Politics, elections and piffle plinking

The Liberal Party Left Flank

I often bang on incessantly about the dubious sustainability of the twin support bases of the Coalition – the social conservative, big government demographic on the one hand and the socially progressive, smallish government demographic on the other. While neither of these two groups are particularly large in the broader electoral scheme of things, they not only make up the financial and membership base of the Coalition, but the two groups have more to disagree about on politics than they have in common.

Trying to balance the interests of these virtually opposing demographics proved to be a bit of a nightmare for the Howard government –One Nation really started the ball rolling, the politics of Tampa set it like concrete.

Like most demographics in Australia, they’re never really consolidated into the one geographic space, so any vote movement they cause on an electorate-by-electorate basis tends to be washed out by larger things. However, the social conservative base of the Coalition generally has a large showing in some rural and regional seats, while the socially progressive end of the spectrum has a relatively large showing in some of the inner metro seats – particularly those in Sydney. There are certainly dollops of each demographic in any seat you care to name – especially socially conservative voters in the outer suburbs, but it’s relatively rare for a seat to be dominated, or even moderately gripped by either demographic.

Yet there are a few seats where the densities of these political constituencies are high enough to demonstrate the rather large problems the Coalition has with its opposing ideological and political bases.

Today we’ll have a bit of a squiz at the inner metro group that makes up – for lack of a better term – the Liberal Party left flank.

Over the last few elections, whenever Howard ramped up the culture war rhetoric for his regional and outer suburban constituency – a bit of race and refo baiting here, a bit of poofter bashing there – his inner city base often went a bit feral. But any attempt to then appease those small L liberals and get them back on side, simply had the effect of making the social conservatives all shirty.

The trouble for the Coalition was and remains trying to balance these opposing bases when it’s really a bit of a no win game. If we remember back to the last election, after a couple of weeks of trying to shore up the conservatives with the usual culture war spiel, the Coalition then hastily proposed a referendum for recognising Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islanders in the constitution during the dying days of the 2007 election campaign.

Every time the Coalition played to their conservative base, the small L liberal base moved away from them – but every time the Coalition threw the small L liberals a bone, the regions got antsy.

Party polling in North Sydney for 3 elections in a row has showed Hockey to either be in trouble or facing severe swings against him at some point in the lead up to each election (which probably explains why he always looks a little nervous as elections approach). Thankfully for Hockey, the full wrath of his small L liberal constituency never quite eventuated at the ballot box in the same levels it was threatening in the pre-election polling – but, like a number of other seats, it has consistently moved against him.

North Sydney isn’t the only seat to do so – let’s have a look at 5 inner metro seats with large small L liberal constituencies, where the two party preferred vote has been moving toward the ALP over time. We’ll also throw Bennelong into the mix to begin with since it was once a seat similar to the others, but has slowly changed to become a bit of hybrid seat in recent years by both electoral redistribution and generic demographic change.

The two things that really stand out with these seats (apart from their movement to the ALP) are, firstly, their Blue Ribbon Liberal Party leadership status – the party has historically generated leaders, Cabinet members and large amounts of campaign finance from them (which makes one wonder just what the Libs are doing putting Michael Johnson in Ryan – but that’s a bewilderment for another day).

The other thing that stands out is how all of them apart from Ryan swung to Labor in 2004 when Latham was ALP leader. Ryan swung to the Coalition because QLDers didn’t much like anything about Latham at all – but the rest of these inner metro seats actually moved toward Labor, bucking the national trend.

There is a slight problem in the chart though, and that comes from the way One Nation added strange distortions to the two party preferred vote across Australia, including these seats – so if we run the same chart again but simply exclude the 1998 election, we get:

Look at the members that these seats have produced – Howard, Ruddock, Nelson, Hockey, John Moore (we’ll ignore Johnson) and Turnbull. The Liberal Party heartland is on a collision course with its own party, and the wreckage could start at the next election.

But what makes these seats what they are?

Some of you are wondering why I’m doing the Seat of the Day series since it’s clogging up the blog – but there is a method to the madness (apart from having a  accessible demographic profile on every electorate in the country)

Using the stats from the Seat of the Day series, we can have a squiz at what demographic issues make these seats tick – what demographic variables they share.

For starters, they share a similar income distribution compared to Australia as a whole, and share similar levels of Centerlink payments compared to the rest of the nation.

Interestingly Berowra and Ryan are twins, while Bradfield, North Sydney and Wentworth are near identical triplets. What they all have in common though is lower levels than the Australian average of positive incomes up to $1000 a week, and much higher levels of higher income earners. They also share lower levels of government transfer payments, which is to be expected with a large skew toward high income earners.

The Liberal Party has historically relied on high income earners in their heartland seats making large political donations to fund their political campaigns and party activity. With these seats moving against them, that must put some of this campaign finance in jeopardy as time goes on.

These seats also share a few things in common on the industry and occupation level.

They tend to have more professionals employed in IT, financial services, medicine, science and other technology industries than the national average, and have fewer people employed in manufacturing, or working in trades and labour intensive occupations.

They essentially contain a very educated, very modern industrial and employment profile hooked in to a very globalised world.

It’s hardly surprising then, that they haven’t taken kindly to culture war nonsense that not only requires nuance and complexity to be left at the door, but generally revolves around the peddling of stereotypes that aren’t compatible with the observable reality of the world they experience on a daily basis.

One thing these seats don’t have in common though is anything resembling a shared age distribution.

So the slow vote change hardly appears to be driven by changing age compositions under 45 (after 45 they simply track the Australian average).

Neither do they share similar levels of the proportion of the electorate having a non-english speaking background – which is an interesting little tidbit.

But the big thing these electorates all have in common – and one which goes some way to explaining their politics – is the results they produced on the Republican referendum some 10 years ago.

All of them voted Yes on the Republic – some by substantial margins – and even North Sydney, Bradfield and Wentworth voted Yes on that gawd awful Preamble.

Compared to the national average – these seats were in a league of their own.

The Liberals are slowly losing their inner city base – where those wealthy, socially progressive, modern, globalised citizens that for so long have been the financial and leadership foundation of the Liberal Party itself, are slowly deserting them.

The big danger for the Liberal Party is whether the trend toward Labor in these seats was dampened by Liberal government incumbency. If so, then North Sydney and Ryan are in danger at the coming election with Berowra to follow at the next and Bradfield becoming marginal. Malcolm Turnbull is probably the best chance the Coalition have at preventing these seats from becoming electoral toss-ups in the coming years. He should hold onto Wentworth simply because of his position and prominence as Leader of the Opposition, while his small L liberal credentials – assuming he can take the party with him somewhat – are the best bulwark they’ve got with this demographic trend that’s running against them.

But if the Coalition continues to play to conservative ‘values voters’ and miscellaneous bigots, as they’ve done since 1998, they will put in danger this bag of blue ribbon seats that has historically provided more financial power and leadership development for the Liberal Party than has nearly all of their outer suburban seats combined.

But while this inner metro demographic needs its socially progressive view of the world accommodated, the consequences of doing that are equally dire for the Coalition in the regions – not only in terms of vote trend to Labor, but also to Independents.

We’ll take a look at the problem of the Liberal Party right flank a little later.

It’s also worth mentioning that what is currently happening with this demographic at the national level has already happened on a much broader scale with the Coalition in Qld at the State level – but to the point where even the outer suburbs got fed up with the political and social backwardness of the Coalition playing to their ultra conservative base.

UPDATE:

In terms of whether it has been the Greens or the ALP that have been gaining at the expense of the Liberal Party in these seats, sometimes in some seats it’s the Greens and other times in some seats it’s the ALP. The following chart shows the general direction of the substitution from Liberal to ALP/Greens over time.

19 Comments

  1. 1
    philatvvb
    Posted January 30, 2009 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

    Having just moved out of Ryan after 11 years, the only reason I can see for Johnson is for when Australia’s capital moves to Hong Kong :-)

    No idea what else he contributes to the Libs.

