Stuck for a title for a new open thread, I thought I’d revive a beloved old brand name (royalties still owing to Adam Carr). You might like to discuss:
• The Australian statsmeister George Megalogenis‘s rundown on Mal Brough’s semi-rural Queensland seat of Longman. Megalogenis also elaborates upon his earlier identification of single mothers as an important demographic. The top 30 list for this group includes Wakefield (SA, Liberal 0.7%), Cowper (NSW, Nationals 6.5%), Lindsay (NSW, Liberal 2.9%), Dobell (NSW, Liberal 4.8%), Solomon (NT, CLP 2.9%), Page (NSW, Nationals 5.5%), Robertson (NSW, Liberal 6.9%), Kingston (SA, Liberal 0.1%) and Bass (Tas, Liberal 2.7%). Well down the order are Bennelong (number 119) and Wentworth (number 139).
• Bowman MP Andrew Laming and Moreton MP Gary Hardgrave getting tetchy about the six months taken by the Australian Federal Police and Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to resolve whether charges will be laid against them over the “printgate” affair (also of interest to Bonner MP Ross Vasta). The Courier-Mail ran an editorial criticising the AFP’s tardiness on this front way back on June 19.
• Still in Queensland, Possum Comitatus’s adventurous analysis of the safe Liberal (or is it?) Gold Coast seat of McPherson.
I wonder whether any further delay by Howard to call the election will start to have a further negative impact for him. The entire population knows that he is going backwards in the polls: ie -people want a change of government. The longer he delays in givng us the opportunity the more desperate and self- interested he appears, and the more frustrated the voter becomes.
Even those of us who take a keen interest in politics are getting tired of the same-old rhetoric and spin. If we are, then the average punter is bored to tearswith the politics and just wants a result. Can’t be smart for him to delay any longer.
Max.
Appreciated your relatively reasoned analysis.
I’d agree that there is a significant degree of loathing towards Howard ( i think largely around Workchoices and his tactics at the last election – although there are other reasons to be listed, which have been done on this site ad nauseum). However, as an observation, the ALP seems to think the Costello as PM is not a popular concept in the Australian populace. They’ve advertised it at previous election so they obviously think its a ‘winner’.
“Call the election @ 39”
You’re right – I have fallen into the trap of labelling, something I generally despise. I shall refrain from using the ‘howard hater’ tag, tempting as it can be, because most people on this site do know a lot, many if not most more then me, in terms of the policies of the government.
As for being biased against labor, I don’t hide it. My very first post here opened with “First and foremost, I consider myself a liberal supporter.” Having said that, I have since done what quite a lot of liberal supporters don’t do and criticised the party, it’s policies and its leader – and barely two months from an election. So cut me some slack here, I do strive for objectivity. I agree Labor did do a lot of work in the early part of this year to set the debate, however in the past few months have fallen back on fear campaigns, ‘me-tooism’ and targetting Howard and his age/trickiness factor.
In all honesty it is no less then he deserves, and I acknowledge that, and also know the Liberals have been just as bad in targetting Rudd, but that is my point: a new leader will hopefully bring back more debates in policy and ideas, rather then both parties falling back to the campaigns of fear. Or perhaps I am being too idealistic?
I am a fully paid up Howard hater because IMO he has done more than any other politician in modern political history to deploy racism for political gain, Pauline Hanson included.
Update on Centrebet
ALP $1.43
Coalition $2.85
These are the longest odds I can remember for the coalition for a long time. Can anyone remember the odds in 2004 when Latham had his rise in popularity, or in 2001 pre-tampa?
Ahhrrrgh,
The Oz has finally posted comments on Shanahan’s “piece” – mostly condeming him as a shameless etc….
Again, I’ve been censored….beginning to feel like I might be on some list.
CTEP (45) – I too am a proud Howard Hater. This might because I grew up in Bennelong, and had to put up with JWH coming to address my school every now and again. The man has been stalking me for 33 years!
On a more serious note, I think Max touches on an interesting point – the Left does loathe Howard (much as the Right loathed Keating) and this loathing has blinded us Lefties to the political strengths of the man. We may not like the way he manipulates the populace (esp via race issues), but that doesn’t make such tactics any less potent. I think the Left made the same mistake with Baby Bush and Maggie Thatcher, but we forget that most people are not politically engaged, and so not fired up by the same issues that work for those of us who contribute to sites such as this.
That’s why WorkChoices is such an over-riding issue this year. As a policy it affects people (or at least they preceive themselves to be affected) who don’t otherwise gives a rats about politics. This is why the government has been polling so poorly since March last year, figures which have sunk further since the ALP has put in place an electable leader.
And it’s why the Libs are doomed.
The leadership is officially a hospital pass at this point.
Many contenders have a real fight in their own seats, the the last thing they need is to run a national campaign.
Plus its too late. Wayyyyy too late.
Howard ain’t going anywhere folks!
It is not just a new leader that the government needs right now but also a whole set of new policies. In particular, they would have to pledge to dismantle WorkChoices or at least copy Labor’s IR policies, which will not just be very humiliating for them but will destroy their credibility after so many months of fear-mongering, not just by them but the business organisations. Can you imagine Hockey now turning around and saying that abolishing AWAs will NOT lead to union to domination or high interest rates and the other stuff that he has said to try to scare the voters? It simply won’t wash.
And it’s not just IR. They need to copy Labor on Iraq and climate change, all of which will result in a greater loss of credibility after all their scare campaigns on these issues.
You see, the problem the government has is now terminal. They are way out there on the far right while Labor is very comfortably in the centre of the policy spectrum. In short, the government do not just require a new leader, they need a complete makeover. And could they really do this and still gain credibility in just 2 or 3 months?
I believe that a new leader will provide a circuit breaker for the government, but I don’t think it will be enough to bring about a complete turnaround in the polls, and there is always the danger that it might even make things worse. In short a BIG gamble, but surely something that is currently crossing the minds of some government backbenchers.
BenC: From my recollection, the odds were not that low for Latham, however were around the same level or lower for Beazley before 9/11.
However, this is only from memory.
Hugo – I agree with everything you say (I even lived in Bennelong!) However, I’ll believe Howard is doomed only on election night, and not a tick of the clock before.
There’s a story today that Abbott has hinted at a November election, but I don’t have the quote or the source. Might be rubbish.
Re (46),
Martin,
” The Libs will probably be decimated with Howard in charge, but if they dump him this late they will look like a desperate rabble and ensure that they are decimated. ”
Take the ‘probably’ out of that equation ;-D . They are between the proverbial rock and a hard place as they already look like a desperate rabble and changing leadership might be the only thing that they can do to make the message a “fresh one”. You have to admit, that at the very least, it will engage the electorate and put the Libs back onto the front pages for maybe a day or two if they are lucky lol. And moving along that train of thought, IF they did such a thing who would take up the treasurer role alongside Costello? [Might be the only way Costello will ever be the PM as he is heading for a hiding in Higgins with the current margin of the polls nationally ;-D ]
Thanks Asanque, I thought Beazley’s odds were comparable to the current situation. Something similar is needed to 9/11 to help Howard. Lets pray for all our sakes that nothing does happen.
BenC: This is the best link I can give you on past markets.
http://www.ozpolitics.info/blog/category/betting-market/page/20/
Interestingly enough you could have gotten a good 2.55 on ALP at the time, which is great money given the current betting markets.
Hmm… I’m not sure if this is such a great endorsement of Howard from Bush:
“My own judgment is I wouldn’t count the man out. As I recall, he’s kind of like me. We both have run from behind and won.”
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22366690-12377,00.html
Likening Howard to himself is not exactly going to be a vote winner for Howard when Bush is generally viewed as an ignorant fool in our country.
But it was nice of Bush to give us permission for voicing our own opinion on Howard:
“I’m going to let the Australian people express their opinion,” Mr Bush said.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22366690-12377,00.html
At last an intelligent post from a Liberal – thanks Max. I think Max’s comments underlie one of Howard’s major problems. After eleven years there is a lot of Howard-fatigue among Liberal supporters. The number of people willing to die in the ditch, politically speaking, in defence of Howard has declined as he has degenerated into populist opportunism over the last year. I’m sure many Liberals now feel it’s better to let Howard lose, so that the party can get back to its true values and original philosophy (small government, federalism, individual liberty) under a new leader. I wonder if Max agrees with that – and who he thinks that next leader might be.
I doubt any Liberal supporter really believes a Coalition defeat is for the best at this election. Obviously the best thing would be to be in power for as long as humanly possible. All party hacks get it into their heads that there’s no possible way the country could go on without them.
Re Bush’s comment: he only “came from behind and won” because of electoral fraud on an epic scale. I doubt Howard wants to “win” the way Bush won, but I guess he’ll take what he can get. More generally, having Bush endorse him is about the equivalent of Abu Bakr Bashir endorsing Rudd – not very helpful.
“Decimated” doesn’t mean what you think it does, Martin B. It refers to an early Republican Roman practice where, if a military unit didn’t perform as expected (eg. they ran away or something) 1 in 10 soldiers were randomly selected and then executed.
The coalition don’t face decimation, if they did they’d win the election. Annihilation is much closer to the mark.
Howard has his head wedged very firmly up Bush’s behind.
And that clown from America has the nerve to tell us who we’re meant to vote for, this from a man who has won elections only through fraud and buying off the U.S Supreme Court.
Three word sums up 95% of the posts on this thread…
Hubris Howard haters
Have you all got nothing to say about Howard other than ‘he’s the worst PM in our history’…you consistently denigrate what he’s done for our country and overlook his achievements i think he has a lot more to be proud of than Keating has…but god forbid you would find anything good to say about Howard….
You add nothing to the debate by simply regurgitating ignorant vitriol against Prime Minister Howard and for what to make you feel better how can you honestly think a man whose been a leader for less than a year would do a better job than someone whose been Prime Minister for 11 years…i dont advocate one party being in government but to put someone up for office who is unfit for that challenge someone who hasnt had enough time to see how good he is at managing a political party let alone a nation is just stupid…i think a lot of people will be unhappy with their choice if they decide to vote Howard out…and with the media continually saying the Prime Minister is a lame duck its no surprise the polls are so bad for the Coalition for the moment…but if you think for one moment the election is home and hosed you’d be extremely naive to say the least.
Rudd, Gillard, Albanese, Garrett, McClelland, Tanner, Swan, Smith…wow what a team they’ll be…
I’ll be first to welcome George W Bush to our country…its a shame the ALP and the Greens have little but scorn to pour on the visit of the President of the United States…Rudd is like Beazley the front man who says he ‘supports’ the alliance but with his party so anti-american it is a joke (Mark Latham was case in point) and that sums up the ALP they want to weaken the alliance with America they dont see how important it is to stick by a friend…and they certainly dont see the importance Iraq now is in the War on Terror and why Australian soldiers have to support Iraqi democracy in the face of Al-Qaeda.
Re (65),
“Re: Bush’s comment: he only “came from behind and won†because of electoral fraud on an epic scale.”
Bush puts that spin onto it as he is dense enough to think that citizens of a country half way around the world from his own are not going to be aware of the facts surrounding the 2000 election. Yes, electoral fraud on an epic scale about sizes it up ……. I am not naive enough to think that fraud doesn’t happen here, I am sure it happens in every country that votes democratically around the world. But I would like to think having been through one election now since I became a citizen (NSW state elections in March this year) that the AEC is a little better organized so that s*** like what happened in Ohio and Florida in 2000 will not happen here.
Adam –
I would say that your post would sum it up the general feeling amongst a lot of people accurately. But for me anyway, there is another underlying factor here. If the libs somehow pull off a victory this year, even by a couple a seats, then they would still hold a Senate majority until July next year. If you think they’ve been rushing through legislation now, I can’t imagine how bad it will get in the upcoming months. We will have six months of legislation rammed through (thanks to the new ‘election mandate’), and then two years of the minority parties refusing to do anything constructive in revenge for the past three years of abuse. This is not good, constructive or responsible government.
As for the next leader, I really don’t know. Who is there? Would Costello be willing to take over as opposition leader? Would anybody at all vote for Downer? Nelson? Assuming he survives, would the libs dare to try Turnball so soon? The problem with having the same leader for 11 years is that you essentially have the same core cabinet for that time, and because party members keep holding their seats, there is less new blood coming through. A victim of your own success in a sense. So I really don’t know, but I would still be interested in trialling Costello. There is a difference between people being asked in a newspaper poll “who would you vote for between Rudd and Costello (then) Rudd and Howard” to the choice on election day, when you don’t have the luxury of selecting your options.
Glen
Curious…
How did you rate the Hawke/Keating period?
Secondly, Beazley is one of the biggest supporters of the ANZUS alliance across the political spectrum. Let’s not forget as well it was Curtin who turned Australia towards America.
Finally, avoid such emotive angles as ‘anti-american’. This term has been bandied around far too much in the recent future. It doesn’t serve your argument.
Glen, what has Howard done and how has he done it? Please outline legislation passed that has made this happen. Also explain why the changes would not have occurred on their own. I’m not going to look at Keating because he’s ancient history. What we’re looking at is the current Government.
I’m sure we could all tell you what he’s done wrong but you won’t listen will you?
Explain why a team containing Downer, Abbot, Ruddock, Pyne et al. is a positive.
Also we’ve gone over the anti-American thing a thousand times. I doubt most people on here are anti-American. We just don’t like the politics of the President at the moment. It’s the same as we don’t like the politics of John Howard but are not anti-Australian.
I swear you write the same comment daily on here though and are never willing to take anything else on board.
Glen, keep on digging that grave. More of this nonsense that opposing the Iraq War means you’re anti-Amercian and anti ANZAS alliance – utter bullshit!
Glen: [Three word sums up 95% of the posts on this thread…]
Whereas two words sums up 95% of all your posts.
Absolute Rubbish.
In a previous thread you posted 30 supposed achievements of Howard. I debunked your entire list and came down to 4.
That’s in 11 years of politics.
blah blah blah same old Absolute Rubbish.
Rudd > Howard
Gillard > Hockey
McClelland > Downer
Conroy > Coonan
Fitzgibbon > Nelson
Ferguson > Andrews
Perhaps I might give you:
Costello > Swan
Turnbull = Garrett
But the Howard front bench is absolute rubbish.
George W Bush is a lame duck president hated worldwide.
The democrats will thrash the republicans in the next election, and if we have Howard in charge, that’s going to be shocking for the alliance. Especially given Howard’s sycophancy.
Sticking by a friend is one thing, blindly following them without question is just stupidity.
And again ask yourself why is Al Qaeda in Iraq? Due to the illegal Bush/Howard invasion.
Max, I’m interested to know why you, as a coalition supporter, would find the “me tooism” of Rudd bad or annoying. If Rudd is supporting the coalition’s policy on an issue wouldn’t a coalition supporter welcome this? Why would you want Labor to oppose everything for opposition sake? Surely you wouldn’t vote Labor if they did oppose everything anyway. Actually it sounds like you wouldn’t vote Labor if they agreed with everything the government said and did. You would still hold that against them.
A couple of innocuous comments went into moderation through no fault of the commenters, such as Bert @ 2 and Stewart J @ 4 – my apologies, but this will happen sometimes.
BenC@51 and Asanque@56
“Update on Centrebet
ALP $1.43
Coalition $2.85
These are the longest odds I can remember for the coalition for a long time. Can anyone remember the odds in 2004 when Latham had his rise in popularity, or in 2001 pre-tampa?”
Can’t remember the best spread Bomber ever got against El Rodente, however the market movement overnight is remarkable. Any of the die-hards who think Bush’s patronage is going to provide Howard with electoral oxygen may need to re-appraise.
Before the Bush Juggernaut cruised in to town last night, odds were $1.47/$2.70.
Iraq is a FIASCO. Do the punters know it? “You bet they do”.
They also know who began the war and who poodled-up to it.
A spread of $1.42, and widening, means I’ll be focusing less on the swirls and eddies of marginals’ minutiae, so savour the surge of Tsunami Rising.
Yohoho I never said Beazley was anti-american in fact Rudd is probably more anti-american than Beazley…actually Yohoho Curtin didnt turn to America and Australia still was primarily a British ally up until the 1950s, we turned to the US for protection during WW2 and it wasnt really until ANZUS that we begun to think about a new ally…
The Hawke/Keating period well not alot actually…the economic reforms were well overdue when they were put through the had Coalition support but the ALP did not know how to finely balance the economy and so when they couldnt manage the economic reforms we got ourselves a recession…infact we got in my opinion very little out of the 1980s and early 1990s…Based on economic success id say sure the ALP did put in some good reforms like floating the dollar ect but the fact remains they couldnt manage the economy well and so we got high inflation, high interest rates and high unemployment…not too much to hang your hat on while Howard on the other hand if he loses will have a lot to hang his hat on.
Howard Hater do you really think if we didnt back up America that we would get access to military secrets ect???
Asanque
“In a previous thread you posted 30 supposed achievements of Howard. I debunked your entire list and came down to 4.”
That is because you are a Howard hater and cannot in your right mind think Howard has done more good than bad…you didnt debunk any of Howard’s reforms you merely showed how biased your opinions are…im not saying mine arent either but you’ve got to give credit where its due.
“And again ask yourself why is Al Qaeda in Iraq? Due to the illegal Bush/Howard invasion.”
That ‘may’ be the case Asanque but since they are there pulling out Australian troops in Iraq would then require a pull out of our troops from Afghanistan by your logic…either you want to fight al-Qaeda or you want to be isolationist take your pick!
Oh and Asanque you forgot
Bishop > Smith
and Brough is clearly better than whoever Labor’s spokesperson i think its Macklin…
I don’t really care much about betting results. People call them the “smart money” but I’d say the mostly revolve around poll results.
The betting markets widely anticipated a Coalition win in the 2005 WA State Election. Then came Colin’s canal… and weeks on end of Colin Barnett on TV every night.
Re (78),
“But the Howard front bench is absolute rubbish.
George W Bush is a lame duck president hated worldwide.
The democrats will thrash the republicans in the next election, and if we have Howard in charge, that’s going to be shocking for the alliance. Especially given Howard’s sycophancy.”
Ah, the political pendulum coming back to the left. Instead of John Howard and George Bush, we will have Kevin Rudd and Hillary Clinton who will have Obama as the vice president. Now, while we will have change here, the changes over there will be even more stark. The first female President and the first elected Black to high office as well. The contrast of it all is sweet :):):) …….
Glen… what makes you think Brough is so good when he gets booed and heckled by Indigenous people at speeches?
What about non-economic successes Glen… how many can you think of for the Coalition? I can’t think of one…
BenC #51 Beasley was ahead with Libs at $3.20 (i think) before tampa.
What about Gun Control….or the Future Fund…or East Timor…they are successes CTEP???
Gun control, please it was good but anyone could have done that, it didn’t require leadership or any difficult.
The future fund, it is a con to cover financial mismanagement. Does the the term ‘unfunded superannuation liability’ fill you with confidence. It merely means the budget surplus continues to be overstated.
East Timor, now given how long Howard is prepared to be in Iraq isn’t our excessively speedy departure and the problems it caused beginning to look a bit foolish even to someone as biased as you Glen?
Glen: two more words for you regarding the 1990’s
Global Recession.
Are you implying that the ALP caused the global recession? Before regurgitating these tired arguments, at least try a course in Economics 101.
Are you also implying that the only reason we back up the US is to get the benefits of military secrets? That only illustrates to me just how shallow and immoral your viewpoints on the US alliance actually are.
I am a Howard hater, due to his policies. I did give credit where it was due and scored him 4/30. Just being Prime Minister in a time when there is a mineral boom, does not count as an accomplishment. A radish could be PM at that time and claim those same goals. How exactly has Howard brought this about? You can’t answer can you?
Don’t you find it hypocritical for you to call someone else biased when you admit your own opinions are biased?
Glen you are losing the plot like Howard 🙂 How about you actually start addressing some of the issues I debunk?
I’d rather we had no involvement at all in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. First, we’d save a bucketload of money that could be spent on more useful items. Second, we wouldn’t have caused ourselves to be more at risk of a terrorist threat.
I would say Macklin > Brough. Simply due to his inability to get Howard to move on indigenous affairs until just prior to the election.
I can’t say I’m familiar with Smith so I won’t comment on that one.
The future fund is most certainly not any sort of positive achievement. It represents the utter failure of this government to invest in infrastructure that would allow a reduction in taxes that wouldn’t directly increase inflation. Costello has to park it in so-called “reserves” because he can’t reduce taxes, he can’t throw money at people by way of grants and allowances and he won’t spend it on the aforementioned infrastructure for ideological reasons.
Success, yeah, right.
Kenneth Davidson has done a good article previously on the Future Fund
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/smoke-and-mirrors-hide-funding-facts/2007/05/16/1178995233015.html
Ha tell that to John Howard who had to tell the country people that they had to give up assault rifles didnt you see the photo of him in a bullet proof vest???
The Future Fund is not a con its to cover future liabilities of the Commonwealth if we didnt have it then that money would have to come out of the budget when we might be in tough times…that’s the problem with the left they dont think ahead they have hardly any economic foresight whereas the right does thankfully.
Ha East Timor needed our help and he gave it now we didnt completely leave Jasmine and we still have troops there as we do with RASMI in the Solomon Islands…that took leadership Jasmine…
every time Bush lauded Howard as being honest the electorate must have winced, i’m in Wakefield and believe me it’s GONE despite a good part of it being the Barossa wine district, the have not’s here by far outweigh the haves.
Matt Price is the pick of the Government Gazette’s columnists, it’s hard to pick which way he leans, one week it’s one way the next the other, his take today on Lord Downer is hilarious and oh so accurate, i rarely bother to join in Shanahans blogs, mine very rarely get to see the light of day, by the way they’ve suddenly started trimming the letters to the editor blogs, maybe the editorial last week comparing the previous government to the current one to Howards detriment was just a blip, i thought perhaps they’d suddenly come to their senses.
Glen: if Howard didn’t sell off so much infrastructure, then the government would have future revenue to fund the liabilities.
A little OT, but nevertheless… even if Hillary does win the Democratic nomination for President (and I suspect she will), I don’t think she’ll choose Obama as her running mate. She’ll pick someone with more gravitas and experience – like a former diplomat or general, or even a Dem governor of a ‘red state’. Obama brings nothing to a Hillary-led ticket, given that his support base is made up of rusted-on Democrats – just like Hillary. Hillary will need to bring balance in her choice of VP, and go with someone more conservative.
I don’t think Hillary has a ‘lock’ on the presidency either. She’s despised by many Americans, especially in the ‘red states’; and she’ll have to fight hard to win enough swing states to get her over the line.
“I’d rather we had no involvement at all in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. First, we’d save a bucketload of money that could be spent on more useful items. Second, we wouldn’t have caused ourselves to be more at risk of a terrorist threat.”
Ha Asanque…tell that to the Iraqis and Afghanis who need our help and want the kind of lives we have in Australia…to live in safety and security with economic benefits…that you would deny them this opportunity with your isolationist views on foreign policy does not auger well for the sympathetic moral sense of the left…
“I would say Macklin > Brough. Simply due to his inability to get Howard to move on indigenous affairs until just prior to the election.”
Actually Brough has been out there for years trying to get things done pity that Claire Martin tried to cover things up and then didnt act when it was necessary…when have we heard the ALP talk about indigenous problems in the past 3 years…zip!
Well I’d hardly say the future fund is non-economic.
Gun control would most definately have been introduced by the ALP after Port Arthur.
Would you call Iraq a success?
Would you call our dental system a success of this government?
How about pharmaceutical costs?
What about skills in the workforce?
Would you call the stripping away of conditions of our workers a success of this Government?
How about cutting off people’s welfare payments?
The increased costs of university education?
Pensions?
457 visas?
How about reform to the accountability processes in the Senate? Are they a success for democracy?
How about the changes to the Electoral Act?
Levels of foreign aid?
Childcare arrangements?
All unquestionable successes for Australian democracy I’m sure you’d agree.
I’m sure there must be areas of success for this Government. Maybe if they actually spent some time outlining them in a believable manner instead of constantly attacking the other team…
Ah speaking of the Future Fund…….The Federal Government has made a special request to the ABS for investments of its Future Fund not to be revealed in the current account figures until the middle of next year. It will therefore not be possible to tell from the accounts what proportion of offshore equities or bonds the Government’s fund has bought.
Glen: I would tell that to them, but unfortunately the refugees keep getting turned back at our borders and thrown in detention centres.
I wasn’t aware that invading a country was actually good for its citizens. By all means, lets invade more countries given the resounding success of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Indigenous affairs has been shockingly handled by both parties.
“What about Gun Control….or the Future Fund…or East Timor…they are successes…”
For over 11 years in office, that doesn’t amount to much success.