Two significant maiden speeches

Two significant maiden speeches were given in the life of this parliament. One liberal, one Labor.

The first was given by Liberal Josh Frydenberg, the new Liberal Member for Kooyong.

The second was given by Andrew Leigh, the new Labor member for Fraser.

I find them both particularly interesting because they sought to carve out the ideological territory of their parties, and sought to define what their opposition really stand for.

Starting with this passage from Josh Frydenberg:

Each member for Kooyong has sought a tolerant, fair and prosperous Australia. I will be no different, for this is an honourable legacy. How would I like to see the future unfold? I want to see an Australia that is safe and secure. I want to see an Australia where the only relevant consideration is the content of a person’s character. I want to see an Australia where families are valued and encouraged. I want to see an Australia where each citizen has the opportunity to be the best that they can be. And I want to see an Australia where individuals, not governments, invent the future. This is why I am a Liberal, this is why I joined the Liberal Party and this why I am here.

What drives us as Liberals are notions of individual liberty, individual responsibility and a fairness borne out of a particular kind of equality. The equality which Liberals seek in a society is the equality of opportunity, not the other kind of equality—the equality of outcomes. It seems to me that these two notions of equality reflect the fundamental fault lines between us and the members opposite. It is not a thin divide. Let me illustrate.

How can we all be better off when a teenager loses his daily two-hour job at the local store merely because his employer cannot afford to pay the minimum three-hour shift? How can we all be better off when the government targets independent and Catholic schools merely because parents are exercising choice? How can we all be better off when the government discourages private health insurance at a time when the public system is overburdened? These examples go to the heart of the other side’s preoccupation with the equality of outcomes. By mandating outcomes, the state removes responsibility from individuals and denies the worker, the student and the patient the opportunity to be the best that they can be.

In the writings of John Stuart Mill, Edmund Burke and Adam Smith, I have found what I consider the best elements of both liberal and conservative traditions. Mill’s argument that the state only has the right to intervene in the affairs of the individual in order to prevent harm to others is a fundamental building block in my political philosophy. Burke’s defence of the traditions of society and the institutions of the state and his opposition to utopian notions of change for change’s sake are also critical to my understanding of what is an effective role for government. The opportunity to prosper is given its best chance through competitive markets—the insight reached by Adam Smith more than two centuries ago.

My vision is to achieve what Menzies termed ‘civilised capitalism’, unleashing the power of the individual and his enterprise while always providing a safety net for those who despite their best efforts are unable to cope. These are my motivations, my cause and my way, and they not negotiable."

I thought it was a very interesting speech that touched on some of the major themes of the Australian Liberal Party. Individualism, Family, National Security, Freedom of Choice, Small Government, and Equality of Opportunity. Interestingly he cites Deakin and talks about social safety nets.

He accuses Labor of being in favour of "Big Government" that stifles individual innovation, and promotes equality of outcomes, rather than equality of opportunity.

In this place we are painting the canvas of the nation and its future. We have a responsibility to dream large and think of what is possible in a difficult world. It may appear a paradox but the first of my large thoughts is that we need to limit the government. Our government is too big. For problems large and small, bureaucratic outcomes always seem to be the default option. This comes at a price—paralysing monopolies and a culture of dependence. It removes incentives for innovation and creativity. It often crowds out a capable private sector, impeding its ability to create jobs. The net effect is a less productive nation. We must always remember that whenever we create a new arm of bureaucracy or expand a field of activity, we are not spending our own money; we are spending the money of our citizens who look to us as the guardians of their wealth.

More than 30 years ago, Margaret Thatcher said that the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money. Thatcher’s nemesis was socialism; ours is bigger and bigger government. My goal is to ensure that government learns to live within its means.

Andrew Leigh outlines what he considers the cause of Labor:

As an economist, much of my research has been devoted to the vast challenges of reducing poverty and disadvantage. I believe that rising inequality strains the social fabric. Too much inequality cleaves us one from another: occupying different suburbs, using different services, and losing our sense of shared purpose. Anyone who believes in egalitarianism as the animating spirit of the Australian settlement should recoil at this vision of our future.

But my research has also taught me that good intentions aren’t enough. As a professor-turned-politician, one of my role models is the late great US Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Moynihan was innately sceptical about every social policy solution presented to him. Indeed, his starting point was to expect that any given social policy would have no measureable effect. But these high standards didn’t make him any less of an idealist, and Moynihan never lost his optimism and passion. What we need in Australian policy today is not more ideologues, convinced that their prescriptions are the answer, but modest reformers willing to try new solutions, and discover whether they actually deliver results...

...To me, the Australian project is about encouraging economic growth, while ensuring that its benefits are shared across the community. It is about making sure that all Australians have great public services, regardless of ethnicity, income or postcode. And it is about recognising that governments have a role in expanding opportunities, because no child gets to choose the circumstances of their birth...

...As elected representatives, one of our most important jobs is to speak out on behalf of those who struggle to have their voices heard. The Labor Party has a proud tradition of defending individual liberties. Past Labor governments outlawed discrimination on the basis of gender or race. This Labor government has removed from the statute books much of the explicit discrimination against same-sex couples, and strengthened disability discrimination laws. And all Labor governments strive to protect the right of workers to bargain collectively for better pay and conditions. Our party also stands firmly committed to democratic reform, including the simple yet powerful notion that every Australian child should be able to aspire to be our head of state.

