This drinking game is easy. Tune in to the ABC on election night and drink when any of the following are said:

• Bellwether
• Small booths
• Redistribution
• Pendulum
• Eden Monaro
• Early returns
• Quietly confident
• The Australian people
• Notionally
• Large booths
• The door’s still open
• Too close to call
• Lindsay
• We’ll know more shortly
• Vindication
• Scrutineers
• Factional Warlords

If you really want to get smashed include the following:

• Swing
• Preferences
• Balance of Power

The advanced section for seasoned gamers is as follows:

• Two drinks whenever Antony Green has bought up the wrong slide.
• Two drinks for a cross to the tally room.
• Two drinks whenever Kerry chuckles after interviewing a losing candidate.
• Three drinks whenever Antony says that the computer is wrong.
• Three drinks whenever someone seen as a ‘future leader of the party’ loses. (This does not apply to Peter Dutton, no-one seriously believes he could lead a Shetland pony)
• Three drinks whenever a Politician on the panel refuses to concede a seat that their side has obviously lost.
• Three drinks if you can get a tweet read out on air

And for the truly committed ALP and Greens supporters:

• Scotch and razor blades if you hear the phrase “Tony Abbott is our new Prime Minister”.

Last night, watching the Hawke bio-pic, the difference between Rudd and Keating was crystalised for me in two moments, their respective victory speeches after winning an election. Both Keating and Rudd’s victories were impressive for different reasons, but after 11 years in the wilderness it’s not hyperbole to say that Labor supporters were absolutely desperate for their 2007 win and so had enormous expectations for Kevin Rudd.

This is what he gave them.

And there was another 15 minutes or so that you can search out if you like. I remember how ecstatic I was when Howard conceded, how thrilled I was to hear what Rudd would have to say, and how flat I felt after he delivered a pretty mediocre speech. Which is not to say he couldn’t deliver a great speech, the apology to the Stolen Generations gave me shivers, but on the night that he defeated Howard I wanted more than dull platitudes.

Compare that to the brilliance of Paul Keating speaking after beating John Hewson.

It’s hard to pick a favourite part from that speech, but I find the overall tenor, his belief in the people of Australia, inspiring.

And to the Australian people, through hard times, it makes their act of faith all that much greater. It’ll be a long time before an opposition party tries to divide this country again. It’ll be a long time before somebody tries to put one group of Australians over here and another group over there. The public, the public of Australia, are too decent, too conscientious and they’re too interested in their country to wear those sorts of things. This, I think, has very much been a victory of Australian values, because it was Australian values on the line and the Liberal party wanted to change Australia from the country it’s become: a cooperative, decent, nice place to live where people have regard for one another.

I think that for Keating it was about more than winning, it was about a vision for a more egalitarian and proud Australia. I wish that Kevin Rudd or Julia Gillard could inspire such passion for our nation, we are all poorer for the anodyne, vacillating, focus group tested blandness that passes for political discourse from all of our major parties these days.

We miss you Paul.

(Hat tip to @cooo_ee who found the Keating audio and transcript for me.)

Oh sure, it must have felt wonderful for the last couple of years having Heather Ridout nodding on cue every time that the PM made an announcement, and I have no doubt that you all loved reading her press releases that contradicted the opposition as they were busy behaving like a bunch of injured seagulls fighting over a chip as they attempted to decide on a leader, but you should have known it couldn’t last forever. As soon as you introduced policies that might harm the bottom line of corporate Australia they showed you where they stood, and it wasn’t by your side.

The naivety displayed by Rudd and Swan was almost touching as they put together a policy which not only improved the way the Australian people are compensated for the mineral wealth that our nation holds, but also had some very positive changes for the broader business community. The ALP knew they would face a fight with the big miners, but did they really believe that they’d receive support or plaudits from the rest of the business community? Did Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan really believe that small mining companies, who received some incredibly generous terms from the RSPT, would defend the new policy and risk upsetting the larger miners who they will one day hope to attract as joint venture partners or sell out to?

The stark reality is that corporate Australia doesn’t like the ALP. They’ll tolerate a Labor government and they’ll even cozy up to it while the Liberals are going through one of their periods of opposition induced self immolation, but it never lasts. Did the whiz kids running the ALP machine believe that all of the donations before the 2007 election were a sign that the business community were looking to forge a new partnership with the ALP? They should have known better if they did, the corporate world knows which side its bread is buttered on and was just hoping to play nice in the hope of not having to face any real reform.

