Prime Minister Howard and his party crushed at election - Political Forum

W.E.B. Du Bois · #1 (**permalink**) 11-24-2007, 03:07 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/wo...tralia.html?hp

Quote:

Bush Ally Defeated in Australia
By TIM JOHNSTON
Published: November 25, 2007

Kevin Rudd, the Australian Labor Party leader, greeted his supporters in Brisbane after his election victory.

SYDNEY, Australia, Nov. 24 — Australia’s prime minister, John Howard, one of President Bush’s staunchest allies in Asia, suffered a comprehensive defeat at the hands of the electorate on Saturday, as his Liberal Party-led coalition lost its majority in Parliament. He will be replaced by Kevin Rudd, the Labor Party leader and a former diplomat. “Today Australia looks to the future,” Mr. Rudd told a cheering crowd in his home state of Queensland. “Today the Australian people have decided that we as a nation will move forward.”

Mr. Howard’s defeat, after 11 years in power, follows that of José María Aznar of Spain, who also backed the United States-led invasion of Iraq, and political setbacks for Tony Blair of Britain. Mr. Howard conceded nearly two hours after the last polling booths closed in the west of the country. “A few moments ago I telephoned Mr. Kevin Rudd and I congratulated him and the Australian Labor Party on a very emphatic victory,” Mr. Howard told a roomful of emotional supporters. “I leave the office of prime minister with our country prouder, stronger and more prosperous than ever,” he said.

Returns for a small number of seats are yet to be compiled, but analysts estimate that over all the Labor Party gained 28 seats to win a comfortable 22-seat majority in the 150-seat lower house of Parliament, where governments are formed. Official results are expected within the next day or two. Mr. Howard may suffer the indignity of losing his own seat in the Sydney suburb of Bennelong, which he has held for 33 years, to a former television anchor and rookie politician. He would be the first sitting prime minister to lose his seat since 1929.

It was a bruising campaign, and the Liberal Party has said it will challenge some results on the grounds that the Labor candidates had broken electoral law by failing to resign from government jobs before running for office. The Labor Party said it had broken no laws.

Mr. Rudd, 50, campaigned on a platform of new leadership to address broad concerns about the environment, health and education. He has said his first acts as prime minister would include pushing for the ratification of the Kyoto agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and negotiating the withdrawal of Australia’s 500 troops from Iraq. Analysts said the leadership change was unlikely to bring a radically new foreign policy, although they expected a shift in emphasis in the relationship with the United States, Australia’s closest ally. “Australia will remain a close ally of the United States, and Rudd remains committed to the alliance,” said Michael Fullilove, of the Lowy Institute for International Policy in Sydney. But he noted that “if there is a Democratic administration elected next year, to some extent they would become closer.”

Mr. Howard has a strong personal relationship with Mr. Bush that is based on a similar socially conservative philosophy and a shared outlook on terrorism. Australian opinion polls have shown that although Australians remain strong supporters of the so-called Anzus alliance — the security pact among Australia, New Zealand and the United States — they do not approve of Mr. Bush or the Iraq war.

The attempts by Mr. Howard’s coalition to stress its economic record apparently failed to impress voters. The Australian economy has had 17 years of continuous growth, lately driven by Chinese demand for Australian iron ore and coal. Mr. Howard had warned voters that a Labor victory would endanger the country’s prosperity. But despite the coalition campaign, there was little distance between the parties on economic policy, and the defining characteristics came down to the personalities of the leaders. In addition, Mr. Howard was running for a historic fifth term, and many voters said they were ready for a change.

....

A lot of the articles I've read said there is little actual policy differences between the Liberals (conservatives in American parlance) and Labor. This guy was just been in power too long and the Iraq War has been discredited, leading to Howard being voted out.

Brother Oz · #2 (**permalink**) 11-24-2007, 04:13 PM

These days, in most western countries, there isn't actually much difference between Conservative and post-left parties.
When you've been PM that long, fatigue sets in, you start running out of good ideas, and the voters want someone else.
I wish the Labor party luck, and hope they do well, but I don't really see massive differences.
Perhaps our Australian posters could tell us if there are any really significant differences?

sirhc · #3 (**permalink**) 11-25-2007, 06:34 PM

there i alot of difference between Labour and Librals the Librals are much more economically responsible and have a much more stable bench with little change or back stabbing. Labour is famous for driving up intrest rates and running up debt not to mention they have a extreamly turbulent internal politics. (they have had 3 party leaders over 3 trems)

Rudd shouldn't be in power, and wouldn't be in power if it wen't for the media. eg there was a TV debate between the two party leaders and a steadily updated Graph down the bottom of the screen that showed how each speaker was doing. the Labour graph started much higher the Lib one, befor anyone had spoken a word

Kazikli Bey · #4 (**permalink**) 11-25-2007, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/wo...tralia.html?hp

A lot of the articles I've read said there is little actual policy differences between the Liberals (conservatives in American parlance) and Labor. This guy was just been in power too long and the Iraq War has been discredited, leading to Howard being voted out.

That's true, there is very little difference between them policy wise, though Rudd wants to ratify Kyoto, refuses to build nuclear Power Plants and wants to withdraw troops from Iraq. The key major difference is that Rudd wants to scrap IR laws to give the average worker more protections at work rather then leave us stranded as the Coalition did. I guess the Coalition wasn't helped by the fact that Abbott shot his mouth off days before the election and that whole debacle about the Libs party members handing out fliers saying to vote Labor because they sympathise with the Bali Bombers.

