Good News for the Sleeping Giant

According to the latest Nielsen poll, John Howard has begun closing the gap on Labor, recovering by 2 percentage points in both the two-party preferred (to 46%) and the primary vote (to 42%).

Hardly surprising. This is the first week of the actual election campaign, in which one would expect the Government to gain some ground, as the question "who would you vote for?" gets ever less hypothetical, the attack ads begin, and people remember their mortgages. More specifically, Peter Hartcher points out that the poll comes on the heels of three major Howard announcements: his sudden Aboriginal reconciliation discovery, calling the election, and the tax cuts. These, says Hartcher, have helped Howard cut through to a previously deaf electorate. In fact, Hartcher argues that the Coalition will be disappointed not to have achieved more of a spike, particularly given the profligacy of the tax cuts.

I'm not so sure. As Crikey pointed out on Monday, economic news generally takes a while to sink in. So it was with the budget delivery in May; so we can expect for the tax cuts. It's not that people don't care, exactly, it's more that they need a little while to figure out what they're going to spend their shiny new election dollars on this time around.

As you may have gathered, I'm not convinced by the polls' assurances that the vast majority of Australians will not be swayed by the tax cuts. For starters, the vast majority is not the issue: it won't take many switching back to the Coalition to keep them in office, particularly if the uniform swing isn't replicated in the marginal seats. As such, that mercenary 8% could make all the difference in the world. (Although it's a longstanding hypothesis of mine that you can get 10% of a polling sample to say absolutely anything, no matter how outlandish, so you never know).

But much more importantly: of course people say they aren't going to be swayed by the tax cuts. Admitting that you can be bought off for, say, $20 a week is embarrassingly cheap, especially when the oft-posited alternative is spending on hospitals or schools. But that doesn't mean people can't be bought off. It just means they won't admit it to a pollster. (And rightly so, the tight-arsed bastards.)

**************

On a tangentially related note, I believe we have found proof of the need for more civics education:

Another of Mr Howard's key assertions was that Labor in power federally as well as in every state and territory would remove the checks and balances between the Commonwealth and the states.

On this, 42 per cent agreed and 40 per cent disagreed while 18 per cent did not know.

The Nielsen poll director, John Stirton, said the 18 per cent who did not know suggested Mr Howard's argument was hard to understand.

Really? Because I always thought the idea of voting in different governments Federally and at State level was dear to Australian hearts, not necessarily because everyone has a well-developed sense of the complexities of Australian federalism, but more because people think something along the lines of: "This'll show 'em." I don't think I've ever met anyone who doesn't understand that voting philosophy.

Bob Ellis Wants to Make Us Cry

This is truly depressing. I had just started to get my hopes up for this election, and now Bob Ellis goes and dashes them before the campaign even kicks off. It's a brilliantly, brutally detailed hypothetical of how Howard and co are going to win the election, despite the polls and Workchoices and everything else. And it's awfully plausible.

Highlights/lowlights:

- "Hammer Gillard's private life and toxic socialist history under privilege".
Done! But always time for more of that in Canberra. Reds under the bed! Hey, she's even a redhead. That screams "untrustworthy commie feminist".

- A Senate inquiry into Peter Garrett's history of drug use as a youngster.
Labor seem so desperate not to let Garrett become a liability that they haven't let him be an asset. Never mind that he was a friggin' rock star or that a few months ago government MPs were climbing over themselves to announce their own druggy indiscretions: pot can ruin your life. We saw it in those TV ads. Won't somebody think of the children?

- Turning up in Bali during the election campaign to say: "I know it's in mid-election, but global warming is important, and I'm here to discuss it with China, the worst offender. Kevin Rudd cares so little about it, he's still back in Australia, selfishly campaigning."
If the Kyoto-dissing, global warming Johnny-come-lately Howard manages to convince us that he's a better climate warrior than Kevin Rudd, we deserve everything we, as an electorate, get.

- Bush's prearranged bombing of Iran.
I can totally see the nuanced, cautious Kevin Rudd being painted as an Ahmadinejad apologist, plus a few well-timed bombs over Tehran would freak the hell out of people. Vote conservative, there's a war on!

- Howard calling the election on Melbourne Cup day, when people are too drunk to register to vote
All too believable... and I find it kinda funny, I find it kinda sad...

I feel like those people who periodically threaten to skip the country if Howard gets elected again.

Pulp Mill Polling

The SMH and the Australian have two different takes on the Howard government's fortunes in the polls. The Herald's version is based on its latest Nielsen poll, which shows an "entrenched" lead for Labor in the two-party preferred. Labor's share of the primary vote, however, has dropped two percentage points, although it's still healthy enough at 47% (versus 40% for the Coalition).

The Oz, meanwhile, takes the slightly peculiar tack of headlining internal Liberal polling in Tasmania, which shows the Coalition's figures rising in all but the electorate of Lyons, where the Liberal candidate has been speaking out against the pulp mill. The Australian chose to see the results thus:

Despite widespread opposition to the mill among local residents and businesses in northern Tasmania, the internal Liberal Party polling of 300 voters in Lyons suggests approval for the pulp mill may work in the Coalition's favour. The polling in the days after Mr Quin's public criticism of the mill found the Liberals' primary vote had crashed from 42 per cent at the 2004 election to just 30 per cent, with its two-party-preferred vote slumping from 46 per cent to 35 per cent.

This seems an odd way to spin the Libs' awful poll result in Lyons. Yes, Ben Quin's support fell in the wake of announcing his opposition to the pulp mill, and the Coalition has since approved the mill. But the situation in Lyons is hardly looking up for the Coalition. Quin, apparently a man of some conviction, has quit as the Liberal candidate over his party's support of the mill, and is now considering running as an independent, possibly with the Greens' preferences. The Greens' share of the primary is a not-inconsiderable 11%.

Of course, the seat is currently held by Labor, so it's not like Lyons is a must-win for the Coalition. (Luckily for them.) But nor is it a good example to pick if you're trying to paint a picture of an imminent Coalition resurgence.

Meanwhile, despite the Oz's upbeat headline - "Coalition buoyed by mill" - grave fears for the marginal, Liberal-held seat of Bass are buried deep in the ninth paragraph:

Bass MP Michael Ferguson, who last week expressed fears he could lose the marginal seat over the issue. Polls show he is likely to lose the seat, held by just 2.7 per cent, to Labor's Jodie Campbell.

So, to recap: the polls say Coalition is probably not going to reclaim Lyons, despite approving the pulp mill, and also that it stands to lose Bass, which the candidate says is because of the pulp mill. Nevertheless, the pulp mill "will significantly boost [the Coalition's] chances in the state's key seats".

Enough. The opinion poll thing is getting silly. Please can we have the election already?

Michelle Grattan: What Was Andrews Thinking?

The ever-thoughtful Michelle Grattan had an interesting take on the African refugee quota issue in today's Sun Herald. I'm not quite as quick as Grattan to dismiss the "race card" explanation. Yes, pulling the race card in 2007 would be seen as a "cynical tactic" - by the people who are inclined to care about cynical tactics. This is a dishearteningly small proportion of voters, as the repeated reelection of John "Children Overboard" Howard attests.

But I think there's something in Grattan's emphasis on where the Africans Overboard issue would play badly. The Australian electorate can be broken down as follows: a largish minority of voters who abhor the race card in all its forms; a smallish minority of rednecks for whom stories about AIDS-ridden refugees serve as a call-to-arms to defend Straya from the imminent threat of damned foreigners; and the majority, who aren't mobilised either way on questions of race, preferring to vote for, say, whichever government will allow them to buy a bigger plasma screen. The first group would never vote Howard in a million years; the second voted for Hanson, then redirected to Howard when it turned out that Hanson was crazy, not to mention embarrassing; the third group is the one Howard needs to woo if he wants to hold on to government. And as Grattan points out, it's not 2001 anymore. That doesn't necessarily mean these people will see discussion of race as a political ploy, but I think Grattan is right to say they won't be mobilised by it as they were over Tampa. They are too busy wilfully ignoring the Government's plaintive defence of its IR policy.

Incidentally, it seems to me that much of the backlash against Andrews over this has focused on the fact that it isn't true that African immigrants cause more than their fair share of angst. All well and good: I have nothing against what Stephen Colbert calls "fact-based agendas". And it's always nice when you can point out to people that they are just plain wrong. But I haven't seen much objection to the framing of the question, thus: even if African refugees were disproportionately represented in crime, would that absolve us of our ethical duty to provide a home for those who genuinely - and, in the case of the Sudanese, desperately - need it? My strong feeling is no, it would not. The UN High Commissioner on Refugees agrees: quotas for refugees are supposed to be based on need, not on some notion - whether well-supported or not - of who settles most successfully once they're here.

With Friends Like These...

From ABC Online:

Senate candidate Pauline Hanson has congratulated the federal Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews on a decision to cut the number of African refugees allowed into Australia..."Do you want to see increased crime on our streets? Do you want to see increased violence?" she said. "Do you want to see your daughter or a family member end up with aids or anyone for that matter?"

Anna Bligh Calls Out Kevin Andrews

This is what Tony Burke should've been saying. I guess Anna Bligh isn't risking nearly as much political capital, given that she is newly entrenched as Queensland premier, rather than heading into a closely-fought election campaign. Still, when you express yourself with this kind of clarity, I have to believe the electorate is going to listen:

It has been a long time since I have heard such a pure form of racism out of the mouth of any Australian politician. For it to come to come from the Immigration minister is particularly disturbing.

I don't know much about Anna Bligh, or indeed Queensland politics, but I have to say I like what I'm seeing.

Peter Garrett Jilts Bob Brown

For the most part, I am pleased to have rawk-superstar-turned-shadow-frontbencher Peter Garrett as my local member. For one thing, he is tall, which, as The West Wing's CJ once said, is reassuring. For another, he is bright, passionate, articulate, and, well, famous, in a shadow cabinet that, as Crikey points out, is rather lacking in star power. 2035 pride, baby.

But that was before I realised how deeply he was hurting Bob Brown.

Brown is up in arms over Garrett's support of the Gunns pulp mill in Tasmania. Now, don't get me wrong: Garrett has sold out. It's not just the pulp mill - this is, after all, the singer of US Forces who has since announced his support for a new US military base in Western Australia. Hey, don't beat yourself up, Pete. It happens to everyone eventually.

Everyone, that is, except Bob Brown, an authentic true believer in the opinionpollocracy of modern Australian politics. Bob knows what he's about, even if the hoi polloi aren't enlightened enough to see, for example, that ice should be decriminalised.

Which may go some way to explaining Brown's current tone, which is less that of a political adversary than that of a jilted lover.

I can't believe that the Peter I knew - I've been into the forests with him, into the forests of Tasmania... I've got a lot of regard for the guy and I can only imagine that in his soul he must be hurting himself.

Actually, given that Garrett is currently primed for a much-sought-after role in the Federal Cabinet, I think he's probably doing okay right now. But I do hope Bob recovers from this latest betrayal by his former forest-buddy. We could do with many more of his ilk.

Found: Gerard Henderson's Heart

I'm left rather bemused by a recent development in the national conversation: the conservative commentariat has taken to worrying what us bleeding-heart latte-sipping types will do with our letter-writing time in the (seemingly likely) event that Kevin Rudd is elected. Gerard Henderson leads the charge, but the same trope has also cropped up in the letters pages of the SMH and the Daily Tele in recent weeks.

Now, I am not so churlish as to dismiss any expression of fellow-feeling from Mr Henderson offhand, but I can't help thinking that his compassion might be more fruitful if directed at, say, anything else at all. So I say to you, Mr Henderson: fear not for us Howard-haters. We will be just fine.

The Soft Bigotry of Kevin Andrews

For most of my adult life, I have pondered one of the most vexing questions in Australian politics: is John Howard really racist, or does he just cynically exploit the racism of the electorate for political gain? I never answered the question one way or another. But the issue is nonetheless resolved in my head: I don't care. Each is precisely as bad as the other.

This came back to me when I was reading Guy Rundle's opinion piece on Kevin Andrews in Crikey today. Guy asks much the same thing of Andrews: racist or cynic? And just as I concluded for Howard, so I say of Andrews: it doesn't matter. The damage his M.O. causes is far more important than the (I suspect) not particularly interesting political philosophy behind it. In his dealings with the Haneef case, Andrews demonstrated that he is willing to do most anything to keep the fear of the other a salient feature of Australian politics, including, but not limited to: grossly misrepresenting the case to the public, ignoring the rulings of the judiciary, and placing such pressure on the Feds that they were unable to handle the case with anything that resembled professionalism or competence.

Now, Andrews is at it again, introducing what appears to be a racial component to the assessment of refugees. Regional quotas already exist, but the traditional rationale for them has been targeting areas of high demand, ie, we take the most refugees from the places that are the most screwed up. Fair enough, I guess, except that Andrews has now taken it upon himself to explain the moratorium on refugees from Africa in failure-to-integrate terms:

...it was clear that settlement wasn’t occurring at the rate that occurred with other refugee and other migrant groups to Australia

Not that Kevin is racist. Anything but:

"We know they've been in war-torn situations; many of these people are much younger than any other group of refugees," he said."So [the] combination of a lower level of education, up to a decade or so in refugee camps and in conflicted situation, these are all issues that are providing us with challenges."

Young, disadvantaged people from war-torn parts of the world. Definitely not the kind of people we should be accepting as refugees*.

It seems Kev's particularly concerned about the Sudanese, who, despite the assurances of such know-nothing sources as the Victorian police that they are not overrepresented in crime statistics, just don't fit in as well . Case in point: the recent murder of a Sudanese refugee, Liep Gony. If the Sudanese community had any real commitment to integration, they would avoid becoming murder victims. It's so obvious.

Meanwhile, Opposition immigration spokesman Tony Burke says he agrees with Andrews' stance, albeit without the kooky Sudanese murder-victim hook of his Coalition counterpart. Hooray for diversity.

*"A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.." - UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees