Why did John Howard loose?

Question

Sometimes things just seemed so hard to understand.

John Howard seemed to be doing well in his office. The Australian economy is doing well. More people are employed. He also seemed to have a lot of suppporters.

Yet, he can loose the election. In fact, he not only lost the grip of government, he also lost his constituent seat. People just do not seem to want him.

Why?

You mean he had opponents all along?

Answer 1

Where do I start?
After eleven years Australians had had enough of Howard and co and their disregard for decency.

The list of their transgretions is long- 'Children Overboard', sending us to war based on a lie, the AWB scandal, Workchoices.....

In the past, he has managed to overcome these with help from external factors.

In 2001, the combination of the Tampa incident and 9/11 were more than any opposition could compete with. Don't forget that prior to the Tampa, Labor had won every state election in a landslide that year, and the polls looked like they did all through 2007 (like the ALP were a show-in).

In 2004, Mark Latham was simply unelectable. Take note that many of the seats that Labor picked up on Saturday were as a result of reversing the losses from 2004.

This time around there was no security crisis to hide behind, and the ALP offered a credible alternative. People were able to unleash their fury that had built up over the years, and so they did.

Workchoices was a central theme throughout the campaign. Workchoices is a mean and nasty policy, that was brought in WITHOUT taking it to the people first. Had he announced before the 2004 election what he was going to do, Latham or no Latham he would have lost!

Also, the Liberal's campaign had only two messages.

One- that the ALP were 'inexperienced'. By definition, ALL Opposition Leaders are 'inexperienced'. To take their arguement to its logical conculsion would mean that the government would never change and we could become a one-party state.

Their second point was that, shock horror, a significant number of ALP MP's and candidates were members of Trade Unions. That is like pointing out that people from teh Greens support Greenpeace.

For sometime the ALP has been criticesed for being too much like the Liberal party. The combination of the Liberal campaign about the ALP links to the union movement and Workchoices, reminded people of the ALP's core values and emphasised the main point of difference between them.

At the same time, only the ALP were offering anything like actual policies of what it was going to do over teh next three years. The Liberals could only talk about the past.

Answer 2

Watson, it's really elementry!

1. Workchoices! It was an extremely radical change that th Labor easily pounced upon and slaughtered.

2. Peter Costello. Most people knew they were voting for him, not Howard. And there's something about him that people don't like. I think it's because of that smirk, thin lips and beady eyes. He just looks shifty, and there's not a damn thing he or the Liberals can do about it.

3. Kevin Rudd. He made a connection with the youth and "working families" (he loved to say that a lot!) He made it seemed like he cared for the future and shared the same pain as "working families". John Howard couldn't make that connection as well, and Costello is very disconnected from the average Australian.

4. Boundry shifts. Bennelong moved since last election, into a heavily populated Asian community (35% of Bennelong voters are Asian or of Asian decent). I bet he wishes he didn't have a racist attitude in the 2001 election, and that Rudd didn't speak Chinese! Howard's connection with immigrants is shaky at best.

If Howard picked a different successor, they might have had a chance. And If workchoices wasn't as radical, he might have won. And if he also took some action on climate change earlier, then he would have had it in the bag!

Answer 3

The economy may be growing. But life has become more pressured in the workplace because of WorkChoices.

I guess the people in Australia want a life, not quite the economy. It makes no sense to have a strong economy, but with interest rates going up and your own job under the mercy of your employer.

I guess many people prefer to pay 20% income tax and have their jobs secured and assured, rather than having lower taxes and an uncertain job future.

Answer 4

I'm not really a political person, I think they're all full of ****. One of the big things against the Libs was that Howards was going to retire and no one liked the replacement. Rudd was the more popular leader.

Answer 5

1. WorkChoices. WorkChoices. WorkChoices, WorkChoices, WorkChoices... could it possibly be made any clearer?
2. A history of contempt for the values of ordinary Australians. You don't need to be a statistician to gauge the level of unpopularity generated by the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the endless brown-nosing to Dubya, the overly punitive Welfare-to-Work reforms (everyone knows _someone_ who is a single mum, or who has a disability); and again, WorkChoices.
3. Howard was an "old fogey" who looked ready to retire but also appeared unwilling/unable to loosen his grip on power. So it was loosened for him.
4. Next in line was Costello - popular as a fart in a spacesuit.
5. Labor finally ditched the last of the major figures in the front bench from the Keating government (Beazley seemed like a nice enough guy - sometimes - but was tainted by the connection, which is why he could never have been PM). They also looked like they had fresh ideas, good ideas, and energy. It was a winning combination.

Answer 6

John Howard lost because he had lost touch with the Australian people. Also for the last 11 years he has been the most devisive prime minister Australia has ever seen, he has constantly lied to the Australian publc, he abused his majority in the senate, he has sucked up to bush. He had turned Australia into a fearful, bitter and devisive society which was becoming consumed by his self-centredness and arrogrance. And lets not forget their race hate pamphlets in the seat of Lindsay.

He throughly deserved his loss. Losing his seat in the parliament couldn't have happened to a nicer a man. For that I say say thanks Maxine.

Labor would have won the election regardless of what they promised, the coalition actually offered more.

So I guess really Australia wanted change. Change for the better. Change where we all can once again be proud say we're Australian.

Bye bye Johniee, bye bye pete, bye alexander, bye bye coaliton.

Answer 7

This is payback to Australia and the libs for the ousting of Whitlam in 1975.

Edit: Did I forget to mention 1996?

To all those contributers who are keeping up the mantra 'been there too long' your going to singing it three yrs from now if we still have elections.

Answer 8

He didn't loose, but he did lose. It's a pity, too. While Canada, Germany, and France are all moving to the right, Australia is moving to the left. (Although down under, maybe the right and left are reversed?)

Answer 9

5.5% swing is not much of a loss.

Its really a sales trick i learnt in telemarketing.
the labour had learn this trick quite well and used it in their campaign.
they focused on all the goodies to the electors - free computers, free faster broadband for all, no more HECS, checking up on petrol fixing, grocery fixing investigation, high groceries prices at the 2 major supermakerts in australia, too bad we only have 2 ... and no competition....and well there's always ALDIS
more money for hospitals, inquiries into why are the waiting queues so long
well ... it seemed like santa's giftbag for all etc...
if the Libs had focused on a simliar WHAT'S IN IT FOR YOU campaign , appealing to our selfish nature, they would've won too.

ps yeah the opponents seemed to appear alot in the papers seems to me

Answer 10

I think because he is retiring and people don't want to vote for someone who is retiring.