Howard loses PM job in Australia (no spam)

[fable]

SYDNEY, Australia — Conservative Prime Minister John Howard suffered a humiliating defeat Saturday at the hands of the left-leaning opposition, whose leader has promised to immediately sign the Kyoto Protocol on global warming and withdraw Australia's combat troops from Iraq. Labor Party head Kevin Rudd's pledges on global warming and Iraq move Australia sharply away from policies that had made Howard one of President Bush's staunchest allies.

Rudd has named global warming as his top priority, and his signing of the Kyoto Protocol will leave the U.S. as the only industrialized country not to have joined it. Rudd said he would withdraw Australia's 550 combat troops from Iraq, leaving twice that number in mostly security roles. Howard had said all the troops will stay as long as needed.

Official figures from the Australian Electoral Commission showed Labor far in front after more than 70 percent of the ballots had been counted _ with 53 percent of the vote compared to 46.7 percent for Howard's coalition. Using those figures, an Australian Broadcasting Corp. analysis showed that Labor would get at least 81 places in the 150-seat lower house of Parliament _ a clear majority. It was an embarrassing end to the career of Howard, Australia's second-longest serving leader.

About time. But then, Howard has played the fear card nearly as well as Bush and about as continuously, preaching about terrorists and vast tidal waves of immigrants destroying the homeland. Good to see it finally failed. That's another Bush ally out of power, and the "grand coalition" in Iraq shrinks still further.

[Curry]

great news

[Ode to a Grasshopper]

Ding, dong, the witch is dead...

Not just lost, but lost in a landslide - the then-Opposition needed 16 seats to win and got twenty, decimated the Liberal (in Australia the main conservative party goes by the nomer the Liberals) Cabinet and wiped out the Nationals (country party, in a coalition with the Libs).
Howard's now the second PM in Australian history to lose his own seat. I've been celebrating for two days, went to a Greens after party and I've never seen so many happy smiles. Even better, the Greens look like holding the balance of power in the Australian Senate (the Lib-Nats have had it for three years, essentially meaning no checks on extremist cons passing whatever they bloody well want to), meaning we'll have some balance again... Wiki's rough summary of the election can be found [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_federal_election%2C_2007"]here[/url], would have dug up some better links but it's been a beautifully dirty campaign and I have some things to do today (will dig up some better links later if anyone's interested, for now the [url="http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/#s2081527"]Australian Broadcasting Commission[/url] will have to do). I do very much suggest checking out the gaffes by Abbott and Garrett, and the pamphlet scandal.

This man has been a bane on Australian society for 11 long years now, and until now gone entirely without comeuppance (he still hasn't conceded Iraq was a mistake, for example), I can't stand Rudd but I'm very happy with this result...

EDIT-sorry for the terrible grammar

[galraen]

Is the Labour party in Oz still real labour? Or have they moved way over to the right like the [expletive deleted] Labour party in the UK. Blair and Brown's mob have moved so far to the right the only socialists they resemble are National Socialists IMHO.

Great news that you got rid of Rudd though.

[fable]

The Australian Labour has a long history of real conservativism. It's not like Blair's Labour, I'll take some of this from the left, some from the right, do what I want, run roughshod over the backbenchers and kiss King George's shoes. No, Howard's been playing it as an ultra-conservative and nationalist. Rather closer to the British National Party.

Sorry, Ode to a Grasshopper. Didn't mean to steal your thunder. If I'm way off base, feel free to tell me I'm full of it. But Blair and Howard, two very different leaders. Howard's a manipulator. Blair is self-driven, a zealot who tries to sell himself over and over. I doubt Howard has an honest belief in his body.

[Vicsun]

edit: I misread fable's post

[Ode to a Grasshopper]

You're pretty much on the mark @Fable, and no worries, there's plenty of thunder to go around right now...When Bush is ousted I'll probably share the same sentiment.
Rudd's the one who got in @ Galraen, not great but an improvement over Howard if only because we don't have the crafty git swanning around the world, ruining our international standing by locking up asylum seekers etc, and boring us all on TV every night. That said, Rudd largely got in by 'me-tooism' and touting his conservative credentials, it's kind of like a lot of the Americans here will feel if/when Hillary gets in.

@Vicsun - Howard did play it ultra-conservative and nationalist, that was his schtick.

For a more entertaining take on the Howard years than the ABC check out [url="http://youtube.com/watch?v=8_zulGddP6o&feature=related"]this Youtube clip[/url].

[fable]

That said, Rudd largely got in by 'me-tooism' and touting his conservative credentials, it's kind of like a lot of the Americans here will feel if/when Hillary gets in.

Exactly so. Clinton has already stated that we'll keep most of the troops in Iraq "to help stabilize the country," that she'll "think about" returning "some of the powers" stolen by the executive branch of government during the least 7 years, and that she'll "lead from the center," which is a DC buzzphrase meaning do exactly what the Republicans want. Right now, there are mutterings in the activist Democratic camp towards fielding a third party candidate if Clinton gets the nomination, but we'll see. Hopefully, it won't keep the Dems from realizing she's a hell of a lot better than what we've had. She's just got a team of idiots determining her running strategy.

For a more entertaining take on the Howard years than the ABC check out [url="http://youtube.com/watch?v=8_zulGddP6o&feature=related"]this Youtube clip[/url].

That was a riot. Some of the references went far over my head, but a fair number of them have been covered by the BBC over the years, which loves airing the dirty bits about Australian government just as they the USian one.

Hey, maybe Rudd will get rid of the monarchy, which I hear he opposes. Just as we've coronated our own.

[galraen]

Apologies for getting Howard and Rudd confused, I've got to stop making posts in the wee small hours when I'm asleep at the wheel.

It's not like Blair's Labour, I'll take some of this from the left, some from the right

He took something from the left??? Darn, when did that happen, I missed it.

[fable]

Mother Jones has an interesting piece on Howard (by the very fine cartoonist, Tom Tomorrow) that focuses on the late PM's brazen lies over Iraq. You can read it here. Rather a different take on Howard, and hopefully the cornerstone that will form his monument of memory.

[Ode to a Grasshopper]

Rudd's indicated no Republic referendum in his first term, though I'd say he's going to be pretty busy anyway...What's interesting is that Malcolm Turnbull, the most likely successor to Howard (now that the deputy Peter Costello has seen which way the winds are blowing and wisely stepped down from the leadership), is well in favour of a Republic. Howard's a rampant Monarchist and managed to sabotage the last referendum we had on the subject, but if we're lucky we just might be getting another one (and with a viable model this time) within the next ten years or so...fingers crossed.

I doubt history will be kind to 'Honest John' (my favourite comment came after he introduced a GST after making a 'non-core promise' never to do so: "Never ever didn't mean never ever."), he'll come somewhere between Tony Blair and George Bush IMO. Quite fitting, all things considered. Rudd is a Mandarin speaker and former diplomat to China, so I think we might be getting a new international 'best friend' over the next few years.

[fable]

Rudd's indicated no Republic referendum in his first term, though I'd say he's going to be pretty busy anyway...What's interesting is that Malcolm Turnbull, the most likely successor to Howard (now that the deputy Peter Costello has seen which way the winds are blowing and wisely stepped down from the leadership), is well in favour of a Republic. Howard's a rampant Monarchist and managed to sabotage the last referendum we had on the subject, but if we're lucky we just might be getting another one (and with a viable model this time) within the next ten years or so...fingers crossed.

Too bad. Not because of the missed opportunity to become a republic, but because of the missed opportunity for a supposedly democratic society to decide such matters themselves. One of the things that has always made me sneer at federalized democracies is the extent to which rulers take control away from the ruled on issues that couldn't possibly require federal interference. Why should Howard and a small group of elderly white nationalistic corporate men decide this question instead of all Australians?

I doubt history will be kind to 'Honest John' (my favourite comment came after he introduced a GST after making a 'non-core promise' never to do so: "Never ever didn't mean never ever."), he'll come somewhere between Tony Blair and George Bush IMO. Quite fitting, all things considered. Rudd is a Mandarin speaker and former diplomat to China, so I think we might be getting a new international 'best friend' over the next few years.

The Serious Papers in the US are telling us all not to worry, that Rudd is actually very conservative, and will not change anything. This is because they're owned by any of three extremely conservative monopolistic media chains, the biggest of which is in turn ruled with an iron fist by Rupert Murdoch. So in their world, the US is an extremely conservative nation, despite the fact that poll after poll (and the 2006 election) shows USians want Kyoto, despise Bush, want out of Iraq, desire immediate cleanup in government, a restoration of laws, etc.

Now the mainstream political blogging world has been very glad over here to see Rudd's election. Nobody expects him to drop trou for the Chinese head of state, but if he wants to cosy up to them, why not? The best thing that ever happened to China was Dubya. His administration has so mismanaged financial policy that China could basically pull the plug on the US anytime it felt like itby selling off US assets it has bought in the nation-load since The Great Iraqi Debacle began. (Not to mention the tax breaks to the wealthiest USians.) China of course won't do this, but merely having that kind of possible control gives them incredible clout on the international markets.

In any case, best of luck with Rudd. Please let us know how his next month or two goes. I imagine he'll want to differentiate himself very quickly from Howard.

[galraen]

Too bad. Not because of the missed opportunity to become a republic, but because of the missed opportunity for a supposedly democratic society to decide such matters themselves.

Er, the democratic society did decide such matters themselves. As was stated they had a referendum on the issue, which the monarchists won. As happens in such things, the losers(in this case the republicans) then start whingeing about how the questions were worded etc..

I used to be a republican myself, until it dawned on me that we would be exchanging a powerless figurehead for a self interested politician. Given a choice between Thin Lizzy (not so thin these days of course ) or the likes of Reagan or Bush, it's a no brainer really.

[fable]

Er, the democratic society did decide such matters themselves. As was stated they had a referendum on the issue, which the monarchists won. As happens in such things, the losers(in this case the republicans) then start whingeing about how the questions were worded etc..

My admittedly limited understanding of the issue is similar to that of Ode-to-Grasshopper's, above. Howard set aside only a two-week period for the constitutional convention to come up with an alternative form of republic. It goes without saying that 2 weeks was insufficient for a question like this, and Howard is far too smart a man and experienced a politician to believe otherwise. I can only conclude that since he was a dedicated monarchist, Howard thought it was a very good way to sabotage the referendum. It can be argued that Australian voters rejected, not the idea of a republic, but the only forms of a republic that was presented on the ballot.

I used to be a republican myself, until it dawned on me that we would be exchanging a powerless figurehead for a self interested politician.

But don't you already have both a powerless figurehead, and a self-interested politician at the top of government? In which case, as a republic, you only lose the figurehead. As I see it, in any case. With admittedly no time spent in your fair land.

[galraen]

Don't get me wrong, I actually sympathise with those in Oz who want to sever what is effectively their last tie with the UK. However, to argue that the commision had only two weeks to come up with an alternative is somewhat obtuse of the republicans. I'm pretty sure if you, Ode and I got together for two weeks we could come up with a very workable option. The real truth is (IMO) that there were still too many 'old school' types alive at the time of the referendum for it to get through. A republic will come in time I've no doubt. The increasing number of non-Anglo Australians will ensure that, as well as the old brigade passing on.

The difference between a Prime-Minister and a President is mainly techincal I admit, but the fact that the Queen is the head of the armed forces, and it's to her that they swear allegiance can make a difference. She can't start what is effectively a war, or over-ride Paraliament in the same way as a President could. She can disolve Parliament and call a general election, as her Governor General did in Oz not long ago, but it's a one shot weapon. I believe the rules were changed subsequently to prevent that happening again in Australia. One of the reasons I though it was a massive blunder at the time, was that the so-called 'crisis' simply didn't warrant wasting the one shot.

Some (if not a lot) of the opposition to the monarchy in Oz, is that it's foreign, fair point, but she's hardly English either; Scottish mother, and her paternal forebears were German, Greek, Russian etc, anything but English. In fact one could argue that there hasn't been an English monarch since the Welsh defeated the English at Bosworth and put a Welshman on England's throne (Henry Tyder, aka Henry VII). :laugh:

[fable]

Don't get me wrong, I actually sympathise with those in Oz who want to sever what is effectively their last tie with the UK. However, to argue that the commision had only two weeks to come up with an alternative is somewhat obtuse of the republicans. I'm pretty sure if you, Ode and I got together for two weeks we could come up with a very workable option.

And we'd probably enjoy ourselves tremendously in the process. But the Constitutional Convention in Australia included 152 delegates, half of which were government-appointed, with many factions represented. Two weeks for that size of an assembly, with half of them hand-picked by Howard's friends? I think 6 months might have seen something. Possibly. There was absolutely no need for the rush, as Howard well knew. I can't see how accusations of sabotage on his part can be effectively parried.

The difference between a Prime-Minister and a President is mainly techincal I admit, but the fact that the Queen is the head of the armed forces, and it's to her that they swear allegiance can make a difference. She can't start what is effectively a war, or over-ride Paraliament in the same way as a President could. She can disolve Parliament and call a general election, as her Governor General did in Oz not long ago, but it's a one shot weapon. I believe the rules were changed subsequently to prevent that happening again in Australia.

That's a good point, but remember: I come from the land of It Can't Happen Here. And it has. A series of clear statements in the founding structural document for government have simply been ignored or subverted by one branch of government with the connivance of members appointed by it to a second branch, and with members in the third branch unable or unwilling to mount an effective challenge. As pessimistic as I am about USian politics, 8 years ago I would never have imagined Bush could have destroyed as much of the nation's historical governmental principles and architecture as he has. A system of checks and balances with a guaranteed list of freedoms is only as good as the diversity of opinion and integrity within that government.

Some (if not a lot) of the opposition to the monarchy in Oz, is that it's foreign, fair point, but she's hardly English either; Scottish mother, and her paternal forebears were German, Greek, Russian etc, anything but English. In fact one could argue that there hasn't been an English monarch since the Welsh defeated the English at Bosworth and put a Welshman on England's throne (Henry Tyder, aka Henry VII). :laugh:

Monarchies are inherently smelly things, in my opinion, because they grant some power--whether considerable or minor--to someone who was never elected. I believe in strict accountability, and there's none of that from even the best monarchs, by the nature of the governmental form, itself.

[galraen]

And I come from a land where 'It could only happen in America'.:laugh:

Accountability is to be greatly desired, unfortunately in most (if not all) our fake democracies, accountability is completely illusional. We've seen far too many cases in this country of politicians getting away with murder, 'The buck stops here' concept died with Harry S unfortunately.

[fable]

Interesting article on the fallout from the election for the Liberal (read: Conservative) party, here. We're getting some of that, too, in the US, but in our case it's rats deserting a sinking ship, after having become very fat and sleek over the years. Some are going while they can, some are denouncing Bush in advance so they can abandon the party that now means corruption, big government, wars, financial irresponsibility, trampling rights, torture, and incompetence--instead of their traditional stance of small government, anti-war, pragmatism, support for small business.

[Ode to a Grasshopper]

The referendum was a great big con-job...

The main reason IMO that the Republic referendum failed is due to the lack of popular choice in the model put forward, whereby the ruling party in Parliament got to choose - and sack - the President without any direct input from 'the people'. This, I believe, was a deliberate ploy set up by an avowed monarchist with a 'victory at any cost' mentality and a long history of ignoring the 'will of the electorate' save when it suited him (or when he was facing sure-fire electoral oblivion). Even nowadays most Aussies want an Aussie head of state, just not one appointed and solely accountable to the Government. We want a head of state elected by the people, which atm we do not have (the PM is selected by dominant political party, and governor-generals are appointed by the PM).
The short time allowed for deliberation is only part of it (and pretty typical of Howard's underhanded MO): the point of the exercise (especially the high level of handpicked appointees) was to come up with a widely unacceptable model so the referendum would fail, which it did. Then, of course, the issue fell by the wayside because hey, we already had a referendum and the people voted no. When even the Republican movement is saying to vote 'no' to becoming a republic then something suss is going on...

[galraen]

Tell ya what Ode to a Grasshopper, how about we trade you Prince Harry for Brett Lee, then you can inbreed you own monarchy.:laugh: