tip off

Hamilton: Lessons learnt from running in Higgins

Higgins is often caricatured as the haunt of “doctors’ wives” (although the feminisation of the medical profession probably means there are more doctors’ husbands in the electorate).

But it’s much more diverse than most realise, ranging from the youthful and funky streets of Prahran and South Yarra (where the Greens won several booths), to the traditional Labor suburb of Carnegie (where we also won a booth), and across the swathes of comfortable affluence in the middle and north of the electorate (where the Greens vote was lower but that saw some of the biggest swings away from the Liberals).

Did we succeed in our goal of turning the Higgins by-election into a referendum on climate change? We know a third of those who voted in Higgins are open to a strong climate message.

Yet, after weeks of door-knocking and delivering leaflets across the electorate, I formed the impression that too few Australians have truly engaged with the problem of climate change and what it means for our future.

This will change as it becomes untenable to continue to ignore the transformed climate and the scientists’ warnings. Yet change is likely to be too slow, the more so because the Opposition has been captured by those who prefer ideological conviction to scientific evidence.

Nearly three in 10 Higgins electors didn’t even cast a vote.

Election campaigns are as much about the management of expectations as anything else. Voting behaviour is sticky but expectations can fluctuate wildly. Yet it is the gap between the two that determines how the outcome will be interpreted.

With a substantial share of Labor supporters opting for the conservatives, the unchanged Liberal total vote means a similar number of former Liberal voters ticked the Greens box. This is the “anyone but Abbott” factor that should worry the Liberal party.

Although the unique circumstances made forecasting the Higgins by-election result difficult, the Greens’ psephologist was in no doubt that a 35% primary vote was the best the Greens could expect. And on the day that was the outcome.

The only comparison is with the Kooyong by-election in 1994 when, in the absence of a Labor candidate, Peter Singer for the Greens secured 28% of primaries.

The Greens were asking the voters of Higgins — for the most part a secure and comfortable part of the country — to endorse a program of urgent and far-reaching change, a program of economic restructuring commensurate with the science but unprecedented in Australian history, other than in wartime.

So in Higgins on Saturday we did as well as could be realistically expected. Expectations, however, had been driven up to unrealistic levels by the turmoil in Canberra and the excitability of certain election analysts.

A day or two before the election, Liberal party operatives told the press gallery they were worried they might lose. As a media trick it’s an oldie, but it’s a goodie because of the gullibility of some journalists. Besides the media wanted Higgins, and to a lesser extent Bradfield, to be a test of voter reaction to Tony Abbott’s accession to the Liberal leadership.

Perhaps some indication of the political impact of Abbott’s victory can be had by examining the difference between Liberal support on election day and support among the 14% of voters who lodged pre-poll and postal votes in the three weeks before December 5.

The party was led by Abbott for only the last four days before the election and there was no last-minute rush to vote. On a two-party preferred basis, before election day 68.8% of pre-poll and 76.5% of postal votes went to the Liberal candidate. On election day, the Liberal vote fell to 57.6%.

The political ramifications of the Liberal party’s capture by climate deniers will play out over a long period. The party room, and the party membership, is now dominated by paleo-conservatives whose hatred of environmentalism has induced them to jettison 300 years of faith in science.

I fear we are seeing in Australia a repeat of the electoral polarisation over global warming in the United States that began in the autumn of 1997 when the Republicans launched a sustained campaign against President Clinton, the imminent Kyoto protocol, environmentalism and climate science.

It was a campaign that was to split beliefs on party lines. Before the Republicans’ “war on science” there was little difference between the attitudes of Democrat and Republican voters on climate change and the need to respond to it. Now there is a vast gulf in which, on the right, rejection of climate science has become a marker of cultural identity, a point of difference for those who cannot utter the word “liberal” without a snarl.

In this country it is unlikely we will see quite the depth of anti-environmentalism that infects the US right. Tony Abbott — who dropped his guard and declared “the argument about climate change is absolute crap” — must pretend he believes in human-induced warming while doing everything he can do prevent effective policies to counter it, including visiting a coal mine to say protection of the coal industry is the first priority.

On the whole, Australians like to think of themselves as concerned about the environment. But they are conservative people who do not change their voting behaviour easily.

Elections are fought over the votes of a small proportion of flexible voters, certainly less than 10% of the total, yet a shift in sentiment among these few is often described as a “landslide” or a “historic change”.

After all the talk about the historical significance of Barack Obama’s win, we should not forget that 49% of American voters preferred the Republican successor to the most inept President in history.

Clive Hamilton was the Greens candidate for Higgins and has returned to his position as professor of public ethics.

22
  • 1
    Kevin Cox
    Posted Tuesday, 8 December 2009 at 2:41 pm | Permalink

    One of the interesting things about Australian Political rhetoric is how the facts do not fit well with reality. The Greens for example, are reported by the media and perceived by the public as being concerned only about the environment. Liberals say they have policies and they continue to stand by liberal party policies.

    If we as electors believe that policies are important and we vote on “policies” rather than emotion then if the websites of the parties are anything to go by then you cannot vote for the Liberals as they have NO policies. The website has a platform from 2002 consisting of a set of bullet points where the word climate does not appear.

    http://www.liberal.org.au/info/docs/federalplatform.pdf

    The Greens have a comprehensive set of policies

    http://greens.org.au/policies

    The Labor Party web site contains the labor party platform from 2009 which is a substantial set of documents with policy objectives.

    http://www.alp.org.au/platform/

  • 2
    Graeme Lewis
    Posted Tuesday, 8 December 2009 at 2:54 pm | Permalink

    So sad that we are expected to absorb this self-serving nonsense!

  • 3
    jacks
    Posted Tuesday, 8 December 2009 at 3:00 pm | Permalink

    With a substantial share of Labor supporters opting for the conservatives, the unchanged Liberal total vote means a similar number of former Liberal voters ticked the Greens box. This is the “anyone but Abbott” factor that should worry the Liberal party.”

    Really clive? and how did you work that out? How do you know that the labor and liberal voters played musical chairs with their support?

  • 4
    Peter Phelps
    Posted Tuesday, 8 December 2009 at 3:22 pm | Permalink

    Let’s see (in reverse chroinological order) the Green first preferences…

    Higgins: 32.55%
    Bradfield: 25.89%
    Mayo: 21.35%

    OMG - it’s a Hockey Stick! The Greens will win the next election in every seat in a canter!

    Now let’s add in some other ‘tree rings from Siberia’…

    Higgins: 32.55%
    Bradfield: 25.89%
    Lyne: 7.0%
    Mayo: 21.35%
    Gippsland: 7.0%
    Cunningham: 23.03%
    Werriwa: 5.55%
    Kooyong: 28.03%

    Hmm. The scientific consensus is that the Greens do well when every other major-party alternative option has been removed from the field of candidates. What an achievement! The ‘party of last resort’!

  • 5
    Phillip Starkins
    Posted Tuesday, 8 December 2009 at 4:01 pm | Permalink

    Clive – your arrogance in assuming that “too few Australians have truly engaged with the problem of climate change and what it means for our future” on the basis of a few days campaigning in Higgins is breath taking. It is because Australians – particular those in Higgins – are all too aware of the consequences of the Green’s carbon agenda that your mob are rejected by the mainstream of the community. That the ALP did not have the guts to run demonstrate they know the public smell a stinking great big rat (in the proposed ETS) before the Senate.

    But of course by dressing this all up we’re over analysing and missing the most important reason that the Libs won; Ms. O’Dwyer is an intelligent, articulate, politically savvy young lady and a local resident. She campaigned for weeks and weeks on local issues and her depth of understanding of her electorate goes well beyond the one dimensional cut-out you offered – it is for these reasons that she is now the MHR Higgins.

  • 6
    chinda
    Posted Tuesday, 8 December 2009 at 4:18 pm | Permalink

    You’ve said it yourself, Phillip; O’Dwyer ran on local and state government issues, not on the issues upon which she will be respresenting her electorate. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the federal Liberal Party and their policies!

    I thought one of the most interesting things about both by-elections (and, indeed, the results from the last federal election in these seats) is the quite different results. In Higgins there was only a very small swing away from Costello (1.72%) in 2007, showing (you would think) the strength of his personal vote. Therefore you would think that some of that vote would swing back at this by-election, but lo and behold, the Liberal TPP result actually went up by 1.33%, giving them a net -0.3% over the past 3 years. Pretty good I would have thought, especially looking at where the polls more generally are sitting.

    In Bradfield, however, Nelson copped a swing of 4.10% in 2007 and in the by-election, the Lib vote went back a further 3.33% - a net loss of 7.43% in under 3 years.

    Local issues, candidate issues or something else? There is something happening in Higgins that isn’t happening in Bradfield and I’d love to know what it is.

    Maybe one of our psephological boffins can explain.

  • 7
    Rohan
    Posted Tuesday, 8 December 2009 at 4:59 pm | Permalink

    Phillip - based on your own (non-arrogant of course ) assumption that Higgins residents are all too aware of the consequences of the “Green’s carbon agenda” it was obviously too much for them to accept an average reduction in GNP per capita of 0.1% a year.

  • 8
    John Inglis
    Posted Tuesday, 8 December 2009 at 5:02 pm | Permalink

    Clive, at the next election I will be giving the greens my first preference for the first time.
    If you were standing in my seat that would not happen.
    Perhaps the 3/10 non-voters in your election had similar thoughts.
    Dunno about ‘concerned’ or ‘conservative’ but we do have pretty good BS detectors.
    If you want to have another go at public office, might I suggest dropping the attitude?

  • 9
    Richard Carter
    Posted Tuesday, 8 December 2009 at 5:05 pm | Permalink

    What does a professor of Public Ethics do?

  • 10
    wonderfeel
    Posted Tuesday, 8 December 2009 at 8:03 pm | Permalink

    Congrats !! Amazing the Libs vote stayed the same even without a Labor candidate in the race !
    But your assumption that former Liberal voters opting for Greens as a reaction against Abbott seems unsubstantiated and even self-deprecating. 33% is a very encouraging shift !
    (The counter assumption about the drop in Lib support from postal/pre-poll votes to actual election day could also be explained by the earlier votes being mainly elderly voters who are likely to be more conservative.)
    I question whether you stayed on message re: climate change because wasn’t the launch focussed on the refugee issue ? And wonder whether you really applied the leverage of your economic credentials to resolve the economy vs ecology misnomer.
    I believe the main block to even greater support is people viewing the Greens as a cluster of reactive policies rather than a solid and dependable political option. But that said, its still impressive so many took that risk.

  • 11
    Posted Tuesday, 8 December 2009 at 8:09 pm | Permalink

    33% primary vote. Woohoo. That’s alot. Great work Clive Hamilton.

    The nastier they get, the better you must have done, and the more they reveal of their darker aspects of personality.

    The figures on pre poll/postal voting rate for Libs pre Abbott and on election day post Abbott are most interesting. And surely the non attendance is another indicator of that.

    This puts a whole new and deeper analysis of Abbott’s lack of electoral appeal. Roll on the next newspoll and we really shall see (allowing for The Australian trying to cook the result).

  • 12
    AR
    Posted Tuesday, 8 December 2009 at 8:17 pm | Permalink

    The 10%, defined by some as swinging voters (and by others as pig ignorant, greedy, gullible & selfish) were over whelmed by the 25% who just didn’t show up.
    The Informal vote in Higgins was just over half that of Bradfield which suggests disinterest or dismay in the Emerald City rather than outright loathing of the alternative to the Liberal.
    Had the Green candidate in Higgins had been other than who it (inexplicably) was, enough of those disgusted/disappointed/disabused who refused to turn out might have put a better choice over the line and changed Oz politics for ever.
    The mad monk will remember you in his Xmas card list Clive.

  • 13
    Frank Campbell
    Posted Tuesday, 8 December 2009 at 8:53 pm | Permalink

    I formed the impression that too few Australians have truly engaged with the problem of climate change and what it means for our future.”

    Clive Calvin, you’re not a “public intellectual” but a crusading moralist. Australia had a gutful of these in the 19thC. Probably why this country is so secular- and rude about religion.

    You lead a millenarian cult. Look at the Shrillsong fervour in Copenhagen. That ineffable video of the little girl’s Global Warming nightmare… This is what people are now “truly engaging with”. They see danger in censorious authoritarians. They don’t want a “revolution” (irrelevant to AGW anyway) which is nothing more than middle-class indulgence, coupled with climate pork for big capital.

    Every cost incurred in these schemes will be a regressive tax. The working class and poor will be screwed. All for nothing.

    Did you note that your “good friend” Alain de Rundle steadfastly refused to criticise you before the poll? I goaded him, to no avail. Afterwards he blamed you for the failure of his Great Lib Schism to materialise. Don’t worry, he’s picked up something else on the tram to play with now (the “politics of mourning”, q.v).

    An incestuous little world, Tossopolis, isn’t it?

  • 14
    Frank Campbell
    Posted Tuesday, 8 December 2009 at 8:58 pm | Permalink

    BTW Clive, I’ve been a Greens voter for 20 years.

    Your cult is doing great harm to the real environment. It’s being ignored.

  • 15
    Andrew Baker
    Posted Tuesday, 8 December 2009 at 11:09 pm | Permalink

    An amazing greenwash attempt to declare victory from total defeat. The bottom line is that virtually no dent was made in the Liberal margin under the most favourable conditions the Greens are ever likely to see.

  • 16
    thedukeofmadness
    Posted Wednesday, 9 December 2009 at 2:36 am | Permalink

    King Pyrrhus of Epirus, whose army suffered irreplaceable casualties in defeating the Romans at Heraclea in 280 BC and Asculum in 279, inspired the creation of the term Pyrrhic Victory where a victory costs you everything and means nothing.

    Clive Hamilton has found out about a pyrrhic defeat. This cost him nothing and means everything.

    It means the greens are not the magical third party nor are they a true political force. The only thing they are doing IS helping the federal A.L.P. disavow itself from it’s base by adhering this climate change/global warming confection.

    The non-corrupted (as in by the greens not corruption as in graft) A.L.P. would have seized on Tony Abbott’s talk of individual contracts and his son of work choices thoughts and the promotion of Sen. Eric Abetz and excoriated him over it. But the only thing that Anthony Albanese attacked him on was there being deniers and skeptics in relation to global warming on the new front bench.

    To quote someone famous named Bob, who happens to be a Labor acolyte, “the light on the hill has gone out.”

    Btw, commiserations on your loss Clive. It must suck to know that not everyone out there is a moron.

  • 17
    mtats
    Posted Wednesday, 9 December 2009 at 9:27 am | Permalink

    With a substantial share of Labor supporters opting for the conservatives, the unchanged Liberal total vote means a similar number of former Liberal voters ticked the Greens box. This is the “anyone but Abbott” factor that should worry the Liberal party.”

    Spin Clive, spin! Faster damn it!.. (no one is buying this garbage for a second)

    At least be genuine about the result.

  • 18
    Aron Paul
    Posted Wednesday, 9 December 2009 at 10:34 am | Permalink

    Well done, Clive. Thank you for making a stand. It was an exciting byelection, and while it’s disappointing not to win, it was a strong result. While commentators spin the result one way or the other, the overwhelming impression I got during the campaign and what I take from the result is that most Australian voters are not paying attention to politics in the way we political junkies are on Crikey for example. Most voters don’t care about the Liberal leadership and while we want action on climate change we don’t want to be bothered with the policy detail.

    One of the great strengths of liberal democracy is that it allows citizens the ultimate freedom - to opt out of politics. This presents a particular challenge to political parties facing issues of this nature, that require radical change and citizen mobilisation. I was not on the whole impressed by the Greens capacity to do this - as a minor party with limited resources and sometimes uninspiring campaign material I think the result was remarkably positive but indicative of a fairly conventional and conservative approach to campaigning. There’s clearly a lot of work to be done.

    Remember, the next campaign begins the day after election day. I hope the Greens can take strong lessons from this and hit the ground running straight away. The next election is looming fast!

    And I also hope you run for the Senate, Clive - your eloquence and knowledge would be a great boon to the parliament, and to the Greens.

  • 19
    sean
    Posted Wednesday, 9 December 2009 at 12:16 pm | Permalink

    Dear Frank

    If you’ve been a member of the greens for 20 years you must have had a nervous breakdown recently or a stroke? Whatever, the amount of spleen vented and the sheer ratbag ignorance of your views on climate change suggests that you shouldn’t have been a member in the first place. “middle class indulgence’ , ‘millenium cult’, go and have a good lie down mate and come back if you’ve got something sensible to say.

  • 20
    Frank Campbell
    Posted Wednesday, 9 December 2009 at 1:34 pm | Permalink

    Sean: Another tasty morsel for my collection of insults. Thanks. When the magic spell of the cult is finally broken, they’ll help tell the cautionary tale of manias and collective hysterias….

    Climate is an eye-glazing topic, but I didn’t bring up the subject.

    Note Sean that a survey in Possum two weeks ago showed that 11% of Greens regarded AGW as “exaggerated”. Scepticism is spreading rapidly and so (unfortunately) is denialism. You only have yourselves to blame.

  • 21
    Evan Beaver
    Posted Wednesday, 9 December 2009 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

    Frank, all that survey shows is that people are becoming wary of the predictions; the boy who cried wolf syndrome. It doesn’t mean that they’re right though.

  • 22
    Frank Campbell
    Posted Wednesday, 9 December 2009 at 2:34 pm | Permalink

    Evan: no one knows who’s right. Even if temps fall for the next 20 years, it will prove little other than it’s less likely that CO2 is the culprit. Some scientists are already factoring in decades of cooling in order to protect the AGW hypothesis. Scientific paradigms routinely follow this trajectory: unbridled certainty, a flood of attention, more and more qualifications and hedging. Finally a blind rush to the exit.

    The trouble with this cult is the subject- so little is known about climate drivers that the hedging/obfuscation/deceit may go on for decades. Meanwhile hapless politicians inflict misery on us all as they try to insure against Armageddon.

    There’s no hysterical hurry. It will take decades for AGG to be even slightly dented. So rational plans can be made. Right now we have irrational plans which guarantee that corporate capitalism will rort the contrived trading systems and that we’ll all pay for it, but gain nothing. That’s the only current certainty.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...