From today’s Crikey email:
Ministers have been singing from the same song sheet since Julie Bishop appeared on Lateline on Monday night – the budget bounce is coming – in about two months when tax cuts appear in pay packets and cheques pop up in the mail.
However, the most salient numbers in Newspoll have been entirely ignored by the punditariat (including by The Australian who commissioned it). One would imagine politicians might have been paying closer attention.
Newspoll actually conducted two polls – one on voting intentions and a specific poll on the reception of the budget. The latter has been very selectively covered – the figures about general approval for the budget have been cited, but there has been no commentary at all on a question Newspoll asked on whether the budget would shift votes.
26% of voters told Newspoll they would be more likely to vote for Labor as a result of the budget. 19% said the Coalition, and 49% said it would make no difference. The Labor budget bounce effect was present across all age groups and income levels.
So voters have already made up their minds – and it could be reasonably inferred that they’ve decided that they’re not eating the political carrot. But this goes unmentioned by the punditariat.
But what’s equally puzzling is the government’s tactics.
Even discussion by Costello and other Ministers, and the terms in which they’ve talked about the (now delayed by two months) budget bounce, suggests a demand for gratitude rather than an attempt to frame its benefits positively. They’d have done better to observe the PM’s rule about not engaging in commentary. But his denial that the budget is an electoral smoke and mirrors trick also reinforces Labor’s narrative.
And even more oddly, Costello rested on his laurels after budget night. Far from the traditional practice of a sustained campaign to sell the budget, the government immediately changed the topic – to Kevin Rudd.
Howard and Costello hardly mentioned the virtues of the budget on Friday, spending the day assailing Rudd’s budget reply and economic credentials. Monday was devoted to catch up politics, trying to counter Labor’s education credentials. Yesterday we had Ministers talking about why students weren’t paying attention in their masterclass.
These tactics reinforce the perception that the Coalition only cares about politics, and they allowed Rudd to regain the agenda a day after their supposed trump card was played. There were always certain risks in Rudd’s attempt to act like an incumbent, but the government seem to have fallen for the biggest political trap of all.
At the moment they’re coming across more like the Beazley opposition on speed, with a scattergun approach to policy, an overwhelmingly reactive and negative focus, and a complacency about their election prospects no matter what the voters think.
No wonder there are rumours, not so far reported in the papers, that Howard’s political touch actually departed when Arthur Sinodinos walked out the door, and that Costello has privately written off the government’s chances.
Costello and his mates’ anger at the ingratitude of the electorate has an obvious remedy. They should follow Brecht’s advice, dissolve the people and elect another.
I think contrary to what the media was saying, politically the Budget was a failure because 1) its main theme, education, is one where the coalition will never beat Labor on credibility 2) tax cuts should have been targeted at consolidating the coalition’s own base rather than trying to steal Labor’s 3) it had little to say on the critical issue of climate change, which would have allowed Costello to pose himself as more up-to-date than Howard. Unfortunately this would have also amounted to a challenge to Howard and Costello is simply not up to it.
And, Id add, the faux backflip on Workchoices, timed for the Friday before the budget (avoiding scrutiny on 730 report, and elsewhere), played badly for them.
I dont know what they were thinking. Its a bit like introducing minor reforms to apartheid - its only an admission that your critics are right, and you lose the sense that you’re a conviction pollie.
The same people still hate it anyway, and the rest start to suspect they might have been right all along.
By making education a central part of the government’s platform for re-election Howard has effectively endorsed Labor’s values as being more important to Australia’s future than his own. This is stupid. If Howard wants to present his government as one with an eye on the future then he should be presenting a genuinely alternative vision based on values and ideas that are winners for the co-alition, not trying to fight the battle in an area where Labor already holds the high ground. He could choose rail infrastructure or roads, some sort enormous fancy new superannuation reform or major tax reform. Some sort of massive reform in federal / state relations that the state governments love which would wedge Rudd away from the Labor state premiers. Anything that presents a plan for the future on ground that suits the co-alition.
I don’t buy the argument that the co-alition is saving up things for the election. If they had an alternative plan they would have released it by now. Howard knows better than most politicians the longer he delays a policy release the less credibility it will have. The fact that the government is making such basic mistakes makes me wonder if Howard really was dependent on Arthur all along.
now ratty is trying to pull a Dali Llama ding dong
the dingbat
We’ll have to wait for the ‘massive’ (The Age’s description) advertising blitz on the ‘fairness test’. Then Rudd’s honeymoon (version 24.6) may be over.
I doubt Howard did himself any favours with the ’sense of humour’ comment either - it’s more than a little patronising and seems to suggest that they really did think that the public response to tax cuts would be automatic and favourable. As well, most of the commentary seems to be focusing on why Costello’s budget didn’t work, apparently without considering wether Rudd’s budget had any impact on voters, suggestive of a fair degree of myopia on the press’s part.
I thought the “sense of humour” comments were a bit strange and patronising as well. Howard sounded a little bit deflated yesterday I must say.
I like the analogy of “introducing minor reforms to apartheid”. That really sums up his backflip in one line.
Hey if Kruddy gets up then we’ll get a brand spanking new Department of Homeland Security!
And the same or even more state aid for private schools!
And back-up for all the Alternative Liberal Party police states!
And the Nats will continue to get 11 seats for their million votes while the Greens get zero!
And the Queen of England and her degenerate Nazi spawn will continue to reign over us!
And Kruddy will surely want closer ties with red fascist China and Vietnam!
And the rich will get richer and the poor poorer!
And Mark Latham will be proven right about local democratic socialism.
And our new Prime Minister will be a right-to-life, right-wing religious nut-case.
I can’t frikkin wait.
Desparate policy preparation
I believe Mark is correct re: Arthur Sinodinos (except for the spelling of “Sinodinos”) and I’ve said as much since late ‘06 when Sinodinos resigned (about the resignation that is, not Mark’s spelling ;-).
The Howard we’ve seen in the last 7 months much more closely resembles the Mr 18% of 1988, and much less the presidential Howard of the period corresponding to Sinodinos’ stewardship as his Chief of Staff.
Of course correlation is not causation…well, not usually…
Oops, thanks, Mercurius.
Sinidinos , Sinodinos.
Let’s call the whole thing off.
All sounds Greek to me, Mercurius.
Why oh why, would this obviously canny chap have supported the forces of evil, when it is likely his forefathers invented democracy? As a Goldstein, you must know.
Maybe Sinodinos being the astute man he is could see all this on the horizon and pulled stumps at the right time. I bet there are a few in the Coalition now that wished Howard had done the same thing.
Right on both counts in my view.
And this won’t help Ratty’s re-election chances in the Coathanger City.
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,21742867-5005361,00.html
Nor will the fact that his great mate George Bush will be there.
Someone posted this comparison on the polls of 2004 and 2007 on Peter Hartcher’s new blog and it just goes to show that the pundits are all still waiting for that bounce with baited breath. A bounce is bound to occur according to the current wisdom because in 2004 Mark Latham’s ratings started to head southwards after the budget so we now have to wait two more frickin’ months before we get some real indication of the public mood. Besides Tony Blair is saying that the election is likely to be a close contest and now Peter Hartcher is ruminating that perhaps polls are unreliable these days.
So does that mean that Ratty could be winning after all?
Many good contributions here:
1. The Budget was a Labor Budget. Clearly, this is what people want at the moment. At the last couple of elections Labor has presented as Liberal Lite. Why would the puntrs go for a substitute when they can have the real thing? Similarly, why would the punters go for Costello’s Labor Lite budget when you can have the real thing with Rudd?
2. Work Choices is a disaster for the Libs and has been for some time. The Libs are dead, they just don’t know it yet! The blue collar Howard battlers are mightily pissed that after years of support Howard has cut their penalty rates and tipped the balance in favour of the employers. I hope Big Business keeps whinging about Rudd and Labor’s alternative. The numbers are in and the community is on Rudd’s side.
3. The Libs are currently reacting like “How could the electorate be so ungrateful after all we have done for them. Reality check time. What have you done for us lately?
4. There is a myth going round that governments don’t change in good times.
5. Howard’s age is an elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about.
6. Interest rate rises in the last three years are a betrayal to highly geared families. They aren’t listening to the bulldust and blandishments about looking at the fine print.
The only chance the Libs have is if they “retire” Howard.
St Margaret, I noticed Hartcher’s new excursion into blogging.
I guess it wouldn’t be an MSM blog without throwing every dumb cliche about the blogosphere into the first post!
It has also been a curious tactic for Hockey (J-Ho V2.0) to endorse claims that builders will build a “Rudd-risk” into their quotes. This sounds like “vote for who we want or else” coming from certain pressure groups. As a voter I don’t take to kindly to extortion or bullying, a quality that I reckon other voters are starting to associate freely with the Coalition, given the WorkChoices legislation etc. etc.
Ain’t it great to sense the whiff of panic from Howard. He is sounding ever more shrill and ever more desperate with each day that passes, as it gradually dawns on him that he is blowing his placing in the conservative pantheon. Costello ain’t stupid, he knows that the best he can ever get is the chance to lead a coalition opposition with little or no chance to ever be PM. What amazes me is the good grace with which he is keeping his mouth shut. Howard has even gone out of his way to deny the existence of a 2007 version of the 1996 factor - what he himself termed as the electorate waiting for PJK with a baseball bat - to the point where every observer knows that is exactly what he is worried about. Guess those 11 years of lies and weasel words are coming home to roost…
Cheers
PS. What are the odds on Jeanette having a relapse of her cancer in the next three months and thus giving Howard an out…..?
Cheers.
It’s in Costello’s best interests, I think. That way Howard huggers can’t blame anyone but the man himself for the disaster if it comes to pass.
Surely bringing in the building industry highlights the real problem with the coalition’s attack on Rudd’s IR policies – there is no real difference between the two. As KO’B on 7.30 report picked Howard up on, the major builders have no problem with Rudd’s proposals. Nor is it out of bounds that the mining industry will reach some compromise with Labor. As Keating noted, there is no way that Rudd/Gillard want to go back to the collective bargaining before he started to dismantle it. Labor still believes in allowing individual contracts.
It may be comfort to the unions that Workchoices is vote-decider but I don’t think it is reality. Workchoices is just a means of expressing unhappiness with the government. When Howard backed down on it, it had no impact whatsoever. People just found some other reason to vote Labor.
Look at the NSW election. The outer suburban seats did not swing to the Libs apparently beacause of Work Choices.
Maybe it was a warning to Howard which they have arrogantly ignored.
Working class families are being screwed over in the biggest boom in our lifetime.
Not happy Jan!
Peter Brent at Mumble has speculated on this very thing.
If I may mix a metaphor, it seems the punters have already sharpened their baseball bats.
Peter Hartcher seems to think those same families can still be “bought” back by Howard. You see it is just like flicking on and off a light switch and is probably illustrative of the contempt that Hartcher has for that particular voting block. Either that or he is plain stupid, take your pick.
….The baseball bates were for Keating alone.
For Ratty, it’ll be…Ratsak??
Guido, for what it’s worth i’ll have an op-ed in The Age Thursday scorning the IR ads content and timing.
At the risk of raining at parade time, several factors will ensure the polls swing significantly back to the government:
* Consumer confidence is v.high and there’s next-to-zilch chance of an interest rate rise to kill off the governnment. The macro-economics are hugely in the government’s favour. (Less understood is the micro-economics, or rather how patchy prosperity is - in some regions and industries, jobs are insecure and wages stagnant).
* Labor has pre-emptorily pitched ads about Rudd: what a nice provincial guy he is and a fiscal conservative. Their effect is not guaranteed to last.
* Howard’s not on the nose - his plus/minus ratings are equal. The Libs just have to sell the ‘better the devil you know’ line.
Factors that will help Labor over coming months:
* Ratty growing rattier, and his rattled troops. The government is looking and sounding tired and oppositional.
* APEC, which Howard scheduled to look Presidential, is shaping as a blight for Sydneysiders. The PM doesn’t understand that people will weather disruption for events with a democratic flavour, like well-ticketed big sporting events or celebrations. Talkfests of world leaders, however worthy, exclude people.
It’s my mixed metaphor, I can take my bat and ball and cry if I want to.
Maybe for Howard it will be Ratbatsack
Interesting speculation on Howard’s departure.
On the one hand, he’s certainly the type of character who would prefer an apres moi le deluge disaster for the Liberal Party under Costello, than to lose himself with an enduring rep of having damaged the party by outstaying his political lifespan.
But …only if his demise were guaranteed.
It isnt quite like that - and my guess is he’ll live in hope and denial till its too late to go. And at some point it will get too close to the poll date - and senior Libs simply wont let him bow out. And the later it gets - the more it will be like he persoanlly lost it for the Libs either way.
So how long has he got? Surely it would have to happen within the six weeks, at the absolute latest.
I dont see that as likely. The Rat’s going full term!
P.Shrike - I love your blog: fresh ideas wrapped in fine prose.
But I’m not sure what you mean in the IR terms you use.
Yes, Labor won’t go back to pre-1993 collective bargaining in the sense of industry wide bargaining (the award system was always just a variant of that). But Gillard is only following Labor values in championing collective bargaining in the sense of preserving the union role in enterprise bargaining.
As for Labor believing in individual contracts, yes, common law contracts were always fine for workers outside the industrial relations system, and for over-award payments. But AWAs aren’t ‘contracts’ and the media confuse things by using that term. They are a statutory means of first, de-collectivising workplaces and, secondarily, removing traditional conditions. I’d be surprised if Labor permits statutory individual agreements, except say for wages over $90k.
This was on channel 7 news in Adelaide tonight.
“The Federal Government is keeping secret crucial details of its $10 billion rescue plan for the Murray-Darling, saying the public has no right to know.
Seven News has also discovered that key government departments were locked out of the process altogether. The documents below were obtained under Freedom of Information (FOI) laws.”
http://seven.com.au/news/profile_water_foi1
The link below is to the transcript of the TV report.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/070516/23/13hce.html
…But what’s equally puzzling is the government’s tactics.
…Costello has privately written off the government’s chances.
I’ve cynically wondered whether Liberal Party strategists want to lose the coming election.
Oh yeah? The only factor I can see at work here in this argument is the one that says that voting intention is so far skewed towards Labor, it must, repeat must, swing back towards a closer contest. The above comment was clearly one made in ignorance (as are most comments made by the ‘commentaritat’(sic?)) of what real people really think and why they think it.
Yeah, the economy is going great guns, employment is up, tax cuts are a’coming and consumer confidence is sky high. But I suspect that in this day and age this is nothing less than what all voters, no matter what their ideological orientation, expect of the government, no matter its ideological orientation, regardless of whether it is Labor OR Coalition. After all, haven’t we been hearing from both sides now - for years - that ideology is dead and buried. So voters won’t be inclined to reward the Howard government for merely doing what they should have been able to do anyway. After all, they are the expert managers of the economy, ain’t they.
The way I see it, voters out there have been waiting for a half way electable opposition to come along so they can pay Howard back for the years of lies and weasel words they have been subjected to. Children Overboard, the Never-Ever GST, the WMD in Iraq, the AWB scandal, etc etc etc etc.
So my prediction is that the polls will not swing back towards the government to any great degree. I predict that they will stay consistently poor, and Howard will take the opportunity - courtesy of his wife’s health - to bail early and leave the whole sorry mess in the lap of Costello. Should be fascinating viewing…
Cheers….
Yes, it’s all a bit surreal. There is no link between economic conditions and re-election that’s invariable. Just ask Al Gore or the Canadian Liberals.
Labor may well win big.
I’ve been following the polls for months now and since atleast the middle of Feb the ALP has scored 57%, while the Government has a good economy and lots of money to spent, but I can’t see it saving them.
I’ve cynically wondered whether Liberal Party strategists want to lose the coming election.
Sorry, but that is stupid. In the Australian system that guarantees they will be out of power for at least nine years.
Yeah, and 57% seems to be where Labors “State” vote is give or take. maybe the punters like what Labor Governments do for them.
I think in that list you are looking at a rationalisation of why some people think the polls may turn rather than any concrete evidence. If these current polls are centred around “workchoices” and I believe they are, then it is hard to see how a glance at the latest consumer confidence data is going to change that. I can see how these things give comfort to some people though.
John Howard weems to be asking for twenty good reasons why he should be thrown out.
And the punters are providing them!
Mark on 16 May 2007 at 2:30 pm
26% of voters told Newspoll they would be more likely to vote for Labor as a result of the budget. 19% said the Coalition, and 49% said it would make no difference. The Labor budget bounce effect was present across all age groups and income levels.
So voters have already made up their minds – and it could be reasonably inferred that they’ve decided that they’re not eating the political carrot. But this goes unmentioned by the punditariat.
Mark I really think you have an unhealthy obsession with the Oz political pundits. No one outside of the Oz editorial board takes them all that seriously. Its eating away at you for some reason. Do you want Tim Dunlop’s job?
But you have fallen for the same vices that you accuse the Oz pundits: short-sighted focus on the moment-to-moment state of the polling horse-race, selective statistical interpretation, spinning the Budget as a boost for the ALP and coy rumour-mongering from un-named sources.
I think I speak for every sentient being when I concede that you have stated the bleeding obvious: the political pundits in the Australian are right-wing spin-doctors for the Howard govt.
If you want to be fair to your readers you have to let them make up their own minds by informing them of all the evidence, pro- and contra- to a particular line that you are pushing. You have not done so in this instance.
You wont mind me telling them something that they dont know. Drilling down into the Newspoll you vaguely pointed to we find some interesting data that escaped your attention.
For instance, the Newspoll shows that the recent Costello budget has the best “good for the Australian economy” rating since polling began in 1992: net positive 48%
It also has the highest best “better off for me personally” rating since polling began in 1992: net positive 22%.
These polling data are surely relevant when assessing the political impact of the budget. No doubt they in part reflect popular affection for the economic boom rather than any special love for LN/P policy.
Still, some of it may rub off on the LN/P. Over the long run, end of term economics is still the single best predictor of electoral results. This seems to a premise of most punditry, and it is not to be airly dismissed in the heat of Ruddophilia.
Also you should introduce some historical perspective here. Remind readers that budget political bounces tend to be slow and lagging behind policies. The pundits incorrectly predicted a budget bounce back in 2004, when Latham was polling strongly. Do I need to remind you the outcome six months later?
Of course the PM has never had it so bad this late in the game. This is the conclusion of the Oz’s excellent chief Steve Lewis, a political pundit whose work does not fit your News Ltd demonology. This article refutes your claim that the LN/P’s poor polls incidental of the budget “goes unmentioned by the punditariat”.
Its also clear that times up for the LN/P. Its poll ratings have been on a long slide since late 2004 when Latham stumbled off-stage. It slumped badly in mid 2006 as WC kicked in and fell off a cliff in early 2007 as Rudd-o-mania gathered momentum.
Howard is almost certainly for the drop. But dont count your chickens before they are hatched.
Howard has the drop on Rudd in cultural identity and national security policies. An (unlikely) crisis in these key areas could still swing things Howard’s way.
No. He has provided the reasons as to why he SHOULD be thrown out. And he ain’t doing any good at providing any reasons as to why he shouldn’t…
Cheers…
What Greensborough Growler said.
Actually I have nothing useful to contribute, I just wanted to use that name.
DAFFY DUCK (taking notes): Name?
SHROPSHIRE SLASHER: Shropshire Slasher.
DAFFY DUCK: Occupation?
SHROPSHIRE SLASHER: Shropshire Slasher.
1998 Labor win the majority of the 2pp but lose the election. Howard hangs on to the “battlers”.
2001 9/11 and Tampa. 80% support for what the government did. Everybody shit scared!
2004 Not ready to change. Latham unconvincing in the end.
2007 Fill in the blanks!
Jack, I’m well aware of the other figures, which as I said had been commented on. Hence I wanted to draw attention to those which were curiously ommitted, but which I think show that perceptions about how “good” the budget is aren’t shifting votes.
And I’m not talking about momentary shifts - I’m talking about an extremely consistent result repeated over and over again for months.
I’ve offered my thoughts both on whether everything should be seen against past election years (no, because the circumstances are different in many respects) and also on my interpretation of 2004 at greater length elsewhere:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5684
I’m also offering some analysis of why the government’s political tactics are appalling (and have been for some months). They have certainly been much better in previous years, and that’s something that isn’t being remarked on.
And I’ve already mentioned to you on another thread that I make no claim that Rudd will win the election. I believe that if the current trends persist, he will. If they continue as we get closer and closer to the election, the more likely a Labor win becomes. But they may not.
Paul Kelly’s still backing Howard
Reminds me of Lucky’s think piece in Waiting for Godot.
Oh, and, Jack, you asked about my motivation.
I’m not after Tim’s job - he’s doing a great one and I’m happy with my own!
Again, as I said on the Commentariat v. the People thread, I don’t believe the commentariat have much influence on voting intentions. They might influence politics in the sense that if politicians heed their view, it influences them. But I think they’re largely irrelevant to swaying votes.
My concern is that the near monopoly of stock standard press gallery political analysis in this country does “all of us” a disservice.
Meanwhile, back in la-la land:
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/paulkelly/index.php/theaustralian/comments/a_new_class_of_political_battle
I condemn the fact that the electorate won’t prostitute themselves!
Paul Kelly relies on the information he receives through polls. These add to the bank of information he keeps which reflect historical averages statistically smoothed so that aberrant data is discounted.
Don’t mean Jack! The swing is on and these commentariat need to get with the program.
I know it requires eating a big shit sandwich of hubris and hyperbole. But, it must be done soon or else people might start saying they don’t know what they are talking about and are out of touch with the rest of Australia.
Just like the Libs.
Oh dear. Jokin’ Joe’s just made a goose of himself on Lateline again, and another fine effort by Tony Jones who bore in on the government’s position on Workchoices (Q: ‘So any more changes before the election?’ A:’No. Maybe. Look, behind you!’)
Am I imagining things or have the ministerial grandees all started looking a bit green around the gills since the beginning of this week?
Easy. Just get a spin doctor on board and repackage it as the Turd De Jour…..
Mark wrote:
Mark, most of the coverage is about propping up the Howard government.
Given News Ltd’s abhorrent pro-Howard & ideological right wing bias one has to wonder if Labor would ever consider dismantling Rupert’s newspaper empire in a bid to diversify the print media.
Too late , this trick has already been used, it was called the Budget.
Speaking of Biased Media, from across the Nullabor, The West Australian makes the Peoples Daily look like the Wall Street Journal.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21744582-7582,00.html
Speaking of Wall Street Journal type analogies, I think the Tories could well be seeing the confirmation of a familiar pattern developing from the latest polling.
Once the polls break above the last dip they tend to accelerate in the direction the major trend was going initially. Not good news for The Government I’m afraid and they of all people would be aware of what this means.
Meanwhile Workchoices has become a dirty word in Federal Government Circles much like Good Economic Management apparently.
Joe Hockey reckons they’ll have it all sorted and provides a clue as to when the election will be called: once WorkChoices has been tweaked enough that it’s not a problem at the polls.
If that is typical of the standard of Federal Government Ministers these days then they are in serious trouble. That has got to be one of the worst interviews ever given by a Minister in this country ever!
Not exactly the brightest spark to fly off the angle-grinder, is he?
It’s politicians speaking that level of drivel that give politicians a bad name. Looks like the couple of reshuffles earlier this year were as big a flop as Worst Choices. Now they are not only not fit for Government they wouldn’t even qualify as fit for Opposition.
Only an anti - Government tidal wave is the only short term solution to cleaning debris like this Minister out of the Parliament. How is the Government going to handle the heat and pressure of an election campaign when one of their favourite and allegedly strongest areas is being handled by a fool?
One suspects that it might just be a ship of fools.
Mark, Al Gore wasn’t the incumbent President.
True the Canadian Tories managed a minority govt last year - after 13 years in the wilderness. But the Canadian Grits were deeply wounded by Sponsor/Adgate - a hell of a scandal relative to those we’ve had, and a sign that whilst Canadian governance is no less corrupt than elsewhere, Canadian institutions/democracy is more likely to respond seriously to scandal. Even then, they won several big states, and only lost 10% of the seats (if Howard lost 10% of the seats in Parl, he’d still hold office).
Mick, I’m well aware that stats like ‘4.1% wage rise’ mask a huge imbalance between those already on good pay and many at the bottom. The same could have been said in 2004 though, when the economy was less strong than today.
No, Al Gore wasn’t the incumbent president, Graeme, but he was vice-president from the incumbent party at a time of economic sunshine.
It might interest you to go back and have a look at all the models which political scientists constructed in 2000 all of which purported to show correlations between economic indicators and the success of the incumbent political party. From memory, Gore was supposed to get around 50-54% of the vote.
Yes, but there wasn’t a plausible Opposition Leader then.
Ooh, ooh, now the blogosphere will be respeckterble now that Peter Harcher’s deigned to come down from the heights and edumercate us all.
Ooh, ooh, I’m not sure that a precious MSM Writer like myself should be wallowing with this hoi polloi, many of which I’ve obviously failed to check out! I feel so dirty!
Ooh, ooh, I’m so serious, even if I do write about animals it must be with a Higher Purpose! Which, of course, no one in the blogosphere would do, according to my extensive research!
Something tells me there might be a bit of it coming your way, if you behave in the ’sphere like Marie Antoinette in her faux dairy. Oh, sorry! Animals again. D’oh! You see, us bloggers just can’t help ourselves.
What a f’in tool.
Peter, you could be half as good as JQ’s, Barista’s or Chris Clarke’s left toenail if you tried hard enough. Maybe.
Aw come on Helen, be nice to him - he’s a virgin!
Mark, indeed ‘Rudd is no Latham’.
Gore’s failure may have been to distance himself from the incumbent Bubba, without having enough charisma or fresh policy to fall back on. Who knows?
But the US is sufficiently decentralised and institutionally that no-one can straight-facedly claim ‘credit’ for economic conditions there. Australian parties, federalism and executive government is so much more controlled and centralised that the Feds are able, rightly or not, to corner credit for economic sunshine.