Losing the unloseable election…and without a GST

6:44 PM, 28/2/2010 .. 0 comments .. Link

Today’s opinion poll in the seat of Morialta has revealed a ten percent swing against the Government, raising the possibility of a political defeat just four years after the greatest victory in SA ALP history. While this is based on an Advertiser poll, and the seat of Morialta is traditionally heartland Liberal, this poll raises some serious questions especially given the fact that the Liberal opposition is mediocre at best. Where does the blame lie for this extraordinary turn of events?



The night of the 2006 election result, Labor hacks like myself were celebrating 8 more years of Government, not four more years. The enormity of the victory made any defeat in 2010 unimaginable. It is perhaps this mindset, which pervaded the entire SA ALP, that is perhaps at the heart of the recent down turn in popularity. The Rann Government between the years of 2002 and 2006 was required to govern with the assistance of Independants, and as such was humble and consensus based in its approach. The fragility of the Government kept the arrogance and gloating of the Government in check to some degree. The 2006 massacre freed the bridles that were holding back the arrogance of Rann, Foley, Atkinson, Conlon, Koutsantonis et al. Faced with a feeble opposition, and the prospect of at least two more terms of Government, Rann’s team begun to behave like a cat toying with a mouse. It appears that they had never watched Tom and Jerry cartoons. The arrogance of the Government played various roles; it distracted the public from the actual achievements of the Government and also angered the media. This election, at this stage, appears to be more about who the public likes rather than what each side is likely to achieve. The arrogance of the Government has had some other major consequences, which I will now discuss.



In the 2006 election, the Labor Government was returned to power by all sections of the community, not just traditional ALP voters. The size of the swing was enormous. Perhaps it was for this reason that the Government felt comfortable in alienating its base, through industrial pay disputes and the passage of the WorkCover legislation. The Government, through these actions, alienated the traditional base of the ALP. It can be argued quite strongly that these decisions by the Government were required for the long term financial security of the State. (I am also of this view). The biggest mistake the Government made was the manner in which it treated the union movement during these debates. The attitude was kind of “we don’t need you, we have the support from the business community etc” or “you guys have to support us anyway”. At the end of the day, it is unwise to rely on the support of strange bedfellows. It is also unwise to make enemies of former allies, who are privy to all your weaknesses. I will now discuss one of the Government’s major weaknesses; rigidity in Cabinet selection.



Over Mike Rann’s entire term as Premier, he has been held captive by the factions when it comes to determining his Cabinet. Throughout his term, only four Ministers have been left Cabinet; Steph Key MP, Trish White MP, Carmel Zollo MLC, Lea Stevens MP and the late Terry Roberts MLC. It is interesting to note that no Labor Unity male has been asked to resign their Cabinet position. The largest beneficiary of this fact is the State’s Attorney General, Michael Atkinson. Normally a Government Minister in Australian politics has one or two lives, can endure a few scandals (depending on their size) until they are forced to resign by overwhelming public opinion. The sacking of an unpopular Minister often acts as a release valve, removing pressure from the Government. Mike Rann has never had this option available to him, despite the inordinate number of scandals that the Attorney has gotten himself into. The hatred within the community of the Attorney (having read various online comments etc, I think hatred is an appropriate word) is now intrinsically bonded to the Government as a whole. Perhaps if Don Farrell had granted the Premier more freedom in this regard, the AG could have been set adrift a long time ago, sparing the fortunes of the remainder of the Government. (The Attorney is kind of like a fat guy on a life raft with limited food provisions. He should have been shark food a long time ago). I personally feel that the mood of the campaign changed drastically around the time of the latest of the AG’s scandals- internet censorship. That certainly was the last straw for me.



Ok, the fifty foot blonde American gorilla in the election campaign is the Chantelois issue. Mike Rann has long been termed the SA ALP’s greatest electoral asset. He was also a counter balance to the public perception of the womanizing Foley et al. When Rann got tarred with the same brush, the front bench begun to look like the cast of some low brow American-Pie-esque slap stick comedy. The Government was already viewed as being macho and bullying before the scandal broke. Combined with a female Opposition leader, the Chantelois scandal became dynamite. The ALP’s poor succession planning when it came to replacing the Premier became a potentially fatal error. It certainly wounded the Government, only time will tell whether it was a kill shot.



The election campaign is by no means over. If the public seriously examines the policies of both sides, I feel that the ALP has the best chance of victory. The danger is that the actions of the Government, both publicly and privately, over the past 8 years have rendered the policy debate null and void. It would be a terrible shame for Government to change hands purely because of deep seeded dislike of the personalities of the incumbent, not the outcomes achieved for the State. If indeed, this is the case, however, the party only has itself to blame.