I just heard on Lateline that tomorrow's Newspoll gives Labor an 18% two party preferred lead, with the Liberals on 41% TPP!
The air of unreality about the prospect of a severe punishment being handed out to a government that economically has performed so well, and is (despite what The Australian said last week) still showing signs of being policy proactive, is close to solidifying into some grim real life Twilight Zone episode of 3 years duration.
I mean, are people really concentrating out there? Rudd's health policy might be impressing people because all they hear is $2 billion extra funding, without (one suspects) the average Joe also noticing that the regular budget is already $42 billion. And haven't people noticed the problem of the staffing of hospitals, no matter who runs them, which is hardly something that any government can fix overnight? As for a constitutional take over of hospitals if the States don't "perform", well just how likely does anyone think it is that this would be truly desired and achieved by Federal Labor?
With Industrial Relations, small business, which we are told employs so many in the economy, didn't seem to get anything out of all of Rudd's worrying about not offending the "big end" of town. There is still room for a union dominated government to fiddle the final legislation further to the union side.
Greenhouse gases: people hear Rudd say that Labor has made a target commitment; but it's for 2050 for God's sake! Do people think that targets that far out, in the absence of the interim targets and the clear practical steps as to how any targets are to be met is in any way actually meaningful? The Kevin 07 site (see last link) even has the hide to list under its "Climate Change and Water fresh thinking" heading a commitment to "put an end to Mr Howard’s plan for 25 nuclear reactors, coast to coast across Australia." Oh yes, that will help with greenhouse gases. What a "fresh idea" it is to encourage a 1970's era fear of safety of nuclear power.
It may well be too late (I am expecting that will be the general thrust of all commentary tomorrow), but Howard is going to have to truly pull something out the hat policy-wise to win this election. I would think something dramatic in the following areas is needed:
* the housing affordability issue must be addressed. Howard did not dismiss the recent tax concessions suggested by John Symons, and something like that would be very welcome by the younger generation just trying to break into the market now;
* I still think a full reversal on the long ago withdrawn dental treatment support for the elderly would be worthwhile;
* why should Rudd have all the advantage of platitudes over reality? The Liberals could do something that sounds dramatic for greenhouse gases but in reality does nothing much overall. Some form of huge support for hybrid or plug in cars perhaps?
I thought Matt Price's column in the Weekend Australian summed things up pretty well too.
And to go back a few posts: should I get used to answering my own questions all the time? Yes, I fear, I must get used to it for the next 3 years.
UPDATE: just to be clear: there would be no surprise being expressed here if Labor was currently on, say, a 5 to 8% lead, as any government (and leader) of 11 years duration has its work cut out when it seeks re-election. It's the size of the lead, and the seeming never-ending triumph of platitudes, promises on the never-never, and smarminess, that's causing offence.
Surely you're not doubting our new Philosopher King?
ReplyDeleteReasons the polls look bad fro the government:
ReplyDeleteAs smarmy as Rudd gets he can't out smarmy senior government ministers - they are painful to watch.
Labor are allowed platitudes because they have been out of office so long. The voters know the current inhabitants.
The difference between those enjoying the mineral boom and those getting shafted by work choices is biting the aspirational workers who switched the Libs last time. Housing affordability is the kicker here as you suggest.
Dental treatment is only one scandal that relates to the farcical blame shifting on health between the state and federal governments. I agree neither mob has the balls to fix this problem but it just has to be done. The lack of dental care in nursing homes is another aspect of this - there is little infrastructure providing the mobile dentists or assistants needed.
Geoff
Geoff,
ReplyDeleteSmarminess is in the eye of the beholder, of course. I actually don't have a problem with either Costello, Downer or Turnbull. (I don't think Alex came out all that badly on the recent Australia Story.) The Ministers whose style I really don't like include Nelson, McGauran, and I am not entirely sure about Bishop either. Tony Abbott I like some days but not others.
However, on the Labor side, apart from Rudd, I am finding Wayne Swan high on the smarm factor lately, and sounding out of his depth. I don't trust Julia Gillard, and Anthony Albanese is an irritating dill. Both Fergusons are on the Shadow cabinet (rolls eyes) and does anyone on any side of politics actually like Stephen Conroy?
The only positively likeable I would say are Bob McMullan (who seems to live under a rock somewhere these days) and Lindsay Tanner. I kind of feel a little sorry for Peter Garrett, as I feel his head is going to explode one day over some issue where he is compromising his own beliefs.
Don't overlook the single-mothers blow-back Geoff.
ReplyDeleteMost single mothers already work (that's a fact), but since 01 July, if they have a child that is now school age they are moved onto NewStart, they lose payments and they are forced to find a job, any job, for a minimum of 15 hours a week, suffering the absurd effective tax rate of around 65% into the bargain.
A number of marginal seats have large numbers of single mums. I assume there are one or two "single dads" out there being affected by this as well.
Combined with the IR laws blow-back, people dependent on welfare will have a real influence on this election's outcome. You know, all those people being screwed over but no-one cares about because they actually think it's "fair" for those who have nothing to be given even less? Well, those buggers that no one gives a rat's arse about also vote.
Of course, one would be hoping they would be voting "for" something, but the ALP won't do anything for them - does the ALP even have a welfare policy?
No different to anyone else though. Everyone is going to vote "against" Howard, and it is Howard, at the personal level, not his government.
Given that Rudd claims agreement with nearly everything Howard does, do people really believe they are voting "for" anything the ALP stands for?
Sorry, not being very articulate, no time to fix it up.
I think the electorate is being incredibly dumb.