As John Quiggin suggested it might, the Garnaut Review report has begun to reframe the debate on climate change policy. Based on an inspection of the weekend papers, it’s also started to reframe the political analysis, with some of the punditocracy remembering that an election doesn’t have to be held until 2010. (Planet Janet, of course, is one of the more prominent exceptions to this rule.) So, suddenly, the fate of Kevin Rudd doesn’t depend on one by-election in a safe Nationals seat or next week’s Newspoll, but how he responds to the big challenge of climate change. How long that perception might last is another matter. But while we’re talking about the long term, Possum Comitatus has compiled a fascinating cornucopia of data on the long term demographic challenges for the Coalition’s vote, building on some work by political scientist Ian Watson which was discussed in a post here a while back. Possum also has some unsolicited advice for the Liberals in responding to climate change:
So the Coalition has to start appealing to much younger demographics or they will likely find themselves in permanent opposition.
Something for them to keep in mind if they start trying to play political games with the emissions trading system and climate change – issues with large support in the younger demographics.
Here’s the dilemma for the opposition. Does Nelson keep trying to maximise the Coalition’s shrinking base in seats with older and blue collar demographics just to give himself constant tiny boosts in the meaningless preferred PM numbers stake and to stop the poll line for the 2PP from being eroded further? (To keep himself alive in the leadership stakes…) Or do the Coalition accept reality and come on board the bipartisan ETS bandwagon so as to position themselves in the centre? The most likely choice, based on most of what we’ve seen from Nelson since November last year, is a non-choice, trying to straddle both sides of the coin. But a “sort of support, but sort of oppose” position on a major issue is a dead end one, as Kim Beazley might recall.
Damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t. No-one amongst the yoof is going to take his support for an ETS seriously, and it’ll piss off all the old curmudgeons who think it’s a pinko plot. He will gain f-all votes and lose a few from the oldies. If this age trend is real (and not a product of some hidden other trend we don’t know about), the Coalition are buggered for some time to come, methinks. No-one is going to trust them when they switch on policies which appeal to da yoof, and when they do finally get around to a serious change there will be a bunch of silly old buggers who are about to retire, don’t like the new pinko policy direction and have nothing to lose by rocking the boat.
I would say that the ALP can’t rely on this – they still need to avoid incompetence and corruption. But then I think about NSW, and how the coalition are so useless they can’t even find a drover’s dog to replace Iemma (and when they did have a half-viable candidate, they drummed him out on trumped up charges because he was too liberal).
Possum’s advice to the liberals is idiotic. In fact, anyone who talks about “permanent opposition” is an idiot. The wheel turns. Left and right.
Essentially his advice is to not be an opposition – specifically in a policy area where the government is likely to be hoist on its own petard. No opposition would get on board a policy as destructive (nationally as well as electorally) as ETS, any more than I’d expect the ALP to get on board WorkChoices.
And WorkChoices, such as it was, was a better policy than any ETS/Renewable Quotas!
It wouldn’t matter what was going on demographically – Federal Governments have long life spans. Howard 11 years, Hawke/Keating 13 years, Fraser 7.5 years, Menzies/Holt/Gorton/McMahon 23 years, Curtin/Chifley 8 years. Only Whitlam breaks the pattern.
This is where the Republicans have been very effective, turning traditional Democrat voters into Republicans through values. Unfortunately for the Libs electoral success (and fortunately for policy outcomes), that simply cannot happen in the most secular democracy in the world.
Peter Brent at Mumble has a good example of what may have happen last year if the Coalition had fought the election against Carbon Emissions Trading, playing the values card (and also the economic card) like they did in 2001 with illegal immigration. It is interesting at least.
The problem for the Coalition is if they move too far to the right, they will be (correctly) seen as crackpots, and if they move to the centre, there will be no clear differentation between the ALP and the LNP.
It’s more nuanced than that Craig – the Coalition cannot win, as in it is mathematically impossible for them to win without boosting their primary vote in younger age groups to make up for the large losses that are occurring as the pre-boomers die out.
That’s fact.
What I said was “If the trends that have been happening for the last 21 years continue for the next decade, by 2018 thereabouts, the ALP will simply become unbeatable with TPP results coming in with a an expected demographic floor of around 55%”.
That’s true too. That’s just the mathematics of demography if the long term trends continue.
So the Coalition has to start shifting their political stance towards younger demographics in order to win an election.
