The last couple of releases of quarterly Newspoll data saw a theme emerge about Labor’s supposed weakening outside capital cities (and then a bounce back, which suggested that the huge amount of prognostication spun about the first quarterly poll was all in vain). Possum has done the obvious thing and had a look at the data with an eye to diagnosing the Liberals’ weakness in mainland capital cities. Obvious, but not the road taken in the MSM, where polls are poured over just for any sign of Labor softness, or for their implications for the Liberal leadership narrative du jour.
Possum’s post is an excellent piece of analysis, and all of it should be read. However, I want to highlight this bit:
The Labor primary vote appears to have stabilised in the capitals between 45 to 47, giving a two party preferred of 58-60.
Something the Coalition might want to pay attention to federally is the way the Queensland conservatives managed to play themselves out of electoral success for 20 years. The Coalition (and later the LNP) in Qld allowed Labor to dominate the Brisbane city vote in much the same way that Rudd is doing now with capital cities across Australia.
Labor cannot lose while it has a strong city vote. But worse, the stronger Labor becomes in the cities, the fewer metropolitan representatives the Coalition ends up with in a given Parliament – forcing the policy and leadership choices the Coalition takes to any later election being mostly designed and supported by non-metropolitan interests.
That generally alienates any metro voters that have even a slight interest in political modernity – which usually happens to be most of them.
Lawrence Springborg as LNP leader getting flicked the bird by Brisbane voters for 3 elections on the trot now is a good case study. If the Coalition loses too many metro seats this year, their political problems will have only just begun.
I think that’s very much to the point, and it raises the broader question of how successive defeats can skew the composition of a parliamentary party, and the knock on effects. That many moderate Liberals would face defeat on the current polling figures is an observation often made. But it’s also interesting to consider what a more regional and rural Liberal party room would look like, and how this would impact on the leadership, campaign themes and policy.
They’d speak more slowly, and chew a lot more straws.
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
LOL@ David Irving (no relation).
I think it was Paul Keating who once said “If you’re not living in Sydney, you’re just camping out.”
Queensland conservatives managed to play themselves out of electoral success for 20 years.
I know it was only two years, but the Borbidge govt shouldn’t be forgotten, nor the subsequent success of One Nation.
Of course, Brisbane has literally doubled in population since then, thus increasing its weight in the state and internal demographics, but nonetheless I think that term is instructive in highlighting how quickly things can change if the public is sufficiently motivated.
Regarding the make up of the Liberal Party, we’ve all seen Doctor Strangelove.
The Greens are the other player here; those metropolitan numbers must strike joy into their hearts.
Perhaps we would see deepening conflict between the Libs and Nats, as the Libs seeking to stand candidates in more regional seats in order to maintain survival. Obvious troubles for the Coalition.
On the Greens vote: not big enough rise to give them much joy in terms of House of Reps but 25% of the increase is coming from the Liberal Party – suggesting that as this group of Liberals disappears the core vote is going to get more rusted on in character and liable to more strongly cheering on the oppose anything strategy. giving the appearance of strong community support on the climate change anti ERTS for example when it is simply the support base mobilising.
The biggest jump by a substantial order of magnitude in Green support is in the 18-34 age group.This is significant for the long term in that it suggests the possibility for the emergence of a larger base green vote over the longer term given the tendency for early voting patterns to create a predisposition. Those who are suggesting a ceiling for the Green vote of around 10% may not be right.
Yes, if it persists, it might be significant, Doug.
Patrickg @3: “Of course, Brisbane has literally doubled in population since then…”
And it has changed in character, I reckon, from a big country town to a cosmopolitan capital city. It feels and acts differently now.
Less chewing straw; more cafe latte and SSB.
Perhaps that will be matched by a long-term trend in the voting patterns?
Oh I completely agree, Elise. The city I spent many weekends of my teens and younger in is well gone. Every time I go back up, I’m shocked at how much bigger, better, diverse, etc. it is. Those huge bus corridors – woah!
I remember when Thai and Viet were virtually the only decent food you could get. Korean restuarants etc were unheard of.
This said, picture, if you will, an opposition that wasn’t completely shithouse in each and every way. They would get in with a bullet – just like Rudd did when people got sick of Howard’s fuck ups and felt they had someone to vote for.
Indeed, here in NSW, Barry O’Farrell’s nascent election campaign is basically to shut the hell up at all costs. There is no way Labor will get back in, and it’s still a completely shithouse opposition…
I’d suggest the Liberal city vote is comprised heavily of hicks anyway. One can live in a city, “earn” a lot of dough, live in a leafy suburb – and still be a redneck in political outlook.
Rx @ 9, would those wealthy, leafy suburb dwelling, political rednecks be the exception or the norm?
There is one way; the Liberals could spill Barry O’Farrell. It’d be madness, but they’ve done it before and there are rumours that they’re planning to do it again.
Elise,
(Gotta be careful to get the upper and lower-case Ls correct in the following …)
There’s very little about today’s Liberal Party that would excite liberals.
The fabled Doctor’s Wives vote would be a small minority.
I think overall the party wouldn’t have very many liberal voters.
There is, however, much about the LP (no, not this LP!) that would appeal to rednecks, whether they be city or rural rednecks.
There’d have to be a considerable number of such that support the Liberals. A majority? Your guess is as good as mine, though it wouldn’t surprise me.
It’s most ironic that Tony Abbott was, bar none, the Liberal Party figure who moved most agressively and ruthlessly against Pauline Hanson, especially in the legal matters…
…yet he is the one who would now appeal most to Hanon’s former supporters, and is inheriting their votes. I guess Hanson supporters don’t have sufficiently long memories to even realise their new “leader” is the one who did the most to drag down their idol of twelve years ago…
According to the AEC, One Nation’s national share of the vote was just a tick under 9% in the 1998 election (a *long* way ahead of the Nats and Dems!). I guess the Libs are heading for a permanent share in that range if they stick with the current strategies.
But then again, I don’t think Turnbull’s done with them yet…
One other problems the Libs face in NSW (I don’t know the situation in other states) at both a state and Federal Level, is the rise of the Independents in rural and regional areas, who, once they get in, if they’re any good, stay in. From what I can gather, these Independents are inevitably victorious in National Party seats, either because they have massive popularity on a local level (like Richard Torbay here), or because they have a high profile and previously a good reputation as reps who get things done, and are standing against Nat candidates who even National Party votersa think are absolute gooses, (like Tony Windsor federally here in New England).
Labor usually doesn’t bother to seriously challenge them, as they know they’d never win the seats anyway. (I’m talking generally here, not about the 2 New England politicians.)
Queensland as well, Paul. Bob Katter at Federal level, and there are three very well entrenched independents in the state parliament who’ve been there since 1998 (one is ex-One Nation, holding Joh’s old seat).
Ben@11: There are no rumours, only wishful thinking. You assume that more of NSW Labor would be a good thing or somehow adequate.
Mercurius@13: Abbott wants those voters to vote Liberal, not One Nation, so no irony there except in the Morrisette sense. There were always back-channel negotiations between Oldfield and Abbott. The NSW Liberal Right is convinced that for every vote in the centre there are just as many on the Christian fringe and/or certain ethnic groups. They’re wrong, but this is another thing they have to work out of their system.
Paul@14: What you’re describing there is the slow death of the National Party and the rise of a permanent third force in NSW politics, which will determine the conditions under which either of the city-based parties governs.
Good to know, Mark.
Andrew E,
I agree, though we have had NSW state independents around for a long time now. OTOH, from what I can work out their numbers seem to be increasing. With the Hatton experience in NSW thirty odd years ago in mind, this can only be better for the State.
I’m curious to know how people think this might affect the Libs/Nats federally, in light of the problems the Libs could be having in the cities. Am I too optimistic in thinking, eventually, we might get rid of the bastards forever?
Andrew E @ 16 — the suggestion that there were always back-channels of communication between Abbott and Oldfield is fanciful in the extreme and, in its casual way, highly defamatory. As a close observer of their relationship before the defection and afterwards and a foundation member/ fundraiser for the group that put paid to Hanson,I invite LP readers to ask themselves :”Is the suggested collusion plausible in the context of Oldfield’s premeditated betrayal of Abbott’s trust as his employer or consistent with what’s on the public record?”
Well, Paul would have to say that being a Westie politician. The phrase had been used much earlier by an Easts’ footballer back when they could speak in sentences “if you’re not living in the eastern suburbs, you’re just camping out.”
Paul knew this, as he moved east yonks ago. I used to do home care cleaning many years ago, in that row of terraces in Elizabeth Bay just prior to Paul buying in. A lovely grand terrace house. One of the others in that row had been the venue for the notorious Roslyn Social Club, an illegal casino operated by Perce Galea from the 1950′s onwards “catering for the gambling elite….it offered one of the most palatial set-ups seen in the city to that point.”
As to the topic at hand, Andrew E is right, they clearly seem to believe that there are a ton of city voters on the right up for grabs (wot, who didn’t vote Liberal in ’07 (!?) or maybe they were all just momentarily confused by Rudd’s ‘neo-social conservatism’) and possibly more foolishly that the Howard Battlers were actually rusted-ons, again momentarily dazzled by the new kid on the block. Of course, the Battlers were always aspirational wind sniffers who voted Hawke 4 times or their parents did. “Show us the money”, is their main rallying cry with “good schools and hospitals 4 us” as a follow-up. Beyond that, everything else is marginal.. or rather regional/rural in the case of the current Federal Liberal Party.
Well with this analysis, at least I’m excused for not knowing any Liberal voters. Thought it was just me…
I do know some Liberal voters but they’re very strange.
“I do know some Liberal voters but they’re very strange.”
Most of the real Liberal voters I’ve met, and I here I mean those who have always and will always first preference the Liberal party, are wealthy. Over to you Chris Pearson.
Paul, perhaps so.
The fact that there is no “independents’ party” structure makes it hard to ensure a ready supply of these people who have sufficient stature in their communities to get elected to state parliament. Nonetheless, there are commonalities and they do look to people like Tony Windsor for advice and inspiration to varying degrees.
I think there are >10 independents in the current NSW Legislative Assembly. I can see there being 20 or so, with the remainder held by the ALP and Libs – which of these governs depends on the ability to best satiosfy the rural independents, similar to the role played by the ALP before Fusion in 1909.
Pearson: it was a statement, not a suggestion, and if a writ arrives I’ll let you know. It isn’t my fault you’ve been had, I’m just pointing it out.
Andrew E, re Independents.
Well, that could be interesting. Of course the upshot of a situation analogous to the Federal Parliament before the 1910 Fusion doesn’t exactly fill me with glee. Its been a very long time since I’ve done a detailed study of Federal politics pre-Fusion. Should that situation occur again, I would imagine we would see the creation of a new anti-Labor coalition that would supersede the present one, which would probably include some conservative Independents.How effective that new coalition would be is, of course, very open to question. For starters in many ways Labor is now a centre right liberal (not Liberal)party, possibly comparable to Deakin’s Liberals before the Fusion, rather than a genuine socialist party. The current colour of Labor Governments can only undercut the conservative alternative, probably because the conservatives would have no choice but to move further to the right to achieve political differentiation (which they’re already doing anyway). Its that prospect of an alternative government of the far right, further right than they are now, which perturbs me.
The only saving grace in such a case is that the Australian electorate has no prediliction for extremes of either the right or the left.
My point is that you could well see a Labor state government supported by independents better able to secure particular deals (a highway upgrade here, a hospital there) from them than from the Liberals.
I’d suggest that NSW Labor state governments are not particularly liberal at all. Federally, yes; other states (esp. SA), maybe; NSW, not really.
The Libs don’t have to move right to differentiate theselves from Labor, whch is my beef with Abbott and his enablers. They certainly won’t win by doing that.
As long as these independents are concentrated outside the major cities the likely result is not having them in balance of power and a position to determine who forms government. Instead its near permanent Labor majorities, briefly punctuated by coalition governments when ALP incompetence/corruption gets too on the nose. If the Libs want to stay in power for long they’ll bring some of these Independents into cabinet, whether they need the numbers or not. However, I doubt they’ll be smart enough, and most of the time their governments will be as hopeless as late term Labor ones, with the added problem of a mutual unease with urban voters, leading them to be quickly turfed out.
It’s possible we’ll see more Clover Moore style independents eating into Labor’s hold on urban electorates, but I’m not convinced. It’s a lot harder to gain a profile in the city, and the bigger seats grow the harder it will be.
Andrew E,
Indeed. I think what you suggest is already happening in New South Wales. Despite all the predictions of a Keneally Catastrophe come next year, I’m not convinced. My bet is Clark and his minions will end up shooting O’Farrell in the foot somehow. Enough to scare the voters anyway.
Just a reminder: Bracks formed government with the support of three country based independents.
A Federal liberal party consisting of Abbott, both Bishops, Tuckey, Mirabella, Stone, with no moderates left to politely tell them they’re bonkers.
Hmmmm, tempting.
Elise and patrickg, I first visited Brisbane as an adult in September 1987. In a matter of weeks Joh Bjelke-Petersen had resigned as Premier. I moved to Brisbane in September 1988. Fifteen months later the Goss Government was elected. LIkewise all the progressive sociocultural changes you mention postdate my arrival in Brisbane. Post hoc ergo propter hoc?
Speaking seriously, one interesting and significant aspect of One Nation’s strong performance in the 1998 State election is that it wasn’t confined to regional and rural Queensland. It also did surprisingly well in suburban areas (e.g. around 25 per cent in staunchly proletarian Rocklea where I was campaigning). An important question (at least historically) is how much of this support was based on agreement with at least some of the sentiments One Nation was expressing, how much was based on “outsiders’” empathy with a perceived fellow outsider in Hanson, and how much was an outright protest vote regardless of the policies or personalities involved.
Mehitabel #28, you left out Fierravanti-Wells, Abetz, Minchin, Bernardi and Alex Hawke – high in fruit and nut content, as a rurally ghettoised Liberal Party could be expected to be.
Paul
after the few I mentioned, I became too scared to do further research….
Paul,
The sturm and drang coming from Clarke etc over the past six months only happens when his power slips. When his power is in the ascendant, he makes pronouncements in his own name and gloats over the defeat of his opponents. O’Farrell is unusual in that he knows exactly where the bodies are buried within the organisation and can beat Clarke at his own game: someone like Turnbull can’t and doesn’t (didn’t?) think it was important, Brogden could not rise above being a factional player and Debnam was too dumb to appreciate the consequences of being owned to the extent that he was.
I also disagree with the idea of a “Keneally Catastrophe” – it wouldn’t be a catastrophe for NSW Labor to be relieved of responsibilities they are not capable of executing, and you can’t blame Keneally because she is so insipid.
The inner workings of the modern Liberal Party sound endlessly intriguing, Andrew. I suspect they will keep future political historians going for decades.
Just one, or perhaps several questions, if you know. What bodies? Where are they buried? what would be the consequences of their resurrection?
I’m aware in the past the Libs have had some very peculiar associations on the far right, but I thought they’d cleaned their act up considerably/ (and, while I acknowledge their possible influences I don’t really buy the Opus Dei stuff. First, it sounds like classic leftie propaganda, and secondly, why on earth would Opus Dei bother?
Oh, and thirdly, as I understand it, after the Great Split there was a Vatican prohibition against the Church meddling in Aussie domestic politics.
Isn’t Stephen “I rule the internets” Conroy a member of Opus Dei?
35
Jacques
No
“The guy is a toxic bore,” : the Fibs are hurting and know they need a rabbit!