Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic
1:52 PM, 25/3/2010 .. 0 comments .. Link
Yesterday the Liberal party finally conceded defeat, paving the way for the first cabinet reshuffle of the new Government’s term. The size of the margin is yet to be decided. I would prefer for Chloe Fox to hold on in her epic struggle for Bright, but a one seat majority will make the next four years that much more interesting. What are the implications of this reshuffle? With Jay Weatherill lurking in the shadows while Rann swings lamely from a poll like a gruesome piñata, it is highly unlikely that this will be the last of the Government’s term.
Anyone that has read my previous posts would realise that I would have greeted the news of John Rau’s elevation to the AG position warmly. The portfolio of AG plays an important role in determining the overall conservatism of the Government. Mr Rau, as a distinguished lawyer, should display a little more respect to established legal principles than his predecessor. His elevation did, however, come as somewhat of a surprise considering his relatively unpopular status within the Right faction. I suspect that the power brokers were aware that with the resignation of Mr Atkinson, Rau was the only remaining member of the right with the qualifications for the job. A failure to elevate Rau could have resulted in the handing of the portfolio to one of the lawyers in the left, such as Pat Conlon or Jay Weatherill (although his challenge made that unlikely). It is too early to get a gauge on staff movements within the Ministerial offices, but it will be interesting to see whether John Rau takes Mr Atkinson’s entire staff holus bolus. There will obviously be some leakage due to the Veterans Affairs and Multicultural Affairs split (maybe they didn’t want a Sykes and Rau in the same Ministerial office given the Charles Sturt Local Council connection). With the eccentricity of Atkinson, it is safe to say that the two offices will operate in starkly different manners.
As expected, Jack Snelling was also promoted to the Ministry. Amusingly, he has taken on the Road Safety portfolio. I can guarantee that whatever baby wagon Jack drives would be incapable of hooning around the streets of Adelaide clocking up speeding fines. His elevation has not been as meteoric as Rau’s, gaining more mid level portfolios, such as Further Education and Training. These portfolios were given to Caica and O’Brien immediately upon their elevation to cabinet. I predict that Jack will be a safe pair of hands that will not cause any Ministerial scandals, but at the same time, his portfolio areas give him little opportunity to make a massive public impact in the short term.
The elevation of Grace Portolesi to the Ministry is an interesting development. During the previous term and during the election campaign, Grace has shown her proclivity to produce the occasional media clanger. She has also exhibited a willingness to engage in unilateral policy announcements/recommendations, such as when she was a spokeswoman on a report into paid maternity leave. In that instance, she made a public announcement suggesting that the State Government pay for maternity leave, only to receive a swift wrap on the knuckles by Treasury I suspect. It is too early to tell whether these mistakes are a result of inexperience. Time will tell.
Another interesting development was the shifting of Paul Caica out of IR into the water portfolio. Caica appears to be the new Michael Wright, as he appears to be given the “shit sandwich” portfolios that nobody would want to touch. A possible reason is both these Ministers are considered “nice guys” as far as public demeanour, so they probably get away with more than others would. Caica would probably be thankful to get away from IR, where his previous history as a union official and factional orientation would have caused him no end of grief. His only previous experience with water was being on the end of a fire hose. If he manages to keep his garden taps off, he should fare quite well. The shifting of the IR portfolio from the left to the right is incredibly interesting. If firstly means that IR adviser former ASU Secretary Andy Dennard may need to go back to union, cap in hand or start learning about salinity. I suspect something more sinister, however. I wouldn’t be surprised if the left was given IR to appease the union fanatics post WorkCover in the lead up to the election. Now that another four years is secure, the portfolio has swung back to an economically conservative and capable Minister in Paul Holloway. Maybe it was also a whack to the left arising out of Weatherill’s challenge?
Finally, the stagnancy of Pat Conlon is curious. He appears to be stuck with Transport for all eternity. Arguably, he can only go higher with AG or Treasurer, and those are off limits. Poor Fix it Pat will be a fixture for another four years. Michael Wright also retained his portfolios, aided by the loss of Maywald and Lomax, and the retirement of Atkinson. He has more lives than a cat with an immunity bracelet, but will be the first right minister to go if (or when) Foley ascends to the leadership. I get the feeling that before the year is out, I will be discussing at least one more Government reshuffle.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Jay and the silent mob
12:20 PM, 23/3/2010 .. 0 comments .. Link
This afternoon the SA ALP caucus will meet to vote on a new Cabinet, despite the final election result being up in the air. In normal circumstances, the victorious leader would have made his victory speech, the dust would be given a few weeks to settle, and then the Ministry would be established. Jay Weatherill’s bold move has thrown the entire Government-to-be into a raging chaos. Senior right wing power brokers would be furious that he had the temerity to even consider such a venture. Doesn’t he know that they run the show? Yes he does, and that is precisely why he has done it.
Before I examine the whole Weatherill saga, I want to applaud a few of the movements in the ALP cabinet. It appears that John Rau MP will finally be promoted to the Ministry, which will add intellectual weight to the Government, although it may not help stave off claims of arrogance. This was the very move that I suggested in a previous blog. Another welcome addition to the Ministry is rumoured to be Jack Snelling. Jack has all the makings of a fine Minister, although the Premier will need to choose his portfolio areas carefully. Jack has some very conservative views in a few social policy issues, but is overall a very humble and compassionate man. The Premier will want to make sure that Jack doesn’t become Atkinson Mach Two purely because of unfortunate portfolio selection. I feel it is a mistake to promote Grace Portolesi prior to her formally being elected. While it is assumed that she and the Government will be returned, acting so pre-emptively sends a message of arrogance once again. Why the hurry then?
The rushed caucus meeting is in direct response to the Jay Weatherill challenge. Right power brokers will argue that they need to nip the challenge in the bud etc. Any hopes of restoring this genie to the bottle are ridiculously misguided. The Rann leadership question was asked by Kerry O’Brien on election night. It was always going to be an issue. As I said yesterday, Weatherill is merely laying the ground work for a future challenge. It doesn’t matter if he is defeated today or next week, his ambitions will be a constant factor for the next four years. Given the impossibility of nipping this bud, why the rush?
The Labor right prides itself on being in control of every minutia of the SA ALP’s party operations. Over the past few years the Right has had such a dominate control over the numbers in the SA branch that they had no reason to doubt that anyone of note would challenge them. They assumed that internal party control, through union delegates etc, was enough to dictate the direction of the party as a whole. Weatherill knew that he never had a chance of ascending to the top through the normal party channels. The left is unlikely to gain “the numbers” over the next four years. For this reason, he has made the choice to introduce a third party into the debate; the public. His bid for the leadership was destined to fail internally, but at this stage it appears to be succeeding externally. The reason that the caucus meeting was called so swiftly was because the right powerbrokers are frothing at the mouth as a result of such public insubordination. They want blood, and they want it NOW.
I can’t see Jay staying in the Ministry after his defeat this afternoon. His movement to the back bench, along with the loss of Maywald, Lomax-Smith and Atkinson means the front bench stocks of the Government will start to wear thin. Kenyon, Bignell and Finnigan are really the only remaining possibilities. It appears that Ministers that were destined for the chop, such as Michael Wright, will now survive. Odenwalder and Vlahos are also possibilities, but they have only just been elected to Parliament. The Government will find that the cupboard will be quite bare if any newly promoted Ministers flounder and require sacking. Another worry for the Government is that Weatherill is unlikely to sit idle on the back bench.
Even before the election, cracks were appearing in the left/right factional relationship. Rob Lucas, for example, cited disenchanted Government advisers as the source of his media release regarding Daniel Romeo’s wage hike. This was clearly an attempt by members of the left to smear the right. Over the next four years, we are likely to see an escalation in this war. Both factions will need to be on their best behaviour, because any misdemeanours will probably be funnelled directly to the media, or to the Liberals as an intermediary. The right will probably go out of its way to discredit the character of Mr Weatherill in an attempt to destroy his leadership ambitions. The ultimate victor in this battle will be the side with the least skeletons in closets. Neither side is likely to emerge unscathed, however.
The worst aspect of this whole saga is that because of the timing, the new Government will find it almost impossible to re-establish a positive agenda for its third term. The next six months at least will be dominated by questions of leadership, and this question will not go away until Rann is ousted. Even if Rann is ousted, the questions won’t go away while Weatherill is not leader. The right of the party really needs to find a viable alternative to Kevin Foley if it wishes to squash Jay and his enormous ambitions.
This afternoon the SA ALP caucus will meet to vote on a new Cabinet, despite the final election result being up in the air. In normal circumstances, the victorious leader would have made his victory speech, the dust would be given a few weeks to settle, and then the Ministry would be established. Jay Weatherill’s bold move has thrown the entire Government-to-be into a raging chaos. Senior right wing power brokers would be furious that he had the temerity to even consider such a venture. Doesn’t he know that they run the show? Yes he does, and that is precisely why he has done it.
Before I examine the whole Weatherill saga, I want to applaud a few of the movements in the ALP cabinet. It appears that John Rau MP will finally be promoted to the Ministry, which will add intellectual weight to the Government, although it may not help stave off claims of arrogance. This was the very move that I suggested in a previous blog. Another welcome addition to the Ministry is rumoured to be Jack Snelling. Jack has all the makings of a fine Minister, although the Premier will need to choose his portfolio areas carefully. Jack has some very conservative views in a few social policy issues, but is overall a very humble and compassionate man. The Premier will want to make sure that Jack doesn’t become Atkinson Mach Two purely because of unfortunate portfolio selection. I feel it is a mistake to promote Grace Portolesi prior to her formally being elected. While it is assumed that she and the Government will be returned, acting so pre-emptively sends a message of arrogance once again. Why the hurry then?
The rushed caucus meeting is in direct response to the Jay Weatherill challenge. Right power brokers will argue that they need to nip the challenge in the bud etc. Any hopes of restoring this genie to the bottle are ridiculously misguided. The Rann leadership question was asked by Kerry O’Brien on election night. It was always going to be an issue. As I said yesterday, Weatherill is merely laying the ground work for a future challenge. It doesn’t matter if he is defeated today or next week, his ambitions will be a constant factor for the next four years. Given the impossibility of nipping this bud, why the rush?
The Labor right prides itself on being in control of every minutia of the SA ALP’s party operations. Over the past few years the Right has had such a dominate control over the numbers in the SA branch that they had no reason to doubt that anyone of note would challenge them. They assumed that internal party control, through union delegates etc, was enough to dictate the direction of the party as a whole. Weatherill knew that he never had a chance of ascending to the top through the normal party channels. The left is unlikely to gain “the numbers” over the next four years. For this reason, he has made the choice to introduce a third party into the debate; the public. His bid for the leadership was destined to fail internally, but at this stage it appears to be succeeding externally. The reason that the caucus meeting was called so swiftly was because the right powerbrokers are frothing at the mouth as a result of such public insubordination. They want blood, and they want it NOW.
I can’t see Jay staying in the Ministry after his defeat this afternoon. His movement to the back bench, along with the loss of Maywald, Lomax-Smith and Atkinson means the front bench stocks of the Government will start to wear thin. Kenyon, Bignell and Finnigan are really the only remaining possibilities. It appears that Ministers that were destined for the chop, such as Michael Wright, will now survive. Odenwalder and Vlahos are also possibilities, but they have only just been elected to Parliament. The Government will find that the cupboard will be quite bare if any newly promoted Ministers flounder and require sacking. Another worry for the Government is that Weatherill is unlikely to sit idle on the back bench.
Even before the election, cracks were appearing in the left/right factional relationship. Rob Lucas, for example, cited disenchanted Government advisers as the source of his media release regarding Daniel Romeo’s wage hike. This was clearly an attempt by members of the left to smear the right. Over the next four years, we are likely to see an escalation in this war. Both factions will need to be on their best behaviour, because any misdemeanours will probably be funnelled directly to the media, or to the Liberals as an intermediary. The right will probably go out of its way to discredit the character of Mr Weatherill in an attempt to destroy his leadership ambitions. The ultimate victor in this battle will be the side with the least skeletons in closets. Neither side is likely to emerge unscathed, however.
The worst aspect of this whole saga is that because of the timing, the new Government will find it almost impossible to re-establish a positive agenda for its third term. The next six months at least will be dominated by questions of leadership, and this question will not go away until Rann is ousted. Even if Rann is ousted, the questions won’t go away while Weatherill is not leader. The right of the party really needs to find a viable alternative to Kevin Foley if it wishes to squash Jay and his enormous ambitions.
Election hangover
2:24 PM, 22/3/2010 .. 0 comments .. Link
Ok so the State Election is over, and the blog posts will continue. It looks like I will need to come up with a new name, however. State Election 2010 seems a little dated now, much like Mike Rann’s leadership. In my opinion Jay Weatherill has made a carefully considered move, which will ensure that he ends up the leader of the ALP eventually. There is much water to go under the bridge before then, however. A discussion of the election result is required first.
A few of the outcomes of Saturday’s election result may have emboldened Jay Weatherill. Firstly, members of his left faction performed surprisingly well, notably, Leon Bignell, Tony Piccolo and probably Grace Portolesi. On the other hand, the right lost Lindsay Simmons and may well lose the star candidate in Chloe Fox and fail to win Mitchell. This gives the left an improvement in their caucus numbers, although ultimately not enough to give them the advantage. The AMWU’s failure to gain anything out of its alliance with the right (another lost opportunity) may result in recent right converts (e.g. Robyn Geraghty) to jump ship towards Jay. The loss of J-Lo as a potential leadership rival was also key in forcing Jay’s hand. I want to point out that I predicted her demise last week. Irrespective of any of these factors, the right will not allow Jay Weatherill to roll Foley in the upcoming leadership dispute. He has, however, made a very crafty political move, which the ham fisted right clowns will respond to in their overbearing and typical manner.
Jay Weatherill will lose the upcoming challenge, and I am sure that he knows it. What his challenge has done, however, is shown his clear intention to lead the party. He has assured that he will not challenge Rann, an assurance I would love to hear Foley make. He knows that at some point during the next four years, someone is going to try to bring Rann down, most likely a member of the right. Before that occurs, the ongoing Rann/Foley team will continue its downward spiral towards electoral oblivion. As the next election draws near, and the new Rann Government staggers from scandal to scandal, internal conflict to internal conflict, nervous backbenchers will look for a saviour. Jay has made sure that he will be the first place that those backbenchers look. He always knew that he would never be ALLOWED by the right to take the leadership. He was forced into his risky venture this week. The unpalatable nature of all the right leadership contenders, however, will ensure that they will have to go to him eventually.
This all assumes that the ALP will ultimately win Government. The enormous number of postal votes could mean, however, that seats like Hartley, Bright and Newland still will fall to the Liberal party. This is increasingly unlikely, especially with Newland. The most likely outcome is the ALP will emerge with a one seat majority. This is a particularly risky position to be in, especially in the environment where by-elections are an outside possibility. Atkinson has already resigned from front bench. Who knows what kind of movements we may see, caused by scandal or rejuvenation. With a Government on the slide, we may see a hung parliament at some point over the next few years.
Another possible outcome is a challenge to the election result on the grounds that the ALP were misleading with their “Put Your Family First” election how to vote cards. At first glance, there seems to be some very strong grounds for this challenge, despite the fact that the Electoral Commission had already approved them. Chloe Fox, on 891 radio today, clearly gave her opinion on her view on the integrity of the plan. The fact that she is on the verge of losing AND she didn’t use them, and other seats with smaller margins are on the verge of winning AND they did use them could suggest that the role they played was important. Only time will tell. With the ALP on the verge of a full blown factional war, however, no dirty tricks will help in four years time.
Ok so the State Election is over, and the blog posts will continue. It looks like I will need to come up with a new name, however. State Election 2010 seems a little dated now, much like Mike Rann’s leadership. In my opinion Jay Weatherill has made a carefully considered move, which will ensure that he ends up the leader of the ALP eventually. There is much water to go under the bridge before then, however. A discussion of the election result is required first.
A few of the outcomes of Saturday’s election result may have emboldened Jay Weatherill. Firstly, members of his left faction performed surprisingly well, notably, Leon Bignell, Tony Piccolo and probably Grace Portolesi. On the other hand, the right lost Lindsay Simmons and may well lose the star candidate in Chloe Fox and fail to win Mitchell. This gives the left an improvement in their caucus numbers, although ultimately not enough to give them the advantage. The AMWU’s failure to gain anything out of its alliance with the right (another lost opportunity) may result in recent right converts (e.g. Robyn Geraghty) to jump ship towards Jay. The loss of J-Lo as a potential leadership rival was also key in forcing Jay’s hand. I want to point out that I predicted her demise last week. Irrespective of any of these factors, the right will not allow Jay Weatherill to roll Foley in the upcoming leadership dispute. He has, however, made a very crafty political move, which the ham fisted right clowns will respond to in their overbearing and typical manner.
Jay Weatherill will lose the upcoming challenge, and I am sure that he knows it. What his challenge has done, however, is shown his clear intention to lead the party. He has assured that he will not challenge Rann, an assurance I would love to hear Foley make. He knows that at some point during the next four years, someone is going to try to bring Rann down, most likely a member of the right. Before that occurs, the ongoing Rann/Foley team will continue its downward spiral towards electoral oblivion. As the next election draws near, and the new Rann Government staggers from scandal to scandal, internal conflict to internal conflict, nervous backbenchers will look for a saviour. Jay has made sure that he will be the first place that those backbenchers look. He always knew that he would never be ALLOWED by the right to take the leadership. He was forced into his risky venture this week. The unpalatable nature of all the right leadership contenders, however, will ensure that they will have to go to him eventually.
This all assumes that the ALP will ultimately win Government. The enormous number of postal votes could mean, however, that seats like Hartley, Bright and Newland still will fall to the Liberal party. This is increasingly unlikely, especially with Newland. The most likely outcome is the ALP will emerge with a one seat majority. This is a particularly risky position to be in, especially in the environment where by-elections are an outside possibility. Atkinson has already resigned from front bench. Who knows what kind of movements we may see, caused by scandal or rejuvenation. With a Government on the slide, we may see a hung parliament at some point over the next few years.
Another possible outcome is a challenge to the election result on the grounds that the ALP were misleading with their “Put Your Family First” election how to vote cards. At first glance, there seems to be some very strong grounds for this challenge, despite the fact that the Electoral Commission had already approved them. Chloe Fox, on 891 radio today, clearly gave her opinion on her view on the integrity of the plan. The fact that she is on the verge of losing AND she didn’t use them, and other seats with smaller margins are on the verge of winning AND they did use them could suggest that the role they played was important. Only time will tell. With the ALP on the verge of a full blown factional war, however, no dirty tricks will help in four years time.
Crystal Balling
9:15 PM, 19/3/2010 .. 0 comments .. Link
Ok so it is election
eve, a night that always has filled with me with dread and fear. In the past, it has been a fear that the public would return the Liberals to power. This time, I don’t really care which side wins, as long as the election results reflect the growing public discontent with the styles of political leadership in this State. With an ALP victory likely tomorrow, I will look at what this means for the next four years.
It is looking increasingly likely that the ALP will be returned to power. Party sources are confident of holding onto Bright and Newland, and regaining the seat of Mitchell. This is backed up by Advertiser polls. In my view, the seats of Hartley, Mawson, Light, Norwood, Morialta are gone. This means that the Liberal party would need to win some real upsets, such as the seat of Adelaide to win Government. I will now examine some of these seats.
Mitchell is a seat that the ALP regrets losing last time. It looks to be within the grasps of the party this time, oddly due to the resurgence in popularity of the Liberal party. It is amusing to me that Liberal voters are so unaware of the impact of their votes. Maybe the article in today’s tiser may shift some anti-Rann voters to Kris Hanna. If the polling figures are reflected in tomorrows polls, however, Alan Sibbons will be elected. Mr Sibbons, from what I have seen, does not appear to be Ministerial material, but I am sure he will make a dedicated local member. The AMWU will at last get something out of their alliance with the Right. Mitchell, however, should correctly be viewed as a safe ALP seat. As such, the caliber of candidate pre-selected should be one capable of being a front bencher. For example, Paul Holloway was once a member for Mitchell. Alan Sibbons will do nothing to rejuvenate the Rann front bench in my opinion.
Tom Kenyon and Chloe Fox will be viewed as the heroes of the ALP if they manage to hold onto their seats tomorrow night. Chloe Fox, in particular, will likely be given a Ministry in a post 2010 election cabinet reshuffle, probably at the expense of Minister Michael Wright, who is also in the right. She will probably be given some good news portfolios, such as Sport and Recreation (imagine the photo ops with Kate Ellis) and Minister for Youth. Kenyon probably won’t gain anything in a Rann Ministry, but maybe a Foley Ministry some time in 2011 or 2012. If Grace Portolesi holds her seat in Hartley, she will probably gain a Ministry at the expense of Gail Gago.
If Mike Rann does retain his job as Premier this weekend, his approach to the reshuffle will be incredibly interesting. It is quite clear that the unpopularity of the Government has been caused in large part due to Rann being on the nose. Senior Government members would realize this, and in my opinion they will be looking for his head within the first year and a half of the new term. This will especially be the case if Rann is unable to regain momentum following the victory. Key members of the Right, particularly Tom Koutsantonis, would have much to gain from a Foley leadership. It would be easy to imagine Kouts wanting the Treasury portfolio. All of this is speculation at this stage of course, but the question of leadership is undeniably going to be an issue. How can Rann overcome this?
Rann is a political survivor. He looks like he is going to cling to power despite a sex scandal, which is quite an achievement. He would definitely be aware of the sharks circling his boat. He will try to cut this off at the pass with some crafty maneuver. If anything, he may try to place booby traps around his leadership, so that when he is knifed, he triggers some cluster bombs. My personal view is he will try to promote those that have displayed the most public loyalty, such as members of the left like Pat Conlon and Jay Weatherill. He could even try to anoint Weatherill as his successor, which will aggravate the right (but they are already probably plotting his demise). Rann is smarter than I am at such plots, so we will wait and see. He won’t go down easily.
Ok so we have seen that the ALP will probably win tomorrow, with a one or two seat majority. Although this is the conventional wisdom, I wouldn’t completely rule out some major upsets. Look at the collapse of the Labor vote in the seat of Mitchell. The ALP vote dropped 8 %, while the Liberal vote raised 6%. On the face of this, it is a 14% swing, although the preferential system means that in reality, it would be much lower. Having said that, 8% of ALP voters have felt they can no longer support the party. The seat of Adelaide sits on a 10% margin. The ALP hasn’t put “marginal seat” focus into Adelaide, and given that J-Lo may be on the nose due to portfolio issues, means that an upset could be possible. There are no doubts there are going to be MAJOR swings in safe ALP seats, but this will ultimately mean diddly squat in the end. It will just mean that Mick Atkinson will spend another four years pestering his electorate on his bicycle, asking why they turned on him.
Well folks, looks like another four years of a “Labor” Government. I will write a blog some time on Monday analyzing the results. At least another four years of ALP, means four more years of angry blogs.
Ok so it is election
eve, a night that always has filled with me with dread and fear. In the past, it has been a fear that the public would return the Liberals to power. This time, I don’t really care which side wins, as long as the election results reflect the growing public discontent with the styles of political leadership in this State. With an ALP victory likely tomorrow, I will look at what this means for the next four years.
It is looking increasingly likely that the ALP will be returned to power. Party sources are confident of holding onto Bright and Newland, and regaining the seat of Mitchell. This is backed up by Advertiser polls. In my view, the seats of Hartley, Mawson, Light, Norwood, Morialta are gone. This means that the Liberal party would need to win some real upsets, such as the seat of Adelaide to win Government. I will now examine some of these seats.
Mitchell is a seat that the ALP regrets losing last time. It looks to be within the grasps of the party this time, oddly due to the resurgence in popularity of the Liberal party. It is amusing to me that Liberal voters are so unaware of the impact of their votes. Maybe the article in today’s tiser may shift some anti-Rann voters to Kris Hanna. If the polling figures are reflected in tomorrows polls, however, Alan Sibbons will be elected. Mr Sibbons, from what I have seen, does not appear to be Ministerial material, but I am sure he will make a dedicated local member. The AMWU will at last get something out of their alliance with the Right. Mitchell, however, should correctly be viewed as a safe ALP seat. As such, the caliber of candidate pre-selected should be one capable of being a front bencher. For example, Paul Holloway was once a member for Mitchell. Alan Sibbons will do nothing to rejuvenate the Rann front bench in my opinion.
Tom Kenyon and Chloe Fox will be viewed as the heroes of the ALP if they manage to hold onto their seats tomorrow night. Chloe Fox, in particular, will likely be given a Ministry in a post 2010 election cabinet reshuffle, probably at the expense of Minister Michael Wright, who is also in the right. She will probably be given some good news portfolios, such as Sport and Recreation (imagine the photo ops with Kate Ellis) and Minister for Youth. Kenyon probably won’t gain anything in a Rann Ministry, but maybe a Foley Ministry some time in 2011 or 2012. If Grace Portolesi holds her seat in Hartley, she will probably gain a Ministry at the expense of Gail Gago.
If Mike Rann does retain his job as Premier this weekend, his approach to the reshuffle will be incredibly interesting. It is quite clear that the unpopularity of the Government has been caused in large part due to Rann being on the nose. Senior Government members would realize this, and in my opinion they will be looking for his head within the first year and a half of the new term. This will especially be the case if Rann is unable to regain momentum following the victory. Key members of the Right, particularly Tom Koutsantonis, would have much to gain from a Foley leadership. It would be easy to imagine Kouts wanting the Treasury portfolio. All of this is speculation at this stage of course, but the question of leadership is undeniably going to be an issue. How can Rann overcome this?
Rann is a political survivor. He looks like he is going to cling to power despite a sex scandal, which is quite an achievement. He would definitely be aware of the sharks circling his boat. He will try to cut this off at the pass with some crafty maneuver. If anything, he may try to place booby traps around his leadership, so that when he is knifed, he triggers some cluster bombs. My personal view is he will try to promote those that have displayed the most public loyalty, such as members of the left like Pat Conlon and Jay Weatherill. He could even try to anoint Weatherill as his successor, which will aggravate the right (but they are already probably plotting his demise). Rann is smarter than I am at such plots, so we will wait and see. He won’t go down easily.
Ok so we have seen that the ALP will probably win tomorrow, with a one or two seat majority. Although this is the conventional wisdom, I wouldn’t completely rule out some major upsets. Look at the collapse of the Labor vote in the seat of Mitchell. The ALP vote dropped 8 %, while the Liberal vote raised 6%. On the face of this, it is a 14% swing, although the preferential system means that in reality, it would be much lower. Having said that, 8% of ALP voters have felt they can no longer support the party. The seat of Adelaide sits on a 10% margin. The ALP hasn’t put “marginal seat” focus into Adelaide, and given that J-Lo may be on the nose due to portfolio issues, means that an upset could be possible. There are no doubts there are going to be MAJOR swings in safe ALP seats, but this will ultimately mean diddly squat in the end. It will just mean that Mick Atkinson will spend another four years pestering his electorate on his bicycle, asking why they turned on him.
Well folks, looks like another four years of a “Labor” Government. I will write a blog some time on Monday analyzing the results. At least another four years of ALP, means four more years of angry blogs.
Voice for the Voiceless
1:43 PM, 11/3/2010 .. 0 comments .. Link
Yesterday, with great sadness, I heard about the untimely passing of Dr Paul Collier, lead candidate for the Dignity 4 Disabled party in the Legislative Assembly at the 2010 State Election. I had the pleasure of knowing Paul during the years of 2002-2005 (approximately), when we were both members of the ALP. Paul was an immensely intelligent individual, who through an unfortunate accident, was deprived of the use of his legs, and severely impaired use of his arms. I distinctly remember the difficulty Paul had in completing simple tasks, such as writing and drinking a drink. He never complained though. Nor did he allow his disability to prevent him from completing his doctorate at Oxford, or from being a passionate voice on disabled issues. Alas, after a short period of time, Paul realised that the ALP was no longer an effective vessel for achieving outcomes for the vulnerable. It must be asked, if the ALP doesn’t speak for people like Dr Collier anymore, who do they speak for?
