PDA

View Full Version : Federal Election 2010 [Labor Minority Government Elected]



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

Kevin Bonham
14-07-2010, 09:23 PM
Election likely to be called very soon for a date in late August or early September.

150 House of Reps seats up for grabs.

This thread is for discussion of the likely result.

For the purposes of the poll, a majority is that party's total minus the total for all other parties.

Thus the current Labor majority is 16 seats (83-63-4). Note that five seats currently held by the Coalition will be notionally Labor-held going into this election, based on redistributions, so if there is no swing at all in any seat, Labor will gain five seats.

Basil
14-07-2010, 09:33 PM
Labor will win. By any yardstick reflecting on their performance on the last three years they don't deserve it, but they will win. Labor only ever gets tossed when they've truly fckued it - and that hasn't happened yet (in the people's minds).

ER
14-07-2010, 10:19 PM
If Julia leads ALP, it will be a relavively easy win!
If Julia doesn't lead ALP I don't care about politics
If Julia leads Coalition I 'll vote for the Coalition!
I voted for a Labor win (16-30 seats)!

Igor_Goldenberg
14-07-2010, 10:42 PM
If Labor shut up and stop doing anything, they have excellent chances to win election. If they keep stuffing up at the same rate, opposition might have a chance.

Kevin Bonham
14-07-2010, 11:16 PM
Sorry, I have restarted the poll as I forgot to make it a public poll (I try to make the who do you think will win polls public and the who do you want to win polls private!)

If the four people who already voted (three for Labor by 15 or less and one for Labor by 16-30) would like to vote again that would be appreciated.

ER
14-07-2010, 11:32 PM
Sorry, I have restarted the poll as I forgot to make it a public poll (I try to make the who do you think will win polls public and the who do you want to win polls private!)

If the four people who already voted (three for Labor by 15 or less and one for Labor by 16-30) would like to vote again that would be appreciated.

OK I voted again. I had made my intention known in the first place anyway, so I am not editing/removing my original post!

Ian Murray
14-07-2010, 11:44 PM
OK I voted again. I had made my intention known in the first place anyway, so I am not editing/removing my original post!
You seem a bit ambivalent about Julia Gillard, JaK. :) Do you think she's a rough chance?

ER
14-07-2010, 11:58 PM
You seem a bit ambivalent about Julia Gillard, JaK. :) Do you think she's a rough chance?

Oh no my ambivalence is more applicable to the politics. My devotion to Julia is unequivocal! :)

Igor_Goldenberg
15-07-2010, 09:00 AM
Sorry, I have restarted the poll as I forgot to make it a public poll (I try to make the who do you think will win polls public and the who do you want to win polls private!)

If the four people who already voted (three for Labor by 15 or less and one for Labor by 16-30) would like to vote again that would be appreciated.
OK, no problem

Goughfather
15-07-2010, 11:35 AM
People might be interested to note that Centrebet has started displaying odds with respect to selected marginal electorates. With respect to the election itself, Centrebet currently has Labor at $1.22 and the Coalition and $4.10, with a line of 12.5 seats against Labor.

It's not clear to me whether the above odds relate to Labor winning the election in its own right, or simply to gain more seats than the Coalition, which is relevant considering that there are four seats that are currently (and will be) held by independents, as well as one seat that could very well be won by the Greens. If the latter, then Labor may lose office despite being the winning option. Does anyone know?

Ian Murray
15-07-2010, 12:05 PM
I see Jono is the only tipster predicting a Coalition win. A brave call from across the Pacific

Kevin Bonham
15-07-2010, 03:36 PM
It's not clear to me whether the above odds relate to Labor winning the election in its own right, or simply to gain more seats than the Coalition, which is relevant considering that there are four seats that are currently (and will be) held by independents, as well as one seat that could very well be won by the Greens. If the latter, then Labor may lose office despite being the winning option. Does anyone know?

Yes. The odds offered by Centrebet refer to the party that provides the Prime Minister following the election and are settled at the time of swearing in of that Prime Minister. So let's hypothetically suppose that Labor wins 74 seats, the Coalition 73 and Independents 3, with the Greens missing out. The Independents decide to support a Coalition government and the Coalition takes office. In this case the bets on the Coalition would be paid out as winning bets and the bets on Labor would not be paid out as winning bets, despite the Coalition winning fewer seats in its own right.

Information on the conditions of Centrebet election bets is found by clicking on a little "i" symbol to the left of the odds.

I see that they are currently offering a "line" bet at 12.5 seats Labor's advantage. This very closely coincides with my own current expected result, but it is early days yet.

A comparison of Centrebet and Sportingbet: There are 12 seats that at least one of them thinks will either change hands or is line-ball, and both of them have odds on 11 of those 12. Centrebet projects Labor losing three of its own seats (one to the Greens) and lineball in three others, and projects the Coalition losing three of its own seats and lineball in one other. Sportingbet projects Labor losing four of its own seats (one to the Greens) and lineball in three others (one of these not fielded by Centrebet) and projects the Coalition losing five of its own seats. [EDIT: I missed Greenway which Sportingbet have as a Labor gain and Centrebet aren't fielding on presumably because it's a no-brainer.]

In total the Centrebet odds point to a net Labor result of approximately no change, and the Sportingbet odds point to a net result of about no change to one gain. It should be slightly worse than that because there are a lot of seats where Labor is slight favourite on either, but at the moment the markets seem to think not many seats will change hands in either direction, a bit like 2001.

Igor_Goldenberg
15-07-2010, 03:40 PM
In total the Centrebet odds point to a net Labor loss of about one seat, and the Sportingbet odds point to a net result of zero to one lost seat. It might be slightly worse than that because there are a lot of seats where Labor is slight favourite on either, but at the moment the markets seem to think not many seats will change hands in either direction, a bit like 2001.
Based on pre- or post-redistribution seat allocation?

Igor_Goldenberg
15-07-2010, 03:55 PM
Influenced by the economist joke.

Q. Who is a psephologist?
A. Someone who explains after the election why people voted contrary to his prediction before the election.

Disclaimer:
It's not aimed at Kevin or anybody else in particular and I mean no offence.

Kevin Bonham
15-07-2010, 04:09 PM
Based on pre- or post-redistribution seat allocation?

Based on pre-redistribution allocation. However I made one mistake in the above scores - forgot that Greenway (NSW) has been redistributed to be so pro-Labor that some bookies are not even fielding on it.


Q. Who is a psephologist?
A. Someone who explains after the election why people voted contrary to his prediction before the election.

:lol: Good one, but that's setting the bar far too low, because "political journalists" do that too and have to do it much more often.

ER
15-07-2010, 04:15 PM
:lol: Good one, but that's setting the bar far too low, because "political journalists" do that too and have to do it much more often.

Yes, but they don't always qualify as psephologists, whereas pollsters (or pollstars) do! :P

Kevin Bonham
15-07-2010, 04:17 PM
Yes, but they don't always qualify as psephologists, whereas pollsters (or pollstars) do! :P

They do by Igor's definition!

By the way I have had some abuse on Tasmanian Times for too often explaining why people voted almost exactly the way I said they would. I do get it wrong sometimes though.

ER
15-07-2010, 04:18 PM
compares the results of this poll to the Julia's one!
first reaction ::hmm:
second reaction: :doh:
third reaction: :wall:

Igor_Goldenberg
15-07-2010, 04:24 PM
:lol: Good one, but that's setting the bar far too low, because "political journalists" do that too and have to do it much more often.
Journalists are in the class of their own. Not as bad as lawyers or politicians, but worse then used car salesmen.

Kevin Bonham
15-07-2010, 04:24 PM
compares the results of this poll to the Julia's one!
first reaction ::hmm:
second reaction: :doh:
third reaction: :wall:

The Gillard poll here currently shows that out of 15 posters intending to vote, 11 said the change in leadership would not affect their vote, 2 said it would make them slightly more likely to vote or preference Labor and 2 said it would make them much more likely to do so.

The sample size is really too small to draw any conclusions but I will tell you that I do a lot of work on poll questions of this kind (for instance, using them to predict the impact of something like the Bell Bay pulp mill proposal on the 2007 federal election for the seat of Bass). One thing I find is that to convert this sort of thing to a real impact on voting results you have to divide the much-more-likelies by at least five. So our little sample for the Gillard poll is probably fairly representative after all.

Igor_Goldenberg
15-07-2010, 04:27 PM
The Gillard poll here currently shows that out of 15 posters intending to vote, 11 said the change in leadership would not affect their vote, 2 said it would make them slightly more likely to vote or preference Labor and 2 said it would make them much more likely to do so.

The sample size is really too small to draw any conclusions but I will tell you that I do a lot of work on poll questions of this kind (for instance, using them to predict the impact of something like the Bell Bay pulp mill proposal on the 2007 federal election for the seat of Bass). One thing I find is that to convert this sort of thing to a real impact on voting results you have to divide the much-more-likelies by at least five. So our little sample for the Gillard poll is probably fairly representative after all.
And now polls are back to pre Gillard time - favour Labor by about the same margin, but have them deeply worried that the real picture is different. Whether this worry is justified or not is entirely different question.

Kevin Bonham
15-07-2010, 04:35 PM
And now polls are back to pre Gillard time - favour Labor by about the same margin,

Not quite. Rudd was getting some 52s at the end (eg his final Newspoll), but he was also getting bad polls like the 47 from Nielsen. Gillard is getting 52s most of the time. There is still a clear lift (when you consider all the polls together), but it's a small one and it remains to be seen how long it lasts.

Igor_Goldenberg
15-07-2010, 04:40 PM
Not quite. Rudd was getting some 52s at the end (eg his final Newspoll), but he was also getting bad polls like the 47 from Nielsen. Gillard is getting 52s most of the time. There is still a clear lift (when you consider all the polls together), but it's a small one and it remains to be seen how long it lasts.
I was under impression that the difference was mainly due to different methodology in working out Greens preferences.

Kevin Bonham
15-07-2010, 05:21 PM
I was under impression that the difference was mainly due to different methodology in working out Greens preferences.

I don't think any individual pollster has changed their methods, and in any case I'm thinking of the sorts of figures you would get for Labor under each candidate as a rolling average of all the polls (with those that tend to overestimate Labor adjusted for that.)

One thing that is showing up is that among those pollsters who ask respondents to direct their own preferences, the voters who say they will vote Green are preferencing Labor more under Gillard than under Rudd (about 76% compared to low 60s). Also the Green vote initially dipped when Gillard was appointed and has now gone back up again.

Igor_Goldenberg
15-07-2010, 05:27 PM
One thing that is showing up is that among those pollsters who ask respondents to direct their own preferences, the voters who say they will vote Green are preferencing Labor more under Gillard than under Rudd (about 76% compared to low 60s). Also the Green vote initially dipped when Gillard was appointed and has now gone back up again.
Interesting point.
Do you think:
1. When voters say they will vote Green, are they genuine?
2. When Green voters answer about the direction of preferences, are they genuine?
3. Will Green anti-Gillard campaign (by groups like GetUp, etc.) will have any affect on Green voters preference?

Kevin Bonham
15-07-2010, 06:06 PM
Interesting point.
Do you think:
1. When voters say they will vote Green, are they genuine?

Some of them are not genuine. Some voters say they will vote Green and then later decide not to, while some voters say they will vote Green although they don't actually intend to - they are unhappy with both major parties but don't want to say "don't know". The Green vote in almost all polls is more than they end up getting. If someone says they think they will vote Green but are not sure, they will vote for a major party - almost always.

At the moment the Greens are getting 13s and 14s in the polls. They almost certainly won't get that in the election (and if they are going to get 13 or 14 they'll be polling 18). They might get something like 11 the way it looks at the moment, maybe not even that.


2. When Green voters answer about the direction of preferences, are they genuine?

This is harder to tell. In previous elections Labor got slightly more Greens preferences than those polls indicated. It's possible that some of those who say they will preference the Coalition change their minds if the How-to-vote card says preference Labor. That said, how-to-vote cards don't have much effect on Greens voters, and the Greens have said they will issue open how-to-vote cards (not preference either party) at this election.


3. Will Green anti-Gillard campaign (by groups like GetUp, etc.) will have any affect on Green voters preference?

These campaigns are mostly aimed at getting the vote out - at making sure left-wing voters are enrolled and voting and pressuring Labor on issues. I don't think the GetUp voters are going to start giving preferences to Abbott.

By the way the Greens have candidate problems in NSW - Lee Rhiannon is in trouble and Bob Brown has asked her to resign her seat in NSW parliament.

Spiny Norman
16-07-2010, 05:36 AM
Its reasonable to expect that Labor will now get more Green preferences with Gillard than with Rudd; Gillard has a genuine left-wing past, despite her current right-leaning policies; Rudd, on the other hand, was almost purely opportunistic, so would say whatever was necessary to try to control the day's media cycle without actually having any intention of buying into the underlying principles of an issue (whether left or right).

Kevin Bonham
16-07-2010, 05:26 PM
Rudd, on the other hand, was almost purely opportunistic, so would say whatever was necessary to try to control the day's media cycle without actually having any intention of buying into the underlying principles of an issue (whether left or right).

Correct - but on the other hand, Rudd was very successful at harnessing global warming sentiment in 2007.

ER
16-07-2010, 05:32 PM
As strongly rumoured in the media:
Prime Minister Julia Gillard, will go to the Governor-General tomorrow and we'll have an election on the 28th - (ed) latest: Make that Sat August 21!

ER
16-07-2010, 08:26 PM
And oh Nature, didn't she look divine in royal blue overcoat and grey scarf? :)

Spiny Norman
17-07-2010, 08:00 AM
And oh Nature, didn't she look divine in royal blue overcoat and grey scarf? :)
Get your hand off it JAK! :lol: You'll go blind.

ER
17-07-2010, 09:12 AM
Get your hand off it JAK! :lol: You'll go blind.

ooops what it says there? can't read that mate, use larger fonts please??? :P :lol:

ER
17-07-2010, 11:14 AM
Did you see the people cheering? She is all dressed in white today! She looks absolutely magnificent! :)

ER
17-07-2010, 12:12 PM
She radiates kindness, inspires solidariy, encourages unity! What a speech! So eloquent, so meaningful, so rich in content!

Garvinator
17-07-2010, 12:34 PM
Election date set: Saturday August 21

Goughfather
17-07-2010, 12:42 PM
Election date set: Saturday August 21

Should be more than enough time for Abbott to comprehensively sabotage himself.

ER
17-07-2010, 12:47 PM
Election date set: Saturday August 21

Garv the following was first published here yesterday at around 5.30 pm


Prime Minister Julia Gillard, will go to the Governor-General tomorrow and we'll have an election on the 28th - (ed) latest: Make that Sat August 21!

Garvinator
17-07-2010, 12:51 PM
Garv the following was first published here yesterday at around 5.30 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by JaK
Prime Minister Julia Gillard, will go to the Governor-General tomorrow and we'll have an election on the 28th - (ed) latest: Make that Sat August 21!

Your previous post was a comment based on speculation. I was posting fact after the election date had been confirmed.

ER
17-07-2010, 12:54 PM
Your previous post was a comment based on speculation. I was posting fact after the election date had been confirmed.

No, yours was just a wait and see, long time after it was actually announced, sort of c'mon we know that already, stuff. Mine was we know today what you gonna hear from Garv tomorrow!!

ER
17-07-2010, 12:56 PM
Hey Kev interesting statistic:
First time since the 1914 elections we have both PM and leader of the Opposition born overseas!


Federal elections were held in Australia on 5 September 1914. All 75 seats in the House of Representatives, and all 36 seats in the Senate were up for election in a double dissolution. The incumbent Commonwealth Liberal Party led by Prime Minister of Australia Joseph Cook (born as Joseph Cooke in Silverdale, a small mining town near Newcastle-under-Lyme in Staffordshire, England). was defeated by the opposition Australian Labor Party led by Andrew Fisher ( born in Crosshouse, a mining village near Kilmaurs, East Ayrshire, Scotland).

Kevin Bonham
17-07-2010, 04:58 PM
Election date set: Saturday August 21

Well so much for this revelation from Dennis Shanahan. (http://www.news.com.au/features/federal-election/election-campaign-labor-strategists-defy-bookies-on-poll-date/story-e6frfllr-1225891988289)


Hey Kev interesting statistic:
First time since the 1914 elections we have both PM and leader of the Opposition born overseas!

Yes, but I don't think that anyone cares. Bit different from the US where this sort of thing is an automatic disqualifier so they have whole movements of whackos seeking to establish that Obama was born somewhere else.

Goughfather
17-07-2010, 06:37 PM
Just for the record, I'd suggest that all other things being equal and no major gaffes from either side will see Labor returned with a majority of 8 seats. I believe this might be slightly less than what is currently predicted by Kevin.

Igor_Goldenberg
17-07-2010, 06:55 PM
Just for the record, I'd suggest that all other things being equal and no major gaffes from either side will see Labor returned with a majority of 8 seats. I believe this might be slightly less than what is currently predicted by Kevin.
Are you involved in Labor campaign in any way?

Goughfather
17-07-2010, 07:05 PM
Are you involved in Labor campaign in any way?

Nope. The extent of my involvement has been to re-enrol in a marginal electorate. Depending on circumstances, I might be providing impartial and non-partisan assistance to voters on behalf of the Australian Electoral Commission on Election Day.

Igor_Goldenberg
17-07-2010, 07:11 PM
Just for the record, I'd suggest that all other things being equal and no major gaffes from either side will see Labor returned with a majority of 8 seats. I believe this might be slightly less than what is currently predicted by Kevin.


Nope. The extent of my involvement has been to re-enrol in a marginal electorate. Depending on circumstances, I might be providing impartial and non-partisan assistance to voters on behalf of the Australian Electoral Commission on Election Day.
OK, that reduces the likelihood of major Labor gaffes.

Igor_Goldenberg
18-07-2010, 12:10 AM
Compassion at work:

Liberal candidate attacked in SA: report (http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/liberal-candidate-attacked-in-sa-report-20100717-10f8c.html)

Apparently a Labor supporter is so compassionate to asylum seeker that he punched Liberal candidate (a woman!) in a head, as well as punching her assistant many times.
All in the name of compassion, of course.

ER
18-07-2010, 12:17 AM
Apparently a Labor supporter
Not necessarily a Julia supporter though, it might have been a Ruddist! :P

Kevin Bonham
18-07-2010, 12:31 AM
Apparently a Labor supporter is so compassionate to asylum seeker that he punched Liberal candidate (a woman!) in a head, as well as punching her assistant many times.
All in the name of compassion, of course.

Why do you assume that a Labor supporter was involved? The only information provided is that the assailants had an issue with Liberal policies on border protection. Frankly if they are that unhinged about that issue they probably have an issue with current Labor policies on it as well and are more likely to support parties of the hard left.

It is also worth noting that those accused of the assault filed an assault complaint themselves and that:


SA police media spokeswoman Senior Constable Rebecca Stokes said Sturt police attended the incident following reports of two males fighting.

If it is all as the Libs say it is then it's completely disgraceful and those concerned should be harshly punished, but I'd like to at least see if charges are laid (and against whom) before taking too much for granted here.

ER
18-07-2010, 01:47 AM
Yes, but I don't think that anyone cares. Bit different from the US where this sort of thing is an automatic disqualifier so they have whole movements of whackos seeking to establish that Obama was born somewhere else.

It shows to the world how much an egalitarian society we are and that our "fair go" to everyone ain't just empty rhetorics.
It also shows all those lost souls amongst us who take Australian Democracy for granted that if they can't do much to reinforce it at least they can respect and appreciate it instead of rubbishing it!

Kevin Bonham
18-07-2010, 02:41 AM
It shows to the world how much an egalitarian society we are and that our "fair go" to everyone ain't just empty rhetorics.
It also shows all those lost souls amongst us who take Australian Democracy for granted that if they can't do much to reinforce it at least they can respect and appreciate it instead of rubbishing it!

Or there's a more cynical view: that when our Constitution was first written our native-born political talent pool was so shallow and our devotion to the Mother Country still so slavish that restricting candidacy to natural-born Australians would have seemed utterly absurd.

Desmond
18-07-2010, 07:06 AM
Compassion at work:

Liberal candidate attacked in SA: report (http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/liberal-candidate-attacked-in-sa-report-20100717-10f8c.html)

Apparently a Labor supporter is so compassionate to asylum seeker that he punched Liberal candidate (a woman!) in a head, as well as punching her assistant many times.
All in the name of compassion, of course.
Exhibit #1327 of Igor making a conclusion not supported by the article he quotes.

Capablanca-Fan
18-07-2010, 11:25 AM
Compassion at work:

Liberal candidate attacked in SA: report (http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/liberal-candidate-attacked-in-sa-report-20100717-10f8c.html)

Apparently a Labor supporter is so compassionate to asylum seeker that he punched Liberal candidate (a woman!) in a head, as well as punching her assistant many times.
All in the name of compassion, of course.
Just like the oh-so-antiracist lefties attacked a black conservative at a Tea Party rally:

zrpXF4uoF0o

Goughfather
18-07-2010, 11:37 AM
Jono, this thread is about the Australian Federal Election. I know it's difficult for you, but please try to exhibit some kind of restraint in future.

Capablanca-Fan
18-07-2010, 11:52 AM
Jono, this thread is about the Australian Federal Election. I know it's difficult for you, but please try to exhibit some kind of restraint in future.
Just making an apt comparison, showing that leftards are the same where I now live as where I left.

Igor_Goldenberg
18-07-2010, 12:30 PM
Exhibit #1327 of Igor making a conclusion not supported by the article he quotes.
If you come to a different conclusion or a specific point to make, feel free to share.

Igor_Goldenberg
18-07-2010, 12:33 PM
Why do you assume that a Labor supporter was involved?
Somehow I doubt he will preference Lib ahead of Labor.

Kevin Bonham
18-07-2010, 12:39 PM
Somehow I doubt he will preference Lib ahead of Labor.

So what? That doesn't automatically make him a Labor supporter, even if he will preference Labor second-last and the Liberals last (for instance). There are plenty of hard-left voters who despise both major parties. Just in the last day or two on Tasmanian Times I have been fielding a bunch of questions from green voters who want to know how they can avoid their preference going to either major party because they can't stand either of them. (Short answer: in the House of Reps you can't unless you vote informal, but in the Senate you can if you are very sneaky with a loophole in the below-the-line system. Happy to elaborate.)

Garvinator
18-07-2010, 12:50 PM
(Short answer: in the House of Reps you can't unless you vote informal, but in the Senate you can if you are very sneaky with a loophole in the below-the-line system. Happy to elaborate.)
Please do elaborate.

Igor_Goldenberg
18-07-2010, 01:00 PM
So what? That doesn't automatically make him a Labor supporter, even if he will preference Labor second-last and the Liberals last (for instance). There are plenty of hard-left voters who despise both major parties.
OK, replace Labor supporter with "lefty"

Just in the last day or two on Tasmanian Times I have been fielding a bunch of questions from green voters who want to know how they can avoid their preference going to either major party because they can't stand either of them.
If they are genuine, it's quite simple. Talk to spouse/partner]friend and agree to split preferences 50/50 (it will have the same effect, I presume).I doubt, however, they are genuine.

Igor_Goldenberg
18-07-2010, 01:11 PM
she kissed the first baby in her campaign! In Brisbane! (fortunate little angel) :) :clap: she is lovely! She 'll speak soon. It's expected to be a monumental speech!
I'd like to see any politician kissing a child to be charged with child molesting!

Kevin Bonham
18-07-2010, 05:17 PM
Please do elaborate.

In the Senate, if you vote below the line you only need to fill in at least 90% of the boxes for your vote to be valid. So provided there are at least 20 Senate candidates in your state or territory, if you vote below the line and leave the third Labor and the third Coalition boxes blank, putting the remaining Labor and Coalition candidates last of those you do number, then it is very unlikely either Labor or the Coalition will ever get your preference, and if it comes down to a contest between them for the last seat, your vote will exhaust and have no impact on that contest.


If they are genuine, it's quite simple. Talk to spouse/partner]friend and agree to split preferences 50/50 (it will have the same effect, I presume).I doubt, however, they are genuine.

Oh, they are very much genuine - there is a lot of hatred of both major parties among the ultra-greens down here because of forestry.

Your suggestion of splitting preferences is a very good one for a simple way around the problem.

Igor_Goldenberg
18-07-2010, 09:31 PM
Laurie Oakes whacks Wayne Swan on Channel 9 this morning about Labor’s mindless repetition of ”moving forward”, which he calls “slogans for bogans”.

Kevin Bonham
18-07-2010, 09:56 PM
Laurie Oakes whacks Wayne Swan on Channel 9 this morning about Labor’s mindless repetition of ”moving forward”, which he calls “slogans for bogans”.

Agreed, and Abbott's line "great big new tax" is the same, and so was/is Labor's odious "working families". The dumbing-down level on both sides in the messages sent out is pretty bad.

Capablanca-Fan
19-07-2010, 07:55 AM
Terry McCrann (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/special-reports/julia-gillard-locked-into-a-policy-paralysis/story-fn5ko0pw-1225893672737):


Gillard wants to have it both ways. Don’t judge me on my past performance, at the same time demanding a potential Abbott government be defined by what the Howard government did…

This should be an election between two sides competing to tell us the truth about the hard and ultimately rewarding reforms we still need. It is bad enough that a Gillard government would be committed to standing still on reform. Worse, she has sought to “lock” a future Abbott government into the same policy paralysis. And depressingly, she has probably succeeded...

Kevin Bonham
20-07-2010, 02:50 AM
Labor-Green preference deal appears to have been done (Bob Brown's posturing about how they wouldn't preference anyone this time notwithstanding).

Early indications are Labor gives the Greens preferences in the Senate in every state and gets preferences from the Greens in a big pile of marginals.

Goughfather
20-07-2010, 03:07 AM
Given that Greens voters are less likely to follow How to Vote cards and would more generally preference Labor, what kind of net benefit do you think will result from this deal?

Capablanca-Fan
20-07-2010, 03:53 AM
Agreed, and Abbott's line "great big new tax" is the same, and so was/is Labor's odious "working families". The dumbing-down level on both sides in the messages sent out is pretty bad.
True, but at least Abbott was right.

Desmond
20-07-2010, 07:12 AM
Terry McCrann (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/special-reports/julia-gillard-locked-into-a-policy-paralysis/story-fn5ko0pw-1225893672737):


Gillard wants to have it both ways. Don’t judge me on my past performance, at the same time demanding a potential Abbott government be defined by what the Howard government did…To me this is a big copout. Surely any governement should be able to stand tall and point to what they acheived in 3 years, not shy away from it.

antichrist
20-07-2010, 07:47 AM
To me this is a big copout. Surely any governement should be able to stand tall and point to what they acheived in 3 years, not shy away from it.

Maybe she was referring to her knife in the back of Kevvy, on that point her and Abbott are probably equal, whereas on the Govt's policies they probably did nothing wrong, except for the environment but that is not realy their fault.

Igor_Goldenberg
20-07-2010, 09:33 AM
Labor-Green preference deal appears to have been done (Bob Brown's posturing about how they wouldn't preference anyone this time notwithstanding).

Early indications are Labor gives the Greens preferences in the Senate in every state and gets preferences from the Greens in a big pile of marginals.
Brown's bleating of being sick of preference deals does not sound very convincing.

Mephistopheles
20-07-2010, 10:14 AM
True, but at least Abbott was right.
Oooh! This is one of those irregular verbs, isn't it?

Abbott's position is right.
Labor promotes bogan simplification.
The Greens use slogans and lies.

Igor_Goldenberg
20-07-2010, 10:36 AM
Laurie Oakes whacks Wayne Swan on Channel 9 this morning about Labor’s mindless repetition of ”moving forward”, which he calls “slogans for bogans”.
So far Labor is much worse. What is current Coalition slogan?

TheJoker
20-07-2010, 10:56 AM
So far Labor is much worse. What is current Coalition slogan?

"Real Action"

Igor_Goldenberg
20-07-2010, 11:49 AM
Labor runs a classical scare campaign full of smear and even outright lies.
Two of them stick out:
Labor keeps claiming "Abbott ripped $1 billion out of hospital system"
Labor keeps claiming Abbott will bring back work choice.

It's telling that the only things Labor can concentrate at the moment lies in the very distant past, which completely contradicts their slogan "moving forward"

Goughfather
20-07-2010, 12:14 PM
"Real Action"

Really? I thought that their campaign slogan was:

"Dead. Buried. Cremated."

Given Abbott's self-immolation over the last few days, it seems to be somewhat more appropriate at this stage.

Garvinator
20-07-2010, 01:02 PM
Really? I thought that their campaign slogan was:

"Dead. Buried. Cremated."

Given Abbott's self-immolation over the last few days, it seems to be somewhat more appropriate at this stage.
Also, remember that Abbott believes in re-incarnation, so it might be dead, buried and cremated, but that does not mean it is all over for work choices ;)

Also, as his promise was not a prepared policy speech, it is not the gospel truth and so should not be believed :lol:

Garvinator
20-07-2010, 02:19 PM
In the Senate, if you vote below the line you only need to fill in at least 90% of the boxes for your vote to be valid. So provided there are at least 20 Senate candidates in your state or territory, if you vote below the line and leave the third Labor and the third Coalition boxes blank, putting the remaining Labor and Coalition candidates last of those you do number, then it is very unlikely either Labor or the Coalition will ever get your preference, and if it comes down to a contest between them for the last seat, your vote will exhaust and have no impact on that contest.
Do you know where or how to view who are on the ballot paper for the senate? I had a look at the aec website and could not find it.

Kevin Bonham
20-07-2010, 02:58 PM
Do you know where or how to view who are on the ballot paper for the senate? I had a look at the aec website and could not find it.

Nominations haven't closed yet. They close 29 July and then are made public 30 July.


Also, remember that Abbott believes in re-incarnation, so it might be dead, buried and cremated, but that does not mean it is all over for work choices ;)

:lol:


Given that Greens voters are less likely to follow How to Vote cards and would more generally preference Labor, what kind of net benefit do you think will result from this deal?

Probably worth a few seats. Green how-to-vote cards only move Greens preferences by about 5-10%. In the last election there were four seats (Robertson, Flynn, Solomon, Bass) where the winning margin was below 10% of the Green vote.

By the way, the Labor slogan for Rudd was apparently going to be "Kevin Rudd - On Our Side".

Goughfather
20-07-2010, 03:15 PM
Probably worth a few seats. Green how-to-vote cards only move Greens preferences by about 5-10%. In the last election there were four seats (Robertson, Flynn, Solomon, Bass) where the winning margin was below 10% of the Green vote.

If that's the case, then the deal is probably a game-changer, whether this means turning a narrow loss into a narrow win or turning a narrow win into a win with a little bit more breathing space. However, while I'm not sure how significant this is, perhaps the deal will backfire in some way in that it may alienate some centre-right leaning swinging voters?


By the way, the Labor slogan for Rudd was apparently going to be "Kevin Rudd - On Our Side".

With the theme I'm guessing of Abbott in contrast standing for big business and the big mining companies at the expense of working families or somesuch. It may have been a reasonable workable motif if the message was sold effectively, but given the last few months of the Rudd Prime Ministership, I have doubts that this message would have been effectively communicated and that it would have cut through in the electorate.

Capablanca-Fan
20-07-2010, 03:57 PM
Labor runs a classical scare campaign full of smear and even outright lies.
Two of them stick out:
Labor keeps claiming "Abbott ripped $1 billion out of hospital system"
Labor keeps claiming Abbott will bring back work choice.

It's telling that the only things Labor can concentrate at the moment lies in the very distant past, which completely contradicts their slogan "moving forward"
Yeah, Gillardova wants us to forget KRudd's cockups that cost him the PM-ship, although Gillardova was behind every one of them. Yet she wants us to remember Howard's work choices (but not his surplus, low unemployment, low interest rates). Abbott has declared that "work choices" is dead, unfortunately, since now we have Gillardova's "fair work" that has deprived some people of jobs they would choose to do, e.g. kids working after school for two hours.

TheJoker
20-07-2010, 05:19 PM
Abbott has declared that "work choices" is dead, unfortunately, since now we have Gillard's "fair work"

I think you'll find Abbott has been trying to choose his words carefully around amending industrial relatoins legislation. He has committed to not amending the Fair Work Act but has not made the same commitment around the regulations.

Igor_Goldenberg
20-07-2010, 05:20 PM
I think you'll find Abbott has been trying to choose his words carefully around amending industrial relatoins legislation. He has committed to not amending the Fair Work Act but has not made the same commitment around the regulations.
Because regulations (some!) do not require amendments to legislation.

Igor_Goldenberg
20-07-2010, 05:22 PM
Question to Kevin:

Senate vote below the line is a nightmare to poll counters. Aren't they tempted to throw out (with the excuse of them being informal) as many as possible?

TheJoker
20-07-2010, 05:29 PM
Because regulations (some!) do not require amendments to legislation.

Yes I am well aware of that. What I am saying is that Abbott has not made any committment not to amend the regulations and therefore can (and probably will) make significant changes to the industrial relations system if he wins office.

Was he trying to pull the wool over the electorates eyes? I dunno but if it looks a like a duck and walks like a duck....

Kevin Bonham
20-07-2010, 05:30 PM
Senate vote below the line is a nightmare to poll counters. Aren't they tempted to throw out (with the excuse of them being informal) as many as possible?

They can only throw out as informal those that are actually informal and there are very strict and very precise rules on this. The parties have scrutineers and if the counters threw out votes that were formal they would be challenged.

These days they do a preliminary check for formality on the night and the below-the-lines are entered into a computer, which distributes the preferences based on how voters have numbered them. It takes a few weeks to enter all the papers in then they just press a button and the computer spits out all the results. I am not sure if the computer also checks for formality.

TheJoker
20-07-2010, 09:06 PM
Labor runs a classical scare campaign

Libs doing the same thing with public debt and interest rates

Virtually No Public Debt RBA Chief Says (http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/virtually-no-public-debt-rba-chief-says-20100720-10j9g.html)


The federal opposition may be fretting about Labor's debt and deficit, but Glenn Stevens certainly isn't.
....
Opposition treasury spokesman Joe Hockey said the coalition was making announcements about savings because the budget was in deficit and government debt continued to grow each day.

"So you have got the Australian government with its foot on the accelerator spending and you have got the Reserve Bank with its foot on the brake increasing interest rates," he told reporters in Melbourne.

But Mr Stevens clearly doesn't see it that way.

"There is virtually no net public debt in the country at all in contrast to much of the developed world," Mr Stevens said in answer to a question after a speech to the Anika Foundation.

"The most recent figures out of Canberra was a peak of five or six per cent of GDP. So far from that being the highest in history, it is closer to the lowest."

Another questionnaire asked the room of 370 guests, mostly economists, to raise their hand if they believed one side of politics will apply more downward pressure on interest rates than the other.

Not one hand was raised.

Asked if he agreed with this consensus, Mr Stevens responded, to laughter and clapping: "I have two words - no comment".

The opposition has ventured into the interest rate debate early in the campaign, saying rates will always be lower under a coalition government because it always spends less.

"I can guarantee that we will take the upward pressure off interest rates," Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said on Monday.


When I see an election where either major party doesn't run some sort of BS scare campaign, I'll be totally shocked

ER
20-07-2010, 10:24 PM
Who will win the election?
Julia will :clap:
Why?
Because she can!!! :P

Goughfather
20-07-2010, 11:47 PM
Libs doing the same thing with public debt and interest rates

Indeed. It simply shows how desperate they are at the moment, considering that this is fairly dangerous ground to be treading on for the Coalition. Making these kind of outlandish claims worked a treat in the 2004 election, but it came back to bite them after people were subject to about six or seven consecutive rate hikes in the lead up to the 2007 election. Considering that rates have come down to historically low levels since then under the Labor government, I suspect that it's a debate that Julia Gillard may very well welcome.

Speaking of treading on dangerous ground, what was Mr Abbott thinking when he accepted an invitation to appear on "Hey Hey it's Saturday", purportedly given second billing to Kylie Minogue? Considering that rumour has it that Abbott currently trails Plucka Duck in the Preferred PM stakes, I personally think that it was unwise for Abbott to agree to share a platform in circumstances where it was difficult to tell which of the two was more of a comedic figure.

Capablanca-Fan
20-07-2010, 11:59 PM
Who will win the election?
Julia will :clap:
Why?
Because she can!!! :P
Good grief, sounds like Obamov. American voters were too stupid to realize that "hope and change" and "yes we can" are not policies but vapid slogans.

Garvinator
21-07-2010, 12:04 AM
Good grief, sounds like Obamov. American voters were too stupid to realize that "hope and change" and "yes we can" are not policies but vapid slogans.Or bumper stickers.

antichrist
21-07-2010, 12:12 AM
Good grief, sounds like Obamov. American voters were too stupid to realize that "hope and change" and "yes we can" are not policies but vapid slogans.

But Obama has yes he has on health insurance and putting back safeguard regulations in the financial sector.

And the health insurance is only half baked due to ideological fanatics like yourself.

Capablanca-Fan
21-07-2010, 01:22 AM
Dangers of a Green signal (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/dangers-of-a-green-signal/story-e6frfhqf-1225894751050)
Andrew Bolt
Herald Sun 21 July 2010

ONE election result is already clear — and makes this debate about Tony Abbott's "secret" plans even more brainless.

Wake up, people. The Greens will have the balance of power in the Senate.

Labor sealed that deal when it agreed this week to swap preferences with a party that its wiser heads know would devastate the economy if it could.

That's politics, I guess. Winning is all, and to hell with the national interest.

But how grotesquely irresponsible.

Labor is helping into power a party that demands we scrap our power stations and close industries that earn us at least $60 billion a year.

...

f the Greens get their avowed way, we'll have huge industries banned, businesses driven broke and power prices driven through the roof, with not enough electricity for what industries will be left.

So with our income slashed to ribbons, what do the Greens propose? Not deep cuts in every government program, but a spending spree to make Kevin Rudd seem a miser.

It's free money for everyone. If you vote for the Greens, you're voting for an extra week of holidays for all, "mandated shorter standard working hours", more pay to women workers, higher pay for casuals, and better weekly benefits to students and artists.

More pay for less work, at the mere stroke of a green pen. Isn't this a darling way to reorganise the economy? What could possibly go wrong?

Too spendthrift, you complain?

Wise up, friend. The Greens have barely started.

They promise to lift foreign aid to "a minimum of 0.7 per cent of GDP by 2010", which means an instant rise in handouts of $4 billion a year.

Another $2 billion a year will go to scrap tertiary fees and forgiving all HECS debts. Billions more will go on putting train lines underground and subsidising "green" power.

On and on the spending spirals, as if the Greens are the party for spoiled children using daddy's credit card, with not the slightest giddy thought of how it's all going to be paid for.

Oh, excuse me — the Greens do lazily assume that the bill will be covered by hiking corporate taxes, hitting the richer 5 per cent of us with wealth taxes, and slugging air travellers.

Kevin Bonham
21-07-2010, 01:30 AM
Good grief, sounds like Obamov. American voters were too stupid to realize that "hope and change" and "yes we can" are not policies but vapid slogans.

I think this is shaping up as one of the most dumbed-down elections for decades.

ER
21-07-2010, 01:45 AM
Hi Kev by the way this voting enrollment will last me for the State election gig?
I wanna vote for Sally's mum she is also my hero but in State Politics!

Kevin Bonham
21-07-2010, 01:52 AM
Hi Kev by the way this voting enrollment will last me for the State election gig?

I don't know what the rules are for Victoria; I do know that in Tasmania your enrolment is automatically transferred at all levels. I'd assume that's the same for Vic too, but might be worth checking especially if interested in voting in council elections.

Capablanca-Fan
21-07-2010, 04:56 AM
7xSAkcinQk0&feature=player_embedded

Igor_Goldenberg
21-07-2010, 09:10 AM
Libs doing the same thing with public debt and interest rates


Are they also lying?

TheJoker
21-07-2010, 10:06 AM
Are they also lying?

Yes but in more contrived way

1) Trying to trick voters by saying they won't amend the IR legislation, in an an attempt to disguise their intent to modify IR through the Regs

2) Prentending public debt is a serious probelm when they know full well that it is not

3) Prentending, yet again, that they can influence interest rates when they know full well that they cannot with their current set of policies.

ER
21-07-2010, 10:44 AM
I don't know what the rules are for Victoria; I do know that in Tasmania your enrolment is automatically transferred at all levels. I'd assume that's the same for Vic too, but might be worth checking especially if interested in voting in council elections.

