None of this actually has anything to do with the budget, but you know how it is …
• The ALP’s national executive, which was empowered by the recent national conference to select candidates for 25 New South Wales seats, announced the candidates for 10 seats on Saturday. In the western Sydney seat of Blaxland, sitting member Michael Hatton has been dumped in favour of another member of the Right, Transurban executive and former Bob Carr staffer Jason Claire. Hatton has held the seat since replacing Paul Keating at a by-election held in the wake of the 1996 election defeat. Others who had designs on Blaxland included constitutional expert George Williams, Bankstown mayor Tania Mihailuk and Electrical Trades Union chief Bernie Riordan. The Sydney Morning Herald reported that Mihailuk had been “likely” to win, possibly explaining Hatton’s decision to lodge disciplinary charges against her for “failing to properly manage her branch affairs”.
• The national executive has also chosen Penrith mayor David Bradbury (said by Brad Norington of The Australian to have “historical links” to the Transport Workers Union) to make his third successive run against Jackie Kelly in Lindsay. Joe Hildebrand of the Daily Telegraph reports that Bradbury’s win has greatly displeased the National Union of Workers, which had thrown its weight behind 23-year-old school teacher May Hayek. Others to get the nod in Coalition-held seats included human rights lawyer George Newhouse, who will run against Malcolm Turnbull in Wentworth (where the redistribution has cut Turnbull’s margin from 5.6 per cent to 2.6 per cent); former ministerial staffer Greg Holland, who will make his second run against Danna Vale in the long-lost seat of Hughes (which fell in 1996, and now has a post-redistribution margin of 8.8 per cent); Belinda Neal, former Senator and wife of state Industrial Relations Minister John Della Bosca, who will attempt to unseat Jim Lloyd in Robertson (margin now 6.9 per cent); and ambulance officer Tim Arneman, who suffered a 68-vote defeat in Port Stephens at the state election, and now faces Bob Baldwin in Paterson (6.8 per cent).
• Two incumbents have emerged from the national executive process unscathed: Julia Irwin in Fowler and Jennie George in Throsby. A highly fancied bid by former national party president Warren Mundine to unseat Irwin fell foul of the party’s affirmative action targets, after a number of defeats by female candidates in other seats. The irony of an indigenous candidate being squeezed out on affirmative action grounds was widely noted. The Australian Jewish News reports that both Rudd’s office and Melbourne Ports MP Michael Danby told the paper to keep quiet about the challenge to Irwin, a vocal critic of Israel, the former saying that “the best way to ensure her survival is for you guys to cover it”. According to Kerry-Anne Walsh of the Sun-Herald, Jennie George’s endorsement followed a “faction deal made between the Left and Right” that would “raise eyebrows”.
• Mark Davis of the Sydney Morning Herald reports that affirmative action supporters in the New South Wales ALP’s Left have revolted against the factional leadership’s decision to deliver the number two Senate position to Doug Cameron, former national secretary of the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union. Seven women have nominated against Cameron for the factional ballot, including management consultant and 2003 state election candidate Imogen Wareing. The first and third positions on the ticket are reserved for the Right; it is anticipated that Ursula Stephens will be demoted from her number one position in 2001 to number three, making way for state party secretary Mark Arbib.
• A factional row has erupted in the New South Wales Liberal Party after its nomination review panel rejected country vice-president Scott McDonald’s Senate preselection nomination. The move safeguarded Left faction member Marise Payne’s third position on the Coalition ticket, behind Helen Coonan and the Nationals’ John Williams (who replaces the retiring Sandy Macdonald). Background to the dispute was provided by Imre Salusinszky of The Australian:
As part of its general reassertion of authority following the years in exile that began under former premier Nick Greiner, the Right has had its eye on the spot occupied by Marise Payne, who hails from the Left faction. Desperate to avoid predictably bad headlines in the Fairfax newspapers and on the ABC about right-wing “extremists” controlling the party, Howard told Heffernan to work the numbers for Payne. Heffernan went at the task the only way he knows: like a bull at a gate. At a fiery meeting last month, he tried to curtail the preselection process entirely and moved that the state executive simply re-endorse the sitting team. When this failed, Heffernan took the fight to the party’s nominations review committee, of which he is one of three members. The committee threw out the nomination of the Right’s challenger to Payne, state vice-president Scott McDonald. Designed to vet candidates on the grounds of character or ethics, or because their candidacy could damage the party, the committee operates as a “black box” and does not give reasons for its decisions. But it is understood the issue was a conflict of interest, McDonald having already spoken against Heffernan’s motion on the executive. The move has upset the NSW Right like nothing else done in the name of its Dear Leader. Meanwhile, the Left, for once, finds itself supporting Howard and Heffernan.
• Controversial Right faction powerbroker Alex Hawke has thrown his hat in the ring to contest Liberal preselection for Mitchell, where incumbent Alan Cadman proposes to run again despite a universal perception he is past his use-by date. Also in the running are Australian Hotels Association deputy chief executive officer David Elliot and state party vice-president Nick Campbell, described by Irfan Yusuf at Crikey as “the NSW Right’s main number-cruncher”.
• Western Australian Liberal Senator Ian Campbell, who lost his cabinet position in March on the flimsy basis that he had been at a meeting with Brian Burke, has announced he will quit politics in the coming weeks. The party moved quickly to fill the vacancy with Mathias Cormann, who last week defeated incumbent Ross Lightfoot to take the number three position on the ticket for this year’s election. Since the position filled by Cormann does not expire until 2011, the number three position is again up for grabs. According to Robert Taylor of The West Australian, “party insiders said it made sense to shift Mr Cormann into the Senate immediately and search for a strong number three given that Mr Cormann’s dominant presence in the last preselection discouraged many people from nominating”. Names of potential aspirants have yet to surface in the media; however, Campbell last month dismissed speculation that he might be about to resign as “wishful thinking” from those hoping to fill a vacancy, naming Cormann and Nick Bruining, a financial journalist who ran unsuccessfully for the state upper house in 2001.
• The ABC reports a field of nine candidates will seek preselection for the Liberals’ Tasmanian Senate ticket, which will be held “next month in Launceston”. They include two incumbents, John Watson and Richard Colbeck (who were number two and number three in 2001), along with “former state MHA David Fry, former Liberal staffer David Bushby, former political staffer Guilia Jones and Don Morris, the chief of staff to Senate Preisdent Paul Calvert”. The number one candidate from 2001, Senate President Paul Calvert, is retiring.
• In the seat of Newcastle, Labor member Sharon Grierson will face a challenge from David March, president of the party’s Merewether West branch, at a preselection vote to be held on May 26.
• In South Australia, Labor has announced candidates for the Liberal-held seats of Barker (Karen Lock), Grey (Karin Bolton) and Mayo (Mary Brewerton).
393 Comments
COSTELLO MASTERCLASS
Treasurer trumps Labor
A sharp lesson for Rudd
Clever politics and good sense too
Labor outflanked
Mother of all surprises- Costello cares
Battlers win the greatest relief
Rug pulled from under Rudd’s feet
Everyone’s a winner
Bringing home the bacon for PM’s battlers
Anything to put the toothpaste back in the tube
Sorry… I made the last one up. But all the rest are foaming at the mouth headlines from this morning’s Australian….. each story with the Oz’s mandatory “you heard it here first†sentence.
Well, it’s needed of course-. ever since Dennis Shanahan’s bold attempt to destabilise Labor last year went awfully pear-shaped when “stout party†collapsed prematurely and his successor shot to a 20% TPP lead.
“Whatever have you done?â€, Howard must have thundered over their hot line, “Fix itâ€.
And fix it is what Dennis and the Oz have been struggling to do ever since. Problem is, until now no mud has stuck and Howard’s gained no traction. There may have been a sea change in the way voters view Howard- as if the scales have finally been lifted from their eyes. Nothing may work under these circumstances.
The budget will be the real test though. Tip-point for the last 2 elections has been May— and Howard has about 5 months left to swing the TPP by the necessary 9 percentage points. That’s a slightly bigger ask than 2001 (7%) and 2004 (6%) but, with Dennis and The Oz egging him on, he might just get there.
Yes, this is a Budget borne of some desperation, but a pretty good one (in political terms) nonetheless. Next week’s Newspoll will be VERY interesting, I think. If the punters aren’t buying after all that largesse, then the government is done for. Anything less than, say, a 46% 2PP for the Libs spells doom for them.
I will be watching the trends with the primary vote for the major parties in the opinion polling undertaken over the next 3 months. For JWH to realise any hopes of a fifth term, he needs the Coalition primary vote around mid August to be about 42% or higher, with a corresponding dip in the ALP’s primary vote.
Hugo Says: Next week’s Newspoll will be VERY interesting, I think.
Yes, won’t it? Funny how Newspoll skipped a week a little while back. Surely they didn’t do it to align the polling with the Budget?
Of course not.
Didn’t the media fawn over Howard’s Murray-Darling initative as a brillant move to cut into Labor’s lead on the environment some time ago? Budget will make little difference, the govt’s strong card is prosperity.
Quick scan of the blogs and media voxpops this morning suggests overwhelming cynicism. Interesting how so much of the media (including the Tele splash, once seen as Howard’s bellwether) have picked up Labor’s “clever” line. The last budget to really move the polls was in 1993 with the infamous deferral of the L_A_W tax cuts. Agree with Geoff – the punters, to the extent that they’re still listening, have already factored economic management into their current voting intentions so I’d be surprised if Newspoll moves much out of its recent range. Reaction would be interesting if Labor actually went up a point or two with the normal statistical variability.
I do find this constant referral to Howard as clever amusing.
It amuses because by inferrence it means Rudd Gillard and Swan aren’t clever.
Who cares anyway, Rudd told us on Monday hes going to win, and hes the smartest guy in the country, its all over bar the shouting
I suspect that you’re missing the irony inherent in the use of the word “clever”, Andrew.
Please elucidate the irony.
there’s “clever” as in intelligent but there’s also “clever” as in (rat) cunning – cf “too clever by half.” methinks the punters are picking up more of the rodent variety these days, that’s coming through loud and clear in focus groups and Labor’s milking it for all its worth. Howard used similar techniques on Keating.
I am interested to see the comments from affected groups filter into the media over the next few days. I am particuarly thinking about higher education where the sector has, quite remarkably, got more then they asked for.
I think that the reponse comments from goups such as the avcc or defence groups may have more impact then Costello’s budget speech
The ‘clever’ tactic worries me too. Although i think it works well with people who can understand that there is a difference between cleverness and intelligence (and also between both of these and wisdom) i think there is a big part of australia that might not get the subtle irony. eg. some above comments and also my brother saying “even rudd says that howards the smartest bloke in the country, why get rid of him now”
I think everybody is getting a little excited about the forthcoming Newspoll. One of the “clever” aspects of this Budget is that Costello has kept a lot of the ammo up the Howard Government’s sleeve for later on. The various hand-outs to be liberally dispensed amongst the great unwashed over the coming weeks will have some impact as well. Make no mistake about it, the Howard Government is in trouble and I am far from convinced that the budget or the flow-on from it will save them. However, suggesting that anything less than 46% 2PP next Tuesday morning “spells doom” is silly.
Remember Malcolm Fraser? He came from well behind in the polls at the time of calling an election 3 times.
Depth of support, not breadth, is what matters and I strongly suspect the present overwhelming support for St Kevin is very soft.
Incidentally, Wayne Swan performance on 7.30 Report last night confirmed that he is still one of the Howard Government’s best assets
Off-topic – i have to say that William’s coverage is excellent and leaves Wikipedia in the dust.
People “diss” WP with good reason – it is full of inaccuracies, misquotations and bad spelling! As has been pointed out, when people attempt to correct the mistakes, the origiinal poster often changes them back again. I’m sure that it contains loads of correct information but when there’s also so much rubbish, it renders the whole thing unreliable. The way people get to contribute to reference books is by becoming recognised experts in their field by publishing material that is peer reviewed before publication. And it is this editorial process that Wikipedia lacks… If you go and read something on Wikipedia, you don’t know whether it is true, opinion or a load of nonsense posted by an idiot five minutes ago.
It’s a resource where you can not be sure of the veracity of the content unless you already know the content and confirm it’s true. It’s very nature will ensure that this is always the case making it a flawed resource.
Agree with you there Chris. Wayne Swan was awful on the 7.30 Report and it just got worse … it was a golden moment for those of us that can’t stand the whining. BTW, did anyone think that Peter Costellow looked downright strange on the 7.30 Rep, it might have been the lighting but he looked like his own cartoon. Looked normal on the SBS news however.
Have my own doubts about Swan, but I don’t think his appearance on the 7.30 Report Budget Special is going to be seen by too many “undecided voters” – most people will have got their Budget news from the headlines and the 6.00 news.
Re my 46% 2PP comment – I’ll admit that I plucked that figure out of the ether, but my point was that the government needs to see some improvement in their poll position off the back of this Budget. If the ALP is still 55+% into June, it may well confirm the hypothesis that people have already made up their minds, and that nothing can save the government.
That said, it’s a long way to go, and Costello certainly made a few steps in the right direction (from the Libs’ point of view) last night.
I would have thought that regardless of the budget, this election is going to be very close. Therefore, barring any major cock-ups by either side leading up to the election, the election will almost certainly be won and lost on the basis of the election campaign itself.
Frankly, Labor’s campain in 2004 was dreadful. The budget response will be important for Labor, but the election campaign itself will be the telling factor …
Costello had all the ammo, but he did look particularly phony on the 7.30 Report. Agree that Swan didn’t land any punches.
Swan doesn’t give me much confidence either. I wish Rudd had given the job to Lindsay Tanner.
Dennis Shanahan: regular cheerleader for John Howard! I’ll be laughing if he has egg on his face next Tuesday when the next Newspoll is published.
Swan surely the worst shadow treasurer since Jim Carlton (1986/7). Anyone care to disagree?
Does anyone know who will be standing in Greenway?
Shaun, reader Oakeshott Country informs us that Michael Vassili, Jason Olbourne, Shane Smithers and Sue Kealy have nominated for Labor preselection in Greenway, and that the ballot will take place on Saturday, May 26.
On a separate subject
What is this obsession that Mr Rudd has on high speed boardband. Apart from creating more jobs for his union mates, why would you set up a business to complete with Telstra/Optus/IInet etc. It does not seem to make sense.
I have dial up at home and I have no problem doing 99% of the things on the internet. I only really need boardband if I want to download illegal movies or Porn
Maybe that is the education revolution, Mr Rudd want us to all be able to download as much porn as we want
dovif – it’s hard to electronically transfer very large files (eg graphics or movies as you mention) with very slow connections. I can assure you that some businesses need to have the capability to transfer very large files electronically. It’s not much good if you’re a graphic design company talking to a client and every revision to your file takes 5 minutes (or longer) for the client to download.
Very fast connections allow greater access to infomation, including for education. For example, videos can be extremely useful teaching tools, and fast connections allow videos to be downloaded (eg from Youtube) and watched in real-time.
Also increased broadband speeds could help accelerate the move towards internet delivery of television, why watch what some mindless hack at a commercial station wants you watch at 7:30 when you can legally download programs to cater to broader tastes. Something I’m sure that appeals to uncle Rupert, which is why he is positioning himself to offer movies on demand over the internet and has been castigating Australian for its poor internet performance.
In response to Chris from Edgecliff, I want to stand up for Swan. The a*** isn’t falling out of the economy. The thing’s going gangbusters. Devastating critiques just aren’t there to be had.
In this difficult situation for any Opposition, he is at least partly responsible for the perception, which has troubled Howard, that the economy is on autopilot.
Swan (and Rudd of course) have been pretty effective in arguing that the Coalition’s economic management credentials are like an ability to fly a kite in a cyclone.
As for the comparison with Carlton, I can’t think of any policy issue that Swan has stuffed up. He is a sophisticated operator. In another portfolio, say IR, it is hard to imagine Swan allowing himself to be positioned so that big business could credibly spray all over him.
Chris from Egdecliff: don’t forget Simon Crean. His performance as Shadow Treasurer in the 2004 election campaign was woeful.
dovif Says
Maybe that is the education revolution, Mr Rudd want us to all be able to download as much porn as we want.
That dovif is a very silly thing to say
Wayne Swan is not exciting but he does work very hard and is real pro.
The next lot of polls will, IMHO, show just how soft Labor’s vote is. If the voters can bought off easily and Labor’s vote falls significantly we must assume it was soft. If the polls show little or marginal change the conclusion would have to be that the vote is not as soft as some people believe, in which case the government is in for real trouble. For what it’s worth I’m tipping the latter because I believe the government is “on the nose” for many reasons but mainly for its IR policy.
I wonder hoew many newspaper journalists are on AWA’s? Now that would be incentive to champion the coalitions cause wouldn’t it?
Yes, I think you’re right on both counts Gary – I well remember seeing Andrew Bolt state, without any shadow of irony, that he was “very happy” with his AWA. I’d imagine as a senior columnist with the Herald Sun that he would be. In fact, I suspect that the preponderance of AWAs (esp at News Corp) means that most journalists just don’t get what a betrayal and what a threat to lifestyle that WorkChoices is to the average voter. I think your point about the relative “softness” of the ALP vote is well made too, which was part of my reasoning behind my earlier “if-Labor-is-still-55+-into-June-the-government-is stuffed” line of argument.
Kelvin Thomson will be challenged in Wils by a SL former Mayor of Moreland
Kelvin will win.
I’ve followed your line of argument Hugo and think you are spot on. The next month of polls will be interesting indeed.
On journo’s and AWA’s – has anyone noticed that Fairfax staff are taking industrial action over reduncancies and 7 day rostering? Maybe it will be the Fairfax journo’s getting a taste of WorkChoices…
(http://www.smh.com.au/news/general/sydney-morning-herald-to-publish-as-normal/2007/05/09/1178390389617.html)
Has anyone got any poll figures following the budget in 2004 ?
I have vague memories of Latham’s poll lead not moving much..
Speaker,
Bryan’s Oz Politics site has polls through 2004 on this thread:
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/elections/fed2004/the-polls/
I don’t recall the precise date of the Budget, but it seems there was a dip in ALP 2PP in the aftermath of the Budget – most pronounced in Newspoll – which was promptly reversed. The inexorable slide in Labor’s vote – best tracked by Nielsen which was closest with the final result – came from August onwards.
Note, I’m relying on the graphs that Bryan provides, as I can’t use a deteriorating memory to give that level of detail.
Mr Speaker.. Insider’s covered this last Sunday.
http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2007/s1915422.htm
BARRIE CASSIDY: Now the Coalition went into that budget trailing Labor – 48 to 52. And the first weekend’s poll after the Budget dripped with voter cynicism. The Coalition actually lost ground.
……
So, cynicism initially, then two weeks later – look at the poll – the Coalition shot to a 53 – 47 lead. That was a 10 point turnaround in just three weeks. And keep in mind Labor’s lead right now is 14 points. So expect “families” to pepper the speech again on Tuesday night.
Greetings from Nuremberg, kinder. It is pouring rain here but still a very pretty town, although it has a bit of a theme-park feel to it having mostly been rebuilt from the very thorough blitzing it got from the USAAF in 1945.
Having not seen the budget or read much about it I will refrain from comment until we see some polls, which is all that matters, nein?
What I will say (again) is this: everyone here needs constantly to remind themselves that we all live in the same 10% elite bubble as the people who write for the Australian or chat with each other on the ABC. NO-ONE IS LISTENING TO THEM OR TO US. The voters who will decide this election do not read the Australian, or watch the ABC, or chat on political blogs. They at best flick through the Hun or the Tele, but they mainly get their political news from 10 second grabs on the 6pm news.
The only budget comment that matters is the comment that the proles make in the next round of polls, not what Shanahan or Bolt or anyone else says in the elite media. Just keep repeating to yourselves: “proles, polls, proles, polls” until this is fixed in your minds.
I notice also that the “most read article” at the SMH website is “man chops off head with chainsaw.” These are uber-elite online readers of an elite newspaper, and even they don´t care about politics. Geddit?
Speaking of Europe (as Adam was obliquely) what is the washup in France? I noted the very high turnout of 85% and Sego’s warning/threat of violence (sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy really) but haven’t heard a great deal here about what voters were thinking in voting in Sarkozy – any thoughts/commentary Adam?
