1
   

The NEXT coming Oz election thread!

 
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2007 02:33 pm
msolga wrote:
Wilso wrote:
Anyone see Costello's speech last night. Even in the face of humiliating defeat, he still managed to come across as smug and arrogant.


Strange, Wilso, I had an entirely different impression to you. I thought he looked happier than he'd looked in ages!


Are you talking about the speech where he announced dropping out of the leader's race, or the night before?
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2007 02:36 pm
bungie wrote:
msolga wrote:
bungie wrote:
looks like Pete has packed up his bat and ball and doesn't want to play anymore.

Quote:
Costello won't lead Libs
Staff reporters
November 25, 2007 - 12:54PM
Latest related coverage

Peter Costello has announced his intention to refuse the Liberal Party leadership following the Howard Government's election defeat.


Full story here


Very interesting development!
The Liberal Party is going to be very, very interesting to watch in opposition as it goes through it's post-Howard, neo conservative phase. Come to think of it, it isn't at all surprising that Costello wants out. (Being one of the "leading lights" & brains behind much of the Howard industrial relations line.) I wouldn't be at all surprised if there are more retirements from the hardliners over the coming months. It seems that this hard phase of Oz political life is over - history. So now the Libs will need to work out what they stand for next. A warmer, kinder, fuzzier Liberal Party? :wink: At the very least, a more liberal Liberal Party will emerge, I reckon. I predict Malcolm Turnbull will be their leader. If not immediately, during this term of government.


My memory might be wrong msolga, but it seems any new party leader after a defeat at the poles, is not the same leader that takes them to the next election.Perhaps Pete is aware of that and maybe Malcolm is not. As you say, interesting times ahead.


Leaders elected after defeats generally don't do well.
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2007 04:42 pm
Time for a new thread yet?

Kevin Rudd and Noel Pearson apparently worked with each other in the Queensland public service - and hate each other. Seeing how the intervention is based on some of Noel's ideas, and seeing how the Cape York Institute reaps millions from the government for its tough-love programs we should some changes in that area.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2007 04:51 pm
"Tough love"...an expression that ought to be made illegal outside of the bedroom.
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2007 05:29 pm
Rudd had flagged razor gangs before the election (for those unaware of the term, 'razor gangs' is an approach to downsizing government departments and programs with minimal fuss - ie no transition planning, just ceased, funding cut, staff made redundant).

One would have to think that DEWR will be the first hit (the department implementing Work Choices and the 'fairness' test). Can't wait. It has an ugly, ugly corporate culture, and is a creation of the Howard govt - and smells like it. Second only to Defence in number of staff I imagine that dep secs have had the shredders whizzing all weekend.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2007 05:32 pm
msolga wrote:
Kevin Rudd is an unusual choice for Labor Party leader. He comes from a diplomatic/bureaucratic background, rather than the more traditional political or trade union base. He is also a relative newcomer to the Labor Party (only 9 years in parliament), so it will be interesting to see what sort of a Labor leader he will make. I think it is fair to say that in terms of Labor politics he is a conservative - right of centre.

He (along with Howard) has run a more "presidential" style campaign than is usual for Labor leaders. And has made it clear that he will be choosing cabinet ministers himself, rather than the Labor tradition of factional representation. Whether this will be a good thing or not has yet to be seen. The factions of the party (some very powerful) have been very constrained & disciplined throughout this campaign. Whether they remain so, when Rudd (inevitably) makes decisions that undermine positions that certain factions hold "sacred" (like say, on uranium mining & export, aspects of industrial relations to the left) is another matter.

It is important to understand that the Labor Party traditionally has operated (sometimes not so successfully) as a party, with decision making & consultation occurring at all level of the organization, right down to the members. Rudd intends to operate in a radically different way. It will certainly be "interesting" to see how the party adjusts to this & what the party becomes under his leadership.


Speaking personally, while I'm absolutely ecstatic to see the last of this Liberal government, I'm rather apprehensive about what "Rudd Labor" will actually stand for. I've been extremely disappointed with Rudd's line on education funding, his attitude to some "errant" trade unionists during the campaign & quite a few other things. Far too much "Me-too-ism" (agreeing with the Howard line) on too many issues for comfort. However, he will ratify Kyoto urgently & extract us from Iraq. With Labor I much feel much more confident about Australia's relationships with other countries, particularly with Asia & the US. In the case of Asian countries I expect Rudd will work hard to repair some of the damage caused by Howard acting as Bush's "deputy sherif" in the south Pacific. A lot of bad feeling between us & our near neighbours as a result. And in the case of our relationship with the US, it will be a great relief to extricate ourselves from Bush & the conservatives & start making decisions for ourselves again!


Thank you, Msolga, that was interesting. I was reading up a little on the election results, but most of the (international) news coverage I saw focused on Howard, what his defeat means, how things will change (or not change). Little about Rudd, what his politics are, how he's different from previous Labor leaders, whether and how the party's politics have changed. So was glad to find your take. Roughly confirmed suspicions.

Mind you, Blair and Schroeder were both elected as more diplomatic / technocratic modernisers of their parties, and look how their roles ending up being completely different from each other, at least in foreign policy. So you never know.

Congrats on the ouster of Howard and his Liberals, any case! Any Labour victory is a happy victory Razz
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2007 06:20 pm
Quote:
Any Labour victory is a happy victory


It is my fervent hope, nimh, that one day you and I can stand below georgeob's window and sing him songs of solidarity.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2007 06:44 pm
So after studying the ABC Interactive Election Map, I gather that the decisive factor was a strikingly above-average swing to Labor in rural districts, and mixed districts with small towns? In Queensland and South Australia especially, and New South Wales as well?

Seems like Labor actually only booked modest gains in comparison in the cosmopolitan urban centres and its stronghold Victoria. I also read somewhere that the swing toward Labor was bigger the further 'outland' from the cities you went, I think.

Are these mixed/rural areas districts that have gone to Labor for the first time? Or did they use to be Labor in the past as well, but were just temporarily lured to the Liberals for the past decade under Howard?

What has made the swing so strong in semi-rural areas and small towns - was there something in Howards' policies during his last term that pissed people off there in particular? I read something about how it was new employment / workplace laws that specifically made "laborers" turn away from Howard en masse?

To what extent am I misreading the maps and has it more been suburbia that swung to Labor?

Did Rudd target rural/small-town or suburban voters in some way especially in his campaign?

Sorry if some of these questions were already dealt with earlier in this thread (those employment laws for example, I guess were already discussed), feel free to refer me back...
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2007 06:45 pm
blatham wrote:
It is my fervent hope, nimh, that one day you and I can stand below georgeob's window and sing him songs of solidarity.

Heh Smile . We can sing, "Keep the red flag flying here," and perhaps he'll just think we're singing a christmas song..
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2007 06:49 pm
I was much happier after seeing Rudd's first press conference than I was after the victory speech.


Sounds like they will be getting rid of Costello and Howard's IR legislation pdq.

They want to move on climate change.....are talking about re-building education.




I dunno about the cabinet thing.....on the one hand it's a no-brainer that the best people ought to be picked, regardless of faction...on the other hand, Labor's faction system has at least served to ensure there is some Left input at the top, reflective of its strength in the rank and file. This looks to be a very right dominated government....


Interesting to see how the factions react, now that there is not such an intense need to maintain public solidarity.


I would hope Kombet will be in Cabinet? After that anti IR campaign he has earned his stripes.


I have to say, it's sinking in!!!!! We really have got rid of Howard and his ilk!!!!!!!!


No matter how disappointing this lot may be, they can't be that bad.


Phew.


My heart is wanting to float a bit...
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Nov, 2007 01:00 am
dlowan wrote:
What's Turnbull like, in your view, Msolga?


Well, let's say I was not exactly impressed with his performance as leader of The Australian Republican Movement in 1999, Deb! A unifier? No.
I wished that some one else had been chosen for that role, given that almost 50% of the voters favoured a republic prior to the referendum, then rejected it. A lost opportunity hugely regretted. Sigh.

But the Liberal Party at this point in time is a completely different matter. I understand he is not exactly loved by some of his fellow Libs :wink: but really, this neo conservative phase of Oz politic is over! I really can't imagine voters warmly embracing the idea of an Abbott, a Downer, or even a Costello for that matter, given the mood for change in the electorate. My hunch is that most Liberal voters will yearn for a more liberal party. Perhaps, maybe not right away, Malcolm Turnbull will be the best they can come up with? Not too many genuine Liberals left after the purges of the "wets" some time ago.

