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.

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.

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.

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.

Not sure I agree with the second part, FS. At some point the past becomes ancient history.

Possum, do you have any interesting stats in this regard?

Or do the Coalition accept reality and come on board the bipartisan … bandwagon

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.

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:

Every act of government is to be judged by a simple test: Is it in the best interest of Australia and Australians?

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.

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.

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.

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)

Really? I thought they had that demographic pretty much sewn up.

You could put a tonne of carbon into the atmosphere for about 0.10 euros late last year.

A$0.16/tonne.

Spiros:

Carbon prices are 30 Euro/tonne.

A$50/tonne. I don’t think so. Anyone care to explain the difference?

If I’d been a grandfather I would’ve been proud. Most of them were voting age at the last election.

Or, every generation gets to fuck up the country once. Now it’s their turn.

Carbon prices are 30 Euro/tonne.

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.