With two country independents backing Gillard, the Labor party will now pass the only threshold needed in Australia to form government – a majority on the floor of House. There is no other test, there is no other requisite, there is no other qualification needed to control the Treasury benches.
But this constitutional reality will not stop some. Indeed, it merely marks the beginning of what will become a long festival of delusion, conspiracy and outright lies – where its hysteria will only be surpassed by its grubby bitterness and its commercial exploitation.
With so many having invested so much in the defeat of the Labor government – including the leadership of what was once the national broadsheet of this country – to be denied victory by political inches, leaving a fragile incumbent holding the most delicate of majorities and being reliant on a handful of cross-benchers representing ideologically discordant electorates, creates a result that will not be respected.
What we will witness over the next 18 months or more is a Great Unhinging –an orgy of hysterics that will far surpass the duplicity, dishonesty – let alone the complete arsehattery – that substituted for public debate on matters of government during the previous 12 months.
The goalposts of what constitutes government legitimacy will be moved from the constitutional to the convenient, from the reality of the parliamentary majority to concocted nostrums about mandates to govern.
Every policy and utterance the government or the Independents make will be creatively analysed, deliberately distorted and whose fabricated consequences will be shouted from the rooftops. This will not be an exercise in political analysis, but an infection of pathological political syphilis. It will not just be a campaign against the government, but one rolling, frenzied campaign after another, where each new contrived outrage will assume a greater level of mania than the last.
The Independents will be targeted in a way they are probably not prepared for – they will be demeaned, ridiculed and treated with contempt, where their honourable characters will be distorted into debased caricatures. The character assassination will be ferocious and their connection to their electorates will be serially brought into question, particularly from a group of ostensibly inner urban media elites whose acquaintance with New England and Lyne extends no further than peering down from 30,000 feet as they fly between capital cities.
But it won’t just be the usual suspects here. There will be an angry that we haven’t seen for a long time, from a group of disgruntled political zealots.
The Liberal and National parties have a profoundly successful ability at attracting a disproportional quantity of the most embittered, politically pungent elements of Australian society as supporters – a dark, angry, belligerent underbelly that believes the only acceptable outcome of any political contest is the one they believe in.
Monday’s Essential Report, taken last week before we knew who was going to be government, hammered this reality home when it looked at public views on the election result – a set of findings that aren’t new in their tone mind you, for the same theme has been remarkably consistent by Coalition supporters in the polling since Tony Abbott took the leadership of the Liberal Party . Firstly, Essential asked about the quality of minority government:
After the election neither the Labor Party nor the Coalition has a majority in the House of Representatives – they need the support of independents to govern. Do you think this will result in a better or worse Government for Australia? (A lot better, a little better, a little worse, a lot worse, make no difference)
The “total worse” response from Coalition voters was nearly twice that of Labor or Greens voters. Not only do a majority of Coalition voters believe that minority government would be worse, but a plurality of Coalition voters believe it in the strongest possible terms available in the survey. If the Coalition can’t rule in their own right, many Coalition voters believe it is simply not acceptable.
Secondly, Essential asked about what should happen next:
Do you think Australia should have another Federal election in the next 12 months?
65% of Coalition voters want another election in the next 12 months – the only partisan block to carry a majority on the question, and the partisan block with smallest number of open minds represented by the Don’t know response. If the Coalition doesn’t clearly win, a majority of Coalition voters believe it is simply not acceptable.
A large proportion of the Coalition vote base believes there is one and only one acceptable outcome in politics – theirs. And it is this zealotry that will explode.
The temptation for the Opposition to continue to exploit this belligerence, as they so successfully did in the lead up to the campaign and in the campaign itself, will be overwhelming. When all that stands between the Opposition and a new election – a new chance at *power* - is one scandal, one stuff up, one member of parliament changing – the attraction of flicking the switch to rhetorical overdrive for effect, and righteous indignation to incite their masses, will simply be too great. No distortion will be too large, no lie too audacious, no accusation too brazen.
And they will be ably assisted and their supporters commercially exploited, by the leadership and opinion section of The Australian – not to mention the curmudgeonly Lesser Scribes infesting the sewer end of the News Ltd tabloids and that growing group of feeble minded cowards at the ABC whom appear to have lost any capacity for intellectual autonomy when it comes to independently assessing the dynamics of Australian politics.
Yet the Great Unhinging won’t be a one way street. The forces of good within the Liberal Party – the Malcolm Turnbulls, the Simon Birminghams, the Greg Hunts of this world – will, must, start to push back against the tawdry politics and tea party style behaviour that the Coalition will ultimately pursue under Tony Abbott. Someone will take a rhetorical step too far, and the tinder box that has been the Coalition will ignite with a fury.
The National Party – the political group that has done more to piss the living standards of rural people up the wall than any other – now face rural independents that for the first time have real power. The Nats ultimate weakness threatens to be publically exposed in their heartland – that they are impotent, do nothing ratbags that rely on the ideological patronage of their constituents and give them three fifths of five eighths of sweet fuck all in return. When, later this term, the fruits of Windsor and Oakeshott start rolling out through regional electorates – from health upgrades to the NBN to a plethora of inevitable policy programs – the National Party will start to be seen by their own constituents for exactly what they are, and the fallout will not be pretty.
What we are about to witness will indeed be a new paradigm, but not the one being advertised. This term looks to be the most policy rich in a generation – the NBN, health reform, a tax summit, campaign funding reform, federal whistleblower protection, a Parliamentary Budget Office and a proper review of climate change policy to name but a few – yet while this incredible agenda with its long, far reaching consequences for the nation will be on the table, there will be one side of politics and one wing of the media doing its best to turn it all into a complete and utter circus.
265 Comments
Holy sweet mother of God! Poss!! BRILLIANT!
Well put Possum.
The immediate crisis will be Fielding’s ridiculous promise of blocking supply where despite all his rhetoric condemning Fielding recently, it can be expected that phoney and the coalition will join him a la 1975 in their desperation to have a go at a second election.
If this happens I would hope that the GG would sign off on supply to ensure stability of government’
“the only threshold needed in Australia to form government – a majority on the floor of House. There is no other test, there is no other requisite, there is no other qualification needed to control the Treasury benches.”
Pos, you also need support of the Governor General if the GG is John Kerr
Lib supporters are the most unhinged pack of loonies you’d ever be likely to come across. Even the LDP look sane by comparison.
Great one Poss. And, I’m certain, oh so prescient.
This one goes straight to the pool room.
Mack – Antony Green has already pointed out that this year’s supply bills have already been passed, and Fielding is irrelevant
Well said Poss. We may be looking not so much at a Tea Party, as a Rum Rebellion
A much more impassioned post then normal offerings possum, and it does look like an amazing period of politics. However I believe that those on ‘progressive’ side of politics would have been just as bitter had Abbott snatched victory, the main difference being that we lack a masthead to follow through.
The death of the Nats has been long foretold, I hope you aren’t calling it too earlier either.
I note that Mr Kelly says that the independents have ‘saved Gillard’s neck’.
While the Coalition was in an identical position (i.e needing 4 independents to govern) I would hazard a guess that Mr Kelly would have had a slightly diffreant take if the independents had gone with the Coalition.
Maybe, ‘Tony’s brilliant triumph has ushered in a new era of political stability and good governernce’
Loved the blue book. Do we get to see the red book – or was that shredded?
Possum
I should have felt happy about the announcement yesterday with this new government but instead I felt a lot of rage against the ABC. Their coverage of the announcement was so right wing it was outrageous. But that aside, there was this uneasy feeling which you’ve put your finger on very well. Thanks.
We need to mobilise to do things to change the ABC and media laws. We just saw the media nearly bring down a very successful government and as you say they in concert with the right wing camp, will keep trying until they succeed. I’m worried about the damage they will do and we must do what we can to get at least some of our media back so that people can see what is really happening in this country and be engaged by it rather than isolated from it by this cynical view of politics as a kind of punch and judy show that our media present to us.
Write letters, make t-shirts, demonstrate outside the ABC (NO MORE PUNCH AND JUDY!!), get the Get Up people involved, whatever. There is a narrow window of opportunity here in which something might be done I think. Shall we grizzle and shake our heads sadly or do something?
Dude
Love the last paragraph (largely cos I agree with it). I’m strangely optimistic that an ALP free from trying to be the most popular girl in school, will be faced with the fact that they can be popular for being smart…
Or something.
Great piece Possum (and hi Peter McIlwain). Reminds us that this is the end of the beginning only and there is much bastardry still to come. Much will depend on the Greens, I think.
Poss can you elaborate on this. Their hasn’t been a significant moderate pushback in my lifetime.
I do want to thank you Possum for running this blog and providing such thoughtful and detailed analysis.
The work you do here is greatly appreciated by many. I wish you well in whatever role you land.
The Government needs to just ignore the Oz and get on with business. Yes it will be ugly, but they gained nothing by trying to dance with the MSM last term. By accepting that Murdoch controls the media message, they made it true. Hopefully Julia understands that and just gets as many runs on the board as possible before the next election.
The ALP should point out to the Greens voters if , they want Abbott as PM, keep voting the way they did in this election!.
Labor 38.0 -5.4 72
Coalition 43.7 +1.5 73
Greens 11.7 +4.0 1
Others 6.6 -0.1 4
If some of that SWING had gone to the ALP we would not be in this predicament.
Great post Poss……….the powerful vested interests have lost and they are shitting themselves – there’s no doubt that they’ll come out swinging. Labor and co. need to hold it together, otherwise a huge opportunity for this nation will be lost.
Yeah baby
Maybe when Oakeshott was talking about “beauty in its ugliness” he was actually referring to “teh unhinging”?
Everybody on 1, 2, 3: “We woz robbed!”
In any case, the Tories are going to need News Ltd more than ever because they have become (even more) irrelevant. For a bill to pass the HoR, it will essentially need Green approval and I cannot see the Green senators amending or rejecting something that Adam Bandt has voted for. So the major hurdle becomes getting RO, TW, AW & AB to say Aye, and not, as in previous parliaments, negotiating with a hostile senate after the bill has passed the house.
The other big talking point is whether any meaningful legislation will be passed before June 30? Or will Gillard spend her time getting the policy framework and consensus positions sorted in order for the new senate to vote of them? Seems like there is no point presenting any legislation to the current senate other than for some potential political point scoring.
Yeah, it’s all coming, and I’ve already got my HazChem suit on to protect me from the Great Troy Sh!tstorm that’s started blowing.
I’m half expecting the TeaPotty Mouth Party (TMP) to rally in the streets, making claims that Gillard is a secret Muslim, or maybe Windsor and Oakshott took big brown envelopes yesterday, but whatever batsh!t crazy stuff the Orcs of the Oz start spewing, you can bet it’ll be on the wind, covering the nation like a toxic duststorm.
Batten down the hatches, get your HazChem suits on, the Great Tory Sh!tstorm is upon us now.
Planet Janet is off and running with the personal smears! “almost as brazen as Stalin”, “media tarts playing kingmakers” (look who’s talking), “undemocratic”, “haystack amigos”, it’s a trainwreck of confected outrage!
Possum – you are a legend sir!
Look, Labor had huge advantages going into this last election, a large majority in the reps, the one of the most, if not the most, successful economy in the world, they where a first term government etc. Sure they made some mistakes but I can’t see how a country moves from where we were about 1 and half years ago to the result now. If you think that there are great opportunities that the minority government present (as I do) you must also realise that it is a fragile thing. If those US style right wing bully boys can nearly bring down a government like we have just had, with all its advantages, what can they do to a minority? You can dance around going “we won, abbott lost, nah nah n nah nah” but it will be a short lived joy unless something is done to improve the way politics are reported in my view.
As you say Possum, there’s a lot on the policy agenda. I hope hope hope that Labor takes from this near-death experience that if they had actually lost executive government and were facing a coalition majority in the lower house that they would not even have the chance to do anything for the foreseeable future.
The lesson being to not put off trying to push worthwhile legislation through just because you’re afraid it might (might!) lose you the next election. Just do it while you have the opportunity, the chance may never come again. Carpe diem and all that. Politics, like most things, favours the bold.
and the Lib twits are out in force too – with all sorts of nonsense and abuse of all nonLib tweeters and JG, the independents, the Greens
Such putrescance!
It would serve the bastards right if JG does hold it together without any crises for 3 years and all the country seats ditch the Nats and Libs en masse at the next election.
Except, 1934pc, that’s not how voting works in this country since we introduced preferential voting. And Adam Bandt has sided with the ALP in any case.
This whole “voting Greens risks the Liberals getting elected” only works if people switch from preferring the ALP to the Libs after voting Green. If people don’t want the ALP, they will make that abundantly clear.
This meme seems appropriate for the Flying Monkey Organ (formerly known as the Opposition Organ)
http://dump.fm/m/dealwithit
‘the National Party will start to be seen by their own constituents for exactly what they are, and the fallout will not be pretty.’
I want this to be true, but can’t you just see the Nats swinging this in their own electorates as ‘that bridge was built while I was the member, therefore it’s thanks to me’?
They’ll certainly be there at the opening of every ribbon-cutting, same way the libs were often up for a BER school hall opening.
Possum
This is a seriously great piece of writing. Well done. On Poll Bludger there seems to be a growing swell to take on MSN bias. I feeling pretty motivated to get on board.
My thinking is to start with Australian Journalists’ Association Code of Ethics. To be honest, I’m not sure what the latest version says, but an earlier version included..
“To report and interpret news with a scrupulous honesty.”
“Not to suppress essential facts nor distort the truth by omission or wrong or improper emphasis.”
They both sound perfectly reasonable to me.
If we can get a system going where people who claim to be journalists are held to account to the AJA code of ethics, then we can make a start.
Further down the track, I reckon the occupation of journalist needs to be defined by a specific qualification as applies with other professions such as doctor, registered nurse, teacher, psychologist etc. For example, to be a reigistered nurse, you need to be … well registered, same for psychologists and numerous other professionals.
So bring on a registration system for journalists – so they must meet stringent educational standards to become registered and abide by a strict code of ethics to remain registered.
That still allows others, anyone really to freely write in the press – it just means that cannot claim to be journalists if they are not ‘registered’ as such. So they would simply call themselves, opinion writer, freelance writer or whatever.
Publications could then ‘market’ themselves according to their point of difference – some might only have ‘qualified’ ‘registered’ journalists on board – others might opt to have well informed bloggers, opinion writers etc.
I’m keen to look into this more when I get a chance…
Is anyone with me on this?
