The SMH has a rather interesting feature today where they’ve asked five writers to explain Rudd’s appeal from different perspectives. Peter Hartcher reports on the reactions of shoppers at Mt Gravatt to a recent Rudd walkabout, and finds Brisbane suburbanites mirroring the results of the Galaxy Poll last week:
In other words, by an overwhelming two to one, they were intending to vote Labor for anti-Howard reasons rather than pro-Rudd motives.
Social researcher Hugh Mackay agrees:
However, the perceptions of Rudd are not the key to this election. The real question is not “What do we like about Kevin?” but “What don’t we like about John?” Why does the man who seemed invincible in 2001 and 2004 seem vulnerable now?
However, I think he could have made more of Howard’s supposed trump card, highlighting the distinction Bill Bowtell recently made in The Quarterly Essay between the “lived economy” and the economy as abstraction:
His never-had-it-so-good rhetoric goes down well in the top half of the economic heap, though with average earnings at $44,000, plenty of Australians are doing it tough and wondering what all the fuss is about.
Gabrielle Trainor, a PR partner, focusses on Rudd’s persona:
Kevin’s also brainy (we like them brainy, but not arrogant). He’s articulate. He’s fresh, he’s contemporary, but not groovy. Not sexy. Utterly smart casual. He’s a family guy with kids and a nice wife who’s done well and built a business. Good on her, the aspirational voters say. Kevin and she also go to church.
Pollster John Stirton points out that Labor averaged 53% of the 2PP under Beazley after WorkChoices was introduced:
His record-breaking run has, in part, been a result of starting from a higher base.
Rudd has done well and has given renewed confidence to Labor. An approval rating in the mid to high 60s and a consistent lead as preferred prime minister are things that none of his predecessors achieved. But we need to go back further than last December’s leadership spill to find the real turning point in Labor’s fortunes.
In November 2005 the Government introduced its Work Choices bill into the Parliament. In the 10 months before the introduction of Work Choices, Labor averaged 50 per cent of the two-party vote in a seesawing contest. Between the introduction of Work Choices and Beazley’s departure just over a year later, Labor’s vote increased to an average of 53 per cent.
And CPD Director Miriam Lyons reinforces what I also think, for similar reasons to Stirton, is the key to Howard’s loss of electoral appeal - WorkChoices was an act of hubris which let the hubristic cat out of the bag, and smashed the “governing in the national interest” narrative to pieces. Much of what Howard has done since then has looked like playing catch up and cynical politics:
On the other hand, some situations do require leaders to make trade-offs between competing interests - and when that happens, voters like to know that the decision maker is on their side.
Over the past few years two things have made it clear that Howard can no longer claim to be battling “for all of us”. In the face of the public backlash against Work Choices and the overwhelming demand for decisive action on global warming, he looks like a man caught pulling a face when the wind changed. He may be trusted to keep interest rates low, but we don’t trust him to put the interests of our grandchildren above those of fossil fuel companies, or to put the interests of workers and their families above those of their employers.
Rudd may not represent all of us, but he is speaking (and listening) to more of us than is Howard. And in an election, more is all you need.
So the shorter SMH: Rudd’s a safe pair of hands, and oppositions don’t win elections, governments lose them.
What do LP readers think?
Should that be “governments lose them”, because that makes more sense to me.
Only on the second cup of coffee! Will correct, thanks, tigtog.
I think that a lot of people no longer like Howard because they believe that he has grown arrogant. There was a poll a while ago that indicated that 68% of people now think of him that way.
Workchoices is the main reason for this. And the fact is that Howard and the Libs were arrogant about Workchoices. It should not be forgoten that back in 2005 Howard told the Opposition that “in 12 months time, the people of Australia will wonder what all your hullabaloo was really about.�
I think that the suggestions coming out of Tony Abbott et al these days that the economy is good and therefore the Government must be good are only compounding Howard’s image problem.
Not sure its a vote shifter, but how this can be called “good economic management” is beyond me. http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/private-school-fees-rise-despite-windfall/2007/06/08/1181089329467.html
Seem private schools fees have been rising steadily since the increased federal grants. Way ahead fo inflation, in fact. So much for making it private schools “more accessible”, per the original cant. Its just a building boom at the Grammars.
Much like the risible private health insurance rebate. Premiums have risen regularly ahead of CPI. The insurers have essentaily taken the 30% rebate as clear price information that consumers can bear increased costs, of hmmm, hey …30%!
ie the net equivalent of flushing health dollars down the toilet. Gets my vote for worst piece of Australian social policy, ever.
I share your and Lyons’ interpretation. I think a significant segment of the electorate was shocked to realise, with Work Choices, that Howard and his government had been lying to them. That segment is probably only about 20 percent, but it’s enough to shift the polls.
Also, as you point out Mark, the subsequent flailing around of the Howard government has been surprisingly amateurish, adding credence to the suggestions that former chief of staff Sinodinos was indeed an important and clever strategist whose loss has not been rectified.