Rudd has been criticised, especially in the wake of today’s agreement, for being too confrontational with the mining companies, I say that’s bollocks. If anything Rudd wasn’t confrontational enough. If the RSPT had been a basic 40% tax on profits beyond the bond rate, with no sweeteners at all, today’s deal may have ended up looking like the original Rudd proposal. There’s no point for the ALP to try to play nice with corporate Australia because their efforts will never be appreciated and they will never receive any support when the going gets tough. If you want proof of that you need look no further than the gaggle of industry groups who today came out whinging about elements of the reform policy which have had to be scrapped to allow the miners to have their way. Not one of these organisations has been heard from supporting the RSPT, they sat on the sidelines rather than helping to secure something in their own interest, and now they bleat about the fact that they’re not getting all that they thought that they would.

The question that needs to be asked is whether Prime Minister Gillard and her cabinet will learn this lesson? The ALP need to start behaving like a real Labour government and place the good of ordinary citizens first, because it’s become brutally clear that the corporate sector will not lift a finger to support this government. What makes the whole affair even more disappointing is that the government already had a template about how to deal with big business in the shape of Stephen Conroy. The way that Conroy effectively sidelined Telstra via the National Broadband Network was brilliant, he played hardball and looks to be on track to achieve the reform of Telstra that is so sorely needed. Compare that to the antics of Sol Trujilo and Phil Burgess when dealing with the previous government and you realise how effective Conroy has been.

This same lesson is playing out again with News Limited. The News Limited tabloids tentatively jumped on the Kevin 07 bandwagon because they don’t like backing a loser, but the honeymoon lasted until about December 2007 before they started going feral. The ALP needs to treat News Limited like the hostile organisation that it is and deny it the sort of access, and government advertising, that it craves.

It’s time for the ALP to remember its roots, to sell their policies based on what they will do for the Australian people, and prepare for the onslaught from self interested lobby groups who will never be truly satisfied while we have a Labor government. It’s time for the ALP to remember who its friends are.

“For the last time Chris, you’re not the only one here who can wear a lilac tie”

Because of this, I’d urge all of you to go to the Australian Marriage Equality website and fill out an online submission to the Senate Enquiry into Marriage Equality. Our government should not be discriminating against people based on their sexual preference. Submissions end Friday, so please take a few minutes to let this committee know that equality is a value that is important to you.

The example today that really irked me was the ABC’s declaration that the government and opposition had negotiated to allow the renewable energy bill pass the lower house. Any school child with a basic grounding in how our parliamentary system works can tell you that the government is whichever party holds the most seats, therefore votes, in the lower house. It’s irrelevant which way the opposition votes in the lower house, the government always carries whatever motion they put up.

While discussion of cross party negotiations over a bill may be important when it comes to the senate, trying to somehow suggest that the government is beholden to the opposition to pass legislation through the lower house is incorrect and adds a strange tone to the discussion. This isn’t a question of balance, or bias, it’s simply about accuracy. Journalists and commentators in the media decry governments’ attempts to ‘spin’ news to suit them better, but how can they expect to be dealt with in an open fashion when they can’t get the basics right and are perpetually looking for a ‘gotcha’ moment in every situation.

This isn’t just a problem with political reporting, the release of the interim report from the Victorian Bushfire Royal Commission has seen plenty of uninformed speculation on ABC Victoria and Radio National, sometimes promoting ideas that have explicitly been dismissed by the very report they are claiming to be discussing. In this case, the ABC seem to be gunning for the scalp of CFA Chief Officer Russell Rees and are building a narrative around his failures. Some ABC presenters have also criticised the interim report for not addressing particular areas which were never going to be included until the final report, giving the impression that the Royal Commission has been negligent.

The questions of balance and bias are always going to be contentious ones to address, but the news media should make a consistent effort to banish simple inaccuracies from their reporting. If news is the first draft of history, it should least try to get the basics right.

Net Satisfaction Ratings

Courtesy of Possum Comitatus we can see quite clearly how people have reacted to Malcolm Turnbull’s involvement in the OzCar affair.

Brendan Nelson must be feeling pretty bloody smug right about now.

After spending five hours debating the Ozcar debacle on Monday, today the opposition continually interrupted question time calling for divisions to be called for procedural motions which really should have been carried on the voices. There was no doubt that the Government would lose any of the votes, it was simply an attempt to reduce the amount of time available for them in the house.

Not only did the Opposition try to interrupt question time with their time wasting, they couldn’t even manage do it properly, as their second attempt to launch a censure motion was ruled out of order because it hadn’t been altered from the first one that had already been voted down.

Procedural motions are an important part of managing any substantial meeting, but the opposition’s decision to call for divisions today each time one was put, rather than accepting the outcome on the voices, was the type of nonsense that people find annoying about politics. If Malcolm Tunbull believes that hi-jinx in the house will save him from the Godwin Grech shaped cloud that is hovering over him, then he’s even more politically naive than has been suggested already this week.

Over the fold I’ve reposted the article I penned after Costello ran from the leadership in 2007, I think that the conclusions in it still hold up pretty well. I think that Costello’s refusal to take the leadership will cause enormous damage to the Liberal Party in the long term as he was the only one who could have united them after their defeat, their present division and lack of direction is his ultimate legacy to his party.

No guts, no glory, no generosity.

“You are a coward when you even seem to have backed down from a thing you openly set out to do.” Mark Twain

Peter Costello today held true to form and ran from the leadership of the Liberal party. Costello will always blame Howard for the fact that he never became Prime Minister of Australia, but the truth is that he simply didn’t have courage.

Costello had big ambitions when he took a seat in Federal Parliament in 1990, he had made a name for himself as an industrial relations lawyer and, after rolling the sitting member for Higgins in a pre-selection ballot, he went straight to the opposition front bench, Peter was never going to be a seat warmer.

Any plans that Costello had been making, however, would have been badly affected by the 1993 election. Not only did Dr John Hewson lose two seats and record a swing against the Coalition in ’93, in what was later termed ‘the unloseable election’, he also ignored Liberal party convention and refused to vacate the position of Leader after the election loss. Throughout the 80s the personal animosity between John Howard and Andrew Peacock had set the standard for leadership tension within the Liberal party, so it was no surprise that after the loss in ’93 the knives were out for Hewson. Eventually the disruption became untenable and Hewson, expecting to be returned, called a spill in ’94.

Costello’s name was mentioned as a leadership contender, but staring down a fifteen seat majority he decided to nominate for the position of deputy leader and suggested to his colleague Alexander Downer that he should nominate for the leadership. The pair were duly elected and were dubbed the ‘Dream Team’ by the Australian media. The question, of course, is why didn’t Costello nominate for the leadership? His short time in parliament would not have been an issue, as the leader that was deposed in ’94 had only been elected for one term before being elevated to the leadership. He would have had the numbers, coming as he did from the Liberal party’s traditional power base of Victoria. I have always believed that he didn’t think that Keating could be defeated in ’96, which is why he wanted the post of deputy, so he could have a clear three year run as leader after a loss in 96.

Unfortunately for Costello his well laid plan came unstuck when it turned out that not only would Alexander Downer be unable to beat Keating, he couldn’t even make it to the starting post. Before the end of 1994 there was already talk that Downer had to go, he had made a number of public errors, the most infamous being his ‘Things that Batter’ joke about domestic violence.

Costello, by contrast, had performed well as shadow treasurer. His boisterous, bullying parliamentary antics meant he was able to bulldoze the Treasurer Ralph Willis, although he did not have the mettle to really take on Keating. With Downer’s leadership looking rockier by the week and a party room unhappy with their electoral outlook, Costello’s name was again raised as a potential leader.

It was now late 1994, an election was due in a little over twelve months and rather than looking to take the leadership himself Costello struck a deal with John Howard for an orderly handover after a term and a half should they win in ’96. Howard had already been rejected by the party room in favour of Downer and with his continuing impressive performances in parliament there is no doubt that Costello could have succeeded Downer if he had decided to nominate for the leadership. So in early 1995 Alexander Downer became the only Liberal leader to never face an election and John Howard was elevated to the leadership unopposed.

History will show that Keating was swept from power in 1996 and that John Howard never came good on his offer to hand the leadership over to Peter Costello. It will also show that Costello didn’t have the character to challenge the PM, allowing Howard to come up with repeated excuses as to why he alone should continue as leader. When Paul Keating had his leadership aspirations stymied by Bob Hawke he challenged him and upon losing went to the back bench, only to take another tilt and seize the leadership. Peter Costello could have done this at any point, but he never did.