Country Kid, you’ve got my support. I’ve just written to my new local member (a Labor gain here in VIC) and asked for a public enquiry into reporting at the ABC. We need to get away from the childish anti-bias policies that have hamstrung the ABC and discuss ways that journalists can move beyond horse race politics. I’ve also contact Bob Brown (who I know is thinking about these issues) and will also be looking at how Get Up might be involved. Letsx get ideas going.
Country kid, I think that registering journalists would just add a level of pseudo-legitimacy to their already incestuous elitism. It’s like having a registry for homeopaths, it just legitimises them.
A register of journalists’ and their employers’ interests, with mandatory disclosure, might be a better idea. Eg Every time the Oz runs a story attacking the ABC they have to have a statement saying “The Australian is owned by Rupert Murdoch who also owns Sky News, one of the ABC’s competitors”.
I’d guess that most of us here are escapees from the greater swill that purports to be ‘journalism’ but is really just paid for partisanship.
More strength to Crikey and it’s ilk…and God bless the intertubes! Who knows, there may be even more Crikey subscriptions at the end of the NBN rainbow!
brilliant poss, may the good forces of light protect you,
mary mackillop intercede for you.
I am doing a scrap book for my 2 year old grand daughter, our daughter married in to a labor dynasty ( past prem) so it will mean a lot to her.
I am going to include if you dont mind your thoughts today, in 20 or so years when she starts to take an interest as i am sure she will its in her genes, she will read this.
will it have changed will the forces of evil subsided, lets hope so.
me to also to my senators, a senate enquiry into how much they now spend of our tax payer dollars on wages for staff and journalists and areas like the drum, unleashed and abc 24, as opposed to good drama which is now mostly repeats
what do they do with their allowance from us the tax payer.
may be a good place to start.
“The Liberal and National parties have a profoundly successful ability at attracting a disproportional quantity of the most embittered, politically pungent elements of Australian society as supporters – a dark, angry, belligerent underbelly that believes the only acceptable outcome of any political contest is the one they believe in.”
Possum mate, the Labor party are the same on that. Both sides of politics have very strong proponents. While Liberals have the support of the News dominated media, Labor have for decades elevated their former leaders to hero status, written numerous books to their glory and praised them from the rooftops – while denigrating the “Liberal conspiracies” that were responsible for bringing them down (Dare I mention the Loans Affair? And for another example, Mr. Ellis article on the ABC recently – which made no mention of Labor’s own moves against Rudd, in particular ignoring the whole ‘forcing his hand to dump the the ETS’ bit which saw support for Labor plummet earlier this year).
The upside of this is that with Independents in power, the Labor party will be prevented from resorting to form and dumping everything out the window based on what their right-faction leaders whims are of the day. Julia actually has a stronger chance of surviving as leader to the next election and we might actually see the Labor party stop trying to crowd in on the Liberals on boat people.
“The “total worse” response from Coalition voters was nearly twice that of Labor or Greens voters.” That might have something to do with the fact that Labor voters didn’t particulary want a Labor Government. See Labor’s low primary vote and how the swings went not to the Coalition but away from Labor and towards the Greens (Bandt and Wilkie both winning what were strong Labor seats shows that). A substantial number of Greens voters weren’t “going Green” but were more “avoiding everyone else” (the “I’m not voting for Tony Abbott” and “I don’t like the way Julia came to power” factors – both of which were heard repeatedly from voters on polling day). It’s no surprise that the conservative rural states strongly backed a conservative Liberal leader, while the more moderate states of SA, Tas, Vic (and in some aspects, NSW) bent towards Labor (resulting in the two different elections).
“No distortion will be too large, no lie too audacious, no accusation too brazen.” Or, you know, we could have another pink batts scandal (you can argue statistics on that as much as you like but electrified roofs, dead people and Billions to fix it aren’t indicators of “good Government”. It’d be like arguing the recent deaths in the construction of SA’s desalination plant are “statistically acceptable” within the construction industry, so why would we shut things down to investigate? That’s just a waste of time!).
“The National Party – the political group that has done more to piss the living standards of rural people up the wall than any other” – statistics for this please. When you focus on the statistics, your posts are quite good. When you degenerate into the sort of tripe that I read in The Australian on a daily basis (only in this case, from the other side of the fence) – not so good. Of course, my own bias factors into that.
Great post again, Poss. This is probably a good time to join the growing tide of feeling to deal with the corruption at the ABC. We can’t do anything about the putrescent News Ltd. But the ABC runs on our tax dollars and owes it to us all to behave like it’s meant to.
You’ve done it again! Excellent post and excellent analysis.
Disturbingly accurate summary. The fallout will be both entertaining and frightening.
Terrific post, Possum.
I for one am quite looking forward to the antics of that “ferocious” Mr Rabbott.
It should put Mony Python to shame!
Awesome piece, Possum.
And dare I say, whats needed here is some organised rank and file support for this government and reform agendas.
The media cannot be trusted to play the ball fairly, the opposition cannot be trusted to respect the result – so civil society will have to step up with a new level of engagement with the processes that are tackling these key policy issues.
Lets hold “our” ABC more accountable. I want dispassionate critical analysis, not the sorry and lazy he said she said ‘balance’ style press-release cut and pastes, followed by totally non-illuminating, zero-dimensional “gotyas”.
Lets get more involved.
I posted this on PollB last night, but I would like it to be read and understood as widely as possible.
I listen to ABC Classic FM nearly all of the time. They generally have news on the hour. Last night the 7 pm news started, without a lead in, with a recording of Abbott telling two lies in his press conference, first, that the coalition had received more votes than Labor, and second that they had more seats than Labor. This was left to stand, with no comment. The news reader then began on the actual news, that O and W had supported Labor, and hence that Gillard remains PM.
There is a cancer at the centre of ABC news, that continually carries out acts of bastardry like this. I have been collecting direct examples for some time, since March in fact. Their most common trick is to take a straight story, about something the government has done, and headline it in non-peak times with a bland, even factual headline. A couple of hours later, they will collect a negative (of course) response from an opposition spokesperson, and create a headline with a direct quote of the negative statement, unattributed. The factual story will be amended so that the first several paras report the opposition criticism, and just a couple of small parts of the original story remain. This will then remain as their headline and story for the next many hours, throught the main evening bulletins on radio and TV.
As a specific example, take the announcement of the Government’s NBN deal with Telstra. This is just one of many I have collected.
Thodey (Telstra CEO) and Rudd held a joint press conference early on the afternoon of Sunday 20 June. This story appeared on ABC News Online:
“Government strikes NBN deal with Telstra”
Sun Jun 20, 2010 2:58pm AEST
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/20/2931852.htm
Within two hours, it had been removed, to be replaced by this:
‘No certainty’ about Telstra’s NBN deal
Sun Jun 20, 2010 4.37 pm AEST
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/21/2932024.htm
The second version of the story removed nearly all of the positive, factual material, and substituted some entirely misleading lies about what the Government is buying, and tripe spouted by Robb, as is indicated by the headline. The final version, linked above, removes even more of the positive, and leaves virtually only opposition denigration. This version of the story was that which led the Sunday evening news, the following morning’s AM, and all bulletins throughout the day.
The cunning part about his, of course, is that Scott can point to even-handedness, in that there was a pro-government story, and one which ‘put the opposition’s point of view’. What is not mentioned or measured is the prominence, and simple longevity of the two stories, ostensibly about the same topic. One is hidden early on a Sunday afternoon, when nobody is watching or listening, and the other is plastered all over the evening bulletin, the next morning, and on into the next night.
This pattern is repeated over and over. There is definitely organisation and intent involved. Over and over, there are two or more versions of a story. First a government announcement, reported straight, with a bland objective headline. Then a short time later, a new ‘anti’ headline, and destructive lead in paragraph or two, with much of the original remaining. Then often, a few hours later, there is an even more biased story, with quotes from opposition spokepersons, and a strongly partisan headline.
Last night the added destructive headline was as blatant as possible, a recording of Abbott lying about the vote and seats.
This is the way ‘their’ ABC works, and the evidence is crystal clear in their own archives.
cheers,
Mad Dog
Great stuff Poss. You are a legend.
It is going to be interesting. If the government holds it together then the coalition is going to have serious problems in this term.
The Nats will have to leave the coalition during periods of opposition then negotiate their way back into coalition whenever they win. I can’t see any value in it for them to be in coalition while in opposition. The Indies are embarassing them to oblivion.
The Australian and its subs are beyond contempt. The ABC is a cause for concern.
great work Mad Dog – you’ve nailed it. Lets push our reps and senators to hold an inquiry where evidence like this can be presented.
It won’t just be the Nationals exposed, please God. Country Liberals like my member, the always charming Sophie Mirabella, will be running scared if the independents get too much benefit out of the minority government arrangements. This will manifest in even more rabid behaviour, swinging wildly to make all issues from roads to fuel reduction burns Federal.
peter Mcilwain and country kid
Totally agree, I will do my little bit with letters to my local member and to my senate reps. Get up is a good idea and I will be visiting their site soon to cough up a bit of my hard earned for this cause.
It NEEDS to be done, media reform 1st, ABC bias next.
As you peter, during a triumphant afternoon I sickened from hearing from joyce, and milne on ABC24. And trioli, what a brain dead {snip}.
If we don’t make noise and lots of it it won’t change and the batsh*t insane will come from everywhere. Every news item will lead “The opposition claims …” I am already sick of it
Written in Glorious Technicolour, Possum.
I’m inclined to organise myself a similar commentary betwixt my news bulletins on the Adelaide community radio station where I work this coming Monday (sans brand names, of course).
@1934pc(18), Green voter points out to ALP they’re not 100% with ALP policy, but realise that the Green preference vote will go ALP, rather than LNP.
Green voter welcomes the current outcome, and hope that ALP takes note and does some analysis on which policies caused the swing away from ALP to the Greens.
If that 4% swing to Greens went to ALP instead, or that 1 Green seat went to Labor instead, there would probably still be the same “predicament”, Green voters would have voted against their conscience and ALP would be think they’re on a good thing with the policies that had been presented (well, a better thing than the current message being sent).
Green voter wouldn’t feel to badly if LNP got in, since as point out in the article, they’d be back at the polls when they feel their strength is up to try and get a majority vote. My guess is they’d be interpreted as time wasters, and either would not attempt such a thing, or just get voted out when they did.
John64,
A good rebuttal, one point re. the pinks batts, problems are down in this industry since the reforms and the additional regulation, if anything the entire saga is an argument for better, tighter govt regulation and not less.
At this level you have to make decisions based on the statistics or else you have no basis for making an objective decision.
This, Poss, is the reason I subscribe. Outstanding.
Yes there are forces within the right wing that are straining the sides of the tent, but likewise there will be a strong argument coming down from the senior leadership that they are on the verge of getting back into power, and 12 months of united discipline could hasten that outcome. And as bad as the tensions are within the right, nothing compares to the trouble labor will have trying to resolve the dischord between their party machine and the delivery of effective left wing government.
It will all come down to who performs better over the next 6 to 12 months. If labor muddle on as they did in the last term, then soon after the next budget there will be a lot of pressure to go back to the polls. If the independents decide they want to stand for re-election, and the public mood is against the government, they will follow their noses. Julia, you have got to deliver.
@37
Yes, why let those pesky little statistical facts sully policy debate. Especially when there are dishonest partisan points to be shamelessly scored off the backs of the dead. Not indicators of a ‘good faith’ debate on your part.
And you then immediately go on to demand statistical facts about the National Party’s contribution to their electorates.
Inconsistent much?
Meh.
Mad Dog @43
I had already cut and pasted your pollbludger post and included it with an earlier pb post of mine commenting on the almost complete absence of any ABC coverage of the Greens campaign and sent the two of them in an email to Bob Brown.
You really have hit the nail on the head. It would be very telling if you or anyone else had the time to extend your analysis to the way the ABC covered various other political stories.
Cheers
Paul Hodgson
Although the Greens would probably fare better at a snap election re-run, because the Greens kitty is always empty and every election is run on a shoe-string, and the ability to focus exclusively on the house would make any electorate with a herb shop, university and/or a 3-storey apartment building tremble, the Greens suffered a lot of flack for voting against the CPRS. The Greens want to show first they can be reasonable and effective in a power sharing situation before another election.
Some Greens voters would prefer a LNP government – the Greens certainly aren’t a Labor faction of any sort – but by and large I’d say a Gillard minority government is the outcome that the majority of Greens voters wanted, to hold the centrist Labor government to account and swing it back to being more progressive.
Poss, I gather you are looking for a new job. I presume this was not your job application to be the election statistician at “The Australian”, because if it was, you are going to have to work on your people skills! (apologies to MJ Fox, “The American Prsident”)
As someone else said, framed and straight to the pool room! Thank you for all your work here – for someone who once (reluctantly at first!) studied statistics it is a godsend, and if your main blog disappears, can you please live on somewhere here at least as an Avatar with the “Poll Cruncher”?
The “block supply” meme is hilarious – as Antony Green has pointed out, supply is already guaranteed until nearly the middle of 2011, then this could easily be held over for the new Senate if the Coalition and Fielding tried that stunt.
I for one can’t wait till the Murdoch online presence is “pay-per-view” as its influence will hopefully decrease (in fact some of it shouldn’t be able to get past any internet filter!)
I was quite prepared to accept whatever the independents decided, and challenged Coalition bloggers to also do the same, and was met with deafening silence!
In my view, in some ways this is actually a very bad result for the Liberals – like 1984 or 1998 it is a “false dawn” and means they will not seriously examine how they lost in 2007. I hate to quote Peter Reith, but I remember him on election night 1998 saying of Labor that, like his Liberals in 1984, they had got close with “Good politics but poor policy, and in the end it is an illusion” or words to that effect.
I think Crook will be very happy to be on the crossbench, as will Katter, and I think both of them may give the Coalition hell if Abbott and his cronies become very destructive.
Good luck with the job seeking – you have served this nation well.
What we need is an Australian version of the wonderful US site http://www.politifact.com . Perhaps a group of people could look to start it; we all complain about media bias and the lack of reportage of facts but there’s definitely a niche to do something about it.
I want all pollsters to go on fucking holidays for the next 20 years and stop bombarding us with the views of 1,000 or so punters on given days with idiotic questions as they have for the past 10 years.
It is mind numbingly worthless wastes of everyone’s frigging time and should be banned.
The Murdoch hacks are certainly bitter that they couldn’t get their idiot child enfant terrible over the line no matter what but let’s face it what was their policy agenda?
Do nothing.
Poss,
I love it when you get your colours out and fly them proudly. Thank you so much for all your wonderful work here, you have been my number one BS filter for Australian Politics for several years now. Best of luck for the future, and I selfishly hope you don’t end up doing anything too time consuming, because I’d love semi-regular updates here.