The problem here is that the the two pieces of polling we have on ETS and climate change show that it’s strongest support is in the very demographics the Liberals need to boost their vote in to ever win government.
You can read about it in Crikey today.
Food for thought – Climate change drove younger demographics to vote ALP in the election slightly less than Workchoices, but only slightly.
Possum, Craig Mc doesn’t do nuance. He’s not the best at fact, either.
Just watch the ALP fall into line with the Liberals on emissions trading/caps/etc/ and petrol. It’ll be infuriating (for many)!
Anyway, Possum’s overstating it with a classic, “if trends continue”. They won’t. Or rather, they will, demographically, but the Liberal Party, being an organisation whose primary purpose is to gain government, will change. It actually won’t require that much in policy terms. And it’s not as if they’re wedded to some overarching narrative or ideology. John Howard, social-democrat, proved that pretty conclusively.
Howardc, the Liberal Party is already occupying the centre, and has done for some time. Only proper lefties thought they were particularly right-wing in government. The Liberal Party will continue to occupy the centre, sharing it with the ALP, and will simply have to wait for the scandals and mistakes of the Rudd Government to pile up, and for boredom to settle in. It’ll be a while, I reckon.
BBB
Possum: Each generation adopts conservative values. That’s why we’ve had Liberal governments more often than not. The electorate today is perhaps more conservative than it was even twenty years ago. It won’t have to swing far to bring the conservative government back (but I grant it would need to be a better unit than the current opposition).
Today’s touchstone policies will become tomorrow’s millstone policies far quicker than their proponents imagine. The Libs would be stupid to hitch rides on the worst ones like you’re advising.
HC’s point about governments generally being long-lived is quite valid though. It takes a lot for this electorate to kick out a government they tolerate, if not love – even Whitlam won reelection. My point is that ETS/Renewables are probably that “lot”. Watch your wishful demographic assumptions evaporate in the face of economic conditions.
Why, Craig? Last time I looked the ETS hasn’t caused economic meltdown in the EU…
Ultimately, much as I hate war analogies, the same applies here. People in earlier generations have accepted much more significant short-term pain (literally including death in those cases) for what they saw (or were convinced) was long-term gain.
Just because we have the most selfish demographic in Australian history doesn’t mean … oh.
josh, apart from failing to cause economic meltdown, the EU’s ETS has also failed to actually reduce carbon emissions. I suspect the latter has a great deal to do with the former. You could put a tonne of carbon into the atmosphere for about 0.10 euros late last year. Wait until you actually have scarcity in permits, then you’ll see some proper damage.
BBB
BBB – it’s a question of perception. And the people who don’t vote Liberal are more likely to hate them and consider them evil than the people who don’t vote Labor would about the ALP. We just consider them misguided.
If the Libs can’t get their act together on the easy stuff (like recognising that gay people can live in a monogamous relationship and as such should be afforded the same rights as a heterosexual couple), then a lot of people won’t be listening when it comes to the important stuff like solving a global problem like climate change with global solutions. They are going to appear stuck in the past, while the ALP is able to hide their reactionaries in a Parly Sec job.
Possum makes a good point, and unless the Coalition finds a way to infiltrate the teaching profession broadly, then LNP-haters will keep filling impressionable young heads with mistruths and hatred about people who just think things should be done differently.
And what are they pricing carbon at? Last time I looked they’d effectively priced it at zero for the same economic reasons.
Somehow I think Japanese bayonets carried a little more urgency to the general population than the spectral bogeyman of GW will to anyone whose job has been non-spectrally ETd out of existence.
As I refer to my Catholic upbringing: “It didn’t take”. Generations of left-wing teachers haven’t made much of a dent in the nation’s conservatism, and I suspect it won’t in the future. How much did anyone here want to be like their teachers?
Possum makes the point at 4 which has to be taken seriously, at least by the Libs, and those who want a political system which benefits from (at least) two electorally valid alternatives.
FWIW, I’d add that the notions of ‘left’ and ‘right’ are losing value in the suburbs, if they’re not gone already. Like Labor had to do, the Libs now are forced to reassess not which place in an arbitrary political spectrum they have to occupy, as in for the sake of that, for these are effectively just clothes the party is wearing, but to strip their party naked and feel the chilly wind of reality. They have to find, or invent again, what they actually stand for. And then construct that – dress it up, too – so it is attractive.
At present they are merely prancing here and there.
