PDA

View Full Version : Federal Election 2007 (Labor Wins)



Pages : [1] 2

Kevin Bonham
14-10-2007, 03:29 PM
Election has been called for Nov 24th.

150 House of Reps seats up for grabs.

This thread is for discussion of the likely result.

Trent Parker
17-10-2007, 01:52 PM
flip flop flip flop

Picton used to be a part of the seat of macarthur and then for a while Picton was the Northern section of Hume and as of this election Picton is back in Macarthur.

I Just Hope Pat Farmer will do better for Picton than the one eyed politician - Alby Shultz.

I'm normally a Libs voter but I'm currently a bit of a swing voter....

Its interesting.... whoever wins Macarthur normally wins office. its been that way since the seats creation 50+? years ago.

Kevin Bonham
17-10-2007, 11:34 PM
The votes on this forum (few as they are) on this poll are quite evenly spread. On my other forum Labor by <15 has a massive majority.

Desmond
17-10-2007, 11:38 PM
Did you make this a private poll for a certain reason?

Kevin Bonham
17-10-2007, 11:57 PM
Did you make this a private poll for a certain reason?

Yes. My own incompetence. :lol:

Actually, on checking I found that the poll last time had also been a private poll so I decided to leave it as such so that the results would be truly comparable.

Hmmm, I wonder what federal elections would be like if everybody's vote was public. :eek:

Basil
18-10-2007, 01:11 AM
Hmmm, I wonder what federal elections would be like if everybody's vote was public. :eek:
I can't answer for the first public one, but give me the register, some time and some sedatives and I might be able to swing the coalition back for the next one ;)

Desmond
19-10-2007, 06:47 PM
for the record, i voted coalition by <16.

Kevin Bonham
14-11-2007, 07:25 PM
I have just voted for Labor by 16-30 although it could be more than that or less.

I can identify 17 seats (including Bass and Braddon) in which the Liberals are currently clearly most likely to lose, a further seven in which they are in serious trouble and anything up to 20 more that are in some serious sense on the radar. I'm expecting them to lose virtually all of the first batch, most of the second batch and some of the third. Maybe they might win one or two back somewhere in WA but I doubt it.

My last prediction was a Labor majority of 18. I think it will be more than that now; I'm raising it slightly to 24. (+/- 20 :lol: )

Garvinator
14-11-2007, 08:03 PM
I have just voted for Labor by 16-30 although it could be more than that or less.

I can identify 17 seats (including Bass and Braddon) in which the Liberals are currently clearly most likely to lose, a further seven in which they are in serious trouble and anything up to 20 more that are in some serious sense on the radar. I'm expecting them to lose virtually all of the first batch, most of the second batch and some of the third. Maybe they might win one or two back somewhere in WA but I doubt it.

My last prediction was a Labor majority of 18. I think it will be more than that now; I'm raising it slightly to 24. (+/- 20 :lol: )
Do you think there will be a uniform swing to Labor? I am more interested in how the Senate will go for some reason. Any predictions there?

Garvinator
14-11-2007, 08:07 PM
Here are the candidates in my seat:


Candidate Name Party

SAUNDERS, Ewan Socialist Alliance
O'BRIEN, Ted Liberal
BEVIS, Arch Australian Labor Party
CONTARINO, Nick Citizens Electoral Council
GUTHRIE, Elizabeth The Greens
WHITE, Mark A Family First
SINNAMON, Don Democrats

Now apart from Arch Bevis, the sitting member from Labor, I know nothing of the rest except for seeing a few placards around the place.

How am I supposed to vote for any of these? Oh well, doesnt really matter, Arch Bevis will get in with about 55% of the two party preferred anyways.

Kevin Bonham
14-11-2007, 08:46 PM
Do you think there will be a uniform swing to Labor?

No. I think the swing will be biggest in Queensland and Tasmania and smallest in WA.


I am more interested in how the Senate will go for some reason. Any predictions there?

I expect the Coalition to lose its majority, but only narrowly. They will probably only win two in each of NSW, Tas and SA (although Tas should not be considered as much of a gimme as some reckon). They may also lose in Vic and ACT. Xenephon will probably get in in SA. Greens will probably win about four at this election, maybe five.

Aaron Guthrie
14-11-2007, 08:58 PM
How am I supposed to vote for any of these? One of them has a nice name.

Sto pro veritate!

Rincewind
14-11-2007, 09:26 PM
How am I supposed to vote for any of these? Oh well, doesnt really matter, Arch Bevis will get in with about 55% of the two party preferred anyways.

I don't suppose asking about Butthead would be appropriate?

Southpaw Jim
14-11-2007, 09:35 PM
Kev - what odds on the 98 outcome? I know 98 was largely a result of Hansonism, but I still fret about the maj 2PP/min seats outcome :(

Do you think Braddon is definitely a Lab win? For me, the psephy waters have been muddied :eek:

Will be interesting to see the next poll, following today's Lab launch. I think the undercutting of Coward is a smart move, but you never know how people will react to being porked less than more...

Kevin Bonham
14-11-2007, 10:13 PM
Kev - what odds on the 98 outcome? I know 98 was largely a result of Hansonism, but I still fret about the maj 2PP/min seats outcome :(

I don't think the Coalition will get close enough. That sort of thing only really happens if you have 2PPs closer than 52:48. Beyond that the idea that you can win with 47 or 46 by losing some seats big and winning a lot of close ones doesn't really work, because big swings that are not uniform will bring so many seats into play that you can't identify and porkbarrel all the "close" seats.


Do you think Braddon is definitely a Lab win? For me, the psephy waters have been muddied :eek:

Not a definite Labor win but highly likely, although a couple of polls have had it as close.

Braddon was very much an unexpected Liberal gain last time with a single factor producing a massive swing that still only resulted in a very close victory. The single factor has been removed and I can't see how it won't swing back. I doubt the Mersey hospital thing will be enough to save it.

Southpaw Jim
14-11-2007, 11:48 PM
Ok, a little more relaxed :)

The 'lost in the marginals' was, for me, the only credible scenario for a Coalition win IMO. Other than that, there are only a couple of other possible outcomes:

1) All 4 polling companies, who employ statisticians better than I, have got it completely and uniformly wrong - rating: very unlikely;

2) There is a massive and unprecedented volte face on the part of the electorate that occurs across the electorate - rating: very unlikely;

3) A massive LNP bounce as a result of the Coalition's inspiring, scintillating ( :lol: ) campaign launch that completely overshadows the ALP's effort today (again, :lol: ) - rating: very unlikely; or

4) A gaffe of election-losing magnitude on the part of the ALP - rating: very unlikely.

So... anyone game for final two party preferred outcome predictions?

Moi = 53.8/46.2

snowyriverman
15-11-2007, 01:09 PM
The winners will be the concepts of democracy, truth, and Australia; in that order.

Kevin Bonham
15-11-2007, 08:03 PM
One scenario that could produce a swing back is the backing-the-underdog effect: people get behind their sitting Coalition member once they realise that Labor's most likely going to win anyway. But it never happened in 1996, which had similar opinion poll stats in reverse to now, so I don't see why it should happen now.

Aaron Guthrie
17-11-2007, 04:52 PM
On the ABC site my old electorate of Boothby is listed as marginal at 5.4% majority to the Liberal member, which I thought wasn't marginal. Also the ABC site says that

"Given the size of reported swing in South Australia, this is a seat Labor could win. However, one poll in the Adelaide Advertiser suggested that Nicole Cornes was not gaining as much traction for Labor as candidates in other seats."

I predict they won't win this seat. The reason for this prediction is that Nicole Cornes has come across horribly in her interviews. It seems to me the issue for the Boothby resident "is if I wanted to vote Labor to begin with, how could I vote for her?" This seems to be such a problem to me that I even predict that Southcot will get a better vote than he did last time.

Disclaimer- I predicted that the yes vote would get it for the republic.

Southpaw Jim
17-11-2007, 04:59 PM
Yeah Boothby/Cornes seems to be a bit problematic. However, the polls have been up and down for her. I've read she's been working quite hard during the campaign.

You may find this blog thread (http://www.pollbludger.com/699) interesting.

Capablanca-Fan
17-11-2007, 06:08 PM
I predict they won't win this seat. The reason for this prediction is that Nicole Cornes has come across horribly in her interviews. It seems to me the issue for the Boothby resident "is if I wanted to vote Labor to begin with, how could I vote for her?" This seems to be such a problem to me that I even predict that Southcot will get a better vote than he did last time.
Wonderful advertisement for Labor's crass female quota policy, which alone means they deserve to lose.


Disclaimer- I predicted that the yes vote would get it for the republic.
Yeah, it's annoying habit that Australians sometimes have: voting against the desires of limousine leftists like Turnbull and the Leftmedia elite as well as certain high profile Leftclergy.

Aaron Guthrie
17-11-2007, 06:22 PM
Yeah, it's annoying habit that Australians sometimes have: voting against the desires of limousine leftists like Turnbull and the Leftmedia elite as well as certain high profile Leftclergy.Oh-oh spagehtti-o

Southpaw Jim
17-11-2007, 08:30 PM
Wonderful advertisement for Labor's crass female quota policy, which alone means they deserve to lose.
Cornes was not selected on the basis of filling a female quota.

Capablanca-Fan
17-11-2007, 08:40 PM
Cornes was not selected on the basis of filling a female quota.
What else does she have going for her? But even in the unlikely event that you're right, she would be an unintended casualty of the crass quota system. Affirmative action always hurts those in the politically favoured group who actually earn their positions on merit, because it's hard to shake the perception that their position was the result of the policy.

Aaron Guthrie
17-11-2007, 08:41 PM
What else does she have going for her? But even in the unlikely event that you're right, she would be an unintended casualty of the crass quota system. Affirmative action always hurts those in the politically favoured group who actually earn their positions on merit, because it's hard to shake the perception that their position was the result of the policy.She has a newspaper column, and she is the wife of a footy star. (she is filling the celebraty quota)

Capablanca-Fan
17-11-2007, 08:50 PM
She has a newspaper column, and she is the wife of a footy star. (she is filling the celebraty quota)
Is the newspaper column independent of whom she married? That's female quota for you—picking an airhead (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/star-recruit-takes-raincheck-on-tough-issues/2007/04/30/1177788057084.html)woman because of who her husband is instead of on her own merit. Where are all the feminazis about this? :P

Southpaw Jim
17-11-2007, 09:07 PM
Hate to give Jono ammunition, but Cornes' selection was even less meritorious than a quota - they approached her ex-AFL husband to run, but he refused. So, they persuaded Nicole. She does come across as a bit of an airhead, but I feel it's unfair to really judge since I've not seen her in the media, and I don't live in Adelaide.

Pros:
- working mum
- ran a business
- worked for a newspaper
- currently completing a law degree
- has worked her butt off campaigning

Cons:
- voted Liberal at the last election (well, at least she's learned the error of her ways! :P )
- job at the paper was 'gossip columnist'
- any monkey can get a law degree, just look at me :P
- has had a number of media appearances where she's been obviously unprepared or completely clueless about politics and ALP policy

To be fair though, she's been thrown in the deep end by the ALP with insufficient time to prepare properly, and I feel that the ALP is using her for her celebrity status. I don't think she's as dumb as made out to be, but I don't think she's an organic chemist either :P

Southpaw Jim
17-11-2007, 09:09 PM
Oh. My. God.

Labor have firmed in on Centrebet from $1.31 to $1.17 in 24 hours.

Similarly, LNP have blown out from $3.50 to $5.10.

That's shocking, considering this is a 'two horse' race.

Capablanca-Fan
17-11-2007, 09:28 PM
- voted Liberal at the last election (well, at least she's learned the error of her ways! :P )
More likely, she's too much of an airhead to understand the difference, and Labor is giving her a chance to run, while the Libs would never ask such an airhead.


- has had a number of media appearances where she's been obviously unprepared or completely clueless about politics and ALP policy
Yeah, that is the main thing.


To be fair though, she's been thrown in the deep end by the ALP with insufficient time to prepare properly,
And that shows what sort of party the ALP is.


and I feel that the ALP is using her for her celebrity status.
Just like they used the turncoat Cheryl Kernot, another one that makes blonde jokes sound apt.:lol:

Kevin Bonham
17-11-2007, 10:59 PM
Oh. My. God.

Labor have firmed in on Centrebet from $1.31 to $1.17 in 24 hours.

Similarly, LNP have blown out from $3.50 to $5.10.

That's shocking, considering this is a 'two horse' race.

That's more like where it should be; the $3-$4 range the Coalition have been in for the last week was too close. Most pollsters have it at about $1.22 to $4.50 now.

Most likely some very big punter with Centrebet decided enough was enough, and if I had the sort of money to be worth risking I would have been doing likewise.

As for Cornes, Boothby is not in my list of likely ALP wins, but she may get carried across the line on the strength of the swing anyway.

Davidflude
18-11-2007, 09:37 PM
Roy Morgan site shows things could be very very tight.

On November 15-17, with one week to go to the Federal election, L-NP two-party preferred support is 44.5% (up 1% from the face-to-face Morgan Poll conducted November 10/11), ALP 55.5% (down 1%). This represents a swing of 8.2% to the ALP since the 2004 Federal election. However, in the crucial L-NP marginal seats, where Labor needs to win 16 seats to win Government, the swing is slightly less (7.7% to ALP) and varies greatly by seats and States. The ALP looks set to win between 14 and 24 seats, which means the election result cannot yet be called.

Imagine if the coalition has a one or two seat majority or has to govern with the help of independants. The way thing look we could have to wait for results from Perth. Maybe SBS should change their programming and run Don's Party.

Southpaw Jim
18-11-2007, 09:39 PM
Morgan doesn't get a lot of cred these days, and the margin of error on any given seat in this poll would have to be rather large..

But that's not to say it won't be close :hmm:

Ian Murray
18-11-2007, 10:03 PM
Roy Morgan site shows things could be very very tight.

On November 15-17, with one week to go to the Federal election, L-NP two-party preferred support is 44.5% (up 1% from the face-to-face Morgan Poll conducted November 10/11), ALP 55.5% (down 1%). This represents a swing of 8.2% to the ALP since the 2004 Federal election. However, in the crucial L-NP marginal seats, where Labor needs to win 16 seats to win Government, the swing is slightly less (7.7% to ALP) and varies greatly by seats and States. The ALP looks set to win between 14 and 24 seats, which means the election result cannot yet be called.

Imagine if the coalition has a one or two seat majority or has to govern with the help of independants. The way thing look we could have to wait for results from Perth. Maybe SBS should change their programming and run Don's Party.
Interesting to compare the Morgan poll with the Newspoll marginal-seats-only poll of 12-15 November.

Newspoll has the swing to Labor as uniform in all marginal seats, varying only between states (NSW 6.7% in each marginal seat, Vic 8.3 in each, Qld 8.6 in each, SA 7.8 in each, other states not included in poll). If carried through till election day, that swing would give Labor an extra 28 seats (NSW 9, Qld 8, Vic 6, SA 5).

The NSW seats include Wentworth and Bennelong, which respectively need a 2.5% and 4.0% swing to fall to Labor. Even Peter Costello's Vic seat of Higgins will feel the tremor (8.8% swing needed).

Saturday night TV will be entertaining but we shouldn't be up too late

Kevin Bonham
18-11-2007, 10:04 PM
Roy Morgan site shows things could be very very tight.

No it doesn't.

What has happened is that Morgan has come up with another poll showing a landslide and found some bizarre and completely non-credible way to interpret it as pointing to a close result.

Furthermore making comments on individual electorates when the margins of error are so high is mathematically absurd.

If the 2PP exceeds 55-45 then Labor will win at least 90 seats, and may even hit three figures. If the swing is that big then nobody knows what all the "marginal" seats really are anyway. They start to spring up everywhere.

Garvinator
18-11-2007, 10:04 PM
Morgan doesn't get a lot of cred these days, and the margin of error on any given seat in this poll would have to be rather large..

But that's not to say it won't be close :hmm:
I think we could be waiting for a couple of days to know the result. Labor needs 16 seats, 16 seats!, how many oppositions have won from that far back?

Kevin Bonham
18-11-2007, 10:22 PM
I think we could be waiting for a couple of days to know the result. Labor needs 16 seats, 16 seats!, how many oppositions have won from that far back?

The gain they need is a little over a tenth of the parliament. In 12 out of the last 40 elections an opposition has made a gain of that much or greater, winning in eight of those twelve cases. Labor currently holds 40% of the seats. Of the eight opposition wins I mentioned, 1910 (Labor under Fischer), 1931 (Coalition under Lyons), 1949 (Coalition under Menzies) were all from further back, and 1983 (Labor under Hawke) was only marginally closer.

But I don't think that's a useful comparison anyway, because there have been many cases where the opposition has been either too far behind to have any real chance of winning, or too close behind the government for the comparison to be relevant.

Southpaw Jim
19-11-2007, 10:31 AM
I think we could be waiting for a couple of days to know the result. Labor needs 16 seats, 16 seats!, how many oppositions have won from that far back?
Beazley won 18 seats off Howard in '98 (and still lost :( )

If the polls are any guide, it'll be all over by 8pm on Saturday. Plus, both Howard and Rudd have been campaigning in seats like Ryan, with margins of 8-10% and higher - no way would they be wasting time in seats like that if it wasn't possible for Labor to win them. The Libs are in serious trouble - look at today's Daily Terror headline story: "Libs At War" (http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22779967-5001021,00.html)...

Indeed, on current polling, the Libs are at serious risk of being gutted as a Party. "10 years in the wilderness" stuff.

Capablanca-Fan
19-11-2007, 10:50 AM
Indeed, on current polling, the Libs are at serious risk of being gutted as a Party. "10 years in the wilderness" stuff.
If Chairman Rudd keeps his election promises, maybe. But if he is steamrollered by the overt Leftists like Comrade Gillardova and the unionists, Labor is more likely to be a one-term wonder.

Southpaw Jim
19-11-2007, 10:54 AM
Keep dreamin' Jono, hasn't happened since 1931 - and even that was due to the Great Depression. Plus, your idea of steamrollers from the Left doesn't make sense - they'd be cutting off their nose to spite their face, handing power back to the tories. Won't happen.

Expect, instead, an increased ALP majority in 2010 :P :owned:

Basil
19-11-2007, 10:54 AM
Indeed, on current polling, the Libs are at serious risk of being gutted as a Party. "10 years in the wilderness" stuff.
Huh? As in the reverse of what the current position is and has been for 10 years?
Huh? As in 50% of Australia prefer Libs (less one person in ten changing their mind making it 60/40).

That sort of gutting and wilderness?

pax
19-11-2007, 11:04 AM
Wonderful advertisement for Labor's crass female quota policy, which alone means they deserve to lose.

Where is your evidence that Cornes is part of a quota? Labor actually wanted her husband Graham Cornes, and misguidedly nominated the hopelessly inept Nicole when he turned them down. I am very surprised that she wasn't disendorsed as a result of her gaffes, and I think Labor will lose the seat as a result.

Southpaw Jim
19-11-2007, 11:06 AM
Gunner: denial is a state of mind! :owned:

Basil
19-11-2007, 11:13 AM
Perhaps we should add the ideas of 'gutting' and 'wilderness' to 'The Stuff The Message' thread. It appears the meaning changes entirely depending about whom the statement is being made, while the facts are identical!

Davidflude
19-11-2007, 11:37 AM
I have to play two games in the Vic Chapionship reserves on election day. so it is going to be a busy day. get up early and vote as soon as the polls open.

Then play two chess games. If I get a long second game I may not get home until after all the excitement.

Thanks to all for interpreting the polls, I find it hard to fathom out all the different information.

At the risk of repeating myself I give my opinion

1) fixed date four year terms for both houses.

2) all Senators to be elected immediately as in the territories.

3) no person to be Prime Minister for more than two terms

4) election to be scheduled after end of football season and Spring racing carnival

Southpaw Jim
19-11-2007, 11:45 AM
Perhaps we should add the ideas of 'gutting' and 'wilderness' to 'The Stuff The Message' thread. It appears the meaning changes entirely depending about whom the statement is being made, while the facts are identical!
Whaddya saying, Gunner? That it "can't happen"?

pax
19-11-2007, 12:25 PM
For those deluding themselves that the polls might be wrong, or that the electorate is playing some kind of joke on John Howard, have a look at the polls leading up to the 2004, 2001 and 1998 elections:
http://au.acnielsen.com/reports/documents/ACNielsenPoll2004.pdf
http://au.acnielsen.com/reports/documents/ACNielsenPoll2000.pdf
http://au.acnielsen.com/reports/documents/ACNielsenPoll1998_000.pdf

The final election results were a pretty fair reflection of the polls in the months prior to those elections. If anything, the polls seemed to overstate the Coalition position slightly.

Here is 2007 for comparison:
http://au.acnielsen.com/news/documents/NielsenPoll2007.pdf

Garvinator
19-11-2007, 12:28 PM
At the risk of repeating myself I give my opinion You would not be the first on here to do this ;)


1) fixed date four year terms for both houses.Fixed three year for me.


2) all Senators to be elected immediately as in the territories.More information please.


3) no person to be Prime Minister for more than two terms Against this.


4) election to be scheduled after end of football season and Spring racing carnivalWhy not in late Feb?

Capablanca-Fan
19-11-2007, 01:44 PM
Keep dreamin' Jono, hasn't happened since 1931 — and even that was due to the Great Depression.
What exactly? Whitlam was thrown out after three years, although not strictly one term.

Oh yeah, and the Great Depression is just another example of the Leftism of the Unis and Media, in that FDR is hailed as the great saviour. Yet many modern economists recognize that it was his constant government interference that prolonged the Depression, whereas previous recessions came right in a year or two. One example was FDR's thugs destroying farm produce while starving people watched, so prices would not plummet.


Plus, your idea of steamrollers from the Left doesn't make sense - they'd be cutting off their nose to spite their face, handing power back to the tories.
Why not? The Unionists are in the majority. It is no accident that they are salivating at the prospect of a Labor victory.


Expect, instead, an increased ALP majority in 2010 :P :owned:
What would be so good about that if they are really Tory-Lite as Chairman Rudd is trying to claim?

Capablanca-Fan
19-11-2007, 01:46 PM
Where is your evidence that Cornes is part of a quota? Labor actually wanted her husband Graham Cornes, and misguidedly nominated the hopelessly inept Nicole when he turned them down.
Yeah, because she fulfils the female quota. If it hadn't been for that, they wouldn't have nominated such an airhead just because of who her husband is.


I am very surprised that she wasn't disendorsed as a result of her gaffes, and I think Labor will lose the seat as a result.
Good, they deserve to. Any party that has patronizing and sexist quotas deserves to lose.

Aaron Guthrie
21-11-2007, 06:38 PM
Anyone got any interesting local issues going on in their electorates?

Desmond
21-11-2007, 07:11 PM
Anyone got any interesting local issues going on in their electorates?
Every weekday morning I drive over the Houghton Highway on my way to work. Just before the bridge, the two major parties have set up their signs, one on either side of the road.* Over the last however-many weeks, I had observed Darth**, the would-be incumbent from Labor sitting there herself, chatting, waving etc. I observed her there for about 4 different days before I observed the sitting Liberal member Gambaro doing likewise. Me too? :lol: Anyway Gambaro gave up after that one time, but Darth has been back another 4 or 5 times by my count.


*They often swap sides. I guess either there's a preferred side of the road for some reason and who ever gets there first claims it, or one of them wants to get further to the left/right respectively.

**Actually it's D'Ath, but I reckon she should change it.

Basil
21-11-2007, 08:12 PM
Me too? :lol:
:lol:

eclectic
21-11-2007, 09:26 PM
I voted for Labor to win by more than 30 seats.

When the Coalition needed to scrape the barrel of their desperation this week re the nomination legality of 13 Labor candidates I'm now of the opinion that my prediction is the result they (the Coalition) rightly deserve to suffer.

:evil:

Basil
21-11-2007, 09:33 PM
When the Coalition needed to scrape the barrel of their desperation this week re the nomination legality of 13 Labor candidates
What was scraping the bottom of the barrel? That there is no substance to the claim? Or that if the candidates are invalid, the Coalition should not take steps to challenge the validity?

eclectic
21-11-2007, 09:39 PM
What was scraping the bottom of the barrel? That there is no substance to the claim? Or that if the candidates are invalid, the Coalition should not take steps to challenge the validity?

Do you really think the Labor Party would be so STUPID as to not vet their own candidates before they nominated for preselection let alone formally enrol with the Australian Electoral Commission?

Capablanca-Fan
21-11-2007, 09:40 PM
Do you really think the Labor Party would be so STUPID as to not vet their own candidates before they nominated for preselection let alone formally enrol with the Australian Electoral Commission?
Why not? They picked that airhead blonde Nicole Cormes.

Kevin Bonham
21-11-2007, 09:41 PM
What was scraping the bottom of the barrel? That there is no substance to the claim? Or that if the candidates are invalid, the Coalition should not take steps to challenge the validity?

Today's Australian went into detail that appears to show that several of the candidates are indeed valid. No doubt this information would also be known to the Liberals, so the question is whether Andrew Robb himself believes the candidates to be eligible. If not, then he may be speculating on very weak evidence. If so, then he's knowingly using a trumped-up charge to try to damage Labor's chances in some of those seats. That would certainly be scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Newhouse himself may well be ineligible. The rest looks like a stunt.

eclectic
21-11-2007, 09:44 PM
Why not? They picked that airhead blonde Nicole Cormes.

She's no more an airhead than being a Creationist is! :lol:

Garvinator
21-11-2007, 09:48 PM
I thought it was just standard stuff to claim that some of the opponents side were ineligible to stand to try and create uncertainty and I took it as such.

Basil
21-11-2007, 09:48 PM
Do you really think the Labor Party would be so STUPID as to not vet their own candidates before they nominated for preselection let alone formally enrol with the Australian Electoral Commission?
That does not answer my question. Invalid nominations have occurred before. I am quite prepared to leave my judgement until the validity of the nominations (and therefore the validity of the counter-claim) has been tested.

My question to you was quite clear. Your answer in return was ... quite appropriate and in keeping with being lefty!

As for stupidity ... they've got Gillard and Garrett on the front bench! I rest my case ;)

Kevin Bonham
21-11-2007, 09:59 PM
Do you really think the Labor Party would be so STUPID as to not vet their own candidates before they nominated for preselection let alone formally enrol with the Australian Electoral Commission?

It happens from time to time, although it seems to be minor parties, like the Nuclear Disarmenment Party and One Nation (both of whom had senators disqualified under it) that are more apt to mess up on these things.

It is getting seriously tricky for even a competent party to keep track of every involvement a candidate might have that might obstruct their eligibility. Also with Labor well established in state government in every state, I can see why Labor would be more at risk of it than the Liberals.

Gunner: I know Julia Gillard and Peter Garrett do not align with your economic views and Peter Garrett at least may well be clueless about many things, but I've seen and read enough from both to be confident that they are both far from stupid.


I thought it was just standard stuff to claim that some of the opponents side were ineligible to stand to try and create uncertainty and I took it as such.

I'm not sure how often claims of this sort are made at federal level (excepting those that turn out to be correct). Can't remember a similar case recently.

Basil
21-11-2007, 10:08 PM
Gunner: I know Julia Gillard and Peter Garrett do not align with your economic views and Peter Garrett at least may well be clueless about many things, but I've seen and read enough from both to be confident that they are both far from stupid.
Can we agree on limited?

Capablanca-Fan
21-11-2007, 10:11 PM
She's no more an airhead than being a Creationist is! :lol:
Right, Cormes v Kepler, Newton, Pascal, Pasteur, Lister, Faraday, Maxwell, Joule, Damadian ... oh yeah, I can see why an ignoramus like you would rate that blonde equal to those leading scientific pioneers. :P

Kevin Bonham
21-11-2007, 10:14 PM
Can we agree on limited?

Who isn't? :P

Basil
21-11-2007, 10:22 PM
Who isn't? :P
Alright. I'd like to suggest 'clod-hopping' instead but I don't fancy my chances. I'll better spend my spend time answering your ****'*** PM from last night :cool:

eclectic
21-11-2007, 10:37 PM
oh yeah, I can see why an ignoramus like you would rate that blonde equal to those leading scientific pioneers. :P

is that the best you can do, throw a four syllable word at me?
any chance of one with five, or maybe six even? :rolleyes: ;)

Kevin Bonham
23-11-2007, 09:52 AM
It Aint The Economy Stupid (http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/article/it-aint-the-economy-stupid/)

being my account of why I think Howard will lose, including my predicted outcome and a list of a bunch of seats I think Labor may win, and also including specific predictions for Tasmanian seats that may interest, oh, about one of you.

Alas didn't get it finished til last night so it will have the lifespan of a mayfly and probably meet a similarly messy end - I do not claim any great expertise on federal politics and it would be very easy this time to be out by ten seats or more. But what the hell, it's out there, and it includes the phrase "feral abacus's garden", which, prior to that, had never before appeared on the internet.

Kevin Bonham
23-11-2007, 03:08 PM
Final Newspoll 52-48 based on 2614 respondents. :eek:

Spiny Norman
23-11-2007, 03:27 PM
Oh dear. If the Coalition hang on, I'm going on holidays for a few months ... this place will be drowned in tears ... not to mention the wailing ...

Kevin Bonham
23-11-2007, 03:39 PM
Oh dear. If the Coalition hang on, I'm going on holidays for a few months ... this place will be drowned in tears ... not to mention the wailing ...

While Gunner, of course, would double his post-rate just to rub it in. :D

But what we've got from the four different pollsters is a 52, a 52, a 54.5 and a 57. Average them out (which is historically a good predictor) and you get 53.875 which is hardly a resounding triumph for the Coalition.

There is always the necessary degree of caution in interpreting these things, because the nature of this election is unusual, so there's always the chance that the polls are all totally wrong.

Basil
23-11-2007, 03:51 PM
Not at all - I'm with Spiny. The idea of whining marching angry ants for another three years is one of the reasons why I can live with a Labor victory.

Now here's a true story - gospel:

Was talking to a professional liquidator (big wig partner, city firm) yesterday (my finances are fine thanks). They have had one of their slowest years on record.

He and his partners are hoping like all blazes for a Rudd victory for the sole reason that his sales volume (and profits) will go through the roof. That's not him speaking as a Liberal - that's him speaking as a forecaster of known outcomes :doh:

Kevin Bonham
23-11-2007, 04:11 PM
It's possible the preference allocation in the Newspoll is dodgy. Newspoll auto-allocates preferences based on the last election, but they do it in a strange manner, such that when the minor party vote is high they give less of it to Labor than when it is low.

Kevin Bonham
23-11-2007, 06:58 PM
Bookies generally have Labor favourite in 81-82 seats at the moment.

Kevin Bonham
23-11-2007, 08:27 PM
That Newspoll took 50c off the Liberals' odds at portlandbet and almost a dollar off at Centrebet, but most of the seat-by-seat odds except for Bennelong have not changed much at all.

Garvinator
23-11-2007, 09:37 PM
I would be using the bookies as a better judge of who is going to win that the polls.

Rincewind
24-11-2007, 12:06 AM
I would be using the bookies as a better judge of who is going to win that the polls.

Good point except that bookies using hedging and so the odds are driven by where the money is going. So in effect they are also using public polling except they are just sampling those who like to gamble. ;)

Aaron Guthrie
24-11-2007, 05:14 AM
Good point except that bookies using hedging and so the odds are driven by where the money is going. So in effect they are also using public polling except they are just sampling those who like to gamble. ;)Perhaps the reason the ALP is the favorite is due to hedging by the punters (since if ALP win, the economy will go to hell). ;)

Capablanca-Fan
24-11-2007, 10:03 AM
Perhaps the reason the ALP is the favorite is due to hedging by the punters (since if ALP win, the economy will go to hell). ;)
That much is true, starting with an increase in unemployment.

