How long will the Liberals be in the wilderness?

Ive heard some fairly absurd statements claiming one term.

But I think it will be at least 2.

Hi Smith and welcome to OzPolitic. Interesting poll. I voted two terms. I just can't see them turning around in time for the next election with all the cave-ins etc, but you never know. It will take a while for the next generation to assert themselves and steer them to victory. The election after the next one will come down to merit rather than history.

I agree, at least 2 terms (maybe 3).

One.  The abrupt economic turnaround has revealed the truth that was foretold.

from crikey:

It's difficult not to feel at least a skerrick of sympathy for Brendan Nelson. At his current rate of decline, he will reach 0% as preferred Prime Minister in late April. And, supposedly, he is a worse Opposition Leader than Alexander Downer. Those of us who recall the bizarre and hilarious implosion of Downer in 1994 would, in the spirit of Get Smart, find that hard to believe.

But politics is a cruel, cruel business. As Dennis Shanahan points out, in a display of perspicacity usually absent from his polling commentary, the very awfulness of the Opposition's numbers are what will prevent anyone from sticking their hand up for Nelson's job.

Nevertheless, if Nelson can continue to drag the Howardist hold-outs in his ranks kicking and screaming toward the political centre, and oversee an effective reform of the Coalition parties' structures, he'll at least go down as conservatism's answer to Simon Crean. The notion of Crean as Prime Minister is now risible, but he oversaw important reforms within his party that contributed to its ultimate electability in 2007.

It's not much consolation for Nelson, but it's about all he'll find at the moment.

freediver wrote on Mar 4^th, 2008 at 3:11pm:

from crikey: It's difficult not to feel at least a skerrick of sympathy for Brendan Nelson. At his current rate of decline, he will reach 0% as preferred Prime Minister in late April. And, supposedly, he is a worse Opposition Leader than Alexander Downer. Those of us who recall the bizarre and hilarious implosion of Downer in 1994 would, in the spirit of Get Smart, find that hard to believe. But politics is a cruel, cruel business. As Dennis Shanahan points out, in a display of perspicacity usually absent from his polling commentary, the very awfulness of the Opposition's numbers are what will prevent anyone from sticking their hand up for Nelson's job. Nevertheless, if Nelson can continue to drag the Howardist hold-outs in his ranks kicking and screaming toward the political centre, and oversee an effective reform of the Coalition parties' structures, he'll at least go down as conservatism's answer to Simon Crean. The notion of Crean as Prime Minister is now risible, but he oversaw important reforms within his party that contributed to its ultimate electability in 2007. It's not much consolation for Nelson, but it's about all he'll find at the moment.

Yes, poor old Brendan.  It was never going to work.   But I find that amusing about Crean - the only thing I recollect him doing was change his mind every five minutes about everything, and keep the door revolving for Big Kim.

What did he do?

Looks like it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better. From crikey:

They either can't be bothered turning up or they're exploiting their proximity to high office for personal gain. Something is deeply rotten in the state of the federal opposition, and acting-leader Brendan Nelson needs to exert whatever authority is commanded by his single digit popularity to cleanse his ranks of timeservers and opportunists.

Mark Vaile takes "personal leave" -- which is to say goes away on public salary -- to do a little business in the middle east; Alexander Downer, who can't be fagged turning up to parliament if lunch or golf get in the way, says "go easy", Vaile's just trying to supplement his $127,000 salary; Peter Costello just slinks off to his bankbench bolthole with the job ads...

Commenting on the Mark Vaile atrocity this morning, Nelson said that as MPs "our first priority is to service our constituents" and every farmer in Mark Vaile's electorate with an eye to the breeding cycle will know exactly what he means.

Let's be straight up about this ... Vaile, Downer, Costello, McGauran, Ruddock and any other former luminary of the past government whose first loyalty is no longer to the people who elected them, should leave the Parliament at once. Get out. Stop wasting our money.


Canberra correspondent Bernard Keane writes:

Well the good old boys of the National Party just can’t help themselves, can they?

With Vaile of Arabia wandering around Dubai on behalf of the Coalition’s good mate Alf Moufarrige – not merely a contributor to the Liberal Party’s coffers, but a Downer appointee to the Council for Australian-Arab Relations – it seems that the National Party’s contempt for basic standards of political decency lives on even in Opposition.

Vaile’s record in Government consisted pretty much of agreeing with whatever the Liberals wanted, as long as he and his colleagues could shamelessly shower money on their mates in the bush. From Pork Barrel Central in the Canberra Bus Interchange (AKA the Department of Transport and Regional Services), Vaile and his fellow Nats doled out taxpayers’ money by the truckload to their electorates with scant regard for anything approaching proper administrative process. And when the ANAO blew the whistle on them shortly before the election last year, his instinctive reaction was to blame the auditors and demand that they be silenced.

But even under the Howard Government, ex-Ministers like Michael Wooldridge, Peter Reith and Larry Anthony waited until they’d left Parliament before exploiting their contacts and experience to secure a lucrative gig with the sector they had previously regulated or overseen. Vaile hasn’t even had the good grace to give up his day job before representing a mate and former stakeholder from his Trade portfolio days.

Perhaps he is taking his cue from John Howard, who moonlighted as an IR consultant to noted document shredders Clayton Utz while in Opposition in the 1980s. As Christopher Pyne pointed out, however, at least that didn’t take him out of the country.

But Brendan Nelson’s handling of this is the more substantial problem. In a painful interview on Sky News this morning, he said he thought Vaile should be back here doing his job. But when pressed on whether Vaile should quit if he wasn’t prepared to make the call, he insisted that it was Vaile’s decision and employed the Downer Defence, that the former Deputy Prime Minister had worked jolly hard for his constituents and deserved to be cut some slack.

"Had he consulted me about this before he had gone I most certainly would have advised him in the strongest possible terms that it wasn't appropriate," Nelson said. Clearly, then, Vaile didn’t bother to consult him.

No wonder polling shows that Nelson is perceived as weak. If his own backbenchers think they can happily ignore him, why would the rest of us think differently?

I have been saying this for a while now: the Liberal party is slowly abandoning it's core values. Many of it's supporters have not cottoned on to this yet, but the debacle over Nelson's fuel excise cut has really brought it to the front page. At the same time, the Labor party is gradually abandoning it's roots, for example by distancing itself politically from the Unions. Both parties appear to be drifting towards the centre, but what is interesting is that they are not staying on their traditional 'side' of the centre. It will be interesting to see where they end up.

Libs complete their cave-in!!!

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1204166399

Changed support for major parties: study

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1192069707

Visionless leader floundering

IF the Libs are finding it tough going in Opposition, they should spare a thought for the punters. Many of us are wondering what precisely the Liberal Party stands for. Not what it stands for in a general sense. We all know the Liberal Party mantra: freedom of choice, hard work, taking risks, small business and so on. Brendan Nelson gave a fine budget reply last week that warmed the conservative heart.

But throwing a few bare bones to the converted is not enough. If the Libs are serious about winning back the voters they lost last November, they need to relaunch themselves into relevance by defending their biggest remaining asset: a successful economic legacy founded on economically responsible policies.

At the federal election last year, the Liberal Party castigated Kevin Rudd for his populist pronouncements on petrol. In power, the Rudd Government realised it could not reduce petrol prices in an economically responsible way.

Enter Nelson and his promise last week to cut fuel excise.

It is pure populism that goes to the heart of the problems besetting the Liberal Party. Desperate to live another day as leader, Nelson is pursuing a populist policy that makes no long-term economic sense. That’s why, as The Australian reported on Monday, Peter Costello, Alexander Downer and shadow treasurer Malcolm Turnbull opposed the fuel excise. That many other members of the senior Liberal leadership team - including those regarded as economic hardheads - can sign on to such a vacuous policy tells you that they have stopped protecting the Liberal Party brand.

One would think that the shenanigans at the state level, now emerging at regular intervals like some late-night horror movie ghoul, would be frightening the daylights out of the federal Liberal Party.

Juvenile chair-sniffing incidents in Western Australia aside, the long refusal of the NSW Liberal Party to stand up for the privatisation of the state’s electricity assets points to a party that no longer understands core Liberal Party principles. And as much as Victorian Opposition Leader Ted Baillieu may bang on about treachery when two staff members were found to be associated with websites that labelled him as “he who stands for nothing”, there’s a powerful message there if he and other Liberals choose to listen rather than shoot the messenger. The full message, from one of the US’s founding fathers, Alexander Hamilton, is “those who stand for nothing fall for anything”.

The politically befuddled Baillieu is the national poster boy for confused Liberalism. The classic emperor with no clothes, it is simply not enough that the man looks good in a well-cut conservative suit. Baillieu won’t be leading the Victorian Libs to power by mimicking Labor on everything from multiculturalism to climate change. When he moved further to the Left than Victoria’s Bracks Labor government on civil unions for gays, he signalled his contempt for mainstream values.

Nelson is no Baillieu. But six months as Opposition Leader is sufficient time to get a feel for Nelson’s Liberal convictions. His unmistakable tendency, when speaking off the cuff, to opt for shallow rhetoric instead of articulating policy grounded in Liberal philosophy points to a leader who is neither a comfortable nor confident Liberal.

Speaking at the National Press Club in March about why he is a Liberal, Nelson said he would not forget delivering his first baby, or his first cot death, or his first suicide, or his first resuscitation of someone who had had a cardio-respiratory arrest. Sure, the Libs need to show compassion, but Nelson is drowning in the stuff at the expense of policy. His pursuit of an $800,000 grant to counselling and support agency Bonnie Babes before he was willing to articulate the Liberal’s position on industrial relations reveals that Nelson is nervous about taking a stand on big issues.

That was only repeated earlier this month when Nelson was asked what he thought about the Rudd Government’s decision to means-test the baby bonus. His response that “every mother loves her baby” and “all babies are equal” was the sign of a leader, albeit well-meaning, who cannot respond with policy alternatives.

When, after the budget, Nelson was asked on ABC radio whether it was reasonable for Labor to apply a means test on a family earning $150,000 before receiving a family tax benefit, he squibbed it with more equivocating rhetoric about it being “very important that we support families”. When asked by ABC reporter Chris Uhlmann whether he had an opinion on it, Nelson left listeners with the unfortunate view that he did not

freediver wrote on May 21^st, 2008 at 6:21pm:

I have been saying this for a while now: the Liberal party is slowly abandoning it's core values.

Rubbish.  

The ALP will do as they usually do when in power, get Australia in the poo. Mark my words! You'll be sorry you voted Rudd in.  ;)

Meanwhile, doesn't matter to me who is in Federal Government.  ;D

PS.  You have a "profanities" filter?

s.h.i.t = poo

What happens with bitch, crap, arsehole, fart face, etc Nothing?

See the feedback board.

freediver - the Libs are abandoning their core values.

the ALP are purely ignorant of broad economics, so have not really abandoned a thing !!!
:) :) :)

The libs will be out of gov for three plus terms I believe, ozzy voters are pretty accepting and short of complete stuff ups ( or oppositions who control the senate blocking supply) let govs run for  three terms, it usually takes the opposition party two to three terms to sort it self out and find a leader worth electing.

I meant to add that the last one term government in Australia was back in 1939? I think.

Once the poor and desperate start killing themselves off like the last time the Liebor Party were in I reckon the tide will turn pretty quickly.

One term max, they may even get evicted for not paying the rent on Parliament House during all their cut backs on public spending.

deepthought wrote on May 22^nd, 2008 at 2:26pm:

Once the poor and desperate start killing themselves off like the last time the Liebor Party were in I reckon the tide will turn pretty quickly. One term max, they may even get evicted for not paying the rent on Parliament House during all their cut backs on public spending.

Unlike the last government Rudd is trying to reduce the death rate of Australians, Labor will be removing our troops involved in the ilegal invasion of Iraq, so as mothers and fathers of soldiers need not worry about their kids being killed as invading forces.

deepthought wrote on May 22^nd, 2008 at 2:26pm:

Once the poor and desperate start killing themselves off like the last time the Liebor Party were in I reckon the tide will turn pretty quickly. One term max, they may even get evicted for not paying the rent on Parliament House during all their cut backs on public spending.

For your sake, I trust your predictions on politics are better based than your predictions on State of Origin!

Labour, just like the erstwhile Liebs, will go at least 10 years, and lose.

wrote on May 22^nd, 2008 at 9:39am:

I meant to add that the last one term government in Australia was back in 1939? I think.

Nope, in more modern times, that would be Whitlam (2 years 7 months) and then Keating (4 years 2 months).  ;D

Aussie wrote on May 22^nd, 2008 at 5:47pm:

deepthought wrote on May 22nd, 2008 at 2:26pm: Once the poor and desperate start killing themselves off like the last time the Liebor Party were in I reckon the tide will turn pretty quickly. One term max, they may even get evicted for not paying the rent on Parliament House during all their cut backs on public spending. For your sake, I trust your predictions on politics are better based than your predictions on State of Origin! Labour, just like the erstwhile Liebs, will go at least 10 years, and lose.

;D  Picking who will win the State of Origin footy match is just Queenslanders -v- New South Welshmen and a GAME.

I reckon that Rudd will get his marching orders in 2010, if not beforehand.  :D

wrote on May 22^nd, 2008 at 2:50pm:

deepthought wrote on May 22nd, 2008 at 2:26pm: Once the poor and desperate start killing themselves off like the last time the Liebor Party were in I reckon the tide will turn pretty quickly. One term max, they may even get evicted for not paying the rent on Parliament House during all their cut backs on public spending. Unlike the last government Rudd is trying to reduce the death rate of Australians, Labor will be removing our troops involved in the ilegal invasion of Iraq, so as mothers and fathers of soldiers need not worry about their kids being killed as invading forces.

Will they be removing the troops from Iraq?  Could you post the link to that policy please.

Neferti wrote on May 22^nd, 2008 at 6:00pm:

Aussie wrote on May 22nd, 2008 at 5:47pm: deepthought wrote on May 22nd, 2008 at 2:26pm: Once the poor and desperate start killing themselves off like the last time the Liebor Party were in I reckon the tide will turn pretty quickly. One term max, they may even get evicted for not paying the rent on Parliament House during all their cut backs on public spending. For your sake, I trust your predictions on politics are better based than your predictions on State of Origin! Labour, just like the erstwhile Liebs, will go at least 10 years, and lose. ;D  Picking who will win the State of Origin footy match is just Queenslanders -v- New South Welshmen and a GAME. I reckon that Rudd will get his marching orders in 2010, if not beforehand.  :D

Quite right, though I am depressed that we lost.   :'(

deepthought wrote on May 22^nd, 2008 at 6:36pm:

Quite right, though I am depressed that we lost.   :'(

What did they lose by? Lots or just a few points/goals?  I know nothing about football (typical female) but it IS just a game.  ;)  Cheer up.  ;D

Neferti wrote on May 22^nd, 2008 at 6:40pm:

deepthought wrote on May 22nd, 2008 at 6:36pm: Quite right, though I am depressed that we lost.   :'( What did they lose by? Lots or just a few points/goals?  I know nothing about football (typical female) but it IS just a game.  ;)  Cheer up.  ;D

I'm cool, it's the first in a series of three.  The series can be won.  :)

Neferti wrote on May 22^nd, 2008 at 5:54pm:

wrote on May 22nd, 2008 at 9:39am: I meant to add that the last one term government in Australia was back in 1939? I think. Nope, in more modern times, that would be Whitlam (2 years 7 months) and then Keating (4 years 2 months).  ;D

Are you on drugs nef? One term gov means one term ,Whitlam was elected in 72 and wait for it again in 74 thats two terms . Keating took over from Hawke governed for 18 months and then won another election against Hewson. Look ive told you before nef if you dont know what your talking about its best you shut up. I stand by what I said the last one term gov in oz was in either 1929 or 39 , I'll check and get back you, but you must promise to at least try and comprehend becouse I'm starting to get sick of wasting my time on you.

I said "out for the count!"

Who is going to sell Nuclear Power to the Australia People?

It won't be Peter Costello: he knows better!

It may be Malcolm Turnbull: but, he is pinned with sharing the lie with John *that little Poison Gnome* Howard that solar cannot provide baseload electricity!

 :D :D :D :D :D

If the hard Libs don't see sense in it anymore then why bother?

 ::)

Death, the Liberal party is talking up solar and promising to spend more on it than labor. They are regularly criticising labor for not spending enough. Subsidising solar power is an even worse idea than MRETs, but the punters like it because it feels like another handout, which is what the Liberals are into at the moment.

freediver wrote on May 23^rd, 2008 at 12:10pm:

Death, the Liberal party is talking up solar and promising to spend more on it than labor. They are regularly criticising labor for not spending enough. Subsidising solar power is an even worse idea than MRETs, but the punters like it because it feels like another handout, which is what the Liberals are into at the moment.

Didn't Peter Costello basically say that doubling the rebate for solar panels was an innefficient use of resources?!?

Obviously I am buggered why they still did it...

freediver wrote on May 23^rd, 2008 at 12:10pm:

Death, the Liberal party is talking up solar and promising to spend more on it than labor. They are regularly criticising labor for not spending enough. Subsidising solar power is an even worse idea than MRETs, but the punters like it because it feels like another handout, which is what the Liberals are into at the moment.

And, where do you get this information that they are planning to spend more on it than Labor?

Are you also referring to calls for a 'solar continent'?

Neferti wrote on May 22^nd, 2008 at 5:54pm:

wrote on May 22nd, 2008 at 9:39am: I meant to add that the last one term government in Australia was back in 1939? I think. Nope, in more modern times, that would be Whitlam (2 years 7 months) and then Keating (4 years 2 months).  ;D

Just for nef- (with the exception of Whitlam's 2 terms) Australian post-1941 governments have lasted between 3 terms (Curtin-Chifley, Fraser) and 8 (Menzies to MacMahon), so one would expect Rudd's careful government to last at least 9-10 years, but more likely longer.  But by then, the current Liberal Front-benchers - all from the Baby Boomer generation - will be "last century's men".

Death, there's been a few comments on the front page of the Australian. I googled this:

http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2007/s2248087.htm

BRENDAN NELSON: Well, this is economic and environmental madness, Barrie. Firstly, by the way, we, generally speaking as Liberals, we get a bit concerned about means tests in a number of areas. The second thing is that, how do you means test an environmental footprint? People on higher incomes generally have a larger carbon footprint than those who don't. The idea that if you're a policeman and your wife's a teacher and you're ineligible for an $8,000 rebate to put solar panels on your house, which are still going to cost you another $8,000 to $10,000 out of pocket, is in my view absolute madness. It's also destructive of small business. This is a growing, an emerging industry in Australia that needs more investment in research and development, and it's generally been higher income people and when I say higher income, I mean $100,000 to $250,000 a year, the people that are actually putting these things on. So this is something that I really urge Mr Rudd to have a look at. I know Peter Garrett doesn't really know what he's doing when it comes to economics, but I think Mr Rudd seriously needs to re-examine this measure. It is contrary to all of the rhetoric and hot air we've had from him on the environment.

freediver wrote on May 23^rd, 2008 at 1:58pm:

Death, there's been a few comments on the front page of the Australian. I googled this: http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2007/s2248087.htm BRENDAN NELSON: Well, this is economic and environmental madness, Barrie. Firstly, by the way, we, generally speaking as Liberals, we get a bit concerned about means tests in a number of areas. The second thing is that, how do you means test an environmental footprint? People on higher incomes generally have a larger carbon footprint than those who don't. The idea that if you're a policeman and your wife's a teacher and you're ineligible for an $8,000 rebate to put solar panels on your house, which are still going to cost you another $8,000 to $10,000 out of pocket, is in my view absolute madness. It's also destructive of small business. This is a growing, an emerging industry in Australia that needs more investment in research and development, and it's generally been higher income people and when I say higher income, I mean $100,000 to $250,000 a year, the people that are actually putting these things on. So this is something that I really urge Mr Rudd to have a look at. I know Peter Garrett doesn't really know what he's doing when it comes to economics, but I think Mr Rudd seriously needs to re-examine this measure. It is contrary to all of the rhetoric and hot air we've had from him on the environment.

To me it would make sense that PV is not worth it, at the moment, for the taxpayer to support it!

The cheapest way to reduce our emissions is to reduce consumption of electricity, fuel etc, for example by improving the efficiency with which we use it. There are easy and economically sound ways for the government to encourage all users to take advanatage of these cheaper options.

freediver wrote on May 23^rd, 2008 at 4:15pm:

The cheapest way to reduce our emissions is to reduce consumption of electricity, fuel etc, for example by improving the efficiency with which we use it. There are easy and economically sound ways for the government to encourage all users to take advanatage of these cheaper options.

The Libs can't find any purchase on the issue then. Cool!!!!

wrote on May 23^rd, 2008 at 1:54pm:

Neferti wrote on May 22nd, 2008 at 5:54pm: wrote on May 22nd, 2008 at 9:39am: I meant to add that the last one term government in Australia was back in 1939? I think. Nope, in more modern times, that would be Whitlam (2 years 7 months) and then Keating (4 years 2 months).  ;D Just for nef- (with the exception of Whitlam's 2 terms) Australian post-1941 governments have lasted between 3 terms (Curtin-Chifley, Fraser) and 8 (Menzies to MacMahon), so one would expect Rudd's careful government to last at least 9-10 years, but more likely longer.  But by then, the current Liberal Front-benchers - all from the Baby Boomer generation - will be "last century's men".

Great to see you doing some independent "research" there, Skip/Athiest.  :D  Well done.  :o

Whitlam was elected twice (2/12/1972 and 18/5/1974) ... but he was still only PM for 2 YEARS, 7 MONTHS plus a few days.  The Election on 13/12/1975 got rid of him for good, thankfully. Fraser got Australia back on track!  ;)

A "term" in Federal Government is still 3 YEARS.  Check the Constitution.

Why are you continually slighting the so-called Baby Boomers? The term Baby Boomers applies to people born between 1946 and 1964.  So .... Kevin Rudd (born 1957) comes under that classification and ...... if I remember correctly, even YOU, yourself are a Baby Boomer (born 1963?).

If Rudd doesn't get cracking, he will be lucky to last as long as Whitlam did.  ;D

wrote on May 23^rd, 2008 at 1:54pm:

Neferti wrote on May 22nd, 2008 at 5:54pm: wrote on May 22nd, 2008 at 9:39am: I meant to add that the last one term government in Australia was back in 1939? I think. Nope, in more modern times, that would be Whitlam (2 years 7 months) and then Keating (4 years 2 months).  ;D Just for nef- (with the exception of Whitlam's 2 terms) Australian post-1941 governments have lasted between 3 terms (Curtin-Chifley, Fraser) and 8 (Menzies to MacMahon), so one would expect Rudd's careful government to last at least 9-10 years, but more likely longer.  But by then, the current Liberal Front-benchers - all from the Baby Boomer generation - will be "last century's men".

That's not so at all.  What about Gorton, McMahon and Cheating?  3 years, 2 years and 4 years (approx) respectively.

Cardboard Kev is a one term blunder.

freediver wrote on May 23^rd, 2008 at 4:15pm:

The cheapest way to reduce our emissions is to reduce consumption of electricity, fuel etc, for example by improving the efficiency with which we use it. There are easy and economically sound ways for the government to encourage all users to take advanatage of these cheaper options.

OK ... you go first.   ;)

1. Get your electricity turned off and use candles for lighting.

2. Use the BBQ (coal, no doubt) to cook ... & boil water for your coffee and personal washing. (Clothes should be washed in cold water, but since you won't have electricity to run the washing machine, you may have to use the local fishing pond!)

3.  Have cold showers, good for your health.

4.  Sell the car.

I URGE you, too, to take advantage of what you spout about consumption.  ;)

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 23^rd, 2008 at 4:40pm:

freediver wrote on May 23rd, 2008 at 4:15pm: The cheapest way to reduce our emissions is to reduce consumption of electricity, fuel etc, for example by improving the efficiency with which we use it. There are easy and economically sound ways for the government to encourage all users to take advanatage of these cheaper options. The Libs can't find any purchase on the issue then. Cool!!!!

I don't think freediver is a Lib death.  If he was he wouldn't be saying the stuff he just did.  That's pure socialism.

deepthought wrote on May 23^rd, 2008 at 5:30pm:

wrote on May 23rd, 2008 at 1:54pm: Neferti wrote on May 22nd, 2008 at 5:54pm: wrote on May 22nd, 2008 at 9:39am: I meant to add that the last one term government in Australia was back in 1939? I think. Nope, in more modern times, that would be Whitlam (2 years 7 months) and then Keating (4 years 2 months).  ;D Just for nef- (with the exception of Whitlam's 2 terms) Australian post-1941 governments have lasted between 3 terms (Curtin-Chifley, Fraser) and 8 (Menzies to MacMahon), so one would expect Rudd's careful government to last at least 9-10 years, but more likely longer.  But by then, the current Liberal Front-benchers - all from the Baby Boomer generation - will be "last century's men". That's not so at all.  What about Gorton, McMahon and Cheating?  3 years, 2 years and 4 years (approx) respectively. Cardboard Kev is a one term blunder.

Nothought ,you and nef seem to have similar probs with maths and comprehension.
Holt McMahon and gordon were all PMs of the Liberal party If you bothered to read the post you would see they were included in the * terms from Menzies to McMahon, same gov ie Liberal, but diff PMs, but they never lost gov it was continuious until McMahon.Keating served two terms as PM  deepy, and ofcouse took over from Hawke Continuing Labors rein which took that Labor gov to 4 terms in all.Its all about the party in power not the individual PM.

The length of time a gov is in is irrelivent nef, Menzies never always went the full term as is the case with most govs in our history.

This is how the history books list these stats if you two care to rewrite them goodluck.
Rudd is more popular now than when he was elected , the Libs have no leadership and no chance for many years to come.