That’s really deep, Jack. Stuff Masaoka Shiki! You’re my haiku man now.

So I wrote you a poam. Aww…shucks. Hope you like it.

the first cold poll;
even the rodent seems to want
a little coat of straw.

Yep. And if Prime Ministerial pronouncements alone really had transformative power (and all I am arguing is that they do not) wouldn’t PJK have done a bit better in 1996?

No. PM statements have informative, not transformative, power. THey tell us where we are at, from the superior vantage point of the summit of national power.

Athough the notion of cultural identity undoubtedly is partly aspirational rather than observational.

Keating simply failed to discern the normal majority’s observations and aspirations of cultural identity. Australia is not the nation he thought it was, as evinced by the failure of his cultural identity programs (Republic, Reconciliation, Kokoda etc)

I don’t deny that when you change the Government you change the country, but I think it has a bit more to do with practical policies than rhetoric.

I do, mostly. THe govt usually changes when the country changes. Bottom-up grass roots conditions Top-down tall poppies. Howard: “The times suit me.” is correct.

Howard has made value statements an especial focus of his ministry. But Keating was hugely invested in this too.

Yep. And if Prime Ministerial pronouncements alone really had transformative power (and all I am arguing is that they do not) wouldn’t PJK have done a bit better in 1996?

Wouldn’t people think a bit more highly of Workchoices after ten years of harping on about asspiration?

I don’t deny that when you change the Government you change the country, but I think it has a bit more to do with practical policies than rhetoric.

1. Galaxy poll: the honeymoon’s over

Christian Kerr writes:

They’re the new kids on the block, they were hot, hot, hot in 2004 – but political and polling pros are getting grumpy with Galaxy.

Their most recent public polling, published in the Courier-Mail today, says Kevin Rudd is losing his “home ground advantage”. It finds “federal Labor’s lead over the Coalition in Queensland has been slashed from 10% to just 4% of the two-party-preferred vote”.

You can take a look at Galaxy’s questions and data here. Poll wonks are already pointing out that the 2004 election data is wrong.

There’s also the feeling that, like last week’s much ballyhooed national poll of voting intention, the questions after “If a federal election was held today, which one of the following would you vote for?” could be worded better.

“Like last week’s, the questions after voting intention look a bit dodgy,” one academic poll watcher told Crikey this morning.

“But the voting intention, as long as it’s asked first, looks fine. It’s important that it’s asked first. If it was asked after the rest, then that would be uber-dodgy. But [Galaxy principal David] Briggs said last week’s were asked first.”

Labor’s deputy leader Julia Gillard had the response lines down pat this morning.

We have always said that the polls would get a lot tighter, we have always predicted that …

We are facing a Prime Minister who is in his 34th year in Parliament, he is about to contest his 14th election, he is spending $200 million of taxpayers’ funds on advertising for party political purposes, to support his government. He is a man who knows every trick in the book. We have always said that this election would be very, very tough and we expected the polls to get closer. Labor has only won government from opposition twice since World War II, we are trying to do it for a third time and we have never underestimated how hard that task is going to be.

Others in her party would beg to differ, but they should know 60/40 two-party preferred votes Labor’s way were ludicrously high.

But it’s not just pollies, pollsters and poll wonks who aren’t sure about today.

“Is [Courier-Mail national political correspondent] Clinton Porteous a complete tool of News Ltd who writes to please his bosses, or does he understands as much about polling as he does about why you shouldn’t hand your big scoop to AAP?” one political reported asked Crikey today.

“Compare the language in his story with the actual result,” they continued.

“And, by the by, the way the entire press gallery also doesn’t have a clue how to read a poll and so simply repeats what Clinton wrote: ‘Labor’s hopes have been busted’.”

A poll watcher said “I think the crime, if there is one, is in the reporting. The Courier-Mail is consistently innumerate, doesn’t’ know how to convert votes to seats against the pendulum.”

There have been some narky remarks on Radio National’s assessment of the poll this morning, too.

So let’s just go back to the Courier-Mail’s yarn.

“After the distribution of preferences, Labor’s two-party preferred vote dived three points to 52% as the Coalition’s jumped to 48%,” it says.

As Malcolm Mackerras spelt out last year, Labor needs a uniform swing of just 3.3% to win.

Meanwhile, this tip has come in from a reader:

About the polls: a friend of mine in Queensland polled by Galaxy said that she was asked the negatively set Labor questions in the poll before being asked “who will you vote for” question.

Surely not!

And in late breaking news…

Crikey understands that Courier Mail journalist Clinton Porteous was given figures for Labor’s 2001 vote, not 2004, underestimating the swing by over three points and completely messing up the pendulum.

Crikey is told other News Limited papers were not given the tables and relied on Courier Mail copy, which has been parroted by other media outlets all morning.

It’s a stuff up – but one a political journo should have spotted and that other political journalists should have realised was wrong.

As one correspondent said to Crikey after the midday news “The ABC has just repeated the CM spin lock stock and barrel. What was that about how we needed to fund the ABC because it was the only independent voice? Turns out they just read the Courier Mail back to you.”

And:

10. A question of bias: When push comes to shove

Irving Saulwick and Denis Muller write:

Christian Kerr does not need to pussy-foot around the question of push polling. There is no need for the media buffs to wonder if the Galaxy questions were push polling – at least one of them bloody was.

This is both a disgrace and a warning. A disgrace because this kind of work is unprofessional and is likely to mislead the public, and a warning because as the ultimate poll approaches the temptation for the spinners of all kinds to lean on pollsters to ask dicey questions will increase.

Let’s look at this sorry example. The question asked and the results reported, as referred in Crikey on 7 June was:

Which of the following concerns, if any, do you have about the prospect of Kevin Rudd and the Labor Party running the Australian economy?

Total
%

Coalition supporters
%

ALP supporters
%

Trade Unions would have too much influence

42

73

19

Interest rates would be likely to rise

42

68

21

The Rudd team is too inexperienced

40

67

20

A Rudd government would run up too much debt

37

66

13

Total concerned

67

95

45

Not concerned

33

5

55

The report states: “These surveys were conducted by Galaxy Research. The most recent survey was administered on the weekend of 1-3 June. The results are based on the opinions of 1021 voters. The data has been weighted and projected to reflect the Australian population”.

You can reflect the demographic profile of the Australian population – but you can’t make sense out of bad questions.

How is the question bad? To be unbiased each of these phrases should have been offered with its opposite and the respondent asked to choose between them. For example:

If Kevin Rudd and the Labor Party were running the Australian economy (even that we don’t like, it might be better to ask “If there were a Labor government”) would the trade unions

Have too much power

Or

Not have too much power

And so on. There are other ways it could be done but certainly not the way it was done. We hope there will not be more to come but we fear there may be.

Latest galaxy poll shows Howard pulling back more of Rudd’s lead. I’ve been saying all along that the orgy of triumphalism breaking out on the Left is way too premature.

All this talk about “ratty” is puerile in the extreme and makes Larva Prodders look like fools to this disinterested observer. You are going to have a lot of egg on your faces if you start cracking open the champers as your horse starts to falter.

Don’t underestimate Howard. Its usually about six months out from the election that he starts to make up lost ground.

I’m betting the election will be 52%-48% ALP-LN/P. But if Howard pulls a rabbit out of his hat ie another 911, Tampa or Cronulla, then we will have a real horse race.

PS Mark, you’ll be needing to perform a discreet back-flip on all those nasty things you said about your fellow pundits not so long ago.

Jack cultural identity is not a key portfolio. It is a pointless boondoggle obsessed over by persons of both the left and the right who don’t get that culture stems from the reality on the ground (which is effected by real portfolios) and how people interpret it, not the mouth of one dude.

I think that is an obviously wrong-headed view. Most people want the leader of the govt to stand up for, and represent, certain values that they hold dear about the nation’s way of life ie cultural identity.

They are not always that interested in policy wonkery. But they do want the coach to give a good rousing speech on team spirit, especially in times of crisis.

This is probably the most important function of the head of state, which is what the PM is in effect. So the PM’s job is always rich in symbolism and social values statements.

Howard has made value statements an especial focus of his ministry. But Keating was hugely invested in this too.

And not at all like Ratty from Wind in the Willows …

Until that book is revised, (with the revised Ratty praising the prolifigate spending trickle down theorising, capitalist pig, Toad bits) and made by a new Act, the Compulsory School Reading Act 2008, compulsory reading for Kindy economics (if Ratty wins the election), into a new edition called:

The Wind Schuttle in the Willows

Andrew Peacock first called Howard “the rodent�.

I’ve always been struck by his resemblance to Penfold from Danger Mouse, so thhis could be a term of endearment.

Read for comprehension will you. I stated that Penny Wong & Lindsay Tanner haven’t the ability to feed themself without their income arriving in fixed “drip” form, and that I thus hoped they don’t get near the national chequebook.

Nobody else is mentioned, though this seems to have gone over the head of Jo, and now yourself.

National security, yeah Iraq and the aftermath for world security, in good hands.

“ratty” pulling the strings behind Dubyah now is he? Have you considered the harming power of voodoo dolls?

Timor? Solomons? Bougainvillea? Aceh? Indonesia??? All off the radar for chronic Howard-haters. Incurable I am afraid.

Peter Kemp says:

Ratty’s cultural identity, yeah suppose that’s fine if you’re anglo-centrically inclined.

Modern nationalism not your thing then. Prefer pre-modern tribalism. Plenty of head-hunters to our near north if your prefer a taste of real diversity.

And all those successful high-skilled NESB immigrants teeming through customs, they are really anglo-celts in exotic drag then, eh?

Parallel universes, you hear about them in theory, but in blogs they become fact.

It has been affectionately softened to Ratty by some because he is so cute and caring – like today, when dressed in a very George Bush leather jacket he was mouthing platitudes to the Maitland flood victims.

Maybe you’re right. We should stick to the more formal Lying Rodent, after all, he is the prime minister. And not at all like Ratty from Wind in the Willows who was a very kind to the refugee Mole taking care of him when he was out of his burrow and away from familiar surroundings of home. Our Ratty, or rather Lying Rodent, is quite the opposite.

the key portfolios of economic prosperity (Treasurer), national security (FM) and cultural identity (PM) are all being run well enough.

Bit of a bummer about Crodent and Downer not knowing about that $300m given to Saddam to buy weapons though.

Not to mention the $6b being pissed against the wall for a bunch of ageing strategically useless 4th generation fighters.

Still, there’s always a national broadband system that might put us on par with Luxembourg to dream about. Sigh, someday.

Yes, we’re in great hands. All my friends at the halal butchers agree.