R.I.P Craigos, you were a champion bloke. One of the best
R.I.P Fardin 'Bob' Qayyumi
Member of the Church of the Holy Glenn McGrath
"How about you do something contstructive in this forum for once and not fill the forum with ****. You offer nothing." - theegyptian.
"There's more chance of SoC making a good post than Smith averaging 99.95." - Furball
"**** you're such a **** poster." - Furball
We did no such thing. The priniciple stated reason why we went to war was because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was, in a post 9/11 landscape, believed to have posed a real threat. At the time, as I've pointed out previously, even France too believed that Iraq had WMD and Kevin Rudd as foreign affairs minister described their possession of WMD as 'an empirical fact'.As I pointed out in my last post, we actually went to war under this government on supposedly moral grounds, because Howard was apparently seething with rage and horror at the atrocities commited in Iraq... largely back in the 80s when they were a Western ally. Moving troops to the other side of the world and destabilising a country 20 years too late is a reasonable move to make on purely moral grounds, aside from the likelyhood of actually having a positive effect, but making a simple statement criticising the death penalty is not?
I don't ignore questions - if anything I spend too much time (while at work!) writing in this thread! I don't act any differently to Burgey (who quotes Morgan Polls! lol). It's just that, it may come as a shock to you (which is fair enough) that a young person particularly can be just as passionate in their support of the Coalition as Labor party supporters are in their distaste for Howard.I only ask, because you seem to ignore a lot of questions on here about JH, and then intorduce a lot of spin through newspaper articles etc from pro-Howard publications.
A lot of people are passionate about the Liberal Party (that's why they've been in power for 42 of the last 57 years) - they just don't spend much time on blogs.
Last edited by howardj; 10-10-2007 at 04:56 PM.
I'm actually happier to pin my hopes on things like the bizarre reconcliation turn around, which is either:
1. a (failed) attempt to wedge labor over the hardest word, being "sorry"; or
2. a pitch at traditional liberal voters who his own polling shows are deserting him in droves. I suspect it's this.
Mate, pin your hopes on historicals from 2004. Latham imploded, and the government wasn't 11 years old then. In 1993 Keating came back from a fair way behind, but not this far behind just before the campaign. In 1996, Howard was this far ahead, and there was no comeback. And it wasn't the economy then, because we were about 3-3.5 years out of the recession and the economy was on the way back. You just seem to accept these narrowings are a given, but they aren't a given. It just depends on the circumstances at the time. BTW, we're always saying the libs will win because they're regarded as better economic managers. Well, as George Megalogenis notes in the Oz today, "It's the personal economy stupid". He writes that people don't live their lives in the macro, they live them in the micro, which is how Rudd's playing it - taking it down to how they feel about their situation, not the fact that GDP has gone up 1.2234523674% in the June quarter. And here's another sobering thought. George has gone back and looked the the old Newspolls from 1993 and 1996: In 1993 Hewson led Keating on who's best to manage the economy, and Keating led Howard on the same question in 1996. It's an interesting read:
How do you suggest, barring some external event beyond anyone's control or a Labor car-crash, that they will pull back enough? They may out-campaign labor, but labor are very cashed up this time and so far this year have pushed the right political buttons. No one says it can't happen, because it can - I'm just saying it's as inappropriate to rely on it happening implicitor as saying it won't.
The government has had free kicks from ads for 9 months, 2 lots of budget tax cuts, they've performed more backflips than a circus troupe on:
1. health - Abbott says the feds should take over, then gets rolled, then says we'll see the best model after we assess whether Mersey works but not before, then says no, lets have 750 new bureaucracies while criticising Rudd for setting up 60-odd, all before they've even taken over Mersey and can't know if it will work. And by the way, their own figures show they've dropped $2 billion less than they should have into public hospitals - not health in general, but public hospital funding.
2. climate change - first we're sceptics, then the science isn't in, then Crosby Textor tells us its an issue which is biting, so we pretend we believe in it. An effort as believeable as Garrett on the pulp mill, frankly.
3. After 11 years of taking $ from unis, we now throw $ at them in an election year. Thoroughly believeable.
4. Reconciliation - having decried it as a "black arm band view of history", the PM now realises that he's looking at a black arm-band view of an election (something I'm very familiar with in the past decade or so) and now thinks it's a good idea. Sorry, it's as transparent, and as suffocating, as cling wrap;
and to date none of these, among others, has worked.
Now I'm just a mug amateur, but I see it this way. They have a problem now because they're 11 years old. When they announce something like the Pacific Hwy upgrade (announced at every election by every party since 1923), the hospital thing, the education thing, the reconciliation thing - whatever - the problem they now have (which every long term govt has) is that people say "Well, you've had 11 years. Where has this been? Why not sooner? Why now? We don't believe you, you've got baggage on this issue or that issue." I'm not saying it's right, but it happens, and it's hard to respond by saying "well, for the first few years we had to repay this debt, get the budget into surplus, we did tax reform etc. etc.", because, whether it's right or not, people's eyes glaze over and they just look at there being $17 billion in the kick, and then they hear that $2 billion less has been spent on hospitals, or they see interest rates going up and remember JH saying he'd keep them low (don't say he said "Lower than Labor", coz I've got a photo of his 04 launch mate, and the slogan wasn't "Keeping rates lower than labor, provided they don't go up overseas, and btw, if they do go up it's the states fault, but really the govt doesn't control it", it was "Keeping Interest Rates Low".
Then there's what may be the big albatross around the neck - Workchoices. It's been campaigned against effectively, because whether or not it's good policy, it's essentially a political document, and it's been attacked as such. And it makes it harder for the governemnt to say that the economy's going good if people say "Great, but my overtime could be taken, or my kids won't get a fair deal". In fact, they don't even have to say that, they just have to think those things MIGHT happen, and it sows the seeds of doubt. Whether they will happen or not, the perception is that they do or will, so it's a tough one for the government.
The macro-economic thing is the hard one for labor, and no doubt they'll be made to pay for the past on it. Rudd for his part has to try to be as cool as possible under pressure, so people don't think he's a risk - if they think that, they're far more likely to run with him. His micro-economic stuff is working, so I expect he'll run with that. Boths sides for some more middle class welfare re. childhood subsidies for working mums, etc.
Galaxy out this week - apparently some focus questions on leadership, and some murmurings on some pseph sites are (weirdly) that the McClelland thing on the Bali bombers has played well for Rudd because he acted quickly and people have said he showed strength. Now, those of us who follow the game know that that's just not right, and that he saw it was unpopular and reacted to turn around an existing policy, but it was smart because when a pollie turns around and flip flops, but does so in a way which accords with a voter's views, that voter is likely to reflect on that pollie as strong and displaying leadership, and someone who listens to good sense - because they are things which we all like to equate with our own views and values. And when those views and values are held by a large majority - who knows? The benefit for Rudd on issues like that is perversly the thing which goes against him on other issues - he's new, so when he flops on something like the DP for the Bali Bombers, people don't say "here's another backflip like that thing 3 years ago, or another fib like AWB, kids OB, no GST (whatever the issue - it's not those things I'm referring to specifically, they're just recent historical examples, and all the recent history is frm the current govt - an older example might have been Hawke on no child in poverty by 1990, or PJK with the LAW tax cuts) - you just accumulate baggage as things go on.
Sorry about the long rant - it's been a very long couple of days and I only got back late, and I'm very tired
FWIW I agree with HJ that he doesn't avoid answering questions. The nature of this thread is that if we can be bothered to post on it, we're likely to be pretty damn passionate about it, and it's an emotive subject to begin with. We all have different views, and we have goes at each other, but since I've been posting here I'd have to say the vast majority of it isn't personal at all and we can have a bit of a laugh about it. I hope this continues once the current PM's b*lls drop and he calls the poll. It's just a frank exchange of views, which is what democracy is - at least, what it is unless Howard gets back in and no doubt outlaws any dissenting opinion
Just back from Tassie and didn't have the laptop, so couldn't keep up with politics much down there, not that it's backward or anything. I bought the Hobart Mercury this morning and apparently Ben Chifley has died and there'll be a referendum on banning the Communist Party.
In 2 days I can happily report that I played arguably the best golf course in Australia, opened a pulp mill, funded a needless emergency room, grew a 6th finger on each hand, but best of all - today at the Hobart waterfront I had the pleasure of meeting and having my photo taken with someone who carried out his job above and beyond the call, and who did so against the wishes of the highest echelons of his own government, and most likely to the detriment of his own career, but didn't give two hoots about it.
Stand up and take a bow..........
Major Michael Dante Mori, USMC.
One of the good guys.
Last edited by Burgey; 12-10-2007 at 08:58 AM.
WWCC - Loyaulte Mi Lie
"People make me happy.. not places.. people"
"When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life." - Samuel Johnson
"Hope is the fuel of progress and fear is the prison in which you put yourself" - Tony Benn
#408. Sixty three not out forever.
Can I add one? People who pledge all sorts of things because it's an election year, things that'd they've been remarkably reticent to do up until this point.
...and, people who believe it. (That's two actually)
I think Johnny might be quietly confident that by putting it to a referendum, the Australia he's created over the last ten years or so won't make him act on it anyway.
Last edited by Son Of Coco; 13-10-2007 at 05:33 PM.
"If you change the government, you change the country"
Thanks Alexander Downer...couldn't think of a better advertisement for change myself.
Alexis is heading towards the Joe Hockey School of Arrogance and Temper Tantrums....just watching 'Sunday', he's a little tetchy.
It's kind of funny how politicians try to sound nice about someone from the other party, but then slip in a couple of little digs disguised as 'all I know' haha
Last edited by Son Of Coco; 13-10-2007 at 05:40 PM.
So the election might be called today? The media seems to be on notice, and Howard's doing all the usual bull**** and going to church and so on.
I know a place where a royal flush
Can never beat a pair
I don’t think that the narrowing is a ‘given’. I agree with you that each election is an island unto itself. I just think a narrowing will occur for a whole host of reasons.Mate, pin your hopes on historicals from 2004. Latham imploded, and the government wasn't 11 years old then. In 1993 Keating came back from a fair way behind, but not this far behind just before the campaign. In 1996, Howard was this far ahead, and there was no comeback. And it wasn't the economy then, because we were about 3-3.5 years out of the recession and the economy was on the way back. You just seem to accept these narrowings are a given, but they aren't a given. It just depends on the circumstances at the time.
1. The Liberal Party has not engaged in any partisan advertising this year (and please don’t say those limp, sterile Government funded ads are going to be anything like what the Liberal Party will come up with) whereas there have been a plethora of commercials by both the Labor Party and the Unions in 2007. This imbalance will be addressed once the campaign starts. And man, the Liberals know which buttons to push. In short, they know how to craft a winning campaign.
2. It is very difficult to campaign during a term on economic management. Such a bedrock, dry, mundane issue only really gets due consideration and traction once a campaign starts. This is the Coalition’s turf. And I still think, as far as politics goes, it’s what people care about the most - their job, their mortgage. You won’t win unless you’re trusted on this front. See below for the better economic manager stats.
3. The fear of change. It’s very easy to say that you’re going to vote for an unproven, untried bunch of people in an opinion poll - but it’s another thing to do it on Election day. There have only been 4 changes of Government in the last 58 years. People are very conservative (in the non-political sense of that word!) when it comes to Federal elections. People take it very seriously - much more so than State elections where you sometimes get unknowns pulling off impossibly ridiculous upsets like Bracksy and Borbidge.
