Let’s face it: most of us have a grudging admiration for Steve Bradbury. He openly acknowledged that he was not the best skater in the race. But he did make the final and in the final, he stayed on his feet. In their desperation to be first over the line, the other skaters slipped, skidded, tripped each other up and Steve simply glided to the finish to take the gold medal.
While basking in the golden glow, he never took himself too seriously, but he did personify the lesson that perserverance, as well as talent, pays off.
So can Tony Abbott be the Steve Bradbury of Australian politics? It seems that he has made a measured and responsible speech during the Coalition’s launch; no reason to do anything other than stay on his feet at this stage.
Certainly, as Andrew Bolt has pointed out, it is a big ask for Abbott: the Coaltion may pick up 12 seats in Queensland and New South Wales on the basis of swings being predicted by the polls. But it is hard to see where they will pick up the other five.
And while the quality of the policy discussion in the campaign has been woeful, it has been much more entertaining than pretty much anything else on television!
The Bradbury analogy is the Fraserite luvvie apologia. Abbott didn’t just happen to stay on his skates while the others tumbled. He caused the others to tumble.
For the past three years, every commentator in the country predicted that Mr 68 Percent, Kevin Rudd, was poised to reign as prime minister for at least three terms and that Labor would win the 2010 race by a landslide. What Aboot has achieved – via a combination of courageous differentiation mixed with prudent reserve – is the greatest feat of Opposition strategy and self-knowing application of discipline since Bob Hawke in the early 80s.
The Coalition will not win the election. The margin is too wide and the number of Australians who prefer the stability – in their minds – of re-electing a one-term government, is too large. But Labor’s majority – against every single prediction – is set to be hugely clipped.
Abbott has prevailed. His critics have egg by the truckload on their faces.
C.L.
8 Aug 10 at 6:24 pm
Sorry for the double posting, but it belongs more here.
Just as I announced three years ago that Julia Gillard would be the one to introduce vouchers into Australian schools, that she is not and never has been a socialist, so to I predict that a PM Abbott would be one of the most small-l liberal PMs we’ve had in a long time, and will rarely push anything like his hard-line catholic conservative agenda, he has been known for over the past decade or so.
In fact, I predict he will be the one responsible for legally recognizing gay relationships through civil unions (but he will never support marriage). He will never take on the trade unions.
Peter Patton
8 Aug 10 at 6:26 pm
That is too dismissive of the fact that Bradbury needed an exceptional skill level to be in the Olympic rink in the first place.
By the fact that he did not fall over and was over the line first is irrefutable proof that he was the best in the rink. Hence the gold.
Same goes for Abbott. Both have been totally underestimated.
DavidJ
8 Aug 10 at 6:27 pm
If he wants to win he’ll stump up the cash and have Costello and Hewson refute those ALP attack ads who would then infer that a vote for the ALP would be suicidal.
.
8 Aug 10 at 6:37 pm
Whaddaya mean, ‘grudging admiration for Stephen Bradbury’? I love him. That beam on his face at the end of the race said it all. Nothing grudging about it at all.
Tony Abbott’s a different story.
Most people I know have a grudging, well, grudge for him.
TimT
8 Aug 10 at 7:13 pm
Tim T
As CL will tell you, I was rabidly anti Abbott a month or so ago, but I have since softened, especially after the horror that has been revealed about Labor.
Peter Patton
8 Aug 10 at 7:22 pm
Dot, seriously, Hewson couldn’t explain a birthday cake to a drunk Mike Willesee. He wouldn’t move three votes.
C.L.
8 Aug 10 at 7:39 pm
CL
Tony is going to win handsomely. Have faith.
Everybody knows that Labor is all spin and no delivery.
The world is speeding up. Fashions and events move much faster now. there isan impatience in the air. If a political party does not shape up in one term, it’s out. Labor did not shape up.
Rococo Liberal
8 Aug 10 at 7:45 pm
Abbott has made his own luck. He has made Labor make mistakes.
Unlike Gillard, Abbott looks like a PM.
Rococo Liberal
8 Aug 10 at 7:48 pm
RL
Wanna bet?
Peter Patton
8 Aug 10 at 7:48 pm
I ma getting really pissed off with limp dicks whio are supposedly on our side talking down our chances becauser they too fucking scared to look foolish if Labor wins. We dishearten our base and don’t convince swingers if we try to hard to be fair to both sides.
I remember a partner I worked with in 96 telling me on the day before the election that Keating would win because Labor knew all the tricks. The truth is that the ALP’s campaigning at the Federal level has been average since 1993. 2007 was a fluke. The ALP is not as formidable a foe as most would have you believe. Look at the diaster this campaign has been.
Rococo Liberal
8 Aug 10 at 7:55 pm
WOuldn’t want to rob you PP:)
After the complete farce that was love in Saturday, Labor’s finished.
Rococo Liberal
8 Aug 10 at 7:56 pm
I ma getting really pissed off with limp dicks whio are supposedly on our side talking down our chances becauser they too fucking scared to look foolish if Labor wins.
RL, I think CL’s just giving his honest opinion. I disagree with him, and agree with you, but for abstract reasons. In short,
1) they’re proven mismanagers and have had a string of policy failures
2) they’ve thrown away the incumbency advantage
3) they’re running the worst campaign ever.
Now people can talk about historical precedents and 13 seat margins and percentage swings and so on. But at a base, gut level, winning should surely be impossible with those 3 facts in play.
If they win, then we will learn something new. We will know that campaigns have nearly zero effect on the vote.
daddy dave
8 Aug 10 at 8:10 pm
RL:
Whoa, RL. You don’t need to convince me, brother.
JC
8 Aug 10 at 8:10 pm
Gillard looked rough on Insiders this morning. She’s physically faltering. She can’t take another 2 weeks of this.
daddy dave
8 Aug 10 at 8:12 pm
Gillard’s new tactic seems to be getting her norks out. I never realised what a busty wench she is.
Infidel Tiger
8 Aug 10 at 8:14 pm
Dad:
I really think that comment you made several weeks ago or so about the need to be physically fit for this sort of stuff is so, so important.
In fact I would say Abbott looks as fit as a fiddle in the home stretch.
Campaigning is really grueling thankless work.
JC
8 Aug 10 at 8:24 pm
I counted 14 seats going to the libs in Queensland and NSW on Centrebet.
I’m calling bullshit the ALP dipsticks gain in Vic and SA. Sorry but seat betting markets aren’t showing that.
4 seats going Libs in WA and 1 seat goes libs NT.
That’s 18 seats in my mind.
JC
8 Aug 10 at 8:33 pm
oops sorry… 13 seats in Q ans NZW
JC
8 Aug 10 at 8:33 pm
I counted 14 seats going to the libs in Queensland and NSW on Centrebet.
I’m calling bullshit the ALP dipsticks gain in Vic and SA. Sorry but seat betting markets aren’t showing that.
Which seats are you counting, jc? Sporting Bet has the ALP taking McEwen off the Libs, and only losing one seat in all of NSW. The ALP are starting from a dire position in WA, and don’t have much to lose there. So, to lose government, the Coalition would have to do pretty amazingly well in QLD, SA and TAS, at least, on these odds.
THR
8 Aug 10 at 9:22 pm
Well as I told you I laid down $200 that Labor would win by 12.
Peter Patton
8 Aug 10 at 9:27 pm
The betting markets are pointing to an ALP win. However, it should be close, and the ALP will lose a few seats. The Greens may get Tanner’s old seat. However, neither in polling nor the betting markets is there any Coalition landslide predicted. The Coalition could just sneak through if they won a few marginals.
THR
8 Aug 10 at 9:32 pm
Yeah, but I keep coming back to Gillard. She’s a wreck. her campaign is a disaster.
I can’t imagine any hypothetical post-campaign analysis that explains why that didn’t lose her the election.
daddy dave
8 Aug 10 at 10:01 pm
The campaign has indeed been quite poor. On the other hand, Gillard is still preferred PM over Abbott. A few months ago, the ALP would almost certainly have snatched several more seats of the Coalition, so to be looking at a possible loss or merely narrow victory is itself a disaster, of sorts.
Don’t forget, as in 1998, one side can lose the popular vote but still win the election if they hold onto the marginals.
THR
8 Aug 10 at 10:10 pm
Which seats are you counting, jc? Sporting Bet has the ALP taking McEwen off the Libs, and only losing one seat in all of NSW.
I counted the seats in QLD and NSW. Gave each seat to the lowest odds.
On centrebet.
JC
8 Aug 10 at 10:39 pm
RL, saying it will be so won’t make it so. This is what I’ve called “Field of Dreams psephology” – if you say it, it will come. That’s usually the specialty of lefty zombies. For example, I recall Chris Shiel on the morning of the 2004 poll insisting stridently that Mark Latham was poised for a famous victory. Flattering as it is to claim otherwise, I can’t affect the election by what I write at Catallaxy.
Opposition politics is a long haul proposition. No government has been thrown out after one term in 80 years. As contra-intutive and strange as it may seem, a significant block of voters are responding to the uncertainty caused by the worst government in Australian history by deciding to give it another shot. Abbott cannot garner the seats he needs to win with anything less than a 2PP of about 53/54-47/46. We’re not seeing that. Always watch what Bolt is saying on this; not because he’s a psephological seer (he’s not). But he always like to say after the fact that he was right and he’s already posting escape clauses at his blog – that he can link to in a fortnight’s time – which conclude that the Coalition won’t make it.
The task of a first term re-election campaign is to fight to win, knowing that all historical things being equal, the best that can be hoped for is a sizeable, serious vitiation of the government’s strength and authority. Abbott has achieved this goal – he has delivered. But there are too many thousands of people who won’t abandon a one-term government.
C.L.
9 Aug 10 at 12:14 pm
People will continue to vote Labor becuae a) they hate to admit they were wrong & b) they surely couldn’t screw up anymore?
It hardly matters. Gillard won’t see out 2 years.
Infidel Tiger
9 Aug 10 at 12:20 pm
It hardly matters. Gillard won’t see out 2 years.
Why do you say that?
daddy dave
9 Aug 10 at 12:25 pm
I would agree with Tiger’s assessment. She’s basically Rudd in a skirt. She’ll meander all over the place, the public will get sick of her and Billy Shorten(ed) will end up knifing her ala Rudd.
JC
9 Aug 10 at 12:27 pm
Why do you say that?
She’ll discover a strong and unrelenting yearning for suburban life and kids.
Infidel Tiger
9 Aug 10 at 12:29 pm
Just a gut feeling based on no sound evidence whatsoever. I thought Rudd would be PM for at least 3 elections, so my judgement is terrible.
Infidel Tiger
9 Aug 10 at 12:31 pm
CL
Anthony Green has said Abbott can win on 49-51. So I don’t see why you think the Coalition needs at least 53 or 54% of the 2PP.
As for this myth about one-term governments always winning, I think that too many people have underestimated the effect of the acceleration of poltical discourse caused by the internet revolution. In efect people have less patience now. Federal Governments wear out much more quickly in an era of such intense media scrutiny.
But let us wait and see what effect the farce on Saturday and the Liberal launch have on the voters. None of the recent polls really take those factors into account.
Rococo Liberal
9 Aug 10 at 12:49 pm
RL
Honest question. Where do you see them winning all the seats?
JC
9 Aug 10 at 12:56 pm
RL, be wary of Green and other professional electioneers. They’re always spruiking the “knife-edge election.” Bolt is especially annoying in this respect. Conservatives flock to his site for months as he creates a tsunami of expectations and even inevitabilities – often on flimsy psephological pretexts. At the eleventh hour, when the numbers don’t add up, he jumps ship citing some lame bullshit about Abbott not providing a “vision” in his campaign launch. He’ll link back to this after the election and say, ‘See, told ya. I was right again.’
C.L.
9 Aug 10 at 1:19 pm
Bolt is the ultimate Dutch punter.
Infidel Tiger
9 Aug 10 at 1:21 pm
I also think it is a very big mistake for the Liberals to assume Gillard will fall to pieces after the election and to act like they’re waiting around for things to go pear-shaped. Hawke came close to losing to Peacock in 1984 but Labor fought back and held office for another 13 years. The challenge for Abbott is to keep pursuing the government as aggressively and as intelligently as he has while also keeping at bay the Turnbull Wets who will try to create a Baillieu-style narrative wherein the Coalition lost because they weren’t left-wing enough. That way lies generational ruination. Having said that, an invigorated Green Nazi Party led by certifiable lunatic Bob Brown – coupled with a robotic clutz like Gillard – creates at least the framework for a comfortable win in 2013, on the back of a modest swing to the Coalition.
C.L.
9 Aug 10 at 1:36 pm
When China collapses in the coming years, whoever is in power is rooted.
Infidel Tiger
9 Aug 10 at 1:39 pm
CL your point about Bolta is right. He has been a wet blanket throughout the campaign.
However, you still don’t answer my question as to why the Coalition needs 54% of the 2PP to win.
JC
In 96 a lot of people were saying that Howard might just win if he picked a up few seats in Qld and NSW. He won something like 12 in NSW and another 12 in QLD. Qld and NSW are currently really pissed off with the Labor brand. And althought the voters know that the State and Federal spheres are different, they also know that the politicians are all the same. Gillard isn’t helping here by trying to take on State responsibilities in schools.
I don’t think it will be close. I suspect that the Libs will either pick one or two seats on a tiny swing or they will pick up 20 or more. It all depends upon how the swingers react to the farce that is now Labor and whether the ALP’s union-funded ads will have an effect. But I don’t think that the fact that the ALP is a first term government has any effect at all. Because it isn’t. Gillard’s ascension to the top spot means that Labor has had two terms in one, albeit the second term has been very short.
Rococo Liberal
9 Aug 10 at 1:51 pm
That should be ‘pick up one or two seats’ not pick one or two seats
Rococo Liberal
9 Aug 10 at 1:53 pm
I think Abbott will win, but of course I could be wrong. If Gillard wins I will be forced to rethink some deep-seated beliefs. For instance, “a party in disarray can’t win against a unified party.”
However, the ALP attack ads on TV are very effective and may be what’s keeping them afloat.
daddy dave
9 Aug 10 at 1:58 pm
RL
I appreciate your point, but those are basically outlier results that are unpredictable that we only see after the envent nod our head and say… oh what an interesting combination of seats accumulation it was this time.
I’m with you though, but it’s only a hunch. I still have a small residual bet on for labor after the midnight massacre which is meaningless as I go a little hard of myself making a markets to 5 dollar betters.
The problem as I see it is that the polls do show a lean towards the coalition when we witness the next Liar’s Party fuck up but then it drifts back to those togs.
As someone I respect said recently there’s no carry through with the libs there’s no great movement their way.
JC
9 Aug 10 at 1:58 pm
RL, I see 54-53 as a two-weeks-out buffer that would guarantee the result you’re predicting. That is, if Abbott was 54 now, I would expect that to dwindle down to a narrower split by polling day (which is usually what happens when people actually stroll off to the booth) but enough to win. We’re two weeks out and he’s static at about 49-51 and even that will be hard to hold over a fortnight as the ALP’s mouth-breather constituency finally looks up from the tele and realises an election is on.
C.L.
9 Aug 10 at 2:00 pm
A Labor win will also dramaticaly improve the chances of a WA secession. Every week we’ll look forward to international sporting matches against our commie adversaries from the east.
Infidel Tiger
9 Aug 10 at 2:01 pm
According to George M on Insiders, Labor has one big trick up their sleeve that they’re saving for the campaign launch, that has “nothing to do with money.”
If I was Abbott, I’d hold a press conference an hour later and match their promise, whatever it is.
That way, the nightly news announces that “both parties promise to X” … totally stealing Gillard’s thunder.
My guess is that it’s going to be gay marriage.
daddy dave
9 Aug 10 at 2:05 pm
One other thing RL
The Libs could have shaved some votes off the greens, or rather had more green preferences if they followed the John Humphreys prescription of proposing a carbon tax with direct set off against income tax.
I can’t for the life of me understand why on earth they didn’t go for something like this. It would have been a great policy proposal in that it would have put serious pressure on the left in a unique way and would have shown them to be dishonest clowns if they didn’t support it.
JC
9 Aug 10 at 2:18 pm
My guess is that it’s going to be gay marriage.
Well that would be an excellent way to lose the battle in the marginals and pick up a few cafes.
Infidel Tiger
9 Aug 10 at 2:23 pm
Funny how objective journalist George Megalopodopolopolis is privy to Labor’s campaign secrets. But it won’t be gay “marriage” – which nobody cares about.
C.L.
9 Aug 10 at 2:31 pm
Super profits tax on the banks.
Infidel Tiger
9 Aug 10 at 2:33 pm
Super profits tax on the banks.
Yikes. I hope you’re wrong. However that would be classic Swan.
daddy dave
9 Aug 10 at 2:34 pm
Maybe it’ll be wedding bells for Tim & Julia.
Before anyone else can say it: I’m offering to be maid of honour.
steve from brisbane
9 Aug 10 at 2:37 pm
Read a report on global stock allocation last night. (Yea it my version of soft porn)
Interesting factoid: They saying that corporate tax rates in Europe are going down this year and 2011. There is in fact a global push to lower corporate tax rates. It was written out of London and they’re telling their clients that the Australian Prime lost his job because he was pushing for corporate tax hikes.
JC
9 Aug 10 at 2:37 pm
Of course you would Steve. It would be a bogan paradise for you.
Wodge could select your frock, as he’s good at that sort of thing.
JC
9 Aug 10 at 2:39 pm
Nice guy Stephen Smith might have been persuaded to make way for Rudd as FM.
C.L.
9 Aug 10 at 2:39 pm
Another referendum on the republic?
steve from brisbane
9 Aug 10 at 2:40 pm
Smith is about the only adult left in that party. HE should switch.
JC
9 Aug 10 at 2:40 pm
Patience is a virtue Steve. Just wait and all will be revealed in good time. It really looks like you’re excited.
JC
9 Aug 10 at 2:41 pm
Has Gillard said anything about the republic issue before? I know Rudd put it off on the never never, but I’m not sure whether she has since she became PM.
steve from brisbane
9 Aug 10 at 2:43 pm
Malcolm Turnbull for President. That’d be nice.
steve from brisbane
9 Aug 10 at 2:43 pm
Settle down Steve. Enough with the excitement already.
JC
9 Aug 10 at 2:44 pm
We are arguing about phantoms here. Isn’t it fun
So your view CL is that those who make up their minds near the end favour the incumbent? That may be the case in normal times, but now that the Gpvernment is running like an Opposition and has lost the benefit of incumbency, I think it is actually Labor that needs to be ahead by 8%.
The real answer lies in the primary vote. Labor won’t usually win if its PV is less than 40%. AT the moment it’s 4 or 5% shy of that. That’s an awful lot of Green preferences that Labor will have to bank.
Rococo Liberal
9 Aug 10 at 2:46 pm
Well, believe me, the Coalition campaign launch didn’t do it for me, JC.
steve from brisbane
9 Aug 10 at 2:46 pm
probably nothing to get worked up about. Judging by their performance to date, the ALP campaign launch will be a disaster.
daddy dave
9 Aug 10 at 2:47 pm
Well, believe me, the Coalition campaign launch didn’t do it for me, JC
Fancy that. I would have thought a social conservative like you would have loved it.
daddy dave
9 Aug 10 at 2:47 pm
You never know. Maybe they are going privatise the public service, slash income and company tax to 20% and resign a Australia from the UN. They’d get my vote.
Infidel Tiger
9 Aug 10 at 2:48 pm
Steve,
In the immortal words of Jackie Chiles from Seinfeld.
“I’m shocked, surprised and chagrined” you didn’t like the launch.
JC
9 Aug 10 at 2:51 pm
where’s Homer
I’d like his view on his beloved Iron Mark
Not too long ago he was still calling himself ‘Iron Mark for PM’ or something like that
jtfsoon
9 Aug 10 at 3:01 pm
Yea, good point.
Homer loves the strong man, which isn’t too shocking.
Which reminds me. I have played this for homer in a while seeing Nazi economics hasn’t been raised by him during the past 2 weeks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1Uaml0iEmw
Homer loves this. It’s his favorite tune. In fact I could imagine homes winning Dancing with the Stars with this song.
He’s be there is his Green SS uniform swinging around the dance floor like a regular Fred Astair.
JC
9 Aug 10 at 3:09 pm
OOps He’d….
JC
9 Aug 10 at 3:10 pm
Reasons to believe Abbott is not big on economics:
a. George M’s point (which he is right, is hardly getting any attention) about Liberal’s fraudulent budget savings calculations.
b. Putting off further (that is, actual) savings until after winning government (a bit of a worry as to where the axes may fall.)
c. Parental leave plan which everyone thinks is too generous, cos Tony’s got to look after his girls, you know, and his mortgage has maxed out.
d. a “standing Green Army” of 15,000 to pull weeds out of forest, eg. An expensive dud idea that wastes money which should go the over riding environmental problem of the day. Speaking of which:
e. $3.2 billion over four years into climate direct action on the alleged claim that this will be enough to met the target. Big problems: no one believes it will meet the target, and “soil carbon” is an untried idea of questionable worth and difficult to assess.
f. The detailed costings of virtually nothing is being provided for scrutiny. See Colebatch today.
steve from brisbane
9 Aug 10 at 3:12 pm
I’m sounding very Labor hack-like today.
Must have been all that bad mouthing my beloved at the campaign launch yesterday.
steve from brisbane
9 Aug 10 at 3:14 pm
Reasons to believe Abbott is not big on economic
This is also the case with his 1.5 billion promise on mental health. Since it’s not going to involve any extra tax, it has to come from magical savings in other parts of the health system. I’m surprised that Catallaxians give any credence to Abbott’s economics skills. Unlike the ALP, here’s not a stimulus-spending quasi-Keynesian, just a magic pudding man.
THR
9 Aug 10 at 3:17 pm
No Steve, you’re not sounding any different than you always sound, which is boring and dull.
In fact you’ve perfected it to such an art form that you make boring and dull interesting in a boring and dull sorta way.
JC
9 Aug 10 at 3:18 pm
Thanks for the ALP email, Steve. We’ve all seen it before.
For a Labor hack to speak of “costings” when Rudd and Gillard spent $50 billion on collapsing tuckshops and incinerated houses is almost beyond the talents of any known parodist.
C.L.
9 Aug 10 at 3:18 pm
I’m not giving any credence to Abbott on economics. I’m just hoping more sensible minds will restrain him
jtfsoon
9 Aug 10 at 3:19 pm
I’m just hoping more sensible minds will restrain him
Which one? Ex-shadow finance man Barnaby?
THR
9 Aug 10 at 3:21 pm
Oh and I forgot to mention: passing on a tax which a major industry can clearly live with, and thus one day last week admitting that he couldn’t say when his government would get to surplus, and lying (this really was a clear fib) the next day that he hadn’t heard the question properly and he’ll get it back at the same time as Labor.
steve from brisbane
9 Aug 10 at 3:21 pm
At least there’s more logic in THR’s hackery these days. He’s gone from being the Marxist world’s only known supporter of Reverend Lovejoy to cheering on an actual – albeit closet – socialist.
C.L.
9 Aug 10 at 3:21 pm
Steve, THR>
Here’s the difference. We don’t know of course, but the general tendency is to believe the coalition will close the deficit in a faster more meaningful way than those illiterates on the other side.
Pound for pound I’ll take my chances with the coalition.
They’ve already said they were going to close down the school dunny program for a start.
They really can’t say where they will reduce spending as they don’t want the horses to stampede.
JC
9 Aug 10 at 3:22 pm
a lot more than in the ALP.
there’s Hockey and Turnbull and Robb for starters
jtfsoon
9 Aug 10 at 3:22 pm
I’m not giving any credence to Abbott on economics. I’m just hoping more sensible minds will restrain him
‘sactly.
JC
9 Aug 10 at 3:23 pm
Steve, can you give us a link to the econometrics sustaining Wayne Swan’s claim that he invented 500,000 jobs?
Can we have the link please?
C.L.
9 Aug 10 at 3:23 pm
Points a, b & f were new, JC.
steve from brisbane
9 Aug 10 at 3:24 pm
Robb, Hockey and Turnbull advising on economics…
versus…
Swanny (Australia’s worst ever Treasurer) counselling former Brumby adviser, Julia Gillard. (Finance minister still unknown – it’s a secret).
LOL.
C.L.
9 Aug 10 at 3:26 pm
i particularly like f, Steve.
yea, like if I were Abbott I’d be handing in my stuff to be costed by Ken Henry. If Abbott ever did that he’d deserve to be pig roasted for being a complete Homer-like idiot and falling for the biggest con in living memory.
It would be like having Bernie Madoff do the costings. In fact I don;t think Bernie was as blatant as wombat.
You also neglected to mention that labor’s proposals haven’t been costed out either, you unadulterated labor hack.
JC
9 Aug 10 at 3:28 pm
And I see Abbott and Hockey haven’t got their stories straight yet – to the tune of $7 billion dollars:
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/economy/hockeys-7b-contradiction-of-abbott-20100809-11syu.html
steve from brisbane
9 Aug 10 at 3:38 pm
Steve,
Show us some basic accoutning and show us the error or the discrepancy. We’d like to know how far out they are or if the SMH is reporting a failure to read between the lines as someone else’s mistake.
.
9 Aug 10 at 3:44 pm
“You also neglected to mention that labor’s proposals haven’t been costed out either, you unadulterated labor hack.”
The NBN still hasn’t been costed against the cost of capital. It’s called a CBA.
.
9 Aug 10 at 3:45 pm
There’s something decidedly odd about social democrats calling themselves “conservatives” (i.e. Steve), just as we often see far leftists (such as Obama) posing as “centrists”. Why do opponents of freedom and property rights so often feel a need to disguise their true beliefs?
Michael Fisk
9 Aug 10 at 3:46 pm
Fisk, go talk to Abbott about his Swedish style parental leave plan, will you? And his Green Army while you’re at it.
steve from brisbane
9 Aug 10 at 3:52 pm
Steve, Tony Abbott has never pretended to be a fan of small government or free markets, although he does have some worthy goals such as raising the average IQ of the country (of course he can’t come out and openly say that this is what his parental leave scheme is all about). He’s a Santamaria socialist. You are a Labor hack who pretends to be a “conservative”. But you aren’t fooling anyone, Steve.
Michael Fisk
9 Aug 10 at 3:55 pm
Having said that, Abbott does seem to support property rights, particularly indigenous property rights. So he is on the liberal side of at least one economic matter; Labor and the Greens are the reactionaries.
Michael Fisk
9 Aug 10 at 4:00 pm
I don’t think Hawke was much chop on economics. Whitlam certainly wasn’t. But that’s why they have Treasurers.
boy on a bike
9 Aug 10 at 4:12 pm
Hawke was a B Ec minted Rhodes scholar who saw a series of very important economic reforms. He also respected our civil liberties.
He deserves a lot of credit, IMO.
.
9 Aug 10 at 4:16 pm
Having Turnbull as Treasurer would help enormously, of course. But Joe’s the boy for now, and gives the impression half the time that he’d just as soon give it up and be at home for the kids.
steve from brisbane
9 Aug 10 at 4:20 pm
Fisk, Steve is one of these “conservatives” who is disappointed in Tony Abbott and just can’t vote for him, alas. You know, like the ones the ALP pays to ring talk-back radio shows.
Dot, I believe Hawke did economics in his arts degree in Perth and then did a vege B.Litt. at Oxford. His intellectual firepower has always been overstated.
C.L.
9 Aug 10 at 4:24 pm
Proof’s in the pudding I says.
.
9 Aug 10 at 4:33 pm
The world is speeding up.
Yeah? A lot of people seem to want it to slow down.
I think fashion moves at the same pace. It’s 2010 and I’m seeing all the 1990 stuff coming back. The only difference is that there’s proportionately more Tribe Called Quest/De La Soul type hip hop types about.
The bogons, behind the times as always, have decided that the Kajagoogoo look is where it is. They manage to look even worse than the original. Altho’ Idid soo some kid with good taste do a passable Nick Rhodes.
Adrien
9 Aug 10 at 5:01 pm
MC 900 for mine, Adrien.
.
9 Aug 10 at 5:03 pm
dot/CL
Hawke never darkened an economics lecture theatre in his life. He did an LLB at UWA and wrote a master’s thesis at Oxford on industrial law.
Peter Patton
9 Aug 10 at 5:06 pm
Hawke’s greatest academic achievement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Hawke
His academic achievements were complemented by setting a new world speed record for beer drinking: a yard glass (approximately 3 imperial pints or 1.7 litres) in eleven seconds
jtfsoon
9 Aug 10 at 5:09 pm
He and John Stone went through Perth’s selective state school – Perth Modern – together. Stone made a very perceptive – and extremely bitchy observation. He said Hawke was never a great intellect, he was always just ‘clever!’
Peter Patton
9 Aug 10 at 5:11 pm
I’ve been deceived.
.
9 Aug 10 at 5:12 pm
dot
Not really. I think Hawke is the closest thing Australia has produced to a god.
Peter Patton
9 Aug 10 at 5:13 pm
Well hey I said the proof is in the pudding.
.
9 Aug 10 at 5:20 pm
CL, we know the routine with these people: “Hello, Steve from Brisbane, you’re on the line…Yeah, thanks Lawsy, great to be back on the show. You know, I’m a rock-ribbed conservative from way back. Nobody questions my conservative credentials. But even I can support gay marriage, pink batts and giving shitloads of money to Hugo Chavez to achieve ‘carbon justice’…”
Michael Fisk
9 Aug 10 at 5:55 pm
Fisk
Did Steve really say that on the program? It’s so funny that you heard him. Did you laugh hysterically?
JC
9 Aug 10 at 5:59 pm
Wasn’t even a Master’s, Peter. I think it was a pissant B.Litt. Kate Ellis could get through one of those fairly comfortably. Even Wayne Swan at a pinch.
Abbott is streets ahead of Hawkie, intellectually. Laws and a genuine economics degree plus an MA from Queen’s College, Oxford, as a Rhodes Scholar. Add the first grade Rugby career, the two Oxford blues for boxing and the ironman triathlete – and, well, the old budgie Bob starts to look like a bespectacled geek.
Look, the dollar float and financial deregulation would have been pursued by any government in the 80s – it was inevitable. Howard constructed the platform. Hawke was AWOL between 84 and 87, was bested by Peacock in 84 and was a lame duck by 1990. Very overrated man in every way.
C.L.
9 Aug 10 at 6:37 pm
Couldn’t handle his piss either.
Infidel Tiger
9 Aug 10 at 6:41 pm
OK, maybe not Swan.
C.L.
9 Aug 10 at 6:44 pm
“and a genuine economics degree…”
He forgets himself.
.
9 Aug 10 at 7:11 pm
Hawke was AWOL between 84 and 87, was bested by Peacock in 84 and was a lame duck by 1990. Very overrated man in every way.
Doesn’t that contradict the anti-Keating routine you were spinning a few weeks back? Or did the Ministry of Truth tell you that Keating was the guy now. Keating was always the guy.
My parents had a yard glass. It’s a lot of beer.
Adrien
9 Aug 10 at 7:15 pm
What a hoot!
.
9 Aug 10 at 7:17 pm
Doesn’t that contradict the anti-Keating routine you were spinning a few weeks back?
Um, no.
And not being on the same Let’s Re-elect
KevinJulia email list as you, Steve and Homer, I’m not familiar with the ALP ministry to which you refer.Keating was hated by lefties like you in the 80s, Adrien. Lefties like you only pretend to like him now because a) he discovered Aborigines in the early 90s (formerly, he wouldn’t recognise one he tripped over him in Pitt Street); and b) he expectorates well-rehearsed tirades against “Tories” from his Potts Point mansion.
C.L.
9 Aug 10 at 7:34 pm
I’ve never expressed any emnity or affection for Keating CL. And by now I don;t actually give a rat’s who gets elected. It shite in the sandwich either way as far as I can see.
What you said is that it was Hawke who drove the neolibveral reforms of the 80s. Now you say what I suggestd, that he became useless pretty quickly.
And all of this is rich coming from someone who routinely accuses people of major criminal offences.
Adrien
9 Aug 10 at 7:47 pm
Hawke was very strange phenomenon. Before he came into parliament you would here idiots saying at dinner parties that they would vote for HAwke if he became a politician. But they could never tell you why. WHen he got into power he was still hailed as wonderful for a while. But when he left office, I remember reading quite a few op-eds to the effect of “what did we ever see in this bloke?”
The major economic reforms were biparitisan and took all of 5 minutes to do.
These wankers also introduced CGT, heaps of sales tax rises, the egregious Div 7A and the awful dividend imputation system. They entrenched PC and were great at trashing the economy when it suited them Remember the farce of removing negative gearing one year and reinstaitng it the next. Remember the 20% interest rates. Hawke /Keating were happy to write Oz off and manage decline. It was Howard Costello that made the hard yards.
Rococo Liberal
9 Aug 10 at 8:13 pm
RL
I’m really upset with Howard, as he should never have allowed himself to be cornered with workchoices by the unions. He was lazy in the end because he didn’t do the hard yards to explain the benefits of freer labor markets but instead had the Libs trapped by the trogs on the other side with essentially dishonest representation.
There were two ways he could have gone. He could have gone the small piecemeal changes that people wouldn’t notice over a long period of time or he should have spent years explaining to to the public in the same way he did with GST.
Meanwhile he allowed an essentially lazy treasurer not to make everlasting changes to the tax system once and for all.
The guy was old, he took his eyes off the ball and was run over by these economic barbarians.
The public felt betrayed by him.
JC
9 Aug 10 at 8:23 pm
RL, the mystery you raise is, I think, best explained as the liberal commentariat’s desire to put Gough’s ghost to rest and create a new narrative of Labor competence and moderation. Hawke delivered in this most basic sense. But the rest is hagiographical codswallop. The sight and sound of these two egomaniacs – Hawke and Keating – brawling over the legacy of the 80s is truly pathetic.
C.L.
9 Aug 10 at 8:27 pm
CL and RL are engaged in revision of history here.
It would be more convenient for you of course if they were still unreformed socialists. But they moved with time, and should be congratulated for this.
While reforms may have had bypartisan support, they were more effectively pursued by ALP as only they could neutralise the unions opposition.
Unfortunately, neither Rudd nor Gillard represent these values.
Boris
9 Aug 10 at 8:47 pm
No Boris, we’re dismissing the revision of history.
Only in the intellectual backwater of the Australian Labor Party – where the White Australia Policy was still being militantly supported as late as 1966 – would the refusal of two modern men to socialise the means of production, distribution and exchange (62 years after the Blackburn amendment) be cause for ‘congratulation.’
C.L.
9 Aug 10 at 9:00 pm
“Only in the intellectual backwater of the Australian Labor Party…”
If that was only in the ALP, then why it wasn’t done by, say, Fraser?
Boris
9 Aug 10 at 9:36 pm
C.L.
Keatng’s idea that he was “really” PM from 1984 to 1991 is weird but suggesting that Howard was “really” PM from 1983 to 2007 is even weirder.
.
9 Aug 10 at 11:56 pm
It would be weird to say that, yes.
?
C.L.
9 Aug 10 at 11:58 pm
If that was only in the ALP, then why it wasn’t done by, say, Fraser?
Partly because, as you noted correctly above, “only [Labor] could neutralise the unions’ opposition.”
C.L.
10 Aug 10 at 12:01 am
Cl, if that’s the case then Hawke and Keating should be recognised for taking on the unions and thus essentially turning back on their traditional base for the greater national good.
I don’t like this what if game. These guys should be given their dues for what they did. I would say, Australians would do better by giving more respect to their elder statesmen, from Whitlam to Howard. And no, I won’t include Rudd until after he retires from politics.
boris
10 Aug 10 at 2:48 am
Before he came into parliament you would here idiots saying at dinner parties that they would vote for HAwke if he became a politician.
My mother is a lot of things RL, but she was no idiot. The election of the ALP in 1983 was the first election I paid close attention to. There were good reasons to change and it was widely celebrated. The old man grumbled naturally.
Disillusion with the ALP set in as the result of their neoliberal policies, that is, in their exercise of good governance. And because of the Protectionist Party part of the LPA it had to be them. They’d just learned from Whitlam that you can’t go too fast or too far.
From 1983 to 2007 we had good governance. Now it’s time for the shite.
CL and RL are engaged in revision of history here.
No shit.
Adrien
10 Aug 10 at 1:41 pm
Australians would do better by giving more respect to their elder statesmen, from Whitlam to Howard.
You’ve got a lot to learn ’bout Oz kulcha mate.
Adrien
10 Aug 10 at 1:42 pm
These guys should be given their dues…
Boris, my comment again:
RL, the mystery you raise is, I think, best explained as the liberal commentariat’s desire to put Gough’s ghost to rest and create a new narrative of Labor competence and moderation. Hawke delivered in this most basic sense. But the rest is hagiographical codswallop. The sight and sound of these two egomaniacs – Hawke and Keating – brawling over the legacy of the 80s is truly pathetic.
.
C.L.
10 Aug 10 at 2:58 pm
The sight and sound of these two egomaniacs – Hawke and Keating – brawling over the legacy of the 80s is truly pathetic.
Yeah the 80s is out man. It’s a new decade so we need ta update the retro. Cue Costello and Howard’s memoirs and the resultant shitfight. And follow that up with Phil Ruddock and Peter Reith battlin’ over the coveted Bloodless Swine award.
And now to the real issue: Abbott is the Steven Bradbury of politics. But will Currency Lad fulfil his dream of becoming the Steven Bradbury of the singles nightclub scene?
Adrien
10 Aug 10 at 7:49 pm
If you mean will I score gold while you and three friends grope one another on the floor, yes.
C.L.
10 Aug 10 at 7:53 pm
No CL. My friends and I don’t go to places like that. We’re too busy working on the Polish Paedophile Jihad Bonanza.
This is where we rewrite all the textbooks to say that Kevvie’s was the bestest gummit we ever had, ban soap in the interests of the hairy toe’d numbid cow and convert Vatican City into a Giant Mosque with a McDonald’s drive thru.
Adrien
10 Aug 10 at 7:59 pm
My friends and I don’t go to places like that.
Places with chicks, you mean?
C.L.
10 Aug 10 at 8:04 pm
Places where the chicks have more chest hair than me, yes. But in Brizvegas, well, as long as she’s been deloused she’s a lady.
Adrien
10 Aug 10 at 8:13 pm