The Fairfax papers today carry their monthly ACNielsen poll, which shows a narrowing of Labor’s two-party lead from 58-42 to 55-45. Labor’s primary vote is down from 49 per cent to 46 per cent, while the Coalition is up from 39 per cent to 41 per cent. The movement most likely represents a correction from a somewhat excessive result last time. Now please, for the love of Christ, no more polls until next Tuesday …
I just did the survey at political compass. I got -4.12 for economics and -1.79 for social. In general, I think of myself as a left-winger, but on some issues I’m extremely right-wing. These include revenge (I really, really want to see Howard thrashed), warfare (the Iraq war is now a mess, but I supported it initially) and, in particular, crime (I believe in giving very nasty criminals the justice that they deserve, and believe in the death penalty). These views would probably be anathema to most of my fellow lefties.
What you have demonstrated Lord D is that the old left-right paradigm doesn’t work. All of us are left on some things and right on others, except the fundamentalists who feel they have to accept everything on the right or on the left, even when it is patently absurd.
I’m what would be called far left on the environment and fiscally quite conservative. No party exists for me.
In a previous thread people were discussing a movement in the betting towards the Coalition on Sunday night previous to the Nielsen Poll being released. Well here is the source of that movement.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22241465-1242,00.html
Either the wisdom of solomon or one two many drinks with his mates.
Lord D. Revenge is not a policy, more a state of mind. I reckon a good tar and feathering is quite in order for Mr Howard. Don’t like your other beliefs, though, too redneck for me.
Characters in some of my fantasy books can be extremely vindictive. I greatly enjoy it when a very evil character dies in a bloody, painful way. I also greatly enjoyed the 5-0 thrashing Australia gave the poor old Poms in the cricket. I just did the test at OzPolitics, and got -41.4 for political outlook, -29.6 for economics, -27.4 for social policy and -35.9 for traditional values, so I’m in the centre-left on all of these. OzPolitics says I’m more of a Greenie than a Laborite, but I wouldn’t consider voting Green; too single-issue and I definitely wouldn’t trust them with the economy.
I’ve probably missed a fair bit of the discussion but Post 116 claims Howard won the 1996 debate??
He won in terms of public perception of winning the debate, but how much of that was a reflection of how entrenched and hard his levels of support were at that time? How much of that debate/campaign victory was a result of the mood for change, the poll figures, and the feeling that Keating shopuld go?
Levels of support appear to have crystalised around the two major parties with some small movements within margins of error. While we are regularily reminded that this does not predict an electoral outcome in November it suggests a pretty healthy labor victory if the poll was held now.
The campaign is unlikely to produce a shift in support large enough to wrest victory from Labor. Particularily if levels of support for Rudd/ALP are as firm as they seem, he would have to do something pretty silly to hand an advantage to JWH. It is fair to say that campaigns are important, but they are intrinsically coloured by a mood about who is winning or losing before the election writs are issued.
face it, it’s probably over……. and it won’t be pretty for the coalition
I thought the idea of the Betting Market being an indicator of the election result was based on the idea that a large number of punters must be supporting one side or the other. One large bet that skewes the odds hardly qualifies as a change in sentiment or represents a ‘general’ movement back to the Govt.
Betting on emotion rather than logic is a sure way to lose money.
LORD.D
The only reason I am against the death penalty for the extreme criminal is the mistakes that fill the system and, the emotion that often overides objectivity in these cases. We might execute someone now based on an overwhelming feeling of need for revenge that we might later regret, having looked at the enitire context and evidence of the crime. Execution to satisfy emotional needs is not a good basis for giving out punishment, I think.
Tony Abbott has once again been emphasising the “experience” theme, as reported by aap:
“The opposition team is the least qualified team ever to present itself to run this country,” he told reporters in Canberra.
“Kevin Rudd, who hasn’t even run a local council, you’ve got Julia Gillard, who’s only ever run Socialist Forum in the mid-80s in Victoria and you’ve got Wayne Swan, who ran a corrupt branch of the Labor Party.
“These are the people who are now offering themselves to run our country. It’s not a very inspiring alternative government, let me tell you.”
It’s obvious this is a something that’s been cropping up in the Coalition’s own research and it’s backed up by the 83% of Nielsen respondents who said that the issue of experience will directly influence who they vote for. Ultimately, the Australian electorate are not going to dump an extraordinarily popular long-standing PM for a glib snake-oil salesman who’s only been Leader for 10 or 11 months. Not going to happen.
