The “media narrative” we’ve seen the first taste of today in the wake of the Gippsland by-election couldn’t be more predictable. Brendan Nelson’s contributed a theme of his own – that polls aren’t as meaningful as the “only poll that counts” – an election, or in this case a by-election. Never mind that one gives us a reading on the state of opinion in one electorate under conditions which are quite unique and the other seeks to measure opinion across the nation using a representative sample. There’s an echo there of Christopher Pearson’s line from last year – the specious distinction between “national polls” and putative local trends. The actually meaningful distinction is between dynamics in by-elections – particularly those in regional seats – and public opinion more broadly. Nevertheless, the opposition and the punditariat have given themselves licence to ignore the poll they “own” and to continue constructing a constant barrage of confected chaos and crises.
By the way, the Gippsland tsunami barely got a mention in the Brisbane Sunday Mail. Just as the dynamics in Gippsland shouldn’t be extrapolated too readily to the country as a whole, we should realise that whatever the national media obsesses about doesn’t necessarily carry that much weight outside the redoubts of the political class. Although the dynamics of the discourse will be quite different tomorrow, there’s no reason to assume that one of the most astute readers of public opinion, Rod Cameron, isn’t as right now as he was on Friday night’s Lateline that Kevin Rudd enjoys a genuine popularity “in the suburbs” and that much of that is attributable to voters being impressed with the government having actually kept its promises.
The stakes couldn’t be higher for the media. In America, we’ve seen the fragmentation of media consumption patterns develop to the extent that the power of the “inside the beltway” gatekeepers is melting away at a rate of knots. 2007 was the first federal election in this country where counter-narratives were on offer, but it’s just as important to note the spread of DIY news through readers and feeds as an increasingly important method of accessing information about politics, and the concomitant decline of any brand loyalty to particular mastheads. Put that together with the fact that most swinging voters always filter out most of what they’re served up in reporting and commentary on politics as irrelevant noise, and that these trends will only accentuate over the rest of this electoral cycle, and you’ve got a recipe for irrelevance. It just isn’t as easy any more for the press gallery gang and media proprietors to demonise a government (or an opposition), and in fact that should have been reasonably obvious last year from the massive disconnect between the tone and substance of media commentary and what was happening in the electorate.
Kevin Rudd and his ministers don’t have to sweet talk the press gallery, or even worry that much that they won’t get fair coverage. But what they do need to do – because their communications imperative is to talk over the heads of the national media – is to narrow the field of political contest and repeat some catchy soundbites again and again and again and again. It’s appearing more and more likely that the contest will be about climate change and international trends versus domestic parish-pump populism, but the trump card here is that – as I’ve argued on the basis of the AES data – the electorate has a much more sophisticated grasp of what’s doable for governments than we’re credited with.
But there is some danger in commenting on everything and scatter shot announcements. Here, it might be wiser to stick to a traditional federal government big picture strategy rather than to make promises and tout for headlines across the whole field of policy in the manner of some state administrations. Kevin Rudd might want to take a leaf out of Anna Bligh’s book and adopt a lower profile, and pick a few key issues to focus on rather than do the Peter Beattie “save the world one soundbite at a time” thing. Perhaps I’ll have more to say about that at a later time, but the key thing for the moment is to maintain message discipline, and avoid being dragged down into a day to day populist stoush with Brendan Nelson.
There’s no need to counter most of the nonsense in the media, because it only has much of an effect if you engage on that turf – because that’s what does the trick Emo Man wants to pull off – making Rudd look like yet another pollie. Much better to get on with the business of governing – something I think John Howard could have profitably done last year rather than morphing into a caricature of a shrill opposition leader obsessed with attention seeking stunts and hyperbole.
No one should assume, though, it’s impossible to defend a policy that causes short term electoral pain. That’s the most important lesson from the Gippsland by-election.
“there is some danger in commenting on everything and scatter shot announcements.”
Agree. But there is also danger in not reacting quick enough. Remember the ‘peinsioner bonus scrapping’? Could have been killed much, much earlier with a simple statement.
“There’s no need to counter most of the nonsense in the media, because it only has much of an effect if you engage on that turf”
Agree with that too. But what seems to be lacking is an overall strategy of media management.
If Rudd wants to be above Politics (and I think that is his preferred position because he is not a natural politician like Beattie was), then he needs to be consistent. And that approach needs to be the ‘common sense’ of the Ministry as well.
I don’t think it is correct to understand the 7% swing against the government as simply a local thing.
The recent Galaxy poll in Queensland indicates a similar thing.
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23905168-952,00.html
While the poll shows Nelson is unatractive and Rudd does indeed enjoy loyalty, in as much as the polster defined the agenda, it seems that the Nelson bandwagon of parish-pump populaism has considerable traction in Qld too.
Nelson is defining the agenda, at least in the media and polsters, and he is winning those arguments. He is building a solid foundation for whoever will lead the party into the election.
Rudd’s response to Gippsland was “”The people of Gippsland have said loud and clear their concerns about impacts on household budgets,” which seems a much more sensible course than steady sailing and ignore the icebergs as Mark seems to be advocating.
Nelson’s pure bullshittery regarding carers’ payments was brilliant, Rudd is vulnerable and was hit. This inspired a much heralded reponse to the special needs of carers and Rudd coppied Howards carers bonus. Howard introduced the bonus in response to complaints that if tax cuts are good for the community what do carers get? So the bonus was set as similar to the tax cuts so as not to disadvantage carers. But for Rudd, it is the best he can do to improve the situation of carers.
But the budget has callously disregarded the need of diability pensioners. Old people get $500, carers get up to $1600 but disability pensioners on the same income but higher medical and support costs get nothing.
People remember these sorts of things. All pensioners are still struggling.
The ACTU now has a worchoices adverising campaign aimed at Rudd, more polite but with the same demands as their succesful campaign against Howard.
Rudd’s embrace of the NT intervention has drawn widespread condemnation.
Rudd’s homophobia has annoyed many.
Those with hopes for a realistic response to climate change have already been dissapointed.
As the Galaxy poll indicates the ALP’s support base is dissatisfied with Rudd, not just NAT/Lib voters, especially on the issues of Nelson’s agenda.
The Qld. Greens quote a Galaxy poll that I haven’t found that indicates there is only 1% difference between the Qld government and the pineapples at present.
http://qld.greens.org.au/media-releases/queensland-greens-state-council-says-bligh-government-has-failed-queensland
If this is the case Rudd would do well to look at the leaves in Anna Bligh’s books to analyse how a very popular government can lose so much ground so quickly.
I couldn’t disagree Mark.
>
Down here in Melbourne the Channel 7 news led with Rudd admitting it was a setback and vowing to take more “hard decisions.”
>
I think after perhaps 6 weeks of being genuinely wrong-footed by the success of Nelson’s petrol-pump populism, Rudd and his senior ministers have finally worked out the best way to move forward: admit things are tough, tell the punters “we feel your pain” and get on with maing the “tough decisions.” Rudd versus Neil Mitchell was interesting in this regard, because Mitchell attacked hard on the issue of petrol prices and Rudd remained calm and collected. No sign of a glass jaw there.
>
There’s been a marked change in attitude from the Government over the last week of sitting, judging from watching Order in the House. Interestingly, Labor seems to have found the lure of Dorothy Dix questions with the magic formula “and are there any alternative views” irresistable – which is a great shame – but still, attacking the Coalition on the economic and environmental irreponsibility of their petrol and ETS policies is already proving a much firmer strategy. It certainly has been a better more confident week for the Government generally.
>
The rest of the Channel 7 news was taken up with the wonders of the opening of the EastLink freeway, which shows how far state governments and motorists are going to have to move to adapt to the rapidly onrushing low-carbon, post-oil world. But, as Mark argues, I think the electorate is far better educated about climate change and the inescapable facts it entails then many in the MSM and certainly on the Opposition front bencches realise.
wpd, you’ve got a point about the pensions thing, and I recall being critical at the time of the response. Having said that, it’s a bit different – in that it’s defending government policy rather than reacting to the media agenda and opposition stunts on a daily basis. Mind you, it certainly wouldn’t hurt to have some of them onside, but you can do without them and still win – Hawke and Keating both proved that at different times, and as I’m arguing, their authority and reach now is less than it was even quite recently.
John, I doubt the same people are concerned about Rudd’s “homophobia” and pension levels. Unfortunately the cultural liberals have little practical interest in materialist issues, and vice versa. And the former are split on the NT intervention and the latter supportive.
