From today’s Crikey email:
When the Coalition toned down their relentless and fairly ineffectual attack on Kevin Rudd and turned their attention to his front bench, commentators and Labor MPs dismissed this tactic as born of desperation.
Not so. The Howard government knows the potential devastation of such an attack – it was the tactic they most feared from Labor in 1996, a tactic that was never used.
It pays to have a long memory in politics.
Pamela Williams’ The Victory has probably never been on Paul Keating’s bedside table. Her narrative of the 1996 election campaign is clearly sourced mainly from machine insiders – and includes the full box, kettle and dice of the Gray/Epstein view of the former PM as “Captain Wacky�. But its fascination for those who suspect that this year’s campaign has a lot more similarities with 1996 than more recent elections lies in the fact that it does report in such detail about the arcana of political tactics – including advertising strategies.
Williams writes that the Liberal party’s advertising team made mock advertisements to try to anticipate Labor attacks on the Coalition, which were subsequently road tested by Mark Textor in focus groups. Andrew Robb had suggested that a possible message might be the inexperience of Howard’s shadow cabinet.
The ad team complied, creating a vicious mocking television advertisement. ‘Look over John Howard’s shoulder and there is no team, no experience’, warned the voice-over as the ad began. An unflattering photograph of each member of the shadow frontbench flashed on screen, as a yellow L plate popped up in front of it. ‘Australia is too important to hand over to learners’, boomed the voice-over.
Textor’s focus groups reportedly found the ads by far the most “devastating� weapon in Labor’s possible armoury. Voters contemplating tossing out a tired and unpopular government hesitated when they considered the actual ministerial replacements.
Pollies and political observers might not have been doing their political history homework, but you can bet that Howard, Costello and Robb have a very clear recollection of a Labor tactic that was never tried in 1996.
Howard was something of a teflon politician in 1995 and 1996, with attacks bouncing off an image of a safe pair of hands. But Liberal research showed that his front bench were deeply vulnerable.
Is it any wonder we’re hearing so much about Peter Garrett, Wayne Swan and Julia Gillard from the government at the moment?
Of course not, Mark. But it’s starting to get close to the time that Rudd and Labor need to start “attacking” Howard and crew. Howard knows how to control and manipulate what is being presented to Joe Public and the longer they are allowed to take “free” whacks at the ALP with next to nothing coming back, Howard will continue to mould a notoriously malleable electorate.
Stop Press. Shock revelations today that the unions are planning to campaign against the government!
And using such hyper-modern, Americanised tactics as … BBQs, door-knocking, letters to editor.
Just to put another view Peter Brent at mumble had this to say about the tactic of attacking Rudd’s front bench.
“It’s not a bad tactic, except the other half of the story is missing: that Rudd is a weak leader who would let his ministers push him around.
Such a thing might have worked under Beazley (I must admit). But while Rudd is seen as both safe/conservative and tough/ruthless, it’s not likely to yield many dividends.”
Mark, such a campaign could be effective assuming a) the coalition first 11 are widely respected as competent, and b) Labor’s bunch are vulnerable.
As counterexample number one to the first proposition, I give thee Alexander Downer.
Graeme: I share your sense of complete non-outrage over the shocking idea that the union movement might contact its members to put a political view to them.
However, it seems to me that there is somewhat of a hypermodern, Americanised aspect to this. While I’m neither actively involved in electoral politics, nor live in a marginal seat, it seems to me that face-to-face canvassing by volunteers is something that both sides of American politics do to a much greater extent than either major party here.
Centrebet today again shows Labor support trending down and LNP support firming, at 1.85 to LNP’s 1.90.
This is how the betting has gone since the end of March:
March 30
ALP 1.95
LNP 1.85
April 20
ALP 1.92
LNP 1.87
Big turnaround here
May 11
ALP 1.87
LNP 1.95
May 17
ALP 1.83
LNP 1.95
May 21
ALP 1.75
LNP 2.05
June 8
ALP 1.78
LNP 2.00
June 13
ALP 1.85
LNP 1.90
In the coming weeks/months, I’ll try to annotate those odds and future ones as well, with relevant newspaper headlines/story leads of domestic political significance to see if we can draw some sort of inference from such fluctuations. As I do not watch much telly, an alert re ads from a vidiot box addict would be useful so we can factor that in as well.
Not much use Ken, the bets have been following the polls.
Galaxy’s last two have outshone the Morgan.
If the next Newspoll/Nielsen polls show ALP support still firm (55 ), then the betting will slide back to the ALP.
Not necessarily BigBob. May 18 Morgan poll following the Budget shows Libs up, whereas the reverse happend at Centrebet: “The latest Morgan Poll finds that primary support for the Coalition on the weekend after Treasurer Peter Costello delivered his 12th Budget was up just 0.5% to 36%. Primary support for Labor was down 0.5% to 51%..” See: haitch tee tee pee dubya dubya dubya roymorgan.com/news/polls/2007/4165/
There may be a more sophisticated response from punters. They see a dead-cat bounce and use that as a spur to whack on some fat.
You may have a point re Gallaxy; there is a greater correlation between it and Centrebet. But that would mean that punters rely exclusively on Gallaxy and go counter to other polls, which is not credible.
I agree Big Bob the money is following the polls at the momment.At Betting Zone they put it like this
“The latest Galaxy Poll has the Government shaving 5% off the ALP’s lead and Australia’s biggest bookmaker, Sportingbet Australia, has seen money start coming in again for the Government.
“A $12,000 bet at odds of $2.08 has led the charge, signaling Howard’s comeback with punters�, said the CEO of Sportingbet Australia Mr. Michael Sullivan. “We’ve seen plenty of bread and butter bets around the $50 to $200 mark as well.�
The Prime Minister and his Coalition cohorts were returning odds of $2.15 a week ago, but Sullivan believes that punters have been waiting to back their tried and trusted man.
“I’ve maintained that Howard’s odds won’t get out too far. His amazing ability to mount a political comeback has hurt bookmakers in the past and we’re wary.�
The more widely reported Galaxy Poll was the catalyst for this betting movement along with yesterdays misreported Galaxy Poll in QLD. It was reported all day yetserday that the Galaxy Poll reflected a gain of only three or four seats to Labor when in fact it actually reflected a gain of around a dozen seats.
I would echo Robert Merkel’s point about front benchers. They may be experienced in terms of time served as ministers but there is also the proverbial familiarity breeds contempt.
There are some very unpopular front benchers such as Tony Abbott, and one need only note the regular stream of letters in the SMH to note how many readers dislike him.
There are also other front benchers who have slightly dipped in prominence on the recent political radar screen but who have been associated with causes for resentment of the Government (eg David Hicks) such as Philip Ruddock. Howard has disposed of the unpopular Vanstone in advance of the election but it remains to be seen whether the electorate is still malleable over xenophobia and asylum seekers, and to what extent the Cornelia Rau case comes back into electoral discourses.
Brendan Nelson dished up some ad hominem attacks on Peter Garrett in February such as inaccurately citing his book Political Blues (see hansard for February 15 2007 p45 at http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/dailys/dr150207.pdf for Nelson’s remarks). However he seems to have stumbled somewhat and a few news items related to defence matters have not enhanced his reputation.
Julie Bishop has likewise generated some aggravation in different sectors over her views on secondary and primary teachers, and for the way in which universities are typecast in business imagery. She has hardly garnered sympathy among teachers and lecturers and uni students.
While some voter sympathy is given to Malcolm Turnbull as a future Liberal leader, he still has a hard task of convincing the electorate that the Coalition has any credible policy to implement on ecological problems generally and specifically on global warming issues. Here the discourses of the Greens and of the ALP may have much more traction with the electorate. And I wonder how youth feel about Garrett the Midnight Oil star as opposed to Turnbull the former lawyer/banker.
Of course the ALP could also bounce the L-plate discourse on its head by pointing out that on this ridiculous line of thinking nobody else could conceivably ever attain to the highest office because only Howard has the experience to be PM, and only the Coalition can rule because of 11 yrs in office. Of course one can also remind the electorate that Costello had been in parliament for even less time than Rudd has when he was made Treasurer and had had no prior ministerial portfolio. The anti-Latham backlash no doubt was helped along by the L-plate diatribes but Rudd is not resented or treated with the same kind of suspicion.
The recent NSW state plebiscite did have the ALP on the attack at Debnam, but the Libs also tried to smear the ALP with scaremongering about Costa, Sartor and others.
I can’t wait to be door knocked by a Unionist! Neither can my Blue Heeler/Kelpie Cross – he also enjoys visits by other morons who I want off the property in short order.
Robert Merkel, who said that
To which we could, and should add Philip Ruddock as Minster for Civil Liberties, Brendan Nelson as Minster for Wasting Money on Useless Defence Hardware, Julie Bishop as Minster for Private Education, Tony Abbot as Minster for Catholic Zealotry, Joe Hockey as Cabinet Boofhead and anyone in Cabinet from the National Party, like Mark Vaile as Minister for Bribing Dictators. To top all this off there there must surely be the thought that a vote for Howard this time is really a vote for Peter Costello.
And special cheers to Fiasco Da Gama….
Cheers…
Razor, as the strategy depends on unionists campaigning to ensure that other unionists vote Labor, if you want to be doorknocked by a unionist, you’ll have to join one first. I believe you’ve mentioned in the past you work in the financial industry(?): the FSU most likely covers you.
PJ, that’s an interesting comparison. NSW Labor’s ministers were (and remain) a far more powerful electoral negative than the Coalition’s Federal frontbench—yet they were re-elected.
Latest Morgan poll: http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2007/4175/
Hmmm, let’s have a look at the first Howard ministry. Of these, only Howard himself, and John Moore, had any ministerial experience, and in Moore’s case only in a fairly minor ministry. You could also throw in John Fahey as a former Premier.
Hardly a hugely experienced bunch!
FdG – my wife is a Union Member, but votes Liberal.
Well, if you live in a marginal seat, Razor, you’ll definitely get some union mail, and I’d lay good odds on a phone call or two.
The ‘modern’ aspect of the ACTU campaigning about which everyone seems to be complaining is microtargeting: the idea being that instead of sending the odds and sods of the local ALP branch around to knock every single door in a street, your wife would ideally get a phone call from someone in the same workplace, or at least someone who works in the same industry, so that they’ve got common ground for a political discussion.
It’s worked exceedingly well for the Republicans in the US for a decade or more, where they’ve worked registered voter lists and previously gathered information to canvass Republicans category-by-category. Middle-class white blokes are visited by middle-class white blokes, Miami Cubans by other Cubans, veterans by veterans, parents by other parents, Christians by other Christians, etc.
The Coalition did a bit in NSW in 2004, but not very successfully. There were a few high-profile fuckups, like one electorate (Lowe, I think) where everyone with the last name of ‘Lee’ got mail in Chinese. Both sides’ll get it right this time, though.
Be polite but firm, if you don’t want to be re-canvassed. A big aggressive kelpie ought to stop all but the nuttiest doorknocker.
It’s very amusing to see both sides of Industrial Relations lobbyists – the unions and the business coalition – express their “holier-than-thou” views about the ethical use of political campaigning.
When it fact both sides are “entirely entitled” to the opportunity to spread the word about their world view……….just as they are “entirely responsible” for being exposed if their campaigns reveal a lack of mutual understanding between the campaigning organisation and its target publics.
In terms of ethical considerations, relevant to the average taxpayer is not just the “micro considerations” of respective I.R. communication campaigns, but the “macro consideration” of whether (i) tax payer funds are being used by Government to fund “party political” communication and (ii) whether this is socially responsible.
On this particular point, Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd performed well today by being the only one to focus on a macro ethical consideration, as reported by The Australian:
“Everyone in our country’s got a right to put their own point of view, using their own resources,â€? said Mr. Rudd.
“But when it comes to a government using taxpayers’ money to unfairly fund party political ads – that’s what this government has become notorious for – I think that’s a cancer in our democracy.
“And that is the cancer which should be eliminated.�
…From Justin
As I said, I can’t wait for them to have a go. I could get them inside for a drink and monopolise as much of their time on that evening as possible – and if I can pour enough booze into them they might decide to go home and sleep it off, rather than bother some other poor sod. (The Razor mongrel might be a little bit unhappy at not being allowed off the mat.) If they decide to call I’ll make sure I get the number and then program the fax to try and dial their number continuously. I might even get their fax numnber and put an endless loop fax down the line. There is so much under-graduate fun to be had!
FdG – I don’t like to let the Razor Mongrel go when the JWs rock up because of the kids. Everyone else is fair game!
I wish I was campaigning in your electorate, Razor. Your anti-union strategies sound frighteningly pleasant.
Make mine a Glenlivet, please, Razor.
Interesting article.
Three points.
The first is if Labor had prepared such an attack in ‘96 why did Labor not run this? It seems odd given that Keating never hesitated destroying anyone. I also think it is a moot point as anyone involved in either campaign knows that people were waiting with baseball bats regardless of any Labor ad campaign.
The second is that the problem that Rudd faces is that given that he is now the frontrunner and Howard is now the underdog, there has been a subtle but meaningful switch in how voters look at Labor.
They are now being judged as a potential government and as a consequence the bar has now been lifted and issues such as the competance of Wayne Swan as Treasurer, Kim Carr in Industry and Garret’s track record start coming to the fore. As I’ve said before the gap between how commentators on this blog view the performance of this government versus marginal seat voters is very very different.
The final point is that as Robert Merkel highlights the face-to-face stuff is very American. One of the great myths in Australian politics is how the Liberal Party is THE practioner of American style political campaigning.
Whitlam’s “It’s Time” campaign brought it to Australia, Keating’s “True Believers” Ball was like Washington on inauguration eve and the piece de resistance was the Labor Party’s “In the navy” attack ad on Debnam which was produced in the US and went further than anything I ever saw in the US during the 2000 and 2004 Presidential campaigns.
Matt, no, it was the Libs trying to work out what Labor’s attack might be, and making mock ads to test on focus groups. Pretty clear in the post.
And while no doubt commenters on this blog (some of whom may well live in marginal seats!) may not be a representative sample, a lot of swinging voters won’t have heard of Kim Carr!
Btw, some research the ALP did in the lead up to the by-election in Latham’s seat found the main sources of political news in Western Sydney to be channel ten news and the radio headlines. The Daily Terror was discounted as obviously biased, if amusing.
Mark says:
Pollies and political observers might not have been doing their political history homework, but you can bet that Howard, Costello and Robb have a very clear recollection of a Labor tactic that was never tried in 1996.
I’ve been “doing my political homework” on this, right in front of your nose! You might at least credit me with explicitly mentioning the ALP talent shortage and novice risk idea first, on this blog at least on 11 June 2007 at 9:26 pm:
So how long before the ALP scrapes the bottom of the political barrell of ministerial talent. Not long.
The ALP has a real problem getting politically talented people from outside the party machine. Most of its front benchers seem to be party or union apparatchiks, beholden to factional heavyweights for their position. Abbott, taking his cues from John Button’s essay “what future for labor?” details the shrinking ALP political gene pool:
By contrast, every Labor member of the House of Representatives was a union or a party official, parliamentary staff member or public sector employee before entering Parliament (except for one govemment-funded community organisation executive and two lawyers with union practices).
The ALP is getting a bit in-bred too, which will deprive it of hybrid vigour. Abbott bores [sic] in for the kill::
Once, he says, it was conservative clans like the Downers and Anthonys who tended to monopolise parliamentary dynasties but today the ALP has a rival list that reads like a row of gentlemen’s outfitters in the lower end of Bond Street: Beazley and Son, Crean and Son, Ferguson Brothers who, between them, make up about 10 per cent of the ALP lower house.
The LN/P is by no means perfect in this respect. Plenty of lawyers and staffers in their machine. Not a lot of true believers out in the party branches.
Potential LN/P candidates are usually too busy with their professional careers to make it worthwhile standing for parliament. With the ALP the problem is the reverse, their potential candidates are too busy with political careers to be worthy of parliament.
In any case, democracy in Australia does not work like democracy in the USA in one very crucial aspect – compulsory voting.
Our major parties don’t have to expend any effort making sure that their rusted-on supporters vote, whereas much of the “ground game” in the United States is about getting core supporter groups (in summary, youth and minorities for the Democrats, fundy Christians for the Repubs) to the polling booths.
Mr Strocchi, I realise you’re just quoting Tony Abbott, but the following quote seems highly questionable: “By contrast, every Labor member of the House of Representatives was a union or a party official, parliamentary staff member or public sector employee before entering Parliament (except for one govemment-funded community organisation executive and two lawyers with union practices).”
I’m really not sure this is true – and I also note that the mad monk chooses to highlight a nurse and a teacher in the coalition ranks – public sector employees.
Jack,I really can’t remember a Federal Government who has achieved so little of value over a full term as Howard and Co this term. The focus on Workchoices seems to have left most of the Howard Ministry cruising along and bludging for most of the term. So far they have articulated no reason why they should be re- elected for another term and I don’t know if they have any ideas left apart from they like sitting on Ministerial leather.
Rob, you are 95% right on the compulsory voting argument…remember 5% of Australians though live os.
The “fundy Christians” argument for Republicans is looking like a bit of tired cliche.
Obama, Edwards and Hillary are agressively courting them, check out Obama’s site for instance; all three conducted a faith in politics discussion on CNN with Wolf Blitzer last week and one of the reasons the Dems were so successful in the ‘06 Congressionals is that they chose pro-life Demorepublicans from Virgina to Texas.
To quote John Edwards, who is as left-liberal as they come in the Democrats…
“No, I think that, first of all, my faith, my belief in Christ plays an enormous role in the way I view the world.”
The ironic thing is that out of all the main Republicans running only one has only been married once and he is the Mormon, Mitt Romney!
Jack, but I don’t accept that Swan, Gillard and Garrett are untalented – quite the opposite. However, if you do want credit for Liberal party talking points, I suggest you direct your request to a more appropriate person.
I’m not sure Labor’s shadow cabinet in 1983 necessarily looked all that flash – and the Libs’ research certainly suggested theirs didn’t in 1996.
I’d also point out that Swan is a former academic, Gillard a former partner in a law firm and Garrett a former rock singer. All have had substantial life and work experience outside being an “apparatchik”, if you count Garrett’s role with the ACF as that.
On whether or not the tactic will be effective, I’d say it will have a marginal effect.
The difference, of course, between Howard in 96 and Rudd in 07 is that Howard did have senior ministerial experience. His past record was very much a mixed blessing, of course. If he’d lost in 96 or in 98, or never became Opposition Leader for the second time, his record would not have been that impressive at all. I mean, who remembers Phillip Lynch these days?
Robert, face to face canvassing used to be a staple of early Australian politics.
We are all entitled to an opinion..and make Mr.Murdoch richer I suppose,without looking at other wealth in the media!? I think,of what a lot of what is being expressed by the ALP and by it,is some old assumptions they will not give up! I cannot describe these assumptions directly,yet,words and subjects still linger with deja vu…Is it really necessary to think people will focus on what Abbott has to say!? Because it begs the question why!? I find a good enough criticism of the Liberals in this,Howard is compulsively claiming success..when if it is so,then why does he have to put up false or misleading statements about unionists contacting people!? They must of always done it. The shot about dogs at a couple of posts here,forgot about meter readers and posties…fair crack of the whip. Even the bloody Police have to fight off the dogs..when maybe informing families about a death in a family!? So maybe once again the people will be voting on what and who they know and how to assess ,what might be much easier to forget because its importance has to be compared with a personal relevance.
Not many Mark, but Lynch was never an opposition leader. Perhaps you were referring to Mediocre Man (vs SuperGough per the cartoons of the time) one Billy Sneddon, who took over after the McMahon shemozzle, rolled by Fraser due to Gough’s humiliation of him in Parliament.
(and BTW who carked it, so it was reported, in the company of a lady of the night–one policemen said: “At least he died happy”)
Mark on 13 June 2007 at 9:54 pm
My comment suggested that the ALP’s front bench was “thin” on talent, not non-existent. I explicitly acknowledged the worth of Rudd and Gillard as capable political practioners with lives outside of parliament.
I concede that you could put Garrett in that class, having lead the ACF is a kind of political office. But still unforged by the crucible of adversary politics, so the LN/P spin doctors have him in their sights. Swan is an academic, which is nice, He has not exactly set the world on fire with his published papers, has he? He does not seem all that compelling to me as an economic guru.
That leaves…the Lemmings who voted for Mark Latham, overwhelmingly ALP apparatchiks, union officials or political staffers. That a mere 85 other members of the Parlt ALP who, we both agree, are non-entities, placemen or time-servers. Not really much real world experience there.
marks says:
Abbott’s argument is lifted directly off Button’s AQ piece in 2002. Button’s points have been echoed by Peter Botsman and Andrew West.
These thinkers are independent-minded Centre-Left intellectuals. (For an alternate view, Tim Gartnell mounts a weak and unconvincing case for the ALP apparatchik defence, whilst preaching to the converted at the Fabian society.)
If you want to call their arguments “Liberal party talking points” you are free to. But this kind of crass partisanship and ideological cocooning is only going to end in tears – like your premature triumphalism over reports of Howard’s political death.
marks says:
I am about ALP 1983. The party spent eight years in the wilderness sorting itself out, rehashing its ideology and recruiting fresh blod. It managed to attract loads of talented people who had made lives for themselves both in and out of politics. Three Rhodes scholars (Hawke, Beazley, Blewitt). Policemen, farmers, miners, businessmen, shearers and so on.
Plus..cue drum roll…la piece d’resitance: Paul Keating – ta-daa!
marks says:
I am not that interested in the effectiveness of the LN/P negative ads as a political tactic in reducing ALP votes. The solipsistic and sophistic efforts of media spin doctors do not deserve to be taken seriously, even from an instrumental point of view.
What I am interested in is whether there is any truth behind their claim. I want to know if the caucus for the alternative govt has any talent. They have spent a decade flipping through new leaders, notably Mark Latham. Not very promising political judgement.
marks says:
I would agree that the LN/P govt has been a three man show from the get-go: Costello for Ecnomic Prosperity, Downer for National Security and Howard for Cultural Identity. These three have performed well. After those three leading lights the LN/P’s ministerial talent pool has been thin.
But the LN/P have had an interesting back-bench. Which is more than the ALP can say.
I think that this tactic could really backfire on the Libs. If the greater electorate is getting the feeling that the Howard government is getting a bit tired then focussing on the shadow cabinet’s “lack of experience” will only reinforce this feeling.
I think the best thing for Howard and co to do would be to try to utilize any perceived weaknesses in the Labor frontbench. Phrases like “Garrett’s recesion” might be a little on the nose to me but it might hit home to some people out there.
What I’m trying to say is that if they actually go out there and say “don’t vote for them, they’ve got no experience”, then Labor could pretty easily turn that around with a simple “look where your experience got you, Alexander Downer didn’t notice that an Australian company gave $300 million to Sadam” or any number of attacks along those lines.
Attacking them on things like the “Garrett recession” is essentially the same strategy, mick.
I tend to agree about the lack of depth in Labor, but when you look at the state Liberal parties the picture in a lot of ways looks worse. The NSW Liberal party are a joke and do the Queensland State Liberals even exist any more?
Incumbency builds depth. In 96 it would have been hard to believe that Downer and Costello could ever be taken seriously. At the time even Howard seemed too small a man to fill the shoes of Hawke and Keating. Who would have thought the guy who was so clueless about economics that he told a press conference Alan Greenspan’s private opinion on interest rates would one day have a reputation as a good economic manager?
Call someone a minister, get their mug on tv a couple of nights a week, put an army of bureaucrats at their back and even someone like Morris Iemma can look competent.
Err, yea Mark. I was struggling for clarity in that comment and I think I absolutely failed. I was just trying to say that if they push to hard down this line, which is something I could imagine a few of the dopier minister’s attempting, it could really backfire on them.
Also, I would have expected this sort of attack to be played out in a few months time, well into the campaign, because now it just gives Labor a lot of room to work to counter this attack.
Another own goal for one of the “Conservative Unions”, RAtty hasn’t obviously heard of people in Glass Dwellings shouldn’t throw solidified soil, when he attacks the ACTU for it’s campaigning.
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,21902440-5005361,00.html
Not so, jack strocchi. What happens is that Committed Amateur comes up against Seasoned Apparatchik: SA says, but I have experience dealing with Teh Media, and preselectors say: ooh, Teh Media, absolutely indispensible in modern politics – and SA goes into what is increasingly seen as a training ground for a real job in PR. CA meanwhile gets disenchanted by SA’s lame and uninspiring schmooze and finds better things to do with his/her time.
Peter Garrett doesn’t fit this. Button was writing soon after Labor lost office.
The government has more MPs than the opposition, hence it is more likekly to have a more diverse group of people. Many of those people with interesting backgrounds (whippet strangler, biscuit taster, chainsaw juggler, etc.) tend to come from marginal seats. They will go when the government goes and be replaced by similarly diverse (and more) Labor people.
I can remember the same criticism of the Coalition in opposition – they tended to be a narrow bunch of privately-educated law graduates and graziers, and it shall be again.
Experience counts so long as your experience is unrelentingly positive, or (in the case of 2001) urgent.
“who remembers Phillip Lynch these days?”
Most senior Catholic within the federal parliamentary Liberal Party to date, you mean?
“It managed to attract loads of talented people who had made lives for themselves both in and out of politics. Three Rhodes scholars (Hawke, Beazley, Blewitt).”
Wasn’t Hawke an “ALP apparatchik” and “union official” and Beazley “an academic” who had “not exactly set the world on fire with his published papers”?
How come these things were signifcant lives outside of politics in 1983 but are dreadfully dull in 2007?
The argument is over-played anyway. Why is it necessarily the case that a sports star would be a better politician than someone who’s a lawyer and has worked for a Minister? There are lots of examples of “community candidates” or stars bombing badly.
Actually Swan published some very good analyses in the 80s of Labor party factionalism!