Tag Archive for 'political communication'

Rudd unwhacked

Newspoll came in last night with essentially a status quo result, with both parties one point up on primaries (and the 2PP changing one point down each way to 52-48 because of a measured fall in The Greens’ primary.)

I doubt that Kevin Rudd ever expected the ‘whacking’ in the polls he trumpeted. Rather, this was part of the rhetorical structure of the weekend of apologies – convincing the public that he’d already taken his medicine, and that they should think again about the government’s virtues (which he, and Ministers, have used the sorry-fest to remind everyone of) and think harder about the Coalition. A very similar line has been working wonders for Gordon Brown of late.

In other words, rather than offering the proverbial commentary on the polls, Rudd’s remarks are part of a set piece of political manoeuvring aiming to draw a line in the sand, and to establish a contrast between the government’s new policy announcements (the national curriculum and health) and the opposition’s negativity. That’s potentially quite an effective play when everything we’ve seen of of Abbott et al over the last few weeks has been pure opposition.

Incidentally, I’d repeat the point I’ve made a number of times before – among all sorts of other influences, commentary on the polls has an underlying and perhaps unexamined premise that a Liberal majority is the natural state of affairs. Otherwise, it’s hard to explain the narrative of trouble and crisis when Labor is still comfortably ahead. It’s as if the Coalition ever overtaking Labor spells doom and destruction for the Rudd government. It would not. It’s worth underlining the fact that governments are often behind in the polls, and come back to win elections. John Howard frequently appeared headed for defeat in each electoral cycle after his first win.

Trevor Cook provides a useful reminder another point of comparison – to the Rudd opposition of the late Howard years.

Speaking of which, those who talked about Howard’s comments and policy changes around the time of the Aston by-election in 2001 were making the better comparison than the chorus of ‘Beattie reborn!’ songsters. The difference, of course, is that Howard appeared headed for a genuine whacking in early 2001, while Rudd is sitting pretty.

While we’re talking polls, I’d also recommend a squizzy at Possum’s fascinating tables on the Essential Research questions about the assessment of leaders’ attributes.

The politics of risk and uncertainty in an election year

Writing in Crikey yesterday, Guy Rundle described the Greek imbroglio as the second wave of the Global Financial Crisis:

So let’s try and make it as clear as possible — the second wave of the 2008 GFC has begun, and Greece is where it started from. The first wave was prompted by the collapse of a series of private investment banks, starting with Lehman Brothers. The second is starting with the deep problems occasioned by the indebtedness of sovereign nations using the broad security of the euro, to be entrepreneurial with their budgets. That’s entrepreneurial in a political sense — thus Greece’s centre-right New Democrats left the nation’s finances unreformed as a way of giving the illusion that the wave of post euro-entry prosperity was solidly backed. Instead the country has simply wildly over-borrowed from its future.

That much is Greece’s problem primarily, and Europe’s secondarily. It becomes a global matter when the degree of exposure of the global banking system becomes clear — hot on the heels of the last crunch, and with nothing resembling a real recovery in-between.

Writing in Crikey today, Bernard Keane concluded that things may not be as rosy as we’d thought in Australia:

The euphoria that Australia has avoided a recession is now giving way to the realisation that as the Government’s stimulus withdraws, there are real questions about just how strong the private-sector growth needed to replace it is.

And the threat from overseas, and particularly the impact of sovereign debt and sluggish economic growth on financial and currency markets, has placed a big question mark over external demand.

Continue reading ‘The politics of risk and uncertainty in an election year’

So, what exactly does ‘direct action’ mean?

Tony Abbott’s second policy release since becoming leader also carries the ‘direct action’ badge – the underwhelming ‘plan’ to institute local boards for public hospitals in Queensland and New South Wales mirrors the Coalition’s climate change policy in highlighting this theme.

