The only poll that matters...
March 18, 2013 6:08 PM   Subscribe

Antony Green's Election Calculator Compare your own predictions with Antony Green’s. Handy list of recent past polls to see just what sort of caning the Gillard government might be in for. Probably more fun for coalition voters than Labor voters.
posted by mattoxic (133 comments total) 8 users marked this as a favorite
 
I like that the calculator won't let you enter the kind of swing it'd take for my seat to go Lib. Sort of looking forward to seeing the work-experience kid the tories put up this time.
posted by pompomtom at 6:31 PM on March 18, 2013 [1 favorite]


It would be really helpful - to the non-Aussie mefites - for this post to specify that it's talking about the Australian election.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 6:56 PM on March 18, 2013 [2 favorites]


Having said that, holy crap, what a bloodbath this election is going to be.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 6:58 PM on March 18, 2013


I always wish these things had a senate version, so I could confirm my vain hope that the Greens will still be in there to fuck shit up for the tories.
posted by Jimbob at 7:08 PM on March 18, 2013


For all your Australian-election obsessing needs:

The Poll Bludger, complete with new and revamped BludgerTrack2013.

Antony Green's blog, which provides good explanations of how Australian elections work and why.

The Ghost Who Votes, a handle which became renowned during the 2010 election for providing early access to polling results.

Pollytics, another popular Crikey poll analyst who has been quiet of late.

And for the polls themselves:
Newspoll;
Nielsen;
Essentail;
Roy Morgan; and
Galaxy.
posted by kithrater at 7:20 PM on March 18, 2013


It's not a full senate election - so at least some of them will be - the libs won't get the senate, there will be enough Labor senators to vote with the libs to make sure everything the libs want to get through gets through.
posted by mattoxic at 7:22 PM on March 18, 2013


Mark the Ballot is an interesting blog that is trying to do 538 style predictions.

The latest aggregation and prediction is here. 93 - 54 - 3 is the current prediction.

Also worth noting is that the current betting odds have Gillard at less than 50% to lead the ALP to the election.
posted by sien at 7:26 PM on March 18, 2013


there will be enough Labor senators to vote with the libs to make sure everything the libs want to get through gets through

That's a bit of a strong assumption. I doubt Labor will be in the mood to pave an easy path for the libs after a trouncing of this magnitude. You really think they're going to support the Liberals when they dismantle the NBN, cut the school kids bonus, reduce the tax-free threshold, reduce the super compulsory superannuation contribution, all of which are coalition policies?
posted by Jimbob at 7:27 PM on March 18, 2013 [1 favorite]


Mark the Ballot is an interesting blog that is trying to do 538 style predictions.

Oh man. Never have I seen an MCMC simulation that looks like this.
posted by Jimbob at 7:29 PM on March 18, 2013


I'm utterly stunned at how ham-fisted a strategist Gillard is:

Announce the election date months before the announcement is due - create an election campaign atmosphere to deny the government clear policy air

Conduct a war against 457 visa holders (because it will play out well in Bankstown) while employing a 457 visa holder on her staff - giving Abbot an easy free kick

Release policy on water management over coal seam gas - that is everyone except the miners likes - THE DAY BEFORE NEWSPOLL IS DUE - denying that policy any air

Taking on Fairfax and News in a fucking election year - with policy that is so lip wristed that serves no good what so ever - apart from getting Newscorp and Fairfax even further off side.

Who's writing these people's strategy!!?

I used to support her - now it's almost impossible.
posted by Mario Speedwagon at 7:29 PM on March 18, 2013 [1 favorite]


Also, word around Canberra is that it's on for Wednesday. (OK, dubious gossip all over the PS)
posted by sien at 7:30 PM on March 18, 2013


SPILL!
posted by Jimbob at 7:31 PM on March 18, 2013


You really think they're going to support the Liberals...

It depends. If the Coalition can convince Labor that they are willing to call a double dissolution, and Labor thinks they will lose even more seats as a result, then Labor has every incentive to avoid creating a trigger for a DD.
posted by kithrater at 7:33 PM on March 18, 2013


That's a bit of a strong assumption. I doubt Labor will be in the mood to pave an easy path for the libs after a trouncing of this magnitude.

Oh yes, they will adopt their usual gutless small target stance. Labor is unusually good at fucking things up for Labor. Look what they've done to asylum seekers - everything + more (apart from tow backs [because the Navy says no]) than Abbott wanted.
posted by mattoxic at 7:34 PM on March 18, 2013 [1 favorite]


Labor's been horrible on issues they should be owning, like treating refugees almost as bad as the Coalition and continuing to push media regulations that they should quietly let die. I suppose I'm going to be forced to vote Green, for all the good that it'll do them.

