Let's face it, all those political pundits are having a two way bet, so as not to embarass themselves if Kim Beazley "sneaks in" or if Howard doesn't lose as many seats as expected. My prediction is a win for Beazley; and not only that, it will be a very comfortable win (between 3 to 10 seats). If I have egg on my face Saturday, so be it. The only way Howard can win this election is if Beazley loses it in the last days of campaigning. If Howard makes just one mistake, especially on Thursday or Friday, then it's asta la vista. Howard will not be the PM after the election (not for long even if he wins), his authority will have been totally smashed in one of the worst electoral losses in Australia's political history (even if he wins, the parliament will probably be hung). Kim Beazley will go down as a great Prime Minister. Firstly, he is a decent man. Secondly, he has an amazing intellect due to hours of wide reading and a family lineage that includes a father with a photographic memory and an amazing wit. Thirdly, he is one of the best orator's in Parliament. In one impromptu speech he gave while Finance Minister, he brought the house down, and his "stolen generations" speech to Parliament made Howard look like a fool for being so unapologetic (I mean, Howard's govt will go down in history for their shameful disrespect to indiginous Australians). Kim Beazley is also a master strategician (if there is such a word). He was the most competent minister in the Hawke Government, and his command of the defence portfolio made him just as clever as the elites in the department (unfortunately, the policy he implemented was basically an impossibility). Compared to Howard, Beazley is more PM material and has more "ticker". People seem to forget that John Howard was treasurer of Australia for five years until 1983. During this time he ammassed a budget deficit of 22 billion dollars (inflation counted). During this time, inflation was running at 11 %, and unemployment was over 10%. The only reason why Howard has been such a good manager, is that the economy was left in great shape by the Labor party (barring the deficit which the liberals got to a surplus by ripping out benefits to the most needy people in our society). He has been unable to tackle unemployment. In a Keating term, they were able to create 600 thousand jobs. Howard's figure is closer to 250 thousand. Calling Beazley's 500 thousand plan as "unachievable" is an insult to the unemployed. Under Howard, they are promised at least three more years of unemployment. Any good company sets targets, and while Howard has an inflation target, he shows shameful disrespect to the unemployed and the the human rights charter by dismissing a full employment target as wishful thinking.

If the Coalition does win they will have NO MANDATE to introduce a consumption tax after the election! Their madate will be less than the Labor party's. THis tax plan will be SCRAPPED. The only way it will get in is if the Democrats support it (a reason why not to vote for them on the senate ticket instead of Labor). But, with their balance of power, they will demand at the very minimum exemptions to food and even more on Education (text books?) and health. The coalition will not dissolve parliament (under the double dissolution mechanism) because they would LOSE for sure. Therefore, at the very worst we'll have a watered down consumption tax. But a watered down consumption tax is the worst outcome for the nation. It would make the tax system even more complicated, and would probably not raise that much more money than the by comparison more efficient sales tax regime.

Let's track it chronologically:

1. It started with a woman named Pauline

Pauline Hanson and John Howard share a similar ideology when it comes to coneptions of nationhood. John Howard can't even say the word "multiculturalism" and his comments on Asian immigration in the 1980s have not really left him (in spite of him pandering to the Chinese voters in the 1995 election, only to betray them in his complicit silence). Howard's hero is Menzies, and is it no surprise that he should share the cultural feelings that many old Australians feel. You may say, how is it Howard's fault?