I wouldn’t take the Galaxy polls all that seriously either – except that they indicate movement. My reading of what’s happening with Labor in Queensland is contained in the link in the post.
Ben, I wouldn’t disagree with any of that, except to add, as I’ve said before, it wouldn’t hurt Rudd to give a few substantive speeches targeted at the political junkies – satisfy the yearning for a “narrative” and also address the drift of what Cameron called more “thoughtful” voters to the Greens. But stick with the soundbites which annoy the feck out of both.
Guys, I reckon that now is the time for progressives who care about climate change, to really come out and get active.
I think for years in Australia with the ridiculous concentration of media, its let the Murdoch press set the agenda and intimidate the debate on a whole range of things.
But now, with the rise of the internet, its time for progresive voters to lose their fear and get active.
Taking nonsense like Andrew Bolts columns on carbon pricing head on is what we should be doing.
If we can just get out there, talk to our workmates, friends and family, we can have a huge multiplier effect, on climate change particularly.
Following on from Dave’s comment I’d say people need to decode Rudd’s anal denialist nonsense, then realise the language he is using is more Iemma type neoliberalist nose-thumbing.
More of the sort of thing Alan Ramsey wrote about in the SMH, as to lobbyists taking over government decision making, more damage to infrastructures, more shifting of costs onto the poor.
“Making hard decisons” and “hearing… those doing tough” in Neolibspeak always means exactly the opposite.
It means capitulating to the mortgage belt, merchant banks and corporations on and offshore. And likely firstly they will capitulate on petrol excise. But the developers will still get more tunnels and freeways and public transport will still languish and the environment and social justice will continue to raped, justified as “savings cuts” acheived by stealth under cover of more “thorough” FOI and Commercial in Confidence.
Howard lite: “meet t’ new boss, same as t’ old”
“I doubt the same people are concerned about Rudd’s “homophobia” and pension levels.”
This perhaps is my point, The government dissapoints many sectors of its own support base for many reasons.
“cultural liberals have little practical interest in materialist issues, and vice versa”
I can’t figure out what his means.
Send an airdrop of ARC grant money, Mark is starving.
/joke
John, what I mean is that votes who are concerned with so-called “social issues” are often professional and upper income voters or those who expect or aspire to fall into those categories. However, such voters often subscribe to a soft version of economic liberalism, and are rarely much exercised by distributionist issues. In political science, “cultural” voting is known as post-materialism, but the flip side of this, of course, is that parties that appeal to a well-heeled electorate on social issues often sastify them on economic issues as well. So the post-materialist voters are often those who benefit from a liberal economic order.
Conversely, unionised workers, labour activists and most importantly, less educated and skilled workers often have conservative or authoritarian positions on social issues and prioritise economic justice.
The Labor Party has to straddle both positions.
So does the Liberal Party for that matter. It’s a necessity of putting together a winning electoral coalition in modern Australian politics, but it’s difficult to keep such a coalition together smoothly.
Paul Walter, I don’t see any reason to be as pessimistic as you are on whether Rudd will disappoint on climate change, unless the bar for satisfaction is raised far beyone what was promised in the campaign. While I thoroughly agree with Dave (and Kim in the previous post to which I’ve linked) that it’s vital that we put pressure on them to hold the line, I don’t see it as either in character or politically sensible for Rudd to cave in on this issue. Brian’s post is relevant here:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/06/29/emissions-trading-tight-rope/
Back for a second look after having got stuff out of system with first post. Much of what Mark says is true. But the libs don’t need a huge swing next electon, whenever that comes.
Gippsland had a lot of local baggage riding on it, almost along the lines of Tasmania 2004. This particular flock of horses was easily spooked, for half a dozen reasons independent of anything to do with Rudd. The problem is, will Labor keep its head or get spooked by its own ( sometimes opportunist )”right” factions by the “noise”, as well.
The Victorian state by election requires more explanation but once again state factors have to be factored in, starting with premier Feral-horse, who like Iemma, remains intransigent over community transport issues.
As posters above mentioned, it is suddenly not as healthy for a fed labor leader to look like at least some of the premiers.
BTW, what is all this NSW school computer stuff just out in media about?
Jacques at 8, since it’s standard pol sci stuff, you’d only need to pay for a lit review or a second year text book!
Mark: “Paul Walter, I dont see any reason to be…pessimistic…on whether Rudd will disappoint on climate change.”
No, Sir Humphrey, I didn’t refer to anything as nebulously suffocating as “climate change”. I was meaning the disappointing response of the Rudd government so far to environmental and ecological issues, including the one referred to be Alan Ramsey.
I am always wary of “climate change” being possibly used in future to subordinate individual ecological issues then neglected as not important or expendable against “the big one”. Let’s look at woodchipping in Tassie. Relatively negotiable now, against “climate change”imperatives”( whatever they are )?
Except when you think of the removal of all those lovely old growth carbon sinks down there for the exclusive benefit of Mr. Gay and his repulsive bipartisan collaborators.
And you should not inculcate John Tracey, who Iknow to be an honest man, with your euphemisms.
Just call them “yuppies” or “blue collar oafs”, and he’ll understand just as easily.
Mark, the first two pars of your analysis in #9 is absolutely spot on. Hanson played on the same thing, won a ‘traditional’ Labor stronghold and nearly sent the conservative (as opposed to libertarian) right into oblivion, at least in Qld.
Thanx Mark,
As clever as the analysis is, I don’t see how it explains the movement, whatever %, away from the government since the general election.
Is dissapointment with the government’s union and industrial program a cultural or a materialist issue?
I have come across this analysis before and never been comfortable with it. The analysis, especially its concepts of “conservative” and “authoritarian” are very firmly located withn a particular class perspective itself. The attribution of value to the differing perspectives is in terms of one of those perspectives.
The pre-supposed political spectrum of that analysis is self defining and does not explain the consciousness, aspirations or voting patterns of low income voters.
While it is accurate to say that professionals and the Bourgoise see the world in a different way to blue collar workers, it is patronising to explain blue collar perspective as conservative and authoritarian even if they do vote Liberal.
The Late Charles Perkins was a card carrying member of the Liberal party. This cannot be explained by cultural conservatism, rather it is because of a radical cultural perspective that is not defined or contained by irrelevant schisms such as left/right or conservative/liberal.
Most workers may not share Perkins’ level of radicalism, but their perspectives, like Perkins’, define and evaluate themselves on their own terms.
I have heard that voting intentions are becoming more issue specific than party or ideology specific as they were in the past.
If this is true, the key issue for Rudd’s advisors is not what demographic does he pitch his media releases to but is he being seen to deliver on the things that he said he would or should, not to just announce he is looking into it. Is there some visible and unfolding integrity to the Rudd agenda?
If Rudd positions himself to the left he will lose voters to the Liberals. If he moves to the right he will lose votes to the greens, especially in the senate. The integrity of his program is what will maintain his vote, not his management of the media or balance of demographic targeting.
Hanson dealt in the negativity and hatred inherent in the electorate, not conservatism. Such sentiment can be whipped up in any class.
Voting for Hanson represented a step out of the status quo to embrace a new idea. Such flexibility may be peculiar to the working class who are more dissilusioned with the system than real conservatives who believe the system is just fine as it is.
Must be careful not to credit the electorate with an internet sophistication it does not – overall – have. For each voter who gets their news from new media – blogs, feeds, etc – there would be, I guess, another 10 who still absorb the take on the day’s events from the conventional MSM.
This situation will gradually become more balanced over time, but we’re talking election terms away, IMO.
The shallowness, short-sightedness and self-interestedness of the electorate – egged on by a media with the attention span of a house fly – never ceases to amaze me. A few months ago, everyone was full of the best intentions a few months ago on climate change.
But now, with $US150 a barrel oil prices staring us in the face and politicians powerless to do anything about it, the media is taunting panicky politicians to lunge for populist “solutions” that make a mockery of their rhetoric about long-term action to save the planet.
Whatever he does, Rudd is likely to be damned. So his best course, as Rod Cameron observed on Lateline on Friday, is to spend some political capital making smart and sound long-term decisions that may involve short-term pain. At least that way he may earn the respect of a few people. And he can paint an even less ideologically relevant Liberal-National coalition as populist, economically illiterate nincompoops.
One aspect of the Gippsland by-election was the duplicity of Brendan Nelson in claiming in the last week of the campaign that he expected Labor to win and the failure of the mass media to place his absurd comment in context. Nelson, and the so-called political “experts”, must have known that the polling was showing an easy Nationals win. And, if there was any doubt, the absence of the Prime Minister from the campaign was as clear a pointed as anyone could get about Labor’s chances. Nelson’s talk about spin must be viewed against his comments on his by-election prediction, which was aimed to convince everyone that the Coalition did even better than anyone predicted. What a wanker! And the failure of the media to put his comments into context show their bias.
John Tracey, surely far better the loss of Senate seats to the Greens than the allowing the far more sinister hard right back in, so soon after their banishment?
At least the Greens care a bit for the country and people, rather than just a quick buck or only themselves?
True enough Paul.
The hard right have occaisionally tapped into the vein of Australian radicalism. If the left do not or cannot tap into that same vein, as the ALP and Communist party used to, then it abandons that sentiment to the worst rogues to manipulate.
I do not believe the Ipswich Hanson experience was a matter of the electorate abandoning the ALP for Hanson. Historically the ALP and the Liberals had abandoned the working class voters of Ipswich. the voters became resentful and turned to someone capable of articulating their resentment.
I believe that the Greens will soon enjoy much support in rural Australia. Organic farming and ecological land management are no longer considered hocus pocus and in real terms there is much more ecological innovation occuring in the farm sector than in the inner city ghettos of cultural liberalism that is the Greens present support base.
But at present the Greens only campaign in the inner city because thats where their activist live. But as soon as they begin establishing bases in rural Australia they will bloom, especially in local government. It is their own cultural limitations that presently contain them to urban areas.
The real test is going to be in Mayo. If I recall correctly, several elections ago it went to Democrat preferences. Gippsland was always going to go to the Nats, but Mayo might be a contest. What’s the bet Minchin will lever in a real RWDB?
Yes Paul, Mayo did. A very close call for Dolly.
We had two elections at the weekend in Victoria. Approx 16% swing against State Labor in Kororoit, their “3rd safest State seat”. Western sububs of Melb/ ALP held it. Features?
a) pre-selection brawl betwwen sections of the Victorian Right; Premier bruised.
b) popular Independent Les Twentyman (scored 20%, natch)
c) dirty tricks leaflets used against Les T
d) ALP candidate from City of Darebin (inner north-east suburbs), not a local Western suburbs lady
I’d like to mention a few features of Gippsland federal by-election:
i) pre-selection trouble with a local non-ALP person (town cryer FFS, Mayor of Sale) plucked into the candidacy; plenty of public dissent voiced by local ALP Left, e.g. Keith Hamilton, former State Member for Morwell and Bracks govt Minister
ii) Nationals had won State seat of Morwell on Liberal preferences, end of 2006; so Nationals not unknown even in the “Labor heartland of the Latrobe Valley” – again, this followed damaging public brawling in Traralgon & Morwell ALP branches; resignation of dissident Right member who then stood as an Independent
iii) saturation TV ads on local TV by Libs, Nats and “ute man” (telling Wayne & Kev to give their alcopops tax the chop); some Party ads had blokes yelling at the camera “It’s not bloody good enough!”)
iv) related to i) above, a telling TV ad had an audio clip featuring Keith Hamilton saying the ALP candidate didn’t have a track record of standing up for working families
v) coal mining families and those in associated companies servicing the power industry are worried about ETS
vi) regardless of v), unemployment has been very high in the Latrobe Valley for the last 20 years
vii) the dairy industry is doing well, though you’d be hard pressed to find a dairy farmer who’d admit it
viii) Petrol prices are high in Gippsland and have been for 30+ years
Conclusions? Disunity is death. Working families are not necessarily rusted-on voters for Labor. Weak candidates are discerned. ETS is not just a Latrobe Valley stinger issue.
I’m with Antony Green. Labor shouldn’t run in Mayo. It might have been possible for a Democrat to go close to winning it, but it’s bourgeois territory par excellence, and there are a lot of people there who wouldn’t vote Labor in a blue fit. By-elections for seats Labor didn’t succeed in winning in the last election aren’t a test of anything much, as far as I’m concerned.
But Mark, that way the number of ALP seats in the Reps can only fall, never rise (barring defections). Is it really just not worth the effort?
cheerio
Possibly not, Ambigulous, because running in by-elections costs a lot of money and Labor have enough seats in the HoR already. You’ll find the Libs didn’t run in a few seats where they had no chance of winning in the last few terms.
In general elections, obviously you run in all seats. But neither Mayo nor Gippsland have ever been really winnable by Labor.