The only losers are Smith, Milne and Bolt

Michael Smith of 2UE, Glenn Milne of The Australian and Andrew Bolt of the Herald Sun last week all attempted to bring down Prime Minister Julia Gillard with attacks on her judgment.

But the funny thing is they are the only ones who have lost anything in this who fiasco!

Glenn Milne has been axed from the ABC’s Insiders program (which is sad cause it would have been fun to see him and David Marr go at it about the article):

Statement regarding Glenn Milne

Glenn Milne was an occasional contributor to the Insiders program. He has been informed that Insiders has decided not to offer him any further appearances on the program.

This decision is based on a range of factors, one of which included The Australian's decision to both withdraw and apologise for an inaccurate column by Mr Milne on August 29, 2011 which did not meet the newspaper's own editorial and legal standards.

Panelists are selected for inclusion in the Insiders program based on the quality of their work for their various publications and outlets. Mr Milne's column containing what The Australian called "untrue" assertions about the conduct of the Prime Minister was therefore relevant to his role as an Insiders panelist.

In the context of live television, panelists have serious editorial responsibilities, and this was the basis for the ABC's decision: we were not confident that these responsibilities would be met.

 

Now Michael Smith of 2UE has been suspended:

2UE 'absolutely' support talkback host ... but suspend him anyway

The talkback host Michael Smith has been temporarily suspended by 2UE station management after he was "slammed" by the ABC's Media Watch program last night.

…

The general manager of 2UE, Tim McDermott, said Smith was off air "temporarily" to "put a bit of caution to the wind".

He said the station supported Smith "absolutely" but thought it prudent to remove him from his show before a meeting tomorrow to discuss this issue after "we got slammed by Media Watch".

…

Media Watch host Jonathan Holmes said last night that "Smith either didn't know, or didn't care, that every allegation in it has been aired, and dealt with publicly by Julia Gillard, multiple times".

 

And Bolt nearly took his bat and ball and went home:

Column - How Gillard tried to kill a story

Andrew Bolt

Yesterday morning I was considering resigning as a News Limited columnist.

I thought this company that I love, that I have long admired for its defence of free speech, had caved in to pressure from a Prime Minister to close down reporting of a matter of public interest.

That matter was Gillard’s former relationship, professional and romantic, with union official Bruce Wilson who, unknown to her, was ripping off employers and members of the Australian Workers Union, of which he was state secretary.

 

You can watch the Media Watch program on this story here.

 

But no doubt all three will be back and attacking the Prime Minister better than ever in no time.

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? 

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! 

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!

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

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!

Asylum seeker debate: Honesty urged

Prime Minister Julia Gillard appears ready to fulfil Kevin Rudd's prophecy of a lurch to the right on asylum seekers. It remains to be seen what her final policy will include but at this point she appears to be laying the groundwork for a tougher framework to deal with boat arrivals.

Noted Human Rights campaigner Julian Burnside QC this week called out the Prime Minister to "tell the truth" on asylum seekers. He said this week in Adelaide:

"I challenge her to tell the truth," Julian Burnside QC told journalists in Adelaide on Sunday.

"I challenge her to depart from what Tony Abbott has been doing - Tony Abbott has been lying to the public, creating an utterly false impression about the number of people who come by boat seeking asylum and the reasons that they come seeking asylum.

"I challenge Julia Gillard to point out to the public that at the current rate of arrivals it would take about 20 years to fill the MCG with boat people."

I agree with Julian Burnside QC. I hope that some truth can come through in this debate. But unfortunately I think that fear will win through. Fear of a repeat of a Tampa election.



Source: Gillard urged to be honest on asylum seekers