PDA

View Full Version : Dr 12%: how long will Nelson last?



Kevin Bonham
23-02-2008, 01:01 AM
Nelson has recorded a 9% preferred PM rating in not just one but two opinion polls in recent weeks - Newspoll (which had Rudd at 70) and Morgan (which had Rudd at 77).

His approval ratings actually aren't all that bad, as leader of the opposition. But clearly almost nobody believes he's make a good PM.

Is he doomed or can he somehow turn it around?

NB The poll contains a joke option.

Axiom
23-02-2008, 01:13 AM
I Want The Option "Who should Really Care, Its Just Part Of The Rambling Cascading Punch And Judy Tag Team Circus Puppet Show Fake Democracy False Paradigm "

Kevin Bonham
23-02-2008, 01:13 AM
I Want The Option "who should Really Care, Its Just Part Of The Rambling Cascading Punch And Judy Tag Team Circus Puppet Show Fake Democracy False Paradigm "

I don't, and it's my poll, so run along now and stop threadjacking. :hand:

CameronD
23-02-2008, 01:34 AM
I dont think anyone wants the position for at least the next 18 months

Axiom
23-02-2008, 01:59 AM
I don't, and it's my poll, so run along now and stop threadjacking. :hand:
oh go on , couldnt you just add it to the poll to bridge the full spectrum.
you do want a more scientifically credible poll dont you ? :whistle:

Basil
23-02-2008, 09:33 AM
I think it's very early. I want to wait until gloss 'from the night before' has started to fade and the morning light has a greater effect (in respect to Rudd). Rudd's fortunes have everything to do with Nelson's.

I'm still not convinced the love affair with the Labor party (that hasn't actually promised or done anything) will last for the three life-times that some have suggested. Regular readers may recall that the Labor party won't be turfed on grounds of dislike (as is the case with conservatives) - they will be turfed when the electorate ("the 3") determines they are incompetent. I'm starting to see the seeds of that already, but I might be biased.

There must be a metric somewhere relating to the meteoric rise being proportional to the meteoric downfall (both speed and depth).

I think the second biggest factor concerning the length of Nelson's tenure has a lot to do with challenges based more on others' ego and aspiration than party benefit.

So. The poll. Harder to pick than a broken nose. I know that's not the point, so I pick end of next year.

Capablanca-Fan
23-02-2008, 12:06 PM
Nelson has recorded a 9% preferred PM rating in not just one but two opinion polls in recent weeks - Newspoll (which had Rudd at 70) and Morgan (which had Rudd at 77).

His approval ratings actually aren't all that bad, as leader of the opposition. But clearly almost nobody believes he's make a good PM.

Is he doomed or can he somehow turn it around?

NB The poll contains a joke option.
The Coalition in defeat seem to think that being Labor-Lite will impress the voters. This never works; they are just held in contempt by everyone; leftists voters will still prefer the real thing to the Lite model, conservatives will just be disgusted and withdraw support.

pax
23-02-2008, 12:54 PM
conservatives will just be disgusted and withdraw support.
But in Australia we have compulsory voting. You don't really think the conservatives are going to start voting Labor do you?

Basil
23-02-2008, 01:56 PM
The Coalition in defeat seem to think that being Labor-Lite will impress the voters. This never works; they are just held in contempt by everyone; leftists voters will still prefer the real thing to the Lite model, conservatives will just be disgusted and withdraw support.
Understood and broadly agree with the concept. Not sure it applies here. The Labor-liteness is only applying (as far as I can see (at this early stage)) to a few known litmus issues that were tested at the election. I'd be dropping those, too {the planks have spoken - and you know what they say about arguing with fools!}

As indicated earlier, I'm really not so sure that all the smart money analysis, all the foreboding as to the future of the Liberal party, and all the oh-so-clear reasons for electoral defeat are at play and certainly not to the degree that is widely touted - even within the party. Remember, if the (any) party is oblivious enough to self-destruct, it is possible to be oblivious enough after-the-fact. After all, these people are only politicians and commentators :wall: :wall: :wall:

Let's give it a little while yet before we decide the Libs are Labor-lite. I suspect not.

Kevin Bonham
23-02-2008, 05:37 PM
you do want a more scientifically credible poll dont you ? :whistle:

I want a poll on the issue of how long he will last, not the issue of whether or not Axiom is disappointed by not having had an irrelevant option that appeases his pet rants included in the poll.

Capablanca-Fan
23-02-2008, 06:40 PM
But in Australia we have compulsory voting. You don't really think the conservatives are going to start voting Labor do you?
As was pointed out, the phrase "compulsory voting" is shorthand description of the sytem of making people registering on polling day.

I think the Labor-Lite tendency explained the Coalition's poor showing in Vic and NSW. In countries without compulsory voting, the "echo not a choice" mentality has been even more disastrous. The British Conservatives failed to stand for anything different from Blair's Labor, the Rockefeller Republicans were a minority in Congress for decades, and their current tendency to be as big-spending as the Dems was a major factor of their loss of the Senate and House.

Axiom
23-02-2008, 08:02 PM
I want a poll on the issue of how long he will last, not the issue of whether or not Axiom is disappointed by not having had an irrelevant option that appeases his pet rants included in the poll.
excuse the interruption to your small picture poll ;)

pax
23-02-2008, 09:39 PM
I think the Labor-Lite tendency explained the Coalition's poor showing in Vic and NSW.
So were conservatives voting Labor?

Capablanca-Fan
23-02-2008, 10:02 PM
So were conservatives voting Labor?
Or maybe a third party ... But more importantly conservative volunteers for all the grass roots campaigning to garner Liberal votes may have been inn short supply because of the betrayal by the Lib leaders.

CameronD
23-02-2008, 10:15 PM
Or maybe a third party ... But more importantly conservative volunteers for all the grass roots campaigning to garner Liberal votes may have been inn short supply because of the betrayal by the Lib leaders.

I think the truth is that the electoral are not liberal/labor like 50 years ago, but rather a swinging voter. I doubt the number of electoral voters would total 20% total, I'd say more likely under 10%.

Desmond
23-02-2008, 10:17 PM
I'll be interested to see whether the next PM is from Labor or the Libs; will Rudd get rolled by his own team before the Libs manage to win?

Basil
23-02-2008, 10:27 PM
I'll be interested to see whether the next PM is from Labor or the Libs; will Rudd get rolled by his own team before the Libs manage to win?
My guess (and that's all anyone can do at this stage) is that Labor will win the next election with Rudd at the helm. If any of the that is not the case, my surprise factor will be exactly zero.

Igor_Goldenberg
27-02-2008, 10:18 AM
Nelson will go before next election, hard to say when. And if Libs have any chance of winning (which they don't at the moment), Costello might apply for the job.
Most likely outcome - Rudd will win next election, especially if does nothing.

Basil
27-02-2008, 10:25 AM
Most likely outcome - Rudd will win next election, considering he'll do nothing of any substance.
Fixed. Agreed.

Capablanca-Fan
27-02-2008, 10:57 AM
Nelson will go before next election, hard to say when. And if Libs have any chance of winning (which they don't at the moment), Costello might apply for the job.
He'd have to be better than Turnbull, who is just an affluent Anointed one.

Most likely outcome — Rudd will win next election, especially if does nothing.
Despite the fact that Left now want their pound of flesh, according to a front page article (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,23276034-2702,00.html?from=public_rss) in yesterday's Australian, i.e. "we know you campaigned as a conservative Howard-Lite to fool the Aussie voters into voting for you, but now it's time to show your true left colours. Janet Albrechtsen doesn't think that Chairman Rudd will commit political suicide (http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/index.php/theaustralian/comments/under_labor_elites_will_remain_irrelevant/) by adopting too much of the Left wish list.

But that book, edited by Robert Manne (who else) is typical of the Left: campaign to the right or at least the centre, but double cross the voters and impose their leftist agenda on the people once in office.

This is just like what President Reagan said of the Communists, at time adulated by many in the Left, that to attain “their goal … of world revolution and a one-world Socialist or Communist state … they reserve unto themselves the right to commit any crime, to lie, to cheat, in order to attain that ….”

Conversely, what credibility does the Coalition have if they ditch most of what they fought for for years (http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/liberals-need-to-fill-policy-vacuum/2008/02/26/1203788342809.html)?

Davidflude
27-02-2008, 11:06 AM
I think it's very early. I want to wait until gloss 'from the night before' has started to fade and the morning light has a greater effect (in respect to Rudd). Rudd's fortunes have everything to do with Nelson's.

I'm still not convinced the love affair with the Labor party (that hasn't actually promised or done anything)

Not done anything?

1) apology to the native Australians

2) started winding back the totally unfair industrial legislation.

3) keeping the promise on tax cuts

4) stopped ignoring Treasury.

what they have not done

1) sacked Department heads to euchre the civil service

2) apointed a pack of drongos as Ministers. Howard spent much of his first term replacing Ministers who could not hack the mustard.




will last for the three life-times that some have suggested. Regular readers may recall that the Labor party won't be turfed on grounds of dislike (as is the case with conservatives) - they will be turfed when the electorate ("the 3") determines they are incompetent. I'm starting to see the seeds of that already, but I might be biased.

There is nothing wrong with being politically biassed as long as you realise that you are. The Howard government were tossed because they suffered
from hubris and implemented policies that were not what the punters wanted.





There must be a metric somewhere relating to the meteoric rise being proportional to the meteoric downfall (both speed and depth).

I think the second biggest factor concerning the length of Nelson's tenure has a lot to do with challenges based more on others' ego and aspiration than party benefit.

So. The poll. Harder to pick than a broken nose. I know that's not the point, so I pick end of next year.

I think that Nelson has been given a poisoned challice. This country need a good opposition. Remember how useless Labour was with Kim as leader especially in the first term. The coalition has to do what the Hawthorn and Carlton Football clubs are doing - rebuild - the first step is putting Downer Costello and several others into retirement. The next step is bring in new talent.

Basil
27-02-2008, 01:59 PM
1) apology to the native Australians
2) started winding back the totally unfair industrial legislation.
3) keeping the promise on tax cuts
4) stopped ignoring Treasury.
Pfft. Double pfft for missing the point. What did you say about being OK to be biased as long one recognised it in oneself?

1) The apology was fine. The previous government's version of that was on the agenda too. However, Howard's handled that entire situation badly from the get-go (and I was on record here as saying so).
2) Pfft.
3) Pfft.
4) Pfft.

David, Kevin has indeed run at his new job like a bull at a gate. Doing exactly what you've outlined (which are election promises on bastions of hatred). I fear you're quite taken aback and in awe at the speed of it all. I'm sure Kevin's trying to create that rep for himself.

My comments, however, concern the entire three year tenure and my guess that after his little pre-election agenda hit list is taken care of we will settle into clueless nothingness punctuated by talk-fests and commissions.

Southpaw Jim
27-02-2008, 11:18 PM
2) Pfft.
3) Pfft.
4) Pfft.

Pretty much sums up the Howard Era.

YMMV :P

Capablanca-Fan
28-02-2008, 01:10 AM
Pretty much sums up the Howard Era.

YMMV :P
Yeah, lowest interest rates and unemployment in decades, and finally doing something about the horrific child abuse in aboriginal communities.

Kevin Bonham
04-03-2008, 12:23 AM
Thread title revised. :lol:

Seriously, opposition leaders in Russia probably have better ratings than this even though it is verging on illegal there to even like them.

It is probably bad for demockery to have an opposition this uncompetitive in the public opinion stakes. Rudd will be able to do just about anything he likes without anyone caring for the next year or so at this rate.

Basil
04-03-2008, 12:56 AM
I'm not bothered by the rating at this stage (7 or 17 or 27%). Perhaps the federal Libs are! As you say Kevin, Rudd can do what he likes for the however long - he reminds me of the KAOS agent on Maxwell Smart with the smile - people just go gaga for it. Full stop.

Igor_Goldenberg
04-03-2008, 09:13 AM
Seriously, opposition leaders in Russia probably have better ratings than this even though it is verging on illegal there to even like them.


Opposition's rating in Russia is within the statistical error.
If election is held today, Libs will lose decidedly, but score a bit more then 7%.
Approval of PM or opposition leader figures usually do not tell anything as they have no or little correlation with two party preferred vote.

Kevin Bonham
04-03-2008, 03:42 PM
Approval of PM or opposition leader figures usually do not tell anything as they have no or little correlation with two party preferred vote.

Actually the stat on which Nelson is scoring 7% is the preferred PM question. His approval rating isn't great though - 29.

As for correlations between approval and 2PP, these are from http://possumcomitatus.wordpress.com, Nov 6 2007:

http://possumcomitatus.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/pmsattppcoal1.jpg

http://possumcomitatus.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/pmdissatalpprim1.jpg

Leadership matters - at least some of the time. The elusive possum also notes that "A few quick regression equations and a granger causality test on the relationship between these two series suggests that it is the change in PM satisfaction levels that leads to changes in the Coalition two party preferred vote, rather than the two series moving together as a result of third party influences."

Kevin Bonham
13-03-2008, 12:45 AM
Another bit from Possum that is interesting in hindsight - his prediction posted 25 Nov 07 after Costello refused to take the poisoned pawn.

This leads to the question of which sad old face of a defeated regime will become the first lamb sent to the slaughter. This leader of the Opposition will become the public face of a party that is about to receive the full force of ALP political retribution.

Downer will very likely be forced to resign in disgrace over AWB, Andrews will be persecuted for his negligence, Hockey will be slapped around when the government releases the true statistics of Workchoices and Abbott will be taken to task over a anything he’s touched in the last 6 years. Whoever accepts the mantle of Leader of the Opposition for the first term of the Rudd government is going to be smashed to smithereens.

Certainly looks right about the last one at the moment, and the Downer question will likely prove moot since he seems to have lost interest anyhow.

The difficulty in predicting the answer to the thread question is that although Turnbull must surely have the numbers now, there is no point in Turnbull challenging at this moment. But if somebody else rolls Nelson, and Turnbull fails to put his hand up, then he will be in a weakened position to roll that leader later. All the same this is getting quite ridiculous and I will be impressed if Nelson manages to tough out the whole year.

Basil
13-03-2008, 04:14 AM
This is the first time (that I recall) reading in full about this Possum bloke.

When he talks about 'lamb sent to the slaughter' and 'sad old face' of the present Liberal party (which has been in opposition for a whopping 3 months :rolleyes:), did he used to talk about the previous opposition in terms of 'useless tits' and 'repeatedly rejected clowns' or has he just appeared in the last five seconds with his bias fully strapped on as a play-thing?

I know 'lamb to the slaughter' makes good press, but no one made Nelson run for office.

Desmond
13-03-2008, 07:21 AM
The difficulty in predicting the answer to the thread question is that although Turnbull must surely have the numbers now, there is no point in Turnbull challenging at this moment. But if somebody else rolls Nelson, and Turnbull fails to put his hand up, then he will be in a weakened position to roll that leader later. All the same this is getting quite ridiculous and I will be impressed if Nelson manages to tough out the whole year.Are they really all lining up for this poisoned chalice? or was it more a case of Nelson drawing the short straw.

Kevin Bonham
13-03-2008, 11:31 AM
When he talks about 'lamb sent to the slaughter' and 'sad old face' of the present Liberal party (which has been in opposition for a whopping 3 months :rolleyes:), did he used to talk about the previous opposition in terms of 'useless tits' and 'repeatedly rejected clowns' or has he just appeared in the last five seconds with his bias fully strapped on as a play-thing?

It's hard to tell without being sure who he was before he started that site.

He is a very good psephologist. He is also, however, clearly a screaming lefty.


Are they really all lining up for this poisoned chalice?

This we don't know. The problem is that the more the Opposition looks like it will stay there, the more it becomes tempting for some shadow minister to grab the booby prize simply to secure a pay increase. A serious long-term leadership contender like Turnbull would be unwise to do so, but does Tony Abbott really have anything to lose? Then again, Abbott probably still wouldn't have the numbers!

eclectic
13-03-2008, 12:18 PM
NEWS FLASH

NELSON RESIGNS: KEVIN RUDD CARDBOARD CUTOUT HAS NUMBERS AND SUBSTANCE TO BECOME NEW OPPOSITION LEADER

:owned:

Capablanca-Fan
20-03-2008, 12:21 PM
Nelson has lost the plot. Instead of leading, he is parroting alGore (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/18/2192804.htm?section=justin):


Dr Nelson said the challenge of climate change and the need for a genuine global solution was the "most important economic, political and moral challenge to face our generation".

Moral challenge too? Lovely — now sceptics of globull warm-mongering alarmism are not merely economically or scientifically wrong, but immoral as well? Nelson and Turnbull are following the failed Labor-Lite attitude that has doomed Vic and NSW liberals to permanent opposition status, just as it did the pre-Reagan "Rockefeller Republicans" who were merely an echo of the Dems not a choice.

Kevin Bonham
22-03-2008, 05:41 PM
Moral challenge too? Lovely — now sceptics of globull warm-mongering alarmism are not merely economically or scientifically wrong, but immoral as well? Nelson and Turnbull are following the failed Labor-Lite attitude that has doomed Vic and NSW liberals to permanent opposition status, just as it did the pre-Reagan "Rockefeller Republicans" who were merely an echo of the Dems not a choice.

I saw an article in the Australian recently arguing that it is working pretty well for the Tories in the UK at the moment.

But the ineptness of the Libs under Nelson in trying to work out what their new direction should be has been even more extreme than I would have expected. At the moment they just do not have a clue, and it will be some time before they acquire one.

Basil
22-03-2008, 05:45 PM
I saw an article in the Australian recently arguing that it is working pretty well for the Tories in the UK at the moment.

But the ineptness of the Libs under Nelson in trying to work out what their new direction should be has been even more extreme than I would have expected. At the moment they just do not have a clue, and it will be some time before they acquire one.
On what do you base this assessment Kevin? I can't see it (especially to the degree you state).

Don't forget the ALP is largely implementing Lib policy - both that pinched prior to the election (surplus, Kyoto), as well as the subsequent back flips (such as the defence purchase and carer/ pensioner benefits). It's actually quite hard to punch against a wanna be version of oneself :wall:

The ALP isn't actually ummm...doing anything. And for that we should be grateful :wall: It's when it starts doing something that problems will really start.

Capablanca-Fan
22-03-2008, 10:24 PM
I saw an article in the Australian recently arguing that it is working pretty well for the Tories in the UK at the moment.
But it took over a decade to work well. And that was more because people eventually get sick of one government than any merit in the Tory strategy.


But the ineptness of the Libs under Nelson in trying to work out what their new direction should be has been even more extreme than I would have expected. At the moment they just do not have a clue, and it will be some time before they acquire one.
It should be obvious: by all means try to win over "the 3", but don't disgust the 47% who voted for the Coalition last time in the process. The election was not a wholesale rejection of Coalition policies, given that Chairman Rudd copied so many of them.

Kevin Bonham
23-03-2008, 11:10 AM
On what do you base this assessment Kevin? I can't see it (especially to the degree you state).

Across issues where Labor went to the election offering at least symbolic differentiation (climate change, apology to stolen "generation", workplace reform) the Coalition just can't seem to work out what to do. It has to run from anything that reeks of Howard, but it also realises that me-tooing against a popular government (as opposed to selective differentiation against an unpopular government) doesn't work. So we get bizarre displays where the Liberals at one point appear to be toeing the line for nothing other than political advantage and at another point try to come across as drippier than Labor. Of course, this is exactly what Labor did before the last election but they were doing it as a deliberate strategy when it worked, whereas the Liberals are now doing it out of panic and confusion because they can't find anything better.

The carer/pensioner benefits thing was a gimme. But the problem for the Libs is how to take advantage of such gimmes without being reminded of what a meanie Howard was. It will be some time before Howard fades into history enough for them to get away with it.

I do think the Libs need to reposition themselves ideologically (and may post something lengthy and substantial concerning how I think they should do that soon) but their approach to it at the moment just seems tryhard.


The ALP isn't actually ummm...doing anything. And for that we should be grateful :wall: It's when it starts doing something that problems will really start.

I think it's more likely the problems will start if it keeps not doing much for too long. Labor was elected on a wave of positive popularity but while running campaign tactics that were essentially negative - vote-for-us-cause-we're-not-evil-like-the-other-mob. But you can't govern on that basis forever.

Basil
23-03-2008, 12:18 PM
It has to run from anything that reeks of Howard...
Certainly that issue is in play. I'm not convinced that that reduces the Libs to paralysis as you seem to suggest. We're not privy to the Libs' strategy, and while it's easy and comical to suggest 'what strategy', I'd guess there are some reasonable minds on the job.

Given the sometimes facile, dumbed-down and short-term attitudes of the electorate, it could quite well be a case that the Libs are deliberately doing nothing in the face of nothing - a bit like black telling white to 'prove it'!

Not everyone (I'd suggest a minority) analyses political tactics to the degree that say we do, and therefore it's quite possible that for the time being the Libs are intent on giving Kevin, Julia and Wayne very little to punch against. After all that is when (at least as far as I am concerned) Labor is exposed at its very weakest.


I think it's more likely the problems will start if it keeps not doing much for too long. Labor was elected on a wave of positive popularity but while running campaign tactics that were essentially negative - vote-for-us-cause-we're-not-evil-like-the-other-mob. But you can't govern on that basis forever.
Word, brother! ;)

Davidflude
23-03-2008, 12:31 PM
Well the first thing that the coalition needs to do is to accept that it is time to rebuild.

Downer and Costello should resign as soon as possible. Also any other dead wood needs to be dumped.

O.K. so the coalition will get shafted in the by elections. So what. Bring in some young tigers. There have got to be some somewhere.

Otherwise the coalition will drift like Labour did in the first term in opposition.

Nelson should have the bottle to take the axe to the drongos.

If anyone wishes to add names that should go please feel free to do so.

This country needs a good opposition.

Basil
23-03-2008, 12:39 PM
Well the first thing that the coalition needs to do is to accept that it is time to rebuild. ...
No argument. But timing everything. I see little difference between what you suggest occurring now or in three months. There's a lot of wind | blow | checking to be done in the meantime.

It is quite conceivable that Costello has still not entirely made up his mind. I think Downer (although I appear to be one of the few that rates him) must leave the building - unless of course he wishes to commit to a career in politics in the mid term.

Capablanca-Fan
23-03-2008, 01:57 PM
Across issues where Labor went to the election offering at least symbolic differentiation (climate change, apology to stolen "generation", workplace reform) the Coalition just can't seem to work out what to do. It has to run from anything that reeks of Howard,That would be the wrong thing to do. Howard's policies were clearly good enough for four elections, and good enough for KRudd to copy many of them. Nelson should resist the backstabbing. Indeed, when Mizz Wong gets through with sacrificing the economy to appease the green gods, and the Aboriginal grievance gravy train gets awarded millions, businesses lay off staff before the work choices repeal makes it largely impossible, many people will look upon Howard's reign with fondness.

I do think the Libs need to reposition themselves ideologically (and may post something lengthy and substantial concerning how I think they should do that soon) but their approach to it at the moment just seems tryhard.[/QUOTE]
Then reposition themselves as to the right of Labor. It will never work trying to be Labor-Lite just to suck up to the Leftmedia.

Kevin Bonham
23-03-2008, 02:38 PM
That would be the wrong thing to do. Howard's policies were clearly good enough for four elections,

The first one won on the back of anger at Keating rather than positive enthusiasm.
The second one won because the massive margin from the first one enabled the Coalition to survive with a marginal seats strategy despite losing the popular 2PP vote.
The third one won on a combination of Beazley's vacuity and the electorate's preoccupation with national security because of issues breaking in the leadup to the election.
The fourth one won because Mark Latham was too unstable, too ill-disciplined and too green.

Howard got away with the policies he did partly because of an inept opposition and some good fortune along the way, but also because of his own leadership skills. Any inferior leader trying to sell Howard policies is not going to succeed.


Then reposition themselves as to the right of Labor. It will never work trying to be Labor-Lite just to suck up to the Leftmedia.

I think it has to be a moderate-Right position rather than a divisive-Right one or a centrist random-opposition-for-opposition's-sake one.

There are plenty of failed Liberal Oppositions around the country that provide good models of exactly how not to do it.

Capablanca-Fan
23-03-2008, 02:48 PM
There are plenty of failed Liberal Oppositions around the country that provide good models of exactly how not to do it.
That's my point: Vic and NSW Libs tried to be Labor-Lite. OTOH QLD Coalition can't govern even themselves, otherwise they would have knocked off the scandal-ridden Labor incompetents ages ago.

Southpaw Jim
01-04-2008, 05:57 AM
I suspect that Jono will shortly be moving to Victoria :P rumours are circulating that Costello is about to announce his resignation from Parliament (no surprises) and that Andrew Bolt is going to announce his candidacy for the by-election. Bolt has suddenly shut down his Herald-Sun blog (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/an_announcement_from_the_seat_of_higgins/)

Capablanca-Fan
01-04-2008, 09:31 AM
I suspect that Jono will shortly be moving to Victoria :P
It would be a return to my birth state.


rumours are circulating that Costello is about to announce his resignation from Parliament (no surprises) and that Andrew Bolt is going to announce his candidacy for the by-election. Bolt has suddenly shut down his Herald-Sun blog (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/an_announcement_from_the_seat_of_higgins/)
Interesting. Imagine a proven lefty like Southpaw keeping up with a sensible conserative blog lke that. :P

Bolt has previously said that politician's pay was too low to entice him. I also don't think that politicians are overpaid; many bureaucrats certainly are though.

Igor_Goldenberg
01-04-2008, 10:16 AM
I also don't think that politicians are overpaid; many bureaucrats certainly are though.
Most of them are overpaid by the amount they are paid.

Southpaw Jim
01-04-2008, 10:33 AM
I work in the public service, and I don't know many overpaid bureaucrats. Playing with stereotypes is pretty lame guys.. typical of fascist righties :P

Capablanca-Fan
01-04-2008, 10:46 AM
I work in the public service, and I don't know many overpaid bureaucrats.
There are plenty of bureaucrats who are paid much more than the PM, and have greater job security to boot!


Playing with stereotypes is pretty lame guys.. typical of fascist righties :P
Jonah Goldberg's new book Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning shows conclusively that Fascism was a movement of the Left, i.e. increasing government power. There was much similarity between the American "progressive" and many of the policies of Mussolini and Hitler.


Replacing manufactured myths with enlightening research, Goldberg begins by showing how the Italian fascism, German Nazism and American Progressivism (forebear of modern liberalism) all drew from the same intellectual foundations the idea that the state can create a kind of social utopia for its citizens. He then traces fascism's history in the U.S. — from Woodrow Wilson's war socialism and FDR's New Deal to today's liberal push for a greater alliance between big business and government. Finally, Goldberg reveals the striking resemblances between the opinions advanced by Hitler and Mussolini and the current views of the left on such diverse issues as government's role in the economy, campaign finance reform, campus "speech codes", education, environmentalism, gun control, abortion, and euthanasia.

... How fascism, Nazism, Progressivism, and modern liberalism are all alike in principle, in that all believe that government should be allowed to do whatever it likes, so long as it is for "good reasons".

... How the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term "National Socialism") who loathed the free market, believed in free health care, opposed inherited wealth, spent vast sums on public education, purged Christianity from public policy, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life.


Lefties scored a major PR coup when they deceitfully called Hitler "right" simply because he turned against his former ally Stalin.

pax
01-04-2008, 04:49 PM
There are plenty of bureaucrats who are paid much more than the PM, and have greater job security to boot!
As a proportion, such bureaucrats are very few.

The vast majority of public servants are paid a very modest amount for doing jobs that most of us wouldn't particularly fancy.

pax
01-04-2008, 04:52 PM
Jonah Goldberg's new book [URL="Liberal Fascism:
Jono's tired old refrain: all liberals are fascists (or communists, or terrorists). We've heard it enough times already Jono, there's no need to go on repeating yourself ad nauseum.

Garvinator
01-04-2008, 04:54 PM
Jono's tired old refrain: all liberals are fascists (or communists, or terrorists). We've heard it enough times already Jono, there's no need to go on repeating yourself ad nauseum.
and most of the time it seems like it is from American sources, talking about problems in USA, not Australia.

Basil
01-04-2008, 04:55 PM
As a proportion, such bureaucrats are very few.

The vast majority of public servants are paid a very modest amount for doing jobs that most of us wouldn't particularly fancy.

Like taxi drivers?

That's an extraordinary statement. I wouldn't fancy doing your job, and you proabably wouldn't fancy doing mine. Horses for courses.

I'm not sure what your point is.

Capablanca-Fan
01-04-2008, 05:32 PM
and most of the time it seems like it is from American sources, talking about problems in USA, not Australia.
So? The similarities between fascists and lefties are still there, since Australian lefties have similar policies to American ones.

Capablanca-Fan
01-04-2008, 05:34 PM
Jono's tired old refrain: all liberals are fascists (or communists, or terrorists). We've heard it enough times already Jono, there's no need to go on repeating yourself ad nauseum.
Southpaw started it by his repetition of the usual charge that fascist and right-wing go together, even if it was partly in jest. I countered with the copious documentation of the similarities between lefty "progressives" (aka liberals) and fascists. This similarity extended even to eugenics.

Capablanca-Fan
01-04-2008, 05:36 PM
As a proportion, such bureaucrats are very few.

The vast majority of public servants are paid a very modest amount for doing jobs that most of us wouldn't particularly fancy.
Dunno about that: having power over people's lives and being largely unaccountable for the way they use it. There are certainly psychic rewards of being lord and master in one's fiefdom, and yes, financial rewards for a good many bureaucrats.

pax
01-04-2008, 07:22 PM
I'm not sure what your point is.
My point is that the vast majority of public servants are not the overpaid Humphrey Appleby stereotypes that Jono likes to portray. Many are doing important jobs for not particularly high pay or reward.

pax
01-04-2008, 07:25 PM
Southpaw started it by his repetition of the usual charge that fascist and right-wing go together, even if it was partly in jest.
It was completely in jest. He was provoking you.

I countered with the copious documentation of the similarities between lefty "progressives" (aka liberals) and fascists. This similarity extended even to eugenics.
You countered with the same piece of junk analysis that you always use. Just because someone wrote a book about it doesn't make it true.

Southpaw Jim
01-04-2008, 09:53 PM
It was completely in jest. He was provoking you.
:uhoh:

Capablanca-Fan
01-04-2008, 09:55 PM
It was completely in jest. He was provoking you.
Fine, then he would have been disappointed if I hadn't responded, so stop your bellyaching. :P


You countered with the same piece of junk analysis that you always use. Just because someone wrote a book about it doesn't make it true.
Speaking of junk, the above is typical of lefty disdain for evidence that might contradict their Anointed ideology.

Capablanca-Fan
01-04-2008, 10:00 PM
My point is that the vast majority of public servants are not the overpaid Humphrey Appleby stereotypes that Jono likes to portray.
Pax has never met a government bureaucracy he doesn't like.

Yes Minister satirized the very real incentives for bureaucrats to grow their departments, since prestige and pay largely depend on the number of people under the bureaucrat. They don't have to please the public as the private sector must to stay in business.


Many are doing important jobs for not particularly high pay or reward.
Like persecuting innocent fathers and denying them contact with their kids despite their being acquitted by courts of the trumped up charges. But other kids are handed back to clearly abusive situations. The oxymoronically named public service has too much power and too little accountability.

Basil
01-04-2008, 10:25 PM
Pax has never met a government bureaucracy he doesn't like.
Perhaps pax thinks Yes Minister was a docu-drama! Just kidding lads, carry on!

Southpaw Jim
01-04-2008, 10:28 PM
Like persecuting innocent fathers and denying them contact with their kids despite their being acquitted by courts of the trumped up charges. But other kids are handed back to clearly abusive situations. The oxymoronically named public service has too much power and too little accountability.
I don't recall seeing anything like this in my Departmental manuals...

Basil
01-04-2008, 10:31 PM
I don't recall seeing anything like this in my Departmental manuals...
I think Jono has decoded the manuals for you ;) Would you like me to decode Krudd's first 100 days? It's a very short translation! :lol:

How's fatherhood?

pax
01-04-2008, 10:55 PM
Pax has never met a government bureaucracy he doesn't like.
Whoops, there's your fertile imagination again

Like persecuting innocent fathers and denying them contact with their kids despite their being acquitted by courts of the trumped up charges. But other kids are handed back to clearly abusive situations. The oxymoronically named public service has too much power and too little accountability.
Oh sure, they're all sitting around scheming about ways to persecute poor innocent people.

You do go on about evidence, but seem content with trial by (one) anecdote in order to condemn tens of thousands of people.

pax
01-04-2008, 10:59 PM
Speaking of junk, the above is typical of lefty disdain for evidence that might contradict their Anointed ideology.
No, merely disdain for ludicrous polemics by right wing nutjobs.

Capablanca-Fan
02-04-2008, 12:06 AM
No, merely disdain for ludicrous polemics by right wing nutjobs.
More like a challenge to your faith that government can do anything better than the private sector. Evidence doesn't come into lefty thinking.

Capablanca-Fan
02-04-2008, 12:09 AM
Whoops, there's your fertile imagination again
Oh sure, they're all sitting around scheming about ways to persecute poor innocent people.
It's not a matter of scheming but the incentives that operate in bureaucracies, as well as the lack of accountability.


You do go on about evidence, but seem content with trial by (one) anecdote in order to condemn tens of thousands of people.
It is no anecdote but a factual event. And it was backed up by many cases cited by Senator Nancy Schaffer of persecution of innocent families. At least in the criminal justice scheme, there is a presumption of innocence for the accused.

Southpaw Jim
02-04-2008, 08:19 AM
How's fatherhood?
Well, this is #2, so a short sharp reminder of newborn behaviour and decoding cries :hmm: All going well, mum and baby back from hospital now and settling into home routines - all this one seems to do is sleep and eat! Big sis' seems to be coping well too ;)

pax
02-04-2008, 10:50 AM
More like a challenge to your faith that government can do anything better than the private sector. Evidence doesn't come into lefty thinking.
The only evidence that counts in your book is evidence which supports your warped point of view.

Capablanca-Fan
02-04-2008, 11:13 AM
The only evidence that counts in your book is evidence which supports your warped point of view.
There is plenty of evidence to support my allegedly warped viewpoint on economics, which is only the view of Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams ... There is none to support the viewpoint that government does anything better except enforcing laws against coercion and fraud, and defending the country.

Garvinator
02-04-2008, 11:57 AM
all this one seems to do is sleep and eat!
I seem to recall there is usually a third part to that ;)

Kevin Bonham
04-04-2008, 09:17 PM
The Bolt-for-Higgins thing was an April Fools Day joke.

Capablanca-Fan
09-04-2008, 10:50 AM
Moses Rudd scales summit (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_moses_rudd_scales_summit/)
Andrew Bolt
9 April 2008


No, I don’t mean Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson, who must realise at last he should pull out of Rudd’s love-in on Saturday week before he makes a bigger fool of himself.

I mean Louise Adler, head of the Melbourne University Press, who best symbolises the triumphalist group-think Rudd’s summit embodies.

... Adler best symbolised these summitteers — these 1000 Leftists, rent-seekers, courtiers, string-pullers, patsies and token tame conservatives — but maybe that honour should instead go to fellow delegate Elena Jeffreys, head of the Scarlet Alliance.

That’s right: Jeffreys is the head of a collective of prostitutes, and chosen to advise Rudd on “future prosperity”. No satirist could put it better.

The list of the summitteers showed precisely how well Rudd has rigged his summit for an orgy, not ideas. And it showed just as precisely how easily Nelson was trapped.

Nelson should have attacked the summit from the start as not only a stunt to hide Rudd’s lack of substance, but as anti-democratic.

Wasn’t Rudd elected after promising he had a plan? Who are these people he is now inviting for advice? Who, if anyone, do they represent? What could 1000 people do in just one weekend but agree to whatever the summit’s stringpullers put in front of them?

And for any Opposition Leader, in particular, this circus should have been a no-go. Nelson is in his job to offer voters alternative policies, not to sign up to the Rudd Government — yet he agreed to join Rudd’s summit.

That’s been Nelson’s timid style, I’m afraid. He’s decided, foolishly, that the Liberals’ best way to win back voters is to show it’s got a sentimental heart, rather than a brain and backbone.

So he’s already agreed to Rudd’s “sorry”, Rudd’s windback of workplace laws, Rudd’s Kyoto signing. And, still overanxious to seem agreeable and bedside sweet, as he was as a GP, he agreed to Rudd’s summit as well — without getting any guarantees that it wouldn’t be turned into a stunt to make Rudd look a hero and Nelson not just a wimp but an outcast.

Sucker. The full guest list to the summit has been released and Nelson has been done.

Far from inviting only the “best and brightest” in a “bipartisan” attempt to get “fresh” ideas, Rudd has stacked his jamboree with plenty of same-olds he knows will tell him nice stories.

...It’s time Nelson stopped cringing, then, and rose to his feet to denounce Rudd as a flim-flam man, all spin and no substance. As a Prime Bureaucrat, not a Prime Minister. As like the dog who caught the car. As the neophyte who freaked over inflation, only to have the Reserve Bank last week say it had quietly fixed the problem on its own.

It’s especially time he said this summit was just more Rudd spin, and he’s quitting this fraud to draw up his own vision for our future. Mind you, none of this will save his leadership, nor yet make the media treat Rudd not as a Moses but a politician as likely as any to lead us into the wilderness.

That’s a job that will fall to Malcolm Turnbull or, better, Peter Costello, if he can find his mojo. But Nelson will at least know he died on his feet, not on his knees. No Moses, but a Samson.

Igor_Goldenberg
09-04-2008, 11:56 AM
But Nelson will at least know he died on his feet, not on his knees.


Reminds me of a joke:

Two men are having a conversation:
- I had a dispute with my wife. At the end she came back to me on her knees.
- What did she say?
- Get out from under the bed, wimp!

Capablanca-Fan
09-04-2008, 12:00 PM
Reminds me of a joke:

Two men are having a conversation:
- I had a dispute with my wife. At the end she came back to me on her knees.
- What did she say?
- Get out from under the bed, wimp!
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Kevin Bonham
13-04-2008, 08:30 PM
Glenn Milne had the knife out for Nelson in his columns today, claiming that Abbott has changed sides and there will be a challenge within months if Nelson doesn't go.

It's only Milne so I'll wait to see if better sources pick it up.

If Abbott is considering changing sides it is probably because he'd like Turnbull to be thrown into the fire now too in the hope that Turnbull will also wipe himself out trying to do anything about Rudd.

Capablanca-Fan
13-04-2008, 09:46 PM
If Abbott is considering changing sides it is probably because he'd like Turnbull to be thrown into the fire now too in the hope that Turnbull will also wipe himself out trying to do anything about Rudd.
It's pathetic. The one who could best tackle Rudd and Swan is still having a sulk-fest. I can't see Turnbull lasting very long; he would annoy too many traditional Coalition voters, just as Nelson has done.

Basil
13-04-2008, 09:47 PM
It's pathetic. The one who could best tackle Rudd and Swan is still having a sulk-fest.
That would be me in photo caption thread ;)

pax
07-05-2008, 03:30 PM
It's quite funny watching Nelson doing his "won't anybody think of the babies" line, and Turnbull attacking Swan from the left. I cannot see the Liberal party restoring it's support by running a populist lefty line.

Capablanca-Fan
07-05-2008, 07:34 PM
It's quite funny watching Nelson doing his "won't anybody think of the babies" line, and Turnbull attacking Swan from the left. I cannot see the Liberal party restoring it's support by running a populist lefty line.
Me neither. Why would lefties support the imitation when they can have the real thing?

Kevin Bonham
26-06-2008, 02:19 PM
Bernard Keane in today's Crikey reckons Nelson will be gone when parliament resumes on August 26, unless there is a miraculously good result for the Coalition in Gippsland:


Nelson is decent, intelligent and genuinely wants to make a difference to Australia, but like Kim Beazley he lacks the ego and laser-like focus of genuine Prime Ministerial contenders.

eclectic
26-06-2008, 02:31 PM
Bernard Keane in today's Crikey reckons Nelson will be gone when parliament resumes on August 26, unless there is a miraculously good result for the Coalition in Gippsland:

i'm in that electorate and a liberal victory per se would be needed before the "miraculously good result" tag could rightly be applied

on a lighter note:

if nelson were the leader of the democats he'd be gone today! :owned:

Garvinator
28-06-2008, 07:47 PM
Not sure where to put this, but since media reports were that the Gippsland by-election was supposed to be some sort of test of Nelson's leadership.

Nationals have won the Gippsland by-election with a swing of 7% (accurate at time of my posting).

Garvinator
28-06-2008, 07:47 PM
Bernard Keane in today's Crikey reckons Nelson will be gone when parliament resumes on August 26, unless there is a miraculously good result for the Coalition in Gippsland:
Does increasing the margin by 7 per cent count?

Kevin Bonham
28-06-2008, 08:54 PM
Does increasing the margin by 7 per cent count?

I doubt it. The Opposition's current unpopularity notwithstanding, Labor had a poor candidate and an ordinary campaign and these are very challenging economic times for even a new government to fight a by-election. It will keep the shark pack quiet for two or three weeks, but they have very short memories.

It's a poor result for Labor and an unremarkable one for the Coalition. It is a fairly good result for the National Party. Had they gone anywhere near losing this puppy it would have been a catastrophe for them.

By the way I think that Bernard Keane is wrong. I agree that Nelson lacks the killer instinct and therefore he is likely to serve as caretaker leader only, but I am sceptical that Nelson will be rolled before the end of the year.

Simply, there is no strategic advantage in doing so for any alternate leader. For Turnbull to give Labor two years of free swings at him would only increase the likelihood of a heavy defeat at the next election; better to take over 12-18 months out. And there is no reason Turnbull needs to strike too quickly as Costello is still a long way from rehabilitation (if he wants it) and there is really no other credible alternative.

I predict that if Turnbull does roll Nelson too quickly (and his party let him) he will never be able to put a cap on the infighting and it will be the political death of him.

Kevin Bonham
08-08-2008, 09:45 PM
Media reporting continues to suggest that Nelson is swaying in the breeze, but it is still not clear who or when will cut him down.

Paul Keating had this to say re Peter Costello yesterday:


"He's a guy without imagination and he is a guy without courage ... In national terms, to have such a nong -- and he is, in policy terms he is a mouse -- to have him back again speaks volumes about the Liberal Party."

Basil
08-08-2008, 11:05 PM
Paul Keating had this to say re Peter Costello yesterday...
It's just an insult. Nothing more nothing less. I would just love a Lib to delivered the figures that Keating did ... the mind boggles. I had the time to follow the Keating very closely. He was lees than flattering to Krudd - and on this target he was factual.

Regardless, I don't think anyone from any side of politics is taking Keating remotely seriously.

Kevin Bonham
09-08-2008, 11:10 PM
It's just an insult. Nothing more nothing less.

Yes and no. In part I quoted it because I miss the Keating days; the insults were much funnier back then and the current condition of Australian politics is such that the most interesting things that happen are all blunders.

But while Keating himself is irrelevant, he has some points. Is the best the Liberal Party can do a member of a defeated leadership team, who seems to still be sooking about not being offered Howard's head on a platter years ago, and who has never really been accepted by voters? If the answer is "yes" then that says a lot about the lack of trust in Liberal ranks for Turnbull.

Basil
09-08-2008, 11:17 PM
Is the best the Liberal Party can do a member of a defeated leadership team ... (snip commentary). If the answer is "yes" then that says a lot about the lack of trust in Liberal ranks for Turnbull.
Come on Kevin. All it says it that they think Costello is better than Turnbull.

In one and half jumps, you've turned an insult from an irrelevant has-been into an overstated psychoanalysis of the Liberal Party's yet to be determined future intentions. Take a breath! :P

Regardless of political proclivities, it is true that Costello made John Howard's life somewhat easy at the expense of his own aspirations. The same cannot be said for Keating (who got Hawkey square in the back) and a number of others.

Kevin Bonham
09-08-2008, 11:23 PM
Come on Kevin. All it says it that they think Costello is better than Turnbull.

And Nelson, and everyone else they have as well, it seems (if it comes to that, on which see below.)


In one and half jumps, you've turned an insult from an irrelevant has-been into an overstated psychoanalysis of the Liberal Party's yet to be determined future intentions. Take a breath!

I agree with the "yet to be determined" bit. It's hard to tell whether Liberal support for Costello is as real as the media make out or whether it is being hyped for the sake of a "story". But I do think the meaning of a potential "come back all is forgiven" switch to Costello should be considered.


Regardless of political proclivities, it is true that Costello made John Howard's life somewhat easy at the expense of his own aspirations. The same cannot be said for Keating (who got Hawkey square in the back) and a number of others.

Indeed - and in general if you want to be the leader, you have to be willing to attack when the time is right - passing it off as all in the national interest, of course.

eclectic
09-08-2008, 11:26 PM
typically an opposition leader elected after an election (ousted from government) defeat should be a caretaker i.e. there for about a year while the party licks their wounds

Basil
09-08-2008, 11:30 PM
And Nelson, and everyone else they have as well, it seems
Sure, but nothing we haven't seen from all parties since the get-go of modern politics; notably the rolling shambles that defined labor for the best part of a decade during the Howard years.

The current Liberals are rank amateurs by comparison and have only just started to shape their posture - give them a break!

Kevin Bonham
09-08-2008, 11:37 PM
typically an opposition leader elected after an election (ousted from government) defeat should be a caretaker i.e. there for about a year while the party licks their wounds

This is often the case although Beazley was far from a caretaker and twice had a reasonable shot at winning back office.

I checked to see when the last time was that the person elected Leader of the Opposition immediately after their party lost office went on to lead that party back to government. It appears to have been Andrew Fischer, who after being defeated by one seat in 1913 won in 1914 after the incumbent government picked a particularly unfortunate time to force a double dissolution.

Kevin Bonham
09-08-2008, 11:43 PM
Sure, but nothing we haven't seen from all parties since the get-go of modern politics; notably the rolling shambles that defined labor for the best part of a decade during the Howard years.

I think Labor immediately post the 1996 election were in a much less disorderly shape than the Liberals are now. They were certainly suffering from a similar crisis of relevance but at least they had leadership unity for a while. It was only after Beazley lost twice that the shambles really started.

Basil
09-08-2008, 11:59 PM
I think Labor immediately post the 1996 election were in a much less disorderly shape than the Liberals are now. They were certainly suffering from a similar crisis of relevance but at least they had leadership unity for a while.
As far as I am concerned, it's all a matter of degree and circumstance. I'd agree that post defeat, Labor had a greater period of early stability. However, for mine the present political environment and its substrucure is much more complex than is broadly assessed by rolly poly commentators.

Although the Nelson polls indicate a hopeless position, I'd offer that

• There is more talent in the opposition potentials than there is in the government front bench. This presents an odd array of options to the Libs and worrisome to the left.
• There is a tacit belief among the (we) Libs that Rudd and his clowns are well doable, next time around. Very few of us will go on record as saying such; partly because of the derisory factor, partly because it's savvy to withhold such statements ATM.
• I don't recall this much polling as to how Beazley was rating immediately and directly after the Labor wipe-out.
• Ten months down the track, and despite the hoo ha, there have been no challenges and only one leader. The unity is fine (under the circumstances of allowing the settling process) and it is only the media and the left who are obsessed with the beat ups.

Kevin Bonham
10-08-2008, 12:35 AM
• There is more talent in the opposition potentials than there is in the government front bench.

Quite possibly true. In the early years of Howard a number of heavy hitters for his government were immediately apparent in a way they are not yet really so for Labor.


• There is a tacit belief among the (we) Libs that Rudd and his clowns are well doable, next time around. Very few of us will go on record as saying such; partly because of the derisory factor, partly because it's savvy to withhold such statements ATM.

Indeed; I think it would be foolish to write off the Coalition's chances at the next election. However I don't think they will have any chances unless they can unite behind a clear leader and kill off serious leadership speculation with at least 12 months to go.


• I don't recall this much polling as to how Beazley was rating immediately and directly after the Labor wipe-out.

Correct - but mainly because there are now more pollsters. Incidentally there was a big honeymoon effect in polling for Howard immediately post the 1996 result (the odd 60-40 and a lot of high 50s) but it didn't last long with Beazley pegging it back to 50-50 2PP and then taking the lead after little more than a year.


• Ten months down the track, and despite the hoo ha, there have been no challenges and only one leader. The unity is fine (under the circumstances of allowing the settling process) and it is only the media and the who are obsessed with the beat ups.

Yes, but media-driven leadership speculation has a habit of developing a life of its own unless a leadership is rock-solid, and the main reason there have been no challenges is that there is no point in challenging at this point of the cycle.

Basil
10-08-2008, 01:00 AM
Correct - but mainly because there are now more pollsters.
That hadn't occurred to me. On the rest, we appear to have détente!

Garvinator
10-08-2008, 01:09 AM
There is a tacit belief among the (we) Libs that Rudd and his clowns are well doable, next time around. Very few of us will go on record as saying such; partly because of the derisory factor, partly because it's savvy to withhold such statements ATM.
I will back Australian history on this one. Since the second world war, only one first term sitting government has lost. I am sure Labor will be plenty 'watched' by the time of the next election ;)

Basil
10-08-2008, 01:15 AM
I will back Australian history on this one. Since the second world war, only one first term sitting government has lost. I am sure Labor will be plenty 'watched' by the time of the next election ;)
I'm inclined to agree with the idea that Labor will retain government. Their best chance of doing so (and Rudd will know this very well) is to do very little. I suspect his belief of doing very little is based on his corollary belief that anything he comes up with (other than symbolism) is likely to be an awful idea - either that or he simply has no economic ideas (after all he only adopted economic conservatism this time last year :wall: :wall:)

His ideas so far have been pinched from the Liberal ranks - and when you have pax the electorate saying there's nothing wrong with that :doh:, there's very little to be done about it (from the Libs POV).

We'll have to wait until the lack of activity (of substance) becomes embarrassingly noticeable - and that might take two terms.

Kevin Bonham
10-08-2008, 01:18 AM
I will back Australian history on this one. Since the second world war, only one first term sitting government has lost.

Actually none have. Whitlam was re-elected at an early double-diss in 1974 and his second term was term-inated partway through. The last first-term sitting government to lose was Scullin's.

However extrapolation from small historical sample sizes to cast-iron assurances about electoral future is all a bit risky anyway. Since WWII there have only been five first-term governments, and most of these faced their first elections in far more favourable economic circumstances than Rudd could well do so. You can say history indicates a sitting first-term government probably won't lose, but not much more than that.

Basil
10-08-2008, 01:33 AM
... and most of these faced their first elections in far more favourable economic circumstances than Rudd...
I'm sure this is true. But I wouldn't want Rudd to sell that in isolation. It's more than that.

The facts are that the economy was starting to experience difficulties long before his clueless clowns got their grubby fingers on the helm. It's not as if this is a bolt out of the blue. As part of winning control of the helm,

• he and his supporters delighted in obfuscating over the relatively small issue of Howard's comment about record low interest rates
• implied they could do a great job of fixing petrol and grocery prices
• banged on that any fortune experienced by Howard was all but entirely attributed to external and resource forces

Now at the helm, all we have is
• a botched attempt to save cash on disability and pensioner allowances
•multiple declarations from all his people that there's nothing much to be done
• except "watch" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
• the pathetic realisation of the 'computer for every person' revolution

So while Rudd will legitimately be able to claim most difficult circumstances, I'm guessing that (if economic conditions don't significantly change) the next election will be fought on two messages:

Libs: Rudd's a fool who couldn't manage jack (who happened to make more false imputations than Howard could have dreamed of)
Laba: Refer "Gunner's Sig".

I have an 'orrible feeling that Gunner's Sig is a potent pill very easily swallowed by far too many planks of the middle class variety. After all, it has it all; camaraderie, safety in numbers, fair go, 'sounds reasonable enough' and so it goes on ... :wall:

Igor_Goldenberg
10-08-2008, 03:24 PM
I have a feeling that none of the Labour stuff-ups will do them any damage.
On the other hand, problems they are not their doing will haunt them.

Kevin Bonham
16-09-2008, 12:53 AM
Nelson has called a snap meeting at which he is going to spill the leadership. This suggests he lacks confidence in his ability to recover in the polling with the cloud of a possible Costello challenge out of the way and believes he needs to defeat Turnbull while he still can. The rushed nature of it suggests that he's worried that Turnbull will work the numbers if Turnbull gets any more time.

Turnbull is contesting.

I have seen this panicky stunt before and it has a pretty abysmal strike rate. What may give it some chance is that Turnbull is not quite ready yet and is still unpopular within his own party.

Current Sportingbet odds (haha!) Nelson 1.70 Turnbull 2.05 Bishop 7 Costello 11 Hockey 17 Other 34.

I am surprised they have Nelson as favourite.

Garvinator
16-09-2008, 01:05 AM
Nelson has called a snap meeting at which he is going to spill the leadership. This suggests he lacks confidence in his ability to recover in the polling with the cloud of a possible Costello challenge out of the way and believes he needs to defeat Turnbull while he still can. The rushed nature of it suggests that he's worried that Turnbull will work the numbers if Turnbull gets any more time.

Turnbull is contesting.

I have seen this panicky stunt before and it has a pretty abysmal strike rate. What may give it some chance is that Turnbull is not quite ready yet and is still unpopular within his own party.

Current Sportingbet odds (haha!) Nelson 1.70 Turnbull 2.05 Bishop 7 Costello 11 Hockey 17 Other 34.

I am surprised they have Nelson as favourite.
I think Nelson has just had a gutful of being regarded as a dead man walking leader. Unfortunately for Nelson and the coalilition, I do not think this leadership spill will change anything.

I would not even be surprised, if Turnbull thinks he has the numbers, that he advises some of this supporters to vote for Nelson so Turnbull does not win this time, but once again only loses by a few. Who would want to be leader of the libs right at this moment.

By the way, I have been hearing that Costello has not actually ruled out being lib leader again. The words I heard that he used was that he would not contest for the lib leadership. So if he was handed the lib leadership at a better time than right now, he might accept.

Kevin Bonham
16-09-2008, 01:42 AM
I would not even be surprised, if Turnbull thinks he has the numbers, that he advises some of this supporters to vote for Nelson so Turnbull does not win this time, but once again only loses by a few.

Indeed; a margin of (say) 2-4 votes would be terminal for Nelson while allowing Turnbull to wait a few more months.


By the way, I have been hearing that Costello has not actually ruled out being lib leader again. The words I heard that he used was that he would not contest for the lib leadership. So if he was handed the lib leadership at a better time than right now, he might accept.

Yes, it seems he wants them to all agree their plight is hopeless with anyone else and turn to him to take it unopposed.

But voter perceptions of him are such that it is hopeless to elect him leader anyway so why bother.

Basil
16-09-2008, 09:30 AM
Turnbull ousts Nelson in party room spill. Confirmed. Margin 45-41.

Capablanca-Fan
16-09-2008, 09:33 AM
Turnbull is just Labor-lite, a hopeless proposition.

arosar
16-09-2008, 09:48 AM
Thank god we got Malcolm. Long live the republic!

AR

Southpaw Jim
16-09-2008, 10:05 AM
Turnbull is just Labor-lite, a hopeless proposition.
Yes, I doubt Rudd is quaking in his boots. Costello, maybe, but I expect Turnbull will do little to raise the Liberals' fortunes...

Capablanca-Fan
16-09-2008, 10:12 AM
Yes, I doubt Rudd is quaking in his boots. Costello, maybe, but I expect Turnbull will do little to raise the Liberals' fortunes...
Maybe Costello hopes that Turnbull will likewise flunk the popularity test (a known arrogant limousine lefty), leaving him with the road to an uncontested leadership after his two predecessors have been sacrificial lambs.

Desmond
16-09-2008, 10:18 AM
Turnbull ousts Nelson in party room spill. Confirmed. Margin 45-41.:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Can Nelson say, "backfire"?

Southpaw Jim
16-09-2008, 11:27 AM
Maybe Costello hopes that Turnbull will likewise flunk the popularity test (a known arrogant limousine lefty), leaving him with the road to an uncontested leadership after his two predecessors have been sacrificial lambs.
Wishful thinking on your part, I think, Jono.

Costello never had the balls to challenge/fight for it before. Can't see him growing a pair now...

Garvinator
16-09-2008, 11:37 AM
Wishful thinking on your part, I think, Jono.

Costello never had the balls to challenge/fight for it before. Can't see him growing a pair now...
Jono did say uncontested.

Rincewind
16-09-2008, 01:22 PM
I would not even be surprised, if Turnbull thinks he has the numbers, that he advises some of this supporters to vote for Nelson so Turnbull does not win this time, but once again only loses by a few. Who would want to be leader of the libs right at this moment.

May they BOTH did this and Nelson won. :lol:

Southpaw Jim
16-09-2008, 01:32 PM
Jono did say uncontested.
True, acknowledged.

But can you really see the Turnbull, the ultimate narcissist, going quietly into the night? :hmm:

Kevin Bonham
16-09-2008, 01:34 PM
Poll closed; 6/13 correctly voted "by end of year".

A big advantage for Turnbull is that he has no blood on his hands; Nelson probably wasn't legitimately elected leader in the first place and now Nelson spilled the position himself instead of forcing Turnbull to challenge.

Bereaved
17-09-2008, 12:21 AM
Thank God we got Malcolm. Long live the republic!

AR

Kind of you to say so, Amiel.....now as to this republic....what do we refer to?? lol....what about the Rebel Alliance...surely they will account easily enough for the Republic, or it's child the Empire?

Take care and God Bless, Macavity

NB don't really like my namesake in the silly chair now....but got to make this post because of it, didn't I?

Basil
17-09-2008, 12:50 AM
NB don't really like my namesake in the silly chair now....but got to make this post because of it, didn't I?
Welcome to the club. Kevin and Howard could do with the company ;)