The Lesser of Who Cares

A political campaign is just another marketing campaign with a few twists.


So how on earth has this Queensland Election managed to deliver such a bunch of negative, dysfunctional and demoralising messages?


Let’s try something: imagine a new world where every advertisement you saw for, say, an airline, was honest?

Virgin Australia – because we’re not Qantas

Jetstar – If you want to be snooty, fly with someone else


Qantas – Cheap seats now, because after last year, we need to suck up

Now, let’s try the same thing where the airlines are all choosing campaigns that criticise their opposition:

Virgin Australia – because we’re not Qantas

Jetstar – We’re cheap

Qantas – So much classier than those cheap and nasty airlines

Both of these approaches are pretty honest, and both of them are unlikely to win that many new customers. Frankly, if this was the best on offer, you’d have to think about travelling by train. Or bus. Or staying home.


Which brings us back to the Queensland election campaigns. I said in a recent blog that I don’t think these campaigns have been particularly dirty, but they continue to be appallingly negative, to the extent that if I didn’t have such a brilliant local member in Steve Kilburn, I’d have a hard time caring enough to make a decision. My colleagues who don’t live in Chatsworth are having that problem. There’s very little to inspire us, but plenty to infuriate us, disappoint us and make us want to disengage from the whole process.


Why? Because the messages about us just aren’t cutting through.


So what’s the purpose of an election campaign?


The short answer is to gain votes. Each party wants to secure the highest number of votes for their candidate and/or party.


My old Foundations of Buyer Behaviour lecturers would probably start talking about the Differential Advantage now. Each of the campaigns is trying to make itself different from all of the others. Note – different, not better. The hope is that by being different, they’ll be better for some.


The ALP has experience – that’s its difference. It’s governed for most of the last two decades, and it knows how to govern.


The LNP is throwing around a few differences: it’s the only party other than Labor that can govern, it’s time for a change, and it has Campbell Newman almost at the helm.


The Greens are just a step to the left, a bit more progressive and they don’t apologise for it.


Katter’s Australia Party were trying to position themselves as an alternative to the two big parties, but a lack of candidates, lack of support in the cities, and that unfortunate advertisement which has tarred them all as homophobes has killed that.


This is what we already know. Now, factor in a month or so of campaigning. Where are you and I, the voters, in amongst all of this?


Well, if we were a marketing department in an airline, we’d probably be talking about the CVP: The Customer Value Proposition. It’s the be-all and end-all for too many marketers these days, and too often, it’s a meaningless buzzword. Listen out for it though: the Cuuustomer Vaalue Proposition. It sounds so special, like it has a cherry on top, and I think it applies to voters even more than it does to customers.

The problem is that very few people actually know what it means. *removes cherry now*. Wikipedia thinks the CVP can be defined as follows.
 
A customer value proposition is a business or marketing statement that describes why a customer should buy a product or use a service. It is specifically targeted towards potential customers rather than other constituent groups such as employees, partners or suppliers. It is a clearly defined statement that is designed to convince customers that one particular product or service will add more value or better solve a problem than others in its competitive set.

Yeah, okay…but what does that mean for you and I?

In terms of the election, it’s the bundle of stuff that each party is offering us, in an attempt to get us to vote for them. It’s a combination of all sorts of goodies: policies, experience, personal appeal, attitude, reputation, accessibility, heritage… It’s policies, plus a whole heap of less tangible things. The problem for us – and for the campaign managers – is that the focus has been on the intangibles, and not on the policies, so that’s what we have to work with when making our voting decisions.

For example, what do you actually know about the ALP’s campaign? The tables below summarise the small chunks that I remember of these crazy campaigns.

So what’s the Voter Value Proposition from each of the major parties? When packaged up, what are these political campaigns offering us?

• The ALP will stoop to mudslinging to win, but they’re the devil we know.

• The LNP is probably dodgy, pretty conservative but at least they’re not Labor.

• The Greens are progressive, but not relevant in Queensland, other than as an alternative to Labor.

• Katter’s Australia Party is a very conservative, untried, unpredictable and unlikely to make much of an impact.

I’m reminded of Leo McGarry’s eternal wisdom, particularly his speech from In The Shadow Of Two Gunman (The West Wing):

I'm tired of it: year after year after year after year having to choose between the lesser of who cares. Of trying to get myself excited about a candidate who can speak in complete sentences. Of setting the bar so low, I can hardly bear to look at it.

If Queensland was the airline industry, all fleets would be grounded.

Dirty Deeds

Lots of talking heads on national television shows and in comments pages of newspapers have started noticing the Queensland election, and are referring to it as one of the dirtiest in Australia’s history.

I’ve been watching this election quite closely, and yes, some of the tactics are pretty low, but is it dirtier than most? What are the hallmarks of a ‘dirty election’? I’d considered ‘dirty politics’ to be the kind of scandal-ridden campaigns and governments we’ve seen in America.


Of course Watergate is in a class all its own when it comes to dirty politics, but in comparison to the USA, Australian politics has been tame.

 Since Watergate, America has played host to a whole range of political scandals, from the theft of Premier Carter’s briefing book, which was subsequently given to Ronald Reagan before he ran for President in 1980, to the Iran Contra Affair which marred two presidencies, to Clarence Thomas and sexual harassment to Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, through the near-insanity of the Dubya years and hanging chads, to the Obama Administration. For every major scandal that gets reported around the world and has the suffix “-gate” attached, there are literally dozens more that aren’t as newsworthy, or as sexy, or as dirty.

Surely the 2012 Queensland election isn’t in that class, is it?


Queenslanders know their way around a scandal. The Fitzgerald Inquiry ended what was the most corrupt government in our history, saw three ministers imprisoned, forced two by-elections, the police minister stripped of his knighthood, and ended the reign of Joh Bjelke Petersen. It brought home to Australia words like “bagman”, words we’d never heard outside of a mafia movie. But now, almost 23 years on, is Queensland still emerging from the shadow of corruption?


Well, to hear those people on television last night tell it, you’d think we probably are.


Campbell Newman, wanna-be Premier, is copping the brunt of attention as the media, ably aided by the ALP campaign, comb through every breath of Newman’s life, looking for a hint of something not quite right. Of course, they’ve found more than a hint, and they’re still digging. Newman’s personal finances, his wife’s finances, his mother’s finances and particularly those of his in-laws are being scrutinised.


If this was a normal election, I’d probably think this treatment was a bit rough, but this is no normal election. Firstly, Newman has been parachuted into the state LNP after resigning as Brisbane’s Lord Mayor. He has held high political office for years; he should be used to the scrutiny.


Then there’s the breathtaking arrogance of Newman’s entrance into state politics. He’s contesting the seat of Ashgrove, and if he wins it, he won’t be a junior backbencher learning the ropes in state government. He’ll be state premier.


At the moment, I’d categorise his chances as being ‘too close to call’; he’s been steadily losing ground in Ashgrove for months. I don’t know.


Meanwhile, there’s the ALP. Just weeks after winning the last state election, Premier Anna Bligh stunned the state by announcing a sell-off of state assets. This was not well received by the electorate, and she became a pariah in what felt like a matter of moments. Aside from some extraordinary polling during and after the floods of January 2011, she’s never been able to shake the intense dislike and distrust that has dogged her every decision since the asset sell-off announcement.


To make matters worse, this term of government has been punctuated by a series of political disappointments: Gordon Nuttall was convicted on corruption, The Jayent Patel / Doctor Death trial didn’t reflect well on the Labor government, the Queensland Health Payroll Debacle…it’s a mark of honour in Queensland to blame “Anna” for everything that goes wrong, from corrupt and incompetent officials to sporting disasters. You’ll always find someone willing to say that it’s “Anna’s fault”.


…except if you’re in Brisbane, where it’s perfectly acceptable to blame Campbell Newman for anything to do with King George Square, the Clem 7, the CityCycle Scheme, crazy rates rises and too many mis-matched bridges.


On the upside, no-one in the ALP camp is facing the kind of scrutiny that the LNP is. Aside from Campbell Newman and his financial webs, the LNP has also had to deal with candidates misbehaving: everything from drink driving to attending a swingers’ party to possibly running a website featuring ‘adult content’.


But really, talking heads, is any of this “dirty”? I haven’t heard of any pollies on either side of the Queensland race sleeping with the work experience girl (or boy). As far as I know, no-one’s breaking into the opposition’s headquarters, and if Campbell Newman has been doing anything financially unbecoming as Mayor, it will be found out, and wasn’t designed to secure election.


Still, most commentators and voters agree that there’s far too much finger-pointing and accusing, and not enough actual policy in this campaign. Just look at the flyers released this week in Ashgrove. They are personally addressed, and state on them “Campbell is only interested in looking after one family. And it’s not yours.” The front shows a picture of the smiling Newmans, and the back shows a list of ways in which he has looked after his own interests and those of his family at the expense of ethical considers and possibly the law. It’s not that blatant, but you know what they’re getting at.


I’m afraid the result might be that many voters have disengaged.


Around here, when you ask someone what they think about the election or who’ll they’ll vote for, the answer is always “Don’t really care; can’t stand any of them.”

With all due respect to the talking heads and the commenters in the News Limited press, I don’t think this is a particularly dirty campaign. It’s feisty, at times desperate, but dirty?


Depends how you define it. What do you think? Leave your comments here.

Maybe On Sunday

The Queensland Election Campaigns roll on today with significant events scheduled for both major parties, but to what end? I’m sure there are plenty of Queenslanders who are still bumping around in the Undecideds column, but are today’s events going to sway many minds? I doubt it.

Let’s start with the ALP Campaign Launch. It’s a large expensive photo-op for members of the ALP to get photos with VIPs. Prime Minister Gillard, Treasurer Swan, Member for Griffith Kevin Rudd and former Premier Beattie are there, with their best we’re-all-friends-now grins that fool no-one. But this is Queensland, and Rudd still means something here. Media will be watching for cracks in the chummy veneer, suggestions of insider-versus-outsider tension, and making obvious conclusions. It’s a rich feast on offer.

I’m watching the ALP Love-in as I write this. While I’m waiting, let’s talk LNP and Campbell Newman; I'll head back to the ALP when someone starts talking.

Meanwhile, Campbell Newman has called a press conference of his own. His aim is twofold: he wants to draw attention away from the ALP's Big Day, and also end the speculation about his finances and those of his family. He announced that he and his wife will be divest themselves of their financial interests. Scanning Twitter this morning was not unlike the heady hours of #QantasLuxury: the mood is mocking, a festival of rhetorical questions and sarcastic dismissal.

·         Newman is going to divest himself of assets he hasn’t admitted he owns?

·         Why were Newman’s investments okay when he was Lord Mayor, but not as Premier?

·         Would he be talking about his finances if not for the bad polling?

·         What about his alleged misconduct as Lord Mayor?

I’m also hearing that Newman has promised to divest himself of financial interests within 90 days of being elected but the Cabinet regulations requires that divestment take place in no more than 30 days. It does - we checked.

And here's Anna Bligh, wearing one of Julia Gillard's white jackets. 

Anna does the intro, talks a bit about Ashgrove and moves straight onto the LNP taking Queensland back to the bad old days of the 20^th Century. But hey, Anna’s on message, questioning why Campbell Newman was allowed to carry on as Lord Mayor with all of these conflicting financial interests. She also notes that Newman won’t answer questions about alternate leadership. “The lucky-dip of Leadership”? Great line – alliteration and rhyme. I would’ve hammered that a bit harder.

And its onto Queensland’s green credentials – and back to Newman again who is decidedly un-green, a quick fly-by near Law & Order (Ram Raids? Really?) onto the Economy. Good numbers! I’m impressed – and it’s an employment promise so close to being kept. Queensland has the best performing economy in the country that most successfully navigated the GFC.

Education as transformation, smaller class sizes, 42000 places in Kindy, and shifting Year 7 into High School.

And to the future: Australia’s first ever education trust fund, funded by mining revenue. Mines to Minds. From the Asia-Pacific Century to an Asia-Pacific Exchange Student programme. The apprenticeships rebate to continue. Skilling up Queenslanders for innovation and productivity. More scientists and researchers per capita than OECD average – big on developing this as the economy of tomorrow.

Growth follows innovation. Prosperity follows growth.

Health. The Achilles’ Heel of Queensland’s Labor Government. Anna will be employing 3000 more health professionals over the next 3 years. No mention of the master plan to split the department into a health services department and a back office support department.

Anna also promises a freeze on rego costs for next 3 years –for all vehicles. Take that Campbell Newman, who is offering something similar, but which excludes utes and bikes.

The summing up is more triumphant than resolute: but hang on – you haven’t won and probably won’t. There’s an incoming tide of prosperity – not a line I would have on a day saturated with images of the Japanese Tsunami.

And now both sides have said their pieces for today. Are we any further along the road?

Maybe.

The ALP had a solid launch, but Newman failed to address questions around Civil Partnerships and LNP Leadership. Nothing has really changed.

Electoral Disconnect

It seems that we’re always in an election campaign period of some kind.

Here in Queensland, we’re just over halfway through a five week campaign which ends with the state election on March 24. Local Government elections are being held in late April, and while the Federal Election isn’t due until the second half of 2013, the campaigning never stops in a hung parliament. Add to that the ongoing coverage of Putin’s election maneouvres in Russia, and the never-ending round of Republican primaries in the USA.

The problem is the majority of this activity is just bad campaigning.  It’s not engaging; it’s not policy-driven; it’s not fair to voters.

The Campaigners

Q:           What is the purpose of an election campaign?

A:            To win an election.

Q:            How does a campaign help you to win an election?

A:            By convincing enough people to vote for you.

Q:            How do you convince people to vote for you?

This is where life – or politics – gets interesting. There are two simple answers to this question. You can do some or all of the following:

·         Promise to introduce policies that people want

·         Promise to end situations they don’t like (particularly good if you’re in opposition)

·         Convince people that your opposition’s policies are bad – or worse than yours

·         Make your opposition look untrustworthy, dishonest, weak, morally questionable or worse

The Electorate

                Q:           Why vote?

               

                A:            To influence the outcome of an election; to help my “team” win.

               

                Q:           Which is your “team”?

                A:            The one which is going to best improve my life and look after my issues

               

                Q:           How do you know which team that is?

And again, this is where the rubber hits the electoral road. It will be the best combination of these options:

·         The team that promises to implement the policies that support my issues

·         The team that promises to end policies that make my life harder, or that conflict with my belief systems

·         The team that appeals to me more

·         The team that seems most honest and trustworthy, committed, and with my values

I could ask how we, the humble members of the electorate, make these decisions, but to be honest, I’m a little scared of the answers. I mentioned in a previous blog that one voter stated that she wasn’t going to vote for the party she thought would lose. Other factors that help determine how a voter will vote include a combination of policy, personal appeal, past experiences, name recognition, candidate’s reputation, gut feel and sheer luck.

Despite all of these people running for election, what are we hearing most about? We’re hearing about the personal and family finances of candidates, ancient drink-driving offences, swingers parties, porn on websites, racist comments, who lives where, the name of the candidate’s holiday property, uncertainty around leadership, the usual bullshit about marriage status / children / sexual orientation / ethnicity / religious affiliation and favourite jacket.

I’m sure all of that is interesting to someone, but not much of it helps me to make up my mind about who to vote for.

I’m fortunate in that I have an excellent local member. He communicates well so we know what he’s doing, and he’s always accessible. He has earned my vote, though not through any campaigning activities. He’s just a great local member who scraped in in 2009 and has worked hard.

For me, it’s not necessarily about the campaigning, which is a good thing, because on the basis of the last three weeks alone, I’m not impressed enough with anyone to consider voting for them.

Of course, the media is focussing on two areas: the leaders, and Ashgrove…or they would be, were it not for the constant stream of distractions that are clogging up the news feed. There seems to be an ever-widening gap between what the campaigns want, what the media want and what the voters want.

As voters, we own the outcome. We need to take more responsibility for ensuring that we have the information we need.