Aussie campaign man Lynton Crosby helped Boris Johnson win London mayor's race in 2011, Latest Updates
7 May 2012 | 0 Comments

The Australian

Rachel Sylvester

There was a huge cut-out of Boris Johnson in Lynton Crosby's office.

"Thank you for running the most amazing campaign," the Mayor had scribbled on it.

"This is written at 4.15pm on election day so may revise later though hope not." No revision was needed. Despite a nailbiting finish, the Australian political strategist known as the Wizard of Oz masterminded a win for Boris in London.

Even as Conservative councillors were blown away across the country in the local elections cyclone, Mr Crosby persuaded the voters that the scarecrow of City Hall could use his brains to manage the capital. "This has been like waiting for a baby to be born," he says. "It's been a very intense period."

Having worked on dozens of election campaigns all over the world, he believes that Mr Johnson is unique in politics. "He's a multigrain politician in an era of white-bread politicians. He has character. Ken Livingstone had that once, but in politics people work you out over time and if you are not genuine they go off you. With Boris there is a genuineness - he doesn't have a technique.

"There is a bit of risk because you are never quite sure what he is going to say, but it is him. Ken has a political strategy whereas Boris just does it."

He says that Mr Johnson outperformed his party by rising above party politics. "Voters aren't stupid - they have worked out that Boris is a Conservative. But people who don't vote Conservative will also vote for him despite that. Most voters haven't seen this as a referendum on the Government but a vote on who they want as Mayor."

Lynton and Boris don't look like natural soulmates. Mr Crosby, who grew up on a farm in southern Australia, describes himself as a "capital 'P' Philistine", preferring the Outback to the opera house. Mr Johnson went to Eton and Oxford. But Mr Crosby, who also worked on Mr Johnson's first London campaign, says the Mayor is not an arrogant posh boy. "Boris is his own person, he is not a creature of class, he won a scholarship and he works bloody hard. A lot of people suggest that he is idle but to me he is the opposite. He is always on the go, always having ideas, he e-mails at 5.30am. His style maligns his work ethic - because he is often thinking of 15 things at once he doesn't always appear focused."

He didn't send his candidate for a haircut or ask him to pose for the photographers with his wife and children. "He is who he is, I couldn't change him. I think he brushed his hair."

The bust-up with Mr Livingstone in the lift over their tax affairs was, Mr Crosby suggests, not a low point but a defining moment of the mayoral campaign. "It showed that he went beyond 'jolly Boris' - he was seriously angry. I have no doubt that it helped cement some people. Everyone wants to hold hands and sing kumbaya, but in politics you need a few moments of tension. You need points of difference."

He believes that the bad economic news in the final week of the campaign aided Boris. "Ironically, I think the double-dip recession helped our campaign because it made people realise that these are tough times and so we can't afford to be risky with money. Boris was seen as better able to manage money."

Mr Crosby rejects the suggestion from some rightwingers that Mr Johnson triumphed by promoting traditional Tory values. "Boris won because he was Boris and had done a good job as mayor and had, many would say, exceeded expectations . . . My business partner in Australia, who is a pollster, once said to me that he had never seen a politician against whom there was less malice. Even those who don't vote for him have a sense of warmth towards him; that's not a bad quality."

On polling day, he went with Mr Johnson to Fulham Broadway. "The thing that struck me was that six black minority ethnic people in a row came up and said they had voted for Boris. There was a single mum with her son in the barber shop and he jumped out of the chair and ran up to Boris."On race, he says: "It's chicken and egg. Is it that the Conservatives have trouble with some groups because they are black minority ethnic, or is it because those groups happen to be recent immigrants and therefore are often poorer, don't own their own home and may be on welfare, that they're not voting Conservative? You don't appeal to people just by saying, 'We've got a particular type of person in our party therefore you should vote for us'. Boris treats everybody the same."

While No 10 is worrying that Mr Cameron has lost the female vote, Boris had a consistent lead amongst women. "I don't think it's charm," Mr Crosby says. "They believe he's more in tune. Ken, as he's got older, has become a bit of a caricature of the cranky old machine politician. Boris doesn't talk about maternity or paternity leave, but most women don't talk about 'women's policies' either." Politicians' private lives matter less and less, in his view. "What matters to most voters is - do you take the job seriously? Do you have a set of values that guide you - I don't mean moral values but enduring values? People don't care where you've come from as long as you behave the right way towards them and if you've got a job to do, you do it to the best of your ability and understand the people you're seeking to represent."

What advice would Mr Crosby give to the Prime Minister after last week's disappointing results? "I charge for my advice," he jokes.

He is not about to take a job in No 10, although he was sounded out by Mr Cameron in Opposition. But the man who secured four election victories for John Howard as Australian Prime Minister says there are wider reasons for the Tory woes outside London. "The Government's got a very difficult challenge because they inherited a massive debt. The fact that there's a coalition obviously constrains the capacity of the Conservative Party to be as flexible as it might want to be."

The omnishambles of pasties, fuel, donors and granny tax will not do lasting damage, says the strategist. "I don't think people think that things have spiralled out of control. These are tough times. The most important thing in politics is message; you need a clear and consistent message and stick to that."

There have, though, been too many distractions. The Leveson inquiry revelations are, he says, "completely irrelevant to most people, they just do not give a toss . . . If you're out in the suburbs somewhere and you're worrying about petrol prices and paying your mortgage next week you just think what are these people going on about?"

Some Tory backbenchers are muttering that the modernising project has failed and that their leader may not be a winner. "I don't think they are right to go on the radio and say anything,"

Mr Crosby says. "I hate all this right-wing, left-wing stuff. The voters just want to know that you're focusing on what's best for them." He can't offer any magic solution to the Tory problems in the North and does not think that Mr Cameron should start ramping up the rhetoric on dog-whistle issues such as immigration, crime and tax. "People are not ideological, they just want a Government that delivers a better life for them," he says. "Overwhelmingly Mr Cameron's focusing on what he needs to focus on, which is the economy."

There is one quality, Mr Crosby says, that the London Mayor and the Prime Minister share: "They're both at ease with themselves."

So has Boris got what it takes to make it to No 10? "That's for others to judge," he replies. "The two things I've seen in him are a real hunger to be Mayor again and a clarity as to what he wants to do. If you're always underestimated, that's good; you'll surprise people. If you surprise them at the right time, that can be very powerful."

ABC Insiders Final Observations Mention Lynton Crosby in 2011, Latest Updates
6 May 2012 | 0 Comments

ABC's Insiders final observations mentioned Lynton Crosby

See the video here: http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2012/s3496408.htm

(1minute 21 Seconds into the video)

Take life down a gear and quit the spin cycle by Mark Textor
in 2011, Latest Updates
28 Apr 2012 | 1 Comment

The Sydney Morning Herald

Opinion

The morning after Cyclone Tracy ravaged my family home in the northern suburbs of Darwin on Christmas night in 1974, my big brother Michael helped me find what Christmas gifts remained. In the eerie early morning light we found two. And they were rather good.

One was a gleaming, albeit slightly scratched, red Malvern Star bike. The other was a Johnny Cash record.

I still remember riding that bike through the deserted streets of Alawa, weaving around the debris, enjoying that rare sense of freedom that comes after being confined all night in a makeshift shelter. And it was a simple act: I got on my bike and rode.

I still love bikes and cycling but something has happened. It has slowly become, well, very complicated. I don't just hop on my bike any more. Now I search for my cycling-specific socks, knicks, undershirt, jersey, gloves and helmet. Then I pump up my tyres to the recommended high pressure my carbon fibre drop-bar racing bike requires, attach a seat bag full of tubes, tools and a spare $10 note. I strap on my heart-rate monitor and its GPS-enabled computer receiver. Then there are the stretches and pre-ride checks, and music to fiddle with. And all that's before the traffic.

Like a boiling frog, my love of riding has been slowly cooked dead. I'm now burdened by the creeping modern paraphernalia of it. All the things I'd bought to increase my enjoyment of cycling are not.

I can just as easily ride a simpler bike with "normal" pedals. I can ride in normal sandshoes, a T-shirt and shorts. I don't actually need a GPS computer to tell me where to go and if I'm working hard enough - I have my eyes and gasping lungs to tell me what the heart rate monitor would. So I did. And it was terrific.

Reflecting on this has led me to think back on that Johnny Cash record. His music remains engaging because it is similarly stripped down; the songs are simple yet powerful. His musical constructs allowed him to focus often on themes and narratives surrounding the fate of the downtrodden along with other social and political issues. Cash's outfits were understated and his brand became the simple Man in Black.

Clutter happens in politics and government. As one industry player likes to reflect: political parties, particularly those in government, "get lost in the logic of their own arguments". Kevin Rudd came to power channelling Johnny Cash: his simple narrative and tune was: "I'm from Queensland and I'm here to help; you will get a new deal on health, an education revolution, a fair wage deal and economic conservatism."

But, thanks to the paraphernalia of ministries, COAG, 2020 summits, the overseas trips, the media spin cycle, the endless government meetings and too much looking at the political version of the cycling computer - the published polls - his music became like that of Rick Wakeman. Very fancy and complicated, but ultimately with no point. So, out went the ''just ride'' Johnny Cash style; in came endless Rick Wakeman. Folk don't buy Rick Wakeman.

Similarly, some political leaders bind themselves in layers of "what ifs" instead of getting on the bike and simply going for it. They often get over-prepared so while they may end up with a TV interview that is mistake-free and technically perfect from a media practitioner's point of view, they have actually said nothing.

But here's the trick. Shedding the carbon fibre for the single-speed bike isn't simple. You will find yourself using muscles you have not used in ages. And it takes discipline to reskill yourself to ride a mountain bike with no suspension over rough terrain. In politicians and musicians - as well as cyclists - simplicity takes skill.

As one musical observer said about the power of Cash's music: "It goes something like this … boom-chicka-boom, boom-chicka-boom … relentless … like a slow-moving freight train."

And here is the kicker: "Once it gets in your head, it'll be there for a while."

But as the musician Bob Wootton also said, boom-chicka-boom isn't as simple as it may sound. Even the best guitarists in the world, he said, had trouble mastering it.

It's the same with politicians and our own lives. Clarity is king. Simplicity delivers. But you must shed the layers first. And that's the hard bit. Even before the ride.

Aim and fire: voting papers become a weapon by Mark Textor
in 2011, Latest Updates
14 Apr 2012 | 0 Comments

Sydney Morning Hearld

Opinion

Politics is an old profession. We all know that. But I would argue that politics is ageing more rapidly than most. The accelerated proliferation of political media coverage and commentary has meant the political paint applied to the constructs, personalities and policies that parties around the world create fades more rapidly.

Australian voters see a lot of elections and a lot of election coverage. They read weekly polls, the daily analysis of those polls and never-ending predictions of the next poll as well as the tactics that political parties will employ to influence them.

Little is new now. The salience of different issues ebbs and flows but the broad spectrum of issues hasn't fundamentally changed since I've been measuring them. With the exception of war and national security issues, wherever you go in the world the matters of greatest personal concern are much the same but with different local colour. The cost of living, be that concern about food staples or the Western tension about maintaining quality of life, economic stability, neighbourhood security, local roads, access to quality health and education services, water quality and availability, honesty and trust in politicians and public officials are all typical - and that's just what we found in focus groups in Iraq.

Many party pollsters would argue that even the positioning of issues has become predictable in the West. For example, if a Republican candidate chooses to campaign on an anti-crime (law and order) platform aimed at socially conservative older voters, typically their Democrat opponent will respond to that same cohort with a scare campaign about the possible loss of pension benefits if the Republican opponent's conservative or hawkish fiscal positions be adopted.

In Australia, an attempt by the economic right to talk about greater productivity and efficiency in the economy can be expected to be immediately recounted with accusations of a secret IR agenda, service cuts and tax breaks for ''the rich''.

Our research shows voters are aware of these trends because of their own frequent voting experiences and the socialisation and exposure of political strategies via new media. One political trend that is still maturing, however, is the growing flexibility in the way voters choose to use their vote.

Voters see separate opportunities to support, for example, local candidates (often in spite of their overall party loyalty), or to send a message about a particular issue, or to use their vote preferences to send messages to the media.

While one could argue that this ''retailing'' of choices has always been present, rather than being an afterthought, it is now much more of an active consideration. In our numbers we have seen, for example, win-expectations go from being one of 10 vote drivers a decade ago, to being one of the top two or three vote drivers.

This trend has been masked by a range of different political terms used in media; whether it was the ''gambit'' strategy of protest voting in the Mundingburra byelection in 1996, leading to the downfall of Queensland's Wayne Goss-led government; the ''Jackie Kelly'' sandbagging strategy in 1998, where MPs were inoculated from an anti-GST swing by a tactical vote in support of their local efforts and popularity; John Key's ''cup of tea'' strategy to encourage National Party voters in one electorate to vote ACT New Zealand to deliver stable government; or the Queensland LNP appeal not to vote in support of the local (Labor) MP, but rather to vote to deliver change; all are an indication of a battle of vote-use, not just vote-issues.

This innovation in the conversation about the tactical and practical uses of our votes may well be re-empowering voters by smarter vote choices, but voters are also aware that innovation in policy is slowing by comparison. Perhaps this is because when someone does now offer up a fresh policy, it is immediately eviscerated by 24-hour news channels. So before voters think about the range of vote choices they have, they like to listen to more policy content analysis rather than political analysis.

Boris is the boss, he would lose if I put words into his mouth in 2011, Latest Updates
12 Apr 2012 | 0 Comments

His only lapse — calling Labour rival Ken Livingstone a f***ing liar — took place in a private lift where Boris hoped it would stay.

The man behind this tightly controlled performance is Lynton Crosby, the forceful Aussie political spin doctor who has worked on election campaigns around the globe, including three victories for former Australian prime minister John Howard.

Parachuted in to turn around Boris’s initially disastrous election campaign in 2008, the 55-year-old grand-father instilled a military ethos and went on to deliver a 140,000 majority for the Tories, 53 per cent to Labour’s 47 per cent. Perhaps understandably, he is revered by Conservatives as the man who can keep Boris on a leash.

A Tory source said: “Now Boris has been Mayor for four years Lynton will at least consult him, whereas four years ago he’d just say, ‘This is what we’re bloody doing’.”

But Mr Crosby — a prolific tweeter who sends out a barrage of belligerent anti-Ken messages — won’t admit he’s calling the shots, saying: “Boris is the boss.

“There are people like Alastair Campbell who like to create the impression they’re really manipulating everybody. [But] at the end of the day it’s Boris’s name on the ballot paper. You can offer advice but they make the call. His instincts are very good. I’m not out there with him [all the time] so I’m not going to be able to influence him.”

He claims No 10 has little direct control either. “At the end of the day, it’s Boris’s campaign. He decides. But there’s a good working relationship and all the support we can ask for.”

Can Mr Crosby, a former state secretary for the Liberal Party in Queensland who prefers not to do small talk, repeat the success of May 2008 this time? “When you finish one election you start thinking about the next one so I’ve been thinking about it a long time.

“Message does matter most. Boris’s is that he’s got a plan but it’s not yet complete and he’d like the chance to continue.”

I think that is a yes. But the strategy this time is very different.

Friends of the Mayor admit that in his first battle for City Hall he had to be railroaded into fighting the campaign as a professional, from giving up alcohol to sticking to the party line instead of making digs at party rivals.

“He is very unaffected as an individual. You can say anything to him and he accepts it with good will,” said Mr Crosby.

Now so well trained, Boris is following the rules laid down by Mr Crosby to the letter without the repeated prompting of four years ago. This new scheme puts the latter in a “campaign caretaker” role, rather than the attack dog of last time. “If you put words in a candidate’s mouth, your candidate will lose,” he said.

Mr Crosby has been working on the campaign since early last year. He and his wife have relocated permanently to London. He gets up at 4am (an hour and a half earlier than the Mayor) and spends the day holding court at the West End HQ of the “Back Boris” campaign, marshalling 347 “ward captains” across London.

“Boris and I talk regularly. He rings me. I ring him. We email. We text.”

Mr Crosby masterminded the “doughnut strategy” of targeting traditional Tory voters in outer London which was credited with winning last time. This time the huge supporters’ army, which has swelled to more than 100,000, is key. Each of the “captains” runs 25 other volunteers, leafleting, door-knocking and tweeting in support of the Mayor. There are tens of thousands more supporters online.

The money has been pouring into campaign coffers despite the downturn. Mr Crosby expects to match — and possibly top — the £1.5 million raised last time. He dropped tantalising hints that donors include some high-profile Labour voters, but wouldn’t say who.

There have been whispers — including at the top of the Tory Party — that the “Boris message” is not getting through, but Mr Crosby does not appear unduly concerned.

“There’s a lot happening in the world and the mayoral election is often something people come to later in the piece. It’s not a general election. Sometimes it takes time to build up. Now we’re in the campaign and Boris’s activity rate is very intense, people are starting to notice.”

He is philosophical about the lack of public money washing around to fund big campaign pledges. Ever the strategist, he tries to turn it to his candidate’s advantage.

“Boris came in just before difficult decisions had to be made. So the one person who has shown the capacity to take tough decisions is Boris. Ken has never had to take difficult decisions.”

Some of the Mayor’s more memorable achievements — like banning booze on the Tube — didn’t cost a penny, he added.

But a glimpse of the attack dog emerges when Ken Livingstone’s name comes up. It is clear he is unhappy at suggestions that Boris is running a negative campaign and should raise the tone. “The last campaign was very negative so we’re not going to take any lectures from anybody. But if you notice our campaign, it’s about Ken’s record, it is not about him as an individual. An election is a choice and you’ve got to frame that choice.”

He doesn’t think the public is getting bored with the same old squabbles. “Some in the media will see this as a re-run of the same old faces but... I don’t think people should underestimate the importance of this election.”

Four years ago, Ken Livingstone blamed his defeat, in part, on Gordon Brown’s unpopularity. But Lynton Crosby doesn’t believe Londoners will use their vote as a referendum on the Government.

“People don’t just lash out at the first opportunity... people will be asking ‘Who do we want to be Mayor of London?’ They won’t have lots of other things washing around their heads. Boris is Mayor, he’s not a member of the Cabinet.”

For such a tough political operator, he is endearingly open about his family, showing pictures of his two young grandsons on his smartphone. He dismisses suggestions he is a “master of the dark arts” — as put by one Australian newspaper — as “bulls**t”.

He adds: “People make all of that stuff up. I’m actually quietly spoken and reserved and thoughtful.”

Those thoughts don’t come cheap. He earned a reported £140,000 for four months’ work on the last election.

Could his bonus this time be a contract to run the Tories’ next general election campaign? He thinks not.

What about some advice for David Cameron? “I don’t give free advice.”

Making of a spin doctor

From: Kadina, farming community north of Adelaide, South Australia

Family: Lives in London with wife. Has two grown-up daughters in Canberra, Australia, and two baby grandsons

Education: Economics degree from the University of Adelaide

Career: Started political career as Liberal party official in Queensland, rising to state secretary. Masterminded four election victories for John Howard in Australia from 1996. Set up Crosby Textor consultants with polling expert Mark Textor in 2002.

Came to Britain in 2004 as Conservative campaign director for Michael Howard but lost the 2005 general election. Was drafted in to boost Boris Johnson’s flagging mayoral bid in early 2008 — helped his candidate win London. In 2009, managed Libertas’s European election bid. Came back to work for Mr Johnson last year.

Campbell Newman's Winning Speech by Mark Textor
in 2011, Latest Updates
3 Apr 2012 | 0 Comments

The Writing of Campbell Newman's winning speech.

Video: Channel Ten - Winning speech

ABC Radio National Sunday Extra - Australian National Identity by Mark Textor
in 2011, Latest Updates
1 Apr 2012 | 0 Comments

Listen to Mark Textor discuss Australian identity and military history. Should we review our military identity?

Audio: ABC Radio National, Sunday Extra. 'Outsiders: War....What Is It Good For'

ABC Radio National Sunday Profile - Mark Textor by Mark Textor
in 2011, Latest Updates
1 Apr 2012 | 0 Comments

Listen to the recording of Radio National's Sunday Profile on the below link:

Audio: ABC Radio National - Sunday Profile - Mark Textor

Messages of substance made a pope - and a premier by Mark Textor
in 2011, Latest Updates
31 Mar 2012 | 0 Comments

Sydney Morning Herald

Opinion piece

If you work with politicians and want to add to the process, then it's best to read something outside of "Campaigns and Elections" for inspiration.

So I was pleasantly surprised when I read, in a book not entirely about politics, one of the best descriptions I've ever come across about the uniqueness of every election contest.

The author wrote: "In the end elections are not decided by a single factor, [but] built by an intersection of circumstances and reflections that are generally unrepeatable.''

This had been my experience, so it struck a chord. The book was The Rise of Benedict XVI: The Inside Story Of How The Pope Was Elected And Where He Will Take The Catholic Church, by John L. Allen Jnr.

In a fascinating chapter of this book about Joseph Ratzinger, titled ''The Victory'', Allen noted 10 reasons for his success in claiming the title of the 16th Pope Benedict at the crucial count. Key among them were seven quite political observations that help to describe the nature of the Queensland election last weekend.

Allen noted first that Ratzinger was "The Best Man"; that he had "a ferocious work ethic, and was a superb listener and learner". Certainly this parallels the Queensland election. With voters sick of spin, our research showed that Campbell Newman's contagious energy was the antidote to Labor's flat, parodic spin.

Second, Allen wrote that Ratzinger mounted "The Best Campaign" in that "his performance … was perfectly calibrated to remind his conservative base of support of what they admired about him". In Queensland, too, voters wanted affirmation and confirmation, rather than persuasion that Newman had a plan of action ready in his back pocket. The importance of his "100-Day program", "Contract with Queensland" and "Contract with Ashgrove" was critical in the closing week. The focus on the "retail decision" was also a factor - that in order to achieve positive change voters would have to vote out sometimes popular Labor members who had hidden the Labor logo to avoid scrutiny and accountability.

Third, Allen noted Ratzinger had "The Best Campaign Staff". Certainly with Bruce McIver and the LNP executive bringing together the "old" National and Liberal parties and co-opting the likes of James McGrath, David Moore and Ben Myers, they had party organisation and unity, campaign discipline, policy and tactical co-ordination skills of some of the very best in politics anywhere. If Labor's one-dimensional advertising was any guide, their strategic communications team by comparison had the political alacrity of a toaster.

Fourth, the author noted Ratzinger was "A Known Quantity", that "many of them [voters] … decided that rather than risk the unknown, they would opt for a proven figure". This would normally be an issue for the leader of a 20-year opposition, but Newman's high profile through his work on the Brisbane City Council meant voters knew of his "Can-Do" approach, dispelling the usual "unknown" factor.

Fifth, Allen noted that the papal voting system was in Ratzinger's favour. In the case of Queensland the parallel was simple: the "just vote 1 LNP" message allowed by the Queensland optional preferential system meant the act of voting for change was clearer. It also neutered the effectiveness of the Greens' giving preferences to Labor.

Sixth, Allen noted Ratzinger had an "Ineffective Opposition". Sound familiar? This is normally a problem for Queensland conservative oppositions and was potentially Labor's biggest wedge into the LNP campaign. By attacking Newman's personal financial interests, Labor was clearly hoping to game the polls in Ashgrove, then with the ''winnability'' of that seat in question, sow the seed of doubt about the alternative LNP.

The problem with this was manyfold. Newman was able to decisively deal with the issue by promising to divest himself of his financial dealings. The campaign was able to put enough pressure on Labor's leader, Anna Bligh, to force the admission that her accusations were without evidence. Also, Newman never looked like he was going to lose. Strong TV performances beamed into livings rooms are still much more influential than tweets about poll drops.

As well, Tim Nicholls and Jeff Seeney were seen to be strong, competent "back stops", while Bligh's deputy, Andrew Fraser, was a measurable political negative. So the Labor advertising gave some free publicity to the fact that the LNP had a team.

Finally, Allen concluded that Ratzinger was the only man with the policies, character (and values) who could deliver reform. At least 60 per cent of the LNP's paid advertising effort in the final week was devoted to communicating commitments to Queensland for the future. As one political leader observed, "a leader is a dealer in hope" - so in repeating its five-point mantra for government, the Newman LNP team offered that hope, and people desperate for it grabbed it with both hands.

For me Queensland was a different experience from other campaigns, but the papal parallels show some familiar patterns.

Mark Textor is the founder of the campaign consultancy Crosby Textor, which advised the LNP in Queensland.

Labor dirt campaign enraged voters in 2011, Latest Updates
25 Mar 2012 | 0 Comments

Courier Mail

Opinion - Dennis Atkins

QUEENSLAND'S ground-breaking election at the weekend did one thing above all else. Voters had an overriding message about the nasty, relentless campaign from Labor during the past nine weeks.

They said they hated what they saw and heard. The smash-up election result was always coming but its size was in doubt.

Let's look at the empirical evidence. Crosby Textor, the best polling organisation working in real politics, did a serious exit poll on Saturday and found a big result - the top issue that affected voters was the nature of this campaign.

This, more than anything, was why Bligh Labor lost. It was why a premier's super-safe 15 per cent seat was taken to the brink and severe doubts were raised.

This was why Labor lost with a swing of about 16-17 per cent of the vote.

Voters were awake to this. They knew what was going on. The dots did not need to be joined. They were already there.

So, let's deal with what happened. Labor hit the pedal too hard on its "Trash Newman" campaign.

The Textor Crosby material says the top issue that most affected voters was "political behaviour". This is an unheard-of outcome.

Let's walk back from this. People hate politics. They hated the Bligh government and they hated the politics the Bligh government played.

They then delivered the most comprehensively political campaign in the history of campaigns. The campaign that came before wasn't just negative. It was brutally negative - pushing nasty arguments against Labor's opponents and their families, including the leader's spouse.

It struck a new low. Labor refused to the death to apologise, legitimising what had been said.

Labor threw everything at it - desperately hoping some mud would stick. It backfired.

Labor did not only miss the mark when it came to trying to push the vote in Ashgrove. It also sent a message statewide that Labor had lost the plot.

This was made worse by Labor's panicky response to the "I got nothing" moment and the consequential clearing of Newman by the Crime and Misconduct Commission. It started shooting wildly. What did that look like? Politics. What do people hate? Politics.

The Textor stuff shouted it loudly. Every last bit of hate was directed at Labor. The more they did it, the angrier people were.

No excuses here. Election day minus one and what happened? Anna Bligh pressed the pedal to the floor on the Newman assault and the last vestige she had of any decency evaporated.

In the last 72 hours of this goat stampede we watched the destruction of a once-great political party - eaten by its own political obsession, which itself has cannibalised the party. There might be a starting point for the Labor Party to find a place from which to come back but as they say, OMG, this is not it.

They have learnt nothing and look like they are incapable of it. Bligh's concession speech on Saturday night was perfunctory - as was the mean-spirited "we lost despite you" rant from Kate Jones in Ashgrove.

This Labor mob deserve the 15-20 years they will spend in their long, cold winter.

I'll give you a tip about South Brisbane. They might try and parachute Cameron Dick into it. If they do, he will lose the seat, making him a two-time loser. Good look for the next leader, no?

Here's a heads-up for how bad it all was in the last few days. The LNP sent some so-called "Rolls Royce" mail to nine and a half seats with just two sentences.

"Just a short note to thank you for your patience during this campaigning," said the letter.

"I believe that with your support on Saturday we can change Queensland for the better."

That's all. Genius. The LNP won every seat.

One tweet & a little bird can drop a bombshell by Mark Textor
in 2011, Latest Updates
17 Mar 2012 | 0 Comments

Sydney Morning Herald

Opinion

More than a decade ago, canny silverback journalist Dennis Atkins recounted sharing a drink in a Washington bar with Sydney journalist John Lyons and an English stranger. Atkins asked the Englishman what he was and he reportedly replied: ''I'm a laundryman.''

Atkins explained the way the gent's ''laundry'' worked: ''Republican-attack spin doctors and propagandists would peddle anti-Clinton stories to the British press, knowing the establishment United States media, especially papers like The New York Times and The Washington Post, wouldn't touch the scandal-dripping expose´s.''

Atkins said ''these stories, such as the 'Clinton had White House aide Vince Foster murdered in an out-of-town apartment' yarn would appear in the London press and, having been laundered, the US media would pick them up''.

It would appear this technique is alive and well in Australia today but in the age of unregulated social media there is no need to launder a story through a foreign media source. These days, laundrymen and women can launder at home. They utilise websites, blogs, tweets and media gossip columns to seed unfounded stories so they are ripe for the picking by traditional media.

It is par for the course for some over-enthusiastic spin doctors in political parties to get gossip sites - such as Crikey and Vexnews, or softer pages of their own organs - to publish uncorroborated reports of wrongdoing by their opposition candidates.

Much of the social media is unregulated, its writers are not trained journalists, and many are not paid-up members of the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance, whose journalist members are bound by a code of ethics.

We've seen this kind of thing for years in the entertainment industry: gossip media turns fictional stories into sensational scandals, which are seeded then picked up by the mainstream media, regardless of the facts. More and more, with the help of social media, story laundering is moving into mainstream news.

It is not just the social media that is used as a conduit to turn spin into credible news. Ministers have been known to distance themselves from a sensitive political issue by asking their bureaucrats to write a report about an opposition policy, for example, which then gets leaked to mainstream media. A government department reporting on an issue gives it a legitimacy it would lack had it originated from the minister.

Traditional journalists then take the leaked departmental report back to the minister for comment. Sufficiently distanced from the original report, the minister is able to shake his head in faux disappointment at the opposition's position, while knowing he has successfully laundered his own involvement out of the issue.

Perhaps we should not be surprised social media blow-ins peddle sensational stories with little or no basis in fact in order to promote their own agenda, or that of whichever interest group to which they are beholden.

But we should speak out against establishment journalists who pick up these baseless stories and run them in more widely respected, widely circulated media. In an age where traditional media resources are being stretched, true investigative journalism is disappearing and experienced, quality journalists are becoming a rare beast.

So the laundrywoman is rubbing her hands with glee at how easy it is to put a fabricated story in the hands of a social media commentator, watch it grow and eventually spill over into traditional print and television news.

The difference today with laundering these stories is not only can they be laundered at home but also instead of being carted by hand to the international newspaper laundromat from days of old, they can now be whipped through the ultra-fast top-loader of the local online media for a quick turnaround into a package of fabrications ready for consumption by punters watching the TV news.

Often those who some like to call ''influencers'' - such as establishment journalists and politicians - often know better than to give too much credence to the hyped-up TV news.

But the more dodgy backroom spin doctors are still focused enough to know that the real influencers are the public. They know that if they can whip up a big enough storm against their targets in the unregulated social media, it will be picked up by traditional news outlets and given false legitimacy.

When respected media end up running stories about stories, the man on the street struggles to differentiate between fact and fiction, making it hard to know what to believe.

That's why we need people such as Atkins: wise enough to spot laundered material and strong enough to rip it up.

Mark Textor is the founder of the campaign consultancy Crosby Textor.

Mark Textor is Guest Tweeter on Lateline by Mark Textor
in 2011, Latest Updates
14 Mar 2012 | 0 Comments

Mark Textor is tonight Guest Tweeter for ABC's news program Lateline at 10:25pm. To watch or participate in the live commentary click here.

The core values that unite voters can also divide them by Mark Textor
in 2011, Latest Updates
3 Mar 2012 | 0 Comments

Sydney Morning Herald

Opinion

Many aspiring politicians are fond of attempting to talk of their ''values'' in an attempt to channel leaders like Ronald Reagan who was one of a handful of politicians who truly understood, and spoke to, values.

This understanding is best exemplified by the reference he made to them in his powerful 1986 State of the Union address. He said: ''And despite the pressure of our modern world, family and community remain the moral core of our society, guardians of our values and hopes for the future. Family and community are the co-stars of this great American comeback. They are why we say: private values must be at the heart of public policies.''

While Reagan spoke of values and of family, he did not make the mistake of mentioning ''family values'', as some misguided US politicians are so fond of doing.

That is because he understood, and we know from our research, that there is really no such thing as so-called ''family values''. Instead, we know there are values that are important to families.

These include self-esteem coming from parental love; a sense of accomplishment (such as when a parent teaches their child to read); a sense of personal physical security that comes from home, and happiness that comes from a sense of belonging and love. These are all values more fundamental than any glib line about ''family values''.

Reagan was also dead on when he said ''private values must be at the heart of public policies''. How so?

Core personal values are central to all personal and political choices. Values bind, they are lasting and they are cross-cultural.

But, as Reagan observed, values can also be a double-edged sword if not handled carefully. That is because values mean hard choices when it comes to direction or orientation of communications and policy.

For example, when lawmakers promise more police on the beat, they can orientate their messages in three different ways. An increase in police numbers could be an important symbol for a government prepared to take action, to show it is listening to voters. This taps the dominant value of self-esteem because voters feel they are being listened to and so have some power over decisions.

A policy of increased police numbers can also be perceived to be about reducing crime, leading to a safer community and tapping into the personal value and emotion of a sense of personal security.

Sometimes different messages compete for the same value. One example is the issue of workplace negotiation where communications can be directed by the common binding value of workers' self esteem, but there may be different pathways to this value.

One pathway could be: ''I would like the flexibility to negotiate'' which has a personal consequence of ''my efforts being recognised". This leads to the psycho-social consequence of feeling more important which taps into a sense of ''my self-esteem as a worker''.

However, the same driver can be tapped into negatively. Union messages about employees lacking negotiating skills and therefore being taken advantage of by employers, lead to a feeling of disempowerment which damages the worker's self-esteem.

Industrial relations policies are about more than job security, demonstrating the importance of gaining clarity not only on policy but the values that drive a government to that policy. Policy discussions around industrial relations that focus on job security when they should focus on the value of self-esteem would then lack full emotional relevance.

Even economic issues have complex values to understand. We have found in our values research that the battleground for fiscal conservatism at a rational level has some interesting emotional diversions.

People may desire fiscal conservatism in order to get a rational consumer benefit of lower taxes or more services, which can provide them with a sense that they are getting more for their family, boosting a sense of personal or financial security. To respond to this with patronising or paternalistic messages about economic protection is dangerous because people may desire financial security only insofar as they can maintain an Australian sense of freedom and independence from further government handouts.

Values are powerful, but also potentially divisive. Reagan understood that targeting common values plays an important part in binding communities together, but can also create divisions. That is why the dumbing down of the values debate is so dangerous.

Mark Textor is the founder of the campaign consultancy Crosby Textor.

Too many voices drown out need for reform by Mark Textor
in 2011, Latest Updates
18 Feb 2012 | 0 Comments

Sydney Morning Herald

Opinion

It would seem many in business, academia and the commentariat are growing increasingly alarmed and frustrated about the lack of genuine reform in Australia; usually laying the blame at the door of politicians. Yet at its core our political system has not changed, and other leaders around the world - in New Zealand, Canada and Britain - are implementing radical or controversial reforms. So what lies behind the perceived lack of reform here?

In a practical sense, 10 years ago peak business and union groups dominated the national conversation about policy and politics; the relationships between respected think tanks, unions and business and governments were more direct. Today, the fragmentation of media has provided smaller groups and individuals with an array of mechanisms to influence policymakers to whom access was traditionally reserved for an elite few.

This allows a greater range of voices to be heard, but it also makes it more difficult for better resourced interest groups on both the left and the right - whose reform proposals are more substantive but necessarily more complex - to influence public policy.

In essence, the increase in general chatter reduces the ability for well-researched messages to be heard.

Another practical effect of media fragmentation is a rise in the number of think tanks that are beholden to narrow industry or issue-specific paymasters, reducing the voice of those with a cross-industry or cross-society view. Further, as I have written previously, the share of the voice being disseminated in 30-second bites through paid advertising is crowding out more thoroughly researched but subtle conversations.

Now to the political reasons behind a dumbed-down discussion of reform. Some say politics is bad for reform. I disagree.

Bad, weak politics is bad for reform, but strong politics can facilitate the implementation of reform.

Those politicians who have successfully implemented change have been able to use personal popularity or popular policies to build on other issues. They have used their political capital earned elsewhere to build stronger social and economic reform. Arguably, Margaret Thatcher would not have achieved her economic reforms without her brutal political skills. Ditto John Howard, Paul Keating, Bob Hawke. The popularity of many of their social policies (for example, work for the dole) ''paid'' for less popular economic reforms such as privatisation, the dismantling of industry protections and industrial relations reform.

A lack of political capital, or a failure to invest it in improving economic and social wealth, leads to the diminution of political capital so no one can afford the political ramifications of reform.

Kevin Rudd was unable to implement reform as prime minister because, over time, he squandered the political capital he possessed when elected to ''make things happen''. Arguably, Julia Gillard lacks the political strength to support any comprehensive reform.

The third factor holding back the reform debate is the failure to make reform personally relevant.

Just as people become tired of politicians, they become tired of reform language, which is all about processes rather than outcomes. Instead of talking about how to effect reform, we should be talking about the benefits of reform: a strong economy, jobs, higher wages, a cohesive and fair society.

Can we have a debate about workplace productivity without the dreadful term ''work choices''? Those communicating reform must demonstrate a greater personal relevance of its outcomes to those who are listening. You don't reform your car, you fix it. You don't reform a broken leg, you heal it.

Further, making cases for industrial relations tweaks to policies that affect old, tired industries arguably has minimal impact on the nation as a whole. Conversely, a small change in policy affecting new and emerging industries has the potential for much more dramatic influence.

The public suspects that reform means revolution, not evolution. People are alarmed by the idea of radical change that puts their way of life at risk, particularly in the midst of a NAFC (North Atlantic Financial Crisis). The reform debate should communicate how subtle or incremental changes in the direction of policy will fix our economy and our social structures to make people's lives better.

There is a market for reform, but the conversation is broken and the political toolbox often bare. Reform needs to be made more emotionally relevant by renewing the language that surrounds it.

The traditional advocates need to reclaim their share of voice and take a more positive and visionary stance. And popular politicians must power it.

Panel appearance on The Drum by Mark Textor
in 2011, Latest Updates
15 Feb 2012 | 0 Comments

Click here to view Mark Textor's panel appearance on ABC's 'The Drum' episode.

For whom the poll tells depends on what you ask by Mark Textor
in 2011, Latest Updates
7 Jan 2012 | 0 Comments

Sydney Morning Herald

In one of the most thorough examinations of the spectator sport that is political poll-watching, Murray Goot, in his paper To the Second Decimal Point, noted: ''National elections are occasions … when journalists keen to attack political leaders for being dominated by focus groups are themselves at their most poll-driven; and when editors seek to increase their share of a newspaper market by bringing their readers exclusive insights into … how it is likely to divide.''

This year the media will be full to the brim with polls and experts picking over their entrails, so it's worth examining what insiders think of such polls and taking a ''poll-watching 101'' look at the differing techniques behind published and private polls.

Most senior campaigners don't find published polls terribly useful strategically. They are important as news events on publication and are respected for their high accuracy but not for insights. They are treated like emerging political stories - good or bad, distracting or not - but not as explanations of electoral behaviour. Campaigners have private polls for that.

Competent political operatives worldwide do not ''follow'' published polls; they attempt (successfully or not) to create strategies and tactics to influence them in the long term. To do this, they need their own polls that are more frequent, bigger, deeper, more focused and complemented by other forms of research.

As Professor Goot has observed, that means political parties conduct their own polls in a more frequent, focused fashion. In the later part of an election cycle, they are held weekly, typically with a rolling sample far larger than the fortnightly sample of the major pollsters - anywhere up to between 2000 and 4000 interviews a night.

Published polls generally have to guess what has, or has not, changed using non-data and casual interpretation of events over the previous couple of weeks (usually based on the biggest stories in their own papers). Party political polling will have reported, days or weeks in advance, movements not only in votes but what issues (e.g. health, tax), themes (e.g. broken promises, competence) and mood drivers (e.g. feelings of insecurity, disempowerment) are driving the vote change, or not, and where.

A typical finding delivered at 4am during a campaign might be that out of 40 seats tracked overnight, the rolling sample pointing to a 4.5 per cent primary vote loss among middle-aged working women, due to unease on health policy, concerns about competence and honesty on that policy, underlined by feelings of financial insecurity in six key marginal seats.

All these movements will be defined by specific figures based on advanced statistical modelling, and tracked weekly before a campaign and daily during a campaign; contrast this to pundit interpretation of the sexiest headlines of the fortnight.

Geographically, political party polling focuses on marginal and target seats, not on the national vote. With money tighter to come by, it is incredibly important to finely target resource allocation.

Any foray by published polls into issues and attributes, or marginal seat results, is occasional, whereas political parties around the world make a deeper set of indicators the norm, throughout the election cycle. Another integral part of party polling is the differentiation between party vote and votes for specific candidates. This provides vital information, especially in marginal seats where differences are often substantial, because campaigns can measure how much more likely voters are to be loyal to individual MPs than parties.

The biggest difference between public polls and internal polls, however, is in use and objective. Political parties are not bystanders and observers but rather participants, leaders. Research allows political leaders to understand the rational and the emotional drivers that make up voters' decision-making process. It allows the competent to formulate responses to their policies, candidates, messages and strategies in target areas. Thus, when working effectively, they are adjusting their strategies daily in a way that affects voters before the published polls are printed.

Polling should never be used to determine what politicians should believe in but to provide political leaders and candidates with the relevant information to ensure their vision becomes a reality, by helping them get the support to actually do it.

Does this mean 'Kaching' for political parties by Joe Robb
in 2011, Latest Updates
14 Dec 2011 | 0 Comments

Does this mean 'Kaching' for political parties

Blueprint - NSW Liberal Party Magazine

The battle of the first names by Lynton Crosby
in 2011, Latest Updates
14 Dec 2011 | 0 Comments

The battle of the first names

Blueprint - NSW Liberal Party Magazine

New form of journalism must adhere to old rules by Mark Textor
in 2011, Latest Updates
3 Dec 2011 | 0 Comments

Sydney Morning Hearald

Faster, cheaper, better. That is what our polls tell us consumers are demanding from products and services; in their airlines, insurance deals, smartphones and apparently in their information.

As news outlets take more steps to tighten their belts, cheaper but more enticing ways to source original content may thrive.

One of these is "data journalism", championed recently by The Guardian, the ABC and Fairfax Media, using data to make storytelling visual and interactive via websites. It's a tricky way to create the impression of quality. Visually sexing up data allows journalists to present what appear to be data "patterns" in bite-sized chunks, giving the impression of clarity in complex situations. This allows for allegedly "balanced" opinions and decisions to be formed … but it only works if the data is sound and the presentation is equally balanced.

Data is easily accessed and plentiful and it is easy to mask bias with the rhetoric of "facts". But data comes with a warning: one wrong calculation, single mistyped formula or omission error and suddenly the data is unreliable.

Yet data journalism is good storytelling. When you create a graphic or pretty chart that many can understand, they believe it to be true. But just because data journalism is new, it does not mean you can ignore the age-old journalistic principles including accuracy, objectivity, verifiability and contestability.

This new form of journalism can be far less balanced than its 20th-century cousin. Coupled with the problem of bad data is the issue of the blurring of the roles of expert and journalist, resulting in a loss of integrity.

Critically, a journalist would gather competing interpretation of any given data to get both sides of the story. Too often, data journalists suddenly pretend to be experts. But a journalist is a not a mathematician or statistician. With data journalism that is exactly what they pretend to be. They imagine they are something way beyond the pay grade of the average journalist with a graduate degree. Also there is a subtle but significant change in roles that is a dangerous precedent. Rather than independently comparing different data sets, they become advocates for their own information. They therefore become commentators rather than observers, and many see this as a breach of ethics, especially where this comment is not labelled as such.

A journalist is more likely to interpret a statistic incorrectly just as that same journalist can misrepresent an opinion. They can mask this by purporting to use "facts". A deluge of "facts" or ''factoids'' can also mask errors of omission.

These are often facts without full context. Factoids are dangerous because they so often lack context and balance.

Irrespective of whether we're talking about a number or a quotation, a journalist giving prominence to one aspect of a story over another and/or declining to include a conflicting data set or opinion, is failing a basic rule of their craft - to tell all sides of the story.

The recent bent towards environmentally-focused data journalism by the Guardian and the ABC omits or radically marginalises information and reporting of data about jobs, wealth and small-town sustainability. Given the primacy of these needs in uncertain economic times, this is a curiously odd bias and suggests they are determined to make an opinion columnist's environmental case under the cover of (selective) "facts" rather than a balanced view of the choices being considered by the community.

The ethical issues of "data journalism" will also be compounded through the use of large teams of folk usually reserved for the famously flaky online advertising industry; graphic designers, art directors, developers and online programmers. Often these team members are outsourced. Even if the team leader does have a rudimentary, if amateur, understanding of data, at every step of the way in these complex projects there are people adding to the story who are not trained as statisticians, let alone in the ethics of journalism.

Many in the media are calling on industries to halt certain activities until the science and ethics of issues are "settled" - perhaps they should consider applying this rule to data journalism.

Mark Textor is the founder of the campaign consultancy Crosby Textor. It conducts research work for energy and mining clients.

There are no hang-ups in this hung parliament by Mark Textor
in 2011, Latest Updates
26 Nov 2011 | 0 Comments

Sydney Morning Herald

Opinion

Never have the conceit to believe your problems are unique; to wit minority governments or hung parliaments. The measure of a politician is how they deal with such challenges, not simply whether their positions are "popular". For many, the view on how Julia Gillard has handled minority government is a poor one; broken promises, odd policy compromises and now parliamentary tricks.

In New Zealand, however, a "hung" parliament has been the norm since 1996 and today its people go to the polls under a voting system that mostly guarantees this.

Under the mixed-member proportional (MMP) system used in New Zealand, each elector casts two votes; one for an electorate, as in the Australian lower house, and one for a nationwide party "list", like a Senate list - all sitting in one house; the "party vote" determining the final proportions. This system has meant the major parties- National and Labour - have not had a clear majority since 1996.

In 2008 the National Party's John Key swept into a position to form government and chose to do so with the Maori Party, United Future and the ACT party, cushioning the left and right. What would have been a political straitjacket in Australia allowed Key to form an unashamedly centrist, pragmatic government. That was fortunate, as the challenges to New Zealand have been significant.

As a trading nation, and without the Pilbara, New Zealand was hit harder by the global financial crisis, and Key did not have the luxury of inheriting a large surplus.

Key's government also had to cope with a triple-whammy of disasters: the Christchurch earthquakes which destroyed homes, businesses and lives in the South Island's largest city; the Pike River explosion that killed 29 miners; and, most recently, the grounding of the container ship Rena off Tauranga.

But John Key made the most of what he had to meet these challenges and sought not to rely on political excuses. In one term he has reformed the tax system, rebalancing the country's GST and income taxes for fair incentive; his government has started on the long road to rebuilding Christchurch; he has taken tough decisions to drive efficiency measures in government departments and concentrate on delivering services; and he has implemented about 120 economic and pro-business reform measures. Salvage operations limited the oil spill from the Rena, and the Rugby World Cup was a hit.

Most Kiwis support Key's co-ordinated set of reforms, including partial asset sales, because they chart a clear path to economic recovery and physical rebuild. Compare this with the majority judgment of our own minority government's performance: a carbon tax people didn't want or need, a mining tax compromised by minority interests, the absence of an effective deterrent on boatloads of asylum seekers, and a rising cost of living.

Key has based his relationship with the electorate on positivity, honesty and empathy. Regardless of the coalition his party found itself in, he has kept trust and persuaded the electorate to go with him on difficult reforms while balancing expectations of his political partners.

This openness has led to stellar poll approval and leadership figures - as good as those Kevin Rudd enjoyed in his heyday; the difference being Key has held on to them, and leadership.

The National Party is predicted to get about 50 per cent of the party vote. To even contemplate this is rare under MMP voting, but this election has also been a wake-up call to voters.

First, to the annoyance of voters, and Key, some segments of the New Zealand media have been overly focused on the process of politics, not the issues (to be fair, this is now true everywhere). Body language and marketing experts at every turn, endless reporting of insignificant poll movements, and nearly two weeks of coverage of Key's cup of tea with a coalition party candidate. To voters these were unwelcome distractions from policy issues.

Second, despite overwhelming poll support for Key and the Nationals' direction, they are still only on the cusp of being able to govern in their own right; an ironic outcome in times that call for stability.

Public polls show the MMP system will likely stay. This outcome would be an endorsement of Key and his team's abilities under this system, not the function of it. But what is certain is that if the Nationals are re-elected, whether in coalition or governing in their own right, they will take on difficult tasks such as reducing debt and implementing welfare reforms with a strong measure of support, unlike Julia Gillard's Labor-led coalition.

Mark Textor has provided research-based advice to several conservative parties, including the British Conservative Party, the New Zealand National Party and the Liberal Party of Australia.

A confession - even the elites have their place by Mark Textor
in 2011, Latest Updates
12 Nov 2011 | 0 Comments

Sydney Morning Herald

Guilty, your honour. On more than one occasion I have raged against the ''elite''. Recently, even. To many in politics these elites have earned a wide range of descriptions - pompous, pious, patronising, powerful. Further proof that we are now living in a world of perceptions about perceptions, these elites are seen by many in the right as seeing themselves as a better-educated, intellectually sophisticated and therefore superior social or political group. Usually, more moneyed, better educated, more ''informed'' than others. We think of the academics, the writers, artists, the Melbourne Club folk, the members of the pulpit politics clergy. Even human rights lawyers.

For a bloke like me, from the suburbs of Darwin, they sound like an awful little group. Their type would be decked within five minutes in one of my favourite Darwin pubs. Two minutes in the old Dolphin Pub. But they're not all bad, all the time. And a particular moment made me reflect on this.

In 2009 my business partner, Lynton Crosby, and I were mentoring a group of more than 100 candidates for the European elections. Many were standing in former eastern bloc countries; we visited candidates in places including Latvia, Poland, and Slovakia. Many were Catholics (I am not. In fact, I'm an atheist). A key issue was the fear in their constituencies that Brussels was starting to impose secular limits on the church's traditional involvement in the state. Growing and onerous controls over religious studies in schools, the role of nuns in the health system, the ease of divorce proceedings and even the recognition of Christmas as a faith-based holiday.

We had heard that Jan Carnogursky, a former dissident in Czechoslovakia who went on to become the premier of the Slovak government, was potentially an ally in this debate. We flew to Vienna, then drove to the suburbs of Bratislava to meet him in his modest tower-block flat. A slight man in slacks but with enormous presence greeted us.

We started to talk about what the European Union was doing to effectively limit the church's right of association and positive influence. ''Hospital wards tending to severely ill patients, even under communist reign, demanded permission to employ nuns as nurses because they were the most strongly motivated to look after severely ill patients,'' he said, and now they were not wanted.

Sharing his mood, I said: ''Typical of the elites, they would not understand popular opinion if it fell on their heads.'' I vividly remember how his mood changed. He asked me to cross the room with him to look at some fading pictures on the wall. Three of them were of him and his wife sharing tea and a meal with Pope John Paul II. Another was a photograph of a group of men in what appeared to be a forest glade. I recall he said: ''These men were what you would call elites, Mark. Writers, artists, lawyers, priests, and at this meeting we were risking our lives talking about the resistance. It was these 'intellectuals' that fought the 'populists'. They spent time in prison fighting for the rights of others.'' It was the first time I'd heard that description used with passion in the negative. "Without these people, you would not be here and we would not have a vote.'' Then he told me he was imprisoned for his work as a lawyer and activist.

The thing that struck me about this former associate of the ''elite'' was that he had fought for true democracy, he had earned his stripes. He had done what he'd done for the right reasons. He was, as we say in politics, ''amongst the action''.

I'm not sure this is always true in the West. There is still too much pomposity for my liking. Certainly many activists appear to be fiscally clueless. And what is an actor ''risking'' apart from a fragile ego in criticising a political position on immigration, or a chief executive doing the same who doesn't live in a suburb affected by social change?

But one thing is for sure. Whether they're annoying, patronising, paternalistic or not, I'm glad the elite exist. I don't like them, and I disagree violently with most, but I like that they are there, somewhere. Just in case. And I hope they are good.

Mark Textor is the founder of the campaign consultants Crosby Textor.

Time for conservatives to do the right thing by Mark Textor
in 2011, Latest Updates
29 Oct 2011 | 0 Comments

Sydney Morning Herald

Australians, including conservatives like me, are perhaps about to face the most important referendum most of us have never heard of.

The government's expert panel on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples will soon recommend options that formally recognise indigenous Australians in our constitution, with a referendum on the issue possible by the next federal election.

Now is the time for fellow conservatives to get behind this constitutional change not only because it aligns with the principles of their main party, the Liberal Party, but also because it's the right thing to do.

Liberals believe in the freedom of self-expression, including the freedom in our strong democracy to vote and express oneself.

A core part of the Liberal platform is the belief in "equal opportunity, with all Australians having the opportunity to reach their full potential in a tolerant national community".

How can we say we have achieved this equality, when Section 25 of our constitution specifically references the ability of the states to prevent people from voting in state elections on the basis of their race?