The Labor Party today stands at the confluence of two powerful rivers in Australian politics. We are the party that believes in egalitarianism – that a child from Aurukun can become a High Court Justice, and that a mine worker should get the same medical treatment as the bloke who owns the mine.

But what is sometimes overlooked is that we are also the party that believes in liberalism..."



As that last sentence notes, what I found most interesting about both speeches is both Frydenberg and Leigh both lay claim to Alfred Deakin's liberalism.

Frydenberg:

"The history of Kooyong tells a powerful story about Australian liberalism over more than a century. On 18 March 1895 Alfred Deakin addressed a public meeting at St Columb’s Church in Hawthorn with a speech entitled, ‘What is liberalism?’ His speech was an early enunciation of the attributes which we now identify as a fair go. His clarion call for equality of opportunity and a society tempered by a safety net for those in need has resonated through the decades. The members for Kooyong have taken heed of Deakin’s words—many have been giants in this place..."

Leigh:

...what is sometimes overlooked is that we are also the party that believes in liberalism – that governments have a role in protecting the rights of minorities, that freedom of speech applies for unpopular ideas as for popular ones, and that all of us stand equal beneath the Southern Cross. The modern Labor Party is the true heir to the small-L liberal tradition in Australia.

Alfred Deakin was one of the earliest Australian leaders to make the distinction between liberals and conservatives. Deakin argued that liberalism meant the destruction of class privileges, equality of political rights without reference to creed, and equality of legal rights without reference to wealth. Liberalism, Deakin said, meant a government that acted in the interests of the majority, with particular regard to the poorest in the community.

As for conservatives, to quote Deakin’s description of his opponents, they are:

‘a party less easy to describe or define, because, as a rule it has no positive programme of its own, adopting instead an attitude of denial and negation. This mixed body, which may fairly be termed the party of anti-liberalism, justifies its existence, not by proposing its own solution of problems, but by politically blocking all proposals of a progressive character, and putting the brakes on those it cannot block.’

A century on, it is hard to escape the conclusion that if Deakin were in this parliament today, he and his brand of progressive liberalism would find a natural home in the Australian Labor Party. (And given the numbers in today’s parliament, I am sure my colleagues would welcome his vote.)"

Interesting indeed.

Election 2010: What the hell happened?

Yesterday, Australia elected its first hung parliament since 1940.

The media will try to say that this vote was a vote for Tony Abbott's liberal party. I wouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusions.

I believe the result does not reflect well on either party. But it does reflect very accurately the will of the people. In fact I believe the reason for the result was far more fundamental.

Above all things, I believe Australia voted yesterday against politics as usual.

It was reflected in the big swing against Labor in Queensland, which saw it's home town Prime Minister ousted in a brutally efficient coup only weeks ago.

It was reflected in a massive anti-labor vote in metropolitan Sydney, who have wanted to remove their state labor government for 3 years and were sick of a federal campaign being run by the same state labor goons.

It was reflected in the nation-wide vote for the greens, who picked up a senate seat in every state and a lower house seat in Melbourne.

It was reflected by the likelihood that the 6th senate spot in Victoria could be won by the DLP or Family First.

It was reflected in the large amounts of voters who opted for minor parties or independents. Tellingly, each sitting independent recorded a big swing towards them.

It was reflected in O'Connor, where the nationals took out Wilson Tuckey. Similar to their state government stance, they pledged to not sign coalitions and to be indepentent of the rest of the National Party.

It was reflected in the fact that - unbelievably - an independent may win the safe seat of Denison.

It was reflected in the record informal vote of almost 6% nationally - a new record. In some seats, it was 8%. In Werriwa, it was 10%. Many of these ballots were submitted blank. In the booth I scruitinised, 140 out of 1665 votes were informal. 34 of them were submitted blank, and many more with crosses, comments, "none of the above", or other shows of discontent.

Yesterday, Australia had an enourmous tantrum at the visionless negativity of their political system, and they responded by awarding a victory to nobody. The Australian people got it right - neither party deserved to win.

Why did this happen?

Well, firstly lets look at the stats.

The Southern States stay progressive

In Victoria, Labor's vote was mostly up - but so was the Greens. There can be little doubt now that Victoria is no longer the "jewel in the liberal crown". On the contrary - it has now proven itself to be the most politically progressive state in Australia. It has an 11 year old Labor government that has a decent chance of re-election in a few months. It responded well to a Victorian Prime Minister, and won two seats off the liberals. It mostly rejected the social hysteria of Abbott's government on boat people. And it responded very well to the pitch by the Greens, picking up a lower house seat in Melbourne and decicively winning a senate spot.

It also baffingly returned a DLP senator (probably) on family first preferences. The fact people are willing to vote for these two parties in big enough numbers says that people aren't happy with the liberals in Victoria, and sent their conservative vote elsewhere.

In South Australia, Labor's vote stayed steady and strong. No seats were lost or won - although Boothby came close. Again, the greens picked up a senate seat. Labor was narrowly re-elected on seats at the state election earlier this year, although it lost the 2PP vote.

In Tasmania, Labor won every seat with a swing towards it - except for the boilover of the night in Denison. Counting is still going on, but Independent Andrew Wilkie could win on green and liberal preferences. The Greens, as always, won their senate spot. And the state government is a Labor-green coalition.

In the ACT, Labor's vote went down, and the greens picked up all of it. But the seat status quo remained.

In each of these states, there was a swing to the greens. But they remained solidly in the Labor/Green camp, and mostly rejected Tony Abbott's pitch.

NSW, QLD and WA turn feral

The rest of Australia reacted angrily against Labor. In most of Queensland, and in Metropolitan Sydney, there were 10% swings away from Labor on the primary vote. Labor lost 8 seats in QLD and 2 more in NSW.

WA was already bad for Labor and got worse. It may yet lose Hasluck - and if so, Australia will have it's first Aboriginal in the Federal House of representatives. A liberal. (Note: Labor also ran an Aboriginal candidate in Boothby in SA - but they narrowly lost).

When I was doorknocking in Macquarie, there was a palpable sense of disenchantment. People were not switched on to national issues, or were visibly hostile to even talking about the subject of national campaigning. Lots of people I spoke to just hated all the attack ads and had switched off. People were angry about Rudd. The only time I was able to have a good convo with anyone was when I switched off the national campaign and just talked about local issues and local promises. People didn't want to know about anything else. And everywhere I went, people had policy complaints about issues that were the state labor government's responsibility.

The only time I had a positive experience leafleting was when I was handing out a positive flyer on Labor's health policy at a railway station. People were genuinely interested in knowing what Labor stood for on health. It's a shame we didn't talk about it more.

Labor's campaign

I honestly believe that much of this result has been driven by the incredibly negative tone of the election. The tone of this election was not positive from the start - arguably, ever since the knifing of Rudd, or even before that, with his many policy backdowns.

Labor certainly understood that Abbott was a big minus for the liberals. But you can't just attack - you also have to contrast. Abbott was always going to go negative - in fact his entire election campaign was based around it. His ads were just as bad as Labor's. Many voters sitting in their lounge rooms, by the final week of the campaign, must have been putting fingers in their ears and screaming at their TV to shut up. Worse, the attack ads were so similar that people forgot which party was which.

I honestly believe that Labor went far too hard. In fact it went completely overkill on the negative, without offering anything on the positive. Part of the reason was because it went to the election not quite knowing what it stood for. It's slogan was "moving Australia forward". But in what sense?

Labor has a very good economic story to tell - but because Rudd was knifed, it couldn't tell it.

Then Gillard had to talk about the future, but beyond a few new soundbytes on key policy areas, she didn't articulate the big vision. There actually was no new policy direction. Labor's best election policy, the National Broadband Network - was an idea from the Rudd era that Abbott was dumb enough to oppose. That policy probably saved Labor from losing government completely, by shoring up regional marginals like Page and Eden-Monaro.

The other new Gillard policies - the citizens assembly on climate, and the east timor solution on asylum seekers, were ridiculously half-baked policies that were rightly ridiculed. They actually lost Labor votes at both ends. Swinging voters thought they were bullshit and voted Liberal. Progressive voters thought they were betrayals and voted Green. Labor's primary vote fell in every state. In the southern states, it went to the greens. In NSW, QLD and WA, the liberals and greens shared it. That wasn't an accident.

The Rudd-Gillard Leadership change

I said earlier this year to people that "leadership change without policy change is electoral suicide". NSW Labor has now proved that three times. Federal Labor has proved it again. The lesson still has not been learned.

The people who orchestrated the leadership coup obviously had no idea about how badly it would go down in QLD and NSW. QLD is a deeply conservative state where Labor is already unpopular. It's also deeply parochial - and they would not have like the manner of Rudd's removal.

Only 6 months previously, powerbrokers brought down Nathan Rees in much the same fashion.
Gillard obviously didn't know how bad it would go down when she called the election too quickly, before fully fleshing out her policy agenda.

The people who ran Gillard's campaign obviously had no idea about how badly it would go down in NSW, when you knifed the leader, didn't change any policies, trundled out a few soundbytes, and then tried to win on a honeymoon period.

It had already been proved wrong with Kristina Kenneally in the Penrith By-election. NSW voters have seen that all before and did not take kindly to being treated like idiots for a third time.

State labor and stupid factional deals cost Labor votes in Sydney

Sydney voters in particular are deeply cynical of Labor promises on anything to do with infrastructure. When Gillard announced funding for the Parramatta-Epping rail link, it actually backfired. People thought it was bullshit straight away. And it linked Gillard with state Labor even more. I personally think that actually lost us votes. In Metropolitan sydney seats, Labor's primary vote fell around 7-10%.

In some places it was even worse - check out Fowler. Chris Hayes lost 15% of the vote, because he was previous the member for Werriwa. Laurie Ferguson contested Werriwa, suffered a big swing, and the informal vote was over 10%. Chris Bowen lost a big chunk in the redrawn McMahon (formerly Prospect).

Why? well, maybe one reason is because the NSW powerbrokers played musical chairs in south west sydney to accommodate Laurie Ferguson after his seat was abolished - thus depriving seats of their sitting local labor MP's. In each seat where it happened, the swing against Labor was enormous, to the point where some seats would now have to be called marginal. Labor powerbrokers - you have been warned.

Labor's national campaign looked like an exact replica of Labor at a state level in NSW and QLD over the past few years. Although people do differentiate between state and federal labor on issues, people do tend to notice when something looks and smells the same. And this did look and smell exactly the same. Negative ads. New leader. No clear policy.

Even the slogans were similar. The 2007 NSW state election slogan was "more to do but we're heading in the right direction". Gillard's slogan was "Moving Australia Forward". Where have we heard that before?

Maybe the slogans were the same because the same people who ran the NSW state Labor campaign in 2007 were running this one. Is it any wonder, then, that people in Metro Sydney and QLD decided to pull out their baseball bats a bit early?

Tony Abbott's campaign

Tony Abbott had a very negative message too - stop this, stop that, end this, end that, labor is incompetent, labor is wasteful, labor assassinated their prime minister. Labor is a bad government that stuffed up.

People hated Abbott's ads as much as they hated Labor's. But the key difference was policy. Abbott was very clear about what he wanted to stop in his "Action Contract". Everyone could name one of the four things in it. End the waste. Pay off debt. Stop the big new taxes. Stop the boats.

Tony Abbott's action contract did not resonate much in the southern states, because people there didn't think these issues were a problem. Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania were busy voting for more greens. Regional NSW mostly stuck with Labor.

But in Metro Sydney, QLD, and WA, the promise of "real action" chimed brilliantly.

Abbott's campaign was a success in NSW and Queensland because he tapped into a very deep feeling in those states that Labor at a state level was all spin and no substance, or all talk and no action. Instead, he was offering "real action".

Labor's campaign message was "don't trust Abbott". Okay, sure he's untrustworthy. But what will Labor do on policy? Labor had no answers. They just banged on about workchoices.

Abbott's campaign message was "Labor is a bad government that stuffed up on these four things, and I'll fix them".

In NSW and QLD, it worked.

So Where did the Policy Vision go?

Clearly, Labor wasn't ready to fight this election.

Its agenda got sidetracked earlier this year when it dumped the ETS and went down the Mining Tax line. Then when Rudd was knifed, Gillard raced to the polls too early, still on her honeymoon, and thought that'd be enough. In hindsight she got that badly wrong and should have taken some time to think about her positions.

In the UK, David Cameron spent three years selling what he stood for to voters. In 2007, Kevin Rudd spent 11 months hammering his message - sign kyoto, rip up workchoices, an education revolution, fix hospitals, I'm an economic conservative. It was very successful.

In 2010, Australian Labor had only 8 weeks to do all this. Tony Abbott had 6 months.

So was it Labor's campaign, or was it about something more?

There can be little doubt that this was the most dysfunctional election campaign the Labor party has run in the last 30 years. Mark Latham's campaign produced a bad result, but many commentators observed that it was mostly professional and a reasonably tight ship. Latham was on message, it's just that the message was wrong, and Howard's message was more effective.

The difference between 2004 and 2010 is that Labor had absolutely no campaign message at all.

Federally, Labor would have to go back to the 1977 election or the 1971 Victorian election to have witnessed such a pulverizing example of stupidity on the campaign trail. No policy vision, damaging leaks, a dramatic leadership change that didn't seem to mean anything, and nothing but constant attack ads that looked far too similar. The liberals even stole labor's thunder on a major social policy issue - paid parental leave, and made it look like their idea, even though Labor had already passed their bill through parliament.

The Hollowmen

There's already been commentary in the media about the "Hollowmen", specifically, Mark Arbib, Karl Bitar and the NSW Right, and their role in the events of this year. This morning, Morris Iemma has publicly called for Bitar's resignation. For the first time in three years, I agree with Morris Iemma on something.

Karl Bitar and Mark Arbib were heavily involved in Morris Iemma's re-election campaign in NSW in 2007. They were credited for winning an election Labor really shouldn't have won - although they were greatly helped by the surge to federal labor, workchoices, and a very poor campaign from Peter Debnam. For their efforts, they were hailed as some sort of genuises, and so after Tim Gartrell left after 2007, Karl Bitar got the gig.

In 2008, they were thenn instrumental in bringing down Morris Iemma over privatisation. This can explain why Morris is bitter at Bitar and Arbib. But he was brought down when they showed everyone polling they had done which showed a catastrophic loss of support for Labor. Costa and Iemma also made bad tactical errors when they didn't bring the party and unions with them, and instead tried to be adversarial. this was a big mistake.

In this instance, Arbib and Bitar were right about the policy. Nobody in NSW wanted privatised electricity - it would have killed Iemma and Labor if it had gone through. Look at what has happened to Anna Bligh after she announced her big round of privatisations. Also important to note is that Bligh and Iemma never told their respective voters they were going on a round of privatisations before the election. They shredded their goodwill with voters much in the same way Howard did when he brought in workchoices.

There is, however, one important point to make. If Arbib and Bitar had thought that electricity privatisation was a vote winner or vote neutral, they would have been all for it - Labor values be damned.

Earlier this year, Arbib saw polling that Labor had lost support on it's ETS. He then saw Tony Abbott's "great big new tax" soundbyte. He then probably saw polling where people started to get scared because of tony abbott's claim. He then saw the irresponsible headlines in the daily telegraph about rising electricity prices.

Falsely sensing danger, he concluded that the ETS was a vote loser, and started campaigning relentlessly in the party for the ETS to be dropped. Knowing Rudd would not listen to him, he went and hassled Swan and Gillard instead to have it dropped. After months of inaction, and against his political instincts, Rudd caved.

This decision turned out to be Rudd's downfall. The ETS was a key plank of brand Rudd - and voters brought out their baseball bats and smashed Labor's primary vote down to 35%. Gillard replaced him, but then didn't change the policy. She then made it worse by announcing a "citizen's assembly". This entire process, from start to finish, from Copenhagen to Hung Parliament, had Mark Arbib's grubby fingerprints all over it.

But again, I stress - If Arbib had thought the ETS was a vote winner, he would have been all for it. But he mistakenly thought it was a vote loser, so he told Rudd to drop it. Labor values be damned.

Arbib, Bitar, and anyone else from the NSW Right faction who were associated with the running of our campaign should no longer be in any position of influence in the labor party.

Equally though, Labor had nothing to say

It's only natural that a party goes negative when it doesn't have a strong vision. Gillard didn't have time to develop it. What would have a good campaign have looked like? One with better ads? One with no leaks? One with more campaign footsoldiers? Well, that's not that hard. But again, Labor had nothing to say. People already didn't trust Abbott - they didn't need reminding. They needed to know why Julia Gillard deserved to be prime minister, and what she stood for.

My English housemate made a great point to me yesterday - no British political party would have raced to an election without a Policy Manifesto and a pledge card. People debated about whether Gordon Brown was the right party leader - but criticisms of him were more about his communication performance as Prime Minister, not about what he stood for. Policy was a problem too, but there was never any question of blurring the two. The party wrote policy. Labour's leader might have been unpopular, but Labour as a party stood for something at that election. If you wanted to know what, you could read the manifesto and the pledge card.

Labor went to this election without a clear manifesto or pledge card on a number of key policy areas. Many of it's key policy promises were half baked, and would never have been put in a policy manifesto as a serious suggestion. The citizens assembly, sustainable australia and the East Timor solution were not serious policy ideas - they were soundbytes designed to get Labor through the election.

On the same day Howard called the 2004 election, he immediately framed it as an election about "who do you trust to keep interest rates low?" Nobody was in any doubt about what howard stood for. Even if it was totall bull.

Julia Gillard had "Moving Forward". On what? She didn't define the election. In fact, the liberals and the greens defined what the election was about. The Greens said it was about climate change. The Liberals said it was about waste, debt, taxes and boats. Labor was caught with it's pants down - only late in the piece did it campaign on the economy, the NBN, and workchoices. But by then it was too late.

And what about health care? Foreign affairs?

What's going to happen now?

I personally believe the Independents and Green will side with Labor. Labor has a more helpful program for these electorates on issues like Health, the NBN and the environment.

Tony Windsor and Bob Katter are agrarian socialists, but they have been no fans of the nationals Warren Truss and Barnaby Joyce. Bob Katter is a protectionist in his economic philosophy, and he is libertarian on things like fishing, shooting guns and camping, so wooing him could be fraught with difficulty for both sides. He is, on the other hand, supportive of Unions and Labor's Industrial laws.

Tony Windsor, a former national, is positive about Labor's agendas on regional health care and the National Broadband network.

Rob Oakeshott, although rural, is generally the most progressive of the three. He seems to want to talk about reform of the house of representatives, and again is positive about Labor's NBN. Of the three, he would probably be the most willing to support a Labor government.

Adam Bandt, the Green, has stated that he'd prefer to work with Labor. As a former industrial lawyer, and as someone who just took a seat off labor, it would be hard for him support the coalition.

Andrew Wilkie, the potential fourth independent, has previously been both a member of the liberal party 30 years ago, and a candidate the greens in 2004. An intelligence officer who blew the whistle on Howard over Iraq, he later split with the greens over a few environmental issues and a perception he was more economically moderate. Personally, I think he'd be more likely to support labor, especially since Labor would normally have won his seat (and may still do so).

Relying on these four would be embarassing for Labor, but it could end up being positive for our democracy.

Where does Labor go from here?

I believe this election has demonstrated, loudly and clear, that the Labor party in NSW needs serious and long lasting reform. It needs to revise it's policy agenda, and stick to it. Hollowmen like Arbib and Bitar need to be swept away. Corrupt hangers-on like Tripodi and Obeid need to go too.

I think this election has been a very striking repudiation of the NSW Labor Right faction brand of politics. Their political style is actually causing the party a lot of self-harm.

"Whatever it takes" ceased to be a tactical campaign strategy, and started to become the party's ideology. The local party is moribund in many areas. The political class has taken over the reins and runs everything with an iron grip. Strong values and policy beliefs are not compulsory - in fact, they are a luxury. Idealism is scoffed at. A University degree and a job as a staffer is more important than the personal achievement you have made campaigning for change in workplaces, in your community, in law and social justice, or in broader society for the benefit of others.

These problems are products of long labor domination of politics in NSW. Only an amazingly arrogant party could assume it could treat it's own party members with disdain, and then treat the electorate the same, and assume nothing bad will happen. Only an arrogant party could feel that changing a premier or prime minister is no big deal - oh please, we did that last week! They have had power for too long and don't fear losing it.

The push for reforming this system could only ever come when this very political culture caused Labor to lose an election. Well, now it nearly has. And next year, they'll lose another one.

They need to stop assuming people are mugs, and will vote for Labor when it has no positive policy agenda just because there'll be a leadership honeymoon. Rudd's honeymoon with voters lasted from december 2006 until April 2010. Gillards lasted 3 weeks until the campaign leaks. Leaders and their honeymoons come and go - what matters are the things the party stands for.

In this election, Tony Abbott was very negative. But he had his policy agenda - the four point action contract.He even put it on the back of his how to vote cards on polling day.

What did Labor have? "Moving Australia Forward"? "Don't trust Abbott"?

Hollowmen believe that people vote for leaders and don't care about policy. Thus, you can solve a policy problem by changing a leader. Hollowmen also believe you can decide all your policies on polling, and win an election by negative attack ads alone.

The 2010 federal election, and the 5 NSW state by-elections since 2007 have now proved that philosophy of politics to be complete and utter rubbish.

That philosophy has nearly made Tony Abbott prime minister - and it will cause the complete destruction of NSW Labor next year.

Labor's very big problem in Metropolitan Sydney

I'll post my full thoughts about the election soon. But before I do, there's something I'd like to point out that nobody has noticed.

The huge disparity between the ALP's vote in metropolitan sydney and elsewhere in NSW.

Specifically: the complete collapse of Labor's primary vote in Metropolitan Sydney. Not many seats were lost, but some of the results are truly stunning, and must be sending shockwaves through the ALP's NSW branch.

Yet when you look at the regional seats, Labor's primary vote held up, or even increased.

Macquarie

A good example of the contradiction is the seat of Macquarie, which takes in the Hawkesbury and the blue mountains. Most of it is very regional in the hawkesbury, but the blue mountains is more like outer metropolitan sydney these days - socially progressive with lots of commuters.

The liberal party's vote in this seat actually went nowhere - it stayed exactly the same. But Labor's primary vote fell 5%. Amazingly, none of it went to the liberals - they went to the greens and other candidates. The independent votes didn't come back to Labor, and the liberals won the seat on a narrow 2PP swing.

Labor's primary vote mostly held in the mountains or leaked to the greens, but they suffered in the hawkesbury. If Labor's primary vote had been 2% bigger, they would have narrowly held on. But all in all, the 2PP swing to the liberals was not very large here. Labor will be kicking themselves that they lost this one.

Rural/Regional NSW Seats - Labor actualy increased its 2PP vote in some key places

Perhaps the most baffling thing is how Labor managed to actually hold, or even increase its vote in regional NSW.

Against all the odds, and despite a tiny margin of just 0.1%, Labor somehow managed to get a 2PP swing in favour of it, to the tune of 1.5% in the central coast seat of Robertson. The Labor and the liberals vote both fell by 2% and the greens vote slightly increased. Everyone had written it off, and Labor had actually stopped a lot of campaigning there and transferred resources to Dobell. The liberals must be kicking themselves - they really should have won this seat. Instead, the decision of local branches to remove Belinda Neal's preselection saved the day. Well done Deb O'Neill.

Next door in Dobell, also marginal, Labor's Craig Thompson increased his primary vote by 0.1% on Primaries. The liberal vote fell by almost 2%.

Just above Dobell, in the safe liberal seat of Shortland, Labor's vote only fell 2%.

Further up the North Coast in Page, Janelle Saffin got a very healthy 4.1% primary vote swing in her favour, while the nationals vote went nowehere. Well done Janelle.

In the bellweather seat of Eden-Monaro in the south of NSW and near the ACT, Mike Kelly increased his primary vote by 0.3%, and picked up a swing of 1.5% on the 2PP, with help from a slightly higher greens vote.

In all these seats, Labor's vote actually increased on a 2PP basis.

But now look at Sydney

Outer suburbs

In Greenway, the seat Louise Markus held before a very bad redistribution for her, Labor lost 7.9% on Primaries. They were only saved when a mere 2.8% of it went to the liberals, giving Labor a very narrow win on 2PP.

In Lindsay, strong local campaigning from David Bradbury seems to have saved the day. Despite a 6.9% swing against him, he still beat the liberals on primaries. Tellingly, the greens only got 4.5% of the vote, and so he squeaked back with 50.2% of the 2PP. The liberals will be very annoyed they didn't win.

In Macarthur, Labor suffered a 6.9% swing on primaries. The libs got 2.4% of it, and that was enough to give them th seat. Interestingly, 2.9% of it went to One Nation, although they were number one on the ballot paper.

In Hughes, Labor's hopes of winning a tight seat from 2007 were derailed by a 5.8% primary swing against Labor - 3.1% went to the liberals. One nation again scored lucky with the number one ticket spot and picked up 1.6%.

In Werriwa, Labor's primary vote fell a whopping 8.9%. The locals may not have appreciated Laure Ferguson being parachuted in.

In all of these seats, the swing was around 5-7% against Labor on the primaries. It's a miracle they didn't lose more.

Bennelong

Next, lets have a look at the other seat Labor lost - Bennelong, right in the heart of Sydney's west.

Labor's primary vote fell by a whopping 8% - and almost all of it went straight to the liberals. John Alexander won 49% of the Primary vote and was easily elected.

And now, for the carnage in safe ALP Sydney seats

Although Bennelong was the only seat the ALP lost, check out the enormous collapses in Labor's primary vote in a number of Sydney Metro seats:

Banks: -10.3%

Barton: -8.9%

Blaxland: - 8.4%

Chifley: -12.0%

Fowler: -15.9%

Kingsford-Smith: -8.7% -

McMahon: -7.3%

Parramatta: -8.9%

Reid: -11.8%

Watson: -10.3%

In all of these cases, the swing went almost straight to the liberals, to the point where some of them were won by Labor by only 52.5% on the primary vote. Some of them could only now be called marginal.

Even in the inner city there was severe damage:

Grayndler: -8.7% - Albo was given an almighty fright when the Greens picked up 6%, finished ahead of the liberals, and only lost to the ALP 51.5-48.5.

Sydney: -5.4% - Tanya Plibersek did better than many colleagues - the greens got 3% of the swing but fell 4% short of getting into 2nd spot.

And even in Wollongong and the Hunter, Labor heartland, there was bad damage:

Throsby: -7.9%

Cunningham: -3.3% - although the liberal primary vote actually increased by 5.3%

Newcastle: -2.8% - the ALP lost it's primary vote win, but the libs and greens each picked up 5% off an independent from last time.

Hunter: - 5.2% - of which sadly, 3.3% went to One Nation. And no, they weren't first on the ballot.



So what does all this mean?

Clearly, brand Labor is well and truly down the toilet. Although the ALP hasn't lost many seats, it has lost a sizeable chunk of it's iron grip on metropolitan Sydney. If these results are repeated at the upcoming state election in March 2011, Labor will be utterly wiped out for a generation in NSW.

And I'll post my thoughts on why in a moment.

The percentage of people who give a damn

The number of immigrants who came to Australia in 2008: 300,000

The Number of people in Australia illegally right now (eg visa overstayers): 50,000

The total number of Refugees accepted into Australia every year by all means: 13,000

The number of boat people who came to Australia last year seeking asylum: 5,000

The number of those boat people who were genuine refugees and allowed in: 3,000



The length of time it would take to fill the MCG with our annual immigration intake: 4 months

the length of time it would take to fill the MCG with current illegal immigrants: 2 years

the length of time it would take to fill the MCG with successful boat people applicants at current rates: 20 years


The percentage of Boat people who were accepted as genuine refugees under Howard AND Rudd: 71%

The percentage of Afghani asylum seekers whose claims were accepted before the freeze: 40%

The percentage of our total annual refugee intake who came here on boats: 23%

The percentage of Australia's total annual immigration intake from all refugees: 4-5%

The percentage of Australia's total annual immigration intake from boat people who are accepted as refugees: 1-2%



The number of major political parties in canberra: 3

The number of major australian political parties willing to point any of this out: 0

the number of minor political parties in canberra: 2

the number of minor political parties in canberra willing to point any of this out: 1

the number of independent senators or house of reps MP's in canberra: 4

the number of independent senators or house of reps MP's willing to point any of this out: 0

The number of major political parties in canberra willing to whip up fears of boat people: 3

the number of minor political parties in canberra willing to whip up fears of boat people: 1 (family first)




The percentage of the Australian people who want "tougher border protection": 61%

The percentage of ACT Labor party delegates who don't want tougher border protection: 100%



The odds on the major parties toughening their boat people policies: 2-1


the percentage of Australians who might change their mind if anyone was brave enough to tell them the truth: unknown

Federal Labor - led by a red(head)

The deed is done - it was done with a speed and a brutality that schocked many Australians and Labor Party members. People woke up on Wednesday and travelled to work with barely any sense that by 9.30am the next day, their Verbose, Christian Queenslander would be removed from office and replaced with a left-wing, childless, unmarried, atheist, redheaded Victorian woman.

It's a spectacular amount of change in a very short period of time. I doubt even Gillard was expecting to be Prime Minister when she woke up on Wednesday. And yet, here she is. Australia's first female prime minister - and I truly believe she has the capacity to be of our greats. And the fact that she's all of those above things, to me, is a victory.

But despite the cause for celebration, you still get this lingering sense of discomfort at the way this all happened. It was too fast, too brutal, and too easy. Kevin Rudd led labor to one of its greatest ever election wins in 2007. Many Australians voted for Labor at the last election on the assumption that Rudd would lead the Labor party for a full term. In fact, when John Howard refused to serve a full term as Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd said he would. Expect to see those promises feature prominently in Liberal Party advertising within the next few months.

I'm sure it makes many Australians feel uncomfortable that a few factional powerbrokers and unions can remove a prime minister so quickly and with such devastating ease. Removing a Premier is one thing, but removing a Prime minister is quite another.

To understand how this all happened I think we need to rewind right back to the 2007 election and and go through the logical chain of events. Everything happens for a reason - even if it happens quickly. There have been warning signs for months, even years.

Rudd has a personal leadership style that was very grating to his colleagues. In 2007, he was seen as the saviour of Labor, and thus was granted unprecedented authority by his colleagues to do what he liked and to run his won agenda. For a while, it seemed to work. He said sorry to the stolen generation, made a cvonfident start on foreign policy, and when the financial crisis hit in late 2008, he gathered together his 3 most trusted ministers and made some very speedy and important decisions that saved Australia from the financial crisis.

But Rudd never had a personal power base of support deep within the party. And he alienated many of his colleagues by his "my way or the highway" style. He showed a sense of disinterest in many of his colleagues, some of whom were cabinet ministers. He didn't trust them wholeheartedly to make the right decisions. Very early on there were stories in the media that the entire government was effectively being run through Rudd's office - some only a few months after he was prime minister. He was described as all-knowing, all-controlling, and an authoritarian. Policy logjams were forming because everything had to go through his office. The staff turnover in his office demonstrates the incredible workload that he and his staff had to deal with.

As long as Rudd had the magic policy touch, he was going to be untouchable. During the financial crisis, he and his "gang of four" made some very effective and correct policy decisions on how to save the economy, through the bank guaruntee, to the stimulus packages, and the money spent building infrastructure. These good decisions brought calm, stability, and credibility to governmance in Australia. Rudd stayed very high, artificially one might argue, in the opinion polls.

But when he started making bad decisions, and when he started to go down in the polls, his automatic authority was always going to come into question. And when the chaos in his office started leading to poor policy or inadequate checking of decisions, like the insulation scheme, there was always going to be a push on to force Rudd to change his style.

The insulation scheme itself is a good example of where a little industry knowledge, (including asking unions and the industry), and a bit of proof-reading from colleagues might have made for a better designed scheme. There was nothing wrong with the idea - in fact it remains a very good one. But the design was poor, and was rushed into the implementation stage too quickly. There was a pressing need to do so but we now know it wouldn't have harmed the government or the country to spend a few weeks ironing out some of the kinks - with better consultation from cabinet and caucus, this could have occured.

This was a decision that was made in the heat of the moment. But despite that, and despite the financial situation calming down, the government continued with the same style of decision making. The seeds were there very early on for a sudden and dramatic downfall if something went haywire in Rudd's government.

I personally believe, however, that at any stage over the past 6 months, and even the past few weeks, the situation was salvageable. It should have been possible to save Kevin Rudd's leadership. But part of the problem was that Rudd got too used to acting like an autocrat - while he was making the right decisions, he was popular and everyone lived with it. But when things went wrong, everyone blamed Rudd - even though the failures were not solely his.

I personally believe that if the right political and policy choices were made 6 months ago, Rudd would still be sitting in the lodge right now, in his second term, with an emissions trading bill passed through parliament.

Six months ago, before the copenhagen conference, Rudd described Climate Change as "the greatest moral challenge of our time". People took him at his word, and it was reflected in his policy - a unilateral emissions cut in the absense of a global climate change deal, and a bigger cut if there was global agreement at copenhagen. I felt at the time that thiis was exactly right - establish it as soon as possible, then once in, it

To get his ETS through the senate, Rudd had to talk to the liberals. Getting an ETS passed without them was never going to fly, because the greens, xenophon and steven fielding were never going to agree on an ETS. Steve Fielding is a climate change denier and would not have voted for any ETS.

So the government attempted to negotiate with the liberals (the nationals were opposed). The negotiations were rocky, but Malcolm Turnbull had effectively reached an agreement. Unfortunately Turnbull suffered from the same problem as Rudd - he didn't consult his colleagues properly. It turned out that a majority of liberal MP's were climate skeptics or deniers - and when they realised this, they ripped Turnbull apart. Tony Abbott was unexpectedly made the liberal leader and dumped the ETS deal.

At this point, Rudd had too choices.

He could go to an early election in march (a double dissolution) and ram the ETS down the liberals throat.

Or he could stick to his earlier view that Australians will punish the government for going to an early election.

Rudd chose the latter option - his first mistake. The coalition would not have won an election in March, especially not under Abbott. The headlines for Abbott in March were mostly negative - although his soundbytes were getting traction, he was being trashed for his economic credibility in the media. Unfortunately for Rudd, around the same time the insulation scheme started blowing up, which spooked them away from an early election. They had to cancel the scheme.

then a number of other things happened. Firstly, the government reneged on a promise for child care centres. Two policy backflips started to put doubts in the minds of people.

The big hole was what to do about the emissions trading scheme. Apparently, sernior sections of the NSW Right faction, along with a few other senior figures (including Gillard), advised Rudd to delay the scheme until 2013. Rudd reluctantly took their advice - another big mistake. This was an enormous policy backflip that made him look like he didn't believe in anything, given his earlier comments.

He then signed a health deal without the agreement of Western Australia.

And finally, the Henry review was released. With so many cancelled policies, and Abbott running a completely obstructionist opposition, the government desperately flailed around for something to do. The government latched on to the recommendation to introduce a mining super profits tax. It seemed like a good idea - Australians would respond to the class warfare aspect of miners paying more tax, and the extra revenue would help pay off Australia's budget defecit.

This turned out to be a big mistake. Rudd and Swan knew this was going to cause a ruckus, and decided to break their promise on taxpayer funded advertising to shore up public support. It was a dumb decision and nobody at any stage advised against it. Rudd tried to strike in the dead of night by including the superprofits tax in the budget. The government dug a hole for itself and couldn't get out.

At any stage, Rudd could have tried a more consultative approach to the negotiations. But he didn't do so. he approached the mining companies the same way he approached his colleagues - he made the decisions around here, and he'll consult you after the decisions were made.

All of these decisions started piling up - and the polls kept going down. Although Labor was still about 52-48 on the 2PP votes in most newspolls, the damage was far worse and far more fundamental. The Primary vote was down to 35 percent - even with a high greens vote, that put labor in some serious trouble. The government itself was unable to function - with Rudd not consulting and unable to backflip further on policy. Nor could it get good messages out - an announcement on Paid Maternity leave was only in the media for 2 days before the mining ads took over again.

Unions started worrying that they had spent 11 years trying to get rid of John Howard and would then hand the reins back to Tony Abbott.

And then the fateful decisions were made by powerbrokers and unions - that Rudd had to go. When the end came, it came swiftly, with Rudd not being able to rely on any strong support within the party to keep his job. As a first term prime minister, this was pretty shocking.

It's important to remember that at any point during this 6-month period, it could have been different. If the right advice had been given, If Rudd changed his style, and if people stopped panicking and started fixing problems, the situation was retrievable. rudd would still have probably won the election, but the regrettable decision was made.

I think most Australians are now looking for a reason for the change. Does Gillard lead to an improvement in fortunes for Labor? My own feeling is that leadership change without policy change is political suicide. Gillard's first task is to fix up the mining tax - negotiate the details with the industry and get it done. They don't want those mining ads back on TV during the election, because they were killing labor.

They also will be looking to Gillard so she can prove that she's far more powerful than the people who put her there. This doesn't send a good look to the electorate, so they will be looking for a vote as soon as possible. If a mining tax deal is reached soon, Gillard will go to the polls, fix up labor's ETS policy during the campaign, and she'll win.