Labor finally thinks about the majority
You might well have missed it, but something quite significant became clear in Parliament over the past month.
BLINK and you would have missed it — the recent three-week parliamentary session was the most uneventful since the election.
But it was also by far the most significant because it saw a major change in the Labor Opposition’s political strategy, a change in strategy that was desperately needed.
Despite a lacklustre 18 months since the election, and a much-needed reshuffle that rolled the dice and brought the Government to the brink of minority, the Liberals have emerged the other side smelling like the sweet late-winter jonquils blooming around the place.
Perhaps it was helped by the school holidays, but the reshuffle clearly achieved its desired effect of resetting the Government and taking the heat out of the health portfolio. In addition, progress is finally being made in resolving the long-running wages dispute, after the Government finally moved to decisively seek a resolution.
Such is the Government’s dominance, it’s my view that if an election were held tomorrow Will Hodgman would be comfortably re-elected in majority.
And for what it’s worth, if Sue Hickey ran as an Independent (because she certainly won’t be endorsed again as a Liberal) I can’t see the Speaker being returned — unless, of course, the Parliament was expanded to 35 seats.
One of the number one rules of politics is that the first step to a political party becoming competitive again after losing Government is to decontaminate your brand.
Recently I heard veteran UK Labour pollster Deborah Mattinson talking about her technique of asking focus group participants to describe UK political parties as a meal. It got me thinking, how exactly would voters describe the Tasmanian Labor Party brand at the moment?
I’d suggest it’d be more tofu, kale and quinoa with a glass of pinot than it would be the meat and three veg with a beer you would have got under Jim Bacon and Paul Lennon.
The Greens are kryptonite to the major parties, and despite claiming to have learned the lessons of the 2010-2014 minority government debacle, the truth is Labor has done little to distance itself from the Greens since that time.
Instead, for most of the past 18 months, the Labor Party has been more concerned about scoring tactical victories in the Parliament by combining with the Greens and Ms Hickey than with developing a long-term narrative — and a pathway to government.
As a result, all it’s succeeded in doing is entrenching the Labor-Green link in voters’ minds.
But it’s now very clear that Labor has taken a deliberate decision to distance itself from the Greens, and is going to avoid voting with them in the Parliament at all costs.
Labor’s actions of the past three weeks demonstrate this.
Take its — eventual — sensible decision to oppose pill testing (a decision that was notably first flagged by David O’Byrne early last week).
Another one of the number one rules of politics, most famously articulated by UK Labour prime minister Tony Blair is that in opposition, there is no grey — only black or white. You are either for something or against it.
While no doubt some on the Left do not like Labor’s position on pill testing, at least it now has one. And it’s not the same as that held by the Greens.
Other recent examples of Labor distancing itself from the Greens include leader Rebecca White attacking Bob Brown over his Robbins Island comments, Shane Broad muscling up to the Greens on mining, and deputy leader Michelle O’Byrne attacking the Greens in parliament.
In fact, word is Labor has made it very clear to the Greens that it will not be supporting any legislation or motions they bring forward.
Being the Opposition does not mean you have to oppose
ANOTHER SIGNIFICANT OBSERVATION IS THAT LABOR ALSO APPEARS TO HAVE VERY DELIBERATELY TAKEN THE DECISION TO DISTANCE ITSELF FROM SPEAKER HICKEY.
the Government all the time. Indeed, it’s often better to echo the Government’s position and tuck in behind them on most issues than needlessly expose yourself on issues that are not going to play well for you in the electorate.
Another significant observation is that Labor also appears to have very deliberately taken the decision to distance itself from Speaker Hickey.
While this is partially a response to Ms Hickey pushing Labor too far to the Left on various issues, I suggest the main reason is much more pragmatic: Labor has done the electoral math and worked out that if Ms Hickey does manage to retain a seat in Clark at the next election, it will just as likely be one of their seats as it would be one of the Liberal seats.
And the consequence of Labor’s change in strategy will likely be significant. That is because without the support of Labor on the floor of Parliament, Speaker Hickey loses her deciding vote and becomes relatively impotent.
While Ms Hickey will no doubt continue to speak out in the media, if she cannot point to outcomes, then her strategy will become less and less effective.
As a result, there will likely be a period of increased stability in the parliament ahead, particularly as the Government is also clearly being very careful not to bring on legislation that might give Labor (and Ms Hickey) an excuse to vote against it.
It will not be easy for Labor with this changed dynamic because it will come under pressure from the Twitterverse and from some within the party. It would, however, be smart to hold the line because that is the stance that will be appreciated by voters who are just looking for the Government to do the things they were elected to do, and for the Opposition to hold them to account on the things that matter.