Like Kim, I’m escaping Brisvegas for a few days to even colder climes and don’t expect to be online while I’m away. I thought I’d leave you with a couple of links to stimulate a bit of political discussion. The first, which I’ve been meaning to post for a while, is some analysis at On Line Opinion of the National Forum qualitative polling – the largest sample so far in the website’s history with 3189 respondents. So far this year, I haven’t had the time to be as involved in this polling as I was last year, and haven’t looked at the data on this one myself yet (fortunately next semester my teaching load is much lighter) but Graham and I, though coming from different partisan ends of the spectrum, tend to agree largely on the significance of the data. What’s interesting about this sort of data is that, well analysed, it gives you a sense of why the polls are moving, not just what the movements are. It’s like an enormous focus group in a way. This is the killer quote, I think:
In all of our studies of federal voting intentions since 2001 the underlying position has been this. Voters don’t like Howard, and don’t like what he stands for. They’ve liked his opponents, and they’ve liked their policies. But, they’ve believed that Howard will deliver, and they haven’t believed that his opponents would. Faced with a choice between certainty and uncertainty, they have always gone for certainty.
This election the same cards are on the table, but meteorology has distributed the suit of certainty differently. Howard’s a good card player, but even the best can’t take every trick.
In one sense, this election season has been a bit dull – with most of the colour and movement coming from the Coalition and the commentariat, and Labor (in great contrast to Latham) reflecting its leader by keeping a steady hand on the ship. That might itself be the key thing Rudd has done to mobilise and retain such a large poll lead. It’s Howard and co. who look reckless, attention deficit challenged, and like anything but a steady and safe government. Desparation creates its own dynamic. Getting closer to the pointy end of things, though, suggests that there will be some big surprises in the results, and Possums Pollytics is right to point to the implications of the Newspoll in safe coalition seats. Like him, I don’t think that the wipeout will be as comprehensive, but if I were someone like Ian Macfarlane in Groom, I’d be contemplating running a vigorous campaign.
His margin may be huge on paper but the key thing in Queensland is probably the swing of Beattie Liberals towards the federal Labor party. Labor got a nice swing to it in Toowoomba North, and a small swing in Toowoomba South, and interestingly there were swings in contiguous seats which take in new urban development (Toowoomba, growing like other regional cities similarly placed, now has a bit of a suburban sprawl). Back in the day, the seat of Rankin used to take in some of this area south of Toowoomba, and in 1990 the then member David Beddall – a very good marginal seat campaigner – got the Labor vote up by about 10% higher than it had been since the Labor split. I visited Toowoomba in 2005, having not been there for a decade, and it was immediately noticeable how much more like Brisbane it had become. More ethnically diverse, fewer moleskins and hats, and shopping chains as opposed to eccentric regional department stores. There’s a lot of under the radar sociological change going on – including tree changers attracted by the area’s amenities and natural beauty and housing prices, but also immigration (there’s a sizeable Sudanese community in Toowoomba now) and a general modernisation of the political agenda – with issues like water and climate change being key (the sorts of issues Graham identifies as driving vote switching). I don’t think that Macfarlane will lose Groom, but Labor should run hard there, and it might swing their way later on if a Rudd government is popular. My point, though, is that there are reasons beyond the national dynamics for the swing away from the Coalition in some of their safe seats that it takes local knowledge to explain – and thus, movements which are largely invisible to the Canberra punditariat. It’ll be interesting to see how blogs and online media and other forms of distributed news gathering highlight these movements when the campaign itself begins.
Anyway, enough sociology and psephology from me! I’ll be interstate til next week doing touristy things, so take care and enjoy your blogging in the meantime!
Maybe, just maybe, the much underestimated Australian public realizes that in the future that counts, the future of their children and grandchildren, domestic policy is important and foreign policy is, in an age of globalisation, even more important. There is not a single voter in Australian who is not fully cognizant of the deceptive practices of this government in relation to foreign policy.
I have had a theory for a while now that Howard’s long run in power has been a long run of narrow and slightly lucky wins by a side of politics that is punching above its weight. Despite the numerous election wins he has never cruised through an election cycle and won easily. When you look at it his margins have always been surprisingly small. Compare that with the various Labor state governments.
Rats fight on the sinking ship – government in abject disarray.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/pm-v-costello-rift-reopens/2007/07/18/1184559867707.html
You know, there’s only one electoral spectre that terrifies PMs more than say Keating 96, Whitlam 75…
Bruce 1929. The only truly unrehabilitatable ex-PM.
Who may soon have company.
Swio, you are at one with mumble.com and his analysis.
But unless you believe that canny politicians like Howard don’t make his own luck (even if only taking advantage of opposition weaknesses) then grudgingly you have to credit Howard for his ability to cobble majorities at election time despite being unloved and leading a mediocre government for most of the term.
