Federal election 2016: political elites kill themselves with polls

Federal election 2016: political elites kill themselves with polls, by Maurice Newman.

The one consistent take-out from the election is the apparent inability of mainstream politicians, political apparatchiks and most of the media commentariat to grasp what is happening within the electorate. That is certainly the case for the Prime Minister. …

They can’t accept that “smart” voters think differently to them or are tired of what they recognise as a cartelised ruling establishment. So disconnected are they that they believe the masses fall for vague messages of compassion, fairness, jobs and growth. They think slogans that ooze condescension and promote cargo-cult dependency rather than advocate sound financial management and self-reliance fool the majority. In reality, when the people lose trust in their leaders and the system, they pursue narrow self-interest.

Maurice nails it. The politically correct believe their own press, perhaps forgetting to take into account that they are the press — the press is not an independent commentator who looks at their efforts and applauds. They simply are unaware that there are other view points, better informed than theirs because they are realistic — instead of blinkered by political correctness.

Why not [just pursue narrow self-interest]? They see unions they never voted for exerting extraordinary influence on public policy. They watch big business win favours from big government at the cost of small business. They know Marxists are indoctrinating their children without their consent and feel powerless to stop it. Without consultation, their freedom to speak is constantly eroded. They feel marginalised. …

Certainly, tribal loyalty is fading and poll gaming is on the rise. Voters see approaching elections as an opportunity to use polls to leverage the main parties and, in close elections, minor parties can be strategically rewarding.

The days are fast approaching when we will deliberately lie to pollsters in order to send a message, perhaps to lull the politically correct into thinking they have it won before ambushing them on election day (e.g. Brexit).

Ten months ago, pushed by polls, 54 members of the Liberal Party demonstrated appalling judgment by deposing a sitting prime minister who had brought them to government from the wilderness. They replaced him with someone who had failed to win an election. Regardless of the legal nice­ties, Coalition voters saw this as a betrayal of their mandate and the values that attracted them to the party. Some commentators may heap scorn on these former party followers for putting the opposition in reach of government. Truth is, those deserters see marginal differences between the major parties and hope a stalemate may lead to a better future.

The “delcons” as they are known, who switched away from Liberal after Turnbull replaced Abbott, have definitely cost the Liberals at least one seat (Lindsay) and probably more (e.g. Eden-Monaro).

Meanwhile, as a former businessman, Turnbull knows he should resign. No business would tolerate a manager who had so trashed the brand and so divided his colleagues. Both are beyond his ability to restore. Turnbull’s conceit, ineptitude and lack of judgment cannot change. He is as he is. …

The longer Turnbull stays as leader, the likelier the Liberal Party is to fracture. Who will replace him? Most of the candidates are cookie-cutter career politicians who still don’t get where the electorate is at.

Yes.