spiny norman said:
Even if they all did stay on, who springs to mind as being more compotent than someone you'd feel, presumably, neutral about?
Tebbutt or Watkins would've been my preference, but I'd take neutral over negatives like Iemma, Costa, Sartor, Meagher, Tripodi etc. Is that who you'd honestly advocate over him?
Everyone accepts it - State Labor under Iemma was fucked. The only way for it to stand any chance is go for a left field choice. That's done, and things are being shook up. I can't believe anybody thinks this is not a good move - it offers hope for something better where before there was a certain shittiness for the future.
Pfft, Carr might be a little more articulate, a snappier dresser and has a more suited face for a politician but ultimately the performances of Carr and Iemma weren't that different. Nor the ministers that worked below them. In Australia where the two major parties are so similar it's really a game of timing. Would labor be polling better if Carl Scully has succeded Carr or Carr had never retired, would Bob Hawke have been able to beat John Howard in 1996, all this is grass is greener on the other side folly.
There will come time when a government becomes stale, good governments it happens after their second re-election, less talented ones it happens after their first. And once that happens it's really a reason not to vote for the opposition than a reason to vote for the incumbent that decides elections. NSW labor is a very old government, Iemma took over at a time where re-election for Bob Carr would have been near impossible, in truth had Brodgen or O'farrell contested the 2007 election(sans the Brodgen gaffe) Iemma would probably be dead allready. But the silliness of Debnam and Carr's wise decision to shoulder responsbility for his years in government gave Iemma enough to get by. The changing leaders gambit will only have about 60% of the effect it had last time, the desire for change will be a lot higher this time round because people are sick of the same thing and O'farrell knows a bit more than Debnam.
Then there is the Rudd factor. No I'm not calling Rudd the worst PM in post war history or making any comment on his job for that matter. But people like splitting up the parties, it somehow makes them feel safer, like if the federal goes loopy the state will curb them and vice versa. In 1995 Bob Carr was Paul Keatings sole labor buddy whe the photograph was taken with the PM and his Premiers, In 2002 John Howard was without a liberal mate.
If Rees manages to win he'll prove an extraordinary capaigner, re-electing a 16 year old government, which included a pedophile(that's really the one extraordinary shortcoming of this government for it's length in power) against an electable opposition and with a labor federal government is an extremely difficult task. Labor supporters should be content with a sixteen year government, they're a rare electoral achievement and the new liberal government will probably help their laborites in Canberra.
