| Election Year | |||
| 1919 | 9.26 | - | - |
| 1922 | 12.56 | - | - |
| 1925 | 10.74 | - | - |
| 1928 | 10.47 | - | - |
| 1929 | 10.27 | - | - |
| 1931 | 12.25 | - | - |
| 1934 | 12.61 | - | - |
| 1937 | 15.55 | - | - |
| 1940 | 13.71 | - | - |
| 1943 | 6.96 | - | - |
| 1946 | 10.70 | - | - |
| 1949 | 10.87 | - | - |
| 1951 | 9.72 | - | - |
| 1954 | 8.52 | - | - |
| 1955 | 7.90 | - | - |
| 1958 | 9.32 | - | - |
| 1961 | 8.51 | - | - |
| 1963 | 8.94 | - | - |
| 1966 | 9.84 | - | - |
| 1969 | 8.56 | - | - |
| 1972 | 9.44 | - | - |
| 1974 | 9.96 | - | - |
| 1975 | 11.25 | - | - |
| 1977 | 10.01 | 9.38 | - |
| 1980 | 8.97 | 6.57 | - |
| 1983 | 9.21 | 5.03 | - |
| 1984 | 10.63 | 5.45 | - |
| 1987 | 11.50 | 6.00 | - |
| 1990 | 8.42 | 11.26 | - |
| 1993 | 7.17 | 3.75 | 1.86 |
| 1996 | 8.21 | 6.76 | 2.92 |
| 1998 | 5.29 | 5.13 | 2.14 |
| 2001 | 5.61 | 5.41 | 4.96 |
| 2004 | 5.89 | 1.24 | 7.19 |
| 5.5 | 0.69 | 7.5 | |
| Election Year | |||
(2007 figures are approximate only)
A few things to note about these facts.
The National Party.
Notice how the National Party never really became a force in Australian politics? Although they have been in a coalition with the Liberal party for many decades, the amount of people voting for them has never exceeded the 1937 figure of 15.55%. The reason for this is because the Nationals are essentially the party for the country folk. Socially conservative, nationalistic rural people have been the mainstay of the National Party for most of its life.
Yet also notice that as we move closer to the 21st century, the voting percentage seems to be on an inexorable downhill slide? Ever since 1990, the Nationals have been attracting fewer and fewer votes. The difference between the 1996 and 1998 election results was due entirely to the influence of Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party whose populist efforts stripped the Nationals of nearly 3 percentage points in the votes. Yet notice also that, despite the demise of ONP, the Nationals have permanently lost about three-eighths of its voting base. Yet in the election just fought, the Nationals vote has dropped down to almost where it was in 1998, and without any Pauline Hanson there to affect them. It's evidence that Pauline Hanson basically turned 3% of the National Party voters into swinging voters.
Put simply, the National Party is at a low ebb, and the reasons for this are self inflicted.
The first reason is that the National Party isn't National. Back in April I blogged about this and discovered that the National Party is only present in NSW, Victoria and Queensland. There are virtually no National Party politicians from Tasmania, South Australia or Western Australia.
The second reason is that the arrangement that they have with the Liberal party - that they will not run candidates against each other (most of the time) - favours a demographic in which more people are in urban areas and less people in rural ones. This choice by the National Party has essentially led the Liberal Party to take over the conservative vote in the urban areas of Australia while rural electorates decline in number.
If the National Party wish to survive, they need to radically change the way they do politics, which means they need to loosen their relationship with the Liberal Party whilst still working with them. I would suggest the following:
- Run candidates in every single lower house seat throughout Australia, including urban areas and in WA, SA and Tasmania. This would mean running against Liberals in urban seats, but it would also mean that the Liberal Party runs candidates in rural seats. This would naturally upset the Liberal party somewhat, but an arrangement can be made whereby each party gives the other their preferences. This would work in the Senate as well.
- A "re-branding" of their politics. I would suggest that the National Party present itself as pro-market but also socially conservative, which would, in turn, help the Liberal Party to become a pro-market but socially centrist party. Voters for both the Liberals and the Nationals would therefore include most people who are pro-market, but allows voters to decide for themselves whether they wish to be socially conservative or socially centrist. After the recent electoral loss, many Australians are crying out for an alternative conservative party to the Liberals.
- Work hard at developing a "conservative environmentalism" that would a) Allow the party to handle environmental issues like global warming sensibly, while b) Not compromising their stance on free-market policies. The secret to tapping Australia's growing environmental concerns without losing out to the Greens would be to take the issue seriously while keeping the focus upon maintaining a market economy.
