The Australian Election Thread

[Australis]

I always vote before the line. What troubles me is that you don't always know what some of the candidates stand for. I have a way of fixing that, just need a venture capitalist or backer, along with a good marketing person, to make it work.

Watching the PM on Q&A right now. She's looking pretty good. Informed, warm, not shying away from tough questions. I was mildly impressed.

Abbott next week. I don't think he'll come out looking so good, but that might be wishful thinking on my part.

 

[Marc]

Well. Uhhhhh... Not surwe where to start, but I'll give it a shot.

The public was growing more dissatisfied with Rudd over a significant period of time. The big change occurred when he said the Government would drop its pursuit of putting a Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) in place. While there's all this talk about whether climate control is real or not, the public felt that its dropping was wrong, you could see it in the polls, and in just talking to anyone you knew, even Labor Party supporters. From there it was a downward slide. As to who axed him, I feel it was basically panic merchants and career politicians on the Labor backbenches - it is conceivable he would have been doing as well as Gillard is now, he's good on the hustings.

Not quite sure what you mean about the National Party, they are, for all intents and purposes, rusted onto the Liberal Party. The third force in Aust politics, at this time, is the Greens.

Of course while Tony Abbott is sticking the boot into Labor for dumping Rudd, he's very quiet on the circumstances that lead to his becoming opposition leader which pretty much mirrored that of Rudd except it went to a party rom vote where mad monk won by 1 vote.

While it's unprecedented for a P.M to be dumped within their first term, the Liberals pretty much did the same thing in 1971 where the P.M served just over 3 years (taking over half way through the precending term) then challenged and umped halfway through the next after winning the election but pissing away a pretty large majority. Labor dumped Bob Hawke in the early 1990s when he was becoming a liability and replaced him with keating who then went on to win the 1993 election. In 199?, the Tories in the U.K dumped Margaret Thatcher when she became a electoral liability and replaced her with John Major - he then went to win the next election and gave the Tories another 5 years in power.

I also suspect if Brian Mulroney hadn't resigned as Canadian P.M he would of been dumped however his replacement with Kim Campbell didn't work and the Tories crashed to a massive defeat.

 

[stj]

Well. Uhhhhh... Not surwe where to start, but I'll give it a shot.

The public was growing more dissatisfied with Rudd over a significant period of time. The big change occurred when he said the Government would drop its pursuit of putting a Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) in place. While there's all this talk about whether climate control is real or not, the public felt that its dropping was wrong, you could see it in the polls, and in just talking to anyone you knew, even Labor Party supporters. From there it was a downward slide. As to who axed him, I feel it was basically panic merchants and career politicians on the Labor backbenches - it is conceivable he would have been doing as well as Gillard is now, he's good on the hustings.

Not quite sure what you mean about the National Party, they are, for all intents and purposes, rusted onto the Liberal Party. The third force in Aust politics, at this time, is the Greens.

Thanks for the answer. Since Pauline what's-her-name, I tend to think of the National Party segment of the "Coalition" as setting the agenda for the official right wing (with ALP as the unofficial right wing,) but that's just my lousy memory.

As to the examples cited by Marc, one difference with the dismissal of Rudd is that there wasn't the kind of political catastrophe like Thatcher's poll tax (the role of the riots and protests over that are I believe very much underestimated in Major's leadership challenge.) And Mulroney reached Bushian levels of unpopularity. I didn't think Rudd had bottomed out like that, which is exactly why he can be drafted to campaign for Gillard. (Or so the bosses hope.)

The biggest reason I thought the Rudd dismissal was so unusual was that there wasn't, as near as I can make out, an internal party campaign challenging him. It was, one day he's bopping along, albeit with dropping polls. The next, the back room boys have spoken and Gillard's the new Queen. Which all strikes this foreign observer as democratic as Stephen Harper.

 

[Marc]

Well. Uhhhhh... Not surwe where to start, but I'll give it a shot.

The public was growing more dissatisfied with Rudd over a significant period of time. The big change occurred when he said the Government would drop its pursuit of putting a Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) in place. While there's all this talk about whether climate control is real or not, the public felt that its dropping was wrong, you could see it in the polls, and in just talking to anyone you knew, even Labor Party supporters. From there it was a downward slide. As to who axed him, I feel it was basically panic merchants and career politicians on the Labor backbenches - it is conceivable he would have been doing as well as Gillard is now, he's good on the hustings.

Not quite sure what you mean about the National Party, they are, for all intents and purposes, rusted onto the Liberal Party. The third force in Aust politics, at this time, is the Greens.

Thanks for the answer. Since Pauline what's-her-name, I tend to think of the National Party segment of the "Coalition" as setting the agenda for the official right wing (with ALP as the unofficial right wing,) but that's just my lousy memory.

As to the examples cited by Marc, one difference with the dismissal of Rudd is that there wasn't the kind of political catastrophe like Thatcher's poll tax (the role of the riots and protests over that are I believe very much underestimated in Major's leadership challenge.) And Mulroney reached Bushian levels of unpopularity. I didn't think Rudd had bottomed out like that, which is exactly why he can be drafted to campaign for Gillard. (Or so the bosses hope.)

The biggest reason I thought the Rudd dismissal was so unusual was that there wasn't, as near as I can make out, an internal party campaign challenging him. It was, one day he's bopping along, albeit with dropping polls. The next, the back room boys have spoken and Gillard's the new Queen. Which all strikes this foreign observer as democratic as Stephen Harper.

Rudd may not of had level of unpopularity as Mulroney or the poll tax of Thatcher but he was heading down and basically his time as P.M was marked by cluster fucks and backflips.

He backflipped on the ETS, did nothing about the situation with public hospitals despite going to the 2007 election with it as part of the party platform, the environment minister couldn't of been more MIA if he was lost in Vietnam, the home insulation scheme was mis-managed (I do concede that part of that was the states faults as they are the ones who handle business registrations and the consumers should of engaged in a bit of due dilligence), the building project for schools has been rorted to the tune of $2 and bit billion dollars (Though again the states have something to answer for here) but generally Rudd has failed to inspire.

He was as autocratic as howard, there was a high turn over of staff within his office and while he didn't have a major screw up he was definately become a poll liability.

Though in some areas his continued support for filtering at ISP level of internet content was becoming a major issue (though I don't trust Abbott and Co - I think they will still push the filtering if they win office).

Now I do think Gillard made a mistake with the poll date. The 2007 election was in November which means the current parliament had another 3 months to run so she could of held off.

Though I can also understand she couldn't really do much - it's expensive waste of time shuffling ministers just months out from the election but it would of given her time to develope a direction and strategy.

But there's a one good thing about Gillard - she's an athiest and it's about time religion got the hell out of politics - it's why labor pushed the bloody internet filter.

 

[Australis]

I'm detecting a subtle shift towards Labor after last night's Q&A, as well as LIb's costings stuffup, and Peacock's 'handicapped' comment.

 

[Marc]

I'm detecting a subtle shift towards Labor after last night's Q&A, as well as LIb's costings stuffup, and Peacock's 'handicapped' comment.

Their so called broadband policy is a flop - offers people something possibly in the short term but there's nothing in there for the future.

They talk about about line speed (though to be technical it's actually bandwith as the speed is the same no matter what - about .8c iirc) up to 100Mbit but there's no way in hell you're going to get that over a wide area using a copper network let alone Telstra's crapped out system. It's something you generally need fibre to do (yes you could use UTP with a suitable backbone but it's not really intended for providing internet connections to house).

 

[Botany Bay]

As to the examples cited by Marc, one difference with the dismissal of Rudd is that there wasn't the kind of political catastrophe like Thatcher's poll tax (the role of the riots and protests over that are I believe very much underestimated in Major's leadership challenge.) And Mulroney reached Bushian levels of unpopularity. I didn't think Rudd had bottomed out like that, which is exactly why he can be drafted to campaign for Gillard. (Or so the bosses hope.)

Rudd decided to hit mining companies with a whopping 40% tax on any profits above 5%, retrospectively applied to projects already underway. This was a monumental, final miscalculation that cost him his job.

Mining is so incredibly important to Australia, representing our biggest export. Also, the retirement savings of Australians are tied to the future of these companies. Inevitably, the mining companies responded with a fierce anti-Rudd advertising campaign.

Under Rudd, the ALP's primary vote sat in the mid-thirty percent region, meaning only the most hardcore Labor supporters were going to vote for them. Replicated on election day, it would have put them out of office for decades.

But, history has shown incumbency is a powerful thing, and Rudd could have made ground closer to an election, but the ALP were unwilling to give him this chance.

The biggest reason I thought the Rudd dismissal was so unusual was that there wasn't, as near as I can make out, an internal party campaign challenging him. It was, one day he's bopping along, albeit with dropping polls. The next, the back room boys have spoken and Gillard's the new Queen. Which all strikes this foreign observer as democratic as Stephen Harper.

The removal of Rudd has shaken many Australians, and could still cost the ALP the election.

Rudd's incredibly fast downfall was due to his lacking any kind of factional backing within the party. He became leader by carefully building a media profile for himself to the point where he bacame the most popular member of the party in the eyes of the public. Many within the party couldn't stand him, but after 11 years in opposition, thought he was their best chance back to power in a presidential style election. They were right.

But Rudd never built any real support within the party. He was only going to survive as long as he was capable of keeping the ALP in power.

Was his removal democratic? Well it sure has shaken people in this country. Immediately after the news of Gillard's challenge broke, the first media interview was given by the unelected union boss Paul Howes, explaining why "we" had to act. It was a PR nightmare for Labor. How can it be that union bosses decide who becomes PM? How can they treat the highest office in the land as a pass the parcel that they fight over internally? It's going to be discussed for decades.

Rudd's 2007 election was the most "presidential" in our history, and many casual observers have been stunned that the man they voted for seemingly five minutes ago has been sacked without their permission. Many also feel that the opportunity to elect our first female PM has been taken away from us, somehow spoiling the moment.

The strategy from Labor was to switch leaders, and during the "honeymoon" period of the new leader romp home to an election win has failed. This tactic has worked for them at state elections, but the brutal removal of Rudd (and the fact that people in NSW and Queensland have seen it all before) has left too many doubts in their minds.

Under Gillard, Labor's primary vote quickly dropped to similarly dismal depths as they had under Rudd, and now we have been served up the absurd spectacle of Rudd being brought back to campaign for the ALP to save them from a massive loss of seats in Rudd's home state of Queensland.

 

[Australis]

There is a point to the mining tax: one day, those resources will run out, and the corporations will take their profits and steal away in the night. Doesn't it make sense to ensure some of thoise profits are spread around the rest of us? One day, that resource won't be there, and what will be ride on? The sheep's back isn't it these days. Better to take some of that money that would either go overseas or into some already-rich guy's pocket and try and build some component of the future.

The NBN is the least of it.

 

[stj]

Thanks to Botany Bay and Australis for further comments.

Rudd's mining tax was probably of great importance in his ouster. Zelaya in Honduras is a relevant comparison. Zelaya merely raised the minimum wage, then later was overthrown in a coup. (The US media justified the coup as preventing Zelaya from running for re-election, an unconstitutional act, but the proposed poll would not and could not have led to Zelaya's re-election. The media uncritically accepted it because the US government was tacitly supporting the coup.) That kind of recent precedent sets an example for rich people everywhere, I think.

The notion that a tax on excess profits will somehow strangle the mining industry in Australia is dubious, especially given that creative accounting can disappear profits. Basically, the only way taxes can decrease production is if they render production unprofitable, which by definition this tax couldn't have done.

 

[Marc]

Thanks to Botany Bay and Australis for further comments.

Rudd's mining tax was probably of great importance in his ouster. Zelaya in Honduras is a relevant comparison. Zelaya merely raised the minimum wage, then later was overthrown in a coup. (The US media justified the coup as preventing Zelaya from running for re-election, an unconstitutional act, but the proposed poll would not and could not have led to Zelaya's re-election. The media uncritically accepted it because the US government was tacitly supporting the coup.) That kind of recent precedent sets an example for rich people everywhere, I think.

The notion that a tax on excess profits will somehow strangle the mining industry in Australia is dubious, especially given that creative accounting can disappear profits. Basically, the only way taxes can decrease production is if they render production unprofitable, which by definition this tax couldn't have done.

No there is no comparison

zilch

nada

Rudd could of hung on, forced a spill where the party would of voted on who they wanted to be leader. Instead he chose to resign as Prime Minister.

Had it gone to the party room vote and Rudd lost, he would of been removed as leader by the same people who put him there in the first place - the parliamentary wing of the Australian Labor Party.

Australians don't vote for the P.M - they vote for the party that happens to be lead by that person. Infact if one was to be strict about the Australian Constitution, the office of Prime Minister would not exist - only cabinet ministers are covered - there is no mention about the position of P.M.

 

[stj]

^^^The nature of the offenses against unrestrained wealth committed by Rudd and Zelaya are what I was comparing. The rest about Zelaya is literally a parenthetical remark. You are correct that Rudd's resignation and Zelaya's forcible exile are not formally comparable. It's just hard to know what to call Rudd's forced resignation, because it wasn't losing a leadership challenge at a party congress/convention, after the usual period of trial balloons, criticisms, covert, then official campaigning.

UK, Canada and Australia are conducting presidential campaigns. "Only" formally do they have parliamentary systems. Implicitly, the parliamentary wing committed to support Rudd. Why did they renege on this pact with the elctorate, except that Rudd offended against someone they really answer to? Elaborate theories about how they thought they'd win that win never seemed plausible to me (then, my foreign opinion is only based on the most well known facts, unencumbered by excessive detail.) I think Rudd's policies offended people who matter more to the parliamentary wing than the elctorate at large.

 

[Marc]

^^^The nature of the offenses against unrestrained wealth committed by Rudd and Zelaya are what I was comparing. The rest about Zelaya is literally a parenthetical remark. You are correct that Rudd's resignation and Zelaya's forcible exile are not formally comparable. It's just hard to know what to call Rudd's forced resignation, because it wasn't losing a leadership challenge at a party congress/convention, after the usual period of trial balloons, criticisms, covert, then official campaigning.

UK, Canada and Australia are conducting presidential campaigns. "Only" formally do they have parliamentary systems. Implicitly, the parliamentary wing committed to support Rudd. Why did they renege on this pact with the elctorate, except that Rudd offended against someone they really answer to? Elaborate theories about how they thought they'd win that win never seemed plausible to me (then, my foreign opinion is only based on the most well known facts, unencumbered by excessive detail.) I think Rudd's policies offended people who matter more to the parliamentary wing than the elctorate at large.

He was righly or wrongly seen as an electoral libability and electoral liabilties don't last very long in positions of leadership and that's the nature of politics - it's about power and those in power don't want to lose it so if the leader's not up the task, the leader is a dead man walking.

Had the Coalition had the balls to dump Howard prior to the 2007 election it's quite possible that that they would of won that year. Howard was on the nose with the voters but he wouldn't jump and the party wouldn't push him so they paid the price.

 

[Botany Bay]

Thanks to Botany Bay and Australis for further comments.

Rudd's mining tax was probably of great importance in his ouster. Zelaya in Honduras is a relevant comparison. Zelaya merely raised the minimum wage, then later was overthrown in a coup. (The US media justified the coup as preventing Zelaya from running for re-election, an unconstitutional act, but the proposed poll would not and could not have led to Zelaya's re-election. The media uncritically accepted it because the US government was tacitly supporting the coup.) That kind of recent precedent sets an example for rich people everywhere, I think.

The notion that a tax on excess profits will somehow strangle the mining industry in Australia is dubious, especially given that creative accounting can disappear profits. Basically, the only way taxes can decrease production is if they render production unprofitable, which by definition this tax couldn't have done.

You're welcome.

Ideology aside, I think critics would point to the construction of Rudd's tax as the most damning aspect for him.

To call any profit above 5% (our bond rate here, which you can earn by putting your money in a bank) a "super" profit deserving of a 40% hit is ridiculous, and a very worrying insight into Rudd's (lack of) understanding of how business works. Why would you risk your money on a hugely risky mining venture when you can earn 5% risk free in the bank? Bear in mind these mining companies must also pay company tax (30%) and a state based royalty for using the minerals (5%).

Also to apply his new tax retrospectively - ie : to projects already in operation which were only viable without this massive tax would have closed mines with the stroke of a pen. This kind of behaviour from governments is the sort of thing you'd expect in Latin America, not Australia, and in a capital constrained world, where our domestic banks rely on 60% of their funding to come from overseas, to risk our reputation as a stable investment destination was truly frightening in its amateurishness.

They guy whose head should have rolled over this is Wayne Swan, his treasurer, but Swan scored himself a promotion to deputy PM after Gillard's knifing of Rudd. Unfathomable.

I just cannot believe that nobody sat back and looked at what they were doing with this policy, or took the time to think that a well financed industry with plenty to lose would just take it on the chin.

If you want to be truly Machiavellian about it, note that Gillard was the one who advised Rudd to drop his Emissions Trading Scheme (Strike 1) and Swan urged him into the Mining Tax (Strike 2).

Anyway, stj, welcome to the bizzaro world that is Australian politics these days.

Latest Newspoll analysis shows that the ALP are in big trouble in NSW and QLD, but doing fine in Victoria and SA.

WA looks like another planet altogether with a massive swing against Labor which will cost them a couple of seats there (58-42% 2PP - ouch). "Do the WA ALP candiates eat babies?" someone asked .

From the ALP's point of view the problem is still that NSW and QLD have dozens of seats that look set to fall, but this will only be offset by modest gains in Victoria and SA.

Netting it all out, it looks so, so close in terms of seats. Only the parties will know what's really going on in those marginals, where you can expect some serious money to be splashed around in the final days.

 

[Australis]

Yeah, even though I think the mining tax is a good idea, when the news said 40%, my very first thought was, "Wow, too much. This won't end well."

 

[Australis]

okay, more lolpols! Add some yourself - chances are they'll be better than mine. Come on, you know you want to! Hopefully Valeris will be along with more later.

 

[Dancing Doctor]

 

[Botany Bay]

Loving these pics

This one seems appropriate with Nielsen showing the ALP leading 2PP 53-47. The anti-Abbott ads look to be working a treat.

 

[Jono]

Got my first campaign leaflets in the last two days. Yesterday was from Labor and Family First (with none other than Wendy Hammer on the front) and today the Liberals. I wish the voting was tomorrow so that it would be over and done with

 

[Marc]

Got my first campaign leaflets in the last two days. Yesterday was from Labor and Family First (with none other than Wendy Hammer on the front) and today the Liberals. I wish the voting was tomorrow so that it would be over and done with

at least it's only a week to go Labor up 44-40 on primary and up 53-47 on 2PP according to Neilson's latest. Abbott's only success this week came after their head to head at an RSL pokie den.

 

[Botany Bay]

Without sounding like Antony Green, the Nielsen primary votes are :
ALP 40
Coal 41
Grn 12

Labor insiders think 40 is the magic number to get them a narrow win, so this is, no doubt a great poll for Gillard.

Newspoll, meantime shows that it's tight in the seats that count.

Worryingly for the Libs, poll after poll confirms that, yes, we think the ALP should go after one term, but we just don't see Abbott as our PM.