30 Nov 2010

That Wasn't A Strategy Failure

By Ian McAuley
Victorians who were fed up with poor government services voted for Ted Baillieu. They sure weren't voting for Tony Abbott's economic ideas, writes Ian McAuley

The results from the Victorian election are more or less settled and Labor's loss has prompted the usual cliches from the political commentariat. "Brand Labor is becoming toxic" was Tony Abbott's reaction. Fran Kelly was true to form in her daily chat with Michelle Grattan on ABC Breakfast  yesterday, avoiding any mention of policy whatsoever. Their conclusion was that "the tide is going out for Labor" — whatever that means. Now that Brumby has conceded, the Victorian Labor Party apparatchiks are talking about failures in media campaigns and marginal seat strategies.

When a government which has managed to govern without scandals or serious divisions suffers a six per cent swing, the loss cannot merely be attributed to a failure in campaigning. A closer examination of regional voting patterns suggests policy issues have been at play.

The swing against Labor in the big rural cities — Ballarat and Bendigo — was lower than the state average, as it was in some rural seats. In inner city seats — Melbourne, Richmond, Northcote and Brunswick — the Labor two party vote actually increased. The brunt of the damage to Labor occurred in the remainder of Melbourne, where there were swings up to 12 per cent to the Liberal Party. These swings were most marked in outer suburbs.

Labor's success in the inner city disappointed those who predicted that the Greens would win lower house seats. Some commentators who should know better contrasted the Victorian result with the Greens' success in the same region in the Federal election, thereby declaring that the Greens' vote had hit its peak. In Victoria, however, the Greens were not running against a party which had just dumped its entire climate change policy; Victorian Labor's environmental credentials are far from perfect but they are better than Federal Labor's.

Even so, the Greens did well, picking up between 26 and 31 per cent of the primary vote in those inner electorates, and winning reasonably high support in other metropolitan seats. The Baillieu Government, with a slim majority, would do well to take environmental issues seriously, and to avoid pressure from National Party members to neglect environmental issues.

The bigger problem for the Baillieu Government will be the expectations of restive suburban electors, who have clearly shown their volatility, not just in this but also in previous elections. These are the same suburban electors who almost brought down the Gillard Government with big swings in Sydney, and who will almost certainly bring down the Keneally Government in New South Wales in 2011.

Their anger is about government services, particularly transport, and the distribution of other urban amenities. It is not a call for "smaller government". Melbourne may rate as one of the world's most liveable cities, but those who compile the international rankings focus on the well-provided inner areas; the gloss wears off as one goes to the sprawling outer suburbs, where the roads are congested (and often subject to tolls) and the public transport is non-existent. In this regard Labor's comparative success in country cities and in inner urban regions is not surprising, for in the former electorates there are good government services, little traffic congestion, and in the latter electorates there is good public transport and an abundance of public amenities.

Electors are also angry about price rises. The press often lazily says that the issue is "the cost of living", but it's more specific than that. The cost of living, as measured by the consumer price index, is well under control, but prices of specific items which most would count as necessities are rising very quickly, particularly electricity, water and sewerage. Nationally those prices have risen by 12 to 13 per cent over the last year, well ahead of the general CPI rise of less than three per cent.

The irony is that these political reactions are against policies which one would reasonably classify as "neoliberal" or "right wing" — yet they have resulted in the election of a Liberal government.

In particular, Melbourne's transport problems can be traced to the debt obsession — the puerile notion that all public debt is bad. This obsession, elevated to an economic virtue by the federal Liberal Party, has led to neglect of basic infrastructure such as suburban rail, which, as a productive asset, could reasonably be financed by public debt. (The last extension to Melbourne's train service was in 1929.) It has led to the privatisation of Melbourne's trains, buses and trams, with resulting problems in system coordination and capacity constraints. (One of the Liberals' promises has been to set up a coordinated transport authority.) It has led to governments using "public-private-partnerships" (PPPs) to fund transport, particularly toll roads.

PPPs are expensive; they are a means of shifting debt off the balance sheet, while leaving the government holding all the political risk and most of the financial risk. They make the same — and sometimes higher — demands on financial markets as public debt. A project funded through a PPP is inevitably more expensive than one funded through public debt, because of the private sector's higher cost of capital. And, particularly in the case of toll roads, there are economic distortions resulting from tolls in an otherwise "free" system. Governments often do deals with toll road operators to force people to use them: that's why there is no tramway or railroad to Tullamarine Airport, for example. In other cases drivers, in order to avoid the tolls, take rat runs through other roads, adding to congestion and pollution, while leaving the expensive private infrastructure un-utilised. (Economists refer to such waste as "deadweight loss".)

Similarly the pain of electricity and water charges can be traced to privatisation, a by-product of the "small government" ideology. Of course, with scarcity of water, and the environmental costs of coal to generate electricity, price rises are inevitable; it would be irresponsible for governments to try to arrest such price rises. But government monopolies can set electricity and water tariffs much more fairly than a private company in a contrived competitive market. In particular a government monopoly can set a low price for the first kilowatt-hours or litres of water, with higher prices for heavy users; this is precisely opposite to the pricing incentives faced by private companies.

The other problem in relation to electricity is the delay in implementing a carbon pricing scheme. A well-designed carbon price, be it through a carbon tax or a cap and trade system, will give the energy supply industry the certainty to invest in new capacity. Our recent steep price rises are largely a result of capacity limits being faced in old and expensive power stations, and the usual way markets ration capacity constraints is with price rises. We have endured the pain of price rises without the benefit of reducing CO2 emissions. Also, revenue raised through a carbon price would provide the funds to compensate those who need help in adjusting to higher prices. Reducing domestic energy consumption requires up front investment in insulation, new appliances, solar water and photovoltaic systems, for example.

Once the Victorian Labor Party recovers from shock, and has run out of excuses to do with its political strategies, it may use its time in opposition to consider its policy failures. Why did Labor so wholeheartedly and unthinkingly sign on to the neloiberal agenda? Why did it continue with wasteful PPPs and why did it not take back vital assets into public ownership? Why did it not engage with the public in explaining how public debt could be used to strengthen the state's base of assets? In short, why did it abandon the best parts of its traditional platform?

There are warnings too, for federal Labor, along the same lines. It faces the prospect of several Coalition state governments doing what any state government does — shifting problems to the Commonwealth. It, too, has to face these issues.

The greatest challenge, however, is for the Victorian Liberal Party. If the Baillieu Government is to be any more than a one term wonder it has to confront its own party's policies, and allow sound economic management to displace Tony Abbott's puerile slogans about debt and taxes. If it breaks from these ideological shackles it will do a service for all state governments, and should enjoy a strong run in office

If you liked this article help keep New Matilda alive by pledging your support.

Log in or register to post comments

Discuss this article

To control your subscriptions to discussions you participate in go to your Account Settings preferences and click the Subscriptions tab.

Enter your comments here

Posted Tuesday, November 30, 2010 - 14:24

Goog article by Ian McAuley. However the assertion that "Victorian Labor’s environmental credentials are far from perfect but they are better than Federal Labor’s", while consonant with the Mainstream Media (MSM) narrative must be corrected.

The MSM and the pro-coal Coalition gave pro-coal, pro-gas Labor an easy ride in the 2010 Victorian State elections by ignoring the following disastrous and false Labor positions.

1. Labor has stated that it will "reduce emissions by at least 20% by 2020 compared to 2000 levels (equivalent to 40% per capita)" (Mr Brumby, Climate Change White Paper). Labor projects Victorian Domestic emissions of 96 Mt CO2-e in 2020. However this ignores Victorian brown coal Exports that may reach 20 Mt per year (74 Mt CO2-e; The Age, 26/7/2010). Accordingly, Victoria's Domestic plus Exported emissions will actually rise to 170 Mt CO2-e by 2020, 142% of the 2000 value. An Orwellian "more means less".

2. The same quote means, mathematically, that Labor accepts that the Victorian population will double in 20 years and that Geelong, Bendigo, Ballarat, Seymour and Traralgon will become outer suburbs of Melbourne.

3. Top climate scientists (notably Professor Schellnhuber) say that high per capita GHG pollution countries like Australia and the US must have zero (0) CO2 emissions and 100% renewable energy by 2020. However Labor's White Paper indicates a 42% increase in Domestic plus Exported emissions by 2020 compared to 2000 and only 25% renewable energy by 2020.

4. Gas is not "clean energy" as falsely asserted by Labor and can indeed be dirtier than coal greenhouse gas-wise depending upon the rate of industrial gas leakage (methane is 72 times worse than CO2 as a GHG on a 20 year time scale).

The Liberal strategy in the Victorian state elections of putting the Greens last should be emulated by the Greens. The Libs and Labs have very similar pro-coal and pro-gas anti-environment policies although Labor put a better spin on its outrageous inaction. Labor can only win State or Federally with Greens preferences. Accordingly Greens must bite the bullet and adopt a "put Labor last" policy until Labor adopts serious climate change policies demanded by top climate scientists, specifically 100% renewable energy by 2020, cessation of CO2 pollution by 2020, cessation of Australia's coal and gas exports, cessation of old growth native forest destruction, cessation of mindless population growth).

The good news is that the Greens are the kingmakers. They should tell Labor to change their climate change inaction policies that make the "delayer" Labs just as bad as the "denier" Libs. If the Labs won't change then pro-planet voters must Put Labor Last. Going over the cliff at 100 kph (the Libs) is utlimately the same as going over at 95 kph (the Labs).

Peace is the only way but Silence kills and Silence is complicity.

Posted Wednesday, December 1, 2010 - 08:14

I certainly had a giggle when I read Glen Milne's piece on the Drum about how the Libs won in Vic by going against the 'high-cost of living' Labor Party.

It'll be interesting to see how Bailleau plans to rein in the cost of living when all the drivers are out of his control.

Posted Thursday, December 2, 2010 - 00:00

Why is it that our governments like so much to privatise
- monopolies
- essential services and infrastructure
- profitable enterprises that would continue to bring in revenue
- enterprises which for reason of public good, should be under public ownership and regulation?

in short, anything that should clearly not be privatised - just for a nicer looking balance sheet in the short term.

Posted Thursday, December 2, 2010 - 00:29

Baillieu has talked about electricity prices already.
<i>"We will be looking to decrease the price of power for those who hold concession cards," he said. "We'll be extending what's called the winter concession, or the winter power bonus, from six months to 12 months. So for those families, that will be a saving."</i> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/01/3081052.htm

With concerns about the fossil fuels that provide Australia with energy depleting and with people purchasing more and more energy-hungry consumer items, an increase in the cost of energy for those not on concessions is not necessarily a bad thing.

I'd be sceptical about much of this article. The tolls of which I'm aware are on Citylink and Eastlink. The latter might service some outer eastern suburbs but they can still be avoided by driving to a nearby railway station. The Monash Freeway, Westgate Freeway and Tullamarine Freeway are all free of charge.

I do not believe that the contract with Transurban precludes Melbourne from having a railway line to Tullamarine. It does lock out some competitive transport thoroughfares but not public transport. The "silver bullet" solution to the airport's transport needs is the existing Skybus.

The strain on infrastructure was always forecast to be an issue affecting Labor's chances in the election. Mulder has been credited with some of the increased media attention that public transport has attracted. That's not to say that the Liberal's public transport policies couldn't be seen as an afterthought.

Along with the electricity price, the first announcements by the new government the discontinuances of bus lanes and tram lanes. Clem Newton-Brown promoted himself in Prahran on two platforms, opposing a housing development in the adjoining Malvern electorate and opposing public transport improvements. Similarly swings against Labor in electorates along the Stud Road corridor have been attributed to bus lanes. The Liberal Party rode into the election on the outrage of private motorists, angry that public transport was taking "their" road space.

The Labor Party announced and commenced many transport initiatives in late October, obviously intended to please voters before the election. The Liberal Party were unusually silent on transport policies announcing only new rural roads until well into November. They then raised a slew of public transport policies. Labor, having made its commitments in October, was "clutching at straws" to keep promoting what it was doing to improve public transport.

Infrastructure is an area broader than just transport arteries. Water and power are also in need of additional expenditure. Unless the Liberal Party focus new housing on consolidating existing centres, it's likely that they'll have more new pipes and wires to lay to new outer suburbs. The outer suburbs that voted against Labor's buses are also going to need more roads.

It will be interesting to see whether the new Public Transport Authority can keep down the cost of railway projects. One recurring theme with such an authority is that it would reduce the influence / silence the voices of the corporations that run Melbourne's public transport. That would silence the persons with the best knowledge of what is needed to keep Melbourne's public transport running reliably from day-to-day. It would make it easier for a Transport Minister to blame an operator for disruptions, and harder to negotiate any changes that might reduce the likelihood of a disruption. They thus reduce the political urgency to commence projects like the resleepering that arose from 2009's hot summer. If there are corporate voices that need to be amplified, they're the voices of Melbourne's public transport operators.

Posted Friday, December 3, 2010 - 07:56

True. I voted in the Vic, and I can say that state issues were uppermost in my mind. Baillieu is no Abbott.

Just look at the voting on the Frankston train line - it was totally driven by public transport, especially the Myki fiasco. Then the pipeline in Seymour. These two bungled projects alone account for Brumby's loss. Plus, it was a terrible campaign - I'm not a 'Liberal voter' by a long way but I found the 'Ummm' ads offensive.