Australia Votes 2022

Politics & Elections
21

Pinching the theme of this recent MPSIMS thread, courtesy of the High Court Australian democracy has almost had another small win.

Specifically relating to those right wing attention whores from the micro party known as the Liberal Democrats, described in the mainstream press as “a hardline liberal party that demands abolition of government welfare as well as the minimum wage, seatbelts and bike helmets. It backs legalisation of marijuana and increased freedom to access pornography”.

Liberal Democrats have been operating federally under that name since 2008 but moved, pre-empting a High Court decision, to change the party name to become the Liberty and Democracy Party. But when the writs for the May 21st election were issued this action was put on hold. Bugger

You might think a political party seeking to officially change it’s name on the very cusp of an election being called might cause a degree of logistical and messaging issues.
But the Liberal Democrat primary electoral strategy has been to glean name recognition via free press for undeliverable fringe policies and to siphon off votes from people who thought they actually voting for the Liberal Party.

The Liberal Democrat political high water mark was 2013 when the oleaginous reptile and “libertarian purist” David Leyonhjelm was elected as NSW federal senator on the back of a fortuitous alignment of political stars in 1) having an party name which could be readily confused other parties eg the Liberal Party, the Australian Democrats and the Christian Democratic Party, 2) lucking out by getting the first spot on the (very large) Senate ballot and 3) the consequences of a byzantine preference swapping deal with other micro parties including the Outdoor Recreation Party, the Smokers’ Rights Party, Republican Party of Australia and the Australian Sex Party.

He then doubled down on his luck by being re-elected in 2016 only due to it being a double dissolution election and the Senate quota being halved.

Them’s were the rules at the time and give the devil his due for exploiting the allowed loopholes. Not that he achieved anything of note in his term, though plenty which was obnoxious. His initiative to allow importing the Adler lever action shotgun was subverted, and his stoush with Senator Hanson-Young resulted in a defamation case which he lost to the tune of $120,000 in damages. Not that he’s paid it yet.
It was illustrative that he appointed Helen Dale as his senior policy advisor. Dale, writing as Helen Demidenko won the 1995 Miles Franklin Prize for her novel “The hand that signed the paper” with a literary hoax, a fraudulent account of a Ukrainian family’s collaboration with the Nazis during the Holocaust.

Astute enough of the political realities to not try his luck the third time he resigned in 2019 to contest for political office in the smaller pond of the NSW Legislative Assembly and abjectly failed. His Chief of Staff stood in his place on the Federal ticket and also flamed out.

Like with the exits of Cory Bernardi, Brian Burston, Bob Day and Fraser Anning the darker corners of Federal Parliament are becoming a bit more civilised.

22

I have no time for those involved but I don’t see the name confusion as a clear cut issue. Not least of all because the Liberals aren’t liberal by any meaning of the word with which I am familiar.

23

Perhaps not, but they are (to my regret) a party of government with significant brand recognition, off which Leyonhelm hoped to capitalise with a confusing similar name.

This is perhaps a bigger issue in Australia than it might be in some other democracies, because of compulsory voting. Elections are generally decided by swing voters —; those who are open to voting for different potential governments; those with the least committed party allegiances or political stances. And of course a lot of this group are people who are not particularly engaged with politics and have few or no strong views on political questions. Which means, in Australia, elections are often decided by voters who, given their druthers, wouldn’t vote at all, and the successful party is the one that can best appeal to people who aren’t very interested. Which means things like brand recognition really matter.

24

If Albanese ends up losing this election after starting 10 points ahead it will make the annals of political failures.
First a couple of gotcha gaffs over stats causes him to lose virtually all LAB’s lead.
Now he tests positive to COVID.
Will test the bandwidth of his domicile’s wifi

25

The long term trend indicates neither major party is particularly good at appealing to the less interested voters. But so long as they are roughly as bad as each other then with no great disadvantage accrues. Nor is there any incentive to burn political capital fix the issue rather rely on an appeal to the base.

26

Except, presumably, the incentive that if one party can fix the issue in advance of the other, it will romp home.

Compulsory voting should mean that you don’t have to appeal to the base as much as in, say, the US system. People who, e.g., in the US would vote Republican or stay home will in Australia reliably vote Liberal - staying home isn’t an option. Even if they vote for a party to the right of the Liberal party, all that really matters to the Liberals is that they should give Liberals a higher preference than Labour, and they will do that. And maybe this is the factor that creates the impression that the major parties are not good at appealing to the less interested voter. They don’t really care if the less interested voter gives their first preference to a fringe party. The major parties are chasing the voter’s effective preference, rather than his first preference.

In the US the competition is for the middle ground voter - the one whose values and attitudes might allow him to vote either Republican or Democrat depending on the candidate, the issues in the election, etc, etc. But he’s the engaged middle ground voter, because the engaged one is more likely to vote, and it’s a waste of time and resources to chase voters who are unlikely to turn out on the day.

That’s not an issue in the Australian system - the incentive is to chase the disengaged voter, because they will turn out on the day, and their effective preference is up for grabs.

27

Yes, but the problem with that is what happens if they squeak rather than romp home?
The disengaged block may well be heading towards 20% of the electorate, but they are not monolithic in what political interests they may have.

This is the situation facing Malcolm Turnbull. Remember, at one stage Turnbull was preferred Prime Minister with LAB voters. You could fantasize that Turnbull might have been a centre right edition of Gough Whitlam. Which was the problem. A large chunk of his LIB party thought he was a LAB prime minister.

Given a solid parliamentary majority under Turnbull we would have the SSM much earlier, wouldn’t be global pariahs on climate change action, might even have become a republic.

But the Australian electorate gave Turnbull a bare single seat majority and he was held hostage to the right wingers and Abbott ginger group of his own party room.

If Turnbull had called a conscience vote on SSM he would have won with ALP support, but before that could happen he would have lost the caucus vote and his leadership of the Liberals in the party room.

Turnbull appealed to the disengaged, and won votes due to that but they gave him less support than he lost from his highly engaged right wing.

28

I think we need to distinguish between electoral support and parliamentary support.

If a chunk of Liberal voters think that Turnbull is a turn-off, that doesn’t really matter. They can’t stay home; they still have to vote. And even if they vote for some minor party to the right of the Liberals, they will still preference the Liberals above Labour - which, ultimately, is all that the Liberals need them to do. And if Turnbull can also attract some middle-ground voters to vote Liberal when they wouldn’t do so under a more right-wing leader, the net effect is to increase the Liberal vote and, therefore, the Liberal representation in Parliament.

As it was, the Liberals under Turnbull got a very small parliamentary majority. If this analysis is correct, the implication is that under a more right-wing leader they wouldn’t have got a majority at all in that election.

So, if your object is to win elections, then, yeah, appealing to the uncommitted voter looks like a good strategy.

But then you have the problem of Turnbull’s parliamentary support. If the Liberal Parliamentary party is too broad a church, with the result that a significant chunk of Liberals disagree with Turnbull so much as to hamper his ability to deliver effective government, the merits of getting into office are diluted. What’s the point of winning office if you can’t use that to implement policies? This is partly a problem of party discipline and partly a question about the political and personal qualities of the leader; can he secure and retain the support of diverse factions within the party?

If the party is sufficiently diverse that no leader can secure a sufficient degree of support within it, then it becomes dysfunctional. Parties need to balance the need for diversity to maximise the vote, and cohesion to be able to function effectively in government. The “sweet spot” of maximum diversity consistent with effective performance depends to some extent on the political and personal characteristics of the leader. Possibly a leader with Turnbull’s views and positions but a different skill set could have presided over a more effective government. But, if I’m right, a leader who hewed more to the right than Turnbull would have lost the 2016 election, in which case his leadership skill set would have been irrelevant.

29

[btw, it’s LABOR}

True. But now you can allow your preferences to exhaust. Which doesn’t help the majors.

Indeed that makes it worse because that disillusions those who voted for them. Who then have a tendency to disengage or favour minority, micro or single issue parties which in turn makes the whole place less governable. Rinse and repeat.

Ergo the PT abhorrence of minority/hung governments. Government powered by a VW engine and equipped with Rolls Royce brakes
Give 'em sufficient parliamentary support to implement their platform. Give 'em all the credit, and all the brick bats earned.
In four years if we don’t like it chuck the bums out and let the other bastards gave a go.

30

There you go. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

#1 with a bullet on the iTunes Chart and now apparently trending on Spotify:

Another highwater mark for The Chaser boys and their brand of satire.
Their election spoof for the 2022 federal election featuring a very well sampled ScoMo rap “Coal Makes Me Cum”, curtesy of the local iconoclasts and shit stirrers roars up the pop charts!

“This is the best thing you’ve done since you cancelled fairy bread”
:upside_down_face: :upside_down_face:

https://scontent.fsyd7-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/279026577_10158148352471230_8896849028964748105_n.png?stp=dst-png_s720x720&_nc_cat=108&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=zSRn9iFu-YIAX8bWV7U&_nc_ht=scontent.fsyd7-1.fna&oh=00_AT_kNW9n8PnrtPNkJ9iaIYgPh2hkxuAJsMNzd-x71gv96A&oe=626CA493

31

Linkee no workee

32

That linkee no longer workee

This linkee not safe for workee

33

Catchiest jingle for a change of government since Its Time.

34

I thought this was a good article, feel free to disagree with it (the author’s preferences are unashamedly admitted) but it at least purports to set out five substantial policy differences between the major parties.

For those who think “they are all the same”.

35

From my perspective:

There are 30 Ministers in the Federal Cabinet.(https://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament/parliamentary_departments/parliamentary_library/parliamentary_handbook/current_ministry_list) (inc 6 in the outer cabinet). This doesn’t include the assistant ministers/parliamentary secretaries.
It’s been about that size for a while for governments in both persuasions.
Each Cabinet Minister has their opposing shadow minister.
There are 25 million of us. Almost 40% of Australians cast a vote directly for or against a cabinet minister or their shadow,

I’m of the view that neither side has sufficient bench strength to fill half that number of offices and letterheads. They are appointments for political expediency (called “balance”) and of favours pledged and pending rather than merit.
The US cabinet has 15 departments. The UK has 23 ministers plus 8 outer ministers.
Some US cities with larger populations than Australia are run by a mayor and their department.

Australians like elections and like lots of tiers of governance, and ideally with each stratum ideologically opposed to the stratum above it. So very little happens. Which generally we like.

So we vote for Tweedledum over Tweedledummer because they won’t scare the horses and increasingly out of disillusion for the majors vote for minor/fringe/single issue candidates who can get even less done.

When COVID hit the formation of a National Cabinet showed that an alternative model was both viable. It lasted until the first state went into election mode. But it was a start.

36

That underestimates. In addition to the Cabinet, there are getting on for 80 junior ministers, specialising in the detail for specific areas in the department’s responsibilities, and deputising for the boss as required.

(And we too have PLENTY of duds, numpties and empty suits in such posts).

37

The US cabinet is a far different beast than any cabinet in a parliamentary system. I’m not sure that the size is in any way meaningful.

38

You are going to need to explain that. Yes, stereotypically the UK public service is apolitical while the US is politicised and Australia a hybrid, but practically the differences are more nuance than degree.

39

I don’t think @Bootb was talking about the civil service, but the actual membership of the respective Cabinets.

In the US, Cabinet ministers have no independent political authority. They are in office because the President put them there. If the President fires them or they resign, they cease to hold political office. All their authority is derived from the President. If one of them resigns from Cabinet over a political decision, it’s only in the news cycle for a day or two.

Different for Cabinet ministers in a Westminster system. They’re in Cabinet because the PM put them in, but they have independent political authority by virtue of being a Member of Parliament. The PM’s choice is constrained in a way that is not the case for the US president. The president can choose anyone they want. The PM can only choose from the elected members of parliament, some of whom may be his political rivals, but need to be in Cabinet because they represent an important part of the party.

If a Cabinet minister resigns over a policy issue, that can be a big event, because the former cabinet minister still holds a seat in Parliament and can question the government or even move to the other side. A cabinet resignation can be a sign the PM is in trouble with their own party.

For example, when Paul Martin resigned from Chrétien’s Cabinet, that was a declaration of war: Martin was taking on the PM for the Big Chair. Ultimately he succeeded, forcing Chrétien’s resignation.

Different systems, different political dynamics.

40

Also, in the Westminster system, cabinet ministers are generalists who can be (and frequently are) re-shuffled by the PM, because they’re there to support and promote the overall message and image of the government (and PM).