I for one, and I am sure not alone, am surprised by the robustness of the Labor victory this time around.
I had predicted that they would get back in, in majority, but minus one seat representing the ‘bloody nose’ that electorates sometimes inflict on perceived arrogance of resident Governments.
Given the constant bad press Lennon had received over a raft of issues regarding errors in judgement and insinuations of
(questionable) behaviour, I thought some voter retribution may be at hand. Now that some hours have passed, some discussion been had, more coffee has been drunk and the voting figures somewhat digested, it is worthwhile looking back over the campaign and to see what lessons have been learnt.
Reflecting back on the last Federal election as well as the electoral results in South Australia, it appears that incumbency is providing substantial electoral advantage in what is perceived as ‘good’ economic times.
The last Federal election was a triumph for the tactic of asking the electorate who they trust to manage the continuing good times. I, like many others, railed against the bribes, lies and mist-truths peddled by Howard and co, but at the end of the day, Australians weren’t willing to trust the Labor opposition with managing the country.
This was of course the less than subliminal message underlying one of the major planks of the Tas Labor focus over the last 4 weeks, that being the danger of minority government. And this lies at the root of their victory.
Tas Labor, both strategically and tactically, outflanked the Liberals and Greens. A few other areas are worth noting in terms of the Labor success. The 2005 Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement deflated some of the Greens sails as well-known areas
of old growth forest became somewhat protected. In addition, the negotiation concluded over Recherche Bay also removed what might have been a hot electoral issue.
Competing in traditional territories
This may explain why the Greens during the campaign appeared to shy away from their core area of business, the environment, and instead seemed to focus on competing with the other parties in their traditional territories.
You would have to say that throughout the campaign, Tas Labor presented a much more professional front, as demonstrated by their slick, well-attended campaign launch as compared to the relatively limp affairs by the Liberals and Greens.
Another tactical masterstroke was the promise of further increased funding for the public hospitals. Clearly, Tas Labor had a significant potential electoral liability given the publicity surrounding waiting lists, decaying buildings, fleeing specialists etc.
This could have been an area in which severe and crippling electoral damage might have been inflicted. Instead, the Libs and Greens couldn’t come up with substantial, focussed policies in this area. Proposed solutions were glib, undetailed and not very substantial in the short term. In contrast, Labor promised much more cash and clearly annunciated precisely where the funding was going (X numbers of doctors, Y number of nurses, infrastructure etc). This again raised the issue of which party had the better capacity to manage such problems.
Lastly, there is also the key element that characterises all Tasmanian elections — it is the personalities involved and how they fit into their communities.
Death of Bacon
Theoretically, Labor should have had a difficult time in Denison with the death of Bacon and the lack of ministerial presence in the remaining MHAs. Instead, the combination of Sturges and Bartlett was, again in hindsight, tactically clever as it covered two rather distinct areas of the Labor sympathizer — the progressives and the unionised.
In addition, other Labor candidates in this electorate were of a high calibre and well known in the community. Lisa Singh worked hard throughout the campaign and is well known for her interest in social policy. It may well have been that a vote for Lisa Singh was not a vote for Cassy O’Connor as they potentially appealed to a similar socially progressive voting field.
I was secretly looking forward to Cassy’s potential impact on policy if a minority government was returned, I hope Lisa Singh may now provide this social compass for her colleagues.
You would also have to say that Michelle O’Byrne received a huge sympathy vote given the federal result last time. I think too that media commentary on the potential loss of Giddings may have had a positive sympathy effect which may yet spell doom for Paula Wriedt (although we can’t rule out the negative impact of the ELs either).
Something has already been said about the potential effects of the silly Exclusive Brethren campaign. Well, they don’t even vote and I don’t think there is a significant component of the Tasmanian population who would have made any decisions based on their ridiculous leaflets.
The “Tasmanians for a Better Future” campaign may have had an impact, as it reinforced messages being delivered from Labor and the Liberals on minority government.
It would be an interesting study to determine how many of the swinging voters were influenced by the simple messages of this campaign. Still, you can’t say that the Greens didn’t have other organisations in their corner, the timing of the Wilderness Society rally was rather transparent. Not that I would call the Wilderness Society a shadowy force, but at least my taxes were
not subsidising the folk behind the Better Future stuff.
Some things still puzzle me about this election. These include the seeming lack of a huge protest vote directed against the pulp mill, the lack of electoral traction of Cassy O’Connor in Denison (did the Greens make a blue here by the presidential style, hence focus, on Peg Putt?) and the strong support for Hodgman over Dixon.
I think it has been a fascinating four weeks with a result that will lead to dramatic changes in all of the parties. Thankfully, there are many positive elements (some new, some to be promoted) in the successful Labor team that may result in new
and interesting policy directions.
I also reflect on the old rumour that Lennon stepped in to further Bacon’s program. With a clear 4 years ahead, it may be
that he will trust one of his colleagues to step up to the Premer’s plate?
Super Annoyed is (a bio is on its way)
