Some more comment on the Christian Kerr column I commented on recently comes from Tim Dunlop at Blogocracy, posing the dilemma for the opposition as “populism or perish?”. I actually think that choosing populism will lead to their demise, and possibly for a lot longer than this term.
In Laura Tingle’s column in today’s Fin, she quotes Rod Cameron, who for mine is one of the most insightful people around when it comes to talking about politics. Cameron argues that by flicking the switch to populism and disdaining to justify it with any coherent economic narrative whatsoever, the Liberals are trashing their own brand and committing political suicide. A lot of what they stand for ideologically has never been to the public’s liking (just as Labor ideology doesn’t go down all that well with a lot of voters) but if there’s one thing they have had in their corner, it’s the “economic conservative” image – the reason why Kevin Rudd was so keen to steal their clothes last year.
Too much political commentary assumes that both parties have identical options in political strategy. They don’t. Labor is always going to be more persuasive in “feeling your pain”, the lived economy space that the Liberals are currently trying to move into. In retrospect, though it seemed a bit kooky at the time, Peter Costello’s “trust us in turbulent times” message last year was probably the right one – but John Howard himself blew it with the contradictory “go for growth” bribeathon. What we’re seeing now is the final revenge of Howard – “big government conservatism” showing its true colours as economic cluelessness.
The point to note here is that perceptions of party strengths and weaknesses on particular issues tend to be very strongly entrenched and to last for a very long time. Tingle quotes a Labor strategist as pointing out that they only neutralised the “border protection” issue just before the 2007 election, closing a gaping deficit that opened up in 2001 with the Tampa. So if the Libs allow Labor to occupy the high ground on fiscal and economic policy, they’re potentially ceding a vital piece of political real estate for a very long time indeed. And, as we were endlessly told last year, it was one of the few areas of issue advantage they had going for them.
Cameron is spot on in suggesting that if anyone’s actually at fault for doing potentially very lasting damage to the Liberal party, it’s not Brendan Nelson but Malcolm Turnbull – because of his complete inability to construct any economic narrative about the budget that makes sense as such. There’s another level of Liberal confusion here – Treasurers and Leaders have different roles. But of course, that’s the reason why they’re in this mess, isn’t it?
I agree that Turnbull has completely botched the job of selling the Libs economic response to the budget, but he’s been put in an impossible position (defending policy he clearly doesn’t believe in) and he doesn’t have the political skills to appear convincing.
Besides, the current situation is temporary. We all know Brendan is a dead man walking. I don’t think the Liberals brand is any more terminal than the ALP’s was post Latham. Before the 2010 election we’ll either see Turnbull given his chance or Cossie will make a comeback. Either way the Libs will have a lot more economic credibility … and with the world economy looking shakier and shakier don’t discount the punters coming to a view that things were a lot better under the Libs.
I can see why populism might be a sort of ‘Boogie-man’ in any Governor-Generalate, but really isn’t the progressive solution quite obvious? Simply abolish the Governor-generalate and move towards democracy. The more directly democratic… or populist the better. If yr not populist by now then yr not paying attention imho.
The net changes everything.
I was just staggered at Allbull’s Press Club explanation of the Fibs budget response delivered by Nelson to the parliament.
It was obviously no more than just a speech. In that context it’s no wonder that the credibility of the contents is paper thin – because it was designed to sound good, which is a long way from being good.
To my mind there should be at least an agreed framework that the Fibs should be working from. Sure, they might be trying to tweak that framework in the post election cycle, but there should at least be a chart showing where they are headed toward at this point. It should be a simple thing for the leader, whomever it turns out to be, to craft a speech based on that framework, and insert a few current issues that add currency to a tried and tested message.
Evidently there is, in fact, nothing.
Nelson crapped on for half the speech about how good he thought they used to be a couple of years ago, followed by what could best be described as an adult tantrum.
Tantrums always gain public attention – you learn that at about 1 year old and grow out of it eventually…
I was also staggered to hear that Bishop is in charge of policy review and development. There’s two possible scenarios here: either she’s been put in charge of organisation to marginalise her possible input, or the whole leadership team is stupider than I gave them credit. She’s an image based born liar, and how anyone expects someone so self interested to be capable of driving national policy agenda is just beyond me.
I’m not so sure, carbonsink.
The Labor party had also to rely on the Libs’ implosion to a large degree to be in a position to win. And I think both Turnbull and Costello are pretty low in the credibility stakes!
