Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Mike Baird’s assets test

By Graham Young - posted Wednesday, 11 February 2015


Going into the election Newman's strongest suit was the economy, and this should have been the centrepiece of his re-election pitch. Instead privatisation and the assertion that he had a "strong team, strong plan" which would yield a "stronger Queensland" became the centrepiece.

Instead of campaigning against his opponents he tried to bribe his way back into the office with 20% of the privatisation proceeds.

The whole campaign became an $8bn extension of Christmas morning, paid for with the privatisation debit card and leaving voters mistrustful of the distant uncle showering them with gifts.

Advertisement

Particularly as his own electorate got a disproportionate share of the goodies, and he threatened that if they didn't vote for him he would become Bad Santa and take the presents away.

Newman didn't make out a case for the sales. There were no graphs showing the massive escalation of debt under Labor combined with a litany of Labor failings.

The LNP also alienated non-Greens minor party voters costing them seats.

These voters don't like Labor, but they are mistrustful of asset sales. They don't like debt, live life close to the financial edge, and are worried about jobs, education and health.

They're risk averse: a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Which means while they will be sceptical of asset sales, if they think it is necessary to make life more secure, caused by Labor's mismanagement, they will take it out on Labor, not the privatiser.

They also need to see how privatised assets will make their lives better, and that does not mean building a sports stadium in the nearest town.

Advertisement

Again, our polling showed that the strongest arguments against Labor in Queensland were that it didn't deserve to be re-elected yet, and that it needed at least one more term in opposition.

The ground needed to be prepared for this as almost no one thought that such a big swing could happen.

Again, this should not be a problem for the NSW government. They can point to Queensland. Or the latest Newspoll which has the Coalition on 43% and the Labor/Greens de facto alliance on 44%.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All

This article was first published in The Australian.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

13 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Graham Young is chief editor and the publisher of On Line Opinion. He is executive director of the Australian Institute for Progress, an Australian think tank based in Brisbane, and the publisher of On Line Opinion.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Graham Young

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Graham Young
Article Tools
Comment 13 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy