Scoresgate contextualised
August 22nd, 2007 by Mark Bahnisch | Published in Elections, Federal Elections, USA | 72 Comments
I have an article in today’s New Matilda which examines the deeper implications of Scoresgate (and I hope to develop the theme announced but not argued in the second paragraph in another piece.) I concentrate on what Scoresgate says about the import of swiftboating as a tactic and other aspects of the relentless negativity of the Rove playbook into Australian politics. This point picks up on two short posts here at LP – on The Latham Effect and complacency.
I deliberately didn’t enter comments on the complacency thread to see how the discussion would develop, so it might be helpful to clarify something about my argument, I’m not saying that I think Crosby/Textor are infallible, nor predicting that the Coalition will win. I do think the significance of the leak of their research was that it was a signal that the Coalition now have an actual strategy after flailing around helplessly and hysterically for the first half of the year. Labor needs to be fleet of foot in its response to this, and not play a game which concentrates solely on defending a lead in the polls, which has meaning far more for its effect on the mood and the state of play rather than on the outcome per se. I would bet at the moment either on a very narrow government win or a large ALP win. I still think the latter is more probable, but the chances of the former are firming up.
Elsewhere: Ken Parish at Troppo and Ken Lovell at Surfdom also discuss the real possibility of a Coalition victory. I’d wholeheartedly endorse this sentiment of Ken L’s:
I reckon Howard thinks he’ll win, and I still wish all the people who’ve been gloating about the imminent humiliation of Howard’s mob would just STFU about it and concentrate on making a case why Labor deserves to win.
I can see two election result scenarios based on Howard and Rudd’s style of politics and the current mood of the electorate.
The Government will either burn big time or they will narrowly win.
These predictions are based on the assumption that the vast majority of voters are fed up with politicians of all stripes and have stopped listening. The electorate is very tired of being lied to, and Labor’s small target/Rudd’s a nice guy approach has inspired about as many people you can fit in a mini.
Howard’s style of of turning strong negatives into positives (eg the iraq farce/strong on national security, interest rate rises/they’d be higher under labor, IR/we are strong economic managers) and his refusal to admit mistakes, will be his or Labor’s undoing.
Labor’s spectator approach, (eg me-tooism, and Rudd 07 t shirts) rather than detailed policy releases is the one thing that is keeping Howard in it.
Rudd won’t win it, Howard may lose it. Do we get change for change’s sake, or the devil you know? either way it’s a depressing choice.
Good piece Mark – and I also believe, as I noted somehwere at LP, that the Rudd smear was timed with Howard’s surprising new concern with the sexualisation of women in mags.
However, I believe the effort will fail on Rudd. I also dont think the ALP is in fact running a small target. Rather, Howard’s trying to starve him of media air with ongoing media stunts, and picking silly fights with Premiers. Fir teh last two-three weeks it has worked – but not to any poll benefit, it must be said.
My view is that while it might look a potential winner in this pre-campaign lull period, its actually a very lame strategy which requires the production of constant distractions – making the proponent of it over time appear a loose, and slightly demented cannon, with diminishing returns.
In fact, I predict it wont survive the next major policy announcement from Rudd, which, I believe, wont be long.
I also predict an ALP victory in November, with 83 or 84 seats, a majority of 8-9.
RUdd’s smart enough to know the score; and I really doubt he’s that beholden to the ALP team on strategy, allaying the Keating concern. Howard’s recent strategies are also the polar opposite of that which have given him previous victories: one simple message.
What exactly is Howard on about this time? I doubt you could find one swinging punter who really knows.
Some good points, Lefty E. Ass-nat-ism is an attempt to pull the Howard themes together, but it’s inelegant.
Still, there’s been a long time between substantive policy announcements from Rudd. Leaving it all to the election opens the risks I talked about in the article – remember Medicare Gold and Swan’s non-existent welfare payments? The former was arguably good policy and the latter was a real point but too complex and badly articulated.
Don’t forget it’s class warfare time, as Kim said recently, and there’ll be endless biz-front interest groups swiftboating everything Labor says. Noise and confusion might work in Howard’s favour during the campaign – if his own negatives aren’t high enough that he ceases to be the default option if people turn away from the whole thing in disgust.
These effete ALP apologists are so pathetically funny. “The next” as if there have been any of note or worth voting for by any sentient progressive being.
Lefty E – I suspect that Howard doesn’t actually care if his own message gets drowned out by all the distractions that he’s going to throw out. He’s already campaigning on a set of ideals and values that he has already well established amongst the voters. In short, most punters know what they are getting when they vote for Howard (well, at least they think they do).
Just have a look at Howard’s recent forays into Indigenous affairs and the whole ASS-NAT thing, it’s all completely devoid of policy detail and is rather about pushing values.
The whole ballgame for the Coalition now is to throw Rudd off his game. Latham’s madness is still in the electorate’s mind, so they want to make Rudd look unpredictable and like he is a dangerous bet. They want people to believe that a vote for Rudd is not a vote for change but rather a vote for an unpredictable future.
What Mark said.
Damnit, I’m taking to long to write my comments. I blame the timezones!
Well , bite my latte Jinmaro!
I happen to believe the ALPs IR policy will improve the lives of ordinary punters immeasurably, compared to workchoices.
If that effete, then you’re a poet. And you might want to check what bus you’re on if you think the IR debate is t’wee/ t’dee these days. It might be the #34 to Apolitical Dorktown.
And by the way, you wouldnt last two rounds with me in an ALP slag-off.
Can we just simply ignore them unless we hear something we,as people,can agree with or find just simply boredom warmed up!? What do these two phonies want of us anyway!? It seems more than a miserable chance to select either as belonging to parties..!Why change your sense of self for the Sake of Democracy or their interpretation of the selected good of this nation.Let them know how they cannot rely on us,lending our ears!
Mark, you are looking at this upside-down. The main problem with the Democrats in 2004 was that they didnât have a coherent response to national security and Iraq. In fact even now with Bushâs Iraq strategy in tatters they are still all over the place (do they want to pull out or not? When?) In 2004 they tried to cover it up by playing up Kerryâs military record. But that personal strategy was open to being exposed while they had not sorted out the policy issue, which is what Rove exploited. It is obviously easier for Democrats to demonise Rove than face the tougher questions on policy.
In Australia there were strong parallels. Recall that the personal attacks did not start to have impact on Latham until his âtroops home by Christmasâ? comment on Sydney radio in March 2004 raised the question over his trustworthiness on the US alliance. The Iraq war may have been unpopular but the US alliance was not. Then Howard could raise the other questions on trust and character.
I do not accept that Ass-Nat is a readily acceptable public policy.
An attack on the States, undermining the States may well make the punter feel a little uneasy and confused. Howard at war with the States does not engender a feeling of calming and saftey. These give the hint of destablising a cosy life. It also presents Labor with an avenue to turn it into a fearful thing. Pork-Barrelling on a scale to cause 2% rate increase and destabalise the economy etc.
The last Newspoll showed improvement in PPM, economic manger status and, a good comparison on interest rates, plus we have the improvement on ‘who will win the election’. This seems to indicate a gradual change in the public’s perceptions. You would think if it continues this way that an election flight back to Howard on economic issues will be less likely or less severe.
I think the real risk to Labor is timed smears like the last one [enahanced with a lie from Downer's office] which was quickly followed by Howard’s new policy.
To this end Labor needs to give a number of clear warnings to the public about what to expect and, to be wary of negative stories that seem to come from nowhere. The public are readily willing to suspect that Howard is behind every negative thing that happens.
Well you’re a big looker and high kicker, Lefty E. Glad you’re so optimistic, punch-drunk and confident of your (obvious as a pressed pantaloon) masculine heft and sway!
I’d have the likes of you quivering in a corner quicker than you’d squeak, mummy save me.
I have a waking nightmare that its election night and, instead of Howard abusing the voters in a tirade of obscene language and refusing to acknowledge a Labor victory until he has to be carried off the stage screaming by his minders, I’m watching JWH clsaim victory yet again. Does anyone else have this nightmare?
It doesn’t do to be too confident.
I agree with your comment Mick – creating doubt about Rudd is part of Howard’s strategy, and you’re quite right to say he doesnt have as much need to get a message out as Rudd does.
But the other part of Howard’s plan, to starve Rudd of attention by running constant media-grabbing interference, strikes me as a riskier strategy, even for an established known incumbent. Especially when there’s mounting evidence no-one is listening, he risk becoming an annoyance, to be silenced.
I think Howard’s modus this year makes people want to believe in Rudd.
Which is the point at which I think we all agree: more message reinforcement is yet needed from the ALP. But I just cant think of anything in the last month that has made me think there’s suddenly a need to panic about it. And I see much greater policy divergence, this far out, than under Latham.
Whatevs, Jinmaro.
Now run along, cos the #16 inner-city ultraleft circle route bus is leaving for the cafes and bookshops, and Im discussing dull matters of state with other non-progressives.
Wouldnt like to bore you.
Is this Art imitating life?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/22/2012421.htm
Lefty E, yea I guess it is risky. I think it’s the game they are playing though. I guess the point is that all the media-grabbing junk it’s a bigger problem for Labor than the Libs so they can play this game more. If they base their entire campaign on it they will no doubt find themselves in trouble.
A number of posts suggest that Howard already has a clear position with voters and therefore it is notimperative for him to convey that. In 2004 I would have fully agreed. However, since then the extent of twisting and turning by Howard and cuteness with language has left voters with a massively increased level of uncertainty. Too many times voters are told that is not what I said – interest rates is the latest example.
Voters can no longer be confident that they know what he stands for – Workchoices and non-abuse of the Senate are key factors in this. As a result many voters are no longer connecting with Howard and in many cases, the supposed benefits now being made available are going over their heads , because it could mean anything.
I think it is Howard who now faces the challenge to connect rather than run interference.
I also think that the Howard ministry is appreciably weaker and more incompetent than in previous years. Can you really imagine a bungling fool like Andrews has proven to be in the Haneef case matching it with Ruddock in the Hard case stakes?
Can you really imagine Hockey being able to create and pull off stunts with the creativity and evil intent that Peter Reith did? I doubt it somehow.
Howard hiimself looked like a startled rabbit over the Exclusive Brethren issue on the news tonight and they are not at all relaxed or comfortable.
The main problem with Labor in 2007 is they don’t have a coherent response on economic policy and management, Piping Shrike.
They do actually, but “echonomics” is a killer line – it’s one area where me-too-ism and small target-ism should be tossed out the door.
On the states – the polling Graham and I were doing last year on the state election was showing some of voters’ biggest concerns as being public services and infrastructure. Beattie overcame this by successfully shifting some blame elsewhere (and not just to the Feds) and also by painting the opposition as dangerous ideologues and fools. Iemma did just the same.
Rudd was very sensible to go around the shop talking infrastructure all the time.
But the “co-operative federalism” line has its demerits. What voters were telling Beattie last time was “just fix it, already”. They plumped for him in part because even though they were sick to death of him, they did believe he was competent and strong, and they really feared the devil they didn’t know.
Translate all that to Howard’s strategy and join the dots.
The beauty of ASS-NAT for Howard is that it not only blunts Rudd’s message, but also lets everyone believe their particular problem might be in the queue for fixing. After all, everyone’s own problem is always the most important.
And don’t underestimate the power of using “pragmatic” talk rather than a disquisition on process – the latter being something Rudd is already branded with as part of his wonky image. Note that Ministers are constantly demanding “action” “now”, from the states, no matter what the issue. It’s actually a carefully designed political strategy.
Again, whether it will work is another thing entirely. But understanding and not underestimating your enemy is wise.
Inexperience was the other killer against the state opposition. Beattie had a hands on image as someone who could really get something done, and though voters knew things were in a mess, they were worried about entrusting the mess to someone untried. With state issues, Howard has the added bonus that it’s not his mess.
It’s really quite clever when you think about it.
Good points worth reflecting on Mark.
Just a minor hustings issue: âechonomicsâ? aint a killer line, as it has to be read by Mr and Mrs Swinging Punter.
Homonyms dont really work on ads!
Yes, you’ve got a disquieting point there, Mark.
A less significant item on the landscape but still worth watching, is that Haneef will run as an issue to the election, and that Howard knows he can still turn it to his advantage if the right (wrong) noise comes from the right (left) quarters. The ALP is doing the right thing to let the legal system run its course and not grandstand on this one.
If Beattie really is jealous of Rudd, then he’ll have tea and scones with a newly returned Haneef after having handed him the keys to Brisbane’s health service.
I agree with most of the speculative analysis above, particularly when viewed through the lense of the favourite newspaper, blog or TV item.
However when one reads the tabloids or listens to the banter bandits on commercial radio you are led to believe that everything Ratty and Costello say and do is an inspired act of national welfare and inspired genius. The extra $3 billion found under the mattress was lauded as fantastic economic management, rather than beaurocratic incompetence for having lost it for so long.
Perhaps next week, Ruddy or maybe Swan should give the incumbents a sharp smack in the kisser just to remind them and us that they mean business.
Yeah, but echo-nomics pronounced as two words works in a radio or tv sound bite!
âechonomicsâ? is a good line for Rudd, it is an admission that Labor and the Govt have the same policy on the economy the area where Govt needs to show superiority.
For Labor to come out with a diferent economic policy gives the Govt bullets to shoot. No matter how good the policy they can lie through their teeth as much as they like to shoot it down and scare the voter. It will work.
Adopting the same economic policies removes oxygen from the govts interest rate scare and so on. I beleive staying close to the govt on this score is the safest policy. They can then say we have adopt the same policy except…investing in the countries future…blah.
In short don’t scare the horses if you can let them sleep.
The last Newspoll showed a shift in voter thinking on the economy, PPM, interest rates and ‘who will win the election’. Though the primary was down. This does not look like a public getting nervous on the economy on the contrary.
I wonder if in fact Rudd has the votes and it is Howard that has to win this election. There has been for a long time people willing to change to Labor just waiting for the safe way to go about.
The State attack and Ass-Nat should feel a little unsettling to the public, it is new and untried territory, people can’t visualise the end results. And it should be easy for Labor to create fear and doubt on this score – if only they would. Destroying States, anarchy, destablising the economy etc etc.
Rudd does however need to keep the positive messsages going. He doesnt have to compete with Howard, he just has to be out there.
Remember the Oz v. blogosphere wars? The preferred PM indicator is meaningless, for a whole range of reasons. And Paul Kelly was wrong as well when he stated that âvoting intention follows economic managementâ?.
The only rigorous study of whether personalities and perceptions and issues shift votes is the AES.
