Pulling rank on focus groups

Like so many words in the English language, focus has a number of meanings in the dictionary. There are the obvious ones relating to the clear definition of images and the centre of interest or activity. There is also a medical definition of focus as "the principal site of an infection or other disease".And after the inordinate influence that focus groups seemed to have had on both the major parties in the appalling federal election campaign we've just endured, perhaps the medical definition is the most pertinent.There is no definition for the expression "focus group" in my dictionary, but perhaps it will be in the next edition after the way the major parties seem to have become completely beholden to what their focus groups tell them about what Australians are thinking and feeling and how that affects how we'll vote.As a result we had a Coalition Opposition Leader embracing the Labor Party's industrial relations policies, and a Labor Prime Minister embracing the conservative parties' hard-line stance on refugees.Tony Abbott thought he couldn't win if he didn't make sure the Howard-era WorkChoices (which he had formerly championed) was "dead, buried, cremated", while Julia Gillard disavowed Labor's traditionally softer, more humanitarian approach towards refugees in an effort to portray herself as "tough on boat people".Strange days indeed. No wonder the voters were confused, and made the result a virtual dead-heat. And no wonder there was a higher than usual proportion of informal votes.The message was clear: a pox on both their houses.I became eligible to vote in the Whitlam era of the early 1970s - a volatile, passionate time in politics where voters had a crystal clear choice about the direction the country would go depending on who won the election.I have been fascinated by the political process ever since, through the Fraser, Hawke, Keating and Howard eras. Love them or loathe them, you knew what you were getting when you voted.But this election just about cured me of an interest in politics. It was certainly the most boring, colourless and negative that I can remember.By contrast the aftermath has been totally fascinating, with the reality of independents holding the balance of power creating a whole new paradigm for Australia's parliamentary process.I blame Kevin Rudd and Labor's strategists for the rise of the focus group. So determined was Rudd to paint himself as "John Howard Light" leading up to the 2007 election that he tried to offend no-one.Both major parties took that to a new level in this campaign, but for me the lowest point was Gillard's announcement that Labor's plan of action on climate change would be determined not by a strong government determined to tackle the issue, but by a national … focus group!One senior minister who visited the Illawarra during the campaign confided (privately, so I won't name him) that if Labor was returned he'd take to Cabinet a recommendation that the party "abandon focus groups and slash the number of spin doctors".Maybe he should take that idea to the independent MPs who will decide who governs Australia.They might add it to their list of demands for parliamentary reform. And we'd all be better off.Nick Hartgerink is a former Mercury editor who now runs his own media consultancy.