Reply
Wed 3 Aug, 2005 11:37 am
source: The Australian, page 2, 03.08.05
Actually, I had thought, results were worse for Howard.
But is this more a question concerning the opposition and the leading figures there?
I was also a little mystified by the title . . . although i do know many Americans who cannot, apparently, make the distinction . . .
Corrected
Setanta wrote:I was also a little mystified by the title . . . although i do know many Americans who cannot, apparently, make the distinction . . .
But I quoted an Australian paper, posted it in the Australian cathegory ... just jumbled a bit the hemispheres :wink:
What do you want to know?
Yes, our politics are more confusing than our wildlife
Well, I'd thought that - especially after the London attacks - the opposition would gain and Howard loose support, for instance.
Er - those polls are confusing to reqd cos they stretch the scren - is that not what happened?
Actually, prolly Howard would gain if people are frightened - Australians tend to coalesce in support of conservatives if they are frightened - and Howard leads a conservative government.
Beasley is a re-run Opposition leader - they are is some disarray, after an experiment with a different leader ushered in a disastrous election result. Not that Labor lost support so much overall - but they lost it in a few key seats that meant disaster.
The Opposition is struggling to decide on coherent policy and direction.
The conservative's proposed new Industrial relations legislation IS, however, losing them support right now - as have revelations of appalling behaviour in the department that runs the mandatory detention system for illegal immigrants. Hopefully that tide is turning.
dlowan wrote:The Opposition is struggling to decide on coherent policy and direction.
Exactly that is what I've thaught - such hapening elsewhere as well.
(That quoted poll was from yesterday's actual paper, btw.)
Thanks for your response.
Part of the problem is incumbency. I am always amazed that someone can ask, let alone answer, a question that asks how the incumbent is doing and would the alternative be better. I must be bit slow but surely one is the evaluation of someone actually doing the job and the other is a hypothetical?
Also the Opposition in Australia has failed to differentiate itself sufficiently from the parties in Government. Why vote for a pale imitation when the real thing is in power?
Hmm. On the other site, a long(er) incumbency can give exactly in opposite results as well - like here in Germany: "perhaps they can do do it better?"
There appears to be more effective opposition to Howard's excesses from his own backbenchers right now than from the "official" opposition.
Good point Walter, a confirmation of the old adage that governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them.....msolga - isn't that a tragedy?
That sounds somehow familiar..