• Michael Bachelard of The Age reports the blue-ribbon Melbourne seats of Kooyong (9.8 per cent) and Goldstein (10.0 per cent) are in danger of falling “because John Howard has refused to move aside”. This is according to a “senior Liberal figure” who desribes the Prime Minister’s new position on the leadership as a “catastrophe” driven by “selfishness”, and believes “next Tuesday’s Newspoll should be a catalyst for a change”. Elsewhere in Victoria, Deakin (5.0 per cent), McMillan (5.0 per cent), Corangamite (5.3 per cent), La Trobe (5.8 per cent) and McEwen (6.4 per cent) are rated “almost certain to go”, while Dunkley (9.4 per cent) and
Flinders (11.1 per cent) are “also under pressure”.
• Simon Benson of the Daily Telegraph reports that Labor polling in 10 New South Wales marginals pointed to swings of between 8 and 12 per cent, which was deemed so implausible it was redone – “only to return the same results”. The report also confirms no effort will be made to win seats from Labor, and says the Liberals have “started polling the blue-ribbon seat of North Sydney because of fears Workplace Relations Minister Joe Hockey could fall” (although similar noises could be heard during the 2004 campaign).
• Steve Lewis of The Australian reckons the Prime Minister’s announcement that he will hand over the reins to Peter Costello in an increasingly hypothetical next term of government amounts to him “sacrificing his own seat to save the Coalition”, since it will enable Maxine McKew to point to the certainty of a mid-term by-election. Significantly, the Prime Minister is now promising to serve a full term as member for Bennelong if the government is returned.
• Michael McKenna of The Australian reports that Moreton MP Gary Hardgrave “appears to have misled federal parliament” over the AFP’s inquiries into the “phantom staffer” and “printgate” affairs. An AFP spokesman is quoted saying a formal interview was requested with Hardgrave, which appears at odds with his statement in parliament on August 7: “I have not even been required for an interview by the AFP in the five-and-a-half months since this matter began”.
• Focus group sessions conducted by the Sydney Morning Herald, as reported by Peter Hartcher and Annabel Crabb, provide many pages of grim reading for the government and its supporters.
• Malcolm Mackerras tells the Canberra Times that the Greens’ Senate candidate in the ACT, former MLA Kerrie Tucker, is a “50-50” chance to lead the party to an unprecedented Senate win at the expense of Liberal incumbent Gary Humphries.
• Venturing slightly off topic, Sean Parnell of The Australian reports from Queensland that “senior conservatives fear Anna Bligh will use a state electoral redistribution late next year as the trigger for an early election, consigning an ill-prepared Coalition to another three years in Opposition”.
He spun the wheel like he bowled the cricket ball.
[It would suit Rudd very nicely to have no debates at all.]
Why then did the ALP federal secretary ask for 3 debates? Surely he consulted with Rudd before sending off the ALP’s proposal / requests.
Anyway, my point was that politicians shouldn’t be allowed to decide the frequency and format of the debates. The rules should be set in legislation, and not subject to modification year by year by incumbents.
I wasn’t commenting on how things are, I was proposing how they should or could be. It is obvious Howard doesn’t like the debates because he isn’t very good at them. Hence he only has one, because if he requested zero then everyone would know he was scared. He is compelled by political pressure to hold one, but to me that isn’t enough. That doesn’t really test the candidates in different scenarios.
I think there should be 3 at the start, middle, and end of the campaign. The first one should feature all party leaders currently in parliament, and at least one should feature questions from the audience. This is all just standard procedure in the U.S. I don’t understand why our politicians can’t hack it.
The Australian has Labor’s statement on the UN indigenous people’s right’s charter up front and centre on its webpage. They better get ready for an attempted Tampa on this issue.
[THE GREENS have emerged as the main threat to Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s future, with polling tracking the party’s primary vote in his seat of Wentworth at a massive 20 per cent.]
Where are these Green votes coming from? If they are coming of Turnbull, then he is in trouble. But if they are coming off Labor, then going back to Labor, then it could be more a hinderance than a help.
Simon, I agree it would be better to have the debates run on a non-partisan basis, as they are in the US (by the League of Women Voters). As for Gartrell’s proposal, obviously he is trying to look very pro-debates in order to upstage Howard, make the Libs react to Labor’s agenda, etc etc. It doesn’t alter the fact that Howard has more to gain from the debates than Rudd does, because Howard is behind and needs something to give him momentum.
Costello would love 3 debates if he was leader. Whatever you think of him he’s quick on his feet and a darn good advocate.
Rudd would carve up Howard in a debate but not Costello.
The ALP’s debate terms may change if Howard goes.
Jen, Howard showed us he couldn’t spin in India: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-841438246387500778
Sadder for him, van Onselen and Errington reveal he couldn’t spin well enough to even make his high school first XI.
If only he had, we may have been spared his relentless ambition.
[They better get ready for an attempted Tampa on this issue.]
How will that occur?
Re (204),
Simon Howson Says:
September 16th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
[THE GREENS have emerged as the main threat to Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s future, with polling tracking the party’s primary vote in his seat of Wentworth at a massive 20 per cent.]
Where are these Green votes coming from? If they are coming of Turnbull, then he is in trouble. But if they are coming off Labor, then going back to Labor, then it could be more a hinderance than a help.
Simon, they would be coming off of Turnbull and a direct correlation should be there with the pulp mill issue in Tasmania.
[Costello would love 3 debates if he was leader. Whatever you think of him he’s quick on his feet and a darn good advocate.]
I think his debating skills are greatly over rated. He basically shouts a lot, rather than explaining why he has better ideas. He would look hopeless during a TV debate, oh, the fact he has never had an original idea would work against him as well.
[As for Gartrell’s proposal, obviously he is trying to look very pro-debates in order to upstage Howard, make the Libs react to Labor’s agenda, etc etc.]
Certainly. I can remember him sending out a very similar proposal to the Liberals in 2004 (minus the request of internet streaming, and questions via YouTube). I find this stupid debate the debate tango very boring, these rules should be set in stone years ago.
I see no reason why you couldn’t have Howard, Rudd, Brown, Allison and Fielding on stage for one debate, all with equal time to answer questions. In some cases it would make people think more seriously about the minor parties, in other cases people would see what loonies the minors are, and shift back to a major. I can’t see how that hurts our democracy. But I do think the later debates should be only Labor / Liberal.
Maybe the first debate could be voluntary. It would only take one of the majors to turn up to force the other one to attend!
Adam – League of Women voters – I don’t think they have been involved for 20 years.
Simon – the debates are a good idea but how do you make them compulsory?
There is a difference between an independent speaker – and I think Tony Windsor would be a great choice – who is actually involved in the mechanics, but i don’t think the process of campaigning should be regulated into a format of how it is done.
The debates are a creation of politics – not a creation of political or constitutional theory.
I think that Gartrell has created a wish list of the ideal set of conditions to harrass Howard. I don’t think Rudd needs to do this, all he is doing is setting the stage. If Howard declines anything that looks modern, it can only be bad for Howard. Rudd is offering this from a position of strength – anything less than this is fine for him.
[Simon, they would be coming off of Turnbull and a direct correlation should be there with the pulp mill issue in Tasmania.]
Well if the Greens get 15+% then I agree, Turnbull is gone.
I think he is going to avoid making a decision until the election is called. Then if Garret agrees for the pulp mill to go ahead, then he will share some of the blame.
I think the report about the Skynews “leaking” of tomorrow/Tues newspoll is a tad previous. No reference to it at the moment.
“I think his debating skills are greatly over rated. He basically shouts a lot, rather than explaining why he has better ideas. He would look hopeless during a TV debate, oh, the fact he has never had an original idea would work against him as well.”
Simon, don’t let your dislike of Costello cloud your judgement. He’s smart, witty and clever. He’d be dangerous in a televised debate. People might be surprised to see a man who isn’t the treasurer.
Re (212),
“I think he is going to avoid making a decision until the election is called. Then if Garret agrees for the pulp mill to go ahead, then he will share some of the blame.”
I don’t think that Rudd will put Peter into the position to have to make a decision on this issue. He will move to another portfolio and I sincerely hope it is Immigration and Aboriginal affairs.
{Simon, don’t let your dislike of Costello cloud your judgement. He’s smart, witty and clever. He’d be dangerous in a televised debate. People might be surprised to see a man who isn’t the treasurer.}
Neil, I don’t know if you saw Costello’s interview with Laurie Oakes on the Sunday Show today, but Costello looked absolutely out of his element for the whole interview.
I just had another look on ninemsm video and he kept bobbing up like someone was under his chair poking a pin into his backside all the time.
Really, the impression I got was Costello seemed like he was walking through a mine field and wasn’t sure where all the mines were. He swallowed a lot and his facial expressions were of a man who couldn’t get out of there fast enough.
Oakes let him off the hook somewhat and Costello really was playing the thing by ear as he went along trying to stay on song which still hadn’t been issued in final draft form for everyone to practice and get down pat. He doesn’t believe much of what he spruked in reply to Oakes questions.
http://ninemsn.video.msn.com/v/en-au/v.htm?f=39&g=cc93ca04-87c8-4fd8-ad01-7ff3db50b19d&p=aunews_ausunday&t=s29&mediaid=109050
Rove just ripped in to Howard to start off the show…
“John Howard… he’s like herpes isn’t he?”
Labor should just use the first 3 minutes of Rove in their advertising. Very amusing and boy did Howard/Costello get shot down.
Problem is, he’s just not likable. He doesn’t seem to engender positive feelings in people. And he’s carrying baggage, being tarred with a similar brush as the PM, mostly because he’s done the loyal thing and toed the party line regularly.
I also think he’s suited to one role and one topic, rather than being across every issue. He’s never been able to shake that perception.
I’ve often thought he looks strongest and most comfortable with himself when he’s talking about the economy. When he’s not, it’s like he’s ventured out of a dark cave and is squinting in the sunlight. He doesn’t look as if he believes in himself enough.
Neil Says:
September 16th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
I agree. Costello is a great speaker, who hasn’t differentiated himself enough from the current Libs, but the things he has done, have been major. Aboriginal reconciliation and the republic being two of them. He’s a debater of the highest order, and you denigrate him at your peril.
That’s what makes this election such a balls-up for the libs. If they’d switched leaders last year, we’d have a real contest on our hands. Now, everything the libs do comes off as desperate, and they truly are looking down the barrel of annihilation. If Costello was leading the party now, and had been for nine months, I don’t think the ALP would be ahead. They certainly wouldn’t be ahead as far as they are today.
There’s also a good article about Turnbull in the Bully which explains a lot about the man and I especially liked the last bit. There could be much more to Howard’s motives than we realise. There is, I believe, much more to pan out yet.
{Turnbull is being groomed by Howard as the next Liberal leader over the head of Costello, the duplicitous deputy. And great fortune – if not time – is on his side. }
http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=295081
Debating costello would be like defusing a hand grenade with your teeth
Don’t anybody doubt it, he has razor scharpe wit and its impossible to predict.
[Simon – the debates are a good idea but how do you make them compulsory? ]
You set a time, and a place, and you invite the politicians. If one turns up, the others will for fear of looking gutless.
TV advertising is pretty expensive, why shouldn’t political parties want some free TV time set aside each election?
[The debates are a creation of politics – not a creation of political or constitutional theory.]
I agree. But we have an independent electoral comission (the AEC), which takes submissions before independently determining electoral boundaries. Why couldn’t we have a similar organisation, an “Independent Comission for Election Debates” that takes submissions from the public, academia, political parties, and the media, then formulates the debate rules?
By default the debates should be broadcast on the ABC, but other stations can show them for free if they want. Each TV station could nominate one person who they want to be a host, with two hosts per debate (I’m counting Sky News as 1 station).
As it stands Howard says there will be 1 debate, on Channel 9, with Ray Martin as the host. Rudd will have to either agree to it, or have no debate. Such a situation is dumb, it under rates the intelligence of the average voter, and makes our politicians look like wimps (but hey, we vote for them I guess).
Neil :
re Costell being “smart, witty and clever”…
I think the electorate perceive him as smart@#se, con-artist and botoxed.
I could be wrong though – they might make him prime minister.
No I wasn’t quite right in saying above (213): “I think the report about the Skynews “leaking†of tomorrow/Tues newspoll is a tad previous. No reference to it at the moment.”
They are still saying that “Tuesday’s Newspoll delivers a blow to to the government” on their headline. No detail so presume it’s just a guess. Being that vague they’re not likely to be completely wrong. They definitely seem a bit urgent to be out in front, but last week they got pretty close with the Turnbull & Downer tap the rodent report that lead the field on Monday.
Hi Scorpio,
There is no way Howard would groom Turnball,
the Queen’s man is mentoring the repubilcan? doesn’t make sense
My grasp of Turnball is that he is only in this game to bring about a republic,
everything else is just a collection of stepping stones,
218
Scotty Says:
September 16th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
Neither was Keating. In fact, Keating was genuinely disliked to an even greater degree.
In the last two years, the actions of the major parties tells us more than any government paid advertisements could. Carr, Bracks and Beattie, three Labor politicians that were immensely popular gave it away. You could add Goss to that list from a decade ago. It’s something the conservatives do very very badly, and they truly are paying the price. If they had done it, they would probably be in front against the ALP using a different agenda.
But they didn’t… and with the ALP looking like their going to capture the entire middle ground of the political spectrum, I can’t think of a single issue they’re going to be able to wrest back for a very very long time.
Mr Squiggle Says:
That razor sharp mind was somewhere else during the Sunday, Oakes interview.
I think the half dozen valium he took last night after pruning the lemon tree still hadn’t worn off properly. He will want to be a whole lot better than that against Rudd.
His problem is they don’t have a creditable message to sell the electorate. Rudd is doing all the running and owns too many of the main issues. Costello and Co only have the scraps left and they don’t catch the attention. They’re gone.
grr…. they’re…
[Simon, don’t let your dislike of Costello cloud your judgement. He’s smart, witty and clever. He’d be dangerous in a televised debate. People might be surprised to see a man who isn’t the treasurer.]
I’m sorry, I just don’t see it. Maybe if he learnt to speak more quietly I would be able to take him more seriously. His main debating tactics seem to be yelling, and repetition. The best attack he could come up with against Beazley was calling him fat (wow really?), and saying he was born in the back of a ComCar. He can’t explain why his ideas are better, so he just reverted to personal attacks that wouldn’t play at all well during a TV debate.
What I have learnt from Costello is the following:
Education is good (which makes me wonder why Costello took $1.5 billion out of higher education in his very first budget)
Poker machines are bad (which makes me wonder why he has never done anything to stop them being installed in pubs & clubs)
Taxes are bad (which makes me wonder why he is the treasurer in the highest taxing government of all time)
As others have mentioned, I think Costello is spoilt goods, Howard has made him part of the “team” because it means Costello will drown when HMS Howard sinks.
Tough times for the government. Much will depend on Tuesday’s Newspoll – if it’s any sort of improvement, Howard is safe I feel, but if it’s as bad or worse (ie in the area of 60-40), the leadership thing will keep ticking. However, I don’t think Howard will go. He’s made it very clear he’s staying put, and I can’t see a challenge being issued, let alone won. At any rate, if Howard can survive this week, he’s probably safe till election day, but the ledadership thing may well eat away at them.
As a Labor partisan, this has been the best possible outcome to a situation they could do nothing about – a PM whom voters seem sick of survives, but greatly diminished.
Hi Scorpio,
{There is no way Howard would groom Turnball,
the Queen’s man is mentoring the repubilcan? doesn’t make sense}
It makes more sense than Howard grooming Costello who he must hate probably more than even anyone on the Labor side by now.
What’s the old saying; my enemy’s enemy is my friend. Howard would not worry what Turnbull has done in the past if he could use him as a wedge against Costello’s ambitions.
Sunday night TV is being positively flooded with Workchoices Adds.
They’re probably trying to use them all up before they call the election. May have paid for most of them up front.
228
Makes you wonder, Pi, doesn’t it? How the coalition lost the middle ground? I reckon it was Tampa. They found a panacea for electoral woes, right when they were in a similar situation to where they are now, and it won them government. OK so some other factors were in play, such as lifting the petrol excise – showed they were listening.
But this Tampa line of thinking – I think it changed their whole approach to how they framed issues. It began to be all about fear – the tool of the neocon. Fear of being overrun by refugees. Fear of interest rate rises. Fear of terrorist attacks. Fear of unions. Actually I think that last one was a huge ideological blunder, entirely of Howard’s own making.
In any case, they lost the middle ground I think in 2001, and haven’t even tried to move back the other way. It’s no wonder Fraser and Hewson have been so vocal against JWH in the last few years. They saw it coming, and he never did. Now it’s too late, and it’s all over. Back to the drawing board for the Libs.
[It makes more sense than Howard grooming Costello who he must hate probably more than even anyone on the Labor side by now.]
Well it seems he would rather get voted out than hand over to that loser Costello. 😛
Surely that means something!
Actually now I think about it,
I could well imagine Howard mentoring a millionaire
The libs are strapped for cash at every angle
I rich man would be worth mentoring, even if you had to nudge her majesty off the cliff
[I rich man would be worth mentoring, even if you had to nudge her majesty off the cliff]
I think Howard knows he will be the last monarchist to be leader of the Liberals.
After last week it really does seem like he is pursuing an “anyone but Costello” campaign.
Put in historical and sociological perspective, Rudd has two things going for him.
(1) he’ll be the first born and bred Queenslander to lead his own administration. Population and power has been drifting north for more than a generation now.
(2) he’s self-made. For 33 years from Menzies to Fraser, we only elected private school-kids with the best sandstone degrees. Hawke was a transition. Through Keating and Howard we’ve had the more dogged and ruthless leaders who made their own way. Their antitheses have failed horribly: witness Mssrs Crean Jr, Beazley Jr, Downer Jr Jr (yes, yes Latham spoils my thesis, but no-one can account for him…)
On this measure educational and boot-strapping measure, Rudd has it over Costello who has it over Turnbull.
So annoyed: EVERY 2ND AD TONIGHT DURING SUNDAY PRIME TIME WAS “AUTHORISED BY THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT, CANBERRA”.
How much of our money is being pissed down the drain telling us that we can be “climate clever” by installing a low-powered light bumb, or that the internet has porn on in.
This is desperate, and I would wager, counterproductive stuff from the government. Did Peter “hands on the purse strings” authorise this?
Pi,
{Neither was Keating. In fact, Keating was genuinely disliked to an even greater degree.}
Hi Pi, I don’t know how many times I have seen similar comments to yours over the years and they have always astounded me.
I believe that Keating was the victim of a long, concerted effort by both the Murdoch Press and kerry Packer to undermine and demonise him, and it worked.
The two media barons were to a large extent why Hawke was able to weather a number of stormy issues and win 4 elections.
Keating refused to give them what they wanted in the way of media reform and the turned against him in a very feral way. People are slowly awakening from the hit job on Keating and starting to realise just what he stood for and that was a better, fairer Australia with a great future as a mature nation with beneficial ties to Asia.
Most of those ideals were undone by the backward looking Howard and we will pay the penalty for that for many years to come.
Brilliant story by Rob Hirst. I’m one of those who has never looked too deeply into Turnbull’s persona as I was overseas during the republican debate. I know little about him but must admit (to my shame?) that he was one of the few bearable Libs, in that he was smart but not smart-arse. Mal Washer and Petro Georgio (and, dare I say it on this forum, Joe Hockey too) are others who were not overly ideological or mendacious for the likes of me.
I agree entirely with one of Hirst’s statements, that Garrett should not have been given the environment portfolio considering his strong advocacy in the past. Garrett is just looking foolish in the pulp mill debate – you know he doesn’t believe it and yet he has to toe the line for fear of doing a Latham to the forestry workers. Hirst is very gentle on Garrett, as one would expect considering their long friendship, but in that one sentence he makes a lot of sense.
Not appointing Garrett to environment would of course have opened Rudd up to accusations of hiding him away, but it also tosses up the other side of the coin. Why, when the Rodent, the Abominable Nelson and Lord Downer of Bargearse are banging on about how important Iraq is to fighting the psychotic towelheads, does not Rudd bring up the fact that in his potential backbench he has the likes of Mike Kelly and Rodney Cocks? These people actually know what’s happening on the ground, so why aren’t they being used?
I looked at Adam’s precis of the La Trobe electorate, and with Cocks being such a nice young man who’s done all of these amazing things, surely he’ll charm a couple of the oldies into going for him. But that raises another question for those in the know: does it really work that way for local candidates on the hustings?
Perhaps all the government ads are the best indication that Howard may be paying a visit to the Governor General in the morning.
231
Simon Howson Says:
September 16th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
It’s at times like this that we should all remember the good senator Sherry…
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/political-quagmire-claims-yet-another/2005/09/03/1125302779430.html
I remember it happening. It was devestating.
The writing is on the wall. Up until now I was happy to think once the election campaign proper started there would be a steady movement back towards the coalition and it would become anyone’s election, but now my views are different. I was attending a Scottish primary school back in the mid-nineties, but that doesn’t stop me from remembering the malaise which sank over John Major’s Conservtive government once the poor polling became entrenched and the ranks began to convulse. It’s happening again, the unity which can hold a government together has given away to unelectability and as soon as that happens it’s over. In the last fortnight that has happened, Labor has poured petrol on the flames and the media have fanned it into an inferno. It’s going to be a landslide defeat. In South Australia, my home state I’m beginning to think that Kingston, Wakefield, Makin and Sturt will all go (not Boothby because of a terrible Labor candidate). One seat not often mentioned in the huge seat of Grey, but until 1993 it was a Labor seat and should now be on the radar again, especially given that popular back bencher Barry Wakelin is retiring.
The Tasmania pulp mill debacle will cost the Libs all thier seats there and Wentworth too. Queensland will be a rout and the only thing stopping a similar rout in NSW is the state government, but it could still happen there. No low hanging fruit in Victoria, but I expect anything under 7% to go. Yes, it’s oblivion for the coalition, and it’s largely thier own doing.
Julie Bishop for the leadership.
Re Costello – my manager was present earlier this year at an inter-jurisdictional meeting of Treasurers, including Costello. His first-hand experience was that Costello was sharp as a tack, knew his stuff, and if anyone who didn’t have their facts straight tried to stand up to him, they were torn apart like a threshing machine trundling across a wheat field.
Providing he’s across the subject matter, I wouldn’t underestimate the man’s debating abilities.
This is the hansard document of the day…
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/dailys/dr011097.pdf
The barrage of government advertising is turning off voters more and more. Very counterproductive, and people are increasingly resentful that millions of dollars of taxpayers money is being frittered away under the guise of “information campaigns”.
Simon,
NOt sure I gree with you,
My sense is that Howard wants to win, or if he loses, at least pass the baton to someone who will respect the party.
malcom turnball appears to me to using his represetative stint as an exercise in personal development, he has a lot to prove before I believe he is has tired to contibute to his party rather than add a chapter to his menoirs
I’ve seen Costello speaking in less formal surrounds and I can tell you he is very funny and totally different to what you expect. He is also self depricating and is someone who thinks and reacts quickly to an unexpected situation.
Now there is a difference between a footy function and a televised national debate. But Costello is a politician who needs to break the shackles of his public persona and let people see him without the veneer. He is not the stuffy undertaker in real life that he appears to be as Treasurer.
Look, he might flop badly. Public attitude might be entrenched. He might be damaged goods. But Costello could also surprise and shift the focus back on to Rudd as an untried minister with policies that need to be scutinised.
All I’m saying is Costello is dangerous and unpredictable, unlike Howard. If Costello surprised and impressed, without the shackles of party discipline, then the ALP would feel nervous.
You never know what can happen if momentum shifts in an election campaign.
Every time I have seen Costello in front of the camera he has struggled to express himself, he is stilted, slow thinking and sometimes uses indirect language to express a main point thereby missing the chance. Maybe he is too used to talking to intellectuals and not the average joe.
I know he does well in parliament where he can work himself up into a lather with sledging and put downs and his scripted data, it is good, but he does look slow outside that place.
Debates are different of course, he can use prepared material but he cant use his parliamentary methods (sledging, shouting put downs etc).
Even if Costello has all the hidden talents attributed to him that might gain some ground for him at this election , he has run out of the most vital commodity – time.