4. The Coalition has been massively ‘off message’ this year - they’ve been disgracefully all over the shop. By contrast, Labor has been awesome, in terms of being ‘on message’ and repeating their main lines of attack. Again, I expect the Coalition to go some way to addressing this imbalance in the campaign - by having a theme and being ‘on-message’. They know how to craft a campaign, if nothing else!
5. In 1998, 2001 and 2004, as the election drew closer, the polls narrowed. Now, it’s not inevitable that this will happen in 2007. But, I think it is redolent of a thing with John Howard. That is, people (even Coalition supporters) don’t feel much warmth towards the guy and only vote for him when they have to - not in opinion polls, but on election day, or as that day draws nearer. The Coalition, even during its 11 year reign, has been behind for a significant portion of that time.
Yes, there hasn’t been a narrowing as yet, and they are certainly starting from a lower base this year, but I don’t think that 45% is such a dire position to start a campaign from. When you’ve been around for 33 years and been in Government for 11 years, I doubt people will show you much gratitude except when it really counts.
I have different ‘evidence’ on the preferred economic manager measure. This election is often compared to 1996, but in terms of economic management, it is nothing like it. In the four Newspolls taken on the economic management question in the 12 months leading into the 1996 election, Howard was competitive with Keating, leading in two and virtually line-ball in a third. Source. Rudd and Labor (as shown in next paragraph) are currently nowhere near those figures.And here's another sobering thought. George has gone back and looked the the old Newspolls from 1993 and 1996: In 1993 Hewson led Keating on who's best to manage the economy, and Keating led Howard on the same question in 1996. It's an interesting read:
For instance, last week’s Newspoll had the Government leading Labor by 18 percentage points on the question of economic management. Not the figures that suggest a Labor landslide by any means. You have to be competitive on the economy - and Labor simply are not.
I’m not silly - I know the Coalition is behind and it is more likely than not they will lose. That’s the nature of politics. The ‘time for a change’ momentum, once it takes hold, is very difficult to repel. It can be like trying to hold back a tsunami, armed with just a couple of (taxpayer funded) sandbags! However, for the reasons numbered above, I still think the Government have reason to be optimistic.How do you suggest, barring some external event beyond anyone's control or a Labor car-crash, that they will pull back enough? They may out-campaign labor, but labor are very cashed up this time and so far this year have pushed the right political buttons. No one says it can't happen, because it can - I'm just saying it's as inappropriate to rely on it happening implicitor as saying it won't.
Plus, they have a good story to tell - Australia is, by any measure, a stronger, more prosperous country than in 1996. Real wages are higher, unemployment has been halved, interest rates (on average!) are much lower. So yeah, I think they should calmly prosecute their case over the next six weeks and they should remember that the time to despair is after you’ve lost, not while there’s still heaps of hope.
Yeah, I’m guilty more than anyone of being a bit aggressive at times, I guess. To that end, that was the reason I pulled the plug a while back - I have a bit of a nasty/dismissive streak and therefore try to avoid situations (and people!) who are likely to bring out that little bit of nastiness/dismissiveness. But yeah, it’s a quality thread.FWIW I agree with HJ that he doesn't avoid answering questions. The nature of this thread is that if we can be bothered to post on it, we're likely to be pretty damn passionate about it, and it's an emotive subject to begin with. We all have different views, and we have goes at each other, but since I've been posting here I'd have to say the vast majority of it isn't personal at all and we can have a bit of a laugh about it. I hope this continues once the current PM's b*lls drop and he calls the poll.
Anyway, November 24 it is.
Like the last election in 2004, it comes back to the question of trust. Who do you trust with the PM's XI match? A mandarin speaking, multi-millionaire diplomat. Or someone who has presided over a golden period of Australian cricket?
Last edited by howardj; 13-10-2007 at 09:37 PM.
There are currently 30 users browsing this thread. (2 members and 28 guests)