Another old thread title reactivated, for the want of a newer and better idea. It’s looking like the war won’t be phoney for long, with a growing sense that the Prime Minister will be forced to break the circuit next week by calling an election for late October. Keeping the faith is Christopher Pearson at The Australian, who still expects a “narrow Coalition victory”. This is based on the fact that Newspoll got it “horribly wrong” in 2004, when its final poll overstated the Labor vote by 1.4 per cent and understated the Coalition vote by 1.7 per cent.
Bass (Tas, Liberal 2.6%) and Lyons (Tas, Labor 3.7%): The Australian reports Shadow Environment Minister Peter Garrett has backtracked on suggestions the proposed West Tamar pulp mill would be subjected to an analysis of greenhouse gas emissions, under a party policy covering new projects producing more than 500,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. According to reporter Matthew Denholm, this “apparently” followed “the intervention of Kevin Rudd’s office and a backlash by timber groups and pro-logging Labor MPs”. On the other side of the fence, the Liberal candidate for Lyons, Ben Quin, does not appear of a mind to back down after his party threatened him with disciplinary action for publicly stating his opposition to the mill.
Moreton (Qld, Liberal 2.8%) and Bonner (Qld, Liberal 0.7%): Labor has promised to commit “up to” $300 million to begin construction of an underpass at the junction of Mains and Kessels roads in Macgregor in Brisbane’s south. The junction is located just inside Moreton and near the boundary of Bonner. The Courier-Mail records the following reaction from embattled Moreton MP Gary Hardgrave, who claims the resumption of businesses in the area will cost thousands of jobs: “I couldn’t believe my luck. I was always going to win the seat but this now ensures the swing is on”.
La Trobe (Vic, Liberal 5.8%): While Labor is wanting for low-hanging fruit in Victoria, Rick Wallace of The Australian reports this outer eastern Melbourne electorate has been upgraded to target seat status, although “well-placed Labor sources say Labor has made greater gains in Queensland”.
Ballarat (Vic, Labor 2.2%): Labor member Catherine King suffered a self-inflicted wound last weekend when Kevin Rudd’s office ordered the withdrawal of a television ad which attacked Liberal candidate Samantha McIntosh for having a $2.2 million property on the market.
Newcastle (NSW, Labor 8.7%): The Daily Telegraph reports “prominent Newcastle businessman and city councillor Aaron Buman” is considering standing as an independent.
403 Comments
Hardgrave is talking rubbish. There’s no way ‘thousands of jobs’ will be lost through resumptions at this intersection.
http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=corner+of+Mains+Rd+and+Kessels+Road+Nathan&sll=-27.561053,153.065772&sspn=0.024653,0.037379&ie=UTF8&ll=-27.560901,153.065976&spn=0.003082,0.004672&t=k&z=18&om=1
OUR HOUSE JOHN, NOT YOURS
Two men (John and Kym) sign a lease on a house for 3 years. They could have known each other at university but that was a while ago now. They chose to live together for 3 years in this house for convenience more than anything else, neither not really knowing what else they could do with themselves.
They do not particularly like each other, have very similar views on most things, but love to argue about the things they don’t, it passes the time of day in a cold winter. Not wanting to have to pay the entire lease cost themselves, they go to the local community centre and grab a couple of ‘room wanted’ notices, call them up (Bob and Andrew) and give them a room in the house at a rate higher than Kym and John so they end up paying less rent and congratulate each other on this tidy arrangement.
Four men living together in a house is not going to work out for long where at least 2 are very opinionated, have a strong view of how the world should work and will not back down. The house fights are often over trivialities, rarely about things that really matter.
Bob becomes tetchy about the other guys not putting recycle rubbish in the proper bin and people using his vegetables out of the garden without asking first. He often threatens to leave, but he does not, preferring to complain and police the disposal of rubbish around the house instead. Andrew, well he is hardly noticed.
After 2 years, the house rules, official and unofficial, have been the subject of discussion many times but have not really changed much.
One of the men (John) goes to the toilet a lot and can actually stand the smell of the bathroom afterwards, at least long enough to take a shower or trim his eye brows before going to work. When he does this, Kym goes off at him, forgetting that his deposits in the same room often stink too, but he can’t tell because they are his and he tolerates that.
The other new tenant (Andrew) is actually a friend of home owner, but he has not told anyone about that. He even pays more than his reasonable share of the rent, just so he can live with these 2 men for awhile and see what they are really like. Are they who they say they are, or all froth and bubble ? He knows he has no real power to have both men kicked out of the house, so he decides to leave things as they are for a while and see what happens.
Eventually, Kym moves out, mostly because he is tired of the fighting and tetchiness of the house, it is never a comfortable place to be for anyone really. Without a vote, the new tenant (Kevin) who was a mate of the one leaving, moves in and makes his presence felt almost immediately.
The bathroom sink suddenly beams bright and shiny when you walk into that small room of the house, the dishes appear in the rarely used dish washer, already clean, the lawns are mowed, the utility bills are paid on time and someone has brought some bathroom deodoriser for the awkward moments when “he†has been in there again.
But the arguments begin to get nasty and the John starts to stumble over his words and doing really bizarre things like tripping over the step out the back of the house, spending hours in the bathroom trimming his eye brows and writing letters of complaint about the new tenant that no one bothers to read any more.
These letter usually start out with something like “In my defence, [defence and security], I have no interest [interest rates] in paying more rent than I should [lower taxes] because I have been living here long enough to take leadership [strong leadership] and if you do what I say we can have a happy household [strong team], so stop going off at me about the bloody recycle bin, turn that bloody music down respect my right to use the bathroom as often and for as long as I need to, you have never had it this goodâ€.
He has become delusional, thinking he has been there longest so he should have veto power over the running of the house; he has forgotten his only renting the house.
After 2 years and nine months, the son of the owner of the house has had enough of the original tenant (John) and is not sure he is happy with this new tenant (Kevin) either, so he calls for a vote to settle the conflict between the 2 dominant members of the house and convinces the original tenant to advise the real estate agent (GG) that this is happening.
To John’s surprise, the vote ends up being 3 one against him and he packs his things and moves out in disgust, yelling something like “What are you talking about, my chitt don’t stink†as he goes out the front door. The recycle freak asks “Who brought that bathroom deodoriser, it certainly wasn’t meâ€.
The friend of the home owner responds with “Wouldn’t you like to know mate†and goes to his bedroom. Through the wall he can hear his new co (Kevin) tenant playing music, his favourite seems to be “Can’t touch thisâ€. Just quietly to himself he mutters, “We will see mate, we will seeâ€. A few weeks later, a new tenant called Malcolm moves in.
I find it very hard to believe that Ballarat is in any danger, given the size of the current margin and taking into account the Latham factor. What was the margin for this seat in 2001?
Bendigo (neighboring) is a similar seat and has gone to Labor since I cast my first federal vote in it in 1987. I don’t think one single TV ad will hurt Catherine King. She’ll coast in easily on Rudd’s coattails.
Talking about Moreton:
Agree with Darryl – there wont be thousands of jobs lost – Hardgrave has gone into ‘LaLa land’ mode.
Also, Labor activists were able to hold 16 information stalls across the electorate last weekend to the Liberals 3. Word is that the Libs are finding it hard to get volunteers in support of the embattled Hardgrave.
Chris Pearson piece in the Australian is the most optimistic assessment of the coalition’s chance. He might be right that the polls over-state the ALP vote, the most recent Newspoll may well be at the upper end it error band.
But this still leaves the ALP with a 2PP around 55% and the only sign of movement is towards the ALP. It may be just a series of polls and the upper end of their range but there is no evidence, at all, of the coalition’s position improving.
It hard to see what the Coalition can do to pull this back. For most of the last six months they have dominanted the news agenda and deprived Rudd of air time – it hasn’t worked.
When they have focused on Rudd – that hasn’t worked either. Even smear and fear has either being neutral or to Rudd’s advantage.
So what is there plan of attack from here? Other than changing leaders (which may also send them backwards) they appear to have no means to close the gap.
The opposition by a Tasmanian *Liberal* party candidate to the pulp mill down there is interesting. I’ve never been a great fan of the theory that Latham lost Bass and Braddon because he was going to stop Tasmanians chopping down trees. A vox-populi amongst my many Tasmanian friends and relatives at the time suggested that Latham lost Bass and Braddon for the same reason he lost seats everywhere else. Because, in the words of a beloved elderly widowed aunt “he was not a gentleman”.
Of course the video of timber workers cheering Howard just before the 2004 election has seared itself into the ALP’s consciousness, so you can understand Garrett keeping as quiet as possible on the issue. But I do think it’s a lot more complicated than supporting the mill will gain Tasmanian seats while opposing it will lose them. It looks like the Liberal candidate for Wilmot, Ben Quinn has come to that conclusion and decided to ask some hard questions about the mill. I suspect he hasn’t got a lot to lose, but nonetheless, good on him. If I still lived down there it might even be enough to make me vote for him.
Of course, “Wilmot” in the previous post should be “Lyons”.
I’ve noticed a typo: “Moreton (Qld, Liberal 2.8%) and Lyons (Qld, Liberal 0.7%)” should read “Moreton (Qld, Liberal 2.8%) and Bonner (Qld, Liberal 0.7%)”
What is Christopher Pearson on that is causing him to write such a desperate piece in the Government Gazette? His analysis is so extreme he makes Shanahan look like a die-hard socialist. Can it be Pearson is taking the same substances that Steven Kaye, Nostrodamus, Glen and Cerdic Conan are on?
It does seem that Howard is being forced to make a choice next week. But he may not – he still has a climate card to play. APEC will get some sort of “Sydney Declaration” and this might be followed up with the much anticipated “Climate Clever” ad campain.
Or perhaps this will be wild card focal point when he does call the election next week – as was “who do you trust on interest rates” was in the last election.
Pearson is relying on voters parking their vote in polls as a a protest against Howard and is also relying on Irelands Ahern getting back in as his basis for saying Howard will get back in. He is also spreading Downers rumour that Rudd is privately saying that it will be a landslide.
On the landslide, the labor party does not want a landslide as much as the liberal party does.
A landslide returns power to the people and puts all pollies on notice that they can be voted out of office when the people choose.
There is no difference between labor winning by one seat or by 50, the result is the same, a labor government, however those talking against a landslide do so in the hope that enough people wll back off to see Howard re-elected.
However a landslide will put all governments on notice at the state and federal level, especially the state governments of QLD, NSW and Tasmania.
It will say to them pick up your act or you too will be voted out no matter how big a swing is required, it will thus give hopes to the libs and nats at state level that if they can present a half decent opposition they can achieve the swing required to be voted back into office.
A half assed small swing to labor will see Howard re-elected or labor government, but a small swing maintains the status quo of the politicians holding the power when it is is really the people.
Having given some thought to the present poll situation, here are my thoughts. The two most recent Morgan and News polls were at the upper limit of what they would normally have produced justs as the previous ones were at the lower limit. Also, Morgan is doing its normal strange weighting that understates Nats and overstates Green/Democrat.
The true numbers are around
Libs 35
Nats 4
ALP 48
Greens 4
Other 9
ALP TPP = 55%
Rudd is being a classic small target except on IR. He is hoping to surf to victory on a wave of disatisfaction with GST…err …um I mean Work Choices. (exemplified by the Garrett support of the mill)
As the election gets underway and other issues arise I believe it will follow a similar pattern to 2001 with Labor losing a few percentage points through the 7 weeks.
Eventually ALP gets 52 or 53% TPP
Albert F (#10) suggests there might soon be a ‘climate clever’ campaign from Howard. Could be, given that after trashing his economic credentials with all the pork-barreling he’s been doing, he hasn’t got much left to campaign on. But it would be a very foolish thing to do.
I quite liked Possum’s analysis of the Crosby-Textor report. The basic premise is that some issues are ‘owned’ by one party or the other. Any public discussion of the issue, positive or negative, becomes a plus for the ‘owner’. There is no question as to who ‘owns’ the climate change issue. If Howard were to campaign on climate change he would be effectively campaigning for the ALP.
Actually, I’d love to see it. “Who do you trust on climate change?” It would be hilarious.
Howard’s Election Theme Song will be White Flag by Dido
Well I will go down with this ship
And I won’t put my hands up and surrender
There will be no white flag above my door
I’m in love (with power) and always will be
I know I left too much mess
And destruction to come back again
And I caused but nothing but trouble
I understand if you can’t talk to me again
And if you live by the rules of ‘It’s over’
Then I’m sure that that makes sense
Well I will go down with this ship
And I won’t put my hands up and surrender
There will be no white flag above my door
I’m in love (with power) and always will be
Well that’s the nub of the problem innit? How in god’s name can a coalition of AoG/Hillsong creationists. Opus Dei activists and assorted religious fanatics as we have in NSW at least present themselves as a credible opposition?
Amused – I’d agree it hard to see Howard making gains on climate change – at best he could neutralise it by making some headway in APEC. If he does choose to campain hard I can’t see it working as Rudd and labor would preform very well in any public debate.
Still Howard’s gotta do something big. I thought last election his “who do you trust” angle worked well – but its poison this time around. I’m wondering what line they can take this time around.
Nice one, Bluebottle. (’The’ Bluebottle, back from the deaded? How’s Aunty Min?)
Albert Ross
Part of the problem of getting a credible opposition, as others have pointed out, is getting and attracting the right sort of candidates.
This is made harder when the party in power holds govt by a large margin and is percieved to be safe for two terms because of the large swing required to unseat it.
It makes it hard for the oppostion to get good candidates as they most likely do not want 1, 2 or 3 terms in opposition before they can gain government and start changes.
There are good candidates on both sides adn probably better candidates who do not run as they they do not want to sit around in opposition being frustrated by not being able to do anything.
However, if there was a good chance the govt would fall at the next election, if there were credible and or quality candidates, then this would start attracting the right sort of people.
Which is why a landslide would be the best result, the labor state governments of QLD and NSW would be vulnerable to a large swing if there was that half decent alternative. And is also why neither party, labor or liberal wants a landslide, it would serve notice that no government could take the electorate for granted because a large swing is required to unseat them. Would also give heart to the oppostion parties and perhaps encourage them to pick up their act.
If you’re thinking about seats such as Moreton, Bass and Lyons, why not view their maps on Google Earth?
AEC Electoral Divisions in Google Earth
Have fun.
Quoting from Christopher Pearson…..
O’Shannessy also made a few observations that flesh out the artefactual character of opinion polls and the reasons why it’s silly for politicians – or anyone else who’s interested in what’s really going on – to become mesmerised by them. He said: “It’s clear that about half of voters finally make up their minds during the official campaign period. There is another group, which is hard to estimate but is probably about 10 per cent, who make up their mind when they have their how-to-vote card in their hand on polling day.”
This is peculiar: How does O’Shannessy know that half of voters make up their minds during the official campaign period? From his polling? Sure, some people make up their minds during the campaign: were this not so, no-one would bother campaigning. But to say- effectively – that “half” the votes are in flux on the day a poll is called defies common sense.
He also says that 10% make up their mind at the point of voting. This sounds more plausible, though how do we know it is 10%? Where is the data? Anyway, allow that one-tenth of the voters make up their minds at the last moment.
The next question is: what will guide these 10%. These are the ones who could basically decide the outcome, so understanding their motivations is very important.
Who are these people? You can be sure the parties know who they are. Why are they undecided? Why them in particular? The rest of the electorate has less trouble forming a preference and expressing it. Are they just less attentive, less motivated or just plain indecisive?
I don’t know who they are, but my intuitive guess says they will, on the whole, tend to split the same way as the rest of the electorate: it just takes them longer to get to the point of decision.
There is no reason to suspect this slower-deciding group will prefer one side to the other, though Pearson seems to be thinking they will prefer his team. What is he saying: that slow decision-makers prefer the blue team? This is spurious. These people will most likely vote with the electorate at large.
Pearson shold realise this campaign was kicked off a long time ago, by Kevin Rudd. People have been watching and listening and talking and making up their minds and switching their preferences ever since. Quite a few are doubtless still undecided, but in my opinion, these voters are as likely to swing to Rudd as to Howard when the moment of truth finally arrives.
Think about this: support for Howard has been migrating to Rudd for months now. This is the phenomenon of the year. Hundreds of thousands – must be millions – of voters have felt they can release themselves from Howard, and attach their political sentiments to Rudd. Are they so confused that and whimsical that they will suddenly all change back again? Somehow I doubt it.
I’m sitting here doing some study, and a Govt Workplace ad came on the Radio.
The ad was a just silly and amerish, I suspect these ads will cost the Govt votes.
This Govt appears to have totally lost message.
You have a guy take a call from some Women (Presuming its his mother) starts crapping on for she hears his kids in the background and thinks they have taken his job.
He says something reassuring about no its the Kids, and says something about being at home and having a flexible workplace
She then says o don’t let the Govt hear about it.
I mean what sort of message is that!! for a Govt with a strong Economy gee they have lost it.
There was a sub-thread on the previous thread wondering if the GG can assent to Bills after the House of Reps is dissolved.
The custom is he doesn’t – and why would he need to? Since he dissolves the house and issues the writs, he just needs to have the papers in the right order when he picks up the quill.
But Bills have been enacted before after the House is dissolved, and the Court seems to accept this. You can read all about this stuff in that manual, or Odger’s Senate Practice by Harry Evans: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/pubs/PRACTICE/chapter7.htm
The custom respects that fact that though the Crown has a separate, multiple and continuing existence, Parliament (including the Crown in Parliament) is a single entity. It is the PM who advises the GG to assent to bills – oddly since the PM is really the head of the executive, and is not meant to act in any significant executive role during the caretaker period, because with the Parlt dissolved his mandate is in question. Our separation of powers is rather muddled… But assenting to a bill can be rationalised as the act of adopting the Parliament’s will, albeit that the PM controls the timing of the request for assent.
The real possibility of constitutional conflict is not with a PM wanting bills assented to after the House is dissolved. It is the ongoing question of the PM’s power to withhold assent, which might arise if Parlt was hung, you had a coalition govt or simply if the Cabinet changed policy after Parlt had passed a bill.
Every time the Govt reminds voters of WorkChoices, even to promote it, they cost themselves votes. They would do better to shut up about it and talk about… um… something else.
As of midday, Portland were still not publishing prices on Bennelong! What’s spooking them?
I’m not familiar with the industry, but I would have thought they could have laid off any large plunge with the other bookies, yet there doesn’t seem to be any substantial change in the others’ odds.
What do they know that we don’t???
Did anybody else have a chuckle at Dennis’ analysis of the various opinion polls today?
There is universal agreement among the credible pollsters – Newspoll, Galaxy and ACNielsen – that Rudd is well in front of Howard as preferred prime minister, and the ALP holds a commanding lead on primary vote and second preferences.
Poor old Morgan, left out again.
The latest polls have been 59-41 Newspoll, 60-40 Morgan f2f and 57-43 Galaxy. This actually indicates the true percentage is around 58-42. Possum’s 4-poll avg has it at 57.75-42.25. There was a report in the Oz today that said that internal polling had Labor’s primary at below 51, but not much below.
As to undecided voters, most will be young people, and I think Rudd has an excellent chance of winning them over. Among young people, the swing to Labor since the last election has been heaviest.
Some of the latest ads heavily suggest that Work Choices will lead to pay rises. Another attempt at a bribe.
Let’s hope young people are on the electoral roll this time. These new electoral laws were designed to disenfranchise a lot of potential Labor voters.
Christopher Pearson: easily ignored, he writes the same pro Howard crap every week.
Interesting point that the millions spent by the Govt on pro Work Choices advertising has potentually only managed to keep the topic at the front of people’s mind.