I am second to none in my admiration of Howard’s adroitness in exploiting the weakness of his Parliamentary opposition, and his ability to overcome the electorate’s faint disdain for him, which has never changed. This time however, the very clever Mr Rudd, and that sharp girl with the red hair, appear to have decided to exploit the electorate’s clear desire to boot Howard out (a desire which was evident in 2004, but was frustrated by the obviously unhinged Latham). The poll results to date suggest not so much a landslide, as pent up pissed off’dness, finding an outlet.
Most satisfying.
As pointed out elsewhere, at least Bruce was able to recover some modicum of self-respect by winning his seat back in 1934.
This obviously won’t be the case for Howard if he loses Bennelong this year, so in fact he will be in an even worse situation
The 1998 election saw Labor record big swings in safe Labor and safe Coalition seats, with the Libs targetting the marginals and winning them. Not saying that this will happen this time around, but be careful.
Well, in the sense that he’s dead now, perhaps. What people often forget is that he went straight to London after he lost in 1929, and that he won his seat back in 1931 despite being on the other side of the world and doing no campaigning. Imagine being the hero who beat a sitting conservative PM, only to lose to that same person who couldn’t even be arsed turning up in the same hemisphere.
(note to self – read all subsequent posts before contributing)
Possum Politics (I think) has a pretty good breakdown of how it ain’t like 98, Andrew E, and lots of swing action in the coalition marginals.
Will post a link when I get time.
Calls for prudence are always wise – but frankly, Id rather end up wrong than miss the opportunity to kick Team Rodent while they’re running scared!
Corpes on the Western Front were eaten from the inside-out by trench rats.
Sometimes the corpses moved, as if still alive.
Howard’s Liberal Party bears some resemblance to those corpes.
Even if it ends up being like 98, there is no reason to expect that the Liberals will win in the marginals this time.
In 1998 they were a one-term government and wavering voters were inclined to give them another chance. A decade later, that dynamic is exactly reversed.
Andrew E: You are right of course it was 1931 not 1934 as I mistakenly said.
I don’t think it will be like 1998 either, but can I direct you to the comments on this page to show that some are relying very heavily upon 1998 redux.
todays Morgan Poll
Possumpollytics now has part 111 of his analysis here.
One of the factors in 1998 that gets very little attention was the astonishing importance of the Donkey vote. There were a large number of seats that were so close that they appear to have been decided by the order of candidates on the ticket (impossible to be exact about this, but you can make some good estimates). Of these 8 or 9 went to the Coaltion, one to Labor.
If the balls had come out of the barrel in a different order we’d be in the 3rd term of a Beasley government. If we’d simply got a more expected outcome – ie 5 each way – Howard would have spent the entire term worrying about the effect of a single backbencher crossing the floor. I suspect it would have done his head in so much he would have handed over to Costello.
So even if the voter behaviour is a repeat of 98, it may not create the same outcome.
Mark drops a “killer quote”:
THis interpretation is almost the opposite of the truth.
The “times have suited” Howard, both personally and politically. Four election wins on the trot suggests that voters did “like Howard” and did “like what he stood for”.
Voters have, until recently, liked Howard more than any other PM at comparable stages of the electoral cycle. Nielsen reports:
As far as voters “liking his opponents” are concerned, if that is the case why have the ALP had such a dizzying round of opposition leadership changes? I count six in all in eleven years. With partisans like that who needs enemies!
Howard’s ideology is a conservative populist form of national statism. His populist nationalism obviously struck a populist chord, going by the popular reception of border control policies. The cosmopolitan elite dont this much. But they are out of touch with the nationalist populus.
His populist statism is a version of Big Government Conservatism. Santa Clause targetted spending and taxing is always an electoral winner.
THe bit about Howard “certainty” versus non-Howard “uncertainty” is just meaningless blather. Politicians on either side of the partisan divide have very little room to move due to the large small “c” conservative resistance to elite-driven Big Picture social engineering.
The one time Howard deviated from this conservative populist script is his attempt to force Work Choices down every workers throat, a radical attempt to do away with a century of IR awards. He is suffering a backlash from his Battler support base for this recklessness.
But there comes a time when every politician gets past his use-by date. Howard’s time is up. We are well past the point in the political cycle when the electoral pendulums’s “recessional phase” should have kicked in.
Voters have been looking for an alternative political leader who would continue Howard’s policy settings whilst curbing Howard’s political machinations. The hour called forth the man in the shape of Howard “mini-me” Kevin Rudd.
Strocchi is correct. (It’s bound to happen sometime.)
It was up to we cosmopolitan elitists, therefore, subtly to undermine the basis of Howard’s appeal for his “battlers”.
All of that palaver about civil rights and international reputation means little to folks who want to live in McMansions.
No, the best way to get rid of Howard is to associate him in the mind of those folks with something old, clunky and fusty, like a Leyland P76.
And, indeed, Howard is the closest living equivalent to a Leyland P76. So once the task was defined, the job was relatively easy.
So what do we cosmopolitan elitists want as a reward?
1. Government subsidised pretend coffee shops in the burbs to keep the Great Unwashed out of the real ones that we gather at.
2. A restoration of funding for kabuki-style black masses, featuringthe College of Cardinals in drag.
Our needs are very modest.
Howard’s four electoral victories can be summed up in two words: Paul Keating.
Lefty E
I would say history has been extremely kind to Gough. Until the disgraceful performance of the Luvvies deifying him over the past few years, I would exchange your Gough for the truly vile Malcolm Fraser.
I was talking about the Luvvies deifying Fraser not Gough. Gough deserves it!
Katz
Actually there is no time in Australia’s history when our civil rights have been broader or our our international standing greater. What the McMansioners and everybody else in this country worked out quite some time ago is that Luvvies are out of touch.
Who’s the bigger bore, Jack Strocchi or JG?
It’s a close call but I’d give a points decision to JG for his incessant niggling from the sidelines. At least JS tries to make some substantial arguments, even if most of us don’t bother reading them these days.
Kevin Rudd’s single greatest asset is his ability to mess with Howard’s mind, or what’s left of it. Howard’s increasingly hysterical scare mongering is not a good look, and time and time again, Rudd looks like a PM and Howard an opposition leader.
And while Katz may be correct in his over generalised point about those who live in McMansions, it’s the general air of incompetence and hysteria that surrounds this pathetic excuse for a Government that people are sick and tired of.
Four comments in a row, only one of which doesn’t mention the dreaded “luvvies”, rather begs the question of who these “luvvies” are and why there’s no substantive argument made.
Some of my best friends are luvvies.
Done.
Thanx Zarquon.
All my Festivuses have come at once!
Katz
So are mine.
Well, name a “luvvie”, John. Who is this mystical brigade that are apparently so influential that you need to maintain a constant stream of comment on the intertubes to counter their nefariousness?
Oh Mark, the ‘”luvvies” and “wets” are out there alright.
And it’s becoming sadly clear that both John and Jack are not dealing well with their repressed memories of being abducted and probed by them. Repeatedly probed it seems.
Now they restlessly roam the interwebs, exposing to anyone who will stand still long enough exactly where their bodily integrity was violated and urging us to “watch the skies!”.
They really should pool resources and start a joint blog called “Wet Luvvies”. I reckon they’d be surprised at the number of hits they get.
Or not!
Nabs,nice work. They are here too.
Nabakov on 24 July 2007 at 10:22 pm
Okay, let everything I have said be as wrong as you like. Or as deluded or boring or whatever.
This implies that Mark, Nabakov et al will now go on record as affirming the following propositions derived from the “killer [!] quote”:
1. Voters have never “liked Howard”, despite him winning four elections and being voted most popular PM of modern times.
2. Voters have never “liked Howard’s policies”, despite the fact that most agree “the times have suited him”.
3. Voters “have liked Howard’s opponents”, despite the fact that they have rejected four of them.
4. Voters have liked Howard’s opponents “policies”, despite the fact that these opponents have policies now roughly identical to Howard’s ones (including forestry!).
5. Something about “certainty” and “delivery”.
Obviously Nabakov is right. I have been abducted by aliens and have been implanted with a delusional personal history in which propositions 1-4 are false. Because no one I know, Left or Right, would accept them unless they were attempting to “humour” a someone.
Disability Issues spark spat.
Mark on 24 July 2007 at 9:21 pm
I beg leave to indulge in a short spot of ideological taxonomy, not necessarily fabricated out of whole cloth from the Strocchi-verse.
In respect of the Culture War, the “Wet” V “Dry” issue hangs on the peg of (horizontal) cultural association. The Wets, “luvvies” or small “l” liberals have a strong preference for differentiation and diversity. The Dries, “hateies” or small “c” conservatives have a strong preference for integration and unity.
“Luvvies” and “Wets” are present in both major parties and prevalent in the minor parties of the Left (GREENs, DEMs). The liberal-Left mindset is dominant in the opinion-forming and venting classes, most commonly found sipping lattes in inner-city cafes of cosmopolitan metropoles.
I am guessing that the best predictor of Luvviedom is “feministic”, the more female dominated the household, the Luvvier it will be. Single females, or guys hot-to-trot with such, will be found ostentatiously setting forth in this fashion.
Conversely, the more children per household the Drier it will be, given family reliance on male provision and protection. That is Bush’s electoral base.
There is more than a little bit of Wet or Luvvie in all modern people, including me. Luvviedom will remain the Zeitgeist so long as the trend towards small families persists. But there are limits, usually acknowledged after the “mugged by reality” moment.
Latest CPI figures are out.
GG says interest rates likely to rise in a fortnight because of huge inflation increase
Brisbane Times goes the opposite way and looks like GG might be a bit sensationalist just for a change.