They’re (probably) not coming back

To be cross posted at LP, where there may actually be some comments.

Everyone knows the Liberals are in trouble, with the possible exception of Alexander Downer. However, looking at the discussion, both on blogs and in the MSM, this seems to be perceived to mean: They can’t win in 2010, probably not in 2013. However, the assumption seems to be that at some point the Liberals will be back (possibly merged with the Nationals). Much advice has been given based on the notion that ambitious Liberal leaders should be positioning themselves to lead in 2013 or 2016, rather than now.

I disagree. I believe that 2010 is likely to be the best chance the Liberals will ever have to get back into government. If they can’t win then, or at least give it a decent shake, there will probably never be another Liberal-led federal government in Australia.

A big call I know, but my thesis is that the Liberals are caught between two crises, both of which will likely see them whither in the long term. Every election will become harder to win, and after a while it will become difficult for them to even sustain the position of official opposition.

There are other, smaller problems, but the first core issue is the savage decline in their recruitment, both in raw numbers and in talent. The second is the way they have put themselves on the wrong side of history on many political issues, creating millstones they will struggle to shake off.

There are obvious questions about what this will mean for the structure of Australian federal politics, and what will happen at state level. I have theories about each of these, but I’ll save these for subsequent posts.

Declining Talent

Anyone who has spent any time around the youth wings of the Liberal party (be it the Young Liberals or the Liberal Students) knows there is a problem. I don’t have reports on South Australia or the territories, but in the larger states and Tasmania it is clear talented Liberals under 30 are such an endangered species those that do exist should have a keen interest in Bob Brown’s EPBC challenge.

Membership numbers are hard to obtain, and estimates of talent are subjective, but whether you look to John Hyde Page’s The Education of a Young Liberal, or survey recent student elections, there’s plenty of evidence that the party has far fewer (non-stack) young members, and those that exist are less likely to be intelligent, articulate and dedicated.

The lack of talent can be seen when younger Liberals get put in positions of authority or leadership. Hamish Jones was perhaps the most high profile such disaster, but others exist, most recently the case of the party staffers sacked for being stupid enough to update their anti-Baillieu blog from Liberal Party head offices.

The problem for the Libs is not that such idiots exist; it’s that these people get preselected or employed in positions of influence because there aren’t enough others to fill all the spots required. At the moment they’re mostly running in unwinnable seats or serving behind the scenes, but as the baby boomers retire from politics people like Jones – with all Buswell’s weaknesses and none of his strengths - are going to start appearing in marginal, and even previously safe, seats.

Even if the Liberals can turn around this recruiting problem its going to be quite a while before people recruited next year will be ready for senior positions. But does anyone really think that, out of power everywhere and with their vote plumbing record lows, the next few years will be a fertile recruiting era? The problem is worsened by the fact that there is now a severe shortage of worthy mentors for any bright young sparks who do come along.

In 2010 the Libs will have a leadership team that includes, in some combination, Malcolm Turnbull, Brendon Nelson, Julie Bishop, Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin, Eric Abetz and possibly Peter Costello. All born between 1953 and 1958. The talent is hardly overwhelming, but it’s not entirely absent either. By 2016, and possibly earlier, many of these will be gone. Almost certainly their replacements will be worse, particularly if the party suffers a wipe-out at the next election and is struggling to fill its front bench. One can expect more Lindsay leaflets, more chair-sniffing incidents, more internal conflict.

The Wrong Side of History

One of the outstanding features of the Howard Government was a preference for short-term advantage over long term planning. This has done incalculable damage to Australia, but it’s not going to be good for the party either.

The most obvious example of this is in regard to Global Warming. People who have been damaged, and are aware they have been damaged, by higher temperatures or rising sea levels will be very hard to persuade to vote Liberal. By 2030, and possibly a lot sooner, this will be most of the population of Australia. With Howard gone the Liberals might try to distance themselves from him in this area, were it not that a fair few of their remaining MPs have outed themselves as denying anthropogenic global warming altogether, a position that in a few years time will be electoral poison.

There are a number of other issues that will individually do the Liberals far less damage, but may collectively add up to a significant problem. Underfunding of education, infrastructure and research are unlikely to really bite with most of the electorate, but the people who will be most concerned will also be those who would be mostly likely to address the talent decline.

In a few elections time the Liberals may once again win votes by demonising asylum seekers, but there won’t be any votes in their record on Tampa per se. On the other hand, the ethnic communities that coped the brunt of this behaviour will by then be a significant share of the electorate, and it’s hard to imagine how the Liberals will be able to win even marginal support from these groups.

A few caveats

All this is probable, rather than certain. Perhaps an issue that favours the Liberals will become significant enough to balance Global Warming. A series of bombings by Islamic fundamentalists in Australian cities would seem the most likely such scenario, but it’s possible to construct others.

Alternatively it is possible that a future Liberal leader will prove so inspiring he or she will single-handedly reverse the party’s membership crisis.

Nevertheless, I maintain that by far the most likely way for the Liberals to ever win government again is for a global recession to affect the Australian economy so badly that, come 2010, the argument that Labor can’t manage money has resonance while there are still enough Liberal MPs with something resembling a clue for them to take advantage of it.

Late 2020 submission

I didn't make a submission to the 2020 summit. Partly I've been influenced by those, like Guy Rundle, who argue the whole thing is undemocratic. Also I figured that any idea I had would have been proposed by at least one other person.

I certainly haven't read all the submissions (who has) but so far I haven't seen any mention of the following suggestion, so I thought I may as well post it here.

My proposal would be a major investment in universities in regional centres. For reasons everyone is probably very familiar with I'm all for a massive increase in investment in the tertiary sector, particularly the research component. I'd like to see Australia reach the OECD average, instead of slipping steadily towards half that level.

That's certainly an idea many summitteers will be pushing. I'm not sure how many will be talking about regional allocation though. Spending the money in the regions has a few advantages. Firstly, with our major cities bursting at the seams its a great way to promote decentralization. It will also help overcome the "elitist tag" that gets dumped on anyone who wants to spend more on knowledge related fields.

We're already putting more (although nowhere near enough) into teaching medicine at regional universities in the hope the graduates will be more likely to stay outside the cities and address the shortage of rural doctors. I think this might work for other fields as well (note the "might").

But finally, I think there is a lot to be said for having at least a couple of university towns - places where the university is the driver of the local economy and everyone knows this. So even people who have no direct connection with tertiary education know that what is good for the university is good for them and feel connected.

There is no way we can establish an Oxford by 2020 even in a regional centre which already has a university. However, I think that by 2020 we can get JCU, UNE or Deakin Warnambool to the point where they are considered as good in many areas as the Universities of Melbourne or Sydney, and they're on the way to being considered in similar terms to many of the American university towns.

I wouldn't want to see any money taken out of the city universities, but I'm happy for them to get a shrinking proportion of a growing pie if the government gets serious about more tertiary funding.

Anybody out there?

Having been at this for a week or so, I do wonder whether I have had so much as a single reader. Can't really blame anyone if I don't. I'm far from sure I've yet said anything worth reading.

However, if by chance you have stumbled on this site and read at least one other post besides this, please do tell me. I can probably manage to come up with a prize for the first comment received, particularly if you actually manage to respond to something I've said.

Is there really a man shortage?

One of the comediennes in the comedy festival said something in passing about "We've got a man shortage in this country". She said it as if it was something we all knew, her value-add was combining it with whatever else she was talking about.

At her age (mid-20s) its clearly untrue, but when applied to people in their 30s and 40s I think it is one of those factoids that is out there, largely unquestioned but probably untrue.
I'll admit I have something of a vested interest in knocking this one down. If there really is a shortage of eligible men in my age-group then my non-existent love life looks even more pathetic than it might otherwise.

Still, I think the basis of the claim is pretty dodgy. Whenever a news outlet refers to a "man shortage" in a particular age group and area they point out either the ratio of men to women in that demographic, or the ratio of single men and women. (These things are a pretty easy story for lazy journalists whenever a new batch of census data comes out).

But its not that simple. Most obviously, such stats leave out people who are same-sex inclined. The general belief is that there are more male homosexuals than female ones, so the supporters of the myth will wail about how this makes things worse - that's if they don't blame the whole thing on too many gay men.

For most people, that's where the situation ends. But it ignores at least two complicating factors, both of which significantly shift the balance IMHO.

Firstly, it assumes everyone only has one partner. I think that honest polyamory is too rare to be a significant factor here (as possible evidence, my spell-checker doesn't even recognise the word). But what about people who are having affairs. There are plenty of cases where married men have at least one mistress, who is sufficiently committed to the man that she's out of the singles market. The same thing happens in reverse of course, but far less often. I googled "infidelity statistics" and came up with claims that:

22 percent of married men have strayed at least once during their married lives.

14 percent of married women have had affairs at least once during their married live

I'm not sure the site is the most reliable, but I don't think there is much doubt about the general trend. Of course, more of the men will have had sex with prostitutes, so that may even the balance a little. Nevertheless, if even 5% more married/defacto men are having ongoing relationships on the side it's enough to soak up all the supposed excess of single women.

The other factor is something I's imagine is harder to back up with research, but is anecdotally pretty strong. The whole "number of men divided by number of women" thing assumes that every heterosexual person wants a relationship.

Its fair to say that pretty much every unpartnered man I know, or have known, wants some sort of sexual contact. Some want an ongoing relationship. Some are just after casual sex. Many would take whatever they can get. And of course some are a lot choosier than others. However, I've only ever met two men under 60 who, for a period of over a month, were saying they didn't want something1. On the other hand, its very common for women, particularly post-breakups, to decide they're really not interested for a while. The while can be just a month or two, but I've known it to stretch out to years.

It always ends of course, but at any one time there's an awful lot of women who're actively avoiding relationships. Account for that, and you'll find the 30s-40s man shortage is just another media myth.


1It may or may not be significant that one of them was gay.

Follow up to Earth Hour

Someone I'd never before heard of called James Bow had a good post on Earth Hour, giving another reason to take part.

This sort of behaviour is actually pretty typical of the right in the US and Australia these days. In America it may not bite them too hard. A range of factors mean there is a receptive audience for it, which may just be large enough to keep them in business.

However, in Australia it just strikes people as weird, and is one of the reasons the Liberal Party does not have a future, a theme I'll return to many times on this page.

Where will the people go?

Australia’s major cities are struggling under the burden of fast population growth. Massive congestion and unaffordable house prices are two of the symptoms. Some people would prefer that we shut the borders to slow the growth, but this isn’t practical for a variety of reasons.

Better town planning, particularly better public transport, would certainly help. However, a big part of the answer has to be, as the wonderful Possum has argued, to encourage more people to move to regional areas.

Possum deals with questions of why this is needed, and how to get people to move, but leaves aside the issue of where we want the people to go. There is no point starting growth in areas where natural limitations will mean we soon run into the same problems, or where any growth will be at the cost of destroying priceless natural areas.

I’ve been trying to think where one would fit an extra ten million people into Australia. I think the figure is pretty realistic. At current rates of growth it is about what we will put on between now and 2050. I don’t think we need to worry too much about population growth beyond that point. By that time Australia’s natural growth will have reversed and the growth will be entirely from immigration. What is more, 2050 looks to be about the point where global population will peak and start to decline.

While it is likely that, even in a world of declining population, there will still be plenty of people keen to move to a wealthy nation like Australia, the moral imperative to take large numbers of people will be lessened, and it is quite likely that we will simply take enough to counter the natural fall in our population from birthrates below replacement.

So where would these 10 million go?

I’d say ideally none to outer Sydney, but infill projects such as Green Square will take a fair few, so perhaps 100,000 there.

Melbourne is straining, but I think with better public transport we could take another 500,000 in the north and west – they still won’t sprawl as far as Cranbourne.
Perth 500,000
Brisbane 300,000
Adelaide 300,000

So the big five cities, that currently hold most of Australia’s population will be able to take less than 20% of the growth before they start seriously compromising quality of life.

Looking at the next tier of cities I’d guess something like this (figures very rough):

Darwin 150,000
Gold Coast 100,000
Townsville 100,000
Canberra 100,000
Newcastle 100,000
Geelong 100,000
Wollongong 50,000
Hobart 50,000

So we’re still barely past a quarter. I agree with Possum that building entire new cities is not a good way to go. Instead we need to bolster regional centres. As I noted on Possum’s blog, I think university towns are the way to go. I think Warrnambool, for example could go from being a city of about 30,000 as it is today, to being a thriving centre of 150,000 people based around a world class university centred on the current Deakin university site.

Still, if we are talking about cities of 100-200 thousand people we will need something like 70 of them to take on the people expected. It seems unlikely doesn’t it? So what’s the answer: Fit more in the big cities, have the new regional centres grow to half a million each rather than 150,000 or actually have 70 new substantial cities?

Earth Hour

I was always a bit suspicious of Earth Hour. There's nothing wrong with symbolic actions, but people need to understand what they are doing is symbolic, not think they've done their bit to stop global warming by switching off the lights for an hour. I'm not sure a lot of Earth Hour participants get this.

Combined with a general suspicion of a the woofers (WWF) this lent some sympathy for the large proportion of the environment movement who have labled it a croc. When Crikey ran a piece showing how companies could get credit for being part of Earth Hour without actually doing anything (why are office lights on at 8pm on a Saturday anyway?) my suspicions deepened.

Nevertheless, I joined in last night, and realised there may be a quite unintentional benefit to the whole thing: It was really nice. Sitting around by candlelight chatting with friends is a pleasure not a chore.

This is a good thing on several levels:

* I subscribe to the view that pleasure is, of itself, a good thing. Sometimes negative factors outweigh the pleasure gained, but I'm not sure thats the case this time.
* An evening with friends unencumbered by TV is pretty much the textbook case of social capital building.
* If people are reminded how nice it can be to do without electricity for a while it may genuinely produce a change in behaviour, unlike a one off diet that just encourages people to splurge afterwards.

But I still think WWF needs to make companies do something meaningful to get credit for taking part.