This is the third instalment in Tim Dunlop’s One Question blogging experiment and the question this week has been posed by Joshua Gans:
The government is accused of playing catch-up politics, but is there some merit in such an approach?
Joshua’s two referents for the question were the Howard government’s belated attempts to stitch together policy approaches on broadband and climate change.
On one hand, you could argue that catch-up politics does have some merit - the co-optation of an opponent’s policy (the game of “neutralisation” we seen from both sides of politics in this election year) is in one sense a demonstration that a parliamentary democracy is working well - if the opposition has been able to gain traction with the electorate, ipso facto the demand for action comes from the electorate itself as well as from the partisan interests of the opposition and therefore should be the subject of government action.
On the other hand, we’re back with the motives question we discussed in an earlier 1Q (and on which there’s been a recent twist here from Anna Winter - do you trust a party which doesn’t really have much ideological stake in (or perhaps even competence and experience in) an issue to produce a good policy outcome?
The classic policy grab in the Nineteenth century was Disraeli’s 1867 Reform Bill. Disraeli and the Prime Minister, Lord Derby, had just ousted Gladstone from government and formed a minority administration based on their destruction of his bill to expand the electorate. The end result was a measure that went beyond Gladstone’s intentions in scope, but it’s important to note that it was also consciously designed in such a way not just to keep the Tory government in power against a divided opposition, but also to advantage the Tory Party through the franchise and the distribution of seats. So you could probably argue either case based on this instance - that the Tories sought to co-opt a popular measure, and that in the long run this was being responsive to public opinion, or that the cynicism of their motives led to a flawed and partisan implementation of a policy they didn’t really believe in.
If we take climate change as a contemporary example, you could argue that Al Gore had it right - the thing to do was to succeed in alerting public opinion to such a degree that politicians would be forced to take action, action that they’d resisted because powerful economic vested interests stood to lose in the short term. But, conversely, you could argue that the hemming and hawing, the diversions towards “regional processes”, the failure to mandate any targets, and the lack of a well thought out and integrated strategy all demonstrate that a catch-up climate change policy as evidenced in the Howard government’s flip flop demonstrates the dangers inherent in a cynical appropriation of a popular issue. That’s the clincher, I think, and it’s reinforced by the tendency (at least with Howard and his ministers - cf also Coonan’s evident inability to understand broadband) for such responses to be designed on the back of an envelope and with electoral advantage and symbolism trumping good policy debate and thinking.
In the final analysis, perhaps it’s a question that can only be answered by the electorate itself.
Other responses [to be updated as they come in]:
In his contribution, Joshua writes:
I think perhaps that’s part of the context for this question. The Howard government really hasn’t had much of a big agenda (hence the fact that we here before every election that there’s no “vision” for the next term) with the exception of some ideological obsessions such as WorkChoices. So perhaps they’re particularly prone to catch up politics? Perhaps it’s characteristic of conservative governments generally?
I don’t quite see how the Govt can be accused of having an ideological obsession but not having a big agenda…is it an agenda when it is good and an obsession otherwise?…not that I want to be seen defending this Govt.
Howards initiative on Aboriginal Welfare is:
(a) A Crock….
(b) The desperate attempts of a fading politician who needs a policy legacy.
(c) The assertion of a man who finally wants to do right.
(d) The mark of a statesman ready to take us in to the future.
Jed, what I’m getting at is that a few things they do are the results of ideological obsessions - ie WorkChoices and Family Benefit B (which if you go back and read contemporary reports, Howard insisted on against Costello because he believed it would reverse the trend to women working) but most of the time it’s just drift.
