Indeed. There was a letter in the Herald today that made the point clearly: the Australian people have decided that they wish to live in an economy, not a society.

And for those unconvinced that the “Labor means higher interest rates” mantra was a lie, have a look at the actual facts.

From the Greens website: “John Howard has based much of his election campaign on two arguments: first, that Labor governments generate higher interest rates than Liberal governments and second, that this occurs because Labor runs budget deficits. These first two arguments imply a third, that budget deficits necessarily create higher interest rates.

This graph shows, for financial years 1970/71 to 2003/04, the trend in Australia’s interest rates and government budget deficits. The data shows that all three of Howard’s arguments are empirically false. You can see that interest rates often fell during ALP terms, that the ALP did not always run deficits, and that in recent history there’s no strong correlation between a deficit and an increasing interest rate.”

Oh, and look at the interest rate skyrocket around 1977 to 1982. Guess who was Federal Treasurer? JOHN HOWARD!

I’m pretty amazed … for the entire campaign period the Libs basically did only 2 things: match Labor spending in every area in every electorate almost to the dollar, and bash Labor’s economic management skills (and threaten high interest rates … as if the current low interest rates have anything to do with the fact the Coalition was in power … maybe noone told people there was a world-wide recession? Maybe none of the Liberal voters have tried buying a house recently? but I digress…). They did not have ONE original policy — they were all reactions to Labor policies, all about the same issues that Labor targetted. Traditionally, election campaigns were “vote for us, WE are going to do ALL this awesome stuff, and there will be hens in every coup and eggs in every basket”, not “vote for us because the other guys are n00bs”.

I was pretty amazed the first time I saw that TV ad with Latham’s name written with the yellow and black “L”-plate. If that happened in any area outside politics, the instigator would be sued into the ground.

Anyway, I think it was Bismarck who said (paraphrasing) that people deserve whatever government they have.

hehe… Yeah! Australia is in better hands!!! :)

I prefer an Australian government (Libs) that maintains traditional conservative values and doesn’t run our economy into the ground.

Too bad for the tree hugging left Australia begin.

I don’t believe it… my Red Commie Propganda website is this? :)

This is comment box keeps cutting up my sentences.

Weird.

Too bad for the tree hugging left Australia begin.

left wing whingers out there

you’ll just have to get a job, keep off drugs, and stay in the closet for the next fe Australia begin!

fe Australia begin!

Well you’ve convinced me Tuggles

Funny, the Liberal backer on this thread is rambling incoherently… This isn’t IRC, you don’t have to hit the submit button every time you write a sentence.

Hm, there was I thinking “11 comments! Wow, this’ll be an interesting read!” …. but …. nnno. ;p

This comments box is busted. It won’t allow me to write any sentences with W’s.

Silly gay commie censorship. :)

Ha! Tuggles’ last comment is funny on so many levels. (Well, maybe 2 levels)

“Can you say the letter K?”

I’m yet again confused by Australians and Australian political terms. I see Liberal, Democrat, Coalition, Labor, and I really don’t know a bit of what the bloody hell is being talked about. Would someone mind explaining to me, according to the traditional line of political ideals (extreme left being communist, left being liberal-minded, center being moderate, right being conservative-minded and extreme right being anarchist) where all these terms sit? The only thing that makes sense about it all is the spelling of Labor. (The other spellings inherently make sense.)

I’ve never studied political ideologies at school or elsewhere, but the way I see it – In Australia, the current Liberal Government is anything but that, being one of the most conservative leaderships in years. Labor is the other major party, and historically has appealed to the working class but these days is sort of your John Kerry type party in that noone really knows what they stand for. They campaigned on a platform of health and education and would be considered more left-of centre.

The Coalition refers to the joint effort between the Liberals and the Nationals (don’t ask what they stand for, I think its a rural thing) in gathering the primary vote (Lib V Lab), and the Democrats, well who the hell knows what they’re all about. (Originally they pitched themselves as the alternative to the major parties and claimed they’d go in and “keep the bastards honest”, but in recent times they’ve completely fallen apart and other parties such as the greens and more recently, family first have risen as more popular alternatives to the Libs and Labor.)

Teldak, my quick and dirty view, although Pete has mostly addressed your question already.

Labor is equivalent to the Democrats. They are to the left on the political spectrum compared to the Coalition, which is equivalent to the Republicans. The Coalition comprises two parties which are allied, and combined form the government. These two parties are the Liberal and National parties. The Liberal party is much larger than the National Party, with the latter mainly focused on regional electorates (ie, rural seats). Interestingly in this year’s election, the Liberals have won more seats than Labor, even without help from the Nationals.

Then we come to the minor parties, which tend not to play a part in the lower house (House of Reps). The lower house is the powerbase because most legislation originates from there (especially the Federal Budget, which if I remember my Constitutional Law properly, must begin in the lower house), among other reasons. The minor parties normally play a role in the upper house (Senate). The Senate is mainly a house of review, giving legislation the go-ahead or a veto.

The government always is the party with the majority of seats in the lower house. However, very very rarely (and this has only happened once before this year), the government will also have a majority in the Senate. This means that the government can basically make any laws it wants to. In normal circumstances however, the “balance of power” will be held by minor parties in the Senate. It is in this position where they can exert much more influence than you’d expect from such small parties – they can engage in deal brokering to push their policies through in exchange for supporting legislation the government wants to get passed through by the Senate. Historically, the minor party which has held the balance of power has been the Democrats (hence the motto, “keeping the bastards honest”, the bastards being the two major parties – Labor and Liberal). Unfortunately, the Democrats through a variety of political disasters (drunken, sexist senators, leadership fiascos, compromising their values) have vanished, along with One Nation. The Greens, which are pretty far left on the political spectrum, have instead filled the gap. A new party, Family First, a conservative party (most associated with its Christian support base) also has entered the political arena with impact.

What I find interesting, is how the Liberals have traditionally been popular with the older, richer, conservative demographic in areas North of the Harbour Bridge. Their reach has extended into the suburbs I suppose with the mortgage belt extending to more and more people in Sydney. But still, Liberals, (generally speaking) tend to come from the more well-off socio-economic regions. Howard has also successfully tapped in to this conservative, almost fundamentalist Christian base that leans strongly to the right.

Whilst the US Democrats appeal to the left-leaning, intellectual elites – a group almost certainly more affluent than their Republican counterparts concentrated in the South. But, I see the Republican party appeals to exactly the same type of voter – Religious, conservative, patriotic, except they’re not rich.

Now these two situations seem in contrast. My only explanation is again the Economic issue. Both parties (Howard’s Liberals and Bush’s Republicans) have campaigned on a platform of fear. Howard playing the interest rates card, and Bush playing the National Security card. Kerry’s supporters have not been taken in by the War on Terror and believe (correctly IMO) that there’s more to fighting fundamentalism than simply striking first and having the largest weaponry.

Howard has the upper-hand in National Security here as well, simply because he knows Dubya better. The reason Howard won the election? There are simply too many families out there with a hell of a lot of neound wealth tied up in their mortgage. Howard claimed he could protect them, and Latham’s offerings simply weren’t enticing enough.

That these two campaign platforms were based on lies is irrelevant. Whoever said Politics was about the truth?