How to ensure Labor wins the next election

Splintering the vote will undo Menzies’ legacy

The outcome of elections has little to do with supporters of the major parties. Historically, the party that forms government is decided by those who defect from the Coalition. Those who move further left remain within the radical Labor or Greens camps. Unlike the Democratic Labor Party (DLP) of the 50s and 60s, it is unlikely that left-leaning groups would preference the Coalition. This means that those conservatives who move away from the Coalition effectively hand government to Labor.

Labor governments are much like the Teals and other left-leaning independents. They rarely win on first preferences. In practice, Labor governments do not receive a mandate, especially where first preference votes are concerned. The preferential voting system means that deviations in voters’ party loyalties, particularly on the right, helps Labor to win government.

Writing in the Unfiltered newsletter, Alexandra Marshall had this to say:

Speaking of the election, Michael de Percy brings a rather controversial opinion to the table, arguing that we risk undoing Menzies’ legacy if the conservative vote is split between minor parties on the right.

My latest in The Spectator Australia, How to ensure Labor wins the next election.

Splintering the conservative vote will ensure Labor wins the next election, says Michael de Percy.

The preferential voting system gives the impression you can give your first preference to a minor party and still end up with a conservative government.https://t.co/aBoBrtIcE7

— The Spectator Australia (@SpectatorOz) January 4, 2025

The Pub Test: The real state of the Australian economy

My local watering hole, the Telegraph Hotel, Gunning NSW, 20 December 2024

Nobody has been this broke in generations

Labor’s machine is out in force this Christmas in a vain attempt to recover the electoral ground that is collapsing under its feet. My feed on X is replete with comments telling me how John Howard and Peter Costello taxed us more than Jimbo and then mostly squandered it. Peter Garrett is tweeting anti-nuclear sentiment, leftist think tanks are spruiking how good the economy is, and other lefties are blaming everything else on the RBA.

It’s a complete rot-fest of lies. Nobody has been this broke in generations. Just ask anyone at the pub.

In the Unfiltered newsletter, Alexandra Marshall wrote:

And finally, Michael de Percy says that ‘nobody has been this broke in generations’. If you watch the modest Christmas shoppers, I think he’s right. ‘I made a joke(?) about how I am almost completely skint because all my spare cash is going to Albo. One of my neighbours replied grimly, ‘And if not him, one of his mates.’

My latest in The Spectator Australia, The Pub Test: The real state of the Australian economy.

The Pub Test: The real state of the Australian economy | Michael de Percy (@FlaneurPolitiq)
-------

"Nobody has been this broke in generations. Just ask anyone at the pub."

I made a joke(?) about how I am almost completely skint because all my spare cash is going to Albo. One… pic.twitter.com/9fT75PwcXT

— The Spectator Australia (@SpectatorOz) December 20, 2024

We need a Plan B for our future energy needs

Nuclear is a necessary part of our energy Plan B

We need a Plan B for our future energy needs

Dr Michael de Percy, a respected political scientist and political commentator, recently delivered an insightful presentation to the Crookwell Rotary Club and their invited guests. The topic of discussion was nuclear energy, a subject that has become increasingly pertinent in global and local energy debates. As a resident of Gunning in the Upper Lachlan Shire, Dr de Percy provided a unique perspective on the potential role of nuclear power in addressing energy security and climate challenges. His talk was well received, sparking engaging conversations among attendees about the future of energy production in Australia. A brief extract of his presentation follows.

Networked infrastructure like roads, telecommunications networks, and energy grids are peculiar beasts.

In Australia, vast distances mean the cost of deploying infrastructure often outweighs the market’s ability to make a decent return on investment.

For much of Australia’s history, government has owned and operated transport, telecommunications, and energy systems to ensure these important services were delivered to citizens.

To keep costs down, governments adopted a market dominance and cost recovery model. This model prevented alternative systems from developing so the private sector wasn’t competing with the government.

The approach enabled relatively sound transport, telecommunications, and energy systems to operate during the last century. But technological convergence has created problems for Australia when it comes to cross-platform competition in services such as rail, communications, and energy. 

Once a particular technology is selected by government, resources are committed, and institutions are established to support the original policy decision.

History proves that time and again Australian policymakers have made decisions that seemed logical at the time, only to create major headaches in the future once technologies evolved.

These decisions often neglected the political issues that arose over the long time periods associated with the deployment of infrastructure.

Wireless telegraphy, FM radio, Australia’s rail network, the National Broadband Network, and more recently, renewables energy systems, are cases in point.

Nuclear energy is emerging as another technology that Australia has neglected. All indications internationally suggest that we will not achieve our emissions reduction targets nor provide sufficient energy for our future needs without nuclear.

The challenges to nuclear energy in Australia are inherently political. Labor’s antinuclear narrative stems from the role of the McClelland Royal Commission into British Nuclear Testing (which was designed to ignore Labor’s postwar role in allowing the nuclear tests) and reinforced by the Howard Government’s prohibition of nuclear in 1998 to enable the new OPAL reactor at Lucas Heights.

However, the absence of a Plan B for Australia's energy needs, and the results of renewables-only strategies internationally, mean that Australia’s energy future is particularly bleak.

The current renewables-only policy is failing rapidly, costing more, taking longer, facing community opposition, and it is unlikely to meet our future energy needs.

Following Australia’s historical pattern of infrastructure deployment, we have committed ourselves to one path that will have future ramifications.

Ignoring nuclear at this stage means we have no Plan B, and once we’ve blown our dough on the current policy, there will be hard times ahead to fix yet another infrastructure problem of our own making.

My article in the Upper Lachlan Gazette, Issue 171, 18 December 2024