Australian Election

[Evan Burton]

Naturally, I hold a different view. I did not like Howard, I actually did like Kevin Rudd but mistrusted the Labor party. I fear the unions having too much control, dread what is going to happen to Defence, and I am not confident in Labor's financial management ability. I sincerely hope I am proven wrong and we continue to prosper.

I'm not affected by Workchoices but have heard too many bad stories for me to believe that it was really a good thing. The ability to collectively bargain is a necessity for people who do not have the skills for individual agreements and don't realise just how valuable their skills are. I don't like unions but I always want them there - they keep the ba**ards honest.

I'm surprised by Turnbull's win; I think people feared a Labor win more than they disliked Turnbull, and voted a party line. I've met him socially through my partner; I don't like him and neither does she. We think he is too power hungry.

[John Dolva]

Naturally, I hold a different view. I did not like Howard, I actually did like Kevin Rudd but mistrusted the Labor party. I fear the unions having too much control, dread what is going to happen to Defence, and I am not confident in Labor's financial management ability. I sincerely hope I am proven wrong and we continue to prosper.

I'm not affected by Workchoices but have heard too many bad stories for me to believe that it was really a good thing. The ability to collectively bargain is a necessity for people who do not have the skills for individual agreements and don't realise just how valuable their skills are. I don't like unions but I always want them there - they keep the ba**ards honest.

I'm surprised by Turnbull's win; I think people feared a Labor win more than they disliked Turnbull, and voted a party line. I've met him socially through my partner; I don't like him and neither does she. We think he is too power hungry.

"....we continue to prosper.

I'm not affected by Workchoices but have heard too many bad stories for me to believe that it was really a good thing."

"...disliked Turnbull, and voted a party line. I've met him socially through my partner; I don't like him and neither does she. We think he is too power hungry."

We? Those who suffered from degradation of public health system, anti worker 'reform', those of us who have no more money left after costs today than 11 years ago, having a Gov finance its interests by selling public utilities TO THE PUBLIC!!! thus denying the gov ie the people a revenue flow?? ? This "we": IS Turnbull et al.

Who prospers? Turnbull is possibly a major player in the clique that appointed Howard as their frontsman. What you say about Turnbull is of no surprise.

The Liberal double majority in senate and HOR merely allowed ramming through this series of anti australian legislation, likely KNOWING they were cutting thir own throats in the last term. Now Labor has to clean up the mess and suffer the media attacks that wll follow.

[Evan Burton]

Sorry you feel that way John, but all of the people I know have considered these to be 'good times'. You'll never please everyone, and yes some people have not done well - but that will always be the case.

[John Dolva]

Well, Evan, sorry You feel that way, obviously "some" of us don't move in the same circles. No opportunities to exploit others or have a 'good harvest' from the Howard years. Around here when Labor won horns went off, neighbours shouted to neighbour, "They got in...". People came out and talked and laughed. Subdued but happy.

No doubt Turnbull is happy too. Having fleeced the people (without needing to, he's got a bit stashed away I understand.) he and Little Johnnie and the others can look forward to a fine retirement with lumpsums and the (unwarranted) priviledges that office acccords.

Seeing as you have some (minority) buddies who did have a good ride during the dark ages, how about asking them about doubling their tax burden and contributing a bit more each week to Medicare? I'm sure their accountants can work something out.

[John Simkin]

Sorry you feel that way John, but all of the people I know have considered these to be 'good times'. You'll never please everyone, and yes some people have not done well - but that will always be the case.

This is of course what politics is all about. The rich pay political parties to introduce policies that helps them get richer. At the same time it also impacts on the people who have less power and money. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Evan, like you, I have done well out of the reforms introduced by our conservative governments since 1979. However, I have been unable to close my eyes about the impact of these policies on the less fortunate members of society.

My only concern is that the Labour Party in Australia will not carry out their promises to reform the legislation introduced by Howard. For example, Howard only did what Thatcher had done in the UK. The Labour Party was elected in 1997 to deal with the problems caused by Thatcher. Although Blair and Brown were highly critical of the 1979-1997 government when they were out of power, once elected, they carried on with the Tory policies. That is why Blair is known in the UK as the "son of Thatcher". Brown has followed in Blair's footsteps and even invited Thatcher to tea and then made a speech saying how much he admired her.

My question is: who funded the Labour Party campaign in Australia? The answer will help to explain what will happen over the next couple of years.

[John Dolva]

Congratuations to Oz for IMO a more human and humaine government - and one that will be a thorn in Bush's side. I'd note, however, the last time something like that happened there the CIA officers there worked hard and successfully [with consevative to far-right Australians] to overthrow Whitlam by stealth...as to overthrow a 'friend' openly would be unseemly......so watch out. I'm sure the COS in Oz has already gotten his orders to find a way.......it will be disguised, of course....most of them are.