Over my years of involvement in the ALP, I have witnessed the coming and going of many passionate, compassionate, intelligent people. They arrive bright eyed and optimistic, before being indoctrinated and then ultimately disillusioned. The speed of the cycle varies, depending upon the individual circumstances of the member. My cycle only came to an end mid last week, when I dropped my resignation off at party headquarters, after years of threatening to do that very act. Paul was much quicker to see through the lofty rhetoric of lights on hills and so on. I suppose he had much more tangible evidence of the failings of the ALP to make a difference to his life. Having strong beliefs in any particular area does not bode well for lasting in the ALP for the long term. It is only a matter of time before one is faced with the decision, compromise or quit. For this reason, the cohort of members that actually reach the promised land of Parliament generally tend to be the bottom dwellers, the yes men, the careerists. If they haven’t abandoned all they believe in before taking their Parliamentary oath, then they soon will. There are exceptions of course. I would cite Nick Champion and Amanda Rishworth as MPs who slipped through the net. Overall, however, the Parliamentary population is filled with people who prefer the pursuit of power over the fulfilment of an ideal.
Given that the majority of ALP members of Parliament (it is probably same with the Liberals) have compromised their beliefs to get to where they are, it is no surprise that they don’t hesitate in continuing such behaviour once they have gotten there. There are some restrictions on their behaviour, such as factional or union loyalties and the feeble toothless tiger that is ALP State Convention. Some might say that I am being overly harsh. To those naysayers, I would ask this; when was the last time you saw an ALP member put their own beliefs before their career? Look at the WorkCover debate in South Australian Parliament. For all the hurly burly and huffing and puffing, no one was willing to cross the floor, despite many MPs spending their entire lives before the vote campaigning against the changes they were voting on. One could argue that industrial relations are to the ALP what the Virgin Mary is to Catholicism. If you are not willing to crucify yourself for that, when will you? I am sure that many MPs felt extremely conflicted about their decision, but ultimately, not conflicted enough. One could argue that the Keating reforms of the 80s were the first nail in the coffin of the ALP’s traditional beliefs. Irrespective of when the ALP stopped being the voice for the voiceless, it cannot be disputed that there are growing numbers of traditional supporters that now feel disenfranchised. It could be argued that neither of the major parties really stand for anything, but are merely different teams playing the same sport. Personality of leaders is now the main consideration, along with the effectiveness of whatever policies each side cooks up from the ether based on statistical analysis of electorates and phone polling.
What we have seen in recent years is the emergence of the Greens as a major political force. I think there emergence is a result of a number of causes. Firstly, the ALP has abandoned much of its left leaning policy, in return for obtaining a slice of the Liberal voting pie. They have accepted this trade off because Green preferences return to the ALP anyway. In coming years, however, the Greens may garner such a big slice of ALP pie that they are no longer a minor party but rather a third force. Secondly, there is no disputing what the Greens stand for. Everyone knows they are the crazy environmental party, and they make no bones about it. As of yet they have not needed to compromise their beliefs one iota. They are unlikely to form government in the foreseeable future, and so it is unlikely they will have to compromise any time soon. The third reason for their popularity is the obvious increase in importance of environmental issues, and the perceived Government inaction on climate change policy. Over the next ten years, the two major parties are going to have to consider what they truly believe in, or risk being overtaken by coalitions of Independents and Greens seeking to make their voices heard. It is only a matter of time before the public asks; if the ALP and Liberals both stand for the same thing, why do we need both of them?
Yesterday, with great sadness, I heard about the untimely passing of Dr Paul Collier, lead candidate for the Dignity 4 Disabled party in the Legislative Assembly at the 2010 State Election. I had the pleasure of knowing Paul during the years of 2002-2005 (approximately), when we were both members of the ALP. Paul was an immensely intelligent individual, who through an unfortunate accident, was deprived of the use of his legs, and severely impaired use of his arms. I distinctly remember the difficulty Paul had in completing simple tasks, such as writing and drinking a drink. He never complained though. Nor did he allow his disability to prevent him from completing his doctorate at Oxford, or from being a passionate voice on disabled issues. Alas, after a short period of time, Paul realised that the ALP was no longer an effective vessel for achieving outcomes for the vulnerable. It must be asked, if the ALP doesn’t speak for people like Dr Collier anymore, who do they speak for?
Over my years of involvement in the ALP, I have witnessed the coming and going of many passionate, compassionate, intelligent people. They arrive bright eyed and optimistic, before being indoctrinated and then ultimately disillusioned. The speed of the cycle varies, depending upon the individual circumstances of the member. My cycle only came to an end mid last week, when I dropped my resignation off at party headquarters, after years of threatening to do that very act. Paul was much quicker to see through the lofty rhetoric of lights on hills and so on. I suppose he had much more tangible evidence of the failings of the ALP to make a difference to his life. Having strong beliefs in any particular area does not bode well for lasting in the ALP for the long term. It is only a matter of time before one is faced with the decision, compromise or quit. For this reason, the cohort of members that actually reach the promised land of Parliament generally tend to be the bottom dwellers, the yes men, the careerists. If they haven’t abandoned all they believe in before taking their Parliamentary oath, then they soon will. There are exceptions of course. I would cite Nick Champion and Amanda Rishworth as MPs who slipped through the net. Overall, however, the Parliamentary population is filled with people who prefer the pursuit of power over the fulfilment of an ideal.
Given that the majority of ALP members of Parliament (it is probably same with the Liberals) have compromised their beliefs to get to where they are, it is no surprise that they don’t hesitate in continuing such behaviour once they have gotten there. There are some restrictions on their behaviour, such as factional or union loyalties and the feeble toothless tiger that is ALP State Convention. Some might say that I am being overly harsh. To those naysayers, I would ask this; when was the last time you saw an ALP member put their own beliefs before their career? Look at the WorkCover debate in South Australian Parliament. For all the hurly burly and huffing and puffing, no one was willing to cross the floor, despite many MPs spending their entire lives before the vote campaigning against the changes they were voting on. One could argue that industrial relations are to the ALP what the Virgin Mary is to Catholicism. If you are not willing to crucify yourself for that, when will you? I am sure that many MPs felt extremely conflicted about their decision, but ultimately, not conflicted enough. One could argue that the Keating reforms of the 80s were the first nail in the coffin of the ALP’s traditional beliefs. Irrespective of when the ALP stopped being the voice for the voiceless, it cannot be disputed that there are growing numbers of traditional supporters that now feel disenfranchised. It could be argued that neither of the major parties really stand for anything, but are merely different teams playing the same sport. Personality of leaders is now the main consideration, along with the effectiveness of whatever policies each side cooks up from the ether based on statistical analysis of electorates and phone polling.
