Comments on: Idle speculation: February edition

By: William Bowe

William Bowe — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 02:51:19 +0000

Thanks for coming, everybody - I'm closing this thread down. New one here.

By: blackburnpseph

blackburnpseph — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 02:18:09 +0000

Adam mentions that Ruddy might ‘win narrowly, smile a lot and then win hamdsomely the second time around’ scenario similar to Beattie, Rann, Bracks etc. State governments, particularly (but not always of the ALP persuasion) have been doing this for decades. When federal governments change, they usually do it with a bang and slowly slide backwards (1931, 49, 75, 83, 96). The only new government to have a small majority in recent times has been Whitlam in 1972 who peaked in some states (Qld, SA, WA) in 1969 and by 1972 the tide in these states was running out -and more than balanced by NSW and VIC to give a majority of 9. If he does win narrowly – at this stage there doesn’t seem to be the ‘big mo’ (courtesy of the West Wing) – his majorities may stay narrow. At the federal level there is a much broader range of constituencies (not just geographic) and economic issues are usually paramount – and to some extent out of the govts control. By 2010 there may be also be some state ALP governments that voters want to punish. It has been mentioned that this may be Kevin’s 1969 – if that is the case, this will be the Liberals ‘one election too many’ – and Kevin will win handsomely in 2010.

There are a few other issues to be considered – is there really a mood for change out there? – bloggers on this site do not count, the PM is starting to look stale, but the rest of the govt has been largely rejuvenated since 1996 (Costello, Downer, Ruddock excepted) – contrast this to the last labor government when by 1995 / 96 the ministry was down to the second XI – and is the mortgage belt that upset? – except for those in Sydney who went in too far, and possibly should not have been given loans to begin with (refer RBA warnings over the years). 2007 may be the one election too many.

By: Sacha

Sacha — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 01:39:01 +0000

Adam, Rudd’s task in winning the 2007 election is much easier if the mortgage-belt seats swing to Labor, which might be happening (think about the recent polls in the Adelaide seats which might, of course, just reflect the current labor surge).

If there is a mortgage-belt surge to labor, the ALP *might* pick up Longman, Dickson, Petrie, Bonner, Bowman (long shot), Moreton and Oxley in Qld, and Kingston, Makin and Wakefield in SA, which altogether are 10 seats of the 16 odd seats they need to win.

As Antony Green points out, it was the mortgage belt seats that saved the 1998 election for Howard.

I don’t think that Katter would ever support an ALP govt.

By: Adam

Adam — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 01:27:40 +0000

Hugo, I think that’s a very nice scenario. Assuming we have the same three independents (Andren, Windsor and Katter), and assuming they agree to support Labor (a VERY dubious assumption in Katter’s case), Labor needs to win 13 seats and lose none. This is still a big ask, but not impossible. As to a DD in 2008, that depends on whether Rudd is a whitlamite “crash through or crash” PM or not. I suspect he won’t be. He might follow the Bracks-Beattie-Rann scenario – sneak into office, spend your first term smiling a lot, win a second election in a landslide. The difficulty with that scenario for Rudd is that the unions will demand the repeal of Work Choices ASAP, and with a hostile Senate that will be difficult.

By: Sacha

Sacha — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 01:03:26 +0000

Bill Weller, what do you think has been the best real-life economic system (as opposed to the best theoretical economic system) ?

By: Hugo

Hugo — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 22:53:55 +0000

I suspect this year’s election will end up being a rather polarised affair and I think we can expect the two major parties to achieve solid 40+ primary votes. The Greens will do well (though not as well as opinion polls might suggest), the Dems will go the way of the DLP (which I guess means they’ll make a comeback in about 2030) and Indepedents will hold the balance of power backing a minority Rudd government. This government will be up against a hostile Senate and we’ll be back to the polls in late 2008/ early 2009.

How’s that for psephological musing?

By: Chris

Chris — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 06:21:08 +0000

Stephen L and Adam, without wanting to spam gratuitously, may I suggest this new bulletin board as a possible venue;

http://aussiepolitics.proboards51.com/index.cgi

By: Stephen L

Stephen L — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 03:49:34 +0000

I’m an active member of the Greens, and I’ll admit that I’ve sometimes strayed into pushing Green policy positions on this site (and taking swipes at other parties) but I’d agree with Adam.

It’s inevitable that we will sometimes get on our individual soapboxes, but I think we should try to avoid it, and remind people when they do. There are plenty of sites to discuss political issues. There are very few sites to discuss Australian psephology and it would disappointing if this one got taken over with other matters – I’m already finding it hard to locate the psephological discussions amongst the rest.

That said, I wouldn’t mind taking you up on your comments about population elsewhere Adam if you can suggest a suitable venue.

By: bill weller

bill weller — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 03:49:04 +0000

Because capitalism creates prosperity and prosperity leads to falling birthrates, something Ehrlich didnâ€™t allow for in his predictions. Capitalism leads to consumerism which leads to poverty. Why is it that people that can least afford to try to keep up with consumer products. Drive down roads in my area and the amount rubbish been thrown out by residence because of poor quality is enormous. Capitalism dictates that we must buy buy buy and for those of us who make up 95% of the population its buy throw away tvs mobile phones furniture etc. Children are the major target of capitalistic predators and their generation will be totally materialistic making the bosses rub their hand with glee. The worker is “better of ” than his parents or grand parents but is due to credit cards and loans. It is well known that the more people in poverty the more children they have trying to make the family survive. A poll of working areas and rich areas would prove that right. The third world is increasing at alarming rates yet being the poorest areas of the world and being totally exploited by capitalism and the Governments who embrace it ( all governments are capitalist in some form). The environment and its protection covers all issues from IR to economics. To not take global warming and its affects seriously as the number 1 issue would be disastrous.

By: Adam

Adam — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 03:23:24 +0000

And incidentally, WHY were Ehrlich and co wrong about population? Because capitalism creates prosperity and prosperity leads to falling birthrates, something Ehrlich didn’t allow for in his predictions.