Post race analysis

No blogging for a while, have been adjusting to life as a domestic demon.

For a rusted on labor voter like myself the election was a bit of a disappointment, though an unsurprising result in the end.

I had thought Latham was travelling OK during the run. He settled well, and the pacifiers seemed to be working.

It seemed that the punters had quite warmed to him, though perhaps blokes more than the women. In fact the punters seemed to have a kinder view of him than those who have known him well for years, or those who have worked with him.

There was no discernable push for a change, nor would you expect there to be in such golden economic times, but I figured we were in it with some kind of a show. Some of us were beginning to eye the $3 plus and say they weren't bad odds in a two horse race.

Sadly, as they straightened up for the run home, the labor mistakes started to come. They started to hang out under pressure. As they tried too hard they started to lose their action.

Let’s look at the mistakes.

Medicare Gold

Punters I talked to liked the idea of doing something for the old, though one bloke wondered why the taxpayer should pick up the bills for Dame Elisabeth Murdoch, but not one of them believed that a Federal Labor government could do anything much about hospital waiting lists, except swap the names on them.

Education

I reckon that was a huge mistake. Taking the money from wealthy schools got cheers from the treacherous bastards in the teacher unions and from some of the party faithful, but it looked petty to the punters. It also worried some of us who are old enough to remember how divisive an issue state aid was, and how damaging to labor. The policy had a hint of sectarianism and the discredited DOGS about it. This was pre-Whitlam labor.

Politically it was also a poor choice. It pleased people whose support we were guaranteed on a two-party preferred basis, but lost some swingers.

Interest Rates and Economics

We are still suffering on this issue because of the Keating legacy.

Following the 1993 election Keating allowed his government to cede the economic authority that the Hawke and early Keating governments had had and we have not yet got it back.

I guess it was partly as a result of the recession, but also because Keating and his office were captured by the Balmain Basketweavers. The very people he had previously publicly despised.

Indeed, in so far as Keating helped cause the recession, it was because he was beginning to think that his views on architecture, music, the arts, aborigines, and history were more important than interest rates, jobs, and economic opportunity.

Gittins from the SMH is right, since 1996 the ALP caucus has not had the guts to be outright opponents of an open economy, which is what I suspect most of them want to be, but nor have they had the sense to understand that it is only by embracing the Hawke legacy and being the party of consumers and competition and economic growth that they are likely to be re-elected to government .

I can recall an impassioned speech that Treasurer Keating, way back before he became Captain Wacky, gave at the San Remo Ballroom. He made exactly this point, and the even more important one, that it was by being a government dedicated to competition and economic growth and jobs that the Hawke government could directly and indirectly do something good for the Australian battlers.

The difficulty is, as pointed out by Loosely in the Sunday Tele, that Labor in government generally adopts rational economic policy but in opposition it feels it has to oppose and is too heavily influenced by the flat-earthers in the union movement and the economic Neanderthals in the Greens.

That problem is compounded by the almost total absence of any Caucus members with experience in the commercial world.

and finally, a near fall in the shadows of the post.

Forests

As with education it pleased people whose support had nowhere else to go, two-party preferred, and lost labor voters and seats, and well, the swingers care about the environment but they aren’t really green, so we got nothing in return.

The finish.

With those sorts of mistakes, that much Keating lead in the saddlebags, I guess we were doomed to wallow home in Howard’s wake. While he was always likely to win it would have been nicer to be finishing strongly, neck stretched for the line, showing promise for the next race.

What to do now, now that we have recovered from the post-race festivities.

I have said this before, but if labor is to win, it must ignore the Howard-haters and the ‘we waz robbed by a lie’ lobby and look at this sensibly.

Oh, that stuff is understandable enough. It is more enticing to say 'we were robbed' than 'we were wrong', but it’s short term. As my brother-in-law used to say, it’s like a kid pissing his pants, it feels warm and satisfying at first, but in no time he’s cold, wet and uncomfortable.

We could begin by giving Howard due respect. He has knocked off three Labor leaders. One might be luck, etc.

Howard’s great strength is that he genuinely likes and respects ordinary Australians. That puts him at odds with many in our party and in the media. Just look at all the commentators and letter writers railing against the idiocy of the general public. Just listen to the same tripe coming from people within the party.

If anyone is going to be able to contribute to the ALP turning this around, their reaction to the loss should be not ‘what idiots the punters are’, but rather, ‘what does the punter see that we do not?’

It seems to me that the punters see a reasonable competent government doing OK in terrific economic times. They reckon Howard has probably told the odd porky, he is a politician after all, but they don’t see him or his government as immoral or bad, or untrustworthy. They don’t love him but they do trust him to do what he thinks is best for the country. They don’t agree with all his choices but reckon on balance that he does OK. They see him as ok, but not great.

Well, was there any good news from the election. Any little thing with which a trainer could placate a disappointed owner on return to scale. You know the thing. We might try him with blinkers; he jumped nicely and settled well; he might need a bit more ground; there’s a race in two weeks which might suit her better.

Well the punters seem to like Mark, though the worry is that those who know him well like him less. Perhaps as the punters get to know him better they might agree.

Anyway, a loss like this gives an opportunity for some renewal. It would be good to see Gillard, and Tanner, and Smith and Rudd and Conroy given a bit more of a run. I suspect a group like that might understand that government can only be won by fighting for the middle ground.

They might understand that government can be finessed from the left only if the cards fall just right. A recession or a bad period for Howard like early 2001.

Time for school pick up.

It truly was easier being a judge than a domestic demon.