There seems to be a significant chance that the election will produce a Labor government depending on Green votes in the Reps to provide a lead over the Coalition, and in the Senate to pass legislation. I find it hard to believe that the process we’ve just been through could produce such an outcome, not only matching my preferences but reflecting those expressed by the majority of voters, but that’s what some of the papers are saying is likely. We’ll just have to wait and see.

In place of the usual weekend reflections, here’s a forum to discuss the election. I’m feeling gloomy about the outcome, but I don’t claim any special insight and my gloom may just reflect the awfulness of the whole business.

Tony Abbott demonstrates yet again why he is utterly unqualified to be Prime Minister, pushing the absurd line that “global warming stopped in 1998” [1]. As John Cook points out, this silliness requires three separate cherrypicks, each worse than the last. And, as the same story shows, the rest of the Liberal Party is just as bad.

But is it any better to understand the science and do nothing about it as the Labor Party under Gillard is doing? The hacks and spin merchants who now control Labor policy are every bit as bad as Abbott. Delay is just as bad as delusion.

Truly this election is the most depressing I can recall in forty years. If there has been one in our history where both parties have so thoroughly dodged the issues, I’m not aware of it.

fn1. As previously stated, I’m not willing to debate the science of climate change on this blog, since there are plenty of better venues. But you don’t need much expertise in the statistics of time series to expose this line for the dishonest piece of cherrypicking it is. Anyone who espouses it is either a liar or a fool. If anyone wishes to put themselves into one or other of these categories in the comments thread they are welcome to do so.

As we enter the final week of the campaign, all the indications are that Tony Abbott and the Coalition have fallen short in their improbably near-run attempt to limit Labor to one term. If this happens, there can be few losers of Australian elections who have more richly deserved their fate. Sadly, there can be few winners who have deserved it less than Labor, on the basis of its performance since the abandonment of the ETS and the axing of Kevin Rudd. (In the event of an upset, both judgements would still be true). The media, for whom horse-race metaphors like the one I’ve used to title this post, seem to be the best they can do, can share in the credit for this depressing business.

A few probably forlorn hopes: First, it will be some consolation if the Greens win some Lower House seats. The very unlikely event that they might hold the balance of power in both houses would be the just reward to the major parties for their appalling performance. Nothing is impossible, but the odds against are long.

Second, win or lose, the ALP needs to sack Karl Bitar and his crew, and intervene in the disastrous NSW branch. The combination of corruption, thuggery and incompetence displayed by this mob is breathtaking, and they are a huge millstone around the neck of the Labor party.

Third, given the general dishonesty of the campaign, I would be perfectly happy to see Julia Gillard dump her absurd idea of a citizen focus group, and proceed to implement the climate policies we all know to be necessary.

A final point. When the Coalition has looked like winning, various people have pointed to this mildly snarky post in which I predicted we would never see another Liberal government. My point was not that Labor would be in forever, but that the Libs and Nats would have to merge before they could win. That has in fact happened in Queensland, which makes the continued existence of a separate, but permanently coalitional, National Party in NSW and Victoria even more absurd. But obviously, I was expecting Labor to stay in for at least two terms. At this point, I’m willing to renew my prediction, though obviously it’s a matter of probability rather than certainty. To be clear, I expect the Libs and Nats to merge at a national level before they regain government.

Tony Abbott got away with his howler on the effects of carbon taxes on electricity prices. But, in a piece of poetic justice, he’s now been tripped up by his ignorance of the technical issues underlying his broadband policy, not nearly as bad a piece of intellectual laziness, in my view, but enough to cement the (correct) impression that he is not across the details of key policy issues. To be fair, he doesn’t pretend to be: he offers simplistic slogans to the voters because that’s all he is capable of understanding. In the US, such self-confessed ignorance is a pre-requisite for political success, at least on the right. It seems we are heading the same way.

It’s often debated whether advertising in general, and political advertising in particular, is effective. I can say that the Liberal Party’s TV ads have been effective in ensuring that Liberal candidates will receive my coveted last preference. Of course, the ads aren’t aimed at me, so I just have to hope that the average Australian is not the bigoted fool the Liberal campaign supposes. And, of course, things would be a lot easier if Labor were aiming for something more than my second-last preference.

Unimpressed as I am by Labor Julia Gillard’s Prime Ministership, they (and she) remain far preferable to the alternative. For an illustration of what’s on offer, let’s look at Tony Abbott’s claim (repated on quite a number of occasions) that a $40/tonne carbon tax will double the price of electricity. For coal-fired electricity, CO2 emissions are around 1 tonne/MWh for black coal (a tonne of coal generates about 2.5 tonnes of CO2, and also about 2.5 MWh of electricity), and a little more for brown coal. So, a $40/tonne tax implies an additional cost of 4c/kwh. Electricity prices vary a lot, but currently the standard retail rate in Queensland is around 20c/kWh, so the price increase would be around 20 per cent for households. Businesses that use large amounts of electricity pay lower prices and would therefore face a higher price increase, but since the generator cost of electricity is typically more than $40/MWh, no one paying a market-determined price would face a doubling[1].

What’s really striking about this is that it occurs in a context where Laurie Oakes is questioning Abbott about his credibility. The next question, referring to previous inconsistencies is “But, isn’t it important if you become Prime Minister, that Australians can believe what their Prime Minister says?”. Oakes is pretty good on who said what and when, but he lacks the basic arithmetic skills and policy background to call Abbott out on an obvious lie. And if Oakes doesn’t think it’s important to understand basic facts about the policy issues, you can bet the same is true of the rest of the Canberra Press Gallery, who hang on his every word.

fn1. Probably there are some aluminium smelters on cosy deals from the 1980s and 1990s paying prices below generator cost, but the odds are they would have tobe compensated in any case, whether or not this is justified economically or socially.

To say this election campaign has been light on policy is rather like saying that the World Cup was light on quiet contemplation of the game.

In the hope of improving things, the Centre for Policy Development has published More Than Luck: Ideas Australia needs now. I have a chapter on financial development.