Sky News is broadcasting four “Voters Verdict” programs each night until Friday at 9.30pm EST. These feature American blow-in Frank Luntz and a 24-member focus group divided evenly between Labor-leaning and Coalition-leaning undecided voters. These voters will participate in “instant audience response dial sessions” that will measure their reactions to statements made by the two leaders. As you may have guessed, the instant audience response dial procedure is better known in this part of the world as “the worm”. Luntz was in the news yesterday after describing the Prime Minister as “a world leader for invective”, which suggests he is taking his time to acclimatise to Australia’s political culture. A preview program which aired last night can be viewed at The Australian site.
HO hum. I guess the younger crowd is wooed by this stuff?
I leave to someone else to report if it is a con, and electioneering stunt or what.
Watching these types of programmes in the US, they were quite effective in identifying the resonant issues with politicians. It was mainly show business however.
I can just imagine all the rotten apple puns, with pictures of the Rodent burrowing out.
Kina
Your question is: Is the Luntz analysis…
a) a con?
b) an electioneering stunt?
c) what?
You don’t work for Galaxy do you?
Instant reaction tests always remind me of “New Coke”. For those who are too young to remember, after spending millions on taste tests etc and “proving” that new coke was prefered to classic, they replaced the old with the new. People hated it and they eventually changed back.
Lesson:instant reaction to an interviewer after sampling 50ml of a drink sitting at a table in a mall is not representative of to what you choose when thirsty and buying a sandwich.
Annelid Analysis from a gormless Yank who features The Rodent as “a world leader for invectiveâ€.
What is it with these people?
Somebody ought to show the boy Luntz a clip or two of PJK in full flight.
Luntz was in the news yesterday after describing the Prime Minister as “a world leader for invectiveâ€, which suggests he is taking his time to acclimatise to Australia’s political culture.
Yes, like about 12 years. Or has the man confused John Howard with Paul Keating? I wouldn’t be surprised.
Nice to see the worm back. We all remember how it went through the roof for Latham in the debates during the last election that so well predicted the final result.
And it also correctly picked Beazley as the winner in 2001.
Rudd challenges Howard to IR debate
August 29, 2007 – 8:42AM
Labor leader Kevin Rudd has challenged the Prime Minister to a debate on industrial relations.
It would be interesting to see a debate on IR but it will never happen. Howard knows it a no win issue.
I have become sceptical and suspicious of media events on politics and always half expect it to be an organised stunt by side to promote itself. I guess the the Howard years does that to person.
I remember the first worm so long ago now I cant remember who the speakers were. I do think Luntz picked Howard style pretty well and found it even more amusing that it featured prominently in The Australian.
If the series is run even handedly and has nobody attempting to play funny games then I guess I dont have an issue. AND on reflection anything that might grab the attention of the public to take an interest in politics cant be bad.
Cerdic Onan wrote: “Dudd is a loser….” We’ll find out election day, Cerdic.
(No, it’s not a typo.)
6# Paul Howard will reject it but it would be interesting to see a debate on the economy with Costello and Swan but that wouldnt happen either because the ALP would suffer…
Glen,
There traditionally is a debate between the Treasurer and his Shadow but it’s usually so boring that only the ABC carries it. As it is the Treasurer it is always about the economy. I can’t see why they won’t have it again this time. I’ve said before that Costello is a good media performer and would walk away with it, not because of the content or substance but because Swan is so slow and pedestrian like a typical accountant that he puts people to sleep. Costello can be a great showman when he wants to be.
[6# Paul Howard will reject it but it would be interesting to see a debate on the economy with Costello and Swan but that wouldnt happen either because the ALP would suffer…]
Not necessarily, most people hate Costello, which makes anyone else look good in comparison.
Howard has generally avoided televised debates in the past yes? My impression of 04 was that Latham outdid him in the one debate they had, as did Beazley is 01 (but of course, this is coloured by my own political persuasion. Would love to hear what others thought of those debates). I can see Rudd (who has quite an amazing ability to retain information) doing similar this year, so i imagine that Howard would avoid any extra debates.
I’m sure Rudd actually knew this, and that this is purely a political stunt. It’s an interesting thought nonetheless (as is Costello v Swan Glen).
Yo ho ho,
All incumbent pollies avoid debates. Hawke didn’t like them either. Nor Kennett, etc. They prefer to remain in control and don’t like the cut and thrust that too easily spins in a direction they didn’t expect. Oppositions on the other hand look for every opportunity and so always try to get as many debates as possible. It’s part of the game.
A Swan-Costello debate would be a pointless exercise. Costello is banned from our box. Makes the dogs bark.
[Howard has generally avoided televised debates in the past yes?]
Yes, because he isn’t good at them. He isn’t even a very good debater in parliament anymore, he has to employ Costello as his hitman, but WHAT Costello sauce is laughable, he just screams a lot which some people think means he is a good debater.
I think the best Howard has ever done is broke even, I don’t think he has ever actually won a TV debate. In fact, Howard may even try not to do ANY debates. Sure this would be a sign of desperation, but as soon as people compare Rudd and Howard directly, they’re going to side with Rudd. Howard would want to avoid any direct comparisons at all costs, which means not accepting any debates, or maybe having a debate in the first week of the campaign so it is forgotten about by voting day.
I can’t believe I wrote SAUCE instead of SAYS, and now have brought everyone’s attention to it.
Oz Politics has updated with aggregate polling for August, and there is a swing to Labor in August vs July. This is without the final Morgan F2F, to be released Friday. This is why Mumble is predicting 91 seats for Labor; the polls simply haven’t moved since June, and are now moving to Labor, as Aristotle points out. There is no evidence of any softening of the Labor vote. I expect Rudd to win the campaign, and the final result should be at least 54-46 Labor and quite possibly more. I’m not going to call it until election night, but that’s my prediction. In terms of seats, I expect 100 seats for Labor.
[ I expect Rudd to win the campaign, and the final result should be at least 54-46 Labor and quite possibly more. I’m not going to call it until election night, but that’s my prediction. In terms of seats, I expect 100 seats for Labor.]
Why? Do you think people are that annoyed with WorkChoices? Or is it the “It’s Time” factor? Maybe I’m pessimistic, but even with the polls as they are, I don’t think the ALP will win by more than 10 or 15 seats, which means 85 or 90. 100 is just landslide territory, and I don’t see a clear reason why on polling day the swing will be that big.
Yes Simon, I agree about Costello’s over-rated debating skills. It’s all very low rent, school bully stuff. Can’t bear to watch the man, under any circumstances and I feel sure I’m not alone.
Any sort of win would be good as then the Liberal party would then set about self-destructing in opposition. 11 years of hate and bad blood to come out.
Howard’s always had only 1 debate in the 1st week of the campaign, and lost it in 2001 and 2004. I expect him to do this again.
For any NRL fans here, I’m an unusual Vic in that I prefer rugby to AFL. It’s been a very good year in sport so far for me with the Aus cricket team thrashing the Poms 5-0, then crushing all opposition in the World Cup. The Melbourne Storm is on top of the NRL ladder, and will hopefully win the premiership this year, and Labor is miles ahead in the polls, and should definitely win the election.
Simon, I think there have been a lot of swing voters who have wanted to turf Howard out for years, the problem was that there was no alternative. Now there is.
Work Choices will be part of it, as will “its time”, as well as many many other issues.
Simon, it’s part Workchoices, part It’s Time, part interest rate rises, part climate change. The big thing is that Rudd Labor is seen as competent, while the Howard govt is seen as old and tricky. Just look at the great Labor LANDSLIDES in the States in recent times to understand why it could be a wipeout.
I think it’s a bit like falling in and out of love. When you are in love you love everything about the person. When you fall out of love you hate everything about them. I used to admire Howard and think him smart and dynamic, etc. Now when I look at him I just see a tired old man who annoys me. Now I can’t decide which one of his policies I like the least.
I observed the 2001 and 2004 election debates as slight wins for Beazley and Latham. This is an interesting issue. Howard was a good parliamentary debater before becoming Prime Minister, but very rarely funny, which would have balanced out his stubbornness. Didn’t someone describe him as a nerd, but a defiant one? That was spot on.
Howard is much more effective working with the media, particularly in interviews. I think in these formats is where he has cut through to the electorate. Obviously he is much better off the cuff, his set speeches are never beleivable, ‘aspirational nationalism etc’, because he doesnt really think in these ways.
Perhaps Howard was beaten in 2001 and 2004 debates because he was on the defensive.
I cant clearly recall 1996 and 1987 when he was opposition leader. perhaps others do. Still, a slight win in the debate obviously means little.
Maybe the lesson is that the deabtes mean nothing, providing neither of the candidates goes into a meltdown.
Yes, it’s been building for years and has now reached what the yanks call the tipping point. Howard is carrying too much baggage and the punters are sick and tired of his bleatings. As Andrew Bolt put it on Insiders: “It’s over.”
100 seats.
[Simon, I think there have been a lot of swing voters who have wanted to turf Howard out for years, the problem was that there was no alternative. ]
Good point. Other than Crean, whenever the ALP changed leader there was always huge swings away from the government. All Rudd has done is added 2.5 or 3% to a swing away from the government that started sometime in 2005. Oh, and he has got to ALP substantially ahead on primary votes, whereas under Beazley it was about even, with the ALP winning the 2pp because of lots of Greens and other preferences.
[Howard’s always had only 1 debate in the 1st week of the campaign, and lost it in 2001 and 2004. I expect him to do this again.]
One thing I hope Rudd does as P.M. is start a bipartisan commission that determines the rules for debates. Like what they do in the U.S. Just leaving the rules up to whatever the P.M. of the day is willing to agree to is lame.
[I think it’s a bit like falling in and out of love. When you are in love you love everything about the person. When you fall out of love you hate everything about them. I used to admire Howard and think him smart and dynamic, etc. Now when I look at him I just see a tired old man who annoys me. Now I can’t decide which one of his policies I like the least.]
I think it works the same for Rudd as well. By that I mean I don’t really think his policies are radically different to what Beazley’s would’ve been, but Rudd just seems to be more credible as an alternate P.M. than Beazley ever was.
Lord D wrote: “I’m an unusual Vic in that I prefer rugby to AFL”
Unusual? more like heretical.
Paul K #15 Wholeheartedly agree. Incumbents and oppositions have very different election strategies and it is little surprise that more engagement in debates does not happen, they are simply too risky for incumbents.
Incumbents have the following strengths:
a) They call election dates
b) Their claims (right or wrong) about management are reality rather than hypothetical
c) Incumbents govern, oppositions don’t and the longer that state occurs the less the opposition has had the skills of government (the ALP is very thin on the ground on this count, compare Costello/Swan, Downer/McClelland, Abbott/Roxon)
Oppositions have the following strengths:
a) Can point to inactivity. Governments should govern and it is not difficult to find areas of weakness in present government (Climate Change and Indigenous Affairs might spring to mind with the Coalition) where there is too little too late. Having weak areas in opposition is less of an issue because they are not governing yet.
b) Public debates. There is always a good case for this. Any publicity is needed and here, it is relatively easy to conceive a “better model” for governance and persuade the electorate to try it. Practical reasons why it may not work are less important, because these may only be discovered long after the debate (if indeed the party wins power and ideas are implemented)
c) They can change faster. An implemented policy is harder to turn around (Like Work Choices), whereas a proposed policy can change on a daily basis (and, in election years, often does).
So some astute comments, Paul, I don’t expect an IR debate any time soon.. 🙂
There will almost certainly be one debate between Howard and Dudd, as there has been one debate between the PM and the Opposition Leader in past elections. Doubtless the ‘Worm’ will award victory in the debate to the Opposition Leader (as it always has in the past) in a pathetic attempt to sway voters into thinking that the Opposition Leader is better, however, as in past elections it will be a very different story on election night. All you Dudd supporters out there can delude yourselves all you like (and I bet you are the same people who supported and voted for Mark Latham in 2004), but on the night the government will be re-elected by between one and three seats (the correct analogy is 1961). So says Cerdic Conan.
The “worm” is probably a useful measure of people’s instantaneous reactions to various key words and phrases, but is less likely to be predictive, in the sense of the respondents’ voting intentions. It’s more a tool of the advertising industry and its use in a pre-election environment commodifies -and therefore cheapens- politics and politicians.
” nath Says:
August 29th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Lord D wrote: “I’m an unusual Vic in that I prefer rugby to AFLâ€
Unusual? more like heretical. ”
He probably doesn’t even have a BBQ in his backyard. And he probably drinks wine instead of beer.
Cerdic, Glen, Steven, confess! You are all actually ALP stooges, posting repetitive drivel in an attempt to make the Libs look even stupider than they really are.
nath – in 1987 there was no debate between the PM and the Opposition Leader. Bob Hawke was too scared to debate Howard, because he feared him as the man he knew would put Labor out of office, and so he refused to debate him. When pressed on the question Hawke lamely came up with the excuse that if he debated Howard he would have to debate Ian Sinclair and Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen as well (as though they were also occupying the position of Opposition Leader). It was just another example of Hawke’s arrogance. No matter how far behind the opinion polls may have him, Howard will always make himself accountable and debate his counterpart – whether that be Beazley, Latham or Dudd. So says Cerdic Conan.
This Sky channel thing looks like a meeja stunt to generate a few ratings.
I can’t see the worm having much of an impact on the election, as after 8 solid months of electioneering, I reckon most people are pretty well decided on how they’re going to vote by now. Just look at the consistency in the Labor primary and 2pp lead since March.
As for a campaign debate between Rudd and Howard, it will be interesting to see whether Howard agrees to it. Howard’s in uncharted waters now in terms of his Government’s unpopularity this close to a poll. He’s never been this far behind, this close before.
He may agree to a debate as a sort of desperate “last throw of the dice” to see if he can score a few points and wind back the Labor lead a bit.
On the other hand, a debate will give Rudd a clear shot at hammering him on Workchoices, Interest rates and all the other issues that stand behind the Government’s disasterous position in the polls. He won’t be able to effectively respond to this. What’s there to say? “You’ve never had it so good? Workchoices is perfect? Interest rates are as low as they ever have been? Yes, you will get a say on whether they build a reactor in your backyard, trust me?” I suppose he can rave-on about Union Bosses, but look haw well that’s worked for him so far.
Campaign debates are traditionally a way for an aspiring Opposition leader to try and pick-up votes. This time, it will be the PM sweating his performance as he’s the one thats gotta make-up so much ground.
Although I’d personally like to see a debate (just to see the old codger squirm a bit), I believe that either way he’s knackered.
Ok, so I’m not a nice person.
Alan Brown – Cerdic Conan is no one’s stooge, he is a herald of truth.
And for the record, I am all for a debate between the Man of Steel and the Man of Jelly. Howard is ten times the debater Dudd is – he will smash Dudd in the debate and leave Dudd looking like the inexperienced, policy-free zone fool that he is. So says Cerdic Conan.
Cerdic: If even the most fanatical stupid supporters of the Rodent says he will only win by 1-3 seats, he is in deep deep trouble.
[The “worm†is probably a useful measure of people’s instantaneous reactions to various key words and phrases, but is less likely to be predictive, in the sense of the respondents’ voting intentions. It’s more a tool of the advertising industry and its use in a pre-election environment commodifies -and therefore cheapens- politics and politicians.]
If the worm makes dramatic downward movements whenever Howard is on the screen, but before he starts speaking, THEN it will be safe to say that it is going to be a landslide. 😛
Thanks Cedric, must have forgotten about Hawkey refusing to debate Howard. That was pretty Chickenshit of him. I was always surprised by Kennett refusing the deabtes as well. Those leaders who refuse debates should have a little chicken insignia pasted above their ADB entries.
I don’t know that there are too many people who take the worm seriously. It’s a bit silly really.
Cerdic Conan,
Not sure if I should take your posts seriously or not. I generally find that people who use phrases like Krudd or Dudd are pretty shallow. Same applies to those that make fun of Howard by calling him a rodent.
The 2004 debate was a beauty. Latham was an inexperienced twit with no coherent policies (just like Dudd), and Howard demolished him. Then the ‘Worm’ duly awarded victory to Latham by a two thirds majority (a predictable cheap trick that didn’t fool anyone who actually watched the debate). Then the Man of Steel went on to smash ol’ L-plate Latham in the election. Classic! So says Cerdic Conan.
[Then the Man of Steel went on to smash ol’ L-plate Latham in the election. Classic! So says Cerdic Conan.]
But the Man of Steal wasn’t as far behind then as he is now.
Cerdic: Are you the 10 year old son of Mohammed Saeed Al Sahaf?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Saeed_al-Sahaf
[‘His last public appearance as Information Minister was on April 8, 2003, when he said that the Americans “are going to surrender or be burned in their tanks. They will surrender, it is they who will surrender”.’]
Just juxtapose Americans to ALP and you have Comical Cerdic’s routine.
So Cerdic now predicts Coalition majority of 1-3 seats. Bit too close for comfort, wouldn’t you say? For a hard-core Lib, that’s really close to conceding defeat.
Paul K, I don’t drink wine or beer – I’m a complete tee-totaller. However, I do watch internet porn – that’s my one big sin.
Asanque – I’m just telling it like it is. There is a vague, restless mood for change, but no real reason to turf the government out, just like in 1961. The result will be the same – history repeats itself. Howard will fall over the line, just as Menzies did.
Paul K – you can take my posts seriously. Whatever terminology I may use from time to time, I just tell it like it is. My mission is to point out inconvenient truths (and by the way, Al Gore stole my line !).
So says Cerdic Conan.