The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Why John Howard will win next year's federal election > Comments

Why John Howard will win next year's federal election : Comments

By James McConvill, published 25/10/2006

Poor economic performance is the only reason a federal government is voted out in Australia.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All
Dear James,

I suspect that Jeff Kennett was thinking the same thing when he lost to Steve Bracks.

I also suspect that Beazley will be quite comfortable campaigning as a leader who is expected to lose the election.

Unless Howard is very clever about how he spends the Telstra windfall (and he might be clever about it, but that has nothing to do with the 'election cycle' theory you develop) I think that Howard will lose the election.

Work Choices, nuclear power, the War in Iraq, interest rates rising (and likely to rise again before the election), housing affordability at its lowest level in years, a failure to address the challenges presented by climate change (evidenced by failure to sign the [iconic] Kyoto Protocol)... there are plenty of issues for the Opposition to drill home.

Bring it on!
Posted by The Skeptic, Wednesday, 25 October 2006 9:35:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I nice try at re working Rod Sawford's election guide. there are 3 factors. unmeployment, inflation and interest rates.

If two of these have gone in the wrong direction during the term of office NO australian govt has held office.

Thus labor will win the next election.
Posted by Steve Madden, Wednesday, 25 October 2006 9:44:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While Beazley is leader and the Labor party has no policies, they will not win an election, but if that changes, little Johnny had better watch out because his current intransigence on Iraq and industrial relations in particular are losing him votes. The average voter couldn't give a stuff about global warming or nuclear energy. It is what affects his current standard of living which drives his vote.
Posted by VK3AUU, Wednesday, 25 October 2006 9:55:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
James, it's a bit early to be declaring the winner of the next federal election. The vicissitudes of life extend to our politicians as well.

One thing is guaranteed and that is that intelligent life will not be discovered in our federal parliament.
Posted by Sage, Wednesday, 25 October 2006 10:32:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
James, your Liberal Party pre-selection form is in the mail...now that you have all that free time on your hands.
Posted by Mercurius, Wednesday, 25 October 2006 10:38:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Right. That's why the dags we keep installing in Canberra can afford to be as dopey and useless as they are: they know that they can buy the average Australian voter when the time comes, no matter what stuff ups they have made during their term.

As for who will win the next election - the opposite of what Malcolm McKerras predicts.
Posted by Leigh, Wednesday, 25 October 2006 11:42:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I hope McConvill is a better lawyer than historian.

e.g. McConvill claims: "Gough Whitlam was voted out of office at the end of 1975."

Fact: Whitlam was sacked by the Governor-General who installed Malcolm Fraser as PM pending an election. The incumbent theory was distorted by the coup.

e.g. McConvill claims: "The 1993 election was unwinnable for the then prime minister, Paul Keating. But Keating won. Why? Although unemployment was at record high levels, inflation had dropped significantly."

Plausible alternative explanations: The Australian electorate was opposed to John Hewson's proposed GST (which later John Howard said he would 'never, ever' introduce but did without a popular mandate). Moreover, Hewson was also a poor performer in public and lacked credibility with 'the battlers' (remember his confusion about the price of a cake?).

While economic matters and perceived self-interest heavily influence the way people vote, it is simplistic to ignore other influences such as media representations, cultural considerations (e.g. racism and loathing of 'the other'), personalities (compare and contrast Hawke and Keating; or Downer and Howard), security (fear of real or manufactured threats), concerns over the environment, and a sense of fair play for the underdog - to mention just a few.
Posted by FrankGol, Wednesday, 25 October 2006 11:50:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I kinda wonder whether there's an element of fitting the facts to the thesis here. Voters understand interest rates but do they understand inflation? If they did wouldn't Hawke have gone sometime in the the 80s? There's also the question in 72 as to the disaster that was Labor up until then and the reform of Whitlam within the party. Those reforms gave it credibility.

But I'll take your thesis as correct. In that case Howard is at real risk from the drought (I'll continue with the idea that voters are so dumb as not to separate a drought from long-term economic manipulation). By mid next year we may see food prices 20+% higher (far more in some commodities) which will blow out inflation and hence interest rates unles the RBA adopts a 'this is just a blip' approach. If high prices and rates are the case, even with low oil prices (never a given these days), the incumbents may not be so secure as you are assuming. For the record I'm not a rusted on voter to either party.
Posted by PeterJH, Wednesday, 25 October 2006 12:01:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A fundamental failure of most people who try to influence forums on this topic, is that they underestimate the intellect of the ordinary people of this country. They are not as brain dead as the perpetrators may think. The majority of the electorate are social reformists, not greed is good advocates, despite the in place agenda of the current government
Posted by boofhead, Wednesday, 25 October 2006 1:57:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
James also neglects insecurity and uncertainty. People feeling nervous about interest rates and job security isn't too good for a government who, rightly or wrongly, are perceived to be responsible.
Posted by chainsmoker, Wednesday, 25 October 2006 2:13:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think it will mainly come down who has to the support of the media, in conjunction with the degree of public opinion.

Murdoch helped Whitlam get elected but they later had a falling out when Gough refused his request to be appointed High Commissioner to London. The result was a strike by journalists who were having their stories editorially interfered with but the continuing blatant influence on public opinion made sure that Fraser won.

Hawke simply had vast personal popular support and Fraser was becoming too socially divisive. Remember the "national reconciliation" that Hawke promised?

Howard had both Packer and Murdoch personally and publically on-side when it counted.

I fear the media will sway it again but ultimately they will have to go with overwhelming popular opinion just to make money.

If it's reasonably close, the media tends to back the encumbent.
Posted by wobbles, Wednesday, 25 October 2006 4:40:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As much as I hate to admit it, McConville's right. Unless something unexpected and catastrophic happens, Howard is going to win.

Labor has failed to capitalise on every piece of good fortune thrown their way. In some cases it's ineptitude:

i.e. the whole 'lets screen tourists for values' comeback by Beazley (when he should have said all immigrants (not tourists) not just muslims should sign up to values, thus placating both the right and left by making a broad sweep)

Similarly, Beazley's policy on pulling out of Iraq now that we're there and not sustaining casualties is fairly divisive, whereas capitalising on the stupidity of the war in general isn't.

It isn't all labor ineptitude however - most of the time, Beazley and Rudd are doing a reasonable job screeching about the Liberals latest blunder. The problem is, their arguments don't find much traction, and it is assumed they're not properly capitalising on the situation.

And why don't their arguments find traction?
Low employment. Strong economy. Yeah, most of it's just riding the resources boom, but Howard's swinging his cap and riding his high horse, and until that horse has to be put down, he'll keep on riding it.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Wednesday, 25 October 2006 5:05:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
McConville is more than likely correct in his anal isis - and that is the sad point - all else becomes insignificant as long as the economy is chugging along for the betterment the movers and shakers
Posted by sneekeepete, Wednesday, 25 October 2006 5:31:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Think about it wobbles, the Americans are about to take over Packer's PBL and channel 9 and their printed media.

If anything, the ALP has played into the US agenda. A trap that they may not be aware of. The US will do anything to destroy the AWB. Who do you think gave Kim Beazley all that information about the kickbacks? The Australian authorities? Of course not. Only the US and the EU have a motive.

While Bush' Republicans are friendly with Howard, US intelligence and military is more friendly with Kim Beazley.

I agree with Sage. It is too early to call.

The Republicans in the US congress will lose their mandate in the half term elections due the end of this year.

The full effects of the draught and the expense of the oncoming bushfires this summer are yet to come.

This Christmas will be a stinker as less will spend: nervous about credit card and loan interest rates.

Thanks to Howard's policies, US owned Wal-Mart will arise and bring in the axe once it has Coles.

More jobs will be cut in US media takeovers, telcos, all technology, industry and retail takeovers will fall to foreign interests. Telstra is already doing this.

By next year, it is possible that with rural and urban disaster, we could end up overwhelmed by bankruptcy, debt, insurance debt and therefore high interest rates as well and foreign takeovers for foreign interests. Therefore high unemployment and public resentment.

Only fear can save this government. Unless Howard makes a sinister phone call to the middle east begging them to blow up the Harbour Bridge and play the "terrorist" card. Nice tactic but he can't win.

More people and more countries like Papua, the Solomn Islands and East Timor are in a cold war with our leader now. NZ and Indonesia are not impressed either. How secure do you feel?

Once more see his true colours, he could end up the most hated leader in Australian history by the next election.
Posted by saintfletcher, Wednesday, 25 October 2006 5:43:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
sneekeepete (and others)

McConvill may be right in the outcome he predicts (time will tell); but I think his analysis is badly flawed. The assumption that the economy is the sole determinant of people's voting patterns is arguable but he allows no other causative connection.

If he were right, McConvill would have to find other reasons to explain why Howard finds it necessary to use Tampa, children overboard and other such frauds. Why would he use dog whistle tactics days before an election? Why would he talk up terrorism fears? Why defame the Leader of the Opposition? If McConvill's analysis is right there would be no need for these election strategies - indeed no need for elections; we'd change the constitution so as to keep the incumbents when the economy is OK and replace them when it's not. Simple eh?
Posted by FrankGol, Wednesday, 25 October 2006 5:47:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Howard has run out of scare campaigns.

Terrorism - higher because of his actions
Boat people - Not many coming any more, all dead
Unions - Only exist for professionals, business and farmers

He cannot bribe the electorate with tax cuts - reserve bank will say no.

Low unemployment so what no votes in that - I got my job on my skills.

Things costing more - big minus.

The Howard spin has evaporated, just look at the opinion polls.

The Liberals are falling apart, internal dissent with President Johnny.

He is a smart guy though, he will not even contest the next election leave the blame on Costello. He has form and will "cut and run" when the going gets tough. He has played all his cards.
Posted by Steve Madden, Wednesday, 25 October 2006 7:07:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spot on, Howard will win, and even if Beazley did win I wouldn't really care, the problems in this country are way bigger than Liberal/Labor
Posted by Carl, Wednesday, 25 October 2006 7:40:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Howard's assault on people's rights at work is certainly no vote winner. Workchoices is deeply unpopular, and in a country with a workplace culture built around trade union values, many people feel betrayed. I have heard plenty of people who voted him in say things about him that I cannot print here.

Having deeply offended the values of decency and a fair go the Aussies hold dear, they are beginning to notice other transgressions, such as the children who didn't get thrown overboard, Iraqi weopons of mass destruction that never existed, the AWB scam that he almost certainly knew about. Howards position is much more precarious than it was 12 months ago.

When you consider that his election victory was nowhere near as supreme as it may appear( he won a great majority of seats, but very many of them by a slim margin) it would not take much of a swing to tip the scales back the other way.

And if people really do only vote with their hip pocket and don't care about anythig else, there is a growing number with shrinking hip pockets, thanks to workchoices and rising inflation.

John Howard is on borrowed time.
Posted by Fozz, Wednesday, 25 October 2006 10:22:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm glad to read this theory, it is one that I have long held that Aust. Govts. only change post recessions. There is always a lag after the recession bottoms so the first opportunity to punish the incumbent is taken.
The exception was 1993 when everyone expected Keating to lose, but Hewson's GST (another hip pocket worry) forestalled it until 1996.
Australians don't really care about politics - no matter how bald the lies or immoral the manouevres, just as long as their house price keeps rising is all they care about - and the new IR laws are not causing as much insecurity as some would think as the current labour shortage assures much confidence in near term job security.
Unless there is a major blowout in interest rates Howard will get back in regardless of any violations of international law and human rights abuses - voters only care about material life.
In fact so meaningless are holding elections as they have no relation to politics, we could just let the two parties take it in turns as being the economic managers of Australia Pty Ltd.
Posted by roama, Wednesday, 25 October 2006 10:23:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a shame we didn't have a half decent opposition and The Coalition would have performed 100% better in the Nation building stakes.It is not enough just to produce budget surpluses.

Education,training for skills,health reform,reducing red tape for businesses,tax reform ie reducing it's complexity and the burden on middle Aust,more infrastructure spending i.e water storage transport,reform of the Public Service in terms of waste and inefficiencies are but a few.Where's Wally Beazley well may we ask, in putting the blow torch of policy formation on the agenda?

The Coalition are just cruising because they know along with the electorate,that Labor has a lamentable lack of talent and guts.

The pollies are too busy monitering our immediate knee jerk reactions to interest rates.The resources boom will end and they will tax the life out of us to pay for their waste and bloated bureaucracies.We just keep on making the same old mistakes.
Posted by Arjay, Wednesday, 25 October 2006 11:22:38 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
John Howard will win the next election?

Oh god, I hope not!

Kim Beazley will win the next election?

Oh god, I hope not!

Seems I'm in a bit of a quandry.

I think a good indicator may be next year's NSW election. If the voters in Western Sydney go against the Libs strongly, it may indicate that "Howard's Battlers" may be deserting him. IR, interest rates. While not state issues, it all filters through, and the libs may cop a backlash. However, if the Libs poll well in Western Sydney, it may indicate that the battlers are prepared to hold out.

I think it's too early to call this one...
Posted by ChrisC, Thursday, 26 October 2006 2:16:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
VK3AUU has summed this up briefly and accurately. With Beasley as leader Labor can't win. look at the polls, over all the years since the Tampa appeared. Beasley is seen as a useless leader.

Despite Labor having led the polls for a time now, and no doubt for some time yet, Beasley's acceptance level is in the 20 - 30% zone and only appears to drop. No leader, no win. Beasley is a follower hoping, not a leader leading.

Come election time Howard will have a surplus bigger than Ben Hur to buy votes, again. Beasley will have.... nothing to offer except supposed reversal of now entrenched government policy.

Name me one new government that has wiped away previous piles of odious legislation. Doesn't happen. GST is forgotten and a boon to governments as they look like good managers when all they are is excessive tax collectors.

As to good economic management when will people get it through their thick heads that one little Australian government can control and manage what is now part of a world wide economy. They can't and don't. If anyone in Australia does it is our public service but the reality is international forces drive our economy and little John simply rides it like George Moore did the horses he won on.
By the by I too agree neither major Party is the answer for us. Our politics is disgusting at all levels. Self serving incompetence at best.
Posted by RobbyH, Thursday, 26 October 2006 8:09:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You fellows make a large mistake with Beazley.

His poll numbers. Opposition leaders generally don't have high poll numbers historically in Aus. John Howard didn't.

Alot of people focus on the personal poll numbers, when in reality it doesn't make as much difference.

The numbers that count are the party numbers. And Labor is looking surprisingly strong (Don't get me wrong, I think both parties are largely made up of clowns).

If inflation and therefore interest rates go up, or the minerals boom slows down, the price of petrol or more constant reminders of climate change keep poping up (which the Coalition is very weak on despite the money they threw at it), the tide may turn in favour of Labour.
Posted by Bobalot, Thursday, 26 October 2006 8:55:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shame for beazley that his greatest gem - the fear of the workchoices legislation - will be losing its shine by the time of the election.

The problem labor has, is that workchoices isn't about sweeping changes, it's more of a cumulative effect in terms of a gradual weakening of collective bargaining. (Unlike the media changes which had an instant flurry of effects).

So when the next election comes around, Labor will be desperate to poke the workchoices dog awake. They'll taunt it and try to piss it off, but by and large it will remain slumbering. This is a long term kind of a thing, and by the time it's bothering people, it will be too late to change.

So all labor has is the fear. Perception is all that matters in these events, but it would require a deft hand to manipulate effectively. Howard is seen as the knowledgable one on economic matters which will hamper Labor's attempts to foster indignation outside the now-weak union base which largely supports labor anyway (though not to the extent they once did).

Ultimately it comes back to McConville's point - if the economy's strong, Australian's just don't care. It would take a mammoth effort by Labor to win this and overcome their chief enemy - not the Liberal party, but apathy, pure and simple.

Thank heaven we don't have the voluntary voting system employed in the US. That would have labor truly screwed.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 26 October 2006 12:22:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fear and greed, works everytime, but it will depend who has the better "fear and greed" stories next year.

I heard Beazley talking about middle Australia this morning on the radio. he has yet to develop a dog whistle to prick their ears up.

Its as simple as that.

Oppostions don't win government as the old saying goes. Incumbents lose it.

Howard sings:

"It's just a jump to the left
And then a step to the right
With your hands on your hips
You bring your knees in tight
But it's the pelvic thrust that really drives you insane,
Let's do the Time Warp again!"

Beazley bellows:

"It's so dreamy, oh fantasy free me
So you can't see me, no not at all
In another dimension, with voyeuristic intention
Well-secluded, I see all
With a bit of a mind flip
You're there in the time slip
And nothing can ever be the same
You're spaced out on sensation, like you're under sedation
Let's do the Time Warp again!"
Posted by Rainier, Thursday, 26 October 2006 1:04:00 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey Bobalot and TRTL,

I acknowledge Bob's point about low numbers. Unfortunately though these two, Beasley and Howard have been opposed for years and Howard clearly has Beasley's number. Beasley is by far the weakest point in Labor's platform. They should have bitten the bullet and swept away all these old and failed Labor front bench occupants when Latham failed.

In regard to Latham you might recall his poll numbers were vastly superior to Beasley's but still lost badly.

Instead they return to the old and failed. The only reason there is no alternative Opposition leader is that any candidates can see the writing on the wall and don't want to fail at their first go.

The Tampa exposed Beasley's true colours. He failed to take the stand labor should have at that time and cannot recover that ground against Howard. Against Costelloe? Maybe he had a shot.

I agree with TRTL that "Howard is seen as the knowledgable one on economic matters", although I fail to understand why. Fear is his trump card, as usual. I tip the fear factor Libs will focus on is Beasley.

Anything would be better than the Coalition but looking at the Labor performances Australia wide as State leaders it's clear the differences between the parties are in one area only. That is whoever holds government. Once in government all current governments entrench themselves with appointments, favoured spending and whatever dirt they can find on the "others".
Posted by RobbyH, Thursday, 26 October 2006 1:11:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While it's true Beazley hasn't set the world on fire from opposition, it's also a valid observation that many bad opposition leaders make good Prime Ministers - and vice versa.

I remember Howard in opposition as simply a constant whiner, devoid of any policies until a couple of weeks before his winning election.

As for Workchoices, while the media coverage may die down before the polls open, by then many people will be directly affected or know somebody who has been. This is the sort of thing that people smoulder quietly over until they get into the voting booth.

When there is any downturn in the economy it will show up in Workchoices first as employers clamber to maintain their margins.
Today's wage outcome will mean that employers have to find other ways of cutting costs - if they can't cut wages anymore, they will be demanding more from their employees by further reducing their conditions.

This could be the death of a thousand cuts for Howard.

Also the political fallout from Iraq will impact on the other members of the "Coalition of the Willing" before it reaches our government. An international change in sentiment could leave him out in the open and very vulnerable indeed.

Finally, when the mood of a nation is such that they are no longer happy with what sort of country we are becoming, they will make their intentions clearly heard at the ballot box and no amount of pork-barrelling and lies will stop it.
Posted by rache, Thursday, 26 October 2006 2:58:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree that John Howard will win the next election. But I disagree with James McConvill's analysis of the reasons for past changes of government. Economic performance may be the thing that keeps a party in power, but it can be negated by public perception on other issues, and this perception can defeat a leader.

In 1972 we had Gough Whitlam vs Billy McMahon. There had been disunity and conflict in the Liberal Party over the leadership, Billy was tripping over simple questions, and we were obviously losing in Vietnam, where 20 year old conscripts were being killed. By contrast, Gough had a cohesive party, a well-publicised policy of social reform, the media on his side, he was going to get us out of Vietnam, and he looked like a leader.

In 1975 we had Gough vs Malcolm Fraser. The Labor party was in disarray, having Rex Connor and Jim Cairns hell-bent on going their own way. The media was trumpeting Juni Morosi and Tirath Khemlani scandals. Then the Governor General stepped in, sacked Gough, and appointed Fraser as "Caretaker". Why wouldn't he win?

Hawke won in 1983 on the "Save the Franklin" campaign. People love supporting a cause that can be publicised by stunningly beautiful images and makes them feel good and virtuous. Fraser was, by that time, perceived as arrogant. So was Keating in 1996.

To unseat Howard, Labor has to get a leader who looks like a leader. Neither Beazley nor Rudd is convincing in the role, and they are too stupid to recognise the potential of John Faulkner. It has to get rid of the ruthless and dishonest backroom manipulators, an image (at least in NSW) that is etched on the public's consciousness, and it has to champion a popular environmental cause that can be photographed for wall posters for the masses. "Save the Murray-Darling" might just have done it, except that Iemma stuffed that up by trying to sell the iconic Snowy River Scheme. No, Labor won't win in 2007 - but it will be entirely its own fault, nothing to do with the economy.
Posted by Cleo7, Thursday, 26 October 2006 3:34:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In response TurnRightTurnLeft
who is relieved that we have compulsory voting, consider that this may actually be part of the problem.

Why is it that the Iraq invasion is impacting on Bush and Blair's electoral support, but this issue is not affecting Howard's electoral fortunes despite most Australians being against the war?

I suggest that their voluntary voting system makes the difference, because those who care about politics will be the ones who want to makes themselves heard at the ballot box.

The compelled apathetic 20% of Australian voters, who don't care about the big issues will cast their ballot purely in selfish terms - ( the hip pocket ). If these people were given a choice to not participate, then an election would be a battle of ideas instead of the current assessment of the economy.
Posted by roama, Thursday, 26 October 2006 3:55:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Roama: in response to the first statement - McConville has outlined it pretty well. It's about hip pockets. There is a minority of people out there (I'm among them) who feel very strongly about social issues as opposed to economic, who will vote along those lines.