Springsteen is in town this month, and he's always been great at getting out the vote for the Democrats in America but he didn't mention politics at all. I wonder what would happen if a Labor staffer briefed him, said "hey, we're pretty much the equivalent of the Democrats, why not give us a mention at your sold out concerts?".
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 8:51 PM on March 18, 2013


Yes, people staying home is a huge issue here, and what Australians need is a big strong American to come and sort that out for us.
posted by pompomtom at 9:03 PM on March 18, 2013 [2 favorites]


I can't in good conscience vote for any of these toolbags so I guess it's the Sex Party again for me. Shame that I'm being forced to waste my vote in such a manner.
posted by turgid dahlia 2 at 9:05 PM on March 18, 2013 [1 favorite]


It's preferential: You're never really voting for anyone, only against the others.
posted by pompomtom at 9:06 PM on March 18, 2013


Springsteen is in town this month, and he's always been great at getting out the vote for the Democrats in America but he didn't mention politics at all.

Springsteen, as an American, doesn't really have the right to talk to Australians about their politics. It's none of his business. Even if he did say something, it would be taken poorly. People to go concerts to hear music, not to be lectured to. Especially by some rank outsider, awesome musician though he may be.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 9:06 PM on March 18, 2013 [1 favorite]


Yes, people staying home is a huge issue here, and what Australians need is a big strong American to come and sort that out for us.

That wasn't my point at all. I know there's compulsory voting (I've been fined before). When I say 'get out the vote for the Democrats' I mean 'encouraged people to vote Democrat and energized the base'. He's playing an average of 3 three-hour shows per city with Tom Morello on guitar. If Labor convinced him that their politics matched his (which shouldn't be too hard), even a quick 30 second endorsement would be better for Gillard's chances than her Western Suburbs election stunt or anything else she could do. Springsteen's been very political in America, from his song about the Amedeou Diallo shooting to Obama maneuvering him to use Christie to block Romney rallying.
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 9:06 PM on March 18, 2013


Oh let's not stop there. I'm sure Tom Morello has some really incisive things to say about mining policy and China, and it wouldn't piss people off at all to hear them at a gig. And yeah, why target the electorates that look to be swinging away from Labor, when you could be pontificating at people who've just paid a couple of hundred bucks a ticket for a show? They'll probably live in marginal seats. Because, you know, the Democrats.
posted by pompomtom at 9:17 PM on March 18, 2013


Springsteen's been very political in America...

Because he's American. He has skin in the game in America. He has none in Australia. He probably doesn't know shit about Australian politics. Why would any Australian give a flying fuck about his opinions?
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 9:24 PM on March 18, 2013 [5 favorites]


I can't in good conscience vote for any of these toolbags so I guess it's the Sex Party again for me. Shame that I'm being forced to waste my vote in such a manner.

If the Sex Party just wan't called the sex party- Australian Progressive Party or some such.
posted by mattoxic at 11:04 PM on March 18, 2013 [2 favorites]


Their decision to name themselves the 'Sex Party' does not fill me with confidence about their political judgement.

No matter how good their policies, they will never be taken seriously with that name.
posted by Pouteria at 11:21 PM on March 18, 2013 [1 favorite]


I suppose I'm going to be forced to vote Green, for all the good that it'll do them.

Oh man. You must be hurting bad, thinking of the trees you might accidentally save ;)
posted by Jimbob at 11:25 PM on March 18, 2013


Vote Pirate Party! (NSFW - Arrrrgh rated) instead.
posted by sien at 11:25 PM on March 18, 2013 [1 favorite]


Some of the people behind the Pirate Party are whip smart, and best of luck to them. I think they need to expand beyond a single issue before I'm willing to give them first preference, though.
posted by Jimbob at 11:30 PM on March 18, 2013


'Feisty' Gillard confident of election victory

Wow. I want wantever drugs she is on (to get me through the next four years).
posted by Mezentian at 12:04 AM on March 19, 2013 [1 favorite]


Well, geez. I might owe my sister an apology for disbelieving it when she said how unpopular Gillard and labor are over there. Was she also right that Abbott actually polls better for personal popularity than Gillard?
posted by jacalata at 1:12 AM on March 19, 2013


I used to be very into politics, I was quite proud to be part of the landslide (I even went to the effort to vote from Dublin) that got rid of the Howard government. I used to like to talk about it, to debate the issues and I believed it made a difference.

I'm having a hard time giving a shit about politics these days though, the two majors are just too depressing. I can't fathom why a party like the Greens is not surging in popularity, even if it's just the protest vote, given the acknowledged widespread disillusionment with Labor and Liberal.
posted by deadwax at 1:20 AM on March 19, 2013


Springsteen is a Democrat. Were he to educate himself on Australian politics, he may discover that mainstream Democrat thinking is pretty much square in the middle of the Coalition party line. Abbott wants to get rid of things that the USA had never had, and Obama has no plans for.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 1:23 AM on March 19, 2013 [1 favorite]


I can't fathom why a party like the Greens is not surging in popularity

because they um, asylum seekers... gays... tree huggers... loonies... economic vandals... and - most people read the Tele or the Herald Sun and get their serious news from MX.

It's impossible to have a reasoned discussion about policy in this country.
posted by mattoxic at 1:50 AM on March 19, 2013 [3 favorites]


And once again, LiB misreads the Australian psyche...

sien: "Also, word around Canberra is that it's on for Wednesday."

