Winners and losers

Reading between the lines of the Liberal Party’s post-election reports for the federal and Victorian state elections.

In the wake of Craig Emerson and Jay Weatherill’s federal electoral post-mortem for Labor, two post-election reviews have emerged from the Liberal Party, with very different tales to tell – one from the May 2019 federal triumph, the other from the November 2018 Victorian state disaster.

The first of these was conducted by Arthur Sinodinos and Steven Joyce, the latter being a former cabinet minister and campaign director for the conservative National Party in New Zealand. It seems we only get to see the executive summary and recommendations, the general tenor of which is that, while all concerned are to be congratulated on a job well done, the party benefited from a “poor Labor Party campaign” and shouldn’t get too cocky. Points of interest:

• It would seem the notion of introducing optional preferential voting has caught the fancy of some in the party. The report recommends the party “undertake analytical work to determine the opportunities and risks” – presumably with respect to itself – “before making any decision to request such a change”.

• Perhaps relatedly, the report says the party should work closer with the Nationals to avoid three-cornered contests. These may have handicapped the party in Gilmore, the one seat it lost to Labor in New South Wales outside Victoria.

• The report comes out for voter identification at the polling booth, a dubious notion that nonetheless did no real harm when it briefly operated in Queensland in 2015, and electronic certified lists of voters, which make a lot more sense.

• It is further felt that the parliament might want to look at cutting the pre-poll voting period from three weeks to two, but should keep its hands off the parties’ practice of mailing out postal vote applications. Parliament should also do something about “boorish behaviour around polling booths”, like “limiting the presence of volunteers to those linked with a particular candidate”.

• Hints are offered that Liberals’ pollsters served up dud results from “inner city metropolitan seats”. This probably means Reid in Sydney and Chisholm in Melbourne, both of which went better than they expected, and perhaps reflects difficulties polling the Chinese community. It is further suggested that the party’s polling program should expand from 20 seats to 25.

• Ten to twelve months is about the right length of time out from the election to preselect marginal seat candidates, and safe Labor seats can wait until six months out. This is at odds with the Victorian party’s recent decision to get promptly down to business, even ahead of a looming redistribution, which has been a source of friction between the state and federal party.

• After six of the party’s candidates fell by the wayside during the campaign, largely on account of social media indiscretions (one of which may have cost the Liberals the Tasmanian seat of Lyons), it is suggested that more careful vetting processes might be in order.

The Victorian inquiry was conducted by former state and federal party director Tony Nutt, and is available in apparently unexpurgated form. Notably:

• The party’s tough-on-crime campaign theme, turbo-charged by media reportage of an African gangs crisis, failed to land. Too many saw it as “a political tactic rather than an authentic problem to be solved by initiatives that would help make their neighbourhoods safer”. As if to show that you can’t always believe Peter Dutton, post-election research found the issue influenced the vote of only 6% of respondents, “and then not necessarily to our advantage”.

• As it became evident during the campaign that they were in trouble, the party’s research found the main problem was “a complete lack of knowledge about Matthew Guy, his team and their plans for Victoria if elected”. To the extent that Guy was recognised at all, it was usually on account of “lobster with a mobster”.

• Guy’s poor name recognition made it all the worse that attention was focused on personalities in federal politics, two months after the demise of Malcolm Turnbull. Post-election research found “30% of voters in Victorian electorates that were lost to Labor on the 24th November stated that they could not vote for the Liberal Party because of the removal of Malcolm Turnbull”.

• Amid a flurry of jabs at the Andrews government, for indiscretions said to make the Liberal defeat all the more intolerable, it is occasionally acknowledged tacitly that the government had not made itself an easy target. Voters were said to have been less concerned about “the Red Shirts affair for instance” than “more relevant, personal and compelling factors like delivery of local infrastructure”.

• The report features an exhausting list of recommendations, updated from David Kemp’s similar report in 2015, the first of which is that the party needs to get to work early on a “proper market research-based core strategy”. This reflects the Emerson and Weatherill report, which identified the main problem with the Labor campaign as a “weak strategy”.

