John Quiggin

Yes, it's off to work as usual for we poor mug punters. If you were feeling a bit down today after Saturdays result, spare a thought for the Fox family. As you know Mem Fox was trailing along with Latham, no doubt looking forward to one of her books like Possum Magic, being on the list of his giveaways to every schoolkid in need. Mem Fox, that 'whole language' guru, largely responsible for the lack of literacy for many kids from struggletown over the years. Mem did help daughter Chloe fight the good fight against the forces of darkness in the Adelaide seat of Boothby. Alas, darkness prevailed and Chloe a teacher will be returning to school today. Now you might expect Chloe would be fighting the good fight in a middle class public school, even if she baulks at the hard yards in the tough northern suburbs of Elizabeth, or down south at Hackam. No, Chloe will be leading the charge at Loreto College, Adelaide's top Catholic girls school and if I know Catholic Ed, they invariably choose one of their own, often from their own alumni.

Is it any wonder the blokes I work with and their wives with keep voting for the greatest PM they've ever known? If Labor fight one more bloody election campaign on 'education', then it deserves to go the way of the Democrats.

"Whenever you here somebody saying the other side won because of scare tactics, what they are saying is the voters are stupid" (Peter Ruehl, AFR, today).

Harry, whenever you say that the election should have gone the other way, you're saying something negative about the majority who disagreed with you.

To follow up specifically on interest rates, Harry, are you asserting:
(i) Interest rates would have been more likely to rise if Labor had been elected; or
(ii) No one voted for the government on the basis of belief in, or fear that interest rates would rise under Labor; or
(iii) The government did nothing to encourage people to be scared about interest rates

If you don't assert at least one of these, you must believe that the government ran a successful scare campaign. (BTW, Labor had its share of scare tactics, notably the Costello ads, it's just that they didn't work).

Which country can i move to?

The conservatives have control of the Senate. Everybody’s tearing their hair out about the terrible policies the Libs might introduce over the next three years. Think again.

Like pollies bedazzled by the prospects of a chauffered ministerial limmo, you political argy-bargy tragics get so blinded by policy speculations you forget about the SYSTEM. Why are there minors in the Senate? Because it’s a PR electoral system. If the Libs have a majority in their own right they can change it, just as Labor did in 1949. Just as Labor did last year in Victoria. Just as Labor has done with upper houses all over the country.

They can shut out those pesky minors forever. Just as the Labor and Liberal in cahoots did in Tasmania in the mid nineties.

Oh dear.

The Australian's editorial explains everything (11 Oct 2004).

For the past 100 years in Australia, workers thought they were equals to their bosses. Idiots. The coalition will be sorting that one out quick smart. A lot of disabled Australians have been faking it. Pinching their crutches and pensions will help them walk again. Telstra hasn't been able to rack up its prices, and it's been forced to look after rural Australians. Privatising it will give it the freedom to really serve its customers.

Most importantly, it's not that high income earners are greedy buggers. It's just that they know what their tax money should be spent on. Them.

Welcome to avaricious Australia.

Never give a sucker an even break.

the voters ARE stupid: they believed the hogwash spouted over interest rates and budget surpluses; they showed no interest in issues regarding the decline of government assets, the rise in consumer debt or anything regarding general propriety and governance; and they responded blindly to the scent of money thrown in their demographic direction.

the australian electorate deserves to suffer a fourth term of howard government garnished with a family first b of p in the senate, and its various consequences.

John, I can reject all three of these claims and still reject the view that the scare campaign determined the outcome of the election. None of these points are sufficient to ensure the scare campaign secured victory. The Coalition won because people judge they are better managers of Australia generally (not just the economy) than the Labor Party.

My basic point of agreement with Ruehl is that I don't believe voters are stupid. I think voters knew Mark Latham was less experienced than John Howard, took policy decisions on the run (like the cut and run Iraq policy) and was promoting policies that were socially devisive (such as the schools policy). If the economy is running well why would you switch? Voters were risk-averse towards Labor making bad policy decisions and with good reason.

Does anyone remember the capital gains tax on the family home t.v. advert? A brilliant example of scare tactics. All those nice roofs in treelined streets.

Harry, fear and greed are basic emotions. Parties (on all sides) would be crazy not to harness them.
To say that our el Rodento won because of scare tactics is not equivalent to saying voters are stupid.

By the way, I don't think Howard's just in for three years. I think it's at least six and possibly more. He's fundamentally re-engineering Australian society in ways that are self-sustaining for privilege.

Privileged self interest obviously has a long history in politics, but I think the current brand of engineered, rationalised self-interest is new and disturbing for Australia.

If (when) Bush wins in November, are we likely to see an invasion of Iran in late 2005?

The Freepers are all claiming that the HoWARd victory was driven by Aussies supporting Emperor Shrub and his global campaign against the jihadist.

harry
keating won against hewson on a scare campaign. howard won against latham on a scare campaign. all is fair in love and politics and yes, voters are rationally ignorant. is this such a controversial point?

You can argue all you like about the reasons for the ALPs crushing rejection by the electorate, but understand one thing very clearly. In SA, where a number of seats were very marginal, the results from individual booths across electorates show quite clearly- The doctors wives shifted to Latham while the soccer and footy mums swung to Howard(putting it in the election vernacular)

I would suggest to you all that Labor is now the captive of the chardonnay left set like the Fox family and don't Australians know it.

Unless there is major collapse in house prices and a major rise in interest rates, Labor has no chance of getting elected next time.Consequently, this is clearly now the time to make the major changes that are required. A less thuggish leader is needed and the party also urgently needs to broaden its base. For example, the quota on female candidates should be met by attracting capable women (over 35) from outside of the party structure and not, as at present, from party apparatchiks who have come straight out of student politics - if not kindergarten.

Labor also needs to strongly emphasise its support for a multi ethnic society but ditch its cultural relativist baggage. Peter Garrett also should be ditched and the strong message on foreign politics should that the American alliance is vital to Australia’s interest.

observa, I'm not interested in defending Labor. I am not complaining about the election result. That is democracy and I respect my fellow Australians.

I agree to an extent with your Chardonnay criticism of Labor, but I also disagree with an element of it. On issues like the Iraq War, I think voters did reject what they saw as elitist clap trap from Labor. But on issues like housing and work, I think it was the opposite. I think the rejection of Labor in these areas was essentially snobbish. It was people looking down their noses at poor people and struggling workers.

When Lathan became leader, he correctly identified that class of voters as a group that Labor must capture. He politely described them as the "aspirational" voters. He, or perhaps more to the point, the Labor machine, failed to capture this group.

I think the lessons for Labor are probably that it does need to adapt much better to the new century. It probably does need to stop relying on traditional union loyalties, and it does need to articulate and defend its beliefs better.

No issue sums up the difference between the parties better than the forests in Tassie issue. Latham promised another commission of enquiry in 12 months time(the results of that stacked body every worker understood)and then promised some bucks to turn the workers to making wooden toys or running tours. You know upskilling and value adding, albeit after the greenies had repeatedly stymied any value adding paper mills for years. Howard cut through all this rubbish and locked up 170,000 hectares out of 240,000 hectares and said get on with your lives.

That's essentially the difference. The Libs are results focussed. They make a decision and stick with it through all the crap, spin and histrionics of the loony left. Labor fart around in the ether wearing their superior ideology club badges. Have a guess whose backs real workers slapped on our national television networks for all the soccer and footy mums to see?

I think that the Forestry policy was a disaster. Howard wrong-footed Latham into an announcement that was destined to win plaudits largely from Bob Brown. The image of Latham being driven into a locked garage in Hobart to avoid the very same forestry workers who roared their approval for Howard in their midst a couple of days later was telling. It also succeeded in keeping the final week spotlight on a policy area where Latham had no hope of increasing his primary vote in marginal seats - quite the reverse in fact. Green preferences dispatched Larry Anthony in Richmond and lots of people voted Green on Sydney's North Shore but the net effect is minimal. Bob's 9% is more like 7 his 1,000,000 votes are 700,000 and Labor has gone backwards. Labor won't win government until it takes back a significant chunk of Howard's vote. Bob Brown's vote won't get them up.

Yes I agree. That's a good example. Labor should have done much more work on that. The other one it needs to start working on now is looking after rivers without demoralising farmers. It could start by examining the proportion of water-intensive farming that is only recent and the result of agribusiness initiatives rather than traditional farming.

Look I have no idea is this is the place for it, and god knows these aren't the issues on most people's minds today, but whatever; i have 4 quick questions:

1. Apparently "most Australians" are overjoyed that their "primary asset", their home, has appreciated under J. Winston. Fine. Is this of any value to them in real terms? i.e. if everyone's house has increased in value, has anyone's house actually increased in value?

2. How much $$$ did the party's actually spend over the six weeks?

3. Who were the P.R./advertising firms involved?

4. Can we please cease the pointless, inflammatory noise like "chardonnay left"? Thanks.

Might be a bit harsh Akman, but how would you describe doyens of Labor party values like Mem and Chloe Fox? Well intentioned dilettantes?

One last point on the "scare campaign" issue. Suppose two voter sin every 100 changed their votes on the basis of the Liberal campaign. Then this would be enough to make the scare campaign the crucial factor in Howard's win. But a claim that two in every 100 voters were deceived by a plausible, but ultimately baseless argument is obviously not a claim that "the Australian people are stupid".

"Labor won't win government until it takes back a significant chunk of Howard's vote."

Geoff, this is obviously true. The sticking point is (and always has been) whether Labor tries to do this by chasing Howard and the voters to the Right, or whether it can come up with a convincing vision and persuasive arguments which can win voters away from the Coalition and the right-wing parties.

BTW, Bob's 1,000,000 will be 870,000 rather than 700,000 once all the votes are in, not that this substantially detracts from your argument.

Finally, as stated on another thread I think the political problem with Labor's forest policy was the late timing and the associated lack of time for a convincing job of campaigning on the issue, explaining the benefits of the $800 million restructuring package, and enabling the peak environmental organisations to mobilise in support of it.

Harry is technically right. John's assertion (ii) would better have been phrased:

(ii) A decisive number of people did not vote for the government on the basis of belief in, or fear that interest rates would rise under Labor;

My own informal survey show this stronger claim can safely be discounted; thus we can claim that the government won by a scare campaign.

The question is why did it work, and why did Latham fail to dispell the scare?

The Liberals have taken the middle ground now and it will be hard to get it back. The economy is ticking along okay and at the end of the day for most Australians that is what matters. In a perverse way, Coalition control of the Senate might be the best thing that happened. Perhaps when all the aspirational voters have their mortgage under control, their second car paid off and their kids performing wonderfully in their private school of choice, they may get more introspective and wonder about those who might have been left behind. That might mean in another six years or so they are ready to give the ALP a chance.

If the RBA do increase interest rates next month (quite possible) then Howard & Costello will tell us about the strength of the local economy, etc etc....99.9% of the economy have no concept of the transmission mechanism that leads to higher or lower interest rates. Australia have participated in a worldwide trend of lower interest rates, perhaps some of the fiscal discipline (ie not giving us our money back in the form of tax cuts or services) might have contributed along the way, but the global trend has been lower, with a few exceptions (UK, NZ and Canada) been hiking in recent times.

I wouldn't have been in McMullan's shoes for quids, getting an earful of Nick Minchin must been hard to bear. Nice to see the CFMEU ditched the ALP in Tasmania...wonder how they will be screaming when the Government starts pushing through its IR legislations.

"The question is why did it work, and why did Latham fail to dispell the scare?"

And this, James, is the clincher. Not to have had some effective counter to this most predictable of Coalition claims was disastrous. You could see it coming down the electoral highway like a road train a year ago.

observa, I don't know who those people are, nor do I care. And "chardonnay left" isn't harsh; it's stupid. If you're implying that rich people (like me) shouldn't give two [deleted] about what happens to the less well-off, then you're not a serious person and I wish I hadn't wasted my time.

To be fair, there was a response that seemed to work OK on a couple of levels. For people who were up to a serious discussion of the issues, there were a bunch of economists saying the government's line was nonsense. And for those who weren't, there was Latham's theatrical pledge.

But, the government only needed to convince two or three per cent of the voters that it might happen, and they were home.

In retrospect, this part of the Howard campaign was clever. They created an impression in the media that it would be dangerous for Labor to campaign on this issue "because it wasn't a strength for Labor," and Labor strategists seem to have been deceived by this.

Of course, in the last week, when it was too late for Labor to respond, the Howard campaign let fly with what had been its main strategy all along. Very clever. Labor should be questioning its image / advertising advice.

i think JQ sums it up, when he says whether Labor tries to win Howard's voters away by chasing Howard's position ("we're more like him than he is") or by articulating a vision and set of policies that appeal to the electorate. but what vision and what policies? does labor go to a clearly articulated centre or to the left?

"For people who were up to a serious discussion of the issues, there were a bunch of economists saying the government's line was nonsense."

John, I admire you greatly and if you really imagined that a 'bunch of economists' might have been a punter-pleasing antidote to the Coalition's line on interest rates, I'd be very surprised :) As for The Big Pledge, I predict that some enterprising soul will find a tourist-attracting home for it atop a roadhouse on the Pacific Highway.

Roughly 937,529 people voted for the Greens in this election. That is close to 1 million I would suggest, so Bob Brown's claim is not outrageous.

I agree with John on the scare campaign not equating to the stupidity of the Australian people. Stupidity is not the Liberals stronghold alone. Informal votes are higher across the board in safe labour seats which speaks volumes for the populace there. Just as many people would have been "scared" into voting for Labour as against them through the Costello ads etc...

Let us face the facts: many people scurry around in their daily lives, largely driven by baser emotions - fear and greed - being the two dominant ones. Little thought is given by these people about the greater issue of being part of this universe. These instincts always favour conservative politics, especially in an international climate of fear.

Some of us may despise this attitude but if we are to champion democracy we must accept it.

I get a bit tired of hearing the voters are stupid. They are not stupid. The party that fails to win is stupid, and must try harder next time.

I don't see why conservative commenters are arguing against the claim the interest rates issue was run as a scare. Of course it was, and it very effectively scared a lot of voters. To say it was a scare campaign is not the same as suggesting the government was especially corrupt -any party with a good scare campaign in their kitbag uses it - nor does it make the voters especially stupid. Jason is right, being "rationally ignorant" is not synonymous with "stupid". Most Australians know little about politics and care less - they are doing other things in their lives. Provided there is no other reason to change (eg an economic collapse, a war or suchlike) an effective campaign by an incumbent government is more likely than not to succeed. Indeed, the current government has greatly strengthened the advantages of incumbency - examples range from the huge advantage arrangements for costings of policies under the Charter of Budget Honesty gives the government through to having taxpayers pay for sitting members campaign materials like how-to-vote cards.

something that does though cause me some concern is that people who actually know what they are talking about (eg economists on interest rates) have been so readily dismissed as howard hating elites.

One of the successes of the current Prime Minister has been to cement in the public mind that expertise is so worthless that possessing it will almost disqualify someone from making a comment on an issue (especially if the someone happens to come from a university - which unfortunately is where a lot of people with expertise tend to congregate).

"The problem is that they (the academic and media elites) hate Howard so much that they can only see him as a caricature. They see him as an unchanging, almost demonic, figure whose greatest sin is not to take notice when they scold him. The result is that they have never been able to understand his strengths, preferring to dwell on his weaknesses. blinded by their dislike they have consistently underestimated him" (Greg Melleurish, The Australian, today).

Yes.

On John Q's 2% figure and the claim that if only 2% switched then the 'lies' campaign won the election for the Coalition. If only 2% had accepted Labors inept and class-based schools policy or if 2% more had switched their vote by accepting the morally bankrupt and practically dangerous 'cut and run' policy from Iraq Labor might not have lost. The election was on a package of policies.

The Coalition received 52.6% of the two party preferred vote. This is the highest vote for the Coalition parties in nearly twenty years.

John,

What's the old line about asking 10 economists for their view on an issue and get 10 different responses? Have you considered that the Australian people bought the interest rate line not because of a successful scare campaign but because it might be true?

I'm no expert in this area but may I suggest that the following is the way most average voting Australians would think;

Interest rates are controlled by the Reserve Bank, not the government. The RB sets rates based on its view of where inflation is heading - it has a target of 2-3%. If inflation looks like trending higher then it will lift rates. So the key thing that government does that influences interest rates is to set policys that have an influence on inflation. One of the key policys with an inflation impact is the area of industrial relations. The ALP is generally hostage to the union movement when it comes to IR - so its IR policy is likely to lead to higher inflation than the coalition. Therefore if the ALP win power, over time and all else being equal, inflation is likely trend up relative to where it would have been under a coalition government. The RBA will therefore raise interest rates higher under the ALP than the Coalition.

In my view the interest rate issue was just one of the issues that made it impossible for Latham to get up. We've got inflation, unemployment and interest rates all at very low levels. That must be unusual and the living standard of the average Australian must be at an all time high. Howard and Costello have done a great job for Australia - why change?

According to this site, the Coalition got 53.6 per cent of the two-party preferred vote in 1996.

Andrew, I commented on the government's record on unemployment here. But that's not to deny that many people followed reasoning similar to that you set out, and that was responsible for Howard's win.

Akman, I was just pointing out a glimpse of what John Button had to say about those seeking power through the ALP nowadays. Still, maybe Federal Labor likes being a medium for opposition professionals.

You are right John Q. My claim should have referred to the primary vote going to the Coalition. My source, The Australian this morning page 2.

I for one am quite prepared to entertain the notion that the Australian people, as a clooective body, are stupid. One sees incontrovertible evidence of this almost every day. Democracy is perhaps wasted on such as these, but we must live in hope.

But I suspect the real dividing line here is the very simple one of self-interest, not intellect, or lack thereof.

Election party at my house Saturday night: 6 Libs, 4 Labs. Questioned, all the Libs said they were voting for the party they deemed to be the "best for me". The Labs, similarly questioned, asserted that they were voting for the party they felt to be the "best for the country".

Now, it could be argued that there is - or should be - some overlap in these positions. And I'm not here to defend either position. I only observe a motivational pattern. And it seems to me that there is an intrinsic divide here. John Howard understands this, and everything he does is designed to exploit this gap.

Australians stupid? Maybe. Selfish? Absolutely.

And it just will not do, to label an entire clooective body as stupid. It simply will not do.

Oh well. Stupid is as stupid does.

The ALP can't whinge about an interest rate scare campaign. It was the firdt thing the government would have thought about.

The housing bubble and large credit growth has made a lot of people extremely sensitive to interest rate changes.

This is why howard got such a swing. I am not convinced people agreed with the nonsense coming out of the government camp but they are concerned about ANY interest rate change.

This makes this win such a double edged sword for howard becasue it is easy for these people to come back and bite him on the behind.

We have gone for over 14 years sinnce a recession so one is due and who knows why it will happen but a highly geared housing sector is very vvulnerable.

what irks me is that the ALP did not take on the government on economics.

Why not talk about bank bill rates and therefore overdraft rates? debate the relationship between budget deficits and intereat rates. ( the greatest fall we have seen in interest rates occured under Keating with a budget deficit whilst 17% rates happened under a budget surplus and what about the US today?)

take ownership of economic reform and how an industrial museaum has become the 'miracle economy'.

Iron Mark needs a strong economic team. He is an economic dry which is essential and a policy wonk which will be good for shadow ministers.

Oh get rid of Macklin and replace her with Gillard

The Australian people are stupid. I didn't think this was really a point of debate.

Nemesis wrote - "I for one am quite prepared to entertain the notion that the Australian people, as a clooective body, are stupid. One sees incontrovertible evidence of this almost every day. Democracy is perhaps wasted on such as these, but we must live in hope."

Nemesis - that is exactly the arrogant attitude of the left that will keep the ALP out of power for a long time. Australians are neither stupid nor selfish.

The ALP and its supporters needs to leave the emotion behind and just accept the result. I actually thought Latham was heading in the right direction originally with his 'ladder of aspiration'. We all aspire to better ourselves - that doesn't mean we are selfish!

by definition some 50% or so of the population are stupid. if you take the bell curve, that still leaves 70% average with the other 30% split between smart and dumb. that means 15% of the population is actually stupid by definition. howard won 52% ro 48% approximately so that's plenty of stupid people who voted for howard.

unless you want to say that all of the stupid part votes only labor and the difference is purely people of average intelligence. but then to say such a thing makes you no better than your left wing counterparts.

therefore some australians are stupid, yes. it is an indisputable fact. a larger share of stupid australians exist than the difference between the TPP vote of liberal and labor.

also it is of note that being in the MAJORITY (or minority) does not make you smart, well informed, or right.

so to say that australians are / are not stupid based on their majority opinion is not an argument.

People on the left of politics treat ordinary citizens, that they ritualistically praise as 'the people' or 'the masses', as in fact being stupid. The analysis of Labor's performance at this election is an instance of this. I think the view is unhelpful since few on the left have shown through history that they have no great strength in identifying the real interests of anyone. Direct observation of my fellow Australians suggests it is false too.

I haven't explored libertarianism much but am puzzled that John Humphries, who does, and who therefore sees society as operating ideally on the basis of individual self-interest, also by his own statement, believes most citizens are stupid. I thought it would likely be the reverse.

John H's views amount to, let's give it a name: The Anarchist's Irrelevance of Individual Stupidity Theorem: Markets and free choice determine a individualistic social optimum even when most consumers and producers are stupid.

Its an amazingly self-contradictory claim.

It seems that, when reading many posts in this thread, Howard's opposition lost despite of being generous, intelligent and worried about their fellow human beings. Voters for Howard are apathetic, greedy, selfish, stupid, etc. I wish I could join your enlightened elite, and be able to claim the high moral ground with you.

Liberals lied so we should have elected Labor. But wasn't Labor most of the time quick on following and supporting those lies, even knowing that they were probably false? All in the name of doing the right things by the poll of the moment?

Labor lost because it could not put forward a convincing alternative to Howard's government. Was it the subject of scare tactics? Yes. Did it play with scare tactics? Yes again. Did it deserve to win? According to the enlightened posters: yes. According to more than 50% of the population: no. Why would you change to 'the same thing' but with more uncertainty attached?

Andrew,
Many on the left are undoubtedly arrogant and blind to their own faults. However, large numbers of Australians are also undoubtedly dum and selfish – just look at the numbers obsessed with reality TV and the lives of the rich and famous or simply take a look at the average women’s mag. The attitude of many Australians to refugees also leaves a lot to be desired.

That said, many academics and so-called intellectuals are also extremely stupid. Look at how many so-called intellectuals played down the Soviet Union’s human rights record in the past or who can barely mention the United States or Israel at the present without foaming at the mouth. Consequently, as Winston Churchill suggested, democracy might be a badly flawed system but its best one we’ve got. Maybe if academics did some original thinking for a change and stopped ideologically indulging themselves at the taxpayers expense a more stimulating debate over the nations future might emerge. However, I will not hold my breath.
Michael Burgess

This thread has become a dog chasing its own tail. Now THAT'S stupid!

Some possible slight consolation for the left, breaking news on families first:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,11039287%255E1702,00.html

Sorry to the stolen gens and improved conditions for families in detention. I must say it goes to show, as one who frothed a bit at the rise of FF, that you just can't tell or make too many assumptions... now if they'd just ease up and drop the burning of lesbians, we could all hold hands and be friends!

michael B

the latter might be taken as duplicitous, not stupid. the same way many a right winger played down the human rights abuses by the various usa-supported dictatorships in the 3rd world. the "your freedom fighters are terrorists; my terrorists are freedom fighters" style of thinking. it's still around.

Andrew - Though avowedly anti-Howard, I am certainly not OF the Left. Go ask Rob Corr. But apart from that, your post makes no sense anyway.

But thanks for coming - you are clearly Australian.

On a tangent here, but one suspects Latham made the fatal error of trying to appeal to our better natures. Howard, on the other hand knew us better.

Nemesis,

The point I was (obviously unsuccessfully) trying to make is that the left does itself no service by labelling the majority stupid or selfish just because the result went the wrong way for them. Accept the umpires decision, doen't sulk about it or call the opposition names.

I think many on the left have a problem differentiating selfishness from policies which promote individualism rather than collectivism. Conservatives believe that by creating an environment that allows individuals to prosper, everyone benefits. I guess the opposite is socialism where everyone is brought to some common denominator. Being conservative does not equate to selfishness.

Michael B states:
"who can barely mention the United States or Israel at the present without foaming at the mouth."

And naturally the extremists from the pro-Israel lobby are able to keep their mouths dry when Palestinian is mentioned.

Pr Q half-misses the point. He is right that a scare campaign was helpful to the Government. He is wrong that the highest value and most significant target was ALP-Lathams economic credentials.

The fundamental reason for the governments increased primary vote has been the organisational implosion and ideological superluity of fringe parties of both the:

• Right-Wing (O.N.): lost 3% primary vote from 2001, about half which leaked to Far-Right FF or ferals.
• Left-Wing (DEM.): lost 3% primary vote from 2001, about half which leaked to the Far-Left GREENS.

But the psephologic problem is to explain the timing and valency of the balance of the resulting vote 3-4% primary vote leakage to the Liberal Party: Why did all the homeless voters, both Right and Left, gravitate to the Liberal Party. And why did they do so in the Senate where most voters want counter-valency?

My hypothesis is that governments most successful scare campaign was against the Greens, not Lathams, influence on public & economic policy. In the public mind, the Right identified the Greens as the ALP's Socialist Left faction in exile - which is not far off the truth. A Green-hung parliament would probably shave alot off value of equity and property portfolios. The government, together with its allies in the Murdoch Media, used this scare campaign to burn Green-Red fear into the mainstream memory from the start.

Newspoll and Nielsen both reported that the governments primary vote leapt when the Right launched its preemptive strike against the Greens, which was before the attack on Latham's economic credentials started. Throughout most of the 2004 Latham bubble period the LN/P primary vote was polled at ~40%. On the morrow of the Campaign launch - directly the Right launched its Greens behind the (ALP) Screen attack - the Coalition primary vote started to poll in the ~mid-40% range.

And the Campaign launch coincided with a drop in the Greens polling numbers. They lost aboout a third of their primary vote, possibly Doctors Wives thinking about the lower property values & higher interest rates under a Green-dominated ALP government?

Attacking the Greens assists, what I call, the "the Great Convergence" - which tendency Howard is an enthusiastic devotee. He is happy to compress fringe party deviation, both Right and Left, by anihilating ideological extremes with electoral and legal campaigns. This lets him pick up the bulk of the homeless voters at poll time.

And Latham, falling right into Howards trap, did nothing to disabuse the spooked masses of this Red-Green notion. Especially at the end of the campaign when the Green-ALP preference cosy deal was sealed and Latham's Howard-hating stare-down was caught on camera.

And of course, the Cultural Progressive's repetitive Howard-hating, and frivolous SIEV-X-as Howard's-My-Lai use of Senate accountability procedures, ensured that mainstream AUS voters turned to the Right to Trust Cultural Conservative Howard in the Senate.

The extent of Left-wing denial, evasion and obfuscation (FF preference deals gone wrong, interest rate scare campaigns, Oh Lucky Man,) about this result is absolutely astounding. This is just "We Wuz Robbed" on auto-repeat.

My Mean-to-the-Green theory is only a hypothesis. But it at least adresses the extraordinary Senate voting patterns, which is the main problem that needs to be explained. And it is also consistent with, indeed implied by, my argument that the Cultural Left ran a counter-productive Howard-hating campaign.

jack you are off your dial.

People with very large mortgages don't care a lot about cultural wars they only care about whether interest rates will rise.

That is where the swing to the Libs came in.

These people were happy with the Democrats but knew the Greens were barking mad and declined to go near them.

The task for Latham has proved that social capital provided an argument that can win an election. John Howard does not turn into a fist-full-of-dollars social democrat without good reason.

The task now is to articulate third way economics in ways that are understandable to the electorate. That is link the erosion of social capital to the specifics of John Howard's growth. The question needs to be reframed from are your better off , to are you happier. Are you seeing your kids as much as you would like? Are you really comfortable and relaxed or are you waiting to be hit by a recession, and wondering if you will survive it ?

I think your spot on Jack. I got attacked, handing out green how to vote cards for the first time in about 12 years by people. The feeling I got was that the greens were white feather traitors in a time of war. Several people snarled at me and one One Nation supporter accused me of taking his farm! I'd point out that these actions were greeted with disapproval by other volunteers from all sides. Nevertheless, I think people are genuinely terrified about the big bad world and see the Prince of Darkness as their best bet in a world of terrorists and many shadowy apocalyptic threats. The Greens are to blame because these scary shadows haven't come to fruition yet, and people want to stop feeling frightened.

John, the latest news on computational dynamic macroeconomics in the incentive compatible mode. Your thoughts?

STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - Norwegian Finn Kydland and Edward Prescott of the United States won the Nobel economics prize for 2004 on Monday for analyzing how economic policy is shaped and what drives business cycles.

"Their work has not only transformed economic research, but has also profoundly influenced the practice of economic policy in general, and monetary policy in particular," the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences said in its citation.

Their 1977 research on the "time consistency problem" described how policy makers often have an effect opposite to that intended because they lack consistency -- for example, setting out to keep prices stable but in fact creating inflation.

Their work helped shift the focus in policy-making to institutions rather than isolated measures.

In 1982 they created a model which showed that supply-side shocks -- such as technology -- are a driving force behind the business cycle, rather than variations in demand alone.

"Whereas earlier research had emphasized macroeconomic shocks on the demand side of the economy, Kydland and Prescott demonstrated that shocks on the supply side may have far-reaching effects," said the Academy.

Having personally voted him out, I am surprised to find myself feeling sorry for Ross Cameron, even though I disagree with everything he stands for. It does seem unfair that a man who epitomises what voters apparently sought in re-electing the Government should be one of the few to have lost his seat.

He lost it for the wrong reasons. People have said serves him right, hypocrite, etc. But surely this attitude itself reflects a double standard. To be sure, Cameron was big on 'family values', but everyone knows this has nothing much to do with families at all, that it's just a code for dogmatic positions on abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage and stem cell research. You can be a good family man, as I hope I am, while espousing the opposite of all those positions.

