Tuesday, 24 May 2016

Michelle Grattan's campaign diary on a Liberal miscalculation

The Liberals may have miscalculated Turnbull's electoral appeal


Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

Finally, Clive Palmer has formally put a full stop to his personal political career, announcing on Monday he won’t be running for the Senate.

Palmer United Party (PUP) will still field Senate candidates, including its sole senator, Dio Wang. But if he or any other PUP candidate fluked a Senate seat, it would surely be unlikely Palmer would have influence with them.

The bizarre Palmer experiment appears to be well and truly over. The former member for Fairfax spent a fortune to win a slice of national political power, and then spectacularly lost that power. He won’t be missed. The Palmer story has morphed into one about the financial havoc he has wrought.

But the PUP vote, especially in the vital state of Queensland where in 2013 the new party polled some 11% of the House of Representatives vote and nearly 10% in the Senate (winning a Senate seat), will be keenly sought. ABC electoral analyst Antony Green says in 2013 PUP garnered votes from Labor and from the Greens in Queensland but “there is not research on who the Palmer voters were” and on July 2 this vote “will be up for grabs”.

Where the vote will go now PUP is discredited is one of many uncertainties at the start of the campaign’s third week.

Saturday’s Fairfax Ipsos poll (51-49% in the Coalition’s favour) and Monday’s Newspoll (49-51% against the Coalition) show a neck-and-neck race in the broad polls. When they toppled Tony Abbott in September Liberal MPs probably expected they would be a good deal better placed now than represented by these figures.

A couple of things may be going on here.

Government strategists suggest the national polls mask a rather different back story. The Coalition is doing better in the marginal seats, they say, where its economic message is getting across well. It’s the marginals in which elections are won and lost and what’s happening there is of prime concern to the parties.

The Liberals may be “spinning” or telling the truth – it is hard to know. Public polling done in marginals is usually very hit and miss when tested against the later outcomes.

But worrying for the Coalition, based on Malcolm Turnbull’s tumbling personal ratings in recent months, is that the Liberals may have miscalculated what would be Turnbull’s electoral appeal when they installed him in September.

It wouldn’t be the first time that a party over-estimated what a leadership change would bring in terms of votes. Polling analyst John Stirton says “leaders tend to be more popular in exile than in office”, citing the Andrew Peacock/John Howard opposition experience through the 1980s.

In 1989 the Liberals dumped Howard for Peacock, looking for an electoral transformation. Peacock performed less well than they hoped and could not match Bob Hawke at the 1990 election.

In 2010 Labor had a panic attack, fuelled by frustration with Kevin Rudd’s style, and dumped him for Julia Gillard who, in part because she was undermined by Rudd, ended up in minority government after that year’s election.

And before that, in 2008, the Liberals had been persuaded by Turnbull’s high popularity ratings, so much better than those of then-opposition leader Brendan Nelson, only to see those figures fall after he became leader.

A number of factors can be identified as to why Turnbull currently is not fulfilling what his backers saw as his promise.

He’s had to, or has chosen to, compromise on the policy positions with which he was identified. He has lived with Tony Abbott’s “direct action” on climate and same-sex marriage plebiscite.

It has confused some voters who want to get a fix on him and what he stands for, and alienated others who were convinced they had that fix and now find he’s not just slid away but embraced some positions – such as a hard line on people on Nauru and Manus Island – that they thought he would eschew.

“I want the old Malcolm back,” lamented a questioner on the ABC’s Q&A on Monday night.

This is part of a wider phenomenon of disappointed expectations. People anticipated Turnbull would deliver a lot more. Some of the expectations arose just because he was Turnbull, with all the hype that brought.

In other cases, for example on tax reform, he raised the prospect of big things and then stepped back. A man whom some saw as rather extraordinary – in a good way – came to look dishearteningly ordinary.

Turnbull’s style, so attractive to aficionados, may also be less suited to a campaign in these times than the more down-to-earth approach of Bill Shorten. Turnbull often talks in grandiose terms; Shorten, with his mantras about education and health, may be closer to people’s immediate concerns. Shorten appears at home on the campaign trial; Turnbull, less so. The suburban shopping centres don’t look like Turnbull’s natural habitat.

And a campaign helps elevate an opposition leader, especially if he is performing competently.

So as Turnbull’s net approval has fallen and Shorten’s has risen, they have come to the point where they have a shared distinction – they are equally disapproved of. Each has a net approval rating of minus 12.

Even though he may look the less comfortable campaigner, Turnbull retains a substantial advantage in this long race. He is defending a mountain of seats while Shorten has the considerably harder task of wresting them away. In addition he has a large, albeit eroding, margin as preferred prime minister.

And for Liberals who might be looking rather bleakly at those national polls, they can always contemplate where they’d be if it were Abbott confronting Shorten.



The Conversation

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Friday, 20 May 2016

Peter Brent - a twitterer with the courage of his ...

The political speculator's diary: Peter Brent - a twitterer with the courage of his ...: I don't know why Peter Brent's mumble blog no longer appears on the website of The Australian . Perhaps his commentary was too interesting

Money keeps coming for the Coalition to win Australian election

The political speculator's diary: Money keeps coming for the Coalition to win Austra...: I look at the signals of a weakening economy show by ABS figures on low wages growth and the decline in the number of hours being worked. I ...

Thursday, 19 May 2016

The political speculator's diary: An alternative view to mine on the UK leaving the ...

The political speculator's diary: An alternative view to mine on the UK leaving the ...: For a different perspective to mine on the prospective outcome of the UK referendum on whether to leave or stay in the European Union:  Why...

Wednesday, 18 May 2016

Education for political journalists: spend time sitting behind the one way mirror

Reading, watching and listening to journalists today as they reacted to Peter Dutton's comments on the literacy and numeracy of prospective asylum seekers reminded me of one of the most dispiriting periods of my time in politics. I was allowed to sit behind the one way mirror as a skilled researcher chatted with several groups of swinging voters about what they thought of the issues of the day and what influenced their views.
For 30 years I had practised my journalistic craft and imagined that my words of wisdom influenced what my readers thought. How ego pricking it was to hear ordinary and often intelligent Australians explain how they turned the page when they saw a headline about electoral politics. Words of wisdom they might have been but influence they had not.
And it was not just newspapers that the voters generally ignored. Talking heads on television fared no better. The words of last night's news were not remembered with just an occasional memory of the subject matter suggested by the background pictures. And as for radio? When it comes to influence, politicians should forget it. The minority that were not normally listening to music chose the talking host who best suited an existing prejudice.
My verdict, based on this experience, is that Immigration and Border Force Minister Dutton's comments will have absolutely no influence on what happens on 2 July. Voting intentions are not influenced by the daily reactions of journalists desperate for something different to write or say. They are the result of an osmosis - a subtle, gradual absorption of views that, unfortunately for political pundits, are difficult to determine.

Thursday, 28 April 2016

A Green Ignored. Why is it so?

I went today to a National Press Club lunch, a rare thing for me, and heard one of the better political speeches of my experience. Greens Leader Senator Richard Di Natale came close to convincing me that I should abandon the habits of a life time and vote for someone other than Labor.
Be that as it may. A matter of little consequence in the scheme of things. But what did surprise me was the absence of coverage of Senator di Natale's address on tonight's television news.
I despair that a thoughtful and considered addressing of the policies Australia needs was so totally ignored by the television media

Tuesday, 19 April 2016

The comic cuts of The Canberra Times

Life must be frustrating for the intelligent person who writes editorials for The Canberra Times. In this new media world without sub-editors the practice is to cut from the bottom when the words are too many for the available space. The result is to leave newspaper readers hanging without the editorial's relevant conclusion.
The example from today's edition compared to the full version as published on the paper's website:

As printed
The website version with the missing conclusion

A classic example of what happens when you get rid of sub editors who actually read things before cutting them to fit the available space. The Canberra Times editorial this morning just left off the conclusion thus making the whole thing irrelevant.

Here's another example I posted on my Facebook site earlier this month: