arguments that don't hold water

"Merde," Morris Iemma might've thought to himself on reading Ken's post at Surfdom after the televised debate on Friday night (which I didn't get to watch). It's curious that Iemma might lose Labor votes because of his water policy, but on the other hand the conservative Miranda Devine comes out swinging at Debnam.
While I can see Ken's point, I'll still vote for Iemma. A win for Debnam would be ecstatically claimed by Howard as a defacto win for WorkChoices, in the same way that conservative journalist Imre Salusinszky interpreted a potential Iemma win as a defacto loss for WorkChoices. So I hope the water issue doesn't lose too many 'lefties'.
The only comforting thing about the possibility of a 'Premier Debnam' is that if the checks and balances/counterbalance theory works, then if NSW voters switched to Debnam, you'd expect them to be more likely to dump Howard.(Maybe this is why Howard has seemed so lukewarm about Debnam lately, despite early indications that he would be invading state politics to help liberate voters from Labor.) I guess if a vote for Debnam ultimately translates to a vote for Rudd, that's okay with me...
Contrary to the counterbalance theory though, voters might actually find it a relief to see the states able to work co-operatively with federal government, rather than be competitive adversaries as the Liberals have characterised the relationship between the states and Canberra. So it's not inconceivable that Rudd could get in despite the supposed liability of there being so many Labor-run states. Or rather, because of it.
The Liberal Party probably doesn't even care if it wins state elections anymore--far easier for Canberra to just appropriate state powers instead. Peter Costello was interviewed in The Weekend Australian ("Public wants us in charge: Costello"; story is not available online). He claimed that "The public sees the commonwealth as a more competent administrator than the states...People take the view that because the commonwealth is more competent, it should involve itself in more areas, and you can understand that." He offers not a skerrick of evidence in support of there being such a 'public view'. Cynical voters might even suspect the federal Liberals would not be quite so desperate to wrest power from the states if the state premiers happened to be Liberal. Truth is, the Liberal Party does care about the states, but it can't show it, and so it has no choice but to press on with Plan B (the power pushes).
Costello's argument is that the states should be demoted to having only a role of "service delivery" rather than any executive role. The Australian describes this as the Liberals' "twin federalism push" (water and health) but we all know of at least one more push that's looming large: education. The paper's editorial even laments that Howard is not more aggressive on that one. But Howard's just biding his time, lining up all his ducks.
Ultimately, it's one thing to want to make federalism work more efficiently (Rudd's pitch), but the fact remains that if voters really wanted Liberals holding state powers then they wouldn't have repeatedly elected Labor premiers.

Updated:- After hearing about John Howard today announcing more funds for schools maintenance, I have to think that he is likely to shelve any attempt at big ideological reforms in education until after the election. If he wins, he will argue he is mandated to implement the grander (and more disturbing) reforms at any time of his choosing, because he has already staked out his position during the campaign the Liberals and the conservative media have been running these past few years. But this year, well, he has more than enough Grand Ideas to defend already.
Obviously Howard has been listening to his focus groups and has belatedly realised that parents do care about education, but that they have more pressing, practical concerns than obsessing about whether or not teachers are Communists.

kingdom come

Imre Salusinszky’s fluff piece on Peter Debnam pretends to find the Opposition leader’s unpopularity a ‘puzzle’. Maybe Salusinszky would’ve felt less clueless if he hadn’t shielded himself and his readers from the more negative details of the Debnam story. Such as, for example, Debnam’s unfounded slur on Bob Debus under parliamentary privilege and subsequent lack of apology to him. Or maybe Debnam’s newly-hatched plans for East Darling Harbour that business groups and Labor agree are ‘bizarre‘. And let’s not forget this little pearler (via Suki):
“I'm happy to have [people] demonstrate around the state, but you leave my wife alone, you leave the female members of my team alone,” Mr Debnam told reporters. He Tarzan. We Jane.
Salusinszky makes a desperate attempt to sell Debnam to us on the basis that he’s a “devoted family man” but this is neutralised by the fact that Morris Iemma is evidently a devoted family man himself. And I mean, even Saddam Hussein was apparently a “devoted family man”.
Dorkier than Howard, riskier and more impulsive than Latham, the only thing Debnam appears to have going for him is his underdog status. Unfortunately, in the absence of any other selling points, that won’t be enough.
In another column in the same paper, Salusinszky mocks Iemma with, "By 2016, it will be hard to tell the difference between NSW and the Kingdom of Heaven’. That’s funny. I thought according to the Federal Liberals, we’re already living in the Kingdom of Heaven. We’re constantly being told we’re rolling in rude economic health at a Federal level thanks to Howard. Dennis Shanahan (in the same paper) writes that "economic management remains as the only unsullied pillar of strength for the Coalition." But around the Labor-led states, we’re told we're living in misery. In Salusinszky’s story, Debnam contends that NSW is "confronted by four crises: a housing crisis, an economic crisis, a budget crisis and a water crisis". I guess that’s only when you’re wearing your State goggles. With your Federal ones on, all you can see is roses as far as the eye can see. Well, as far as the election booth, anyway.

sheik, stirring

There has been some sniggering in the papers about the Mufti's threat to take on Premier Iemma in seats like Lakemba, but maybe Iemma shouldn't be too blase about it? What if Australia's Muslims are feeling increasingly disenfranchised from "mainstream Australia" and are propelled to cling the more determinedly to their imported culture? Muslims may well jump at the chance to embrace Muslim candidates in government, outrageous Mufti or no outrageous Mufti. Even Muslim moderates frequently appear to humour Sheik al-Hilaly. And why wouldn't they? Being outrageous is nothing but a great way to get attention. And the more extreme the Sheik appears, the more moderate the moderates will appear. It'll be interesting to see what unfolds on this front.

some fathers do 'ave 'em

The problem with having Papa Howard go in to bat for little Pete is that it infantilises Debnam, making him look pitifully weak: the implication is that Debnam can't do it on his own. Conversely, it makes Howard look strong because it denies that Howard has Federal troubles, which he does. (I've noticed that one thing Howard often does well is appear to have the strength of his convictions. It's just that his convictions frequently turn out to be hopelessly wrong.)
Still, the people who are marketing Peter Debnam have been doing well to turn his image around lately, with most of his press showing him as a smiling Mr Nice Guy. Labor can counter this by giving us plenty of reminder footage of "attack dog Debnam"'s ridiculous behavior in Parliament last year.
Anyway, no matter how bad State Labor's position might look, there's just something about Iemma that Debnam can't fake and Howard can't implant for him. Credibility or leadership quality or something.

pleasure and pain

Maybe John Howard could get a tattoo across his belly like the one Angelina Jolie has? It reads, quod me nutrit me destruit, supposedly Latin for 'what nurtures me also destroys me'. Cos it appears the very factors that work for the Liberals at federal level are the ones that are working against the Liberal parties at state level. Mike Steketee had an analysis of the state Liberal parties’ woes in The Weekend Australian in which reasons for Labor’s state successes were debated. Factors for success appear to be largely impersonal rather than due to individual leader qualities such as charisma or competence. In the article, Judith Brett describes influential factors as 'incumbency...a strong economy…voters sticking with what they know in an era with threats to national security'. The newspaper’s editorial, also about the state Liberals, adds some more external factors: the lack of credible opposition leaders, and the state/federal counterbalance theory. (Naturally, Howard-lovers would argue that the 'strong economy' factor is an internal one, creditable personally to Howard's leadership. But many of us dispute this reinterpretation of political and economic history.)
I find it fascinating, this question of why people vote differently at state and federal level. I wonder who the swingers are. It's a conundrum. Is it that Howard-lovers are cuckolding him at state level? Or is it that state Labor voters betray Labor federally by switching allegiances to Howard? It is hard to believe that people who vote Labor federally would vote Liberal at state level, but I guess it's possible.
If the Liberals are failing in NSW, Imre Salusinsky (also in The Australian) argues it is because of Howard’s IR project. Headlined "Work Choices working well for Iemma", Saluszinsky says "if IR continues to frighten voters...on WorkChoices he just can’t lose". But if IR is scaring Howard voters over to Labor in the states, why wouldn’t they be scared enough to ditch Howard himself, the man personally responsible for the unwanted changes? Will voters really sheet the blame to Debham while keeping Howard in power federally because they want him there for other reasons (those external factors—he’s the devil we know in dangerous times, fortuitously presiding over boomtime, etc etc)? Maybe Iemma is just selling it better than Beazley is nationally?
The problem with Howard’s failed states is that as Steketee argues, "a continuing downward spiral in the State parties eventually must make the Federal Liberals’ job harder." Steketee also quotes Graham Young saying that if the Liberals lose a federal election, the party will probably "implode". Happily for non-Liberals, Howard might have already ensured such implosion when he refused to pass the baton to Costello while the party was on a winning streak. In effect, Howard told Australians that he regards Costello as unelectable and unfit to handle the job. That’s great for the Libs, so long as Howard wins the next election and then someone more electable than Costello gets to front them. But how likely is that? I mean, who on earth is there? (This subject is way passe, I know, but my theory on Howard’s motivation, apart from insane hubris, is that he is actually against a Costello succession, but has no way to weasel out of their age-old, highly-publicised 'gentlemen's agreement'. Behind the scenes, I'm sure it's all about giving another contender the time to get the numbers to challenge Costello.)
Howard’s vanity might well cause the implosion of the Liberal Party itself. And wouldn’t that be ironic for the man currently celebrated as Liberal Party hero and savior?

zip it real good
Just about the Kennett/Kroger/Costello hijinks last week, it was pretty funny to see Howard come out and tell his boys to shut their mouths and keep Liberal Party conflict behind doors. Why didn’t he practice what he preached and tell them in private, eh? In any case, we all know Howard is happy to let some people talk, when it’s strategic. He frequently lets out his loose cannon, Jackie Kelly, supposedly a ‘close friend’, to test waters and be his fall guy. She does not seem to have much invested in the longevity of her political career, so she hasn’t much to lose. He lets her criticise policy, for example when he let her be aggressive on childcare. I’m convinced this was to assess public reaction in case he ever wants to declare that he plans to listen to his minister and implement popular but not necessarily socially-conservative policies. He also allowed her to publicly deride Costello. I don’t remember hearing him come out and tell her to keep her trap shut for the good of the party. He let her talk because it helps destabilise Costello.