If Cameron is a hypocrite it's because he broke his marriage vows while posing as a loyal husband and happy family man. But every second politician poses for photos with his family, and I daresay a good many of them have affairs. I can't remember when anyone else lost his seat for this. On the contrary, when personal scandals come up Australians usually fall over each other agreeing that they should left private. I don't recall an exception ever being made in this context on the basis that 'hypocrisy' had been exhibited. This is not say that political hypocrisy shouldn't be exposed and punished, for example when a law-and-order politician uses his influence to get his son off a drink driving charge. But I've argued that this doesn't apply in Cameron's case.

I'm still not sure why he outed himself.

John,

The markets got it right because the markets are the masses.

Packer is rich because he supplies us.

Your are monetarily poor because you ignore us.

Your wealth depends on supplying us, the masses, with what we want, be it mammon or spiritual.

But you are spiritually rich as a consequence

So which greed is the less objectionable?

Dear John

I am not a latte drinker or a chardonney quaffer, purely a retired adult/vocational educator, great grandmother and academic researcher. From years of experience I can assure you that Australians aren't stupid, they just weren't taught problem solving or critical thinking at school, and are so wanting to be 'relaxed and comfortable'.

People voted for John Howard because they are overloaded with bank loan interest/charges and just cannot bear the thought of interest rate rises - and didn't interest rates go to 17% under Labor last time they were in? They voted for Howard because $600 per child in one lump sum was/is fantastic, even if it only pays out their Centrelink debt - thank God one less debt. They voted for Howard because that bloke Latham, though likeable and seems honest enough, is a bit of a worry - reads to little children one day and breaks a taxi driver's arm the next.

They voted for Howard because he has keeps interest rates down. They voted for Howard because he's kept the terrorists out of Australia, and none of our forces have died or even been hurt in Iraq. They voted for Howard because he won't 'cut and run'. They voted for Howard because he decides 'who comes to this country and the manner in which they come', and he's put the Aborigines in their place. They voted for Howard because 'the man of steel' is mates with the most powerful man in the world. They voted for the 'man for all seasons'.

What I'm interested oh economic gurus however, is what happens if the massive debt we owe the world's savers gets called in? What happens if world oil prices continue to spiral ever upwards? What happens if a terrorist bomb kills Aussies in Australia? What happens if Aussie personnel get killed or taken hostage in Iraq? What happens if our current account deficit never comes good? What happens when interest rates go up? What happens if/when the housing bubble bursts. Indeed what will happen to the electorate's love affair with John Howard if any or all of these situations arise, will he be able to confabulate his way out?

Nobody seems to be addressing any of these probabilities. Got any ideas?

I think Jack was right about the Greens. With all the talk about Greens doing well out of a fortcoming election, the mainsream media, seriously put their policies under the microscope for the first time. Many punters who may have liked the warm fuzzy appeal of environmentalism, didn't like what they saw policy wise.

Molly, you got it in one. And to the people who blame Labor - as opposed to proposing that the Left does better- Molly's description shows how much we were pushing the proverbial shit up hill. Idealism in a time of fear?

Isn't putting a roof over your children's heads idealism?

I happen to believe that Howard's direction, particularly with the Senate legislation, is ultimately economically destructive, but it is a hard argument to make. One thing is sure - publishing a list of economists who support the ALP in a broadsheet ain't gonna do it, or using ANY kind of technical argument.

In a way we have to get people thinking about their real interests - actually a more "selfish" argument though the word is pretty clunky in politics IMHO. The real interests of most Australians are not helped by stuffing Kings School with money etc etc etc.

I think in times like this, full of fear but with an apparently shiny surface, that it is very hard to make an argument that says: you are being screwed. Realise it and do something about it. We deal in a bleaker world view - struggle and collective action protects us from oppression, while the Right says you only have to trust the nice man from the employer and everything will be alright.

We argue about Iraq, and I am passionate about this. It is a watershed issue, and we have willy nilly declined to remove a government that invaded another country in a time of peace. But the fact is, the war made absolutely no difference to ordinary Australians. None of us even got killed.

I happen to think we fought a shadowy campaign about the nature of the leader. We put Latham up as a good heroic leader, and he filled the roll pretty well. The spectacle of Latham standing up to Unions on trees probably helped. We projected Howard as a lying evil shitbag, more or less as the Right did with Keating. In that case, as the economy motored along, the electorate went with Howard even though he had a small target no announcements strategy.

We fought with our tools, they fought with theirs. We have had a systemic problem for a long time in that the Right has an easier task than the Left. Twas ever thus; it is the nature of history. But I am afraid for the future, in the next few years and in the longer term as we survive as a weakened nation.

And observa - what did Mem Fox do to you? Set fire to your brush fence?

can anyone outline or predict what the government will do about "welfare reform"?

I find Molly's analysis compelling. Unfortunately, I can't think of a comforting answer to the following questions she has raised:

"What happens if world oil prices continue to spiral ever upwards?. . . What happens if our current account deficit never comes good? What happens when interest rates go up? What happens if/when the housing bubble bursts. Indeed what will happen to the electorate's love affair with John Howard if any or all of these situations arise, will he be able to confabulate his way out?"

When one or more of these situations arise (and/or others I can think of), I can see no responsible alternative to a period of painful and protracted adjustment to a level of material consumption and affluence which is more economically and ecologically sustainable, with the austerity shared equitably and with a shift in aspirations to the non-material sphere. However, I also can't see such a message being electorally saleable. I fear that our civilisation is on a track rather like that predicted for us by Olaf Stapledon in Last and First Men. Gordelpus!

There, I've said it.

Brace yourselves, here comes the "Mandate". With such a loud media consensus about "Howard's landslide", it will be easy for the Coalition to claim a mandate for everything from outlawing unions to painting trees blue. The ALP (and the remaining minor parties) need to get over the hangover quickly enough to jump on this hard and early. They should keep the Coalition narrowly to its promises - the only things that they can really claim a mandate for - and not tolerate wild "mandate" claims about issues which were marginal or absent during the election campaign. The 2007 campaign starts now, and a good way to begin is to make a detailed list of Coalition promises and circulate it widely and repeatedly.

A plethora of complaints about the people and the right to certainty. Molly if those issues raised by you eventuate, then as is the nature of democracy Australia and its citizens will adapt and deal. Haven't you noticed yet that that is what democracies do, and that is why they are so successful. Nemesis, democracy is wasted. What do you think democracy is. How can it be wasted. Those keen on the IQ notion or their ability to identify "stupid" people, is the solution a test of some sort. Or would it be that stupidity equates with individuals making rational choices about their own best. To assume that Australians can't make judgements about the good of others being part of their own good identifies the meritocracy approach rather than a committment to democracy as a political "complex system".
We was robbed by the scare campaign. Labor and its supporters have been telling Australians that by involving us in the war in IRaq Howard made us less safe from terrorism. Latham said he would pull out the troops by Xmas to make us safe. Beazley promised that if elected he would make Australia impregnable. We were told that polls indicated that the story of terrorism risk was believed. Yet Australians chose to stay with the government who was supposed to have done it to them. So why. As a scare campaign it didn't work. As a test of selfishness it fails because the rational explanation as to why Aussies didn't boot Howard out is that whatever they believed were the consequences of his policy for them, an obligation was owed to Iraqis.
The majority of Australians are grownups who spend their vote with the same responsiblity and accountability that they deal with the rest of their lives. After pages and pages of the abuse for their stupidity one would start to wonder how they manage to get up in the mornings, let alone lead active fullfilling lives. What they do know is that the whole point about democracy is that it is their vote to cast as they see fit, not merely as an instrument provided to them in order that they may affirm the moral ambitions of others.
The Prince of Darkness is a good one, burn him on a pyre and all our plagues and pestilences will depart.
Keep up the hatred long enough and the memory of it and who spewed it might be sufficiently "seared" into Australians minds that it will still be lurking there 3 years from now.

I'd really like to know if thinktanks like the CIS will achieve their policy aims, now - particularly the Welfare Reform agenda that's been bandied about for the last few years.

I've noticed right-wing editorial sentiment in favour of this policy direction, and of course I've read the CIS paper.

could someone (anyone) knowledgeable post something in response? it's getting scary....

H, have you seen the FACs site at
http://www.facs.gov.au/internet/facsinternet.nsf/whatsnew/welfare_reform_background.htm

Dear John

I recently gained a first class honours for course work and thesis - 'Words: Weapons of Mass Distraction. Mapping the current political discourse of 'othering' the Others' - in critical discourse analysis of government policy re: the Coalition's 'Welfare Reform Agenda', so am something of walking textbook at present; though only to early this year.

Perhaps 'h' is not aware that a lot of changes detrimental to a number of groups of people entitled to welfare benefits (who are of working age), have already taken place For instance, the Mature Age Allowance is no longer available to newly unemployed applicants over 55. If granted a benefit (and that's been made more onerous, as is staying on it) they receive New Start Allowance.

However as most of those changes were by regulation (due to the current opposition weighted Senate blocking most of the Coalition's wishlist), unless an individual/family is affected, or you are researching in this area, one is not likely to know about them.

However without a credible opposition in the Senate, people on the Disability Support Pension and on the Parenting Payment (for instance) could well find them harder to obtain and harder to stay on them in the future.

However, that said, maybe the Family First Senator (if he gets up) may be more understanding of people requiring income support than new Labor.

If you read Margaret Symon's excellent and revealing essay on Mark Latham (the latest 'Quarterly Essay'), you can assume that Mark is a disciple of Professor Lawrence Mead's -architect of the U.S's 1996 'Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act' - rhetoric and policy intent. Also if you really listened to what Latham had to say (and also study Labor's proposed family payments scheme) during the election campaign, we may well find out that the Family First Party is a great deal more empathic towards out most neediest people/families than Labor is likely to be in the future.

However, after the Labor campaign post mortem, perhaps Labor will rethink it's strategy with regard to welfare recipients - there are a lot of them, and they vote!

thanks for the thoughtful response, Molly. I am well aware of the 'already changed' changes to the current welfare regime.

re: Latham - I pretty much decided I don't like him based on his classicaly '3rd way' welfare position. I was interested to note, during this academic year, that these positions all rest on an old notion of the "undeserving poor" - I can't remember who originally posited this notion but I think it was an English fellow, possibly 19th century? or early 20th.