Some more gratuitous advice to Lawrence Springborg – if you are going to accuse others of dishonesty be “squeaky clean” yourself.
Lawrence Springborg keeps insinuating that I have done something dishonest in my reporting of his research; and that I cannot be an “independent commentator” because I am “factionally aligned”, as demonstrated in the following transcript from Steve Austin’s show this morning:

Springborg – Steve, just before you go. Yesterday with the issue with Graham Young, On Line Opinion and the merger of the conservative parties –
Austin – yes, his leaked polling he got
Springborg – yeah, the leaked polling and how it had been selectively placed on his web site, well, you might be interested to know that just after I finished talking to you, Mr Young actually rang in to my office & admitted that he had the whole lot of the research which you’d have to then really ask the question why wasn’t it all put on there – the good and the bad, not just the bad in the research.
Austin – we’ll certainly ask him that, Lawrence Springborg, happy to talk to him on that. I did notice that on his web site he has asked you if you would like to respond on his web site. I notice you haven’t done that either?
Springborg – well, we may very well be doing that but what I’m saying is when you’re dealing with issues like this, I mean, somebody that’s factionally aligned, this is what I’m saying, as an independent commentator on these issues, can be somewhat difficult. Now, you know, it was just interesting that he had all the documents. They should have actually been up there not just the bad. We wanted a warts & all assessment of this.
Austin – I notice that you also selectively gave material to some journalist so I guess everyone’s doing it?
Springborg – but the whole issue is I’m happy to show everyone the material but all I’m saying is if you came to me, and those same journalists, I said to them, look, the picture’s not all rosy. The picture is very, very diabolical for both parties and I’ve always said that and the figures show it and that’s proven in the figures.
Austin – well, I look forward to reading your response on his web site and we’ll pursue the issue, thank you.
Springborg – thank you very much, Steve.

In response I’d make the following points.

The bottom line appears to me to be that Springborg has been using the media to spread a favourable version of research that he has and when confronted with a more complete version he chooses to try to play the man rather than deal with the issues. It’s a good example of why Queenslanders see the Opposition as being pathetic.

Lawrence Springborg questioned my integrity on radio this morning. I also received an interesting email from Sean Parnell a Courier Mail journalist who wrote a significantly different story based on the same research.
I’ve issued an invitation to Springborg to put his side of the argument on this site. As yet there has been no response. So, to keep things interesting, not to mention transparent, I am making the whole of the research available here. Read it and you be the judge, but have a look at these points first.
In his interview this morning Springborg said “Graham Young, unfortunately, has been selectively quoting on his web site…between 7 & 8 out of 10 agree with a merger…” I’ve asked his office for a copy of this research.
He then goes on to say “What he didn’t tell you is that of those respondents, the greatest majority said it was a good idea. Around about 38 of the 82. Those that thought it was a bad idea was 25 out of the 82 and those that didn’t know or didn’t care were around about 20. Now, you know, so overwhelmingly, of the people that responded, most thought it was a good idea.” Hmmm. So 70% to 80% agreement has just been more than halved. Lawrence also seems to have problems with maths. You need 42 out of 82 for a majority – how did 38 become a “majority” and what the hell in this context is a “greatest majority”. No matter, by the end of the par Lawrence has turned a minority into an “overwhelming” majority, even though on his count 55 percent either thought it a bad idea or couldn’t care! I think my account is to be preferred.
Later he says “But it also says that what we need to do is we need to be pursuing this – this is what the conclusion also says – a merger that immediately & unequivocally demonstrated Qld now has a cohesive, active, positive & effective Opposition will be well supported.” Not quite. A prize to anyone who can find any statement in this presentation that says that the merger needs to be “pursued”. What it does say is that if you could pull something off that was harmonious it would be accepted. But what are the chances of that? The people sending me leaks aren’t going to stop talking to me and others.
Springborg continues “I spoke to Toby Ralph …and I said, well, would it be better if we were in coalition, would people think we were going to be a better government than what these figures indicate? He said, no, worse. If we’re running alone, worse still.” Well, none of us can be sure what Toby Ralph said to him, but we can be sure what Toby Ralph’s written figures, quotes and assessments say, and nothing like that is in the report. It is such a significant piece of information that I would have thought it should be, if that is what Ralph thinks.
One final quote from Springborg to demonstrate just how threadbare his critique is. “Now, on a Coalition, Graham Young knows full well, we’ve had about 3 or 4 of those in the last 20 years, and they’ve all ultimately failed and why have they failed? Because the squabbling over Seats and who should stand where, and who’s policy should be supreme and all that.” So, Lawrence’s solution is to internalise the problems in one party. How likely is that to be successful?
I’m wondering how many of Springborg’s team have actually seen the whole research, and what they’ve been told. In his email to me Sean Parnell from the Courier Mail said: “I read the research some weeks back and wrote an article on it. My understanding of the findings was that it was an all-or-nothing game for Springborg — if he didn’t bring in a new party free of baggage then the conservatives would basically die in Queensland.” Sean’s an intelligent guy, so the question is what research was he reading? Was it all of the research, or just the “executive summary”? How many people are relying on garbled briefings like the one Springborg gave us all on radio this morning?
After this morning’s interview I put in a call to Toby Ralph. What he would tell me on the record was that an amalgamation would be widely accepted if it could be pulled off, but that it had a “high degree of difficulty”. That’s a term normally applied to gymnastics, or diving. I think Springborg is doing a Louganis.
To be continued…..