But then, there's always the possibility of newer, fresher blood during this next term. Some of those disenchanted closet liberal Liberals might feel it's safe to reassert themselves after the Howard horrors? :wink:
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Nov, 2007 01:09 am
Wilso wrote:
msolga wrote:
Wilso wrote:
Anyone see Costello's speech last night. Even in the face of humiliating defeat, he still managed to come across as smug and arrogant.


Strange, Wilso, I had an entirely different impression to you. I thought he looked happier than he'd looked in ages!


Are you talking about the speech where he announced dropping out of the leader's race, or the night before?


The night before, Wilso.
He looked so relaxed, all those wrinkles suddenly smoothed out!
You know, I don't think he minded Howard being shafted all that much! :wink:
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Nov, 2007 01:18 am
hingehead wrote:
Time for a new thread yet?

Kevin Rudd and Noel Pearson apparently worked with each other in the Queensland public service - and hate each other. Seeing how the intervention is based on some of Noel's ideas, and seeing how the Cape York Institute reaps millions from the government for its tough-love programs we should some changes in that area.


How about next week some time for a new thread, hinge?
After all the post election fall-out on this thread?


I'd love to hear more of your thinking on what changes are likely to eventuate.

Could you fill us in on the Cape York Institute?

And I'd love to hear more about this political history of Kevin & Noel!
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Nov, 2007 01:25 am
hingehead wrote:
Rudd had flagged razor gangs before the election (for those unaware of the term, 'razor gangs' is an approach to downsizing government departments and programs with minimal fuss - ie no transition planning, just ceased, funding cut, staff made redundant).

One would have to think that DEWR will be the first hit (the department implementing Work Choices and the 'fairness' test). Can't wait. It has an ugly, ugly corporate culture, and is a creation of the Howard govt - and smells like it. Second only to Defence in number of staff I imagine that dep secs have had the shredders whizzing all weekend.


Yep, can't argue with that, hinge.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Nov, 2007 02:44 am
nimh wrote:
So after studying the ABC Interactive Election Map, I gather that the decisive factor was a strikingly above-average swing to Labor in rural districts, and mixed districts with small towns? In Queensland and South Australia especially, and New South Wales as well?

Seems like Labor actually only booked modest gains in comparison in the cosmopolitan urban centres and its stronghold Victoria. I also read somewhere that the swing toward Labor was bigger the further 'outland' from the cities you went, I think.

Are these mixed/rural areas districts that have gone to Labor for the first time? Or did they use to be Labor in the past as well, but were just temporarily lured to the Liberals for the past decade under Howard?

What has made the swing so strong in semi-rural areas and small towns - was there something in Howards' policies during his last term that pissed people off there in particular? I read something about how it was new employment / workplace laws that specifically made "laborers" turn away from Howard en masse?

To what extent am I misreading the maps and has it more been suburbia that swung to Labor?

Did Rudd target rural/small-town or suburban voters in some way especially in his campaign?

Sorry if some of these questions were already dealt with earlier in this thread (those employment laws for example, I guess were already discussed), feel free to refer me back...


I must say, I'm really impressed with your efforts to comprehend the swing to Labor, nimh.

While I'm no Antony Green (ABC election guru) this swing has been attributed to the rejection of Howard's policies by those who have been called "Howard's battlers". These were the (lower paid) Australian workers who defected to Howard & the Liberals from Labor early on & continued supporting Howard despite an ever increasing number of reasons to reject him. (Like our much-opposed involvement in Iraq, the AWB scandal, the treatment of asylum seekers, David Hicks, over zealous "security" measures that threatened civil liberties, etc, etc, etc, etc, ect! You would have to read over months & months of this thread to grasp the full horror of what has happened to this country under Howard.)

So, despite all the arguments for removing the Howard government, his "battlers" believed he was working in their interests, was on their side. At the last election he promised to keep interest rates at record lows - suggesting that Labor would send them spiralling to dangerous levels. This at a time when Australians apparently had "never had it so good", a time of "record prosperity", as a result of the mining boom & a huge increase in trade with Asia. But the prosperity wasn't equally shared - some people were very much better off while others (like his "battlers") were genuinely struggling to make ends meet.

At the last election, with a remarkable landslide victory, the Liberals gained control of both houses of parliament. The opposition was decimated. Howard took advantage of this situation by by introducing his WorkChoices "reforms" - which were not part of his election platform. And which impacted hugely on lower paid workers. He continued to argue, with incredible insensitivity, that Australians had never been so well off & failed to acknowledge the evidence of increasing hardship for lower paid Australians. This was followed by a number of interest rate rises, which clearly, he had no power to contain, despite his promise..

So, to cut a long story short, he lost this election because his power base, his "battlers", completely lost faith in him. They deserted him in droves. In both the rural & the country areas. In urban areas these people often reside in "safe" Labor electorates, so the much increased vote to Labor would not change the anticipated result. The outskirts of the major cities (the satellite towns) are now areas of major financial difficulty. A lot of mortgage & credit stress out there, along with high levels of unemployment, or precarious employment. The voting changes in the rural areas you mentioned are much more noticeable because these are traditional conservative strongholds.

In a nutshell, it was hubris which brought Howard undone. After the 2004 election victory, which gave him control of both houses, he thought he could do ANYTHING & get away with it. By implementing his IR policies he made the worst mistake a politician can make - taking his power base for granted.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Nov, 2007 03:08 am
hingehead wrote:
Time for a new thread yet?


I've thought about this since I responded to your post earlier, hinge.

What do you (& other Oz A2Kers) think about the idea of opening a new thread now, so we can cover Rudd Labor from the word go ...?

While, at the same time, we can continue our election post mortems here?

So what if there's a bit of overlap?
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Nov, 2007 03:22 am
How's this?

A brand new Rudd/Labor thread:

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2959734#2959734

But of course you can keep raving on about the fall-out from the 2007 election here, too! Still a lot left to say!

Everyone happy?
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Nov, 2007 06:06 am
A few post-election words from Uncle Paul.
(Former Oz Labor leader & PM, Paul Keating.):


The Liberals must purge the reactionaries
Paul Keating
November 26, 2007/the AGE



ON SATURDAY night, when it was clear the Howard government had been defeated, many Labor supporters around me said: "You must be so happy." But my emotion was not happiness, rather; it was relief.

Relief that the nation had put itself back on course. Relief that the toxicity of the Liberal social agenda, the active disparagement of particular classes and groups, that feeling of alienation in your own country, was over. And over in the only way that could be final: with a resounding electoral instruction of "no more".

In the Sydney Sun Herald last Sunday, John Howard nominated the putting asunder of political correctness and the celebration of our Anglo-Celtic past as the pinnacle of his social, indeed national, achievement.

In making the claim, he was nominating as a virtue political incorrectness of a kind that gave some the right to speak and behave towards others in terms disparaging of their colour, religion, class or social standing.

In a country of immigrants, such a view emanating from the prime minister is social poison.

Saturday night's victory was not just a victory for the Labor Party, it was also a victory for those Liberals such as Malcolm Fraser, Petro Georgiou and Judi Moylan, who stood against the pernicious erosion of decent standards in our public affairs.

The Liberal Party of John Howard, Philip Ruddock, Alexander Downer and Peter Costello is now a party of privilege and punishments. One that lacks that most basic of wellsprings: charity.

The French philosophers had it pretty right with the Enlightenment catchcry of liberty, equality and fraternity.

There was not much liberty for the boat people or fraternity for the Aborigines or the Muslims or equality for the trade unionists who believed in nothing more revolutionary than the simple right to collectively bargain.

John Howard says that he was the progenitor, the giver, of the past 11 years of economic growth and without him or Costello the growth would evaporate.

This election result means that the public didn't believe him. ... <cont>

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/the-liberals-must-purge-the-reactionaries/2007/11/25/1195975866030.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Nov, 2007 08:25 am
Lovely!
0 Replies
 
Dutchy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Nov, 2007 03:47 pm
An interesting sideline here: http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2960350#2960350
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Beached As Bro - Discussion by dadpad
Oz election thread #3 - Rudd's Labour - Discussion by msolga
Australian music - Discussion by Wilso
Oz Election Thread #6 - Abbott's LNP - Discussion by hingehead
AUstralian Philosophers - Discussion by dadpad
Australia voting system - Discussion by fbaezer
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/05/2021 at 02:06:13