There are just over 9 months until the 2016 Territory election next August, unless there’s a successful “no confidence” motion in the Legislative Assembly in the meantime, or next May’s Budget is rejected. Both those possibilities presently look fairly unlikely despite endless division and instability within the Country Liberal government.
I thought it might be a useful project to list the positive and negative achievements and factors for the Giles government after nearly 39 months in government. The most unusual feature of the list to my mind is the stark contrast between endemic political chaos and disunity on the one hand, and a quite solid and almost impressive record of economic management on the other. The government seems to have a Jekyll and Hyde persona that I find quite difficult either to understand or explain.
Anyway, here’s my list. Feel free to add your own in the comment box.
|
CLP Negatives |
CLP Positives |
|
|
As for the utility of such a list in predicting electoral outcomes, it’s probably fairly small. Quite a few of the listed positive economic management initiatives are not perceived by the public as such, and it may be that some of the negatives are of interest mostly to political insiders.
The big questions are these. Have issues like power and water price rises and the TIO sale controversy, along with general perceptions of chaos and disunity, resulted in a majority of voters making up their minds terminally against the Giles government? On the other hand, might tight Party discipline from now until the election (if it can be maintained), along with a succession of big development announcements (using the almost $800 million pot of money generated by the TIO and Port sales), allow the Country Liberals to sneak back into government?
CLP hopes are no doubt buoyed by the fact that Labor’s team is inexperienced and that new-ish leader Michael Gunner hasn’t made much of a public impression. Labor seems content to keep running a “small target” strategy and punt on a continuation of public disenchantment with the Giles government. That judgment might well prove correct. They might be less complacent if the Country Liberals had a local equivalent of Malcolm Turnbull waiting in the wings to replace the unpopular Giles/Tollner double act. Fortunately for the ALP no such person exists.
Personally, I haven’t yet made up my mind. The government’s strong economic achievements are a big factor for me. I could almost ignore 3 years of instability and political shenanigans if they could prove by their conduct that functional working relationships have been restored. On the other hand, significant reform in the lands and planning area is centrally important as far as I am concerned. If Labor comes up with credible reforms and the CLP persists in its habitual (small “c” corrupt) approach, I would vote ALP despite significant reservations. If neither proposes meaningful reform I will face a difficult decision. After all, Labor in government actually contributed to creating the current lands and planning disgrace, although the Country Liberals brought it to its current nadir.
CLP and NT Labor…..Tweedledum dee dum dee dum.
Three days now and not much by way of comments, Ken. Maybe not many are interested in the doings and don’tings of the NT legislators.
And perhaps that’s due to the hard tyranny of very low expectations. After all, as far as I can see, the NT legislators are about on a par with a western (Sydney or Melbourne) city council but with an order of magnitude more resources to expend on improving the lot of their mates and minions (not counting Matthew Guy and Fisherman’s Bend, of course).
So, not really much to choose between Tweedle and Twoddle, is there. And no hope of seeing any improvement either. But keep up the good work – without your contributions all of us in bigger plsces might just delude ourselves that we are especially cursed, and not just ‘par for the course’.
Thanks for the write-up.
Not from NT so miss a lot of this. The effort is appreciated.