A Tainted View 10.25.07: Australian Federal Election Coverage
Posted by Andy Bracken on 10.25.2007
As the election campaign rolls on, let's take a look at the happenings of the past week, including coverage of the first (and probably only) Prime Ministerial debate.
You know, I've been closely following Australian election campaigns for quite a while now, and I can't remember seeing one get so personal, so quickly. I mean, usually there things start with a slow burn, before starting to really explode in the last week or two before the polls.
I think that this is a sign of two things. Firstly, the opposition have their tails up, and really believe that they have a chance to roll the government. Secondly, I think it indicates that the government is really sweating. They know that there is a big chance that, should they not really go all out to attack the opposition, that they are in real trouble.
It also shows that there is some real animosity between the two parties, and the two leaders in particular. I LOVE campaigns where a healthy personal dislike compliments the usual political wrangling. Good times.
Someone Didn't Like the Last Column
From "Ajax":
Typical ALP (Union) stooge. Rehashing ALP propaganda doesn't make you a journalist, it just makes you another union idiot. I cant wait to see what you write when Howard kicks KRUDDs arse in a few weeks time.
Heh. Thank you kindly, sir.
1) I'm not a journalist. I'm an opinionist. And my opinion is that the country needs a change of government. Thus, it makes sense for my writing to reflect this.
2) Hate to tell you, but I'm nobody's "stooge". I am, however, very anti-Howard, and very anti-Howard's-Liberals. The fact is that Howard has been somewhat outflanked by Rudd in the battle for the centrist vote, which is the area of the political spectrum that I inhabit.
Howard is undoubtedly the most far-right Prime Minister this country has ever had, to the point where he has completely and utterly betrayed the vast majority of the principles that his party was founded on. The centralisation of power and restriction of information under Howard is at the worst it has been since the war, which is not only bad for the country, but bad for democracy. He is ruling as an ideologue, which is detrimental for the nation, regardless of which side of the fence that ideology sits. He has to go, and he has to go now.
Letting Howard gracefully retire would be a vindication for an extremist. He needs to be turfed out to make sure that any future leaders don't see his electoral success as a blueprint.
3) If Howard DOES win (god f-ing forbid), then I will accept his victory, safe in the knowledge that my view of the collective intelligence, perception and wisdom of the electorate is as accurate as it is cynical.
There's a reason why political strategists are so well paid, y'know.
4) I've been a union member for about three years of my working life, which was well over a decade ago. I am as big a critic of the more extreme unions (with the CFMEU at the top of that list) as I am of the Howard government. Extremism is extremism, and it should be condemned regardless.
Moderate unions DO have a vital place in the workplace, though. The suggestion that employers are going to be liberal with pay and conditions without a strong collective counter is simply silly. Employers are going to do what they can to maximise profits, and being that labour costs are a big part of the bottom line, the are obviously going to minimise that cost at every opportunity. Collective bargaining gives employees a chance to level the playing field, to an extent.
Regardless, I sincerely thank you for the feedback, and for reading. Democracy relies on a healthy exchange of opinions, and I welcome yours. Let me know what you think with the email link below.
Anyway, enough of that. Let's move on to new things.
Double Talk Debunked
As a part of my unending quest to get to the root of the party claims, I thought I'd list a few of the more ridiculous sound bites, along with the underlying truth.
A vote for the ALP is a vote for high interest rates.
As I've said previously, the highest interest rates of the past three decades didn't occur under Hawke, nor did they occur under Keating. They actually occurred under the esteemed leadership of the Liberals own Malcolm Fraser, while the Treasurer was a slightly-less-cue-ball-looking John Howard. The cash rate hit 22% under his economic leadership.
It is also a fact that between 1991 and 1995 (under the previous ALP government) interest rates almost HALVED. The basis of the economic growth of the country came during the Hawke/Keating governments, and were continued by the Howard government.
That notwithstanding, the truth to the matter is that since the 1983 election, neither party has disproportionately affected interest rates- a fact that has been supported by most of the country's leading economists.
The War in Iraq is Howard's fault.
Nope. Not even close.
Regardless of who is in power, the troop commitment in Iraq would have been substantially similar. Australian governments have a vested interest in the foreign policy goals of the United States, which has the unfortunate consequence of making the Australian government beholden to the US whenever they call for support. A different government may have altered the withdrawal schedule of Australian troops, but we would have materially supported the invasion of Iraq regardless.
The simple fact is that the Australian forces were needed in Iraq. Our SAS forces are unmatched in desert recon and behind enemy lines search and destroy missions, both of which were vital in the initial invasion. Others could have done the job, but none more effectively (and, more importantly, more quietly) than the Australian SASR.
In the same position, Rudd would have done the same thing, as would Beazley, as would Costello, and as would anyone else. The repercussions of doing otherwise would have been far too great.
Besides, it isn't often that we get a chance to actually do anything with our ancient F-111s and F/A-18s. At least the pilots got a little action.
Howard is pro-business at the expense of the workers.
Actually, this one's pretty much true.
(Sorry- couldn't resist…)
Studies have shown that interest rates would be higher without WorkChoices.
No, they haven't.
The only report that I have seen that suggests this was the one touted by the business lobby during those silly anti-union advertisements, which based their figures on all of the reforms since Labor was in power, which was when the labour market and economic reforms started. The most telling reforms (and the basis for the following reforms) happened under Hawke and Keating, not Howard and Costello.
Howard will hand over the leadership to Peter Costello midway through the next term, should they be returned to power.
The hell he will- and I'm quite sure that Costello knows it.
Something that you need to realise is that Howard and Costello REALLY don't like each other. Costello kissed goodbye to any chance of a Howard endorsement when he called the Prime Minister's reign as treasurer "unsuccessful", and bagged his record as Treasurer on interest rates and economic growth. Howard is also a vindictive bastard, and will be lining Costello up whenever he gets the chance.
Howard is saying these things publicly because it promotes the image of a cohesive team, which is necessary to have any chance of re-election. If he is returned, he won't need Costello again. Watch how quickly Costello is shunned and marginalised if they get another term.
Howard will do whatever he can to promote one of the more loyal ministers (probably one of Abbott, Nelson, or Turnbull, with Hockey being an outside shot) to the top job. Whichever one of these four is tapped will nominate when Howard quits, ostensibly in the interests of not having an undemocratic unopposed vote. Howard will privately put his weight behind the challenger, while publicly supporting no one. Costello will get rolled.
You want more proof that Costello doesn't have Howard's support? News broke this week about the text of the postal vote cards that coalition candidates have sent out recently.
To a man, each referred to the "Howard-Costello team" being the answer to Australia's leadership needs, with the exception of one- those that were sent out in the electorate of Bennelong, home of our esteemed Prime Minister. Those referred simply to the generic "Liberal team". For anyone to suggest that it is a meaningless omission is really giving the PM less credit than he deserves. Nothing he does during an election campaign is meaningless. He telegraphs every move he makes, and this adjustment was not only entirely intentional, but spoke volumes.
The only exception to this is if the government's numbers are in the crapper, and they need a fall guy to contest the next election. Then the job will be Costello's.
Howard doesn't forget a slight, and you know that he wants to put the knife into Costello one last time.
If Labor get into power, the unions will control everything- 70% of the Labor members are owned by unions.
Utter crap.
Again, the current trend of keeping a lid on union power happened under Hawke and Keating. They had a few major battles against the unions (the pilots strike being a good example), even to the extent of deregistering the BLF at their height.
Howard merely took the idea and put an extremist bent on it. His efforts to emasculate the union movement are nothing more than ideology gone mad, rather than the Labor aim of balancing the power of each side. It also gave Howard the ability to make the silly claim of being responsible for reducing strike action in he workplace.
Well, when you make strikes essentially illegal, and threaten to fine people (not the unions, the individual workers) thousands of dollars for going on strike, you have to expect a bit less strike activity.
Howard seems to think that anyone who has ever been an employee or a member of a union is somehow beholden to their interests. Needless to say, that is a simply ridiculous statement.
Howard has defended this point by suggesting that there should be a fair representation of the different sections of the community in parliament, which is an utterly stupid rationale. If that was the case, then 51% of his parliamentary party would be female, and 4% would be homosexual, and 40% would have tried marijuana. Silly notion.
I will say this- the ALP is less beholden to the union movement than Howard's Liberals are to big business. Just look at how Howard defends the "character" of a billionaire who has been convicted to ripping off millions of Australian consumers by fixing prices. The difference is, whatever he is fined will be a fraction of his wealth. A construction worker who refuses to talk to the building commission will probably lose his house and be threatened with prison. Draw from that comparison what you will.
A key measure of housing affordability has sunk to its lowest level ever.
The First Home Buyer Affordability Index, compiled by the Housing Industry Association and the Commonwealth Bank, has fallen 2.1 per cent in the September quarter.
The index is down more than 8 per cent on a year ago and the lowest level since the series was started in 1984.
The further deterioration is a result of the August interest rate rise and an increase of 1.7 per cent in the median first home price over the quarter.
HIA chief economist Harley Dale says it is the worst possible news for prospective home buyers, especially with another interest rate rise potentially on the way.
"It's providing a clear indication and I think an accurate indication that affordability has reached record low levels and it's getting ... increasingly difficult for aspiring first homebuyers to break into that housing market," he said.
You know, there's a very good reason why the government changed the electoral laws to try and disenfranchise young voters in this election.
The fact that housing has become unaffordable for a large segment of the community is an absolute outrage in this country. For a country that has so much land, as well as wealth generation opportunities in so many different parts of the country, there should never be a situation where people can't afford to buy a home.
Housing affordability is a major topic in this election. For affordability to drop 8.3% in just a year means that the government has completely dropped the ball. Hopefully now Howard and Costello will actually admit that there is a problem- something they have rejected in the past.
In 1996, an average family had to spend about 17% of their income on mortgage repayments. This year, that figure has reached 31.7%. Puts interest rates and token tax cuts into a bit of perspective, eh?
Mass Debates, or Just the One?
*snort*
The spat over Prime Ministerial debates continues, with Howard agreeing only to one debate this weekend, while the opposition continues to demand a series of three debates.
Hilariously, Howard has been trying to portray Rudd as the one who is dodging a confrontation. The fact that he can say this with a straight face is astounding.
Aside from the number of debates, the conditions in which the debate(s) are to be held are causing consternation. Howard will only agree to have partisans in the audience, and has demanded that the debate be moderated by a political analyst from probably the most pro-Liberal news station in the country, Sky News.
Rudd, on the other hand, has asked that the audience be filled with swinging voters, rather than a half-and-half split between Labor party and government stooges. Also, he has asked for networks to be allowed to carry "the worm", an indicator of instant support from a group of swinging voters.
If I was a swinging voter (and, in this election, I am obviously not), I would read this to be a sign of the fact that Howard is running scared. He won't debate three times in a six week campaign, he won't allow anyone to see the instant reactions to what he is saying. He also won't speak unless he has the safety blanket of a carefully controlled audience of people that will applaud when he wants applause, and jeer when he wants Rudd jeered.
Howard is trying to hide. He knows that he will get cleaned up in a debate against a more dynamic, likeable, articulate opponent in Kevin Rudd, and more importantly he knows that without a carefully controlled environment he flounders. I mean, it is universally accepted that he lost the debates to a guy who was essentially on a downward spiral in the last election. What's a focused, enthusiastic, sane opponent going to do to him?
Update: The Prime Ministerial Debate Wash Up
Well, the debate has now been and gone, and much as I expected, Rudd clearly had the better of things.
Howard got his way with the format of the debate, having a split partisan crowd and his own choice of moderator. The host broadcaster, the Fox News-esque Sky News, didn't have the worm, and made it a condition of rebroadcast that no other network will superimpose their own graphics on screen.
(Incidentally, the Nine Network ignored this demand, and used the worm. Government representatives then cut Nine's feed of the broadcast, at which point Nine simply rebroadcast the public Sky feed with their own worm graphic displayed over the top. Cheers to Nine for sticking it to the man, and jeers to the government for trying to stifle comment on the debate. For the record, the worm had Rudd as a clear winner.)
Both leaders stayed largely on message, but Rudd had the better counters. Howard did his best to hit hard on the usual topics (interest rates, the union boogeyman, economic prosperity etc), but Rudd had a counter for all of it.
He monstered Howard on the question of interest rates, responding to his point by detailing Howard's record as Treasurer in the Fraser government. Howard had no response to Rudd's counter, instead just falling back on his usual scares.
IR was another subject that Rudd scored well. One of the interrogating journalists, Laurie Oakes, questioned Howard on the fact that he went into the last election promising not to bring in any extreme IR laws, and then "sprung it on the Australian people" straight afterwards. Howard had no real response other than to say "well, the public can make that judgment". Rudd responded with quotes from the Liberal PM in waiting Peter Costello regarding his further plans for IR, as well as Liberal Senator Nick Minchin's assertion that a second wave of WorkChoices was necessary and inevitable. That would have resonated in the electorate.
I liked the fact that Rudd brought up the nuclear power issue. Howard has championed the issue in the past year, but hasn't mentioned them since the start of the campaign.
I also liked the way that Howard tried to claim that he, and he alone in the world, could shape President Bush's mindset on climate change. He's funny when he's trying to be an international statesman.
Someone should remind him that Bush only has a year to go, and that Howard has not only burned his bridges with the US Democrats, but has torched them and pissed on the ashes.
Their overall demeanour was interesting. Rudd was polished and well-rehearsed, his prepared responses dotted with little quips and digs at Howard. He seemed to lose a bit of his inherent smugness, which was good, and came across as pretty articulate. I am guessing that he has been taking some pretty heavy duty image coaching.
Howard didn't perform nearly as well. He seemed resigned to the fact that he'd lose, and seemed almost unprepared at times. He dodged questions quite blatantly (particularly when asked if his Iraq campaign had increased the risk of terrorism), and became quite aggressive at times, shaking and wagging his finger like a pissed off grandpa. He continually went over time and ignored the moderator's requests for him to put a cork in it (and, as I expected, the moderator didn't seem to be in any rush to stop him, letting him go for significant periods of time over his allotted minutes) and generally looking quite petty.
So, Rudd won. I doubt that Howard is particularly upset about it, as he has lost pretty much every Prime Ministerial debate that he has been a part of, but it was still a nice feather for the cap of the Opposition Leader.
Rudd will harp on for some further debates, but Howard will shimmy his way out of them. Howard doesn't like uncontrolled debate, and he won't entertain it again.
At Least They Can Agree on Something
With all of the smears and character assassinations, it is nice to see that the leaders can actually put their differences aside to fight a common enemy. Unfortunately, that common enemy happens to be probably the funniest show currently on Australian TV.
The Chaser's War On Everything is, in my view, the best political and social satire that has ever graced Australian television. The Chaser, who have been around for years in various shows and publications, have a gift for pointing out the absurd in society, and have the sack to put themselves on the line in order to get their point across.
I was worried when they started getting really big this year. Before this year, they were at the fringes of popularity, with a core audience of hardcore fans, who had followed them for a while. After the success of last year's series of The War, their popularity has skyrocketed, to the point where they are consistently one of the top two or three rated shows in the country. With the dramatic increase in popularity, I thought that their guerrilla style might be less effective. I was happily very wrong.
They hit new heights with their APEC summit stunt. In a motorcade that superficially resembled that of a Canadian official (a nation that wasn't actually at the summit, which should have been a clue for the security forces), they managed to get through several layers of security, reaching right up to the hotel of US President George W. Bush. They still weren't sprung, actually turning the motorcade around, and then getting out of the cars in front of the security checkpoint (with one of the team in full Osama Bin Ladin regalia) before the police twigged and arrested them.
Anyway, they have managed to get the two leaders to join forces against them due to a skit on this week's show. Called "The Eulogy Song", they made a hilarious comment on the way that the media (and, to be fair, the public at large) tend to whitewash the image of public figures after their demise. It is a fair point, and something that is a personal pet hate of mine. In their usual sledgehammer-subtle way, the Chaser put their own spin on things.
Didn't THAT stir up a hornets' nest?
Predictably, both Howard and Rudd came out condemning the disrespect shown to some of the country's icons, particularly Steve Irwin, Peter Brock and Don Bradman. Howard took his tough-guy act to a new level, berating the Chaser in person when they approached him for another bit for next week's show.
To both of them (as well as the talkback cocksuckers and bloggers who have wailed on about the Chasers‘ "poor taste"), I would like to give the following advice- toughen up, ladies.
They didn't say a single thing that is unequivocally false in that whole bit. They picked their targets well, and more to the point, they made their point. They even made it clear where the line was drawn, by designing the end point of the song to be when they mentioned Belinda Emmett's name. In response to the outcry, they made it clear that they did that because she didn't live a self-centred life, and thus was protected from the point of the song.
I find it curious that two of the vocal critics (aside from the two party leaders) were the widows and/or friends of Brock and Zemanek.
The first criticism was that the Chaser somehow lacked "courage" for picking on the dead, when they had no way of responding. I would respond by pointing out that the Chaser hasn't exactly shied away from picking on the living, either. They line up whomever deserves it.
Since Brock put his car into a tree, Bev Brock has done the circuit of magazines and current affairs show, bleating about how Brock left her high and dry in favour of his new squeeze, and how she and their kids now have nothing. As for Zemanek's wife- maybe someone should remind her that that nice big house that she lives in and the cash that'll mean that she won't have to work again came from Zemanek's bigoted, anti-PC radio and TV persona, and the joy he found in berating and belittling anyone who didn't agree with his narrow-minded, pandering views. Maybe she shouldn't really be complaining quite so vigorously about someone pointing out just what a vile piece of shit her sorry excuse for a husband actually was.
If a prick dies, he doesn't somehow automatically become a nice guy. He just becomes a dead prick. The Chaser should be congratulated for finding a hilarious way of pointing this out.
I would love to launch into a full scale diatribe on upward wealth redistribution, but the subject is passé under the Howard government. They have done this for eleven years and counting, and there is no expectation that they would do anything else. Just another reason why we need a change of government…
I really can't see how anyone, barring the biggest of big business, could possibly think that this is a worthy idea. Importing a large group of low paid workers will have a downward effect on the wages of all wage earners, domestic and foreign, the danger of which is amplified by the WorkChoices regime. Of course, this is a very likely candidate for the next wave of Liberal IR reforms, and is definitely on the cards should the government be returned. It is simply a logical step.
I would bet good money that Nick Minchin will be at the forefront of these sorts of changes. There is no greater IR extremist on the coalition front bench than the PM's designated attack dog.
I would suggest that he is being slightly premature. Even after eleven years of open warfare against the unions on the part of the Howard government, the union movement is unquestionably at a low ebb, but it is far from dead. When you withdraw the reason why people join the unions (to collectively bargain for better waged and conditions), it is pretty obvious that membership is going to take a pretty big hit.
It's like taking credit for low rates of strike action. The Howard government has all but made strike action illegal, so to expect people to risk their homes and livelihoods to fines resulting from strike action is pretty unrealistic. It would be like putting leg irons on every person in the country, and then claiming credit for the lack of people running around. Pointless argument, and a ludicrous suggestion.
The union movement is far from dead, and neither should it be. There is a vital place for moderate unionism, and that need will continue to be met for years to come.
The Polls are In
The latest Newspoll has just been released, having been conducted immediately prior to the debate on Sunday, but after the tax plans of each party were released.
On a two-party preferred vote, Labor has shot to a 58-42 lead, with Labor picking up 51% of the primary vote, against 38% for the government. As for the preferred PM, Rudd is killing Howard, 50% to 37%.
Needless to say, this is about as bad as the results could be for the government. His only chance to win this election is on the basis of economic superiority, and if a $34 billion tax cut pushes him further down on the polls, then nothing will help him.
‘Nuff said. Howard's in trouble.
My Predictions
One of the more frustrating things about political pundits are the vague predictions that they make, and their flat refusal to accept that they were wrong. With that in mind, I am going to detail my predictions throughout the campaign, and put these predictions on the record.
I will alter these predictions through the campaign as the shots are fired, but I don't foresee them changing greatly as the next few weeks unfold. If I am wrong come the end of November, you are welcome to ridicule me. If I am pretty close, then brace yourself for some gloating of the highest order.
(Hey- at least I'm prepared to put this out there. You'll never see any of the mainstream pundits doing this. God forbid they might actually have to admit that they were wrong. )
So, for the House of Representatives, my predictions are:
I think Cowan is vulnerable due to the fact that the retiring incumbent Labor member (Graham Edwards) is hugely well known and widely liked, and the Liberal candidate, Luke Simpkins, is quite an experienced operator and is a particularly strong choice. Also, the ALP's numbers in WA aren't quite as strong as in the rest of the country, and won't put the Liberal challengers at quite as big a disadvantage.
As for the Labor gains, Kalgoorlie and Wentworth are probably the only two seats that I am shaky on, but I'll put both out there as my questionable calls. Wentworth's sitting member, front-bencher Malcolm Turnbull, will take a bit of a hit from two areas, the first being his recent approval of a pulp mill in Tasmania that has put the green vote off side, and the redistribution that has killed his margin. I think that they could be enough for him to lose a close race.
The only omission that a case could be made for is Bennelong, but I think that the name brand of the Prime Minister will see him over the line.
This forecast represents a nationwide uniform 5.5% swing against the government, and a two-party preferred vote of around 53-47 in favour of the ALP.
Needless to say, the balls are well and truly out there now. Let's see how close I am in a few weeks time.
And We're Done
Wow. Suddenly I feel strangely vulnerable. I best get out of here before I put myself in any more shit. Take care, and I'll be back soon.
STAY CURRENT