I can’t believe my luck!

Yesterday I posted about the inheritance I am going to receive and now it looks like I am being courted by a wealthy Princess from Côte d'Ivoire!  I can’t wait to see what tomorrow brings! 

I won’t be blogging anymore. I have been left some money!

This is to let you know that this will be my last blog!  I received this email today letting me know that I am the beneficiary of some money.   I think it is a lot of money, hence the mysterious nature of the “profitable and classified monetary transaction”!   

I’ve got to go.  I have to transfer $20,000 via Western Union to cover “transaction costs”.  I know that sounds like a lot but I have the “utmost commitment and trust” in Keith!

So I just wanted to thank you all for reading my blog.  I will think of you when I am sailing down the Riviera! 

JPL’s promise at odds with LNP actions?

Queensland Opposition Leader John-Paul Langbroek did what all Opposition Leaders do and pledge a new style of politics and clean up the obviously broke Government.  He calls it truth in politics.

‘‘We will introduce truth in political advertising laws that will ensure Queenslanders get a fair-dinkum choice between the policies,’’ he said.

‘‘Our plan to clean up government will stop once and for all the lies that Queenslanders were exposed to at the last state election.’’

But how will he deal with service contracts?  Hopefully not the same way the LNP does.

Queensland's Liberal National Party paid almost $250,000 to companies owned by senior party officials in the first six months of the year.

The LNP last night defended the payments, saying high-ranking party figures were paid via their companies on a contractual basis rather than being employed.

…

An LNP spokesman said party members should not be concerned about the payments, as the relevant officials were not employed but instead contracted through their companies.

Will we really see a new era of truth in politics, or just that same old deals for mates mantra?

Harden up Mate – I mean Your Honour!

Magistrates have for a long time degraded what is offensive language in public (now public nuisance offence).  Magistrates regularly make the comment that police must have ‘tougher skins’ and cope with more abuse than an ordinary person. 


But it seems that Magistrates sit so high atop their pedestal that to call them ‘mate’ deserves some time in the lock up.  Are Magistrates really this precious?

Thomas John Collins was sent to the cells after twice calling Magistrate Matthew McLaughlin "mate'' during a hearing last week.

When Magistrate McLaughlin objected ordering Collins to address him as ``sir or your honour'', the defendant replied "okay mate'' and was sent for a stint in the cells.
He later returned to the courtroom to apologise.
(Via Courier Mail)

Some Magistrates need to Harden up!


UPDATE:


Chief Magistrate Brendan Butler has defended the actions of Magistrate Matthew McLaughlin in jailing this man.  He said:

"It is clear on a fair assessment of what occurred that the magistrate acted in response to a deliberate course of conduct going beyond the mere use of the word 'mate'," he said.

"It is relevant that the magistrate had just requested another defendant not to address him as 'mate'.

"In the matter that immediately followed, the defendant [Mr Collins] referred to the magistrate twice as 'mate', laughed when corrected on the appropriate form of address in court, described the discussion as 'a joke' and told the magistrate to 'just get on with the program'."

There's not much hope when even the Chief Magistrate doesn't see a problem with this situation.  The President of the Qld Police Union, Ian Leavers, has also hit out at the Magistrate saying:

"It's a disgrace that the judiciary are so thin-skinned that they take offence and then say that as a police officer you can be sworn at, threatened, punched and attacked and you've got to cop that on the chin. But don't dare call me 'mate'."

I think Leavers makes the most valid point of the argument.  The Magistracy live in ivory towers were police are expected to tolerate behaviour much worse than this simple sarcasm and defiance.  Yet at the first sign of disrespect they lock up the person.


Perhaps a better solution would have been to move his matter to the end of the court list.  But why do that when you can simply lock him up... That'll show him!

Ask Me Anything - Do you think 9/11 was an inside job?

No I am not a conspiracy theorist. I generally think this type of stuff would have come out in mainstream arena by now. But I guess you never know!

Ask me anything

Euthanasia: The debate the Greens don't really want us to have!

#euthanasia #greens

Greens leader Senator Bob Brown announced yesterday that one of the Greens first priorities would be to overturn a ban on the two Territories legislating in favour of euthanasia.

Senator Brown told the Ten Network that this was more about the rights of the Territories than an advocacy of euthanasia.  He said of the Howard government’s decision to ban euthanasia in the Territories:

“… was a taking away of the democratic rights of the people of the two territories.

"This won't bring in euthanasia but it will restore the rights of the territorians to be able to legislate for euthanasia the same as everybody in the states."

I support the Territories Rights argument but I don't believe this is the real reason for his Bill.  I believe he is pushing the pro-euthanasia agenda.  I have no problem with this debate, I just think that Senator Brown should come out and advocate for the position instead of doing shadow boxing saying this is about Territories rights.  Although, I am probably being too harsh, because his Bill (previously defeated and set to be re-introduced) is called the Restoring Territory Rights (Voluntary Euthanasia Legislation) Bill 2008.

But my main question of Senator Brown is what will be the true effect of his Bill. 

It was reported today on ABC online that, “Dr Philip Nitschke says even if the Commonwealth changes its stance on right-to-die laws he does not expect the laws to be brought back to life in the Northern Territory.” 

It was similarly reported later in the story that the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Paul Henderson, is of the same belief.  He released a statement saying “that for the Territory's Labor MLAs any vote on a euthanasia bill would be a conscience vote.” 

On Sunday the Panel on Insiders discussed the issue and they were all of a similar opinion that this would allow the Territories to re-legislate and authorise Euthanasia.  

I hold a different opinion.  I believe that if Senator Brown’s Bill is passed it would mean that euthanasia would automatically become legal in the Northern Territory.  However, I am not a Constitutional Scholar or Lawyer.  But here are my reasons (very simplistically).

1. The Northern Territory passed Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995 (the Euthanasia Law).
2. The Howard Government then amended the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 (the Prohibiting Law) and inserted section 50A which reads:                                                                                                                                                                                                                 (1)  Subject to this section the power of the Legislative Assembly conferred by section 6 in relation to the making of laws does not extend to the making of laws which permit or have the effect of permitting (whether subject to conditions or not) the form of intentional killing of another called euthanasia (which includes mercy killing) or the assisting of a person to terminate his or her life.
3. This amendment basically limits the scope of the Legislative Authority of the Territories. 
4. As The Euthanasia Law was not repealed it was simply made ineffective by virtue of the law limiting the scope of the Northern Territory’s Legislative Authority.  It would therefore come back into force if the Prohibiting Law law is repealed. 
5. If Senator Brown’s Bill were passed this would be the likely effect and Euthanasia would be legal again in the Northern Territory. 

If I am right (which I don't profess to be) Senator Brown isn’t looking for a debate on Euthanasia at all. 

He is looking to tell us how the debate ended and who won.  Namely him!

 

UPDATE:

Peter Black, Senior Lecturer in Constitutional Law at the Queensland University of Technology has confirmed my view that if the Euthanasia Law is not repealed and the Prohibiting Law is repealed then the Euthanasia Law becomes enlivened and euthanasia would be legal in the Northern Territory.

The website of the Department of the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory  has a list of current legislation.  In this list is the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995 which legalises euthanasia.  This legislation has a note at the beginning saying, “The Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995 has no force or effect as a law of the Territory; see Schedule 1 of the Euthanasia Laws Act 1997 (Cth) (No. 17, 1997)”.

I cannot see any reason why the Euthanasia Law would not be enlivened if the Prohibiting Law is repealed. 

The Chaser Decides Fast Talking Election Campaign

I love The Chaser!

Talk of an illegitimate Gillard Government is just not legit!

#ausvotes

The Liberal party, distraught with the decision of the Independent's on who should govern Australia, are telling anyone that will listen that the Gillard Government is illegitimate and unstable.  George Brandis claims that the "most Australians wanted a change of government. Your government has as much legitimacy as the Pakistani cricket team."  A very funny comment but it’s not accurate.

Talk back radio is also in uproar.  Former Howard Government Minister turned fill in talk back host Gary Hardgrave told listeners last week that more people voted for the Coalition and that they should be in power.

But is this actually true? 

The arguments for these assertions are:

1. The ALP received less first preference votes than the Coalition
2. The ALP are losing the two party preferred vote (or at least they were last week)
3. The Coalition won more seats in the House of Representatives

 

Based on these three criteria the arguments made by the Coalition and their supported are right and also wrong. 

It is true that that the Coalition received more first preference votes than Labor.  However, when you break it down, the Coalition is made up of four separate groups.  The liberal Party, the National Party, the Queensland LNP and WA National (who claimed to be independent) Tony Crook.  The Coalition believe they are one group based on their Coalition agreement.  I guess that is fair.  But why then aren’t Labor and The Greens allowed to do the same.  Labor and the Greens have now formed an alliance not based solely on preference deals at election time.  Looking at the figures (which are not yet complete):

	First preference Vote
Australian Labor Party	4,711,369
The Greens	1,459,002
	6,170,371
Liberal	3,777,391
Liberal National Party of Queensland	1,130,525
The Nationals	462,391
	5,370,307

As at 15/9/10

Based on this Labor/the Greens have it won hands down.  But this doesn’t even take into account the 861, 724 people who voted for one of the other parties/independents at this election.   This is why the 2PP method is employed in Australia.  (Incidentally the UK is talking of introducing this method rather than their first past the post method)

On the second point, the 2PP vote is fluctuating daily.  Just last week the Coalition were ahead, but now Labor is back in front.  But the AEC website still doesn’t provide a clear picture of where the 2PP will land once counting stops. 

Paul Howes commented in the Sydney Morning Herald that:

The Australian Electoral Commission has the two-party vote neck and neck between Labor and the Coalition, but this count doesn't include the eight or so seats that are not contests between the major parties - those between Labor and the Greens or the Liberals and an independent.

The bulk of these seats are Labor, and once they're added to the final two-party vote when the counting is finished, Labor will have a clear majority.

Don't just take my word for it; just about every electoral expert, including Antony Green, agrees.

Antony Green makes his assessment of the AEC 2PP figures here.

That the 2-party preferred total displayed on the AEC's website is meaningless can be seen if you tally the members elected in these 142 electorates. You get Coalition 72, Labor 70. Missing are four Independents, a Green, a WA National and two Labor MPs.

The reality of forming government in the newly elected House of Representatives depends on those eight elected members, but the AEC's total of 2-party preferred vote currently excludes all votes cast in these eight electorates, the eight electorates whose elected members will determine who forms government.

Which illustrates why the AEC's incomplete 2-party preferred vote is pointless.

