Monumental success and failure

Almost everyone interested has a take on the reason for the re-election of the Howard Government and many take the chance to attack their nemesis, the Greens.

Starting from a proven track record when measured against the values of their voter base -“it’s the economy, stupid”, the Liberals also had incumbency on their side. Howard is a proven campaigner and with truth the first casualty in any political contest he was able to use fear of the unknown against the new boy Latham effectively. A rerun of the Tampa play with a different focus.

Howard won in the ground that Latham marked out, with the aspirationals, his home ground. Why did Labor choose this ground. Howard could easily shore up his true believers and the greedy. Fear of interest rates going up must keep the aspirational voter awake at night. No guarantees means that insomnia will continue to reign. Will Howard, if rates increase, blame forces outside of his control such as Bush managing the oil price, the associated war on terror and the US economy or say he was wrong.

The Labor faithful remained true to the ideals of social justice that Latham espoused. Indeed the Liberal and Labor vote were close at about 40% with the Nationals holding their usual farmers and peasants vote to give the Coalition government, a clever ploy working since at least the 1940’s. Labor will have to consider its appeal to “the bush”, aka Queensland, if it hopes to capture the prize of government.

Richmond, the seat it took from Anthony [Nationals] was one where I predicted Green preferences would be important. Labor needs to consider this very carefully when formulating its New Labor policies. Some focus on the economy needs to be high on their agenda but not by abandoning the environment. Wait around Larry, feed the pigs, head the wheat, a comeback may not only be a breed of sheep.

The third force has not done as well as it would have hoped. Not disgraced with some seats in the 20% order it has not met its predicted Senate outcome of one Green Senator in every State. The swing was to Howard. However, more people considered the Greens message for the nation attractive after 8 years of Howard.

Comparisons with State and local elections, whilst not to be dismissed, are not apples with apples. The green vote has always grown slowest at the Federal level.

The distortions of Green policy by the 10 commandments party make it clear to all that winning is everything, how else can the family be put first except by abandoning principle and joining politics. It also shows that the Greens need to review the wording of and promote their policies like Labor must.

A difficult ask for both, with the media in the thrall of money, but try they must. So few are affected by herion and so many by alchohol and tobacco., it makes one wonder what the wowsers agenda will be. Those hard and illegal drugs that ruin a few lives or the legally available ones that ruin many.

How can the Greens move on from being seen as the Tasmanian forest party. That movement has to occur either through conservation gains ending that issue or from costly and slow remediation guiding government. The Greens must work to become known for a broader range of policies if they wish to grow their vote.

In my own electorate Adams was returned with a reduced margin reflecting the national trend. His 67% in the Mathinna booth makes one wonder about his message of the desertion of timber workers from the fold. [Greens in this booth 11% and in Lyons 9.4%].

Look to Midway Point and Hagley to see what happened Dick, you corpulent reserves must feed your brain into activity from time to time.

You were saved by the Greens. Howard bought your timber workers with wedges built on a fear promoted by Dick Adams over many years. This may recur, but if you manage to gut the Labor offer on Tasmania’s forests can I bother to support you. Others I know already see no value in you.

Indeed, one could say that the image of a Labor member on the hustings with Howard and opposing the leaders major environmental policy cost Labor the election. That may be unevidentiable but I wonder if it cost seats as people saw factional division and wild card’s impacting on their interest rates in the crucial last few days. Mmmm, on reflection perhaps I did preference a Liberal. Red only from huffing a puffing and blue from a dead heart.

Eleven years or 14, does it matter that much to me. After all it’s the economy stupid and Labor did not offer to be better in that area in a way people could measure and feel confident in. Cardboard guarantees and employment goals are all well and good but their currency is low, having been devalued by previous pollies.

Howard will have managed to change industrial relations, to be able to sell off Telstra in T’s to infinity, have reduced Australia’s environment further in a sacrifice to the inedible and placed us so firmly in the US camp that we will have years of rebuilding relations with our neighbours.

No doubt Adams will blather on about the forest policy costing Labor the election as will Lennon. It suits their agenda. With a policy as complex as the one needed to resolve the division in Tasmania, to conserve the iconic ancient forests properly and to restructure the timber industry away from a low value job exporter a program needs to be in place years before an election, not days before voting.

Don’t delay or filibuster Dick, get that policy right and get it out in 6 months, you have to sell it to both timber workers and Green voters. Take the same side as Howard and Labor will remain in opposition, indistinguishable from Liberal. 17 years or 20, a result of no discernable difference, Howard could be 78 and still going, there are others in the community active at that age.

[Sorry Peter, unlike Red Kerry, I have mentioned it. If you saw John Hewson on the Chaser, I hope you laughed. Hewson predicts that Howard will only go out in a box]

Mind you with H’s anti Kyoto stance we may seem mightily out of step. However, I predict major changes in practical policy if not the rhetoric as the climate crisis unfolds further.

Review and long sell also applies to many Labor policies. Are they to desert public schools now that they have been rejected as a government or will they just review how the winners and losers are determined to reduce the negatives around the wealthy private schools. Not too good, the fear factor will reappear in 3 years. Repudiating that stance will be difficult.

Whilst costly, why is Medicare gold the policy for reducing waiting lists and private health insurance costs. Latham has 3 years to convince Australians that these policies are good for them. If they aren’t how did they get legs this time. I bet H’s safety net changes by then.

This must be the measure and activity for Labor, producing a policy framework that is affordable and takes us forward. If Howard steals the policy is that not the outcome you seek for Australians, or can only Labor deliver. Here lies the conundrum, policies Howard cannot steal that the swinging voter will embrace.

Howard may face a slimmer opposition but Labor has the opportunity now for more action to change the government’s position like the changes to Federal parliamentarian’s superannuation and the free trade agreement.

And now for the preference dealing. Yes Michael Field you are still riven with the hate of the Greens that drives many in the Tasmanian Labor camp. That mist covering the eyes spread far and wide and caused the brain of Labor to go into neutral.

Besides disadvantaging the Greens what was in preferencing Family First. Would they become a party that supported Labor in the Senate. Has white Australia returned to rule Labor regardless. Did those who made these deals read the FF policy document or just play puerile games. I will have to reconsider any party that is so stupid, I cannot accept the view of preferences that the deals are only to get elected. You didn’t.

The fools who made these deals should not be allowed the toys again, they have shown their inability to make decisions benefiting Labor and should now fall on their swords and make way for strategists. Family First preferences elected no Labor members, only Liberals. Can you explain that Michael, when you do you can come out of the corner, put the cap on the desk and go home.

Peter Harris from FF assured Tony Jones on Lateline they will not just be a Liberal puppet, they will want guarantees that the legislation they pass will be family friendly.

This will be most amusing to observe. Which families, how friendly, what about the uncles and the grand parents. Howard had better hope for a majority on his own or he will be run by the loose cannon party. Mind you I am not sure that was not his plan and this puppet will be the tamer than Tasmania’s retiring champion.

Regardless of the outcome of the Senate counts and distributions in the next weeks, the Greens, to the horror of Bonham, will remain in the body politic. In Tasmania with 95.82% of the Senate counted the Greens have 13.32%, 8.45% voting 1 above the line. I am not sure why a Democrat voter must automatically move to the Greens if the AD become less attractive. I have seen no evidence for such behaviour.

I refer Bonham to my comments on the economy, Labor's stupidity in preferncing FF as it cost them the third Senator if Milne is not elected and to the role of Adams in the forest policy.

If I follow Bonham correctly he claims that the Greens' self promotion caused other parties to preference FF. That is power. The Greens may remain in his view politically immature, I hope that they remain different.

phill Parsons has taken his time to comment and thus may be a little shambolic. However he enjoyed his dendrological sojourn. He notes that the victors continue to appear united and the vanquished stalk the corridors with their factional blades slashing about. Latest for the Greens at my old school in Darley Rd 16.63% and the really bad news is Byron Bay 33.69%. Kevin, must be more of those Doctors wives, you poor confused thing.

RAPID RESPONSE EMAIL: What do you think?
If you bounce, tuffinlindsay@hotmail.com

First published Sunday, October 24, 2004, republished with additions Monday, October 25, 2004

RETURN TO CONTENTS