It would seem that in our modern, heavily tactical form of democracy that voters are only given a right to vote for the party of their choice when that party decides it is politically worthwhile running a candidate. As Phillip Coorey reports for the SMH, it is looking like Federal Labor is not going to run a candidate (or else only half-run one) in the Mayo by-election forced by the resignation of Alexander Downer. This strikes me as little more than political cowardice from the government, coming as it does a mere eight months after its thumping general election victory. While it may be a foregone conclusion that the Coalition will retain the seat (it is a safe Liberal seat, of course), one wonders why Federal Labor is avoiding the opportunity to try and make this by-election a referendum on Brendan Nelson’s leadership. A few months ago, Kevin Rudd seemed pretty much indefatigable in his role as Prime Minister and Brendan Nelson had all the pressure on his shoulders, his senior peers walking around with sharpened knives at the ready. Does the government really fear that this has changed and that any opportunity to further pressure the Opposition has been lost? Does it want to look to the punters like it is running scared?
The decision to only pursue the by-election halfheartedly seems to be centred around a desire to starve the Coalition of any potential political oxygen. It goes without saying that by far the most likely outcome in Mayo is a victory for the Opposition, and that therefore some positive news coverage for Nelson would eventuate if Labor field a candidate and lose convincingly. From a purely political standpoint, this rationale is not without credence, and certainly we have here in the UK an excellent recent reference point for Labor in the recent Henley by-election in Oxfordshire. There are some telling similarities. In Henley, like Mayo, the by-election was forced by the resignation of a popular, high-profile conservative figure (Boris Johnson, now London mayor), in a safely held seat. Labour decided to field a candidate in the Henley, but did not put very much effort into the campaign, producing a truly abysmal result; fifth place behind the Tories, the Liberal Democrats, the Greens and the British National Party. Embarrassingly, the combined primary vote for the UK Independence Party’s Chris Adams and Bananaman Owen of the Monster Raving Looney Party superceded that of Labour’s Richard McKenzie.
In the Henley case, then, fielding a candidate and running a half-hearted campaign was indeed a disaster. There is little chance that Labor stand a chance of doing quite so badly in Mayo. Crucially, Labour’s Gordon Brown is polling at subterranean levels currently, whereas by comparison, Kevin Rudd and Federal Labor enjoy a comfortable lead in the polls, and have done so for the past eight months. In this sense, we are really comparing apples and oranges with these by-elections.
I really don’t think that this is the right time for Federal Labor to give into political convenience and go on the defensive by steering clear of Mayo. The Rudd Opposition was successful in the general election last November in part because of its aggression, exemplified by the gambit of fielding Maxine McKew in John Howard’s once blue-ribbon Liberal seat. Federal Labor also won support by taking a noble line on issues like electoral reform and transparency in government (hat lift: Senator John Faulkner) in stark contrast to the grubby politics that the Howard Government accustomed itself to. It may not strictly speaking be the most politically expedient course of action, but fielding a candidate in Mayo and putting some energy and resources into the campaign is both the smart and the right thing for Federal Labor to do here.
Doesn’t the government have a large policy workload without thinking of contesting bi-elections?
That’s a fair point, but governments and oppositions should always be preoccupied with policy-making in any case. That doesn’t mean they should neglect to contest elections and deny people a say.
Also with Brendan Nelson’s performance so far, wouldn’t it actually suit Labor to extend his tenure on the fumbling former education minister as long as possible, as a result giving Turnbull little time to introduce himself to the public. I’m sort of guessing Labor half ran dead in Gippsland for the same reason,
That should be
“extend the tenure of the fumbling former education minister”
That may well be the case Stephen. From a ruthless party-political point of view, I think there probably is a case for not really putting much effort in. On the other hand, I think the government needs to try and maintain a balance between playing fair and playing ruthless; the previous government got a bit too ruthless with the unions in its last term and we all know what happened there.
Maybe there is an outlier of a chance, but I think it similar to the Libs not running a candidate when Latham retired his seat of Werriwa. Although according to ABC
“Held by Alexander Downer since its creation in 1984, he came under serious challenge in 1998, as the Democrat’s John Schumann came close to winning on Labor and One Nation preferences. The seat covers a part of South Australia where the Australian Democrats used to poll strongly.”
I don’t think there is any chance of Labor winning, but a wily Independent might be able to do it, and would probably cost the leadership or seriously undermine Nelson.
But what mitigates against this is, if there is a swing to the Libs it could give more oxygen to the tales of ute-men and how the working-class people are opposed to the ETS. I think framing a carbon emissions trading system focusing on the long-term environmental outcomes rather than allowing the self-perpetualising of the opposition’s scare-mongering means that it is more important for complexity to win through at the expense of Labor trying to win a seat it has Buckley’s chance of picking up.
Hey wasn’t Peter Hatcher’s article on Downer spot-on. And I lost even more respect for Downer when his daughter was awarded an international post-graduate scholarship for a third-class honours, while in my department the scholarship cut-off is a high first-class honours (high high-distinction GPA), it was the worst kind of nepotism.
Agree completely with respect to the ETS. And in the absence of a strong ALP candidate, t would be a good thing if a strong independent candidate ran in Mayo and gave the Libs a run for their money.
I also agree wholeheartedly Guy. Interesting to read on Anthony Green’s blog that the Howard government avoided contesting a by-election in a seat that was not safe for the Liberal Party like the plague.
On a hiding to nothing, it would therefore be no surprise if Labor chose to opt out of contesting Mayo. It was the usual approach taken by the Liberal Party during the 11 years of the Howard government. Of the nine by-elections between 1996 and 2007, the Liberal Party only contested the three seats it held, Lindsay (1996), Ryan (2001) and Aston (2001). The Liberal Party did not nominate candidates for Blaxland (1996), Fraser (1997), Holt (1999), Isaacs (200), Cunningham (2002) or Werriwa (2005). The Liberal Party also opted out of the Newcastle supplementary election 1998.