The politics of this message are potentially quite effective. Small, bite sized initiatives portrayed as community based and focused around individuals and localities are meant to provide a big contrast with Kevin Rudd’s approach to governance. It’s designed to play into the attack line – “Rudd promises the world, but his grand visions just result in a bureaucratic mishmash”, and this theme is also meant to resonate with the notion that Rudd once was able to empathise with voters’ day to day concerns, but is now off in some stratospheric space alien to the proverbial kitchen table.

In short then, the contrast arises from dressing policy up as both ‘direct action’ (it could happen overnight, not after fifty reviews and a round of COAG committee meetings) and achievable and realisable (it’s not about fixing the planet, but about making a difference).

The irony, of course, is that Action Man Abbott’s threadbare policy cupboard is in reality full of big government boondoggles chosen for their purely symbolic value rather than their chance of achieving anything much. The cynicism of targeting policy to particular states where Labor governments are deeply on the nose and impacting on Rudd’s polling can’t really be disguised by the Howardian rhetoric of an ‘intervention’.

So, just whose policy sounds more complex now?

Presiding as he has been over the Nationals-isation of the Liberal Party, Tony Abbott might pause to consider one of Joh Bjelke-Petersen’s bon mots:

You can’t straddle both sides of a barbed-wire fence.

The first stage of selling the Coalition’s climate change policy hasn’t gone well. Barnaby Joyce was positively incoherent on Lateline, and wanted to talk about anything but the policy itself. Significantly, perhaps, when asked about his new role, his response was something along the lines of “I’m not exactly fascinated”. Really. Maybe for both him and his boss, being an oppositionalist ‘retail politician’ and mouthing off about anything and everything is a more comfortable space than having to defend a policy position.

That certainly appeared to be the case for Tony Abbott on the 7.30 Report tonight.

His inability to justify the lie about the cost of the CPRS to taxpayers aside, Abbott found out that it’s very hard to straddle the denialist constituency *and* maintain the fiction that he wants to do something to abate carbon emissions. And it’s not going to get any easier for him.

What might have appeared over summer to the Abbotariat to be a tactical master stroke is now meeting political reality. And on the first day that Kevin Rudd found a way of concisely explaining the ETS.*

*Even, if, unfortunately, it doesn’t really punish polluters as much as it should.*

Newspoll Labor 52-48: Watch the political narrative shift

The first Newspoll of the year has Labor’s 2PP at 52, and the Coalition ahead by one point on primaries at 41, with The Greens steady on 9. By contrast, Essential Research has Labor on a 2PP of 56. Interestingly, in light of what I was saying last week, Essential Research asked respondents about the firmness of their voting intention:

Table borrowed from Possum.

Make of that what you will, but I find it very interesting indeed. One consequence, if you go with the hypothesis about Abbott firming up the Coalition’s base vote, is that Labor voters may also be becoming more confirmed in their partisan choice. We don’t have data on this, except for this one snapshot, but it wouldn’t surprise me if the Liberals’ strategy of opposition to pretty much everything has begun to polarise parts of the electorate.

Of interest also will be the new media narrative. That bit of it which will emanate from the Abbotariat is so predictable it’s barely worth sketching. But Kevin Rudd and Labor won’t be at all unhappy with this result (which, remember, still has them in much the same winning position as in the last election). It’ll fit perfectly their strategy of putting pressure on Abbott to answer questions as if he were a possible PM (arising, for instance, from the Intergenerational Report and the associated issue of healthcare costs, his stance on the private health rebate). As I’ve remarked, his climate change policy, to be released tomorrow, will be framed by the Government as economic pie in the sky, which will reinforce perceptions turning up in focus groups that he’s a risky economic proposition.

And there’s no harm at all in geeing up your own troops in the face of the possibility of an Abbott ascension. That’s the flipside of the Women’s Weekly kerfuffle, which Labor will hope on one hand will play into perceptions that Abbott wants the state to intrude too far into private matters (which the Essential Research polling is showing up), and on the other, will prompt those of us who are very much agin this sort of thing to have a yarn to less committed friends and colleagues.

Update: Possum on Newspoll.

Update: Jonathan Green at The Drum.