The internal party polling normally gets closer to this question than the published polls. The methodology of the latter on relating popularity and âbetter onâ? to voting intention is just rubbish.
Boy your a hand wringer. In the last couple of weeks Howard has lost national security , he is rapidly destroying economics with his big spending campaign to undermine the states, and the liberal dirt unit have managed to sex up Rudd ( I would have thought that impossible).
Well, this thread’s been stimulating.
But you know, until I see poll evidence that Team Rodent is even in the ballpark – and I havent, consistently, for months on end – there’s no reasons to declare the sky falling, or start casting clouds of doubt over a hitherto successful strategy.
just sayin…
Mark wrote:
I seem to recall Lindsay Tanner making that point, in the postmortem of Labors last election defeat, so it’s comforting to know there are key figures within the organisation clever enough to recognise it’s past failures.
Here we go: ALP talks up its economic narrative (once you read past the GG mis-leader about ‘tax cuts’) http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22292089-601,00.html
Well, I’d rather not be crying into my champagne on election night again.
“Well, I’d rather not be crying into my champagne on election night again”.
Yes; I understand; I really want to see the back of Howard so I worry also (I’ve never really cared before as I believe up until Howard you could argue both parties had done positive things for the country, yes a real swinging voter). But Howard didn’t win the last election, Latham lost it. I think part of winning is proving to the electorate that you have enough Machiavelli tendencies to run the country. You could argue avoiding Howard’s wedges is very Machiavellian.
If Rudd had stepped up to the plate on any of these issues the media cycle would have got stuck there for weeks, Rudd would not have changed anything ( we where silly enough to give one party both houses), and who knows what the outcome would have been. Haneef for example, small hint of reality in what the federal police were saying would have led to a very different result.
As it is Howard is becoming increasingly crazy. I’d go as far as to say Howard is starting to look like Latham. If Howard comes out with a “gold card” for anything, thats it I will be putting $100 on labor winning no matter how bad the odds are.
I think, from memory, that last election night I was crying into a bottle of Bundy rum.
It’s hard to get Bundy here in England so I think we better win this one.
Can we make it a round-robin, Izquierdista and Jinmaro? Sounds like a shit-flinging tournament to match any grand slam.
I’ve always been supremely confident in the ALP’s manifest ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, this upcoming Federal one most of all. Mostly it’s because of the vast disparity in campaigning budgets between the Coalition and ALP, giving the Government a huge advantage when it comes to direct mail and such—which was a factor in Iemma’s and Beattie’s victories also—but it’s also a mystical, blind faith in my Party’s ability to create transcendent fuckups.
We did it before, we can do it again!
Mick, dodgy red for me.
Mark (11.31pm 22/8) I agree that Labor doesn’t have a real economic policy, but then neither does the coalition. As Keating said on Lateline, once you’ve pulled the teeth of the unions and opened up to financial markets there is little else to do but balance the budget. What is interesting over the last month is to see Howard exposed on how little control he has over interest rates; instead it being down to financial markets, the independent RBA and even, according to him, the states.
Aspirational nationalism is as meaningless as it sounds. It tries to make a virtue out of an incoherent mess of a strategy. You do give Howard undue credit sometimes!
Yeah, it in the Incentivation arena, I reckon.
Hopefully with similar results.
Liamista – as Ive said, being cautious pessimism ain’t a bad look for the ALP right now. Dont want to look too confident ….
Leave the general talkin it up to loose unaffiliated lefties like me!
The money quote. Always inoculate.
That is the answer to the Liberal’s prepping with their new found sensitivity to the commodification of women and children prior to Scoresgate. It is quite clear people think Howard is a liar and shifty, but while ever he seems ‘in control’ they are prepared to overlook a little, ahem, ‘form’ on the truth.
The ALP needs to send out a clear message to everyone, this is exactly Howard’s strategy for dealing with difficulty. This has the merit of being both true, and by now, well understood by the punters. The term ‘wedge’ has percolated down to the most unlikely places in the electorate, and everyone seems to know the word, even if its definitions might be a bit variable. The punters ‘know’ JWH. It is important that the ALP reinforce their knowledge and understanding of the structure of conservative populism, allied with strong messages about his real form on economic issues, which, thanks to Workchoices, has done more to puncture his bubble, than anything any pollster, pundit or would be radical could ever hope to.
Well you wanted a bifg policy announcemnet from Rudd
you got one:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/23/2012915.htm
anyway the broad ‘left’ have always been pessmistic, usally with good cause.
Its the collective psyche I guess.
I have some prozac, anyone want one?
Labor is still the red hot favourite in the betting markets and has maintained a solid 55:45 lead in the polls since Rudd became leader despite the tsunami of dirt that has been thrown at him. Labor is tracking exactly as the coalition did before the 1996 election.
How much more robust does Labor’s lead need to be?
Remember this: most voters make up their mind well before election day. Howard himself has said many times “you can’t fatten the pig on market day”.
Market day is nearly with us. The only way Howard can win is if there is some huge event, like a major terrorist attack, between now and then.
The whole political landscape just changed with Rudd’s announcement of a federal take-over of hospitals.
Howard has set up a perfect issue for Rudd and Rudd has run with it. Brilliantly nimble strategy. And good policy too – after all, why is Medicare federal and hospitals run by the states? Huge savings possible, a more rational system. Beattie says it should have been done yonks ago. And in the future, voters will vote on good hospitals at the federal level – an issue the left owns.
Rudd is framing the debate. Howard is Mr. Me Too now, and looks cantankerous, opportunistic, a marginal seat pork-barreller.
Visionary stuff.
Yes it’s good stuff. I’m always happy to see my pessimism about Labor’s strategy refuted.
Morgan poll shows Rudds popularity has gone way up after scoresgate.. JWH has gone south…
87% don’t give a f**k he went there
oh and dodgy morgan phone poll has alp in front tpp of 60/40!
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2007/4200/
From my perspective, the ‘echonomics’ attack from the Coalition represented a direct and very effective hit on Labor. Having lost the 2004 election by essentially playing dead on the economy, Labor needs to counter this, and fast.
I’m not sure who’s advising them on economic policy, but they have a wealth of potential material to attack the Coalition on. Here’s what I would do:
Number one, of course, is the now fully apparent (to the wider electorate) lie told by Howard in 2004 on interest rates. Labor can cite chapter and verse the recent utterances from market economists and the RBA itself to make a nonsense of Howard’s claim that rates would be higher under Labor. (Econtech can be dismissed as compromised Liberal Party lackeys.)
Second, Rudd needs to go in hard on Howard’s monumental crime in not using a once-in-a-century gift from the commodities boom to modernise the nation’s physical and skills infrastructure base, thus lifting our potential non-inflationary growth rate. Instead, Howard has frittered the windfall away on middle class welfare and pork barreling.
Third, Rudd can point to the huge increase (a doubling) in our foreign indebtedness since Howard came to office – a legacy of which is the increasing strain on household budgets and the record debt servicing rate (higher even than when mortgage lending rates were at 17 per cent).
Fourth (and related to the last two points), Rudd should highlight the failure to generate any improvement in our trade balance despite the best terms of trade in 50 years. Our current account deficit is still above 6 per cent of GDP and we have been running continuous trade deficits for 5 years.
Why is this last point important? Because we are building up an increasing liability with the rest of the world that needs to be financed. We are doing that currently because we have interest rates higher than any other country in the OECD, bar NZ.
Fifth (and bringing all this together), Rudd needs to say that what Australia needs is a government that rather than surfing a wave of externally generated wealth, puts that wealth to work in improving health, education and opportunity for all Australians. Labor is in a position to do that because it can work cooperatively with the states in carrying out the difficult micro-economic reform that Howard has neglected.
Rudd needs to say that Howard is trying to fight a battle that Labor won years ago under Hawke and Keating – in opening up the Australian economy to the discipline of international markets, in floating the dollar, in freeing up trade and in beginning a pragmatic (as opposed to ideological) decentralisation of the labour market. It is time to stop running away from the Hawke/Keaing legacy!
When Howard talks about “echonomics”, he is talking about the narrow framework of the Washington consensus on macro-economic policy (fiscal responsibility, independent setting of monetary policy, open capital and product markets) which I would wager that every major party in every liberal democratic country in the world subscribes to in these days of globalisation. That argument was fought and won years ago.
Rudd’s advantage on economics is in portraying Howard as yesterday’s mans; someone who has come to the end of a blind alley and has no inclination to progress further. Instead, he merely spends the wealth generated by taxpayers on keeping himself in permanently in power.
Rudd needs to remind people that Labor is the natural party of reform with equity. It was Labor that set up a superannuation savings scheme that is the envy of the world and it is Labor that is best placed to navigate what might be less comfortable times ahead.
Prosperity with fairness and an eye to our future.
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2007/4200/
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2007/4201/
Latest Morgan. Labor 60-40 TPP. Rudd more poular than cold beer on a hot day!
That’s an interesting link Backlight. I think Gary Morgan is spot on with this observation:
Sorry, Blacklight. Must get back to work…
Another Rat leaves sinking ship
to me the thing that’s not being talked about when it comes to shoring up Labor’s chances of winning and us all avoiding salty dilutions of our alcohol on the election night is preferences.
Rudd hasn’t seemed to grasp that he will need Green preferences in particular in the lower house to pull off the magic 16 seats – ’cause we’ve got to remember that the wonderful poll results for the last 6 months are meaningless unless they fall in the right electorates. Instead he seems to be banking on Family First, which simply doesn’t have the vote base yet in the lower house in particular – unless I’ve missed something?
And why is Labor playing Russian Roulette with the Senate? Any reasonable understanding of the performance of the Greens there, compared to Mr Fielding would show that there is zip certainty in terms of how FF will vote, and they still incline more towards conservatism in key areas. There is far more alignment policy-wise between Greens and Labor, forests aside.
