In calling the election, Howard rebutted Labor’s slogan of ‘New Leadership’, by stating that Australia needs the right leadership. This is an intelligent way of deflecting attention on his age, and turning his experience into a plus. The debate then turns not on whether Howard has served for long enough, but whether he is still the best candidate. Given the fact that he is the incumbent, this is a good way of turning the nation’s economic success into a powerful election weapon.

For the fourth consecutive occasion, many lefties will be ringing their hands, believing that this time will surely will the end of their great anti-hero, the Prime Minister that up to now has managed to elude defeat time and time again. As we have pointed out many times, they have still yet be bitterly disappointed.

We say this particularly since the Coalition’s campaign will again focus on the economy, and who the voters can rely on to keep it strong. This campaign was so effective in 2004 that already we have seen the use of those infamous “L” plates used to describe the leader of the Opposition again. Coalition commercials will no doubt continually bombard our television sets with the same messages about the economy, just to make sure that everyone gets the idea. Those who think that this election is a foregone conclusion for Labor forget the fact that until now the Coalition has conserved fire, but will surely return fire consistently over the next six weeks.

Certainly the Government has some good material at its disposal, for instance Kevin Rudd’s stumble on productivity earlier this year on ABC radio, and his ignorance concerning the marginal tax rates. These can be used to show that Kevin Rudd does not know much about the Australian economy, and hence represents a risk to jobs and growth. If the Coalition are to have any chance at all, their election ads will have to be hard-hitting and brutally effective. The message has to always be that Labor is a risk, and hence cannot be trusted.

For the full story: http://leonbertrand.blogspot.com/2007/10/howard-calls-election.html

AJFA,

And here I came to have a look thinking I'd find a serious question being asked and all I find is party propaganda. I know several people who voted Howard last time and won't this time, you could hardly call them 'lefties'. In fact some of them are voting Family First in the Senate. They are hardly typical Labor types. I don't care who you vote for but if you are going to start a debate, how about having the honesty to say out front that you are just here to spread dogma and not interested on what people really think. Good luck with your propaganda campaign.

my only reservation about labor is that they are politicians. letting politicians run a country is irresponsible. but ozzies are children, quite incapable of managing themselves.

since we are left in the hands of politicians: vote labor, folks. at least kevvie has grasped that nuclear power benefits no one but miners. he may even have grasped that pursuing renewable power is a longterm net gain for australia, with new technology offering both clean domestic power and export opportunities.

* "Right leadership?" Nothing but meaningless sloganism. This is completely subjective.

* No one is concerned about Howard's age. It is his persistent adherance to antiquated values. I know 90 year olds who are more progressive than Howard is!

* Re your charge of being "lefty". There is no threat of a Communist revolution here. There are simply people who are concerned that we currently have a leader who is in lockstep with an American President controlled by neocon fanatics.

* Even elderly people I know who are die-hard liberal supporters do not like Howard, because he has dragged our country into a war based on a pack of outright lies.

* This idea of "lefties" ringing their hands with glee sounds like something out of a Nazi propaganda campaign. Anyone who wants to see the end of Howard is plainly aware of his ability to win elections based on manipulation of the lowest order.

* The very concept you are presenting of "Howard haters" is just a jaded and simplistic way to offset the real concerns that people have. You talk about dollars in the pocket, but think about the hundreds of thousands NOW DEAD and the many more maimed, ill and dispossessed because of the pointless war in Iraq. This is the issue, which goes far beyond the petty concerns of local politics. We have a war monger in power, and he has to go, if we are to salvage any of the values we as a country used to claim to have.

* People are thankfully now waking up to the fact that the economy being so called "strong" basically means that large corporations are gaining a greater and greater monopoly. Our living standards will fall dramatically when the environment fails (due to lack of action), and when Bush's war agenda starts to hit home by way of mounting debts, terrorist reprisals, increasing surveillance and loss of human rights, and growing insecurity and chaos.

Finally, you're basically advocating this rubbish as a valid election campaign, when you seem to know perfectly well what rubbish it is?

At the end of the day, for most people it will come down to a choice of the lesser of two evils, rather than which party is better for the country. Despite their appalling record, that's exactly the premise on which Labor got back into power in NSW this year. "I dont like them, they've done a bad job, but the other guy might be worse". Despite the opinion polls, that's what Rudd has to look out for if he wants to win.

Dear Peppy and VC.

I did not intend to post "propaganda". If you read the full article, you will see that it's not propaganda. Rather, it is analysis and opinion. And, of course, both of you are perfectly entitled to disagree.

VC, I think you place far too much emphasis on the Iraq war. Admittedly, it has been a disaster, however Australia only contributed a couple of thousand troops, and none of our soldiers have died, save for one guy who accidently shot himself after drinking late at night.

And finally, your view that the strength of the economy only reflects the growing power of corporations is not only simplistic, but also overlooks the fact that real wages have grown substantially over the last 11 years.

Obviously you are quite strongly opposed to the Howard government and favour left-wing policies. You don't have to be a raw socialist to be a lefty.

It's interesting to see the accusations and arguments getting a little more shrill and desperate now there's a chance of the Rodent being forced into early retirement.

