2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Rudd? (1 Viewer)

[Silver Persian]

I really just can't imagine anyone but John Howard being PM - he's been there since I was in year three ;_;

Im still predicting some last minute collapse of support for labour

 

[withoutaface]

Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

A few comments post-budget:
1. At the moment the only thing that really separates the two parties is IR policy. Rudd and Howard are both pushing "me too"-ism to a new level. I think as the election approaches this will be a strength for the Howard government, because with the current stream of news articles along the lines of "Building costs to rise over Rudd election 'risk'", things will only get worse for Rudd. His policy is offering nothing substantial to counter the supposed 'unfairness' of workchoices, and has the added burden that the Unions are riding on its coat-tails and restricting where it can go (it's a positive in advertising terms, but the public will, I think, see a party that's less about it's charismatic leader and more about being a puppet for the Unions as a negative).
2. Labor has announced bugger all in the way of how they would do the budget differently so far. They will progressively announce a flotilla of spending promises as the election approaches, and so it is really important that the Coalition manages to get a bounce in the polls out of the budget, because things will inch a few percentage points away from them because of this spending.
3. Come election week, a large number of people are going to flock back to Howard because of the wonders of incumbency, he just needs to put himself within striking distance so he can ride this and whatever rabbit he has left in his hat (I'm thinking a scare campaign based on the effects of rolling back IR) home.

I really just can't imagine anyone but John Howard being PM - he's been there since I was in year three ;_;

Im still predicting some last minute collapse of support for labour

If it's going to happen, it won't be last minute. Rudd's too intelligent to make a gaffe and leave himself open to a scare campaign, it'll be from a gradual loss of sheen and a realisation that having a nice looking puppet doesn't change the fact that he's still having his strings pulled.

Prediction: Howard by the skin of his teeth, but senate majority, if retained, will be even more sketchy due to the Qld Nats looking like they'll depose Boswell in favour of another candidate in the Joyce mould.

EDIT: I'd be interested to hear more of wheredanton's comments now that the budget seems to have had minimal effects on the polls, though.

 

[WWJD_2005]

Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

The thing about Rudd is, that he is the first viable alternative the ALP

Not really... Howard's rarely been extremely popular (other than perhaps against latham). Rudd is probably no better a man than Beazley imo, it was just that Beazley had already had his shot and Rudd was able to come in at just the right time. I think it's possible that a large number of usually undecided voters have gotten sick and tired with this government and it may already be impossible for the coalition to win back their support.

 

[Iron]

Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

I think change for the sake of change will be a powerful issue. Rudd has foiled all previous attempts to mud up his name, so I think it will work out for him.

 

[frog12986]

There will not be a "Ruddslide." If he does win it will be by the slimmest of margins.

I disagree. The ALP primary vote in the polls has consistently ranged between 47-50%. Again, this type of poll consistency is unprecedented.
In 1983, the ALP achieved a primary vote of 49%, and in 1996 the Coalition achieved a primary vote of around 47%, each resulting in a change of government.

The trend of the polls would suggest that this is likely.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Yarghghghghghgh! I hereby propose that everyone stops talking about these awfuly inaccurate, and largely bland polls! Everything that has been said, has been said. We all know what is going on, we all read the papers and watch the news. I guess this is more or less a bother for me based on the fact that media is focusing more on polls than policy this term (hyperbole), rather than growing tired of talking about 'em. But you know.

I'd also agree that the last week is going to be the thing to watch out for though, and that things could change dramatically from now until then, especially if ol' Ruddy keeps going back on the things that are keeping him popular.

 

[Iron]

Even if he doesnt win, which is probably likely, Labor's set to get a healthy injection of talent, which will make it unbeatable the second time around.
Post-election, who knows. Because the impression will be that anyone could beat Costello, some stars might be tempted to take a stab at Rudd, ala Hawke

 

[Raginsheep]

That is if Howard retires and Costello is the one chosen to replace him.

 

[withoutaface]

I disagree. The ALP primary vote in the polls has consistently ranged between 47-50%. Again, this type of poll consistency is unprecedented.
In 1983, the ALP achieved a primary vote of 49%, and in 1996 the Coalition achieved a primary vote of around 47%, each resulting in a change of government.

The trend of the polls would suggest that this is likely.

Labor need to poll ~52% to win a majority because of the disproportionate number of votes they have locked up in safe seats.

 

[frog12986]

Labor need to poll ~52% to win a majority because of the disproportionate number of votes they have locked up in safe seats.

I'm aware of that, but with the flow of preferences at about 50-65% to the ALP, there would be no doubt that with those primaries, it would be enough.

 

[jb_nc]

I'll say it now: Rudd has won

Richard Farmer writes:

It happens in many forms of life – there is safety in sticking with the herd.

They used to say of IT managers that no one ever got sacked for buying IBM even if the computer system turned out to be a disaster. Fund managers retreat into the safety of index funds so they can never be judged as worse than the market. And journalists avoid being the only one to say that Labor looks like winning an election. Better to be proved wrong saying it will be a close run thing than to risk looking ridiculous when John Howard gets returned again.

And so it is at the moment when opinion poll after opinion poll shows Kevin Rudd a clear cut favourite to become Prime Minister. The search is always on to find a reason why the polls are wrong. There are so many ifs, buts and maybes trotted out by we political pundits that an ordinary reader must wonder why newspapers bother to publish such unhelpful things as Newspoll at all.

So here goes. Only a miracle will save the Howard Government from losing the next election. The trend of the Newspoll is clear as the graph of results comparing this year with the last election year of 2004 shows. Odds of $1.90 for $1 are a steal. Get in to this great value with your ears back.

And remember to call me a complete fool when John Howard wins the next election.​

From Today's Crikey.

 

[jb_nc]

Yeah so how much how are putting down jn_bc?

???

 

[frog12986]

I'm going to put $100-$200 on a Labor victory.. the odds will only shorten here on in..

 

[wce06]

Very true. Beazley actually won the election on a two party preffered basis in 1998, but did not win a majority of seats:

Two Party Preferred
ALP - 50.98
Coalition - 49.02

Does anyone else find this slightly disturbing in terms of democratic ideals? I guess there's no real other way to do it if we have representative members. I think it might hurt libs a bit more, due to concentration in affluent seats, but I guess Nats might pull a few seats with less overall constituents....

I have a feeling howard might win, but in any case, it will not be the blowout (for either party) that polls are suggesting. Will be interesting to see how far ALP push the 'howard is a liar' line with the campaign. If the libs get the upper hand as the (apparent) better economic managers, i think ALP might really push the govt's history in terms of children overboard, iraq, WMD etc etc...


ALSO, this article "Liberals have lost social conscience" http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21731008-29277,00.html?from=public_rss
Very interesting I thought, and some of it pretty accurate.

Rudd: "But today the change is great indeed," the Labor leader told the gathering.
"What I see on the other side of politics is a political party that believes in both a market economy and a market society, and there's the difference."

"Market society", what does everyone think about that? I think Rudd makes a good point about a (managed) market economy (the best option IMO) and going to far in terms of competition ruling over all aspects of society.

 

[Iron]

I think the Market society goes hand in hand with market economy. Saying that you're bringing a human face to globalisation is a bit of a wank. You cant change the essential rules and players. Blair worked that out, and Latham would have.
There's no such thing as a third way.

Society is pretty fucked. We congratulate ourselves on our tolerance and liberalism, but it only masks the fact that we dont give a shit about what anyone else but our immediate group do. But no doubt Rudd will have a better social policy. It will just be within very tight confines laid out by the IMF/WB blegh, and likely never touch the massive lack of social cohesion (alarming depression/suicide/alienation rates).
The point is that the market economy hasn't, and never will, give people the happiness they really want; it's actually counter-productive to it. Saying this will no doubt give Ruddy some points.

 

[wce06]

I think the Market society goes hand in hand with market economy. Saying that you're bringing a human face to globalisation is a bit of a wank. You cant change the essential rules and players. Blair worked that out, and Latham would have.
There's no such thing as a third way.

Society is pretty fucked. We congratulate ourselves on our tolerance and liberalism, but it only masks the fact that we dont give a shit about what anyone else but our immediate group do. But no doubt Rudd will have a better social policy. It will just be within very tight confines laid out by the IMF/WB blegh, and likely never touch the massive lack of social cohesion (alarming depression/suicide/alienation rates).
The point is that the market economy hasn't, and never will, give people the happiness they really want; it's actually counter-productive to it. Saying this will no doubt give Ruddy some points.

I don't think that saying that will give Rudd points where it counts (unfortunately)....it sounds too pre-Australia's-mining/general-economy-boom. the idea of happiness now (for the chardonnay mcmansion owners) comes through tax cuts and unashamed capatilism on the whole...

I guess that's why Rudd's pushing his whole 'fiscal conservative line' - and that is not a bad idea at all - trying to distance himself from the brash, irresponsible economic image generated by howard (and latham to a degree).

 

[Iron]

I don't think that saying that will give Rudd points where it counts (unfortunately)....it sounds too pre-Australia's-mining/general-economy-boom. the idea of happiness now (for the chardonnay mcmansion owners) comes through tax cuts and unashamed capatilism on the whole...

No it doesnt. They're not happy at all. They're greedy because the system demands them to be.
You see, people lost faith in government a long time ago. As a result, the government practically told society to run things themselves by privatising and throwing people's money back in their faces. Therefore we compete with eachother to gain the money which buys the things government used to supply.
Smith believed that the invisible hand would somehow sort society out, but I believe that that's impossible when everyone has to be greedy and fiercly competitive in order to survive comfortably.
Surveys suggest that people would rather be taxed more, if it means better services. Europe taxes madly in exchange for civilisation. They have capitalism right.

 

[jb_nc]

Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

i think ALP might really push the govt's history in terms of children overboard, iraq, WMD etc etc...

Labor concurred with the Liberals over both going to war in Iraq and that Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction. I think there was an explicit sound bite with K. M. Rudd in agreement as he was the Shadow Foreign Minister. They daren't bring children overboard up because border protection is something the Coalition has thoroughly in their corner and would probably backfire.

Oh, not to mention, the people that care about that are going to be voting Labor anyway.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

Labor concurred with the Liberals over both going to war in Iraq and that Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction. I think there was an explicit sound bite with K. M. Rudd in agreement as he was the Shadow Foreign Minister.

"There is no debate or dispute as to whether Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. He does."

 

[Iron]

Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

No. Labor opposed Iraq.
Rudd is on record saying Saddam is a bad man and has weapons.