And I think Adam is right about where people are getting their news. Catch the train or bus from Bondi and its a mixture of SMH, Tele and Oz, but catch the train from Sutherland or Granville and its the Tele or maybe a local paper being read, if anything.
KEVIN Rudd has signalled a major shift on Labor’s longstanding pledge to
ban full-fee university degrees as he fights to counter Peter Costello’s
education budget.
As vice-chancellors confirmed that the Budget changes meant thousands of
university students faced a $1000-a-year increase in HECS fees for
accounting, economics and commerce courses, the Opposition Leader
shocked his own front bench by refusing to rule out a backflip on
full-fee degrees.
The shift could see a Labor government allow some students to be offered
a full-fee degree if they fail to secure a place based on their marks -
an option repeatedly attacked by Labor frontbenchers as “queue-jumping”
by rich students.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21704798-421,00.html
Bill, I’d be wary about believing too much that you read in News Corp papers – there is a pretty naked agenda against Labor going on in them at the moment. Indeed, I think any article about the election, especially in the Oz, is so tainted with said agenda as to be worthless as a source of news.
News Corp carbon neutral by 2010
NEWS Corp chairman Rupert Murdoch has announced a dramatic shake-up to make all the company’s businesses carbon neutral to combat the “clear, catastrophic threat” of climate change.
More elitism by Rudd. Why should Rich kids jump the list at UNI? Win votes at the expense of the have nots? sounds like Howard
“The voters who will decide this election do not read the Australian, or watch the ABC, or chat on political blogs. They at best flick through the Hun or the Tele, but they mainly get their political news from 10 second grabs on the 6pm news.”
That’s right – and these the people to whom Labor/the Coalition are directing their attentions to. That’s why electoral advertising is so blunt and without nuance.
OPPOSITION Leader Kevin Rudd has refused to rule out having some form of
statutory individual contracts in Labor’s industrial relations policy.
In a hint at a policy about-face in the wake of Prime Minister John
Howard’s shift last week, Mr Rudd pointedly failed to repeat Labor’s
pledge to abolish all statutory contracts — despite being asked six
times yesterday.
Instead, he stuck to a narrower script of condemning “Mr Howard’s
(Australian Workplace Agreements)”, leaving open the prospect of some
other variant.
The policy wobble, which was cautiously welcomed by business, came as Mr
Rudd said that Labor’s chief business adviser, Sir Rod Eddington, had
not been consulted on the party’s IR policy because of “logistical
problems” with his overseas travel schedule before its release.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/rudd-in-policy-wobble-over-ir/2007/05/09/1178390390110.html
Slightly OT but with reference to budget
Anybody know why it is the Opposition Leader and not the Shadow Treasurer who gets the budget right of reply? The PM doesn’t deliver the budget, so why does the OL get all the attention in the reply?
did anybody else notice the woman sitting behind Costello’s left shoulder struggling to keep awake during the budget speech?
I think it was Sussan Ley member for Farrer
I don’t think much can be taken from the SMH online readership. About 2 weeks ago Media Watch had a piece on the international marketing of news sites. The people who opened this article may have come from anywhere in the world as search engines would have directed anyone interested in the conjunction of heads and chainsaws to the SMH article.
Media Watch noted that the use of key words match the web articles to one of SMH’s advertisers, often inappropriately. The example given was of an article about child abuse appearing with an ad for a nanny service. Presumably this article appeared with an ad for a chainsaw or perhaps for a neurosurgeon.
Bill have you ever wondered why labor goes so far to the right of centre on so many issues? Might it have anything to do with the amount of fire and criticism from the left driving it there?
I remember in my last year at uni having lunch with a lefty boy who spent the whole lunch highlighting over and over again how much he hated Keating. Even said Howard would be better than Keating. Australia agreed with him – hope he has enjoyed the last 11 years or so as left wing ideas were not just defeated but were marginalised and then reduced to mere ridicule.
I’m sorry I have a lot of sympathy for many of the ideas of the left, and honestly believe that some of the community, compassion and social justice planks would make our community a better place, but the lefts ability to own goal I find quite astounding.
I had not noticed that the ALP had gone far to the right of centre on “so many issues” but some examples might enlighten me assuming, of course, those examples are supported by objective criteria of what is the “centre” in an Australian politcal context.
Sky News is running a poll with the question – “Can Kevin Rudd top the government’s 12th budget?” The question is does he need to?
The Bulletin’s cover has a line which says: ROD EDDINGTON Speaks out on Rudd’s IR mess. Inside, Eddington says, yes, Labor should have consulted business much more before launching the policy. He “bats away efforts to extract his own view” – ‘I’m an advisor, not a commentator’ – “but he gives the distinct impression he is not fully on board with Labor’s argument on AWAs. Using a series of analogies, he says you don’t need to back every policy to support a party. Still, he is committed to helping Labor win and dismisses claims of a souring of relations as ‘complete nonsense.’”
Throughout this article ge is referred to as Eddington – no acknowledgment of Sir Rod. Has the Bully gone Bolshie?
What about Howard’s IR mess?
I’m sorry this left right thing is leading to a whole definition of centre thing that isn’t going to make any sense. I think you, and I am sure Bill will get my main point.
If we could agree to characterise Keating and Hawke as centre, as opposed to right of centre, where leftys put them more than 11 years ago, then think about IR, Rule of Law and Social Justice, Medicine, Education … I’m struggling to think of too many areas at all where Labor hasn’t drifted to the right.
Perhaps you could give me some counter examples where labor is centre or further left than 11 years ago assuming the Hawke / Keating as centre point of reference is accepted, perhaps reattaching dental to medicare, perhaps.
re ALP moving to the right: well, maybe its more a case of they’ve moved towards, not to, the right…but for instance the embrace of economic rationalism/free market ideology by Keating, the move away from state-owned business (sale of assets), co-payments for higher education (HECS) – these are all elements of a rightward movement of the ALP (irrespective of the relative merits of the activities). And of course, there is no real “centre” as such but a moving mix of policy from the various parties – thus Ray’s assertion that the FFP is a centre party not a right party because of its more socially conservative, but economically liberal, policies (of which the same could be said of the Democrats but in reverse).
Personally I think it has less to do with whether a party is necessarily left or right but whether they are actively seeking to be in government by espousing consistent ideological positions or through appeals to populism (ie; generally catering to – and possibly shaping – public opinion, as uninformed as it may be).
As to the ‘left’ bagging the ALP so much – well that’s because the ALP has all too often appealed to its historical connections, while dumping the policies of those connections. However, I do think that people who use the argument that it would be better to put in the Liberal than ALP because the ALP has not been ‘left’ enough quite delusional. I always remember the UK Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) advocating in the UK a vote for Margaret Thatcher in the late 80’s because it would bring the UK closer to revolution (completely ignoring the ‘material condition of the workers’ which they always said they were fighting for…). That sort of self-serving delusional thinking is just plain dangerous.
I don’t disagree with anything there at all, in fact I agree Mr J, Stewart.
And I was wondering if anyone had noticed Morgan’s new Senate poll (http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2007/4161/) – as wonderfully inaccurate as it will be – which shows the ALP winning 18 or 19 seats, the Libs 12-13, the Greens between 3-5, the Nats maybe 1 in Qld (fighting it out with the Greens again…), and the Democrats possibly 1 in SA!
Of course, this is pre-budget, pre-election etc etc etc…and its a Senate poll…
I’m not so sure the ALP has ever been excessively “left wing”, and pretty much every Labor administration since Federation has been accused of “selling out” by those further Left. A Labor government generally has to tread a pretty fine line between being true to its beliefs and not scaring the powers that be too much – history has shown how easily genuinely reformist governments (eg Whitlam, late Chifley) can get the press on their backs.
It’s nothing to do with left or right wing anymore (regarding classification). Both parties have simply accepted the modern consensus: the market economy works–and have directed everything towards that. Little to no difference there.
What to do when there’s general agreement on economic policy? That’s the area the UK’s entering now… “progressive libertarian conservatism”.
Politics will be getting more interesting as the parties become more distinct.
British Labour recognised that it had to change with the times and drop “Scargilism” – unfortunately there are too many on the Australian left that would rather cling to Whitlamism (”We’ll never have it as good as we did in 1972-1975″) and Keatingism (”The only question is how much we can claw back and how soon can we start”).
Can any ALPer on here explain the main differences between the left and right factions? And is a Right wing ALPer similar to a Lib ‘lefty’
Morgan’s Senate polling should be taken with a grain of salt, as it always inflates the vote for the minor parties – the Democrats in particular. The respondents are the very same people Morgan has spoken to for its lower house polling over the past six months, and for whatever reason, people responding to pollsters have a higher tendency to say they will vote differently in the Senate. Witness this effort from Morgan two weeks before the federal election, and my response at the time.
Never believe the Democrats numbers in Morgan Senate polls. See the 2004 Morgan senate poll if you want evidence of this.
Ruth Russell in SA ? The Greens will eat her for Breakfast.
Also, get the FFP and Dems columns in every state and swap the numbers (except NSW), maybe add one or two in SA and QLD and you’ll have a much more accurate figure.
At core of ALP beliefs are some fundamental principles, which generally come down to a belief that governments should support the worker over the boss and the poor over the rich, and should do so by actively intervening in relationships between them. Human rights matter greatly to all ALP members. But it’s useful to think of the ALP as a four-cornered beastie with the top half being social values and the bottom half being economic values.
In the top left hand corner you have social progressives who are liberal and individualistic in their social policies. In the bottom left corner you have economic lefties who believe government should intervene in the market and the economy to benefit the workers and the disadvantaged – market interventionists for want of a better word.
On the right hand top corner you have social conservatives – many but not all of whom embrace Catholicism in a literal sense. On the bottom right-hand corner you have strong views about economic deregulation and fostering relationships with business.
So, as a rough guide, right-wingers are socially conservative and economically liberal whereas left-wingers are socially liberal and economically regulatory. Lefties are also big on internal party democracy (because they don’t hold the numbers).
However, within the factions there is considerable diversity of opinion about how tightly those principles of business and personal relationships are held. There are plenty of socially conservative Catholics who are business radicals, and plenty of socially progressive lefties who are totally into high-intervention industry policy. But there are also lefties who are socially conservative, right-wingers who believe in interventionist industry policy, lefties who are economically liberal and right-wingers who believe in the right to abortion and genetic engineering. Ultimately, it comes down to the number of boxes you tick in each corner and up and down each side as to which faction, and for that matter sub-faction, you end up in.
Then of course you have a range of people who are just in a faction because they were backed by it, or who chose a faction because they thought it would advance their career, or because it was the faction that controlled the seat they wanted, or who are in one because all their friends are, or because everyone else thinks they are or because they are on one side or the other of an ancient tribal antipathy that no one even remembers the reasons for any more.
PS: to answer Bill Weller’s question.
PPS: I believe that the Liberals have a similar spectrum of beliefs, but start further to the right and move furtherest.
thank you anonymousie. Very in depth and informative
I should have added that environmental concerns are generally positioned on the left, because it’s one of the things that requires government intervention.
Picked up another book for my library titled Rooted in Secrecy- the clandestine element in Australian politics 1982. by Joan Coxsedge ( ALP Vic MP for Melbourne West 1982 ) Gerry Harant and Ken Coldicutt. Very interesting showing how the media and groups outside Australia shaped the Libs(Menzies, Fraser, Peacock, Howard ) and helped the removal of Whitlam.
Just got this and thought it was topical with the AWAs in the media thread
Herald journalists ordered back to work
May 10, 2007 – 12:26PM
Journalists at the Sydney Morning Herald and Sun Herald have been
ordered back to work today by the Industrial Relations Commission,
less than 24 hours after they walked off the job.
The commission has ordered the journalists to return to work by 1pm today.
More than 250 staff voted to strike yesterday afternoon over Fairfax
Media’s announcement it will cut 35 jobs through a voluntary
redundancy program and introduce a seven-day rostering system for
production staff across the papers.
The industrial action was taken outside an enterprise bargaining
period, meaning journalists faced potential penalties of $6000 each
under Federal industrial laws.
# anonymousie Says:
May 10th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
I should have added that environmental concerns are generally positioned on the left, because it’s one of the things that requires government intervention.
That explains the Left ALPers in Kingston being full on environmental pushers and are starting to have a Green tinge to themselves
Bill, Anonymousie, another big difference between the Labor Right and Liberal Wets (not many left these days) is some sort of belief in collective bargaining over the rights of employers. This is the primary reason that there wasn’t much dissent about WorkChoices from within the Liberal Party, while Labor is largely united in opposition to it. This is probably the last of the “traditional” Labor values still widely held within the ALP, and the main reason why, for example, NSW (with mostly Labor governments going back to 1941) has a superior IR system to those in other states or in the Federal sphere.
Both of the major parties have to straddle a wide body of opinion over a variety of issues, which is the major reason they command around 80% of the primary vote in most elections. The Greens, One Nation, Family First and other minor parties only have to appeal to a small segment of society, which is why they tend to attract more “true believers” while the major parties tend to be more pragmatic.
It would be interesting what faction Richardson comes from in the Libs
I suspect that Richo filled a role a bit like Heffernan in that he was a bit of a party headkicker, and as such something of a faction all on his own.
Most of the media entrepeneurs are up in arms about Labor scraping AWA’S and why because they have employed their staff on them.. and this attack upon Labor will continue because of it .. nonetheless i don’t believe labor should change policy just for the most dangerous individual in the world Rupert Murdoch.. and he is because of the influence his newspapers have on people’s thinking and what politicians do …
Moreover i thought Labors response to the budget so far has been feeble.. Rudd has been okay but Wayne Swan please is this guy hopeless or what .. fair dinkum and he may well be Treasurer next year.. God help us… It is a dawn shame that Labor has not got few more Gillards in its ranks who actually say what they believe.. Swan he just sits their and agrees with everything the government does and then has not the courage to speak his mind…
Also if this government was so concerned about Climate Change why hasn’t it done something about Road Funding and the massive amounts we spend on roads and pittance on public transport.. and why not offer subsidies for businesses to buy water tanks.. soon south eastern Australian will have no water and just think of the massive probs it will cause.. regarding jobs, power supplies… we must realise that Carbon Dioxide sits in the atmosphere not for five minutes but one hundred years so if we climate change will dissappear with a flick of initiaitives it won’t, god i feel sorry for the next generation .. because they will fry and be thirsty at the same time…
Isn’t PT something more associated with state govts? Most of the funding for roads goes towards the federal road and rail systems–not those in the actual cities.
Yes and no, the Federal Government provides money to the States for roads and also transport for additional projects, this budget provides 340 million for projects over four years and 14 billion for roads YEP 14 BILLION and of the 340 million, 169 million is for the Brisbane and Melbourne rail link.
I agree that the States have to come to the party VIctoria is a case in point.. with its recent budget providing tax breaks for people to buy new cars between 30,000 and 45,000 (?), further encouraging this emissions frenzy.. when will any government get it… this planet is frying… islands in the pacific are being submerged and please don’t deny it evidence is their and the arctic and antaractic well don’t get me going..
And Australia is the worst country on a per capita basis for carbon emission
use and we are still making excuses…
How do people think Rudd went in the Budget Reply tonight? I thought he struck the right note, not trying to out-bid the Libs, whose more free-spending effort offered Labor the chance look like the economically responsible ones. Having said that, it’s been a pretty good week for the government and that was probably all Labor could do.
Rudd can say what ever he likes because he is not in power yet. It will be a different case if he make it because there is always the old saying that there wasn’t enough money or he can find some excuse that things can’t be done. Rudd maybe OK but he has some dudds in his team. Wayne Swan didn’t perform real well on the 7.30 report and old skin head Midnight Oil Garett, is very two faced as he says something about global warming etc then agrees with the ALP. You can’t sit on the fence
Bill,
My take on ALP factions is that they are now tribes. I know of candidates who have swapped factions in order to win pre-selection because the seat they wanted or the seat they were told they could have “belongs†to the faction they join. The left-right divide arose from attitudes to communism: the right recognised it as a totalitarian threat; the left either did not or actually sympathised with it. In Victoria, there are Labor Unity (the Right), the SDA (who are aligned with the Right), the (Socialist?) Left, the Pledge (or Tomato) Left, the Non-aligned Faction (who are aligned with the Left), the Ferguson Left (who are aligned with the Right), the Dean Mighell Left (who are aligned with the Right) and perhaps some sub-sub factions that I have never heard of.
I know this is hard for you to accept, but I do not see the ALP Left as particularly progressive at all.
Hugo,
I was a bit worried at the start, but I thought Kevin Rudd gave a very good budget reply. He was optimistic, energetic and initiatory. He unveiled a new chapter in his education revolution – technical facilities in every secondary school in the country, catching the government out again. He did not do the long negative moan we often get from oppositions (which I freely admit would have been hard to do with this budget). He did not offer tax indexation, but I think he will. In fact, I think the Labor Party’s tax policy will be a killer when it is released.
We should run a competition on tomorrow’s headlines in The Australian: Rudd fails to match government, Howard endowed with victory, Rudd revolution runs out of steam, Rudd fails to ditch IR albatross, Rudd allows unions to eat children, Labor still not Liberal enough.
There has been talk of a bounce in the polls resulting from the budget. It is just as likely to be a bounce Labor’s way – within the margin of error, as most poll swings are.
Hugo,
(addressing your 2.54 p.m. post, not your current one).
I can remember when Whitlam was seen as a dangerous backslider by the Labor left, especially in Victoria. Some people may know that Whitlam narrowly escaped being expelled from the Party for supporting aid to non-Government schools (ca 1965), and narrowly held on to the leadership, when he called a vote in Caucus and was challenged by Jim Cairns (1968, iirc).
There are two additional factors which influence “left” parties when they come into Government. One is they are smacked by reality, and forced to back and fill on policy to maintain reasonable levels of support – between elections, so that they are in the contest when the election comes around. After 1984, Hawke (and then Keating) was in danger of losing each subsequent election. This forced more conservatism on the Party (which of course suited the leadership nicely).
However, even if the Government were to remain unusally principled in its behaviour in comparison with its stated intentions prior to being elected (Whitlam’s foolhardy/courageous commitment to the “program”), the very fact of its having to prioritise particular actions and areas of spending will antagonise particular supporters. Those who invested (psychologically) in the Party in expectation of assumed priorities which receive less urgent attention by key decision-makers – the leadership group, formal and informal – are turned off.
Rudd did quite well tonight! Struck all the right notes, and it was interesting there was a lot of emphasis on business, and not so much on Work Choices. I doubt though all that many people watched it, but Costello also got mediocre ratings for his budget speech on Tuesday night.
While the Government goes all “LOOK AT ME!”
Rudd is steering an understated course.. for now… polices with smaller dollars etc.
The previous election Budget never got a bounce….it was just a slow decline after…
I thought that was a very good performance by Rudd. You could see that he was a bit too acutely aware of the importance of the speech at times. He got himself a bit tongue-tied in those moments but didn’t lose it. The speech was well crafted, if somewhat nervously delivered, whatever one’s political view.
Agree with Evan regarding the business pitch. Previous Labor leaders might have been foolish enough to treat the budget reply as an opportunity to further bang the workchoices drum, awb or the war of terror. If you know what I mean.
The themes that stood out to me were
* the Rudd = Future thinking , Howard = Past thinking message throughout
* the high school trade training initiative and the need for it
* the emphasis on longer term economic planning
* the re-engagement with Asia through language learning etc
* the treatment of the climate issue as serious
* the interest on late government payments to small business / contractors. That one really grabbed my attention, I can tell you.
This is the most important speech that Rudd has had to give since his initial election as Labor leader and the polls have made the stakes much higher now. My overall impression is that he made the right decision and treated it as such.
The thing that differentiates Rudd from other recent Labor leaders for me is that he appears to be working to a definite plan. And you can bet the government interest on late payments to suppliers will be discussed around the odd bbq over the next few months. I think that he is a very serious threat to Howard now. Wonder how long he spent in the dunny before went into the “chamber”?
Someone a long way up the tree asked my view on the French elections. Since I have in Germany for most of the time my views are no better informed than anyone else´s here (although I have been forcing myself to battle through the front page of Le Monde when I can find it). But for what it´s worth my view is that after 12 year of Chirac French voters badly wanted a change, from complacency, intertia and corruption. Sarkozy was clever enough to package himself as the candidate of change, while at the same making a coded pitch to Le Pen´s xenophobe base. This combination worked very well, leaving Royal looking like the candidate of conervatism. She wasn´t quick enough on her feet to match Sarkozy on this, instead shackling herself to old PS platitudes – she was a French Beazley, if you will. Royal carried only two age demographics – the under 25s (who dislike Sarkozy´s xenophobia) and the 50-60s (those who were young and left in the 60s). The over 60s voted solidly for Sarkozy, which is expected, but so did the 25-50s, which is a big long-term worry for the PS. The French left purports to depise Le Blairism, but unless they find a French Blair they will stay in L´Opposition perpetuellement.
The Morgan senate vote trend analysis is interesting. http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2007/4161/
Only if you believe Morgan polls, and only if you believe that there is such a thing as a “Senate poll”. All this is reflecting (apart from Gary Morgan´s whims) is the current high level of support for Labor, which I think we already know about. Let´s see what the next couple of Newspolls tell us. I said in February that if Labor was still well ahead at the end of May I would start to get excited, and that is still my view.
Today I stood on the fuhrer rostrum at the Nuremberg Rally parade grounds site. The temptation to do a John Cleese / Adolf impersonation was *almost* irresistable. People (mainly drunken Poms apparently) still get arrested for that here, and quite rightly so. The Nuremberg Trials courthouse is a big disappointment. None of the original fittings remain, and the room is just an ordinary German courtroom, half the size it was in 1945. Tmorrow: Hitler´s favourite cakeshop in Munich.
Re Rudd’s reply. Bill Leak’s cartoon nails it.
Chris Curtis has a point, but there are genuine believers in the factions, and where they exist, that’s usually where their beliefs separate.
Collective bargaining is definitely a core belief of all ALP members.
Bill/Hugo
Full fee student pay a higher amount then HECS student, meaning they subsidise the degree of HECS student and increase the University’s budget, if there are less full fee paying student, HECS will go up and everyone will have to spend more on their degree, it is already ridiculous that some students are $20k in debt before finishing University. (that is why a american style benovelent system will help the poor student)
Beside, Foreign student are allowed to pay for their degree, so why should we ban local student from doing the same, they are also queue jumpers, but they are an excellent revenue source for all universities
another point I would like to make is, Medicine’s TER is about 99.
If a person who gets a TER of 80 and really want to become a doctor and is willing to pay for it. Is there any evidence to suggest that they won’t make a better doctor than a person who has a TER of 99?
Mark
Re Road funding, most roads are the domains of the state government and Federal Government have no jurisdiction to allocate resources to them, the only jurisdiction the Federal Government has is the Federal highways.
AWA are needed in certain industry, for example in Mining, it takes some miners 3 to 4 hours to get from their family to the mines, therefore some of them prefer to work 5 days for 12 hours and have 5 days off, this allow them to spend more time with their family. If the employer is forced to pay overtime on 4 hours, they might force their employee to work a normal working week, this would be bad for both the mining company and the employee.
Likewise, one of my friends lives in Wollongong and travel up to Sydney to work, he work 10.5 hours each day and have 3 day weekends every weeks, he is happy to do it. If the employer is forced to pay overtime rates, he will have to go back to working 5 days a week. While there are some employers who will abuse the systems, there are some employees who are benefiting from a contract system.
The French unions reaction to Sarkozy’s victory remind me of the worst excesses of Scargil et al – nothing good there.
Dovif, on your example about medicine. A full fee place for medicine wouldn’t let someone with a TER of 80 in; instead of 99 you might get in with 97. The differences are small; they only tend to widen on less popular courses at second tier institutions.
Dovif, your post contains several common misconceptions about AWAs and the mining industry. Firstly, most of the mining industry are not on AWAs (about 16%), but on negotiated collective agreements or on common law contracts (indeed, it’s more than possible that that’s what your friends are on, rather than an AWA). AWAs are used largely for political reasons (ie, to exclude the Union from the bargaining process). Given that the industry is currently booming, that’s probably of little consequence at the moment, though it probably will be when the boom ends. However, there’s nothing to stop working arrangement being settled with a common law contract rather than an AWA – CLCs allow flexibility “up”, but not down, so your friends could still work those crazy hours and get paid well over the odds for it.
However, the mining industy is but a small part of the scope of AWAs. They have been used far more in retail and hospitality, where they have done nothing but take away people’s penalty rates and shift allowances with little or no recompense. This is the sole purpose of AWAs – this argument about “flexibility” is a chimera, and designed purely to appease lazy employers who think they that ordinary community standards don’t apply to them.
Hugo
Actually 40% of AWA are in the mining industry, and I know of quite a few common law contracts/AWAs that offers flexible hours, I am on one and I do not think it is a Chimera
As for taking away OT rates, I think both my friend and the people in the mining industry would agree that they prefer the extra day off then working 5 days a week and they are happy to forgo penalty rates
But I do agree a safety net is needed, ie a no disadvantage test. I just disagree that you should get rid of something, when there are multiple use and some of the use are beneficial to both the employer and employee
If the WA Labor government is using AWAs, unless you think they are trying to take away people’s penalty rates and allowance, I think that proves that not all AWA have just 1 purpose.
Dovif, the points you make about AWAs and the mining industry are perhaps fair enough. But it is an industry undergoing an unprecendented boom at the moment, so most employees can largely write their own ticket.
However, my point was that most AWAs are not in fact in the Mining industry (an industry which makes up about 5% of all employment in Australia, and even on your figures, that means that mining AWAs make up 2%) but in hospitality, retail and cleaning, and these people – who were already on pretty low incomes – are being royally shafted.
Adam:
Ah! at Nuremburg – are/have you been to the Olympic Stadium in Berlin? Felt weird remembering Leni Riefenstahl’s L’Olympia and standing there!
Any thoughts on the Land election in Bremen? The polls I’ve seen all suggest the SPD will still get over 40%, still wont have a majority and will have to continue their coalition with the CDU.
Thanks for your thoughts on France. I haven’t caught up with my French friends yet to get their take on it – they’re all Green voters, but were voting for Sego to ensure a ‘Jospin’ didn’t happen again! There’s been reports of rioting, but what’s the euro press making of it?
If anyone needed any further proof that Peter Hendy is nothing but a Liberal Party stooge, check this out:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1920648.htm
Apart from patently ignoring all of Rudd’s and Labor’s pronouncements on this going back several years, I didn’t hear him making a similar observation about Costello’s Budget.
That is hilarious.
Thats like greenpeace saying Rudd didn’t say enough about supporting a whaling industry…
I know the Morgan poll is somewhat scoffed at (probably an understatement) but the latest poll must give Labor hope that the latest BS re IR and business is not going to do it too much damage in the community. People like Hendy can complain as much as they like as far as I’m concerned. The government’s IR is a load of manure and no sweet smelling scent will hide that fact to the average person.
http://www.roymorgan.com.au/
A few years ago I saw a documentary that compared speech delivery techniques.
It found that high quality speeches full of content and numbers, were less popular than speeches full of positive emotive statements, even if you didn’t really say anything.
So to have a winning delivery you just say warm pleasant words that everyone agrees with.
With this in mind I listened to Rudd’s speech:
“Positive statement that everyone agrees with eg Australia is Great ”
*I feel warm emotion*
“Positive statement that everyone agrees with eg Australians are Great”
*I feel warm emotion*
Repeat above 30 times.
Rudd actually used the technique so much and so obviously it got corny, however as Adam points out, no one but us takes notice of these things, and all the public will hear is the plumbing plan.
So my opinion ? To me his speech came across as fake.
He did enough to get away with it and limit poll damage.
They’ll move from 58 to 56 .. nothing to write home about.
btw: why does the Opposition leader give the budget reply ? why not the opposition Treasurer ? I’d like to see Swanny in action!
At least Rudd spoke on policy. Apparently, when opposition leader and before the 1996 election, Howard gave nothing away re policy.
I think tradtion plays a big part here in regard as to who gives the Budget reply speech. I can’t think of one shadow treasurer ever giving that speech.
Howard deliberately didn’t blurt out policy in ‘96 as part of his ’small target strategy’. He didn’t want to alienate anyone and concentrated on Labor’s failings.
Misha Schubert – Canberra Political Correspondent for The Age – alerted us all this morning in a story regarding the impending preselection of Tasmanian senator John Watson to a change in our constitution that we have all missed. Even worse, the political and psephological tragics that inhabit this blogsite missed the lead up and the result of the referendum to change the constitution.
The only hint that something has changed, and we all missed it, is that Senator Watson is sidling up for “another EIGHT-year senate term”.
Where were we, or more to the point, where are the standards of our political journalists and/or sub editors?
And before any of you out there think that I am being petty … it is a fairly basic point about the understanding of our political system.
There’s no way the length of senate terms has changed. She’s just wrong.
oh sorry you were being sarcastic – my bad.
To the Speaker – Your bad what?
As I see it, Julia Gillard and her leader need to revamp the ALP’s workplace relations policy, and accept AWAs with a no disadvantage test. Collective bargaining is not “the alpha and omega” of a sound and fair workplace relations policy. If the revamping does not happen, and Mr Rudd and his colleagues form the next Federal Government (a real likelihood), then we are at risk of having “a load of manure” replaced with an even stinkier load. Peter Hendy might be an extremist on one side of politics but so also is Dean Mighell on the other side. We must have a policy that strikes a balance between extremes and finds the middle ground of Ausralian politics.
blackburn pseph,
“My bad” is modspeak for “I’m Sorry”, like “Wasup?” means “How are you?” and “going out together” means “staying in the same part of the school yard together” and definitely does not mean actually going out.
What a week! (or technically, 13 days!)
A great number of Labor hopefuls obviously on this blog and a few Howard diehards to boot.
Kevin Rudd has shown himself a popular leader and, I think, a more formidable opponent than Howard has ever had (even within his own party!). His handling of Julia Gillard from December has been GOLD (but not of the Medicare variety). It is obvious that he owes a LOT of people a LOT of favours for getting him to the leadership. So I think he was happy enough to give Julia her IR baby and let him present it at conference. Of course, it got mauled. Australia is sick of unions, Julia.
However, Kevin managed to:
a) Not pander to the unions. He just doesn’t like them. Never has.
b) Let Julia take a mauling by press and business (I think he remembers the “Gillard Gold” of 2004 as well)
c) Agree to tone the baby down, saying to unions “sorry guys, we tried!” and to the Australian public “Don’t worry, I won’t let those nasty unions scare you”
d) Shows himself to be an effective mediator
e) Shrugs off any further suggestion that if the pitch for the Lodge is unsuccessful that Gillard is a suitable replacement
This level of politics is worthy of Howard. I commend him. Genuinely. He is a politician for goodness sake.
Herein lies the problem. Australia has grown politically conservative. They will take Kevin but not the anchor of the left on his coat-tails. In addition, his team pales in comparison in terms of ability. One guy can manage to barely keep a state afloat (Beattie anyone?) but a whole country is another story. If you take Rudd, he will need to pay back all debts that got him there. That’s a LOT of left that you didn’t vote for. If you don’t believe me, look up Hawke in 1983.
Howard, on the other hand, may well lose his senate and, if Maxine is cute enough, even his seat. He will face a tough challenge in this one to get over the line.
Ironically, a wild card might well be Family First, the minor party on the rise. With votes against Refugee detention in Nauru, against the sale of Qantas and decidedly against workchoices, since apparently 2005, it is no darling of the coalition.
Moreover, policies on IR have been about as centrist as the Australian landscape has been for a LONG while. IN: Penalty rates, meal breaks, public holidays and redundancy, OUT: unfair dismissal. So average Aussie and small business are both happy. Sounds alright to me.
Importantly, no other minor party can match their ability to gain preferences from both sides. Their policies have significant elements that appeal to both coalition and labor. There is also very little chance of “bleed” like there is for fringe green voters to Labor or ONP/NATS to Libs.
They seem to have shrugged off their poorly tarred “religious right” image and are putting forth policies that actually might appeal to mainstream Australia.
At the very least, with more of them in the senate, they might just fulfil the role the Dems began with in the 1970s.. keeping the bastards honest, in the Senate.
This will be one verrrrry interesting election.
You can tell Chris is a schoolteacher at times like this!
Anyway yes sorry blackburnpseph – I took your post seriously.
At least with Dean Mighell he is not pretending to be unbiased. Hendy tries to pass himself off as being neutral politically. With Mighell, a person I personally have little time for I might add, what you see is what you get. With Hendy what he wants you to see is not what you are getting. I’m sure he would be appalled at being described as “an extremist on one side of politics” but we know he is don’t we?
dovif If i made be so bold to ask what nationality are you
The problem with selling of penalty rates etc. even with a no disadvantage test is that it is a short term gain for a long term pain.
I know of a company that offered to pay their staff quite a handsome sum as a flat exchange for overtime. The staff jumped at the opportunity as it put immediate guaranteed cash in their pocket. The problem was that overtime the market leveled that salary to the point that they were not being paid anymore than similar employees from other companies who did not sell off their penalty rates.
If we are going to construct a society that values a healthy work/family balance then get the market working for us, and place a premium on the family time and weekends etc.
Lets make the market work for us, not vice versa. The market exists as a tool to deliver the right social outcomes.
Generic Oracle Says:
However, Kevin managed to:
a) Not pander to the unions. He just doesn’t like them. Never has.
GOOD! why doesnt he come honestly and tell the YR@W and the ACTU that he doesnt need them. Oh thats right he does. The work my Union with other lefty Unions could remove Howard due to the IR policy.
Family First is the AOG and thats what the voters need to know. Speaking in tounges as a sign of being ’saved’. Healing by ‘God’ of the same parishioners everyday. Strangely my disabled daughter goes to a AOG youth group and because she has a mental disability they don’t even try to heal her. I suggest anyone who thinks they are a good party to visit a AOG meeting and see for yourself
The whole idea of AWAs and workchoices as a whole is to make us competitive with Asia. The only way to do that is lower wages end of story. When you get enough workers on AWAs and out of the Union then the next AWAs will be of lower quality. The problem is that many workers see the first AWA as an improvement not looking to the future. Any Unionist who looks deeper than what the ACTU or some union bosses say about Rudd as the new ALP God will see that Howard is the devil we know. If the ALP wins government watch for a more underhanded attack on unions. Rudd would want us to all be as weak as the SDA.
We do not need an extreme religious party that believes God will help those who believe so why bother with Global Warming or the poor or health. In fact their beliefs would have them not need to get into politics as God will look after them. How do i know? I was a member of an AOG church for several years
Generic Oracle Says:
At the very least, with more of them in the senate, they might just fulfil the role the Dems began with in the 1970s.. keeping the bastards honest, in the Senate.
Strange that ministers of the AOG and like churches are the ones continually surrounded by scandal all over the world. No honest there.
If Newspoll slips from its 57-43 Labor lead to 55-45, The Australian will headline it as “Budget fatal blow to Ruddâ€; if it slips to 56-44, “Liberals on a winnerâ€; if it remains 57-43, “Liberals stop Rudd momentumâ€; if it increases to 58-42, “Rudd advance slowedâ€; if it increases to 59-41, “Rudd fails to reach earlier highsâ€; if it increases to 60-40, “Rudd consistently fails to get above winning marginâ€; if it increases to 61-39, “Greens vote dropsâ€.
Mr. Weller, it is very disappointing that Christianity has had to be ‘modern’ to survive in the modern world. It should have stayed traditional; AOG churches aren’t fundamental at all, they are radical!
And bravo to Mr. Curtis on the Australian. I did think it was giving Rudd a nice ride for a brief moment, but it seems to have slipped back to usual.
Bill… I often enjoy your contribution, but this time I believe that you have gone a bridge too far with your criticism of the AOG and its links with FFP.
Yes.. their founder was an ex AOG minister, but neither Dennis Hood or Steve Fielding are members of an AOG church. The party has moved on well beyond that to embrace a social conservative platform based on traditional family values, blended with a heart for social justice and equality that is not driven by economic rationalism.
I believe this is a more accurate reflection of true Christian philosophy. After all the Cross is both verticle and horizontal.
Checkout Southside AOG down your way (now known as The Edge). They often organise for refurbishments to local shcools and hospitals, all donated, and have a vibrant social arm.
Pity FF has no support from traditional Christians. I would bet most members of FF belong to a Pentecostal church of some description
With Labor friends like Rod Cameron who needs enemies.
There has been a recent change in the attitude of the Fairfax press to the ALP and Kevin Rudd
- In todays SMH (online edition) there are 2 stories on the Kelly Hoare affair and the preselection of Belinda Neal for Robertson. Neither are complimentary to the ALP culture.
- Michelle Grattan in The Age has been reasonably complimentary about the budget, uncomplimentary about Ruddy’s response (or non response as the case may be), and made the point during the week that Ruddy has boxed himself in between party, unions, business, etc and that being all things to all people can’t hang together much longer.
After being easy on the ALP for a while, a more doubting viewpoint from Fairfax may start to bite and plant the seeds of doubt.
The management of the economy may also come into play the closer we get to the election. In this mornings Age, they did a post budget vox pop at Eastland Shopping centre – geographic centre (and probably spritually as well – ugh!) of Deakin. Handling of the economy did come up as an issue several times and there is some doubt over the ALP ability to handle it. This echoes a conversation I had with Mrs Pseph last night where she (rusted on ALP voter until Mark Latham was just too much for her!) made the point that she trusted the Libs with the economy much more than she could trust the ALP – her usual association of John Howard is with the words vile, bastard and horrible! – she is too rusted on not to vote Labor – but there are others out there no doubt who may have been wavering and who will return to the libs as the party of economic management.
My feeling is that the tide is turning and that the Libs are starting to look better. It is also possible that a whole lot of sleaze in the NSW ALP over the Kelly Hoare affair, and the handling of the Paul Gibson issue, and the backflips that have already happened may work against the ALP in that state.
And one to Bill – what are you getting at by asking what nationality Dovif is?
If he / she (not knowing Dovif’s gender) votes, Dovif must be eligible to have a blue passport with an emu and a kangaroo on the front – in that case his nationality must be … Australian!!!
Chris you are spot on… the murdoch papers will try to even things up so that Labor does not do so well in the election or even has a chance of getting control of the Senate… Murdoch and the right wing cronies run this country and he is the most dangerous man in the world
blackburnpseph – the problem with your theory is that you believe the average person gives a damn about the internal workings of political parties. They don’t and never have. They don’t understand the workings and certainly won’t bother reading about it. What effect do you think Crean’s fight has had on the polls of recent times. Did I here you say none, because you are absolutely correct if you did. The NSW machine has long been associated with such activities and they are one of the most successful machines, politically, going. Preselections are important to two types of people – those involved and those who take a big interest in politics, and within this group (I include myself here) there are those who wouldn’t read one article on these topics.
Another flaw in your argument is this – you believe the media influences the way people vote. The Daily Telegraph in Sydney ran a very big campaign against Iemma last election. I don’t need to tell you how successful they were.
Finally, the polls have been very strong towards Labor for months and this with the economy going gang busters. Do you seriously believe people need to be reminded of this? Do you seriously believe they don’t see IR as a part of their economic future? IE a safe secure job with safe secure conditions equals economic security for them and their family?
Labor has also been shouting their IR intentions all this time (get rid of AWA’s – re – estabish enterprise bargaining etc). So now that they have put meat on those bones people will all of a sudden go “We didn’t know this was going to happen”? Give me a break. It defies logic that the polls will swing because of LABOR’s IR policy and certainly not because business doesn’t like it. If business likes it what does that tell the average worker? Howard’s recent changes? What does that tell the average worker also? His policy enabled what he is now trying to supposedly stop.
We’ll see what the polls will do but I’m tipping little movement over the next few weeks for the reasons above.
its not as if the rod cameron comments were planned or anything…
notice Rudd talking up balance, not being bullied by unions or captains of industry..
maybe im being too clever…
Blacklight – you’re possibly right but “The Australian” helping Labor? I think that is stretching credibility isn’t it?
Gary Bruce – I couldn’t agree more. I, too, would be very surprised if the polls move that much over the next month or so. I actually think that Howard’s popularity has always been over-stated, and that people have been looking for a reason to vote him out since about 2003 – Latham’s stellar poll ratings in the first half of 2004 seem to bear this out, though as he turned out to be madder than Mad Jock McMad, winner of the Mr Mad competition (one for the Blackadder fans) people shied away from him come election time.
But Rudd is not mad, and the government’s desperate attempts to smear him over the last few months haven’t laid a mark on him. I agree that a booming economy will always play in the government’s favour, but Labor doesn’t need to “win” this debate, it just needs to appear competent. In that light, it wasn’t such a terrible week for the ALP.
Your point about WorkChoices is well made too. I don’t understand why this issue is played down so much (both by the MSM and in the blogoshere). This is a policy that is hurting (or at raises the feeling that it will hurt) the apolitical swinging voter more than any other. Most people don’t care that much about Iraq or even climate change, but they do care about their pay packets, and WorkChoices is widely seen as a serious threat to that.
blackburnpseph Says:
And one to Bill – what are you getting at by asking what nationality Dovif is?
If he / she (not knowing Dovif’s gender) votes, Dovif must be eligible to have a blue passport with an emu and a kangaroo on the front – in that case his nationality must be … Australian!!!
I was meaning their original nationality. Its just that most Eastern Europeans due to their old life under Communist dictatorships have a more pro Liberal party stance and see any pull back from that ( ALP? ) as moving towards communism. So no im not asking to see if hes eligible to vote etc.
Reading the Australian today you would think Howards the one leading in the Polls
Hugo, you’re right about Howard’s popularity. The biggest danger signal for the coalition was the degree the polls changed (in unison) after Rudd became leader. We are not talking about a small percentage change here and we haven’t experienced bad economic times for a long time. For those who have doubts about the degree of dissatisfaction and anger over the Libs IR policy in voter land ask yourselves this question. If IR is not the problem and we agree the economy is not the problem, what is? What could possibly be causing this remarkable change in the polls? And of course the evidence is for all to see that in fact it is bothering the government. Mr Howard himself has supplied us with that hasn’t he?
Hugo said
Your point about WorkChoices is well made too. I don’t understand why this issue is played down so much (both by the MSM and in the blogoshere). This is a policy that is hurting (or at raises the feeling that it will hurt) the apolitical swinging voter more than any other. Most people don’t care that much about Iraq or even climate change, but they do care about their pay packets, and WorkChoices is widely seen as a serious threat to that.
Thats the one thing most people i know are interested in when it comes to elections is money. IR negative for the Government and also with Rudd as he slowly seems to be back peddling on this issue. Budget huge positive with people Rudds reply was ho hum as there was no money. As I have predicted before that as Rudd and the ALP machine move more to a conservative economic platform and the barriers between the two major parties dissolves then Howard will win the election unless Iraq and Global warming become interesting for swinging voters.
Tell us bill weller could you explain where Labor has “back peddled” on IR? He is copping a pasting in the press because he hasn’t. Strange about that.
mark latham mad? have you read his book.. fantastic, a true reflection of the society we now encounter.. a peeping tom world, a country run by the media who hunted him down for at least standing up to them, and you call him loony (you have been listening to the media to long) and a Labor Party full of dingbats.. Lathams’ chronology of his efforts to stitch together a policy regarding Tassie Forests shows how incompetent many people in tassie labor party are and how the unions work, look after their own patchs and not the overall picture.. the M.C.G rally showed this with unions spread around the ground in their own little groups… This is why they are dying they are a self interested bunch of people who care little for working people.
Marks’ comments about how people can be so two faced thus say one thing and do another also shows how terrible this world has become… and the Iraq war well anyone who wishes to go and kill another has to be extremely sick… it is just a pity Mark did not win .. we would have a leader who had some honesty, some vision and some compassion…
On Doug camerons’ assessment in that pathetic paper.. well it is half right but many people today who work under fairly poor working conditions.. weekends and in casual work of these many of them have never worked under anything else.. had a holiday or sick pay and so many of these people see Labors’ ideas as an attack upon the conditions they work under. Casual work should be outlawed.. and part time work maore accepted in its place… Moreover people today are working harder, longer due to the debt they are in and due to this commericially competitive driven world we live which keeps telling us to have this and much more
and to better than our fellow person. Materialism has become a form of status and when eventually the economy implodes this country will enter a deep and nasty depression due to so much private debt…
Additionally isn’t it always interesting that someone like Cameron can tell us about the type of world we should live when they have made their money from a previous world under justified working conditions.. and they tell todays’ world should live under harsher conditions.. i love these gutless individuals..
Bill Weller can you tell Rod Cameron Labor has made the changes you say he is making?
“he” being Rudd of course.
I have to agree with Mr. Mark about Latham. After reading Latham’s book I was impressed by his ideas and insight. I’m not on his side of the political fence, but nonetheless there was a mind there that never should have been driven from the political scene.
Mark – is the Mark Latham that you refer to the same one who was paid to go through uni by the ALP, who then fast-tracked him into politics? “Hypocrite” was what came to mind when I read his thoughts, wriiten well after the fact. Having said that, I too liked Latham at the time – the mad ones (eg Keating, Whitlam) were always the better ones, or at least the more interesting ones.
However, it seems pretty clear that Australian voters don’t like their PMs to be too unhinged.
Incidentally, does anyone know what the scourge of taxi drivers is up to these days? Does he have a job, or is he living off that generous pollie super that he railed against?
Hugo fair point.. i am not lauding him as totally perfect.. but at least he had something not like todays’ crop who look in the mirror everyday and ask no i can’t say that.. and remember it was mark who actually downsized super schemes, of which dud Beazley reinstated.. Mark would have at least shook the place up… and your right we like our leaders to be conservative nothings but remember it was the media who actually tell us how we should vote .. Can’t remember to many elections that they have not gone after someone they don’t want… perhaps 1993 (fed) and 1999 Victorian election are contrary to this…
Their constant articles and coverage can ruin a politician and they did this to Mark, Kirner and Gough… if you want to be elected these days you have to go and pay Rupert a visit and gets his vote of confidence…
maybe that is where Mark went wrong..
Hugo we do leaders who actually have a vision for a better world that is why i love Dunstan, Cain and Gough they wanted a better world and did not attack the lower classes to achieve their aims…
I was speaking to a friend the other day who recommended Latham’s book to me. This person is closer to the conservative side of politics than the Labor side and says that Latham made a lot of sense. Why wasn’t this brought out at the time? I think we all know why. Mind you I still think Latham had many faults and has been proven to be somewhat unstable since. As with all people he is capable of both “good” and “bad” I suppose.
Mark said: “Cain and Gough they wanted a better world and did not attack the lower classes to achieve their aims…”
Didn’t they?
Who paid the price of 17 per cent interest rates, and the measures subsequently required to pull the joint off its trajectory to a banana republic?
Who paid for the fire-sale of Victoria’s assets, and the following Kennett squeeze to avoid a default on Victoria’s debt?
Bill
I am new to this forum but it certainly appears that your emotional attachment (or perhaps detachment) with this AOG is getting in the road of a good discussion here.
Bill Weller
“We do not need an extreme religious party that believes God will help those who believe so why bother with Global Warming or the poor or health. In fact their beliefs would have them not need to get into politics as God will look after them. How do i know? I was a member of an AOG church for several years”
I just had a look on the website and could find no evidence of this. I have also recently been reading Senate Hansard (ok.. a political tragic I know!!) for bills that Natasha D, Bob Brown and Steve Fielding have made this year and I actually found FF to be far more environmentally aware (and well left of Liberals) on all issues raised. I also suggest that their almost repetitive calls for petrol tax abolition and recent concerns about CPI calculations and rising grocery bills does indicate concern for those struggling financially. I believe your argument is somewhat unfounded here.
I am also rather perplexed about this comment:
“Pity FF has no support from traditional Christians. I would bet most members of FF belong to a Pentecostal church of some description”
I am puzzled that you would no any religious affiliations of members of FF (or any party for that matter). It is also a rather bold statement to claim that they have no support from “traditional Christians” (also unsure what that might mean). I try to look past any individual’s convictions when I am studying policy. Their policies make sense.
I think that casting any negative pall over an individual or party on the basis of religion is perhaps as bigoted as supposing that Bob Brown’s homosexuality or Julia Gillard’s choice not to have children might somehow disqualify a party from support. I’m not sure that a lot of readers on this forum would support that.
Finally, your comment here regards unions and Rudd:
“GOOD! why doesnt he come honestly and tell the YR@W and the ACTU that he doesnt need them. Oh thats right he does. The work my Union with other lefty Unions could remove Howard due to the IR policy.”
Your final sentence does seem to sound like bully-boy type threats, which are precisely the type of tactics that I believe the Australian public is well and truly sick of.
I’d like to see more of the types of comments that Ray described to be typical of your discussion, Bill.
Black Jack – just what do Cain and Gough have to do with 17 percent interest rates? Are you aware that Bolte had a higher percentage of borrowing than Cain? Just a couple of thoughts. Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story Black.
errata ” no any religious affiliations” should, of course be, “know any religious affiliations” *embarrassed grimace*
Better still Black Jack listen to Cain himself. Also listen to Kennett being interviewed then tell me, which one wins the award for being most arrogant. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/summer/2006/premiers/20070108.htm
Gary – The Whitlam Govt’s policies resulted in high interest rates, high inflation and consequent high unemployment. That’s what I meant. The electoral thrashing the ALP got in 1975 was a result. As I recall it was wiped out in Tasmania, thanks to a brilliant decision to cut tariffs by 20 per cent in one go.
The problem with Cain-Kirner was that they could not pay for their debt (unlike Bolte). Their mistake was that they had thought that the 80’s boom would continue indefinitely.
It didn’t. Revenue plunged. At the end of its day, the Kirner Government was not far from being unable to meet payroll.
In the present debate on trades education, it is relevent to recall that the old state-owned utiities used to provide thousands of apprenticeships. When they were sold, the apprenticeships went too.
Who lost ? Not the big end of town.
Generic Oracle with me what you see is what you get. If i believe that something is wrong in my mind i will say it. Its my personal opinion mixed with people i talk to on a regular basis. FF has little support with the blue collar workers i communicate with mainly as they see the connection with them and the AOG. ( and dont most people have horror stories of family breakups and personal breakdowns due to this church ) YR@W in Kingston has the support of traditional churches ( Catholic Anglican Lutheran Uniting Baptist etc) yet not from the extreme AOG COC CRC etc. These groups have to continually re-invent themselves by changing their name to attract members and the beautiful dollar. I love seeing AOG ministers and Ex AOG now FF leader living in luxury. Said same group believe and told my wife that her cancer ( Shes had it most of her life ) is due to her or her parents being evil when she was in the womb. This sort of extreme radical Christianity is not what we need in government. FF has huge connections with AOG as was seen in the SA State Election. I was a church attender at Southside ( now The Edge ) Coastlands ( formally Southside ) for many years and before that at Kings Park Community church so i do know what i am talking about
Bill
Your experience is what it is and I respect your views on the basis of what you have experienced. However, this is a political website and I don’t think that any of your experiences have anything at all to do with Senator Steve Fielding and the way he is working in the Federal Senate.
It is as nonsensical as presuming that Eddie Maguire is a drug addict because is a member of an AFL club, just like Ben Cousins from AFL club West Coast, recently found to have a drug addiction.
To suggest, somehow, that Steven Fielding or other members of FFP are somehow less than honest because some AOG ministers can’t keep their pants on, when apparently he doesn’t even attend an AOG church is just absurd. I have seen nothing at all remotely radical about FFP.
Finally, their polling in the last four elections (state and Federal) would suggest that their primary vote far outstrips the total memberships of all the churches you have listed, which suggests that they are striking a chord beyond those with religious convictions. In addition, both major parties consider them far from “extreme”, often call them politically “centrist” or “centre-right” and have no problems courting preferences.
I must admit I find no problem with them at all politically and do think your personal views have tainted your political awareness here.
Can you see how I think your connections here lack a degree of rationality??
I too recommend the Latham Diaries as a good insight into federal politics. I would also recommend “Education of a Young Liberal” by an ex-Liberal (forget his name).
What’s interesting is that although both books are from “opposite” sides of politics they have the same sort of despair of the “hackification” of our system.
Actually there a lot of books by insiders of Australian politics and they are all kind of the same, can they all be “crazy”?
Black Jack – “The Whitlam Govt’s policies resulted in high interest rates, high inflation and consequent high unemployment.” Are you certain of these facts? Just what was the inflation rate and interest rates during Whitlam’s time? Obviously you studied this and have the numbers, don’t you?
I can tell you when Howard became treasurer in 1977, the budget deficit was $3.2 billion, inflation 8 per cent, the unemployment rate 6.3 per cent and the growth rate 1.6 per cent. When he surrendered the Treasury keys to Paul Keating in March 1983, the budget deficit was $4.3 billion, inflation was 11 per cent, unemployment was 10.2 per cent and growth was a negative 0.4 per cent. Hmm, not such a good record is it?
Oh, I can also tell you the 1982-83 recession, over which Howard presided, was the worst since the Great Depression, according to former Reserve Bank governor Ian Macfarlane. Hmm, another poor look really.
Generic Oracle Says:
To suggest, somehow, that Steven Fielding or other members of FFP are somehow less than honest because some AOG ministers can’t keep their pants on, when apparently he doesn’t even attend an AOG church.
I never suggested that but financial is something i was hinting on. Votes bigger than AOG membership? Yes that is true and my research has found that this was due to people not knowing the link between FF and AOG many thinking that it is just a Christian family party. As for FF members not being AOG members there are also a minor amount of mainstream churches that have embraced the beliefs of AOG and this was seen in the last State and Federal election with candidates from mainstream churches who have pentecostal leanings.
When the FF and other extreme religious groups push the Extreme radical Greens barrow its promoted by the media and believed wrongly by many. When people come out saying the same thing about FF its all hush hush and its a shock.
Having been in both camps ( not FF but AOG ) i know whats radical and extreme
Gary Bruce, you and Hugo are like a tag team. I agree with you both that the probabilities favour there being little movement in the opinion polling trends of late (that is, no “bounce” for JWH). Mr Rudd will continue to do well as long as he keeps projecting the persona of a “safe pair of hands”. That is why I am watching very carefully how he revamps workplace relations policy (he spoke to Rio Tinto yesterday and has travelled to the Pilbara today), as I accept that will be one of the important battlegrounds in the forthcoming election (but management of the economy remains the paramount issue). Oh…by the way, I am so pleased we agree Hendy and Mighell are extremists. Whether one of them pretends not to be an extremist, is of no moment. What matters is that whoever is in government puts into practice policies not affected by extremist positions.
But as I have posted many times !
As the poll results come closer together for the major parties the interest will be on the minor parties ( FF, Greens Dems etc ) not only could FF or the Greens or both could win the balance of power in the Senate but in the Marginal lower house seats our votes will be crucial !. In Kingston we have A large AOG church ( The EDGE ) which produces a big FF vote and due to its large monetary resources will push its promotion well and i hope it keeps to clean politicking in good spirit. We also have large Green voting areas coupled with that my Union links and YR@W support it should be a good honest tussle and as interesting as the Major one. Just because i see FF as radical and extreme doesnt mean that members are not decent people. EG . I think Mr Richardson is a good MP for the area and will be a great guy ( when we meet) but his stance ( Libs stance ) on IR, nuclear and Global warming sucks big time.
The rumor is that a nuclear power plant is destined for Kingston and when i wrote to the local paper asking this it surprisingly wasn’t published ( everything else ive written has been )
david charles – “Oh…by the way, I am so pleased we agree Hendy and Mighell are extremists.” So am I David, for what it’s worth.
So we have you on one hand wanting to see changes to Labor’s IR policy so as to capture the middle ground, and obviously believing this will help Labor, and we have Bill Weller saying such a change would be bad for Labor electorally. Says it all really.
Bill!
“There’s a rumour that a nuclear power plant is destined for Kingston”
Is this the Green’s version of the perennial rumour that the Nationals use in NSW? That is: “if Labor is elected they have decided to move X aboriginal community into the town.”
I am amazzed not only how often this disinformation is used but also by how many people believe it. So much for the informed choice of the electors.
You’re in a marginal Coalition Electorate.
-Rumour successfully disproved-
Rumour is a rumour im saying what i have heard
Mad Mark still has his loyal defenders. Breathtaking.
He was a nutcase, his view of society in the Latham Diaries was the jaundiced bitterness of a self-deluded megalomaniac who couldn’t understand why everyone didn’t think he was as great as HE thought he was, and his policy ideas veered between third way pap, the lunar right and the just plain loopy.
Latham was the Wilson Tuckey of the ALP, and it is sick-making to hear people still defending the creep.
Let the record note that I agree with Bill for once! Since the Howard government is committed to nuclear power, it follows that nuclear power plants will be built in SOMEONE´S electorate, and since the government won´t (and at present can´t) say where they will go, it is perfectly legitimate for every Labor and Green candidate to ask every sitting Liberal and National to rule out that it will be built in THEIR electorate, which of course they can´t. This is not the same thing as scaremongering about Indigenous or immigrant people moving in next door. Nuclear power plants are inherently bad things to have in your neighbourhood – ask anyone in Chernobyl. Australia does not need nuclear power, and if the Howard Government wants to take us down that road, they will have to wear the political costs. If I were Bill I would letterbox every home in Kingston saying “Kym Richardson has not ruled out a nuclear power station at Port Noarlunga”, which is an absolutely true statement, and one which Richardson fully deserves.
Leopold Says:
He was a nutcase, his view of society in the Latham Diaries was the jaundiced bitterness of a self-deluded megalomaniac who couldn’t understand why everyone didn’t think he was as great as HE thought he was, and his policy ideas veered between third way pap, the lunar right and the just plain loopy.
Latham was the Wilson Tuckey of the ALP, and it is sick-making to hear people still defending the creep.
Yeh the USA went down that road and they got Bush
You think having Kym Richardson as your federal represenative is bad, try having the most boring, useless, lazy,out of touch member in the history of the lower house-fran bailey! Rob Mitchell 4 McEwen in 07! Oh and anyone who defends Latham deserves all the criticizm in the world!
Gary – I thought you also eschew extremism and want to see policy that is in the middle ground. For what it is worth, I do not follow what you added to the discussion by juxtaposing what I said in my previous post with the reasonably held opinions of Bill Weller.
Unlike yourself David I see Rudd’s IR policy as being in that middle ground. You are correct I do “eschew extremism and want to see policy that is in the middle ground”. My point re Bill Weller and yourself is that we all see things differently and there is no pleasing everyone. Hence Rudd will displease people no matter which way he goes. That middle ground is not so cut and dried as we’ve seen right here on this blog. A fair point to make I would have thought. Sorry if I didn’t make that clearer earlier.
I can fully understand Rudd moving to middle ground as Howard did to defeat Keating. But i just have a gut feeling it could backfire on Rudd. What is the history of a Government being defeated while the economy is doing well? How much swing does a government get on polling day?
Poll just got released showing that Howard would lose Bennelong if an election were today on a swing of 6%. Despite the supposedly bad news, I imagine Howard would take comfort in this. The polls will tighten by the time the campaign and the benefits of incumbency should see him pull through on election day.
That said, it still all means he’ll have to campaign in his electorate to ensure he pulls through and that will take away precious campaign time elsewhere. This, of course, was Labor’s real goal in fielding Maxine McKew, and she appears to be doing a very good job in fulfilling that goal.
I also agree with Adam and Bill Weller re: the nuclear issue. How could Howard not see the risk in pursuing his nuclear agenda!?! … The very electorates where a Nuclear Power Station will be ideally built are in the very ones he needs to maintain … those on the edges of the big cities! Labor will have a field day with this. Any Liberal MP who refuses to rule out a nuclear power station in his or her electorate faces an electorate backlash… any Liberal MP who does undermines the whole agenda – Labor can rightly accuse the Coalition of being a pack of NIMBYists.
Actually, the 6% swing against Howard in Bennelong that Galaxy is reporting is quite bad news for Labor. If uniform, that means there only getting a 6% swing right now, which would translate into 53 – 47 for Labor on 2PP, a collapse of 4% on Newspoll and 5% on AC Nielsen. Okay, I know it’s a small sample in one electorate and has little bearing on the general trends… but still… Labor won’t be happy with this poll.
Yes but Pseph – whilst here you say “if uniform”, your 11:11pm post tells us that you don’t think Bennelong will swing uniformly with the nation.
After all, Labor needs to capture 16 seats and Bennelong is the Coalition’s 15th most marginal. You are somewhat dismissive of Labor’s chances of winning the seat. Whilst you would presumably be less dismissive of Labor’s chances of winning government.
Thus, the underlying assumption here is the Bennelong will swing less than the nation as a whole.
yeah…couldn’t extrapolate that one nationally…
I think it’s safe to assume that the size of the swing (as it looks at the moment at any rate) will vary wildly across the country – even now it looks like Labor will make big/ some gains in SA and Qld, much less so in WA. From looking at the seats on Adam Carr’s excellent election guide, Labor could win several seats which have margins over 5%, while the government may well hold a few with tiny margins.
I suspect that election night might end up being very exciting, with results from the West decideing the outcome, a la The West Wing. However, Labor having to win a few seats in WA to form government is not a scenario that bodes well for a Labor victory. The maths in any event are against an ALP victory – 16 seats are a lot to have to win.
But as the next few months might end up being the most hopeful time I have for the next three years, I’ll continue to believe that Labor can win.
Three marginals are now conspicuous for the failure of one side or the other to nominate a candidate:
* Parramatta, a notional Liberal seat with a sitting Labor member, no Liberal candidate
* Richmond, a Labor marginal with no National candidate
* Page, the most marginal government seat with no Labor candidate
I think this rather suggests the limits of the three parties´ambitions. The Libs and Nats don´t expect to win anything from Labor, except possibly in WA, and don´t even think they can win a seat which is notionally theirs. And Labor don´t think they are going to win much in rural NSW.
except Eden-Monaro of course.
The Tasmanian Libs have chosen their Senate ticket: Richard Colbeck, David Bushby and Don Morris – three white males, one a small business advocate, the other two “political staffers.” Let´s see what all you critics of Labor´s candidates have to say about that.
I think much of the talk here about nuclear power is perhaps premature and ill-informed.
There is nothing that works quite so well in an election year as a big scare.. GST, Interest rates, oh, and a nuclear power station over the back fence.
On the scale that Australian government and its bureaucracy work, I’d suggest we are two elections away (at the earliest) before such discussions. Australians also seem to be very parochial and ignorant when it comes to issues like water recycling and nuclear power.
I was once anti-nuclear. Strongly so. I used to educate our adolescents in the same mindset. However, I looked up and saw a planet. A planet which uses nuclear power whether Australians vote on it or not.
The danger argument, I found to be ludicrous. Living next to a coal fired power station was far more likely to affect health. Hydro schemes have well documented environmental issues (3 Gorges anyone?? Aswan maybe?). As do wind, wave and tidal power. I am a strong advocate of Geothermal power as a realistic option, but we need some diversity in power generation.
Ideally, what I’d like to see is Australia offering “full service” or “cradle-to-grave” nuclear for the rest of the world and using the potentially ridiculous profits to develop the best alternative energy technologies in the world and then sell those to other countries. We could even do this without becoming nuclear ourselves.
There is still significant opposition in Australia, perhaps understandable, about becoming the world’s nuclear waste dump, however, we live on the same planet. Any concerns we have about putting it near human populations (even 300-600km from people) pale into insignificance when you realise that countries already dump waste very near huge populations around the world and in some cases with little or no regulation. That is our planet they are wrecking.
I’d be far happier to mine yellowcake, sell it to overseas buyers on non-proliferation treaties on condition that a measurable quantities of waste is duly returned for adequate disposal to ensure continued supply. We bury it in some of the oldest, most geologically stable rocks, in the middle of a tectonic plate (not an edge like the pacific rim and parts of Europe).
If you wonder what sort of equity energy resource providers make, I’ll just mention that the locals in Dubai were living in tents swimming for pearls 70 years ago.
We could give them their nuclear, take their money and then develop technology that proves to them they don’t need nuclear anymore.
An idealist? Perhaps. A pragmatist? Certainly. Oh, but don’t give me the tired old claptrap that we don’t want it in our backyards. If you are serious, then turn your power off and never turn it on again. Either way it goes our lifestyle HAS to change in the next decade.
John Watson has been dumped – who will succeed him as longest serving Senator in the next parliament?
Political staffers and other hacks are only inherently bad when they have no prior experience in life. If it’s just straight out of Uni to working as pollie staffer, that’s not much of a life and it’s just the ‘grind’.
Same goes with union bosses. No one gives a shit if they’re a union boss if they pulled the hard yards before entering the political arena. Why people like Clyde Cameron were perfect.
Adam that’s very interesting. Watson appears to have a personal vote, based on past results. Some of the female candidates look (very much from a distance) likely to have more appeal than the staffers they have picked, who don’t come up on a quick google search as having much profile.
In most states I would say that would mean absolutely nothing – people don’t vote for major parties based on who their senate candidates are. However, in Tasmania that’s not the case. I doubt this will make a huge difference, but it might knock half a percent of the Lib vote, making it that little bit more difficult for them to win three seats, making the balance of power in the Senate that bit more interesting.
Adam,
The closing date for nominations in Parramatta has been extended because the Libs are hoping to recruit a star candidate. They definitely think they can win it.
Of course Adam would/should know that the Liberals in Parramatta are having a full preselection very soon.
In NSW they deferred selections until after the state election (for good reason although the results may not have been as good as hoped). I think the fact that they are still to select doesn’t necessarily reflect their ambition on the seat, but rather reflects more their respect for their internal processes and the choices of the local branches.
I think Australia should use nuclear power. But I’d be more than happy for the opposition to use the NIMBY factor associated with nuclear power stations to win government.
Infact, I can see the advert in my mind: a map of Australia with 35 nuclear logos progressively sprouting up around capital, and other major cities.
Page is curious, but it may reflect fact that Labor’s vote has held up well on the NSW north coast, a combination of the green left constituency and real battlers, there may not be much room to increase Labor’s vote. Bennelong may be similar. Bennelong is a test for Labor’s ability to win the private sector professional-managerial group who saved Howard in 1998, Howard’s IR push is targetted to this group, but so is Rudd’s broadband plan.
Mr Speaker,
I am not a teacher any more. I escaped from the madness. This will mean in a few short years I will not know anything abut the terms that replace “my bad†and “wasupâ€.
Generic oracle,
I don’t know about AOG specifically, but there is no doubt about the connection between Family First and the new mega-churches. The Family First booth worker I spoke to in the Victorian election told me that six members of his church were candidates and that 500 0r 600 of the 800 members of his congregation had volunteered to help with the election. Other parties can only dream of numbers like that.
Bill,
You are continuing to be unreasonable in your comments about the SDA. If the SDA leadership is not militant enough for the membership, the membership would elect a new leadership. Unions work in accordance with the wishes of their own members, not those of outsiders.
Gary Bruce,
I basically agree with you on IR. I cannot for the life of me understand this desire for Labor to distance itself from the unions. It’s IR policy is a winner. Dumping unAustralian Workplace Agreements is a winner. Why Kevin Rudd is worried about what The Australian thinks is a mystery to me. The danger to Labor is not its IR policy but its uncertainty about what its IR policy is.
Mark,
As Adam keeps reminding us, it is impossible for Labor to get control of the Senate and almost impossible for the coalition to lose control, which is why I again predict a double dissolution if Labor wins, which in turn is why the Greens, if they have any smarts, should preference Labor in every seat.
which in turn is why the Greens, if they have any smarts, should preference Labor in every seat.
And why Labor should preference the Greens in the Senate if they was smart
Chris Curtis Says:
Generic oracle,
I don’t know about AOG specifically, but there is no doubt about the connection between Family First and the new mega-churches. The Family First booth worker I spoke to in the Victorian election told me that six members of his church were candidates and that 500 0r 600 of the 800 members of his congregation had volunteered to help with the election. Other parties can only dream of numbers like that.
Thats what i got here in SA as well. One booth had FF candidate openly paying booth workers? What candidate would love an election budget that would cover that?
Chris Curtis Says:
Gary Bruce,
I basically agree with you on IR. I cannot for the life of me understand this desire for Labor to distance itself from the unions. It’s IR policy is a winner. Dumping unAustralian Workplace Agreements is a winner. Why Kevin Rudd is worried about what The Australian thinks is a mystery to me. The danger to Labor is not its IR policy but its uncertainty about what its IR policy is.
Thats the thing Rudd is starting to show a timidness towards IR and Big Business that is worrying the union movement. But as ive been saying its all been going that way and the YR@W + unions will be caught in this anti worker push
Bill – as always you make some salient points, but then ruin it all with some uni-Left circa 1973 comment at the end. Re IR – even if Labor does backslide to some degree on AWAs (which on balance of probabilities is probably likely), to describe the ALP IR policy as “anti-worker” is just silly and hyperbolic. For the record, Labor will: re-introduce unfair dismissal protection, encourage collective bargaining and maintain the Award system – can you explain how this will be “anti-worker”?
Workchoices has to be totally ripped up as was promised. No part of it should be left. If that happens i will be the first to say that the ALP is friends of the worker. I do hope this election promise will be fulfilled
Hugo the YR@W rank and file with the average unionist see Rudd as going back on his promise and see him as another pollie of little substance. Why do you think the polls are moving back to Howard. IR / union is what is keeping Rudd in front atm.
The biggest issue for most workers after IR is tarriff protection.
HI Bill
Regards your comments about church support: I am a baptist who would probably lean towards Pentecostal and I am completely dumbfounded by Family First. I believe my political education has informed me of the problems with FF. It is disappointing they dont come out and say that they are supported by Pentecostal Churches. In the nd though it does not make that big of deal who supports a politcal party provided people decide to get involved in the politcal process
bill weller – “Thats the thing Rudd is starting to show a timidness towards IR and Big Business that is worrying the union movement. But as ive been saying its all been going that way and the YR@W + unions will be caught in this anti worker push.” I’m not so sure about that Bill. Rudd is on a winner as it is and I’m sure he knows this. The papers and their journalists (how many are on AWA’s do you think?) would love to believe he is wavering but I’m yet to be convinced.
Gary Bruce I hope for the workers movement that Rudd and co do live up to their original IR promises
Me too Bill.
I agree with Hugo – a lot of the Left seem stuck in a weird time warp and think we can go back to Keating – or even Whitlam! – it took 18 years for British Labour to realise that the world had changed and that the bulk of Thatcherism was here to stay – i hope the ALP doesn’t make the same mistake.
# AdamVIC Says:
May 13th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
HI Bill
Regards your comments about church support: I am a baptist who would probably lean towards Pentecostal and I am completely dumbfounded by Family First. I believe my political education has informed me of the problems with FF. It is disappointing they dont come out and say that they are supported by Pentecostal Churches. In the nd though it does not make that big of deal who supports a politcal party provided people decide to get involved in the politcal process
True and I hope to meet the Kingston FF candidate soon in a honest discussion
Hugo, Peter If standing up for workers rights and to see them prosper at the expense of a small part of big business profits is a throw back of the seventies then i am proud of that label. To many times in history workers / community / oppressed have suffered at the expense of corporate profits. Health, Environment worldwide is suffering everyday in the race for the mighty dollar. A win on IR is a small price for the global giants to loose, a loss for the worker will be hugely devastating!
Peter Stephens Says:
it took 18 years for British Labour to realise that the world had changed and that the bulk of Thatcherism was here to stay – i hope the ALP doesn’t make the same mistake.
Why was Thatcherism was here to stay ? Who decides that the majority of people are worse of? Why are the true UK Labour voters not happy with new Labour ( re DW news) Is the withdrawl of these working class votes the reason UK Labour is doing so bad? Why has the New Labour logo been taken of their website?
To Gary Bruce – in response to your post of yesterday in response to my post
- the media has a huge ability to influence elections , the Tele may have been campaigning against the Iemma government, if any any government deserved to lose an election it was that one, but, Debnam could not provide a viable alternative, voters work very much on the ‘better the devil you know’ principle, at least with Morris, the NSW voter knew what horrors to expect for the next 4 years.
- There are preselections and there is sleaze, and the Kelly Hoare affair is sleaze, bullying, victimisation, etc. People may not be interested and influenced, but it would not be surprising if the people of Newcastle are taking an interest.
There are preselections and there is sleaze, and the Kelly Hoare affair is sleaze, bullying, victimisation, etc. People may not be interested and influenced, but it would not be surprising if the people of Newcastle are taking an interest.
That is an understatement. What is happening to Hoare is devastating to people that believe in fair play. If i was in her position i would not go down without a fight!
There has been discussion about two of the former members for Werriwa:
- Gough Whitlam, it always astounds me that anybody could sing the praises of a man who couldn’t manage his caucus, ministry or the country out of wet paper bag. The ideas were good, but the delivery and the management were a disaster. I can understand the exuberance and optimism after 23 years of conservative government but .. if it wasn’t for his being given martyr status he would have sunk into the oblivion that he deserved for having presided over 3 years of crisis driven government (much of their own making!). To be fair, managing an an economy in the context of the 1973 oil shock was not easy anywhere but letting Jim Cairns have his hands on both Junie and the tiller … !!! And before anybody starts, why have Labor governments treated the Whitlam era as the way NOT to do it.
- Mark Latham (and I have not read the book) but frankly did the country need to be plunged into 3 years of continual crisis if a Latham government had eventuated .. it may have been interesting … but, some of us have families to feed and house and so… Quite frankly, in my opinion, Mark Latham was the first major party candidate since Dr Evatt in his declining years who was not fit to run the country. Whatever one may have thought of some of the others, it could not be said about them.
Chris Curtis/ Bill
As I said to Bill, I could care less where a candidate goes to church or not on a Sunday morning and I look strictly at policy and approach. No one in this forum has managed to raise a single issue raised in Senate where FFP has taken what I would call “extreme” or “radical” positions.
I remain impressed with them, with Steve Fielding, as I have also been impressed with Mr Kevin Rudd and the leadership under John Howard. The latter two men, I feel, are two of the best at their respective roles in politics since I can remember.
If either party wins power, and the Greens/FFP hold the balance of power, then we will have a very stable time politically. Indeed, this balance is crucial if we have “wall to wall labour”, to avoid the same level of legislative exploitation that some have accused the coalition.
The Democrats in the late 70’s, early 80’s played an effective role as a filter to legislation, particularly since the Dems at that stage were committed to trying as far as possible to support the government of the day, ALP or Libs.
On the objective evidence we have seen from Steven Fielding in Hansard for the Senate, I see the same function being renewed in the Senate in 2007. I think this will be good for Australia.
Stating again, FFP is left of centre on immigration, Industrial Relations, refugee detention, sale of state assets, environment and multiculturalism. It is right of centre on majority economic policy, education, law and order, international treaties and small business. No one here has shown yet, using any real evidence, how this is dangerous, extreme or even remotely religious??!!
I like to give parties the benefit of the doubt and after following them,and other minor parties since the last federal election, I see no basis for such negative attitudes to this party.
I think most people would agree that the harrassment smear against Hoare was a bit much, but there seems to be an underlying feeling here that she is some sort of innocent victim to the political process. The woman is/ was a professional politician for God’s sake, not some poor put-upon Florence Nightingale of the Backbench. This is the same woman who threatned an unfair dismissal case if she was disendorsed, and then complained that she wouldn’t be able to afford the upkeep on her mortgage! So she’s clearly not averse to making politics with the situation herself. She’s a big girl, after all, and bloggers might be better advised to keep their sympathy for someone a bit more derserving.
Circa 2020 Bill Weller retains Kingston as a ultra safe Green seat. ALP in disarray as the Green/ Union alliance is now the new major party. News of Garrett jumping ship to join but needs a safe seat. I know lets kick Bill out at preselection for Garrett. Strangely i cannot see that happening ( apart from a Green / something alliance.
The meandering of Kevin Rudd on IR and higher education in the last week has left me confused … where does HE stand? Does he have a commitment to Labor principle or he is being so seemingly conservative that he is trying to wedge the libs by landing in the centre right – knowing that the party have to follow? If Labor should lose, what will his next move be, detach the unions altogether? and end up in some sort of social democratic centre – the political reincarnation of Don Chipp or Ian McPhee? or is Labor principle to be jettisoned for his overwhelming ambition? and Bill, given the various flip flops why aren’t the Greens trying to drive the wedge in from the left?
Bill, you might kicked out if you crack onto a lady comcar driver!!!
Bill – if the Greens ever reach the stage where they hold “ultra-safe” lower house seats, they would be well on the way to being a minstream party and so have jettisoned a great many of the policies that you hold so dear in the process. Consequently, I’d imagine that Garrett (who by then would be pushing 70) would be parachuted into Kingston and you would be running as an independent.
FF left of centre on environment, you have got to be kidding!! Consider all the bleating from Steve Fielding on petrol prices, just so all of those white bread types can drive the 4WD from the McMansion to the mega church on a Sunday. Steve Fielding should be trying to get public transport to places like Rowville so that the FF types can get the train to work!!
blackburnpseph Says: given the various flip flops why aren’t the Greens trying to drive the wedge in from the left?
I am. thats all i can say
Sorry but Thatcher has just logged on and im proud to say that my name sakes 11year legacy is hear to stay and was instrumental in the long term success of tony blair and has driven conservative ideals now for well ova 25 years and indeed the modern british economy, but more to the point on Rudd- if he changes the IR policy can u just imagine the shit the media would give him and Gillard. And Bill i sincerely respect your input but if tasmanian politics has taught us 1 thing its never let the greens into Govt. re Michael Field 1989-1992 and Tony Rundle 1996-98, not to mention it destroying Ray Grooms legacy-no matter how insignificant it was. Any thoughts?
THATCHER- only that both sides of that coalition cried foul. ALP history shows that they went back on their promises
Good point Bill, though 1989 election was a blessing for australian democracy because that sob Gray was given the a**! Just a general question-is there an opposition in Tasmania? Because ever since March last year i have heard absolutely nothing from the state Libs! With the way Lennon is running his Govt. u would have thoght Hodgman would have done a little bit better than hes doing at the moment. Or am i being a little bit too harsh?
Do conservative actually have ideals? I thought they got in the way of making money and so best left to wet lefties.
Hugo if you think Maggie got in the way of money you obvously didnt live in Britain between 1979-1990! The abuse i use to cop at the pub ova my last name drove me nuts and it never made sense because ive always been a traditional Labour voter who only voted for Thatcher because of the pathetic alternative at the time! Ive always voted Labor here mainly because the Vic Libs are worse than uk labour in the 80s! Im gunning for Rudd this year cause like Maggie in 90 its time-Any sympathisers?
Did anybody watch the insiders this morning? Unfortunately i did and was just appalled at the anti-rudd bias of that program. Since ive moved to Aus ive detested absolutely everything Piers Akermen has written and the fact that Paul Kelly after all these years is paraded in front of us every sunday morning thinking hes still relevant to political debates is just sad. Maybe he should still be married to Ros Kelly-she could beat his uselless head in with her whiteboard!
Sorry, Thatcher, I was referring to conservatives not having any ideals, rather than being in the way of making money. A cheap shot, to be sure, but then we lefties never have any money, so they’re the only shots I have!
Glad to see you’re on the Rudd bandwagon.
To all those who think an anti-nuclear scare campaign will work well against the Coalition in 2007 just look to the 2004 result in Solomon, when Labor campaigned against a nuclear dump in the NT and the swing went…. to the Coalition.
Nuclear power stations may not be popular, but they won’t automatically cost the Liberals votes.
Thatcher, I don’t think Paul Kelly was ever married to Ros Kelly, but then we have a surfeit of “Paul Kelly”s in Oz (the other main examples being the singer-songwriter and the AFL footballer), so maybe you’ve got them confused.
SD – not sure you can extrapolate from Solomon. The tropics are another country, after all.
Maxine leads Howard 52-48 on 2PP.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21722353-421,00.html
This is the peak of Labor support – she’s done for.
Come on Mr Speaker – Labor is ahead in a seat that they have never won (indeed, there have only ever been two members) and it is a seat held by the PRIME MINISTER, for Gorsake!. The rodent has been member since 1974 and has built up a strong personal vote in that time, so the fact that McKew is ahead at this stage can only be a plus for Labor. Her candidacy will do exactly what it was meant to do – make Howard campaign in his own seat, which will (hopefully) distract him from his national campaigning.
