Why the ALP should return to the Hawke and Keating period of electoral governance

Recently, there has been a lot of talk about the ALP returning to the Hawke and Keating method of electoral governance in relation to solving the ALP’s problems of the present day.

On one side, there are people like Simon Crean, Bill Kelty and to a lesser extent Mark Latham who want to return to that mode of electoral governance and on the side there are people like Bob Carr who say that the ALP shouldn’t get nostalgic about the period. There are also people like Ken Henry who say that the Hawke and Keating period had as heated a political atmosphere over policy issues as the one that dominates politics in the current day.

As a member of Generation Y (an age group that never really experienced the Hawke and Keating government), I understand first hand why the ALP must embrace the Hawke and Keating mode of electoral governance.

When I went through my schooling years, John Howard was Prime Minister for pretty much the entire time. The only memories I have of political events centered around his Prime Ministership (the only other political figure I remember clearly when I went to Primary School was Pauline Hanson). When I finished my Bachelor Degree in late 2008, Kevin Rudd had been the Prime Minister for less than one year.

Politics to my generation before 2008 WAS John Howard. No one else. You might have heard a little bit about Kim Beazely or Simon Crean or Mark Latham, but they never won elections. Howard was the Prime Minister and he was the one who was making the decisions.

With that in mind, lets look at what the electorate in the present day considers the most important election issues. This is from the Essential Media Communications poll from February 11th 2013 (there were a lot of issues listed, however for the purposes of space, I’ve narrowed it down to the top three. If you want to see the full table, click on the link below).

Q. Which are the three most important issues in deciding how you would vote at a Federal election?

	25 Jan 10	6 June 11	5 Dec 11	30 July 12	19 Nov 12	11 Feb 13
Management of the economy	63%	61%	62%	64%	65%	62%
Ensuring a quality education for all children	23%	26%	22%	26%	35%	29%
Ensuring the quality of Australia’s health system	48%	49%	47%	47%	57%	52%

As the table above shows economic management is clearly judged as the most important issue in deciding people’s vote at a federal election with ensuring the quality of Australia’s health system number two and a distant third is ensuring a quality education for all children.

Here’s how the party’s compare on each of these issues at the present moment.

Q. Which party would you trust most to handle the following issues?

	Labor	Liberal	Greens	Don’t know	Difference 11 Feb 13
Management of the economy	31%	46%	3%	21%	-15%
Ensuring a quality education for all children	37%	35%	6%	22%	+2%
Ensuring the quality of Australia’s health system	33%	36%	6%	25%	-3%

As we can see, there’s not much difference between Labor and the Liberal Party on issues like education and health (which is not normal as usually Labor would be dominating the Liberal Party on these issues), but on the economy, there’s a major gap between the two major party’s with the Liberals leading Labor by 15%.

The Australian economy right now is the envy of the world given everything that has happened since the Global Financial Crisis in 2008 and 2009, yet the ALP hasn’t benefited politically from it.

What the Liberal Party have done over the last five years or so is frame Howard and Costello as the ones who gave Australia the strong position from which to deal with the Global Financial Crisis and the ALP as wasting the surpluses they accumulated over 11 years in government and plunging the nation into debt and deficit.

“Budget surpluses” = good economic management. “Debt and deficit” = bad economic management. That’s all the Liberal Party have done: word association.

So when most people my age hear this sort of message, they feel extremely insecure about the ALP’s economic credentials because all they remember is Howard and Costello being “good” with the economy. The facts don’t matter, all that matters is what gets triggered in the brain.

So when someone like me in 2008, when I didn’t know anything about politics, thinks about the ALP government and the economy, they had been emotionally primed over an 11 year period to feel insecure about the ALP’s ability to handle worldwide economic meltdown. They might have trusted the ALP more than the Liberal Party on issues like health and education, but they’re not as powerful issues as an issue like the economy (as the tables above demonstrate).

The simple fact of the matter is during that 11 year period, there was no real authoritative challenge to Howard and Costello on the economy. It might have been mentioned here or there, but they were never wrestled to the ground and taken apart.

With all of that in mind, when someone my age, in 2008 sees a clip like the one below, it’s an extreme breath of fresh air because it puts Howard and the Liberal Party into perspective on economic issues.

People my age have no idea that Howard was Treasurer between 1977 and 1983 let alone presided over a recession during that period. It doesn’t matter if the facts Keating states in the clip above are accurate or not (they mostly are accurate), the fact is that this was a genuine contest and the ALP were landing real blows against the Liberal Party on the issue of economic management.

The reason Tony Abbott is able to get away with a lot of the rhetoric about returning to the “golden years” of economic management under the Howard government is because there isn’t anyone in the federal ALP leadership challenging or taking apart his and the Liberal Party’s legacy from the middle.

My age group has no idea what the Hawke or Keating government did to Australia in the 13 years they were in government. They have no idea how they fundamentally changed Australia and set up the conditions for over 20 years of economic growth without a recession (my generation hasn’t directly experienced a recession, which is something to keep in mind) and how Howard and Costello sat on their hands for their period in government and did bugger all except implement a Goods and Services Tax (GST) and WorkChoices.

All they know is the Howard years were apparently good years for the economy and the ALP apparently don’t know what they’re doing.

It’s for this reason the current ALP government needs to rediscover the way Hawke and Keating communicated their strong economic credentials to the electorate because quite frankly my age group … (no let me rephrase that) … the entire Australian community doesn’t seem to have a clue!

Values rhetoric: what the “class warfare” name calling is really about

The big talking points from the last few weeks in relation to federal politics have been around the apparent split in the ALP over compulsory superannuation and whether taxing the top two percent of income earners constitutes “class warfare.”

In a previous post, I made it clear that I’m not a policy person. I honestly don’t know whether what the government plans to do in relation to compulsory superannuation is good, not good or somewhere in between.

My understanding is that compulsory superannuation was a policy enacted by the ALP in the 1980’s and 1990’s to turn every member of the workforce into a capitalist and make every working person responsible for their own destiny by making it possible for them to pay for their own retirement rather than relying solely on the pension in their old age.

It had both micro and a macro objectives. The micro objectives revolved around making sure everyone maintained a decent standard of living by providing them with an annuity income to sustain themselves for the rest of their lives after they retired from the workforce (most of this objective got lost during the Howard period of government) and the macro objectives related to issues like the demographics of Australia in the 21st century, making sure wages growth and inflation were under control, building the financial services industry and giving the union movement a renewed purpose in the information age.

This policy has created a $1.5 trillion industry in Australia and is one of the most important economic reforms of any government (ALP or Coalition) in the country’s history.

The actual policy is not the issue I want to address in this post as what I’ve written above is pretty much all that I know in relation to it.

What is very interesting to observe is people who are experts on policy feeling extremely depressed about the national political conversation devolving to petty name calling and accusations of “class warfare” when what the current ALP government is doing in a policy sense is no different to what the Hawke and Keating government did when they were in power.

For example: the current ALP government has tripled the tax-free threshold under its carbon pricing policy, yet this gets derided as “class warfare” and socialism when it’s taking one million people out of the tax system!

How is taking one million people out of the tax system “class warfare?”

The reason it gets lumped in this sort of category and all of that other “bad stuff” the political “right” often accuses the political “left” of doing to the economy has zero to do with the actual policies the government is implementing. The reason it happens is mostly because of the values rhetoric coming from the ALP and more specifically the constituency they’re targeting in their communications!

The mere act of writing that last paragraph probably puts me at risk of being strangled by people dealing with extremely complex policy issues as it trivialises what they do for a living and the many years they’ve spent mastering such knowledge in order to provide value to the community, but it’s the truth!

When Paul Keating talks about compulsory superannuation, you’ll hear him talk in terms of financial capitalism, why it’s strange that the Coalition are opposed to universal compulsory retirement savings when such a policy would be the dream of pretty much every conservative political party around the world.

While doing this, Keating will often tell the personal story of how Reagan economic adviser Martin Feldstein told him that the Republicans would have kissed the Democrats if they had gotten the union movement to agree to the entire workforce saving 1% of their income for retirement let alone 9% with an agreement to get it to 15% and how strange the Coalition were to back-flip on their 1996 election promise to take the super guarantee charge to 15% of employees incomes when it was already agreed to by the union movement and they would have been the beneficiaries of any political benefits resulting from the change.

When saying these sorts of things, Keating isn’t only targeting what you’d consider the average ALP “base” voter. He’s targeting a much larger audience and aligning the ALP’s values to what they value.

When the current government talks about superannuation, all they talk about is making sure that everyone gets a “fair go” and it being an important “Labor” reform. The values rhetoric, the communication style and who the messages are targeted at are entirely different.

Another example is industrial relations. When the Keating government talked about enterprise bargaining, the emphasis of the message was on moving away from the old centralised wage fixing system and towards a system that was focused on productivity while making sure no one got left behind (which is why the “no disadvantage test” was a key part of the policy and one of the big differences between it and WorkChoices).

At the time, this was considered extremely radical. Keating will often describe the process of implementing the policy as similar to “putting the union movement in a headlock and pulling out their rotten teeth with an old pair of pliers.”

When the current government introduced the Fair Work Act, the policy wasn’t that much different to the Keating enterprise bargaining system, yet the policy is derided as a return to the old union biased centralised wage fixing system and all the bad things that were associated with it (wages breakouts, high inflation, declining productivity etc, etc, etc) without any evidence or data.

Maybe this is because the business community and certain sections of the media are angry that the government got rid of WorkChoices and want to punish the ALP out of spite.

I take a different view.

The reason there is now a call from within the ALP for a return to the Hawke/Keating method of governance has nothing to do with the policies of the current government. It’s entirely due to the values rhetoric, communication and tone coming from the current ALP leadership team and their supporters, how it’s unsustainable and how it’s contributed significantly to the ALP government’s significant decline in support.

The reason the Fair Work Act gets derided so much by certain sections of the media and the business community is not because of the policy itself. That was evident in the QANTAS dispute in November 2011. The reason it gets derided so much is because certain people in the ALP want to pretend that the policy IS centralised wage fixing in order to play to a certain constituency that they are extremely insecure about holding as their positions and power rely on their patronage and belief in the status quo.

In short: the ALP’s messaging isn’t targeting the entire Australian community. They are only focusing their messaging towards the ALP base and the union movement.

The battle right now that is going on between people like Simon Crean, Martin Ferguson and others on one side and Julia Gillard, Wayne Swan and others on the other side is not one over policy.

The current policy “debate” the ALP are engaged in publicly is merely a sideshow for the real issue which revolves around the party’s long-term electoral strategy. Whenever the Hawke/Keating model is invoked by anyone, it’s really a call to end the ALP’s relentless obsession with targeting their communication to the base and their supporters and start focusing on what resonates with the rest of Australia as well as a reduction of union influence both on and within the party.

Had Hawke or Keating been accused of class warfare, they would have laughed at it because their messaging and values rhetoric was immune to such accusations and whoever was making them would simply look ridiculous. The reason the current government gets bogged down by it is because their messaging and values rhetoric is targeted squarely at “the base.” There is no persuasion mechanism to get people who aren’t voting for the ALP to vote for the ALP.

You’ll often hear Wayne Swan talk about the “fair go” while attacking billionaires such as Clive Palmer, Gina Rinehart and Andrew ‘Twiggy’ Forrest. When the ALP are labelled divisive, this is an example of what’s causing it.

What the ALP should be doing is demonstrating how without their governance and economic stewardship during the events of the global financial crisis, their investments in infrastructure, the productive workforce and the Australian community these people wouldn’t be billionaires.

I think they should be showing how the ALP made these people rich through their actions while framing prosperity and economic aspiration as a concept that can only be achieved by an active, pragmatic government rather than deriding these people as “not one of the base” and taking every opportunity to attack them for that fact.

This week’s poll from Essential Media Communications (2nd April 2013) asked respondents to rate both the ALP and the Liberal Party in relation to what attributes they associated with them. One of the most telling results was on the “divided” attribute.

Here’s the ALP’s results:

	6 July 09	14 Mar 10	27 April 11	28 May 12	2 April 13	Change since Jul 09
Divided	30%	36%	66%	73%	82%	+52%

As we can see, the divided attribute has gone up 52% since July 2009. Over the last few weeks, it’s become very evident that the divide is far more than a mere personality contest over the leadership of the party. There is a real divide over policy in the ALP that has manifested itself the public debate and they have been unable to resolve it over the past three years.

Here’s the Liberal Party’s results:

	6 July 09	14 Mar 10	27 April 11	28 May 12	2 April 13	Change since Jul 09
Divided	74%	66%	49%	37%	32%	+42%

This table shows that the Liberals divided attribute has fallen from 42% from 74% in July 2009 to 32% now.

I think the reason for the sharp rise in the divided attribute rating for the ALP and the sharp fall in the rating for the Liberal Party is because of values rhetoric. The ALP has forgotten where the splits are in the Liberal Party’s ideology and allowed them to unite as a party against anything the ALP propose, implement or stand for.

One of the reasons the Hawke and Keating government were able to win five elections was because they knew how to take large chunks of the Liberal Party’s philosophy and values (open markets, competition, productivity, achievement, excellence, entrepreneurial spirit) and then re-frame them on progressive, socially democratic terms.

The current ALP government seems to have forgotten how to do that. Policy positions on issues and values rhetoric are not the same thing! Tony Abbott understands this which explains why he has made such a big deal out of campaigning around blue collar, manufacturing, unionised areas and making it clear he won’t reintroduce radical free market policies such as WorkChoices.

While the ALP primary vote remains below 38%, expect the values rhetoric battles within the ALP such as the present one over “taxing” compulsory superannuation contributions to continue.

Remember to tune in for next week’s episode of “ALP Values Rhetoric Debates on public display” featuring an all time favourite of many: asylum seeker policy! … “<inaudible>”

Tuned out

I have found it extremely difficult to write about politics over the last two weeks without invoking the Gillard/Rudd leadership contest which had/has subsumed the national political conversation.

Many people have very passionate and different views on this issue. Some of my views are summarised here and here.

From what I’ve observed since the events of last Thursday, I believe both dynamics (conscious and unconscious invoking of Kevin Rudd from all sides of the political spectrum and the negative predisposition prism towards Julia Gillard’s leadership) are still very much in play despite all that has happened and all that was said because nothing really got resolved except for a very short term resolution to the superficial leadership contest.

The deep structural issues (the REAL drivers behind what happened) were simply far too difficult for the ALP as an organisation to deal with and they were swept under the carpet, waiting to come out at the next available opportunity.

The “insiders/outsiders” analogy is often mentioned in relation to politics in order to describe the differences between those who pay attention to what is happening politically or are involved in “the game” and those who pay little or no attention for various reasons and have no active political engagement. I don’t like using this analogy however I think it’s an apt way of looking at things for the present moment.

Federal politics has become a game of “insiders” and most of the national political conversation has become completely divorced from the way most people live their lives day to day. Last week amplified this “insiders game” by at least a factor of ten.

While this remains the case, the majority of people will simply remain tuned out.

Defining what you aren’t by defining what you are

Last night, Channel 9’s 60 Minutes program did an interview with Tony Abbott.

During the interview he used phrases like “we’re in a better space” and “I’ve certainly said some things which I wouldn’t say now” while linking it to certain things that families value such as “cohesion.”

Whether Abbott believes any of this is irrelevant to his purposes for giving the interview.

Whenever Abbott talks about himself now, it is always about defining what Prime Minister Gillard is and represents on his terms.

Here are some examples:

• “We’re in a good space” = “Gillard’s in a bad space.”

• “I’ve certainly said some things which I wouldn’t say now” = “Gillard’s said some things in the past she hasn’t admitted”

• “Because like everyone who’s had a long time in public life – in particular – I’ve changed and I’d like to think that I’ve grown” = “Gillard isn’t like everyone who’s had a long time in public life – she hasn’t changed and she hasn’t grown”

And so on!

Whether it reflects the truth or not is none of Abbott’s concern. All he and the professional people who manage him behind the scenes care about is getting these points across by any means necessary. This is the Coalition’s new way of attacking Gillard: define what you aren’t by defining what you are!

They don’t even bother mentioning Gillard anymore because they’ve spent the last two years or so building the system of negative judgement in the public’s mind which is aimed directly towards any decisions she makes and every word she says. Since the beginning of the year, they seem to be confident that they’ve successfully deployed that system and they can focus on other things.

The big trigger point from the interview was that he had “softened” his views on issues like women’s rights and marriage equality partly due to the influence of his lesbian sister.

He has spent around 35 years of his political career creating an image for himself as a “right wing warrior” with nicknames like “Captain Catholic” and “Howard’s Headkicker” while writing books with titles like “How To Win a Constitutional War” and “Battlelines” only now to contradict it all by saying that deep down he’s really always been a bleeding heart lefty feminist who believes in social justice!

Whether he can convince the electorate that he’s changed is irrelevant as that’s not the purpose of this sort of interview. This is just another example of Abbott controlling the frame of the issues in the national conversation. This time, he’s doing it as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. He doesn’t care about how he’s viewed, so long as he’s controlling the framing of all the communication.

Support something progressives support, get attacked by progressives because it’s “Tony being a fraud!” I have gone over this before in relation to Abbott’s chief of staff receiving IVF treatments. It’s all reliant on progressives attacking him over it.

He has no problems with mentioning marriage equality because his position is very firm and softening it can only make him look slightly reasonable. More to the point, Abbott knows that any such conversation on the issue ultimately will get targeted at Prime Minister Gillard and will continue to attract the negative predisposition prism that has enveloped her leadership.

It’s the same deal with everything else that comes out of his mouth.

The rest of the interview was simply noise that had no relevance to people except for Channel 9 to flog some advertising.

The negative predisposition prism – Prime Minister Gillard’s major problem

The negative predisposition prism is what happens when every decision a leader or a public figure makes is seen as negative or bad regardless of whether people agree or disagree with what that leader or public figure is saying.

I believe Julia Gillard’s major problem isn’t exactly one of the “correct” policies or the “correct” messaging. They are definitely problems but I think they have stemmed from the negative predisposition prism the public has of her at an interpersonal level and this has enveloped her leadership and how she is judged by the community.

First we’ll look at Julia Gillard’s approval ratings. Here’s the question from the Essential Media Communications poll from February 11th 2013:

Q. Do you approve or disapprove of the job Julia Gillard is doing as Prime Minister?

	19 Jul 10	20 Dec	14 Mar 11	14 June	12 Sept	12 Dec	12 Mar 12	12 Jun	10 Sept	10 Dec	14 Jan 13	11 Feb
Total approve	52%	43%	41%	34%	28%	34%	32%	32%	35%	37%	41%	36%
Total disapprove	30%	40%	46%	54%	64%	54%	61%	56%	54%	53%	49%	55%
Strongly approve	11%	10%	7%	6%	5%	6%	8%	6%	7%	10%	9%	7%
Approve	41%	33%	34%	28%	23%	28%	24%	26%	28%	27%	32%	29%
Disapprove	17%	24%	22%	29%	28%	25%	29%	22%	27%	25%	23%	25%
Strongly disapprove	13%	16%	24%	25%	36%	29%	32%	34%	27%	28%	26%	30%
Don’t know	18%	17%	13%	13%	8%	11%	7%	12%	11%	11%	10%	9%

As we can see, Julia Gillard had a net approval rating of +22 on July 19th 2010. By the 12th of September 2011, her approval had plummeted to -36. It remained very bad for the next year or so before recovering to -8 on January 14th 2013.

The popular view is the recovery in Gillard’s numbers in the third and fourth quarters last year was due to the widespread coverage and positive reaction from the public to the “misogyny speech” although I suspect it might have something to do with the public’s emotional reaction to certain policies such as the carbon and mining taxes filtering through the system.

In other words: doom was anticipated, but when these policies became active, people didn’t feel the doom that was associated with them.

Last month, according to the Essential Media Communications poll, Gillard’s net approval rating returned to where it’s been for the last two or so years which is around -19.

Pretty much all of the latest publicly available opinion polls show the same thing in relation to Gillard’s approval rating:

Newspoll – 22nd-24th of February 2013: -28

AC Nielsen – 14th-16th of February 2013: -16

Galaxy – 1st-3rd of February 2013: -19

These polls all show similar numbers and overall there is a very solid level of disapproval for Julia Gillard in the electorate.

Next we’ll look at some more Essential Media Communications polling that asked about leader attributes in relation to Julia Gillard from January 14th, 2013:

Q. Which of the following describe your opinion of the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard?

	5 Jul 10	4 Oct 10	7 Feb 11	27 Jun 11	2 Apr 12	17 Sept 12	14 Jan 13	Change since 5 Jul 2010
Intelligent	87%	81%	75%	73%	61%	68%	72%	-15%
Hard-working	89%	82%	76%	75%	65%	69%	72%	-17%
A capable leader	72%	59%	52%	42%	38%	43%	50%	-22%
Arrogant	37%	39%	44%	48%	53%	46%	47%	+10%
Out of touch with ordinary people	35%	44%	50%	60%	65%	56%	53%	+18%
Understands the problems facing Australia	68%	55%	52%	44%	41%	43%	47%	-19%
Visionary	48%	38%	30%	26%	25%	31%	29%	-19%
Superficial			51%	52%	54%	46%	46%	From Feb 2011: -5
Good in a crisis	61%	46%	46%	41%	36%	43%	50%	-11%
Narrow-minded	28%	35%	43%	46%	53%	46%	45%	+17%
More honest than most politicians	45%	37%	37%	29%	26%	31%	30%	-15%
Trustworthy	49%	42%	40%	30%	25%	30%	32%	-17%
Intolerant	–	–	–	–	–	37%	37%	Since Sept 2012: N/A
Aggressive	–	–	–	–	–	42%	46%	Since Sept 2012:+4%
Erratic	–	–	–	–	–	43%	40%	Since Sept 2012: -3%

Essential Media Communications usually shows the changes against what these figures showed the previous time they asked the question. I’ve altered it slightly to show the changes from when the 2010 election was announced in July 2010 to get a more long-term picture.

What this shows is that since Julia Gillard announced the previous election in July 2010, her numbers in relation to leadership attributes have fallen on attributes that would be considered positive (intelligent, hard-working, a capable leader, understands the problems facing Australia, visionary, good in a crisis, more honest than most politicians, trustworthy) and risen on attributes that would be considered negative (arrogant, out of touch with ordinary people, narrow-minded).

It’s the change in the number rather than the % of respondents that associate a particular attribute with her leadership that tells the story.

From all of the above, it’s fair to say that the public’s view of Julia Gillard has deteriorated rapidly over the past few years.

So the PM’s unpopular. So what?

Paul Keating was unpopular and won “the unwinnable election” in 1993. John Howard was unpopular and won four elections. Tony Abbott is unpopular as well. Doesn’t this mean Julia Gillard can overcome these numbers?

To answer this question, we have to know whether Julia Gillard has the ability to persuade people to vote for the ALP instead of the Coalition or anyone else who isn’t the ALP.

Firstly we’ll look at Essential Media Communications’s question on whether this government deserves to be re-elected from February 25th, 2013:

Q. As of now, do you think the current Federal Labor Government of Julia Gillard deserves to be re-elected?

	Total	Vote Labor	Vote Lib/Nat	Vote Greens
Yes, deserves to be re-elected	26%	66%	4%	31%
No, does not deserve to be re-elected	57%	17%	88%	38%
Don’t know	17%	17%	8%	31%

Look at the response from Liberal and National voters. Only 4% of Liberal and National Party voters believes this government, led by Julia Gillard, deserves to be re-elected and 88% believe they don’t deserve to be re-elected!

By itself, that says a lot.

This week the Prime Minister went on a mini campaign through ALP electorates in Western Sydney. A ReachTEL poll (1st March, 2013) asked voters who live in the area whether the visit was more or less likely to get them to vote for the ALP. Here was the response:

The Prime Minister Julia Gillard is making a special visit to Western Sydney, has this visit made you more or less likely to vote for Labor?

	Total	Labor	Liberal	Greens	KAP	Oth
More likely	14.4%	37.2%	3.0%	17.8%	17.6%	9.3%
Less likely	43.5%	12.8%	60.0%	25.4%	41.2%	44.3%
Vote unchanged	42.1%	50.0%	37.0%	56.8%	41.2%	46.4%

Only 14.4% of the total response said they were more likely to vote ALP from this visit. Of that number on 3% of those voters were identified as Liberal! This is compared to a whopping 85.6% of respondents who were either less likely to vote ALP (43.5%) or not change their vote (42.1%). Of the voters who were identified as Liberal, 60% said they were less likely to vote ALP from the visit and 37% said their vote would be unchanged. Granted this is just Western Sydney, but these kinds of figures are similar albeit slightly less profound across the country.

In terms of persuading voters, last week for the ALP has been yet another case of ‘the backfire effect!’

Next we’ll look at the response to a specific decision Gillard made recently. This is the Galaxy Research poll from February 1st-3rd, 2013 asking how voters viewed the decision to announce the election date well in advance of when it was due in order to provide the public with certainty:

Julia Gillard said that she announced the date of the federal election to end the speculation over when the poll will be held and to provide certainty to the country. Do you believe this explanation?

	Total	Labor	Coalition
Yes	41%	67%	21%
No	53%	25%	76%
Uncommitted	6%	8%	3%

Again, a very small number of Coalition voters believe Julia Gillard compared to a very large amount who don’t believe Julia Gillard. This is quite telling as it’s related to the word ‘certainty’ which is always a major issue for voters.

If you don’t feel certain about someone it’s very hard to trust them and if you don’t trust someone, it’s very hard to be persuaded by them regardless of the objective facts.

Finally, here’s Galaxy from the 15th – 17th of June 2012 on whether voters feel Labor is better or worse off since Julia Gillard replaced Kevin Rudd as Labor leader:

It’s been two years since Julia Gillard replaced Kevin Rudd as leader of the Labor Party. Overall, would you say that the Labor Government is now better or worse than it was two years ago under Kevin Rudd?

	Total	Labor	Liberal
Better	20%	42%	7%
Worse	64%	39%	83%
Uncommitted	16%	19%	10%

Only 7% of Liberal supporters feel the ALP is better since Julia Gillard replaced Kevin Rudd as Labor leader compared to 83% who feel they’re worse off! … It’s awfully difficult to persuade people to vote for you when the people you’re trying to persuade believe you’re going backwards!

Some would say “of course Liberal voters would say that. They’re gaming the polls!” In my opinion that’s pretty much impossible. Firstly, they’d have to pay as much attention to politics as your average “political tragic.” Then they’d have to believe in the same political/media industrial complex most “tragics” on all sides of politics seem to believe in passionately i.e the media influences public opinion and voting intention. After that, they’d have to think about it for a bit, then they’d have to be deliberately manipulative and so on. Most people simply aren’t involved enough to care about such deception.

The reason I’ve focused on Liberal respondents is because in order to win the next federal election, the ALP needs to persuade voters who are prepared to vote for the Liberal Party to vote for them instead.

What the above shows is that the voters needed to win, for the most part, have stopped listening to Julia Gillard.

It’s very difficult to persuade someone you need to vote for you to vote for you when they’ve stopped listening!

Enough polling!

On December 28th 2012, I attended Proclamation Day (the celebration of the day South Australia was proclaimed as a British Province in 1836) at the Old Gum Tree in Northern Glenelg where the Prime Minister gave a speech about her childhood and growing up in South Australia.

I asked a number of people who attended the barbecue afterwards about what they thought of the Prime Minister attending the event and what they thought of her speech. The word I got from pretty much everyone I asked was “political” and attached to “political” was anything related to her mentioning her childhood and improving living standards.

This is one of the words Julia Gillard’s leadership has been reduced to: “political.” When that word gets associated with a leader, it’s usually the final gong for anyone in public life. It means that anytime you attempt to talk about an issue you’re passionate about, it gets viewed as a cynical attempt to manipulate people rather than anything with any substance.

This is an example of what the negative predisposition prism does and once it’s firmly formed in a majority of people’s brains, it’s very difficult to get rid of it!

Let’s say the Prime Minister talks about the issue of improving education standards and how she believes education is the key to raising people’s well-being and making sure children have a bright and prosperous future. That sounds like a very positive, clear statement of priorities. The public response to this kind of statement tends to be a whole group of questions related to education policy i.e funding the Gonski Review recommendations, why Australia is falling behind global competitors in literacy and numeracy standards etc. Even if Julia Gillard answers these sorts of questions honestly (and in my opinion, she always does), the predisposition to her answers is dissatisfaction. It doesn’t matter whether they agree or disagree. The button in the brain that is pushed is dissatisfaction.

In a previous post, I mentioned how when a hole is opened on a particular policy issue, it spreads to pretty much every other policy issue and forms a system that is insanely difficult to break. For example if you’re perceived to have told a lie on a policy issue like the carbon tax, the belief that trust has been broken spreads into pretty much every other issue like a virus. The exact same thing has happened to beliefs in relation to Julia Gillard’s leadership.

First there was the views in relation to how she became leader. Imagery such as knifing Kevin Rudd made people very suspicious of her motives. Then there was everything that happened during the 2010 election campaign such as “the real Julia” which added to the uncertainty about what she stood for. Then there was the hung parliament result which lead to a range of negative vectors being established in relation to her leadership and the ALP as a party such as illegitimacy, deal making and compromise.

Then there was the announcement of the carbon “tax” which the Coalition spent six months connecting to the words “lie” and “liar.” This played on themes such as social license, the people’s mandate, trust and uncertainty.

Then we had the flip-flopping on asylum seeker policy and the petty arguments about the power of the executive and the power of the judiciary in deciding what is lawful and unlawful in relation to the issue (no one likes a legal argument).

Then we had the perceived instability in the parliamentary numbers in relation to Craig Thomson, Peter Slipper and Andrew Wilkie. It didn’t matter what the issues were unless they were cast in a negative light towards Julia Gillard’s judgement i.e she relied on Craig Thomson’s and Peter Slipper’s “tainted vote” and “she broke a promise” to Andrew Wilkie. The words “a line has been crossed” were used in relation to this in April 2012. All it did was cause even more uncertainty.

Then we had issues in relation to the ALP such as “we are us” at the national conference in 2011.

Australia Day 2012 could have been a point where the Prime Minister was able to change people’s views around her leadership. She acted responsibly in making sure Tony Abbott was protected from the mob of protestors that was unleashed at him (watch Abbott’s flippant reaction at 2.33. It says an awful lot about his character). Instead it became a conspiracy surrounding whether one of her staffers tipped someone off to Abbott’s location.

Then there was Kevin Rudd’s leadership challenge a month or so later. It wasn’t Julia Gillard this time that was doing the damage to herself. It was her supporters with their scorched earth approach to making sure Kevin Rudd was unelectable as Labor leader. All it did was make Kevin Rudd look like the victim of a culture of bullying and played into a number of already firmly established emotionally vectors in relation to how he’s viewed by the public.

Fast forward to today and nothing really has changed and the reason for it is because the public has a negative predisposition towards everything Prime Minister Gillard does or doesn’t do. Everything in that timeline of events I’ve just listed has created a very well established system of negative predisposition in the majority of people’s brains.

Even a moment that is considered positive for Gillard like the “misogyny speech” got responses like “she should have done it sooner!”

She can’t take a trick!

Scott Steel aka Possum Comitatus wrote a very detailed post last year that showed in this particular period of time, public perceptions of leadership have become pretty much everything in relation to how a government performs electorally. To quote him:

Our public perceptions of leadership have become all encompassing of our politics . Change perceptions of that leadership, change the vote – drive perceptions of the PM into the dirt, drive the government’s vote into the dirt with it. Lift the public’s satisfaction with the PM up, the government vote gets dragged up too.

The problem for Julia Gillard is that she’s asking people to trust her when the groundswell of distrust and the public’s negative predisposition prism have already been firmly established in the majority of people’s minds and brains over a very long period of time. Add to that a parliamentary opposition that appears to understand this dynamic, a public that has extremely high expectations, a short attention span due to the demands of modern life and a high degree of uncertainty as well as a media that is intensely focused on scrutiny of pretty much every decision the government makes and you get a situation that is pretty much impossible for Julia Gillard to turn around.

Demands and requirements of political leadership in this day and age

It is a very common theme among people who follow politics closely to reflect on the mainstream media and it’s relationship to substance in the national political conversation.

You’ll often see the critique that the media cycle has sped up to a ridiculous pace due to a demand for entertainment rather than substance or real issues and this dynamic is making it pretty much impossible to govern effectively.

Former government minister Lindsay Tanner wrote an entire book on this subject and it got a lot of coverage when it was released.

Right now, most of the federal government and their supporters appear to be in a perpetual battle with the media. The theme tends to be that the reason people are turning away from the ALP at the present moment is because the media are too focused on the political game and superficiality rather than issues of substance.

Last week, Prime Minister Gillard gave an interview with ABC Brisbane’s morning radio show where she told the interviewer that she felt misunderstood by the media and they had overreacted to certain political events such as two ministers resigning that played on a lot of these themes.

Yesterday we got this response from the Opposition Leader:

“If I do badly in an interview that’s not the interviewer’s fault, it’s my fault for not being able to argue my case well” – Tony Abbott, March 6th 2013

This is Abbott once again employing the tactic of emotionally baiting the ALP, progressives and their supporters in order to control the frame of the national political conversation.

In this case, the frame is Prime Minister Gillard is irresponsible and shifts the blame to someone else whenever she makes mistakes whereas Abbott takes responsibility for his mistakes and doesn’t attribute blame to anyone but himself. Whether that’s true or not (I believe it’s a falsehood in the extreme) is irrelevant. This is what’s being communicated and the Liberal Party have been exceptionally efficient at deploying this frame whenever possible during this term of parliament.

I have written about this dynamic of Abbott using certain lines to control the frame of the national political conversation a few times here and here. It’s one of his only tactics and he gets away with it far too often, mostly due to the ALP and progressives not understanding what he’s doing.

Having said all that, in this particular case, I happen to agree with Abbott’s point even though I severely doubt he’s being truthful.

The public’s expectations of leadership at a federal level in this day and age have increased to an almost unreasonable level.

For a start, any kind of blame or shifting of responsibility is immediately viewed unfavorably. I believe the reason for this is because the average voter isn’t allowed to do it in their daily lives and if they do, they can expect some sort of punishment. They get up, go to work, do the best they can, try to have a normal family life, pay their taxes, watch things happen without their consent or social license in the national political conversation, not to mention the petty bickering over trivial issues and think to themselves “if I was to do that in my life, I wouldn’t survive! I do my best! I don’t make excuses! I pay their salaries! They better do what I expect of them or face the consequences!”

What is happening in people’s lives is that society is demanding more and more out of them and if they don’t meet those demands they fall behind. The mental apparatus people require to function in this day and age often exceeds most people’s psychological levels of development. This is doubly true of political leadership.

I’ve written about this in relation to certain dynamics in the electorate in far more detail in a previous post located here.

In this day and age, if you’re the government, it is a requirement that you have your game together at an extremely high level otherwise the electorate immediately switches off and looks for an alternative. The judgement is harsh and swift and once it’s formed it takes an incredible amount of work to overcome.

What this means is that in order to be an effective politician in this day and age you need to be a great communicator (extremely rare given everything it entails), you need to have the policies that address people’s demands that are approved of by the electorate and delivered effectively, you need to have mastered basic political skills, you need to be able to persuade your opponents to see the world your way and act accordingly and if you make mistakes, you must admit to making them and take responsibility immediately because any whiff of a cover up or lack of transparency is immediately treated with anger, resentment and contempt.

This also means no blaming the media, no blaming your political opponents, no blaming the public or any other dynamics in the external environment for your problems. It’s all your responsibility!

You’re now required to lead by example and take the public with you. If you don’t, the noise rises to the surface of the national political conversation by default and you get left with the trivial nonsense that we all complain about.

Aren’t those expectations unreasonably difficult? Sure it is. But we aren’t talking about a normal situation here. This is the leadership of the country and public life we’re talking about.

If you don’t have extremely high standards and you aren’t the best, you’re pretty much dead!

Too often I’ve seen critiques, usually from progressives blaming the media, Tony Abbott and everything in the external environment for the government’s political problems. This is a very convenient way of ignoring and avoiding these realities.

Former Secretary of the ACTU and hero to the Labor Party Bill Kelty hit the nail on the head during his address to their national congress last year:

Seems to me we have a mirror image of the 1980s. Hard decisions were made in the ’80s. Real pressures on living standards, high unemployment, but we never, ever lost a sense of hope and trust that government and unions would see it out and there would be a better future. Today we have better economic conditions but that hope and that trust has retreated.

I’ve got be frank. It’s too easy to blame the media, too easier to blame the playthings of politics. And there’s no purpose blaming the opposition for doing, what after all, you’d expect them to do and that’s to beat you.

In a sense I think we make politics just simply too hard.

The truth will normally do.

It would be truly great if more people on all sides of politics woke up and took those words to heart!

Queensland and Western Australia are more important than Western Sydney

It appears Western Sydney electorates have been designated the “key battleground” for the 2013 federal election by most in the political class.

The area is mentioned so often in relation to federal politics that it’s become a filter for everything important. What does Western Sydney think about XYZ issue? Politician X made a mistake, how will that be interpreted in Western Sydney?

In my opinion, the federal election won’t be decided in Western Sydney alone and the purpose of this post is to attempt to make that clear.

Firstly, we’ll start with the current numbers in the federal parliament. Here’s ABC’s election analyst Antony Green’s 2013 election pendulum:

2013 Australian Electoral Pendulum

Labor (72) Corangamite (VIC) ALP 0.3% Deakin (VIC) ALP 0.6% Greenway (NSW) ALP 0.9% Robertson (NSW) ALP 1.0% Lindsay (NSW) ALP 1.1% Moreton (QLD) ALP 1.1% Banks (NSW) ALP 1.5% La Trobe (VIC) ALP 1.7% Petrie (QLD) ALP 2.5% Reid (NSW) ALP 2.7% Lilley (QLD) ALP 3.2% Brand (WA) ALP 3.3% Capricornia (QLD) ALP 3.7% Lingiari (NT) ALP 3.7% Page (NSW) ALP 4.2% Eden-Monaro (NSW) ALP 4.2% Blair (QLD) ALP 4.2% Parramatta (NSW) ALP 4.4% Dobell (NSW) ALP 5.1% Kingsford Smith (NSW) ALP 5.2% Rankin (QLD) ALP 5.4% Fremantle (WA) ALP 5.7% Chisholm (VIC) ALP 5.8% Oxley (QLD) ALP 5.8% Perth (WA) ALP 5.9% Hindmarsh (SA) ALP 6.1% Bass (TAS) ALP 6.7% Werriwa (NSW) ALP 6.8% Barton (NSW) ALP 6.9% Richmond (NSW) ALP 7.0% Braddon (TAS) ALP 7.5% Adelaide (SA) ALP 7.5% Bruce (VIC) ALP 7.7% McMahon (NSW) ALP 7.8% Melbourne Ports (VIC) ALP 7.9% Griffith (QLD) ALP 8.5% Fowler (NSW) ALP 8.8% Watson (NSW) ALP 9.1% Canberra (ACT) ALP 9.2% McEwen (VIC) ALP 9.2% Bendigo (VIC) ALP 9.4% Isaacs (VIC) ALP 10.4% Wakefield (SA) ALP 10.5% Franklin (TAS) ALP 10.8% Jagajaga (VIC) ALP 11.1% Ballarat (VIC) ALP 11.7% Makin (SA) ALP 12.0% Throsby (NSW) ALP 12.1% Blaxland (NSW) ALP 12.2% Lyons (TAS) ALP 12.3% Chifley (NSW) ALP 12.3% Hunter (NSW) ALP 12.5% Newcastle (NSW) ALP 12.5% Charlton (NSW) ALP 12.7% Shortland (NSW) ALP 12.9% Cunningham (NSW) ALP 13.2% Corio (VIC) ALP 13.5% Hotham (VIC) ALP 14.0% Holt (VIC) ALP 14.0% Fraser (ACT) ALP 14.2% Kingston (SA) ALP 14.5% Sydney (NSW) ALP 17.1% Maribyrnong (VIC) ALP 17.5% Calwell (VIC) ALP 20.0% Grayndler (NSW) ALP 20.6% Scullin (VIC) ALP 20.6% Port Adelaide (SA) ALP 21.0% Lalor (VIC) ALP 22.1% Wills (VIC) ALP 23.5% Gorton (VIC) ALP 23.6% Gellibrand (VIC) ALP 24.1% Batman (VIC) ALP 24.8%

Coalition (72) Boothby (SA) LIB 0.6% Hasluck (WA) LIB 0.6% Aston (VIC) LIB 0.7% Dunkley (VIC) LIB 1.1% Brisbane (QLD) LNP 1.1% Macquarie (NSW) LIB 1.3% Forde (QLD) LNP 1.6% Solomon (NT) CLP 1.8% Longman (QLD) LNP 1.9% Casey (VIC) LIB 1.9% Herbert (QLD) LNP 2.2% Canning (WA) LIB 2.2% Dawson (QLD) LNP 2.4% Swan (WA) LIB 2.5% Bonner (QLD) LNP 2.8% Macarthur (NSW) LIB 3.0% Bennelong (NSW) LIB 3.1% Flynn (QLD) LNP 3.6% Sturt (SA) LIB 3.6% Fisher (QLD) LNP 4.1% McMillan (VIC) LIB 4.2% Leichhardt (QLD) LNP 4.6% Dickson (QLD) LNP 5.1% Hughes (NSW) LIB 5.2% Gilmore (NSW) LIB 5.3% Paterson (NSW) LIB 5.3% Higgins (VIC) LIB 5.4% Stirling (WA) LIB 5.6% Wannon (VIC) LIB 5.7% Goldstein (VIC) LIB 6.0% Cowan (WA) LIB 6.3% Fairfax (QLD) LNP 7.0% Ryan (QLD) LNP 7.2% Mayo (SA) LIB 7.3% Kooyong (VIC) LIB 7.5% Menzies (VIC) LIB 8.7% Hume (NSW) LIB 8.7% Forrest (WA) LIB 8.7% Pearce (WA) LIB 8.9% Indi (VIC) LIB 9.0% Flinders (VIC) LIB 9.1% Cowper (NSW) NAT 9.3% Wright (QLD) LNP 10.2% McPherson (QLD) LNP 10.3% Hinkler (QLD) LNP 10.4% Bowman (QLD) LNP 10.4% Calare (NSW) NAT 10.7% Grey (SA) LIB 11.2% Moore (WA) LIB 11.2% Gippsland (VIC) NAT 11.5% Tangney (WA) LIB 12.3% Cook (NSW) LIB 12.7% Barker (SA) LIB 13.0% Warringah (NSW) LIB 13.1% Durack (WA) LIB 13.7% North Sydney (NSW) LIB 14.1% Fadden (QLD) LNP 14.2% Farrer (NSW) LIB 14.5% Wentworth (NSW) LIB 14.9% Wide Bay (QLD) LNP 15.6% Mackellar (NSW) LIB 15.7% Curtin (WA) LIB 16.2% Berowra (NSW) LIB 16.2% Mitchell (NSW) LIB 17.2% Moncrieff (QLD) LNP 17.5% Riverina (NSW) NAT 18.2% Bradfield (NSW) LIB 18.2% Groom (QLD) LNP 18.5% Parkes (NSW) NAT 18.9% Murray (VIC) LIB 19.6% Maranoa (QLD) LNP 22.9% Mallee (VIC) NAT 23.3% Others (IND 4, GRN 1, NAT WA 1) Denison (TAS) IND 1.2% v ALP O’Connor (WA) NAT WA 3.6% v LIB Melbourne (VIC) GRN 6.0% v ALP Lyne (NSW) IND 12.7% v NAT Kennedy (QLD) IND 18.3% v LNP New England (NSW) IND 21.5% v NAT

The pendulum shows the ALP have 72 seats, the Coalition have 72 seats, the Greens have 1 seat, there’s 1 Western Australian National, 3 Independents and 1 seat for Katter’s Australian Party. Events during this parliament have made Dobell (ALP) and Fisher (LNP) Independent seats and O’Connor (WA National) formally a Coalition seat making the seat numbers:

• ALP: 71 seats
• Coalition: 72 seats
• Greens: 1 seat
• Independents: 5 seats
• Katter’s Australian Party: 1 seat

So before we go into any commentary regarding where the next federal election will or won’t be won, we need to confront the fact that the ALP government needs to win at least 4-5 seats in order to achieve victory!

This is an unusual situation because usually the government would have a majority and could afford to lose a few seats. In this case, the government can’t afford to lose seats and must win seats in order to remain where they are. For every seat lost, that’s an extra one higher up the pendulum that needs to be won.

Given these facts, lets look at what seats the ALP could possibly win. We’ll look at Coalition and Independent seats under a two party preferred margin of 5%. Whether the ALP can achieve that type of swing is debatable. This is a hypothetical exercise to see what’s potentially in range for the ALP.

Boothby (SA)	LIB 0.6%
Hasluck (WA)	LIB 0.6%
Aston (VIC)	LIB 0.7%
Dunkley (VIC)	LIB 1.1%
Brisbane (QLD)	LNP 1.1%
Macquarie (NSW)	LIB 1.3%
Forde (QLD)	LNP 1.6%
Solomon (NT)	CLP 1.8%
Longman (QLD)	LNP 1.9%
Casey (VIC)	LIB 1.9%
Herbert (QLD)	LNP 2.2%
Canning (WA)	LIB 2.2%
Dawson (QLD)	LNP 2.4%
Swan (WA)	LIB 2.5%
Bonner (QLD)	LNP 2.8%
Macarthur (NSW)	LIB 3.0%
Bennelong (NSW)	LIB 3.1%
Flynn (QLD)	LNP 3.6%
Sturt (SA)	LIB 3.6%
Fisher (QLD)	LNP 4.1%
McMillan (VIC)	LIB 4.2%
Leichhardt (QLD)	LNP 4.6%

Denison (TAS)

IND 1.2%

From that list we have:

• 9 seats in Queensland
• 4 seats in Victoria
• 3 seats in New South Wales
• 3 seats in Western Australia
• 2 seats in South Australia
• 1 seat in the Northern Territory
• 1 seats in Tasmania

The total number of Coalition and Independent seats under a 5% two party preferred margin is 23.

Next, we’ll look at the two party preferred figures for each state from the last election. These figures are from the Australian Electoral Commission website:

	ALP		L/NP		Total	Swing
	Votes	%	Votes	%
New South Wales	1,958,077	48.84	2,051,241	51.16	4,009,318	-4.84
Victoria	1,758,982	55.31	1,421,202	44.69	3,180,184	+1.04
Queensland	1,069,504	44.86	1,314,675	55.14	2,384,179	-5.58
Western Australia	524,861	43.59	679,140	56.41	1,204,001	-3.15
South Australia	521,115	53.18	458,834	46.82	979,949	+0.78
Tasmania	198,322	60.62	128,830	39.38	327,152	+4.41
Australian Capital Territory	137,948	61.67	85,749	38.33	223,697	-1.73
Northern Territory	47,636	50.74	46,247	49.26	93,883	-4.67

The question for the ALP is where can their vote be increased? The ICAC inquiry and other issues in NSW (3 seats) which are severely hurting the ALP have been mentioned to death so it’s fair to say the ALP are highly unlikely to increase their vote in that state.

Victoria (4 seats) and South Australia (2 seats) were excellent results for the ALP at the last election. Given this fact, It will be extremely difficult to increase their vote in those two states. Boothby (SA) might be winnable for the ALP under the right circumstances but for the purposes of this exercise, let’s put that to one side.

That’s 9 of the 23 seats under a 5% two party preferred margin we can eliminate from the above list.

That leaves 14 seats. The only poll I’ve seen on the Tasmaian seat (Denison) shows the Independent MP Andrew Wilkie comfortably retaining it.

That leaves 13 seats under a 5% two party preferred margin and guess where they all are? Queensland (9 seats), Western Australia (3 seats) and the Northern Territory (1 seat).

The political class is intensely focusing on the 10 marginal ALP seats in Western Sydney which apparently represent the “key battleground” in relation to electoral victory but in my opinion the 13 or so seats in Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory are just as important, if not more important!

13 seats is 8 seats more than the 5 seats necessary for the ALP to win the election from where things currently stand.

What we can conclude is that the ALP needs to win more than 5 seats in Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory. If that is achieved, the second part of the equation for the ALP is to hold as many seats as possible everywhere else … and when I say “everywhere else,” I mean every part of Australia! Not just Western Sydney!

If they can pick up seats in Victoria and South Australia, that makes the job easier.

Every seat the ALP doesn’t win in Queensland and Western Australia makes victory much easier to achieve for the Coalition.

If the ALP fails to win seats in Queensland, Western Australia as well as the seat in the Northern Territory, Western Sydney and other “key battlegrounds” in my opinion will become meaningless in terms of the end result.

Voting against one’s rational interests

Right now, most of the talk in the national political conversation is about who is going to win the next federal election and what is happening to the federal ALP.

The Essential Media Communications (EMC) poll this week (25th of February, 2013) produced some very interesting results that tell us far more than most of the media commentary surrounding federal politics of late. Normally I’d analyse dynamics with information pulled from multiple sources but EMC did their job so well this week that I’m going to ignore everything else and use their poll alone.

We’ll start by looking at whether voters believe the federal ALP government deserves to be re-elected or not.

Q. As of now, do you think the current Federal Labor Government of Julia Gillard deserves to be re-elected?

	Total	Vote Labor	Vote Lib/Nat	Vote Greens
Yes, deserves to be re-elected	26%	66%	4%	31%
No, does not deserve to be re-elected	57%	17%	88%	38%
Don’t know	17%	17%	8%	31%

This alone tells quite a story. 26% of respondents believe the federal ALP government deserves to be re-elected compared with 57% who believe they don’t deserve to be re-elected. If you go into the partisan breakdowns you can see that 88% of Coalition voters are waiting to take baseball bats to this government.

What about the other “side” of politics? Do the public trust the Coalition to govern Australia?

Q. Do you think the Liberal Party led by Tony Abbott has shown it has the policies and leadership to be ready to govern?

	Total	Vote Labor	Vote Lib/Nat	Vote Greens
Liberals are ready to govern	36%	6%	72%	4%
Liberals are not ready to govern	45%	82%	12%	79%
Don’t know	19%	13%	16%	17%

This says a lot as well. 36% believe the Liberals are ready to govern compared to 45% who say they’re not ready to govern. Sure, the response is a bit closer than it was when the same question was asked in relation to the federal ALP government, but it’s still quite telling. People don’t trust the Liberal Party!

Next we’ll look at whether voters think they’d be better or worse off under a Coalition government lead by Tony Abbott.

Q. If the Labor Party lost the next election, do you think the following would be better or worse under a Liberal/National Government led by Tony Abbott?

	A lot better	A little better	Stay much the same	A little worse	A lot worse	Don’t use	NET (Better-Worse)
Political leadership	16%	19%	27%	10%	24%	4%	+1
Trust in Government	13%	19%	29%	12%	22%	4%	-2
Unemployment	7%	18%	39%	13%	19%	5%	-7
The economy overall	16%	22%	31%	12%	16%	4%	+10
The cost of living	6%	19%	36%	14%	21%	4%	-10
Interest rates	5%	13%	48%	14%	16%	5%	-12
Health services	6%	19%	36%	16%	20%	4%	-11
Job security	7%	17%	36%	14%	22%	4%	-12
Workers rights and conditions	5%	13%	37%	15%	25%	5%	-22
Company profits	13%	28%	37%	6%	10%	6%	+25
The environment	5%	13%	47%	11%	21%	4%	-14
Job creation	8%	20%	39%	13%	16%	4%	-1
Public services	6%	15%	42%	13%	20%	4%	-12
Benefits for people on Government support – such as pensioners and the unemployed	5%	13%	39%	16%	23%	5%	-21
Your personal financial situation	6%	16%	42%	15%	16%	4%	-9

What on earth is going on here? The numbers to focus on are the ones in bold. They show that on most of these attributes, voters overwhelmingly believe they’re not going to get a better government than the one they have right now. In many areas such as unemployment, cost of living, interest rates, health services, job security, workers rights and conditions, the environment, the public service, benefits for people on government support such as pensioners and the unemployed and voters personal financial situation, they think things will either remain the same or be much worse under an Abbott lead Coalition government. There is no positive sentiment towards the opposition which is what you’d usually in this sort of situation.

Most interestingly, voters believe the Coalition will be better with the economy than the current government but worse on everything that relates to the economy such as unemployment, interest rates, cost of living, their personal financial situation and so on.

The mood towards a potential Coalition government is either status quo or

Finally, we’ll look at the voting intention and two party preferred vote for this poll.

Q. If a Federal Election was held today to which party will you probably give your first preference vote? If not sure, which party are you currently leaning toward?

Q. If don’t know -Well which party are you currently leaning to?

Sample size = 1,899 respondents

First preference/leaning to	Election 21 Aug 10	4 weeks ago 29/1/13	2 weeks ago 11/2/13	Last week 18/2/13	This week 25/2/13
Liberal		44%	45%	44%	46%
National		3%	3%	3%	3%
Total Lib/Nat	43.6%	48%	48%	47%	49%
Labor	38.0%	35%	34%	35%	34%
Greens	11.8%	10%	9%	9%	9%
Other/Independent	6.6%	7%	9%	8%	8%

2PP	Election 21 Aug 10	4 weeks ago	2 weeks ago	Last week	This week
Total Lib/Nat	49.9%	54%	55%	54%	56%
Labor	50.1%	46%	45%	46%	44%

As you can see, the Coalition are miles ahead of the ALP on voting intention and the two party preferred vote. It’s been this way for quite some time and it’s the same story across pretty much every reputable outfit that conducts opinion polls on federal politics.

So the question is why do voters think the federal ALP government doesn’t deserve to be re-elected when they distrust and probably fear a potential Abbott lead Coalition government?

There are a couple of important points in relation to human psychology that need to be explored before we go any further.

Firstly people aren’t rational and often think things and do things that are inconsistent with their best interests. I’ve shown that above in relation to voters thinking a potential Coalition government would be better at handling the economy yet on every issue related to the economy they believe they will the Coalition will be worse than the current government.

American commentator Thomas Frank wrote a superb book titled “What’s The Matter With Kansas” that showed this dynamic in great detail. Most people would rationally assume that the people of Kansas would be far better off with the policies of a Democratic administration yet Kansas is a very solid Republican voting state because the Republicans figured out how to communicate in a way that persuaded the people of Kansas to vote for them. Some of the methods they’ve used to do that are quite ethically/morally questionable but that’s another topic for another day.

The same dynamic appears to be true with a lot of the Australian political debate.

The Liberal Party have figured out how to communicate to voters who you would rationally expect to be better off under an ALP government to vote for them even though it’s against their interests. I’ve covered how the Liberal Party have gone about doing this in reasonable detail as it relates to the issue of Industrial Relations and how they’ve gone about framing the political conversation.

People make decisions and behave emotionally and justify their decisions and behaviour rationally!

Secondly is the cognitive bias known as ‘the backfire effect.’ When information is presented to people who hold a particular view on an issue, there is a tendency for people to believe the opposite of what the information is saying with more emotional intensity.

For example, if I were to say under the ALP, interest rates have been lower than at any point during the Howard Coalition government, a Liberal voter would likely ignore that information and become more emotionally entrenched in the view that the Labor Party equates to debt and deficits.

Another example is where I might say the media has little to no influence over public opinion or how people vote on election day. It doesn’t matter how much information I provide that shows it to be true, many supporters of progressive politics simply can’t accept it and the view that the media has control over public opinion and how people vote on election day becomes more ingrained in their belief systems regardless of the evidence.

The best example I can think of that shows ‘the backfire effect’ in action in the national political conversation is what has happened with the carbon tax. It doesn’t matter how much information you provide people on how beneficial the policy is to the environment, what good it has done for the economy or how people’s living standards haven’t been affected, the view that it’s a bad policy at least in the short term, remains firmly entrenched in the minds of many of voters.

Framing and communication matter! It’s all well and good to cite long policy lists of achievement and what the data says in regards to how certain policies are working but if you aren’t dealing with people on an interpersonal level and there is no process of illustration or persuasion mechanism to get people to buy what you’re saying, it all falls on deaf ears.

Going back to the question of why people think the ALP government doesn’t deserve to be relected when there is overwhelming distrust of an Abbott Coalition government, I think it has to do with the ALP’s complete lack of understanding of how human psychology works.

Most of the strategy has been to rally the base. Maybe it has to do with an insecure party identity. Maybe it has to do with certain people wanting to hold onto their positions of power regardless of the larger interests of the party and the federal government. Maybe it has to do with ALP members and supporters not liking the society the party created during the Hawke and Keating governments. Maybe it’s a combination of those things.

In the end, I believe the ALP have failed to communicate to Coalition voters. There is no real emphasis on what people value in the economy and framing communication to seize control of the national conversation. It’s all be been targeted at people who will vote for the ALP regardless of what they say.

There has been no real attempt to get inside the mind of how someone who is prepared to vote for the Liberal Party thinks and what would persuade them to vote for the ALP and this is where the Coalition have a major advantage. They have thought in terms of how a blue collar Labor voter thinks. They have hit on the hot buttons of economic security and protection by constantly talking about how this government operates in terms of processes and focusing on the emotions behind policies such as the carbon tax, the mining tax and asylum seeker policy and framing all of their communication in a negative way towards the Labor base.

It’s very hard to persuade someone to see issues in the same way you see them if you don’t understand where your opponents supporters are coming from and where they have common ground with you. The ALP’s lack of understanding of this point is why you’ll see polling on issues that shows Coalition voters overwhelmingly disapproving of ALP policies even if those policies are what they’d support on another level of awareness.

The longer the ALP remains in the mode of thinking that believes people rationally follow their own self interest and make decisions without any reference to emotional values, the longer the Coalition will get away with being avoiding scrutiny in relation to key policies and petty political game playing.

Don’t think of Kevin Rudd!

A few months ago I wrote this post in relation to Tony Abbott. It was based upon the ideas in George Lakoff’s book “Don’t Think of an Elephant” and it had to do with how the ALP’s relentless obsession with attacking Tony Abbott was allowing him to dictate the terms of the national conversation rather than causing him or the Coalition any real political damage.

The exact same principles apply to Kevin Rudd although there are three major differences: it’s coming from all sides of politics, it has many more dimensions and it’s far more emotionally intense.

Everything in the national debate at this very moment is falling into this dynamic and it will only amplify up until election day on September 14th this year or until there is some sort of dramatic intervention in the ALP.

You’ll see stories like this one today in the Courier Mail that suggest banning all talk of Kevin Rudd. What this sort of mentality does is induce the backfire effect. “Let’s ban all talk of Kevin Rudd” makes the voices of people who support Kevin Rudd even louder and more profound than they already are. This is a very common occurrence.

Perversely for many who hate him, if talk of Kevin Rudd were to stop or if he was to simply walk away from public life all together or if he was simply run over by a bus, nothing in national politics would change. The ALP would still be committing the same political mistakes day after day. Tony Abbott would still control the frame of the national conversation and public disillusionment with federal politics would remain where it is. Without Kevin Rudd, Malcolm Turnbull would probably be the only island of hope remaining for many people. They are the only two politicians in Australia right now that the public overwhelmingly respect.

This dynamic of conscious and unconscious Kevin Rudd invoking is out of the box and firmly in place because of the extremely high levels of uncertainty in the community both culturally and economically, the strong disapproval towards both federal leaders, the high expectations of what government (the Prime Minister) can do to improve people’s quality of life and the need for people to relate to someone in the national political conversation.

Don’t think of Kevin Rudd!

You heard me, don’t think of Kevin Rudd!

Why are you still thinking about Kevin Rudd?

Kevin Rudd, Kevin Rudd, Kevin Rudd, Kevin Rudd!

Kevin Rudd is politically dead!

Kevin Rudd is never coming back!

Kevin Rudd did <insert bad thing>!

Kevin Rudd said <insert nasty thing>!

Kevin Rudd visited a strip club!

Kevin Rudd uses his family for political purposes!

Kevin Rudd is a psychopath!

Kevin Rudd behind the scenes is mean to puppies, small children and ALP MP’s!

Kevin Rudd runs/ran a dysfunctional office! (note: so do 90% of politicians)

Kevin Rudd is a man who has no Labor values!

Kevin Rudd is narcissistic!

I hate Kevin Rudd!

Kevin Rudd has sabotaged the ALP!

Kevin Rudd is anti trade union!

Kevin Rudd leaked during the election campaign!

Kevin Rudd is politically finished!

Kevin Rudd got nothing done as Prime Minister!

Kevin Rudd was a lemon!

Kevin Rudd is a Liberal Party double agent!

Kevin Rudd is civil to Liberal Party MP’s!

Kevin Rudd is superficial!

Kevin Rudd has no substance or depth!

Kevin Rudd uses his church for political purposes!

Kevin Rudd is a media tart!

Kevin Rudd is embarrassing!

Kevin Rudd briefs journalists off the record!

Kevin Rudd is “white-anting” Julia Gillard’s leadership!

Kevin Rudd took away certain people’s printing money!

What an evil man Kevin Rudd is!

Why does everyone in politics and the media keep focusing on Kevin Rudd?

Don’t think of Kevin Rudd!

I declare that we ban all talk of Kevin Rudd!

A poll said <insert negative thing> in regards to Kevin Rudd!

The Coalition will use all of this material in an advertising campaign against Kevin Rudd!

Why are you still thinking about Kevin Rudd?

STOP THINKING ABOUT KEVIN RUDD!!!

Image: Dave Hunt AAP via the ABC September 6th 2012

It’s all water off a duck’s back mate!

Firing blanks on industrial relations

This week has seen the ALP attempt to galvanise the union movement to fight for them in order to prevent the Coalition from winning the next federal election. This has meant that union leaders such as Paul Howes have featured prominently in the media.

I thought I’d take a look at how unions are viewed by the Australian public to see if this would have any benefit to the ALP. Firstly, I’m going to look at how the public views unions, then I’m going to look at how the public views industrial relations as an election issue and finally how it all plays out in the national political debate.

Firstly we’ll start with some issues polling from Essential Media Communications from September 10th 2012.

Q. Overall, do you think unions have been good or bad for Australian working people?

	19 Mar 2012	This week 10 Sept 12	Vote Labor	Vote Lib/Nat	Vote Greens	Work full time	Work part time
Total good	48%	45%	67%	30%	74%	47%	51%
Total bad	17%	20%	4%	36%	6%	22%	18%
Very good	12%	11%	20%	4%	28%	11%	12%
Good	36%	34%	47%	26%	46%	36%	39%
Neither good nor bad	28%	27%	24%	30%	13%	25%	21%
Bad	11%	12%	3%	20%	5%	12%	11%
Very bad	6%	8%	1%	16%	1%	10%	7%
Don’t know	6%	8%	6%	4%	7%	5%	9%

This is fairly straight forward. A majority of respondents believe unions have been good for Australian working people. Next we’ll look at the importance of unions to Australian working people today.

Q. And how important are unions for Australian working people today?

	19 Mar 2012	This week 10 Sept 12	Vote Labor	Vote Lib/Nat	Vote Greens	Work full time	Work part time
Total Important	56%	52%	72%	34%	82%	52%	56%
Total Not Important	35%	38%	21%	58%	11%	42%	33%
Very important	19%	16%	28%	6%	37%	19%	15%
Quite important	37%	36%	44%	28%	45%	33%	41%
Not very important	27%	28%	19%	40%	9%	31%	25%
Not at all important	8%	10%	2%	18%	2%	11%	8%
Don’t know	9%	10%	6%	8%	7%	6%	10%

Again, pretty straight forward. A majority of respondents appreciate the importance of unions to Australian working people. The next question is where things start to get a little interesting.

Q. Overall, would workers be better off or worse off if unions in Australia were stronger?

	Total	Vote Labor	Vote Lib/Nat	Vote Greens	Work full time	Work part time
Total better off	39%	58%	24%	71%	40%	40%
Total worse off	30%	17%	47%	9%	35%	24%
A lot better off	13%	24%	7%	20%	15%	13%
A little better off	26%	34%	17%	51%	25%	27%
A little worse off	15%	13%	20%	5%	16%	12%
A lot worse off	15%	4%	27%	4%	19%	12%
Make no difference	15%	12%	18%	7%	16%	15%
Don’t know	15%	14%	12%	13%	9%	21%

This result shows a majority consider Australian working people would be better off if unions were stronger, but it’s not as intense as the response to the previous two questions. A decent chunk of the response is either indifferent or simply doesn’t know. If we were combining the results we could say 60% of respondents consider Australian working people would be worse off, no different or unsure about whether they’d be better or worse off if unions were stronger. If we look at the intensity of response, we can see that only 13% of respondents believe Australian working people would be a lot better off if unions were stronger compared to 26% who believe they’d be a little better off. This is not very encouraging news if you believe in the importance and good that unions do.

Next is another Essential Media Communications Poll from October 22nd, 2012 which looked at trust in organisations and institutions.

Q. How much trust do you have in the following institutions and organisations?

	Total trust 26 Sep 11	Total trust 12 Jun 12	Total trust 22 Oct 12	A lot of trust	Some trust	A little trust	No trust	Don’t know	% change
The High Court	72%	60%	63%	26%	37%	21%	10%	6%	+3
The ABC	46%	54%	59%	20%	39%	26%	8%	6%	+5
The Reserve Bank	67%	49%	53%	16%	37%	28%	12%	8%	+4
Charitable organisations	61%	50%	53%	9%	44%	33%	10%	5%	+3
Environment groups	45%	32%	36%	8%	28%	35%	24%	6%	+4
The Commonwealth Public Service	49%*	30%	33%	6%	27%	41%	16%	10%	+3
Your local council	na	na	32%	4%	28%	39%	22%	6%	na
Religious organisations	29%	27%	31%	7%	24%	28%	35%	6%	+4
Newspapers	na	26%	31%	4%	27%	45%	20%	4%	+5
Online news media	na	23%	28%	4%	24%	45%	20%	6%	+5
TV news media	na	21%	26%	5%	21%	44%	26%	4%	+5
Federal Parliament	55%	22%	26%	4%	22%	37%	32%	5%	+4
State Parliament	na	na	25%	4%	21%	37%	33%	5%	na
Business groups	38%	22%	25%	3%	22%	45%	21%	9%	+3
Trade unions	39%	22%	23%	5%	18%	32%	36%	9%	+1
Political parties	na	12%	16%	2%	14%	36%	42%	6%	+4

What this table shows is that unions have a very low degree of trust in the Australian community. Very similar levels of trust to the business community. That might be due to the larger dynamics in relation to the changing nature of the Australian economy or it could simply be how the public are viewing the fight between business and unions in the debate around industrial relations issues i.e come to consensus rather than tear each other apart.

Next we’ll look at another Essential Media Communications poll from July 30th, 2012 on public views in relation to the Fair Work Act.

Q. Business groups have said that Australia’s industrial relations laws favour workers and unions and should be changed so that businesses can increase productivity and have more flexibility with their workforce. Do you think Australia’s industrial relations laws favour employers or workers or do they balance the interests of workers and employers?

	6 Feb 12	Total 30 Jul 12	Vote Labor	Vote Lib/Nat	Vote Greens	Full time workers	Part time workers
Favour employers	25%	20%	25%	16%	33%	22%	16%
Favour workers	24%	26%	12%	43%	14%	29%	24%
Balance the interests of employers and workers	34%	34%	49%	26%	26%	33%	37%
Don’t know	17%	20%	13%	15%	26%	17%	23%

This result shows the majority believe the current industrial relations system balances the interests of employers and workers, but what’s interesting is the partisan responses. Labor and Greens respondents believe the current laws favour employers more than workers and Coalition respondents believe the laws favour workers more than employers, yet there seems to be a fair amount of agreement across the partisan spectrum that the laws find a balance between both groups. This suggests that a message that transcends the partisan divide from either political party would get a positive response from the community. I’ll talk about this a bit more in a minute.

Next we’ll look at industrial relations as important election issue and which political party is more trusted to handle it. For this I’ll use both the last Newspoll and Essential Media Communications poll that asked these questions. We’ll start with Newspoll from February 2013:

Thinking about federal politics. would you say each of the following issues is very important, fairly important or not important on how you personally would vote in a federal election? (issues rated as very important)

	Interest Rates	Health and Medicare	Education	National Security	Leadership	IndustrialRelations	The Economy	Climate Change	Asylum Seekers arriving in Australia	Unemployment
	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%
1-3 Feb 2013	38	80	77	57	62	39	74	35	48	56

This result shows Industrial Relations is not high on the list of important issues in terms of what would decide how one would vote at a federal election. Then we get:

Which one of the (ALP, Liberal and National Party Coalition or someone else) do you think would best handle the issue of industrial relations?

	Liberal/National Coalition	ALP	Someone Else	None	Uncommitted
	%	%	%	%	%
1-3 Feb 2013	36	41	4	3	16

This result shows more respondents think the ALP are best to handle the issue of industrial relations but not by much. This is a bit alarming given how often the ALP talk about the threat of a Coalition government bringing back WorkChoices and other forms of draconian industrial relations legislation.

Next we’ll look at the Essential Media Communications results on important election issues and the political party best to handle those issues. These results are from February 11th 2013:

Q. Which are the three most important issues in deciding how you would vote at a Federal election?

	Total 11 Feb 13	19 Nov 12	30 Jul 12	5 Dec 11	6 June 11	25 Jan 10
Management of the economy	62%	66%	64%	62%	61%	63%
Ensuring a quality education for all children	29%	35%	26%	22%	26%	23%
Ensuring the quality of Australia’s health system	52%	57%	47%	47%	49%	48%
Protecting the environment	14%	14%	11%	13%	15%	16%
A fair industrial relations system	12%	8%	12%	11%	8%	na
Political leadership	14%	15%	25%	18%	17%	23%
Addressing climate change	9%	9%	9%	10%	15%	16%
Controlling interest rates	9%	11%	9%	11%	13%	15%
Australian jobs and protection of local industries	40%	32%	41%	36%	32%	33%
Ensuring a quality water supply	4%	5%	3%	4%	5%	12%
Housing affordability	11%	14%	13%	13%	16%	14%
Ensuring a fair taxation system	21%	17%	18%	16%	17%	14%
Security and the war on terrorism	6%	5%	5%	4%	8%	9%
Treatment of asylum seekers	6%	6%	10%	8%	5%	na
Managing population growth	9%	7%	8%	8%	12%	na

There are many more issues for respondents to choose from in this poll than the Newspoll but again it shows “A fair indutrial relations system” not high on the list with only 12% considering it an important election issue.

Q. Which party would you trust most to handle the following issues?

	Labor	Liberal	Greens	Don’t know	Diff 11 Feb 13	Diff 19 Nov 12	Diff 18 Jun 12
Management of the economy	31%	46%	3%	21%	-15	-14	-18
Ensuring a quality education for all children	37%	35%	6%	22%	+2	+5	-2
Ensuring the quality of Australia’s health system	33%	36%	6%	25%	-3	-3	-6
Protecting the environment	20%	21%	39%	20%	+18	+16	+17
A fair industrial relations system	39%	33%	4%	23%	+6	+9	+6
Political leadership	29%	37%	6%	29%	-8	-12	-16
Addressing climate change	21%	24%	29%	26%	+5	+9	+7
Controlling interest rates	27%	41%	3%	30%	-14	-11	-18
Protecting Australian jobs and protection of local industries	33%	36%	4%	27%	-3	-2	-6
Ensuring a quality water supply	21%	27%	23%	29%	-6	-7	-12
Housing affordability	27%	33%	5%	35%	-6	-5	-11
Ensuring a fair taxation system	31%	37%	4%	28%	-6	-9	-10
Security and the war on terrorism	25%	38%	4%	33%	-13	-15	-22
Treatment of asylum seekers	20%	37%	14%	30%	-17	-18	-20
Managing population growth	21%	33%	7%	39%	-12	-15	-19

This table shows that one of the only issues where respondents trust the ALP more than the Coalition is industrial relations. But even then it’s only by a margin of 6%. It’s not exactly the margin many in the ALP would like to see in relation to this contest given the amount of time they’ve spent hammering on the issue.

If there’s one issue Tony Abbott has been very clever with, it would be in relation to his political tactics on industrial relations. Many in the Liberal Party would like to see a return to WorkChoices. It’s a reason many people join the Liberal Party in the first place: to shift the policy needles in favour of the business community and crush the union movement. What Tony Abbott has done by contrast is take a different approach.

Instead of advocating for a return to WorkChoices, he’s attempted to position the Liberal Party as the party that favours a fair and balanced industrial relations system. So whenever he talks about flexibility, it’s framing the issue in terms of the pendulum being tilted too far in one direction. The polling above shows many prefer an industrial relations system that balances employers and workers interests. His message is framed towards this group: the middle. So whenever the ALP say he’ll bring back WorkChoices if he becomes Prime Minister, all he does is say he’s for a fair system and the ALP are for an unbalanced system.

Then he associates himself with people from the trade union movement such as Kathy Jackson who are seen as extremely dodgy to Labor people because he’s trying to frame his message in terms of how the ALP behave rather than what he does. It’s part of the reason he’ll also advocate for the reestablishment of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. People in the union movement know what that means but communicating it with all the noise and framing it in a way that makes him look extreme is extremely difficult when he’s framed it around the way the ALP and the union movement behave.

And to drive the dagger in as firmly in as possible, he then addresses the National Press Club in January and says things like:

“As my personal history shows, I’ve never been anti-union.

I support unions that are honestly managed and genuinely focused on a fair deal for their members.

That’s why a big part of the Coalition’s workplace policy will be tackling the rorts we’ve seen in the Health Services Union and the Australian Workers Union.

These are the sorts of measures that a less-compromised Labor government could introduce and that decent Labor people would support.

I have never believed that Australian workers are overpaid and will never begrudge the decent working people of our country a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work.

That’s why our workplace policy will ensure that changes have to benefit a business’s workers as well as its owners, managers and customers – because you can’t have a successful business without motivated workers”

http://australianpolitics.com/2013/01/31/tony-abbott-address-to-national-press-club.html

This sort of rhetoric completely floors people who support the ALP and the union movement as it’s the exact opposite of their message that he’ll bring WorkChoices back and worse. It looks like the “Evil Bunny” all over again but this time, it’s the ALP using the tactics.

The ALP: “A government lead by Tony Abbott would bring back WorkChoices”, The Public: “So what? Look at the way you behave!” … That’s pretty much the dynamic Abbott’s trying to create around this issue and I’d say he’s been quite successful at it.

The problem is only exacerbated when the Prime Minister says things such as the passage below

“I’m not the leader of a party called the progressive party.

I’m not the leader of a party called the moderate party.

I’m not the leader of a party even called the socialist democratic party.

I’m a leader of the party called the Labor Party deliberately because that is what we come from.

That is what we believe in and that is who we are.”

http://australianpolitics.com/2013/02/18/julia-gillard-speech-to-awu-conference.html

All this sort of rhetoric does is allow Tony Abbott to firmly plant the Coalition as representatives of the middle in terms of industrial relations and other issues in the national political debate.

Then you see people like Paul Howes on Lateline and the point becomes more profound.

In my opinion, what the ALP should be doing is emphasising the socially democratic, progressive, moderate side of the party. A party with unions attached to it but not one where they’re calling the shots. After all, collective bargaining is a democratic right! It’s not just a plaything for political parties to score points. These are people’s lives and living standards we’re talking about!

The union movement during the Hawke and Keating governments did three very important things that were painful to their membership but were in the best interests of the nation:

1. The Prices and Incomes Accord

2. Ending 100 years of Centralised Wage Fixing and shifting to Enterprise Bargaining

3. Compulsory Superannuation

If you listen to Paul Keating as often as I have, you’ll eventually hear him talk about how he had to put the union movement in a headlock and pull out their rotten teeth with a pair of pliers in order to get some of these things done and he’ll include extreme amounts of praise towards Bill Kelty who was the head of the ACTU at the time for making those sacrifices for the greater good of the nation.

These reforms allowed the union movement to survive in this age as well and made certain that even with the massive cultural and economic changes, the purpose of unions and the right for employees to collectively bargain was enshrined in the Australian social contract.

I think a lot of this history is either largely forgotten by the current ALP or is simply not understood or appreciated.

A lot of the rhetoric from the ALP on industrial relations is filled with good intentions. Fairness is very important to Australians but at the same time, most of the political points being made against the Coalition are simply firing blanks and while Abbott maintains the framing that the Coalition aren’t going to bring back WorkChoices if they form government (regardless of whether people believe him or not), that will continue to be the case.