Can we win the next federal election?

[gemini_liberal]

Answer: Yes (by win, I mean give the Coalition the much deserved title of "Opposition")

Will it be difficult?

Answer: Absolutely

How: By keeping it in people's minds that the government has fucked us over (IR) - the one issue that unites low and middle income Australia and appeals to their wallets. Holding that against them gives the government an ugly look in people's eyes and makes them more accepting that the government may be at fault for other things too.

The government's theme for (presumably) next year's election will all depend on one thing: who is Prime Minister.

If Howard is still leading: Expect a scare campaign like you have never seen before. John Howard will be like a cornered rat. Expect terrorism and security to be hot issues suddenly brought up again. Interest rates will be brought up, "good economy", and tax cuts (and how if "Labor was in government you'd lose all of your money in taxes blah blah") Expect personal attacks on anyone who isn't in the coalition. Expect them to whine everytime someone in the ALP scratches their behinds. Expect the commercial media to canonise him as St John of Howard again. It will be ugly. Uglier than last time (I was assaulted last time for admitting a dislike for Howard.)

If there is a new PM ie. Costello: Clean slate. Anything happening that is good economically will be courtesy of the coalition (if Costello is leading, he'll run on his record as Treasurer.) Anything negative the government has done will be Howard's legacy. Expect a scare campaign still, but not of the calibre of a Howard election.

I write this to say we have a great chance at unseating these tyrants regardless of who is leading the ALP, but it is not going to be easy, nor is it gonna be pretty.

[Matilda]

1. I think the only winning issue would be the I.R. laws.

The public just doesn't care about all the other evil things that Howard has done, as long as
interest rates don't rise.

But I think it will be the laws themselves driving opposition to Howard, rather than anything
Beazley says or does. He still comes across as a follower, not a leader. There's no perception
that Kim believes in anything, or is passionate about any issue. He's purely an opportunist,
but even then, his timing's always off - he's always just one step behind, never in front.

[Djinn]

3. I put my hope in a couple of things

1. Workchoices smells really bad to most Australians, even those who've always been suspicious of the union movement. There are plenty of marginal seats which have depended on the votes of traditional left voters who have backed Howard, the ACTU's Rights at Work campaign is focusing heavilly on targeting the working people of those electorates (many union members) to shift their votes.

Contact the Rights at Work campaign for more info

http://www.rightsatwork.com.au/about/contact/

2. The tendency of the Australian electorate has developed to turf out governments that have been around for ten years.

3. My old Ma. She's pretty good at predicting elections, she was the only person I know that was positive Jeff was going to loose in 1999. Right now (and she says barring something huge happening) Ma Kettle says the coalition's days are numbered.

In general I'm a pessimist in the worst way and have I have very low expectations when it comes to the political intelligence of the electorate but at the very least we're in with the best chance we've had since that dark day in March 96.

[oscarmitre]

2. The IR laws are significant

I can only hope that people understand that it will get worse of the Coalition isn't flung into the opposition benches. Labor needs to develop some coherent policy positions though and I thinnk they're more than capable of doing that. But they also need differentiation (not an original thought on my part of course) because if the IR laws are somehow ameliorated or the public sense becomes dulled then it's back to Tweedledee and Tweedledum.

[Josh]

4. Mathematically difficult -

there needs to be like a 6 percent swing nationally, as I believe Labor needs about 15 seats to take governent. At a minimum hopefully the Senate will switch back.

I actually think Beazley's the best person to have in the position at the moment. If it's anyone new the story will be about them; this way all the attention can be kept on Howard and the IR laws - and Beazley does surprisingly well when he just sticks to that as his main issue.

Difficult, not impossible.

[Matilda]

5. We need to take the Lower House.

As you say, difficult, but the Senate isn't enough. I think the Senate
will change, because giving total power to one party is an anomaly that
occurs only occasionally, and is generally seen to be a mistake when it
does happen (like now).

But the Senate won't change until July 2008, unless Howard calls an
election early next year, and somehow I don't think he will unless
Labor does something to shoot itself in the foot. So if Howard wins
the Lower House again, he'll still have absolute power for another two
years from now. And even if Labor wins, there needs to be a huge shift
in the Senate vote away from the Coalition to prevent them blocking
future Labor legislation. It's my hope that the Green vote will
increase, because (a) people are becoming aware of the reality of
climate change, and the Greens are the only party prepared to talk
about it; and (b) the Dems are pretty well stuffed, and the Greens
are the only party capable of "keeping the bastards honest".

It's unfortunate that Beazley just doesn't have the look or feel of a
winner - it's not enough to say he'll tear up the I.R. laws, he has to
put to the voters a workable plan to take their place. It's never a
good idea to campaign solely on a negative, and neither would a "back
to the future" policy win votes. But Kim has always been devoid of
policy, and it's a worry.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PinkUnicorn]

7. So very true

And this is shown too often in the various polls. Labor is gaining while the Liberals are slipping, and yet at the same time Howard is preferred PM. Which basically shows that Labor is gaining some ground despite Beasley as opposed to because of him. The chances they have had to bury the Liberals - Iraq, interest rates, IR laws, Fair Trade agreements, Sucking up to Indonesia, Children overboard, etc etc have been innumerable, but they just sit their like stunned mullet and do nothing. If they jettisoned him for someone who actually had a spine (and a personality) Labor polls would probably jump 20% overnight. But sadly politics today in Oz consists of recycled has-beens.

For an outright win, Labor doesn't have a chance in hell. The best scenario would be for a Labor minority government with the Greens. The Democrats are stone dead, doing a deal with Freaky First would be too dangerous to contemplate, and some of the other independents appear to be 'grab-n-run' types as opposed to having a position.

One possibility which could reduce some Liberal numbers however is the Nationals. In the last year or so they have thrown off any pretense of being anything other than Liberal party. Before they could get away with the 'Country Party' or 'Liberal-Lite' but that facade has disintegrated, putting them on the same road as the Democrats, ie: extinction.

As for a Howard smear campaign, it goes without saying - name one Howard election where there hasn't been Fear and smear.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PinkUnicorn]

9. Ayup

Calling it as one sees it is a refreshing change as opposed to wishful thinking :).

As for the Greens, I do have some serious disagreeances with them as well, but they are the best of the available minor groups, and about the only ones with the numbers to be able to do anything useful. But in either case a minority govt, despite its vast potential problems I think is better than 'Sieg Heil Johnny' screwing Australia six ways to Sunday yet again and barring a lot of work - and soon - Labor ain't going nowhere, even with the help of unions working overtime on IR laws, etc. Though one possibility is similar to the current Canadian situation - a minority conservative government, where Harper is getting caned over his grovelling. That could put some serious nails in the Liberals coffin.

One of my concerns though is how badly the system has been screwed and concealed by only vacuous words and promissory notes, how empty is the national kitty? Will we have a fun 'legacy' like last time Johnny was around - ie: 22% interest rates and massive deficit. Personally I think he is vindictive enough to do just that.

Put to the people? What are these 'people' things you speak of? You mean approval has to be gotten from someone before we can abolish laws, flog off assets, detain suspects indefinitely, etc? Why next you will want intelligent discussion of stem cell lines :sarcasm:

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PinkUnicorn]

11. Current Location?

Here's a hint....the river is brown and smelly, our boat is made of chicken wire, and we've misplaced our paddles. :shrug:

[Matilda]

12. The main internal squabbles at the moment are within the Coalition.

Labor is pulling itself together after the Latham debacle - certainly,
Beazley is nobody's ideal leader, but there won't be a change before
the next election, and I think the Party has recognised that.

The Democrats have certainly shot themselves in their collective foot;
they were finished when Meg Lees caved in on the GST, and then spat the
dummy over the election of Stott-Despoya.

The Greens do not squabble - certainly not in public, and not in private
either as far as I'm aware. They will never gain government as long
as we have our current preferential voting system, but I can think of
many things worse than having the Greens holding the balance of power
in the Senate. Their policies, unlike those of the two major parties,
seem to be the closest thing we have to fair and just proposals for a
decent and humane society.

The biggest mistake the Australian electorate has made in the last
twenty years was to give Howard total control. And I don't think it
will be repeated next election, no matter who wins the Lower House.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[anakie]

14. I dont think so

Beazely is a two time loser and I think will lose a third. The IR laws may be an issue to beat the govt about with but Kim just cant land any blows; and as someone else said the only blows landing on Howard at the moment is being done by his own back bench.

It should be a shoe in for Labor to win as all they have to do is replicate the results of the Qld election this weekend that saw Beattie win his third landslide. All but two seats in Brisbane were won by the ALP but federally all but a few are held by the coallition. Maybe Australians like the anomoly of having each state and territory run by the ALP and federally by the coallition.

As an aside to the Qld election the polls saw the Greens gaining around 8 percent of the vote. If only this was reflected in the last federal election Qld would (arguably) elected a Green instead of Barnaby Joyce and thus holding one crucial vote that could/would slow Howard down.

But Howard will lie and squirm his way to a fifth victory - with the poll being held just after APEC 2007 showing Johnnie standing tough on the world stage. I hate him with a passion but he is far and away the best politician we have seen for a long time.

[Matilda]

15. Substitute "most cunning" politican for "the best', and I'll agree.

When Beazley came out with his "Australian values" idea for visiting tourists, I just started
banging my head on the wall. If this is what passes for ALP policy, they are doomed. As far
as I am aware, Beazley has yet to make one statement that makes political sense. Even his
IR pronouncements are woolly, and he's held off backing Greg Combet's proposals for collective
bargaining, which seem to me to be fair and reasonable by any standards except Howard's.

Labor needs policy, not wussy me-too statements made on the run. They should be talking about
health, and Medicare, and welfare, and IR laws - things that people expect Labor to do to make
our society a fairer one. If I was a swinging voter - the people Labor needs to win back - I
wouldn't vote for change to a leader who was going to give us more of the same; I'd be sticking
with Howard. It just doesn't make sense to me, and I can't believe the bozoes pulling Beazley's
strings think it's going to work. I also wonder whether in fact Labor plans to change anything,
except for trimming IR around the edges.

I'm sure Howard will lose the Senate next time around (although they'll still have control of it
until July 2008, unless Howard calls an early election, which is unlikely), and I agree - best
hope is that at least two more Greens will join the Senate. And who knows, with climate change
becoming really big (wake up, Kim!), maybe they might get even more.