ElevatorEscapee
24-11-2007, 10:09 AM
Well, I have voted today. Have you? :)

(Question is directed at everyone, not just the previous poster!)

I boldly donned my "John Hunt is a Coward" t-shirt, which received some amused compliments by the other voters... but it didn't deter the Liberal Party bloke from trying to give me a "how to vote" card. (Cheeky bugger!)

Spiny Norman
24-11-2007, 10:31 AM
Well, I have voted today. Have you? :)
Yep, about 9am this morning ...

ElevatorEscapee
24-11-2007, 12:02 PM
^^^ I find it nice to get in early, I hate having to spend ages in lines, queuing up for things that I don't necessarly find particularly beneficial to myself (such as having to vote!)

Capablanca-Fan
24-11-2007, 12:20 PM
Well, I have voted today. Have you? :)

(Question is directed at everyone, not just the previous poster!)
About 11am. Quite a crowd.


I boldly donned my "John Hunt is a Coward" t-shirt, which received some amused compliments by the other voters... but it didn't deter the Liberal Party bloke from trying to give me a "how to vote" card. (Cheeky bugger!)
Why not? Who is John Hunt anyway? :P :confused: :wall: :evil:

eclectic
24-11-2007, 12:27 PM
Why not? Who is John Hunt anyway? :P :confused: :wall: :evil:

He's the brother of Michael.

ElevatorEscapee
24-11-2007, 02:08 PM
^^^ @ Eccy :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Kevin Bonham
24-11-2007, 06:16 PM
Slightly less strong for Labor than I expected so far.

Capablanca-Fan
24-11-2007, 06:41 PM
Slightly less strong for Labor than I expected so far.
Still about a 5% swing as at 6:42 pm QLD time.

Garvinator
24-11-2007, 07:26 PM
Labor is home and John Howard is a good chance of losing Bennelong.

Southpaw Jim
24-11-2007, 07:32 PM
'tis over folks!!

Kevin Bonham
24-11-2007, 07:37 PM
Yes, even this particularly cautious psephologist called it about ten minutes ago.

Rincewind
24-11-2007, 07:42 PM
Yes, even this particularly cautious psephologist called it about ten minutes ago.

Can't they wait for a bit. I haven't even started playing Mario Golf yet. I was looking forward to my own personal media blackout. :(

Kevin Bonham
24-11-2007, 08:54 PM
My prediction of 87 seats is feeling fairly happy with itself at the moment.

Capablanca-Fan
24-11-2007, 10:49 PM
My prediction of 87 seats is feeling fairly happy with itself at the moment.
My prediction that Labor will appease the Unions is also looking pretty good, starting with KRudd's victory speech.

Trent Parker
24-11-2007, 10:55 PM
Well....... the seat of Macarther (which includes Picton) has turned from looking like a safe Libs seat and is apparently now on a knifes edge......

Aaron Guthrie
24-11-2007, 11:02 PM
My prediction of an increased vote to Southcott has failed.

eclectic
24-11-2007, 11:05 PM
My prediction that Labor will appease the Unions is also looking pretty good, starting with KRudd's victory speech.

Guess what, Jono?

The Coalition LOST!!!

Desmond
24-11-2007, 11:10 PM
Dry your eyes, Jono.

Capablanca-Fan
24-11-2007, 11:10 PM
Guess what, Jono?

The Coalition LOST!!!
Most people who understand English know that's what "victory speech" means. I guess I need to dumb down my language for you.

Capablanca-Fan
24-11-2007, 11:15 PM
Dry your eyes, Jono.
Like Howard, I take defeat like a man, unlike some of the Howard-hating lefties who were defeated four times by him, and unlike the other Howard-hating lefty Malcolm "pants-down" Fraser.

Kevin Bonham
24-11-2007, 11:25 PM
Well....... the seat of Macarther (which includes Picton) has turned from looking like a safe Libs seat and is apparently now on a knifes edge......

Yes, I did see some predictions before the election that Macarthur would register a massive swing.

Desmond
24-11-2007, 11:25 PM
Like Howard, I take defeat like a man, I liked his concession speech. Quite dignified.



unlike some of the Howard-hating lefties who were defeated four times by him, and unlike the other Howard-hating lefty Malcolm "pants-down" Fraser.Yeah right Jono, lefties are all sore losers and righties are all " real men". Let me go write that down. :rolleyes:

Trent Parker
24-11-2007, 11:42 PM
Actually it'll be interesting if Macarthur does stay liberal. Macarthur has always gone to the party who wins the election since its creation.

Basil
24-11-2007, 11:43 PM
Yeah right Jono, lefties are all sore losers and righties are all " real men". Let me go write that down. :rolleyes:
He didn't say that Brian. He referred to
a) himself
b) John Howard
c) some others

You and he appear to agree on a & b.

Capablanca-Fan
24-11-2007, 11:52 PM
Yeah right Jono, lefties are all sore losers and righties are all " real men". Let me go write that down. :rolleyes:
You'll generally not hear from righties how ashamed they are of Australia after this election like some of the Leftintelligentsia after Howard's 3rd and 4th victory. And there is no American rightist counterpart of the lefties promising to emigrate to Canada if the supposed dolt Bush beat these supposed intellectual giants alGore and Flip-Flop (who actually had lower grades at Uni).

Desmond
24-11-2007, 11:58 PM
You'll generally not hear from righties how ashamed they are of Australia after this election like some of the Leftintelligentsia after Howard's 3rd and 4th victory. And there is no American rightist counterpart of the lefties promising to emigrate to Canada if the supposed dolt Bush beat these supposed intellectual giants alGore and Flip-Flop (who actually had lower grades at Uni).Actually funny you should mention that because I did hear from a Liberal supporter yesterday (on the radio) who was planning to vacate the country if they lost.

Basil
25-11-2007, 12:04 AM
Actually funny you should mention that because I did hear from a Liberal supporter yesterday (on the radio) who was planning to vacate the country if they lost.
Generally quietly without spitting and stopping traffic.

Desmond
25-11-2007, 12:12 AM
Generally quietly without spitting and stopping traffic.
I really couldn't say, but I reckon any wacko from either side who takes it that seriously should have a sponsored trip. Call it an investment.

Trent Parker
25-11-2007, 02:09 AM
OMG!!!

Macarther is so damn close to call after 79% of votes counted.

http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-13745-131.htm

Bleasdale(labor): 28378
Farmer (Liberal): 29537

But the greens have:
Raue : 2687

which added to Labor would give labor the lead.....

Ian Murray
25-11-2007, 08:09 AM
OMG!!!
Macarther is so damn close to call after 79% of votes counted.
Bleasdale(labor): 28378
Farmer (Liberal): 29537
But the greens have:
Raue : 2687

Factoring in 80% of Greens preferences to Labor, that's a clear ALP gain

Similar swings in some Qld seats (Leichhardt and Dawson up north and Forde in the Gold Coast hinterland) of 13-14%. Amazing results

Southpaw Jim
25-11-2007, 09:10 AM
Ah, the daily double - the election AND Bennelong! A fitting end...

Ian Murray
25-11-2007, 11:20 AM
Ah, the daily double - the election AND Bennelong! A fitting end...
A delicious irony, as Bob Hawke said last night

Bill Gletsos
25-11-2007, 11:58 AM
Peter Costello announces he wont seek or accept the Liberal leadership.

Leonid Sandler
25-11-2007, 12:42 PM
Humiliating loss for Howard and his goverment.Australia need new fresh start with young generation taking control of the country.Its looks like that Rudd will be around for a while (my guess 15 years at least)
Long live Labor!

Desmond
25-11-2007, 12:53 PM
Liberals are eliminated from Australian political life for a at least 20 years.I reckon that's up to the Labor team. They have the ball now so let's see what they do with it.

Desmond
25-11-2007, 12:57 PM
Did anyone see Maxine's "speech" last night? :yawn:

Garrett
25-11-2007, 01:34 PM
An interesting election.

As someone who had worked the booths before I rocked up at 3:30pm and walked straight on in. One chick waved a piece of paper in my face which I ignored as by that stage of the day they are normally pulling them back out of the bins.

For the first time in ages I changed the way I voted (no - not standing on my head) after having taken a bit of an interest in politics and reading the arguements on this board. Mind you, I had to have two showers afterwards before I felt fully clean again and talking about it on this board is part of my therapy.

Good luck to the new government. I hope they get a senate they can work with.

I thought John Howard was very gracious in defeat. He probably doesn't deserve to be shredded in his own electorate but that's politics. He probably could have taken a leaf out of Tony Blair's and Peter Beatie's book and retired at the peak but I'm sure he can live with his decision.

Go Australia

Cheers
George.

Basil
25-11-2007, 01:39 PM
Factoring in 80% of Greens preferences to Labor, that's a clear ALP gain

Similar swings in some Qld seats (Leichhardt and Dawson up north and Forde in the Gold Coast hinterland) of 13-14%. Amazing results
Distilling ...

While acknowledging the existence of your quoted figures, the bare (and somewhat simplified) facts are that Labor required 4 people in 100 to change their mind from the last election. As it turned out, slightly short of 6 people in 100 changed their mind.

Kevin Bonham
25-11-2007, 01:52 PM
Factoring in 80% of Greens preferences to Labor, that's a clear ALP gain

Except the preferences probably aren't that strong because on 2PP Farmer is still a couple of hundred ahead so it will go down to the wire.


Similar swings in some Qld seats (Leichhardt and Dawson up north and Forde in the Gold Coast hinterland) of 13-14%. Amazing results

I had Leichhardt in my predicted win list but not those other two.

I listed 25 seats I reckoned the Coalition were likely to drop "plus two wild cards" to bring it up to my predicted 27. Looks like they've lost 21 that were on my list - they have definitely held McMillan and will probably hold Robertson and LaTrobe.

Basil
25-11-2007, 01:56 PM
Distilling ...

While acknowledging the existence of your quoted figures, the bare (and somewhat simplified) facts are that Labor required 4 people in 100 to change their mind from the last election. As it turned out, slightly short of 6 people in 100 changed their mind.

Correction:

That's 2 people in 100 required to change their mind (swing of 4)
In fact 3 people in 100 did change their mind (swing of 6)

Kevin Bonham
25-11-2007, 01:57 PM
Did anyone see Maxine's "speech" last night? :yawn:

Not as dull as Rudd's which was endless and generally faceless, apart from the tribute to Bernie Banton.

Garvinator
25-11-2007, 02:13 PM
Did anyone see Maxine's "speech" last night? :yawn:
I changed the channel as soon as I was hearing people yelling out from the crowd quite a bit with some rather unsavoury stuff.

From what I did see and hear, she was in a tough spot and so I did not expect much. Result uncertain in the seat but favourite to win, did not want to appear like she was gloating over beating a four time elected prime minister.

I think from the way she entered the hall and to her entrance on to the stage, it gave the impression that they really did not think she could actually win Bennelong. If they did think she was a real chance, then I would have thought they (the Labor Party) would have ensured that her first speech would have been more orderly, rather than looking like a mob gathering.

Kevin Bonham
25-11-2007, 02:17 PM
Looks like Labor has won by something in the 16-30 seat margin so 30% of voters on this thread have got it right.

On my other forum I was one of only five out of 39 voters to pick Labor by 16-30; most there thought it would be closer. But expecting elections to be close is a common mistake; they usually are not.

Garvinator
25-11-2007, 02:19 PM
Looks like Labor has won by something in the 16-30 seat margin so 30% of voters on this thread have got it right.

On my other forum I was one of only five out of 39 voters to pick Labor by 16-30; most there thought it would be closer. But expecting elections to be close is a common mistake; they usually are not.
And the bookies predictions were very close to the mark. I read they expected Labor to win about 81 seats.

Kevin Bonham
25-11-2007, 03:15 PM
And the bookies predictions were very close to the mark. I read they expected Labor to win about 81 seats.

Yes, Labor started favourite in either 81 or 82 seats depending on source. It looks like it will be a few more than that.

Some predictions from some of my fellow psephologists (as far as I am aware these were their final calls before the election but it is possible some revised them) :

Richard Farmer 91
Malcolm Mackerras 90
William Bowe 87
Kevin Bonham 87
Peter Tucker 85
Peter Brent 91
Possum Comitatus 89
Charles Richardson 95
Adam Carr 80
Simon Jackman 88
Geoff Lambert 97

Labor's currently on 86 according to the ABC and 87 according to the AEC figures but whatever it is could go up or down by 3-4 before it's all finished.

Whatever, psephologists have generally read the tealeaves rather well, the bookies look to have underestimated slightly, and newspaper columnists, owners of opinion polls and leaders of political parties have spouted total rubbish ad nauseum. (Morgan's last poll was a bullseye but his interpretation has been garbage all year.)

As for Shanahan, I'm sure the Australian can find a nice pasture for him to graze in somewhere.

CameronD
25-11-2007, 08:21 PM
I misunderstood the poll question. I thought it was referring to how much over majority reached (how many above 76), not how many over the other side.

Garrett
26-11-2007, 06:33 AM
I would have kept that to myself Cammo.

pax
26-11-2007, 03:03 PM
It's worth noting that Australian stocks have spiked 2% on the back of the election, so it seems that the market does not think that Labor will be bad for the economy.

Garvinator
26-11-2007, 03:08 PM
It's worth noting that Australian stocks have spiked 2% on the back of the election, so it seems that the market does not think that Labor will be bad for the economy.
or that they were dithering before the election due to uncertainty and now that there is a result they are getting on with business.

Ian Murray
26-11-2007, 03:24 PM
....opinion polls and leaders of political parties have spouted total rubbish ad nauseum. (Morgan's last poll was a bullseye but his interpretation has been garbage all year.)
Newspoll called it Labor to gain 24 seats - that's the current forecast

Ian Murray
26-11-2007, 03:32 PM
It's worth noting that Australian stocks have spiked 2% on the back of the election, so it seems that the market does not think that Labor will be bad for the economy.
More likely in line with the Wall St recovery, but still unconcerned about the change of government - business as usual

Basil
26-11-2007, 03:54 PM
More likely in line with the Wall St recovery, but still unconcerned about the change of government
Yes.

Small business sentiment and consumer sentiment is what matters. That is what will drive big business. I have a feeling I am wasting my time talking about this :wall:

Ian Murray
26-11-2007, 04:31 PM
Yes.

Small business sentiment and consumer sentiment is what matters. That is what will drive big business. I have a feeling I am wasting my time talking about this :wall:
Have no fear. Rudd is a centrist and a pragmatist, and the ALP loonie left no longer exists. It won't be the end of civilisation as we know it.

Basil
26-11-2007, 04:55 PM
Have no fear.
Concern would be a better word. But I'm fair-minded enough to wait and see.


Rudd is a centrist and a pragmatist
He is.


and the ALP loonie left no longer exists.
It's a delight to see you acknowledge they once did exist! Trying to extract any genuine self-reflection from the left is akin to pulling teeth around here.

They still do exist - it's just they're getting an education at a rapid rate. I can even see the unionists talking more slowly with a semblance of 'someone home' in their eyes in the last few months.

Whether they will be able to compute what has dawned on them in the last couple of years into action remains to be seen. I know smoking is bad BUT. I. JUST. CAN'T. SEEM. TO HELP. MYSELF.


It won't be the end of civilisation as we know it.
No-one is suggesting that. Just like no-one suggested the Libs were that either. The left promised a better way. Apart from being in grade 5 at the moment on the issue of economic conservatism, I am prepared to see if they can deliver. Lord knows I need them to.

I don't know if anyone caught one of Costello's speech from about 10 days ago. He noted that as far as Hansard records, that the first time any of Rudd, Gillard and Swann referred to themselves as 'economic conservatives' was in the second half of this year.

That is despite the two newly elected boys opposing a raft of conservative policy in the last 11 years, they have now (apparently) found 'the way'. Which just happens to be the Liberal policy :wall:

I won't even discuss Gillard (socialist) who has now claimed economic conservatism. What a joke! What a deplorable bare-faced joke. The Howard detractors have had their day calling the Libs on a raft of jokes. Surely, there is a lefty here who will acknowledge the implausibility of Gillard's claim to economic conservatism (the Bonham bolt-hole defence of 'poetic justice' would be simply facile). The very idea of socialism is to rip every last dollar and hand it out immediately.

Anyhoo, it is a done deal now and Labor is in. Apart from throwing the odd spitball at the you clueless lefties ;) (also learning at a rate of knots), the only thing I really care about is that the present team learn quickly enough and put it all into practice. The whole lot turning into a steaming pile of dog doo doo (allowing me to say I told you) so is not an attractive option.

Spiny Norman
26-11-2007, 06:27 PM
The most balanced discussion I've seen of the result pointed out that in modern Australian politics, extremes are frowned upon. Both parties are fighting for a big slice of the middle ground. Both have "rusted on" elements that will vote their way "no matter what".

Labor very successfully demonised Work Choices. The fact that they had an opportunity to do so points to a political failure (not necessarily a policy failure per se) on the part of the Coalition.

The other Coalition failure is due, I suspect, to a combination of Costello's ambition and Howard's basic political honesty. Howard could have said "I'm in charge, stuff Costello" publicly, then had a health scare mid term, only then handing over the reins. He had "form" for the former, and over the past several elections Labor had unsuccessfully tried to get political mileage out of Costello's ambition. It was a big mistake to suggest to the Australian people that the prime ministership was his to hand over. Such things are best done without warning (a-la Bracks, et al).

I don't quite know where they lost their "nose" for what works politically. But lose it they did. With Labor now solidly "in the middle" it will take a herculean effort to dislodge them in the foreseeable future, provided Labor don't self-destruct. I just hope they're not taking strategy tips from the post-Kennett VIC Liberals.

Ian Murray
26-11-2007, 07:26 PM
Hi Howard

Rudd delivered Labor's greatest victory on his own, with no factional baggage and so no favours to be called in. No-one in the party can (or would be game to try to) stop him doing it his way. I expect him to deliver on his promise to select his front bench on talent alone.

I'd suggest you should be more concerned about the Coalition ultra-right rednecks than our loonie left. Otherwise you're in for a long time on the outer until the party machine centres enough to satisfy the electorate.

Basil
26-11-2007, 07:33 PM
Rudd delivered Labor's greatest victory on his own, with no factional baggage and so no favours to be called in. No-one in the party can (or would be game to try to) stop him doing it his way. I expect him to deliver on his promise to select his front bench on talent alone.
All true. All fair comment.

One possible problem - does he actually know how to do it? I know he's looking excellent and lovely and delicious and wonderful and saviour-like and oooo I just want to kiss him, but once that all melts away, he's a bloke who has been to
-- focus group school (working families, economic conservative)
-- banged on about Kyoto and flipped
-- made a lot of promises for the year 4050
-- voted repeatedly against Liberal policy, then adopted it :wall:

ad nauseam :hand:


I'd suggest you should be more concerned about
No. I am solely concerned (as I said originally and rightfully so) whether Kevin, Wayne, Julia and Peter actually KNOW what they are doing right now!

My lot can bicker in the back of the wagon for a couple of months.

Ian Murray
26-11-2007, 08:26 PM
All true. All fair comment.
One possible problem - does he actually know how to do it? ....

No. I am solely concerned (as I said originally and rightfully so) whether Kevin, Wayne, Julia and Peter actually KNOW what they are doing right now!
That's where the public service fills the gaps. The three ministers so far already have their Transition Books, itemising exactly what they have to do to keep the wheels turning, and what needs to be done to implement electoral promises.

The rest of the ministry will get theirs when they arrive at the office

Kevin Bonham
26-11-2007, 10:36 PM
Newspoll called it Labor to gain 24 seats - that's the current forecast

Did Newspoll actually put out a forecast of a 24 seat gain with their 52:48 poll? If so, that's very good, since most of the commentary on that poll was about how everything was "very tight" (when it wasn't). Shame the forecast wasn't more widely publicised.

I mainly had in mind Morgan - their comments about their own polls have been quite strange.

A 24 seat gain is 84. The ABC currently predicts 86 though Bowman is right on the wire at the moment so it may come down to 85.

Desmond
26-11-2007, 10:43 PM
Is bennelong still in dispute?

Kevin Bonham
26-11-2007, 10:55 PM
Is bennelong still in dispute?

Naaaah, I called it on the night (albeit very late). He's 2400 votes behind at present and making precious little progress.

Ian Murray
26-11-2007, 11:35 PM
Naaaah, I called it on the night (albeit very late). He's 2400 votes behind at present and making precious little progress.
Estimated 5000 postals, expected to go 2/3 to Howard. He can't close the gap, but Maxine is still not claiming the seat.

Ian Murray
26-11-2007, 11:45 PM
Did Newspoll actually put out a forecast of a 24 seat gain with their 52:48 poll? If so, that's very good, since most of the commentary on that poll was about how everything was "very tight" (when it wasn't). Shame the forecast wasn't more widely publicised.

I mainly had in mind Morgan - their comments about their own polls have been quite strange.

A 24 seat gain is 84. The ABC currently predicts 86 though Bowman is right on the wire at the moment so it may come down to 85.
Faulty memory on my part. The Newspoll marginals poll the week before the election called it +28 seats to Labor - see Post 33.

Not accurate across the board. Turnbull held Wentworth comfortably, while the likes of Leichhardt and Dawson were not regarded as marginals but safe Coalition seats. Not any more!

Ian Murray
26-11-2007, 11:49 PM
Did Newspoll actually put out a forecast of a 24 seat gain with their 52:48 poll? .
52-48 was the Galaxy poll. I can't recall the Newspoll overall figure, but its gap was wider.

Southpaw Jim
27-11-2007, 07:25 AM
52-48 was the Galaxy poll. I can't recall the Newspoll overall figure, but its gap was wider.
Newspoll did put out a 52-48 poll on Friday 23/Saturday 24, but I suspect you're referring to the marginals poll that came out earlier in the week. IIRC, that was 53-47, but no idea on the seat predictions.

EDIT: I believe this is the poll you're thinking of (http://www.pollbludger.com/717), which doesn't have an overall TPP figure, but does predict 24 seats to the ALP. It was from November 17, a week before the ballot.

Spiny Norman
27-11-2007, 07:46 AM
Even a clock with a flat battery is right twice a day ...

pax
27-11-2007, 09:42 AM
Estimated 5000 postals, expected to go 2/3 to Howard. He can't close the gap, but Maxine is still not claiming the seat.
Maxine essentially claimed it yesterday - "Bennelong is now a Labor seat for the first time". And apparently she had a 15 minute conversation with Kevin. That's code for a 'role' in government - perhaps a parliamentary secretary.

Capablanca-Fan
27-11-2007, 10:08 AM
For all the talk about Howard's alleged lies, a number of those salivating over Labor's win hope that KRudd was merely lying being politically expedient about being an economic conservative.

David Marr (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/pray-the-passionless-messiah-is-not-channelling-brother-grim/2007/11/25/1195975870687.html)


Many frankly hope Peter Garrett was right: that despite all the non-promises of the campaign, something is going to happen in Australia now. Their leader seems a mystery to them.

Sunday Age (http://www.theage.com.au/news/federal-election-2007-news/you-made-it-kevin-now-show-us-real-vision/2007/11/24/1195753377829.html):


WELL done, Mr Rudd. And now for your real job: cast off "Me Too" and inspire us with a plan to fix up this country. ...

Well, the truth is many, if not most of us, voted against the other bloke — it really was time — and not actually for you. And many of your voters hope Peter Garrett was right; we'll see the real Rudd — and ALP — now that you have the keys to The Lodge. We are not sure: you may well turn out to be many unexpected things, but we reckon you're not telling porkies when you say you are a fiscal conservative. But that's OK. There's plenty of money about — all you have to do is spend it, and save it, in the right areas.

Ian Murray
27-11-2007, 10:42 AM
Maxine essentially claimed it yesterday - "Bennelong is now a Labor seat for the first time". And apparently she had a 15 minute conversation with Kevin. That's code for a 'role' in government - perhaps a parliamentary secretary.
The result is completely beyond doubt of course. Maxine is just being nice about it, waiting for Little Johnny to concede or the result to be declared rather than rub it in.

Denis_Jessop
27-11-2007, 10:47 AM
Distilling ...

While acknowledging the existence of your quoted figures, the bare (and somewhat simplified) facts are that Labor required 4 people in 100 to change their mind from the last election. As it turned out, slightly short of 6 people in 100 changed their mind.

Despite claims like this I see from this morning's paper that there was a swing of 29.5% to Labor in one booth in Capricornia (it may have had only about 6 voters, I don't know;) ) while there have been huge swings to Labor in several seats in several Queensland seats.

Here down South we usually attribute unusual behaviour by Queenslanders to the strength of the tropical sun but on this occasion that strength seems to have allowed them to see the light. :hmm: :cool:

Claims about the Labor majority of votes being small overall reveal a lack of depth of knowledge of Australian politics. There have been several occasions in the past on which the party that won the most seats in a federal election won less than 50% of the votes. This is caused by unevenness in the distribution of numbers of voters in seats and in strength of support in individual seats. Historically the States have been even worse with notorious anti-Labor gerrymanders in Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia in particular. In the Playford era in SA the State was organised so that Labor needed 61% of the votes to win government which was thought impossible but it eventually happened and soon afterwards SA had Don Dunstan, one of the few really honest politicians, as Premier. The result of the weekend's election was about as decisive as one can expect at the federal level.

DJ

PS John Howard is reported this morning as saying that he won't concede Bennelong until the vote is complete but then Howard wouldn't concede that it was night-time until the following sunrise.

Capablanca-Fan
27-11-2007, 12:49 PM
In years to come, the defeat of Howard will be seen to be as bizarre as Winston Churchill's dumping after he won WW2 and saved Britain and Western Europe from the Nazis.

Leading historian Geoffrey Blainey writes (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22823823-5000117,00.html):


John Howard has much to feel proud of.

In more than 11 years in office he never failed to promote the virtues of democracy. Knowing that it takes at least two major parties to run a democracy, he was more willing to give praise to his opponents, at the right time, than were nearly all other major politicians.

Even when he was a very young federal treasurer, serving under Malcolm Fraser, he gave the most generous praise to his Labor predecessor, Frank Crean.

...

Mr Howard's government had a success in creating jobs, useful jobs, which every prime minister before them would have applauded or envied.

His predecessors, Bob Hawke and Paul Keating, made several notable economic reforms. but their failure to check inflation, by world standards, was even more notable.

It was the Howard government, which, through Peter Costello as treasurer, implemented in July 2000 the first strong reform of the tax system seen since World War II.

The goods and services tax, understandably, was opposed by the Labor Party and a wide section of the public.

And yet, by a strange turn of the wheel, it was the resultant stream of GST revenue, flowing straight to the states, that enabled Labor governments from the year 2000 to avoid financial crises and so win many elections.

Mr Howard did not sell his economic policies as effectively as in the beginning of his reign. Thus it became the received wisdom that it was China, and its booming economy, that was handing us on a plate our present high level of prosperity.

This is a one-sided myth. China is booming not only because of its own vigour but because Australia had one of the most efficient mining industries in the history of the world, ready to supply China with cheap coal, iron ore and other minerals even before Beijing was wealthy enough to afford them.

The strength of the mineral industry here owed infinitely more to federal and state Liberal ministers, especially to Sir Charles Court in Western Australia, than to Labor governments, some of which obstructed the opening of new mines and ports.

This is one of the reasons why the big swing to Mr Rudd did not eventuate in WA.

...

You really have to marvel that John Howard stayed in power for so long.

Except in the two world wars, no other prime minister in our history has had to face such a procession of jolts and setbacks arriving from the outside world.

He faced the dangerous Asian meltdown, which was expected to give our economy a black eye.

He faced the upheavals in Indonesia when President Suharto fell, the chaos in East Timor.

The effects of the terrorist attack on New York in 2001 and the rise of terrorist threats within Australia, the assassinations in Bali, and the crises in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He did not dither.

His government acted.

... in the end, John Howard will be seen by vast numbers of Australians as one of the great prime ministers.

Spiny Norman
27-11-2007, 01:37 PM
By contrast, Paul Keating is as bitter and twisted as always. It must really stick in his craw that he got beaten up by the dessicated coconut. Bwahahahahahaha!

eclectic
27-11-2007, 02:10 PM
i feel like throwing a brick at keating everytime he says ... "you know" :confused:

Capablanca-Fan
27-11-2007, 02:19 PM
By contrast, Paul Keating is as bitter and twisted as always. It must really stick in his craw that he got beaten up by the dessicated coconut. Bwahahahahahaha!
Same with that embittered shrew Jill Singer and communist old fart Phillip Adams, and KRudd's predecessor Latham. No one hates like a Lefty!

Basil
27-11-2007, 02:22 PM
Despite claims like this I see from this morning's paper that there was a swing of 29.5% to Labor in one booth in Capricornia (it may have had only about 6 voters, I don't know;) ) while there have been huge swings to Labor in several seats in several Queensland seats.
No question. I'm not certain of this quote's relevance to either the rest of your post or the central point.


Here down South we usually attribute unusual behaviour by Queenslanders to the strength of the tropical sun but on this occasion that strength seems to have allowed them to see the light. :hmm: :cool:
:lol: With your residing in Canberra, I thought you might have resisted allowing me the return free-kick! Nonetheless I shall decline.


Claims about the Labor majority of votes being small overall reveal a lack of depth of knowledge of Australian politics.
Not over here laddy.


There have been several occasions in the past on which the party that won the most seats in a federal election won less than 50% of the votes. This is caused by unevenness in the distribution of numbers of voters in seats and in strength of support in individual seats.
Indeed. I think even JH managed the feat himself IIRC.


Historically the States have been even worse with notorious anti-Labor gerrymanders in Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia in particular.
And further, let's look at a model with seat A (say an inner city seat comprising 20,000 voters), and seat B in the burbs (also with 20,000 voters), both two horse races (no preferences).
Seat A, Labor attracts 90% of the primary and secures 18,000 votes.
Seat B, Labor attracts 48% of the primary and secures 9,600 votes.

The result is one seat each in parliament although Labor can correctly claim 27,600 voters of the 40,000 (69%).

I'm aware that you are aware of this, I just wanted you to know that little Libby Howie also has a slight clue about the process, but my main point is to suggest that this entire trip down Refutation Lane is wide of the mark.

Remaining in the simplified confines of the debate (which is fine for the purposes of this discussion - the hidden science is a furfy), the fact remains that approximately 6 people in a hundred switched allegiances. A quick peek at the national primaries will support this, not to mention the accepted national swing of 6%

Beliefs, suggestions or fanciful musings that Joh, gerrymanders, Queenslanders, fairy cakes and little green men in any way demonstrate that 150% of the Australian population think Kevin is a swell guy and his T-shirts and computers are just the ticket, are entirely wrong, no matter how comforting the thought may be to you.

If Kevin Bonham's paper is "It's Not The Economy, stupid", mine is "It's only 53%, stupid".


PS John Howard is reported this morning as saying that he won't concede Bennelong until the vote is complete but then Howard wouldn't concede that it was night-time until the following sunrise.
Disingenuous. JH clearly called on the night that it was all over bar the shouting. He's not playing any games at all and is clearly not seeking to make a fuss. Waiting for the final official is just fine.

Spiny Norman
27-11-2007, 02:28 PM
Next Denis will be suggesting that all batsmen should walk when the bowler shouts for an LBW!

Basil
27-11-2007, 02:32 PM
Next Denis will be suggesting that all batsmen should walk when the bowler shouts for an LBW!
It's OK, Denis falls into 'Lovely, Highly Intelligent, Pain In The Ass, Roly-Poly Lefty' category along with Murray and Bonham; not the 'Stupid, Angry Ant' category. :lol: I'm sure I can hear the hum of the air-conditioners and jazz wafting in their backgrounds while it all makes perfect sense to them.

I love them all, poor sods ;)

Basil
27-11-2007, 02:40 PM
That's where the public service fills the gaps. The three ministers so far already have their Transition Books, itemising exactly what they have to do to keep the wheels turning, and what needs to be done to implement electoral promises.

The rest of the ministry will get theirs when they arrive at the office
My God man! I'm not talking about whether they'll get to their meetings on time and having stats at their finger tips when they call for them. I'm talking about when they start to have original thoughts and how much damage they'll do by implementing them.

Capablanca-Fan
27-11-2007, 02:52 PM
My God man! I'm not talking about whether they'll get to their meetings on time and having stats at their finger tips when they call for them. I'm talking about when they start to have original thoughts and how much damage they'll do by implementing them.
A Bill of Rights is probably the most damaging thing that Labor could implement. It has been a disaster in UK, Canada and England, taking power from elected representatives and handing it to unaccountable judges. More sensible anti-Howard pundits like Bob Carr and our KB oppose this nonsense.

Ian Murray
27-11-2007, 03:58 PM
A Bill of Rights is probably the most damaging thing that Labor could implement. It has been a disaster in UK, Canada and England, taking power from elected representatives and handing it to unaccountable judges. More sensible anti-Howard pundits like Bob Carr and our KB oppose this nonsense.
Implementing a bill of rights is not Labor policy. For actual policies see http://www.alp.org.au/policy/index.php

pax
27-11-2007, 03:59 PM
Same with that embittered shrew Jill Singer and communist old fart Phillip Adams, and KRudd's predecessor Latham. No one hates like a Lefty!
:lol: :clap:
You crack me up sometimes, Jono!

Ian Murray
27-11-2007, 04:01 PM
My God man! I'm not talking about whether they'll get to their meetings on time and having stats at their finger tips when they call for them. I'm talking about when they start to have original thoughts and how much damage they'll do by implementing them.
See the blueprint at http://www.alp.org.au/policy/index.php

Which in particular cause you so much doom-and-gloom angst?

Spiny Norman
27-11-2007, 04:05 PM
yeah, it was Pythonesque in proportion ... "rancorous quaffid old sow" wouldn't had gone astray where a description of Singer is concerned.

Hey, did anyone hear that report about Howard's first post-election morning walk? Apparently old Bob whats-his-name was waiting to ambush him to give him curry, but was so unfit he couldn't keep up and gave up after a couple of blocks. Ha!

rob
27-11-2007, 04:27 PM
For the seat of Swan in WA, the Liberal vote moved ahead of Labor today. If the Liberals win this one then they will have gained one more seat than previously and hold 11 out of the 15 in WA.

It is almost like we are in another country way over here ....

Basil
27-11-2007, 04:29 PM
See the blueprint at http://www.alp.org.au/policy/index.php

Which in particular cause you so much doom-and-gloom angst?
Ian, we are on a different planet. I'll try and explain my position as well as answering your question.

I went to the site, and not surprisingly, I didn't find the policy that said 'and this is the policy that will stuff things up'. What I did see was a lot of well-meaning good stuff. I don't dispute much of it is worthwhile. But it's here that left supporters (sometimes) stop, and where I (and some other Libs) start!

Any rockstar and professional student can put out a platform of how to spend money, and say nice things about helping people with a disability - but THAT is not the point :wall: How many Labor (left leaning) governments throughout the last 100 years (in western economies EVERYWHERE!) do I have to point to before the penny will finally drop? It's like groundhog day. They turn up, promise to oust the evil bastards, do so, get in, help out, stuff up, leave the place destitute, and remain entirely unable to help anyone. It's not difficult. How any times do you have to live through the story? And it's not difficult to work out retrospectively why it happens either.

Each left government promises to give the disenfranchised a helping hand (and they mean it), and each one royally cocks things up so badly that they get turfed - just like this one will get turfed (or do you harbour special hopes for Kevin to rule forever?) I have mentioned on this board previously that right governments are turfed because they are hated, while left are turfed because they are incompetent.

My concern is not as you ask "which is the bad policy in the manifesto", but I'm happy to go and have a better look (raiding the Future Fund is a shocker, but we've already had that out here), but rather my anxiety levels are raised because I know (and so do you) that government is not just about stating a platform and rolling it out. It is that, but it is also more than that. It is the 'more' that concerns me.

'More' includes the variables and unknowns that occur during any cycle. It is coping with those variables that I am concerned that Peter Garret, Wayne Swann, Julia Gillard and Kev have absolutely no idea what to do. Should I cite some examples?

Am I concerned because I am a Liberal? No. Am I concerned because I want to throw rocks? No. Am I concerned because I don't understand what's going on? No.

I am concerned because:
- none of them displayed the remotest clue about economics (no Eurotrash, I'm not referring to Swan's lecture-hall studies)
- none of them has experienced anything IRL approaching the axis of operating in a commercial environment
- none of them has championed the economic conservatism policy of the last 10 years
- all of them have electioned on an economic platform converse to what they have spent 10 years obstructing
- 100 years of history tells me that being Labor sympatico and cocking up an economy follow each other as surely as night follows day.

THAT'S WHAT CONCERNS ME

It is much more than that even, but I think I'm done (for the minute :lol:) shouting about misguided ideals to do good.

Aaron Guthrie
27-11-2007, 04:30 PM
It is almost like we are in another country way over here ....It was almost like that, but your chance has passed.

Denis_Jessop
27-11-2007, 04:33 PM
Next Denis will be suggesting that all batsmen should walk when the bowler shouts for an LBW!

I wasn't suggesting anything; I was just stating the facts in response to a query whether the rodent had yet conceded. Of course the whole concept of "conceding" is misconceived because only the official declaration of the poll counts.

DJ

Basil
27-11-2007, 04:42 PM
I wasn't suggesting anything; I was just stating the facts in response to a query whether the rodent had yet conceded. Of course the whole concept of "conceding" is misconceived because only the official declaration of the poll counts.

DJ
YOU WERE MUCK-RAKING!

Denis_Jessop
27-11-2007, 05:00 PM
It's OK, Denis falls into 'Lovely, Highly Intelligent, Pain In The Ass, Roly-Poly Lefty' category along with Murray and Bonham; not the 'Stupid, Angry Ant' category. :lol: I'm sure I can hear the hum of the air-conditioners and jazz wafting in their backgrounds while it all makes perfect sense to them.

I love them all, poor sods ;)

Introductory note on post interpretation
I'll respond to this post rather than the other one because it's shorter. It also illustrates my method which is to address aspects of the general issue regardless hence some of my remarks not seeming to you to be relevant to the post I had quoted previously.

Exposition
Actually, I don't fit any of your categories but I won't go further than that except to say that there are others.

On the issue of votes, I don't deny that Labor received an overall 53% as that was the count. What I am saying is that in federal elections anything more than that is a total crap-on as revealed by the results - this one was just a bolt-in.

As for gerrymanders, what I didn't say was that the Queensland gerrymander was originally a pro-Labor one that resulted in Labor being in power for about 30 years (well before the Bjelke Petersson era). It even went as far as to redistribute into four pieces the only electorate ever won in Australia by a Communist Party candidate. That in WA was a dreadful anti-Labor one that gave country electorates a mere fraction of the electors that city seats had. The phenomenon of the labor vote being concentrated in working-class areas where they received a huge percentage of the votes is not really a gerrymander as it occurred even in the federal sphere where electorates were more or less equal in numbers of electors. There were, and still are some seats that return non-labor representatives on the same basis. In the really good old days it was common practice for non-labor parties not to stand a candidate in those blue ribbon Labor seats and there were no minor parties so that you had the phenomenon of a candidate being elected unopposed. It's a long time since that happened partly because the number of such seats is now far fewer than it was due to population distribution changes. Then you have the situation in Tasmania which is of interest as with a PR voting system there was a Labor Government for about a million years (around 30) with equal representation from both major parties and an independent who agreed to be Speaker.

I just thought you and some of your lesser-informed right-wingers might like to know all this. Right-wingers in Australia are notoriously ill-informed on matters of politics and political theory; so much so that until recently they had written almost nothing (which was probably just as well as they were all pretty clueless) .;) :cool:

DJ

Capablanca-Fan
27-11-2007, 05:11 PM
I just thought you and some of your lesser-informed right-wingers might like to know all this. Right-wingers in Australia are notoriously ill-informed on matters of politics and political theory; so much so that until recently they had written almost nothing (which was probably just as well as they were all pretty clueless) .;) :cool:

No matter how many times left-wing ideas like government control of production fail in practice, lefties still defend leftism. No matter how many times "right wing" ideas like the free market ideas produce prosperity, lefties still hate their supporters. It's no accident that lefties are concentrated among dole bludgers, the media and educracy, and the oxymoronic public service, where ideas don't actually have to work to survive!

Denis_Jessop
27-11-2007, 05:11 PM
YOU WERE MUCK-RAKING!


I say, Howard why did you scream in red - have you changed sides?

And to add to my previous post I observe that the term "Right-wing intellectual" , if it exists, in a self-contradictory one.:owned: :whistle: :

DJ

Basil
27-11-2007, 05:15 PM
Actually, I don't fit any of your categories but i won't go further than that except to say that there are others.
I don't doubt it. My (any) attempts to pigeonhole 5,000,000 people into one of two categories is facile rubbish - I did think that was a given, but it is certainly worthwhile clarifying at least once.

FFIW, the first draft of my response as quoted by you, did have the foot-note that I thought you might have been a handful in your earlier days - perhaps you still are! :cool:


On the issue of votes, I don't deny that labor received an overall 53% as that was the count.
Goody, because I was under the misapprehension that you were in fact obfuscating that very issue. I'm glad to have been corrected.


What I am saying is that in federal elections anything more than that is a total crap-on as revealed by the results - this one was just a bolt-in.
I'd like to get back to you on that. FWIW I do find your meaning easier to follow when you are more direct :lol:


Right-wingers in Australia are notoriously ill-informed on matters of politics and political theory
!!! It's your theory that we reject! It's the bloody theory that is the very problem with most of what your lot espouse! IT. DOESN'T. WORK. It reads lovely, BUT. IT. DOESN'T. WORK.


so much so that until recently thet had written almost nothing
I believe this to be true. One of my many pipe-dreams is to write a tome on the subject (without Beazley fluff - Beazley is a prime example of a great man, very learned, widely read, deeply passionate and completely clueless).


(which was probably just as well as they were all pretty clueless) .;) :cool:
I think it's fitting that we start and finish having come full circle calling each other clueless! :P

Capablanca-Fan
27-11-2007, 05:20 PM
:lol: :clap:
You crack me up sometimes, Jono!
Oh, so you do appreciate irony after all. :P My favorite was Benjamin Disraeli quipping against William Gladstone's verbosity by parodying it:


A sophistical rhetorician, inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity, and gifted with an egotistical imagination that can at all times command an interminable and inconsistent series of arguments to malign an opponent and to glorify himself.

Basil
27-11-2007, 05:28 PM
And to add to my previous post I observe that the term "Right-wing intellectual" , if it exists, in a self-contradictory one.
As for the idea of 'intellectual' referring to intelligence, I think the evidence would readily show a considerable gathering of intelligence and IQ on the right, and the talent in that regard, is rather evenly distributed.

I hesitate to question which side of politics is the receptacle for the lower end of the intelligence food chain :owned: :owned: :owned: :wall: :wall: :wall:

As for the commonly accepted idea of intellectual left, you can have it. It is certainly not a tag I would wear with pride as it conjours images of the lily-whites and those so far removed from reality, the quickest reference leap I can make relates to the British officers from WW1 - dangerous, arrogant self-belief on behalf of others, all the while obsessed that theirs is the only way and that they have 'worked it all out' while never having once been anywhere near the coal-face.

Capablanca-Fan
27-11-2007, 05:59 PM
!!! It's your theory that we reject! It's the bloody theory that is the very problem with most of what your lot espouse! IT. DOESN'T. WORK. It reads lovely, BUT. IT. DOESN'T. WORK.
That has always been the difference between the Right and Left (or their rough equivalents), for at least 200 years. The Left have lovely intentions and goals, while the Right care more about incentives and results.

That is why the main criticism of the Left by the Right is that they are misguided, while it is very common for the Left to think that the Right is evil, and/or morally and intellectually inferior. This is because Lefties presume that opposition to their programs means opposition to the Left programs means hatred of the people that the programs are ostensibly aimed to help.

E.g. if the Right oppose minimum wage laws and work choices, the Left accuse them of hatred of workers and support for rich fat cats; while the Right point out the likely results of such policies is to make it harder for the unemployed to find work.

This fundamental difference between the Left and Right certainly explains the vitriolic hatred spewed at Howard, whereas there was no such conservative bile at Beasley, Crean or Rudd.

I've said it before, but Thomas Sowell's Vision of the Anointed (http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/anointed.php) is an outstanding analysis of the weakness of the Left, or the self-appoined superior Anointed class with superior wisdom to the rest of us. It also goes through their repeated failures, then their self-justification, for all their favourite crusades. The modern global warming alarmism follows just the pattern of the other crusades of the Anointed. This pattern is four stages:

1. Assert that the issue is a Crisis, so the Anointed decreed that Something must be Done. Never mind that the issue complained about was often getting better, not worse. E.g. teenage pregnancy and venereal disease, which were actually on the decrease for more than a decade before sex ed was force-fed into schools. STDs in the 1960s, before sex ed, were actually only half the incidence that it had in 1950. Same with the "war on poverty", although again poverty was decreasing already. [Compare the climate catastrophe doom-mongers, although temperatures have fallen since 1998, declining in 2007 to a 1983 level... (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/25/nbook125.xml)]

2. This Something is a Solution of the Anointed. The Anointed predict an imrovement, while their opponents predict problems. E.g. when you teach kids about sex apart from morality, then they will practice what they learn. (My own observation: especially so when the prevailing educrat ethos is that we are evolved animals who can’t control our urges, so kids learn that they are not expected to practise self-control anyway.) And with the "war on poverty" critics argue that when you reward non-working and teenage pregnancies with government benefits, you will get more of the behaviour that you reward. But the Anointed dismiss these criticisms, declaring that the critics don’t care about the people that their policies are ostensibly designed to help. [Compare the vilification of critics of global warm-mongering]

3. The results come in. After sex ed was introduced, venereal disease and teenage pregnancy skyrocket, and remember they were on the decrease before sex ed was introduced. And in the war on poverty, poverty won, e.g. more unemployment, even perpetuated into the next generation I.e. contrary to the lofty goals of the Anointed and just what those with the Tragic Vision predicted. [Compare how population doom-monger Paul R. Ehrlich is still revered by the Greenies despite his repeated failed predictions.]

4. The Anointed explain away the results. Sometimes there is revisionist history on what their goals were. Other times the very failure is used as proof that things would have even been worse without their “solution”. And they have the chutzpah to demand even more money for more of the same! Then we hear “correlation is not causation”, which is right as far as it goes, but the Anointed apply this only when their “solution” fails in just the way that their opponents predicted it would.

Kevin Bonham
27-11-2007, 06:34 PM
Estimated 5000 postals, expected to go 2/3 to Howard.

Expected by who?

I think the wariness about calling Bennelong is more about the feeling that claiming it over a sitting and defeated PM is somehow not a decorous thing to do.

Basil
27-11-2007, 06:42 PM
Expected by who?

I think the wariness about calling Bennelong is more about the feeling that claiming it over a sitting and defeated PM is somehow not a decorous thing to do.
My understanding is that the expectation is born from history (postals (in that electorate?) being known as conservative - that view was confirmed by both left and right commentators on Saturday on Sky). My guess is that, as Denis qualified, there is really no point in claiming or conceding while there is still some legitimate (albeit very small) doubt.

FWIW John H and I have very little doubt that the seat is lost to Labor.

Kevin Bonham
27-11-2007, 06:44 PM
In years to come, the defeat of Howard will be seen to be as bizarre as Winston Churchill's dumping after he won WW2 and saved Britain and Western Europe from the Nazis.

There was nothing bizarre about Churchill's dumping. There hadn't been an election for a decade, he ran a very bad campaign and he was seen as being weak on domestic policy.

On the magnitude of Rudd's win, his was a fairly comfortable victory but by no means a landslide. 95 seats would have been a landslide in my book.

Denis_Jessop
27-11-2007, 07:04 PM
I think I might leave this thread now as the election is over and Labor seems to have won.

I am submitting my posts above for the Amiel Rosario Memorial Stirrer's Award for which I understand there is a prize of $HCD1000 to be paid in Cuban pesos on Che Guevara's birthday next year.

Thank you Howie.:lol: :hand: :clap:

DJ

PS I see that Fidel Castro's autoboigraphy has just been published - the ideal Christmas present for the Right Winger you thought had everything :hmm:

Ian Murray
27-11-2007, 07:17 PM
Expected by who?

I think the wariness about calling Bennelong is more about the feeling that claiming it over a sitting and defeated PM is somehow not a decorous thing to do.
The rationale, borne out historically, is that a sitting member has greater resources at his disposal, allowing postal vote applications (with how-to-vote cards) to be delivered to every letterbox and returned post-free to his electoral office for lodgement with the AEC, making it easy for the voter.

The process tends to give the incumbent two-thirds of the postal vote. It works for Coalition or Labor incumbents equally well of course.

Kevin Bonham
27-11-2007, 07:34 PM
The process tends to give the incumbent two-thirds of the postal vote. It works for Coalition or Labor incumbents equally well of course.

There is an advantage to incumbents in most cases but it is news to me that it is anything like that high in close seats generally. Usually it is worth somewhere between a few and several percent above the primary.

Indeed at The Poll Bludger there are now some figures up on postals in various seats in 2004 and 2007 (that are very close this time around). The only one of those where the postals went 2 in 3 to the sitting member last time was Macarthur and the 68% to the sitting member in 2004 in that case wasn't much greater than their overall 2PP of 61.10.

I have actually now seen that Nick Minchin estimated Howard would be favoured 2-1 on postals in this case because of which parts of Bennelong the postal votes were indicated by the AEC as having come from. But I think that is a little bit hopeful. In 2004 Howard got 64% of postals (2PP) in an election in which his overall 2PP vote was 54.3% 2PP. As there has been a large swing against him he will be doing well to get 60% of postals 2PP this time, which out of 5000 votes still leaves him 1400 behind.

Basil
27-11-2007, 08:41 PM
I think I might leave this thread now as the election is over and Labor seems to have won.
That's a reasonably safe hook ... except ... hang on ... you entered the thread after Labor had won :hand:


I am submitting my posts above for the Amiel Rosario Memorial Stirrer's Award ...
Oooooooohhhhhhhhh your brief dalliance with Vague Refutation Lane was a stir. I see. Silly me.


I see that Fidel Castro's autoboigraphy has just been published - the ideal Christmas present for the Right Winger you thought had everything :hmm:
Bzzzzt. I think it's a reasonably safe bet that I am the most central poster on the board. Certainly there are few pointers to muster a reasonable argument along those lines. And by your own admission, you are somewhat of a radical.

Southpaw Jim
27-11-2007, 08:43 PM
There was nothing bizarre about Churchill's dumping. There hadn't been an election for a decade, he ran a very bad campaign and he was seen as being weak on domestic policy.

On the magnitude of Rudd's win, his was a fairly comfortable victory but by no means a landslide. 95 seats would have been a landslide in my book.
Nor is there anything bizarre about Howard's dumping either.

If the Libs can't or won't see this, then they are certainly doomed to the Wilderness for a goodly period.

Basil
27-11-2007, 08:48 PM
Nor is there anything bizarre about Howard's dumping either.

If the Libs can't or won't see this, then they are certainly doomed to the Wilderness for a goodly period.
I disagree. I certainly accept that WorkChoices was a bridge too far for the electorate (for real or imagined reasons). The commentary I hear from the Libs affirms that idea. On what or from where are you drawing your premise?

Southpaw Jim
27-11-2007, 10:00 PM
I disagree. I certainly accept that WorkChoices was a bridge too far for the electorate (for real or imagined reasons). The commentary I hear from the Libs affirms that idea. On what or from where are you drawing your premise?
Ok, I'm not sure whether you disagree with the risk of Wilderness, or with the bizarreness of Howard's dumping. Noting that confusion, I'll proceed.

What I present below is not necessarily objective fact, but IMHO is political reality. The Libs lost because:

Workchoices
Regardless of the economics of it, this was a dog of a policy. Howard and Costello are well known as anti-union, and Workchoices was the (perceived) embodiment of their hatred of unions. It was (perceived as) anti-worker, pro-business, and thus an easy target for Labor's FUD campaign. Concepts like unemployment and real wages are all very well, but they're abstract to the average voter. Numbers on the nightly news. The risk that an employer, in a recession, would use the new laws to the fullest extent to drive down wages and conditions is a much more real concern to Joe Average, Factory Worker, than a 2% increase in unemployment. Plus, even if people didn't see themselves as vulnerable, they certainly saw friends, spouses, children and grandchildren as being primo f*ckover material.

In addition to Workchoices being electoral poison, the Libs greedily implemented it as soon as they realised they had control of both Houses, presenting Labor with another FUD target - the "they didn't tell you about it to begin with, so how can you trust them not to take it further if elected again?" campaign. This FUD campaign tied in nicely with the perception of Howard as "mean and tricky" and "Mr Non-Core". To add woe to misery, Howard gave not one, but two dolts (Andrews and Hockey) the job of selling this dog of a policy, which they both duly botched.

Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the policy, Workchoices was one of the principal reasons Howard lost. The tragedy for the Libs is that it was unnecessary, the unions were on their last legs anyway.

Leadership
Howard's inability to relinquish power has undone his Government and will tarnish his legacy. Whisperings in the media, presumably fed by Costello and his supporters, paint a picture of a megalomaniac in the end, unable to share power. Word is that Howard had sidelined several senior campaign figures in favour of former advisor Graeme Morris and his wife Jeanette.

Without commenting on the electability of Costello, Howard's iron grip on the leadership opened him to being painted as "yesterday's man" in the face of a comparatively youthful Labor leadership team. If Howard had retired, on top of his game in mid-2006, then there would've been a smooth transition, and Costello would've had time to ease into the role. By the time of the abortive APEC coup, it was too late.

However, the leadership question caused even more problems in the wake of the aborted APEC coup, in that Howard was forced into doing a "Blair" and announcing that he'd retire. This left him a lame duck - it was the worst of both worlds. People would be put off voting for Howard, since he was too easily painted as not being ultimately responsible for his policies (since he potentially wouldn't be there to implement them), and people would also be put off by the anointment of Costello, who many don't like and who wouldn't have to face the public as the candidate for PM. Furthermore, Costello couldn't claim any policy difference from Howard, as that would be to repudiate the Party's election policies, but if Costello wasn't any different to Howard, what was the point of it all? In effect, it made Costello an electoral cuckold.

Howard's predilection for 'yes-men' in his Cabinet, combined with his thwarting of Costello's ambitions has left the Libs without a strong, universally supported leadership heir. Instead, you now have a number of also-rans that all have identifiable flaws, none of whom are clear winners. There is a serious risk that Abbott and Turnbull could become the next Howard and Peacock - whoever loses the contest will probably white-ant the other's leadership. If the Libs can't unite behind one person, then they'll struggle to be competitive until there is a clear leader. I suspect that the presence of 3 equally uninspiring candidates will undermine the Libs' ability to regroup.

Electoral Baggage
Whether you agree with them or not, there is a veritable grab-bag of issues that any Government accumulates over a period of time. In Howard's case, and in no particular order: mandatory detention, SIEV X, Children Overboard, Tampa, Hicks, Haneef, AWB, Iraq, Cornelia Rau/Virginia Solomon, FoI issues, Non-Core promises/"aggregate impressions", interest rate promises, and more.

I don't necessarily present these as objective indictments on Howard et al, but what I'm getting at is that there have been issues where Howard has alienated portions of the community at one time or another. These build up over time, and eventually they build up to a critical mass. It also ties in with the leadership transition thing - the inability of the Libs to manage succession means that the same leadership team is the one building up all these credits in Sinners Bank Internationale.

Climate Change
Whether it's real or not, the Howard Government handled this issue awfully. It's prominent enough in the public consciousness that Howard's skepticism enabled Labor to, again, paint him as "yesterday's man". This is also apparent in Howard's apparent lack of understanding of the issue of the quality of Australia's broadband network - he obviously had no idea about computers and the internet, or the importance of such in the modern world.

Going Forward, not for "Growth"
The new Libs need to disown Workchoices. Rightly or wrongly, the electorate has repudiated it, and if the Libs are seen as being in any way still wedded to the underlying ideas, then they will get stuck in a hole. At the next election, all Labor would have to do is to point to the policy-that-shalt-not-be-named, and say "they want it back".

The Libs need to also jump on the climate change bandwagon. They also need to attempt to reclaim the centre/centre-right that they've abandoned to Labor. They also need to stop banging on about the economy so much and actually promulgate some vision on health, education, the environment and other social issues. They need to distance themselves from the "ugly" right, as represented by the likes of Abbott, Ruddock, Andrews, and promote more moderate small "l" liberals like Turnbull, Hockey, Nelson etc - else they'll lose their heartland voters to Labor.

If they stick with their hard-right stance, and fail to develop a credible and attractive agenda for Australia's future, then they will only appeal to the socially conservative and not mainstream Australians.

Ultimately they need to distance themselves from Howard and Costello. This includes key figures in that leadership team - Downer, Ruddock, Abbott. They also need to accept the reasons for their loss. If they don't, they'll be seen as out of touch.

Something else to remember: history is written by the victorious. The next six months will be painful for those Libs left in Parliament. I expect there will be some very sticky dirt hanging around in Departmental record systems, be it on AWB, Hicks, suppressed information, or whatever. This will come out and be used to beat the Shadow Cabinet over the head with for the next couple of Parliamentary sessions.

You may not agree with all of these as "real" issues, but certainly they've become or are becoming part of the media and political narrative, and will therefore become part of the Howard "history". Just as Keating's legacy was interpreted by Howard, Howard's legacy will be similarly interpreted by Rudd. The only way the Libs can effectively deal with this (and thus be competitive in 2010), is to get on the front foot, "own" the past, and start tackling Rudd on his agenda, not that of Keating or Howard. Rudd now has an electoral clean slate.

That's my 2c ;) :cool:

Basil
27-11-2007, 10:09 PM
I think that is an exceptionally well-written piece. I agree with it almost in its entirety. Well done and thanks.

Capablanca-Fan
27-11-2007, 10:18 PM
There was nothing bizarre about Churchill's dumping. There hadn't been an election for a decade, he ran a very bad campaign and he was seen as being weak on domestic policy.

Came as a shock after his inspirational war leadership, as well as his forewarnings of the dangers of Hitler when others were appeasing. History has certainly judged this Winston kindly, and should judge J. Winston Howard fairly well too.

Southpaw Jim
27-11-2007, 10:19 PM
Shucks! :)

Kevin Bonham
27-11-2007, 10:21 PM
#183 - Excellent analysis. :clap: :clap: :clap:

Basil
27-11-2007, 10:22 PM
History has certainly judged this Winston kindly, and should judge J. Winston Howard fairly well too.
I am quite confident of that it will.

Capablanca-Fan
27-11-2007, 10:24 PM
Going Forward, not for "Growth"
The new Libs need to disown Workchoices. Rightly or wrongly, the electorate has repudiated it, and if the Libs are seen as being in any way still wedded to the underlying ideas, then they will get stuck in a hole. At the next election, all Labor would have to do is to point to the policy-that-shalt-not-be-named, and say "they want it back".
They probably had better not try that again, unfortunately, for the reasons you said. If Rudd is sensible, he will keep the unions at bay to avoid being an easy target.


The Libs need to also jump on the climate change bandwagon. They also need to attempt to reclaim the centre/centre-right that they've abandoned to Labor.
They would be better to leave it. Canada is regretting signing Kyoto (http://www.macleans.ca/world/wire/article.jsp?content=w112537A), so it's amusing to see Rudd jump on this bandwagon as the wheels are already shaking. The evidence may come that makes it obvious that the globull warm-mongering today is as crass as the global ice-age scaremongering of 30 years ago. And the extra carbon taxes might start to bite the new generation of battlers.


If they stick with their hard-right stance, and fail to develop a credible and attractive agenda for Australia's future, then they will only appeal to the socially conservative and not mainstream Australians.
But if they turn their backs on social conservatives completely, they will be in the wilderness just as surely as the pre-Reagan "Rockefeller Republicans" who were an "echo" rather than a "choice", much like Ted Baillieu's Vic Libs. And if Labor tries to bring in a bill of rights, it could energise the social conservatives like nothing else.

Kevin Bonham
27-11-2007, 10:27 PM
Came as a shock after his inspirational war leadership, as well as his forewarnings of the dangers of Hitler when others were appeasing. History has certainly judged this Winston kindly, and should judge J. Winston Howard fairly well too.

Being a great wartime leader (which he was) and being a great peacetime PM after the war is one are not necessarily the same thing.

What is quite remarkable to me is that he had the mettle to come back and get himself elected again in 1951. He was something like 77 years old at the time. It would be like Howard coming back to lead the Liberals to victory in 2013.

Goughfather
27-11-2007, 10:28 PM
I have actually now seen that Nick Minchin estimated Howard would be favoured 2-1 on postals in this case because of which parts of Bennelong the postal votes were indicated by the AEC as having come from. But I think that is a little bit hopeful. In 2004 Howard got 64% of postals (2PP) in an election in which his overall 2PP vote was 54.3% 2PP. As there has been a large swing against him he will be doing well to get 60% of postals 2PP this time, which out of 5000 votes still leaves him 1400 behind.

Yes, this seems to be the case. There is some excellent analysis of the subject at Oz Election Forums (http://www.ozforums.com.au/viewtopic.php?id=2295)

Southpaw Jim
27-11-2007, 10:31 PM
Excellent analysis. :clap: :clap: :clap:
I must acknowledge the influence of Possum, William Bowe, Grattan, Henderson, Bolt, Milne, Kelly, Megalogenis, Hartcher, Ramsey, and others, who in varying degrees over the past weeks and months have shaped my perceptions of the campaign and its fallout.

I note with interest that Bolt, of all people, intimated on Insiders last Sunday that this loss could actually be the death of the Liberal Party. I don't think this will happen, but it's an interesting suggestion of the magnitude of the psychological effect that this loss could have on the Party, and the tainting of the Liberal brand.

Howard, in time, will be judged kindly by the mainstream like all prior PMs. However, I suspect the next few years will see his name and legacy sullied to some extent.

Kevin Bonham
27-11-2007, 10:39 PM
Further on postals, the sitting member in Bass (Launceston), Michael Ferguson, has been refusing to concede (I'm not sure if it's any real delusion that postals will fish him out of the slop or just a serious lack of grace.) He was about 1200 behind on the night and 2,895 postals have only closed the gap by 125 votes! (52:48 2PP on postals).

Goughfather
27-11-2007, 10:42 PM
Kevin, where were you able to find out how many postals had been counted (and importantly, how many there are left to count)? I might be looking in the wrong place, but I can't seem to find this information at the AEC website.

Southpaw Jim
27-11-2007, 10:46 PM
But if they turn their backs on social conservatives completely, they will be in the wilderness just as surely
I'm not suggesting they should.

Think of the political spectrum as a normal distribution. Most of the votes are in the centre and, ergo, you need to occupy the centre to win the election. Howard's Government has vacated the centre, and ceded it to Labor. A simplistic analysis, I know, but the Libs will struggle to be seen as relevant or a credible alternative until they can win back the votes in the middle of the bell curve. In the absence of major blunders by Rudd, the swinging voter will (like they did with Howard in 98 and 01) think "better the devil I know" - at least in 2010 and possibly 2013. This is why the Libs need a new agenda - because they've lost the advantages of incumbency, and now need to woo the swingers.

On your point, I'd actually suggest that in Australian politics (cf US), it's nigh impossible for the Libs to lose the socially conservative vote - after all, who else are they going to vote for? Any conservative minor parties will come back to the Libs via preferences. One of the problems of our (relatively) choiceless 2 party system.

eclectic
27-11-2007, 10:47 PM
try vtr.aec.gov.au

http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionDecScrutinyProgress-13745-105.htm

Capablanca-Fan
28-11-2007, 01:04 AM
Think of the political spectrum as a normal distribution. Most of the votes are in the centre and, ergo, you need to occupy the centre to win the election.
Or else shift the centre. The centre is more free-market oriented now than 20-30 years ago for example. Many countries deregulated significantly, and upon change of governments have not re-regulated too much.

It should be noted that Howard won four terms by appealing to both economic and social conservatives, and Reagan was the most popular recent President by also uniting those two forms of conservatism.


This is why the Libs need a new agenda - because they've lost the advantages of incumbency, and now need to woo the swingers.
Labor didn't really need much of a new agenda.


On your point, I'd actually suggest that in Australian politics (cf US), it's nigh impossible for the Libs to lose the socially conservative vote - after all, who else are they going to vote for? Any conservative minor parties will come back to the Libs via preferences. One of the problems of our (relatively) choiceless 2 party system.
They might not lose the votes, but they are likely to lose the local Liberal support networks.

Even now, the polling stands at 4,569,074 for the ALP and 4,317,345 for the Coalition, so it's not as if Howard supporters are in a tiny minority.

Capablanca-Fan
28-11-2007, 01:07 AM
Howard, in time, will be judged kindly by the mainstream like all prior PMs. However, I suspect the next few years will see his name and legacy sullied to some extent.
Whitlam is widely regarded as a disastrous PM. Fraser is regarded not much better, but these days his poor reign is usually disguised by the attacks on his treasurer he controlled too tightly.

Southpaw Jim
28-11-2007, 07:38 AM
Or else shift the centre. The centre is more free-market oriented now than 20-30 years ago for example. Many countries deregulated significantly, and upon change of governments have not re-regulated too much.
I assume you're actually referring to a negative skew in the population distribution across the political spectrum, a la:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/93/Skew.png
I don't really see it as terribly likely that the Australian population could be shifted to the right significantly more than it already has.


Labor didn't really need much of a new agenda.
That is in no small part due to the Liberals' baggage, amongst the other reasons in post #183. Labor is unlikely to have election-losing baggage within 3 years.


Even now, the polling stands at 4,569,074 for the ALP and 4,317,345 for the Coalition, so it's not as if Howard supporters are in a tiny minority.
I'm missing the relevance of this to the point of the social conservative vote.

Southpaw Jim
28-11-2007, 09:54 AM
Paul Kelly's op-ed piece in today's Australian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22832057-7583,00.html) echoes and extends much of the sentiment and analysis in my post #183.

Well worth a 5 minute read.

Capablanca-Fan
28-11-2007, 11:12 AM
Paul Kelly's op-ed piece in today's Australian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22832057-7583,00.html) echoes and extends much of the sentiment and analysis in my post #183.

Well worth a 5 minute read.
Note:


Turnbull's social policy task is to triangulate to a new Liberal position beyond the old brawls between conservatives and progressives. This will require immense skill.

His fatal blunder would be to listen to the nonsense from the media about converting the Liberal Party to social progressivism. This was never an election issue. It had nothing to do with Howard's defeat.

It misreads the meaning of the election when Rudd proved that a future vision and social conservatism are tied together, a point much of the media cannot comprehend.

So Turnbull should support social policy ideas that work and are geared to tangible progress.

That means backing practical reconciliation, mutual obligation, high immigration and tough border protection with detention, welfare reform, firm national security laws with review mechanisms to guard civil liberties, education standards that reject postmodernism and demand objective testing, strong support for families and for individual choice. This is largely an affirmation of Howard's agenda, but it needs a new framework, fresh marketing and dressed with a moral ethos. Any reversion to obsolete social policy brawls between progressives and conservatives would be the kiss of death.

Spiny Norman
28-11-2007, 11:30 AM
Someone should draft Paul Kelly to run for parliament ... that's the most intelligent and sensible bit of political analysis and advice I've yet read in the mainstream media ... it convinces me that Turnbull is indeed a better bet than Brendan Nelson.

Basil
28-11-2007, 11:58 AM
Paul Kelly's op-ed piece in today's Australian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22832057-7583,00.html) echoes and extends much of the sentiment and analysis in my post #183.

Well worth a 5 minute read.
A little too alarmist for me. Otherwise, broadly on the money.

Kevin Bonham
28-11-2007, 06:43 PM
Yes, if the Liberals assume the correct response to the defeat is to try to be more "progressive" than the Labor Party, they will be humiliated. But at the same time they must find broad appeal and they will need to make progressive forces within the party far less marginal than under Howard.

Aaron Guthrie
29-11-2007, 01:29 PM
Kate Ellis from the fantastic seat of Adelaide gets the Youth and sport portfolio. Is she the person that now gets lobbied for funding for chess?

pax
29-11-2007, 02:17 PM
Kate Ellis from the fantastic seat of Adelaide gets the Youth and sport portfolio. Is she the person that now gets lobbied for funding for chess?
I guess so... She also happens to be the best looking MP in the house - I bet it's no coincidence that she sat behind Kevin Rudd (in camera shot every time he spoke) in the last parliament.

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/4/42/Kate_ellis.jpg

Spiny Norman
30-11-2007, 05:46 AM
Manga, its your job to lobby her intensively ... for funding ... focus man, focus!

Garvinator
30-11-2007, 01:22 PM
Manga, its your job to lobby her intensively ... for funding ... focus man, focus!
I dont think many males would have a problem having to see her regularly for meetings ;)

Garvinator
30-11-2007, 01:25 PM
Work choices was always going to lose the Coalition politically straight from the outset. In my opinion, the biggest killer was the name- Work choices. Most average workers realised from their own experience that when applying for a job, there is very little room for negotiating. It is either you accept the contract offered, or find other employment. Tinkering around the edges might be possible, but not much.

So there really wasnt much choice, so to the electorate it sounded very fishy indeed.

Had it been given another name, perhaps it might have gone over differently :hmm:

I think the best description is- the spotlight was certainly put on workchoices.

Capablanca-Fan
30-11-2007, 02:22 PM
I think the best description is- the spotlight was certainly put on workchoices.
That's almost certainly right. So the Coalition should not block the repeal, even though I think it was sound policy. They should certainly not fold on other Labor policies which were probably not such big issues to the voters. And they should block Labor if it tries to impose policies contrary to their own promises.

Wimps like the fortunately defeated TurnBULL should realise that the election was not a vote for lefty policies. After all, KRudd campaigned as a conservative! Unlike TurnBULL, he knew that there were insufficient votes to be won in courting the Left, because Australians are largely opposed to PC crap.

Kevin Bonham
30-11-2007, 11:13 PM
Further to previous discussion re postals and Bennelong, postals are only favouring Howard by 56:44% thus far (about to be expected given the swing against him) and absents and prepolls are slightly favouring McKew. The margin is currently over 2000 and will not come down very much.

Garvinator
30-11-2007, 11:24 PM
Further to previous discussion re postals and Bennelong, postals are only favouring Howard by 56:44% thus far (about to be expected given the swing against him) and absents and prepolls are slightly favouring McKew. The margin is currently over 2000 and will not come down very much.
I remember from the election coverage on the night that this point was discussed a general issue. The point was made that if a person is ahead by more than 1% then they will go on to win almost every time (could even say it is 99 per cent ;) ).

A margin under 1 per cent can still be won by either candidate.

Spiny Norman
01-12-2007, 06:48 AM
There's now 9 (?) seats still officially "close" on the AEC site, up from 7 a couple of days ago. I'm thinking the Coalition might win 6 of those (LaTrobe, McEwan, Dickson, Herbert, Swan and possibly Solomon) as the postal votes are mostly going their way. Labor should win Flynn, Robertson and Bowman.

That would leave the final makeup something like:
-- 83 Labor
-- 65 Coalition
-- 2 independent

(we're coming back, we're coming back!). <chuckles>

Kevin Bonham
01-12-2007, 11:38 AM
Solomon was looking good for Labor but it appears (although I'm checking this) that the number of postal votes received has more than doubled since last election. Postals have been breaking 59:41 to the CLP so far and while that will probably tail off with the early conservative returners and military out of the way, Tollner can win if he gets about 55:45 of the remaining postals.

Southpaw Jim
01-12-2007, 12:05 PM
McKew has claimed victory in Bennelong. I got $2.60 :owned: :D

ElevatorEscapee
01-12-2007, 12:52 PM
^^ Don't spend it all at once! :P

Capablanca-Fan
01-12-2007, 12:58 PM
[Re Kate Ellis] I guess so ... She also happens to be the best looking MP in the house — I bet it's no coincidence that she sat behind Kevin Rudd (in camera shot every time he spoke) in the last parliament.
She is a better choice than newly elected union hacks. She has some runs on the board in Parliament, e.g. she opposed the human cloning bill saying:


There has been an assertion here from several members that only people who do not care about the sick and who do not wish to give hope to their loved ones would vote against this legislation. I find this argument both false and deeply offensive.

It is unreasonable to assume that all those who oppose this legislation oppose science and medical treatment. I do not. I believe that science has an important and exciting role in the treatment of illness and disease. I believe in investing in science. I believe in supporting the Australian research community and building on past successes. But I am also clear that this science takes place within the ethical parameters set by this parliament.

...

This bill proposes creating human life solely for the purpose of then destroying it. I am deeply uncomfortable with this proposition. I do not believe that the proponents of this legislation have made the case. After listening to the debate, after researching the matter, I do not see the justification for crossing this line.

But it shows once again the stupidity of Labor's female quota system: even merit-based selections can be stigmatized as "affirmative action picks".

Capablanca-Fan
02-12-2007, 11:35 AM
Comrade Gillardova agrees that Australia was settled not invaded (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22856467-601,00.html):


Asked about the "culture wars" of the Howard years, Ms Gillard said she believed Europeans had settled Australia, although she could see how indigenous people could have a different view.

"I would say Australia was settled, I could understand that many indigenous Australians would say that it was invaded,'' she said.

"And I think for senior students who study history in our secondary schools, one of the things that they would consider is that conflict of views."

A conflict of views is reasonable. So we hope that this new education revolution of hers won't be a return to the PC pushing of the black armband view while denouncing opponents as racist is not.

Basil
02-12-2007, 01:44 PM
Assumes neutral, phlegmatic pose and tone ...
Pauses; waits for manic eye-popping lefties to leave room ...
Asks lefties to stop obsessing over personality quirks on the opposition benches ...
Convenes a gathering of left intelligentsia in hope of genuine comment ... [/wishes self good luck]

Juilia Gillard has no experience in the ministry (fine, that in itself is no crime).
One major portfolio is generally considered sufficient for experienced ministers.
One major portfolio should be considered sufficient when seeking major change (as the left is).
Juilia Gillard has three (whacking) portfolios.

Two questions:
1. Is this a good idea?
2. What would you have said had a Liberal government done this?

eclectic
02-12-2007, 01:48 PM
Assumes neutral, phlegmatic pose and tone ...
Pauses; waits for manic eye-popping lefties to leave room ...
Asks lefties to stop obsessing over personality quirks on the opposition benches ...
Convenes a gathering of left intelligentsia in hope of genuine comment ... [/wishes self good luck]

Juilia Gillard has no experience in the ministry (fine, that in itself is no crime).
One major portfolio is generally considered sufficient for experienced ministers.
One major portfolio should be considered sufficient when seeking major change (as the left is).
Juilia Gillard has three (whacking) portfolios.

Two questions:
1. Is this a good idea?
2. What would you have said had a Liberal government done this?

I'm curious to know if you complained when Margaret Thatcher ran Britain.

Basil
02-12-2007, 01:55 PM
I'm curious to know if you complained when Margaret Thatcher ran Britain.
I was a big fan of Thatcher. No I didn't complain.

Now that's enough of your being curious (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=175936&postcount=13) about Jono's 'airhead' and my 'Maggie'. I'm curious to know if you have any original thought on the subject of Australian politics that demonstrates any balanced understanding of the subject matter at all.

I specifically waited for people of your demonstrated calibre to leave the room!

pax
02-12-2007, 02:08 PM
I was a big fan of Thatcher.
Now there's a surprise :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

eclectic
02-12-2007, 02:14 PM
I specifically waited for people of your demonstrated calibre to leave the room!

OK, I shall now! :hand:

pax
02-12-2007, 02:18 PM
Juilia Gillard has no experience in the ministry (fine, that in itself is no crime).
Neither do any in the Labor ministry apart from Crean. It's the way government works.


One major portfolio is generally considered sufficient for experienced ministers.
It's not at all uncommon for ministries to be merged and split as the government of the day sees fit.


One major portfolio should be considered sufficient when seeking major change (as the left is).

I don't know that the changes in either workplace relations or education will actually be all that significant. But allocating them to the deputy PM at least conveys that they are areas deemed important by the government.


Juilia Gillard has three (whacking) portfolios.
Are you counting "employment" and "workplace relations" separately? Or are you counting "social inclusion" as a 'whacking' portfolio. In my book it's two significant portfolios. I'm not sure that allocating both to one minister is necessarily a good idea, but equally it remains to be seen whether it is a bad one. If Gillard's reported capacity for a high workload is accurate, maybe she can handle it.

Edit:

Note that Science is no longer joined with Education (as it was with Julie Bishop), and that there are separate ministers for "Employment participation" and "Superannuation and corporate governance".

Basil
02-12-2007, 02:27 PM
Neither do any in the Labor ministry apart from Crean. It's the way government works.
Correct. I have no issue with that. I said so. It was simply a foundation premise.


It's not at all uncommon for ministries to be merged and split as the government of the day sees fit.
Not uncommon. But side-stepping my overall point. Dissecting the argument's individual premises is not an answer.


Are you counting "employment" and "workplace relations" separately?
I'm prepared to accept that the case can be made for merging those two, despite the aforementioned misgivings. With that in play, the focus is again on the size of education portfolio, which, after all is a monster priority forthe government.


I'm not sure that allocating both to one minister is necessarily a good idea
Thanks. Me either.


but equally it remains to be seen whether it is a bad one. If Gillard's reported capacity for a high workload is accurate, maybe she can handle it.
That's a fair statement. But possibly just as fair to suggest that two ministers in unison may be in the country's best interests.

Basil
02-12-2007, 02:28 PM
OK, I shall now! :hand:
Good plan. The bat and ball routine is a result of your third rate, one-eyed commentary over the past few months. Don't blame me for the chickens, roost routine.

Capablanca-Fan
02-12-2007, 03:15 PM
Now there's a surprise :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
And there is a problem with that? There's a good book called The President, the Pope and the Prime Minister which documents the vital roles of President Reagan, Pope John Paul II and Prime Minister Thatcher in the downfall of the evil Soviet empire.

pax
02-12-2007, 06:07 PM
I'm prepared to accept that the case can be made for merging those two, despite the aforementioned misgivings. With that in play, the focus is again on the size of education portfolio, which, after all is a monster priority forthe government.

Those two are already merged under the Howard govt.



