Cross-posted on Modia Minotaur
In an extraordinary live interview on Friday’s Stateline, host Quentin Dempster has challenged Peter Debnam to stand down in favour of his deputy, Barry O’Farrell, who is widely expected to take the leadership soon after the State election (notwithstanding the ridiculous suggestions that Pru Goward would, in an act that would exude desperation, be fast-tracked into the top job). Dempster’s main charge was that Debnam’s open concession of defeat was disingenous – nothing more than a late lunge for protest votes.
I think Dempster’s was a fair assessment. The dynamics change in the final week, as voting intentions solidify, and the message behind this strategy is simple. Sure, we won’t win – but you can help us give the government a bit of a knee in the groin (and perhaps get a few Liberals in marginal seats over the line to boot).
Poor old Debbers. Undoubtedly, he knows as well as we do that his lacklustre leadership is destined to expire in just over a week’s time, and yet, for one more sordid week, he has to keep up the facade. It’s not often that an election is regarded as so comprehensively unwinnable by one side or another, even though the government hardly enjoys the wide support it did at the time of the 2003 election. Protest votes certainly will occur, and while they won’t decide the election, they could indicate to the government who represents the perceived cure to what such voters are protesting about.
In all likelihood, the Opposition will win some grudging protest votes, though not as many as they might have had their selection of candidates been more inspiring, and their leadership not been so uninspiring (come to think of it, agreeing to Dempster’s suggestion might have been the only thing Debnam could have done to win a late surge of support). In calling the task to government on everything but offering little of substance as an alternative, protesters hardly have much to plump for.
I still maintain that the Greens will not do any better this year in the crucial Labor vs Greens two party preferred seats – and may even go backwards – though they could increase their vote in some suburban areas in which they have never previously been much of a force. This would be good for their primary vote, which has hovered at around 10% for years, but not for their prospects of a Lower House seat. Following the election, as I’ve already discussed, the Greens may face a wider malaise. Robbed of their key policy platform, they have already begun to move onto others, such as public education and workers’ rights – issues on which Labor is on pretty firm ground.
And, of course, there are the Independents.
Much has been said about the cult of the Independent, and the possibility, given the large number of three-cornered contests at this election, of Independents holding the balance of power. There are two strictly divergent views on how good a thing this might be.
One view sees the Independent as the paragon of integrity bravely navigating the murky sea of party politics; the ones who make sure extreme legislation emerges without the spiky bits, and that their own proposals emerge with too-hot-to-handle spiky bits intact. This was, of course, the philosophy of the Democrats – and, as a moderate balance-of-power party, their philosophy worked quite well for a while (cut to today, and the best known policy of NSW’s sole remaining Democrat, Arthur Chesterfield-Evans, is to cut NSW State Parliament to the nub and eventually abolish it altogether).
I’ve also heard a notion being propagated is that a hung parliament would be `more democratic’. Quite frankly, there is little that is less democratic than the elevation of single individuals to the status of parties which are collectively elected. Democracy dictates that the majority view ultimately takes prominence; instead, the opposite occurs, and a minority of only a few individuals may determine wider policy in a manner quite unrelated to their numbers or actual representativeness. Hence, situations such as, for example, the attempted ban of Adrian Lyne’s film adaptation of `Lolita’ – the only place when such a ban was even suggestsed – not because there was any genuine public groundswell on the matter, but because one particularly conservative Independent, Brian Harradine, had to be kept placated. A party whose policies are distasteful may be voted out; an Independent MP can only be voted out by the constituents of his or her own electorate. Even when not holding the balance of power, Independents receive inordinately generous treatment by governments who want to make sure they are onside, should they need their support in the future.
Certainly, many Independents are very popular – the safest seat in NSW is held by one – perhaps partially due to this phenomenon, but for other reasons, too. Independents often generate a significant personality cult around themselves – sometimes far more than any party could decently indulge in – and though they are not held to any party line, nor are they subject to the accountability processes party membership affords. (Peter Breen soon learned this during his brief time as a member of the Labor Party). Clover Moore, for example, is often described as a progressive MP, yet closer examination of her voting record shows that she votes with the Liberal Party far more often than with Labor. The mantra of the Independent – the party line, if you will – is `Trust me, as I’ll make a better decision. I just will’. A voter who votes for an Independent is placing an awful lot of trust in that person’s individual judgement on every issue.
There certainly is a good argument for `keeping the bastards honest’ – again, the formation of the Democrats was a decent and genuinely more democratic idea – but I do think that seeing the people with such disproportionate power being seen as unimpeachable and their integrity beyond question, is one that certainly bears more discussion and debate.
What do you think of some speculation I heard last week that the Greens could end up with the balance of power in the NSW Upper House?
Voting with the Labor Party is not necessarily a sign of progressivism. The ALP can be just as, or more, reactionary as the Libs on many issues.
I’d want to know what stance she took on various issues before judging her political stance.
This is sheer idiocy and pretty typical of Media Minotaur’s unenlightening, generally dully apolitical election commentary.
Minority parliamentary reps join with other forces and they can, with the other forces, form a majority on an issue.
How on earth is this undemocratic?
I was going to say the same as David. We’d need to look at the issues where Moore votes against the Labor government. I’d guess they are often development and planning issues, etc. NSW Labor has often ruthlessly overridden community interests in favour of big development. This is the government which is responsible for the Los Angelisation of Sydney.
There’s no way Moore would ever vote for the reactionary social agenda of the NSW Liberals. Unlike the ALP, she wouldn’t ever sell out her gay and lesbian constituents, for example.
Clover Moore’s policies are on display at her site, Clover Moore. She’s opposed to developer donations, committed to a strong public sector and respected throughout her electorate because of her genuine commitment.
Contrast that with the clown the Liberals have put up.
Here is a golden opportunity for a genuine ‘Tony Benn’ style socialist to demonstrate real leadership. They could ‘ go-to-the-people’ via the web and recall the Alternative Liberal Party back to genuine progressive and enlightened reform. This visionary leader would promise to shrink the overall size and power of the state, have complusory sunset provisions on every new law passed and repeal two old ones for every new one.
This would outflank the conservatives on the libertarian right and yet still allow for the maneuvering room for tactical increases in various areas as they crop up. For example while improving transparency and open-source governance by direct grass roots democracy the sanctions for holocuast denial could be beefed up in order to make an example of some far right and some far left fascists. This could encourage more wimmin into politics and more catholics to leave – a win-win all round.
Maybe I’m whistling past a 100 year old Labor party graveyard here but I still feel there is a market for genuine democratic and libertarian socialism. Hell yes, even xtian socialism. Where is our leadership!
This red fascist Chinese temple style of the worst-of-communism-and-the worst-of-capitalism has got to be all overthrown. It’s also similar to Corporatism. ‘ Everything by the state, for the state, in the state.’
Ruddy heck! Whats going to save us from that! How long og fuck, how long?
Where is our Messiah?
Tigtog, the upper house has 42 members, half of whom rotate at alternating elections. The Greens easily won two seats in 2003 and are all but certain to do so again this time, which will leave them with four seats. Labor won 10 seats in 2003. Therefore, the Greens will have the balance of power in their own right if Labor wins between eight and 11 seats. This will require a Labor vote of roughly between 35 per cent and 48 per cent, which seems very likely (it was 43.5 per cent in 2003). Alternative scenarios include a brilliant Labor performance with over 50 per cent of the vote, which will give them a majority in their own right; the Greens winning a third seat with upwards of 11 per cent (compared with 8.6 per cent last time); and a slump in the Labor vote into the low 30s. In the latter event, Labor will only win seven seats and the Greens will only have the balance of power if they win a third seat.
The fact is, Nita, that two-party democracy is `dully apolitical’. Are John Howard’s polices correct because 52% of Australia voted for him? Hardly. Is a party whose vote moves from 48% to 52% suddenly more correct simply because a small percentage of the population changed their minds? Not necessarily.
I welcome dissenting voices in parliament – my point was that our system accommodates them somewhat awkwardly, and sometimes inequitably. Changing this would have its own problems – New Zealand is a good example of a parliamentary system that allows a lot of different voices but, as a result, has a hard time forming consensus (or even government).
It’s Modia Minotaur, by the way.
well, woopy doo, MM. We are all soooooooo relieved you approve of dissenting voices in Parliament.
Independents tend more than Labs-Lib to generate personality cults? What a lot of rubbish. What about Howard and Rudd and the way the MSM reports them. That is personality cultism writ large and ’twas ever thus.
Perhaps if you showed a little more (or any) interest in policies and issues that affect communities you wouldn’t have such a narrow, boring and bored electoral political perspective.
I reckon an Independent without a very high profile, a cult of personality if you will, in their electorate would be in a lot of trouble. The only brand they have to run on is their own name, so they pretty much have to make sure it is known and thought highly of. This is why a lot of successful Independentâ??s tend to have been partisan MPs, mayors or otherwise visibly involved in local Government before running as Independents.
It is true that, as Nita says, â??minority parliamentary reps join with other forces and they can, with the other forces, form a majority on an issueâ?? but there is a distinction to be made between independents who get a major party behind them on an issue because of the merits of a case and independents who get a major party behind them by trading concessions for support. The latter can lead to policies with very little public support being implemented.
Chris:
Can’t have that can we? No way mate. This never happens under Liberal or Labor goverments. They. Wouldn’t. Dare. So. As for those upstart independents trying it on…mumble grumble.
MM’s whole post reeks of sour grapes. The temerity, he/she suggests, of independents even thinking they have the right to run in elections and if, heaven forbid, are elected, should be so pretentiously wilful as to hold principled (guffaw) positions, reflecting legitimate (vomit) community interests, in parliamentary debate and vote. Bring the smelling salts, pronto! It is all a disgrace and a personal affront to MM. So let’s not hear any more of it.
Okie dokie, little lambs?
If Debnam did pull the plug on Stateline when asked, I wonder what effect it would’ve had? Most of the ALP ads have been attack ads on Debnam. It would have meant they would have needed a whole heap of new ads for one thing. It would have been the most unexpected of all things and I don’t think either sides planning would’ve been able to cope with it.
Come off it Nita. The sarcasm and patronising language is totally uncalled for and very immature.
The Labor and Liberal parties do indeed sometimes implement policies that the public oppose. The thing is as both need more seats than the Opposition to form a Government they are reliant on a very broad base, and they only have to piss off a small portion of it to find themselves out of office.
A single Independent, on the other hand, can only be held accountable by their own electorate, an electorate which makes up a very small total portion of the state or national population. They can potentially be immune from the vast majority of the people effected by the policies they have implemented.
I think that Independent members can be beneficial, especially when it comes to holding the Government to account, but you can’t pretend that their own accountability doesn’t become an issue when they find themselves in a position of power over state or national policy.
I agree that an Independent without a high profile will be in a lot of trouble. However we must remember that this is the Sydney election and Sydney election only. Arguably the coastal election for those within easy reach of Sydney.
As a supporter of Independents – the merits all ready given – we’re not beholden to a party and are free to make our own choices in the best interest of our constituents.
They are not the Nationals who tie themselves to the Liberals no matter what regardless of what they say.
They are not Labor as we actually care what happens outside Sydney and we wont tell you what you can do on your own property. After all they’re tied to the Greens no matter what.
As for the Democrats – I don’t see the plan to abolish the states winning anyone’s favour and if the NSW Dems are anything like the federal Dems, they often have a point on the intellectual argument but is idealistic and doesn’t take into account reality such as human behaviour and reaction.
I disagree that Independents hold disproportionate power and given I vehemently disagree with both Labor and Liberal coalitions Independents are the only option. A hung parliament or at least a parliament with a balance of power in the upper house is the only ideal option at any time. That is regardless of whether it is State or Federal politics.
The Nationals Andrew Stoner often attacks Independents and I see this as Labor’s attack. I do not dispute that fake independents may be used for political purposes but we are talking about actual independents aren’t we? The people attacking Independents seem to be little more than victims of groupthink.
I don’t believe that Independents hold disproportionate power at the moment, but that they sometimes can in a hung parliament. I say sometimes because if you have a large number of Independents in a hung parliament, more than the Government needs to get a majority then Independents have a bit more power but the minority Government can choose to negotiate with the Independents it finds most reasonable. This situation is not one I find worrying.
Problems, I think, can arise when the Government has no such options and has to agree to the demands of the same Independent/s or the Opposition or else not have it’s bills past. This isn’t a problem in practice if Independents are moderates and act responsibly, but it is if they are not. All of this also goes for minor parties, and I would be very worried if, say, Fred Niles gang found themselves in the sort of position I have described.
Democracy is ok, says Chris, as long as it goes his/her way. As long as parliamentarians act responsibly. Like adults. Not immaturely.
This content-free, undelineated, abstract, rule-bound politics, is I would suggest, not just immature, but pre-cognitive.
I could make the point that all democratic politics is rule bound and reliant on responsible governance but that will probably just elicit another feckless diatribe laced with bog standard insults and insinuations of dictatorial intent so I dont think I will bother.
Sure, democracy as we have experienced it is rule-bound, Chris. Historically, it was most often exclusive – only for a ruling gender, racial, class specific elite. Today, it is formal yet still not genuine, or meaningful, democracy.
You go right ahead and defend this sort of democracy. You have an extensive ancestry.
I am happy to stand on the side of the feckless ones. The critics, oppositionists, dissidents, who rebuff and ridicule those that would, like you and MM, deny or undermine even formal democracy.