Note: This post is part of the series of Crikey Queensland election commentary and is cross-posted at Currumbin2Cook.
—–
Gerard Henderson is only the latest pundit to make what is by now a trite observation – state oppositions seem incapable of challenging the Labor stranglehold.
Online focus group research on the Queensland campaign conducted by Graham Young and me for The National Forum last week and again last night provides a clue as to why. The puzzle is more complicated than the usual story about poor candidates and fundraising disadvantage.
Coalition state governments in the 90s weren’t afraid to be economic and social reformers. Greiner and then Kennett set a cracking pace. Not only was the pace much too fast for voters’ speed limits, but the liberal economic agenda and particularly privatisation were deeply unpopular. By the time the gloss wore off, voters punished Coalition administrations for placing ideology over services. The final nail in the Liberal coffin was the 2002 SA election. The Libs were punished for electricity privatisation, and supply failures in searing southern summers.
Last night we asked voters in our focus group about electricity supply and privatisation. Neither have been on the campaign agenda. But the Coalition should have made electricity an issue. Beattie’s troubled third term began with supply failures in Brisbane, and some of our participants suspect that one reason for going early this time around was to avoid the grid creaking under the weight of thousands of air conditioners in what’s set to be a stinker of a Queensland summer. The Coalition could easily have tied this theme in both with the unpopularity of an early election and with their general message on infrastructure.
Joh Bjelke-Petersen, after all, famously proclaimed after his post electricity strike win in 1986 that the lights would stay on in Queensland for three years.
So why didn’t they? Part of the reason is probably incompetence. But another big part of the reason is that conservative oppositions remain reform wary. They’re scared of uttering the p word which voters hate. So elections at state level become contests about competence and leadership. That’s hard enough to win on from opposition, but the challenged Queensland conservatives have dug their own grave with Flegg’s blonde fortnight.
Similarly, voters in our focus groups found it hard to identify differences in vision between either party. One self described conservative commented that the Nats’ policies were too close to Labor. State oppositions are unable to articulate much ideological difference with Labor governments, and after a long spell out of power, find it difficult to play the competence card. Meanwhile their federal friends have thrown another sleeper out there with the timing of the T3 sale, which will remind Queenslanders in the bush just how much they hate privatisation (and that Barnaby voted for it).
If there are to be any conservative governments in any state from this election cycle, the Coalition at state level will have to come up with an appealing difference in vision from Labor. If Queensland is anything to go by, they will struggle.
We generally like conservatives in charge of immigration, defence and raising and dolling out most of our taxes. Labor are best at giving the PS unions the difficult news about limited means to satisfy their unlimited wants. Unless the ALP get way off beam in a particular state, it seems talented conservatives are not really interested in being big fish in small ponds. With balanced budgets de rigeur nowadays, as well as the hungriest public mouths to feed largely self selecting, why should they bother?
At least someone in the coalition is trying to change focus in the last two weeks of the campaign.
The Courier Mail reports today that Liberal Campaign director for Mansfield and Bonner’s Russell Egan encourages liberal members to change their focus and from what he calls petty issues about Liberal leader Bruce Flegg and instead focus more on the Beattie Government’s failings. Hi suggest that this could be done by influence public opinion by channelling the message through blogs, which he suggests are quite active and are dominated by writers who are clearly Labor stooges.
I have cited some of it in my own blog: Blog Campaigning, where I also have published an interview with Guy Cranswick about the state of blogging in the Australian electio
State governments pretty much all run on pragmatic management, budget prudence, social conservatism (or at least not scaring the horses) and incredibly tight political message management.
There’s really no mass appeal room to the right of that particular construct other than shrill invocations of Laura Norder (which incumbent governments are acutely attuned and responsive to anyway).
In NSW, Peter Debnam has made no headway whatsoever against a government which should be in electoral trouble. He just looks and sounds like a slightly hysterical gravitas-free zone. There’s no substantive traction and no policy differentiation apart from annoyingly carping whinging about doing things better….
At state level, the ALP has become the natural party of government norm with ironclad occupation of the political centre. All things must pass eventually of course but I don’t see it happening in the near future.
A surging economic tide lifts all incumbent ships.
While I quite agree with your analysis Mark, you cant really dismiss the poor candidates factor.