So, I guess that,as soon as Government changes hands,it thus means that the newly elected must be treated intellectually,different!? So when it comes to polling,even,if you made up your mind years ago,the companies that do this are selling their research,not letting it public,for the sake of intelligent comment..one must ressurrect some intelligent and inspired matter about Polling companies!? And once having achieved that,suggest, from refinement,the details of the foibles and machinations of the unwanted.For the shorter question,with the even shorter answer will simply not suffice. Eg.” Are we still voting governments out!? Yes!” And then refinement..”Does this then lead to attitudes to policy set by the elected government and the opposition to it!?” “Seems so ..to me!”
Mark, I think its way too early to declare victory on economic credibility. Swan’s budget effort was very tame for a first term government, when we generally see the best of any government. Swan’s credibility with the electorate will evaporate very quickly if there’s another 12-18 months of slowing growth and interest rate rises. Frankly it wouldn’t surprise me if we see Tanner as treasurer before this term is out, and IMO that would be a good thing.
When I say the Libs will have a lot more economic credibility with Turnbull or The Smirk at the helm, its only in comparison with the buffoon they have in place at the moment.
6 carbonsink
I think your analysis holds up under comparison with the past.
I’m not sure the Rudd era will be comparable. There are a number of areas where ground is shifting.
I’m not sure Swans credibility is tied necessarily to Australia’s economic performance in isolation from international factors. It’s got little to do with him, but there are just too many people who now understand how limited the treasurer’s role really is, as compared to the Costello and Keating ego eras.
Rudd will see it as a massive failing if populism consumes his treasurer. Treasury itself will have to fail for Rudd to remove Swan; there’s little chance of that happening – it’s a pretty tight ship.
What is the Opposition’s role? KNOCKING, according to Kerr! Good. Keep it that way! That’s just what the Libs have done at state level. And who says yr Dinkum Aussie hates knockers!!
What one has to consider about the Fed Liberals economic credentials is that they were (a) inherited from Keating’s efforts in the mid-1990s (Interest rates virtually in Elections 1996 & 2007) and earned during a stunning Commodities boom. Howard introduced the GST (originally Keating’s policy) & made the RBA independent. But in the end, he was as bad an economic manager in his last term as PM as he was in his last as Treasurer, and his $63++BILLION in election promises diminished his greatest claim to Best Economic Manager fame – The cumulative $96 BILLION national debt he inherited from Keating. Given cumulative inflation 1996-2007, Howard threw around more in 2007’s “dollar-terms” election bribes that what was left to pay off a national debt acquired fighting several wars, paying for massive infrastructure development and extension in “safety net” health, education & welfare reforms! OK, not even Lib Tragics expected him to deliver on his election bribes – they were, of course, all “Non-Core Promises” – but they were still more that the National Debt he inherited!
What we expect from an Opposition is Alternative Policies on every facet of government that isn’t part of an agreed bi-partisan “Core”. Sticks and stones may break my bones, as the adage goes, but names will never hurt me! What, one might ask, is “knocking” if it’s not “name-clling”?
But where can the Opposition go that Rudd/Swann aren’t staking out as their own?
Where is the World Economy going in the current “Global Warming” paradigm? What are the Opposition policies on this – given that water management and “green” energy are major Australian concerns, and we may lose markets in a Global “carbon trading” environment? It’s not as if there’s a dearth of readily-available info – European governments are well ahead of us.
What is the Opposition media policy – beyond mere “fast broadband provision”? What will its impact be on education (the Global Classroom), on the ways people work (the “Global Workplace”; the “On-line Office”?); on entire industries – printing & journalism, for instance; on local media provision and Global on-line programming displace most national TV & radio networks? When the anarchic Web replaces the disciplined control of information & opinion that Australian print & AV journalism provided (Oz Newspapers & commercial TVs never were pro-ALP) how will the Coalition survive without a very sympathetic media?
What happens when the oil runs out – or the Sheikhs & dictators decide that India, China and other emerging Tigers are a lot more deserving of it that of it that the pro-Israeli states – USA, UK, Australia etc? If Russia & Europe back the Sheikhs – and we’re back in a Cold War, but with the Russians sitting on far more oil than they need – what then?
I could go on & on & on about challenges which appeared years ago and are now already becoming dominant paradigms. Yet I have not seen from the Coalition, either in Government or Opposition, any real hint that its “Mindspace” isn’t the Thatcher/Reagan 1980s – when none of the above was more than a smudge on the horizons of nerds, geeks & greenies!
And they’re being urged by Kerr to do what they’ve been doing for years, Knocking the ALP & childish faction-fighting!
THE MIND CAN’T STOP BOGGLING!
Mark, you’re significantly over-playing the significance of the current opposition rabble damaging the liberal brand. Yes it’s a rabble. We get that. We expect that. We’d be incredibly surprised if it wasn’t a rabble. Rudd’s on a honeymoon, Nelsons on a hiding to nothing (as would Turnbull, Costello, [insert other possible leader's name] if they were leader).
I note a number of left-wing commentators are claiming that the Libs are never coming back – and I understand the exuberism post the slaying of the Howard dragon – but that’s an incredibly naive position. Conservatives might have been gloating over the ALP implosion over Latham, but the serious commentators never for a moment thought the ALP was dead and buried.
What was the 2PP vote last election? It’s possible that the ALP extend the lead next term – but they’re only one good swing away from losing power. What happens if the RBA has over-tightened at a time when the globe heads into a US recession? What hsppens if unemployment starts going up and Australia slips into a late 2009 recession? In those circumstances a 2010 election would be closer than you might think!
In the meantime, Rudd’s going great… he’s appeasing the left by some symbolic moves on Kyote and an apology, but as the budget showed it’s mainly a steady as she goes approach and don’t upset the miracle Australian economy that Howard/Costello inherited from Keating and kept going.
Meanwhile Nelson is flapping around and will be consigned in the hsitory books as a speedhump in the road of the next Lib PM.
It’s not just Turnbull having to sell policies he doesn’t believe in, it’s the whole lot of them. Including Nelson.
Whether they go with populism or principle, they have to be convincing. They have to at least convey the appearance of sincerity, even if every last man, woman and child knows it’s crap.
At the moment they’re trying to sell products none of them believe in including the product that is Nelson. Trying to sell Nelson is like trying to sell ebola virus. Turnbull may not be experienced, but at least he believes in himself, if nothing else.
Yeah, but it’s Turnbull who’s proved totally incapable of articulating anything sensible about the economy or budgetary strategy. And he was incapable of it before Nelson “flicked the switch to populism”. As for $weetie, if he has any credibility left on any subject, I’d be very surprised indeed.
I think some people are missing the nature of the claim made in the post.
Note that the post says “beyond this election”. Not forever.
If you look at all the research on “issue ownership”, it’s quite correct to say that it is deeply embedded – people have perceptions of the Labor party as good at handling IR, and social welfare, health/education. The Libs’ strength has lain in economic stuff and defence.
Latham knew this, but he misplayed the game by ceding the economic ground and not even contesting the Libs’ narrative on the economy.
If the Libs wreck their own economic credibility, what have they got left?
They’ve been trying to keep it alive by “defending Howard’s record” but this had led to such incoherence (ie “inflation isn’t real”) that they’re doing the exact opposite. Now they’ve given up and they’re pushing short term buttons.
Petrol as an issue, for instance, will probably be differently framed by the time of the next election and the election after that – as it sinks in that there are long term factors that mean that oil will not return to low prices, and that indeed it may be good in some ways (climate change) that it shouldn’t. They’re ignoring this and just trying to find something, anything, to give them some poll movement.
These issue ownership perceptions in the election go beyond day to day stuff. It’s not just one budget from Swan – they’ve been building the foundations to take over this political ground ever since KRudd took over, and it’ll be a work in progress.
You have to think longer term.
And also think about how the squabbling and nutty pronouncements from Turnbull and Nelson (or Cossie for that matter) can be resurrected to remind people via advertising when the next campaign comes round.
Ps – go have a look at Andrew Norton’s blog for the issue ownership stuff. He often writes about it and gives a good take on both the significance and the numbers over time.
What worries me is not that the Coalition is leaning towards ‘populism’ in its current attempts at policy.
That won’t last once they retrieve the head from the basket, sew it back on and begin to dress up their aims in economic speak.
The worry is that ‘populism’ rarely appears to actually reflect genuine generally held views of the people.
Rather it seems to be a media translation of the views of powerful pressure groups and big business.
So when the Libs in particular get back on message, it will still be more of the same old, same old.
Quite. And it puzzles me why they’re bothering. Do they really think that they’re going to hit on a single issue that’s going to significantly close a polling gap of, what, 14 points or so? That sort of luck happens maybe once per generation, and I don’t think the ALP under Rudd are sufficiently stupid to make a mistake of that magnitude.
Surely the Libs (or the Coalition as a whole) would be better advised to get theri own house in order now. Get the bloodletting out of the way now, try to find some talented backbenchers to bring into the shadow cabinet (and start grooming some better candidates for the next election) and then see about putting together a coherent policy framework. Not just on economics but in all areas.
After all, while all this is happening, their poll numbers can’t sink further into the great political porcelain fixture. Nor will the government be held to account any less effectively than they are now. And the next election is 2.5 years away so there’s time to at least get into a position where it needn’t be a train wreck. Realistically, it’s 5.5 years to the next winnable election and that should be plenty for a party, as full of talent as the Libs’ remaining supporters claim, to put together a winning strategy.
So why don’t they?
Surely they can’t be so totally fixated on the Newspoll Politics that Howard perfected that they have lost all ability to think beyond a timeframe of a fortnight.
As far as I’m concerned, and many others I imagine, any Lib on the front bench who fronts up to the media these days is a “wolf in sheep’s clothing”…Turnbull just knows how to make his growl sound more sheep-like & he likes to bounce around & perform…whilst Nelson has perfected the miserable bugger on its way to the abattoir look. Bishop fixes you with those hypnotic eyes & baahs for you to hug her…but look closely and you see the claws extend & that “meh meh” transforms into something quite menacing sounding. I reckon the bulk of the crowd are just lambs ready for the slaughter…but fortunately some are not as silent as they used to be. And Libs/wolves not as popular as they once were…so now with bellies growling they try to sneak up. Just like John taught them to.
Surely they are!
Carbonsink “Turnbull has completely botched the job of selling the Libs economic response to the budget”.
Ah the real problem is that they eschewed an economic response altogether to try and score a few cheap headlines and get the shock jocks on side. It has blown up in their faces as evidenced by the latest Morgan poll and the fact that not even the die-hard pro-Lib bloggers on the tabloid news sites can explain how it all hangs together.
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2008/4296/
On the RWDB blogs I visit they all seem to think Turnbull is communist and they’re completely horrified at the prospect of a Turnbull-led opposition.
“On the RWDB blogs I visit they all seem to think Turnbull is communist and they’re completely horrified at the prospect of a Turnbull-led opposition.”
Didn’t the Right-Wing blogs in America throw similar accusations at John McCain just before his nomination? A strategy perhaps to construct another Trojan Horse?
Research helps…tho there’s no accounting for the effects of pride, little boy inside desiring to be adored, blackmail, corruption charges, threats, money & spoils offered, underlying grandiosity of persona, even the possible awakening of the mind & subsequent change to moral compass…and so on & so on. Can we really KNOW a politician?…do they even KNOW themselves?
It’s all a RISK…but sometimes you have to go w/ a combination of gut feeling, knowing their track record, seeing beyond short-term decisions, understanding as much as possible political strategies past & present, be widely read, and HOPE.
And of course PARTICIPATE in some way to have influence…or butterfly effect.
Mark, I agree with your opinion of Rod Cameron. Friday night Lateline with Rod was always compelling.
Yep, it’d be much more worthwhile having more of him and less of Christopher Pyne!
I don’t think that all the mucking around at the moment will do much long-term damage to the Libs image with the general public. If they get their act together at some point people won’t blame them for a messy year just after losing government.
As I see it the real problem for them is what it does to recruitment. At the moment there are a bunch of first year uni students who were signed up by Liberal clubs on O-week who are probably awfully hard to drag along to meetings. Many of the potential Liberals will be studying commerce, and presumably they’re seeing some sort of disconnect between what they’re learning in lectures and what is going on federally.
Likewise, it won’t be that long before the party is out searching for credible candidates for the federal election and its hard to imagine what they’re going to say to potential recruits to get them inspired: “You’ll probably spend a lot of time on the opposition benches having to spin a lot of stuff you know is nonsense because we reckon the public is so stupid its the only thing that will get us up there” is not a great sales pitch.
Rod Cameron…didn’t he like Workchoices? See: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21716554-601,00.html
Yeah, Cameron only looks good compared to Christopher Pyne or Graham Morris. And Virginia Trioli.