Due to a little stuff-up on my part, most comments made so far today went into moderation. The error has been rectified, and the comment build-up unblocked. As you’re all no doubt aware, the Reserve Bank has lifted official interest rates. In other news: giant Lego man washed up on Dutch beach.
Reflections on the Miracle of Democracy at Work in the Greatest Nation on Earth
Rates up, comments unlocked
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
223 Comments
Why does it say “no real than you are” on the giant Lego man’s chest?
I’m sure that spin doctors and many others will be pouring over the recorded statements today. However, as a punter this section of text from Howard’s 2004 launch is probably the most striking to read today:
“My friends, we all prize the financial security of our families. Let me say this, and it’s not just my view, but it’s a view frequently expressed to me as I move around this country talking to Australian families. Nothing threatens that security more directly than the prospect of rising interest rates. Rising interest rates dominates everything else when it comes to family security. Just a tiny upward movement in interest rates more than devours a few dollars of taxation relief or additional family benefits. There is no economic credential for office more crucial than a capacity to keep interest rates low.”
Full text here:
http://www.liberal.org.au/campaign_news/campaign_2004/Sept26_Speech_-_Coalition_Campaign_Launch_-_Brisbane.pdf
The Lego Man is clearly an issue of major concern – John Howard needs to whip up a scare campaign immediatly.
“We will decide which Lego Men are washed up in Australia, and under what circumstances they are washed up…”
Actually, I guess Howard might feel a bit like the Lego Man himself …
I think Morris Iemma may well have been onto something when he suugested he was concerned about John Howard’s behaviour, it’s getting more and more extraordinary, bordering on embarrassing.
Howard is not doing himself any favours with these very weak arguments regarding who is responsible for the rise in interest rates. He went to the last election making the fallacious point that he could control interest rates and now that it’s shown that he can’t, he makes another fallacious point laying the blame at the feet of the states.
He’s behaving like a shonky used car salesman, and it demeans the office of Prime Minister.
His political dossier was leaked, it’s all out in the public domain, yet he still persists with the “blaming the states” line. It’s the most extraordinary behaviour from a Prime Minister that I’ve ever seen, I can’t believe the Liberal Party will stand for too much more of this.
On another note, I’m glad William you’ve got a photo of Gough Whitlam in his “it’s time” T-Shirt at the top of this site, because as soon as I saw the “Kevin 07″ T-Shirts, that was the first thing it reminded me of. For those too young to remember that campaign, it may serve as a reference point for them.
On a different tack – but related to Mr tricky’s recent behaviour. Is it possible that John Howard is attempting to line up referenda on council amalgamations in Qld for the same day as a Federal poll?
This would mirror recent tactics in the US by both Democrats and Republicans to boost their votes by drawing potential voters to the poll on niche issues (usually abortion and gay marriage for the GOP and usually minimum wage for Democrats).
I realise that having compulsory voting makes it slightly different but this tactic would be consistent with the leaked Textor strategy and it could certainly not hurt having people provoked to be angry about the Beattie government when they go into the polling booth.
Which councils are opposing mergers in Qld? Are any in marginal seats?
I have nothing to say, I was just missing the site of my own comments
Like I have said from the start transferring the interest debate into the State sphere was a big mistake. Howard will find it difficult to turn it back onto Rudd now and, will lose the State blame game on rates as well. He has mangled his one big gun.
But that aside John Howard is showing signs of becoming maniacle and uncontrolled, simply so paniced that he doesnt care what he does. He has set himself on the path of undermining the State Federal system and also the systems within States, really an attack on their democracy. He undermines the authority of the elected government of Qld. If he continues in this vain it will become a form of anarachy.
His statement on allowing the AEC to offer a vote for the Qld councils, in Question Time, was desperate and dangerous. Has he lost control? Has he lost all perspective? Is he that addicted to power that he wont care what he does?
Aristotle said
Read Matt Price’s piece in the Oz today. Paul Kelly and Saul Eslake have more or less said he’s talking through his a*se. Backbenchers are shaking their heads at the hospital intervention. I dropped any expectation of a spill when Costello did. Now I’m not so sure. Howard is looking desperate, and is actually getting scary.
site=sight
Umm, how do you do quotes ?
Organising a vote on the same day as the federal election would certainly be a cynical abuse. Beattie I guess could get around it by organising his own, earlier one which he wont of course.
It is almost as though the Howard government has come so used to abusing the system that it no longer knows what is abuse and what is not.
I can’t understand why people in states other than Queensland should pay for meaningless votes that won’t stop the amalgamations.
I can’t beleive that Howard is trying to stir up controversy, even though the independent panel that made the recommendation was comprised of former Labor, Liberal and National MPs. He really is scraping the bottom of the barrel now.
Rob,
<blockquote>
what you’re quoting
</blockquote>
I have a theory posted earlier today:
http://www.ozelection2007.info/forums/viewtopic.php?pid=3417#p3417
I suspect that if Howard and the Libs had control of any of the States at present they might be contemplating referenda or plebiscites on a range of issues to bolster their outcome.
Prediction – look forward to lots of push-polling and the nastiest smear campaign that has ever been seen in Australian political history and don’t expect that KR will pull any punches either, he’s in it to win it.
I suspect there might be some shadow boxing around the issue, sort of a political game of chicken with neither side wanting to be seen as the first to “go negative”, but it will happen.
An alternative theory is that Howard is out of the closet. He is openly and publicly desperate for power. He can literally buy an election and it would be criminal to waste that opportunity so that’s what he unashamedly will do.
In regard to poll issues:
By my calculations AC Nielson will begin a 3 day poll from Thursday 9th to Saturday 11th August and it will publish in SMH Monday 13/08/07.
That will be interesting? 58/42 TPP in July
Predictions?
That lego Man. Could be a modern re run of “The Day the Earth Stood Still”.
I noticed the Crikey election guide in a bookshop window today. I’m puzzled as to why Crikey, a leading “new media†pioneer, would bother with an “old media†version of their guide, which will be out of date in a few weeks, which will contain errors which now can’t be corrected (unlike online errors), which costs money when there are free online alternatives, and which is in any case greatly inferior to the available online election guides (William’s, Antony’s and mine). Most people sufficiently election-obsessive to be interested in such things have internet access and will prefer the online versions. William, do you know why they have chosen to waste their money this way?
There’s a lot of good people in the Liberal party. Its really sad that John Howard, Alexander Downer and a few of their mates are embarrassing both the party that allowed them their power and the country they serve.
Robert Dean’s (Parlimentary Secretary in the Kennett Government) essay in todays Age demonstrates how far John Howard has moved the party away from Robert Menzies philosophy.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/betraying-the-menzies-vision/2007/08/07/1186252704551.html
Its getting to the stage where John Howard should be relieved of his Prime Ministership, not because he is going to lose but because of the damage he is doing in the fading days of his reign.
If the electorate could understand how crazy Howard has become the ACNeilsen should show 65/35 but since most pay no attention at all to what is happening around them it may go 57/43.
Im not sure how people will react to the interest rate rise. Luckily Howard made a mess of his argument here.
You can write off Howard if you like but he’s our best asset regardless of how many times Iemma says he’s rattled…fact is Rudd is so inexperienced that a good Liberal Campaign will tear him to shreds…Also it his inexperience that will keep him from the Lodge until 2010 as ive said all along he may be ok but only with experience and boy he’s never led anything in his life for more than a few months…
the interest rate rise should help the Coalition it shows the volatility of the economy and why would u risk Dudd and Swan to run the books…
Adam,
They must expect to make some money out of it! The reason I didn’t buy it was because thanks to you and William and others there is quality information avialable on the internet! Thanks
I find the work that went into Crikey’s physical guide quite extraordinary too. There is obviously a buck in it, or they wouldn’t do it.
On Howard: it’s a dangerous time, if his behaviour is getting erratic. Would Liberal senators have the guts to cross the floor and stop him if he tried something really ridiculous – for example, some really, really bad anti-terrorism laws, or banning headscarves, or that kind of thing?
Perhaps they would if they believe that the party is going down at the election. Perhaps not.
How am i surprise that article got a run in the Age hmmmm, if you knew something about politics Fire Maker its that political parties evolve through time…why look at America the Democrats used to be uber conservative and the Republicans were liberals but now the opposite is apparent…
So long as Howard has the Libs within 55-45 they can win if it is more than 55-45 then there wouldnt be enough time during the election campaign for Howard to win…for all purposes and regardless of what lefties think of the Howard years our country is better today then when we voted out Keating and his government does not deserve to lose the election if our economy was going really bad and interest rates were really high and if unemployment was high then it would be fair to say turf em out if they cant do the job but Howard has been the best leader we’ve had since Menzies and at some time now or later will miss his steady hand at the tiller.
John Howard is looking more and more like a deranged dictator in his bunker ordering non existent divisions to attack enemy positions in the south, north, east…
His generals are standing around wondering what to do, none with the courage to challenge him.
His key adviser Arthur Sidonis has deserted him and no longer giving him the sound advice he so desperately needs.
It’s quite sad to see actually.
He doesn’t perform at all well under such extreme stress.
I don’t think he will realise it’s all over until the tanks are on top of the bunker.
Thanks Fire Maker. I just read Robert Dean’s article with a sigh of nostalgia. Robert Menzies was a true statesman. John Howard is no Robert Menzies and it would be impertinent of him to pretend to be his heir. Where are the Robert Menzies’ of today? Stand up now. Your party needs you.
John Winston Howard = Richard Millhouse Nixon
I find Howard’s tactics bizzare – he is now asserting that he never promised to keep interest rates at record lows. Even if this is technically correct, the whole point of his statements before the last election was to make us think that was what he was saying.
It’s like he is claiming the electorate is stupid for falling for his cynicism last time around.
Honestly, how does he think the electorate will respond to this sneakiness. Okay, John, you fooled us, please do it again?
Glen, good to see the Young Liberals getting a run here. If only they could argue a case without the childish name calling. Still. they are the YOUNG Liberals.
Howard’s problems are two fold. One, many people have stopped listening and two, those that do don’t believe him anymore.
Looks like Liberals may be lemmings after all.
Follow their leader off the cliff.
How many will be left looking down?
If it gets any worse, Malcolm Turnbull will go too.
Remember Henry 11’s impassioned cry?
“Is there no one who will rid me of this turbulent priest?”
He didn’t have to ask a second time.
If Howard and the Coalition continue to perform as they have been recently, I think the next few polls could see us get back to 58 – 42, or even the stratospheric 61 – 39.
Rudd is increasingly steady, not putting a foot wrong. Howard, his head well and truly messed with, is looking worse than desperate, and he’s making almost constant mistakes and mis-steps.
I think he is angering people, and I do feel that people are fed up. It’s Time. It’s Over.
Mr Howard is most likely technical correct that he never said that he would keep interest rates at record lows. In the autobiography (recently released) Mrs Howard outlined the tactic of Mr Howard. That tactic was to leave an impression of a point of view or an undertaking without making a firm commitment to do anything in support of that impression (see his commitment to Mr Costello), “John was not into making firm commitments,†she said.
Undertaking to leave an incorrect impression in a person mind is itself a lie so regardless of what he says he has been condemned from the mouth of his spouse.
Do you think John will cry like Malcolm did? Schadenfreude will be a hard thing to resist this election night.
Adam,
I believe it would serve a purpose as a branding exercise. Think of it like little billboards for crikey.
Sorry Adam, I can offer no insight into what goes on at the Crikey bunker. You will note that it is published by Penguin, so it seems that people who understand these things do actually believe there’s a dollar to be made. I personally have found it quite handy having basic information to hand in physical form, rather than having to trudge through the internet whenever I need to check something.
What hubris is on display arent you all forgetting the election doesnt have to be called until January 2008 so much for the Kevin 07 t-shirts which are not made in Australia and nobodies knows where because they cut the tags off…if Labor loses the election you’ll all be moving out of Australia for the hubris and arrogance on display here by Labor staffers is a joke…
It aint over till its over…just remember you can rise and fall quickly…look at Alexander Downer the most popular and the most unpopular opposition leader in history….
The more arrogance displayed by Rudd and Swan the better they’ll be voted down because of their hubris…
I think you are right Hoots.
My wife, no great lover of politics, said today she thought there had been a sea change in the community.
Public opinion had shifted en masse.
The only possible circuit breaker for the Coalition would be a new leader.
It’s important for our democracy that there be an effective opposition.
At the current rate, many worthwhile Liberals and Nationals will be jobless in about twelve weeks, even potential new leaders.
There will be a small rump of shell-shocked discontents left, all squabbling over who was to blame and who should be leader now.
When Nick Greiner won in 88, the ALP opposition was ineffective for quite a while. They just sat there stunned, not believing they could have lost after 12 years in government.
It’ll be the same federally, only worse, as there will be fewer left if John Howard refuses to step down before the election.
My view is that John Howard is being utterly selfish in not recognising his appalling dilemma and handing over to either Peter Costello, or better for them, Malcolm Turnbull.
Hoots and WhoGivesaRats,
Howard did promise explicitly to “keep interest rates at record lows”
http://www.ozelection2007.info/forums/viewtopic.php?pid=2476#p2476
There is a clickable image link at the other end.
I don’t think the poll gap will widen outside margin of error but Uncommitted may well decrease.
The exchange between Skunkrat and Glen (Skunkrat, you started it) is now lining the bottom of my birdcage.
Amber Dekstris, that ad is etched in my memory. It was there for all to see. “Keep interest rates at record lows”. John Howard can deny it all he likes but you can bet the ALP will be showing that in their advertising to show how he has been dishonest.
Love to read the bottom of your birdcage William
Agreed. My mum taught me that if the intention is to deceive, it’s a lie even if the words are true.
Howard sets a bad example to the community.
Amber,
Thanks for that link.
In parliament today, Howard very explicitly argues he never made that claim. He invited the opposition to trawl through every interview he has ever given – even offerred to supply the transcripts.
More weasel words – maybe he never said it, but the campaign was clearly based on convincing the electorate that’s what was being promised, as your link shows.
Out of interest, why do you think the opinon poll gap won’t widen further? Do you feel the substantial gap now is a kind of natural limit?
Gary Bruce Says:
August 8th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Howard’s problems are two fold. One, many people have stopped listening and two, those that do don’t believe him anymore.
I think you nailed the PMs problems in 2 lines Gary. Exactly. He has lost the plot completely and made sure Costello was standing right beside him when he did so today- Apart from the party politics, it was an embarressing display from an Australian Prime Minister- bloody awful.
I think Amber or Kina pointed me to a 2004 election slogan that she put up on another site clearly stating JWHs promise. All Labor have to do in the advertising dept is find that stuff and keep whacking it up on the TV night after night and toss in a few mentions of workplace relations- Simple message- Your house is under threat and so is your job- The End.
Hoots, for polls of that sample size the margin of error is approx 3%. I just don’t see the gap widening by that amount. The 60/40 earlier in the year wasn’t a measure of voting intention IMHO but a measure of preparedness to consider the alternative. IOW, many people then were very prepared to consider a change of govt. I believe many people have made up their mind. It remains to be seen just how many are still undecided or not yet paying attention..
Gentlemen, the amalgamation issue is a dangerous one in Qld. The responses on the airwaves, both radio and TV are venting a lot of anger. News bulletins showing people swearing they will never vote Labor again – even if not true, is a concern for the Labor faithful. People have generally kept state and federal issues seperate, but forcing them to consider both at the polling booth is a very new tactic. Politically devious, but a well thought out tactic.
Anyone think that it is now set up for a Rudd intervention? Imagine Rudd forcing a public Beattie backdown or compromise and then plastering the tabloids with how good the relationship between state Labor and Federal can be. The government will be wedged as it started the process. Simple vote winner…
If Howard continues acting like a headless chook, the Liberals can always replace him with the giant Lego man as their leader.
Lego man’s charisma and quietly confident leadership could give the Coalition the boost it needs in the election campaign to deliver them a 5th term in power!
On the alamgamation pleb issue in Qld. Beattie could toss in one of his own, say on Housing policy or Water or industrial relations, and square up the swingers cf the amalgamations. Beattie should have backed down, at least until next year, whats the bloody hurry Peter ? Never mind, it won’t do nearly as much damage as JWH is hoping for..silly man.
On reflection, yes I do think there is a kind of natural limit on the gap. (In my previous post I was talking in terms of statistical significance.) We all knew the gap would narrow during the year. For it to widen now, Rudd and Labor would have to become more popular. But we’re reaching the stage now where the gloss is coming off and the warts are starting to show so I don’t see that happening. What I do countenance is existing support solidifying. It’s hard for an objective observer to maintain that Howard is eroding Rudd’s support at the moment.
The problem for Howard is that there is no scrutiny of Labor’s front bench…we have attacks on Andrews, Abbot and Downer consistently but not only does nobody know Labor’s front bench but the media does not attack them for their inexperience as shown by Robert McClelland saying to visiting Chinese diplomats that Alexander Downer is a liar…now no matter what you think of Downer the fact that Labor’s alternative Foreign Affairs Minister is prepared to be so undiplomatic shows gross inexperience and yet the media remained silent…
That’s the problem for Howard…politics in Australia is presidential Howard vs Big Kim wasnt too hard to see who’d win same with Howard vs Latho but Howard vs Rudd a man with alot of baggage and one with none at all makes it extremely difficult for Howard to score any points…
Rudd is so media managed that he’s never had to make a tough choice and it is becoming so clear that he’ll run a small target campaign to offset any risks of doing a Hewson by putting forward any substantial policy for fear of fluffing it up.
Unless the polls move to make it more competitive Howard will struggle even though he will out campaign Rudd…let’s face it the Coalition has much more to lose than Labor and they’ll make it a dirty campaign plain and simple if Rudd is going to go small target he’ll be savaged for his inexperience the one issue about Rudd which people are still worried about…If the Coalition loses they’ll be in a worse position than the Conservatives who fell into a hole in 1943 that ended with the collapse of the United Australia Party.
Clearly Rudd if he loses which if he does wont be by much will win in 2010 but it is whether he’ll get a go early i think it would be better for Rudd and the country if he loses in 2007 so that he builds up enough experience for the top job before taking over in 2010.
Amber, what you say makes sense. I also think that events take a while to impact on the polls – public opinion has a kind of inertia – its hard to turn around, and unless an event is dramatic, things seem to take a short time to be reflected.
Howard has had a shocking couple of weeks, the media has turned, interest rates, leaked polls and generally poor performance by Howard himself. At the same time, Rudd has been pretty calm and unruffled.
If these things do register in the polls, I suspect we could get close to the record gaps seen earlier in the year. I agree though that the current gap of 12 points 2PP, is already pretty dramatic, and might be a kind of natural extreme.
Grooski, you betcha the amalgamation issue is dangerous for Labor. As it is, the ALP isn’t making the gains in Queensland they expected to make when Rudd took over. Why? Number of factors – Mr Howard is very popular up there, Beattie is terminally on the nose and Rudd is associated with the Premier and of course the failed Goss regime. Now, with this plebiscite policy the PM has ensured it’ll be even harder for Labor to improve their position in the Sunshine Coast.
As for the interest rate rise – big deal! Of course, journalists will be foaming at the mouth; indeed, Channel Seven eagerly sent one of their hacks into Bennelong today to gauge reactions to the rise from the PM’s constituents. Unfortunately, all they could find were a few swinging voters who were “thinking of voting Labor” (which means they’ll ultimately stick with the Government).
Basically, the 0.5% rise won’t affect too many people, but the Government can still use it to argue that the economy is precariously poised and that Australians can’t afford to give dunces like Rudd, Swan and Gillard the opportunity to stuff it up.
By the way, Glen, when Rudd loses it’ll be the end of the road for him. The man has no friends within the ALP and will be swiftly tossed aside.
Hoots, yes the tone in the paper media has changed substantially recently. This is bad for Howard.
Would anyone like to comment on coverage/attitude in commercial television?
Glen, the ALP would probably think about changing leaders if Kevin Rudd lost. This could now be deemed to be the unlosable election for Kevin Rudd and frankly the only way he will lose it is if he stuffs up really badly, or there is a major terrorist scare.
You’re right about the 1943 experience.
It may be a good thing in the end.
The Liberal Party really does need to do some deep soul-searching post Howard.
Dig out all those old Menzies speeches and find what the Liberal Party is really supposed to be about.
It is not healthy to have a one party state.
There has to be a renewal for all our sakes.
Sorry Amber Dekstris, can’t comment on the commercial TV coverage, never watch it. Can’t stand the ads.
In terms of commercial TV -
I was really taken aback to hear Laurie Oakes write off Howard twice in the last couple of weeks – he has all but called the election.