Springborg’s Pineapple Party amalgamation concept ought to be fruit salad, according to leaked internal research. The report is by Toby Ralph, a top level Liberal Party operative who has been associated with every federal Liberal campaign since 1996 and was one of the team that masterminded the 1995 Queensland state election result. I’ve never run a serious campaign without consulting him (but no, he’s not the leak). The report says

…the process is extremely likely to be a catalyst that drives many current and potential voters away, thus utterly disastrous for the Coalition and suicidal for its political advocates.
Under no circumstance should Party leaders announce an ‘unresolved’ merger in the hope that people will tolerate disagreements that will eventually be resolved. This would backfire badly.

So, the Coalition parties are headed for the rocks, and Lawrence Springborg for hari kari.
How does Ralph come to this conclusion?
The research is qualitative and involved “street intercepts” of 82 people (44 women and 38 men) over a five day period in four separate locations. 25 voted Labor, 14 Liberal, 24 National and 19 wouldn’t (or couldn’t) say. This is too small for a valid quantitative sample, but more than sufficient for a qualitative group. It’s not finely calibrated, but it will give actionable answers. And part of what you get when you pay Ralph’s exorbitant fees is the knowledge that he brings from other similar research done for right of centre political clients.
From this group he found that only 26% thought that a merger would be more likely to help the coalition parties overcome their “differences”. Only 32% thought a merged party would be a “more…effective Opposition”. The merger at this point is not looking too good, but it gets worse.
When asked:

If these Parties merged to form a single Party and became the State Government, would they do a better or worse job than the current State Government?

57% said “less”. Only 21% thought they would a better job. These are horrendous figures, bearing in mind that 46% of the sample votes either Liberal or National.
Why these results? The verbatims say it all.
When asked why they opposed a merger, participants said things like:

Two losers don’t make one winner.
You get the worst of both parties. Incompetent rednecks. Who’d vote for that?
Springborg and Quinn couldn’t galvanise a roofing nail, let alone two political parties.
The merger exists. It’s called the Coalition. Make that work for starters.

Why would they be less effective?

Thinking too much about themselves, not the people they’re supposed to represent.
They couldn’t agree on what to take to a picnic, let alone what to do if they ran the place.

Disagreement with the idea was greatest amongst Liberal voters.

I’d be less likely to vote Liberal if they were tied up with those rednecks.
Liberals are in enough trouble – but not as much as the Nationals. It would be like putting on a concrete lifejacket.
The Nationals lost me when they cuddled up to Hanson – I couldn’t vote for a party that did that.

Many respondents thought that the whole move was self-indulgent: “It’s about them, not me.”
It wasn’t in Ralph’s conclusions, but one answer to Springborg’s dilemma was implicit in this response: “John Howard is the best leader the Nationals have ever had. That’s how to do it.” In other words, the Nationals shouldn’t be trying to merge the parties, they should just give in and sign up as Liberal Party members.
I’d be interested in Springborg’s response to all of this. No-one gives you a gift leak like this without an agenda. Maybe there are things that are missing, or don’t add up. Still, I suspect I’m ahead, because I’m also told Springborg didn’t turn up to the briefing when the report was delivered. There are always things you don’t want to know.
Update:
Since this posting Steve Austin’s Brisbane ABC Radio morning programme has broadcast an interview about this post with me and John Black followed by one with Lawrence Springborg. Springborg said I only gave half the story and referred to some additional research that he had. I have offered him a right of reply on this site as well as the opportunity to post the totality of both research reports so that voters can judge for themselves. I’m awaiting a response at the moment (10:28 am EST).