The Australian politics thread

[Jono]

Its times like this when you really know just how much one hates studying for exams. Do I watch the debate or not?

How badly do I want to procrastinate from my studies? Pretty damn bad if I watch this debate I reckon.

Tough decision.

[Jono]

Originally Posted by andyc

Nath posted it a few pages back but yeah, it's hilarious, especially Costello at the end and Peter Garrett throughout it.

Haha yeah. If only they didn't get an overweight guy to play Rudd, because he looked more like Beazley I reckon.

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by howardj

[URL="http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22669891-601,00.html"]

That is, it took Howard from Wednesday when the CPI came out (which indicated a rate rise next week) until yesterday afternoon to finally come out with the line that: “Interest rates, even after the last five rate rises, were never this low under 13 years of Labor”. It was such an obvious line, but it took him five days to come up with it!
.

It is surprising, especially considering it's a line they've used before, and undoubtedly will again.

I think it's a pointless remark (as are most of the remarks made in the campaign from both sides), as it's completely irrelevant to what is happening now. As is the fact that rates were even higher when Howard was treasurer. Obviously the current world economic climate has a lot to do with where we're at.

Anyway, I can't wait until the election is over and done with...the repetition will be just about killing me by then!

It's nice to see the coalition throwing in some education initiatives, but I think they're kind of missing the point.

[Burgey]

The debate today between deputy dawg and the apparatchik was one of the more boring spectacles i've watched/ listened to.

Costello was on message, as was Swan. Swan didn't make a goose of himself, which is what was required. No KOs by either, imo.

Watch the media go - Fairfax online poll scores it to Swan at 60%, News to Costello by a similar margin. The two campaign offices are obviously busy at this time. Shanahan at it again after Newspoll - he has so little credibility as a "commentator" that it's laughable.

On the polls, the problem is in taking a snapshot from any one poll, or indeed across polls taken at similar times by different organisations. Morgan has a bias to ALP (compared with other polls), Galaxy against (cf the owner after the 1st Galaxy of the campaign showing 53/47 saying "this is a great result").

Rather, it's important to look at trends. Each poll has a MOE of about 2.5% (depending on sample size) to an accuracy of 95%. That being so, if one looks to the Newspoll last week, it was plainly an out-lier on the Labor side, but still within the MOE from what's been the trend all year - namely 56-44 or 55-45. Likewise with last night's at 54-46.

As it was summed up on another site:

Put 13 million balls into a barrel. 55% of them are red, the rest blue. Pull out 1200 at a time. Sometimes you'll get 58-42%, sometimes 54-46%, sometimes 56-44, all within a MOE. Very occasionally you'll get a rogue sample outsie this margin, like a 60-40, or a 52-48, but not often.

That's why they have MOEs.

On a slightly differnet bent, how counter-intuitive have the polls been so far this campaign? Week 1 momentum with Coalition and Labor barely starting their campaign, a couple of good polls post-libs tax announcement. Then a bad Newspoll follows for the govt and it (momentum) swings.

Last week we have Turnbull ratting on cabinet (supposedly), a couple of slip ups by JH and the govt looking wobbly and bieng called desperate, and then another poll goes the opposite way to the general consensus of how most saw the week going.

It's all a bit odd, but if we keep the MOE in the backs of our minds, it becomes easier to see the polls as less volatile compared with the overall trends over several months.

As an ALP supporter, the thing for me is the primary vote has been pretty solid at 48% or above for many months now. If they get anywhere near that on 24/11, they will win and win easily.

[howardj]

Most recent polls - Galaxy 53/47, Nielsen 54/46, Newspoll 54-46. For each of them, that's their best Coalition result so far this year.

Maybe, as you allude to, they’re all just within the MoE of 55-56. Or maybe we have, collectively, evidence of a ‘narrowing’. Time will be the judge.

I regard the 58/42 Newspoll last week as the real rogue, influenced as it was by Rudd's tax policy announced the previous Friday.

[Craig]

Originally Posted by howardj

Howard Roars Back

Obviously, it’s still a big lead for Labor, but the important thing is that it’s the Coalition’s best result since February. And let’s not forget that Newspoll on election morning in 2004, showed the parties level on 50/50 when the actual result later that night was 53.5 / 46.5 to the Coalition. So, going from the last election, Newspoll does have somewhat of an in-built, unintentional Labor bias.

Anyway, the important thing is that it gives the Coalition troops some heart. I’m sure they felt totally dispirited and incredibly punch-drunk after last week’s diabolical chain of events. I’ve been pretty disappointed at the lack of sharpness in the Coalition campaign though. Their response to the prospect of an interest rate rise typifies their sloppy performance to date.

That is, it took Howard from Wednesday when the CPI came out (which indicated a rate rise next week) until yesterday afternoon to finally come out with the line that: “Interest rates, even after the last five rate rises, were never this low under 13 years of Labor”. It was such an obvious line, but it took him five days to come up with it!

By contrast, as I told one of my friends last week, they should have had this line ready to go last Wednesday when the CPI came out. Even I thought of this line last week. Such a response should have been apparent to seasoned experts who are working seven days a week on this campaign.

Instead, Howard flailed around for four or five days; splitting hairs as to what he did and did not promise during the last campaign on interest rates. All that the splitting of hairs did was feed into the perception that he is sneaky and tricky. That it took him five days to come out with a convincing response, is not good enough. They have to do better than that.

In modern campaigns, the leader only gets 30 seconds of speaking time on the news each night. As silly as it sounds, you have to sit down the night before, and try to get your lines right for the next day - get your 30 seconds down pat, on what is likely to be the big issue the next day.

I also think the Coalition’s advertising has been below par. There’s too much focus on the unions. For mine, they’d be much better served having more advertising directly comparing the achievements and qualifications of the two men who would preside over our one trillion dollar economy - Peter Costello and Wayne Swan; and advertising directly comparing unemployment, average interest rates and average real wages under Labor and the Coalition during their most recent stints in Government.

I mean, with the Unions, who gives a **** what some fat unionist was doing at a Union meeting a couple of years ago? Yes, the anti-Union line has its place, but it shouldn’t be the dominant theme of the Coalition advertising.

In summary, the Coalition really need to lift their game. Their heart has to be in it; they have to be really passionate about it. They will still likely lose this election, but there are things they could be doing - like getting their responses in order much earlier (as per above) and sharpening their advertising - to make the likely loss much less than it needs to be.

Top poster for the week. But one thing I can't work out is how, if the Liberal Party attacks the Unions, it is a negative campaigning, but since the Unions/Labor are doing the exact opposite, so doesn't that seem like hypocriscy? I'm not a Union man on principal as whilst the Unions offer a lot in protecting employees, but it is when some of them become Stand Over Merchants or like on building sites whereas if you are not in the Union you can't start or in the good ol' days on the wharfs if somebody wasn't in the Union they would have the bejesus beaten out of them until they did, that is what I disagree with and haven't signed up.

[Burgey]

Originally Posted by Craig

Top poster for the week. But one thing I can't work out is how, if the Liberal Party attacks the Unions, it is a negative campaigning, but since the Unions/Labor are doing the exact opposite, so doesn't that seem like hypocriscy? I'm not a Union man on principal as whilst the Unions offer a lot in protecting employees, but it is when some of them become Stand Over Merchants or like on building sites whereas if you are not in the Union you can't start or in the good ol' days on the wharfs if somebody wasn't in the Union they would have the bejesus beaten out of them until they did, that is what I disagree with and haven't signed up.

Both sides run negative ads - if you run an ad saying so and so broke a promise, it's a negative ad.

It's not so much about whether it's negative, but rather whether it's a fear-type ad (for want of a better term).

The govt says the ALP will be dominated by the unions when/ if it is elected. That's an argument which cannot be refuted until they are elected - it's like the "I'll be better on interest rates than Labor" phrase - it can't be proven or disproven, which in some ways makes it more effective.

The fact is that 70% of the ALP front bench were not union officials, unless you categorise someone that way by their having either been a union member or worked in a union office (even if only for a short period) despite their having done myriad other things in their lives.

The ACTU/ ALP ads on workchoices are also negative. They have (and will, based on what I know) use people in them who have been adversely affected by Workchoices.

So, they all run negative ads.

Just out of interest, how many times have you heard any government minister use the phrase "Work Choices" in this election? It's as unpopular as a sh*t sandwich, primarily becuae it was sprung on people after no mention of it last time (very different from the GST, on which an election was called and won so fair play there).

If the government hadn't brought Work Choices in, imo it would be about 8 points ahead in the polls and would cruise to victory.

Amazing what a little bit of power in the Senate can do, isn't it?

[Craig]

Originally Posted by Burgey

Both sides run negative ads - if you run an ad saying so and so broke a promise, it's a negative ad.

It's not so much about whether it's negative, but rather whether it's a fear-type ad (for want of a better term).

The govt says the ALP will be dominated by the unions when/ if it is elected. That's an argument which cannot be refuted until they are elected - it's like the "I'll be better on interest rates than Labor" phrase - it can't be proven or disproven, which in some ways makes it more effective.

The fact is that 70% of the ALP front bench were not union officials, unless you categorise someone that way by their having either been a union member or worked in a union office (even if only for a short period) despite their having done myriad other things in their lives.

The ACTU/ ALP ads on workchoices are also negative. They have (and will, based on what I know) use people in them who have been adversely affected by Workchoices.

So, they all run negative ads.

Just out of interest, how many times have you heard any government minister use the phrase "Work Choices" in this election? It's as unpopular as a sh*t sandwich, primarily becuae it was sprung on people after no mention of it last time (very different from the GST, on which an election was called and won so fair play there).

If the government hadn't brought Work Choices in, imo it would be about 8 points ahead in the polls and would cruise to victory.

Amazing what a little bit of power in the Senate can do, isn't it?

Very true, though. TBH I just wish this election would hurry up and be done with and whoever else will lead this country. Having seen Tony Abbott's Day from Hell today I'll be interested in how the polls run now.

[Burgey]

Nielsen 56-44.
Morgan 57.5-42.5

Every poll isnce the election was called has been within the 2.5% MOE of 55-45.

Where's the narrowing?

Despite the media cheer squad, the government's campaign is going nowhere fast. Heard some trollop on Sky yestrerday saying "The libs haven't started campaigning yet, they have a big announcement on housing affordability" - well, $34 billion here, $4 billion there suggests they're trying pretty hard. Good luck trying any affordability policy if rates go up.

Their campaign so far has lacked a cogent message, and because they're behind they have to announce the big items before Labor to try and get traction. Labor then sit back, pick the eyes out of them, match or better them and can't be called irresponsible because the govt has costed their policies for them.

Makes for a boring campaign, but Rudd has so far seriously played the other side off a break.

Now they're running ads criticisng state ministers? WTF? Criticising people who AREN'T the opposition. And they're moaning about "me too' - great - it just reinforces that Rudd isn't a threat.

If things continue going as they are (can't say they will, but can't say they won't) Brian Loughnane will be a dead-set pariah in the liberal party.

They really need to get it together, and to do so awfully fast.

[Burgey]

Galaxy 54-46.

Little, if any change.

[howardj]

Originally Posted by Burgey

Galaxy 54-46.

Little, if any change.

Primary votes 45 to 42

Following up the last Galaxy nationwide poll of 45-43.

From the most accurate polling company in the country.

Don't dare claim that these two polls constitute a narrowing though, from the weeks and months before the campaign was called.

[Burgey]

Well, Galaxy got the preference distribution right, but all the pollsters last time were accurate within MOE, except Morgan (from memory).

What do you reckon they're going to do with their message? Started with Go fro Growth, but now it's "Watch out for Inflation". What causes inflation? Out of control growth.

I really think the libs got some bad advice with their campaign strategy here. Not saying they can't win, but they went with that slogan, which ties things to the economy (fair enough), but in a way which links them with a possible rise in inflation and therefore rates. The party HQ must have known of the possibility of a rise during the campaign (everyone was talking about it) bit they ran with it.

I don't see the rate rise as a problem for the government per se, it's more a trust issue really. Objectively, people know rates are set by international factors together with domestic inflationary presures, but the problem the govt has is that it made that promise back in 2004 about keeping them at 30 year/ record lows. It makes it all the more difficult to now loudly sell a message that it's really beyond their control.

Then again it may just be the sound of chickens coming home to roost.

[howardj]

Originally Posted by Burgey

Well, Galaxy got the preference distribution right, but all the pollsters last time were accurate within MOE, except Morgan (from memory).

What do you reckon they're going to do with their message? Started with Go fro Growth, but now it's "Watch out for Inflation". What causes inflation? Out of control growth.

I really think the libs got some bad advice with their campaign strategy here. Not saying they can't win, but they went with that slogan, which ties things to the economy (fair enough), but in a way which links them with a possible rise in inflation and therefore rates. The party HQ must have known of the possibility of a rise during the campaign (everyone was talking about it) bit they ran with it.

I don't see the rate rise as a problem for the government per se, it's more a trust issue really. Objectively, people know rates are set by international factors together with domestic inflationary presures, but the problem the govt has is that it made that promise back in 2004 about keeping them at 30 year/ record lows. It makes it all the more difficult to now loudly sell a message that it's really beyond their control.

Then again it may just be the sound of chickens coming home to roost.

I saw Glenn Milne argue that the messages are contradictory etc - but seriously, I don't think that would even register with the average person (most of whom are not really interested in politics). As Paul Kelly wrote today, and JH said yesterday on Insiders, all he can do is put all his eggs in his economic management basket and say:

What matters is the future - with storm clouds gathering, who is more likely to best manage the economy and keep interest rates under control? The Howard/Costello team or Wayne Swan? Bearing in mind that housing interest rates were never (in 13 years) this low under Labor.

That would be how I'd frame things. And I'd re-formulate my advertising more directly to the economy too. It's clear that the union thing, while it may make people feel uncomfortable, is not really changing votes or getting great vote-changing traction.

[howardj]

Anyway, Newspoll night tonight!

Revealed on Agenda at 8:30pm (Qld time).

Prediction: 54-46.

Although, Newspoll is usually counter-intuitive.

[Burgey]

Originally Posted by howardj

Anyway, Newspoll night tonight!

Revealed on Agenda at 8:30pm (Qld time).

Prediction: 54-46.

Although, Newspoll is usually counter-intuitive.

Yep. Another day, another poll or 50.

Does my head in, frankly.