The world is deleveraging. The capaital markets will decide who gets allocated credit. Some fine grade names are still finding it difficult to borrow through the US commenrcial paper market as of last night. Make of it waht you like.

That said, systematic bias by Murdoch papers could be just the last straw to break the Rudd camel’s back. Today we have another example. Reporting on a survey by Deakin University, the front page story is headed Howards IR laws improve work-life balance (22/8/07). This positive theme is highlighted in the main story. The newspaper could have just as easily headed the report on the Deakin study as follows: Howards IR laws add to red tape and confusion by employers and reduce workplace morale.

Both interpretations are correct but highlighting the first makes a big difference to how the casual reader responds to your story.

The only thing that could change this dynamic is if Rudd allows himself to be edged on some non-economic emotive issue – which is exactly what he is sacrificing any residual principles to avoid.

I think stunts like the supermarket thing are exactly what’s called for at his stage. Its an unpleasant truth that the most marginal voter tends to be the least least intelligent and engaged one, so you have to appeal to the thick more than to the smart. Pitch it to things that go down well on “This Day Tonight”.

So it makes more sense to think of the recently narrowing gap as Rudd and Labor coming down from orbit (as Ken notes towards the end, before concluding perplexingly that ‘we can certainly expect a very close result.’) In turn this means (as i think Liam implied) that there is as much sense following those lines to 2010 and beyond as to nov/dec of this year. IFIRC, Bryan at Ozpolitics usually attaches similar advice to those graphs. cs is right, it will no doubt narrow (it has to), but the lifting of Labor’s dead bat should counter the traditional incumbents advantage somewhat. hmmm, enough namedropping?

Mark:

Id also point to Medicare Gold and Swans argument about the money that wasnt as prime examples of how an arguably good policy and a fair argument can get turned into big negatives during a campaign.

I’m not really sure what the Swan thing is but the Medicare Gold example begs the question of whether actual (as in after the election is called) campaign dynamics will be at all similar this time around. Fake (as in now, everlasting) campaign dynamic have been surprisingly different and this seems to have caught Howard on the hop, resulting in a number of wedges/smears blowing up in his face. Why might the same not happen when the election is called? You sort of allow for this point in the para before, but it was more than noisy special interests that did in Medicare Gold, right?

Rudd has made the right call, imo, on refusing to deal with the Exclusive Bretheren. It might help him deflect some of the Coalition’s “me too” rhetoric. Costello and Andrews are chorusing from Howard’s hymn sheet on this issue. But it certainly is a clear-cut point of difference at just the right time.
Meanwhile, with Cousins and Turnbull at each other throats as Johnny says what jolly good fellows they both are, one wonders about the futility of eating the rich, when the rich have already started to devour each other.

Hold fast, The Kid’s doing just fine.

Bush did.

As Jim McDonald pointed out, there’s a big irony in Hockey constantly claiming the ALP and ACTU are importing American campaigning methods.

I’d also point to Medicare Gold and Swan’s argument about the money that wasn’t as prime examples of how an arguably good policy and a fair argument can get turned into big negatives during a campaign.

Rove-style swiftboating needs the MSM on a short leash if it is to be effective. Rudd has had a good trot from Murdoch’s press and its subsidiaries since Rudd saw Kim Beazley off. Seems Rupert(a notoriously hands-on proprietor) is not so averse to Rudd, considering his tabloid editorials and some very uncharitable photos of Mister Howard. Despite the drone of Howard’s regular News shills, Front Page shots of Howard, head hung like a beaten favourite, walking under Sydney harbour bridge alongside a headline like: “Sydney Battlers Dessert Howard”, tends to give avid media watchers pause. Can’t recall Howard getting flak like this from Rupert’s media during the past eleven years.
Sure, Crosby Textor will saturate the telly with a Rovian blitz, but until the new trump at the WSJ says otherwise, KO7 is still very much in the hunt because; enough voters in marginal seats sensitive to Work Choices and rate rises read the tabloids to make a difference on election day.

Let me put it this way. If Citizen Rupert feels that he won’t be “warmly welcomed” when he wants a chat with you, then your chances of becoming Prime Minister of say, England or Australia, or President of the United States for that matter, are very slim indeed.

If this is truly a common perception then the Liberals are in big trouble, it means the question for these voters has moved away from “who’s the better economic manager” to “who’s better at spending priorities”.

Speding priorities are of course Labors home turf… How big was that surplus again?

http://www.ozpolitics.info/blog/2007/08/21/newspoll-55-to-45-in-labors-favor/

I have an article in today’s New Matilda which examines the deeper implications of Scoresgate (and I hope to develop the theme announced but not argued in the second paragraph in another piece. But I concentrate on what Scoresgate says about the …

Oh, the betting markets are just a plot by economists to make us all think that markets are rational. ;) Tell that to someone with a good business who can’t get credit now because of the sub-prime smash up.

The only rigorous study of whether personalities and perceptions and issues shift votes is the AES.

The internal party polling normally gets closer to this question than the published polls. The methodology of the latter on relating popularity and “better on” to voting intention is just rubbish.

Ken, you suggest that poll statistics give the lie to my assertions; yet I don’t feel damned. As you note (Comment No. 4) “The last couple of polls have certainly shown the previous slow trend to the Coalition seemingly stalling….. . No doubt an exercise that takes it forward to 17 August will be published soon, and will show the curve flattening”.
The recent Newspoll will furthur this flattening.

I’ve no doubt that when the election is called and the gloves come off, Crosby Textor will make Ah-Pook The Destroyer seem tame. On the other side, Rudd’s handlers are not entirely gormless, contributing to his being a bona fide contender with current shortish odds with the bookies.

The politics of fear that Howard will inevitably play, must overcome widespread community loathing for Work Choices, rising interest rates, but most of all,for a bloke who wouldn’t go home when the party was over. Rudd has also pulled to a 7% lead in Newspoll on; “Who do you think would make the better PM”. It’s been that way since May, that’s why I think the punters are switched off to Mr. Howard. They’ll cop whatever pork he dishes then toss him out anyway.

Just two clarifications to what I was saying:

(1) I’m not saying that I think Crosby/Textor are infallible, nor predicting that the Coalition will win. I do think the significance of the leak of their research was that it was a signal that the Coalition now have an actual strategy after flailing around helplessly and hysterically for the first half of the year. Labor needs to be fleet of foot in its response to this, and not play a game which concentrates solely on defending a lead in the polls, which I’m sure cs would agree has meaning far more for its effect on the mood and the state of play rather than on the outcome per se.

(2) I would bet at the moment either on a very narrow government win or a large ALP win. I still think the latter is more probable, but the chances of the former are firming up.

I’ve developed some of these points at much greater length in an article published in New Matilda today.

http://www.newmatilda.com/home/articledetailmagazine.asp?ArticleID=2432&HomepageID=217

Oh, and I’ve never been a “true believer”, if that means rusted on to Labor. I haven’t been a member of the ALP since 1991, and have voted for the Democrats and the Greens in some elections since then. I was and am a Paul Keating fan, if that’s what it means.

The poll figures surely arise from anti-Howard sentiment, not support for a clearly differentiated Labor alternative. You can see that in blog comments, letters to the editor etc. Political comment is overwhelmingly about the flaws in the government; there are few coherent attempts to explain why things will be better under Labor.

Maybe this negativity towards Howard’s mob will be enough to get Labor over the line, but there must be a risk for Rudd that as the election draws near, people will retreat to the devil they know.

This means I am not rusted on to any party or any government – I voted for Hawke (a canny operator with an excellent economic reform concept) and was glad to see the back of that idiot and opportunity-waster Fraser. I certainly did not vote for Keating – loathesome man of zero ability, brilliant politician and possibly the second-worst PM we have ever had as he was nearly as bad as Menzies.

And to be perfectly frank I think Howard is finished. I have bet beers on this with my two devout practising Marxist acquantances – who are Howard supporters. I do not think he actually deserves to be, his international policies are (IMHO) very good for the country and his government’s economic management is as excellent as his domestic policies are poor, but I still think he is finished.

I think that the electorate is simply bored with him (strike one) and that they think that the boom will continue no matter who is in power (strike two). If those factors are correct, then it is all over bar the shouting, and to hell with what the polls say.

MarkL
Canberra

Sorry if this was misconstrued.

I meant that you’re offering an interesting take.

The last couple of polls have certainly shown the previous slow trend to the Coalition seemingly stalling. Bryan P has only done an aggregated graph up to 17 July. No doubt an exercise that takes it forward to 17 August will be published soon, and will show the curve flattening. The obvious explanation for that is the interest rate hike. Will the previous slow trend to the Coalition resume? Will there be another rate rise before the election? Who knows? I’m just saying that the result is probably going to be a lot tighter than most people seem to think, and almost all commentators are failing to acknowledge the significance and likely effect of the marginal seat strategy. This is carefully targetted pork barrelling and negative campaigning of a scale and complexity never before seen. Howard might conceivably hold onto government despite an overall 2pp of (say) 48.5%. The published polls don’t have samples large enough to gauge movements in particular marginal seats, whereas you can guarantee that both major parties are measuring them carefully.