Australian Politics (2 Viewers)

[Graney]

Q&A is terrible.

Piers Akerman is a spastic windbag who can't finish a point.

Sharon "Jobs of the future fucking trite word vomit" Burrows.

 

[blue_chameleon]

Q&A is terrible.

Piers Akerman is a spastic windbag who can't finish a point.

Sharon "Jobs of the future fucking trite word vomit" Burrows.

Graney, wtf is your avatar?

 

[Graney]

Graney, wtf is your avatar?

Everyones favorite internet sex symbol.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

That's it, I'm fucking sick of Rudd. He's a fucking worm. Voting Greens then Liberal next election.

Slashdot Technology Story | Australian ISPs Soon To Become Copyright Cops

 

[Iron]

Lol. I cant imagine voting Liberal, but i'm not crazy angry w Rudd Labor. Dont want to vote for them or anyone else

 

[Graney]

Lol. I cant imagine voting Liberal

Not even for abbott?

For much of my formative years I was deeply confused by recurrent allusions to obscure comedy teams from the 1940's in the Australian media

 

[Iron]

Not even for abbott?

For much of my formative years I was deeply confused by recurrent allusions to obscure comedy teams from the 1940's in the Australian media

They really dont have anything to hit the government with. The debt stuff is pretty lousy, esp now since Glenn Stevens has said it's nothing to worry about. Same old fear mongering and desporate groping for a wedge issue.

All up, the ALP has slightly better moral credentials (imo), but I would still be happy to see them off for an Abbott Coalition government

and lol @ sweet melancholy Rafy

 

[Graney]

They really dont have anything to hit the government with. The debt stuff is pretty lousy, esp now since Glenn Stevens has said it's nothing to worry about. Same old fear mongering and desporate groping for a wedge issue.

They'll just change it all once they get in.

Like they did with workchoices.

 

[Lentern]

I always read your responses, they just all kind of meld into one big "Blah blah Latham sucks blah blah so does Hewson blah blah bet you like Bronwyn Bishop/Laurie Ferguson blah blah bet you buy into that 'Howard was a conviction politician thing' blah blah Nelson was unfortunate".

Surprise me, Lentern, why don't you start praising someone who's not nauseatingly middle of the road mediocre and start rousing for somebody who actually does make people feel passionate about. And it's not a terrible thing to support someone based on their ideological similarities with you.

It is coming, I got about halfway through writing something, punched backspace and the page jumped backwards and i lost it and it was just too frustrating to start upon again straight away and i too tired now but i shall deliver a lovely infuriating rant about the evils of being interesting i promise.

 

[Lentern]

I always read your responses, they just all kind of meld into one big "Blah blah Latham sucks blah blah so does Hewson blah blah bet you like Bronwyn Bishop/Laurie Ferguson blah blah bet you buy into that 'Howard was a conviction politician thing' blah blah Nelson was unfortunate".

Surprise me, Lentern, why don't you start praising someone who's not nauseatingly middle of the road mediocre and start rousing for somebody who actually does make people feel passionate about. And it's not a terrible thing to support someone based on their ideological similarities with you.

I threw in some pictures to break up the boring reading.


Gerard Henderson has a very strong compulsion to protect the legacy of liberal politicians. Recently I read an article by Henderson suggesting as an opposition frontbencher Kevin modelled himself on Howard. It would not do for Henderson to suggest labor did so well in sixty nine and seventy two because for the first time since Chifley they were lead by a bloke who wasn’t a total dickhead and the Australian people were in truth very very ready for change. Much better to say the liberals were unlucky in that a dashing young, handsome knight in shining armour tricked the electorate with his smooth tongue into thinking he was something that he wasn’t.

Harold Holt was a ridiculously popular prime minister and had the unified support of the liberal party caucus, to suggest Whitlam’s task in 69 was no easier than Calwells in 66 is very very weak. This doesn’t even take into account the waning popularity of the Vietnam war which still was generally supported in 66 and the fact that Mcewen had caused turmoil in the liberal party through his denouncements of Mcmahon whilst Fraser resigned because he didn’t respect Gorton. Then there were the rumours that Gorton was a drunk and McMahon was a fag. 72 is legendary because it was inspiring, for those tragic progressives like myself Whitlam struck the perfect chord, but most of them would have voted for labor anyway.

Having a personality that doesn’t polarise a very large block of voters is not the be all and end all of federal politics. Hawke had personality, yes oodles of it, but he and Hayden in 83 still distanced themselves from the Whitlam legacy as best they could and for the large part worked the convince the Australian people that a labor government would for the large part be a continuation of Fraser’s. Hawke wasn’t elected because the people wanted the dollar floated, tariffs slashed and foreign banks introduced.

