Mugs are what most of my colleagues in the media are. Most media are reporting internal ALP polling which shows that the government has 52 percent of the two-party vote, but is doing poorly in marginals in Queensland, New South Wales and West Australia. They give this polling credence and say that the election will be close.

At the same time they are also quoting a Newspoll, two-thirds completed, which shows the parties on 50 percent each, and a Galaxy poll which is 52/48 in the government’s favour.

Out of all of this they mostly seem to decide to run with the Newspoll figure for the country, even though it is the odd-one out, and the ALP poll for marginals, even though there are only 80 responses from each marginal electorate polled.

Why do they do this? Because it suits the narrative they have already seized on, which is that the government will lose. I guess it should be the preferred story, given it has the most suspense, so readers and listeners will have to tune-in tomorrow, and an archetypal theme – the under-dog triumphs.

Conventional wisdom in the political class has it that the Tampa crisis of 2001 sealed the deal for the Coalition. If you remember the bunting outside polling booths, with the picture of an avuncular John Howard and the slogan “we determine who comes into this country”, you might be inclined to agree.

But both Peter Browne, editor of Inside Story, and psephologist Peter Brent disagree.

Both demonstrate that s11 gave the Coalition the big uptick in the polls it had been waiting for, in a year which began with a consensus that Kim Beazley was on track for victory, and which saw a high degree of volatility in public opinion.

Browne also looks at the low ranking asylum seeker policy was given in a list of issues respondents ranked in the Australian Electoral Study, the most authoritative academic survey of elections.

Browne, returning to the question today, thinks polls from the past few weeks support this thesis too.

So, what explains the degree of attention the issue receives?

The answer is threefold.

The first reason, as Graham Young writes, is that it’s the sort of issue the media loves.

Secondly, it’s an emotive issue, and as Young also suggests, a proxy for deep clashes in worldviews embedded in contemporary society.

Thirdly, as demonstrated by Young’s recent qualitative polling, it acts as a proxy for a number of other judgements that voters make – about government competence and leadership strength, to cite a couple.

But what we can conclude from all this is that there’s no necessity to the prominence the issue receives, and the way in which it’s framed.

Graham Young has also had a look at the Quarterly Newspoll data:

The last data point is the only one attributable to Julia Gillard, and comes at the end of a series where Labor’s vote was improving under Kevin Rudd.

So Gillard saves a situation that according to the polling didn’t exactly need saving, and takes the ALP vote back to more or less the same place it was earlier this year.

But he cautions:

The first thing to mention about these polls is what they don’t measure. As a result of them being in the field on Thursday night in the case of Galaxy and both Thursday and Friday nights in the case of Nielsen – they wont be measuring a proper voting intention, but instead measuring an initial public reaction. We’ll have to wait for a week or so for the phrase “Prime Minister Gillard” to sink into the public brainspace before we can start to get a confident grip on the voting intention fallout.

As a result, don’t be surprised to see quite a large variation in polling results over the next polling cycle.

Of great interest also is the fact that a majority of Galaxy respondents believe that the ALP made a bad decision forced by panic, with a larger majority believing that Julia Gillard shared responsibility with Kevin Rudd for decisions of the Government.

I still don’t think that the ALP has made a persuasive case for the manner and speed with which Kevin Rudd was removed as PM. Interviews with Nicola Roxon and Chris Bowen on successive nights on Lateline show this. People can recite the verities of the Westminster system all they like, but the reality of presidential campaigns in modern Australian politics is that electors feel they are choosing between candidates for PM as well as parties. There’s a lot of evidence that there is real hurt and shock at the way in which Kevin Rudd met his political Waterloo in the electorate, a sentiment acknowledged by Julia Gillard herself.

Retrospectively validating the decision through the evidence of two polls must be tempting for Labor figures, but I’d return to my earlier point about polls representing a snapshot of static public opinion. And my argument about the dangers of staking everything, including the weighty matter of who should lead our country, on the next poll.

The leadership change may have brought those voters Possum characterises as “skeptical partisans and ordinarily soft voters back into the fold”. But the underlying reasons why those voters left Labor haven’t gone away. The rhetoric from Gillard and others in the ALP holds out inconsistent hopes – for a ‘tougher’ or a more humane line on asylum seekers and “border security”, for an end to a divisive tax debate and for mining companies paying a fair share of taxation, for action on climate change and for a deferral on an ETS until there is “consensus”.

At this stage, disillusioned voters can take their pick as to whether they believe Gillard will move government policy on the great issues of the day in their preferred direction. But not everyone can have what they want, and these circles simply can’t be squared so as to render disparate voting groups simultaneously happy for very long. The government must act, and must decide, and which way those decisions go will be the true test of Julia Gillard as Prime Minister in the lead up to an imminent election.

