There is, unsurprisingly, a lot being written, said and tweeted about the potential outcomes of the Liberal party’s current round of leadership theatrics. Unfortunately a lot of this writing about the soul of the Liberal party completely ignores the electoral reality that they find themselves in. While writing about exciting the party’s base might allow for nice rhetoric, it ignores what should be the main aim of a political party, winning the next election.
Dennis Shanahan is one of today’s worst offenders.
The prime objective of the Liberal Party now is to unify itself and Hockey, Dutton and Abbott have all demonstrated a wish for consensus on personnel and policy.
The Liberals will now be led by a popular leader seen to be a conciliator who has accepted compromise on the ETS to satisfy the party membership and heal the divisions within the parliamentary party. The final result will be that the Liberals, like the Nationals, have decided to try to restore their lost bedrock support by deferring the ETS instead of trying to go after swinging voters who voted for Rudd at the last election.
So what Dennis is saying is that the Liberals goal is to lose the next election. Did he even realise what he was writing?
Talk of ‘rallying the base’ is something that has been picked up from US political coverage, and while it’s useful shorthand for describing a political position it’s not particularly meaningful in a discussion of Australian politics for one simple reason. Compulsory, preferential voting.
Compulsory, preferential voting ensures that in the House of Representatives, where government is formed, one of the two major parties will almost always receive your vote. In fact the major parties are so committed to this outcome that when Albert Langer found a way to legally exhaust your preferences, they changed the law to ensure that this could no longer occur. This is completely different to the situation in the US where it’s possible to greatly affect the outcome of an election simply by improving the turnout of your own supporters, the base. In Australia all of your supporters have to vote, and even if they decide to give someone else their first preference, you’ll eventually get their vote as the candidates from smaller parties fall out of the count.
So the political reality in Australia is that ‘the base’ is irrelevant, they’ve got nowhere else to go, no alternative but to vote for you. Elections are won and lost in over who controls the middle ground. The thousands of people emailing Liberal members and senators last week, pleading with them to vote down the ETS and threatening to withdraw their support, aren’t about to start voting Labor, so the Libs get their votes anyway.
As Shanahan himself notes
Turnbull’s decision to support Kevin Rudd’s ETS has gained strong approval among the voting public and Labor voters who support “action on climate change”
These are the people who the Liberals need to entice if they want to win government. For most of the last 18 months the Coalition’s support in Newspoll has hovered around 35%, those voters aren’t going anywhere, but they also aren’t going to win you an election, no matter how happy you make them.
I’ll leave the last word to American political operative and commentator, James Carville
Whenever I hear a campaign talk about a need to energize the base, that’s a campaign that’s going down the toilet. It’s a pretty good indication that they’re not eating up any territory, they can’t get anybody in the center to support them, they’re getting shelled back into their own bunker.
40 Comments
Well, I said from the beginning of this leadership turmoil thing that the commentariat has been found wanting. It’s coverage has relied on Liberal sources, anonymous sources and so on with no thoughtful analysis underpinning their arguments whatsoever – “the base” argument being chief among them. It’s really just spin from the Liberals wingnut faction.
Where Shanahan and the Libs could of made a legitimate case for the base is in terms of attracting membership, potential candidates, and people to help distribute their material in election campaigns – all those letterbox drops for eg. But even this is drawing a long bow in declaring these people “the base” IMO, because they will stand a better chance in attracting such people by appearing a centrist party, not a far Right party.
Point taken, but there is nonetheless a general point to be made about political parties standing for something.
The trouble with this particular instance is that it’s very hard to see what the Liberal Right is standing up for. It’s very obvious that they want to delay the legislation on the ETS, and it’s equally obvious why – because they don’t see any action on climate change as necessary. They’re not saying this at the moment of course – instead it’s all about allowing time for debate, not disadvantaging the Australian economy while the rest of the world decides what to do, not giving Rudd a leg-up at Copenhagen, etc. – but it’s clear that they have no sense of urgency about the issue, and the recent statements of people like Minchin, Bernardi, Joyce, Tuckey and others make it very apparent that they think the whole thing’s a con.
So what, pray tell, is the matter of high principle involved here? Can anyone answer this question?
It looks like Hockey will become leader tomorrow and it looks like the compromise on the ETS is to delay the legislation.
What exactly do these people stand for?
Hockey is a brilliant illustration of the Groucho Marx stance on principle: “I’m sorry madam, but those are my principles. If you don’t like them, I have others.”
I’m awaiting someone to use the Monarchists old line ‘Not THIS ETS’
Ironic that Turnbull was on the wrong side of that one too…
“What exactly do these people stand for?”
The olden days?
What is likely to happen to Turnbull after Tuesday? Do people think he’ll quit politics? I find it hard to see how he could hang around after burning so many bridges. Would they lose a by-election?
Bernard Keane:
Why can’t the Liberal party see this? Are they so blinded by their hatred of Turnbull that they want to get rid of him whatever the cost? This is what happens when wingnuts take charge of proceedings.
Confessions @3
They certainly do not stand for democratic principles when a clear vote of the party room can be overturned because there appears to be some unrest on the backbench.
“What is likely to happen to Turnbull after Tuesday? Do people think he’ll quit politics?”
From an email I got from Crikey:
______________________________________
Could Malcolm Turnbull go rogue?
Would he? Could he? Speculation is rife that Malcolm Turnbull, upon losing the Liberal leadership tussle, could actually establish his own political party, writes Bernard Keane.
______________________________________
He’s rich and famous enough, unfortunately we live in what is effectively a two party state. Now I could vote for a Green type party who weren’t averse to uranium mining and storage of waste (I believe Australia is the best place to store the worlds waste). I’m reckon I’m a close fit to the greens but I’m not averse to POOR nations using nuclear power to reduce CO2 in the medium term. I think Australia has better options than nuclear.
I’d feel sad if he went it alone – he stood up to the bullies in refusing to resign as leader and i’d actually want him to stay on in the party even if it were on the backbench. The Libs are going to need progressive sensible MPs in the future if they are to be a credible alternative government, so people like Turnbull will be in demand. Of course i could understand entirely if he decided to bow out at the next election – at least he will go out having fought for his principles.
I cannot believe that the Party that dominated for more than a decade cannot read a poll. This wide-eyed belief that they can convince people that climate change may or may not be a problem, that it can stay on the back-burner while more pressing issues are dealt with such as arts funding, how much goes money to Olympic athletes, what type of corporate jets politicians use, the level of drought assistance required, etc, etc, etc. The problem for the current Coalition with Copenhagen dragging into 2010 is that climate change will continue to dominate. The delayed vote in the US Senate will keep the issue on the front pages. The long, hot, dry summer ahead will continue to keep it at the front of peoples’ minds. And the experience of the last 20 years, since the issue hit the front pages in 1989, is that the skeptics lose the debate. They lose and lose and lose. Because the only people who predicted the weather patterns we are experiencing right now were the climate scientists.
So, bring it on Malcolm. The Australian Republican Party envisaged by Bernard Keane sounds like my dream party. Small government, pro-business, socially progressive and fundamentally committed to dealing with climate change. Sign me up now!
I’m sure I dont want Turnbull voting for the ets. The scheme is a dog and the best outcome here from a green point of view is for the government to negotiate with the greens to get it passed.
Its my belief all along that Turnbulls prime objective is to pass an ets. Now its become his only objective. ETS is crap if only because agriculture is excluded. Cutting down forests, digging soils and using fertiliser to sell carbon credits to big polluters is amoral. That is what we will get with the ets. Doubling handouts to coal miners at the expense of families is what Turnbull negotiated for me.
The only way that he could get my vote was if he promised to stop immigration and put a cap on Australia’s population level. But regardless he will leave politics and hopefully will leave a shattered party that wont ever be re-elected to govern.
Confessions: “What exactly do these people stand for?”
Let’s see. Well, for one, we don’t stand for a belief that taxes in any way curb or even stem pollution. Alternative production and delivery methods do.
And for two, we don’t believe people more suited to the Labor party should be in charge of the Oppostiion. Right now, given the convictions of the Libs’ current heirarchy, we are effectively a single-party country.
“I’m sure I dont want Turnbull voting for the ets. The scheme is a dog and the best outcome here from a green point of view is for the government to negotiate with the greens to get it passed.”
Hear hear, and this is why the Govt have no interest in a DD, they love COAL more than they’ll ever love the Greens or an effective plan that actually reduces emissions.
“But regardless he will leave politics and hopefully will leave a shattered party that wont ever be re-elected to govern.”
But twobob, we’ll all lose without an effective opposition.
Not exactly inspiring stuff, is it Pedro? Reminds me of Bronnie Bishop talking about the “hearthbreak” of Liberals who were being asked to defy their most cherished principles, like the one about never introducing new taxes….except the GST of course. Makes the heart swell with emotion, doesn’t it?
By the way Pedro, how do we get those “alternative production and delivery methods” without government intervention? Just put your trust in human nature and hope for the best?
This is a centre-Right government. It needs opposition from the Left. It might take a while for that to happen, but this is a good first step.
Good point Bloods, A strengthened Green party would be ideal for me, I urge anyone who considers themselves ‘left’ to abandon the centre-right Labor party and vote ‘left’, vote Green! They aint perfect but they’re better than the rest and actually have principles.
Pedro
You forgot, they stand for reneging on deals made, being blind to the bleeding obvious, they believe in high taxes (GST ring any bells) and for democracy as long as you agree with them
What Turbull did is in the tradition of Westminster democracy where an opposition puts up amendments and they are voted on. Truth is this is about a grab for power by the raving right which can’t accept it is no longer in power. The arrogance is staggering.
Blood: “By the way Pedro, how do we get those “alternative production and delivery methods” without government intervention? ”
Good grief. Where did I even HINT that government intervention in alternative methods was not required? I said, taxes achieve zilch. The polluters simply continue on their merry way and pass everything on to the end-user. That’s me and you. Or they move off-shore and take jobs with them.
Confessions: “i’d actually want (Turnbull) to stay on in the party…”
Enough said. If a raging lefty like Confessions is feeling all smooshy about Turnbull, there’s all the proof anyone needs to see the current Liberal leadership in no way represents Liberal voters.
I don’t understand the tactics from Minchin, maybe he really can’t read a poll or maybe he’s prepared to accept having to bunker down in opposition for another 6+ years. Even if they wanted to oust Turnbull doing it on the basis of ETS is terrible terrible politics.
I think it was the Clinton theory that if the debate is about his issues he wins and if its about Republican issues they win.
The environment/ETS is a Labor win. The longer the debate goes on the worse it gets for the Libs. There is no upside. There are no potential converts out there. Everyone opposed to the ETS already votes Lib/Nat.
If you want to become a single issue article of faith party at least pick an issue that lets you win. If you’re from the right you get to pick from Security, the Economy and Family values. Going to the right on the environment is not a national win. John Howard outflanking Latham on Tasmanian forests won the Tassie seats only.
Kevin Rudd knows all this. Why do you think ETS has taken so so very long to bring to a vote in the first place? Then negotiations?
Surly. A political party reneged on a “deal”?? Whoa, THAT’S never happened before. Ever. Never-ever, even.
The GST is a fair tax. Rich guy with rich company with rich accountants buys something and pays the same tax as the everyday guy. Used to be the rich guy could just “claim” the full price, inclusive of tax.
I struggle to see how you can argue with that. But do try.
“…and for democracy as long as you agree with them.” Any examples?
You’ve answered your own question there RobJ. From my point of view the libs were right when they complained of Rudd being howard like. For too long Australia has been dominated by the right. We desperately need a left party to bring a bit of balance back to our society. The whole country is so time poor, we hand our children over to strangers while they are still babies not because we are greedy but just so that we can make ends meet. We work the longest hours of all developed nations and give our employers on average 1 hour of unpaid overtime each day.
Have you looked around at all the happy friendly people out there? Cant find them? Me either! The liberals were not happy with this situation and tried to make it even worse with workchoices and rudd has done absolutely nothing to change it.
Our limited news outlets constantly pester us with the whole two party line but both parties represent big corporations over and above people. With the demise of the liberals and the inevitable rise of the greens the news outlets have to stop their blatent bias and maybe we will get some representation for the people. The libs have done them selves over so bloody well. They will cop it at the next few elections over workchoices and I expect by then some serious ramifications from GW will be their death knell. And dont forget that time is not on their side. The demographic breakdown of their voters show that they are favoured by old people. And old people tend to die. Time is up for them and I for one am happy that it has come as the result of john howard siding with bush over science. He let the world down and made me ashamed to be Australian.
OK, so I made an invalid assumption. Now let us know how it should be done without using the tax system..
No, the GST is a regressive tax. A fair tax is one where the rich pay more. The fact that progressive taxation of income was undermined by lack of political will to enforce the law and appalling High Court decisions by political appointees of the Right does not alter the fact that it is the only fair way to tax people.
Blood, The GST was an overhauling of the sales tax system that ensured the government collected the same amount of tax from everyone. From a loaf of bread to a Jag. That is hardly “regressive”. Feel for the people in Canada, for eg, who had a GST introduced and no relaxation of sales taxes. Everything just plain went up 10%. Didn’t happen that way here.
As for income-taxing the rich, I’d be interested to know what you describe as “rich”. A family house costs at least $450,000 today. Schooling and university for their children is no longer “free” and those fees mount each year. Childcare wipes out a quarter of a family’s income. Council rates are insane and rise every year on the dot. Petrol and grocery prices are a little more stable now, but show no signs of ever going down. Interest rates are on the rise again. And now the government is proposing more taxes to “save the planet”.
How do families get through that without a combined earning of a few hundred Gs a year?
Pedro
First off the “never ever” was Howard wasn’t it? Love fifteen
“The GST is a fair tax” maybe where you are, and what colour is the sky where you are?
The GST places a greater tax burden on the poor, they spent a greater percentage of income therefor in percentage terms pay more tax. Love Thirty
Example: In the joint party meeting the coalition voted for Malcolm’s deal with a majority of 3 yet Minchin and others keep claiming it was voted down, either I different view of the concept of a majority or Nick is channeling the GOP. love forty
You are no Agassi, Surly, believe, me.
Never-ever Howard? There was no reneging on a “deal” with another party. The chair umpire calls OUT.
The “poor” may spend a greater percentage of their income – and they always will – , but they don’t spend more. The GST allows the government to collect more taxes from the rich that they had not been able to capture before. That was the whole point. OUT.
I’m confused but I’m guessing your “example” poiint was supposed to address how the Liberals have denied democracy? I will give you a LET on that and even tho you didn’t even serve. Try again.
Your serve.
Pedro, the GST was a way to starve the (Labor) states of funding. I have heard it said by several State and Federal politicos (all Labor needless to say) that the States receive less from the Feds now than they used to 20 years ago. Why do you think the states are addicted to gambling and full-fee paying international students?
(And before you say, “well why hasn’t your Darling Ruddy done something about that” I’d like to point out that he has had a little bizzo called the GFC to deal with (not that it affected us at all, thanks to the Cricket Midget and Tip.))
Everything Howard did was political. He lost his touch toward the end and I never agreed with his politics but you have to concede he was good at what he did.
Taxes in every area have declined over the last 20-30 years, when both sides have been in. Look at the income tax rates alone. Yeah, maybe the GST is a new tax. Maybe we have to get used to the idea that we do have to pay more taxes. Fact is we’ve been living on tick and the credit card for waay too long. I personally greatly like the fact that Rudd is unashamedly proposing a new tax and many Australians, perhaps a majority, accept the need for this.
twobob@13:”I’m sure I dont want Turnbull voting for the ets. The scheme is a dog and the best outcome here from a green point of view is for the government to negotiate with the greens to get it passed.”
Right. So the government, needing seven votes in the Senate, negotiates with the Greens, and gets their five votes, which allows them to pass the – oh wait.
Given that without the Liberals, the government would need to satisfy both the party that thinks the ETS doesn’t go nearly far enough, and the independent who thinks the ETS is completely unnecessary, one is led to ponder the wisdom of such a move…
He can sense his power base slipping, the hard Right position on climate change is at odds with voter sentiment. These people have to either modernise or move on – their stance on climate change is more suited to the regressive Nats. It’s clear now that Hockey supports the CPRS and wants it to pass – in fact it’s vital for his leadership to get off on the right foot if the bill is no longer in the mix. A conscience vote is what Turnbull should of offered the party from the start.
They need 2 Lib senators if the Greens accept the deal: Troeth is 1, she’s retiring so it doesn’t matter what she does, and Gary Humphries in the ACT is another who could lose his senate seat to the Greens if he’s tarred with the do-nothing denialists – he’s been vocal in support of the bill. But the Greens won’t negotiate with the government because they need to be seen as different from the government on this foundation issue for them in order to remain relevent.
What I mean is the Greens won’t vote in favour of the CPRS. Of course the Greens have tried to negotiate with the government, but they are irrelevent in terms of numbers in order for the bill to pass so the government went with the coalition instead.
RobJ @ 18: I wouldn’t be comfortable with the Greens being the 3rd party because I disagree with Bloods @ 17 that the government needs opposition from the Left. We need a centrist and pragmatic opposition which recognises the need for progressive policies on climate change and social policy. At the moment we have a Far Right opposition that is more interested in opposing, being obstructionist, and petulant childish tantrums because of its hatred for Rudd personally than acting in the national interest. Turnbull recognises this need which is why the government must be rubbing its hands with glee at the thought of facing bumbling idiot Hockey or unelectable radical Abbott at the next election. Why the Liberals are entertaining such options is incredulous.
Maybe we should remember Paul Keating’s assesment of the senate: “unrepresentative swill” wasn’t it?
A bit of Economics 101, Pedro.
A regressive tax is one which is paid at the same level by all taxpayers regardless of their level of income, thereby making the percentage rate higher for those on lower incomes than for those on higher incomes. This is what you call a fair tax.
When I say a fair tax is one where the rich pay more, I have no cut-off point in mind beyond which a person is classified as rich. I mean, very simply, that the higher your income is, the higher percentage rate of tax you pay. This is what I call a fair tax.
Your defence of the GST on equity grounds is predicated on the fact that successive governments, especially conservative ones, have presided over the watering-down of the progressive income tax system to the point where people like Kerry Packer paid nothing. There was nothing inevitable about that, and there is no reason why it couldn’t be reversed.
Also, you still haven’t told me how “alternative production and delivery methods” are going to be achieved.
Pedro
No I am much more Federer and you are much more Phillipousus. What part of unfair don’t you get, the GST means the poor stay poor while the rich get richer. Game son
Howard simply lied to the australian people, that’s so much better than reneging on a deal isn’t it. Actualy he did renege on a deal, he made a deal with the electorate that he would “never, ever” impose a GST and he did. SET.
What is it with the right and history?
bpobjie
I’m pretty sure that twobob was thinking a few steps ahead. ie the best outcome here from a green point of view is for the government to negotiate with the greens to get it passed.”
After the government calls an election because its bill has not been passed.
I see Abbott is now definately running against Turnbull now that Hockey wants a conscience vote on the CPRS, which means the mad monk’s rhetoric over the past few days has been a front to allow them to find a palatable candidate which the loons in the party can manipulate behind the scenes. Typical honesty we’ve come to expect from the Right.
I’d be very happy with Abbott in the leadership if the Libs are going to choose an AGW denialist platform: let one of their own be the person responsible for selling it to the public rather than hide behind a leader the public might be sympathetic to because s/he holds progressive and moderate views. From what i’ve seen in the blogosphere Abbott appeals to rednecks, racists, ignorants and dullards. Is that the direction the Liberals should be heading towards?
It’s now also clear that the loons are indeed trying to manipulate things behind the scenes. They can’t bully Turnbull into stepping down, and their machinations with Hockey appear to backfired. Stike one victory for sensible, rational and NORMAL people!!
LOL at Bolt who ‘counsels’ Hockey on his climate change stance (my boldening):
“Bold and demanding”, “climategate” LOL! Bolt clearly has no clue about this: he’s just some fringe radical, shouting from the sideline, hoping a bunch of people notice. Nobody’s listening mate, time to join the real world.
confessions, that would be the Bolt who said on insiders that Hockey didn’t have the Intellect to understand the Climate Change debate?
And might we remind him also that he said Turnbull would be out by last Thursday, is he just going to keep repeating the line (changing the date) till it actually happens).
Surleysimon, I believe you are right. Bolt is so inconsistent. He says the same thing over and over again, but sometimes for variety, changes names, dates and other important details. I think the word we use for people like that is slippery.
bolt does not get it.
The hacked emails prove noting at all. It seems it is all he has so he is not going to let it go but it will never gain traction. All scientists manipulate data and a science that depends so heavily upon statistics like climate does is going to have to do it more than most. It must be so frustrating to him that we cant all see what he thinks he sees. My tip to bolt is go and study statistics 101. Pay careful attention to what stand errors represent and write an 1800 word essay about trends. That will help him understand what he is missing and the complexity of what it is that he is trying to advise others upon.
I cant help but laugh at this whole mess and wonder how much of a hand bolt played in it? bolt and howard appear at this stage to have been about equally responsible for the demise of the libs. smirk snicker smirk. Thanks fellars its just like an early Christmas present.