a) POLITICAL CORRECTNESS SUX

Go to the debates. Paul Keating v John Howard. Howard understood the mood of many regional and country voters when he said he was sick of the political correctness that Keating was forcing Australians to swallow.What did this mean? Was he sick and tired of women getting an equal chance at employment because of affirmative action? Was he angry with Labor's unfair dissmissal laws which didn't allow bosses who mistreated workers to give them the sack without having a justifiable reason? Perhaps. The real message Howard was sending out was to all those red necks, to all those who hated Asian immigration, to all those farmers who were scared out of their wits by "native title" (due to viciously racist stories in regional newspapers - even the suburban tele had a picture of the Opera House under threat from Native Title claims- not to mention the meddling work of the Farmer's federation stirring up farmers who didn't realise that the High Cout gave the aborigines practically nothing in Mabo and hardly an inch more in Wik). Howard would end political correctness, allowing a racist element, that had been supressed by Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke and Keating, to flourish under Howard. Anyone who says John Howard couldnt have stopped Hanson is naive at best, utterly stupid at worst. Obviously, Howard's free speech didn't extend to censorship laws, influencing networks to be more pro censorship, and attempting to strengthen classification ratings of films by appointing conservatives to the film board.

b) SILENCE SAYS IT ALL

Imagine PM Keating on the floor of the parliament after Hanson's speech. There would be no doubt that it would be a great performance, and at once she would be silenced. Howard's complicity was a betrayal to all those asian leaders who supported him in 1995. Perhaps it is true that a leopard can't change his spots.

c) WHO'S FIRST

The funniest thing about the coalition is the way they used to attack HAnson (a year or so after she was entrenched) and then copy her policies. Immigration, ATSIC funding, etc. While it's true, Hanson has similar policies to the democrats and Labor (the long standing opposition to the trade pact [can't remember its exact name - MIE?] that may have been signed), it was also amusing to see Hanson and the Liberals play "who created this policy first".

To conclude, if political correctness meant that you respected other people for who they were rather than how they looked like, then I am guilty as charged. If political correctness meant that I am willing to acknowledge that even I as a child of a migrant, continue to live in a country disrespectful of the rights of its indigenous inhabitants, then I am guilty as charged. Political Correctness has negative connotations, but abandoning it has divided the country in an amazing way over the last two years (and I haven't imagined it - At the height of Hansonism people were unashamedly abusing asian looking australians in public)

2) BUDGET CUTS

I could easily wipe out a budget deficit. Just take the money out of essential services like Health, Education and Employment, sell Telstra, and WOW, what a great economic management team. Well don Johnny. Let the battler's down so that you could say 3 billion surplus.

The asian looking Australian community hasn't been the only segment of Australia let down by Howard. Poor to lower middle income families who were promised compassion, to be 'relaxed and comfortable', instead got a knife wielding Howard, who unnecessarily cut into essentials when economic growth at that time would have propelled the budget out of much of its financial troubles. The government is not there to line the pockets of wealthy people with income tax cuts. WHy should someone like Alan Jones, or someone making 200 thousand a year expect to get anything back from their taxes. What they should expect is that the taxes go towards helping those in need. Unfortunately, people like Jones and richer Australians do not really believe that it's possible to be poor without it being the poor person's fault. They've never heard of the poverty cycle, they've never seen or experienced the shocking living conditions these people face. And so, they demand cuts to essentials. Rich people make themselves feel good in their quest to make money that they always point to the "dole bludgers", inferring that all disadvantaged people are cheating the system. Trusts, while totally legal, rip the system off probably more than any woman assuming multiple identities so that she can claim extra SS money.

3) WIK

Not for political damage reasons, but historical ones. At the hight of Hansonism's onslaught, Howard had the opportunity to show himself to be a true leader.

One wonders how Howard could have lost such an amazing lead in, how he squandered it all. Well, here is my interpretation on why we elected an idiot, why we deserved to have his inept and cowardly administration run our country, and why, as Kim Beazley put it, no one will "mourn him" when he is gone.

He could have apologised to the thousands of Aborigines stolen because of years of government ineptness and paternalism gone mad (WA is heading in the same direction with new anti-crime legislation which takes away criminals from their families). The "stolen generations" report was a great way to achieve reconciliation. So, what does Howard and his minders do? They put out innuendo about the author of the report, a former High Court Justice. They say he is biased towards the aboriginal people, and even stress conflicts of interests. The damage was done to the report in the short term. Howard of course was behaving like those people who denied that there ever was a holocaust (at least our forefathers were more successful than Hitler in their brilliant annihilation of the indigenous tasmanians). To top it all off, he goes to a forum on the stolen generations, and insults aborigines by screaming at them and lecturing them. Of course, he got his short term political benefit from it, but historically, we will be so ashamed of this man. Then came the WIK legislation (which he lectured the Aborigines about in that stolen generations speech - "I'm going to take your rights away, I'm not sorry that we stole you when you were kids, and I'm gonna cut ATSIC's funding" - great bloke!). Harradine's passing the bill, in spite of its cowardice, may have taken the gloss out of the package as a whole, but it's pretty sad. Well, all of the legislation is there on parliamentary record. This was truly a dark period in Australian politics. I will never forget the time I had to play for that mass at St Mary's. A mass for the stolen generations.The Cathedral was packed, not with aborigines, but with predominantly old Australians. Even they saw how bad Howard was treating the Aborigines. It taught me that to assume all old people don't understand is a severe mistake (as much as saying all unemployed people are dole bludgers).

4) GST - The crowning achievement

To top off all the insults to the Howard battlers, he makes the biggest blunder of his career. Battling voter discontent over Hansonism and WIK, Howard needed something to show that he was a leader. His great achievement viz a viz gun control was waning (even that seems like a calculated political position after seeing him reacting to opinion polls), so he does the most stupid thing of his carreer, proposing to introduce a GST.

a) 14 million dollars of Tax Payers money

That's how much went into funding those ads in the weeks prior to the election, explaining why tax reform was needed (and a GST). The most blatant misuse of public money ever, this gave Howard a large lead in the early stages.

b) GST sinks in

But after the propoganda subsided people realised what it meant. A tax on food! A tax on every electricity, gas and water bill! A tax on plumbing! A tax on train tickets! And who are the people that consume these goods as a proportion of income. YEP! Howard's battlers! The people that got him in power were betrayed by this policy. And the worst thing is, he's conned many of them into believing they'll be better off. You can be sure of being slightly better off only when a FAMILY makes around 60 thousand a year. When that happens, the benefits start to kick in. The 1.9% inflation target has been dismissed by tax experts as ridiculous; and the inflationary affects on the poor would be far more harshly felt, since all their money goes towards food and services (do they have the money to go buy a 40 thousand dollar car every couple of years?). The GST is a con job. It doesn't make the tax system simpler. It's just raising money from the poor to pay off exhorbitant tax cuts to the wealthy. This is John Howard's fair society. Needless to say, voters are not as dumb as we elitists like to think. They won't believe a GST is good for them cause they've done their sums.

c) I'm doing it for Australia

Howard's "do it for Australia" at the campaign launch was a moment of high emotion for me (if you count crocodile tears). You realise just how desperate this man is. I can already hear the last post playing (I'm sorry for degrading the memory of those that dies during war). A GST is not good for Australia. It may change Australia, but it is not essential for the nation's well being. Our tax system is not collapsing and introducing a GST for patriotic purposes is as shameful as Pauline Hanson saying she is the "mother of the nation". One thing we learnt in international relations (politics) is to be very sceptical of people who introduce policies and invoke the 'nation' as the reason for it (ie. pass our budget or you're non-Australian). Howard's doing it for Australia was just a desperate grab for any sense of patriotism after presiding over a period where the country was able to divide on so many issues (rich - poor, asians - australians, aborigines - farmers).

Kim Beazley is a man with vision. And when you go to the polling booths on Saturday, vote carefully.If you think politics doesn't matter, see what has ahppenned to our community in the last two years. If you think politicians can't make a differnece, look at what Howard has done in his two years in office. He will not be any better. Costello will not be any better (in spite of his missing in action status during the election, he is all for a GST, and presided over those budget cuts) Kim Beazley will be a great politician. He is a concensus man (which means that we might get over this racism business and look towards an Australian republic)and he at least promises to try to reduce unemployment. I leave you with the last bit of Beazley's policy address: