Phoney war dispatches

403 comments on “Phoney war dispatches”

1. Doesn`t mean it IS any more likely, it just means they think it is.

2. Pi,
   The interesting thing about the revoking of WAP, was that despite it being a pillar of Australian Government for 70 years, its disassembly occurred with only a small amount of public debate – both parties came to the conclusion at about the same time that its continuence would cause more harm than good for the country. It’s disassembly didn’t excite the electorate at the time. The enfranchment of Aborigines (as distinct from the referendum question) was achieved by a similar approach. Hence Hanson’s rhetorical question “When were the Australian people asked about this?” (Answer: when you were at the back of the class doing your nails.)

   I can’t see Costello making major policy changes if he is given a run (which I am sure he won’t). Afterall, the Coalition and Liberals are riven by faction – he just would not have the gravitas to make major ideological changes and hold the party together.

3. And Simon #168, there was certainly no suggestion by portlandbet or D. Vale that she has announced she is going.

4. And what I’m saying, Generic Oracle (in spite of confusing Mabo with the vote [the vote that counts that is]), is that Australians are more altruistic than you realise…

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_referendum,_1967_(Aboriginals)

   No GST in sight.

5. If the Greens go well and the Liberals are defeated i’ll be getting EXTREMELY drunk and run down the street singing Bob Dylan’s “oh, The Times they are a changing”!

6. oakeshott country Says: I can’t see Costello making major policy changes if he is given a run (which I am sure he won’t). Afterall, the Coalition and Liberals are riven by faction – he just would not have the gravitas to make major ideological changes and hold the party together.

   That’s why such a symbolic one would be so important. The only thing it would do would be to show gravitas, and point out that there is a major difference between the old and the new.

   But meh… like I said… I want howard to lose, and lose in such a way that it is clear that Australia has rejected exactly the things he most stood for.

7. [And Simon #168, there was certainly no suggestion by portlandbet or D. Vale that she has announced she is going.]

   I didn’t propose that Vale had announced anything.

   Glenn Milne:

   “Amid growing fears of a crushing election defeat at the hands of Kevin Rudd’s seemingly invincible Labor team, senior Cabinet supporters say “crunch time” has arrived for the Prime Minister.

   “The view is crystallising inside the party that he has to go,” one minister told The Sunday Mail.

   “There is lots of introspection going on. But if it comes to crunch time and it has to get messy, then it will get messy.”

   While Mr Howard’s supporters will not “tap” him over the leadership issue, some now think it might be in his own best interests, and those of the Liberal Party, for him to step down in favour of his deputy, Treasurer Peter Costello.”

8. Pi, Oakeshott, Generic Oracle.

   For what its worth. Good reading… enjoyed it.

9. Another very interesting article in ‘the economist’ about the upcoming election from May of this year….

   http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9149863

   “Thanks to reforms inherited from its Labor predecessor, its own prudent fiscal management and a revenue boom from China’s demand for Australia’s minerals, the government is blessed with an enormous fiscal surplus, low inflation, unemployment at a 33-year low and a reputation for competent economic management.”

   Funny how even conservative magazines like the economist know when to give credit to the former ALP government.

10. # 96 blindoptimist said:

    ‘In a certain paradoxical sense, Howard is now campaiging against himself. Kind of brilliant, really’.

    Well put!

    Just returned from the opera, Verdi, The Masked Ball. Main character honourable.

    Spent time in the slow bits conjuring Howard the Opera. Sydney Opera House and Kirribilli as stage props, idea of certain dark figures, Tim, Richard and Melanie lurking in the shadows, late in the libretto. Some Ring Cycle.

11. Another polling article in ‘the economist’ for just last week…

    http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9768994

    “An opinion poll on September 4th sent shudders through government ranks. After distribution of second votes under Australia’s preferential system, it put Labor 18 points ahead of the government and Kevin Rudd, Labor’s leader, 11 points ahead of Mr Howard as preferred prime minister. With these figures, Mr Howard would not just lose office; analysts say he would also lose Bennelong, whose once safe boundaries have shifted since the last election.”

12. If Howard stepped down the Govt would look a very shallow and empty govt. Howard has been the soul, face and strength of the Govt for 11 years. Rip him off the front cover then what is left will look shrill and shaky.

    There will be those that are sticking to the Govt because they personnally support Howard [those that give Howard his approval rating]. With him gone there is no reason for them to remain faithful, they may as well changed as change would be inevitable – the fear of change factor is gone.

    Costello’s or anyone else’s policies will hardly be noticed, they will be meak voices in the gale of ‘no reason to hold back from change since changed is now forced’.

    Rudd is looking superior and in fact IS superior to Howard in this past 8 months – How much more will he out perform Costello who does have trouble getting his thoughts across out-side of parliament.

    It will also be all too easy to play the weak, no ticker line with Costello.

13. The key to what Howard will do is in his past behaviour I believe. He is a man that has not had an original idea since the day he entered Parliament I believe and behaves accordingly.

    My first clear relocation of Howard is the “fist full of Dollars” tax cuts he (as Treasure along with Mr Frazer as PM) offered in the 1983 election. This was of cause the earlier version of “cor and non-cor promises”.

    The Frazer Government as part of its platform promised general tax cuts and the advertising of this was a “fit full of dollars” being handed back to average Joe Citizen. However, right after the election the promise of the tax cuts was reneged on. This was the Foundation of the Liberals loosing the next election to Bob Hawke.

    Once in opposition Howard continually engaged in undermining whoever was leader. Now I forget how many time the leadership of the Opposition (Liberal) Party changed hands but it was quite a few and even subsequent to the “Lazarus with a triple bypass” comment Howard was still scheming to get the keys of “the Lodge”. This demonstrates that Howard does not care at all for the Liberal party and he just see is as a vehicle for him to achieve his dream.

    We all know that Howard prays to Bob Menzies every night and Howard considers him some sort of political god. Now Menzies was a successful leader of the Liberal party (which he help develop) and one way he maintain such tight control over the Party for such a long time was that any likely challenger was “promoted” somewhere else. Examples of this are Casey who I think was given a diplomatic post and Barwick who went to the High Court.

    Menzies was not overly concerned what happened to the Liberal party once he retired (just like Howard) because for him (and Howard) it had served its purpose i.e. a base for him to be PM. Menzies left Holt in charge who, despite his “success”, was not the political animal that Menzies was. I think Howard does not care who takes over after he leaves either.

    Howard has not had the competition that Menzies had and for 11 years has done exactly what he wanted to do without worrying too much about succession planning. He judges Costello (who is Howard’s Holt) to be competent but lacking guts and political acumen, which I think most, would agree with.

    However, now we are entering the end game as far as Howard is concerned regardless what the result of the up coming election is. Howard wants to go out on his terms and will risk anything to achieve this. Regardless of what anyone wants to say about Howard he is no coward and he is prepared to gamble everything to get what he wants. He will never die wondering.

    I think that the way he see it is that if he looses the gamble (ie the election) he has lost nothing but if he wins he is the hero of the hour and in the Parthenon of Australian political history. He will forever be seen as a great Australia PM who took on the everyone and won. He smote the evil Labor Party, destroyed the devilish Unions and freed business form the socialistic policies the threatened to ensnare them and take away form them what was rightfully theirs – profits.

    He sees that he can out shine the great Ming and become an Australian “Churchill”.

    I think all the above leave me to believe that Howard will hold on and give himself the best chance of achieving his dream. He see loosing the upcoming election as akin to resigning so why not take the chance and give it a go as you never know what might happen. You never know but another “Tampa” or 9/11 might come sailing over the horizon any day.

    Now that I have said that he most likely will resign next Friday.

14. Here’s Milne’s article for the News Ltd Sunday papers:
    http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22384111-5012477,00.html

    “The wild card here could well be outside both Costello and Howard’s control. There are now senior unaligned figures in the Government who believe that the Coalition can now win only if Howard goes.

    These are ministers who have never been aligned with Costello, and up to now have defended the Prime Minister, but who have now decided that the Howard era is over. They base this conclusion on their travels around the country where the message has been clear: it is not the Government that is the problem, simply the Prime Minister.

    These ministers judge the electorate has already moved on from Howard, and they no longer factor him into either their future or the future of the country. There is a subsequent, and important, judgment which flows from this – that a change in leadership could re-make that vital connection, one which Kevin Rudd appears to have made in the popular imagination.”

15. #207 Simon, I refer you to your previous post, #168 `I wonder who else will announce they are going.` Yes, you obviously did propose that someone, ie. D.Vale, had already announced this.

16. Simon, pretty boring 2 way conversation for many here I imagine. The fact remains, you misquoted portlandbet, and represented speculation as a stated fact. You were wrong. Admit it.

17. N

18. O

19. 214

    Milne is shilling for Costello. But it won’t make any difference who leads them now. It is not just Howard that is the problem, many of the senior ranks have also outstayed their welcome. I have little doubt that most people are sick of the sight and sound of Costello, Downer, Abbott, et al. The whole show is continuing its lurch to the right, and has not been carrying the electorate along with them for some time now. Simply removing Howard from the equation is not going to provide a magic circuit-breaker.

20. [Simply removing Howard from the equation is not going to provide a magic circuit-breaker.]

    Even if they are going to lose, I think Howard has a better chance of minimising the loss. Like what Beazley did in 2001. I think Beazley would’ve done better than Latham in 2004, even if he didn’t win.

    Like wise, I think Howard can keep loses down. If Costello is in charge, then the flood gates will open.

21. This is what I said in the comments section of that article….

    “If you (or ‘senior ministers’) think the problem is just with Howard, and not the entire liberal party, you’re about to get an entirely new set of shocks.

    Lies, fear, hate, smear… it’s the conservative machine that has created these things, and we’re about to flick the switch.”

22. Maybe the Liberals are worried that they could lose so badly that they will still be out of striking distance in 6 years?

    I think Howard has created a new limit, no P.M. will stay longer than 10 years after Howard. Maybe that’s a good thing.

23. I think Howard has created a new limit, no P.M. will stay longer than 10 years after Howard. Maybe that’s a good thing.

    I think it is fair to say that in functioning long-term democracies, around ten years is the maximum life span of a government, even if they change leaders.

    And fair point, Pi, I missed that.

24. HAHAHAHHAHAHAH! Bush is trying to help Howard. It has been leaked that Rudd didn’t talk about climate change with Bush:

    http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22386658-5013719,00.html

25. I have seen the opinion polls suggest that Costello would poll worse than the PM.!
    I think all this talk about leadership is extremely damaging to the Coalition.It does not show a united party,one who wants to govern our country,and this is one one thing most Australians demand of their political parties in public,unity.I think they couldn’t give a toss about what goes on behind closed doors.
    In the end the electorate may to the government bugger all of you and vote them out anyway.
    I would be pretty certain that many on this blog have already made up their minds regardless of what the govt does.

26. I have only just discovered this website and firstly congratulations on a great blog.

    As for this thread on various individual seats, it illustrates to me the reality – in most elections seats are won on local issues or national issues that affect people personally (eg interest rates). That is, people vote for self interest.

    In this regard, I think having APEC now has been a terrible strategic mistake for Howard. There was never going to be an APEC bounce. Rudd is probably much stronger on foreign policy and weaker on domestic policy than Howard, so this is playing to his strength. And Bush is a big negative. But even if APEC went well, what does international politics matter to most people? The primary concerns people have are security of their jobs and mortgages. The IR laws affect the first, and interest rates the second.

    I don’t buy the “successful economy and complacent electorate” line to explain the opinion polls. I am over 40 but I work with a lot of professionals aged 20 to 30. These people are really concerned about their inability to buy or payoff a house due to high prices and interest rates. I suspect the government would be polling very poorly in this demographic. Based on things I hear them say, I am not surprised about the 59:41 poll result. So in my view, any seat with a concentration of this age group, and a margin under 6 or 7%, is vulnerable. Even at the risk of defeat, IMO Howard should go to the polls soon, before the November inflation figure come out. Another rate rise would surely kill any chance for him.

    And no, I’m not a member of either major party. I live in Adelaide and really do espouse small-L liberal views. Hence I am not a Downer fan. You can’t call yourself liberal and lock up refugees (or even terror suspects) without trial. For me the Haneef case was the final straw, and I won’t be voting for the Coalition. Its not just Howard – Ruddock, Abbott and Andrews have all appalled me. James Killen would have turned in his grave.

27. Sorry should read:

    “In the end the electorate may say to the government bugger all of you and vote them out anyway”

28. Oh those Foxy Morons of Fountain Lakes ….

    http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22385410-5006009,00.html

    [But it’s now been revealed that earlier this year one of the female principals of the show admitted her intense dislike of Mr Howard to a senior political journalist at a social event.

    The conversation was thence the subject of a pre-broadcast exchange between participants of a Sunday morning political talk show.

    The journalists involved didn’t know that their microphones were turned on.

    The PM, a program guest, was in a Sydney studio and heard all of the conversation. ]

29. Good thing they don’t work for the ABC anymore…

30. I’m more and more convinced that Howard won’t resign, and there can’t be a challenge, because that would demonstrate disarray.

    A SMH article demonstrates the Turnbull option:
    http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/howard-staying-put-till-election/2007/09/08/1188783555929.html

    “Sources close to Treasurer Peter Costello reaffirmed that he would be unwilling to take on the job at such a late stage. They pointed out that Mr Costello had, for weeks, declared his continuing support for Mr Howard.

    One wild scenario doing the rounds was for Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull to take on the leadership in the event of Mr Costello’s unwillingness.

    The motivation would be to limit the possible electoral wipe-out under Mr Howard, lift Mr Turnbull’s stocks in his own marginal seat of Wentworth and increase the Liberal vote generally in NSW.

    A Liberal insider said the plan had emerged from Melbourne two months ago as a contingency option.”

31. On the question of whether Labor lost the two Tasmanian seats because of the forestry policy issue (c.f. Amused @ 6, Kevin Bonham @ 141) …

    In my view: Braddon certainly. Bass maybe.

    My recollection is that Bass had long been viewed as a vulnerable seat. Whereas Braddon only really came into play after the policy release and the evident negative reaction to it.

    Amused asserts that “Latham lost Bass and Braddon for the same reason he lost seats everywhere else”.

    Well let’s look at it in pendulum terms. Here’s the electoral pendulum going into the last election.

    Going off the pendulum, Labor lost its 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 12th and 23rd most marginal seats at the 2004 election.

    Bass was No.8. Braddon was – yep, you guessed it – number 23. Braddon swung by 7.1% compared to a national swing of 1.8%.

    Thus Braddon was an anomaly. And the absence of a better explanation, it seems fair to put this anomalous result down to the foresty issue.

    Now what about Bass? That’s a hard one. Looking at Bass’s neighbours on the pendulum: most of more marginal Labor seats fell, whilst most of the slightly safer Labor seats held. So it’s in a real in-between range. Bass swung by 4.7% compared to a national swing of 2.1%. That seems anomalous enough – so there probably was a forestry element to the swing. But Bass only needed to swing by 2.1% to fall. And 2.1% is not hugely different from 1.8%.

    So I conclude that Bass would have been on a knife-edge had it not been for the forestry issue. Which way it would have fallen is anybody’s guess.

32. CORRECTION:

    Bass swung by 4.7% compared to a national swing of 2.1%

    SHOULD READ:

    Bass swung by 4.7% compared to a national swing of 1.8%

33. Chris Curtis (154) and Albert F (174)…..thanks for taking the trouble to read the posting.

    This situation is not only deeply interesting, it is real life and is being played out before our very eyes. The thing is, for a long time now The Liberal Party has stood for very, very little. Even in my State, WA, where the ALP Government is clearly badly flawed and under-powered, the Liberals can barely raise a whimper. Think how manifestly poor they are in the other States, too. In Canberra, only John Howard – with some temporary help from Mark Latham – has been able to keep the Liberals mustered into a coherent form. Think what a shambles they will be once they are deprived of both leader and office.

    I do think we are witnessing another phase in the dismantling of party politics as we’ve known it – revealed on this occasion by the collapse of John Howard’s rule.

    The ALP will in all probability enjoy a great victory very soon: one that will resonate for decades. But they should be thoughtful when they celebrate, because the same rejection can readily visit them too. (Or do I run too far ahead?)

34. Looks like the Libs are after Gillard.

    http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/no-bones-about-her/2007/09/08/1188783558418.html

35. blindoptimist,

    I find the idea of the dismantling of the two parties an interesting idea and if that is what is happening then that may explain the poll numbers.

    In saying this Australia has always had two or three major parties and I suspect will always, and looking back though Election results I have to say that really the more things change the more they stay the same.

    If we are sitting here on a Sunday morning in 8-10 weeks time with the ALP 57.75 Liberal 42.25 (Possium’s average)result then it will be interesting to see first which seats remain with the Liberal Party for an 11% swing will radically change the look of the Electrical map.

    While I would be more likely to vote Liberal with Costello as leader, but the time for a leadership change has long passed, I feel in the long run the Liberal Party will need to reconnect with its heartland this will take time.

    Politics is a forever changing game, and while I feel Rudd has shown signs of making a good PM, all Govts come to an end and one-day it will be Rudd facing defeat.

    Question is can the Liberal Party find a heartland with its currant crop of Pollies, do they even know what their heartland is!!

36. What a strange article from Jason Koutsoukis eh? First, he’s given the inside with the dirt file from an unknown source but far from going with the invitation to ‘dig up the dirt’ (reword and publish) on the unionist ex-boyfriend house renovation… he turns it around to an attack on the government. It’s pretty clear that Jason has placed his bet on who is going to win the election. He’s also postioning himself nicely for the next decade. (Will he be to Rudd what Denis was to Howard… time will tell!)

    The final passage is the most astonishing (worth quoting in full)

    “After 11 years of being run by a policy contortionist, it’s difficult to see why the Liberals want to be in government.

    They don’t stand for paying less tax, not for less regulation, not for smaller government, not for protecting civil liberties, not for investing in universities, not for the arts or sciences, not for a fair go in the workplace, not for states rights, not for an open economy, not for less welfare, not for caring for the planet and not for respecting international law.

    About the only thing it does stand for is John Howard. A man who in nearly 13 years never had the courtesy to invite his own deputy over for a meal — an act of selfishness almost unparalleled in Australian politics.

    No wonder people are itching to toss the Liberals out.”

    This is a journalist who no longer fears retribution.

37. From the Gillard article

    The fact that US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice doesn’t have a brood of children back at home didn’t stop John Howard and Alexander Downer dribbling over her last week

    ROTFLMAO!

    And Julie Bishop is just a high class gutter snipe.

    Thanks for the link, WhoGivesARats.

38. Re Scorpio @ 187,

    “Not sure if anyone has mentioned this one yet. Rudd should have a bit of amunition to throw at Howard’s “Aspirational” GW Target from APEC.”

    He already has. Saw a newsclip during halftime of the Collingwood Sydney game last night. Don’t worry, he is all over that one and will revisit this issue more than once during parliament this week.

39. Simon @ 220,

    “Like wise, I think Howard can keep loses down. If Costello is in charge, then the flood gates will open.”

    Flood gates are already wide open, what this should read is “open wider” ;-D

40. WhoGivesA (#213) is on the money – Howard’s past behaviour is a pretty good guide. Let’s also remember the Fist Full of Dollars in 1980 was alongside the Capital Gains Tax scare campaign. What have the Lib’s got here ? They’ve tried the “Labor will raise the GST” twice but it hasn’t got any legs. I do think big tax cute to neutralise the interest rate rises (in the short term – ’till the tax cuts themselves create further rate rises) is logical in their frame of mind.

    So also, WhoG’s is right – why not risk everything for one last roll of the dice ? Howard has NO confidence in Costello’s political skills (hard to argue with that) so why should he wear the historical ignimony for Costello getting creamed ? Howard’s a control freak – he’d rather be in charge and minimising losses than letting that loser Costello make it even worse – Howard will cop the blame either way.

    If they were forward thinking, it’d be a new generation leader – but it’s too late for that. For mine, Mal Brough is easily the smoothest performer of the next gen. But then Longman’s gotta be seriously at risk too – but then so are most contender’s seats!

41. Thanks John Rocket (235) – that’s an astonishing article from Koutsoukis. What a great summary of this government as well. “The only thing it does stand for is John Howard”. That’s absolutely scathing and sounds like it’s coming from an ALP member, not a journalist at a major newspaper.

    On other matters:
    
    Health Minister Tony Abbott, one of Mr Howard’s strongest supporters, warned against disunity and dismissed speculation of a change of leadership, describing the Prime Minister as “our best asset”.
    

    http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/pms-apec-climate-boost/2007/09/08/1188783562135.html

42. I been thinking over the last couple of days, about the Costello leadership spill.

    In my opinion Costello would be mad to contest it. My first thought is where does costello stand on Iraq, Workchoices, Climate Change? As far as I know, costello is right behind all of these bad policies. He will be in the same position as Howard is now, if he took over the leadership. He doesn’t have time to reframe or walk away from any of these policies. Hawke had all the policies lined up for him by Hayden and really didn’t had to work too hard (or seem to) at getting elected as the public where ready for a change.

    From ‘leaked Liberal polling’ we’ve been told the numbers for Costello was around 17% for ppm, compared to Turnbull who received about 35% (from memory). He just doesn’t have the numbers.

    The one bit of spark I can see for costello is, that he may pick up a few of the ‘I’m sick of Howard’ votes. To me though they will be conteracted by the anything but ‘mr smirk’ votes.

43. Flicker – thanks for tip about assent to referendum bills. Quite right, the people are the 4th arm of the legislative process in that case. Since the GG only acts on advice, I wonder if he formally waits to commission the new PM for that advice?

44. Jason Koutsoukis from The Age has dropped a hint that the next ACNielsen poll, due on Tuesday, is going to show more bad news for the government:

    “Release of the latest Age/Nielsen poll, which is expected to show further deterioration in the Government’s support.”

    http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/a-smirking-gun-drawn-too-late/2007/09/08/1188783562180.html?page=2

45. It’s my feeling that, given the chance, Costello will grab the leadership if it’s available. He just won’t or can’t push Howard out because he’s never had the numbers. I don’t even think he’s ever had the numbers to do what Keating did – lose, go to the back bench, undermine, then try again and be successful. I don’t think he’s capable of undermining in the way that Keating (or Howard) was.

    However if, following on from Howards “is it me?” question some months back, Howard takes it one step further and calls for a confidence vote, then Costello might have his opening there. If a vote such as this were to occur, if the yays and nays are about even on whether Howard should continue as leader or not, then Costello might see this as his chance. If he doesn’t, he probably never will.

    As tired as he looks, Howard won’t resign, but I wouldn’t rule out a confidence vote of some sort. Even then, the numbers could still stack up for Howard, and then they’re no better off than they are now.

    It might all hinge on the Neilsen poll, but I think the combination of the awful Galaxy and Newspoll numbers have already determined the issue of leadership in terms of the now or never scenario. In other words, Howard goes now or he stays all the way to polling day. Once APEC is over, we’ll know. The Libs might hang around for some miracle numbers from Neilsen, but I suspect it’s not going to influence events much, because it’s likely to be similar to Newspoll.

46. Everyone has made some salient points, very interesting reading!
    My thoughts:
    1. It’s too late to swap the rodent for Captain Smirk, they should have done it 12 months ago
    2. Captain Smirk’s poll numbers are worse than the rodent’s.
    3. Captain Smirk vs Rudd would be a Labor landslide win of epic proportions
    4. The rodent won’t go, he’s too puffed up with his own arrogance and his desire to outdo his idol Menzies
    5. Glenn Milne promoting Costello for PM: no surprise! We all know Milne is desperate to get the gig as Smirky’s Press Secretary.
    6. As for the crazy idea that moneybags Malcolm could take over from Howard – Aussies won’t vote for an arrogant toff from the Eastern Suburbs of Sydney.

47. Swampy @ 122 – I’m not sure whether you’re a constituent in Mayo, but Mary Brewerton is fast gaining a profile (and already has one in the northern end of the electorate where she is related to the local doctor). She is campaigning hard and I am going to stand with her at a street corner meeting this morning at the Gumeracha Town Hall – I’ll get back to you later on how she went. I’ve only met her a few times, but she comes across as smart, genuine and intelligent person. On top of that she has a very personable manner and I understand from others that the reception she receives at these meetings is always really good. She certainly comes across as a stark contrast, personality-wise, to Downer and that in itself might be a very positive thing for the Labor Party. Time will tell, as they say, but from what I hear others say, Mayo may be still be a seat of interest on election night.

    I will check back in re her SCM today.

48. It’s rodent clones and gnomes overboard, flapping madly in the water in the hope of finding the seaworthy SS Costello; it’s too late I’m afraid, it sunk years ago.

49. Fagin: well said! You might recognise me as that Kevin Rudd For PM bloke from the other place.

50. The big issue from the next election seems to be the one everyone is ignoring.

    How many seats will the National Party retain in the lower house. I believe their certain holds are:

    1. Lyne
    2. Mallee
    3. Parkes
    4. Wide Bay
    5. Dawson
    6. Riverina

    The rest are up for grabs.

    What future for the Nationals? I suspect zippo.

Comments are closed.