I am not in love with the memory of Keating and Hawke in government,they couldnt convince me to vote. Agenda setting and catch-up are nonsenses for those who have no idea how catch-up as an effect does nothing. Lets take the ten year rule,for university education,where if you were in work for ten years you would be given assistance to University. Did that work wonders for our economy and social graces..answer as far as I am concerned,the ALP. is into deliberate mythologizing its present past and future. And did Keating work for ten years himself, before entering parliament,and what pray tell ,was that occupation,known to uplift the spirits of long-term unemployed!? Catch-up for both Labor and Liberals as far as I am concerned,is to shut-up about work,employment figures,and everything else,associated with work in some way. …And then there are the history wars and education…all putting in their chops for recognition of the working democracy we are being had by.The great historian Henderson from the Sydney Institute,and the intellectual Bob Cark of coca-cola legs fame,plus hip replacement and genuine smiler of good fangs,knows full well,the superiority of people like himself,leave a legacy that crosses the political divide.Why else be a consultant for MacQuarie Bank other than to allow certain business interests,their right to catch-up. And if the lovely institution of the bank of settlements is right,and,we could be heading for a depression,the lovely people of Sydney,who walk among the disadvantaged with power ,lifestyles and bearing,will duly note they have to pay for toilet paper too,and, use that system that,may not be able to afford all the work on it.What else can be said,if economic graduates,go the way of dinosaurs, if desperation requires,that no-one is interested in the money markets!? Commercial lawyers time serving superannuation expectors,and,the other setters of standards,and catch-ups will be competing in unsuredness when they want to drop into the volcanic abyss. Perhaps,they will be lateral thinkers and buy Bohemian Club Franchisors.
In catch-up politics it’s all about how well you do it, and we have a Howard Government now that does it pretty well in some areas, and that I suggest learnt how to do it well from the Keating Government’s dismantling (’doing him slowly”) of Hewson’s proposed GST policy. (I expect there are many more learned people who can provide older and/or better examples, but that’s the scope of my experience).
Providing a very small target and not stating a “vision” or broad, deep policy platform is what got Howard elected in the first place, but this requires broad disillusionment, anger, rejection with the sitting government. Stating that his vision of Australia under his leadership was “to be relaxed and comfortable” was the ultimate in non-vision, non-policy. keeping patiently (opportunistically) under wraps the key objectives of his policy agenda seems to have been critical. Howard’s played is strong, tightly-held cards (Telstra sell-off, WorkChoices, Immigration & detention, “security” legislation, electoral “reform” and others) when Labor has been unable to counter-play anything except create noise.
Of course the counter-example is Beasley’s attempt to emulate this “small target” approach that failed.
And then there’s Latham’s attempt to present a broad visionary “Ladder of Opportunity” platform that was undone by very successful catch-up politics combined with fantastic poker-playing from the PM in out-blinking Latham on the environment and Tasmanian Forestry policy. And also Labor’s complete and utter failure to counter the fundamentally unprovable “interest rates will always be lower under a Howard Government” slogan.
So that brings us to 2007, where Rudd has outlined some key “visionary” (I’d suggest they’re not that visionary) areas: broadband, climate change, education, and Howard has played catch-up very aggressively, even stealing the “Education Revolution” slogan from Rudd. Now that’s ballsy poker-playing!
Now we see Howard finding an “opportunity” to take back control of the poker game: Aboriginal affairs. the questions are deep and many addressed in other blogs here and elsewhere. Rudd has a choice: seek to play catch-up on this policy area, lie low (which he seems to prefer here) and wait for the next card to be played, or find other areas to re-claim the initiative.
Kim, as I was saying on my post, do you reckon that it’s partly a cyclical thing? Reform fatigue leads to steady-as-she-goes, leading to building up of pressures for reform…
In 1972, McMahon made a few feeble attempts to adopt issues that were fashionable at the time, and which (in modern political parlance) Whitlam well and truly owned. I’d argue that this minimised the Coalition’s losses at the election that year and enabled them to rebound effectively within only three years. Conservatives disagree, regarding this election as The Fall and any Libs who embrace “trendy” issues as fifth-columnists.
In 1999, Bracks promised to be more fiscally responsible than Kennett, prompting him to face accusations of selling out but with the consolation of winning government.
Catch-up politics requires the government maintaining its legitimacy and not looking like a pale shadow of the opposition. There’s a fine line between neutralising an issue and being me-too; Bracks was on the right side of that line, Kim Beazley the wrong side.
To catch-up, Howard has to stop putting himself in positions where he looks like an old man who doesn’t really get it, as happened with broadband or the Kirribilli House drinkies thing. The plans for Aborigines and for water are high-level, knee-jerk, unfunded resonses - as long as tough, smart and articulate people keep throwing curly questions at him about the details, and avoid tropes that he can attack (e.g. civil liberties), he can be put in the position of pale imitation.
If Costello became PM now he’d be seen as a pale imitation of Rudd.
Robert, your position is the foundation for the idea that governments are like nappies: needing to be changed regularly, and for the same reason.
I’ve updated the post with new responses.
Robert, I liked yours - very thoughtful piece. I suspect you are right about the cyclical thing, at least in a broad brush sense.
Andrew Bartlett’s response:
http://andrewbartlett.com/blog/?p=1551
As a “constitutionalist� who primary concern is the appropriate application of constitutional powers and limitations as intended by the Framers of the Constitution, as amended by successful referendums, we rather have a dumb electorate where politicians play them as idiots, promising them monies (out of their taxpayers own pockets if course) and abusing and misusing powers to every extend.
This post would be in reams to set it out in details, and so those wishing to read up can always check out my website http://www.schorel-hlavka.com and my blog http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH
While the High Court of Australia on 14 November 2006 may have claimed WorkChoices is constitutionally valid, my books published in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series set out how the court deceived the people and concealed very relevant and vital details from their judgment as otherwise it would have had to declare WorkChoices to be unconstitutional, as it still is.
Look for example at the High Court of Australia having persisted to rule that voting is compulsory, yet, I succeeded (after a 5-year legal battle) on 19 July 2006 that you do not have to vote As Section 245 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 is unconstitutional.
As I published in my 27-5-2007 published book about WorkChoices in “032-Chapter 003 LEGAL FICTION - persona designata� that the High Court of Australia sitting as “persona designata� for the Parliament as a Court of disputed Returns is not a Court of law and as such has no judicial powers (consider Sue v Hill) and as such it is abusing its judicial powers to pretend Politicians now have judicial powers.
What we have seen is eroding of our DEMOCRATIC system and electors are gullible to support it.
Look at the unconstitutional invasion into the sovereign nation Iraq. John Howard had no prerogative powers to authorise the invasion of Iraq by Australian troops, yet no one seems to hold him accountable for his terrorism upon another country. Yet, we are quick to lock up people accused to possibly conduct terrorism, regardless they may be innocent.
The deportation of Vivian Alvarez Solon was underlining how incompetent Phillip Ruddock was as a Minister for Immigration yet he is then subsequently appointed to be the Attorney General.
What we see is that politicians are not playing catch up politics but simply are playing the fools of electors who are willing to accept this nonsense and criminal conduct rather then to take action against them.
For example, if electors were to massively vote for INDEPENDENT CANDIDATES as to give a clear lesson to political parties that they are out when failing to represent the electors, then perhaps we might just get finally some real “representation�. However, anyone who sees it as catch up politics may just misconceived that the electorate are played as fools by politicians as they know that whatever garbage they give the electorate will go along, regardless that it is all lies.
For example, anyone who is in the belief to be an “Australian citizen� as an “Australian national� is a fool, as there is no such country called “Commonwealth of Australia�, hence those believing to have the Australian nationality have been sufficiently brainwashed to accept any rot. The Commonwealth of Australia, as like the European Union, is a “political union� and is not and cannot be a country, republic, kingdom, empire! Sure you can pretend it is a country but if you desire to belief in LEGAL FICTION so be it and then accept the rot politicians are dishing out! And, if you are back to LEGAL REALITY you might just discover that we do not even have a constitutionally valid government either.
Well, those were some of the constitutional issues I raised in my case and succeeded upon them UNCHALLENGED. As such, I proved in a Court of law what I have claimed and proved to succeed upon it!
Politicians are swindling the electorate time and again and fool you if you accept it.