Most people would be shocked by this, and all true Liberals would also be shocked to know that Section 51 of our constitution gives Parliament the power to make special laws for people based on race.

Far from suggesting that Parliament should pay no attention to individual differences and diversity, it should eschew a constitution which makes laws based on race and instead make them on the basis of such things as culture and need.

Some people think a commitment to these issues belongs only to the left of politics, but that ignores the proud tradition of conservative politics when it comes to Aboriginal affairs: the first Aboriginal member of any State or Territory Parliament was Hyacinth Tungutalum, of the CLP in the Northern Territory; the National Party's Eric Deeral was the first Aborigine elected to the Queensland Parliament.

The Liberal Party gave us the first Aboriginal senator, Neville Bonner, and the first Aboriginal member of the House of Representatives, Ken Wyatt.

It was a Liberal federal government that introduced the Northern Territory Land Rights Act and a Liberal prime minister, John Howard, who put constitutional recognition for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people back on the agenda before the 2007 federal election.

These Conservative achievements do not diminish the contribution of other political parties - this issue is not about left and right; it's about supporting equality of opportunity and recognition in our constitution regardless of your political persuasion.

Many Liberals respect tradition and the preservation of "Australian culture". One of the amendments being considered is to recognise the English language as the foundation stone of the Australian culture, and to acknowledge the importance of Aboriginal languages.

The Liberal platform recognises: "The Europeans who began to settle Australia more than 200 years ago did not come to an empty land. For tens of thousands of years, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples had lived on this continent. Their contribution to Australia's identity has been, and will continue to be, a vital and enriching one."

So should our constitution.

Also at the core of Australian Liberal philosophy is a belief in the freedom to achieve success and contribute to society. My belief is that it's hard to be so aspirational if the constitution allows a person to be discriminated against on the basis of their race.

One of my Darwin school friends, Johnny Daylight-Lacey, is an Aboriginal street artist based around Mullumbimby. A talented and passionate musician and painter, he wants to share his culture with other Australians, but he is not always allowed to practise his art because of council restrictions. While the considered amendments to the constitution may not give him carte blanche they would give him much-needed encouragement not only to share his culture but also to make a living.

Conservatives are rightly fond of supporting "a hand up, instead of a handout". If one is true to this value then one must get behind a constitution that truly enables all Australians to achieve their desires.

Conservatives can be at the forefront of a debate to recognise the contribution of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, and to abolish discrimination on the basis on race.

It's time to step up, my friends. For all of us.

Mark Textor is the founder of the campaign consultants Crosby Textor.

Who needs a CV when a tweet says much more by Mark Textor
in 2011, Latest Updates
17 Sep 2011 | 0 Comments

Sydney Morning Herald

Mark Textor

Not many young boys want to grow up to be a campaign consultant, pollster or media consultant, at least not until they hit 25 and watch The West Wing. Then they instantly want to be CJ, get on professional networking site LinkedIn and send me an invitation to be ''linked''.

As a recruitment professional said to me: ''LinkedIn is for IT nerds and career desperadoes''. Recruiters operating in accounting and similar professions might be good but in my space they are mostly awful.

Finding people through political networks was once useful but nowadays many toss up young folks whose only aspiration in life is to be preselected to some council or go to a youth political forum rather than chase girls or drink beer, which is what they should be doing at that age.

My business advises on public sentiment, campaigns, strategic communication, crisis management, rapid response messaging and political counsel. It's rare that people with hard analytical or literary skills are useful in campaigning like this. It's not a spectator sport for us. So how do we find those with the skill set?

Until recently it was a hybrid of personal networks, recruiters, word of mouth and dumb luck. But now we have Twitter. Unlike more personal and gated social media platforms, Twitter is a great place to get an insight into potential employees.

An applicant who is active on Twitter is clearly willing to embrace new technology and communication tools. They can be quickly identified as early adopters, technically savvy characters who have, at least, a basic understanding of the changing dynamics of communication and consumption of information.

This is why Twitter use is valuable in gaining qualitative information about potential employees. Think of George Costanza's fear of ''worlds colliding'' in Seinfeld. George's philosophy, slightly reworked, went: ''You have no idea of the magnitude of this thing. If personal George is allowed to infiltrate this world, then George Costanza as you know him, ceases to exist! You see, right now, I have personal George, but there is also professional George. That's the George you know, the George you worked with - strategic George, coffee shop George, decisive George …''

Jerry: ''I, I love that George.''

George: ''Me, too! And he's dying, Jerry! If personal George walks through this door, he will kill professional George! A George, divided against itself, cannot stand!''

George was unable to manage his ''collision of worlds''. For those who do, it is likely they will make the interview shortlist at firms like mine.

It is invaluable for business owners to gain personal and professional insights into a prospective employee before the interview process begins. On Twitter, people display a range of skills including their communication and writing technique, ability to distil complex issues to their essence, keen judgment, a sense of humour, commonsense and perceptiveness.

Inevitably, Twitter users publish content about things that interest them. So instead of reading a CV with the usual list of interests - reading, movies and current affairs - you can drill down to what they actually think about a book or nod your head in approval at their latest ''retweet''. It helps determine whether a person is the right fit in the workplace culture.

Who is ''following'' the applicant and who the applicant chooses to ''follow'' can indicate the person's professional network size [and shared connections], the information they choose to consume and even their personality traits. A person with a large number of published tweets and followers is often an extrovert, opinionated, entertaining, willing to share and a collaborator/seller. Someone with fewer published tweets but who follows a large number of experts is likely to be more introverted, observant, considered, analytical and an intelligence gatherer.

Social media can reveal a person's attitude towards work, other people and the consumption of, and engagement in, issues of the day. Often I'm looking for the intention rather than the polished output, which can be taught.

Twitter can identify talent quickly. It provides an informal space to watch and chat with people working in all sorts of industries, allowing you to ''meet'' people you may never have met otherwise.

It simply allows you to connect with more people, quickly. Obviously the applicant needs to fill all the usual requirements when applying for a job - Twitter just provides you with more information to help make that decision.

But beware the fine print: ''Online personas may or may not accurately represent actual people''. Rather like politics, then?

Mark Textor is the founder of the campaign consultants Crosby Textor.

For cyclists, a metre matters as much as life itself by Mark Textor
in 2011, Latest Updates
3 Sep 2011 | 0 Comments

Sydney Morning Herald

Mark Textor

A few years ago my friend Duncan Murray, a former elite cyclist and now a restructuring gun, had an unusual epiphany. Watching the world go by in his local park on a lazy Sunday afternoon he witnessed something remarkable.

A well-dressed young couple walked past with their dog. The large dog left a proportionally large deposit on the grass. Duncan was stunned when the fashionably dressed woman, without hesitation, walked halfway across the park, picked up a plastic wrapper lying on the ground, put the still warm dropping into it, tied up the wrapper, stuck it in her tailored pocket and walked on. Remarkably, he witnessed something similar 20 minutes later. Ten years earlier the same people would have walked on without that extra pocket baggage. What were the powerful forces that had intervened and so changed behaviour?

Such behaviour change usually involves three factors. First, infrastructure - in this case a wrapper or two, in most cases a council-sponsored poo bag dispenser. Second, law change - in this case local bylaws requiring clean-up. Third, attitudinal change - so they could be bothered using the infrastructure and cared enough about the threat of the local laws which are, more often than not, flouted.

Whatever that change-agent was, Murray wanted it. This time for the movement of which he is chairman, on an issue far more serious than keeping parks free of dog poo: the Amy Gillett Foundation and road safety.

The organisation is named after Olympian Amy Gillett, who represented Australia as track cyclist and rower and who was killed in a training accident in Germany when a car hit her training group. The foundation's aim is simply to reduce bike-related incidents that cause injury and death - to kids having fun on their bikes or dads riding to work trying to do the right thing for their fitness and the planet.

The foundation has had remarkable success so far. More than 50,000 learner drivers are taking their courses; it has introduced a nationally accredited cycling skills program for children; Amy's Rides attract 22,000 participants nationally; and even Amy Gillett's mother, Mary Safe, delivers lessons on responsible road use to more than 12,000 children in Victoria. But the research they have sponsored on the interactions between motorists and cyclists remains alarming. It indicates "a dire need for a positive approach to improving awareness, attitudes and especially behaviours of motorists about bike riders".

So our society can make people pick up dog poo but not give someone riding their bike the metre they need to remain safe on their bikes. We are not talking about the stereotyped "lycra louts" here but the majority of cyclists; the one's in the daggy shorts and sandshoes.

So, what's a first step? Road safety experts recommend motorists leave at least one metre when overtaking a cyclist, but studies show this is not happening - at least not nearly enough - contributing to significant potential harm to someone's husband, daughter, friend. Bike lanes are great but they cost hundreds of millions of dollars and in many cities there simply isn't the space, so let's provide a virtual bike lane by creating a metre-wide passing space that doesn't come at that cost.

A publicly funded education campaign that encourages the behaviour change in drivers will in turn create that virtual bike lane. If after a decent campaign that isn't working, then I'd propose legislation. This would be as symbolically important as it would be a practical push.

The knowledge that a metre matters enough that it is now law might be the change agent - just as bylaws on the far more trivial issue of dog poo may have helped clean our parks.

Most states already recommend that motorists leave at least one metre when overtaking a cyclist, but the law does not require it. Notably, a one-metre law was recommended by the Victorian Parliament's 2005 inquiry into violence associated with motor vehicle use.

I reckon politicians need to get on their bikes and adopt a "metre matters" legislation, or they may be saying cleaning up dog poo is more important than saving lives.

Mark Textor is the founder of the campaign consultants Crosby|Textor. He is a board member of the Amy Gillett Foundation.

In uncertain times, certainty is a precious stone by Mark Textor
in 2011, Latest Updates
20 Aug 2011 | 0 Comments

Sydney Morning Herald

Opinion

There is a single but irregular thread interwoven in the chaotic patchwork which is the issue agenda of the modern western world.

It is made of the rarest of modern political materials. It is the political equivalent of rare earth unobtainium, mostly hidden in the brighter fabric of day to day issues. It is the confidence thread.

The confidence thread runs through issues today as diverse as the London Police's initial response to the flash riots, the carbon tax issue and even social issues like childhood obesity.

It's opposite, the (un)confidence thread, first appeared with the public's rejection of the government-sponsored lies about implications of the body count from Vietnam, along with the Watergate cover-up.

It was strengthened with the undermining of the institutionalised authority through the sometimes chaotic protest movement of the 1960s and '70s.

Today it binds the rejection of the unilateral political actions and broken promises of governments, along with the questioning of the competency of the world financial elite.

The difference between these ages is the rise of equally chaotic social media, driven by the public's agendas rather than those of journalists.

Traditional media like the Herald have provided coherence to community debates by marshalling them into agenda sets that we could all recognise and debate.

Now the debate is significantly more fragmented - into thousands of "trending" debates that perpetuate uncertainty.

Some modern pollsters are now using quite advanced techniques to understand this disorder and fragmentation, including - wait for it - chaos theory.

In Chaos Theory and its Application in Political Science,Joan Pere Plaza from the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona and Dandoy Ré´gis from the University of Louvain, Belgium, explain the growing use of chaos theory and complexity science and how its use "can be explained by human psychology and by perception[s]".

They note how voters' greater awareness of the chaos and division in modern politics "via the news media" - and I'd contend social media - frustrates their driving desire to feel secure and "creates a more intense focus on order as a prime value" . "In other words", they noted, "the public becomes more sensitive to the disorder".

They found "our fear of disorder therefore makes it inevitable that we will either find or create an endless supply of it".

Further "crises, surprises, sudden and rapid changes, confusions and things out of control prevail in our world and characterise modern organisations and every complex system.

''Political leaders and managers must … be prepared to deal with such chaotic phenomena and manage complex organisations accordingly."

This is why in some political markets some pollsters and social scientists have, for at least 10 years, used chaos theory and complexity science to seek answers to diverse questions.

Now back to what the unobtanium is in today's society - certainty.

Certainty takes the form of focused strength in political leadership. Uncertainty, in terms of a long-term lack of consistent political support to front line police forces, was arguably behind the initially timid response to the London riots. The salve was an overt message of support from the mayor of London, Boris Johnson, and the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, on their rushed return to London from holidays. This gave the frontline the certainty it needed to act.

More certainty about the safety of children to play freely in parks, or to walk or ride to school, is at least in part an antidote to the link between lack of regular play and exercise and obesity.

Uncertainty about the interaction between competency and the health of the world financial sector and US and EU political leadership is driving declines in confidence. Greater regulation and a true clean-out of the sectors, not bailouts, is the answer to bringing back a degree of certainty.

Uncertainty about what our cities will look like, how they will grow and how they will effectively function are also behind concerns about pollution. The certainty voters crave is in the form of a coherent new vision for our cities.

Uncertainty isn't new, but how it is measured, managed and controlled is. What remains true is that many of the solutions leaders must weave would seem to need to be made from unobtainium.

Mark Textor is the founder of the campaign consultants Crosby|Textor.

The people just want to be given the facts by Mark Textor
in 2011, Latest Updates
6 Aug 2011 | 0 Comments

Sydney Morning Herald

Opinion

The national political debate is at its best when focused on the critical examination of the policies that would ensure a brighter future for our nation.

Every three years or so voters can make a judgment on these policy debates and about the authors of those policies.

In 25 years of campaign research across the world I've yet to meet a voter who has read a source policy document in full. They are first examined and filtered by the media, or pré´cised by politicians and third parties, and communicated mostly in sound bites and shorthand. In spite of their individual paucity of knowledge, more often than not voters' collective judgments are correct.

Unnervingly for some political insiders, mothers and fathers I've researched often manage to see straight to the very policy flaws that these same "insiders" thought only they knew about. Their critical judgment on policy is not based on direct assessment, but rather many indirect assessments: the competency of the policy's authors, the authors' capacity to defend key elements of the detail, and assessments about impacts on them.

Which brings me to the climate debate. It is a frustration of some on the left that many voters don't "understand" the science of climate change. As with policy, voters want to understand this important area, but in this case only scientific information is untainted for them.

So in this alleged conflict between science and perception a critical question arises: what makes scientific study credible? In a paper written many years ago in the US, research consultant Mike Dabadie found that people demand the following when making assessments about certain scientific research.

First, on the studies themselves, voters demanded that the information on the research be openly available, that the reputation of those doing it is favourable, that the study had a solid methodology, was thorough and spanned a long period of time. Second, they demanded that others tested the study in an unbiased fashion and the study was peer reviewed. Third, they focused on the findings of the study. Critical here was that the study was based on many sources, that it contained "real world evidence" or some sort of risk exposure to people like them so that it was personally relevant, that there were no (credible) conflicting reports and that the study matched the experiences of others in their world.

On my reckoning these perceptual criteria have been met in the climate debate, and have been seen by most to have been met. That's why most people we research believe climate change is real, and matches, at least in part, their "real world experience" and logic. "There's 6 billion plus people on the planet and that must be doing something to it. It's not rocket science," they say.

But to the extent that there is resistance to this "evidence", why does it exist? Well, it exists because one "persuades by reason and motivates through emotion". The emotion is more challenging for "deniers" and sceptics.

Crosby|Textor's own measurements would indicate the often patronising tone of some of the elites means people feel talked down to and reject the message.

We see a lack of clarity in the way the collective evidence is presented, leading to a significant frustration that voters can't make their "own decision". They feel less in control, which offends their sense of freedom and independence. Some feel they simply don't have the time to weigh up even media summaries for themselves (when their peers do), leading them to question themselves and so their personal peace of mind.

Equally, the emotional imperative for "believers" is that there is enough evidence for action so they do not leave a broken planet for their children - the ultimate emotional driver.

Of course there are other factors defining this climate debate and, in turn, influencing the political debate on the carbon tax. While voters might understand the need to act on climate change, they might not believe the government is competent enough to deal with it, honest enough to stick to its promises not to impact their cost of living further, that its particular plan is best or that Australia alone can make the required difference.

Even some who agree with the carbon tax question the timing of it. These believers are concerned about adding uncertainty to the current US and European economic crises, not to mention our own federal Parliament's instability. They see it as the right policy at the wrong time - a clash of issues.

One thing is for sure though: the depth and richness of the voter's consideration set is done no justice at all by some of the simplistic published polling so evident in Australia today, nor by some factoids presented by competing environmental and government interests.

Mark Textor is the founder of the campaign consultants Crosby|Textor.

Climate Confusion by Jim Reed
in 2011, Latest Updates
1 Aug 2011 | 0 Comments

The introduction of the Federal Government's carbon tax is currently the hot issue in Australian politics. The most recent polls all suggest that the majority of the community does not support the carbon tax. But does this mean they no longer support action on climate change?

Failure to deliver appropriate action on climate change has already been influential in the fall of two Australian prime ministers and many media commentators and political strategists are now predicting the Labor Government's carbon tax could claim another prime-ministerial scalp.

‘These polls feed the growing political editorial, opinion and commentary that fill our newspapers,' says Jim Reed, research director at Crosby|Textor. ‘No longer are political strategies and the views of voters discussed behind party room doors. They are on the front page for everyone to see, and are ignored at the politicians' peril.'

Reed believes what he calls ‘news cycle polling' - the cycle of poll reporting, media comment and public opinion shift - is perhaps best demonstrated by the longer term trends in public sentiment about the government's climate change policies.

But is it even possible to compare attitudes to the carbon tax with attitudes to an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), or the Labor Government's earlier policy, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS)? What research questions really get to the heart of the public's attitudes to taking action on climate change?

What do the latest polls tell us about the ‘plan in front of us'?
A Newspoll conducted on 8-10 July 2011 found that only 30 per cent were personally in favour of the carbon tax, while 60 per cent were against and 10 per cent were undecided.

A Nielsen poll released on 18 July found previous low levels of support for the carbon tax policy had not changed, with 39 per cent backing the package and 52 per cent opposing it.

A JWS Research poll of 3,122 voters in 59 key and marginal seats, conducted by automated polling technology on 13 July, found that 56 per cent of voters said they were unhappy about a carbon tax being introduced and 30 per cent said they were happy, with the remaining 14 per cent saying they ‘don't really care'.

A Roy Morgan Research telephone poll conducted on 13-14 July found that 37 per cent supported the carbon tax, 58 per cent (up 5%) of Australian electors opposed it and five per cent couldn't say.

An Essential Poll released on 18 July found that 39 per cent supported the carbon tax, 49 per cent opposed it and 12 per cent were undecided. Interestingly, this compares with 35 per cent who supported the tax, 48 per cent opposed it and 18 per cent were undecided in a poll conducted on immediately before the prime minister announced the details of the scheme, suggesting some small gain in support once the details were available for scrutiny.

Support for Julia Gillard as prime minister and the Labor Party's primary vote has also plunged. While pollsters aren't typically willing to predict election defeat, several have boldly stated on the record that the Labor Party, and Julia Gillard's leadership in particular, is in serious trouble - with support for the government slumping to new depths in the history of opinion polling.

All of the opinion pollsters agree that there is a strong correlation between political preference and support for the carbon tax. A CSIRO report titled Australians' views of climate change, released in March 2011, also found that attitudes to climate change were strongly linked to political preference.

Randall Pearce, who is managing director of Think: Insight and Advice and co-founder, with Phillip Mitchell-Taverner, of the Thermometer Survey , says, ‘In Australia, we've had an unrelenting campaign by Tony Abbott to politicise this issue. Virtually nowhere else in the Western world is action on climate change politicised to the same degree as it has been here in Australia. As Ross Garnaut has recently pointed out, conservatives in other countries like the UK and Germany are strong proponents of action on climate change.'

Newspoll CEO Martin O'Shannessy says it is possible to track longer-term trends in public sentiment.

‘When Kevin Rudd was flying high, around six in 10 supported the CPRS, the plan that was in front of them at the time. A similar question we asked, that I think is very tied up with the question about the plan, is "would people be prepared to pay more for their energy sources if it would help ameliorate climate change?" Those two questions go together, that is, "do I support the exact plan I've got in front of me" and "would I be prepared to pay more?" and what we find is that both these measures have gone down over time.'

However, O'Shannessy stresses that the polls show these falls in support for specific approaches to action on climate change appear to be related to political leadership.

‘There have been a number of falls in support for these propositions and they appear to correlate with the falls in support for the leaders who propose them. The first major fall in support for Kevin Rudd and for his CPRS happened when in November 2009 he started talking down Copenhagen. The next big fall in support for Rudd happened when he said we were not going to have an ETS at all.'

Reed has reached a similar conclusion after analysing Newspoll's preferred leadership and primary vote figures over the past few years.

Chart 1

‘The polling "noise" has been removed [in Chart 1] by highlighting the longer-term linear trends associated with voters' preference for prime minister, their satisfaction with the Labor leader and voting intention,' he explains. ‘In each case I have used a relative net figure for simplicity; Labor minus the Coalition on primary vote and preferred prime minister, and satisfaction minus dissatisfaction for the Labor leader in isolation.

‘Rudd had already begun to decline on his personal ratings at the start of 2010 as a result of many factors; notably the mining tax and immigration. However, it was the delaying of his CPRS in reaction to public opinion that caused an immediate slump in support in the second of our trend periods.

‘Labor turned to Julia Gillard in June 2010. We can see that her personal ratings were stable and positive throughout the third period, but Labor's vote was damaged to the extent that they had to form a minority government with the Greens and independents. The cost of their support was to introduce the carbon tax that Gillard had overtly ruled out.

