The Poll Bludger has the numbers on the latest Nielsen poll for Victoria. Labor leads on the 2PP 55-45.
The Age trumpets this result as Victorian Labor “defying the national trend”. No doubt other papers are saying the same – I haven’t looked.
I’ve been arguing for a while that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that there is a national trend against Labor, and that in fact thinking about disparate polls in seven different jurisdictions with differing political histories, cultures and current circumstances as constituting a trend makes little sense. My contention for a long time has been that elections are unrepeatable and singular events and that epistemologically we can know much less about electoral behaviour and find grounds for prediction with much less certainty than we think. Political behaviour follows few laws and a lot of conclusions reached after the fact are questionable.
But there is a sort of reflexivity feedback loop built into the way we think about politics and the way polls are reported. Particularly at state level – where polls are few and far between – one poll which struggles to form a series can have a large impact on perceptions, and thus the interpretations of the public and the press and the morale of politicians and “momentum”.
Consider what would happen if we were to see a poll showing similar figures for Labor in Queensland. I don’t think that’s at all unlikely. The “political narrative” about Anna Bligh and Lawrence Springborg would instantly change. A whole range of events now in the past – Beattie’s reign, the formation of the LNP and others – would be coloured in quite differently on the interpretive palette. And this would change the reality of state politics.
The truth of polls and the interpretive work that goes into “explaining” their results is that what we are dealing with is the manufacture of social facts rather than scientific certainties. There’s a “truth effect” at work which shifts or creates a new situation. It’s worth keeping this in mind at all times when thinking about how polls affect the political landscape.
From what I can tell, it’s basically the status quo.
The Brumby Government is going to live or die on whether it makes progress of fixing Melbourne’s transport and water problems.
As far as water goes, the Plug the Pipe crowd complaining about the Goulburn River pipeline don’t seem to have much sympathy in Melbourne; and, frankly, if the Coalition and the Greens try to block its construction in the federal Senate they’ll be asking for trouble, particularly the Coalition. Expect stage 4 water restrictions in Melbourne, and the government can blame the federal opposition. Baillieu will be placed in an impossible position.
WRT transport, we still await the government’s announcements.
The liberals seem to be stepping up their advertising which is at least something. because Baillieu or any other lib hasn’t been sighted for over a year.
The Brumby government has been, is, and always will be a bust on water. If the opposition is smart they’ll campaign on it and paint Brumby into his green corner. There’s no guarantee of a smart opposition though. Or of a good opposition leader for that matter.
Craig Mc: I think we’ve had this discussion before. Ted Baillieu is never ever ever going to run on putting a dam on the Mitchell.
For that matter, if push came to shove I very much doubt the locals in Gippsland, and their National Party members (and Craig Ingram) would support a new dam diverting water to Melbourne either.
Robert, we have had this discussion before and it’s obvious we’ll always disagree (sociably of course!). I concede your point that Baillieu may never ever run on a dam, but then I think he’ll never ever be premier if that’s the case.
Further, the locals would probably rather the Mitchell water goes to Melbourne than through their living rooms like it has twice in the last few years.
I think that at the moment, the Brumby Governmenmt isn’t popular, but the opposition is almost totally unknown, so I am not surprised by the result of the opionion polls. I actually think that given what has happened in NSW, a lot of Victorians are wondering how their state Government is going financially. I can’t believe how totally AWOL Ted Bailleau and his team have become, surely the media can’t not be reporting what they have to say on things.
Maybe we are all just exhausted by politics after two years of the US elections, and the global crisis stuff. I am feeling increasingly disengaged, and looking forward to a couple of weeks at the beach in January.
I think most people believe that John Brumby is an effective, tough leader. He doesn’t cave into union demands and hasn’t annoyed big business by expanding public service influence. He is, after all, as establishment as Ted Baillieu.
I don’t think I’ve heard or seen Ted Baillieu in the media for at least a year. The last time was, I dunno maybe the re-formation of the coalition or something?
Anyway, I reckon to defeat Brumby the Coalition needs to run a campaign that includes a sensible plan that doesn’t propose to double Melbourne’s water bill (whether that’s a good or bad thing is beside the point) as is currently the case. It also needs to be simple so the MSM can digest it.
I think to establish any sort of credibility with Victorian voters water has to be the key issue.
Chumpai: frankly, unless you tell them explicitly most people won’t even notice the increase in their water bills.
Robert, are you implying they won’t consciously notice that their water bills are higher, or that they won’t respond to higher bills by reducing consumption?
Personally I’d much rather see much more expensive water (potentially using staggered pricing) than the absurd set of water restrictions we currently deal with. But do we have a good idea of what the demand elasticity of water is?
I’d search Quiggin’s archives, he’s the expert on the topic.
I meant that people will hardly notice, because volume charges are such a small part of most people’s household budgets.
The exception might be pensioners with elaborate gardens, but I suspect most such people would prefer to water their plants at a higher price, than watch them die.
So you make town water more expensive than rain water (at least, if you use more than a certain amount of it).
And if enough people still continue to pay huge amounts for town water, then you’ve probably raised the cash needed to boost supplies.
# 1 Robert Merkel Nov 21st, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Bang on. And you can add housing affordability and energy sustainability to that list of what amounts to communal amenity issues.
But these problems arise out of scarcity of resources in an increasingly crowded public space. The federal govt holds the key to this issues since it controls most of the flow of immigrants into the metro regions.
However the current minister (Evans) is a dogmatic liberal with a penchant for sucking up to the Big End of Town. He plans to bring in a net 100,000 people per year, year in year out for the next three years. But we are already bursting at the seams.
The shoehorning of an extra million people into the major metro areas over the next term of this government will make any political efforts aimed at conservation and co-operation look feeble and derisory.
The New Right/New Left “debtquity and diversity” coalition love this. More bums on seats is good for the wealthfare state if they make it and more fodder for welfare state if they dont.
Old traditioned Leftists need to ask themselves if physical growth is the be all and end all of policy. If it is then be prepared for a lifetime of queues and cities that will more and more resemble Bangkok and Mexico.
No more green and pleasant lands within the urban fringe.
Speaking as a pensioner with an elaborate garden (at the front of my house, at any rate) I can tell you that the answer for me has been to plant things that will live on minimal water, mulch well and bail out the kid’s bathwater as an alternative to using the garden tap.
That and adopting the “if it’s yellow, let it mellow” philosophy, much to the disdain of many a house visitor!