The verdict from the McEwen recount is in: Labor candidate Rob Mitchell’s six vote win has been overturned, and Liberal member Fran Bailey declared re-elected by just 12 votes. This gives the result level pegging with the Liberals’ 1974 win in Stirling as the closest federal electorate result of modern times. Labor is still considering a legal challenge, but it’s an open question as to whether a re-match would really be in their interests. It seems very likely that we can now settle on a final result of 83 seats for Labor and 65 for the Coalition plus two independents. Two other recount demands await adjudication:
• The Greens will reportedy call for a recount for the Victorian Senate, a contentious move given that nearly 3.3 million ballots would need to be rechecked. Antony Green’s projection shows both the Coalition and Labor winning third seats upon the exclusion of eighth placed Family First, the Liberals doing so with a surplus of 21709 votes (0.68 per cent) and Labor with 6088 (0.19 per cent). At this point Greens candidate Richard di Natale is left stranded on 13.4 per cent, 0.9 per cent or 27804 votes short of a quota. This of course assumes that all votes are cast above the line, when there are in fact 65101 (2.05 per cent) below-the-line votes for which we presently have only first preference results. These are unlikely to make much difference, as most are votes for parties whose preference tickets favoured the Greens ahead of Labor. Much of the leakage would come from Liberals going below the line to ensure the Greens did not get their vote. Against this can be weighed Labor voters who gave their first preference to a Labor candidate before switching to the Greens, but past experience suggests this is unlikely to account for more than 10 per cent out of 14123. If the assumption of all votes behaving as ticket votes were to hold, the Greens would need for Labor to finish around 2000 votes below the quota after Family First’s exclusion, which is roughly 8000 less than they presently appear to have. The distribution of the Liberal surplus would then be enough to give di Natale the narrowest of victories. In support of their recount appeal, Greens spokesman Jim Buckell provided The Age with an interesting list of claimed irregularities: “309 Greens Senate votes from one booth were not recorded at all; in Isaacs 150 votes were missed; in Dunkley 173 Greens votes were recorded as 17; and in Gellibrand, some Greens votes were attributed to another minor party”. However, it seems most unlikely that the required average of around 215 votes per electorate would be found to have wrongly favoured Labor over the Greens.
• Labor candidate Jason Young’s request for a recount in Bowman following his 64-vote defeat has been knocked back by the divisional returning officer. Young is continuing to pursue his recount request further up the Australian Electoral Commission hierarchy, but one suspects he is unlikely to find any joy.
On a completely unrelated note, here is a chart I knocked together showing each state’s deviation from the national Labor two-party preferred vote going back to 1949.
The first thing to note is the hyperactivity of Tasmania, which can in large part be put down to its small population of five seats. Nonetheless, the results tell a story of a natural Labor state which turned around temporarily following the Whitlam government’s tariff cuts and Labor’s opposition to the Franklin dam at the 1983 election. The largest state by contrast has stayed within a narrow 5 per cent band on the Labor side of the ledger, dipping below the line only in 1987 and 1998. Victoria’s long-lost standing as the jewel in the Liberal crown looks very much like a symptom of the 1954 Labor split and the party’s subsequent paralysis at state level, and its Labor vote has only once fallen below the national result since 1980. The exception was the 1990 election which also proved aberrant for reliably conservative Queensland, state government factors providing the explanation in each case. It can also be seen that the Coalition’s relative strength in Western Australia at the 2007 election was matched only by 1961, there is nothing new about its conservative leaning.
On another completely unrelated note, I have just had to pay a fee to renew the pollbludger.com domain. This wasn’t hugely expensive ($50 to be precise), but it nonetheless offers a good excuse to pass the hat around among those of you who enjoy giving me money.
489 Comments
Nice graph.
We might suppose South Australia has finally forgiven Labor for the state bank crash.
The end of the NSW line seems wrong to me. The state swung slighly more than average at this election to produce a +1 figure for 2007 (53.7 vs 52.7).
Well spotted David – now corrected.
The Greens are NOT seeking a recount; The Age got a bit carried away with Jim’s briefing. If the result was closer we’d consider it, but at this stage asking for a recount is folly.
But we’ve also got a different Greens source saying the same thing at the ABC.
If the Senate count has been finished in South Australia (that’s the impression I get from the AEC website, though I’m not sure), then I think that Mark Hill of the LDP and Paul Siebert of the CEC have tied for a new record – only one vote each in the SA Senate.
Maybe he was going off what he read in The Age too; all I’m sure of is that we won’t ask for a recount.
Surely this election can’t be called a “landslide” (or a “Ruddslide”) when the Libs need less than a 2% swing to win next time, and with Labor holding such a precarious majority.
It was a landslide in the sense that Labor won 23 seats (net), one of the highest gains in history. But Labor started a long way behind, so its majority isn’t huge, but at 16 is still bigger than Howard had after 1998 and 2001.
The magnitude of Labor’s achievement should not be underestimated. This is the first time since 1914 that Labor has won government having lost seats in the previous election. After 2004, most people were talking about a “two term strategy”, and even that was thought to be wishful thinking.
Anything can happen by 2010 of course, but it’s not looking remotely precarious at the moment, considering the state the Liberal Party is in.
Anyone else think Bailey’s response
is a little rich?
Who does Bailey think she is kidding? She would have gone straight to the Court of Disputed Returns.
Id take her there on principle- just cos she’s been such a born-to-rule cow.
As noted earlier, with a vote that close, hardball scrutineering will swing it either way.
A recount with every experienced ALP scrutineer on deck will hand in back to Mitchell on another count – no doubt about it.
Mitchell should therefore imperiously declare he will ‘respect’ every odd-numbered count, just as Bailey ‘respects’ every even.
I believe she was saying that prior to the reversal of fortunes that had her winning.
I don’t think so Sean, look at the tense.
Also, in context:
‘”This has certainly vindicated the call for the recount. No matter what it would have been, I was prepared to accept the umpire’s decision,” she told News Limited tonight.’
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/bailey-claims-comefrombehind-win/2007/12/18/1197740210316.html
The earlier words of play-by-the-umpire’s-rules Bailey:http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22902451-662,00.html
“Ms Bailey had raised allegations of vote-rigging after the seat was won by Labor’s Rob Mitchell, claiming an above-average number of absentee votes in the count suggested something was amiss.
“You’ve just got to look at the numbers. When the state average is well under 5000, why would McEwen have well in excess of 8000?” she said.
“I think the electoral rolls should be scanned to see if there was multiple voting.”
But she was using that similar expression after the AEC announced a recount and prior to her winning.
From The Age on the 15th of December:
‘…She [Bailey] said the recount would be final, ruling out a further challenge or a call for a byelection. “Once the umpire makes his decision in this count, that will be it. We will abide by that decision, whichever way it goes.”…’
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/12/14/1197568264999.html
I admit I could be wrong, as I didn’t follow all of her statements, but my recollection was just of statement after statement of the different irregularities that she was claiming. In any case, it just seems the behaviour of a spoiled brat to behave one way when losing and try to get people to swallow a gracious turn when things change.
That was three days ago, after her scrutineers were claiming they had found more votes. I don’t remember anything like it at the time she was ‘demanding’ a recount.
How could she say that prior to the recount? Once the recount was announced, she rightly said she would accept the umpire’s decision (to paraphrase).
You can’t accept the umpire’s decision if the rematch hasn’t even begun.
On the Voctorian Senate William… where do you get this?
“the exclusion of eighth placed Family First”
FFP clearly came fourth in Vic count with 2.52%.
It seems such a waste – a recount in the Victorian Senate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzZrHDHVEVw
A disappointing result in McEwen – especially since the AEC were so certain in their ABC news statement last week that a recount would change nothing.
If Mitchell instead of Bailey had had the donkey vote and if former provisional vote rules had applied, Mitchell would have won by more than a thousand votes.
With the same factors in play, Labor also would have won Bowman, Swan, Herbert and maybe La Trobe.
Mitchell says he’s going to the High Court.
Ray,
When assessing the exclusions each candidate is considered separately.
So the ALP and LIB candidates 1 to 3 fill the first 6 places, Green in 7 and FF in 8.
He’s said he won’t rule it out – not that “he’s going”, or so I read on http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/candidates-dispute-mcewen-recount/2007/12/18/1197740220167.html
I wonder if Fran Bailey will regret this.
She’s going to be an opposition backbencher, no?
Much less fun than a minister. Or is the first reshuffle already upon us?
Thought it might be worthwhile repeating my two comments from late last night on the previous thread:
Darn Says:
December 18th, 2007 at 1:01 am
For what it’s worth, I think it would be relatively easy for the ALP to find sufficient errors to force a re-run in McEwen. They only need twelve. And I think they would win the by-election comfortably. The ALP machine usually plays the game pretty hard, so it will surprise me if they just let it go through to the keeper.
Darn Says:
December 18th, 2007 at 1:15 am
Just to pick up on a point made by another commenter, there are bound to have been quite a few McEwen voters who were given a ballot paper for another Division. It happens every time and all of those people’s votes would have been invalidated by that mistake. Only their senate vote would have been counted. And that’s only one kind of error. There are plenty more.
Michael (7) You and I obviously have very different definitions of the word “precarious”. A 16 seat majority looks very solid to me – especially when the opposition has been so decimated and demoralised.
Darn @ 32
The problem Labor has with a recount is that they can’t win. If they do win the seat not much changes and Labor looks bad for making people go to a re-election. If they don’t win the seat then Rudds leadership gets a knock and Labor looks bad for making people go to a re-election. It is a loose-loose for Labor. The only possible exception would be if Labor gets another big swing to them. I think this is unlikely given the already big swing but anything is possible.
Here’s another article in which the AEC says they’re still counting in McEwen.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/071217/21/15aoi.html
As for the Senate: a friend who’s been counting Senate votes tells me thy’ve been advised to get ready for a recount.
I actually think its a bit rich of Bailey to release a photo of her with champers before the AEC has called it – especially under the circumstances. Smacks of preemptive PR to ward off a challenge from Mitchell.
I think Bailey’s been petulant and over-entitled in her whole approach. Compare with Mitchell’s low key commentary throughout.
Again, on principle: get up her, and challenge. Couldnt happen to a nicer candidate.
7 Michael – the mistake you make is that you believe a landslide refers to the end result only. I believe a landslide takes into account a party’s starting AND finishing point. 23 seats won in one election is an exception not a rule.
7 & 37
The only dictionary I have to hand is the Macquarie Concise, but it defines landslide in the electoral sense as:
“3. an election in which a particular candidate or party receives an overwhelmiong mass or majority of votes”
Not the case with Election 2007.
It was a good solid victory, remarkable given the positive economic environment and a credit to the ALP and the Australian electorate . . . but no landslide.
But expect one in 2010 if the Coalition can’t get ‘emselves back together again.
Presumably the issue here is whether votes were formal (rather than errors of counting or votes being put in the wrong pile). The basic procedural question is whether candidates can appeal for recounts at which the formality of each vote is re-examined from scratch. It seems to me that decisions made at first instance should stand unless they are obviously wrong. This is the standard administrative law distinction between a review on the merits and a review on procedure. What makes decisions as to whether a mark was a ‘1′ or a ‘7′ any more accurate if they are taken 2 weeks later or on election night?
If the non-psephologial meaning of the word carried through (which it should) then landslide should mean a major movement in votes but is often used for a big win which is simmilar in size to the win at the previous election by the same party or coalition.
Darn at 33
The Coalition had a 13 seat majority so, I would assume anything.
However, that said Labor is a three term government unless they implode.
It seems we are still arguing over the real meaning of the word landslide. A few weeks ago I posed the following hypothetical question on this site, but it was mostly overlooked in the heat of the election campaign:
In a 150 seat parliament, Party A holds 125 of the seats and Party B only 25, a majority of 100
At the next election, Party B wins 51 seats from Part A for a 2 seat majority.
Does the movement of more than one third of the seats in the parliament from Party A to Party B constitute a landslide?
If not, consider this alternative proposition. Party A holds 76 seats to 74 for Party B. At the next election Party B wins 30 seats from Party A – a fifth of the seats in the parliament – for a majority of 58. Is that a landslide?
In other words, does it depend on the final margin between the parties or the actual size of the shift? Over to you.
I’d call it a landslide if Labor had won 54%+ of the 2PP, and 95+ seats. This isn’t the case here. Hopefully, we’ll really annihilate the Libs in 2010, or at a double-dissolution.
Sean@22 “How could she say that prior to the recount? Once the recount was announced, she rightly said she would accept the umpire’s decision (to paraphrase).”
Wrong. When she thought she would win, then she accepted the umpire’s decision. Until then she either railed against it in a petulant way, or was silent.
@23 “You can’t accept the umpire’s decision if the rematch hasn’t even begun.”
No, but you could accept it, like everyone else, after the main event. Her challenge was loose and flailing, and tried all sorts of tactics. And she then ‘accepted’ the umpire’s decision several days into the recount, after there had been leaks from her scrutineers that her position was stronger.
Darn, final margin between the parties. To use your 1st example, if party A only won 49 seats, they’d fall short of a majority, and not even be in government. A landslide should mean a big majority.
Sorry, meant party B.
Obviously it is the size of the shift that matters most when determining whether an election result was a landslide. How could it be anything else? To say it is the final margin of seats is ridiculous, as Dyno just pointed out.
My view is that a 23 seat gain in a house of 150 is in landslide territory. That is a significant shift. But until people agree on some kind of formal definition of how many seats are required to change hands before a result is declared a landslide, then this matter will remain a subjective judgement.
As a general stab at it, I would suggest that anything above a 20 seat gain is a landslide.
Darn,
If the result was substantially greater than you expected then to you it’s a landslide.
If the margin was less than you expected than a wins a win.
If the concensus is that the winner did better than expected but not overly so than it’s a win.
If the concensus is that the result is the best thing for the country then it’s just $%^@&! great mate.
I don’t get why ppl on this site are implying that Bailey was somehow unreasonable or unfair in asking for a recount.
If the final count in McEwen is indeed correct, then it suggests that Bailey was perfectly justified. Why do people have such a problem with this? Even if Labor had been confirmed the winners, it’s not that unreasonable to ask for a recount when there’s only six votes in it.
And whether Bailey or Mitchell “accepts the umpires decision” is a bit of a moot point. Candidates can whinge and moan as much as they like, but if the AEC says you’ve lost, you’ve lost. Personally, I think it’s in the losing candidate’s best interest to keep as quiet as possible- otherwise, if they do challenge the result in court, it will look too much like dummy spitting.
Pancho @ 44:
“When she thought she would win, then she accepted the umpire’s decision. Until then she either railed against it in a petulant way, or was silent.”
Actually, she first made that remark when she was still behind in the recount.
“Her challenge was loose and flailing, and tried all sorts of tactics. And she then ‘accepted’ the umpire’s decision several days into the recount, after there had been leaks from her scrutineers that her position was stronger.”
So, she didn’t accept the umpire’s decision when she had won, is now what you’re saying, she accepted it when she was still behind, in a precarious position. You may say her challenge was “loose and flailing”, but what evidence have you for that beyong your opinion. In fact, her challenge – it appears – was jusifiable and right. The AEC will show she won this seat. Her challenge was legitimate and it is the AEC – who earlier claimed that a recount would not change anything – who now appear “loose and flailing”.
Marcus, I have no problem with the seeking of a reount or the winning. Rather it is the comment that she was always prepared to accept the umpire’s decision which I find disingenuous. Personally I would have had more respect for her if she held a certain position for longer, ie. maintained her rage about the inconsistencies and fraud she was alluding to, rather than pretending to be all about grace and the process at a junction that shows her ahead.
Sorry Sean, but we don’t know when she was ahead or behind in the recount, as the AEC didn’t release information until the end. We do know that after a stronger position was claimed publicly by her scrutineers, she claimed she would accept.
And let me tighten my ‘loose and flailing’ comment. In addition to the 3000 votes Bailey was questioning above, here are another few claims:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22903036-5006785,00.html
‘Liberal Party officials asserted yesterday that at least 20 ballot papers were unaccounted for.
Party scrutineers also claimed to have seen a station wagon carrying ballot papers in which the back door of the vehicle was left open.
“Missing ballot papers, to lack of security of ballot papers, to ballot papers being accepted that were not official ballots – look, there are just far too many questions about this whole process,” Ms Bailey said.’
In a sense, good on her for playing hard, and she has a result at this time. But to claim she was always prepared to accept the umpire’s decision is demonstrably false.
Upon the recount, she was prepared to accept the umpire’s decision. Had she lost, she would not have appealed against it.
When she announced this, you claim that she was in “a stronger position” as “claimed publicly by her scrutineers”, but she was still behind in the votes. To say that she said she would accept the umpire’s decision because she knew she would win is false. There was no certainty in it, and at the time she was losing.
With regards to your “loose and flailing” comment, the evidence you cite clearly backs up my assertion that it is the AEC who are loose and flailing – ballot papers unaccounted for, lack of security of ballot papers, etc., etc.
In both Lindsay and the British case where a two vote victory was turned into a 2000+ vote victory after the challenge, voters punished the dummy spit candidates.
is it too early to claim bragging rights? myself and a number of others were the 83 seat tipsters. good on ya Ms. Bailey!
Are we seriously having an argument over whether Ms Bailey is petulant or not??? I’d have thought that was bleeding obvious.
On the not so bleeding obvious – the fact that we are arguing over whether an electoral landslide occurred or not probably means that it didn’t. Landslides tend to be obvious to all. It was, however, a very emphatic win!
I remember a lot of people saying that to win sixteen seats or whatever,to take government was a mammoth task for Labor.
Maybe the correct term would be Ruddslide?
Yep, and thats why Mitchell will win a by-election. Bailey is the dummy spitter
Lets face it, the result is wholly inconclusive, and, it seems, entirely dependent on administrative calls on a (sadly decisive) number of disputed votes.
That means only one thing: the adminstrative decision making process has run its course, is challengeable at either candidates election, and a judicial determination on the disputed votes is probably required.
This happens all the time in government – its why we have admin law.
Of course, if Bailey wasnt such a pillock, id say let it go.
But my feeling is she’s practically invited Mitchell to challenge with all her previous claims of ‘outrageous irregularities’.
Ok, Fran, you’re right – lets investigate them!
As for the landslide debate, consider this example:
Pre-election: Party A has 145 seats; Party B has 5.
Post-election: Party A has 74, Party B wins 76.
Under some theories, this massive 71 seat/ 45%+ shift in 2PP vote could not be called a ‘landslide’, owing to the close nature of the outcome.
55
seajay Says:
is it too early to claim bragging rights? myself and a number of others were the 83 seat tipsters. good on ya Ms. Bailey!
I too have been waiting patiently for all the undecided seats to be resolved before stepping forward. How much longer, Oh Election Lord, before an absolutely definite, unalterable result?
Though, of course, anyone who called it close to 83 (say 81-85) deserves credit, margin of error and all that.
For those who wish to peruse the formal record of PollBludgerite predictions:
http://pbpredict.googlepages.com/home
I had 83, so it’s a win-win for me
I’m sure the new Labor government will find Mitchell a job, and warehouse him so he can run for Mcewen next time.
I’d be surprised if Labor takes this any further. There is really no advantage in it for anyone in the ALP except Mitchell. The last thing Rudd would want to have to bother about now is a by-election in a very marginal seat.
So some argue that a third of the seats changing hands (going to one party) is not a landslide of seats. What is a landslide of seats then? Half?
Interesting that the average 2PP ALP vote in WA appears to be about 4% lower than the national average, meaning that the 2007 result does not represent a significant deviation from the norm. All the stuff about WorkChoices being loved in WA therefore looks like a furphy.
Yeah, “workchoices” was never something anyone “loved”; or actually cared to defend. Not even the BCA bothered much in the end.
Closest the coalition ever got to that was some irrelevantly small number of high paid miners in WA who didnt utterly despise it quite as much as the rest of us.
Good point, by the way Ferny. The brick-wall is beginning to hurt my head.
Someone asked me the other day how much of the Health budget is spent in patients who die within 3 months. I’ve got some more accurate figures. 6% of the Health budget is spent on ICU patients. Of these, 25-30% die whilst in ICU and another 10% die within 3 months of leaving ICU. The rest are long term survivors. This doesnt fully answer the question but helps.
BTW I also predicted 83 but I’m not on the official list.
phew! It would be a landslide if Howard handed leadership to Costello
At least, give some credit to Howard as annihilation did not happen as predicted.
Embrucement erases all credit, as Howard would readily admit, FF.
Bennelong inevtiable made it a humiliation of historic proportions.
A landslide of seats is WINNING at least approx. 2/3 of them. This is the case whether you first gain 2/3 of seats, or retain 2/3 of seats at subsequent elections with not much change. I would thus call Beattie’s Qld win in 2001, with 66 of 89 seats, a landslide, but also his 2004 and 2006 wins, with 63 and 59 out of 89 respectively.
Do Lefty E and Gary Bruce ever refer to “the Whitlam landslide of 1969″? I can guarantee them they will get extremely puzzled looks if they do.
The Deep North is dead!
Huzzah!
(pity about the Deep West though…)
Is this the psephological version of ‘if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it…’?
Some of you should try the approach I take on topics being discussed here. Choose those topics you want to read and respond to and ignore those you have no interest in. It’s a lot easier than trying to “shut” people up with smart alec comments, believe me.
The real test on Serfchoices will be when the new IR legislation is to be passed. Will all of those who have now said it was electoral poison, and they could see the problems when others couldn’t or wouldn’t; will those people pass the new legislation or will they block it? I’ll bet they’ll block the IR legislation.
Dunno, Lord D.
Howard won 29 seats in 1996 (from a start of 65), and I was happy to call that a landslide.
23 (with another 5 or so on a knife-edge for 2010) from a start of 60 aint really very different.
Id suggest we’re in the quibble zone!
71 William Bowe – I’m prepared to say that you need to win to call it a landslide win William but it was a landslide of seats.
Quite so, William – one must certainly *win* to get the landslide defintion.
Which leaves the ‘Ruddslide’ debate alive and well, no?
“Do Lefty E and Gary Bruce ever refer to “the Whitlam landslide of 1969?? I can guarantee them they will get extremely puzzled looks if they do.”
There is a difference between having a formal definition of a landslide versus the media’s portrayal of an election result. The media tend to call it a landslide if a large number of seats change hands (20+) AND the overall majority for the winning party is large (20+).
But as far as I am concerned, a landslide is a large increase in the number of seats for a particular party. This is why the term “landslide” is used – the political “ground” or the seats in parliament basically shifts in a significant way. So, yes, I would call Whitlam’s result in 1969 a landslide, but one that was unfortunately not quite big enough for him to take government. He was simply coming from a LONG way behind.
And just a point of order, bludgers:
if you were one of those who called 16 seats “Mt Everest” (and you know who you are), you may care to pause before poo-pooing the “Ruddslide” position, in case in leaves your asscrack showing.
“Do Lefty E and Gary Bruce ever refer to “the Whitlam landslide of 1969?? I can guarantee them they will get extremely puzzled looks if they do.”
There is a difference between having a formal definition of a landslide versus the media’s portrayal of an election result. The media tend to call it a landslide if a large number of seats change hands (20+) AND the overall majority for the winning party is large (20+).
But as far as I am concerned, a landslide is a large increase in the number of seats for a particular party. This is why the term “landslide” is used – the political “ground” or the seats in parliament basically shifts in a significant way. So, yes, I would call Whitlam’s result in 1969 a landslide, but one that was unfortunately not quite big enough for him to take government. He was simply coming from a LONG way behind.
Interesting analysis of the Victorian Senate cut-up in the header.
Throughout the weeks of counting, the result of the final cut-up of FF (usually showing both ALP3 and LIB3 elected in one hit) has shown an ALP surplus of anything from 15,000 to a shortfall of about 1,000, with the Libs surplus being relatively stable. All the unapportioned votes vanished yesterday and the AEC ought to be in a position to “push the button”, but it doesn’t appear to have been pushed yet.
The degree of ALP leakage necessary to pull ALP3 sufficiently below a quota and have di Natale leapfrog over them on the Lib3 cut-up is not unattainable, but does not now seem as likely as it did last week. But exactly such a result did occur, IIRC, in one of the Vic LC seats last year?
Instead of agonising over the semantics of the merits of the term “landslide”, I suggest we continue to use the accepted term “Ruddslide” and add that to the psephological dictionary.
Definition: Comfortable electoral victory over a Rodent who had increased his margin in the previous three elections.
If Bailey is declared the winner she won’t be seen as the dummyspit candidate, Mitchell will. He’ll be the one blamed for causing a by-election, if there’s to be one.
As for the “landslide” talk, isn’t this getting into “how many angels fit on a pinhead” territory. Does it REALLY matter? Can we agree perhaps on declaring the win robust, and leading to a strong working majority……..?
Mmm, yes, I can live with that Diogenes.
At the very least, its a “road map” to the end of conflict!
With the final result looking like 83 seats for Labor, 65 for the Coalition and 2 for Independents, my prediction as to the number of seats that’ll be won by Labor ( http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/elections/election-tipping/?bdptip=3 ) was spot on.
Technically, a 16 seat majority isn’t quite what I’d call a landslide win, you’d really need a majority of at least 20 seats for a landslide win. But the nationwide swing to Labor of 5.52% is certainly what I’d call a landslide swing and the swings to Labor seemed to be in all the right places – in New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia which more than off-set the two losses in Western Australia.
So if Whitlam had won by 2 seats in 1969, it would have been a landslide? Commonsense people!
81 Noocat – spot on.
87 Boll – yep, given where he started from. It really depends on what you define as a landslide. I see it as a landslide of seats won, from where a party begins to where it ends up after the election. Others have their own definition and good luck to you.
Well, hate to be a pedant, but:
In ‘96 Howard got a 5% 2PP swing, picking up 29 seats of 148, or 19.5% of seats.
Most are happy to call that a landslide. I certainly was.
In ‘07 Rudd got 5.4% (ie *larger*) swing, picking up 23 seats of 150, or 15.3% of seats.
So! Two alternative conclusions may be reached:
1. 96 wasn’t a ‘landslide’ to Howard; or
2. 96 was a landslide, and: a. the defintion kicks in somewhere in the narrow 4% band between 15% and 19% of seats; b. swing size is irrelevant.
Conclusion: If you argue Rudd didnt get a landslide, then you probably need to argue that Howard didnt in 96 either.
It may be a landslide – but is it art?
I don’t know about that, dyspnoeia, but I know that I like it.
LOL!
Howard and the Libs changed a few laws and seemed to use every trick in the book to maxamise their vote and seat total. all the result of incumbency.
my question is: what will Labor likely do now that they have incumbency?
will they reverse these electoral laws to favor them?
what will they likely do and what likely effect will it have on Labor and the coalition.
or will they do nothing
Further, and leaving aside those (quite good) witticisms, as any good pedant must:
Imagine Sir Hilary, having not only scaled “Mt Everest” (apparently 16 seats high), but exceeded it safely by another 50% (7-8 seats) by 830pm Kathmandu time, being told
“meh, not bad. Solid effort … spose.”
95
Lefty-E, you know that’s pretty much exactly what he would have said . . . What a guy!!!
I would say, however, that the result here in Qld was a landslide by anyone’s definition. Deanne Kelly would agree I’m sure.
Good question Harry!
My guess is that if the AEC alone handled postals, rather than the parties, Rudd would have got 29 odd seats, and I wouldnt be resorting to questionable mountain climbing analogies.
Me, Id be abolishing party touting for postals forthwith. A deeply questionable practice, which wont find many overt supporters when canned.
While in no way diminishing Sir Edmund’s remarkable climb, there have been a number of solo climbs up Everest with no supplementary oxygen. Using Ruddski’s analogy, that would be a victory a fifty seat gain.
Lefty E, I’ll call Howard’s ‘96 win a landslide as he got close to 2/3 of seats. Rudd didn’t.
William, i’ve chucked in a bit from my ill gotten gains i won when Maxine took Bennelong, it’s good to be able to use it for something that gives this old dear as much pleasure as this blog does.
Well a landslide it may not be, however I am sure anyone would have taken 83-65 if offered on the 23rd of November.
It is still a very comfortable win considering rags like the GG gave the Labor Party no chance of gaining 16 marginals let alone the 23 they ended up with.
The Co-alition require approx 2.5%swing to regain office, however a 1% swing to the govt would reap a whole host of Tory marginals.
Will be interesting if the world economy, followed by China goes belly up in the next few years.
Wheres Glen? Thought he would be on here gloating about Fran Baileys great win.
For the sake of clarity I’d just like to point out that I am not to be confused with Judy (even though I am one). She’s the generous one.
As noted about, two candidates, Paul Siebert and Mark Hill, polled one vote each in the SA Senate election. This is a new record low in terms of number of votes for a federal election, beating Theo Hetterscheid’s 4 votes in NSW in 1996. It is also a record in terms of percentage: 0.000000993%, against Hetterscheid’s 0.000001086%. This is disappointing, because I was rather fond of Theo Hetterscheid, and was thinking of endowing a Hetterscheid Cup for the least successful candidacy in any election. Now it would have to be the Siebert-Hill Cup. Perhaps it can be awarded to the CEC in perpetuity: their complete and utter failure to win votes, despite the large amounts of money they mysteriously acquire and spend, deserves some sort of recognition. Even the Natural Law Party did better in its day. I guess self-levitation has more appeal than the world J*wish conspiracy.
Hilarious Adam. Not even having 1 vote beyond their own means that their mate/s and even mother can’t say ‘well at least I voted for you’ whether they did or not. A frosty family dinner or two in the Siebert and Hill regions you’d think.
Nice work Adam. And so much for supporting each of their party’s HTVs!
The difference between 1996 and 2007 was that Howard only had 9 seats to make up, whilst Rudd had 16.
JUDE, i’ve changed my title to my full name so nobody gets confused, i think a few South Australians here already know who i am anyway and hey! not generous just grateful for William providing this site — it’s given me hours of pleasure even though i’m rarely game to venture an opinion lol, my brimfire fighting days are behind me.
#89 Sorry Gary, it matters very little how I, or your good self, choose to define the word “landslide”. However, when the Collins English Dictionary defines it as “an election in which a person or political party gets far more votes or seats than their opponents” it might be time to take notice!?
Adam,
yay – i beat them.
I think Labor’s achievement deserves a new word, as Diogenes suggests. Ruddslide looks good to me.
But what about the rodent’s achievement as the second sitting PM to lose his seat? Surely there should be a word for this. Stanley Melbourne Bruce was the first and only other PM to earn this distinction in 1929, so what about: Howard was bruced. (OK, the Urban Dictionary lists some semi-rude definitions but does that matter?)
apres- I think Left E has already coined the phrase “embruced”, which could be used in the sentence “In the 2007 election, John Howard’s status as sitting member of Bennelong was embruced by the electorate”. The opposite is embraced or maxined.
Indeed Apres, and in fact we’ve covered that critical issue extensively: Embrucement, Brucifixion were the faves.
Lord D re: Howard getting 63% of seats in ‘96 (cf Rudd’s 55%): yes, but isn’t starting point rather too big a factor in that definition?
Howard started on on 65/148 (needed 10); Rudd 60/150 (needed 16)
I know what Im more impressed by.
Ferny Grover’s somewhat biased prerequisites for a ‘Landslide’:
1. The earth must move in an electorally orgasmic way
PLUS
2. The GOODIES must totally thump the BADDIES – in an electorally orgasmic way.
So…it’s only a landslide if a lot of seats change hands AND your side wins by a thumping margin (otherwise it’s not a landslide it’s just victorius interruptus).
brucified or brucifixion (shades of Life of Brian)
112, 113. Redfaced for forgetting those earlier learned suggestions. ‘Embrucement’ is a fine word. Barbara’s ‘brucified’ also rocks.
Interesting to compare popularity of some prominent candidates compared with party. The erstwhile rodent in Bennelong got 45.5% and senate vote for Libs in Bennelong was 43.6 – plus 1.9% cf State average of plus 1.2% higher than Senate. So rodent is plus 0.7% more popular than party. Higgins Costello 53.6 (with donkey vote of say 0.5%) cf Senate 49.3 and Vic State Reps 41.1 compared to 39.5. Costello is about plus 4% cf State average of 1.6% so Costello is plus 2.4% compared with party vote. Rudd in Griffith 53.9 compared to Senate 40.9 cf Qld average of ALP in Reps 43.0 and Senate 39.2. So Rudd is 9.2% over ALP party vote.
111 and 112 – how about ‘de-Howard’ or de-howered’?
Does anyone in SA think Mike Rann will be able to shut up about the legal case against the serial arsonist in the Adelaide Hills (47 fires allegedly)? Assuming she is found guilty just before the next election (which fits the timetable) and gets less than 10 years, I can see a frothing outburst about “community expectations” coming.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22936530-5006301,00.html
1 thing continues to bug me about this election.
why did Kevin Rudd so openly and brazenly come out at least twice in the week before the election and shout that he was going to take a razor to Canberra beuracrats. At the time he was shouting it, it didn’t seem to fit his otherwise incredibly tight and disciplined message, and i was wondering why he was being so in ya face about it and why it needed to actually be said at all.
at the time it looked as though the ACT was going to elect a Labor and Green senator with Humphries on a lowly 20 something %. as we know now, Humphries defied the tipsters and fared well enough to comfortably secure the Libs the vital immediate Senate seat to maintain their majority at least til July.
i can’t help but think Rudd’s razor statements contributed largely to this and i can’t help but wonder why he did it.
it can really only be for 1 of 2 reasons.
either
a) he didn’t and doesn’t want control of the Senate in this first term
or
b) he wants to use the Libs control of the Senate as a double dissolution trigger(almost definately over workchoices legislation being blocked ).
i just can’t figure out why he needed to make a point of shouting about that Canberra razor gang when there was no reason to make a big deal of it when he did.
as i say it was almost as if he was deliberately trying to get Humphries elected in the ACT.
and the People giveth…
“The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) has authorised the first payment to political parties and candidates for votes received at the 2007 federal election.
“The total of the first payment is $46,536,277.23. Payments have been made to seven parties and 15 independent candidates.
“AMOUNT AS AT THE END OF COUNTING ON 14 DECEMBER 2007
Name Amount ($)
Parties
Australian Labor Party 20,922,325.51
Liberal Party of Australia 17,222,359.78
Australian Greens 4,148,615.11
National Party of Australia 3,076,663.58
Pauline’s United Australia Party 202,440.72
Northern Territory Country Liberal Party 160 719.91
Family First Party 133 965.51
Independent candidates
Nick Xenophon (Senate, South Australia) 296,627.70
Tony Windsor (New England) 105,217.86
Bob Katter (Kennedy) 64,919.66
Gavin Priestley (Calare) 37,979.71
Tim Horan (Parkes) 34,114.90
Caroline Hutchinson (Fisher) 21,141.74
Gavan O’Connor (Corio) 21,010.05
Noel Brunning (Forrest) 19,800.93
Aaron Buman (Newcastle) 12,655.91
Ben Quin (Lyons) 12,155.10
Cate Molloy (Wide Bay) 11,125.55
Ray McGhee (Boothby) 8 759.18
Rob Bryant (Murray) 8,727.25
Tim Williams (Macquarie) 8,270.34
Jamie Harrison (Lyne) 6,636.23
Total 46,536,277.23″
More at http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Media_releases/12_18(c).htm
Sorry 109 Boll but this definition provides more questions than answers. “far more votes or seats”? Define please. How many?
The latest on McEwen – http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/18/2122087.htm?section=justin . It aint over until you know who sings.
HarryH (120) presumably Rudd wanted to keep Howard on the defensive over spending, but the Senate theory is interesting. Especially given the Bulletin’s report that Labor is getting the Democrats’ Murray to review Budget transparency. I think that is very significant.
More problems for gridlock Campbell as the Brisbane City Council elections get closer.
Could be a long 87 days for the senior Lib left in office in the continent. Last week we had the spectacle of a 2 meter hole gouged in the bitumen from a burst watermain in an inner city street, today four more have burst.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queensland/peak-hour-to-be-wet-n-wild/2007/12/18/1197740263162.html
120 & 124 I think you are putting on the tin foil hat so you can jump at shadows. My observation of Rudd is that he intends to implement what he promised in the election.
