One of the most valuable pieces of data provided by Isentia for Crikey’s Campaign Insights has been about what issues have dominated coverage from week to week during the campaign. They’ve shown that Scott Morrison’s efforts to run down Anthony Albanese’s lead have been hampered by having to regularly “fight on his opponent’s turf” — talking about issues that are not his strengths (macroeconomic management and national security) and about issues that Labor is strong on (wages, health, aged care).
Data from the final week of the campaign to Wednesday night also shows a similar contest being fought over the messaging of the leaders — the issues they talk about unprompted. Both started with a specific list of issues that formed the core of their opening pitches. For Anthony Albanese, those issues were aged care and childcare, unemployment and jobs, climate action, skills, infrastructure, healthcare and cost of living — all issues that Labor believes play well for it. For Morrison, the list was the economy, unemployment and jobs, lower taxes, infrastructure and national security — likewise, issues that the Liberals believe play well for them.
Notice that Morrison’s list was significantly shorter. Critics may argue that he had little else to talk about, but that means Morrison had a much more targeted message, whereas Albanese made the mistake of diffusing Labor’s message across a range of policy areas without a unifying and underlying message. If Morrison manages to scrape home tomorrow, this may have been a contributing factor to Labor’s loss.
But as the campaign went on, both leaders widened their topics of choice — remember, this is what they are talking about unprompted. Albanese added manufacturing (another big Labor issue), productivity (generally not a Labor issue, but Albanese linked it to wage rises), and budget management (a Coalition strength).
Morrison added budget management, a clear Liberal strength, to his list — but also skills investment and healthcare, two Labor issues — and, most significantly, housing, via the super-for-housing announcement, which proved a bold and, who knows, perhaps election-winning gamble to move onto Labor turf. By this week, Morrison was talking about as diffuse a list of issues as Albanese — his capacity for staying on message no matter what doesn’t seem to have applied to his choice of topics.
So while Morrison was more disciplined and targeted initially, even putting aside the calculated gamble of super for housing, he has been forced by the nature of the campaign, and by Labor’s own tactics, to dilute his own messaging — as, to some extent, has Albanese. It’s the messaging equivalent of the military adage that no plan survives contact with the enemy.
Nonetheless, in the seven days covered by the data, Insentia shows the ground moving somewhat back in the Coalition’s favour. While cost of living, wages and climate were the three leading issues in media coverage — all Labor-favourable or at best neutral for the government — the issue of policy costings (a farce, but one always favourable to the government of the day), super for housing and Morrison’s campaign launch all featured among the most covered topics. Although, reflecting that super for housing was only launched on Sunday afternoon, that issue received far smaller overall coverage than cost of living and wages.
In the swing seats, Allegra Spender continued to attract more coverage than Dave Sharma in Wentworth — a fascinating outcome that the NSW Liberals will need to investigate win or lose tomorrow. In Kooyong, Josh Frydenberg picked up more coverage compared to Monique Ryan, though at no stage in recent weeks has her share of coverage dropped below around 40%. It’s better news for Gladys Liu in Chisholm, who dominated coverage of that seat, although not always positively.
Tomorrow night will reveal just what impact the twists and turns of media coverage, revealed by Isentia over the past few weeks, will have on the outcome. If Scott Morrison survives, it will be in the face of the persistent drift of the political conversation onto issues more favourable for his opponent.
Not surprised that Morrison’s list of issues omits federal integrity, but it’s deeply disturbing to say Albanese too has nothing to say about it. Federal corruption goes to the heart of why national politics fails completely in so many areas including many of those listed in the article. Above all we have no credible federal policy for energy and global warming because our federal politics is rotten to the core, and to sort that out we need, at the very least and as a start, a really effective federal integrity commission. Albanese’s silence suggests that whatever the outcome of this election it is not likely we will get one. Probably we will get a sham commission that will just pretend to be doing something; enough to deflect attention and confuse the critics.
With some luck, the Senate will use its negotiating power to convince the Reps that an ICAC is essential . With more luck, we might find some brilliant Teals to keep the bastards honest .
A handful of such independents in the Senate pushing for a real commission would be good, but it’s very unlikely to be enough if Labor, Liberals and Nationals are all dragging their feet. Even if those independents do very well in this election they will be very few compared to all the main party senators combined and cross-bench votes will be irrelevant in such circumstances. If Labor is not keen, a real federal integrity commission is pretty much still-born whatever happens.
Experience also shows that independent or micro-party senators are often easily out-played by the government which can exploit their inexperience and overwhelm them with a combination of intimidation and cheap irrelevant concessions. Anyone who has been paying attention will recall plenty of examples. I particularly shudder at the way Ricky Muir in 2014 was bulldozed by Morrison, who told Muir (who had the deciding vote) to pass the government’s ghastly asylum bill or refugee children would continue to be subject to torturous conditions in the offshore concentration camps. Muir buckled.
I thought Albanese was very strong on the need for an ICAC, and I am surprised you say he is silent on the matter
A federal ICAC, like functional FoI, loudly demanded by everyone & their dog when in opposition, is never likely to be legislated for the simple reason that the corruption, culpable incompetence and venal stupidity is truly bipartisan – they all have too much to lose.
As I posted, the article lists issues the author says Albanese is pushing. There is nothing at all in the article about a federal integrity commission or federal poltiical corruption. So, I’m not saying it. I’m just following on from Bernard Keane’s summary. If you do not agree, argue with Keane.
Agreed- I have heard him state it unequivocably
Then why, IF no mention of ICAC, , have the 12 retired judges stated that the Labor Party documented ICAC with retropective powers the policy they support> not the LNP maybe Parliamentary in-house look see??
See my reply to Drandy.
A caller to the John Laws on this (Friday) morning pointed out that AA has said that any FICAC would limited to look back only 15yrs to political corruption and wondered if that had something to do with his role in the Customs whistelblower on the Sydney airport security report?
Heaven forfend that he’d need to be concerned.
After all when his earlier involvement (2005) was made public in 2009, he offered a single line statement “I am confident that my office handled this matter appropriately.” which was not the question.
He had been asked by Sen. Xenophon when had he met the officer who was convicted and what further documents were requested from him which were later used in the Senate by Sen. Ludwig when questioning Lionel Woodward, then head of Customs about the collapse of Sea Cargo Automation for 3 months prior to Xmas, 2005.
Woodward’s response was that he had no further knowledge of the matter and the Sen. Ludwig was far better informed about the fiasco than he should have been.
The two things to remember as you line up to vote .
1 Our PM is a compulsive liar unlike his mentor,the old bloke who had core and non-core promises to differentiate between big lies and little lies .Treat everything the PM says as most likely untrue .
2 Climate change is number 1
Budget management is not, and never has been, a coalition strength.
I agree. And I wish Labor would attack this alleged strong point. Clare had a go yesterday. If it weren’t for alleged superior economic management, the LNP would have nothing.
There’s been too much discussion about housing unaffordability – which neither party can fix until negative gearing is axed but nobody has the nerve to suggest it.
Definitely not enough discussion about climate change or ICAC. Wasted opportunities re matters on which Morrison is weak & lacks credibility. I haven’t heard Albanese declare that the Coalition’s version of ICAC has been damned as ‘worse than nothing’ & ‘a farce’ by two former NSW Supreme Court judges.
I don’t think negative gearing has been a big factor while interest rates were so low. The attraction is the 50% discount on CGT. Half the capital gain is guaranteed minimum profit.
If Morrison survives, it will not be because of superior ‘messaging’. It will be because Australians are deliberately ignorant of what a disaster is Morrison. It will be a triumph of messaging to idiots over electors actually understanding their real interests and voting accordingly. .