What we have seen in recent years is the emergence of the Greens as a major political force. I think there emergence is a result of a number of causes. Firstly, the ALP has abandoned much of its left leaning policy, in return for obtaining a slice of the Liberal voting pie. They have accepted this trade off because Green preferences return to the ALP anyway. In coming years, however, the Greens may garner such a big slice of ALP pie that they are no longer a minor party but rather a third force. Secondly, there is no disputing what the Greens stand for. Everyone knows they are the crazy environmental party, and they make no bones about it. As of yet they have not needed to compromise their beliefs one iota. They are unlikely to form government in the foreseeable future, and so it is unlikely they will have to compromise any time soon. The third reason for their popularity is the obvious increase in importance of environmental issues, and the perceived Government inaction on climate change policy. Over the next ten years, the two major parties are going to have to consider what they truly believe in, or risk being overtaken by coalitions of Independents and Greens seeking to make their voices heard. It is only a matter of time before the public asks; if the ALP and Liberals both stand for the same thing, why do we need both of them?
11:02 AM, 9/3/2010 .. 0 comments .. Link
The Murdoch press has sent an icy chill through the corridors of power in South Australia today, with the publishing of their revered News Poll. While there have been various other polls of ill repute, such as the Advertiser polls, which have suggested that Mike Rann and his Government are on the nose, this is the first definitive public poll to place the Liberal Opposition within grasp of clinching Government. There are some pundits, particularly the dishevelled and husky Bob Ellis (I bet his appearance wasn’t approved by Mike’s media unit), who question the accuracy of the poll. One of the main reasons for this scepticism is the fact that the poll was taken over a three month period, including the holiday month of January. I think the numbers require much more detailed analysis than that given by the gruff Ellis, probably only made hurriedly upon awaking from a red wine hangover.
One of the undeniable truths to be lifted from the polling figures is that the Rann Government has been on a consistently downward slide towards oblivion, commencing mid last year. It was commenced this descent down the rabbit hole before that time, but they clutched to the branch clumsily offered by the inept MHS. I assert that when a Government is in free fall, as appears to be the case now, the pace at which they descend towards the splat on the pavement increases as the election nears, spurred on by desperation and associated blunders. I will speak more about these blunders at a later date. Why then, is it assumed that the Liberal lead is overstated because of the lengthy polling period (January to March) of the News Poll. I would argue, based upon the prevailing mood that is thick in the air, that if anything the popularity of the Government is lower now than in January. There is much cause to worry about within the lofty towers of Rann HQ.
Another concern for the Government is that, based upon the News Poll figures, a large percentage of voters have already decided on which party they will be casting their vote for. Such early decisiveness does not bode well for the ALP in my opinion. It is analogous to the mood in the 2007 Federal election campaign. Over the past decade I have stood post on many a polling booth, but never before had I seen such a mood as in 2007. The masses were lined up, eager to vote, up to half an hour prior to the commencement of voting. They were sick of the Government, and they couldn’t wait to boot them out. The final few hours of polling had the inevitable stragglers, but overall the execution of the Howard Government was swift and surgically precise. The resoluteness of voters, as displayed in the News Poll figures, is more likely the result of a “it’s time” vibe than a “Izzy sucks” vibe.
So as we can see, the Rann Government is definitely crouched down in a bunker, receiving heavy fire from the opposition outposts over yonder. It has been said that in these situations, soldiers rediscover their faith in a higher power. For the SA ALP, their higher power over the last decade has always been Mike Rann, campaigner extraordinaire. Highlighted in the figures, though, is that Mike Rann is one of the dominant causes for the mammoth fall in Government popularity. In the past Mike was the shining light which blinded the populace of the outright unpalatable nature of much of the Government front bench. Now that the light has dimmed, Atkinson, Foley and Conlon have been revealed in all their glory, like the opening of the curtain at a freak show. Today’s News Poll is merely a statistical reflection of the voting public’s collective gasp of despair and disgust.
One of the other possible arguments against the accuracy of the News Poll is the traditional argument that incumbent Government’s improve their status during the election campaign. This may tradition, but I would assert that it has not been the case in the current circumstance. As an intimate observer of the ALP over the past ten to fifteen years, I have been shocked by the inability of the Government to sell its message to the public. Every day I read the tweets of the Premier touting the daily policy innovation, and every evening I view the news broadcasts, which paint an entirely different image of the day’s proceedings. Having not been close to the campaign this time, I can’t comment on the slickness or organisation of party HQ. Given the funding and the resources of the ALP, however, I have no reason to doubt that the campaign is just as strong at the source. The campaign, like a ripple, seems to be dying out the further and further one gets from the pebble, whilst every squeak Isobel makes resonates throughout the entire community like a roar. This has not been a strong campaign, and so the social experiment of going to a poll with a leader embattled with a sex scandal appears destined for failure.
Previously in this post, I referred to how a Government in free fall tends to result in blunders caused out of desperation. I would argue that this is particularly the case with this Government. I remember sharing a beer at Distill on Rundle Street with several high level powerbrokers the evening of a negative opinion poll during the ascent of MHS. I remember calls for Mike Rann’s head, despairing remarks about the mortgage and so on. One can only wonder what discussions are going on in the trendy Adelaide watering holes this evening. In the panic of the campaign, several blunders have been made, mainly by the media team in an attempt to control events in the same way they had over the past eight years. Examples are the Matthew Abraham debate scandal, the Tom Koutsantonis Road Safety policy launch debacle, the Grace Portolesi sparked blanket ban on backbencher radio debates. The irony of the matter is, the more the media team tries to control public opinion, the more that public opinion turns against the Government. You can’t teach an old dog new tricks, especially when it has gotten fat and lazy on treats for eight years.
The one last ditch hope that the Government would be clinging onto is that the swing against the Government won’t be uniformly translated across the marginal seats. The Newland Tiser poll would be particularly heartening. Their major concern, however, would be the fact the unpopularity of Mike Rann, which would be a factor in EVERY seat. As the campaign rolls on, and panic begins to take hold, I can only see things getting worse for the Government. On election night, I am going to take particular notice of the results in safe ALP seats such as Croydon and West Torrens, where the local members have endured scandals over the past years. In a campaign like this one, I think we will be dealt a fair share of surprises, and it may take a few weeks to piece together our Government for the next four years.
The Murdoch press has sent an icy chill through the corridors of power in South Australia today, with the publishing of their revered News Poll. While there have been various other polls of ill repute, such as the Advertiser polls, which have suggested that Mike Rann and his Government are on the nose, this is the first definitive public poll to place the Liberal Opposition within grasp of clinching Government. There are some pundits, particularly the dishevelled and husky Bob Ellis (I bet his appearance wasn’t approved by Mike’s media unit), who question the accuracy of the poll. One of the main reasons for this scepticism is the fact that the poll was taken over a three month period, including the holiday month of January. I think the numbers require much more detailed analysis than that given by the gruff Ellis, probably only made hurriedly upon awaking from a red wine hangover.
One of the undeniable truths to be lifted from the polling figures is that the Rann Government has been on a consistently downward slide towards oblivion, commencing mid last year. It was commenced this descent down the rabbit hole before that time, but they clutched to the branch clumsily offered by the inept MHS. I assert that when a Government is in free fall, as appears to be the case now, the pace at which they descend towards the splat on the pavement increases as the election nears, spurred on by desperation and associated blunders. I will speak more about these blunders at a later date. Why then, is it assumed that the Liberal lead is overstated because of the lengthy polling period (January to March) of the News Poll. I would argue, based upon the prevailing mood that is thick in the air, that if anything the popularity of the Government is lower now than in January. There is much cause to worry about within the lofty towers of Rann HQ.
Another concern for the Government is that, based upon the News Poll figures, a large percentage of voters have already decided on which party they will be casting their vote for. Such early decisiveness does not bode well for the ALP in my opinion. It is analogous to the mood in the 2007 Federal election campaign. Over the past decade I have stood post on many a polling booth, but never before had I seen such a mood as in 2007. The masses were lined up, eager to vote, up to half an hour prior to the commencement of voting. They were sick of the Government, and they couldn’t wait to boot them out. The final few hours of polling had the inevitable stragglers, but overall the execution of the Howard Government was swift and surgically precise. The resoluteness of voters, as displayed in the News Poll figures, is more likely the result of a “it’s time” vibe than a “Izzy sucks” vibe.
So as we can see, the Rann Government is definitely crouched down in a bunker, receiving heavy fire from the opposition outposts over yonder. It has been said that in these situations, soldiers rediscover their faith in a higher power. For the SA ALP, their higher power over the last decade has always been Mike Rann, campaigner extraordinaire. Highlighted in the figures, though, is that Mike Rann is one of the dominant causes for the mammoth fall in Government popularity. In the past Mike was the shining light which blinded the populace of the outright unpalatable nature of much of the Government front bench. Now that the light has dimmed, Atkinson, Foley and Conlon have been revealed in all their glory, like the opening of the curtain at a freak show. Today’s News Poll is merely a statistical reflection of the voting public’s collective gasp of despair and disgust.
One of the other possible arguments against the accuracy of the News Poll is the traditional argument that incumbent Government’s improve their status during the election campaign. This may tradition, but I would assert that it has not been the case in the current circumstance. As an intimate observer of the ALP over the past ten to fifteen years, I have been shocked by the inability of the Government to sell its message to the public. Every day I read the tweets of the Premier touting the daily policy innovation, and every evening I view the news broadcasts, which paint an entirely different image of the day’s proceedings. Having not been close to the campaign this time, I can’t comment on the slickness or organisation of party HQ. Given the funding and the resources of the ALP, however, I have no reason to doubt that the campaign is just as strong at the source. The campaign, like a ripple, seems to be dying out the further and further one gets from the pebble, whilst every squeak Isobel makes resonates throughout the entire community like a roar. This has not been a strong campaign, and so the social experiment of going to a poll with a leader embattled with a sex scandal appears destined for failure.
Previously in this post, I referred to how a Government in free fall tends to result in blunders caused out of desperation. I would argue that this is particularly the case with this Government. I remember sharing a beer at Distill on Rundle Street with several high level powerbrokers the evening of a negative opinion poll during the ascent of MHS. I remember calls for Mike Rann’s head, despairing remarks about the mortgage and so on. One can only wonder what discussions are going on in the trendy Adelaide watering holes this evening. In the panic of the campaign, several blunders have been made, mainly by the media team in an attempt to control events in the same way they had over the past eight years. Examples are the Matthew Abraham debate scandal, the Tom Koutsantonis Road Safety policy launch debacle, the Grace Portolesi sparked blanket ban on backbencher radio debates. The irony of the matter is, the more the media team tries to control public opinion, the more that public opinion turns against the Government. You can’t teach an old dog new tricks, especially when it has gotten fat and lazy on treats for eight years.
The one last ditch hope that the Government would be clinging onto is that the swing against the Government won’t be uniformly translated across the marginal seats. The Newland Tiser poll would be particularly heartening. Their major concern, however, would be the fact the unpopularity of Mike Rann, which would be a factor in EVERY seat. As the campaign rolls on, and panic begins to take hold, I can only see things getting worse for the Government. On election night, I am going to take particular notice of the results in safe ALP seats such as Croydon and West Torrens, where the local members have endured scandals over the past years. In a campaign like this one, I think we will be dealt a fair share of surprises, and it may take a few weeks to piece together our Government for the next four years.
And the winner is……..
1:11 PM, 4/3/2010 .. 0 comments .. Link
At 5:30 last night, the great debate between Isobel Redmond and Mike Rann was beamed into the living rooms of the small percentage of South Australians that are actually home from work or study at that time. Political tragics like myself had to make do with snippets of the debate on 891 ABC spliced in between self conscious commentary by Matthew Abraham about the tastefulness of his suit selection. Having missed seeing the debate in person, I must rely on second hand reporting and the reactions of both parties for my analysis. There is much to discuss even from these meagre pickings.
Mike Rann was immediately tweeting his readiness to engage in another debate upon emerging from the Thebarton television studio where the debate was filmed. Everything Mike Rann does has a political objective behind it. What was his objective behind offering another debate, when in previous weeks he had ruled out doing so? There are various possible explanations. Firstly, he could have been trying to exude confidence in his performance and thus skewing the public’s perception of the outcome in his favour e.g. “ I have seen what Isobel has to offer, and I am not threatened. I can handle that any day of the week”. All the commentators, however, have scored the debate as a draw. Given this fact, I think it is likely that there were other motivations behind his call for further debates.
One of the major concerns of Labor commentators prior to the debate was that Mike Rann (a proven media performer) would be so dazzling in his debate performance that he would appear condescending or bullying in comparison to Isobel Redmond. There would have been concerns that this disparity in performance would garner sympathy for Redmond, and distract viewers from the substantive issues of the debate. As it turned out, it was something else that distracted viewers and the press from the substantive issues; the Michelle Chantelois apology. The vast majority of post debate coverage has focussed on this one issue. I suspect that the Rann media team anticipated this fact and were desperate to force another debate, which would allow both sides to explore the holes in each others policies. Rann, by changing his tune after the fact (possibly because his performance did not appear as overbearing as feared) has played into the Opposition’s hands.
Isobel Redmond has always stated her willingness to engage in more than one debate, whereas Mike Rann was always of the view that one would be sufficient. This fact gave the Opposition the moral upper hand when determining the format of the second debate (although technically the incumbent always has the power in this respect). The Liberals have used this advantage to bolster their “Labor is anti Country” message. Their call for a “town hall” debate in the Riverland would certainly resonate throughout rural SA, which will be useful in the crucial seats of Chaffey, Mt Gambier, Frome and Light. It also puts the Government on the defensive in the crucial policy issue of water, which is one of its biggest policy failings. I am quite sure that the chances of a rural debate are extremely slim. Mike Rann will never accept a debate on the Opposition’s terms. If he was more confident in the lead up to the first debate, however, and expressed a willingness to engage in multiple debates prior to the fact, he would never have had these problems.
It is not necessarily in the interests of the Opposition to take part in a further debate. The Opposition must overcome two hurdles if it wishes to take Government; they must prove that Isobel is a capable leader, and they must prove that they have the policies to improve the wellbeing of the State (or avoid the Government proving that they are incompetent). As stated earlier, Isobel battled the media savvy Mike Rann to a closely contested draw in the debate. A draw in a television debate is often a victory for the Opposition leader. The incumbent has all the perks of office, while the Opposition has none of the baggage of governing. When a Government is on the nose like the current Rann Government is, all the public needs is the assurance that they will be safe if they follow their instincts and boot them out. Isobel managed to prove that in the debate. She also managed to avoid detailed public scrutiny of the detail of her party’s flimsy policies. She has emerged in an ideal position. All she needs to do now is stand firm for her desire for the second debate to be held in the country, wait for the inevitable refusal, and then use this reason to deny any further debates. Mike only wanted one anyway.
Another talking point out of the debate is the appearance of Mike Rann. It is clear that he has aged markedly over the eight years of Government, and this is inevitable. Rann is notoriously a hard worker, and as such, he should wear the bags under his eyes as saggy badges of honour. As Richard Nixon found out all those years ago, however, politics is a visual medium and appearances matter. If the Premier looks drained and haggard on tv, it further reinforces the message that the Government is haggard and drained. Of course these superficial factors are not enough in themselves, but when they reinforce existing perceptions, they can become immensely powerful. Another interesting point that came out of the debate is the respective slogans of both sides. Mike Rann only had “South Australia Labor” on his lecturn, whereas Isobel had “Redmond is Ready”. Perhaps the Labor party is trying to distance itself from Federal Labor with this strategy. It is curious, however, that they didn’t use the “keep South Australia moving forward” slogan that they spruiked at the start of the campaign. This slogan is certainly wordy, and I suggest that whatever PR firm the ALP engaged should not be used in the future. In modern politics, the ability to “cut through” with your campaign slogan is often a vital sign as to the effectiveness of the campaign as a whole. Rann Gets Results, Kevin 07 and Yes We Can are striking examples of this. That brings me to the central dilemma of the ALP’ s campaign. No matter how hard they try, in every forum, the message they are trying to sell is getting lost amongst peripheral matters. This means that voters will enter the polling booth with two possible points of view; either the point of view advanced by the Liberal party, or the point of view they have arrived at based on the Government’s performance over the past 8 years. The ALP may not lose Government in this election, but they will certainly lose the campaign.
At 5:30 last night, the great debate between Isobel Redmond and Mike Rann was beamed into the living rooms of the small percentage of South Australians that are actually home from work or study at that time. Political tragics like myself had to make do with snippets of the debate on 891 ABC spliced in between self conscious commentary by Matthew Abraham about the tastefulness of his suit selection. Having missed seeing the debate in person, I must rely on second hand reporting and the reactions of both parties for my analysis. There is much to discuss even from these meagre pickings.
Mike Rann was immediately tweeting his readiness to engage in another debate upon emerging from the Thebarton television studio where the debate was filmed. Everything Mike Rann does has a political objective behind it. What was his objective behind offering another debate, when in previous weeks he had ruled out doing so? There are various possible explanations. Firstly, he could have been trying to exude confidence in his performance and thus skewing the public’s perception of the outcome in his favour e.g. “ I have seen what Isobel has to offer, and I am not threatened. I can handle that any day of the week”. All the commentators, however, have scored the debate as a draw. Given this fact, I think it is likely that there were other motivations behind his call for further debates.
One of the major concerns of Labor commentators prior to the debate was that Mike Rann (a proven media performer) would be so dazzling in his debate performance that he would appear condescending or bullying in comparison to Isobel Redmond. There would have been concerns that this disparity in performance would garner sympathy for Redmond, and distract viewers from the substantive issues of the debate. As it turned out, it was something else that distracted viewers and the press from the substantive issues; the Michelle Chantelois apology. The vast majority of post debate coverage has focussed on this one issue. I suspect that the Rann media team anticipated this fact and were desperate to force another debate, which would allow both sides to explore the holes in each others policies. Rann, by changing his tune after the fact (possibly because his performance did not appear as overbearing as feared) has played into the Opposition’s hands.
Isobel Redmond has always stated her willingness to engage in more than one debate, whereas Mike Rann was always of the view that one would be sufficient. This fact gave the Opposition the moral upper hand when determining the format of the second debate (although technically the incumbent always has the power in this respect). The Liberals have used this advantage to bolster their “Labor is anti Country” message. Their call for a “town hall” debate in the Riverland would certainly resonate throughout rural SA, which will be useful in the crucial seats of Chaffey, Mt Gambier, Frome and Light. It also puts the Government on the defensive in the crucial policy issue of water, which is one of its biggest policy failings. I am quite sure that the chances of a rural debate are extremely slim. Mike Rann will never accept a debate on the Opposition’s terms. If he was more confident in the lead up to the first debate, however, and expressed a willingness to engage in multiple debates prior to the fact, he would never have had these problems.
It is not necessarily in the interests of the Opposition to take part in a further debate. The Opposition must overcome two hurdles if it wishes to take Government; they must prove that Isobel is a capable leader, and they must prove that they have the policies to improve the wellbeing of the State (or avoid the Government proving that they are incompetent). As stated earlier, Isobel battled the media savvy Mike Rann to a closely contested draw in the debate. A draw in a television debate is often a victory for the Opposition leader. The incumbent has all the perks of office, while the Opposition has none of the baggage of governing. When a Government is on the nose like the current Rann Government is, all the public needs is the assurance that they will be safe if they follow their instincts and boot them out. Isobel managed to prove that in the debate. She also managed to avoid detailed public scrutiny of the detail of her party’s flimsy policies. She has emerged in an ideal position. All she needs to do now is stand firm for her desire for the second debate to be held in the country, wait for the inevitable refusal, and then use this reason to deny any further debates. Mike only wanted one anyway.
Another talking point out of the debate is the appearance of Mike Rann. It is clear that he has aged markedly over the eight years of Government, and this is inevitable. Rann is notoriously a hard worker, and as such, he should wear the bags under his eyes as saggy badges of honour. As Richard Nixon found out all those years ago, however, politics is a visual medium and appearances matter. If the Premier looks drained and haggard on tv, it further reinforces the message that the Government is haggard and drained. Of course these superficial factors are not enough in themselves, but when they reinforce existing perceptions, they can become immensely powerful. Another interesting point that came out of the debate is the respective slogans of both sides. Mike Rann only had “South Australia Labor” on his lecturn, whereas Isobel had “Redmond is Ready”. Perhaps the Labor party is trying to distance itself from Federal Labor with this strategy. It is curious, however, that they didn’t use the “keep South Australia moving forward” slogan that they spruiked at the start of the campaign. This slogan is certainly wordy, and I suggest that whatever PR firm the ALP engaged should not be used in the future. In modern politics, the ability to “cut through” with your campaign slogan is often a vital sign as to the effectiveness of the campaign as a whole. Rann Gets Results, Kevin 07 and Yes We Can are striking examples of this. That brings me to the central dilemma of the ALP’ s campaign. No matter how hard they try, in every forum, the message they are trying to sell is getting lost amongst peripheral matters. This means that voters will enter the polling booth with two possible points of view; either the point of view advanced by the Liberal party, or the point of view they have arrived at based on the Government’s performance over the past 8 years. The ALP may not lose Government in this election, but they will certainly lose the campaign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)