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!"

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.