Besides, this is first poll of any sort since the Budget and Labor’s IR kerfuffle (which seems a long time ago now), and Labor is demonstrably ahead in the PM’s own seat. This suggests that the coming round of national polls will show little movement.
Yes sorry Hugo, I’m being cynical again. I expected a much bigger lead.
However some more cynicism:
Distract him from national campaigning ? The Libs might spend $400K instead of $300K defending the seat. In return Labor loses the talented Maxine McKew in an inevitable defeat. What a waste.
They should have put her in Eden-Monaro. She could walk around in an akubra and tell everyone how she’s always loved the area… hmm maybe not..
Paul Kelly (of the Oz) was married to Ros Whiteboard – she is now (and has been for some time) married to David Morgan – CEO of Westpac
After watching “Bastard Boys” i think Daniel Fredricksen should run in Charlton – much better looking than the Greg Combet he’s playing
(just a joke comrades)
hehehhe
wow that brought back memories
front page of courier mail looks interesting…
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21723822-952,00.html
http://media01.couriermail.com.au/multimedia/2007/05/070513_poll/table.doc
the numbers
Depending on the results of this year’s election, either Ron Boswell (1983), Grant Chapman (1987) or John Faulkner (1989).
Bill
the clue is dovi, it is David in another language, and I used to vote Labor under Keating and Carr (that was stupid). I have been in Australia over 30 years, so I do not think it is relevant
Yes the poll results are all over the news stands in Brisbane.
They say “Howard can’t buy a vote”.
Labor down 1% to 57%.. about what I expected. (I predicted 56 somewhere above)
Mr Speaker – Very bad news for the PM in Bennelong, IMHO.
If you are a politician like Howard, you have 100 per cent recognition. Yet Maxine is beating him already with a recognition factor a lot less than that.
Given who is involved, it would be reasonable to assume that Maxine’s campaign is being carefully paced. Her big push is yet to come, presumably.
One of the great belly laughs in Bennelong could be the impact of the Japan Defence Treaty. The idea will be as popular with the Koreans and Chinese as a pork chop in Medina.
Obvious that Howard did not know this, when taking up Dick Cheney’s proposal to help contain China.
Hugo
Labor’s policy is anti-worker because it artificially increase the wages paid to workers, and higher than the market will support, therefore employers will move their employee to area (Asia/India) where there are cheaper labour, ie Mitsubishi plants in Adelaide, call center to India.
So the people who has a job is better off, but it increase the chance for them to lose their job. Again Mitsubishi plants in Adelaide.
Also unfair dismissal laws means employers will prefer to employ casual and part time staff, because they can dismiss these easier (or not give them any hours). This will be bad for people who are unemployed (they will only get part time roles). That is why full time employment in waiter/waitressing increased significantly after workchoice, while part time roles decreased.
But Labor probably do not need to worry about these people, they are likely to vote Labor, even if it mean they will lose their job or not get a job – that is irony!!!!
Another thing is that you will only create more jobs, if employer wants to employ people, to alienate all employers will be bad for workers. If all employer go out and hire 10 more workers, market forces will ensure every employee is better off, since employer will have to attract employee, that is the economic theory anyway. But would also explans why wages had increase in Australia over the last 10 years, despite India and asian wages
Dovif your assertions are just that – idle speculation. Basically Labor’s policy is to take bits of WorkChoices (eg Federal control of IR) and ditch the rest, and when you and others assert that the sky will fall in if it is implemented is plainly deluded.
There is NO clear evidence that a reasonable minimum wage will destroy jobs – Howard operated under the old system for 10 years and unemployment dropped consistently during that time.
Labor’s unfair dismissal propsal seems more than reasonable – small business has 12 months to dismiss someone if they are not working out, and if employers can’t work out whether someone is worth keeping on after that time then they shouldn’t be employing anybody.
Today’s Galaxy poll suggests that people have made up their minds already and that a big spending Budget isn’t going to change much. We keep hearing that the last two weeks have the been the government’s best fortnight all year and yet the polls haven’t changed one iota.
The Bennelong poll is about what I would have expected. I agree that if McKew is polling 52% at this point in time (when the polls are also predicting pretty much every Cabinet minister in the lower house losing their seats) then she is unlikely to be able to pull off a win.
In the end the Liberals are more committed to Bennelong than Labor, and they will probably win, but I’d say Rudd and McKew know that all along. What it means is that the Libs have to throw their resources into that seat. With Liberals having to fight to protect Bennelong they won’t have the resources to take back Parramatta, or protect Macquarie properly.
And if Howard loses government, McKew would be the favourite to win the likely by-election and move to the frontbench within the government’s first term, and if not become a senior advisor in the new government outside Parliament.
Well the Galaxy polls are bad for me. I placed my first ever bets with a commercial betting company on McKew winning Bennelong, hedged with one having the Libs winning the election. Not because I particularly thought these were likely, but because the odds at the time seemed pretty out of whack.
The only combination that could see me lose is if Labor wins the election but Howard holds Bennelong – I thought the chance of that was low enough that the bets were worth taking. I still think it, but I agree that this is what the Galaxy polls suggest taken together. I guess it will discourage any further interest in gambling.
Sorry Ben I must be thick or something but could you explain the rationale behind your statement – “I agree that if McKew is polling 52% at this point in time (when the polls are also predicting pretty much every Cabinet minister in the lower house losing their seats) then she is unlikely to be able to pull off a win.”
Well, Labor is doing very, very well. So if she is polling 52% when they are doing very, very well, if they dip back to reasonable levels, then that would push her down into the 40s, thus losing.
Of course, she could buck the trend, but I doubt it.
And if Labor wins with a 2PP in the high 50s, I doubt Howard losing his seat would be a big story, more the “nearly the entire Liberal Party losing their seats, including Abbott, Costello, and Turnbull” would be more significant. It’d be something similar to the 1993 catastrophe the Progressive Conservatives suffered in Canada, where they fell from 160 seats to 2.
Hugo on the contrary, there are many studies that says minimum wage hurt the people on minimum wage. And there have been alot of studies saying minimum wage hurts the unemployed and makes it harder for them to find jobs
I suggest you go back to Economics text books and take a look of supply and demand. Price floors and how to increase demand
If Mitsurbushi says that they can make a car in Malaysia and ship it to Australia, and it would be cheaper than making a car in Australia, that is sufficient prove that price floors hurts workers.
Gary Bruce, I think it has something to do with Labor being so far ahead in the polls right now that, as convential wisdom has it, that the polls must tighten come election day. Even the most optimistic Laborite must admit that a Labor victory on 57% of the 2PP is exceptionally unlikely. So if McKew is only squeaking through on 52% today, with Labor 57% nationwide, then that should be quite a bit less come election day.
I think the Galaxy poll is seriously bad news for the Govt. If Newspoll tonight confirms that the post-budget swing has been negligible, then if I were Howard, I’d start panicking.
Gary Bruce:
I concur with Pseph, StephenL and Ben for all the reasons they stated above – the Bennelong poll points to a Howard victory (in his seat).
However Hugo and Blackjack seem to disagree.
Maxine Mckew herself said she’d need a miracle to win, but that might be a tactical statement.
Dovif, the “evidence” you point to (and have seen numerous studies pointing both ways on this issue) is not “clear” (which is why I have contended that “there is no clear evidence”). Australia has one of the highest minimum wages in the world and yet we’ve low (and getting lower) unemployment for some years now. You are always very keen to refer us lefties to “economic textbooks”, but any serious economist knows that in a modern economy, the minimum wage is but part a small part of a complex system – there are many factors at work in making any given economy boom or bust.
However the fact that you (and many on the Right) only see wages as a production cost betrays the blinkered thinking on this issue amongst the Right. These are people’s wages, after all, not the price of inanimate objects.
Thankyou both Ben and Pseph, I see what you are getting at now and tend to agree but a general fall in Labor’s vote closer to the election doesn’t necessarily mean a corresponding fall in Labor’s vote in Bennelong, particuarly if people are “not happy Jan” with JH himself, as seems to be the case at the moment.
The next four weeks are crucial for all parties. If Labor’s primary vote holds with little variation then my theory that people are po’d with the government , rather than enamoured with the opposition, will be proven to be correct. In which case the government are in heaps, people will have given up listening to them.
dovif – “If Mitsurbushi says that they can make a car in Malaysia and ship it to Australia, and it would be cheaper than making a car in Australia, that is sufficient prove that price floors hurts workers.” Am I reading this correctly? Are you saying that for the good of everyone (ie more jobs) many of us need to live on low wages, even lower than the minimum wage? Gee, that should have voters flocking to the party that is suggessting that. Oh wait, they aren’t are they?
With Rudd as PM we will see a more caring society evolve – along the lines of the care, courtesy and concern shown to Kelly Hoare by the Labor Party recently.
I see where Paul Kelly of “The Australian” has the answer to Labor’s poll “problems”. All they have to do is ditch their unpopular IR policy and make it more like the very popular Liberal policy. I wonder what planet this man is on?
Gary- are you referriing to Paul Kelly’s opinion piece in Saturday’s Australian? I did not agree with some of his conclusions either about the Australian Labor Party’s poll “problems”. But then you and I are just political observers engaging in idle speculation (thanks to William), not professional political commentators. I think we are on the same planet as Mr Kelly but maybe we are walking in different hemispheres.
Dovif – the whole minimum wage stuff and economic writing was debated on another thread and possibly another blog (probably one many here turn their noses down at) and the ‘evidence’ actually presented there was at best shaky.
That evidence as presented (as opposed to the no evidence in the claim there is a mountain of evidence there but I don’t have any at all to hand why don’t you go find it ) definitely only applied to unskilled workers, and drew only a weak and qualified conclusion in the US economy context, and in that past post there was no answer to the suggestion the economy and country would be better of investing in the unskilled workers; rather than making their life ‘better’ by driving their wages down (and removing saftey nets to ensure they don’t bludge).
I find the Bennelong question more interesting. Aren’t the demographics there more likely to be ‘engaged’ and less likely to be met with election bribes?
I don’t understand the whole labor vote will evapourate theory. Unless it is based on the Coalition winning every election since the last one they lost.
David Charles – “But then you and I are just political observers engaging in idle speculation (thanks to William), not professional political commentators.”
True, David, but Blind Freddy can see that Howard’s IR laws are unpopular. The Galaxy poll reinforces that and it also reinforces that Labor’s isn’t. This is not the only poll, by the way, that has indicated this. I’ll let you into a secret David, “professional political commentators” don’t always get it right, in fact many times they are plain wrong. The only difference between us and them is that they get paid for it. I’m sure we could all dig up examples of how out of touch they actually are.
It’s interesting that Matt Price, a journalistic colleague of Kelly’s doesn’t share his view.
I wouldn’t put too much on the fact that they are “professional political commentators”.
Perhaps you missed the irony of my reference to “professional political commentators”. It was directed to the very point you make in your responsive post, that is, the professionals do get it wrong quite often…a bit like the sports commentatators who give us their football (or “footy” as you Victorians say) tips.
Sorry, David I did miss that. I agree with you.
The Australian is and all Murdoch papers are trying very hard to even up the polls before the election… I don’t read or buy any of them.. but when you look at their front pages you realise just how right wing, conservative and for Howard.. its like the ABC’s insiders program on Sundays’ and Lateline… Which continues to get Liberal members on its program..
Paul Kelly actually believing in anything is amazing… As i said once before the media hates Labors’ plans in industrial relations because most of the media have employed their workers on awas’ ( australian workplace agreements).
Just to backtrack on Saturday i made a comment about Whitlam and someone hit back stating something about how appalling he was as an economic manager… yes the economy was in a terrible mess but where in the world was their a country doing well… as a result of a oil price shock…
and this believe that Labor are poor economic managers.. well hello hello… this country is only surviving on borrowed money at present and when the overseas banks stop lending which eventually they will as they will want to be repaid… Howard and the conservatives will have put us in a very big depression…
…belief
Greetings fro, Brussels, mes petits. I bade auf wiedersehen to Germany yesterday. No more concentration camps thank goodness.
I agree that 52% for McKew isn’t particularly good, but since I never expected her to win the seat I don’t think it signifies much. The purpose of the McKew candidacy, like the Cornes and Handshin candidacies (and the two business types running in McPherson and Moncrieff) is to divert Liberal resources and to create a bandwaggon effect.
On the Senate, I expect Chapman to lose his seat, and there is a good chance Boswell will too. Faulkner would then be the longest-serving Senator. In the House, if Cadman is disendorsed, and Howard and Ruddock resign following an election defeat, Charles Wilson Tuckey would then be the Father of the House.
Mark , a few points on your entry above
- you criticise Insiders and Lateline for having Liberal MPs on the program – the public broadcaster has a duty and a responsibility to try and portray both sides of the story – and the ABC bends over backwards to try and maintain fairness – bias of course is in the eye of the beholder. If you only want to read and hear what you want to hear, why bother ??
- we do have a large debt but it is not Latin American style government debt. Australian governments have very low debt levels and both sides of politics have driven debt levels down. The last government to have a major debt problem was Cain / Kirner and one of their problems was that they were almost unable to service that debt.
- Australia’s debt is almost all in the private sector or household debt and hence is very diffuse. Some are overextended and that is why some householders are facing problems now. The main danger is a sudden upward thrust in interest rates combined with a rapid decline ( a la 1989 – 90).
- The private equity boom is the actual danger as these players are massively leveraged and hence will be susceptible to changes in market conditions. Again this is similar to the 1980s when Bondy, Skasey, and their ilk were awash with debt they couldn’t service.
- What do you suggest, return to micro managed monetary policy and stop – start economics. Hey lets all go back to the seventies!!
any chance of a viable national running in O’Connor – then it could be ‘nat vs nut’!!
Thatcher again, its been really amusing watching the ABC ova the past couple of years watching them cosying up to Howard and his ideoligical cronies! I cant even bring myself to listening to radio national because everytime i tune in a bloody tory is on, and what shits me rite up the wall is Howard was on not so long ago talking about my namesake Maggie as a great modern political figure. As a former Maggie voter (Never liked Kinnock) i can proudly say she would never stoop so low as to acknowledge that liar!
Thatcher: John Howard is the Prime Minister. Wouldn’t the ABC be remiss not to interview him and other government ministers whose opinions become actions that affect us all ?
Kinnock’s rockstar speech during the election campaign against John Major is a classic example of an opposition stealing defeat from the jaws of victory.. ala John Hewson’s rallies during the 1993 election.
Chris Curtis, which headline do you think “The Australian” will run with tomorrow? (You’ve got in one by the way with this posting).
If Newspoll slips from its 57-43 Labor lead to 55-45, The Australian will headline it as “Budget fatal blow to Ruddâ€; if it slips to 56-44, “Liberals on a winnerâ€; if it remains 57-43, “Liberals stop Rudd momentumâ€; if it increases to 58-42, “Rudd advance slowedâ€; if it increases to 59-41, “Rudd fails to reach earlier highsâ€; if it increases to 60-40, “Rudd consistently fails to get above winning marginâ€; if it increases to 61-39, “Greens vote dropsâ€.
Point taken Speaker. I was in Sheffield in April 1992 with my daughter when Kinnock delivered that speech. I still to this day remember listening to all the Labour supporters before he spoke talking about how victory was near. Afterward i asked a woman how the speech went and she said 97, not 92, thats when we will win. Very funny. Hewson as well, that willesee interview=classic. If however Howard wins, im going back to Lewisham! Come on Rudd-FOR ALL OF US
In the latest Galaxy opinion poll the Greens are still at 9% which is good considering Ruddamania . A great platform to grow our vote. FF Dems Hanson and independents are at 3 % total . Imagine a party with less than 2 % holding the balance of power in the senate? (FF)
I hope u greenies give us your preferences and dont stuff us aroud like your doing down here in Victoria! Can i get confirmation from u on that Bill.
Does anyone know why the Libs havent got a candidate 4 Parramatta yet?
??? whats happening in Victoria? I cant confirm on preferences. Not my place to
Ever since the Greens won upper house legislation they keep voting with the Libs and even rejected a bill that would have outlawed nuclear power from Victoria! Now its emerging they did dirty preference deals with the Libs last November! Very confusing considering our reforms gave them representation
Soz i ment representation not legislation
Thatcher:
I thought you said you voted for Margaret Thatcher ?
Also you know this is a site for polling/strategy discussion ? There are no swing voters here to influence.
Labor and Liberal co-exist in loving harmony discussing matters objectively. Sharing the beauty of democratic elections at work.
With the occassional punch-up.
But we like every party to be welcome here. It stops groupthink from settling in.
Point taken speaker. Maggie yes. John NO NO NO NO. He was pathetic as were the tories at that stage, but thanku for the correction. For the record in my time here ive always voted Labor, so ill tone it down a tad!
No problem Thatcher. I just don’t want this place to become a partisan shouting match like ozpolitics.
Margaret Thatcher is certainly an interesting woman. She pretty much invented privatisation. Most governments in the western world have been influenced by her economics.
From an earlier topic, if anyone is interested in how to lose an election when leading in the polls, here is the example from England 1992:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheffield_Rally
Hopefully we shall c none of that from Rudd and Gillard come October! Its interesting reading all of the articles about the upcoming battle between Rudd and Howard cause thay reckon the campaign is well and truly underway. If so its going 2 b a pretty boring campaign-where has all the passion gone?
Thatcher, if you want to know about Parramatta, read the thread.
I would have thought Maxine McKew on 52-48 would be good news for Labor – Howard being PM seems to me to be the sort of thing that would restrain the swing in his own electorate – if Labor is getting 6% in Bennelong, I’d guess they’d be getting 7%+ in other NSW electorates.
The Greens voted down the nuke referendum because it said that the minister had complete freedom over when a referendum would be called and what the question would be, and what its effect would be. They proposed changes to put it in the hands of Parliament, but Labor rejected these changes.
Gary,
I’ll stick my neck out and go with “Rudd advance slowedâ€, with a comment piece headed “IR albatross around Rudd’s neckâ€, an analysis headed, “Budget effect to be slow gain to Liberals†and an editorial headed “Howard throws down gauntlet on education to Ruddâ€. The editorial will attack teacher unions and point out how parents want standards and school autonomy and how the astute John Howard recognises this, while the ALP is unable to because it is in the pocket of the teacher unions, stuck in the past, etc.
Generic oracle,
I think you have inferred from my past re Family First something I did not say and do not believe. The facts are that Family First is very much the party of the new mega-churches. This does not mean that I believe it is an extremist party. I have already explained on another thread that it would be ridiculous to see Family First as anything like the religious right of America, which is basically a misuse of Christianity to oppress the poor and support the wealthy.
Steve Fielding’s voting record is mixed. He opposed the Liberals’ IR laws but supported them on voluntary student unionism. If Family First takes is name seriously, it cannot afford to do at the next election what it did at the last and preference coalition candidates ahead of Labor almost exclusively. It ought to preference Labor candidates with values that it shares.
Mr Q.. I’m not so sure about your premise. In 2004 Howard polled worse than any other electorate in Sydney ie. 3.4% against. With the juicy prospect of knocking off a PM, I speculate a Melbourne cup field of Howard haters contesting and all preferencing against him.
With a high profile Labor candidate in McKew, and an energised “Not Happy John” campaign running, I would not be surprised to see a repeat performance, with Howard polling much worse than the National swing.
This opens up the clear prospect of Costello’s preferred result… A Coalition win nationally, with a loss in Bennelong.
Ben Raue – that is exactly what many of us a bit uneasy about the prospects of a Green balance of power. they vote down an otherwise perfectly acceptble bill on the basis of a procedural arrangement. Sure the bill wasn’t perfect, but it was something. Instead the Greens voted for nothing. This is a similar mindset to that which destroyed the referendum on the Republic – a majority wanted a Republic, but enough didn’t like the model on offer, so it got voted down. And what do we have eight years on? We are still a monarchy and there is no follow up referendum in sight. Not that the No vote was the Greens’ fault, but there was a definite overlap of voters who think in that blinkered way as often demonstraed by Green politician.
Don’t take from this that I am anti-Green – I have voted for them on several occasions – but rather until the Greens learn about compromise, they are better suited to being a ginger group for particular issues, rather than part of the machinery of law making.
Chris.. Your last sentence is the stated position of the Family First Party. I want to see it adhear to that principle in this election. There are indeed a number of social conservatives in the right of the ALP, that would warrant FFP preference. Conversely there are a number of social progressives in the Liberals that wouldn’t.
I think in 2004, they were scared off by the prospect of a Latham government controlled by the Greens, and furthermore the ALP made little effort to engage with FFP.
At least Howard had the political sense to lie about Family Impact Assessments.
Thatcher the bill would not have outlawed nuclear power from Victoria. That is already the case. What it would have done was hold a referendum over nuclear power in Victoria. Since nuclear power is currently illegal in Vic all this would have done is raise the possibility of nuclear power being legalised. Of course if that is what the people vote for then they are entitled to it, but the bill would have allowed the minister to write the question however he/she wanted – thus enabling them to write a very leading question “eg if nuclear power can be proved safe by a panel would you support it…” and then they set up a panel full of nuclear supporters.
The Greens proposed letting parliament write the question, but the ALP voted that down. Other than this virtually all the bills the Greens have voted with the Liberals on have either been procedural, or about transparency in government.
At the state election labor alleged the Greens preferenced the Liberals. This was a lie. It has not become any less of a lie in the subsequent months.
newspoll alp 59 coaltion 41
so it did bounce, just not the one howard was expecting
Probably more of a dead cat bounce, Blacklight…
Ray
An astute observation and thanks for making it. Latham was Left faction and Gillard still is. Against a climate of rising greens, hopefully no offence to the fine, apparently green, supporters in this forum, they were on the rise. I am quite sure it was this “a bit too left for us” bias that led to this. Note though that ONP preferences where a candidate stood were apparently low on the ticket, often right above the Greens. This should further highlight the Centrist credentials of this new and, I think, fascinating party.
Now, I do agree that Labor has potentially a very strong chance to secure preferences with Rudd, who, if he is more “right” than the Lib left, cuts right through the middle of FFP policy and deserves some attention here. I doubt if they would get a broad brush preference though, on the basis of economic credibility and perhaps dependent on the small business stance. FFP does a strong appeal to small, family based businesses, which is the sole reason for unfair dismissal being untouched, when most benefits were re-instated in Fielding’s private member’s bill on IR.
You are also correct about the Family Impact Statements, which Fielding has also being scathing of Howard in its renegging of this apparently “core promise”… maybe it wasn’t “Core core” it was just “core”.. LOL
Anyway, I wouldn’t rule out FFP kicking the Libs in the bottom over this issue + Workchoices, which FFP loathes. If Labor got broad spectrum preferences, FFP would get them over the line.. it apparently worked for Arch Bevis in Brisbane with Charles Newington. Most marginal Labor seat in the country and won by Arch with 4.3%. Ironically, it was also Labor that got Steve Fielding up.
Charles
Actually, I can see more votes against the government than for it since he has been elected, as I say, I think the reneg on the Family Impact Statements has angered Fielding and I wouldn’t rule out more brazen retaliation against Howard come preferences. They will also be looking to shore up “centrist” credentials by considering more Labor support…
Um, Latham was from the NSW Right, which split during the Latham / Beazley leadership ballot. Sure, he was only elected thanks to Gillard getting a lot of the left to line up. But that doesn’t mean Latham was from a Left faction.
My sources inform me the Family First lead candidate in Queensland is an ex-Lib Presbyterian.
If you check the “Question Time Fashion Roundup” for May 10
http://www.theconcat.com.au/delayed/?p=2467#more-2467
you’ll see Steve Fielding in Polka Dots, which strangely enough works for him.
A highly recommended link you won’t regret following.. !
On those newspoll figures … there’ll either be a new member or a by-election early next year even in Higgins at this rate. Who is standing against Costello again?
It will be interesting to see where any tipping point might be where Coalition members start to question their party leadership. They could still conceivably claw it back, but this is one very bad result for them regardless of arguments that the budget might persuade voters over time. There will be a lot of very worried incumbent MP’s now.
I reckon the bookies’ odds might shift towards Labor a bit more this week.
LMAO Dennis Shanahan will be eating humble pie tomorrow.
News Ltd especially hammers Rudd for a week, and lavishes praise on Howard/Smirky, and this is the result LOL
How could the press gallery have got it so wrong?
A few more polls like this, and Liberal members in seats with supposedly comfortable margins will be getting worried.
Gary,
I should have been confident enough to go with “Rudd fails to reach earlier highs”. At 59-41, one of the comment articles might lead with “The PM has a real fight on his hands…but.” In any case, the shrill pro-AWA campaign will continue until election day, and have zero effect.
I think Shanahan’s line will be that this result is exactly the same as the last poll because it is the margin of error.
Just a few points blacksburnspeph-
a) if you ever watched Lateline these days you would notice how biased it has become.. full of government ministers each night.. and yes okay they are in government but i can’t remember this occurring three years ago…
and the Insiders it has a right wing lunatic on every week and two middle of the road commentators– where is the left wing lunatic to even things up!
And the abc board full of right wing lunatics… time this was independent don’t you think…
And yep you only read what you want to read, maybe i should read some of the right wing crap.. i would if it had some integrity.. watch media watch and the chaser and you would see how the media operates… and see how media people spin things to suit their agendas’ .. i only read the Age at least it has lefties, and conservatives writing its’ articles… The Australian it is full of right wing journalists with an agenda…
b/
i know nothing about economics… not your kind of economic rationalist graphical nonsense… i never said anything about public debt mate… private debt now runs this country.. and this is the problem… governments are passing the debt onto us.. and currently our foreign debt is 50% of GDP and rising and what is helping us keep money in our pockets a commodity boom and when this runs out.. the money dries up mate powl!!! so do the jobs, and a multiplier effect begins.. and yep with us all in debt how do you think we will pay back such debts, monopoly money… also what if China and other countries don’t what to buy our commodities or the prices for them fall who will service our debts mate.. Get away from your micro economic crap and supply economics bullshit mate and have a look at the overall picture..
Yep i am lost in the 1970’s that is when our current account deficit was in surplus and our foreign debt was non existent… and actually governments spent money on infrastructure and owned assets .. and university education was offendable to all.. Today our assets are foreign owned we have banks, airlines, telecommunications with fewer workers and making us all pay to keep our hard earned dollars in savings accounts and go offshore to employ workers at cheap rates for corporate greed and shareholder dividends.. At least we got something for our taxes back then now we get nothing… but a little tax cut every election year..
maybe you have a look at trade imbalance and our current account deficit which
Shanahan won’t be for changing now. His analysis doesn’t seem to be doing the Labor vote any harm though.
his analysis is *drum roll*
‘Costello hoping to boost Libs’ end-of-term results’
‘No one – despite Kevin Rudd’s pre-Newspoll spin about getting a “thumping” – expected the Government to get a bounce straight away.’
LOL
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21732604-601,00.html
Shanahan, Price and co at the Oz were in desperate need on some political viagra from Newspoll to satisfy their agenda. They did’t get it, and their impotent, logically flawed and peurile rants in today’s edition are incapable of satisfying anything but their own overblown egos. An F for flacid performance.
And indeed this poll IS within the margin of error of the previous one. Still it breaks the run of improvement for Howard. Labor has been steady between 57 and 60 in all the polls for two months. I will take that.
mark says : what is your proposed solution to our economic woes ?
Not only was Latham from the Right faction, but had been described prior to his election as “the most right-wing MP in the caucus”. My experience of him in my area was that his economic policies were very much about liberalisation, and he was generally very much against Labor acting in a socially progressive way on issues like indigenous people, refugees, gays, etc. He compromised on these things when he was elected Leader, and he had some really creative ideas that I found appealing concerning social issues in western suburbs of Sydney and social capital, but have no doubt that Latham was definitely on the right wing of the ALP, both in his politics and his factional allegiance.
Matt Price on ABC Radio yesterday made an interesting point: perhaps the populace have stopped listening to Howard, it mightn’t matter how big the bribes are.
Dare I say it – the Libs must be wishing for a terrorist attack on Australian soil, between now and November.
Evan, I’m sure the plans are well underway.
Dick Ceeney will look after the rodent.
Interesting tidbit relating to the Galaxy poll. Apparently, the IR question was posed along the lines of whether the respondent supported John Howard’s policy which some people say “will cost jobs and cut wages” or Kevin Rudd’s policy which will “give more power to unions and hurt Australia’s economic prosperity”.
Both are lines being run out by the ALP/Coalition – and the result when Rudd’s way, 53-35.
Coota Bulldog – that is interesting and “The Australian” (and its band of “Get Rudders”) are pushing Labor to change their IR policy. What a bloody joke.
The other interesting thing is in the Newspoll. The same people who gave Labor that high first preference vote gave the budget a tick. Doesn’t this indicate they do not feel threatened economically by a Labor government? This economic advantage the government holds may prove to be less of a hindrance to Labor being elected than what is being proposed by the so called experts.
The most interesting of Newspoll’s findings was that 31% of respondents said they thought Labor would have delivered a better budget. That is a good statistic for the ALP as it strives to emphasise its economic management credentials at a time when the pundits are applauding the treasurer’s “masterclass” budget.
There is a theory going the rounds of the Labor Party that with the good economic times rolling, people may be prepared to make that switch in government. Back in 2004, the “rates will be higher under Labor” campaign worked well because there was uncertainty at the time about the economy.
Three years on, well into a commodities boom that continues to roar along, it’s harder to mount the case that the economic clouds are darkening. Note that Costello often talks about the skill needed to manage an economy at “full capacity” with big issues on the horizon.
The fact is if the polls were the other way around no-one would give Labor any chance of turning them around this far out from an election. Yet, according to some betting agencies the coalition are still in with a very good chance. I’m not saying the polls will stay as they are but surely Labor must be now favoured to win the next election, even by a small margin. This type of polling result ie all polls agreeing Labor are a mile in front, must signify something major is happening out there. I suppose that will come in time if the polls don’t move greatly in the next month.
The coalition is still in the game because they are the government. They still have all the powers of incumbentcy, such as the ability to spend millions on advertising, and the ability to use government departments to come up with new election policies. Oppositions just can’t afford to get this far behind because they don’t have the resources to get back into the game at a later stage.
What gets me is that Labor’s IR policy is basically non-existant (the full detail is unknown) and yet people prefer Rudd’s policy. I will make a bold
prediction:
The Howard Government will be returned by a 5 seat majority.
The swing against Howard will be less then 1% in Bennelong.
The high water mark has been reached and Howard will be gone.
Consequently, does anyone know who will be running in my local area, Casey. This is a case in point for Labor, there primary vote in seats such as this is starting off a vary low base, just over 30% in Casey and the Libs over approx 55% I am not quite sure how well people expect Labor to do with such ground to catch up on.
Labors low primary vote is problem for them
Name an Australian government that has been returned after showing the likes of these opinion polls for this length of time this far out from an election.
Adam, name the issues that will turn this election around for the government.
By the way, is that the Adam (May 11th, 2007 at 5:32 am) who said, “I said in February that if Labor was still well ahead at the end of May I would start to get excited, and that is still my view.”? If so what in these latest set of polls has you now saying, “The Howard Government will be returned by a 5 seat majority. The swing against Howard will be less then 1% in Bennelong.”?
For those interested, I’ve been plotting the 2007 Newspoll figures against the 2004 ones at the same time of year:
http://flag.eaglesflyinghigh.com/election/index.php?pg=pollchart.gif
The most obvious thing is how much the graphs correspond, only with a pretty consistent 4% improvement in the Labor polling this time around.
I don’t understand any of Adam’s post, but I’m just a girl and I remember we aren’t welcome here.
jasmine_Anadyr – As far as I’m concerned you are welcome anytime.
Mr Q – thanks for that. What it does show though is that the gap to close is so much bigger than in 2004. I also note that in the last two years of a change of federal government in 1983 Labor’s primary vote was 49.5 and the coalitions 43.6 (TPP – 53.2, 46.8) and in 1996 Labor’s primary vote was 38.75 and the coalitions 47.2 (TPP – 46.6, 53.6). The closer elections were those elections around them where no change took place. So if a change is going to take place it seems it needs to be fairly dramatic and the polls at the moment are quite dramatic. Unfortunately I can’t find the poll predictions for those years.
Adam,
Dympna Beard who was the State member for Kilsyth for a term – narrowly lost last year – is the Labor candidate for Casey, pre-selected late last week.
Are there two Adams?
I think there must be two Adams. I just don’t think the adam in Germany would be making such contradictory statements.
# jasmine_Anadyr Says:
May 15th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
I don’t understand any of Adam’s post, but I’m just a girl and I remember we aren’t welcome here.
What makes you say that Jasmine?
Im glad Dympna Beard is the Labor candidate for Casey. Ive met her a few times at various VIC ALP functions and she is a very nice person. Though with Labors spectacular poll standing i suspect the 13% Casey margin will still be impossible to overcome. Theres a change in the air, i can feel it. Like so many tories before him Howard has stayed on too long and is now paying the price
HaHa now i know why you said that Jasmine Adam has done a backflip LOL
Bill I was just referring back to the whole women in politics and poor Julie Bishop sub-plot in a post-stream. Saw her last night on late-line – poor girl.
But the two Adams got me confused …
Adam Says:
May 15th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
What gets me is that Labor’s IR policy is basically non-existant (the full detail is unknown) and yet people prefer Rudd’s policy. I will make a bold
prediction:
The Howard Government will be returned by a 5 seat majority.
The swing against Howard will be less then 1% in Bennelong.
The high water mark has been reached and Howard will be gone.
???? Adam this just aint you
Is there two Adams?
This Adam is now in Brussels, and is not the Adam who commented earlier. Other-Adam, please use another name, I was here first. I am still of the view that the election outcome cannot be called. After 1999 in Victoria, I think my view is that no election can ever be called. However, if Labor is still over 55% at the end of May, I will start to become optimistic.
With the way the polls are, Labor doesnt need to fill in any detail on its IR policy. Arrogance or confidance? More detail does need to be provided though, however as long as Joe Hockey is out there selling desperate messages like 2day-why worry. Hockeys performance 2day was just awful, the memory of Gillards stuff ups are well and truly forgotten, which they shouldnt but if the survival of the Howard Govt means anything to people like Joe Hockey-he better buck up soon
I can see the next headline. Idle speculation the Adams. On a serious note this shows a dangerous problem where more than one person can log on with the same name.
Why is it that two polls can have the Greens at 9 and 4 percent. This shows that polls are totally useless. I can believe 1 or 2 percent difference in major parties but 5 percent on a small party is just wrong
Yes Bill that’s true: for example, someone has been coming here using your name and trying to discredit you by making all kinds of extreme and silly statements
I think it is far to early to make concrete election predictions. The Australian electorate rarely changes the federal Government at elections and, as far as I am aware, never in a time of economic boom (possible exception 1996). I believe that elections have resulted in a change of government only 6 times since 1914: 1929, 1931, 1949, 1972, 1983 and 1996.
My heart very much says yes but my mind says probably not.
Adam C – I think you’ll find that’s just Bill. LOL. Just joking Bill.
oc: I think you missed the Dismissal Election.
bill: Newspoll is typically fairly good with the Greens figure, Morgan over-inflates it.
Plus Greens voters mostly live in trees and few pollsters feel like climbing up to find them.
oakeshott – hang on, “My heart very much says yes but my mind says probably not”, that’s a prediction isn’t it? I’d be interested in the rationale behind that comment though oakeshott. What do you see will change the polls so dramatically?
I think that a number of conclusions can be drawn from the polls, though I agree with the above commenters that the election outcome is not one of them.
It would be great to see more seat-by-seat polls, though I suspect they would be less heartening from a Labor perspective. As a Victorian, I don’t think Labor is likely to gain any ground here, but should hold onto its marginals, and, in the presence of a very big swing, could perhaps cause a surprise in places like McEwen. Still, as a Scullin-ite, I realise it is useless if an extra 5-10% of my neighbours go back to Labor, and I wonder if some of the good polling is a kind of ‘correction’ on the poor results of 2004, particularly in safe seats.
Labor should, by rights, have done far better in 2004. The basic issues were very similar, with the exception of IR (i.e. economic management, Iraq, interest rates, Iraq, Hicks, ‘trust’, etc).
By way of some tentative conclusions, I would suggest:
1. There is a mood for change, and this has been reasonably consistent over several months. It’s just a question of whether this ‘mood’ felt in the right seats.
2. Howard (and the rest of the front bench) look far less invincible when put under a bit of pressure. This should have been un almost unloseable election for the Libs, but they are doing their best to let Labor in. Howard is no ‘political genius’, and I think people are starting to reinterpret his past success (with the economy, for instance) as being at least partly the result of good fortune.
3. Finally, I think we can say with absolute certainty that whoever is responding to these polls clearly does not read or believe the histrionics in The Australian.
oakeshott – “I believe that elections have resulted in a change of government only 6 times since 1914: 1929, 1931, 1949, 1972, 1983 and 1996.” Given that logic are you suggesting we will never have a change of government again? If not, and I guess I’m just rephrasing the question above here but why shouldn’t this election be the one to have a change given the obvious, unheard of, advantage Labor holds at the moment?
Dr Carr,
Thank God you have found the time to share your incisive and brilliant analysis with us all during your European speaking engagements.
You may yet get your “executive” cubicle!
I am not a fan of Rudd but i think the electorate finds him attractive and appealing.. and whom speaks in a clear, articulate, positve and logical way. I know this may seem simplistic but being catching to the eye helps a great and this is in Rudds’ favour.. and that is why this time next win he will be Prime Minister… unless something like September 11 happened again..
Their is little difference between the parties but Howard will go on from now until election day that he Labor will ruin the economy…and really economies fall apart due to overseas occurrences and the fortunes of time.. If their are differences i think Climate Change and the style of Government we recieve will be differences.
There are in fact few stable democracies in which changes of government are frequent, and they are mostly countries which inflict some form of PR on themselves (Italy, Belgium). France has had only two changes since 1958, Germany only four since 1949, Japan only one brief one since 1945. Britain has had three Labour governments since 1945, New Zealand three since 1949. The US changes more frequently – the White House changing party seven times since 1952. So Australia is only marginally more resistant to change than most long-established democracies, particularly those with electoral sytems which, like ours, encourage stable majority governments.
whoops ‘helps a great deal’ and ‘now until election day that the Party wil ruin the economy’
The Speaker – I was waiting to see who would fall for it! Malcolm Frazer was the prime minister at that election and was returned with a very large majority.
“probably not” isn’t a concrete prediction like “the government has no chance of getting back from this position”. We are a long way from even the start of the campaign – who knows what the coalition has in store – a terrorist threat?, immigration?, dirt on rudd (what was Alan Ramsey referring to?), even perhaps just a catchy jingle.
In good economic times, despite what the electors say they feel about the tiredness of the government or its policies, precedent shows that when it comes to tossing a government out they rarely do it. When there is an economic downturn it is a different matter.
To be honest, I can’t see why or where this “mood for change” has come from. I’ll be the first to admit I don’t understand the mind (or lack thereof) when it comes to Aussie punters doing their democratic duty.
There is no GST, no Tampa, IRAQ hasn’t figured in much public opinion, so I wonder if our PM is as confused as us. As much as I have been impressed by Rudd, please don’t tell me it is just because “we are bored with him”???!!
That is as bad as saying a pollie is too fat, no personality, dresses badly or has bad hair. As far as I am aware, such characteristics are scrutinised very carefully during pre-selection to ensure that politicians have as many of these as possible
Why, why, why?? Why are we enamored by Rudd and yawning at Howard. Howard is clever, gives us money and genuinely loves cricket.
BTW with regard to an “obvious, unheard of advantage Labor holds at the moment”. Newspoll had the primary vote at Alp 48/Coalition 35 in March 2001 – within the margins of error of the current poll. Labor lost a significant number of seats at the next election.
‘Why are we enamored by Rudd and yawning at Howard. Howard is clever, gives us money and genuinely loves cricket.’
I don’t think people are in love with Rudd, but I suspect he is credible in the eyes of voters. His approval ratings are far better than Beazley’s. And I don’t thinking people are ‘yawning’ at Howard; rather, they are holding their noses.
The Liberals have the accumulated weight of 11 years worth of scandal dragging them down. Individual issues (like AWB, or Iraq) might not do much to sway many voters, but in sum, they could make the government look rather dodgy, especially when viewed through the lens of Workchoices.
Oakeshott I think you would have to concede that Labor’s poll position is now superior to its position at the equivalent times in 1998, 2001 or 2004. If Howard is to win this election, he will need a bigger recovery, in less time, than he achieved in those years, and without the assistance of Tampa, 9/11 or Mad Mark. It is not impossible, but each fortnight that passes without a significant inprovement in the coalition’s numbers makes it less likely, n’est ce pas?
I suspect the reason is that people are generally fed up with the current government, and I believe this threshold was crossed when the government introduced WorkChoices. WCs is quite a betrayal to those loyal Howard Battlers (or at least is perceived to be), and all Labor had to to was replace Beazley with someone people wanted to listen to. Rudd has delivered this, and IR is not the wedge issue for Labor that, say, refugees were/ are – a belief in collective bargaining is probably the one common value left, so it was relatively easy for Labor to oppose WCs. Luckily for them, this opposition seems to have the majority support of the population.
Of course, if Labor does end up being elected later this year, WCs won’t be the only issue, and by itself it’s not enough, but climate change, Iraq, education, “the future” – these are all issues playing into the Rudd narrative of Labor representing the future. WCs got Labor back into the game, and events have since conspired to sink the government. When the tide goes out, it does so very quickly.
I’m glad that News.com.au has picked on a quote Howard made on The 7:30 Report tonight. Howard said this:
“Ultimately we’ll find out whether it’s not been, you know, an interesting exercise by the Australian public in its innate sense of humour. We’ll find that out on election day.”
Of course Howard isn’t showing any arrogance or hubris, he just thinks people don’t want to vote for his government because of a joke! If Rudd said this Howard would be all over him calling him an out of touch elitist!
Mais qui. But one of the great things about watching politics is that you never know what’s around the corner.
Even when the polls are horribly bad I always watch the results with the hope that a miracle will happen and vice-versa. Statements like “the government can’t recover from here” are both inaccurate and destroy much of the fun of political involvement.
You’re right, of course, Oakeshott, and regardless of the end result, this election is going to be quite a ride. It certainly looks like Rudd is too far ahead, but things can turn around very quickly – he could have his “handshake moment”. Not that Rudd will muscle up like Latham, but some otherwise inconsequential exchange happens that plants doubt about him. Let’s say (as the money flows in to people’s pockets) that the government does get a Budget bounce, and has pulled the 2PP back 5 points by mid-July (which is, after all, still two months away). It’s still quite possible that Howard will see his chace and run to the polls. Come the end of August we could all be talking here about how Rudd lost it.
I’m not saying that will happen, but rather it is meant as a cautionary tale against getting ahead of ourselves (and obviously I’m speaking as a Labor voter here).
However, if Rudd does end up winning, I will look back at being part of the blogosphere who picked the landslide months before the commentariat did.
I’ve been trying to find newspoll results from th may before the 2001 election, but it seems that there were no polls by newspoll in 2001 before october, does anyone know what happened?
I agree with Hugo, there is an element of fate or luck that can’t be predicted or controlled, but some, including Mumble were convinced that Beazley would have beaten Howard and the polling pre him being defeated by Rudd certainly gave him a change.
There was an immediate Rudd bounce that so far has been sustained and so far defies all the waiting for the election to engage, all the ‘delayed affect’ theorems and Howard trick theorems.
Personally I suspect it is a really really out of touch view. I will illustrate with comments of the PM on PM tonight. Where in relation to a 33 million annual salary the PM said that the Govt doesn’t involve itself in caps and then went into Citizen John mode to drool in amazement at the big number.
He forgets and ordinary Australians do not forget that Workchoices is not just a cap it is much more a kneecap. So Government can force largely female workforces in retail and hospitality backwards with a disgraceful and dishonest policy they didn’t bother to outline before the last election but can’t ‘cap’ such a blatant excess. Out of touch.
Finally did Howard or his howardettes think he could give the impression that interest rates wouldn’t rise under him, and the say he never said it when they went up 4 times?
What amazes me most is how long Howard has got away with it, not that Australia’s patience has run right out.
1997: Despite presiding over an economic boom, the British Conservative Party was tossed out of power, after being in office for 18 years.
Tony Blair’s Labour Party won in a landslide.
A parallel with Australia 2007?
oakeshott country Says: May 15th, 2007 at 9:19 pm – “BTW with regard to an “obvious, unheard of advantage Labor holds at the momentâ€. Newspoll had the primary vote at Alp 48/Coalition 35 in March 2001 – within the margins of error of the current poll. Labor lost a significant number of seats at the next election.” The “unheard of advantage” refers to more than one poll, not just the voting intention poll and not just by one organisation.
Can you direct me to this poll please? I’ve looked up the Newspoll site and gone through thepolls of that time and cannot find it. While you’re at it, can you show the four months of very strong polling for Labor beginning 2001? Can you also show the other polls taken at the time by other polling organisations showing the same consistently strong figures for Labor? Can you show the preferred PM figures favouring Beazley over Howard as they now favour Rudd? Can you show me the polls showing Beazley’s satisfaction rating as being as high as Rudd’s is now?
I ask this not to be a smart ar.. but to point out that this is a far cry from the 2001 situation.
Do you also remember that the election was held in November that year and in September disaster struck? I know you’ll probably say that that is your point but the chances of this happening again?
Just a thought, while I still won’t predict that Rudd will win the election, would people agree that this is clearly the best position the ALP has been in at this point in the cycle (or really any point in the cycle) since Howard came to power?
The Newspoll figures can be found by fiddling with this following site on voter intentions. From memory Newspoll did not do a 2pp question until late in 2001. However the primary question showed a labor lead from February onwards- at times getting into double figures. (democrats and Greens combined were polling about 10 -12% – presumably increasing Labor’s 2pp) The change started in late May long before 9/11.
http://www.newspoll.com.au/cgi-bin/polling/display_poll_data.pl?mode=trend&page=select_category
Roy Morgan was showing a 26% 2pp lead to the ALP in February 2001. He even had Labor 9% ahead in November.
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/Trends.cfm?
A C Neilsen had Labor 20% ahead in 2001 in April 2001but by August this was down to 4
http://au.acnielsen.com/reports/documents/ACNielsenPoll2001.pdf
The preferred PM and satisfaction listings are also on these sites Beazley led Howard from March till August on A C Nielsen and from March till June on newspoll. Admittedly his satisfaction ratings were not as good as Rudd’s but that may be related to the length of time he had been leader or to the perception that he was a fat lazy buffoon
On the comparative poll position in 2001, 2004 and 2007, the Oz Politics site has a table tracking the comparative position. Go here: http://www.ozpolitics.info/blog/ and scroll down. Labor is currently 6% higher than it was at this point in 01 and 04.
I of course agree with Oakeshott that anything can happen between now and the election, and I’ve been saying all along that no poll in May can guarantee a Labor win in October-November.
But the facts remain: Labor is well ahead of where it was in 01 and 04, and so far neither Howard nor his media running dogs have found a way to damage Rudd’s standing – a sharp contrast with both Beazley and Latham, whose vulnerabilities were well known by this stage in the last two cycles. My clear recollection is that Labor hardheads had already given up on Latham by May 2004.
I have a fuller response held up in moderation (all I did was call Beazley a fat lazy buffoon). However the ozpolitics graph isn’t that clear cut, at weeks 17-18 (early May) the comparative difference is about 1% 2007 v 2001- Labor’s primary vote then dived. Yes, Labor is in a good position but it is by no means unassailable.
oakeshott country: The Speaker – I was waiting to see who would fall for it! Malcolm Frazer was the prime minister at that election and was returned with a very large majority.
Ah, yes you’ve got me – but I still think it should count as a change of government election, especially for analytical purposes.
How far can Rudd fall?
To answer the several questions about how 2007 compares with previous election years, below are the figures for TPP. The poll numbers are averages of at least 3 polling organisations, averaged over 3 periods and so have a sample of about 10,000 and an “error margin” of less than 1%. The “election” for 2007 is my estimate of the nation-wide TPP that the ALP will need to have a majority of 1.
mid-May Election Fall
1998 50.1% 50.7% -0.6%
2001 54.5% 49.4% 5.1%
2004 52.8% 47.7% 5.1%
2007 59.2% 50.8% 8.4%
The only way forward for the ALP is probably down- the above is virtually the ceiling: the rusted-on Coalition primary vote is probably between 31 and 32%, so this could fall further. But the rusted-on TPP for the Coalition is between 40 and 41% and so this can’t fall much further and thus the ALP can’t rise much further.
This is all phenomenological psephology of course, devoid of analysis, but the statistics are pretty robust because we have 15 years of fortnightly polls of some 2,000 people from each of at least 3 pollsters to work with.
Oakeshott,
The reason many of us disagree with your cautionary analysis is that you have selected a one-off comparison with 2001.
Any version of moving averages/multiple polling companies makes the 2001-2007 comparison more favourable for Labor this time around.
In addition the fact that the Government is now much more damaged goods, and the obvious superiority in vote-winning potential of Rudd compared to Beazley makes it very easy to suggest the high probability of a change of government.
I also reckon that the economy was going OK in 1972 when the change of government occurred, and in any case, 1969 (when the economy was unequivocally booming) was the effective first stage of that victory, with a 7.5% swing to Labor off the very low 1966 (Vietnam election) base.
Thankyou Geoff Lambert for these figures. Were these falls immediately after the budget and did Labor recover any lost ground before the up coming election in any of those years?
I never thought I would ever say this but the significant change surely must be Rudd’s popularity in the preferred PM poll and his high job satisfaction rating. These have been consistently high, unlike Latham and Beazley. This presents a whole new set of problems for the coalition when it comes to combating Labor this time around.
I agree also with Peter Fuller (May 16th, 2007 at 11:59 am).
Don’t get me wrong, I agree that Labor is in a better position and the Coalition in a worse position than 6 years. My argument is that it is a big leap to call the election result from opinion polls 6 months out. I very much hope the polls will be vindicated
“Staggering Stagflation” is the headline I remember from 1972. The quote was from Lance Barnard. All these things are relative but the long post war boom was beginning to tire and inflation and unemployment levels were up. One of Labor’s ads had a picture of Newcastle and suggested that under Billy McMahon unemployment might get to 300,000 – the size of Newcastle at that time – how aweful. Of course the first oil shock made this all look like minor stuff. It should be remembered that, despite a brilliant campaign and after 23 years of a very tired government led by someone picked from the bottom of the barrel, Gough’s majority was single digit (?9 without looking it up).
oakeshott country – thankyou for supplying the poll information. I’ve learnt something now about the newspoll site – very handy. I think we share the same wish for the election outcome and I do understand your reluctance to allow yourself to think this will happen this time, anything can happen. I must admit though I’m getting this feeling that people have stopped listening to the government and are seriously looking for a change.
does anybody out there know when the state by state breakdowns are going to appear?
They appear quarterly, Blackburnpseph, so I would say some time in July.
Slightly off topic. The talk of 1972 made me look at Adam’s site for the results of the 1974 double dissolution senate results. Whitlam was doomed when (amongst other results) a liberal posing as an independent one the last seat in Tasmania. What impressed me was that the quota was just over 19000!!!. Crikey, more people have been known to turn up at a Rooster’s home game than this and yet Michael Townley and his senate colleagues were able to launch Australia into its worst, so far, constitutional crisis.
won ,sorry
I was wrong when I said that The Australian would have an editorial on Tuesday that would “attack teacher unions and point out how parents want standards and school autonomy and how the astute John Howard recognises this, while the ALP is unable to because it is in the pocket of the teacher unions, stuck in the past, etc.†It was delayed until Wednesday.
It’s about time for another “I love my AWA†article in The Australian to play tag-team with the “The sky will fall in with Labor’s IR policy†articles of the last few days. We do need some balance after all.
There is one good thing about “The Australian” though, hardly anyone bothers with it. I read some of it on line only because I need a good laugh in the mornings.
# Adam C Says:
May 15th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Yes Bill that’s true: for example, someone has been coming here using your name and trying to discredit you by making all kinds of extreme and silly statements
# Gary Bruce Says:
May 15th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Adam C – I think you’ll find that’s just Bill. LOL. Just joking Bill.
I love you guys !
Also Beazley was faced with 9/11 and Tampa. My assessment is if Rudd is running evenly with pre-Tampa Beazley, he’s on track to win.
Any of you Aussie political junkies interested in Fred Thompson?
http://www.fredthompsonnews.com
I’ve always thought Howard would have won in 2001 regardless of 911 and Tampa mainly due to the return of the One Nation voters to the coalition fold. I have no real evidence to support this but the polls were already heading his way.
Another little theory of mine that I haven’t researched is that One Nation distorted the 1998 2PP result to make Labor look better than they actually were because of Labor receiving half the One Nation preferences in safe-safe-safe coalition seats.
I too am heartened by the polls, but I stick to my initial claims:
- WorkChoices is what is toxic to the government, like nothing else (except maybe power plants in your backyard) and Howard can’t fix it (damned if he changes, damned if he doesn’t).
- It is almost impossible for Rudd to win, and I think it is a two election task. The fact people are seriously talking about him winning is a pretty impressive achievement by itself!
- Even if Labor win, the Coalition will still control of the senate.
I’m not sure if that specifically was the cause of Labor’s swing, but I’m sure that One Nation’s existence majorly helped Labor out in 1998.
dembo Says: It is almost impossible for Rudd to win,
Why?
Ben,
‘majorly’?! At least I won’t have to explain ‘my bad’ to you.
Oh don’t start with grammar fascism. It’s so annoying.
Ben,
You’ve missed my point and you’ve missed TooBee’s point on the other thread. Your irony radar is not working. If it were, I’d make a joke about the inflection in “so”.
bill weller, I say it is nearly impossible because a %5 swing is an awful lot!!!
dembo are you aware that in the 1969 poll Labor achieved a 6.4 per swing after preferences and gained 17 seats, although it lost the election . Kevin Rudd needs a 4per cent uniform swing and 16 seats.
dembo – in 1996 the coalition managed a 5 percent swing towards it to win that election. When the swing is on, it’s on.
Sure Rudd could lose the next Election but for Howard to survive it would go down as one of, if not the greatest turn around in history.
I don’t think Howard can do it for if the Liberal heartland is angry then there little hope, remember if you can’t keep the heartland, what chance do you have.
Rudd needs to keep on message, yes he might be seen as nerdy, but the Liberal heartland likes a person to be smart and considered.
The Economy is the only ace going right for the Liberals at present, so while there daylight there is hope, but the Sun is fast setting.
Chris,
Maybe it was ironic, but I wouldn’t have noticed it because people in the past have complained about that perfectly seriously.
Ben,
Every word ever used was once used by someone for the first time. I suspect “majorly†arrived in Australia in Clueless, but that is only a guess. Because I was a teacher, I was able to keep up with some changes in expression and thus able to enlighten those who had no idea what The Speaker was saying when he posted “my bad†instead of “I’m sorryâ€. Adding “ly†to “major†is not bad grammar at all – it is rather the application of the normal rule for making adverbs to an adjective that had not in the past been formed into an adverb. It is an example of Valleyspeak (a word I just made up – some will get the meaning, while others will not). Thus language progresses.
The choice of “TooBee†as a screen name seems to be a play on the verb, “to beâ€, as in Shakespeare’s “To be, or not to be – that is the questionâ€. The teacher’s version is “2B, or not 2B. Oh no! I have got 2B.â€
About 25 years ago, students started to refer in their work to authors of letters to the editor and the like by their what were then called Christian names. I would always correct this undue degree of familiarity, yet here we are today as people who have never met addressing each other by what are now called first or given name). I saw a transcript of an interview of Malcolm Fraser by Virginia Trioli. She called him “Malcolmâ€. (If you watched West Wing, you would have heard that most of the script was “Yes, Mr Presidentâ€, “No, Mr Presidentâ€, “Thank you, Mr President†even when the president should have been doing the thanking. Even the vice president told someone off for using his name instead of calling him “Mr Vice Presidentâ€. In fact in the final of the series, the new president kept getting addressed as “Mr President-Elect†before his inauguration. It’s worse than royalty.)
We all make mistakes in spelling, grammar and punctuation. I do not pick people up on them, except for teacher-bashers who had better be perfect in the spelling, grammar and punctuation of their own invective. I was certainly not having a go at you, because you in fact made no mistake.
I do, however, think it is disrespectful of other posters if anyone doe not make the effort to use correct English, and the “I was typing quickly†excuse does not wash with me. (The use of a quotation as an adjective, as I have just done, is not part of the English I was taught, yet it seems perfectly understandable and I accept it as grammatically correct.)
Language changes. It’s hard to know when new words and ways of expression pass from unacceptable to acceptable.
AFAICS IMNSHO, the use of txt detracts from clear meaning.
Chris Curtis, it’s interesting to consider what constitutes “correct” grammar – it is not fixed by anyone or anything and it changes over time.
I have noticed that on many US TV shows, people say phrases such as “You did brilliant”, or “You did good” instead of “You did brilliantly”, or “You did well”. I don’t know if this is a recent phenomenon, but if it is, language in the US is changing before our eyes. It’s very interesting! Does anyone know how this change was initiated?
Sacha,
The ‘ in words replaces the “e†in the “es†which used to be there to indicate the possessive. I don’t know who first dropped the “e†and how it became acceptable to do so, but somebody did. Wednesday is Woden’s day. We’ve kept the “e†in the spelling, but we do not bother pronouncing all the syllables any more. I guess in time dropping “ly†from adverbs, as in “he did brilliantâ€, will become acceptable.
I accepted American spellings such as “color†from students. After all, in this case, the American spelling is the original, the “u†being added to English to be more like the French.
As for the political implications, there are possibly none in these examples, but the word “reform’ is the most misused in the English language, and “Choices†(always a lie) has gone from “WorkChoicesâ€. Labor is in on the act too with its decision to replace the neutral term “Industrial Relations Commission†with “FairWorkAustraliaâ€. Who first decided it was okay not to leave gaps between words? I’d hazard a guess that it was someone from computing, not Apple though.
Thanks Chris – I didn’t know the derivation of “Wednesday” – I’m reading up on the derivation of all the day names – very interesting.
Jasmine
Long delay on your post but, Howard’s classic statement about interest rates in 2004 was “Interest rates will always be lower under a coalition government than they will under a Labor government”. This statement was first made on the 30th of August 2004, on the radio national AM program with Catherine McGrath.
As I heard the sound bite in the loungeroom that night I said two things to my wife a) That is one of the shrewdest political comments I’ve ever heard an Australian politician make and b) They’ll be misquoting this one for years.
How true it has turned out to be. Latham took the worm and misconstrued the meaning as, variously:
a) There would be no rate rises
b) That interest rates would remain low under the coalition
c) That coalition governments tend to lower interest rates
None of which JWH actually said. To compound it, the ALP picked up on this in 2006 and drove a truck around with Howard and his long “lying” nose about rate rises, with Beazley claiming (this part, correctly) 8 rate rises since the 2004 election. Actually, this campaign was the lie and the ALP was absolutely aware of what was actually said.
The reason that this is a beautiful piece of politics is:
a) You don’t have to define what “low” means
b) You can’t have parallel realities.. we didn’t have a Labor government at the same time, so we’ll never know how they would have been different
c) It plays into both fear and mistrust of Labor governments with people’s mortgages, the biggest debt they carry and the primary reason they go to work.
Great piece of politics that he may still be paying for but we’ll never really know whether this statement was the one that got him over the line for a fourth term!
Comment 143 by Mad Dog on Tuesday 22 May 2007 at 1:28 pm
This site
way2bet.com.au/odds_comparison…
shows a continuously updated record of the various bookies’ odds.
Here is way2bet’s assessment of the situation as at 20 May.
way2bet.com.au/news/article/au…
Sportingbet Australia CEO Michael Sullivan said punters were reacting to the polls and continuing to back Labor who have shortened again today to be a clear $1.80 favourite with the Coalition drifting to $1.95.
“We simply can’t ignore these polls. We were happy to play it safe with the Government until the budget rolled out but the punters continue to pour the money on Mr. Rudd and the ALP,†said Mr Sullivan.
“In the past two elections, the ALP has looked good in the polls but the punting money simply didn’t arrive.â€
“This year the punters just can’t get enough of the ALP and the budget has not dented their confidence at allâ€.