There’s lots more reading about the Queensland election over at Pineapple Party Time, but I thought I might take this opportunity of pointing out that a plausible argument could be made that The Borg sunk his ship today. We’ll see, but if that turns out to be true, it has some very big implications for oppositions running against governments during an economic downturn. And particularly for oppositions running against a popular first term government, I’d suggest.
Life, Culture and Politics from BrisVegas
Larvatus Prodeo was an Australian group blog which discussed politics, sociology, culture, life, religion and science from a left of centre perspective. more»
If voters believe that the Borg can slash $1 billion each year for 3 years off service delivery while doing more with less and paying back state debt, and while not sacking any public servant or cancelling any of Anna’s infrastructure projects, then they will deserve what they get.
What a klutz! I think he has just shown himself de-necessary!
If you actually listened to what the Borg said yesterday, he said the billion dollars worth of savings will fund his election promises, and if any is left over it will go to paying of debt. He indicated that the expenditure cuts will be targeted at the higher end of the Public Service with particular attention on the marketing and advertising budgets. There is nothing incompetent or unpopular about implementing savings or efficency measures.
As for Marks comment ‘And particularly for oppositions running against a popular first term government’. Where have you been for the last 10 years. Havent you seen the latest polling. Give it a break.
I’ll go along with not readily believing the first part of Brian’s statement. i.e. slashing $1 billion per year without cutting services or public servant numbers.
But the bit about “deserving what they get” is over the top. Springborg is guilty of many things, but running a more hopless govt than the current one is not likely to be one of his sins.
Jamo: if you think there’s anywhere near a billion dollars a year available for slashing in “marketing and advertising”, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
“Popular first term government”?
I thought this was the article about Anna Bligh’s debt-addled government in Queensland, not Barack Obama’s US administration.
Jamo,
I think Mark might have been referring to the federal level….
Robert Merkel. Through PR cuts and efficiency measures plus the natural attrition program. Mate, they’ll get $1 billion easy. Its only 3%. Exactly what Rudd and Barnett are doing.
As for Big Bob, the article is about Qld but point taken.
The first stage in the Seven Stages of Grief is Denial. As Queensland state government finances move from being in surplus 12 months ago to being the most indebted state in the Commonwealth, and still seeking to borrow even more and trying to ignore the debt, I would say that both Bligh and Springborg are at Stage One (Denial) at this stage.
Mark says:
I doubt it. State govts traditionally “run against Canberra” and it does them little harm. Especially in QLD.
I am sticking with the electoral and economic cycle theory of partisan alignments. After four largely undistinguished terms of office its probable that opportunistic ALP voters are going to fall off, into the laps of the LNP. Particularly now that the economic cycle is also in its recessionary phase. So I predict an LNP victory in the QLD state election.
But the LNP victory margin will likely be narrower than cyclical theory predicts on account of the ALP being Natural Party of Government in the Baby Boom era. This effect is likely to be strong in Brisvegas QLD where so many Boomers+ have painful memories of the Bjelke Petersen govts ante-diluvian stances and machiavellian methods.
Personally, I do not think the Baby Boomer effect is as strong as some suggest. Polls seem to under-state the L/NP vote. Perhaps because boomers are embarassed to admit that they have Right-wing sympathies to pollsters.
There are two other major factors conditioning partisan alignments in AUS’s (post-?)modern state electoral contets:
1. Partisan power balancing bw Federal-State govts: favour LNP
The electorate appears to have a slight tendency to counter-valency in alternating branches or tiers of government. Thus we have counter-valent voting in the Senate, against the HoR. And counter-valent voting in state jurisdictions, against the Federal govt.
Obviously this tendency, to the extent it is significant, will help the LNP as the Federal govt is now run by ALP. We have already seen possible manifestations of it with the victory of the L/NP in WA. And a good result for the CLP in NT. So this factor has to be placed onto the LNPs advantage column.
2. Statist bias in state community service delivery: favour ALP
There is a secular trend for increasing demand for human capital accumulating services, specifically health and education. It is probably true that state agencies are more effective and equitable funders and deliverers of these services.
These welfare state capital goods tend to be political home ground for the ALP which naturally focuses on state funding of community services. To the extent that demand for these services is increasing it will benefit the ALP, at least at the state level.
Once again I challenge any social scientists worthy of the title to put down their predictions on the likely victor of this contest. I have gone out on a limb and predicted a narrow LNP victory.
What are Kim, Mark & Robert’s predictions? At least lay out a general theory of changes in partisan alignment, with special conditions relevant to QLD.
BTW I think that “other factors” listed above will cancel out:
1. Partisan power balancing bw Federal-State govts: favour LNP
2. Statist bias in state community service delivery: favour ALP
I conclude that swings in electoral and economic cycles will generate LNP favouritism in marginal voters. Which will likely outweigh the weakish putative ALP favouritism trend in baby boomer cohort.
For Jamo’s benefit, my point was that The Borg has been spruiking similar lines to those the Federal Opposition have been pushing. If they don’t work here against a tired fourth term government, they’ll work still less against the popular first term Rudd government.
I talk about that – and Joe Hockey’s participation in the Queensland campaign – in this new post at Pineapple Party Time:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/electioncentral/2009/03/04/mexican-blow-ins/
….”but maybe he’s also on a study tour to work out how well exactly raving about “Labor debt” goes down from opposition in the midst of a global crisis.”..Mark@PP.
It is very necessary for Labor to work harder on this debt scare tactic federally.
Turnbull and co run the line tirelessly -so do many in the press- and it was Lindsay Tanner who best managed to cut through the crap by saying the debt was equivalent to “a person on $100,000 a year borrowing $5000.”
That puts it into the perspective that people can get their head around.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/national/national/general/govt-rules-out-tax-rises-to-repay-debt/1434324.aspx?storypage=1
Gawdalmighty, so he’s gone the “I’ll just cut waste and that will generate squillions of dollars without hurting anyone” line has he? It’s the traditional line used to “fund” really stupid election promises. As you say, Robert, if the punters buy that they deserve what they get.
Mind you, I’m not as optimistic as you that they won’t buy it. There’s plenty of people like Jamo who are utterly ignorant of what governments actually spend money on.
dd, it was I who said that punters would deserve what they get, and I’ll say it again. Robert @ 4 makes a good point too.
From memory 20 years ago, teachers salaries used to be about 83% of the education budget. Then you had buildings, construction and maintenance, grounds maintenance, ancillary staff, educational resource materials etc before you came to district, regional and state support services, which were more substantial back in those days. So the bureaucracy was a minor part and within that the upper echelons miniscule.
In health I think you start with about 60% on nurses salaries and go from there with doctors, other staff, buildings and grounds, plus some very expensive equipment before you get to all those bludging public servants who do nothing but sit around, attend meetings and drink coffee.
In police the major component would be police salaries, in family services, social workers etc.
It is sheer and utter stupidity to claim that you could cut 3% a year for three years whilst maintaining services and not sacking any public servants. But it would be even greater stupidity if voters believed such nonsense. It would make democracy a farce.
Which Barnett is now discovering to his peril
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,25138788-2761,00.html
When will they ever learn?
BTW that’s an echo from Peter, Paul and Mary who, it seems, are still going – sort of. Lord, I feel old!
BTW also, if Queensland teachers don’t get a decent pay rise I’m told they will be bottom of the class. Principals in Coolangatta will be on $20,000 less than their colleagues in Tweed heads.
Umm…