To me it seems that Labor just can’t seem to accept the fact that the Greens aren’t actually a faction of theirs, so they sit in perpetual sulk rather than negotiate seriously.
From a purely pragmatic POV, the only jurisdiction I can think of where Labor would benefit more from a preference swap with FF would be SA.
what do others think?
Yep, once again Howard conjures an own goal.
Rudd dances strippergate, then stings like a bee on hospitals.
Ten minutes later, and he owns the Assnationalist agenda. Or something.
The Emperor is nude. The frontal assault is failing. Stay tuned for dervishes, berzerka and kamikaze dives.
Hold the ranks, steady as she goes.
Myriad, it’s:
a) not true that Labor needs Greens preferences ‘in particular’ to win the 16 marginal seats. Labor requires a significant increase in primary votes in those seats far more than it needs more Greens preferences, which at the moment overwhelmingly return to Labor. Neither do the Greens have any significant lower-house voter base outside a few urban safe Labor electorates, as they’re acknowledging wisely with this campaign, aimed at increasing Greens representation in the Senate.
b) not true that Labor is ‘banking’ in any way on Family First. As you say, they’re a fairly insignificant minor party who happened to get lucky with some Victorian Labor fool in 2004. They don’t even run in NSW.
well ‘banking’ might have been a bit strong, but the MSM has been consistently reporting that Labor is talking to FF, and has given the Greens the cold shoulder – which I don’t understand for precisely the reasons you give.
Not in a narky way, but you got a link to data re: winning the extra seats that preferences aren’t going to matter? Just interested.
and ps – wouldn’t you think that given Labor can’t win the Senate, they’d prefer to see Greens or Dems who have actually been around to know how to negotiate etc. to work with than the fair-weather ‘friend’ of Fielding?
Not in any encyclopaedic fashion, but since you ask, let’s do one of my favourite things and apply argument by anecdote. [drumroll]
Take the marginal Federal electorate of Eden-Monaro, definitely a must-win for Labor. In 2004 Gary Nairn of the Liberal Party won it handily, with 43,867 votes after the distribution of preferences to Kel Watt’s 40,263. Now, the Greens in that electorate got a fairly good swing towards them and won a respectable 6,256 primary votes.
Here’s the kicker, though: only 703 of those Greens voters preferred the Coalition to Labor. Even if every single Green in that electorate had voted 1 Green 2 Labor, in fact, even if they’d just cut their losses and voted Labor, Nairn would still have won. It’s not the Greens that Labor needs to convince, or FF or Christian Democrats or Shooters or Democrats—it’s Liberal voters.
hmm, it’s a fair example Liam, but wot about the fair number of ‘liberal doctors wives’ (the ‘not happy john’ set) who on environmental grounds swing Green. My point being is that your argument is based I think on the assumption that no Libera l would ever think of voting Green, therefore green preferences as an inflationary source of votes is stangant for Labor, so it’d better push for the margin itself.
I suspect for EG in Wentworth and Bennelong, if Turnbull & the midget are to be unseated, it will be Green preferences, chiefly from jaded Libs on issues like climate change in Wentworth for eg, that will end up giving Labor the preferences it needs to get over the line.
In the latest Morgan polls the Green vote has risen to just under 10% if memory serves me correctly, from about 8. So I would think they will have a role to play.
And I’m still interested to know why Labor is playing russian roulette with the Senate.
My point exactly. For Labor to win more seats, the Coalition needs to win fewer votes. Convincing rusted-on Greens/Labor voters to vote Greens/Labor does not achieve this aim.
I don’t see that they are, but I like the phrase.
“My point exactly. For Labor to win more seats, the Coalition needs to win fewer votes. Convincing rusted-on Greens/Labor voters to vote Greens/Labor does not achieve this aim.”
which brings us back again to preferences! We all know that the Greens are as you point out smartly focussing their efforts on the Senate. I think what you are trying to say is that Labor can take green preferences for granted in the lower house so isn’t interested in playing.
But
as we seem to agree that it’s Libs turning Green in seats like Wentworth that may well become pivotal, it’s certainly not a done deal that Mrs doctor wife (to belabour a stereotype) will vote 1) Green 2) Labor. Far more likely actually to vote 1) Green, 2) that nice mr Turnbull.
Which says to me that if I was Mr Rudd, I would not be so stupid as to take Green preferences for granted. Not only would I want them telling voters to put Labor second in the lower house, I would be trying to forge something solid in the Senate. FF ain’t going to win the balance, or at least is less likely to than the Greens, the Dems might stage some sort of minor resurgence but not enough to get the balance…which leaves the Greens unless they want to watch the Libs/Nats hold onto the Senate and drive them insane for the next 3 years…
You completely lost me with the ‘SPEAKER’ bit, sorry. I’m sure I’m missing some brill joke as usual.
Go ahead, punk, miss my pop culture reference.
Yes. That’s exactly what I’m saying. As unpleasant a fact as it is, it’s a fact.