7 (Prime) news has been giving prominence to stories that suggest Howard is in dire straits.
I don’t think the coverage has been biased, but the emperor is now well and truly naked, and they are not shying away from the spectacle.
heh the latest Liberal party..oops Peter Hendy..oops BCWD states increased dividends for shareholders because of workchoices..
that will please the battlers ….
oh and look UNION BOSSES..WE ARE DOOMED.
http://www.nswbc.com.au/channels/media_centre/nbaf-jouney020807.mpg
(warning a 7mb mpeg)
BCWR ad, not BC WD-40 hehehe
Hoots, Oakes has hated John Howard ever since his beloved Republic was voted down in 1999. I remember watching Nine’s coverage on the night and Oakes was nearly in tears. He’s held a deep grudge ever since.
See, folks, there’s no such thing as an objective journalist or commentator; they’ve all got an agenda. Unfortunately for them, no-one pays much attention to them.
There is not the slightest evidence, current or historical, that the swinging voters know about, care about or are influenced by the composition, talent, opinions, accents, or even existence of either the Opposition or Government frontbenches other than the Leaders. With the partial exception of Costello (and maybe Vaile in rural seats), the swingers are aware only of Howard and Rudd. That will be reinforced during the campaign, which will be totally presidential on both sides. Swan may or may not make a good Treasurer. At the moment he is doing precisely what he has been told to do – stay out of Rudd’s limelight and say as little as possible.
I do recall an election in which a government with a weak leader tried this tactic. In 1972 the Liberals ran ads saying “Gough would love to have our team!”, and featuring photos of Anthony, Fraser, Peacock, Chipp, Lynch and other reasonably young and presentable ministers – who were indeed younger than the Labor frontbench which was full of veterans like Crean, Cameron, Daly and Beazley sr. But the ads had no effect at all. The election was all about McMahon v Whitlam, and McMahon (who had been a very successful minister until he became PM) was seen as too old, too stale and past his best. That was 35 years ago, and elections are even more presidential now than they are then.
(They are also less fun. In 1972 McMahon held a rally in Springvale Town Hall. The crowd was 80% Labor, but it was impossible to hate poor old Billy, so we just sang “Give peace a chance” and pelted him with jelly beans. It wouldn’t happen now.)
Fire Maker
thanks for the article on Menzies. No doubt he would be spinning in his grave at what Howard has reduced the liberal party to. Fraser is strident in his criticism of this odious little man, as is John Valder http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/feature_stories/article_1620.asp
Why don’t more true-blue liberals stand up and denounce the sell-out of this once-great party to the greedy and the rednecks.
“..too old, too stale and past his best”. Well that’s exactly the problem for the Coalition today because that is the public perception of John Howard.
There’s an additional problem that his ministers have also been around far too long.
Remember John Howard went to the same hotel in the same resort every year for many years. He doesn’t like change. He is a true conservative.
Having Downer, Ruddock and co still there in the same jobs after all these years increases the public perception of a need for change.
There is a pendulum and it does swing eventually. Take a look at all the charts of previous governments. Some swing quickly, as with Gough Whitlam others take an extra election or two.
The pendulum is well and truly with Kevin Rudd and is not likely to swing back between now and election day.
Glen at comment 39 stated that the election does not have to be called until January 2008. I presume he meant held. It has to be called by 25 November. The constitution states that parliament will disolve on 15 November, and that writs must be issued within 10 days. The Electoral Act gives a maximum of 58 days after the issue of writs, and polling day must be a Saturday. That makes 19 January the last possible day to hold the election, but because the Parliament will expire, any election in the new year must be announced by 25 November. This means that a January campaign would create an extra long campaign, and governments lose certain rights during campaigns, which is why they tend to use the shortest campaign of 33 days. A January election would be truly desperate.
Totally agree Rob. Why don’t the speak up?
“‘..too old, too stale and past his best.’ Well that’s exactly the problem for the Coalition today because that is the public perception of John Howard.”
No, Richard Jones, the problem for you and other Labor supporters is that you THINK that’s the public perception of John Howard, but it patently is not. The public perceives the PM as strong and experienced, and particularly good in the areas of economic management and national security. Don’t make the mistake of falling for the media’s chosen narrative because you’re just going to be very disappointed come the election.
Let’s not forget that Oaks wrote a book on Whitlam no matter how unbiased he may try to be you know he votes Labor…
That is true Antony you are right it would play into Rudd’s hands to look even more desparate by going in January. If Howard is still lagging perhaps an early december poll if the figures havent closed enough in Oct for a November poll…
Steven u may be right but who on earth does the ALP to lead them if Rudd is out of the picture Wayne Swan lol…still you are right Gillard would be stupid enough to challenge if they lost.
History is against Rudd in 2 ways before you start going for some champers…one Govts dont lose when economic times are good and second Australians dont elect people with less than a few years leadership experience to the post of PM even Hawke was head of the ACTU for decades…Rudd has alot to overcome 16 seats and history. Is it possible sure but certain no way…
Steven do you live in Queensland? I do and the only think people are focusing on is the interest rate rise.
Peter Beatie may be ‘on the nose’ but he is still more popular than the opposition leaders (who most people cannot even name).
The only people who care about the amalgamations are councilors and people with multi million dollar houses who don’t want to see their house prices decrease.
Seriously if you think people will vote John Howard in because of this you are deluded. Not only is he clasping at straws his wedge didn’t even work as Kevin Rudd agrees with him.
Over all today was not a good day for Johnnie. For his supporters to be writing him off means he maybe finished.
Sure the election isn’t over till it’s over but at the moment we are in the 4th quarter with 5 minutes on the clock and the opposition is up by 30 points.
Sure they could come back, but it would take a monumental stuff up for it to happen. I am not writing him off, however if he doesn’t focus on what really matters he may alienate even more voters.
Lets put it this way, out of the amalgamation’s and the interest rate rise, which one is likely to cost people money?(hint not the amalgamation’s). A small interest rate rise may seem insignificant to you, however if it adds 50-100 a month onto an already stretched family budget it will not earn any friends for johnnie.
I’ve offered the opinion before, and some have agreed with me, that Fed. Libs. have allowed Howard to become increasingly centrist, and that Sydney-centric, and dominated by, in my view, extremist religious groups of the Exclusive Brethren sort, in the pursuit of hanging onto power, via exploitation of xenophobia and fear. In my view, a totally horrible (in the sense of invoking horror) way of governing, and agree the small l libs. must be in despair. In addition, being originally from Q’land, I have a experienced a frisson of fear about Howard’s try at conflating the council amalgamation issue in Q’land with the actual election. Believe me, lots of them account for a fair proportion of those falling beneath average I.Q. on the bell curve for intelligence distribution. Enough of them could be dumb enough to fall for it and in their confusion, think they’re voting against a council amalgamation and they’re voting against Labor.
My tax cut go whoof!
Thanks for nothing!
History may be against Rudd.
However, you fail to take into account, that despite the economy going full steam ahead, the gross incompetence and corruption of the Howard government is turning voters away in droves.
It seems stunning to any impartial observer, that despite the boom in the economy, the Howard government is well and truly on the nose.
The reason why?
Due to Howard’s inept policies, from Iraq, Workchoices, Broadband.
Due to Howard’s inept front bench, from Andrews, Ex-Santoro, Ex-Vanstone, Ex-Campbell, Hockey, Downer, Ruddock etc.
Due to Howard’s lies from interest rates, Children Overboard, WMD, AWB.
Due to Howard’s support of xenophobia, One Nation and demonising racial groups.
It takes astounding incompetence to have so many varied groups dislike you, despite the booming economy, yet Howard has managed to break the historical mould.
SK, internal Lib polling said Howard was viewed as old and tricky by the electorate; that’s Lib polling, not the media. Ice, I’m of the opinion that we’re currently midway through the 3rd qtr, with Labor 50 pts up. This qtr ends when the election is actually called; the official campaign is the last qtr. The desperation shown by the govt, and the rate rise, should enable Labor to increase its lead.
It’s over. We know who will win the election, what we don’t know is the margin.
The government looks terminal. A landslide looks more likely than a close result. I just think the punters want a change.
Iraq, Workchoices, interest rates, climate change etc. Hardly cheery news to make voters feel good about re-electing the government.
Nielsen on Monday will be fascinating. If the government goes backwards then their election strategy may change. There may be a deliberate strategy to hold relatively safe seats and keep a parliamentary base rather than spend significantly in marginal seats.
Glen, it may indeed be Gillard leading when the factional thugs decide it’s time to skewer Rudd after the election. Certainly the Crean camp – whose puppet she is – has positioned her for just such an eventuality.
Howard has never been so far on the back foot since he lost in 87. He is like a drunk looking for a fight, swinging at everything.
I was interested to see how Costello might perform on the 7:30 report. His effort suggested he doesn’t want to be PM at all. He made no effort to connect with the audience or look “Prime Ministerial”. Instead he went for the slightly frothy look so popular with Liberal MP’s these days.
It can’t be long before one of these guys literally punches something.
If the alp loses it will be by between 1 and 5 seats (not alot). There is no way the alp would risk it and put Gillard in as their leader.
If the alp does win it will be by at 10 seats or less,If it is more than this i will be surprised and ecstastic.
I am being cautiously optimistic. Sure the alp are ahead but Johnnie will say and do anything to remain in power.
I am usually a positive person, however in previous elections i have been positive and it hasn’t got me anywhere.
I won’t breathe easy until the alp have won their 16th seat from the govt and the counting in w.a hasn’t even started.
Once this happens that is when i will say with all confidence the alp has a good chance of winning
How many times does it need to be said! She is from the left, Labor leaders need the support of most of the right to be elected.
I don’t know if I am watching The 7:30 Report, or an episode of Hypotheticals hosted by Peter Costello. He seems to think that Mark Latham is still leader of the opposition, but I guess he is just hoping that is the case. His argument is now “sure it is bad interest rates have gone up, but what if Latham was prime minister it would’ve been worse!”. This is a very interesting argument, but I don’t think it will help win an election.
Interesting observation, Gaynor. I’d been wondering the same thing myself. Particularly if Possums’ analyses on the relative movements in notionally safe Coalition seat and the marginals are right, and more so if the next Nielsen has the primary vote cemented in, they may want to change. However, I still think they’re locked in and will do the lemming thing.
Steven K., listen closely, I live in the electorate next to Julia’s. She is very highly regarded as a local member; she has proved herself to be an enormously able parliamentary performer, e.g., she can eyeball Howard and take everything flung at her, and still stay ‘en song’. Of all the things you could say about Julia Guillard, the last thing you could say is that she is a puppet. Might I also point out the obvious – though whoever is advising the Libs these days seem to be oblivious to this – badmouthing your opponent/s is not working.
Steven, if you had read my posts carefully, you would have understood that I am not a Labor supporter. I am an independent supporter. I will have to allocate preferences of course and they wouldn’t go to John Howard.
I have never, in dozens of elections, voted either Liberal or Labor, (although I did vote for Peter Rawlinson, later Lord Rawlinson, Conservative Member for Epsom at 21).
A few hours ago, going through and recycling my archive, I came across a letter from Ted Pickering, former Liberal leader of NSW Legislative Council, thanking me for working with him and the Greiner government.
I have been involved in politics both outside and inside the House for 35 years and have a good insight as to how it works.
One thing, Gillard will and can never be the leader of the Labor Party unless she changes factions.
As Lord D says, Liberal’s own internal polling shows public perception of John Howard is that he is old, tricky and a loser.
The media didn’t make it up.
I feel, like John Valder and others, that it is very sad how the Liberal Party has been taken so far to the right by John Howard. It makes Malcolm Fraser and Robert Menzies look like socialists.
You may be a die-hard rusted-on supporter but many liberal Liberals have left.
Does it not occur to you to wonder why there is not a single Liberal government in Australia apart from John Howard’s and that is very likely to go down in twelve weeks?
Do you actually care enough about the Liberal Party to work from within to reform it so that it can resemble the Liberal Party of old? Or do you not care if the Liberal Party stays in semi-permanent opposition?
If you apply the 3 factors of the Saw formula 1. Inflation. 2.Interest Rates 3. Employment, you will find that 2 of these have big ticks, with the 3rd, employment arguably due to workchoices have a tick also.
By this formula the Howard government will be voted out and the Rudd government will be voted in.
Simon, Peter Costello and Howard, to the average voter will be looking very dishonest right about now. Their is only so much BS the public will swallow before they decide to turn off. Maybe they already have.
I know Queensland is not Victoria but we went through the council almalgamations about 15 years ago. There was a lot of screaming but politically it had zero effect.
Also, not living in Queensland I don’t know what the locals think of him but I would suggest that he has a reasonable standing across the rest of the country and gets a good hearing in the media.
I really hope this is the end of Howard and Co but as I have said before they have buckets of money to spend and the Australian people are easily bought. Very Easily Bought. I won’t be convinced until I see Howard concede on Polling night.
I just read my comment – I didn’t mention I was talking about the QLD premier.
Monica Lynagh Says:
August 8th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
In addition, being originally from Q’land, I have a experienced a frisson of fear about Howard’s try at conflating the council amalgamation issue in Q’land with the actual election. Believe me, lots of them account for a fair proportion of those falling beneath average I.Q. on the bell curve for intelligence distribution
Monica I am a Mexican (raised in Melbourne) but I have been living here in QLD for a few years now and your perception of ‘lots of them’ having a low IQ is not my experience of QLD people. It is a bit harsh to make stereotyping generalisations. My perception of Queenslanders is pretty much equivalent to my perception of the general Australian community , except when it comes to ‘The Broncos’ or Wally Lewis and State of Origin.
You are clearly offering an opinion, not a statement of fact. My anecdotal opinion based on my experiences is that people are no more likely confuse State and Federal Government’s and State v Federal policy than any other ‘red neck’ part of other States.
Yes, even Queenslanders are alot more politically ’savvy’ than they might have been a generation ago.
Some may vote against Labor at a Federal level because of the amalgamation policy of the State Government, but I wouldn’t think it was because they are too stupid to know what they are doing and why.
In any case, I maintain my view that after today’s ‘walk a wheelbarrow from Redcliffe to Parliament with 22,000 petitions’ it will wash over most in the electorate come election day, people who vote conservative will still vote conservative (the true rednecks) in rural-provincial areas, and at worst it will cost Labor a shot at 1-2 seats they might otherwise have won.
My partner was in Caloundra showing off our new baby a week ago, and her father was rightly pissed at the QLD government re:the council amalgamations. He made it quite plain he plans to vote against the ALP in the next state election.
But this 70 yr old pensioner has made it quite plain that there’s a snowballs chance in hell he’ll vote for John Howard.
Richard Jones says–
A few hours ago, going through and recycling my archive, I came across a letter from Ted Pickering, former Liberal leader of NSW Legislative Council, thanking me for working with him and the Greiner government. I have been involved in politics both outside and inside the House for 35 years and have a good insight as to how it works.
A few years ago, going through my mental archive, I came across a letter from John Howard, former Liberal Party Prime Minister, thanking me for being foolish enough to beleive his promises to make and keep housing affordability to middle income earners and young people entering the housing market accessible and affordable. I have been involved in politics both inside and outside my house for only 30 years, but I have a good insight into how it works – eventually the chickens come home to roost- the Howard battler’s are looking for the axe. Time for a new Rooster in the chook house.
Where did my tax cut go?
Greeensborough Growler Says:
August 8th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Where did my tax cut go?
Look under JWHs table Growler, youll find the crumbs right there.
My assessment of the eventual election result remains unchanged.
There is not one person I know of, or that I have seen online, who voted Liberal/National in 2004 who has stated that they are even considering voting Labor in 2007. I challenge ANYONE here to state they do so.
Howard by 20+ seats
Okay, Ive had enough of scrolling through x and x and x and x endless parade of pro Howard ’spin’ and fantasy. Get that Psephblog up quick please Adam. Im done with this bs. Sorry William, its just TOO MUCH.
What about gus, Nos?
The Liberal Party willingly let it become the “Howard Party”. JWH and spouse will not vacate Kirribilli House before Christmas. That means that the election will be in 2008(it’s legal). It’s not too late for the party to reclaim control but where is the leadership to do that?
My final contribution to this blog will be to say Nostradamus, Steven Kaye, Cerdic, Glen (at times), and all their allias identities have ruined this blogspace for me and others with an intelligence above their bs commentary and ceaseless public declaration of self delusion. It dosent even rate a political debate, its more like the young Liberals mass -debating in public. Adios.
I doubt it, if he hangs on until Jan or Feb then everyone will realise he knows he is going to lose, which will just result in a landslide.
I think the appearance of the rodent on the 7.30 report yesterday, telling us all how good, honest and wholesome he is, combined with his attempts to mislead the public today ( I never promised any thing regarding interest during the last election) is the final nail in his coffin. If there was any doubt in peoples minds that he wasn’t dishonest, it will be surely gone now. Last night talking about how honest he is followed by more lies today. This will have really alienated a lot of people, especially the undecided or wavering/swinging voter.
Bye Johnny.
So Says Tom.
Interested to see in today’s Adelaide Advertiser the normally mildly conservative senior journo Rex Jory calling on Howard to step aside post APEC. My initial suprise in detecting a shift in the ‘Tisers (News Ltd and the only daily here) normal stance was nothing if not matched on further reading Jory’s piece. Jory’s solution for the Libs?. . . Peter Costello, who he believes will eventually win over the electorate or at least go down fighting. Maybe. His suggested deputy? Alexander Downer of course, who “would be more than a match – intellectually, politically and in terms of public acceptance – for Labor’s deputy, Julia Gillard”. Perhaps it’s just a South Australian thing.
Its simply amazing how Howard can stand in parliament today and say you can go thru everything he said during the last election campaign and never once did he say he would keep interest rates low – he may not have said it but his election ads did and he after all the the leader of the party. Therefore he is responsible but that his problem he refuses to accept responsibility and accountability for anything – he is always seeking to blame someone else and finally the Australian public is saying no more. For christ sakes – have a good look at yourself – JWH!
Nostra – keep dreaming, one day you will wake up and smell the roses!
It will benefit many within the Liberal party if they lost this election, it will be the only way they can save the party before it falls into a self-perpetuating extreme right party.
If Howard wins then thats the end of the party for them. This party is truly sick – makes you wonder if many leaks to Rudd were coming from them.
BxTom – I think you’re right. I get the feeling that there is a real momentum building up – Costello’s contributions to the Howard biography, the leaked Textor Poll, Howard doing his Richard Millhouse Nixon impersonation (”I am not a crook”) in the media yesterday, and the bizarre denials of reality today about the Libs promising record low inflation – all of these things are combining to gain a momentum of their own.
Background to it all, though was the 58% of people in the Newspoll (?I think?) who said that, despite agreeing with the NT intervention, dismissed it as cynical electioneering. Yes, this is becoming a media narrative, an orthodoxy, but the media is only catching up with, and then fueling, the perception that this cretin is the most cynical, devious, untrustworthy politician in living memory.
We can’t wait for the chance to repay the betrayals come election day. It’s time.
“If Howard wins then thats the end of the party for them. This party is truly sick – makes you wonder if many leaks to Rudd were coming from them”.
Kina since approx March of this year and they will keep coming in a torrent now
PS Strop dont go pls
STROP, I will looking into the mechanics of bloggification over the next few days. I’m not sure I want to spend as much time playing room monitor as William does – but then I would be much more ruthless in turfing out spammers.
Steven Kaye,
I wonder if you really are as insouciantly confident as you claim to be. I’m impressed in a perverse way if you are, and if you’re not, I admire your chutzpah if nothing else.
It’s quite obvious you don’t have a mortgage. Any interest rate rise makes a big impact on people with large mortgages and anything like average incomes. You know, those Howard battlers we always hear about. I certainly don’t welcome the rise myself though I am fortunate enough to have borrowed my money 10 years or so ago so I have a bit more breathing space. I would not have appreciated rate rises at all if they had come in the first year or two of my mortgage I can tell you.
It is the kind of thing that the average punter with no particular interest in politics bases their vote on. JH said he was going to keep them low last time (whatever his exact wording) and they have only gone up since. It has to hurt him with these voters.
These people know the world won’t end if Labor is elected. None of the states have collapsed while Labor has been running them. Whatever the state govt’s failings, and there are plenty here in NSW, the state is not going broke, the budget is not in deficit, the sky is not falling in.
I’m also curious as to your description of the”failed” Goss govt. I realise it’s probably just a talking point to fire at Rudd, but why was it a failed govt? Because it got voted out? They all do eventually, you know.
If the Liberal Party is so sick then why is Rudd trying to emulate the Liberal Party on just about every issue…he’s now for balanced budgets….he’s now for surplus’s…he’s now for having a military that isn’t geographically centred…he’s now for a tough national security policy ala Haneef…he’s now for keeping interest rates low…he says he doesnt want to increase taxation…he’s now in favour of Howard’s forestry policy…
Sorry STROP but Rudd is a wanabee Liberal and thats a fact he knows just how popular the Howard Government has been and wants to be a carbon copy of it so that he can win…but its all a facade…
Also Hoots whats so bad about Richard Millhouse Nixon???
As Nixon himself said “A man is not finished when he is defeated. He is finished when he quits”. And i hate to break it to you STROP Howard aint quiting he’s a fighter and he wont give up…
But to those lefties Nixon also said “Finishing second in the Olympics gets you silver. Finishing second in politics gets you oblivion”. And nothing could be more true than what will happen to the loser of this election.
With Portlandbet where they currently have the seat division based on betting price at 75/73/2. But Im wondering what was there starting point and did they determine it? If it was too high then their predictions are going to wrong?
http://betelection.com/elections/
The timing of an election has always been up to the PM. However I suspect that even on this issue John Howard is losing control of the agenda, as the Government has on most things this year. Rudd has been carefully planting the notion that the three year term of the Government is up on 9 October. Tonight on Lateline Peter Beattie reinforced it, and contrasting the position with John Howard’s concern that council voters in Queensland get a vote on their boundaries. As he put it the most important issue is who should govern Australia and this should be resolved as soon as possible and not be dragged on beyond 9 October.
My sense is that the political climate has heated up very quickly and that people will tire of not being given the opportunity to vote and put an end to the constant point scoring. This has every prospect of seeing the timing of the election become the issue, significantly limiting John Howard’s flexibility about when he can call it.
The conventional wisdom of following the football Grand Finals may be too late.
Howard was correct when he said he never promised to keep interest rates at record lows.
The promise only appeared in Liberal Party advertising for the election ie ” the Liberal party will keep interest rates at record lows”
Effectively what Howard is pointing out is that you cannot trust Liberal Party advertising.
As you wish STROP, but by my rough count there’s 60 anti-government comments on this thread (and I’m not counting Richard Jones) against 12 pro-government.
The election will be in late October or early-to-mid November. Will it change the result? Probably not? Howard was gone before today’s interest rate rise (even though in economic terms, the rise was necessary. I just don’t think a lot of the people who signed up to mortages in the last five years have considered fixed rates. At least they are being told now to tighten their belts.)
Beattie always does a good job and he didn’t let me down this time on Lateline. Pity they don’t show this on other stations.
Yesterday I posted some details of the Govt intervention in the affairs of a Canberra saw mill in order to pay the entitlements owing to circa 100 employees, most of whom live in Queanbeyan, part of ultra marginal Eden Monaro.
Latest news is that it may have gone to sh*t for them. (seems par for the course lately!). The mill operators had entered into an agreement with the NSW Govt to open a mill at Bombala in the far south of the electorate in exchange for the rights to saw logs. The operators apparently broke that agreement several times. Now workers and other locals in the Bombala area are up in arms that the Feds have attempted to resuscitate the Canberra deal without delivering what they in Bombala had been promised and had been banking on. The Feds deal would have logs from south of Bombala travelling over 200 km north to Canberra for blatantly political reasons, leaving employment and business oportunities behind.
Looks like picking up a hat full of votes in Queanbeyan in exchange for a suitcase full in and around Bombala.
For those of you unaware of the geography of this post, I refer you to Adams fantastic resource.
And the feds are paying to have each long turned into a single bowling pin?
How many people work there, it was $3 million right, how much per worker does that come to?
Come on. Lets not get carried away.
I want the Gov to lose, lets be clear about that.
The rate rise is under their watch so …fair enough. they get the blame. But … really, does anybody honestly think it is a bad thing?. I mean, of course it hurts, but can you honestly say the Gov have done something so terribly wrong that they should be slammed for the rise.. If the ALP was in power and things were the same economically speaking., rates still would have gone up.
Maybe it might be lower at some stage under one mob then the other, but all things being equal it would probably have gone up if Kev was in power anyway…
Given the same set of circumstances, The same rate change would have happened. Lets stop pissing on about things that really wouldn’t be different and focus on the things that WOULD be.
Like… basically, everything but… the rate change
Mike
The NSW govt raised the issue of corrupt behaviour in regards to the mill.
Apparently Howard said they will pump money into the mill if the NSW govt gaurantees the Canberra mill will get the contract for the logs.
The NSW said this was potentially corrupt and could invite an ICAC investigation if they award a contract without going to tender and/or not picking the best tenderer.
Also the issue of the awarding of the contract being influenced by monetary considerations.
Simon
I believe there are approx 100 employees involved.
I have heard figures of $3m, $4m and $5m bandied about. I don’t think anybody really knows.
Link to story re the mill and ICAC.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/NATIONAL/Iemma-may-refer-mill-offer-to-ICAC/2007/08/08/1186530431116.html
It’s political extortion and they are treading on dangerous ground. They are getting very close to offending the very strict probity rules,” Mr Iemma told reporters.
“The tender issues next week and we’ve got a federal member of parliament saying don’t go to tender, give it to this company, a company that hasn’t delivered what they signed with the state.”
Mr Iemma said IFT was given plenty of opportunities to deliver the project.
He did not rule out referring the matter to the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC).
The bunker analogies above are apt. Those whom the Gods would destroy etc …. Howard is erratic, stumbling over his criss-crossed lines on interest rates.
Rudd promise to “mess with Howard’s mind a bit” – I fear he may have broken it.
Im sorry, but the “stunning reversal” theory of 1993 requires a little something called a strategy. Not a series of half-baked uncosted wedges – which, even being generous, qualify as little more that a confusing array of tactics; some of them at cross purposes (eg Tas govt spends too little for hosptial wedge, and too much for interest rate wedge. Huh?)
His performance on 7.30 last night was cringeworthy. eg that weird mumble “he’ll put out a press release” on the Tas Lib Senator decrying the takeover.
Ive been surveying economists responses, and the general view seems to be the resources boom is the key culprit, and if any government at all has contriubted, it aint the states borrowing for infrastructure. The tax cuts are considered more inflationary by most, and the big spending of the Lib campaign worries some others.
All of you leftards have said ohhh there goes my tax cut…booohoo
Well at least under Howard you get tax cuts under Keating he raised taxes people have never had it so good and they’ll be sorry if they kick Howard out how many time will Wayne the wonder boy Swan give Australians tax cuts NEVER!
Any noob who doesnt get fix interest rate loans when they were so very low were ignorant and stupid and if they are struggling to make ends meat without $40 they shouldnt have got a loan they couldnt afford too bad!
Fact is Howard has brought interest rates so low that the many stupid people have thought ohh i can afford 500,000 instead of 350,000 and look what happens well ive got no sympathy for people like that…
Glen, so you’re saying Howard mismanaged the economy by allowing interest rates to fall dangerously low?
They were meant to open a new saw mill and didn’t, why should the government support them when they can’t stick to their agreements?
Why would any state government do anything in the months leading up to the election. They run the risk of Howard jetting in and making political points out of any tought decision they make. In his desperation Howard is just trying to paralyse state government.
This is just hypothetical, you don’t have more insight than anyone else on this because you can’t predict the future.
They’re the same rate now as when he was first elected, what’s your point?
Just how risky for Rudd is this council merger spat?
I think it is very risky. But the only way for Beattie to defuse it is to just postpone all mergers until next year, and at the same time tell Howard he is bailing on the water deal for fear it may upset some Queenslanders who live in councils that may be effected by the deal.
If Howard wants state governments to avoid tough decisions, then that should include all the tought decisions that Howard wants them to make.
Once again today the Daily Telegraph is supporting the bulk of its readers.
They know their readers are truly angry at this rate rise and feel betrayed.
It may not be much to some but it is a lot for those already stretched.
Now there’s serious talk of another rate rise by the end of the year.
Also the Coalition has booked TV commercial spots until the end of November and have cancelled earlier ones.
Might be the last Saturday in November or the first in December.
The December one would be a very bad idea and would probably cause a backlash.
The 75 Coalition 73 ALP 2 independent betting spread will most likely change.
Page is in the 75 bracket as are other Coalition seats which will probably fall.
It gives us a good idea of where people are prepared to put their money.
It isn’t perfect though.
You could run the argument that Coalition supporters have more money to spare for gambling!
The likely end result? 70- 78- 2? 73-75-2?
You can see why John Howard is desperately throwing money about in the critical marginals.
So far though it has backfired.
Oh Arthur, where are you when John needs you?
If it was really hurting Rudd in QLD, I’m sure Beattie would postpone or stop the council mergers.
Nostradamus Says:
August 8th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
There is not one person I know of, or that I have seen online, who voted Liberal/National in 2004 who has stated that they are even considering voting Labor in 2007. I challenge ANYONE here to state they do so.
Nostradamus…. I’ll tell you of three I know. My mother, My father (both in QLD), and my sister in-law (in Victoria). They voted Liberal last election, and they’ll be voting Labor this one. And for the record, that means that out of 10 people, three have switched their vote.
Evan… my father in-law is planning on voting out Beattie at the next state election… but he’s STILL going to vote against the liberals at federal level.
My parent-in-law, solid lib supporters in the (ex) blue-ribbon seat of Ryan have said it’s time. We rarely discuss politics with them as we don’t agree. He offered the opinion that it’s time for Howard to go. We were pretty surprised to say the least.
You’ve got no sympathy for stupid people?
That’s … interesting …
For the record, I have no interest in getting a tax cut.
If you are saying that it makes no difference to interest rates whether we have a Labor Government or a Coalition Government, you may be right, but you are rejecting one of the main arguments the Coalition used in favour of voting for it at the last election, which they are still trying to use in their favour this time.
He was a crook.
Since you ask.
These are obviously the lines that Nick Greiner was thinking on when he decided to call the election a gratuitous year early in 1991. Mistake.
Pi,
I can put my hand up a someone who voted for Howard in 2004 (albeit with a heavy sigh). I consider the reforms to the tax system, superannuation, gun control, industrial relations etc have benefited Australia and will continue to do so. Much as the Keating reforms continue to pay dividends.
But I have watched as Howard has turned Australia into a corresive hegemony where every aspect of the public sector is bent to one end -to stay in power. The army, the AFP, the public service, the public purse, the sepratation of powers, the enviroment, basic human rights have all been reshaped to serve a single person clinging to power.
In my opinion this governemt is now truely dangerous to nature of our democracy and society. It has to go. My voted will change this election and Howard’s destuctive trashing around for a wedge issue only confirms this view.
I do not fear a Labor government. Governments are made to look a lot smarter than they really are by the resources of the civil service. An incoming Labor Govt will be well supported and will have a much clearer will to do the right thing. I recall when Steve Bracks accidently fell into power in Victoria there were dire warnings about how incompetetant the incoming Labour administration would be – the reverse turned out to be true. Indcidently, I changed my vote in that election too.
I see virtually no chance of Gillard becoming leader so long as she is affiliated with the left faction.
My comment above is in response to Nostradamus’ challenge. I misread it as Pi’s call for people to put their cards the table.
Albert F said
That would be a puppet vote eh Albert?
Let’s not forget that it was Kaye and Nostradamus who were predicting the Burke scandal would be the end of Rudd, as would be the Sunrise scandal, Therese Rein, the unions, the Federal Budget and so on (both here and on Ozpolitics).
So far their results stand at 0%
Not really, I can’t say I was overly enthusiastic voter. But I had been following Latham for a while. He wrote a column in the AFR called “the third way” during his exile to the back bench. Being always interested in fresh ideas, I was a regular reader. All this did was convince me that Latham grossly overestimated his own insights and had a tin ear for what would resonate well in the political theatre.
When he was elected leader I thought that it was going to be a train wreck for the ALP.
I am surprised at the intransigence of some of the commenters – more like football supporters than thinking voters.
When even the former liberal PM and other senior party members publicly accuses the Howard gov’t of betraying the basic ideals of the party, and behaving with complete disregard for principles of humanity and decency then we are in big trouble.
Tax cuts and interest rates are important to the average person, but so is watching the bloodshed in Iraq, the riots in Cronulla, the detention of innocent children behind razor wire. and so on and so on.
Howard has underestimated people’s sense of values and reduced us all to money-grabbing morons. And he will pay.
My father, my uncle, my house mate, and many people I know in the town I live in area all changing their vote from Liberal to either Labor or Green.
There’s been much discussion recently regarding the “it’s time” factor in this election. Coalition supporters claim it’s pointless to have change for the sake of change, and I agree, it is pointless. But what do the voters mean when they say it’s time for a change?
Simply put, they have a feeling that changing the party in power,
rejuvenates the political process and by defintion the running of the government. So it’s not change for change’s sake, it’s change for the sake of rejuvenation.
An excellent example of this was highlighted in Lyndsay Tanner’s press club speech yesterday, where he pointed to Labor’s commitment to more open government and more accountability. How much of it will occur remains to be seen, but at the start all new governments want to make a good impression and want to actually do a good job of governing well. That is what the voters sense, and that is why they routinely change governments.
This is his media statement.
http://www.alp.org.au/media/0807/msfinpaa080.php
I do find it funny that Howard is on the back foot over interest rates. In fairness, the rate rise is an indicator of how well the economy is travelling. But, also the lower rates in 2004 were common throughout the western world – and had little to do with the Government. Indeed Australian rates have generally been high compared to Euro, Yen and USD rates.
It’s ironic that Howard is now be caught by one factor that is not really within his control after having ducked and weaved out of so many things that were his fault.
Howard will probably think he was unfairly robbed if he looses this election. Keating still thinks he was robbed. In reality both Govenments did good work but ended up switching their focus to maintaining power rather than using it wisely.
I think the electrate has a good sense of when this change occours.
‘Howard says Sorry!”
wow..he IS desperate.
He uttered the S word
:O
oh..on intererst rates… hehehe
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22215122-2,00.html
If Howard loses the election it will be the Media who is to blame i dont think you could find any positive news stories about Howard on at the moment and i bet you couldnt find any negative ones about Rudd…
Fact is the media love Rudd and they think he can win so they have given him such an easy ride…Burkegate…Sunrisegate…glass jaw…his wife underpaying staff…the media reported on it for a few days then zip…fact is Howard makes a booboo the worlds coming to an end and if Rudd makes a mistake then it was surely an honest one…
No wonder the polls are the way they are when you switch on the 6 o’clock news to hear its been another bad day for the Government now for crying out loud if people watch that day in and day out they’ll think Howard will lose and will feel more like voting for ‘a load of crap’ (Dutton).
If Howard loses we can blame one major factor in his downfall…the media plain and simple…Paul Bongiorno, Laurie Oakes, Barrie Cassidy and the rest of them they have a lot to answer for…if we had a balanced media the polls wouldnt be so bad for Howard…
But on a brighter side thanks to Peter Beattie the Nats should hold Hinkler and win the new seat of Flynn also the swings will be muted against marginal Liberals there goes Rudd’s grand strategy in QLD he’ll have to find his 16 seat elsewhere…
Glen… those who live by the polls, die by the polls, and Howard, with his 24-hour-a-day cheer squad in the Rupert Mudoch controlled media, has had more than enough free spin.
The media, and its constant demonization of minority groups and scare-mongering about a virtually non-existant terrorist threat, has done more to help Howard than anything else.
The problem for Howard is that people have simply switched-off, and have already made up their mind, no matter how much anyone says otherwise. Which is why the primary support for the ALP has remained almost constant since Rudd took over.
You know you’re gonna lose, when you start blaming the media…
Glen, you are playing games, tiger. The last month has been remarkable for the shift in emphasis from pro-govt. The turnaround has been commented upon, almost to the point of being documented, here and elsewhere. You will be taken more seriously if you refrain from saying things that are demonstrably untrue.
I’m eager to see the next poll – Monday?
I would be particularly interested to see another breakdown by states or marginals.
It will be interesting to see how issues like the Mersey Hospital, the change of candidate in Quick’s old seat, the timber mill in Eden-Monaro, and council mergers in Queensland are affecting particular electorates, as well as the impact of broader issues like leaked Textor polling, Howard denying past commitments and interest rates.
Not sure what media you have been looking at. The Australian has a pro-government bias that borders on comical. I get a small dose of entertainment each day with how they manage to put a pro-govt spin on things. The AFR plays things pretty straight but due to its focus on business and econmics is moderately favourable to the govt. The Age/SMH definitely has a bias the other way – particularily the cartoonists.
Overall I think the Govt does well out of the media but each paper has their own demographic they play to.
The other point is that the media has a lot of space to fill every day. Rudd’s quiet wedge avoiding strategy is hard to write about but the govt is providing boundless material. If Howard stopped his ridicules number of ham fisted interventions the focus would probably get back to the fact that Rudd has not done much.
But that’s the Govt’s problem – they need to keep control of the agenda to get back in the game. Its there own self made wedge.
My parent-in-law, solid lib supporters in the (ex) blue-ribbon seat of Ryan have said it’s time. We rarely discuss politics with them as we don’t agree. He offered the opinion that it’s time for Howard to go. We were pretty surprised to say the least.
Rob (132)
Completely out of the blue, my deeply conservative grandmother (who has always viewed the ‘left’ as evil scum), recently said that Howard has stayed too long and she is thinking of voting for Rudd. Could have knocked me over with a feather.
Glen: So its not just the ABC that has a left wing bias now, but every media outlet?
You are sounding as desperate as Howard.
I’ll take any of your supposed left wing commentators and raise you Albrechtsen, Bolt, Laws, Shanahan, Ackerman any day of the week.
Posts 132 & 153, make of this what you will.
I was out to dinner last night at a restaurant in Marsfield, within the Federal electorate of Bennelong. It was a birthday celebration and there were 10 of us sitting at the table, all people (aged between 35 and 50 years) who I know very well. When the conversation turned to interest rates and the local member’s prospects, about 8 at the table said they were “going to stick with Howard” or words to that effect. This surprised me because some of them had been telling me as recently as June that they thought Labor’s leader “looked good’, was a “safe bet” and they would be voting for the Australian Labor Party as they had in 2001.
I remain undecided. On the other hand, my wife and mother (low involvement voters) are thinking of staying with JWH. I think they are worried about the economy. I told them that they should be concerned about the economy (there is a bad economic moon rising), but that Mr. Rudd would be alright because he has promised to maintain a budget surplus at or about 1% of GDP. They are not so sure.
Albrechtsen, Bolt, Laws, Shanahan, Ackerman these are all we have…the left has just about every single other journalist working in Australia…im sorry but its true the left gets an easy ride by the media especially the television media.
The fact is it aint easy looking after the economy and many people will say things are good now why risk it with an inexperienced leader and inexperienced treasurer…when people are in the booths voting they’ll be deciding to risk what they have now on the unknown and frankly what we have now is pretty darn good so why would u risk it?
Did any leftwinger mention the fact that in the latest jobs figures 21,800 people have found work and that more than 80% of those new jobs are full time…jobless rates at 4.3% and interest rates at 6.5% coupled with inflation within the RBA’s 2-3% illustrates just how well the economy is going…sure its going to hurt some people the rise of .25% but the fact is that this will hurt the poor more than the wealthy and it will hurt those who borrowed more than they could afford…sure nobody likes rises but they risen 15 times and gone down 19 times the Government is still ahead by miles over Keating!
Glen:
Guess who said this
Back on point:
Howard shown to be a liar yet again.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/state-spending-not-cause-of-rate-rise/2007/08/06/1186252630125.html
http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/on-borrowed-time/2007/08/06/1186252633071.html
Glen. Are interest rates higher, or lower, than when the liberal government came to office?
Big deal they floated the $A whoopy!
Let’s also not forget the fact that unlike the ALP today who have blocked each and every economic reform including paying off debt and keeping a balanced budget…the Coalition supported the long overdue economic reforms of the Hawke/Keating era.
Also lets not forget the average of Interest Rates of 10% and average Jobless rates of 10%…yeah that’s something to be proud about oh and the 96billion in debts they ran up which cost the taxpayer 8billion a year in interest…
You can’t trust Labor with Money!
They are lower now and throughout the life of the Liberal Government they have been far lower than under Keating Pi.
David,
You dinner party doesn’t quite sound like a representative sample if all 10 had previously voted for JWH
I know quite a few liberal voters who voice the idea of voting labor but I think this only because they are deeply ashamed of their party at present.
In the main part, if anyone was considering voting ALP they would have already decided. If there isn’t enough on the table to make you change now there never will be. So I don’t think Rudd will improve at all from here.
I think the problem for the Govt is most people have already voted in their mind and their trashing around is only entrenching the current 2PP outcome.
David,
This article by Peter Hartcher might help. I think he lays it out pretty well, giving the three views.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/pm-sells-out-economy/2007/08/08/1186530447683.html
Here’s one view.
J-D Just a correction, Greiner did not go a year early in ‘91. He had no option. It was a three year term then. It was four years fixed from then on.
LC members had their terms cut short from three terms of the lower house to two terms.
You may recall he then had to deal with the three independents in the lower house – John Hatton, Clover Moore and Peter Macdonald – who did him in under the ICAC legislation. He was subsequently cleared of any wrongdoing.
Fahey came in, a pale reflection of Greiner I have to say, and he lost in 95.
It’s been Labor ever since.
No government has had control of the upper house since 1987.
Glen, it is truly ridiculous to blame the media if John Howard loses.
Likewise it would be as ridiculous to blame the media if Kevin Rudd loses.
The people make up their minds after having balanced every consideration.
The chances are, probably just, that they will decide to pension off John Howard.
It might have been different if he had handed over a year ago.
The media have decided that Kevin Rudd is a winner and will take a swag of seats off the Coalition.
They too like a fresh face and fresh ideas. They too get crashingly bored with the same old faces and same old lies.
It’s very likely, now that interest rates are at a ten year high, that will finish off any hopes John Howard had of gaining enough support to cling to office.
If he does, it will be by the skin of his teeth, perhaps only one or two seats.
The pendulum has no political bias. It is just a pendulum.
The fact that so many liberal progressives suggest the media does not play a role in conflating the Rudd ‘crap’ is careless and ignorant…Rudd has been built up as the poster child of the media and as far as im concerned to believe that the media would have no role in deciding this election is completely wrong!
From the Hartcher article in SMH
So if Howard manages to buy his way into another term, it won’t matter if the economy is wrecked, he won’t see out the full term and will resign as Australia’s longest serving PM. If he fails to get another term, it won’t matter because Rudd inherit a wrecked economy, and will have to carry the can at the subsequent election.
Would he really stoop that low?
Glen…
So after taking over and fixing the problems that Howard gave to them, including the floating of the dollar, and the independance of the reserve bank, and then subsequently driving down interests rates down over the next 13 years of government, the only thing that the current liberal government has done is increase them from that point?
Is that what you’re saying?
Thank you, Amber Dekstris, for the link to Peter Hartcher’s comment. I will pass it on to my mother. I think I understand the arguments.
By contrast, I do not thank Albert F (post 162) for his comment. My previous post did not infer that the views at the dinner table were “representative”, anymore than I imagine posters 132 and 153 thought their experience of others’ views were representative. Unless you were in some way unsettled by my prior post, I have to wonder why you bothered at all to respond.
I see a lot of parrallels for this current batch too. Labor governments make the hard decisions that lead to long-term prosperity (education, workplace relations, currency floats, reserve bank etc etc), the liberal governments come into power and drive all services into the ground, and then labor governments come back in again to pick up the pieces and make the hard decisions again.
Actually you are mistaken Pi….
Keating and Hawke increased interest rates to a high of 17%…
Howard brought interest rates to a 30 year low in 2001 after 5 years in power and from that point on the economy has been booming along thus forcing interest rates up but still throughout the period of the Howard Government interest rates have been on average so much lower than under Keating…
I never said Howard has increased interest rates they are still lower than when Keating left office Pi get your facts straight!
Pi how is it good to have a Federal Labor Government put the Commonwealth 96billion dollars in debt?
The best bit of Ambers link comes in the last paragraph “And Rudd’s position is to promise that however irresponsible Howard may be ,he will be slightly less irresponsible.”
Tweedle Dee and Tweedle me
Pi How does Whitlam fit your theory
Cisco… what were interest rates under Whitlam?
Pi how is it good to have a Federal Labor Government put the Commonwealth 96billion dollars in debt?
Glen, How is it good to have a federal liberal government that has managed to drive the Australian people a trillion dollars into peronal debt?
Glen, of course you are entitled to your opinion. I just don’t think it’s correct.
“Liberal progressives” I like the ring of that.
How about the “Progressive Liberal Party”? Might do quite well.
It could fill a substantial void.
All this talk of interest rates is a bit of nonsense too.
John Howard should never have said he was capable of controlling interest rates.
He could have influenced them, by, for example, not pumping billions of dollars into an overheated economy.
He could never hope to control them.
Interest rates tend to be global not just local in any case.
Ours are in fact quite high when compared to other countries.
Why? The economy is booming, for some.
We have a shortage of skilled workers and there is a risk of a significant wages breakout.
We are all borrowing and spending too much as though there’s no tomorrow.
The housing rates are very high now taking into account the average loan.
Yes, we all drove up house prices when interest rates were low and the government encouraged first home buyers to get in as well.
This current mortgage is equivalent to at least to the 17% when house prices were half and less.
Every quarter per cent increase is equivalent to a half per cent increase today compared to the Keating years.
That’s why it hurts so much.
A quarter per cent increase on a loan of $100,000 is not very much at all.
The pain will get worse until we curtail our expenditure.
The unfortunate thing is that it is the less well off who are hurt the most.
The rich can shrug off the extra rate increases. It’s a marginal difference.
We can expect further rate increases, one possibly early November.
Expect John Howard to go the Saturday before!
Glen says… I never said Howard has increased interest rates they are still lower than when Keating left office Pi get your facts straight!
You should get your facts straight Glen.
http://www.rba.gov.au/Statistics/Bulletin/F01hist.xls
Dec-1972 4.45 Whitlam elected.
Nov-1975 8.05 Whitlam gone, liberals take over.
Dec-1984 12.34 Liberals lose, Hawke takes over, and howard finally gets turfed as treasurer.
Nov-1996 6.45 When howard took over.
Aug-2007 6.5
So by the time the Labor government left office, interest rates were about half what they were when they took office.
Get your facts straight sonny boy.
Oh… and when was the highest interest rate ever recorded by the RBA?
Apr-1982 21.39
… when guess who was treasurer, and the liberals had been in government for five years.
Pi More to the point what were they before Whitlam and you can have a go at guessing inflation remembering though that like Fraser there was a bit of an oil crises but there wasn’t an eastern seaboard drought.
He never said he could control them, the only thing he said was that interest rates would always be lower under the Coalition than under Labor and he’s right.
If Howard resigns the Coalition might as well surrender now…He’s a better leader than Rudd could ever hope to be…
The progressive liberals are basically Petro and thats it…the Libs arent a centre-left party they are centre right organisation.
Rudd is trying to copy the Libs in every way because he knows how popular the Libs have been…
And in October 1987 the world had the largest stock market crash since the great crash of the 1930’s. Your point?
Pi it wasnt easy trying to fix the mess Whitlam left the Liberal Party and we couldnt fix it in 5 years it was that bad…if Whitlam had more experience than Rudd and he stuffed the country up that much can be really afford Rudd who has less experience?
Glen. I think you should add to your list of Labor catastrophes the fact that butter was severely rationed under the Chifley Labor administration in the late 1940s, but miraculously freely available under enlightened Mr Menzies. How soon people forget!
Glen, He never said he could control them, the only thing he said was that interest rates would always be lower under the Coalition than under Labor and he’s right.
And what I’ve just shown you there Glen, is that it was just as false then, as it is now. Interest rates under liberal governments always go up, and it takes a labor government to come along and fix the problems they create. Interest rates are highest under liberal governments, and I’ve got the figures to prove it.
Pi How does a stockmarket crash add to inflation and interest rates like a global shortage of oil if anything it puts a bit of a dampener on inflation but you would know that right.
Cisco, your logic is about as worthy as your research skills. Crashes in stock markets lead to bad debt. Bad debt leads to tightened credit. Tightened credit is achieved by higher interest rates.
It’s not hard.
Face it Cisco and Glen… I sourced the information that proves your argument completely false. Now scurry on along and whip up some hatred of a minority… it’s the only thing this current batch of ‘liberals’ do well.
No more Pi versus Glen, thanks very much.
The day the average punter genuinely thinks Labor can manage money pigs will fly…never
Libs should have a chance in Franklin with the ALP finally getting rid of that Union thug just shows how bereft of talent that party is…
Pi lets call a truce…anyway we have got bigger fish to fry…the interest rate rise
Pi go back and re-read what I said and perhaps you might wish to respond differently.
Union thug? When the liberals kick Bill Heffernan to the gutter where he belongs, we can talk about the standards of politicians in either party.
But alas… truce it is.
Glen: “He never said he could control them, the only thing he said was that interest rates would always be lower under the Coalition than under Labor and he’s right.”
Voters certainly believed he could and would control them.
It’s not possible to show that interest rates would have been higher in the past eleven years under Labor. It’s a nonsense statement and can never be verified.
Glen: “If Howard resigns the Coalition might as well surrender now…He’s a better leader than Rudd could ever hope to be…”
The Coalition would have a better chance of re-election under a new leader
and you never surrender.
Kevin Rudd may prove to be a much better leader. We simply don’t know yet.
Glen:”The progressive liberals are basically Petro and thats it…the Libs arent a centre-left party they are centre right organisation.”
Yes, that’s unfortunately correct now. The Libs are actually a right organisation, not centre-right, though.
Glen:”Rudd is trying to copy the Libs in every way because he knows how popular the Libs have been…”
John Howard has also been copying Kevin Rudd and his policies because he knows how popular they are – on broadband, global warming etc.
Kevin Rudd has been studiously avoiding being wedged. John Howard has been playing catch up.
Sorry, my point above about the butter was a bit obtuse. I just think the endless dick measuring contests over the size of interest rates across time is unedifying, since the economies of the 70s, 80s and 90s were each very different animals. That said, Pi’s arguments are probably pretty much what Labor should have been saying at the 04 election to counter Howard’s interest rate scare tactic. However, the fact that Howard was allowed to get away with it then has set him up now for a bigger fall as rates wander ever upward. Richard Jones’ cool summation at 4.38 says it all.
This is a terrific blog, William. Truth is distilled, eventually. Far more than in the MSM. It just takes longer to read.
And you fall for this crap of a politician saying he can predict the future? Do you also believe in the tooth fairy?
More leaked Crosby/Textor polling, this time, who are the least popular government members?
And no, the answer isn’t Tony Abbott! It is my local member, the Duchess of Sturt, Christopher Pyne! The only time I’ve met someone who likes him was at the Republic Referendum, I was handing out for the Yes campaign with a Young Liberal. (The Vote NO flyers were being handed out by someone from the Citizens Electoral Council!)
Other than that, I can’t name anyone who actually likes the guy.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22216465-29277,00.html
“But the health minister can at least take comfort in being more popular than Ageing Minister Christopher Pyne, who polled dead last after registering a good impression among just five per cent of Australians. ”
FIVE percent! And who knows, that could be the same as the margin of error, so in actual fact 0% of people like him.
http://www.vanguard.com.au/vnl/mc/ac0506/basicgraph9_andex2.swf
Glen, actually, they are not. Glen, have you, Cerdic Conan and Steven Kaye ever considered teaming up? You’d kill ‘em at the Comedy festivals…
Cheers,
Tom.
From Crikey
6. Tips and rumours
An interesting poll. Galaxy are currently conducting a poll in Bennelong, for publication early next week (I was called last night). The two key questions relate to how much the PM’s age and (dis)honesty will influence votes.
According to The Bulletin, Liberal Party polling says Bennelong is very close, around 51/49 in favour of Howard.
One “senior Liberal strategist” thinks whoever wins Bennelong will win government. I tend to think Howard will only lose in Bennelong if it is a landslide.
I think it’s ridiculous to call Bennelong a bellwether seat. There may well be a huge swing which sweeps Labor into power, but much less of a swing in Bennelong because of the automatic status accorded a PM. He’s out there at Top Ryde kissing babies every other weekend… that’s a prime ministerial schmoosh!
Why would the call it a bellwether seat when it has never been before?
Plus being PM gives you added strength, even a ratty PM.
Has Labor dumped the ‘unpopular’ candidate in Quick’s seat (Franklin) and replaced him with someone else ?
There’s a lot of drivel being written here about historical interest rates. The fact is that fewer and fewer people are now able to afford a home of their own, and the cost and availability of rentals are even more frightening. I certainly found home affordability was greater when Keating had interest rates at 17% (though I didn’t like it at the time), than I do now, because of the massive rise in house prices. The other day I actually heard some teenagers discussing whether they should move to a country area, so that they could find an affordable house to rent, and perhaps one day find one to buy. When I was a teenager, these issues never even entered my head.
For younger voters, what things were like under Keating (or Howard as Treasurer) are totally irrelevant. They’ll vote on how they find things now. A suggestion that interest rates under the coalition will always be lower than those under Labor will be meaningless to them.
It’s an unfortunate aspect of economics that a well-run economy, with high employment and productivity, may need slowing down with interest rates, to prevent a sudden crash. The demises of Keating and Kennett show that voters will still kick out a government that is presiding over an improving economy, because the economy isn’t the only issue that matters to them. Arrogance is also an issue!
If voters are worried that the economy is about to turn down, they may take refuge in the Howard Government, believing it’smore capable than Labor of dealing with hard times. But on the other hand, there’s every chance they will say Labor as better at managing education, health and welfare services when things get rough.
Pi (178 & 179)
Nice work.
Simon Howson #197, advises of another leaked Crosby/Textor poll finding. I wonder if Howard isn’t leaking unfavourable polls for all potential replacements in order to stave off the looming shoulder tap.
I also wonder if references to long gone PM (Keating) don’t just make Howard seem old to younger voters. I remember that my grandfather was fixated on the past in his dotage!
Did i read correctly- the media is biased towards Labor… Unbelievable.. Yep certainly was biased towards Labor in the 2004 election, look how they stalked, howded, ridiculed Mark Latham and for what i ask… what crime did he commit… But the media is biased…
Howard told lie in 2004 and deserves to be hounded and besides this view that we have low interest rates please… in the western world CURRENTLY AUSTRALIA has the highest interest rates so much for this view that we have low rates….
Yes Marky Marky you read it correctly. Blame the media, blame anyone but the obvious. The Coalition made a colossal mistake not asking John Howard to step down for a generational change a good year ago.
It wasn’t just him who should have gone but the ministers from the last century- Ruddock, Downer and co.
The Howard government looks so 20th century!
OMG
I am about to go to bed and thought I’d just check. Is he still there??
It’s like sitting by a dying patient saying “it’s ok to let go now…”
Someone should put the poor old bugger out of his misery and either call an election or have a coup.
How critical is Bennelong?
This is where the betting odds are quite interesting. The ALP is favoured to win but – seat by seat odds indicate a 50/50 contest. Both markets can’t be right. Which one is the most informed?
It suggests than you can back the coalition to win (at around $2.5) and back the ALP to win the key sets such as Bennelong (at around $3) and either way you come out in front.
Might be the only way to get some entertainment out of the election.
In a economy threatening a downturn people will also be worried about thier jobs and protection from Business. WorkChoices has the reputation of ripping people off, having unions around to fight for workers may also seem more attractive.
You even see the Govt losing newspaper polls in the Herald Sun now – now that is amazing.
The Giant Lego Man is a sign.
Read about it at;
http://www.thebricktestament.com/
“No Real Than You Are”
Textor Smiles
Disasterboy
It seems Gerard Henderson has joined the chorus blaming the media.
He attacked the Daily Telegraph this morning and quoted yesterday’s headlines and the one where Sydney was walking away from John Howard.
Gerard is of course a rusted-on Liberal hardliner but he must know why the Telegraph is running that way.
David Penberthy is a conservative but he’s not a fool.
He’s not going to drive his circulation down by blindly supporting a failing leader.
His readers have made it clear that they prefer Kevin Rudd and he knows they will buy papers with those headlines and stories.
The Australian’s readers will most probably be in favour of the Coalition and they no doubt will reflect that.
It’s just business.
In the meantime, Wall Street and the European bourses have crashed overnight in another wild swing.
The sub prime mortgage debacle is having profound effects.
I believe the CDO problem is not the cause but a symptom of a badly managed financial system, rather like cancer is a symptom of a failing immune system.
The world is awash with trillions of US dollars which are really not worth their face value.
This is the real problem.
When the oil exporting countries wake up to the fact that they are not getting value for money selling in US dollars, they will be obliged to switch to Euros or other currencies.
Then watch the dollar.
We are in for a very rough ride.
Kevin Rudd may wish he had not won in a year’s time! It could be as turbulent as the Whitlam years with interest rates going through the roof internationally.
It might be better for Labor to let Howard win by one or two seats and watch them struggle with the changing economic conditions, then win with a huge majority in three years!
Check your sources again.
The change from a three-year term to a four-year term was made by Labor government in the 1980s (and the change for the Legislative Council was made at the same time). The first four-year term Parliament ran from the 1984 election to the 1988 election. Greiner came in with a four-year term in 1988 and could have run to 1992 if he had wanted to. Why he didn’t, I can’t imagine.
The change to a [I]fixed[/I] four-year term was forced on Greiner after the 1991 election as part of the price for the support he needed from the Independents.
As I have pointed out previously, a majority of Australian voters voted Labor in 1969, 1972, 1974, 1983, 1984, 1987, 1993, and 1998.
Maybe you think those majorities included none of the ‘average punters’, all of whom were still voting for the Coalition. I don’t know what you mean by ‘average’, but that seems unlikely.
Or maybe you think that people voted Labor at those elections despite thinking that Labor can’t manage money. That also seems unlikely.
Or maybe you think that it will never _again_ happen that a majority of Australian voters will vote Labor. That too seems unlikely, but time will tell.
I’m sorry J-D you are incorrect. I was in the Legislative Council from 1988 to 2003 and voted on the legislation to cut my own term from three terms of the lower house to two terms. The fixed four year term and a reduction in numbers of the LC was passed at the same time.
The Greiner government wanted to fix the numbers in the Legislative Assembly too but my vote prevented this. Sir Adrian Solomons, National Party, was pleased that I did that as it allowed for possible better representation for smaller country electorates in the future.
The _fixed_ four-year term was passed when you were in the Legislative Council, but the _maximum_ term had been _already_ been extended to four years before that (and before you were in Parliament). The Parliament elected in 1984 ran for four years: there was no election between March 1984 and March 1988. Greiner _could_ have waited until March 1992 to hold the election: he _chose_ to go early in May 1991.
As I said, check your sources. The election dates can be found online at the NSW Parliament website and on Wikipedia.
I accept, however, that you are right about the timing of the change to the Legislative Council. I was misled there.
Did the Greiner government want to fix Legislative Assembly numbers at 99? If so, your prevention of this, perhaps ironically, enabled the Carr government’s reduction to 93, with the consequence of larger country electorates. Still, this could hardly have been foreseen at the time. Every other change to the size of State Parliaments since Federation (I think) had been an increase: reductions are a more recent development.
I’m not sure. I’d have to go back and check the speeches in Hansard. It was nearly twenty years ago. I had thought that we had four year terms for the first time then, so I was wrong. I should have been aware of that!The terms usually only lasted about two or three years and that is why the Upper House terms had been fixed at three terms of the Lower House. When they fixed the terms to four years they deemed it far too long for Upper House members to sit there for twelve years and they were right of course.
Incidentally, the average terms of members of the Lower House when I last checked was seven years. That may have changed with the fixed term.
My thoughts about not fixing the number of Lower House members was that in the future flexibility would be needed, especially with increasing populations.
It might suit a Coalition government to increase the size of the Lower House to gain more country representatives. I guess we will see in future.
I think it would be a good idea to have four year fixed terms for the House of Representatives as well, rather than having the PM of the day opportunistically picking the right time. It would or should lead to more stable government in my view.
The advantages of incumbency are too great. I would like to see them reduced and fixed terms are one way of doing it. I’d like to see more frequent changes of govt — 11, 13 and 9 years are just too long in office.
Admittedly Keating only had 5 years; the argument then becomes was his govt sufficiently different to Hawke’s.
I have come round to favouring the Chartist program of annual elections.
Amber Dekstris Says:
August 10th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Admittedly Keating only had 5 years; the argument then becomes was his govt sufficiently different to Hawke’s.
Personally, I voted against Keating. While I recognize the value of what he achieved as treasurer, I also recognize the damage he did against Hewson, so much that now no opposition attempts to get into government on a policy platform. He’s the reason John Howard won in 1996 with no policies.
He was on the nose… and rightfully so. But it shouldn’t detract from his achievements, and more than it should from Menzies or Whitlam.
I should have said…
“no more than it should for Menzies or Whitlam”