Look back at the voting figures for the Dems. They started off their political life with a bang, surged forward in 1990 to become Australia's third largest political party, and have since collapsed into nothingness. This is not the result of dirty tricks by other parties, but is their own silly fault.
The Democrats were often misunderstood by the voting public. Some saw them as an alternative to the ALP since their policies were quite progressive - yet the Australian Democrats came out of the Liberal Party in the 1970s as a reaction against some of that party's departures from liberalism and libertarianism. The 1990 election, which saw them reach the giddy heights of 11.26% of the vote, was too much for them to cope with. Faced with two directions to go in - remain true to their ideals or get more votes - they chose the wrong path (votes) and have suffered to the point of extinction.
The Democrats distinguished themselves by "keeping the bastards honest" and thus communicated to the voting public that they were different to the other parties. Yet, as time wore on, it was clear that they were not that much different at all. The defection of Cheryl Kernot to the ALP and the subsequent leadership tussles - including Natasha Stott Despoja's painful reign - showed that the Democrats were actually bastards themselves. Without the anti-bastard belief, people were forced to rely upon policies which, because the Democrats were centrist, were never fully communicated.
Personally I think the Democrats are history. But they can rise from the grave if they do the following:
- Elect a leader who is vigorous, charismatic and, above all, politically friendly. Having a leader who says that he is happy to work with all parties is essential for a centrist party.
- Conduct a "return to the Democrats" campaign in their home state of South Australia. South Australia was always their stronghold and the future lies in reigniting their traditional "base".
- Have a reasonable goal for the next election - say 2% of the vote.
The Greens are now firmly entrenched as Australia's third largest political party, overtaking The National Party and The Democrats in only 14 years of political life. Once seen as a fringe group, The Greens are now part of the mainstream, and are a threat to both the Liberal and Labor party.
What I find very interesting is that The Greens have managed to gain substantial votes in electorates that are strongly Liberal or strongly Labor. Take the seat I live in - Newcastle. If ever there was a union heartland, Newcastle is it. Yet despite the large Labor victory margin, over 10% of Novacastrians voted Green, one-third more than the national average. Similarly, the seat of Berowra, a very safe Liberal seat, had 9% of votes go to The Greens.
Overall, the 7.5% figure for the Greens is, to be honest, disappointing. Ever since An Inconvenient Truth hit the video store shelves, Australians have, generally, become quite supportive of efforts to help the environment. Yet only 0.3% more Australians voted for The Greens in 2007 than they did in 2004. Despite having a competent looking leader (Bob Brown) who wears suits rather than hemp sacks, I would surmise that many are still wary of the Greens radicalism, especially in areas like the economy and industrial relations. The Greens are not "closet communists" but they are more to the left of politics than the Labor Party is and would not be embarrassed to promote leftist-style policies. This naturally frightens people.
The Greens greatest weakness is in non-coastal rural areas. Byron Bay and other coastal places have their fair share of conservative farmers battling policy with local Greens, but once you move inland to places like Tamworth, The Greens are quite weak. The seat of New England, for example, garnered only 3% of votes for the Greens.
The only way that The Greens could become the largest political party in Australia, and to run the country and have its own PM, is for a wholesale national movement towards leftist economics. That's hardly going to happen any time soon. Yet if The Greens modify their approach to become more centrist economically, they will risk losing their base. They have got 7.5% of the vote already despite their leftist agenda, which means they should keep plugging away at what they do best.
It's possible that Kevin Rudd's popularity shaved a few percentage points off The Greens during this election, which means that The Greens could possibly get more votes at the next one.
So what should the Greens do? They should continue to broaden their base (by diverting more resources into country areas) while deepening it (by continuing to grow in urban areas).
The Greens could easily go the same way as The Democrats if they forget their principles and become too "political" within their own ranks. They should not give up on their basic principles and should rely more upon educating potential voters rather than polling to find out what policies they should change. This sort of activity will not result in large votes but will result in growing influence over time. Yet if the Greens do not increase their votes then their Senate presence will not grow either, thus hindering their ability to handle policies to help the environment. Ideally the Greens should hope to increase their votes to between 8.5 - 9.0% by the next federal election. Any more than that would indicate either a) That the Greens have compromised themselves, or b) That an environmental emergency was taking place.
© 2007 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
FAQ about the author
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
No comments:
Post a Comment