Stadtler & Waldorf · #5 (**permalink**) 11-27-2007, 05:19 AM

Many policies were similar for the parties regarding health, education, transport, infrastructure and security, but the one glaring omission from them both is our water issue. The Murray and it's catchment area has been under drought conditions for several years now, the river level is at its lowest for decades, maybe ever, and crop irrigators are having to downsize by removing selected stock in order of having some hope of a future. No solution, other than perhaps some water desalination plants, of which some or most of the water will be used to help expand our mining interests.
The big change is in how the people of Australia will get some respect back. For too long, the Liberals have been running a sort of toxic social agenda, which is having a disparaging affect on particular classes and groups throughout Australia. Our Indigenous people are alienated in their own country, unable to attain the cultural capital necessary to survive in our westernised and domesticised society, and totally cut off from their own traditional customs, which are viewed as having no relevance in a 21st century Australia.
It is true that much of the media was biased towards the Labor vote, although the Liberals did their fair share of advertising. It was, without doubt the most interesting, dirty and spin-doctored election the Australian people have ever experienced.
The major vote clencher for Labor was that the Liberals "Workchoices" sceme was unpopular with working and middle class Australians, and that the Australian people want more bargaining power when it comes to their worth/value. Whether or not this is a good thing or not with the current trends around the globe regarding the shifting economies and work and lifestyle patterns is yet to be seen.
Many staunch Liberal voters are now out in force on local newspaper websites, predicting doom and gloom and hypothesising that the Liberals will need to fix it. It is early, it is exciting, some of it is worrying. The Howard govt did little for infrastructure, education and health over the 11 and a half years they were in power, and Labor will need to spend and spend quickly to overcome this blatant regard for the common good.
With interest rates on the rise around much of the globe, many people in Australia it is inevitable that we will follow suit, so some believe that this is an election that a party may not want to win, because of what may occur

AzTeK · #6 (**permalink**) 11-27-2007, 06:02 AM

Against the war in Irak, Pro Kyoto-Protocol. I know near to nothing about this guy, but those two facts make me think it was a quite good decision

Don't get me wrong though. Simply withdrawing troops from Irak could be catastrophical. I hope Australia won't do that, but rather really force the stabilisation of the country.

flipfreek · #7 (**permalink**) 11-27-2007, 07:33 AM

Another difference between them is that Rudd called for true equal treatment for all Australian's, specifically mentioning Aboriginals. To my knowledge, Howard has not been the best friend of the Aboriginal people. He has also been accused of discriminating against Asians in the past, which I understand cost him his parliamentary seat in Bennelong which has many Asians.

ArcticWind7 · #8 (**permalink**) 12-03-2007, 07:04 AM

Quote:

there i alot of difference between Labour and Librals the Librals are much more economically responsible and have a much more stable bench with little change or back stabbing.

Um.. Costello and Howard....?

Quote:

Labour is famous for driving up intrest rates and running up debt

Not true. Contrary to popular belief in Australia the economy isn't instantaneous. The reason a result of previous parties.

Quote:

not to mention they have a extreamly turbulent internal politics. (they have had 3 party leaders over 3 trems)

Who would have thought that an opposition party wouldn't be sure of which person the people like the look of.

Quote:

Rudd shouldn't be in power, and wouldn't be in power if it wen't for the media. eg there was a TV debate between the two party leaders and a steadily updated Graph down the bottom of the screen that showed how each speaker was doing. the Labour graph started much higher the Lib one, befor anyone had spoken a word

Yeah, tis a shame the liberal's media outlets (which out number labours...) nobody trusts anymore...

sirhc · #9 (**permalink**) 12-05-2007, 12:14 AM

ArcticWind7, nice post

flipfreek, Howard is not a racist, i have never heard of Howard being a raciest. actually he even did a highly controversial intervention recently in a attempt to stabilize the Aboriginals deteriorating culture. As for asians, he allows many asian immigrants eg, every other person in Melbourne (australias 2nd biggest city) is a asian or pilipino.

people say Howard is a raciest because he won't apologize for "the stolen generation" which was a raciest black spot on our history that many white people have apologized to the aboriginals for it. but Howard refuses to apologize for it, although he does admits it was wrong. If Howard apologized it that would mean the Federal government would be admitting fault and could open the way for the worlds biggest class action lawsuit.

AzTeK, assuming howard is as smart as you, and he was in office for 11Yrs. i assume he knows his forces are stuck in Iraq lest he hand the country over to extremists.

there is one thing i respect Rudd for though...
HE IS THE WORLDS GREATEST SALES MAN!!!
i mean it, he had the election slogan "new leadership, new idears" even though the majority of his policies were the idears of the old leadership J, Howards idears. Kevin packaged the old and sold them as new, if his PM job falls though i'm gonna start a business and get him as a sales rep. the man is a marketing genius, if he turns out to be half as good a PM as he is a sales man he actually will be a good replacement for howard.
(yes i know how biased i am)

Troianii · #10 (**permalink**) 12-05-2007, 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AzTeK

Against the war in Irak, Pro Kyoto-Protocol. I know near to nothing about this guy, but those two facts make me think it was a quite good decision

Don't get me wrong though. Simply withdrawing troops from Irak could be catastrophical. I hope Australia won't do that, but rather really force the stabilisation of the country.

Maybe, but to the extent of my knowledge Australia doesn't have quite so many troops in Iraq. 750? That's a considerable amount, but I don't know if it's enough to make a huge dent. The biggest affect would be that a strong ally is pulling out, meaning that it's more a matter of morale or psychological affects, rather than military.