Adam Carr asks: "William, could we have a thread dedicated to idle speculation about the federal election, as you have done for the NSW election?" His wish is my command. By way of a conversation starter, I note that the Australian Electoral Commission recently released an extensive list of parties that have been deregistered by virtue of last year’s electoral law "reforms", one of which sought to do away with minor parties taking the name of major parties in vain, principally Liberals for Forests. This was to be achieved by deregistering all parties that had never achieved federal parliamentary representation six months after the passage of the bill, then requiring them to register again under the new rules. I didn’t think this worth mentioning at the time, as I assumed it would be a fairly simple matter for parties other than Liberals for Forests, leaving aside the irritation of some added paperwork. However, those with their noses closer to the grindstone of minor party politics evidently don’t see it that way. Stephen Mayne, until very recently a principal of the People Power party, had this to say in today’s Crikey email:
The Howard government is known for its cynicism but the deregistration of 19 political parties when the nation wasn’t paying attention on December 27 must surely go down as one of its lowest acts. What sort of democracy allows a government to unilaterally and automatically deregister all political parties that don’t have an MP? Talk about abusing control of both houses … If this had happened before the 2004 election there is no way that Family First would have got up in Victoria because it relied on preferences from the likes of liberals for forests. The strangest part of this debacle is that the media has shown no interest whatsoever in reporting this assault on democracy. Imagine if there was some form of business where the regulator could get away with saying all small competitors were automatically deregistered. The big have got bigger in John Howard’s Australia and the corner store competing with Woolworths knows exactly how all these minor parties must feel.
The practical upshot is that most existing minor parties must provide renewed proof that they have at least 500 members. The exceptions are the Greens, other than the Queensland branch; Family First; the Australian Democrats; the Nuclear Disarmament Party; the NSW division of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation (curiously, given that One Nation only ever won a seat in Queensland), and the Democratic Labor Party (which evidently persuaded the AEC it was the same party that existed prior to 1978). I personally am unclear as to how often parties are required to do this in the normal course of events; anyone who can enlighten me is invited to do so in comments.
Labor’s primary vote is down 2 per cent in the latest Roy Morgan poll, but it still leads by 15 per cent 2pp, 57.5 per cent to 42.5. A lot of Liberals must be apprehensive.
The Liberals will become seriously worried if NSW Labor can substantially limit the electoral damage, which should be coming there way in spades at this election, by running an essentially anti IR campaign. Given that the Federal Liberal top guns will be there as well, a relatively easy Labor win in NSW will turn out to be the blueprint for a Federal campaign. Hell, if you can save the Iemma government on the “strength” of Howard government policies what can you do against the Howard government itself?
I believe there will be some drop off in the polls for Labor. There will be a honeymoon period. However, I believe there has been a collective sigh of relief in voter land that now we have an alternative to vote for and many of those people will be hard to swing back to Howard. I would expect Labor’s primary vote to hover between 43 and 45 percent of the vote from now on. In anyone’s terms that is a winning margin once translated into two party preferred. The Liberals will have to work overtime to peg Labor back.
I agree that if a strong IR campaign can save the worthless hide of the NSW Labor government, then Howard should start to be seriously worried. But (and I’m sure I will be saying this again many times), it is far too early to start making sweeping statements about an election which is still probably 9 or 10 months away. Let’s see how St Kevin’s ratings hold up once the Murdoch press come back from holidays and starts to monster him.
Adam,
The Australian has given Kevin Rudd a choice. In preparation for the possibility that the Liberals might one day lose office, The Australian’s policy is that there be two Liberal Parties for the voters to choose from – the current one and a paler ALP version. The campaign to take the Labor out of the Australian Labor Party has recommenced in earnest. If Kevin Rudd goes along with this, he won’t be monstered.
The Australian editorial remarked, “How Mr Rudd handles the unwinding of Mr Beazley’s deadly embrace with the union movement will be crucial to his long-term success†(5/12/2006). It went on to state, “Mr Howard immediately highlighted IR and trade union links as the wedge issue through which to undermine Mr Rudd.†This campaign was supported by Dennis Shanahan (“Howard presents the real challengeâ€), Paul Kelly (“Labor had to gamble but task is dauntingâ€), Steve Lewis (“Tough task for Labor neophytesâ€), Richard Gluyas and Joseph Kerr (“Rudd told: don’t maintain the rageâ€) ands Peter Switzer (“Ditch Beazley’s tough IR policy, Rudd toldâ€). That is a total of six articles in the one issue all advising Labor to forget about its raison d’etre. This will not doubt continue until the election.
The Australian’s campaign continued the next day. Its editorial stated, “Labor appears to have woken up. Mr Rudd is seeking to bring the Government to account for talking tough on national reform in health and education, but failing to deliver…In education, he was a critic of the Studies of Society and Environment syllabus, which failed to provide students with chronological frameworks for understanding the history of Australia…In Aboriginal affairs, the Goss government was able to overrule education bureaucrats to have the word “invasion” removed from history texts. Mr Rudd was given responsibility to limit the impact of land rights claims. He has real conservative credentials on education. But Mr Rudd has also mounted a sustained attack on the Work Choices laws to preserve Labor’s link with the union movement while undermining the Government’s claim to be family-friendly.†(“Opposition back in the reform raceâ€, The Australian (editorial) December 06, 2006)
Its front page story managed to combine its campaign for two Liberal Parties with its campaign against the teaching profession.
“Also yesterday, Labor Party sources said Mr Rudd was likely to take an uncompromising position on political correctness in the education system and had spoken of placing the concerns of parents above those of pressure groups such as teachers’ unions.†(“Rudd calls on states to corner PMâ€)
Janet Albrechtsen added to the campaign:
“Ditch the working-class man and embrace aspirational, upwardly mobile new worker…
“Meanwhile, across the nation, men and women were in their factories, shops and offices just getting on with it, ignoring the downtrodden working-class man rhetoric of Beazley, Barnes and the ALP. It was a powerful reminder why Beazley’s mantra of being Mr Experience had become a synonym for Yesterday’s Man…
“The ALP is now a party of reactionaries. It represents an Australia that no longer exists…
“Rudd has a different role. He needs…pick the party up by the scruff of the neck, shake the unionist ticks and fleas off and reposition it at the centre of Australian life. That will necessarily offend the out-dated union mentality built around the myth of the unhappy worker.
“…the new Opposition Leader has committed Labor to Beazley’s backward path of ripping up Work Choices, restoring the power of unions. That makes him a loyal union friend rather than a protector of Australian workers….
“If Rudd can drag Labor back to the centre – tapping back into the changing nature of the working-class man and woman – they might just win the next election.†(“How to forge a modern Labor Partyâ€, Janet Albrechtsen)
Alan Wood naturally gave his support.
“Kevin Rudd’s industry policy agenda could have dangerous echoes of the Beazley-Crean era…
“Rudd has the opportunity to do that since he won against strong union opposition. But there is little evidence in what he has said since becoming leader of any intention to do so.†(“Waiting for new ideas to create the great divideâ€)
Paul Kelly added his analysis, but actually shoeds an astuteness which I have longed for members of the ALP to display in understanding what Labor has to do to win.
“Rudd proclaims “a new leadership style” for Australia yet he is poised to run a campaign in which Howard will cast Labor as the political wing of the industrial movement, an identity that is 100 years old, an identity that is about the past, not the future.
“The risk for Rudd when he upholds the IR policy, calls for an industry policy and talks up the need to save manufacturing is that he sounds like the Sunshine State’s Simon Crean…
“Rudd will try to wedge Howard. He will launch a frontal assault on Howard’s political fortress, his synthesis of economic liberalism and social conservatism. From his writings, Rudd wants to bring to a zenith Labor’s argument that Howard’s Work Choices undermines family values. So he will cast Labor’s policy not as a 100-year-old throwback but as proof that Howard’s market-based ideology will turn Australia into the wrong sort of nation. Herein lies Rudd’s idea of the “fork in the road” election.
“In political terms, Rudd seeks to mobilise a coalition of social democratic, conservative and Christian sentiment against Howard. He wants to fracture the voting coalition that has sustained Howard since 1996.†(“Rudd’s pitch to the conservativesâ€)
A few days later, there was more:
“Rudd’s strong stance and his careful instincts probably inhibit the most effective policy change he needs to dramatise his newness and to cripple Howard’s main critique: soften Labor’s industrial hard line by offering a concession on workplace agreements. This would outrage the unions and horrify much of the ALP…Softening Labor’s industrial hard line would totally transform perceptions of Rudd, his authority, his economic credentials, and if you have to nominate the one single action most likely to alarm Howard, this would be it.
“Rudd, however, may be a political prisoner to Kim Beazley’s structure. It is unclear how much he wants to change or can change the policy framework. The official Labor position, outlined by Beazley after his defeat, is that Labor is poised to win the election by teaming with the unions against Work Choices. Howard’s defence is built on this premise. He moved quickly last Monday to paint Rudd as a new face with an old policy. If Labor wants to fight on IR, then Howard will oblige.…
“The next successful ALP federal government will develop pro-market reforms where Howard has failed. That will be its historic mission. The sooner Labor faces this reality and talks this truth the better.†(Paul Kelly, “Rudd makes his standâ€, The Australian, 9/12/2006)
The editorialist re-inforced the message:
“From parliament to trades hall, much of the labour movement has lost touch with the electorate. The unions are desperate to defeat the Government’s workplace reforms and are intent on forcing Mr Rudd to campaign on what is a third-order issue for everybody but union officials. This will leave him open to the accusation that his credentials as an economic reformer are phony.†(“It’s time for Labor to follow the leader†(editorial), The Australian, 9/12/2006)
Another voice later joined the clamour to take Labor out of the Labor Party:
“Surely if Rudd recognises the economic powerhouse that is the non-unionised sector of the economy and is prepared to dedicate a portfolio to it, the corollary is he must also recognise that the union stranglehold over Australian workplaces cannot – and should not – be reinstated if he wins office…
“A softening of Labor’s position would weaken Howard’s capacity to attack the Opposition for getting in the way of job creation.†(Glenn Milne, “In for businessâ€, The Australian, December 11, 2006)
A week later, the campaign continued in two editorials on the same day:
“For years, Labor MPs and their paymasters in the craft and public sector unions have accused the Prime Minister of being a class warrior committed to punishing the poor, in part by reforming the labour market. Such nonsense cost Labor the last three elections. And Mr Howard is banking on Labor MPs trotting out the same inane arguments to lose the next one. He will probably get his wish if union leaders force Mr Rudd to campaign on a promise of reinstating union power… Canberra complains about the quality of school curriculums in essential subjects such as maths, science and English, and even convened a summit on teaching Australian history. But the Government has left the states to deal with the all-powerful education unions…For Mr Rudd to obey such apparatchiks, and make returning Australia to the old days of union-dominated workplaces his big election issue, would ensure another loss for Labor, allowing the Prime Minister again to portray Labor as the enemy of the reforms that have brought so much prosperity.†(“A Rudd awakening is what Labor needs†(editorial), The Australian, 19/12/2006)
“From 2000 to 2005 NSW received a tax windfall of $20 billion from GST and state taxes, but largely squandered this on extra recurrent spending and growing the public payroll.†(“The blame game†(editorial), The Australian, 19/12/2006)
The Australian never includes any figures on the long-term changes in spending or public sector salaries to justify its oft-repeated references to the supposed over-spending on the public sector. As for “all-powerful education unionsâ€, we can only wish!
For any Labor victory in the next election to be meaningful, Kevin Rudd will have to resist the pressure on the ALP to discard its 100-year old core of meaning. Industrial relations remain a key issue, and if the ALP backs down on this, we can ask what purpose there is in having a Labor Party.
Chris Curtis and Adam, everything you say is true but you’re overlooking one thing, The Australian is not read by the average voter. Its readership is relatively small. After the NSW election we will see if the IR issue is a potent issue or not. I believe Rudd will maintain Labor’s IR stance with minor changes.
As far as having the press monster you is concerned the Herald Sun tried to make life as difficult as possible for Bracks before and during the election and that is Victoria’s and Australia’s top selling newspaper. We know what happened there. Don’t make the mistake of crediting the press with more influence than they really have on the average voter. Voters make up their own mind.
Adelaide’s Sunday Mail reveals today that Labor is courting top-rating radio man Tony Pilkington to run against Christopher Pyne in Sturt. Pilko is said to have discussed with friend and Labor dealmaker Tom Koutsantonis MP the vulnerability of Pyne in Sturt, which on last year’s state election figures would be a Labor seat by 4.5 per cent (instead of a Liberal seat by 6.8 per cent). The Sunday Mail says Pilko “laughed off” the idea of exchanging his high-paying radio job for a tilt at becoming a backbencher. “There is no chance in the world of me running,” he is reported as saying.
Pilkington was mooted as a Labor candidate for Makin in 2001. Right-wing boss Don Farrell even took him to his local sub-branch meeting, to meet the troops, but that was less than a PR success when the sub-branch president asked the radio star: ” Who are you?” Nothing more was heard of the venture.
With Pilko out of the running for Sturt, Labor may still be considering a “high-profile former footballer” or a “young and successful Italian businesswoman” as its candidate. At least Labor is aiming a bit higher in Sturt than in knife-edge seats where the preselection process is all pretty humdrum. Gone are the days when South Australia produced members of the calibre of Mick Young, Ralph Jacobi, Neal Blewett, Chris Hurford, Gordon Bilney and Richie Gun (not to mention Clyde Cameron and Norman Makin).
Gary,
You are right about how few read The Australian, but Labor MPs read it, and it has already helped them dump Kim Beazley and back down on the independent contractors’ law, so I don’t put it past them to be spooked into backing down on other aspects of their IR stance if The Australian keeps up the pressure.
The thing that worries me with the IR laws is that they are so extreme that Labor’s vote should now be 60 per cent plus. This shows how much Australian society has already changed – and no, I don’t simply blame John Howard for this.
One lesson from Victoria, on which I admit to becoming rather monotonous, is that the previous Liberal Government and their IPA allies were so successful in changing the language in which people can think that the replacement Labor Government basically thinks the same way. If you read the way The Australian presents Labor’s education policies, you would realise that they would sound equally at home in the mouths of Liberals. There has been a massive shift in fundamental political attitudes in Australia in the past 15 years. The Australian, with its relentless campaigning, has to affect only some opinion leaders for the change to filter through to larger numbers of voters.
With the Family First vote rising – 4.3 percent in Victoria this last election, and almost 7 percent in the seats they ran in at the Queensland election, what effect will this have on the Federal election?
If they do another blanket preference deal with the libs this would seem to bode poorly for labor, no? Although if Labor can somehow manage to work a preference deal with them to somehow run even a split ticket Labor might have a fighting chance what with a sensible leader this time round.
The reason I mention this may be important is because at the Victoria election the “2% swing from Labor” was not a swing to Liberal but rather seemed to be a swing to Family First – if FF is picking up Labor voters and then sending the preferences to the Libs it could be bad news as 2% will mean a lot at this election.
What are your thoughts – my thinking is that Labors only chance this election is to do a deal of some kind with FF, as unpopular as that may be with some of the further left Labor members. On the other hand, obviously a lot of Laborites think FF is a good thing if they are jumping ship and starting to vote for the FF alternative.
The biggest issue with the ALP doing a deal with FF is a scare campaign by the Left over the repeat of the Feilding election. I’ve heard houndreds of ALP voters who said that they were voting ALP in VIC only because the ALP wouldn’t deal with extremists (their words) again. Also I’ve heard huge rumblings from the enviro/social movements (Not the Greens) about handing out for the Libs if the ALP deal with the ALP, and continue to do so until they get the message.
Wether it happens is an entirely different matter.
I wasn’t talking about The Australian, which I agree is mainly a vanity sheet for the Quadrant clique. I was talking about Murdoch’s sabre-tooth tabloids.
How misguided are these people who refer to FFP as an “extremist” party. FFP are a centrist party on socio-economic issues, conservative only wrt traditional family values. The fact that over 4% (not 2%) of the decline in the ALP vote in Vic went to FFP is testament to the fact that there is significant synergy with the ALP right and FFP. FFP are more akin to the DLP which managed a similar feat to Fielding at a state level. Each have synergy with Labor values. I expect the FFP dealing with ALP to continue.
The reasons for the blanket HoA deals between the Libs and FFP at the last Federal election were:
a. FFP rightly assessed that a Latham Labor controlled by the extreme Green would be a lethal cocktail for the country; and
b. Labor failed to engage with them, whereas Howard promised to do Family Impact Assessments on all legislation. Another one of Howard’s broken promises. FFP will be wiser this time.
As a professing Christian, Rudd will have appeal to FFP that Latham didn’t, and the difference in integrity compared to Howard will be like night and day.
Chris,
I believe what you are seeing is a more pragmatic Labor. For Beazley to have had any chance at the next election everything had to go his way. Labor knew Beazley was unpopular without The Australian telling them. Every other paper and poll was saying the same thing. The moment Beazley mage his Rove gaffe he was a dead man walking. I personally believe Labor has made the right move in regard to the leadership.
You are absolutely correct about their education policy and their back down on the independent contractors’ law but what they have done is read the electorate. In these cases and possibly a few more to come Labor must go with the electorate on certain issues. IR is unpopular with the electorate, why in the world would they change their policy on this? As I said at the beginning Labor is more pragmatic now and realises if you want to get into government to make the changes you and many others want to see made certain popular policies of the coalition need to be maintained. A fact of life I’m afraid.
Why is it that everyone refuses to believe it possible that the Right-wing parties can never be extreme, yet the Greens have always been.
I even heard the same people who are defending FF were the same sorts as those that were/are saying that One Nation wasn’t extreme.
Ray what you are basically saying is that people who want to burn lesbians at the stake just because they are lesbians are not extreme.
I might point out that the Greens (a so called extreme and sensationalist party) were telling people 14 YEARS AGO that we were running out of water and oil and climate change was real. You beleive now don’t you?
Maybe if people listened to the Greens more often better things would happen a lot sooner.
FFP immediately dissociated itself with the “burning lesbians” comment, if ever it was actually made. They are not a homophobic party. That said, they do believe that marriage (as per legal definition) should have a status commensurate with its unique function of procreation and nurture of children, and the concept of the family as the atomic unit of society.
One Nation however, were racist to the extreme, unlike FFP circa their stance on refugees etc.
FFP supports the green aganda of the Greens, but opposes many of its anti social/family policies.
One Nation wasnt racist or extreme
Global warming is NOT real
and Kevin Rudd is a smug arrogant little man with a mark latham size chip on his shoulder, and the country will learn this about rudd sooner rather than later (for our own sakes i hope so)
FF not extreme!!!!!!!!!!! No way. They take the Bible and some Victorian English social attitudes and blend them together into a nasty and deeply homophobic, discriminatory attack on the rights of human beings and hide it quite dishonestly behind the word ‘family’.
If marriage was a Christian institution (rather than a social institution the church decided to take control of sometime) the battle was lost when hetrosexual civil unions were recognised.
On the procreation / children raising analysis proposed in this post only fertile couuples intending to breed should be given a marriage licence. Clearly they don’t believe this rubbish themselves.
Nice they don’t actually want to burn lesbians to death, bit of a shame that the veener over the irrational and unchristian hate is so thin, and the deep and nasty homophobia so clear.
Queenslander, I realy realy, hope you are joking there.