That's a fair statement. But possibly just as fair to suggest that two ministers in unison may be in the country's best interests.
I accept that might be true. Time will tell, I guess.

Spiny Norman
04-12-2007, 11:04 AM
AEC website update: the two-party preferred swing to Labor has dropped from 5.62% as at last night, to 5.61% as at midday today ... presumably due to postal and absentee vote counting.

We're coming back ... we're coming back! ... ;)

Basil
04-12-2007, 12:28 PM
That means I have to change "The 3" to "The 2.8"!

Spiny Norman
04-12-2007, 12:32 PM
That means I have to change "The 3" to "The 2.8"!
Thoughts of your "3" were uppermost in my mind as I was posting the above info ... :P

Spiny Norman
04-12-2007, 01:01 PM
5.60 a few minutes ago. Its plummeting!

KB: what's the cause of the very high Absentee and Pre-Poll voting figures in TAS?

Watto
04-12-2007, 01:22 PM
KB: what's the cause of the very high Absentee and Pre-Poll voting figures in TAS?
Don’t know about the absentee but re the pre-poll voters, maybe they read this article by my brother … ;)
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/fed-up-try-pushing-the-political-envelope/2007/10/29/1193618793585.html

Spiny Norman
04-12-2007, 01:51 PM
Nice article. If I hadn't been dragooned into handing out 'how to vote' cards I might've been tempted to take up that option myself!

Voting update: Libs look like they're going to win Dickson, Herbert and McEwan. LaTrobe is won for them too (now off the Close Seats list). They're also a couple of hundred votes ahead in Swan, so that contest appears over. Solomon is still a close-run thing. The Labor lead has been whittled away over the past 48 hours, from .28% to .14% ... so if a few more votes come in by the end of the week it could get very close. Labor looks to have won Flynn fairly comfortably in the end, plus are leading in Robertson and Bowman by enough to win I think.

Igor_Goldenberg
04-12-2007, 02:09 PM
5.60 a few minutes. Its plummeting!


R U saying swearing in of the new government was premature?:D

Spiny Norman
04-12-2007, 02:37 PM
R U saying swearing in of the new government was premature?:D
Clearly! By my calculations, after another 18 months of counting, the election will be on a knife edge ... :lol:

Kevin Bonham
04-12-2007, 07:31 PM
Nice article. If I hadn't been dragooned into handing out 'how to vote' cards I might've been tempted to take up that option myself!

Voting update: Libs look like they're going to win Dickson, Herbert and McEwan. LaTrobe is won for them too (now off the Close Seats list). They're also a couple of hundred votes ahead in Swan, so that contest appears over.

I'd wait until we see how many provisional votes are accepted in Swan before being absolutely sure about that seat. In 2004 931 provisionals were accepted, which broke 57:43 in Labor's favour. The same pattern repeated would see Labor gain over 100 votes on the remaining provisionals, making it close enough that even rechecking could tip the balance (Labor gained over 150 votes on booth rechecking so far). However it looks like (from the AEC site) the number of provisionals accepted this time will be much smaller.


Solomon is still a close-run thing. The Labor lead has been whittled away over the past 48 hours, from .28% to .14% ... so if a few more votes come in by the end of the week it could get very close.

At the moment there are about 1400 prepolls and 100 postals to count there, plus a few more postals will probably be received. The prepolls do favour the CLP, but not that strongly so far. Unless a lot more postals come in (say, 500) Tollner shouldn't catch up at current rates, but this one too is very close.

Kevin Bonham
04-12-2007, 07:37 PM
KB: what's the cause of the very high Absentee and Pre-Poll voting figures in TAS?

Are they that high? I hadn't noticed them being unusually so.

Spiny Norman
05-12-2007, 05:32 AM
Are they that high? I hadn't noticed them being unusually so.
I must have white line fever ... could have sworn I looked at a report yesterday that showed them high ... now I can't find it ... I'm quite possibly going nuts!

Spiny Norman
05-12-2007, 05:34 AM
5.60 a few minutes. Its plummeting!
5.58% up until counting stopped at around 10PM ... I'm on to something ... ;) ... or maybe I'm just on something ... :eek:

Spiny Norman
05-12-2007, 11:31 AM
At the moment there are about 1400 prepolls and 100 postals to count there, plus a few more postals will probably be received. The prepolls do favour the CLP, but not that strongly so far. Unless a lot more postals come in (say, 500) Tollner shouldn't catch up at current rates, but this one too is very close.
Latest update: less than 100 votes in it now ...

Where do you get hold of the information about how many votes are still to be counted? Are you estimating based on a previous election, or is there some other source of info? I've had a bit of a trawl around the AEC website but didn't notice anything like that.

EDIT: A-ha, I think I found it ... is this it? http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionDecScrutinyProgress-13745-307.htm

Capablanca-Fan
05-12-2007, 12:17 PM
It's not because they weren't 'liberal' enough that the Libs lost (http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/its-not-because-they-werent-liberal-enough-that-the-libs-lost/2007/12/04/1196530676915.html)
John Roskam, executive director of the Institute of Public Affairs
The Age, 5 December 2007


Yes — the Liberal Party should be more "liberal", in the sense that it should be the party that defends and extends personal freedoms. But considering the future philosophical direction of the party is an entirely different thing from considering the reasons why it lost the election.

The Liberals didn't lose because they weren't "liberal". The Liberals could have been as liberal as the Greens and it would have made no difference to the poll outcome.

The reason John Howard lost is because he had WorkChoices and because he stayed too long as leader. Not because of his attitude on reconciliation, refugees or the republic.

The stark reality is that until a week or so ago, one of the reasons the Liberal Party stayed in power for as long as it did was because of, not despite, its policies in these areas.

If Howard had experienced a Damascene conversion on the republic, for example, he may well have lost 15 seats in Queensland, not the 10 that he's likely to lose as it is.

The Labor Party understands the essential conservatism of the Australian electorate. That's why Kevin Rudd promised to maintain the Northern Territory intervention, undertook to maintain strong border security measures, and why he kept silent about the republic.

The community doesn't like change, and change is the last thing that Labor was promising.

When the ALP says that it will keep most of the Liberal Party's policies it's impossible to conclude that the election result was a wholesale rejection of all the Liberals stood for.

Capablanca-Fan
05-12-2007, 12:38 PM
“When we get in, we’ll change everything” #4 (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/when_we_get_in_well_change_everything_4/)
Andrew Bolt – Wednesday, December 05, 07 (07:19 am)

Before the election, The Australian finds Chairman Rudd cool on a bill of rights:


A bill of rights perhaps? It’s an issue dear to the civil libertarians who chafe under the repressive security laws post 2001. Well, (Rudd says) Labor has a commitment to seek “community consultation” on a bill of rights but ”no commitment (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22804982-17301,00.html)” to implement one.

But after the election, Chairman Rudd unleashes his cultural revolution (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/doityourself-charter-to-right-future-wrongs/2007/11/30/1196394622534.html):


At some point in the next three years, the incoming attorney-general, Robert McClelland, plans to sign a landmark charter enshrining the rights and responsibilities of the nation’s legislators.

For the first time, Parliament will be required to respect rights, such as freedom of the press, and responsibilities, such as protection of the environment or the need to respect minorities, rural Australians and the disabled.

The environment now has rights?

But the real problem is that here is Labor nibbling at the power of voters and adding to the power of judges. It’s the New Left project, and betrays the Left’s usual suspicion of the masses.

Former NSW Labor Premier Bob Carr was rightly critical of such nonsense: The Rights Trap: How a Bill of Rights Could Undermine Freedom (http://www.cis.org.au/Policy/winter01/polwin01-4.htm), noting (following his headings):


The culture of litigation and the abdication of responsibility that a bill of rights engenders is something that Australia should try and avoid at all costs. …

The transfer of policy decisions from governments and Parliament to the judiciary …

"Freezing" rights: Our view of the importance and priority of rights changes over time. A constitutionally entrenched bill of rights freezes those priorities at a particular point in time. …

Unpredictable interpretation …

The creation of a culture of litigation …

While the Courts are swamped with thousands of Bill of Rights cases, where will the ordinary person go for justice? The Courts will be made even more inaccessible and the cost of running the court system will increase. The main beneficiaries of a bill of rights are the lawyers who profit from the legal fees that it generates and the criminals who manage to escape imprisonment on the grounds of a technicality. The main losers are the taxpayers, and society in general through the reduction of community values to mere courtroom weapons.

Conclusion

Parliaments are elected to make laws. In doing so, they make judgments about how the rights and interests of the public should be balanced. Views will differ in any given case about whether the judgment is correct. However, if the decision is unacceptable, the community can make its views known at regular elections. This is our political tradition.

A bill of rights would pose a fundamental shift in that tradition, with the Parliament abdicating its important policy making functions to the judiciary. I do not accept that we should make such a fundamental change just because other countries have bills of rights. The culture of litigation and the abdication of responsibility that it engenders is something that Australia should try and avoid at all costs. A bill of rights is an admission of the failure of parliaments, governments and the people to behave in a reasonable, responsible and respectful manner. I do not believe that we have failed.

Southpaw Jim
05-12-2007, 12:42 PM
Newspoll begs to differ with Mr Roskam on the causes of Howard's loss:

http://possumcomitatus.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/decissueinfluence1.jpg

Leadership and Workchoices rank 7th and 8th respectively.

And here is Possum's take on it. (http://possumcomitatus.wordpress.com/2007/12/04/why-labor-won/) Particularly:


The government didn’t lose the election, their failed campaign strategy didn’t result in an ALP government by accident, the electorate didn’t say “it’s time to give the other side a go“.

However, nor was it a rejection of the Howard government either. The dislike of the Howard government didn’t drive the election result - far from it.

The election was won by Labor on the merit of the arguments and political positions Labor produced. It was a vote FOR a party, but more importantly a vote FOR the policy positions and stated directions that the ALP had produced. It was a vote for change, substantially on the basis of the issues.

This is a complete empirical slap in the face to those in the commentariat that have been rabbiting on with superficial twaddle over Rudds “Me-Tooism”. That was always a shallow, vacuous substitute for what was actually occurring in the campaign.

Far from simply copying the Howard government as some nonsensical small target strategy, Rudd embarked on a process of agreeing with Howard on those issues that could lose him net votes were he not to do so, and disagreed with Howard on those issues where to do so would win him net votes. This strategy effectively neutralised and/or minimised any remaining Coalition strengths, and highlighted the differences between Labor and the Coalition on all of the issues that were actually driving the vote - it crystalised out the differences that would deliver for the ALP.

And deliver it did - the strategy that so confused most of the commentariat delivered government for the ALP, and it delivered government on the basis of issue dominance.

Southpaw Jim
05-12-2007, 12:49 PM
I myself don't see any point in a Bill of Rights or whatever, but I think Mr Bolt is using a bit of a straw man here:


At some point in the next three years, the incoming attorney-general, Robert McClelland, plans to sign a landmark charter enshrining the rights and responsibilities of the nation’s legislators.

For the first time, Parliament will be required to respect rights, such as freedom of the press, and responsibilities, such as protection of the environment or the need to respect minorities, rural Australians and the disabled.
This is talking, essentially, about a Parliamentary code of conduct. I'm not necessarily saying (one way or the other) that this is meritorious, but I think it's a tad disingenuous of Andrew to use this announcement to push his view on a Bill of Rights, which is a separate issue.

Capablanca-Fan
05-12-2007, 12:59 PM
Newspoll begs to differ with Mr Roskam on the causes of Howard's loss:
Who is Possum anyway? His conclusion is debatable. The Workchoices clearly had a huge difference, and that would be crucial in the swing.

And the main point is that there is no need for the Coalition to become Labor-Lite on the republic, social issues or a bill of rights, a craven strategy that has doomed the Vic Libs. And they should clearly stick to their economic strategy which the voters approved of, and which was 4th in importance, and which KRudd basically copied.

Kevin Bonham
05-12-2007, 05:48 PM
Coalition has resumed the lead in Bowman and is likely to now stay there, so there goes another possible Labor gain.

Solomon is right on the wire and there could only be a few dozen in it either way. Hale leads Tollner by 89 and there are now expected to be just 430 prepolls and 70 postals counted. If these split as they have been doing so far and the provisionals follow the swing of the seat in general then Hale will win by c. 40, but it is so close that a recount could throw it either way.

Labor is now only on for 82-83. Interestingly, 82 and 83 were the shortest-priced seat totals in portlandbet's total-number-of-seats-won market.

Labor has conceded in Dickson.

Kevin Bonham
05-12-2007, 06:10 PM
Leadership and Workchoices rank 7th and 8th respectively.

True, but Workchoices ranks a clear third (and not far behind the first two) among those who voted Labor.

We really need to know what issues motivated swinging voters who voted for Labor, but I think it was quite a significant factor because it made it impossible for the Coalition to cleanly exploit the union issue, which would have otherwise been a more serious weakness for Labor. It meant that the two sides' approaches to industrial relations, both of them easily portrayed as dodgy, cancelled each other out.

Without any ground to make in that area, the Coalition had very little traction, because Labor campaigned far more enthusiastically and convincingly on just about everything else, except the economy (which as I pointed out before the election, was an overrated issue.)

Basil
05-12-2007, 10:07 PM
The Possum is dribbler.


The government ... failed campaign strategy didn’t result in an ALP government by accident, the electorate didn’t say “it’s time to give the other side a go“.
The campaign strategy only failed in the sense that the strategy didn't return the government to power. However, even the most remote analyst is aware that the polls had the Coalition along away adrift 12 months ago the moment Safe-Boy Rudd finally mounted a scrap-heap of useless Labor corpses to finally assume the mantle of Opposition Leader #874. At that moment of arrival, the polls turned, and all Rudd had said was that he was here to help!

If anything the, the government election strategy closed the gap by a small margin. It appears the only reason for the inclusion of this para in The Possum's editorial is a free-kick. Fine, but passing that off as intelligent comment ... pfft. What else has this boob got to say?


However, nor was it a rejection of the Howard government either. The dislike of the Howard government didn’t drive the election result - far from it.
More of the same, and

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y105/scene66/smilies/pmsl.gif


The election was won by Labor on the merit of the arguments and political positions Labor produced.


This is a complete empirical slap in the face to those in the commentariat that have been rabbiting on with superficial twaddle over Rudds “Me-Tooism”. That was always a shallow, vacuous substitute for what was actually occurring in the campaign.
It was no substitute for anything. It was fact. That a significant proportion of the electorate didn't respond to it (regardless of the merits of doing so) does not make it anything than a fact. What is shallow about that? The dribbling Possum doesn't deny the copy cat tactics. Is this Possum serious?


Far from simply copying the Howard government as some nonsensical small target strategy, Rudd embarked on a process of agreeing with Howard on those issues that could lose him net votes were he not to do so, and disagreed with Howard on those issues where to do so would win him net votes. This strategy effectively neutralised and/or minimised any remaining Coalition strengths, and highlighted the differences between Labor and the Coalition on all of the issues that were actually driving the vote - it crystalised out the differences that would deliver for the ALP.
Brilliant! Please take a number Mr Dribbler. The issue cited in the poll is health. Health has rated number #1 for about the last squillion years.

Can someone please take this fool away. His commentary is worse than Eclectic's.

Kevin Bonham
05-12-2007, 10:25 PM
It was no substitute for anything. It was fact.

No it wasn't, and the next paragraph that you quoted explains exactly why.

There is a world of difference between Rudd's tactic of selective product differentiation and Beazley's 2001 tactic of minimal product differentiation. The latter is an across-the-board me-too, the former is one that only applies to those policies where it is risky to not apply it.

Of course, some Coalition fans thought the latter issues were all of the important ones, but they were wrong. In particular, climate change was a massive issue for first-time voters making that demographic a far more hopeless one for the Libs than ten years ago. (I know this courtesy of a senior local Liberal staffer with whom I discussed the Coalition's coming defeat - and he offered the suggestion that that would be what would happen, not me - in some detail back around September.)