The latest Morgan face-to-face poll has Labor’s lead at 63.5-36.5 – down from the record-breaking 65-35 at the previous such poll early in the month, but up from 61-39 at the phone poll conducted a fortnight ago. Other conversation starters:
• Special Minister of State John Faulkner has announced a package of electoral reforms confirming moves to cut the campaign donation disclosure threshold to $1000 (which the Howard government outrageously lifted from $1500 to $10,000 in 2005), along with bans on donations from overseas companies and various other measures. It is also announced that the government will “kick-start a green paper process to reform and modernise our electoral processes”. The first part of this, to be released for discussion in July, will look at “disclosure, funding and expenditure issues”; the second, to be released in October, will examine “a broader range of options aimed at strengthening other areas of our electoral laws”.
• Morris Iemma has taken talk of reforms to campaign donations a step further by suggesting they be banned altogether, perhaps in conjunction with caps on electoral spending. Jack Waterford of the Canberra Times presents the case against.
• A big week for the New South Wales Liberal Party: charges laid against five over the Lindsay pamphlet outrage, rising star Scott Morrison deemed too civilised for membership of his local branch, and suggestions that Peter Phelps might emerge as a contender for the party’s state directorship. Would it be overdramatic to suggest that the forces of respectable conservatism in the state should abandon the whole rancid operation and start again from scratch?
318 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 » Show All
Or try this Winston – http://www.lompocrecord.com/articles/2008/03/30/ap/headlines/d8vnmqn80.txt
Winston
Mugabe has lost the election several times, lets wait and see if he takes the hint this time.
196 BB
That’s the second time in a week I’ve heard Alex the Irrelevant commenting on his FORMER portfolio. Anyone would think he wanted it back, or at least the shadow version…..
I can hardly see him and Robb taking the time to make sure they’ve got their stories straight, or maybe the lowest common denominator is low enough to suit both of them.
On second reading I’ve decided that Jason Koutsoukis’ article deserves to be saved for future reference. I reckon it was probably a toned down version of his first draft, but he definitely served Costello a burger with the lot. And he either did it well enough to avoid direct outrage, or even fewer people than thought give two hoots about the former unopposed future leader.
Good luck in Jerusalem Jason.
Going to be a lot of sore heads, and a frustrated Nelson.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/nelson-vows-to-knock-heads-together/2008/03/30/1206815310631.html
Maybe they should invite them all over to Hockey’s place and get them p***ed first.
They maybe able to get a reasonable degree of co-operation out of them or else it could just develop into an all-in Barny.
With a bit of skin off here and there and a few loose teeth, they might just come up with a resolution.
Then again, maybe not. I don’t hold out any hope for them. Sad really.
It seems that Hilliary wasn’t lying about being shot at after all.
More here.
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=uHVEDq6RVXc
Did anyone see this documentary?
Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism
Documentary on reported Conservative bias of the Rupert Murdoch-owned Fox News Channel (FNC), which promotes itself as “Fair and Balanced”. Material includes interviews with former FNC employees and the inter-office memos they provided.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0418038/
I caught my young fellow looking at a youtube clip earlier in which Bush was denying ever saying that the US cannot cut and run from Iraq.
Thought I would have a look for myself and typed in “Bush lies”. There is only 4150 clips in which Bush, Chaney etc are telling lies about the war in Iraq.
John Howard sure got off lightly.
http://au.youtube.com/results?search_query=Bush+lies&search_type=
There are some real lulu’s here and well worth an entertaining hour or so to have a look.
Yeah, Kina. I think it got a fair bit of coverage on the BBC web site not long back.
They had a full report on it. I was not impressed at the level of control of information exercised by this man.
Does media bias affect voting? A report – you may wish to skip to the conclusion unless your into the mathematics.
The Fox News Effect: Media Bias and Voting
Part of the conclusion here:
The audience estimates imply that exposure to Fox News induced 3 to 8 percent of its non-Republican viewers to start voting for the Republican party. The size of this effect is consistent with the findings of field experiments on voter mobilization, and are lower than most laboratory evidence of media effects.
http://cbdr.cmu.edu/seminar/DellaVigna.pdf
This is a short clip and well worth a look. Says it all really.
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=rHYb9rf2BBQ
Now the Opposition Orifice are raising the dreaded Public Servants facing the axe.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23448324-2702,00.html
Like I think I have said before I believe Rudd Labor has nothing to gain by paying any attention to the print media. He is obviously on a hiding to nothing with them so may as well press on with all original plans. By going overboard the murdoch crew have dealt themselves out of the game.
And the danger for murdoch is that if Labor comes out states a need to deal with a partisan media through concentration/ownership laws much of the population would nod their heads – especially if the name murdoch is associated with it.
And for those that cant sleep:
Media Mergers and Media Bias with Rational Consumers
http://www.virginia.edu/economics/papers/anderson/murdochs070308.pdf
In some circumstances they can manipulate political outcomes by distorting the information that consumers of news receive. They can do this, even though
news consumers are perfectly rational and know the bias of the publishers, because the consumers do not know how much information the news organization has. However, there are also conditions under which a media monopoly is politically disadvantageous, because of the suspicion that rational consumers attach to the behavior of a politically-motivated news monopoly.
This one’s a bit scary. Check out the flash and the mushroom cloud still shining brightly in the distance.
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=GtTQ8O7mH08&feature=related
More Poison Dwarf.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23456621-33435,00.html
I wont go there unless I get some hint what it is about. In fact give me a hint what it is about and I wont have to go there because I automatically will know the sort of thing that will be written…and that is one less click helping the OO along.
For you Kina
Milne finally admits it…
Doing their leg work for them, eh, Glenn? That’s a fairly naked admission, I would have thought. Sort of confirms a lot of things written in these pages in the past few days.
Milne of course amplifies the significance of the “missing” $1 billion. while being careful to say that Penny Wong was genuinely mistaken, and reporting that the government tried to correct the story that the $1 billion was “new”, he ignores all that anyway and reprints the Opposition’s summary of the facts as his own (two admissions in one day? Good for you Glenn!):
I can see that there might be a case against the Victorian Premier, but how does Glenn make it stick against Rudd? Where’s his proof that Rudd deliberately set out to skewer Howard on water (as, of course Howard tried to do to Rudd, on the same subject)?
Forgive me for my poor memory, but Rudd has only been PM for four months. Victoria has been holding out (if that is indeed a fair description) for fourteen months. Where was Rudd in this time? Pulling the strings? I thought he agreed with the scheme and said so at every opportunity.
And anyway, as far as the Victorian Premiers involved are concerned – Bracks and Brumby – can’t a couple of blokes change their minds? I mean, it’s easier to agree with someone who’s “here to help” than it is with a desperate, failing arm-twister trying to score cheap points with a scheme dreamed up over a scotch and jotted down on the back of an envelope, isn’t it?
Further to my point… Milne alleges that ALL the Labor Premiers were in on the scam. Again, where is his proof? Five of them (except Victoria) signed up to Howard’s scheme months ago, well beofre the election. There was even talk of cutting Victoria loose, I seem to recall.
If I was Rudd, I’d start to get angry at about this point. Milne has (once again) amplified a snippet of conjecture into a 1000 page novel. He has issued a blanket condemnation of every government in Australia, alleging a conspiracy over a vital national resource. This conspiracy lasted fourteen months, and involved all six Premiers consistently lying over that period, even to the point of formally signing up to the scheme… except Victoria. All based on one ambiguous fact.
Gee, that’s guaranteed to make him even more of an “insider”, right?
Rudd should just ignore turkeys like Milne and go along with a change to media laws that pit turkeys like him up against genuine journalists and genuine competition.
Also a continuous operative ‘media review panel’ would pick up these things daily and, report the deliberate errors/corrections as they arose. People might get into the habit of referring to the board’s on-line site on a regular basis just to see how they have been lied to …and when they see how often it is they may make it a habit. If only such a thing existed.
Just think within hours of a story’s publication its faults can be immediately published. With much embarrassment to people like Milne and the OO.
Re Kevin Rudd not having to have spoken with the Japanese PM, not even on the phone.
Well I thought that protocol would be that after the election and we had a new PM in Kevin Rudd, it was up to the Japanese PM to contact Kevin Rudd and congratulate him on his win and welcome him and also invite him to Japan, not the other war round.
So it should be the Japanese who are embarrassed.
Er… and who was responsible for putting the ’spin’ on reporting of the M-D agreement?
Journalists.
If you look at the actual media releases and interviews, no pollie went out there claiming it was extra money. The media did.
So either the media were spinning the story or didn’t understand it or didn’t do their research.
Concentrating on the billion dollars ignores the fact that for Victoria the M-D agreement was not about money (except that we weren’t getting a fair share of it – only $1 billion of the $10 b was going to Victorian projects) but about long term decision making on water issues.
Milne laments that the govt did not do enough to correct the story and therefore are complicit in the spin. But when the govt went all out to correct the story in the case of the carers’ allowance, the media either didn’t run with the correction or treated it as irrelevant.
And in another media story that’s been getting a run in regional Australia (the EI levy) the media has blatantly ignored the Departmental media releases.
If the media is going to spin stories and ignore Government corrections, they have no right to complain when the Government doesn’t correct them vigorously enough.
I found Milne’s opening sentence deeply ironic.
Senator Sherry to make major Superannuation speech today.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/national/superannuation-to-cop-a-caning/2008/03/30/1206850745718.html
A lot of doom and gloom here today. Well here’s some more. I heard on Radio National this morning that Islam is now the largest religion in the world, presumably due to their higher birth rate. I personally blame the Catholics who have slipped into second place. Popes have been quite specific – plenty of jigajig, no condoms, no pills, and no vasectomies, but no one took any notice.
This point was half made today by Richard(?) Jennet, the ABC’s guy travelling with Rudd.
His statement was full of “sort of”, “it could be argued” etc. etc. when talking about the definite diplomatic protocol which says incumbent leaders (e.g. Japanese) should ring and congratulate freshly elected ones (e.g. Australian), not the other way around. In the end, however, the point was made: Japan should have rung Australia (sometimes I get the impression that ABC reporters are so used to looking over their shoulders at a conservative dominated government watching their every move that they just can’t shake the “qualification” habit).
Without the formality of the “welcome to the leaders’ club” phone call it becomes difficult to invite yourself and your entourage (e.g. Australian) along to the offending leader’s country (e.g. Japan).
GrannyAnny – ah, that would be the fault of our atheistic Western world, which has rejected the sound values of the Church and instead adopted a hedonistic lifestyle filled with recreational sex and the consequent use of contraceptive devices.
If only we threw off the shackles of materialism, renounced Protestantism and returned to the embrace of the True Church! Women would once again know their place (convent or home) and be content to raise broods of 20 children whilst their man went out to run the world.
I blame Martin Luther, myself.
I didn’t know you where a comedian Zoom!
219
Bushfire Bill Says:
Further to my point… Milne alleges that ALL the Labor Premiers were in on the scam. Again, where is his proof? Five of them (except Victoria) signed up to Howard’s scheme months ago, well beofre the election. There was even talk of cutting Victoria loose, I seem to recall.
Just shows you the true extent of their machiavellian machinations, BB. Those commie premiers are weally, weally evil scam artists! But they weren’t smart enough to fool ol’ Glenn.
With the Democrats pretty much finito we need someone who’ll keep the bastards honest. Ain’t we luck we got a genuine genius like Milne willing to step into the breech?
I posted above some research and analysis that showed:
‘The audience estimates imply that exposure to Fox News induced 3 to 8 percent of its non-Republican viewers to start voting for the Republican party. The size of this effect is consistent with the findings of field experiments on voter mobilization, and are lower than most laboratory evidence of media effects.’
Though it is not Australia it does raise the question of what effect does consistent exposure to murdoch press and Sky News have. The 3% to 8% above is actually a big deal, it can decide who is President. It appears that the current tactic is of negative saturation by the ABC and Murdoch media [OO] over a period of time to force a change in voter thinking.
#230
Sky News has seemed reasonably balanced most of the time when I’ve watched it, which is only now and then, and it was the place to be for politics junkies during the 2007 election campaign.
Kina. Here in QLD last The Courier Mail had a “sweet ‘n sour approach to Rudd & Labor & yes they did try to put some wind in the coalitions sails but even they figured out which way the wind blew. No mattered how many times they tried the public was telling them how it was going to be. Hence the largest swing to Rudd in his home state & the CM jumped on board & gave a positive editorial on election day. I guess they had to save face!:-D
I’ve probably posted this before, but it seems to me that the media should have similar foreign ownership restrictions as Qantas and Telstra.
Its no secret that Murdoch often uses his shrills to further his international business interests. Interests that may not necessarily be to our advantage here. The American’s wouldn’t let him play in their sandpit unless he became one of them, I don’t see why our standards should be any lower.
Re the water deal -
Isn’t this whole argument about the states ‘holding out’ a furfy?
Wasn’t it Howard that picked a fight with the states by reneging on a verbal agreement? Which in itself was a strategy to back up his election platform of unco-operative Labor governments?
Having an agreement with them on the water deal would have destroyed that argument ergo – the coalition gave it the kybosh themselves…..a truly magnificent demonstration of ‘not playing party politics’…..not.
This man seems to run out of ideas if anybody sees him on the listening tour could they be so kind as to give him a few of their ideas. He’s travelling to a servo near you.
http://www.grods.com/post/2223/
Note the contrast between Howard and Rudd. Rudd is actually explaining something to Bush, they seemed to be involved in ‘intelligent’ conversation.
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200803/r236552_952902.jpg
Can anybody make any sense of this? What sort of businesses can’t be bothered with a business plan?
“Few small business owners are making any plans to survive an economic downturn despite worrying about the prospect of a recession.
Eighty-three per cent of respondents consider planning and preparing a business to ensure survival through an economic recession to be important, but only 44 per cent actually have a business plan.”
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/national/small-business-fears-recession/2008/03/31/1206850762263.html
At the risk of starting off a war I wish to express a slight concern regarding the Future Forum, or at least the announced list for it. (I didn’t apply and that is not the reason for concern).
When it was first announced it was to include a discission on Infrastructure, which I was pleased to hear. But now that has been subsumed into a category called “Population, Sustainability, Climate Change and Water”. There are some excellent economists in the list (Garnaut, Quiggan), good climate and water scientists (Pearman et all), but hardly a social or urban planner in sight, and no transport engineers I am familiar with. World ranked experts like Newman and Kenworthy (WA), Troutbeck (QUT) and even Paul Mees (Vic, for a dissenting view) are all missing, as are public sector demographers who know more than Bernard Salt about population trends. (I am not suggesting Salt knows nothing, but most of his work is popularising the results of research by others.) Rather than a list of the “best and brightest” this seems to be a list of the “Highest Profile and Best Connected”.
I do not see how such a group will possibly come up with any new ideas in infrastructure. They might “discover” economic policy options that have been all over European Parliament websites for years, but were ignored by the last government. That is not a bad thing, but doesn’t go far enough. In transport, climate change and infrastrucure we are dealing with technical issues, that need technical solutions, as well as economic ones. Economics alone won’t solve it. So why invite a room full of economists and business players prominent in the current system, when that system is itself part of the problem?
About the only recognisable transport name is (unfortunately) Everald Compton for “Future Directions for Rural Industries and Rural Communities”. Compton has been pushing an inland rai project for years, but it is hopelessly uneconomic. The inclusion of people like him suggests actions to appease rural voters rather than face reality.
Maybe the other sections will be better, but I won’t hold my breath waiting for this lot to do anything about transport or infrastructure. Indeed, I can’t really see them making any hard decisions about climate change either, as the numbers are heavily tilted towards the status quo.
“GEORGE W.Bush’s first appearance with Kevin Rudd as Australian Prime Minister was almost embarrassing to watch as the US President ate political dirt and performed tortuous linguistic contortions in the name of the alliance.”
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23457512-2702,00.html
Shamahan feels sorry for Bush – not that he feels great that we have a leader who has finally made the Texan village idiot talk sense. What vitriolic wind bag….
Yes, poor Bush. The tragic victim of his own lies and arrogance.
The poor doctor’s Union is a bit miffed too.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/31/2203449.htm
Socrates @ 239, I agree with you. I am not expecting much to arise from this 2020 summit. Annabel Crabb had a good idea on insiders yesterday which was everyone who wanted to go should have been made to nominate their big idea for the future before the summit. The focus of the summit would then have been about discussing these nominated ideas rather than spending a weekend pitching buzzwords at each other over a cup of tea and a milk arrowroot.
239
Socrates, can’t see yoiu starting any wars over it but it does seem that there are some persons on the list that a lot of us would rather not see there.
It may be that a lot of those that we may wish were there could not be bothered nominating in so far as they had to stump up their airfares and accommodation for the privelege.
I understand if you did not nominate then you do not get picked to go.
I for one would be completely s*#t off if i stumped up $5,000.00 to go to it and found i was on a committee sitting next to some ex cocaine snorter like Pies or that other insider, Lightning (bolt, thinks he is very flash). I do not know if they are starters but i believe there are a couple as brain dead as them going.
243
I think you will find Iced Vovos on the menu, perhaps only on the chairpersons table
Interesting how Jennifer Buckingham got a guersay for the summit – I wonder what ideas the CIS can come up with other than economic rationalism?
Kina @ 237 -
they seemed to be involved in ‘intelligent’ conversation.
Yes, but one of them is faking it!
steve @ 238 -
What sort of businesses can’t be bothered with a business plan?
The sort that blame the government when they inevitably go bellyup.
As will many of those who’ve borrowed against the increased equity in their homes to buy shiny baubles, most of which have long since gone to the dump.
I think it must be written into their AWAs – ‘no positive mentions of Labor in any article’
Funny the Sham would take a rediculous angle like that as there is nothing to support it except, maybe Bush and Howard dancing around in nightgown and skimpy jocks in his own imagination. Obvioiusly Sham thinks Bush feels embarassed because he feels he is two-timing a lover, Howard. Sham must be one of those guys who thinks the nightclub pole dancer really and truly loves him.
It is a wonder he didn’t mention Brown and the withdrawl of British troops and suggest they have a tortured relationship because Bush feels he is being unfaithful to Blair.
The Sham ought to take a closer look and wonder if the Howard Bush relationship is because Howard agreed to do whatever the President told him – a codependent relationship.
Sham should have taken the other line – Bush had to for a change enage our PM on an intellectual level.
On Zimbabwe:
http://www.sokwanele.com/thisiszimbabwe/
I have suspected that Mugabe has in the past held strong rural support, more recently aided by fraud and intimidation, but hopefully they have shifted.
“Convicted terrorism supporter David Hicks…” This in The Age. Is this description accurate? Was he convicted?
Pages: « 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 » Show All