And here’s a tidbit from that Bennelong poll that wasn’t splashed across the media on Sunday: 61% of respondents believe the PM will hold the seat.
This just proves that Glen’s constant posts on Rudd’s and his Front Bench “inexperience” is coming from Liberal Party “talking points” sheets.
{Federal Labor’s frontbench is the least qualified alternative government in history, Health Minister Tony Abbott said.
He said federal Labor leader Kevin Rudd hadn’t run a municipal council let alone a major economy.
“The opposition team is the least qualified team ever to present itself to run this country,” he told reporters in Canberra.
“Kevin Rudd, who hasn’t even run a local council, you’ve got Julia Gillard, who’s only ever run Socialist Forum in the mid-80s in Victoria and you’ve got Wayne Swan, who ran a corrupt branch of the Labor Party.}
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Labor-least-experienced-ever-Abbott/2007/08/14/1186857469277.html
A nice, christian gentleman is our Mr Abbott.
Look to hear a lot more of this between now and the election.
Here’s Peter Martin on the Econtech report.
Even its authors note that its terms of reference make the report irrelevant – as no party is proposing to take us back to pre-Keating compulsory arbitration.
“Compiled by the respected modeliers, Econtech, the research predicts five interest rate rises, a loss of more than 300,000 jobs and a $57billion hit to national gross domestic product should WorkChoices be wound back.
But, contrary to the impression you get, the study doesn’t examine what would happen if WorkChoices was wound back to where Kevin Rudd has promised to put it with no Australian Workplace Agreements and a continuation of enterprise bargaining but to an earlier time when wages were set centrally by the Arbitration Commission, something no political party is contemplating. (Labor has even promised to abolish the Arbitration Commission.)
Econtech is scrupulous in its report in making clear that it was restricted by limited, and not particularly relevant, terms of reference.”
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=your+say&subclass=general&story_id=1036748&category=opinion
Abbotts mate from WA is a nice type too.
{West Australian Liberal Don Randall said many of his constituents thought the opposition leader was smarmy.
“They just see him as very smarmy, a smarmy sort of oily, snake oil salesman who’s trying to do and say anything he can to win an election,” Mr Randall said.}
He left out the “smoke and mirrors’ quote that is coming up everywhere.
But they seem to be quietening down on the “me tooism” a fair bit now. Probably to give Howard more room to move on any Labor policy ideas that take their fancy.
I suppose, when all else fails, it’s back to “sneer and smeer”.
{Labor workplace relations spokeswoman Julia Gillard dismissed Mr Abbott’s remarks about the opposition’s lack of experience.
“Labor is presenting at this election with the fresh ideas for Australia’s future,” Ms Gillard told reporters.
“All the Howard government is doing in desperation is engaging in personal criticisms and slanging matches.
“There we have Mr Abbott as exhibit A.”}
It would be a nice exercise to compare the Liberal “talking points” sheets with the offerings of political commentators in the major dailies.
Particularly the more rabid variety.
#356 Steven, re. 61% of respondents expecting Howard to hold. Very interesting, surprising more hasn`t been made of this. Still, I imagine it`s considerably less than a few months ago. Does anyone have stats on this?
-7.38 on economic issues
-4.87 on social
Down there with Gandhi apparently. Didn`t realise I was so firmly ensconced in the loony left.
I haven`t noticed any right wingers come forward with their results for the political compass. A little too close to Maggie for comfort, or God forbid, the unmentionable, immediate-loss-of-argument gentleman, just above her? Come on gents, enlighten us.
Strop did the Ozpolitics test, and viola, I’m a Greenie (80.3), just ahead of being Labor (76.5), and no chance of joining One Nation (35.9).
I think that’s pretty close to the mark with the only real qualification that I identify with Labor and vote Labor for pragmatism reasons more than anything else (the Greens do not and can not control the HOR or Senate). I’m supposedly centre left on most policy measures, no surprise there either really. What does that make me, a ‘social democrat’ of sorts ?
Who cares. I voted for the Greens when Keating went to the polls in 1996 because I thought he was a dud PM and past his time. I vote for good Government or at least the one whom I think will do more to intercede in the ‘free market’ to offset the deleterious effects of the Modernist project on those who are, for one reason or another, disadvantaged by the ‘competetive’ nature of our economic system.
PS Glen: Most sensible Labor people of this era have learn’t from Hawke-Keating that going into negotiations between labour and capital with an adversarial attitude (us-v-them) and the Labor Party is frequented by people from a wide range of political, economic and social perspectives.
Your stereotyping of Labor candidates as all coming from the ‘old school’ of bloody-minded unionists with that adversarial attitude to industrial relations policy is very dated, probably 2 decades old in my experience. There is, as you noted, a need to bring more of a balance to the pre-selection of candidates in Labor ranks, but the Liberal Party and National Party have equally questionable and biased pre-selection dynamics. The difference is you cant pin one simple label (eg. Unionists) on the power brokers in Liberal politics.
Please don’t assume, by the way, that unionism is evil in and of itself: that is unreasonable and weakens your argument more than it enhances in my opinion. Its like saying all Indigenous Australians are alcoholics because you see them in the parks and in the media. Harkins was one union person, you can’t taint them all with the same brush based on one image.
It is illogical. I see one black duck, now two, now three. Conclusion
Occupation background of Labor frontbench: Liberal lies exposed.
Following a discussion with Glen last night, who repeated the Liberal Party’s line that “70% of the Labor frontbench are (or were) union officials”, I did a bit of research. In fact, of the 30 members of the Shadow Ministry, only 11 (37%) made their primary career in the unions before entering Parliament. Another five (17%) had some secondary union employment. Fourteen (47%) have never been union officials or employees. (Sources: Parliamentary handbook, Wikipedia).
No union background (14)
Anthony Albanese – bank officer
Kim Carr – teacher
Craig Emerson – economist
Joel Fitzgibbon – automotive engineer
Peter Garrett – musician
Julia Gillard – lawyer
Robert McClelland – lawyer
Jan McLucas – teacher
Bob McMullan – party official
Jenny Macklin – economist, advisor
Tanya Plibersek – public servant
Kevin Rudd – diplomat, public servant
Wayne Swan – academic, party official
Stephen Smith – lawyer, academic, party official
Primary union background (11)
Arch Bevis – teacher, union secretary
Tony Burke – union organiser
Stephen Conroy – union employee
Simon Crean – ACTU president
Chris Evans – union secretary
Laurie Ferguson – union research officer
Martin Ferguson – ACTU president
Kate Lundy – union organiser
Kerry O’Brien – union secretary
Nick Sherry – union secretary
Lindsay Tanner – union secretary
Secondary union background (5)
Chris Bowen – economist, union employee
Alan Griffin – public servant, union organiser for one year
Joe Ludwig – barrister, union advocate
Nicola Roxon – lawyer, union organiser
Penny Wong – lawyer, legal officer. Briefly a union employee
For purposes of camparison, I also researched the occupational background of the Howard ministry. As I expected, the majority of the Cabinet are lawyers. The outer ministry is a bit more diverse. The disappearance of farmers from Coalition ministries since Fraser’s day is striking.
Cabinet
Kevin Andrews – lawyer
Julie Bishop – lawyer
Helen Coonan – lawyer
Peter Costello – lawyer
Chris Ellison – lawyer
Joe Hockey – lawyer
John Howard – lawyer
Peter McGauran – lawyer
Philip Ruddock – lawyer
Malcolm Turnbull – lawyer, banker
Ian Macfarlane – farmer
Warren Truss – farmer
Tony Abbott – journalist (has a law degree)
Alexander Downer – diplomat
Nick Minchin – party staffer and official (law degree)
Brendan Nelson – doctor
Mark Vaile – auctioneer
Outer ministry
Eric Abetz – lawyer
George Brandis – lawyer
David Johnston – lawyer
Christopher Pyne – lawyer
Fran Bailey – small business
Mal Brough – businessman
Jim Lloyd – small business
Nigel Scullion – businessman
Bruce Billson – manager
Peter Dutton – police officer
Gary Nairn – surveyor
Andrew Robb – agricultural scientist, party official
Sharman Stone – manager
Don’t you all know that experience is the most important issue. That’s what the Cuban, North Korean and Zimbabwe governments keep telling us.
Maybe we should cancel the elections and make Johnny President for Life.
Do all Liberal and National candidates go around calling people a ‘bitch’ on their blogsite (Maribynong candidate) Glen ? No. Neither do all Labor candidates go around threatening and abusing people.
Derek Corbett Says:
August 14th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
{It would be a nice exercise to compare the Liberal “talking points†sheets with the offerings of political commentators in the major dailies.}
How about it Glen, Steven Kaye et al ?
Why not let us in on what Liberal Headquarters is handing out each day. We could have a seperate thread on it and it would be a great opportunity to put forward your supporting arguments in a distinct forum!
Playing the man, not the ball, ain’t gonna work for the Libs this time. Rudd’s too popular at the moment.
So 61% in Bennelong expect Howard to hold? That will no doubt have gone down as a result of the poll. The bookies dramatically shortened the odds on Maxine from $2.75 to $2.25 after that poll.
Ray (347) your analysis of the SA senate situation is entirely correct, if the current polling holds Labor may pick up a 4th in SA and it is more likely that Labor will getting a 4th then the Greens getting one.
This is pretty much the opinion of everyone who follows politics in SA, but what no one can figure out is why, in the name of all that is holy, are Labor ONLY RUNNING 3 CANDIDATES IN SA.
It just makes no freaking sense.
Re: OzPolitics Quiz
Looks like I am one of those rabid lefties:
Your broad political orientation score is -81.1%, which equates to a ‘Far Left’ position
Your economic policy score score is -70.1%. This equates to a ‘Left’ position
Your social policy score is -92.3%. This equates to a ‘Far Left’ position
Your traditional values score is -94.7%. This equates to a ‘Far Left’ position
Greens 96.3%
Australian Democrats 84%
Labor Party 74.2%
Family First 39.1%
Liberal Party 21.8%
National Party 16.2%
One Nation 19%
Am a bit surprised about my Family First score – I thought even the Liberal Party would have been higher than that. Well, there you have it.
To be fair, Scorpio, all parties are into this caper, but the libs have made it a fine art. However, if exposed, it would cut down the amount of copy filed by the rabids. What would they do without their prompts from HQ?
Like I said… you didn’t answer the “do you like torturing kittens” in the positive, so knocks off about 50% from your liberal score.
I am trying to find photos of all people who have federal electorates named after them. If anyone has a photo, or knows where to find one, of Collett Barker, Ruth Fairfax, Charles Throsby, William Boothby, Louisa Dunkley or Joseph Tice Gellibrand I would be grateful. (Yes, I have tried the nla archive.)
Hi all, I’m going to repost something i posted quite late on the last thread as I’m keen to get some feedback (gusface and J-D, thanks for your input).
Here goes…..
Slightly off topic, but i need to get this outta my system. The other week, Michael Chaney wrote an piece in the Australian about how disastrous an ALP government would be, especially in I.R. I wrote a response to the piece and posted it on The Australian’s website. In what is becoming a regular thing, they chose not to post my remartks. So, what I’d like to do is post those comments here and see if anyone could tell me why The Auistralian would not post them – I mean, as i understand it, they’ll put your remarks up so long as you’re not being offensive or personal…. frankly i think this is rubbish and they scrutinise the comments carefully to exclude opinions they don’t like – I’ve heard too many similar thoughts from other posters to believe otherwise noe. I realise that people will disagree with my comments (and fair enough too), but I want to know if anyone else thinks these comments are too “offensive†to post. Anyhoo – here’s what i wroter in response to Mr Chaney’s article…….
God forbid, the dreaded ALP will drag us back to the dark ages of…..18 months ago.
What an absolutely emabarrasing argument Cheney puts up here. Just as conservatives and big business mocked Labor for predicting the sky will fall with the intro of Howard’s I.R regime, they now turn around and expect to be taken seriously when they claim the sky will fall if Labor gets in – what rubbish. All the evidence is against this argument. The real issue for the BCA, ACCI, AIG and the Liberal party generally is not about the impact on productivity and wealth, its about the redistribution of the wealth that is produced. Howard’s I.R regime is about squeezing more money out of those who can least afford to lose it and directing it toward business interests – true that might see a risde in share prices in some cases, but if you think that means there is equal benefit across the country, you are just plain lying. The pathetic rerasoning that because most aussies have shares through super and therefore would benefit is so nakedly deceptive that it makes me want to vomit. As for the advertising campaigns – the ACTU is far more honest in its campaign than the taxpayer funded ads the Government is running, not to mention the business sector ads (is that music supposed to warn of rates rises or child predators?) The Government ads featuring Barbara (my integrity is worth exactly $50,000) Bennett are utterly misleading…..start with a misleading or obtuse statement and then categorically deny it. You may as well have someone saying †I heard that they can fry your cat for dinner and make you eat it.†at which point Ms Bennet comes onscreen in to say “that;s completely untrue.â€
All very reassuring, but it doesn’t talk about the fact that if you’re an existing employee offered an AWA that you refuse to sign, your employer can easily accept that, go away for a week or two and then come back and say “sorry mate – gotta let you go….operational reasons.†When that employer interviews for new staff, they can then efffectively say – “take these conditions or you don’t get the job.†Great system – very Australian.
