Rudd 49 d Beazley 39

Gillard only nomination for Deputy.

Frontbench spill on Thursday, current frontbench to remain till then. Unsure what happens to Beazley between now and then – does he get to keep frontbench status? We’ll know by Question Time at the latest.

Senate:

Evans unopposed for leader
Conroy unopposed for deputy leader

They were motherhood speeches although to be generous it is hard for Oppositions to make other than motherhood speeches.

His election policies were put together very quickly and were very hard to analyse and exposte were never policies anyway.

Two last things if a poll has the ALP at 56% then it can hardly be said the ALP cannot cut through.

I am concerned that he has a medical condition that is hindering him.
He makes too many errors to say it ain’t so.

Have a look at both the 98 and 01 election campaigns and he was very disciplined and did not make silly errors.

Why people could not see even then the bloke was a shonk is disappointing, though they hated Keating blindingly, and Howard portrayed himself then as the man with the very simple answers, to take things slow and steady, not rock the boat, time to catch their breath that sort of thing after the hurling PM Keating left the electorate behind. Behind that false mask was an extreme radical. Rudd is a bit disconcerting in that regard as well.

As far as medicare is concerned it should only cover those who cannot afford medical insurance. It should never apply to those who can afford it.

Geoff,
I cannot believe a person of your intellect is saying in effect I am to lazy to find out and I want to complain about it at the same time.

Ruminating, of course. But on your overall point, there’s something about Rudd from his recent forays talking up Labor’s opportunities which speaks of a real sense of vision. And there’s something about him observably which speaks of a follow-up log of policy ideas which, observably, similar to Howard he’s careful in covering up, lest he not take each step publicly and Partily incorrect.

On that score, there’s reason to keep an eye out for Rudd expounding on where he believes Labor’s fortunes lay, given he’s broached that already, which if elected and given the short time frame would come soon. This would represent an early stage in the presentation of such a vision. Again, we’ve learned lessons from Howard, Crean, Beazley and Latham, and Rudd if elected would be high-tuned to stepping carefully given his ambition and discipline. Whether he’d remain mistake-free is another thing.

Health would necessarily be a part of all of that.

The ALP malaise is probably even greater than the Libs in the 80′s, as the Libs in the 80′s were actually fighting over direction, even if that was also based in a personality clash of Howard v. Peacock

Within that, too, might be reason to keep an eye on a Labor Rudd. Howard came through that to instill a major agenda, and there’s no telling yet whether Rudd is any less keen or capable. Gee, having said that though don’t we come to Howard’s divisive methods and low go’s – has he lowered the standard for following PM’s or will others leverage off that for political gain by raising theirs? That’s where Rudd is going to have to be good. (And in one term to get elected PM!). But he’s given other indications he’s as least as capable as the earlyish Howard (though publicly deried as dorky, was reputedly quite ruthless then).

That is to say Rudd has already outlined in brief his direction for Labor. The similarities with Howard are interesting. What has changed in this comparison is how quickly the world has changed. What is uncertain is whether those changes mean that the more things change the more they remain the same, which would require a return to a more collective/social/compassionate (remember that, in/from Labor?) need, or whether Labor has to adapt itself to those changes and “move with the times”.

Bloody awful dilemma, as you remark – but Rudd reckoned he’s got the call on it so let’s see.

Hesitantly, there is some reason for optimism with Rudd in this regard.

I am not sure there is much difference between Rudd and Beazley, but say in another context there was a heck of a lot of difference between Blair and Kinnock say.

As I said before, the direction needs to be longer term, and may not be immediately popular – but should be only directed at generating ‘credibility’. The ALP needs to have 70% of people thinking they arer credible and will take hard decisions.

Why not start the debate on offset co-payments for non-essential Medicare: it fits the bill perfectly. the savings could be plowed back into services or alternatively given back as tax credits to the low and mid incomes or pushing out the 30% rate.

Follow it up by promoting school choice for all families as a goal.

…but he needs to do be doing something he really enjoys.

The irony is that he’d really enjoy being PM.

Here’s your simple options.

*blinks*

That should tell you.”

I haven’t got any appetite whatsoever for swimming through a vast ocean of platitudinous mush in the remote hope of finding a pearl of wisdom, Homer.
Neither has the Australian electorate.

He’s a lovely bloke and everything but he needs to do be doing something he really enjoys.

Please consider a moment however that while everything you say is true, the public were given (albeit horrifically) clear alternatives as to what they would get with Howard in power.

At least, what they were led to believe and what they thought they’d get.

What did you think of those figures as read by Hartcher?

People got to know him like him but got confused on the policies despite them being clearly enunciated.
I find it incredible most people thought the ALP were spending more money than the Libs when they clearly had a much stricter fiscal policy.

On Howard those policies did not come out until the election.

People forget those landmark speeches were howled down at the time, rightly, as waffle.

I will go on the record that the people want a change of Government but won’t vote for incompetence.
Beazley they trust and in Rudd they will like the energy and intelligence.

After the election the party will be ‘unified’ for the public until after the election.
If they win ,no worries, if they lose o oh!

I understand what you’re saying though. Should Rudd do the same, he’s a chance in the circumstances.

By the way, have you seen this?

What policies did Howard have when he won in a landslide in 96?

Very little but we didn’t care because he wasn’t Keating and the Government was tired and listless.

It is similar now. It is a myth that an Opposition needs a wonderful set of policies to win Government.

In the main you need a tired Government. We have got one.
You need an energetic Opposition to pounce on government mistakes and illuminate them.
They only half do that properly.

Given all that the polls say the ALP has been doing very well yet for some unknown reason they are either ignored or not understood

Yes, he has a lot going for him. But the public need more than mere sentiment when making decisions about their life.

Let’s put Rudd to the test if he gets in, which is likely. Let’s see if he slams policy on the public table and let’s see if the public takes notice. Let’s see if we can talk about alternative policy in the ‘sphere, finally.

My guess is that the last time I heard about focus group research IR had bitten and Iraq merely made the anti-Howard vote firmer.
Environment isn’t good for the government either

I might add again it is a complete myth that changing leaders means they can’t win the election.

I am merely amazed at some much rubbish been spouted about a ‘bad’ poll which showed the ALP primary vote falling 4% yet no explanation was around for it.

One never knows for sure which policies connect sometimes focus groups convince pollies but even those are suspect.

If the ALP have been leading in the polls and would win given the margin of error in most polls Beazley must be doing something right.

Only a halfwit would say they could be doing better.

What do people want 60% 2PP

You are talking through your hat.

No one is saying Beazley hasn’t put out some policy. But who really knows what that policy is? And the times when Beazley did put out policy that made it to the public mind (obtained weakly), he did so mostly after extensive criticism that he’d not done so.

It is that loss of opportunity which really hurts. He has not taken the initiative that his long near-decade of opportunity provided him.

That should tell you.

There appears plenty of policies in a generalised form in the website.
If you want specifics before an election campaign then you haven’t been around.

Nielsen have ALP 56% tomorrow in 2PP.
Damned good reason to get rid of the leader. Should be 60%!!