Where's the money going to?

We could talk about this public funding of elections thing, I suppose; how it's both outrageous and at the same time just what you'd expect from those people, whether the government is responsible for a Liberal backflip, and all that David Copperfield kind of crap.

We could talk about political funding as some sort of human right, where the more money you have the greater your right to donate it as you will, and that donations should be as secret as the votes that are cast. This would only be appropriate if there were well-empowered investigative and enforcement mechanisms against fraud and bribery (including serious measures against offenders such as massive fines, imprisonment of individuals, prevention of offending individuals and parties from contesting elections), and because that won't happen I don't support uncapped donations, and I don't agree that donations should be kept secret. The issue with political donations is always the quid-pro-quo, and if you're not going to chase that down then don't even bother. There are bigger questions when it comes to human rights, frankly.

It's taken as given that political parties these days need vast amounts of money, in the tens of millions, a need that cannot be slaked or even questioned. I'm interested in why political parties need that amount of money.

It can't be the broadcast media; declining audiences and financial mismanagement mean that it is less expensive, not more so, to run a national campaign.

It can't be direct mail; that technology peaked in the 1990s and the costs of postage and other processing have hardly skyrocketed since then. Hopefully the one lesson to be learned from the Howard government's re-election campaign in 2007 is that it is a very, very long way from being the be-all-and-end-all when it comes to effective political campaigning. When Grahame Morris recently used direct mail as an example of sophisticated modern electioneering he just looked like a sad old relic.

It can't be online campaigning (and here I lump broadcasting via bogusurl.com.au-type websites and social media tools in together); it costs less than you might imagine, and anyway Australians have barely embraced a fraction of the online campaigning tools available to political parties in the US or UK.

It can't be a shortage of 'creatives' to craft advertising copy; there is an excess of such people at a time where big ad agencies and broadcast media outfits are shedding staff, and where there are more graduates of such courses than there are jobs for them to do. Anyone who has been a political staffer could do, and many are doing, that sort of work. Such people earn get less than images of their flash lifestyles might suggest.

There are two reasons why political parties "need" vast amounts of money.

Firstly, they need to take up the slack for a whole lot of electioneering busywork that used to be done by volunteers. Many volunteers have left, and those who stayed are ageing and dying. I was a member of the Liberal Party from 1986 to 2000, and as the election draws closer I think about how I'd be gearing up to distribute material, and both enlist and train volunteers to hand out how-to-votes at polling booths; but as the old song says: baby that was years ago, I've left it all behind.

I think about my late aunt, a Liberal stalwart further to the right than me on Sydney's Upper North Shore; she too ran herself ragged on polling day, but by 2007 she could no longer keep up a full day in the field. I'm sure she blamed herself for Howard's loss to the end; I live in Bennelong and voted for Maxine McKew. By 2010 Aunty Elizabeth was in the grip of the ailment that would kill her later that year, notwithstanding her own almost-indomitable will and her affection for Abbott. I still voted for McKew but most of my neighbours didn't.

Now the ranks of Liberals, and Labor too, are depleted still further. The person who'll offer you a how-to-vote on 14 September may well be paid to do that, and there is no more point in blaming them for the shortcomings of their employer than there is in bawling out a waiter or a shop assistant.

Secondly, parasites like this and that are gobbling up as much money as the taxpayer will throw at them. The idea of, er, pieces like this are not about the issues described in them, but a way of hoping you won't mind him receiving ever-larger dollops of public largesse. Political parties will raise whatever money they have to raise to get the election won. Governments, which political parties offer to run for us, have to trim their budgets in line with restricted income. There are plenty of good businesses full of smart, hardworking people that have hit the wall because cashflow dried up. No major party has ever lost an election because they ran out of money. Even the hopeless NSW Labor government in 2011 had plenty of cash to splash about.

If Hawker|Textor or whomever jack up their fees, the respective party will pay it and use whatever funds are available - whether from the taxpayer, from Mrs Reinhart, Tom Waterhouse, Eddie Obeid, or anyone/anywhere else really. Public funding for elections does not satisfy major parties' urge to outraise and outspend their competition, in the same way that private schools do not lower their fees commensurately when they get extra money from government. Public funding of election campaigns is not some sort of bulwark for our democracy, because the spending is spent by and the services are rendered to a private party, a non-government organisation, whose affairs are not scrutinised by anyone who isn't a member (and not even by most of those).

Advisers/consultants are the people who suggest politicians talk about entitlements and the cutting thereof. They are not those whose entitlements are cut.

Public funding does not head off corruption. The allegations before the NSW ICAC about Ian Macdonald, Obeid and a range of other characters are very grave, and do indeed speak of the culture of NSW Labor. Apparently Obeid impressed then NSW Labor State Secretary Graham Richardson sufficiently to win a spot on the Legislative Council ticket; donations from Obeid and entities associated with him to NSW Labor around that time are hard to detect, and in any case the ICAC seemed focused on other issues.

If NSW Labor had half the public electoral that they've had, or twice as much, would they have made different/better decisions? Should NSW Labor today be liable for the actions of those guys (or of other ministers and premiers not so far investigated publicly)? Have the Victorian Liberals acted improperly over Mr Shaw sufficient to affect their public funding? What about Mr Brough and other LNPQers over Ashby-Slipper? I could go on.

Needless to say, I reject the desperate thesis of Mike Seccombe and John Birmingham that only public funding can save us from the kind of timocracy besetting the US. It's the mentality of the hostage-taker's victim - "Just give them whatever they want!" - rather than focusing on hunting down the hostage-takers. The victory of Obama over Romney last year, with a concerted campaign of exposing people like Rupert Murdoch and the Koch brothers confirms the correctness of focusing on those who would corrupt the system and on not entrenching political advisers as a mendicant class.

No Digger, no sailor or airman, died for the public funding of election campaigns. That money would definitely be better spent on their care and rehabilitation, or even tossed into the gaping maw of the Deficit.

If you want to change government policy, there are ways and means of doing so. It is rarely appropriate to break the law to do so, such as committing acts of violence or jacking up on paying your taxes. Everyone's taxes goes toward things that the taxpayer wouldn't necessarily have spent that money on or even valued very much, but even so I am kind of serious about my intention to collect all the banal political jetsam that comes my way and send it to my accountant with the expectation of a tax deduction.

The government should reintroduce all of those provisions on transparency and disclosure as the final piece of legislation this term, making parliament sit longer in order to pass it if it has to. It probably won't, though.

The case why taxpayers should have to fund election campaigns as well as the elections themselves and other government services is not as strong as that small and loose confederation of the self-interested and the well-meaning-but-shortsighted might hope.

A piece of incredible unfortunateness

Two themes that were fairly minor for the major parties during the election could become very important for Labor in securing government: the whole issue of infrastructure strain in the perimeters of the capital cities, and broadband.

Labor can establish that they've at least thought about these issues. The Coalition have put their cards on the table and it's a busted flush, they're not going to come up with anything convincing in the coming fortnight or so. Gillard is an experienced negotiator, from her days as a plaintiff lawyer and an advisor to an Opposition Leader, and in managing unions as a Minister. Abbott is accustomed to dealing with people as mendicants, because once he recognises them as peers his competitive instincts come out. Windsor in particular has a chip on his shoulder over being patronised by smart alecks from the city, and he and Katter won't take a backward step. They have the capacity to do to Abbott's hopes and dreams what the Man from Ironbark did to the barber's shop.

A bloc of independents is enough of a contradiction to make your head hurt. Even though the KOW (Katter, Oakeshott and Windsor) came out of the Nationals, they have no idea how to handle these guys. Katter worked with the Coalition over the mining tax (Katter's electorate includes Mt Isa and other mining towns) but it's doubtful that any but Robb and Minchin learned much about that process. With the prospect of government at their very feet, the Coalition has nothing to offer but this and that. Abbott will talk a good game about gutting competition policy, but the KOW - and that bloke who beat Wilson Tuckey (yes!), no doubt - can spot a bullshitter. Gillard won't sacrifice productivity policy but will offer pork in sufficient volumes to put a credible case. Abbott will offer them bridges and roads and other dinky unconnected bits of infrastructure, but the NBN shows that he can't do joined up government (another reason to pole-axe Tony Smith).

