2010 Federal Election

[drsmith]

Julia has lifted the restriction from a Sunday 8th dabate to any time.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...nomy-at-any-time/story-fn59niix-1225900561807

Hopefully Tony will stand his ground.

 

[noco]

I watched a re-run of Q&A this morning. The audience laughed when Craig Emerson spoke so fondly of Julia saying that he had known her since 1998.

This was a canny audience. They knew that this was when Emerson deserted his wife and three kids and shacked up with the fair Julia in Canberra. He was her live-in lover.

I watched Craig Emmerson on AM Agenda (Sky News) being interveiwed with Senator George Brandis and Emmerson became a hysterical comic in his own right when he was like a cracked record about Work Choices. He repeatedly tried to talk over Brandis time and time again. What a clown he is.

 

[IFocus]

Have to disagree. Bolt tends to oversimply situations to adjust to the tabloid editorialism that earns him a crust. His "interesting" use of logic and crusade for the far, far, far right tend to be tend to override any sense of proper discussion when Bolt is concerned.

Good summery Mofra Bolt is intelligent but continually disappoints due to the reasons you note.

 

[IFocus]

Peter Dutton was head and shoulders above the other 3 politicians there. Craig Emerton for the most part realised this and spent most of his efforts trying to get a rise out of Barnaby.

One dissapointing aspect about last night's show was that neither of the Coalition members did not get a chance to respond to internet sensorship when that issue was raised.

Dutton is one of the few bright lights in the liberal party............pity they forced him back into a marginal while all the Howardite deadwood sit in safe seats.

 

[IFocus]

Julia has lifted the restriction from a Sunday 8th dabate to any time.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...nomy-at-any-time/story-fn59niix-1225900561807

Hopefully Tony will stand his ground.

Hopefully he wont and be exposed on his weak economic credentials like raising business tax.

 

[warakawa]

after watching the Sex Party vs Family First today, I might vote for Family First.

 

[drsmith]

Hopefully he wont and be exposed on his weak economic credentials like raising business tax.

The message on that became somewhat confusing with the release of his revised maternity leave scheme,

Ah, says Abbott, but it's only temporary: "Once the budget position has been restored, we will reduce the levy and eventually abolish it," says the Liberal policy published yesterday.

OK, and when will the budget position be restored? This takes us back to Abbott's first answer. If he won't say, we can't know.

Or if his Action Contract is really Liberal policy, it will be in 2013. Which is exactly when the corporate levy kicks in.

So in this case, the levy will be redundant even as it kicks in. Not only a big new tax, but an unnecessary one, according to the Liberals' own policy.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-elect...-coalitions-economic-woes-20100803-115g5.html

I suspect that by "budget position" he was referring to debt on the government balance sheet rather than the annual income statement.

It wasn't clear though and this is something where he has to be absolutely clear.

I agree though that from a tax perspective, it's bad policy. Sound tax policy is sadly lacking from both sides in this campaign.

 

[drsmith]

after watching the Sex Party vs Family First today, I might vote for Family First.

The Sex Party and Family first could join forces and call themselves Sex First.

Family would then be second as in nature.

 

[noco]

I don't see how the Coalition can possibly estimate a timetable to have the economy back into surplus when they do not know what the real Labor Party state of the economy will be if the Coalition wins the election.
It could be a lot worse than the Labor Party are revealing. It happened before Howard took over only to find a $10 billion bigger deficet.
IMHO the Labor Party are exaggerating their estimate of 3 years just to gain traction for the 2010 election.

 

[Logique]

Sorry to interupt the flow,
but do people think this Abbott 'no means no' so-called gaff about the debate is anything other than political opportunism from his enemies? A poll today in the SMH has it running at precisely 50-50 on 28,000 votes. Not the best choice of words sure, but perhaps a little precious here?

 

[Calliope]

Sorry to interupt the flow,
but do people think this Abbott 'no means no' so-called gaff about the debate is anything other than political opportunism from his enemies? A poll today in the SMH has it running at precisely 50-50 on 28,000 votes. Not the best choice of words sure, but perhaps a little precious here?

50/50 on a lefty newspaper like the SMH is actually a vote of confidence in Abbott.

 

[Timmy]

this Abbott 'no means no' so-called gaff ... A poll today in the SMH has it running at precisely 50-50 on 28,000 votes.

The poll on the SMH ... hmmmm ....

Just as an experiment I voted three times on it ... before I got bored.
(Just erase cookies after you vote each time ... too easy).

If the party faithful are thus motivated (& either party can do it, not picking sides) the poll might say whatever the faithful want it to say.

Etc.

 

[trainspotter]

The Sex Party and Family first could join forces and call themselves Sex First.

Family would then be second as in nature.

The sublime clarity of this post borders on sagacity IMO.

I am still wiping tears from my eyes.

 

[Calliope]

While the feminists are waxing indignant on another thread on sexual harassment at DJs, Abbott should not be allowed to slip under the radar. What he said was so sexist it was something bloody awful. He actually said that he assumed that when Gillard said "no" she meant "no".

Shock! Horror! I hope the electorate is aware that when the when they wake up on 22 August, that the new PM could be a sexual harasser, who will probably make it legal.

The alternative of re-electing an economic ignoramus doesn't look too bad after all.

 

[Julia]

Sorry to interupt the flow,
but do people think this Abbott 'no means no' so-called gaff about the debate is anything other than political opportunism from his enemies? A poll today in the SMH has it running at precisely 50-50 on 28,000 votes. Not the best choice of words sure, but perhaps a little precious here?

