Last week, I wrote, with reference to the latest Shanahan Newspoll anti-Labor spin:
Whereâs the âanalysisâ? of Howardâs 3% drop in approval ratings from the same Newspoll?
Here’s some. George Megalogenis, writing in The Australian:
…Howard’s numbers happen to be a little weaker than people realise. Federal Labor’s latest round of self-flagellation, based on Kim Beazley’s intractable unpopularity, diverted attention from Howard’s end of the Newspoll survey this week. Government strategists, however, are keenly aware of the trend. In recent months, Howard’s satisfaction rating has returned to its pre-Tampa level, below 50 per cent. The latest Newspoll survey conducted last weekend had it at 46 per cent.
… Liberal insiders say the explanation for the Newspoll dip is the R-word: reform. The government has been using its Senate majority since August 2005 to unleash a barrage of policy activity, from industrial relations and welfare to the Telstra privatisation and the abolition of cross-media ownership rules.
Megalogenis points out that Howard’s, and the Liberals’, poll numbers began to dip in September last year.
His explanation? The same group of middle of the road voters who aren’t very interested in politics who vote for Labor leaders like Bracks and Beattie have voted for Howard in the past because he seems moderate, and makes them feel relaxed and comfortable. Polling Megalogenis cites shows that WorkChoices makes these (middle class) voters feel anything but, and he points out that previous lows in Howard’s approval rating coincided with his advocacy of unpopular “reform” measures such as the GST.
The next election is eminently winnable for Labor, unless they throw it away. You’d never know it from reading the papers though, as only Megalogenis appears to have been paying any attention to the government and Howard’s numbers and qualitative polling showing why they’re on a downward trend.
Entire Megalogenis article here.
Howard’s tied his fate inexorably to Bush. The real hit to Bush’s (and Howard’s) authority was not Democratic control of the US senate and house. The real hit is still to come.
Pelosi can announce as often as she likes that impeachment is not on the table, but she is committed to oversight. Wat happens when congress starts questioning and investigating? What happens when the dishonesty, incompetence and corruption in Bush’s occupation of Iraq becomes public knowledge? I doubt Bush will be convicted, but the prospect of impeachment is real. Bush can be impeached by a simple majority of the house. It is the trial in the senate that requires a 2/3 majority to convict.
As for Howard, a deputy sheriff who has made his personal friendship with Bush the cornerstone of his foreign policy is going to find it hard to separate himself from Bush’s fate. A deputy sheriff who cannot stop a coup in Fiji and whose only idea of Pacific policy is more and more military/police deployments to more and more Pacific states has almost as limited a future as does Bush. A deputy sheriff who has just been exposed funding the Iraqi insurgency through his failure to supervise AWB really needs to think about a new line of work.
When the history of the Iraq thing gets written, that history will be about the total failure of oversight in Washington as much as it is about the military and political actions Bush has taken in Iraq itself.
Mark:
It’s not the R word [Reform] but the W words [Wreckage, Waste, Wrong, Whim, etc.]
Alan:
You are probably right about Bush himself escaping justice but I think his cronies will swing – and sadly, that will include Rice.
Howard is an entirely different matter – his has been a history of steadily concentrating power and of destroying our traditional checks-and-balances piecemeal.
Despite all the crawling, he is a far more ruthless and clever politician than is Bush and therefore he is more dangerous to our democracy (such as it is these days). He may be loathed, hated and despised by many – especially by those whose lives have been irreparably harmed by his failed policies and not just by noisy trendy-lefties – but there are many who are hankering for The Great Leader who will fulfill their every wish and fantasy; they will continue, despite reality, to give him their wholehearted adulation and unquestioning obedience.
I would be amazed if he actually ever again faces an open election. I’m waiting to see which of the “imminent” “grave” nebulous “terrrorist” scenarios will be used to suspend normal government processes such as elections and so keep him in power …. for life.
Well said Alan.
And if I may say, the linkage of the Bush impeachment/fortune to Howard’s Way will be interesting when the German case against Rummy et al proceeds.
Alan has an interesting and very informative 5 page pdf on that here (at the top)
http://www.southerlybuster.blogspot.com/
I’d say Mark that with Rudd at the helm, a foreign policy attack on Ratty for Iraq has to be worth quite a few more percentage points than Latham (and the withdraw policy) may have had last time.
Roll on the “downward trend.”
(Even Murdoch’s bordello of newspapers may recognise the sinking ship of Iraq (and Ratty) and do an appropriate rat act if Labor gets a steamroller going in the leadup to the next elections.)
Given the incompetence and denial of responsibility on nearly every matter, and a lot of matters coming to a head, a drover’s dog should be able to beat King John at the next election.
