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
Pages: « 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 9 » Show All
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.
Pages: « 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 9 » Show All