Hi Rem, Indeed, a long time. These days, I only visit occasionally, given all my other commitments. That said, Bennelong is in the heart of new country. Whilst it is less gentrified than it once was, the extent of the momentum shift is not enough to unseat Howard. Rather than having McKew contesting the seat, Labor would have done better to have had a local hero - from the seat, successful (whether in business or in life) and committed to local values. Then, it would have been a fight. Instead, it is the singing, dancing act of McKew versus the 'ies' of the PM. The same factors that compel someone to dislike Howard actually do not compel them to vote for the alternative candidate.
As for the electoral mood, yes the times they're a changin', but at least in 1972 Whitlam had a raft of reforms that clearly set him apart from McMahon. There was recognition of China, withdrawing from Vietnam, cutting tariffs (in the TCF industries), the poverty inquiry (with some of the best research reports ever prepared), the Royal Commission into Government Administration (which modernised the bureaucracy), ending of University Fees, abolition of Death Duties (now hidden within the CGT mists), the RED scheme (started honourably, but screwed up horribly), regional development, the proposals to develop Albury-Wodonga as a strong regional centre, and so it goes on.
Herewith Kevin07, there are no such similarities in policy scope or original thought.
Now, it's true that Whitlam believed himself too much, and was screwed horribly by a lousy front bench (with few exceptions).
Trouble for Rudd is that other than a few potential performers, his front bench reminds me of Whitlam's (much on promise, but lousy on talent).
As for Howard, going from Hero to Zero in 3 years, that is just about right too. And there, the similarities to McMahon trouble me. Instead of getting (keeping) a nationalist PM (Gorton) who could have been one of the best, we got McMahon (one of the worst).
Howard's end, as they say is due to his own making, not because of his failing. The same delusions that engulfed Gough have beset John and, a result, the swing mood has made others annoyed.
Back in 1983, a drover's dog could have won the election.
In 2007, an autocue (talking head) may well win the election.
Howard can only win through stemming the loss in seats (diminished majority).
Rudd can only lose through being adventurous, and his front bench stuffing it up.
But, by saying too little, Rudd actually exposes himself more (not less).
Now, is the time for an adventurous policy to clearly define the differences between the parties, win lose or draw. In that way, Rudd can truly claim the campaign as his own. But if not, he may well still lose it.
As has often been said - love what you say, love what you hear, but its all b****t.
Voters can sometimes be complacent (especially if something else is on), but they are not stupid.
So, signs reminiscent of 1969 (won in the East, lost in the West), but with the momentum of 1972 (it's time), the incompetence of 1975 (Khemlani, Rex Connor, et al), the smugness of 1983 (the Drover's Dog), and the aroogance of 1987 (no Australian child shall be living i poverty by 1990).
That's why it will be so close, and why the mandate won will be so small.
As for the Senate, no change in control, and definitely no control for Labor.
