Five reasons why the Coalition will lose
By psephoblog
My final election commentary can be seen here
This entry was posted on November 19, 2007 at 1:09 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
November 19, 2007 at 1:15 am
Adam,
Some interesting points. I don’t entirely agree with everything you say but I agree with most of it. It will be interesting to see what future historians think about why the Liberals lost, and it will be especially interesting to see what the Liberals themselves in the future about why they lost.
November 19, 2007 at 6:19 am
I feel sorry for Beazley too – it’s sad that he was made to feel he had to quit Parliament – he could have contributed a lot to the Rudd government. People like Ted Heath and James Callaghan didn’t automatically quit parliament after losing.
November 19, 2007 at 6:50 am
You work is very professional Adem but I wish you would change the colour scheme, it’s bloody hard to read and it looks so unprofessional.
I’ve have read some of your comments on the quality of party sites, so I assume you know this and your sites colour scheme is grating for a reason.
November 19, 2007 at 9:35 am
May I call you Dr Adam?
Succinct and insightful commentary on the conservatives ambling to oblivion Dr Adam, and I hope a few senior Liberals get their noses rubbed in it.
From the moment JWH offered the line he wanted us to be ‘relaxed and comfortable’ I knew we were in for the opposite, and he’s not disappointed on that one. (As an aside, read the coda on today’s SMH column by Miranda Devine: the main piece is about Sydney talk back radio, and there’s a short article at the end about Howad’s legacy in winning the culture wars! My god, these people would call the plague a blessing if it didn’t infect conservatives!)
But the requia abound in the press, the Howard ‘era’ (if can really justify such a grandiose label) is finished and we await the counting to see by how much. Your analysis of their failings, their hubris and incapacity to keep up with the electorate’s changing concerns is a fitting epitaph.
“Here lies John Winston Howard, relaxed and comfortable”
November 19, 2007 at 9:39 am
With hindsight, the pattern and the precedent for Costello’s repeated failures of nerves goes a long way back. In 1994, Costello could see that Hewson was finished and that the Liberals needed to dump him. Did he therefore challenge Hewson? No, he encouraged Downer to challenge instead, offering him support. Costello didn’t think he was as good a candidate for the leadership as Downer. ‘Nuff said.
November 19, 2007 at 11:50 am
I agree but added to your points are all those unpopular faces. Personally I’ve seen enough of them. Howard, Costello, Ruddock, Downer, Andrews, Hockey, Nelson, Bronwyn Bishop. They’ve all been around too long.
November 19, 2007 at 11:58 am
Excellent and cheering analysis Dr Carr, as always. Just one query – I always understood the Sawford formula to be that when 2 out of those 3 areas (interest rates, unemployment and inflation) are moving in the wrong direction (up), then the incumbents will lose. Your piece claims the Sawford formula only applies for all 3.
I prefer the 2 out of 3 version, as that means Sawford still holds for the Tories’ impending defeat (the odd one out being unemployment).
November 19, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Charles, I’m sorry you don’t like the colour scheme. No-one else has told me this, and I find the blue-on-yellow quite easy on the eye. You can always increase the text size if you find it hard to read.
Katoomba, you may be right. I will check.
November 19, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Quality article.
I am always impressed with the content on your site Adam and your analysis in this story is pretty close to spot on in my opinion.
November 19, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Hi Adam
Thank you for the great analysis of election.
Keep up the great work.
Electoral disaster awaits for those who do not listen.
November 19, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Thanks Dave.
Katooma, you are right about Sawford, I have changed the text.
November 19, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Your ‘five reasons why the coalition will lose’ analysis is sound. However I am surprised you haven’t included a sixth reason: that John Howard’s past has finally caught up with him and that voters appear to have stopped believing anything he says.
I am reminded of a quotation of Abraham Lincoln’s: ‘you may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time.’ It appears most Australian voters have finally had enough of Howard’s slippery ‘core and non-core promises’, his dissembling, and his manipulative, lying ways. The man who made an art form out of ‘wedging’ his opponents, cried wolf over border protection, and whose stubborn pride stopped him from ever admitting a mistake has finally lost the trust of the electorate.
And if voters needed reminding of just how slippery and devious he could be there was his ‘sorry but no apology’ over the recent rise interest rates.
November 19, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Dear Adam
I thoroughly enjoyed your very comprehensive analysis and am heartened having gone through a 69 “Don’s Party” moment last week- although expert websites like yours make me more reassured. Your point about under 40s not appreciating the coalition’s stance on unions is an interesting one — if there is a female demographic that is swinging back to the coalition (29-45, was it?) according to the press, one hopes the fear campaigns won’t have as much impact as they once might have.
David Menadue
November 19, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Adam, enjoyed your summary. Liked the way it rolled easily onto the the eye and even more readily into comprehension. Always read your comments on PB and have learnt a great deal about “The Trade”. Thanks.
Think we’ll all remember Nov. 24, 2007 well into our dotage. This one’s gonna be sweeter than sweet. PM Kev & BoP Bob. I’m sure we’ll manage to live with it. Cheers, EC.
November 19, 2007 at 8:23 pm
“One consequence of this is people under 40 have no memory of the old trade unions, and hence no particular reason to dislike them. But the culture of hatred of the unions has lingered on in the Liberal Party, and has underlain the Howard government’s re-election strategy, to the extent that it has one.”
Your point is spot-on Adam, this evening my 19yr old daughter, who attends Uni, works part-time at the local pub and hates WorkChoices from practical experience, said ” Dad, why would anyone hate unions?” I struggled to explain using failed 70s left-wing philosophy but Adam’s observation is 100% correct, anyone under 40 has never experienced ‘trade union bosses/thugs’, Coalition ads are an oddity to them, no more relevant than those old ads in the 60s of big red arrows coming down to Australia from Indo-China.
November 19, 2007 at 9:57 pm
I couldn’t agree with you more about the unions, Adam. With Work Choices the number-one concern amongst workers, the Liberals’ advertising continually draws attention to the fact that the ALP are all predominately former unionists. Most people accept that unions are there to act on behalf of workers. They mightn’t belong but they’re not at all concerned about having them around to protect their interests. Those anti-union adds might go down well in the nation’s boardrooms, but in the lunchrooms they simply reassure workers that a Labor government will look after them. Just who are they trying to convince with these TV adds?
One thing you missed I think was the Government’s reaction to the opinion polls. Earlier in the year when the polls were going badly for the government, people were obviously trying to tell the Liberals that there were a few things that needed to change. Instead of looking at how they could improve their performance, their response is to say that electorate didn’t know what it was doing (!) and come the election, the people would still be voting for us. They were still saying this after the election was called. When it was clear that no one in the Government was getting the message, the electorate was left with no choice other than to vote for the ALP.
November 19, 2007 at 10:24 pm
I thoroughly enjoyed the analysis. However, I have a feeling in my waters we shouldn’t all be counting our chickens just yet.
November 19, 2007 at 10:44 pm
I have the same uneasy feeling. I desperately want the Howard government out for all sorts of reasons that have been thoroughly covered by many others but I am still not convinced we are about to see the end of them – despite all that polling and analyses! Some one reassure me? or maybe I will go and bury my head until Saturday night. I don’t think I can take any more suspense…
November 19, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Malcolm Mackerras writes to me:
“Dear Adam: I read your essay today with great interest and I think it is a very good essay. However, I have one suggestion for change. My suggestion for change is that it should read “Six reasons why the Coalition will lose”. Reason number four should be on how the climate change debate has developed over the past six months. I would then re-number the later points so that “Union bosses: the scare campaign that didn’t” would become reason number five.”
Comments on Malcolm’s views welcome. My own view is that while WorkChoices is obviously not the only vote-shifting issue, it is the dominant one.
November 19, 2007 at 11:35 pm
Surely the Sawford criteria of “unemployment” can be interpreted as meaning “employment (dis)satisfaction”. Under this approach Workchoices has destabilised many people’s working lives and therefore “unemployment” or fear over future continuity of wages and conditions has risen.