NB: Previous discussion of the Labor leadership challenge on LP is here.

Elsewhere: Mumble, What The People Want.

Elsewhere: Guy Rundle:

Gillard’s wave of support derived from becoming the first female PM, and Labor at that, will not long survive a rightward turn on asylum seekers, and other ‘necessary’ manouevres.

Update: Newspoll is out, showing a small increase in the 2PP to 53-48, but a rise of 7 points in the Labor primary vote, largely at the expense of The Greens.

Dennis Shanahan proclaims that only he and “hard heads” know how to interpret polls, but Peter Brent thinks not.

Elsewhere, Graham Young details the latest National Forum qualitative polling on Julia Gillard.

Update: [by Kim] Essential Research has Labor on 54-46 2PP. Bernard Keane points out that the sample is a rolling one, so it shows that Kevin Rudd was already pulling Labor’s primary vote up and attracting voters back from The Greens.

Anna Bligh’s credibility was one of the few things the ALP had going for it in the March state election. Her opposition to the dictates of ratings agencies was a hallmark message. The announcement after Labor squeaked back in that the fuel subsidy would go, that public sector wages would effectively be frozen and jobs disappeared through efficiency dividends, and, particularly, the plans for the sell off of state assets have seen the trust the electorate had in Bligh collapse.

I also wrote, commenting on her efforts to turn the situation around:

But the public aren’t inclined to credit her for decisive action — because the basis of trust that existed between citizens and their Premier has already dissipated.

At the time, I was met with some scepticism in comments. At the end of the year, I think it’s pretty clear that Bligh’s regime has the smell of death about it. Anyone who doubts that should have a look at Graham Young’s latest polling [links to posts on quant and qual respectively].

Bligh’s woes have been compounded by the departure of her chief of staff, Mike Kaiser. His replacement, Nicole Scurrah, is something of a policy wonk, and it’s difficult to see any semblance of a political strategy from the (shrinking) Bligh camp, beyond toughing it out and proclaiming the virtues of ‘tough decisions’. Hiring Bernie Fraser on 2 and a half grand a day to pacify the unions was a waste of money, and the partial backdown on the privatisations (now to be 50 and 99 year leases instead of full sales) has not stemmed the tide of public and union anger.

The last month or so has seen serious discussions within the party, caucus and unions about removing Bligh. It’s important to recall here that Bligh has alienated many on the left, both in caucus and in left unions, and also in the faction’s rank and file. There’s a host of intra-factional bad will, which is somewhat tangential to the broader consensus forming that removing Bligh is the only way to give Labor any chance at electoral survival, but which has its own effects.

Monday saw reports of moves to convene a special party conference to reverse the privatisation push. This is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the machinations going on at the moment, some of which are described in an article by Andrew Crook in today’s Crikey [paywalled].

Crook accurately describes the AWU as key to what happens next, along with left moves to cushion the blow by giving Bligh the exit option of a federal job orchestrated by Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan. What we’re seeing is a confluence of very disparate political actors within the ALP attempting to map out a strategy, but united so far only by their determination that Bligh must go. At this stage it’s anyone’s guess as to what will happen, but if Bligh is still Premier in February, it will be something of a victory for her.

Crook mentions Attorney-General Cameron Dick as the most likely successor. Dick is, as Crook says, an astute operator, but counting against him is his lack of parliamentary experience (he’s a first term MP), and the fact that his own seat of Greenslopes would be in the firing line of the LNP should Labor’s stocks not recover. There’s long been talk of Speaker John Mickel bringing a reassuring touch of grey to the leadership, and some new speculation that my local member, Grace Grace, might be elevated straight into the top gig. Grace’s potential candidacy is also seen as countering the (accurate) perception that the state’s first female Premier could be removed by being dealt the death blow by a bunch of right wing boys.

All three leadership hopefuls can be presented as not closely associated with Anna Bligh’s regime, and any successful coup, or managed transition, would be conditional on the reversal of the privatisation decision. Deputy Premier Paul Lucas could not be similarly dissociated from the current leadership, but his willingness to shift his numbers in return for holding his spot would make him a crucial determinant of who emerges as Premier.

Peter Beattie is also said to have reversed his support for Bligh, and the glow of nostalgia now surrounding his leadership might make that more significant than it otherwise might have been.

The situation is highly fluid, but the tipping point where Bligh’s leadership is terminal has almost certainly been reached. Watch this space in the New Year.

The Labor Party won’t want issues such as health, which remind voters that it’s had eleven years in office, to be central to the campaign.

Rather, the ALP will want to differentiate its economic approach from the LNP’s. Anna Bligh will be arguing that the state government is doing all it can to kickstart the slowing economy – an argument previewed by Fraser when he pointedly observed that the government had chosen to continue to borrow for infrastructure spending rather than cut its borrowing cloth to the demands of Standard and Poor’s. Jobs above all else was the message.