Logique, I made just this point on the DJ's thread yesterday. Other than Wayne, who understood the connection I was trying to make, it probably didn't make sense to most on that thread.
It goes to our readiness to leap into outrage mode in so many areas, and our seemingly incessant need to look for offence in an otherwise quite ordinary comment. Political opportunism? Sure, but so silly that it may well backfire on the complainers.

The poll on the SMH ... hmmmm ....

Just as an experiment I voted three times on it ... before I got bored.
(Just erase cookies after you vote each time ... too easy).

If the party faithful are thus motivated (& either party can do it, not picking sides) the poll might say whatever the faithful want it to say.

Etc.

That's so right, Timmy. I've done the same thing, expecting to get an advice "You have already voted on this poll", but no I could have happily voted a thousand times should I have wanted to.

On a different matter, the government announced that they have had the completely unexpected good luck to be paid a special bonus of $300 million from Medibank Private. It seems the health insurer is so rolling in cash that it's able to make this paltry sum available to the government in order to assist the funding of their election promises.

"The Australian" today points out that this equates to $195 more per member on premiums, or that amount less in payments to hospitals. Either way, members are the losers in the name of assisting the government's election campaign. Considering the exponential rise every year in premiums, I doubt I'm the only member who is feeling very cranky indeed about being so ripped off.

 

[Julia]

On the BER Taskforce:

The taskforce established to investigate waste under Julia Gillard's schools stimulus program has spent more than $1.1 million on consultants' fees in its first three months of operation.

Taskforce head Brad Orgill has told a Senate enquiry that about $80,000 alone was paid to public relations consultant Michael Salmon for eight weeks of media management.

The costings show that the BER taskforce has hired 12 companies to help investigate claims of wastage and rorting in the $16.2 billion program.

 

[Calliope]

On the BER Taskforce:

So the rorters are investigating the rorters. It is obvious that they will give Gillard a pass on BER. They will have to dig up a scapegoat though.

 

[Logique]

From Julia:
Logique, I made just this point on the DJ's thread yesterday. Other than Wayne, who understood the connection I was trying to make, it probably didn't make sense to most on that thread.

Oops, this went over my head also. With Medibank Private - I would not be happy either.

Found this interesting today, strength in Vic/SA/Tas won't deliver as many seats as weakness in QLD/NSW/WA will cause losses, and in [not a leaker] Lindsay Tanners's seat in Melbourne:http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...verse-poll-slide/story-fn59niix-1225900799957

The problem for Labor and Gillard is that Labor's support is at a highwater mark in Victoria and South Australia, where the maximum net gain they could hope to garner is four seats, while in Queensland and NSW a swath of seats on slim margins could result in a loss of 16 seats. Western Australia still seems unhappy with Labor after the mining tax, and another seat would be lost there on these figures.
As well, the Greens would pick up Lindsay Tanner's seat of Melbourne and Labor expects to lose Solomon in the Top End.

 

[DocK]

Sorry to interupt the flow,
but do people think this Abbott 'no means no' so-called gaff about the debate is anything other than political opportunism from his enemies? A poll today in the SMH has it running at precisely 50-50 on 28,000 votes. Not the best choice of words sure, but perhaps a little precious here?

Totally ridiculous that his opponents and a few humourless types have jumped all over him for his choice of words. I thought he made a good point and had a bit of a chuckle at his wording. I think anyone with an ounce of sense can tell the difference between political point-scoring and supposed denigration of a serious issue. Political correctness run amok.
I would like to see a debate though, but a real debate, not a repeat of that parody of politeness passed off as a debate last week.

Logique, I made just this point on the DJ's thread yesterday. Other than Wayne, who understood the connection I was trying to make, it probably didn't make sense to most on that thread.
It goes to our readiness to leap into outrage mode in so many areas, and our seemingly incessant need to look for offence in an otherwise quite ordinary comment. Political opportunism? Sure, but so silly that it may well backfire on the complainers.

I think you assume a lack of intelligence amongst posters on the DJ's thread that is not necessarily so. I for one understood perfectly where you were coming from, and doubt that I'm alone there, but felt that your linking of this issue was off topic and diverting the gist of that thread, so ignored the post over there. However, I agree there are some that will choose to be outraged by the least innocuous comment if it suits them, and this is a perfect example of that imo. The campaigning on both sides has made for lacklustre tv viewing due to the obvious terror of putting a foot (or word) wrong shown by both Abbott and Gillard. Personally, I'd love to see them both care a little less about being popular with everyone, and care a little more about standing up for what they believe in - whatever that may be. A large part of the electorate is having trouble telling them apart - let alone actually believing in them having a conviction to cling to between them! All the flip-flopping just leaves me more dismayed at the lack of leadership potential on show these days. Our politicians used to have a bit of character and personality about them, and love them or hate them at least you had a fair idea what their vision for Australia was - the current crop seem more interested in their "image" and media portrayal.

Rant over.

 

[overhang]

The poll on the SMH ... hmmmm ....

Just as an experiment I voted three times on it ... before I got bored.
(Just erase cookies after you vote each time ... too easy).

If the party faithful are thus motivated (& either party can do it, not picking sides) the poll might say whatever the faithful want it to say.

Etc.

Polling on Fairfax and News corp sites doesn't work that way anymore. Your IP is logged to ensure a single vote per IP. Now it will appear that you voted as you will have the option to vote again because your cookies are deleted however your vote wont count. I presume this is to give users voting under the same IP the impression there vote counted however this is not the case.
However a proxy server or static IP can be used to get around this but that's out of the average voters capability's, but yes in a nutshell online polling should be taken as a grain of salt.