I saw one “know where you stand” poster at Flinders Street Station. The “Stand” had been crossed out and the word “kneel” put underneath. It got a laugh from a lot of people. Some very expensive adversiting undone with pen stroke.
This is the Govt’s problem all their advertising has increased focus on the issue so when the ALP do roll out their attack adds – they will bite deep.
Re 28,
Speaking of the reporters at the Australian, the paper is still censoring blog comments on Shanahan. I posted one on his article of Thursday or Friday where he was implying that Rudd needs to copy Hillary Clinton in regards to her Iraq policy. Posted it when I saw a link that led to that comments box. The link to the comments box disappeared later in the day and never returned and my comment (and probably others) never showed either. In fact, the only article which it seems that they are accepting comments for in the Saturday list of articles is Matt Price’s story. Amazing if they think somehow that they can prevent the impending train wreck by censoring the readers comments. Do they think that people are so stupid that if they don’t read anything negative towards the government that they won’t think anything negative? Sheeesh, the electorate is smarter than that.
disenfranchised Gippslander:
Betfair still has an open market for Bennelong. ALP offered at $2.26 mind you the bet amounts are tiny so I don’t think you can take much notice.
If someone puts a few thousand down then its worth looking at which way they are going and whether they might have some inside info.
disenfranchised Gippslander,
I think the reason why Portlandbet is not offering odds on Bennelong is that they are waiting for an announcement from JWH about whether he will step down or not.
I don’t think they know if Howard is going to resign – if they did, they would have put the market back up again, but with the Liberals on much worse odds. It’s the uncertainty that’s forcing them to suspend the market…
Graeme-
Re GG assent to bills after Parliament is dissolved.
This is what usually happens on the very rare occasion of approval of a constitutional amendment at a referendum held on the same day as a general election. The amendment is passed by the now-dissolved Parliament but assented to by the GG after the dissolution/election/reference. I understand this is perfectly legal and constitutional. I think it last happened in 1946.
Julie I think I misled you yesterday… AC Nielsen comes out in Tuesday morning SM Herald, not Monday. Sorry about that – had it marked on the calendar, but for very late Monday night when the SMH uploads.
Everything else I wrote yesterday is of course gold:)
Albert: are you in McMillan or Gippsland? I wouldn’t say you were disfranchised in either seat. I think the combination of the Ruddsurge, WorkChoices and more sensible forest policies puts both seats in the “possible Labor gains” category, even though Labor has never won Gippsland. McGauran has never been particularly popular in Gippsland, not surprising when he lives in East Melbourne.
WorkChoices: There is an old saying in advertising: You can only sell a crap product once – meaning that no amount of advertising will make a crap product succeed once buyers realise it is crap.
Pearson:
Can’t he see the difference between 2004 and 2007? Currently, the coalition is struggling to break 41% on the primary vote. The ALP’s primary vote is somewhere between 46 and 49. I can’t believe he can write an article and not identify the single biggest difference in the data!
That’s because he’s a fool, as is widely known. It’s really quite comic seeing these intellectual hangers-on of the Howard regime trying to turn themselves into psephologists, as if they can argue it all away and make everything OK again. Poor Chrstopher faces an ignominious return to boring old Adelaide if the Howard gravy-train is derailed.
“Everything else I wrote yesterday is of course gold” That’s funny Crispy.
Swing Lowe your absolutely right about Portland. d Gippslander they prefer to organise their book that way – given some uncertainty of Howard stepping down. But IMHO it wont happen.
Albert F, given the nature of the Betfair concept, the betting amounts are irrelevant. It’s just like a small volume of stock changing hands on the stock market. The values are not lessened. Thought I’d let you know.
What an interesting week it promises to be!
What happens if AC Nielson continues to show an improved standing for the Coalition??
Then we’ve got Morgan on Friday and then only four sleeps to Newspoll again.
Too much politics is barely enough, head spinning stuff.
He lives in Adelaide. He only has to go interstate for SBS board meetings once a month.
That’s why I am hoping it is a 61/39 rogue just so it sets the back bench against the front bench.
Crispy,
No worries
…. still ought to be out in time for the main show 
Thanks Kiwipundit, typo corrected.
There are some extraordinary comments over there at Andrew Bolt’s blog,
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/howards_last_excuse/#commentsmore
but this one below, takes the cake and the whole cake shop with it!Â
“I think that Alexander Downer – laugh as some may – would be the best hope for the Libs. I just finished talking to some Liberals on my street here in Brisbane and they are still optimistic, as I am, that the Liberals will pull through. Having Swan at the helm of treasury sends a chill down my spine and I can’t fathom the thought of Rudd as PM.”
What can I say, what can anyone say? You would need the whole Psychiatric profession, including Freud’s relatives, to work that one out. It’s not denial, it’s not delusion, it’s deranged. Downer! They’d be better off going into the election with the leadership position vacant!
Crispy and Julie, ACN has in this election year been taken Thur-Sat and published in the Age and SMH on Monday. I don’t see any reason for it to change. It’ll be out this Mon 10 Sept.
I look forward to the restoration of Australia’s good name internationally under competent government. These amended lyrics for a proposed new National Anthem fell off the back of a focus group in 2001, but now the author’s on his way out, they can be published.
US AN THEM
Oh, aliens all let us reject,
for we are young, gun-free.
We’ve golden soil and wealth for toil
though not for refugees.
Our land abounds in nature’s gifts,
which we refuse to share.
Your boat goes down?
Your children drown?
Australia does not care!
In spiteful strains then let us sneer:
Advance Australian Fear.
Lord D, Phillip Coorey in the SMH today is saying Tuesday for ACN… but he may well have got it wrong. Journalists have been known to mangle the facts every now and then, so I’ve been told.*
*blog understatement
Driving around Melbourne today I’ve seen a few Vote Liberal signs. They’re getting ready. Not long to go now.
But checking the archives I see the last ACN was indeed a Monday, August 13th. So I’m officially uncertain.
Sydney’s official APEC outfit has been revealed – tailor-made, knee-length Driza-Bone coats made of the original brown material and spiced up with a contrasting colour for each of the 21 world leaders.
Thank God they didn’t go with the Ken Done look.
The westpoll web site http://www.marketresearch.com.au/
says a survey was done 3-5 sept….it must be due for release soon.
Crispy, ACN was out on a Mon in Feb, March, April, May, June, July and August. I can’t see why that will change.
In recent weeks, I’ve received in my letterbox a few pieces of literature from Mr Ruddock, my local MP, AND there’s an interview with the Labor candidate for Berowra in the local paper, so the election campaign is imminent. Berowra in 2004 actually registered one of the few decent swings to Labor(3%). I suspect Ruddock’s margin could go below 10% this time.
Further “news” from the bettingshops of Bennelong.
centrebets prices @ 2pm today Howard/McKew/A.N.Other
1.63 / 2.10 /21.00
“” last night 1.59 / 2.20 /51.00
These figures have the bookie’s margin increasing from ~10% to 13%,
which is an indication of their uncertainty, and are notable for only a slight increase in McKew’s impliede prob, of about .5%, and a change in A.N.Other’s from about 1.8% to 4.2%. Centrebet payout on the winning candidate, not the party, so this change is towards another Lib, not Howard!!!
As always for smallish markets, it’s the movement, rather than the absolute value that indicates where the money is coming. Another way of putting this is that the betting market isa trailing indicator of punter’s expectations.
As someone said, Sportsbet has McKew @ 2.60, which looks like a good bet.
HH, if these polls are near correct, Berowra could fall to Labor!!! The fact that you’ve received some mail tells me that the parties might actually be taking Berowra more seriously than previously.
Yup, Lord D, true enough. Coorey must’ve had Newspoll in his head and got it wrong. The subs at Fairfax – if they still have them – seem to pick up nothing these days.
#43 Aristotle, in defence of Jess on Andrew Bolt`s blog, she did admit to a recent marriage – may have sent her over the edge.
Lord D: There’s no chance in hell that Berowra will fall to Labor. Too many rusted on Liberal voters and oldies here. However, it wouldn’t shock me if the swing against Ruddock is in the order of 6-8% 2PP.
For your information, Mrs Pseph was polled by AC Nielsen today, It musn’t be too difficult to get people to answer as the only quotas left at approx midday were women 40 – 49 and men 20 – 29.
Crispy,
I think the reason why AC Nielsen is going to come out on Tuesday this month (as opposed to Monday) is the APEC public holiday in Sydney. They probably wanted to expand their polling period (probably through to Sunday, instead of the normal Saturday) so that they can get a better representative sample.
That’s why I’m slightly surprised AC Nielsen is coming out this week – I though they may have done a midweek poll next week or delayed it for a further week (even though that would have put it in sync with Newspoll)
Evidence for Liberals’ profound understanding of the electorate:
“I still may not vote for the Libs because my member is from the far left of the Liberal party, too left for my liking. He’d still probably get my vote through preferences though….
“Matthew of Melbourne (Reply)
Sat 08 Sep 07 (12:03am”
You can guess where it is from.
Adam #35
I’m in Gippsland, and I’ve been saying for weeks that this is a possible gain for the ALP. Key factors
1) no Latham (worth 4%)
2) timber workers not offside (~.5%)
3) rapprochement(as Lord Downer might put it) between ALP & TLC in Latrobe valley (~ 1%)
4) Well known local figure as ALP candidate (~.5%).
Counting the Latham factor as part of the general swing, I would expect special factors to account for a further 2% in Gippsland.
This makes for an interesting election!
BTW, calling myself “disenfranchised”was in the nature of a hopeful slave who sees the Freedom Train coming down the track.
Australia First have an online forum?
Dont worry, he’ll muck his preferences up.
The Herald has pics up of the traditional APEC sartorial train accident. If anyone gives a rats:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/apec/revealed-our-national-dress/2007/09/08/1188783536696.html
Exciting stuff. The presence of Helen Clark slightly impedes the impression of a flashers’ convention. But only slightly.
Re Mcmillan & Gippsland both are marginal as the Labor towns of the Latrobe valley straddle them. Labor can win in a good election climate one or both.
As my team did not make the final, I’ve explored Mr Pearson’s theory that the election will be close because (based on the 2004) experiance Newspoll overstates the ALP vote.
Latham and Rudd became the ALP leader at almost the same point in the election cycle (2nd and 4th of December).
Up to the first poll in September I can find 19 Newspolls for Latham and 17 for Rudd.
Average 2PP
51.6% Latham
56.9% Rudd
% of Polls with ALP 2PP greater than 53%
21% Latham
100% Rudd
% of Polls where coalition equal or in front on 2PP
42% Latham
0 % Rudd
ALP 2PP of the first Poll in September
50% Latham
59% Rudd
It rough terms this suggests a 6% swing to ALP at the election if the campain goes as well as it did in 2004.
Rudd is telling people to shut up about Howard’s future, at least until Monday. The reason is that the actual APEC summit is important. Check out the following link: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22383885-1702,00.html
#66
He’s a clever bastard, that Rudd. This is why he is so hated by the other side.
Will
Rudd sounds more and more statesman like as every day passes
This country is truly in for a golden age if Rudd gets elected
“I find it very hard to believe that Ballarat is in any danger”
It isn’t, I don’t think anyone in Ballarat would expect Catherine King not to play hard. She is a member with a solid personal base.
Will at 66
Talk about the height of cheekiness!
Why is Bush the only one with his left hand raised!?
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/09/08/470_drizaboneapec,0.jpg
Simon, because someone said, “Raise your right hand.”
Chris Curtis Says:
September 8th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Evidence for Liberals’ profound understanding of the electorate:
“I still may not vote for the Libs because my member is from the far left of the Liberal party, too left for my liking. He’d still probably get my vote through preferences though….
The extreme right is worth about 10% of the vote. Unfortunately the Liberals need 50% to win.
Who is this clown going to vote for, family first?
LOL, Will. Gawd, he’s a sly bastard. “You nasty Costello supporters, leave poor Mr. Howard alone, you’ll just distract him”.
Gippslander, what town. I’m originally from Maffra. Just up the road from Nambrock the McGarans home town. Sorry village.
Has anyone heard anything from Costello about the leadership recently? Surely all he needs to do is come out and say “Mr Howard is the best person to lead us to the next election”.
If he has said something similar I stand corrected, but this could be another half hearted challenge from him?
Chris B #75
Metung , on the Lakes.
BTW didn’t Mungo McCallum say something like “when Julian McGauran was elected to the Parliament, he moved from being the village idiot of some hamlet in Gippsland to the village idiot of the Senate”?
hey i dont have paypal only visa so how do i leave a donation for this site?
Nah, ruawake, Costello’s too depressed to think, let alone speak. He is probably unable to shift his attention from seeing his ambition disappear down the whirlpool of the coming election.
Every time the Govt reminds voters of WorkChoices, even to promote it, they cost themselves votes. They would do better to shut up about it and talk about… um… something else.
Adam 23
Nothing left for them to talk about. Everything they have mentioned of late has turned to s**t for them, and gold for their opponents. (Though maybe that was your point.)
I still may not vote for the Libs because my member is from the far left of the Liberal party,
Chris Curtis 60 (quoting Matthew of Melbourne)
The Liberals have a ‘far left’?
The Liberals have a ‘far left’?
Well they don’t have much else left
The McGaurans are not idiots, although Peter is only in Cabinet to make up the Nats quota. They are just rich absentee landlords. Julian lives in St Kilda, Peter in East Melbourne. They inherited their money and I don’t think they have actually lived in Gippsland since they were sent off to whatever Grammar they went to. Christian Zahra (a workingclass boy from the Valley) enjoyed baiting McGauran about his family money and whether he knows one end of a cow from the other.
# 76 ruawake, Mark Riley asked Peter Costello earlier in the week,
“Is John Howard the best person to lead the Party to the next election?”,
to which Costello answered, “yes”
Then Riley asked, “so you would have been worse?”
Know it well #77 Aunty and Uncle had Barrilda next to the serviced apartments.
Back to politics. I was going to make a joke about the village idiot but held my tongue.
Thanks Aristotle
Did Costello answer? Or did he mean I’m not going anywhere near the leadership, its all John’s fault?
Will, I don’t know! I would have let Howard and Costello have it out right there and then in front of the other 20 leaders. What is Rudd thinking?
The fact is that if the Libs do not have a clear plan for their own leadership in the next term of government, they cannot have a plan in the next term for the country.
Rudd must ram this in next week. I’m sure he has something similar in mind.
Do people seriously think Costello wants the leadership now? He may be standing there with dagger unsheathed, prodding Howard`s back, but he doesn`t want to slip it in. He just wants Howard to know that the plank is his to walk.
ruawake, he just smiled while all the journalists laughed.
Useful analysis, Albert F (#65). I keep hearing all these convoluted arguments about why the polls aren’t right and overstate the ALP vote. Some of them may be true, but the simple question is – are they any more true this time than in previous ??
If not, then the apples to apples comparisons like Albert’s seem pretty valid and, as he suggests, these all point to a significant and possibly thumping Labor victory.
Adam,
Julian McGauran didn’t go to a Grammar school, he went to Xavier College. other Old Xaverians include, in decreasing order of turpitude:
Richard Alston
Phil Lynch
Tim Fischer
Con Heliotis(Tony Mokbel’s QC)
Myself
My view on Rudd’s comments are while it may have needed to be said, he shouldn’t of said it. I think he wanted to have a go at Costello but make himself look like he will wait until Monday to start punching.
Centre-
re: the libs don’t have a plan for leadership for the next term of gov’t (don’t know how to paste quotes, sorry)
they don’t have a plan for next week either.
The far left of the Liberal Party!! would it be
Petro (the do nothing MP for Kooyong)
I mean is there a lazier MP in Parliament?
You think the Liberal party is going to listen to Rudd? Rudd was having fun. Of course they are not going to pay attention to what he said, it is silly to think so. If they paid attention it would only confuse them more and maybe rile them that he poked his nose in Liberal party business.
If anything it makes Rudd look like a fair person, not wanting a man to be attacked while he busy doing something ‘important’. Just Rudd making a few more ‘reasonable person’ points – in contrast to the Liberal smear and negative attacks.
Why the criticism of what Rudd said?
It’s obvious Costello supporters are stoking the fires again, and probably leaking things to the media.
ifonly…
I’ve been thinking about your historical summary of movements in the ALP primary vote as expressed in Morgan polls. It’s good to look at some actual results too ….
Actual voting shows quite a wide range in the ultimate primary vote – from 49.5% when Labor has done very well (1983) to 37.6% when they’ve crashed (2004). There is also a strong correlation between Newspoll’s take on Preferred PM and stated Primary Preference:
WHO DO YOU THINK WOULD MAKE THE BETTER PRIME MINISTER?
August 31 – 2 September 2007
MR JOHN HOWARD 37%
MR KEVIN RUDD 48%
UNCOMMITTED 15%
This is matched by Rudd’s positive overall satisfaction ratings (66% satisfied, 19% dissatisfied and 15% undecided). This compares with Howard’s (46; 44; 10 respectively).
Interestingly, the Coalition’s primary vote in 1983 was 43.6% (34.4% for the Liberals and 9.2% for the Nationals.) This low-water mark is still much better than current polls are showing for the coalition, now ebbing at about 37% of the primary vote, (33% and 4% according to Newspoll.)
If you were a Liberal looking for encouragement, you might think things can only improve from here. But you might also wonder why this would happen. In this very presidential election, Howard has a heavy handicap: a rock-solid 44% of the voters are dissatisfied with him. And while 46% are still satisfied with him, 66% – and climbing – are also satisfied with Rudd.
Howard’s trouble is he has to move his primary vote. To do this, he has to move his satisfaction rating. But every time he appears on the radar, he reinforces the negatives as well as the positives. He just stirs up trouble for himself.
In the end, the main movement that is occurring is the migration of support away from Howard in favour of Rudd. Howard has been trying to break out of this cycle, but try as he might, he is now tagged forever as a “clever” politician: by definition an insincere, desperate and capricious figure, more interested in his own eminence than anything else.
In a certain paradoxical sense, Howard is now campaiging against himself. Kind of brilliant, really.
If he says YES to this, and it turns out Howard resigns, then he has just given the opposition great ammunition to use against him, i.e. that even he doesn’t think he is the best person!
Will @ 90. Why do you think Rudd shouldn’t have said it. BTW, he just said it again on ABC RN. Sounded like Kina said, “being reasonable”, though I loved the sub text of Howard being distracted by the leadership speculation vs. being reasonable about there being plenty of time to focus on the election.
Kina, I wasn’t being sarcastic when I said “What is Rudd thinking?” I’m sure he has something in mind. Howard and Costello having it out during APEC is a dream for Labor.
Hi Willam,
I’ve been looking at your seat gulde, I see you have no ALP candidate for Kooyong, I wish to advise they have a candidate in Ken Harvey.
WOW, I hope that means it is released tomorrow. The last one appeared in the West Australian Sunday paper (Sunday Mail?)
Well Kevvie is right, Howard should be focused on APEC after all there are some important people there.
Hu wants our Gas
Putin wants Yellow Cake
Bush is looking for a OPEC meeting being held at a place called Sidney
By the way as of today there are 500 days left until Bush’s term ends.
Bush also came up with a stupid scheme of having an Asia-Pacific Democratic forum, basically designed to exclude China. I think this is a lame idea that will ultimately weaken APEC.
Bush’s idea sounds suspiciously like an Asian government required to follow USA rules.
bmwofoz, nobody said Kevvie is wrong. derr
Nah, he just wants to make China jealous of the influence the U.S. has.
re.some previous comments on this thread. Dennis Shan`s blog for today is currently showing 20 responses. Very tough to pass muster these days apparently.
