There’s an interesting piece of analysis of qualitative polling over at On Line Opinion from Graham Young of the very large sample of respondents to the National Forum poll I wrote about in an earlier post. It’s worth reading in its entirety, rather than an extensive summary from me, but it is interesting to observe that he found that the swing to Labor was more or less across the board rather than coming from particular demographics, which is consistent with the quantitative polling showing big swings against the Coalition in its own safe seats. Young suggests that much of the swing may be soft, and that many of the voters shifting have attitudes somewhat different from those you would normally find among Labor supporters. That’s, of course, not surprising if a big swing is on, but it does suggest to him that the election’s not in the bag for Labor. However, it’s also worth observing that none of the attack lines the Coalition have used against Rudd seem to have done Labor much damage, and their general air of crisis and disarray tends to undermine their own credibility.
While we’re talking about polls, there’s some discussion of the latest Galaxy poll over at The Poll Bludger.
I don’t find Graham Young’s ‘analysis’ very useful overall. Not his fault, but like most commentators he is just floundering to find explanations for Labor’s v.high polling. Note how towards the end he starts parrotting the meme of the past fortnight, that Rudd is a mini-Howard.
On a smaller point he says: ‘The only quantitative difference between this group and the whole sample is in the gender split – males appear to be over-represented, particularly between 35 and 64 years of age, as well as in the under 24s. I’m not sure what this reflects, but the government has been running an anti-domestic violence campaign for months, so perhaps it reflects the success of those ads with younger women.’ That last explanation is quite a weird bit of speculation: much simpler would be that men are much more likely to be unionists and hence prey to anti-WorkChoices sentiment, and hence over-represented in voters who say they are swinging.
Partly I think that’s a limitation of this sort of poll. Respondents are asked to identify which issue is most important to them, and it’s open ended, but a lot of voting isn’t issues based and general perceptions of the government/Howard might be the more important factor – particularly after 11 years in office.
Saying Labor’s support is soft is a strange thing to say.
Back in early 2004 when Labor was ahead in the 2PP a lot of commentators said the same, for a very good reason — Labor’s lead in the polls was based on preference flows, with its primary vote vote quite weak. They said then, and they were proved right, that this made Labor very vulnerable to any shift of sentiment back to the Coalition.
But in 2007, Labor’s 2PP lead (which has held for longer than in 2004, and with a greater margin) is based on a strong primary vote.
The detailed Newspoll (by state, by seat type and by demographic) shows Labor overwhelmingly ahead in marginal seats and just less than 50:50 even in safe coalition seats. This is a soft lead?
As for Rudd portrayinh himself as being a mini Howard, the commentators have got it completely wrong. What is he is doing is portraying himself as the anti Latham, which only coincidentally looks like Howard.
Where Latham was angry, aggressive and belligerant (the ‘congo line of suckholes’ line, the ‘I’m a great hater’ line, the fight with the tax driver, the over the top handshake with Howard at the radio station), Rudd is calm, measured and, above all, unfailingly polite. The Liberals attack him personally, and he smiles it off. He never attacks back. The voters, especially women, really go for this. It was one of the secrets of Steve Bracks’ success. It’s also why Peter Costello would be such a disaster as leader.
Spot on Spiros. I cant see how some pundits could be getting this so wrong.
Remember Howard 96, doing his level best to pretend he’d changed on Medicare, Asian immigration? Not exactly mini-Keating, no, but basically playing ‘the opposition by reassuring those who are bored of the govt but fear change’ game.
As for soft support – bugger me, could the ALP numbers have been any more stable over the last few months?
And what about 3-4% who have returned to the coalition primary polls since claiming to be pro-Rudd as recently as March? Whats so “hard” about them?
Labor is ahead 55:45 in the polls and has been ever since Rudd rolled Beazley. give or take sampling error (which this mobth has added a bit to Labor in the Mporgan poll and subtracted it in the Gallaxy poll).
While history never repeats exactly, this is the same pattern as occurred when Howard rolled Downer in January ’95. The coalition took the lead immediately and held it steadily to election day in March ’96.
Rudd has been rock solid in front for 8 months. He has withstood everything Howard and co have thrown at him: the give away budget, his wife’s business, the union bogeyman, the march into the NT to Save the Children (is that still happening, by the way?) and now the terrorism scare which certsinly hasn’t been a positive for the government, and may turn out to be a negative.
The voters haven’t moved a millimetre, and the election is maybe 3 months away.
When is the latest Howard can go to the polls? The incentives are probably switching in the direction of later rather than sooner.
“When is the latest Howard can go to the polls?”
3 years after the first sitting of Parliament after the last election.
Which I believe is Jan 19, or so.
Hasn’t been an January election in 70 years, or something, so pundit claim December 15 is the latest “in reality”.
I dunno – Im just repeating some psepho Ive read somewhere is my obsessive quests.
Bryan at OzPolitics had a detailed look at this and suggested that January would be the latest, but he said it’s extremely unlikely that any PM would go to the polls over Xmas hols. I hear mid-Dec being touted as latest possible date.
OTOH on ABC radio there is much talk of a snap poll being likely, with interest rates set to rise and other negatives on the horizon. I’m thinking APEC (Sept 7-9) must be figuring highly in Howard’s calculations.
Well, I don’t think he can go before APEC (though he won’t get an APEC bounce either – remember that theory?) and the interest rates if they’re going to move will have done so by then.
FWIW, the favourite at Centrebet is Nov 17 ($4) followed by Nov 24 ($4.50) and Oct 20 ($5.50). (The 3 Saturdays between Oct 20 and Nov 17 are at quite long odds, presumably because of the Melbourne spring racing season.)
People like me, actually.
Mark, the first sitting of Parliament after the 2004 election was 8 February 2005. If he dragged it out over summer he’d look like a loser and we’re talking 1943-style wipeout. Saturday 8 December is the last day it could be done for all votes to be counted and settled by Christmas.
I’ve posted a comment to Graham’s article, which is a masterwork of the kind of wishful thinking that springs from intellectual laziness that I found typical within the Liberal Party.
Asking when is the latest Howard can go to the polls assumes that things will get better for the government. Given what has been happening over the past few weeks, I’m not sure that is true. Inevitably you would expect these polls to have greater wear on government cohesion, especially if the rot is coming through to the seats of senior Liberals. Howard might be pushed to go to campaign mode to try and pull the Liberals together.
On the issue of ‘softness’ I think GY is looking the wrong way. The issue is not the softness of those swinging to Labor but the increasing softness of the coalition’s base, which is much greater than what happened to Labor’s base during the Hawke/Keating years.
Here we go again – interpretations of Left-Right political debate that are narrower in scope than they should be.
It appears we have the “Rudd is a mini-Howard” Left versus the “Labor has only soft support” conservative hopefuls.
Consider a recent “Rudd is a mini-Howard” example from the progressive side: Bob Brown, who last week wrote in The Australian:
“Here is the Australian Greens’ dilemma: the choice between Labor and the Coalition is becoming more like choosing between fawn and beige.
A change of government will be good for Australia, but Rudd is making it harder to recommend Greens voters preference Labor.”
However, Mr. Brown may want to consider that for other Australians with other concerns, the differences between Labor and the Coalition may be much more relevant.
Now consider a recent “soft support”example from the conservative side: Christopher Pearson, who also writes in The Australian:
“Framing large, credible policies and then selling them is much more difficult, because it means nailing your colours to the mast and potentially alienating significant sections of a soft support base.”
To be honest with you, I hadn’t read Christopher Pearson’s article from last weekend’s edition of The Weekend Australian, which the above quote is extracted from. I simply guessed I could rely on him to refer to “soft support” in one of his many recent articles about Labor and typed “christopher pearson labor soft support” into Google to return this result
Now that I have read his article, I would respond by saying that while alternatives to Howard Government policy may be important, not all areas of policy are equally important to providing Kevin Rudd with an election winning outcome.
There are issues former opposition leader Kim Beazley described as “Hot Button Issues” in an interview last February with ABC Radio National’s Geraldine Doogue.
While Mr. Beazley includes “global warming” in his list of Hot Button Issues, the “changing community attitude” he describes has a wider scope than concern for the environment, or any other single or sectional-interest issue.
This probably does allow Kevin Rudd leverage for an overall deliberate small-target approach to campaigning, whether the sectional-interest groups like it or not.
…From Justin
The Libs’ line since Rudd took over has been that it will take time for people to assess Labor – that might point to a belief that the longer you leave it, the more the gloss comes off, and/or to a view that circumstances might arise which favour the Libs more. I’m not saying either would work, but it’s a plausible view for the Libs to take given their assumptions.
Or the Libs’ might hang in there for as long as possible in the hope that something will turn up, like Rudd’s SIM card being found at the scene of some act of terrorism.
I’m going to suggest a November date. I think that Howard will put his faith in a short hard blitzkreig type campaign as being his best bet. All of the vote pulling devices have not worked and there is the possibility of going backwards. Howard has faith in himself and sees failure all around him in his team. He will build a campaign based on his personal appeal…..and then disappear down the plug hole…with any luck.
Another comment in response to Andrew E. You can’t escape from the fact that the analysis is predicated on the responses of actual voters sampled and is not just opinion. I think part of the difficulty this year has been that the reputation of political research has been assailed from two directions – the crazed spin from the Government Gazette undermining credibility and the boosters of “betting markets”. But it’s still worthwhile remembering that actual data on voters’ intentions and views is highly valuable.
The National Forum research does seek to elicit how committed voters are to their current voting intention, which goes to the issue of how soft the Labor vote is.
I think that the sequence will be the special parliamentary session which Howard will use to create maximum press then he will call a short sharp election to try to keep the momentum up.
Here is another reason to rule out a September Poll, despite APEC and the Football Finals and School Holidays.
Asked if he and his wife Janette would take time out to babysit, Mr Howard said, “You bet I will be – we’d be very happy to do it.”
Mr Howard’s only daughter, Melanie Howard-McDonald, is expecting her first child in September.
I don’t think Janette will allow John to go Campaigning if the first Grandkiddie pops out.
In Australia voters are rarely asked about their ideological self-positioning, whereas in the US they are. Howard like the Republicans may be too conservative for the Australian public opinion, some of the descriptions of what voters dilike about the govt fits this interpretation.
Frank Calabrese wrote:
Why? Because milky vomit cleans right out of cardigans, but makes a real mess of your frock. Plus, he’s held a metric butt-load of babies over the last 11 years and has more experience.
My guess is that Howard’s long run to the right has finally come around to bite the Liberal party. I am amazed at how much support they party has lost in its safest seats. Quite simply the genuintely ‘liberal’ supporters of the Liberal party are not happy with Howard’s rightward tilt. Look at the David Hicks case. Howard caved on Hicks because of pressure within his own party. These voters have been waiting for an acceptable alternative to show up. They did not like Beazely (to wind baggish), Latham (too aggressive) or Crean (too boring) because of various faults. Now they have somewhere to park their vote other than Howard. It explains the sudden yet seeming solid swing to Labor after Rudd took power and the collapse in support in safe liberal seats.
“the collapse in support in safe liberal seats.”
This reflects a long term social trend, which first appeared in 1998 when the strongest yes vote in thge republican referendum was in the safest Liberal seats. It has since been spotted in such phenomena as “doctor’s wives” and “Liberals for forests”.
Put simply, the rich are now also the social progressives. The Blue Rinse, Colonel Blimp and suburban chamber of commerce brigade, who once dominated the safe Liberal vote, is now dead (perhaps literally). The new generation of rich won’t vote Labor led by a Mark Latham, but provided Labor is led by someone who could be One of Them, who doesn’t threaten their material prosperity, these people will give vent to their green, socially liberal beliefs.
The trick for Labor is to harness this vote while not losing the votes of the people who live more than 15 kiolmetres from major CBDs. Rudd may – just may – have discovered how to do it.
I think Spiros is on to it. Australians are generally fairly middle-of-the-road and I don’t think that David Hicks/Kids Overboard/AWB etc, etc are going to figure in the electoral equation. It’s more that it’s been too long with a guy who is looking like he has been around even longer when the alternative is looking increasingly fresh, non-threatening – and non-problematic in terms of laissez le bon temps rouler.
I know it’s galling to LP habitues but most Australians really don’t do social progressivism and if they have to embrace it, they’d prefer it if it was packaged in familiar Australian iconography – Bob Hawke springs to mind.
Rudd’s talent has been to package the goods in a very singular way: he’s not an Aussie Bloke (neither is Howard, of course) but he’s the sort of brainy nerd from Nambour that looks like he can do the business without scaring the horses.
Well , while all this discussion about poll trends goes on (and on), the punters with real money are pushing the governments odds further and further out, close to 60/40 now. The worst they have been this year.
Quick update, Sportingbet now at 67/33!!!!!
‘…these voters are more likely to be Christian than our sample in general. This suggests a less materialistic mind-set than that of voters in general.’ I resent that quote from Graham Young. I am an atheist and considerably less materialistic than the McMansion living, 4WD driving, nuclear family crowd that keeps voting for Howard. Why do people keep presuming that people of religious faith are automatically less materialistic than atheists? Graham Young’s analysis is surely flawed/floored. Besides you couldn’t get a more materialistic, bean-counting little turd than John Howard and look at what a devout christian he is. Ever since little Johnny’s inception as Prime Minister, all we’ve ever heard about is the bloody Economy.
Well, for the little it’s worth, I put my money on November 3. I think they need to go before December simply because so many people go away on holidays then. (I will be one of those people, and I don’t fancy having to vote at Sydney Airport if there’s not enough time to arrange a postal vote!) The longer they hang on, the more desperate it looks. I think they’ll have APEC, hope the Haneef business has made it off the front pages of the paper, and the election will be held somewhere between late October and late November.
I’ve found it hard to judge the mood of the ‘average punter’ simply because my workplace and social group are all lefties (even though I committed the cardinal sin of voting for the Libs in 2004 because I couldn’t stand Latham). My parents, on the other hand, are Queenslanders who will vote for the Libs because they don’t trust Rudd (from the Goss days, I believe). In my mother’s words: “Why are you going to vote for him? Do you want interest rates to rise? It’s your inheritance we’ll be spending!” I tried explaining the whole mortgage-as-percentage-of-income, but she wasn’t having anything to do with maths!
Christian Kerr is tipping an early December election, for what it is worth. The 1st or the 8th. It kind of makes sense as the last, ‘back up’ plan.
I would assume that the time between the election call and the election will be the critical matter, that will effect all timing plans. Expect shock and awe…short as possible. Just enough time to drop some important fear grenade with lots of media smoke and mirrors, to grab back those marginals.
You would expect nothing less from this mob.
Sorry that this is a bit off topic.
I’m not sure about the Christian = less materialist equation either, St Margaret, but I would observe that Howard isn’t a devout but an opportunistic churchgoer. He just knows how to give the right signals to make people think he is.
“Third, these voters are more likely to be Christian than our sample in general. This suggests a less materialistic mind-set than that of voters in general.”
This guy doesnt know Chirstians – I have been going to Church for many years and from my experience it is the opposite – they are particularly materialistic [i think it goes with moralistic and self justification of wealth, whilst not doing anything really Christian :])
“I know it’s galling to LP habitues but most Australians really don’t do social progressivism and if they have to embrace it, they’d prefer it if it was packaged in familiar Australian iconography”
I am not sure I agree with that. Its true that if you asked the average Australian whether they agree with specific left wing ideas they will tend to be quite skeptical. But on the other hand Australians have a very strong sense of fairness and egalitarianism. When you get right down to it, that is where left wing values come from.
I wish some Labor leaders would get up the confidence and talk to those values. That familiar Australian iconography is very easy to weave into narratives that any left winger can be proud of because so much of it genuinely is about fairness. It would nice for someone to point out how badly alot of Howard’s ideals cut right across the grain when it comes to Australian values, though I guess he has done a pretty good job of that himself with Workchoices.
Agree totally!
But I’ve found someone I could pray to!
I was interested in the comment about males being over-represented in the sample (presumably those contemplating changing their vote to the ALP).
The proffered explanation – that it is female voters approving of the anti-domestic violence ads – struck me as singularly lame.
My (evidence-free) belief ties into the L-NP campaigning methods which, IIRC, owe a fair bit to the methods of the US Republican party. Among lefty US sites like Salon there used to be a lot of head scratching as to why lower middle class or blue-collar males would turn against the Democrats, in spite of abundant evidence that Republican policies and their world-view generally act against the best _economic_ interests of this group of voters.
Beside the prejudiced explanation that ‘Joe Six Pack’ was just showing his true colours (i.e. bigotted and quasi-simian), entire books were devoted to exploring how the Republicans successfuly portrayed the Democrats as elitist, unpatriotic and also effeminate (admittedly the Dems didn’t help their own cause here). Now what red-blooded young man is going to identify with those qualities? And lo and behold the War on Terror, a fully-optioned plug ‘n’ play Wedge (TM) came along to prolong the agony.
Hmmm … not too hard to see the parallels for Oz. Thousands of 20-something blokes (and maybe a lot of chicks too!), who resented being patronized or insulted for thinking that Hanson had a point are now 30-something breadwinners with growing families and crushing mortgages. Maybe they’ve also seen more of the world and met enough ‘chardonnay socialists’ to see through all that crap. Or perhaps they’ve studied their finances and compared what Howard has taken compared to what he has really given in return over the years.
Can Howard bring these disaffected male voters back into the fold? Would another “elitist, out of touch inner city types” dog whistle work? Time will tell, but you can see Rudd working extra-hard to make sure it doesn’t, with his appearances on FM radio, housing summits, playing dead on the Haneef issue etc.
Of course, this speculation only applies to one part of the whole spectrum of people who are sick of Howard. Hopefully this post will be just one chapter in “32 Short Stories About the Downfall of Howard”
Have you got an agent, Ophuph? That’s a great pitch for a book!
I agree with Swio. I don’t want to get naive or teary, but I do think that most Australians are very decent and fair people. One of the posters in the Haneef comments said something like ‘oh but most people will view Haneef with suspicion even though he is innocent because he is Muslim and has a beard’. I don’t think that is a fair sumary of the ‘average’ Australian at all. Actually I think it reeks of the contempt that some leftists seem to have for everybody who don’t speak their vocabulary or who aren’t culturally chic. The thing is, rightwingers love this idea. I’m so sick of the ‘Howard battlers’ myth, the idea that everyone who isn’t tertiary educated must be a zenophobic knee-jerk reactionary. Sure they may have been freaked out by terrorism for a while, and they may be freaking out about mortages (not to mention that Labor leadership really sucked for a while)… but that’s all wearing off now… Even though some Australians start off with unfortunate assumptions, I think most are willing to give individuals the benefit of the doubt, and to change opinion in the light of personal experience.
We need to craft a narrative that brings out the best in Australians.
Mark:
Well if that doesn’t work, I could always try “Last Exit to Wollstonecraft”
(Channeling the Simpsons episode titles here – what was the movie like, anyone?)
Justin,
I think the apposite quote from that Pearson article is a few pars down:
OH – the Simpsons movie was ok, but not brilliant.
I also thought it was surprisingly brutal and callous. The TV shows have those elements, but not as heavily as the movie. It could be thought of as an indictment of contemporary US culture, exposing vindictive lynch mobs, heavy-handed police and a violent corrupt government hellbent on using military force no matter how many people die. Or perhaps it’s just nasty humour.
Sipros,Gandhi and all:
January 2008? Ha-ha-ha-ha …. and of course there won’t be any “terrorist outrage” [real or imaginary, actual or implied] that will lead to a “temporary” State Of Emergency during which an election would have to be suspended so as to avoid exposing the voters at the polling places to mortar attacks, suicide bombers and sword-wielding fundamentalists. Geez, it’s highly likely the script has already been written and casting is well under way. Who said there are no more rabbits that can be pulled out of the hat? Your rodent has form.
By the way, my wild guess is that although many young ADF service personnel might vote for the Liberal-National coalition, the coalition has lost all but the most vociferous recalcitrant and utterly compliant war veterans. The smart-ars*d humiliation of the TPI pensioners who held a well-behaved protest demonstration in Canberra a couple of winters ago wasn’t such a smart idea in the long run. Revenge?
The only likely state of emergency situation in January will be if the Indian Cricket team knocks off the Aussies in the test matches.
Calling a state of emergency could be seen as a tad over reactive. Then again, you know John Howard and his “wedges”.
I bet the election will be before Christmas.
Interpreting the stats is a work of opinion, Mark, and as I posted to his site I think Graham has put a lot of wishful thinking into his interpretation (e.g. the idea that the Liberal Party can easily win back disenchanted voters who have been prepared to just go along until now). It was the political equivalent of using Grange as a marinade.
For the Liberal Party it’s best to keep Jeanette away from the great unwashed, it’s been her lifelong goal anyway. Howard’s kids were all born while he was Treasurer, or at least an MP – they know the drill. As if John Howard will take his eye off the political ball for something like that, honestly!
None of these people necessarily have a lot of dough, Spiros, and if they do they don’t flash it. The whole notion of Liberal Party meetings being full of titled people in furs and rattling jewelry was always Labor myth. You just need to change your idea of what a safe Liberal seat is. 20 years ago it would be a joke to claim that the Liberal vote in Camden was safer than that in Waverley, but these days the smart money would be on the Libs holding outer-suburban seats of strivers or even “cashed-up bogans” than your leafy streets where octogenarian grandees are being replaced by gay couples and plaintiff lawyers.
Depends which church you go to Kina. I bet that a lot of the activists appalled at the Pacific Solution/Tampa/refugees generally issue are active churchgoers – except they obey the injunction to humility to which Hillsong, Pell and Jensen appear deaf.
While people won’t go on about Hicks or AWB, it was embarrassing and people will come to resent the current government for making us look crude.
Andrew E, you need to make the critical distinction between Liberal voters and members of the Liberal party.
I agree that the these days the safest Liberal seats are likely to be found in the outer suburbs, which is exactly my point. The old safe Liberal seats, like Costello’s seat of Higgins (centred the very rich Melbourne suburbs of Armadale and malvern) and Turnbull’s seat of Wentworth (Double Bay, Vaucluse) are now real chances to fall to the Labor Party. This would have been unthinkable 15 years ago.
The rich people who live in these places have not converted to the cause of socialism, but they are far more socially liberal than the rich people who used to live in them; they are far more socially liberal than the cashed up bogans who live in Camden; and they are far, far more socially liberal than lower middle class voters who swung to Howard in 96, partly left him in 98, swung back in 01 and stayed with him in 04.
The good people of Higgins and Wentworth care about climate change, quite like the idea of a Republic, and are put off by the fetus-obsessives in the Liberal Party Right; and that goes triple for their 18-26 year old children who are still living at home. Their vote is ripe for the plucking by the Labor Party, provided it is led by someone who is non-threatening — enter Kevin Rudd.
My theory on why this McMansion living, 4WD driving, plasma TV viewing ‘non-materialistic’ christians are deserting the Liberals is simply because of WorkChoices. By presiding benignly over the historically long resources boom and propping up the housing sector, Howard has encouraged people to think that the good times are really rolling and they can have as many material goods as they can buy plus send their kids to private schools and credit themelves up to the max.
But now Howard has introduced WorkChoices and these people are just incensed. What with no-more-penalty-rates clauses placed in their AWAs, they just won’t be able to buy as much as they used to and the slightly rising interest rates are a problem too. Hence the massive shift in the polls to Labor. But Graham Young pussyfoots all around this claiming that these liberal christians only just think Howard’s got too much baggage and has been in too long. I love the way he also seems to urge these Liberal waverers to vote Howard in this election (because he’ll only stay for two more years) and then make up their minds (between presumably Costello and Rudd) next time. In fact this Graham Young appears to be a Liberal himself in the same sort of quandary, but since he is a christian is unwilling to admit the real reasons (ie WorkChoices and Money) is why that nice christian Mr Rudd is looking like such a good deal.
Nobody darst say that word WorkChoices, but if Howard loses the next election is this really going to be the reason why?
The other slowburn – which Im sure Rudd will address in an election campaign – is childcare availability, childcare costs, and the transition to kindergarten (and finding long day care then).
I talk to lots of other parents at parks, while the kids play, and many of them Id describe as small business, self-employed, middle of road swinging voters – and I can assure the ALP that yer average punter is deeply suspicious of for-profit private childcare providers, and wants to see council/ community/ public alternatives.
But on the other hand, 10 years of governance by Howard and his motley band of control freaks, manipulators, obsessives and liars has produced superb political grand guignol that has proven to be endlessly diverting for a left libertarian such as my good self.
I’m particularly amused by persons like committed happy clappers staggering under the burdens of falling incomes and rising mortgage debts clinging devotedly to Howard’s insincere pieties.
Dirigisme of the Left is hardly more attractive than dirigisme of the Right from a policy point of view. And the Rudd ministry will be duller and greyer than the likes of Mad Monk Abbott, Smirker Costello, Dolly Downer, Cadavre Ruddock, Kevin Andrews, Peter Reith, Bill Heffernan.
No, Australia will be a less amusing place when, after defeat, this carnivalesque troupe of arse clowns withdraws to pen their unreliable memoirs.
Yes, Downer’s been particularly asinine lately.
That “do you expect to to crawl in the dirt” whinge was award-winning tilt for Chief Donkey status – even with the stiff frontbench competition that Katz alludes to.
Weekend before Cup Tuesday. Media space is a bit crowded, which is not good for Howard if he has to presume he will be coming from behind, although it’s not as bad as Nov 10 which would see the Cup fall in the last campaign week.
I say the election will almost certainly be one of the four dates Nov 17 – Dec 8.
My reasoning is at the Pollbludger here.
The earliest date, given that the addresses to Parliament go ahead on Sep 11 and 12 is 20 Oct, but I think Howard will go later rather than sooner.
Dec 15 and some states have already (just) started school holidays.
So Oct 20 & 27, Nov 3 and Dec 15 are all possible, but Nov 17 – Dec 8 are far more likely.
Indeed he has been in career best form. Did you catch his “Boo hoo” review of the Tampa affair?
Simpsons movie review from the only reviewer that you can regularly trust:
The Filthy Critic says four fingers
Spiros, after 14 years handing out how-to-votes I am well aware of the distinction. You seem to think that “The Blue Rinse, Colonel Blimp and suburban chamber of commerce brigade, who once dominated the safe Liberal vote, is now dead (perhaps literally)” were wealthy people in Malvern and Double Bay; I say they weren’t. We’re in furious agreement so leave it at that. In contrast:
The election will be the biggest story all round, so what’s with this nonsense about crowded media space? “Sorry, we can’t run a story on tax policy, here’s a piccy of Big Brown Horse at 5-1 on” – I doubt it.
That guy who was Premier of Victoria before Steve Bracks had the bright idea of holding his election around the time of the footy finals and Melbourne Cup, and look where that’s got him.
It can’t be December 15 because then you’d have the count going over Christmas/New Year (and you’d have to pay all those part-time polling officials for public holidays).
Howard has to face down a reputation for being arrogant and out of touch. The Downer thing just cements a reputation for let-them-eat-cake disconnectedness from the real world. The Libs should send him to some place with no media feed and keep him there until February.
St Margaret
Aah, I think you will find these people (all 230 of them) negotiate their own contracts at work, rather than rely on Awards or trade unions.
/Digression
I talk to lots of other parents at parks, while the kids play, and many of them Id describe as small business, self-employed, middle of road swinging voters – and I can assure the ALP that yer average punter is deeply suspicious of for-profit private childcare providers, and wants to see council/ community/ public alternatives.
/Digression
Wonderful to see you write that, Lefty E, I’ve been trying to work up a post on that topic for ages (too busy with work and family to complete the work-and-family blogging, heh.) I really felt that was off most peoples’ radar, thanks for dispelling that impression.
Its a barbie stopper, Helen!
My own view is that the only real solution to the housing aff crisis is social wage stuff like public health, education, trsansport infrastructure, affordable childcare, etc.
eg Look, here’s a high quality local public secondary school: Save yourself $10k in fees and stick it on the mortgage. No problemo, Kruddster – here’s my vote.
Otherwise you end up with dumbass inflationary subsidies like Howard’s joke policies on everything from healthcare to housing; or pissing off people who already own a house and like its high values (by getting rid of neg gearing, say -which incidentally I support in some abstract ideological universe in which there isn’t an election to be won in 3 months).
Don’t agree at all… You mean NSW Camden? Well that isn’t federally a seat, but at state level it is safe labor.
Outer suburbs more safe than the likes of wealthy North Shore areas like Mosman? Nooooo way. I think the Liberal vote in Macarthur would be very soft, even though it’s a safe majority.
David, Camden was a township and is probably a suburb – definitely a community. Who cares if it’s a seat? How many people know what electorate they live in? This whole thread, and the article that inspired it, refer to the Federal election (and I’d say the vote for Iemma in Camden is softer than that for Howard). See this electoral pendulum.
I was just checking that he meant the NSW community in case there was a separate seat called Camden in a completely different location that I hadn’t heard of.
Ophuph Hucksake on 30 July 2007 at 10:56 pm
“Beside the prejudiced explanation that ‘Joe Six Pack’ was just showing his true colours (i.e. bigotted and quasi-simian), entire books were devoted to exploring how the Republicans successfuly portrayed the Democrats as elitist, unpatriotic and also effeminate (admittedly the Dems didn’t help their own cause here). Now what red-blooded young man is going to identify with those qualities?”
What you have posted here explains a lot about what many of the Liberal trolls have been including in some of their nonsensical postings on other blog sites. ie
“As an aside many people have said it, but tonight I too realised how effeminate KRudd is becoming. He looks like a sheila on HRT. Do we want this creature as our leader? ”
This type of comment is becoming increasingly common and must lead one to suspect that they are acting on instructions from Liberal facilitators using previously “successful” American, Republican Internet blogging tactics.
Andrew E, when did I say anything about crowded media?
About the “timing of the election”:
Polling day must be between 33 and 68 days after the dissolution (or expiry) of Parliament. The current Parliament first sat on 16 November 2004 and so expires on 15 November 2007. Writs for the election must be issued within 10 days of expiry, nominations close up to 27 days after the writs and polling day can be 31 days after the close of nominations. That’s a maximum of 68 days after the expiration so polling day must be no later than the last Saturday in that 68 day period – 19 Jan 2008. But there’s no way we’ll ever see a 68 day campaign being run over Christmas.
The APEC meetings are a deal breaker because the “caretaker conventions” prevent the government from participating in things like APEC once the election is called. Then the earliest post-APEC windows cause polling day fall during the school holidays in multiple states. 20 October is really the earliest date we’re going to see an election held.
But here’s a question: will Howard go for the minimum 33 day campaign or longer. The 2004 campaign was 40 days (plus a couple of days ‘pre-announcement’), which I believe was the longest since 1984 (56? days + over two weeks pre-announcement).
Darryl Rosin:
Agree with you calendar-gazing …. but still feel that all of it will be made redundant by a manufactured “state of emergency” stunt …. [and I do pray fervently that I am wrong and that we do have semi-free and quasi-fair election after all].
LeftyE:
and
StMargaret:
Gosh. It’s a photo-finish to tell which of you two came 1st or 2nd; Helen came in 3rd right behind LeftyE.
Nobody has yet mentioned crawling to a America’s failed ruler, have they?
“Agree with you calendar-gazing â?¦. but still feel that all of it will be made redundant by a manufactured â??state of emergencyâ?? stunt”
Thank-you. But I’m not sure what legal grounds there could be for suspension of an election. I’m not across “states of emergency’ but there’s no provision in the Electoral Act for such a thing. Individual elections (eg an election for a particular Division) can be declared to have failed, but not until after an attempt is made to conduct the election (except in the case of a death of a candidate after nominations close and before polling day).
You could argue (and you sort of are arguing) that little things like the law won’t stop him, but he’d need the Governor-General, The High Court, the State Governors (& therefore the premiers) and probably the State Supreme courts all to go along with it, just for a start. As far as constitutional crises go, it would be a beautiful and terrible thing to behold…
d
Darryl Rosin:
There would be NO legal grounds whatsoever for a “state of emergency” that would suspend an election.
The air would be full of grim news, horrific stories and dire warnings. There would be ministerial announcements galore and calls to be calm and steadfast and unified in the face of great peril. Official documents authorizing severe actions and extraordinary powers would be in wide circulation in no time flat. It would become the patriotic duty of every decent citizen to seek out doubters, sceptics and other agents of the Enemy as fast as possible, before we are all murdered in our beds.
Illegal? Of course not …. because the Law is what we say it is – and that includes the Electoral Act. By the time anyone gets half-way to challenging what has happened, they’ll be behind the razor-wire – or worse.
That’s how it is done and it works a treat every time.
Your faith in the High Court is charming – they have truly defended all of our traditional rights, obligations and privleges so well in the past couple of years, haven’t they? Protected by the Governor-General? I wasn’t aware Rev.Dr. Peter Hollingswoth had returned to the position. As for all the other insitutions you mentioned; they would be only minor obstacles to anyone with their heart set on seizing or retaining power at any cost …. and maybe they would willingly help it happen.