Great big new tax scare campaign game: Two can play

Both the Government and the Coalition are publicly committed to a 5% emissions reduction target. Tony Abbott claims he will get there via ‘direct action’ and avoid the ‘great big new tax on everything’ – his characterisation of Labor’s ETS.

Kevin Rudd today:

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is warning voters that the coalition’s approach to climate change will be very costly.

He says the policy, to be unveiled by Opposition Leader Tony Abbott on Tuesday, will be a large tax with very little environmental impact.

‘One huge mega tax from Mr Abbott to fund his approach to climate change,’ Mr Rudd told the Nine Network.

When in doubt, muddy the waters?

According to the Abbotariat, the big problem with the Government’s approach is supposed to be that the public doesn’t, on the whole, understand the detail of the ETS. Kevin Rudd is betting that no one understands what Abbott’s proposing either. Labor’s line will be that Abbott’s claims that he can fund over 10 billion dollars of policy (according to the Department of Climate Change’s costings) through unspecified efficiencies are spurious, and that he would have to raise revenue to fund his promises. Labor, supposedly, won’t, because the ETS is meant to be budget neutral.

All this is fairly complex, but we won’t see much of that complexity debated in the public arena during an election year. Kevin Rudd’s playing one of the oldest tricks in the book – make your opponent deny something you claim they’re going to do, and hope that:

(a) they’re perceived as less trustworthy; and/or

(b) obfuscating the issue will make everyone discount it because neither side can be believed.

It’ll probably work.

Continue reading ‘Great big new tax scare campaign game: Two can play’

The Henry Review

A summary of Ken Henry’s tax review can be read at Peter Martin’s blog.

The report’s emphasis changed a fair deal along the way, a topic treated of by Martin in another post.

If you’ve been wondering why Kevin Rudd’s focus has recently been on the country a few decades hence, Henry provides the answers. The report frames its recommendations around the theme of an ageing and growing population. When the government responds, we’re likely to see further development of a point of contrast they want to hammer home in an election year; the claim that Rudd Labor has long term plans for Australia’s future while the Opposition plays base politics around the headline of the day. Much will also be made of proposals to raise more revenue from resources, something a nationalist and populist Coalition will have trouble countering, if they’re inclined to do so.

Make of that what you will.

Do they know it’s Christmas?

The summer holidays are perhaps the time of year when the dissonance between most people’s lived experience and the obsessions of the political and pundit class is most starkly on display.

While everyone else is lapping up the sun, or bemoaning having to go back to work, the drumbeat of ideological opinionistas’ fantasies taps away relentlessly on keyboards. The Australian’s op/ed page, for instance, appears to have been indulging itself in a bit of a contest to see if it can print 50 different ways to deny climate change in far fewer days.

And Tony Abbott’s been popping up all over the place. Just as with Rudd, he’s a new opposition leader installed just before an election year.

Let’s consider the contrast with Kevin Rudd, then and now.

Continue reading ‘Do they know it’s Christmas?’

The No Clean Feed campaign

Alex White has posted on what he describes as soul searching in the campaign against internet filtering about its direction. White’s post is replete with useful links, and is well worth a read. He disagrees with the focus on censorship, arguing that there are few points of connection with the lived experience of the public to shift opinion.

I’m not sure I agree.

White’s alternative messages focus on the ineffectuality of the filter, and its expense. However, that’s not, in my view, a persuasive theme for a public campaign. A lot of what the government does is ineffectual and expensive, and pointing this out also doesn’t necessarily create a public. It’s really just akin to the everyday niggling of oppositions and newspapers.

Any campaign does need an overarching theme, and this angle should be a subsidiary message.

The other question that needs to be posed is that of the audience. It’s no doubt right that few votes will shift in the right places to enable an argument to be made about an adverse electoral impact on Labor. White cites Possum and Bernard Keane. More broadly, findings from the AES over many years suggest that even the biggest issues only account for a few percentage points in vote switching at elections. For instance, the final data on the impact of WorkChoices (an issue which connects with lived experience, if there was ever one) on 2007 voting patterns hasn’t been fully analysed, but it’s unlikely to have been worth more than a couple of percent of the vote to the ALP. Labor strategists and pollies are well aware of this sort of thing.

The actual target for the No Clean Feed campaign needs to be non-Labor Senators. There, the issues of civil liberties and censorship are well chosen for their resonance with small l Liberals and The Greens. It’s also necessary to demonstrate that concern exists in the community beyond those who are active in the campaign itself, but this doesn’t need to be a clincher argument about seats falling in droves, which no one would believe. Rather, a point of connection with the messages particular parties want to send is necessary, and the best way to find that theme is to test it via polling and focus groups rather than speculate in a vacuum. The dilemma, though, that this causes for the campaign is that the most germane themes may not be the ones that resonate with activists in the campaign itself. So that needs to be balanced as well.

It’s a bit of a case study on the limitations, as well as the benefits, of crowdsourced campaigning.

Update: Colin Jacobs of the EFA responds on LP.

The polling trend

Although the new Newspoll (and presumably the Newspoll with the unpublished voting intention figures) shows a return to what has become normality with a 2PP of 56/44 in Labor’s favour, all the talk among the commentariat is of “the trend”.

We’ve seen umpteen “honeymoon is over” stories, with a sub-theme that Liberal research (no doubt being spruiked around the press gallery as we speak) demonstrates “doubts” about Kevin Rudd.

But what of this trend?

Possum illuminates the story:

Interestingly enough, while the volatility has been pretty high, the actual polling trends tell a slightly more boring and probably realistic story – the period where asylum seekers have dominated the media cycle has seen 2 points knocked off the government’s two party preferred on both the all pollster and phone pollster trend measures.

With polling showing a divided public on the asylum seeker issue (and not evenly divided along party lines), it would be wrong to infer people on boats is the reason for this relatively small movement (and even more wrong to conclude it’s just because Rudd isn’t “tough” enough). It’s equally plausible to conclude that it may be just because the government looks a bit messy – which is, in part, an artefact of the media coverage. Though that’s not to say that the Ruddster’s own messaging efforts aren’t part of the picture.

But I’d be very reticent about claiming “Liberals back in the game” at this stage.

Asylum seeker rhetorics

There’s been a bit of a debate over the rhetorical dimension of the government’s messages about asylum seekers. Is Kevin Rudd playing bad cop to Stephen Smith’s good cop? With Senator Chris Evans as straight man, and loud denunciator of the evils of the opposition’s inhumanity… (They richly deserve the condemnation, though. Even Malcolm Turnbull looked embarrassed trying on his Howardian “we will decide who comes to this country” lines in parliament the other day).

The truth is that this scenario is probably about right. It’s all part of the Rudd government’s famous balancing act.

But the more important questions go unanswered. Why are no political leaders prepared to speak the truth about why there’s so much angst out there about asylum seekers in the first place. Why won’t commentators stop hiding behind characterisations of the issue as “emotional”? (And I heard two journos on the ABC radio this morning dancing around the topic, while seeming to pat themselves on the back over the cleverness of the phrase “the Indonesian solution”.)

Bob Ellis puts these questions plainly:

Am I alone in finding this bizarre? If letting “these people” in is a disastrous idea, can we name one, just one, who shouldn’t be here? Who has proved a bad citizen? Just one? If not, what are we talking about? Who are we protecting ourselves from? Why are we burning their rescuers’ boats? If the refugees were Swiss or Belgian or white South Africans or white Zimbabweans, would we be making this fuss? If there were votes lost taking them why did Peter Andren triple his majority in 2001, three months after Tampa, by saying we should let them in? Argued his case well, I guess.

Ruddblog

Kevin Rudd has started blogging.

There’s some commentary on this development from Stilgherrian and in the Fairfax broadsheets.

Update: Peter Martin observes that the Ruddblog comments policy includes among its lengthy list of prohibitions:

do not post overtly party political comment (eg. reference to candidates, fundraisers, support for political parties).

Alastair Campbell on Kevin Rudd and the media

As Kim observed in a recent post, the big story on Kevin Rudd’s recent BBC appearance as far as the Australian media was concerned was why he wanted to sit next to UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband rather than the Chinese ambassador. The substance of Rudd’s comments, as far as I can see (and I’m open to correction), wasn’t reported at all. It’s interesting to read Tony Blair’s former advisor and spinmeister Alastair Campbell writing in Crikey today on why Rudd created a bit of a buzz in London.

I think Kevin Rudd’s success on Sunday came from being rooted in a culture in which, though politicians will always be wary of media and vice versa, he is still able to see an interview as a place to make a series of big strategic points, not as a dull contest in which to secure a no-score draw is viewed as something close to triumph by the politicians, failure by the broadcasters, and plain dull by the public.

Let’s come back to that one.

I think Campbell has put his finger on something here:

…the gentle but firm pushing back on Marr’s opening question, which allowed Rudd to take control of the interview pretty much from then on in; and the explanation that just because the London Summit would not achieve everything did not mean it should be dismissed for achieving nothing.

Part of Rudd’s success as a communicator does, I think, come from delivering a modest and realistic message which runs counter to the normal all or nothing media perspective.

But while I have a fair degree of respect for Campbell, after reading his Diaries, I’m not at all sure the broader assessment of a contrast between political and media styles between us and the UK is accurate. Campbell’s perspective may be coloured by his own distaste for the UK tabloids and his particular beef with the Beeb. But there is no doubt that Kevin Rudd is an excellent political communicator, and it would be worthwhile in my view if analysis of his skills in this arena went beyond the observation that he knows how to repeat a soundbite.

Stormy waters on Campaign launch Sunday

As the Queensland election is buffeted off course by Cyclone Hamish and the oil spill, Lawrence Springborg has enjoyed more success in shaping the political message – Anna Bligh’s sos is being lost in the storm. There’s a conundrum here, as Bligh is not just more popular, but also arguably the better communicator, when not constrained by the dictates of the ALP apparat. I’ve taken a look at Pineapple Party Time at this phenomenon.

In other Queensland election reports at PPT, the latest Galaxy Poll is more bad news for Labor, the Leaders’ Debate was a bit of a fizzer, some think John Wanna may be a game-changer, and the two major party campaigns launch today.

Update: The Labor boat starts to leak.

The Overshadow

Props to Paul Burns for cooking up the latest apt nickname for Peter Costello – it says it all, really. If the Liberal Party thought they’d recovered from the political morass they sunk themselves into with the stimulus package naysaying, they’d be quite wrong. Most voters won’t be reading every single one of the five hundred or so articles about Costello’s continuing ambitions/frontbench refusal/refusal to comment in every single paper. But the Liberals have succeeded in conveying the message that they are opposed to doing anything much right now about the economic situation and that they’re much more interested in themselves. Good one.

Just how dire the gap between Liberal obsessions and public opinion is can be discerned from a perusal of Possum’s close reading of the figures in the latest Essential Research poll.

All this raises the question of Joe Hockey’s suitability for the Shadow Treasury. He’s been touted by Malcolm Turnbull as a “great communicator”. Opinions might reasonably differ on that. But if we accept the claim for the sake of argument, what exactly will be communicating?

It hasn’t escaped notice that Hockey’s elevation (and Christopher Pyne’s promotion) leaves a gaggle of “moderates” at the top of the opposition tree. Perhaps there’s a need to pacify the Liberal right by reciting endless mantras about the virtues of free markets (although again, whether the Howard government incarnated such virtues is surely dubious). The problem here is that “free markets” are, in the public mind, the cause of our current woes and pledging one’s faith in their wonderfulness is also coming across as code for… doing nothing. And waiting for the economy to tank.

I’ve always argued that to claim that Malcolm Turnbull has an “economic strategy” is to stretch words beyond the limit of their meanings. Continue reading ‘The Overshadow’