Thank you Peter (and John) on behalf of me, myself, and I, and quite possibly many others.

The Cautions are apt. We will see. Whitlam (and Margaret) are still alive and held in very high esteem by many. (to some we have not had a PM since Gough, many would call him Mr President (anti monarchy, ie anti Howard et al)).

Lessons have been learnt. Let's hope the right people have them and are strategising for eventualities. Tread softly but steadily, with a steely eye and be prepared to push when it comes to shove. Or : when the going gets tough the tough get going. The ALP must trust it's powerbase and not say again 'maintain your rage' till the election, as they did in the 70's coup.

[Mark Stapleton]

I'm surprised by Turnbull's win

I'm not.

Despite his political inexperience, Turnbull is an incredible campaigner. I remember he had to endure a messy fight to win his preselection against some ensconced tryhard yuppie (whose name has thankfully slipped into the hazy annals of mediocrity). Turnbull had some luck in this campaign in that his Labor opponent George Newhouse became embroiled in a dispute as to the legality of his preselection. Newhouse also missed an important community debate in the week before the election and was tormented by an apparent succession of jilted lovers including the journalist Caroline Ovington who slapped Newhouse in the face at the polling booth. Any goss on superstud Newhouse's extra curricular activities will be greatly appreciated

However, despite the nationwide swing to Labor, if you check the seat by seat analysis in the link from post #7, you'll see Turnbull's seat of Wentworth actually returned a 1.2% swing in his favor and he argues that his new cushion of 3.7% is progress in his mission to make the seat safe for the Conservatives. One thing I have noticed about Turnbull is the lucidity and clarity of his words and arguments. He is clearly a highly articulate and persuasive debater and seems to possess boundless energy. Unlike many of his parliamentary colleagues, he is not yet effected by pollie-speak. Unless the Conservatives' defeat has adversly effected their judgement, they will choose Turnbull over a mumbling recycled dunderhead like Tony Abbot. You can bet the Labor Party is watching Turnbull like a hawk. Turnbull is political dynamite. One term Governments are very rare in Oz but this guy is capable of making Rudd a one-term PM, imo. He's capable of connecting with the public over the heads of the pundits because his plain language needs no journalistic translation. The corporate media won't assist Labor in smearing him because he's already wired into the big end of town.

That said, I'm in agreement with John Dolva on Turnbull's politics. Turnbull's a passionate free market advocate and his proposal to privatise the Snowy Mountains water supply was thankfully quashed by Howard on the advice of Bill Heffernan. Privatising water on the planet's dryest inhabited continent is a recipe for disaster for all but the very wealthy. The corporate profit imperative would quickly ensure that all but the wealthy would need to greatly restrict their water consumption and it would, once again, redistribute wealth in the wrong direction.

[Mark Stapleton]

My only concern is that the Labour Party in Australia will not carry out their promises to reform the legislation introduced by Howard. For example, Howard only did what Thatcher had done in the UK. The Labour Party was elected in 1997 to deal with the problems caused by Thatcher. Although Blair and Brown were highly critical of the 1979-1997 government when they were out of power, once elected, they carried on with the Tory policies. That is why Blair is known in the UK as the "son of Thatcher". Brown has followed in Blair's footsteps and even invited Thatcher to tea and then made a speech saying how much he admired her.

My question is: who funded the Labour Party campaign in Australia? The answer will help to explain what will happen over the next couple of years.

Regarding the latter question, John, the union movement funded the Labor campaign, with some corporate money thrown in. Transport magnate Lindsey Fox is a friend of Labor and I'm fairly sure a savvy billionaire like Frank Lowy would have hedged his bets. But the bulk was from the unions, although I believe there are some suspicions that one or two of the big superannuation funds may have been tinkled for assistance. That's pure rumour though.

It must be remembered that the campaigns of both parties were also largely funded by the taxpayer.

Your concern that Rudd may follow Blair down the path of Thatcherism is quite valid, imo. Rudd has promised a more healthy foreign relations policy but I fear the prospect of Rudd booting Howard out of the way so that he can suck up even harder to America than Howard did. However, I don't think it will happen. Rudd's a different animal. He's familar with Chinese culture and speaks fluent Mandarin. He'll push Australia closer to China and the rest of Southeast Asia. It will weaken America's influence in the region. Some of this could turn out to be wishful thinking on my part, but I'm going to back Rudd's new agenda and hope the Labor Caucus will keep him honest. Turnbull will.

[Mark Stapleton]

Congratuations to Oz for IMO a more human and humaine government - and one that will be a thorn in Bush's side. I'd note, however, the last time something like that happened there the CIA officers there worked hard and successfully [with consevative to far-right Australians] to overthrow Whitlam by stealth...as to overthrow a 'friend' openly would be unseemly......so watch out. I'm sure the COS in Oz has already gotten his orders to find a way.......it will be disguised, of course....most of them are.

Thanks Peter. I see it as a win for rational policy over free-market dogma and hope the policy agenda will be followed.

And yes, you're right. I'm fairly sure the CIA lent assistance in Gough's removal. There's a good thread on that somewhere in this section. In that respect, he may share something in common with JFK. Also, Whitlam was our greatest leader, and Kennedy was America's, imo.

Edited November 26, 2007 by Mark Stapleton

[Greg Parker]

For some surprisingly astute views from a US perspective Good Riddance to John Howard

Included in the replies are the suggestions that Pelosi could learn a thing or two from Rudd in her dealings with Bush, and that the US might be better served by a parliamentary system. They seemed particularly keen on the concept of Question Time; giving Bush little chance of coping in the least under such scrutiny.

Peter,

Rudd is no Whitlam. I think he'll be quite safe, depending on how much power/influence the Left Wing of the party can parlay from the victory.

As you may know, Australia is about the only place in the world where voting is comulsory. I turned 18 soon after the bloodless coup. As a result of that, and not wanting to pledge allegiance to "Her Majesty" , I refused to enroll. Have never enrolled, or participated in "democracy" since.

If you want to look at someone who was "at risk" in this election, check out the case of Peter Andren. He was an independent in the Legislative Assembly, and was feared by all sides of politics - for one reason - he was an honest politician, and decent human being. Earlier this year, he announced he would not be recontesting his seat, but would instead make a run at a senate spot - the place where an honest independent could really expose all the skeletons. However, soon after he made his announcement, he was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. He died just before the election and was cremated.

Another who got under under the skin of the establishment met the same fate: Bill Hicks. And Hicks' symptoms started while on tour here...

[Mark Stapleton]

An excellent little piece by Glenn Greenwald. Thanks for that link, Greg. Do you really think Andren might have been the victim of foul play? Even if he had won a Senate seat, I can't see him as so serious a threat as to warrant elimination, although the ill feeling harbored towards him by some of the Nats was visceral.

Now I would like to get Evan's opinion about the issue of John Howard's defence spending priorities. The link below outlines Howard's purchase, for $539 million, of second hand Abrams tanks from the US in 2004. The tanks are useless for Australian purposes and were destroyed en masse in Iraq. Was it a requirement of our alliance with the US that we serve as a second hand junk store for obsolete US weaponry? And if that doesn't convince you of Howard's slavish sycophancy towards Bush and his MIC buddies, then read about the absurd circumstances surrounding Howard's purchase of the JSF in 2002:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6665

Howard has put us in a very dangerous situation. And Indonesia hasn't forgotten East Timor. And we're not in the good books within the wider region after Howard's prolonged and grotesque display of US buttsucking. Kevin Rudd has a huge pile of rubbish to clean up, don't you think? Lucky for us he speaks Mandarin.

Edited November 27, 2007 by Mark Stapleton

[Greg Parker]

An excellent little piece by Glenn Greenwald. Thanks for that link, Greg. Do you really think Andren might have been the victim of foul play? Even if he had won a Senate seat, I can't see him as so serious a threat as to warrant elimination, although the ill feeling harbored towards him by some of the Nats was visceral.

Mark, I believe it's possible he was a victim of foul play. But the fact is, we'll never know for sure. There was no autopsy because the reason for death was known, and his cremation means no chance of ever looking for the toxins which may have caused it, should any suspicions ever surface.

These are the facts: the onset was just after his announcement that he was going to run for the senate. He would have romped in in for a senate spot, and he wasn't going there just for a change of scenery. He knew it was the place he could really make a difference - especially if as seems likely, he would be one of a small group outside the major parties to hold the balance of power. Not only could he have a dramatic influence on legislation, but also, through senate committee work, get to the bottom of the corruption and influence peddling rampant in the lower house. In short - he was potentially the biggest threat on the horizon - regardless of who won the election.

The last time a politician died at such a crucial juncture in history here was when a labor senator had a massive heart attack, paving the way for Sir Joh to buck convention and appoint a replacement from outside the party the deceased senator represented (in fact, Pat Field, the replacement, was a creature of the League of Rights). This turn events gave the conservatives control of the senate, setting the stage later for "the Dismissal" of the Whitlam government.

Hicks was 32 - an all but unheard of age to get pancreatic cancer, but the pancreas is the most susceptible organ in the body to "attack" with cancer causing agents.

Now I would like to get Evan's opinion about the issue of John Howard's defence spending priorities. The link below outlines Howard's purchase, for $539 million, of second hand Abrams tanks from the US in 2004. The tanks are useless for Australian purposes and were destroyed en masse in Iraq. Was it a requirement of our alliance with the US that we serve as a second hand junk store for obsolete US weaponry? And if that doesn't convince you of Howard's slavish sycophancy towards Bush and his MIC buddies, then read about the absurd circumstances surrounding Howard's purchase of the JSF in 2002:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6665

Howard has put us in a very dangerous situation. And Indonesia hasn't forgotten East Timor. And we're not in the good books within the wider region after Howard's prolonged and grotesque display of US buttsucking. Kevin Rudd has a huge pile of rubbish to clean up, don't you think? Lucky for us he speaks Mandarin.

[Evan Burton]

Now I would like to get Evan's opinion about the issue of John Howard's defence spending priorities. The link below outlines Howard's purchase, for $539 million, of second hand Abrams tanks from the US in 2004. The tanks are useless for Australian purposes and were destroyed en masse in Iraq. Was it a requirement of our alliance with the US that we serve as a second hand junk store for obsolete US weaponry? And if that doesn't convince you of Howard's slavish sycophancy towards Bush and his MIC buddies, then read about the absurd circumstances surrounding Howard's purchase of the JSF in 2002:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6665

Howard has put us in a very dangerous situation. And Indonesia hasn't forgotten East Timor. And we're not in the good books within the wider region after Howard's prolonged and grotesque display of US buttsucking. Kevin Rudd has a huge pile of rubbish to clean up, don't you think? Lucky for us he speaks Mandarin.

Mark,

I'm not really the one to ask about Army equipment; it is far from being my forte. The opinion piece did, however, have a few factual errors. I'll comment on the whole thing:

- I could easily be wrong, but I was of the understanding that the Abrahms conducted itself very well in Iraq. When I spoke to some Army chappies at the last Avalon Airshow, they were very pleased with it. They said that in Gulf War I, no Abrahms crewmember was ever killed in combat and the tank had something like a 90% operational availability.

- The tank isn't really meant for use within Australia; it's a sign of committing to overseas deployments.

- The C-17 can carry the Abrahms ("...cannot be airlifted by any of the ADF aircraft...").

- The LCHs, the LSH, and the LPAs can all carry the Abrahms. It is too big for the LCM8 but then that could only take one MBT prior to the Abrahms. ("...cannot even be loaded onto any of the Navy's six heavy landing craft, let alone its smaller LCM8 landing craft...").

- The article didn't comment on the capability of the COLLINS Class SSG. Let me just say that it can hold it's own against any opponent.

- The 4 Corners F-111 piece was very biased. Ask what operational limitations are placed on the aircraft at low level (where it is meant to operate) because of fatigue concerns. I love the Pig and would like to see it continue in service for another 10 years... but the airframe is wearing out, and our spares are all coming from AMARC.

- I don't necessarily agree with the F/A-18D decision, but it was unfairly maligned in the piece.

- I don't believe the JSF decision was made as portrayed in the opinion piece. There are future aspects of the JSF which are looking particularly bright. It certainly is a 'hi-tech' buy with accompanying risk, but so was the F-111. It was claimed they were a white elephant. They got delivered 10 years late... but they were worth every penny and totally vindicated their purchase.

- There is truth in what has been said about the FFG refit.

- I'm not sure about Wedgetail, but IMO the opinion piece is accurate on it's delays.

- Tiger is certainly having problems. I'm not associated with it enough to say if they are transient or long term.

- I agree about the Super Seasprite. I don't think the system integration problems will ever reach a satisfactory state of affairs, even if a great deal of money is thrown at it. IMO we should cut our losses. Better still, let's get 16 x SH-60 Romeos or Sierras.

[Greg Parker]

planet's dryest inhabited continent

Mark, point me in the direction of the driest uninhabited continent. Sounds good to me. I'll pack a few eskies and move there.

I spoke to some Army chappies

Army CHAPPIES!!!??? Evan... mate... what part of Straya did youse say youse was from?

Pass the chuck bucket.

[John Dolva]

"Mark, point me in the direction of the driest uninhabited continent. Sounds good to me. I'll pack a few eskies and move there."

Greg, you wont have far to go (near uninhabited) just head straight south, and forget about an esky. Pack longjohns and parkas instead.

Evan, AFAIK the F-!!! (planning dating to early 60's) was only bought by Oz. (outside USofA) Where has it seen active service as far as Oz is concerned. It has dropped out of the sky on a regular basis. A stupid purchase at a time when the Saab Viggen (for example) was far superior.