If that means a razor gang to look at spending in Canberra, I would be very confident that is what he meant.
All those wasted millions spent on advertising by the Libs, the announcements about cutbacks to staffers etc. This is exactly what they said they would do.
Why are you surprised?
2008 Parliament sitting schedule
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/info/sittings/08sitpa.pdf
120 HarryH – That’s been a point of interest for me too. There was no need whatsoever to do it as far as I can see. The point about fiscal responsibility was being made perfectly well in the campaign. There was no impression in the community that there had been any waste or bloating of the public service, as there has been in the past. So indeed, why? He didn’t even promise there would be no forced redundancies, which he could have done. One thing is for sure, he knew exactly what he was doing – but what was it? Any insiders know?
There was one other bit of last minute discord – Rudd’s measured equivocation about the ’sorry’ announcement. However, in that case I can see that would have been for the general consumption of those swinging conservatives who wanted a pat on the head from Rudd saying ‘ relax, we won’t rush on indigenous issues’. But the p. service thing has me wondering.
126 Gg
Yes, but if he can save hundreds of millions in advertising, why not rail about that instead of picking a fight with public servants?
120, 124, 126 Isn’t it also the case that if he had not been absolutely clear about intending to use a razor on the public service he could have been accused of withholding the information just as Howard did with Work Choices?
Thinking further on finances and Rudd’s tactics, I was watching the news about Centro and further falout from the US financial crisis. I am actualy glad that such financial baggage is coming out so soon, when it obviously can’t be Labor’s fault. It will enable them to take realistic action on inflation, which could be a threat to Labor’s long term prospects otherwise, and not be blamed for it. They could do worse than start with a whole bunch of measures that amount to business and farm welfare (eg diesel fuel rebates), and even middle class welfare (non means-tested family payments). A few billion saved their easily, and thats just for starters.
As for how the financial problems emerging so soon are portrayed, there are only two possibilities – they are either due to the aftermath of the Howard government, or world financial forces.
Of course, for the Lib-Cons who say that it is world forces, that will raise the obvious question of whether Howard’s economic run of success was also due to world economic forces, and therefore just luck. That in turn undermines further the claims of coalition economic credibility, and that they were “unlucky” to lose.
Sorry if this is off topic, but I think its pretty important to the long term success of the Rudd government.
GG (126) I don’t think there is any great conspiracy theory involved on his cuts announcement, it politically made sense against Howard’s spending splurge and anyway, it is what he intended to do so he may as well have announced it.
But Rudd’s attitude to the Senate raised by HarryH is interesting. Using Murray to review budget transparency is unusual, to say the least. It seems to be a way that Rudd is using external constraints (like he is using overdone inflation fears) to curb the ability of groups in the party to push their agendas in spending programmes.
GG i have no doubt he will take the razor to Canberra.
but my point is there was no reason for Rudd to shout his intentions from the rooftops in election week. it didn’t fit any narrative Labor was articulating at the time. yes i take shrike’s point about keeping Howard on the spending defensive but this was such a loud attack on a specific core of potential voters that didn’t need to be made in the vociferous way it was made.
he virtually yelled at Canberra voters to beware voting Labour . This, in a seemingly vital area where Senate control virtually rested.
it seemed very strange at the time and i’ve seen nothing to explain it since.
to me, it would be very doubtful that Rudd would want a DD election. i may be proved wrong.
i think he is happy not to have a Labor/Green majority in the Senate. i think he has a clear 3 or 4 term strategy in his sights and he is very happy being kind of hamstrung for this term Senate wise. don’t scare many horses
83/65 or 84/64. It’s a good number because it’s good size margin yet it will keep Rudd on the watch all the way until the next election. If it was 30+ Rudd might get too cocky and forgets who put him there.
I did not know a lot about Fran Bailey before 24.11 amd still dont. However heard her on the radio before the recount and the impression was to form the impression instantly that she is a dick.
Having previously run the “corruption and mayhem” line when she was behind, Bailey has, of course, now moved solidly to the “abide by the umpire’s decision” approach. Don’t you love politicians!
she is s stupid old hag stealing my 20 dollars from centre bet
Apologies if this point has already been made: a successful challenge to the Court of Disputed Returns does not necessarily mean a by-election. It is within the power of the Court to declare a losing candidate elected if, for example, the Court disagrees with the rulings of the relevant AEC officers on a sufficient number of ballot papers to reverse the result.
From today’s Hun.
“Mr Swan warned inflation was a serious concern.”
“The inflation pressure has been building for a long period. It will take some time to deal with . . . the most important thing we can do is to have a new era of fiscal discipline, and the Commonwealth ought to start with itself.”
The $31 billion in tax cuts are an iron clad committment that the Rudd Government is going to deliver.
Obviously, they are potentially inflationary as has been pointed out by numerous economists both professional and amateur.
Therefore the new Govrnment is going to need to look at savings on the spending side that will alleviate the inflationary pressures.
Greens Senators are not a core consideration of The Labor Party. I believe that Rudd was stating clearly and cogently his actions in Government. Would you want him to continue the lies and deceits of the Liberals?
Not sure who you are having an argument with GG. HarryH was just asking why Rudd made an announcemnt that probably helped them lose a crucial Senate seat. Given Tanner’s use of Murray, it sounds like he didn’t want it. I would suggest part of the reason is to keep his own party in check.
The inflation fears are overdone. What are we talking about? The RBA thinks they will go to all of 3.25% before coming back to below 3.0%, in the last November briefing I saw. Hardly a crisis.
Although the tax cuts will have to be delivered, but in times of boom you do not cut taxes, you spend the money that has been provided on services and infrastructure. It is economic stupidity to cut tax in a time of boom, and the Liberals did such madness and now Labor is doing it as well. And guess what just when the economy looks to be on a downturn we cut spending, madness! yep these economists really know how to run an economy – into the ground.
The issue of climate change should be our main priority, and now and why latest reports suggest that
http://www.americablog.com/2007/12/nasa-scientist-canary-has-died.html
#122 Sorry Gary, the ony question we are left with is what we mean by `far more`. More than twenty? two-thirds? Whatever. It is certainly more than 2 and it certainly has no relationship to the`large increase in seats` crap that you and others were peddling before.
Fran Bailey is about as attractive as a mack truck!
Yep, very convenient for her those extra 30 votes suddenly turned up!
Piping Shrike,
I think I answered the point about the possible effect of a Rudd announcement on the Greens. Not a consideration.
Inflation- Petrol up 10-15 cents since the election, electricity prices to rise by 17% in Victoria and a muted doubling of water charges. This is on top of the the interest rate rises under the Howard administration.
Rudd is right to focus on reducing inflation.
And it proves how boring this blog has become that you all spent today arguing about the term “landslide” and whether it’s applicable to the size of Rudd’s victory! I roll my eyes in disbelief!
GG are we talking about the same thing? By Murray I meant the Democrats’ Andrew Murray, not the river!
The link:
http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=334499
Progressive- the big issues still dominate.
In case anyone is still in thrall of the often repeated delusional notion that Alan Greenspan was some kind of wonderboy of central banking, here’s a bit of Gretchen Morgenson’s article in today’s NY Times:
Edward M. Gramlich, a Federal Reserve governor who died in September, warned nearly seven years ago that a fast-growing new breed of lenders was luring many people into risky mortgages they could not afford.
But when Mr. Gramlich privately urged Fed examiners to investigate mortgage lenders affiliated with national banks, he was rebuffed by Alan Greenspan, the Fed chairman.
…so what does this have to do with us, you might ask?
Just take a look at the last two days on the ASX!
KR, are there any photos anywhere of you at work on your finest day?
Just heard Swan on TV stating that “the fallout in the U.S subprime crisis shows that Australia is not immune from the global crisis”
Thanks Wayne as if i didn’t know. Dill.
132
HarryH
One explanation from 7/11/07 at Polemica (hard to link)
Turning “razor gang” into a positive?
For members of the Australian Labor Party, the term “razor-gang” is most closely associated (and generally in a derogatory light) with the Fraser Government’s vicious public sector cuts of the early 1980’s. It is therefore very interesting that Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd has revived the term during this year’s election campaign and is attempting to use it as a selling point for the Opposition.
So why is Rudd using this evocative term, with so much historical baggage, to describe what his Opposition has in mind? Surely there are a myriad of ways in which the desired cost savings could be described that don’t so unabashedly draw a direct line between Australia’s conservative government of a quarter century ago and the proposed future of this country.
It’s hard not to think it’s all about selling that “economic conservative” tag. It certainly seems as though Rudd is tailoring aspects of his language and party policy for that grizzled sub-sector of the population who feel that the Howard Government has not fulfilled its public sector minimisation ambit. By killing a few sacred cows with some carefully chosen words and some targeted plans, Federal Labor is trying to portray itself as not only the party of public funding sweetness and light for its traditional supporters (at least of the two major parties), but the party of public sector cuts and cost savings for the conservative voters that it needs to woo in order to win government.
It is a difficult balancing act to pull off. Fortunately for Federal Labor, the Howard Government (and particularly the PM) is so loathed after eleven years by Labor voters, most would probably vote for a resurrected Margaret Thatcher in overalls before they would even consider voting for the government. It is therefore no wonder that Rudd is leading his troops towards the “centre” and well beyond in this election campaign.
132
HarryH
I think that once Rudd proclaimed ‘no more’ to massive handouts and irresponsible ‘helicopter’ money from J W Howard, he then had to justify signing onto 31 billion big ones.
From then on, government savings were up in the cross-hairs, and where does the average joe sixpack think all his taxes go? Yep, you probably guessed it, into the giant maw of Canberra’s big beehive, its bureaucracy.
It was a dogwhistle, and a threat, especially to some of the pet mandarins, that their days were numbered. It may have hurt Labor in Canberra, but was a resounding message throughout the land.
Like I said: “I think”!
I was in a lift today with a Dep Sec of a very large Gvt Department today – he didnt look all that worried to me [as one of the mandarins of Canberra!]
Could have been that the coffee he was out to get was a more weightly issue!
150
Chino
I do remember reading recently that one of the rags had a shot of the van outside K House on that historic day. As for me, well I was way too busy to notice, what with dealing with ‘her indoors’ well knocked up with horse tranquilisers and poor Mr Rodent on all fours following us about and calling us “George”. Pitiable sight, really.
Ah, but what day it was, eh?
KR
PS Talking of pics in Grub Street rags, I saw that one of Maxine and Mr Rodent, you know the one, she was telling him about Tasmania being all Labor!
I see that Albanese has announced an 82 day sitting schedule for 2008. Can anyone point me towards the date for the first sitting week? A couple of friends and I wish to get QT tickets if we possibly can.
#156:
2008 Parliament sitting schedule
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/info/sittings/08sitpa.pdf
Thanks James.
KR…..
Nicely disguised van!
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22900489-5001021,00.html
Ironic that the van is looks like it is based in Canberra!!!!!
Is it possible to reserve tickets for QT? I don’t want to get there and find that it’s a matter of waiting around for hours to get a seat.
SK + Charlie,
Not sure you can buy tickets. Have been several times but never had to shell out the hard earneds.
QT starts at 2 each day. Sitting shedule was posted today, see #157 for link.
Here is a link to info sheet on QT from the APH website:
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/info/infosheets/is01.pdf
You might have to crash tackle me for a seat on the first session. Cant wait to get out the rah rah pompoms for Julia….
#160: http://www.aph.gov.au/visitors/public_galleries.htm
Don’t turn up to the first QT without a booking. It will almost certainly be all pre-booked.
Booked by friends of the pollies and party hacks, sorry to say.
It says you cant book them earlier than on the day…….am I being naive thinking that they would stick to the rules on day 1?
So who will be the speaker at the gab-fest??? lol
Harry Jenkins
Chino-How did your grandmother go with her trip to Emergency Department?
By the way the 12th is all the happenings of the Opening of Parliament, the first QT would be on the 13th
Harry Jenkins. Just what i need someone who can send me to sleep. Another family oriented pollie, appartichik. Good old Harry.
A party chick?
There is a considerable difference between an apparatchik and a party chick. Harry is in fact neither. He has never been part of the “apparat” (the party machinery). He was a public servant until he inherited his seat from his father in 1986. He has sat quietly up the back of the House for 21 years waiting to be Speaker like his father was. I think patience of that order deserves reward. He has been 2nd Deputy Speaker for some years and knows the standing orders very thoroughly. He is a popular chap and will be a perfectly good Speaker.
Jesus, did you read that link at 141?
Arctic could be gone – completely- as early as 2012.
F*cking Bush Presidency – what a cancer on the globe.
For the latest information on the US election. This site is very balanced in the information they provide. The owner is a Democrat, but he correctly predicted the Republican 2004 win.
http://www.electoral-vote.com
For further in depth articles about the US election the New York Times has excellent coverage.
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/politics/index.html
January the 3rd in Iowa is the first caucus.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/labor-may-challenge-baileys-12vote-victory/2007/12/18/1197740272675.html
Prob’ly a bit late for me to weigh in.
Something I so liked.
Went to my friend’s, yesterday, who has finally and good, employed someone to build a new pergola to replace the ancient and dangerous existing.
Looks terrific, no shit work, no brackets, dovetails and whatever. Perfection.
A compliment from me, to this well turned out bloke of maybe, mid to late thirties. Muscles, legs, good looker. Own business. Sharp conversationalist. A Howard man, one assumes.
A slight mention of politics, from me. Seeing as the subject arose. He said, one to go. I said, Bush? He said, yep. I said, Trifecta? He said, yep.
Discussion of the state of play, aka McEwen. Skated to Boothby, Kingston. He was of the latter electorate. Knew everything.
Turns out he is not only his own man, and as I said, great artisan, but the long time Union organiser, in his own realm and long time Labor Party member.
Congratulations and commiserations, all round.
Next time. Blokes like this.
Kirribilli: ” It was a dogwhistle, and a threat, especially to some of the pet mandarins, that their days were numbered. It may have hurt Labor in Canberra, but was a resounding message throughout the land.”
Methinx Kirribilli, it did hurt Labor in the two Canberra city electorates, but not a lot, it was designed deliberately as a message for the rest of the country.
But it did hurt feelings locally, probably because Rudd’s short visit to the city was so at odds with the rest of the campaign. He scowled, glared, with not so much as a smile for the voters of this city, (over 70% of whom do not even work anywhere near the PS) and then sacked or demoted the ACT ALP reps.
Kev and Therese must have some bad memories of their ANU student days of living in the city (hey Kev? It was nearly 30 years ago, get over it, huh?)
Secondly, the APS had been quietly gearing up all year for a ‘changing of the guard’ — many saw the writing on the wall, re-arranged SES chairs, took that retirement they were long overdue for, and so on.
Some departments were ready, geared up and raring to go from Day One.
Much of the work had been done before Rudd said anything, so as not to upset the larger population of junior pub servants who aren’t involved in any politicisation anyway.
Howard’s meat-axe in 96 was far more sudden and painful for thousands, many of whom had no idea what hit them.
In short, yes it hurt Labor in one local safe electorate, probably the Greens too, but was either:
(a) a mistake, but a minor one, or
(b) a deliberate message that goes down real well everywhere else, (ala Canberra-bashing) and safe seats can take the knock.
but a smile or two, and some positive rhetoric about ‘nation-building’ that everybody else got, might have helped cushion the blow.
Canberra is still part of Australia, whether the rest of the country likes it or not, and it would have been nice to feel the PM isn’t gritting his teeth to *endure* its existence.
*sigh* – its bad when the PM hates you, as much as the rest of the country does.
If Bob McMullen’s proposal to create a 3rd ACT electorate goes ahead, ALP might have to fight just a little harder to retain its safe status, in at least one, possibly two of the three seats.
The southside electorate has shown that it should not be taken for granted.
Safe Labor yes, will vote for ALP ashtrays, but it has *standards* for ‘quality ashtrays’ unlike other safe seats.
It will double-digit swing away from ALP candidates it doesn’t like. Just because we’re safe, doesn’t mean we will put up with idiot ALP junk MPs, or national embarrassments, or insults from the PM like Keating’s classics.
Inoffensive, non-entities yes, but idiots? No Way! Get enough Canberra-bashing, without a f*wit local MP making it worse.
.
Labor may challenge Bailey’s win.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/labor-may-challenge-baileys-12vote-victory/2007/12/18/1197740272675.html
Rain- if you are still around, there is a big fight in SA about ACHAs. The Health Department has decided to restrict services for “discretionary” operations like circumcision, varicose veins, breast reduction etc as follows
http://www.health.sa.gov.au/ELECTIVESURGERY/Default.aspx?tabid=205
The doctors and media are arguing that this breaches the ACHA between State and Federal Governments because it reduces the range of services provided by SA, which the ACHA specifically says the States cannot do. Do you have aq view?
The Age was told that on one ballot paper, an elector had crossed out the names of all the candidates, replacing them with the hand-written names “Mark Skaife”, “Craig Lowndes”, “Todd Kelly” and other V8 Supercar drivers. The voter then donkey-voted, numbering the boxes alongside one to eight downwards.
The numbers favoured Ms Bailey on preferences and, after being ruled informal in the initial count, it was contested by the Liberal Party and ruled a formal vote for the recount.
V8 Supercars! Who was that fella on here always going on about them? Own up.
#179 “If Bob McMullen’s proposal to create a 3rd ACT electorate goes ahead, ALP might have to fight just a little harder to retain its safe status, in at least one, possibly two of the three seats.”
This would mean a resurrection of Namadgi, right? (Maybe they could parachute Penny Wong into it!)
However, Bob McMullan must realize that if a third ACT seat is created, it would only exist so long as the ALP stays in govt. When the Coalition does eventually get back in (and whenever that day comes, it’ll be too soon for me) the ACT will go back to 2 seats, prompting a stoush in the ALP about who gets to stay. Bob himself (as member for Fraser) would be drawn into it.
FG’s political trivia: Who was the only Australian Prime Minister to actually grow up in Canberra (though he wasn’t born there)?
182
I think that vote is formal – all the boxes are numbered. It hurts to say it, but it counts.
Just be thankful that vote (along with a half dozen others) decided only the outcome in McEwen, not the entire election.
FG. Gough?
West of 141 East the Liberals won 16 seats to the ALP’s 12 seats Why?
O’Connor has been declared to have been won by Tuckey but I can’t see how that can be decided without doing a proper full distribution of preferences to see if the Nationals ended up in front of the ALP after the minor parties had been eliminated.
The AEC has only published 1st pref and TPP.
Any explanations?
Thanks
Re:182
A House of Representatives ballot paper is informal if:
…
it has writing on it which identifies the voter
…
the voter’s intention is not clear
…
Do we think that the intention of the McEwen V8 supercar fanatic was clear?
Furthermore, how many V8 supercar fanatics live in McEwen?
Very interesting, Dr G. I’ve now taken a look at the Cth Electoral Act 1918 section 268 where the relevant bits are:
(1) A ballot-paper shall … be informal if:
(a) …
(b) …
(c) in a House of Representatives election, it has no vote
indicated on it, or it does not indicate the voter’s first
preference for 1 candidate and an order of preference for all
the remaining candidates:
…….
(d) it has upon it any mark or writing …by which… the voter can be
identified:
…..
(e)…
(2) …
(3) A ballot-paper shall not be informal for any reason other than the
reasons specified in this section, but shall be given effect to
according to the voter’s intention so far as that intention is clear.
I agree it’s difficult to see how the voter’s intention was clear if Kat’s report (182) is accurate, and the names of the real candidates were crossed out. Still, it’s only 1 vote, though it does perhaps call into question the quality of decision-making by the relevant officials.
Surely the voter’s intention was clear. His (and we can be pretty sure it was a he) intention was to vote for V8 supercar drivers, not the election candidates. It was a protest vote against the candidates and he did NOT want it to count towards any of them getting his vote. Therefore it should not count.
I think all one can say is that it is far from clear that the voter’s intention was to vote for the candidates whose names were printed on the ballot paper, and therefore it should have been declared informal.
Listening to Julie Bishop this morning on AM using the ABC’s “balance” policy to tell Julia Gillard that she “must” hold a full and independent inquiry into the proposed changes to WorkChoices or else the Libs and Nats won’t pass the bills got me thinking that the only way out of this – to settle the election once and for all – is to hold a double dissolution when the repeal fails to pass.
Put to one side the fact the the Howard government didn’t even tell us about WorkChoices, much less hold a “full and independent” inquiry into it (if you don’t include the pathetic one day Senate committee hearing and some repetitive blather over the years about unfair dismissal – one thousandth of what WorkChoices really was).
These wankers need to snap out of the delusion that they are the government in exile; that Labor is just keeping the seat warm until the rightful rulers of Australia get their act together and go through the formalities of winning the few votes needed to return to power. Never mind about the daggers-drawn state of their party and their party room. Never mind that they’re out of office everywhere in Australia except Brisbane City Council. These are our natural leaders and know what’s best for us, unlike those Labor amateurs, fanatics and union bovver boys who serendipitously and quite counter-intuitively managed to win the last election while the Coalition, getting on with governing the country, had their collective attentions momentarily drawn elsewhere.
The stake needs to be hammered through the heart of the Coalition and the body burned. The electorate clearly voted for the end of WorkChoices and the cessation of other ikonic Howard policies in many other areas. They even kicked Howard out of his own seat to press the message home. No mercy should be shown to them by Labor. They should not allow anyone from that failed bunch of yes people to tell them what they “must” do about anything.
As for “Brenda” Nelson. The sooner this small, pissant, cry-baby of a man is shown up for the worm he is, the better. All Byrlcream and no brain, he should be allowed to wither on the vine of his own irrelevancy. Turnbull, far more of a human being than Nelson, is nothing to worry about. He has the fatal, almost Shakespearian flaw of being not quite able to press home the advantage and win an election when it counts. Sure, he can stack Wentworth, but he can’t stack the whole country, not from the Opposition benches. You have to be Howard, with your grubby, partisan hands on the national purse strings to do that.
Inquiries? On second thoughts let’s hold a few, starting with one into AWB, in the form of the prosecutions that Cole, Howard and Downer clapped for a little too loudly. Let’s see who grasses who when that process gets going. What about the Super Hornets? $6 billion dollars on an inferior lemon of an aircraft, hardly able to shoot down a Bali box kite, much less a modern Sukhoi. Hmmm… this is fun… Iraq might be another contender. Who said what to whom, and when did they say it? Turnbull’s mate with the ion-generating rainmaking machine (and the $12 million of taxpayers’ money) might get a guernsey. That was money spent in the caretaker period. It could be the naughty corner for you, Malcolm. Howard’s “whitlamesque” 10 year spending spree on middle class welfare might be another candidate for the microscope, especially as it seems Labor is now going over the invoices trying to figure out how to pay them and, at the same time, avoid rampant inflation in the years to come.
Julie Bishop is calling for the inquiry that the government of and in which she was a cabinet minister never held, on a subject they refused to release figures upon because it would be “detrimental to the public good”, as the FOI rejection intoned.
Yeah, let’s have some inquiries, but not into the repeal of laws that the government was clearly elected to repeal. Failing that, a double dissolution, followed by a joint sitting that will pass everything banked up seems just the ticket to clear out the deadwood once and for all from the Coalition benches.
Maintain the passion, BB.
Bishop of the West can say what she likes, but we already know that several of her colleagues have seen the writing on the wall about Workchoices. They surely don’t want to be dragged into a DD which they’ll be held responsible for, to refight a battle they’ve only just resoundingly lost.
BB (194) Too much loathing and hatred in that post. Your team won the election. Praise be! So now be very careful you do not succumb to the dark side of The Force. Afterall, the Australian Labor Party has a precious reputation to maintain: that it is the only major party able to articulate and put into practice policies of truth, social justice and the ‘Australian way’ (that is, decency, graciousness and a fair go), or at least that is what many of the regular visitors to this website earnestly believe.
BB
Too many enquiries would make Rudd look vindictive and pedantic. But if he changes the FOI laws so all the Rodent’s grubby secrets are revealed, he could let the journalists do all his work for him and maintain the high moral ground. Most of these enquiries achieve nothing that a few vitriolic newspaper and 4 Corners articles couldn’t. Look at the AWB and Dr Death enquiries. Lots of dirty linen and no-one has faced charges yet.
Has the Rodent been arested yet?
Lets start at the top, Murdoch should be put under immediate detention as the megaphone for the War Criminal Party along with Bush, Blair, and dozens of their criminal cohorts.
The putrid, festering Neo-Cons have to terminated and put to rest, once and for all times.
Let the War Crimes Tribunal begin.
194 Bushfire Bill – Well said! I felt similarly when I heard Bishop this morning. It sounded like she was trying to crack an ironic joke but then I realised it was Bishop.
I hope Labor will pummel them in Question Time and keep the public continuosly but calmly informed about the Libs closet full of skeletons, so that the threat of a Double Dissolution would make even the dumb libs realise they’d better back off on WorkChoices and other fixes Labor needs to do.
The AEC web site is now showing the Greens as in the TPP in Melbourne.
Tanner has a margin of about 5%.
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-13745-228.htm
#194 “Never mind that they’re out of office everywhere in Australia except Brisbane City Council.”
Hey, hang on there Bushfire Bill. You forgot about Karlene Maywald, the Nat minister in the ALP govt of SA!
(Hmmm… do the Nats count as a Coalition party in SA? – I don’t think the croweaters have a Coalition agreement.)
Enjoyed this comment muchly: “These wankers need to snap out of the delusion that they are the government in exile; that Labor is just keeping the seat warm until the rightful rulers of Australia get their act together and go through the formalities of winning the few votes needed to return to power.” Indeed.
Diogenes 181:
I think the paragraph:
In some circumstances there may be a genuine medical reason for a procedure to be performed. The guidelines stipulate the procedures where clinical indication would support surgery funded through the public health system.
Covers the ACHA requirements, as far as I know most of these operations have not been done in NSW public hospitals ( particularly the more under-resourced ones for some years). The thought of the public purse paying for a ritual circumcision sickens me. Why are the surgeons upset? Surely they have more than enough work treating patients with clinical indications for surgery.
People, please don’t tar me with the brushes applied to my fellow Westralians. I’m actually not sure what happened here, as virtually everyone I know (many of whom were lifelong and/or “natural” LP voters) have stated that they would preference Labor or the Greens over the LP.
My own grandfather (79 and a fan to this day of Robert Menzies) said that he was having serious trouble deciding whether to vote informal, as he didn’t want to vote for Labor but couldn’t stomach the thought of voting Liberal.
I just don’t know what went wrong…..
Mathew, A swing of 2+% is not necessarily a disaster although a net 1 seat was lost. I think Labor was coming from a very low base and only in this sense is there a feeling that more needs to be done
#194 Bushfire Bill I share the passion but after hearing Bishop (’hypnotoad’ remember long long ago on PB), I took a deep breath and thought – an independent inquiry – why not – with David Peetz heading it, and John Buchanan and other academics witchhunted by Howard demonstrating that any connection between job security and employment rates is very very tenuous indeed – what a good idea.
Here’s Brian Loughnane’s take on ‘why we wuz robbed’ — ‘I had nothing to do with it, it was all about timing, leadership and maybe just ever so slightly workchoices. But mostly it was about those union thugs opening their coffers for Labor’:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/19/2122852.htm
#206 apres and what’s more it is unfair for unions to politically campaign, only business is allowed to do so —
“He [Loughnane] says unions spent $30 million on their own campaign and this gave the Labor Party flexibility in deploying resources.
He says he feels this third force in the campaign is an unhealthy development…”
Got my question time tickets, folks.
Neophyte #207,
Can one post replies to the story at its original site? I’d love to tell Mr Loughane what I think of his logic.
Howard is already in hiding!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7149569.stm
202 midnothcoast: re Diogenes 181
“In some circumstances there may be a genuine medical reason for a procedure to be performed. The guidelines stipulate the procedures where clinical indication would support surgery funded through the public health system.”
.
FWIW, off-the-top of my head, I suspect this covers it well enough. That list looks reasonable to me. Just guessing, but its possible SA just wants to make it clear that purely cosmetic cases won’t be publicly funded in the future.
.
When is the AEC going to release the full distribution of preferences for the HoR seats?
Some of these were declared early last week. Surely it doesn’t take that long.
Fine and dandy. If the LNP “leadership” can’t face self-criticism and must look for scapegoats, they’re destined to be wandering in that wilderness for quite a while. And no one loves a hypocrite. “Third force”? That’s just sour grapes because big business wouldn’t come to the party to defend workchoices with anything like the commitment of the unions to attacking it. They’ve also whinged endlessly about Labor’s “scare campaign”. How would they characterise 90% of the Liberal advertising?
I wonder if they’ll show QT live next year. If so, I must free up that time.
#206
From http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/19/2122852.htm
“He [Mr Loughnane] says WorkChoices united and activated the labour movement and the campaign against WorkChoices created anxiety in the electorate.
He says unions spent $30 million on their own campaign and this gave the Labor Party flexibility in deploying resources.
He says he feels this third force in the campaign is an unhealthy development and that the ACTU should have to set out how the money was spent.”
Oh COME ON!!! Are you kidding me!!?? How much money did the Howard Government spend to PROMOTE WorkChoices, in those cheesy infomercials? Unlike the govt, the ACTU spent its OWN money on advertising – it didn’t siphon taxpayers’ money to force WorkChoices down the collective throat of Australian voters.
Sheesh!! What a bunch of crybabies these Libs are. All’s fair in love and war and campaigning – except when you lose.
Ye gads… Talk of merging not just the Libs and Nats in Queensland, but Family First and One Nation too.
Wouldn’t that be a turn-up for the books.
RA, and this is supposed to make them electable???
RA #216,
If you thought Labor’s factionalism was bad, try a look at a “united” Conservative Party with FF and ON included.
Not to mention the fact that including FF and ON will scare off a lot of their voters, particularly ON.
Given the leadership debacle of the QLD libs, any merger which produces an odd number of parliamentarians must make them more electable, surely?
Maybe that’s the thinking.
Or they are just realising that other states are upping the ante for the “least functional Liberal Party” and QLD is trying to preserve it’s position….
COAG health discussions underway: QLD’s Anna Bligh says “states wont walk away” from hospitals:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/19/2122462.htm
A couple of years ago, I went to a seminar on C’wlth/State relations in hospitals. One of the presenters showed newspaper clippings going back to the 1950s on proposals for CW takeovers. It gets trotted out for recycling every few years!
Sounds good politically doesn’t it? Twas clever enuff by Rudd to *threaten* taking them over by 2009, if the S/Ts dont pull their finger out!
As I think Julia G mentioned “Taking it to the people” by 2009, is actually somewhat different to taking over. Its a Constitutional thing, so CW takeover of hospitals would have to go to national referendum, and those of us who know our Oz history on referendums, know how well they usually turn out! LOL
.
Could always throw it in with another Republic referendum to save money, and watch them both fall to the No Vote.
.
Might actually watch for the full COAG Communique this time, the newspaper synopsis and media releases are usually too brief.
.
Be funny if they ended up with an even number then. I wish their merger plans well.
You’ve got to love the Nats! Let’s just gather together all the racists, religious nutjobs and wild-eyed-frothing-at-the-mouth bigots on the lunatic fringe of the existing lunatic fringe and hug them all to our collective conservative busom. That should make them much more appealing to your average Liberal voter.
After the recent Liberal “Tattslotto” Leadership Battle, merging with the Nats, FF and One Nation would be a calming and unifying sign of rationalism for the average Liberal voter.
FG @ 222 “Let’s just gather together all the racists, religious nutjobs and wild-eyed-frothing-at-the-mouth bigots on the lunatic fringe of the existing lunatic fringe and hug them all to our collective conservative busom. That should make them much more appealing to your average Liberal voter.”
.
Ahahaha… even Liberals need to maintain some standards! Labor at least kept the hippy-trippy tree-huggers separate to their own Party.
.
But tis democracy, the rabid right have just as much right to be representation as anybody else.
.
Or you could try the Italian system of factional proportional representation, which I understand is hilariously entertaining to outsiders. Several dozen Parties, none can form a government without forming coalitions with several others. Very reminiscent of the scene in Monty Python’s Life of Brian, with the factinalism of the various forms of Judean Liberation Fronts.
.
#209 Mathew Cole – yes you can post comments and there are 9 there already.
GG: Which is why your average Qld Liberal voter has been voting Labor for the last few elections.
I did note that they neglected to mention Pauline’s UAP and the CEC in their collection of the sad, the mad and the bad. Surely a mere oversight.
And Alpal @ 187…the answer is indeed E.G. Whitlam (all rise and bow respectfully) – the only Australian PM to spend his boyhood years in Canberra.
After how many elections of voting Labor does your “average Liberal voter” become a rusted on Laborite?
As for the mooted new United Conservative Lunatic Fringe party – they could always pinch the name of the UK’s Monster Raving Loony Party. I don’t believe they’re using it any more and it fits so well.
On Melbourne results. Greens run second to ALP but if Senate vote in Melbourne had been replicated in HoR Greens elected easily. HoR ALP 49.5 Lib 23.5 Greens 22.8 Senate ALP 40.4 Lib 24.0 and Greens 28.7. About the reverse of the 55/45 split in HoR. Lindsay Tanner can thank a very large personal vote.
Everyone working hard on an acronym for the new United Conservatives?
Rain and midnothcoast- I actually agree with implementing the list of restricted procedures but I am in a minority amongst my colleagues. They argue that there is a Medicare item number for many of these procedures and they cannot be restricted because of this. Of course, we are never going to be able to operate on them because of more urgent cases so I think keeping them on the waiting list is just giving them false hope. Evidently, the decision is off with the lawyers now for a ruling.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22764887-910,00.html
Conservative United! Though the NT branch may have a problem with the acronym.
Jude #231,
BUPA – The Business Unlimited Party of Australia.
or
HPA – The Hypocrites’ Party of Australia.
201 TW- You are right. There is no coalition agreement in SA.
Same in WA, which makes the 2009 WA State Election all that harder for the Libs to win
Whatever it is called, it would best resemble Annabel Crabbs famous pizza made by five year olds. Meat and cheese and olives and toothpaste and smarties.
#231
Mad Hatter’s Tea Party
How about pitching for the youth vote as ‘the OC’ (opposition conservatives)?
Maybe they should ask someone on their side whose view actually matters these days, like Campbell Newman.
Well, let me preprhase that – not “like” Campbell Newman, per se.
Just …..ask Campbell Newman. Himself.
Pretty limited range of alternatives.
If Rudd had won Government in 1996 with inflation & interest rates falling , then the hubris of Labor voters would be justified
The reality is rudd has won as inflation & interest rates are rising & before the US sub prime effect is in.
The SAME mortgage belt that voted Howard out can do do the same given only a 2% margin
It was the …….. worm!!!!
http://news.smh.com.au/libs-support-national-debates-commission/20071219-1i0p.html
And I thought organised crime was an issue!
42nd Parliament expires February 12, 2011.
The last day the next election can be held is April 16, 2011.
Rudd could potentially go without an election for 3.5 years. Although given his criticism of Howard for ‘delaying’ a few weeks, i doubt he would want to delay by nearly half a year. Wouldnt look good.
Next NSW state election is on 26 March, 2011 and i dooubt he would want to clash with Iemma’s demise. Barring an early DD, i predict a late 2010 election. (But comfortably before the VIC State election)
Labor claims Flynn
Central Queensland’s new seat of Flynn has been officially declared.
Labor’s Chris Trevor has made history becoming the first ever federal Member in the new seat.
FG-
just checked in ( I think I’m addicted- I said my farewells the other night but can’t stop myself), and just saw`#233.
Made my day!
Hiya Jen!
I’m glad the farewells weren’t final. Good to see you. And yes, 233 made me chuckle too!
Watched Loughnane’s whinging at the NPC on ABC. I hope the Libs continue in this vein till the next election, and the next one after that. It was never their fault. No mention of the Rodent except for one of Dear ex-Leader’s sycophants suggesting that Rudd give him a job. For heaven’s sakes!!!
BB, onyer mate! Long may the rage be maintained (and aimed at the Ruddster if he falls into the same ways…)
Holy God, fancy the defeat of De Anne Kelly and co finally forcing a Nat. seatwarmer of many years duration from the Mackay area to actually come out and say something publicly. On ya Ted!
Nice to see there is a tongue in that head.
Silence is golden but it doesn’t work too well for longterm survival in politics. Can we now expect Ted to take up a leadership position in the new conservative party or is that too much to ask from a longterm politician.
“Mr Loughnane warned televised political debates were in danger of becoming irrelevant as they descended towards entertainment rather than serious policy discussion.”
Serious policy discussion? Huh?
Ron – you’re internally inconsistent.
Inflation is rising, true.
Interest rates have already risen – there will probably be another one early next year, which people will still blame on Howard.
The Sub-Prime crisis will lead to LOWER rates in the long run.
So long as the US economy stops short of utter annhilation (very likely) then it shouldn’t be too bad a time to take control.
Not as good as 1996, but definitely good enough to work with. Rudd shouldn’t really worry. If things do fall apart they’ll fall apart so fast that it will be obviously not Rudd’s fault.
Re. inquiries looking like vindictiveness…
AWB? The prospect of prosecutions was welcomed by all and sundry on the Coalition side (when they could quietly tell the competent authorities to go slow and they had the immediate perpetrators among AWB execs by the short and curlies).
Super Hornets? $6 billion without any due diligence. It’s time for some of that on this purchase. $6 billion isn’t a carton of paper clips.
Ion Generator? Money paid on new projects during the caretaker period is prima facie illegitimate money. If the orangutans didn’t get their $500k for this reason, all the more reason to look into $12 million for snake oil science.
And while I’m at it…
A nice cosy inquiry into government advertising mightn’t go astray. among items to be investigated: who got the money, what rates did they charge, and who got jobs with them after the election?
I am not sure whether anyone has mentioned this before, but there is an interesting result in Melbourne, which has surprisingly been one of the few seats yet to be declared. The latest AEC figures confirm that the preference distribution is between ALP and Greens, and although it looks like a comfortable ALP win, it will be a lot closer than anyone had imagined. Indeed, it will fall into the Marginal list next time around, with an ALP vote of less than 55%
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-13745-228.htm
The only job for the Rodent is on the defence benches at the War Crimes Tribunal, the pay is none but food and board are provided.
Adrian at 231 very interesting, some interesting personal stories behind some of those personal votes for Lindsay. Sydney is similar. Herbert looks like a personal victory for the Liberals, fact that Labor did so well on the Senate in Dawson suggests Nats will struggle to regain it.
#242
Iemma won’t last till 2011. He’s sleepwalking, and ALP NSW will need somebody with more fire in their belly.
“Mr Loughnane warned televised political debates were in danger of becoming irrelevant as they descended towards entertainment rather than serious policy discussion.”
Entertainment? What entertainment? Did the Worm do a burlesque act? All I saw was two aging politicians reciting bullet points.
So if televised political debates are neither entertainment nor serious policy discussion, what are they and why are we watching?
BB-
Agreed. Bring on tne Inquiries. It cannot be possible that the perpetrators of the last 11 years of injustice, inhumanity and plain old fashioned crooked dealings are allowed to retire with massive superannuation, pensions and all the perks with no accountability for what they have done.
As I have said before on another thread, there must be some pissed off public servants out there who can’t wait to get a chance for some payback.
Wonder if anything of political interest will emerge from this AWB side offering:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22948918-601,00.html
The next decision in the Haneef case is due on Friday.
Former terror suspect Mohamed Haneef will learn on Friday whether he has won his latest legal battle to return to work in Australia.
In August, a Federal Court Judge overturned then Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews’ decision to cancel the Indian doctor’s 457 work visa on character grounds because of his association with alleged UK terror suspects Sabeel and Kafeel Ahmed.
However, lawyers for the Immigration Minister appealed the decision before the full bench of the Federal Court in Brisbane in November and the three-member panel of judges reserved their decision.
A Federal court spokesman said Chief Justice Michael Black would hand down his decision at 2.30pm (AEDT) at the Commonwealth Law Courts Building on Friday.
Dr Haneef was arrested at the Brisbane International Airport in July, shortly after the failed UK terror plot and was held in custody for 12 days before being charged with supporting terrorism.
The charges were dropped less than two weeks later after Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions announced there was no reasonable prospect of a conviction
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queensland/haneef-visa-decision-due-friday/2007/12/19/1197740326481.html
Official: Work Choices dead – Nelson
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22949022-601,00.html
215
TW
Oh that Brian Loughnane is a quick learner, NOT! (Or as I like to call him: Mr Brain Lockdown).
Whinging that the unions “done ‘em wrong” is the lamest excuse for not getting the message I’ve ever seen.
At least Horatio Hornet has the sense to come out and publicly flush the little TurdChoices down the gurgler.
One less sh!t sandwich he has to eat in the future I suppose, but I’m not worried, as there’s plenty more where that little beauty came from!
Work Choice is dead ?!? uhm, I doubt that.
“GST is dead” sounds familiar? That was Howard’s core promise in 1996 election.
Well, well!
I knew I could write a firey post, but this is ridiculous! I wasn’t aware Brenda Nelson read Pollbludger.
1. WorkChoices is “dead” according to the doughty Opposition Leader. All they want is an inquiry into Unfair Dismissal.
2. ASIC is recommending AWB prosecutions against Lindberg and Flugge.
Both just announced in the ABC 5pm radio news. Only
* Super Hornets
* Inflation
* Snake Oil ion generators that make rain from a clear sky
to go.
(That unnerving sound you can hear is Nick Minchin bemoaning the death of WorkChoices. But in Opposition no-one can hear you scream).
And the introduction of a GST was Howard’s core promise in the 1998 election. He was reelected.
Rain (at 220) Arguably the Commonwealth already has power to administer hospitals. See “The Constitution” Section 51: “The Parliament shall …have power to make laws … with respect to: (Section xxiiiA, inserted 1946) The provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment. pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services …”
Diogenese @ 232 Rain and midnothcoast- “They argue that there is a Medicare item number for many of these procedures and they cannot be restricted because of this. Of course, we are never going to be able to operate on them because of more urgent cases so I think keeping them on the waiting list is just giving them false hope. Evidently, the decision is off with the lawyers now for a ruling.”
.
An MBS Item number means little, its mostly for stats and to set level of reimbursement. Public hospitals aren’t reimbursed, but private ones are. All procedures performed in private hospitals are entitled to reimbursement of 75% of the Medicare fee. This is usually recovered by the health insurance fund (or by the patient if they have self-insured)
.
A couple of those procedures might be done by a GP or specialist on a same-day basis in private rooms or day-surgery (eg uncomplicated varicose veins). I can’t see anything that prevents the treating doctor from bulk-billing the procedure, or negotiating a price with the patient and enabling them to get partial reimbursement from Medicare if they aren’t privately insured.
.
Like you say, most would end up waiting forever on the lists, and if there’s true clinical need/urgency then they will be treated as a public patient.
.
The Libs got a minority of the vote in the 1998 GST election.
The AEC is said to declare the seat of McEwen tomorrow with a 12 vote win for Fran.
This will give the ALP 83 seats 10 less than I predicted.
With that I wish William and everyone a Merry Christmas and a Wonderful New Year, I’m sure the ALP supports will, message to both sizes is simple
Democracy is a great thing, with that the pencil is blunt.
Tom @ 267
You are conveniently forgetting that Hanson sucked the primary vote away from the Coalition (Han 8.4% of primaries) and it went back to them in TPP
I’ve heard the evidence:-
http://open.newmatilda.com/crosswire/?p=144
Arest the Rodent and his henchmen immediatly.
The War Crimes Tribunal will start now.
I noticed today that Simon Crean is the only Rudd Cabinet minister who was in both the Hawke and Keating Cabinets. Crean has never spent a day on the backbench since he was elected.
I investigated whether serving under three Labor Prime Ministers was a record, only to discover that there were two men who served under four Labor PMs, and another two who served under three as well as being PM themselves. Who can name them?
A large church
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22949633-29277,00.html
Adam is one of them Malcom Fraser (just a guess)
Given the great gaps between labor ministries (there were no veterans of Chifley’s cabinet left in parliament in 1972) the PMs involved have to be Scullin, Curtin, Forde and Chifley.
Chifley and Forde are certainly 2 of the 4. I thought the other two were Stabber Jack Beasley whose acquiescence to come back to the bright side was required for labor to perform well in 1940 and Makin. Further research shows that the fourth was in fact Ted Holloway, who was famous for Howarding Lord Bruce in 1929. Makin was Scullin’s speaker
Um, no. Fraser didn’t serve under any Labor PMs that I can recall.
Very good. Midnorthcoast gets the elephant stamp.
Memo to self: Stop fooling yourself you can stay away from Pollbludger. Gee, I reckon Ted’s really though that through, JoM. Clearly has had a long, deep and meaningful with Brian Loughnane. Clearly on the same page. More like a large brothel, IMO.
Although none of Chifley’s ministers were still in Parliament, Whitlam was determined that someone from the Chifley ministry would get something from his government. But alas most of the survivors were too old. So he made ex-Senator John Armstrong High Commissioner in London.
We know Malcolm has become pretty left-wing these days but I don’t think he has joined us yet
265 CC Says: Arguably the Commonwealth already has power to administer hospitals. See “The Constitution” Section 51: “The Parliament shall …have power to make laws … with respect to: (Section xxiiiA, inserted 1946) The provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment. pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services …”
.
The 1946 amendment in health was mainly for the PBS,
the wording is for hospital *benefits* — ie funding $$$ — NOT *services*.
.
Only medical and dental *services* could be administered by feds.
.
Hospitals descended from church charitable institutions. State govts bought many of them as *capital assets*, the buildings, land etc, in response to things like the 1918 flu pandemic, smallpox, polio epidemics etc. State govts originally had rights to raise their own income taxes, but during the Depression years it became more difficult to raise revenue, and they sought Commonwealth $$$$ help in *funding* provision of many services, including “charitable hospital services for the poor”. Of which there were a lot in those days — as the presence and role of the previous church “poor-houses” faded into history.
.
Hence widows,orphans, soup-kitchens for the unemployed and homeless, and basic medical care for the sick during all those epidemics we now think were only in medieval times. After WW2, with all the diggers coming home from the war, all the women having babies to create the baby-boomer generation etc, this CW $$$ assistance became formalised in the 1946 amendment.
.
The *spirit* of the wording was towards welfare for the poor and deserving (war veterans, widows, orphans etc). The PBS was a special case, in response to polio epidemics and medical advances in drugs and particularly vaccines etc. Australia could not manufacture its own vaccines or antibiotics etc (wonder drugs of the times). Recognising that Australia would have to import these life-saving drugs, and most would not be able to afford commercial prices, the PBS was born.
.
The hospital benefits paid to the States were just annual Grants. Many people had insurance or paid their bills individually, but the CW “hospital benefits” were to help recompense the state govts for treating the poor and uninsured, and ‘deserving’ types like war veterans, all those widows and orphans.
.
That all began to change with Medicare and the first of the 5-year C’wlth & S/T agreements on “hospital benefits” established in the late 80s under Hawke. These first 5-year hospital funding agreements were called “The Medicare Agreements”, but thats another thread.
.
B.B. Lovely that ASIC are opening the batting on AWB. Let the fun begin.
Of course, Chifley and Forde were Pms.
A pedantic point to pick with you Adam. Many threads ago you said that Forde was not Deputy Pm, as this was a post created in the 60s. While I accept this i contend that Forde was known as the Deputy PM at least within the caucus. My source:
Patrck Weller (ed.) Caucus minutes 1901-1949 Vol 3 1932-1949
pg 331 and others.
Minutes of party meeting held on 22/3/44
“In the absence of the PM who was engaged on other important matters, the deputy PM, Mr Forde took the chair”
Interesting – Thanks Rain.
Well, Forde was Deputy Leader of the ALP and so no doubt was considered and refered to as the Deputy PM. His status was recognised when he was commissioned as PM following Curtin’s death. But the fact is that there was no official post of that name until 1968.
I think it was much more complex Rain. Chifley had a 5 year agreement with the states from 1945-1950. This was to finance the states with an amount equivalent to the patient contributions the hospitals received from lodge, private and intermediate patients. This was on the proviso that all public beds were to be free. The result was a collapse of the lodge and health insurance schemes. The commonwealth’s contribution to state hospitals went from 6d/day/bed to 8s/day/bed.
Menzies and Page abolished this at the earliest moment. Page’s alternate scheme was to subsidise the lodges and insurers, in all states except Qld this was associated with a strict means test for public patients with the doctors acting as Honories to their charity cases. Page also introduced a free pensioner health scheme – this resulted in 23 years of sometimes heated discussion between the AMA (still known as the British Medical association until 1960) and the government. Malcolm Fraser’s destruction of Medibank included the re-introduction of something very similar to Page’s scheme
Some things in Australian politics never change. The fact conservatives have never been able to get health policy right because they have always been prisoners of the doctors’ union and the private health insurers, two of the most stubborn, selfish and reactionary lobbies in Australia. This goes right back to Menzies’ resignation from the Lyons Cabinet in 1939. It explains Fraser’s breaking of his “retain Medibank” promise in 1976 and it explains Peter Shack’s frank admission that the Libs had no health policy at all in the 1990 election. Now that the doctors’ union has its own guy in charge of the Liberal Party we will no doubt see the sad saga continue.
“The fact conservatives” should read “The conservatives”.
#210. To para-phrase Hoges, that is not a rat, this is a rat:
http://home.people.net.au/~sspp/rat.jpg
Another sorry still yet to be said properly or even admitted to..
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-12/15/content_7256309.htm
Japanese girl skims over the “Iris Chang: The Rape of Nanking” Japanese edition in a bookshop in Tokyo Dec. 15, 2007. The book written by Chinese-American writer Iris Chang were originally published in English. It explored one of the darkest episodes of history in 1937 when Japanese troops occupied Nanjing, the then capital of China in Jiangsu Province. An estimated 300,000 Chinese or more were killed while one-third of the houses in the city were burned and more than 20,000 women raped. (Xinhua Photo)
While everybody is bagging (with plenty of justification) Brian Loughnane’s speech on why the Coalition lost the election, he did make a couple of interesting points…
Firstly, he said the Libs didn’t have time to get tax cuts advertising out, because of the “secrecy” of (presumably) Howard and Costello. This is extraordinary. It was their main campaign promise. I can remember waiting eagerlyto see how they were selling their tax cuts, but not a single ad appeared. Not only does this show how relations between the organisational and parliamentary wings must have been non-existent, but it also displays Loughnane’s incompetence, and the incompetence of his team. Labor were able to put out ads every night, often based on things the coalition had just announced. Why couldn’t the coalition do it?
Secondly, Loughnane said Lib polling was showing “parents” in outer suburban and regional areas had turned against the coalition. This is very interesting – I’m not sure that I’ve even seen “parents” listed as a demographic category that’s influential in elections. It does show that Labor was in touch with the mood, where parents were both squeezed on living and housing costs, and worried about their children’s futures (probably mostly because of WorkChoices, but also, I suspect, because of a shortage of skills training and affordable uni places,
and high school fees). Certainly, school fees were important when it came to campaign promises from both sides, even though school education is a state issue.
I suspect my own age group (started voting under Whitlam, benefiting from free tertiary education, now have kids at senior high school, uni or just joined the workforce) were quite a force at the ballot box.
I imagine the Libs organisation wing will get even more inompetent and out of touch as the party runs out of money, and has no state governments to use as training grounds for apparatchiks.
SCANDAL IN McEWEN
According to the ‘Age ‘there are 600 disputed votes (400 by Libs & 200 by ALP)
which are the subject of DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS of the Electoral Act
between divisional returning officer Robert Berglund
VS Victoria’s electoral officer Daryl Wight
Wight made the overiding adjudication over Berglund’s earlier decisions
The result is decided by 2 returning officers with different opinions about the eligibility of these disputed ballot papers
Ultimately Wight decided the seat for the Libs AGAINST Berglund’s interpretation
which may account for the “recount” result vs 2 earlier recounts favoring Labor
Hey guys,
Bolt has a thread up having a go at Tim Dunlop.
His flock will move in and have a real go.
I’ve left myself open to abuse….this going to be fun!!!
Addition to 2nd last line:
Ultimately Wight MAY HAVE “decided the seat for the Libs AGAINST Berglund’s interpretation
“For the first time in our history, a third external force has intervened in our political process with resources greater than either of the major political parties.
“I believe this is an extremely unhealthy development.”
geez and i thought another voice meant that we live in a democracy…….
but of course what he is really saying is that it is an unhealthy development for his side………
What percentage of Australians are a member of a political party?
nicko -
who said that about the 3rd party?
Intersting that the Liberals health policy is controlled by the doctor’s UNION
but the Libs advertise against Labor for being controlled by the Unions
maybe some Unions are OK
While a united conservative party would probably be the best thing for our side of politics, it would be sad if this was the end of the Liberal Party considering how successful it has been in Australian politics since 1944 but then again whenever we tories suffer a massive defeat the strongest conservative party struggles to survive we did in 1983 but couldn’t in 1929 and 1943.
Nevertheless i don’t think this will take unless it is done now and is done well. Expect the calls for a merger to grow particularly over the break considering this is when such a deal could be forged.
If i had to choose a name it would be either the United Conservative Party of Australia or the United Australia Party (1931-1945) preferably i’d like to go back to the name of the UAP they were successful for a decade mainly thanks to Joe Lyons but it’s a good name i like it.
Oh and Adam is Labor is so much better at running the health system why is our health system a mess considering every state and territory is Labor???
So says Glen
Have a merry christmas and i shall probably poke my head up in 2008 sometime…
Glen your new years resolution should be to leave the ‘dark side’ Liberals
and join the good guys & gals
Not much wrong with the Liberal Party that adoption of genuine liberal policies wouldn’t fix.
The problem with uniting conservative parties is that it would just make them more conservative. the need to capture the mddle grounds from Labor, rather than capture what lies to the right of them.
Can I thank you, Glen, for standing up for what you believe in, fighting for it here in the lion’s den, and not resorting to personal abuse, when a good deal was heaped on you.
Though I’m pretty impressed with the opening weeks of the new Labor Government, this blog will get very dull if there’s just three more years of Rudd worship.
Happy New Year to you.
Regardless of our political persuasions i admire the fact that the vast majority of people who post here have a genuine interest in politics especially since nowadays so few people are involved and keep up to date on political issues.
Why i may disagree with some of your political positions i cannot fault you candor anyway we’ll have a possible new conservative party and Parliament’s first sitting early next year so there will be much to discuss here.
We are very lucky that we have William so to him and to you all take care and let’s bring it on in 2008!
Adam,
I hate to be precious as you know ,
but the Elephant stamps are mine to dispense.
however I am happy to take nominations for Elephant Stamp awards for the 2007 election campaign.
The categories are:
Biggest Loser
Biggest Loser’s Removelist ( I nominate our own KB)
Biggest Loser’s Treasurer
Biggest loser’s Best Friend (who is President of the United States of America, but not for much longer)
Biggest Loser who is tony Abbott
Biggest Winner who is the new PM (although i can’t get used to it when they say it as an introduction on the radio as I grit my teeth waiting for yet another Howardism)
Biggest Winner for best Blog Site ( i nominate PollBludger.)
Robert Berglund: in the pay of the Liberal Party?
Jen,can we also have some categories for the bloggers?
Some real gems that draw me back to this site.
BTW
I did not do the frowning face thing.
Jen, if you put put an opening bracket immediately after a colon, it shows the frowning face emoticon. I have removed the colon.
Yay.
now I know how to do it. I’ve spent a year almost with no idea.
Jen I was unaware you had a monopoly on elephant stamps. I think you will find that elephant stamps were deregulated some years ago under the national competition policy.
I have already nominated the biggest loser of the election: The Hon Peter Costello, the man who waited for eleven years to be handed the prime ministership on a plate.
The biggest winner was whoever thought of the “Kevin07″ gimmick – it was brilliant.
Jude @ 231
What about
Conservative and Right-wing-nutters Australia Party
for the name. It certainly has the correct acronym.
BTW William
please don’t remove a colon without permission.
297 [Oh and Adam is Labor is so much better at running the health system why is our health system a mess considering every state and territory is Labor???]
Nice try,Glen. For the umpteenth time, it is because of the underfunding of the health system from the Commonwealth Government which has slashed health funding to the States for years.
Adam pet,
I think you’ll find that I awarded the inaugural gold elephant stamps to somone on the the last thread. Despite deregulation.
Best Blogger awards go to IMHOP:
Glen ( and all who sail in her name)
Stephen Kaye for annoying me the most
ferny Grover
Bushfire Bill
Adam (despite poor attitude to Greens even though we helped win the election)
Julie (despite the fact that she’s American)
Greeensborough growler
generic person
General Oracle
Possum (of course. celeb that he now is)
Harry
there are so many…..
Jen, I personally would endorse two gold elephant stamps for Glen. One for tenacity and one for the part he played in helping to ensure a Labor victory.
Crikey Whitey,Kirribilli Removals,…
steve @ 311 … don’t know where to begin… that is wrong on so many levels… if you seriously believe that, you need to spend less time on blogs and more time informing yourself.
Commonwealth funding for health has increased 40% in real per capita terms since Howard took office…. so you are talking nonsense
Steve
fair call.
the fact the Glen helped Kevin win is also worth a free set of steak knives.
And a car deodoriser in the shape of a pine-tree to hang off the rear vision mirror.
IMHO.
Megan-
yes, yes.
Can’t believe I didn’t list them.
And let’s not forget The Village of the Banned-
Melb City
Generic Person…
forgot who else. but I know that William you can be ruthless at times.
thankfully.
316 Not according to this report;
• The Australian Government is paying a smaller and smaller share of public hospital costs each
year. In 2000 it contributed 50% of the cost of running and maintaining public hospitals. In 2005
that share had dropped to 45%.
• The Australian Government is now paying about $1.1 billion a year less than recommended by an
independent arbiter. If it paid the full amount recommended, public hospitals around the country
could manage an extra 350,000 admissions a year.
• If the trend continues, then in 20 years’ time the Australian Government’s share of public hospital
funding will have declined to about 25%, and the states’ and territories’ share will have risen to
about 75%. This would affect the states’ and territories’ ability to look after other essential services
such as schools, police, public transport and roads.
http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/pubs/2007/pdf/caring_health_report.pdf
‘in real terms’ measures against inflation. Not the expansion of a sector or the economy. It is about as real as the Santa coming to your place Phil. Only a few more sleeps.
Billbo
why?
Steve – the key word there is “share” of funding. The absolute number as grown dramatically.
The states’ share of funding has grown though, because it is able to fund that from the GST… (previously money that was raised for the Commonwealth through higher income taxes
In other words, total funding for the health sector has grown, but states’ share has risen as it has greater share of revenue than previously due to GST.
States crap on about “share” but it is entirely misleading for the reasons i just explained
@316
Is that in CPI, AWE or Medical-Cost-Increases-Dollars
The percentage those LNP vandals put into the pot decreased when it should have increased. End of story. They wanted a US Health Care System that would gobble up 16+% of our GDP – as if we didn’t have enough problems now as a result of their incompetent, short-sighted and bloody-minded so-called “Economic Management”.
The LNP had no vision, no appreciation of the new order for first world countries. It’s all about investment in Education, Education, Education and in support of our best and brightest in their creative endeavours.
Yesterday’s battle Phil. Get with the program, and your lot might get back in one day.
The reality is that the state governments have done a truly awful job on health in most cases… NSW is the worst example but the others aren’t much better. It will be interesting to watch the reaction of people when 2-3 years from now, or even 4-6 years from now, despite even greater spending, standards continue to be very poor…. it is almost a certain bet that this will be the case
322 [The states’ share of funding has grown though, because it is able to fund that from the GST… (previously money that was raised for the Commonwealth through higher income taxes]
No,Glen, the GST did not replace income taxes and have you or your alter ego Phil the elder got a link to this wild claim. ( I won’t be at all surprised if no link is produced!)
“Commonwealth funding for health has increased 40% in real per capita terms since Howard took office…. so you are talking nonsense”
Pancho
I meant to include you and marky mark.
Steve, i have no intention of providing a link… do your own homework… but the GST was introduced in conjunction with decreased income taxes…. that was the point…. a transfer to a broader based tax system.
Phil-
are you a ruddock?
Shucks, thanks jen.
Phil: ‘do your own homework’?? Aren’t you the duffer making the blunt point?
???
Thought so.
You know- a Ruddock.
Without any emotional or moral connection to the decisons made in your name.
Apparently I was wrong in my earlier post that the new United Conservative Party could pinch the name Monster Raving Loony Party. It appears the MRLP are still going strong in the UK. Screaming Lord Sutch may be gone but his Party survives:
http://www.omrlp.com/
Barry O’F attempting, in not so many words, to show us why he is incapabble of holding that fool Iemma to account:
‘”Only the Iemma government could improve the bottom line by $130 million when revenues had gone up by $1.3 billion,” he told reporters.
“This review underscores the failure of this government, and that is to use windfall tax receipts to improve services and infrastructure across NSW.”‘
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/nsw-taxes-to-bring-in-46-billion/2007/12/19/1197740366779.html
Which is it Baz? Spending too much or not enough?
How long till Watkins takes over? Is that Christmas eve coup rumour for real?
Shame ferny,
but i put forward the suggestion of the Conservative United National Transtate Supporters.
which is obviously wrong of me.
Ruddock (elected 1973) is now the sole parliamentary survivor of the Whitlam era. If he resigns during this parliament, the senior member of the House will be Wilson Tuckey (1980). Those two are the only survivors of the Fraser era. If Tuckey stays until October 2010 he will join the 30-years club. The senior Labor member is now Roger Price (1984), followed by Harry Jenkins (1986). The senior National is Peter McGauran (1983).
In the Senate John Watson (1978) and Robert Ray (1981) will retire on 1 July. Watson will have served exactly 30 years. The senior Senator will then be Ron Boswell (1983). The senior Labor Senator will be John Faulkner (1989).
Wha..?? I’ve recieved a Golden Elephant Stamp from Jen??? I..I..don’t know what to say. I’ve so many to thank…my primary school teachers who guided me in the ways of social democracy and republicanism; my fellow bloggers who maintained the faith…and of course, I’d like to thank God for inventing the Liberal party as a modern pestilence to smite us with when we’re bad….and Labor as a blessing for when we’re good.
Ah Jen…..an apt descriptor indeed
I know Ferny…
it must be hard to receive such an honour.
but let’s not forget that we have Kevin07 to thank for our good fortune, and for all the healthy food that will be in our tuckshops from now on.
And for the fact That Kirrabilli house now belongs back to the people.
So I, for one, will rest easy tonight.
Ferny
thanks -
but it was a bit naughty though.
Kirribilli belongs to the people? It’s going to need an extension.
FG
why?
Jen….naughtiness is now mandatory.
Re Kirribilli’s extension…..to fit all the people in!
just got it.
how to fit 20 million in for dinner…
Thanks Cardster @ 309 (and Ferny Grover, Mathew Cole and Jen (ahem))
If it were in my power to wield the elephant stamp for acronyms (or ESFA)….. you know you’d be right up there …. but whew, I don’t dare tread there (or, in fact, anywhere near elephants).
On a different note, Jen I think the answer to your Q at 295 is the link at 206.
Hi Poll Bludger,
Love your work- especially over the past 2 months- kept the whole thing sensible and kept me sane!
Just wanted to check whether your going to update the pictures in your banner to include Kev and Therese now?
Cheers and thanks.
#336
apparently Watkins, the silly bugger, still won’t apostatise
Mnc @ 350, is that a Catholic thing?
He needs to rat on the Socialist Left and join Centre Unity to become premier
It’s inviting to speculate on the further decline of conservative political parties. They are out of office and out of touch. Are they out of prospects too? They apear to have no members, no leaders and no policies. It’s tempting to ask why they bother. Labor, whatever their weaknesses and problems, have made providing modern government their core endeavour. The coalition, whatever their strengths may once have been, have become an irrelevance. Will they survive? Does it matter? Who really cares?
Yes, it was wonderful going past Kirribilli House by ferry today, knowing that our Kirribilli Removals/Pest Controller had so thoroughly carried out his crucial task. Could have sworn all my fellow commuters were all smiling too……
Gotta love the Monster Raving Loony Party policies. Here’s a sample:
It is proposed that The European Union end its discrimination by creating a “Court of Human Lefts” because their present policy is one_sided.
All asylum seekers would be allowed to stay as long as they can tell a good joke
All politicians should paint them self’s permantly head to toe in the colour of the party they represent – e.g. all Labour candidates in Red , all Conservatives in Blue ,etc,etc
The Loch Ness Monster should be added to the endangered species list.
Government Whips will only be used if a politician has been really bad. Minor offences should receive the political slipper.
I always get confused bewteen Kirribilli House and Admiralty House. Which is which?
Jude.
Kirrabilli House is the one with the fresh fingernail marks gouging the doorways and the driveway all the way from the front door to the front gate.
Aaahh, got it now.
Perhaps I should have asked which is the big one closest to the ferries?
@ 356 Jude Says:
This confusion between the two has been noted by Michael Costa (a Labor country member) who even as I write is moving to resume the land and knock down the buildings so that he can sell the site to an overseas consortium for re-development resort . In a brief statement a ministerial advisor stated that the proposal would be put before State Cabinet and later caucus for rubber stamping sometime in the new year.
Of course the conservative parties will survive, and in much their present form. They are conservatives after all, and won’t change unless they absolutely have to. They are in a deep hole just now, but politics is always cyclical and they will come back, just as Labor did after 1996.
I’d be happy if Labor won 76 seats
Does anyone see a parallel with Thatcher and the ‘poll tax’ and Howard and ‘Serfchoices’ ? only difference I see is that the Conservatives gave Maggie the flick but faced Kinnock (Beazley equivalent). The Liberals where gutless to give Howie the flick and faced Rudd (Blair equivalent) nice (reverse) symmetry no???
That’s an interesting question davo (361). Let’s see, the poll tax was an issue that the left deluded themselves brought down Thatcher whereas in reality it was because she had already dealt with unions and had nothing left in her program but a vindictive policy to fill the gap. Whereas Workchoices …
The biggest loser has got to be Howard. He had a choice, retire and be remembered as the last Liberal that could win elections, the last Liberal that knew what the people really wanted, or get kicked out, and see his legacy pulled apart by the party he destroyed, by saying too long. Sorry Adam when it comes to losing Costello is only a bit player, side line entertainment.
Steve @ 320
A better report would be to use the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) annual reports on national health expenditures.
The latest is for 2005/6 at:
http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/index.cfm/title/10529
Much of the CW increase is taken up with the 30% health insurance rebate, which is paid to health funds (ie corporate welfare) not to individuals.
phil senior @329 claimed:
Ah, another one who fell for the pea and thimble trick. Yes, income tax dropped, for about 3 nanoseconds then Cossie clawed it all back plus some. To quote from the not so easily fooled Ross Gittans reporting on the study “GST and the changing incidence of Australian taxes” published in the eJournal of Tax Research:
You got conned, phil! Done like a dinner! Pity you and the other clowns who voted for the GST took the rest of us down with you.
And lets knock another Howie/Cossie lie on the head, the one that says the states have been rolling in from the GST. It is only in this financial year – 2007-8 – that the GST will bring in more than they would have received under the old grants formula. Quote:
365 Thanks Rain, but it makes no difference to the beligerent tories who refuse to read links to anything that contradicts the figures that they pull out of thin air to back up unsustainable claims and Liberal Party talking points don’t provide them with the ability to link to figures to back up their wild claims.
On another note the latest Queensland polling puts Opposition Leader Seeney at 11 per cent unpreferred Premier.
Queensland’s Labor leadership change has not adversely affected the party’s popularity among voters, the latest Newspoll shows.
Conducted during the December quarter, the poll found Labor maintained its primary vote of 50 per cent and a two-party-preferred result of 59 per cent as Anna Bligh took over the top job from Peter Beattie who retired in September.
The poll shows Ms Bligh has the support of 59 per cent of voters, which is the highest satisfaction rating for a Queensland premier since Mr Beattie’s peak in 2001, The Australian reports.
However, among poll results is the 25 per cent of voters who remain uncommitted in the popularity stakes.
The poll shows Ms Bligh as a clear winner when it comes to being the preferred premier with her 66 per cent of voter support far outweighing that for opposition leader Jeff Seeney who claimed 11 per cent of the vote.
The Australian said the poll was based on interviews with 1,134 “random” voters during a time when not everything was running smoothly for Ms Bligh as she formed her new cabinet, had troubles with ministers’ speeding fines, council amalgamations and daylight saving.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queensland/bligh-six-times-more-popular-than-seeney-poll/2007/12/20/1197740414429.html
re Vic Senate. Forget teh ABC calculator it is of little use at this stage of the count. Any suggestion of the Greens calling a re-count is just hype and irresponsibility.
We already know the result as the AEC has completer teh sorting of first-preference votes. If you add the sum of the ALP, Liberal and Greens group votes and allocate the minor party ticket votes the ALP wins the sixth seat. the Greens fall short by 17,000 odd votes. There is no need to distribute the below the line vote as the margin between the ALP and the Greens is 124% of the available BTL vote…
366 MayoFeral, another bone of contention that you didn’t mention is how during the life of the Howard Government the number of workers who face a tax bill at the end of the financial year has escalated.
I hope Labor gets the tax rates back into order so that this legacy of the Tory years is eliminated. If tax is taken out of pay fortnightly then workers should not then face a huge tax bill on top of this at the end of the year. At the moment the situation is ludicrous.
Back to McEwen and the ballot paper ruled formal for Bailey even though candidates’ names allegedly had been crossed out and racing car drivers’ names substituted. A friend with many years experience at the highest levels of the AEC comments:
“On the description of the vote it can’t possibly be formal. You can only give effect to the vote insofar as the intention of the voter is clear. On the face of it seems far from clear. I would back Robert Berglund who has been a DRO for donkey’s years. Daryl Wight was appointed to the AEO’s job just over five years ago and would not have handled many recounts and therefore very few ballot papers.”
368
Welcome back Melb City. I’ve been missing your trademark spelling and grammar, and its nice to see that you haven’t varied the content of your posts one little bit since you were last here.
Party Group Vote Plus known Minor Party ticket Vote
Liberal 1380858 (43.392%)
ALP 1366446 (42.939%
Green 415834 (13.067%)
Other Minor Parties BTL 19174 (0.603%)
Total: 3,182,312 (100.0%)
Quota 454617 (14.286%)
Expressed in Quotas
Liberal 3.0374
ALP 3.0057
Green 0.9147
Others Minor Party Below-the-Line vote 0.0422
Distribution of Liberal Surplus is not required but if it was distributed the system would add an estimated 2700 disproportional bonus points to the Greens vote dues to the method used by the AEC to calculate the surplus transfer value.
25% of the value of the Liberal Surplus representing the Minor Party ticket preferences that flow via the Liberal party will be reduced in value to 8% and is then transferred to the ALP.
In any event the ALP is elected prior to the distribution of Liberal preferences. Even if teh greens received 121% of the available Below the Line votes (Which is impossible) it still fall short by an estimated 15,000-18,000. The notion of a recount pegging back such a lead is beyond belief.
Vic Senate Watch (akaMelb city?)
The Greens have stated publicly they will NOT call for a recount after an initial incorrect report.
If your interested in how the AEC calculates its surplus value here is an example of the extent of distortion in the count. Had the Liberal Surplus been distributed in Victoria..
Using the AEC method
Surplus Value of 17685
Divided by the total number of ballot papers (1,381,536) = 0.0128
The correct proprtional value should be
Ratio * surplus divided by number of ballot papers = Surplus transfer value
Ratio as calculated above = the sum of the value of each group divided by the surplus.
Answer:
A) = 0.7325 * 17685 = 12953.8704 divided by number of ballot papers ballot papers 1,254,603 equals a transfer value of 0.010325075
B) = 0.0009 * 17685 = 16.5974
divided by number of ballot papers ballot papers 1,025
equals a transfer value of 0.016192621
C) = 0.2666 * 17685 = 4714.5322
divided by number of ballot papers ballot papers 125,908
equals a transfer value of 0.037444262
Answer
A) = 0.010325075
B) = 0.016192621
C) = 0.037444262
A = the Liberal Party Ticket Vote plus Fist Candidate Primary
B = being Second Candidate Primary
C = third and fourth candiadte primary and Minor Party Ticket Vote
374
Hey there Jen.
Yup, that’s Melb City all right (368, 372). And from experience I’d say that no matter how many statements are made MC will keep on posting these analyses and dire warnings on the futility of the Greens position for some time yet. I think the only thing that would stop the flow would be for di Natale to say “Thank God for democracy I lost and the righteous forces of the ALP took a seat that was rightfully theirs. I also apologise for the Melbourne City Council elections in 1999. I will spend the rest of my life working to convince people that the Greens are evil in order to atone for my sins”
And even then it’d only be a 50:50 chance that he’d stop.
Mind you, at least we know what his campaign will be during the inter-election period – a quixotic crusade against the AEC and the Senate prefernece system . . . which will no doubt make the VEC heave a sigh of relief that their most effective (and I believe only) gadfly has turned his considerable spare time and towering intellect to someone other than themselves.
Hi dyspnoeia,
definitely include you on the GESAward list.
Specifically, in the special category of
‘Services to Improve PB by sniffing out Melbcity even when using a Cunning Disguise’.
OMIGOD a Gold Elephant Stamp!?! For me?!? XMAS comes 5 days early. . . Thank you Jen!!!!
Dyspnoeia,
Van der Craats does well for somebody whose first language is not English. (His first language being Gibberish)
If you can’t get enough of Melb City, try Landeryou’s site. He has decided to devour another victim’s bandwidth in an insatiable desire to spread his special seed of knowledge.
Dick Cheney sets fire to White House.
The panic has set-in, must be the shredders overheating.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/white-house-fire-forces-mass-evacuation/2007/12/20/1197740412769.html
Who needs terrorists when you’ve got Dickky boy.
One can only hope.
Mayoferal, your point about bracket creep is irrelevant to the question of whether income tax was reduced in line with the introduction of the GST – the rates were cut, that is a fact, not open to dispute. Now certainly bracket creep has raised the actual tax take back up, but that would have occurred anyway… bracket creep is a fact unless you index, it has nothing to do with the GST….
The introduction of the GST decreased the share of tax from income – fact. The fact that the number has grown subsequently due to bracket creep is a separate point. It is crucial to separate these out in considering the issue
Typical Green response… I was amused to hear the Greens call for a recount when it was not even close. 17,000 is far from 7 votes.. lol lol I think the AEC would laugh at them.. and rightly so… But then maybe it was the Age’s fault for giving the Greens page space on their unattainable request lol lol…
382
Dear MelbCity
There will be no recount request . . . no matter how much you want one.
That’s all that needs to be said and all I will say.
10pse @ 380 – I haven’t disputed that the tax rates fell, but do the payers care about the rate, or the total dollars taken out of their pay packets. I suggest its the latter. The fact is there was no dollar for dollar reduction except, possibly, in the first year, though this was far from universal. The Howardistas becoming the highest taxing government in our history was no accident.
Dipenia I do not want one I think it is a total wast of limited public resources., It the Greens that wanted one. I was shocked at teh age Article but I notices that no other newspaper with credibility published their suggestion or call for a recount. The Vic Senate has never been close so on what basis did the Greens make such a request…
Off topic – The AWB affair is off and running again. At least six ex-AWB managers have been told by ASIC to expect civil and possibly criminal charges over the ‘Wheat for Bullets’ scam. For those here who have been hoping for a new royal commission (there won’t be one) to nail Downer and Vaile, any criminal trial might produce the required result. When the Cole report was handed down, at least one AWB manager publicly stated that if he faced charges, he would take government ministers down with him. Rather than have a royal commission, Rudd will just make sure that ASIC and the police do their job – less messy that way and gets the same result. 2008 could an interesting year!!
Mumble has an interesting analysis showing the worth of Maxine to Labor, as a comparison of the general swing to Labor compared with the surrounding seats.
And Ms Overingtopn is back being very serious and uncolourful.
10pse, the original point made by Glen writing under the guise of phil senior , is misleading.
The point of the Howard Government’s GST was to replace sales taxes and the drop in income tax was a one off electoral sweetener.
Had the GST been introduced under a progressive Government I’m sure the focus would have been on replacing income tax with the GST. Under the Howard Government this was not the main focus of the GST introduction – cutting sales tax was the focus.
Cost of a senate recount would be in excess of $100,000. I am sure an animal shelter or a few more overseas junket Con-Fests (African Safaris)could be paid for with that expense. If the Greens really want a recount then they should forgo part of their 3 Million poll-bonus payments to meet the costs.
Steve 311
It has been proven that the federal government spending on hospital had increase for the last 12 year, while the states, even with 15 billion more in GST Revenue (NSW) and Pokies tax ext have not lifted their spending on health.
Instead they have (in NSW) employed a group of beurocrate, whose job is to manipulate the figures so that the waiting list is not as high
MayoFeral
We have the highest taxing govenment becuase,
a. There are more of us
b. WE are also on the highest personal income in Australia’s history.
So before you just blub out some gimmic line, know some facts
In fact tax on % of income was highest under the Hawk-Keating Govenment, the dropping of tax rate, the falling of tax on capital gain, the reducting of bracket creep had all be installed by the Howard government
It is no coincidence that Hawk- Keating was the highest taxing Federal Government on a % basis, just as Carr is also the highest taxing state government on a percentage basis (NSW)
388
Melb City . . . against my better judgement, one last post on this topic.
The Greens have not requested a recount and will not do so. OK, so I was a little inflammatory by saying that you wanted a recount. I believe that what you really want is for The Greens to ask for one – plenty to write about then. It must be very frustrating that it just won’t happen.
Move on man, the world is too varied a place to stay stuck in the same worn out rut.
385
Alex McDonnel Says:
December 20th, 2007 at 10:34 am
Off topic – The AWB affair is off and running again
You bet Alex and yes we will not need a royal commission (at this stage) but i
suggest after the various court cases etc we may have a call for other royal commissions into “other” activities
The AEC has now announced the Vic Senate results. As expected 3 Labor, 3 Liberals.
http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Media_releases/12_20.htm
Never trust the Libs….
Liberal anger over Work Choices
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/20/2123894.htm?section=justin
Alex and Gusface-
great news about the AWB issue gaining momentum.
It will be fantastic if Downer and Co. get what they deserve over this outrage – hopefully jail.
Very disppointed in the senate result, of course. Richard would be a fantastic senator for Victoria.
394
red wombat
Crikey red wombat, isn’t that Russell Broadbent a smart fella?
I mean, he grasps that TurdChoices was actually good industrial relations law and beneficial for the nation too. Yes they were, considering that they largely helped to elect a Rudd Labor government!
Let’s say very beneficial, eh?
Gosh, good to see the slow learners in the Liberal party refusing to let go of the stinking carcass. If Mr Broadbent wishes to drape the dead albatross around his neck and wear it for a while, who are we to resist?
re: dovif @ # 390 says
Dovif,
Welcome back – you have been missing for quite awhile.
During the Howard years, income tax rates were reduced for high income earners. At the same time the income tax threshold hasn’t increased. Inflation over the last 11 years has resulted in low income earners having a larger proportion of their income taxable and hence paying more income tax. (If this doesn’t make sense, please study the difference between Average Tax Rate and Marginal Tax Rate).
In addition to this, a 10% GST was introduced. The GST applies to most items including all essential services such as water and electricity, and thus is payable by everyone.
The end result is those on multi-million dollar per annum incomes pay less tax, while the vast major of people pay much more tax.
Earlier this year, you claimed that you were too young to recall how bad the Sydney Public Transport system was under the Fahey Government. Unless you were part of some family trust (or other tax dodge) when Hawke (please note the correct spelling) was PM, you would not have been paying any tax at that time.
I thought you might enjoy the following from today’s crikey and just so that we don’t forget:
“Three moments in Conservative politics yesterday.
1. Liberal Party Federal Director Brian Loughnane faces the National Press Club and maintains the head up the a-se of the dog in the sand line that things were great, we just got a bit inward looking and didn’t sell our message.
2. Brendan Nelson, Federal Leader of the Liberal Party apparently, abandons the central tenet of ideological faith that has propelled his party through the preceding three years: WorkChoices. They used to call it the industrial relations reform that was the bedrock of the country’s solid economic performance. Now it’s dead meat. People didn’t like it apparently, so best we don’t believe in it anymore.
and the clincher:
3. A year and a change of government after Terence Cole’s report, ASIC brings civil actions against six former executives of the AWB, the body you will recall that under the nose of at least the Foreign Minister bribed Saddam Hussein, just before the Howard Government decided that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and should therefore be invaded forthwith.
At which point, and for the edification of Brian Loughnane at least, we should mention children overboard, Tampa, the politicisation of the public service and the board of every available qango, the subtle incitement of queasy xenophobia and a general intolerance of the Other, the denial of climate change, the perversion of national pride to political ends, the introduction of WorkChoices out of opportunism rather than coherent necessity (never mind on a mandate), the replacement of ministerial responsibility with plausible denial, lickspittle foreign policy, rampant acquisitive federalism, profligate porkbarrelling and the abandonment of any principal that stood between the Howard Government and the merest whiff of a critical vote.
In the end they stood for nothing but themselves. Sorry Brian, but there it is. Analyse that.”
386
Ed@Bennelong
I think Mumble is more righter (sic) on Maxine. If you consider the weight of history with its fat thumb on the scales for the incumbent Prime Minister, it was nothing short of amazing that Maxine tipped them her way, and not, I should add, without considerable organisation and perseverance. Afterall, she managed the national swing, which was all she needed, and to suggest any old hack could have done it, as Richardson does, is probably cobblers.
Nah, Peter Brent has this one dead right, it was a masterstroke for Labor.
(As for smarty-duds Richardson, hell, he won $245 on Maxine and he’s crowing about it? I won four times that on the same seat, and told everyone on this board about it two weeks BEFORE the ‘interest rate rise we had to have’, which was, as the financial markets were tipping, almost a lay down misere!)
386
KR Spot On. Also Piers has a go at Maxine and her use of Asians but as one of his posters pointed out no-one mentions that the Libs used students from Macquarie Uni to do a similar thing but obviously less successful.
Still surprises me there is so little MSM analysis on Howard losing Bennelong and what there is is self-serving, arrogant or just Shrek-land stuff.
398
neophyte
Crikey neophyte, they were lining up the schoolmasters against the wall too?
“…the abandonment of any principal…”
Sheesh, the bastards!
400
My god Ed@B, that Piers Bufo Marinus Aardvarkman (a cross between a cane toad and an ‘earth pig’!) should talk about ‘using Asians’! Oh, it’s ok for Howard/Hanson (lovely couple, eh?) to dogwhistle all over the land, but for a candidate to whoo an ethnic minority successfully? Nup, can’t have that sort of thing in Orstraya mate.
make that ‘woo’! in 402!
Can I award myself the most spectacularly lonely blogging award for my attempts to defend Ms Cornes, it could perhaps be named the “No-one cares about your views on Nicole Cornes we all said she’d lose and she did” Award.
Merry Christmas and a throughly Labor 2008 to you all.
KR Don’t know how legal or defamatory this copy and paste job is but these words need to be spread far and wide.
From Piers’ blog by Stephen of Quakers Hill.
“Maxine is spot on. You Piers, are a classic example of the toxicity of the Howard years. Your stored up anger and putrid bile overflows into your columns every week. If only one tenth of the stories about you are true you are a putrid human being who abuses a position of influence to spout your biased and misleading drivel to the public.
This latest column of yours is another example of your inability to realise that your time has been and gone. Fear, dog whistling, straw man attacks and right wing doberman maulings with little regard for facts are a thing of the past.
You are preaching to a dedicated band of mean spirited conservatives who believe that they are deserving of government being run for their personal gain……..the rest of us adhere to that oldest of concepts, “The majority rule and the minority rights.”
You espouse the iron will of the majority…..and ridicule and repress the minority. You didn’t have the spine to stand up for an Australian citizen being held by a foreign power in legal limbo because YOU have no respect for human rights. Same with this article…you mistake diversity for racism.
You, in short, are a bigot, a bully and a bullshit artist.”
KR at 401 – Sir, sir, it wasnt me, it wasn’t me; it was him what did it, it was Crikey.
The Tories will get their opportunity to vote against SerfChoices, until then they are simply hot air. But they are showing their true colours.
And ….. where is Glen when you need him?
Is this the sort of guy for which he advocated capital punishment?
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/churchills-greatgrandson-jailed-for-drugs/2007/12/20/1197740431976.html
405
Wow! That sums up the Bufo marinus so well: a toxic, ugly toad!
406
Yes, neophyte, I know, but you know you shouldn’t copy others’ work, so your punishment is to write out lots and lots of times:
The principal is my pal.
(And make sure you write it neatly!)
KR @407 Yes, sir (hangs head in embarrassment).
405 Ed -What a brilliant post. The moderator must have gone to sleep. BTW while it’s clearly defamatory in one sense (it is written to denigrate and cause an adverse opinion of Piers), it is not libellous as the facts are all correct and when it is not factual it is an opinion. Also, the DT chose to publicly report it so they disseminated the opinion, the blogger merely sent it to the website. I’m sure Willam could clarify the legals on libellous blogs but my understanding is that the site is responsible, not the blogger.
409
Thanks Diogenes
Hate to get William into trouble.
dovif @ 390 stated:
I gave the facts in 366, along with the source: Ross Gittins quoting Warren et al “GST and the changing incidence of Australian taxes” published in the eJournal of Tax Research. To repeat:
— Indirect taxes “rose from 9.3 per cent to 9.7 per cent.”
— “the proportion of income paid in income tax by all households rose from 18.6 per cent to 19.5 per cent.”
So the percentage take increased, not simply the total dollar amount, which I am aware means nothing.
I suggest you also read this (note pdf): http://www.cis.org.au/policy/winter07/links/carling_winter07.pdf It explains how Costello was able to keep the budget in surplus instead of Keating’s deficits. He slugged us all more in tax.
Why is Bowman taking so long to declare?
409
Diogenes
Whoa there Diogenes, waddya mean ‘not factual’? As near to it as one could get I would have said (in fully ironic mode!).
It’s a great spray, but alas, if you read the replies to it on the rag’s blog it is only salt to the wounds of the poor Lib troglodytes. Eeek, just imagine how brain dead you’d have to be to spend your time actually supporting Piers (Bufo marinus) Aardvarkman!
Talk about depravity!
Sorry Diogenes, you didn’t claim it wasn’t factual. I should get my facts straight eh?
Merry Xams to you too Jas
Shame about WA, I bombed out big time there, still the black cloud has been dispersed and there is much joy and celebration throughout the land.
But I will think you will find there were quite a few on this site defending Nicole, especially against the feral media.
What is the link to the Akerman blog?
Michael
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/piersakerman/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/a_toxic_race_to_top/
#409 That slagging of Piers is not in the least bit libellous or defamatory. It is clearly opinion, and labelled as such. His columns relate to matters of public interest, and he invites comments about them. I’d say the moderator was completely awake at the time he posted this comment.
And I thought this was a clever touch: “If only one tenth of the stories about you are true you are a putrid human being who abuses a position of influence to spout your biased and misleading drivel to the public.”
Of course, all these stories could be absolutely untrue, and Piers is a great bloke…
#409 “my understanding is that the site is responsible, not the blogger”.
Actually, if something is genuinely defamatory, anyone could go for a row – the blogger, the moderator, the editor, the publisher…
Most people sue the publisher, because publishers have more money, and, arguably, ultimate responsilibility.
Responsi-lability, methinks.
Antonio agree with you re the words but I was also thinking of the copyright aspects and quoting only sufficiently for fair comment. However, the DT may drop the post so I got in just in case.
eg Neophyte’s 398 Crikey complete paste is probably not kosher.
Fully acknowledged, why not?
422 because Crikey is a subscription website, although I haven’t checked if that particular article was for your eyes only.
That article was the lead on my “squatter” spam… so I think neophyte gets away with it.
No Ed, 423 – it was in the public domain.
Here in Melbourne the rain is THUNDERING down. Kevin delivers again!
Yep, it was free Crikey issue, got it here for nix, so I don’t see they’d have a problem with it.
Besides, it was great to see Brian Loughnane (aka Brain Lockdown) having his nose rubbed in it. Although listening to him drone on the other day about how they got dudded by big union money (whilst his mob raided the public purse by about a factor of ten) was such myopic braindead twaddle, he’d need a good sense of smell to realise TurdChoices for what it was, ‘coz he sure as hell can’t see it!
Ruddslide=climate shift
Adam, maybe you number crunching guys should get a book going on the odds of KR bringing rain to a town near you.
Long may Brian Laughnone (not a typo, KR) remain director of the Liberal Party.
Melbourne Ports is getting its quota today. That’s because we have elected a Labor member at every election since 1906. Other, less loyal, electorates will have to wait their turn. But even O’Connor will get rain eventually.
And in Perth, because the trogs voted Liberal, it’s as dry as a bone….
This is amazing – it’s like Jakarta in the west season. We must be getting a bonus.
Way off topic, but what the heck, it’s Xmas:
Notice that the US banking system is in a wee bit of distress? Well, another big write down, this time from Morgan Stanley, and another big chunk sold off, this time to a state controlled Chinese Investment fund. A healthy slice too, 10%.
Just the other day, Arab oil money bought about US$8 billion worth of Citigroup while it was languishing with subprime losses.
See a pattern emerging here?
Clearly brothers and sisters, the era of fear and famine is behind us! No longer does the Good Lord see fit to smite us with the pestilence which is called the Liberal Party and has instead forgiven our transgressions and granted us His smile – which is called Kevin. With the coming of Kevin the rains have nourished the earth and hope and freedom now abound. Yeah verily the Kevin of the Lord is upon us. Amen
OK, maybe the candidate for North Sydney could be seconded to help compile the data and make the forecasts!
“And the Kevins did open, and pour rain without rest for forty days and forty nights.”
Ah Melbourne, the great Khlongdyke of the South. (Apologies to anyone who thinks highly of the Yarra!)
425-427 If you are interested:
http://www.artslaw.com.au/LegalInformation/LegalIssuesForBloggers.asp
Oh yea of little faith!
When St Kevin doth walk upon the waters, then verily shall you say that the geek has inundated the earth!
And the Perthite shall be cast out from amongst you, and shall dwell in the land of fire and heat, and no rain shall fall upon him, for he has followed not the righteous path of the Lord Kevin, but has embraced Evil, and the doers of Evil.
Ed@bennelong
I think you mentioned Overington a way back, and her trying to write ’straight’ about AWB fallout.
Well she didn’t drive it home this hard:
http://business.smh.com.au/big-names-holding-their-breath-as-the-ghost-of-awb-rattles-the-shackles/20071219-1i3r.html
Indeed – the geek shall inherit the earth! Let Kevin and earth rejoice! Lemme hear you say, AMEN!
But never the less the Perthite will be able to afford airconditioning and innumerable desalination plants, courtesy of the riches of the land of fire and heat.
Can’t we make ‘em suffer a bit?
Watched the replay on Skynews of the COAG ‘love-in’, a lot of warm & fuzzies, Brumby and Iemma both getting their cameos, and Rudd’s signature answer to a question of what happens when it all fails, of “My view is I would rather try, and fall short, than not try at all”.
.
Awwwwwww…. All that goodwill and cheery back-slapping camaraderie, fair made me wanna cry.
.
Seven working groups, chaired by Ministers and Treasurers, on Water, Business Reform, Indigenous, etc etc
.
Unusual, walking-the-talk, with Health Ministers and all Treasurers all meeting together in January
.
Extra for elective surgery waiting lists (from $100m to $150m)
Extra for alocohol & substance abuse rehab programs (Indigenous ones)
440
KR: Doesn’t appear likely but wouldn’t it be sweeeeet irony if Downer, Vaile etc could be drawn in as well?
Oh boy, to see Malvolio of Mayo an’ Captain Capbackwards in the dock.
Man, you could sell tickets to that!
Is Downer lovely in the same way that Osama was lovely?
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/osama-lovely-wrote-david-hicks/2007/12/20/1197740442947.html
Verily did the rain clouds pass over the heads of the idolitor worshippers of the false Lord Downer in the parched lands of Mayo, to fall instead onto the good earth beneath St Kevin of Queensland and his disciples. ;(
I wanna see more smoting. Is there a Mayo smoter handy?
443 Rain- Perhaps Comrade Rudd was listening to us about $100M not being enough for the waiting lists.
447 Mayoferal- Are you getting as pis%ed off as me with the continual weather bureau predictions of rain and showers while our state turns into a dustbowl of biblical proportions? Adam needs to send St Kevin here fast.
Ed- Those AWB boys are going to squeal all the way to jail. Their type do not go down without a fight and the Nuremberg defense may be invoked. I hope they’ve got some memos to prove Dolly was aware. I’m definitely gonna buy Kickback as a Christmas present!
449 I think Boils and Haemorrhoids for the Lovely Dolly would be sufficient smoting.
Here in Hobart, Heavenly Kevinly is holding off the rain until the cricket finisheth and we regaineth the Chappell-Hadlee trophy. Well, it’s over now, the trophy is won, so send ‘er down Kev! With a touch of Kevinly thunder too, by the looks of it.
But never the less the Perthite will be able to afford airconditioning and innumerable desalination plants, courtesy of the riches of the land of fire and heat.
Can’t we make ‘em suffer a bit?
Perhaps we could be isolated in a remote corner of the world with our untold riches and left alone? If at first you don’t secede try try again.
Sorry I’m only kidding of course. And Arbie Jay you are right there was some support from right thinking people!
Now that Rudd had the Labor Council of Australian Governments meeting today, i think we need a Conservative Council of Australian Oppositions meeting.
On a biblical theme, the Book of Jeremiah predicts the plight of the Libs, God’s favoured party according to the Rodent.
“For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.”
Surely they could just call it the Australian Council of Losers.
That is what the ALP would call it ShowsOn and to be fair they have been losers ever since 2002.
I suppose they are too wound up about merger speculations to hold meetings like that….
Glen, That’s actually funny!
Congratulations to the ALP in Victoria and their clear undisputed win of 3 senators.
Greens quick to try and blame the Shooters Party for their loss.
The Shooters Party represents 15,000 votes. The margin of the ALP win being greater then 100% of the Shooters party I guess the Greens think the Shooters should have supported them.
Thank God we still live in a democracy and people have a free choice of who they vote for. Be it Family First, shooters or the Greens.
The Greens are of the view that every one should preference the Greens first. After all it was only as a result of the Liberal Party sweet heart deal that the Greens even came as close to stealing Family First votes as the did.
I did not know the Greens were a protected political species.
Had the shooters party preference The liberal Party before the ALP and the Greens the Shooters Party would have had their vote devalued and added “unfair” bonus points transferred to the Greens. Making it a close handicapped race.
Would the Greens be complaining about the fact that they won due to the stolen value of the Shooters/Family First vote? I think not the Greens are hypocrites when it comes to policy and true democratic values.
If you have any doubt Ask Antony Green to swap the Shooters Preferences around and have them preference the Libs before the ALP and then look at the way the Liberal Surplus Transfer value is calculated. lol lol
And the stooge returns home.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/20/2124504.htm?section=justin
Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) chief executive Peter Hendy is leaving the position to become the chief of staff for Opposition Leader Dr Brendan Nelson.
Why am I not suprised.
“Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) chief executive Peter Hendy is leaving the position to become the chief of staff for Opposition Leader Dr Brendan Nelson.
Mr Hendy has been with the ACCI for almost six years and will begin his new role with the Liberal Leader in the new year.
Chamber director of Workplace Policy Peter Anderson will be the acting chief executive from January next year until a permanent appointment is made.”
Interesting that La Nina was officially declared just days after the federal election. Drought-breaking rains in Queensland and NSW, and even loads of rain coming down here in Victoria this week.
Since 1972, there have been 16 “wet” years in Australia, 13 of which occurred under Labor governments. And all but 3 of the driest years occurred under Coalition governments. Labor has just been re-elected federally, and BANG, the rains start pouring down.
I think the farmers had better give up their addiction to the National Party and start voting for Labor.
449 – Diogenes – Yeah, thought things might be better once Keith Martin retired, but… Beginning to wonder if the bureau has sub contracted the forecasting to Shanahan and his fellow travellers. You know how good they are at predicting the future!
Noocat there is no proof that the ALP winning means the end of droughts havent Labor been in power in the States for many years and no drought broken until now but somehow Rudd winning means that the theory is valid pulease.
Noocat there is a reason Farmers dont generally vote Labor, because Labor don’t give a toss about rural Australia and never have they are a city/workers Party that hasnt had the time for these Australians. The day the Nats lose all their seats to Labor will be a very strange day indeed, though i dont dispute the Dawson/Page results…
So Says Glen
Glen @ 458 said:
Please let us know the time and the location of the phone box it’ll be meeting in so we can come and watch, Glen.
“Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) chief executive Peter Hendy is leaving the position to become the chief of staff for Opposition Leader Dr Brendan Nelson.”
I don’t think Peter Hendy’s support or advice is going to help Lord Nelson very much. Hendy seems to be one of the most radically neo-conservative of the Liberal Party, something that was on full display in the lead up to the election as he aggressively supported WorkChoices and led big business into an advertising war with the Labor Party.
The more I see and hear of Nelson, the more I am convinced that this man is a fool.
Glen, don’t get too worked about it. It’s just a correlation between rainfall rates and FEDERAL governments. As interesting and bizarre that it is, it is not necessarily causal. Unless of course God actually does prefer the Labor party to be in power federally, despite Howard declaring the opposite during the election campaign.
Even so, the National party has done little for their constituents in recent years. And in Victoria, it seemed that the state Labor party were FAR more interested in looking after the state’s farmers than the federal National party in the face of Howard’s hasty back-of-the-envelope water plan.
Glen, John Kerin, Hawke’s Primary Industry minister was very highly regarded by the farmer organizations.
At least he didn’t stuff up AWB, nor did a Labor government hand our most valuable wheat customer to the Yanks on a platter by helping them invade and take over Iraq. There’s always a long line of Yankee bulk carriers lined up to discharge their wheat at Basra but its been a long time since one carrying our wheat has been sighted. Iraqis have traditionally prefered ours to the American red winter wheat because its better for the type of bread they bake, but it’ll probably be a cold day in hell before Iraqs overlords let a grain of ours into that country again.
Mayo but how many farmers are in the 1st Rudd Cabinet?
Nobody stuffed up AWB but AWB Mayo, and if they dont want our wheat any more too bad we’ll sell it elsewhere…
In fact how many farmers were elected for the ALP in 2007?
I do not doubt Kerin’s efforts but the only bloke with a farming background got rolled in a messy pre-selection battle…and there is not one person with a farming background in Rudd’s Cabinet.
Oh we can save money and forget about democracy just count the rain fall. I guess farmers win either which way.
469 MF- On that, weren’t the farmers considering a class action against the AWB for loss of earnings due to losing Iraq as a customer. That must be costing hundreds of millions. Are they going ahead with it?
BTW In an otherwise good article, CO says “The penalties are frightening: fines up to $200,000 and disqualification from managing a corporation.” Seriously, $200000 is bugger all to these guys and I imagine they haven’t been overwhelmed with offers to join too many boards since they left the AWB. I just hope the civil cases expose enough evidence to help with the criminal cases but of course the standard of proof is less in the civil cases. Perhaps Dolly could go into David Hick’s cell in Yatala.
Diogenes its one thing to accuse someone of breaking the law but its another to do so without any shred of proof i strongly suggest you refrain from insinuating that Former Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer was behind the bribes to Saddam or had direct knowledge of them taking place.
Slander is very dangerous Diogenes especially when you accuse people of breaking the law.
Glen- There is such a thing as culpable and criminal negligence. Downer was responsible for overseeing the contracts which were illegal and his office was alerted on thirty occasions of irregularities. Due to his failings, a very strong case could be made for criminal negligence IMHO. And that is assuming he didn’t know about the bribes.
Dolly should be afraid, very afraid.
ASIC won’t put up with his nonsense of “I don’t recall” “I can’t remember” answers that he gave 276 times to the Cole Royal Commission.
Williams, Bond, Rivkin and Adler (I’ve been a naughty boy) were all put away by ASIC, Doly’s giggles won’t work at an ASIC hearing.
475- If Dolly couldn’t remember 276 times what he did while he was the Foreign Minister, it seems he wasn’t really paying attention when he went to work does it.
I think you’ll find this election proved what we already knew that the Nats are in gradual decline (losing Dawson, Flynn and Page), the election before it was Richmond, while the Libs have consolidated their position in Farrer, Groom, Hume et al. If they lose another two or three seats they are going to lack much of a force in any future Coalition government (they’ll get agriculture and something like veteran affairs if they are lucky). Also when the Liberals return to government even in a tight election, they will probably be able ignore Nats support to pass legislation in the HoR, and come close to having a Senate majority without the Nats (I think the Nats will have to fight for the 3rd Senate spot in Qld, and there may be split tickets in a few states where the Nats will struggle to get even near a full quota, and will be in a fight even with surplus Liberal Senate votes to get Senate spots)
If I was to get my crystall ball out, these seats would all be in Labor’s targets:
Hinkler (if it wasn’t for Neville’s popularity and the redistribution this seat would have fallen to Labor)
Lyne (Will Vaile stay or go?)
Cowper (Labor realised too late that this was a winnable seat)
Gippsland (if McGauran retires, expect a Lib to pick it up, but it could still be a bolter if Labor finds a good local candidate)
Parkes and Calare were close scrapes against an independent. Leaving the Nats with Maranoa, Wide Bay, Mallee and Riverina to count as a safe seats, and when you factor in future local member retirements the Nats will lose Maranoa and possibly Wide Bay to the Libs. Which reminds me of that Shawn McAllef sketch on “Newstopia” about the Young Nationals having to raise the age of the Young Nats to 60 to find candidates, which seemed a rather prescient observation about the lack of young talent coming through the party. To survive I think the Nats next time in government will be a lot more of the Barnaby Joyce/”Wakka” Williams rebellious populist mould, sort of like McEwen without the constituency, all of which is bound to drive the Libs mad when they have to work out a new forms of gumboot diplomacy.
Glen, John Kerin was an economist, not a farmer. You don’t need to be a cockie to look after the Bush. Nor, as Nat ag ministers have proven repeatedly, does being one mean the Bush is any better off.
PS: I was wrong about the US not letting us sell wheat to Iraq. Iraq bought 350,000 tonnes last year, though whether you could call it a sale is possibly a moot point. Seems we had to virtually give it to them:
Anyway, 35,000 tonnes is small beer compared to the quantity we used to sell them, all at top dollar.
Just returned from the Jaga Jaga Christmas Party.
Would be correct to say that everyone is on very good terms with themselves and others in the great Labor diaspora.
Jenny Macklin , made a terrific speech celebrating the win but focussing on the job ahead.
Labor is certainly looking on the bright side of life.
PS Macklin will be a star in Government.
Glen @ 465, I do believe the ALP was started by a group of farm labourers out Barcaldine way. Labor’s rural roots go deep.
Phil Senior ar 316, I note that several other posters have taken you to task about the economics of health. Let me add a voice from within Health in Victoria: we do a fantastic job in public health, so sod off. I’m a clinician/manager in mental health and can provide hard facts and KPIs to back up my assertion(but won’t waste William’s bandwidth), and in fact the Board of the Health Organisation for which I work, is currently chaired by the former State Liberal leader, appointed by the State Labour government. Seems to be working O.K. Bracks appointed Kennett to chair Beyondblue. Seems to be working O.K. As long as you folk take an idealogically driven stance in relation to issues central to Australian life, you’re cactus. But go right ahead, make my day/decade/the rest of my life!
The rain has been glorious in Melbourne today, first thunder and lightning for ages. Parts of the eastern suburbs (eg new Labor seat of Deakin) had 40mm. The weather bureau is suggesting really heavy rain is coming right across the state tomorrow and Saturday, possibly the heaviest widespread falls in years, and we even have flood warnings! North-west Victoria, in particular, has been bone-dry for nearly a decade. The lake the supplies Bendigo with water is dry. This could be the big turnaround.
This is bad news for the farmers. They may lose their drought assistance. No wonder they don’t vote Labor.
Glen #455, 458:
Nice to see you’ve kept your sense of humour about you. I admire that in a person, and so do most Australians. If the LNP is ever re-elected, it will be due to the efforts of people like you making LNP politicians realise that they are human like the rest of us. Keep it up.
MelbCity (or your sockpuppet du jour):
We all get the point – the Greens are evil, the Greens are nasty, the Greens don’t deserve to win anything etc., etc., etc.
Unless you actually have something to contribute, do us all a favour and shut up.
William Bowe:
Being as neither MelbCity nor any of his sockpuppets have done anything except bag the Greens incessantly, could you please ban his latest sockpuppet? Eventually, even he should get the point.
Barry saysDovif,
Welcome back – you have been missing for quite awhile.
Actually wrong, I have posted over 30 post in the last 4 weeks
“During the Howard years, income tax rates were reduced for high income earners. At the same time the income tax threshold hasn’t increased. Inflation over the last 11 years has resulted in low income earners having a larger proportion of their income taxable and hence paying more income tax. (If this doesn’t make sense, please study the difference between Average Tax Rate and Marginal Tax Rate).
In addition to this, a 10% GST was introduced. The GST applies to most items including all essential services such as water and electricity, and thus is payable by everyone.”
It is completely wrong, the Threshold had increase, 0 rate has increase from 5k to 6k, 20% rate had decreased to 17% and kick in from 22k as opposed to 15k.
low income earner have more rebates than ever before, please know what you are talking about before posting garbage
Barry says “The end result is those on multi-million dollar per annum incomes pay less tax, while the vast major of people pay much more tax. ”
Again completely incorrect, the likes of Kerry Packer and Murdock already choosed to be US resident (where marginal tax rate is much lower) or they have vehicles to reduce tax. The high marginal tax rate have caused the high skilled and inventors to move overseas, leading to the “Brain drain” and Australian working in Singapore, HK, UK or USA. This can only be solve by making our tax rate more efficient
GST have been found to be the most efficient tax by the World bank, it has not caused any hardship.
Earlier this year, you claimed that you were too young to recall how bad the Sydney Public Transport system was under the Fahey Government. Unless you were part of some family trust (or other tax dodge) when Hawke (please note the correct spelling) was PM, you would not have been paying any tax at that time.
Wrong again, I never said that, did you here about Staterail this morning? I did not notice how bad state public transport of under Fahey, because it was not bad. Complain to state rail had increase 500% from 1990 to today, Sydney population has nota
GST has caused hardship! $8Bn unpaid GST from small businesses mainly. Low income earners have not received enough tax cuts to make up for the GST. People are hurting, grocery prices etc. Why do you think they voted Howard out??
< ahref=”http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/?p=782&cp=5#comment-116209″#420 Antonio Said on December 20th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
But one needs to keep in mind international law. There is a lot you can do when you start farming out the server (or parts of the server logic) into different legal domains.
…and then they all stopped and everyone looked at each other and thought, “in the great scheme of things, we are all but one and deep down, we all but care for the well being of each other and the wellbeing of all who sail in the ship of oz”
“GST have been found to be the most efficient tax by the World bank, it has not caused any hardship.”
WHAT A BROAD STATEMENT AND WRONG !
taxes are about raising necessary revenue and about their redistribution effects
as well. a consumption tax is charged at the same rate on the good or service
purchased irrespective of the income of the person concerned so it is regressive.
Also the GST is inflationary as it is largely passed on.
I think there is a case for a cut in the GST however the problem is it is tied
into state finances… as the GST goes to the states
and people laughed at me when I said a seat would be decided by less than 40 votes!!