Having done my bit to fan the flames of anti-Australian hysteria, props are due to the paper for this morning’s typically excellent piece by George Megalogenis on regional variations in housing price movements. Crucially, a “two-speed housing market” is identified in New South Wales, promising to hit the Coalition hard in marginal suburban and hinterland electorates (specifically Parramatta, Lindsay, Dobell, Robertson and all-important Bennelong), while delivering worthless dividends in the rich inner suburbs (where double-digit swings to the Coalition were recorded in the March state election). There’s a particularly handy cut-out-and-keep graphic listing the 20 electorates where prices have moved most heavily either way, the “price rises” list being monopolised by Western Australia. This ties in nicely with localised polling showing the Coalition collapsing in NSW, while holding ground or better in WA. Also instructive are Possum Comitatus’s renowned observations on the ratio of interest payments to disposable income. Further analysis of Megalogenis’s data from Simon Jackman.
Reflections on the Miracle of Democracy at Work in the Greatest Nation on Earth
Unsafe as houses
Copyright © 2008 Private Media Pty Ltd, Publishers of Crikey.com.au. All Rights Reserved.
Independent news, blogs and commentary on politics, media and business.
Editor: Jonathan Green.
Publishers: Eric Beecher, Diana Gribble.
Level 7, 22 William St, Melbourne, 3000. Ph: 1800 985 502 Fax: (03) 8623 9975
344 Comments
William hate to be first with a question, but can you remind me of the polling that shows WA polling worse than the last election … most polling that I am aware of over the last 6 months shows a small swing, but still significant enough to claim back Stirling and Hasluck, with local feeling seeming to think Hasluck an easier pickup and maybe Stirling line-ball.
Last month there was a Westpoll marginal seat survey that had the Liberals ahead in Cowan, as well as Stirling and Hasluck.
with a huge margin of error William
It’s not just a two speed housing market.
Australia has been divided into two – the have-nots and the have-yachts.
This so-called boom has been good only for those who already have shares, significant superannuation, more than one property or a job as CEO or equivalent.
The Indian boom likewise is leaving hundreds of millions still destitute.
Australia used to be egalitarian. It is no longer.
The figures are available to show how incomes for those on average or lower than average incomes have fallen behind the cost of living.
Inflation has been disguised by Chinese imports. They have been exporting deflation.
The real inflation figure is more like 6%, or worse for some.
The lower the income the worse the inflation as poorer people don’t buy as many imported Chinese gadgets.
JWH’s massive immigration programme is putting significant pressure on housing availability. Rents will rise to unheard of levels.
What the people are realising is that JWH and Costello’s hard line American-style free enterprise policies are about giving more power to big business and restraining wages growth.
The proportion of the GDP going to company profits is rising steeply and the proportion going to wages is dropping.
That precisely what AWAs are all about and now the penny has dropped.
It’s the old old story, the rich are getting very much richer and the poor are slipping behind.
Kevin Rudd is out there evidently listening to people in the shopping malls, streets and small businesses hearing this story.
Peter the Pusillanimous and John Howard keep harping on about the economy seemingly oblivious to the negative effect of their policies on working families.
The working poor in the making.
Indeed there are very many working poor right now in Australia, as in America
Richard
I posted on this at ozpolitics 3-4 months ago
people are hurting and the concept of economic Serfdom is becoming more and more real for many
I suffered ridicule for suggesting a Lab return of approx 110 seats but even back in march many ordinary aussies were suffering.
The born to rule set poo-pooed my rants but believe me the 50% primary is now well and truly rusted on and just waiting to send this rabble to oblivion.
Resurrecting ozpolitics posts
… statistics don’t vote, individuals do. Howard can bang on as much as he likes about how well the economy is going but the misser-outerers are only going to be more and more aggravated by such talk the more they hear it.
I’ll settle for 76 Labor seats, but something over 90 would be very sweet indeed.
You are right of course William, and it wasn’t a sarcastic question it was genuine, I think I was a bit guilty of westpoll dismissal, which I should not. Thank you kindly sir.
Howar I think is desparately trying to distract the attention away from these things to terroris, terrorism etc
http://www.ozelection2007.info/forums/viewtopic.php?id=120
Ryan (from last stream William put on vacation -rightly so) was the only QLD seat to vote for Federalism ? Ah, thank you Adam, there is hope yet for Ryan to change hands.
Is Westpoll the only ‘reliable’ information we have to chew on regarding voters thoughts in WA ?
The way things are going at the moment Im not as concerned about waiting for votes to fly across the rabbit fence to get a result as i might have been but WA remains the most unknown factor for me and most here I suspect.
On the housing affordability issue, people use their own statistics and research to back the story they want to tell, as witnessed on the breakfast TV shows yesterday morning.
One claimed housing affordability was the best it has been in ages whilst the other claimed young people are committing more of their income to mortgages and taking more years of full time income to pay off the mortgage and fill their homes with new furnishings instead of 2nd hand stuff-ie want it all ‘new’ now.
The perception Im getting (very subjective of course) and remembering ‘politics is perception’ is that there are alot more people coming into Centrelink complaining about the struggle to make ends meet in the last year or 2 than ever before in the experience of people who have been working there since the old CES/ Social Security days.
The punters are hurting, or should I say enough of the punters are hurting to bring about a change in Government. Whether such a change will do those hurting punters any favours is another question altogether- I get the sense though that enough had had enough of this Government in QLD at least to say bye bye to JWH and Peter Costello.
Again on the young voter them, a well respected sociologist in Melbourne (Dr Judith Bessant) theorised a decade ago about a developing young adult mob subject to ‘dependultcy’.. those forced to live with their parents well into their mid twenties because of the inaffordablity of mortgages and rental accommodation. Perhaps we are now seeing the political backlash of that development.
“Ryan… was the only QLD seat to vote for [the Republic] ? ”
Brisbane also did.
As I commented on the news site, many people are complaining about house prices going up, and now some are complaining about them going down. A change in house price is good or bad depending on whether it’s the house you’ve got or the one you’d like to buy.
Also, could the house prices dropping in some districts be due to redistribution? For instance, Bennelong shifting a bit westwards, losing a bit of wealthy north shore, and Parramatta moving ‘outwards’ through Sydney.
Land tax
Speaking of localised polling, the AC Nielsen showed the coalition ahead in QLD 52-48.
I think this is a small sample aberration, however it’s still down on the last election.
How many seats would fall to labor in QLD if the coalition got 52% 2PP ? They got 54% (I think) last time ?
ps: good work on killing the last thread.
Another rate increase, caused by the economy overheating, would cause another drop in house prices in disadvantaged areas and probably have little effect in wealthy suburbs as there is still a shortage of housing.
Eventually, of course, unless the housing backlog is addressed very quickly, house prices will go back up again even in areas where they are currently dropping. The really big problem is rent increases. Investors won’t buy properties for a 3-4% return with little hope of significant capital gain in the near future. Right now the stock market is a better bet. They can buy fully franked shares with a better return and hope of capital gain.
They can even get a better return on cash. They’ll get an even better return if interest rates rise. People who are renting now had better try for a long term lease. You can get these in Europe but are not common here.
House prices are simply a matter of supply and demand coupled with people’s ability to pay. The demand is being fuelled by immigration.
Immigration is being fuelled to a certain extent by the need for skills.
That’s where upskilling of the existing population is so vital to reduce the need for immigration.
Gusface, you were quite right 3-4 months ago. You can’t fool the people with talk of how the economy is going gangbusters when so many people are having difficulty paying bills and the mortgage or rent. And it’s going to get worse not better.
Inequality has skewed the economy and this is what the conservatives are all about.
“How many seats would fall to labor in QLD if the coalition got 52% 2PP ? They got 54% (I think) last time ?”
57/43 statewide, so that would be a 5% swing.
On that basis, Bonner (which will fall if the electorate sneezes) and Moreton would be picked up by the ALP but they’d fall just short in Blair.
It’s reported, that the Coalition cabinet had a war room strategy meeting yesterday. Unfortunatey for them, John Howard now has the reverse Midas touch, see here,
http://www.ozelection2007.info/forums/viewtopic.php?id=121
“Brisbane also did.”
15th highest in the country (out of the 42 returning yes).
Of course Qld wasn’t the only intransigent state: only 1/14 WA and 1/5 Tasmanian electorates voted yes. SA was streets ahead with a whopping 3/12…
52-48 in AC Nielsen for QLD would mean 2 maybe 3 seats for Labor. Unless seats like Hughes went for Labor it would mean Rodent Triumphant.
It’s stay the course time for the Libs. If they dumped Howard now it would appear like they wet themselves.
“52-48 in AC Nielsen for QLD would mean 2 maybe 3 seats for Labor. Unless seats like Hughes went for Labor it would mean Rodent Triumphant.”
No, as pointed out 52-48 in Qld would be a statewide swing of 5%. If this swing was uniform across the country then 2 seats would fall in Qld, Vic SA, WA and Tas, 6 in NSW and 1 in the NT giving an ALP government.
I agree with the last statement though. It’s too late to dump Howard. At this point that would be flying the white flag and, I suspect cause the last of any wavering marginal voters to abandon the coalition.
The Republic Referendum was an interesting insight into Australian Demographics.
Have a look at the alliances:
Working Class Labor/Outer Suburban Libs/Nationals
Vs
Latte Labor/Doctor’s Wives/White Collar Liberals/Greens.
Think of it as:
Today Tonight/A Current Affair
Vs
The 7:30 Report
It never had a chance – compare the TV ratings.
These groups often vote against each other but when the Repbulic Referendum came they showed their true colours.
“Have a look at the alliances:
Working Class Labor/Outer Suburban Libs/Nationals
Vs
Latte Labor/Doctor’s Wives/White Collar Liberals/Greens.
Think of it as:
Today Tonight/A Current Affair
Vs
The 7:30 Report”
Although there is some merit in what you say, you are obscuring the ‘alliance’ between committed monarchists and direct electionist republicans which was a significant factor in the defeat, which is more like A Country Practics & Neighbours v Home and Away…
Martin B
Cant see a 5% swing in WA based on the polling though – take them out and you only get 15 seats although including Bennelong. You could get a 2 seat Liberal majority with Costello as PM on those figures!
ALP cannot win without a massive swing in QLD! End of story.
You hope Edward.
Nah! Life will be sweet regardless for moi!
“Cant see a 5% swing in WA based on the polling though”
What a curious thing to say. Last election WA was 44.6/55.4 for the coalition. Thus a 5% swing in WA would be 50/50.
Now do you remember what the last Newspoll analysis showed?
But of course to pick up Stirling and Hasluck, the ALP doesn’t need the full 5% in WA, they only need just over 2% ie a uniform statewide result of 47/53.
So, despite what you may or may not wish to see, current polling shows the ALP well on track to pick up 2 seats.
Now ofcourse a lot could happen, swings are never uniform etc etc. But if you want to talk *on the basis of the polling* then your statement is simply incorrect.
well i think on the polling most people would say wa could be + or – 2 for the govt.
But let’s humour Ed.
Assume:
No gains in WA;
5% swing (only) in Qld;
Howard holds Bennelong; and for good measure
No change in Vic.
Then what uniform swing elsewhere would be needed to pick up 16 seats?
Answer: 5.5% to get Dobell, Boothby and Page instead of Stirling, Hasluck and Bennelong.
All this talk of swinging is enough to get a possum excited.
Fortuitously, I’ve just whipped up a graph of the Mackerras Pendulum which makes it easy to identify the number of seats won or lost by a given ALP TPP swing.
http://possumcomitatus.wordpress.com/2007/07/17/whats-a-swing-worth/
It might help to put some more numbers in the convo.
Yes, had a look at that – nice. Although it’s only useful for uniform national swings rather than trying to make different assumptions in different states.
As you note, one of the interesting things is the gap between a 3% swing and a 5% swing. With 3% – which seems like nothing based on current polling, even in WA – the ALP pick up 13 seats leaving the slimmest of majorities for the government. But to push them over the edge, they need that extra 2%.
Edward, it was a very small sample in Qld; the Newspoll analysis had Labor ahead 54-46 in Qld. Newspoll had Labor up 61-37 in NSW and AC Nielson 63-37 on a somewhat larger sample; these numbers would be an annihilation in NSW. No party has won govt since WWII without a majority of NSW seats.
Talkback on Virginia Trioli’s Morning Show on ABC Local Radio 702 Sydney today was the victim of a concerted campaign from a bunch callers who were, as increasingly became clear, political party plants.
All male with suitably deep voices and an avuncular tone they were initially reading scripts supportive of Howard and the Coalition but later a couple of these callers were pro ALP.
Trioli must have had an inexprienced producer who wasn’t filtering properly as she was clearly irritated by these calls which were delivered as speeches without a umm or err or even a proper pause. Trioli like the rest of the ABC is so spooked about being fair and balanaced she did not interrupt these calls but to be fair to her the scripts were so slick and well delivered that she didn’t really didn’t get an opportunity.
Right at the end what I would hope was a genuine caller got through and pointed out the obvious and Trioli readily agreed that she had been love bombed by partisans as it were.
Martin, if you download the Mackerras Pendulum,
http://www.unsw.adfa.edu.au/hass/staff/Pendulum.pdf
137KB
Since he gives each individual seat, its marvelously easy to just go through the list of seats and see how any swing in any state impacts on each state in terms of seats.
What exactly is the housing crisis? People aren’t living on the streets or in shelters are they? It’s that a large and increasing section of society cannot afford to buy. This is caused by demand for housing increasing as baby-boomers park their capital in rental properties.
So enough houses, too much demand. That’s how I see it, please correct me if I’m wrong.
So if the govt releases more land for housing what will happen? Let’s assume houses are built on the land and renters move in.
Result a sudden drop in demand for rentals. Over-extended investors start selling, resulting in a price crash. Lots of investors left with mortgages against a weakening asset. Now the battlers are happy, but the investors are mad.
But the developers probably already know this, so would they start building on the newly-released land knowing the result would be a market crash?
Again correct me if I’m wrong, but the problem is too much demand. Any move by the govt to reduce demand will reduce house prices. How popular is that going to be at the ballot box? Caroline Overington may believe that greed is good http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/coverington/index.php/theaustralian/comments/why_greed_can_be_good/
but I wonder how the battlers feel?
Also, re Ryan, it is considered a safe liberal seat needing about 10% to fall, but the sitting member is Michael Johnston who is being investigated by the AEC at the moment. My parents-in-law live in Ryan. Solid lib supporters in their seventies. My wife was surprised to hear her father say that it’s time to change government, and Howard has been in too long. They don’t hate him, I think they admire him. It’s just that he’s been in too long.
A closer look at where house prices have fallen shows that the all of the biggest falls (with the exception of Lingiari) have occurred in the south western suburbs of Sydney. Seats such Watson, Blaxland, Banks are where Sydney’s most socially marginalised are now congregated (particularly the Lebanese Muslim community). Some years ago, there were articles showing that these areas were undergoing middle class flight (what the americans have called ‘white flight’- but in the SW Sydney case included Indians and Chinese) which is a reasonably new phenomenon in this country. It would be interesting to know what political values are also fleeing and what may / may not occur in these residents new homes.
“Since he gives each individual seat, its marvelously easy to just go through the list of seats and see how any swing in any state impacts on each state in terms of seats.”
Such as I’ve been doing above
Sorry Martin, blonde moment.
This is interesting,
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22085308-2702,00.html
As the story notes it was esentially a cabinet meeting to discuss climate change but became a electoral war cabinet. If true then it is an abuse of taxpayer funds as a liberal party metting should be paid for by the liberal party
What do you think normally happens in a Cabinet Meeting? I would call this far removed from abuse of power.
Consideration of purely party political business certainly goes beyond the guidelines for cabinet business as laid down in the Cabinet Handbook, and certainly there is a moral argument against the expenditure of public funds on such. But I don’t think there is any legislative restrictions on such behaviour. (Correct me if I’m wrong.)
But its entirely up to the government of the day and particularly the PM to decide on the format of Cabinet meetings. It’s pretty low-level and common form of abuse…
I wouldn’t bother with RBJ, K David.
Hi. Walter Cronkite here. I think the polls are incorrect and John Howard will win the election.
NOTE: I don’t think it’s really him – PB
I hate to burst your bubble Lord D but Berowra will still be Liberal after the election as will Warringah (Ed St John seniors old seat)
Nevertheless, it is interesting to note where the “Republican Liberals” live, who I think are also the “doctors wives” and the “Petro Georgiou Liberals”
Liberal-held seats which voted for the Republic, showing Yes vote
Bradfield 55.6
Bennelong 54.6
Berowra 51.7
oops, try again
Nevertheless, it is interesting to note where the “Republican Liberals†live, who I think are also the “doctors wives†and the “Petro Georgiou Liberalsâ€
Liberal-held seats which voted for the Republic, showing Yes vote
Kooyong 64.2
Higgins 63.7
Wentworth 60.2
Menzies 59.9
Goldstein 58.0
Bradfield 55.6
Curtin 55.5
Ryan 55.3
Bennelong 54.6
Warringah 54.5
Sturt 53.7
Deakin 52.9
Boothby 51.9
Berowra 51.7
Aston 51.5
Obviously Labor is not going to win Bradfield, although I suspect there will be above-state-average swings to Labor in all these seats. But Wentworth, Deakin, Boothby, Sturt and Ryan are on the list, and those are clearly seats where small-l-liberal issues can hurt the big-L-Liberal members.
To say nothing of Bennelong!
“But Wentworth, Deakin, Boothby, Sturt and Ryan are on the list, and those are clearly seats where small-l-liberal issues can hurt the big-L-Liberal members.”
Surely you aren’t suggesting that conservative republicans will turn on Malcolm?
The ‘republican liberals’ aren’t really small-l liberals (most of that group departed the Liberal fold sometime ago), but technocratic managerial types who think Howard is past it now, they might prefer Rudd to Howard but would stick with Costello if he was PM. Rudd is targeting this group. On WA it is really going to defy the national trend as dramatically as some tip? True Labor did lose 2 WA seats in 1972 but then there was an unpopular Labor state govt and Labor was coming off a very high vote in 1969, not the current case. Even in 1972 I don’t think there was the discrepancy in Labor support between WA and the rest of the country that would be required in 2007 for a ‘WA saves Howard’ outcome.
If current poll numbers in NSW and in Coalition safe seats hold up, Berowra will fall.
I think it was St Paul who to paraphrase described the people around Rudd as poll driven to the point where they wouldnt get out of bed without first consulting a poll.
On polling one group is completely led by raw polling figures, ie 58-42 must mean Howard will lose and others look with the rear view mirror and say he escaped the last 3 times in the campaign so you cant write him off.
So I think at some point you have to go on instinct – and believe when all is said and done – the substantive factors cut through which in politics is the economy and who has a consistent set of beliefs – Its still Howard – Labor hasnt changed – as someone called it is Midway Labor and I believe come polling day Rudd will go down for that reason.
Write me off as mad – no doubt some of you will but I am calling it for Howard, I see that Rudd has been seduced by the polls and has no intention of slaughtering the sacred cows he must to win. The liberals by 2-4 seats.
Laugh now but mark my words in 4 months.
For those interested, here’s a pendulum that includes state by state swings from Newspoll:
http://flag.eaglesflyinghigh.com/election/?snap=7
(since there were no swings listed for the NT or Tas, I’ve used the minimum swing, ie WA’s).
Labor has every State govt and a massive current lead in the polls that has been maintained for several months. Nothing is working for the Tories, and it looks to me as if they’re the ones in need of reform. WorkChoices and Climate Change are cutting through and Rudd is neutralising the govt advantage on economy. The “It’s Time” factor is also working in Labor’s favour. More bad things can still happen to the govt, particularly given Bush will be at APEC. This all points to a big Labor landslide at the election.
Ryan voted for ‘Federalism’? Ryan didn’t exist that long ago!
BTW as Glenn Rhodes’ great study showed, all of Brisbane voted against Federation. But the rest of Qld (bar Rockie and the Downs) voted for it. Indeed the more ‘remote’, the greater the lust for federation.
And now they just love bashing Canberra. No pleasing some people, or their grand-children…
Lord D,
If current poll numbers in NSW and in Coalition safe seats hold up, Mark Vaile might be out of a job!
The Newspoll data suggests an almost unbelievable 16.3% swing against safe government seats in NSW.
It’s astonishing.
Ed St John. Your thesis is half right: Rudd Labor doesn’t have a coherent philosophy. And for all his personal reflection on Bonhoffer, I don’t think he ever will. He is a technocratic compassionate conservative. (Conservative both in the methodological, and the ‘hard work is all’ sense).
Do they need a strong ideological base? No, not to win power off a tired, 11 year old government.
Would you name the ’sacred cows’ Rudd should jettison? And please don’t say ‘the unions’. After months of Oz led union bashing, IR simply hasn’t rebounded on Labor. For the simple reason that they – or rather the ACTU campaign and the perceived excesses of the Act – long ago convinced enough voters the pendulum had swung too far to employers.
All the sensible explanations of the slump in government support since then have built on that theme: ie however good macro-economic GDP and employment growth have been, sufficient swinging voters, especially from the lower-middle class, feel insecure whether it be because of increased mortgage repayments, stalled wage growth or fear of unfair dismissal.
Howard’s only hope is to reharness that fear, but it’s not clear how they can do so – the souffle that baked Latham isn’t likely to rise again.
Edward if substantive factors are cut to cut thru the Government is doomed. The economy has failed ordinary Australians. While income and profits and tax cuts have been funnelled towards those who need them less, most of Australia has been debt funding the lifestyle of the boom.
Now with massive debt and a feeling the boom wont last forever we are sitting up and asking “Hey how come all I’ve got out of Howard’s massive boom it a massive debt, and why is he making it much easier for big business to cut my pay and sack me”. Keep talking up the economic creditials it is the weakest element of the campaign for Howard because even those with the most limited understanding of wealth know when they don’t have it and if it is as good as is gets then they should really have some shouldn’t they. Wiser better people than me have written good articles about this over the last month or so, it has been obvious in the electorate for more than a year.
Although I always thought Beazley was going to win and was the wisest bet, Rudd seems to have freed up the grumpy to vote labor.
Exactly what is it that Howard believes in? As his great mentor once said “please explain”. At least Pauline was pretty honest.
“I see that Rudd has been seduced by the polls and has no intention of slaughtering the sacred cows he must to win.”
I’m not going to call you mad it looks to me like it has come straight from the hymnal of liberal song, so faithful would be the right expression.
What evidence do you have that Rudd is poll driven, it seems to me Howard is more obviously guilty of this with his stunt after failed stunt this calendar year? Where are Rudd’s poll driven stunts I’m struggling to remember them?
Finally ’sacred cows’ – care to elaborate or is this a reference to the News limited press and repeating their ridiculous mantras?
Edward, ALL major-party politicians and everyone who works for them are poll-driven, as anyone who’s ever been one or worked for one knows. If you think people here are obsessed by polls, you should be at the Parliament House coffee-shop at 7am on “Newspoll Tuesday.” Getting up at 6am in Canberra in winter to read Glen Milne is only for the truly obsessed. Howard’s office scrutinises poll data as intently as Rudd’s, in fact more so since they have the public service to do it for them.
These things ultimately come down to zen like factors – I dont buy the I’ve missed out on prosperity theme.
Substitute grocery prices for reading to kids and you can see Labor still doesnt get it. What is the great overarching narrative of Rudd – I can remember reconciliation, for all of us – Rudd ????
Howard will win because of the economy and he will win because as much as the touchy feely issues sound good – people still vote on the core gut feeling of who will be a safe pair of hands – Labor partially gets it with Rudd but they havent done enough rethinking of their own policy.
Medicare Gold’s fairwork australia for example, tax policy, health policy etc? There is still a lot of doubt out there as to what really Labor stand for other than we like unions. Last time I checked union membership is 15% so obviously a lot of people dont. There is also a sense of unease about recessions and Labor – Rudd’s played games on these issues but he hasnt nailed it.
Before you all pile on remember I picked the 2PP in NSW weeks before!
I’m not helping you test drive the liberal hymnal anymore until someone mails me the labor one … unless Adam is using that.
Well done Edward. As is your right you’ve made your predicition known but as far as I’m concerned you’ve yet to provide a good argument for thinking that way except for a pile of “ifs” and possibilities. Just what are the issues which will swing it Howard’s way?
I have now posted seat-by-seat results for the French legislatives, plus maps.
http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/f/france/
Sorry Edward I hadn’t read your previous posting. All of those things you mention are known now by the electorate and we know what ALL of the polls are saying. You understimate two important factors – Rudd and the anti Howard feeling due to his IR laws. As Matt Price says these laws are a dog and they will dog Howard upto the election.
Adam,
” Getting up at 6am in Canberra in winter to read Glen Milne is only for the truly obsessed.”
That’s truly funny.
I’ll think that you’ll find that there is a provision for Members to attend party Meetings.
Work Choices is an Abuse of power, overturning Territory Legislation ie Civil Unions in the ACT and the NT Nuclear Waste Act is an abuse of power. Silk Wall paper for Janet in the Flash Plane is an abuse of power.
A meeting I can handle.
Well John Howard had his cabinet meeting and gave his colleagues every opportunity to challenge him. No one spoke up. They must now collectively take responsibility for what happens.
No one in that room had the courage to say “the king has no clothes”. The cruel Wizard of Oz analogy is unfortunately too close to the truth.
Yes, John, it is you and the policies you have espoused all these years.
It was unfortunate for you that you gained control of the Senate and were able to pass the IR laws.
These laws were the last straw for many and made it easy to campaign against you as not caring for the average working person by making it easier for big business to reduce working conditions and restrain wages.
It would appear that John Howard will indeed take us to the next election and it would be remarkable indeed if he won. It would be Lazarus with a quadruple bypass.
Edward St John ( I knew the original Ted St John, lovely man) you are not mad, but you need to take off your rose-tinted spectacles and look at the polls seriously. The Coalition is headed right now for a very serious loss, equivalent to the Howard win in 96.
Almost nothing can stop Rudd winning. A change of leader would have given the Coalition a chance but that clearly is not going to happen, unless Howard has the proverbial “chest pains” and retires suddenly. Even then it might be a messy struggle which would damage the Coalition’s chances even more.
Whoever takes over the leadership is likely to be doomed to be in opposition for ten years or more and frankly who in Liberal ranks wants that?
Would Malcolm Turnbull hang around for ten years? Not likely. He has other things to do than sit on the opposition front bench either as leader or shadow minister for an extended period of time.
It is quite likely that the polls will continue to track sideways for the next few weeks and will probably come closer in the last week or so before the election. I had predicted the result would be 52.5% Labor and 47.5% Coalition. It is now looking more likely to be 53%Labor and 47% Coalition.
Who knows it may be even greater than that although we in Australia are not inclined to huge swings. Should see the Indian state parliaments. They have huge swings at elections.
Ah well Peter the Pusillanimous, John gave you the chance today and you squibbed it. And you Malcolm? Why didn’t you speak up?
We and Howard are in unchartered waters here. The change in voter thinking has never happened to this extent to the Howard government and as far as I’m aware no previous government. Surely that must be cause for concern/joy (depending on who you are supporting). I can’t help but feel the electorate breathed a great sigh of relief some months ago and swung accordingly. I believe much of the primary vote Labor is enjoying now is rock solid, give or take two percent.
Frankly, it may be to the Libs long term advantage if they were to lose this time. The economy is still strong, unemployment is low, etc, etc. If the economy were to turn down in the next few years – in the first or second term, they would have the biggest stick in the world to beat the ALP around with … look the economy was strong when we left office, remember the how good it was, etc. etc. It worked a treat during the Whitlam government, and would work again.
I find Edward entertaining, when he says that ultimately voting comes down to “zen like factors” and “core gut feeling” (which I assume are opposed to non-core gut feelings?). It is of course exaclty the sort of language that Stephen Colbert satirises using the term “truthiness”, they are the things we know because our gut tells us they are right, even though there is no real evidence to support the claim. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness
If people really are going to vote for the coalition, surely there will be reasons for it, rather than saying voters are all just irrational.
John Howard is the main problem that the coalition has. But it is too late to change 3 – 4 months out. It would look like panic and be a disaster. JoHo should have gone last July, but obviously gambled on being up against Kimbo. But Ruddy cam along and pulled the rug out! Even March or April may have worked, the Peter Costello honeymoon may have in turn pulled the rug out from under Ruddy. But it is too late now …
I will join Richard Jones on 53 -47.
Ed, I don’t think I’ve ever read so much baseless, mindless twonk. Have a lie down and straighten your head out for a bit.
I agree with blackburnpsep, I think Howard is the problem. I don’t think he is necessarily hated, I just think people think he has had long enough, and that Rudd is a better alternative P.M. than Costello. I still think Costello should’ve done a Keating late last year, he should’ve challenged Howard, and if he lost he should’ve gone to the back bench. Then he would’ve had a realistic chance of challenging now, or when the next Newspoll is released, but he didn’t do it cos he is too gutless, which is why Howard doesn’t even think he should be P.M.
Can I follow who ever took 54:46, or if they don’t want to share 54.5:45.5.
Just thinking the undecideds who can actually do a formal vote will water things down a bit.
Whitlam was badly hit by the oil crisis which was largely responsible for giant interest rate increases. He also had some dud economic managers.
He did undertake some great reforms though that are still with us.
We are probably in for a rough ride in the next year or two especially if the collaterised debt obligations in the USA really get out of control and their economy is damaged. Also there is likely to be a stockmarket downturn. Kevin Rudd is aware of these things. That’s why he is telling voters that the “boom” won’t last. He’d had to have so pretty bad managers to do a Whitlam.
Martin B said
“Consideration of purely party political business certainly goes beyond the guidelines for cabinet business as laid down in the Cabinet Handbook, and certainly there is a moral argument against the expenditure of public funds on such. But I don’t think there is any legislative restrictions on such behaviour. (Correct me if I’m wrong.)”
Thanks for replying Martin, regardless of the right and wrong of it and who does it now and has done it in the past it comes hard on the heels of the criticism Howard copped over the Kirribilli cocktail party. I don’t think it would be looked at favourably by those who have to account for private and business components for their tax purposes.
But as I said the article was of interest for this line.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22085308-2702,00.html
“The meeting, ostensibly called to discuss climate change, became an open debate about the Coalition’s dire polling position. ”
Ostensibly is defined as “from appearances alone; “had been ostensibly frank as to his purpose while really concealing it”.
Interesting choice of adverb.
To be fair, Arbie Jay, it is Shanahan’s choice of words, not Howard’s.
Richard Jones Re Whitlam (getting off topic I know)
The oil was only the half of it
-the western developed economies all ‘matured’ about the same time and the surplus of demand for labour over supply collapsed in a heap. Whitlam was the proud beneficiary of a tonne of baby boomers all coming on the market seeking professional jobs when the ‘value add’ from each job in terms of productivity was approaching zero
-the Vietnam War had bankrupted the US and undermined the global trade system based on the strenght of the US
-Australia’s cossetted tripartite protection system was no longer sustainable. Whitlam reduced the tariffs, Fraser did very little and it fell to Hawke and Keating to make the real changes to open up Australia to the world.
-Some of Whitlam’s ‘economic managers’ didn’t believe in capitalism, Jim Cairns being the greatest of those
-Whitlam himself (as Gerard Henderson, in one of his rare lucid moments, says) was not interested in economics. He had not gone into the job of PM to do economics. My own view was he saw himself as a statesman from the beginning, rather than earn it.
-the Federal Treasury was actively fighting the Whitlam Government, probably because Jim Cairns didn’t believe in capitalism
Rudd is well aware of the history of the ALP as a reforming party, and the need to avoid Whitlam’s mistakes.
I’ll have to agree with Edward on one thing: Berowra(my local seat) will stay Liberal, no matter what happens nationally. It would take a 14% swing for the ALP to win such blue ribbon areas as Thornleigh, Pennant Hills, Normanhurst and Hornsby. It ain’t gonna happen – too many oldies and rusted on Liberal voters.
We need a few Liberals on this site for political balance, otherwise we’d be just another Rudd For PM Club(which I’m a proud member of!).
Hilarious: Howard discovering the joys of the internet! Check out his youtube video, and the abusive comments accompanying it.
A rather good ALP anti Howard TV ad on tonight!
Very good summary Riccardo.
# Martin B Says:
July 17th, 2007 at 11:05 am
“52-48 in AC Nielsen for QLD would mean 2 maybe 3 seats for Labor. Unless seats like Hughes went for Labor it would mean Rodent Triumphant.â€
No, as pointed out 52-48 in Qld would be a statewide swing of 5%. If this swing was uniform across the country then 2 seats would fall in Qld, Vic SA, WA and Tas, 6 in NSW and 1 in the NT giving an ALP government.
And that is only just a win. I still fear my prediction of Howard by three will happen
“Would you name the ’sacred cows’ Rudd should jettison? And please don’t say ‘the unions’. After months of Oz led union bashing, IR simply hasn’t rebounded on Labor. For the simple reason that they – or rather the ACTU campaign and the perceived excesses of the Act – long ago convinced enough voters the pendulum had swung too far to employers.”
And under a ALP government the ACTUs YR@W campaigns would not be protected and would be illegal. see The Age 28/4/07. So under Howard we can and under Rudd we cant. People are starting to question this and ALP candidates cannot answer in a way that makes them feel better about it
Bill Weller
Which one of Kingston, Wakefield or Makin don’t you think Labor will win.
I would wait until Howard launches his anti ALP campaign into the lounge rooms of voters before being confident of an ALP landslide. People i am talking to are tired of Howard but wary of Rudd and things can turn very quickly.
Martin the ALP will win all three. SA wont be the problem
In Kingston Family First has a big following, even if the ALP does a deal with FF and they direct preferences to Rishworth i believe that around 70% would still direct them to Richardson as he has considerable support with them
Bill,
Sorry, I now realise it wasn’t you who said they would only win 2 in SA.
I’m not sure why we are talking of applying the Qld swing nationwide, especially as 48-52 is clearly highly speculative.
‘as he has considerable support with them’ should read –as he will have their support.–
I was told that he attends the local AOG church but have not had that confirmed
I think they will win Makin easily, the equivilent state seat of Newland is now a Labor seat via 12.3% swing at the 2006 election.
# Martin J Says:
July 17th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
I’m not sure why we are talking of applying the Qld swing nationwide, especially as 48-52 is clearly highly speculative.
But its fun applying everything to this election as although the ALP is way ahead it wont take much to change that and then the somewhat strange predictions will seem not that strange at all
Martin J Says:
July 17th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Bill,
Sorry, I now realise it wasn’t you who said they would only win 2 in SA.
If the ALP did not win the three here in SA then the ALP would have to be worried. The three are gimmes
If the polls do change for the government, will it be a slow incremental change where they pick up a percent a week, or will some event, say a major screw up by Rudd, or some genius policy announcement cause a dramatic change in the space of just a couple of weeks?
Is it reasonable to suggest that hundreds of thousands of people may wake up in a months time and decide to support the government, or will there be a point where the Government just doesn’t have enough time to change enough votes? I guess I am asking if there is actually such a thing as a tipping point where people’s perceptions of the Government make it impossible for the Govnerment to persuade.
Oh and on the outlawing of the YR@W campaign under Rudd i suppose we wont need it anyway as the ALP is the workers friend mmm i wonder if the nurses and ambos etc here in SA thought that over the last month
Simon i am expecting a slow move to the government then a major issue to get them over the line. Howard wont make the mistakes of Keating.
yeah sorry I was sposed to put Ryan re Republic not Federalism. another dumb moment from a tired punter. I will resist commenting before waking up properly first. Amen.
Bill is the sentiment in SA that all three (Kingston;Makin;Wakefeild) will go to Labor ? What about Boothby ? If a swing was on in SA there was a kind of domino effect when I was living there. Maybe things have changed.
Laugh now but mark my words in 4 months says Edward St …IM LAUGHING now, thanks.
On the 2PP National outcome Ill take 53-47: what that means in seats for Labor in individual States and divisions is more than enough to win Government- which and where I dont particularly care beyond 16 (net).
The Age published a beautiful full-colour Mackerras pendulum today, with a mysterious seat called Wright sitting where Flynn ought to be. If only they’d looked at my website first
Simon,
I’ve had many of the same thoughts myself. But unfortunately, it seems like nobody (apart from Malcolm Mackerras) seems to want to call this one.
It would appear we’re in unknown territory. Common wisdom (according to the papers) is that “the stars have to be precisely aligned” for a change of government in Australia. And even though they’re not, all the indicators are that that is what is going to happen anyway.
So the experts are all being coy. Saying that Labor looks set to win would be a tacit admission that they don’t really know what’s going on. Worse still, if the ALP then loses, the experts will have to endure undergraduates bashing them on the head with text books that they themselves have written.
Perhaps there is only one true axiom in Australian politics: governments change when Malcolm MacKerras says they will? Time will tell.
I don’t think the punters dislike Howard, are bored with him or have tuned out. My belief is that they know he’s old (68 next week) and won’t be around to tackle the challenges facing the nation into the future – things like climate change, the next wave of economic reform etc
I don’t believe they’re scared or worried about Costello taking over, just that they know that Rudd will be there for the next decade to tackle the problems of tomorrow.
You pick the man of the moment. The issues are running Rudd’s way. Howard looks more and more like yesterdays man – see union scare campaign, response to climate change, closeness to Bush and Blair (yesterdays men?)
I’m tipping a 53-47 2PP outcome for Labor which by implication means a National swing of 5.74 percent. This would take out Bennelong, Eden Monaro, Dobell, Lindsay, Macquarie, Parramatta, Page, Wentworth (NSW): Corangamite, McMillan (VIC); Kingston, Wakefeild, Makin, Boothby (SA): Hasluck, Stirling (WA), Bass, Braddon (TAS): Blair, Longman, Herbert, Moreton, Bonner (QLD), Solomon (NT). Of these 24 seats (swings are never uniform, of course) Labor should win more than enough to Govern.
I rest my case your Honor. Over to the rest of you..Im going just read for a few weeks.
TIM – I don’t think voters HATE Howard either. I think they feel the way they felt about Keating in 1993, (but not in 1996 where that grudging respect had turned to hate) but the difference is Rudd, unlike Hewson, isn’t running on some stupidly radical policy platform open to attack, and isn’t parading around running protests against the government. So I think voters will be more willing to vote for Rudd than they were voting for Hewson.
I just really think the Coalition screwed up by not moving to a new leader. It seems to me that 10 years for a leader is the most voters can handle, after that it is someone elses go. If Costello was leader now I think they would be a better chance of winning, because people would feel that they owed Costello a full term to have a go. But instead they look like they can get the same renewed leadership but from Rudd.
That Guy, MacKerras has a terrible track record. His predictions are kind of a mixed blessing, I’m afraid. The man predicted a “John Kerry landslide”.
Didn’t MacKerras also predict that the coalition had won the 1990 election around 7 PM on the election night?
Simon – agree totally. Costello would’ve been a fresh start. A fresh start on IR, climate change and Iraq. Government’s don’t get the chance to regenerate too often in office. They’ve missed theirs!!
I wonder if the hard heads like Minchin and Robb are looking wistfully at the Blair/Brown transition and the rejuvenation that’s happening in the UK. Local examples include – Iemma, Carpenter and Lennon (despite their problems they won – Carpenter won a by-election in tough circumstances) Beattie’s probably next??
Does Costello lack the ticker or just the numbers or both? Is it too late??
I like the article in the Herald-Sun today Only Disaster Can Save The PM.
I think that eloquently describes the public opinion on Howard. Despite being in government, thanks to
WorkChoicesIR legislation, Iraq, and probably various other things down the years, Howard is now seen as the extremist. It’s the Opposition Leader is who is the moderate, “comfortable and relaxed” candidate.Nevertheless, Mackerras has the nerve to call the election, which most of the rest of us don’t. If he’s wrong, it’ll just confirm the common view that he’s a goose. If he’s right, he’ll be able to retire in a blaze of glory – unlike Howard, who will be remembered forever as (a) the man who stayed too long, and (b) along with Stanley Bruce, the PM who lost his seat. (Incidentally, Bruce came back in 1934 and won his seat back. I doubt Howard would get such a chance.)
I have now added a Senate rogues’ gallery.
http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/a/australia/candidates2.shtml
TIM – All the leadership transitions you list are perfect examples. Beattie has already started to signal that he is going late next year, and Anna Bligh is already an obvious replacement. The Carr / Iemma transition was executed perfectly, Carr new his time was up (10 years), but gave Iemma heaps of time to differentiate himself before the election.
I just don’t think Howard could bring himself to let go of the job that he has always wanted, but I honestly think he made a bad decision that wasn’t in the interests of his party, or for that matter, the country.
I actually don’t think it is too late for them to change, as soon as Costello takes over it would be a different ball game, where he can campaign on his treasury experience, and the fact he will be facing his first election. I still don’t think it will be a simple thing for the government to win, but I honestly think that Howard is holding back the government’s vote, just as Beazley was obviously holding back the ALP’s primary vote last year. Howard seems to realise this because he said so in yesterday’s cabinet meeting.
That Guy,
In February on OzPolitics I said the logical outcome was a comfortable win for Labor. The implicit qualification was that elections aren’t about logic, which I don’t imagine anyone here would disagree with, but I was unambiguous about the rest. In my view, nothing has really changed since then. We could say Rudd is more battle-hardened than in February but that is a logical progression over time so I don’t count things like that as change when I say nothing has really changed. As in the final overs in one-day cricket, the team batting second can still win even when they need 30 runs an over but you wouldn’t say with any conviction that they were going to win, or could win. Howard can win but he won’t.
I think Tim and Simon Howson have called it correctly. There are a number of vehement Howard haters but the bulk of people realise that he won’t be around after perhaps a year at most (and more likely four months).
Would-be Liberal voters are aware they are not really voting for John Howard but perhaps Peter Costello, Tony Abbott or Malcolm Turnbull.
Really they should be told unequivocally who will be leader when John Howard retires in a year if he wins.
It will be easy for Labor to run the campaign “who are you really voting for?” with images of Alexander Downer in fishnet stockings, Peter Costello grinning and so on. It’s confusing for voters and that’s a negative.
Kevin Rudd is undoubtedly conservative and therefore OK for moderate Liberals to vote for.
There are many Liberals who are sick about the right wing takeover in NSW. There are not too many small l Liberals left in the party.
John Howard comes now with considerable baggage.
Many Liberal voters did not approve of the Iraq invasion and are reminded of it with the death of the two Queenslanders. Many too are disturbed by the IR legislation and how it affects their family members.
Even more are deeply concerned about global warming and cannot fathom why John Howard would merely parrot George W Bush.
The deep malaise has set in.
Kevin Rudd refuses to be wedged even though there are no doubt those in his party who are shocked at the way he supports even draconian Howard policies. He has nothing to lose. If voters are driven in the to arms of the Greens they will come back to Labor thanks to compulsory preferences (unlike in State elections in NSW at least).
I don’t think it will be the landslide the current polls show, as I have said, but it will be decisive.
The longer John Howard delays the poll the worse it may get. If he tries to put it off to January I think the people will think he is merely desperate to cling to power and punish him even more.
Anyway, let’s see how the polls track in the next few weeks. It will become clearer.
Since OzPolitics is now gone, so-to-speak, and most posters here did not see the original post, I suppose it’s ok to repost it here:
http://www.ozpolitics.info/blog/?p=500#comment-57627
—————————————————-
Comment by Amber Dekstris on Monday 19 February 2007 at 5:45 am
Given the events of the last month or the last few months, I think there’s only one rational conclusion: ALP will win the federal election comfortably, say 8 seats.
I’ve said here before that both men could win and both had a lot of work to do. Rudd has enjoyed his honeymoon and has been solid without being spectacular. Howard has let Rudd get away from him and despite some recent wins has failed to show he is guaranteed to reel Rudd in.
This list is not exhaustive…
Howard pros:
- he is the most able politician in the parliament and has been for a long time
- he has counter-punched Rudd recently and will likely manage to do so again in the future
- he has only just started the pork barrel campaign
- he hasn’t yet started the propaganda campaign
- until recently, ALP have not provided a credible alternative government
- plenty of time to turn things around
- plenty of time to manufacture an effective issue or exploit effectively a happenstance
- has a history of party unity in public (although less unified now)
- still deriving much benefit from the resources boom
- he has the advantages of incumbency
- he will reduce ALP’s lead
Howard cons:
- he is too predictable
- his tried-and-true tactics, primarily wedges, haven’t been working this time; Rudd has anticipated some and countered others
- WorkChoices. Drip. Drip. Drip. Every month, more and more people are having bad experiences and/or learning of family/friends having bad experiences. This is one area that does not ebb and flow. It is a ratchet phenomenon and it is getting worse for Howard all the time. The fact that he refuses to release analysis of AWAs does not help
- housing unaffordability. When a person decides they can’t afford to buy a house (or will have to compromise on what they do buy), no statistic telling them how wonderful everything is will change their mind on how they feel
- he is making errors of judgement
- backbenchers are getting nervous. Leadership speculation will hurt
- “keeping interest rates low†followed this term by a succession of rises and no falls
- David Hicks. Johnnie-come-lately. 4 years detainment is ok to Howard but 5 is too long? Howard decides 5 years is too long after the opinion polls do?
- Iraq. Andrew Wilkie, anyone? Howard has no solution. He’s been very clever at getting political advantage while keeping Australian troops out of harm’s way, kudos to him, but now, that same political advantage is starting to backfire — people are beginning to see Howard has not done commensurate heavy lifting
- demonisation of any opposing view, whether individual or organisation or public or private or non-profit. Includes Andrew Wilkie above. Shoot the messenger
- his abuse of the Senate, especially after promising not to abuse his Senate majority
- Climate Change. Johnnie-come-lately. Where will those 25 nuclear reactors go? Painfully beholden to the fossil fuel industry
- relative inaction over the decade eg. ignored warnings by Master Builders et al of impending skills shortage
- “non-core promisesâ€
- he has lost some advisors. The impact of these losses depends on the extent to which Howard actually relied on the advice of those people
- accumulation of baggage
- Hubris. Should’ve handed over last year and walked off 4no (or 10no depending on how you count)
Rudd pros:
- he is intelligent and analytical. I don’t know if he plays chess but I’m convinced he would make a fine player
- he is tireless
- he has shown he can get the better of Howard
- if ALP get enough support to come close to LNC, they will (in my opinion) by definition go right past LNC. In other words, ALP might lose comfortably but they will not lose a tight one. The swing is on
- ALP are coming off a low base so can reasonably be expected to regain some seats regardless
- creating portfolio combining small business, contractors etc. A change in thinking that needed to be made, and was
- he has been solid without being spectacular: I suspect this is his normal mode of operation and if it is, and if he is running a “don’t scare the horses†campaign, it is a big plus for him
- he recognises we cannot rollback WorkChoices 100%
- Garrett will learn from his mistake
Rudd cons:
- he risks a perception of trying to be all things to all people. If he mismanages this facet he will struggle
- the Garrett non-answer. There will be probably be more mistakes of this nature from various ALP MPs (not necessarily Garrett) so here too Rudd must be mindful
- strengthening unfair dismissal laws (from viewpoint of employees) without upsetting employers will not be easy
- he is being a little too statesmanlike; needs to show a little more passion when appropriate
- has thus far failed to emphasise to people that they can keep their AWA if they like it
- has failed to articulate combination of reasonable reductions in coal-related emissions and reasonable increases in renewable energy sources
- needs to get more variety in the background of his MPs; overrepresented by too narrow a cross-section of society
- historical vulnerability regarding ties to union movement (less of an issue this time, in my opinion)
The issue of inexperience, I don’t buy into. Everyone is a virgin to begin with. What counts is people’s perception of how the challenger will cope with the job.
While the list above is not exhaustive I think it does capture the essence of the situation: this election is more about Howard than it is about Rudd.
Richard Jones said:
“There are many Liberals who are sick about the right wing takeover in NSW. There are not too many small l Liberals left in the party.”
Sorry for the quick hijack – does anyone know where I can look for information on the right or left bent of federal Liberal candidates? I have seen a bit written about Michael Towke (Taouk) and Alex Hawke but would like some more info on the background shenanigans.
Thanks.
/hijack
RICHARD – I agree with the points you make. I think the best thing Howard can do now is retire and endorse Costello. The second best thing he could do is announce that he will retire in late 2008 or perhaps early 2009. I think voters will appreciate the frankness, rather than his constant mantra of staying as long as his party want him to.
He needs to do a Tony Blair and reduce the level of fear and uncertainty about leadership. Blair wasn’t going to lose because of a huge majority, whereas Howard ‘only’ has 16 seats to protect, so he needs to clear up the peripheral leadership issue, so he can concentrate more on policy. He should even consider announcing major policies with Costello so voters get a greater impression of an obvious leadership transition. Rudd and Gillard work as a tag team on some policy announcements, Howard and Costello should do the same.
I’m with you Amber Dekstris. I think Howard’s a goner, barring (a) some sort of national crisis that rallies people behind him, or (b) Rudd making an extremely stupid mistake. (a) is not to be counted on, (b) is extremely unlikely.
So we’re all agreed, then. That’s nice. Just remember the 1992 British election, when every poll, *including the exit polls* showed Kinnock winning. But he didn’t, mainly because English voters didn’t like his Welsh accent and did like Major’s tax bribes, but were ashamed to admit to poll-takers that they were a bunch of selfish racists.
Fulvio
Re the Shanahan article on Howards “cabinet meeting”, I realise they weren’t Howards words but Shanahans.
It is what I thought was an interesting article, especially in light of the previous criticism that Shanahan received and showed that he was a balanced impartial journo who just writes things as he sees them.
As he copped the criticism for his supposedly biased previous article he should also get some kuddos for what he wrote today.
I’m calling it after vacillating for quite a while – Howards is gone. Close but clear.
Sinodinis was the rabbit master. No more rabbits. The clever politician has used up his lifelines.
I was suprised by Shanahan’s apparent objectivity Arbie Jay. But then, my idea of “objectivity” may be another man’s concept of rabid bias, and vice versa.
Anyway, to the extent that we both see Shanahan’s article as being fair analysis, I too applaud him for it.
He still has a way to go to fully atone though…
Howard would probably like to call an election after a successful APEC conference in Sydney, but the problem for him is that he’s hosting George W Bush, perhaps the most unpopular politician on Planet Earth.
Being in close proximity to his good mate won’t help the PM’s electoral stocks.
My guess is the Liberals will mount the most negative election campaign in history, even worse than the L Plate Latham stuff from 2004. They’ll be furiously trying to dig up any dirt on Rudd or Gillard they can find.
Expect to see a lot of “Evil Union Bosses” in their TV ads.
Or “Kevin Rudd the puppet of the Unions”.
On the flip side – tax cuts, bribes for pensioners and people living in outer city mortgage belt marginal seats(Howard’s battlers).
The ALP: lots of “It’s Time For A Change” type stuff, Rudd all over their advertising, Climate Change, Education, Health, Reducing Cost Of Living etc.
The Conservatives probably could not have won `92 on anything proportional or preferential which probably would have brought in a Labour-Liberal-Democrat coalition.
The thing that has me intrigued is something sort of adjacent to Amber’s post at 9.02pm, which is this. The coalitian can’t understand why they are doing so badly in the polls. From my perspective, Howard has moved the govt. to being one of the most centrist govts. around the planet; they are very Sydney centric; they are also dominated by, in my view, mad religious extremists. The entire organisation depends on Howard and his survival, and they have no way of coping or adjusting post Howard – thus they are completely stuck – and stuffed.
And if the franchise were restricted to people called Evans and Jones, look you, then Kinnock would have won in a canter, boyo.
The risk is the absence of Howard will give the appearance of a great big empty space in the Govt – and lead to an avalanche to Labor.
Then again when an election is called and the public forced to focus on the canditates it might be then that flash-backs on Howard might bring out the chainsaws. What we have now might blow out even further.
I think Howard has to sit tight and not do anything. No tricks, wedges, fear campaigns, mudd slinging etc. HOWARD has become the Rabbit and the public a Cobra ready to strike. One tricky move and they will strike him dead.
If one thing has been obvious it is that every type of attack, ploy, trick and gimmick has had the opposite effect. Maybe if Howard had just gone about business as normal in January (instead of trying to destroy Rudd) he would be in a much better position now due to gravity. I am sure that the mudd slinging early on increased the firmness of Rudd’s primary. It is Howard’s own dirty nature that has cost him votes.
The current, more subtle, fear campaign surrounding Haneef will also backfire on them – no matter what they discover.
Howard’s strategy should be sit tight and shut up and limit losses, dont wave about in fron of the Cobras Johnny.
So its’ negative advertising v’s positive advertising and for the government that will mean a further loss of support. Labor when in government will have the same problems in regards to housing affordablity.. as its policies will do nothing. Both parties have been responsible for the problems over the years- first Labor with a costly and subsidy to the rich policy called negative gearing and then the Libs with cuts to Capital Gains Taxes on Investment properties and then ripping into peoples’ salaries and conditions to worsen the pain for people trying to pay off expensive houses.. Which many people buy today just to keep up with one another and to feel important… advertising and the media keeps drilliing this lifestyle and telling us all that we can all make it which unfortunately very few do…
I was saying that if the election had been more democratic then the Tories would not run. There are and have been for a long time serious call for electoral reform in the UK but no serious calls for only Welsh named people to be allowed the vote.
The Mohommad Haneef thing this week smells of another attempted Howard wedge. As a result of 2001, I’m naturally suspicious of anything that comes out of Howard’s mouth!
More signs things are changing: John Laws retires, Stan Zemanek dies.
2 right wing shock jocks, who Howard has shamelessly used over the years, are gone. Only Alan Jones is left, yet Rudd seems to be appearing on his program quite regularly.
evan
spot on -but no one cares anymore
the hip pocket nerve has been severed and like achilles J-HO’s Heel has been exposed
the populi are moving toward the rudd era not looking back because they are only alarmed that they were alert to the wrong threat
Adam, Rudd doesn’t have a Welsh accent last time I checked. And the reason Kinnock lost in 92 had far more to do with the Sheffield Rally than his Welsh accent. What makes you think Kinnock lost bc of that anyway?
Adam’s words of caution to those who are popping the champagne corks are very wise. Nothing would cement Howard’s career then a win.
How many of you reckon Howard was ready to stand down yesterday?
George Megalogenis, along with Lenore of the AFR, are the standout commentators on Insiders. (I met and told George so on a Melbourne tram recently – he was humble and most affable, unlike my experience bumping into a senior femaile political journo).
Pseph, the Sheffield rally only served to reinforce the private views of English voters that they just didn’t like Kinnock. It reinforced his “Welsh boyo” image, of which his accent was the major factor. It is notorious that English voters don’t like Irish, Scottish or Welsh politicians. This is going to be a problem for Brown, but he tones down his Scottishness as much as he can get away with when he is in England. When I was in Edinburgh in May he was being satirised on TV for the way he shifts his accent back and forth between Westminster and Kirkcaldy.
Kinnock’s other problem was that he was bald – focus groups showed that women voters didn’t like this, and that was no doubt also a problem for Hague – not that anything could have got Hague elected. (This doesn’t seem to hurt Howard, but then he was elected before he went bald).
Just had a look through news.com’s “open letter” comments to Howard:
http://blogs.news.com.au/news/news/index.php/news/comments/getting_mugged3/
There are currently 719 comments and after reading these, I have to say that Howard has a MASSIVE credibility problem. The Liberals are stuck now. Either they take the gamble and get rid of him or they face a massive defeat. And even if they do get rid of them, they might still face a big defeat, but at least they will give themselves a chance of holding back the tide to some extent, because on the present course, they are heading for an absolute train wreck.
I have said this before – I think the ONLY way that Howard can leave with some semblance of dignity (and I repeat SOME), will be if there is a leadership challenge. He will engineer it himself if he has to. But it is his only way of looking like he is not cutting and running because at least he will seem to put up a fight. After all, it’s what happened to Hawke, and it didn’t do too much damage to him in terms of legacy.
Whether or not the Liberals have the guts to actually take Howard on is another matter.
Surely dumping Howard at this stage is just not an option.
Who they going to replace him with? Costello is marginally less popular than herpes.
The only other option that I can see is Turnbull. But this is more about damage control than winning.
Howard has created a mess. He has appointed ministers who are not obvious leaders so that he can maintain his grip on the leadership. But it’s a question of losing massively or *possibly* losing marginally – the Liberals will have to dig deep. But I reckon the feedback from the public through polls, focus groups, doorstops, and other avenues will be telling them that Howard has lost their confidence. Nobody seriously believe him anymore, which means that EVERYTHING he says and does will be viewed negatively. This is something that is virtually impossible to overcome.
I think there will be a number of Liberals in the coming week or two who will think they no longer have anything to lose by dumping Howard.
Anyway, that’s my thoughts on the matter!
They should make Coonan PM and Andrews deputy. That should just about finish them off.
Adam – wouldn’t the inclusion of “Wright” suggest they were presenting the pendulum of the proposed rather than the final boundaries? In which case, the name of the seat would be the least serious error.
A-C – It’s taking Mackerras out of context to say he predicted a Kerry landslide. What Mackerras actually predicted was a Kerry win. He used the term landslide but in a rather eccentric way – meant only in the sense that the US system tends to turn all victories into lopsided electoral college results.
Of course, he was wrong on this point. There have now been two close electoral college results in a row.
When he had the opportunity, Costello should’ve challenged, lost, gone to the back bench and ultimately returned with enhanced credentials. He didn’t. It’s too late for Libs to switch now, any leadership change can be viewed by the public in only one way — panic. Howard is man enough to go down with the ship and he will. Costello will be made Opposition Leader and Turnbull will take over when the time is right, presumably in Libs’ second term in opposition. I talked about this in more detail in the previous thread just a few hours before William closed it so some here may possibly not’ve seen.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/509#comment-20207
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/509#comment-20217
Agreed Simon, Howard must clarify the leadership issue and announce a transition plan.
Agreed Monica and Noocat, Howard has formed a govt around himself to the point of choking its future development.
Agreed Kina, Howard overcooked his attacks in Jan/Feb, one of the things that prompted my Feb post.
I have a post awaiting moderation. Presumably due to the links but they were only to posts on this site >shrug>
Two links equals moderation, regardless of what they link to.
Paul Kavanagh Says:
July 18th, 2007 at 12:13 am
George Megalogenis, along with Lenore of the AFR, are the standout commentators on Insiders. (I met and told George so on a Melbourne tram recently – he was humble and most affable, unlike my experience bumping into a senior femaile political journo).
George is about the only commentator whose view I (almost) take as gospel- I think he has a much better ‘feel’ for the pulse of the electorate than tossers like Glen Milne have these days. Enough said.
no sleep William ? You are a busy man.
I live in the west, STROP – it’s only mid-afternoon here.
LOL, funny man William. William I wanted to email you an article written by an Indigenous academic on the NT affair for posting consideration a few weeks ago; but its time has passed on here so I will let it go.
Only fools would believe a poll that emanated from the left-wing dogs of the Fairfax press. There is absolutely no need to change leaders – Howard will win the election and go when he wants, and that may or may not be during the next term.
Abbot too polerizing not PM material
Turnbal seen by dominant faschist faction of the Liberal party as a raging pinko
Costelo is hated and would be a looser
therfore Howard by defalt alone.
Nostradamus i always though you were an absolute nutcase, but the more I read your works the more I begin to realise your just joking around, right? right? I sure hope im correct or else you’d probably be loony enough for the Citizens Electoral Council! Fairfax, Left Wing? Ha Ha LOL LOL!
Then Again i guess that depends on ones definition
A-C Says:
July 17th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
How many of you reckon Howard was ready to stand down yesterday?
Not me. I think it is a carefully crafted editorial inspired peice to show Howard as caring and willing to listen to the electorate. “I am only serving as prime minister because the party and the people love me so much – I am really doing this as a favour to the people…” Piffle. Also, it was released at the same time as his youtube site.
Tom.
Anyone who saw Turnball being hung, drawn and quartered on last night’s 7.30 REPORT wouldn’t be voting for him to succeed Howard – what an inept performance!
I’m hardly popping the champagne cork yet. I’d never underestimate Howard’s capacity to win another election, but he seems to be running out of options and time to engineer another great escape. Rudd is untested in an election campaign, Swan is a dud shadow treasurer, Gillard has a proven record of policy stuffups – yes, the ALP could very well snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
The two things working against the Liberals this time are Rudd’s freshness and youth vs Howard’s age, and the perception he’s been there too long.
I believe the actual election result will be far tighter than the landslide the polls are currently predicting: 52-48 either way.
I think you’re right Kina. Howard relies of fear, uncertainty and doubt FUD. It worked in the past, but it looks like the electorate is now onto him. Witness the enormous cynicism about his motives for the NT invasion.
Howard has always been good at re-inventing himself. Can he he do it again? I think he’s lost credibility with the majority of voters and that means it won’t matter what he comes up with. I think his best bet is genuine honesty. Admit Iraq was a mistake, admit Workchoices was a mistake and reverse them . People may then be prepared to believe him, but they still wouldn’t vote for him. That’s the problem with holding yourself up as a strong, unflinching leader. When you make a mistake, you’re stuck with it.
My prediction ALP/Coalition 53/47 TPP and the man who cried ‘wolf’ losing in Bennelong
Does anyone know of anywhere that has the estimates of the electoral redistributions from the last election on primary votes rather than the usual TPP vote?
The reason I need this is I’m just about to produce the ALP primary vote projections for Coalition seats at the forthcoming election based on the most recent quarterly Newspoll data rather than Q1 data which I used a few days ago.The most recent quarterly data is so astonishing that I had to run a barrage of statistical checks to make sure it was real and that I wasnt imagining things or stuffing my data manipulation up.Hence my use of the Q1 data.But Q2 is ready to go and I’d like to be able to project it using the current redistributions.
Can anyone help?
Another question – Does anyone know if Dunkley, La Trobe and Casey are considered Melbourne capital city seats.Not being from there I’m not quite sure?
Dunkley, La Trobe, Casey outer suburban, certasinly not regional. McEwen is probably closer to being outer suburban than regional as well.
Did the Government intend to use the Haneef business to make some wedge points for itself? And is it now in the process of blowing up in their face? [Rudd did well to stay out of it - another wedge avoided].
It certainly looks untidy. And now Ruddock is threatening harder laws blaming the judiciary of not adhering to the spirit of the terrorism laws . ie the magistrates gave Haneef and, the Timor persons bail.
Seems the goverment wants to have kept in prison anybody it wants, regardless of the process of law. Scary government this one!
Possum asked: Does anyone know of anywhere that has the estimates of the electoral redistributions from the last election on primary votes rather than the usual TPP vote? Can anyone help?
Ask Antony. He spends half his life doing this sort of thing. Malcolm would have done it too. Having tried it myself, I can say it is a tortuous and thankless task.
Nostradamus Says: ……
July 18th, 2007 at 6:17 am
Thanks for the contribution John.
The AEC classes Dunkley, La Trobe & Casey as ‘Outer Metropolitan’ (and McEwan as ‘Rural’)
http://www.aec.gov.au/profiles/index.htm
d
Kina said, “Seems the goverment wants to have kept in prison anybody it wants, regardless of the process of law.”
Here’s a few laws this government can’t override.
http://www.ozelection2007.info/forums/viewtopic.php?pid=1878#p1878
Swan is a dud isn’t he, they will need a new treasurer quite quickly I suspect. Gillard has peaked, you can’t go much further with that voice, or look. I remember Hocky saying she was prettier than me. Was that sarcastic? They would make a great Shrek and Princess Fiona together.
A lot of talk on swings. I remember Beazley got 52% and lost. They have to swing in the right places, and swing they will. I predict a labor majority of 4 at the end. IR alone will win it, hammer it home boys. Remember that 46% voted for ML, meaning 46% would vote for Humphrey B Bear. There is not that much to make up.
As for a date you’re all creeping me out on the 10th Nov as I am going away, and watching it on tele is better than live sport. I saw an astrologer predict the 24th, I’m hoping he is right. anyone other guesses?
William, rightio
Kina, wedge avoidance is how I read it too. Burke was careful to say “based on what Andrews had presented to the public” Labor gave in-principle support — implying that if anything significant had been omitted…
I notice Abbott is calling this general strategy me-tooism; I call it tight marking and it has served Rudd well this year. Particularly NT where Rudd made himself look a bit silly but the alternative was to be wedged royally. While Rudd has made several mistakes this year, this is one area where he got it right from day one IMHO. I’m convinced he’s a chess player. Anyone know for sure?
Aristotle, I don’t think it’s a case of Howard acquiring a reverse Midas touch; it’s simply a case of him losing his Midas touch; he’s still got an approx 45% approval rating; it’s just that all his tricks don’t seem to be working.
If you want someone who DOES have a reverse Midas touch, just try George W. Bush. With Bush, everything he touches does in fact turn out crap, to the extent that in the 2006 mid-term elections many Republican candidates avoided him. For this reason, I’m looking forward to great pics of Bush and Howard acting like best buddies at APEC.
45% approval rating kind of over states Howard’s support if the primary polling and 2pp estimates are anywhere near the mark.
Nostradamus Says:
July 18th, 2007 at 6:17 am
Only fools would believe a poll that emanated from the left-wing dogs of the Fairfax press.
And what do you make of the cumulative Newspolls from the right-wing dogs of the Murdoch press, showing a 12% swing in safe Coalition seats?
I think this characterisation of Rudd by Paul Kelly as a younger Bob Carr is pretty accurate. Much more so than a young Howard.
Of course, he manages to ruin the blog with a tiresome critique of Rudd’s IR policy, which isn’t a liability at all. But check it out anyway.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22092406-12250,00.html
Nostradamus er John er Nostradamus? Can you answer that question by Dinsdale Piranha? Great question by the way.
Kelly seems to be under the misapprehension that Howard’s IR laws are popular, a winner, and that Rudd’s are a loser. The polls on this issue refute this of course but hey, why let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Actually, Dinsdale and Gary, the swing in Coalition safes is 14% from last election – Labor lead 44-43 primary and 52-48 2PP in those seats in Apr-July newspolls.
I think Tanner would make a much better Treasurer than Swan. Who knows what might happen after the election should the ALP win.
I would class Dunkley (where I grew up) as an urban seat. It consists mainly of Frankston, a socially mixed suburb with some strong Labor areas, plus Mt Eliza and Mornington, wealthy outer suburban areas. In 2004 the Labor 2PV was 57% in Monterey (in north Frankston) and 22% in Mt Eliza Central. Who holds Dunkley depends largely on redistributions. When Labor last won it (1993) it had more Labor-voting suburbs to the north and didn’t have Mornington.
La Trobe is a genuinely outer suburban seat. It’s usually thought of as a Dandenong Ranges seat – in fact the majority of its votes are in the Berwick-Narre Warren area, which is fast-growing, affluent/aspirational and increasingly Liberal, although Labor holds all of it at state level. The hill towns such as Belgrave and Sassafras still vote Labor. Both its boundaries and its economic profile have changed since Labor last won it (1987).
Casey is even more “outer” – apart from Croydon, which is middle-income suburbia, it’s mostly Yarra Valley ponyclub country. Towns like Mooroolbark, Lilydale and Lilsyth are pretty prosperous and solidly Liberal. The only Labor booths are hill towns like Kallista and The Patch. Labor hasn’t won it since 1983 and I don’t think will do so again.
Both Bruce Billson (Dunkley) and Tony Smith (Casey) are Costelloite moderates with good local images, and even Billson (on 9.4%) will be hard to beat unless there is a big swing across Melbourne. Jason Wood in La Trobe (5.8%) is a more Howardish figure and is more vulnerable.
Thankyou all!
I’m sure Ron Walker, former federal treasurer of the Liberal Party and chairman of the board at Fairfax, would love being described as a leftwing dog. If there’s one thing more than another that persuades me that Labor will win the election, it’s the utter feebleness and stupidity of the defence of the Howard government being put up here. I could make a ten-times better argument for the Liberals than shallow, cynical, abusive fools like [you know who you are] have managed so far. Obviously all the intelligent Liberals, of which there are many, have given up on Howard and are preparing to fight the 2008 double dissolution under Costello.
“The AEC classes Dunkley, La Trobe & Casey as ‘Outer Metropolitan’ (and McEwan as ‘Rural’)”
These are probably just administrative labels. The AEC classifications are moreso coarse-grained labels than useful descriptions.
Ah Adam,
Scared yourself with your comments last night?
Any sensible person wouldnt vote for either party! No need to make any case on that point its open and shut. Its more who is less bad I would say!
Dinsdale Piranha Says:
July 18th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
“I think this characterisation of Rudd by Paul Kelly as a younger Bob Carr is pretty accurate. Much more so than a young Howard.
Of course, he manages to ruin the blog with a tiresome critique of Rudd’s IR policy, which isn’t a liability at all. But check it out anyway.”
Gary Bruce Says:
July 18th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
“Kelly seems to be under the misapprehension that Howard’s IR laws are popular, a winner, and that Rudd’s are a loser. The polls on this issue refute this of course but hey, why let the facts get in the way of a good story.”
I think Kelly is running an agenda on IR and is writing to instructions.
Laurie Oakes summed up just how intellectually bankrupt the Rudd 2007 campaign is when he got Wayne Swan to admit that Labor could do nothing to reduce petrol prices, grocery prices or housing prices.
I do disagree with the last of those though, when Labor implements its job killing policies, raises taxes and imposes its Jurassic Age system of workplace regulations, combined with the Garrett recession, housing prices will collapse as people’s wages fall due to mass retrenchments and a flood of stock comes on to the market for sale.
You are kidding right swordfish … there is no question the Government of the day CAN DO ANYTHING to reduce petrol prices, grocery prices and housing prices, so long as a corporation is loosely involved in the process. Like workchoices was setup to create a market that could destroy wages and conditions it is easy to imagine legislation that could destroy these markets from the supply side. And your ‘example’ is indeed an own goal in that is shows how easy it is, just you the example provided is an extreme unrealistic unfair and illconsidered example of how it can be done.
The argument is not about whether or not something can be done – it is whether or not what is proposed will have the desired impact in a way that is beneficial for the consumer, economy and supplier. And frankly a Government that actually cares about the rights and needs of ordinary Australians and makes it obvious it is watching out for them can do a great deal of good indeed.
I’ve just broken down the quarterly newspoll data, but this time the latest quarter, rather than Q1 which I used for my primary vote projections the other day.
This time its seat by seat TPP estimations based on the 2006 redistribution, state weights, capital vs non capital city weights and marginal vs safe weights.
http://possumcomitatus.wordpress.com/2007/07/18/pollycide/
I think I’m ready to call the election.
I’ve been hesitant to use the Q2 newspoll results on TPP swings because the gravity of what they showed for the Coalitions electoral stocks.They are taking the biggest vote hits in the areas where they have the most seats.Its an annihilation.
Swordfish supports my theory that concervative voters are either uneducacted or selfish and self centred. I think in this case both. Here’s a thought how about taking GST of petrol, instead of double dipping. That would reduce it by 12c in one go. This would have a knock on affect to groceries.
As for housing put interest rates up a few percent and see where this sends housing prices, they will drop faster than downers pants at a drag show.
Edward, last night I reminded people that it is possible to be ahead in all the polls and still lose the election. That is perfectly true. But *usually* a party which is miles ahead in all the polls a few months before the election, and has been ahead for six months, will go on to win. For Howard to win from here, he would have to pull off the biggest electoral turnaround within my political memory, and I don’t see on what basis, on what issue, by what tactic, he can do that. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but I am ready to say it is highly unlikely.
Anyone know what’s happened over at Ozpolitics? It seems to be down since last night?
Coalition only winning 12 seats according to Possum??!! Sounds MUCH too good to be true. If it does happen, it would be great!!!
Humor only – no serious comment:
Perhaps Bryan is missing our company terribly, has called the election, packed up his laptop and spreadsheets and gone fishing?
Is that missing our company terribly, Jasmine? Or missing our terrible company?
Possum, I think your prediction formulas need some work. While a ridiculous result like that definitely appeals to you, quite frankly it is absurd.
Possum Aren’t your columns back to front in your first table
Perhaps Bryan saw Possum’s analysis and decided that there’s nothing else to be done.
Ha Ha Made you look!
A-C, which numbers (apart from the conclusion) do you think are wrong?
Sorry folks, I went to edit the column headings on the redistributed TPP (which I brilliantly managed to get back to front) and sent the whole post up in a puff of smoke by pressing delete instead of edit.
Whoooops.
Anyway, its back, including with correct headings thanks to, I think, Mark (although I cant tell because I dont have the comments anymore!)
Ever had one of those days? I wrecked one of my databases this morning, then I spilt my coffee over my scrawled notes, and now I’m deleting my posts.
I might go to bed.
Menzies Bradfield Mitchell Lost or marginal ????
A-C,
All those seats obviously aren’t going to fall, but that is what the last quarter Newspoll results suggest is roughly happening.The reason that it is so dramatic is because of the enormous swing in NSW combined with the big swing in QLD, and both combined with the enormous swing in non capital city seats.
Now some of that NSW and QLD swing may be feeding back into the large non capital city issue (in fact, it probably is), but even if it is, that still only lops a few points off a few seats, and maked other seats elsewhere even larger.
You cant have a 14.6% national swing towards the opposition in safe government seats without losing vast vast quantities of them, yet Newspoll states clearly that a 14.6% swing against the government has happened in their safe seats as a national average.
‘No party has won a federal election without carrying a majority of the seats in NSW’, the article says.
The Coalition won the federal elections of 1951, 1954, and 1961 without carrying a majority of the seats in NSW.
Is it likely that George Megalogenis would be interested in the correction? If so, what is likely to be the best way of letting him know?
Another promising thing abou the Polls for labor is that Kevin Rudd hasnt really had to jump up and down to get attention on issues and numbers in the polls. Bomber toward the end was always on full volume, tearing up this and ripping up that without much poll movement.
The other positive for Labor is people in Australia like backing winners, A lot more Aussies followed the Football world cup than they did the qualifying for it, so strong polls will have a snowball effect.
“centaur_007 Says:
July 18th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Swordfish supports my theory that concervative voters are either uneducacted or selfish and self centred. I think in this case both. Here’s a thought how about taking GST of petrol, instead of double dipping. That would reduce it by 12c in one go. This would have a knock on affect to groceries.
As for housing put interest rates up a few percent and see where this sends housing prices, they will drop faster than downers pants at a drag show.”
Now Centaur, either you are ignorant or dishonest. No changes can be made to the GST without the consent of all state and federal governments; the Commonwealth controls not one cent of where GST revenue goes. The Qld Government has effectively ended the double dipping by offering a commensurate subsidy on petrol prices; if you want that to happen everywhere then demand State Governments follow Qld’s example.
It’s also interesting that you have now decided it would be a fantastic idea to lift interest rates. What a way to make mortgagees have the banks foreclose on their properties due to an incapacity to service the debt.
Evidently neither you nor your socialist comrades support the home ownership aspirations of Australians.
As for your snide remark about those who happen to sit on the spectrum to the right of Lenin, one would have thought that grocery prices, petrol prices etc all related to the “self interest” of voters. The real issue is people not taking personal responsibility and being disciplined in their spending – JW Howard does not control family budgets. He does, however, continue to reduce the amount of tax they have to pay, unlike prospective Treasurer Swan who will raise taxes across the board.
“jasmine_Anadyr Says:
July 18th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
You are kidding right swordfish … there is no question the Government of the day CAN DO ANYTHING to reduce petrol prices, grocery prices and housing prices, so long as a corporation is loosely involved in the process. Like workchoices was setup to create a market that could destroy wages and conditions it is easy to imagine legislation that could destroy these markets from the supply side. And your ‘example’ is indeed an own goal in that is shows how easy it is, just you the example provided is an extreme unrealistic unfair and illconsidered example of how it can be done.
The argument is not about whether or not something can be done – it is whether or not what is proposed will have the desired impact in a way that is beneficial for the consumer, economy and supplier. And frankly a Government that actually cares about the rights and needs of ordinary Australians and makes it obvious it is watching out for them can do a great deal of good indeed.”
Oh dear, another economic illiterate on Pollbludger.
Governments cannot sufficiently protect the nation or ensure spending on services like health unless there is economic prosperity to make such spending sustainable. The Coalition has achieved that, which is why it has been able to boost health spending by a massive amount (see the raw amounts and % GDP amounts). Sure, there are some who haven’t gained as much as others during these times – but the real issue isn’t that Labor will necessarily ensure they do gain, but that Labor will make ALL worse off by being the economic vandals they are.
K David Said
“The other positive for Labor is people in Australia like backing winners, A lot more Aussies followed the Football world cup than they did the qualifying for it, so strong polls will have a snowball effect.”
Not quite, some people like backing winners and some people like backing the underdog, but the way that the polls are and the way that the Australian have been reporting them means that Labor get the best of both effects
Swordfish
you forgot to mention
1.they will deflower our womenhood
2 corrupt the kids morals
3 allow funny looking people in who talk funny as well!!!
4 ruin our glorious toadyism to big business
5 introduce heroin to the milk suplly
Man in the 50’s you were obviously relevant-but now we are in the 21st century your fascist fairy tales have no sway
go back to lib central and try again
Gusface,
I object to your saying that Swordfish’s comments were relevant in the ’50s. I remember the ’50s.
Please delete references to fascism.
I would rather be economically illiterate than have absolutely no grasp of history, community, law, politics and reality.
J-D Says:
July 18th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
‘No party has won a federal election without carrying a majority of the seats in NSW’, the article says.
The Coalition won the federal elections of 1951, 1954, and 1961 without carrying a majority of the seats in NSW.
Is it likely that George Megalogenis would be interested in the correction? If so, what is likely to be the best way of letting him know?
J-D you can send him an email at megalogenisg@theaustralian.com.au
In fact for the information of all bloggers, the address structure for all journalists at “The Australian” is the same: last name, first name intial @ the australian.
Last part of that last post should have read,
the address structure for all journalists at “The Australian†is the same:
last name first name intial @ the australian.com.au
When do law and politics have anything to do with reality or is it your perceptions of reality Jasmin
e
Swordfish: JW Howard does not control family budgets.
If that’s the case, would you prefer an honest party that says exactly what it can’t promise to do.
Or one that blatantly lies in saying that it will keep household budgets and interest rates lower then under a Labor government, despite having little to no control.
I thought this government was the highest taxing on record with %28 of GDP. The GST money going to the states sure, it’s amazing how much of it is really getting through. Bracksy has used to fill his bath with.
Swordfish, (aka me, myself, I) I was merely showing what affect you can have on housing, I wasn’t suggesting putting it up and spoil your only Australian dream (please don’t cry).
What reforms have this government introduced exactly?
I can think of depreceation of the dollar, floating of dollar, deregulation of finance sector, medicare, the accord, compulsory superannuation, off the top of my head for my side. What can you come up with?
Cisco if you are going to give me a capital J, thereby increasing my importance substantially from my humble j – you may omit the ‘e’ at your discretion. Politics is merely the organised reflection of community, law is the concrete that holds together the elements of civilised society, together they are the best and worst of what we are.
Reality yes is a more problematic issue. My apologies for introducing reality into a discussion of polling trends and issues.
Swordfish, I really wouldn’t bother with some of these people. The fact of the matter is that whenever ALP/ACTU win a Federal election they proceed to rape the economy and then the conservatives are called in to repair the damage.
Once the cons have cleaned up the mess and leave the country in good shape again, the electorate starts flirting with the ALP/ACTU alternative. I’m afraid this cycle is going to repeat itself again this year.
If only the public realised that kicking out the best government in over 40 years and replacing it with a completely inept, hollow opposition was a a bad play, we’d be a much better nation than we are now.
# Swordfish Says:
July 18th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
“I do disagree with the last of those though, when Labor implements its job killing policies, raises taxes and imposes its Jurassic Age system of workplace regulations, combined with the Garrett recession, housing prices will collapse as people’s wages fall due to mass retrenchments and a flood of stock comes on to the market for sale.”
What utter rubbish. Swordfish, you are just spouting the usual Howardian propaganda without really thinking about what you are saying.
Here are some simple facts:
- Labor is not introducing “job killing” policies. They are RESTORING the industrial relations to something very similar to what it was only two years ago, before Workchoices. If you think this was job-destroying, then why has unemployment been falling over the past 14 years?
- Nowhere has Labor said that they plan to raise taxes. If anything, Labor has occasionally criticised the Howard government for being the HIGHEST taxing government in Australia’s history. Did you know that in order to bring the total amount of tax collected by Howard and Costello back down to the level that Keating had it, we could have 0% income tax. That’s right, we could have no tax on income and then we would be down to the level of tax that the previous Labor government was collecting. That tells you something about the MASSIVE amount of tax that Howard has been ripping out of the economy and out of people’s pockets. He might give a little back here and there in order to buy votes, but he is taking extraordinarily large amounts away.
- your so-called “Garrett recession” is just a repetition of Howard’s line. You have obviously not given it any thought and have therefore just spouted it out like some kind of mindless monkey. It is another one f Howard’s lies. There is no “Garrett recession”. It doesn’t exist, not now, not ever.
- on your point about falling wages, hmm… a lot of data (most of which is now being kept secret by the government) suggests that thousands of people right across the country have suffered either a reduction in their wages or a loss of various benefits (which has adversely affected overall take-home pay) at the hands of Howard’s WorkChoices. And this is during a boom. When there is a downturn and big business actually needs to cut down on their expenses, rather than just being greedy, there is likely to be a much more severe reduction in take-home pay. This will of course have big knock-on effects for those with mortgages… although it will probably lead to “a flood of stock… on to the market for sale.”
Let’s try tax reform, deregulation of the telecommunications sector, privatisation of Telstra, waterfront reform, workplace reform, the Future Fund, the biggest land transport investment in history through AusLink I and II, FTAs with Thailand, Singapore and the US, negotiations opened with China, Japan, India, Chile, the UAE among others, attendance at the East Asian Summit, the liberation of East Timor, deregulation of the dairy industry, fiscal consolidation doctrine, family tax benefits expanded, higher funding for government and private schools, record investment in healthcare, the Black Spot road programme which is saving countless lives, welfare reform, defence reform, elimination of net Commonwealth debt, less long-term unemployed, more funding for medical research, igniting the trend to return technical education, the list goes on.
centaur_007, ever heard of the Campbell report? If not, I suggest you look it up.
You are spouting complete rubbish.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/a-devil-of-a-time-if-you-look-closely/2007/06/08/1181089330756.html?page=2
Let me remind you of a time not so long ago with Howard as treasurer.
Well then Noocat, what impact will a 20-30% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 have on jobs?
Wayne Swan has said that the 2005 tax policy release is the tax policy they will use at the election. That amounts to a significant increase in tax, not the abolition of income tax as you so erroneously claim the Labor Party is about.
Labor’s workplace policies will get rid of a massive amount of fulltime jobs, only adding to the ranks of the long-term unemployed, being outrageously unfair to small businesses that are, yes, run by families (not this evil capitalist cabal you seem to envisage from your warped Marxist class struggle mindset)
I suppose you can’t cite a source for your final claim, but I guess it’s all part of the wider Bush and the Jews conspiracy to steal the oil.
Swordfish you make it too easy.
Tax Reform. You call a new tax and extra redtape ‘tax reform’ I call it a massive new tax.
Deregulation of the Telecommunications sector. Now you accuse me of not understanding economics, but failure I can spot. Doesn’t that make it a case in favor of re-regulation? Or at least a different regulation that works a bit from time to time? In the same bucket privatisation of Telstra big win that for the country. Can you spell broadband?
Waterfront reform. See workchoices.
Workchoices. This is just distorting the market to ensure that pay and conditions for workers are reduced and corporate profits substituted for what would otherwise have been pay for ordinary Australians to pay the massive mortgages and fruit and vege bills. Again as someone you’ve abused as an economic illiterate can you explain where this is good? Its only redeeming feature seems to be the promise it holds out of delivering a labor landslide in November.
The the biggest taxing government in history (that is by any economic measure, including when the GST is excluded isn’t it sweetie?) should be able to pour a little into needed infrastructure. But it has been a bit election focused and driven hasn’t it? No comprehensive plan for the future there. Just a very small bandaid on the edge of the gulf that is vertical fiscal imbalance.
I got to free trade agreement with the US, and unless you hate Australia or the current Government there is no way a sane person would put this in a list of achievements …. my eyes are watering I can’t go on, I’m not sure whether I should be laughing or crying … we paid for an agreement that has done us damage with going to a war that has cost us millions and made us less safe. Howard’s legacy: Chapter One the Free Trade Agreement and Invasion of Iraq.
If there are actually going to be huge swings in SAFE government seats, then that would signify a major realignment of party support. If Rudd is to win then I guess he will do so by appealing equally to outer suburban families worried about WorkChoices, housing affordability, and basic living expenses, but also inner city voters who are concerned about environmental issues (global warming, water scarcity) and other issues like our involvement in Iraq. Huge swings will only be created by extremly broad support that crosses previous demographic divides.
Again more complete rubbish. Why do you rabid conservatives love spreading completely false lies and propaganda. Are you part of a tax payer funded government dirt unit?
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/labors-plan-is-backed-by-good-economics/2007/06/04/1180809423400.html
Asanaque:
Rubbish, eh? Widen your narrow visors and take a look at the shape of the global economy in the late 1970s / early 1980s.
Also add the “wages explosion” factor into your equation (courtesy of the labour movement). Those sainted, lovely unionists conspired with their political pals in the opposition to drive the economy into the gutter to propel the ALP to victory in 83. Luckily the corrupt and thugish unions have basically been neutered under this government so we can be pretty sure that’ll never happen again.
I also recommend you take a look at the absolute economic disaster the incompetent Whitlam government left the nation in by 1975 and the next 7/8 years were very rosy in comparison.
A-C
How convenient.
Its all the global economy’s fault when the Liberals are in power, yet its Labor incompetency when Labor is in power?
And the Liberals scare tactics on unions is shown to be the complete fabrication it is, in the post below.
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/yoursay/index.php/theaustralian/comments/scare_tactics_ignore_history/
They only way our economic got out of the boom bust cycle of stag-flation was because of The Accords with the ACTU. Only a Labor government could negotiate with the unions to ensure that any wage increases were tied to productivity increases.
Don’t you dare prognosticate about regional services Jasmine. Labor’s policy is to steal from the dedicated communications fund for regional services to build a network for the trendies in the inner city which can be built and funded by a private sector consortium. Moreover, let’s not forget which government closed the analogue phone network…besides, as I said in an earlier post, the real cost of mobile phones and local calls has fallen in real terms. What was that you were saying about household bills?
As for waterfront reform, I’m amazed you have the audacity to claim this was a negative. Australian ports are now among the most efficient in the world, but I suppose you’d prefer to restore the old gravy train for the militants in the MUA, despite the fact that our export capacity would decrease.
Again on WorkChoices all you can do is make sweeping generalisations without substantiation. Why do you hate people getting jobs? Why do you romanticise the theft of having people spending their days feeding off a massive welfare state?
Simon Howson, if you support wages being linked to productivity, then I assume you embrace AWAs.
Thanks, Aristotle, I have sent George Megalogenis an email accordingly.
More absolute blatant lies and propaganda. You must be a dirt unit plant.
Labor is taking money from the Future Fund. From the Telstra shares in the Future Fund. And its going to invest in a broadband that will cover 98% of the country by means of a PPP.
You know something that the Howard government has ignored since 1996?
Meanwhile, Labor is forced to do so via PPP, due to the Howard government’s massively flawed plan to sell Telstra which has resulted in the current farcical situation where Telstra and the ACCC are arguing to the High Court. Now if only they had separated wholesale and retail.
That would have required foresight and listening to the critics.
Neither of which the Howard government is any good at until too late and at election time.
Your assumption that AWAs promote productivity is absurd. Stripping conditions from workers will make them less happy with their jobs, which will make them less efficient and reliable, and more likely to leave for a job with better wages and conditions.
Asanaque, the global economy was in reasonably good shape during the early 1970s (Whitlam’s era)
It was also in good shape throughout most of the 1980s. Australia’s economy recovery during the Keating era was very rocky and sluggish thanks to his inept and failed leadership and not to mention the 96$ billion worth of government debt as well as atrociously high interest rates.
Howard’s era:
In contrast, Australia weathered the 98′ Asian economic meltdown, 9/11 (Bush did it!), oil price hikes and has had the longest growth spurt in our nation’s history.
Swordfish,
You are wrong. Wayne Swan has YET to release Labor’s tax policy. Back in May, he said that there will be one prior to the election:
http://www.swanmp.org/swanmp/2007/05/transcript_econ_1.html
So, you will have to wait until it is released and THEN criticise it. Not before.
By the way, there is no reason for Labor to raise taxes. Howard is already raking it in.
Regarding Labor’s IR policies, I don’t see how they will get rid of a “massive amount of full-time jobs”. You will need to explain this one. Think back about two years ago to the previous IR system, pre-WorkChoices – that should give you a start.
“I suppose you can’t cite a source for your final claim, but I guess it’s all part of the wider Bush and the Jews conspiracy to steal the oil.”
My final “claim” was about the loss or working conditions and take-home pay that has occurred for many people since the start of WorkChoices. I’m not sure what that has to do with Jews, Bush, oil, or any conspiracies. It’s just a plain fact, something that Howard has been trying desperately to hide.
I can’t speak for the early 70’s, and it seems too far back now to be even worth mentioning given its a completely new Labor lineup.
However, its easy to repay $96 billion of debt when you sell off so many assets. Debt is also not necessarily bad as long as its serviceable.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/smoke-and-mirrors-hide-funding-facts/2007/05/16/1178995233015.html
I’ll say mining boom, now you can give me some concrete examples of the exact Howard policies that has led to our prosperity.
“You’re just a couple of gutless individuals and it’s about time you started acting like decent Australians, and men if you are men, and stop this nonsensical disruption and destabilising of the coalition.”
Great statement about Howard government MP’s from one of their own. Confirms what a lot of us already thought about many of Howards MP’s really…
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22094212-421,00.html
Tom
Tom
“they have eaten their own (qld,vic,nsw,sa) now they will eat each other”
teheehee
This is not a site for policy debate.
Agreed with Adam.
Is anyone in a position to comment on the validity of the methodology of the calculations used by Possum Pollytics in his latest post on the implications of recent Newspoll data – perhaps also to comment on the article by Peter Hartcher’s recent article on the electorats that Kevin Rudd has been visiting in the past week?
That’s right, Adam, it’s a site for Liberal Party plants. They’re easy to ID, as soon as you read a phrase that you’ve heard on tv, you’ve spotted one!
Interesting how “Labor’s $96 billion debt” got another run today…
Liberal Party plants should be watered, not argued with. Arguing with plants is a sure sign of madness.
Ford Geelong to close, 600 jobs to go – very bad news for Stewart McArthur one would think.
Well here’s a message for the plants to take back to the boss. And they might like to debrief Tony Abbott while they’re at it.
The polls aren’t shifting in any meaningful way because enough people have had enough. No matter what Rudd does wrong. No matter what Howard does right.
I should bite my tongue, but the privatisation of Telstra, including some fault in the labor policy that preceded the Govt’s vandalism, doesn’t just hurt the regional parts of the country, it is bad for the whole country to have a large effective monopoly in a badly regulated market.
I did not dare pick any distinction between regional and non-regional Australia, but still the ‘don’t you dare’ posturing of your reading of my post lacks coherent argument indicating I could have done this without fear of the retort.
As for the phony unnecessary war on the ordinary Australians because their employers didn’t like paying them, I can’t believe you are supporting the disgusting conduct of the Government and the employer, and the driving down of wages using mercenaries and dogs. If Australia returns Howard with the Senate they are entitled to expect this kind of treatment clearly based on your support for it, and Howard’s kind of the unsubstantiated ends justify the means no matter how immoral or unlawful type argument.
Workchoices … you want substantiation … well isn’t most of the substantiation hidden by the dishonest Government, but we do know that in this marvellous boom, in this time where things are as good as they have ever been, that retail workers under workchoices suffered reduced salary. That is fairly substantial substantiation.
What hasn’t been established is the correlation with increased employment, nor establishing that the exploitation combined with slightly increased employment (assuming for a moment there is a correlation) is better of for the community as a whole. Lots of motherhood statements and assertions, no evidence. And as for productivity you have got to be joking.
That you call a safety net so that the very worst off Australians don’t get left behind in the boom of wealth we have THEFT I think says quite a lot about you and the Howard Government and very little about Australia.
(oops, pressed the wrong key)
They want Rudd to be good enough. By definition, he will be.
That’s true Adam and Amber. I did suspect that Swordfish was a Liberal Party plant, or mole, after I read his/her remaining posts. But it is difficult to ignore the spin and lies being offered as fact. There are probably a lot of lurkers here who will come away highly misinformed.
I promise no more arguments. My apologies.
For those who have the courage of their convictions and are prepared to wager a few dollars, you can now bet on individual seats on Sportingbet.
There are some bets where you can’t lose. I just bet on Richmond my local electorate with excellent odds in my favour. It’d be worth selling BHP shares for some of these bets! Not that I have any.
Oh and yes of course some backbenchers are starting to grumble. Many of them are about to lose their seats. There will be a swing to Labor regardless of whether JWH stays or hands over to Costello or another.
A number of backbenchers think they will be better off with a change and they are almost certainly right. They had better raise their voices a bit louder. Other more timid ones may follow. The move could be on.
Have you got a hat you can eat Richard
Doug, I tried to work my way through the possums methodology and got a bit lost. It is based on safe seat polling which indicates huge swings to the ALP in safe coalitions seats but only 4 – 5% in safe ALP seats. Firstly, I can’t believe some of his speculation, a possible ALP win in Bradfield? Secondly, why would there be a swing disparity in safe liberal seats compared to safe ALP seats, after all it was the latter that swung heavily to JoHo last time? Thirdly, if IR is such a big issue, presumably safe outer suburban ALP seats will be more affected than safe Lib seats. Fourthly, how sound is the sample in the Newspoll safe seat polling – it is not as though they are targetting particular seats.
A lot of his speculation indicates swings of 18 – 22%, yes they may be a swing on, but we are not in a time of political meltdown.
Adam, this is where you are the expert. There have been swings of 15 – 16% in general elections at times – Riverina 1969 comes to mind, but have there been many swings of this proportion in state or federal elections in recent times? By elections don’t count, and Oxley 1996 was a special case.
Blackburnpseph,
Have a look at Wide Bay and Fairfax in 1998 (although that’s probably votes from One Nation having an affect on the TPP). Also possibly Maranoa in 1998.
I think you’d have to go back to 1975 to find swings that big – 18% in Bass, 15% in Franklin. But even then Labor didn’t lose seats of the degree of safeness Possum’s figures suggest. If such swings as he suggests were to occur, it would be the biggest wipeout since 1931, when Labor won only 14 seats.
In 1996 the biggest swings apart from Oxley were: Fisher 14.0%, Fadden 12.5%, Macarthur 12.0%, Lindsay 11.9%, Kennedy 11.6%, Hughes 11.4%, Lyne 11.1%, Rankin 11.1%, Wide Bay 10.3%, Hinkler 10.2%, Greenway 10.1%, Longman 10.0%.
Interesting that all those seats are in regional or outer suburban NSW and Qld. It suggests that what we are now seeing is the return to Labor of the roughly 10% of the electorate that defected to the Coalition in 1996 in those two states – Howard’s battlers becoming Rudd’s returners.
Good god! My last names thatcher and even i couldnt believe the amount of conservative lies, bull and spin i was reading. Whats happened to this site. Cant we all just agree Rudd will shit it in and live happily ever after?
The Newspoll safe Coalition seat polling was based on 3000+ interviews Apr-July, showing a 14% Labor swing. This is only a 2% MoE. My concern with Possum is that he may be double-counting a bit, eg, by multiplying regional * safe Coal * NSW. I think here that only one should apply if any of these swings is very large. However, if Labor did win 60%+ in NSW, they would win about 35-45 out of 49 NSW seats.
I think the issue causing so much pain for the govt in their own safe seats is climate change. This has become a huge issue very quickly, and the govt’s long-term scepticism has not helped. In regional areas, the drought can be blamed on CC, and the rains have probably come too late for the govt. Urban safe Lib seats have many doctors’ wives types who are also very concerned. If you look at the AC Nielson and Newspoll analysis by age, there is a huge drop in the govt vote among young people.
But unlike 1931, we are not in the midst of economic or political meltdown.
Swordfish Says:
July 18th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Well then Noocat…..Blah Blah Blah… then ” I suppose you can’t cite a source for your final claim”.
Talk about the pot calling the Kettle. How about sourcing just ONE of your rediculous pronouncements Swordfish (and not from the Liberal Party Hymn Book) then maybe, just maybe, I might give a glance to what you have to say.
Until then put up evidence to support your arguments (I am being kind in using that phrase), not just Economics 101 (the rising tide raises all ships theory that has been proven WRONG long ago) or stop whingeing about others not substantiating their claims.
Here is a idea for you, stick to the primary theme of this site instead of exposing your lack of substantial economic and political knowledge to the light of day. At this point I rate you someone to ignore- I suspect that wont change.
Thank You,
STROP
The 600 Ford factory staff cut in Geelong wont help McArthur’s tilt at holding Corangamite (5.3) for the Coalition. Thats 1 in Victoria for Labor.
Maybe a Labor candidate with a clean skin this time around will help too in Corangamite.
I think there are serious flaws with Possums latest work (love ya stuff though Poss). The fact that weights are multiplied together does indicate mutual independence of all factors. This is not so and I am estimating substantial correlation between some weights. This would compound the size of the swing effects one way or the other. His analysis though does reach good points in saying where the government weakness lies, its the strength of the swings that would be off.
I’ve noticed that the pro-left are in full voice with the latest polls – as they should be, but consider this:
(i) The electorate is still mostly disengaged. It explains some of the “rusted on” feel to the polls over the last few months. Howard has attempted to re-focus the electorate with his “annihilation” comments and his public humility plea yesterday. I don’t believe this will have any effect until the campaign proper and re-engagement occurs. I also dont believe that swinging voters have made up their minds in full.
(ii) Howard has the economic drawcard. Swinging voters will lean toward safe and secure.
(iii) In the current climate Rudd is acting like a government. The coalition knows that the ALP have to release details of their announced policies before the election. Like any good Opposition, the coalition will be trying to procure as much ammunition from those announcements as possible and target Labor inexperience. It hasn’t worked to date, but try it on a re-engaged electorate might get results.
(iv) The negative campaign from hell is about to be unleashed upon the electorate. Rudd says positive policies is what they want in the election and then releases the Howard asleep ad. They cant help themselves and neither will the government. Problem is, that the electorate dislikes negative campaigns. The party with the most positive of the negative campaigns will attract the re-engaging voters.
(v) Labor’s chances depend on WorkChoices. Get the electorate to soften to Workchoices WILL win them the election based on the number of voters that will return especially in 5%+ swing seats. I can guarantee that the Coalition knows this and is going to ram it down the electorates throat.
I still believe Labor will win, but by a margin of 3-7 seats. That is close enough for everyone to take a chill pill and wait a little longer to pop the corks. A simple misstep when the electorate is engaged is enough to sway plenty of voters – ask Latham.
for (v) read: Get the electorate to soften and the Coalition WILL win the election….
That was my thought, Strop, going on Possum’s figures, and now Ford, Outer parts of the Geelong district are now in Corangamite. It was slowly turning from safe Lib to marginal anyway. The Ford closure will probably push it over.
# STROP Says:
July 17th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
Bill is the sentiment in SA that all three (Kingston;Makin;Wakefeild) will go to Labor ? What about Boothby ? If a swing was on in SA there was a kind of domino effect when I was living there. Maybe things have changed.
I think if the Greens can win some of the left leaning Libs in Boothby then Cornes might have a chance. Pity SA wont be first in the count because Boothby would be a great seat to watch.
Grooski, the electorate has been engaged for a long time; qualitative research by Morgan released this month shows there is mood for a change. Newspoll released a survey in June which shows much greater voter commitment than before for this stage of an election cycle.
Another stat in support of the fact voters ARE engaged is the fact the “undecided / uncomitted” portion of the prefered P.M. vote keeps declining every month, so more and more people are making up their minds at least about that.
Lord D – based on what questions did they establish engagement? A mood for change does not necessarily mean this. A lot of voters can be “semi-engaged” – listening to the topics in the main media, but not focussing fully on the detail and still provide an opinion to a poll.
Certainly if there is greater participation in any polling, does this necessarily mean, by the above, that the electorate is switched on or just more willing to give opinion on what it knows?
Past history shows us, as Morgan himself has stated in recent times, that the electorate swinging voters only make up their mind in part during the election campaign and mostly when they enter the polling booth. If this still rings true, then there is still room for Howard to attract votes.
Dont get me wrong – I’m a swinging voter likely to vote Labor, but I will never write off that cocunut on the throne and his ability to make me afraid of something.
Interesting editorial in today’s Adelaide Advertiser for those of you who know how to establish a link (I don’t)
Groski, Why are you only likely to vote Labor when the coconut and his admin makes you afraid?
He makes me afraid too. I wish I had 10 votes to vote him out with yesterday.
Grooski, sorry!
The editorial writer at the Advertiser has obviously been visiting The Pollbludger…
We live in hope Fulvio.
According to Howard, negative attacks are “pathetic”:
“Mr Howard … accused Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd of indulging in negative attacks.
“Well, my response is that is a pretty pathetic approach,” the Prime Minister said to the Nine Network.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22095300-5005961,00.html
Anyone for a big dose of hypocrisy? Hmm… Howard’s not exactly helping this credibility problem, is he?
“Surrendering the policy initiative”
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22093132-5006336,00.html
I assume this is the one Enjaybee referred to.
Enjaybee, just copy and paste the url (the strange text in the address bar in your browser window) into the text box when your writing your post here. For safety, leave space before and after the url after you’ve pasted it. Many web sites will turn it into a clickable link without you doing anything special. The ones that don’t, people can still copy and paste the url into their own browser.
Thanks Amber.
“Liberal Party plants should be watered, not argued with. ”
I usually water my plants late at night after a couple of VBs with a bit of a whiz, does wonders for them. Which reminds me of an intriguing story doing the rounds of the pubs.
“Liberal Party plants should be watered, not argued with. â€
Or… doused in weed killer.
If it’s the one about Amanda Vanstone, the goat, the rubber hose and the Vienna Boys Choir, I’m sure we’ve all heard it.
What happening with the Liberal’s in Lindsay? Why no candidate? It seems like they have given up on the seat!
Lateline bombshell. Anyone see it?
Noocat, I don’t know about you but I can’t see how that ad reflects badly on Howard’s age.
What in God’s name was Costello thinking?
Ben, it takes time to resettle several thousand Maronites into one electorate…
*waits to be told what Costello said*
What happened on Lateline? I missed it
There goes Howard’s cred on the economy. Labor will have a field day from now until the election. Wait for the ads.
Costello annouced he is challenging and Howard agreed to call a party room meeting for Monday … that’s all
According to Howard, negative attacks are “patheticâ€:
“Well, my response is that is a pretty pathetic approach,†the Prime Minister said to the Nine Network.”
Well bugger me, all the L plate ads directed at Latham in 2004 must have been an illusion.
Fancy Howard tormenting Beazley for years about a lack of ticker. Well, at least Beazley didn’t have a glass jaw. What a sook!
By the way has anyone noticed the opposition leader visiting reasonably safe Liberal seats in recent weeks. Goldstein, Dunkley and Boothby to name a few. Polling must be bad for the government if Rudd reckons he can snare these seats. He wouldn’t be wasting his time otherwise.
Costello did an interview two year’s ago for a book on Howard. To say he wasn’t complimentary re Howard’s record as treasurer is an understatement. Hartcher will have extracts from the book in the SMH tomorrow and over the next few days.
I want to be careful not to inadvertently over-sensationalise the comments. Apparently in tomorrow’s SMH there will be excerpts from a new JWH biography in which Costello (who was interviewed for the book) savages his record as Treasurer under Fraser, criticises the amount of politically-motivated spending in the Howard Government and accuses Howard of deliberately misleading Costello and the electorate over the timing of a leadership handover.
This interview apparently happened last year (before the collapse in Coalition support in the polls) and Costello had to have known the book would come out before the election.
“Noocat, I don’t know about you but I can’t see how that ad reflects badly on Howard’s age.”
All I will say is that I loved the doilies in that ad.
By the way, I also missed Lateline – what was Costello saying?
Re Rudd’s campaigning: He’s a clever wee pixie the Ruddster, he may be deliberately showing his face in safe Liberal seats as a bit of psy-ops, to put the wind up dopey backbenchers like Southcott so they run to Brian Loughnane and demand that more money be spent in their seat, thus diverting attention from the key marginals.
Ben C
The latest from yesterday’s Penwiff News. Looks like the NSW Lib Right may be about to take over another seat. It’s academic anyway. I can’t see them retaining Lindsay.
http://www.penrithpress.com.au/article/2007/07/17/2863_news.html
Was Costello interviewed on Lateline?
Adam
It may just be general campaigning by Rudd for the senate, he could go into a safe liberal seat knowing he needs a swing of 14% to pick it up and also knowing that the likely swing he will get may be only 8-9%, but his campaigning there whilst not securing the seat may secure extra votes for the senate.
Pseph,
No. Costello was interviewed for a Howard biography that is due to be released next week. The SMH has a sneak peek in tomorrow’s paper of the rather astounding comments made by Costello, and Peter Hartcher gave a sneak peek of the sneak peek on Lateline tonight.
I’m trying to fathom why he said it. The only two explanations are a) he thought he would be Prime Minister by now and was looking to subtly distance himself from Howard or b) he’s pulled down the Prime Ministerial pants in a fit of pique.
Either way, it’s a staggeringly dumb thing to have done.
Arbie Jay,
I don’t think anyone in the Labor Party is thinking about the Senate right now. Unless something truly astonishing happens, that will be a matter for a 2008 double dissolution.
Peter Hartcher was interviewed on Lateline.
You may be right Adam. But Rudd might also think he can win these seats, especially if the private polling in the 16 marginals clearly shows the government is in diabolical shape.
For example take Goldstein, it is blue ribbon affluent Liberal heatland. Some of the most expensive areas in bayside Melbourne and some of the safest Liberal voting areas. But there is Rudd, campaigning heartily, more than once.
It is hard to believe that he would waste his time campaigning there if he didn’t think he could win. What is going on?
Ahhh, gotcha. Meanwhile, thanks to ESJ, I prematurely told a friend Costello is challenging .. woops
…
Well, I sure look to tomorrow’s SMH. Should be a tantalising read.
Thanks Gary, I will watch the VOD stream tomorrow.
Charlie
The Senate is the prize now!
This environment in which everyone is trying to work out by how much Howard is going to lose … I am telling you all and please remember these words Gary Bruce come November 11th (ominous date) are the perfect conditions for a surprise come from behind win a la Major in 1992 and Bertie Ahern in Ireland – as long as the Libs dont fracture that is.
You can see already that Labor is getting over confident as are its partisans on this site (honourable exception Adam for once).
“Was Costello interviewed on Lateline?”
No, Peter Hartcher was. Don’t recall anything about a challenge. But the rest of it was pretty damaging stuff. Next week could be very interesting.
Pseph,
No, Hartcher (SMH) was the interviewee, and he laid out the charges made by Costello, which are apparently featuring in to-morrow’s Fairfax papers. There will be several extracts in the coming days.
I think Charlie (11.01 p.m.) has provided a fair summary of what Hartcher said.
The biography of Howard is by Peter van Onselen and is to be released next week.
Re Howard’s characterising Rudd’s “negative campaigning” as pathetic: I am gobsmacked at his (and his colleagues’) chutzpah. I didn’t think we’d see a more blatant example than who do you trust?, but then he exceeds himself. Yet to-day we had Ruddock presuming to lecture a barrister on ethics.
May I also pick up a point that several posters have made about how obvious it now is that Howard should have done the hand-over last year? It certainly wasn’t obvious as recently as nine months ago; the good ship Howard seemed set fair for another regulation victory, and I doubt that there were more than a handful of muttering dissenters in the Liberal (and National) Parliamentary Party (ies). While Beazley had created a platform based on the opposition to Work Choices, it was by no means clear that this could be translated into a labor victory, until the coming of Rudd.
Thanks for the piece on Lindsay.
In it appears the following:
In NSW, the ALP would need to win most or all of Lindsay, Greenway, Eden-Monaro and Dobell to take government. “Betting suggests this will not happen,” Mr Hobbs [Portlandbet betting agency spokesman Stephen Hobbs] said. “While we have seen strong betting support for the ALP in numerous electorates, it has not been in these marginals, where the election will be won and lost.”
Can someone explain to me why it is assumed that the collectivity of gamblers are better judges of who will win which seat than the collectivity of psephologists, politicians and journalists, most of whom think the ALP *will* win those seats? Gamblers, taken collectively, are mugs. Overall, they must lose money on their gambling – otherwise bookies, the TAB, casinos etc would not make any money. Why is it that people who, more often than not, fail to pick the winners of horse-races, something which they study carefully, are thought to be accurate judges of election outcomes?
Sorry I was joking about the challenge – I couldnt help myself given the earlier posts this week.
Coz Adam 85% of our psephs,journalists and politicians incline to the apparat/Labor view of the world whereas our gamblers have purer motives – cash
btw
why has costello kept such a low profile lately edward stjohn
Portlandbet, which was showing lib/labor 1.87/1.90 to win the election is now showing 2.05/ 1.72, a 36 point swing.
I stand by my 11.30post Cynic
Edward, yes that is true in both respects. Nevertheless, gamblers are ipso facto fools, because they could safely make money by putting their cash into (say) property or the stock market, whereas they must, in the long run, lose it if they persist in any of the popular forms of gambling – ask any state treasurer or casino boss. I’d prefer to take the opinions of professionals, even biased ones, than those of mugs.
Tell me Edward what has any result in Ireland got to do with our system of government?
The ABC website now has the story
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/18/1982107.htm
Is voting compuslory in Ireland? What voting method do they use? What issues common to us did they have going in the election. Did they have a Rudd or Howard as leaders? I look forward to your detailed answer Edward. Wishing will not see your boy over the line Edward.
True but one could say the same for politicians – preselections for example have huge elements of luck to them – if you want to do worthwhile things why not have a viable career which is not so completely subject to the vagaries of fate.
For instance take someone like Daryl Melham who had the misfortune to get into Club Fed in 1990 and be just too junior for a ministry – time has passed him by for a ministry if Rudd wins through no fault of his own. There are obvious liberal examples too
This is excellent, Rudd and Swan will get some good mileage out of this. The fact is Howard was a hopeless treasurer, too gutless to take on Fraser. Likewise, Costello is now revealing himself to be a gutless treasurer who wouldn’t take on Howard over blatantly political spending.
Is this the start of a challenge? Surely the 2 back benchers who complained to the Fairfax papers were Costello supporters, now Hartcher talking up the juicy bits of his book. There only needs to be one more piece of information for a complete conspiracy.
Hartcher has a column on the Ruddster’s campaigning
http://blogs.smh.com.au/newsblog/archives/peter_hartcher/014625.html
But I think he misses the point – and anyone who thinks the Libs are going to win Parramatta has rocks in their head. Their candidate choice had “we have written off this seat” stamped all over it.
Irish elections:
http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/i/ireland/
I think Edward’s point was that the government was re-elected despite general expectation it would lose.
Simon
are you “joking” as well?
Howard should be rolled and Costello installed.
But they’re too dumb.
As to the Coalition’s chances under Howard – it is true that Bertie Ahern gained about 5% in the polls in the final weeks before the election. But Ahern is more popular than Howard (55% job approval I think), his opponents were not united, and he trashed Enda Kenny in the leaders debate. John Major is not terribly relevant in my mind, as he was a ‘new’ PM. Major is more of an argument for installing Costello IMHO.
A lot of the ‘fundamentals’ remain strong for the government. But you can lose in spite of that – ask Jeff Kennett.
Yes I know Adam but surely that is no guide to what will happen here, like the 2001 and 2004 elections are no guide. Thanks for the link.
Yes, the Tories had to knife The Dominatrix because her polltax was leading them to a slaughter – no sentiment there. Heseltine had the nerve that Costello lacks, although the Thatcherites made sure that Hezza didn’t get the leadership. So that analogy doesn’t work at all.
Howard = Thatcher
WorkChoices = Poll tax
Costello = Heseltine
but Rudd /= Kinnock, thank goodness
CYNIC – I was joking in the second part. I do however think this will start another round of leadership murmurings because the book extracts will get a go on the TV news tomorrow night. I don’t think anything will come of it, except maybe the ALP using Costello’s quotes during election adverts.
I think Howard will lead the Government to the election, unless he is terribly ill. I am however in the minority camp that thinks the Government would do BETTER with Costello as P.M. for the reason that Leopold suggests above; voters would feel he should be given a term in his own right, before kicking him out in 2010, a la Keating.
The problem with that theory though Simon is that Keating was gone for all money in ‘93 but for Hewson’s 900 page suicide note.
Dunkley is held by Billson, the Minister for Veteran Affairs who accused east timor vets of swinging the lead, he could be vulnerable.
Goldstein held by Robb, should be safe but if Robb is arrogant enough to feel he does not need to campaign much he could be surprised.
Hartcher story on Howard’s failure as a treasurer.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/howard-failed-as-treasurer/2007/07/18/1184559867197.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
This line was especially moving
“What do you expect me to do? I don’t cry myself to sleep ”
I think Pete needs to let it all go, I feel like taking him to me, patting him on the back and just saying , there there Pete let it all out.
Poison, absolute poison
Let’s not forget that the election might not be held until January, and it will be held at a time of Howard’s liking. Six months is a VERY long time in politics.
Perhaps what came from Costello today will only damage Costello’s future leadership ambitions and paint him as an opportunist while cementing Howard’s place in the pantheons of great statesmen. And it gives us the salivating prospect of having a more conservative replacement for our next PM when Howard does retire in 2009/10 – Tony Abbott.
This story from the 7:30 Report on the ides of May last year (2006), featuring interviews with Peter van Onselen, Costello, and others puts the Howard biography release next week into an interesting context:-
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1639096.htm
Apparently Howard’s era has ended, all that remains to be seen is whether it ends elegantly, or not…
Nostro,
Nice of you to clarify that you salivate in anticipation of Abbott’s acendancy to the top job. Make sure you put newspaper down first.
The Irish election result has little predictive value for the Australian system.
While Ahern remains Taoseacht the Irish Government did not win the election. A Fianna Fail/Progressive Democrat government was replaced by a Fianna Fail/ Progressive Democrat/ Green Government. This was despite the Greens having attacked Ahern for the previous 5 years and continuing to negotiate to form a government with Finn Gael until the last minute. If the Greens had kept true to their previous behaviour (??!!) the psephologists’ predictions would have been correct.
So much for PR and the resultant need to form coalitions.
Nostradamus there is no way a PM will call an election during school holidays. If you want to give yourself any chance of winning at all you don’t interrupt the voters’ holidays.
Labor will have a field day with the Costello story about Howard being a bad treasurer. Of couse they will run it in their campaign. Why wouldn’t they? That and the murmurs about Costello replacing Howard before the election won’t do the Coalition any good. The polls again have no reason to turn Howard’s way. If anything they will confirm Rudd’s acendancy.
Some of us have been accused of being Labor partisans. Just for the record I have never voted Labor in any election, state or federal, and have never belonged to a union. In fact I once resigned a highly paid job because I was told I would have to join the union. I do however recognise the valuable job unions have done over the past hundred years in protecting working conditions and wages of employees. I also recognise that Howard’s IR legislation has gone far too far in assisting employers to exploit employees.
Let’s no continue with childish name calling.
Who did you preference Richard
Sorry Nostradamus, leaving aside Abbott’s moral crusades (which he couldn’t put into effect as PM) he is to the left of Costello, have you not read his Quadrant article in support of a conservative multiculturalism? Like Howard Abbott is a pragmatic big government conservative.
Goldstein is an interesting seat, on paper a very safe Liberal seat but its a very divervse seat with some very strong Liberal areas around Brighton and Sandringham with some good ALP areas around Bentleigh with some swing type middle class areas around Ormond and McKinnon.
The state seat of Bentleigh is held by the ALP while the seats of Brighton, Sandringham and Caulfield are safe Liberal although both Caulfield and Sandringham have at certain times been marginal.
Robb will need to campaign hard for if the polls are right then this seat could be interesting.
Cisco, when I first entered politics in 1971, after a battle with Robert Askin over the destruction of Myall Lakes forests, I looked around for a party to join. I had absolutely no preconceptions nor loyalty to any side. I had voted Conservative in the UK as my parents had. I joined the Australia Party, remember them? I chose them because they appeared to care for the environment more than the others. I have since then voted for and given my preferences to those parties and independents who appear to care for the environment. I am fiscally conservative but care deeply about what happens to our planet. There are enough of us to change governments.
bmwofoz,
Sandringham (I’m not sure if it was called that at the time, but that was the geography of the electorate) was held for one term by State Labor at the beginning of the Cain years.
Personally I’ll be shocked if Goldstein swings, but in this climate who knows?
I don’t know if this is the forum I should be asking on, but can someone tell if Labor are running a candidate in Calare?
If I am on the wrong forum, can someone point me in the right way?
To answer Peter, yes it was Sandringham that Cain held in 1982, that same seat was reduced to a margin of about 2 -3 % after the 2001 State poll.
I’m not sure how the Boundary was drawn back in 1982 but in 2001 the bulk of the seat sat inside Goldstein.
Interesting side note Goldstein unlike Kooyong and Higgins has actually moved toward the Liberals over the past Two elections.
Kooyong bucked the trend and actually recorded an anti-Liberal swing for a very important reason: it has Petro Georgiou as its MP who takes dissenting views on a number of social issues and has quite rightly been labelled a “political terrorist” by rising star Sophie Mirabella. If he really wants to promote his renegade agendas he should do the right thing and stand as an independent.
The Libs could possibly do with a few more Georgious.
With Rudd anxious to avoid a wedging, it gives the small ‘l’ Libs the chance to attack Labor from the left. It may sound bizarre, but voters have tuned out from all of the dog-whistling and fear campaigns. The Libs need to shed their ‘mean and tricky’ image, and could benefit from looking compassionate and caring on a few issues.
Petro Georgiou while loved by some small l types is seen as a do nothing local MP.
I know people whom have lived in the area for years and apart from a Budget time letter never see or hear from him.
He is somewhat of a dud
I’m not surprised in the least that Petro Georgiou is unable to carry out his responsibilities of representing the community who have elected him.
Alex Hawke will be the next MP for Mitchell. Alex Lew for Kooyong!
Yes Nostrils, the further Right the better I say, your beloved extreme right are electoral poison and a dominance will all but guarantee their political oblivion for many years to come.
Is the Liberal candidate for Cook, the Dirk Wellham of Australian politics, sounds like he’s been to more clubs than Barry Crocker.
Member of the Labor Party, member of the Liberal Party, member of Canterbury-Bankstown and the Cronulla Sharks, being from Redfern did he ever cheer on the Bunnies. Maybe he should have spent the 30K he’s alleged to have used for “recruitment” to get membership to ever other NRL team, A-League, NBL club, and if he has global focus he’ll have to pick up a jersey of L.A. Lakers, Chicago Bulls, Real Madrid, Chelsea, Liverpool, Juventus, Barcelona, Middlesex Cricket Club, Canterbury Crusaders et al.