 

The third argument that the Coalition won more seats than Labor is true.  But this is not the basis on which elections in Australia are won or lost.  It is a complete distortion of how our system of Government is constituted.  Our system is one where the party who controls a majority of the votes in the House or Representatives forms Government.  This is the system and it may seem to have flaws at times, but generally the people who think it is flawed are on the losing side of a close election.  One like we saw this year. 

There is no easy way to decide on who forms Government.  No way that everyone will agree on.  The only way we can do this is by electing representatives who then vote according to their own beliefs at the time.  That may be along party lines or if independent this may be which ever way they choose.  That is what the Greens and the Independents did.  If there respective communities disagree with their choice I guess they will lose their seat at the next election.  That is the basis of our democracy.

To float statements like “utterly without mandate” or “illegitimate” are wrong and contemptuous of our entire system of Government.  The Gillard Government was formed according to the correct principles and conventions of the Westminster system.  They have a mandate to run the country.  If the Australian people disagree, they will surely change it at the next election.  That’s democracy!

What’s $10.6b between friends?

#ausvotes #auswaits

The Australian public learned today why the coalition failed to release their election commitments to treasury prior to he last election.  Because their figures were bogus.  All the shadow boxing about treasury leaks was a great diversion for the real fact that while they claim to be the best economic managers, without the treasury holding their hands, they are incompetent and reckless and will, like the Howard Government before them, spend to win office.  Here is what the couriermail reported today:

TONY Abbott's budget credibility was under fire last night with Treasury saying there was an error of up to $10.6 billion in his election promises.

Tony Windsor, one of the three independents who asked for the costings, last night described it as "a black hole''.
But Mr Abbott stood by his election costings and insisted he would improve the Budget bottom-line by more than $11 billion.
The Treasury documents released at 10pm by the independents found the Coalition would improve the Budget bottom line by $863 million over the next four years - well below the $11.5 billion improvement predicted by the Liberals.
The Liberals would deliver a Budget bottom line that was eight times better than Labor, but only a fraction of what they had promised.
The Treasury's five-page report on the Coalition's costings suggested the bottom-line could rise from $863 million to $4.5 billion if other assumptions were made. Mr Abbott said those other assumptions could be "responsibly achieved through prudent economic management''.

The Treasury said Labor would improve the bottom-line by $106 million - double its prediction of $44 million.

Mr Abbott refused to submit the Coalition's costings to the Treasury during the election campaign.  "I think we understand now why he wasn't interested in releasing the numbers," Mr Windsor told the ABC's Lateline program.

"(It's) what I call a black hole anyway of probably somewhere between 7 and 11 billion in terms of difference between what the Coalition said their costings were and what the Treasurer would suggest in terms of an incoming government for their bottom line."

Read more here

The Russian YouTube Singer from Yes We Canberra - Hilarious

#ausvotes #auswaits

This is the clip from Yes We Canberra where they imitate and mock a Russian YouTube singer Eduard Khil:

 

Here is the original

The Media We Deserve

#ausvotes #auswaits

A critique of the uninspiring performance of the media during the Federal Election Campaign.

It was an uninspiring election campaign, but in the end, did we get the politicians and media we deserve? Media Watch looks at the trivialities that overshadowed policy announcements, the media's self-obsession, and the role that gender played in the coverage.

See the full video at Media Watch

Or see Bernard Keane’s critique at Crikey where he says:

Yes, this election is rubbish, and it represents the lowest point in policy debate since, probably, 1980.

Yes it’s boring, and visionless, and run by two parties that are entirely risk-averse and who have turned their backs on so much achieved by previous generations of leaders. Parties for whom a key campaign strategy is to explain to voters that they have no intention of carrying out reforms they have long insisted were crucial.

But bad luck – it’s your fault.

…

Why I voted Greens – Yes We Canberra!

#ausvotes #ausvoted #ywc

Lets hope the Chaser come back bigger and better!

Facebook: Vote for PM

#ausvotes #RootyQ

I saw today an online quiz on Facebook asking who I was going to vote for.  This is the option I was presented with:

Looking at the photo’s I wonder who this is sponsored by? 

Coalition’s Broadband Policy according to the Yes, We Canberra!

#ausvotes

Yes, We Canberra! provides a hilarious take on the Tony Abbott’s back to the future broadband policy.  Even faster than dialup!

 

Tony Abbott’s dismissal of gay marriage

#ausvotes #qanda

On Monday 16 August 2010 Opposition leader Tony Abbott appeared on the ABC’s program Q & A.  He was asked a very heartfelt and personal question from a Mr Geoff Thomas, Vietnam veteran, plumbing contractor and father of a gay son.  (See full video below)

He asked:

Thank you. I am a Vietnam veteran, I have been a plumbing contractor for 37 years and I support, with a social conscience, the Liberal philosophy. I have a gay son. When I was confronted with that situation in a very short amount of time and with due consideration I accepted his position and I overcame my ignorance and my fear of gays and the idea of gay marriage. When will you, Mr Abbott, take up the same - when will you, sir, overcome your fear and ignorance of gay people and give them the dignity and respect that you'd happily give to all other Australians?

Mr Abbott’s response was the usual political spin of – I respect gay people but I just don’t want to let them get married.  What struck me as odd, (and I may be overreacting) was his choice of language when responding.  He said the following line:

… I would always try to find it in my heart to give dignity and respect to people, regardless of their circumstances, regardless of their opinions, so that is absolutely my position but I think that there are lots of terrific gay relationships, lots of terrific commitments between gay partners, but I just don't think that marriage is the right term to put on it.

I found this comment odd.  Why does he need to try to find it in his heart.  Is it because he is still confronted by gay people.  Like I said I may be overreacting to this turn of phrase but it struck me immediately when he said it. 

My final point of disgust with Mr Abbott’s answer to this question was the part in the middle of his answer where he almost mocks gay people by grabbing the show’s host, Tony Jones’ hand and saying that he knows gay men.  Although the crowd had a bit of a laugh it struck me as distasteful that the alternative Prime Minister would make a subtle joke about gay men in this way. 

And don’t take this as a pure rant on the Coalition.  I have previously expressed my disappointment with the ALP in this issue.  See my previous blog post here.

I’ll give him some credit for trying to admit his failings on the subject by saying:

[Sometimes] our initial reactions to some of these things can be far from perfect and I'm sure that at different times I have reacted a bit poorly at first to things but I hope I would always find it in my heart to treat people the way everyone should be treated, with dignity and respect and I think that people who know me well who are gay would be only too happy to testify to that.

But I think the quote of the night for me was this, by Geoff Thomas when asked if Tony Abbott had answered his question satisfactorily:

Well, we all talk about it, don't we, but we don't get there. If I'm in a loving relationship, it's fundamental to me that I want to marry that person. I mean, I'm sure I listened to Graham Richardson on this program a few weeks ago and Penny Wong and I thought their comments were insulting. Graham Richardson said that gay people have to wait. They shouldn't have to wait. You're in the government; you should do something about it now. These are decent people who just want to lead decent lives like everybody else. That's it.

Definitely, could not have said it any better myself!

(Video of the Q&A on gay marriage via Q & A.)

 

See here for an article where Geoff Thomas is interviewed after the show.  He is a very good man!

The iAbbott launches!

 

Media Watch smacks 4BC’s Michael Smith for telling porkies on asylum seekers

For many months, perhaps years, I have wanted someone to take apart the ridiculous statements that the 4BC Drive Program (or as I have dubbed his show - LNP Radio) announcer, Michael Smith has been making on well…. any topic really. 

Media watch this week took him to task on asylum seekers.  Good on you Media Watch.  You know you’re doing a good job when the people your scrutinize attack you and doesn’t answer the question. 

The political ad too risqué for YouTube

#ausvotes

This ad received widespread criticism when it was released and it was removed from YouTube.  The creators, the ACTU said that Liberal supporters were responsible for its demise.  It has now made its way back on YouTube. 

I personally don't think it is worth the attention. I think it is just plain stupid and not very clever.

I think that Gruen Nation has a lot to answer for.  Making me expect quality political advertising.

 

The Australian Sex Party’s new ad

#ausvotes

I thought this was a spoof ad in the same vein as the GetUp! advertisements on Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott.  But apparently this is a legitimate ad.  Very amusing, if not a little disturbing!

 

 

Via @peterjblack at Election Blackout

Economics: Some very basic basics

#ausvotes

I am not a student of economics.  At times I struggle to understand all the implications of the Macro and Micro Economic situations of my household budget let alone Australia and the World.  But last week I read an article on Peter Black’s Election Blackout Blog written by Tom Gole an Economics student from UQ now studying his PhD at Harvard University.  This article put into perspective why we don’t need to be worried about Debt (at least at Australia’s current levels).  Here are some of the pertinent points. 

… it seems that a lot of the confusion about the level of federal government debt stems from the natural intuition of comparing a nation to a household. If it makes sense for me or my family to avoid taking on too much debt, surely a country shouldn’t either.   …

The reasoning behind households not holding too much debt is based on a lifecycle pattern: people should borrow when they are young to finance purchases they don’t have enough savings for (houses etc), then as their wages grow as they get older they pay off those loans, and then accumulate an asset base to live off once they stop working.

There is no analogous lifecycle for a country: Australia, as a nation, will never collectively stop working, so we will never need an asset base to live off. And the point goes further: Australia’s earnings, our GDP, will continue to grow, with the occasional up and down, for the foreseeable future.    …

It’s worth noting that the other reason people don’t want too much debt is so they have something to fall back on if they lose their job or get sick. In one sense, the household analogy is appropriate here – if you hit bad luck, you should use up some of your savings or go into debt until you get out of the bad times, and the government should do the same thing in a recession.     …

And there’s a further catch: most people cut back their spending in bad times, because their income has fallen and they don’t know how long it will be until they get back on their feet. On the other hand, if the government cuts its spending in a recession, it usually makes the economy take even longer to recover. The instinctive urge to tighten the belt during bad times is appropriate for a household, but if a government does the same then things only get worse.

After reading this I wondered why I hadn’t heard such an easy concept like this before.  I was then gobsmacked to hear Julia Gillard make the analogy to Laurie Oakes of the Weekend Today program:

JG: Look, I understand people worry about debt, I worry about debt too Laurie. I also understand that as we emerge from the global financial crisis, our debt position as a nation is like someone earning a hundred-thousand dollars a year, having a $6,000 loan.

When Tony Abbott is out spruiking his debt and deficit lies, why are we not hearing the fight back put in such simple terms.  I think a lot of people would be scared by the debt and deficit scare campaign and by hearing Joe Hockey talk of our borrowing Billions of dollars. 

But when the Government (and Opposition) claim they will be in surplus inside 3 years and thus be able to begin paying off our $6000 (equivalent) loan, I tend not to worry so much and I am thankful the Government didn't tighten their belts and see us enter recession! 