Let me make clear I am not against personality, I am against types of personality. When Hockey and Rudd did that song on Kerry Anne I believe was very good politically, bit of light hearted fun, everyone’s a winner. Costello flying around in the plane, Howard dancing to the “fence the pool, shut the gate, teach the kids to swim its great” it’s all winners. In truth Latham did a lot of things very well in his campaign, the reading to kids, kicking the footy around with the dragons, making bets with the chaser about saying “ease the squeeze” 7 times in the debate was good, down to earth, harmless fun.

What isn’t harmless fun is angry bellowing like a wounded bull every time you disagree. What isn’t harmless fun are contemptuous attacks on government policy implying their incompetence. People know what the governments got and know that the world isn’t going to end under them. The lads other problem was when he happily shuffled around agreeing with Howard on what the most important issues were and the way to combat them merely claiming he was better. Whilst Kevin never said that unemployment isn’t a big electoral issue he didn’t rabbit on about it, he used his opportunities to talk about workchoices, Kyoto, converted most economic policy into platitudes. The kind of personality that isn’t a winner is the macho aggressive side that could be construed as carelessness and instability.

Mark Latham was not successful until election week. I don’t know whose book you are reading but let me tell you this, in Latham’s time as leader. He had high approval ratings but he never, ever delivered polls suggesting an ALP win in a general election. Even in the March of 2004 when Mark Latham pulled a whopping 66% approval rating he still trailed John Howard on both preferred prime minister ratings(albeit it narrowly) and voting intentions. Latham was widely thought to be nice bloke, but that doesn’t make a politician a success. In October(during the actual campaign) the lad’s approval rating whilst still a strong mid fifties was again insufficient to actually put any real pressure on Howard. The prime ministers preferred pm lingered around 50% and there were still more than 10% undecided. Finally the voting intentions had the coalitions primary vote in the mid forties compared to labours around 40.(Newspoll didn’t run but polled the preferences of non major party voters and that tended to marginally favour the ALP, never by more than 4 points). Please explain to me how Latham was ever successful when polling always had him on track for defeat?

http://www.newspoll.com.au/cgi-bin/polling/display_poll_data.pl check the poll yourselves if you think I’m doctoring the figures, I defy you to find any substantial period where Latham had preferred pm polling or voting intentions that could have been described as “successful.”

John Hewson was not as bad as Latham which is perhaps demonstrated in the results of the election but he did miss a slam dunk whereas Latham, none the less it was much less than Beazley did in 1998 when he won the popular vote. In the case of an unpopular government which Labor certainly was circa 1993 was, indeed every government that passed the five years mark spends most of its time with low approval ratings but Keating was loads less popular than Howard. Hewson changed tunes dramatically as the campaign went on as well. He burst onto the scene with ideas, with confidence with energy but as the campaign went on the energy turned into belligerence.

There are stories about Keating making him feel like an amateur and so he became more ideological, tried to make 1993 like the year Australia changed or the year where it went to a point of no return etc. As the campaign wore on he talked less about unemployment and growth and more about socialism and capitalism. If you watch Labor in Power there is a bit where Richardson is talking about the campaign and he couldn’t believe it. Richardson thought labor were done and Hewson could have cruised to victory but every week he felt the need to up the ante, to keep pushing the government, to try and raise the intensity and Richardson thought it was just plain dumb.

Keating was/is probably the most unpopular prime minister since Bruce which is why I think Hewson still polled well for most of the campaign. It is really the only instance I can think of where most of the country had a genuine disliking of the government but also a mistrusted the Leader of opposition to a significant extent. By the actual election whilst polling still was favouring Hewson he was quite unpopular himself. It’s great that he was seen as a better bloke than Keating but to become an unpopular bloke yourself in that period is a pretty hard feat courtesy of some tactless, heavy handed pollyticking. So yes I think the failure of Latham and Hewson are both comparable as they both threw away very winnable elections by trying to be inspiring instead of being electable. If you like that they were inspiring, cool but don’t say that a partyroom concerned with winning made the right decisions with them.
Lord Downer didn’t make fundamental mistakes, his problem wasn’t like Latham or Hewson you’re right he just put his foot in it far too many times to earn the electorates trust. However he’s still an example of why it is so vitally important to have a careful, disciplined, tactful leader.
Whilst there is nothing actually wrong with Turnbull and given the right circumstances he could probably win an election quite comfortably I find it amusing you say he was successful; was that when he was en route to concede twenty more seats or when he only trailed Kevin by 20 percent in preferred pm polling?

Beazley and Peacock both won the popular vote in spite of trying circumstances, something Hewson and Latham didn’t come remotely close to doing and something Whitlam did in the much praised 69 campaign whereby Whitlam was competing against a drunk leading an ancient government and had the complete loyalty of his party. Beazley is probably the unluckiest man of all(maybe Hayden) to lose in 2001; there was a world changing event in the middle of an election campaign that favoured the government beyond belief. Anyone who thinks Beazley would have lost if the election had been held between say April 1999 and September 10 2001 is bonkers.

Crean we will probably never know whether he could have clawed his way back. I admit he should have showed more personality(as indeed I believe Smith would if he were leader, deputy or some other appropriate portfolio. I recall a cute moment in question time recently when the speaker says “I apologise to the acting leader of the house I’ve been addressing you as the member for Perth, Smith with that cheeky grin he does replied “thank you Mr speaker and feel free to continue doing so I consider it an honour to be addressed as the member for Perth) but Crean first had to live with the post-election boost Howard got having just been re-elected followed by the treachery of Conroy, Swan and Beazley. The same can be said of Nelson, Honeymoon period followed by Turnbull’s ambition and Costello’s frolics; we’ll never know how he could have done if he’d been given the same leash Rudd had. What is for certain is that as someone who has met Nelson I can guarantee that (more so than Laurrie bloody Ferguson, Julie Owens, Ross Cameron, Philip Ruddock or senator Ian Campbell the other pollies I’ve gotten the pleasure of having a yak to) he comes across as very friendly, down to earth ( dare I say he has people skills) and seems very clever. He has not struck me as the person to do something very dumb like the lad or Hewson so I expect given the right circumstances he could have won an election.

And spiny please learn to understand there is a difference between supporting someone and believing someone is capable of winning an election from opposition. I never said Latham would make a bad prime minister, I said he was incapable of winning an election from opposition. Don’t confuse what I want to happen with what I expect to happen. When I say “the labor party should make Stephen Smith leader” it means as a political party it would be in their interests for Smith to lead. When I say “I wish Lindsay Tanner was leader” it means something quite different. I’d also like to know how you reconcile the accusation that everyone I like is a middle ground politician when I laud Costello, Tanner, Plibersed and Garret whilst frequently put down Roxon, Swan, Pyne and Hunt (actually I’ve got no clue what wing Hunt is from.)

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

Tits or gtfo!

 

[Iron]

Lolentern.

I dont take your point on Latham, bc pref.PM was ~50:50 on election day 04, compared to Howard being far less preferred as PM than Keating in 96.
I got sleepy at this point, but salute your vigour

Also note the flash of the bishop's purple:

 

[Lentern]

Lolentern.

I dont take your point on Latham, bc pref.PM was ~50:50 on election day 04, compared to Howard being far less preferred as PM than Keating in 96.
I got sleepy at this point, but salute your vigour

Also note the flash of the bishop's purple:

Yeah but you're wrong. Latham was trailing massively on the final poll,
http://www.newspoll.com.au/image_uploads/cgi-lib.2590.1.1025_Final_Poll.pdf

The lad only gets 36 on prefered pm, voting intentions had the coalition with 45% and preferences expected to be split down the middle, but the lad lead on approval ratings.

 

[blue_chameleon]

Lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad



Enough?

 

[Lentern]

Lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad lad



Enough?

That is what you took the most offence at?

 

[blue_chameleon]

That is what you took the most offence at?

Well, when you inserted the images, you didn't put them on a new line from the end of your last sentence, so it wasn't formatted properly thus making it a tad irritating to read.

But other than that small error, it was quite an interesting read!

 

[Lentern]

Well, when you inserted the images, you didn't put them on a new line from the end of your last sentence, so it wasn't formatted properly thus making it a tad irritating to read.

But other than that small error, it was quite an interesting read!

I've gone tickle me pink, or is that a Sir Humphrey "it was a most interesting proposal" kind of interesting.

 

[Iron]

You still really need to sharpen your writing skills Lentern. The ideas, as far as I read them, arent very focused within the paragraphs and the sentences could be far shorter and clearer.
It's still great that you have this interest and appetite for facts. I'd just like to see them a little more polished.

No score

 

[Lentern]

You still really need to sharpen your writing skills Lentern. The ideas, as far as I read them, arent very focused within the paragraphs and the sentences could be far shorter and clearer.
It's still great that you have this interest and appetite for facts. I'd just like to see them a little more polished.

No score

You realise when I write an essay at uni I plan and structure and edit and do stuff. This stuff borders on a stream of conscious thought, I haven't actually read it.

 

[Iron]

In that case, i'm insulted and hate you