Ken Lovell said:

he

Yet the notion of “non-intervention” still holds in theoretical/rhetorical principle (just ask any of the CIS and libertarian nutjobs around the place), and the contradiction between the liberal theoretical default to non-intervention and “working hard” to achieve this still holds politically (in comparison with, say, a social democratic government, which believes in intervention).

The theoretical irony here is that the first commandment of neoliberalism is that governments should not intervene in the economy. I see some tricky logic coming up, as the government seeks to convince the political class that it has

he

Those TV ads, incidentally, evoke a very deep Australian quality of old which, in its absence for what seems an inordinately long time, comes across like an iron fist in a velvet glove.

Regional NSW is obviously beset with local issues: wouldn’t it be fair to assume these will take far greater precedence than IR? It may be quite different in the city.

Similarly, State Labor problems which have been given much air time don’t so easily translate, if much at all, regionally.

In the leadership perspective, I’d guess that people would give Iemma a go – he’s distanced himself from Carr and has been pretty relaxed and well natured during the campaign. Debnam has hamstrung himself coming from a harping, negative background and that has stuck, I think. Whatever Debnam has put forward, too, it’s appeared as politically expedient; behind him is the spectre of the brutally uncompromising religious zealots and NSW is no Midwest. Iemma looks sloppy, Debnam tending dangerous.

At a guess, I’d say those negative aspects of Debnam might have more effect in local seats than IR, casting perhaps a bit of a pall over the Liberal National candidates.

On topic is this SMH article
http://www.smh.com.au/news/state-election-2007/pm-an-albatross-in-labor-ads/2007/03/13/1173722471418.html
and
*cough*blog*cough*
http://blogs.smh.com.au/nswelection2007/archives/2007/03/is_howard_a_plus_or_minus_for.html

The Oppn had a brief glimmer of an open door when the charges were laid against Orkopoulous but then Debnam slammed it in his own face. Memo to Debby: Using parliamentary privilege to make repeatedly discredited allegation of pedaphilia is not the way to convince an electorate you can “govern responsibly.” Even an electorate champing for any excuse to switch.

There was a big feature on Debnam in the Herald over the weekend, it painted him sympathetically but neither he nor anyone around him seems to have a coherent plan. Gung ho when its disasterous to be so and completely defensive and weak when he should be on the offensive (ie the “Member for Vaucluse” stuff.) Very very weird. Surely there are some decent campaign hard men around in the Libs who could have taken control.

Very good point. The word “complacency” should prove effective.

Re NSW – After hearing Iemma’s response to the NSW DPP’s comments on Laura Norder politics on the ABC yesterday:

So what? So what?

Sorry – no link (time constraints). Listeningto the guy I thought it the most stupidly arrogant performance I’ve heard in a while from an elected pollie. But if the Libs can’t put up a credible alternative, they aren’t going to win, are they.

So yes, it’s the detail that’s going to be interesting – will they pick up any ground at all?

Federally, the challenge for Labor isn’t to show that the “economy can run itself” but that the Howard government has spent the past ten years allowing the economy to run itself and most recently, creaming off the windfall gains from a commodities boom to buy pork for its own supporters. Meanwhile allowing a residential properties buble, funded largely by overseas borrowing, to grow – and we all know what happens to bubbles in the long run.

I’m not convinced that the Workchoices message will be the big swinging issue that the ALP is hoping for at the Federal level. No doubt the ACTU targeting of marginals will be an important factor, but it’s appeal is limited.

Mr. Howard made it clear this morning that he’ll be returning to “the Economy” as his main thrust, and the entirely preposterous claim that he’s in charge of it, knows how to run it, and that the ALP doesn’t have the right set of keys even to start it up.

That I think is the message that the ALP needs to start to counteract now that Mr. Howard’s National Security credentials are starting to take on water, as the Bush legacy sinks in Iraq.

Despite it being a foregone conclusion there are still some outcomes of interest. The exact size and nature of the (inevitable?) swing against the Govt. How the Hunter Independents will do. The southern Sydney fringe seats Mackerras has tipped to go back to the Libs. Will it be enough to save Debby? I confidently predict the confident predictions of a Greens surge in my electorate will be proven false, as they are every election.