We don’t, but anyway…
First, the Greens have already, I believe, announced their preferences to Labor in Wentworth. Second, such informed voters are in any case unlikely to be swayed by the printed ticket—and Greens as a group have very low rates of by-the-ticket voting. Thid, yes, you’re labouring a stereotype, and I don’t think that such a bloc vote exists as is commonly described by the two words ‘doctor’s wife’. I’ve personally mostly encountered the phrase as an epithet to dismiss political opinions, not as a psephological category. Jack Strocchi, I look forward to your inevitable correction.
Let’s look at Wentworth, shall we? Mithra Cox of the Greens won a very respectable 11.15% in 2004 against Turnbull’s 41.79%, and Labor’s David Patch 26.34%. I know that the redistribution has changed things, as has Peter King’s return to irrelevance, but no amount of sucking up to Kerry Nettle’s office is going to get Labor over the line there.
It appears you may be wrong about sucking up to Nettle – although if you know anything about NSW Greens politics in particular, you’d know that Nettle is the llast place to, uh, suck.
and Greens as a group have very low rates of by-the-ticket voting.
Not true. ACT and TAS are the only states where Greens show much understanding/use of preferences or below the line in the Senate.
I don’t think that such a bloc vote exists as is commonly described by the two words ‘doctor’s wife’
sure it’s a silly and often pejorative term (find me a term in politics that doesn’t get abused), but I disagree about the voting bloc. A case in point would be recent research – sorry I can’t remember where I heard it & hence find the link – which pointed to the environment being at the top of the baby boomer’s concerns, specifically climate change, over and above the economy/health.. and more specifically the new grandmums staring at their young grandkids and thinking about their legacy. This certainly reflects my professional experience working with volunteers – huge numbers of baby boomers are becoming engaged because they are preoccupied with their legacy; conservatives at heart starting to think like this I think could be an as yet unrecognised factor.
Myriad, check out the work of possum pollytics on the sidebar of LP. Here is a list of the seats important in this election. Don’t forget that the Morgan poll released this after noon had ALP on 51% primary vote so preferences might not be quite as important as usual.
Sadly, myriad, for my own sense of dignity, I think Crikey agrees rather more with me than with you. If Newhouse is polling at 42% or anywhere like it he’s got a far better chance than poor old 26% Patch at getting the magic 50% plus one. The larger Labor’s primary vote the less significant the preferences become—though if Turnbull is getting 47% he’s a pretty safe bet.
It’s true, I’d heard that there were red-green ructions going on in the branch, but whoa, is it that bad? The Greens are finally growing up. They’re no Party at all until they’ve had at least one good virulent split. Take their names!
I admit I’m also going from anecdote here as well, from scrutineering for the ALP in my local polling station. The ALP and Liberal votes are pretty disciplined and go eight or nine times out of ten straight by the ‘ticket’, whereas the Greens pile have a wonderful variety of different votes—and they always have the most interesting informal votes. By God I love graffitti ballots, they always make my election night.
Sadly, finally, I’ve demonstrated above my utter utter incompetence. The chair of the Australian Senate is the President, not a Speaker. If you’ll excuse me, I’m just going out to do NSW Labor stooge repentance, three verses of ‘Solidarity Forever’ and a Hail Mary for John Ducker at the shopfront that used to be the Trades Hall Inn in Goulburn Street.
Oh, the shame.
myriad
“well ‘banking’ might have been a bit strong, but the MSM has been consistently reporting that Labor is talking to FF, and has given the Greens the cold shoulder”
Do you think that the ALP will prefererence the FF ahead of the Greens as I have heard is happening?
I for one would not be impressed if they did.
Laim: I would argue the average Green Voter is:
1) Better educated.
2) More interested in politics
3) Doesn’t follow the Greens how to vote card.
4) Would put Howard last.
Family First: Lets just say I think the how to vote card matters ( I won’t be rude and add if they can follow it).
thanks Steve for the link – I like LP, but I find the list of ‘blogs it likes’ a bit hard to penetrate.
Liam, thanks for an interesting conversation. Yes, the Greens as a Party (I would distinguish the politicians because I think they have some very grown up ones, more than most parties that’s for sure, particularly at the federal level) is growing up. This will involve either abstaining from NSW watermelon, or at least spitting out the seeds. Nettle I think has had a rude dose recently of purity over you know, getting your representatives re-elected. I don’t think there will be a split, but I think the “beautiful losers” (to borrow Peg Putt from Tasmania’s fab phrase) are being/have been voted out of their previous roles of influence. The Greens IMHO have got a very interesting path to tread in the next 10 years – negotiating their full flowering and consolidation as a political party, but not losing their principles or self-imploding like the Democrats finally did.
Hannah, there’s been several articles run both in the Oz and the Age detailing that Labor is talking to FF ahead of the Greens, and the Greens ain’t happy. Nor should any sane ALP voter be.
