A gripping election in Australia over the weekend, in which I immediately declare an interest:
The picture's from the Liberal Party's London branch election event - the London booth is the largest in the world and results from it may well have affected the remarkably narrow result. The ABC's site for details on a seat-by-seat basis is well worth a look: you'll note that currently they're (rightly) still labelling some seats as "undecided" which the press would have you think are done and dusted.
First, let's consider the respective leaderships. I'm no fan of Kevin Rudd. Some ten years ago I lived in his electorate - I then thought him able, palpably ambitious and slimy to a quite extraordinary degree. But whatever one makes of him, he was elected Prime Minister at the ballot box as leader of the Labor Party in 2007 by a significant majority. His left-of-centre party then promptly took the axe to him given (i) poll numbers they didn't like and (ii) internal rivalries, installing their own candidate in his stead (sound familiar, British readers?). That's the legacy Julia Gillard had to bear. On the other hand, Australia's first female Prime Minister was only in post for a short period before calling the election. Overall, she had a good election. Rudd's inactivity on some issues and reversal of pledged positions on others were given lip service but could, when convenient, be only semi-defended, a benefit of the change.
On the other hand, Liberal Party leader Tony Abbott emerged as Liberal leader only after his Party had worked through two post-Howard alternatives in a single Parliament (neither of them the heir-apparent Peter Costello, who eventually pushed aside the laurel wreath). Despite this, Abbott managed to shake off a historically pretty poor media reputation and had a remarkably vigorous and impressive campaign. Lest you think I am being sycophantic, I point out that this is in stark contrast to his poor 2007 election, as I noted at the time.
As you will know by now, the result this weekend was unbelievably close. The current prediction has the two parties on 73 seats each. Thus in a 150 seat Parliament the Coalition and Labor have obtained comparable batches of seats, each unable to form government alone, and it seems likely that the Parliament's independent members will decide who forms power. Bob Katter, Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott are a curious trio. All are former members of the National Party (the minor partner in the Coalition along with the Liberal Party). It is a rural-orientated, often protectionist, populist movement which has long been closely affiliated with the more urban and free-market Liberals (by convention, the parties do not contest seats in which the other party has an incumbent member, and usually run joint Senate tickets). Beyond the formal and informal coalitions that have existed for some time, the two parties are now formally merged in Queensland.
Here's a thumbnail sketch of each of the three members now being wooed by the main parties (to the extent that GIllard name-checked all of them in her election night speech). On reading, you'll see that forming bonds with these men, each of whom plainly represents the will of the electorates for which they are members, is not without complications:
Bob Katter is the member for Kennedy, in northern Queensland; he is the son of Bob Katter Senior, the last member for the seat. Between them, with a three year blip immediately after the death of Katter Senior, father and son have represented the seat since 1966 and Katter repeatedly wins with eye-wateringly thumping majorities. He left the National Party in 2001. He is a social conservative and a protectionist, with economic views that are frequently quite left-wing. A strong critic of "political correctness, he believes that citizenship ceremonies are "dewogging" - and those that think such terms should not be used are "little slanty-eyed idealogues".
Tony Windsor is the member for New England, in northern New South Wales. He was a popular independent NSW State Parliament member for a seat which shares much of the same geographical area, and was going to contest New England for the Nationals in 2001, until he was deselected over a drink driving incident. He ran anyway as an independent and has given his old party a hiding in this seat, an erstwhile stronghold of theirs, ever since. In 2004 he alleged that he had been offered a diplomatic post by the Nationals as a bribe to leave domestic politics, a charge which was denied and has led to significant ill-feeling.
Rob Oakeshott is the member for Lyne, a coastal New South Wales seat bordering Windsor's seat. Like Windsor, he was once a National Party candidate - unlike him, Oakeshott had a longstanding history of working for the Party, being a State MP having been a staffer for former leader Mark Vaile. A social "progressive" and Republican, he became dissatisfied with the National position in both those fields and left the Party. He rejected overtures to run as a National when Vaile resigned, stood for his former boss's seat as an Independent and won with a comprehensive majority (two thirds of the primary vote).
So whilst it's true that they are all from the right of politics, and were formerly members of a party on the right, they left for a reason. Overlaying and perhaps trumping the political is the personal sense of grievance that comes with such separation. It's therefore far from guaranteed that ideological backgrounds are going to dictate their positions in the current climate.
I was trying with Dan
Hamilton of Comres to produce a parallel that would apply in the
UK. The closest we could get was if David Cameron had had to rely on a
trio of re-elected, independent, ostentatiously (self)ostracised Bob
Spinks in order to form Government. You see the point.
It's right to say that most efforts from all of the parties went along with universal press attention on the swing seats in outer suburban areas. It is ironic - and probably good - that these rural areas have produced the likely kingmakers of the new environment. But, whilst I applaud the new prominence of these electorates, one hesitates for a moment about the benefit of having these three men thrust into the spotlight.
On the left, the election produced a Green member of the lower house for the first time (in Melbourne) - a vote that can confidently be put on the Labor side of the aisle when deciding which side will govern, taking them realistically to a projected 74 seats.
Right now, naturally all thoughts are with the question of how the results will shake out in governance terms. But when the dust from that has settled, attention will turn to the quality of the campaign that was run - or rather, qualities of the various campaigns, as the State Divisions take on much of the work within the federal party structures. At that point a collective sorrowful gaze will turn to my old home state of Victoria, a beautiful part of the world with a resource-rich Liberal Division, much old money and a tradition of strong campaigning.
At the last election, at what can fairly be described as the nadir in recent times of the Liberal Party's fortunes, the Liberal Party lost only two seats in Victoria (Deakin and Corangamite) as the party went very significantly backwards across the country. Close-call seats like McEwen and La Trobe were retained.
This year, in New South Wales it would seem that the Coalition gained four seats and in Queensland a whopping eight seats. Elsewhere, no seats changed hands in South Australia (though Boothby remains close), the ACT or Tasmania, with the Coalition picking up one seat in the Northern Territory and one (potentially two) in Western Australia. Given the strong performance of the Coalition at this election everywhere else, especially in both of the other large states, one would think that in anything better than a woeful result, the worst-case scenario in Victoria would be the retention of the status quo (albeit I admit that McEwen would most likely change hands in any case).
Instead, rather than making gains that matched or even shadowed the other eastern states, the Party went backwards in Victoria once again, losing another two seats and failing to retake Corangamite, a natural Liberal seat lost previously largely because the incumbent, whilst a well-qualified Howard loyalist, was about 150 years old. There remains the further possibility that Dunkley (where the result is very narrow indeed) may yet be lost, too - which would set the Coalition back even further. (That, combined with an upset on final tallies elsewhere - say, Brisbane - could yet produce a Labor majority of 1!)
Part of the cause of the disparity will be unpopular Labor state governments faced by (more) popular Coalition oppositions in New South Wales and Queensland, in comparison with a popular Labor state government faced by an unpopular Coalition opposition in Victoria. Whatever the cause, this kind of state-specific discrepancy really matters when results are as close as this. If the Coalition vote in Victoria had held up, the Coalition would now be in a position to govern outright.
As it is, I think it very likely that the country will have to go back to the polls again soon.
Those arguing out the merits of AV in this country, make of that what you will..!