‘The chart now shows Gillard to be in negative territory on all political measures, and the straight line trend is still dropping despite her explaining the detail of the carbon tax.'

Similarly, O'Shannessy says there is a clear correlation between the fall in support for pricing carbon and Gillard being dubbed ‘Ju-liar' when she announced that the Labor Party would introduce a ‘carbon price' on 24 February, only six months after she campaigned on a ‘no carbon tax' platform in the August 2010 election.

Chicken or egg?
When asked whether the public's attitudes to the carbon tax weakened overall support for action on climate change, Michele Levine at Roy Morgan Research says her research shows that concerns about the environment and climate change started to fall away well before the carbon tax.

‘Causation is the other way around. Our research shows that the environment was becoming a more and more important issue until the end of 2008, when it started to taper off ("kind of" coinciding with the GFC) and the numbers who believe "concerns about the environment are exaggerated" started to increase.'

The Morgan Poll conducted over 13-14 July found 37 per cent (up 5%) of Australians when asked for their view of global warming believed ‘concerns are exaggerated', 46 per cent (down 4% from June 2011) said ‘if we don't act now it will be too late' and 14 per cent (down 1%) say ‘it is already too late'.

David Stolper at Auspoll, which has conducted research about climate change for the Climate Institute, the Clean Energy Council and WWF, also believes that, along with the loss of bi-partisan support for action on climate change and an unrelenting campaign on talkback radio to discredit the science, the GFC has been key in shifting the focus away from the environment to the economy.

However, Randall Pearce, who is also one of Al Gore's ‘Climate Messengers', says the link between the GFC and shifting attitudes to taking action on climate change is not as clear-cut.

He points to the Thermometer Survey that was conducted in September 2008 and updated in February 2009, which found that nine in 10 Australians were resolved to act on climate change in the face of deteriorating economic conditions.

‘Support remained strong until at least March 2009,' he says. ‘"Climategate" at the end of 2009 was certainly a factor. The other factor was that forces who are anti action on climate change rallied in advance of the Copenhagen meeting in late 2009 to ensure that a global agreement would not be struck. That just didn't happen by accident. There are well-organised and monied interests who are out there to change opinion on this issue. Those two things have certainly had an impact on overall willingness to act on climate change.'

He adds, ‘When people say support for climate change is dropping, what they're really saying is support for paying a particular price for climate change is dropping because that is what is being asked in surveys.'

O'Shannessy also believes the issue is far more nuanced: ‘Given Rudd's fall, Abbott's "license to doubt" and the GFC, the electorate appears to have a remarkable resolve to do something. Support for the CPRS as proposed only fell 15 points - far less than Rudd's own ratings!'

Essential Media Communications director Peter Lewis says that if you take the story back to 2007, when there was about 70 per cent support for the CPRS, the big myth is that people immediately moved from supporting putting a price on carbon to opposing it.

‘There was a period throughout 2008 and 2009, when the debate turned into a very technical, mechanical debate about the workings of the market mechanism and people got confused and lost. The number of people who started saying "don't know" increased from around 10 to 15 per cent to around 40 per cent by the end of 2009. It was in this climate of confusion that the negative "great big tax" campaign bit and there was a transfer out of the "don't know" column into the "opposition" column once Abbott was in and that's really set the dynamic. But it wasn't a straight shift from support to opposition.'

The CSIRO, in a review of 22 studies conducted both in Australia and overseas, concluded in the report, titled Australians' views of climate change, that fewer people now believe that climate change is attributable to human activity.

However, O'Shannessy says the Australian population's underlying belief that climate change is caused by human behaviour has remained constant over the past four years.
O'Shannessy says the CSIRO report reaches the conclusion that belief in climate change is waning by comparing Newspoll data from 2008 with data from March 2010. It does not canvass the data from more recent polls.

‘Without this later data, the analysis covers only the period when we were first given a "license to doubt" by Tony Abbott, who became opposition leader about that time, but no further. We have a number of measures that post-date the data and they show that the proportion who believe in anthropogenic climate change has stabilised at about seven in 10. So, the first and main finding here was true in March 2010 but the longer trend nearly a year and a half later shows us a stabilisation in the underlying belief numbers at about 70 per cent.'

O'Shannessy says people have moved on from doubting the scientific evidence that climate change is caused by human activity and that the main political debate now centres on which scheme will be most effective.

‘People are saying, "the scheme in front of me is flawed and I don't support it" and therefore the related question, which is "are you prepared to pay more?", is getting some Halo negatives. These two numbers go together, whereas the underlying belief numbers are pretty steady. We are getting a bit of a Halo effect, which is pulling the preparedness to act figures down. I think people's readiness to act would be quite high if we had a scheme that people believe will be effective and will actually save the planet. I just don't think it's there yet. Even after one week of explaining the detail, what do you know about how it's going to affect you personally or how it's going to impact on the planet?'

Scales believes that the increasing opposition to a carbon tax is impacting negatively on people's desire to see the government respond to climate change. Scales also believes that ‘we are all talking about something that the electorate is becoming largely disinterested in due to it reaching saturation point and taking away focus from the issues people are more concerned about'.

An Essential poll released on 20 June found that 32 per cent agreed that the ‘current public campaign against action on climate change in Australia was undermining the credibility of scientists and science research in general' (23 per cent disagreed, 30 per cent neither agreed nor disagreed and 15 per cent didn't know). The most recent Essential poll found that only 50 per cent believed that climate change is caused by human activity while 39 per cent believed ‘we are just witnessing a normal fluctuation in the earth's climate'. However, a poll released on 20 July found that 46 per cent say they have become more concerned about the effects of global warming over the last two years, while only 11 per cent are less concerned and 40 per cent say they feel about the same.

All in the wording
When the Lowy Institute released its annual survey (conducted between 30 March and 14 April this year) that concluded ‘support for taking tough action on climate change continues to erode', those opposing the Gillard Government's policy celebrated the results. However, some researchers told Research News they were outraged when the mainstream media focused on minority viewpoints in headlines, conveniently ignoring the fact the majority of Australians still supported taking action on climate change and that a significant number were still willing to pay for it.

The Lowy Institute survey found that tackling climate change was considered very important by only 46 per cent of Australians and that support for the most aggressive form of action to address global warming slipped five points from last year, with 41 per cent saying global warming is a serious and pressing problem and that we should ‘begin taking steps now even if this involves significant costs'.

However, Professor Joseph Reser at Griffith University criticised the Lowy Institute study (on the well respected online forum, The Conversation) for including ‘poorly worded' questions. Reser argues that the question and response options were not only ‘double barrelled' but also that they contained multiple and emotional ‘button-pressing' matters and language.
Reser goes on to say, ‘It is also not surprising that single item and variously framed complex questions, embedded in telephone surveys, addressing political and policy opinions, are somewhat unstable barometers, providing intermittently different pictures and interpretations.'

In the same article, he cites a survey conducted by the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility that comprised more than 140 questions and took participants on average 30 to 60 minutes to complete (which would make most commercial market researchers shudder, given the AMSRS Guidelines on Interview Length).

However, Pearce points out that it is possible to go some way towards addressing the complexity of climate change, as he believes he did through the Thermometer Survey, a large mixed mode study into the subject. In the online quantitative survey component, Pearce explains that he and his research colleague, Dr Don Porritt of Taverner Research, created four scenarios that aligned with various parts per million points that Garnaut had identified in his first report.

‘Basically, we said there are four paths that Australia could take to address climate change. Internally we called them "business as usual", "getting started", "getting serious" and "going for broke" and each scenario detailed what would be required. We asked participants what changes they would be prepared to accept in their lifetime, what changes they would be prepared to accept in their children's lifetimes, what action Australia would have to take with regards to the international community and what economic changes we would have to embrace and so on. People then chose one of the four scenarios. We then showed them on screen the consequences of their choice and explained "this is what would happen if every Australian chose this pathway in terms of the economy, agriculture and refugee movement" etc. We then asked them, "now that you have seen the consequences of your choice, would you like to change your choice?" What we found was that, overall, a net 15 per cent of the sample increased the level of action they were prepared to take to limit the effects of climate change by either one or two levels. This confirmed our qualitative finding that people have a very fuzzy notion of the consequences of not acting or the benefits of acting. So my gripe is with pollsters and researchers who fall into the trap of reducing something this complex to a single price. That is far too simplistic a way to look at something like climate change, because climate change is something that will have very far reaching effects and isn't something that can be reduced to a simple question about a price we might be willing to pay next week or next year. Politicians, like Abbott, will use that information to oversimplify the issue and mislead people about what is really at stake here which is really our collective environmental and economic future.'

The CSIRO report notes that responses to questions about climate change vary systematically with question wording and response formatting.

More research needed
The CSIRO report concluded, ‘The influence of question wording on reported levels of attitudes and beliefs about climate change makes measuring and tracking Australians' views complex. The gathering of scientifically rigorous longitudinal data from multiple sources, and with multiple methods, should be encouraged and enhanced in order to reflect with accuracy the existing and changing community sentiment. The effects of question wording and framing, as well as the impact of external context (e.g. "Climategate", local and global economic events, political events) warrant systematic inquiry.'

Lewis says the role of public opinion researchers is to test the way issues are being communicated. ‘Bad research is about wanting a particular response. Good research is being curious about the answer.'

Levine says, ‘Public opinion polls are incredibly important. We should be asking these questions, we should be giving the electorate a voice. It's always our intention to ask the right questions. We're never trying to ask a question that will support Julia Gillard or anyone else, we're trying to get to the heart of the matter.'

Few disagree that the Labor Party has failed dismally in communicating the need to act on climate change. As Pearce (who hails from Canada) says, it's like ‘watching a ice hockey game when no one can skate'.

Some argue that researchers face the same challenge asking about attitudes to the policy that the Labor Party does in communicating it.

But Scales points out that it is not the role of the pollster to fill the void and educate the public.

‘By providing additional information in the base question you are potentially biasing the result, so you need to be careful you don't stray too much and, importantly, know where you are straying from.

‘A pollster could ask additional questions about people's level of awareness and knowledge of a carbon tax and this could give further insight, but a person is not right or wrong on the issue because they are either well informed or not. This is straying into political strategy and tactics because a political party or otherwise interested group needs to work out what level of awareness and knowledge best suits their ends on a particular issue and shape their communications campaign to that end.'

The research industry prides itself on objectivity but perhaps there is a need to scrutinise whether a researcher's political preference is having any impact on the way they frame their research questions. The public opinion polls, by their very nature, can at least be scrutinised and thus can contribute to informed debate about how we can best respond to climate change.

Kerry Sunderland, managing editor, Research News

See the article at the Austrlian Market and Social Research Society here: http://www.amsrs.com.au/index.cfm?a=detail&id=8392&eid=392