Decreased real wages and job insecurity = unemployment. For the unskilled/industrially weak in particular, Workchoices has decimated job security and earnings. Therefore Sawfords’ criteria is met absolutely on the “unemployment” criteria.
November 19, 2007 at 11:50 pm
Thanks Adam, you have the jas seal of approval (don’t be too scared some have got it and lived) , I think climate change is a tough one, on one hand it exposes the Howard mo and in an ugly economically painful way [I'm assuming others are linking drought and storm with global warming] but on the other hand it is still all a bit unreal for most of us. Perhaps water restrictions nation wide have caused more angst than I get.
November 20, 2007 at 12:00 am
Great analysis, Adam, though I’m with Malcolm here. Climate change appears to be a lightning-rod issue with the “Doctors Wives” as highlighted by the Wentworth circus and Mike Bailey’s apparent strong showing in North Sydney. As well, in general it feeds into the sense that Howard is past his use-by date and isn’t really up to dealing with the 21st century; this was a crucial issue that he ignored because it just didn’t (and still doesn’t) fit his worldview.
The other point where this election dips into Greek tragedy that you touched on with the long election campaign section, is the nightmarish situation Howard finds himself in with respect to the media and ‘cutting through’. This is the guy who pioneered, if not invented, 24-hour news cycle management, who has mastered the ability to gradually chip away at key issues and weaknesses of his opponents, but now he’s found that the voters have him on mute, yet the more he tries to break through to them, the more he becomes the centre of the campaign and the less they want to hear from him.
November 20, 2007 at 12:02 am
Hard to fault.
November 20, 2007 at 2:02 am
Fascinating. Enjoyed six weeks in your wonderful country in 2001.
From over here in the UK there appear to be a number of situational parallels with the British 1997 election campaign. The only one that I shall deal with is the settled nature of the electorate. I knocked on plenty of doors for the UK Labour party and travelled round the country just before election day.
Everywhere there seemed to be a patient expectation of a change of government. May 1st was just the day when voting happened. Some of my political colleagues were desperately nervous right up to the counting of the votes, I wasn’t.
History! If I had known then what I know now about the Blair years I would have been deeply worried for my country and the world.
So the surprise was not in the result of the election but in the results from the election, if you see what I mean.
Good luck all Aussies for Saturday, Sunday and the next two years.
Malcolm in the UK
November 20, 2007 at 2:17 am
A thorough and insightful analysis, Adam. I’m interested whether you’ve considered revising your analysis for the Senate. If I understand it correctly, your earlier analysis, indicates that you feel that the most likely outcome will be a Coalition loss of 1 seat (South Australia), and a likely retention of its seats in the other states. Do you think that a stronger vote for Labor in the House, than you initially predicted, will change the probable outcomes for the Senate. Also, do you think that the various “Save the Senate” campaigns and the attention towards Coalition control of the Senate has gained some traction and could reduce their vote in that chamber to a higher degree than might be expected?
November 20, 2007 at 6:57 am
Extremely good analysis, Adam. One point where I disagree, however, is the likelihood of a Labor victory in Fisher, where the party is effectively running dead. I think Flynn is a much more likely gain for the ALP.
November 20, 2007 at 9:25 am
Ads
Excellent essay, A-, strong beginning, interesting,insightful analytical content throughout, just not that happy with the ending.
November 20, 2007 at 10:02 am
Mark, It now seems likely that the Greens will win the Senate seat in the ACT, and on current indications Labor will pick up a seat from the Libs in Tasmania. If Xenophon wins a seat from the Libs in SA, that is the three losses needed for the Coalition to lose control of the Senate. That would greatly reduce the chance of a double dissolution next year.
Chris, I’m not aware that Labor is running dead in Fisher. They may hope that the independent can knock of Slipper on Labor preferences, but Labor is polling so well in Qld that the ind may find it hard to get ahead of Labor.
Brooklyn, sorry you don’t like the ending, better luck in 2013.
November 20, 2007 at 10:09 am
I wonder what will happen to Sophie Mirapoulos/Panobella after the election
November 20, 2007 at 10:50 am
Greg and Rebecca
There is nothing absolutely certain in this life. Very strange things do happen sometimes. But they usually don’t. As Damon Runyon said: ‘The race is not always to the swift, or the battle to the strong, but that’s the way to bet.’
Malcolm in the UK
From my study of Australian political history, I would say that it is an absolutely universal rule that Labor governments disappoint their supporters. I don’t expect the next one to be any different. I came to terms a long time ago with the fact that no government ever is going to implement all the policies I would like to see implemented. It would be mad for me to allow myself to become emotionally attached to any such expectation.
I grant you that some disappointments are worse than others, so the next Labor Government may still have some nasty surprises in store for me: but not as nasty as the ones the Howard Government has given me.
todaystocome
I’m afraid that ‘promotion’ has to be the odds-on answer to your question.
November 20, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Adam
Will you provide a final editorial just before the election as the old VCEpolitics.com did in ‘96?
November 20, 2007 at 8:14 pm
I would expect Mirabella to be on Opposition frontbencher in the next Parliament.
todaystocome: possibly, but I may not have time.
November 21, 2007 at 9:24 am
Adam,
Thank you for an incisive and insightful analysis, although I agree with Malcolm Makerras and others who identify climate change as a sixth reason.
The Coalition haven’t been able to tackle this critical issue seriously or credibly.
It will be interesting to see post election whether any traction is given to the notion of 13 Labor candidates and their eligibility to stand. Apart from the obvious scaremongering which has dominated a negative and desperate Coalition campaign, is Andrew Robb also insinuating that the AEC is grossly incompetent?
Following Labor’s victory on Saturday, are we going to witness parallels to the debacle with the 2000 US Presidential Election when the US Supreme Court handed George W Bush a controversial victory? Any comments on this?
November 21, 2007 at 9:48 am
Excellent analysis. It should be nailed to the Liberal Party door.
November 21, 2007 at 10:17 am
Adam, that was a great read.
Thanks
November 21, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Adam, thankyou so much for your commentary and your site – very much respected and appreciated.
November 21, 2007 at 5:12 pm
I tight wrap up of the reagents for change that seem to be permeating the electorate. Will be interesting to compare the final washup with the opinion. (PS Im tipping a labor landslide of 87 seats) I beleive the polls will hold up, there has only been minimal evidence of any narrowing and no where near enough to get the coalition back. WA seems to be wanting to buck the trend but this doesnt affect the likely result greatly. Great analysis – enjoyed the insights
November 23, 2007 at 11:23 am
Hi Adam,
Good analysis and I agree entirely, however I have another reason to add, which I believe was a major tactical blunder by Howard & Costello – telling the Australian public they have “never had it so good” and constantly talking up the strength of the economy doesn’t gel with many Australians, who might be entitiled to think “if the economy is going so well, why am I struggling to pay the credit card/mortgage/bills?”
Talking up the macro-economic figures has no resonance in the electorate, but when people are hurting financially, telling them they have “never been better off” is electoral poison.
November 24, 2007 at 3:07 pm
I haven’t read all the above comments and I am down to point 3 in your commentary so far but on the assumption that Rudd wins you’ve basically stolen my post [in your commentary] that goes up tomorrow that I wrote in May
March 11, 2008 at 6:40 am
$anchor$basketball Betting,final Four,final Four Betting,final Four Gambling,final Four Sports Book,final Four Sportsbook,march Madness,march Madness Betting,march Madness Gambling,march Madness Sports Book,march Madness Sportsbook,ncaa,ncaa Betting,…
$anchor$basketball Betting,final Four,final Four Betting,final Four Gambling,final Four Sports Book,final Four Sportsbook,march Madness,march Madness Betting,march Madness Gambling,march Madness Sports Book,march Madness Sportsbook,ncaa,ncaa Betting,nc…