(This article is taken from the economist, an international paper.. it seems more objective than our media, which is why i think it's a decent read. Incidentally, I still reckon i'll vote for Labor.)
John Howard reconsidered
Australia votes on October 9th. There is no compelling reason for a change.
Three years ago, when Australia last went to the polls, we said it was time for a change. We applauded the achievements of John Howard, during the two three-year terms as prime minister, in maintaining an open and competitive economy and reforming the tax code. But we worried about signs that his reformist zeal had withered. More damningly, we deplored his willingness to pander to Australia's xenophobes by pushing back over-loaded refugee ships from its shores and forching them to deposit their human cargo on the bleak shores of Nauru and Papua New Guinea.
Australia's voters took a different view, awarding Mr Howard a third term and a slightly increased majority. Now he is seeking a fourth, a feat previously accomplished only by Bob Hawke and Sir Robert Menzies. The polls show a result too close to call. Considering the huge domestic unpopularity of the war on Iraq in which Australia has been a valuable participant, that is no mean achievement for Mr Howard. And we must note that, in the run up to this vote, there has been no crass attempt to steal the headlines by harsh treatment of refugees or other vulnerable people.
The reasons Mr Howard looks a better bet than he did last time are only in part a function of the prime minister's qualities. They have at least as much to do with the uncertainties surrounding his charismatic Labor challenger. Mark Latham has the virtues of youth and vigour. He is famous for once having broken the arm of a taxi-driver in an altercation, and his fondness for colourful language is refreshing. But the flip-side of youth is inexperience: Mr Latham has been perty leader for only ten months, and in Parliament for ten years; and he has never held federal office. His tendency to make policy on the fly exasperates his associates and delights his opponents. It was in just such an unguarded moment that he committed a future Labor government to bring Australia's troops home from Iraq.
Iraq convulsed Australia. A clear majority of its citizens believe the war to have been wrong, and demonstrations against it were the largest in the country's history. But Mr Latham's suggestion has not benefited him much. Mr Howard has been able to depict it as "cutting and running"- which is exactly what it is. By pulling out in the face of terror, the governments of Spain and the Phillippines have already sent a terrible message to those who cut off the heads of their victims and post their atrocious videos on the internet. Mr Howard's determination to support the effort in post-war Iraq, even in its darkest moments, is one reason to think the better of him.
The other is the economy, which has continued to defy all expectations. It is now in its 13th consecutive year of growth- and growth in excess of 3% a year at that. Despite a government tendency to indulge in vote-winning give-aways, the budget is still in surplus. Mr Howard is guilty of making rash tax consessions that have encouraged the purchase of property for investment. This has inflated the property-price bubble. But the bubble has yet to burst, and in the meantime Labor has made some disturbing noises about its own economoic plans. In particular, Mr Latham has raised serious concerns about how he would handle Australia's unions. Labor has promised to restore centralised collective bargaining, scrapping the system of individual workplace agreements that were introduced by Mr Howard and have helped to raise productivity. This time round, the case for change is distinctly uncompelling.
John Howard reconsidered
Australia votes on October 9th. There is no compelling reason for a change.
Three years ago, when Australia last went to the polls, we said it was time for a change. We applauded the achievements of John Howard, during the two three-year terms as prime minister, in maintaining an open and competitive economy and reforming the tax code. But we worried about signs that his reformist zeal had withered. More damningly, we deplored his willingness to pander to Australia's xenophobes by pushing back over-loaded refugee ships from its shores and forching them to deposit their human cargo on the bleak shores of Nauru and Papua New Guinea.
Australia's voters took a different view, awarding Mr Howard a third term and a slightly increased majority. Now he is seeking a fourth, a feat previously accomplished only by Bob Hawke and Sir Robert Menzies. The polls show a result too close to call. Considering the huge domestic unpopularity of the war on Iraq in which Australia has been a valuable participant, that is no mean achievement for Mr Howard. And we must note that, in the run up to this vote, there has been no crass attempt to steal the headlines by harsh treatment of refugees or other vulnerable people.
The reasons Mr Howard looks a better bet than he did last time are only in part a function of the prime minister's qualities. They have at least as much to do with the uncertainties surrounding his charismatic Labor challenger. Mark Latham has the virtues of youth and vigour. He is famous for once having broken the arm of a taxi-driver in an altercation, and his fondness for colourful language is refreshing. But the flip-side of youth is inexperience: Mr Latham has been perty leader for only ten months, and in Parliament for ten years; and he has never held federal office. His tendency to make policy on the fly exasperates his associates and delights his opponents. It was in just such an unguarded moment that he committed a future Labor government to bring Australia's troops home from Iraq.
Iraq convulsed Australia. A clear majority of its citizens believe the war to have been wrong, and demonstrations against it were the largest in the country's history. But Mr Latham's suggestion has not benefited him much. Mr Howard has been able to depict it as "cutting and running"- which is exactly what it is. By pulling out in the face of terror, the governments of Spain and the Phillippines have already sent a terrible message to those who cut off the heads of their victims and post their atrocious videos on the internet. Mr Howard's determination to support the effort in post-war Iraq, even in its darkest moments, is one reason to think the better of him.
The other is the economy, which has continued to defy all expectations. It is now in its 13th consecutive year of growth- and growth in excess of 3% a year at that. Despite a government tendency to indulge in vote-winning give-aways, the budget is still in surplus. Mr Howard is guilty of making rash tax consessions that have encouraged the purchase of property for investment. This has inflated the property-price bubble. But the bubble has yet to burst, and in the meantime Labor has made some disturbing noises about its own economoic plans. In particular, Mr Latham has raised serious concerns about how he would handle Australia's unions. Labor has promised to restore centralised collective bargaining, scrapping the system of individual workplace agreements that were introduced by Mr Howard and have helped to raise productivity. This time round, the case for change is distinctly uncompelling.
Last edited:
