Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
Democrats win House, Senate, as Allen concedes Virginia
Democrats have passed the 218 seats for firm (not just projected) control of the House. In the Senate, whether the Democrats have 51 or 50 (if the latter, GOP retain control on casting vote) depends on Virginia, where there may be a recount, which cannot be before November 28. See Tony Phillips' discussion of what this means ... (Even though he didn't predict Rummy falling on his sword).
UPDATE: 'A source close to Allen also told CNN that the senator "has no intention of dragging this out." '
UPDATE: Allen concedes Virginia ...
 |
 |
[ category: ]
 |
| © 2006, Webdiary Pty Ltd |
| Disclaimer: | This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors. Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way, please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary. |
The cat and fiddle and the silver treasury spoon
Marek Bage: “Are you, in fact, agreeing with Ms. Ross that the Reserve Bank of Australia acts independently and beyond the influence of the government of the day? If so, could you please let me know how it is that interest rates rise and fall?
The Reserve Bank acts independently of the Government on monetary policy. That does of course deal with interest rates. This was not always the case and only under the Howard Government has it become the case. Perhaps it could well have saved the economic illiterate Keating from making such a fool of himself if it had always been the case?
Though of course monetary policy is only one branch of the economic policy mix. The other is fiscal policy and this is controlled holus bolus by the government of the day. This indeed does have an effect on interest rates. And is of just as much importance as external factors are.
Interest rates, as Rosyln Ross would suggest, do not just come about due to "good luck".
Funnily enough, if it was due to "good luck" Rosyln would be calling Mark Latham either an idiot or a liar. He did sign an interest rate pledge before the last election, did he not? I recall Beazley signed one as well before his last tilt at the title, though I may be mistaken.
You know, it seems that the only thing a member of the Labor party signs these days is a shady deal with a developer or the like. Perhaps though it is just my perception?
Like herding cats
How is this for a prediction?
Submitted by Jay White on November 6, 2006 - 9:24am.
It is a very real chance the Senate may end up a 50/50 split. With Lieberman a shoe in to win he may well become the deciding Senate factor.
If this occurs, again the Dems have nobody to blame but themselves.
Can hardly wait for the "conspiracy theories"!
Submitted by Angela Ryan on November 14, 2006 - 5:34pm.
Hi Bob, can't write now, but the real "steal' is the Connecticut race. Lieberman "won" it. The devil is in the detail and the vote counting. Can anyone tell what is wrong with the figures (hint, compare to last election stats)?
A reminder that Lieberman ran against one of the wealthiest candidates to run.He split the Democrat and Republican vote in a first past the post system, giving Lieberman the easy victory every man and his dog predicted.
My next prediction is that in the not too distant future we will again hear anti-American rhetoric. With a more pragmatic approach it will be they are not helping spread democracy with boots on the ground etc etc etc.... They will of course again be in bed with the dictators of the world etc etc etc....
The problem with people such as Angela Ryan and Bob Wall is that any one American policy is not the problem. In fact, the problem is not American policy at all, is it?
Out with it!
Angela Ryan: "the real 'steal' is the Connecticut race. Lieberman 'won' it. The devil is in the detail and the vote counting. Can anyone tell what is wrong with the figures (hint, compare to last election stats)?"
What are you saying, Angela? That Lieberman "stole" the Connecticut Senate race? That's a serious allegation. What's your evidence? What exactly is "wrong" with the figures relative to the previous election?
Of course, being the astute analyst of the US political scene that you are, you would be aware that US Senators serve six-year terms. So Lieberman was last re-elected in 2000, when he was also running for the Vice-Presidency.
So why don't you run us through your analysis, Angela? Here are the results of this year's election; I don't have the stats for the 2000 race:
Lieberman got 50% of the vote with 563,725 votes, Ned Lamont, the Democrat candidate, got 40% with 448,077 votes, the Republican candidate, got 10% with 109,329 vote.
I'm not a Connecticut voter, and there some of Lieberman's policies I agree with and others I don't. But I'm trying to figure out precisely how you come to the conclusion that Lieberman "stole" the election. Oh I'm sorry, it's not a conclusion, it's just an insinuation. I must keep that distinction in mind.
"Take it out of petty cash."
G'day Angela, if you can tease so can I. Let us see if anyone follows the leads.
Lieberman sure is getting a lot of attention, now he is talking about caucusing with the GOP if the Dems aren't nice enough to him. Time will tell.
On voting problems, here is an item about e-voting machines.
Got to have a bit of Tom Engelhardt - this time introducing Ira Chernus on new stories.
And so many unknown unknowns. We can but sift through the mass of material and see what makes sense. And wait to see what happens.
To close - here is a compilation of what late night comedians made of the result. Video.
Interest Rates
My understanding is that governments affect interest rates by controlling their expenditure. High spending, either personal or public, can induce inflation. Subsequently the Howard government can keep interest rates artificially low by keeping an excessive surplus, failing to invest in skills and infrastructure and by cutting back on other programs. He can creditably claim that Labor will always have higher interest rates as they are inclined to spend more on investment and social democratic initiatives.
In the long-term however problems on the supply-side of the economy, caused by infrastructure problems and skills shortages, can lead to interest rate rises anyway - which then become harder to rectify, firstly because such initiatives take time and secondly because they require you to spend more.
A bit of witchcraft
Alan, Marek: The point I was seeking to make was, as Will pointed out with more clarity, that the Government does not get to say Yes or No to interest bank rises. No doubt there is intense lobbying and advice but at the end of the day it is a Reserve Bank decision.
I am not sure economists understand economics most of the time but the average person realises that there are many factors involved in economic growth and decline. In reality there's probably as much witchcraft as anything in those who 'read' economic climates and advise upon them.
Certainly Governments can have an impact upon this by their actions but the economy is influenced not merely by what happens globally but by what happens at State and Federal levels and by what happens within society.
When the economy is good all Governments claim it is their doing whether they be ALP or Coalition and when there are problems in the economy the Government of the day starts to point the finger at things like oil prices, bananas, drought and whatever. But you can bet your bottom dollar that if for some reason the economy was purring along then oil, bananas and drought would not get a mention.
Governments don't seem to realise that the average person is smart enough to figure that you can't be responsible for the good stuff and not responsible for the bad stuff.
That's why I say the economy is as much good luck as good management.
The Coalition have had an easy ride on the back of Labor's farsighted economic changes and the China-fuelled mining boom, just to mention two lucky breaks but of course times are a changing and Howard was stupid to suggest that he could keep interest rates low when no Government can ever promise such a thing and know they can achieve it.
The Coalition has done a good job as economic managers but not better overall than the Hawke/keating management and its reforms. They have in fact had an easier time of it because of what they inherited but no-one is saying they have made a mess of it nor that they are completely responsible for the changing economic times.
Interest Rates
Roslyn Ross, now that we have got the Interest Rates thing sorted out, what are you going to do about the corruption in the NSW ALP. In today's SMH we see that Minister Tripoldi is involved in a multi million dollar land scandal. When you read the article you realise that this corruption starts at Council level and up through to State level. It looks as though he is going to be the 4th minister to get the sack in a very short time. Knowing the ALP, I would imagine that the tentacles extend to the Federal level. Frankly, all this makes me feel very uncomfortable should the ALP win at a Federal Election.
Apparently this sort of thing is also going on in WA and Queensland, so what are you going to do about it all?
At least Labor sacks those who should be sacked
Alan: I don't live in NSW so problems in that State Government I would leave to those who do.
There's a long list of scandals including corruption on both sides of the political fence at State and Federal level so the ALP is hardly alone in this instance. I would hope that people take this into account when they vote but clearly they do not.
The Howard Government has of course lowered standards even more and given the amount of lies, deception, and corruption in that paddock you can hardly point the finger at the ALP in NSW.
Remember Peter Reith? Remember the Tampa lies? Remember the Vanstone incompetence? Remember the AWB scandal (and yes, of course the Government bears responsibility)?
Howard doesn't sack anyone for any incompetence or corruption and he does not demand that they take responsibility for it either.
You should be grateful. Labor in NSW is at least sacking those who should be sacked. Howard won't do it!
I would not worry too much. The NSW Labor lot have been in for a long time and that means they are due to be voted out of office. Australians tend to give Governments the shove after a reasonable time.
We've had Liberal State Governments throughout the land and Labor State Governments throughout the land..... it all seems to come out in the wash. We've had Liberal corruption and incompetence and Labor corruption and incompetence. We've also had Liberal competence and accountability and Labor competence and accountability.
What we haven't had, and I could be wrong, is Labor or Coalition in all State Government and at Federal level too. That would be a first. I think Australians are reluctant to paint the country with one brush and I happen to think that has been a factor in Federal elections of late. But who knows? Maybe the lies, immorality, and failures of the Howard Government will see a Labor land. I would expect it to be brief however and would expect to see the Labor dominoes fall at State level after that.
Sackings
Roslyn Ross, what do you mean I can "hardly point the finger at the ALP in NSW". They are the most incompetent and corrupt government this state has had since the days of Robert Askin. Now that they have lost their case in the High Court they have wasted more taxpayers’ money that could have been spent on health and education. They now have to pay the costs and it is going to cost millions, and of course all the other Labor states are going to have to pay as well. It seems that the states were pushed by their real "bosses" Burrows and Combet, who wisely did not waste the ACTU's on this case.
It is interesting to see that the latest poll shows Federal Labor has dropped 4 points. Watch out for a change in the Labor leadership as I imagine Mr. 38% will have dropped as well.
I just hope the unions do not march on the High Court and smash the doors down like they did once at Parliament House, but I am not holding my breath.
When will the penny drop for Roslyn? Never?
Roslyn Ross: So, when I said: "Americans in essence do not ‘elect’ a leader ..." This meant that in the true sense of elect, as in freedom of choice to elect who the people want, Americans do not get it because the system offers them only candidates who have been in essence..... here we got with the quotes again.....'purchased.'
Of the 153 candidates for the 2000 US Senate elections, only 67 were Democrats or Republicans.
There were 24 Independents, and even a couple of Socialist Workers Party candidates.
An Independent got elected to the Senate in this half term election, I believe.
I'm not saying the election funding doesn't confer obvious advantages on the major parties. But there are choices.
I mean, for heaven's sake, Abraham Lincoln was a third party candidate. So, anything's possible.
You keep burbling "Americans in essence do not ‘elect’ a leader " - in between acknowledging that "Of course Americans elect a president".
The penny still hasn't dropped, has it?
I'll point it out to you again.
Under the Westminster system, we don't elect our Prime Minister.
We don't elect party leaders, either. Even the party members don't get a say who leads the Federal Parliamnetary Labor Party, for example.
For decades, we didn't even know who did choose the Labor leader. It was a party secret.
And we don't elect our Head of State.
We don't elect her Vice Regal representation.
And the Australian Republicans don't even want us to elect our President when we eventually get one.
Literally.
So, even allowing for your "not speaking literally" and acrobatic back-flipping in your typical fashion and "contextualising" the slogan of the day sent down to you from Party Headquaters, it is demonstrably absurd to say the the American two party system is somehow less democratic than the Westminster two party system.
Election funding and part donations are a major concern in every democracy.
And the suggestion confronting the UK Labor Party is they do indeed "literally" auction seats in the House of Lords.
Quick off the mark.
G'day Ern, seems the intent of the Democrats is to flush some
pigeons out. Following the previous link of Henry Waxman's intentions,
here is another on what they have in mind.
And.
Even bills next week.
Warrantless wiretapping legislation is in trouble.
The challenge will be to get the mix right on cleaning up the mess without stopping government. Here is a Newsweek article and poll.
Now for a bit of colour - Frank Rich's take on the election.
Karen Kwiatkowski -Rumsfeld's Legacy.
A cautionary item - helping the CIA can get you into trouble.
You never know who will land in the merde for associating with the Bush Administration.
Lieberman, yeah it's a steal in Connecticut
Hi Bob, can't write now, but the real "steal' is the Connecticut race. Lieberman "won" it. The devil is in the detail and the vote counting. Can anyone tell what is wrong with the figures (hint, compare to last election stats)?
Bye
The magic hand of lady luck
Roslyn Ross, that report has more holes in it than swiss cheese. It means absoloutely nothing. For example throughout the late 80's and early 90's the US was almost or in a recession. Whilst during the late 90's the US due to the tech boom was the strongest performing worlds economy.
The fairest way to rate world performance would be to measure the Labor Australian government throughout the 80's and early 90's against economies in Asia. Whilst measuring the Liberal government against the US. They did'nt and there would have been a reason for that.
Roslyn Ross: "In terms of the economy, anyone with only a meagre understanding of economics knows that a healthy economy is as much luck as good management."
I think after that statement we will bypass any future economic discussion.
Is the moon made of cheese too?
Anyhow I am off for a few days so you will get the last say. It is though pointless wasting your propaganda on me in any case. I would advise perhaps your best bet would be to find someone a little more gullible.
And a big hello to you Margo!
"Purchasing" political office
Although I agree that money often has a corrosive effect on politics, this phenomenon is hardly confined to the United States. And it's hardly confined to the Republican Party in the USA. In this year's mid-terms by both parties was similar. In the 2004 presidential election the Democrats slightly outspent the Republicans.
The ludicrous statement "The Americans have one of the most easily corrupted political systems in the Western world and therefore one of the least democratic by extension because what is so often expressed is not the ‘will of the people'..."
This is a statement expressing nothing but profound ignorance of America and its political system. It will surely be a surprise to other Americans who, like myself, just did express our 'will' last week. If someone wants to have a serious discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of American-model democracy, I'm happy to have it, but the discussion would have to move a beyond that sort of simplistic, ill-informed trope to a mature, fact-based analysis.
Slight error
Sorry in the last post I think I mixed up my Phillips. I may have wrote Smiles instead of Lynch.
Margo: Hi Jay. Good to see you're still rocking on at Webdiary.
Oh, Roslyn? You still here?
Roslyn Ross: "The French presidential system is quite different to the American. Power in itself is not the problem if there are adequate checks and balances. And neither does the French system equate with the European. It is a particular system in itself."
Hello, Roslyn. Are you still discussing this topic?
I thought you must have left the room altogether seeing as you didn't respond to my comment at November 10, 2006 - 1:49pm.
Earlier, you were saying, "Americans in essence do not ‘elect’ a leader, they participate in a system where a president ‘buys’ his position. In many ways Americans elect more of a ‘king’ than a president and therein lies the problem."
In fact, of course, the Americans do elect their President through the electoral college system. And his or her term is limited by a Constitutional Ammendment.
It is we who do not elect our head of government.
There is no provision under our Constitution for electing a Prime Minister. He or she is appointed by Cabinet.
In fact, it is theoreticaly possible that a Party could win an election, and the Prime Minister leading the Party could be defeated at the polls in his own electorate and be forced to leave Parliament altogether.
It is not uncommon for minority partes to hold the Premiership - and some Prime Ministers have never had to undergo an election while in office.
Also, it seems to me that since the American Executive Branch is separate from the Legislative Branch, the President is decidedly less powerful in government than would be a Prime Minister under the Westminster System, all things being equal.
Under the Westminster System, merely by controlling the House of Representatives (the legislative branch) one automatically becomes the head of government as Prime Minister.
The English don't even get a vote for their upper house - Lords. They're appointed. In exchange for cash, it seems.
Woud you like to comment on that?
Let me guess...
Buying the job
C. Parsons, you have this way of completely missing the point. You don't get distinctions do you? When a word is put in quotes it means that the word is not used in a literal sense.
So, when I said: "Americans in essence do not ‘elect’ a leader ..."
This meant that in the true sense of elect, as in freedom of choice to elect who the people want, Americans do not get it because the system offers them only candidates who have been in essence..... here we got with the quotes again.....'purchased.'
The distinction is between the literal and the metaphorical.
Of course Americans elect a president. Of course that president is not a king, not in any literal sense. But the point I was making is that in a metaphorical sense they do not truly 'elect' and their president is a sort of 'king.'
What the American system was meant to be and how it functions are two different things.
My point was, and remains, and I will not repeat it, is that in a system where the only people who can stand for president are those who have millions upon millions of dollars behind them then that suggests that those candidates have been 'purchased.'
Americans then get to elect, not necessarily someone they would choose to be president but someone who has been able to purchase the job with either his (or her) money or the money provided by others.
Buying the Job
Labor are very little hope
Roslyn Ross: "History shows that Labor and Coalition governments have performed equally well and equally badly in terms of economic management. A myth has grown up that the Libs are better at economic management when the facts show they are not."
History does not show this. The facts show that Liberals are actually a lot better. In fact this is just something you made up, isn't it?
Roslyn Ross: "The Coalition inherited an economy which had greatly benefited from the brave economic moves instituted by Hawke/Keating."
No they inherited a very average economy racked with high unemployment and high government debt levels. Remember the Beazley black hole? I think it was ten billion or so.
The Hawke/Keating governments instituted moves such as a floating dollar, lower tariff levels and even a move slightly toward workplace agreements. All things supported by the Liberal opposition and common sense moves the Liberals in government would have made.
Funny it is these things the lefties complain most about. The single biggest drops in union membership can be directly attributed to these moves. But lets just skip over all that shall we?
Roslyn Ross: "Take another look at the 21 percent little Johnnie Howard managed to get us to."
Nah, this was under the Fraser government. Fraser being a agrarian socialist and all, did not help. John Howard was a young treasurer with little say on the overall policy. He was given the job because of the disastrous Philip Smiles implosion. The damage had already been done by both Whitlam and Fraser.
Roslyn Ross: "And, if there is an inherent failure in Labor ability to manage economics why was Keating regarded internationally with such respect when he was treasurer?"
He wasn't. He just said things like that talking about himself. Australia in those days was a struggling middling economy. Hardly on the world's radar.
Roslyn Ross: "Why are State Labor governments able to manage very well indeed economically?"
They're not. The only thing just keeping them above disaster is a tax called the GST. Gifted to them by the current Federal Government and not supported by their own Federal party opposition.
I am pretty certain the Labor government in NSW will be gone in the not too distant future. Hopefully they stay. The federal Libs need to win NSW and they could do a lot worse than targeting these total brain dead washouts. Personally I do not care that much for state politics, rates a little higher than council but only just.
The real prize and the real power to make changes is in Canberra.
Roslyn Ross: "Believe away, the rest of the Australian population is beginning to remember the truth."
Yes of course they remember the truth that is why they are not silly enough to vote Labor. The biggest swings Labor can expect are from young mortaged families. Too young to remember how bad interest rates really can be.
Lucky for the Liberals and people such as myself, governments are made by a certain generation of voter. Old enough to remember what a bad time is really like.
Hip hip hooray for the greys.
Report confirms similarity of performance ALP and Coalition
Jay: No, I did not make it up. Some years ago a university study was done comparing Coalition and Labor Governments over the history of Australia and it found that overall, they came out pretty much equal. I have not been able to find that study online but I did find a report by the Australia Institute, 2005, saying similar things.
(Seems to me that is where we are at now aren't we Jay?)
But to continue:
Roslyn Ross: "And, if there is an inherent failure in Labor ability to manage economics why was Keating regarded internationally with such respect when he was treasurer?"
You said: "He wasn't. He just said things like that talking about himself. Australia in those days was a struggling middling economy. Hardly on the world's radar."
What rot. Australia was and is assessed by the OECD on economic performance and Keating most certainly received international praise for his economic reforms.
Roslyn Ross: "Why are State Labor governments able to manage very well indeed economically?"
You said: "They're not. The only thing just keeping them above disaster is a tax called the GST. Gifted to them by the current Federal Government and not supported by their own Federal party opposition."
And why did they keep getting voted back in then before the GST? And, if everything is 'just above disaster level,' why are we seeing State Labor governments solidly re-elected time and again.Again, more rot on your part. Is it really so difficult for you to accept that both of the major parties are equally capable and competent in economic terms? Probably.
You said: "Lucky for the Liberals and people such as myself, governments are made by a certain generation of voter. Old enough to remember what a bad time is really like."
More rot. It was not the 'greys' who got the Liberals in last time and it won't be the 'greys' who keep them in this time.
If you are as old as you suggest you are then perhaps you are having trouble remembering things. Australia has been uniquely fortunate in having had competent Government whether it be Coalition or ALP. Both sides have made mistakes at times but both sides have also made positive changes.
In terms of the economy, anyone with only a meagre understanding of economics knows that a healthy economy is as much luck as good management. The Government does not control the rise and fall of interest rates. It may act in ways which increase the possibility of inflation but the economy does not exist in a vacuum and is affected by the global economy as well. Keating and Hawke did brilliantly given what they inherited and the Coalition has done a reasonable job in managing what they inherited but Treasurers and Governments do not an economy make. Some people may still believe they do but that is only because they are operating upon a basis of ignorance.
There most certainly is a hip-pocket vote but that often arises from a 'don't rock the boat' position rather than an actual belief that Governments can control the economy.
Well, now the boat is rocking decidedly so people will not be afraid to act. Add in the IR legislation and the impact that has had, the unacknowledged diskike of Howard for his dishonesty and immorality; the shame people feel in regard to how Howard and co. have turned us into invaders and occupiers, torturers and persecutors and the things they have done to lower Australia's standing in the world to probably its most base yet ...... and the next election will not be saved by a bunch of grey neanderthals who have forgotten history and are incapable of understanding the modern world.
Hip hip hooray for the greys.
Interest Rates
Roslyn Ross you say "The Government does not control the rise and fall of interest rates". I wish you would tell that to "Loser Beazley" he thinks it is Howard who has pushed up the rates.
You also say "Add in the IR legislation and the impact that has had", What impact? The unions said it was going to cost millions of jobs,talk about dishonesty, and yet the unemployment rate is the lowest for 30 years.
More info please.
Mr. Curran, you said;
Are you, in fact, agreeing with Ms. Ross that the Reserve Bank of Australia acts independantly and beyond the influence of the government of the day? If so, could you please let me know how it is that interest rates rise and fall?
How controls interest rates
Marek Bage asks Alan Curran whether he agrees that "the Reserve Bank of Australia acts independantly [sic] and beyond the influence of the government of the day? If so, could you please let me know how it is that interest rates rise and fall?"
The Reserve Bank of Australia, like other Western central banks (like the US Federal Reserve) is set up to be independent of the government of the day. i.e. "political" pressures on actions such as setting interest rates. (Whether or not any given decision by the RBA is completely free of politics is another debate.) But here in Australia the RBA nominally works to a set of economic targets in its Monetary Policy .
There are indirect links between government policy and interest rates, such as the management of deficit spending. But the RBA policy document notes
The RBA also notes :
Of course many factors are beyond the control of the government and the RBA: global monetary trends, resource prices, etc.
So any politician's promises about interest rates should be taken with an economy-sized grain of salt.
You really think so Michael de Angelos?
Michael de Angelos "Nothing is inevitable though and we live in a unique political climate. I believe it may not happen soon, but US and UK officials and politicians will eventually be tried. Many US and UK government officials resigned before the invasion of Iraq for that very reason, to protect themselves from future prosecution".
In a few years, few will remember and even less care. The political beat moves on and there will be future present troubles to worry about. There will be new friends made and new enemies made. Some of the nations so many here have been so keen to excuse could well become friends and some friends enemies. Different times, different people and different solutions.
No government makes future trouble for themselves by going back into the past. Hence when the GOP was in power the Clinton days were forgotten. Politics is politics and gaining power is the name of the game. The Dems now have some power and they will just as happily be courted by the very interest groups that have courted everyone that has gone before.
This is the stability that makes the US such a great nation. Nobody is going to mess with that. Ideology is just that, it suits a purpose. When that purpose is finished so is the ideology. Hence the ending of the neo con. The US is constantly in the stage of pragmatic reinvention. That is what gives it such an advantage on almost every other place on earth.
That is what makes it great backed up by money, power and influence. These things will not be changing in our lifetime. Beazley if in power will be as friendly with the US (any government) as all that have gone before. It is the smart thing and the only thing.
The Iraq war suited many political purposes. Those purposes are close to the end. When they move on so will everybody else. I assure you the Iraq war will not win Beazley one extra vote, that he cannot already count on. I also assure not one person in political postions will face a trial.
Self interests are ALWAYS put first. The bedrock of the system.
That's debateable
"There will be no war crimes trials against any US government offical."
"1. There has been no war crimes."
Actually there have been war crimes and US soldiers have been charged for them, convicted and jailed. Of course, George W.Bush or an incoming US president can pardon anyone they want and he/she may be bi-partisan in this.
Nothing is inevitable though and we live in a unique political climate. I believe it may not happen soon, but US and UK officials and politicians will eventually be tried. Many US and UK government officials resigned before the invasion of Iraq for that very reason, to protect themselves from future prosecution.
We have seen how 6 years of complete power and control can unravel so soon. Never under-estimate the capacity for those now in power to look for others to blame for failures.
Some cold hard realities
Bob Wall, If you think a Democrat controlled House and Senate can coast along for the next two years picking apart the previous six you are deluded. They were not voted in by the swinging voter to do that. They have been elected to make improvements. Not play politics.
Being in authority is a lot different from sitting around in opposition. Some tough choices have to be made. During those choices some sacred cows are going to have to be slaughtered. The Democrats are not put in this position for a easy ride.
Bush will likely push through his wiretapping laws before years end. Leaving it up to the Democrats to change them next year. Will they? Well we will all have to wait and see. Again for them terrorism will now become a "real issue" and not just a media beatup. One false move on it and they are finished.
The GOP has already begun to rebuild. They would now have their eyes firmly on 2008. The front runners will slowly begin to distance themselves from Bush like all potential Presidents distance themselves from the previous one. An overtly liberal or do nothing backward looking House and Congress would suit them down to the ground.
The 2008 election will not be won or lost on something a bunch of people who are no longer there said and did in 2003. That's American politics I am afraid, always looking to the future and constantly re-inventing the past.
There will be no war crime trials
There will be no war crimes trials against any US government offical.
1. There has been no war crimes.
2. Why would any retired offical want to leave the US anyway? More people are trying to get in than out. The invention of the telephone is a wonderful thing.
3. High standing US officals, retired or not, travel as VIPs. Certain guarantees are given by nations before they enter. I would imagine not arresting them would be one of them.
4. This would be supported by all sides of American politics. The Democrats who will one day be in power in a two party system have no desire to start precedents.
5. The US can enforce this by the use of "soft power". For example if Germany was to arrest certain officals the US could show its displeasure in a number of ways. The checking of certain German company off shore trust and bank accounts. Special consideration when it comes to US "contracts" both public and private. Special considerations when it comes to German citizens gaining work permits and travel visa's etc etc etc......
Not something that bodes well for a western nation undergoing high unemployment.
In the end it is up to the US Congress to make these decisions. They did allow the US to go to war. If they feel they have been mislead they would feel it should be up to them to correct the situation. I think they would not take to kindly to their authority being usurped. I doubt very strongly they would wish to make a precedent that could come back to haunt a future leadership.
People can say something is illegal over and over and over again. It does not make it so and is in fact no more than just an opinion amongst millions.
Let justice be done.
G'day Angela, aren't the new opportunities to bring charges useful? Must make Paraguay more appealing by the day. The list of charges and those they will be lodged against are impressive. New for an even tougher view.
You are right about Kissinger having to take care in making travel plans, some years ago he attended a conference in the UK and three European states asked the UK government to extradite him. It refused.
On the matter of impeachment, there are a number of reasons being provided for why the Dems are saying no. We can but read the various accounts and wonder if there is something more to it. But the response to the online poll is interesting and backs the comments in the DemocracyNow! piece I linked earlier. Perhaps the public pressure, if it grows sufficiently, will cause a rethink.
On the possibility of investigations, Henry Waxman has found an embarrassment of choices.
Lots to do, but with due care and attention.
And here is an example of the recriminations beginning.
Eyes will be very much kept on the ball - and the updates will be found on a certain other thread.
oh really Jay White
Your indignation regarding the nature of charges is admirable but if you really think it's going to send a whole political party down in flames you are mistaken.
No amount of Daily Telegraph style sensationlism -- finding some shocked mum in the same street protectively huddling her kiddies (their usual gutter tactic of identifying some deluded woman and her childen), talking her into exposing herself to the press and then leaving her to ponder why the other kids at school make nasty remarks to her kids -- will destroy a party. One man, yes, but it would take mass corruption of the party to finish it off.
Indeed at the nexy election I'm going to fascinated to see how the prospective NSW AG.
Greg Smith during his Epping campaign defends himself against the charge of giving his mate a two-day warning of an impending police raid. If you don't think the coppers have him in their sights for his muddled excuses and contradictory answers, just wait.
By the very nature of someone having been charged, all media speculation will have to cease very soon if journalists do not want to risk contempt of court charges themselves.
Labor ready to lead? Tell em they're dreaming
Roslyn Ross: "I would advise you not to take any bets on Howard not losing votes on the Iraq war."
Sure I likely will have a bet on the next election. I did quiet well on the last one.
If Aussies were coming home in body bags you may have a point. They're not and you don't. All politics is local. All politics relies on the hip pocket. My opinion on this has never changed no matter how many polls I read.
The Liberals for some reason always rate about two percentage points under in any lead up poll. This tells me that more than one person is saying they are voting Labor whilst secretly doing something else. Many say things publicly just to avoid arguments. The secrets though of the ballot box always speak louder than words.
Roslyn Ross: "But, the hip pocket is now in flames and Howard serves no useful purpose. He will 'burn' at the next election along with his lies."
With unemployment at around 4 and half per cent? And a government kitty full of bucks? Do not delude yourself there is a long way to go just yet. Sure interest has risen successively five times. The rises though equate to a total of one and one quarter per cent. Hardly the large one percentage rises under the previous Labor government.
Labor still has many problems under the surface. They will be exploited closer to election time. The present government also still is well in control of the purse strings and is holding plenty of cash.
I have a feeling many are going to be very pleasantly surprised this time around.
Roslyn Ross: "However, the only consolation is that history will rightly blacken his name and with any luck he, along with Bush and Blair will be up on charges of war crimes."
Whatever, rah, rah, rah!
I really enjoyed the last election night. I am sure I will equally enjoy the next one.
Americans don't like losers
The Arab News editorial does have a point. It says the US vote was not so much a vote against the Iraqi war, or any war but a vote against 'losers.' They point out that Bush enjoyed his highest rating when the war appeared to be going well but Americans don't like losers.
But pragmatic reality aside, whatever the reason, it is still a good outcome.
A public figure has been charged with child sex abuse
Ernest William I am not "new order" anything.
The US Democrats are not going to be running out attempting to win elections for the ALP. This is a simple fact whether you wish to look at it or not.
Jay Somasundaram The trade deal with the US was good for Australia. Australia has a population of 20 million. The US has a population of 250 plus million. It is simple maths. The ALP in office would have signed the deal just as quick. I will put it this way; they will not be looking to get out of it.
Michael de Angelos I have not said anything has been proven against this ALP figure. What I have said is that he has been charged by police. As such it takes this matter a little further on then "just rumour". It puts it well into the public domain and as such it is commented on.
Again "if these allegations are proven correct" the state ALP is finished. People will put up with many things in democracy, they will not though ever accept child abuse. And rightly so.
They certainly would never knowingly either elect a kid fiddler nor those that defend one nor those that would protect one. I would also be surprised if the union members money did not also dry up. Who would want to be associated with such a disgusting group of people?
These allegations are the most serious and disturbing I have ever read relating to a political party. If the same thing was proven correct in the Liberal party I would turn my back on them. It is not so much that a sexual deviate is in their midst, that can happen to any organisation or person unknowingly. It is the allegations that a cover up may have occured that make it so much more sinister.
If this is true you or anyone else can spin it anyway you like. The Australian people though will never accept it. Perhaps when Masters was asking ALP figures about Jones he should have been asking a little closer to home?
you too Jay White ?
Again I point out the time honoured concept that has served us well for hundreds of years: innocent until proven guilty.
Speculating about any case facing court is disgraceful and completely unfair no matter how much it suits your political purpose. The NSW Police Commissioner has called for an end to the spiralling rumours and that's how it should be. I'd say the same for any charged person no matter what political party they belonged to. The criminal events that lead to the jailing of Pauline Hanson (no fan here) were shocking, as was the dreadful case of Diane Fingleton in QLD.
Relax-speculating about what mistakes the US Democrats may do in the future is wishful thnking. They successfully re-organised themselves from the ground up and conducted a brilliant grass roots campaign .The media and the Republicans who chortled over the famous Howard Dean "scream" have egg on their faces today as the man has successful has got his revenge in the most positive fashion. It's all downhill now for the illegal Iraq war proponents and the Neo-con supporters. There will be many sacrificial lambs offered up by the Republicans themselves over the next 2 years and they will go as high up as necessary to present themselves as clean-skins at the next presidential election. Hasta la vista J.Winston.
Visible problems
You are quite right to challenge me, Jay W, my comment on the state of the US were off the cuff. It’s likely that I feel betrayed by the
John Howard wants to stay in the
When America learns to behave it wont matter
The French presidential system is quite different to the American. Power in itself is not the problem if there are adequate checks and balances. And neither does the French system equate with the European. It is a particular system in itself.
The American president has extraordinary powers which, in the best of circumstances are valuable, but in the worst of circumstances, like with a Dubya, are dangerous.
And yes, the whole system is corrupt to a large degree and everyone is 'bought' to some degree and yes, money talks. But the point I was making is that the American presidency, because it is an institution in itself, and one which can act alone, regardless of Congress, if it should choose (taking the cost into account or not) is more of a danger coming out of a process corrupted by money.
The American judicial system is valuable but of course prone to 'stacking' which makes it less valuable given that appointments are for life.
The reality is that it doesn't matter a toss what system the Americans have, nor how corrupt it is, nor how much power their president has, except for one thing:
At this point in history because of its military power and because of its lack of a countweight, for the moment anyway, what the Americans do impacts upon the whole world.
Quite simply America represents the greatest potential for danger to the world which no doubt is why polls consistently show that most people in the world view America, at least under Bush, as a far greater threat than Iran or Kim Jong Il.
Nations which do not possess massive weaponry and which do not make a habit of invading and occupying others and throwing their weight around can be left to their own presidential devices, no matter the power or the corruption.
When America returns to some sort of sanity and sense and realises that it needs the world more than the world needs it, and gets its political house in order, then once more people will no longer care what American presidents do. When America stops pouring trillions into weapons of war and stops dictating to the rest of the world what they are allowed or not allowed to do, then no one will give a toss how flawed or corrupt the American system is.
Quite simply when America learns to behave again it won't matter.
War crimes and other matters.
As a follow up to the DemocracyNow! piece on moves to bring war crimes charges against Rummy, Marjorie Cohn details the offences.
From Time on the German case.
A NYTimes editorial - Bipartisanship on hold.
Paul Krugman - The Geat Revulsion.
The Dems have said No to impeachment but others have started a movement to call for it. This from DemocracyNow! on the issue. Video and transcript.
And MSNBC are running an online poll on the question. Vote to see the results. 87% in favour when I did.
Interesting times ahead.
Interesting times ahead.
G'day Bob. The feeling of "lack of trust in the powers that be" makes it difficult for me to really believe that the "Western" criminals, guilty of crimes against humanity, will ever face the judgement of International law.
I liken that cynicism to the "Bush style" procedures of the Howard government in not only silencing dissent, but adding the penalties of draconian "Sedition Laws" to the possibility of some "sneaky freedom of speech leak" (like Webdiary).
The only sadness I feel regarding the robust "thumping" that the Military/Corporate received in the U.S. is that the Democrats (hopefully like the Labor Party in OZ) have a very difficult road to hoe.
If we look at the rapid and wonderful history of that relatively young Nation - drawing upon the brains and muscles of the disenfranchised from every corner of the world - using the words of UNITY as the slogan for their advancement - how can any educated Australian condone and even encourage the Howard Liberals' dictum of "division"?
We were born and became subjects of the United Kingdom - we had a very short period of the independent "lucky country" - and now we have a government that puts the interests of the "world's bully" before the DUTY OF CARE that even lowest of "voting" nations deserve.
The manipulation of the Howard "New Order" Liberals of the once important word "mandate" is obvious to the reasoning people of Australia. The excuse that "Labor has once done that" is not good enough - is it?
IF they are ALL liars - then let us not condone that hypothesis by doing nothing about it. Logic demands that we dismiss that government - otherwise we are subject to a dictatorship.
The Americans seem to have woken up to the fact that the Military/Corporate Bush Regime has destroyed their "high moral ground" - and the Howard Liberal Government has become the Australian version of the "Quislings of Norway".
There is no truth - just the powers that be.
There will be a change in many U.S. policies.
It is somewhat disingenuous of those who even consider that NOTHING will change now that the US Senate and Congress has changed hands.
That simply defies common sense and reason.