Ray, I support your right to free spech – but don’t you ******* dare call The Greens anti-family. My family will be very upset.
I don’t know what page some of you guys are on, or what media fallacies you have been believing.
FFP is not anti-gay, they are pro marriage. They do not discriminate against homosexuals, but they do advocate for the rights of children to at least be given a chance of being nurtured with both their maternal and paternal influence in a family. Thus the added protection for the nucleus of that atomic unit, ie marriage. There was never any suggestion that this must be a church recognised insitution. No way No Way. And your suggestion that it be restricted to fertile couples is your concoction only, not mine or that of FFP.
The rationale can be defended on the basis of social function alone and quite independent of the religious contraints you unfairly ascribe.
So Ray you and FFP support equal legal and social rights and protections for gay and lesbian relationships – and can see no reason at all not to call them ‘marriage’?
This was not my understanding and if you and they fully support the rights of gay and lesbian people to be treated as equal human beings with exactly the same rights and protections for their relationships as the hetros get I apologise unreservedly and I am delighted to be wrong.
If in fact I was right and FF are dead keen on treating homosexual couples as some kind of lesser humans not entitled to the same legal protections and privledges in their relationships as a hetro couple then I am not the one who needs to apologise.
As for my construction – you said: ”
That said, they do believe that marriage (as per legal definition) should have a status commensurate with its unique function of procreation and nurture of children, and the concept of the family as the atomic unit of society.”
Now assuming that is logical your expression of the family is distinguishable from a gay or lesbian relationship only by the stupid legislation no doubt supported by FF types and the breeding function. Whether a hetrocouple is barren or not breeding by choice clearly they shouldn’t be allowed in the ‘marriage’ club if they are lacking the key ingredient you identified … you identified not me.
Now the reference to the legal definition incorporates, I assume because the statement does not make it explicit, the gotta be one man – one woman test – having sex as God instructs.
Now after a quick snide reference to Jacob and sons, particularly the story of Tamar and her twins (stars in the line of David), noting the chosen people the Christ and the new covenant starts out with a family and breeding stock that includes maids and amatuer prostitutes – I’ll come to my point – how (and you can bring the bible back if you need, you excluded it not me) other than homophobia do you get to the point you need a man and a woman in a marriage definition.
And even if you do why wouldn’t you extend all the rights and privledges currently associated with marriage to these relationships that fail whatever test you come up with.
Finally in my passion I point out that the most stupid things claimed on behalf of FF is some kind of crusade against the greens (I use your words) ‘anti-social – anti-family’ agenda. It is so absurd that it begins to make Bush truthiness convincing.
How could supporting basic human rights for all be an attack on any family – even if you pick a stupid excessively narrow definition that is relatively rare in any society over any substantial time frame.
Are you suggesting the lesbians next door some how threaten your marriage? Is this sacred institution, the cornerstone of the society you seek, so weak and fragile that it could crumble just because of what is going on – on the mattresses next door? i am very curious to know, and please no personal details, but I would love to know just how society is threatened by extending basic human rights to the boys or girls next door?
If indeed it is it is a far more fragile thing than I feared.
Let me conclude that there is one logical and consistent explanation for why someone might think the legal rights of the people that have sex next door should be less if they are the same sex – homophobia.
Now lets hope labor has the guts to stand up for the outcast and weak against iniquity and evil some would do to them. And lets hope labor helps keep them out of parliament.
A quick clarification – I love democracy even when it throws up idiots like Bush – so when I say ‘lets hope labor helps keep them out of parliament’ I do not mean to imply the will of the people should be thwarted, merely that Labor should ensure their ridiculously small vote doesn’t translate into seats, with the help of votes from good god fear labor voters who are happy to treat the people next door as human beings whatever sexual preferences or country of origin they have.
Okay, okay, time out… I seem to have started a flame war here!! I was trying to ask a legitimate question about strategy here and seem to have started a battle about the merits or lack of merits about Family First… that was not my intention…
My question was, will it be possible for Labor to win the coming election if they don’t do a preference deal of some kind with FFP, at least in the form of inducing them to run a split ticket? It appears that at the Vic election Labor had 2% of their voters spill to FF (or 4% according to Ray above) – if that happened at the Fed election and FF had a preference deal with the Libs this would effectively render the two party prefered a good couple of percentage points in the Libs favour – not a good thing in what is likely to be a very close election, would it??
It seems that, like Family First’s policies or not, perhaps Labor needs to play smart and make the deals necessary to get elected, not just pacify their most vocal members. I’d be interested to hear (sane and reasonable) thoughts on this one, especially from some of the members here who have studied these things longer than I have.
No Way (an apt characterisation of your view)
I have no problem with gays being afforded many rights which are currently the privilege of married (by legal definition hetrosexual) couples eg. superannuation etc.
There are some rights pertaining to family life that I would be prepared to fight for remaining the exclusive domain of married couples, eg. adoption, access to IVF etc. So no, unashamedly I declare that, on the basis of a healthy functioning society that affords children the right of nurture of both parents, gays should not have all the rights of marriage. Sadly, sometimes marriges break down and children are hurt, which is a large contributer to a dyfunctioning society. This is even greater reason to give them added protection.
But of the remianing rights, I fail to understand why you would discriminate against a whole category of domestic co-dependants. That is couples that share a life together but do not have a sexual relationship. Surely these are entitled to equivalent rights. I seems to me that you are the one who is discriminating on the basis of sex.
You bring in the bible to justify your arguement. I won’t even go there. I believe very much in the independence of church and state, and my arguement stands independent of any expression of faith.
I detest as much as you the manifestation of the religeous right in the Bush administration and I detest the fact that Howard is taking us there.
One can be a social conservative and yet hold to the socio-economic tennants of the left, and don’t underestimate the numbers in the ALP that agree with me.
Politikal… you are so right this blog is dedicated more to psephology than political idealism. I just could not let that twaddle go uncorrected.
From a strategic point of view the ALP have no choice but to deal with FFP in the upcoming election. If they are to wrest control of the Senate from the Coalition, they must restrict them to two senate places in at least two states. History is stacked against them, and the coalition currently have more than three quotas outright in every state. As well as inducing a swing in that chamber, ALP must work with all cross benches and minors to restrict preference flows to the Coalition, otherwise it will find itself with an obstructionist Senate. Fielding has supported Labor in opposing most controversial Howard legislation, including IR.
It has been shown that FFP vote are quite directable by HTVs, so the ALP has a good chance of receiving the FFP votes in marginals where they have a social conservative standing. There is room for negotiation. FFP preferences to Liberals could have cost the ALP up to 5 seats at the last election. With the growing electoral pull of FFP, I expect the impact to be even greater, and in a tight election this could even determine government. But the ALP will have to break its tight nexus with the Greens in order to maximise the flow of all those juicy conservative votes. Given that the Green voters will direct preferences to ALP regardless of the HTV, this will cost them little.
Labor can win and will win without FF preferences. I find the suggestion that voters go to FF from labor (as opposed to swinging voters moving to lib and libs moving to FF) unconvincing. The election is going to turn on interest rates and work insecurity. FF will have little bite in this environment.
I think I largely agree with No – other than child birth and raising there is no way other than homophobia to justify deliberate discriminate between couples. That Ray can’t understand why having and raising children as the key plank of social policy doesn’t count out non-reproductive heterosexuals but does exclude homosexuals seems inconsistent.
I’m not sure there is any evidence children are disadvantaged or damaged with two fathers or two mothers but sadly, as FF and the PM evidence, our society isn’t even mature enough to look at the question carefully – and I think if you did look at the question carefully you’d find factors rather than sexual preference behind any disadvantage or damage. Still rampant homophobia is going to create some issues for its victims – who knows.
Also clearly a healthy extended family, loving and tolerant, will provide a plethora of loving role models for the kids. The 1950’s mum dad and two kids behind a white picket fence model really should have lost its gloss by now – but some cling to it.
As a lawyer I find Ray running away from the bible quite funny. The history of law and criminal law is very much Bible influenced and to pretend otherwise is quite foolish. Really the whole anti-gay thing only makes sense either as an ignorance fear of unknown or biblical thing.
Yes, but will voters from the left who are normal ALP voters continue to vote ALP if a preference is done with FF? Remember only a small part of the left vote Green then ALP, most others follow the party tickets. Sa for example.
Does anyone know if Gary Gray is standing against Phil Edman in Brand?
Good point Enviroyouth – but if the ALP left voters didn’t vote for ALP who would they vote for?? Most of them, I suspect, would rather puke before voting for Howard. So while there may be threats of a mass defection from the ALP, they don’t have much choice in the long run.
Also, I think the new Rudd leadership is trying to win the swinging, more conservative voters who were concerned about the possible eccentricities of Latham (whether real or imagined, I’m just making an argument here). In order to do that he needs to appear to lean more to the right wing side of politics. This could be achieved by a major media uproar about preferences going to FF… he would likely pick up some of those swinging voters (say 1-2 percent of the vote) plus another 2-3 percent of the vote in preferences from a FF split ticket he would have lost to the Libs otherwise.
This would theoretically gain Labor 3-5 percent of the vote, a huge margin in what is going to be a close election.
Yes, as you mentioned, there may be some Greens or other left wing voters who decide to protest this and vote for Howard above the ALP – but I can’t see many of them actually following through on this threat, at least on a large scale. Perhaps 1-2 percent of the vote would be lost through this, being generous.
That leaves a good couple of percentage points gained overall, if you follow my logic…
I’m talking about lower house seats here – I would think FF would easily be induced to run split tickets everywhere in exchange for some Senatate preferences, considering that’s where they’d be focusing on getting people elected.
So my thinking is, as much as many hate FF, perhaps they are the key to this close election. With a couple of percentage points of the vote at stake, I can’t see how Labor can afford NOT to deal with them this time around.
Anyway, just a few theories to make for some more interesting conversation! It will be fascinating to see how to all unfolds as the year progresses.
I could be wrong Joe but I don’t think the State Exec has met yet, but it looks a pretty safe bet.
Left wing Labor voters do have somewhere to go, The Greens, and if enough people do so then seats will start changing.
Gary,
I agree that Labor has to be pragmatic, but there comes a point at which pragmatism completely takes over, and I do not want to elect a Liberal-lite government. The IR laws are unpopular, but not as unpopular as they would have been 20 or 30 years ago when Australians had more awareness of the role of unions in creating wealth and justice in our country.
Labor will also be ruthlessly pragmatic on preferences. It cannot win in the Senate, so it will focus on the House of Representatives and leave a hostile Senate to be dealt with via a double dissolution later. It will do a preference deal with Family First and the DLP if it needs to. It may lose votes from some, but almost all of these will come back as preferences.
The DLP has not contested House of Representatives seats for years, so its preferences will only be of use in the Senate, though if it is thinking clearly, it will contest House seats in Western Victoria as a way of maintaining and building on the support that got Peter Kavanagh elected.
Family First will probably be more willing to recommend preferences to some ALP candidates this time, given its experience of the Liberals’ broken promise on Family Impact Statements and given its distaste for the Howard Government’s IR laws, which no party called Family First could possibly support.
Labor will no more want to be dependent on the Greens in the Senate than it wanted to be dependent on them in Victorian Legislative Council, but it won’t have the same room to move, as the Greens are well-entrenched and will certainly win Senate seats this year and in any double dissolution.
OK sorry if my love of human rights got a bit passionate – but I was provoked someone tried to suggest FF wasn’t extreme.
But back to the voting issues – is there any evidence for Labor voters going in large numbers to FF. Or is it just a case of a fall in one primary and an increase in another? If it is the latter you have some work to link the two.
Is there any evidence it will be a close election. Many seem to assume Howard will win by a mile – the 2PP polls are saying Labor will win by a mile – so the whole close election theorem is based on the assumption either the polls are wrong or people are going to switch in pretty big numbers over the campaign.
Then on the top there is the idea that labor needs FF preferences to win and that somehow they should or can get them? I just don’t see it – but if you are a FF spinner it is a lovely house of cards you have built.
Most voters are, unfortunately, not psephologists and instead tend to be quite efficent, in terms of information, in the way that they decide who to vote for.
I imagine the ALP are currently running focus groups with voters that voted Labor and then switched to FF, they’ll be hoping to get responses like
“I don’t agree with FF about rights for homesexual couples, but I’ve got young children that I am worried about and FF are the only party that seem to to share my concern”
The point I’m getting at is that the ALP will try to get the votes from FF for free and pay for them only as a last resort
Laugh if you like Jasmine_Andyr. Regardless of my personal faith, I don’t need the Bible to justify my arguement, which stands alone on social grounds.
Ask most people today, in this so called liberal society, whether they believe society is at its healthiest when children are nurtured by their natural parents, and you will get a resounding yes. Our legislation should protect that institution.
By all means tailor rights to match the needs of non-married couples (=gays + domestic co-dependents), but don’t call things the same when they are fundamentally different. Marriage has a different social function to cohabiting couples.
Back on preference strategies… A few people have verified my conclusion that it just makes sense for the ALP to deal with FFP. But I think you will find that it will be much more difficult for FFP to repeat the feat of 2004. There will undoubtedly be a swing back to Labor, and in the Senate race this is sure to bring the Coalition vote below three quotas in most, if not all states. Therefore there will be no preference flow from the Liberals to FFP to propell them above a higher ALP bar. Therefore ALP are likely the harvest the benefit from such a deal this time.
Ray it is true marriage has a different social function. If people get married, they drive the economy. They get a cake, gowns and suits and spend thousands of dollars inviting all their friends and relatives to let them know what, if their really are close enough to be invited, they should already know.
Which is that they want to live together.
People who cohabit just let people know they want to live together, by living together.
That is the only difference, apart from technicalities.
Oh and I’m not anti-marriage.
So – views on the Howard reshuffle? Should Robb have received a cabinet spot and will that cause internal ructions? Is Turnbull going to create enough spark on climate change to boost gov credentials for green leaning middle class? Joe vs Julia – more Sunrise debates on the way?
For sure, our collective political life will be much duller without Amanda on the front bench.
Bob Day and Tony Zappia in Makin will not know what’s hit them! I can garuntee a good media story when the election comes around.
Watch this space!!!!!
I don’t mean to laugh in a nasty way, just in a friendly way, I’m in on the joke good luck with pretending Christian values that permeate our society and particularly those wanting to throw back to the 50’s – but is you want to stick to your theory of special social function good luck hun.
Enviroyouth… How right you are. I have my daughter getting married shortly and believe me I am certainly funding the economy.
But its worth every cent, because there are ocasions in life that are worth the fuss of a decent celebration.
If only couples would put the same amount of effort into preparing for a marriage as they do in preparing for a wedding, this world would be a better place.