Now that the Liberal, National coalition have been defeated, now that the party has offered the leadership to Peter Costello, now that a leader is needed to rebuild the party and try to reshape it into a form that will be acceptable to Australian voters, he has declined to put in the hard yards. Peter Costello has put himself above the good of his party, in much the same way that he accused Howard of doing, leaving other potential leaders to carry the can at their inevitable defeat at the next election.

Leaders get remembered, treasurers do not. Peter Costello, a figure who has been at the forefront of Australian politics for fifteen years, has written himself out of our collective memories by once again dodging the Liberal party leadership. Costello is destined to be no more than an example of how hard work and perseverance will always overcome scheming and a sense of entitlement.

This year’s budget is going to be disappointing for lots of Australians who have spent the past few years being conditioned to think that the federal budget is all about what new handout they will be receiving. During the mining boom, Peter Costello as Treasurer was lucky enough to receive enormous revenue from corporate taxation, which he then used as an electoral tool to bribe voters with handouts and tax cuts. The result of this as that our tax mix is heavily reliant on corporate tax receipts, which is fine during a booming global economy, but suicidal in the long term as the economic cycle inevitably turns, leaving a huge revenue shortfall.

The deficit budget that will be handed down tonight is due to the revenue shortfall caused by an over reliance on corporate taxation. We are all about to have to take our medicine for the unsustainable tax cuts that Howard and Costello used to win voters’ favour since the turn of the century. Naturally, the opposition will attempt to lay this disaster at the feet of the Government, and a lot of people will fall for it.

There have already been plenty of hints as to how this budget will play out, but the coverage of the it will inevitably focus heavily on people who regard themselves as being hard done by. Here is my list of predictions of people who will squeal the loudest about the budget, and why they should shut their whinging pie holes.

Self funded retirees. This is such a stupid and inaccurate phrase, the Howard government bent over backwards to keep the grey vote locked in and in doing so pretty much extended every benefit designed to keep pensioners out of poverty, like health care cards and other services, to people who were ineligible for the pension, but were over retirement age. In addition to this, these people were gifted enormous amounts of money through foolishly generous superannuation policies and by the debasement of the capital gains tax system.

As the baby boomers race towards retirement this mess needs to be unwound, it is unaffordable and unsustainable. Expect to hear this group claim that unless they are heavily subsidised by the government they will spend every cent they have and live off the pension, thereby forcing the rest of us to pick up the tab. So much for being self-funded. The reality is that most of these people would sell their own children rather than live on the aged pension and will simply whittle away their kids inheritance to support their lifestyles. Boom times for reverse mortgage providers.

High income earners. Another group who were trained to suckle at the government teat during the Howard years. One of Howard’s most socially regressive feats was instilling in people a sense of downward envy, demonising welfare recipients as being unworthy of government assistance, and then quelling the disharmony he’d created by handing out cash to people who didn’t need it. Policies like the Baby Bonus and the Private Health Insurance Rebate scheme should have been means tested from day one, because one of the basic tenets of the welfare system is that you only provide assistance to people actually need it.

High income earners, like talk-back radio hosts, op-ed writers for our major newspapers, and their friends, will be especially critical of any means testing, claiming that it is ‘unfair’. The reality is that everyone loves getting something for nothing, and free money is the pinnacle of that principle. Expect to hear this group claim that the changes are a disincentive to hard work and that their tax contributions entitle them to some government largesse, while their accountants desperately search for new ways to reduce their tax liability.

Businesses whose business model is leeching off taxpayers. The private health insurance industry is the first that springs to mind, but there will no doubt be plenty of other businesses whose profits are largely derived from providing services to the government who will foreshadow thousands of job losses, should their place at the trough be threatened. The reality is that if there is a genuine market for their products, then they will survive. Government interference distorts the market and usually ends up with all sorts of perverse unintended consequences, reducing these effects is a good thing.

People without children. Apparently people without children do not use any government services at all and are subsidising us breeders. Fuck off. Sleep in on a Sunday, go to a movie with your partner after dinner and hope like hell that the rest of us pop out enough kids to pay for your health care bills when you get old.

There will no doubt be others crying out this year, and the opposition will be full of sympathy for them as this will be their first real chance at drumming up some resentment towards the government. But the reality is that the massive budgets we came to expect for the last decade were underpinned by the same assumptions that have bought the commercial world to its knees in the past year, the boom could not go on forever, we could not keep deferring the cost of government spending and it is now time to face the consequences of our reckless actions during the good times.