Family First: Intolerance, bigotry and bile

Say what you will of the major parties, but I would sooner vote informally than vote for Family First.  And I really cherish and value my vote. 

This week Family First Senate Candidate Wendy Francis made disparaging remarks likening same sex couples to child abuse.  She has since removed the comments from her Twitter page.  She (or as she now says her staff) wrote:

"Legitimising gay marriage is like legalising child abuse"

She has since apologised: (via: ninemsn) 

"I take responsibility for what was sent from my office and I acknowledge that the words used caused hurt and anguish for many people," she said in the statement.

"For this I sincerely and unreservedly apologise," she said.

But she went on to say she believed children were better off being raised by a mother and a father.

"I do not believe that upholding marriage or preventing children being raised in homosexual families is discrimination," she said.

"We can't govern Australia by legislation based on pleasing each group who wants things their way."

"My staff in Brisbane worded a media release on this issue. When I received the statement I felt that the language used was inappropriate and so I changed the wording.

"However due to my schedule these changes were accidentally not relayed to my Brisbane office and the wording from this incorrect release was transferred to Twitter."

Notice how she actually only apologises for the hurt her comment may have caused.  She does not distance herself from the comment or more particularly the sentiment behind it.  This is her way of saying don’t hold it against me, but this is how I feel.  Or at least this is how the people running Family First feel. 

And in her statement of "clarification" she comments that:

I hold no personal animosity against homosexuals.  The way people choose to conduct their lives is up to them and I will defend the right of every Australian to live according to their personal beliefs as long as their choices do not infringe upon the rights and choices of other Australians or the nation as a whole.

What does that mean.  Is she saying that homosexuality is a choice?  I hope not. 

But in her final insult to the gay community she says:

I reach out to those within the homosexual community and ask them to understand the thoughts and feelings of the many Australians that believe as I do. Respect and understanding goes both ways, and as we vigorously debate the issues it is important that none of us lose sight of the fact that we are all people of great value. Every Australian has a right to personal safety, respect and dignity and I extend the hand of friendship to those who share opposing views across this emotive subject.

Family First’s message to the gay community is:

Please respect us and our views even if we can’t respect you. 

Do you feel the loving embrace of Family First? 

 

UPDATE:

In another development on how right wing Family First are:

Family First last night disendorsed the city-based accountant after revelations he signed a “secret affidavit” denouncing many of the party’s conservative values.

In the document Mr Barrow outlined support for same-sex marriage, mooted supporting safe drug injecting rooms, called for drug possession to be decriminalised and argued against religion being taught in schools.

He also wants same-sex couples to be allowed to adopt children and access IVF treatment and says abortion should be a woman’s choice.

(via Knox Leader Newspaper)

 

This is Family First.  Vote for them at your peril!

Coalition running scared on policy costings

Andrew Robb the Shadow Finance Minister, today announced that the coalition would not release a further set of policy documents to Treasury for costing until it was known who leaked a policy costing document to the Fairfax newspapers earlier this week. 

You can listen to the interview with Andrew Robb:

I smell a rat. 

The Coalition probably have every right to be upset that this damning assessment of their spending promises was released to the newspapers but they still haven’t explained the real issue - Why are their costings not backed up by Treasury.  Why is the an $800 Million+ hole in their estimate of one policy.  They aren’t claiming that this document is false, they just demand that the leaker should be found and arrested.  On this basis they are confirming that there is a hole in their assessments. 

And now the clincher.  They aren’t going to release any more costing documents to Treasury until the leaker is found.  What spin.  They are now terrified that the rest of their policy costings are grossly underestimated that they do not want Treasury to review them.  This si the easy out.  They know that the leaker will not be found.  At least not in the next ten days.  They can try to walk the high moral ground while at the same time withholding from the Australian people vital information with which they can use to assess the truthfulness of their promises.  The Coalition (and all other parties for that matter) should be forced to release the costing documents to Treasury for analysis when they release the policy.   This would ensure that we have more than just  a politicians word that the figures are right.  That would be a true ‘Charter of Budget Honesty’

Abbott does the Time Warp!

This is a very funny advertisment produced by the ALP. 

 

My only question is why they don’t release ads like these on mainstream media.  This would have people talking and produce a much more favourable result than the typical ad with a horrible black and white picture of Tony Abbott and a large stamp across his face with slogans like “Don’t risk him”.  Here is an example of the later advertisement.

 

Thank God Latham has a terrible handshake!

Mark Latham yesterday confronted the Prime Minister Julia Gillard at the Brisbane Exhibition (EKKA) and complained about not being granted an interview.  He then took a further shot at Former PM Kevin Rudd saying that he was the source of the leaks of the past couple of weeks. 

His bile knows no boundaries!  This man who once ascended to the heights of the leadership of the ALP no shows no reverence for the organisation that once mistakenly made him leader.

This is the footage of his confrontation with the PM yesterday:

 

And now even his employer, Channel 9, has come out and apologised for his disgraceful conduct.   

All I can say is thank god he has a terrible handshake.  Because had he been Prime Minister were would we be now?  To borrow a phrase from Kevin Rudd, I think we would be rat-f**ked!

 

Update: That handshake!

GetUp!’s latest ad: Tony Abbott’s archaic views

GetUp! have created a new advertisement creatively showing us the old world views of Tony Abbott.  Peter Black commented today:

I think this is one of the more effective negative ads we have seen in the campaign so far, and reminds people that the very measured, restrained Tony Abbott we are seeing throughout this campaign, is not the Tony Abbott we have seen over the past few years.

(Via Election Blackout)

Newspoll: 50/50 – But scary for the ALP

According to the latest Newspoll the two party preferred is 50/50.  But the ALP would be very worried by the primary vote.  The primary vote is nearly back where it was when Julia Gillard took over the top job. 

Kevin Rudd was at 35% primary vote on 18-20 June 2010.  Julia is now on 37% and heading downward.  There needs to be a massive shakeup in the ALP camp and not just by throwing more money at the electorate.  I think next weeks Newspoll will be the most telling and politically terrifying for Julia Gillard and the ALP. 

I want both parties to engage, make some hard decisions, give us a point of difference and stop being small targets.

 

PRIMARY VOTE+ 

IN THE FEDERAL ELECTION FOR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO BE HELD ON SATURDAY, THE 21ST OF AUGUST, WHICH ONE OF THE FOLLOWING WILL YOU VOTE FOR? IF “UNCOMMITTED”, TO WHICH ONE OF THESE DO YOU HAVE A LEANING?

		COALITION %	LABOR %	GREENS %	OTHERS %
Election	24 November 2007	42.1	43.3	7.8	6.8
Newspoll	28-30 May 2010	41	35	16	8
Newspoll	18-20 June 2010	40	35	15	10
Newspoll	25-27 June 2010	40	42	10	8
Newspoll	16-18 July 2010	38	42	12	8
Newspoll	23-25 July 2010	42	40	12	6
Newspoll	30 July - 1 August 2010*	44	37	12	7

*4 per cent “uncommitted” and 2 per cent “refused” excluded.

 

 

TWO PARTY PREFERRED+
Based on preference flow at November 2007 Federal election 

	COALITION	LABOR
Election 24 November 2007	47.3	52.7
Newspoll 28-30 May 2010	49	51
Newspoll 18-20 June 2010	48	52
Newspoll 25-27 June 2010	47	53
Newspoll 16-18 July 2010	45	55
Newspoll 23-25 July 2010	48	52
Newspoll 30 July - 1 August 2010	50	50

A fantastic critique of political journalism in Australia

In General the media have turned politics into nothing more than that: politics.  Once upon a time politics was about policy and vision.  Now it is nothing more than point scoring, buying votes and one-up-manship.  It is a sad indictment that political journalists (in general) care more about fights, leaks, he-said she-said politics than the actual issues affecting the everyday lives of Australians. 

The Blogger at Grog’s Gamut articulates this best when he slams the media for caring more about comments by Mark Latham rather than vital health and disability policy.

Election 2010: Day 14 (or waste and mismanagement – the media)

Here’s a note to all the news directors around the country: Do you want to save some money? Well then bring home your journalists following Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard, because they are not doing anything of any worth except having a round-the-country twitter and booze  tour.

It is a sad thing to say but we could lose 95 percent of the journalists following both leaders and the nation would be none the poorer for it. In fact we would probably be better off because it would leave the 5 percent who have some intelligence and are not there to run their own narrative a chance to ask some decent questions of the leaders. Some questions which might actually reveal who would be the better leader of this country.

…

This morning John Bergin tweeted that Tony Abbott was making an announcement about disability support for students. As I noted yesterday I have a vested interest in the topic so I quickly put on the Sky News stream to watch the press conference. He announced that:

[severely disabled] students would be given a $20,000 education card, with the measure costing $314 million over four years.

and:

the Coalition would also nationalise disability definitions across the country in a bid to ensure people in different states are treated the same way by authorities.

They are good policies. They don’t “trump” the ALP’s policy of yesterday because the ALP’s focuses on early intervention for pre-school aged kids. Both are good, and in fact in my dream world both would be introduced (and expanded).

But I had some issues – what is meant by “severely disabled”. Now my daughter has Down Syndrome, and it might sound surprising to people, but I don’t actually view her as severely disabled. I assume she would come in under the clause, but as someone who just views her as my little girl and often forgets about the DS, I was wondering if she would qualify.

So I waited for some questions from the journalists. They came and guess what, they were all about politics. They were about Mark Latham’s comments about his believing Kevin Rudd leaked to Laurie Oakes. They were about foreigners owning our farms and whether he disagreed with a National’s senator. They were about nothing to do with the press conference. Did they test the policy? Did they ask who will qualify and why? Nope. Not at all.

 

Read on at Grog’s Gamut

Nielsen: 52-48 to Coalition

The election seems to be turning and the latest poll seems disastrous for Labor.  Perhaps Julia Gillard will now come out of her shell and stop the one line, focus group tested answers and show us some of the spark she has in Question Time in the Parliament.    Or she could become the fifth shortest serving Prime Ministers.

Courtesy of the always reliable GhostWhoVotes, we are informed of a bombshell Nielsen poll which puts the Coalition at an election-winning 52-48 lead, from primary votes of 45 per cent for the Coalition, 36 per cent for Labor and 12 per cent for the Greens. More to follow.

UPDATE: Michelle Grattan reports “the gender gap on voting intention has disappeared, with primary and two-party-preferred votes now little different” – which frankly doesn’t seem likely. Julia Gillard’s approval rating is down five points to 51 per cent and her disapproval up six to 39 per cent, while Tony Abbott is up six points on approval to 49 per cent and disapproval down six to 45 per cent. Gillard’s lead on preferred prime minister has narrowed from 55-34 to 49-41. The poll was conducted from Tuesday to Thursday from a sample of 1356.

Via The Poll Bludger

Clarke and Dawe: Election campaign in comedy

Clarke and Dawe are masters at the art of sarcasm.  Another top video which sums up the election campaign so far.

Who has a plan for Australia?

In the washup of the great (or “not so great”) debate, Peter Hartcher writes that while not being flashy Julia Gillard showed she has a plan for Australia.  Tony Abbott, on the other hand, did a good job as an opposition leader but has no plan or vision for the country.  Who do you want leading the country? 

Tony Abbott made a strong critique of the Gillard Labor government in last night's debate, but utterly failed to establish his own party as the alternative.

Abbott approached the debate as he is approaching the election - as an Opposition Leader, an insurgent, a little angry, seeking a protest vote, hoping we will reject the government rather than embrace the Coalition.

He even hinted at some blokeish resentment of the biological fact Gillard is a woman, and has an advantage with women voters - Abbott appealed to voters to choose their government on the basis of the job done, "not on gender".

This turns gender inequality on its head, suggesting Abbott thinks Gillard the beneficiary of a gender bias, and sees himself as the victim.

This was too much. Gillard has never played on her gender, never run as a "women's" candidate.

By suggesting some sort of gender inequality is at work, Abbott was not legitimately criticising his rival but revealing his own exasperation with women voters.

But the central problem of Abbott's performance was the absence of a plan for government.

He stuck hard at Labor over its leadership coup, asking how the public could trust the Labor Party "when even Kevin Rudd couldn't".

Abbott offered an "action contract" to the Australian electorate, but every point on it is a repudiation of Labor and not a positive alternative.

This is his mantra - he promises to "end the waste, repay the debt, stop new taxes and stop the boats".

Abbott likes this so much he ran through it no fewer than three times. But it's a mantra for an opposition, not a government. He failed to mention any positive offerings on education or health. Abbott did play up his plan for a more generous paid parental leave, but a single initiative is not a plan for government.

Gillard's performance was not compelling, but she was positive, self-possessed, at ease, and, vitally, she had a plan.

Where Abbott chanted his four-point repudiation, Gillard pitched positives.

She listed the Government's six-point economic plan, plus its new offerings on education and health. Taking a tip from US presidential debates, she repeatedly declared herself an optimist, a sunny contrast to Abbott's dark clouds of concern.

The bottom line? Abbott ran as an insurgent, not a potential prime minister. Gillard ran as a leader with a positive plan. That is why she won the debate.

I think Tony Abbott spends far too much time talking about which ALP policies he thinks have “failed” and not enough time on where he wants the country to head. And of course how tot get there.  Kevin Rudd won power on a positive message and vision.  Even if at times it resembled a “me too” campaign.  Can Abbott change himself this late in the game? 

Source: Abbott, a man with a gripe and a mantra: Sydney Morning Herald

Toeing the party line on same sex marriage

If anyone doubted that Senator Penny Wong was a consummate politician who would never depart from the party line, an article from the Sydney Morning Herald smashes that doubt.

Senator Wong, the first openly gay cabinet minister, said of same sex marriage:

‘‘I think the reality is there is a cultural, religious, historical view around that which we have to respect,’’ she told Network Ten today.

‘‘The party’s position is very clear that this is an institution that is between a man and a woman.’’

Senator Wong said she respected Labor’s view of marriage as an institution between a man and a woman.

‘‘I am part of a party and I support the party’s policies.’’

Senator Wong did point out that the Rudd Government did make a number of advancements of the cause of same sex couples.

Senator Wong … said she was proud of what the party had achieved in recognising the value and importance of same-sex relationships.

Various reforms had been made during Labor’s first term of government, including the changing of 80 pieces of legislation to remove commonwealth discrimination.

It is amazing how politicians can hold back their personal views on issues that directly affect them, just to hold the party line. 

This story made me think of an episode of The West Wing (incidentally my favourite TV show) where a gay congressman produced a bill banning marriage.  Deputy Chief of Staff Joshua Lyman wrongly thought he was trying to ban gay marriage.  Senator Boniot clarified:

“My bill bans all marriage. If the government can't make it available to everyone, I want us out of the business entirely.  Leave it to churches and synagogues, and, of course, casinos and department stores.”

Makes for an interesting point.  If Government’s have all sorts of discrimination legislation then why is this one area of discrimination so hard to deal with.  If Governments want to be in the business of sanctioning (non-religious) marriage then why can it not be afforded to same sex couples?  It is certainly not that it wouldn't get through Parliament.  The Gillard Government would have the support of the Greens.  Recent polling also suggests that it is favoured by a majority of Australians. 

I am not naive and I know that this is an emotive issue and would create a massive wedge between the ALP and the Coalition.  Perhaps the politics is the main reason why we will not see same sex marriage on the agenda for many years to come. 

Because as Penny Wong has shown this week, politics is number one in the land of politicians.

Julia Gillard: Dance craze “Moving Forward”

This is a dance craze that Triple M compiled.  Very funny.

The value (or lack of) of online polls

On the Daily Telegraph website today a poll asks who will win the upcoming election, Julia Gillard or Tony Abbott.  The result as at 9.35am is:

Which is funny considering the latest Newspoll shows:

 

Gillard: red; Abbott: blue

So how can we marry up these two conflicting polls?  What value should be placed on online (or even phone in) polls? 

I would suggest none. 

Online or phone in polls are based on people voluntarily using the website or calling the poll number.  This means they must be motivated to enter the poll and it may be biased for a number of other reasons. 

It may be that one type of party voter is more interested in taking part in the poll on a particular issue.  Voters who vote ALP may be more interested in reading about IR policy stories which have a linked question conversely Coalition voters may be more interested in a story linked to business.  This would therefore lead to a skewing in the sample pool.  The sample pool is hardly random. 

Other than this you just need to look at the above contrasting polls to know that something is up!

 

UPDATE:

This is further evidence of the lack of cogency of online polls.  On Monday 2/8/10 the Couriermail had a poll asking “Which party would get your first preference”  And the results:

So who reads and contributes to the couriermail polls?  Overwhelmingly Liberal supporters!

Talk radio entertains some truly horrible people

I recently reviewed the 4BC website and saw a section on Police pay demands.  I reviewed the handful of comments listed by listeners and came across this particularly disturbing one:

BRING BACK THE ICAC ... Lets see how many police hang themselves this time with all the police corruption and the hide of them wanting pay rises. I got offered a bribe by a moree police officer and all that happened to him was a slap on the wrist and i have this in black and white on paper, BRING BACK THE ICAC FIRST, see who hangs themselves first and then see if they deserve it - Terry Thursday 15 July, 2010 - 7:29 AM

To suggest that anyone should go an hang themself is disgraceful.  I applaud them for taking up the fight for Police to be offered more than the appalling 2.5% pay increase.  But for 4BC to allow this to be posted (presumably without moderation) on their site is disappointing and allows bigots a forum to spread their bile. 

 

On a side note: The ICAC is a NSW based organisation (not Qld) – the Independent Commission Against Corruption.  Moree is also a town in NSW.  Qld has a body called the CMC which is the same as ICAC therefore negating the need to bring back an ICAC. 

Terry is a moron!

The Abbott Family: Viral Video

This is the AWU's viral video of the Abbott Family which is doing the rounds this morning.

Some facts on benefits paid to Asylum Seekers: A good blog from Kochie

The below is a post from David Koch’s blog on the actual benefits paid to Asylum Seekers.  It dispels the popular email about how Asylum Seekers get paid more than Australian pensioners!  Worth a read to find out some of the facts. 

The Real Benefits For Asylum Seekers In Australia

Jul 14|07:09

…

If you’ve received an email which looks like this you should delete it, tell whoever sent it to you that they’re an idiot, and learn the facts…

• First of all, refugees are not illegal immigrants. It has never been illegal in Australia to arrive on shore without a visa seeking asylum. In fact it’s one of the rights within the UN’s declarations on refugees which Australia helped to write.

• When an asylum seeker arrives in Australia, they do not get any Centrelink benefits. While their status is being processed, and if they meet certain criteria, they can be eligible for financial support from the Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme, administered through the Red Cross. This amount is 89% of the basic Centrelink allowance. This means approximately $405.84 per fortnight – over $260 less than a pensioner.

• Once an asylum seeker is recognised as a genuine refugee, after a long and highly scrutinized process, they are given permanent residency and are then entitled to the same Centrelink, schooling and health benefits as anyone else. No more, no less.

• The normal Centrelink welfare payment is $456 per fortnight, for a refugee with permanent residency and an Australian-born person. A pensioner in Australia receives $671.90. Over $200 more each fortnight. Even with family/parenting benefits, a refugee’s benefits would still be less than a pensioner’s income.

• For an asylum seeker to qualify for any payment under the Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme, they must have lodged an application for a visa 6 months before, not be in detention, and not get any other payment or benefit.

• To get a permanent residence as a refugee, the person has to prove they are a genuine refugee fleeing persecution, go through character, security and medical tests, and sign an Australian Values Statement.

• ‘Boat people’ are asylum seekers. Refugees are asylum seekers who have been approved and given a visa. None of them are ‘illegal immigrants’.

The above facts come from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, the Refugee Council of Australia, and from the Red Cross. A lot more reliable than a random email from a friend of a friend.

Before you make a judgment on asylum seeker policy, know the facts.

For more info, have a read of these:

- Myths about refugees and asylum seekers: the answers

- Response to lies and hoax emails – Refugee Council of Australi a

- Media Blunders on asylum seeker claims

- Assistance for Asylum seekers in Australia - DIAC

- Related articles: Avoid the Political Spin - Some Facts About Asylum Seekers

A polished performance matters as much as substance…to some

Politics should not be a personality contest, but unfortunately for a lot of people this is the case.  They don’t really understand the policy debates, or are just not interested. 

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott made his election announcement speech in Brisbane this past Saturday.   Tony Abbott’s speech was less than enthusiastic and he seemed as if he was thrown by the calling of the election even though it was announced (albeit not confirmed) the day before.  At one point he said:

This election isn’t about glib slogans.  It is not about glib slogans. It’s about competent government that works for every day Australians and that only the coalition stands ready to deliver. 

While this phrase seems good on paper, Tony Abbott couldn't sell it.  It is as though he doesn’t believe it or was given his speech a few minutes before going out to speak.  He had to read the most important parts of this section. 

Tony Abbott is not the polished performer that his opposite number, Julia Gillard, is.  Tony Abbott therefore needs to pick up his game because for some this is an important aspect in their politicians.

Now,back to the policy!

 

Full video of Tony Abbott's election announcement speech (Via Ten News)

Full video of Julia Gillard's election announcement speech