Charles, your four points are pretty much in line with everything I’ve read about the Greens voter base, especially about the higher levels of formal education. I’d add also 5. less likely to change their vote election to election.
Heh. I like your style, myriad.
You’re right, the next election cycle or two are going to be very challenging for the Greens, whoever winds up in Government. They need especially to work out what to do when Bob Brown retires, and how to keep the support of those people who admire him personally but have no reason for structural Greens Party loyalty.
I don’t believe everything I read in the Fairfax press about what happens in Labor Party HQ. I’ve found it a pretty reliable rule of thumb when dealing with ALP Head Offices that as soon as you think you know what’s going on, you can at that moment conclude that someone’s lied to you.
On the broader matter of preferences, I think there’s a common misconception about the role of preference negotiation, that Parties should only share preferences amongst other Parties with whom they share political common ground. I agree within limits—I’m glad that both Labor and the Coalition have always put One Nation last—but it’s a stale and counterproductive view of the voting process.
A preference deal is not a moral or political endorsement, it’s a tactical tool to try to win the votes of minor parties, and as I think we’ve established, the Greens voter base is pretty barren ground for Labor wheeling and dealing. Should any Labor state branch make a deal with FF, it’s certainly not an endorsement of their homophobia, any more than a deal with the Greens would be an endorsement of their environmentalism or social liberalism.
Interesting conversation myriad and Liam.
Particularly when we contrast these [perhaps out of context] extracts:
myriad: “….Labor is talking to FF ahead of the Greens, and the Greens ain’t happy. Nor should any sane ALP voter be.
Liam: “Should any Labor state branch make a deal with FF, it’s certainly not an endorsement of their homophobia, any more than a deal with the Greens would be an endorsement of their environmentalism or social liberalism.”
And even more particularly, for me [who considers himself a sane ALP voter], because I have heard, at stronger than rumour level, that the Federal ALP HAS preferenced FF before the Greens.
Hopefully not.
I don’t follow, Hannah’s Dad. Why should sane ALP voters (or otherwise) be unhappy as the result of the Greens being unhappy? The ALP is not a Greens election service. Would you prefer that FF votes simply funnelled straight into the Liberal pile?
The whole idea of moral obligation on Labor to preference in certain ways, I think, shows a certain Rovian ‘relentless negativity’ on the part of critics.
Gidday Liam,
Cos if, as a result of the ‘tactical tool’ of the ALP preferencing FF before the Greens, the ‘homophobic’ [your word] FF gets candidates elected at the expense of “environmentalism or social liberalism” [your words] of Green candidates, then the ALP has effectively preferred the latter ethics and policies to the former.
And that is not what I think the ALP should be on about.
Oops.
Actually ‘former to the latter’.
Durn.
Why should sane ALP voters (or otherwise) be unhappy as the result of the Greens being unhappy? The ALP is not a Greens election service. Would you prefer that FF votes simply funnelled straight into the Liberal pile?
Sorry, can’t help myself
My first sarky reaction is – it depends how much the ALP in return is going to squeal like half-blanched porkers if the Greens dare to *gasp* act like a political party and use preferences tactically themselves – ie not automatically preference Labor. You can’t have it both ways, but the ALP loves to.
One can easily see of example that Howard/Turnbull are sizing up at the moment whether there’s more votes in Bass and Franklin by stepping in to stop the absolute disaster of the Gunns pulp mill proposal. I know that many Tasmanian Greens would choose to preference Libs over Labor on that.
I also think there’s one contrary point in your argument that Greens preferences are barren ground for Labor – in that case how does this gel with the common belief that Greens follow tickets least of all? Because despite said squealing from the ALP to the contrary, the Greens have I don’t think every directly preferenced Libs, the most they’ve ever done is run split tickets.
And I have to agree with Hannah’s Dad. Doing a preference deal with FF is not only extremely dubious in terms of policy, one has to wonder at the realpolitik thinking behind it – who would Labor prefer to work with in the Senate this time around? FF, who will side with the Coalition as often as with the ALP at best, or the Greens who have a much more in-sync policy set, not to mention vast more experience and intelligence at the Senate level.
what I’ve noticed is that ultimately ALP members frequently have such a pathological, and child-like view of the Greens they are determined, irrartionally, to “punish” them for not being the left faction of the ALP, rather than work with them as a legitimate party. Michael Field personally put huge amounts of effort in last election with the sole goal of trying to stop Christine Milne from getting a Senate seat – and guess who nearly got it with just 2% of the primary vote? Why FF whack-job Jacki Petrusma. Labor didn’t have a prayer at the seat, but apparently it was still worth all that effort to elect a rightwing relligious nutjob over a Green. go figure.
/rant
eh sorry for all the typos in last post. posting on the run
I’ve always thought they should.
I mean that since, without direction, most Greens voters at the moment preference Labor, preference deals made between Labor and the Greens would have less political effect than deals made with parties whose voters tend to follow how-to-votes.
G’day left-wing principled Kettle. I’m cynical right-wing wheeling-dealing Pot, how’s it going?