Their problem is their whole constitution represents an ideology which is slipping further away from where people are going. Written for all to see, even today, is evidence of how vague and lost is their relationship with ‘the environment’. ‘The Individual’ and ‘Enterprise’ – as promoted by them in recent years – as core principles have proven not to represent a cogent or cohesive future for the Australian citizen. CC has moved mainstream, and the Australian people found the Libs vacant.
CC is the future. ‘The Individual’ and ‘Enterprise’ and ‘Environment’ as Liberal Party principles can certainly play an alternative role in our system, but on past proven evidence it has to be rebuilt.
While the vast majority may not give a toss for constitutional principles, these are the things which inform and drive the way the Libs go about their decision-making (when not in full blown populist mode) in the confines of their cabal. Time too long in power saw this seep into public view and the people didn’t like it.
Their problems are not about netting a public sympathy, nor dressing as to present, but about deep, deep beliefs.
I don’t know that one person can solve this for them. Turnbull would have the intelligence, pragmatism and temerity to attempt it, but imagine what he’d be up against. Aged, deep forces all but if not determinedly immovable.
The attempt might capture some younger people. But imaginably what will happen is they’ll muddle up something to provide as alternative, with their only chance of re-election being a Labor failure.
Robert – pardon my ignorance, but CC?
“And what are they pricing carbon at? Last time I looked they’d effectively priced it at zero for the same economic reasons.”
Carbon prices are 30 Euro/tonne.
I saw this coming years ago when 10-12 year olds went out on the street and protested against Hanson. Back then CC (climate Change) ie global warming, wasn’t really on the political agenda, except for the Greens. If I’d been a grandfather I would’ve been proud. Most of them were voting age at the last election.
And if anyone don’t think Howard got it wrong on the Aborigines, look at the national reaction to the Apology.
The present Liberal recalcitrance over global warming will only ensure Rudd will be in longer, so long as he gets climate policy right, whatever the dissatisfaction some of us might have with them.
For anyone who thinks there isn’t a difference between the Libs and Labor, compare the Howard years with the Hawke-Keating years. Or,for all the pissing about with alcopops and nude child art photography, Rudd with Howard. Believe me, for all of the ALP’s faults there’s a bloody big difference. Give me Rudd any day.Especially on global warming. And the kids know it.
BBB:
A$0.16/tonne.
Spiros:
A$50/tonne. I don’t think so. Anyone care to explain the difference?
Or, every generation gets to fuck up the country once. Now it’s their turn.
“I saw this coming years ago when 10-12 year olds went out on the street and protested against Hanson.”
Really? I thought they had that demographic pretty much sewn up.
Howie,–CC. That’d be climate change.
Robert, you live on some other planet, (but we knew that)
The Individual’ and ‘Enterprise’ – as promoted by them in recent years – as core principles have proven not to represent a cogent or cohesive future for the Australian citizen.
No, maybe not, but try getting the Australian citizen to see that.
Happy birthday for tomorrow, (BTW) (FWIW)
Web blanket, the Australian citizen did see that, not only in LNP policy but also in attitude, and voted the buggers out.
Possum, any reason why you’ve started in 1987? I haven’t looked at the data in the detailed way you have, but my impression from bits and pieces is that this trend has been going on since 1966.
It’s pretty significant if that’s right. Turning around a 21 year trend will be hard for the Libs. Turning around a 42 year trend is damn nigh impossible.
That’s just when Newspoll, and the Newspoll data started.
I’ve got a whole bunch of Gallup polls floating around somewhere that go back to the 60’s. I cant remember if they had any age breakdowns in them, but I might try and remember where I put that DVD and have a looksee!
Others disagree, but I’m with you FS, a trend running for at least 21 years takes more than a bit of luck to turn around. It’s serious business.
For those interested in the blood pulsing through the veins of the Liberal Party, you can find it here.
For those interested in viewing the way the Liberal Party dresses up for the electorate, you can find it through the link to pdf here.
Here’s an excerpt for your consideration, placed directly from them to you on a CC thread:
Some factors:
The Liberal Party (being the determinant in the Coalition) confer relevence upon this enough to hold changes of 2002 as remaining. As if to say nothing beyond that time is of import. And to say that, fair enough, the electorate is really not interested in this stuff. But somehow, strangely,the Liberal Party website has been updated since then, often, and weirdly things have disappeared or have been rearranged within close proximity of media attention.
‘The Individual’ and ‘Enterprise’ are there in all their glory and relevence.
‘Environment’ is getting harder to find as time goes on.
Neither MSM nor their consumers care for this. Yet it’s a factor whispering away in the quick-be hallways, backrooms, and bent social ears, by their very own admission.
Given this is a Coalition thread about CC, there’s a couple of links to add to an understanding of where they are at, as told by them, for the immediate now, at least.
Present trends won’t continue. That’s the key point. I don’t know what will change either, but it will.
Because that worked so well for Kim Beazley. That said, the Libs are on the wrong side of history and will have to get over their current policy, the same way it took them over a decade to crawl out of the wreckage of an anti-Medicare policy position.
Are the demographic changes for the Nationals any guide? As tree-change factors change the demographics of regional centres, and climate change and sustainability issues start to be a real issue for farmers, it seems that the Nationals are only going in one direction.
Possum, do you have any interesting stats in this regard?
Not sure I agree with the second part, FS. At some point the past becomes ancient history.
Yaz – the Nats seats get really messy on demographics.
There’s really two types of Nat seats, inland seats and coastal seats, and each have their own demographic forces operating (although Mark Vaile’s seat of Lyne is coastal, but acts like an inland seat).
The coastal seats tend to be getting slightly younger as not only the sea and tree change effects come in to play, but also because the movement of young people from regional coastal areas to metro areas seems to be, in net terms, slowing down. Either not as many are moving, or they are moving to other regional areas – and there’s also a growing number of younger people moving from metro areas into regional coastal areas.
The inland seats though are mostly stagnant seats, ageing slowly, relatively low population growth – sometimes negative growth, fairly significant mvoement of young people out of the area etc – although growth centers like Orange for instance give that basic pattern a bit of a hiccup.
I think the Nats approach to envrionmental issues, especially in those inland seats, pretty much reflects the views of the overwhelming majority of their constituents. There’s plenty of anecdotal evidence around that the Nats are finding it hard to get the support of the new professional breed of younger farmers and agricultural professionals. These guys and girls are university educated, highly economically and environmentally literate and have very few delusions about the nature of modern farming reality. The Nats peculiar brand of head-in-the-sand agrarian socialism doesnt seem to wash much with them.
I dont know if there’s much of a chance of those folks changing broader local community perceptions any time soon about sustainability issues in the inland seats, even if they start assuming community leadership roles. Maybe reality will start to bite – but it’s really rare that the population of a community that has been voting up to 70/30 for the Nats since forever would ditch that habit, even despite any amount of evidence in front of them that might suggest they ought to.
Without a big influx of new population, I cant see a lot of those inland seats changing vote patterns much at all. The competition their seems to be more between Nats/Libs/conservative independents rather than anything else, and probably will be for a long time.
FDB @ 18,
Ah, the joys of YouTube.
Possum, (warning: anecdotal evidence alert) my son and daughter-in-law are in that demographic of young, bright, university-educated farmers. However, I think you’re right that people like them won’t make much difference in the near future, as Mt Gambier (a Lib seat, btw, we don’t hold with Nationals in SA) is mostly inhabited by Uteman.
I realise I’m in danger of sounding like a broken record, but I think the voting decline is merely the visible signal of a far more problematic trend for the Libs: The decline in active members and supporters.
Voting trends can be turned around in a few years if you come up with sufficiently attractive candidates. However, to get genuinely talented candidates gets harder and harder the fewer active members (or affiliated non-members)you have, and that can’t be turned around nearly as quickly.
In most cases if you don’t grab someone when they are at uni and draw them into the party’s orbit then its going to take something big to get them on board. Even when you do pick someone up it can take a decade before they’re ready for a leadership role.
The troubles of the current Liberal party date, to a large extent, to pissing off a generation who were in danger of being sent to Vietnam. They may have only lost 10% of the potential voters, but my guess is they lost close to 50% of the potential candidates/party workers and it was all down hill from there.
Feral Sparrowhawk @ 30,
And they’ve probably made it even harder for themselves by bringing in Voluntary Student Unionism, because the Student Councils, Associations and Unions where many budding politicians learn the ropes, regardless of political orientation,no longer exist. Whereas Labor still has the Unions. Or am I ascribing too much influence to student politics, which after all, is a cocoon within a cocoon within a cocoon, and mostly irrelevant to the real world.
There will always be outlets for passionate young fools of any ideology to get together and rant (and mate).
Another huge issue for the conservatives for the foreseeable future is the state of their finances. By all accounts they’re in penury compared to Labor. Of course, when they get closer to government they will see some money rolling in.