A single shot match

Nominations for the NSW State election have closed and are posted on the NSW Electoral Commission website. Once again, the Shooters Party is only standing for the upper house and has not nominated for any lower house seats.

The party that gains the most seats in the lower house forms government. If Labor wins more seats, it will continue to govern. If the Coalition does, there will be a change of government. The upper house is far less important to either of them than winning a majority of seats in the lower house.

Winning requires not only primary votes, but also more preferences. The preferences of the minor parties and independent candidates in the lower house seats will determine the outcome of the election.

Most of the minor parties use this to their advantage. The Greens and the Fishing Party are good examples. If ever there is a time to put pressure on the major parties, it’s in marginal lower house electorates at election time. With preferences, they win. Without them, they lose.

Not the Shooters Party. It knows better. Its political geniuses have concluded that it makes no difference who wins the lower house so they’ll stay out of it (as they have since before 1995). As a result they have again dealt themselves out of the action. While the main match has lots of competitors and takes up the main rifle range, they are involved in a minor match on the junior’s range that will be decided with a single shot rifle and a solitary round.

Their reasoning is that if the party wins a second seat, there will be two shooters in parliament who can stand up for shooters rights. Maybe so, but there were two shooters in the last parliament too (David Oldfield and John Tingle) and it didn’t seem to help much. But let’s assume for now that Roy Smith and Robert Brown are capable of more than those two.

Whatever their capability, the reality is that what they can achieve for shooters will be governed by their leverage in parliament. That is, how often their votes are required by the government. If the government can achieve a majority without them, and that is a distinct possibility given the likely makeup of the upper house, they’ll achieve very little apart from what they can wheedle (and neither Brown nor Smith can wheedle as well as Tingle). If the government needs their votes most of the time, they might get somewhere.

Now suppose Roy Smith is not elected. What will the Shooters Party have achieved? More than $700,000 gone, with nothing to show for it. No consolation prize. Nothing at all. The party will probably collapse, as it almost did after the 1999 loss.

But what if the Shooters Party had chosen to contest a number of marginal lower house seats as well as the upper house?

Suppose it had used its preferences to negotiate with the major parties while they were under pressure, gaining written promises and commitments that could be used against them later. Or, if they refused to make any worthwhile promises, directing preferences against the sitting member. (That really sends them ballistic.) What then?

If Smith was not elected, the party would still have had an impact. Its preferences may have determined the outcome in some seats, perhaps even the government. Some MPs would owe their seats to shooter preferences. Shooters would have left their mark, with the potential to do it again.

If Smith was elected, his and Brown’s negotiating position in parliament would have been considerably enhanced. They would not only have their votes to leverage, but would inevitably be dealing with MPs who owed their seats to shooter preferences and might need them again in future.

When I was Chairman of the Shooters Party (1999-2005) I argued very strongly for the party to contest lower house seats as well as the upper house. I never had a chance against what passes for political intelligence in the organisation. At the 2005 State Conference, the party voted 30 to 1 against standing candidates in the lower house. (Incidentally, it also voted by the same margin against running in the federal election. Another of my frustrations.)

With “friends” like these, you wonder whether shooters really need enemies.

Advertisements

8 Responses to A single shot match

  1. pete2whelan says:

    Time and time again I have heard suggestions that “Shooters should get active in the lower house.” We could have mustered candidates in many of the marginal seats, without any policies other than pro-shooting, pro-freedom and preferenced against the sitting member…whoever that was! There are thousands of active shooters who could have got involved, but The Shooters Party wanted to “control” the upper house.
    Some consolation this time is the Greens may have a couple of other “green” parties to split their vote.

  2. Sightalignment says:

    In political circles the Shooters Party is a standing joke. They just don’t know how the game is played.

    Tingle was too egotistical to concede he might be wrong and the rest of them are too dumb to know.

    The biggest losers are shooters who rely on the Shooters Party.

  3. Been There Too says:

    You right Sight—, Tingle was never wrong and if he was he had two standard answers, ” I’ll resign and sit as an independant” or chuck a tremendous tantrum like a little kid, his best one was at a meeting at Panthers where he took off and even left his Missus behind when he did not get his own way.

  4. Josh says:

    I think everyone here either is unaware of the legislative process or is not interested in the facts. When legislation is intiated, it is done so in the lower house, where the government has the clear majority of votes available. However, bills must be approved by the upper house before they are made legislation. This is where deals are done and independants and minor parties can have power, where there is less, or no, government majority. This is the same premise on which many parties have gained minor power both in the state and federal legislatures. How do you think independants have power such as Fred Nile and Brian Harredeen? It is because they can hold the balance of power. That being said, I would certainly agree that there are seats that could be contested in the lower house and that would certainly add to potential power overall. However, the money and resourses being expended on such would certainly be better spent in the upper house. Remember on this very forum where so many complaints were fielded regarding the campain money spent by the SSAA? Multiply that by 50 if you want to be even close to serious about contesting lower house seats.

  5. It doesn’t cost that much to run lower house candidates, especially in association with a campaign for the upper house. The objective is not to win but to leverage preferences. All you have to do is cover the booths in the electorates where you stand candidates.

    Most normal political parties know about that.

  6. The Greens are now preferencing Labor in the lower house in exchange for upper house preferences. They won’t win any lower house seats but their preferences may be critical to Labor’s chances.

    In the upper house, if Labor has a partial quota left over it may be enough to get a Greens member across. That’s not how it worked in 2003 when most voters just put 1 above the line, but the potential is there. Labor voters tend to follow the how to vote card.

    The Labor party says the Shooters Party never contacted them to discuss preferences. It’s likely the Coalition never heard from them either.

    Politics 101 – Fail

  7. […] Fishos Show How To Do It The Shooters Party is a unique political party. As I have written previously, it does not believe in contesting elections in general. Rather, it only ever nominates candidates […]

  8. […] nothing about “exchanging” preferences. See for yourself – our comments can be found here. However, we did suggest the impact of shooters would have been greater if lower house seats had […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: