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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.