My own feeling is that the basic problem is that the excellent economic numbers are not matching some large fraction of the electorates perception of their own economic circumstances. This is due to two factors.
I think the job market might not be as good as the numbers suggest for about half the electorate. There is something happening that is not captured by the unemployment rate. Perhaps even though its easier to get a job, its easier to lose one too, or that on the job working conditions are not improving. I don’t know exactly what it is.
The other is that disposable income, (ie, income after interest payments). The huge amount of borrowing we have done is starting to catch up with us. Actual money in hand is not doing so well.
Possums Pollytics has a fantastic post about the relation between government/opposition support and disposable income here. “Why Howard is rooted in one simple graph.”
During the lead up to the US 96 presidential election the Clinton team had a similar problem. Despite the economy doing very well voters did not feel their own economic situation was good. Clinton’s team decided they could not talk about the great economic numbers which they found very frustrating. If the president went around saying what a great economic manager he was while voters perceived their own economic circumstances to be only average then he would look out of touch. I suspect that Howard (and the entire Australian punditocracy) faces this situation but has ended up making the mistake Clinton avoided.
Tuesday’s Late Night Live has a good discussion on this with Hugh Mackay and former Chairman of Newspoll Sol Lebovic.
Social researcher Hugh Mackay said on Late Night Live med week that contrary to the current Abbott rant that people are “sleepwalking” into a change of government, the electorate is actually re engaging en mass in the political debate for the first time in probably half a decade. In that process are remembering some of the things that have happened under Howard that were less than favourable and evaluating him in that light. This comment actually struck a chord with me because I have long thought that Howards’ greatest allies were the combination of general voter disengagement and fear (be it of terrorism or interest rate increases). We saw him harness fear of terrorism in 2001, and interest rates in 2004. In between times, the voters were too disengaged to follow what was really going on and see the cynicism that lies at the heart of Howard and his government.
Howard has always wanted us disengaged, fearful and in debt. That is how he has made the times suit him. Tne trouble is, that people now seem to be waking up.
Mackay is exactly wrong. He can’t - or won’t - remember that in 2004, a great deal of hype was put forward during the run up to the election about Latham’s bold new vision, how he represented a new way forward for the left, etc. Perhaps he’s just influenced too much by the polls, or perhaps he was one of the cheerleaders in 2004 and wants to gloss over that fact.
I don’t know whether the implementation of Work Choices really was an example of hubris or arrogance. It’s more an example of Real Politik: the Government knew they had the numbers, and decide to implement some changes they had long contemplated but were unable to implement without a sympathetic upper and lower house. When the legislation was first implemented just over a year ago, many commenters acknowledged that the Liberals had been calling for these sort of reforms for years.
I’d be inclined to think that Labor will make some gains in the coming election, but not enough to overcome the advantages gained by the Coalition in the previous election. But then, I’m cynical about election predictions: in reality, the election is a result of the choices and considerations of millions of Australian voters, while predictions are based on the theories and prejudices of the person making the prediction. (I have a similar attitude towards polls; they might reflect some interesting things about the Australian public, but they don’t really reflect the considered choices that Australians will make come election time. If that makes sense.).
I think that there may also be an amount of accord with voters and Rudd, that may have worked against Beasley, that being heritage. Rudd has an image as working to what he is now, Kim I feel had an image from his father, as being a politician by breeding. (Please don’t mention Dolly, how voters vote sometimes despairs me, albeit Dolly being Lib)
I associate with people in the bush and often I will be driving around with farmers and such and will hear ” Dad got a start on that old rough block”, or”shearing on so&so got my start”
These are the people who kicked out the Nationals both Fed/State here, and who seem to associate with Rudd, as a worker, and from a rural background.. The impression I get is that they have had a gut full of the incumbents and will back someone they can relate to, that being said, rural vote is far from city, however, both lots should take note, my electorate took away Nat/Lib and voted Indp, and there was no Labor presence here to give them a run, and times have changed, ask us about GST, BAS, WPA’s, Broadband, Medical, Roads, and we see on the news that Howard spent $1.5 billion in the last eleven tears(that was Freudian, I ‘ment years) on self promotion( I think that’s correct), and we take note……
Commentators may well have known that but I don’t think a lot of swinging voters did. Prior to 2005 Howard has projected an image of himself as a friend of the battlers not interested in ideology or the kinds of economic upheavals most Australians really do not like.
That’s an interesting graph at Pollypolitics SWIO. It suggests that the problem is indebtedness and affordability of housing rather than interest rates as such. I’m sure Wayne Swan knows and that he has told Gartrell.
Left E you have to understand that in education need is infinite. So there will always be a reason to enhance provisions in wealthy schools.
Also elite schools need to remain elite. Their clientele expect nothing less. Howard may want to make private schools affordable, but I’m sure some of them don’t want to be affordable to everyone.
What about the from what I can gather the growing pool of underemployed,the Invalid Pensioners who unlike the over 65s did not get the Cossie Bribe of 500.
And have to live on 250 a week and still pay the rates,the electricity and water bills in this over inflated state of WA,not that I would vote for the lying little bastard.
Also some are not as lucky as me and have to pay rent as well,it has me beat how they get by I know I struggle
1. all the hype about full employment. What about under employment ie the rise and rise of temporary causal work with more and more and more people trapped into casual job after casual job .
2. there is average wage, and the median wage. I suggest the median wage is much lower and the gap between the two growing larger quite quickly. Especially here in the wild west.
oops wrong thread…
oops right thread…
look away now, nothing to see here
John Ryan,I was going to write a post on how I agree with you,(too long) please accept that I do,and it’s people like you with a heart and understanding, that maybe, just maybe that a sense of fair play will happen. For that to happen, well, get rid of Howard, then work forward. Remember the cartoon, in the Aus; I think , when Howard, Reith(with mobile phone) and the others were feeding out of the trough, and a couple came up with some tin cups held out and Howard yelled at them ” what do you bludgers want”.
Hooray for John Ryan.Hooray forblacklight…the only geniuses here representing the actuality as it is.Then there are the single men with kids etc.And maybe the division between the mum dad divide as singles isnt so great when it comes to what government dreams up as help,but is penalty sometimes.Rudd doesnt go near any of these issues,because he thinks he is more worthy running with the hunters and single people will dump on the ALP to,if it continues to talk about the happy family bull.The world doesnt start when the ALP is in government..the crisis in N.S.W. as I type will see further housing problems,there is no lucky charm for the ALP after these events in N.S.W. And it is the end of Howard..the coal reality as boom has won a wet t-shirt award in winter.
Actually Blacklight, though underemployment is an important factor and whose figures should be published instead of the manipulated and misleading unemployment ones, the real measure is workforce underutilisation/utilisation, which should be the real measure of a how well any government is doing. There is plenty of info around the traps on this, including the ABS itself.
Also a little ot but how come the Feds always get the kudos for good employment figures when the figures themselves are always broken down by State? Surely employment is more a State thing and influence than Federal?
Commentators may well have known that but I don’t think a lot of swinging voters did. Prior to 2005 Howard has projected an image of himself as a friend of the battlers not interested in ideology or the kinds of economic upheavals most Australians really do not like.
Possibly, Chris. But one imagines swinging voters would think back and remember Howard’s implementation of the GST, which would probably qualify as an ‘ideology or… kind of economic upheaval.’ Especially considering John Hewson fought and lost an election on the issue. (And as Treasurer, Keating had argued for a similar idea before dropping it several elections prior)
Even those commentators were shocked when Howard set the 100 employees threshold for unfair dismissal.
Chris is right. And Howard went to an election on the GST. WorkChoices wasn’t mentioned in 2004. I don’t recall IR being an issue then.
I think that John Winston Howard rues the day he agreed to run with the WorkChoices. He knows he has two masters, the electorate and the corporations whose huge profits fund the Liberal Party and contribute to “good press” and fatten up the economy indicators.
On the other hand, the electorate, the slow-witted beast that it is, can occasionally be dumbly insolent and vote contrary to what it is told.
I think that very situation is close to being realised and Ratty is rattled - going from abject panic of the Henny-Pennyesque “sky is falling” variety to Abbo’s “they know not why they do, repent before it is too late” and $weetie’s “the economy is a finely wrought mechanism that could be upset by a hamfisted operator, don’t risk it”.
Hartcher’s analysis was basically a two-bob each-way argument but one of the experts brought drilled down to what Possum Pollytics graphs cleverly teases out and what some of us have been saying: that despite the booming economy, many in marginal electorate mortgage belts are looking into their wallets and saying at the end of the week: “where’s my share, dude?!” The $weetster arrogantly boasting what a fine job he has done in delivering astronomical profits to Shell and Coal and Allied and the miners is only cheesing people off, major.
In other words, the trickle-down is not trickling down.
Howard has undoubtedly made corporations and those who profit therefrom much, much better off. That is not the case for most votin’ viewers down the other end of the foodchain.
And the point is? We all get just one (1) vote, and those who are getting the rough end of the stick are more numerous. Especially in the marginals - the sans culottes are in traditional Labor-voting electorates, the ones making a quid, in the blue ribbon Liberal seats, leaving the punters with Mcmansions sending their wages directly to the banks and Johnny Simon.
Howard’s dilemma has always been resolved by paying off the corporates, and giving the minimum he can get away with (and lying) to the electorate. And this usually happens at the end of the electorate cycle. So this time. But this time, it is not working and Ratty cannot understand why.
I’m sure one of Mr Howard’s spies is reading this. So let me address myself to the Prime Minister.
Hi John. Pay attention. Now listen: the economy is ripping along, granted. BUT that is not all good news for the government. Punters are saying, if it is so great, where’s mine? Then they see bosses trousering $30 mil. for turning up to the office in a chauffeured Merc for a couple of years. Unfortunately, John, it is too late and you know it, don’t you. You were right the first time.
Miriam Lyons, quoted in the Herald article has got the idea:
“Australian voters think Howard has gone “a bridge too far”, for taking advantage of the Senate majority to go against the interests of those who gave it to him”.
Shortly before the election, in a lay-by on the Federal Highway leading into Canberra, John Howard says to Peter Costello, both astride their Harley choppers: “I think we blew it, man.”
The average wage is in the $800.00 pw. or more, yes?. Ask the average worker.
TimT I am not sure why a number of Liberal MPs and Liberal aligned commentators are reasured by the GST. It was indeed a major economic change and people didn’t like it. Howard almost lost an election on it well before his Government had time to start looking old and tired.
I also think the Libs “the sky wont/hasnt fall in” jibe has backfired. It sounds like (and is) a trivialisation of the electorates concerns which they are unlikely to appreciate.
The average wage is in the $800.00 pw. or more, yes?. Ask the average worker.
But trending downwards: ABS
Interesting thing I noticed in looking up this data is that the fastest downward trend is in the public sector, which also happens to be where there is the greatest preponderance for AWAs if I’m not mistaken.
This is the other problem the public see with Howard and why they have turned away from him (and Costello on this matter). The public keep hearing a double speak of WorkChoices delivering better wages with the skewed wages growth figures trotted out at every opportunity, but at the same time data keeps rolling out about wages growth being in check and trending downwards.
The government can’t have it both ways as much as it is trying to.
I look at the two parties. Gee as a would be free thinker and floating voter I’m thinking if this gets though I will be cosidered stuppid and place on Howards worthless heap.
Wages in the federal public service have fallen behind those in the state public service, at least in Qld.
Well, its also a story of cooked figures too, aint it?
Unemployment figures are just plain nonsense these days, so low is the weekly hour threshold - wont change under Rudd either.
Inflation figures exclude petrol (real world disjunction right there - back on punter st, bizarrely enough, it still gets paid out of weekly earnings)
Interest rates are hardly low - they’re among the highest in the OECD, and even thats less relevant the sheer size of the principal loan these days.
And thats before you even factor in Workchoices as a battler vote-killer.
Sadly for the Rodent, despite the best efforts of the press, the household economy doesnt actually run on spin.
Well his does. Spin has kept him in Kirribilli up to now. And in chesterfield armchairs, top hotels in Paris and wine cellars.
There’s a good old Marxian axiom about underconsumption at work here. Paradoxically, even though consumer spending is driving the economy, most punters’ income can’t pay for their needs without massive debt. Helps soak up some of the overproduction which acts as a deflationary factor, too.
/stops channelling Baran and Sweezy
Yep Kim, and dont forget Wallerstein. All our banks borrow at 2% from the US, flog it to ‘all of us’ complete losers at 6.5.
Where the friggin free market and the alleged FTA when you actually need it?
Parked at the big end of town with a “piss off punter” sign, thats where.
Anyway - does wonders for the trade deficit, no? Plus the nation is now parking most of its debt in a totally unproductive sector (housing).
That’s life in the semi-periphery, Lefty E!
/impressed!
Yes, one the many antimonies of the Antipodes, Kim.
Peter Dutton using our money wisely. No wonder he was given a top economic portfolio!
I’m depressed about the point made towards the end of Peter Hartcher’s article: ‘”There is a lot of vitriol about Howard but it’s mainly in the educated elites of Sydney and Melbourne - it’s not widely held in the community” says the Galaxy pollster…”‘
Really? By the sound of it you’d wonder why there were any Labor held seats at all outside Melbourne and Sydney. But am I dreaming? Are there any Labor held seats outside Melbourne and Sydney? Please, please, please any of you good bloggers and blog posters tell me!
Am I really just a cry in the wilderness, as insignificant as tears in rain? Is my aversion to Ratty just a product of my overheated imagination? Are all my objections to Ratty’s policies on the environment, industrial relations, foreign policy, aboriginal affairs all a tad unreasonable and extreme? Am I really that out of touch with the majority of Australians? I don’t know now and am in a quandary worse than Paris Hilton’s incarceration in prison! Tell me please I really need to know!!!!!!!!!
Mark’s obsessive-compulsive Howard-hatred disorder is so all-consuming he now has to twist the results of punditry and pollstering out of all recognition in order to extract his preferred political narrative. He quotes Hartcher’s summary of the Galax poll:
But mark fails to quote Hartcher’s run-down of the Galazy data:
Now can anyone out there familiar with basics of statistical methodology spot the majestic non-sequitur, jumping from the jumbled data to the sure conclusion? THe various poll classifications: “sick of John Howard”, “time for a change”, “Govt had lost their trust” do not all reflect badly on the person of John Howard. Therefore they are not “anti-Howard”.
THis valid conclusion is immediately born out later in the Hartcher article, which mark fails to quote, showing Newspoll figures which consistently report Howard’s approval ratings at relatively high levels for this late in his term of office:
I have been saying this for ages, although mark prefers to bury his head in the sand. FOr sure this chronic under-estimation of Howard is setting the Left up for the mother of all sucker punches.
