From today’s Crikey email:
The fractious Queensland Coalition has been, well, fracturing over negotiations for a joint Senate ticket. Last night they made the decision to band together.
But many Nats I’ve been speaking to over past weeks are not convinced this is the best solution for their party. Itâ??s seen by many as John Howardâ??s perennial fix for problems of disunity in Queensland. What’s more, my sources argue that the third spot is unwinnable, so toxic has Howardâ??s rep become in rural and regional Queensland.
The joint Senate ticket represents the first time the Libs and Nats have run together for the Senate for decades. But upper house Nats leader Ron Boswell is only being offered the third spot, and Barnaby Joyce doesnâ??t think there should be a joint ticket at all.
In 2001, Boswell won his seat by running as the anti-Pauline candidate. Brisbane voters were treated to the unlikely spectacle of members of the Chinese community handing out Nats how to votes at metropolitan booths. But, this time around, Hanson is more of a tawdry reality TV star than a serious threat, and Nats sources say her run is driven by greed and ego.
Nationals members argue that the party can only hold on to a seat by strongly differentiating themselves from their Liberal Coalition partners. Thereâ??s broad disappointment in the Queensland party that despite promises from Mark Vaile last year, little has been heard from the federal Nats on the policy front. â??Strong Coalitionistâ?? Boswell is said to be caught between a rock and a hard place.
In 2004, when there was no joint ticket, Barnaby Joyce won his seat in his own right and the Libs picked up three Senators. This year, most commentators think the Libs would be very lucky indeed to score more than two seats, leaving Boswell out in the cold.
While many state Nats may fear going down with the sinking Liberal ship, the obvious counter-argument is that this stoush could punch more holes in the Coalition hull. It may well be that a lose-lose scenario is being played out in Queensland.
The Nats saying yes to this is bizarre.
YEs, the Libs would want it to boost there flagging fortunes with national votes.
Its a losing situation for the Nats.
what a turn around from 2004!
Mark, do you think the aftermath of this (come what may) will make a Queensland-only fusion of the right-of-centre parties more likely?
It’s possible, Andrew, but it wasn’t just Howard torpedo-ing the move last year when Springborg floated it – there was truth in the suggestion that many Nats saw it as a takeover bid for the Libs – and Seeney’s interference in the state leadership suggests that dynamic is ongoing. Of course, the logic of politics in opposition (should Rudd win) might lead the Libs and the Nats to move further apart. At state level, it’s a bit of a lose lose as well because although they might clean up the drift of conservative votes towards exhaustion with optional preferential voting, they’re also going to do themselves no favours in urban areas with the sorts of people likely to be leading such an entity.
Not often I disagree with you Mark, but this is one of those times. This is a good thing for Boswell’s chances. Look at it this way:
If the Lib/Nat ticket does not win 3 seats who will win the last spot. Last time ALP + Greens + Democrats could not even win 3 seats. Obviously they will surge from there, but a swing of over 14% is a bit of a stretch. Consequently unless Hanson decides to wreck revenge on Boswell for 2001 and throw her preferences to Labor there won’t be four from the left side of politics.
As you say its hard to see Hanson winning, so with a united ticket who else is there. Family First maybe, or that Independent who lost National preselection whose name I can’t remember… Think that says it all.
On the other hand, if the Libs and Nats ran separate tickets they would be pretty much bound to win three between them, but that could either have been 3 Libs 0 Nats or 2-1. Boswell’s chances just went up. Family First now have an outside chance where I don’t think they did before. The previous 3rd on the Lib ticket got shafted out of a reasonable chance.
For what it’s worth, I think Boswell’s chances as 3 on a joint ticket are better than they are of him running as the head of separate ticket and fending off the 3rd Liberal (especially because as Mark mentioned Boswell is an ultra-Coalitionist, so he wouldn’t be able to differentiate himself in any meaningful way from the Libs during the campaign in the way that Barnaby did, and remember Barnaby only just squeaked in last time). This is also why a number of Qld Libs were against a joint ticket and were resisting Howard’s push on it – they thought they could gain a National Senate seat, a chance they lose with a joint ticket.
Of course, some of this would depend on what minor parties do with their preferences, (not least Pauline Hanson who could still easily pull 3 or 4 per cent), which is impossible to predict at the moment.
I agree with Mark L that the chances of the total Lib/Nat vote falling much below 3 quotas are fairly slim, particularly if they pick up Family First preferences in the Senate, which seems probable.
Self-interest notwithstanding, the probable rise in the primary Labor vote also increases the prospect of the 6 Qld Senate seats splitting 3-3 between Labor and Coalition. As 2004 showed in Qld (and in NSW and SA), if a Democrat Senate seat is lost it is far from automatic that it will go to another minor party – there is just as much prospect of it going to a major, and there being one less voice independent of the majors in the Senate.
Andrew B’s comments are, much as you’d expect, spot on. Most troubling for me with the senate seats is the likelihood of the Dems and Greens getting hammered this time out. It will be a sad day to see the labor swing impact in the Senate to the detriment of the Democrats. The Senate is, of course, the place where the Dems really have an important role to play.
Like Andrew, I think the odds are not bad for 3-3 to Labor and the Coalition, but I’m not sure the Coalition vote has much oomph, and I wouldn’t discount 3 Labor, 1 someone else, 2 Liberal. Boswell’s no longer “someone else” and there are Nats voters and possibly others that he might have picked up who wouldn’t vote for a Liberal in a blue moon.
The Nats in Queensland just seem to be devoid of good strategists and any strategy these days. It is evident every day parliament sits at the State level and their dismal showing in almost two weeks of budget estimates recently had to be seen to be believed.
Reports get tabled that they don’t bother reading, and the Nats research seems weak and easily countered.
At the Federal level they have also been missing in action. The sort of policies they once would have espoused have been hived off to Brough, Andrews and Ruddock.
Oh, I forgot to mention that the Nats launched a vicious attack on Flegg blaming him for the poor estimates result and the Libs banded together to support Flegg.
Check out their nonperformances in estimates committees here.
Mark:
Let’s hope this is the last we see of Chopsticks; nice enough fellow but ….
Mark said:
That’s dead set right.. The Nats tend to see the Libs as enemy no. 1 – apart from Labor, that is. They have seen the Lib strategy (rightfully, I think) as wiping them out and replacing them in RARA land.
But Boswell himself is seen by many Nats as a city boy and not representing rurual inteterests in the way that Barnaby does. That wouldn’t stop them voting for him, though.
All up I’m inclined to think it will split 3 Labor, 2 Liberal plus one other. I think Boswell would have a marginally better chance by himself, but it’s basically too close to call. Joyce, OTOH, would romp it in by himself, having established a record of looking after his constituency.
As to the minor parties, I think the Greens have a good chance. Much as I’d like to see Andrew Bartlett prevail there are quite a few Labor voters who see Rudd as too far to the right, too pragmatic and too authoritarian to vote for directly without sending him a message.
News from the Nats Conference being held in Brisbane this weekend. Looks like a lively affair.
Brisbane Times view.
“remember Barnaby only just squeaked in last time”
Squeaked past who? He was elected fifth of sixth and was 51 000 votes ahead of the Greens (and Trood was 45 000 votes ahead).
d
Mark,
There are two parts to this story that are worth putting on the record. When the motley crew of anti-Santo forces captured control of state council and state exec last year, they were faced with a senate ticket that looked locked up. Ian MacDonald is anti-Santo, but Santo himself held the second spot whilst Santo lieutenant Mark Powell won a very tight preselection to secure the 3rd spot over Sue Boyce (anti-Santo). With the political implosion of Santo, the anti-Santo bloc installed Sue Boyce as his replacement. This still left the problem of Powell in 3rd spot. To publicly bump him out of that spot would cause a hugely damaging brawl – which Howard is keen to avoid. However, key figures like Brandis and VP John Caris know that a fairly substantial amount of dirt exists on Powell dating back from his student days. Keen to avoid both open factional war and the publicity of damaging material on their 3rd senate candidate, the only palatable option available was a joint ticket with the Nats. The case for a coalition was strengthened with internal Nat polling on Boswell done showing significant problems for a Boswell-led separate Nat senate ticket. The end result is a very clever sidelining of Powell and in my view an almost certain guarantee of Boswell winning the 3rd spot in a joint ticket. This outcome came straight through from the PMs office.
While on the topic of the PMs office, watch for some big movement in the Towke preselection in Cook over the next week or so. Word is that the PM will get his way there as well.
Thanks, Antonio, that’s interesting. I think you’ve just become a “source”! I’ll make a few calls and see if we can confirm this for Crikey tomorrow.
Everyone:
Just musing …. wonder what effect the position on the ballot-paper of this candidate or that would have on party finances?