• A set of recommendations headed “booth management” complains electoral commissions don’t act when Labor and union campaigners bully their volunteers.

• Without naming names, the report weights in against factional operators and journalists who “see themselves more as players and influencers than as traditional reporters”.

• The report is cagey about i360, described in The Age as “a controversial American voter data machine the party used in recent state elections in Victoria and South Australia”. It was reported to have been abandoned in April “amid a botched rollout and fears sensitive voter information was at risk”, but the report says only that it is in suspension, and recommends a “thorough review”.

• Other recommendations are that the party should write more lists, hold more meetings and find better candidates, and that its shadow ministers should pull their fingers out.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

2,754 comments on “Winners and losers”

Comments Page 51 of 56
1 50 51 52 56
  1. That is a fair question from Terri Butler because it shows the problem with people here in middle class Melbourne not working in coal, they might own coal related shares but they can be traded for something else with little impact but for workers to take a $80,000 pay cut is a big hit.

  2. Historyintime @ #2499 Sunday, December 8th, 2019 – 3:17 pm

    Well I’m surprised that Terri Butler said that, being a member of the Left faction. It’s a very fair point. The anti Adani and coal thing is so over hyped in proportion to its importance in reducing emissions. It brings to mind WW1 and sending the troops (miners) over the top in a needless slaughter in support of some symbol.

    Of course it’s always possible that Butler has recently been recruited and incentivised by the interested lobby group.

  3. Historyintime @ #2500 Sunday, December 8th, 2019 – 3:17 pm

    Well I’m surprised that Terri Butler said that, being a member of the Left faction.

    All it means is that the “Coal Fitzgibbon” faction is still in there slugging. Given who they are supported by, you’d have to give them a significant chance of eventually coming out on top … and what politician wants to be associated with a bunch of losers? 🙁

  4. Mexicanbeemer @ #2500 Sunday, December 8th, 2019 – 3:21 pm

    That is a fair question from Terri Butler because it shows the problem with people here in middle class Melbourne not working in coal, they might own coal related shares but they can be traded for something else with little impact but for workers to take a $80,000 pay cut is a big hit.

    What other industries do we allow to prosper that assists in such destruction of our society …?

    I can only think of religion…

  5. Rex
    Butler isn’t arguing that coal is good, she is talking about financial security and is simply pointing that these workers could be faced with a $80,000 pay cut which is a large cut. Butler is asking would environmentalist be willing to take a similar sized pay cut which the answer is probably no they wouldn’t.

  6. Mexicanbeemer @ #2504 Sunday, December 8th, 2019 – 3:32 pm

    Rex
    Butler isn’t arguing that coal is good, she is talking about financial security and is simply pointing that these workers could be faced with a $80,000 pay cut which is a large cut. Butler is asking would environmentalist be willing to take a similar sized pay cut which the answer is probably no they wouldn’t.

    How many environmentalists work in thermal coal mines ?

  7. 3z @ #2497 Sunday, December 8th, 2019 – 3:15 pm

    Firefox

    Your 470k voters account for 8% of the vote. This is not something to be touting as an achievement or as evidence of the Greens’ deep understanding of regional Australia. Any party that thinks running a Convoy of Privilege to central Queensland either has no understanding of people in these regions or, much more likely, couldn’t care less about them.

    Also the non-metro numbers, in the stats you yourself linked, do include cities. All those provincial cities, five of which are bigger than Hobart and seven bigger than Darwin. The Greens do well (by Green standards) in a few seats defined by the AEC as being rural, such as Richmond, Forrest and Fisher, and this is no doubt down to the concentration of the vaccine-free communes and the wealthy tree changer set in these areas. Otherwise, the performance is dire.

    Yeah, that Convoy of Privilege certainly had all the earmarks of the “Onward Christian Soldiers” brigade.

  8. On Butler’s comments.

    People have to understand that Brisbane is the biggest mining town in Australia, and one of the biggest in the world.