Just a hint of panic in the ranks?

At least he'll find out first-hand how it feels to have some job insecurity for the next six weeks.

Of course, he will have a much softer landing than most.

Television news on the evening of Sunday 14 October 2007 was that the Prime Minister had called upon the Governor-General to advise that the House of Representatives be dissolved and writs be issued for general Federal elections.

Commonwealth Government Gazette, Special edition, Number S204 dated Monday 15 October 2007, contains a proclamation by the Governor-General proroguing the Parliament. The Proclamation was sealed and dated 14 October 2007. See: http://www.ag.gov.au/portal/govgazonline.nsf/a51e77a0661e155cca256cf4001d02d9/c2592ab524e7b3a0ca2573750007f345!OpenDocument , and click to download a PDF copy of the Proclamation.

The Australian Electoral Commission announcement regarding the calling of Federal elections, see: http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Media_releases/10_14.htm , states that Wednesday 17 October 2007 is the date of issue of the writs. With respect, such a claim could only have been correctly made on Sunday 14 October 2007 by the AEC, as one was, if the writs had already been signed (as the law requires) by the Governor-General. A telephone enquiry on Tuesday 16 October 2007 to the number given for the AEC Director Media and Communication Strategy as to whether the AEC had already received the writs was answered by an AEC spokesperson "yes, I believe so".

If the AEC spokesperson was answering correctly as to the Commission already being in receipt of the writs, then it is apparent that the Governor-General must have been advised by the Prime Minister to post-date them Wednesday 17 October 2007. The existence of such a circumstance would not reflect badly upon the Governor-General. It would, however, appear as a demeaning of that office by the Prime Minister, if such was in fact advised.

An ABC news item "Australians urged to enrol to vote" by Chris Uhlmann, posted on Sat Oct 6, 2007, see: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/06/2052631.htm?section=australia , contained a claim by AEC Director Media and Communication Strategy, Phil Diak, that writs were not necessarily issued on the day an election was called.

What, of all this, is nonsense?

I am annoyed by Howard's claims of "booming economy". Of course its booming, it's booming because as a country we are trading in tomorrow for today. We are borrowing the prosperity and this continuing borrowing will have to end at some time. When this time comes we will be required to "pay the piper". The reason, "free trade"
zealotry, and doctored unemployment statistics. The lefty righty argument has no relevance now the real argument is free trade versus protection. If we spent only what we earned all would be fine.

Consider this. The current account deficit was 16 billion for the first quarter of 2007. We have run straight deficits for 32 years. The deficit amounts to $54 per person per week, and we are now borrowing to cover this because we do not have many assets left to sell. $54 is the weekly wage of a skilled Chinese worker. This means that our current marvelous prosperity and "boom" is derived not because of a "minerals boom" but because we each have a Chinese slave working for us and we put the slave rental charges on the credit card.

What happens when the Chinese slaves are emancipated. What happens when our creditors finally come to a realisation that they will have to whistle Dixie for their money. This almost happened in August.

Both Liberal and Labor governments bear responsibility for this egregious situation but at present only Howard wants the credit. This claim of a never better economy is simply hubris.

Dear Brightspark,

The foreign debt situation is only the result of the aggregate borrowing of individuals and non-Government organisations, particularly firms.

Firms that borrow usually do for for economically sensible reasons, whilst I hope that most people are able to finance their own personal debts. Often credit is only extended when security is provided. Ultimately, these are the concerns of private citizens, and generally do not concern us.

Australia has always had high levels of foreign debt. Provided they are not massive, they are little burden to the long term health of the economy.

A copy of Commonwealth Government Gazette, Special edition, Number S 358 dated Monday 30 August 2004, containing a Proclamation by the Governor-General relating to the calling of the Federal elections of 2004, can be viewed here: http://www.ag.gov.au/portal/govgazonline.nsf/(custom-spcnot-pub-view)!OpenView&Start=887

Gazette S 363, dated Tuesday, 31 August 2004, was issued the very next day. It contained a notice by the then Special Minister of State, Eric Abetz, that the Governor-General had issued writs that same day for the 2004 Federal elections. Viewers will note the minimal delay between the Proclamation and the issue of writs in 2004, contrary to the expectation of a significant delay of as much as four days engendered with respect to the 2007 elections by Phil Diak of the AEC in the ABC news item linked in my previous post.

A comparison with the Proclamation in S 204, dated Monday 15 October 2007, will reveal an important difference between the two Proclamations. That of Monday 15 October 2007 does not dissolve the House of Representatives, only prorogues it until Saturday 24 November 2007, whereas that of S 358 dated 30 August 2004 both prorogued the Parliament AND dissolved the House of Representatives!

At this point the public had every right to wonder what on earth was going on!

Subsequently, Gazette S 208 has been published, dated Wednesday, 17 October 2007, containing a Proclamation by the Governor-General dissolving the House of Representatives at 12 noon on Wednesday 17 October 2007. This Proclamation was also signed and sealed on Sunday 14 October 2007.

Given that the prorogation proclamation specified the date of Saturday 24 November as the end of the period of prorogation, whilst the dissolution proclamation specified 12 noon on Wednesday 17 October 2007 as the time of dissolution of the House of Representatives, yet both Proclamations were signed and sealed on Sunday 14 October 2007, it is difficult to see why gazettal of the dissolution proclamation was delayed, and why different dates for prorogation and dissolution were specified in the first place.

I've got to agree with AJFA insofar as the Iraq war isn't really a big issue in this election. Our role has been a token one.

As far as economic supremacy goes, I think Labor have made a grave mistake in relinquishing this ground to the Liberals.
Whilst Howard loves to wax lyrical on the high interest rates under Labor, he always neglects to mention the high levels that were present when he was treasurer. Labor has failed to make this point, or capitalise on the market reforms for which past Labor governments, not the Liberals were responsible.
Besides, senior reserve bank figures have said the role government plays in the economy tends to be overstated.

Now and then Keating pops up to claim this, but nobody listens to him. Rudd really should be spruiking these things a little more.

I also think that Rudd really needs to hit the government on their conservative credentials. Why is it that Rudd hasn't made it more obvious to the punters, that despite falls in the percentage of tax as part of income tax, when you factor in items such as the GST, this government is among the highest taxing in Australian history?
What about the fact that ideals of the small 'l' liberals have been dumped in favour of a conservative agenda and how in practice, despite the rhetoric, the ideal of small government went out the window some time ago?

Cont'd-

I suspect that the reason why Rudd is so popular, is that he is appealing to both ends of the economic spectrum - whether they are economic libertarians or social libertarians, Rudd is positioning himself as more than Howard in either direction.

He can't be both of course - either he's more economically conservative or he isn't.
Cont'd -

Though, I tend to think that it's possible we'll end up with better government regardless of which direction.

If it turns out he's in favour of social libertarianism, then perhaps we'll see more emphasis placed on infrastructure and services. If he's a genuine economic libertarian, perhaps he'll give us less pork barrelling and a genuine small government, as well as small 'l' liberal social policies.

In any case, Rudd is letting the punters see what they want to see. It will be interesting to see what he actually is - though despite his rhetoric, Howard hasn't embraced the better aspects of either economic ideology, and thus isn't really a viable proposition at this point.

Dear AJFA
I am familiar with that argument but that just describes one way by which the debt is distributed within the country.

The country's debt is incurred when a bank tries to exchange Australian currency to purchase imports and no foreign bank has sufficient AUDs because we have not exported enough. The Australian bank is then forced to borrow the remaining foreign currency and is stuck with the associated Australian dollars. Now the Australian bank needs people to borrow from the bank and take on the interest burden this causes two problems:

1. Our interest rates must remain high that is higher than that of the US; and

2. There is a glut of credit which has resulted in people bidding up the price of real estate to ridiculous and unfordable levels and people are also able to purchase more imports closing a vicious circle and adding to our "prosperity".

This credit glut has resulted in the US sub-prime loan crisis (the US runs unrealistic Current accounts also) Australian for "sub-prime" is "no doc".

These are similar to the conditions that existed in the "roaring twenties" but at that time the major creditor was the US. We all know what happened when the "roaring" ended.

This debt has increased continually for the last 32 years before that (1975) there was a balance, one quarter we made repayments another we borrowed. This debt is now way too big.

When the Chinese slaves are emancipated and the overseas lenders realise that they have Buckley's of ever seeing their money (as they almost did in August) we will have the depression we had to have.

The next government will cop the blame.

AJFA cute! but rubbish your side of politics used the foreign debt to flog ALP federal governments!
Now you distribute the blame to every one, the thread was propaganda but it has become Howard like.
Not me mate! blame him! you are welcome to my election night party but bring your own drinks, and hanky's.

Dear Brightspark,

Firstly, banks are in the business of borrowing and lending money, not purchasing goods and services.

Secondly, foreign debt has always flucuated, although I'm certain that it is higher than ever before in dollar terms. The question is to what % of GDP does it lie at? I'm sure its fairly high at the moment, but not nearly as high as France's national debt, which is quite different to foreign debt (public vs private debt).

Foreign debt levels tend to flucuate with the business cycle. I note that all the borrowing has pushed up interest rates, but the Reserve Bank is also partly responsible for that. Essentially, increasing interest rates will result in less borrowing, because it becomes less afforable, and hence will reduce foreign debt levels in the medium term.

Australia has always been a net borrowing country. Thankfully, however, we do have the super fund to partly offset this. Many credit this as a major cause of our economic success over the last 12 years.

Oh I almost forgot.

Belly, name at what time and where and I'll consider it.

Sorry I withdraw the invitation! we would not get on.
But are you aware that super you talk of has much to thank the ALP for?
That Hawk and Keiting had to fight your side to get rises in super?
That in stopping higher payments of super conservatives may have hurt this country's retirees?
Super under the ALP plan was a step in saving this country billions of dollars, in self founding retirement.
And you attempts to hide the importance of our balance of trade deficit are not convincing.
IN FACT Labors claims when in office had been exactly the same as yours , your side and Australia, even me then did not except it was an answer then or now.