Simon, there is no Sunday edition of The West, like there is with the Courier-Mail and The Advertiser (both of which have a Sunday edition called the Sunday Mail). Perth’s Sunday paper is the Sunday Times, from the rival News Limited (The West is “independent” – neither News nor Fairfax). So it will appear no sooner than Monday. Rest assured that I will be on to it very quickly, whenever it appears.
Just watching the News about the protest march in Sydney. The Cops must be real disappointed they didn’t get to use their water cannon. All those expensive toys and the ferals didn’t want to play.
blindoptimist #96
To be honest, I don’t think prefered PM has much impact.
Keating led Howard as prefered PM by 5-6% all the way to his defeat.
In 2001 Howard was 52 to Beazley 34 and yet Labor got a greater percentage of the vote.
I think the preference is already factored into people’s thinking
Yeah, I think you`re probably right with the last comment there ifonly. I think it was `98 though when Howard scraped in with about 49% 2pp. Not sure what the preferred PM polling was saying.
The AEC ads to encourage voter enrollment have been getting a big airing again this evening. Does that mean something?
On Rudd’s comments, tactics please! He needs to keep the attention on the leadership during APEC without looking as though he is doing so, in fact putting Australia’s interest first above petty politics.
So who exactly owns it? West Australian business / old money?
The Ten News Adelaide report was quite damning. It said that the leaders didn’t agree to any firm targets, but instead “agreed to agree”!
Rudd can drive a truck through this.
At the moment PPM stats are very close to primary polling figures, so people seem to be assuming a positive correlation. (No, there may well be a positive correlation, just not the exact symmetry – help me here with a phrase if you can stats gurus). As you point out,(ifonly) I don`t think this holds up historically or statistically.
As has been pointed out before, Dennis Shanahan jumped on the closing PPM polling as a sign that Howard was closing the gap. As has also been mentioned (with no small amount of glee), he dropped the `PPM figures are the most accurate reflection of the electorate`s mood` (my quotes) argument when they turned dramatically in the other direction.
Looks like John Howard will refuse to step down.
I wonder if anyone has the guts to push him?
Glen asked some time back which PM sounded the best and gave a list.
The question is who has the numbers?
Peter Costello would surely still have the numbers with Malcolm Turnbull second.
It’s all looking a bit academic.
John Howard still believes he is the only one who can win.
The conservative commentators are in disarray.
If no one challenges John Howard over the next three days then the race is on and he will have undoubtedly have been weakened by all the leadership talk.
Anyway, we’ll see what Nielsen produces on Tuesday morning.
That might well set leadership speculation into a new frenzy.
Prime Minsters, usually, are the preferred Prime Ministers leading into an election.
Not this time
The West is owned by a company called WA Newspapers Ltd – listed on the ASX currently.
Channel 7 (I think), however, owns a significant portion of WAN shares – something in the order of 25% (once again, this may be incorrect, but it isn’t a majority stake)
Paul @ 103,
“By the way as of today there are 500 days left until Bush’s term ends.”
Thank God Howard doesn’t have that many left
BlindOp, Boll, I’ve never thought PPM mattered much, but reading Crosby Textor’s report on Crikey, they seem to see a strong correlation with TPP.
i just read a previous blog re Shanahan’s blogs, ive put up a reply in everyone of them and never been printed yet, though left wing i always thought my blogs were fairly reasonable.
Rudd is being a little mischievious stirring the pot, he’s blaming the Costello supporters for the leadership rumours currently doing the rounds, hmmm i wish they’d put up a high profile candidate against Downer, the man’s an embarrassment to South Australia, when the Democrats put up the lead singer from Red Gum it went to preferences to save Downers hide, wonder who i’d have to grovel to to get someome like that to stand against him now the tide is turning, he’s not my member but just seeing his self satisfied smirk on telly makes me want to head for the loo.
I just looked at portland bet, thought id look up bennelong see what the odds were..
its not there any more?
Could someone else check that it’s not just my computer? https://www.portlandbet.com/
Every other seat seems to be there, have portland bet heard a leadership challenge rumour or something? (unlikely but never know)
Rudd is messing with Costello’s mind
Howard’s APEC surge is a fizzer. Nothing on global warming, all p==s and wind. I’d give it, at a pinch, two nanoseconds in the public mind. It will not change votes.
Those of you obsessed with whether comments get a run on Shanahan’s blog, get over it. I do a bit of MSM blog moderation meself, and know about this stuff. the Australian isn’t published again till Monday. There’s probably nobody rostered on over the weekend to moderate the blog. I would imagine someone will run through the weekend posts tomorrow and decide which to put up.
Usually, if lots of blogs are basically saying the same thing, they’ll only run some of them, to avoid boring the readers. I think some of you have too many conspiracy theories on this. Remember that online media, particularly for daily newspapers, is still fairly new, and I doubt that they’ve increased staff very much (if at all) to cater for the outbreak of blogging.
Antonio, that explains this weekend but what about when a blog is put up for every column he writes and yet not one is published, i have no probs with all the other blogs at all, Matt’s blog is by far the busiest and yet he finds the time to answer a good few of his bloggers, George is fairly good too, he soon puts you in your place if he thinks your going overboard and he wont tolerate anyone dissing the pollie’s family members.
Off topic, but this ain’t good for the WA Libs.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/08/2027526.htm
I’m thinking about campaign themes. Old songs seem to be very popular.
I say that Labor goes with the old “Guess Who” classic No Time.
Key lyrics are: No time left for you Libs,
On my way to better things.
The Libs have to go with the Beatles Classic “Yellow Submarine” as a tribute to their polling.
ifonly…
In general I would agree with you, but this election has a very “presidential” character to it: I think the winner will be the Preferred PM and, allowing for small seat-by-seat/ state-by-state variations, the 2PP will follow the trend in Preferred PM.
I don’t want any rugby league finals spoilers here. I’m a Vic who likes rugby, but will have to tape the games replayed on Fox Sports at 1am tonight, then watch them tomorrow.
Curtis Hodson-Thomas hey? That’s the son of my local state member (well, until the next election anyway). It’s a nothing story – though it won’t help Keenan’s local law and order stance in Stirling.
swampy Says:Antonio, that explains this weekend but what about when a blog is put up for every column he writes and yet not one is published,
Mine get printed all the time, and when we’re talking about Shanahan, it’s never anything but pointed about the fact that he has completely lost credibility as a journalist. But you’ve got to say it in a way that’s unique, otherwise you’re just saying the same crap as everyone else. Who wants to read that?
Personally, I think the blog managers do a good job of putting up critical comments. You have to realise however, that Dennis himself might decide what gets shown as a response to his blog.
Re (129),
“The Libs have to go with the Beatles Classic “Yellow Submarine†as a tribute to their polling.”
I rather like Yesterday if you are going to use a Beatles song. ;-D
“Yesterday,
All my troubles seemed so far away,
Now it looks as though they’re here to stay,
Oh, I believe in yesterday.
Suddenly,
I’m not half the man I used to be,
There’s a shadow hanging over me,
Oh, yesterday came suddenly. “
It would seem obvious to me re Rudd’s comments, read between the lines and he is stoking the public doubt in Liberal instability, feeding the narrative of a decaying regime while seeming to be statesman like and above the fray.Tactically very clever is Kevie.
Julie
Oh, yes! That IS the song.
Yeah, the Beatles have a cache of classics that would be relevant for the Libs.
What about “Help”
Instead of the Beatles how about the citizen king song “better days”
“One foot in the hole, one foot gettin’ deeper,
with a broken mirror and a blown out speaker
And I ain’t got much else to lose.
I’m faded flat busted been jaded I been dusted.
I know that I’ve seen better days.
One foot in the hole, one foot gettin’ deeper,
Crank it to eleven and blow another speaker and
I ain’t got I ain’t got much to lose ’cause
I’ve seen better days I’ve been star of many plays
I’ve seen better days and the bottom drops out.
I’ve seen better days i’ve been star of many plays
I’ve seen better days and the bottom drops out.
Speaking of Yesterday – Here is “Howard” singing it via Nicholson
http://www.nicholsoncartoons.com.au/flash/flash.php?id=287
This APEC climate change declaration doesn’t seem worth the paper it’s written on. We’ll need Bush and Howard both gone before any real progress on climate change can be made. For Bush, that’s only another 16 1/2 months to go.
Amused (post 6) – the theory that Latham lost Braddon and Bass over forestry policy is extremely well supported by booth-by-booth figures which generally show much larger swings to the Government in the timber towns than in the rest of the state. Indeed in some urban parts of Tasmania, there were swings to Latham. In Lyons the picture is a little hazy due to the small size of the booths and also Dick Adams rejecting the Latham policy, but the evidence that the issue did matter is overwhelming.
Furthermore the oft-repeated mantra that polls were showing Labor on the nose in those two electorates before those policies were announced and hence it can’t have been Latham’s forestry leanings that did it, is incorrect. While Latham’s forest policy itself had not been announced the symbolic vision of Latham side by side with Bob Brown gave people a very good idea of what they could expect well in advance of it.
I suspect that the impact was not confined to Bass and Braddon but also prevented Labor from making inroads in SE NSW timber seats, but I have not examined hard data on that (and wouldn’t know what all the timber towns in those seats were anyway).
Slain
Yes, but Beatles sentiments – and passion – go deeper. And to the point. Also, it seems very American. Nah.
So if we accept that now 3 polls have shown a swing to Labor in the last few weeks and if Neilsen goes the same way on Monday, that’ll be them all, what is driving it ??
For mine it’s the interest rate rise – takes a month, by definition, ’till everyone’s felt that one in the hip pocket for their first new payment. Strippergate, Off-the-record-gate, APEC and all the other distractions don’t seem to be worth a hill of beans to me – the rate rise really hurt ‘em.
Other theories ??
“Other theories ??”
A whole swag of reasons. Voters are rarely driven by just one factor.
#142
True, and the Beatles would be more era appropriate
Slain @ 138,
That is really very very good
:)
Balanced,
I think you’re right – the interest rates rise is not an immediate hit – it takes a while for full effect to sink in both directly and the damage it does to the govt’s credibility.
I think the same could be applied to the plethora of ham-fisted attempts to create a wedge. Individually they did the govt no harm but they had a cumulative effect which fed right into the ALP narrative on the govt.
In my view the fortnight the Haneef affair went pear shaped, Howard interviened into the Mersey hospital and the RBA raised rates rise were the 10 days that ended any drift back to the govt.
In my opinion, this election will prove to be a watershed in Australian politics….for the following reasons….
First, political parties in the traditional sense have more or less ceased to exist and their role has undergone a deep transformation. This corresponds to changes in society and in the way political affairs are organised.
It is merely stating the obvious to point out that parties no longer have mass membership and are therefore not “connected” to the public as they once were. While the parties still serve as (increasingly diffuse) signifiers of political value-systems and provide the “memory” needed for political legitimacy to pass from one leader to the next, their role as the primary creators and voices of political meaning has petered out.
The main role of political parties these days is to serve as standing electoral colleges. Sub-committees of the parties – the parliamentiary parties – still hold some valuable but residual legislative functions. As electoral colleges, the job of parties is to recruit and promote possible leadership players, and to help provide the machinery needed to compete in elections.
In practice, the actual jobs of devising policy, competing for public attention, promoting ideas, generating rhetoric, interacting with the media, testing public opinion and so on are delegated by the parties to small professional organs that, strictly speaking, are external to the parties themselves. These are the plenary bodies of modern politics and they run presidential-style politics. (Really, what else could they run?)
In this context, the privileges, responsibility and meaning of “leadership” have almost completely subsumed the traditional parliamentiary and party functions of the system as we have known it.
Outposts from the past – like the Senate and its Committees still endure. But by and large, politics these days is a matter of “leadership” – of executive control, of image construction, of the use of power, of courtly patronage and of directing legislature and party alike.
This means the electoral system itself – its rhythms, mechanics, language and procedures – have become presidential in everything but name. In this system, political “meaning” has become synonomous with the characteristics of “leaders”.
Kevin Rudd and his team have grasped this and figured out ways to turn it to great advantage. For example, they seem to realise better than anyone that incumbency has its drawbacks as well as its advantages – they have figured out how to get John Howard to campaign against himself – and likewise, they understand how to trade on the appeal of “the new”.
These factors have taken us beyond the limitations of traditional “party politics”. They are the politics of “leadership” taken to their logical conclusion. Like so much in Australian political history, these changes are not so much a herald of the future as a confirmation of the past, and will therefore be irresistable.
Like I say, a watershed.
Yes, Albert F, it is the cumulative effect of legislation and bluster over 11 years. Disparate voters now have a bug in the ear.
Well I must compliment the media of doing an excellent job selling Labor talking-points over the past week or two. The latest ridiculous bout of leadership “tensions” is basically being pushed by Rudd (evidenced by his smart-arse remarks on the news earlier this evening) and a few big-name journalists in the press.
The same goes for the intelligent “election speculation” where the narrative goes something like this: ‘despite massive polling volatility showing that the ALP is headed for the biggest electoral victory since federation, Howard *must* call an election in 4 days time despite the fact he has some 8-9 weeks left in his mandate…’
Message to Howard: Remain steadfast. *Do not* handover to Costello. Keep your nerve. Call an election when *you* feel that the time is right.
The interest rate rise is definetely what caused the sudden spike back to labour in the polls. Each .25% rise costs me $100.00 a month. I was talking to a friend of mine who is a die-hard liberal the other day. We both share a heavy scepticism of politicians in general. I told him how this interest rate rise really puts me under pressure. He said it’s only $100.00 mate. I said I’ve had 7 of them in a row. He sat back and thought about that. He reckons the Libs are gone. I disagreed though I told him I hope he’s right.
I still think they can buy their way back in. And I think most people on this blog are counting their chickens before they are hatched. We haven’t heard what the governments plans are for that 17 billion dollar surplus yet. That’s a lot of buying power and it makes a big difference to Mr and Mrs Aussie Voter who don’t care about morality, climate change or Iraq. Big tax cuts for middle income earners anyone? The government has nothing to lose whether it puts pressure on interest rates or not. They just want to get back in. Deal with it afterwards by blaming someone else.
So while I am going to vote against them and will try and convince everyone I know to do the same, there’s a lot of firepower left in this government no matter what the polls say not to mention millions of voters who don’t frequent blogs.
Some suggestions for songs for the Liberal Party:
If they want to have some sort of positive campaign – “Good Times” by the Hoodoo Gurus
If they want to reflect their current mood – “Livin’ on a Prayer” by Bon Jovi OR “I Guess Why They Call It The Blues” by Elton John
If they want to have a go at Rudd about Strippergate again – “Pour Some Sugar On Me” by Def Leppard
For Labor:
If they want to be modest: “It’s a Long Way to the Top” by AC/DC
If they want to be cocky: “Unbelievable” by EMF
And if they want to look desperate: “Holy Grail” by Hunters & Collectors
Lyons is a cartographic nightmare – there is only one town in the whole electorate with more then one booth.
http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/a/australia/2007seats/lyons.shtml
I’m sure interest rates and various other issues helped, but this swing is being driven by WorkChoices, and since Howard can’t and won’t compromise on something so close to his fundamental beliefs, there’s not much he can do about it. Once the realisation sinks into the minds of the backbench that they CANNOT win with Howard, things might get very torrid in Canberra over the next two weeks. This is probably a good reason for Howard to go early rather than wait.
blindoptimist (48),
Fascinating post.
Just Me (144):
Theories on why the sudden poll jump – if Neilsen confirms the recent rise of the other three polls:
1. Interest rate rise
2. “Humanising” of Rudd (the NY incident)
3. The It’s Time factor slowly building
4. Labor’s IR package announcement
5. Continuing public gaffes of the Liberal leadership group
6. Conservative scribes accepting the inevitable
All of these factors flow into each other, like the tributaries of a river. It’s all flowing one way, towards the ALP, and it’s very hard now to see anything that will stem the flow or turn it the other way. The Libs have got to have a counter for each of these, or a similarly weighted factor that cancels it out (such as a terrorist attack), in order to change direction enough to win the election.
In any case, why should a terrorist attack (or similar) suddenly save the government? Who says Rudd won’t win that issue as well, should it happen? He’s won everything else.
Re Slain at 135:
I guess it’s a case of Kevvie letting the condemned man eat a hearty meal in peace before the near-inevitable execution. Very dignified on the surface, but we’ll take a mindf*ck any day of the week.
I wonder what Matt Price and Glenn Milne will have to say about the leadership tensions. Maybe Milne thinks he will become Peter Costello’s press secretary after all, but only for 6 weeks.
Here is Matt Price in the Sunday Crimes
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,22384879-5005374,00.html
He’s rooting for Peter
(Hypothetical conversation between Hu Jintao and Howard.
Howard: How many political opponents do you have in China?
Hu: About 20 million.
Howard: It’s about the same here.)
A-C, re Rudd’s “smart arse” remark, I’d say and agree with Alex, it’s a brilliant mindf*ck. There can be no criticism of it by Cozzie’s supporters without tipping their hand. That Rudd would defend Howard on this point is just so deliciously ironic.
Is it just me, or has business stopped bothering with those misleading “workplace reform 1993->” IR ads? Havent seen one in a week.
Peter Costello was asked for a response, but he said “no comment”. He realised Rudd’s tactic, if he replied then it would just kick the ball along further.
By the way, has Downer decided its his mission to single-handedly destroy the Howard government?
Hot on the heels of the Scores own goal, wtf was that petulant outburst about his French lessons in DFAT? And the stoopid Panda jokes.
What a loser. I reckon he’s responsible for 2-3 2PP point to the ALP over the last month.
I just added up the favorites in each seat on https://www.portlandbet.com/
Came up with
2 independents
72 Coalition
75 Labor
Bennalong not listed
Adam said
I’ve been arguing for some time that despite the popular idea that Howard is the ‘man of steel’, backbenchers are politicians, and therefore pragmatic. In the face of these polls of death, they will be thinking of their own political skins, and looking to any option to save them.
It will indeed be interesting once OPEC … err APEC is finished to see what happens. I reckon it will be like a bunch of penguins waiting to see who will jump in to the sea first. Who will it be??
All of these factors flow into each other, like the tributaries of a river.
Scotty 155.
Good analogy. And it is raining hard (politically speaking).
The only thing worse for Howard than losing the election for Howard is Costello wining it or getting close. That would make him look like the real problem and cofirm that he single-handedly stuffed the liberal party.
That’s the same as last week.
According to Portlandbet, Dana Vale is going to retire. I wonder who else will announce they are going?
Just on Berowra, which was mentioned earlier today, while it won’t fall to Labor the demographics have changed a bit in the last few years around Hornsby, lots more high rise dwellings, and quite a lot of people of Asian origin (perhaps a little like a smaller scale version of some of the changes to Bennelong). Still, if I see a naked happy dancer going through Mt Colah I will know it’s HH!
I don’t think this good for Howard considering Ms Bennett is the public facve of Worstchoices
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22383131-2,00.html
If Costello does get handed the top job next week, here’s what he may do:
1. Hold off with the election until early Dec.
2. Mini-budget with tax handouts (Masterclass no doubt).
3. Cabinet reshuffle.
4. A slight watering down of WorkChoices (read copy Labor).
5. Iraq withdrawal timetable.
6. Adopt Kyoto (or at the very least come up with something real as opposed to “aspirational”).
Also, the Coalition’s media tarts would start singing songs of praise in complete unison.
He would still face some serious problems:
1. His image.
2. Another (likely) interest rate rise.
3. Kevin Rudd.
I agree Lefty E, Dolly’s petulant outburst was so childish–”I learnt French in 2 months nah nah di nah nah”
As one with a smattering of Mandarin, the tones and the sounds with various combinations of S J and Z are daunting, to say the least. That Rudd does it with a Beijing accent (to my ear) is sublime.