I tend to think that these people surround themselves with people of the same ilk, which leads them to believe this is a widespread attitude, though I suspect the reality is much more apathetic and much less interested in these issues. It's sad but true.
Bloggers probably aren't a representative sample in terms of apathy, while you get a fair sample of the political spectrum, the act of blogging is a form of expression which many, quite simply, can't be bothered getting involved in - much like political expression.

It is affecting bush and blair because they are suffering losses. We are not. Our presence in Iraq is a token gesture and we're all well aware of that.

The reason why optional voting will screw beazley is simple: people won't be voting for Beazley, they'll be voting for or against Howard. Lately Beazley has been attempting to be more conservative than Howard, which puts him in a precarious position and the votes he can hope to garner will come from the apathetic sector, who probably won't vote if they don't have to. Howard's economic warriors - the business sector, on the other hand, probably would.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Friday, 27 October 2006 10:35:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Given the enactment of legislation and polices, not even put to the electorate at the last election by this Government, that has changed the way of life for the worse for many Australians - "Work Choices", "Welfare to Work", ramping up of immigration to unprecented levels of 140,000 per year, the abuses of the skilled migration program and temporary work visas, the sale of Australian housing on the international market, the wholesale export of skilled jobs to low wage economies, the criminalisation of copyright infringement (see http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5068), the $300 million paid to Saddam's regime, whether the result of an unbeleivable degree of incompetence or collusion, etc - the re-election of this Government in 2007 would set a precedent that could be a mortal blow to democracy in this country. It would also mean throwing any chance of this country taking any worhtwhile action to confront the terible looming crises of Peak Oil and Global warming (see "Climate's last chance" by Tim Flannery at http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/climates-last-chance/2006/10/27/1161749313108.html), given the Howard Government's reckless and criminal failure to act so far.

Those of us see this Government for the incompetent, fraudulent, miserly, malevolent and deceitful Government that it is cannot affords to sit back and let the wholly avoidable fisaco of 2004 be repeated in 2007.

I, for one, completely reject any notion that the re-election of the Howard Government is inevitable, even given the grave difficiencies of the Labor Party and all of the other Parliamentary opposition political parties. I see no reason why we cannot, between now and next year's election, build a focussed grass roots political movement that would see John Howard's Government permanently consigned to the scrap heap and set Australia back on the path towards effective participatory democracy and good governance.
Posted by daggett, Saturday, 28 October 2006 8:29:48 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi daggett,

I couldn't in any way ever vote for or support the Coalition given what they have done to take Australia backwards in so many ways. Essentially their only real claim is good economoic management, a point I do not concur with. The resources boom and international markets have given Australia good financial times, for some anyway.

The GST has given any government the ability to look good financially but the reality is you and I could claim the same credentials if we, as individuals, could just levy charges on friends and relatives to support our own lifestyle.

There are so many people being affected and who will be affected by Howard's drive to divide and impoverish Australians. We are now no longer a country respected in many parts of the world and that is the Coalition's clear responsibility.

I only wish daggett that a true people's movement could occur and I hope it does, and soon. With a year to go to the next election there isn't time for such a movement unless it's an uprising, something no one wants.

How do you suggest this happen? Is there anywhere to go to see such action? I'm with you if there is anything actually happening. I've looked as no doubt you all have and there is nothing that looks even slightly promising in the short term. Long term, whatever it takes, the two major Parties must have their power reduced to allow and change. Tell us how and I'm with you.

As for those who want Labor in. I do too but for only one reason. To ses howard's End. Given the Labor State government performances and arrogance though we would only be changing the deck chairs.

I must also say to Cleo that Hawke won simply by moving Labor's platform to the right. He took the previous Coalition platforms and won. That in turn has led to the Coalition moving further to the right as we have seen. Hawke took their ground, that's why he won.
Posted by RobbyH, Saturday, 28 October 2006 11:19:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Low unemployment, low inflation, low interest rates, work for anyone who wants it, more money spent on the environment than ever before, more money for single mums, more people owning their own homes, more money for hospitals, more for mental health, O dear what a wretched government! How could so many voters get it so wrong for the last 10 years? I wonder!
Posted by runner, Saturday, 28 October 2006 12:21:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner,

Your last post reads like a Liberal Party media release.

Regarding low unemployment, most of the jobs created are demeaning, low paid, casualised, have no career path and often socially useless. Do you remember how when, 2004 Labor promised measures to curtail the activities of telemarketers? A government minister objected that it would take away the livelihoods of of 200,000(?!) people. Can you imagine 200,000 people being forced to earn their livelihoods in that way?

The inflation and GDP figures which are used by Government propagandists to tell us how much our standard of living has supposedly risen under the Howard Government are rubbish as I have explained at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3737#12173

With the massive demand for our finite non-renewable mineral resources, any bumbling fools, with no concern for our environment or for future generations, can make themselves appear to be good economic mangers, especially with the help of an uncritical and sycophantic newsmedia, and indeed they have.

---

Hi RobbyH,

Of course I agree with you.

You wrote: "I only wish daggett that a true people's movement could occur ...

"How do you suggest this happen? ... I've looked ... and there is nothing that looks even slightly promising in the short term. ..."

In sense you are right, but I think with so many people out there already politically engaged against the many evils being inflicted on this country by John Howard and his many accomplices within the Labor Party, it would not be altogether impossible with the help of the Internet to have these people start pulling in the same direction.

The bottom line is that Howard must be booted out in 2007. If Beazley, Rudd or Gillard then prove unequal to the task of repairing the damage done by this Government, we can find ways to deal with that, however there will be almost no chance of moving forward with John Howard or Costello are at the helm after 2007.

Please feel encouraged to make further contact with me by following the link to my home page at the bottom of every post I make.
Posted by daggett, Saturday, 28 October 2006 1:59:07 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Being employed redefined a 1 hrs work per week.

Core inflation rising dramatically due to lack of infrastucture spending.

Among the highest interest rates of any OECD country

Australian spending on the environment 6th worst in the world.

Childcare crisis.

Personal Insolvency up 18.92% in the past qtr.

Federal Govt health funding has fallen by 1.9% since 1990

Medicare-reimbursed services provided by psychiatrists have declined by 6.5% since 1995–96, while total out-of-pocket expenses per attendance have increased by 48.6%

Yes a wretched govt. shame many people believe their spin.
Posted by Steve Madden, Saturday, 28 October 2006 2:05:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Daggett,I'll check out your page and email you.

To Runner,

I thought for a moment there that Australia had deteriorated markedly. But your post has shown me the light. All these things courtesy of "good economic management". BS mate. Have you noticed that all State governments too are claiming themselves as the same "good economic managers"?.

There is also a small area under the umbrella "infrastructure" but we can blame shift all that to the States can't we? Again I blame State Labor equally for those failures.

Mind you there are one or two people who may not think this is the lucky country for them. Is it this wonderful management that has created the record numbers of homeless?

As to all that spending on mental health. Howard hasn't spent a cent yet. He has announced moves which are two decades late (yes Labor too at fault). The reality of Howard's move is that the total failure of closing mental health facilities over the last twenty years has turned prisons into mental ill health facilities (if you're not mentally ill when entering you will be on exit) and these people are being let out with no supervision. Therefore Howard's move to appease the public as the public is rightly becoming afraid of what might be out there when they do go out.

Next time you wish to include the mental health area as "good" or well funded, take a look around mate. Try reading for starters. Current figures are that 1 in 4 0r 5 Australians will suffer depression during their lives. That's just one of those nasty illnesses and the amount being offered is a drop in the bucket to what is needed.

Do you know where these funds are targetted? Do you know what benefits that might create? Would that money be better spent building mental health facilities or just giving psychologists more work and money?

If you actually want to research this area and debate it with me, come on down. Just get a fact or two first mate.
Posted by RobbyH, Saturday, 28 October 2006 4:54:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
i dont mind if he does. i don't care if he doesn't. which bandit has temporary charge of the government really doesn't matter.

i believe that the only way australia will be directed for the benefit of ordinary australians, is if ordinary australians direct australia.

this can be done, if the cattle get off their knees and demand democracy: a society in which citizen initiated referenda are the fundamental laws of the nation.

this will not happen. australians are raised on their knees and can't imagine being their own masters. the limit of their aspiration is having a kind master. kind masters will arrive at christmas, on the backs of flying pigs.

amuse yourselves with this coffee house chatter, but don't be surprised if the fundamental decisions about state activity remain disconnected from your wishes
Posted by DEMOS, Sunday, 29 October 2006 8:52:14 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A demo, yes to all that, I suppose it comes down to what the media projects as the key electoral issue in the lead up to the ballot.

As Robert Mann has declared "we have a media which for all sorts of reasons hasn’t held the government to account with detailed work and with morally charged work". http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/mediarpt/stories/s1435112.htm

Are we reduced to judging who has the best political adds (no matter whose views they represent) YES.

Do we accept this modality as an acceptable way to participate in democratic life? YES.

Do we have better access to information via internet/ICT's that would ensure we make more informed political decisions? YES Do we use this to inform our voting behaviour? NO

The problem with the media, and particularly political journalism is that stands for nothing - it isn't pro-anything much these days. It’s all politically charged but ideologically benign.

My point is that the apathy you speak of is sometimes imagined more greats heaps of nothing much at all. Beaten to death by a feather duster..
Posted by Rainier, Sunday, 29 October 2006 10:13:38 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
John Howard (Prime Minister of Australia) goes to school to teach how to weasel word.

Prime Minister Howard was visiting a primary school and he
popped into one of the classes. They were in the middle of a discussion
related to words and their meanings.

The teacher asked the Prime Minister if he would like to lead
the discussion on the word "tragedy". So our illustrious leader asked the
class for an example of a "tragedy".

One little boy stood up and offered: "If my best friend, who
lives on a farm, is playing in the field and a tractor runs over him and
kills him, which would be a tragedy".

"No," said Howard, "that would be an accident."

A little girl raised her hand: "If a school bus carrying fifty
children drove over a cliff, killing everyone inside, that would be a
tragedy."

"I'm afraid not," explained the Prime Minister "That's what we
would call a great loss."

The room went silent. No other children volunteered. John Howard
searched the room. "Isn't there someone here who can give me an example of
tragedy?"

Finally, at the back of the room, a small boy raised his
hand...In a quiet voice he said: "If the plane carrying you and your husband
was struck by a "friendly fire" missile and blown to smithereens, that would
be a tragedy.

"Fantastic!" exclaimed John Howard. "That's right. And can you tell me
why that would be a tragedy?"

"Well," says the boy "It has to be a tragedy, because it
certainly wouldn't be a great loss. and it probably wouldn't be a bloody
accident either."
Posted by Rainier, Monday, 30 October 2006 8:02:01 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The last few months have seen the Howard Government become increasingly vunerable on a number of critical issues such as the economy and climate change. For the first time in years, the ALP has a real chance to firmly position itself as a credible alternative before the next election. The nation's prosperity is more fragile than it has ever been. Not even tricksy Howard can mask Australia's alarmingly high susceptibility to a downturn in world commodity prices, rising global interest rates, and the looming spectre of climate change. Some economists are even predicting a looming recession. An ALP victory is therefore still within grasp. However, the ALP needs to muster some courage and reshuffle its maladroit frontbench if it wishes to capitalise on this opportunity.
Posted by Oligarch, Friday, 24 November 2006 4:01:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Any informed and compassionate Australian should be both sickened and alarmed at the prospect that such a government as John Howard's could possibly stand any chance of being re-elected in 2007.

This article implies that even if Australians were made to properly understand the truth of the AWB scandal and the almost innumerable other crimes of the Howard Government against the public interest, the poor, workers, the environment, future generations, world peace, democracy, accountability, honesty, etc, they would, nevertheless, still vote for the Howard Government if they thought they stood to gain a few more dollars as a consequence.

In any case, it is rubbish to suggest that this Government is managing the economy well as Steve Maddern (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5032#59584) and I (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5032#59582) have shown. What few crumbs Howard may choose to throw their way in order to cross the line in 2007, will quickly be lost again as we all reap the further terrible consequences of their mismanagement in coming years.

In all, I found the tone of this article to be offensive. No doubt the author would have us see this as dispassionate analysis, but I suspect it more to be wishful thinking on his part.
Posted by daggett, Monday, 27 November 2006 12:45:50 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why John Howard will win next year's federal election?

Did you forsee the Rudd-Gillard combo on the horizon...there's a couple of flies in the ointment.

I think it should now read "Why Rudd will win next year's federal election". That's a no brainer. Because the public are fed up with the squeeze of the intolerant hard right...and associated sycophants.
Posted by lia, Sunday, 10 December 2006 11:16:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
lia,

It's just as wrong to presume that Howard is finished as it is to presume that Howard's re-election in 2007 is inevitable. Too many people made that mistake in 1998, 2001 and 2004. I have a hard copy of an article by Sydney Morning Herald journalist Alan Ramsey from early 2001 which treated Howard's demise at the elections scheduled later that year as a foregone conclusion for a large number of also compelling reasons.

And, before that we can thank the likes of Paul Keating, who helped to lull progressive Australians into not treating Howard as a serious threat, for the fact that he won office in 1996.
Posted by daggett, Monday, 11 December 2006 9:51:32 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy