Why Crisafulli should study Borbidge govt, not Newman government

The Crisafulli government is here for the long haul and is determined not to rerun the Newman government, but what happens if instead they become the Borbidge government Mark II?

It's 30 years since Rob Borbidge won government from Wayne Gosss, and while most will have forgotten itt, the times are eerily similar, including the explosion in popularity of an auburn-haired politician from Ipswich - Pauline Hanson.

Like this government, the Borbidge government inherited power from a Labor administration that had lost control of the budget and was struggling to administer the state. Like the Newman government it only lasted one term (two years and four months actually).

Again, like this government It won on a small target strategy focussing on transport, health and law and order.

Unlike this government there was no expectation before the election that it would win, and it ran on a campaign slogan of "Put Labor Under Pressure", implying that it couldn't win. Ironically, it was this humility that delivered it a 7.5% swing during the election.

In its brief period in power it brought the budget back into balance, widened the Pacific Highway between Brisbane and Nerang, privatised Suncorp Bank, started building hospitals again, reformed the criminal code and toughened penalties, recruited more police, right sized the public service and took the toll off the Sunshine Coast motorway.

With a record of achievement like this, and being in their first term, you would think that voters would give them a second term, so what went wrong?

First there were a couple of rifts with their base.

In April 1996, two months after they became the state government, the Port Arthur massacre occurred, and a month later Borbidge signed onto John Howard's gun laws.

Country people were in revolt to the extent that Howard even wore a bullet-proof vest to at least one public meeting.
The ill-feeling extended to Borbidge.

1998, the year they lost, was also the year that Howard would go to an election promising a GST, and crucially, that election was after the state one. Conservative voters generally hate new taxes.

Added to that, the government seemed to think that actions speak louder than words, and that they would be rewarded just for doing a good job. That's not how politics work.

Governments need to continually remind voters why they were elected, why they are doing what they are doing, and they need a neat phrase that sums it all up.

This government also seems to thinks that actions speak louder than words and keeps a low profile.

And then there was One Nation. One Nation is poison for the centre-right, particularly in an optional preferential voting system.

While One Nation takes voters from both LNP and Labor, it skews LNP, making its preferences more critical to them.

In OP the risk you run is that voters will just vote 1 and not allocate preferences, so you have to pitch for those preferences. With a lot of urban voters regarding One Nation as toxic, touting for their preferences transfers the toxicity to you.

And it gets worse. In most Queensland elections the margins are a few seats either side. In 1998, One Nation won 11 seats – 6 from the ALP and 5 from the Coalition.

That meant the Coalition couldn't form a government without an arrangement with One Nation, and any such coalition was not acceptable to the majority of voters.

Today One Nation might even win more seats. In 1998 their federal vote was around 12% while the latest polls today say it is more than twice as high.

History shows that federally One Nation was not a major problem for John Howard. That was because ultimately he addressed the concerns of One Nation voters, and they became Howard Battlers.

The Crisafulli government has time to adjust.

Traditionally One Nation is driven by race, immigration and the economy. When Redbridge Polling last week measured public perceptions on the parties and issues One Nation was only ahead on one issue – immigration.

Does this issue translate from the federal to the state? I think it does. The federal government controls the flow, but our state governments have to deal with the oncosts – unaffordable housing, homelessness, not enough frontline workers, too few hospitals, schools and on and on.

If One Nation promises to do something and the state government sits on its hands, then One Nation will be rewarded, even at a state level.

One Nation is fragile. Out of the 11 members elected to the Queensland parliament in 1998, none remained in the party by the next election. It is a party of opposition and protest.

It is not a potential party of government like the right-wing populist parties in Europe. Pauline Hanson will never be Georgia Meloni, Marine le Pen, or Nigel Farrage.

But it probably will dictate who wins the next state and federal elections. That's why the Crisafulli government needs to go back and study Borbidge, not Newman.