Youtube has a few videos up, unfortunately none showing Dolly’s scowl. (Bet the French think Dolly takes his style from Sir Leslie Patterson.)
Idle speculation… If ( still an if and not a when) the ship is to go down then Howard will go down with it, everything in his past indicates this to be so. The Liberals are gutted, they have no stomach for leadership change at this late hour, the hand was dealt last year and they have realistically no option but to play it. Maybe “rabbit in your headlights” is the song most appropriate?
” I’m a rabbit in your headlights
Christian suburbanite
Washed down the toilet
Money to burn”
blindoptimist #148
Great piece of original thinking – thanks for taking the time.
the West Australian libs are in more strife.
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,22384894-2761,00.html
Interesting article in the UK Independent about the upcoming election…
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/australasia/article2900971.ece
The Big Question: Are Australian voters finally about to turn away from John Howard?
Paul C: oh yeah, if by some freak of nature, Labor wins Berowra, I’ll go off in a big way! And yes, that includes getting very drunk and nude LOL
Don’t forget Costello supports the Iraq War and Work Choices. A change to Captain Smirk wouldn’t signal a radical change in Coalition policy.
Downers on tv (ABC? didn’t quite catch witch show/channel) 8am in the morning to discuss leadership tension / election issues. How many gaffes can he make?
Tom.
If Costello tried huge policy turn arounds, Rudd could just attack him for being weak “Why did you let Howard run all over you if you knew his policies were wrong and bad for the country, why didn’t you challenge him earlier if you knew he was trying to wreck the country?”
re Fagin @171
What you say makes sense but for one thing. I would argue that no one will want to walk the plank for John Howard now. It is too late for change that is going to convince the electorate to swing back to the Coalition now.
Any concessions offered {ie watering down WorkChoices} could be very easily read [and rightly I would have thought] as another cynical attempt to bribe the electorate into voting for a desperate incumbent.
I hope the Prime Minister visits the Governor General sometime next week or the week after so it can be done with. Election fatigue is already evident amongst the punters and it hasn’t even been called yet.
That would be Insiders. It’s replayed on NewsRadio at 11 AM.
ifonly, hope you didn`t count that seat by seat! They do updates, check homepage. I thought it was currently 75ALP, 73Coal, 2 Ind. (Bennelong Libs $1.50 or thereabouts last time it was up)
William: thanks for another insightful election guide! Well done, Mr Moderator!
Far be it from me to provide any support to any coalition representatives, but costello is not howard. Costello, at least, has a conscience. As a leader he would have options on which to differentiate from rudd, and stop the annihalation that looks likely.
As a specific example, costello participated in the walk for reconciliation, and could immediately say that he wanted to apologise to the aboriginal people for past actions. It would, in a second, provide a circuit-breaker that would allow whatever support currently remains with the liberal/nationals to stop bleeding to parties like the greens.
It would be a bold move, and frankly, they’re going to need bold moves. Remember… people had exactly the same opinion about costellos arrogance as they did about keatings. Rightly or wrongly, he is percieved as a good economic manager. If they’d switched leaders last year, rudd would be really struggling to beat him. But they didn’t.
Now, if they actually want to have a viable opposition, they need to get rid of howard. Personally I hope they don’t. I want any political party to know that hatred, fear and divisive policies lead to political oblivion in Australia, so we never have people that attempt to do such things again.
I think the last chance the Libs had to switch to Costello was mid July when his steamer on Howards competancy surfaced.
If he’d bit the bullet and successfully challenged he would have had the time and political capital to built something.
The other choice is to jump to Malcom but he comes across at just too well fed to appeal.
In summary the choices the Liberals have now is to switch before August or face defeat. Oh dear … its September.
Quite frankly I won’t be giving even the slightest hint what might be useful for the govt, if anything. Dont want Govt trolls using me as part of their focus group. I want the biggest win possible.
Not sure if anyone has mentioned this one yet.
Rudd should have a bit of amunition to throw at Howard’s “Aspirational” GW Target from APEC.
{Now, to be realistic about this, there is a diversity of views among the APEC economies. There are some that think very warmly, if that is the right word, of the Kyoto Protocol. They see that as an important step towards dealing with the problem of climate-change, and believe if you sign the Kyoto Protocol, the climate will change. Personally, I take a bit of persuasion, but that’s just because I’m a rational kind of a person and I like to look at the facts.
Secondly, I think you have to face up to the fact that, within the APEC group, there are economies, and it’s really a Kyoto point again, that believe in setting CO2 emission targets, by particular dates. Some of them, of course, are just aspirational targets: which is code for “a political stuntâ€. An aspirational target is not a real target at all. But, some are real targets. In some economies, governments believe in specific targets and trying to achieve those targets. }
http://www.foreignminister.gov.au/speeches/2007/070409_apec.html
This was only in April this year. It seems that the right hand doesn’t know what the left one is doing any more in the Libs. Great communicators. LOL
Something that’s seemed a bit odd to me – Downer hasn’t shut the hell up all week. Not that this is particuarly unusual, but I don’t think I’ve heard him get this much attention in a long time.
I don’t think his actions are of a man who thinks (or knows) he will take the leadership next week – for one he wouldn’t win the partyroom vote, for another he is alligning himself too closely to Howard, which would defeat the point of any leadership switch anyway. But maybe he’s acting as the ‘fall guy.’ He’s the only one giving all the press conferences, the only one saying Howard is ‘definately the man for the job,’ the only one publicly supporting Howard and answering questions… so if JH throws in the towel next week, there’s just one chap looking like a twit, rather then the entire Coalition ministry (who you can bet will come out supporting Howard the very moment he declares he will definately be staying on.) And everybody already thinks Downer a twit anyway.
Either that or he’s talking as much as he normally does, and the media is simply paying more attention then usual because he is apprently ‘the man to tap john on the shoulder’ if such a tap was to be required.
I’m also wondering if Rudd’s words today was just him playing his little part to calm everything down – you can rest assured he doesn’t want a leadership change. He owns Howard, and dominates the current political climate. Rudd also knows he just needs him to hang on for a few more days, call the election, and all speculation talk will be off. A fresh face and new voice would mean he gets less TV time, and makes the election a bit more unpredictable. While it could result in him winning another 10 seats, it could result in him not gaining 10 or 20 he would have against Howard.
Of couse the question is, what would the Libs prefer? Keep Howard and get reduced – probably – to around 60 seats or so? Or pick Costello, risk being reduced to the 40’s… but with a very slight chance at keeping that majority?
They’ve brought it on themselves, of course, or maybe Costello has brought it on himself… I don’t know. There’s a lot of people who can be blamed. But I would much rather have an election campaign with Costello’s sparks, and Rudd having to battle the unknown, then simply another six weeks of a slightly hyped version of what we’ve endured for the past 30. An election which is not a foregone conclusion is much better for this country then the one we’re looking forward to at the moment.
I think most Liberal supporters are just waiting for this election to be over with, so we can start a post-howard era. Changing to Costello might just bring a spark back, and with it a good fight. I say all this as a liberal supporter who thinks Rudd might just do a good job running the country. Doesn’t mean I think he should walk into the job.
Arbie Jay
Fascinating post about landslides and though it shouldn’t be far from the public’s mind, it is incredible how quickly they forget that redlining the electoral needle needs a lot less pressure on the accelerator than expected.
An issue with a Dam can sweep a new face into power in the midnight hour to win convincingly. Insensitivity to Koalas in a Brisbane suburb can topple a Premier. A fish and chip owner (with chips on the shoulder to match) and a small populist army as well can break the big boys into cold sweat and influence unjust attitudes to our refugees into the mainstream.
I think you are right, a modest victory may be claimed by the ALP, a landslide by the people.
Well think of it this way, Downer probably thinks the government is going to lose, so APEC was the cherry on top of the cake of being minister for foreign affairs for 11 years. That will be his personal political career milestone.
To me it looked like he was wandering around at APEC as if he was king of the world.
Pi said
“Remember… people had exactly the same opinion about costellos arrogance as they did about keatings”
Well said, there is no such thing as a popular treasurer.
That Costello has held the job for so long and still has some semblance of support in the community is a tribute to him.
The differnece being that Keating had well over a year to turn that perception around – Costello would have and he is not the performer that Keating was.
#168 according to portlandbet `the money suggests (she)…may not recontest the seat`. Quite different from your suggestion that they are saying she will retire.
Pointedly, they haven`t suspended betting, as they have in Bennelong.
Albert Ross
Careful mate, your bigotry is showing. You might want to holster that baby!
Nostradoofus
Bryan Palmer has quite rightly commented on the self-serving nature of Australian voter choice at length.
It is true, our average Aussie is required to exercise a democratic right for a process he doesn’t understand, Politicians he’ll never trust and with Parties whose core ideologies are foreign to him. If this were not true, we would not have so many “feeding troph” voters on Election day (and perhaps fewer pencil-sketched naked ladies on the occasional ballot paper).
Aussies give lip service about morality, the environment and justice for those who can’t speak for themselves, but no one sees you vote, right? Besides, if they are important enough issues, someone else will vote, surely, won’t they?
For this reason on election day, we see migration back to the mainstream. We still will this year but it may not get the coalition over their line.
Generic Oracle… with an understanding like that, how come aboriginal people got the vote, and why was the white-australia policy revoked?
You sell your fellow Australians short. Most conservatives do.
If Danna Vale retires, I’ll put Hughes in the Labor column.
WTF? If she doesn’t recontest the seat, that means she is retiring from politics. You seem to imply there is a difference, but there isn’t one.
#163 If Only
Thanks for doing this. The betting market still remains our best indicator of the likelihood on election day.
I’d be very surprised if the ALP did not bring home a record margin but, in the end, it is seats they need.
It is not enough to simply sell to the converted or win back the true-believers in Labor seats. Sure their seats will be more secure next time, but they need Liberal seats.
Ironically, FFP preferences (especially in Queensland, SA and Tas) leveraged the coalition over the line, particularly in newer electorates (like Bonner). FFP is fed up with the coalition and its lack of compassion for those who don’t have a strong voice and if Labor preferences are negotiated with FFP, this, more than any other factor, could deliver these marginal seats.
FFP contributes 3-6% in these seats to a party preferences when obedience to HTV cards is factored.
I`m suggesting there is a significant difference between speculation (based on money flowing towards Labor) that she may retire pre-election, and a definitive statement that she will.
As I also mentioned, the seat of Bennelong has been suspended from betting, presumably because they believe the sitting member is a real chance of not contesting the election. Betting on Hughes remains open.
It’s speculation that Howard is going to retire as well. The fact portlandbet aren’t taken money on Bennelong doesn’t mean it is anymore likely.
Pi
a) I’m not conservative
b) I mean this as gently as possible but you are naive about the nature of Australian Party Politics.
Ideology often comes through to policy not by voter mandate but by party politics. If Keating tells me he’ll save me a GST in 1993 and one of his other soap-boxes is to finally give our indigenous a fair go… whatever, I don’t want the GST!
If this were not the case, we would not have had the backlash from ONP within 3 years of Mabo. Look now, 11 years of Coalition later, and under the guise of saving our indigenous children, the shoe laces are untied. Where is your Labor government railing the injustice? Silent.
The Australian people didn’t “vote in” this ideology and they won’t restore the balance in 2007. If we change governments, this time it is because “we feel like a change” not because the streets are flooded with angry protest.
You buy the “Salad Bar” in our Australian democracy, Pi. You want the cheese bread, you pay for the cucumber as well, whether or not you eat it.
That is why the minor parties like FFP and the Greens are dedicated to their work. If they can squeeze justice through the senate with the big boys (and to their credit, both actually do sometimes). FFP with low income workers, refugees and small business owners, Greens with workers and refugees as well.
Our average Aussie is caught like a deer in the headlights, when the resounding message affects the dinner table.
Doesn`t mean it IS any more likely, it just means they think it is.
Pi,
The interesting thing about the revoking of WAP, was that despite it being a pillar of Australian Government for 70 years, its disassembly occurred with only a small amount of public debate – both parties came to the conclusion at about the same time that its continuence would cause more harm than good for the country. It’s disassembly didn’t excite the electorate at the time. The enfranchment of Aborigines (as distinct from the referendum question) was achieved by a similar approach. Hence Hanson’s rhetorical question “When were the Australian people asked about this?” (Answer: when you were at the back of the class doing your nails.)
I can’t see Costello making major policy changes if he is given a run (which I am sure he won’t). Afterall, the Coalition and Liberals are riven by faction – he just would not have the gravitas to make major ideological changes and hold the party together.
And Simon #168, there was certainly no suggestion by portlandbet or D. Vale that she has announced she is going.
And what I’m saying, Generic Oracle (in spite of confusing Mabo with the vote [the vote that counts that is]), is that Australians are more altruistic than you realise…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_referendum,_1967_(Aboriginals)
No GST in sight.
If the Greens go well and the Liberals are defeated i’ll be getting EXTREMELY drunk and run down the street singing Bob Dylan’s “oh, The Times they are a changing”!
oakeshott country Says: I can’t see Costello making major policy changes if he is given a run (which I am sure he won’t). Afterall, the Coalition and Liberals are riven by faction – he just would not have the gravitas to make major ideological changes and hold the party together.
That’s why such a symbolic one would be so important. The only thing it would do would be to show gravitas, and point out that there is a major difference between the old and the new.
But meh… like I said… I want howard to lose, and lose in such a way that it is clear that Australia has rejected exactly the things he most stood for.
I didn’t propose that Vale had announced anything.
Glenn Milne:
“Amid growing fears of a crushing election defeat at the hands of Kevin Rudd’s seemingly invincible Labor team, senior Cabinet supporters say “crunch time” has arrived for the Prime Minister.
“The view is crystallising inside the party that he has to go,” one minister told The Sunday Mail.
“There is lots of introspection going on. But if it comes to crunch time and it has to get messy, then it will get messy.”
While Mr Howard’s supporters will not “tap” him over the leadership issue, some now think it might be in his own best interests, and those of the Liberal Party, for him to step down in favour of his deputy, Treasurer Peter Costello.”
Pi, Oakeshott, Generic Oracle.
For what its worth. Good reading… enjoyed it.
Another very interesting article in ‘the economist’ about the upcoming election from May of this year….
http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9149863
“Thanks to reforms inherited from its Labor predecessor, its own prudent fiscal management and a revenue boom from China’s demand for Australia’s minerals, the government is blessed with an enormous fiscal surplus, low inflation, unemployment at a 33-year low and a reputation for competent economic management.”
Funny how even conservative magazines like the economist know when to give credit to the former ALP government.
# 96 blindoptimist said:
‘In a certain paradoxical sense, Howard is now campaiging against himself. Kind of brilliant, really’.
Well put!
Just returned from the opera, Verdi, The Masked Ball. Main character honourable.
Spent time in the slow bits conjuring Howard the Opera. Sydney Opera House and Kirribilli as stage props, idea of certain dark figures, Tim, Richard and Melanie lurking in the shadows, late in the libretto. Some Ring Cycle.
Another polling article in ‘the economist’ for just last week…
http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9768994
“An opinion poll on September 4th sent shudders through government ranks. After distribution of second votes under Australia’s preferential system, it put Labor 18 points ahead of the government and Kevin Rudd, Labor’s leader, 11 points ahead of Mr Howard as preferred prime minister. With these figures, Mr Howard would not just lose office; analysts say he would also lose Bennelong, whose once safe boundaries have shifted since the last election.”
If Howard stepped down the Govt would look a very shallow and empty govt. Howard has been the soul, face and strength of the Govt for 11 years. Rip him off the front cover then what is left will look shrill and shaky.
There will be those that are sticking to the Govt because they personnally support Howard [those that give Howard his approval rating]. With him gone there is no reason for them to remain faithful, they may as well changed as change would be inevitable – the fear of change factor is gone.
Costello’s or anyone else’s policies will hardly be noticed, they will be meak voices in the gale of ‘no reason to hold back from change since changed is now forced’.
Rudd is looking superior and in fact IS superior to Howard in this past 8 months – How much more will he out perform Costello who does have trouble getting his thoughts across out-side of parliament.
It will also be all too easy to play the weak, no ticker line with Costello.
The key to what Howard will do is in his past behaviour I believe. He is a man that has not had an original idea since the day he entered Parliament I believe and behaves accordingly.
My first clear relocation of Howard is the “fist full of Dollars†tax cuts he (as Treasure along with Mr Frazer as PM) offered in the 1983 election. This was of cause the earlier version of “cor and non-cor promisesâ€.
The Frazer Government as part of its platform promised general tax cuts and the advertising of this was a “fit full of dollars†being handed back to average Joe Citizen. However, right after the election the promise of the tax cuts was reneged on. This was the Foundation of the Liberals loosing the next election to Bob Hawke.
Once in opposition Howard continually engaged in undermining whoever was leader. Now I forget how many time the leadership of the Opposition (Liberal) Party changed hands but it was quite a few and even subsequent to the “Lazarus with a triple bypass†comment Howard was still scheming to get the keys of “the Lodgeâ€. This demonstrates that Howard does not care at all for the Liberal party and he just see is as a vehicle for him to achieve his dream.
We all know that Howard prays to Bob Menzies every night and Howard considers him some sort of political god. Now Menzies was a successful leader of the Liberal party (which he help develop) and one way he maintain such tight control over the Party for such a long time was that any likely challenger was “promoted†somewhere else. Examples of this are Casey who I think was given a diplomatic post and Barwick who went to the High Court.
Menzies was not overly concerned what happened to the Liberal party once he retired (just like Howard) because for him (and Howard) it had served its purpose i.e. a base for him to be PM. Menzies left Holt in charge who, despite his “successâ€, was not the political animal that Menzies was. I think Howard does not care who takes over after he leaves either.
Howard has not had the competition that Menzies had and for 11 years has done exactly what he wanted to do without worrying too much about succession planning. He judges Costello (who is Howard’s Holt) to be competent but lacking guts and political acumen, which I think most, would agree with.
However, now we are entering the end game as far as Howard is concerned regardless what the result of the up coming election is. Howard wants to go out on his terms and will risk anything to achieve this. Regardless of what anyone wants to say about Howard he is no coward and he is prepared to gamble everything to get what he wants. He will never die wondering.
I think that the way he see it is that if he looses the gamble (ie the election) he has lost nothing but if he wins he is the hero of the hour and in the Parthenon of Australian political history. He will forever be seen as a great Australia PM who took on the everyone and won. He smote the evil Labor Party, destroyed the devilish Unions and freed business form the socialistic policies the threatened to ensnare them and take away form them what was rightfully theirs – profits.
He sees that he can out shine the great Ming and become an Australian “Churchillâ€.
I think all the above leave me to believe that Howard will hold on and give himself the best chance of achieving his dream. He see loosing the upcoming election as akin to resigning so why not take the chance and give it a go as you never know what might happen. You never know but another “Tampa†or 9/11 might come sailing over the horizon any day.
Now that I have said that he most likely will resign next Friday.
Here’s Milne’s article for the News Ltd Sunday papers:
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22384111-5012477,00.html
“The wild card here could well be outside both Costello and Howard’s control. There are now senior unaligned figures in the Government who believe that the Coalition can now win only if Howard goes.
These are ministers who have never been aligned with Costello, and up to now have defended the Prime Minister, but who have now decided that the Howard era is over. They base this conclusion on their travels around the country where the message has been clear: it is not the Government that is the problem, simply the Prime Minister.
These ministers judge the electorate has already moved on from Howard, and they no longer factor him into either their future or the future of the country. There is a subsequent, and important, judgment which flows from this – that a change in leadership could re-make that vital connection, one which Kevin Rudd appears to have made in the popular imagination.”
#207 Simon, I refer you to your previous post, #168 `I wonder who else will announce they are going.` Yes, you obviously did propose that someone, ie. D.Vale, had already announced this.
Simon, pretty boring 2 way conversation for many here I imagine. The fact remains, you misquoted portlandbet, and represented speculation as a stated fact. You were wrong. Admit it.
N
O
214
Milne is shilling for Costello. But it won’t make any difference who leads them now. It is not just Howard that is the problem, many of the senior ranks have also outstayed their welcome. I have little doubt that most people are sick of the sight and sound of Costello, Downer, Abbott, et al. The whole show is continuing its lurch to the right, and has not been carrying the electorate along with them for some time now. Simply removing Howard from the equation is not going to provide a magic circuit-breaker.
Even if they are going to lose, I think Howard has a better chance of minimising the loss. Like what Beazley did in 2001. I think Beazley would’ve done better than Latham in 2004, even if he didn’t win.
Like wise, I think Howard can keep loses down. If Costello is in charge, then the flood gates will open.
This is what I said in the comments section of that article….
“If you (or ’senior ministers’) think the problem is just with Howard, and not the entire liberal party, you’re about to get an entirely new set of shocks.
Lies, fear, hate, smear… it’s the conservative machine that has created these things, and we’re about to flick the switch.”
Maybe the Liberals are worried that they could lose so badly that they will still be out of striking distance in 6 years?
I think Howard has created a new limit, no P.M. will stay longer than 10 years after Howard. Maybe that’s a good thing.
I think Howard has created a new limit, no P.M. will stay longer than 10 years after Howard. Maybe that’s a good thing.
I think it is fair to say that in functioning long-term democracies, around ten years is the maximum life span of a government, even if they change leaders.
And fair point, Pi, I missed that.
HAHAHAHHAHAHAH! Bush is trying to help Howard. It has been leaked that Rudd didn’t talk about climate change with Bush:
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22386658-5013719,00.html
I have seen the opinion polls suggest that Costello would poll worse than the PM.!
I think all this talk about leadership is extremely damaging to the Coalition.It does not show a united party,one who wants to govern our country,and this is one one thing most Australians demand of their political parties in public,unity.I think they couldn’t give a toss about what goes on behind closed doors.
In the end the electorate may to the government bugger all of you and vote them out anyway.
I would be pretty certain that many on this blog have already made up their minds regardless of what the govt does.
I have only just discovered this website and firstly congratulations on a great blog.
As for this thread on various individual seats, it illustrates to me the reality – in most elections seats are won on local issues or national issues that affect people personally (eg interest rates). That is, people vote for self interest.
In this regard, I think having APEC now has been a terrible strategic mistake for Howard. There was never going to be an APEC bounce. Rudd is probably much stronger on foreign policy and weaker on domestic policy than Howard, so this is playing to his strength. And Bush is a big negative. But even if APEC went well, what does international politics matter to most people? The primary concerns people have are security of their jobs and mortgages. The IR laws affect the first, and interest rates the second.
I don’t buy the “successful economy and complacent electorate” line to explain the opinion polls. I am over 40 but I work with a lot of professionals aged 20 to 30. These people are really concerned about their inability to buy or payoff a house due to high prices and interest rates. I suspect the government would be polling very poorly in this demographic. Based on things I hear them say, I am not surprised about the 59:41 poll result. So in my view, any seat with a concentration of this age group, and a margin under 6 or 7%, is vulnerable. Even at the risk of defeat, IMO Howard should go to the polls soon, before the November inflation figure come out. Another rate rise would surely kill any chance for him.
And no, I’m not a member of either major party. I live in Adelaide and really do espouse small-L liberal views. Hence I am not a Downer fan. You can’t call yourself liberal and lock up refugees (or even terror suspects) without trial. For me the Haneef case was the final straw, and I won’t be voting for the Coalition. Its not just Howard – Ruddock, Abbott and Andrews have all appalled me. James Killen would have turned in his grave.
Sorry should read:
“In the end the electorate may say to the government bugger all of you and vote them out anyway”
Oh those Foxy Morons of Fountain Lakes ….
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22385410-5006009,00.html
Good thing they don’t work for the ABC anymore…
I’m more and more convinced that Howard won’t resign, and there can’t be a challenge, because that would demonstrate disarray.
A SMH article demonstrates the Turnbull option:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/howard-staying-put-till-election/2007/09/08/1188783555929.html
“Sources close to Treasurer Peter Costello reaffirmed that he would be unwilling to take on the job at such a late stage. They pointed out that Mr Costello had, for weeks, declared his continuing support for Mr Howard.
One wild scenario doing the rounds was for Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull to take on the leadership in the event of Mr Costello’s unwillingness.
The motivation would be to limit the possible electoral wipe-out under Mr Howard, lift Mr Turnbull’s stocks in his own marginal seat of Wentworth and increase the Liberal vote generally in NSW.
A Liberal insider said the plan had emerged from Melbourne two months ago as a contingency option.”
On the question of whether Labor lost the two Tasmanian seats because of the forestry policy issue (c.f. Amused @ 6, Kevin Bonham @ 141) …
In my view: Braddon certainly. Bass maybe.
My recollection is that Bass had long been viewed as a vulnerable seat. Whereas Braddon only really came into play after the policy release and the evident negative reaction to it.
Amused asserts that “Latham lost Bass and Braddon for the same reason he lost seats everywhere else”.
Well let’s look at it in pendulum terms. Here’s the electoral pendulum going into the last election.
Going off the pendulum, Labor lost its 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 12th and 23rd most marginal seats at the 2004 election.
Bass was No.8. Braddon was – yep, you guessed it – number 23. Braddon swung by 7.1% compared to a national swing of 1.8%.
Thus Braddon was an anomaly. And the absence of a better explanation, it seems fair to put this anomalous result down to the foresty issue.
Now what about Bass? That’s a hard one. Looking at Bass’s neighbours on the pendulum: most of more marginal Labor seats fell, whilst most of the slightly safer Labor seats held. So it’s in a real in-between range. Bass swung by 4.7% compared to a national swing of 2.1%. That seems anomalous enough – so there probably was a forestry element to the swing. But Bass only needed to swing by 2.1% to fall. And 2.1% is not hugely different from 1.8%.
So I conclude that Bass would have been on a knife-edge had it not been for the forestry issue. Which way it would have fallen is anybody’s guess.
CORRECTION:
Bass swung by 4.7% compared to a national swing of 2.1%
SHOULD READ:
Bass swung by 4.7% compared to a national swing of 1.8%
Chris Curtis (154) and Albert F (174)…..thanks for taking the trouble to read the posting.
This situation is not only deeply interesting, it is real life and is being played out before our very eyes. The thing is, for a long time now The Liberal Party has stood for very, very little. Even in my State, WA, where the ALP Government is clearly badly flawed and under-powered, the Liberals can barely raise a whimper. Think how manifestly poor they are in the other States, too. In Canberra, only John Howard – with some temporary help from Mark Latham – has been able to keep the Liberals mustered into a coherent form. Think what a shambles they will be once they are deprived of both leader and office.
I do think we are witnessing another phase in the dismantling of party politics as we’ve known it – revealed on this occasion by the collapse of John Howard’s rule.
The ALP will in all probability enjoy a great victory very soon: one that will resonate for decades. But they should be thoughtful when they celebrate, because the same rejection can readily visit them too. (Or do I run too far ahead?)
Looks like the Libs are after Gillard.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/no-bones-about-her/2007/09/08/1188783558418.html
blindoptimist,
I find the idea of the dismantling of the two parties an interesting idea and if that is what is happening then that may explain the poll numbers.
In saying this Australia has always had two or three major parties and I suspect will always, and looking back though Election results I have to say that really the more things change the more they stay the same.
If we are sitting here on a Sunday morning in 8-10 weeks time with the ALP 57.75 Liberal 42.25 (Possium’s average)result then it will be interesting to see first which seats remain with the Liberal Party for an 11% swing will radically change the look of the Electrical map.
While I would be more likely to vote Liberal with Costello as leader, but the time for a leadership change has long passed, I feel in the long run the Liberal Party will need to reconnect with its heartland this will take time.
Politics is a forever changing game, and while I feel Rudd has shown signs of making a good PM, all Govts come to an end and one-day it will be Rudd facing defeat.
Question is can the Liberal Party find a heartland with its currant crop of Pollies, do they even know what their heartland is!!
What a strange article from Jason Koutsoukis eh? First, he’s given the inside with the dirt file from an unknown source but far from going with the invitation to ‘dig up the dirt’ (reword and publish) on the unionist ex-boyfriend house renovation… he turns it around to an attack on the government. It’s pretty clear that Jason has placed his bet on who is going to win the election. He’s also postioning himself nicely for the next decade. (Will he be to Rudd what Denis was to Howard… time will tell!)
The final passage is the most astonishing (worth quoting in full)
“After 11 years of being run by a policy contortionist, it’s difficult to see why the Liberals want to be in government.
They don’t stand for paying less tax, not for less regulation, not for smaller government, not for protecting civil liberties, not for investing in universities, not for the arts or sciences, not for a fair go in the workplace, not for states rights, not for an open economy, not for less welfare, not for caring for the planet and not for respecting international law.
About the only thing it does stand for is John Howard. A man who in nearly 13 years never had the courtesy to invite his own deputy over for a meal — an act of selfishness almost unparalleled in Australian politics.
No wonder people are itching to toss the Liberals out.”
This is a journalist who no longer fears retribution.
From the Gillard article
The fact that US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice doesn’t have a brood of children back at home didn’t stop John Howard and Alexander Downer dribbling over her last week
ROTFLMAO!
And Julie Bishop is just a high class gutter snipe.
Thanks for the link, WhoGivesARats.
Re Scorpio @ 187,
“Not sure if anyone has mentioned this one yet. Rudd should have a bit of amunition to throw at Howard’s “Aspirational†GW Target from APEC.”
He already has. Saw a newsclip during halftime of the Collingwood Sydney game last night. Don’t worry, he is all over that one and will revisit this issue more than once during parliament this week.
Simon @ 220,
“Like wise, I think Howard can keep loses down. If Costello is in charge, then the flood gates will open.”
Flood gates are already wide open, what this should read is “open wider” ;-D
WhoGivesA (#213) is on the money – Howard’s past behaviour is a pretty good guide. Let’s also remember the Fist Full of Dollars in 1980 was alongside the Capital Gains Tax scare campaign. What have the Lib’s got here ? They’ve tried the “Labor will raise the GST” twice but it hasn’t got any legs. I do think big tax cute to neutralise the interest rate rises (in the short term – ’till the tax cuts themselves create further rate rises) is logical in their frame of mind.
So also, WhoG’s is right – why not risk everything for one last roll of the dice ? Howard has NO confidence in Costello’s political skills (hard to argue with that) so why should he wear the historical ignimony for Costello getting creamed ? Howard’s a control freak – he’d rather be in charge and minimising losses than letting that loser Costello make it even worse – Howard will cop the blame either way.
If they were forward thinking, it’d be a new generation leader – but it’s too late for that. For mine, Mal Brough is easily the smoothest performer of the next gen. But then Longman’s gotta be seriously at risk too – but then so are most contender’s seats!
Thanks John Rocket (235) – that’s an astonishing article from Koutsoukis. What a great summary of this government as well. “The only thing it does stand for is John Howard”. That’s absolutely scathing and sounds like it’s coming from an ALP member, not a journalist at a major newspaper.
On other matters:
Health Minister Tony Abbott, one of Mr Howard’s strongest supporters, warned against disunity and dismissed speculation of a change of leadership, describing the Prime Minister as “our best asset”.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/pms-apec-climate-boost/2007/09/08/1188783562135.html
I been thinking over the last couple of days, about the Costello leadership spill.
In my opinion Costello would be mad to contest it. My first thought is where does costello stand on Iraq, Workchoices, Climate Change? As far as I know, costello is right behind all of these bad policies. He will be in the same position as Howard is now, if he took over the leadership. He doesn’t have time to reframe or walk away from any of these policies. Hawke had all the policies lined up for him by Hayden and really didn’t had to work too hard (or seem to) at getting elected as the public where ready for a change.
From ‘leaked Liberal polling’ we’ve been told the numbers for Costello was around 17% for ppm, compared to Turnbull who received about 35% (from memory). He just doesn’t have the numbers.
The one bit of spark I can see for costello is, that he may pick up a few of the ‘I’m sick of Howard’ votes. To me though they will be conteracted by the anything but ‘mr smirk’ votes.
Flicker – thanks for tip about assent to referendum bills. Quite right, the people are the 4th arm of the legislative process in that case. Since the GG only acts on advice, I wonder if he formally waits to commission the new PM for that advice?
Jason Koutsoukis from The Age has dropped a hint that the next ACNielsen poll, due on Tuesday, is going to show more bad news for the government:
“Release of the latest Age/Nielsen poll, which is expected to show further deterioration in the Government’s support.”
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/a-smirking-gun-drawn-too-late/2007/09/08/1188783562180.html?page=2
It’s my feeling that, given the chance, Costello will grab the leadership if it’s available. He just won’t or can’t push Howard out because he’s never had the numbers. I don’t even think he’s ever had the numbers to do what Keating did – lose, go to the back bench, undermine, then try again and be successful. I don’t think he’s capable of undermining in the way that Keating (or Howard) was.
However if, following on from Howards “is it me?” question some months back, Howard takes it one step further and calls for a confidence vote, then Costello might have his opening there. If a vote such as this were to occur, if the yays and nays are about even on whether Howard should continue as leader or not, then Costello might see this as his chance. If he doesn’t, he probably never will.
As tired as he looks, Howard won’t resign, but I wouldn’t rule out a confidence vote of some sort. Even then, the numbers could still stack up for Howard, and then they’re no better off than they are now.
It might all hinge on the Neilsen poll, but I think the combination of the awful Galaxy and Newspoll numbers have already determined the issue of leadership in terms of the now or never scenario. In other words, Howard goes now or he stays all the way to polling day. Once APEC is over, we’ll know. The Libs might hang around for some miracle numbers from Neilsen, but I suspect it’s not going to influence events much, because it’s likely to be similar to Newspoll.
Everyone has made some salient points, very interesting reading!
My thoughts:
1. It’s too late to swap the rodent for Captain Smirk, they should have done it 12 months ago
2. Captain Smirk’s poll numbers are worse than the rodent’s.
3. Captain Smirk vs Rudd would be a Labor landslide win of epic proportions
4. The rodent won’t go, he’s too puffed up with his own arrogance and his desire to outdo his idol Menzies
5. Glenn Milne promoting Costello for PM: no surprise! We all know Milne is desperate to get the gig as Smirky’s Press Secretary.
6. As for the crazy idea that moneybags Malcolm could take over from Howard – Aussies won’t vote for an arrogant toff from the Eastern Suburbs of Sydney.
Swampy @ 122 – I’m not sure whether you’re a constituent in Mayo, but Mary Brewerton is fast gaining a profile (and already has one in the northern end of the electorate where she is related to the local doctor). She is campaigning hard and I am going to stand with her at a street corner meeting this morning at the Gumeracha Town Hall – I’ll get back to you later on how she went. I’ve only met her a few times, but she comes across as smart, genuine and intelligent person. On top of that she has a very personable manner and I understand from others that the reception she receives at these meetings is always really good. She certainly comes across as a stark contrast, personality-wise, to Downer and that in itself might be a very positive thing for the Labor Party. Time will tell, as they say, but from what I hear others say, Mayo may be still be a seat of interest on election night.
I will check back in re her SCM today.
It’s rodent clones and gnomes overboard, flapping madly in the water in the hope of finding the seaworthy SS Costello; it’s too late I’m afraid, it sunk years ago.
Fagin: well said! You might recognise me as that Kevin Rudd For PM bloke from the other place.
The big issue from the next election seems to be the one everyone is ignoring.
How many seats will the National Party retain in the lower house. I believe their certain holds are:
1. Lyne
2. Mallee
3. Parkes
4. Wide Bay
5. Dawson
6. Riverina
The rest are up for grabs.
What future for the Nationals? I suspect zippo.
The Nationals need to go back to the drawing board and decide what they stand for. If they are just going to be an imitation of the Libs they will eventually over time drift off into irrelevance. If they want to make a difference they need to have the guts to stand up to the Libs on issues they care about and not surrender their hearts and souls. Too many people see the Nationals as sub branch of the Liberal Party.
I’ve been corresponding with Jason for nearly a year by email, ever since he started with the “Senior Liberal Strategist” articles (where, we were told, Rudd was going to be put on a slab and slowly, painfully eviscerated by the Libs’ Dirt
Unit). My emails to him were somewhat chiding in nature, at time downright sarky.
Koputsoukis has a great sense of humour, and is generally pretty cruisey and relaxed. A likeable bloke. Took my diatribes in good spirit and with exquisite politeness. A nice guy, I think, and passionate. Nevertheless, his replies were a sort of pat on the head to this mad leftie writing unsolicited emails to him who didn’t realise how powerful were the forces of Howardism and his sidekicks.
Well, I think it was Jason who didn’t realise how powerful they were, not me. Or perhaps I should say how lacking in power they were to stop the Ruddinator.
The Greeks in Melbourne are generally pretty Labor orientated. It surprised me (and I told him so) that Jason was a sort of ethnic traitor in waxing lyrical about the damage the Libs were going to do to Rudd, as they had done to Latham.
It was about May when Jason finally started privately accepting that the polls might be right. The tenor of his articles started to change. Over the last few weeks’ pieces we’ve seen a complete turnaround from Liberal Strategist Stooge, regurgitating every gloating, boastful brag from his connections, to today, where he has effectively mocked them and cut them loose. Maybe he thinks no-one will notice the about face. Tough luck on that score.
I think the Libs’ Hard Men used him, and he fell for it.
I think he lost a lot of credibility in the process. Now I expect he’s angry at how they swindled him. The scenario in today’s article tells us how some scumbag from the government summoned him to a meeting where the Gillard Dossier, fat and bloated with gossip and press clippings, was to be revealed (something to which Laurie Oakes alluded a month ago after Strippergate).
Today’s piece by Jason is another example of yet another journalist prepared to publicly change sides. In his case it’s not half-baked, as in changing from Howard to Costello for leader (as per Bolt, Albrechtsen and Kelly), but full-blown: the Libs stand for nothing and never have. In that way it’s a more significant piece than all the rest combined.
Welcome home Jason.
Parenthetically, what business does Albrechtsen, an ABC board member in full standing, have writing anything at all on politics? What right does she have (a right she does not concede to journalists at her own organisation) to be telling any leader, Liberal or Labor, that it’s time to retire for the good of the party or the nation? This is the real bias at the ABC, not from journalists, but right at the top. In a way the very fact that she arrogates to herself the right to be blantantly (and proudly) biased is reason enough for Howard being booted out. That he has brought our national broadcaster to this will be a perpetual disgrace that will take a long time to flush out of the system. I hope one of the first things Rudd PM does is to clean out the cesspit at Ultimo, giving the lot of them their marching orders without the option. I would expect nothing less.
One has to assume the Nats will win Peter Andren’s seat(because of the redistribution). I think Page and perhaps Flynn in QLD are the most likely Labor gains off the Nationals. If there was a huge swing to Rudd, maybe Cowper could be another one to watch?
Just listening to Vaile on PNN – how did it come to pass that an uneducated log like this hobby farmer get to be deputy PM?
If this is the best the Nats can do the sooner they are eliminated from our polity the better.
the nats to survive need to stand apart from the liberals, if there is a big labor win it gives the nationals a chance to split from the liberals as there is no profit being aligned with them
it gives nats a chance to be more green , small business , rural support ,there would be lots of policy oppertunities even aligning with other parties to achieve balance of power in rep’s and senate
the nat’s are not dead but they have a chance for rebirth , are they willing is the question
Schwarzenegger could have said the same thing about the Libs in Australia.
“the nat’s are not dead but they have a chance for rebirth , are they willing is the question”.
If they are reduced to less than 8 seats they’re finished. Changing demographics are a cancer eating away at their base.
They can only survive by an amendment to the constitution breaking the nexus between the number of House of Reps seats and the size of the Senate.
Electorates are now too large for the Nationals to maintain their representation of seats. I’m amazed Vaile didn’t press this issue over the past 3 years. He has overseen the melting of his party’s representative base in the Federal parliament.
Oyster, I tend to agree with you. After years of being hitched to the side of the Howard government, the Nats have done no real favours for their constituency.
WorkChoices in particular makes it VERY hard for prospective workers in rural towns to have any bargaining power simply because of the shortage of alternative jobs. It means that amongst the people who are MOST likely to be exploited by WorkChoices includes rural or regional people and their children.
On top of this, the Howard government has been absolutely neglectful of issues like water and other environmental issues that deeply affect regional areas, such as salinity and, of course, the big one: climate change.
Plus, the idiocy of pretending to control interest rates, which Howard did at the last election, but only to have rates rise considerably since then must leave a somewhat sour taste in the mouths of farmers who are currently depending on loans to get them through the seemingly never-ending drought.
And of course, telecommunications has been a disaster for the bush under the current government.
If the Nationals were smart, they would unhitch themselves from the Liberals and go back to their grassroots base. They need to become less neo-conservative and more protectionist of rural industries. Running a socially conservative agenda, such as opposing gay rights or beating up on particular ethnic groups, might tap into the redneck vote way out there in the sticks, but when combined with the kinds of economic policies of the current government, they ultimately do more HARM than good for the people they represent.
In short, conservative politics in this country is in desperate need of a major revamp, the Liberals included. Until they take a long hard look at what Australians really want from their governments, they will languish in opposition for a long, long time.
What does far left of the liberal party mean?
probably the dead centre of the political spectrum in the Australian
population , by virtue of the factions of the NSW Liberals Mr Hockey
is all so far left?
I’ve got nothing personal against the national. They are just a self serving agrarian socialists that insisted that everything in the bush was subsidised so they could continue to destroy the environment and convert it into private wealth.
Actually, it may be a touch personal.
The sooner the Nats realise that the interests of their core constituency have more in common with the Greens than they do with the Libs, the better their chances of survival after the impending rout.
Try being a Lib and suggest that maybe invading Iraq wasn’t such a great idea and watch the other members condemn you as a leftie terrorist sympathiser.
What’s the likely outcome for the senate if the Rudd landslide occurs?
Actually the Nationals have never recovered from Pauline.
The “needle-swing” in Keating’s reign to small interest/lobby groups and the constriction of public thought that was felt (whether real or not) became embodied in Pauline Hanson and her “One Nation” party.
I have great respect for our rural Australians and they do live tougher than we do in cities, in many ways. I also agree with the view of some here that European farming practices have not, in general, worked well in Australia and likely to blame for effects like rising salt tables and so forth.
However, we in cities can’t point fingers too far. We eat their produce and some (non vegan) members of the population wear their fibres, their leather and use their oil in our cooking. We also commute further and per capita, use more water, electricity and gas and create more waste. So let’s not load that environmental rifle at the cockies just yet..
The National party was simply decimated by One Nation and has retreated to the small handful of safe seats they own. “Country Liberals” might be a more appropriate term and the recent bleating about the lack of Telstra services was knocked on the head by Steve Fielding, who was against the sale, and said that maybe they shouldn’t have voted for the sale then. Good point.
The Nats have a place in the country. Libs don’t resonate well and many feel that Labor has never really given them a voice. I would be a little surprised if they suffered at all this election. ONP is on the decline and some who might have vacated to Libs in protest (In 3 way contests) may just migrate back. I think they will have an increased primary and certainly higher proportional representation in the coalition than they do now.
I’m sure the Liberals have been tossing up for months – for longer probably – over whether to dump Howard and install Costello. Afterall, the polls have been negative for the government for a very long time.
The reason the Liberals won’t go for Costello now is the same one that has applied up to this point: he doesn’t have enough good old fighter’s instinct in him. He would like to be PM, for sure, but he’s not going to throw everything into becoming one.
He is, basically, a sook. Howard knows it. His co-ministers know it. Were it otherwise, John Howard would already be an ex-Prime Minister.
Isn’t it sad that there don’t seem to be enough liberals in the liberal party. The Liberals are quit to criticise Labor for having strict party discipline, but the problem seems to be that Howard has stopped dissent at every turn to such an extent that no one was brave enough to act against him.
In contrast, Rudd and Gillard had the guts to knock Beazley off last year because they knew it was in the best itnerests of hte party to do so.
Blind
Peter Costello has shown signs of this petulance or sooky behaviour from time to time.. the whole “but you promised” whine of the handover with the “Athens declaration” by Howard smacked of this.
In a nutshell, Costello has known that he was next in line for the throne but:
a) He has never had the numbers in the party
b) He didn’t have the electoral support
c) Risked being booted to the back bench from Treasurer if he tilted at the chance.
So he didn’t. The way Costello wants in is not by election, he wouldn’t make it. He wants a handover, so he can woo the public and prove himself (perhaps like Keating did in 1991). So, through gritted teeth, this cautious, fragile, pragmatist, has bided his time.
The irony might be that he may never get the chance again.
I think you meant gutless.
He is all talk! He said he was going to challenge, go to the back bench, then wave for the nervous nellies on the back bench to draft him. He just forgot one thing, to actually DO IT!
A person that gutless doesn’t deserve to be P.M.
I doubt that Costello would even be able to handle the job as PM. He doesn’t have a thick enough skin. And he is basically lazy. He lacks the drive, energy, and conviction to do anything that would be unpopular, even if it was in the best interests of the country. A “Keating”, he is definitely NOT.
And even compared to Rudd, Costello is a grossly inferior alternative. He has spent over 11 years as treasurer and barely done anything truly worthwhile with his ever-growing, high-taxation surpluses. Why would we think he would do anything purposeful as PM?
For Costello, being PM is more about him wanting the limelight and much less about actually doing something good for the country. But wanting the limelight is nowhere near a good enough reason for being PM.
Watching Vaile on Insiders today…
The very last question from Cassidy was, “When will the election be held?”.
Vaile’s answer was a study in arrogance.
“The election will be called when we think we can win.”
Honesty for once, but not the kind of thing you actually admit on live television.
bmwofoz…
Thanks for the response….
My point is that “party politics” as we have known it is on the way out. Parties will continue to exist, but politics – especially federal politics – is becoming “presidential”. The role of parties has changed dramatically: where once the parties were numerous, vocal and powerful, now they are small machines with limited functions. They are there – for the most part – to recruit leaders and then serve their will. Think of the political parties of today as chains of boutique stores, not vast emporiums.
This means that the public’s voting preferences will become – indeed, have already become – much more mobile. Big swings – once a rarity – will become practical possibilities. Think of the results in recent state elections: big swings have occurred, party allegiances have wilted (and life did not come to an end), big electoral majorities have been created as if from nowhere. The days in which party attachments determined the outcome of elections are over. They have been replaced by the popular selection of a “leader”.
This is the mode of politics in the federal sphere in 2007, as far as I can see. This year, we will see the election of a President in everything but name. In terms of swings and seats and final 2PP votes, almost anything is possible.
In a sense, we have gained a Republic and its foundation will be John Howard’s parting act of service to his country. What a satisfying idea.
I noticed that as well. It’s time we had fixed terms. Allowing who ever is PM at the time to call the election is increasingly ridiculous.
… in other words, the election will never be called! Remember that story about when he wasn’t picked for the team… little John took his bat and went home… might be planning the same thing with aus democracy!
I disagree. We have had presidential style election campaigns for decades and the parties have incorporated Presidential style leaders into their respective images. The idea that it is otherwise is a myth. Calwell vs Menzies was about as presidential as you could get. Also McMahon vs Whitlam. Fraser vs Hawke, etc, etc. The parties are here to stay and have absorbed the presidential nature of politics. As Churchill said when he was asked why he changed from the Liberal Party to the Conservative Party, “You need a good steed to ride into battle with”. All elections are presidential in nature and the parties provide their candidates with the platform or “steed”.
Had Costello followed through on his plan and challenged Howard, lost and gone to the back bench – its likely he would be PM now and the Govt would be performing a lot better in the polls.
If Costello had a year to win over the public it might have worked. Its nigh on impossible to be likable as a Treasurer. But take that monkey off his back and I think the public would warm to Costello. He’s a close as you’ll get to a decent bloke on the front bench.
But, Costello did not have courage to follow through. His sad bleatings that “I should be PM ‘cos a got a note from my mum” showed he has not got the decisvie nature to get the top post. Doesn’t make him a bad person – perhaps it even shows he’s a real thoughtful conflicted person – one who’s unlikely ever to be PM.
He should be more likeable, all he does is tax and spend, give with one hand and give back with the other.
RE the demise of party politics:
I wonder whether it is just that the names change. Ie – the Liberal party once served right wing conservative voters, who now have the Labor party, while the neo-cons have Family Fisrt, One Nation and to some extent the Nats.
Left wing voters are drifting to the Greens.
So nothing really changes except the labels .
I meant to sy that conservative voters have the choice of the Liberal and Labor parties.
“The election will be called when we think we can win.â€
Yes, the introduction of fixed terms is way overdue. I, like many others, have long thought the power of the executive to manipulate the election date is a fraud that has no place in a democracy.
I meant to say “say”.
A question for Novocastrians. Is the Aaron Buman considering standing for Newcastle, the son of Allan Bumam who was the hooker for West Rosellas and the Australian Kangaroos in the 60s?
Suave qui Peaut, I would like to congratulate and thankyou for your correspondence with Jason and the impact that it has had on his writing. It was a thing of beauty – well done!
To William- this is by far the best blog on the net for current affairs. Thankyou.
Re 281 Aaron Buman. I don’t know but it’s never been mentioned in any of the stuff written about him. He may be related in another way.
Re 279,
“Yes, the introduction of fixed terms is way overdue. I, like many others, have long thought the power of the executive to manipulate the election date is a fraud that has no place in a democracy.”
I was born in 1961 (USA) and have voted in all elections there since I was eligible (1980+). Re fixed terms (which the US has and Australia doesn’t at present) – grass isn’t greener on the USA side of the fence. I rather like the novelty of the paliamentary system, adds so much more mystery to the election process. With fixed terms, it takes all of the fun out of the political game. If we knew back in February that the election was going to be [guessing here] say last Saturday in October, we wouldn’t have had nearly as much fun or intrigue during 2007 and also much less to talk about. The cons of a fixed term system are many more than you might imagine.
I note that Downer is the only minister supporting Howard. There is ominous silence from the rest and the back benchers are restless. I think that Downer is so strongly linked to Howard that not to support him is to commit political suicide. I won’t be surprised to see Howard get dumped very shortly, with Downer following. It would be a crying shame as I dearly want to see Howard concede, but I don’t think he will be man enough. If Howard is turfed, he can, in future, still argue that he would have rescued the party. That would certainly suit his ego.
Tom.
Glen Milne is shrieking these days. Can’t say I blame as he watches his meal ticket drift off into the sunset.
There is no particular reason that the ability to choose the election date allows for a leader to manipulate matters. A fixed date in NSW still allows for the government to manipulate matters to achieve the best outcome at the time.
We won’t have fixed terms until the powers of the Senate and the GG are agreed by everyone to always be subservient to those of the powers of the HoR.
Julie,
Many of the state governments in Australia now have fixed terms and it doesn’t seem to have taken all the fun out of those elections. In regards to fixed terms we’re not wanting it because we want to copy the Americans. We want it because we’re sick of governments abusing the system. The average term of Australian governments is not 3 years but 2 and a half years. I could go on but do you really think the USA would be better off if Bush was allowed to choose when the election took place?
It`s hard to believe how voters would warm to Costello.He is after all one the of founders of the H.R.Nicholls society and the driving force behind the IR laws that dare not speak its name.When the laws first came out Costello`s expressed view was they did not go far enough! Labour would have a field day with this.
We Australians really are a wierd mob. A prime minister drowns, so we rename the local pool as “The Harold Holt Memorial Swimming Pöol”
I wonder what we’ll do for JWH. “The John Winston Centre for Multiculture and Reconciliation” perhaps.
If Howard is forced to go would Costello want the leadership poisened chalice? He is probably already too old to have enough time to get elected assuming the annhialation of the libs will be as enormous as predicted. He ias already 50, and in a decade or so 60 may be too old to start a prime ministerialship. 80 would be even more difficult.
disenfranchised Gippslander:
Or the The John Winston College for the Study of Union Activism.
I don’t think Costello is too old, I think he is too gutless.
THE CHINSTER, thanks for the info, i’ll be very interested on what you think, i’m in Wakefield, it’s just Downer is such an embarrassment and besides he’s about the natiest of them {in a girly spiteful way} except Howard. i’ll BBL, going to a family function.
It’s may be either that or the poisoned chalice of Opposition Leader. Either way he may be screwed. So if given the chance why not go out with all guns blazing and the right to be called Mr Prime Minister for a few weeks.
I have a sugestion that probably will never get off the ground.
Fix the election to say the last Saturday in a month and then have the AEC decide by a toss of coin stile procedure decide on the last Saturday of each month in the year or so preceeding the election whether the election will be held in a months time or not.
L.Duce, #282… I wasn’t saying I’d influenced Jason Koutsoukis in any way to change his tone. Journos are tougher and more stubborn than that (look at the “influence” the mocking minions of the blogosphere have had on the likes of Shanahan, for example… none… except to get him cranky and throwing tantrums).
I just acted as one of (I’m sure) many angels sitting on his shoulder. He’s a sweet guy, and would have plenty of friends who’d have been aghast at his columns. Tthe “Senior Liberal Strategists” weren’t in that collection. They were using him as they have used so many in the Press, to do their dirty work.
In Jason’s article he mentioned that his source inhabited a swanky set of “ministerial offices”. So his source was close to, or part of the Cabinet, and hence to Howard. If he’s prepared to ditch this source and publicly mock them for the arid policy wasteland they represent, it seems he’s changed his mind on who’s going to win the election (or at least who should win it).
Anyone could see the same thing. One by one the journalists have changed sides as they realise either that Howard has to resign or put an end to speculation by calling an election sooner, rather than later. This was not The Plan that the “strategists” had in mind. They were going to “do” Rudd and then Gillard, slowly a la Keating’s “doing” of Hewson. They’ve wasted so much time dredging up mud and crud that they have nothing left except empty bloviating on Climate Change ex APEC. Unfortunately, this is one of Rudd’s strengths, so all they’ll do is reinforce these as losing issues for the government.
Howard might try to stick it out for a while – neither calling an election, nor resigning – but in my opinion this is an inherently unstable situation. His precious APEC has been pretty-well universally declared a disaster. If Rudd’s Mandarin speech or his interview with Bush didn’t do it, the the Chaser boys certainly did. “Gatecrashing APEC” was the way the Insiders put it today. The optimistic “Howard gets Climate boost” headlines this morning were just that… optimistic.
All the appeals, the commutations, the legal argument, the spin and the lies have come to this: Howard must now walk up the thirteen steps to the political gallows, praying the trapdoor sticks or the hangman has a coronary. Nothing else will save him. No last-minute phone calls from the Governor General, no boats full of refugees, probably not even a terrorist atrocity on australian soil will come to the rescue. He’s burnt all his bridges, exhausted all his ammunition. It is, as Shanahan pointed out, der tag… the time for Howard to put up or shut up.
Vaile’s comment that they’d hold the election when they thought they could win is an empty boast. They no longer have control over political affairs in Australia. If I was a senior government member I’d be cranking up the shredders now and not wasting precious time on the hustings. I doubt they can last a week in the current climate, with leadership crises becoming a more and more frequent occurrence, now virtually monthly.
The common belief among a significant minority of “undecided”, waverering voters that Howard will lose his own seat will probably shore up what they told the opinion pollsters: that they would vote for Labor. Howard was the one thing the government had in its favour for many. If it is believed he will lose Bennelong, then many – one or two per cent – will make the swing to Labor. Like Pavarotti, the Liberal Party has gone into organ failure. Political death can’t be far off. In the meantime they’re on life support.
It remains to be seen how much damage they’re prepared to do until, from the encircled rubble, the faint, crackly radio message goes out as a final swansong, “Suave qui peut.”
I think they name the Harold Holt Pool after him because he liked swimming/diving. (Could this be confirmed or denied by people who know, please?)
Julie 284
I certainly accept that no system is perfect, and am interested in what you see as the negatives of fixed terms.
Michael Proud 287
Fixing the election date removes one important hidden variable from the equation. Governments can’t control all political circumstances, but if they can determine the election date (within certain parameters) it gives them a significant and unjustified advantage, as they can call the election when circumstances are most favourable to them (or least unfavourable). If the election date is fixed, there is far less scope to do so.
I concede the government can still manipulate budgets and policy to some degree. But that is unavoidable in any system, and no argument against removing the executive power to unilaterally determine election dates.
paul k….
Yes, past elections have had their presidential characteristics and the parties are here to stay. But “party attachment” counts for increasingly less with the public and the nature of the parties is also undergoing far-reaching change. (In fact, I think the way parties are organized and interact with the electorate needs to be completely re-thought, but more of that another time.)
In terms of this election, the consequences are likely to be profound: the primary “Labor” vote will probably far surpass 50%. If it does, the 2PP vote could finish in the mid-60’s. If this happens, it will only be possible because voters have put aside the claims of party attachment and voted instead on the qualities of “leadership”. “Leadership ” is becoming a proxy for “country”, “fairness”, “strength”, “prosperity”, “honesty”, “the future”….The matter of party is low down the list.
250 Gaynor Says: The big issue from the next election seems to be the one everyone is ignoring. How many seats will the National Party retain in the lower house.
I think you’re missing the point. At the end of this election, the nationals will probably have a higher proportion of seats in the coalition than they do now. Moving back to their traditional values (which the liberals have taken them from) will probably be good for them. If it had been up to them, they would never have let the sale of telstra go through.
Mark Vaile is still very popular.
I agree with David Walsh (231) that it’s possible Labor would have still just lost Bass even without the forestry element.
the senate anyone??….
The Nationals in order to survive should jettison their neo-con policies and green themselves up. But they won’t. I have just been to a country function and you know these people will always be very conservative.
The percentage of GDP emanating from the country is declining and is relatively unimportant now, unlike the days when we rode on the sheep’s back. The ever continuing drought which may be now permanent with global warming will drive more and more people off the land. The country electorates will get larger and larger. The National Party will wither and die like the Democrats. It’s harsh on the land.
There are more and more Liberal rebels in Canberra talking up the leadership change.
It is understandable that Peter Costello would not want to take over now.
He’d be PM for eight weeks, hardly an outstanding record, quite humiliating really.
He can add up and knows whether the figures favour him.
In a Morgan poll not so long ago Peter Costello and Malcolm Turnbull were level pegging in the alternative leadership stakes.
Malcolm has nothing to lose. The plot hatched in Melbourne has legs.
If he were PM for eight weeks and then opposition leader for who knows how long, it wouldn’t bother him. He’s relatively new to politics.
If Peter were PM for eight weeks and then lost as expected he would be out of politics altogether in a matter of months.
He no doubt has an extremely lucrative job waiting for him in a merchant bank at a million a year.
Why would he stay on for years as opposition leader?
You have to be joking.
No, he will only accept the top job now if it is absolutely thrust on him and probably quite reluctantly.
My view is that there are two likely scenarios.
The first is that although Peter Costello undoubtedly has the numbers, he now doesn’t want the job as the rot has set in too far and in the event of a leadership spill (initiated by whom?) next week ( depending to a certain extent on Nielsen) that Malcolm will be installed.
Peter is already thinking of life after politics.
Nobody else will make the grade.
The second is that John Howard can weather the hurricane now blowing up around him and hold on long enough to go to the GG.
He has but three or four days grace.
I still go 55% leadership spill and 45% John Howard staying, may even be 60-40.
Friday night’s PM program discussed the turning of the conservative press.
“MARK COLVIN: Eleven-and-a-half years is a long time in politics, though few leaders survive long enough to find that out.
It was exactly eleven-and-a-half years after she became Britain’s Prime Minister, after many had thought her unassailable for years, that Margaret Thatcher was forced to step down.
Now, after exactly the same time in office almost to the day, and surrounded by the trappings of international statesmanship, John Howard’s finding his own leadership under question from some of his staunchest supporters in the media.
This kind of distraction would have been the last thing on John Howard’s mind when he first planned this week’s APEC event.
But is it just the scribblers and the chatterati who are suggesting that the Prime Minister could be gone before the general election?
I’m joined by our Chief Political Correspondent Chris Uhlmann.
Chris, we’ve had Paul Kelly in The Australian already, Andrew Bolt in The Herald-Sun, now Janet Albrechtsen in The Australian all, well certainly for Janet Albrechtsen, the strong, and Andrew Bolt, strong supporters of Mr Howard, and Paul Kelly considered a senior political observer, all saying maybe he should be thinking about going.
What effect is this having?
CHRIS UHLMANN: Well, as one Liberal said to me today, as far as the columnists are concerned there is only Piers left now, like a lone Japanese soldier typing away on his island.”
And here’s Piers today, right on cue:
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/piersakerman/
There seems to be quite a lot of WW2 references in the political discussion of late; the Berlin bunker, the storming of the Reichstag, and now in the Pacific theatre, a lone Japanese soldier.
I wonder what it all means?
In a sense of mischief, can I draw a parallel between the current situation and the end of Menzies’ second ministry.
It was obvious to the UAP that Menzies had to go but the UAP was so riven with faction that no-one could step up (Billy Hughes was one of the few candidates). Eventually, it was the Country Party that provided the Prime Minister, Arthur Fadden who reigned for 40 days and 40 nights.
Mark Vaile will be Prime Minister tomorrow!
I’ll second L Duce, Suave qui Peut@252. That’s a wonderful story. Your dertermination to enlighten your “wayward” friend-in-letters, Jason, is inspirational.
In the last 24 hours Dolly, Vaille, the Mad Monk and the rest of the Old Firm have circled the wagons and are busy constructing POSSUM’S FIREWALL, despite APEC’s distractions. Ratty’s going to grasp “his” ring of power all the way down like Smeagol. It’s ingrained in his character. The bloke’s an Alpha-Authoritarian. These people don’t concede graciously.
While El Rodente has his inner circle cowered, it’s going to be “instructive” when formerly loyal backbenchers jerry that they’ve been “let go” and begin to lose control of their beasts within.
Everbody knows $weetie hasn’t got the bottle for the top job. He’s a loser in this league and no longer a player of consequence.
A new Lib leader won’t emerge till the calm that follows the electoral storm.
#271
#274
The problem with vast emporiums is that it is often hard to make them profitable and they lumber along, whereas a chain of boutiques can be adaptable to the market and more flexible in general.
The hereditary tribalism in “party politics†is on the wane; overall party membership in general is on the decline, as is unionism. Campaigns are becoming more presidential in the sense the marketing of the brand (party) is becoming more logo (leader) centric.
Much more the success of the marketing campaign is driven by the pot of gold that is raised , the careful packaging of the product and it’s subsequent delivery via various media outlets is much more controlled and directed by PR firms and commercial market polling companies. This does represent a move towards a US presidential style, some of the Liberal tactics have been transplanted directly from the US republicans i.e the dirt units and personal smear techniques. Labor itself has adopted a mix of Clinton’s triangulation with Blair’s “third way” and repackaged it for local consumption.
The big swings at state level have been about the complete lack of decent product and the inability to present a decent, coherent and well funded marketing campaign. The same could well be the case in this election. We seem to have ended up with cyclical monopolies in our system where one side is a basket case for a long period of time, while the other is totally dominant…. then again maybe there is nothing new under the sun.
# 272 paul k Says: It’s time we had fixed terms. Allowing who ever is PM at the time to call the election is increasingly ridiculous.
I disagree. I’ve lived in countries with fixed terms, and all you end up getting is an entrenched election/media spectacle. The rest of the time your concerns are completely ignored. No thanks.
disenfranchised Gippslander:
Or the JWH Centre for Asian studies?
Oakeshott Country, how could you wish that on Australia?!
He too would only last eight weeks.
Looks like it could be a poisoned chalice and only a very fit candidate could take it.
Attention Pole Bludgers – LATE MAIL
I have it on good authority that AC Nielsen will be in Fairfax press – Tomorrow Morning.
My prediction is close to 60/40.
Other predictions:
- Howard to stay as leader.
- October 27 election.
- Howard to lose his seat.
- Howard to suffer largest ever defeat.
- Costello never to become PM.
Yeah I don’t think I favour fixed terms either, the timing of elections does allow for a deeper measure of tactical planning and both the last Labor government and the current coalition one have benefitted.
It also keeps the opposition on their peak game, they need to be ready to go for the last half of the term and this makes them lean and hungry. You get complacent oppositions if they know exactly how much time they have.
What I would favour is longer terms.
I think our terms should be four years. This allows a decent period for a government to be measured against its promises. Currently, after settling in a new government and getting going, the noise of a new election can drown out the inactivity of policies that the government was elected to follow through on. In four years, you can’t hide. If your policies are not working or underway, you don’t deserve to be in.
It is also cheaper. Fewer campaigns a decade, fewer tax-payer funded ad campaigns spruiking what we already pay for and fewer citizens in mental hospitals in a waxy catatonia after enduring triannual electioneering on prime time TV.
Centre, makes you wonder why it is being published tomorrow. It could influence the leadership question quite markedly. Maybe it was about to be leaked and had to be published early?
Agree with four out of five of your predictions, not the first one , but you could be right on that too!
309/ Slain…
Yes.Yes. And Yes. For me, this raises a lot of questions about the kind of democracy we have. I was raised to think that what kept us free was the strength of our institutions: from parliaments to parties, from unions to sporting clubs. They are all on the way out, it seems. What else is going with them?
On Aristotle’s “WW-II” reference, #306, we watched The Downfall” again the other night.
There’s an early scene when, after everyone telling him he should flee Berlin to fight on, Hitler turns to the trusted Albert Speer and asks him, “What do you think, Speer?”
Speer replies, “You should stay on stage until the curtain comes down.”
This is what Howard will do: stay on and fight.
In about a month or so’s time he will have his own götterdämmerung, as will we.
Howard has gone too far, broken too many trusts. He is alone, with only a small coterie of followers left to share his fate with him in the bunker.
APEC was his Battle Of The Bulge: a noisy, expensive show that at first looked like it might go off well enough, but in the end, by day two, was brought down in a torrent of public scepticism, annoyance, a comedian dressed up as Osama bin Labed and an opposing general who had enough nouse to say “Nuts” (in Mandarin, of course) at the right time.
It was rather symbolic that George Bush saw fit to apologize to the Australian people even as his pet Prime Minister could not bring himself to do the same thing. In any case, Howard’s apologies are rather like the “Sorrys” you hear when someone gets hit by a falling tree branch… “Sorry it happened, but what does it have to do with me?”
(Who now remembers APEC, by the way? And the delegations haven’t even all left yet).
Uhlmann’s comment that Piers was the last Japanese corporal, in the hills still obeying orders, living off the land on an island long abandoned by his comrades. I loved the way in his article today he spoke of “media pundits”, as if he isn’t one of the most obnoxious of them all. Pure delusion.
Uhlmann, you may remember, made the famous comment not too many months ago that Rudd’s status in Australian politics was a “house of cards”, soon to tumble. Yeah, I wrote to the ABC complaining, but only got back the form letter and a link to the web site to peruse the Code Of Conduct at my leisure. There must have been a lot of complaints about that one though, because Chris has been somewhat less biased ever since he made that broadcast.
Maybe writing to them and telling them you think they’re dickheads has some effect after all?
I would have fixed terms, but in the Autumn. One of the great things about Australia is that the whole country goes to sleep between Christmas and Australia Day, so having elections in, say, March, would minimise the length of the phony campaign. This is the situation in NSW, and while there is no shortage of political manoevring and speculation the previous year, people so switch off in January, that it acts as a circuit breaker. When the election is towards the end of the year, the phony campaign tends to go on forever.
On leadership speculation, I can’t see Howard stepping down voluntarily, and I can’t see anyone challanging at this late stage. But the very existence of the speculation means that Howard needs to call the election soon, quite possibly this coming week. That would suggest an election day on 20 or 27 October (or possibly 3 November). He may well go for a longer campaign period, in an attempt to catch Rudd out on the hustings. But it’s hard to see what could possibly bridge the gap.
On theme music, I’m surprised that no one has mentioned Howard’s favourite singer Bob Dylan (lyrics notwithstanding), and his classic, “The Times They Are A’Changin’”.
Centre (313)…
When has AC Nielson ever been so keenly anticipated? Or the Fairfax press for that matter? I think the 2PP scales will tip above 60 for Rudd – even 62 is possible. There will be chaos in the Liberal salons and Parliament will be prorogued by Friday night. Your other predictions are just the beginning.
Michael Proud,
As most of us will never agree that the powers of the Senate, the more democratic and more representative House, should be “subservient to those …of the HoR”, the chances of fixed terms appear ended. However, if the Labor Party can get over 1975, there is every chance of fixed terms. An eight-year term for the Senate is not a problem. NSW and SA get by perfectly fine with such for their Legislative Councils. Staggered elections also even out wild swings in public opinion, something that would have helped Victoria in 1992 if we had had a reformed Upper House then.
One problem with fixed terms is the process for solving disagreements between the House and the Senate. I’d suggest that, rather than have a double dissolution, any bill passed twice by one House and defeated twice by the other should go to a referendum of the people at the subsequent fixed-term election. In the case of the blocking of Supply, the referendum would be immediate – with a provision that, if the people vote to pass supply, the whole Senate has to face an election and, if they vote to block it, the House has to face the election, with the term of office to be whatever remains of the fixed four-year term. This would discourage the blocking of Supply, but not make it impossible.
“As most of us will never agree that the powers of the Senate, the more democratic and more representative House, should be subservient to those of the HoR”
I don’t think it is very democratic when a Tasmanian’s vote is worth 10x mine.
For all those who were rubbishing Nicole Cornes at this website a few months ago, my Adelaide spy tells me she has discovered a great talent as a campaigner, and that the punters at the shopping centres absolutely love her, mainly because she is not a typical politician. She just chats to the mums about their kids and the price of zucchini, and wins votes wherever she goes. My spy says the SA ALP is increasingly confident about Boothby and Sturt, and think that even Lord Downer will be at risk if a decent independent emerges. So there.
Richard, Blindoptimist,
I think that the party will come to the view that it is too late to change leader, especially given that a better result at the ballot box is by no means certain. In fact it could get worse.
As I have previously asked – what about the senate result?
My understanding is that Labour cannot win a majority. Does the Ruddslide in the HoR translate to left votes in the senate ie: labour/ Greens, or will conservatives hang on with Family First/ One Nation/Nats?
And does this mean a guaranteed double dissolution in July?
On the Nationals I predict they are in serious trouble:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/nats-may-be-heading-into-the-wilderness-forever/2007/09/04/1188783231785.html
“The election will be called when we think we can win.â€
Clearly a non-core promise.
Howard APEC Press Conference at 3.45PM. I’m sure most of the questions won’t be about trade or climate change.
Generic Oracle Says: What I would favour is longer terms.
I agree. an optional four year term would allow for a lot more time governing. In Australias climate, that’s about two years. I’d prefer it to be three.
The other good thing that being able to set election dates allows, is for less change, but more significant change, in government. The worst type of government is one that goes back and forward again and again, but never accomplishes anything because of the constant shifting of policy.
re post 326 does this mean no election ever? (just joking)
however this points out a problem why should Mr Howard have this advantage of election timing? surely there should be fixed terms for federal
elections like NSW has!!!
Sportingbet has halted betting on election date due to rumours PM will visit the GG later today to set the date.
Unfortunately for Sportingbet, this is predicated on suggestions that backbenchers have been flying back to Canberra early (Saturday). No information that this is true, especially as parliament is not sitting tomorrow (due to APEC). Parliament back on Tuesday morning for the Canandian prime minister.
I have a vague memory of being quite grumpy with the boys club at Poll Bludger for their attitude to the female candidates … don’t tell me they are better than the deadwood boys they were being ranked below? surely they can’t be good? like really good?
As it is only a half senate election Labor cannot win a majority. I’m pretty sure we’ve gone over this in previous treads but while Labor will probably do very well in the Senate race their just aren’t enough seats up for grabs to put them over the line.
I’m wondering am I right in thinking the Liberals have party room meeting at 10:00 am, how long do we expect this meeting to go for?
I’m not expecting Howard to depart, but I suspect what he may do is announce a resuffle it would catch everyone by surprise then just as the media were responding to that, release a policy then go to GG for Oct 27, using the excuse that he doesn’t want to inconvence Victorians enjoying the long weekend.
I’m in two minds about fixed terms, like maybe the last Saturday in March for the first Federal Election was held around that time of year, but I find following American Politics that the lead in is way too long winded.
talking to solid small business Liberal types, the feedback is getting darker for Howard, I can’t any positives for the Govt, compared to Keating whom I loathed, but at least I could find people to say nice things about him.
APEC has been seen as a great waste of money, Iraq is seens as a diabolicial mess and general Liberal people dismiss Howard and his lot as passed it.
The Heartland is just shaking its head, and they are most impressed by that Rudd boy.
Many like Costello, and feel he would make a good PM.
For the Coalition-plus-Fielding to lose control of the Senate they must lose two seats to either Labor or the Greens. The best prospect of this is in Tasmania. Assuming Brown is re-elected with approximately a quota, Labor will need to get close to three quotas (43%) in their own right. On current indications that looks quite possible. The next best chance is SA, where Labor will certainly get three quotas and win Stott Despoja’s seat. To get a fourth seat, taking one from the Liberals, will require four quotas (57%) after preferences. If Labor gets say 49% and the Greens get 8%, this is possible, but it’s a big ask. Alternatively Labor’s surplus could elect the Green. The same scenario is possible in Victoria, though the polls don’t suggest such a big swing as in SA. In NSW Labor will probably knock off Kerry Nettle but will need a very big swing to win a fourth seat. In Qld Labor will be happy to take Bartlett’s seat. In WA on current showing Labor will win two and their suplus will give the sixth seat (Murray’s) to the Greens. There is an outside chance their either Labor or the Green could win the second seat in the ACT. In sum, IMHO, the Coalition losing control of the Senate seems more possible than it did a few months ago, but still on balance not likely.
People are flipping between “will he or won’t he” from one moment to the next. The outcome regarding whether Howard will resign or not is difficult to predict because there is an inherent conflict between what is the logical decision and what is Howard’s natural tendency.
The logical decision is to resign. Howard has either the choice of being branded a coward or by leading his party to what is potentially the worst defeat ever in Australia’s political history, losing his own seat, and placing the Libs in the wilderness for a long time. If he spins a resignation as a necessary self-sacrifice for the good of his party, he will hope to mitigate some of the accusations of being cowardly, but in the end, this is probably less damaging to his legacy than leading his party to the expected train wreck.
But cast against this is Howard’s natural tendency to fight. He is tenacious, especially when it comes to power. Every part of his being tells him to hang on, hang on, hang on. This is why he has refused to step down even to this day and seems to have intended to keep going on as PM indefinitely. He loves power and doesn’t want to let it go. Some look at this as a fighter instinct. I see it as a case of not being able to let go for fear of change and fear of returning to a mediocre life.
I have no doubt that Howard is heavily conflicted right now. And we don’t really know which way he will go. The thing that ultimately tips the scales may well be his party. He knows he cannot stay if his party no longer want him. As some have said, apart from Downer and Vaile, the current silence from the rest of the ministers is very telling. Something is up. It might be that MPs are simply hedging their bets right now. Maybe they don’t even know what Howard will do. But I bet the phones have been running hot this weekend between backbenchers and frontbenchers alike.
oakeshott country,
The Tasmanian’s vote advantage is cancelled out by the fact that the Senate is more representative of the way people vote. Greens get a say, Family First gets a say, the Democrats get a say. Even the major parties are represented in a better proportion to their voting support than in the Hose of representatives.
Jen,
Labor cannot win control of the Senate. The Greens are unlikely to gain the balance of power because to do so the Coalition would have to be reduced to only two quotas in each of three states, with Labor and/or the Greens gaining that seat on top of the three Labor seats that I expect from every state. It is possible that the Coalition will lose control by being reduced to only two quotas in one state, but it would still be able to block Labor proposals because a tied vote in the Senate means the proposal is defeated. If the Coalition is reduced to two quotas in each of two states, the left and centre parties – Greens, Labor and Family First – will have the numbers to tear some pages out of WorknotcalledChoicesanymore, but I think this result is unlikely.
I do not accept the received wisdom that once the “real†campaign starts, the Coalition will gain ground. I do, however, think a 60-40 split is unlikely simply because it is so remarkable. Labor and the Greens would have to poll some 57 per cent to take four Senate seats between them in any state. A double dissolution is in the Labor Party’s interest because it would consolidate its position as the government; in the Greens’ interests because the lower quota would make their gaining the balance of power likely and in Family First’s interest because the lower quota would mean a better chance of more FF senators.
Just Me 299
Paul 288
Just Me and Paul -
Negatives of fixed terms, you can’t get the SOB’s out of there. If they are wrecking and totally ruining policy, they know that they can abuse everything and still have months/years before they are accountable. Yes, sure, the despised government is still calling the date but a possibility of getting them out earlier is better than no possibility at all. And as I noted earlier, the mystery adds to the fun for the average voter in following the whole process. The next day after the 2004 US election, I went to an online website (found through googling the terms “anti Bush clothing”) and ordered myself a shirt. The shirt had a picture of the White House on it and the words stamped across that in black “Is it 2008 yet?”. Think about it. You can have abuse of the system either way. Whether you have fixed terms or not doesn’t change that. If you like fixed terms, I can accept that. I chose to enjoy the present system
Laurie Oakes thinks Howard will only go if he’s forced out, and there is blood on the hands of his assassins:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=294407
My thoughts on the senate are simple, in cases of blocked bills, hold a joint sitting followed by a half senate & reps not a double.
And I might say the best hooker never to have been picked for a UK and France tour and so strictly speaking he wasn’t a Kangaroo but the credentials for that appelation have been relaxed in recent times.
He was my coach at University of Newcastle ARLFC in 1970 after he retired at Wests. He was great mates with Johnny Raper who used to come to our bar b ques with his wife and kids one of whom, as students of The Greatest Game will know, was called Aaron which in those days was quite an unusual name here in Oz. So it would not surprise me if Aaron’s name was also adopted by the Bumans.
Allan was subsequently a publican around rural NSW including a stint at Tumbarumba (where they shoot bloody kanagroos).
# 339 ifonly Says: My thoughts on the senate are simple, in cases of blocked bills, hold a joint sitting followed by a half senate & reps not a double.
Good point. With the way the numbers are panning out, there might be a lot of bills go through in this way.
I didn’t know thugby teams take their own hookers with them when they go overseas. Why can’t they just hire local hookers like everyone else does?
A joint sitting can only be held after a double dissolution.
If we go to fixed terms, it would be better to leave it at 3 years. If politicians push for fixed FOUR year terms, then the average punter will think they are trying to sneak something past them.
Voters rejected the republic referendum because they couldn’t handle the parliament voting on who became president, even though the proposal was a much more democratic system than we currently have.
Personally I think four years makes sense, but I think fixed 3 year terms will be easier to sell to the public. No point dooming fixed terms by combining it with the issue of longer terms, it would just muddy the argument, and open it up to attack.
But, ifonly, if there is an impasse between the House and the Senate, shoudn’t all of both of houses be open to the verdict of the people? A hostile Senate would be much more likely to play a spoiling role if they knew that they were only getting a half Senate poll, while still getting a chance at stealing the House and thus the government.
However, I agree that a joint sitting before any DD could be a good idea. We have too many elections.
I support semi-fixed four year terms (ie with a mechansiam for an election if a government loses the confidence of the House of Reps), but lengthening the terms brings into question Senate terms. Currently these are 6, or two House terms, but with a four year House, do we give Senators 8 year terms? This seems a long time to serve while only winning a single election. The alternative might be that all of both Houses is up for election each time. I think this was the Hawke government proposal at the 1988 referendum.
It’s clear, however, that Australia needs a bit of an overhaul of our governing infrastructure. We have too many governments and we have too many elections. The problem is, changing the constitutional furniture in this country is not easy. Only about 6 or 7 referenda have been passed out of about 43 put (I’m sure someone will correct me on those figures), and it’s pretty easy to shoot down a referendum – it probably seems like a painless way to kick the government for most people.
since Federation in 1901 only eight out of 44 proposals to amend the Constitution have been approved
Hugo, you were close
Chris Curtis at 320 – I think we will have to agree to disagree. Under our constitutional system the lower house is expected to be the more powerful house as it represents the people (constitutionally) and this is evidenced by it alone having the power to raise money bills.
I think fixed terms are fine but they have issues in our system that need to be resolved. I agree the ALP needs to get over 1975, the people “decided” that a Senate can block supply and get rid of a government with confidence in the lower house.
I like the idea though of the constitution providing for joint sittings to decide disputes between houses, but it could disempower the senate for ever in the way the house of lords has really been disempowered.
Thanks Paul K – I only came third (4 points off first) in the footy tipping comp, so it’s been that kind of year!
in regards to the amendments to the constitution, the VAST majority were defeated soley because they did not get the 50% of the people’s vote.
It is a furphy that the double-majority rule has worked against changing the constitution.
1) Ackerman sez elesewhere:
Has anyone else read this article?
2) Hugo sez:
As pointed out on one of those TV discussion shows (on ABC or SBS) recently we are not actually overgoverned when compared to most western democracies.
Did anyone see Howard’s closing APEC interview today – he was quite clear that he will lead the coalition to the election.
The man is not for changing! to paraphrase another rodent
if he goes it will only be through a messy challenge – don’t see it myself – this is good – i want to see him go down on election night.
Any constitutional changes must be approved by a double majority—a national majority of electors as well as a majority of electors in a majority of the states (at least four of the six). The double majority provision makes alterations to the Constitution difficult.
ifonly,
If the joint sitting is to pass the blocked bills, what is the half senate election after it for?
Pi,
The constitution dos not allow a joint sitting until after a double dissolution.
The point of an election before a joint sitting is that the people get a say. If any government that could not have its way with the Senate could just use a joint sitting, that would undermine the democratic nature of the Australian Constitution. For those who believe in the government mandate idea, I point out that it is almost unheard of for a government to poll more than 50 per cent of the vote in its own right and it is therefore perfectly democratic that it have to negotiate the passage of its legislation with other parties so that the legislation does have majority support in the community.
The double majority does make it difficult, but most failures have been meeting the simple 50%+ rule. No majority – no change.
Centre (323)
You are right in your estimate, I’m sure. Anyway, I’m sure John Howard wants to fight. He will relish it. It’s his thing. No-one else in the Liberal flock will want to fight in his place and they will not draft a sacrificial leader: why would they? They would certainly surrender Bennelong as well as their new conscript.
Anyone who says that 55 – 45 won’t get you a win in a federal election is fooling themselves. Piers is grasping at straws.
That’s true, Michael (349), but most had significant opposition. While the popular plebiscite is intuitively a good idea, in practice it means that it’s too easy to build a “No” case than it is to mount a “Yes” one, unless you can get all major interest groups to support it. Given that most Australians would know the US Constitution better than our own (if they know anything at all), it’s hard to get agreement in the broader community either. Add the fact that referenda are more often held mid-term, it seems a perfectly good opportunity to give the government a kick while not not risking a change of government.
On assumes that the next referendum that we get to vote on will be to become a Republic. This will be the case no matter who wins the coming election. If Labor wins (and this seems highly likely), Rudd has already announced that the Republic is back on the agenda. But even if Howard gets that miracle and is re-elected, he won’t last long, and a more Republican-friendly Liberal leader such as Costello would take over. A move to a republic would be an easy piece of symbolism to break with the Howard past for subsequent Liberal PM.
Jen, the basic reason Labor has no chance of winning a Senate majority is that only those Senators elected in 2001 will be up for re-election this time (with the exception of the two NT and two ACT Senators). Those elected from the states in 2004 – of which there were 19 Coalition, 14 Labor, 2 Greens and 1 Family First – will remain until the next election (with the technically possible exception of an election for the House of Reps only, but never mind that). So for Labor to get an actual majority at this election it will need to win 25 seats out of 40. You could possibly construct a fantasy scenario in which Labor wins both the ACT seats plus four seats in four of the six states. The former event has never happened; the only time either party won four seats in one state since the modern system began in 1990 was in Queensland in 2004, when the Coalition won the extra seat that gave it its current majority. So the overwhelming likelihood is that the Coalition will remain very strong in the Senate after the election, which would make it very tempting for Kevin Rudd to reset the clock by calling a double dissolution election – especially if the Coalition descends into infighting after losing government, as seems likely.
Yes, but the day after the election I’m sure he’ll be telling everyone that he knew Howard couldn’t win and if only they’d followed his advise.
Good point. I think all referenda that have past have had bipartisan support. The next Liberal leader will be pro-Republican, if not, then they will be consigning themselves to irrelevancy.
Chris Curtis – I find the discussion you are leading fascinating and would like to discuss it further, but i think it will digress from the theme of the thread and the purpose of the site, so maybe there is a more appropriate venue.
I think there is a lot we can do to get “a more perfect union”.
Adam LOL. Could you explain to me why you get one point for missing in AFL? We up here don’t understand it! I mean if you go for goal and miss and kick it out on the full the defending team should kick it from the boundary, or if you don’t kick it out on the full you have a boundary throw in. Is that so difficult? Teams conceding the one point is a blight on the game IMHO.
Anyway, this time a long term prediction:
- Aex Hawke to be the next liberal leader to be seriously considered for PM (in about a decade that is).
Personally, I’m against fixed terms. I think we should be able to get rid of governments at a moment’s notice: it’s the only restraint they face. Who can say that State Parliaments work better because they have fixed terms? All they have done is give Premiers a firmer hand. For mine, I think legislatures are weak enough already. I want more from my Parliaments, not less!
Blasphemy. Only a heathen northerner could bring up such an issue. Centre, you should ashamed of yourself.
Albert Ross (340) Yes as a hooker myself (Kotara Bears U14s), he was my childhood hero
Adam (342) How did I know you would cheapen it
Hugo – I agree that most referenda have had strong YES and NO votes and in some ways this is the point. They have failed because there is opposition. If we want to have a constitution that can be changed easily, then we have to accept that governments will seek to amend the constitution OFTEN for political gain. It is not a weakness of a system that the constitution is hard to change. It is a strength.
This may sound conservative (but it is in the best sense – ie to conserve) but a constitution that requires something less to be changed is useless.
To me fixed term means there is a fixed election date, but that doesn’t mean there can’t be an earlier election if the government of the day loses the confidence of the house.
Obviously this is an issue simply because in our system the executive is part of the legislature. I’d be more than happy to remove the executive from there, but to be realistic we need to move one step at a time.
Centre – why can you win rugby and league games by doing 3 different things?
If they are about running and scoring tries – why are there so many opportunities to win in the wrong way. Johnny Wilkinson knows.
Having a point adds majesty and mystery to our only national game.
And why is WA always considered a southern state when Perth is further north than Sydney?
Oakeshott, I honestly have no idea what a hooker is or does. Does he carry a hook? The only rugby game I have ever attended or seen in my life was the Springboks match at Olympic Park in 1971, which I was trying to stop, and where I was distracted from the finer points of the game (if that’s not an oxymoron) by being trodden on by a police horse.
“Piers is grasping at straws.”
Piers grabbed the straws years ago, that is the root of all his problems.
Hugo,
The idea that Australia is over-governed is a common one, but a little research shows this is not the case. Every country of our size has at least three tiers of government – for an obvious reason.
There are 30 countries in the world (when you include Greenland with Denmark, of which it is a dependency) of more than one million square kilometres – as small as one eighth of our size. Every one of them has at least three tiers of government.
Russia is a federation of separate republics, which provide an intermediate tier of government between the national one and local ones. Canada is a confederation with provinces between the national government and local government. The USA is a federation with states between the national government and local government. Brazil has states between the national government and local government. China has provinces, then prefectures, between the national government and local government (which has both counties and villages). India has states between the national government and local government.
There are 80 countries in the world with more than ten million people. Every one of these 80 countries has at least three tiers of government
Germany has states between the national government and local government. France has regions and departments between the national government and local government. Italy has regions and provinces between the national government and local government. Switzerland has cantons between the national government and local government. Above the national governments of EU members is the European Parliament.
The UK, which is often misleadingly quoted, has citizens who live under four levels of government (e.g., the European Parliament, the UK Parliament, the Greater London Assembly and their borough council) or even five levels of government (e.g., the European Parliament, the UK Parliament, the unelected regional assembly, the Bedfordshire County Council and the Bedford Borough Council).
Even New Zealand, which is often quoted because it abolished its provinces, has regions between the national government and the local government.
If you count politicians, you will not find Australia over-governed. There are more than 30,261 members of the European Parliament (for the UK), the UK Parliament, the Northern Ireland, Welsh, London and eight unelected English regional assemblies and the various county, district and borough councils. That is one politician for every 1,983 people. To put it another way, the UK has one politician for every 8 square kilometres.
Victoria has 12 senators, 37 federal MPs, 88 state MLAs, 40 state MLCs and about 600 local councillors in 79 councils. (An hour of searching has not provided me with the exact number of the last.) That is a total of about 777 politicians, one for every 6,577 people or one for every 305 square kilometres. It puts the UK figures in perspective. The UK’s number of politicians per head is three and a half times Victoria’s; the UK’s number of politicians per square kilometre is 38 times Victoria’s.
If the states were abolished, the intermediate tier would be created as an internal arrangement of the national government. The only difference would be that it would be unelected.
In short, at least three tiers of government is the norm for any nation of any size. Four levels are not unusual. Five levels are not unheard of.
For a further discussion of these issues, see:
Canning federalism – the Liberals’ legacy?
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6284
Cost-shifting, blame-shifting and profligacy
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6313
The states are redundant
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6297
Michael,
That’s the problem with constitutional reform. We almost always end up agreeing to disagree. We just have to accept that if you can’t get the numbers you can’t win – no matter how good your idea is.
Albert at 150
“As a seat-by-seat analysis in the Financial Review on Friday demonstrated, Labor still has its work cut out mustering enough seats to win government.”
I read it – its twaddle (it’s worse than twaddle, but the type of adjectives required to accurately describe it’s pure twaddlishness would probably send me into Williams moderation bin)
It’s based on nothing more than the individual seat betting markets.
You know, the type of drivel that passes off as analysis of the type: “the ALP isnt ahead in the individual seats by as much as they are in the polls (or the broader market)… therefore the polls are wrong and its really neck and neck”.
Journos need to get a grip with these markets – they are usually thinner than Kate Moss on a laxative bender.
To give an example, I whacked up my McPherson seat analysis late one afternoon and after a few thousand hits, by breakfast the next morning the price dropped from $12 to $8.Two days later it was down to $5.Now unless some anonymous blogger named Possum has a satellite in orbit beaming mind control rays out to mug punters the length of the country, these markets are so pathetically thin at this stage that they arent worth paying attention to as any indicator that has even a remote relationship with reality.
Which, all said and done, makes it perfect quotable fodder for delusional characters like Mr Ackerman.
Oakeshott (307)…
Quite right – there are similarities between the weakness of the UAP and the Liberals – divided, isolated, ill-led and disconnected. And just a hop-step-and-jump to the next election. But where is Menzies’ incarnation? Is it Turnbull? Or is it Nelson himself? On second toughts, I think the UAP had brighter prospects than the Liberals.
Possum, thanks for adding “twaddlishness” to the lexicon. It just knda says it all.
Michael P, you are right. I would have 5 point tries. 2 points for conversions with the rule that the tryscorer takes the kick (the idea here is that a try nearer to the posts may be more valuable). And your 1 point for a field goal, eligible to be taken by any player (necessary to break dead-locks). But that would be showing too much intelligence for NRL administrators. Take the finals McIntyre system, it is so mathematically flawed it’s a joke!
BTW, The Swans should have made it two in a row last year instead of losing by one point. Hall missed everything, he had a shocker, Swans should have won easily.
Laurie Oakes has come out with his spin on it all, he seems to think Howard will tough it out.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=294407
Possum’s comments on the thinness of some betting markets are quite accurate. But there is a bit of cash around on some.
About 18 per cent of all the cash held by Sportingbet on individual seats is on a handful of seats in WA. There’s been a lot of cash coming in for Sharyn Jackson in Hasluck, while there’s also been a few multi-thousand dollar bets on both Tinley and Keenan in Stirling.
Some markets are better than others, obviously. McPherson was always a dodgy one, as a few $10 bets could have moved the ALP in from $12 to $5.
But move to a Bennelong or a Wentworth or a Stirling and you’re talking with a fair bit of cash that makes the market deeper and probably more reliable.
Chris, insightful analysis. How many of these countries have 21 million or fewer people?
AFL
I think the points for behinds are excellent and also a good way of estimating accuracy each game (can’t be done in R/RL). I agree with Leigh Matthews, though, it should be 3 points, which would make rushed behinds hurt more. Sometimes it is advantageous to take the rush and reset from the square as an easier way to get the ball back in the attacking half. 3 points would change this.
I do think it is the king of ball games too. I am from the North, as well
The politics must be dry for us to be talking AFL
The betting market is a nice thing to look at but really can we pick seat results from it no.
For the polls to be right there will be some savage swings, lets look back at 1996 Keating suffered a swing of 5% or so, yet in some Western Sydney seats the swing was around 10-15 %.
In 1999 Kennett suffered a swing of around 3 % yet lost seats the liberals had never lost before, to go one step forward in 2001 Bracks primary vote was only slightly higher than Kennett’s in 1999 yet the state parliament went from a minority government to the biggest TPP in Victorian history.
All the last 50 polls are showing is Howard is in for the biggest hiding ever, I know we have had some really biggest TPP wins by State ALP govts of late which may give some insight to how the Federal map will look.
Both my footy teams(Souths and the Swans) are done for the year.
I hope I’m third time lucky with a Labor election win.
Centre – as an EAGLES fan (and swans member – due to location) NO! The Eagles were robbed in 2005 and should have won it but for all the illegal holding going on when leo barry “marked”.
I spent the weekend travelling to watch the two games (eagles – swans) and missed out over 600 posts to this site. I am finding it hard to catch up.
The NRL uses the old AFL system in the finals which is unfair to those teams which finish in 3rd and 4th.
And why is the NRL the “N” RL, there is nothing national about them, the ACCC should investigate false advertising.
BUT SWAMPY back to the thread – Howard himself says he will stick it out. See ABC news story
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/09/2027940.htm
re #375
The swans were beaten by 1 point by proven drug cheats (discuss)
If you abolish the states then we would probably have local and regional governments.
The 5 mainland capitals would become city-regions with similar to now local government below (exept in Qld where the the council amalgamations would be undone (incl. the BCC)). These would have some of the powers currently held by the states such as running local Public Transport.
Tasmania would become a region because it is a natural unit of government.
The rest of Australia would be devided into around 10 regions.
Whats AFL?
Will Ron Boswell win as 3rd place on the joint ticket in Qld for the senate? Doubtfull in my view.
Generic O, 3 points for a behind??? So teams that are less accurate at kicking for goal are rewarded! No way.
Get rid of behinds! So says Centre.
Whats AFL?
Runawake,
It’s the type of footy that God plays in heaven.
Am I correct Ben Cousins is out for the rest of the finals?
Karma can be a bitch!
Generic oracle,
I don’t follow your question. Every country with 21 million people or more has at least three tiers of government. Every country of Australia’s size or greater has at least three tiers of government.
Tom,
The idea of having regions instead of states and keeping local government is simply a variation on the idea of creating new states, which is constitutionally possible now. The difference with regions would be that they would be creatures of the national government, whereas the states have a constitutional status independent of the federal government.
Michael,
You can sometimes debate these ideas at onlineopinion, but there is a two-posts-per-day limit on each thread.
Bwmofoz,
Can you name he seats that the Liberals had never lost before that they lost in the 1999 election, not in the subsequent by-elections? I don’t think there were any that had existed for any length of time. Steve Bracks’s second victory was in 2002, not 2001.
Labor has extended its lead over the Coalition according to the latest Herald/Nielsen poll to be published in The Sydney Morning Herald tomorrow.
Labor’s two-party preferred vote rose two points to 57 per cent. The Coalition fell 2 points to 43 per cent.
Would Mr Howard go and see the GG tonight / tomorrow to stave off a leadership challenge?
he could call an oct 20 with writs to be issued on Friday which would still allow Mr Harper to address parliament
one would doubt a leadership challenge would happen if the election had been called.
she seats and it seats too.
Smh has the polls results for the poll done on the weekend.
57 – 43 tpp Labor.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/apec/howards-poll-plunge/2007/09/09/1189276524682.html
AC Nielsen 57-43 according to Laurie Oakes on National Nine News.
That’s still shouse for the government.
Nielsen has been leaked to channel 9.
ALP 57% – +2%
Coalition – 43% – -2%
Ciao. Sienara. Auf Wiedersehn. Goodbye.
Election is imminent. If the PM doesn’t call it he will be challenged.
If the AC Nielsen poll is worse for the Liberals, they shouldn’t call an election. Howard’s got to stand down.
Just watching Howard and Co on the news. Looks like he is not going voluntarily and no one has the balls to make him go. They’ve all decided to go down together with the ship.
With the AC Nielsen poll out, it means that each of the 4 main pollsters have registered an ALP 2PP of 57%+ in their last poll…
I have to question why the Coalition would call the election now – surely there has got to be some movement back from these figures (it’s almost suicidal calling the election now…)
Re 384,
“Whats AFL?”
If you have to ask, then I don’t need to tell you
Seriously, though, does anyone know what code of football and/or which team Rudd supports?
We know JH follows rugby and cricket, Costello is Essensdon’s #1 ticket holder, former PM Keating was notionally (don’t know how serious) a Collingwood supporter.
Can anyone answer this piece of trivia about Rudd? Thanks much
Report on channel 7 news (Melbourne) claims the gap in tomorrow’s Nielsen is 14 points with Labor up 4. Given the last Nielsen was (I think) 55-45 2pp, I suspect that they are referring to primaries as being up 4.
Yeppers 57-43. It’s not really rogue polling anymore. It’s last months interest rate rise biting the liberals on the arse. Time to face the music