|
May 28, 2007
I'm wondering if we have approached an 'its time' moment in the forthcoming federal election. Are we approaching and election that comes down to a simple choice: change or more of the same? Is this what is happening? So what do Australians really want right now? Change? Or more of the same?
Do Australians want more of the old white guys currently running the Howard Government? Or do they want something new and refreshing and more in tune with a modern liberal Australia? Are they tired of Howard's Australia? Do they want to say goodbye to the politics of fear? Do they yearn for, and desire to embrace, Rudd's Australia--conservative, Christian and progressive? Is this a safe change?

John Spooner
My judgment is that there is a mood for change and that the ALP is now competitive, finally. So things are finely balanced: the electorate is giving Rudd a bit of a look over whilst Howard is carrying a lot of baggage.
Rod Cameron on Lateline observed that it is finely balanced:
50-50, Virginia [Trioli ] but that 50 per cent… I've never had Labor at 50 50. I've got them up to 50 50 now... That's not confident, that is 50 50. But two months ago I was 35, 40 per cent chance for Labor. I think it's 50-50.
Cameron then gives a pen picture of the person who he reckons is going to determine the next election:
This is oversimplifying it but it's not distorting it. The person who will decide the election is going to be living in the outer suburbs of Sydney, or Brisbane or Perth, or a regional centre right throughout the country. He will be a skilled blue collar worker, or a contractor, or subcontractor or self employed. She will be a part time worker, clerical or sales assistant. They'll have a couple of kids who are going to low fee independent schools, they'll vote Labor at a State election, they had voted Labor federally in the past but haven't for a decade. They're telling opinion pollsters they're going to be voting Labor federally, but will they if Rudd is seen to be too close to the unions? This, I think, will be the actual key point.
Michael Kroger reckoned that Cameron had the first 80 per cent right.
Rod Cameron identified I think the symbolism is correct that those people have mortgages and they all have jobs with 4.5 per cent unemployment. They've all got jobs, got quite big mortgages and they've also probably bought or owned a property for some years, they've had increased equity in the property, they value of that property has gone up and they've made money, capital gains, tax-free. They've got money put away for holidays, for kids' schooling, for healthcare, et cetera, et cetera.
Kroger doesn't think the big issue will be whether or not Kevin Rudd is seen as too close to the unions. He reckoned that people have got a view Labor is heavily union-influenced. I think they've worked that out, and that will scare some and won't scare others. He says:
The big question is, are people, when it comes to polling day, when their finger, hand goes over the ballot box, are people going to risk Howard and Costello for Rudd and Wayne Swan? And I think this is the big issue which Labor yet, which we haven't seen in this campaign. It's been all about industrial relations. When it moves away from that onto the Coalition's main ground, I think that's when you're going to see a change in the polls.
So there you have it. IR or economic management are the decisive issues.Kroger is basically arguing that the economic fundamentals of low inflation, low interest rates, low unemployment and rising wages will turn the tide in the Government's favour as we approach the election. Cameron highlights the significance of a negative campaign depicting Labor's industrial relations platform as harassing and belittling small businesses and reinstating union power.
Note how climate change does not figure. It should, as it is not a beltway issue.
|
|
Competitive! You've really drawn your line in the sand there! So are you saying that its even money?