A military/corporate Republican government receives a "thumbs down" mid-term election, in favour of the more anti-war Democrats - because of the former's policy failures and scandals and - nothing will change?
Already the repetitive slogans of George W Bush and John Howard are moderating. No more do they claim to complete "the Course" or "until the job is done" but, they hang on to that jingle "we will not cut and run". Fair dinkum. Who are they kidding.
With this encouraging sign that the Military/Corporate representatives are losing power, and with the fact that Australia's foreign policies are dictated by GW Bush, we may have a bit of similar reality checks on our political radar.
I draw attention to the farewell Speech of Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1961:
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
What a fascinating warning and prediction.
Then came a moderate Democrat President John F Kennedy who was continually attacked by the CIA and the Military/Corporate for his attitude in not aiding the attack on Cuba and for not increasing his military support for the Sth Vietnamese dictator Diem. In fact he was quoted as saying (when the U.S. had only some 12000 advisors in Vietnam), "I don't believe that war can be won. After all it is their war and they will have to settle it".
He also famously spoke of peace at the University of Washington on June 10 1963:
What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children - not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women, not merely peace in our time but peace for all time. (Emphasis added)
He was murdered and the Military/Corporate under Johnson massively increased the troop numbers (and deaths) and made obscene profits from it.
Yes, I see a lot more difference in the two parties of the U.S. than I had previously thought.
And yes, I am sure that there will be slow but significant changes in their foreign policies.
And yes, I hope that Howard's blatant ignoring of the Democrat Party because they did not have the power he sought, may well bring the "pigeons home here to roost". God willing.
Why not impeach? Are we waiting for Rudi to be VP? Bush' easymea
Hi Bob, isn't it ironical America defender of the brave now just defends its war criminals. We know now why the ICC wasn't signed, it would have had jurisdiction to try the lot in the Hague as they weren't tried in their own country. Too bad if they visit and a court case is papered, like a few Israeli leaders and military criminals, and Kissinger I understand, also has to limit his travel. Remember when the Israeli officer was warned not to disembark at Heathrow as the police were waiting to arrest him on war crime charges? Love it if Bush, Cheney, Myers and Rummy had the same problem.
Howard Dean and Pelosi have made some arrangement not to impeach Bush, despite the electorate response to Republican Administration and the overwhelming evidence showing deceit in the lead up to war in Iraq.
Why?
Bit like Beazely ailing to support the demand to investigate the allegations of torture against Habib and Hicks in the Senate.
Why?
Mechanations of politics are murkier than apparent to wee populace methinks.
Memory Lapse
Angela: "Remember when the Israeli officer was warned not to disembark at Heathrow as the police were waiting to arrest him on war crime charges?"
No.
Selective memory
It was quite prominent in the news at the time (September 2005), Geoff. Here's the Guardian report: Israeli evades arrest at Heathrow over army war crime allegations.
An extract:
Here is Melanie Phillips's comment: Britain’s descent into madness (2)It has been a long time since I last posted, and Geoff, I owe you a response to your post of June 5, 2006 - 2:22am on The Repeal of Israel
Rather than revive that thread, I'll reply, briefly, here. I guess any continuation should be there.
My point was simply that the settlements are illegal and should be evacuated. Including the children born there, to their misfortune. Perhaps their parents should have considered that before engaging in their illegal enterprise.
I didn't want to revive the thread, but you said "In any event, Jews will not have the option of staying, in many cases in the place of their birth, as citizens of any new Palestinian state. It will simply be illegal for them to live there. Just as it is in that part of the old British mandate east of the river.". Do you have evidence that Jews will not be allowed to be citizens of a Palestinian state? My extremely brief research indicates that that the prohibition in Jordan is essentially down to the British, so why would it be an issue?
But, of course, it would be. It's down to the baggage that you left out when you wrote "simply because they are Jews". Perhaps it is "simply because they stole our land"? Yes, it goes both ways. I'll condemn the suicide bombers (I'll do it anyway), if you'll condemn reckless and indiscriminate targeting of Palestinians. If you need to think about it, have a look at the stats at B'Tselem.
Are the settlements necessary for "defence reasons"? They do command the heights, where they can take pot-shots at the Palestinians in the valleys. But that would be a role for the military in occupied territory. It might be good military strategy, but if the object is any sort of resolution then it is shit as a political strategy. Maybe the Israelis think that if the maintain an irritant in the West Bank then they will produce a pearl.
Thanks For The Memories
This is way off-topic here, Mark and I cannot open that old thread for some reason so I'll respond to both these issues in separate posts on the Confronting Islam thread which is the closest to relevant current topic.
Soon.
Now the Dems are out to beat Howard, he must be a man of steel
Michael: "By late 2007 if the US Democrats perform correctly John Howard may well have retired before a General Election here."
Are you completely delusional?
What the hell have the US democrats got to do with John Howard. He worked easily enough with the previous Democrat President.
Relations between Australia and the US are strictly nation to nation. Politics has nothing to do with the issue. Australia and their governments, are seen as good friends of the US no matter the political stripe.
John Howard wont lose one vote on the Iraq war. Those that did not believe in Iraq did not vote for him last time and they wont vote for him this time. Those that voted for him have much different issue's on their minds than Iraq.
What the anti Iraq crowd thinks has little political meaning to John Howard.
Howard will burn
Jay: I would advise you not to take any bets on Howard not losing votes on the Iraq war.
The reason he won last time was because the election was not about the Iraq war but about the economy and interest rates, or rather the need to keep interest rates down.
Next time around the election will be about Iraq as well because people no longer need to push that nasty little fact to the back of their minds so they can vote for Howard because he has shown himself yet again to be a liar ..... and this time about the Coalition's ability to keep interest rates low.
Not only will they kick Howard for their economic pain but they will also kick him for the shame which he has brought upon Australia by involving us in this illegal, immoral and unnecessary war.
For the first time in history (and anyone may correct me if I am wrong) to my knowledge, Australia stands as an aggressor. We have taken part in the invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation which made no threat and was no threat. We now stand on the same 'side' as all other aggressors throughout history.
Shame Howard Shame.
Not only that, under John Howard we have sanctioned imprisonment without trial, torture, persecution, betrayal of international law and the human rights convention which we signed and we shoulder responsibility for hundreds of thousands dead and millions maimed.
Shame, Howard Shame.
Australians may be pragmatic but they are not stupid. They voted for Howard because they had one hand on their hip pocket and let's not forget, just about half of Australians were able to face their fears and not vote for Howard.
But, the hip pocket is now in flames and Howard serves no useful purpose. He will 'burn' at the next election along with his lies.
Then again, as others have said, he won't stand at the next election if he thinks he might lose. He will, in his own inimitably immoral way, resign and let others take the consequences.
However, the only consolation is that history will rightly blacken his name and with any luck he, along with Bush and Blair will be up on charges of war crimes.
First Rumsfeld and then the rest.
Who will burn
Roslyn Ross: "But, the hip pocket is now in flames and Howard serves no useful purpose. He will 'burn' at the next election along with his lies".
Now we all know that the current Labor frontbench are not the brightest ones on the block, that’s one of the reasons they have been in Opposition for so long.
However I was wondering which idiot commissioned the billboard about Interest Rates, any normal intelligent person seeing it would immediately think “Hang on, interest rates under Labor hit 17%”. 8% is better than Labor’s 17%.
It makes you wonder what part of the expression “17% Interest Rates” the Labor Party does not understand. If they are not capable of doing the simple math, how are they going to manage the economy.
Before they do a billboard about unemployment, I would remind them that 4.6% (lowest in 30 years) is better than the 11% under Labor.
Do your sums properly
Alan, how convenient of you to ignore the fact that the highest interest rates in Australian history occurred when John Howard was treasurer. Bank rates were 21 percent in 1982 and that was the gift he left to Labor. That and an enormous recession and 11 percent inflation. Labor may have had 18 percent interest rates but they had 1 percent inflation.
In addition, household debt is currently so high that Howard's 8 percent means people are paying out far more of their disposable income on a percentage basis than they were when rates were at 18 percent.
While you keep repeating your mantra Maquarie bank says:
If you are going to do your sums then do them properly. The Coalition inherited an economy which had greatly benefited from the brave economic moves instituted by Hawke/Keating.
History shows that Labor and Coalition governments have performed equally well and equally badly in terms of economic management. A myth has grown up that the Libs are better at economic management when the facts show they are not. Take another look at the 21 percent little Johnnie Howard managed to get us to.
And, if there is an inherent failure in Labor ability to manage economics why was Keating regarded internationally with such respect when he was treasurer? Why are State Labor governments able to manage very well indeed economically?
You don't want to answer these questions because you clearly have a one-eyed view when it comes to politics and you want, need to believe that the Libs make better economic managers.
Believe away, the rest of the Australian population is beginning to remember the truth.
G'day Roslyn.
Your article to which I reply is one of the best I have read in some time.
However, I caution you, Jay Somasundaram, Michael de Angelo and Bob Wall et al, in bothering to answer the majority of feeble Howard apologists like Jay White and Alan Curran.
"It is better to be loved or hated than ignored."
On the Canberra Times HYS we had one of those cuties called "Kym". It became obvious that this person was in fact a government stooge - and we said so. Sure enough the person was outed as an employee of the Howard Government's supposedly silenced Public Service.
I have opined that Kim Beasley is NOT a rabble rouser but a caring and intelligent man. I have learned over the years that, with the introduction of Television, rabble rousers seem to be more appreciated than the person who speaks the simple truth. Of note is the Howard way of throwing his arms around in the Hitleristic mode - even when he is on the Radio - Fair dinkum.
The aggressive and uninformative abuses served by the Howard "snipers" would be more effective on the TV except that they would have to put a face to their unsubstantiated and negative claims.
I thoroughly enjoy the contributions of yourself Roslyn - and many others besides those I have mentioned.
Wedging; division; deception; lies and in particular - diversions - are most of Howard's bag of tricks.
I certainly agree that - the sound battering that the Bush regime has been dealt with is a major event in world history and, the Democrats now have to prove their opposition to the policies of the most destructive government in U.S. history, if only to regain some of the prestige their previous governments have once enjoyed.
Howard's servitude to that corrupt Military/Corporate regime should certainly have price to pay and an effect on the next Federal Election. That is if it remains a major issue against the "paid for comment" media. Their I.O.U's to his corrupt "New Order" Liberal government must be enormous.
Let's keep our eyes, our reasoning and our intelligence on the "ball".
Cheers Ern G.
Apologist
Ernest William, I am not a Howard apologist I just cannot put up with the propaganda put out by Labor and the Unions and of course yourself, as I have said before the Media must have done something terrible to you. Your rants against the Corporate world are pathetic, at least they are providing jobs unlike Combet and his mates.
You say "Howard's way of throwing his arms around in the Hitleristic mode". Funny you have never noticed Kevin Rudd or Sharon Burrows doing the same thing.
By the way your "all time big loser" Beazley would be happy if you spelt his name right.
I do hope the Labor Party is taking heart in what has happened in the USA, at least the American people had opposition candidates they could vote for, we in Australia have very poor choice with Beazley and Co.
Amazing - simply amazing!
Constructive criticism is always worthwhile Jay, but your entries are becoming the "New Order" Liberal attitude of speak louder and the other will not be heard.
Even the tubby and jovial Joe Hockey has transferred that Howard Parliamentary policy to his "debate appearances" on TV. "He who speaks loudest is most heard" so the speaker closes the opposition microphone.
This one of yours is a case in point. You do not debate with the person that you (quite incorrectly) ridicule, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to note the panic in your statements of denial.
Of course Howard has brown-nosed the Bush Administration since the false election of that group in 2000.
Most of us who have been disgusted and even embarrassed by his servitude to the most dangerous Military/Corporate the world has ever seen, pointedly attacked the "Bush Regime" of the U.S. NOT the PEOPLE of the U.S.
And certainly NOT the democrats whose policies are so similar to those of the Australian Labor Party.
I think Jay, that you should look at your own paid for comment media to realise that opinions, which you deny are indeed the facts.
But I will wait until I see what Howard does over the next six months. This person is no man of steel, quite the contrary, he will not contest an election of any kind unless all of the cards are stacked his way.
As when he asked Costello not to contest the leadership of the Liberal Party, he won without trauma. He will only face the next election if he still controls ALL of the media and ALL of the information fed to the voters.
IF Howard even slightly considers that the Liberals could lose - mark me - he will do a Menzies and retire from politics - and the evil that men do will live after him.
So much for that prediction