The final episode of The Howard Years (shown on ABC on Monday night; available here) was a rather pleasant experience - if you don't mind running through a rogue's gallery of cabinet members from Howard's time as Prime Minister. It was a condensed riffle through the final times of one of the more dishonest PMs Australia has ever had, enabling us to savour the end of him again.
A politician, yes, and so he was adept at bending his words when it suited. But there are few who have been so willing to distort the truth in such words as to satisfy himself that he wasn't telling an outright lie... when he was, really.
He won the 2002 election by exploiting 'national security' and effectively lying about a boatload of refugees that were so heartless as to threaten to throw their own children overboard. So Howard characterised it.
He lied about his intention to commit Australian troops to Iraq. He had fully intended to send them off months before the announcement.
He lied privately and publicly about his agreeing to hand over the reins to Peter Costello.
These are not a comprehensive catalogue, nor perhaps his most egregious set of lies. But they were arguably the lies that defined his time in office.
One more significant detail was added to the litany by The Herald's Phillip Coorey here. Coorey outlines the tale of a monument to Robert Menzies, Prime Minister for 16 years. At the time, Howard's tenure was approaching the ten-year mark. The plaque was to note that Menzies was Australia's longest-serving Prime Minister since Federation. Howard was quite insistent on adding the words 'so far', and would not back down. Finally a compromise was reached, and the words 'to date' were added.
It is thoroughly significant that Menzies was one of John Howard's biggest heroes. He would never have had any intention of belittling Menzies - per se. But as witnesses recalled, this was an obvious signal that Howard - whose aim in life was only ever to be Prime Minister, and who clearly desired for his mark to be recorded on history - was fully determined to break Menzies' record. This puts some perspective on his thoroughly stubborn attempt to cling to power when all the signs were against him. So much so that he lost his own seat.
This would not stand up in a court - somewhat characteristic for this ex-lawyer. Yet to avoid being caught out directly is not always enough to win the case in court. History will not be as kind to him as he wishes.
Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts
Monday, December 08, 2008
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Politics: Carter endorsing Obama
Former US President Jimmy Carter is a Democrat superdelegate. It was announced (by the Carter centre) that after polls closed in the final two Democrat primaries (Montana and South Dakota), Carter would pledge for Obama.
One wonders why he didn't do this before the primaries were over. Various news reports (here as well) point to an earlier surrogate endorsement when he said his family [children and grandchildren] supported Obama. Yet the Republicans (their National Committee) is reported to be active on the anti-Obama campaign by passing to journalists a two-year-old video in which Carter was apparently critical. The problem? Obama didn't yet have the "proven substance or experience".
Well, if that's all they can dig up, the Republicans are in trouble.
Carter also apparently said he regarded Al Gore as the best candidate (he wasn't ever to run), but if Hilary Clinton nominated, he would support her. But that was two years ago.
I'm not convinced that that earlier pledge was all that was behind the timing of Carter's official backing Obama. It's plausible that more superdelegates would have got behind Carter if he'd endorsed earlier, to the point of tipping the balance earlier.
Was it equivocation in any sense? A sense of duty to an earlier commitment? Or were (at least some of) the Democrats strategically opting for a lengthy primary campaign, calculating that prolonged exposure would outweight any internecine negativity?
One wonders why he didn't do this before the primaries were over. Various news reports (here as well) point to an earlier surrogate endorsement when he said his family [children and grandchildren] supported Obama. Yet the Republicans (their National Committee) is reported to be active on the anti-Obama campaign by passing to journalists a two-year-old video in which Carter was apparently critical. The problem? Obama didn't yet have the "proven substance or experience".
Well, if that's all they can dig up, the Republicans are in trouble.
Carter also apparently said he regarded Al Gore as the best candidate (he wasn't ever to run), but if Hilary Clinton nominated, he would support her. But that was two years ago.
I'm not convinced that that earlier pledge was all that was behind the timing of Carter's official backing Obama. It's plausible that more superdelegates would have got behind Carter if he'd endorsed earlier, to the point of tipping the balance earlier.
Was it equivocation in any sense? A sense of duty to an earlier commitment? Or were (at least some of) the Democrats strategically opting for a lengthy primary campaign, calculating that prolonged exposure would outweight any internecine negativity?
Monday, May 26, 2008
Politics: Australia's election analysed
Some new analysis of last year's federal election has given some interesting insights into the reasons for the change of government.
A team from ANU (Australian National University) conducted the Australian Election Study, reckoned by the Herald to be the most definitive exit poll, and one that seems to have been conducted for some years. It was a postal survey of 1873 voters.
Voter decisions are based on a rather disparate set of reasons, most of which to my mind are far more about bread and circuses than fundamental values or ethics. Sometimes on issues of the day, but like interest rates, they are often issues for which there's little difference between the two sides. Often, too, there is is too much presidential emphasis on the personality of the leaders, which doesn't per se speak to the basic value differences between the ALP and the Coalition. All this seems to result in rather an amount of cognitive dissonance, not just for the aggregate of voters, but for individuals.
Here's some of the findings.
Industrial Relations
This was the most important issue in voting decisions: 70% said it had been important in their decision-making. Of those, 62% disapproved of the Coalitions WorkChoices legislation. Interestingly, 17% of those who disapproved of WorkChoices actually voted for the Coalition.
Global Warming
This was the second-biggest issue. 67% of voters wanted the Kyoto protocol ratified (ALP policy); 8% said no (Coalition policy), while the remainder had some ambivalence. Of those supporting ratification, 30% voted for the Coalition.
Interest Rates
This is an issue for which effective difference between the two sides has eroded over time, as ALP policy has become more economically rationalist, and interest rates are now independently set purely on the basis of their effect on inflation. There remains a marginal difference between the two - the ALP's social justice bent would result in slightly higher rates - but this is not something that most voters could tell if it were possible to subject them to a double blind test. For this reason, where half of the electorate was concerned about interest rates, 47% of those voted ALP, while 42% voted Coalition - simply an attack on the incumbent's record of rate rises.
Prime Ministers present and past
Leadership
Support for Howard was quite divided, with 49% liking him and 41% disliking him. Rudd had 63% approval, with a nett approval rating of 43 points, compared with Howard's eight points. Rudd's rating was the highest in the 20 years of the survey; Howard's rating was his personal lowest in that time. By contrast, Costello's nett rating was -18, which might suggest a late change in leadership would not have made any difference. However there was no indication how much of a vote-changer this point was. On the other hand, when Keating lost the 1996 election, his nett approval was -15, not as bad as Costello's.
The Election Campaign
The Coalition opted for an extended campaign, which seems to be somewhat typical for a government on its way out. Yet 70% of the electorate had already decided before the campaign; those who made up their mind in the heat of the campaign were pretty evenly split.
Battlers
In 1996, John Howard made a perverse - and successful - pitch for the "battlers", effectively those less-well-off workers. This time around, 51% of unskilled and semi-skilled workers voted for the ALP, and 37% for the Coalition, effectively the reverse of 1996's result. If you roll in One Nation's temporary electoral success, the "battler" vote had stayed fairly consistently with the Coalition over their four election victories - until this time around. It's plausible that these voters were more convinced by the ACTU's "Your Rights At Work" campaign over the year leading up to the election, rather than the Coalition's scare ads about "union heavies" in the workplace and "union bosses" in the ALP front bench. It was, after all, rather brash of the Coalition to try to tell these people what was happening in their own workplace.
A team from ANU (Australian National University) conducted the Australian Election Study, reckoned by the Herald to be the most definitive exit poll, and one that seems to have been conducted for some years. It was a postal survey of 1873 voters.
Voter decisions are based on a rather disparate set of reasons, most of which to my mind are far more about bread and circuses than fundamental values or ethics. Sometimes on issues of the day, but like interest rates, they are often issues for which there's little difference between the two sides. Often, too, there is is too much presidential emphasis on the personality of the leaders, which doesn't per se speak to the basic value differences between the ALP and the Coalition. All this seems to result in rather an amount of cognitive dissonance, not just for the aggregate of voters, but for individuals.
Here's some of the findings.
Industrial Relations
This was the most important issue in voting decisions: 70% said it had been important in their decision-making. Of those, 62% disapproved of the Coalitions WorkChoices legislation. Interestingly, 17% of those who disapproved of WorkChoices actually voted for the Coalition.
Global Warming
This was the second-biggest issue. 67% of voters wanted the Kyoto protocol ratified (ALP policy); 8% said no (Coalition policy), while the remainder had some ambivalence. Of those supporting ratification, 30% voted for the Coalition.
Interest Rates
This is an issue for which effective difference between the two sides has eroded over time, as ALP policy has become more economically rationalist, and interest rates are now independently set purely on the basis of their effect on inflation. There remains a marginal difference between the two - the ALP's social justice bent would result in slightly higher rates - but this is not something that most voters could tell if it were possible to subject them to a double blind test. For this reason, where half of the electorate was concerned about interest rates, 47% of those voted ALP, while 42% voted Coalition - simply an attack on the incumbent's record of rate rises.
Prime Ministers present and pastLeadership
Support for Howard was quite divided, with 49% liking him and 41% disliking him. Rudd had 63% approval, with a nett approval rating of 43 points, compared with Howard's eight points. Rudd's rating was the highest in the 20 years of the survey; Howard's rating was his personal lowest in that time. By contrast, Costello's nett rating was -18, which might suggest a late change in leadership would not have made any difference. However there was no indication how much of a vote-changer this point was. On the other hand, when Keating lost the 1996 election, his nett approval was -15, not as bad as Costello's.
The Election Campaign
The Coalition opted for an extended campaign, which seems to be somewhat typical for a government on its way out. Yet 70% of the electorate had already decided before the campaign; those who made up their mind in the heat of the campaign were pretty evenly split.
Battlers
In 1996, John Howard made a perverse - and successful - pitch for the "battlers", effectively those less-well-off workers. This time around, 51% of unskilled and semi-skilled workers voted for the ALP, and 37% for the Coalition, effectively the reverse of 1996's result. If you roll in One Nation's temporary electoral success, the "battler" vote had stayed fairly consistently with the Coalition over their four election victories - until this time around. It's plausible that these voters were more convinced by the ACTU's "Your Rights At Work" campaign over the year leading up to the election, rather than the Coalition's scare ads about "union heavies" in the workplace and "union bosses" in the ALP front bench. It was, after all, rather brash of the Coalition to try to tell these people what was happening in their own workplace.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Drawing accurate conclusions from polls
The latest NewsPoll puts the government at 45% vs 55% for the ALP. This gives comfort to the Liberals on three counts:
Yet it should be making them nervous for five more salient reasons:
Reason number five is the fact that the same opinion poll asked how people how wedded they were to their voting intentions. Adding together the “absolutely” and the “only slight chance of change” gives the Liberals 39% and the ALP 49%. Not an election-winner, this close to.
The same day that brought ostensibly good news brought a couple more clangers. First, a large employer, Spotlight, is rolling back its industrial relations policy from the Liberals' model to a collective system, as being less distracting and more efficient for the business.
Then the Murdoch press reports the Reserve Bank's flagging of an impending interest rate rise. Not what anyone wanted to hear, but not unexpected.
Next day was no better. The headline issue, that under the Liberals, university funding had slipped to the lower rungs of the OECD, is traditionally not a vote-changer. The second item was hidden in a poll on the website for Murdoch's the Australian: 24% gave all or most credit for Australia's economic strength to the Liberals (specifically, Costello as treasurer), while 59% gave little or no credit. The bias in this poll: overall, respondents would be tech-savvy educated conservatives. Which is not where the election will be won and lost, but it gives some insight into the lack of traction the Liberals are getting on that issue.
- It’s 5% up on the last few polls;
- The result is equivalent to the figure Keating clawed back to win the “unwinnable” election of 1993;
- The commentators on the Murdoch Australian are all back to cheering the Liberals
Yet it should be making them nervous for five more salient reasons:
- It’s anomalous compared to other poll results;
- It comes after a damaging week of internal sparring among the Liberals;
- Keating had a punching dummy: the Liberals’ GST policy;
- It gives the Liberals grounds to remain indecisive on a leadership spill.
Reason number five is the fact that the same opinion poll asked how people how wedded they were to their voting intentions. Adding together the “absolutely” and the “only slight chance of change” gives the Liberals 39% and the ALP 49%. Not an election-winner, this close to.
The same day that brought ostensibly good news brought a couple more clangers. First, a large employer, Spotlight, is rolling back its industrial relations policy from the Liberals' model to a collective system, as being less distracting and more efficient for the business.
Then the Murdoch press reports the Reserve Bank's flagging of an impending interest rate rise. Not what anyone wanted to hear, but not unexpected.
Next day was no better. The headline issue, that under the Liberals, university funding had slipped to the lower rungs of the OECD, is traditionally not a vote-changer. The second item was hidden in a poll on the website for Murdoch's the Australian: 24% gave all or most credit for Australia's economic strength to the Liberals (specifically, Costello as treasurer), while 59% gave little or no credit. The bias in this poll: overall, respondents would be tech-savvy educated conservatives. Which is not where the election will be won and lost, but it gives some insight into the lack of traction the Liberals are getting on that issue.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Howard brought to book
Funny old world, innit?
After a phony election campaign all year, the wave of opinion polls has been rolling consistently all year, to dump the Liberals bruised and humiliated on the shores of September with nothing between them and oblivion bar the few short weeks of delay that they can claw out of what remains of the year.
John Howard is a venal, heartless, grubby little man with a small soul, whom history will remember most unkindly whenever it's sadly obliged to recall him at all.
Disappointingly, the year and the time and tide have been carrying us to this point for all the wrong reasons. Debate focused on materialism rather than the size of the soul. In a less metaphysical sense, retiring MP Carmen Lawrence gave a particularly lucid explanation for the things that do matter – the real agenda. Well worth a read of her summation.
The actual reasons for the switch are much more mundane. The Australian electorate, at the outcome-deciding margins, has little political consciousness beyond the man at the top, and finds the issues too confusing to be able to add together the apples and oranges of policy to understand what ideology means, and what impact it has on their very lives.
John Howard is a petty man whose biggest single ambition is to be Prime Minister, and to stay Prime Minister. It's been shown that even in the face of political suicide, he can't let go, and he'll undermine his own ostensible commitment to helping the Liberals assess their situation with honesty, openness and fortitude. Those traits are not so much anathema to him, but a foreign country.
Fortunately. Because what sliver of a chance the Liberals do have lies in getting rid of Howard – and he won't let it happen and they won't do it. If Costello was not just given the reins, but seized them, he would instantly improve his stocks with the electorate. And although his popularity is not high, his ability is sufficient to be able to use those last few weeks to instil himself on the public consciousness – positively. Fortunately, that cossetted claque of Liberal MPs is oscillating wildly between acting the headless chooks and staring like rabbits at headlights.
In such a maelstrom, anything can happen. And once the battle is over and the wounded set about deepening each others' wounds, that Anything will be the Liberals' ultimate poison: choosing Malcolm Turnbull to be their leader. He's a nightmare of a politician: ostensibly smart and capable, but a man of such blithe arrogance that his presence alone will add another term to the Liberals' electoral wilderness hell.
And, for what they've done to Australia, it's what John Howard and the Liberals deserve.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
The World Won't Listen 1: PM to lose his own seat
Polling in the Prime Minister's electorate has suggested that John Howard will lose his seat.
The important caveat is that it's six months away from the election.
Even so, there's good reason to expect Howard will be only the second PM in Australian history to be dumped by his electorate.
His opponent, ex-tv journalist Maxine McKew, has a high profile, is very intelligent - yet tempered with humility - and is, well, a listening sort of person.
But the most telling indicator is the general polls. With the opposition getting bad press in recent times, and last week's Budget spreading the money around, the government should expect a bounce back in the polls, at the very least.
But it didn't happen. Each successive poll solidifies the consistency of the results.
One comment made about this election was particularly apt: it's very much like the 1996 election, where PM Keating was behind. Both sides of politics were expecting him to pull a rabbit out of the hat, as he had done before.
But it didn't happen.
The clearest rationale for the poll results: voters are not listening to Howard's government any more. The Budget's largesse had no nett effect. And if the electorate as a whole can't even be swayed by money, then it's obvious that the prevailing sentiment is fundamental and entrenched.
I expect this to be the turning point. Watch the Liberals get increasingly desparate. Break ranks. Do stupid things.
Education minister Julie Bishop was not answering the questions put to her on last night's Lateline. She was instead keeping on song with the government line, ignoring the question. It is a common tactic, it has happened for years, but right now it's simply whiffy. It's not that the electorate is starting to recognise this form of dishonesty for what it is - it's more that they have stopped putting up with it coming from the government.
This is precisely the time not to play politician, but that's all they have left to do. That, and panic.
Update 16-May-07: Contrast Bishop above with Peter Costello's performance on The 7.30 Report last night. His words left no useful impact, but I certainly noticed he was a lot more relaxed than his colleagues. Of course. Election loss is the only way he'll succeed Howard as Liberal leader. Costello wins either way.
Update 29-May-07: subsequent to this post, there have been a few comments about the electorate no longer listening to Howard. Pretty obvious, really, as an explanation for the opinion polls being so sticky. Well, now Howard has cottoned on, and made the same observation to the caucus. Not that he could identify a solution... the parallels are very strong with the 1996 election, which produced the landslide that propelled Howard to power in the first place.
The important caveat is that it's six months away from the election.
Even so, there's good reason to expect Howard will be only the second PM in Australian history to be dumped by his electorate.
His opponent, ex-tv journalist Maxine McKew, has a high profile, is very intelligent - yet tempered with humility - and is, well, a listening sort of person.
But the most telling indicator is the general polls. With the opposition getting bad press in recent times, and last week's Budget spreading the money around, the government should expect a bounce back in the polls, at the very least.
But it didn't happen. Each successive poll solidifies the consistency of the results.
One comment made about this election was particularly apt: it's very much like the 1996 election, where PM Keating was behind. Both sides of politics were expecting him to pull a rabbit out of the hat, as he had done before.
But it didn't happen.
The clearest rationale for the poll results: voters are not listening to Howard's government any more. The Budget's largesse had no nett effect. And if the electorate as a whole can't even be swayed by money, then it's obvious that the prevailing sentiment is fundamental and entrenched.
I expect this to be the turning point. Watch the Liberals get increasingly desparate. Break ranks. Do stupid things.
Education minister Julie Bishop was not answering the questions put to her on last night's Lateline. She was instead keeping on song with the government line, ignoring the question. It is a common tactic, it has happened for years, but right now it's simply whiffy. It's not that the electorate is starting to recognise this form of dishonesty for what it is - it's more that they have stopped putting up with it coming from the government.
This is precisely the time not to play politician, but that's all they have left to do. That, and panic.
Update 16-May-07: Contrast Bishop above with Peter Costello's performance on The 7.30 Report last night. His words left no useful impact, but I certainly noticed he was a lot more relaxed than his colleagues. Of course. Election loss is the only way he'll succeed Howard as Liberal leader. Costello wins either way.
Update 29-May-07: subsequent to this post, there have been a few comments about the electorate no longer listening to Howard. Pretty obvious, really, as an explanation for the opinion polls being so sticky. Well, now Howard has cottoned on, and made the same observation to the caucus. Not that he could identify a solution... the parallels are very strong with the 1996 election, which produced the landslide that propelled Howard to power in the first place.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Obama, ahead of his time?
It’s no surprise to hear Barack Obama has put his hat into the ring for the US presidency race – nearly two years early.
If you said Who? then you’ve already missed the boat. Time magazine picked him for its cover – for this reason – some time back.
Neither should it be a surprise that there was such a flurry of hats shooting into the ring in the wake of the mid-term elections. The Democrats can smell blood – that of Bush, his cronies, and anyone who comes within an ideological whiff of being tainted by the neo-conservative agenda, the oil agenda, or even the very mention of Iraq.
Ah, Iraq. Yet another chance for America to get confused, without even knowing why. Hey, we’re meant to be the good guys, remember? So why’s everyone being mean to us?
Why indeed? You didn’t, after all, create the war on terrorism. ...did you? Well, You certainly made it more of a, well, war, and less of a dialogue. And there’s that little matter of that bastard child of yours, that you keep giving pocket money to, so it can, well, play the bully.
Ahh, I digress. But why not? These people need a bit of a kick in the reality.
No, I was talking about Democrat presidential candidates. At this point in the cycle, the race has never been so NOT wide open.
Obama may have captured some people’s imagination. Partly because he’s the first black (yes, I know his mother’s white) to get a realistic lookin as a major party candidate. Partly because he has a young, dynamic turn of phrase, and seems to say the right things, if sometimes too generalistically. And partly because some relish the Great American video Game turning into Obama versus Osama (although, the sophistication of American politics being what it is, some will think he is Osama).
Yes yes, that’s a bit glib. Harsh, even. His achievements as Senator suggest there is substance behind him. But capturing imagination is one thing. It’s another thing (or two) to:
- As a relative novice, avoid stumbling under the intense media blowtorch that turns to ash most candidates;
- Capture the warchest that Hilary has.
Ah Hilary. Synonymous with “polarizing”. That’s another post, another day. And we’ve barely even started on Obama. Good luck to him on that blowtorch thing – I’m quite curious to see how he weathers it. Maybe in a few races time, Barack. Oops, I almost forgot you were black. And America just couldn’t vote for a black. Even harder than voting for a... woman.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)