Graham Bell – exactly. Our system has proven to be more susceptible, at a very fundamental level, to ‘tinkering’ that, cumulatively, serves to entrench the interests of capital over, well, everything. Howard has understood this very well and betrayed his allegedly conservative leanings by tinkering wherever he could. Gaining the Senate was the key, even if unexpected.
Thanks, woulfe, I’ve updated the post to include the link.
Thoughtful & thought provoking post.
Commentary which is mostly unmitigated ranting.
There’s a lot of wishful thinking going on here.
I predict:
No impeachments of anyone of significance in the US
An initial honeymoon period for Rudd and Gillard if Labor are silly enough to put them into leadership
A falling from grace for Gillard when people find out what she is really like
Abuse me all you like now, but give us the benefit of your predictions so we can do a show and tell a year hence
What is she really like?
I’m coming to the view that nobody really knows what is going on, including me. I feel suspicious of certitudes.
SteveAtThePub:
Unmitigated ranting? Well, I, for one, will be delighted to admit I was mistaken if a free, transparent, unimpeded, honest federal election was allowed to happen without a significant change of people at the top and of the behavior of the news media.
Do you think the attacks on the office of Governor-General nerely happened of their own accord and served no political purpose?
Foreign Policy
I believe it would be a mistake to assign too much electoral weight to the collapse of Bush’s Iraq fiasco on Howard. He has managed to avoid poticial fall-out on this one.
Moreover, Howard has played the “we’re all Asians now” card quite deftly.
IR
As Megalogenis has said, this issue gnaws away at the sense of security of many over-extended aspirationals. But this sense of insecurity is itself driven by fear that aspirationals will no longer be able to fund their over-extended life-styles.
Economy
It’s the economy stupid. Howard bought the last election with bribes. Those bribes were turned into mortgages. House prices are falling. Interest rates are rising. This is causing fear. Mortgagee auctions are rising in number, but no one wants to talk about them, including the ALP. Why is this? Or is the ALP keeping gthis poweder dry for the coming campaign?
Bribes
Howard and Costello are still sitting on a mountain of tax revenue. The question is what is electorally the most effect way for them to spend it? Obviously it must be targetted at voters in marginal electorates. Housing bribes have had their day. Who wants to over-extend into a flat or falling market? No, the next bribe may well be for lifestyle choices, like increased subsidies for child care or a beefed-up education voucher system aimed at subsidising private schools. “You’ve got your house. Now buy a ticket into the world of the gentry”. This is the next item on the agenda for Howard’s aspirationals.
Meantime, superannuation changes are a huge bribe to the all-important baby-boom generation. Costello chucked money at them like a drunken sailor on a spree. The Libs are challenging the ALP to roll back these bribes. It would be electoral suicide for the ALP to do this.
Good times are here to stay for the lucky old baby-boomers! But I’m not sure that these bribes have persuaded many baby-boomers to change their votes.
Graham Bell – do you really believe that crap? I mean, come on. No more elections? John Howard using terrorist attacks (hell, you seemed to insinuate that he would damned well create one if needed) to hold onto power and stop free and fair elections?
I challenge you to put a small amount of money where your large mouth is – on 1 Nov 2007 (for as I remember, all elections have to be carried out before then) if Howard and the Coalition are still in power federally and no federal election has taken place due to some emergency takeover of power due to terrorist threats or attacks or an outright coup or whatever, I’ll pay you $1000. And if a federal lection does take place before then, one with more than one party to choose from, then you can pay me $1. Hell, I would put the odds at better than 1-1000 that the government will hold free and fair elections in the mandated time, but I don’t have the spare billion dollars or so to cover my end of the bet.
I’ll offer the same to any other paranoid conspiracy hack who thinks that the next ballot will never happen due to the power mad scheme of Howard and the Coalition.
That
Stuart Lord:
Thank you for your generous offer. Crap? – Large mouth? – Paranoid conspiracy hack? I’m not offended …. but you seem to be.
Just calm down for a moment and ask yourself if, a decade ago, you could have imagined an Australia where habeus corpus was an optional extra, where the news media amd the general public were forbidden to talk about serious injustices, where the presumption of innocence had been scrapped, where privacy had been abolished, where unwarranted surveillance of citizens going about their lawful business had become commonplace, where scoundrels could be held up as heroes, where Australian soldiers facing ruthless armed enemies overseas have to worry about the politicians at home, where the office of Governor-General is under attack …. the list goes on and on. Now, exactly what have you yourself done, in the past decade, to protect our traditional values, rights, duties and obligations against all the abuses of power?
Kindly enlighten us. Why do you think, in the current political and security situation and given the current regime’s track-record, a free, open, transparent and fair federal election will be allowed to occur?
Gee, things look pretty bad here. Do we move to North Korea, China, or Cuba?
Cuba. Better cigars.
Seriously, there will be no suspension of the constitution, here or in the States. There’s simply no need, and here, anyway, no recent history of major electoral fraud. It’s silly to predict such an outcome; just as silly to predict a military coup.
If Howard stands, Howard will win, but if the new Labor leadership can put up substantive policies and a substantial fight over the next few months, maybe it’ll only be his seat, and not a majority again, although I’d put better odds on the Libs losing the Senate alone.
Yeah, Howard is brilliant at nibbling in his furtive rodentine way, at soft areas of civil rights. He’s done the same thing to the independence of the judiciary. And the High Court helped him out by taking a big bite out of States Rights.
And it is true that Howard has insinuated himself into several of the ceremonial functions of the Viceroy.
But that’s as far as it’ll go.
But Ratty isn’t Mighty Mouse. He’d never have the guts to subvert the black-letter constitution, even if he wanted to.
I’ve noticed the gradual downwards slope of the coalition primary vote in opinion polls in the last 18 months of so – Beazley is probably partially responsible for the commensurate increase in the Labor vote, along with Howard’s policies.
I’d be concerned if I were a coalition strategist.
Greg and Katz:
Don’t underestimate Howard – he is daring, ruthless, patient, knowledgeable and cunning enough to try anything that would keep himself in power. Why on earth would he not make yet another bold move to do so?
He certainly understands the Australian public well enough to know just how far he can go at any given moment at manipulating them, even down to provokimg opposition that will help him rather than hinder him. I think it likely he will grab whatever opportunity turns up to take the next logical steps to stay in power …. and we mugs will applaud him for doing so. (The pity is that he could have used his undoubted talents for the benefit of all Australians instead of doing what he has done).
Admittedly, my opinion is coloured by having grown up among people who believed “That sort of thing couldn’t possibly happen here because ….” and somehow survived when it did. It gives me no confidence at all to see Howards’s own waggon rolling inexorably down the same railway line here.
If I had a dollar for every “Howard’s End?” article I’ve ever read (other than those about the E M Forster novel or the Merchant-Ivory film of same), I’d have a stack of cash like a polly’s superannuation.
Not that I mean to sound blithe, oh no. One day they’ll be right. At some point in the future John Howard will no longer be Prime Minister of Australia. Until then, plugging away like this (any day now!), or getting carried away by a new leader who has proven himself in the backrooms but who is still squirming in his brand new first-grade jersey while walking out to a jam-packed stadium to take on the defending champion at the height of his powers.
Howard will take his chances with the voters. What Howard will want to avoid is what happened to Hawke in 1991 or McMahon in 1972; in office but a national joke. He won’t stick around to get beaten, but nor will he do a Mugabe or wait to get strung up in a petrol station like Mussolini. To argue otherwise is so much hype. He knows he’ll have to go eventually, but that doesn’t mean he’ll bring the day forward.
Stuart: “do you really believe that crap? I mean, come on”. I’m sure this is a devastating argument in some circles but beyond them this gambit is what’s known as “bluster”, “waffle”, even “bullshit”.
I’d be happy to write a post on E.M. Forster, Andrew – I’m a long time fan
Andrew E:
I do hope and pray you are right and I am very wrong ….. but the temptation to Ride The Tiger can be very beguiling …. and maybe he has worked out how to do something that few rulers have ever done successfully: how to dismount and go into retirement without getting eaten by his erstwhile mount (I hope not).
Katz [7:45am 4th Dec]:
Good post. Thought-provoking.
Yes, I agree with this analysis. Howard’s bout of reform was brought on by his unexpected victory in the Senate.
But he has fallen in the polls due to over-reach, especially on the IR legislation. There are a lot of semi-professional Coalition inclined voters out there feeling the lash of managerialism. So it seems that the Senate victory may have handed Howard a poisoned chalice.
More generally the secret of Howards success has been to generally position himself as Mr Anti-Change on cultural and fiscal matters. That is, he has opposed both Keating-style Political Correctness and Hewson-style Economic Rationalist upheavals.
Ordinary peple were tired of political operators with Big Ideas. As soon Howard started to get the reform bug he began to worry people. The mood of the people is small “c” conservative. Run a tight ship, keep a firm hand on the tiller and dont rock the boat.
What was that line that the slave used to feed the triumphant Ceasar?
Memento Mori.
On WorkChoices, interesting article in the Fin today pointing out that the theme of leisure is a good one to play – even when people are doing well in the labour market, they’re concerned about the quality of their lives not just at work – so an overarching values approach to work issues should be a winner.
Kim on 9 December 2006 at 4:09 pm
Yes. That would be “family” values, Kim.
Jack, yes.