Oh, god I hope not. I get that there may be some residual love for Rudd, that certain aspects of society are going to hate Gillard for being Gillard, and all that feeds into a nasty misogynest undercurrent found in some surprising places. But Rudd is not a leader - he's a plastic, moldable, infinitely posable caricature of one; but one stuffed with broken glass, razor blades, and more bile than an illegal Asian Black Bear farm.

Terror of the Autons indeed...
posted by Pinback at 1:51 AM on March 19, 2013 [1 favorite]


Was she also right that Abbott actually polls better for personal popularity than Gillard?

The polls move around a bit, and it depends on whether you do two-party preferred, but, I believe the polls do tend to make Abbott Mr Popularity.

(Rudd and Turnbull poll well as alternative PMs too).
posted by Mezentian at 2:15 AM on March 19, 2013


I have to say I kind of hate Gillard for being Gillard and I'm pretty sure I'm not a misogynist. It's just that I can't stand her manner or her incompetence, the fact she is also a woman is entirely irrelevant and not something I really notice in and of itself.

I did actually quite like her misogynist speach, which I listened to in full, but I still think her leadership and ability to communicate is generally woeful.

This is a government that has produced a reasonable amount of policy I approve of, I can't work out how they can be so inept at communicating it though.

Anyway I don't have much to add to a discussion like this. I'll be in the corner getting pissed and having a good cry if anyone needs me.
posted by deadwax at 2:15 AM on March 19, 2013 [1 favorite]


I can't work out how they can be so inept at communicating it though.

I think The Narrative is: Mining Tax! Carbon Tax! School Halls! Insulation! JU-Liar. Shrinking Budget Surplus!
And that obscures anything good they might do like the ...

... oh, wait, here's Senator Conroy with a new Media Policy and a shotgun. You really shouldn't handle a shotgun in bare feet, Senator.

Seriously, if they had a strategy there which wasn't: "deliberately pick a fight with every media owner in Australia and piss off the independents and Greens by refusing to negotiate, and ensure it goes down by setting a drop dead date of one week" I'm not sure what it was.
posted by Mezentian at 2:20 AM on March 19, 2013 [1 favorite]


Seriously, if they had a strategy there which wasn't: "deliberately pick a fight with every media owner in Australia and piss off the independents and Greens by refusing to negotiate, and ensure it goes down by setting a drop dead date of one week" I'm not sure what it was.

Yeah, that'd be the utter ineptness I was thinking of.
posted by deadwax at 2:23 AM on March 19, 2013


Mezentian: "... oh, wait, here's Senator Conroy with a new Media Policy and a shotgun. You really shouldn't handle a shotgun in bare feet, Senator.

Seriously, if they had a strategy there which wasn't: "deliberately pick a fight with every media owner in Australia and piss off the independents and Greens by refusing to negotiate, and ensure it goes down by setting a drop dead date of one week" I'm not sure what it was.
"

Conroy fascinates me, simply because he's such a terrible and tonedeaf politician. What little chance Labor may have possibly had was for this year was completely pissed away by his media thing -- why on earth would you take on the tabloids like that in an election year?

I guess he's just aboslutely fervent in the things he believes in, but he seems to forget that he's in politics and can't just dictate things wholesale. Gotta get some buy-in and some cooperation, or you're going to get some pushback. It's his way or the highway ... and unfortunately, the highway this time looks like a big Lib mack truck coming to flatten women, people in poverty and immigrants into the pavement. I suppose none of that affects him, though, so he probably doesn't care.
posted by barnacles at 2:30 AM on March 19, 2013


Conroy fascinates me, simply because he's such a terrible and tonedeaf politician. What little chance Labor may have possibly had was for this year was completely pissed away by his media thing -- why on earth would you take on the tabloids like that in an election year?

The only explanation I can come up with is that he's testing out the advice from his new "How to Lose an Election" textbook.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 2:39 AM on March 19, 2013


why on earth would you take on the tabloids like that in an election year?

When you suspect you're on the way out, why not enjoy a few last kicks at the expense of your enemies? At the very least, Conroy now has another chapter to add to his memoir about his "ahead of their time" media reforms.

What really derailed the proposed reforms was a collapse in the unity of the FTA broadcasters over the 75 per cent reach rule, brought about by the scandalous courtship of Nine Network and Southern Cross Austero.
posted by kithrater at 2:41 AM on March 19, 2013


The election was called for Yom Kippur. Yes, I know that there aren't that many Jews in Australia, and I know they can use postal ballots or pre-poll, but it disadvantages Jewish candidates and it looks unsympathetic. Really, why wouldn't you look at a bloody calendar before calling the election?
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:50 AM on March 19, 2013


Joe I believe the election was also scheduled, as they all are, for a Saturday - surely that is disadvantageous anyway?
posted by Jimbob at 2:53 AM on March 19, 2013


I can't believe taking on the media in an election year - it's, it's unfathomable and utterly fucking inept. These people are charged with keeping Abbott, Andrews and that nasty creep Mirabella out of office. I have no words. Maybe if Combet and Plibasek challenged - they can both communicate and Combet has done some real - actual good for the nation.
posted by mattoxic at 2:56 AM on March 19, 2013


