Tuesday, 12 May 2009 18:21 |
Written by Graham Young
Can Wayne Swan justify a $50B deficit? It's a meaningless question in isolation. If he spends it on things that the public wants, then it will be justified. According to our polling about the only thing that the treasurer ought to consider spending on is infrastructure. According to our poll 74% rate infrastructure as the first or second most important thing that government should do. The next most popular are spending on social services on an anaemic 37% and means testing welfare on 35%.
Monday, 11 May 2009 19:11 |
Written by Graham Young
According to the results of our May Omnibus poll, the Coalition is improving its vote, but its leader is less popular than ever.
On our First Preference Index, which seeks to measure the vote against a base of September 2008, Labor is at 98, which means slightly less popular than September last year, the Liberal Party is 120, substantially up, while the Greens are marginally up on 106.
Monday, 23 March 2009 07:28 |
Written by Graham Young
Every pollster, including us, was saying that Labor was in trouble in the Queensland election. The predicted swing was in the realm of 7 percent. From what you can tell, internal ALP research also seems to have supported this. In our last poll it appeared that the “undecideds” were breaking towards the LNP as well, and the LNP was well-placed on the issue of health, which was much more significant to voters than jobs, which was Labor’s issue.
So my prediction was that Labor would lose 12 to 15 seats. This was based on a uniform swing of around 6.6% to 8%.
In the event the Labor government may have lost 5 seats or less and has experienced a swing against it on primary votes of 4.36%. (I’m not counting seats here that were held by another party although notionally theirs). http://www.abc.net.au/elections/qld/2009/guide/changingseats.htm
Whatever movement occurred most probably happened in the last few days of the campaign. As there were no major policy announcements, or any blunders, in that period the change is most probably the result of a shift of mind by voters.
Saturday, 21 March 2009 02:47 |
Written by Graham Young
The purpose of any election campaign is to win votes. It doesn’t matter how many awards your ads win, or how the journalists score every day, if you don’t end up with more votes at the end of the campaign than you started with, then you have failed.
Queensland Labor has failed.
15% of our respondents claim to have changed their vote since the campaign began. Those who have favour the Liberal National Party by 54% to 46%. That means that while the government has won some voters, the LNP has won slightly more. Politics is all about percentages, so this is pretty good.
It confirms that if anything the swing has intensified.
Tuesday, 17 March 2009 03:41 |
Written by Graham Young
This ad is really a nothing ad. The best thing that can really be said about it is that it does no damage. One theme running through the responses to the ads is that advertising can’t sustainably create something that isn’t there. The Labor negative ads fail because they step beyond what voters are prepared to believe. This ad does poorly because voters are voting against the government, not for the LNP. There is no enthusiasm for the LNP, so a positive ad is not likely to be particularly well-received.
“It's important to hear from Lawrence first hand but this doesn't really grab me.” Female, 25-34, Consultant
Tuesday, 17 March 2009 03:39 |
Written by Graham Young
This negative ad seems to work because it is not targeted at personalities, and it cites real figures with footnotes. Research in the US suggests that voters actually like negative ads such as these because they see them are providing information that they need to make their case. Not all voters though.
“This is true. All statements of fact with tangible $ to show how Labor is spending our money. It's a complete disgrace...so many unfinished or postponed projects.” Female, 25-34, Consultant
Tuesday, 17 March 2009 03:38 |
Written by Graham Young
If voters have decided that you are not performing, then running on your record won’t convince them of anything. This is really what this ad shows. Those who want to re-elect Labor are convinced, but those who are unsure or who have made-up their minds are incensed.
“At least this ad is more positive. But positive on what? That state ALP has stuffed up, and so therefore they will work with Kevin Rudd? Surely they have some ideas of their own that they can employ? Anna Bligh also conveys no warmth in the ad. She doesn't smile, and every time I look at her I think of all the government spin I've seen since I moved to Queensland.” Male, 25-34, Teacher
Tuesday, 17 March 2009 03:37 |
Written by Graham Young
What makes this ad fail is the way it caricatures Springborg. Labor has a credibility problem with respondents who see it as driven by spin rather than substance. It needs to be careful about what it says. Exaggeration is not and option, because even when it tells the truth many voters disbelieve it.
Comparisons with Barack Obama are also part of the exaggeration. Would Anna Bligh stand-up to a comparison with him?
There is also a sense that the government has been in too long and that it is repeating itself. The “Whingeing Wendy” style of ad first debuted in 1987 when it was used by Bob Hawke against the John Howard opposition. The ad exemplifies this.
“Too contrived and so obviously a fake” Male, 55-64, Tourism Operator
