Fleishman-Hillard Global Vote

“Many voters like to go with the ‘devil they know’. In this case, neither (Gillard nor Abbott) really fit that bill. Many voters may … see Bob Brown as the “devil they know” and a hedging option if they are not convinced by the Labor or Liberal offering,”

Rowland Insights July 20th 2010

“Remember that there are 3 independents currently in the House of Representatives. The Greens may pick up one or two more in the inner-city seats …. that raises the possibility of a hung parliament and a minority Government. With the Greens hoping to pick up some Senate seats, they could have the balance of power in both Houses.”

Rowland Insights July 20th 2010

“A plague o’ both your Houses…”

Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, 1592

“… democracy is the winner, tonight…”

with apologies to footballers everywhere

“Never underestimate the intelligence of the Australian electorate…”

Bob Hawke

Labor may well crawl back into Government, but they have had their majority stripped away with strong swings against them in NSW, Queensland, Northern Territory and Western Australia. At the same time there were swings towards Labor in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania.

The debate as to what caused this double hung parliament will go on for some time. One commentator probably was the most correct when he suggested that every theory has a grain of truth to it. The trends were regionally based and can be linked to issues such as the Mining Tax, asylum seekers, an aversion to waste and debt, frustration at the lack of competence of some State administrations affecting the Labor brand.

While many are saying that voters were influenced by disappointment in the way Kevin Rudd was removed from the Prime Ministership, the evidence is not convincing. The public polls show clearly that the Labor vote was considerably weaker until Rudd was removed. Gillard saved the party from certain disaster. Moreover, in Rudd’s own electorate of Griffith, his personal vote suffered a 9.0% swing, and his Two Party Preferred vote dropped by 4.1%.

The election campaign was frustrating to watch as the Leaders tried desperately to maintain their discipline and the policy initiatives trickled out without a definitive statement of vision or purpose. ‘Moving Forward’ and ‘Real Action’ are almost interchangeable for their lack of meaning. Anecdotal evidence is that voters were frustrated from a lack of purpose in addressing major policy concerns. The only real point of difference was on Broadband. The rest was a race to the bottom – the lowest common denominator on issues such as asylum seekers, climate change, gay marriage.

The gross result of this confusion was an uncertainty across the country about who to back. The Greens recorded historically high votes across the nation – 11.4% and higher in the Senate (but still lower than the 15% the polls were suggesting). Family First also did well in Queensland and South Australia, recording small but significant votes of 3%- 4%. Labor candidates with suppressed primary votes were hoping to utilise the 80% of Green preferences that flowed to Labor to overtake the higher Liberal vote. Family First preferences often put the Liberal candidates out of reach for Labor, so those ALP candidates that did not work hard in their electorates over the last three years found themselves too far behind.

The Senate outcome is likely to be Labor 31, Coalition 34, Greens 9, Xenophon 1 and the return of the DLP 1. To win a vote in the Senate, 39 votes are required. The Greens therefore hold the absolute balance of power from 1 July next year.

In the House of Representatives, the net result was a balance of seats between the major parties that means neither can command an outright majority. The latest count is that of the 150 lower house seats on offer, Labor have 72, the Liberals/Nationals have 71, there are 3 independents, 1 Green and 3 still undecided (Hasluck WA, Brisbane QLD, Denison TAS). Labor is behind in all 3, the Liberals will pick up 2 and there may be another independent.

What happens from here?

The magic number is 76 – that is the minimum number to achieve a majority of the 150 votes. If the Liberals achieve 73 seats, they may be able to form a minority Government with the support of the three independents who were all National Party members in the past. While they represent electorates that have been traditionally conservative, their policy and political agendas may not necessarily equate to support for Tony Abbott. If the Liberal Coalition have less than 73 seats, they cannot form a majority.

Labor would need to win both Hasluck and Brisbane to be able to form a majority without the conservative independents. This seems unlikely on current counting. That means that Julia Gillard will be focusing on winning the support of at least two of the conservative independents. If she manages to win over all three, the final balance of seats to Liberal or Labor becomes academic and Gillard will be able to form a government before final declarations which are not due until the week beginning 6 September.

In the meantime, the Caretaker conventions continue. Gillard and her Ministers continue to operate as a Government, but cannot make any significant decisions without the bi-partisan endorsement of the Coalition.

What does it mean for Queensland?

Labor got a hiding in Queensland. The primary vote plummeted to 34% (when 42% is normally required to win the majority of seats), with the LNP achieving a very respectable 47%. The Greens were a little under the national average with 10.4%. The 6 seats lost (9 if you count those made notionally Labor by the redistribution) included seats not expected to fall which held Gillard back from retaining a majority. Longman, Forde, Bonner and Brisbane were all seats that could have been held by Labor in the same way that Moreton and Petrie were retained.

This was a Federal Election, not a State election, but the voting patterns are consistent with current polling on the Bligh Government. If these trends in Two Party Preferred swings hold to March 2012, the balance of seats in the Queensland Parliament would be almost exactly reversed with a transfer of 18 seats providing the LNP with an absolute majority. If the Green vote is similarly high in the State election, however, the result for Labor could be worse as Optional Preferential voting would see many Green votes exhaust without preferencing Labor.

Labor’s brand is becoming as tainted in Queensland as it is in New South Wales. With Anna Bligh’s dissatisfaction rating sitting at 70%, it’s not surprising that the rumour mills are churning with disenchantment. No obvious moves are yet afoot, and the Premier is standing her ground and not conceding any policy changes, but unless there is substantial improvement in these numbers there will be dozens of ALP members of Parliament worrying about their future career options.

Watch this space….

The 2010 Australian election was, as widely predicted, close! Both candidates, Julia Gillard, leader of the Labor Party and Tony Abbot leader of the Liberal party worked around the clock before the polls opened on Saturday morning to shore up the support of undecided voters. 72 odd hours later, Australia is no closer to determining a leader.

This is Australia’s first hung parliament since World War II and the result of what most political experts have described as poorly run campaigns, by both major parties – void of clear actionable policy that addresses the current issues, and carves out a path for Australia plans for the future. The latest analysis gives Labor 72 seats, the Coalition 70, the Greens 1 and 3 independents, with three seats still in doubt. Therefore, most analysts agree that neither party will have the 76 seats in the 150 seat house to form a government that has the confidence of the House of Representatives.

Consequently, Australia’s political fate rests on the shoulders of three sitting independent MPs who are yet to show any signs of aligning their allegiance to either party, Australia therefore is a nation in limbo. The uncertainty and disillusionment that clouded the campaigns of both parties continues, a sentiment that saw the Greens gain a record number of 11.4% votes and informal votes increase to a new record high of 5.64%.

Even if Julia Gillard or Tony Abbot manage to form a government, it is unlikely to last the normal three year full-term of Government. The issues that will eventually decide the election are yet to be clearly determined – the media, the independents and the parties themselves, each have different views. With this in mind, a hung parliament is hardly surprising and a final result looks more than a week away.

Like much of this campaign already, the issues at hand and policies for Australia remain unanswered. As the ballot draws near, Julia Gillard and Tony Abbot, whether they like it or not are solely gunning for power, proving the exception to the ‘no I in team’ rule. They are the face of not only their party, but also rather unfortunately their front and back benches.

On Monday night close to a million Australian viewers tuned in to see Labor’s candidate, the incumbent PM, Julia Gillard front a live in-studio audience and a healthy number of very active twitter followers on Q & A, a popular weekly discussion program on Australian TV station, the ABC.

It seems Australian’s are in fact not interested in what should be the issues crucial to Australia’s future and critical to this election, such as the flailing health system, stance on immigration and education among a number of others. Instead, what should have been THE opportunity for Labor to reiterate their policies and strengthen their credentials, turned quickly into a revealing discussion into our current Prime Minister’s private life – Gillard explained why she is yet to be married or have children, her unique Australian accent and whether she’s had elocution lessons, her atheism and how she copes living with red hair???

As Australia continues to feel its way through a global economy still reeling from the aftermath of a global financial crisis it seems we are missing the point and dancing around the real issues before we head to the polls. And, the funny thing is our election candidates and their parties are dancing with us.

Following the one-to-one interview on ABC’s Q & A on earlier in the week the election moved to Australia’s largest RSL club (Returned Serviceman’s League) in Rooty Hill on Wednesday night. With pokie machines out-front, a hand selected audience of apparently undecided voters were given the opportunity to quiz both leaders; Ms Gillard first, followed by Mr Abbott (or Mr Rabbit as the PM calls him).

Marginal seats and second preference votes remain up for grabs and the audience was hostile towards Ms Gillard, with difficult questions again surrounding the Labor party stance on gay marriage. In the end all Mr Abbott had to do was get down to the audience’s level, which he did, literally jumping down off the stage to stand amongst the people and 74% of online viewers awarded the night to the Coalition.

8 days to go and the policy differences continue to emerge but with the Coalition planning to put a stop to the A$43bn National Broadband Network and refusing to submit their policies to the Treasury for costings, the sums don’t yet match up.

NY400: Dutch Public Diplomacy

Those living in New York City might have seen the awkward sight in downtown Manhattan in September 2009: a little Dutch Village including (of course!) a windmill right at the Bowling Green. ‘New Amsterdam’, as the village was named, was part of a large scale public diplomacy campaign of the Dutch government to celebrate that 400 years ago the Dutch founded New York City.

For several weeks, not too far from Ground Zero, the Dutch staged an extensive $10 million dollars campaign to promote the Netherlands among Americans as a liberal and tolerant country. The Dutch like New Yorkers to believe that the open-minded spirit of NYC today finds its origins in the liberal attitudes of the Dutch that founded New Amsterdam in 1609.

What a difference a year makes….
Only one year after the Dutch NY400 festivities, on September 11, 2010 the New Yorkers will be presented a image of the Netherlands that is opposite to the open-minded and liberal sprit image portrayed in 2009.
Geert Wilders, the ultranationalist Dutch politician who has suggested banning the Koran as hate speech, is speaking at Ground Zero on 9/11, as part of a rally against the Islamic community center being built nearby.  The speech provides an international stage for Wilders to express his controversial ideas about Islam, a key issue in his political program in the Netherlands which has given him great popularity: his political party the Party for Freedom (PVV) was one of the winners in June’s elections.

The impact on coalition talks
The timing of Wilders’ speech at Ground Zero is precarious, as Wilders is currently one of the main negotiators in the formal coalition talks between the Christian-Democrats (CDA) and the Conservative-Liberals (VVD) in shaping a minority government with the support of Wilder’s PVV. Within the Christian-Democrats Party, a fierce war is going on between its members on the issue of Wilders: “Should a democratic party with its main principle the Freedom of Religion, be cooperating with a party that aims to limit the Freedom of Religion, in this case Islam?”. The growing struggle within the Christian-Democratic party is putting a large pressure on party leader Maxime Verhagen. Wilders planned speech on 9/11 definitely won’t help.

Struggling diplomats
Besides national politicians also the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is struggling with the possible participation of an ultranationalist party in Dutch government. Rumor has it that out of fear of a negative impact on the Netherlands’ international reputation, diplomats are instructed to downsize the importance of Wilders in the Netherlands. This again caused fury among national politicians and of course, Mr. Wilders himself.

A country image that will last

It’s an interesting case to see how hard it is to build up and maintain a country’s reputation. Would the $10 million dollars spent in 2009 prove now to be a valuable investment as it might have created kind of ‘buffer’ for the Dutch reputation that can bounce of current negative sentiments towards the Netherlands? Or would it just be wasted efforts due to the activity of one single man?

Bottom-line probably is that although it might just be windmills, tulips or weed, at least the Netherlands does have such a strong and recognizable image that this cannot be simply faded out by whatever Dutchmen….

Before Kevin Rudd was removed from office and replaced by the ‘real Julia’ the Government had announced a healthcare reform plan that would see the Federal Government take back around A$45-A$50 billion (US$44.2-US$39.7 billion) of tax revenues from the States and Territories in order to become the majority funder and administrator of all public hospitals. The plan was not well received by State Governments and spelled the beginning of the end for Rudd.

According to the Labor Party website the Gillard Government is delivering a National Health and Hospitals Network, to provide better health and better hospitals for Australian working families which would be the most significant reform to Australia’s health and hospitals system since the introduction of Medicare in the early 1970’s. They claim it will make sure more hospital beds are available, provide more doctors and nurses, and make it easier to receive high quality GP and primary care services closer to home.

To ensure the system’s funding is sustainable into the future, the Labor Government says it will provide a minimum of $15.6 billion in top-up funds for public hospitals over the next decade.

This week the Coalition (Liberal Opposition) announced their plans for Australian Healthcare promising to deliver a $3.6 billion ‘beds and boards’ policy on public hospitals that will make a difference by directly tying increased funding to the delivery of more services. They also promise to reduce centralised bureaucracy and allow hospitals to better respond to the needs of patients and hospital staff.

The Coalition says they will provide $90.7 million over four years towards the establishment and operation of a community controlled public hospitals. They say they will provide funding of $3.1 billion for 2,800 new public hospital beds over the next four years, their election promise is to deliver 1,500 more beds than under the Rudd-Gillard Government’s National Health and Hospital Networks plan which they say will go a long way towards meeting the AMA’s 85 per cent occupancy benchmarks. This commitment to 2,800 beds includes our previous announcement of $832 million for 800 sub-acute and acute mental health beds.

Reflecting the decision to remove Kevin Rudd from office the Government received a bounce in their poll numbers. The mining industry and Government called an amnesty on their respective attack ads and for a short while it looked like the Labor Government would sweep to victory and a second term on the 21st August.

However the last week of the election campaign has seen the polls swing in favour of the Coalition. The election remains close and with two weeks to go the marginal seats, particularly in Queensland and New South Wales are set to play a major part in the final outcome.