Australian Politics (1 Viewer)

Lentern

Active Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
4,980
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Mate, 96, it was unwinnable, see? Forget Bishop, it was a vote against Keating Labor - all else is pretty insignificant.

I also assume that you know that youre talking about Bronwyn, not Julie, yeah?
What they really need in a leader is Bishop. No not Julie, the member for Mackellar
Doy!
I seem to remember Lord Downer falling spectacularly behind Keating in the polling during 1995. I suppose 1996 must have been the most extraordinary political year in history.
 

Iron

Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
7,765
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
It's the opposition. The same thing is happening now.
Rumours and speculation quickly bring down any opposition leader. Unlike the PM, they dont have the security of a formal public endorsement, or massive staff resources to prop their attractiveness up. Recent history has shown that the opposition party only pulls together in the year leading up to the election
 

Lentern

Active Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
4,980
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
It's the opposition. The same thing is happening now.
Rumours and speculation quickly bring down any opposition leader. Unlike the PM, they dont have the security of a formal public endorsement, or massive staff resources to prop their attractiveness up. Recent history has shown that the opposition party only pulls together in the year leading up to the election
Ever heard of a bloke called Beazley?
 

spiny norman

Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2004
Messages
884
Location
Rivo
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
I think it's very interesting, the sought prime minister of Australia in 1994 can no longer get a frontbench gig in a hapless opposition. Hence my theory about firebrands attracting initial popularity before crashing and burning. Bishop didn't just beat Hewson she also beat Howard, Reith, Costello, Woodridge and Downer in the polls that year. Do you believe she had buckley's against Keating?
Well she's also nearing 70 these days. It's not so interesting, Billy Hughes was in his day Australia's longest ever serving Prime Minister, and there for the founding of both the Labor and Liberal Parties. But by the time Menzies became PM in 1949, he was no longer on the front bench. Fact is, he stuck around far longer than he had any good reason to (90 when his time in parliament ended, he's no doubt a more extreme version than Bishop). Too long is too long, it's nothing to do with firebrands crashing and burning.
 

Lentern

Active Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
4,980
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Well she's also nearing 70 these days. It's not so interesting, Billy Hughes was in his day Australia's longest ever serving Prime Minister, and there for the founding of both the Labor and Liberal Parties. But by the time Menzies became PM in 1949, he was no longer on the front bench. Fact is, he stuck around far longer than he had any good reason to (90 when his time in parliament ended, he's no doubt a more extreme version than Bishop). Too long is too long, it's nothing to do with firebrands crashing and burning.
Oh Billy Hughes what a perfectly relevant and comparable example. I think you'd be better to have used Lord Harris though, he's an even bigger stretch and you like making stretches. Fisher to Gillard etc etc. In 1994 Bishop was the most popular person in parliament. 7 years later she was dropped from the ministry and lost her speakership bid. She is a prime example of what happens to a politician who lets the electorate know she actually has a vision for the country.
 

spiny norman

Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2004
Messages
884
Location
Rivo
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Oh Billy Hughes what a perfectly relevant and comparable example. I think you'd be better to have used Lord Harris though, he's an even bigger stretch and you like making stretches. Fisher to Gillard etc etc.
So what's the cut-off date for history to be relevant? You seem to only accept a limited period of time that better suits your arguments, disregarding anything before it. How far back can I go?

In 1994 Bishop was the most popular person in parliament. 7 years later she was dropped from the ministry and lost her speakership bid. She is a prime example of what happens to a politician who lets the electorate know she actually has a vision for the country.
Is Howard another one? Or am I going too far back there too?
 

Lentern

Active Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
4,980
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
So what's the cut-off date for history to be relevant? You seem to only accept a limited period of time that better suits your arguments, disregarding anything before it. How far back can I go?



Is Howard another one? Or am I going too far back there too?
On the contrary I choose an arguement that applies to a reasonable cut off date. As a general rule I use post Holt. Mainly because pre Gough the labor party was very amateur politically. No doubt their parliamentarians still worked hard but when it came to campaigns Calwell and his predecessors didn't really understand the role of fundraising, playing the media etc.

Howard circa 87 was one. Circa 96 he was the dull, boring greying, jack of all trades, all things to all people. Those who have long memories or access to press archives will recall when he entered government he quickly began to look as though he was unsure exactly why it was he wanted the job in the first place, aside from settling a few scores. The gun laws, the GST, the stringent spending cuts were all reactionairy decisions taken once in government, not ideological platforms carried from opposition.
 

incentivation

Hmmmmm....
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
558
Location
Inner West
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
The gun laws, the GST, the stringent spending cuts were all reactionairy decisions taken once in government, not ideological platforms carried from opposition.
That's a fairly bold claim. The mere fact such ideas weren't carried policies throughout a campaign does not mean they were not ideological platforms. Howard eventually learned that in order to succeed politically, he needed to ensure there was a perceived distance between ideology and policy. He successfully managed to achieve this until the ill-fated 'Workchoices'.

Up until that point, he had presented the government to pragmatic, and responsive to external pressures.
 

Lentern

Active Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
4,980
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
That's a fairly bold claim. The mere fact such ideas weren't carried policies throughout a campaign does not mean they were not ideological platforms. Howard eventually learned that in order to succeed politically, he needed to ensure there was a perceived distance between ideology and policy. He successfully managed to achieve this until the ill-fated 'Workchoices'.

Up until that point, he had presented the government to pragmatic, and responsive to external pressures.
He may have believed in those things quite strongly you are right, in the same way that Stephen Smith may think we should rip up the GST and hike up payroll tax.

The last sentance is complete bullshit though. If he had lost 2001 after the Tampa and 9/11 he would have been the most politically inept prime minister in this nations history, those asylum seekers were worth their weight in gold to Howard. And anything short of 90 seats against Mark Latham is an ordinary performance. Considering polling pre tampa, and the fallout after the full facts of children overboard was found it's pretty sus to say Beazley would have lost 2004.
 

incentivation

Hmmmmm....
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
558
Location
Inner West
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
The last sentance is complete bullshit though. If he had lost 2001 after the Tampa and 9/11 he would have been the most politically inept prime minister in this nations history, those asylum seekers were worth their weight in gold to Howard. And anything short of 90 seats against Mark Latham is an ordinary performance. Considering polling pre tampa, and the fallout after the full facts of children overboard was found it's pretty sus to say Beazley would have lost 2004.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
 

Lentern

Active Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
4,980
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
The word certainly is, it allowes people who dissagree to just brush off sensible, reasonable claims. Another phrase like that is "political correctness gone mad" excuses all manners of intollerance.
 

incentivation

Hmmmmm....
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
558
Location
Inner West
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
At the time, Latham was the 'messiah', and I'm assuming what you've read about the matter attempts to claim the opposite. That he offered nothing, and was destined to be a political failure. In fact I even recall that Alan Ramsay, who we all know passionately despised John Howard, stated, along with many others on the morning of the election, that Labor would be installed as Government.

In fact he even made the comment in retrospect "I always thought right up until the last week that there was a chance that Labor could win and I still believe irrespective that he was the best hope they had. Much better, far better than Crean and, I’ve got no doubt in my mind, far better than Beazley and who else was there? Nobody, but he had 12 months to sell a message that the other two had been trying to sell for eight years and had seen the Labor Party absolutely plummet and 12 months was too little by a bloke who was not well known across the community."

Unlike others, Ramsay did not alter his view following the election to suit his ends and attempt to rewrite the mood of the campaign.

You have to remember that polls scantly reflect what will happen on election day, and although 1998 was tight, it was of course fought on the GST.
 

Iron

Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
7,765
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
On the contrary I choose an arguement that applies to a reasonable cut off date. As a general rule I use post Holt. Mainly because pre Gough the labor party was very amateur politically. No doubt their parliamentarians still worked hard but when it came to campaigns Calwell and his predecessors didn't really understand the role of fundraising, playing the media etc.

.
YOU FUCKING IDIOT
I Will Not Read Your Shit Again If I Can Help It. You Know Absolutely Nothing, Fucktard

Really, I just want to hit you until you stop vomiting MINDNUMBINGLY stupid shit like this at the rest of us

It's like all you know is the Liberal campaign against Latham, The Howard Years doco and a poor pencil-sketched jist of some Australian political history. The rest is just a result of you staring homosexually, psychotically at anyone in politics and interpreting whatever you like from their hair colour etc
 
Last edited:

Lentern

Active Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
4,980
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
At the time, Latham was the 'messiah', and I'm assuming what you've read about the matter attempts to claim the opposite. That he offered nothing, and was destined to be a political failure. In fact I even recall that Alan Ramsay, who we all know passionately despised John Howard, stated, along with many others on the morning of the election, that Labor would be installed as Government.

In fact he even made the comment in retrospect "I always thought right up until the last week that there was a chance that Labor could win and I still believe irrespective that he was the best hope they had. Much better, far better than Crean and, I’ve got no doubt in my mind, far better than Beazley and who else was there? Nobody, but he had 12 months to sell a message that the other two had been trying to sell for eight years and had seen the Labor Party absolutely plummet and 12 months was too little by a bloke who was not well known across the community."

Unlike others, Ramsay did not alter his view following the election to suit his ends and attempt to rewrite the mood of the campaign.

You have to remember that polls scantly reflect what will happen on election day, and although 1998 was tight, it was of course fought on the GST.
I'm aware a small majority of the press were swept up on the Latham bandwagon. Writing nonsense about his larikin personality going to help him connect with voters, Taking Howard on over values, etc etc. However please note I had never cited Ramsay on anything really, nor any of Latham's other funster mates in the press. Well atleast not seriously. And beware of apocryphal stories about Latham ever striding to the lead in polling, he had enormous approval ratings and enviable prefered pm ratings but voting intentions and two party prefered votes were never too favourable to Latham. Any lead he had in those were slim, and rare.

Many have tried to claim Latham was still in it until he had that late campaign meltdown, More like Latham realised the game was up and tried all sorts of weird whacky moves to try and pull off the unlikely and most of them backfired. Many spoke about how he recovered alot of ground Crean had lost, really Crean was in a very bad place at a very bad time. The government had just won an election on the back of hardline national security, they were allways going to get a polling boost after that, then newspoll back then didn't do two party prefered votes propperly, at the very time the greens were recording record high primary votes. I think he would have lost, but by alot less.

A big part of the Latham myth is that his victory would have provided journalists with what they wanted, a narrative. A renegade, a firebrand, someone who rejected many of the platforms which the unsuccesfull opposition took into the last two elections. He was dominant in parliament, macho, a Latham landslide would provide all sorts of great stories about how his aggressive, confident style and his reformation of the ALP made him the greatest politician in the history of the world. Mr Ramsays suggestion that Latham suffered for not leading the parliament for long enough is total nonsense. It was his biggest advantage, how long did Fraser lead the opposition for prior to taking government? Or Hawke? Or Howard? or Rudd?
 
Last edited:

whatashotbyseve

It all counts
Joined
Nov 13, 2008
Messages
1,855
Location
Randwick or Rosehill racecourse.
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
You mean apocryphal? Your spelling completely threw me off.

Latham was never going to win. I compare the situation to when you are settled down with your gf, and you have had a few fights. You hit a nightclub, you check out other women. Do you leave her, or just stick it out? You decide to stick it out. You soon realise change for changes sake is a bad move.

Better the devil you know. It was Howard's unofficial slogan and executed perfectly.

Of course, like all rocky relationships, it ended with painful divorce three years later.
 

Lentern

Active Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
4,980
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
YOU FUCKING IDIOT
I Will Not Read Your Shit Again If I Can Help It. You Know Absolutely Nothing, Fucktard

Really, I just want to hit you until you stop vomiting MINDNUMBINGLY stupid shit like this at the rest of us

It's like all you know is the Liberal campaign against Latham, The Howard Years doco and a poor pencil-sketched jist of some Australian political history. The rest is just a result of you staring homosexually, psychotically at anyone in politics and interpreting whatever you like from their hair colour etc
With respect if I was staring homosexually than it wouldn't have been at anyone. Calwell thought that using television as a form of campaigning was a bad idea, did you know that? Do you think that little old gnome and his supporters were going to get the party anywhere in post war twentieth century by hopping up and down on their soapboxes? Do you think I just pointed to some random date and said "that'll do"? Do you think that the views of an electorate during a world war, when intollerance was the norm, when Keynes was alive to defend his himself, when TV was a luxury not neccessity, do you think it might be reasonably to say "there probably aren't many political lessons that can be applied today, society was too different then?"

Society changes you fool, there is a reason for using Latham and Howard as examples more than Hayden and Fraser, society was alot more similar in this decade then in the eighties. I don't believe there a magic date when stuff becomes irrelevant, it becomes progressively irrelevant as it gets older, but he asked me for a date and I gave him the one that signalled the biggest shift. Perhaps you'd like to name a better one in between pondering how it is that Brian Harradine never became prime minister.
 

Lentern

Active Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
4,980
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
You mean apocryphal? Your spelling completely threw me off.

Latham was never going to win. I compare the situation to when you are settled down with your gf, and you have had a few fights. You hit a nightclub, you check out other women. Do you leave her, or just stick it out? You decide to stick it out. You soon realise change for changes sake is a bad move.

Better the devil you know. It was Howard's unofficial slogan and executed perfectly.

Of course, like all rocky relationships, it ended with painful divorce three years later.
I do, don't think I'd ever seen it written before, was a total stab in the dark. Astonishingly the only thing I dissagree with about that was the change for changes sake is a bad move. Perhaps if you slotted in radical before the first change I'd agree.
 

Lentern

Active Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
4,980
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
It is very rare for us to get close to agreeing on something.

Kiss and make up with Iron, yo?
I'd hoped our being catholic might have allowed for some bridge building like horse racing with you and I. Alas Iron will not consider me to be a true catholic so long as I insist on thinking for myself. You see being a catholic isn't really about belief in the lord or anything, they're optional extra's, it's more about being in the right place at the right time and voting for the right legislative councillors.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top