Ok, so I'm sure not many of you will care (if any!), but here's my gripe about the current state of Aussie politics.  We're heading to an election probably in November (hasn't been announced yet).

The challening Labor party is a MILE ahead in the opinion polls, and have been for months - they're heading to a landslide victory.  So let's look at the major combatants:

In one corner we have our current government - the Liberals (our conservative party) led by John Howard.  They've taken interest rates from the 12-17% of the previous Labor govt, down to 6.5%.  They've taken unemployment from 10% down to 4%.  They've taken our economy from a sad joke to the massive boom times we're enjoying now.  They've invested heavily in education and skilling up the country.  They've given tax cuts for as many of the last budgets as I can remember - at least 4-5.  I struggle to think how they could have performed better.  The leader John Howard is a daggy, unfashionable guy, but he's super-intelligent, eloquent, wise, and the sort of politician other politicians look up to - a keen strategist.

In the other corner we have the Labor party.  They have a new leader - Kevin Rudd.  He promotes himself openly as a younger version of John Howard, and people like that.  They see Howard as retiring during the next term regardless of the result, and perhaps want to hang onto him by voting Rudd.  The thing is Rudd is as much like Howard as Satan was like Christ - economically they are complete opposites.  Rudd has described himself as an economic conservative, yet has beligerrently and consistently opposed every govt measure that has delivered the strong economy we've had for the last 5-6 years.  Rudd has his good points - he's a committed Christian like Howard, he is a Republican, he is intelligent, well educated, works the media brilliantly - he's a great package for PM.  He has 2 major flaws though:

1.  No-one knows what he stands for.  He has released close to zero policy - which is part of his "small target" strategy that's working wonders at the moment.  People like Rudd, but when asked, can't tell you why - they like his look but don't know what he stands for.

2.  His party.  70-80% of Rudd's front bench are ex-Union leaders.  The unions represent only 15% of Australia's workforce, and bring an exclusive, militant, extremist approach to policy.  Virtually none of them has ever run a business - not even a pie cart - yet they would be handed the reigns of our $trillion economy if elected.  To this extent, I see Rudd as the sugar coating on a poison pill - looks nice, tastes nice, but ultimately will be a killer once digested.

I am a swinging voter - I don't vote consistently for the same party.  But when a PM and a govt have done so incredibly well over such a long period as our current govt, it beggars belief that out of plain boredom it appears they may be thrown out and replaced with a team of nobodys.  It's like having the US Dream team in their prime at your disposal - with Pippen, Jordan, Barkley, Shaq etc - and instead choosing a team of high school kids, most of whom have never played.  Who's going to score the most?  Who's going to perform the best?  There's just no contest.  But for some, if you've seen that side win a dozen times over, you eventually get bored and simply want some variety - perhaps you need to see things screwed up to appreciate how good you had it. 

I don't know - as I've often said before to friends - it's undemocratic but I seriously think people should have to qualify to vote.  Not just recognise a face, but explain something about the economy.  Provide some justification for your vote.  Get an IQ over 100.  I don't know - it's just astounding the road crash we're heading towards, and so many are just oblivious...

>end vent<

Oooh CybacaT, I Hear you buddy!

When you say road crash I have to add that I can't look away.  It's so sad it makes me cry.

I can't imagine how our government (overall) could have done a better job over the years and yet... and yet...

I see a prospective Labor victory like a small wave that directly precedes a bigger one. The first one knocks over your sandcastle and makes you sad, the next one washes away the beach.

I'm like you, if there is a better alternative then I'm all for it, but I really do feel that we're about to plunge back 20 years not only economically but politically as well.

I don't know when people will realise that it really doesn't matter how much you like a leader if he's no good and obviously (and more relevantly) vice-versa.  We don't need a PM that you want to invite to a BBQ, we don't need them to be our best friends.  We need them to be able to make strong decisions, compassionate decisions where necessary, but intelligent decisions most of all.

I'm so sick of the thought that this popularity contest that we're running at the moment is going to land us all in the s**t.

<end vent>

I am likely to miss the main event

If I stop to cry or complain again.

So I'll just keep a deliberate pace,

Let the damn breeze dry my face.

A kindred spirit!  We'd better stick together - there are increasingly few of us.

Glad to see I'm not completely crazy in thinking our populus has lost the plot at present with Rudd.

Rudd to me resembles all that I dislike about American politics - he has no substance, he's all about photo ops, staged press opportunities, dishonest one-liners repeated countless times until they become believed.  And it's almost like a presidential campaign - the press seem to let people forget about the rows of cronies behind Rudd.  Their focus is on the squeaky-clean everyman who even I like!  They need to focus on the Swans, Gillards, Creans and other union stooges who could be put in charge of our country - it's a friggin nightmare.