So Hartcher makes the first blue, jumping to anti-Howard conclusions from vague and contradictory data. And mark compounds the error by two instances of selective non-quotation.
Its rich of mark to continually bucket the (minority of) pro-Howard pundits for their politicised mis-reading of data. Pundits from all sides of the ideological spectrum continue to misread political activity, neglecting their professional cares with political bias ie spin.
Surely, Jack, the finding that 68% of people think that John Howard is arrogant is an anti-Howard finding?
I don’t think so, Jack. For Howard read also “Howard government”.
And Jack even assuming that hate is an appropriate description of Marks attitude towards Howard (and I have some doubts about that) can you please explain why this would constitute a disorder?
Were all those Australians who hated and still hate Keating, Fraser, Whitlam and to a lesser extent Hawke, who was much less divisive than the aforementioned, suffering from “obsessive-compulsive _____-hatred disorder”?
I’ve said repeatedly that I don’t hate Howard. Hate is a very unproductive and distorting emotion. And anyway, he’s not worth the trouble.
Actually, I reckon a lot of Howard’s support is soft, based on lousy oppositions, and some very lazy spoonfed journalistic assessments of his strengths (eg TEH ECONOMY).
Rudd has been pretty successful at asking some basic questions about that narrative (is it just the boom? why is productivity at 0%? Are we going to quarry and be waiters forever - where’s the skill base for hi tech etc).
Compare with Keating, who demolishes the Howard/ Costello management argument easily, but in a fairly user-unfriendly language, and venue (ABC Lateline).
Chris on 10 June 2007 at 12:40 pm
Different poll, different dates not commensurable results. I have to say that these vague and nebulous questions about politicians personalities are not all that scientific.
There is something incedible about a “Dorothy Dixer” on Howard’s arrogance which delivers a 2/3 positive response, whilst more than half of that number would continue to vote for Howard. Obviously “arrogance” is not a deal breaker.
There is some vague anti-howard sentiment out there in the electorate. But it is not in the form that the Left would prefer.
Howard’s fall from electoral grace is basically about the varying marginal returns to incumbency. These increase in the first term or two. And then they diminish in the third and fourth terms.
The dissatisfied voters were waiting for the ALP to get a proper leadership team. When this question was settled they flocked to Rudd.
This does not mean they hate Howard’s personality or like Rudd’s policies, the preferred narratives of the Left. Mark is therefore off-target when he focuses on these things.
The main reason why the electorate have turned against Howard and in favour of Rudd is that Howard is seen as trying to hold onto power too long, by relying on political manipulation rather than policy articulation.
The electoratge do not necessarily like Rudd’s personality or dislike Howard’s policies. They would just rather Howard held off on the personality attacks and concentrated on the policy programs.
The business community is starting to feel the same way. Duffy, a right winger but not a Howard-hugger by any means, points out that the govts obsessive political spin doctoring is doing it self-harm:
“A bit of politics is OK,” the seasoned observer says, “but we got it at morning tea, lunch, cocktails and dinner. We’d expected more policy, more insights into their thinking.”
Even Nick Minchin and Malcolm Turnbull, ministers for whom business people have a lot of respect, were tediously on message. Another observer says: “We were all a bit weary by the end; they were treating us like the dumb electorate.”
But the electorate is not so dumb. They feel the same way.
Jack, I hate to disrupt the stoush you’re enjoying with a straw me.
But I largely agree.
Jack, Mark is quite right, you are setting him up as your straw man.
You want me. I’m the one! I plead guilty for hating Howard just for being Howard.
This is apart from the Howard government, Jack. With me and Howard, it’s Howard
the manthe mammal, pure and simple.Look, I am not ashamed to admit it. I really do hate Howard. I hope he loses the election badly (as he deserves to) and is then slagged by the Liberal Party which moves to deHowardise itself.
I have always hated Howard, indeed I would have hated him had I known of him when he first appeared on a TV quiz show, pretending to know answers to questions when he had no idea but tried to bluff his way by outrageous lying. Have you seen that clip, Jack, of Howard as a young man? It is very very Howard at his quintessential dissembling. It is also very revealing: Howard is congenitally hateful.
I hate Howard because his lower jaw seems to belong to someone else, like a cheaply made Hanna Barbera cartoon, where the lower mandible is the only thing that moves.
I hate Howard from the moment I wake up in the morning. I hate his phlegmy, adenoidal voice. I hate the way he chops the air with his hand. It tells me that he is pretending to be adamant and seriously concerned about something when he does not give a stuff about anything or anyone except himself.
I hate Howard when he interposes himself into situations of grieving families, disasters, at major football match prize-giving ceremonies, and at public gatherings which have nothing whatsoever to with him but which he gatecrashes to milk cheap publicity for himself. I hate Howard because he knows no shame.
I hate Howard for the way he doesn’t let interviewers finish their sentence if he sniffs that they may be on the way to ask an uncomfortable or a critical question.
I hate Howard because he has cheapened public debate. I hate Howard because he has corrupted our polity by appealing to racism, xenophobia and greed.
I hate Howard for the way he sucks up to:
powerful commercial interests,
powerful figures in the US administration,
powerful media moguls,
powerful media personalities.
I hate Howard for trashing the weak who can’t fight/answer back (refugees, the wretched people on the deck of the MV Tampa, the wretched people in desert gulags whose children saw people going insane and themselves went insane, the wretched people in Nauru and offshore detention camps, wretched people on sinking junks). I hate Howard because he lacks humanity. I hate Howard because he lacks human decency. I hate Howard for making lying a policy of governance and his own political survival.
Howard has no friends on his own side of politics (ask Shane Stone). I am not the only person to hate Howard, even among fellow Liberals - to know Howard is to hate him.
Everyone I know hates Howard. Except you, Jack.
Mark on 10 June 2007 at 1:31 pm
But I largely agree.
Ahh so all that stuff you crank out, day-in-day-out, about Howard’s personal duplicity and policy iniquities is mainly playing to the Left wing grandstand. Or “marking” out ideological territory. Or a pundits pissing contest. Not psephologically predictive at all.
Perhaps you should run two blogs. One to raise the flagging spirits of the comrades. And one for me and any others interested in harder science.
FTR I think there is very little to choose b/w Rudd v Howard personalities and ALP v L/NP policies. We are very much at tweedle-dee tweedle dum stage of political evolution. This is probably a good thing, in some respects.
Rudd is mini-me of Howard’s persona. And the ALP has committed itself to Howards policy settings on key economic and cultural issues. Only Iraq stands b/w them, and that is a second order issue for most Australians.
I have thought, ever since WorkChoices went down like a Lead Zeppelin in the latter part of 2006, that Howard would lose in 2007. But not by a landslide as mark continually insinuates, with his “govts lose big” hints. For mine, 1972 and 1983 are probably the most likely analogues.
Yeah Jack, what Ken said. Can’t wait to see the electorate lob a couple of metaphorical shotgun blasts into the back of his legs.
Ken Scott on 10 June 2007 at 2:34 pm
You should get out more.
I neither hate nor love Howard. I accord him a measure of cool esteem for fighting the good fight on the right-wing side of the Culture Wars. A dirty job but someones got to do it.
I dont want social democracy following the USA or USE’s insane and inane cultural tendencies. Neither would you or mark, if you could come to your senses on this.
I don’t hate Howard either Jack but I do despise him. Believe me Jack, this is not about me. This is about Australia’s future.
Ken, I’m not fond of Mr. Howard either, but must confess to a twinge of envy.
That special (rat with a gold tooth) smile, he saves for Jack.
All people like us get is a grinning skull.
Ken articulated it very well. I hate him not just for his exploitation of fear, race and xenophobia. Sadly, part of that feeling is not so much personal. He’s really too shallow a man for that, despite his mastery of recent politics and media superficiality.
It’s more for what it says about us as a society. Here he is the exemplification of an Afrikaner leader and he has dominated the last decade. Are we really no better than that? It doesn’t say much about us, and says even less about our Opposition for most of that time.
That said, I think it is mostly leftists and old-style liberal-democrats who would feel that degree of antipathy towards Howard.
Jack is very likely right. Most of the public neither hates him nor feels ashamed of the Howard era. They were just sick of the constant political spin and have been waiting impatiently for a credible alternative.
Personally, I blame Howard for this - increasing parent rage against teachers
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/06/09/1181089398448.html
When Rodent’s political eulogies are written, his utterly pointless teacher-bullying pogroms will be one of the low points.
first time post dont be harsh on me
i am wondering reading all these posts that it didnt happen before. i think the spread of the internet has allowed a lot of people to research their own views on issues and make up there own minds without just reling on what they read in the papers or see on tv this i think maybe contirbting to the polls and why the mainstream media is having difficulties understanding them a lot of people have now stopped listening to them and are making their own judgements for themselves. if this is true i think all govts will have to consider haw they get their ides accross. the internet is still small but look how much it has grown in a few years.maybe tony abott and a few more in govt should think about this my opinon and would be intrested to know yours
I don’t know if I hate Howard, as do Ken Scott & Don Wigan, or if I despise him as does John C, certainly I am more than “not fond of” Howard, as is Enemy Combatant.
Howard isn’t in hot enough water for my liking.
I am unimpressed by his apparent governing for the big end of town, but have no recollection whatsoever of any “racism” & “oppression” arising in Australua due to him. I suspect that persons who believe this would be rather thin on the ground once one got away from New Farm, Glebe & like places.
“Jack is very likely right. Most of the public neither hates him nor feels ashamed of the Howard era. They were just sick of the constant political spin and have been waiting impatiently for a credible alternative.”
Yep. Pretty much, Jack is right I think, Don. Howard has been around too long, things are going pretty well and Kevin Rudd - though hardly the sort of bloke you’d choose to have a beer with - looks competent, safe and smart enough to keep the good times rolling. Dame Edna was spot-on with her description of him as a Dentist. I’m not sure whether they’d ascribe “constant political spin” solely to Howard. The perception that all pollies spin the truth is as old as Australia. I recently attended a conference on the Gold Coast and the cabbie who drove me from Coolangatta Airport to Surfers was railing about Rudd “stealing from superannuation funds to pay for Broadband.” I pointed out to him that the Future Fund proposal didn’t involve “stealing from super funds,” at all, but he was unconvinced. ” They’re all full of bullshit, mate,” he assured me. He didn’t much like Howard but he offered that “you know where he stands” and he also quite liked Peter Beattie but also thought (with a chuckle) that he was “a terrible bullshitter.”
“Howard hating” isn’t likely to be an electoral factor outside a few inner urban electorates that Bob Brown gets moderately excited about. The prospect of change - without major disturbance - is far more likely to be the change of government motivator.
Oh come on Jack, I would be the first to admit that what I am saying is entirely subjective. That is my view of Howard, and I explained why I held this view in plain language.
Your link to your own guest post of 2004 on John Quiggin’s site does not make your argument any clearer or more persuasive to make me think otherwise - to wit, that Mr Howard is a lovely human being, not deserving of my hate.
I mean, you do not do yourself any favours. In your post you speak of a “Howard-hating thesis”. You then proceed to dispose of this Howard-hating thesis this by asserting that it is “ahistoric, hyperbolic and counter-empiric”. Whatever that may mean. Okay, it’s an assertion. To give your assertion meat some empirical bone you endow it with a hyperlink to SMH archive of a column by Paul Sheahan of October 2001 about keeping out riff-raff refos away from our borders. But that is just Sheahan’s opinion. Indeed, it’s an OPINION piece!
Jack, I am not a part of any “orchestrated campaign of vilification”. I mean, how does such an orchestration occur? Do members of this orchestra meet in a nonedescript cafe in, say, Coffs Harbour, and Ms Keeler (a ristretto), St Margaret (latte), Lefty E (long black with cream on the side), Kim (camomile tea), Chris (long black decaf), Enemy Combatant (soyachino), John C (cappuccino, hold the chocolate sprinkle), Don Wigan (flat white) and I (short black) scheme and plan our next move to blacken the good name of our prime minister?
I am a private individual expressing my private views publicly, one of which is a belief that many people share my views of Mr Howard as a worthless prick, including members of the Liberal Party. (I hope you are not suggesting that Shane Stone is part of this cabal? Or Malcolm Fraser? Or, allegedly, Senator Brandis?)
“What we have here, is a profound disgareement,” Jack. That is how Sheahan ends his piece of October 10, 2001. Amen to that.
“certainly I am more than “not fond ofâ€? Howard, as is Enemy Combatant.”
You’re one helluva guy, Steve. I like you. You’re the only bloke on this blog who can actually look up, and see an understatement going right over your head.
Nevertheless, I’m delighted and surprised that El Rodente has disappointed even you, dear sparring partner.
SATP: “Howard isn’t in hot enough water for my liking.”
Perhaps Long Term Osmosis (LTO), Steve, should not be discounted as a means of weblog communication, after all. My hunch is that Ken Scott (2:34 pm) speaks for most LP regulars, though few could have expressed it as well as Ken does and most would have been more circumspect.
Sometimes, however, the directness of speech in a Public Bar is far more eloquent and meaningful, than the euphemisms heard in The Lounge.
Enemy Combatant on 10 June 2007 at 4:24 pm
I should think that, given poll results, Leftists such as Enemy Combatant would now be like a “rat flashing a gold tooth” ie feeling ver-r-r-y pleased with themselves. Half-hearted Howard-supporters, like myself, are the ones “as popular as blowies at a butchers picnic”.
My opinion of John Howard was formed in 1979. In the intervening years I have seen no reason to change it.
For me, he is very remniscent of Josef Goebbels. Ethics-wise that is, not politically. I don’t and have never trusted him. On top of that there are a few actions of his as treasurer which were unconscionable.
That aside, I certainly (much as it sticks in my craw) respect his tenacity, his humility and his political skill, and his political acumen. He has demonstrated all of those in spades.
Probably quite difficult to hate him, as he hasn’t undone anything I have created with my own exertion (except pass gun laws, & that only affects me if I choose to [guffaw] hand in my guns)
He will be voted out because the population feels they are able to do without him, and have found someone whom they feel will be a steady hand on the tiller and won’t wreck things.
Ken Scott on 10 June 2007 at 7:07 pm
It was not intended to. You have made it quite clear that your political convictions are based on emotion, not reason.
I apologise for the unpardonable sin of self-referentiality. All I meant to do with that link is substantiate the luke-warmness (”one cheer…”) of my support of Howard. I vehemently disagree with his recipe for economic prosperity. And have nagging doubts about his national security strategy.
That post spells out his success in the area of cultural identity policy, which is real and underrated. The cultural elites jeer him. It is the cultural populus - mostly male-led working families - who mainly cheer him. Because his authoritarian cultural policies helped them dodge bullets from unruly minorities.
The rule-following majority are right in the firing line in the Culture War. From multi-culting ethnic lobbies, race-hustling indigenes, child-carelessing career-women, bare-backing gays, gun-nutting whackos, queue-jumping asslum-seekers, street-hassling drug-fiends, post-modernizing egg-heads and other assorted political rat-bags still hung-over from the seventies and eighties.
It is the responsibility of the Cutural Left elites to keep unruly minorities in line, so that they can get ahead. Instead they have added fuel to energy wasting fires. This puts the cause of social democracy, founded on conservative nationalism cf Bismark through Roosevelt, back and behind the eight-ball.
Ken Scott says:
A conspiracy of virulence speaks louder than words.
SATP, I forgive you for every snarky word we’ve had.
Christine, I hv no recollection of snarky words with anybody.
Perhaps some people’s lives are affected by what they see online at blogs, but mine isn’t.
I type & forget, often fail to remember where I post comments, so am unable to respond to counter comments.
JS: “like a “rat flashing a gold toothâ€? ie feeling ver-r-r-y pleased with themselves. Half-hearted Howard-supporters, like myself, are the ones “as popular as blowies at a butchers picnicâ€?.”
Jack, throughout the course of the year, your facility with the vernacular has improved remarkably. Keep up the good work!
Steve, agree with your assesment that most voters feel that Ruddster’s “hand on the tiller won’t wreck things”. Howard as “humble” is a bit of a stretch, I’ll let it through to the keeper for now.
This one though, is a bit of a worry:
SATP: “For me, he is very remniscent of Josef Goebbels. Ethics-wise that is, not politically.”
Steve, leaving aside some similarities with Mr. Howard in character, and some as propagandists, would you please amplify how you view Josef Goebbels, “Ethics-wise”. How does one define the “ethics” of a man who murdered his wife and children and spin-doctored a Holocost?
Let’s keep some perspective here, Steve. Much as I detest Howard, he’s not on the same page as an ethics-less monster like Goebbels.
EC all three were caught in the spaminator. I fished them all out then deleted the last two from the thread after publishing. That way the spaminator should learn (I think!)
Thanks, Brian.
Christine, I think our little mate is tired and emotional. Probably reading himself off to sleep with the latest glossy centrefold of Guns ‘n’ Ammo. But tonight at least, we witnessed a gentler, softer side of Steve. Tomorrow, he’ll be belting us all over the threads again.
He’s such a boy.
I didn’t mean John Howard is a raving murderous lunatic. My fault for not being clearer in my typing.
Goebbels was the minister for propaganda.
This is a weird thing. Proverbially, folks in the US in 04 were supposed to want to have a beer with Dubya whereas Kerry would have invited them in for a pernod and for a melty French cheese or something.
I’m just not buying it.
Spending social time with Rudd would be holding his attention for a second before he found someone far more CEOlike or Archbishop-ric to talk to. And then he’d probably be sipping pernod anyway.
Let’s face it, the dude is a social crawler.
Whereas Howard - he wouldn’t even know what a pub looked like.
It’s a bullshit way to judge. If they were the sort of people you’d like to have a beer with, they wouldn’t be the PM and the Leader of Her Maj’s Opposition respectively.
I guess that means Jeanette’s not going to kill the kids if he loses.
And yes EC, I suspect that sometimes SATP is tired as a newt when posting.
Newt?
No he’s rested and he’s channelling Reagan and he’s gonna run for Prez!
Eventually.
Erm.
As if the Republican primaries matter…
I rest my case, Your Honor.
Strocchi, apart from the fact that I am not of the couture left, more your op-shop moderate, you’re right, I don’t know much about politics but I know what I don’t like. And yes, unruly minority, that’s me all over.
Don’t encourage Comrade Strocchi, Ken.
Once you fall into the Strocchiverse, it takes the courage of Trinity to escape…
Take the blue pill!
After telling Howard they won’t pay to advertise in favour of Serfchoices, the Bosses Union have done a backflip.
THE nation’s top business groups have dramatically moved to combat the union campaign against Work Choices, agreeing to spend millions of dollars on advertisements promoting the workplace laws in the lead-up to the federal election.
The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has signed off on the advertising campaign with the Business Council of Australia.
The advertisements by the ACCI and the BCA have been tested with focus groups and have the backing of the Minerals Council and Master Builders Australia.
The Australian has learned the advertisements, due to start within weeks, will not only focus on Work Choices, but the shift to enterprise bargaining under Paul Keating, with business trying to negate the charge it is doing the Coalition’s bidding.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21883937-601,00.html
From your link Frank, with my insertions:
“Peter Anderson, ACCI’s director of workplace relations [a business union], said unions tried to shut down a government official, James Smythe [posted to the ILO after drafting the WorkChoices legislation for Kevin Andrews], when he spoke about Australia’s good employment record during last Thursday’s ILO debate on Work Choices, with the unions saying jobs growth was not relevant [and its not].
&#