….true, my comments aren’t full of cheer, but did that deserve to be censored?
You need to lay off the personal stuff. News is the publisher, and can thus be held liable for defamatory content, and so they have a perfect right not to publish your remarks.
I know I am a little late (well 12 hrs plus really) but I just have to put my two bob in about the “name calling†that went on last night well after I went to bed.
The usually Liberal play of “accusing†all Labor people as “unionist†was the cartelist of this hubbub.
I am reminded of an occasion when I was in year six and as a group our vocabularies were expanding. There was a “fight†between two classmates and one accused the other of being a “heterosexualâ€. The accused had no idea of what a heterosexual was but he assumed it couldn’t be good. So he denied it most strenuously.
Those in the “know†thought it was very funny and all the way through high school this was raised time and time again to condemn him out of his own mouth.
Now you might think this is “smart and clever†when you are 12 but for adults to try the same thing is a trifle silly.
We all have different experiences and opinions that we bring to the table and none of us is limited by one of those experiences. To try and limit the skills and values that any of us may bring to the table to their “union experience†shows a lack of understand of what makes the whole person.
One of those singled out and “accused†of being a “unionist†was Mr Greg Combet†who has a vast experience behind him with qualifications is many areas (see http://www.alp.org.au/people/nsw/combet_greg.php). Singling out his “union†experience and arguing that this is a mark of who he is and his relevance to the rest of us is just plain silly. Why not pick on the fact that he went to University of that he is married or that he goes or does not go to church. All of the characterises/experiences are just as relevant to who and what Mr Combet is, as are his union connections.
Finally, I cannot let the following comment from Glen go without comment.
“The Liberal Party is not just made of business people and lawyers its about the middle class the ALP represent the lower class.â€
I am afraid that this comment very clearly represents one of the reasons why I do not vote liberal. It clearly represents the “born to rule mentality†that epitomises the attitude of many Liberal party members. “How dare, those from downstairs, try and tell, those from upstairs, how things should be doneâ€
I have a number of qualifications including a University degree. I have raised a family, paid my taxes and supported my community but because I vote “Labor†does not mean that I am somehow less than or “lower to†or beneath those who vote for some other political party. Because I am rich or poor or talented or mentally retarded does not place me as lower anything.
I remember when I was very you my parents setting me down and telling me:
“Remember son, there is no one in this world that is superior to you and there is no one you are superior tooâ€.
So next time you looking to describe those who vote “Labor†I suggest that you pick a better descriptive then “lowerâ€.
Stunkrat,
fair enough, but what I’m asking is where is the defamatory language (and i mean legally speaking)? I’m hardly Larry Flynt here.
Something like
would raise my eyebrows.
Optimist.
Not censored. Rejected. There is a difference. What’s your point? Get a copy of Strunk’s “The Elements of Style”. Be precise. To the point. One thought per sentence. Sub-editors on newspapers are generally good, but can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.
(Sorry. This is off-topic, but … communication is the key.)
Optimist
You still don’t get it. Your stuff is a ramble, a shamble. Tighten it up and you might get a run. All the best.
Ok, so here’s a wilcard coming out of South Australia:
The ANZ reports today that the South Australian economy is in “technical recession”.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22243014-5006301,00.html
Scorpio 339
In relation to unions and MP’s, try 1874 – Angus Cameron elected as a representative of the NSW Trades & Labor Council. He did, however, break from Labor, not joining the party in 1891 and ending up as a free-trader. http://www.adb.online.anu.edu.au/biogs/A030311b.htm
But the point remains the same – the labour movement has had a long and direct involvement in politics, seen as representing the working class for much of that time.
However, I would suggest that class tags no longer apply. Just as Howard can appeal to “Howard’s battlers” Rudd can appeal to “Doctors wives”. We have parties that are now much more about being across a range of issues that are more or less centralist in their political orientation, and no longer class oriented (support for private education/health etc, small Government, support of free market economies but in a stable social-liberal state etc).
Consider Howard now accepting climate change (even while he has very vocal dissenters in his own party) and the need to act accordingly – even while supposed class allies in business still argue against it. Just as Hawke/Keating sold the “peoples Bank” and accepted a deregulated economy which did not immediately benefit their own class allies (and in fact hastened the fall in support of unions). And farmers vote for Liberals, Nationals, One Nation etc – I would have suggested they want a social-liberal government that supports local industry (primary-tertiary) while at the same time providing adequate redistribution for social welfare purposes.
Comment 384:
That was followed by this:
A CENTRE to foster innovation in small and medium manufacturing businesses will be established in Adelaide as part of a $100 million plan by federal Labor.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22239840-5006301,00.html
AND also this:
THE Federal Government’s workplace reforms provoke fear, insecurity and feelings of intimidation, South Australia’s employee ombudsman says.
The ombudsman Stephen Brennan says there’s a lack of transparency in the Howard government’s WorkChoices system.
He was giving evidence today at the SA Industrial Relations Commission inquiry into the impact of the WorkChoices legislation.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22243313-5006301,00.html
No wonder in SA the TPP is 62/38
If only it could remove Downer.
What is a wilcard? Some strange furry animal peculiar to South Australia? Like a bilby, perhaps.
Matt, what has this to do with the price of fish?
Adam – here’s William Boothby.
whoops, that should have said “wildcard”, Derek.
I’m merely trying to engender debate with respect to what impact the poor economic data may have on the South Australian vote at the federal election. Will this story have any impact on people’s future voting intentions ? (as Labor are polling very well in SA)
Need to take issue with this. Business has long been pushing a climate change agenda – why wouldn’t they, when it’s their business that’s at risk? And when there are opportunities to make money from it?
That’s the only reason Howard’s gone down that line.
Will he or won’t he??
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/no-push-to-oust-pm-costello/2007/08/14/1186857474995.html
Lets hope not, he should stay for the final party, where he gets to play the role of the piñata.
Adam, I have a Gellibrand for you:
http://www.nma.gov.au/play/batmania/batmania_html_version/whos_who/
toward the bottom of the page.
d
Dare say there would not be many lollies in a Costello Pinata
Rob my bet is: no.
Does anybody seriously believe that Costello still has even a vague chance of ever leading the Liberal Party?
Apart from the obvious reason why he can’t (i.e, that he’s slightly less popular than avian bird flue), he has form for breaking party unity, and publicly criticizing the Party’s leader. In doing so, he might even have jeopardized the Party’s chances at the next election.
If it was just his lack of popularity, then it might still be possible for him to maybe, someday, be opposition leader for a brief patch when nobody else is willing to take the job. A bit like Simon Crean. Or, Alexander Downer, who was only really propped up as Opposition Leader to make John Howard look good.
But after that act of treachery, I don’t think he would even qualify for such a job. Put yourself in the mindset of a Liberal MP, and ask who the hell would follow him as leader?
re Stunkrat 390
Some business will benefit from going down the climate change road, but others will not. Renewables industry (with an insurance industry – the ultimate risk managers – behind it) could be worth $billions, but the Govt has persisted with the coal industry – and not just because the Mining Division of CFMEU was concerned about immediate job losses. We now see the nuclear industry being touted – which is in reality Big Business writ large, not small or medium businesses, the middle class or professional classes. This should show a move away from previous ‘class’ affiliations – Menzies’ “Forgotten People”, the middle class etc – to one predicated on the individual, the aspirational worker or the self-made ‘man’. The intent is to appeal to these (newly individualised) people with a mix of policy not based on favouring one class above another but appealing directly to the individual or idenifiable section (Tassie timber workers in 2004).
Agree with Veg:
Costello said in that article that he would continue to “serve in whatever capacity I can make a positive contribution”.
Here’s a thought Mr Costello, stay right where you are as Treasurer and don’t duck when the electorate turf you out of office. Politics is a sinister business, as you once said yourself. That should take the chirlish sneer off your face when you realise that (a) Oh my God, they voted us out in spite out our (sic) magnificent economic record and (b) it is time to drag out the CV and spruik it up. There is life after politics, enjoy !
Matt
I suspect the good voters of SA are capable of recognising the difference between State and Federal. To answer your question: No. I do not think one bank’s analysis of the SA economy will have an impact on voters at the Federal election. It’s much bigger than that. I also suspect most thinking voters would view any PR release from any bank as highly dubious.
Can someone tell me where I can find a psephology site?
Rob Says:
August 14th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Will he or won’t he??
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/no-push-to-oust-pm-costello/2007/08/14/1186857474995.html
“You’re in Canberra when your colleagues are back in their electorates and Canberra is not the fun place of Australia, I think we’d all agree on that.”
It looks as though Costello agrees with Janette Howard on one thing though.