Australia 2007

[Jake]

Sweet. And I'll be in the region(ish - Southeast Asia ) to enjoy it!

[minionofmidas]

What is comes down to is that people aren't angry with Howard... they're bored with him.

Which is precisely why 59-41 is a lot less unrealistic than you guys seem to think.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Even Kevin Rudd believes it will be down to the wire,

Tony Blair thought that in 1997.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

What is comes down to is that people aren't angry with Howard... they're bored with him.

Which is precisely why 59-41 is a lot less unrealistic than you guys seem to think.

The average of all the polls at the moment is 56-44.

That's an almost 9% swing... that's NEVER happened in Australian politics before. Let alone something like 59-41. We think that's unrealistic because that's something utterly anomolous in Australian political history. Yes, rules break and things change, in Australia landslides come about pretty rarely, and usually fueled by anger - look at the backgrounds of the 1975 and 1996 elections - intense dislike of the sitting government saw them tossed out... but there isn't that level of dislike. People weren't thrilled about Howard in 2004 - but they voted for him because Latham was a thug.

[Democratic Hawk]

To be honest, the electorate have been waiting a while to get rid of him. Yes, the economy has done well under him, but as a whole people think Howard has damaged other elements of Australia's society. Unfortunately for him, he's fallen into the trap of people who do their jobs too well, people believe things will carry on regardless of their presence - Polls suggest people this.

Also the government is well behind the people on climate change, Iraq (even though it's not a major issue), social values etc etc.

But the absolute killer for Howard was his industrial relations reforms - many people saw Howard after that as they hadn't before - ideological and fanatical. They don't him like that. The sizeable number in polls suggest that while they might not be worse off, they think the policy does affect too many people in a negative fashion. Plus 11 1/2 years is a long time.

Would they be bequeathing, in addition to a strong economy, neglected public services and a crumbling infrastructure all around to any incoming Labor government?

Dave

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

To be honest, the electorate have been waiting a while to get rid of him. Yes, the economy has done well under him, but as a whole people think Howard has damaged other elements of Australia's society. Unfortunately for him, he's fallen into the trap of people who do their jobs too well, people believe things will carry on regardless of their presence - Polls suggest people this.

Also the government is well behind the people on climate change, Iraq (even though it's not a major issue), social values etc etc.

But the absolute killer for Howard was his industrial relations reforms - many people saw Howard after that as they hadn't before - ideological and fanatical. They don't him like that. The sizeable number in polls suggest that while they might not be worse off, they think the policy does affect too many people in a negative fashion. Plus 11 1/2 years is a long time.

Would they be bequeathing, in addition to a strong economy, neglected public services and a crumbling infrastructure all around to any incoming Labor government?

Dave

In a way - I don't think infrastructure is crumbling. Education and Health are the biggies. We have a slightly screwed up system when it comes to funding and responsibility. For example, the states manage the hospitals, but the federal government is responsible for medicare - therefore GPs. Education is another tricky one - theoretically the states are responsible for it - but there is a weird arrangement for Universities and also schools.

It was revealed last week that the proportion of federal funding for public health had slipped to well below that of the states. The main reasons why the Government can claim increased funding on health and education are. a) the private health insurance rebate of 30% which is meant to encourage those who can afford it to take up private health cover - not to mention lifetime loading penalties if you don't take it up by the age of 30 and if you earn over 50k p/a. Also the feds have been pumping money into private/independent schools. But in practice the funding for public education has dropped significantly - also University funding was gutted in the first 2/3 years of the Howard government - they have increased it lately, but also increased the amounts student have to pay... so they still, as a proportion put it back to where it was in 1996, they also leave student finishing Univeristy with sizeable debts.

[Verily]

Even Kevin Rudd believes it will be down to the wire,

Tony Blair thought that in 1997.

Labour also had the humiliation of 1992 to remember.

Perhaps more importantly, Rudd (and Blair before him) doesn't want to be caught saying that his party is guaranteed victory, even though it is. The electorate would see such realism as hubris and punish him for it.

[Platypus]

I firmly, firmly believe that the ALP is not guartanteed victory.

As Polnut pointed out, to lose an election in a landslide is very, very uncommon here-especially for the coalition-and even to lose an election is uncommon, there have only been 5 changes of political party in government since world war two.

Oppositions do not win elections here, governments lose them. If the libs do lose this time around, it would probably be the first case of the opposite, but even then the majority of voters will be basing their vote on the coalition, not on labor-positive or negative, the government is very very much in the spotlight for this election, at least so far.

[Democratic Hawk]

Even Kevin Rudd believes it will be down to the wire,

Tony Blair thought that in 1997.

Labour also had the humiliation of 1992 to remember.

That was something of a blessing, not a humiliation, in hindsight

Dave

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Even Kevin Rudd believes it will be down to the wire,

Tony Blair thought that in 1997.

Labour also had the humiliation of 1992 to remember.

And the ALP that of 2005. A heavier defeat than that suffered by Labour in 1992.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maybe. But in Blair's case at least he really did think that the election was going to be fairly close.

[Democratic Hawk]

To be honest, the electorate have been waiting a while to get rid of him. Yes, the economy has done well under him, but as a whole people think Howard has damaged other elements of Australia's society. Unfortunately for him, he's fallen into the trap of people who do their jobs too well, people believe things will carry on regardless of their presence - Polls suggest people this.

Also the government is well behind the people on climate change, Iraq (even though it's not a major issue), social values etc etc.

But the absolute killer for Howard was his industrial relations reforms - many people saw Howard after that as they hadn't before - ideological and fanatical. They don't him like that. The sizeable number in polls suggest that while they might not be worse off, they think the policy does affect too many people in a negative fashion. Plus 11 1/2 years is a long time.

Would they be bequeathing, in addition to a strong economy, neglected public services and a crumbling infrastructure all around to any incoming Labor government?

Dave

In a way - I don't think infrastructure is crumbling. Education and Health are the biggies. We have a slightly screwed up system when it comes to funding and responsibility. For example, the states manage the hospitals, but the federal government is responsible for medicare - therefore GPs. Education is another tricky one - theoretically the states are responsible for it - but there is a weird arrangement for Universities and also schools.

It was revealed last week that the proportion of federal funding for public health had slipped to well below that of the states. The main reasons why the Government can claim increased funding on health and education are. a) the private health insurance rebate of 30% which is meant to encourage those who can afford it to take up private health cover - not to mention lifetime loading penalties if you don't take it up by the age of 30 and if you earn over 50k p/a. Also the feds have been pumping money into private/independent schools. But in practice the funding for public education has dropped significantly - also University funding was gutted in the first 2/3 years of the Howard government - they have increased it lately, but also increased the amounts student have to pay... so they still, as a proportion put it back to where it was in 1996, they also leave student finishing Univeristy with sizeable debts.

Lucky Rudd. Shouldn't have to borrow to the hilt putting things right then , if the public services and infrastructure are in good nick.  But he's not there yet . This game ain't over until the fat lady sings

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maybe. But in Blair's case at least he really did think that the election was going to be fairly close.

I know on the Friday, getting absolutely inebriated in the 'Big Jug', I kept asking my mates to pinch me to ascertain whether I was still in the land of the living. 1997 exceeded my wildest dreams

Dave

[Verily]

Even Kevin Rudd believes it will be down to the wire,

Tony Blair thought that in 1997.

Labour also had the humiliation of 1992 to remember.

That was something of a blessing, not a humiliation, in hindsight

Dave

It was a humiliation in the sense that everyone expected them to win until the last minute. A blessing in the sense that it made their eventual victory larger and probably more lasting.

[StateBoiler]

To be honest, the electorate have been waiting a while to get rid of him. Yes, the economy has done well under him, but as a whole people think Howard has damaged other elements of Australia's society. Unfortunately for him, he's fallen into the trap of people who do their jobs too well, people believe things will carry on regardless of their presence - Polls suggest people this.

Also the government is well behind the people on climate change, Iraq (even though it's not a major issue), social values etc etc.

But the absolute killer for Howard was his industrial relations reforms - many people saw Howard after that as they hadn't before - ideological and fanatical. They don't him like that. The sizeable number in polls suggest that while they might not be worse off, they think the policy does affect too many people in a negative fashion. Plus 11 1/2 years is a long time.

The U.S. news stories I saw on this yesterday had headlines something like this:

"Howard, Iraq War ally, calls Australia elections"

So regardless of what actually happens, if Howard loses, it'll probably be interpreted as "Australia rejects Iraq War".

Not that you'd care, just don't be surprised in a month if you come upon a U.S. story that harps on it after Howard loses.


What did Howard do with his industrial reforms?

Another question. I know that Howard is in a tough fight for his home seat. Lets assume in an unlikely scenario that Howard loses his home seat but the Coalition maintain their majority. Does the Liberal #2 become Prime Minister?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Put it this way, if it's played as a rejection of the Iraq War... they'd be wrong. Australia hasn't had a foreign policy election since 1966 - that was over Vietnam. The Iraq War is incredibly unpopular, and Kevin Rudd has been consistently against it... but the issue itself isn't enough.

They were the most radical overhaul.
*Removed protections for people in employed in small business to sue for unfair dismissal.
*Removed collective agreements leading to individually negotiated Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs) which can lead to a SLIGHTLY higher base wage but fewer benefits like penalty rates. The argument being that in many cases a prospective employee is not likely to argue with an employee. But a lot of people I've spoken to, professionals and like (Liberal voters) think that this has affected them in a negative fashion.
*There are others... just look up "workchoices" on wiki.

Now I know that this is still miles ahead of the present US system - in fact the US is shown as the example of where they don't want industrial relations to end up.

If Howard loses Bennelong (which polls suggest is a possibility) then it would be the second time a Prime Minister has lost his seat at an election - but should the coalition win - it would be the first time the Prime Minister has lost, but his party win. Assuming that - the Deputy Liberal leader - Costello, would likely become PM. But I get from speaking with people inside the party that he might not get to the next election before someone removes him.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

Who wants to see some Election '07 campaign commercials? I think you do! I have only found one election commercial on YouTube I'll update the list as the campaign progresses. Enjoy.

Kevin Rudd - New Leadership

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Well... Howard, who's lost every debate since becoming PM will again use his regular tactic.

An early debate - just shy of SIX weeks before the election - this time, not in a TV studio, but the great hall of parliament house - the audience will not be the public, but political supporters from each side - who will ask questions along with a panel of journalists.

...and I'm going to be there.

Even though I think Howard is a complete wuss... but that's the right of the incumbent.

[Platypus]

how do you qualify? Who do you write for/work for?

Coincidentally, I'm feeling more anti-Rudd now. I'll still preference him, but I no longer actively support him.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

how do you qualify? Who do you write for/work for?

Coincidentally, I'm feeling more anti-Rudd now. I'll still preference him, but I no longer actively support him.

I know people.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

I am not actively supporting John Howard or Kevin Rudd, the Liberal Party or the ALP. Both political parties are becoming more identical everyday as the campaign unfolds. Not to mention Howard and Rudd are both both right-wingers.

The only reason why Kevin Rudd is doing so well in the polls is because he is a media slut. Sucking up to the media anytime he can. Afterall he is a Media Slut. (Thank you very much Andrew Hansen )

Earlier this week the Liberal Party release their 34 billion dollar tax cut. The ALP were criticized for not releasing their tax policy. Shadow Treasurer Wayne Swan said we'll take our time. Then on Friday they released theirs. Basically identical to the Liberal Party's one. With minor changes. And I mean minor.

On a final note may I say Julia Gillard, Deputy Leader of the ALP who is a former unionist and a member of the Socialist left in the ALP, came out on Lateline last Wednesday (I think) and said she was a Conservative. If Gillard is a conservative that must mean Howard is a Socialist.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

She referred to herself as a 'c'onservative.... although Tony Jones did call her on her support for the potentially ruinous Medicare Gold pacakge from 2004.

There's nothing 'c'onservative about the Howard economic policy.

Actually - I think the reason Rudd's doing so well is not because he's a "smug media slut" (he is... but it was a MASTER stroke), it's as Kroeger and Labor whats-his-face said last night on Lateline, the underlying factor in this election is the "it's time" factor. People wanted to get rid of Howard in 2004, but Labor picked a bogan thug to be its leader - people think Howard is too out of touch and they want to see what Labor has to offer.

[Platypus]

I liked Krudd in the media slut days-or the sunrise days, as I call them. He was prepared to actually set out differences on issues, go on the 7:30 report and speak intelligently on foreign affairs issues, and basically debate the issues in the public sphere showing intelligence.

I was once a strong supporter of Krudd. I wanted him to win the leadership. When he did, I thought Australia might end up with a good quality PM who would make a difference, and usher in a new era of government where foreign affairs and social policy were well served, not just the strong economics of the Liberals.


I was wrong.


And now I want Kevin Rudd to lose.


I cannot stand John Howard, and most of his government. But what I really want is change, and i'm prepared to wait 18 months for Costello. I will be preferencing the Liberals.

This is not a decision I take lightly, and it may change before election day, but the ALP is a bad party at the core, and Kevin Rudd would make a bad Prime Minister-not a good combo.

I still think the ALP could have made a good government, but based on their current rhetoric, I cannot support tyhem. the Liberal Party has a better core ethos-or at least it did before about 2001-and I'm prepared to see how they will change under a Costello prime ministership. If there is no significant change, I will probably vote ALP in 2010, but I'd rather chance that than a Krudd Labor government.

Of course, the ALP will win my seat anyway, and my senate preference will still go to the ALP, so maybe my vote doesn't matter too much, but, that's where it stands anyway. I think by the time this campaign is over, my viewpoint will not be a solitary one, either.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I think this might be the first grumblings of the backfire of the Labor plan which has worked pretty well from the beginning of the Rudd leadership... "neutralise weakneses by stressing similarity with Howard on bits people like, then differentiate on those matters they dislike".

Personally, I think the $34 B tax cuts were reckless, and for Labor to be equally (and more so) reckless by taking on 91.5% of the coalition tax plan... it's disappointing. While it would have been a calculated risk - they had a MASSIVE opportunity to walk out on their own... and they were too terrified of looking weak on the economy. Should interest rates come into this campaign... I wonder if Labor has the guts to say "Ok they were 17% under us in 1990, but this was 17 years ago when the majority of the P/Labor/P weren't even elected. If 17 years ago still matters? Why not 25 years ago when there was 22% under a Howard treasury?"

[afleitch]

[quote author=Lt. Governor Rockefeller Republican
Earlier this week the Liberal Party release their 34 billion dollar tax cut. The ALP were criticized for not releasing their tax policy. Shadow Treasurer Wayne Swan said we'll take our time. Then on Friday they released theirs. Basically identical to the Liberal Party's one. With minor changes. And I mean minor.
[/quote]

Sounds suprisingly like the tactics of our Labour Party. And yes, people here saw through that very quickly too...

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

OK, well I'm off to Parli House. (Yes.. I know still 2.5 hours to go - but coffee in Civic then there's security etc etc.)

Probably won't report back tonight (couple of the bars in Kingston will be open... they smell the profit) - but tomorrow I'll give you my rundown.