I got a list of "last govt - this govt" stats recently, and this govt on all the fundamentals was ligh years ahead.  Apparently that doesn't matter to voters, and I've heard a few people comment to me personally that they "just want to give the other party a chance - what harm could it do?  Howard's been in a long time.".  ie. they are simply voting out of boredom - which has to be the weakest, most inane reason for voting a weak party in and a strong party out that I've heard.

But I have no doubt it rings true - make people comfortable long enough, and they soon assume it's just automatic - that the country and economy runs itself somehow.  That it doesn't matter who's in charge - things will just be rosy.  Or perhaps it's greed and they believe their interest rates will fall back below record lows?  Or that unemployment will drop below 4%?  Or that the economy could somehow "out boom" it's current boom?

It's all just madness...and a severe source of frustration!!

Glad to hear from you anyway DOTF!

I've said it before and I'm sure I'll have an opportunity to say it again.  All good traits aside, Australians have a tendency to be a lazy bunch.  This can be good in ways, we can't be bothered, mostly, to be too opinionated or bigoted (just a casual kind of couch-sitting bigotry instead of mass-rampaging, protesting and murdering bigotry) and I think it really comes across as a live-and-let-live laidback-ness... but I do believe that it's laziness at it's core.

Unfortunately it means that if there is a popular and easy-alternative we're likely to take it. Cue Australian idol credits. And if Australians are bored with John Howard and can't be bothered thinking about what the alternative stands for and are too lazy and complacent to look further into the Labor party than Kevin Rudd's nice eyebrows and media-friendly persona then we are, actually, all doomed.

I'm just about to buy my first home.  I can accept that interest rates go up and down.  I can accept that housing is expensive.  I can't accept that this is the fault of the economic management of our government and not just the way of the world.  In fact, I'm happy having to kick another $60 into the mortgage every fortnight if it means that the country is running well, well above budget, and looking to the future.

I am likely to miss the main event

If I stop to cry or complain again.

So I'll just keep a deliberate pace,

Let the damn breeze dry my face.

Guys, I read this editorial from the Wall Street Journal because of your comments here. Mary Kissel seems to echo much of what you have to say.

Susan

Tumble Down Under

by Mary Kissel

Editor Asia's Editorial Page

Radio listeners in Sydney last week were treated to some good ole Aussie plain talk on the war on terror. "It's not all negative and nobody pretends that it's easy," Prime Minister John Howard told talk show host Ray Hadley. "Pulling out will guarantee a descent into civil war and chaos and a victory for terrorism and we're totally opposed to that." And what of the much-maligned President Bush? While he's "under pressure at home," Mr. Howard retorted, "he's not a person who succumbs easily to pressure, and he's right."

Mr. Howard could just as easily have been describing himself. A man who's been fighting political trench warfare since the 1960s, the 68 year-old prime minister is dug into what he dubs "the toughest election I have had in the last decade or more." After 11 years in power at the helm of the ruling conservative Liberal Party, the straight-talking John Howard may finally be on the outs and Australia leaning left.

Polls show Mr. Howard trailing his challenger, the Labor Party's Kevin Rudd, by around 10 percentage points, with an election expected to be called in late October or early November. The so-called "Howard battlers," the blue-collar workers who swung the 1996 election decisively for the conservatives, are now seen as swing votes, particularly in Queensland and Tasmainia.

A few decades ago, an Australian election wouldn't have mattered outside Asia, where Canberra occasionally intervened to put out fires in Pacific Island spats and kept tabs on Indonesia. Since taking office in 1996, however, Mr. Howard has carved out a global role for his country, proving himself a pragmatic and powerful ally in the war on terror. Australian troops are deployed in more hot spots than at any point in the country's history, including in Iraq and Afghanistan. Back at home, he's kept Australia's economic engines purring; the federal government is wholly debt-free and unemployment is at a 33-year low.

This is still a fresh vision of Australia, a nation where "tall poppies" get cut down -- a popular phrase for compatriots who succeed too much and need to get taken down a notch. Talk to most Aussies, and they'll tell you they're just a middling-size nation that's largly dependent on mining resources. In fact, they have the world's 15th largest economy, boast some of Asia's most sophisticatd services companies and a top-notch military.

Mr. Howard has had such a successful run that most poliitcal pundits attribute his polling numbers not to policy blunders but, first, to fatigue and, second, to Labor having finally found an electable challenger. (In good Aussie style, Mr. Rudd also comes in for his share of ribbing. One comedian asked earlier this year, "Do we want a Prime Minister named Kevin?")

It's hard to overestimate the fatigue factor. Mr. Howard is the second-longest serving prime minister in Australia's history. His core team, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer and Treasurer Peter Costello, has been in place since 1996. It's easy, too, to get complacent when the majority of Aussies now own their own homes, have stocks in their investment portfolios, and watch the war on terror from a comfortable geographic distance.

After a few leadership debacles, the Labor Party found Mr. Rudd, a 49-year-old fresh face. He styles himself a new left "economic conservative" who would keep the budget balanced. He spouts the odd non sequitur -- he'd "keep interest rates low" while "preserving central bank independence" -- and panders to the trade unions, threatening to roll back the Liberals' program of flexible work contracts. But other than that, Mr. Rudd largely echoes Mr. Howard's free trade, conservative economic management -- something the prime mister acknowledges with relish. "I think it's a bit of a risk electing a bloke who doesn't have a plan of his own," Mr. Howard told radio host Mr. Hadley.

It's on the "fear issues" such as climate change, job security and foreign policy where Labor wants to distinguish itself -- and where the election, if Mr. Rudd wins, could impact the US and its allies. The opposition leader wants a phased withdrawal of Australian troops from Iraq, playing to local fears that the war on terror has "made Australia a target." He advocates humanitarian aid for, and dialogue between, opposing factions -- unsurprising positions for a man who spent seven years as a foreign service bureaucrat before entering politics. Under a Rudd government, Australia would maintain its close US alliance, he says, but plump for a stronger United Nations and nurture its relationship with China. Mr. Rudd also supports ratifying the Kyoto Treaty.

Mr. Howard has responded by rounding up his troops and getting prepped for a grass-roots tussle. That includes a dash of populist politics -- most notably, a wash of money for projects in key constituencies. It hasn't however, stopped him from pushing ahead with controversal national reforms. In June, after the release of a report of sexual abuse in aboriginal lands, he announced the government's most ambitious refor of policy toward its native population since the 1960s, Mr. Rudd supported it.

Mr. Howard's strengths lie in his record of economic growth and foreign policy successes, Mr. Rudd's strengths lie in distracting voters from that record and focusing them on peripheral issues. But as long as Mr. Rudd doesn't make any major gaffes, the thinking goes, Australians are ready for a change.

Or are they? As an Aussie friend once told me of Mr. Howard, "Every time his critics give him the kiss of death, its amounts to mouth-to-mouth resuscitation; he revives and bounces back with incredible force." Mr. Howard has a long way to bounce in a short period of time. But don't count him out just yet.

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Susan

That article is pretty spot-on.  Rudd says all the right things, and does a damn fine Howard impersonation - provided you don't ask him any hard questions, or probe for detail.  And our media is bending over backwards to be obliging to Rudd so far - handling him with cotton gloves and never testing him.  The difference between what Rudd says he stands for, and the actions he has taken throughout his political life are as stark as black and white.  Yet the media fail to ask him to address that chasm. 

While it seems like mission impossible from here, if any politician could dig themselves out of it...it's John Howard.  Normally voters early in the election period tend to register more of a protest preference against the incumbents, and then swing back to a more balanced equation closer to the day.  However on this occasion, it's been solid support for Rudd from the jump, and almost no relief for Howard in sight no matter what he does.

I still hope for a wave of common sense and reality to sweep the nation as the election draws closer.  I know if Labor gets in there are a few things you can rock-solid guarantee:

- higher unemployment.

- higher interest rates.

- higher government debt.

- stockmarket will be subdued from it's expected growth.

I recall the last time Labor got in...on the very day in fact...some major international contracts were cancelled based purely on the fact companies knew their chances of getting their goods on time and at the agreed price were far less under a union-run nation.  I fear more of the same once Labor gets in.

DOTF

There are a number of factors that have conspired to push up house prices.  The biggest factor - by far - is the States withholding land, and artificially driving up demand and therefore prices.  They got carried away and only have themselves to blame for screwing up the Aussie housing market.  6.5% interest rates aren't going to kill anyone if house prices are reasonable - but they will if the houses have doubled or tripled in price over the last decade.

I don't know in great detail about other states, but in WA the housing minister is a complete ignoramus (and reknowned drunk) whose inaction and incompetence is the #1 factor in why WA housing is going through the roof.  People have been screaming out for land for years.  When blocks are available, people queue up for days before the release to get their alotment.  Couple this with a booming resources sector where people can afford to have 2-3 properties, and it's a vicious cycle.

I think also we have a small issue in that John Howard isn't going to last forever (and probably not through the whole of his next term, were he elected) but with the Liberals, at least I'm confidant that whoever follows him will at least be for the same values whereas if Kevin Rudd had to step down after being elected there would be an unholy war over what the big issues actually are...

Thanks for the article, Susan.  It's always nice to see the opinion of a fresh voice.

I am likely to miss the main event

If I stop to cry or complain again.

So I'll just keep a deliberate pace,

Let the damn breeze dry my face.

x-ray
if your back's against the wall, turn around and write on it...

I am likely to miss the main event

If I stop to cry or complain again.

So I'll just keep a deliberate pace,

Let the damn breeze dry my face.

x-ray

Just to clarify...your observation isn't dumb...the fact it's reality is mightily dumb though...