Thanks again, and all the best.
Brilliant.
No, make that fucking brilliant.
Mainly because it is honest.
Just superb Poss. There are far too few writers like you out there.
It’s been the same since Alfred Deakin (wasnt’ it) claimed Billy Hughes was like a spoiled child being dragged out of a lolly shop. We need a return to Deakinite thinking (in its modern form). We also need a return to Labor Thinking (not in its modern form).
Australia used to be a model of democracy – now its a joke.
Possum: I’m betting that not only is yours the best piece of analysis so far, it will be the best analysis until all the major players are dead or incapacitated. Thanks for doing it!
This is why I suscribe to Crikey, Gold pure Gold.
Oh, btw everyone, it has begun:
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-election/insults-start-to-fly-from-furious-coalition-20100908-150ia.html
Possum’s prescience is already proven.
Poss
You could cut the hyperbole a bit by removing the word “pathological” as syphilis is, by definition, pathological.
And I’m not sure why it is syphilis at all. Are you referring to the tertiary stages of syphilis as in GPI?
Possum
I say this sincerely – the best analysis of the current parlous state of Australia that I have read. Brilliant.
The world today interview mining bosses, business bosses and nats whining. No-one else.
The ABC really has become worthless, I hardly bother to watch 7.30 or Lateline anymore – especially when the right wing nut job Sales is on.
Very well said Poss. Couldn’t have put it better myself.
Good comment Poss
Understandably, coalition supporters are going through a period of disappointment/anger/grief. However, it is the myths with which they are consoling themselves which is a bother.
As many have said before me today, it is the Abbott/Bishop myth of “we-got-the-most-votes-we-was-robbed” refrain (which came from Abbott yesterday at his press conference) which is the narrative getting a run at the moment.
This insidious variation from the truth – due I suspect – to the AEC inexplicably putting out incomplete 2PP votes a few days ago has been picked up in the West editorial today as some kind of truth. No surprises of course as the West is now firmly a Liberal supporting paper – though unlike the Oz, it does not have the guts to admit it for fear of upsetting the 45% plus of voters here, who, despite the fear and smear relating to the mining tax, still do not vote for the conservatives.
This untruth, touted by the ABC initially, but well and truly nailed by Bob Brown and yourself has, however, become a convenient narrative for the Opposition and its ignorant supporters as to why they are not in office.
The cake, however, was taken this morning when a regular Liberal letter writer to the West turned on the “media” as being unfair to Tony Abbott.
Amazing!!!
Excellent work
In regards to the ABC and Labor, The ALP Platform at paragraph 58, sets out Labor’s policy in relation to the ABC Board, as follows:
“Labor will end political interference in the ABC by introducing a new ABC Board appointment process in which board members are appointed on the basis of merit.
Candidates will be considered by a panel established at arm’s length from the minister who will appoint Board members from a shortlist prepared by the panel….Labor will
examine other options for further increasing the transparency and democratic accountability of the ABC and SBS Boards. In accordance with Labor’s commitment to
the principles of participatory decision making and industrial democracy in the public sector, the staff elected commissioner position on the ABC board which was abolished
by the Howard Government will be reinstated.”
And as Opposition Leader, Kevin Rudd said this in an Interview with Kerry O’Brien on the 7.30 Report on 30 April 2007:
“When it comes to the future composition of the board of the ABC, I’ll be instituting a parallel process [to that of Fair Work Australia] so we don’t allow the politicisation of
the board of the ABC. I’m passionate about the integrity of public institutions. Public institutions have been prostituted by this Government so much over the last decade that we’ve actually got to draw a line. We need to restore the integrity of institutions so that they are put beyond the reach of partisan politics I will not make an appointment of any former politician or political staffer to any position on the board of the ABC. We’ve got to restore the integrity of institutions like the ABC fully.”
I know that two ‘non-political’ appointments have already been done by the Labor Government. But I don’t know whether the procedure of having a panel to appoint the board has been implemented.
Accusation of bias against the ABC, even for Labor are nothing new. People may remember Bob Hawke when he was Prime Minister complaining about the ABC when Leonie Kramer was at the helm, but I do think that the overall integrity of the national broadcaster has been compromised.
1934pc , what those figures show is that Labor has just hung on to government (albeit now in alliance with The Greens and the Independents) because people had a “safety valve” that they could use to let off steam without going over to the coalition. If it wasn’t for The Greens preferences flowing back to them , labor would have lost this election.
Another thing that those figures show is that a Labor / Greens alliance presents a very powerful voting bloc in Australian politics today. The last time any government received such a substantial share of the 1st prefs votes was Fraser in 1975!
Labor and the Greens have to learn how to work together to maximise the advantage that this collectively gives them.
Possum, my congrats on a wonderful article
… I read often but rarely post these days, wanted to say ty for this contribution 
Best commentary on the outcome I have read. Should be a must-read for all even vaguely interested in politics. I visited our national broadsheet “the Oz” this morning and the bile almost made me sick. I genuinely fear for the safety of those brave independants given the hysteria that’s been drummed up by the thin lipped commentariat lurking within that rag.
Great read Possum! Now that this new enlightened era of political administration has arrived it’s surely time for Gillard, the Coalition and the Independents to ensure their vital messages aren’t mangled by an increasingly incompetent and partial media. A fragile two-party system super-glued by a couple of Independents will now live or die by our MM that increasingly has ditched such standards as accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability. Why roll out policies and issues aimed at social and economic advancement when there’s no guarantee they’ll be reported accurately? If we’re going to set improved benchmarks in political governance its time to hitch the media to the same ethical wagon.
Sadly Poss you are so, so correct. Well said.
Someone above pleaded for an Australian version of http://www.politifact.com. I agree. Lost in the adulation of Abbott’s performance in the election campaign is the fact that his pitch was based almost wholly on lies – lies about debt, lies about boats, lies about waste.
That his lies went largely unchallenged demonstrates the depths to which the media has sunk. News Ltd’s pre-meditated and slippery partisanship goes without saying, but the lazy, “I want a quiet life” editorial stance of the ABC really is the most shocking media crime of all. Just now, for instance, they are running a headline “Mining Tax Returns to HAUNT Labor” (my emphasis). Who said the mining tax was dead? Who said it was ‘haunting” anyone. The vast bulk of liberal market economists, including the IMF, think it’s a damned good idea. So the public make up their mind based on a lie.
But we have this alternative reality crafted for the population by a media that has never, and will never, accept the legitimacy of Labor in power. Let’s be frank: This was an attempted coup by any other name and now, as Possum observes with such passion, we will start to see the most vicious attempt to undermine the new government.
This second attempted coup will involve misrepresentation, the smearing of reputations, the omission of unhelpful facts, the outright denial of established facts, the manipulation of the news agenda, the creation of straw men, the conjuring of non-existent sovereign risk, the masking of ideology as common sense and the co-opting of the public interest in service of private interest and profit.
It will involve, as always with News Ltd, the prostitution of individual journalists to the the commercial and ideological imperatives of their proprietor. And it will hollow out what little is left in the editorial integrity and independence of the ABC, raising the question of the point of having a public broadcaster.
The brave rural independents have made a successful start on parliamentary reform. But the war is only beginning and it time for progressive, liberal-minded Australians with an interest in a properly informed citizenry to come together in the cause of the next major challenge – reform of the media, an overhaul of ownership laws and the creation of a new independent website that places the media under scrutiny.
What a truckload of poppycock!
Condescending leftist muck-racking based not on a single fact or piece of evidence.
Poss’ imagination coupled with his typically ‘rigorously-non-partisan-statistics-interpretation generates yet-more-droningly-conceited-leftist ‘progressive’ insights.
Funnily enough these marvellous ‘insights’ end up yet again being just more dead-handed, tolerance-uber-alles, desiccated university faculty lounge drivelling righteously leftist indignation.
Truth and fair-mindedness is apparently well beyond the ken of the typically unctuous morally vain lefty as evidenced in this woefully partisan and indeed sickening article.
The fact is that the ABC (funded by taxpayers including most if not all of the the 5.5 million who voted Coalition) and Fairfax are utterly partisan cheer squads for the left of the Labor party and the Greens and have been seemingly forever.
The Oz in contrast is a paragon of balance.
There is not even one conservative professional op-ed voice in The Age stable.
Quite some broadsheet……….. It ‘s an insult to the Guardian to describe it as the Guardian-on-the-Yarra
All ABC political shows have greater numbers of voices from the left.
Those ABC favoured voices of the ‘Right” usually end up being Malcolm Fraser and John Hewson.
Kerry O’Brien and Tony Jones balanced or even just not overtly partisan?
Don’t make me laugh any more! ….. You’re killin’ me Poss!
I suppose you’ll also assert that this is a morally legitimate government?
Oh wait….. you didn’t did you? You said: a “majority on the floor of House” is the only “requisite”.
Good job……….. because it certainly doesn’t tick any other normally relevant boxes does it?
Have trouble swallowing your medicine this morning JamesK?
Poss
Why so sad?
Anyway, Shanahan must have separate access to the facts because he stated in the OO this morning: Gillard…’failed to win the popular vote, the primary vote or more seats…’
So now you know. The thing that really concerns me is the apparently growing number of people who simply move straight from values to action, unmediated by a bit of thinking in between. Bodes nobody but demagogic ratbags any good, IMHO.
JamesK
You left out the bit about the ditch carp.
Possum,
EEK are you leaving?
A-a-a-a-a-r-r-r-g-g-h-h-h.
Well now, I rate your article and bernard Keane’s Last Days of a Labor Government( from memory,that title!) as the finest pieces of old fashioned journalism I’ve read for a while.
Thankyou
Jamesk , your doctor said only 1 red pill a day , the bit about the oz ? do you do stand up ? Don’t worry Aunty Julia our PM and the Greens will turn the good ship SS Australia to face forward and full steam ahead. With media laws and truth in ads will stop the phony tony’s Lierbals and their owners at the oz and mining camps.
Thanks for that JamesK, this is the funniest thing I have read today. Even my father, a very rusted on Lib, thinks the Oz is a little wobbly.
Unhinging day 1. – Tweet: jamesadonis
Alan Jones refuses to have Rob Oakeshott on his 2GB show ever again because Rob sided with Labor.
Although Jones was always unhinged anyway.
JamesK
I guess the fact that the ABC is the ONLY australian media organisation that is required to demonstrate and validate a lack of bias will not influence your “thinking”. Fact is that all governments (including Labor) hate the ABC because it refuses to bend over to the prevailing govt.
Amen to all those positives above, Possum. It was a great, heartening read, just as I was beginning to feel trapped in 1975 all over again.
Another positive for current Indies is ownership of local papers. As the NBN rolls out, super-clinics & school facilities are built, and new changes to the way parliament is conducted, local media will report them all lavishly. In addition, the more NewsLtd & the ABC bang on about about cities’ being robbed – the ABC’s Midday Report parroted it today – the more they’ll alienate Regional Australia.
As most who commented here also read PB, I won’t repeat the new Bush-Green alliance v miners initiated over mining top cropping land and problems with artesian water & coal-seam gas mining. You’re right about the spread of the Indie disease in rural Australia as it discovers Indies, even Greens, can deliver what the Nationals should, but refuse to. That’s heartening.
Thanks for a great “Initiate/ maintain your rage” post. This Old Grey Tragic certainly will.
AEC has Labor with more First vote by nearly 1,000,000 votes and the Greens have more than 300,000 MORE than the LNP . 2PP is 50 /50
Absolutely wonderful post Possum, and absolutely true.
I read the Daily Telegraph and the Australian today (at the newsagents, didn’t buy them of course). Pages and pages of pure bile and anger. Very funny, but also a bit scary, like living next to a Rottweiler.
The thing that really, really stuck in craw about the election campiagn was the ‘non-party’ ads from the association-of-shopkeepers-who-want-to-keep-on-selling-cigarettes-to-ten-year-olds (or whatever they called themselves), attacking plain packaging for cigarettes. What a disgrace! Any decent politician would specifically have distanced his or her party from those ads if they seemed to favour them, Abbott didn’t (and the rest of his official campaign was a pack of lies).
#43 Mad Dog, Brilliant analysis, keep up the good work.
#82 JamesK Ha Ha!
Can anyone answer me this question? Are party whips appointed everytime a new government is formed? They will have a crucial job in this Parliament/
Thanks for not posting this til today. It gave me one night to enjoy the election result. Thanks for reminding me, however, to cancel the newspaper.
You obviously haven’t been paying attention to the ABC recently, JamesK. There have been times in the course of the last few weeks when they almost made the open partisanship of the News Ltd papers look “balanced”. Not surprising, I guess, given the preponderance of Howard acolytes on the board since 2006.
Heck, on occasion Alan Jones has almost looked like a commie by comparison!
Brilliant Poss
“three fifths of five eighths of fuck all”… could it even be that much?
love your work, and thankyou
Never have I seen a truer and more cogent analysis of the current political situation that confronts our nation – spot on, Possum!
The forces of evil and rottenness will move mountains, if they have to, in their unceasing attempts to unseat the re-elected Gillard Government, resorting to every trick in their tawdry grab-bag of lies and fear mongering garnered from the detritus of the failed and discredited Howard era, and sharpened to a fine edge in the dark and more sinister Abbott tenure, to delegitimise the election result.
The disaffected, the disillusioned, the dispossessed and the demented will be wooed and coddled by the siren song of concocted outrage sung by the egregious Abbott and his Greek chorus in the News Ltd media, whilst to the rest of us the music will be shrill, hollow and tuneless, nothing more or less than the gibbering and caterwauling we have heard from him incessantly over the last 10 months.
I pray to Dawkins that our democracy proves strong enough to weather the storms of hypocrisy and mendacity that are about to engulf the ship of state – it’s time to batten down the hatches and close all watertight doors, in my view, as it’s gonna be a hell of a voyage!
Mr Denmore – I’d be tempted to found it myself if I could think of a name! If we’re going to have no more Possum explaining what the numbers actually say, there’s a huge hole in scrutiny of reportage that’s going to be sorely missed. Left and right alike spin things, it just happens that the right are getting away with more at the moment. When (if?) the pendulum swings back it’s going to be just as bad.
Splendid article, on the whole, though I disagree to some extent regarding ABC bias.
it’s already happening…
Brandis suggests that the new government ‘has as much legitimacy as the Pakistani cricket team.’
I hear that Paris Hilton has made a formal complaint that this was more offensive than Sloppy Joe’s comment about her
Possum, you’ve ground the lens through which everyone should have the opportunity to view the coming months of wretched MSM protestations.
What insight. Thank you.
Thanks JamesK, I just snorted coffee out of my nose reading that one.
Outstanding article. Thanks, Possum. And with greatest respect, Floccinaucinihilipilificator, I agree entirely – if extremely sadly – with Possum’s observations regarding the recent cumulative and horrific dumbing-down of the ABC.
Entertaining piece. It’s garnering a fair amount of discussion over at Reddit:
http://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/daw1y/a_large_proportion_of_the_coalition_vote_base/
Thanks folks.
BTW – for those wondering if I’m going anywhere, I’m not.
I’ll still be here, just posting a couple of times a week rather than most days.
Spot on Poss.
I went so far as to email both Windsor and Oakeshott to commend them for their courage. I think it’d help if they knew a big part of Australia is behind them because the dummy-spit from the Oz and the coalition will likely be unprecedented.
After an election they usually don’t get the opportunity to lay blame directly (while they might think the electorate made a mistake, they cannot target them) but now the slimiest elements of the right-wing brigade have physical targets for their anger and indignation.
That’s your typical perspective Rod Hagen.
Just because this is an insane lefty echo chamber doesn’t actually validate your drivel.
Just because, and outrageously parading with some vague facsimile of reasonableness, both you and Poss invert reality into some sorta Orwellian leftist inverse rainbow of hypocrisy doesn’t actually mean your frankly silly assertions should be granted a grain of respect.
Hey, pick out randomly even 3 or 4 episodes from Gerard Henderson’s Media Watch over the past year and try that shit again………….
http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/wordpress/
The shitstorm has well and truly started, with no less than Jon Feign (I misspell his name deliberately) making some mischief this morning on ABC Local Radio in Melbourne. Fain used to be quite a hard hitter but, no doubt with ABC management ‘encouragement’, at times he’s turning into an ego-driven shockjock. This morning he ranted about the likelihood that, following the deal between Gillard, Oakeshott and Windsor, too much money would go to parts of regional Australia that were economically not paying their way. It was obviously an attempt to rile listeners into outrage, and it worked. This is against the ABC’s duty to inform, and no doubt is a sign of things to come.
(This is off-topic, but Fain routinely fails to challenge the ignorant opinions of some of his talkback callers when he is fully aware of evidence that would contradict their views – he now supposedly believes that all opinion is equally valid, and that ignoramuses are just as ‘right’ as those with considered and/or educated opinions based on facts; it’s yet another way in which he fails to fulfil the ABC’s duty to inform.)
Well, in the olden days, this would be a problem that couldn’t have been challenged, and we would have had the libs in.
Libs have a really hard time getting along with other posters here, as regulars would be aware.
If the independents take their discussions onto their own blog, we can shut down the spin and spinners.
Here’s hoping the crikey crew make some more cash in the process.
‘Course I could be mistaken…..
Maybe Ross Gittins, Peter Hartcher, Michelle Grattan, David Marr, Tim Colebatch, Phil Coorey, Mike Carlton, Lenore Taylor, Fran Kelly, Tony Jones, Kerry O’Brien, Phillip Adams etc., after nauseating etc. only pretend to be in the tank for Labor or only pretend to criticise Labor only ever from the Left?
Sh1t!
I forgot Jon Faine!!!!!!!
How could I forget Jon Faine?
OMG!!!
Far loon lefty Deb Cameron!!!1
I’m so sorry Deb……….
Arrrghhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!
Jonathan Greene………
Need I say more?
cmagree:
“too much money would go to parts of Australia that were economically not paying their way.”
such as Melbourne?
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/the-yarra-monster-is-killing-us-20100822-13apt.html
sorry, we in Perth (the engine room of the economy!) are allowed our little jokes
Good post Poss. I think that the MSM have already started, and the ABC REALLY need to get their act together. My OH watched the Drum on ABC24 last night and was disgusted.
There could be much good come out of the parliament that solidified yesterday in terms of actually getting things done. As long as the ALP, Greens and Indies keep focused and don’t get sidetracked by the blathering media they have effectively got the Coalition in a position of impotence once the Senate changes over next year.
Much groundwork and consultation can be done before then though.
Posted this on another article but this seems more appropriate.
What people have not realized is that this is a great outcome for those who presently feel aggrieved. Think outside the box, Crabb, Kelly and Cassidy still have something to complain about at the ABC, 95% of the Oz feature writers can continue to vent their spleen daily, Milne, Akerman and Bolte can continue to justify their salaries, and of course all the rabid right can pour out their vitriol on a daily basis. The Liberals should be happy cause, as there is little money to give away, they will have to develop policies, something they seem incapable of doing. Instead they can do what Brandis, Pyne and co did today, for the next 3 years.
All in all, if we are honest it is the best result possible – lots of people can keep their jobs, The Libs can do what they do best (actually all they can do) and the people actually capable of running the show will do so. For those who think I am joking – no I’m not.
The Media are completely unhinged. it amazes me that progressives ever get a vote. Its about time some legislation was inacted about Truth in Meida. Now not the North Korean Truth Dept Truth, just a low level, there has to be some basis to the truth type truth.
I for one loved this piece poss, I could hear your slamming the keyboard. Its really to much these media types are a fing disgrace. What sh1ts me is the way some of the ‘progressive’ pollies engage.
Lastly, one reform that would hurt these f’s is to ban all ‘government’ advertising. make it legislation so that all the ‘unchain my heart’ type rot was banned, the senate wouldn’t let it back for years. I say the $500m this would drain out of these media shites might hurt a bit.
Already happening: Check out page 1 of today’s Adelaide Advertiser – Oakeshott looks manic; and on p7 you can’t describe the photo of Katter. Deliberately chose the worst pics to make the independents look bad. Fooling no-one.
Barking , the Media are completely unhinged ? What about Jamesk ? his door has fell off Ha Ha Ha Good idea though, hit them were it hurt$. One good thing is ,i get to bed earlier not watching Lateline and don’t get early to watch the morning news on OUR ABC.
JamesK, take your medicine.
Here is a question someone might like to ponder.
What is Ken Wyatt supposed to do as part of the machine about to steal aboriginal land from his brothers for that Woodside pollute and destroy deal.
AEC update 5,863,546 for Labor
5,863,011 for Liberal in 2pp.
But its not just the media doing this. The independents (especially Oakeshott) was quite clear Labor did not have a mandate. I think all this media blaming (as justified as it may be) is missing what the independents are actually saying. Windsor DID say that he was not backing the coalition because he thought they would win a snap election, no matter how much he retracted it after – for obvious reasons.
Poss, I’m in sympathy with your sentiments. But I think you exaggerate quite a bit. No one would seriously deny that there’s media bias in favour of the conservatives. The effect on election outcomes, though, is hard to quantify. It needs a serious historical study for that to be done, not a rant which is biased in the opposite direction.
Here’s where Windsor’s position is so crucial. He’s saying to country voters: don’t park your vote with the Nationals because of partisan reasons. It’s wasted that way. Behave like voters in city swinging seats.
If more country voters follow this advice (and many do, which explains why country seats produce more independants), the media bias in favour of the conservatives will have been somewhat counterbalanced.
“If the Coalition doesn’t clearly win, a majority of Coalition voters believe it is simply not acceptable.”
Surely no one who isn’t stoned all day and living in an upturned dumpster on Uranus needed to look at poll data to know this ?
Poss, if I win tatts on Saturday I’ll hire you full time – you can keep doing whatever it is you want, as long as I can say “I have my own personal psephologist”
Excellent, well done, Poss, though a more succinct term you might consider for future use is four fifths of fuck all.
The most important thing is that the NBN be built – it’s critical. What it will do is provide a platform for new forms of media, representing a diverse range of views, which will help dilute News Ltd’s influence, and also fuck its pay tv thing in the arse. Boo-Yah!!! The Rupester knows all this which is why he and his minions are pissing their pants in fear at the moment.
I’m looking forward to tuning in to Crikey TV one day.
#126 – but the independents said from day 1 that they were going for stable government. So TA rushing off to the polls as soon as possible was always against their stated aims. Perhaps those aims were thus self-serving, but no-one complained (in fact most commentators nodded sagely and said, ‘Yes, stable government, very important’) until yesterday.
This is a basic summary of the Coalition reaction today
It had to come
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EX99gwUQ1rs
Yes, because yesterday Windsor spelt out what stability actually means – aligning with the weakest side. Ooops!
He is not a young man, has just been through a very gruelling 2 weeks, and is almost certainly suffering some exhaustion. You don’t consider the very real possibility that he simply misspoke slightly? Never happened to you under pressure?
#135 I don’t know if you saw the press conference (wish there was a clip of the Q&A) but he looked quite relaxed and pleased when he said it – twice – to questions. It was only when the journos started getting outraged that he looked less happy. Certainly Oakeshott thought he said it, because while he nodded in agreement when Windsor said it, he later said he disagreed with Windsor when the journos started making a fuss (Fran Kelly was shouting).
All three knew what they were doing and what does stability mean otherwise? Labor is nicer than the Coalition and likes minority governments? Why is The Australian calling for an election? Because it lurves democracy? Or because, like Windsor, it thinks the Coalition will win?
ABSOLUTELY SPOT ON Poss!! The Drum needs drumming out of town and the opiniated Richard Craniums who are paid to deliver their spinning OPINION posts in the Australian must eat Alice’s mushrooms for breakfast every day. DEDULUS, their impact on the voting public may be greater than you believe . I’m with Poss on this one
I took Windsor to be saying that he read Abbott to be wanting to get the polls again soon because they thought they could win. Windsor was looking for a long term arrangement and didn’t want to just ‘make up the numbers’ for another calling of the polls.
Seemed far enough to me.
Regardless, Windsor made his call, now we should all get on and live with it, whilst preparing for the Tory Sh!tstorm to rain down on us.
How I heard it too, CD
Seemed “fair” enough to me, and if you read Lenore Taylor in today’s SMH, it did to her too:
The Coalition’s vicious reaction to the Greens and Tasmanian independent Andrew Wilkie when they decided last week to support Labor reinforced the suspicion that it wasn’t planning to put up with the vagaries of a hung parliament for very long.
…so hardly surprising that Windsor and Oakshott found the notion of re-joining the very Nationals who’d want to stab them in the back pronto, less than appealing.
Well, maybe I mis-heard it, Oakeshott mis-heard it, all the press there mis-heard it (Taylor doesn’t deny that Windsor thought the Coalition would win, Hartcher in the SMH was pretty clear that he did say it). That is possible. What we do have is the transcript of what they said in their speeches and they have made very clear that the long term arrangement is the current Parliament NOT the alliance with Labor. That’s why Oakeshott made it very clear he didn’t want to give Labor a mandate.
It seems everyone wants to respect the decision of the independents (the Labor supporting ones) but nobody wants to listen to what they said.
Poss
Still haven’t seen that CV Possum….. Mind you, the blog’s not a bad start …..☺
JamesK @116
No.
Whatever TPS. The point is not whether Windsor thinks the Coalition would win another election (now or soon or whatever), because the Coalition is now not in a position to call one.
See, it’s really very simple when you don’t let all the ‘he said’, ‘she said’ stuff cloud your thinking.
Best not to worry about what they said. Just don’t be too surprised when they switch to the Coalition when it suits them.
Yep, I can just see Tony Windsor and Robb Oakshott jumping back over the back paddock fence to re-join the Nationals!
RU serious? Or just looking for an argument?
These blokes, despite enormous pressure, made a call. They’re not going back to the polls in a hurry if they can possibly avoid it, and they’re looking out for their electorates in the meantime.
Give ‘em some credit as reasonable human beings, FFS.
Re-join the Nationals? Who said that?
I know you’re not interested, but why don’t you bother just reading what these independents actually think? Why do you think Oakeshott refused to give Labor a mandate?
For christ’s sake he said that the coalition “believed” they could win. He did not fucking say he thought the coalition would win. I listened intently to the speech.
For the sake of our Lord, this is what was said:
Now twist it to suit!
Hey Possum, this one is for you
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbAoXw_DqvM&feature=related
I notice that many of the zombie-leftist inhabitants of this echo chamber are terribly concerned that their ABC is not quite partisan leftist enough.
There have even been paranoid suggestions among you that ABC Online have been in the tank for Tone!!!!!
Now calm down childers….. Gavin Atkins provides overwhelming evidence that ABC Online has been as reliably bent and partisan for Labor-Left and the Greens than the rest of ‘Their’ (aka you leftists) ABC:
http://asiancorrespondent.com/gavin-atkins-shadowlands/your-abc-online-election-campaign-quiz
http://asiancorrespondent.com/gavin-atkins-shadowlands/abc-online-s-election-bias-the-final-results
http://asiancorrespondent.com/gavin-atkins-shadowlands/bias-as-usual-at-abc-online-week-5
http://asiancorrespondent.com/gavin-atkins-shadowlands/knives-come-out-for-abbott-at-abc-online-(week-4)
http://asiancorrespondent.com/gavin-atkins-shadowlands/abc-online-heads-left-again-(week-3.htm
http://asiancorrespondent.com/gavin-atkins-shadowlands/abc-online-opinion-tilts-further-left-(week-2)
http://asiancorrespondent.com/gavin-atkins-shadowlands/abc-online-opinion-tilts-left-(agai.htm
Now I realise that many of you dingbats find reading difficult but persevere……. there is no reason to panic.
ABC leftism is still alive and well and rootin’ for your thoroughly debased and dishonest side of politics.
Thank you Possum for your eloquent articulation of what we can expect from the Murdoch press in particular, and the MSM in general.
Alas, the ABC has been infected by the right wing rabies that seems to have infiltrated every media outlet. I’ve noticed an insidious pattern of the ABC portraying all news that may be favourable to the ALP or the Greens in the most negative possible light.
It would appear the ABC have, to steal a phrase from another era of Australian politics, “joined the bastards”. And what venomous bastards they are.
I’m afraid they will not rest until they overthrow the new Government and install Tony Abbott as Prime Minister.
The actions of the MSM constitute the reprehensible and despicable subversion of our democracy, since a real democracy can only be realized when its citizens are well informed.
The systematic misinformation, and in many cases outright lies, peddled by the MSM,
undermine and damage the democratic process.
It is our duty as citizens who value our democracy to resist the neo-conservative contagion as best we can. We must do our best to inform others, and your blog is a valuable source of information.
I’m glad you will still be posting on this blog and the best of luck in your future endeavours.
MSM are traitors to this country and should be rounded up and sent to Christmas Island .
@Piping Shrike: of course the coalition “would be more likely to win if they did go back to the polls”. They lost, didn’t they? So if they don’t go back to the polls, their chances of winning are zero.
Context is all.
A couple of things:
First, Poss, completely agree with you about the reaction of the Coalition and the Murdoch press.
Second, I suspect rags like the SMH will go along for the ride a bit, partly because they seem too editorially gutless to go against the flow these days, and partly because they are happy to sow discord for the same soap-opera reasons as the others. Even yesterday they beat up a story about cracks between Windsor and Labor because Windsor had agreed to review all of Henry’s recommendations by next year, and the mining tax had been removed from that review. OH NOES!!11!!. Only reading down into the article did you see that it’s been removed because Labor want to deal with it sooner than that. Don’t imagine Windsor will be too unhappy about that.
Third, it’s not going to be all sunshine and roses inside the Labor – Green – Indy tent. Every Labor faction is going to know that with a one vote margin, they can push their favourite wheelbarrows just as hard as the independents, and if Gillard can’t keep a lid on it, the press may actually have plenty of factual stuff to work their spin on. Ironically, a batshit insane press campaign to scan every word for traces of disunity may be just what they need – it might get them to band together tighter, and be a bit more focused and disciplined. But just like the Coalition, their party room contains people who wouldn’t know discipline if it bit them on the arse. Not as many, perhaps, and not as bad as Bill Heffernan, but they’re there, and they’ll take some managing.
You’ve made your point JamesK.
Yep, compared to Gavin Atkins “Shadowlands” rubbish even the Australian, the Daily Telegraph and the current ABC look like Praavda!
For those interested in the media debate, you may like to check out my new blog here:
http://thefailedestate.blogspot.com/
I’ve been scanning the media more widely than I usually do in the days since the result and I’m flabbergasted by the mean-spiritedness of most of the commentary. According to our wonderful press JG has stolen the election, caved in to agrarian socialists, greens and every shade of political bludgery… her government is already falling apart… it can’t last five minutes… &c &c
Whatever happend to the honeymoon period?
With JamesK claiming the ABC is pro-labor and PSOUP claiming they are pro-conservative I guess the ABC must be doing something right? They say bias is in the eyes of the beholder and if ignorance is bliss then there are some very happy posters out there.
mikeb:
With JamesK claiming the ABC is pro-labor and PSOUP claiming they are pro-conservative I guess the ABC must be doing something right?
False thinking – quite illogical. Just doesn’t follow. For a start, there might be a world of difference in the intelligence level or perceptual ability of the opposing parties who are disaffected – and even if not, one of them might be quite wrong, possibly knowingly so.
You often hear this strange and blusteringly optimistic line of argument but of course it’s crap. Even The Australian publishes the odd anti-Abbott letter. Look closely at the language used in the presentation of ‘news’ – for example, Gillard was for ever being ‘grilled’ by such as the Rooty Hill denizens and so on, Abbott ‘quizzed’. That’s your starting point for examination of bias on ABC news.
The coverage on ABC24 of the Indies’ announcement on Tuesday was a bloody disgrace – interminable interview with that congenital twat Barnaby followed by the supposedly left-leaning (according to Atkins) Drum segment -with Kerry Chikarovski of all people and that shadowy Murdoch piece/Liberal cheer squad member Glenn Milne opposed to a token Labor-leaning chap from some sort of agency or other. Milne tended to be allowed to dominate, with numerous Dixers from the smirking host; the ‘Labor’ fellow had by far the least amount of time.
@macondo.
So is the ABC is biased to the right or is it trying too hard to appear not biased to the left? How do you think the ABC rates in bias compared to other major news services?
@James K 151
I had a look at some of those links you posted. Gavin Atkins seems to be more than a little biased himself – even the ABC refers to him as a “conservative blogger”. Atkins also appears himself as a contributor on the various ABC online sites – mostly arguing the case against the ABC being biased, and also promoting his own conservative blog.
So what we have here is a conservative ABC blogger claiming that there is no conservative ABC bias. Hmmm.
Do you have any credible evidence to support your claims?
@calyptorhynchus: 160 Whatever happened to the honeymoon period?
The media’s thinking is that the new ALP coalition has to be brought down asap before a) the voters chuck-up the bias they have just swallowed and
b) the ALP gets of it’s arse and starts fighting back.
The problem I have with the ABC isnt bias (six of one, half dozen of the other) – but the seeming lack of intellectual autonomy when it comes to deciding “what is news”.
Too often we get some story in The Oz, complete with it’s particular campaigning angle (The Oz is a campaigning newpaper) – then the ABC picks up that story (often because it *is* newsworthy, but sometimes not) but perpetuates that *same* angle when the facts of the story might not particularly support the angle, or when the reality of what is going on is much more nuanced.
It’s laziness, or cowardice, or naivety or just plain hopelessness. Fran Kelly is the biggest and most obvious culprit IMHO – but it extends further into the organsation.
However one wants to describe it, the ABC is increasingly copying what other news organisations decide is “news” (which can be a small problem, but usually isnt), but also treating the editorialised angle that other organisations have attached to that news content as part of the ABC story as well.
The BER audit report was a typical example.The report says one thing. The Oz is forced to cherry pick an incredibly small amount of info from the report attempting to show that the report says something else entirely (trying to justify their ‘war on stimulus’ campaign that they basically got wrong and which the empirical evidence doesn’t support).
The next day, the ABC starts on morning radio taking The Oz line (ignoring the contents of the report itself), that then spreads through the ABC news as a whole throughout the day. Ultimately, what we end up with is one news agency’s politicised version of “news” becoming institutionalised into the national broadcaster’s news reports as “fact” – all because a few people seem to have an inability to be able to get across their news brief and think for themselves.
Time and time again I see this happen – and then the journos are left wondering what the hell happened when political events don’t end up following the silly politicised narrative they’ve allowed themselves to be sucked in by, a narrative and story line based mostly on fiction!
@Comitatus.
Another well considered comment.
Yes I think a large problem with ABC (and oher) reporting is laziness and/or inability to provide sufficient resources to pick apart stories & information to provide their own news. Journo resources are being cut everywhere and so we now get fewer sources being spread further around.
@Poss,
Yes, I agree completely – what we seem to be seeing is the unhappy alignment of an underfunded ABC with an unhealthy tolerance of lazy and uncritical journalism – but since the result also aligns with a bias at the board level, there is no internal driver to do anything about it.
I also see evidence of “editorial” bias evident in the selection of headlines – which all to often do not even remotely match the content of the story. There is also evidence of biased stories being posted – which are left up for hours even when they have been discredited by other sources – which are subsequenly altered to remove some of the more inflammatory content. Finally, there is bias evident in the selection of stories opened up for user comments – I noticed that quite often stories critical of the government were opened up for comments, whereas stories critical of the opposition were not.
I sincerely hope this changes as the existing board is replaced by non-partisan appointees.
Wow. JamesK reckons nearly everyone in the ABC is a lefty stooge. Even Fran Kelly…
I suppose that does illustrate the nature of Right wing ‘thought’. Unless you are blatantly, ostentatiously, nauseatingly for them, you are against them. Unless you are a complete Liberal Party sycophant you are by his definition a lefty stooge.
It speaks volumes that even Fran Kelly’s nauseating Liberal Party sycophancy isn’t enough for James.
possum:
‘It’s laziness, or cowardice, or naivety or just plain hopelessness.’
Everything you say is absolutely correct, in my view, possum, but haven’t you forgotten something? Your analysis explains the ABC’s woeful coverage in terms of an almost blind, herd-like media instinct, a massive inadvertence; but could there not be a willful element in all this? I don’t think the use of a blatant LNP stooge with virtually no credibility or even integrity like Milne is not a deliberate choice. How you can entertain the use of the word ‘naivety’ here I just dont’ know. One can read Kellly, Uhlman and so on like open books. Why follow the Murdoch media’s slant on everything? I can’t accept that this can all be put down to laziness or naivety.
mikeb:
‘So is the ABC is biased to the right or is it trying too hard to appear not biased to the left? How do you think the ABC rates in bias compared to other major news services?’
It rates exactly on a par with Murdoch’s media. You praised possum’s comment; but poss stated: ‘Too often we get some story in The Oz, complete with it’s particular campaigning angle (The Oz is a campaigning newpaper)’. I say this is deliberate, not something produced by bumbling and laziness. Look at the ABC board and its managing director and you have your explanation. Two members of the board – Albrechtson and Windschuttle – either work for or are the darlings or The Australian.
There’s your answer.
It is definitely more than laziness or lack of resources, it’s a deliberate choice. People like Alison Carribine make the choice to blindly repeat Liberal party spin as though it were fact. Just this morning she was repeating the line that the problem with the coalition costings were just a matter of opinion after the host had dared to suggest that there was a ‘black hole’.
When you get this sort of stuff day after day from a whole range of journalists employed by the ABC across a range of mediums, there is only one conclusion to come to.
At Last! I read a little “Truth in Commentary”!
One of the biggest scourges to pervade the consciousness of the prejudiced, the ignorant, and the downright grubby …. is the failure of most of them and many in the media to separate fact from fiction. Deliberately in many cases. Tacky.
Did anyone notice how much commentary (indeed questions) by some, have their origin in the “Abbott” modus operandi ie ‘denigrate them at every turn so the dummies out there can’t tell what is the truth…’ The Conservatives can then steal Office by perverting the language. This negative propaganda has one purpose – win by stealth. And the Murdoch press (and indeed some ABC twits) actively suck this garbage up and spew it out with added invective…… “Mr Abbott says our debt is like having a truck of stinking shit dumped on you – why do you smell” type of questions. Edifying!
Abbott is the consummate politician. In his case, ( in my books) this is NOT a badge of honour. The so-called new paradigm will probably be perverted into the old – because the Conservatives think they are on a winner. Did I hear anyone grumble about principles? ‘What are they?’ I hear the Conservatives ask. Ah, conscience is a slippery word…..
I hope we do have a period of informed debate (out of necessity). But don’t be surprised if it gets (deliberately) screwed-up for what the Conservatives are going to do : bring this government down AT ANY COST. And who is a “legitimate operator” in this disgraceful spectacle? JG’s cobbled-together “alliances” – the new Government as it turns out! Will integrity survive this onslaught? Bumpy ride here we come.
adrian:
‘People like Alison Carribine make the choice to blindly repeat Liberal party spin as though it were fact. Just this morning she was repeating the line that the problem with the coalition costings were just a matter of opinion after the host had dared to suggest that there was a ‘black hole’.’
Absolutely spot-on example. But ‘make the choice to blindly repeat’ sounds a bit like an oxymoron to me!
Seriously, though, to illuminate your point, people must read Peter Martin’s blog, on the NATSEM evaluation of Abbott’s costings:
http://petermartin.blogspot.com/2010/09/carefully-modelled-by-natsem.html
- “We never spoke to the Coalition,” said NATSEM director Alan Duncan.
My conclusion is that Windsor and Oaky have actually seen through the costings lies, without any help from the MSM and the ABC; Abbott has been lauded as running a brilliant campaign, but essentially he got away with murder. It beggars belief that his costings were subjected to virtually no scrutiny in the mass media.
The primary manner in which the ABC problems currently manifest themselves involve selectivity it seems to me.
Time after time in the election campaign, for example, ABC Radio News headlined their bulletins (and headlines slots) with Coalition responses to statements from the Government which they had not actually reported first. Running with a response before an announcement makes it very difficult to approach the statement itself objectively, and invariably, of course, leads to coverage which focuses on those specific aspects of an issue which the “responder” wishes to attack, rather than the content as a whole. A sometimes trivial aspect of an announcement thereby becomes the “main story” at the expense of far more important aspects of an issue.
Similar problems occurred with the ABC Online news site, and on News24 (It was less pronounced on ABC TV 1).
Other issues included:
1) way too much – one might almost say an obsession with – trivia over substance.
2) way too much cynicism about, and focus on, the politicians themselves and way too little about the policies they offered
3) vast amounts of “headline editorialising”, often without providing the stuff to back it up
4) Very little in the way of real probing of areas of substance. Do neither of these parties have a policy on international affairs or Indigenous issues, two give but two examples? If so , you wouldn’t know it from the media coverage. Why weren’t costing made public before the election? Because journalists were too ready to simply buy the party spin. If three independents can ferret out such things you might think that the entire press gang would be able to do so!
5) Too much focus on the trivial “trip up” as opposed to deeper examination of matters. At times it was as if the entire press gang were a bunch of school kids whose sole purpose in life was to make someone sit on a chair with a broken leg.
6) over acceptance of “embedding”. Just as the embedded journos told us little of real importance about the war in Iraq, the journos on the campaign buses might just as well have stayed at home.
Some aspects of this affected both sides, of course, but given the nature of the campaign, and the reliance of the conservatives on simplistic , often repeated nostrums at the expense of policy, it substantially skewed the coverage in their favour.
There were some substantial exceptions, of course. O’Brien did his usual, very effective, job in getting down to the nub of it with both sides (though it would have been interesting to see the 7.30 Report giving The Greens at least SOME time, and a Kerry O’B interview with Bob Brown could have made for quite fascinating television).
The 4 Corners pre-election program was thorough and even handed, I thought. Leigh Sales was very good at times, and at least attempted to direct people towards policy, though in the post election period she sometimes took things for granted which wouldn’t have withstood serious examination.
Tony Jones and Annabelle Crabb both have a tendency to intrude far, far too much into the story, though.
ABC MD Mark Scott’s self lauding piece on media coverage of the election really points to many of the defects of coverage this time around. I wonder if he was surprised by the vigour, and extent, of rejection of his claims in the comments which follow it? Both it, and the comments, are well worth a read – see http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/03/3001302.htm
Just by the way, Labor have skipped out to a 6000 vote lead in the 2PP, after Dennison had some 2PP counts added, and some of the big Labor seats had some more votes counted.
@macondo
Actually Albrechtson is no longer on the board. A question for you – why is it that Albrechtson, Bolt, Ackerman etc are constantly criticising the ABC & accusing it of a left wing bias?
@Rod Hagen 177
Just bet me to it Rod.
Most people I know are still chewing on the Abbott line of illegitimate government.
Has any of the media questioned this – or is it a blip in the stats ?
@DodgyKnees.
I believe Abbott etc were counting 2PP before the independant electorates were carved up. Election analysts such as Jonathon Green were emphasing that it was too early to call the 2PP without the final carve up of non-Lab/Coalition seats. The virtual tally room http://vtr.aec.gov.au/ includes a disclaimer that results are not final until notified as such. I suspect Abbott will drop the 2PP argument if the trend continues however much of the uninformed population will still think the coalition won it.
Mikeb at #178
I’ll pop in an answer to that.
Because they [Albrechtson, Bolt, Ackerman etc] are exremist right wingers and attack is easier than defence?
Interesting poll that you cite. And your interpretation(s). I am not entirely surprised though don’t suppose my intuitions or non-random sample of anecdotage are any better than most people’s. Any evidence that the differences can be substantially accounted for by age, by geography (Q’l'd and WA e.g.) or some other factor which the pollsters data should be able to tell us about?
@Rod Hagen 177, @mikeb 180
“I suspect Abbott will drop the 2PP argument if the trend continues however much of the uninformed population will still think the coalition won it.”
I suspect Abbott will adopt his “farting in a lift tactic” and keep quite.
The interesting point in relation to this brilliant Possum contribution is who in the media will point the finger at him.
Now up to 8615 vote lead on the 2PP (ALP 50.04%)
Sad to say, the ABC no longer qualifies for the benefit of the doubt.
A year or two ago, it might have been valid to say, “Well, it’s just laziness, naivety or they do it because of lack of resources.”
But they have had many many complaints. I know, because I have sent them many myself, and know of others who’ve done likewise.
It’s not like they don’t KNOW people are awake up to the problem and are pissed off … yet the poor behaviour continues, in glaring example upon glaring example. Culminating – or, rather, reaching the pits – in the election campaign. A real ABC shocker, a view expressed in hundreds of angry online comments I’ve read.
Leaving only one reasonable conclusion: it’s not accidental, it’s intentional and brazen.
After discussions with Friends of the ABC I should point out that my call for a senate inquiry is a tad naive. Basically there are many forces at work, including the Murdoch camp who are constantly lobbying to get rid of the ABC (Murdoch Jr actually said that having the BBC in the UK was undemocratic!). So a senate inquiry could be misused by these forces to achieve this goal. However there is important legislation that lapsed when the election was called that is to do with board appointments to the ABC. Basically this is to do with ensuring merit based appointments. I had thought this was achieved but it has not. Now is the time to push for it to be done.
I encourage everyone to join FABC and lend them assistance, it looks to me that they have been fighting against titanic forces for a very long time with very limited support see:
http://fabc.org.au/fabc/
I agree with Poss, the ABC is not necessarily biased. What happens is actually much more clever and devious than overt bias. The system is organised so that reporting favours the rights agenda. Its seems to me that the ABC is scared by the dark hand of the Murdock empire. The right have been trying to get rid of public broadcasters like the BBC and ABC and so the ABC which is underfunded, running with stacked boards of unqualified people (who employ middle management of similar ilk) can’t really defend itself let alone produce good journalism. Its amazing we get anything at all that is useful from them.
peter Mcilwain 187
Peter, is there any chance of an ABC whistle-blower ?
Not likely. As soon as anyone says anything you would have the whole right wing media machine screaming “ABC dysfunctional” and demands for the scrapping of this “waste of tax payers money”. Its the same trick Howard pulled on the Universities, underfund them, stack the councils, run an ongoing campaign to discredit academics, ask them to do the impossible while constantly threatening them with extinction. Very Fascist. Lachlan Murdoch has actually claimed that having the BBC in the UK is undemocratic and I’m sure this applies to Auntie as well.
Thanks Possum for your commentary. Thanks also Mr Denmore.
The media’s mindless repetition of Liberal lies is reminiscent of the propaganda the citizens of totalitarian regimes are subjected to.
I don’t believe the ABC has a pro-Murdoch agenda. I think it really is laziness. They parrot The Australian because it’s the only national rag available.
You have to wonder what the ABC’s in-house staff of radio and TV journalists get up to during their 40 hours each per week.
I just gotta luv lefty denial.
No problem with an opposing view but when the leftards claim the very opposite of what could reasonably said in criticism, I draw the line.
Calling black white and vice versa is just not acceptable even on a small ‘l’ liberal blog like this.
I like Possum. I appreciate the work he does. I don’t agree with his politics.
Dendy#170 the latest among many here should be derided.
Fran Kelly is now apparently biased …………. but…… to the the right side of politics!!!!!!!!!!!
Here’s is but one of Gerard Henderson many critiques of her ‘work’:
“FRAN KELLY’S TALKING POINTS
Labor starts favourite to win the election. So much so that some Labor types must be tempted to stay in bed some mornings and leave it to some presenters to make the party’s case for them. Fran Kelly, perhaps.
On Thursday the Radio National Breakfast presenter was hard at it stating her own opinions. The interviewee was Opposition shadow finance minister Andrew Robb and discussion turned on the Coalition’s commitment to expand the education tax refund.
MWD just loved it when, in response to hostile questioning, Andrew Robb declared that the Coalition’s scheme had received a favourable review from Age economic journalist Tim Colebatch and that “the Coalition’s plan is clearly better, clearly better”. To which La Kelly responded: “Alright. Well, I guess that’s for the voters to judge.” Well, thanks for that.
Soon after discussion turned on the Rudd/Gillard Government’s decision to move the budget from surplus to deficit. Robb’s point was that Labor was complaining of the Coalition’s “black-holes” in its finances whereas Labor had created black-holes due to its financial stimulation package. To which Kelly opined that Labor’s black-hole “was caused by the Global Financial Crisis”. It was as if Labor had not taken any spending initiatives at all. Or that Kelly was reading from Labor’s talking points.
Later, when Robb insisted that the Coalition’s decision to scrap the proposed National Broadband Network would result in $18 billion of savings, La Kelly responded:
Yeah. But it’s not an $18 billion saving. Look we must move on.
In other words. You (Robb) are wrong. I (Kelly) am right. That’s the end of the discussion – so let’s move on.
Andrew Robb jumped in and defended his position. Why bother? Next time Robb should ask the questions and Kelly should give her (predictable) opinions. At least this would make for easier listening. ”
http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/wordpress/?p=462
Other conservatives seem to think Kelly unfair:
http://australianconservative.com/2009/09/helping-kevin-by-attacking-turnbull/
If Kelly is in the tank for conservatives why do they attack her perceived bias?
Perhaps its some sinister extreme right wing plot to legitimize her ala if the ABC is criticised from left and right it must be fair leftoid nonsense?
On the other side of the coin the ABC’c Chris Uhlmann is seen by conservatives as one of the fair journalist despite being married to a Labor pollie.
Funnily enough the leftards at ‘their’ ABC wanted Uhlmann sidelined saying “sometimes more than disclosure is required”.
Tony Abbott defended him. Funny that……
http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/05/06/chris-uhlmann-a-pro-says-abbott-but-is-there-an-abc-double-standard/
So is the question actually of bias or simply disagreeing with particular utterances?
Hah qoting Gerard Henderson in a discussion about bias. Gotta love it.
I don’t quite agree with you on this one Poss. I think it’s a bit of both – laziness/stupidity and plain old bias. My straw poll happens each morning – I flip between the various ABC radio programs whilst driving to work (ie one of the peak listening times) and note who they are talking to and the headlines they shout. There is no question the Coalition is far more prominent at this time that the Government and that can only be deliberate. Even if they ‘balance” with other discussions during the day, they have already skewed the story.
2PP out to an ALP lead of 16,200
Hush Rod, you’ll awaken the media.
@James K 192
Your posts are a morass of confusion and contradictions. Many of use here actually listen or read the ABC on a daily basis as part of a broad range of media input – and we also understand what “bias” is. It is not simply a presenter refusing to acknowledge, entertain, discuss or even occasionally promote both sides of an argument (2GB excepted, of course). In many cases, bias is infinitely subtle and insidious – often it is in how or when they choose to present both sides of a subject, and also in who they seek to interview or quote on the subject.
In the case of the ABC, even conservatives commentators – indeed, even such illustrious bastions of unbiased reporting as “The Australian” newspaper – have noted and commented on its evident bias.
Perhaps you should spread your net a little wider.
Hardly surprising really JamesK. Uhlmann may be married to the new Member for Canberra, but , like Tony Abbott he is a failed candidate for the priesthood and himself stood for the ACT Assembly in 1998 as a candidate for the deeply socially conservative, Catholic based anti-abortion “Osborne Group”.
You sometimes can’t judge a person’s personal politics by that of their spouse, you know!
Just something else to think about …
You can be sure the ABC is aware of the complaints in this thread. (Somebody emailed them the URL).
So, let’s give the ABC a month or two and see if anything changes. What’s today, September 9th. By November 9th, if we’re STILL hearing bias, still hearing the unctuous unskeptical recitation of Liberal talking points, the preponderance of conservative mouthpieces on ‘The Drum’ segment, prominence in news bulletins to Coalition quotes, Fran Kelly being her usual complained-about self, etc etc … then what??
Are we STILL going to be making the excuse, “Well, you know, it’s just stupidity on their part. Or laziness. Or they need more money” etc?
Will it STILL be reasonable to makes excuses for anti-Charter behaviour … or does the time come when they no longer qualify for the benefit of the doubt?
Personally I believe they reached that point some time ago, but for the sake of the experiment, I’m prepared to keep an open mind on the matter for another couple of months.
JamesK: So Gerard’s point amounts to “She didn’t give him a free ride!”. Well, blow me down with a feather – I wouldn’t expect any interviewer to give any politician a free ride. They absolutely should be doing the research and preparation so that they can question the interviewee’s assertions. Sometimes that will even mean using a line of questioning that is similar to things the opposing political side is saying. That’s how the public debate progresses – issues that one side raises need to be answered by the other, otherwise we’re just watching two groups of people shouting past each other.
Of course, facts have well-known liberal bias…
@Cuppa
You can be sure that the ABC are preparing statistics on how many minutes each side received in coverage and the nature of the coverage. You can also be sure that it will amount to nothing because the coalition will be spending taxpayer money on scouring the thousands of broadcast hours that went to air to find any semblance of bias across TV and Radio networks from Sydney to Karratha. You can then be sure that the main coalition attack-dog Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells will be using that information in Senate Estimates to “prove” their case. No amount of statistics or analysis will change that.
Just realized what a massive two party preferred lead the ALP now has.
Its about 10 times the annual arrival number of boat people.
Abbott must be shitting bricks !
DodgyKnees@205
How strange – I can’t see this being reported anywhere on the ABC.
If a “boat” arrived, you can be sure the ABC would blare the fact from the rooftops. Headline story for the next day across all ABC platforms.
If the Coalition vote moved in front, they would be screaming “COALITION SURGES AHEAD OF LABOR”.
But when the Labor vote moves in front … crickets … silence.
“Stop the Votes!”
@Cuppa 207: “Stop the Votes!”
I’ll pay that. Just had a serious juvenile accident.
Their ABC …
http://www.abc.net.au/news/photos/2010/09/09/3007359.htm
Mad Dog, I could not agree more with your analysis of how the ABC has treated their election coverage! Case in point: during the election campaign the review of the BER was released. It revealed that less than 3% of the projects were wasteful. When I switched on the ABC 6.00pm news, the lead story was a Coalition politician (can’t remember which one) again denouncing the scandalous waste, in spite of the facts. This was allowed to run for some time before the item finally ended with the afterthought that the report had found very little waste, but this fact was buried by the preceding lies. I was so enraged that I phoned the ABC newsroom to complain of the bias, making the point that the way the story was run gave prominence to the lies about the BER, and obscured the truth. The idiot in the newsroom told me that the ABC calls this a “reaction story”, and that they had run a report on the BER review earlier in the day. I told him that I did not accept this explanation and that its obligation was surely to report the facts first before opinion, particularly as listeners may not have heard the story earlier in the day and would only really hear the reaction. He did not accept this either, saying again that this was the way the ABC did stories. I asked that my complaint be recorded, but I think now that i should put it in writing in the (probably vain) hope that it might make them just a little answerable for the appalling way they manage the news and their obligation to do it in a balanced way.
Why is Wyatt in the Liberal Party room?
Christine.
This is how I have learned to complain to the ABC hopefully getting maximum impact.
I put my complaints in writing, snail or e-mail.
When they respond I can then cite their response, or non-response, to whatever my complaint was and directly answer it if it is unsatisfactory.
Which it always is.
I then pester them if I do not get another response that directly relates to my initial and follow up complaint because I will not let them fob me off with an all purpose excuse that does not relate to my point.
I don’t overdo it, thus avoiding the tag of being a serial pest or complainer, but I won’t let them just do the PR trick and assume I’ll fade away.
For your consideration.
Christine,
I urge you to put the complaint in writing. You need to include: Date, Time, which ABC Network. They are required to respond to complaints. This is the address to use:
Audience and Consumer Affairs
GPO Box 9994
Your Capital City
Poss – tell it like you see it… Seriously, I can’t disagree with anything you’ve written here, we’re going to see interesting times ahead.
I had a few rants about the ABC on Poll Bludger over the last couple of months, I’m getting really tired of being served gratuitous opinion and smear from Liberal Party HQ with my news. It is a new set of Augean stables waiting for a river. Now that we have a new spirit of independence riding across the land, it would be nice to see some independence in the ABC Board and senior news producers. I don’t think being a personal friend of JWH or a Liberal party cheerleader can really cut it as a qualification for these type of jobs anymore. Maybe when they join in the coming bilestorm then they’ll finally get what’s coming to them.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/abc-snubbed-greens-complains-brown-20100906-14y25.html
Some information about complaining to the ABC (supplied by Friends of the ABC) – you’ll note that you can do more than just one contact:
Some information about complaining to the ABC (supplied by Friends of the ABC) – you’ll note that you can do more than just one contact:
Complaints about ABC Programming
ABC Contact Details
. local phone listing in your local phone book; or national phone number 139994 .
The ABC, GPO Box 9994 in your capital city
. addresses and phone numbers for ABC services are at: http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/abc_offices.htm
. comment or complaint can be made about ABC programming via its website: http://abc.net.au/contact/
Complaining
. You can lodge any comment or complaint about the ABC by telephone, and it will be noted and passed on to the appropriate program area. If you want a reply, you must specify that it is required.
. If your complaint is serious, it is best to put it in writing to the ABC.
Lodging a Serious Complaint
Step 1. Write to the ABC Details on contacting the ABC are outlined above.
The ABC aims to respond as quickly as possible to serious complaints, but no later than four weeks. If the response is likely to be delayed while information is collected, an acknowledgement will be sent.
If you are dissatisfied with the ABC’s response to your complaint (or have not received a reply) you can ask the ABC’s Complaints Review Executive to review the ABC’s decision, or you can seek external review through the Independent Complaints Review Panel and/or the Australian Communications & Media Authority.
Step 2. Complaints Review Executive (CRE) GPO Box 9994, Melbourne, VIC 3001
The ABC’s Complaints Review Executive (CRE) operates independently of the programs that are the subjects of specific complaints. The CRE takes into account the ABC’s Charter, the ABC’s Code of Practice and ABC Editorial Policies. If you are dissatisfied with the Complaints Review Executive’s response to your complaint, you can seek to have the decision reviewed externally, through the Independent Complaints Review Panel.
Step 3. Independent Complaints Review Panel (ICRP) GPO Box 688, Sydney NSW 2001 The IRCP consists of members of the public appointed by the ABC Board because of their knowledge of or experience in journalistic ethics and practice, media operations and program production, complaints handling and other review processes. The ICRP reviews complaints about serious bias, lack of balance or unfair treatment, and written complaints alleging serious and specific cases of factual inaccuracy. The ICRP:
* provides reasons to complainants when it does not accept a matter for review
* has a preliminary stage in the investigation process to inform the ABC of its decision to investigate and invite further submission
* has a 60-day time limit for the panel to complete investigations of individual matters in normal circumstances
* notifies the ABC and invites it to provide written submissions, along with relevant program material on cases it accepts. The Panel interacts with ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs.
* in the ‘preliminary’ stage of the investigation process, informs the ABC of its decision and invites further submission of further relevant information. At the Panel’s discretion, this opportunity will also be extended to the complainant.
Step 4. Australian Communications & Media Authority (ACMA)
Yet another tier of external review is available to those wishing to lodge a complaint about serious bias, lack of balance or unfair treatment. Members of the public who complain to the ABC about matters covered by the Corporation’s code of practice and who are dissatisfied with the ABC’s response or the handling of their complaint may seek review from the Australian Communications & Media Authority.
Further Information on/for making a complaint :
http://www.abc.net.au/corp/audience/complaints_how.htm http://www.abc.net.au/corp/audience/complaints_whatif.htm
ABC Editorial Policies : abc.net.au/corp/pubs/documents/edpol02.pdf
[Sorry Pete - you were in the Spam bin for a bit.... Poss]
Despite his statement to the contrary, the election is not over in the dissembling Abbort’s mind. As you imply Poss, this is just a short break before the campaign resumes in more vicious form. One would hope Labor should has learned the lesson by now – to challenge every bit of putrid spin that comes out of the Coalition’s orifice. Consensus for the independents – all well and good – but no quarter should be given to the opposition. No more whimpy concessions a la Rudd and the pink batts scenario. Otherwise the credibility bleed will continue, this time with terminal consequences.
For totally unhinged, see the inaugural article in today’s smh by apparent Miranda Devine replacement Anita Quigley http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/behind-the-nice-bloke-facade-is-just-another-wily-politician-20100908-1519k.html? Got 435 comments most of them decidedly hostile, and several mention this thread.
Poss: I missed not having our regular Betting Market Friday, but this was worth the wait.
@Malcolm Street 221, see http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1863734.htm for a sample of Anita Quigley’s quality work at the Daily Telegraph and the Press Council’s view of it.
What?
‘Their’ ABC needs more than the one thousand million of our tax dollars than they take from us already whilst patronisingly informing us who to vote for?
The collective comments regarding the ABC’s complaints mechanisms are very helpful, thanks.
This is only the second time I have posted on Pollytics, so I may have missed earlier advisings on the topic of Fairfax complaints; if so, please accept my apologies. On Friday, 20 August – the day before the election – The Sydney Morning Herald editorialised in support of Labor. On the smh.com.au website, this editorial appeared immediately adjacent to a Liberal Party attack ad. After searching, I found a malfunctioning e-mail link to express my curiosity to Fairfax for the decision to juxtapose the courage of one’s convictions next to one’s revenue streams, and finally found an address that I was able to use manually to complain. I received a pro forma response, which I also found objectionable and responded further, thereupon receiving no further correspondence. That was what it was.
Today, Mark Davis, the national editor of The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald, authored an analysis at 12.03pm on theage.com.au website entitled ‘Leaders face drama of rewarding their political victims’. (http://www.theage.com.au/federal-election/leaders-face-drama-of-rewarding-their-political-victims-20100909-1523f.html) Mr. Davis’ articles and analyses, I have noticed (as a nascent commenter), never seem to permit comment, so I used the comments space under the Anita Quigley opinion piece noted by Comment 220 to broadly note the following.
Amongst other things, Mr. Davis makes the following statements in his analysis: ‘The man who “lost” the election, Tony Abbott … .’ and ‘The woman who “won” the election, Julia Gillard … .’ I’m interested in understanding why quotation marks were placed around the words ‘won’ and ‘lost’?
Is Fairfax no longer able – or willing – to make statements of fact? Why the contingency inferred by the quote marks? Is it in the public interest for Mr. Davis to make these assertions? There was no disclaimer, so does Fairfax stand by its employee’s statement that Mr. Abbott only “lost” the election and Ms. Gillard only “won” it?
I do note that Mr. Davis wrote an article on 7 September which bore the headline ‘Oakeshott holds Australia hostage with self-indulgent theatrics’ which seemed to me a precursor for today’s piece by Anita Quigley.
Any thoughts?
Dont worry James K you can always take solace in your morning copy of the OO sorry the Völkischer Beobachter,but then we all know what a fine fellow you right wingers think Murdock is.
I believe he may have a few problems in the UK with phone tapping again but then that would not worry the Australian right as semi fascist tendency’s seem to always exist on the right.
Maybe they just feel more comfortable under a Leader who can tell them how to think,then there’s always those snappy uniforms and those big holiday camps for the left and anyone who dont agree with the Leader.
And of course when the Republicans (Tea Party Fascists Murdock’s Faux News) win the election in the US it really will be welcome to 1984,and 1930 all over again
Yes John Ryan and we all know how lefties are naturally dishonest, love strawmen arguments and simply change the subject when they’ve been pwned…….
@peter Mcilwain #217
Very comprehensive information about complaining to the ABC.
I wonder if there is a similar mechanism for News Ltd sources?
I’d be interested to hear how S Grey fares with Fairfax, I’ve complained to ‘their’ ABC before sand I can assure you that John Ryan’s methodology is used to the full usually about 6 weeks later. As for the follow up questions to the woefully inadequate response……. well …. I’m still waiting 6 months later.
I shouldn’t bother making a complaint to ‘their’ ABC it just employs yet another lefty tosser to play silly buggers with you on the public dime.
Yeah well you know all about tossers James K being one yourself
Poss
the squeaky hinge gets the most oil?
The ‘Hatchet jobs’ n Oakeshott has begun. There was an opinion piece in SMH yesterday full of quotes by unnamed people, allegation of impropriety, and today SMH is even reporting hearsay stories from the Daily Telegraph.
I mean, SERIOUSLY? A NSW minister position from Iemma?? The NSW Labor Leader couldn’t even break a fart without consulting the fractional overlords. We had 3 Premier in 3 years for a reason. Oakeshott supposedly ‘threatened’ Iemma with quitting parliament : how does that work? Where’s Oakeshott’s leverage?
What is happening to journalism? If the journalist are no longer able to distinguish truth from fiction, then society is in real trouble.
Hi Poss
Yesterday, here in the West, the Letters page was full of the “mandate/legitimacy” narrative, supporting that being pumped out by Tony Abbott and the the Opposition.
We even had an afternoon female presenter on ABC radio whose program is usually as soft as a boiled turnip in content, saying how some of her friends were “so angry” about what happened. Read here that the Coalition did not get up and that “we wus robbed.” What was that about the ABC and impartiality?
Today, there are still some (fewer) letters of similar ilk with gems such as “hijacked democracy” and for we in WA, to be prepared to be “raped by Canberra”. The die-hards are likely to be this way for a few days/weeks/months until they have got the bile out of their system.
More promising is the fact that some elements of the media are not buying this rubbish.
A Channel 10 commentator yesterday, when questioned here by local morning radio, heaped scorn on the Coalition by stating the word “wrong” at least three times in relation to this furphy.
More telling, given the Liberal-leaning West Australian, is their Federal Political Editor, Andrew Probyn, producing a strong piece headed, “To labour on about PM’s ‘illegitimacy’ can backfire”.
In this article he refers to a a tweet by SA Liberal Senator Simon Bermingham – “Democracy – swings, roundabouts and other stuff harder to explain…upwards and onwards to the next election.”
Probyn noted that this was one of the coalition’s “bile-free texts” and “Rather than be poisoned about Labor’s illegitimacy, Senator Bermingham’s head was where the rest of the party needs to be at.”
Oh that other elements of the MSN were capable of more sober reflection such as this.
If anyone here is actually genuinely interested in whether ‘their’ ABC is indeed biased and indeed poisonously so, I recommend viewing Lateline’s contemptible report on the the Gainesville Pastor who proposes to burn The Koran on Sept 9th.
The ‘Pastor’ a a self proclaimed congregation of 50 ( so… probably 10).
The sickening leftist ABC ‘reporter’ manages to slime the former US Speaker and possible 2012 Republican Presidential nominee Newt Gingrich en passant and of course Sarah Palin and indeed the Republican Party generically.
If you are genuinely concerned that what I suggest about the ABC could even have a grain of truth I recommend reviewing the ‘Anti-Islamic sentiment spreading across US’ story by the viciously nasty Lisa Miller (whose wages are paid by you and me) with a critical mind:
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/
I have been to Gainsville FLA and can confidently report it’s redneck central.
The problem with bias in the media is that it’s not always clearly out in the open. There’s no mistaking who Phillip Adams or Miranda Devine are barracking for, for instance.
A more insidious bias comes with the subtle use of ‘framing’ words in ostensibly objective stories.
A case in point was Fairfax journalists’ stories mentioning Kevin Rudd from the time he was deposed. Commonly, opening paragraphs would include emotionally-charged framing words like ‘knifed’ and ‘stabbed’.
I did a short piece of extremely unscientific research just now and searched The Age website for ‘knifed’. Only eleven of the first 40 results (of 108 in total) weren’t somehow linked to Rudd.
In another example, it was rare to read of Nick Minchin being described as a “factional warlord”, but that is already a common descriptor for Bill Shorten. Minchin descriptors tended to the less aggressive “power broker”.
These examples are enormously subtle, but, like Chinese water torture, repeated thousands of times they influence people’s perceptions.
JamesK, have you become unhinged?
I’ve just read the transcript of the Lateline story you complain about and Lisa Millar doesn’t even mention Newt Gingrich or Sarah Palin, only her interviewee does. Far from agreeing that Republicans are whipping up violence, one of her next comments is that there has not in fact been an increase in anti-Islamic violence.
It seems a reasonably straightforward reporting of a current issue in the US, perhaps you could back up your assertion with examples of what in the report you find to be “viciously nasty” or provide a direct quote of Lisa Millar “sliming” anyone. You know, actual evidence of your claims rather than just insinuations.
JP #236 – Good sleuthing.
JamesK is probably so outraged by his perceptions that another complaint letter will be ending up in the ABC inbox. The poor old ABC complaints panel will be tied up (& wasting even more taxpayer money) reviewing another spurious complaint.
Yawn…..yes JP …and indeed the prescient mikeb you’ve found me out.
I am indeed mad. No need to think.
Mainstream news outlets in the arse-end of the world really do need to spend a third of the show looking at a pastor of 50 people in Hicksville, USA and interview nobodys who really truly fully realise the sinister implications if the Republicans do well in the mid-term elections November 2nd.
LISA MILLAR: Those spearheading the anti-Muslim sentiment declined to speak to Lateline but some observers suggest their argument will only grow in strength as America continues to struggle with its history.
I wonder if Lisa muttered those immortal words “critics have said….”?
Not to worry….go back to sleep.
All is well with the world.
Lefties really are good people. Conservatives really are evil.
The ABC are honest crusaders fighting for justice.
Don’t fret.
Australia’s Electoral Secret – No longer open and transparent
Elections in Australia are no longer open and transparent with the Australian Electoral Commission refusing to subject information pertaining to the conduct of the electronic counting of the ballot to proper scrutiny. Scrutineers have been denied access to copies of the Senate count reconciliation and below the line preference data files
Without access to this copies of the preference vote data-files and reconciliation reports it is impossible for scrutineers to conduct a proper and comprehensive scrutiny of the ballot. A formal request for copies of the data has been made in writing, but this is of not much value to the scrutiny of the ballot after the count or the horse has bolted.
There is no suggestion that the conduct of the election has been fraudulent. We have not seen a repeat of the disastrous mistakes made in the counting of the 2006 Victorian State Election where data entry errors and a lack of due diligence by the Victorian Electoral Commission had necessitated a full review of counting the upper house votes in Northern and Western Metropolitan Regions.
The processes put in place by the Australian Electoral Commission, apart from the Commission’s inability or unwillingness to provide access to the data requested has been exemplary. It’s double data-entry validation system is significantly better system then the one used by the Victorian Electoral Commission in 2006.
The problem never the less remains in that the Commission has denied access to vital information pertinent to the proper and open transparency of the conduct of the election.
The suggestion by Mr Pirani, AEC legal officer, that scrutineers can only gain access to this data though an application of under the provisions of the freedom of Information Act is an abuse of process.
It prevents Scrutineers from independently verifying or scrutinising the quality of the data collected. There is no legal ground that this information should be withheld, in fact if we are to maintain an open and transparent electoral process access to this data must be readily available.
So the question is why is the Australian Electoral Commission refusing to provide access to the crucial and important information?
This issue will now be a subject of a further parliamentary inquiry.
More information:
http://democracy-works.blogspot.com/
D@W, you have already done to death your theories on the Senate counting process and the perfidy of Antony Green and Andrew Bartlett over in the Poll Bludger thread about the Senate count at http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2010/08/31/photo-finishes-the-senate/
Might I respectfully suggest that you, and any others who want to pursue the matter, do so over in that thread, rather than repeating the arguments and accusations ad nauseum in this one too!
Democracy – if you try and bring your never ending tirade over here, you will go permanently into the idiot bin.
The fact that the flaw with the Senate Counting system delivered the LNP Ticket vote an additional 14,00O bonus votes is a real concern. Take a look at the 2007 results there are a number of seats where determined well within the 14,000 mark. In Queensland it elected the wrong person to the sixth senate seat and in Victoria it nearly unseated Senator David Feeney. Is not democracy based on an accurate, open and transperent electoral system? Is notr a revoiew of the elctoralk system part of the analysis of the outcome of the campiagn?
The next Federal Election will be a double dissolution. Neither the ALP or the LNP will want half senate election to take place.
Politics is the art of compromise.
The longevity of this parliament will very much depend on the ability of the Greens to compromise and gina balance in its policies. Past indications are that they will not. (The CTS for example). Should the Greens not be in a position to accept compromise of moderation of its demands Australia will go to the polls within 18 months. Come July 1 Tony Abbott will up the pressure on the government, warranted or not he is in a strong position and within a heart beat of bring down the current minority government. As long as the LNP with the support of Steve Fielding (Family First) holds the balance of power Abbott will bide his time chipping away at the governments claim to be a legitimate government (Even though it rightly so).
Gillard is without any doubt the most capable member of the ALP caucus to lead a minorioty government. Her style of leadership and ability to negotiate is the ALPs greatest strength. Gillard is a very competent and skilled player in that respect. I have known her for most of my 30+ years as a member of the ALP.
Having the constitutional right to call a double dissolution would be in the interest of both the ALP and the LNP
Whoever tells the next election will be in the best position to win it. If the election is forced by Tony Abbott he will be the most likely to win. The same could be the case for Gillard.
The slogan “This time I will vote for Green” will soon become “Last time I voted Green, I will not make the same mistake next time”
The only concern I would have about the outcome of a double dissolution is that analysis of the Victorian and South Australian counts is that Family First will be re elected assuming preference fold ups remain the same. In Victoria Family First at a Double Dissolution would be elected in place of the DLP.
In discussion with LNP scrutineers on Friday it as clear that they were having second thoughts about preferencing the Greens ahead of the ALP. I am sure they will think twice before making that mistake a second time. The outcome of the Federal election has also raised questions and doubt whether then LNP will preference the Greens in the Victorian State elections scheduled for November 27.
At the next Federal election we can anticipate that the Green vote will drop significantly back to below 10%
As long as minor parties continue to cross preference each other and the Christian parties (Family First, DLP and Fred Nile) support each other they will remain ahead of the pack with a strong chance of securing representation in the various upper house elections that will follow. Above the line voting giving strength and cohesion to their vote.
Maybe next time, D@W , the Labor Party will actually get the CTS right, and by producing a system that has potential to actually work gain the necessary support of The Greens?
Maybe, too, they will get the politics right (or just be luckier)? We all know that the real reason that it failed last time around was not because of The Greens but because the Libs changed horses in mid-stream and Labor had put all its eggs in one basket by only negotiating seriously with The Libs on the matter.
The temptation, I must add, was understandable. If the Libs had stuck with their promises then at least the proposed, albeit seriously compromised, scheme would have seen the light of day. Labor, electorally, would have been seen as honouring its promises even if the result was far from ideal when it came to actually achieving anything real.
In an attempt to appease the Libs and get it through, Labor basically locked the Greens out during the negotiation process. Again, Labor’s approach made political, if not environmental, sense at the time. The Greens couldn’t deliver a majority in the Senate without Fielding also coming on board and he clearly wasn’t going to. The Libs could and Fielding was likely to go with the Libs anyway when push came to shove.
It was under these circumstances the Greens stuck to their guns. Labor hadn’t seriously sought out a compromise with them, and they wouldn’t have had the numbers anyway, unless Fielding and Xenophon came genuinely on side.
Labor had various choices at that stage. Their focus seemed to be primarily on playing on splits in the coalition over the matter rather than trying to negotiate a solution with the Greens and Independents in the Senate. They succeeded to some extent in the former, and got two Libs to cross the floor in the Senate. Whether these two would have done so, however, if this had meant that the vote would be won as a result, or, on the other hand, if Labor had negotiated with the Greens and developed a better package, we will never know.
Labor could have reworked the legislation, trying to take more of the Greens concerns into account. They didn’t because they wanted to keep a double dissolution trigger .
They could have gone to a double dissolution (and were on the verge of doing so) , but they didn’t.
Instead they put it all in the “too difficult” basket, and thereby lost a huge amount of electoral respect. If they had gone down on the issue fighting it would have been far less serious than simply giving up altogether.
I’m sure with Abbott, rather than Turnbull, as Opposition leader, and The Greens with full control of the balance in the Senate, the temptation to try to seek a compromise with the Libs to get any form of ETS through will be far weaker this time and, given the state of the lower house, they will obviously need Green support anyway in the Reps to even get the legislation into the upper house.
Whether this is a realistic possibility in the present term is going to depend heavily on Oakeshott (whose position is very similar to the Greens on such things) and Windsor (who is no climate change denier but may well provide some serious hurdles when it comes to negotiation about the matter).
But using the Greens position on the ETS last time around as an example of their “failure to compromise” is simply nonsense. Labor essentially locked The Greens out of the negotiating process on the basis of promises from the Libs that the latter subsequently failed to honour. I’m hopeful Labor won’t make the same mistake again, but you never know!
“Lefties really are good people. Conservatives really are evil.”
Jamesk is finally getting a dose of reality
Mike Carlton is either a reader of this column or has come up with similar ideas himself http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/kinder-gentler-welcome-back-to-the-nasty-old-paradigm-20100910-154v5.html
And Jamesk, when you are “pwned”, you should at least make a clean breast of it. But then, you are a capital C Conservative.
Here is an excellent article Possum..
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/dark-days-as-the-media-plug-into-a-mob-mentality-20100911-155vq.html
Labor was never going to opt for a double dissolution at the last election. That was Andrew Bartlett’s fantasy. Why would it. In 2007 Labor had its best result in the senate winning three senate seats in Victoria and other states.
But a double dissolution at the next election would be much more desirable.
As to the question of the balance of power The Greens did not hold the balance of power. A negotiated compromise between then ALP and the LNP is preferable then a marginal supported outcome. The Greens in opposing the proposal was just being obstinate. Its all or nothing approach is there downfall. Again Politics is the Art of compromise Having failed to compromise we have nothing. The same BS occurred with the republic vote when the likes of Phil cleary opposed Australia becoming a republic without a directly elected head of state. I prefer the head of state to be appointed by the peoples elected parliament and would oppose a directly elected model.
For what ever reason it would be pragmatic if the government had the trigger and opportunity should it be required to flush out the Senate at the next election.
The ALP is onot in colaition with the Greens Party, They will, on occasions, side with the LNP on certain issues. Recognition of Gay marriage “White wedding and certificate” being one such issue.
I am sure that if the Greens holier then thou approach continues unabated then it will be their eventual downfall. If the Greens fail to demonstrate the ability to support stable minority government the motto at the next election will be
Looks like the trigger for a double dissolution might come about sooner rather then later. Victorian Senator Steve Fielding’s departing shot and opposition to a mining tax may provide the excuse (Even though he ill not be in office after July 1. The member for Dennisons want to see the restoration of the original proposed tax… In the end we will end up with no tax and or a DD trigger.
The Senate is not purged as a result of incoming members taking office after July 1, 2011. A trigger created before July 1 can still be called upon after July 1.
D@W, it was no fantasy of Bartlett’s. Agreement had actually been reached at the very highest levels to proceed with one, but the pin was pulled at the last minute.
Just by the way, it is most unlikely that a decision by Fielding would result in a double dissolution, unless the GG is feeling very obliging and the Independents decide that they’d like one too and are prepared to play ball in the lower house. Think about it.
scru·ti·ny
/ˈskrutni/ Show Spelled[skroot-n-ee] Show IPA
–noun, plural -nies.
1.
a searching examination or investigation; minute inquiry.
2.
surveillance; close and continuous watching or guarding.
3.
a close and searching look.
Apropos of nothing to dodo with DD and dd….. an excellent piece by Peter Brent as usual in the Oz ( the best broadsheet newspaper by a country mile in this country):
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/mumble/index.php/theaustralian/comments/opv_the_reform_that_would_have_saved_tony_abbott/
JamesK@253
Ah! I see the comic relief has arrived.
What a spoilt little girl Julie Bishop is behaving like with her claim that Rudd is the PM in exile.
Having legitimately lost the election, she and her colleagues are behaving like spoilt little rich private school kids who can’t handle losing and so in response are whingeing and bleating at every opportunity. You can almost hear the stamping of feet and the wailing hissy fits.
Get over it Libs and accept you lost the election.
Maybe next time if they spend a bit of time thoughtfully developing some policies that adequately address actual needs and are properly costed they will be a bit more successful.
Next time a carping, lying scare campaign by Aboott wont work.
There was no advantage for the ALP in holding a double dissolution. The risk of growing backwards was too great. Not one of the Senators or players in the ALP that I have spoken to support it. Why would they. They did well in the last election. BUT I can assure you there will be a spill at the next election. It is only a question of when and how not if. The Greens are not a stable partner. Come July 1 both the ALP and the LNP would be wanting a double.
I see “Democracy@Work” now calls him or herself “Democracy Denied”.
What kind of confidence do the people of Australia have in their government when it takes over 2 weeks to announce a winning party from the 21 August election? The feeling from a generous amount of Australians leading up to election day was one of uncertainty. Who to vote for was the big question on everyone’s lips…Labour or Coalition???
Both parties put forward some great policy ideas such as Labour’s Broadband network and the Coalitions parental leave plan, but did one party really dominate the election campaign with great policies that made Australians feel confident in giving either party their vote?
And then, is it really fair to allow a few Independents to give their votes to other parties, creating a winner who otherwise would not have won? Can we really say that our government has been “elected” by the Australian people?
The question though that poses the most importance for everyone is, how is this going to affect me and those who are disadvantaged and in need of help and support from the Government? As the winning government, how are Labour going to provide assistance to people in need of health care, especially those in need of treatment for a mental illness, people with disabilities, unemployed , other people who live on welfare benefits, the homeless and the list goes on.
Take homelessness for example. Kevin Rudd’s White Paper for Homelessness in 2008 aimed to reduce homelessness by 50% by 2020. The paper admits that up to 105,000 people are homeless on any given night but the Government funded specialist homelessness services: SAAP National Data Collection annual report 2008–09, shows that 204,900 people (125,800 clients and 79,100 accompanying children) received support from a specialist homelessness agency in 2008–09. Mr Rudd acknowledged that there would be a rise in the next figures due to the global recession.
There was no public campaigning from the Labour Party in the recent election process about improving homelessness. Isn’t it common sense though, that to tackle an issue we need to implement a plan and have continuous support to ensure success. Why is it then that the new Labour Party does not seem to have an obvious interest in reducing homelessness within Australia? Is it fair to say that The White Paper was dumped right along with Kevin Rudd?
But would the Liberal Party have been any better? The opposition leader at the time of the release of The White Paper, Malcolm Turnbull, offered support for it but the now opposition leader, Tony Abbott, isn’t providing the same kind of backing saying that the goal is too unrealistic and that you can’t stop some people being homeless “if that’s their choice”.
The Labour Party have however brought on policy regarding supported accommodation for people with disabilities, Taking action to tackle suicide, Delivering for seniors, Modernising Welfare, Closing the gap for Indigenous People and Creating jobs and skills in Australia. Having government support surrounding these issues provides secondary assistance in preventing homelessness for particular groups as many issues such as unemployment and mental health lead to homelessness. Indigenous people are over represented within the homeless sector so having a focus on Closing the Gap is overly important.
Another issue of concern during the recent election was the miner’s tax. Wayne Swan’s second reading of the Budget’s speech explains that by introducing the Resource Super Profits Tax we are managing “our resource wealth sustainably — capturing a fairer share for all Australians and turning it into other forms of wealth that last.”
The proposal has since been reformed so that its less harsh but there is still a 30% tax on iron ore and coal projects and 40% on Petroleum projects, which according to the ALP website, will allow tax cuts on smaller businesses, increase in superannuation and optional standard deduction in our yearly individual tax. The redistribution places responsibility on miners for a large portion of the government’s income. Doesn’t this go against the description of a monopoly economy?
It’s very Robin Hood; noble, but at the end of the day he was still a thief.
Wouldn’t it be better to have fees for large contributors to carbon emissions? Make mining companies compensate for the damage their causing to the environment. This would also show that the Government is serious about climate change which is important if we want to reduce global warming.
It’s always going to be impossible to satisfy everyone and every need. No 2 people are going to have mirrored ideas let alone a whole country coming together to support a political party 100%. As much as we all like to take a go at politicians, realistically if they weren’t intelligent people then they wouldn’t be politicians. In all fairness they aren’t doing too badly, especially considering the limitations on funding and resources. Australia is a pretty good place to live and if we want to make it even better than we all need to do our bit to help out instead of placing all the blame on the government of the day. That said, it wouldn’t hurt to pray just a little that Julia knows what she’s doing.
There are those that deny climate change and then there are those that deny flaws exist in the Australian senate counting rules.
Andrew Bartlet, failed Green’s Candidate for the seat of Brisbane (Ex Democrat Leader and Queensland Senator) continues to deny the FACTS that the system used in the counting of the Australian Senate elections is seriously flawed.
Mr Bartlett, who served on Parliamentary Joint Select Committee for Electoral Matters failed to identify the flaws in the counting system.
Has he tried recounting the 2007 Queensland Senate vote? (Excluding all candidates except the least seven standing – 3ALP, 3LNP and 1 Grn) Obviously not. Unless Mr Bartlet does recount the vote he is not in a position to make an informed decision, but that does not stop him from denying the facts.
FACTS that Mr Bartlett fails to comprehend.
FACT The method of calculating the Surplus Transfer Value is seriously flawed. it increases the value of the Major Party Ticket vote in a situation where there is a delayed election. In 2010 The Liberal National Party (LNP) NSW ticket vote increased in value byover 14,000 votes as a result of the flaw in the calculation of the Surplus Transfer Value. 14,000 votes is a huge bonus and potential winning margin in a close election.
FACT In 2007 David Feeney came close to losing the Victorian Senate election as a result of a “Bonus 7,000 votes” added to the Liberal Party Ticket vote. (Even Antony Green. ABC Electoral Analysis has acknowledged this flaw)
FACT Larissa Waters, Green’s Senate Candidate in 2007, failed to win a Senate seat due to the flaw related to the method of segmentation and distribution of excluded candidates preferences.
FACT Western Australia recognised the flaw in the way the Senate vote is counted and legislated to change the method used in calculating the Surplus Transfer Value. WA did not correct the flaw in the distribution of excluded candidate’s preferences.
FACTS THAT MR BARTLETT DENIES AND FAILED TO ADDRESS WHEN HE WAS A MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT.
http://democracy-works.blogspot.com/
The unhinged party don’t care about what are the best policies for Australia – they just want the power.
agree totally they attract the meanest, darkest, nastiest elements.
this is going to be a long battle – but fight the good fight!
if the govt/indies focus on good results – they can sidestep the spoiling tactics of the unhinged & the media
the closeness of this election & time to form the govt has felt like a civil war in Oz. Voters thoughts could almost be heard being wrung out with each vote counted across the country.
In 2010 one might have thought Oz would be progressing to enlightened debates. But this is pitchfork stuff – we can’t choose the battle sometimes – we have to fight with truth, fight with courage & fight against fear! Oz can do it!
Any updates on the Great Unhinging, Poss? Have we reached peak wingnut yet?