Back Home

Parliament has broken up for the year, and all the politicians are on holiday.

Well, not really.

No doubt many of those representing rural electorates will have headed back home. Their constituents (and, very possibly, their families) don't get to see much of them during the year.

This time of year is also a valuable opportunity to attend to matters back at the electoral office and to meet with their branches.

Importantly, however, it t is a key time to try and build more of a connection in their local electorate.

Hailing from the North Shore of Sydney, their has long been a view that the local members (both at the State and Federal level) have taken their seats here for granted.

In many cases, that is a fair criticism. Being a state member can and should be a about far more than simply showing up at Macquarie street and voting the way your party leader tells you to.

Parliament House at night

This was something that occurred to me recently when the Federal Coalition "strongly discouraged" their members from tweeting in the lead-up to the Federal election some time next year. Many people made the point that, if they can't be trusted to tweet responsibly, then what on earth would make us think that they can be entrusted to lead the country properly?

My response was:

Is there much more to being a backbencher than voting the way you're told? It depends - but unless you have a very safe seat there certainly is a lot more to being elected as a local member.

Mumbletwits has done a great deal of work recently looking at the "personal vote" of many Federal politicians. In short, the personal vote is the extent by which the primary vote of a local members exceeds (or is exceeded by) the proportion giving that same party their vote on the upper house ticket.

Some of the differences are striking, to say the least.

There are many reasons why a member's "personal vote" might be strong - but I think an obvious and effective way to build it is to have a close connection to the community.

And this is the best time of year to make that happen.

It does, however, mean more than passing letters onto the responsible Minister or Shadow Minister, or having your staff draft meaningless responses to the letters you receive from your constituents.

It means showing up at schools' local fete. Giving the keynote address at the speech day. Addressing the local Rotary Club.

It may often seem like politics on a painfully small scale - but it doesn't cost a cent (as opposed to those mailouts that my local politicians seem to favor) and it sticks wtih people.

I still remember Brendan Nelson (then my local Federal member) speaking at some event at my school well over a decade ago. I don't remember what the event was or what he said, but I know that he took the time to come and speak to us. People remember that stuff, and when they get to the polling booth and only recognize one name, it pays off.

It has been instructive over the last few weeks to see which local members are (I can only assume) spending the break depleting their wine rack, and which are getting out into the community and actually being a local member.

It will be even more interesting to then see the size of the swings for or against those members come 2015.

Writing's on the Wall

I try not be too rude about politicians on this blog.

If you want to read about the ideological failings of any party, there are plenty places for you to go. If you enjoy a writer who just spews hatred at anyone in particular, there are probably dozens of blogs and more twitter accounts than you could count.

But sometimes a politician is willfully stupid. Sometimes a politician chooses to set aside any pretence of governing for the good of the people but rather makes a shamelessly populist, attention grabbing move that could wreck people's lives for no good reason whatsoever.

Take a bow David Elliott.

Photo from Hills Shire Times

Earlier today David published his grand theory of dealing with graffiti.

Now, let's be clear about something. Vandalism is a serious issue. Businesses, private individuals, and the taxpayer spend millions every year cleaning it up. I don't think tagging is art, and I'm as annoyed as the next person by graffiti on the train.

As it happens, from where I sit as I type this on a CityRail train, I can see that some wag has scrawled something incomprehensible on the wall. Moreover, some particularly industrious individuals have "etched" words onto every single window of the carriage.

The thing is, though, whilst the perpetrators' work usually simple to the point of being incomprehensible, the solutions are anything but.

Society will always have a lowest rung - a dissaffected, angry youth engages in graffiti because it provides him with self-expression, because he is bored, because he is angry and doesn't know why, or just because, to him, it gives him a sense of power in a society where he has none.

There are any number of reasons why people do this. The causes are not simple, no matter how much you want them to be, and neither are the solutions.

So, let's have a look at Mr Elliott has to say on the issue.

So, he is a victim of crime. That's unfortunate, and not something to be laughed at. What it is not is a good reason to start using the power you have to try and force an increase in penalties for the offence you were the victim of.

That's why we have things like the Law Reform Commission - sober minded people who can weigh and assess all the factors before recommending what, if any, changes need to be made.

Below is a photo of the damage, and it is awful.

Moving on:

Let's be clear.  The entire basis for his call for change is the fact that he has seen graffiti around his local area? And the fact that there is graffiti means that only "strong and aggressive" laws can combat vandalism?

Has he done any research into present penalties? Does he even know what the penalties are? Does he direct the reader to a report calling for harsher penalties? Can he perhaps indicate a foreign jurisdiction where "strong and aggressive" laws resulted in a sudden end to graffiti?

Of course he doesn't.  He's pulling this all from a certain area not mentioned on polite blogs.

Reading on:

Hang on.  He hasn't even discussed this with the AG OR the Police Minister? He is calling for these simply extraordinary penalties without having discussed it with ANYONE other than the poor sod who he got to write this piece?

And let's have a look at what his suggestion is.

Mandatory Gaol? For GRAFFITI? Is he actually crazy?

We all saw how well mandatory detention went in the Northern Territory. We all know how much it costs to keep someone in gaol. We all know that gaols are called Universities of Crime for a reason.

What else? Lifelong bans on Driving? I've written previously about how dumb it is to take licences away from graffiti vandals, so I won't repeat myself. But seriously - for life?

Oh good, naming and shaming.  First of all, if you think the prospect of having your name read out in parliament as being a graffiti vandal is going to stop them, then you really don't understand teenagers AT ALL. If they are smart enough to work Hansard (and that's not a given) I guarantee the extract will be on Facebook within the hour.

When people tag something, they use their "tag".  It's not usually their name, but it is an identifier. As I ride this train, I have no idea who NUEKS is, but I sure as heck know he was here, because his tag is scrawled all over the windows. That's the point!

Of course, had Elliott done five minutes of research he would know this. I suppose, however, that is less fun than grand-standing for attention by promoting a brainless new scheme that won't fix the problem, but will make a few Baby Boomers in their McMansions nod furiously.

Vandalism does cost everyone. And ridiculous politicking like this costs us even more.

Pushing the envelope

Push polling is a nasty, nasty business.


Wikipedia defines push polling as "political campaign technique in which an individual or organisation attempts to influence or alter the view of respondents under the guise of conducting a poll." Most commonly, it relies on either an existing rumour or a potential rumour that the opposition thinks may have legs.


These polls are usually phrased along the lines of "Would you be more or less likely to vote for candidate X if you knew that [miscellaneous allegation of questionable veracity]"


Push polls seem to have more of a history in the United States, where complaints about push polls are an almost constant feature of any election campaign.


In the 2008 US Presidential election, both sides of politics flung accusations of push polling. Voters were allegedly asked what they would think if Obama had donated money to the PLO. McCain may still have been smarting from a poll that George W Bush was alleged to have run during the primaries in 2000 that asked if the voter would be less likely to vote for McCain if they knew that he had "fathered an illegitimate black child?"


That last push-poll was especially insidious as McCain has in fact adopted a Bangladeshi girl - the pollster clearly realised that the most damaging false rumour usually has just enough truth to it to make it irresistibly believable.


There have been intermittent claims of push polling in Australia, apparently dating back to a Northern Territory election in 1994 (details here: http://bit.ly/goyyWz).


This present NSW election has, sadly, been no exception.


The initial complaints were made in mid-February in the seat of Blacktown, where John Robertson is attempting to complete a move to the lower house, presumably to then make a push for the leadership after Keneally resigns or is deposed. The seat is held by a margin of 22.5 percent, but in this Brave New World no seat is safe.


The Daily Telegraph alleges that voters in that seat were asked "how voters would feel about two Liberal cabinet ministers being "anti-teachers", how they would feel about the Liberals cutting 25,000 public sector jobs and about Liberals outsourcing call centre services to India."


These are not Coalition policies - the poll is not actually designed to provide any useful polling data. The responses don't even need to be recorded. The only purpose is to spread gossip and even slander about the other side.


Today there were complaints from the Greens that Labor have been pushing polling in the inner-west seat of Marrickville (held by about 7.5%), where Green candidate and Mayor Fiona Byrne is tipped to defeat Carmel Tebbutt.


The poll asked "Did you know Fiona Byrne led a boycott against Israel on council recently?"


Now, for what it's worth, I think the council "boycotting" israeli products as a result of the Israeli "treatment of Palestinians" is utterly ridiculous, and an atrocious waste of limited council resources (86 hours of staff time spent as of as of 15 February 2011: http://bit.ly/hqHpDk pages 134 to 136). But of course, that's not the point.


The allegation in the poll is not even true - the Mayor did support the boycott but in no way "led it".


The poll is a vicious attempt to smear the name of the candidate. I couldn't find any denials from Labor in relation to the Blacktown poll, but Tebbutt denied that the Marrickville polls came from Labor.


It's difficult to imagine who else could possibly stand to gain from the polls. Perhaps the poll is being paid for by a Labor supporter with a "wink wink nudge nudge" approval from Labor staff. Denials notwithstanding, I think it's safe to assume that Labor persons are, one way or another, involved.


Politics is often ruled by innuendo and rumour. In the US, Obama is to this day constantly dogged by the utterly unfounded and ridiculous claims that he was not born in the States and is therefore ineligible to lead the country (see http://bit.ly/jP76Q). Some resourceful soul has even dug out the initial birth notice published in the Honolulu Advertiser - but this has not been enough to quell the ridiculously persistent rumours.


You might say that a push polls is an incredibly expensive way to win an election, one call at a time. But that's not quite true,


First of all, it targets voters in the seats you are most concerned about. Second of all, it lets you say things that you could never say on television, where people could test out your accusation. Thirdly, it's in an allegedly independent poll, so is therefore unlikely to be questioned by the voter.


Finally, the average NSW state district has about 40 000 votes cast. A poll that calls 1000 people, who tells an average of 3 other voters, has suddenly planted a nasty, insidious rumour with a full 10% of voters.


Rumours change elections - and there can be little doubt that some Labor persons are resorting to what can only be described as dirty tricks to hang onto what should really be safe seats.


Politics is a nasty, nasty business.

Courting Public Opinion

Labor have been bandying about a line recently that the Coalition will close the local courts that serve our community.  Given I have a lot to do with the local court in my day job this has obviously attracted my attention, and is a perfect example of the vacuous campaigning that we, as voters, let parties get away with every election.

This is how Labor justify the line.  The Coalition have a policy headed "Complete audit of the NSW Government's Financial Position" (available here: http://bit.ly/hhgGZK).  In short, what the policy explains is that "over the last 10 years expenses have grown by 6.6%" so the Coalition government will "conduct a complete audit of the NSW government's financial position".

Now, for what it's worth, that policy sounds more like the Coalition getting ready to start giving reasons why promises can't be afforded when the ghastly true state of the budget is revealed, but we'll leave that aside for the moment.

What Labor have done with this policy is to construe it as a willingness to cut the number of local courts in NSW.  Nowhere in the Coalition policy are the courts mentioned, and there is absolutely no suggestion from anyone that the local courts are in need of a trim.

Nevertheless, on Friday Attorney General John Hatzistergos was at Windsor Local Court demanding that O'Farrell quarantine community-based local courts (whatever that means) from the audit. The news of the speech was breathlessly reported on the Labor website: http://bit.ly/gYDti8.

It seems likely that there are two reasons that the local court system was chosen to be the alleged target.  First of all, it allows Labor to trot out the line that the last Coalition government "closed 73 local courts, including 39 in just one day."

Further, no doubt some focus group or phone poll taken in Western Sydney suggested that this would be a good idea.

It is, between you and me, politics at it's absolute worst. Take a perfectly sensible and reasonable policy from the other side, misrepresent the policy to a point where it is wholly unrecognisable, and then desperately fling it at voters to try and get them scared about the other side.

The worst thing is that the Coalition can't engage on the issue because if they do, not only will it inflame the issue and make the accusation seem credible, but further any promise to actually quarantine the courts from the audit would result in "Humiliating Backdown from O'Farrell on Planned Court Closures" or something equally specious.

The Coalition hasn't it seemed, done much of this kind of campaigning this election.  That's not to suggest that they have a higher moral standing - the Federal Coalition's relentless campaign against the carbon tax is a case in point.  It's just that, in my opinion, the Coalition is not going to win any more voters off Labor - their job between now and next saturday is simply to make sure that the inevitable drift back to Labor over the course of the campaign is kept to an absolute minimum.

They can do so by being calm, sensible, and reasonable - a task they are accomplishing quite well in the face of the rising hysteria from Labor, best optimised in the disgraceful speech Keneally gave on Friday.  The text doesn't need any commentary, so I'm going to copy and paste it in below:

''Take care of your neighbours because there will be fewer police to do that for you,''

''Take care of the old, the sick and the vulnerable because when the health budget gets cut, there will be fewer nurses and there will be fewer community care workers.

''And, as grim as it is to say this: be sure to follow up on the child who has gone quiet, who is out of character, who is withdrawn, because you can no longer assume that that child is protected. Please help any family with a disability, because what is now, today, a public priority will once again become a private problem.

''And be sure to read to your children as a good public education becomes a memory as our teachers join nurses on the unemployment queue.''

A despicable low in O'Farrell's words.  I'd say he's right.