What a fickle master politics can be. Until recently, One Nation was the star attraction of politics’ idiot fringe, the group set to disrupt the plans of the major parties in Queensland. Now, based on one poll, Clive Palmer’s ad spending and his relentless self-promotion, it’s his United Australia Party, or whatever it is called this week, that has been deemed the new disruptor set to dictate terms to the major parties and even secure the balance of power. He’s already locked in a preference deal with the Coalition, with talk it could help Palmer beat One Nation conspiracy theorist Malcolm Roberts to the last Senate spot in Queensland.
The origin of the current Palmer boomlet was some marginal seat polling by Newspoll showing 14% for Palmer’s party in the Labor-held seat of Herbert in Townsville, making his preferences there crucial. Palmer himself has also been talking up his prospects, and journalists of all stripes are wary of repeating the mistake of 2013 and failing to spot that Palmer’s advertising blitz got several of his Senate candidates and (in Fairfax) he himself over the line.
What followed, of course, was a grenade-like fragmentation as his newbie senators Jacquie Lambie and Glenn Lazarus abandoned him, but the path to rapid estrangement and defection in minor Senate parties is now so well-trodden we may as well put handrails on it. Instead of Lazarus, this time around Palmer, continuing his Australian rugby league props-only policy, has Greg Dowling running for him in Herbert. In an novel take on the minor party split story, Dowling has already threatened to leave UAP before the first vote is cast.
But there are some problems to deal with in the Palmer story before we get there. First, seat polling has a rotten record, despite the media’s fascination with it. Just how bad its record is has been explored a couple of time by William Bowe, who today has updated his analysis of single seat polls to incorporate last year’s byelections and the Victorian state election.
Such polls, Bowe notes, tend to have a much greater margin of error than national polls — even ones with large sample sizes — and tend to err on the side of the Coalition, though “their record is so erratic that any given poll could fall either way”. In a campaign unusually barren of polling due to the timing of the long Easter break, UAP has only featured on the radar of the Morgan poll, where it managed 2% compared to One Nation’s 4.5%.
There’s also the problem that Palmer no longer has the benefit of being an unknown quantity. Voters now know what he’s like, they watched the chaos and bluster last time around, the tendency to keep moving from issue to issue lest his inconsistencies and bullshit catch up with him. And the voters of Townsville know Palmer all too well, as the man they blame for the loss of the entitlements of Queensland Nickel workers — a loss Palmer now insists, wrongly, has been made good.
The other problem is One Nation. There’s yet to be an electoral test for Hanson in the wake of revelations the party is seeking to undermine Australia’s gun laws with help from foreign extremists, but the level of support from the far-right and from protest voters for her shouldn’t be underestimated given the party’s strong performance, along with the Shooters party, in the NSW state election last month. That was achieved despite a relative lack of funding and advertising; unlike Palmer, Hanson hasn’t needed advertising blitzes to get her vote into double figures. And while Palmer may be in the same business of harvesting electoral discontent as Hanson, outright racists may be turned off by his once-strident support for refugees and denunciations of the Coalition’s asylum seeker policies when last in parliament.
In north Queensland House of Reps seats, however, if UAP is indeed polling in double figures, Palmer’s preference flows will be crucial in helping the LNP retain its seats against a swing to Labor in Queensland. Member for Manila George Christensen is, by common agreement, in deep trouble in Dawson; Palmer preferences may be his only hope. And Palmer preferences could get the LNP’s Phillip Thompson — who has his own record of Islamophobia — over the line against Labor incumbent Cathy O’Toole in Herbert, despite unemployment soaring in Townsville under the Coalition.
Apart from using candidates with name recognition, Palmer’s other key tactic is the last-minute ad bombardment that boosts his party profile right before voters go to the polls. In other words, his tens of millions of advertising spending are just a taste of what voters will cop from here on in, and especially in the last week of the campaign. It worked in 2013, but can it work twice?
What do you make of Clive Palmer’s chances at the election? Write to boss@crikey.com.au.
Nothing but a crook. WE need a public list of his shonky deals and flops.
I would suspect people will be a lot more cautious this time around, as his business dealings show that he’s in it for the $$’s & with a desire to become a more powerful figure in politics once again..
He’s another one in my view whose largely only in it for the power & $$$, along with his ability to make sure all his mates are helped out in the various deals that are made in the tendering processes…
Keeping in mind he’s another one that’s lost sight of what the government is supposed to do..
Yeah we’ll, 90% of politics is about power and/or money. At the other end of the scale are the greens and they get about the same amount of votes as the crazies. In the middle are libs and labs, may as well throw a dart for the amount any of it makes any difference.
Palmer is toxic. He’ll have to spend another thirty million just to make voters forget how toxic he really is.
And that’ll only remind them how toxic he is … I just wish he’d bugger off to USA, China, Afghanistan or somewhere.
Palmer is Australia’s Donald Trump.
Need anyone say more?
Never underestimate the capacity of the depth of pain an “optimistic” Australian electorate can inflict on itself, ignoring form and history, in the hope that “This time maybe the same bastards will be all right”?
If they buy a PUP again, they’d been warned – by their own experience. Some “A pox on both their houses” = “Whoops there goes my nose again. Suture…….!”
True klewso. It speaks more of the generally insipid electorate, their capacity to fool themselves all of the time, and their delusion that sending an imbecile to Canberra somehow ‘puts it up those bastards’.
Faith in my fellow voters is not exactly high.
So, how are you going to vote, DB? Which electorate, how many candidates, what is your preference order? Demonstrate how you avoid being insipid and deluded.
I’m in a seat that will go to labor Charlie. First preference will go to either an independent or greens party to either direct electoral funding to the greens if I’m feeling generous on the day, or vote for a non- racist, non shooting, non RWNJ independent so that no funding goes to major parties, if im not feeling generous. My preferences will fall to Labor.
Senate vote will be above the line for the first time in yonks, looking for any socialist, green, anti coal mine or similar party. LNP, shooters, PHON, Clives party and the like will not get a number at all to ensure that preferences can’t flow to them.
Article last week said that up to 40% of people didn’t know that putting a number against a party above the line meant that your preference could flow to them. A large %, don’t you think?
I used to vote below the line in the Senate, just for a bit of anarchy, but realised that there is no way to know where your vote ends up, which is also true of above the line actually. Senate votes aren’t counted and preferences in the same way as HoR. Maths too complicated.
Will assuredly not vote for any franking credits whinge party or negative gearing rort supporting party either.
I will vote with the aim of seeing my children live on a planet that isn’t cooking, or one where the top 5% own everything and avoid tax.
What about you? Planning on supporting anyone with policies, or a batch of parties with none?
Moreton has a Labor and a Greens candidate, and a veritable “dog’s porridge” after that, of Palmer, Hanson, Anning and a Limited News Party “candied dates” – so, after the openers, who do you send in at “first drop (kick)”?
…… Again, with all those “barker’s eggs” lying around – I’ll be more interested to see how “Bob’s Kattermites” poll.