The huge swing against Labor in Queensland was unexpected.  On this, Senator Stephen Conroy has had the best analysis to date when he said a substantial portion of the blame for Labor’s poor showing in QLD and New South Wales needs to go to the State Government.

This was particularly evident in Queensland, where the Liberal National Party ran a highly successful polling booth campaign, which honed in on the negative performance of State Labor.

The wash up of this election is that we have had large swings against Labor in two out of three of the large population states, mainly based on voter anger with incompetent State Governments. There has been a small swing against Labor in WA (albeit with an already low primary vote) and a swing towards Labor to VIC, TAS, and SA, which also had the highest Green Vote.

Which way will the independents go?  If we factor the Green as a Labor vote, we are essentially talking about the three rural independents – Katter, Oakeshott and Windsor. It would seem on the face of it that they would naturally support a Coalition Government. However, we do know if there is bad blood between any of them and the National party.

It would seem that the Coalition is in the box seat. Its biggest challenge if they form Government will be reconciling the demands of these conservative Independents with the Greens.  They will have until 30 June 2011 to get any legislation they want through under the old Senate. They probably can rely on Senator Fielding’s vote. Nick Xenophon holds the balance of power and looking at his voting record shows that he is closely aligned with the Greens, and has been described as a centre left politician.

Given Labor and the Greens are now more likely to work closer together, this does not bode well for a minority Coalition government. On my reckoning, if they control the lower house (77-73), even with the old senate they will not have control and their legislative program would be stifled.

The issue that could bring down a conservative Government could be an emissions trading scheme (ETS). The ETS has already claimed the scalp of an opposition leader, delivered the first Federal Green MP elected at a General election, and delivered control of the senate to the Greens.

The Coalition has promised to pay farmers to lock up carbon in their soil. The Greens oppose this and want a full blown ETS. Labor has already indicated that it would support carbon capture in soil as being part of an ETS. This places the rural Independents in a difficult position, and the result would depend on what program they saw as being better for their electorate.

If you like your politics hot and spicy the next year could prove to be to your taste and we could be back at the polls by next October.

Over the past six weeks we have watched what looks like two puffer fish fighting over their spot near the pier pylon.

With more carbon emissions created by the leaders of all parties (yes, that includes you Bob Brown) than by a mid size African town, journos have scurried around the country like ants from a disturbed nest all trying to carry home, exclusively of course, their own juicy morsel, only to find it is the same tired piece of pork everybody else is serving up.

What has the Great Australian public made of it all? Well, we can start on the basis that 87 percent of voters will stick with what they know and how they’ve always done it. Another 4 percent will vote informally and 1 percent just won’t bother. Based on that assumption, just 8 percent will swing. 

It is a fair bet that of those swinging voters, a proportion will be disengaged. Some will be mildly interested and the rest will take an active interest. A safe assumption would be that only 30 percent will take an active interest, leaving only 2.4 percent possibly affected by the campaign.

Astute political observer and active participant John Dawkins recently wrote that campaigns do not seem to have much effect on the outcome of the poll. In fact, you only need to look at the polls prior to the campaign.

I opt for the poll six weeks prior to the election as being the best indicator. Check out http://campaignpulse.abc.net.au/ as this shows the poll of polls – Labor 52 percent to Conservatives 48 percent.

This should beam that Labor will be returned with a reduced majority of around eight seats.

Instead of our political parties running campaigns and focusing on the ideological differences, we have been subjected to public relations drives.

In a bitterly fought election campaigns, that engage the public, the winner can rightly claim they have a mandate to implement their reforms. This is vital if the elected government does not control the upper house. 

At the end of this campaign, we will more than likely have an upper house controlled by the Greens. There is also the prospect that we end up with a hung parliament.  

There is concern that this hands power over to a minority, and that the government will be held to ransom by the independent or smaller parties. In the majority of legislation, where both major parties agree, the votes of the independents are irrelevant; it is only when the major parties don’t agree do the independents have power.

The real danger is that an independent has an overwhelming advantage when lobbying the government for spending in their electorate, or for support for their issues. This can divert resources and efforts away from where the majority of the electorate wanted them to go, and into minority issues or disproportionate spending in the independents electorate.

For business, the prospect of independents having significant influence will make dealing with government more problematic.

Minority governments are more likely to be inconsistent on issues, and shy away from making the hard decisions.

It seems now that the political landscape has changed. Just as the Labor party now embraces business, the Coalition has abandoned Work Choices and all that it stood for.

The real difference between the parties is in the way they believe government should intervene in the economy.

Labor’s response to the GFC demonstrated its preferred method of rolling out large scale infrastructure projects to create jobs. The national broadband project is a great example of this approach.

Labor believes that by creating jobs during the roll out, from hole diggers to planners, this will have a positive effect on business and industry competing in a global market. Labor fundamentally believes that you can only get this type of project of the ground under government auspices.

The Coalition’s approach is to limit government spending on infrastructure to the traditional roads, rail and hospitals. This is evidenced by its commitment to cancel the NBN and to dump the Super Clinic program of the ALP, and instead focus on methodologies of delivery that puts money into service providers’ hands. This is done in the belief that it is more efficient and that individual providers are better placed to determine where the market is.

In terms of business then, it seems that if you are in the building and construction industry you are better served by a Labor Government. If you are in Professional services you are better served by the Coalition.

The now PM Julia Gillard is now in the absurd position of fighting for her political life and opposition leader Tony Abbott looks like he will cruise into the lodge off the back of rats in Labor’s ranks.

We are now preparing ourselves for an onslaught of negative campaigning. While Labor looks likes it is fighting the last war with its anti Work Choices campaign, the coalition is sticking to familiar themes of Labor fiscal mismanagement.

From the outside, both campaigns look ridiculous and the Greens look likely to control the Senate, giving Work Choice revival little to no hope.

The coalition’s campaign is even more absurd. The Rudd/Gillard government steered this country through the greatest global economic meltdown since the depression. Our unemployment rate never exceeded 6 percent, while the US unemployment hit 9.8 percent. Many respected economic commentators are looking at the Australian model for a clue on how a country should behave in times of economic stress.

The real long-term issues have not been dealt with. The debate about population and Australia’s capacity has never got off the ground. A real debate on asylum seekers and Australia’s role hasn’t happened, the parties’ plans for our economy in a carbon constrained economic environment haven’t been revealed. Instead, we have had piece meal announcements totalling $16 Billion from both parties on short term politically hot issues.

An article in the The Sunday Age on 9 August named Markstone Group among the ‘winners’ of recent state government contracts, namely for our work with KDR, the new Melbourne tram operator.

While we applaud the publicity over our client’s recent win, Terry repeated the message  that this company’s work is not lobbying, merely a case of knowing the political landscape, policies and systems, and where the people we elect fit in. Despite this, the words lobby and lobbyist were regulary used.

It should be noted that Markstone Group were long time advocates for a lobby register and have been members on the national register since this was introduced in 2008. Terry believes everyone working in the field of advising clients on political processes should be accredited so that there is clear understanding about the services the provide, in an attempt to eradicate the dirty ‘lobbying’ word which the media is firm to hold on to.

Further, Markstone Group has never been paid for work directly by the Federal or State Government and does not tender for government contracts.

Read The Sunday Age report below.