NationStates Jolt Archive

John Howard's left it almost as long as he could, because he's not doing well in the polls. But today he couldn't hold out any longer and has called an election, to be held on the 24th of November.

For those not from Oz, the system is Westminster Parliamentary, so the members of parliament are elected directly in their seats into either the lower house of the senate. Each party has a leader, who is expected to become prime minister if his party wins the most seats and forms a government. Added interest comes from the fact that the party leader has to stand for election in his own seat, and if he loses he can't be part of parliament and therefore can't be prime minister. It's unlikely, but might just happen this time 'round (in which case there'd be a lot of grey area to be tapped into).

The issues are...well...the problem is that Australia's been doing pretty well. There aren't any major problems to solve. Unemployment's at record lows, growth rates are strong, both due to a combination of a primary resource boom and an explosion in household wealth due to rising house prices. Inflation is creeping higher though, and the reserve bank operates according to an inflation targeting system, meaning that unlike in the US it doesn't care about unemployment and will mercilessly raise interest rates to keep inflation between 2 and 3% (it's at 3% now).

There's the drought, but the government can't do much about that. There's indigenous issues, which Howard's tried to make into an issue with his recent "intervention plan", to which he's now added the prospect of a referendum on a "Sorry" to be added into the constitution, if I understand correctly.

Interest rates worry mortgaged voters, and last time Howard won on the back of a frankly ridiculous campaign of "last time Labor was in power, interest rates were high". The result of not teaching economics in schools was obvious when he was returned to power by people scared of not being able to afford their loans anymore. The same issue will again play a role.

"Work Choices" (a controversial plan under which employees and employers were to be able to bargain and work out their own individual contracts rather than through collective agreements) is another point. Unions have been very successful from the start at dominating the discourse on the policy and portraying it as an evil plot for bosses to rip off the little guy. It's been softened a lot already, but Labor clearly holds a huge advantage here (even though they haven't actually committed to really scrapping the policy themselves).

Labor's clearly ahead in all polls, the only demographic where the two parties are equal is the mortgage belt. Once again the election will be decided by the bogan vote (these days, in Australia bogans live in suburbia and have big mortgages). So expect lots of talk about evil immigrants, terrorists (Rudd wants a phased withdrawal from Iraq but is committed to Afghanistan and not afraid to be hypocritical and call for the execution of those who committed the Bali Bombing despite his opposition to the death penalty) and national security alongside interest rates and demonising the other side in whatever way is possible.

The two lines of argument are clear: John Howard says "don't risk what we have, because I can take all the credit for it - and look at the inexperience of the other guy", Kevin Rudd says "it's safe to switch now, Howard's long past his use-by date".

And as an added bonus, it's pretty clear that Howard won't stay the whole term if he's re-elected but will resign, probably in favour of the Treasurer Peter Costello, who the voters don't like for some reason (must be that he's not a conservative whackjob), though I would expect a challenge from Turnbull in that event.

What do you reckon?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_federal_election%2C_2007
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Rudd
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_of_Australia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Howard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Brown

I voted Tight race with Labor just making it, probably jinxing it. A lead this big for this long seems to good to be true, and we have seen how well Howard and the Libs can run a campaign before. If they find something as good as the 'L-plate' Latham slogan, and target that same area, they may well still have a chance.

But things like Howard's very recent "conversion" about reconciliation is an example of how desperate he is getting. I put conversion in quotation marks because he actually said that he hasn't really changed any of his opinions about indigenous issues. A referendum would be a nice little symbolic gesture, I guess. The act of Howard suggesting this, though, is more than a little symbolic itself. Rudd is coming in with the whole "I'm fresh" thing with Howard looking like the old decrepit pineapple (misquoting Keating here) that he is, and wants to get in on this "new" fad. Don't think the electorate will buy it though. The other thing is the fear campaign about unions running the ALP if they get elected. The Coalition keep trotting out the stat that 70% of the Labor front bench are former trade union officials. When asked about this Rudd said (paraphrasing) "and 70% of Howard's front bench didn't want him as Prime Minister". That was pretty lol.

Should be another dirty, cringe-worthy campaign.

EDIT
And, if you're prepared to go off-topic at post three NL, who would you prefer to replace Howard (either in the event of the Coalition losing, him losing Bennelong and not bothering to run in a by-election to get back in, or winning and eventually retiring), Costello, Turnbull, Abbott even?

[Thread hijack]

And I... uh... I vote for some sort of cyborg that can break dance!

[/Thread hijack]

You may now return to your election fever thread! :)

There's the drought, but the government can't do much about that.


Nothing ... except actually taking some meaningful steps to address climate change.

But things like Howard's very recent "conversion" about reconciliation is an example of how desperate he is getting. I put conversion in quotation marks because he actually said that he hasn't really changed any of his opinions about indigenous issues. A referendum would be a nice little symbolic gesture, I guess. The act of Howard suggesting this, though, is more than a little symbolic itself.



But as a strategic move, it doesn't seem particularly smart. After 11 years of fairly abominable aborginal policy, suddenly expressing a desire for reconciliation probably won't win him too many votes, but may cost him some with his usual support base.

My read is a close race with Labor winning. The current Labor leader doesn't have any major flaws for Howard to trumpet (his preferred method of campaign is the "attack ad"), and as long as he doesn't make any huge gaffs all the Liberals will be able to say is "We have a tried and experienced team", which just isn't going to work when most people see them as old, out of touch and tired.

Personally, I think Howard has done a reasonably good job, all up, but it's time for him to go. He stopped having anything new to say two elections ago.

Nothing ... except actually taking some meaningful steps to address climate change.

Actually, not really the problem. Australia ALWAYS has droughts.

Anyway, you do know that there's nothing that can actually be done about climate change now, don't you? We can change things for our great-grandchildren, but we WILL live to see a tropical planet.

Actually, not really the problem. Australia ALWAYS has droughts.

And the fact that this is the worst in recorded history is just a big coincidence right? The drought cycle is tied to El Nino, which has increased in both frequency and intensity over the last 120 years as we have begun to seriously alter the climate.


Anyway, you do know that there's nothing that can actually be done about climate change now, don't you? We can change things for our great-grandchildren, but we WILL live to see a tropical planet.

There is plenty that can be done about climate change. We have both the technology and the resources to make serious reductions in our CO2 levels, we just lack the political will. In times of war and other crises, we have shown an amazing ability to re-tool our economy to address the problems we are facing, and the same could be done now. The planet will hardly be tropical in our lifetime, but it could certainly be for our grandchildren and great-grandchildren if we continue to fail to take action.

But as a strategic move, it doesn't seem particularly smart. After 11 years of fairly abominable aborginal policy, suddenly expressing a desire for reconciliation probably won't win him too many votes, but may cost him some with his usual support base.

I doubt he would have done it if it wasn't a politically clever move. He knows what he is doing. And in fact he actually said the other day that this attempt at reconciliation is only possible now and wouldn't have been up until now. Of course that is a load of shit in and of itself as Julia Gillard pointed out- in 2000 there was mass marches for the cause and earlier this year was the 40th anniversary of the amendment to recognise Aboriginals. Still though, he obviously thinks it will help him somewhat otherwise he wouldn't have done it.

There is plenty that can be done about climate change. We have both the technology and the resources to make serious reductions in our CO2 levels, we just lack the political will. In times of war and other crises, we have shown an amazing ability to re-tool our economy to address the problems we are facing, and the same could be done now. The planet will hardly be tropical in our lifetime, but it could certainly be for our grandchildren and great-grandchildren if we continue to fail to take action.

But the point stands that the current government can't change the current climate.

EDIT:
And by current government I obviously mean contemporary, not specifically the Howard government, you pedantic bastards.

Labor will win, then they'll fuck up like they always do and the Coalition will win the next election in a landslide.

I doubt he would have done it if it wasn't a politically clever move. He knows what he is doing. And in fact he actually said the other day that this attempt at reconciliation is only possible now and wouldn't have been up until now. Of course that is a load of shit in and of itself as Julia Gillard pointed out- in 2000 there was mass marches for the cause and earlier this year was the 40th anniversary of the amendment to recognise Aboriginals. Still though, he obviously thinks it will help him somewhat otherwise he wouldn't have done it.

He might think it's a politically clever move, but that doesn't necessarily make it so. With his track record anyone hardly anyone that cares about aboriginal rights is not going to vote for him anyway, and many of his supporters would be categorically against such a move.


But the point stands that the current government can't change the current climate.


Well, they also can't change the current state of the economy, debt load, etc. They can only make decisions now that will influence how these things play out in the future. Does that mean they can throw up their hands and say "We can't do anything?" Would they be justified in running a massive deficit because "it will only affect future generations?"

Labor will win, then they'll fuck up like they always do and the Coalition will win the next election in a landslide.

Like they always do? Last time around, Labor was in office for 13 years. And they might have been in for longer if Keating wasn't so bloody arrogant.

Like they always do? Last time around, Labor was in office for 13 years. And they might have been in for longer if Keating wasn't so bloody arrogant.

Yes. Keating. Paul "The recession we had to have" Keating.

I don't know anything about Australian politics, but I think that John Howard guy is on his way out.

He might think it's a politically clever move, but that doesn't necessarily make it so. With his track record anyone hardly anyone that cares about aboriginal rights is not going to vote for him anyway, and many of his supporters would be categorically against such a move.

I doubt that would be enough to turn many, if any, of his traditional supporters away from him. I think what he hopes this will do is showing swinging voters that he is willing to change and be "fresh"- a little Kevin Ruddish.

Well, they also can't change the current state of the economy, debt load, etc. They can only make decisions now that will influence how these things play out in the future. Does that mean they can throw up their hands and say "We can't do anything?" Would they be justified in running a massive deficit because "it will only affect future generations?"

People understand that they can't change the weather. As far as they know but, the economy is at the government's mercy. And since it is doing well right now they're obviously going to keeping promoting this idea.

Yes. Keating. Paul "The recession we had to have" Keating.

You got owned, get over it.

It would quite funny if Howard loses his seat, a fitting end I say.

You got owned, get over it.

Umm... no, I didn't. It just looks like you've resorted to petty name-calling.

Umm... no, I didn't. It just looks like you've resorted to petty name-calling.

Hmm...

Labor will win, then they'll fuck up like they always do and the Coalition will win the next election in a landslide.

Like they always do? Last time around, Labor was in office for 13 years.

You lose.

YOu need symbolic party animals. Maybe a koala for one and a kangaroo for another and a platypus for a third...

Hmm...





You lose.

No, I don't. I've pointed out EXACTLY what went wrong with the last Labor government. What's your argument? Please come up with one.

And time in office means nothing. Everyone serves two or three terms anyway, until they do something retarded and lose support.

YOu need symbolic party animals. Maybe a koala for one and a kangaroo for another and a platypus for a third...

We have them. Liberals have an "L" and Labor has Vladimir Lenin.

No, I don't. I've pointed out EXACTLY what went wrong with the last Labor government. What's your argument? Please come up with one.

You said that Labor would fuck it up like they always do and the Coalition would win the next election. It was pointed out that Labor's last stint in government lasted 13 years and five elections. This directly contradicts your comment, thus you lose.

You said that Labor would fuck it up like they always do and the Coalition would win the next election. It was pointed out that Labor's last stint in government lasted 13 years and five elections. This directly contradicts your comment, thus you lose.

Except "five elections" means nothing; you can win an election today, then hold another a week later and win that too, and you've been elected twice.

I don't recall Hawke being too bad, but he was before my time. But Whitlam before him was FIRED, and Keating was atrocious with the economy. Basically, Labor has a crap track record.

Except "five elections" means nothing; you can win an election today, then hold another a week later and win that too, and you've been elected twice.

I don't recall Hawke being too bad, but he was before my time. But Whitlam before him was FIRED, and Keating was atrocious with the economy. Basically, Labor has a crap track record.

Actually, you're entirely wrong. Keating, along with Hawke, is responsible, directly or indirectly, for the current prosperity we are now experiencing. Howard's claim over the prosperity is the biggest pile of BS that has ever been swallowed by the Australian electorate.

Umm... no, I didn't. It just looks like you've resorted to petty name-calling.

Wow, we're REALLY into election mode, aren't we? :p

I don't recall Hawke being too bad, but he was before my time. But Whitlam before him was FIRED, and Keating was atrocious with the economy. Basically, Labor has a crap track record.

Whitlam was only fired because there was more or less a stalemate in parliament, so the Governor General saw fit to remove the leading party, and hold another election. Which in my mind was a bad move. It was the OPPOSITION that wouldn't allow any progress.


But yeah, I believe that Labor will win. The coalition have just made WAY to many mistakes, and now they are just pulling things out that we have asked for for ages (i.e. Tax cuts) to use them as bait on the "QUICK, VOTE FOR JOHN HOWARD" hook. Even though he has said that he will not be the Prime Minister for the whole time. I mean, if you think that our government is focused on corporations than helping workers now, wait till Peter Costello is leading.

In short, for me, Kevin Rudd is the way to go. He will help out the workers, but he's not completely left, so he will also help sustain our economy.

And, if you're prepared to go off-topic at post three NL, who would you prefer to replace Howard (either in the event of the Coalition losing, him losing Bennelong and not bothering to run in a by-election to get back in, or winning and eventually retiring), Costello, Turnbull, Abbott even?
I don't mind Costello, but I prefer Turnbull. There's a little known secret out there: Turnbull really hates taxes, on an ideological level rather than just as an election strategy. When he was still some unknown backbencher he proposed some 20-something percent flat tax.

It would make for an interesting few days if he ever made it.

Abbott is worst case scenario, he's even more of a conservative nutcase than Howard.

Yes. Keating. Paul "The recession we had to have" Keating.
Say what you will, but he was about as close to being right as someone can be on this issue. And his liberalisation policies both domestically and on trade were what build the foundation on which Howard (or Costello, rather) just had to not screw things up too badly.

YOu need symbolic party animals. Maybe a koala for one and a kangaroo for another and a platypus for a third...

Silly LG, there's no such thing as kangaroos.

I don't ike John Howard. The way he goes for his stupid fucking walks in the mornings pisses me off.

Silly LG, there's no such thing as kangaroos.

We should have a political party where the parties symbol is the Drop Bear...

Except "five elections" means nothing; you can win an election today, then hold another a week later and win that too, and you've been elected twice.

That is a good point, except for the fact the five elections were in 83, 84, 87, 90 and 93. This directly contradicts your claim, and there's no way to talk your way out of the pile of stinking bullshit you jumped into.

I don't mind Costello, but I prefer Turnbull. There's a little known secret out there: Turnbull really hates taxes, on an ideological level rather than just as an election strategy. When he was still some unknown backbencher he proposed some 20-something percent flat tax.

It would make for an interesting few days if he ever made it.

Yeah, I also don't mind Turnbull. He has been pushing for gay marriage legislation too, mainly on his own. Haven't heard anything more on that recently though.

Abbott is worst case scenario, he's even more of a conservative nutcase than Howard.

Yeah, but with Abbott leading the Libs at an election could they really win? I'm probably overestimating the Australian voter here but...

I think Abbott leading the nation would be terrible. We would have religion coming into politics a LOT more in my opinion. I'm religious myself, but they shouldn't be mixed with running a country, like in America. Even though Church and State is SUPPOSED to be separate over there :rolleyes:

To Ferrous: The current Liberal government hasn't been in power as long as the previous Labor government. So your statement is utterly fallacious.

I don't like either of the main parties, and I will reserve my opinions on the matter in three years, but right now, the Liberals HAVE to go. I don't mind John Howard. There have been quite a few worse Prime Ministers. But the Liberal party is screwing up the REAL workers. I am a teacher, all these IR changes are absolutely abhorrent to me, and us. We are safe at the moment, but another Liberal term will put our careers in jeopardy. The other problem is our sucking up to the US. It HAS to stop. No offense to Americans, but you government currently sucks. It probably won't stop under Rudd, but it won't be as bad. Besides, gotta love a Prime Minister that can speak Chinese!

Another real issue with the Liberal party, is Howard's successor. Costello is a conservative power-hungry nutjob. Abbot isn't much better. Though I wouldn't mind seeing Abbot/Costello 2010. :p Turnbull I could live with.

But the Liberal party is screwing up the REAL workers. I am a teacher, all these IR changes are absolutely abhorrent to me, and us. We are safe at the moment, but another Liberal term will put our careers in jeopardy.
To be fair, the whole IR issue is being overhyped quite a bit. And I don't like it, because it means they end up taking my tax dollars to sell me a policy they decided to implement without consulting me in the first place.

To be fair, the whole IR issue is being overhyped quite a bit. And I don't like it, because it means they end up taking my tax dollars to sell me a policy they decided to implement without consulting me in the first place.
It isn't being overhyped so much. Teachers have had to fight tooth and nail to get the wages they get at the moment. Which are ok; not great, but not as abysmal as they once were. If we stopped coming under state protection, for instance, if the Liberals won NSW, or the federal Liberals pulled some more weight around in the states, then we would be in a very bad position.

That is a good point, except for the fact the five elections were in 83, 84, 87, 90 and 93. This directly contradicts your claim, and there's no way to talk your way out of the pile of stinking bullshit you jumped into.

You just basically validated my claim. They won five elections in thirteen years. Whereas in the US, if you won five elections, it would be over twenty years.

Which, as I said, means that claiming that they "won five elections" means little.

The other problem is our sucking up to the US. It HAS to stop. No offense to Americans, but you government currently sucks. It probably won't stop under Rudd, but it won't be as bad. Besides, gotta love a Prime Minister that can speak Chinese!

Yes. Sucking up to a democratic, slightly stupid country is MUCH worse than sucking up to a one-party, authoritarian state.

Yes. Sucking up to a democratic, slightly stupid country is MUCH worse than sucking up to a one-party, authoritarian state.
China has a lot more relevance to us than the US.

China has a lot more relevance to us than the US.

Yeah, they give us cheap labour.

You just basically validated my claim. They won five elections in thirteen years. Whereas in the US, if you won five elections, it would be over twenty years.

Which, as I said, means that claiming that they "won five elections" means little.

Validated your claim? OH DEAR GOD ARE YOU MENTALLY HANDICAPPED? Can you hear yourself? You're trying to argue something that is as obviously false as one plus one equals two. You said Labor would fuck up "like always" and the Coalition would win at the next election. History does not support this, so you are wrong. I am willing to drop this "argument" but not if you refuse to accept you were wrong.

Validated your claim? OH DEAR GOD ARE YOU MENTALLY HANDICAPPED? Can you hear yourself? You're trying to argue something that is as obviously false as one plus one equals two. You said Labor would fuck up "like always" and the Coalition would win at the next election. History does not support this, so you are wrong. I am willing to drop this "argument" but not if you refuse to accept you were wrong.

Historically, Labor has had major failures. Such as... WHITLAM BEING FIRED! "The recession we had to have"! You cannot deny that.

Historically, Labor has had major failures. Such as... WHITLAM BEING FIRED! "The recession we had to have"! You cannot deny that.

I can, but that isn't at issue. What you have been refusing to accept for the last three pages is that your idiotic claim that Labor "always" fucks up there time in government and gets booted out next election.

Historically, Labor has had major failures. Such as... WHITLAM BEING FIRED! "The recession we had to have"! You cannot deny that.
Because Liberals haven't had any major failures. And you cannot deny that the last Labor government is still more successful than the current Liberal government.

Have we all forgotten about Rudd in the strip club? I don't care what excuses are offered, he was there. The major parties seem to basically be the same so this issue really helped me make up my mind.

I'm voting Labor. :D

Because Liberals haven't had any major failures. And you cannot deny that the last Labor government is still more successful than the current Liberal government.

What? "The recession we had to have"? That's basically code for "I fucked up the economy".

What? "The recession we had to have"? That's basically code for "I fucked up the economy".
FACT: Labor was in government for 13 years.
FACT: Liberal has been in government for 11 years.

I don't know if you failed Maths or something, but 13 > 11.

FACT: Labor was in government for 13 years.
FACT: Liberal has been in government for 11 years.

I don't know if you failed Maths or something, but 13 > 11.

Time in office doesn't mean anything. It's what you do in that time that matters. And the last Labor govt. gave us a recession.

Time in office doesn't mean anything. It's what you do in that time that matters. And the last Labor govt. gave us a recession.

Please point to the specific Labor policies which directly and incontrovertibly caused the recession.

EDIT:
And time in office does mean something: it means you're delusional and have no knowledge of Australian electoral history.

Time in office doesn't mean anything. It's what you do in that time that matters. And the last Labor govt. gave us a recession.
successful adj 1 achieving or resulting in the required outcome

They were in government for 13 years. That sounds like the required outcome to me. And it isn't as if the Liberal government hasn't done its fair share of buggery. IR laws anyone? Tampa? Sending us to a war noone wants to be a part of? Please. In any case, this all goes back to your first inane statement, that the Labor government will 'fuck up'. If it is anything like the last one, then sure it will. After 13 years.

I would just like to point out that EVERY party will fuck up. That's why we HAVE elections and democracy. To give us a chance to get rid of the idiots who fucked up the most recently.

It's not about voting in the best. It's about voting out the worst.

Oh lookee, tax cuts from Johnny and Peter!

Wait, is that the money they've been taking off us for those years because of overtaxation?

Basically, Labor has a crap track record.

Obviously, the electorate disagreed with you for about 13 years.

Time in office doesn't mean anything. It's what you do in that time that matters. And the last Labor govt. gave us a recession.

The recession was global. Governments were getting tossed all over the place at that time. In Canada, we blamed it on the Conservatives and tossed them.