Jun 05 2007
Seat of the week: Eden-Monaro
This fortnight’s Seat of the Week is Eden-Monaro, renowned throughout the land as the “bellwether” seat that invariably goes the way of the party that wins the election. It is not immediately obvious why it should have this reputation, as its record in this regard is far exceeded by Macarthur, which has gone with the winning party at every election since its creation in 1949. One reason is that Eden-Monaro’s broad mix of elements make it arguably representative of the state at large, if not the entire country: it includes suburban Queanbeyan, rural centres Cooma and Bega, coastal towns Eden and Narooma, and agricultural areas sprinkled with small towns (as well as the ski resorts at Thredbo and Perisher, which have many visitors but few voters). Furthermore, the area covered by Eden-Monaro has been remarkably little changed over the years, whereas Macarthur’s varying fortunes have largely been determined by redistributions. Eden-Monaro’s boundaries have always been defined by the ocean in the east and the Victorian border in the south, and its relative population decline has roughly cancelled out the effects of the increasing size of parliament.
The most significant aberration was when it acquired a north-western spur that took in Goulburn between 1934 and 1977. The 1998 redistribution left it with boundaries that were almost identical to those it had before 1913; the current redistribution, which saw New South Wales lose a seat, has for the first time expanded it westwards to include Tumut and Tumbarumba, formerly in the safe conservative seat of Farrer. These areas produced a two-party Liberal vote well into the 60s at the last federal election, and their addition has seen the Liberal margin increase from 2.2 per cent to 3.3 per cent, despite the loss of the Liberal-leaning Batemans Bay area to Gilmore. Labor’s strongest area remains the Canberra satellite town of Queanbeyan, not counting its outer suburb of Jerrabomberra where the 60/40 split in Labor’s favour is reversed. The coastal area can be divided into a finely balanced northern half, including Narooma and Moruya, and a strongly Liberal south, including Eden and Bega. Cooma and other inland towns are also solidly conservative. The 2004 election produced little change in voting patterns throughout the electorate, with the Liberals recording an overall swing of 0.4 per cent.
Eden-Monaro was held by conservatives of various stripes for all but one term until 1943, the exception being Labor’s 40-vote win when Jim Scullin’s government came to power in 1929. Allan Fraser won the seat for Labor with the 1943 landslide and held it against the tide in 1949 and 1951. He was defeated in 1966 but was back in 1969, finally retiring in 1972. The loss of his personal vote almost saw the seat go against the trend of the 1972 election, with the Country Party overtaking their conservative rivals for the first time to come within 503 votes of victory. The Country Party again finished second in 1974, this time coming within 146 votes of defeating Labor member Bob Whan (whose son Steve unsuccessfully contested the seat in 1998 and 2001, and is now the state member for Monaro). However, 1975 saw the Liberals gain strongly at the expense of the Country Party as well as Labor, and their candidate Murray Sainsbury won the seat with a two-party margin of 5.6 per cent. Sainsbury held the seat until the defeat of the Fraser government in 1983; the same fate befell his Labor successor, Jim Snow, who was swept out by a 9.2 per cent swing when Labor lost office in 1996.
The seat has since been held for the Liberals by Gary Nairn (left), who cut his political teeth in the Northern Territory as president of the Country Liberal Party in the early 1990s. Nairn moved to Queanbeyan and joined the Liberal Party in 1995, moving swiftly to secure preselection at the following year’s election. Within a year of entering parliament he landed a significant role as chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, but he then had to wait until October 2004 before being made a parliamentary secretary. Nairn was further promoted to the outer ministry position of Special Minister of State in January 2006, in which capacity he has expanded his authority in relation to electoral matters. He has also had to deal during the current term with the loss of his wife Kerrie to cancer, at the age of 53.
Labor made national headlines in April when it announced its candidate would be Lieutenant-Colonel Mike Kelly (right), a military lawyer who had been credited with efforts to warn the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade about the AWB kickbacks scandal, and the Australian military about possible abuses at Abu Ghraib prison. Kelly was installed as candidate a week after the party’s national conference empowered the state executive to appoint candidates in 25 key seats over the heads of the local party branches. The preselection process had already been considerably delayed because the party did not wish for it to coincide with the March state election. The front-runners to that point had been Kel Watt, a former political staffer linked to the Right faction who had been the candidate in 2004, and Andrew Beaumont, a Treasury official who had won backing from former member Jim Snow and Fraser MP Bob McMullan. The high-profile independent mayor of Queanbeyan, Frank Pangallo, said in April that “senior party figures” had encouraged him to throw his hat into the ring, due to what Andrew Fraser of the Canberra Times described as a “growing feeling” that Beaumont and Watt “might not have what it takes to win”. Less fancied candidates were Graham Shannon and Toni McLennan, both public servants.
June 9th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
If the swing is on, “union hacks” or not, Labor will win and so will many of those “shameful hacks”.
June 9th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Well Blacklight,
My theory is that any political party is always going to have a “hack factor”, I guess its reasonable because there has to be a reward for those who do the mundane work - letterboxing, doorknocking, organising, branches etc etc. The quid pro is that if you are below average intelligence or talent you can be rewarded above your due if you are prepared to do the boring and the mundane.
I’d suggest the hack factor is ideally about 15-30% of parliamentarians. After all you do need some who are happy being Indians and never Chiefs. The problem with modern Labor is that the hack factor has grown to about 50-70% which in turn promotes dangerously undemocractic structures and organisation.
I would say without researching the background of the Liberal marginal holders the hack factor would be substantially lower about 30-40%. Witness for example Howard protecting the nuclear scientist fellow in Tangney. Unfortunately Labor has very few like Tinley in Stirling.
June 9th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
And Gary,
Just how good will government by “union hack” be? Whats the point of having one or two hopeless terms other than to assist superannuation plans for ALP frontbenchers on the wrong side of 40?
June 9th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
This issue of how to pre-select “better” candidates is bedevilled by the nature of the modern political parties. As Adam points out there is no near-term likelihood of any party in Australia becoming a mass movement. This leaves them cherry ripe for take-over by factional heavies. I stress that this is not particular to Labor. The Victorian Liberal Party is no less factionalised.
In principle the Victorian Labor pre-selection process is a good one, with 50% of the votes deriving from members in the local electorate and 50% from a centrally elected panel. What is deficient is the unrepresentativeness of both halves of this process.
I agree with Adam that a primary system would be the ideal to work towards, but it’s clearly not going to happen, while the beneficiaries of the current system benefit from it.
June 9th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
So tell me Edward, what problems will these masses of “union hacks” cause to a future Labor government? What evil will they bring? Are you sure you voted for Labor during Keating’s time? Weren’t there masses of “union hacks” back then?
June 9th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Would you consider Shorten and Combet “union hacks”? Are there any that have talent or is this just a good ol’ union bash?
June 9th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Well a Rudd Labor Government 2007 would be not unlike the Iemma Labor Government if you need an example of what government by hack would be like.
Keating’s time - no I believe the hack factor was lower - certainly had some first rate ministers back then Button, Evans, Beazley, Blewett etc
Interesting that Shorten and Combet are cited as talent. How should we measure the talent or ability of a union leader. Perhaps union membership is a fair objective figure. In the last ten years I believe the ACTU and the AWU would have lost membership of approximately 15-20%. Good union leaders would be:
Police
Nurses
APESMA
SDA
who have all maintained market share.
Or what great achievements has a union leader delivered. Profit share is at a record therefore real wages are at a record low - not much of a record of achievement for these stars Gary.
June 9th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Edward StJohn Says:
Good union leaders would be:
Police
Nurses
APESMA
SDA
Please not the SDA. If we used them as an example of good union leaders then the criteria must exclude actually doing anything if the SDA is involved.
June 9th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Of course Bill,
I would endorse a better to die standing then live on your knees view of the world.
June 9th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Of course only 4 more hours or so and we should get the establishment view from some dingy cafe in the UK!
June 9th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Edward - “Well a Rudd Labor Government 2007 would be not unlike the Iemma Labor Government if you need an example of what government by hack would be like.” Could you tell me where you bought that very “clear and accurate” crystal ball?
I’m no economist but I’m not convinced this statement by you is accurate in the sense that because of A then B must follow. “Profit share is at a record therefore real wages are at a record low”. Not only that but you say this as if it is the unions’ fault. Try blaming the laws the unions are working under.
June 9th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
I wonder what kind of candidate i would be classed as?
June 9th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Interesting that after attending some community meetings lately that a good percentage of members from theses groups are now looking to the Greens as their first option as they do not feel the major parties are serious on Climate change , environment , education , health and social equality in Kingston and as a whole.
June 9th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Most union members who are not politically minded or interested cannot stomach union bosses who go into politics. They see this as a betrayal and look at it as that they are ‘only in it for the money’. Union delegates and shop stewards seem to support these union bosses moving into ALP politics. I believe that there should be more rank and file union members running for parliament.
June 9th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
A union with genuine employee support can beat any employer law eg O’Shea in 1969.
Profit share has been on the up since before WorkChoices.
June 9th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Edward StJohn, I seem to recall a less than successful Liberal Party hack of the 70’s of the same name. Are you he or just a relation?
Is It really necessary for you to post your incisive slant on your own party’s propaganda in such a condescending, sneering and frankly, insulting manner towards your co posters?
Do you have an anger management problem, or is it just your way of compensating for the inferiority you feel over the loss of your hyphen.
If it’s the latter, I can help, St-John. See?
If its the former, you are, I’m afraid, in the political sense, destined to become a lot angrier.
June 9th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Bill,
I guess the volk of Kingston will answer your question.
June 9th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Gary, your distaste for Workchoices is understood, but your disagreement with anyone who criticises or questions Mr Rudd, Ms Gillard or any current ALP position (including the reasons for the party’s standing in recent opinion polls) is becoming a very common theme in your posts. Are there reasons for that? Even ALP members are, on occasion, critical of their own party.
June 9th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
More sadness than anger Fulvio,
Last time I checked debate and argument werent condescending, sneering and insulting. I guess sometimes people play the man when they know they cant refute the argument. Please cite examples if you want to take that tack and be taken seriously.
Having said that I dont deny the odd niggle only to Adam, but then I think he would concede he is not adverse in that department either.
I can assure I shall be of good cheer whatever the election outcome. I have no particular dog in this fight as the Americans like to say, Fortunately whoever wins is not going to impact my life greatly.
June 9th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Dear Andrew,
Why then did people who had nothing to do with it deserve to get bashed up?
June 9th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
The original Ted St John (MHR for Warringah 1966-69) was not a Liberal hack, he was a genuine and highly principled liberal who would certainly would not get endorsed for a safe Liberal seat today. He was an active opponent of apartheid at a time when most Liberals were still defending it, he used his maiden speech to criticise his own government (prompting Harold Holt to ask “What’s this chap’s name - apart from bastard?”), and he criticised Gorton to his face for his drunkeness and womaning (what today would be called sexual harassment), thus getting himself expelled from the Liberal Party. He left politics with a clear conscience, which I rather doubt Phil Ruddock will do.
June 9th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
David, I make no apology for my views, nor should I and nor should anyone else here. I can say this to you I am not a member of any party but just express my view as I see it.
Edward, “Profit share has been on the up since before WorkChoices” I agree with you but I’m questioning the veracity of your statement that that automatically assumes wages are down.
I also note that you provide me with an example of a Labor government with union hacks as proof this will be Rudd’s fate. Being Victorian I’m not familiar with the Iemma government. Could you be a little more specific with your objections to having “union hacks” in government? What “damage” will they do?
Are there any state governments that don’t have “union hacks” at the moment? Are they all bad governments?
June 9th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Bill, it’s not how many people are going to vote Green that’s so important, it’s how many of those people will preference a particular major party that counts in the long run.
June 9th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
about Paul Keating’s lateline interview
it is worth looking at it on the abc website
These are Mr Keating’s opinions using his usual colourful turn of phrase
some is influenced by his upset at losing Government and some is well
thought out. What should be looked at is the merits of his arguements
eg it is possible to disagree with Julia Gillard’s effectiveness in terms or the
I.R position she puts forward without agreement with Mr Keating’s proposal
completely certainly one should look past the “Newspaper Journalism”
June 9th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Gary,
The failures of the NSW govt are too many to mention, I think we discussed it extensively in the threads pre NSW election.
Essentially the NSW Govt is not prepared to challenge the self interests of a union rump in the public sector.
There is a disconnect between the ALP interest in good government and the ACTU interest in status/power etc. The dilemma which PJK touched on is the needs of government need Labor to attack its own base.
Think Gorbachev in 1990, he wanted to reform but to reform was to weaken the powerbase that kept him there. Same problem with Labor (but obviously not on the same scale)
June 9th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Gary, fair enough. It really is a no brainer: everyone, within the limits of the laws of defamation, should be free to express their views about anything or anyone (although some, like Robert Mugabe, may not think so). I was most certainly not asking you to make any apology for your views (some of which I share), but just wondering when you might surprise me, or even engage me, with a different and refreshing perspective, perhaps in the same way you might be surprised and engaged by Mr Shanahan of The Australian if he wrote something different.
June 9th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
At least Shanahan has the excuse that he is only a hired pen who is doing what he is paid to do.
June 9th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
I only have the excuse that I believe in what I write. Bugger, I could use the extra maoney.
June 10th, 2007 at 12:05 am
Adam I have a reasonably open mind on the idea of selecting candidates via primaries. I think it would be essential that any such system have reasonable rules on campaigning - eg an expense ceiling or some other methods to ensure it didn’t simply become a case of victory going to whoever had the most money.
However, I wonder whether it would actually make much difference - how many people would bother to vote. In the US it works for a number of reasons that probably wouldn’t apply here. In cases like the attempt to roll Simon Crean I can imagine a lot of people becoming engaged and voting either for or against a high profile figure, but would many non-members really have come out for preselections such as those held last year in Scullin or Isaacs?
June 10th, 2007 at 12:11 am
Dear in two minds about keaters,
Although thi isnt the forum, i will answer youre question.
Many female friends who still reside in whats called the shire have been the taget of what would be called sexual harrassment at cronulla beach by people of mediteranean descent. Now i under stand youre an apologist for these individuals, but there is no excuse for behaviour of this kind. Truly if you belive the cronulla riots are because of how we ’skips’ behave you are seiously mistaken.
It may be time to divest yourself of moral relativism and get with the real world.
Why do i have no time for the islamic lebanese, (as clearly distinct from their christian cousins), simple, because you dont treat women like that.
June 10th, 2007 at 12:24 am
I often think about better ways to handle pre-selections.
What about a middle course between primaries and local area preselections that allowed ALP members from all over the state to vote in each preselection? It would a) make branch-stacking almost impossible and b) actually pay heed to the reality that members represent the party generally rather than a specific handful of branches.
With a weighting towards votes from the local branches, I think it would work quite well.
June 10th, 2007 at 2:06 am
I agree that would be an improvment on local selection.
To some extent, of course, that is what we have in Victoria. 50% of votes are cast by local members, the other 50% by a panel *representing* the statewide party membership.
June 10th, 2007 at 3:08 am
I doubt there’d be enough party members who really take a strong interest in party affairs outside their own electorate.
June 10th, 2007 at 7:43 am
Andrew, now I understand, thanks.
That’s why female Lebanese deserved to be set upon by mobs of drunken hoons and have scarfs ripped off etc.
And of course harassing women is very un-Australian.
“We decide who harasses our women, and the circumstances in which they’re harrassed.”
June 10th, 2007 at 9:24 am
David - even if there were only a few hundred amongst the 13,000 Victorian ALP members, for instance, that would constitute a reasonably representative sample.
Adam - whilst your point is correct in theoretical terms, I would suggest that most grass roots members do not feel that the central panel represents them.
June 10th, 2007 at 10:01 am
You cant put lipstick on a pig and make it presentable.
Probably PR in elections is the only realistic option with a reasonable threshold say 2.5% is the only way to open up the whole corrupt system.
June 10th, 2007 at 10:50 am
2.5% would mean that there would be list PR (or senate style list stv) which just gives preselection to the cetral state party (or federal party if the constitution is changed to allow national list) whick would not make the preselection procedure more democratic.
If you want proper democratic cadidate selection then then have Tasmania/ACT style system with the electoral commission organising a preselection if more than a set number of candidates from any peticular party nominate.
June 10th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Sorry to all those bored with Bill’s SDA obsession, but, Bill, I agree with what I have already said about the SDA.
June 10th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
It would be interesting to have a primary system. All parties participating, managed by the AEC, and all happeningon the same day. If as quite rightly said above, there were controls put on spending, it may be what the political process needs as it could reconnect large numbers of people with the process.
June 10th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
I just hope that all ALP members and supporters will be happy with a Family First controlled senate
June 10th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
# Chris Curtis Says:
June 10th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Sorry to all those bored with Bill’s SDA obsession, but, Bill, I agree with what I have already said about the SDA.
Chris obsession or not its how many of the members feel. Its good that you can agree with yourself ( would be a worry if you did not ).
June 10th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
I keep noticing the back peddling by Rudd and co on IR. You can just feel a split coming in the ALP. The unions ( not the right wing boss run unions ) are seeing the ’stab in the back’ after committing money and resources to the YR@W campaign. So i believe if the ALP wins this election we will see the beginning of a new or amalgamated workers/community party which will make politics very interesting.
June 10th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
People don’t see themselves as working class unless Adam says they are? I find this a very strange attitude which seems to flow from the right.
June 10th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Charlie says:
“Adam - whilst your point is correct in theoretical terms, I would suggest that most grass roots members do not feel that the central panel represents them.”
But that misses my point Charlie - there are no “grass roots members” in any real sense, only a hard core of factional activists and an outer circle of pensioners and drones, whose opinions on what is a suitable candidate are, frankly, not up to much. To repeat myself, the days of the mass-based political party are over, and cannot be brought back by any act of will by the parties. This is true all over the world.
The objective of any reform must therefore be to place the power of choosing candidates in the hands of Labor *voters*. In the US a person cannot join the Democrat and Republican parties as such at all - there is no “Miami branch of the Republican Party.” People register as a Democratic or Republican voter, and then join the primary campaign of whichever candidate best reflects their views. I know there are many problems with this method, but I think it is more in touch with the realities of modern politics than is the 19th century model we have at the moment, based in a working-class movement and culture which no longer exist.
June 10th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
“So i believe if the ALP wins this election we will see the beginning of a new or amalgamated workers/community party which will make politics very interesting.”
I assume I’m not the only person to read the word after workers/ incorrectly… and then re-read it to notice I was wrong by a letter.
June 10th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
Honestly advocating an American system of primaries is not unlike advocating a Big Mac diet to a sufferer of chronic heart disease.
Primaries are going to favour money and power interests. Who is going to be in a position to attract public interest in a seat like Deakin someone with an existing public profile or someone with lots of cash to get a profile.
Our system of politics is rooted. Australians want thorough reform. Look at the republic referendum it went down not because we love the Queen but people actually wanted a real reform and change. The decline of parties reflects that most sensible people wouldnt touch either party with a barge pole.
Who benefits from such a system? People like the rodent, you arent going to beat the rodent by being the rodent. It’s truly amazing that people who see themselves as stalwarts of the ALP are so scared of its own reformist heritage.
June 10th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Adam - I think it’s a little over the top to say there are “no” grass roots members. Their numbers may be thin, but either they are still around or my social circle is very atypical for a non-ALP member. All that really matters is that there’s a few hundred in each state (which would be the case except for Tasmania, I would think). Also - the key to getting a lot of them back, and turning solid supporters into members is to make membership meaningful again.
I have said in the past that I’m sympathetic to the primaries idea, but I think it’s just too radical a change for either of the major parties to contemplate it. Therefore, I’m focusing my musings on what I imagine might be within the realms of possibility.
June 10th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
When I want advice on how to reform the Labor Party from Liberal propagandists I will ask for it. I would have thought that a party which has lost 20-something state elections in a row might be in need of some minor tinkering itself. And do spare us your silly pseudo-left rhetoric. Our system of politics is not rooted - it is in need of some reforms, but on the whole it is among the best in the world. If you want to get into bed with bill weller and the trotskyites I hope you enjoy the company.
June 10th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Charlie, how do you propose to “make membership meaningful again”? People in 2007, including working-class people to the extent that the term still means anything, do not want to spend their evenings at dreary branch meetings or listening to speeches in the Mechanics Institute. That is part of a 19th century civic culture which has been dying since WW2 and is now stone dead. Smart politicians recognised this years ago - recall Menzies delivering his 1963 policy speech on TV, while Calwell orated at Festival Hall (I think) like something from the 1920s. Phenomena like the internet mobilisation for Howard Dean in 2004 are the future of politics. As I have argued before, I would abolish party branches altogether. People who join the Labor Party could join a policy committee or a campaign team, but they would not choose candidates. No doubt many nominal members and stack-fodder would be lost, but frankly they would be no loss apart from their membership fees. I note in passing that the largest party in France in membership terms is still the Communist Party, but what does this mean in practice? Rien.
June 10th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
I hope the second to last comment was aimed at ESJ, rather than me.
As for your post. I agree with your view about *why* party membership is moribund. Maybe with the idealism of youth (I’m only 20) I’m just more optimistic about turning it around. There’s no reason why the ‘dreary branch meeting’ *has* to be the only avenue of involvement in the party. The trick is simply to get like-minded people from the same area in the one place and start them talking about what they’d like to see happen - I know this is possible because I am a member of just such a group (albeit non-partisan). What needs to happen is for people to have some ideas and just do them regardless of whether they’re sanctioned by the state executive. If I’m a young ALP member who can’t stand Young Labor events, why shouldn’t I start my own youth network of Labor people?
June 10th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Adam’s argument is a bit like the Monty Python skit, ie “You think you did it tough we lived in a shoe box …”
I dont think the Liberal party needs my humble efforts for its propaganda. Both parties are stuffed or rooted. In my book success if measured by what you do not how many elections you win.
The alienation of Australians from politics is something I think most posters on this site agree is a fact. “Best in the world” you are a victim of relativism - just because Australia may be better on one statistic or other does not make it acceptable in an absolute sense. Are we truly to be compared to America?
June 10th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
No reason at all, and I wish you luck. But that idea in itself is a recognition that the current branch-based structure is obselete, non?
June 10th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Absolutely, Adam. We are in full agreement on that point. We just have different ideas on how branches can be circumvented whilst still getting people involved in one way or another.
June 10th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
“In my book success if measured by what you do not how many elections you win.” I’ve seen some asinine comments on this blog, but that is about the asininist. In a democracy a political party is an organisation for winning elections and forming governments. It has no other purpose. It cannot “do” anything unless it can win an election - ask any opposition leader.
June 10th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
So its “whatever it takes” is it? How sad.
June 10th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Bill, FF will only get seats if Labor’s primary senate vote is low and they receive Labor preferences.
And Adam’s remarks are a good hit of common sense that is worlds apart from some of the other chit-chatter on here.
June 10th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
“People who join the Labor Party could join a policy committee or a campaign team, but they would not choose candidates.”
Adam, what would your version of the ALP look like? Who would choose the candidates? Who would choose those who determine candidates and party policies?
June 10th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
“I know there are many problems with this method, but I think it is more in touch with the realities of modern politics than is the 19th century model we have at the moment, based in a working-class movement and culture which no longer exist.”
I used to be very attracted to a primary-style selection of candidates. A problem with it, though, is that one would require substantial amounts of money to run in the primary (although this would be lessened in electorates with small numbers of electors). An advantage of a primary is that, by definition, many people would have already supported the eventual candidate over other candidates - the candidate would probably have more mass appeal than one who only had to win the votes of party members.
June 10th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Sacha,
Why the answer is obvious, some learned, pragmatic and in tune in with common sense and middle class wisdom - why someone like Adam of course!!!
June 10th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Indeed.
June 10th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
As Vladimir Illich said
democracy is so precious it must be guided and rationed.
June 10th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
I believe Mr Ulyanov`s quote was more about liberty not democracy.
June 10th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
“But that misses my point Charlie - there are no “grass roots members†in any real sense, only a hard core of factional activists and an outer circle of pensioners and drones, whose opinions on what is a suitable candidate are, frankly, not up to much. To repeat myself, the days of the mass-based political party are over, and cannot be brought back by any act of will by the parties. This is true all over the world.”
Adam, what are the relative proportions of “factional activists”, “pensioners”, “drones” and others? You appear to think that there is, in any real sense, no-one else. Is this true? I agree that the days of the mass-based political party are over. What, in your opinion, would be a good structure to replace it and why?
June 10th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
To answer Sasha: candidates would be chosen by voters. In the US when you register to vote, you register as a Republican, a Democrat, a Communist or whatever you like. That entitles you to vote in your party’s primary election to choose its candidates. So, to take me as an example, I would register as a Labor voter, and I would vote in a statewide primary to choose Labor’s Senate ticket, and in a constituency-wide primary to choose the candidate for Melbourne Ports. The same would apply to state and council elections. Since we have compulsory voting in Australia, this would ensure that the candidates chosen would have the support of the majority of the party’s supporters. I would support a cap on primary election spending, but experience in the US shows that this is not very meaningful - you can’t stop people raising and spending money to support candidates if they want to. I don’t think it matters much. As Malcolm Turnbull has shown, it’s perfectly possible to buy a federal electorate under the present system. On the other hand, if money was all that counted, Ted Baillieu would be be premier of Victoria.
I pass over Edward’s puerile sneering - if that’s really the best Liberals can put up they will lose another 20 elections in a row.
June 10th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
Thanks Adam - that’s a primary system. How would party policy be determined?
June 11th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Sacha is right in that winners of primaries would have to be proven vote winners. As they would have to communicate with a wider audience,they would also have to developed some policy positions, or positions relative to the wider party policy position. One difficulty with a primary system would be that it would work well in safe or winnable seats,but frankly who would contest the liberal primary in Calwell or Fowler, or the Labor primary in Bradfield?
June 11th, 2007 at 11:58 am
Youd probably also see an increasing independance of view and thought from candidates and members.
a good thing i think, but some may not agree
June 11th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
An interesting debate and I am going to throw caution to the wind and suggest that the ALP is not broken, the Libs are not broken (just morally bankrupt under Howard) and our democracy is healthy and thriving (omitting Howard’s attempt to disenfranchis voters at the next election which is clearly a disgrace that only someone abusing uncontrolled power would try).
I don’t think that the public is largely disengaged from politics, is a sign that there is anything wrong with our democracy. It presents a risk, and something good governments (ie Labor Governments) will take into account to ensure ordinary Australians aren’t exploited.
I say a risk because a really bad Government might do something silly assuming everyone is asleep and disengaged and then find polling putting it anhiliation territory.
The only thing I would change about the ALP is that instead of endless ‘anti-stacking’ rules (all looking to limit membership) I would want to see much much much more recruitment of members and growth of branches.
Yes most people don’t want to sit in meetings but there are enough interested people in most communities who will, and far too few of them are Labor party members. In fact they end up at local chambers and thinly disguised liberal party meeting.
And as for the Liberals well I find their informal branches thru local chambers and largely member free community groups to be very effective but; but just a little bit dishonest.
June 11th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
What do you mean by “informal branches”, Yasmin?
June 11th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
One aspect of a primary system is that an eventual candidate will be popular amongst the section of the population voting in that preselection which doesn’t necessarily mean the whole electorate. A good example of that is the Democratic Senate primary for Connecticut for the last Congressional elections. (All readers here would well remember that story and the outcome of the actual election.)
June 11th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Adam, I see you are proposing that voting be compulsory in the primary as well as the final election. This would certainly deal with the problem I raised (that very few voters would bother to participate in most preselections). However, while I think that optional primaries are a possible, although long-term, project I cannot see the faintest chance that Australians will ever accept being forced to vote in party’s preselections.
In which case surely all this muttering about primaries as the solution is not much different from trots babbling on about how everything will be better after the revolution, without any serious effort to achieve practical reforms.
June 11th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
Yasmin says: “I would want to see much much much more recruitment of members and growth of branches.” This is a fantasy. There is no way this can be done in the kind of society we now live in.
Sasha says: “an eventual candidate will be popular amongst the section of the population voting in that preselection which doesn’t necessarily mean the whole electorate.” Well of course not. Just because I win the Labor primary in Kooyong doesn’t mean I will win Kooyong. But it does mean I will probably by the candidate best-placed to maximise the Labor vote in Kooyong. I don’t see the relevance of the Connecticut primary. Registered Democrats, being strongly antiwar, voted for Lamont, but the voters of CT disagreed and re-elected Liebermann. So?
Stephen: Turnout in US primaries varies enormously depending on the situation. Not many people vote in the Democratic Senate primary in Utah, because everyone knows that Utah always elects Republicans. The same would be true here if primary voting was voluntary. If there had been primaries in the Labor seats where sitting members were challenged this time (Maribyrnong, Corio, Hotham, Charlton, Blaxland etc etc), or where sitting members had retired (Fremantle, Port Adelaide), I think the turnout would have been quite high.
June 11th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
I think primaries would be a good addition to the Australian political scene, and have expressed that view previously too.
The one thing I would caveat though is that in many of the high profile preselections I have seen on the Liberal side, the preselectors have been proven to have gotten it right, even if they are only shown to be right after the preselection.
Who would rate Pru Goward better than Greg Smith after her spectacular entry into Macquarie Street?
Who would rate Peter King better than Malcolm Turnball?
Very few Liberals at this point from what I can tell.
June 11th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
One big advantage of the primary would be decentralising the power of the parties, while local branches will retain their critical role in harnessing support for individual candidates (even if less formally).
It could also have the impact of reducing the advantages of incumbency (especially if primaries were more than 6 months prior to elections), and give name recognition to non-sitting members. It would also add credibility to the situations where a sitting member is challenged, as the challenger would be shown to have the support of a majority of their voters in the area.
The only problem is that the media would have to lose some of the fake outrage that comes when political parties (and their voters) democratically decide who should represent them, rather than giving individuals a seat for life.
June 12th, 2007 at 3:08 am
I’m pretty cold on the idea of primaries in Australian.
As I think someone may have mentioned before, forcing intra-party contests to a popular vote forces the candidates to differentiate themselves from one another. Which means that candidates, even after they’ve won the primary, are as much running under their own banner as they are their party’s.
This fosters an independent mentality amongst MPs which I believe has more downside than up. My core concern being that these quasi-independent MPs will work more towards the narrow interest of their own constituents than the national interest.
Also, contrary to what some have argued, the primary system entrenches incumbency. In the US, primary challenges to sitting members are rarely successful. The recognition factor of a sitting member proves difficult to overcome. This is also true of general elections, where the recognition factor boosts incumbents.
Western Suburbs argues that challengers would have greater name recognition under a primary system. But this is superficial. You’re comparing a system where name recognition is important, to one where it’s of lesser value.
June 12th, 2007 at 9:01 am
Did anyone get the details (figures, pollster, number polled) of a poll taken in Western Australia recently? Apparently it wasn’t good for Labor. Thanks.
June 12th, 2007 at 10:32 am
Adam wrote: “I don’t see the relevance of the Connecticut primary. Registered Democrats, being strongly antiwar, voted for Lamont, but the voters of CT disagreed and re-elected Liebermann. So?”
It’s an example of where the views of the primary voters don’t reflect the views of the electorate - so while many more people (as a proportion of the total electorate) voted in the Connecticut Democratic primary than in any Australian preselection, it didn’t mean that the candidate was necessarily more electable. Of course, Lamont winning the primary meant that he was preferred by the registered Democratic voters instead of the relatively few local members of a notional Democratic Party.
One benefit of a primary - it involves many more people choosing the candidate.
One drawback of a primary - it involves much more campaigning and thus money, probably leading to greater incumbency factors.
The focus on individuals in a primary may mean that the Primary winner is more independent of their party than at present, which could be seen as positive or negative.
June 12th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Sorry Adam - while I agree there is no way to do it easily, and yes it may be a dream, but your position frankly, and with all due respect for the embedded ALP warlords who would find a real growth in branches threatening, you ‘it is impossible’ view shows all the leadership of Howard. That is stand behind a crowd and quietly follow.
Those with the power and the money in the ALP are those least interested in recruiting members, and most interested in creating ‘anti-stacking’ rules that are essentially anti-member rules.
Now remember I said the party isn’t broken, and I don’t want to sound like it is, but if there is an impediment to membership it is the party itself, not community attitudes and beliefs, and lifestyle.
June 12th, 2007 at 11:00 am
Sorry Swordfish, by ‘informal’ I mean run by Liberal Party operatives, attended largely or exclusively by Liberal Party members and operatives, but not actually branches of the Party.
Again the turnouts at these kind of events, show people are not incapable of public activity in evenings, they are not as disinterested as the male powers that be would have us think, and they are looking for ways to be part of their community. The male powers that be are much more interested in pretending there is no community so they can move mates around seats and city’s without local consideration.
Labor would be much better of, and much stronger if it was a bit more active on membership, as opposed to being institutionally disinclined to it.
June 12th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
In the US, it is well known that voters in primaries are more likely to be committed activists, and can drag the party away from the mainstream to an extremist position. I recall reading that in Minnesota, Republican primary voters are very right wing, and Democrat voters very left wing, to the point where the endorsed candidates did not reflect mainstream view, and Jesse Ventura came down the centre.
Lets apply an Australian example, imagine for some reason that the primary voters (for either major party) in Melbourne Ports voted for a candidate that was actively anti - Israel. Of course, it may attract some voters, but it would largely repel the 30% of Jewish voters in MP. Said candidate would lose big time, that is an example where the primary voters would not reflect the wishes of the constituency at large.
June 12th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Gary - that’d be the Westpoll. Bear in mind that the paper that runs it specializes in character-assasination of state ALP government ministers and pretty much calls for the Premier to resign on a daily basis. I can’t supply the figures because I didn’t buy the paper.
June 12th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Thanks SR.
June 12th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
OK Yasmine, I await your prescription for reversing a decades-old, worldwide sociological and political trend (disengagement from active participation in political parties) and restoring a genuine mass membership base to the ALP, or any other party. Vague aspiration is not enough, let’s have some specifics.
June 12th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
I think perhaps you take a step too far Adam with ‘mass membership’, but I’ll start of with ‘more membership’ (perhaps I got a bit effussive and gave a grander vision but hey gotta have a grand vision to take baby steps) and see how it goes from there.
Rewrite the rules in every State to encourage membership of branches, rather than discourage because everyone wants to talk about the ‘elephant in the room’ (that is branch-stacking)but no-one could be bothered measuring it or enforcing the existing rules. Freeze the 50:50 at current numbers and then have a formula so that union representation is effectively diluted down to 70:30, but only slowly over time by real increased measurements. Make state secretaries and presidents responsible for leading recruitment campaigns with KPI’s and bonuses dependent on hitting targets towards 70:30.
Something like that. Unless you are too elitist to want to listen to the community you must see the party only gets richer from increased membership and participation.
June 12th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Sorry Adam had a late brain wave, essentially I’m saying do what is necessary to run the organisation like a business what wants members and wants to listen to them, and run the parlimentary party exclusively like a party that wants to win Government.
June 12th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
I’m sorry Yasmine but none of that will cut it.
* “Rewrite the rules in every State to encourage membership of branches.” More vague aspiration. Rewrite them *how*?
* “Freeze the 50:50 at current numbers and then have a formula so that union representation is effectively diluted down to 70:30, but only slowly over time by real increased measurements.” I *think* this means “give branch members more votes at state conferences vis-a-vis the unions.” How will that increase membership? Have you ever been to a state conference? I’d rather be boiled in oil than sit through another.
* “Make state secretaries and presidents responsible for leading recruitment campaigns with KPI’s and bonuses dependent on hitting targets towards 70:30.” I have no idea what that means.
* “run the organisation like a business what wants members.” Businesses exist to make money, and people join a business in expectation of material reward. I don’t see any useful analogy.
* “run the parlimentary party exclusively like a party that wants to win Government.” What does that have to do with increasing membership?
June 12th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
Sacre Bleu -70-30 rule, Yasmine have you joined the forces of the reformation?
It is indeed time to let the winds of change into the ALP, good for you!! Slowly painfully the ALP will come to adopt something exactly like your position.
No doubt there was a significant element in the 60’s who believed the national executive would never yield leadership to the parliamentary party so there you have it.
June 13th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Gentle slow improvement Edward gentle slow improvement.
Rewrite the rules : isn’t technically obscure, I think if you’d stayed awake at the State Conferences you’d have notice amendments to the rules probably happened at some point or another. Pretty traditional mover / seconder debate vote stuff.
If you are saying the powers that be just aren’t going to change, I’d probably agree with you, the numbers to do it aren’t there; but that doesn’t provide support for position.
Sorry if I was too brief, essentially if you give an incentive for increasing membership, ie, so that increased membership diluted the 50:50 rule over time, then it is an incentive to enrol branch members because if you grow the membership then the State Conference membership votes increase, no membership growth no increased vote no dilution.
That unions would probably form a large chunk of these branches and increased membership is quite irrelevant the votes have moved from the unions to political branches. Not rocket science, not in the interest of the powers that be but still a way to encourage rather than discourage membership.
It doesn’t really matter if I’ve been to State Conferences or not. I assume that was an intend slight which I will recover from in due course. Although wait I mentioned above the State Secretary at a recent State Confernce mentioning poll bludger … so I at least know they occur.
KPI’s and targets. You don’t understand organisations having goals and measuring the performance of staff against those goals? Are you serious? I guess I should know what you do for a living, but I don”t. I will say however if you can get me a job in the unmeasured untargeted world you inhabit please send me an application pack.
OK my apologies for using a business metaphor, in my circles Government and Organisations are told they are supposed to run like businesses, but then they have targets and performance measures, so I’ll apologise for living in the business world. All I mean is that the aim of the organisation is to add additional members it, in and of itself would be an improvement. If you then make measures of that and tell key people and staff they are going to be evaluated against those measures and performance and you have carrots and sticks at your disposal then you can actually acheive.
Finally my last point was to clearly identify two different focii and aim for them with different body’s and efforts. If a large blobby organisation has no goals or isn’t really sure what is goals are it is not really going to go anywhere. If you have two organisations both exclusively focused on winnning Government you’d have massively declining membership of …. oh wait didn’t we already do that?
I’m not trying to cut anything honey. I’m trying to suggest that the party I love has a organisational culture and structure that actively works against membership, rather than the other way around. It still is a great organisation, it still does great things and seems at the moment to have a great record of success baring Cth elections.
And if you key point is the powers that be aren’t going to give up power, and aren’t going to focus on getting more members and more input and deliver a better party you are almost certainly right. If you are suggesting this is either good or inevitable then I fundamentally disagree with you and would beg you to go and join some other party.
If your key thesis is that communities have no interest in their own community and politics I think you are wrong; and while high standards of living, relative peace and relative stability is going to reduce participation through increased satisfaction, I know in the communities I’m part of there are lots of passionate active people who should be in the Labor party but the Labor party needs to go to them and recruit them, they are not going to come to us.
For goodness sakes about half of the people that manned the booth I ran at the last Federal Election, standing in the hot sun were not even party members. Why would that be Adam? They care enough to stand in the sun and had out HTV’s for some factional hack who has barely visited the electorate and who they’ve never heard of but they don’t join the party? Not surprisingly the particular seat moved from relatively safe to massively safe based on the last effort.
My key thesis is that if we take serious steps to recruit them we are better off. No I don’t think it is going to happen, but I object strongly to any attitude that suggests we shouldn’t even try.
June 13th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Yasmine: will come back to your post later tonight (v. interesting though)
June 13th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
I certainly agree that Ahern pulling off a surprise re-election has some lessons for Australia - I have never said that this election is in the bag for Labor. It isn’t and it won’t be until Rudd survives the shitstorm of negative advertising and Murdoch attack-journalism he is going to get during the campaign. But I agree that the peculiar nature of the Irish election system make comparisons difficult.
Yasmine, well you may be right, it may be possible to bring about some recovery in branch membership, but this is swimming against the very strong tide of civic disengagement that has been flowing since suburbanisation, the postwar baby boom and TV killed off the old culture of civic participation. I wish you luck. I still think that primaries are a better solution to the problem of candidate selection than attempts to recruit more branch members.
(Someone has now told me what a KPI is. I thought it was a brand of fried chicken. My previous occupation was politics, so of course I know nothing of such things.)
June 13th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Adam - it’s a very brave thing to admit to not having known what KPIs are.
June 13th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Yasmine,
Will you be the Marianne of the revolution? You’ve started down an exciting road.
June 13th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Well Yasmine I had the advantage of a 1970s liberal arts education, so I didn’t dirty my hands with such matters.
June 13th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Adam,
KPI, KSC, ETWR, transformational leadership - it doesn’t matter. If you go to the satire section of platowa.com, you will find about fourteen editions of Bull**** Bingo, provided by the hard-working cynics of Hampton Park Secondary College. Almost every one of the, perhaps 500, terms, comes from education, but they all have that meaningless businessspeak about them.
Yasmine,
I think you will enjoy them too, even if you are a believer.
June 14th, 2007 at 12:31 am
OK you have caught me out.
The KPI stuff well what can I say. I agree with Chris without going his source. And yes in business and more so in Government it is mostly, um bingo rubbish. I have been a captive of this world too long they have infiltrated my brain.
Without the stupid jargon I got caught out on, my point is at the moment in the State I know best if membership drops, the powers that be probably don’t go to the office bearers and say “OMG membership has dropped WTF have you been doing?”
If they noticed odds are they’d say “Fantastic 200 less drongos this year, should be much neater as we move amendment to rule X to ensure that members must line up at Chicken Treat between 3.30 am and 4.00 am on the 27 June to renew there membership which only may be paid in West Coast Eagles Football Cards to the value of $100.” Just think how this measure will be fantastic to reduce branch stacking… ha ha ha … we wont have branches … ha ha ha.
I think this is the wrong direction. I don’t think the tide can be turned I’m too cynical and old for that but my most critical point is there are, I know I meet them, people who should be in the Labor Party, they believe what we believe and many live it and put it into action even better than us, but we have to go to them and listen to them and promise to try to do better. But we don’t we sit back thankful the branch meeting finished in 10 mintues and hope the Admin committee don’t notice we have the full cast of cheers signed up as members for next year.
June 15th, 2007 at 12:01 am
15 or 16 or 17 seats to win Government ? WHO CARES !!!! Whoever wins the 2007 Federal Election is historically speaking not going to have to play footsies with Independents-it will be a clear majority-that is my contention> What do i have to back up my contention, what empirical evidence ? Australian Election history for one thing.
What bothered me and drove me to make this God awful [totally unsound and inverifiable] contention is the very real concern I have about what happens if Rudd loses this Election- at the next Election ?
Will the ‘damage’ done by Latham’s lame effort be repeated- More Coalition seats taking an unexpected shift toward ’safe’ space ? More voters opting for the [protest-oh bloody hell, their both hopeless] Greens ?
Family First getting a run at another Senate seat in 2010 ? And the ALPs chances of winning next time being improbable ?
Latham’s anti-logging thing did damage in TAS and parts of VIC and elsewhere - Bass, Braddon et al- but can the ALP win either back ? Hindmarsh, Swan, Bendigo, possible LOSSES–grrr !!! Corangamite, Kalgoorlie, Bennalong, no way– Bonner, Blair ? Ha !! Eden Monaro- perhaps; Wentworth, please God Wentworth, Im sick of his face on the TV;
Page, dont think so; Solomon ? perhaps; how depressing, scratching together a few ‘gain’ seats for the ALP.
Cross referencing between Adam Carrs seat by seat prognosis, rogue and other polls, The Poll Bludger, a 6 week solid analysis of 2001 and 2004 election results in fine detail, and the coal face I stare at out here in the bleachers here in sunny SE Brisvegas where i function as a social worker in a very prominant Federal Government department i conclude that any ning nong who wants to predict the outcome of this Election needs to be either Nostradamis love child, very good at reading tea leaves, or a bloody idealogue with a personal bent for one or other of the 2 contenders-that is, one you can safely ignore as ‘biased’.
Please win Mr Rudd, Im sick of looking at little Johnny and that smug faced Costello telling us with great pride that the share of the economic pie going to ‘the worker’ fell away and the share of the pie going to capital improved yet again. Its not us v them -stupid way to view it- adversarial approaches to capital-labour relations is just ignorant- just as ignorant as voting for one side or the other because of the colour of their ties , red or blue, or even [ewww] green. I worry for the next election if Rudd loses this one- yes loses. Imagine another 3 years of Howard/Costello- OMG-wheres my Prozac !!
September 26th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Howard reckons he’s winning Eden-Monaro.
No-one had bothered to comment on the PM’s recent prognostications to his party room. He may have been making it up.