Most people, including many in the Liberal Party, think that Barry O’Farrell and the Opposition parties in NSW should be at least twenty points ahead in the polls given just how bad Nathan Rees and the NSW ALP are travelling.
Make no mistake the Rees Government daily plumbs new depths. Tuesday’s mini-budget got the worst public reaction of any such exercise in memory. And deservedly so, it is a mish-mash of abandoned promises, directionless initiatives, clumsy revenue measures, and all in the pursuit of a misconceived economic and budgetary strategy. Make no mistake, cutting expenditure in the midst of a recession runs the real risk of bringing NSW to its knees and dragging down the national economy with it (Treasury boss, Ken Henry admitted as much yesterday).
Most voters are either extremely angry, or beyond anger and just want the Rees Government to go away.
The only defence of the Rees Government these days is that O’Farrell wouldn’t be any better. O’Farrell seems to be going out of his way to add weight to this idea.
The rationale behind O’Farrell’s strategy seems to be that the ALP is terminal and all he has to do is keep his head down and the premiership will default to him in March 2011.
There are two problems with this strategy. The first is that a passive strategy always leaves you exposed to the vicissitudes of events, and while victory may look inevitable from this distance who knows what might happen. If the ALP can get a bit of a lift off the back of a better economy, or something else, then they could just get close enough to exploit the perceptions that O’Farrell is a weak leader with nothing to offer.
Second, there are broader political considerations. The Liberals could benefit big-time federally in 2010 (even, conceivably, win) off the back of a full collapse in the ALP vote in NSW, to get that full benefit Malcolm Turnbull and his colleagues need an Opposition that is humiliating the Rees Government on a daily basis while also offering hope that the Liberals and Nationals actually have a credible alternative. Even if the hoped for federal benefit doesn’t amount to a Rudd defeat, a resounding conservative victory in NSW in 2011 would be a great boost for other state conservative oppositions.
What’s more, the opportunity to get a decisive, demoralising victory over your opponents in politics only comes along every few decades and the conservatives would be mad not to go for a huge victory in 2011. This is particularly true in NSW which has been historically a labor state. A smashing win for the conservatives in 2011 could be a real watershed.
What the Liberals and Nationals need now is the sort of agressive (carpe diem – as they call it) approach adopted by the Australian cricket team in recent decades, and by the West Indies before them – when you have the advantage you maximise the pressure on your opponents, you don’t sit back and wait.
So, who could replace O’Farrell. Michael Baird is probably the only option from within the Parliament, he is considered to have the intellectual grunt and drive to get the job done. Probably too young and new to get the votes in the party room. John Brogden has moved on and why would he bother after what the Liberals did to him last time. There has always been chatter about recruiting Joe Hockey, but he never gives the impression of being an effective ‘apply the pressure’ kind of guy. More remotely, there is Jeff Kennett; former Victorian premier, national figure with a proven reform record, media favourite and a real go for it kind of guy. But the Kennett option seems fanciful.
While the options are limited, the pressure will build on O’Farrell unless he can convince people that he can take full advantage of the ALP’s darkest days.
13 Comments
Does Obama have a brother who would move to Macquarie Street?
or sister! that would be wonderful – some with vision, passion and a high work ethic
It seems a shame that with the NSW govt having pretty much exhausted its talent pool, that the opposition isn’t behaving as a demonstrably superior option. Example: abc radio’s interview with the opp spokesperson on transport this am, regarding Sydney Ferries poor performance. The comment was that if the Premier “really cared” he’d have adopted their recommendations. Lame.
The worst part, though, is that if the opposition doesn’t lift it’s game, there’s an outside chance the NSW govt could be returned at the next election. Now that’s a worry.
“Outside chance the NSW Govt could be returned” If NSW votes dared to vote them in again then we would get entirely what we deserve. I can sleep at night knowing they didn’t get my vote the last time due their incompetence but if they were voted in again I would seriously think about moving! Time to have a RECALL law like US where we could recall the govt for their appalling management!
Good reason not to have 4 years terms. Seemed like a good idea at the time.
Maybe the Governor will dismiss the Premier and Ministers if they can no longer govern, as Sir Philip Game did in May 1932.
Game’s dismissal of Lang was triggered by Lang’s issue of a circular directing NSW Public Servants not to remit revenue that was owed to the Commonwealth – Game’s legal advice was that the circular was illegal. Bertram Stevens was installed as Premier, and an election promptly called. Lang and Labor were trounced.
Similar thing happened in 1975 at the Federal level.
Can it ever be undemocratic to send the people to the polls, and commissioning their duly elected representatives to form a government?
But as Trevor says, O’Farrell’s bunch should be running now.
I defy any person who is not a regular reader of this blog to name 3 NSW shadow minsters and their portfolios – such is their miniscule public profile.
Gee Bob that’s a tough test I’m racking my brains to even try and remember more than two or three myself
“Can it ever be undemocratic to send the people to the polls, and commissioning their duly elected representatives to form a government?”
Yes, when an unelected official overrides all convention to dismiss a government based on their own opinion of the government’s merits.
The events of 1932 and 1975 are now conventional, although they involve reserve powers seldom used.
Convention is defined as: “general agreement or consent; accepted usage, especially as a standard of procedure.”
The events of 1932 and 1975 were not of general agreement or as a standard of procedure and were unconventional.
ltep, if the unelected official calls an election, the result is hardly undemocractic. After all, if the unelected official made a mistake, the electorate could just as well have re-elected the incumbent.
But there would be no correctly grounded constitutional basis to do so. If you allow that then what’s to stop Governors from calling elections any time they think the Government of the day has done something wrong?
There’s no Constitutional crisis here, the Government still has the support of the lower chamber and is able to make laws for the governance of the state, whether they be good law or bad law. There’s simply no basis for the Governor to call an election and doing so.
This would be undemocratic as it would allow one individual, unelected by the people to determine when to call elections with no basis to do so.
ltep, of course the Government can command the support of the lower house – [b]the government constitutes the majority of the lower house![/b].
Exactly, which is how our system works unfortunately. The people just need to put up with it until the next election.