A Tale of Two Leaders

In the dying hours of the 2010 Federal Election, Tony Abbott went on a campaign rampage. 36 hours without sleep. He did radio, he made appearances, and he even did late night talkback to fill those pesky hours between 2am and 4am.


Opinion was split as to what exactly it was he was trying to achieve - was it the image of the infatigable leader, or did he really think he needed every one of those hours to be productive if he thought he was going to win?


Of course, only he knows the answer. Nonetheless, a lot can be learnt about a leader, a party or a campaign by what the leader spends the final hours on.


US presidential campaigns are famous for leaders chasing the sun across the country, making airport hanger speeches where the leaders do everything they can do to ensure they are in the public consciousness on voting day.


The approaches of Keneally and O'Farrell as Saturday creeps closer and closer could not be more divergent.


Alexandra Smith wrote an excellent article that appears on the front page of the Herald today along with a big photo of Keneally, head thrown back laughing, along with some coal miners who look like they can't believe that they, of all people, are being campaigned to.


This is the thread that Smith picks up - Labor campaigning to coal miners is the Illawarra. These seats should be safe as houses for Labor, and given the swings required (Shellharbour on 26.8% and Keira on 22%) they still should be in the Labor column on Saturday night. That said, Heathcote on 8.8% and Kiama on 12% are ripe for Coalition picking.


Of course Labor running a campaign (in at least some shape or form) in every seat is a given - despite the fact that I live in O'Farrell's seat I've still been getting mailouts from him, and his branch members have still been active in the area handing out pamphlets at the station and doing what local members can be relied on to do.


But I haven't see O'Farrell - he has at risk seats to hit.


The Premier spending valuable hours in what are usually safe Labor seats in the Illawarra shows just how bad things have gotten. The combined effect of Federal Labor being a bit on the nose, NSW Labor being universally reviled and, no doubt, some bitterness about the David Campbell debacle, has Labor petrified that the seats may be in jeopardy.


O'Farrell, on the other hand, left yesterday for the Four Bus All State Tour (my name, not theirs). Four large Coalition busses, manned by O'Farrell and his shadow cabinet, will, between them, visit all 93 seats.


Of course, there's no way that O'Farrell has sufficient hubris to think he could win every seat. Rather, by making this tour, he sends messages. Every seat is in danger. The whole state wants change and we know it. Every seat is important and we want your vote.


I don't know his precise schedule, but assuming each bus goes to 26 electorates, that's still 9 electorates a day for each bus. When one considers the travelling time, as well as just how big some of the rural electorates are, it's a mammoth job.


No doubt the visits will be cursory at best. Of course, that's no issue - it's not the presence that is important, but rather the story in the local paper, or the big flashy event at the Westfield, or even just the "all 93 electorates" line that will be repeated as nauseum between now and Saturday.


Labor will lose on Saturday. It remains beyond doubt that it is a question of how much, not if. OF course neither party will admit that, but their plans for the last few days make it very clear that they know this.


The Premier is spending time in seats Labor hold as much as 20%. O'Farrell is visiting electorates in South-West Sydney - the home of Howard's battlers who kept the Federal Coalition in power for so long.


The question this raises is this - how long will these new Coalition voters stick around? A large victory should guarantee the Coalition at least 2 terms - but if they can turn dyed-in-the-wool Labor voters into Coalition voters (or even just into swinging voters) they could fundamentally alter the electoral map in Sydney.

Swings and Roundabouts

If I got to ask one question to the leaders of our major parties, and I knew they would have to answer truthfully, the question I would ask is "What do you really think about swinging voters?"

I think the answers would be outstanding.

The thing is, most swinging voters are not, for the most part, discerning, skeptical folks.  Typically, they are disengaged from the political process.

LIke it or not, a major party who attracts the majority of these voters is probably going to triumph.

That said, the major problem with the poitical parties having to tailor their appeal to the swinging voter is this: given their level of disengagement with the process, often fundamental misunderstandings exist, rendering the process almost farcical.

O'Farrell's opposition to the Carbon Tax is a great example.  The tax has nothing to do with NSW government (directly) - on my understanding, no deal need be struck with the states.  Of'Farrell has peldged to fight the tax, but has not clarified on what basis he expects Gillard to care about what he thinks.

That's an example of a party using (and abusing) the ignorance of many swinging voters.  The problem for a party is when (what is perceived to be) poor governance from another level of politics "poisons" the electorate against you.

A great example of that was all the talk before the 2010 Federal Election about the reviled Labor governments in NSW and Queensland and their effect on the Federal Labor vote.

Of course it is all but impossible to measure the effect - but it seems likely that if the Labor brand was stronger in NSW and Queensland generally then Gillard would not have needed the support of the independants, and Federal Parliament would be a very different place at the moment.

Which all brings me to today's Sydney Morning Herald.

For a few weeks now the Herald has published a photo and quotes from the staff and the clientelle of a hairdresser somewhere in Sydney.  I suppose the series has been interesting, but really all it is is a reworking of the "man on the street" interview.

I was struck by the comment from one of the ladies.   She is 87, and voting Liberal, and said "I'm disgusted with Labor, the way they are throwing money around.  They came around offering me new pink batts... They're giving too much money away without actually doing anything."

Now, perhaps I'm being a little unkind here. Perhaps this voter actually has a nuanced view of the connection between Federal and State Labor, and is displaying an advanced analysis of the situation.

More likely, however, is that she completely misunderstands the roles of State and Federal Labor, and doesn't see that whilst there are many, many reasons to be angry at NSW Labor, none of them have anything to do with pink batts.

The real shock, for me at least, is that as far as this voter goes, Federal Labor has poisoned her against state Labor!  As if NSW Labor needed another obstacle - it must be enough to make a Labor staffer weep.

It's tough, I think, for a party to know what to do with this kind of voter, who I fancy is displaying a fairly common level of understanding of politics.

A careful, detailed reasoned argument managed over multiple news cycles is unlikely to have any effect.  Disengaged voters get their politics from television ads during reruns of Two and a Half Men, talk-back radio and gossip over a cup of tea.

This is why we get simplistic slogans, ads that cater to the lowest common denominator - because it is, like it or not, usually these swinging voters that are easiest to shift.

These people decide elections.  Parties are welsome to deride them, to despise them, and to despair of their disengagement.  But if you fail to respect their power, you won't get anywhere in politics.  These voters hold our state's futures in their hands.