  2. 2
    Swing Lowe
    Posted January 30, 2009 at 1:51 pm | Permalink

    IMHO, if you want to see what is likely to happen to these blue ribbon seats in the future, one only needs to look at Lowe.

    For decades, Lowe was one of the most blue-ribbon Liberal Party seats (McMahon held it for 33 years). It then drifted to marginal status from 1982 to 2004 – similar to what has happened to Bennelong in recent years – before finally this year becoming relatively safe for the Labor party.

    Bennelong and North Sydney are the most likely to follow this trend. Both are increasingly being populated by Labor-voting NESBs while the socially progressive but economically conservative residents are continuing to drift from solid Liberal to Greens/Labor. It should be no surprise that in the 2001 election, these seats (as well as Bradfield and Berowra) swung strongly to Labor in an election where there was a strong swing to the Liberals state-wide…

  3. 3
    fredn
    Posted January 30, 2009 at 2:18 pm | Permalink

    But then we have stuff like this being written: http://inside.org.au/theyre-dreaming/

    I think the title of this blog pretty much sums it up: http://andrewelder.blogspot.com/

  4. 4
    Posted January 30, 2009 at 2:50 pm | Permalink

    Andrew Elder is always a good read – I don’t know what he’s not doing on my blogroll.

    I better go fix that.

  5. 5
    fmark
    Posted January 30, 2009 at 2:55 pm | Permalink

    Does this shift of the Liberal Party’s “left flank” (and presumably former Democrats voters) towards the ALP shift the ALP itself further to the right? And does this increase the chance of the ALP’s left flank being further eroded by the Greens?

  6. 6
    Oz
    Posted January 30, 2009 at 4:41 pm | Permalink

    Further on that, how much of that increase in 2PP for Labor is going straight to Labor and how much is coming via The Greens?

  7. 7
    Bree
    Posted January 30, 2009 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

    Hey Possum. This is just a tad off topic, but it will be very interesting in 2010. Do you think the Liberal Party will retain Macarthur in 2010? This seat had the biggest swing to Labor in NSW in 2007. Labor missed out on Macarthur by a tiny margin in 2007. Considering the current state of NSW Labor, do you think their might be a swing to the Liberal Party in Macarthur in 2010?

  8. 8
    thewetmale
    Posted January 30, 2009 at 10:14 pm | Permalink

    Another factor that would be important is Liberal pre-selection. As i understand it, there was a large push to get Alex Hawke, a hard right Liberal (not so much a dry as a one man drought), pre-selected in Berowra. This was assuming the retirement of Ruddock post 2007 (supposedly a wet.) I think i picked up that Ruddock was looking to stay on to try to prevent what would be a factional swap.

    Certainly the Liberal party would need to be careful they didn’t let a dry impose themselves on what may be an increasingly ‘flooded’ electorate. Then again, the party might be too cocky for its own good.

  9. 9
    calyptorhynchus
    Posted January 31, 2009 at 11:21 am | Permalink

    Of course the other problem for the Liberals is hanging on to the Nationals who are like the nightmarish, even more right wing than right wing country cousins come to stay…. for ever, ahhhh!

    The Liberal Party has always been the biggest misnomer in Australian politics.

  10. 10
    El Nino
    Posted January 31, 2009 at 11:24 am | Permalink

    fmark, it appears that if anything demographically the Greens are eroding the left flank of the Liberals (albeit in part via Democrat defections).
    http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2008/12/24/tough-demographic-choices-for-the-greens/
    In my experience, Green preferences usually split more or less in TPP proportions in many seats.

    Poss, why no Victorian seats in your analysis? Is an alternative hypothesis that the nexus of power for the Liberals is moving to southern (warmer) climes, maybe being the least hopeless of the main eastern seaboard branches.

  11. 11
    Posted February 1, 2009 at 11:59 am | Permalink

    UPDATE: I’ve added a new chart that tries to answer the question of which party has been taking the Liberal votes.

    Fmark,

    Good question.The ALP can shift to right more safely than the Liberal Party can shift to the left since Greens voters overwhelmingly preference the ALP. As long as the ALP is perceived to remain to the left of the Liberal Party that preference flow from the greens to the ALP would probably continue one would imagine.

    Bree,
    Don’t know about Macarthur. The YRAW campaign made a big effort their in 2007 and helped increase the ALP vote larger than it probably otherwise wuld have been, the incumbent member seems to be trying to do everything he can to piss of the local electorate, a poor NSW economy hits people in seats like Macarthur harder than most other places – there’s a big grab bag of things that happened or is happening in the seat.

    El Nino,
    Similar Victorian seats like Higgins, Menzies etc are suffering the same sort of thing on average, but it’s a pretty small effect compared to the NSW seats and Ryan – only really a few percent over the last 10 years or so.

  12. 12
    Bree
    Posted February 1, 2009 at 12:42 pm | Permalink

    Thanks for the reply, Possum. I will be watching Macarthur with a fine-tooth comb at the next election no matter what.

  13. 13
    Posted February 1, 2009 at 3:13 pm | Permalink

    I’d be interested to see how Warringah fits in there, being right next door to North Sydney and a safe Liberal seat!

  14. 14
    David Richards
    Posted February 1, 2009 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

    So.. a very clever Liberal Party WOULD move to the left enough to grab greens preferences. Seeing as Clever Liberal Party is an oxymoron, it won’t happen.

  15. 15
    David Richards
    Posted February 1, 2009 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

    In light of the demographic train-wreck facing the Libs, and the high ratings given to Whitlam by younger voters in the PM survey, was it wise for Turnbull to throw Whitlam at Rudd the other day?

  16. 16
    Harry "Snapper" Organs
    Posted February 1, 2009 at 9:35 pm | Permalink

    Jeez, David Richards, why would you you use wise and Turnbull in the same sentence? As for Julie Bishop, mathematically challenged is being kind.

  17. 17
    Andrew Elder
    Posted February 2, 2009 at 2:54 pm | Permalink

    I think the seats that will become hotly-contested marginals are those with high tertiary-education demographics – not just what are now safe Liberal seats but also inner-city Labor seats. I don’t agree with the whole History Is On Our Side thing as, NSW shows clearly, Labor can’t necessarily make the best use of political advantage.

    Possum, fredn: thank you. I’ve posted more on this topic on my newly-linked site.

    Bree: depends on the candidate. Sometimes parties have a knack of picking candidates who secrete voter repellent. This is what happened in Canning (WA), which was contested for the Liberal Party at no less than six elections by a candidate with no qualities other than being a favourite of powerbroker Noel Crichton-Browne. This candidate lost five times – 1984, 1998, 1990, 1993, 1998 – and won only in 1996, the third-best result for the Liberals in history. It is possible for Labor to keep on losing Macarthur with the wrong candidate (imagine if Belinda Neal had preferred the Southern Highlands over the Central Coast).

    Thewetmale: Alex Hawke is MP for Mitchell, you’re thinking of Noel McCoy. What’s funny about that is the far-right used to insist on people with real-world experience, i.e. no political hacks – Ruddock has been an MP since age 30, Hawke has only ever been on the public purse (just like Bill Clinton or Gorbachev), and now McCoy is lined up to become unrepresentative for Berowra.

  18. 18
    Swing Lowe
    Posted February 2, 2009 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

    I would think Warringah (like Mackellar) would be less susceptible to the movement outlined by Possum in his post. This is because these seats tend to be more socially conservative than seats like North Sydney and Wentworth as:

    1. There are less immigrants in these seats (and far fewer NESBs)
    2. There are fewer yuppies and more elderly people in these seats

    An example of this is the fact that Nth Sydney, Bradfield and Wentworth all voted for the Republic but Mackellar was one of the few blue-blood seats that voted against it. I’m not sure what happened in Warringah but I would suspect it would have been a close-run thing.

  19. 19
    Bree
    Posted February 3, 2009 at 12:40 am | Permalink

    The most talked about topic after the 1996 federal election was the Labor Party ending up with only one lower-house seat in Queensland. No body expected the Coalition to win 27 out of 28 seats in Queensland.

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.