Looking like the Libs...

[Chilli Afterglow]

Up until a few weeks ago, when a previously unimportant Norwegian freighter ship stopped to pick up some stranded boat people, John Howard and the Liberals didn't have a snowflakes chance of hell of winning the next election.

Fast forward 8 weeks and it now appears that Little Johnny will pull of the most improbable of victories.

What was the telling factor in all of this?

What it Howards apparent / Beazleys apparent lack of leadership on the boat people issue?

Was it that the impact of the GST was not as bad as really thought? Or that Labor's lukewarm solution to it didn't really endear them to anyone?

Was Beazley just an unfortunate victim of timing with world events and turmoil ultimately conspiring against him? That our inherent conservitism as a nation meant that neither Howard or Beasley had any true influence over what the result would be?

I feel the answer really is a combination of all the above, but was most influenced by the last point. We really are a conservative lot - just look at how many referendums have gotten up - and really didn't want a change of government whilst the world is intent of blowing the ***** out of itself.

 

[Lil_Miss_Eagle]

John Howard is just using it all to his own advantage. Just as Beazley would do if he was in the same situation.

Looks like Howard for antoher term!

 

[NICK THE PIE MAN]

 

[Frodo]

Three in a row is pretty good form. Or is it the poor quality of the opposition?

Labourites will blame it all on Tampa

Liberals would say they would have won iy anyhow.

It doesn't matter how it was won, the fact is that we have a Liberal government for the next three years.

In the last two terms they made significant reforms to our poor taxation system and archaic industrial relations laws. They are a party of doers whether you like their policies or not. They don't just sit on their hands. I hope they go on making changes and in doing so continue in making Australia better and better.

 

[Dippers Donuts]

Yep, three more years as international pariah coming right up...

Yep, tampa won it for howard, no question. He preyed upon peoples deep seated fears and it got him over the line.

Well done johhny, lousy pm, good politician. Says it all really.

 

[Chilli Afterglow]

Oh, I don't know Dipper. Maybe the voters are smarter than you give them credit for. It was plain to see that big Kim really didn't provide a viable alternative. Maybe it was as much a vote against Labor ineptitude.

Fancy them losing this election! If you had said that the Libs would win with an increased majority 3 months ago, you would have been put in the loony bin!

 

[Dippers Donuts]

Originally posted by Chilli Afterglow
Oh, I don't know Dipper. Maybe the voters are smarter than you give them credit for. It was plain to see that big Kim really didn't provide a viable alternative. Maybe it was as much a vote against Labor ineptitude.

Fancy them losing this election! If you had said that the Libs would win with an increased majority 3 months ago, you would have been put in the loony bin!

Three months ago we didn't have the WTC attacks, nor the tampa crisis.

Without these two issues, labour would have shat it in.

 

[nit-picker]

i like the result

 

[Frodo]

Originally posted by Dippers Donuts


Three months ago we didn't have the WTC attacks, nor the tampa crisis.

And we didn't have any Labour policies. No-one knew what Beazley stood for except anti-GST (and proposed to keep 97% of it)

As I said on a previous thread, Labour expected to win on the anti GST feeling of seven months ago. They had no policies.
Liberals did not have to get out the 'labour is the union card', the anti-sorry to aborigines card (costing us billions), the 'better off under GST v more tax under Labour card' and many more. By the Astin by election Liberals had surged against Labour so THE WRITING WAS ON THE WALL.

I have no doubt that without the WTC attacks, or the tampa crisis

Liberals would still have won this election.

Labour need to take a look at themselves.

 

[iceman]

Originally posted by Dippers Donuts


Three months ago we didn't have the WTC attacks, nor the tampa crisis.

Without these two issues, labour would have shat it in.

IMO, those 2 issues wouldve had a huge bearing on the final result

 

[Chilli Afterglow]

Originally posted by iceman

IMO, those 2 issues wouldve had a huge bearing on the final result

There wasn't much that Kimbo could do about Australias response to the WTC disaster. I think every Australian (except Alf) supports the concept of hunting down terrorists, regardless of what side of politics they support.

The Border Protection issue is an entirely different matter. Beazley should have taken a stand here saying this is how we choose to resolve it. <insert proactive policy here>

Then the good people of Australia would have had a choice when they went into the ballot box yesterday. As it was, there was no choice and therefore no need to choose.

 

[Dippers Donuts]

Originally posted by Frodo


And we didn't have any Labour policies. No-one knew what Beazley stood for except anti-GST (and proposed to keep 97% of it)

As I said on a previous thread, Labour expected to win on the anti GST feeling of seven months ago. They had no policies.
Liberals did not have to get out the 'labour is the union card', the anti-sorry to aborigines card (costing us billions), the 'better off under GST v more tax under Labour card' and many more. By the Astin by election Liberals had surged against Labour so THE WRITING WAS ON THE WALL.

I have no doubt that without the WTC attacks, or the tampa crisis

Liberals would still have won this election.

Labour need to take a look at themselves.

As I have stated before, labor's rollback would have been greater had back flip howard not raided the surplus.

As for your claim that labor was hoping to get in on the back of anti GSt sentiment some have short memories don't they? Remember 1996? Howard presented nothing of any substance in that election - he coasted into office on the back of anti Keating sentiment.

Labor may need to reinvent themselves, that's obvious, the fact remains labor would have creamed the govt. in an election held three months ago.

Its irrelevant anyway - darkness will remain over this country for the next three years...

 

[Frodo]

Originally posted by Dippers Donuts


As I have stated before, labor's rollback would have been greater had back flip howard not raided the surplus.

As for your claim that labor was hoping to get in on the back of anti GSt sentiment some have short memories don't they? Remember 1996? Howard presented nothing of any substance in that election - he coasted into office on the back of anti Keating sentiment.

Labor may need to reinvent themselves, that's obvious, the fact remains labor would have creamed the govt. in an election held three months ago.

As the Liberal party created the surplus with their policies it was theirs to use as fit. You say backflip they say they listened to the public and made appropriate changes. Yes, overhauling a compete tax system was bound to have problems but Howard addressed them. Why is listening to the people and changing things always touted as a negative by Labour? Would you have preferred pensioners to have remained disadvantaged, petrol to stay high etc?
You are perfectly correct about 1996. This year Libs were in a similar position and they didn't need to put forth any real new policies. It was up to Labour to do the running...and they failed.

had an election been called three months ago with voting the next day then Labour would probably have won with about a 4-5% swing. But in a 5 week election campaign things change a lot. Look at the Libs 15% lead cut down by 10% in that time. So you cannot draw an analogy that Labour would have won. Only that it was in front at the time.

 

[Dippers Donuts]

Originally posted by Frodo


As the Liberal party created the surplus with their policies it was theirs to use as fit. You say backflip they say they listened to the public and made appropriate changes. Yes, overhauling a compete tax system was bound to have problems but Howard addressed them. Why is listening to the people and changing things always touted as a negative by Labour? Would you have preferred pensioners to have remained disadvantaged, petrol to stay high etc?
You are perfectly correct about 1996. This year Libs were in a similar position and they didn't need to put forth any real new policies. It was up to Labour to do the running...and they failed.

had an election been called three months ago with voting the next day then Labour would probably have won with about a 4-5% swing. But in a 5 week election campaign things change a lot. Look at the Libs 15% lead cut down by 10% in that time. So you cannot draw an analogy that Labour would have won. Only that it was in front at the time.

The libs didn't put any policies on the table (apart from the laughable superannuation and new mothers bribes) because they have run out of puff. Howards vision for the next three years is simply to cement his legacy - great.

Labor did as well as they did in the election only because, at times, they were able to get people thinking about domestic issues. Sadly, they didn't get enough time/newsprint on these domestic issues. Howards beat up of the international issues saw to that.

 

[dees01]

If people were so upset about education, health jobs, the GST then they would have voted the Coalition out.

The main issues were stronger leadership (Ie American crisis, boat people) and good economic management.

Also it was recognised that the rollback of the GST was a joke.

 

[London Dave]

In a sense, it was a bit of deja vu. After the Tampa crisis, I thought the ALP was stuffed from the moment they backed Howards stance...last time, the ALP lacked a credible leader, anf all that required was someone who had a bit of charisma and a vision, missed on both counts and paid the penalty.

Can't believe I'm saying this, but I agreed with some of Frodo's analysis in other post election threads (not in all his conclusions drawn, but thats life). I'm disappointed that a party that I do not believe is changing my home (for the good ?)is in power, but we will have to see how things pan out. I hope they do a good job.

Its been good fun debating with some of you (although there are a couple out there who think personal abuse equals rational debate...Yassar, still got a post waiting for reply in Knowledge nation, dont think you can run away from it like a little boy now)

 

[RogerC]

There's been some talk about the Labor Party losing votes to the Greens because they didn't oppose the Liberals over the Tampa issue. A quick look at the public mood at the time would tell even a moron the Labor's vote would have nosedived if they'd done anything else. A moral stand would mean political death. The Greens gained a bit, but I suppose most of their preferences would have gone to Labor anyway.

Labor had some policies, especially on health, education and their laughable GST rollback tokenism. Liberal had none. Leadership through these difficult times (if you call licking Bush's shoes strong leadership); kicking more refugee butt; um, help me out here someone. Labor campaigned more strongly during the past few weeks. Johnny Howard made no friends at APEC, refused to debate Beazley more than once (actually a pretty wise move on his behalf), and spent as much time possible whipping up hysteria and shaking the hands of soldiers. Labor nearly overhauled the Coalition, and for that they should be commended. It's difficult to lose an election when all the cards fall your way, but Howard nearly pulled it off. And for this he is lauded as a hero? A bit of a joke really.