The Australian today offers another editorial on the subject of opinion poll commentary which, despite its querulous tone, is somewhat less absurd than its notorious dummy spit of July 12. The paper nonetheless contrives to exempt itself from its critique of the polling analysis glut, placing the blame on “the rise of the Galaxy Poll and Fairfax newspapers’ attempt to become competitive against Newspoll with its AC Neilson (sic) survey” (to say nothing of the efforts of “a number of internet blogs”). So when its reporter Tony Barrass observes a surprisingly weak Newspoll result for the Western Australian state government and finds federal implications galore, you can rest assured that this is not merely “the reporting of politics as if it were a sporting match”, such as you might get from Michelle Grattan. We should instead consider ourselves privileged spectators to the exercise of The Australian’s mystical power to unlock the hidden secrets behind the only opinion poll that matters.
Reflections on the Miracle of Democracy at Work in the Greatest Nation on Earth
The Australian versus everything
Copyright © 2008 Private Media Pty Ltd, Publishers of Crikey.com.au. All Rights Reserved.
Independent news, blogs and commentary on politics, media and business.
Editor: Jonathan Green.
Publishers: Eric Beecher, Diana Gribble.
Level 7, 22 William St, Melbourne, 3000. Ph: 1800 985 502 Fax: (03) 8623 9975
407 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 9 » Show All
Jasmine,
Nicole Cornes is copping it as a weak candidate. Now IIRC, you’re here in WA, and thus you’d note there were five winnable seats available for new ALP candidates in WA at this election – and women have been pre-selected for three (Melissa Parke – Fremantle, Sharryn Jackson – Hasluck and Liz Prime – Cowan), the other two being very good candidates in Gary Gray (Brand) and Peter Tinley (Stirling) who should be the candidates regardless of their gender.
In SA, Mia Handshin doesn’t seem to be copping the same crap in Sturt, nor Kate Ellis (who I’ll grant is a sitting member which would help). I think you’re focusing too much on Cornes being attacked for her gender, and not enough for her percieved deficiencies. She did bollock up her initial public appearance. Compared to the other candidates I’ve mentioned above she does seem a little underwhelming in both her dedication to the cause and her prior qualifications for the role. I’m not for one moment suggesting she’s incapable of the job – hell, if Wilson Tuckey can do it, anyone can.
Don’t get me wrong, I hope she wins the seat because it’s one more seat the Coalition would have to win back at a future election. But to suggest that her critics are only criticising her for her gender is (in my opinion) a bit off the mark. If anything, the criticism seems to be aimed as much at those that put her in the position.
I’ve just read the Oz editorial (busy at the day job).
As I said in commentary to Dennis Shanahan’s piece before the infamous July 12 editorial, ‘could you guys be more transparent’. The fear and frustration is papable. Yes, the polls are likely to narrow. Yes, there are ways for Howard to win. But, the balance of probabilities are that he won’t and if so Peter Brent, Possum et al will come out looking better, more professional and more objective than the Oz staff. A scary prospect (for them) likely to get them noticed by Head Office (insert here Gilliamesque imagery of arcane torture devices).
Oh, and yes Nicole Cornes was a mistake.
I don’t want you to take it personally, feminist social theory bores the hell out of me it is going to bore or offend you.
Let me explain it simply. She has a profile. Apparently she almost has a law degree. This makes her a reasonable candidate prima facie. She is already ahead of 25% of the candidates if not more. Consequently any fair, non-sexist systematic of review of candidates and quality needs to work through the preceding 25% less qualified before getting to her. I consistently question the capabilities of Don Randall and Stuart Henry. I don’t see many others doing it either locally or nationally. Why would two threads now run a full frontal assualt on her? Most logical reason is she is a female candidate. You have other celebrity candidates who are not getting this level of scrutiny, therefore it is fair and logical to exclude celebrity as the key distinguishing factor.
But furthermore, and notwithstanding the preceding, and further and in the alternative, she is running for office in the actual Australian political system, not a utopian each candidate on their individual merits / vision for Australia. Yes she did one interview poorly. She seems, without knowing her personally not to be a Carmen Lawerence or Julia Gillard intellect but that is not a crime. Nor does it put her at the front of the please abuse me for the dresses I wear and the kind of journalism I did queue.
Yes I would not have dressed her that way if I was in charge of the campaign (but that says nothing about her or I it says more about our society).
If you must take it personally then know you are in really good company, a lot of whom I respect. But evil prospers when good girls say nothing on important blogs.
Shrek has done a dog whistle over plans for a State Funeral for the late Bob Collins, which btw was offered by the Federal Govt.
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,22484989-949,00.html
just back from hols
actually near howards xmas retreat-
word is that he has bought a home there
methinks the exit strategy is uppermost now
everything else is just smoke and mirrors
ps check out fort tomaree (ww2 coastal battery)if ever you are in the region
Things must be bad for the Coalition, they have to ‘drop’ the nuclear policy since it’s so close to the election. In reality they’re not dropping the policy, they’re just delaying any proposals until after the election, i.e. another WorkChoices style of ‘you know we want to do something, so if you vote us in then we will assume we have a mandate for it even though we didn’t campaign on it’.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/nuclear-laws-held-until-after-election/2007/09/25/1190486311879.html
I think John Howard has withdrawn the offer of a State Funeral.
Again, I make the point that I have no disagreement with you on the likes of Don Randall. If you think it’d be fun to have a competition to see who can disparage Liberal dills more, then all power to you. I happen to be more interested in what my side of politics is doing.
Again, she has received more criticism than other candidates because she is high-profile, but by far the least impressive of all the high-profile candidates. Is it fair that she cops more than some unknown National with a brain the size of a pea? Perhaps not, but that’s what happens when you’re a high-profile candidate in a marginal seat. There isn’t *one* distinguishing factor, there are two: she is BOTH high-profile and unimpressive.
Again, you’re simply CHOOSING to believe that her gender has anything to do with the criticism of her. You have not made any case whatsoever for this being the case and you’ve simply ignored the repeated explanations of that criticism. ‘I knows what I knows and don’t you go tellin’ me any diff’rent!’
Finally, you’d quite rightly be offended if I started calling you a man-hating feminazi (or whatever the fools on the other side call Joan Kirner these days). I don’t happen to believe any such nonsense, but why should you feel free to call someone a sexist without expecting them to react badly to it?
You might think you’ve got some inalienable right to slur other people without accounting for it, but you do not.
If you lived here in the Blue Mountains you’d be hard put to forget or overlook Bob Debus. The man not only carried a load of big State portfolios: Attorney General, Environment, Arts and, at one stage, Prisons but he nurtured his local community and many here have benefited personally and collectively from his assistance. Bob has led the way in many big-ticket initiatives but my favourite is the work he did in getting the Circle Court (for young indigenous offenders) up and going.
Bob will sweep Macquarie (once the home of Ben Chifley) by 10% or more and will be a real positive in the Rudd Government and, almost certainly, in the Rudd/Gillard Cabinet.
Crikey chaps, cold bucket of water time me thinks !
that is bullshit
Dreyfus is NOT machine man he had work all his working life in the real world .Dreyfus is a TOP candidate and he is not a lazy candidate. Dreyfus and his campaign team have been working Isaacs hard over the year.
Isaacs is a LABOR seat the only reason the margin of 1.5 % is because of the dud mp
[Corcoran} the margin should be between 6 to 10 %
Another disaster with Foley’s fingerprints all over it, to be precise, Robertbe.
Rule number one of candidate selection should be NEVER PRESELECT SOMEONE WHO IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE PARTY AND WHO HAS ALSO RECENTLY VOTED FOR YOUR POLITICAL OPPONENTS.
It was never going to work and it’s a pity, because this might have been a winnable seat with a half decent candidate.
Chinster
Tell that to Brendan Nelson.
So is Nicole a dead duck now with no chance? If that is the case she ought voluntarily stand down for someone with more chance.
And how Nicole not know Labor’s basic policies now, even in their basic form? Especially after being humiliated for knowing nothing in her first press conference.
“So is Nicole a dead duck now with no chance?”
Despite the carry on in this thread, I don’t think this is the case. There are certainly impediments, but I think a big swing in SA would be more than enough to win it for her.
Adam @ 172: That ad was done by the Climate Institute about 2-3 weeks ago. It’s got nothing to do with CCC as a party (and it’s a bit rich for them to embed the image without proper sourcing!)
Oh, I think she’s still a chance of winning. I just think that the result is in considerably more doubt than it would have been with a better candidate. If she does get over the line, she’ll have at least three years in which to prove me and her other doubters wrong – and I would love to see her do so.
Matthew Sykes is right. Let’s go back to beating up the Oz. It’s much more fun.
#183 Zenk
A very interesting observation about low involvement voters and we who like to predict election results disregard it at our peril. My experience is similar with the woman who cuts my hair (pleased to say I still have some hair to cut!). She didn’t seem to care when the election is called and yet, as I see it, the votes of people like her will ultimately determine the election outcome when each of them has the blunt pencil in his/her hand on polling day. Is it not a paradox that the votes (although not necessarily the perspectives) of the politically engaged (many of whom frequent these online sites) are irrelevant to the result of the most important event in the political process?
Lets agree to disagree Charlie, I don’t think you’ve made a case for her being ‘unimpressive’ on any fair level basis that applies to all candidates. You don’t think I’ve made a case for two full frontal attacks on her here being based at least substantially on her sex. I am not suggesting anyone, other than liberals, were playing unfairly or deliberately, my case rests on their being a deep-rooted cultural bias. I will be forced to rethink this view when slightly over 50% of politicians at all levels and business people at all levels are women. Until then the macro-evidence is firmly on my side.
To repeat a bit of micro-evidence for you. I’ve worked for big partnerships. And if I had money for everytime at the entry level I heard the expression ‘ok now we need to balance up the intake, who was the next best boy’ I’d be rich. When they start ‘balancing up the intake’ into the partners offices I’ll stop complaining. Until then it is sexiest whether or not it offends people.
That is my whole argument, and you can call me that if you like but the real feminists don’t like me much, apparently I score too lowly on the man hating scale, and not high enough on the rabid scale.
Don’t you love our beloved Medical Fraternity, they have a lovely Union to protect their interests
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,22485682-5005361,00.html
Cornes is not a dead duck, have any of you heard the whole Matthew Abraham interview? She did well.
As I said previously Labor got a staggeringly stupendous 25% primary vote in 2001.
They improved this by 10% in 2004 (at the expense of the Dems) but only gained 2% on TPP.
Even this dodgy poll done by who knows, published in a paper that cannot even get the results printed correctly, shows a further 3% move to Labor.
Labor will win Boothby in a canter and the Libs know it, that is why the poll was done.
I suspect that some of us are getting a bit carried away on this Cornes business, not least because the main cause of this blather is a highly questionable poll in the ‘Tiser. Statewide polls put Labor a million miles in front, and in urban seats, the actual candidate does not matter (I challenge all of you in Lib-held seats to ask all of your neighbours who the Labor candidate is; I have no doubt that the answer – ‘no idea’ – would also be common in Boothby). If Labor wins the election on the back of a national 7% swing (as is looking increasingly likely), then Cornes will more than likely be elected on the back of that. It’s only people like us on sites like this who actually take any interest in our local MP, not to mention an Opposition candidate.
I think the likelehood that Cornes will sit on the backbench for the entirety of her putative parliamentary career is not especially relevant. Labor has pre-selected an impressive raft of candidates (as outlined by our good friend Sexist Charlie – haha only joking!) who will join what is already an impressive front bench, so just because Cornes will be stuck up the back (actually she is more likely to one of the women that both parties put behind the leaders in an attempt to show that Parliament is not the boys’ club that it is) shouldn’t matter. After all, governments need Indians as well as Chiefs.
Excellent! The coalition’s going with a negative slogan (or is it just the Nats?).
Guaranteed vote loser. Their near-infallible sense for the campaign blunder continues.
Honestly, could the Libs be any more rubbish at this?
Perhaps we can agree to disagree, Jasmine, once you acknowledge that my comments on Cornes were based on my view of her performance as a candidate (regardless of whether you agree with it), rather than her gender.
Done charlie my soap box is away, but I got 5 points extra in man-hating and 10 in rabidness, I might be invited to the next gathering of the sisterhood after all if only I put my heels away and by doc martins.
This thing about Cornes – calling her a bimbo, focusing on her appearance, the fact that she writes fluff for a living – all irrelevant!
The fact that after several months of prep time, she can come out and sound that muddled on policy is a big bloody issue – i think the issues become confused when the media comes into play – let’s look at it step by step.
1. Cornes is pre-selected out of the blue and in a climate that reflects great scepticism about so-called “star” or “celebrity” candidates, particularly within the ALP.
2. On her first outing as candidate, she chokes on almost every policy issue.
3. Opponents of Cornes/ALP seize on this and start pushing the “airhead” angle.
4. Most people shrug this off as they are basically decent and willing to give people a bit of a go – things calm down and its smotth sailing for a while.
5. Cornes comes out and again stuffs the policy in her public appearances.
6. Step 5 feeds into the impression that they were trying to establish in step 3.
7. Media pick up on this and run with the story – Cornes gets roasted.
At the end of the day, the issue is whether the brand new ALP candidate for Boothby is across some of the major issues for the imminent election – her gender is, at most, peripheral to this issue.
A “star” candidate is only a problem if they demonstrate a lack of knowledge or ovbious and immediate hypocrisy.
Look at the case of Peter Garrett – he got pinged for a dozen different things when he first ran for Kingsford-Smith.
He wasn’t a long term party member.
During the 80’s he held positions that he no longer endorses.
He ran for another party at one time.
For several years, he was not enrolled to vote.
His primary occupation was as a singer.
While people could go at him day and night about these things, there is one thing about Garrett that could not be disputed; he has demonstrated a long lasting interest in a range of important policy issues over the years and has worked hard to keep himself informed on those issues over time. He understands the policy development process and has been a player in that process for many years.
Cornes has not made a single statement about policy or principle that hasn’t been scripted by the ALP – that is just not a sustainable postiion for a brand-new candidate.
I think that the glaring point here is about the assumptions we make about candidates without listening closely. Someone here said earlier that having a law degree basically constituted a prima facie case for the legitimacy of someones candidacy – that sort of logic is about as sophisticated as saying that someone without a law degree is not a good candidate – nutty. The bottom line is that people actually need to listen closely to what a candidate says – in the case of new candidates, more scrutiny should be applied because the person is yet to prove themselves worthy in the voters minds and for many party members, the candidate needs to prove they are a worthy representative of the party in question – in my opinion, Nicole Cornes has failed both of those tests.
People wanna be sceptical about “star” candidates? So they should be, but when the candidate shows a grasp of the issues, it’s time to move on and make judgements about the substance that exists – pick a candidate with no substance and you won’t even get that far.
Don’t know if this Nicole is a bimbo or not, sounds probably not, but I do know there is a particularly nasty streak in libs and their cheer-leaders in the media when it comes to female politicians. What was it, “deliberately barren” in regard to Julia G? It’s gutter stuff and the tabloids love it. So the libs dish it up. Disgusting.
James, you need to be clearer when you are quoting people. Most people who read your comment would not have made it to the end, and would have concluded Optimist’s comments were your own. I have put it in blockquotes for you.
William Bowe
http://www.pollbludger.com
And by process of elimination, we can figure out which type of conservative Howard is ;-D ……. (good one, Pi)
Anyway I am sure if there were a disaster in progress Labor would be doing something about it – they are leaving nothing to chance this time around.
Glen, I try to avoid predictions here, but I predict with absolute confidence that Mike Kelly will win Eden-Monaro with a majority of primary votes. Nairn is an utter fool. Having your chief of staff call an Australian Army colonel a Nazi and not sacking him is the biggest piece of political stupidity I have ever seen.
*sighs softly*
3 points – new ALP candidates, if I’m running their campaign SHOULD NOT BE MAKING UP STUFF – that is what the frigging scripts are for. Mama mia who the hell would want candidates thinking for themselves .. they are there to get elected they can think later. Now they must must must stay on the script … it would be nice if they could make it sound like they made it up … just so long as they didn’t.
The law degree stuff I think I’m the only one that discussed her law degree (or almost law degree) and thanks for the personal abuse, but yes I’m sorry having an academic degree takes a bit of work and at least two brain cells. And you might not have noticed they make law in parliament. So having a law degree is not going to hurt with that whole making law thing. It seems a fairly basic observation. I did not say any politician needs a law degree (that would be stupid) just observed it was a qualification that pulls her out of the ‘without merit’ pack.
The idea of the population listening to what individual candidates say is fascinating … do you know somewhere this happens. I don’t.
The Democrats primary vote in Boothby absolutely tanked in 2004 (-16.89%) and the ALP got 9.92% of that. Overall, Southcott only lost 2% of his margin, but he will lose a further 3% based on this bad Advertiser poll.
HOWEVER, if you factor in the state-wide swing to the ALP – currently at 9.4% – then Boothby will fall, regardless of this “the women hate Nicole” spin The Advertiser are trying on.
I suspect that on election night the actual result will be closer to the 3% than the 9.4%, but how close it gets to Southcott’s 5.4% margin will be dependent on how Nicole performs from now onwards.
More grist for the anti-Workchoices mill
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/arrests-as-workers-storm-gates/2007/09/26/1190486365444.html
The ”women hate Nicole’ spin may get her some sympathy votes then.
It should be noted that the three “types” are not mutually exclusive.
My take on it is not, “that women hate Nicole” but rather “men think she is a bit of all right”.
Never underestimate the “horny punter, male vote”.
Indeed that is correct.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/pm-to-scrap-collins-state-funeral/2007/09/26/1190486364140.html
some facts about Nicole Cornes, she grew up in the Boothby area, she and her siblings were reared by a single mum, she left school at fifteen to go to work and help her mum financially, she met and married husband Graham when she was working at radio 5AA, after marriage inbetween having two children she started up and ran a small business, she finished her schooling and has just finished her law degree at uni, i dont think anyone could describe her as a bimbo, by the way Wakefield will definately go labor, our candidate has sent around flyers about street corner meets he having.
#42 Call the Election please
I’m not suggesting that the Oz should be ‘balanced or impartial’. They don’t need to be, obviously. What they should be, however, is accurate… or at least aspire to accuracy.
and they’re the ones whining that people like us dare have an alternative view…they go so far to editorialise against these very sites.
Is Nicole Cornes the Anti-Christ? You mgiht think so from some of the comments.
I remember the first time some of Howards new candidate’s in the 1996 election spoke on camera and how they stuffed it up, and lots of people then said how much better were Keating’s candidates than the new Libs trying to get in and take over government. Those same Libs are pretty slick in front of the cameras today. I especially remember Peter McGauran completely stuffing up some questions and asking reporters if he could do the interview over again. People weren’t very impressed by then.
In a democracy anybody and everybody has a right to run for Parliament. You can say the ALP should have found a better candidate but you can’t say she shouldn’t run.
On the weekend I was at a popular pub in the Boothby electorate and I can confirm that the area is very, very conservative. Especially the women – we’re talking about the “ladies who lunch” here. The margin for Boothby is probably greater than 5.4%, Labor got a good vote last time because their candidate was Chloe Fox (a well known local whose mother is the author of Possum Magic). It’s probably where the ALP got the idea of a celebrity candidate.
The Advertiser has got stuck into Cornes – see this article.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22485074-5006301,00.html
Overall I think she was a bad choice.
I can’t imagine she’d be any less intelligent than a lot of the members we’ve already got.
Many can’t do anything but repeat the party’s script over and over again… I swear if I have to hear about the Greenhouse Office one more time I’ll scream.
It might, Kina. It will also depend on how these sorts of things are managed by the Party and how hard The Advertiser decides to run on it.
The irony of all this Nicole-bashing by The Advertiser is that she used to write for its stablemate, The Sunday Mail. I’m not entirely sure why they have suddenly turned on her. Maybe someone else could enlighten us.
James (#211),
wow, that was quite a spray. I’m not sure why you’re getting that worked up over Dreyfus and Isaacs. I’m basing what i said on a number of contacts in sth east melbourne along with some Crikey tips and rumours comments about the Dreyfus campaign and a couple of articles that were published in the aftermath of Victorian preselection battles last year. I’m wondering why you have made such a vitriolic refutation of what i said there – you can be honest – if you work for the Dreyfus campaign, please say so. At the end of the day, I want the ALP to retain Isaacs. I don’t see where the logic is in what you’re saying – surely just a little of what i said might have some credibility – or are you seruiously saying that it is ALL bullshit?
Even Roy Morgan is being stupid and over-stating the case with Rudd not memorising the tax scales. A trivial thing yet the omit Downer’s embarassment on the 7.30 report, Costello major slip in not even understanding how the tax scales were applied and Howard not know the scales back in May. Sounds like they are targetting someone?
Even the LNP supporters thought it was a trivial thing. The press tried to make a big deal out of it while the rest of Australia simply yawned.
“Australians really didn’t react strongly to Kevin Rudd’s embarrassing slip when he failed to name the tax breaks and floundered answering the question about tax breaks..”
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2007/4216/
Re Kina
As I’ve said for a long time, I think day-to-day events are very inconsequential to voting intentions. It takes major events to shift people’s voting intention, in this case I believe the only major event that’s likely to shift voting intentions at all is an election being called.
If the Liberal Party’s internal polling is so great stop fooling us around and call the election already.
Jasmine,
sorry if i sounded a bit aggressive over the law degree thing, but i can’t stand the sort of thinking that automatically gives points (however many or few) to someone with a law degree. The idea that having a law degree takes you out of the “without merit” category is simple thinking – if we all thought that way, we’d end up with Denis Denuto for P.M.
Pages: « 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 9 » Show All