This period of negotiation is the point where Abbott cracks. He's held it together, spouting his lines and riding his bike, but this period calls for nerves of steel and the flexibility of water. It calls for leadership in his own right rather than being a packaged product. If Abbott doesn't make it this time, he has to be in a position to keep up the pressure and exploit weaknesses among the incumbents at a later time, like Curtin in 1940-41. Something tells me it's now or never for Abbott, and now that Gillard is in her element I think she'll put the stronger case to the KOW, A. Crook from WA, her old mucker from Slater & Gordon and the underrated Andrew Wilkie. Abbott, meanwhile, has to keep his party together while it strains at the leash of so-close-but-yet-so-far.

The situation we find/put ourselves in will more likely be the making of Gillard than Abbott, which is why this is a disgraceful suck from another old journo who has outlived his relevance.

Mind you, who knows how things will pan out? Did you predict this? Looks like I'm being represented in Federal Parliament by a stuffed shirt: gotta laugh, eh.

How I voted 2010

I voted in Bennelong, using the following thought processes to complete my ballot paper:

• First, who did I hate? Communists, fascists, racists-who-don't-want-to-appear-racist? One Nation fitted that bill so they got no. 11.
• No communists, so the next on my list was the climate septics, polluting the political atmosphere with nonsense so that any proposal for cleaner industry or a functioning economy in an environment under pressure gets pooh-poohed. That fool got number 10.
• There were twoo lots of Christian zealots, Family First and the Fred Nile Failure Squad. I can't remember which got 8 and 9, but that's where I put them.
• By this time I was all negatived out. I was determined to make the majors wait for my vote. So, who's nice? No Democrats ran in Bennelong. The Carers' Alliance were nice, and much overlooked. I have been impressed by the activism of mental health advocates in this campaign so I put them at no. 1.
• I liked Building Australia, so I put them at no. 2.
• I would have put the Greens higher up had I not lived in NSW, where the party is run by communists who are all either either mugs, control freaks or both. I put them at 7.
• Having dealt with everyone I hated, the challenge now was to deal with those who I regarded as stupid rather than actually noxious, so the libertarians (Terje Petersen and the Sex Party) went at 5 and 6 (wish I had the foresight to put them at sixes and sevens).
• This left the majors. I voted for a future where some sort of innovation would be possible and where simple facts about the economy, the environment and refugees were recognised rather than trampled by desperadoes hankering for offices they lost, and who still don't fully appreciate why they lost them. I voted for Maxine McKew (Labor) ahead of John Alexander (Liberal).
• McKew's campaign was non-existent even before her laryngitis. It is an indictment on Labor and on McKew and Hogg that they ran such a non-campaign.
• Alexander deserves credit for putting in the hard yards in the campaign - a bit like Francesca Schiavone's victory at this year's French Open against the better player, alliterative, more fancied but rattled Samantha Stosur. Had McKew matched him she'd be back in. However, if race-based campaigns and demonising asylum-seekers was the political gold that the Liberals and others seem to believe, you can be sure Labor would have done it first: imagine if the Liberal candidate for Bennelong had been portrayed as John Al-Iksandar, playing to that louche image of the man with the all-year suntan. It would have been grossly unfair but it would have served the buggers right. As an MP, Alexander is unlikely to have any real idea of the steady and often unrewarding grind associated with helping constituents, and he'd make bugger-all contribution to policy debates (except, perhaps, sport - and that would consist of telling young fat people to get off their backsides and go play some tennis).

We'll see what happens.

Cracks appear

If Peter Hartcher is right and people have stopped listening to Abbott, and if these sorts of numbers are reliable enough by now to translate into results at the ballot box, let's consider what that means for the Federal Parliamentary Labor and Liberal Parties.

Victoria is the pivotal state here. For Labor, there will be an increase in numbers of those who owe their positions to Billy, Steve & Jules. If that state saves this election for Labor, and if NSW and Queensland decrease relative to the rising Victorians, the whole power dynamic within the Labor Party will change profoundly (but, as Glenn Milne says, more on that later).

For the Liberals, the Kroger-Costello generation will be all but wiped out: Bruce Billson and the overrated Chris Pearce are gone. Tony Smith exposed the policy laziness in the Coalition (thanks for nothing!). In the party's safest seats, we'll see two men in their 60s (Andrew Robb and Kevin Andrews), a dud and a flake (Josh Frydenberg), a harpy without the poise and brains of either Bishop (Sophie Mirabella) and, carrying them all, Kelly O'Dwyer. This is where the jewel-in-the-crown attitude of Victorian Liberals needs to be rethought.

You can't have Mitch Fifield careening around bumping off Jason Wood: the Victorian Liberals need the latter much more than the former. My guess is that, through state politics, Wood has a rosier future than the smarmy non-entity from Albury. Parasites like Julian McGauran and Brian Loughnane can no longer be sustained.

In NSW, Labor stands to lose a number of seats to the Liberals:

• One (Robertson) was held by the wife of a former State Secretary of the NSW Right.


• Macquarie and Gilmore are contested by candidates imposed by Sussex Street under the N40 rule - dud candidates.

This bodes ill for the whole mechanism of Sussex Street dropping in on local Laborites with the N40. Labor candidates preselected when Rudd was riding high find themselves in tight if not impossible races today. There was a time when the NSW State Secretary and his Right myrmidons could sweep aside such disgruntlement - not this time. Mark Arbib is in blood so far steep'd that he doesn't know if he's Arthur or Martha, and his homeboys Bitar and Dastyari aren't much better off. In Canberra, it is the ShortCons who will have the whip hand and the Sussex Street gang have few favours if any to call in from the resurgent Vics. Chris Bowen and Tony Burke will have to do some actual work in an environment where enemies are many and friends are few.

For the Liberals, winning candidates include the candidate for Robertson, who'd want to be a corker to counterbalance the two lightweights of a certain age in Louise Markus and Joanna Gash. These aren't quite Pyrrhic victories but they don't portend well for a party needing to rebuild.

The Liberals could have won Bennelong had they not chosen a candidate who, like Arnie Vinick, winces when he has to shake hands with common folk. He just doesn't like people, and it's not my fault that it falls to me to point it out. Just as lovely spring weather comes to Bennelong, a wintry blast in the form an Alexander smile (let's give that rictus some credit and call it a smile) reminds you of a time you don't want to revert to anytime soon. If the public housing thing at Ryde doesn't work for him, one-note Johnny Alexander runs a real risk of being seen as a lightweight.

Where are you hiding, Maxine McKew? Bob Hogg, have you ever won an election by hiding the candidate? Why would you two - and the geniuses at Sussex Street - make a tight race tighter by working a great candidate at less than full throttle?

As to Queensland, Wayne Swan has spoken no truer words than these:

WAYNE Swan has declared emphatically he does not want to lead the Labor Party.

Best not to want something that's already gone, fella. When four to six members of your support base fall away due to your most cunning plans, it's hard to make the case that you're the man to fix things. Those candidates who don't make it back to Canberra are yet more candidates who won't have a vote in caucus to counterbalance the resurgent Vics.

It will be a shame to see Senator Russell Trood not become Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, and even more pitiful to see that tired old buffalo Warren Entsch saunter back to Canberra.

OK, so there are other states and territories but it's one seat here and two seats there and doh-si-doh and take away the number you first thought of. The balance of power of both parties will be settled in the three eastern states.

This is interesting in that it represents a bit of pre-emptive arse covering by those who would reshape the Liberals in Opposition:

Senior Coalition frontbenchers have attacked Mr Loughnane for his strategy, saying he has left Tony Abbott vulnerable with an overly safe advertising campaign. They say that if Mr Abbott wins, it will be "despite Loughnane, not because of him".

I'd be fascinated to see whether the Victorian Libs turn on one of their own and sacrifice him, or whether they stand by him to the very death. I suspect it will be the former. It would be an act of foolishness to run anything but a buttoned-down, low-risk campaign with Tony Abbott as leader - even that hasn't worked, as seen by his "no means no" and the flop of his launch. The next Federal Director of the Liberal Party of Australia will probably be from Queensland or NSW. The only real candidate would be Mark Neeham, the NSW State Director who would have to dump Barry O'Farrell just as the party gears up to crush State Labor (a dark horse would be Mal Brough, who can't do the king-o'er-the-water thing indefinitely and will have to go into a role where he doesn't threaten Abbott).

The Federal Directorship would, however, be the least of Abbott's worries. Grog spoke true when he said:

For Tony Abbott ... Sure he wants to win. But if he loses I don’t think he loses any where near as much as does Gillard. The expectations for Abbott were so low, that even getting to this stage is a win for him. If he loses does he stay around? I can’t see him wanting to hand over the leadership – for a start the pay is good. Unless things go bad and it does become a big win for the ALP, he’ll have strong support in the party. That said if he loses I can’t see him leading them to the next election.

The Liberal Party does not do low expectations. The Liberal Party does victory, it does government. Abbott will not deliver that in 2010.

He'll face a resurgent Gillard with the wind at her back. Given that he hasn't beat her when she's vulnerable how much better will he do when she's in her pomp and he's cruelly exposed (no, this isn't a budgie-smuggler reference)? Hopefully she'll use this for good instead of faffing, particularly if she can kick the NSW Right hard and often while reshaping the entire ALP for its post-communist, war-on-two-fronts future (not a big ask, surely? :p). Abbott will do the attack-dog thing but there is a real risk that Labor will wake up to him, and that the old mutt will lose some fangs.

By 2012 the no-vision thing will be a real liability and Abbott will have to be replaced. Coalition MPs elected from NSW, Queensland and possibly WA for the first time, will be the first Liberal MPs not to have served in any capacity under the Howard government: they are too few and not necessarily promising. By 2012 these newbies will have found their feet and will start getting toey if Abbott's poll numbers continue to suck as hard as they do.

Hockey will have to challenge Abbott in 2011; hell, he should challenge Julie Bishop for deputy at the end of this month. Playing the loyal deputy will not help Hockey against a proven, irredeemable loser: it didn't help Costello against Howard.

Let's hope the Gillard government does good work with infrastructure and health reform, and possibly education as well. A non-optional extra is a carbon mechanism, preferably a bloody good world-beater that creates lots of jobs and debate. To hope for water reforms and tax reforms is probably to hope for too much, but you've got to do what you can.

Railroaded

Yesterday, the Federal government announced that it would fund the construction of a rail line between Parramatta and Epping. This is poor policy and worse politics.

Firstly, whose idea was it for the Prime Minister and other Federal ministers to be photographed with Keneally? Federal-State separation is all very well, but no Labor person would want to make any sort of association in the public mind between Gillard, who has a strong chance of winning, and Keneally, who has none. Keneally should have been sent to Ohio for the length of the campaign. Only if you are in denial about how bad the NSW goverment is would you risk the entire Labor campaign for federal government by giving Gillard a dose of the loser virus, Macquarie Street strain.

Secondly, it won't make any difference to Bennelong.

On a policy level, it is important to link the dormitory suburbs of northwestern Sydney to the jobs being created in and around North Ryde and northern Sydney. A Parramatta-Epping link is the cut-down version of that. The rail line is unnecessary for Bennelong, because we already live here. There is little desire or impetus for people in Bennelong communities like Gladesville, Denistone or Ermington to go to places like Greystaines or Cambridge Park.

This response from the Opposition was poor. It's gotcha politics, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing. It reinforces the Abbott image of no vision. The Federal Libs could do with some of the popularity and low-profile competence that Barry O'Farrell has gradually built up - if Hockey had embraced the NSW Liberal policy of a proper northwestern rail line, it would have built credibility and synergy for the Federa Libs. Instead, Hockey did himself no favours with bombast and sliding around real issues about transport through the nation's biggest city, issues that have far-reaching political, economic and social repercussions.

The Parramatta-Epping rail line was indeed first announced in 1998. And reannounced, and reannounced. An entire generation of journalists were employed in the State Parliamentary press gallery to follow around successive ministers as they reannounced this project, and they would dutifully report on this announcement (ready by 2010, apparently). The clogging up of media space on this non-event is another reason why the mainstream media have declined in circulation and influence, within Bennelong and elsewhere.

Most of the proposed Epping-Parramatta rail line involves duplication of existing rail lines. The major engineering challenge and greatest cost will come from linking the existing stations at Carlingford and Epping via a tunnel of about 4km. People living in West Epping can look forward to rumbling, drilling sounds for months on end, including the possibility of undermining your very home, for no benefit (there should be a station between Carlingford and Epping but I bet there won't be).

That's if it goes ahead at all: NSW Labor have no credibility and can't come up with $500m, even if you believe (against all evidence) that the costs won't blow out and make a nonsense of this announcement.

Now do you see why this won't be a vote-winner in Bennelong? Everyone involved in this has railroaded themselves.

Where's Johnny?

Bob Hawke turned up at a shopping centre here in Bennelong recently, and it got me thinking about Hawke's successor and the former local member: where is John Howard?

John Howard has been involved in political campaigns for the Liberal Party for half a century, including 33 years as an MP and six federal elections as leader of the Liberal Party (lost 2, won 4). He was closely involved with the Federal Parliamentary Liberal Party through its three changes of leadership. He's a political animal first and last: he's not infirm like Whitlam, cheesed off like Fraser (or both like Menzies was in the decade after his retirement), or floating above politics in some statesmanlike cloud (with the odd descent into the mud for a rumble) like Hawke and Keating.

Is he really taking the whole cricket business too hard? Can he just no longer be bothered with the whole gladhanding thing? Is he going to do a Fraser, where the Liberal Party goes so far right that Howard becomes derided as a leftie? Is there nobody in the Liberal Party who would appreciate his presence, even if for old time's sake at a fundraiser?

Tony Abbott is basically promising the return of the Howard-Costello government without Howard or Costello. Costello has done his bit: hosted a function at which a few dollars were prised from the tight fists of Melburnians, and upstaged Abbott, for which the latter was pathetically grateful. Imagine how rapt he'd be if Howard did the same: reminded voters of the good old days, when Tony Abbott was kept on a short leash as emissary to Glenn Milne and there was none of this Prime Ministerial 50-50 nonsense.

The absence of John Howard from the campaign trail is inexplicable, except as a stuff-up by Loughnane and the rest of the Liberal campaign team. He was exhausted politically in 2007, but the whole Liberal pitch since then has been that Labor have been so bad it's time to bring back the Libs. Well, come on, let's have him: let's see him in Bennelong and see if the old magic really is gone. Let's see him in Robertson, LaTrobe, Bowman. Tony Abbott has a bunch of piecemeal policies in search of a wider narrative, and that narrative is that only the Libs can bring the happy days back. He can't cut this, cut that, cut everything else while also claiming to be a visionary: it's back home to the Howards or bust.

Howard would bear comparison with his three successors, but also his immediate predecessor as Liberal leader. If this is true, then Downer scored the greatest political own-goal since the German decision in 1917 to allow Lenin to go from Switzerland to St Petersburg. Every Coalition MP who lost office in 2007 should have a crack at Downer over that. Besides, isn't Downer supposed to be some big wheel at the UN where everyone has to be bipartisan?

How can the Liberals win on a neo-Howard platform without Howard himself? How can the Liberals be confronted by the inadequacy of their own position unless Howard is shown to be yesterday's man? Either way, get Howard out there and get Downer out of politics altogether: a dud leader, a dud foreign minister, and a toxic strategist.

Dr Henderson and the Liberals

Gerard Henderson has long bemoaned the poverty of intellectual discourse within the Liberal Party but his perceptions of the major issues facing the Liberal Party, and the motivations behind those issues, are not as clear as they once were. This piece is the sort of thing Henderson is increasingly putting out, his new norm: mostly wrong, but not (yet) so risible that you can dismiss him out of hand.

The decision not to make Turnbull shadow finance minister cannot be viewed in isolation from the decision as to whom that position was actually awarded. Senator Joyce is not an unintelligent man, but it is not only in retrospect that we can see that he was a poor choice for this key position. He had crossed the floor 29 times and was known for ill-considered outbursts that put Coalition unity at peril to enhance his own profile, yet even with such a record he was preferred over someone who had never done so but who might (have).

The Liberals are not adequately prepared for the Henry tax review or the coming budget; this is because of the Joyce choice and despite the efforts of Hockey, and to a lesser extent Robb.

Consider the fact that Abbott as an Opposition frontbencher would regularly cast doubt over Coalition policy by contradicting the leader and shadow ministers, and writing a book in isolation from the consultative processes of the party room and shadow cabinet.

Henderson is also wrong to make much of the Henson case, an arty storm in a teacup if ever there was one. If you have a problem with David Marr, Gerard, that's your problem. The Henson case was much less significant culturally than the Ern Malley affair - and it is far, far less important as a social issue than the arrogant approaches of churches toward actual sexual abuse of children. If Henderson is going to act as some sort of tribune for people in marginal seats and what they want, try the big and real issues Gerard. Really.

Hockey was right to question the idea that anti-terrorism legislation diminishes our rights under law in the interest of protecting our rights under law more generally. Henderson was wrong to claim that questions about our rights under our laws ought only be investigated by members of a (minor) party.

You can quote a minister in support of your arguments if you like, but there are two issues missed by self-serving Henderson: firstly, Tanner isn't the Attorney General or some other minister concerned with the justice system, and secondly Tanner didn't disagree with Hockey. The question of convictions merely means that some aspects of the laws work while others don't; there is a wider question of whether our legal protections against terror should be such a curate's egg/dog's breakfast/Gerard Henderson column.

Stephen Conroy is not trying to stop child pornography on the internet. He is deliberately avoiding real measures that real pedophiles actually use, and deliberately acting in ways known by those who work in this area to be completely ineffectual. He is doing this because he wants to create an impression that he is taking action when he is not in fact doing so. He is playing on the ignorance of people like Henderson (and Tony Smith) who think they have excuses for failing to inform themselves about this policy area (internet policy is no more complicated than, other areas of economic or national security policy). Hockey didn't go far enough in criticising Conroy: it is not true that any criticism of Conroy is a permissive one that allows for child pornography. It's not true, and it's not fair of Henderson to slur Hockey in this way, but he'll probably do so again.

Where Henderson is right, though, is Turnbull's failure to adopt Menzies' humility in the 1940s. Henderson might also profitably have raised Menzies' traversing the country during that time, making speeches and consulting about what a postwar non-Labor force might and should look like, another comparison that reflects poorly on Turnbull. It appears that Turnbull lacks this drive (however much he might have demonstrated in other fields), and the country (and its non-Labor politics) is poorer for it. Henderson can't imagine a post-Howard Liberal Party, one not fixated on trade unions and culture wars, and doesn't wish to; any attempts at reconsideration, any signs whatsoever of intellectual activity, will attract his increasingly feeble ire.

Henderson started his piece by asking - rhetorically - whether Turnbull should reconsider his decision not to recontest Wentworth for the Liberal Party. Those who want Turnbull to recontest fear that it may be lost to the Liberal Party unless he is its candidate. The Liberal Party, by electing Abbott as its leader, has cemented in place a deliberate strategy to repel people who would have voted Liberal in the past. It must follow through that strategic vision and, if they continue to lose seats like Wentworth, Bennelong and even North Sydney, so be it; there will come a time for the Liberal Party to decide how committed it is to voter-repellent policies, notwithstanding Henderson The People's Tribune.

When Henderson encourages Turnbull to "stick to his guns", it is only because Turnbull has those guns trained on himself. Where Turnbull had those guns trained on issues that Henderson barely understands but adopts positions in The People's Name, Henderson does not pause to examine the issues but lunges for barricades which aren't there, and certainly aren't actually blocking anything.

His pre-emptive attacks on the prospect of Liberals re-examining the Howard legacy shows that he has gone from attacking an unsustainable status quo within the Liberal Party to defending one, with little to show in the way of policy or political achievement in the interim. Much less than, say, Phillip Adams, or even Andrew Peacock. The more time passes and the more the issues of the 1980s recede, the less important Henderson will become - but that won't stop Fairfax retaining him.

Shuffle in an echo chamber

I assumed that Fitzgibbon would be big enough to a) hire a smart and experienced person to advise him on big-picture defence issues, and b) would overcome the smalltown mentality that affects many politicians, who see Canberra as just a bigger stage on which to play petty parish-pump politics. We at PoHo Institute were wrong on both counts. Now that he's been kicked in the teeth - and his brother can't be far behind given NIB's performance - the political vacuum that is Labor Newcastle will only suck even harder.

The joint that gave public life such giants as Milton Orkopoulos and Matt Charlton is ripe for an independent politician; someone like Tony Windsor, who can take a one-party town and not so much drag them to the "other side" as get people to look at politics differently. Chances are it will be a disaffected Labor person, who'll use their party to make a name and then step forward when Sussex Street try and do them.

Yeah, I think Faulkner will probably be the best Defence Minister since George Pearce too, but this blog isn't meant to be an echo chamber like the Press Gallery. Here's what I wanted to see explored by those supposedly in the know:

• First McKew and now Ellis - why is childcare policy shunted to childless women?You'd know Rudd was taking this area seriously if he'd put Mark Arbib in there, rather than the relatively nebulous Government Service Delivery (isn't that what the Finance Minister is for, rather than the sort of abstruse economic commentator role Tanner is playing?)


• What is Rudd trying to say about infrastructure by putting Maxine McKew in as Parliamentary Secretary to the shambolic and snarling Anthony Albanese? Isn't her job duplicating that of Mark Arbib (isn't everyone's)?


• Aren't Arbib and Albanese from different factions in NSW Labor, and can the boasting of post-factionalism be believed? It reminded me of Murdoch editors proclaiming their independence.


• Why did Bob Debus go to all that bother in switching Parliaments just to give it away in the first term? Would Labor really not have won that seat in '07 with someone else?


• Merit? Muppets like Jason Clare and Richard Marles, merit? Really? Not Julie Owens or Janelle Saffin or Annette Hurley or Kate Lundy or Steve Georganas, or the scarily impressive Melissa Parke?


• Mark Dreyfus: use him or lose him?


• Should Bob McMullin, Laurie Ferguson, Jennie George and Kelvin Thomson just give it away? What about the non-jobs for Gary Gray and Warren Snowdon?


• Robert McClelland: why?


• Penny Wong: punt her now and get someone effective in time for Copenhagen? An opportunity missed.


• Chris Bowen: neatly skewered, if too briefly, by Kerry O'Brien tonight as a lightweight. Get over yourself you smug git and do some work. Who do you think you are, Peter Costello?


• Greg Combet: stretched too far to achieve anything? Can't Mike Kelly or Dreyfus step up into one of these roles?

In the short term

When (If?) wondering what the Liberals are up to, never mind Brendan Nelson. He is the symptom of a wider malaise, not the cause and definitely not the cure.

The Budget handed down last week was the sort of muddle you'd expect from the middle of a third term from an exhausted government. It was the opposite of a bold declaration of intent, and no momentum can be created from it to carry all the trooby levers through the dull, cold Canberra nights to come, year in, year out. People wanted lamb, and were served mutton - its only redeeming feature was that it was dressed as mutton.

Both the Opposition Leader and the Shadow Treasurer come from Sydney. Rudd and Swan made an enormous error in claiming that a household income of $150k is a national benchmark of wealth, one that both Nelson and Turnbull should have hammered home in the following electorates:

• Lindsay (NSW)


• Robertson (NSW)


• Dobell (NSW)


• Bennelong (NSW)


• Bonner (Q)


• Brisbane (Q)


• Longman (Q)


• Petrie (Q)


• Hasluck (WA)


• Adelaide (SA)


• Kingston (SA)


• Melbourne Ports (V)

All of those electorates are, or should be, on the Liberals' list of seats to win back next time. All of them regard $150k as a bare minimum for entry to those communities, let alone sustainability. Building a Liberal message in those areas required a clear and consistent message, on something more substantial than whether their bundy and coke costs too much. Too late now.

5c a litre saving on a 60-litre tank = $3. No sandwich, no milkshake, no thanks to Nelson and the federal Libs. It didn't even work for Fielding First - if Nelson starts being photographed with his shirt off then never mind Peter Hartcher, it will be time for him to go straight away.

It would be interesting to see which ex-Coalition staffers have popped up as lobbyists for the alcopop makers. The good news for them is that a major party will go into bat for them, the bad news is that nobody will vote against $3b worth of revenue - essentially voluntary taxation - and the alcopop makers have no chance whatsoever of getting this impost lifted. Well done at picking the low-hanging fruit and finding the grubs have gotten to it first.

The trouble is that the geniuses who come up with this stuff are the same ones who wanted to bask in the fading glow of Howard rather than build a new day for themselves, the ones who don't know whether Alexander Downer is coming or going. The reason why Malcolm Colless' latest is such crap is because it fails to answer the question: hold to what, exactly? You can't just cling to policies that have not only been rejected but are being erased and/or surpassed before your very eyes. For the Liberals, some Howard government legacies just aren't viable while others are - pretending 2007 never happened won't help individual Liberal politicians nor that party as a whole in regaining office.

Pieces like this imply that debate is open-ended and may lead to outcomes that are not yet clear (in this case, it also reinforces a natural but unrealised affinity between social and economic libertarians, but that's by-the-by). When someone like Minchin or Julie Bishop says they're "happy to have a debate", what they mean is a Howard-style debate, where a decision is presented as a fait accompli and you can talk about it as much as you like but it's going ahead whether you like it or not. People like Malcolm Colless go weak at the knees about this kind of "decisiveness", but it suffers from the problem identified by Popper that the lack of corrective feedback leads ultimately to system failure. Disunity is not always death and there are surer, faster routes to political death than the luxury of re-examination from the freedom of opposition.

All policy ideas from clowns like Abbott, Minchin et al are going to be piecemeal and short-term, that's all they've ever been. The exhaustion of American conservatism augurs poorly for their capacity to take the Liberal Party forward.

The strangest section of Nelson's speech was his tour d'horizon of the nation's economy going back to the Keating years, which framed the period under John Howard as a flawless golden era. Defending the legacy is a necessity for every vanquished government, but Nelson took it too far. In the end, he veered close to scolding the public for kicking out the Coalition.

Hardly strange, Carney: here the Liberals are saying in clear English that they can't and won't differentiate between baby and bathwater in the ejection of a Liberal government, and thus can offer no reason why voters should reverse their verdict.

Yes, I said a Liberal government - when have the Country/National Party contributed so little to the Coalition as they have since Sinclair's day?

The best indications of Liberal challenges to the government are pieces like this, which dare to take on Rudd in an area where he's perceived to be strong. To take on Rudd you'd have to do your homework, and clearly Trood has: a few failings by foreign missions could wear down Stephen Smith and go to the heart of Rudd's agenda, do that enough times and you've got him rattled. The people close to Nelson, Turnbull and Minchin don't even think stuff like this is important, when it actually both undermines the foundations of the status quo and charts out what might replace it: too hard for the "hard". Sure, foreign policy wins no votes but this sort of quality analysis across other areas of government do make for a coherent platform not only for opposition - but for government. If you can't do it, get out of the way.

The boy in the bubble

It is one thing to criticise "people who saw very little", but this criticism is simply not valid from someone determined to see only what he wanted to see. A bit like his old boss, really.

... it has been open season on John Howard.

No different from leaders who lost previous elections. 2004 saw open season on Mark Latham. 1996, on Paul Keating. 1993, Hewson. 1990, Peacock. 1983, Fraser. Get the picture? It is always open season on political losers. As Michelle Grattan points out, the Liberal Party needs to do that to secure its post-Howard future.

Galilee's sense of grievance can only be maintained in a bubble of ignorance. He has worked hard to burrow into the middle of that bubble, but what you sacrifice is a sense of perspective.

After Stephen Galilee's stellar work as Peter Debnam's chief of staff leading up to the 2007 NSW election, he had the good grace not to claim that "Time at least will be kind to Debnam", but that has deserted him now that people dare to Speak Out Of Turn.

Galilee relies on the reading-too-much-Piers tone, starting out with a fusillade of outrage to soften up the reader in the hope that his weak arguments might gain more force than they deserve (the "heroes of hindsight" alliteration has the instant staleness of Spiro Agnew's "nattering nabobs of negativism"; "the commentariat", all that rubbish).

The lumping together of committed Liberals and rusted-on socialists is a habit that will simply have to be broken.

the Howard haters of the intellectual Left

You don't have to hate Howard to wish for better government than he was capable of delivering, Stephen: trust me on this. It was not hatred that did for Howard in 2007; he could, as you well know, always deal with hatred.

Those who loved Howard as Galilee did and does were energised in reaction to that hatred. What did for Howard in 2007 was what did for him in 1987; sheer indifference.

Besides, "the intellectual Left" is redundant; is there a non-intellectual left? Is there really a sizeable chunk of the union movement, or any other non-intellectual organisation, that keeps the flame burning for Mao or Stalin? I know you and Gerard Henderson need to believe there is, but there isn't really.

After more than a decade in office, the challenges of the nation's toughest job continued to energise him.

No, they didn't. That's why he lost. He might have put on a facade, all those morning walks etc., but when Rudd talked about co-operation and climate change Howard had no idea what he was talking about, and didn't want to know. Being 'energised' doesn't involve micromanaging. It involves engaging with ideas, and working with others in good faith to find solutions.

Sometimes no amount of parroting the party line can make it true, especially after the election result puts public opinion beyond doubt.

But as the 2007 election approached, it was clear Howard's final challenge would be his greatest.

It wasn't clear that it was his final challenge though, was it? The feather-dusters on Howard's End at least grappled with the idea of the Liberal Party beyond Howard (and not necessarily in hindsight, Stephen).

Despite ... a vitriolic campaign from unions, Howard kept going.

Fancy the union movement criticising a Liberal government! In an election campaign! There's a turn-up that nobody could have foreseen.

Try hosting world leaders at an APEC summit while heading off a leadership crisis.

What was he supposed to do, cancel APEC so that he could work the phones? He should have headed off the crisis well beforehand. It's silly to praise someone for being tough in the face of problems which they have created for themselves.

Try managing the equivocation of nervous colleagues who believe you should cut and run, when not so long ago they were begging you to stay.

Well, John Howard has lived by that sword, no sympathy for being unwilling to die by it.

Try keeping your focus (and temper) while you and your family suffer cheap attacks fuelled by those ever-brave unnamed sources.

Ah yes, the Royal Family. Keen to involve themselves in political matters but not keen to suffer the slings and arrows that inevitably - inevitably - come with it. John Howard used to be a Liberal Party man, but as soon as he suborned the interests of his party to that of his family he was gone.

One of the telling images of election night last year was Jeanette and Tim Howard looking out at the Liberals gathered on election night. They looked out, not on friendly faces, not on fellow Liberals as hurt and as mystified as they; they looked on their fellow Liberals as a wild mob that would surge forward and tear them apart. They weren't just gutted; they were guilty. Guilty of a sense of entitlement that worked against, not for, the organisation that John Howard led.

Try maintaining your dignity while feral union activists wait outside hospitals and hotels to call you and your wife "Liberal c-ts" and tell you they wish you would die a "slow and painful death".

Again, this being ambushed by brave friends in the union movement is evidence of strategic idiocy. I remember Stephen Galilee and his friends engaged in similar activity against Labor people in his callow youth during the dying days of the Keating government, and his (real and perceived) factional opponents within the Liberal Party since.

All while your opponent coasts along, forgiven frequent errors of judgment, congratulated for the genius of his political flummery, by a largely uncritical media.

This is the sort of thing Keating complained about in 1996. It's only possible to see the wheel turning full circle when it's not about to crush you.

All those sentences starting with "Try ..." - I don't have to become Prime Minister to know that it's a difficult job. It isn't the only difficult job in the country. I respect the job, and I even respected the previous occupant for a time. What isn't respectable is the notion that no criticism is valid because of the difficulty of the job. From he to whom much is given, much is expected; much more than self-pity or a sense that one's own difficulties are more difficult than those facing others.

You can't always be right and in politics mistakes are magnified.

Not so much magnified as having consequences well beyond oneself.

Howard's trademark conviction served the government well for more than a decade. It was his brand: a willingness to make hard decisions for the good of the nation. But as the government's standing deteriorated, his conviction came to be seen as stubbornness.

Not all his decisions were right, and eventually that catches up with everyone. Not all consequences boomerang back within a 24-hour news cycle, and not all critics are "unedifying" or wrong. There are few things more ephemeral than a brand. I suppose that everyone you agree with has "conviction" and those you don't are "stubborn"; but it is true that his mistakes could have been headed off before they shook the ground on which the careers of Howard, Galilee and others stood.

Howard went to the election carrying the baggage of unpopular positions ... because, rightly or wrongly, he believed his positions were right for Australia.

So what happened here was that he couldn't pick the difference between a policy that was unpopular because it was wrong, and one that was unpopular for trivial and transient reasons. People around him - including Stephen Galilee - couldn't and wouldn't change his mind. So, the people put in place someone of different mind - someone from outside the Liberal Party. Stephen Galilee still can't get used to the idea that Big Daddy was Wrong, but at least he's smart enough to see the steps that might lead one to that conclusion. The phrase "rightly or wrongly" is a poor excuse for not grappling with those issues, for assuming that right and wrong are somehow equivalent.

I saw enormous respect and gratitude from the public. Their enthusiasm and friendliness swamped the anger of activists.

No it didn't, and the result of the election proves that. It also showed that Labor learned the lessons of 2004: Latham believed that the only way you could get Howard out was by hating him and making others share that hatred. People can be enthusiastic and respectful in meeting the Prime Minister without agreeing with him about everything.

There is such a thing as a Liberal activist, Stephen. I used to be one and you still are. Activist is an adjective, not a term of abuse.

From shopping centres to street walks, boardrooms to factory floors, few displayed anything other than appreciation for what he had given Australia.

So, in the tightly scripted environments you saw and helped create, you saw what you wanted to see - well done.

How I voted

House: This is not the order in which they appeared on the ballot paper:

[1] Democrat. Why? For the same reason anyone votes Democrat: because I felt sorry for them. Fewer than 1% of the electorate voted as I did. Hooray!

[2] Maxine McKew, for reasons I posted on Crikey: the area needs a local member who can navigate Canberra, not an absentee landlord who's had his - and someone else's - fair go. I was glad that I didn't see the cheesy speech she made on election night until after the event: I hope McKew doesn't become the Oprah of Northern Sydney (can't help you with your issue, but here's a hug instead).

... that's my major-party preference sorted. A Labor vote, eh? Now, who's next ... nobody looks appealling. Who do I hate? Nazis and communists.

[13] CEC. The Illinois Nazis of Australian politics. God damn the League of Rights and all who sail in her.

[12] One Nation. As above, but dumber and while still spiteful, slightly less malicious.

[11] LDP: I would have put them ahead of the major party if they were actually libertarian, but as they've thrown in their lot with the gunlosers, they can piss off.

... wot, no Socialist-Fuckwit Alliance? No Maoist Apologist League? Maybe I'd spent too much time in the inner city.

[10] Green: they put a poster of the ridiculous Kerry Nettle out the front of the booth to remind me why to vote against these fools.

... at this point I turned my attention to Christian Hypocrisy reps:

[9] The old duck who always stands for Fred Nile's outfit should inspire some sentimentality, but when you consider Nile is one of those lazy Christians who's stopped doing good works and stresses his virtues by whom he looks down upon, his party can go below the merely absurd.

[8] Fielding First: no evidence of Christian principle, just another lite-brite-n-trite independent.

... this leaves positions 3-7.

[3] Yusuf Tahir got a sympathy vote just because of Jackie Kelly and Troy Craig, and not because I know anything about them. "Ala Akba", as they say in St Marys.

[4] John Howard. Never voted for a sitting PM before, never voted against one either. Time to go.

[5] Climate change.

[6] and [7]: two independents whose names mean nothing to me.


Senate: I vote below the line and have done since Bronwyn Bishop rolled Chris Puplick in 1989. I voted [1] Marise Payne and [2] Democrat and [100] Kerry Nettle. I tried really hard to find good moderate liberal candidates and came up with about 12, numbered accordingly. Again I went after the Trots, white supremacists and Christian Hypocrisy candidates, leaving me with about 70% of the paper blank. I then numbered the remainder as [13], which means that my ballot exhausts at that point (why the law can't be changed such that my ballot exhausts after the last number of my preferences is a mystery. I'm sure there's a reason, but I'm equally sure it's bullshit).


What about your predictions last Tuesday? Ah, yes.

Here's where I thought I did well: Bass, Bennelong, Boothby, Bonner, Bowman, Corangamite, Deakin, Dobell, Eden-Monaro, Hasluck, Leichhardt, Lindsay, Macquarie, Moreton, Page, Petrie, Wakefield and Wentworth (ha!). I'm going to claim Kingston and Makin, even though they were pointed out to me by someone else, because I acknowledged them before election day. This doesn't make me Antony Green, but what does?

Too early to tell: Cowper, Solomon.

I'm glad I was wrong about Bob Baldwin losing Paterson, he's a good man. Likewise, I'm sad that Senator Andrew Bartlett and the Democrats are gone.

This is where, and why, I botched it:

• Cook: I still say the Liberals in that area are riven and the winning candidate can only deal with voters in the abstract. One for the landslide.



• Fadden, Flynn and Forrest: three for the landslide.



• Gippsland: I still say McGauran is a waste of space. One for the landslide.



• Grey: I was smart enough to stay away from Kalgoorlie so shoulda stayed away from this too.



• Hughes and McEwen: Labor candidates mustn't have wanted it, two more more the landslide.



• McPherson: One for the landslide.



• Robertson: I still say Labor chose the wrong candidate and the Coast will recoil from Belinda Neal if someone like Mick Gallacher takes her on - but he won't.



• Ryan: Michael Johnson is an accident waiting to happen, not a contributor to the longterm future. Another one for the landslide.



• Stirling: Yet another for the landslide.



• Sturt: So I don't like Pyne, sue me. I'm not that upset he won, as Downer would be. How will he cope in a post-Costello world?

Watch for byelections in Wannon and Berowra at least.

Predictions 2007

At the start of the campaign I predicted the shape of the Senate and broad numbers for the House. Now, I'll be specific about which House seats I expect to change hands.

When I say "change hands", I actually mean that the member will be from a different party to the incumbent. Parramatta NSW is "notionally" a Liberal seat according to psephologists, but it's actually held by Labor and will continue to be held by Labor after the election. Other seats are "notionally" this way or that, but I say: "notionally" my arse.

Where I make no reference to the Labor candidate below, you can assume they are barely competent and thus able to surf the Rudd wave all the way to Canberra.

Labor gains

• Bass (T): the ultimate weather-vane seat swings back. When Labor start to fade it will go Liberal again, but not this time.



• Bennelong (NSW): people want a local member and the incumbent can't offer that. The Koreans and Chinese are concerned about health and education, and the local member isn't really. Nobody wants a byelection in 2008 which is all the incumbent has left to offer.



• Bonner (Q): the incumbent is a dunce, hasn't achieved anything and you won't miss him once he's gone.



• Bowman (Q): see Bonner.



• Cook (NSW): the Liberals in that area are riven and the incumbent MP is retiring, leaving a candidate who can only deal with voters in the abstract. Labor have chosen an aspirational local who'll win the seat.



• Corangamite (V): suburbanites have tipped the balance away from graziers, and the Liberals would not dump the wizened and inert incumbent, thus the Libs will lose this seat for probably the first time since Scullin.



• Deakin (Vic): No reason not to vote Labor, really.



• Dobell (NSW): Water. Wrong move to have poor old Ken Ticehurst play political hardball with water, and any political party that tries to do this aywhere else will cop the same fate.



• Eden-Monaro (NSW): the rest of the country needs Mike Kelly more than it needs Gary Nairn and Peter Phelps.



• Fadden (Q): Possum says: "Fadden has a large number of new residents, pretty rotten housing affordability and is low-to-middle ranked in the other categories". And the sitting MP is retiring.



• Flynn (Q): It's there for the taking.



• (Nat) Gippsland (Vic): Two coal/ electricity/ welfare hubs moving into the electorate, the botched post-mortem treatment of local boy Jake Kovco, and repeated vision of the local member on TV looking hapless on horse-flu should see Peter McGauran on his way back to the farm for good.



• Grey (SA): The hub of Australia's nascent nuclear industry may vote against its own future - or will it?



• Hasluck (WA): this seems convincing.



• Herbert (Q): members of the armed forces and Aborigines to use this as a referendum on Howard.



• Hughes (NSW): Bye bye Danna.



• Leichhardt (Q): Rising interest rates, the country's best-run Aboriginal community are going to give the seat to Labor and A Girl Called Charlie just can't reverse it.



• Lindsay (NSW): the Libs have nothing to offer these people any more. Jackie Kelly's journey to becoming the Jeanette Howard of the lower Nepean is almost complete, and the replacement is a nobody like her opponent so Labor will get the benefit of the doubt.



• Macquarie (NSW): Rural farmland redistributed out, two coal towns distributed in, and a Labor warhorse keen for one last challenge.



• McEwen (Vic): Fran Bailey has been swanning around like Lady Muck on tourist junkets and her own constituency has become estranged.



• McPherson (Q): Demographic change and a sitting MP asleep at the wheel, Labor build on state gains to sneak this one.



• Moreton (Q): Gary Hardgrave should've been turfed by the Liberal Party, but he hasn't so the voters will do it for him.



• (Nat) Page (NSW): Demographic change, retiring Nat, benefit of the doubt goes to Labor and so will he seat.



• Paterson (NSW): Thanks Bob. The Hunter ALP is the laziest in the land but they will still take it from you. You wouldn't want to hang around in Opposition anyway.



• Petrie (Q): No reason not to, really.



• Ryan (Q): classic small-l liberal seat, tired of Howard and the spiv manning the branch office.



• (CLP) Solomon (NT): Tired of being treated like dills, Darwinites? Stop voting for one.



• Stirling (WA): Labor have chosen the right candidate, the incumbent is a hack who should go into state politics.



• Sturt (SA): Having worked really hard to drop his small-l liberal credentials and snuggle up to Howard to get a ministry, Chris Pyne will find it too hard to un-snuggle.



• Wakefield (SA): 'cause there's a swing on, that's why.



• (Nat) Wide Bay (Q): One of the poorest electorates in the country, held by a flat-footed goober from the Nationals. Labor might be on the nose over water, but this will be another of those that sneaks past the pundits.

Nationals gain

Calare (NSW). That's it. Massive seat redistribution, popular sitting member passes away. The exception that proves the rule of decline.


Independent gain

Forrest (WA). Not quite ready to embrace Rudd, and the Liberals have chosen the wrong candidate, so step up Noel Brunning and hope you like all that travel.


Woulda, coulda, shoulda ...

• Berowra (NSW): Like Bennelong, the rusted-on Liberals are in decline as young families move in with big mortgages and few facilities, with both love for and fear of the natural environment. The sitting member is an absolute certainty to retire during the coming Parliamentary term. Had Labor picked a hardworking local, or a Maxine McKew, Whispering Death would be gone. The swing will surprise pundits.



• Boothby (SA): Andrew Southcott is a duffer but Labor managed to find a bigger one.



• (Nat) Cowper (NSW): potentially a real bolter, but Labor chose the wrong candidate.



• (Nat) Lyne (NSW): see Cowper. Coulda knocked off a Deputy Prime Minister! Never mind, if Labor reopen the AWB they could pick this up at the byelection.



• Mitchell (NSW): I really hate Alex Hawke, because he hates Australia and he hates the Liberal Party and liberalism, and yet the Liberal Party of Australia chose him to contest their safest seat. An independent with guts and a longterm perspective could take that seat next time.



• Robertson (NSW): Labor chose the wrong candidate. Belinda Neal is just not the sort of person that people want representing them. Barry Jones knew her better than most and when he was presented with her, he flinched and shuddered, as did many Robertson voters. I don't care who she's married to: no more of this person, no more.



• Wannon (Vic): Malcolm Fraser's old seat, now held by the Speaker who won't stick around. One to watch at the inevitable byelection.



• Wentworth (NSW): this time last week it would've been "bye bye Malcolm", but while Wentworth people are notorious flirts they'll take pity on their incumbent. George Newhouse has stumbled a bit, and frankly, he's a bit of a loser! We can't have that, can we? A Labor government won't be that much better on immigration, and Newhouse will be far more effective as some latter-day Rumpole than he ever would as an MP. Besides, the Liberals need Malcolm, and darling simply everybody is voting Labor.

Granny Smith and Grandpa Howard

Half an hour before the Granny Smith Festival at Eastwood, the Epping North Public School band played Who let the dogs out and the Liberals seemed to own the Rowe Street Mall. Their blue-on-yellow balloons were everywhere, and handers-out were busy. People politely took balloons, some let them into the air.

Ten minutes before the parade started, Maxine McKew led a force majeure of about fifty volunteers armed with purple helium balloons with her message on it, right up the mall and stood in front of the podium. On the podium was the mayor, John and Jeanette Howard, State MPs and other dignitaries.

McKew's positioning meant that she was juxtaposed with the dignitaries, but not so remote. She and her volunteers handed out balloons to participants in the parade, so that a representative sample of dance-school students, Korean Christian women, rugby players, Girl Guides and other community groups all carried McKew's purple balloons.

A forest of purple balloons was positioned to block the podium. The Liberals' idea of countering this was to block the podium with their own balloons. This rush of political activists blocked the road and delayed the parade - as you read this, you can bet that the AFP is bagging the local police for their absence. Had McKew brought along a few angry ants from the CFMEU or the MUA, Howard could have been in real trouble. It also meant that the announcer could not announce the names of the floats as they came through, which didn't matter as they came out of order and some (such as the local Parents and Friends of Lesbians And Gays, P-FLAG) clearly made the announcer uncomfortable. Nonetheless, the announcer pleaded with the balloon blockade two or three times to move: both sets of balloons were equally placed to block the podium so neither moved.

The Liberals, who had dominated the morning before the parade, were neutralised. McKew waved to people like she was already representing the place. Her slogan, "A Strong Voice For Bennelong", is what you'd expect of a long-serving local councillor rather than a blow-in from Mosman and the ABC. When the trade union band came along in the parade, they stopped in front of her and she danced: not something you'd get from John and Jeanette, and not out of step with the light-hearted atmosphere of the parade. This held the parade up, which would have caused apoplexy had the announcer been able to see it.

The colour orange was prevalent too, on balloons and on clothing. The union band was festooned in orange as part of the "Your rights at work" campaign. In keeping with the spirit of the festival they had posters with Granny Smith apples, featuring the slogan "Your rights at work: the core issue in Bennelong". Also wearing orange were a surprising number of GetUp volunteers, mostly in their forties and fifties: they seemed to silently answer the question as to where all the moderate liberal and Democrat voters, the "not happy John" crowd, had gone.

The parade ended, and the mayor began a long-winded speech. The place cleared and spectators muttered that the event had been hijacked by politics. Indeed it had: this was the biggest event in Bennelong on the first weekend in the campaign, hacks and flacks had come from all over town and cared nothing of stealing the pale limelight from the Brush Farm Scouts or the local Christian outreach centre. Each major party would be horrified that their activists had turned off local voters, but at the time they were only concerned at neutralising their fellow out-of-towners from the other party.

When the incumbent local Federal MP rose to speak, he was met with chants of "How-ward! How-ward! How-ward! How-ward!", but obscured by balloons. When he's rattled Howard's voice goes up in pitch and volume, flapping his arms like an agitated cockatoo, as none but the activists would stay to hear him in his distress. This may explain why he stayed cheesed-off and rattled in the following night's debate.

Howard is the last of several generations of politicians who learned their craft addressing Saturday morning shoppers from the back of a flatbed truck, dealing with hecklers and attracting passers-by to give them a hearing. Rudd, Costello and others yet to come have only experienced politics through the media. This isn't to say that there was some golden age of speechcraft in Australian politics, or that Howard is some mighty orator - but it's clear that eleven years at the top, of cushy media management and framed settings, have dulled his ability to deal with a bit of chanting and a lot of indifference. He should've been out here six, twelve months ago; it's all too late now. McKew followed the crowds and mingled amongst the stalls: the St John's first aid volunteers, the jam-sellers, the soccer-players, etc.

The local Macquarie Shopping Centre had its balloons around as well, in purple and orange rather than yellow and blue. They knew their market.

Nine scenarios for polling day

This site disdains endless nonsense about polls in the media, and blogs are the worst offenders in many ways. Endless wittering about hypothetical scenarios which never come off is a distraction from the actual decisions that governments take which affect people. How many real stories go untold because someone wants to go on about an imaginary "swing" among 1000 people in wherever with nothing better to do than talk to a pollster on the phone?

The last time I gave into this crap I gave the benefit of the doubt to Peter Debnam's NSW Liberals (scroll down, second-last post), and look where that got me! Read on if you do not value accuracy and credibility.

Swings can be ethereal and nebulous in practical, on-the-ground terms of which party will win which seat. It is, after all, early in the election campaign. Far more indicative of electoral success than general swings or popularity contests framed around the constructed image of a distant leader is work on the ground. Members who have worked hard on local issues and have a lot to show for it, including tangible achievements and a level of respect among those who hate their party, are formidable opponents to challengers. Candidates who are well organised and campaigning effectively have a strong chance of victory.

Conversely, it shouldn't be hard to beat members and candidates who have no community connections to speak of, who resent having to deal with the masses and their quotidian concerns, and who assume that they will be carried to victory by the party - unless the other major party has a candidate who is equally lazy or inept. Sitting MPs build up a loyal following of voters who'd never otherwise support that MP's party, and when they go that loyal following goes back to the party it came from.

Going by this list in one of the better politics blogs, let's see which candidates have a strong and effective presence in the community they'd seek to represent, and which are hacks who are up against it.

Scenario 1: Liberal MP hasn't built up any community loyalty, drifting in on the Howard government's tide of popularity and drifting out just as easily. Labor is bringing its machine to bear on these seats, it has good, hard-working candidates, and because it wants to win so badly and has a swing behind it, Labor should win these seats from the Coalition:

• Bonner Q


• Bowman Q


• Eden-Monaro NSW


• Boothby SA


• Moreton Q


• Corangamite V


• Deakin V

Scenario 2: Sitting Coalition MP is a hard-working quiet achiever, Labor candidate is a hack. Labor can't believe they've lost these seats at all and can't believe they have to work to get them back (these seats will be in Scenario 7 below at the next election). People want to vote Labor but just can't vote for the particular candidate Labor has, for one short-sighted dumb-arse factional reason, preselected for these seats. With the right candidate next time these seats should go Labor as part of the inevitable second-term landslide:

• Robertson NSW


• Greenway NSW


• Paterson NSW


• Dickson Q


• Hinkler Q

Scenario 3: No sitting Coalition MP running, Lib and ALP candidates (if preselected) are evenly matched, anyone's game but at this stage Labor must have the benefit of the doubt because any residual goodwill toward the Libs disappears with the incumbent:

• Lindsay NSW


• Makin SA


• Grey SA


• Fadden Q


• Flynn Q

Scenario 4: Coalition set to win seat:

• Calare NSW - but only because the seat has been radically redrawn and the popular MP has run away


• If they win a seat in Perth it will be by accident, because both major party political machines in WA are hopeless

Scenario 5: Coalition chosen hack candidate who won't lose seat this time, but who will depress Liberal vote over time, antagonise colleagues in Opposition and make committed Coalition voters/party members despair:

• Mitchell NSW


• Cook NSW


• Ryan Q


• Whichever seat Josh Frydenberg wins after the inevitable byelections

Scenario 6: Coalition have held this seat forever but demographics have shifted. Won't vote Labor this time, but they may do so next time if Rudd does a half-decent job and the Labor candidate in 2009/10 is all right, as part of the inevitable second-term landslide:

• Cowper NSW


• Lyne NSW


• Page NSW


• Berowra NSW


• Gilmore NSW


• Dawson Q


• Gippsland V


• Dunkley V


• Fisher Q


• Wide Bay Q

Scenario 7: The Coalition MP does all the right things as far as representing the electorate and keeping in touch with community groups, but it doesn't matter because Labor have chosen a reasonable candidate and Da Swing Is On, Baby:

• Wakefield SA


• Dobell NSW


• Hughes NSW


• McEwen V


• Bass T


• Braddon T


• Wentworth NSW

Scenario 8: Bennelong.

Bennelong will go along with everyone else. Howard has the benefit of the doubt, but nobody wants a scenario where Howard is returned but the Libs go into Opposition, whereupon Howard resigns straight away and there's a byelection. If the rest of the country really wants a Labor government the people of Bennelong will probably go along with that, but otherwise Howard is back.

If there is a byelection, and the Libs win, Bennelong will probably go into Scenario 6 above. If Labor wins, it will go into Scenario 9 below.

Scenario 9: Every other seat not named above. Your local member (or someone of the same party) gets returned to do the same old same old, not very exciting for politics junkies but terribly important for the Functioning Of Our Democracy.

Which scenario are you facing?

Maxine McKew in Bennelong

Let's accept that Maxine McKew is the next Labor candidate for Bennelong. Now that it's been announced there's too much at stake for the wide boys of the NSW ALP not to get their way. Farewell Pierre Esben, we hardly knew ya - but keep an eye out for any cushy jobs to which this Parramatta City Councillor might be appointed.

If Labor were really serious about winning Bennelong - and I mean steely-eyed, nothing's-gonna-stop-us serious - they would have chosen John Watkins. Watkins has the profile, both at high-level policy-driven politics as well as at the grassroots in that area. He would have tied Howard down and given encouragement to both Rudd and Costello. Of course he'll show McKew where the pressure points in that electorate are, and he is the fallback option if she falls over.

Will McKew beat Howard? The answer to that depends on a lot of factors that can't be dependably forseen this far out from the election. While the Rudd honeymoon can't last, it's unlikely that voters will be as bored with him as they were with Beazley, or as repelled as with Latham. Howard and Costello might pull out some super spending proposals, but they might go absolutely nowhere politically if voters have stopped listening to them. It's possible that another catastrophe like September 11 will cause the electoral pendulum to jerk suddenly this way or that.

The polls are based on a false premise. "If there was an election held last weekend ..." - yeah but there wasn't an election last weekend was there, nor was there 4-6 weeks of concentrated hoo-ha before that. It might be as much as you have to go on, it might even be necessary, but it is not sufficient.

The real unknown factor here is McKew herself. She says, "public life matters. It's the main game", but it depends what you mean by public life. Is public life the big-ticket items in the budget, committing troops to battle - or is it speeches and glad-handing at Truscott Street Public School, Epping Rugby Club, and/or St Therese's Church Denistone?

Howard does the latter very well indeed. This quality is often underestimated in him; big-time MSM reporters like Maxine McKew barely regard it as worth mentioning except in patronising terms. Howard doesn't have charisma as such - not in the Kidman/Clooney sense, but in a room or a shopping centre he does exude energy and he gets energy from interacting with people. By sheer graft he can make people feel important: you can sneer at the person who feels strangely empowered that the Prime Minister of Australia shook my hand, but all that sneering hasn't dislodged him from office yet.

Does Maxine McKew identify with people? McKew seems like a nice person on telly, but it is possible for someone to seem nice while actually being a swine once the cameras are off. What would kill McKew in Bennelong is an insensitivity to ordinary people.

Is she going to listen to some old person bang on about their operations, or weather the blast of some parent frustrated by issues that public policy alone can't really fix? Is she going to interrupt a voter in mid-sentence to take a mobile phone call from Kevin Rudd?

Bennelong is a very churchy area: if she takes the Lord's name in vain in a flash of anger/frustration, if some wild and scabrous story comes out from twenty years before, this will count for a lot with Bennelong voters - more than it warrants perhaps, but on election night such an event will make itself felt.

Maybe she'll count on the Old Mates' Club of the parliamentary press gallery to close ranks for her - she's be dreaming, particularly if one of the local rags breaks a story (and if she disdains said rags as beneath her, then she's finished).

McKew has seen political careers rise and fall, but that's not the same as being in the game yourself.

The worst-case scenario for Labor and McKew in six months from now is if she's wounded, she's bored, the gloss will be gone and Howard will run rings around her, campaigning hither and yon across the nation utterly unconcerned about his own seat. A whispering campaign in the area of "I met that Maxine McKew and she's a cold fish/nasty piece of work" will ensure that whatever glamour she brings to the contest does not translate into votes.

Memo to Bennelong Liberals: you could start a whispering campaign yourselves, but people in the community who know you well enough to hear you out about McKew will also know that you're Liberals, and that you would say that. Still, give it a go, and leave Howard to wear the backlash; besides, you didn't get where you are by listening to me.

The best-case scenario, of course, is that which the papers are full of today: high-profile, will give Howard a run for his money. Some run, some money.