    There are lots of good-paying professional jobs in mining services.

  9. Player One @ #2496 Sunday, December 8th, 2019 – 3:13 pm

    zoomster @ #2472 Sunday, December 8th, 2019 – 2:09 pm

    When you’re trying to decide which one of several approaches to take, there’s division.

    When one half of the party wants to open new coal mines and the other doesn’t, there’s division.

    There is also ignorance, stupidity, wilful blindness & denial.

    And probably our old friends greed and corruption.

    I don’t think you are greedy or corrupt. Just over zealous and hysterical.

  10. Andy Murray- I don’t know what metric you used to make that claim but whatever it was I’m pretty certain Perth would give it a run for its money.

  11. Rex
    Butler is saying would environmentalist be willing to take a pay cut of $80,000. it has nothing to do with the job or industry.

  12. Steve Bannon decides to take on Pope Francis. Too funny.

    Strolling through St. Peter’s Square, the heart of the Roman Catholic Church, Steve Bannon surveyed the enemy camp.

    The populist political consultant has a new target in his crusade against “globalism” — Pope Francis.

    “He’s the administrator of the church, and he’s also a politician,” said Bannon, a former adviser to President Donald Trump. “This is the problem. … He’s constantly putting all the faults in the world on the populist nationalist movement.”

    Since becoming pope in 2013, Francis has expressed a consistent message on the type of “America First” nationalism championed by Bannon.

    Two years ago, the pope cautioned against growing populism in Europe, warning it could lead to the election of leaders like Hitler.

    He has called for compassion toward migrants, saying that fearing them “makes us crazy,” as well as other marginalized groups including the poor and gay people. He has also defended diversity.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/steve-bannon-u-s-ultra-conservatives-take-aim-pope-francis-n991411

  13. Mexicanbeemer @ #2517 Sunday, December 8th, 2019 – 3:54 pm

    Rex
    Butler is talking about pay rates she isn’t defending coal.

    Her comments at LEAN were in the context of coal mining jobs transitioning to renewable energy jobs.

    The comments were illogical given most environmentalists don’t work in coal mining, so on what grounds is she asking the question of environmentalists ??

  14. Of course we could close all the coal power plants tomorrow if people were willing to put up with daily blackouts and the economic impact that would have.

  15. Rex
    Its fairly simple, environmentalist talk about the need to transition workers from coal to renewable but it has been said that renewable related jobs can pay $80,000 a year less than coal jobs pay. So Butler is asking a question that all those workers would be asking and that is would the champions of renewable jobs be willing to take an $80,000 a year pay cut.

    The answer is no they wouldn’t.

  16. Player One @ #2520 Sunday, December 8th, 2019 – 4:04 pm

    Greensborough Growler @ #2512 Sunday, December 8th, 2019 – 3:42 pm

    I don’t think you are greedy or corrupt. Just over zealous and hysterical.

    To reiterate – “ignorance, stupidity, wilful blindness & denial”.

    In spades.

    I never used those words to describe you. I never resort to baseless assertions and personal abuse because someone has a different point of view to me.

    But, tell us all again, how many people have you managed to convince of the merits of your cause with your behaviour and tactics? I’m guessing you could count hem on the fingers of your fist.

  17. When are people going to start turning on ScoMo for his absence of real action during these fires? Or has the Murdoch Press got them mesmerised?

  18. Mexicanbeemer @ #2522 Sunday, December 8th, 2019 – 4:09 pm

    Rex
    Its fairly simple, environmentalist talk about the need to transition workers from coal to renewable but it has been said that renewable related jobs can pay $80,000 a year less than coal jobs pay. So Butler is asking a question that all those workers would be asking and that is would the champions of renewable jobs be willing to take a $80,000 pay cut.

    The answer is no they wouldn’t.

    “would the champions of renewable jobs be willing to take a $80,000 pay cut.”

    Again, on what grounds ???

  19. Mexicanbeemer @ #2518 Sunday, December 8th, 2019 – 3:54 pm

    Butler is talking about pay rates she isn’t defending coal.

    Agreed. She said that Labor will fail to secure any climate change reforms with “blithe” language about transitioning workers out of the coal sector.

    “Blithe: showing a casual and cheerful indifference considered to be callous or improper.”

    I agree with her – “blithe” is the perfect adjective for Labor’s policy on coal. The policy appears to have been cobbled together without thought, and actually makes very little sense. This is why nobody believes a word of it. Not the coal miners. Not the environmentalists. Perhaps not even the fossil fuel companies.

    Labor will not win anything by continuing to sit on the fence.

  20. Maybe the Greens could promise One-for-One.

    A Greens supporter who earns more than $100,000 could sign a contract which stipulates that that Greens supporter will make up the difference in one ex-coal worker’s pay for the rest of their working lives, or Zero/2030.

    Whichever comes first.

    Greens who earn between $40,000 and $100,000 could contract to make up a third of an ex-coal worker’s pay differential.

    This is bound to appeal to those Greens who are sensitive to the criticism that their plan is to protect their amenity and their standard of living while other people’s lives are destroyed.

  21. Rex
    The grounds is that a job is a paycheck. Butler’s point is that the workers in those coal mining communities see their jobs as a paycheck, they don’t do it because they love coal, some might like their jobs but it all comes back to the paycheck.

    Environmentalist would not accept an $80,000 a year pay cut and the workers know it.

  22. lizzie:

    [‘When are people going to start turning on ScoMo for his absence of real action during these fires?’]

    It appears to be starting. And watch out for the actuaries who’ll be reassessing risk.

    [‘The article was flooded with angry Twitter comments, from Australian and international users who couldn’t contain their frustration. “I would like an app that gives instant polling so the Government can see what we think of them,” wrote one reader. Another added, “We feel you, signed California.”]

    https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/how-the-world-has-reacted-to-sydney-smoke-haze/news-story/c6782de9b2782287740099cb42ac0176

  23. lizzie @ #2526 Sunday, December 8th, 2019 – 4:14 pm

    When are people going to start turning on ScoMo for his absence of real action during these fires? Or has the Murdoch Press got them mesmerised?

    Sunday is church day lizzie, so he’s getting his instructions. With every week a good news week in happy clappy Morrison land, it’s taking time and a lot of arm waving to work out just how best to explain his gods goodly will in smiley lingo jingo to a country on fire.

  24. GG

    How disappointing for you when you were part of the braying pack sensing blood and demanding I will have to apologise about my cutting and pasting.

    William Bowe says:
    Tuesday, November 19, 2019 at 3:37 pm

    https://www.pollbludger.net/2019/11/19/the-heat-is-on/comment-page-7/#comment-3287401

    About half of a typical news report is okay. For a particularly long news report, or an analysis or comment piece, don’t go over a third. I’m somewhat less sensitive about corporate than independent outlets, but there are limits. Nothing Pegasus has done today is of concern to me.

  25. Not one Green, or person who is aggressively positive about doing something about Climate Change, who posts here has had the guts to say whether they would take an $80000 per year pay cut, or even less than that, in order to do their bit to contribute to a reduction in Greenhouse gases.

    And I bet none of you do.

  26. After all, anything the Greens can do in the practical, as opposed to the theoretical, space is bound to be a real step forward.

  27. C@tmomma @ #2535 Sunday, December 8th, 2019 – 4:24 pm

    Not one Green, or person who is aggressively positive about doing something about Climate Change, who posts here has had the guts to say whether they would take an $80000 per year pay cut, or even less than that, in order to do their bit to contribute to a reduction in Greenhouse gases.

    And I bet none of you do.

    You lose.

    Guess what our pay cut was when we moved out of Sydney to run an eco resort?

    We reduced our carbon footprint by 80-90%, and our income by well over $100,000 per year.

  28. Jeez why would anyone care what Scotty says or does or doesn’t do when it’s so much easier to attack the opposition for its failure to say and do things?!

