Just in case you thought he’d taken something for the prolix:
Mr Beazley appealed for party unity and greater “collegiality”.
Christ on a bike.
You tell us John. Why are you not surprised.
The moment interest rates move upwards Blind Freddie could increase the ALP’s position. That day will come.
Yes – we all remember how 17% interest rates in 1989 helped Andrew Peacock in his second stint as Opposition leader. Or not.
There could be more to it, folks.
BSF, I agree
NG, the opinion polls before the event gave very weak support to Beazley, and his electoral record is scarcely impressive. Nor is there any policy substance that might contribute to some sort of deep-rooted support for him. As regards his status as a unifying force, having resigned the leadership, he proceeded to white-ant his successors in a way that many resent. Why then should his appointment boost Labor’s support?
Perhaps his appointment was just to get the press off the ALPs back and give them a bit of room to breathe. I agree though, if he couldn’t win 1998 he’ll never win.
The Bulletin mag this week has an article discussing the views of Bob Hawke who confidently predicts that Beazley will win the next election on the basis of his intelligence, his knowledge of foreign affairs and sensitivity to the need to establish a commitment to the American Alliance while retaining independence. He also thought that Howard’s current surge in popularity would wane but that Howard was likely to stick around beyond the next election.
He reckons Beazley was a two time winner in doing well for the ALP in the aftermath of Paul keating’s defeat and disfavour. He said he refused to be a nark with respect to past leaders but I guess couldn’t resist putting the boot into Keating.
Things can change quickly in politics — I wouldn’t write Beazley off. He is intelligent and conservative enough to appeal to an electorate fat on economiuc good times.
Household debt servicing levels are at record levels. Much higher than in 1989.
Ross gittins has now confirmeed what Alan Mitchell and Alan wood have written.
The RBA has clearly backgrounded these three as in the past.
This will hit howard hard.
Many of the comments seem to rely on wishful thinking. It is questionable that Labor would be a preferred choice if interest rates rise, particularly taking into account Australian’s collective memory about past high interesting rates under Labor governments. Furthermore, Beazley’s knowledge of foreign affairs would be a plus if Australians were really interested in what is going on beyond our borders, which seems not to be the case.
The immediate future of the ALP is hostage to the business cycle. If and when interest rates drive our over-committed Gen-X mortgage servicers into the swelling ranks of repayment defaulters, then discussions of which party may or may not be the better economic managers will recede into the rarified environs of blogs and plogs.
When the subject is preservation of the sacred Australian quarter-acre, amongst swing voters the desire to punish usually trumps the more austere pleasures of financial analysis.
And we have already lived through a very long cycle of rising asset values.
Contrary to Bob Hawke’s identifaction of Beazley as Australia’s Talleyrand, the best that can be said about Bomber is that he has more nous than that idiot Mark Latham. Beazley is well enough mannered not to fart in the Church of Pax Americana. But as far as Australian voters are concerned, foreign affairs is about a small country a long way away about which we know little.
“if he couldn’t win 1998 he’ll never win.”
With respect, that’s a silly statement. No opposition in Australia should be a credible chance to win after one term, yet Labor under Beazley won the preferred vote.
I’m not a great Beazley fan although I have a strange sort of affection for him, and I’m far from convinced that he’s the best choice at the moment. That being said, we’re at least two and half years away from the next election, so from an electoral point of view it really doesn’t matter all that much.
d
Opposition beauty contests are not worth the paper they are written on, since opps dont win elections…etc.
There is no reason why the ALP cannot win the next election with Beazley as leader. Either the electoral (pendulum), or financial (interest rates), cycle will eventually do Howard in. Beazley just has to take the Mumbles advice: hang around in such a way as to appear a party unifier, take up some moderate (but different) policy positions and appear to be personable. He is, or is capable, of all these things.
if all the above learnedness is true, since when did Australian politics amount to nothing more than musical interest rates
John Quiggin 
Just in case you thought he’d taken something for the prolix:
Mr Beazley appealed for party unity and greater “collegiality”.
Christ on a bike.
You tell us John. Why are you not surprised.
The moment interest rates move upwards Blind Freddie could increase the ALP’s position. That day will come.
Yes – we all remember how 17% interest rates in 1989 helped Andrew Peacock in his second stint as Opposition leader. Or not.
There could be more to it, folks.
BSF, I agree
NG, the opinion polls before the event gave very weak support to Beazley, and his electoral record is scarcely impressive. Nor is there any policy substance that might contribute to some sort of deep-rooted support for him. As regards his status as a unifying force, having resigned the leadership, he proceeded to white-ant his successors in a way that many resent. Why then should his appointment boost Labor’s support?
Perhaps his appointment was just to get the press off the ALPs back and give them a bit of room to breathe. I agree though, if he couldn’t win 1998 he’ll never win.
The Bulletin mag this week has an article discussing the views of Bob Hawke who confidently predicts that Beazley will win the next election on the basis of his intelligence, his knowledge of foreign affairs and sensitivity to the need to establish a commitment to the American Alliance while retaining independence. He also thought that Howard’s current surge in popularity would wane but that Howard was likely to stick around beyond the next election.
He reckons Beazley was a two time winner in doing well for the ALP in the aftermath of Paul keating’s defeat and disfavour. He said he refused to be a nark with respect to past leaders but I guess couldn’t resist putting the boot into Keating.
Things can change quickly in politics — I wouldn’t write Beazley off. He is intelligent and conservative enough to appeal to an electorate fat on economiuc good times.
Household debt servicing levels are at record levels. Much higher than in 1989.
Ross gittins has now confirmeed what Alan Mitchell and Alan wood have written.
The RBA has clearly backgrounded these three as in the past.
This will hit howard hard.
Many of the comments seem to rely on wishful thinking. It is questionable that Labor would be a preferred choice if interest rates rise, particularly taking into account Australian’s collective memory about past high interesting rates under Labor governments. Furthermore, Beazley’s knowledge of foreign affairs would be a plus if Australians were really interested in what is going on beyond our borders, which seems not to be the case.
The immediate future of the ALP is hostage to the business cycle. If and when interest rates drive our over-committed Gen-X mortgage servicers into the swelling ranks of repayment defaulters, then discussions of which party may or may not be the better economic managers will recede into the rarified environs of blogs and plogs.
When the subject is preservation of the sacred Australian quarter-acre, amongst swing voters the desire to punish usually trumps the more austere pleasures of financial analysis.
And we have already lived through a very long cycle of rising asset values.
Contrary to Bob Hawke’s identifaction of Beazley as Australia’s Talleyrand, the best that can be said about Bomber is that he has more nous than that idiot Mark Latham. Beazley is well enough mannered not to fart in the Church of Pax Americana. But as far as Australian voters are concerned, foreign affairs is about a small country a long way away about which we know little.
“if he couldn’t win 1998 he’ll never win.”
With respect, that’s a silly statement. No opposition in Australia should be a credible chance to win after one term, yet Labor under Beazley won the preferred vote.
I’m not a great Beazley fan although I have a strange sort of affection for him, and I’m far from convinced that he’s the best choice at the moment. That being said, we’re at least two and half years away from the next election, so from an electoral point of view it really doesn’t matter all that much.
d
Opposition beauty contests are not worth the paper they are written on, since opps dont win elections…etc.
There is no reason why the ALP cannot win the next election with Beazley as leader. Either the electoral (pendulum), or financial (interest rates), cycle will eventually do Howard in. Beazley just has to take the Mumbles advice: hang around in such a way as to appear a party unifier, take up some moderate (but different) policy positions and appear to be personable. He is, or is capable, of all these things.
if all the above learnedness is true, since when did Australian politics amount to nothing more than musical interest rates