I 'll check thanks!

ER
21-07-2010, 11:18 AM
Wake up, people. The Greens will have the balance of power in the Senate.

wow!


Labor sealed that deal when it agreed this week to swap preferences with a party that its wiser heads know would devastate the economy if it could.

Hi there Jono, you either know more than Bob or you see things! :)

http://bob-brown.greensmps.org.au/content/media-release/gillard-did-not-discuss-preferences-me

Igor_Goldenberg
21-07-2010, 11:41 AM
Yes but in more contrived way

1) Trying to trick voters by saying they won't amend the IR legislation, in an an attempt to disguise their intent to modify IR through the Regs
Rubbish. Labor continually tweaking the regulations within their IR legislation. Why can't Liberals do the same?


2) Prentending public debt is a serious probelm when they know full well that it is not
Another rubbish. Accumulating debt at the speed Labor is doing is a problem.


3) Prentending, yet again, that they can influence interest rates when they know full well that they cannot with their current set of policies.
Rubbish yet again. Cutting government wasteful spending will reduce inflation pressure.

However, even if you are correct, you can't accuse them of lying.
Labor, however, is much more deceitful in their claims, especially this $1 billion hospital ripoff.

TheJoker
21-07-2010, 12:55 PM
Rubbish. Labor continually tweaking the regulations within their IR legislation. Why can't Liberals do the same?

They can but they should be honest about what they intend to do, especially in senstive areas such as unfair dismissal.


Another rubbish. Accumulating debt at the speed Labor is doing is a problem.

Not according to the RBA Governor, but hey you are expert here right.


Rubbish yet again. Cutting government wasteful spending will reduce inflation pressure.

Do you really think the level of spending cuts announced by the Libs will have any significant effect on inflation or interest rates. None of the 300 odd economists present at the RBA Governors speech did.


However, even if you are correct, you can't accuse them of lying..

Saying something you know isn't true that's lying if you ask me. Then again they might not be lying if they are stupid enough to ignore what the economists think and actually believe their own BS.


Labor, however, is much more deceitful in their claims, especially this $1 billion hospital ripoff.

I agree it is deceptive, it makes it look like total funding was reduced by $1 billion, when in total funding actually increased by $10 billion, which was $1 billion less than the forecast $11 billion dollar increase if the original commitments had been honoured

Igor_Goldenberg
21-07-2010, 01:22 PM
I agree it is deceptive, it makes it look like total funding was reduced by $1 billion, when in total funding actually increased by $10 billion, which was $1 billion less than the forecast $11 billion dollar increase if the original commitments had been honoured
And Abbott wasn't a health minister at the time.

TheJoker
21-07-2010, 02:59 PM
And Abbott wasn't a health minister at the time.

I am not sure about that, he was health minister for at least some of $1 billion cuts to the health budget. Here is how labour justify their claim.


In 2003 $108 million was cut from public hospitals.

In 2004 Mr Abbott cut $172 million.

In 2005 he cut $264 million.

In 2006 he cut a further $372 million and more in 2007 his final year as Health Minister.

That's more than a billion dollars cut from hospitals in just 5 years.

It's a bit vague they really only attribute $808 million dollars in cuts to Abbott.

Note Abbott himself doesn't deny that there were $1 billion dollars worth of budget cuts.

Igor_Goldenberg
21-07-2010, 03:59 PM
I am not sure about that, he was health minister for at least some of $1 billion cuts to the health budget. Here is how labour justify their claim.


In 2003 $108 million was cut from public hospitals.

In 2004 Mr Abbott cut $172 million.

In 2005 he cut $264 million.

In 2006 he cut a further $372 million and more in 2007 his final year as Health Minister.

That's more than a billion dollars cut from hospitals in just 5 years.

It's a bit vague they really only attribute $808 million dollars in cuts to Abbott.

Note Abbott himself doesn't deny that there were $1 billion dollars worth of budget cuts.

Health Care Agreements with states (which Labor brazenly claims ripped 1 billion out of the system) was finalised in September 2003, Abbott became health minister in October 2003.

Even a leftist The Age admits in the article Abbott's billion dollar rip-off? The truth on health funding (http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/contributors/abbotts-billion-dollar-ripoff-the-truth-on-health-funding-20100316-qaq1.html)

"It turns out to be one of those political attack lines which so crudely simplifies reality as to be misleading while stopping short of being an outright untruth."

The Labor ad is, actually, an outright lie.

TheJoker
21-07-2010, 04:27 PM
Health Care Agreements with states (which Labor brazenly claims ripped 1 billion out of the system) was finalised in September 2003, Abbott became health minister in October 2003.

Even a leftist The Age admits in the article Abbott's billion dollar rip-off? The truth on health funding (http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/contributors/abbotts-billion-dollar-ripoff-the-truth-on-health-funding-20100316-qaq1.html)

"It turns out to be one of those political attack lines which so crudely simplifies reality as to be misleading while stopping short of being an outright untruth."

The Labor ad is, actually, an outright lie.

If the article is correct then it is certainly wrong to assign responsibility of the $1 billion cuts to Abbott directly.

Mephistopheles
21-07-2010, 04:27 PM
Heaven forbid that a political advertisement should contain an untruth!

*gasp!*

ER
21-07-2010, 04:46 PM
http://static.stuff.co.nz/1260865144/483/3164483.jpg

quiet please I am preparing for Sunday!

ER
22-07-2010, 12:13 AM
[21-07-2010 05:48 PM] JaK: hey Kev, Dead, buried and cremated doesn't really make sense does it? someone dies, then you bury them and then you exhume them to cremate them?
:eek: :rolleyes: :hmm:

Mr Abbott said it, repeated it, wrote it down, signed it!

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/workchoices-zombie-stalks-ir-undertaker-abbott-20100719-10grm.html?comments=27

Jono and Igor, please help!!!!

ER
22-07-2010, 03:39 AM
Something he said? :hmm:


Opposition Leader Tony Abbott was booed on the set of Hey Hey It's Saturday by many of the audience at the family variety show.

Walking into the studio to take his place as a judge on the amateur talent quest Red Faces of the Nine Network's show on Wednesday night, the opposition leader received the sort of welcome usually reserved for perennially unpopular resident judge Red Symons.

http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/breaking-news-national/abbott-booed-on-hey-hey-20100721-10la9.html

When SBS was in the old building (Arts Centre - across the street from ABC) I used to see Red (Symons) almost every morning when I was doing early shifts. He is a nice person! :)

Igor_Goldenberg
22-07-2010, 09:44 AM
^^^^^^^
It was stupid for Abbott to go there (and smart for Gillard not to).

Igor_Goldenberg
22-07-2010, 09:57 AM
http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2010/07/22/1225895/332656-nicholson-cartoon-100722.jpg

ER
22-07-2010, 10:25 AM
^^^^^^^
It was stupid for Abbott to go there (and smart for Gillard not to).

:lol: good response thanks Igor but I am still waiting for this ....



[21-07-2010 05:48 PM] JaK: hey Kev, Dead, buried and cremated doesn't really make sense does it? someone dies, then you bury them and then you exhume them to cremate them?


:eek: :rolleyes: :hmm:

Mr Abbott said it, repeated it, wrote it down, signed it!

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/workchoices-zombie-stalks-ir-undertaker-abbott-20100719-10grm.html?comments=27

Jono and Igor, please help!!!!

Any enlightement for me??? :hmm:

ER
22-07-2010, 10:44 AM
lol while you 're thinking! :lol:

http://broelman.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/broelmanjune28.jpg

Igor_Goldenberg
22-07-2010, 11:00 AM
Any enlightment for me??? :hmm:
Since you asked for my understanding:
Labor has nothing to campaign on. Their record is abysmal, the only sensible policies they had were all pinched from Liberal, their own policies were (and still are) a disaster. To top it off, they are also very incompetent in running the government. (that's why they want us "moving forward", which, according to Julia Gillard, means "moving forward")

They desperately need a distraction, so they are peddling the line "Abbott will return WorkChoices". A lot of journalists do the same.
And when Abbott pledges not to bring Work Choices back, they respond "But you don't mean it". Labor is desperately trying to keep a three year old issue (which has been non-issue since then) in spotlight.
That's where they don't want to move forward.

Garvinator
22-07-2010, 11:16 AM
If Labor were really proud of their record, then they would be campaigning on their record and what a great job they have done. Since they are trying to get people looking forward, instead of looking at the record they have achieved, it gives you a clear picture of what they really think of their record to date.

Mephistopheles
22-07-2010, 11:41 AM
I don't think that their record is actually all that bad. There have been some well-publicised and awkward stumbles but they're far from carrying the country to Hell in a handbasket.

The most obvious reason for this "moving forward" crap is a deliberate attempt to distance the party from the stigma of Rudd, whose final months in power were a train wreck from the point of view of public perception.

I absolutely loathed the round-faced prat from the word go but I'd have to say that, overall, he did a perfectly acceptable job in many respects. His growing unpopularity was doubtful to have caused Labor to lose the election and the party rejected his leadership more due to internal politicking than any thought of electoral success (if you ask me). However, given that he was generally "on the nose" with the electorate at the time of his departure, it seems like smart politics to try to get him as far in the rear view mirror as possible.

Desmond
22-07-2010, 11:52 AM
I don't think that their record is actually all that bad. There have been some well-publicised and awkward stumbles but they're far from carrying the country to Hell in a handbasket.Only because they couldn't organize the basket.

ER
22-07-2010, 12:39 PM
(that's why they want us "moving forward", which, according to Julia Gillard, means "moving forward")

Thanks for acknowledging Julia, Mate, :P I am a Julia's fan too not a Labor Party supporter,:)

BTW my question was about the logic behind dead, burried, cremated!!! the order doesn't make sense! Mercy!:eek:



Only because they couldn't organize the basket.

LOL whereas, Tony organised the casket and the funeral and then exhumed the body to cremate it! Brilliant!!!:clap: :lol:

antichrist
22-07-2010, 12:47 PM
Thanks for acknowledging Julia, Mate, :P I am a Julia's fan too not a Labor Party supporter,:)

BTW my question was about the logic behind dead, burried, cremated!!! the order doesn't make sense! Mercy!:eek:



LOL whereas, Tony organised the casket and the funeral and then exhumed the body to cremate it! Brilliant!!!:clap: :lol:

antichrist:
In the Inquisition days supposed heretics were dead, buried and cremated. If a rich merchant died the RCC would accuse him of heresy and dig up his bones and put him on trial. Of course he lost the case, therefore the Church confiscated his property from his grieving family, leaving them poverty stricken and serfs to the Church.

The Church then had his bones burnt at the stake. As Tony Abbott is the old fashioned religious type he would be well aware of this.

ER
22-07-2010, 12:53 PM
going the right way???

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/multimedia/images/full/692817.jpg



Val Johnson's Are We There Yet? was one of nine Bald Archy works to portray Tony Abbott.

Tony Dowden
22-07-2010, 09:50 PM
:lol: Some amusing commentary here.

The election could be surprisingly close. I'm picking some irrelevant issue to sway voters in the closing fortnight :rolleyes:

antichrist
22-07-2010, 10:57 PM
:lol: Some amusing commentary here.

The election could be surprisingly close. I'm picking some irrelevant issue to sway voters in the closing fortnight :rolleyes:

Well they reakon that Julia was leading some lesbian group in her uni days and we know that Abbot thought he had had sewn wild oats but he had been cuckolded - could it be a scenario like Abbot siring a babe with Julia? How bizzare

Kevin Bonham
23-07-2010, 12:10 AM
Well they reakon that Julia was leading some lesbian group in her uni days

Who supposedly reckons this?


and we know that Abbot thought he had had sewn wild oats but he had been cuckolded

Wrong - as I keep trying to explain to your mate now known as Antler Matt, Abbott could not have been cuckolded as he was not married.

antichrist
23-07-2010, 12:14 AM
[QUOTE=Kevin Bonham]Who supposedly reckons this?


Was on Dark Side of Moon shoutbox last night I think it was, by Ax so must be super reliable

Kevin Bonham
23-07-2010, 02:43 AM
Was on Dark Side of Moon shoutbox last night I think it was, by Ax so must be super reliable

Ah yes, that was some nonsense about her allegedly being a communist satanist lesbian. Most of the claimed "evidence" concerned the charge of satanism.

Well I guess I should thank him for brightening up an otherwise dull election but if his aim is to scare people off voting for Gillard it probably has exactly the reverse effect.

Igor_Goldenberg
23-07-2010, 09:18 AM
Ah yes, that was some nonsense about her allegedly being a communist satanist lesbian. Most of the claimed "evidence" concerned the charge of satanism.

"Satanist lesbian" part is very stupid.

Mephistopheles
23-07-2010, 10:49 AM
Ah yes, that was some nonsense about her allegedly being a communist satanist lesbian.
Perhaps the rumour (if there was one) was a pitch to libertarian righties. After all, that's what LaVeyan Satanism is at its heart - libertarianism + mystical hokum = Satan.

Kevin Bonham
23-07-2010, 05:33 PM
Perhaps the rumour (if there was one) was a pitch to libertarian righties.

Unfortunately it wasn't that good; it was a pitch to crackpot tinfoil-hat righties (some of whom are also libertarian righties, or they claim to be).

Original here (http://www.henrymakow.com/new_aussie_pm_is_communist_les.html). Warning: link is exceedingly stupid.

antichrist
23-07-2010, 05:38 PM
Unfortunately it wasn't that good; it was a pitch to crackpot tinfoil-hat righties (some of whom are also libertarian righties, or they claim to be).

Original here (http://www.henrymakow.com/new_aussie_pm_is_communist_les.html). Warning: link is exceedingly stupid.

I wonder what libertarians are an re-action against?

Kevin Bonham
24-07-2010, 10:00 PM
The Libs are now just getting butchered in most polls. What's killing them is the gender gap - for instance Nielsen had males 50-50 and females 58-42 on the 2PP. Female voters were shaky about Abbott anyway but Australia has never had a female PM before and those women who take gender into account in voting are generally not going to give her the flick after just 2 months in office. Barring the usual riders (major scandal, unprecedented world event, massive campaign stuffup etc) I just don't see how the Coalition is supposed to win from here. The polling is around as bad for them as it was last election at the same point and they're not even in government this time round. Paradoxically, it might be good for them if Labor goes on leading like this because complacency about Labor winning might be worth a point or three.

The campaign this far by all sides is the most braindead and gutless I have ever observed at federal level.

Rincewind
24-07-2010, 10:23 PM
Original here (http://www.henrymakow.com/new_aussie_pm_is_communist_les.html). Warning: link is exceedingly stupid.

It's worth reading just to see how stupid and poorly researched something can be. It basically reads like: everyone I don't like (basically left of Fred Nile) is a gay communist satanist. If I keep repeating that often enough someone will be stupid enough to believe me.

Igor_Goldenberg
24-07-2010, 11:10 PM
Gillard feels the greenshirts’ lash (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/gilladr_feels_the_lash_of_the_green_totalitarians/)


Example one yesterday:

A protester was tackled to the ground as the Prime Minister announced her environment policy in a speech in Brisbane… The protester, later named as Bradley Smith, shouted “coal and gas has got to go” as he advanced on the PM.

Example two yesterday:

Two environmental activists locked themselves by the neck to a door inside Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s Werribee electorate office this afternoon, in protest at her climate policy announcement.

Anybody attacked by greens (I like Bolt's definition "greenshirt") almost always gets my sympathy, and Gillard is no exception. Not enough to get my vote, though..

antichrist
25-07-2010, 09:57 AM
Well I was the lone green (anti-nuke) protester against Hawke at Syd Opera House but they would not let me in though I had a current ALP membership card. so outside with banner I stayed. Yet Igor has no sympathy for me at all - get a heart for your mate, Igor

pax
25-07-2010, 10:12 AM
"Satanist lesbian" part is very stupid.
while "communist" is merely stupid?

Igor_Goldenberg
25-07-2010, 11:52 AM
while "communist" is merely stupid?
No, it reflects her involvement with extreme left (which she is trying to distance from now).

Ian Murray
25-07-2010, 12:13 PM
No, it reflects her involvement with extreme left (which she is trying to distance from now).
Settle down, Igor. Her lifetime political involvement has been only with the ALP.

george
25-07-2010, 12:15 PM
hi all,

Went to a Green's fundraising quiz night last night - very nice friendly time was had by all!! Two things though all the folks at the table agreed was that:
1. Polls seem to be suggesting strongly that most women irrespective of party allegiance are going to vote for Julia.
2. It was smart politics of the greens to do the preference deal with Labor.

Enjoy your Sunday folks!!

Basil
25-07-2010, 12:35 PM
hi all,

Went to a Green's fundraising quiz night last night - very nice friendly time was had by all!! Two things though all the folks at the table agreed was that:
1. Polls seem to be suggesting strongly that most women irrespective of party allegiance are going to vote for Julia.
2. It was smart politics of the greens to do the preference deal with Labor.

Enjoy your Sunday folks!!
I don't think we needed a Greens fundraiser to establish those concepts. Glad the back-slapping was a good time had by all.

george
25-07-2010, 12:51 PM
hi Captain,

It wasnt a meeting simply a get together with like minded folks and a few observations made at our table. Nothing sinister captain simply folks getting together having a few wines answering some questions and having a nice time. It raised some money for a house of reps Greens candidate who doesnt have big dollars behind him but is standing because he believes in principles and ideals - so he is worth supporting - a bit like the guy tilting at windmills but worth supporting anyway for reasons you may or may not understand.

Have a fantastic sunday - we are about to go to a birthday party!!

Igor_Goldenberg
25-07-2010, 06:33 PM
Settle down, Igor. Her lifetime political involvement has been only with the ALP.
Not quite right, Ian. She was a secretary of Socialist Forum, one of the most extreme left-wing organisation in Australia.

antichrist
25-07-2010, 06:37 PM
Not quite right, Ian. She was a secretary of Socialist Forum, one of the most extreme left-wing organisation in Australia.

I hope they are against Israel - if so they did not any good for Gillard

Ian Murray
25-07-2010, 08:34 PM
Not quite right, Ian. She was a secretary of Socialist Forum,
Which was a lobby group within the ALP, now merged with the Fabian Society.

one of the most extreme left-wing organisation in Australia.
How many millions of times have I told you not to exaggerate! One of the most extreme left-wing organisations in Australia, indeed :rolleyes:

In any case how many radical student activists remain radical activists in middle age?

Kevin Bonham
25-07-2010, 10:39 PM
Not quite right, Ian. She was a secretary of Socialist Forum, one of the most extreme left-wing organisation in Australia.

What was extreme about it?

Igor_Goldenberg
25-07-2010, 10:53 PM
Which was a lobby group within the ALP, now merged with the Fabian Society.

"The Socialist Forum was established in 1984, initially by disaffected members of the Communist Party of Australia (CPA)." (document here (http://www.lib.unimelb.edu.au/collections/archives/collections/pdfs/socialistforum.pdf))



In any case how many radical student activists remain radical activists in middle age?
She was member of Socialist Forum even at tender age of 41. Radical leftism is a significant part of her past.
Whether she moderated or not remains to be seem.

Igor_Goldenberg
25-07-2010, 10:54 PM
What was extreme about it?
In my books recruiting communists in ALP is quite extreme.

antichrist
25-07-2010, 10:59 PM
"The Socialist Forum was established in 1984, initially by disaffected members of the Communist Party of Australia (CPA)." (document here (http://www.lib.unimelb.edu.au/collections/archives/collections/pdfs/socialistforum.pdf))


She was member of Socialist Forum even at tender age of 41. Radical leftism is a significant part of her past.
Whether she moderated or not remains to be seem.


Unfortunately she has become too bloody moderated. She must grow a spine first, then a principle. Currently she would not make a commos backside - they have principle and fight for it.

Kevin Bonham
26-07-2010, 03:27 AM
In my books recruiting communists in ALP is quite extreme.

If this is what the Socialist Forum did then purportedly the aim was to cancel out the reintroduction to the party of Santamaria-style types.

ER
26-07-2010, 04:36 AM
The Seven Network's ''Polliegraph'' monitoring audience reaction gave a narrow win to Ms Gillard, scoring the ALP with 53 per cent of the vote.

I usually get it right, I am not happy with my shout box estimation - prediction! :(



25-07-2010 07:29
my estimation: Gillard 54-56 Abbott 46-44

Further info


Newspoll and Galaxy both have Labor ahead of the Coalition on a two-party preferred basis -- 52 to 48 per cent.

Although all that gets a bit too annoying, who cares about right wing, silly, sexist anti-Gillard publications. The electorate will fix all that come August 21st.

GO JULIA!!!

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20100725/capt.44ae786c88d64de3a56c531374a9dcd6-44ae786c88d64de3a56c531374a9dcd6-0.jpg

Goughfather
26-07-2010, 07:49 AM
I'm surprised that not much has been said about the "Great" Debate, thus far. I was travelling back from Canberra at the time, so listened to the debate on ABC radio. As such, I didn't get the benefit of seeing non-verbal communication or the worm. That said, it seemed to me to be a rather lacklustre affair with neither contestant being particularly impressive but no real own goals being scored either. My assessment in the wash up is that the end result was something of a nil-all draw. I would think that this probably is positive for Gillard because Abbott is the one needing the land the knockout blow at the moment.

Interestingly, the audience gave the debate relatively comfortably to Gillard, while Laurie Oakes gave the debate on the balance to Tony Abbott. That said, he did not seem particularly impressed with either contestant and qualifed his assessment by suggesting that both contestants were "pygmies" in comparison to the contestants in previous campaigns.

ER
26-07-2010, 08:05 AM
Make sure you watch a recording of it! the whole thing! she was in absolute control, she shone, she captivated, she inspired. Tony was reading from his notes! She spoke without script and kept on smiling that beautiful disarming smile! :)
She is good, she is Julia!
GO JULIA

http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200705/r141094_486288.jpg

antichrist
26-07-2010, 08:20 AM
Interestingly, the audience gave the debate relatively comfortably to Gillard, while Laurie Oakes gave the debate on the balance to Tony Abbott. That said, he did not seem particularly impressed with either contestant and qualifed his assessment by suggesting that both contestants were "pygmies" in comparison to the contestants in previous campaigns.

I consider Laurie Oakes the most over-rated boof around, him and Neil Harvey and Bert Newton should have been put out to pasture 20 years ago. And Philip Adams and George Negus. Not that anyone else coming up are much better.

In the Philippines their feature writers in one or two serious newspapers leaves ours for dead.

antichrist
26-07-2010, 08:23 AM
JAK
Make sure you watch a recording of it! the whole thing! she was in absolute control, she shone, she captivated, she inspired. Tony was reading from his notes! She spoke without script and kept on smiling that beautiful disarming smile!
She is good, she is Julia!

AC
It just shows that Abbott is an amateur who would prefer to be out surfing then getting stuck into policy. A bit more balanced with lower blood pressure so to speak.

Ian Murray
26-07-2010, 09:07 AM
If this is what the Socialist Forum did then purportedly the aim was to cancel out the reintroduction to the party of Santamaria-style types.
And a big if it is too. Interpreting "established in 1984, initially by disaffected members [i.e. ex-members] of the Communist Party of Australia" to mean recruiting Communists is a big stretch.

Inferring that Gillard has a Communist background is an even bigger stretch

Igor_Goldenberg
26-07-2010, 09:58 AM
Who takes worm seriously?

Igor_Goldenberg
26-07-2010, 10:00 AM
Headache for Gillard as miners ready to launch anti-tax ads (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/headache-for-gillard-as-miners-ready-to-launch-antitax-ads-20100725-10q8t.html)

Igor_Goldenberg
26-07-2010, 12:42 PM
Labor spin machine goes into overdrive with questions for Tony Abbott (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/labor-spin-machine-goes-into-overdrive-with-questions-for-tony-abbott/story-fn59niix-1225896933191)


Party operatives telephoned journalists this morning to advise them on what questions they should ask Tony Abbott.

At the same time as Julia Gillard is being criticised for constantly refusing to address questions at her press conferences, her Labor machine now appears to want to want to write Mr Abbott's.

Igor_Goldenberg
26-07-2010, 01:38 PM
http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2010/07/25/1225896/782415-cartoon-260710-leak.jpg

Desmond
26-07-2010, 02:15 PM
Wiki has a good page with plenty of interesting at-a-glance facts here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_federal_election,_2010).

Kevin Bonham
26-07-2010, 03:34 PM
I'm surprised that not much has been said about the "Great" Debate, thus far. I was travelling back from Canberra at the time, so listened to the debate on ABC radio. As such, I didn't get the benefit of seeing non-verbal communication or the worm.

The most interesting thing about the worm was the use of gendered worms (male and female). I was watching the Seven version (I think the Nine version had a different worm that was a tad Gillard-biased) and in general the female audience very much liked Gillard and disliked Abbott while the male audience liked Abbott and were dubious about Gillard. The gender difference was present almost constantly, no matter what they were talking about.


That said, it seemed to me to be a rather lacklustre affair with neither contestant being particularly impressive but no real own goals being scored either. My assessment in the wash up is that the end result was something of a nil-all draw.

I thought it was pretty even and both sides just did what would be expected, no more no less. Abbott seemed to have his facts out of order on immigration intake while Gillard's flogging of the East Timor solution seemed all a bit hopeful at this stage, and apart from those two issues there were not a lot of high or low points.

If anything I thought Gillard was slightly ahead because Abbott's body language did not come across as well on TV.

ER
26-07-2010, 04:26 PM
Who takes worm seriously?
I do!!! :P

Kevin Bonham
26-07-2010, 04:57 PM
Moderation Notice

This is not the thread for generic left-right BB culture wars. Some posts heading in that direction have been removed to here (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=12227).

Any discussion of this thread split may be made in the Moderation thread in the Help and Feedback section. Any discussion of it posted to this thread will be deleted.

Basil
26-07-2010, 05:33 PM
I thought Abbott's appearance on Hey Hey and his performance in the debate both assisted him in his quest. I'm guessing the booers in the Hey Hey audience were haters (which is fine) - and were from the same set that booed John Howard at sporting events. With these people, Abbott's not going backwards, but instead exposing himself to some swingers who may have been imbued with the 'hate' for which lefties are so famous (according to me)*.

As for the debate, I took in considerable commentary from 7, 9 and SKY. SKY canvassed opinions from a number of newspaper editors and had a number of interviews with same.

Both commercial audiences had wins for Gillard. No shock to me there. I can't recall a worm that has ever supported the Libs - even with Lib election victories around the corner. Lots of reasons for this - I posit two both of which are insuling to lefties and and the propensity to be a plank :D

All SKY commentators had Abbott ahead (Speers had it as a dead draw). Put that down to right-leanings of the commentators or put that down to their professional interpretation - either is fine by me. I believe Abbott won.

The Age editor had Gillard ahead by a squidge. The Adelaide Advertiser had Abbott ahead by a squidge.

I believe Abbott when he says he's happy with the result. I believe him when he says he wants two more. I'm certainly happy with his performance.

If Gillard is happy with that, then that's great. If I were a Labor strategist, I'd be reinforcing no more debates because on their respective performances, IMO, only Abbott can gain ground. Gillard's preaching to the converted will always excite, but could hardly gain new suppporters > Drone / Workchoices/ Afected Common Touch, whereas Abbott's preaching to the converted will also hardly excite, but I believe he is coming across much more of a human than the attack dog that he has previously been.

*Already I see on the streets, on BBs and on TV that people are falling on the two sides I have previously observed in relation to left right politics : Abbott is becoming fast hated (for very little reason) while Gillard and her government is being pegged as incompetent (for very good reason!).

Kevin Bonham
26-07-2010, 05:43 PM
I believe Abbott when he says he's happy with the result. I believe him when he says he wants two more. I'm certainly happy with his performance.

I think Abbott did better than expected and that Liberal strategists would be relieved about that. There certainly won't be any more debates; pretty much any government would prefer to avoid the things at all as they are more risk for a government than they are worth, but a government that avoids them altogether risks being seen as sissy.

ER
26-07-2010, 06:35 PM
...
As for the debate, I took in considerable commentary from 7, 9 and SKY. SKY canvassed opinions from a number of newspaper editors and had a number of interviews with same...


Unfortunate attempt to sound objective :hand:
Not after crap like this anyway:


She has no top lip and a voice that's doubles in excavation emergencies in WA's mines. That aside, she's shaping as having even less conviction (and more poll driven) than Rudd, and at this rate won't last the distance, even if the electorate suspends its intelligence for a second time. :lol:

So

GO JULIA !!!

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/afp/20100725/capt.photo_1280044030421-1-0.jpg

Basil
26-07-2010, 07:37 PM
GO JULIA !!!

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/afp/20100725/capt.photo_1280044030421-1-0.jpg
^^^

To my list of insults (which are a reaction to Elliott's fawning) I'm adding her hairstyle. Pinched straight out of Dickie Knee's wardrobe.

ER
26-07-2010, 08:20 PM
To my list of insults (which are a reaction to Elliott's fawning) I'm adding her hairstyle. Pinched straight out of Dickie Knee's wardrobe.
Whereas Tony's is more like John Blackman's yeah?

http://static.stuff.co.nz/1260865144/483/3164483.jpg

ER
27-07-2010, 05:12 PM
http://www.money-au.com.au/finance-news/business-news/australian-economy-experiencing-robust-growth-6895/


No matter who ends up winning the upcoming Australian general election, the winner will undoubtedly have to take control of an economy growing at an above trend rate of 3.5 per cent.

As if were any doubt who's going to win!
Julia is going to win!
GO JULIA!!!

http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200711/r206090_785222.jpg

ER
27-07-2010, 10:06 PM
6.21 pm: Seven News wrapped up the day in a poultice of puns. The network's chief political reporter Mark Riley, over footage of Tony Abbott's stunt filleting a huge barramundi in Mackay, told us that there was something particularly fishy about Abbott's campaign ...

but...

Good God, but would you vote for this person? :eek: Sorry but I can't find the courage to reproduce this image here! :eek:

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-election/the-pulse/fishy-news-from-truth-factory-20100727-10sxm.html

you were warned!

Capablanca-Fan
27-07-2010, 10:56 PM
Gillard's Lead Slips as Voters in Australia Back Abbott on Economy Issues (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-27/gillard-s-poll-lead-slips-as-australian-voters-support-abbott-on-economy.html)
By Marion Rae, 26 July 2010

Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s poll lead slipped before next month’s election as voters judged that opposition leader Tony Abbott is better able to handle the economy, interest rates and the nation’s budget.

Voters favored Abbott’s Liberal-National coalition on the economy 47 percent to 35 percent over the incumbent Labor government, according to a Newspoll July 23-25 survey published in the Australian newspaper today. The poll had a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

...

Gillard aims to persuade voters that Labor should be rewarded for implementing stimulus measures that avoided a recession during the global financial crisis even at the cost of a budget deficit. Abbott, the coalition’s third leader since its defeat almost three years ago, is benefiting from Liberal Prime Minister John Howard’s record of nine budget surpluses between 1998 and 2007.

“Nostalgia for the Howard era” is driving the polls, Kuhn said. “There’s a lot more uncertainty now.”

...

Opposition spokesman Andrew Robb today said Gillard’s “reckless spending” is putting pressure on the daily cost of living.

Desmond
28-07-2010, 02:20 PM
Anyone know when the candidates are finalised/announced?

Igor_Goldenberg
29-07-2010, 09:34 AM
Back to election.

Julia Gillard tried to damage-control cabinet leaks by portraying herself as fiscal conservative. Andrew Robb (interviewed on Lateline with Chris Bowens (http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s2967115.htm)) cut through the spin:



ANDREW ROBB: Tony, I thought, contrary to what Chris is saying - I found there was absolutely no credibility in what the Prime Minister had to say today. She said - and I've got the quote here, if I could - she said, "I looked at the pension increase and the paid paternal leave scheme from every angle. I held them up to the light. I examined every possibility. I asked every question because I wanted to satisfy myself that they were affordable - affordable today and affordable tomorrow."

How does that stack up with a Prime Minister who, over the last three years, has had responsible for programs such as the school halls program. Where did she hold those programs up to a light?

She has wasted $6 billion plus - $6,000 million plus this Prime Minister has wasted. And what about the program announced even on Saturday? This cash for clunkers. You know, it's a nonsense scheme.

Her own minister said last year it would cost a billion, they've costed it at $400 million, it's failed around the world, and yet she has wasted again ...

Igor_Goldenberg
29-07-2010, 09:37 AM
Laurie Oakes said Julia Gillard was against pension increase because pensioners don't vote for Labor (indeed, wisdom comes with age), which Gillard denied.
This morning Andrew Bolt asked on the radio:
"Who would you believe, Laurie Oakes or Julia Gillard?"
My first thought was "Neither".

Goughfather
29-07-2010, 09:50 AM
Laurie Oakes said Julia Gillard was against pension increase because pensioners don't vote for Labor (indeed, wisdom comes with age), which Gillard denied.
This morning Andrew Bolt asked on the radio:
"Who would you believe, Laurie Oakes or Julia Gillard?"
My first thought was "Neither".

And my first thought is that I'd believe Oakes or Gillard long before I regarded anything that Andrew Bolt said as remotely credible.

ER
29-07-2010, 09:50 AM
Igor!
Our PM is on ABC 24 making important announcements right now! :clap:
isn't she beautiful???

Igor_Goldenberg
29-07-2010, 10:09 AM
Igor!
Our PM is on ABC 24 making important announcements right now! :clap:
isn't she beautiful???
I'll let Gunner answer that:lol:

Igor_Goldenberg
29-07-2010, 10:11 AM
And my first thought is that I'd believe Oakes or Gillard long before I regarded anything that Andrew Bolt said as remotely credible.

Passionate hate (which is a trait of left anyway) of Bolt by lefties is well known. He is quite good at cutting through their spin and hypocrisies.
That passionate hate along would make me in interested in his column.

Goughfather
29-07-2010, 10:14 AM
Passionate hate (which is a trait of left anyway) of Bolt by lefties is well known. He is quite good at cutting through their spin and hypocrisies.
That passionate hate along would make me in interested in his column.

And it seems to be a trait of the righties on this board to conflate disagreement with hatred. I don't hold any kind of hatred for Andrew Bolt - I don't know him personally. I simply regard him as an untalented hack who has demonstrated himself to be untrustworthy time and time again.

Igor_Goldenberg
29-07-2010, 10:16 AM
And it seems to be a trait of the righties on this board to conflate disagreement with hatred. I don't hold any kind of hatred for Andrew Bolt - I don't know him personally. I simply regard him as an untalented hack who has demonstrated himself to be untrustworthy time and time again.
If he is "untalented", how did he manage to draw such a big audience?

ER
29-07-2010, 10:18 AM
If he is "untalented", how did he manage to draw such a big audience?

Lady Gaga draws big audiences too! :P

Igor_Goldenberg
29-07-2010, 10:33 AM
Lady Gaga draws big audiences too! :P
Never seen her, so I'll trust your assessment of her talent.

Capablanca-Fan
29-07-2010, 01:36 PM
jT5FyeP_wA0&feature=player_embedded

ER
29-07-2010, 02:50 PM
:lol: Classic! :clap:
the four part voice harmony arrangement from Beethoven's Choral, great too! :clap:

Igor_Goldenberg
29-07-2010, 03:39 PM
Law and order takes campaign centre stage as parties vow crackdown on gangs, weapons (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/abbott-vows-to-take-on-violent-gangs-as-law-and-order-takes-campaign-centre-stage/comments-fn59niix-1225898388368)



Campaigning in Melbourne, a community where knife-related violence is a significant public issue, Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard both moved into the policy area that is largely the responsibility of states.(my highlight)
Can they both keep to federal issues and don't stick their noses into state issues?

Ian Murray
29-07-2010, 10:58 PM
[Law and order takes campaign centre stage as parties vow crackdown on gangs, weapons]



Campaigning in Melbourne, a community where knife-related violence is a significant public issue, Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard both moved into the policy area that is largely the responsibility of states.(my highlight)
Can they both keep to federal issues and don't stick their noses into state issues?
Policing is states business, import controls are federal.

Goughfather
30-07-2010, 12:10 AM
Morgan poll currently has Labor ahead 53-47 (from 55-45) and Galaxy poll has the parties tied 50-50 (from 52-48). I thought that the 55-45 result from the last Morgan poll seemed a bit overcooked and my sense is that the contest has narrowed slightly in the last week. I'm guessing that the true result is probably somewhere in between the Morgan and Galaxy polls, 51-49 or thereabouts.

Kevin Bonham
30-07-2010, 01:10 AM
Morgan poll currently has Labor ahead 53-47 (from 55-45) and Galaxy poll has the parties tied 50-50 (from 52-48). I thought that the 55-45 result from the last Morgan poll seemed a bit overcooked and my sense is that the contest has narrowed slightly in the last week. I'm guessing that the true result is probably somewhere in between the Morgan and Galaxy polls, 51-49 or thereabouts.

I think it's now in the range 51 to 52. That's the range where Labor could do anything from just fall across the line to win by 20+ seats.

The full roll of recent polls that I'm aware of:

Last Friday Morgan face* 55-45, Morgan phone 55.5-44.5
Saturday Nielsen 54-46
Sunday Newspoll 52-48, Essential* 55-45
Today Galaxy 50-50, Morgan face* 54-46, Morgan phone 53-47.

Those marked * overcook for Labor by 2-3 points on average.

The Morgan phone 55.5-44.5 was indeed overcooked and you can tell this because it was higher than the Morgan face to face, which automatically overcooks most of the time because it is conducted by a dodgy method!

Galaxy has a habit of giving lower Labor readings than other polls and also one of not moving around much between samples. However its final election polls tend to be good so I'm cautious about adjusting for that.

Kevin Bonham
30-07-2010, 02:38 AM
Did some more betting market crunching since it's often a better predictor than opinion polls.

Centrebet currently predict Labor to lose six seats (one to the Greens) with another two tied and gain two. Counting the ties as half that's a net loss of five = 78-68-4.

Sportingbet currently predict Labor to lose six seats (one to the Greens) with another three tied and gain three. Given that it has three Lib seats as very close, let's round the ties down to one between them and that's a net loss of four = 79-67-4.

The reason Labor is still overwhelmingly favourite when these totals suggest a close outcome is that at the moment there are really not that many Government seats in play. The Coalition need to either win just about every seat that is currently considered seriously in play, or else they need the overall dynamics to change so that more seats come into play.

A big fight between Gillard and Rudd might do the latter. Can't see what else will at the moment.

Goughfather
30-07-2010, 02:55 AM
At what odds are you considering a seat "seriously in play"? $1.60/$2.20, or does it have to be tighter than that?

Kevin Bonham
30-07-2010, 03:25 AM
At what odds are you considering a seat "seriously in play"? $1.60/$2.20, or does it have to be tighter than that?

I consider any seat seriously in play if the party not currently holding it is the favourite.

If the holding party is the favourite then I generally only consider it seriously in play at this stage if both parties are $2.00 or under. In theory $1.60/$2.20 is 58% chance to 42% chance but at the actual election very few seats held by sitting members favoured by that sort of margin fall.

Basil
30-07-2010, 09:08 AM
M.o.m.e.n.t.u.m.

Igor_Goldenberg
30-07-2010, 09:42 AM
http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2010/07/29/1225898/370417-mark-knight.jpg

Kevin Bonham
30-07-2010, 03:10 PM
Stimulus debate now has its own thread (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=12255).

Oepty
30-07-2010, 08:38 PM
http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2010/07/29/1225898/370417-mark-knight.jpg

LOL

Kevin Bonham
30-07-2010, 10:11 PM
M.o.m.e.n.t.u.m.

Apparently so. It is being reported that AC Nielsen are about to release a poll showing 48-52. Yep, Labor 48 - Coalition 52, from 54-46 a week ago. Supposed primaries 38-45.

Probably not very accurate but let's wait and see if the others follow suit.

But if it's real, I suggest the Coalition could be peaking too soon. Just one of these puppies gives a lot more zing to three weeks' worth of scare campaigns and playing the underdog on Labor's part.

Meanwhile candidate lists are up:

http://www.aec.gov.au/election/who-are-the-candidates.htm

Oepty
31-07-2010, 12:33 AM
Apparently so. It is being reported that AC Nielsen are about to release a poll showing 48-52. Yep, Labor 48 - Coalition 52, from 54-46 a week ago. Supposed primaries 38-45.

Probably not very accurate but let's wait and see if the others follow suit.

But if it's real, I suggest the Coalition could be peaking too soon. Just one of these puppies gives a lot more zing to three weeks' worth of scare campaigns and playing the underdog on Labor's part.

Meanwhile candidate lists are up:

http://www.aec.gov.au/election/who-are-the-candidates.htm

I noticed - having looked it up for other reasons - that the seat of Canberra has an all female line up of candidates - 3 candidates. Has there ever been an all female line up for a seat before?
Scott

Kevin Bonham
31-07-2010, 12:51 AM
I noticed - having looked it up for other reasons - that the seat of Canberra has an all female line up of candidates - 3 candidates. Has there ever been an all female line up for a seat before?
Scott

I would be surprised if there hasn't, but I don't know for certain. Franklin (Tas) has female Labor, Green, Liberal candidates but an extremely obscure male independent nominated at the last moment to disrupt the pattern.

Oepty
31-07-2010, 12:56 AM
Thanks Kevin. Just thought it might fit in with Gillard being first female PM.
Another question - if Gillard loses the election where does she sit as far as shortest serving PMs go?
Scott

Kevin Bonham
31-07-2010, 01:35 AM
Another question - if Gillard loses the election where does she sit as far as shortest serving PMs go?

The loser usually remains PM until the polls are declared so if she loses then she will have been PM about 9-10 weeks.

There are four PMs who have served shorter terms. Page (20 days), Forde (8 days) and McEwen (23 days) were all caretakers after an incumbent died (or in Holt's case went missing presumed dead). That said McEwen was an influential caretaker because he vetoed McMahon as Holt's replacement forcing the Libs to choose Gorton instead.

Apart from caretakers the shortest serving was Fadden who famously joked that he was like the Flood because he "reigned for 40 days and 40 nights". Menzies resigned as PM in August 1941 as he had lost the support of his party, but they were so lacking in power that they invited Fadden as the leader of the other Coalition party to take over. The Coalition lacked a majority and the independent crossbenchers brought down Fadden's government in disgust at the way it had treated Menzies as leader.

The next shortest was Chris Watson at 3 months 21 days so if Gillard loses she will be fifth in the list.

Spiny Norman
31-07-2010, 07:12 AM
Latest Galaxy poll shows Coalition leading 52-48 with the "women vote" thing evaporating for Gillard. That's the headline anyway. I haven't seen the poll so cannot check it. Kevin, do you have your finger on the pulse? Is this another rogue poll? I frankly find it difficult to believe.

ER
31-07-2010, 07:17 AM
... That said McEwen was an influential caretaker because he vetoed McMahon as Holt's replacement forcing the Libs to choose Gorton instead.


Thanks for these very important historical notes Kevin!
I have a question.
Was John Gorton our only Senator Prime Minister?
Did he need to move to the House of Representatives to become "eligible" for the job?
BTW early morning news refer to negative polling results for Julia!

Kevin Bonham
31-07-2010, 08:17 AM
Kevin, do you have your finger on the pulse? Is this another rogue poll? I frankly find it difficult to believe.

Who knows? Have to wait until we see a few more. 48-52 is within the margin of error of, say, 50.5-49.5. Nielsen has been bouncing around rather a lot lately and this makes it a little bit difficult to trust.

Igor_Goldenberg
31-07-2010, 10:50 AM
IMO pollsters are more reliable in working out primary vote.
I'd think the rule of thumb should be:
If Labor polls 40% primary vote, they are most likely in.
Below 40% - they are most likely out.

Igor_Goldenberg
31-07-2010, 10:22 PM
Parental leave levy won't push up prices: Coles (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/31/2969672.htm?section=justin)


The Coalition has committed to funding the scheme by imposing a 1.7 per cent company tax levy on the nation's biggest businesses.

The Government says it will push up food prices.

But the managing director of Coles, Ian McLeod, has told ABC's Sunday Profile the levy would have a relatively small impact.

"In overall terms I'm probably more concerned about the rising utility bills that are emerging through Australia, with electricity rates rising at almost 20 per cent," he said.

I am in no way trying to exonerate Abbott 1.7% tax - it's a very bad and stupid policy because;
a) It increases the tax rate
b) It create two-tiered tax rate for business.

However, it is telling that energy prices is a bigger concern then a tax hike.
One of the most significant factor driving up electricity price is environmental/green policies, which turns out to be more damaging then reckless tax grab.

Kevin Bonham
01-08-2010, 02:34 AM
IMO pollsters are more reliable in working out primary vote.
I'd think the rule of thumb should be:
If Labor polls 40% primary vote, they are most likely in.
Below 40% - they are most likely out.

For a fair while now the general standard has been that the Coalition needs a primary of 42 and Labor needs a primary of 40 and if either poll below that then they will typically lose.

This election could be different if there is a really high Greens vote (which I'm not all that convinced there will be.) If the Greens vote nationwide gets into double figures we will start seeing more odd results like Bass (2007) which Labor won with a primary of 37 because the Greens vote was 15. The Libs got 43.5 and lost on preferences.

If there is not a high Greens vote, most likely Labor's primary will increase above polled levels. So when Labor only polls high 30s, the big question is how far ahead the Coalition is.


Was John Gorton our only Senator Prime Minister?
Did he need to move to the House of Representatives to become "eligible" for the job?

Yes to the first, but only for a few weeks. The second is a matter of Westminster tradition rather than being strictly needed. (Indeed amusingly for a few weeks while switching over Gorton was Prime Minister without being a member of either house!)

Desmond
01-08-2010, 08:08 AM
This election could be different if there is a really high Greens vote (which I'm not all that convinced there will be.) If the Greens vote nationwide gets into double figures we will start seeing more odd results like Bass (2007) which Labor won with a primary of 37 because the Greens vote was 15. The Libs got 43.5 and lost on preferences. I wonder if high expectations will work against the Greens, Eg, someone wants to register a protest vote against the major parties but they don't want the Greens to actually win. If there is any chance of the Greens actually winning then they might cast the protest elsewhere.

Garvinator
01-08-2010, 10:49 AM
Betfair are still saying:

Labor: $1.53
Coalition: $2.82

I think $2.82 for the Coalition is pretty good value.

Igor_Goldenberg
01-08-2010, 11:46 AM
Betfair are still saying:

Labor: $1.53
Coalition: $2.82

I think $2.82 for the Coalition is pretty good value.
Compare to Labor below $1.30 and Coalition above $3.50 the change is significant.

Igor_Goldenberg
01-08-2010, 12:08 PM
SMH published an article:
Parties bet they will lose (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/parties-bet-they-will-lose-20100731-110tj.html),
even though the only party that bets on their loss (at least according to the article) is Labor. SMH left bias is well known.

So, why Labor bureaucrats are betting on their loss? Do they simply want to hedge their odds? Or do they know something the rest of us doesn't? (like marginal seats real picture)

Igor_Goldenberg
01-08-2010, 06:14 PM
Watched sky news where they interviewed people in one of the marginal seats (who they were going for).
A very old gentleman answered along the line that wherever Labor got in, they managed to wreck a good economy. Indeed, wisdom comes with age.

Kevin Bonham
01-08-2010, 09:00 PM
So, why Labor bureaucrats are betting on their loss? Do they simply want to hedge their odds? Or do they know something the rest of us doesn't? (like marginal seats real picture)

Depending on when the bets were placed they may have just thought the Coalition was at longer odds than it deserved to be. Even a week ago I would have ridiculed that notion but at the moment Labor does seem to be making a fairly serious attempt at throwing this away, and it seems the electorate has finally started responding to their determined attempts to run an incoherent and shallow campaign.


Watched sky news where they interviewed people in one of the marginal seats (who they were going for).
A very old gentleman answered along the line that wherever Labor got in, they managed to wreck a good economy. Indeed, wisdom comes with age.

I think more likely forgetfulness comes with age. He must have forgotten what a mess the economy was in at the end of the term of Fraser (Lib) and how Hawke and Keating (ALP) had to fix it. (It is true there was a recession during their rule but that was very much later - and Keating to a large degree fixed that too, but annoyed too many people in the process.)

Oh, and if there is a true marginal seats picture beyond what we know from limited public polling and the betting markets, then I don't think anyone knows what it is. Yes there's a lot of "internal polling" around but some of that isn't very robust. The stuff that helped bring down Rudd was very suspicious, and I say that even without seeing the exact breakdown.

Igor_Goldenberg
01-08-2010, 09:31 PM
The stuff that helped bring down Rudd was very suspicious, and I say that even without seeing the exact breakdown.
You mean Labor used it just as excuse?

Kevin Bonham
01-08-2010, 09:57 PM
You mean Labor used it just as excuse?

Probably not quite that simple but something like that. Results like supposedly clearly losing Adelaide do not make sense. The sample size must have been very very small and an internal poll with a small sample size is no reason to roll an incumbent Prime Minister whether he is going through a tough time in the published polls or not.

Garvinator
01-08-2010, 10:08 PM
Probably not quite that simple but something like that. Results like supposedly clearly losing Adelaide do not make sense. The sample size must have been very very small and an internal poll with a small sample size is no reason to roll an incumbent Prime Minister whether he is going through a tough time in the published polls or not.And from all the reliable published polls at the time Kevin Rudd was still on course to win the election. Many leaders have come back from worse numbers than we were seeing for Kevin Rudd at that time.

Goughfather
01-08-2010, 10:14 PM
You mean Labor used it just as excuse?

More likely, those who used the internal polling to roll Rudd used it as an excuse, rather than Labor, per se.

Going back to the question of the betting markets, I always thought that odds in excess of $4.00 for the Coalition were overly generous, even though the odds blew out to over $6.00 when Rudd was riding high in the polls a year or so ago.

I think I heard somewhere that the Nielsen poll also asked which party voters expected to win the election, with over 70 percent expecting a Labor victory, despite to the 2PP showing of 48-52. I don't have any concrete numbers, but I'm guessing that at the start of the election campaign, that figure would have been somewhere between 80 and 90 percent.

Although voters expectations will often stand at odds with the party they wish to vote for, the expectations of voters often plays an interesting role in voting behaviour. When an incumbent is expected to win safely, there is a tendency of some voters shifting support to the Opposition even though this is at odds with their past voting behaviour. However, when the contest tightens and a change of government becomes a much more likely outcome, a good part of this support will return to the incumbent. It is in this context that Kevin's speculation about the Coalition "peaking too early" and both Gillard and Abbott giving themselves the underdog status begins to make sense.

Kevin Bonham
01-08-2010, 11:55 PM
Newspoll 50-50, consistent with the idea that the Nielsen poll was an overstatement of a real trend.

Coalition down to $2.50-$3 now.

Basil
02-08-2010, 02:38 AM
Newspoll 50-50, consistent with the idea that the Nielsen poll was an overstatement of a real trend.
Joilia was roight. OIt'll come dawn toi a roil knoife-oidge.

Capablanca-Fan
02-08-2010, 07:00 AM
KxCMm0zeO10&feature=player_embedded

Igor_Goldenberg
02-08-2010, 10:23 AM
For a fair while now the general standard has been that the Coalition needs a primary of 42 and Labor needs a primary of 40 and if either poll below that then they will typically lose.

This election could be different if there is a really high Greens vote (which I'm not all that convinced there will be.) If the Greens vote nationwide gets into double figures we will start seeing more odd results like Bass (2007) which Labor won with a primary of 37 because the Greens vote was 15. The Libs got 43.5 and lost on preferences.


Green vote is very far from being uniform. I don't know the distribution, but the only seats they are hoping to win are formerly very safe Labor seats. If their vote is the highest in safe Labor seat, that their preferences might not help Labor as much.
If they poll significantly in marginals, then it's a different story.

Igor_Goldenberg
02-08-2010, 04:25 PM
I rerun election calculator that shows that uniform swing of 2.4% puts Coalition in government (with only 49.7% 2PP). Usually incumbent has a better outcome/smaller swings against in the marginal seats. However, I am not sure it will be the case this election.
I'll stick to my 40% primary vote (for Labor) indicator.

Garvinator
02-08-2010, 07:55 PM
The back flipping continues from Gillard.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/national/julia-gillard-now-keen-for-second-debate-with-tony-abbott/story-fn5z3z83-1225900195565.

So, when Gillard was doing well in the polls and it looks likely that Labor was going to be returned, she did not want a debate. Now Gillard does want another debate.

Something must have changed. Could it be that the private, internal Labor polling is saying that at this point in time Labor will lose the election and so Gillard wants another debate, thinking they have nothing to lose :hmm:

Kevin Bonham
02-08-2010, 09:35 PM
Green vote is very far from being uniform. I don't know the distribution, but the only seats they are hoping to win are formerly very safe Labor seats. If their vote is the highest in safe Labor seat, that their preferences might not help Labor as much.
If they poll significantly in marginals, then it's a different story.

The number of seats the Greens have any hope of winning is so small that even several percent swings to the Greens in each would not go close to explaining the polled swing to the Greens overall. Something I have often noticed though is that the Greens tend to go up more in seats where they are already strong, so in marginals with low Green votes (Leichhardt springs to mind) a nationwide swing to the Greens is not likely to help Labor much.

Rincewind
02-08-2010, 09:37 PM
The number of seats the Greens have any hope of winning is so small that even several percent swings to the Greens in each would not go close to explaining the polled swing to the Greens overall. Something I have often noticed though is that the Greens tend to go up more in seats where they are already strong, so in marginals with low Green votes (Leichhardt springs to mind) a nationwide swing to the Greens is not likely to help Labor much.

Any chance of Mayo changing hands? The local campaigning has been pretty low key and it looks likes everyone is assuming it is a foregone result.

Kevin Bonham
02-08-2010, 09:38 PM
Something must have changed. Could it be that the private, internal Labor polling is saying that at this point in time Labor will lose the election and so Gillard wants another debate, thinking they have nothing to lose :hmm:

Today's lines from her just seemed like panic. It's really all very odd.

Kevin Bonham
02-08-2010, 09:40 PM
Any chance of Mayo changing hands? The local campaigning has been pretty low key and it looks likes everyone is assuming it is a foregone result.

That was nearly a by-election upset so I imagine it will now return to type as a safe Lib seat; if the Greens couldn't win it at a by-election they shouldn't get near in a general.

Mayo has an odd history; a Democrat got reasonably close to cleaning up Downer once.

Rincewind
02-08-2010, 09:50 PM
That was nearly a by-election upset so I imagine it will now return to type as a safe Lib seat; if the Greens couldn't win it at a by-election they shouldn't get near in a general.

Anything can happen in a by-election, ALP lost Cunningham in one not that long ago. At the general, it returned to blue ribbon Labor.


Mayo has an odd history; a Democrat got reasonably close to cleaning up Downer once.

Jamie Briggs is the incumbent now and I assume the Green candidate Diane Atkinson is the principle "threat", the ALP candidate Sam Davis doesn't look to be a serious contender. There also seems to be a good number of independents/minor party reps, which shouldn't worry Briggs much I imagine.

I don't suppose you have had any dealings with Diane?

Garvinator
02-08-2010, 10:09 PM
Mayo has an odd history; a Democrat got reasonably close to cleaning up Downer once.In 1998, Australian Democrat's John Schumann came close to winning on Labor and One Nation preferences. At the 2008 by-election on Downer's retirement, and with the state of flows in the Murray River a big issue, the Greens ran the Liberal Party a tight race.

Rincewind
02-08-2010, 10:57 PM
In 1998, Australian Democrat's John Schumann came close to winning on Labor and One Nation preferences. At the 2008 by-election on Downer's retirement, and with the state of flows in the Murray River a big issue, the Greens ran the Liberal Party a tight race.

Water management still seems to be the dominant local issue.

Goughfather
02-08-2010, 11:20 PM
I guess we're starting to talk about individual electorates now.

With redistributions, I make the current notional standing Labor 88, Coalition 58, Independents 4 (including the Lyne by-election and the disendorsement of Michael Johnson). Labor can only afford to lose twelve of these notionally held seats.

Working from the betting agencies, Labor seems cooked in these notionally held seats:

NSW

Gilmore - returning to LIB incumbent
Robertson - ALP incumbent lost pre-selection

VIC

Melbourne - ALP incumbent retiring, seat heading to the Greens

QLD

Dawson
Flynn
Leichhardt

WA

Swan

Indicating a near certain loss of these seven seats. Of those where the Coalition are currently favoured:

NSW

Macquarie - returning to LIB incumbent

QLD

Dickson - returning to LIB incumbent

Another two, making a total of nine if the Coalition can win both of those seats.

Of the seats where Labor is ahead or are lineball, these appear to be the closest:

NSW

Macarthur

VIC

Coorangamite
Deakin

QLD

Forde

NT

Solomon

WA

Hasluck

If the Coalition could win four of these six seats, without losing seats like McEwen and Hughes, then Labor would be unable to govern in their own right. At the moment, McEwen looks to be a good prospect for Labor, while the Coalition are marginally ahead in Hughes. Considering that one of the lost seats will be going to the Greens, I'm guessing that the Coalition will have to win five of the six seats to prevent Labor from forming government.

To govern in their own right, the Coalition would have to win all of the above seats (or other seats in substitution) plus another three seats where Labor looks moderately comfortable. In short, it's still a tough ask for the Coalition.

Oepty
02-08-2010, 11:38 PM
Where is Herbert going? It is a Liberal held seat notionally Labour by 0.003%. Surely that is a Liberal gain as well or am I missing something?
Scott

Goughfather
02-08-2010, 11:45 PM
Yes, Herbert is notionally Labor. Apparently, this was a seat carried on the back of the personal popularity of the previous Liberal incumbent and is expected to be a fairly tight race.

Bass in Tasmania is another seat which is apparently holding up well for Labor, but could change hands if things continue to turn against them.

Oepty
02-08-2010, 11:50 PM
Yes, Herbert is notionally Labor. Apparently, this was a seat carried on the back of the personal popularity of the previous Liberal incumbent and is expected to be a fairly tight race.

Okay, fair enough. I notice you have wronglyy stated Macquarie is held by the Liberal party - Swan though is held by the Liberal party.
Scott

Goughfather
03-08-2010, 12:02 AM
Yes, you're right about Macquarie, given that Louise Markus won Greenway in the 2007 election and is now contesting Macquarie. Apparently, the redrawn electoral boundaries mean that the northern half of Macquarie used to be part of Greenway, so she should hold some kind of advantage via incumbency.

Swan is notionally Labor held but has a Liberal incumbent.

Igor_Goldenberg
03-08-2010, 09:52 AM
Latest Newspoll (which gave 50-50 2PP) has 7% voters marked as "others". It would be interesting to know the make up of "others", as it would seriously influence the result.

Igor_Goldenberg
03-08-2010, 12:11 PM
Gillard announced couple of days ago she will campaign differently and we'll see more "real her".
It begs two question:
1. Was she fake before the announcement?
2. Why, as a voter, should I give a flick to how she campaigns?

Goughfather
03-08-2010, 12:20 PM
The reality is that the campaigns of both major parties has been heavily stage managed for several elections now. Most people understand this and while they don't approve, the fact that both parties engage in this type of behaviour neutralises the issue. That said, I regard Gillard's use of the phrase "the real Julia Gillard" as a tactical mistake and one which the Coalition should be able to make some kind of mileage from.

Igor_Goldenberg
03-08-2010, 01:53 PM
Labor campaign launch is scheduled for 16th of August in Brisbane.
Jessica Rudd's book "Campaign Ruby" launch is also scheduled 16th of August in Brisbane.

BTW, if there was a competition in "They said it", she'd be a front-runner.

Kevin Bonham
03-08-2010, 03:02 PM
Latest Newspoll (which gave 50-50 2PP) has 7% voters marked as "others". It would be interesting to know the make up of "others", as it would seriously influence the result.

Probably not much, actually. About 2 points will be Family First, about 1 point for the safe independents Oakeshott, Katter and Windsor, maybe another point for other local independents, another point for fringe parties like the SA, CEC, CDP etc, maybe a point for the Sex Party, and the last point can be people who just wouldn't have the foggiest idea right now.

Thanks Goughfather for the list a few posts up, saved me from the effort of doing something similar. At the moment only three of those Labor-ahead-or-lineball seats are all that close (and there are those two Coalition-held ones that are close too) so the individual seat markets are still pointing to Labor probably just winning with c. 78-79 seats. But it will be interesting to see how the trend changes in some seats over the next week or so because sometimes odds can be skewed by older money.

Total seat markets are often well worth a look - Sportsbet has one here (https://www.sportsbet.com.au/sports/event/SportID/65/CompetitionPID/15197/RoundPID/26139/EventID/1308993/MenuLevel/C) currently showing Labor 79-80 seats as favourite.

The last week and a half of Labor's campaign has been terrible; they hardly deserve to win outright if that's the best they can do.

Goughfather
03-08-2010, 03:25 PM
The last week and a half of Labor's campaign has been terrible; they hardly deserve to win outright if that's the best they can do.

I don't think that Labor has lost any ground since Friday, although I don't think that Labor has managed to throw in a circuit breaker to draw attention away from their horrendous performance over the last week. As I said, however, I'm inclined to think that Gillard's promise to throw out the campaign rulebook could have been a winner, but for the choice of words she used to describe her change of tact.

I'm quite interested in seeing how the official launch of Abbott's maternity leave scheme, Gillard's challenge to Abbott to a debate on the economy and Abbott's refusal to debate will play out. It's possible that Gillard's challenge will be seen as a backflip, but perhaps this will be counterbalanced by Abbott's change of heart on the same issue. Or perhaps voters will recognise that both leaders are simply being politically pragmatic and it will turn out to be a non-issue. Even so, I think Gillard should keep the focus on the economy, perhaps with reference to the latest round of changes to Abbott's maternity scheme, which won't kick in until we are almost at the next election.

Igor_Goldenberg
03-08-2010, 09:45 PM
I am not sure how betting system works, whether current odds are based on latest or all bets. Nevertheless, Unlikely victory odds shorten (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/unlikely-victory-odds-shorten/story-fn59niix-1225900260238)


A FLOOD of money for the Coalition has seen bookmaker Centrebet trim its price on a Tony Abbott victory to $2.40 and ease Labor to $1.54.
Centrebet had the Coalition at $4.70 at the start of the campaign and it was at $3.65 going into last weekend.
But speculation that Mr Abbott is ahead in key NSW and Queensland marginals -- a trend reflected in individual seat betting markets -- has seen the Coalition's price tighten dramatically. Labor's price has drifted as a consequence.
"We have the extraordinary situation where Labor under Gillard is now a longer price than Labor was under Kevin Rudd when they got rid of him," Centrebet spokesman Neil Evans said yesterday.
"Rudd was $1.52 when they put him out to pasture for Gillard. Now she's a longer price."
Labor started the campaign at $1.20 and was $1.24 going into the debate on the second Sunday of the campaign.

Capablanca-Fan
04-08-2010, 10:25 AM
Andrew Bolt is disgusted at both Abbott and Gillard (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_a_po_mo_campaign_about_a_campaign/):

...

Got a policy to back the slogan, Tony? Julia? Of course not. These were mere words to send a signal, not announce an action. It’s seeming, not doing.

Go through almost every line of political rhetoric and contrast it to what’s actually offered.

Gillard says she “believes in climate change”, yet has shelved the green tax on emissions that she once sold as our most urgently needed fix.

Abbott has long said he wants to “stop the new taxes”, yet will himself impose a new levy on big business to pay for his absurdly generous parental leave scheme, promised back when he was behind and still had to be bold.

That scheme, too, is meant as spin. Abbott never believed in such a flagrant discrimination against stay-at-home mothers, yet now flogs a plan that will give working mothers up to $75,000 each if they promise to go back to work and dump baby in child care before the poor thing turns even one.

Had to do it, you see. He was being made to seem a woman hater by Labor and the Left, and needed a policy to make him seem he was not.

That’s why he’s also dragged his shy wife and daughters on to the campaign, to seem not what Labor says.

Meanwhile Gillard calls in for five hours at the studios of Women’s Weekly, which publishes 13 pages of carefully posed and puffed pictures to make her seem more girly-next-door and not at all the “real Julia” she is this week.

All this seeming, and much of it to mask what both candidates once were.

Gillard was once a leader of the Socialist Forum, recycling former Communist Party members into Labor, and last year ran the most massively rorted Government program in our history - yet now wishes to seem a tough-on-boat-people hard-head who’d “run the heaviest ruler” on spending.

Abbott was once a fierce workplace reformist and Big Australia spruiker who now wishes to seem a go-slower who won’t touch workplace laws and wants immigration slashed.

Yes, all this seeming - and how much of it has anything to do with the doing of the next government?

Do you have any idea of how your life will change under either leader?

Heard either side talk, for instance, about some modern incarnation of a Snowy River Scheme? Of some inspiring new outreach to match the Colombo Plan? Of a reform to match what John Howard did on the docks?

No. One leader can’t think of a new idea, and the other barely dares. Safer to merely seem, not do.

...

Kevin Bonham
04-08-2010, 08:44 PM
I am not sure how betting system works, whether current odds are based on latest or all bets.

I think they are all carry some weight from past betting except for direct-bet style sites like Betfair.

Igor_Goldenberg
05-08-2010, 09:07 AM
A brilliant debate video (http://player.video.news.com.au/couriermail/#rp6Zd8q_XDe19c5G7MSrXC7YOgq2WEQp)

Capablanca-Fan
05-08-2010, 09:31 AM
pHNNlN46By0&feature=player_embedded

Igor_Goldenberg
05-08-2010, 09:47 AM
http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2010/08/04/1225901/327062-opinion-debate.jpg

Desmond
05-08-2010, 10:35 AM
Andrew Bolt is disgusted at both Abbott and GillardIn other breaking news, old folk lament that things was better back in their day.

that Caesar guy
05-08-2010, 04:58 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49zF8m7ys24
:lol: :lol: :lol:

having trouble with the youtube viewer thingo :wall:

Duff McKagan
05-08-2010, 07:33 PM
Total seat markets are often well worth a look - Sportsbet has one here (https://www.sportsbet.com.au/sports/event/SportID/65/CompetitionPID/15197/RoundPID/26139/EventID/1308993/MenuLevel/C) currently showing Labor 79-80 seats as favourite.

Check this now Kevin... looks like free money to me. I wish TAB Sportsbet offered election odds.

Duff McKagan
05-08-2010, 07:36 PM
Andrew Bolt is disgusted at both Abbott and Gillard (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_a_po_mo_campaign_about_a_campaign/):

...

and that her pearls were yesterday replaced with a scarf of the Central Coast Mariners.

...

This campaign really has gone from bad to worse.

This one is classic though:



What will the $43 billion national broadband scheme really mean to most Australians, even assuming it’s not a white elephant?

Answer: faster downloads of movies for couch potatoes who should get off their fat backsides.

Whoopi do. Moving forward - to change the channel on the idiot box.

Great article by Andrew Bolt... reading the first two lines sums everything up. Get your bets on now :D

Igor_Goldenberg
06-08-2010, 09:41 AM
Kevin Rudd will campaign for Labor government re-election for the next six days. On the seventh day he will rest.