The Sydney Morning Herald ran a story today reporting planning by the NSW Liberal Party for the 2011 state election based on the assumption that the Labor Party will allow vulnerable candidates to present themselves as independent figures and oppose various state government policies:
NSW Labor MPs desperately seeking re-election in 2011 will be allowed to campaign against their own government in order to portray themselves as Aussie battlers fighting for their constituents.
That’s the view of Liberal Party masterminds who have prepared a bloody campaign battle plan based on international strategies.
Liberal Party state director Mark Neeham has warned his troops Labor is shaping up for a no-holds-barred war in which its MPs will appear to turn on the Rees Government.
Mr Neeham drew on the advice of international political strategists to prepare a four-point bulletin for Liberal MPs, warning them of the Labor campaign techniques they would have to counteract.
It’s not a particularly remarkable strategy for the ALP, although the Herald does present its story as revealing a leak from the ALP when there are no ALP sources quoted in the article.
The ALP has previously employed tactics where MPs in difficult positions present themselves as diverging from the party. Country Labor MPs have attempted to craft a different brand, whilst Labor MPs in inner-city seats targetted by the Greens have also employed such tactics. Federal MPs Anthony Albanese and Tanya Plibersek have openly supported same-sex marriage while state MP for Balmain Verity Firth has publicly criticised the Roads Minister for plans in her electorate. In addition, many ALP candidates at last September’s local government election presented themselves as ‘Local Labor’ specifically to provide some distance from the Labor government.
I think there are a small number of Labor MPs who will benefit from such a campaign, but I can’t see it working no a significant scale. There are a very small number of Labor MPs who have carved out an independent profile as free-thinking politicians who are able to criticise their party, and those MPs tend to be older MPs in safe seats or planning to retire. In addition, I can’t see the strategy working on major issues that affect the whole state. They may be used for specific local issues where the state government has enraged a local community, but that’s about it.
As an example, stories in the media have reported that the four Labor MPs from the Macarthur region, Graham West in Campbelltown, Geoff Corrigan in Camden, Andrew McDonald in Macquarie Fields and Phil Costa in Wollondilly, have challenged Nathan Rees over the planned sell-off of land belonging to Hurlstone Agricultural High School in Glenfield. I could see these MPs (particularly marginal-seat MPs Costa and Corrigan) openly criticising the Education Minister and the government backing down at the last minute. Yet most of the benefit from this would be in Macquarie Fields, where the sitting MP, Andrew McDonald, is not running again. I can’t see it being of much benefit to the new candidate, and of little benefit to those in more marginal seats.
Overall, voters have not turned away from the NSW Labor government over local issues, it’s the big statewide issues that the government probably couldn’t fix now even if it wanted to. The ALP has also been so successful in suppressing dissent amongst its members of Parliament that any attempt to paint it’s MPs as fiercely independent local heroes will probably fail to stick.
Perhaps this will be Lord Mandelson’s way of stopping a complete meltdown in the number of UK Labour MP’s elected in May 2010
Interesting post Ben, though I would note that Plibersek and Albo, among others, have support same-sex marraige for some time before the Greens became the primary challenge in the inner-city. I can see this election campaign being very personal, very dirty, which is a bit sad.
The UK situation is very different, because it’s routine over there for MPs to speak out against the policy stance of their party leadership and vote independently. Such a tactic would work be far more effective for UK Labour MPs because there’s already a proven track record of independent thought and action. In NSW on the other hand, there is no track record of Labor MPs actually opposing the government where it counts, on the floor of the Parliament (except for those MLCs who crossed the floor during one vote on an electricity privatisation debate), and even those who do speak out on occasion tend to only be doing so before the party has adopted a final stance on the issue in question – one sees little public dissent once a decision has been made.
The Nationals tried a similar tactic at the last federal election, having their candidates presenting themselves as independent voices standing up for their electorates. Sue Page in Richmond was a notable example, distancing herself from the Howard government on many issues, and in many ways trying to present herself as progressive. The tactic was a complete flop, she just didn’t appear credible as a Nationals candidate if she was trying to present herself as having different views to her party’s platform.
And as Ben says, Labor’s problem is not so much specific local issues as general discontent. As long as the candidates have the Labor name under them on the ballot paper, it’s just not going to work – but hey, at this point, they’ve really got to try anything.
Btw, after I read the article yesterday I went to my NSW electoral pendulum and assigned the Labor-held seats to one of five categories: Lost cause (8 seats), In deep shit (10 seats), Vulnerable (8 seats), Potentially vulnerable (11 seats) and Safe (14 seats). ‘Potentially vulnerable’ includes seats such as those in the Hunter and Illawarra where the Coalition won’t win but Labor could be beaten by independents. It was just my initial rough assessment, and I plan to update it regularly.
To help refine it a bit, can I ask you guys for opinions on a couple of seats? How about Mulgoa, should I class that as ‘In deep shit’ or ‘Vulnerable’? What about Granville, Parramatta, Toongabbie and Strathfield, I’ve classed them as ‘Potentially vulnerable’?
I’d say: look at who held what seat (or the previous versions of them) going into the 1999 election, just before Carr won big-time – if they were Lib/Nat held or very marginal then, turf them to the ‘deep shit’ basket. I’m talking seats like Strathfield or Kogarah there. (Or, um, Ryde.)
Granville and Toongabbie are pretty safe Labor seats.
If it helps, Antony Green suggests Mulgoa is more likely to go than other Labor seats with smaller on-paper margins.
Which seats do you call ‘Lost Cause’ and ‘Deep Shit’? Do you just go straight up the pendulum?
That’s a good idea, and was one of the next things I was going to analyse more closely. The thing is though that Kogarah (17.7%) and Strathfield (15.1%) are now on such big margins that I can’t really put them in the ‘deep shit’ category, or I’d feel compelled to put a lot more seats there too. Just looking at the boundary changes, and in both cases the post-2003 redistribution had minimal effect on the notional 2PP margin, so it is curious, because going into 1999 Strathfield was marginally Liberal and Kogarah marginally Labor.
#6
I don’t go straight up the pendulum, a couple of variations.
Lost causes: Miranda, Menai, Wollondilly, Camden, Gosford, The Entrance, Londonderry and Balmain.
Deep shit: Monaro, Wyong, Drummoyne, Heathcote, Penrith, Maitland, Riverstone, Blue Mountains, Mulgoa and Marrickville. Guess I should include Coogee there as well, I just left it out initially so I could think further about the impact of the high Green vote.
Agree, I can probably shift Granville and Toongabbie into the ‘Safe’ category, as well as Heffron, which I’d left out as well. I’ll make that 17 ‘Safe’ seats now then.
Bloody Nats. This is what a Coalition Government will do to marine parks in NSW.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/21/2691673.htm
MEDIA RELEASE
NATIONAL PARKS ASSOCIATION OF NSW
22 September 2009
NSW Coalition Government will stop protecting our oceans
A leading environment group has slammed the NSW Coalition’s proposal to stop proper marine conservation in NSW should they win the 2011 State election.
“The new campaign by the Nationals and Liberals could jeopardise the future ability of Australians to catch a snapper, enjoy seafood for dinner and enjoy healthy oceans for generations to come,” said Nicky Hammond, NPA Marine Program Manager.
“The campaign is to place a moratorium on the creation of new marine parks for NSW. This is despite existing marine park areas across the state being shown to benefit marine life, fishing and tourism.”
“We are shocked that the NSW Coalition could be so easily led by the request of a small, vocal group of anti-marine park lobbyists. If this is the situation on marine parks, what does this suggest for their wider environmental integrity?”
“It is clear that the campaign is not based on science and what is best for our marine environment, but on a few fishing votes.”
Bill Gladstone, the NSW President of the Australian Marine Sciences Association has called on the NSW Government to continue to roll out marine parks. He stated earlier this year, “The enormous benefits of marine parks and no-take sanctuary zones for marine life and coastal communities have been demonstrated in scores of scientific studies from Australia and overseas. There is no reason to delay any longer the establishment of a comprehensive state-wide system of marine parks for NSW.”
“NSW has only 6.7% of its oceans in marine sanctuaries,” continued Ms Hammond. “International scientific consensus calls for a minimum of 20%. Fish nursery grounds, sites for critically endangered species and huge stretches of the NSW coastline, have been ignored for protection to date. “
“The Coalition is acting as though marine conservation is an option, not a pre-requisite. They are demonstrating no credibility on environmental issues by taking this position on Marine Parks.”
Media contact: Nicky Hammond (02) 9299 0000; 0416 217 286
NPA is a non-government conservation organisation that seeks to protect, connect and restore the integrity and diversity of natural areas in NSW through campaigning, community activities and bushwalking. More information on NPA’s marine work is at http://www.marine.org.au.
NPA is a non-government conservation organisation that seeks to protect, connect and restore the integrity and diversity of natural areas in NSW through campaigning, community activities and bushwalking. More information on NPA’s marine work is at http://www.marine.org.au.
^^^^^
Hmm, I wonder if we’ll see more of this; that most of the attacks on the Coalition will come from independent (and “independent”…) organisations and focus groups, rather than from Labor itself.
You think you have an issue with MPs trying great lengths to get re elected in the UK we have the opposite problem. Most of our MPs have been outed for the lying and thieving bunch they are, and with their reputations in tatters, the NHS rapidly going downhill, education failing, violent crime rising, pensioner poverty and working poverty very evident etc. our MPs are desperate to create the appearance of trying to get re elected, but not actually get elected. They want to take the lump sums from failure and their pensions then move overseas. Our last 2 Prime Ministers ran away to the USA. My guess is that Australian failed politicians remain in Australia. You can expect a share of our crooked politicians to find their way to your shores.