight to Labor.
Remember that Howard held the first week - mainly because Labor has set itself for a long campaign and kept its powder dry. The only potential risk for Labor is it is seen as unrepresentative, as that counters the 'out of touch' theme which Labor lays its store in. Labor has issues from interest rates to workchoices, climate change, health, child care and nuclear power to run on. It also has an awful lot of money left to spend.
The key is whether these polls swing back to Labor when their issues are on the table. If this is the Lib/Nat's high watermark, they are currently behind in all but 1 seat on the fabled 16, and in deep trouble in Dobell, Deakin, La Trobe, McEwen, Corangamite, Leichhardht, Sturt, Blair. That's not counting the great worries in seats like Ryan.
Another couple of bad weeks for Labor may tell us something, at the moment we should suspend judgment while the parties gear up for a long campaign
Friday, October 19, 2007
Room to move?
The mainstream media has championed the idea that the polls will narrow. They have said the polls would narrow after the budget, then it was after the election was called and now it is as the campaign progresses. That's great copy to maintain interest in proceedings for bewildered Liberal supporters, but the effect on the election depends on how many votes are available to cut Rudd's lead.
According to the pollsters, the accepted number of truly undecided voters going into a campaign is about 20-25%. Assume marginal seats, which by their nature have a higher percentage of undecided voters have between 25-30%.
Then look at Newspoll's marginal seat figure: July-Sep: ALP 58-42. Eagle-eyed readers would say, but hasn't Newspoll come back since then? The answer is no, not really. At worst, ALP would be 57-43 in the marginals, now trending better than the national average - that suggests possibly narrowing as 'true liberal' seats come back to the fold.
Assume then 56-44 is the national figure and 57-43 is the marginal figure:
Locked in preferences: National ALP 42 - 44.8, Lib/Nat 33 - 35.2
Marginal ALP 39.9 - 42.75 , Lib/Nat 30.1 - 32.25
If the national target for Lib/Nat to hang on is around 48 that means they need:
Either 15/25 or 12.8/20 - in other words, over 60% of undecided voters. This equates to Rudd putting in a consistently awful performance, slightly below Latham.
Even that might not save them. Remember the trajectory of Latham's campaign was one direction: down. All Rudd needs to do is bounce within two poles and he will deprive Howard of the momentum necessary to shift nearly two-thirds of undecided voters.
In the marginals, the Libs need somewhere near 50% to win,
19.9/30 or 17.75/25 - equating to two-thirds undecided voters. This would need something spectacular to go wrong, and it looks like the marginals are becoming proportionately better for the ALP, not worse.
If Rudd breaks even - we get ALP on 54.5 - 54.8 nationally and 54.9 - 55.25 in the marginals.
At 40% of marginal seat voters being undecided, Howard still needs 60% to reach 50% in those key seats. Given he traditionally doesn't make much a lot of ground in campaigns, losing votes in all of them except against Latham, that's a very tall order.
That would mean that the electorate would be so volatile you'd expect movements of 3-4% per poll. Most polls have barely moved that far in six months, indicating much less volatility.
According to the pollsters, the accepted number of truly undecided voters going into a campaign is about 20-25%. Assume marginal seats, which by their nature have a higher percentage of undecided voters have between 25-30%.
Then look at Newspoll's marginal seat figure: July-Sep: ALP 58-42. Eagle-eyed readers would say, but hasn't Newspoll come back since then? The answer is no, not really. At worst, ALP would be 57-43 in the marginals, now trending better than the national average - that suggests possibly narrowing as 'true liberal' seats come back to the fold.
Assume then 56-44 is the national figure and 57-43 is the marginal figure:
Locked in preferences: National ALP 42 - 44.8, Lib/Nat 33 - 35.2
Marginal ALP 39.9 - 42.75 , Lib/Nat 30.1 - 32.25
If the national target for Lib/Nat to hang on is around 48 that means they need:
Either 15/25 or 12.8/20 - in other words, over 60% of undecided voters. This equates to Rudd putting in a consistently awful performance, slightly below Latham.
Even that might not save them. Remember the trajectory of Latham's campaign was one direction: down. All Rudd needs to do is bounce within two poles and he will deprive Howard of the momentum necessary to shift nearly two-thirds of undecided voters.
In the marginals, the Libs need somewhere near 50% to win,
19.9/30 or 17.75/25 - equating to two-thirds undecided voters. This would need something spectacular to go wrong, and it looks like the marginals are becoming proportionately better for the ALP, not worse.
If Rudd breaks even - we get ALP on 54.5 - 54.8 nationally and 54.9 - 55.25 in the marginals.
At 40% of marginal seat voters being undecided, Howard still needs 60% to reach 50% in those key seats. Given he traditionally doesn't make much a lot of ground in campaigns, losing votes in all of them except against Latham, that's a very tall order.
That would mean that the electorate would be so volatile you'd expect movements of 3-4% per poll. Most polls have barely moved that far in six months, indicating much less volatility.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Irregular Joes
The comment by Joe Hockey that the role of unions is essentially over and thus unions are irrelevant demonstrates the poverty of ideas afflicting the Liberals. In attempting to defend his own party's advertising, Hockey has effectively undermined its key message. That message is that (allegedly) anti-business unions represent only 20% of the workforce and the ALP must by implication be out of touch with the regular voter. That message could potentially become potent if hammered often enough and downgrade Rudd's credentials on the economy from netural to negative.
The key to such messages is nuance. Howard is a master of constraining bucketloads of vitriol within a tight semantic framework. The hapless Hockey clearly is not. By stretching the point to say unions are irrelevant, he takes it beyond the dangers of union influence on economic decisions and the unrepresentativeness of the ALP to saying that unions have no role in modern society.
This seems a trifle bizarre given two points. Firstly, as Bernie Banton has swiftly emerged from his sickbed to point out, the ACTU was instrumental in the class action against James Hardie. Not only does that show the unions playing a vital role in supporting the weak, it also paints the Liberals as in bed with big business. Secondly, why if unions are irrelevant, did anyone pay attention to the 'your rights at work' anti-workchoices ads? Even if they didn't, the Liberals certainly believe they are the source of the community's angst. I await Hockey's explanation as to how an irrelevant body's ads can cut through so well that the government needs to spend over $100 million to combat them.
Meanwhile, in a parallel universe, Peter Costello is campaigning for the DLP preference flow by saying Julia Gillard is one step away from communism. Costello seems to be caught in a Catch 22. In order to prove his similarity to Howard and ensure his place in succession, he must pursue Howard's anti-liberal value strategy. Victoria swung hardest (3.1%) against Latham (national swing was 1.7%), it is showing greater opposition to workchoices and it is home to liberals of the ilk of Petro Georgiou. The bluntness of Costello's pronouncements on African and Muslim immigration and his role in workchoices have the potential to send his career into a tailspin.
I note one particularly well-informed blogger has already found the Liberal/National front bench is 64% lawyer. We all know how well they're received in the community. An individual's background may well inform their ability to understand the challenges faced by their community, but surely the existence of clear and coherent policy ideas that address today and future challenges is more important than a mere numbers game. That really would be a triumph of narrow-minded form over substance.
The key to such messages is nuance. Howard is a master of constraining bucketloads of vitriol within a tight semantic framework. The hapless Hockey clearly is not. By stretching the point to say unions are irrelevant, he takes it beyond the dangers of union influence on economic decisions and the unrepresentativeness of the ALP to saying that unions have no role in modern society.
This seems a trifle bizarre given two points. Firstly, as Bernie Banton has swiftly emerged from his sickbed to point out, the ACTU was instrumental in the class action against James Hardie. Not only does that show the unions playing a vital role in supporting the weak, it also paints the Liberals as in bed with big business. Secondly, why if unions are irrelevant, did anyone pay attention to the 'your rights at work' anti-workchoices ads? Even if they didn't, the Liberals certainly believe they are the source of the community's angst. I await Hockey's explanation as to how an irrelevant body's ads can cut through so well that the government needs to spend over $100 million to combat them.
Meanwhile, in a parallel universe, Peter Costello is campaigning for the DLP preference flow by saying Julia Gillard is one step away from communism. Costello seems to be caught in a Catch 22. In order to prove his similarity to Howard and ensure his place in succession, he must pursue Howard's anti-liberal value strategy. Victoria swung hardest (3.1%) against Latham (national swing was 1.7%), it is showing greater opposition to workchoices and it is home to liberals of the ilk of Petro Georgiou. The bluntness of Costello's pronouncements on African and Muslim immigration and his role in workchoices have the potential to send his career into a tailspin.
I note one particularly well-informed blogger has already found the Liberal/National front bench is 64% lawyer. We all know how well they're received in the community. An individual's background may well inform their ability to understand the challenges faced by their community, but surely the existence of clear and coherent policy ideas that address today and future challenges is more important than a mere numbers game. That really would be a triumph of narrow-minded form over substance.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Can McClelland and Swan bowl spin?
As no doubt everyone will say soon, this season's Test series versus India and Sri Lanka will be the first of the post Warne-McGrath era. There have been other seasons when either or on rare occasions neither featured, but they involved rather short-term fixes attempted by the selectors.
The selectors clearly have to maintain a balance of experienced and newly blooded players. With that in mind it is extremely fortunate that Hayden seems to have been rejuvenated. Australia have to, however, be careful they don't slip into Ponting-reliance in the same way that India has been Tendulkar-reliant and West Indies Lara-reliant. If they do that, they should remain an extremely strong side.
The opening partner question looks to be settled in Jaques' favour. He has a tremendous record in both state and country cricket in recent years and is back in form to make big hundreds. He has comprehensively demolished Rogers' claim. Watson is such an injury risk that his career is practically on life support.
Hussey has shown a great adeptness in holding together the middle order and can bat with the tail, so is a more natural option at 6.
Symonds and Clarke must produce big runs and bowl consistent spells of spin. The big hole Australia has is in the spin department with none of the contenders in consistent form. As with the two put-on shadow ministers, the spin department is uncertain.
MacGill has been patchy and ropable with officials, Cullen is yet to consolidate his form after a stellar season on debut and Cullen Bailey is too inexperienced. The question for selectors is whether Hogg's one-day form has improved sufficiently to translate to the Test arena. Considering the selectors don't regularly play him in one dayers, it would seem a sign of desperation they would consider him for Tests. I suspect they are thinking if they can get one good summer out of him it will allow Bailey and Cullen to develop into contenders. A wildcard is Katich who could play the role Bevan played for a season as the wrist-spinning all-rounder. This would then be a question of whether Katich's bowling is at the standard it was when he last saw off Hogg.
With Gilchrist to play on, the pace bowling looks to be in good shape with Clark providing the metronomic accuracy from one end and Lee firing in from the other. Johnson's surge solves the problem of playing Bracken who is inconsistent at Test level. Tait should provide back-up if anything happens to Lee while Hilfenhaus is in the wings for Clark.
My side for the Test would be:
Hayden, Jaques, Ponting (c), Clarke, Symonds, Hussey, Gilchrist, Lee, Hogg, Johnson, Clark (Hilfenhaus 12th man).
The selectors clearly have to maintain a balance of experienced and newly blooded players. With that in mind it is extremely fortunate that Hayden seems to have been rejuvenated. Australia have to, however, be careful they don't slip into Ponting-reliance in the same way that India has been Tendulkar-reliant and West Indies Lara-reliant. If they do that, they should remain an extremely strong side.
The opening partner question looks to be settled in Jaques' favour. He has a tremendous record in both state and country cricket in recent years and is back in form to make big hundreds. He has comprehensively demolished Rogers' claim. Watson is such an injury risk that his career is practically on life support.
Hussey has shown a great adeptness in holding together the middle order and can bat with the tail, so is a more natural option at 6.
Symonds and Clarke must produce big runs and bowl consistent spells of spin. The big hole Australia has is in the spin department with none of the contenders in consistent form. As with the two put-on shadow ministers, the spin department is uncertain.
MacGill has been patchy and ropable with officials, Cullen is yet to consolidate his form after a stellar season on debut and Cullen Bailey is too inexperienced. The question for selectors is whether Hogg's one-day form has improved sufficiently to translate to the Test arena. Considering the selectors don't regularly play him in one dayers, it would seem a sign of desperation they would consider him for Tests. I suspect they are thinking if they can get one good summer out of him it will allow Bailey and Cullen to develop into contenders. A wildcard is Katich who could play the role Bevan played for a season as the wrist-spinning all-rounder. This would then be a question of whether Katich's bowling is at the standard it was when he last saw off Hogg.
With Gilchrist to play on, the pace bowling looks to be in good shape with Clark providing the metronomic accuracy from one end and Lee firing in from the other. Johnson's surge solves the problem of playing Bracken who is inconsistent at Test level. Tait should provide back-up if anything happens to Lee while Hilfenhaus is in the wings for Clark.
My side for the Test would be:
Hayden, Jaques, Ponting (c), Clarke, Symonds, Hussey, Gilchrist, Lee, Hogg, Johnson, Clark (Hilfenhaus 12th man).
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
The perils of zero sum government
John Howard has, for a considerable term as PM, commanded respect from a significant portion of the community for being a good economic manager. He has done this by defining his economic management record (aided by a resources boom and a regional surge in the finance industry, plus the global trend toward low-tarrif workforces of which Keating as Treasurer was the Australian standard bearer) in opposition to the combination of personal pain suffered by voters under Keating and their innate suspicion of Labor governments which is genetic in some parts of the Australian psyche. Of course, a large slice of the remainder despised his social views on almost everything, being cut from a completely different generational cloth. He cast these people as 'the elites', some kind of pseudo-McCarthyist label meaning their opinions were not worthy of engagement.
The existence of these two dichotomies made a directionless opposition overly reliant on its leaders, who ranged from cuddly but not especially tough to downright scary. Howard's government viewed the economy as the alpha and omega of life, experienced through interest rates and tax cuts. Their ideological programme was only palatable to the community when sugarcoated with safety nets and soothing advertising. The great risk Howard ran by this style of leadership is that if the agenda moved off the economy, his neutral leadership would start to look mediocre and inadequate.
Being a staid, narrow-minded economic PM made him vulnerable to any leader who could convert their honeymoon, which would inevitably be fairly long given how much of the field was left open for Labor to run on, into a serious standing with the electorate. Kevin Rudd's pitch to the future, greatly aided by Howard's Chifleyesque madness of Workchoices, exposed the simple fact that the Liberals dismissed from focus any issue other than the economy, treating it as an inconvenience. Calls for more funding for public services were repeatedly met with tax cuts. Howard's Liberals have limited their view to the economy because they have contempt for true liberal traditions.
Because Howard's Liberals did not rate the concerns of true liberals seriously, locked into the circular thinking that economics trumped all, they allowed a reservoir of issues to bank up. Rudd is a new, competent and reassuring alternative who has run the campaign Latham couldn't run in 2004. Latham had more baggage than an airport carousel, a nasty temper and a predilection for picking fights. He also had no mobilising issues to define his party. Rudd has workchoices and climate change plus the urgency of health as defining issues. He has also wedged Howard on his own economic strength, and is in the processing of even wedging his advertising campaigns.
Hence the alignment that existed since 1996 is in the process of breaking down. The Liberals under Howard appear completely clueless, all they can run on is another blockbuster tax cut. The great problem with leaving the field open is that you are vulnerable if your opponent gets their act together. Beazley's no target strategy in 2001 was overwhelmed by events. In contrast Rudd has seized the field that Howard has left vacant for his entire prime ministership and is reaping the positive results.
The existence of these two dichotomies made a directionless opposition overly reliant on its leaders, who ranged from cuddly but not especially tough to downright scary. Howard's government viewed the economy as the alpha and omega of life, experienced through interest rates and tax cuts. Their ideological programme was only palatable to the community when sugarcoated with safety nets and soothing advertising. The great risk Howard ran by this style of leadership is that if the agenda moved off the economy, his neutral leadership would start to look mediocre and inadequate.
Being a staid, narrow-minded economic PM made him vulnerable to any leader who could convert their honeymoon, which would inevitably be fairly long given how much of the field was left open for Labor to run on, into a serious standing with the electorate. Kevin Rudd's pitch to the future, greatly aided by Howard's Chifleyesque madness of Workchoices, exposed the simple fact that the Liberals dismissed from focus any issue other than the economy, treating it as an inconvenience. Calls for more funding for public services were repeatedly met with tax cuts. Howard's Liberals have limited their view to the economy because they have contempt for true liberal traditions.
Because Howard's Liberals did not rate the concerns of true liberals seriously, locked into the circular thinking that economics trumped all, they allowed a reservoir of issues to bank up. Rudd is a new, competent and reassuring alternative who has run the campaign Latham couldn't run in 2004. Latham had more baggage than an airport carousel, a nasty temper and a predilection for picking fights. He also had no mobilising issues to define his party. Rudd has workchoices and climate change plus the urgency of health as defining issues. He has also wedged Howard on his own economic strength, and is in the processing of even wedging his advertising campaigns.
Hence the alignment that existed since 1996 is in the process of breaking down. The Liberals under Howard appear completely clueless, all they can run on is another blockbuster tax cut. The great problem with leaving the field open is that you are vulnerable if your opponent gets their act together. Beazley's no target strategy in 2001 was overwhelmed by events. In contrast Rudd has seized the field that Howard has left vacant for his entire prime ministership and is reaping the positive results.
Monday, October 15, 2007
The great campaigner?
Given Howard's perilous starting position in this election campaign, I've had a look at the Newspoll data for the last four elections and come to the conclusion that a Howard victory is now so remote it would be one of the biggest upsets in Australian history.
Using the primary vote as an indicator of solid support for the major parties, the history does not back up the notion of Howard as a great campaigner. He has only increased the Liberal/National vote in one campaign. In 2004, Howard added 1.7% to the Newspoll figures during the campaign and a further 1.7% at the ballot box.
Conversely, Labor's figures aren't great either, with ground being made up in Newspoll only to be lost at the ballot box. Latham is by far the worst offender, losing ground in both the polls (3%) and the final vote (1.4%) to go from competitive to thrashed in six weeks.
These figures indicate that Howard has made most of his gains prior to the election, with the electorate's flirtation with Latham seriously souring as the campaign went on. Interestingly, the electorate was volatile, with the Liberal vote bouncing around in a 7% range, while Labor fluctuated within a 3% range.
The really bad news for Howard comes when we compare the minimum/maximum poll figures for the 6 months leading up to the election. No party has scored a higher primary vote than it had reached in the previous 6 months, and Howard has the lowest maximum vote of the lot (41%).
The 6 month fluctuations demonstrate the polls to be as set in Rudd's favour as they were for Howard in 1996, with both parties' primary vote moving within a 6 point range (Labor 46-52, Lib/Nat 35-41), as compared to 4 points in 1996 (Lib/Nat 46-50, Labor 39-43).
A weighted re-run of 1996 would give Labor 47.5% of the primary vote and Lib/Nats a shade under 41%. This would give Labor a two-party preferred vote of somewhere around 54%.
Using the primary vote as an indicator of solid support for the major parties, the history does not back up the notion of Howard as a great campaigner. He has only increased the Liberal/National vote in one campaign. In 2004, Howard added 1.7% to the Newspoll figures during the campaign and a further 1.7% at the ballot box.
Conversely, Labor's figures aren't great either, with ground being made up in Newspoll only to be lost at the ballot box. Latham is by far the worst offender, losing ground in both the polls (3%) and the final vote (1.4%) to go from competitive to thrashed in six weeks.
These figures indicate that Howard has made most of his gains prior to the election, with the electorate's flirtation with Latham seriously souring as the campaign went on. Interestingly, the electorate was volatile, with the Liberal vote bouncing around in a 7% range, while Labor fluctuated within a 3% range.
The really bad news for Howard comes when we compare the minimum/maximum poll figures for the 6 months leading up to the election. No party has scored a higher primary vote than it had reached in the previous 6 months, and Howard has the lowest maximum vote of the lot (41%).
The 6 month fluctuations demonstrate the polls to be as set in Rudd's favour as they were for Howard in 1996, with both parties' primary vote moving within a 6 point range (Labor 46-52, Lib/Nat 35-41), as compared to 4 points in 1996 (Lib/Nat 46-50, Labor 39-43).
A weighted re-run of 1996 would give Labor 47.5% of the primary vote and Lib/Nats a shade under 41%. This would give Labor a two-party preferred vote of somewhere around 54%.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Ending the Emperor's Second Reign
In all the media talk about the forthcoming election, whose date is now finally glinting at us from the end of its most extraordinarily longggg tunnel, Howard is referred to have been in government for 11 years. It as though the entire period of 'the Howard years' has been one long continuous government marked up the same attitude between the government and the governed.
This analysis fails to capture why Howard is now in the position he is. Certainly the fact that Howard and his party have been in office for over a decade contributes greatly to the 'we've had enough of him' factor sweeping the nation. However, it does not capture the way Howard's management of the issues has changed.
The reason Howard has maintained power for so long is twofold. Firstly, he has faced such a dispirited and clueless opposition that each election becomes a choice between the status quo and something infinitely worse. Beazley did not articulate a competent economic program or any form of alternative vision, Crean had the traction of one of Steven Bradbury's skating rivals and Latham caused a stampede of terrified voters back to Howard. His crash or crash-through policy turned into a ten car pile-up. Secondly, Howard had learnt the art of soothing the ordinary voters with his own ordinariness, breaking the bipartisan consensus on social issues such as immigration by branding them 'elite'.
Howard has never been 'popular' per se, but he has had the ability to get respect from people and convert it into election victories.
Secondly, Howard has run two governments in his 11 year tenure. From 1996 to 2001, he was the classic small government conservative, paring back government spending on health and higher education in the name of fixing the ALP $8 billion black hole. His other programs included introducing IR reform, the GST and privatising Telstra. None of these were especially popular. Howard suffered a swing of almost 5% in the 1998 election, largely a referendum on the GST. It should be remembered that Howard's only scare campaign during this time regarded Labor and the economy, while his equivocation on Pauline Hanson's speeches was based on personal conviction that these matters should be discussed.
This warning sign that major reform was not popular with voters was only heeded after the infamous 'mean and tricky' memo in 2001. One rule of Australian politics, never underestimate the politics of petrol. The circuit breaker that reversed Howard's fortunes was his decision to cut the petrol excise, a cut which he had previously dismissed as uneconomic and of little value.
Hvaing introduced the GST, Howard continued his quixotic campaign to introduce unfair dismissal laws into a hostile Senate. Other than that, his program turned attention to upscaling the role of private health insurance at the expense of Medicare. This was accompanied by a deluge of advertising on the virtues of his private health care rebate and Medicare safety net (not his idea, a condition of Democrat support). To pick up disaffected voters, he turned to issues such as immigration with the Tampa and children overboard farragos. The Pacific solution was economically irrational, spending more than $250 million to keep a few hundred refugees from landing.
Thus the parameters of his second reign were set: firstly, wedge-politics exploiting the division between Labor's left-leaning middle class and right-leaning blue-collar voters. This effectively meant an embrace of much of the Republican party strategy, and it is no coincidence that Crosby/Textor were experienced in American polling techniques. Secondly, policy based on privatisation (health care, telecommunications, employment) sold by the use of blanket advertising campaigns.
The problem with wedges is that they encourage voters to split their vote, voting against their own economic best interests. The law of political gravity says that if you can get low-income earners to vote for a party that favours big business, you can get high-income earners to vote for a party that cares about the environment. The other point is that is you overlay real economic concerns on top of this choice, the low-income voters will come back and vote on their own best interests.
Five key factors have combined to ruin the second reign. Firstly, Labor has a competent leader, and one who doesn't scare those on the thin-edge of the wedge in North Sydney and Wentworth. Secondly, Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth' has catapulted climate change into a major issue. This is the worst possible outcome for the Liberals, as their climate skepticism was their Achilles heel, previously protected by other more pressing matters in the public mind. Third, Workchoices has seriously worried former ALP voters (and even some Liberal voters) into defecting to Rudd. Fourth, issues such as Iraq and David Hicks' confinement make the government's hold on national security problematic at best. Five, the old tricks don't work.
The machinery that operated the Howard wonderbus has been exposed. Rudd has called the government's bluff on every wedge it has presented, proactively dealt with Labor's credentials on the economy and inverted the narrative to wedge Howard between his economic success and the growing difficulties of homebuyers, renters and worried workers. He has also neturalised the effect of any government advertising to the point where it became almost counterproductive.
Howard devised his first and second platforms on his terms, well in advance of the election. His third, unformed half-baked vision appears to consist of running on his record, wedges dressed up as unity and doing the opposite of whatever Rudd proposes. Howard has tried the banner 'aspirational nationalism' but it fell flat as the proverbial pancake. He may try to inspire a more community-based model of achieving outcomes, with the federal government as a willing partner in the face of state dysfunction.
At the moment, we have two alternative governments: one with a clear vision and one in desperate need of reinvention.
This analysis fails to capture why Howard is now in the position he is. Certainly the fact that Howard and his party have been in office for over a decade contributes greatly to the 'we've had enough of him' factor sweeping the nation. However, it does not capture the way Howard's management of the issues has changed.
The reason Howard has maintained power for so long is twofold. Firstly, he has faced such a dispirited and clueless opposition that each election becomes a choice between the status quo and something infinitely worse. Beazley did not articulate a competent economic program or any form of alternative vision, Crean had the traction of one of Steven Bradbury's skating rivals and Latham caused a stampede of terrified voters back to Howard. His crash or crash-through policy turned into a ten car pile-up. Secondly, Howard had learnt the art of soothing the ordinary voters with his own ordinariness, breaking the bipartisan consensus on social issues such as immigration by branding them 'elite'.
Howard has never been 'popular' per se, but he has had the ability to get respect from people and convert it into election victories.
Secondly, Howard has run two governments in his 11 year tenure. From 1996 to 2001, he was the classic small government conservative, paring back government spending on health and higher education in the name of fixing the ALP $8 billion black hole. His other programs included introducing IR reform, the GST and privatising Telstra. None of these were especially popular. Howard suffered a swing of almost 5% in the 1998 election, largely a referendum on the GST. It should be remembered that Howard's only scare campaign during this time regarded Labor and the economy, while his equivocation on Pauline Hanson's speeches was based on personal conviction that these matters should be discussed.
This warning sign that major reform was not popular with voters was only heeded after the infamous 'mean and tricky' memo in 2001. One rule of Australian politics, never underestimate the politics of petrol. The circuit breaker that reversed Howard's fortunes was his decision to cut the petrol excise, a cut which he had previously dismissed as uneconomic and of little value.
Hvaing introduced the GST, Howard continued his quixotic campaign to introduce unfair dismissal laws into a hostile Senate. Other than that, his program turned attention to upscaling the role of private health insurance at the expense of Medicare. This was accompanied by a deluge of advertising on the virtues of his private health care rebate and Medicare safety net (not his idea, a condition of Democrat support). To pick up disaffected voters, he turned to issues such as immigration with the Tampa and children overboard farragos. The Pacific solution was economically irrational, spending more than $250 million to keep a few hundred refugees from landing.
Thus the parameters of his second reign were set: firstly, wedge-politics exploiting the division between Labor's left-leaning middle class and right-leaning blue-collar voters. This effectively meant an embrace of much of the Republican party strategy, and it is no coincidence that Crosby/Textor were experienced in American polling techniques. Secondly, policy based on privatisation (health care, telecommunications, employment) sold by the use of blanket advertising campaigns.
The problem with wedges is that they encourage voters to split their vote, voting against their own economic best interests. The law of political gravity says that if you can get low-income earners to vote for a party that favours big business, you can get high-income earners to vote for a party that cares about the environment. The other point is that is you overlay real economic concerns on top of this choice, the low-income voters will come back and vote on their own best interests.
Five key factors have combined to ruin the second reign. Firstly, Labor has a competent leader, and one who doesn't scare those on the thin-edge of the wedge in North Sydney and Wentworth. Secondly, Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth' has catapulted climate change into a major issue. This is the worst possible outcome for the Liberals, as their climate skepticism was their Achilles heel, previously protected by other more pressing matters in the public mind. Third, Workchoices has seriously worried former ALP voters (and even some Liberal voters) into defecting to Rudd. Fourth, issues such as Iraq and David Hicks' confinement make the government's hold on national security problematic at best. Five, the old tricks don't work.
The machinery that operated the Howard wonderbus has been exposed. Rudd has called the government's bluff on every wedge it has presented, proactively dealt with Labor's credentials on the economy and inverted the narrative to wedge Howard between his economic success and the growing difficulties of homebuyers, renters and worried workers. He has also neturalised the effect of any government advertising to the point where it became almost counterproductive.
Howard devised his first and second platforms on his terms, well in advance of the election. His third, unformed half-baked vision appears to consist of running on his record, wedges dressed up as unity and doing the opposite of whatever Rudd proposes. Howard has tried the banner 'aspirational nationalism' but it fell flat as the proverbial pancake. He may try to inspire a more community-based model of achieving outcomes, with the federal government as a willing partner in the face of state dysfunction.
At the moment, we have two alternative governments: one with a clear vision and one in desperate need of reinvention.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
More Roman than the Romans
Just as the Labor party under Hawke and Keating underwent a major renovation, the Liberal party under Howard has entered a new era. Perhaps it should be called the post-Liberal party, as it has abandoned the true liberal constituency in favour of a conservative brand of populism. The only thing left of its original core principles is a concern for small business and an abiding hatred of the unions, the last vestige of socialism. Compared to the socialist dinosaurs of 1949, today's unions are as dangerous to democracy as the somewhat forlorn ibis that frequent Hyde Park.
Seeing the dire trends in a whole list of true liberal seats (North Sydney and Wentworth in Sydney, Kooyong, Goldstein and Higgins in Melbourne, Ryan in Brisbane), it became obvious that Howard had to do something to reconcile his traditional base with his new supporters. Of course - propose a referendum on reconciliation using that old tool, the preamble. That ought to bring those bridge-walking trendies back to the fold.
This spectacle reminded me of one of the more peculiar episodes from history. Goths are now known as nocturnal young people with a penchant for the colour black and a general aversion to sunny conversation. However, historically, a merry band of them landed in Italy and promptly routed the ailing Roman forces, depriving them of their mainland. They set up residence in the newly vacated capital of Ravenna, adopted Latin language, social structures and the western Arian Christian religion. They looked just the same as traditional Romans in their dress and conduct.
Over in the East, the Emperor Justinian (he of the law codes), rather fancied himself as a reconquistador. He thus launched his great fleet across from Constantinople and sought to retake the ancestral fatherland. The arriving fleet, however, was not liberating Rome from the infidels. For the Eastern Roman forces spoke Greek, followed the Orthodox religious doctrine and bowed down to their master.
Howard is not reconnecting to the true liberals, for they no longer speak his language. More to the point, he doesn't speak theirs. His natural impulse is to be skeptical on matters of human rights, to vent suspicion of foreigners and be further skeptical of suggestions that his accustomed way of thinking on matters such as treatment of indigenous people and climate change may be wrong. He is now at home more with the populists.
Rudd has assumed the Liberals' traditional mantle, evoking the (traditional enemy of Labor) Menzies in establishing Howard as the extremist, the alien force to the conservative tradition.
We now have the unedifying spectacle of Howard trying to desperately defend his own core constituencies who provide him with the organisational firepower to maintain the Liberal party. The problem Howard has is that even though his 'Greek-speaking' marginal seat dwellers are his new home, they want to turf him out because of the uncertainty caused by workchoices and the dire state of the health, aged care and child care sectors.
If the marginal seat strategy works, Howard survives. If it doesn't, the whole party gets caught in a pincer movement from the true liberals and the defecting battlers.
Seeing the dire trends in a whole list of true liberal seats (North Sydney and Wentworth in Sydney, Kooyong, Goldstein and Higgins in Melbourne, Ryan in Brisbane), it became obvious that Howard had to do something to reconcile his traditional base with his new supporters. Of course - propose a referendum on reconciliation using that old tool, the preamble. That ought to bring those bridge-walking trendies back to the fold.
This spectacle reminded me of one of the more peculiar episodes from history. Goths are now known as nocturnal young people with a penchant for the colour black and a general aversion to sunny conversation. However, historically, a merry band of them landed in Italy and promptly routed the ailing Roman forces, depriving them of their mainland. They set up residence in the newly vacated capital of Ravenna, adopted Latin language, social structures and the western Arian Christian religion. They looked just the same as traditional Romans in their dress and conduct.
Over in the East, the Emperor Justinian (he of the law codes), rather fancied himself as a reconquistador. He thus launched his great fleet across from Constantinople and sought to retake the ancestral fatherland. The arriving fleet, however, was not liberating Rome from the infidels. For the Eastern Roman forces spoke Greek, followed the Orthodox religious doctrine and bowed down to their master.
Howard is not reconnecting to the true liberals, for they no longer speak his language. More to the point, he doesn't speak theirs. His natural impulse is to be skeptical on matters of human rights, to vent suspicion of foreigners and be further skeptical of suggestions that his accustomed way of thinking on matters such as treatment of indigenous people and climate change may be wrong. He is now at home more with the populists.
Rudd has assumed the Liberals' traditional mantle, evoking the (traditional enemy of Labor) Menzies in establishing Howard as the extremist, the alien force to the conservative tradition.
We now have the unedifying spectacle of Howard trying to desperately defend his own core constituencies who provide him with the organisational firepower to maintain the Liberal party. The problem Howard has is that even though his 'Greek-speaking' marginal seat dwellers are his new home, they want to turf him out because of the uncertainty caused by workchoices and the dire state of the health, aged care and child care sectors.
If the marginal seat strategy works, Howard survives. If it doesn't, the whole party gets caught in a pincer movement from the true liberals and the defecting battlers.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
The History Boy
While Mr Howard is busy extolling the virtues of teaching the kids Australian history, his opposite number has demonstrated ample understanding of Australian electoral history. At the risk of sounding like Rove McManus, here's some of the lessons young Kevin has learnt while his classmates seem intent on throwing the chalk duster at him.
2004: don't stand up for trees in Tasmania, don't wait until the election campaign to deal with the economy, define your own image by meeting the people before the government gets to dredge up your past, don't get Iraq linked to the US alliance, don't suggest anyone could lose out if you get elected. don't propose anything you haven't costed yet (Medicare Gold), don't suggest Julia Gillard is in charge of anything that will involve spending money (see above);
2001: small target good, no target bad - don't vacate the field for the government, don't just promise to rollback unpopular reforms (remember the GST?), announce some policies before the campaign. people care about health. keep it simple;
1998: you can get a lot of traction by protest votes, but you can't win without your own ideas. you have to win the marginals to win government, Howard can annoy small business just as much as big scary unions;
1996: just because they haven't voted for your party before, doesn't mean they can't start now. get yourself a lead and stay in front;
1990: environmental voters will back Labor most of the time, so you can afford to annoy a few of them to win back marginal seats;
1983: yes Virginia, the Labor vote can actually get into the high 40s, droughts don't tend to help the Libs very much;
1961: even Menzies nearly lost once;
... and a bit of ancient history
1949: the people don't like extreme policies. they are quite willing to throw out a government if the economy's doing well and they're not getting anything out of it.
2004: don't stand up for trees in Tasmania, don't wait until the election campaign to deal with the economy, define your own image by meeting the people before the government gets to dredge up your past, don't get Iraq linked to the US alliance, don't suggest anyone could lose out if you get elected. don't propose anything you haven't costed yet (Medicare Gold), don't suggest Julia Gillard is in charge of anything that will involve spending money (see above);
2001: small target good, no target bad - don't vacate the field for the government, don't just promise to rollback unpopular reforms (remember the GST?), announce some policies before the campaign. people care about health. keep it simple;
1998: you can get a lot of traction by protest votes, but you can't win without your own ideas. you have to win the marginals to win government, Howard can annoy small business just as much as big scary unions;
1996: just because they haven't voted for your party before, doesn't mean they can't start now. get yourself a lead and stay in front;
1990: environmental voters will back Labor most of the time, so you can afford to annoy a few of them to win back marginal seats;
1983: yes Virginia, the Labor vote can actually get into the high 40s, droughts don't tend to help the Libs very much;
1961: even Menzies nearly lost once;
... and a bit of ancient history
1949: the people don't like extreme policies. they are quite willing to throw out a government if the economy's doing well and they're not getting anything out of it.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Spending six months in a leaky boat (or is that vote?)
One of the rituals of election time is the leaking of internal polling. The major parties attempt to quantify what the electors tell their erstwhile campaign workers and weave it into a narrative. Any such polling should thus be regarded with industrial strength qualities of salt. What is interesting is the story the parties choose to tell by selectively releasing the results.
Labor's interest lies in painting the election as a foregone conclusion, while maintaining their underdog status. This is necessary purely to erode the collective groupthink that Howard is the greatest politician in history and he will hold back any wave of resentment with Canute-like resolve. As most published polls are doing the job for them, poll leaks have been rare except for the irrestible allure of claiming seats with a margin of 10% are in range. This blanket leak is designed to counter Howard's seat-by-seat strategy by portraying the swing as national, and particularly violent in traditional 'true liberal' strongholds, reinforced by a direct poll in North Sydney. They also nod in agreement whenever an obliging poll puts Howard behind in Bennelong.
The Liberals' strategy has come in three parts. The first part was the reactive phase, with Howard forced to ask retiring members not to retire after all with the seat of Grey being emblematic of his plight. At this time, Howard had not yet closed the window for a change in leadership and the government was observing a trend it simply couldn't comprehend.
The second phase was heralded by that familiar bellwether, Eden Monaro. As Howard stared down his gutless wonder frontbench, he revealed internal polling that said Mr Nairn was doing just fine and that Roy Morgan's 60-40 poll was a fantasy. This didn't seem to make a lot of sense given the Newspoll marginal seat average for July-September was 58-42 to Labor, remarkably similar to a WIN poll conducted in Eden Monaro. The symbolism of a favourable poll in the 'national bellwether' seat was palpable: we're just fine because Gary's just fine. Once Howard decided to stay, annihilation became business as usual in the course of one afternoon.
This departure from apparent logic had the effect of making Malcolm Turnbull look as traitorous as Rommell after the failed assassination of Hitler. For his sins, Malcolm has to cop a 98% disapproval of the Gunns Pulp Mill in his electorate.
Since Howard's evocation of Eden Monaro internal polling, it has popped up as a weapon in ideological struggle. When Labor trumpeted another poll in North Sydney, it was contemptuosly squashed, with the statement 'workchoices doesn't rate in this seat'. In Tasmania and Queensland, where polls consistently have the Liberals in dire straits (beset by Sultans of Swing from Devenport to Cairns), internal polling has backed Howard's national judgment. Exact polling figures were released for Lyons, which showed anti-mill (ex)Liberal, Ben Quin, suffering a 11% primary swing. The other polling for Tasmania was somewhat obscured by a News Ltd sieve, but the messenger Glenn Milne did not offer any numbers to back up the assertion that 'the Liberal candidates in all other seats in Tasmania (were) improving'. Given the Tasmanian local polls had Labor at 60% in Bass and Braddon, this seemed to require a certain suspension of belief. What appears to be happening is the Liberals are conceding they can't win Lyons off Labor. All the opposition is concentrated and caused by local issues. This thinking evokes the 16-seat-Everest image. If the Libs' polling was true, there would be no net seat loss and the Mersey expedition would be a success, thus vindicating Howard's marginal seat strategy and presenting the picture that jobs trump trees in voters' minds.
Meanwhile in Queensland, the Liberals have tried to paint a disaster-in-the-making in Ryan as collateral damage of a local pork-barrelling mission. Liberals have clearly decided that they can't cover up Ryan's problems. Michael Johnson, from all reports a very unpopular local member, has tried to blame his plight on the Goonda bypass, built to assist the seat of Blair. Johnson has been left to make desperate pleas for assistance from the raging Rudd hordes, reminiscent of the British epistles to Rome shortly before the Saxons rained down upon them.
This damage limitation has both a quantitative and qualitative effect. First, it means that bad national polls do not translate to inevitable defeat - meaning the polls must by simple mathematics narrow once the election is called. Second, it contradicts the idea that Howard's policies are the problem: either it is the candidate's bizarre flirtation with greenies or the politics of land resumption. The idea is to present Howard's policy as correct, the true liberals as obediently voting on the economy as per usual and the blue-collar 'battlers' are backing Howard's mantra of job creation.
The ALP has quite simply had enough of this posturing and released a fusillade of counter-polling. The talk is of 'vote north of 55%' in seats including Flynn, Herbert, Hinkler and even Leichhardt. Interestingly, either the Queensland Libs have gone native or they haven't started outright lying about their own polling, as they 'struggled to dispute' Labor's assertions.
Based on the above, brave predictions include Liberal polling to reveal a massive swing in Lingiari and Solomon remaining with the Libs in NT, Liberals set to gain Issacs and Holt on the back of anti-Sudanese feeling in Melbourne yet suffer no swing in Higgins and Libs to pick up Cowan while holding Stirling in WA. The possible problems in the seat of Canning will be blamed on the unpopular brickworks proposal.
Labor's interest lies in painting the election as a foregone conclusion, while maintaining their underdog status. This is necessary purely to erode the collective groupthink that Howard is the greatest politician in history and he will hold back any wave of resentment with Canute-like resolve. As most published polls are doing the job for them, poll leaks have been rare except for the irrestible allure of claiming seats with a margin of 10% are in range. This blanket leak is designed to counter Howard's seat-by-seat strategy by portraying the swing as national, and particularly violent in traditional 'true liberal' strongholds, reinforced by a direct poll in North Sydney. They also nod in agreement whenever an obliging poll puts Howard behind in Bennelong.
The Liberals' strategy has come in three parts. The first part was the reactive phase, with Howard forced to ask retiring members not to retire after all with the seat of Grey being emblematic of his plight. At this time, Howard had not yet closed the window for a change in leadership and the government was observing a trend it simply couldn't comprehend.
The second phase was heralded by that familiar bellwether, Eden Monaro. As Howard stared down his gutless wonder frontbench, he revealed internal polling that said Mr Nairn was doing just fine and that Roy Morgan's 60-40 poll was a fantasy. This didn't seem to make a lot of sense given the Newspoll marginal seat average for July-September was 58-42 to Labor, remarkably similar to a WIN poll conducted in Eden Monaro. The symbolism of a favourable poll in the 'national bellwether' seat was palpable: we're just fine because Gary's just fine. Once Howard decided to stay, annihilation became business as usual in the course of one afternoon.
This departure from apparent logic had the effect of making Malcolm Turnbull look as traitorous as Rommell after the failed assassination of Hitler. For his sins, Malcolm has to cop a 98% disapproval of the Gunns Pulp Mill in his electorate.
Since Howard's evocation of Eden Monaro internal polling, it has popped up as a weapon in ideological struggle. When Labor trumpeted another poll in North Sydney, it was contemptuosly squashed, with the statement 'workchoices doesn't rate in this seat'. In Tasmania and Queensland, where polls consistently have the Liberals in dire straits (beset by Sultans of Swing from Devenport to Cairns), internal polling has backed Howard's national judgment. Exact polling figures were released for Lyons, which showed anti-mill (ex)Liberal, Ben Quin, suffering a 11% primary swing. The other polling for Tasmania was somewhat obscured by a News Ltd sieve, but the messenger Glenn Milne did not offer any numbers to back up the assertion that 'the Liberal candidates in all other seats in Tasmania (were) improving'. Given the Tasmanian local polls had Labor at 60% in Bass and Braddon, this seemed to require a certain suspension of belief. What appears to be happening is the Liberals are conceding they can't win Lyons off Labor. All the opposition is concentrated and caused by local issues. This thinking evokes the 16-seat-Everest image. If the Libs' polling was true, there would be no net seat loss and the Mersey expedition would be a success, thus vindicating Howard's marginal seat strategy and presenting the picture that jobs trump trees in voters' minds.
Meanwhile in Queensland, the Liberals have tried to paint a disaster-in-the-making in Ryan as collateral damage of a local pork-barrelling mission. Liberals have clearly decided that they can't cover up Ryan's problems. Michael Johnson, from all reports a very unpopular local member, has tried to blame his plight on the Goonda bypass, built to assist the seat of Blair. Johnson has been left to make desperate pleas for assistance from the raging Rudd hordes, reminiscent of the British epistles to Rome shortly before the Saxons rained down upon them.
This damage limitation has both a quantitative and qualitative effect. First, it means that bad national polls do not translate to inevitable defeat - meaning the polls must by simple mathematics narrow once the election is called. Second, it contradicts the idea that Howard's policies are the problem: either it is the candidate's bizarre flirtation with greenies or the politics of land resumption. The idea is to present Howard's policy as correct, the true liberals as obediently voting on the economy as per usual and the blue-collar 'battlers' are backing Howard's mantra of job creation.
The ALP has quite simply had enough of this posturing and released a fusillade of counter-polling. The talk is of 'vote north of 55%' in seats including Flynn, Herbert, Hinkler and even Leichhardt. Interestingly, either the Queensland Libs have gone native or they haven't started outright lying about their own polling, as they 'struggled to dispute' Labor's assertions.
Based on the above, brave predictions include Liberal polling to reveal a massive swing in Lingiari and Solomon remaining with the Libs in NT, Liberals set to gain Issacs and Holt on the back of anti-Sudanese feeling in Melbourne yet suffer no swing in Higgins and Libs to pick up Cowan while holding Stirling in WA. The possible problems in the seat of Canning will be blamed on the unpopular brickworks proposal.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Reading the hidden economic text
Peter Hartcher (and no doubt a bevy of conservative-aligned columnists) has seized upon the results of an AC Nielsen poll to argue that there is a glimmer of hope for a Howard recovery. The poll offered respondents three statements:
The commentariat, looking for an orthodox narrative, looks at these numbers and sees an opportunity for Howard to convert them back by pressing his economic credentials. Let's take the postmodern approach and see what the text says from the ALP point of view:
55 per cent of the respondents either said that the Labor party is the better economic manager or it makes no difference.
Strikingly, among people who said they intended to vote Liberal/National, almost 20% said either the Labor party is the better economic manager or it makes no difference.
Do those numbers look familiar? As an aside, Rudd leads Howard 48-38 on the question of who has the better vision for Australia - almost identical to Newspoll's preferred PM ratings.
Hartcher makes the heroic assumption that Howard could convert the entire 7% of the electorate favouring either the ALP or the Greens to switch back to where their hip pocket tells them they should go.
Granted he says it would require something 'drastic'. The problem with this analysis is that with Morgan's 'heading in the right direction' question, it does not tell us how important these voters consider the economy nor whether they can be swayed. For Howard to have a snowflake's chance in hell of hanging on, he needs around 48% of the 2PP vote. Not one poll has put him at that level all year. He can forget about the 2% of Greens as they must be pretty hard core to not have gone over to Rudd. That means Howard needs 80% of possibly wavering ALP voters to defect in order to scrape home, and he needs to engineer a movement in the polls of seismic proportions having had them hardly budge for six months.
Voters appear to be telling pollsters that they are thinking beyond the economy, they are thinking about society. It is entirely possible that the ALP could even close the economic management gap during the campaign, given Rudd has apparently neutralised the issue for an election year.
The statements, and the results, were:
■ The Liberal/National parties are better economic managers - 40 per cent agreed.
■ It makes very little difference which party is in power, economic performance would be the same - 43 per cent agreed.
■ The Labor Party is the better economic manager - 12 per cent agreed.
Strikingly, among people who said they intended to vote Labor, 11 per cent said the Coalition was the better economic manager.
The commentariat, looking for an orthodox narrative, looks at these numbers and sees an opportunity for Howard to convert them back by pressing his economic credentials. Let's take the postmodern approach and see what the text says from the ALP point of view:
55 per cent of the respondents either said that the Labor party is the better economic manager or it makes no difference.
Strikingly, among people who said they intended to vote Liberal/National, almost 20% said either the Labor party is the better economic manager or it makes no difference.
Do those numbers look familiar? As an aside, Rudd leads Howard 48-38 on the question of who has the better vision for Australia - almost identical to Newspoll's preferred PM ratings.
Hartcher makes the heroic assumption that Howard could convert the entire 7% of the electorate favouring either the ALP or the Greens to switch back to where their hip pocket tells them they should go.
Granted he says it would require something 'drastic'. The problem with this analysis is that with Morgan's 'heading in the right direction' question, it does not tell us how important these voters consider the economy nor whether they can be swayed. For Howard to have a snowflake's chance in hell of hanging on, he needs around 48% of the 2PP vote. Not one poll has put him at that level all year. He can forget about the 2% of Greens as they must be pretty hard core to not have gone over to Rudd. That means Howard needs 80% of possibly wavering ALP voters to defect in order to scrape home, and he needs to engineer a movement in the polls of seismic proportions having had them hardly budge for six months.
Voters appear to be telling pollsters that they are thinking beyond the economy, they are thinking about society. It is entirely possible that the ALP could even close the economic management gap during the campaign, given Rudd has apparently neutralised the issue for an election year.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
The power of definition
When asked on a recent Insight forum, the Parliamentary Secretary charged with promoting the government's half-baked citizenship test, Teresa Gamboro remarked that Australia is one of the last countries in the world to introduce a citizenship test. This begs the question, why this test and why now?
The easy answer is that the Libs odious policy unit thought it would create yet another wedge to foment chaos within the hapless federal ALP. There is a faint echo of the White Australia dictation test in the policy, but there does seem to be more to this than pandering to the cult of Pauline. Whereas the aim of the post-Tampa policy was exclusion, the aim of the citizenship test is to set the parameters for inclusion within Australian society. Why is the government suddenly concerned about inclusion - is it because it is itself seen by many as on the outer?
The test becomes an exercise in defining Australian values - including equality before the law, free speech, equality of opportunity ('a fair go')and tolerance. What is important here is not just the nature of these values is the fact that they are to be defined on the instructions of Mr Howard. The citizenship test acts as a vehicle whereby the government can take ownership of these values and set itself up as their guardian, a self-appointed defender of democracy. The suggestion is that the violators of such values are 'the other', the barbarians from other cultures. Hence we have statements such as 'Australian citizens are entitled to full consular assistance' (unless of course your name is David Hicks). The converse is that the government has full respect for democratic and Australian traditions and is beyond reproach in its adherence to democratic principle.
Not only is the government attempting to defend the quality of our democracy, it is also laying claim to its quantity. The reason the Electoral Commission is running entertaining ads imploring us to update our enrolment is that in 2006 the government changed the law to close the electoral rolls at 8pm on the days the writs were issued (an event which almost no one would know had happened until it was almost too late). In effect, this gives new voters one day to get on the roll after an election is called, which would have prevented 400,000 people from voting in 2004. The law also restricted voting rights to prisoners. Formerly able to vote if in jail less than 3 years, now any full-time prisoner will be barred. Making amendments such as these is seen as politically expedient. However, it also gives the air that the government is legitimate and the fault lies with those outriders who had not followed the rules.
The Liberal government has sought to reduce democracy to a set of government platitudes and a concern with process. This form over substance distinction allows it to claim its opponents who fulminate over Tampa, AWB and other issues are basically whinging about 'doctor's wives' issues not of concern to the mainstream. Any attempt to connect these abuses to the label 'threats to democracy' become tarred with the charge of hyperbole. We can turn up and vote, Mr Howard must call an election eventually and there is debate on the floor of parliament, so it's all OK.
The easy answer is that the Libs odious policy unit thought it would create yet another wedge to foment chaos within the hapless federal ALP. There is a faint echo of the White Australia dictation test in the policy, but there does seem to be more to this than pandering to the cult of Pauline. Whereas the aim of the post-Tampa policy was exclusion, the aim of the citizenship test is to set the parameters for inclusion within Australian society. Why is the government suddenly concerned about inclusion - is it because it is itself seen by many as on the outer?
The test becomes an exercise in defining Australian values - including equality before the law, free speech, equality of opportunity ('a fair go')and tolerance. What is important here is not just the nature of these values is the fact that they are to be defined on the instructions of Mr Howard. The citizenship test acts as a vehicle whereby the government can take ownership of these values and set itself up as their guardian, a self-appointed defender of democracy. The suggestion is that the violators of such values are 'the other', the barbarians from other cultures. Hence we have statements such as 'Australian citizens are entitled to full consular assistance' (unless of course your name is David Hicks). The converse is that the government has full respect for democratic and Australian traditions and is beyond reproach in its adherence to democratic principle.
Not only is the government attempting to defend the quality of our democracy, it is also laying claim to its quantity. The reason the Electoral Commission is running entertaining ads imploring us to update our enrolment is that in 2006 the government changed the law to close the electoral rolls at 8pm on the days the writs were issued (an event which almost no one would know had happened until it was almost too late). In effect, this gives new voters one day to get on the roll after an election is called, which would have prevented 400,000 people from voting in 2004. The law also restricted voting rights to prisoners. Formerly able to vote if in jail less than 3 years, now any full-time prisoner will be barred. Making amendments such as these is seen as politically expedient. However, it also gives the air that the government is legitimate and the fault lies with those outriders who had not followed the rules.
The Liberal government has sought to reduce democracy to a set of government platitudes and a concern with process. This form over substance distinction allows it to claim its opponents who fulminate over Tampa, AWB and other issues are basically whinging about 'doctor's wives' issues not of concern to the mainstream. Any attempt to connect these abuses to the label 'threats to democracy' become tarred with the charge of hyperbole. We can turn up and vote, Mr Howard must call an election eventually and there is debate on the floor of parliament, so it's all OK.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Jolly Hockey's dip into the Styx
The are-we-there-yet election campaign drones on, like a suffocating summer's day, while we all await a cool change to relieve us of this tedium. A gentle zephyr blew in from the North this morning, with ALP polling showing 'Jolly' Joe Hockey's vote heading south, accompanied by the rider that this happened in 2004 only for him to be rescued by Latham's ill-conceived 'private schools hit-list'.
One thing that hasn't been recalled is that in 2004, the big story was the meteoric rise in the Greens primary vote, I recall one poll saying their candidate, Dr Ted Nixon, was on track to get around 25% of the vote and cause major preference chaos. This was one of many seats where polls indicated massive discontent in the bizarrely named 'doctor's wives' demographic (I prefer the term 'true liberal'). They threatened a Green tide that would sweep through Bennelong, Wentworth and North Sydney and similar seats in Melbourne and Brisbane. Then the Greens drug policy was hammered into the collective Liberal conscience and most of the voters stayed with their hip pockets.
However, the sleeping giant of social change dwells here. North Sydney has the highest rate of tertiary educated voters in the country (41%). The disquiet about Liberal policy, so much so that nearly a quarter of the electorate considered voting Green, indicates that these voters are not happy about the direction the Liberal party under John Howard is taking, and if they're not concerned about the economy or their kids' education, a major swing is on the cards. Note, however, that the concern with their children's educational welfare might well segue into a future concern with climate change.
This time around, the equation is completely different to 2004, which is why Sunrise Joe is in about as much trouble in his Federation citadel as Mr Howard is in Bennelong. Like sweltering summer days in Sydney, there are all the ingredients for a perfect storm:
1. Kevin Rudd's popularity and the commensurate surge in the national ALP vote
2. Joe Hockey is Minister for Work Choices, one of the three issues cited as most influential in North Sydney
3. Health is a major issue owing to the debacle at North Shore Hospital, hence Tony Abbott's desperate attempts to pin the blame on the Iemma government
4. The surge in climate change into the political forefront
Add these issues to the fact that the ALP has placed North Sydney on its campaign radar and inserted former ABC weatherman, Mike Bailey to contest the seat, and you have a traditional 'blue-ribbon' seat becoming a line-ball contest.
On the value of the moniker 'held since Federation', it is worth remembering that in the US, the entire political division of the country reversed over social policy in the latter half of the 20th century. The predominantly poor South, formerly the Democrat heartland, became the Republican heartland as a collection of old-fashioned segregationists and new-fangled evangelists exploited LBJ's civil rights reforms. Accordingly, old Republican strongholds became Democratic, such as New York.
We have already had a taste of the former ALP western suburban and regional areas shifting, largely on economic lines but buttressed by xenophobic and cultural concerns. Is it time for the true liberals to turn?
One thing that hasn't been recalled is that in 2004, the big story was the meteoric rise in the Greens primary vote, I recall one poll saying their candidate, Dr Ted Nixon, was on track to get around 25% of the vote and cause major preference chaos. This was one of many seats where polls indicated massive discontent in the bizarrely named 'doctor's wives' demographic (I prefer the term 'true liberal'). They threatened a Green tide that would sweep through Bennelong, Wentworth and North Sydney and similar seats in Melbourne and Brisbane. Then the Greens drug policy was hammered into the collective Liberal conscience and most of the voters stayed with their hip pockets.
However, the sleeping giant of social change dwells here. North Sydney has the highest rate of tertiary educated voters in the country (41%). The disquiet about Liberal policy, so much so that nearly a quarter of the electorate considered voting Green, indicates that these voters are not happy about the direction the Liberal party under John Howard is taking, and if they're not concerned about the economy or their kids' education, a major swing is on the cards. Note, however, that the concern with their children's educational welfare might well segue into a future concern with climate change.
This time around, the equation is completely different to 2004, which is why Sunrise Joe is in about as much trouble in his Federation citadel as Mr Howard is in Bennelong. Like sweltering summer days in Sydney, there are all the ingredients for a perfect storm:
1. Kevin Rudd's popularity and the commensurate surge in the national ALP vote
2. Joe Hockey is Minister for Work Choices, one of the three issues cited as most influential in North Sydney
3. Health is a major issue owing to the debacle at North Shore Hospital, hence Tony Abbott's desperate attempts to pin the blame on the Iemma government
4. The surge in climate change into the political forefront
Add these issues to the fact that the ALP has placed North Sydney on its campaign radar and inserted former ABC weatherman, Mike Bailey to contest the seat, and you have a traditional 'blue-ribbon' seat becoming a line-ball contest.
On the value of the moniker 'held since Federation', it is worth remembering that in the US, the entire political division of the country reversed over social policy in the latter half of the 20th century. The predominantly poor South, formerly the Democrat heartland, became the Republican heartland as a collection of old-fashioned segregationists and new-fangled evangelists exploited LBJ's civil rights reforms. Accordingly, old Republican strongholds became Democratic, such as New York.
We have already had a taste of the former ALP western suburban and regional areas shifting, largely on economic lines but buttressed by xenophobic and cultural concerns. Is it time for the true liberals to turn?
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
The Logic of Climate Change
Climate change is an inherently complex phenomenon. Two basic problems lie at its crux. Firstly, we don't know exactly how the climate works and hence the modelling predictions offered by scientists have wild ranges of up to three degrees over a century, the difference between adaptable and apocalyptic. Secondly, we don't have any easy solutions - the (western) world must transform both its economy through a transition away from reliance on carbon emitting sources of power and its whole philosophy towards the world. The Western mantra, which is most strongly expressed in the attitude of the US, is that the environment is ripe for human exploitation and we should bend nature to our will. I suspect that the latter lies at the core of much of climate change denial.
From a general review of theories floating around about the global climate, climate factors can be classified into three categories:
1. Heat provision
2. Heat retention
3. Heat distribution
These categories interact to produce chain reactions of climate change on a global basis.
The most obvious factor in making the Earth habitable is heat energy from the Sun. The amount of heat reaching the planet is vitally important as are the places on the Earth it reaches. Hence sunspots, which appear to correlate with decreased sunlight, may have led to the so-called Little Ice Age - the point at which the Maunder Minimum, the lowest level of sunspot activity occurs roughly correlates with temperature decline. On a more massive scale, orbital forcing, i.e. changes in the tilt of the Earth's axis are suspected of playing a major role in causing Ice Ages, by changing the amount of sunlight reaching the poles and encouraging the formation of thicker ice caps.
Heat retention means the planet's 'greenhouse effect', as caused by the atmosphere. Levels of CO2 over time appear to correlate with a warming or cooling trend depending on whether they are higher or lower. Generally, if the Earth has a concentration of 285 ppm or less of C02, then it is consistent with an ice age. The net concentration of C02 is affected by the distribution of vegetation on land and plankton in oceans (one theory suggests that the forests of the Carboniferous period which gave us much of our coal actually caused an ice age by reducing C02 levels!) plus the ability of the soil and the oceans to absorb and retain C02. At certain temperatures this absorption mechanism goes into the red, meaning it actually starts to release pent up C02. C02 is the major gas in this system as it has both a high effect on heat retention (100 times that of water vapour) and a reasonably long life in the atmosphere (between 80 and 200 years depending on absorption mechanisms).
Heat distribution means the ability for warm and cool water to flow around the planet through ocean currents, which both regulates temperature and the flow of nutrients. The most famous example of this is the Gulf Stream, which plays a key role in keeping northern Europe habitable. This can be affected by both salinity of the water (hence the current may flow slower with a more diluted flow as fresh water pushes more dense, warmer salty water to be bottom) and the alignment of continents. It is thought to be a precondition of an ice age to have one ocean entirely surrounded, as is the case with the Arctic and a land mass covering the other pole (as with Antarctica). This could however just be based on retrospective explanation.
With so many variables, not to mention regional to global variations caused by global dimming from volcanic ash or fire or the emission of gases by eruption, it is little wonder the models cannot provide more than a guide based on well-meaning assumptions. Those assumptions are made by groups who have already embraced the idea that humans must exist within their environment and adopt sustainable practices rather than attempt to overcome and impose their will on it.
What all of the science points to is that, but for, major increase in heat retention, we should not be getting warmer, if anything we should be heading towards another glacial period - i.e. an ice age.
However, many people, not least those with close ties to industries involved in that exploitation, have a number of philosophical reasons why they consider the threats to be overblown. There is no one clear profile for climate change doubters and they include a motley band of politicians, scientists and commentators. I summarise these under the following headings:
Aristotlean denial - commentators, often with no scientific background, who see the C02 v Temperature Change Chart used by Al Gore and say it shows C02 rising as temperature increases therefore A causes B, but B cannot cause A. This is false logic which fails to take into account the fact that if you warm up the place by heat provision, you can release more C02 which furthers warms by heat retention.
Galilieo/ Rationalist denial - other figures, both commentators and scientists fancy themselves to be defenders of the rationalist scientific tradition against the intolerance of an emotive semi-religious zeal. They are not Galileo, who relied on observation despite it going against his own beliefs.
Capitalist denial - this is based on the fact that Marxists without a home to goto have adopted the green movement like new-aged hermit shell crabs and hence climate change warnings are discredited by a wish to send capitalism into the stone age.
Dominance denial - this is the attitude that we can do what we like and nothing's going to stop us, closely allied to the belief that if we do get into trouble, we can rely on some technological saviour down the track
Divine denial - sometimes heard that humans are incapable of causing planetary climate change because they have much less influence on things than God.
Mathematical denial - water vapour constitutes 97% of the greenhouse effect - if anything causes warming it should be water vapour. This completely fails to account for C02's longer atmospheric life and heat control capability.
Geological denial - used to taking a million-year-view, some geologists are on record as saying that humans' momentary stay on the planet cannot have much effect. Geologists should be looking at continental alignment and other factors which should tell us we are not on situation natural with climate trends, it should be getting cooler, not warmer.
Metereological denial - used to seeing changes in weather, some meterologists cite previous droughts/floods etc to say that these changes are nothing out of the ordinary.
Funding denial - a few scientists on the margins act as guns for hire, formerly seen defending tobacco companies with dubious cancer research
Political denial - this includes politicians protecting jobs and concerned about losing support from corporations for taking a stand
The original word 'holocaust' comes from Greek. It literally means 'burned completely by fire', in the manner of a sacrifice being burned for offering to the gods. Unless the voices of these vociferous objectors are marginalised and decisions made on the basis of science and what measures can be put in place that will allow for an equitable and effective carbon transition and climate adaptation, we might all end up ultimately sacrificed on their altar of conceit.
From a general review of theories floating around about the global climate, climate factors can be classified into three categories:
1. Heat provision
2. Heat retention
3. Heat distribution
These categories interact to produce chain reactions of climate change on a global basis.
The most obvious factor in making the Earth habitable is heat energy from the Sun. The amount of heat reaching the planet is vitally important as are the places on the Earth it reaches. Hence sunspots, which appear to correlate with decreased sunlight, may have led to the so-called Little Ice Age - the point at which the Maunder Minimum, the lowest level of sunspot activity occurs roughly correlates with temperature decline. On a more massive scale, orbital forcing, i.e. changes in the tilt of the Earth's axis are suspected of playing a major role in causing Ice Ages, by changing the amount of sunlight reaching the poles and encouraging the formation of thicker ice caps.
Heat retention means the planet's 'greenhouse effect', as caused by the atmosphere. Levels of CO2 over time appear to correlate with a warming or cooling trend depending on whether they are higher or lower. Generally, if the Earth has a concentration of 285 ppm or less of C02, then it is consistent with an ice age. The net concentration of C02 is affected by the distribution of vegetation on land and plankton in oceans (one theory suggests that the forests of the Carboniferous period which gave us much of our coal actually caused an ice age by reducing C02 levels!) plus the ability of the soil and the oceans to absorb and retain C02. At certain temperatures this absorption mechanism goes into the red, meaning it actually starts to release pent up C02. C02 is the major gas in this system as it has both a high effect on heat retention (100 times that of water vapour) and a reasonably long life in the atmosphere (between 80 and 200 years depending on absorption mechanisms).
Heat distribution means the ability for warm and cool water to flow around the planet through ocean currents, which both regulates temperature and the flow of nutrients. The most famous example of this is the Gulf Stream, which plays a key role in keeping northern Europe habitable. This can be affected by both salinity of the water (hence the current may flow slower with a more diluted flow as fresh water pushes more dense, warmer salty water to be bottom) and the alignment of continents. It is thought to be a precondition of an ice age to have one ocean entirely surrounded, as is the case with the Arctic and a land mass covering the other pole (as with Antarctica). This could however just be based on retrospective explanation.
With so many variables, not to mention regional to global variations caused by global dimming from volcanic ash or fire or the emission of gases by eruption, it is little wonder the models cannot provide more than a guide based on well-meaning assumptions. Those assumptions are made by groups who have already embraced the idea that humans must exist within their environment and adopt sustainable practices rather than attempt to overcome and impose their will on it.
What all of the science points to is that, but for, major increase in heat retention, we should not be getting warmer, if anything we should be heading towards another glacial period - i.e. an ice age.
However, many people, not least those with close ties to industries involved in that exploitation, have a number of philosophical reasons why they consider the threats to be overblown. There is no one clear profile for climate change doubters and they include a motley band of politicians, scientists and commentators. I summarise these under the following headings:
Aristotlean denial - commentators, often with no scientific background, who see the C02 v Temperature Change Chart used by Al Gore and say it shows C02 rising as temperature increases therefore A causes B, but B cannot cause A. This is false logic which fails to take into account the fact that if you warm up the place by heat provision, you can release more C02 which furthers warms by heat retention.
Galilieo/ Rationalist denial - other figures, both commentators and scientists fancy themselves to be defenders of the rationalist scientific tradition against the intolerance of an emotive semi-religious zeal. They are not Galileo, who relied on observation despite it going against his own beliefs.
Capitalist denial - this is based on the fact that Marxists without a home to goto have adopted the green movement like new-aged hermit shell crabs and hence climate change warnings are discredited by a wish to send capitalism into the stone age.
Dominance denial - this is the attitude that we can do what we like and nothing's going to stop us, closely allied to the belief that if we do get into trouble, we can rely on some technological saviour down the track
Divine denial - sometimes heard that humans are incapable of causing planetary climate change because they have much less influence on things than God.
Mathematical denial - water vapour constitutes 97% of the greenhouse effect - if anything causes warming it should be water vapour. This completely fails to account for C02's longer atmospheric life and heat control capability.
Geological denial - used to taking a million-year-view, some geologists are on record as saying that humans' momentary stay on the planet cannot have much effect. Geologists should be looking at continental alignment and other factors which should tell us we are not on situation natural with climate trends, it should be getting cooler, not warmer.
Metereological denial - used to seeing changes in weather, some meterologists cite previous droughts/floods etc to say that these changes are nothing out of the ordinary.
Funding denial - a few scientists on the margins act as guns for hire, formerly seen defending tobacco companies with dubious cancer research
Political denial - this includes politicians protecting jobs and concerned about losing support from corporations for taking a stand
The original word 'holocaust' comes from Greek. It literally means 'burned completely by fire', in the manner of a sacrifice being burned for offering to the gods. Unless the voices of these vociferous objectors are marginalised and decisions made on the basis of science and what measures can be put in place that will allow for an equitable and effective carbon transition and climate adaptation, we might all end up ultimately sacrificed on their altar of conceit.
Monday, October 1, 2007
The Iranian Question
Very simple question for any aspiring election candidate: would you support an air strike on Iran?
Given the steady beat of the neo-con war drum that has been coming out of Washington in recent weeks, it is rather amazing that this hasn't been picked up in the midst of a faux election campaign where any poll is seized upon with unrestrained gusto. It is Iraq re-dux: Iran is supporting terrorists (remember Sadaam's Al-Qaeda connection, one so secret even he himself didn't know about it?); containment will not work, nor will sanctions. We have the unfortunate weapons inspection official who has reported that he hasn't seen anything to indicate a weapons programme (Mohammed El-Baradei reprising Hans Blix's role of hapless messenger). Oh yes, and the country's led by a lunatic who wants to wipe everyone into the Mediterranean.
It could be argued that the Iraq invasion was a good idea, in the same way one might have thought that the Romans wandering into the Teutonberg Forest was a good idea. It needed the invasion to have global approval and a full committment to rebuilding the country's infrastructure and securing stability before major political reform was attempted. Bush and his cohorts demonstrate a total disinterest in nation building in the bricks and mortar sense, only committed to nebulous concepts of freedom and outsourcing everything from security to government to the private sector. If Rome is to be their guide, Bush's policy instincts are closer to Caligula, whose invasion forces were reputedly instructed to 'bring back seashells' to prove they had conquered Britain (when they hadn't...mission accomplished 40 AD style). He is no general of the first or even second league, nor even the pale imitation of a modern wartime president.
A newsflash for Dick Cheney - he is not Cato the Elder and the US is not Rome. It exports democracy, free enterprise, deregulation and American popular culture, not civilisation in the form of baths, literature and involvement in a world superpower's polity. More to the point, neither Bagdhad or Tehran are Carthage. On a world scale, both are at best on a regional par with France. A more emblematic challenge would be against China, and today's real strategic plays are in the economic sphere not playing toy soliders with Stealth bombers. All this bullying behaviour demonstrates is growing economic frustration that the US is on loan to China.
The proposed Iranian campaign now has such a level of hyperventilation attached that it would further sour relations between the Muslim and Western communities and run America's capital in the region into deficit. It would ruin the stability of Iraq, as Iran would simply send its forces in to fight a proxy war. Remember Iraq couldn't beat Iran in their absolutely mindless sectarian conflict despite superior military power and the assistance of several western powers.
The nuclear issue is one almost entirely of Bush's own making. By his belligerent policy against Iraq, the Iranian politico-clerical establishment has seen the need defend their regime by relying on the MAD protection offered by nuclear weapons. In Bush's world, only the US can dictate terms, any opposing outpost is a rogue state as exemplified by the statement 'either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists'.
The US relies on allies to provide it with credibility for these adventures. True allies do not capitulate to the whim of larger states. Those countries are traditionally called client kingdoms, run by a compliant puppet for the benefit of the puppet and its master. Australia is not a client state.
Given the steady beat of the neo-con war drum that has been coming out of Washington in recent weeks, it is rather amazing that this hasn't been picked up in the midst of a faux election campaign where any poll is seized upon with unrestrained gusto. It is Iraq re-dux: Iran is supporting terrorists (remember Sadaam's Al-Qaeda connection, one so secret even he himself didn't know about it?); containment will not work, nor will sanctions. We have the unfortunate weapons inspection official who has reported that he hasn't seen anything to indicate a weapons programme (Mohammed El-Baradei reprising Hans Blix's role of hapless messenger). Oh yes, and the country's led by a lunatic who wants to wipe everyone into the Mediterranean.
It could be argued that the Iraq invasion was a good idea, in the same way one might have thought that the Romans wandering into the Teutonberg Forest was a good idea. It needed the invasion to have global approval and a full committment to rebuilding the country's infrastructure and securing stability before major political reform was attempted. Bush and his cohorts demonstrate a total disinterest in nation building in the bricks and mortar sense, only committed to nebulous concepts of freedom and outsourcing everything from security to government to the private sector. If Rome is to be their guide, Bush's policy instincts are closer to Caligula, whose invasion forces were reputedly instructed to 'bring back seashells' to prove they had conquered Britain (when they hadn't...mission accomplished 40 AD style). He is no general of the first or even second league, nor even the pale imitation of a modern wartime president.
A newsflash for Dick Cheney - he is not Cato the Elder and the US is not Rome. It exports democracy, free enterprise, deregulation and American popular culture, not civilisation in the form of baths, literature and involvement in a world superpower's polity. More to the point, neither Bagdhad or Tehran are Carthage. On a world scale, both are at best on a regional par with France. A more emblematic challenge would be against China, and today's real strategic plays are in the economic sphere not playing toy soliders with Stealth bombers. All this bullying behaviour demonstrates is growing economic frustration that the US is on loan to China.
The proposed Iranian campaign now has such a level of hyperventilation attached that it would further sour relations between the Muslim and Western communities and run America's capital in the region into deficit. It would ruin the stability of Iraq, as Iran would simply send its forces in to fight a proxy war. Remember Iraq couldn't beat Iran in their absolutely mindless sectarian conflict despite superior military power and the assistance of several western powers.
The nuclear issue is one almost entirely of Bush's own making. By his belligerent policy against Iraq, the Iranian politico-clerical establishment has seen the need defend their regime by relying on the MAD protection offered by nuclear weapons. In Bush's world, only the US can dictate terms, any opposing outpost is a rogue state as exemplified by the statement 'either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists'.
The US relies on allies to provide it with credibility for these adventures. True allies do not capitulate to the whim of larger states. Those countries are traditionally called client kingdoms, run by a compliant puppet for the benefit of the puppet and its master. Australia is not a client state.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)