All of us probably have our pet ideas as to why the Coalition lost. My own is that the loss was entirely down to John Howard who, excellent PM that he was over the past decade (yes, decade, not the full 11.5 years), just couldn’t give up the top job when it was quite obvious that he should have. The fact that he lost his own seat shows how totally out of touch with reality he had become.

There was no good reason, apart from the stupidity and arrogance of John Howard, to change government. But, the government lost – oppositions do not win. The author, seemingly a Labor Party hack, tells us that “Rudd convinced voters he was a safe pair of hands who could manage the economy”; but how could a person who has been in politics only 9 years, with no economic credentials and burdened by Labor’s historic economic ineptitude, possibly convince intelligent Australians of that when the economy, under Costello, has been the best ever?

The author, along with all the ‘ethnic’ stuff she mentions, seems to have abandoned her science for emotionalism and ideology. She certainly doesn’t seem to understand the average voter.

Not just Howard: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/dump-work-choices/2007/11/26/1196036812217.html

As for how the voting public were convinced that the economy would be safe with Rudd: a) we knew that the China boom was a significant driver of our own economic good times and b) the interest rate rise during the campaign demonstrated that the government really doesn't have all that much control over the economy anyway.

Regarding Labor's "historic economic ineptitude", I'm curious what you're referring to, seeing as Hawke & Keating's efforts are almost universally praised by economists these days, and Howard's efforts in the years previous to that were little short of woeful, as Costello attested to.

If only the cafe latte set, the intelligensia and the Australian film industry knew how much Keating loathed them.

A first flush article with an interesting these. I agree that Howard didn't realise that it was time to go. Hawke had the same problem but went just the same.

The Howard campaign was poor. They couldn't cut through. The poor polls said it all, although I think another story is why Morgan and Newspoll got it so wrong.

Personally I was worried about Rudd's victory speech. It lacked passion. It lacked 'Ooopmh'. It was certainly not Whitlam-like. It was one of the worst victory speeches I've heard in Federal politics.

Morgan and Newspoll got it so wrong? How so? Morgan was by far the most accurate, and Newspoll's final result, like Galaxy's was well within the margin of error. It was AC Nielsen that had the outlier.

The Rudd win is warning about the so-called rising corporate culture which has been simply a return to the colonial graball days of the 18th-19th centuries, which Adam Smith warned about, even though it was Smith who fathered the economic reasoning of Laizey-faire, but warned that though Western goverments had to make hay out of the natural greed that was the driver of capitalism, a government in a more philosophical way had to be conscious also of the needs of the worker.

Of course what came out of Smith's sensible reasoning, were the plans that followed the idealism for our Judiciaries, part of which was the Arbitration Court, mainly constructed to maintain a fair deal for the battlers.

And it is indeed a shock that the Arbitration Court, said to part of our democratic idealisms was practically dismembered by the Howard Government.

A Court designed on the principle of The Separation of Powers. A Court designed to keep out the Big Biz political greed that the old philosophers warned about.

As Sir Charles Court spoke forth during Nookenbah - you do not need protective laws when you've had promises from leaders with whom you know you can rely on to support your faith.

Maybe it has been a dumb public, myself included who must share the blame?

Open Post-Election Letter to Mr John Howard, former Liberal Prime Minister of Australia, and Mr Mal Brough.

PART_ONE

I empathize with your loss of this 2007 Election. For this reason, I will explain why I voted for ALP.

As we watch the ACT Liberal-Nationals choose a Leader? I say in all Truth; There is not one among them except for Mr Barnaby Joyce, worth a speck of salt. Barnaby Joyce is honest and worth the opportunity and support to LEAD … NOW. The only other person worth the endorsement is the one your Liberals lost. Mr Mal Brough is (green) but the only man who had a complete honest face among the Frontline Liberals.

All is Not as it Seems. I encourage Mr Mal Brough to Get-UP. What has occurred is in grasp as your greatest learning. If, you can understand the problem posed. Scrutinize your own party while there is opportunity. Learn , Listen and Hear. It is a chance of a Life-Time. Mr Mal Brough, you would make a true Prime Minister, if ever the opportunity arose. And I say this to you, with my deepest respect.

a) "We are all village farmers" when the power of ALL is about Equity, considered or shared appropriately.

As I first wrote “openly” to you Mr Howard, on this National On Line Forum I stated, ‘we need a strong opposition on all sides of government’. Also see comments; (15.9.07) and (12.9.07) in my reply to “The symbolism isn't bad, but the hypocrisy and cruelty are”;

b) “Become a COUNTERFEIT-DIVA... do more to make sure that those working for administrations "everywhere" actually engage - develop - plan and create... some-THING that deserves a celebration and our ongoing respectful response”.

As a citizen, I deeply believe, strength and trustworthiness is the integrity of pluralism through democracy (no matter who is elected).

Mr Howard, I do not believe you had worn yourself out. Nor that you out stayed your leadership. Sure, you might have offered a better transition much earlier, yes. However, this is not the point.

Part-Two

I work for ALL Australia.

I am not a Clone or Silo of a particular citizens party. I care about who and what we as a nation Stands For. A nation made-up of diversely cultured organizations and peoples. Without the tolerance of our “pluralism” we loose our way completely.

Mr Howard this election was about WHO WE ARE POLITCALLY AS A NATION and WHO WE CAN STAND WITH, when it comes to MINISTERS.

I demand your former Ministers each look at themselves hard in the mirror.

My statement points to the stubborn, appalling, inexcusable ill-fated misrepresentations. The behavior that was highly incredulous.

This 2007 Liberal Election campaign cost Millions. It was a Filthy Fabled Bashing Distasteful Campaign. A Shocking Circus Show by a government Ministry in Piety. A gang that had lost it’s essence. A people. A political team-working damming All of Australia.

As a constituent Mr Howard, I say you lost government because the people in your Ministry lost the integrity required to a) stand up to you and or b) maintain a open and transparent government in principal. While I have much to say about economics’, the point is you can’t share knowledge when the people you are debating with present material that is selectively baseless and presented half-rotten-to-spin at the core.

As seen by this election, (the Queensland election before it) and others... the people of Australia are a wise bunch when not distracted by fowl means, fear and poor governance.

For the record: Mr Mark Latham is a valuable Australian Citizen, as is Mr Mal Brough. Both up standing people rejected, by a mire of political events regardless of what they offer us, through debate in their own right.

Your governments treatment of people, added with the “airport marshals” distraction(s) (clumsy) the “TAMPA, Children Overboard” (dishonest, severely heartless) and the irreparable guidance delivered on policy importance, cost your official loss. All that could be inferred as good, undermined by the unashamed, brazen mirror we saw screened for its deceptiveness.

htpp://www.miacat.com
.

Howard's defeat could be attributed to a variety factors however it is important for the future to note Rudd's campaign was notable for the following.

1. Being able to portray Howard as deficient while copying many of his policies.
2. Reliance upon emotive catchphrases e.g. "education revolution" which had no actual meaning or detail or in fact revolutionary qualities.
3. Making demeaning personality descriptions of Howard as a "liar" "sneaky" and "clever" while simultaneously changing his position on a number of issues and denying he had done so.
4. Avoidance of certain aspects of critical examination.(eg carefully selecting who should ask questions and what TV programs hew should appear on).
5. Being able to sell his idea of the future without stating what it actually was.
6. Running one of the greatest fear campaigns ever in Australian politics about Workchoices while simultaneously claiming the Libs were using "fear tactics".

Rudd is expert at avoiding scrutiny and specifics. He does this by cutting short TV interviews when the questions get tough, favouring certain journalists and TV shows over others and most interestingly uses the "I'll take advice on that" to avoid answering about policy detail.

Rudd's win was more about feelgood statements than substance,the leader who waits to see how the public react and then takes up the most publicly acceptable idea not most effective idea. Time will tell.

I take issue with the statement that the anti-Workchoices campaign was a "fear" campaign. Workchoices genuinely affects or will affect all working Australians to their detriment, through the loss of rights to fair behaviour from employers. Pointing out that fact is not promulgating a "fear" campaign. Telling lies about WMDs and about the hordes of non-existent refugees swarming to come to Australia - those were "fear" campaigns. Remember whose febrile mind they came from?

When you do, you have some clue as to why the dishonest little toad and his corrupt cronies were booted.

John Howard lost because he is a liar. His ministers joined him in a series of statements which the smarter public knew were lies, and about which they were not going to be gullible.
Telling lies casts scepticism about every further utterance.
Coupled with John Howard's sneaky obfuscation comes the question:"who do you trust?"
John, Peter,- certainly NOT you!

[[[[… the Liberals’ vicious attacks on single mums’ benefits in their fourth term reflected a deep-seated misogynist moral conservatism.]]]]
No they reflected the fact that parasites, of whatever sort, are parasites, and accordingly that single mums ought to not come into existence in the first place, but should be loving, respectful, faithful, wives instead.
.
.
[[[[Rudd convinced voters he was a safe pair of hands who could manage the economy. ]]]
No-one was convinced, for no convincing was provided. “Trust me…I can manage the economy”, gets no marks.
.
.
[[[[…Howard was clearly past his prime as a politician.]]]]
I get it…..3 years made him more experience than he was at 1 year, 5 years made him more experienced than he was at 3 years, 8 years made him more experienced than he was at 5 years, and over a decade made him less experienced than 8 years.
Your logic, Ms Johnson, is something like your politics.
.
.
[[[[Nonetheless, the It’s Time factor went beyond a Coalition government that had been in office too long and had no plan for the future.]]]]
As if our plan for the future should somehow be of a fundamentally different nature than our plans in the past for now.
.
.
[[[[….Rudd’s exhortation…..that it was now time to roll up the sleeves and get to work.]]]]
What he meant was ‘get to work’ on making Australia more socialist. It was no reference to spending energy.
.
.
[[[[Undoubtedly this will be a socially conservative Labor government in many respects (although much less conservative than the Howard government). It will also be a fiscally conservative one that will want to keep business on side. ]]]]
Yes that is the mark of Fabians. Slow tactical change, spiralling the idealogically-ignorant proletariat into socialism.
Bit by bit, little by little, not rocking the boat too much at any one time. Yes, Labour learnt from Mr Gough ‘gun-hoe’ Whitlam. Gough was a dum socialist; modern Labour are clever socialists. But in the end, both groups are dum, for both groups are socialist.

"Single mums...should be loving, respectful, faithful, wives instead"...from a poster called "Liberty"?

Do we have any rules about trolls on this board?

Rudd was encouraged by the unions to resurrect the old Labor party fears about the evil employer and the powerless worker to rejuvenate flagging interest in the Unions which, together with the local councils, are the breeding ground for aspiring Labor politicians. Without good membership numbers, the financial backing for Labor party aspirants is severely diminished. The best way to change this situation was to demonize Workchoices and put fear into the workforce about their future work conditions.

Unfortunately, this may now backfire because with a Labor Govt Workchoices is finished and there is no need to join the Union. Watch the Unions put increasing pressure on workers to join up and Labor revisit the fear campaign before the next election regardless of the policies of the new Liberal leadership.

Rudd will not back the unions> he knows the only way to go is where the money is, and that is with business, small or big.

Workchoices will not be reversed: this was a con. He will only tinker with it at the edges. Essentially, it will be retained, for that is what business wants.

Most of the posters on this site, along with most Australians who fancy themselves political commentators, are naive, and that is because they do not understand the motives behind socialism, which is essentially a religious dogma.

Socialists will stop at nothing to promote their religion, and unfortunately their supposed opposition cannot even begin to stop them because they no longer know what it is they are supposed to stop.
For the Liberal party today is also essentially a socialist party: Menzies would be turning over in his grave if he knew just what red tape and taxes the Liberals have implemented.

So Howard comes along and tries a little right wing idealogy with his IR reform. Only one problem: he didn't tell anyone WHY he was doing it. So all of a sudden you get a couple of million idealogically-ignorant blue-collar workers declaring that Howard has decided to arbitrarily make their lives rotten for no reason. And so they kick him out.

The fact remains, and needs to be stated time and time again: UNLESS THE LIBERAL PARTY BEGINS TO TEACH ITS IDEALOGY TO THE PEOPLE, IT WILL NEVER EXIST AGAIN AS THE PARTY IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE, BUT WILL SIMPLY BE AN ALTERNATIVE LABOUR PARTY WITH YUPPIE MEMBERS.

TEACH YOUR IDEALOGY LIBERALS. TEACH YOUR IDEALOGY.

The ALP will probably win more than one more election if the Coalition Party and its supporters continue to be pathologically incapable of calm analysis of the multiple reasons why the Australians people voted so overwhelmingly to throw them out.

The poverty of conservative thinking about the election defeat is nowhere more evident than in the first post here on OLO by Leigh.

It's all due to a single reason - "the loss was entirely down to John Howard".

How can it help the Liberal cause when the reaction to Johnson's analysis is to hurl abuse at her ("seemingly a Labor Party hack") and lampoon her analysis ("all the ‘ethnic’ stuff she mentions")?

Liberal supporters would have cause for pessimism when posters like Leigh engage in crude emotionalism while accusing the author of "emotionalism and ideology".

It's crass in the extreme for Leigh to accuse the author of not understanding "the average voter" when it's clear that his simplistic opinion is based on having no understanding of the average voter - they who turfed the Liberals out on Saturday. "The government lost," said Leigh, "oppositions do not win".

Has Leigh never met anyone fearful of their future under WorkChoices?
Who wanted better hospitals?
Who wanted better schools and universities?
Who wanted an exit strategy from Iraq?
Who were worried about global warming and a looming oil crisis?
Who thought the Liberals mislead them on interest rates last election?
Who despaired at ever being able to buy into the housing market?
Who were appalled at the crass intervention in the NT?
Who hoped for a fairer and more decent society?
Who thought our treatment of asylum seekers, and Australians like Cornelia Rau and David Hicks were draconian?
Who thought the corrupt wheat deals a national disgrace?
Who were tired of being told they'd never had it so good when they couldn't afford to fill up the family car?
Who wanted something better for the future?

Simple minds rush to simple explanations. The Liberals need calm, rational analysis if they are to recover from one of their worst ever defeats.

Frank Gol

Work Choices: Yes many genuine swinging voters.
Hospitals: Confirmerd Labor voters blaming Federal not state Labor.
Schools: Ditto.
Universities: Labor Acadamics. (Somewhat of an oxymoron.)
Iraq: Confirmed Labor supporters refusing to accept reality.
Global warming: Greenies and young who usually vote labor anyway.
Oil crisis: Not an issue this time. (Petrol price expectation was.)
Interest rates: Confirmed Labor voters. Ahhhhh, the expectation now is Kevin is going to control interest rates and they'll fall. Eh.
Housing affordability: Ditto. Ahhhhh and the expectation now is Kevin is going to control that market and make houses more affordable, eh.
NT. Intervention: Same policy both parties.
More Fairer and decent society. Whatever policy represented this motherhood wish? So no, not an issue. It just confirms your bias.
Asylum seekers: Previous elections showed that.
Rau and Hicks. Only people who don't accept personal responsibility as paramount.
AWB. Only farmers who won't have a single desk any longer.
'Never had it so good' and petrol price. Most people accept that as true. Ahhhhh and the expectation now is Kevin is going to control petrol price and make it more affordable, eh.
Better future: Is that an expectation everyone is going to be smarter by checking their shopper dockets, or gaining a computer with internet access, or having a lower cost of living. Ahhhhh and the expectation now is Kevin is going to control intellect and make it more attainable for all, eh.

Simple minds also make generalisations which suit their prejudices.

I, who voted Liberal and worked for my local Liberal candidate, have a view workchoices impacted on the working man and woman, who always voted labor anyway. But the Howard battlers who are mostly self-employed who work with their employees voted against Howard because of that impact. Also major considerations were Howards age and inability to resign, or as Costello put it 'New Leadership', and finally an appearance of panic with policy appearing to be suddenly pulled out of the hat with the aim of causing wedging. But mainly it was workchoices being voted against by traditional liberal voting small business people

"Iraq: Confirmed Labor supporters refusing to accept reality"

So why is it that 70% of Americans want their forces out of Iraq?

And, further, the reality is that as long as a significant number of foreign troops remain in Iraq, the Iraqi people have no chance nor motivation to take responsibility for their own country and their own future. Something I thought Liberals were big on.

"Global warming: Greenies and young who usually vote labor anyway"

Have you actually looked at any detailed polling results?
Concern about climate change (and environmental problems in general, especially water) has spread way past the "usually vote Labor" types.

"Interest rates: Confirmed Labor voters."

Um, what? Interest rates were a big factor in Howard's swing in 2004 (after the Latham factor of course). Again, polls consistently show Coalition support being very much linked to low interest rates.

"'Never had it so good' and petrol price. Most people accept that as true"

*Most* people, perhaps, but not necessarily a large percentage of the swinging voters that decide elections. And very few people like to be *told* they've never had it so good, when they don't necessary feel any better off.

(Personally, I think Rudd was being highly irresponsible by implying he might be able to keep petrol prices under control. By next election they could easily be double what they are now. What he needs to do is convince people that there are or will be alternatives to being so dependent on petrol.)

Keith

You can indulge in denial and abuse. I’ll stick to the facts to explain the third largest swing against a government since World War 2.

Separate surveys of voter reasons conducted by Swinburne Institute and Auspoll on election day found that the four main issues for people who voted Labor were: health, education, industrial relations and climate change; and for Coalition voters they were health, education, water and leadership. The Coalition stressed none of these issues.

Management of the economy was not a single entity for voters. It broke up into jobs, interest rates and taxation and people voted on those issues rather than economic management as a whole. The mortgage belts in Melbourne and Sydney swung heavily against the Coalition. Of 27 mortgage belt seats held by the Liberals, Labor won 11 and is just behind in 4 more.

Voters who swung from the Coalition last election to Labor this election agreed the four top issues (above) were the most important, but prices of petrol and groceries were significant too.

The threat of wall-to-wall Labor was an issue for only 17% of Coalition voters and union influence was an issue for just 12%.

Immigration was an important issue for 40% of voters - of those who voted for the Coalition just 14% said the treatment of refugees was very important compared to 40% of those who voted Labor. A significant number of swinging voters said the treatment of refugees was very important.

The votes for Petro Georgiou and Russell Broadbent were fascinating. They risked their careers to stand up for the rights of asylum seekers - and bucked the voting trend.

Contrary to media reports, voters in mining towns in WA (many on AWAs) swung to Labor at a rate higher than the national rate.

The most dramatic swings against the Coalition were in Aboriginal communities in the NT and Queensland – a clear rejection of Mal Brough’s intervention by the people he said it would help.

Surely these surveys will tell the Coalition something worth knowing?

Election07 was not about Labor Party true-believers, it was about Australians who were fed up at Howard's betrayal of the Australian people. His Feudal attitude wherin he saw Australians as objects to be bought(unsustainable immigration) and sold(workchoices) was fit for a king and not the leader of a free nation. He has been punished.

However if Labour party members see Election07 as just a victory for the true (Labour) believers then they are swapping Howard's Feudalism kingdom for the tired old Labour thugs-lair Kingdom.

Australians expect more than that from Rudd. The Labour party will NOT last more than one term on a "victory for true believers" mantra.
They will just become as corrupt as Howard and just as offensive to the Australian electorate.

The key issue for Rudd's Labour to get a second term is ENERGY policy:

1. Put simply they must stop all Uranium mining OR go Total-PBR-Nuclear-Industries. We cannot guarantee yellowcake will not be used in WMDs but we can guarantee PBR pebbles won't. If Labor continues to sit on the fence they will be ousted.

2. Hot rock geothermal power plants must be funded and commenced for Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane within the next 3 years. Failure to do so will negate any Kyoto or other climate agreements Rudd signs and cost this nation dearly in penalties.

The Australian electorate is smart on ENERGY issues and they are WATCHING! True believers are just Labour Party baggage .. too much junk in the trunk.

Frank Gol

Please show me where I used abuse. Where is my denial anything without a good reason? I've simply stated a position contrary to yours. That hasn't occured in an unthinking manner. This isn't a media outlet that allows such outrageous distortions as your claims to go unchallenged.

The coalition had a health policy. Unlike labor's it doesn't involve the Feds taking over the administration hospitals. That was the only difference.
The coalition had an education policy. It allowed for parents to use a grant for things other than laptopos for older students.
What was Labor policy on water? I'm a bit like you here. I can't see to remember my sides opponents policy.
Coalition leadership was one of the most featured topics. Remember the proposed change to Costello?
Climate change...well really after Rudd's about face mid campaign the only real difference was a desire to sign Koyoto.

Yep work choices for the swinging voters was the reason for the change of government.

It seems to me you seem to think all the issues which were debated during the election impacted equally on the result. I think you cannot differentiate between issues that changed peoples votes and issues that merely confirmed peoples beliefs. ie the ones parties promote to ensure they retain their traditional supporters. I think both sides did a good job in that area. The libs failled when they lost the swinging 'Howard battlers'.

So where in there is my denial?

And yes petrol, grocery prices ... the cost of living... were also issues as were interest rates (the latter nowhere to the extent you imagine.) And those issues when raised by Rudd and Swan raised voters expectations about their control. That expectation will be back to bite Rudd and Swan on the bum much more than interest rates ever bit Howard's bottom.

You'd need to consider the inplication of your comments about Aboriginal communities in the NT and that effect throughout the greater community. One of the simple realities of politics Frank ... that you seemed to have missed.

keith, we were talking about voter perceptions, not your opinion on which party had the better policies. For better or worse, voter perceptions favour the ALP on almost every category except economic management (and mind you, a very limited view of economic management, seeing as it doesn't include looking after health, education and infrastructure) and security.

Keith asks: “Please show me where I used abuse.”
Try this quote: “Labor Acadamics. (Somewhat of an oxymoron.)”
Or this one: “More Fairer and decent society. Whatever policy represented this motherhood wish? So no, not an issue. It just confirms your bias.”
Or: “Ahhhhh and the expectation now is Kevin is going to control intellect and make it more attainable for all, eh.”

And denial? Try:
“Iraq: Confirmed Labor supporters refusing to accept reality.”
Or: “Oil crisis: Not an issue this time.”
Or: “Global warming: Greenies and young who usually vote labor anyway.
(Petrol price expectation was.)
Interest rates: Confirmed Labor voters. Ahhhhh, the expectation now is Kevin is going to control interest rates and they'll fall. Eh.
Housing affordability: Ditto.”

And your latest post is mainly more denial.

Keith, when you say: “I've simply stated a position contrary to yours,” you demonstrate that you’ve totally misunderstood my posting. dnicholson's post is right.

My post comprised a summary of two surveys taken soon after the election. The pollsters asked people why they voted the way they did.

The reasons given were not mine. They were the reasons given by those surveyed. So there’s no point in telling me I’m wrong about these reasons. Go argue with the people who gave these reasons.