Where did it all go wrong? (For the Liberal party)
With the polls closing and the counting starting, Liberal party faithfuls gathered around the country expecting to celebrate a fifth win for their hero, John Howard, but instead the impossible happened. They lost.
"I can't believe that the Australian people can be so ungrateful" One woman snapped at the cameras. Others just shook their heads or stared opened mouth at the television screens as the results came in. "How did this happen?" One man asked as the swing in Bennelong became apparent.
It was like some perverse version of Don's Party (without the sex). The Liberals expected to win, to just managed to pull ahead and instead were handed a crushing defeat.
Yes, the Liberal's expected to win. Not only the party faithful, but Liberal ministers also displayed their disbelief at what was happening. As it became obvious that Labor had won they refuted the results. "There's still the postal vote." or "It's still too early to tell." "Wait until Western Australia." Then, when it became painfully obvious that Labor had won no matter how many postal votes favoured the government, Senator Nick Minchin stated it "It's not a landslide. They'll have a majority of maybe five to ten seats. Not the twenty to thirty seats people are predicting." Then preceded to be gobsmacked when it was revealed that Labor had twenty to twenty two seat majority.
Since Kevin Rudd became opposition leader late last year the Labor party has consistently lead the Coalition in the opinion polls. The only time the Liberal party even contemplated a lost was in March when Howard said the coalition was facing annihilation at the next election. However a few weeks later Howard then told his colleagues that the conditions for the change of Government did not exist, that the government was seen as competent. Of course this is for a given value of competent - the Liberals could claim they handled the economy competently but as for immigration or AWB etc they failed massively.
But no matter what the Government did, unexpected tax cuts at the 2007 budget, APEC, sending in the army into Indigenous communities it had little impact on Labor's lead in the polls. And yet, the Liberals were convinced that they would win. That they would get over the line. On the last day before the election Howard stated that "We're coming back".
So why did the seemingly competent Liberal government get thrown out of power? A lot of people seem to believe that it was work choices. That by removing certain rights such as penalty rates from workers he isolated his main supporters - the Howard battlers. This may be correct to a certain extent, but it is not the be all and end all of the issue. Work choices was more then an industrial relations overhaul, it was a political weapon designed to further weaken the unions and thus starve the Labor party of funds and therefore ensure the future of the Liberal party.
This was evident in how Howard tried to sell Work choices to the Australian people. While the unions and Labor had ads claiming that workers were being forced onto AWAs with reduced pay (the removal of penalities or changed from full time to casual), Howard only briefly denied this with vague lines of "take home pay higher" or "AUstralians have never been better off" When Howard was forced to soften Work Choices with a fairness test it was revealed that Australian workers were being forced onto AWAs with reduced pay. He then turned around and stated that it proved Work choices were working because half of the proposed AWAs failed the fairness test (thus proving Labor and union claims that empolyeers were trying to cheat their workers) Sydney morning herald
Howard and the Liberals spent most of their time and money defending work choices by attacking unions. They warned of a dark future when unions would ran rampant in work places. They attacked the Labor party for it's links to unions by claiming that a large number of Labor ministers/candidates were union bosses. It was later revealed that half of them were not union bosses, but merely belonged to a union. The Liberals claimed that there was not much different. Just under half of Australian workers belong to a union. Most union members are low to medium income earners - Howard battlers. Once again he isolated his main voting bloc.
But the real turning point of the election was APEC. Labor was painting Howard was old and out of touch and desperate to do anything to stay in power. Howard maintained that he would stay on as leader of the Liberals for as long as the party wanted him. In March he asked the party if he should go. They said no. The at APEC he got Downer to do it again, obviously expecting the same answer, thus showing that he still had full support of his party.
His ministers felt that it was time for Howard to go. Rudd has too fresh, a new generation leader for Labor, unlike past leaders such as Beazley and Crean. The only other "next generation" leader Labor had presented was Latham who failed the make a dent in Howard's popularity. Rudd was almost a younger clone of Howard, not only neutralising Howard's only asset - his popularity but turning it against Howard. Howard was close to retirement. It had been bandied about for five years now and the Australian people knew it was no a matter of sooner rather then later that Howard would resign. Thus Rudd was in for the long haul.
Howard, no longer wanted by the party, refused to go. Thus cementing Labor's claim of a leader desperate of power. Everything Howard said after that only further cemented Labor's claims from his intervention in Indigenous communities, to the Mercy hospital deal to his change on climate change. Howard even told Australian people to "love him or loathe him". It was a veiled dare to the Australian people to vote him out. Go on, vote me out, if you have the guts.
To answer the Liberal party faithful's question "How did this happen?" it was because of
Hubris. Whom the gods destroy they first make mad. Howard was mad with power.
"I can't believe that the Australian people can be so ungrateful" One woman snapped at the cameras. Others just shook their heads or stared opened mouth at the television screens as the results came in. "How did this happen?" One man asked as the swing in Bennelong became apparent.
It was like some perverse version of Don's Party (without the sex). The Liberals expected to win, to just managed to pull ahead and instead were handed a crushing defeat.
Yes, the Liberal's expected to win. Not only the party faithful, but Liberal ministers also displayed their disbelief at what was happening. As it became obvious that Labor had won they refuted the results. "There's still the postal vote." or "It's still too early to tell." "Wait until Western Australia." Then, when it became painfully obvious that Labor had won no matter how many postal votes favoured the government, Senator Nick Minchin stated it "It's not a landslide. They'll have a majority of maybe five to ten seats. Not the twenty to thirty seats people are predicting." Then preceded to be gobsmacked when it was revealed that Labor had twenty to twenty two seat majority.
Since Kevin Rudd became opposition leader late last year the Labor party has consistently lead the Coalition in the opinion polls. The only time the Liberal party even contemplated a lost was in March when Howard said the coalition was facing annihilation at the next election. However a few weeks later Howard then told his colleagues that the conditions for the change of Government did not exist, that the government was seen as competent. Of course this is for a given value of competent - the Liberals could claim they handled the economy competently but as for immigration or AWB etc they failed massively.
But no matter what the Government did, unexpected tax cuts at the 2007 budget, APEC, sending in the army into Indigenous communities it had little impact on Labor's lead in the polls. And yet, the Liberals were convinced that they would win. That they would get over the line. On the last day before the election Howard stated that "We're coming back".
So why did the seemingly competent Liberal government get thrown out of power? A lot of people seem to believe that it was work choices. That by removing certain rights such as penalty rates from workers he isolated his main supporters - the Howard battlers. This may be correct to a certain extent, but it is not the be all and end all of the issue. Work choices was more then an industrial relations overhaul, it was a political weapon designed to further weaken the unions and thus starve the Labor party of funds and therefore ensure the future of the Liberal party.
This was evident in how Howard tried to sell Work choices to the Australian people. While the unions and Labor had ads claiming that workers were being forced onto AWAs with reduced pay (the removal of penalities or changed from full time to casual), Howard only briefly denied this with vague lines of "take home pay higher" or "AUstralians have never been better off" When Howard was forced to soften Work Choices with a fairness test it was revealed that Australian workers were being forced onto AWAs with reduced pay. He then turned around and stated that it proved Work choices were working because half of the proposed AWAs failed the fairness test (thus proving Labor and union claims that empolyeers were trying to cheat their workers) Sydney morning herald
Howard and the Liberals spent most of their time and money defending work choices by attacking unions. They warned of a dark future when unions would ran rampant in work places. They attacked the Labor party for it's links to unions by claiming that a large number of Labor ministers/candidates were union bosses. It was later revealed that half of them were not union bosses, but merely belonged to a union. The Liberals claimed that there was not much different. Just under half of Australian workers belong to a union. Most union members are low to medium income earners - Howard battlers. Once again he isolated his main voting bloc.
But the real turning point of the election was APEC. Labor was painting Howard was old and out of touch and desperate to do anything to stay in power. Howard maintained that he would stay on as leader of the Liberals for as long as the party wanted him. In March he asked the party if he should go. They said no. The at APEC he got Downer to do it again, obviously expecting the same answer, thus showing that he still had full support of his party.
His ministers felt that it was time for Howard to go. Rudd has too fresh, a new generation leader for Labor, unlike past leaders such as Beazley and Crean. The only other "next generation" leader Labor had presented was Latham who failed the make a dent in Howard's popularity. Rudd was almost a younger clone of Howard, not only neutralising Howard's only asset - his popularity but turning it against Howard. Howard was close to retirement. It had been bandied about for five years now and the Australian people knew it was no a matter of sooner rather then later that Howard would resign. Thus Rudd was in for the long haul.
Howard, no longer wanted by the party, refused to go. Thus cementing Labor's claim of a leader desperate of power. Everything Howard said after that only further cemented Labor's claims from his intervention in Indigenous communities, to the Mercy hospital deal to his change on climate change. Howard even told Australian people to "love him or loathe him". It was a veiled dare to the Australian people to vote him out. Go on, vote me out, if you have the guts.
To answer the Liberal party faithful's question "How did this happen?" it was because of
Hubris. Whom the gods destroy they first make mad. Howard was mad with power.
posted by Renegade79 at 2:34 pm
2 comments