Really smart conservatives get into business, to earn a packet. Suits the value system. So you’re already playing B-grade at Federal level (smart front benchers, half the backbench has talent, other half complete populist dunderheads like Tuckey).
Down at state level, the coalition tends to be scraping the barrel. IQs drop sharply, and then there’s the ambition factor noted by Observa. Why bother with state level, since we cant win anyway? Im sure a lot of coalition talent thinks this way.
Then, wooo baby….. then you have LNP local government candidates. Lets face it – thats really a sheltered workshop environment these days.
If there is to be a protest vote, I think that it will come from the Allied health workers who have been treated very unfairly in comparison to Doctors and nurses who are always elevated far beyond their importance by both sides of the political divide in this state.
The Doctors union and nurses union have been able to win huge gains at the expense of thousands of far more worthy workers and I don’t think they are too happy with the treatment that they have received.
Social workers, occupational therapists, radiographers,physiotherapists etc are the backbone of the health system and until they receive a fair working environment the threat of a protest vote is real and likely. Independents are likely to bob up all over the place as the Major parties are too entrenched to be able to handle the kick when it comes.
Geoff,
your points are all well taken but don’t explain why state oppositions are unable to capitalise on out-of-control Muslim rapist gangs (NSW), riots (NSW), broken train systems (NSW), Dr Death (Queensland), blackouts (WA, Queensland), total absence of drought planning (NSW, Queensland, Victoria). In NSW, the Labor Party has always occupied the centre ground, but has been voted out when shown to be manifestly incompetent.
Spiros,
Sadly. most people in NSW don’t feel themselves to be personally affected by drought – a significant proportion of the metropolitan population have never been west of the Blue Mountains – and those that do feel it tend to live in National party seats. The National Party won’t be forming government.
“Out-of-control rapist gangs” basically impact upon the long suffering residents of 2 or 3 seats in the midwest of metropolitan Sydney, where “that stuff happens.” For the rest of us it’s a news story. Iemma (who represents one of the electorates concerned) has cranked up sentencing and deployed Bob Debus to positive increased penalty and sentence appeal effect. Most people who read the Tele probably don’t think that the Libs could do any better and the news cycle moves incredibly quickly.
The trains are actually running on time pretty much and people who travel on them will do a comparison with the horrors of two years ago when they vote. Most of the people personally affected by Cityrail service live in very safe Labor seats.
Beattie is a bravura exponent of the mea culpa school of politics. He accepts personal responsibility for every FU and commits to personally rectifying the situation. By so doing he puts wriggle room between himself and an ill-defined “government” that wears the responsibility. The people of Queensland will be electing Peter Beattie – and probably rejecting government in both it’s incumbent and aspirational forms – in a couple of weeks time. It’s a significant achievement
Steve Bracks is a kinder, gentler Kennett in a cardigan. He’s kept most of Kennett’s reforms, is surfing the economic boom, hosted the Commonwealth Games and makes Ted Baillieu look like an over-privileged silvertail.
“If there is to be a protest vote, I think that it will come from the Allied health workers who have been treated very unfairly in comparison to Doctors and nurses who are always elevated far beyond their importance by both sides of the political divide in this state.”
Steve, it’s a truism in state politics that voters think that governments can never do enough for doctors and nurses.
I think LeftyE is on the right track, there really is no incentive for a trained professional to join the libs and sit in govt arguing about the pros and cons of sewerage. State Govt are slipping in stature, they were once the Crown and are now the service providors for everybody else. I will be glad when they finally expire.
rog, your contention that:
is best applied to Local Governments whose responsibility it is. State Governments have responsibilities that are much more elevated.
By the way, here in Brisvegas, we do have a talented Lord Mayor, a Lib, who seems to challenge the generalisations about the relative talents of representatives at the respective Local, State and Federal levels. His predecessor, a Mr Jim Soorley, ALP, was also a man of great talent.
The notion that this state election campaign by the Libs could be rescued by efforts to:
seems fanciful. I suspect that Russell Egan is grasping at straws, suggesting that the defeat of Joe L in the Democratic Senate Primary, caused in part by Blog activity, can be successfully transferred to Australia.
I have just listened to JW Howard argue that you can’t fatten the pig on market day. While I expect the Libs to regain ground, I think it will be too late.
Not so sure WPD, local councils enact legislation passed by State Govt.
Its a tedious process, the State Govt is the Crown yet is in charge of bus lanes whilst the Feds get to go to the White House. Thats why in NSW they spend a lot of time accusing each other of sordid improprieties that are impossible to disprove.
rog I accept your point that the power to ‘enact’ laws lies with the authority having the appropriate jurisdiction.
However, in my experience, the real arguments about sewerage, and how best to deliver it, occur at the local level rather than the state level.
[partisan political mode with bad humour on]
I know the answer to the question in the title: it’s because they are all from the Liberal and National parties. Badum bum ching!
Ladies and gentlemen, I’ll be here all week. Enjoy the veal.
[partisan political mode with bad humour off].
“Steve Bracks makes Ted Baillieu look like an over-privileged silvertail.”
That’s not hard to do. The man’s name is Bailleau.
Geoff, you’re not answering my question. A competent opposition manages to pin the blame on the government for things that are the the government’s fault. A talented opposition manages to do that and pin the blame on the government for things that aren’t its fault. A very talented opposition does all of that and provide a coherent alternative that wins popular support.
State oppositions (and the federal opposition, it must be said) can’t even do the first of these things, let alone the second or the third. Oppositions have managed to do at least the first in the past, often the second, and sometimes (rarely) the third, but the current lot can’t. Why?
It’s probably a good thing that oppositions are reform wary because when the Tories were last in power in Queensland with the Borbidge Government we woke with every new day to a new attack on the CJC which was most unedifying and transformed that particular Fitzgerald Reform into a shadow of its original self.
We also lost the years of taxpayer contributions to the old State Government Insurance Office handed over to the Coalition’s mates in big Business with the privitisation of Suncorp Metway. In the past it was used by the Bjokey -Petersen Government to bail out a couple of Building Societies including Metropolitian that went broke in hard times and prevented a Pyramid type situation such as Victoria suffered years later.
Already in this campaign we have seen Howard Hobbs keen to get into the development at all costs mentality to fast track the sale of State Government land for Housing development but have heard very little about where the conservatives stand on solving the public housing shortfall. When the lastest SAAP negotiations were being argued with a recalcitrant Federal Government to fund homelessness projects, Hobbs and co were silent.
How have they gone getting road funding from the Feds for upgrading the Ipswich Motorway? They are big talkers but very shy when it comes to standing up for their constituents when the Federal Government needs to provide money for basic infrastructure or services for Queensland.
After all the huffing and puffing about Representing the Bush we have yet to see their reply to the Blueprint for the Bush. As far as the Coalition is concerned there is no coherent plan to rejuvenate anything west of Milton or north of Bowen Hills. The best they have managed so far is confuse themselves as to whether new money could in fact be seen as old money. No wonder people accuse them of having no vision. It could safely be said that Green Leather is the extent of their vision.
Greg Craven thinks we should double politicians’ salaries. We get what we pay for, goes the argument. Which doesn’t fully explain why the state Liberal talent pool is so consistently shallow compared to Labor’s relative depth. Or does it?
Interesting you should mention Greg Craven. His book “Conversations with the Constitution”, an entertaining read even if you don’t agree with everything he says, points out that virtually all oppositions look useless in opposition, but with the aid of government departments wiping their backsides mostly look OK in government, whereas moderately competent-appearing governments suddenly turn into complete dills when they move to the opposition benches principally through the lack of such departmental support.
While I don’t think that’s the entire picture, there’s certainly something to it. When you actually look at the Victorian government frontbench they don’t bat very far down.
I think it probably does Andy. The ALP has a centrist class of cadre that arent quite as interested in the big bucks; but rather in power. Im sure that pays off for them down the political hierarchy vis-a-vis the Libs, eg at state and local govt.
Of course, that ‘advantage’ brings its own set of problems – a large pool of political hacks who are competent, articulate, but slightly cloistered, light on life experience and difficult to relate to.
Cripes, you should cop a whiff of Ted Ballieu. I haven’t got a clue what he stands for and he makes Steve Bracks look charismatic.
A lack of a viable opposition is such a negative thing for a democracy. Frankly, the only thing I can recall about Springborg is that he likes to do the ironing in a towel.
I think the idea that blogs are dominated by Labor stooges is actually quite amusing, although I took the piss out of Piers yesterday.
Once you took the piss out of Piers, was there anything left?
Lefty E’s comment reminds me of Greg Sheridan’s argument that for talented and ambitious young people of right-of-centre views, the most lucrative career paths were outside the political system, meaning that right-of-centre politics would become the career path of choice of ambitious mediocrities. On the other hand, argued Sheridan, for talented and ambitious young people of left-of-centre views, the most lucrative career paths – and the ones offering most scope to put their values into practice – were inside politics and government.
If Sheridan is right about the career choices of right-wing mediocrities, we then need to ask what happens in a State like Queensland where, for much of the last two decades, Labor has completely eclipsed the Liberals in State politics and has had a mortgage on State political and State government career paths. The answer is that a lot of ambitious right-wing mediocrities would find ways into the Right of the Labor Party. Watching the invertebrate pests which have infested Brisbane student politics in recent years (some of whom have emerged as State and Federal ALP candidates) tends to bear this out.
“When you actually look at the Victorian government frontbench they don’t bat very far down.”
Actually, they bat a long way down, by state gocernment standards. Btacks, Brumby, Batchelor, Kosky and Thwaites are all competent minsters. (That doesn’t mean their policies are any good, but they follow their briefs and don’t make howling mistakes. ) Five is a lot for state government. It’s a deeper battong order than any other state government and deeper than the Kennett government, which had Kennett and Stockdale, and no one else.
Vinegar, hot air and an inferiority complex.
Thanks, Andrew.
Nobody wants to join the B-team.
If you’re a successful Prime Minister of Australia, chances are you can work your party such that you have the talented people and the fundraising at your disposal. This was true of Menzies and Whitlam and Hawke and Keating, and it’s true of Howard. If you can’t work your party to that extent, chances are you’re a poor PM only successful in areas that your party doesn’t really care about (e.g. Gorton), or you’re not PM at all and will never be (Hayden, Crean, Latham, Peacock, Hewson, Downer). Fraser had talented people but had enough to allow the Libs in Victoria and other states to have a go, at a time when parties seemed to get by with less money than they “need” now.
The next Labor PM will be able to draw top staff talent and serious $ away from Macquarie and Spring Streets – look at how Hawke lured away Wran’s top staffers, or how Keating persuaded Swan and Smith to stop pissing about with State-level losers and come to Versailles. Would you leave a job with Iemma or Bracks or Rann to go and work for Beazley? Really?
Howard does not co-ordinate policy with State Liberals. This leaves State Liberals outraged at something or other – whereupon the Labor Premier blithely gets to his feet, waves a letter from Howard promising $xmillion to do the very thing the State Libs are railing against, which prompts two types of response from political journalists: stories about a) what geniuses the Premier and his team are, and b) what dills the Opposition are, supplemented with a helpful but anonymous quote from a government staffer in Canberra who is closer to real actual power than any State MP could ever be.
This helpful but bashful staffer has a choice: a) work their way up to ministerial press sec level followed by a well-paid but undemanding job as a lobbyist, or b) wading into State politics and facing years of frustration. As Gerard Henderson might say in this sort of situation: Hmm. Yes. Really. Well. Not much of a choice there. Hmm.
If Peter Debnam were ten years younger, he’d have become an advisor and would no more enter State Parliament than skinny-dip in Lake Burley Griffin. Debnam entered Parliament by setting factional candidates against one another and coming up through the middle, hence the reason why he underestimates factionalism today: the flickering flame that once warmed his tootsies now has the power to burn his house down to the stumps and kill him stone dead. If he were a stronger leader he would engage in root-and-branch reform of the party organisation. Brogden perceived the danger but did not (have time to) act; Debnam thinks he can get away with ignoring it.
That staffer might once have been the very sort of promising young person a state division of the Liberal Party might have built its future on,. Today, the state division never sees this person because he/she is in Canberra all the time, and for all their savvy they are easy prey for some factional goon with a solid grip on the party constitution and little else to commend them.
Being in a Liberal State Government today would involve spending every day eating shit dished up by Howard and Costello, then putting on a big grin and telling the media it’s chocolate. Life may not have meant to be easy, but fuck me if there’s not more to life than that.
In so many other areas of public life, the Howard Government is denying future generations the means of their own advancement. It would be strange if he were not also doing so to the Liberal Party.
What is a “Piers Akerman”? Is it of the same genus as a “Christopher Pearson”?
Inquiring minds want to know…