Graham Young’s polling for the National Forum shows infrastructure still in first place among voter concerns, but the economy rocking up the charts. There’s an obvious connection to be made between the two issues, and the Borg’s constant mantra about debt and the evils thereof boxes the LNP in and prevents them from making big ticket announcements. If they do, they’re destroying their own claims about public debt, and suggesting there’s tons of interest at the moment in public-private partnerships is hardly going to be credible in this economic climate. Labor ends up with a twin focus on the economy and leadership, and it’s hard to see this favouring the opposition. From the point of view of where governments’ political support goes when put to the test in an economic downturn, this will be an interesting campaign.

Elsewhere: Derek Barry:

Embarrassing or not, Dr Nicholas Gruen thinks the downgrading could spread to other states. Gruen is the CEO of Lateral Economics and writes for Club Troppo and is a frequent contributor to the Australian Financial Review. He told Woolly Days today that although he was not across the specific budgetary details of each government, it seems likely there will be a trend given worsening budget positions. He also defended Fraser’s position saying that now is not the time to cut back on capital works. As Gruen wrote in the AFR in September (unfortunately no link, the article is behind a paywall) “the electorate likes to see governments investing in the future. And the alternative – arbitrarily restricting investment whilst commuters nurse their resentments in traffic jams or waiting for late trains – is a political road to nowhere.”

Meanwhile UQ academic and economist John Quiggin believes that an AAA rating is overrated and rating agencies are themselves part of the problem. He says the global crisis has exposed fundamental weaknesses in the way in which ratings are determined and adjusted. According to Quiggin, the likes of Standard and Poor’s and Moody’s have suffered credibility issues in the crisis and a need a lot of improvements to restore independence and transparency. “The privileged position held by these agencies can no longer be justified,” he writes.

In any case, downgrading is not a purely Australian problem. Both Spain and Greece were downgraded earlier this year. Now the Telegraph.co.uk reports that Britain too could be stripped of its AAA rating. The Telegraph says Standard & Poor’s have indicated it might downgrade Britain’s rating because of its asset protection scheme. The scheme provides insurance for so-called “toxic debt” but the Telegraph warns the scheme leaves “the taxpayer exposed to losses on billions of pounds of bad loans made by the banks.” Yet as the article itself points out, it is very unlikely the UK Government will ever default on its debt commitments. A credit rating downgrade is clearly not the end of the world.

Nicholas Gruen thinks credit ratings should be taken seriously but governments need to take risks in tough times. That means taking on projects and debts that the private sector is now shying away from. He says that an obsession with an AAA rating now stands as an obstacle to governments playing their rightful role in dealing with the economic crisis. “There’s a dynamic to fiscal responsibility and fiscal management,” he said today. “Had the Queensland Government invested more in the easy times, it would be worth more now.”

One has to wonder about the depth of understanding of political mechanics and political logic required to write this stuff. While the process of preselecting new candidates for what are important seats – even if they’re Labor held – won’t be “protracted”, it still has to be done. And those candidates need a bit of breathing space to build a profile before a campaign.

And there’s not much point to having a whizzbang brand new shiny campaign website if it doesn’t get some traction and some traffic.

In any case, it’s probably of more interest to assess how effective Anna4Qld actually is. Graham Young isn’t impressed.

It is true to say that the dynamics factoring into the election date have altered since last year. The LNP’s decline in the polls now has them trying to fend off an early campaign, while previously they were rearing to go. But Labor’s not ready for one – Labor support is quite soft, representing more of a “lesser of two evils” factor in light of the daily drumbeat of stories reinforcing dissatisfaction with health in particular. Labor is well aware of the possibility that voters who won’t plump for the Opposition will vote for a Green or another minor party or independent candidate with no second preference, or simply vote informal or stay away from the polls. There’s a fair way to go yet before either party can be really confident. Which is an indictment of them both, needless to say.

Elsewhere: Andrew Bartlett.

The rapidly deteriorating economic conditions in Queensland will put pressure on the Bligh Government to hold an early election.

An election is due before September, but the prospect of rapidly rising unemployment by the middle of the year plus a tough budget in June may convince the Government to go to the polls in the next few months.

Note that this is “news”, not “opinion”.

I assume it’s News Limited itself who is putting on the pressure.

As I observed the other day, Treasurer Andrew Fraser has explicitly said that the timing of the election wouldn’t be influenced by a desire to avoid a tough budget, and Anna Bligh has repeatedly poured cold water on the early election speculation since she returned from holidays.

It’s much more likely that the state government wants to be seen to be taking the proverbial “decisive action” on jobs and the economy rather than rushing to the polls. And they want some more time to heighten the attack on the LNP. Graham Young’s online polling also suggests that there would be some cost to going early.

Meanwhile, in Crikey, Bernard Keane has had a look at the state of the LNP. The article is reproduced (with permission) over the fold.

Bernard Keane writes:

Despite The Australian doing everything but issuing its own writs for a February election, no one other than Anna Bligh knows when during 2009 Queenslanders will go to the polls. But there’s alarm within LNP ranks at both the policy direction of the party and the lack of former Liberal Party members willing to assist in the campaign.The electoral prospects for the Liberal Nationals are mixed at best. They are up against a tired and out-of-touch government, many of whose current and former MPs have records of bullying, harassment and stalking. With the collapse in commodity prices, Queensland is also facing a significant slump in mining royalties and tourism has been dire for months. However, the sheer scale of the economic crisis might shore up support for the Government, and unemployment remains relatively low – especially in Brisbane, the LNP’s weak spot – for now.

Greg Roberts picked up on policy concerns earlier this month in a revealing article on complaints about Lawrence Springborg’s small target strategy. It’s actually less a small target than a big Borg strategy. The party’s clunky website (six video feeds on the entry page?) tells anyone who might want to know what the policies of the alternative Queensland government are to click on over to the site of the former Nationals’ leader. This will tell you eight things you didn’t know about the Borg, but alarmingly, and perhaps tellingly, features an empty page under “Policies“.

Resistance is, in this case, not so much futile as poorly-informed.

Policies can be whistled up fairly quickly, if you’re not too particular. New, active members and quality candidates cannot. Party insiders say a number of preselections only attracted a single entrant. The party’s list of candidates reveals a large number of young candidates in their twenties and early thirties, not to mention 18-year-old Michael Palmer, who in a moment reminiscent of Blackadder’s “Pitt the Embryo” was pre-selected unopposed for the seat of Nudgee.

This is an impressive commitment to youth, but might worry voters looking for a bit of life experience in their political representatives. However, a senior party figure and former Liberal who opposed the merger has pointed out that the formation of the party did encourage some business people to overcome their qualms and get involved in pre-selections, albeit without quite understanding the Machiavellian environment they were getting into.

The LNP initially sent mixed messages about how appealing the new party was to the thousands of Queenslanders it reckoned were just waiting for the conservative side of politics to get its act together before joining. Insiders have told Crikey that the hoped-for influx of new members hasn’t occurred and many former Liberal party members are refusing to get involved in the new organisation, forcing LNP headquarters to repeatedly call for volunteers and plan to bus members from regional areas into metropolitan areas to man booths and hand out how-to-vote cards during the campaign. The loss is particularly heavy amongst older Liberals who did much of the work on the ground for the party. A senior former Liberal said Liberal members had deserted party meetings, leaving only Nationals, but they believe they’ll return during the campaign for the opportunity to help turf out Labor, especially if the local candidate is competitive.

Feet on the ground are a critical component of successful campaigning, and the LNP’s absent members will be especially missed in metropolitan and suburban seats that the party needs to win to have a chance of knocking off Labor. The LNP might be confident it can convince Queensland voters that it wasn’t a Nationals takeover of the Liberals, but it will have a lot more trouble convincing former Liberal members voting with their feet.

You know why there are bloggers, @Newshour? Because there is “safety first” reasoning in news. People get sick of it and take up their pens.”

Young doesn’t entirely agree – not that the performance of the media in reportage isn’t a jumping off point for the desire to blog – but that the problem with mainstream journalism is “safety first”. He presents three hypotheses which might explain the quality of political reporting and commentary. I think he’s definitely onto something here, though I’d also add that the structure of the media and its corporate logics are also factors we should take note of.

The post concludes:

…perhaps the urge to blog is driven not so much by the tendency of journalists towards “safety first”, but because journalists are by and large socially homogenous and don’t reaffirm the views of most bloggers, who in reaction create their own social networks.

Which is not why I blog at all, but then, I am an statistically inadequate sample, and this post is pure speculation on which I hope to get some feedback from other bloggers.

Part of the academic stuff I’m working on this year goes to the question of the motivation for the creation of “user-generated content”. In the context of political blogging, I’m not at all certain that the sorts of categories the citizen journalism literature employs – ie “monitorial citizen”, “public sphere” and so on – are at all adequate for understanding the desire to blog.

To the degree that they aren’t just dependent on a reinscription of the whole “public purpose” argument about journalism in a new frame and a range of concepts about public deliberation which are too abstract, I think they’re probably a post facto effect rather than a motivator. In fact, I’m not entirely sure there’s as strong a correlation between the quality of the media and the impulse to blog as everyone seems to think. So I’d be very interested in others’ observations!

Elsewhere: Gary Sauer-Thompson.