Meanwhile, any mention of being involved with Mr Obeid is reason enough for being removed from your preselection and the Nationals - Torbay withdraws as New England candidate.
posted by kithrater at 3:28 AM on March 19, 2013 [1 favorite]


Australian elections are always on Saturdays anyway, Joe in Australia.
posted by Coaticass at 3:44 AM on March 19, 2013


Yes, but lots of Jews (including, I presume, Australia's Jewish MPs) are willing to do things on Saturday that they won't do on the most significant day in the Jewish calendar. The same goes for campaign workers, many of whom are probably Jewish. I recall reading somewhere that the present Jewish MPs - including Michael Danby (Labor) - declared that they wouldn't do any campaigning that day, which is quite an extraordinary implied rebuke.
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:51 AM on March 19, 2013


Really, why wouldn't you look at a bloody calendar before calling the election?

My guess is that they came up with 14 September more or less at random, checked it against the AFL and NRL grand finals, then maybe one of her advisers glanced at some kind of parliamentary service calendar that doesn't list religious days that aren't public holidays, then they went straight to the press conference.

I wish I was joking, but I think that's really what happened.

It's a shame, but "sure, everything we touch turns to shit, but at least we don't do it on purpose" isn't the election slogan that's going to get them back into office.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 4:13 AM on March 19, 2013


Jews are 0.5% of Australia's population, by the way.
posted by chiquitita at 5:12 AM on March 19, 2013


Yep. Pretty much, Joe In Australia, the Jewish population don't matter, and they are mustered in small areas in capital cities for the most part, so despite the saw Israel holds they are statistically minor.

Plus, it's a religious holiday, and we are a secular nation. So, you know, there is that.

And, more importantly: A Saturday in September? Why do you hate football?
posted by Mezentian at 6:11 AM on March 19, 2013


Plus, it's a religious holiday, and we are a secular nation. So, you know, there is that.

In fairness, they'd never call an election on Christmas or Easter. But, yeah - if they start worrying about dates that affect 0.5% of the population, there won't be many possible dates left.
posted by Jimbob at 12:45 PM on March 19, 2013 [1 favorite]


When you suspect you're on the way out, why not enjoy a few last kicks at the expense of your enemies? At the very least, Conroy now has another chapter to add to his memoir about his "ahead of their time" media reforms.

This implies that some version of Conroy's draconian media laws will pass in the future, which is a frightening thought. I usually hate the Telegraph, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

What gets me is how little charisma Gillard and Abbott have. As many people have said, this should have been between Rudd and Turnbull. They were amazing when they debated/flirted on Q&A - intelligent, funny, knowledgable.

Of course, none of this wipes away the blood that both Labor and the Libs have on their hands from their refugee policies.
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 2:47 PM on March 19, 2013


Jews are 0.5% of Australia's population, by the way.

That explains why our comedy is so bad.
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 2:47 PM on March 19, 2013


Come on. How can it be bad? We get most shows within a few years of them appearing on the BBC.

As for offending the Jews, I agree that it's not actually a big issue, but it was a sloppy thing to do and it put Jewish candidates in an awkward position: campaign, and look as though they are selling out their principles for political gain; or don't campaign, potentially lose votes, and (for Labor candidates) make it look as though they're criticising Gillard. Which I understand is what at least one Labor MP/candidate has said he will do.
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:11 PM on March 19, 2013 [1 favorite]


Having a campaign on any day will inconvenience someone. That is what postal votes and early voting are for.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 3:26 PM on March 19, 2013 [2 favorites]


We get most shows within a few years of them appearing on the BBC.

And channel 7 gets them 20 years after that
posted by mattoxic at 3:44 PM on March 19, 2013


This implies that some version of Conroy's draconian media laws will pass in the future, which is a frightening thought

A law to appoint an advocate who will assess whether the standards a media company purports to abide by are sufficiently robust in protecting the public interest, and if not then removing an exemption from a weak privacy law, is hardly draconian. If you think that is how Stalin, Mao, et. al. approached the issue of media regulation, I encourage you to revisit your history books.
posted by kithrater at 3:53 PM on March 19, 2013 [1 favorite]


If you're getting all your comedy from commercial television, then you all deserve what you get. Go out and see a show, for crying out loud. It's even festival season right now.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 3:57 PM on March 19, 2013


My guess is that they came up with 14 September more or less at random,

Possible election dates are actually highly constrained by several factors.
posted by Pouteria at 4:55 PM on March 19, 2013


Conroy's draconian media laws

"draconian"

Hysterical rubbish.
posted by Pouteria at 4:57 PM on March 19, 2013 [2 favorites]


Two of the more outrageous recent Daily Telegraph front pages about the media reforms are included in this blog post; the one that compares Conroy to Mao, Mugabe...etc, and the one that simply cries, Braveheart style, FREEEEEDOOOOOM.

Hysteria indeed.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 5:19 PM on March 19, 2013


Hysteria indeed

Hysterical is all News Corp does
posted by mattoxic at 5:29 PM on March 19, 2013


CiS: This implies that some version of Conroy's draconian media laws will pass in the future, which is a frightening thought. I usually hate the Telegraph, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

I have to ask you whether you had the faintest clue about what these laws actually involved when you wrote this. What do you think is draconian about them?
posted by moorooka at 6:47 PM on March 19, 2013


I've been reading about them long before the Telegraph picked up the story. The idea of government oversight of the press is an affront to the free press, as the quotes from philosophers in the most recent Telegraph front page points out. They could force a media outlet to comply with a particular political view. There is also the proposed requirement that blogs be listened like major media outlets.
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 7:01 PM on March 19, 2013


I have to ask you whether you had the faintest clue about what these laws actually involved when you wrote this. What do you think is draconian about them?

This piece on The Conversation sets it all out quite nicely.

I've been reading about them long before the Telegraph picked up the story. The idea of government oversight of the press is an affront to the free press, as the quotes from philosophers in the most recent Telegraph front page points out. They could force a media outlet to comply with a particular political view. There is also the proposed requirement that blogs be listened like major media outlets.

Yes, you have no idea what you're talking about. Check your assumptions. Don't believe the fucking Telegraph, for crying out loud. You'll find the legislation here (Media Self-Regulation) and here (Public Interest Media Advocate).
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 7:22 PM on March 19, 2013 [1 favorite]


The idea of government oversight of the press is an affront to the free press

Other businesses are subject to constraints on their trade, in terms of honesty and fair dealing, for example. When Australian newspapers can print flat-out lies with no consequence, and declare in their own editorial pages that they are waging a deliberate campaign to influence electoral outcomes and destroy a political party, I don't have that much bloody sympathy for them. Nothing in the reforms would prevent the media from reporting facts. I don't know about you, but those are what I expect in my news.

There is also the proposed requirement that blogs be listened like major media outlets.

This I file in my I Don't Give A Shit My Blog Is Hosted On A Server In Michigan drawer.
posted by Jimbob at 7:22 PM on March 19, 2013 [1 favorite]


There is also the proposed requirement that blogs be listened like major media outlets.

Who proposed this, and does this proposal appear in the tabled bills?

The idea of government oversight of the press is an affront to the free press,

With power comes responsibility. If the press want privacy exemptions, then requiring the press to have an independently certified system in place to ensure that they do not abuse their exemption is a reasonable point of view.
posted by kithrater at 7:26 PM on March 19, 2013 [1 favorite]


Look, this is how it currently 'works'.

The Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) regulates how Federal Government agencies and the private sector handle information about individuals. It doesn't apply to small businesses (ie turnover of less than $3 mil a year), or individuals at all (so bloggers are safe).

There is an a exception for things that 'media organistions' do in the course of journalism'. Those organistions don't need to comply with the Privacy Act (for example, don't need to notify individuals when they collect their information, don't need to ask permission to use personal information...etc.) IF those media organistions have publicly committed to observe an alternative set of privacy standards for media organistions.

In practice, this means the Statement of Privacy put out and administered by the Australian Press Council.

But the Press Council is pathetic - it doesn't enforce its own privacy principles. And the media organistions don't comply with them. Or, in fact, any standards at all. Hence the impetus for these reforms - clumsy and inept though they may be.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 8:07 PM on March 19, 2013 [5 favorites]


And here's my missing Conversation link that explains the reforms.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 8:08 PM on March 19, 2013 [1 favorite]


The idea of government oversight of the press is an affront to the free press,

The actuality of an unaccountable corporatised press is a huge danger to a free democratic society.
posted by Pouteria at 11:12 PM on March 19, 2013 [1 favorite]


CiS: They could force a media outlet to comply with a particular political view

This is simply false. There is nothing in the laws proposed that would allow the regulator to do this.

(I know that the Telegraph is, as usual, making shit up on this point, but I suggest that you look into what the laws actually do instead of just believing any old bullshit.)
posted by moorooka at 11:50 PM on March 19, 2013 [1 favorite]


Again, this information comes from what I read months ago in the Herald and the Australian. I never usually disagree with the Telegraph, but I find it hard to hate them for pushing free speech on the front page, even if it is commercially motivated (and at odds with their 'Stop the Trolls' campaign).
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 12:00 AM on March 20, 2013


Months ago, the legislation had yet not been written, so what you were reading was conjecture, which has turned out to be bullshit.

If you can find anything in the new laws allowing the government to force newspapers to "comply with a particular political view", let us (and the Telegraph) know.
posted by moorooka at 12:12 AM on March 20, 2013


CIS, they're not pushing free speech, but rather a point of view to protect their way of doing business. Nothing about News Corp is pushing a free speech agenda. They are protecting a busness environment where they are allowed to peddle lies.
posted by mattoxic at 12:40 AM on March 20, 2013


Yeah, don't get information on laws (proposed or otherwise) from either the Herald or the Australian. Journalists don't have time/budget to actually do research these days, due to the collapse in advertising revenue and circulation for news organisations, so the line between opinion and fact is getting incredibly fuzzy. Get online and look at the source data that His thoughts linked instead of relying on what other people tell you.
posted by harriet vane at 1:51 AM on March 20, 2013


Oh and on-topic: I will be following Anthony Green's website with dread. I can't understand why Labor is so terrible at managing the public impression of themselves, given that they've passed some good legislation, organised a soft ride through the Global Financial Crisis, and that a truly appalling number of people actually think their refugee policy is pretty good.

I thought they might coast through to September, or Abbott might get his foot permanently stuck in his mouth instead of just popping it in and out each week. And then Conroy lumbered in and made a mess of the media's entirely predictable reaction to a bunch of watered-down regulations. For fuck's sake, Murdoch owns more than half the nation's news and we've all seen what he gets up to in the UK, it should be a gimme. Tone-deaf is exactly right.
posted by harriet vane at 1:58 AM on March 20, 2013


I can't understand why Labor is so terrible at managing the public impression of themselves,

Someone mentioned the media somewhere above... how many other conduits do they have to present themselves?
posted by Jimbob at 2:28 AM on March 20, 2013


Labor - get it the fuck over with, pull that bandaid off, let that creepy egotistical maniac be prime minister again for a few months, then fuck off into oblivion, you won't be coming back, but poor saps like will be still rusted on.
posted by the noob at 4:44 AM on March 20, 2013


That explains why our comedy is so bad.

You, sir, never enjoyed D-Generation.
Or The Late Show.
The later was, and I say this without a hint of irony, Champagne Comedy.
posted by Mezentian at 8:22 AM on March 20, 2013 [2 favorites]


Someone mentioned the media somewhere above... how many other conduits do they have to present themselves?

The Interwebs. Facebook and Twitter especially.
But no one engages with political parties anymore, this is possibly part of the problem.

Journalists don't have time/budget to actually do research these days, due to the collapse in advertising revenue and circulation for news organisations, so the line between opinion and fact is getting incredibly fuzzy.

The MEAA has posted a pretty strong refutation of Conroy's bills. I can dig it out.
They are not in favour.

And, I have to say, whether I am in favour or not, shutting down debate with the guillotine is reprehensible. It was when Howard did it without reason, and it is now.

(Yeah, I was mainlining the Senate tonight).
posted by Mezentian at 8:32 AM on March 20, 2013


And they're off...

"So basically we have a leadership spill that isn't on - but should be - with a leadership contender who should declare - but hasn't - with a deputy who isn't endorsed by the contender."
posted by kithrater at 7:45 PM on March 20, 2013


Goodness. A leadership ballot announced for 4:30 PM today.
posted by barnacles at 8:03 PM on March 20, 2013


OH SHIT. I can't deal with 8 years of Liberal government, I'm moving to New Zealand.
posted by lrobertjones at 8:18 PM on March 20, 2013


Now Abbott is calling for a no confidence motion and wants an election. This twitter seems apt.
posted by barnacles at 8:21 PM on March 20, 2013 [2 favorites]


OH SHIT. I can't deal with 8 years of Liberal government, I'm moving to New Zealand.

Still, the poor asylum seekers might get a break, and Abbott will be hugely entertaining. And a further hope is that Barnaby gets the National leadership so he can be deputy PM. So much to look forward to!
posted by mattoxic at 8:22 PM on March 20, 2013


Leadership spill? LEADERSHIP SPILL!? NOW?! FUCK YOU. YOU FUCKING FUCKS.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 8:25 PM on March 20, 2013


This Twitter feed - Gizoogling the Spill - is the only reason I'm not setting anything on fire right now.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 8:26 PM on March 20, 2013 [1 favorite]


Light on the fucking hill...
posted by Jimbob at 8:31 PM on March 20, 2013 [1 favorite]


The light is generated by the entire Labor Party, setting themselves on fire.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 8:36 PM on March 20, 2013 [1 favorite]


His thoughts were red thoughts: "The light is generated by the entire Labor Party, setting themselves on fire."

Labor party members: The ship's going down, captain! If we hurry, we might be able to get as many people as possible to the lifeboats. There's a slim chance we can get the ship working again within the next six months, but we shouldn't bet on it. So, about the lifeboats ...

Labor party leaders: No no no no no. I want everyone who's bailing water and fixing the hull damage and directing people to the lifeboats to come to the top deck and we can talk about who should be captain, instead. I mean, I don't like the captain, but maybe you do? I dunno. Let's talk.
posted by barnacles at 8:48 PM on March 20, 2013 [2 favorites]


Wait, so first Kevin 11 was Ben 10's enemy, then his friend, and now he's running for President of Australia against Gwen? I'm confused.
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 8:53 PM on March 20, 2013


The light is generated by the entire Labor Party, setting themselves on fire.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 1:36 PM on March 21 [+] [!]


Eponysterical.

Oakeshott, Wilkie and Windsor sided with the opposition on the vote to suspend standing orders - maybe a deal hasn't been brokered with them for an orderly handover?
posted by kithrater at 8:53 PM on March 20, 2013


Labor party members: The ship's going down, captain! If we hurry, we might be able to get as many people as possible to the lifeboats. There's a slim chance we can get the ship working again within the next six months, but we shouldn't bet on it. So, about the lifeboats ...

Labor party leaders: Lifeboats? Nah. Burn 'em. Any life preservers? Chuck 'em. Who needs 'em, fithy round things. We have a radio? I don't approve of radios. You could say anything on them. Smash that, so that not only can we not use it, but it'll just blast out annoying static that will infuriate the passengers and prevent us from talking to them.

Is that a boat coming towards us? Can't have that. Sink it.

Jenkins? Shoot the first mate. In the face. Twice. Feed his body to the rats.

Now, let's talk about who should be captain...
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 8:59 PM on March 20, 2013 [2 favorites]


From the Michelle Grattan live blog on The Conversation:
2:50pm - One Rudd supporter predicts a close vote. “You wouldn’t put your house on it one way or the other. But if Rudd doesn’t win the Labor party will be a laughing stock.”
Bit late to worry about whether you're a laughing stock or not, I think.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 9:03 PM on March 20, 2013


Rudd hasn't even said he's contesting it.

And Crean's just been relieved of all his ministerial responsibilities...
posted by Jimbob at 9:06 PM on March 20, 2013


Rudd hasn't even said he's contesting it.

An opportunity for Rudd to be the biggest troll in Australian political history - decline to run and remind everyone of his promise earlier in the year.
posted by kithrater at 9:07 PM on March 20, 2013 [2 favorites]


I honestly hopes that he does just that. There would at least be comedy value.

But apparently 'senior members' of the party are calling for his return (Guardian Au article).
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 9:13 PM on March 20, 2013


Rudd s behaviour in the last campaign and his subsequent actions should have seen him suspended. Hi my name's kevin and I'm here to help. Pigs arse.
posted by mattoxic at 9:19 PM on March 20, 2013


Rudd s behaviour in the last campaign and his subsequent actions should have seen him suspended.

Specifically?
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 9:22 PM on March 20, 2013


This would make a good FPP to explain it to outsiders, kinda: Australia's coup culture from the BBC. It's still pretty puzzling to me... none of the leaders really seem that charismatic or better or worse than any other, besides Turnbull. Why not just shut up and run on their records?
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 9:53 PM on March 20, 2013


Perhaps because there are a lot of people in Canberra who'd like to be PM?

I know they all look like altruists, trying to out-compete each other for the good of the country, but occasionally baser motives seep in.
posted by pompomtom at 10:16 PM on March 20, 2013 [1 favorite]


Rudd not running. Best. Troll day. Ever.
posted by Jimbob at 10:23 PM on March 20, 2013 [2 favorites]


"Therefore in the absence of anything Simon Crean had to say this morning I will be adherring to my statement."

So, can we all go home?
posted by pompomtom at 10:23 PM on March 20, 2013


Rudd not running. Best. Troll day. Ever.

Called it.
posted by kithrater at 10:24 PM on March 20, 2013 [1 favorite]


The question now is - will Shorten or Crean stand anyway, on the basis that Gillard is just too damaged to continue at this point?
posted by kithrater at 10:26 PM on March 20, 2013


man, check out the picture of Rudd that The Conversation decided to run with.
posted by jacalata at 10:26 PM on March 20, 2013 [1 favorite]


Called it.

Yeah. I'm buying you a beer at the next meetup.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 10:27 PM on March 20, 2013


Rudd s behaviour in the last campaign and his subsequent actions should have seen him suspended.

Specifically?

Running a constant campaign
posted by mattoxic at 10:33 PM on March 20, 2013


... and Rudd will now have to stop campaigning for himself and start campaigning for the party. Which he won't of course - he's an egotist
posted by mattoxic at 10:36 PM on March 20, 2013


Specifically?

I will take a guess that mattoxic is referring to allegations that Rudd was behind a series of damaging leaks about Gillard to Laurie Oakes during the 2010 election.
posted by kithrater at 10:44 PM on March 20, 2013


Now, let's talk about who should be captain...

GOON 1: THAT GUY FOR CAPTAIN.

GOON 2: NO. THAT GUY FOR CAPTAIN.

GOON 3: YEAH, HIM FOR CAPTAIN!

THAT GUY: I could be captain. But I said I wouldn't be, a while back. I mean, I know I lie a lot, and I'm constantly saying that I would be better in charge than the captain is, but really, I, well... what I'm saying is, is that I'm certainly capable of captaincy.

ALL: oooooooooooooooOOOOOOHHHHHHHHH!

THAT GUY: But yeah, no, I don't want to be captain.

[Everyone shuffles uncomfortably. The sound of rats chewing on the corpse of the FIRST MATE is distinctly audible].

LONE VOICE OF REASON: So...about those lifeboats?

CAPTAIN: SEIZE HIM.

LONE VOICE OF REASON is thrown overboard.

Exeunt all, in flames, the CAPTAIN chewing on the dismembered limb of the FIRST MATE
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 10:53 PM on March 20, 2013 [3 favorites]


from twitter: a screenshot of Rudd's phone
posted by jacalata at 10:54 PM on March 20, 2013 [2 favorites]


[Everyone shuffles uncomfortably. The sound of rats chewing on the corpse of the FIRST MATE is distinctly audible].

Meanwhile, aboard the SS Coalition...
posted by kithrater at 10:56 PM on March 20, 2013 [1 favorite]


::facepalm::
posted by harriet vane at 12:24 AM on March 21, 2013 [1 favorite]


Well, that was a clusterfuck and a half.
They can't even organise a proper leadership spill, and so manage to make themselves look disunited in the process.
posted by Mezentian at 1:57 AM on March 21, 2013


Still, the poor asylum seekers might get a break, and Abbott will be hugely entertaining.

I sense a problem with your statement.

I do not think Tony's Boys will get soft on asylum seekers.
I think they'll hit them hard (on the wall, either side of the head).
posted by Mezentian at 2:01 AM on March 21, 2013


Australia has one of the most brutal political cultures in the democratic world, in which party leaders are dispatched with abandon. As yet another prime minster faces a threat from her own side, has the country become the "coup capital" of the world?

On behalf of Australia: *facepalm*.

I don't think that's an accurate statement from the BBC... oh, wait. We had the revolving NSW premier, the NT CLP coup (and how gutless was that?), the SA ker-fuffle, and the aborted WA tilt by Wyatt a few years ago. Have I missed any? I think the knives were out in Tasmania over Lennon.

No, that is sadly accurate. Well, more accurate than Obied's financials appear to be.

I would love to know of Hawkie's Socialist connections.

*sigh*

We really need more Costellos.

(Could make a FPP about that, but I reckon the mods would send it back to this thread as a deletion, and I think they'd be correct).
posted by Mezentian at 2:06 AM on March 21, 2013 [1 favorite]




Hey guys, remember when Latham was the crazy, self-destructive face of the Labor party? God I miss him.
posted by Jimbob at 2:33 AM on March 21, 2013


Hey guys, remember when Latham was the crazy, self-destructive face of the Labor party? God I miss him.


I've just been reading the latest Quarterly Essay - he's the voice of reason
posted by the noob at 2:54 AM on March 21, 2013


he's the voice of reason

Hold me. I'm scared.
posted by Mezentian at 2:56 AM on March 21, 2013


Hold me. I'm scared.

taxi driver?
posted by the noob at 2:57 AM on March 21, 2013 [1 favorite]


Are you talking to me?
Well, are ya?
posted by Mezentian at 3:01 AM on March 21, 2013


Well I'm the only one here. [Ain't nobody else standing for leader]. Who the fuck do you think you're [voting for]? Oh yeah? OK.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 3:16 PM on March 21, 2013




To date, the following have gone to the backbench:

Creans (Arts and Regional), Bowen (Tertiary Education), Ferguson (Resources), Fitzgibbon, Husic and Saffin (Chief and Deputy whips), Marles (a Parliamentary Sectretary), and we're likely to lose K. Carr in a few minutes (Human Services).
posted by kithrater at 9:37 PM on March 21, 2013


So, basically, Gillard is PM because nobody else wants the job, and also nobody wants to be tainted by standing too close to her?
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:11 PM on March 21, 2013


Gillard is PM because not enough people in the party want Rudd, and no one else believes they have a hope in hell of winning.

In a just world we would have an election now.

Unfortunately the world is dark and full of Abbotts.
posted by Mezentian at 1:46 AM on March 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


You lose people like Crean, Ferguson and Kim Carr (who was lost to us anyway) then you've lost a tonne of experience - but then again, I don't think that Gillard listens to anyone anyway.
posted by the noob at 2:13 AM on March 22, 2013


A prescient blast from Latham this morning

Read the latest Quarterly Essay - I miss the man.
posted by mattoxic at 2:33 AM on March 22, 2013


Last night I read the Guardian article Charlemagne linked to, and came to MetaFilter looking to see if there was a post on the challenge to Gillard. Instead I found a post that started before the aborted coup was launched, and so it was pretty hilarious when the shit hit the fan in real time.
posted by KokuRyu at 9:03 PM on March 22, 2013


Wow, any new front bench will be a very different place with those guys gone.
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:53 AM on March 23, 2013


And the new front bench has to be in place tomorrow because there's a community cabinet scheduled for WA this week, in what I suppose might be Struggle Steet - a highly Islamic/Immigrant area that might be akin to Rooty Hill.

Not that I think the blood-letting is finished.

But they lot a hell of a lot of talent this week (Fergy was "beloved" of the resources industry, Crean the arts). It'll be hard to replace that.

Personally, I'm surprised Garrett didn't stand as a circuit-breaker. Plus, he as the profile to lead the party through the inevitable after the election, as a place-holder or not.
posted by Mezentian at 4:07 AM on March 23, 2013


It would be interesting to compare Canada with Australia with Japan. Both Japan and Australia experience frequent "tumbles", presumably for the same reason - backroom factions wield political power in both countries.

I'm curious about why Canada is different.
posted by KokuRyu at 9:34 PM on March 24, 2013


« Older Give us this day our daily inflammation   |   Rusty Fire Hydrant Planets Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments