CAAANBRA: Campaignomics

Chris Berg was bang on the money last week when he stated in The Drum that now is "Not the time to convince us of economic prowess". He was right again when he claimed that every election is about the economy. If we're being honest, its never a good bet to expect to win points or elections by talking about the economy, and Mr Berg's article is one reason why.

As I've stated repeatedly, what you see depends on where you stand. Mr Berg's two key arguments are based on the economic figures released less than two weeks ago by Treasurer Bowen and Senator Wong, and a question mark over the credibility of the major ratings agencies. Both are fair arguments, but this campaign isn't about selling the economy as healthy; it's about winning an election.

All the ALP has to do is convince the electorate that they are better economic managers than the Coalition, and Chris Berg knows this. When better than the midst of the dullest, least engaging, election campaign in living memory? When better than now?

The earlier financial statement released just before the election was called, and the PEFO, aren't flash on two fronts. Firstly, they're potentially scary numbers, easy for the opposition to frame and feed to the media. Secondly, they make the Government's ability to read the tea leaves look about as solid as the Liberal Party's policy pamphlet. 

The major ratings agencies which have rated Australia's economy as Triple A are, according to Mr Berg, largely responsible for the Global Financial Crisis, and therefore, nothing to get excited about. 

That's one perspective. Here's another: it doesn't matter that much. What does matter is the message. In order to convince Australia that our economy is in grave danger, you first need to convince Australia a deficit - any deficit - is bad. That's not hard to do; the imagery is negative. The Coalition's message was a simple sell, assisted by a compliant media. 

What does matter is that Australia, under Labor's guidance, avoided the full financial disaster of the GFC. Our official interest rate is low, but it hasn't bottomed out. In fact, it's being used as it was designed to be used - as a control mechanism. Productivity, inflation, unemployment: all of the standard measures are solid. We know the counter-argument, that it was the surplus left by the Howard Government that enabled Australia to skate around the perimeters of the GFC. Why has that argument never been challenged? 

The numbers are what they are. They aren't the entirety of this election campaign, other than by accident. As John Howard reminded us recently, context is everything. The credit ratings are a comparative measure. Australia is rated higher than about 95% of the countries in the world is noteworthy, just not hugely important. 

Having said that, the biggest failure of the past six years of Rudd and Gillard Labor Governments has been their inability to sell good news. We have heard ad nauseum about debt and deficit and big black holes and bigger new taxes and failed this and dodgy that. We've heard relatively little about the governments' successful navigation of the GFC, or the relatively smooth implementation of the carbon economy. These things happened. No spin required.

Ask the question: are we better off now than we were under the Howard-Costello team? Voters seem to be terrified that the cost of living is being driven ever higher by the loathesome carbon tax when in fact, 

Demographic Analyst David Chalke from Australia Scan is another who suggests a disconnect between economic reality and economic perception. The fear-of-the-future mindset has seen more and more discretionary income squirrelled away for that rainy day instead of being spent.

Feeding into that fear is the haze surrounding costings for the Coalition's policies and promises. Will they or won't they release their numbers, and if so, when? In 2010, the Coalition decided that they didn't trust Treasury, and had their coatings independently audited by WHK Horwarth, who produced a flimsy one-pager just two days prior to the election. It was subsequently shown that the "audit" provided to the Coalition, and subsequently to Australian voters, breached professional standards and was the result of  cosy deal between Horwath and the Coalition.

This time around, would-be Treasurer has ummed and ahhed at Olympic standards, suggesting at one point that if we wanted a Coalition bottom line, we should add it up for ourselves. The Coalition's reluctance to share their costings has become the basis for Labor's first really provocative ad of the campaign.

And Joe Hockey's response is to assure us that economics are boring and we don't care anyway. Chris Berg was right - now isn't he time for Labor to sell their economic credentials. At this stage, all they have to do is show up.

CAAANBRA: THE CHICKEN DANCE

Dada dada dada Duh, dada dada dada Duh, dada dada dada Duh Duh Duh Duh Daaaahh!

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has refused to debate Prime Minister Rudd in the Press Club until Mr Rudd names the date of the election, and then, he will debate within the context of a political campaign.

I call fowl. In fact, I call chicken. Just two days ago, former Prime Minister John Howard introduced Tony Abbott at an event in Melbourne. The event? It was a pseudo campaign launch, an Address to Victorian Federal Campaign Rally, complete with American style flag waving and banners. Unfortunately for Mr Abbott, the news media was more interested in the born-again Prime Minister, and Mr Abbott’s big media event ran a poor second.

Mr Abbott ended his address with the following call to action:

I say to the Australian people: we are a great people. You are a great people. We are a great country. There is nothing wrong with this country that wouldn't be improved by a change of government and our duty, our duty, every day between now and the election is to work to give that better government to the Australian people. That is our duty and we must pledge every fibre of our being to bring that about.

There is no doubt that that is a campaign speech. Therefore, if Mr Abbott is making campaign speeches, can we not just assume that the campaign has commenced, and start scheduling debates?
I can’t help but wonder why the Leader of the Opposition, whose party is still in a winning position in the polls, choose to avoid participating in the debates Mr Rudd has proposed. Isn’t this an opportunity for Mr Abbott to show off, to illustrate all those points he keeps making about the ALP Government’s financial mismanagement. Isn’t this an opportunity to wrest momentum back from the ALP?


While we’re talking debates, can we please adopt a format that means something? SkyNews Australia’s Town Hall Forums in Western Sydney are interesting, but as one politician follows the other, there’s no opportunity to see the two politicians debate a policy. The traditional Sunday night Channel 9 Debates, with Ray Martin and the Worm are almost as bad.

Let’s have a series of serious conversations between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, each with a topic to be decided on the night. The combatants have to speak to each other, answer each other’s questions and remain civil and respectful throughout. One moderator is there to ensure the conversation remains ‘on topic’ and doesn’t disintegrate into the kind of appalling behaviour we’ve seen in Question Time.

I think the Prime Minister would be willing to give it a go, but I doubt Tony Abbott would be in favour. In fact, he’d probably be happiest with no debates at all.

Dada dada dada Duh, dada dada dada Duh, dada dada dada Duh Duh Duh Duh Daaaahh!

And of course it’s Monday night, and with that, comes QandA. It’s 1050 days – or if you prefer, 2.87 years – since Tony Abbott appeared on QandA, despite what I’m sure is an open invitation. QandA rates well, and is a show which is considered to have gravitas.

I’m sure that the good people at QandA would offer Mr Abbott the same conditions as his last appearance, when he was the sole guest. Surely QandA without a panel to challenge what he says would be a perfect vehicle for Mr Abbott to display his charm, his engagement with the electorate and his knowledge of Coalition policy.

Should we be making plans to mark the third anniversary of Mr Abbott’s last appearance on QandA? Roast Chicken seems appropriate.

Dada dada dada Duh, dada dada dada Duh, dada dada dada Duh Duh Duh Duh Daaaahh!

If I had any interest at all in assisting Mr Abbott, I’d be telling him that he has to change his game plan. The ALP is within the MoE, and the momentum is with the left. Constant negativity is out of favour and the electorate wants more. Mr Rudd is ready.

What are you waiting for, Mr Abbott?

CAAANBRA: Missed the Target

Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey addressed the National Press Club today in what was effectively the woofteenth attempt by the opposition to deliver a Budget Reply Speech. Just an hour or two earlier Independent Rob Oakeshott announced via Twitter than next week he will be mounting a Confidence Motion to reaffirm Parliament’s faith in the departments of Treasury and Finance.

The proposed Confidence Motion is in response to the projectile vomit-like stream of doubt that Joe Hockey and his colleague Matthias Cormann have aimed at the Department of Treasury over the budget figures.


The one thing that irked me most about Mr Hockey’s and Senator Cormann’s suggestions that the figures quoted in the budget are untrustworthy is that they are trying to launch another political attack at the government. It's an election year; if the Opposition wasn't trying to undermine the Government, you'd need to check for a pulse. In any case, they missed their huge, floodlit Government-shaped target by about t--h--i--s much, and hit the public service instead.

Treasurer Wayne Swan has stepped in this morning and labelled their attacks as ‘profound insults’ to the public service. Understatement, much?

What evidence does the Opposition have that there is anything suspicious in the Budget figures? I had hoped that Mr Hockey’s speech at the NPC today would answer that question. Instead, Mr Hockey offered five reasons why we can’t believe the budget that Mr Swan handed down last week. (Five is the Coalition’s favourite number at the moment; their campaign features a five pillar plan to save us all from more ALP thingamyjiggery. It's Newman's CanDo Plan for Queensland all over again.)

Here’s Mr Hockey’s Big Five:

1. The Government broke their promise to deliver a surplus (which he suggested later had lead to the “fiscal emergency” we’re now facing, here in Oz where we have the healthiest economy in the world.)

2. An ALP Government would have to borrow more money, which would undermine the budget forecast

3. If they borrow more money, they’d need to increase the debt ceiling

4. (And this is the clanger) the Budget assumptions are "courageous"

5. The ALP Government spends too much money

It makes you wonder if Mr Hockey has ever had to construct a budget for anything in his life. Cattle stations notwithstanding, he seems to lack even a basic understanding of forecasting, so here's the simplest possible explanation: forecasting is taking the facts that you have right now, and using experience and expertise and wisdom (including everything from Grandma Queenie’s common sense to sophisticated economic modelling and even some wishful guestimation) to try to predict what is going to happen in the future. As for economic forecasting, it’s hardly a science. In fact, getting two economists to agree on what to have for lunch is impossible. But that’s about future, and the Liberal’s beef is with the present. Or not. Confusing.
Let's revisit Mr Hockey’s number 4. The Shadow Treasurer and the Shadow Assistant Treasurer (whose portfolio also includes Financial Services and Superannuation) are both publicly questioning the accuracy of assumptions provided to the Government by the Departments of Treasury and Finance.

It’s important to note that neither of these shadow ministers have any formal education in economics; both have qualifications in Law, as do Wayne Swan and Penny Wong. That has always struck me as a little odd…but like all of us, Ministers and their Shadows rely on subject matter experts – usually public servants - for advice and information.

In the case of the budgetary dollars and sense, the current Secretary of the Department of the Treasury is Dr Martin Parkinson, an economist with a long history in and around politics, and as a senior public servant. He’s copped the brunt of the attacks from the Opposition. In today’s Australian, Senator Cormann continued the tirade:

Senator Cormann said Dr Parkinson provided the government with forecasts behind closed doors and he would "of course" defend them publicly. But he said the budget was the government's document, not the Treasury's.

“I don't believe for one minute that the Treasury, left to its own devices, would have come up with some of the unbelievable assumptions that Wayne Swan and Penny Wong have based their budget figures on,” he told ABC radio.

Yes, the Opposition is suggesting that the Government has somehow coerced public servants within the Departments of Treasury and Finance to fudge figures that would make the Budget look better than it really is? That is one helluva serious allegation, one helluvan insult and quite probably, grounds for investigation. It’s also close to unbelievable.

Senator Cormann wasn’t finished:

“His job as secretary of Treasury until the election period is to serve the government of the day.”

That much, at least, is true, although I suspect his words were thick with unspoken agenda.
Section 1.2 of the Australian Public Service Values and Code of Conduct document is a pretty dry read, but there is no ambiguity around the relationship between public service and the Government. This document lists the Australian Public Service (APS) Values as follows:

•The APS is apolitical, performing its functions in an impartial and professional manner.

•The APS is openly accountable for its actions, within the framework of ministerial responsibility to the government, the Parliament and the Australian public.

•The APS is responsive to the government in providing frank, honest, comprehensive, accurate and timely advice and in implementing the government's policies and programs.

The document continues:

The role of the APS is to serve the Government of the day: to provide the same high standard of policy advice, implementation and professional support, irrespective of which political party is in power. This is at the core of the professionalism of the APS.

If Mr Hockey or Mr Cormann have legitimate concerns around the veracity of figures included within the budget, and if they believe that the wobbly figures were provided by a member of the APS, have the suspected breaches been reported to the appropriate authorities for investigation? (Note to Mr Hockey: Sky News and The Australian are not appropriate authorities.)
If they don’t have anything more concrete than wishful thinking and a desire to hurt the Government’s chances of reelection, they should sit down and shut up now…and in an astonishing turn, even Tony Abbott agrees. He’s visibly placing his trust in the Treasury, and restricting his budget related hostility to attacks on Wayne Swan and Penny Wong.

Where does that leave Joe Hockey and Matthias Cormann?

With no tangible proof of wrongdoing by the Government or the Public Service, no support on this issue from their Leader, and Mr Oakeshott’s decision to lead a Confidence motion in the Departments of Treasury and Finance, their campaign to discredit the numbers is looking pretty fragile.

CAAANBRA: Fair & Balanced

If you’ve been paying attention, you’ll have no doubt that Rupert Murdoch, that former Australian and worldwide media boss, prefers the conservative side of politics. He’s made no attempts to hide it; in fact, many of his News Limited/News International/News Corporation news outlets actively promote a conservative agenda. Fox News is so far to the right, they're the least trusted news organisation in America.

Nooooo, scream the conservative consumers of Mr Murdoch’s newspapers and television interests. In their view, conservative is “normal” and the rest of us are lefty communist stirrers. Hmmm. What you perceive really does depend on where you stand, but regardless of your position on the political spectrum, few would argue that Mr Murdoch’s news organisations are more conservative than most other news organisations.


Headlines and leaders from News Limited today

With new Newspoll and Neilsen federal opinion polls being released today, the headlines are telling. Fairfax's online titles, including the SMH, the Age and the Brisbane Times, are running the headline “Gillard Budget Boost”, while Murdoch’s press prefer to point out that the Coalition still has an ALP-slaughtering lead. Fair enough too – we need different perspectives on our world.
It's not just the Aussie press, though. Rupert Murdoch is not holding back. He has a personal twitter account, and this morning Mr Murdoch tweeted the following:

“Oz polls show nothing can save this miserable govt. Election can not come soon enough. People decided and tuned out months ago.”

With all due respect, I don’t accept that. The polls Mr Murdoch refers to are the Neilsen and Newspoll  numbers released overnight. Both sets of numbers are either stable or slightly positive for the government and for Ms Gillard as preferred PM, in a post-budget context where ALP votes should’ve been lost, not gained.
Internationally, political pollsters aren’t having a great run of late. In British Columbia, all of the media-aligned pollsters were wrong in their recent election. Every single one of them said that the Liberals would romp home and they didn’t. They lost. According to CBC News British Columbia: 

Angus Reid forecast in its last poll before the election that the NDP was the party of choice for 45 per cent of decided voters and leaners, with the governing Liberals in second place with 36 per cent support.

But in Tuesday's election, the Liberals won 44.4 per cent of the popular vote while the NDP ended up with 39.5 per cent. The win gave the Liberals 50 of the province's 85 seats, five more than the party had going into the election.

Back in Australia, Neilsen’s numbers this week show the Coalition leading the ALP 44-32, a slightly larger gap than was reported in British Columbia, but the BC polls were taken just prior to the election, not 4 months out. There were other similarities too: both leaders were fairly unpopular, and the economy was a key election issue, at least according to the pre-election polls.
The same inconsistencies were a factor in poor polling accuracy in the 2012 American Presidential elections. Gallup, one of the world’s oldest and most respected polling organisations, are holding an internal investigation into how and why their results all pointed to a Romney victory last November. Less than two weeks before the election, Gallup predicted a solid Romney victory; he was leading in the polls by 4%. The final result saw President Obama re-elected by the same margin. In polling terms, that's a big mistake. Huge.

Fox News's Bill O'Reilly, deep in denial on Election Night

Politico has put together a handy summary of some major polls conducted up to Election Day, and few of them had Obama in front.

Remember the faces at Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News when it became increasingly apparent that the Republicans would lose the election convincingly? Less than a month out from the Presidential Election, Fox News ran the story of Los Vegas bookie who was predicting a Romney landslide.  The conservative media in the USA was so sure that their man would win that they were visibly shocked when he didn’t.

The headline doesn't reflect the content of the story.

But Nate Silver, statistician, author and commentator, predicted the election so accurately, he called the result in every one of the fifty states, and DC. He had a look at the Australian situation when he was here in January this year. He predicted a Coalition victory, according to a headline in the Murdoch-stabled Australian.

What he actually said was that the ALP government would be the underdog:

In his first Australian interview after arriving in Melbourne yesterday, Silver said given the recent Australian polls, "clearly the government would be the underdog" but "the most important variable is not how many polls are taken but when the polls are taken relative to the election".

My lefty tendencies aren’t giving this election away just yet. Perhaps it’s wishful thinking, perhaps it’s the weather or some hitherto unknown clairvoyant powers, but this federal election is still up for grabs. Don’t be surprised if, come September 15th, we see more sad Murdoch employees - Andrew Bolt, Janet Albrechtsen, Piers Ackerman, Dennis Shanahan and the rest - wondering how it all went so wrong.

Fox News - America's least trusted news source

CAAANBRA: Cut and Colour

Some women rave about that hour or two or three that they spend in the salon being coloured, cut and tjuzjed. It’s special girl time, when a woman and her stylist can gossip about Taylor Swift’s army of exes, discuss the latest in nail art and hem lengths and transform a normal woman into someone with potential. Alternately, the client can close her eyes and pretend to be anywhere else while her trusted hair artiste wields chemicals, scissors and hot air blowers in a blur of smelly activity. In any case, a visit to the hairdressers is rarely an intellectual experience.


It looked as though my appointment at the budget salon was going the same way, until my stylist asked what I was reading on my iPad. It was twitter – my post-work preference for catching up with the political to-ings and fro-ings of the day.

I’ll admit, I was not shocked to learn that 20 year old Natasha isn’t interested in politics. She’s twenty, and hasn’t voted before. I was prepared to abandon the conversation in favour of some blessed silence (not that silence is ever popular in the hair salon on Thursday night) but no. Natasha had to tell me that she hates Julia. Hates her. Hates her with the heat of a thousand suns.

“Why”, I asked, genuinely interested to learn why a woman who is not interested in politics has such a vehement hatred for our first female prime minister.

She shrugged her shoulders and answered “Dunno.”

I followed up: “Has the PM done anything specific, passed any legislation that you’re not happy about?” I was giving her the chance to raise the Carbon Tax, or talk about Kevin Rudd’s exit from Prime Ministership, or Ms Gillard’s refusal to support marriage equality or her position on asylum seekers.

“Dunno”, she shrugged again, pointy-ended comb flying. “Dunno what she’s done. I just hate her.” Natasha made a disgusted, puckerface shudder that took over her whole body.

My inner Bryant Gumbel wanted to ask “But Whyyy?” when my true lefty self took over.

“Oh. Would you like me to tell you about some of the stuff she’s done?”

“Oh Gawd, No! I’m not interested in politics! Really I don’t care!”

The last thing in the world that I wanted to do was provoke the young woman who was cutting and colouring my hair…and who, in just a few minutes would be pouring heated wax onto my eyebrow area. I should’ve stopped.

I kept talking. “Is it the Carbon Tax?” I asked, moderating my tone to sound effortlessly neutral.

“I don’t like tax. Why would I want to pay more of it?” she asked hotly.

This one deserved an explanation, so I explained.

“Oh.” She paused. Even the frantic hair-related activity stopped for a moment….and then they started again. “Well, I still hate her. She’s vi-i-i-ile…but she’s better than the budgies bloke. He’s scary! I guess if you think Julia’s okay, you probably hate Abbott!”

I was impressed. I did not for a moment think that she would know the name of the Leader of the Opposition. I hmmmed an agreement.

Nodding is dangerous when you’re seated in at a stylist’s station. How every hair salon on earth hasn’t been classified as a major Hazard Facility is a mystery to me. President Obama could shut down Guantanamo Bay and replace it with a chain of salons and probably achieve the same result. There’s the too-hot/too-cold water torture, the unqualified agony of sitting for hours in an uncomfortable chair with nothing to look at except a poorly lit reflection of your own face. There's a horrifying selection of blades, lethal chemicals designed to change the molecular structure of human tissue, lots of electricity, hot wax, tweezers…

In any case, when your stylist is working on your hair, don’t nod, even if its to signal your agreement regarding the scariness of Tony Abbott. But that was just about the only time he was mentioned. Natasha thinks he’s nowhere near as good as the good Aussie bloke that Kevin was. Is.

“Fair shake of the sauce bottle, Sal! Kevin’s a great Aussie bloke. There aren’t any other great Aussie blokes in politics. We need more like Kevin. He’s awesome! I mean, who else would say ‘fair shake of the sauce bottle’?”

Aaahhhh, does Natasha’s hatred of Julia stem from the simple truth that here, in the heart of Griffith, Julia isn’t Kevin?

Natasha doesn’t think she’ll vote this time. She can’t bring herself to vote for her local member – even if it is Kevin – because that’s a vote for Julia. She won’t vote for the Liberal candidate, because that’s a vote for Budgie Boy. She wouldn’t vote for anyone else either: “Why vote for anyone else? Y’gotta be on the winner, doncha!”

I don’t know how much this little pocket of eastern Brisbane suburbia resembles the western suburbs of Sydney, but I suspect it’s more than many want to admit.

Meanwhile, one of Labor’s big problems is how to win the hearts and minds of people who hate Julia Gillard but have no clue as to why. I doubt Natasha is the only one. How do you argue against pure, illogical emotion?

I pondered this, though not hard. I was distracted by the off cuts of hair, clinging to my neck with maliciously itchy intent.

Caaanbra: Failure to Lose

Yesterday, Sky News Australia’s political guru Peter Van Onselen tweeted "No Liberal candidate is allowed to do national media until AFTER they are elected...inspiring stuff when govt traveling so badly." This comes just a couple of months after The Age reported that Liberal candidates had been urged to shut down their social media accounts.


I suspect that it's not just the candidates, but also the sitting Liberal members, and even their leader who is being censored. With just over six months until the Federal Election, what can you say about a campaign strategy that discourages any sniff of communication that hasn't been entirely pasteurised, homogenised and dare I suggest, scripted, approved, rehearsed, spray-tanned and botoxed by the Party Machine. It's an approach that stinks of a lack of trust in the leader, every sitting Liberal member and every Liberal candidate.

Think for a moment. The Liberal Party Campaign does not trust it’s own people to communicate its message...and yet it expects us to vote for them and trust them to run our country? Based on recent polls, we probably will vote for the Coalition in great enough numbers to see them form government, but that’s assuming that t here’s no game changer between now and the election.

So the Liberal plan looks clear enough. Be vewy vewy quiet, let the ALP trip over themselves, stoke the dislike of Julia Gillard in a series of carefully crafted media events, and wait for the country to vote against the ALP. Next Step: claim victory early in the evening of September 14.

It's the inevitable Claytons strategy. After all, how do you plan communications for a political campaign that's short on both policy and personality? Even the Silent Treatment is risky, particularly when it's difficult to keep the team quiet. If the Campaign can't trust the candidates to say the right thing, it's unlikely they can be trusted to say nothing.

Fopr example, it might be difficult to keep Andrew Laming quiet. Despite having been in parliament for nine years, those years have been eventful. There were enquiries about $67,000 worth of dubious printing costs, his claim to be a social media expert (versus the reality that his social media activities are often ill-considered) and last week’s revelations that he had included a shot of a man flashing his man-bits at the camera in his latest brochure. It seems that communication is not really his forte: that's dangerous for a politician.

Still, credit where credit is due. Mr Laming has not tweeted for 13 days. The same can’t be said for members of the shadow cabinet, who must be exempt from the ban on social media.

Meanwhile, two of the higher profile Liberal candidates are Mal Brough, who’s contesting Peter Slipper’s seat of Fisher, and Bill Glasson, who is taking on Kevin Rudd in Griffith. Neither of them of are tweeting, although Mal Brough does has a twitter account of sorts.

Social media isn’t the only perceived danger zone, though. Here in Griffith, I’ve heard almost nothing of Bill Glasson since he was announced as the Liberal Candidate for Kevin Rudd’s seat. Surely the Liberal executive must believe he has a chance to beat Mr Rudd; as a former head of the Australian Medical Association, Dr Glasson has name recognition already, and would be a good candidate for most seats – but Kevin Rudd has enormous loyalty and in the past year, has been an energetic and highly visible local member.

Despite the LNP directive, Bill Glasson appeared on Nine’s Today Show in mid February, and accused Mr Rudd of neglecting his electorate.

STEFANOVIC: He [Rudd] is 61% in the polls. He is 61% as the favourite PM. He’s been in that seat since 1998. He is always up there holding community gatherings. He is very busy in his local electorate. He hasn’t neglected them. You can’t win!

GLASSON: I can win, Karl! I can win. He has neglected his electorate, I am sorry. He’s just come back to re-find the electorate. I think he’s been using the electorate, in many respects, as a springboard for his own career and, as I said, as I move around and talk to the people of Griffith there is a significant mood for change.

It’s rare that I agree with Karl Stefanovic, but in this case, he is correct. If you’re in any doubt about just how much Mr Rudd does around Griffith, check out his Facebook page, where every appearance in the electorate is detailed, most with photographs. Perhaps Andrew Laming could take some lessons from @KRuddMP on how to use social media effectively.



Selections from Mr Rudd's Facebook page from the past few days

 Looking beyond the election, if the Liberals can keep their powder dry until September 14, what can we expect from a Liberal Prime Minister and Coalition Government? With his minders shielding him from serious political interviews, is it likely that Prime Minister Abbott – if that’s what happens – will be as open with the media as previous Prime Ministers?

Or will he continue to prepare for major public appearances with a script, fake tan and a comb-over? Will he agree to quick chats here and there, without becoming becoming silent and visibly shaking for well over a minute, because he needs to control his urge to bop his media opponent on the nose? Will he take questions during press conferences, or like George W Bush, will he read a scripted statement and then vacate the podium?

How much media freedom would Liberal ministers have? Last week Scott Morrison spoke his mind about asylum seekers in the community and Tony Abbott backed him, despite Morrison’s words being some of the most appalling sentiments ever expressed by a politician. Also last week, Joe Hockey couldn’t articulate his own party’s policies regarding compensation related to repealing the carbon tax, but he spoke anyway, and then had to clean up the mess he made. Poor Joe has been the subject of Liberal Party concern for years now. "Treasurer Hockey" might deliver the Budget, but will he be trusted to sell it?

Cory Bernardi is another worry - he virtually removed himself to the opposition backbench after revealing that his personal values are lightyears to the right of the Libs. Julie Bishop couldn’t be trusted to keep the contents of confidential security briefings to herself. Christopher Pyne can always be counted on to say something ridiculous, and of course, Andrew Laming is never far from some kind of stupidity. Just give him an ipad, a twitter account and a spare half hour and he can get busy insulting people all over the country.

Despite all of that, I have more fundamental concerns as a voter, and for the voters of Australia. Is it acceptable that some of our politicians and candidates are being discouraged from speaking to the voters? No-one says they have to communicate with their electorates, but it's usually considered a big part of the job of campaigning and governing. This bizarre strategy might see the Coalition take power, but is it a win? Or is it just a failure to lose?

Caaanbra: Voter Intent

If you believe the polls of the past few weeks, Prime Minister Gillard’s new semi-hipster specs will be undermined and overthrown by the smoother, newly oranged Tony Abbott and his team of non-communicators. The major Polls – Neilsen, Newspoll, Galaxy, Essential – are all indicating that last year’s steady ascent of Julia Gillard is just so 2012, and that this is the year of the Abbott. Snake. Abbottsnake.

Of course, none of that will happen if the wildcard entry, Mr Kevin “I’m still from Queensland, still trying to help” Rudd ascends to the top of the ALP tree once more. The would be a game-changer. Professional pundits are drooling in anticipation of an ALP Leadership spill, which they seem to believe Kevin Rudd will win. They’re not talking out of their fedoras either: they are reporting the fears of senior ALP ministers, who have stated that the latest polling numbers make it impossible for the ALP to win in September. Many seem to believe that they have to make some changes.

Labor MPs were rocked by recent polls, which showed the Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, ahead of Ms Gillard as preferred prime minister, jumping nine points to 49 per cent with her support slipping by five points to 45 per cent.

It followed a poor start to the election year for Labor, which was marred by policy and political errors, the failure of the mining tax, and the prominent emergence of Mr Rudd even as he called on people to ''take a cold shower'' over the leadership.

I really don’t want to discuss polls – there are people far more qualified to talk about them than I am. What fascinates me is what on earth could’ve happened in the past few weeks to turn what was looking like a very close election into a Coalition sure thing, Rudd notwithstanding. It’s not Ms Gillard’s specs, and it’s not Mr Abbott’s fake tan. I doubt it’s the arrest of Craig Thomson, or the whole Peter Slipper/Mal Brough brou-ha-ha. Ha-ha.

Is it policy? Has someone announced something, other than the date of the election, that would edge voters one way or the other? Are Australians more willing to risk a future with Tony Abbott and a sketchy policy than a government without Nicola Roxon and Chris Evans?

Is it absence of policy? Has the Liberal “leak” of Mr Abbott’s plan to build a hundred damns to drought-proof Australia been a winner? Perhaps just a glimmer of a suggestion of the hope of a policy is enough to convince voters that it’s time for change.

Is it the separation of the “other” Coalition, when Greens leader Christine Milne virtually told the government to shove off? I honestly doubt that has much to do with anything, but I thought I should mention the Greens, in case we’re watching the end of their obituary right now. Still, it will be interesting to see how many voters are genuine greenies, and how many were voting green as a way of ensuring a government that was slightly to the left of the other guys, without actually voting for Labor.

Because I am a lefty, I very much doubt that many conservatives read this blog, but for the one or two of you who do, this question is for the conservatives: Can you honestly say that you understand what the lefties are on about? Do you "get" leftie-speak, or is it just JuLiar and nasally accent going "blah blah carbon tax, blah blah misogyny, blah blah Gonski, blah blah blah."

And now, the same sort of questions for my leftie readers: Do you understand the conservative side of politics and the people who support conservative politics? How about conservative priorities, their thought processes, their leadership? When you think of Tony Abbott’s recent public appearances, are you aware of anything other than him turning orange and avoiding any and all serious media interviews?

Perhaps you're one of those progressive types who likes to watch Fox News so you can feel superior to Bill O'Reilly and his Low-Fact Friends in the All-Spin Cycle. Perhaps, like the IPA's James Paterson, you only enjoy QandA for the obscenities that the irrelevant ponces on the ABC trot out week after week. Fine – I’m in favour of mocking, providing some degree of intelligence and awareness of the issues is involved. Without understanding what you’re mocking, it’s not mocking; it’s trolling.

I'm not asking if you agree with the other side; that would be weird, unless you're Malcolm Turnbull. I'm just fascinated to know if you understand what drives the conservative, as opposed to what drives the lefty. At some level, it must come down to "what's in it for me", but that can't be all, particularly when both sides are promising more than they can pay for.

As the disparate sides of Australian politics awkwardly two-step together towards the right, there's not much between the core party platforms. The action, the fun stuff, is at the extremes, with the extremists. Out there, a party’s values still drive policy. It's great television, but not relevant to most average voters. Most Coalition supporters probably don’t support the platforms of the Australian Christian Lobby or the Galileo Movement, just as most Labor supporters aren’t gay Marxist baby-killing tree-huggers. Most of us are here, in the middle, staring at eachother over a wet cigarette paper.

I despair at the level of political debate I hear around me, sometimes on media, sometimes at the water cooler. But what have we done to improve it? What has anyone done? Who has accountability for ensuring that the people in this country who are required by law to turn up at a polling place know what they’re voting for and why?

I support compulsory voting, where everyone has a single, equal vote...and yet, if I vote Liberal in my seat because I don't like Julia Gillard's glasses is it a valid choice? It's definitely a valid vote, but was it made by someone in possession of the facts?

That's one of those horrible questions that keep me awake at night.

Now it's your turn. You can thank me later. 

BTW, there's a silly little poll on this very subject in the right hand column of this very blog. What drives your voting decisions?