I reckon the approach of the ALP to the Greens, if they are smart, should be very different on a national level to that on a state level. In the states (pretty much all of them, except SA where FF are strong), a dominant ALP government would always prefer to have the choice of right-wing parties, be they FF, DLP or CDP, as well as the Greens, rather than simply relying on the Greens.
These small parties have a strong tendency to support the government except on the narrow range of social issues they have a strong stance on. Maybe the DLP would be less like that with a Liberal federal government.
The Howard government benefits from having Family First. In Labor’s federal situation, the Greens will help Labor more if they are stronger. They are reliable in providing opposition to the government. On a state level, the Greens are a nuisance to a Labor government. On a national level, the Greens are helpful to a Labor opposition.
Graham, what are you talking about re Makin?
Ben,
The original DLP was not a right-wing party, and I think Peter Kavanagh’s voting record will show that the new DLP isn’t one either.
FF andSteve Fielding appear to be pretend independents, on matters of legislation which looks like going down in the Senate Fielding and Joyce publically state their views so as to ensure that they both are not voting against the bill. This way the bill goes thru yet Joyce and Fielding can take turns in saying that they stood up to the government.
On FF, any links between it and Howards favoured religous group the Exclusive Brethen?
Sacred social movement – no link to God, never met him, doesn’t talk to them, they are really not fond of biblical references at (sad really would exclude a lot of literature from their reading lists).
The axing of Amanda Vanstone leaves SA with just two Cabinet ministers – Nick Minchin and Alexander Downer, both Dries. A year ago there were four before Robert Hill deserted his fellow Wet, Vanstone, to move to the UN.
Vanstone’s departure takes some pressure off SA Labor, which has had only one shadow minister, the Left’s gifted Penny Wong, since Kevin Rudd dropped the Right’s Annette Hurley.
The SA Labor contingent can expect a bit more firepower after the election when Mark Butler comes in as member for Port Adelaide. Butler, a law graduate, is secretary of the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union, a leading light in the Left faction (Progressive Labor Unions and Sub-branches) – a direct descendant (great-grandson?) of Sir Richard Butler, Liberal premier of the 1920s and 30s.
When Butler addressed a Port Adelaide Labor group last year, an interjector was misreported as having said: “You’re just a grammar boy.”
His actual words were: “You’re just a glamour boy” (a description Mark was happy to wear). Far from being a grammar boy, he was schooled at Unley High, alma mater of Julia Gillard.
If the Right goes on with its intention to deselect Senator Linda Kirk (who has defied orders by voting for stem cell research and the Rudd-Gillard leadership team), a replacement could be Tim Stanley, recently commissioned QC and very unlucky candidate for federal Adelaide in 2001.
I agree with Ben’s comment that, “On a state level, the Greens are a nuisance to a Labor government. On a national level, the Greens are helpful to a Labor opposition.” This can explain why there are such discrepancies in Labor’s strategy towards the Greens in recent elections.
Just to move the debate a little elsewhere, i noted that mumble.com.au is still maintaining that Howard will cut and run before the next election. Recent developments seem to suggest that Howard is gearing up for the federal election witha new bench and trying to set the agenda.. I can’t see him leaving yet.
Regarding the Greens, the ALP might consider whether its current strategy (of rampant ‘pragmatism’ including occasionally preferencing FF ahead of the Greens) isn’t rather counter-productive. If Labor took the radical step of legitimising the Greens to the extent that they represent the views of between 1 in 20 and 1 in 10 Australians (and more like 1 in 5 in some electorates) instead of buying into the silly “the Greens are radical psycho hippies” nonsense pushed by The Australian and the Government, then the Greens would potentially provide a helpful mechanism for maintaining the progressive vote whilst allowing Labor to focus on its (alleged) core constituency of semi-conservative, working Australians.
Instead the Greens are demonised, particularly by the Labor right, and shady deals with extremist right-wing/reactionary parties are apparently fine. If this continues we can expect a Coalition controlled Senate for a long, long time.
I agree Labor cannot sensibly deal with FF at any level, and based solely on the FFP fan/s in this stream I think they are desperate to appear relevant and needed in an election where they are unlikely to be much of either.
Also I think today shows mumble is probably going to get his wish and Howard should stay on to lose. Very dangerous now Howard is laying out election campaign stuff for him to walk away – the humiliation mumble assumes he needs to be trying to avoid would almost certainly follow if he left now the real phony campaign has started – the new leader would have to dump some things and it would start getting messy.
Getting back to election speculation. the federal elections will be cal3ed sometime after July 1. the reason is simple it will mean that any change in fortune will delay the new senate from taking office by one year. John Howard at the president enjoys control of both houses of Parliament. under the current rules the senate takes office in July following the date of the election. Personally I think the rules suck and Parliament should have fixed 4 year terms but political opportunism and dirty politics prevent rational thinking.
Gary Gray has resigned from Woodside, announced internally about 5 minutes ago. Just thought you might like to know.