    #getwiththeprogram

  29. I just think that Pegasus’ cutting and pasting means that she is incapable of articulating original thought.
    And snarky one-liners at the end of it all are not the same thing as intelligent comment.

  30. Mexicanbeemer @ #2530 Sunday, December 8th, 2019 – 4:21 pm

    Rex
    The grounds is that a job is a paycheck.

    The fat that you cannot give a straight answer confirms Butler’s point because the workers in those coal mining communities see their jobs as a paycheck, they don’t do it because they love coal, some might like their jobs but it all comes back to the paycheck.

    Environmentalist would not accept a $80,000 a year pay cut and the workers know it.

    It seems Terri Butler and yourself equate the destructiveness of coal mining jobs to all other jobs.

    Why else would she ask the question.

  31. Jeez why would anyone care what RDN says or does or doesn’t do. It’s so much easier to attack the Greens for Labor’s strategic and policy failures, as well as their current paralysis and denial ?!


  32. Mexicanbeemer says:
    Sunday, December 8, 2019 at 4:09 pm

    Its fairly simple, environmentalist talk about the need to transition workers from coal to renewable but it has been said that renewable related jobs can pay $80,000 a year less than coal jobs pay. So Butler is asking a question that all those workers would be asking and that is would the champions of renewable jobs be willing to take a $80,000 pay cut.

    The answer is no they wouldn’t.

    1)There are not many people in coal jobs at $200,000 and those that are are being paid thus because it is hard to get people to work at the back of Burke, to leave family etc. It is a special kind of life for a few.

    2)Renewable jobs are not limited to $40,000 to mount solar cells. The same rules to building renewable resources in remote areas apply to those building mining resources in remote areas.

    3) Australia needs to remain a energy exporter to prosper, the export has to be in renewable created resources. The market for coal will go, things are changing, and changing rapidly. Aluminum ( basically solid electricity), hydrogen produced steal, ammonia, and grid connection to Asia. And perhaps once again after the infrastructure is built, we can have relatively cheap electricity to support our industries. The cost of energy at the moment is a killer. Five year payback on installing a 100KW system and disconneting from the grid. It is crazy.

    4) Change brings economic activity. Built the Gas and coal export terminals, time to build something else. All going well the investment in Gas and Coal export will be paid off before the market collapses. Clearly there is still going to be a market for energy, steal and aluminum. We have the resources to do all three. We have a workforce that can build this sort of stuff, there is a market.
    5) Coal is finished, get used to it. Toyota electric cars only by 2025, 5 short years away. The $200,000 jobs will not be there in less than 10 years time, the industry will be struggling.

    Labor’s job is to detail how they intend to manage the transition. Sticking your head in the sand as the Liberal want to is not going to do it. As the Greens are only about destruction, their solution is not worth a hill of beans.

    Labor is our only hope, if they can’t find and articulate a solution then RI is right, we are fucked.

  33. p1

    Phooey.

    You should have stayed in your jobs and subsidized two unemployed coal miners instead of enjoying your tree change experience.

  34. Tradies and skilled workers will be well paid whether they work for Coal Inc. or PV-R-Us. The only ‘losers’ would be the ones that lucked in to the mining boom and in any other field would be award rate labourers.

  35. ‘fess, as Tanya Plibersek said this afternoon, what The Greens get up to is schoolyard level stuff. They just aren’t interested in constructive engagement. A look at this blog on any day will prove that in spades.

  36. ItzaDream

    Oh, I forgot it was Sunday (well, almost). It’s none of my business, of course, but I can’t see ScoMo humbly praying for forgiveness for his sins. More likely to be boasting. 🙁

  37. I notice in passing that the great boom in transition jobs is going to have to soak up some 2 million underemployed who are working around 14 hours a week less than they would like to be working.

    Repurposed coal miners can just go to the back of that queue, I suppose.

Comments Page 51 of 56
1 50 51 52 56

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *