Double dissolution triggers
August 3rd, 2009 by Mark Bahnisch | Published in Politics | 75 Comments
A report from today’s Australian:
KEVIN Rudd has quietly assembled at least nine potential early-election triggers and is about to rain them upon Malcolm Turnbull to undermine his rival’s already brittle leadership.
When parliament resumes next week, the Prime Minister will demand the opposition back legislation across a range of areas it has previously rejected, knowing he could use a second rejection to trigger an early election.
It’s hard to know what to make of this. While much public discussion has focused on the possibility of a double dissolution over climate change, anyone who’s been paying a skerrick of attention to federal parliament should have known for some time that there are a range of bills which have been rejected once. It’s what happens when you have an opposition which can only ensure its own unity by voting against almost everything.
Most substantive of the bills which will be resubmitted is the reforms to election law, particularly the reduction in the limit for undeclared donations to $1000. Is this the sort of issue the Coalition wants to take a stand on when Anna Bligh’s woes in Queensland have given new life to the call for full public funding of elections?
It’ll be interesting to watch. Because the other dynamic here is that any attempt by the Liberals to fend off the prospect of an election will also stimulate the same sort of disunity around some of these measures that has been so noticeable and more prominent on climate change. And, in the meantime, they’ve still got Tony Abbott parading his book around and reaping the reward of having various columnists tout him as a potential Liberal leader…
Update: Antony Green points out that the government doesn’t in fact have nine potential double dissolution triggers.
If Rudd wants a DD, he’ll know that it really matters what the grounds for it are because if people think its all just a pretext they’ll punish him at the polls.
The ETS is overwhelmingly his best candidate – the electorate knows it really matters and is broadly in favour of the rejected legislation, and it will not merely split the opposition but do it so vehemently they won’t be able to play happy families for the campaign.
So I reckon the other things are just secondary so he can talk about opposition “obstructionism” in general in the campaign. I don’t think he’ll want to make them the actual DD trigger.
I don’t know about that, DD. Hawke made absolutely nothing of the Australia Card as a trigger for the 87 double dissolution, and indeed the legislation was dropped.
Makes sense. Rudd’ll beat the shit out of Turnbull. Turnbull’ll fall and the next monkley will front up to bat, ttoal confusion. They’ll look like losers and Kevvie’ll have another three years.
.
Call it for next year and everyone’s gonna be on the dole. :)
I agree with derrida above and find the obsession with a possible DD by both oppositions, the OO and the COALition, puzzling.
I believe Antony Green has shown that a DD has no advantage for the ALP in terms of timing, seats won in the Reps nor seats in the Senate compared to a normal election soon after.
Whether we have a DD soon or a normal election shortly after the COALition is heading for demolition on current form.
So there is no gain for the ALP in a DD and, as derrida points out, some risk.
So why the fear and paranoia by the oppositions?
OK the ALP is probably stirring the pot a little but the reaction by the oppositions seems to be exaggerated.
There seems little doubt the COALition’s fear is palpable.
Apparently Malcolm virtually begged the Business Council to give him some amendments to the ETS and asked them to support that sock puppetry outside Parliament because without that a DD could be called and that would be a disaster for the big polluters. Or something along those lines in essence anyway.
Soi the fear seems real.
Maybe its pressure from marginal MPs.
A DD now would, on current form, force many, maybe as many as 40 based on the latest Newspoll of 57:43 , COALition MHRs and Senators into early retirement.
Thats a lot less bums on seats.
It doesn’t matter greatly what Bill or Bills trigger a double dissolution. All that matters is that the public believe there are good grounds for an early election. The blockage of a Bill or Bills would be part of this, but he’d probably tie it into broader stuff about an alleged need for ‘certainty in a time of economic uncertainty’ or an alleged need for a ‘renewed mandate’ in the face of the historic challenges ahead,’ etc.
As long as they can convince most people they aren’t just cynically going to an early election, I think it would make a lot of sense for the government to go early with a double dissolution. Apart from anything else, it would make the Senate far less messy for them. The Greens will almost certainly hold the sole balance of power in the Senate after the next election, regardless of whether it is a full-Senate or a half-Senate election. But a double dissolution would bring that situation about much sooner, rather than having to wait until July 2011.
I agree it is hard to see how the government can “quietly assemble” potential double dissolution triggers, when it is all happens in the full light of day, every time the Senate rejects a piece of legislation.
Yes, I’m not suggesting that a double dissolution is likely. What’s interesting is the Liberals’ fear of one, and how Rudd is using that as a political tactic.
And, as I’m saying in the post, there’s another political benefit for Rudd – if Turnbull tries to get his troops to vote for some of these bills, they won’t necessarily follow, which further undermines his leadership.
There is no value for Rudd in an early election.
It would cut across his schtick of de-politicalisation which has been obvious since election.
And so far he’s been successful with it (is he still on his honeymoon?), although helped immensely by an incomprehensible Opposition.
The risk (although low) of a campaign being waged on Rudd’s personal ambitions as a major distraction (I’m sure the MSM would weigh in heavily here), and given that the alternative – to fight the (full term) campaign with issues of your own choosing – is just 12 to 15 months away.
I’m surprised at Antony Green’s analysis that there’s no potential gain for the ALP in a DD. I’m not a psephologist and bow to his superior talents in this area, but I would have thought
a) very little chance of losing any seats
b) some chance of strengthening / narrowing margins and even picking up a couple of seats
c) having a simpler bargaining proposition in the Senate
d) comfortable election win & ability to then focus on second term and get on with it
e) chance to destroy the only remotely credible leader of Libs in Turnbull
would all be good reasons for the ALP to think about going for a DD.
Throw in that they must be genuinely fustrated by how obstructionist the Libs have been as well.
Of course I rather think that the ALP will be incapable of seeing the benefits in a DD delivering a Senate with the Greens in sole balance of power, simply because there are strong elements in the ALP who hate the Greens more than the Libs, and hold passionate and irrational beliefs about how the Greens work (‘won’t neogotiate’ etc.). Of course the most worrying of the ALPers who think this way are in the hard right of the Party, which means they are much more comfortable moving to the right in negotiations to get things through the Senate with Lib support, than they are having to *shudder* perhaps be forced to the Left. In the meantime significant parts of the ALP left can’t stop sulking about the Greens existing long enough to be able to see the internal advantages to them of working with them.
Personally I think a DD would be justified because of how obstructionist the Libs have been, would welcome the ETS as a trigger for reasons given above by others, and of course as a Green would love to think we could end up with BOP.
I can see real advantages for Rudd in a DD — for a start he gets to negotiate with people who are willing to negotiate instead of herding the cats as the saying goes. It’s very unlikely Fielding would get back in, but if he managed to, it would be at the expense of a Liberal.
Turnbull might even get a benefit out of it because many of the Liberals who would go are his enemies and he’d have to move to the party to the centre to avoid annihilation.
On the downside, if the DD were called on the basis of the ETS we’d be stuck with that, which would be hideous, though I suppose he could withdraw it — unlikely though. Maybe the coalition could helpfully block it with the Greens, force a joint sitting and if the numbers for the LAP weren’t too big in the Reps it wouldn’t pass and then we could get something better.
I’m drawing a long bow aren’t I?
All that matters is that the public believe there are good grounds for an early election.
.
Yep Kevvie’s real concerned to restore the good name of the ALP after Paul the Liar tarnished it. So he really needs someone else to make him do what he really wants to.
.
There is no value for Rudd in an early election.
.
A sure fire winning of three more years before the most serious effects of recession are felt? Not having to fight another one until things start getting better assuming they do? Second Lib Leader bites the dust and the Liberal Party turns into a great big dogfight?
.
No. No reason at all.
An even more extreme example is 1983 where Fraser had 13 bills as part of his DD trigger, but not only did they play no part in the campaign, I think people would be doing well to remember what even a single one of them was. (Of course Fraser’s defeat in the election rendered their subsequent history moot.)
I can understand why Rudd would want the next election to be a double dissolution. It gets him out of a situation where he has to depend on Fielding, the greens and Senator X to pass anything the coalition opposes alot sooner no matter when he runs the election. This doesn’t mean that Rudd needs an early election, just a double dissolution.
None of the proposed triggers look like automatic winners. Some are just too trivial and some may work against Labor, particularly if the opposition suddenly starts coming up with attractive alternatives in areas such as climate change.
A double dissolution may help the coalition as well. Part of what is stuffing them up at the moment is that it is too easy for them to block legislation. They would be better off if they could oppose legislation without the risk of being exposed as hypoctrites if they back down or negative blockers if they don’t.
Hmm, further searching shows that the DD triggers did play some part in the 1983 election campaign – when Fraser indicated that he did not intend to reintroduce the bills to parliament if he were returned.
(On a mechanical note there is some question over the validity of 9 of the bills as triggers, sales tax changes that the Senate “failed to pass”, but which were actually on the Reps notice paper when they lapsed.)
I see no evidence that Rudd is bothered by Senate obstructionism or even that he particularly wants a more tractable Senate – having problems with the Senate provides him with a convenient excuse for inaction. The gains from a DD would be, as others have pointed out, the renewal of his term in the Reps & probable destruction of Turnbull. Question is whether he thinks that’s worth the risk & the cynical impression it would give – given his conservative temperament I’m guessing not, but it could go either way.
Fran, I’d like to draw another looong bow, if I may?
I’d like to compare Turnbull’s position to that of poor old Carps (our former WA Premier). Opposite sides of the fence, so to say, but both struggling with disruptive elements behind the scenes, which are giving the electorate the irits.
Carps got crucified by the electorate, at a time when the rest of Oz was voting ALP, because we were fed up with the shenanigans. He should have stuck to his guns, said “they go or I go…” and then he would have been respected. He may have lost the election anyway, depending on whether he managed to regain control of his wayward party. At least he could have gone out with his head held high for trying to fix the problem.
I reckon Turnbull should forget about the DD sabre-rattling, and get on with arguing for what he believes in. If he loses, it would be a respectable loss.
By comparison, if he trys to weasel through with no integrity, saying any damn thing to cling onto power by his fingernails, he may get thrown out at the election anyway. Aussies that vote on principles and might have supported him, will give him the flick, with little chance of a comeback like Lazarus/Howard on a triple bypass.
Fran, to expand on Charles comments, it’s not clear that Rudd wants to negotiate a lot of the time, particularly with the Greens.
Antony Green’s analysis: http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2009/07/double-dissolution-versus-halfsenate-election-which-would-be-better-for-labor-in-the-senate.html
I really can’t recommend it enough.
John D @ 12
This is an argument for a normal election where the quota for the senate is significantly higher. A lower quoter makes it easier for minors and independents to get in.
Adrien @ 10
Except the government has to be careful that a DD doesn’t leave them needing a half-senate election soon after the DD. Off the top of my head this isn’t so much of a worry with a DD early next year as it would’ve been with a DD this year. Antony Green has some great posts about the complexities of a DD at his blog.
Elise … Carps nearly won — and if he hadn’t gone early, might have done so. The Opposition was in chaos. Three months of that later with Barnett in retirement …
He also made no attempt to bring the Greens solidly in behind him. I think Turnbull’s mistake has been to leave the impression that he’s waiting for people to relaise they made a terrible error kicking out the Libs rather than drawing a line under the scoresheet and saying — here’s what we think should happen.
He would alienate people who would have no choice but to vote for him if he took the party to the centre. Where else are the serious reactionaries going to go? Posing as Rudd’s technocratic wonkish opponent would work better for him than playing the silly populist nonsense and ranting about “ALP debt” and “cash splashes”.
Robert, I do take Charles’ (and your) point. In theory, he should prefer it, but being the Macchiavellian conservative that he is …
Wishful thinking on my part crept in …
But back on topic…
Even though a DD would be a high stakes option for the government, what with Australians possibly not liking voting and all, but ever higher stakes would be for the Liberals to give Labor a trigger. A trigger doesn’t have to be used, I believe Howard racked up a few in his time, it’s the possibility of one that is doing the Liberal’s collective heads in.
It’s a measure of how slow this processes is that the report in the paper isn’t about Rudd having DD triggers but him having potential DD triggers. Now what was that about some Labor PM wanting to do the Member for Wentworth slowly?
I’d love to see the Greens (or for that matter Socialist Alliance + Greens) holding the balance of power in the Senate. but I suspect it might be the stuff of the Ruddbot’s nightmares.
And however critical I may be of Labor at times, I still want them to win the next federal election. (After all, it’d take a miracle for the Greens to get a majority in H of R at the next election, wouldn’t it?)
Just sayin’.
Fran, Barnett is not too smart. He wanted a ditch from the Kimberleys for water, he wanted Chinalco to get a controlling stake in Rio, and he would like to offer Australian strategic resources (particularly natural gas) to totally foreign-owned enterprises, amongst other lousy ideas.
I can’t believe that Barnett deserved to win, except by default. Even my liberal-leaning better half wouldn’t vote for him. He’d rather vote Greens, …and that is really saying something!
Barnett should offer his head for CCS experiments – there’s a sizable black hole between his ears, which could be usefully filled with waste material.
Myriad @ 8
Re: a, b, & e – These are issues more related to the House than the Senate. I would argue that reasons for a DD are all about the Senate; given how the GFC and govt stimulus has played out i really can’t see Labor losing the 2010 election. They’re not completely irrelevant, they’re just not quite important enough.
c I think is quite true to the extent that they would want to get rid of Fielding. Personally i’d want to get rid of him, if i was say Penny Wong, so i wouldn’t have to waste time hearing the nutty climate ‘science’ he brings to the table.
d It’s a non issue; the sooner this one’s won the sooner they start campaigning for the next.
It’s worth repeating here what themissinglink said above: If Labor wants a simpler Senate needing support only from the Greens or Coalition to pass legislation (and its not clear they do), they would probably be better off going to a half senate election. This is because, to be elected a senator in a half-senate election you need a quota of 14.3% of the vote, whereas in a DD you only need 7.7% of the vote in your state.
This significantly lowers the bar for micro parties. Taking out friends Mr X and Mr Fielding (if, in fact, Mr Fielding exists):
1) Mr X who received 14.78% of the S.A. vote in 2007 would probably get two senate seats in a DD, but only one in a full senate election.
2) Mr Fielding, who received 2.52% of the Victorian vote in 2007. Let’s assume his primary vote doubles due to his higher profile, giving him 5% of the vote (BIG assumption I know). This is still a long way from the 14% he would need to get a seat in a half-senate election, as he wil not be able to coast in on Labor preferences in the next election as he did in 2007. However, in a DD election enough preferences to reach 7.7% of the vote is plausible. If Fielding’s personal vote still doesn’t get him a quota in a DD, it is likely that his preferences would swing to another conservative micro-party (Christian Democratic Party much?), unless Labor can swallow up another whole quota, leaving few preferences sloshing about.
Smart or not Elise, Barnett was the best the coalition had and he only just got there. If your SO preferred the Greens it’s a fair bit the righties preferred CB. Who else could they have had three months later?
How many leaders would they have had by then?
FMARK@23
Here’s what A Green says of Fielding’s chances, and the reasoning is sound:
I don’t see his vote going up (quite the reverse) and it’s hard to see a rationale for a preference deal in any state between FF and the ALP in 2010.
As Antony points out though unless the coalition hands the ALP the ammunition for a DD they can’t do it even if they wanted to, and they probably won’t want to even if they have it. The main beneficiaries of a DD would be the Greens, mostly at coalition expense, but in a couple of cases, possibly at ALP expense. If they go before August 2010 they lose time off their terms as well, though they get thgeir senators early.
And if the ALP vote goes up in the Senate over 2007, there’s an even better reason for having the half-senate.
thewetmale: “I think is quite true to the extent that they would want to get rid of Fielding.”
Another good candidate for CCS experiments? He might even nominate himself, since he likes to lead the field in crazy ideas?
Fran Barlow: “Smart or not Elise, Barnett was the best the coalition had and he only just got there.”
A regrettable summary of the “depth of talent” in politics over here…
The problem with Antony Green’s analysis is it limits itself strictly to the Senate race. It is true that either a half-Senate election or a Double Dissolution would result with Labor + Greens having a majority of similar size, but a DD would see more Greens seats within that overall centre-left majority.
But the analysis ignores the fact of timing. A double dissolution right now could capitalise on Turnbull’s poor polling (which may have improved by the spring of 2010) in the House of Representatives, massively increasing the Labor majority and crippling the Liberal opposition, as well as destroying Turnbull’s leadership. It would also simplify the Senate politics a lot earlier, as a half-Senate election would still leave Fielding in the balance of power until July 2011. Whereas a new Senate could give the government a clear choice between working with the Greens or the Coalition, as opposed to now when any deal with the Greens also needs to rope in Xenophon and Fielding.
Of course, Antony Green points out that Rudd may be happy to leave Fielding in his position, he still has managed to govern relatively effectively and it may not be in Labor’s interests to increase the power of the Greens, even if it makes their job easier in passing things through the Senate. As Charles said above, there’s little evidence that Rudd is having great trouble with the Senate, so I think any DD would really be an excuse to sweep out a bunch of Liberals from the House of Representatives.
The timing issue works like this:
-A double dissolution up to June 2010 would see the need for another half-Senate election by June 2012.
-A double dissolution from July 2010 onwards would not see the need for another half-Senate election until June 2013.
-You cannot call a double dissolution in the last six months of the House of Representatives term, which I think means you can’t call one after about August 2010. So there’s a very narrow window to have a double dissolution in the second half of 2010.
-You cannot call a half-Senate election before July 2010, and any half-Senate election would not take effect until July 2011.
I also think that even if any scenario sees the Government maintain a solid majority in the House of Representatives, the scale of that matters. The fewer Coalition MPs, the harder it is for them to be a functioning Opposition, and the greater a task it is for the party to threaten the ALP in future elections.
The problem with Ben Rau’s analysis is the government doesn’t have a DD trigger. That makes the timing of an election now to take account of Mr Turnbull’s bad opinion polls constitutionally impossible.
And the other problem is that if the ALP gets a big majority in the Reps, some of that majority will be hard to keep in line. Some of them will have been elected on the votes of disaffected Liberals and may get it into their heads that they’d like to pander to them. Still others will get ideas about all sorts of grand schemes.
From Rudd’s POV (indeed any leader’s POV), the best situation is a workable majority who feel dependent enough on him and constrained enough by the fragility of their position to become voting cattle in the House who mind their Ps and Qs in public.
A majority of 10-20 meets that test very well whereas having a rump opposition does not.
Ben, the DD can be held between 1 July 2010 and as late as 16 October 2010 if the government is prepared to wear a 9 week campaign. But i’d reckon a DD trigger used in early September would suit the government just fine. Assuming it has a DD trigger.
That’s true, Antony, which is why the post is titled ‘Double dissolution triggers’. We’re discussing the possibility of such a trigger arising, at which point all of these other criteria come into play.
I’m not saying your analysis is wrong, it’s just that people can give it greater significance than what it actually has. It’s an analysis of the possible results of a Senate election, not an analysis of issues of timing in the polls or potential impact on the House of Representatives.
Also, while I agree that Turnbull’s strategy at the moment seems to be to avoid a trigger at all costs, and rationally that makes sense, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think that, considering the disunity and ideological puritanism of some in the Coalition at the moment, Turnbull could fail to maintain that strategy.
I don’t think Rudd is risking anything of great value by delaying. The more he messes with the opposition, the more messed up they seem to get. Antony Green indicates why a DD is a risk, and rightly concentrates on the Senate as no-one at the moment seriously expects the coalition to improve its position in the house.
Although I expect A Narrowing just before the next election, it’s going to have to come back a long way just for coalition not to lose House Seats. From that position, why would a pragmatist like Rudd go the unpopular early election option when the numbers themselves indicate that all other things being equal, the outcome will be worse than a House/half Senate election.
Assume that Rudd thinks he will win next time around – he should delay it as long as possible because Australians prefer full term governments and because that gives him a longer window until election 2.
I must be in the minority. I believe that Rudd will be true to his word and actually serve his full term. There will be no prior double dissolutions and the election will be held in the range of dates, it is currently due.
A lot of wasted column space on this issue, I think.
The Rudd government is in for the long haul.
A half Senate election will guarantee the demise of Fielding and re-elect only one X.
It will also limit the Greens to three extra Senate seats maximum, at the Libs’ expense, and while they will hold the balance of power, it won’t be by a margin of six or so seats as a DD would guarantee them.
When Bob Brown ceases to lead the Greens their electoral appeal and significance will be greatly reduced. That will come after the 2010 election.
Labor have the prospect in 2013 (assuming, as is now the case, that the Liberals will remain only with their rusted ons as a constituency), of having control of the Senate, or at worst, of having to deal with a Green balance of power of only one Senate seat. Labor’s legislative agenda would be guaranteed passage.
Both Lab and Lib,but mostly lib, will lose out by going to a DD, and the Lib’s will fold on most if not all DD triggers because of this anyway.
Why should Rudd even be considering a DD at this stage except to scare the bejesus out of Turnbull?
Have look at the last three early elections in Australia – NT, WA and QLD. NT – the ALP won by the width of a cigarette paper, WA the ALP lost, QLD the ALP just won. In all three cases the Coalition started well behind in the polls. Based on these events, I extrapolate that the voters don’t like the politics of going early and punish the Government, no matter how well they are polling before going early.
From a Coalition point of view I understand why they are gun shy, but my view is that the earlier the next election is won or lost the earlier the following election is. Malcolm doesn’t want an election because of the polling and he wants the ALP to suffer through the next budget, which has got to be ugly – the Govt has to either cut spending, raise taxes or increase the forecast debt levels, or all three. All will be electorally tough. And add the possibility of rising interest rates.
On the specific topic of a DD election with an ETS flavour – most of the public has yet to grasp the true hip pocket costs of the proposed ETS, let alone the environmental futility of it. An effective campaign on these issues would surely have some impact, although there are many in the Coalition who are convinced by the consensus, especially Malcolm, so it is unlikely that this would occur, except from the Nats.
I say Bring it on, but I don’t have a seat in Parliament at risk.
Except Ben, what trigger? The Australian this morning talks about 9 bills. It then lists 6. Two of those six are the alcopops tax xhanges which the opposition says it will now back. The Safe Work Australia Bill is still at the second reading in the House. The Horse Disease response Bill was defeated in the Senate on 4 Feb 2009, the government has yet to re-introduce it, and I find it far fetched the Opposition would block that again to give the government a trigger.
The Australian Business Investment Partnership Bill (or ‘Ruddbank’) was negatived on 16 June. That is a possible trigger, but let’s see what happens to that.
As for the Electoral donation legislation, the bill blocked in the Senate was introduced in the Senate so the House didn’t vote on it so it is not a DD trigger. The government has introduced an amended bill in the House, so it can’t be paired with the defeated bill, and that new bill is currently at the 2nd reading on the first passage.
So, there is only one credible bill in the Australian’s list that might be a DD trigger, ‘Ruddbank’, and I await to see how that one goes. I’d imagine with a bit of pressure the Opposition will just let the bill through.
Recent examples at state/territory level might suggest going early is a bad idea electorally, but the dynamics at federal level are different. IF Rudd gets a DD trigger – and there’s a reasonable chance he’ll get at least one over the next 6 month sor so – then he will go early if he thinks it will improve his position relative to going later. Any government would do the same (a good argument for fixed terms in my view, but that’s another debate).
That is by far the main criteria for any government. The makeup of the Senate is an important, but very much secondary issue to the major parties, compared to getting into and staying in government.
However, in as much as the government’s thinking is influenced by the Senate numbers, the analysis by Anthony Green (and others) shows that the Greens will almost certainly get the sole balance of power in a halfull Senate election. That is all that matters – I doubt the government cares at all whether or not there is a bunch of micro parties or independents in the next Senate. All that matters is what will add up to the 39 seats needed to get anything through the Senate, and in any scenario ALP + Green will equal at least 39 after the next election, and that would undoubtedly suit Labor better than the current situation of having to stitch together the support of 3 different groupings. That doesn’t mean Labor likes the Greens better than Family First or Xenophon – it just means it is much easier for them to negotiate an outcome if they only have to deal with either the Greens or the Coalition. I think the chance of getting such a situation sooner rather than later would be icing on the double dissolution cake for Labor. But they still wouldn’t call a DD unless they liked the cake to sart with.
As long as you’re here Andrew, could you (briefly) explain what possessed Meg Lees to pull that stunt post 1998 with the G&ST? Didn’t she figure this would make your lot look forever like untrustworthy bastards before anyone likely to sympathise?
How clever was that?
I’ve always wanted to know because it made neither instrumental nor ethical sense. Surely rational conduct has to tick at least one of these boxes?
I am interestd to hear what Mr Bartlett has to say on the matter but I am pretty sure Ms Lees clearly explained herself – the Coalition had been elected with a Mandate of getting the GST through. The Dems negotiaited a raft of concessions and supported the amended legislation on that basis.
When Bob Brown ceases to lead the Greens their electoral appeal and significance will be greatly reduced. That will come after the 2010 election. (Benedictus)
Not sure of the evidence for this.
The general trend of support for the Greens is driven by a range of factors that go well beyond personalities.
Variation in the Green vote at state and territory levels around that broader trend seems to have been influenced by issues at play in those jurisdictions and the effectiveness of local candidates. Performance at the local government level has shown a steady rise in Green candidates returned.
Come on Razor@40
Nobody believed that guff …
The Democrats were elected to the senate on a mandate to stop the GST and the Telstra sale so that people could vote in Howard without his least popular policies.
Even then, most people still voted against the coalition in the lower house that election.
“When Bob Brown ceases to lead the Greens their electoral appeal and significance will be greatly reduced.”
I used to think Bob was a major asset to public perception of the Greens, but when you look at the survey data, the number of people who really like Bob is only very slightly greater than the number of people who really dislike him. I’ve had more than one person come up to me over the years on the hustings and say they’d vote Green if Bob wasn’t the leader.
Certainly a lot will depend on who replaces him as the leader, but his departure will probably be a zero-sum.
d
Darryl
If so that’s rather sad. I’ve not been tempted to vote since 1977 but Bob Brown is undoubtedly the most decent fellow in the whole parliament.
Fran @ 39 & Razor @ 40. I’ve writtn on that before in a range of places + its rathwe off-topic.
However, no Senate party worth its salt would ever support something solely due to shallow ‘mandate’ claims of another party. The only way to have a definitive absolute electoral mandate for a single policy is to put it to a referendum.
It may seem implausible to you, but those Democrat Senators who decided to vote to bring in a GST were strognly influenced by an argument that it was a politically clever strategy which would boost the party’s support and credibility.
To be fair to Andrew.Murray, he always genuinely thought there were good policy arguments in favour of a GST. I can see some merits in that argument, even though I don’t agree with them all. But if the party had thought the GST was a tolerable thing, it would have been a good idea to make the case for it before voting for it in the Senate.
Anyway, short answer is most people were swayed by an argument that it was tactically smart to agree to pass the GST and indeed that the party’s credibility would be harmed if they didn’t vote to pass a GST. The goldfish bowl/hothouse/altnertive universe of Parliament House can do some curious things to one’s reasoning.
Maybe you’re lucky to be out of the hothouse then Andrew. Clearly it can unhinge people.
I should say at this point that I was never opposed in principle to a G&ST. It might well have been implemented in ways that were equitable. It need not have been regressive.
The trouble was that the Democrats campaigned on integrity and as soon as they saw a chance of playing in the big pen, they opened their legs and started bartering. From that point on almost all of my somewhat liberal friends viewed your party with unremitting disgust. Some started voting Independents or Greens and even the ALP.
Fran@44: BB may, or may not, be the most decent fellow in the whole of parliament, but don’t forget Christine Milne. I reckon she’s quite the quiet achiever, and there’s a better chance of a Milne-led greens being able to negotiate with Rudd, who’s spooked by Bob’s talent, individuality and authenticity. Which is not to say Christine isn’t talented, individual and authentic, but she’s not a bloke, and therefore won’t make Kev feel or look small and weak. Which is also my theory why Kev forced and keeps Garrett in a straight jacket: he, or what he could stand for, is perceived as a threat.
Socialist Alliance holding the balance of power? Innerestin’. Entertaining anyway.
Christine Milne is pleasant enough — I met her on Q&A a while back and she seems intelligent and articulate but rather a little too invested in solar panels for my liking.
Adrien @ 48,
I don’t have the stats easily to hand, but from memory the percentage of Socialist Alliance votes increases a point or two every election. And given the vagaries of how votes are selected for the senate, I reckon its a possibility in about nine years time or so.Not a certainty, a possibility.
I find it incredibly unlikely that the Socialist Alliance could win a Senate seat (or even an MLC) without dramatic changes within the party and the electorate. Where would the preferences or primary votes come from?
Paul Burns@50 …
Now don’t get me wrong .. I’d love to think that SA could entertain serious hopes of a senate seat but it’s always easier to increase one’s vote in percentage terms from a low base than a high one. If you don’t have a party and you set one up, then the first vote you get is a 100% increase. If other parties drawing from the same pool disappear, perhaps you will get some of theirs or if other parties in places you can’t campaign but that might attract the same vote get people along to vote then you may well benefit indirectly from their campaigning. There’s some talk of lowering the voting age to 16 and that might help too.
But I suspect getting up near 14% is going to be radically difficult because there just aren’t enough identifying socialists in the country. Since about the 1980s, it has been the wrong side of about 3%, and many of us simply don’t vote. Perhaps your best shot is to find someone with a bit of charisma and profile and trade on that.
Fraternally and all that …
BR @ 51,
greens/other leftwing parties/other environmental parties/people who are really pissed off at the ALP/people who really really hate the Liberal party/some unions … give me a bit of time and I could probably think up some more.
Fran, I always live in hope. Think its got something to do with my Catholic upbringing.
You and me both Paul …
This might help put to bed the idea the government has a potential nine double idssolution triggers floating around.
http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2009/08/does-labor-have-nine-potential-double-dissolution-triggers.html
Thanks, Antony. I’ll add a link to the post.
Actuall Mark, you said that the story was wrong because I said no such thing. I’m not inclined to go around describing journalists stories as ‘wrong’. There are sources for that story who are responsible for its core content, and editorial prominence has been given to the story that is also someone else’s responsibility.
Ok, Antony, I’ll change the wording.
You must have had a very, very Catholic upbringing to live in that much hope.
I know I did, Rebekka, but I made a break for freedom at 14 and never looked back
I meant Paul, thinking people are going to vote socialist!
Well I probably would Rebekka, if it didn’t involve endorsing the current caricature of democracy and eventually passing on preferences to enemies of socialism (eg the ALP, the Liberals etc)
Paul, in order to win a seat the Socialist Alliance needs to do one of two things:
-Either massively increase their primary vote long enough so that they can pick up substantial preferences from Labor or Greens. I’m talking 5, 6, 7% at a bare minimum. Even in a DD we’re still talking 4% or 5%.
-Win by preference harvesting. This means winning small amounts of votes from many different parties. There just aren’t that many left-wing microparties, they are almost all on the right, the Greens have very effectively swallowed up all of those votes. While they could receive preferences from Greens or Labor if those parties go just over a quota, this wouldn’t be much.
These things aren’t going to happen.
Ben Raue@63
Quite right … which is one reason why voting is a complete waste of time for anyone not supportive of at least one of the major parties (I include the Greens in that)
I think that Antony Green has made it pretty clear on his blog that a double dissolution election is not in Labor’s interests. Labor does not have, and never has, an interest in sharing power (with the Greens Party in the Senate). The idea that they would have a DD election just so the Greens Party could get a couple of extra seats, so that Labor + Greens Party senators could get things through, is laughable.
Exactly Alex@65
It’s easy to fall into the trap of projecting one’s own desires onto others. Doubtless there are many of us here who’d prefer to see the Greens hold the balance of power, because many of us are more sympathetic to their policy set. But Kevin has one primary aim — to stay in power and that always only requires doing just enough and no more than is necessary to get there.
It’s like those cricket games where the proessionals on the field know they only have to avoid getting out and average a score of about 60 runs per 100 balls to win and that if they keep doing that the other side will be forced to give them chances to score to you in order to force them to take bigger risks. The crowd wants them to go at 120 balls per hundred, because it’s more exciting, but the percentage players know that at the margins, this rate increases the chances of a debacle in which you throw away a won position.
Kevin knows that if he doesn’t rock the boat he will get two terms and probably a third and become an ATG ALP leader. But to do that he has to keep tension in the position so that he can maintain the kind of discipline over his side that will force them to rely on him as manager. As long as he can hand out largesse, even those who are dissatisfied will have to bite their tongues because the alternative is less appealing still.
Like almost all successful politicians though, he could hardly care less about what happens after he has left the building. Not his problem. That’s somebody else’s problem.
Ah, yes. I still live in hope of creating a better world – a socialist world.
As to my Catholic upbringing – mass every day and twice on Sundays. benediction on Friday mornings – at school. I even went into a juniorate at age 13to became a lay brother. (Being a cripple I couldn’t became a priest. (Actually all i wanted to do was get away from my wicked stepmother – she was straight out of Hansel and Gretel or Cinderella.)
Ran away from home at 17 and never went to church again except for weddings, funerals etc. Fell among Communists, atheists, anarchists, unionists, ALP members etc. Sure you know the story. :)
A lucky escape, Paul.
I think you are misstating things a little.
Of course the ALP would prefer an option where they had the balance of power in their own right in the Senate. However their is no such realistic option. The ALP sharing power in the Senate is inevitable. The question is what power sharing arrangements are more favourable to them.
The fact is that either DD or half-Senate are likely to end in a situation where the Greens have sole balance of power, and so the ALP needs to negotiate with either the Coalition or the Greens to get things through. It is also the case that this situation would clearly be tactically preferable to the current arrangement.
The reason (on Antony’s analysis) why a half-Senate election is more favourable to the ALP is not because the Greens would be improved by a DD. Indeed Antony’s analysis suggests that they would only be marginally assisted by a DD (depending on whether the Greens could squeak over the line in either NSW or Vic in a half-Senate).
The reason is that micro-parties of the right would be advantaged by a DD, with the potential of that gain coming from the ALP in NSW and Vic. Thus the outcome will be more stable from a half-Senate. A DD runs the risk of producing a situation much closer to the current arrangement.
So it is not that the ALP dread sharing power with the Greens, because that is inevitable. It is that such powersharing will be more stable after a half-Senate than after a DD.
Nice story Paul
You were a lot more Catholic than I was (unintentional irony). We only went on Sundays and then only when we’d been playing up and a sanction was needed.
DI (nr @ 68; Fran @ 70.
Ah but I got over it quick. Mind you I did drop into a church now and then when I was trying to seduce very good Catholic girls as they embarked on the hopeless task of trying to re-convert me.
With all those free loving bohemians I used to hang around with they didn’t have a chance. (Nor was I ever successful in talking them into sins of impurity.) Ah, well, them’s the breaks.
I don’t think so. It may be in Labor’s interest to go to an early election. It is not in Labor’s interest to go to a double-dissolution.
I believe that in the event that the Greens vote against the ETS, preferring instead the status quo – doing nothing – it will work against them. The Green party voting against green legislation will not sit well with a large percentage of the population. I don’t believe that Labor’s ETS goes far enough – but it is a start, and it can be tweaked and tuned as more and more countries come online with their own systems. The most difficult thing is to make a start which is in evidence all around the world. The childish, petulant Greens, particularly Christine Milne, are carrying on and shrieking that they want all their own way, or none at all. Shades of the Howard days. An ETS is a complex undertaking – there are so many sides to it, all with their own agendas and, whilst Labor’s plan is not perfect, it’s an ETS designed to accommodate all concerned. We are running out of time to do something and we certainly don’t want to be left behind by the rest of the world in implementing our system. The longer it takes, the worse and more expensive it will be. Baby steps now with bigger steps to come after the Copenhagen conference.
I don’t disagree with that. My disagreement was with your explanation of why this is the case, specifically the statement:
Labor does have an interest in such power-sharing insofar as such power-sharing is inevitable, and insofar as power-sharing with either the greens or coalition alone would be preferable to power-sharing with the greens and independents together.
Re: #39 & #40 – Democrats & GST.
Once again the myth is perpetuated. Passing the GST was not what did the Democrats in.
This is evidenced when one looks at the Results of the 1998 Federal Election (Prior to GST), the 2001 Federal Election (AFTER the GST) and the 2004 Federal Election (After significant Democrat infighting – including destroying the party’s biggest asset – its leader at the 2001 Federal Election Natasha Stott Despoja).
House of Reps Results – Democrats
1998 Federal Election – 5.13%
2001 Federal Election – 5.41% (Up 0.28% – After the GST!)
2004 Federal Election – 1.24% (Down 4.17%)
Senate Results – Democrats
1998 Federal Election – 8.45% (4 Seats)
2001 Federal Election – 7.25% (Down 1.2%) (4 Seats – matching 1998 – after the GST!)
2004 Federal Election – 2.09% (Down 5.16%) (No seats)
Looking at those results – it is clear that Stott Despoja managed to maintain much of the Democrat vote at the 2001 Election (Yes, it is true she did not support the GST and that explains some of her appeal, but she had a wider appeal than just being against the GST. Many voters would not have known of her opposition to the GST and would only have known that “The Democrats helped pass the GST”)
Still, Stott Despoja’s popularity meant that most voters had moved past the GST in relation to the Democrats at the time of the 2001 Election.
This is proved by the Democrats vote increasing at the 2001 Election in the House of Reps – Once Again – After the Introduction of a Democrat-assisted GST! and the maintenance of the 4 Senate seats up for re-election.
What really did the Democrats in – and did for me for instance and many I know – was the bitter infighting that took place in 2002-2003 against the leader!
Sure, the elected members of the Democrats might not have always agreed with their leader, but how they did not appreciate the fact that they maintained their electoral position after the introduction of the GST – at the 2001 Federal Election – is beyond me.
Could not Democrats see that the only reason their “brand,” their party, had been preserved after what many regarded as a betrayal (but not at that stage a complete betrayal) at the 2001 Federal Election was because of the electoral appeal of their leader at the time of the 2001 Election?
It frankly staggered me that the Democratic Senators set about destroying Stott Despoja’s infant leadership – and in the process their own electability.
As the Election results show – their destruction was not wrought by the passage of the GST, but by their own infighting!