Peter Costello is never so happy as when he's announcing tax cuts, and here he is again, encouraging the very rich to keep working and buying stuff and hopefully voting Liberal while they're at it. Well, to be fair, there are tax cuts for lower-income earners too. It's a taxcutpalooza.
I don't mean to spoil everyone's fun, but... isn't it a little early for this? The election was announced a mere 24 hours ago, and we're already on tax cuts? I'm not saying I don't want my extra $67 a week - heaven knows I like my weekly manicure-pedicures as much as the next battler - but it's just that there used to be some kind of decorum with these things. The way they're beginning their campaign with tax cuts, it's almost as if Howard/Costello & Co thinks the Australian electorate can be... bought off.
Meanwhile, the resources boom isn't going to last forever, and some of us, over on the communist union-boss side of politics, have an uneasy feeling that there are better things to do with $34 billion than buying more plasma screens. Funding universities, say, or investing in clean energy technology, or even, God forbid, increasing our non-tsunami-related foreign aid budget just a little. But we - at least, our elected representatives - are not going to say it out loud. We have an election to win. Right? Right.
UPDATE, October 16: Over at Crikey, Peter Brent has his own theory about why tax cuts so soon, and predicts a "controversial announcement" the first week in November. Can't hardly wait for that one.
Monday, October 15, 2007
It's On for Young and Old
... especially young, if yesterday's poll is anything to go by. To the ballot-boxes, fellow 73-percenters!
Commentators will make much of the idea that Rudd's superior online presence is swaying the Yoof Vote in favour of Labor. The YouTube election, etc. Resist this interpretation. For starters, it makes young people sound like imbeciles. "I'm, like, totally voting for Rudd. He has like a blog and everything." Please.
Secondly, there seems to be some confusion about what people use the internet for. Listen: hardly anybody is going online with an open mind and deciding who to vote for based on what they find. It doesn't work like that. The thing about Web 2.0 is that it's diffuse, fragmented, specialised. People look for like-minded content providers and stick with them. We seek out commentators whose views coincide with ours. We join Facebook groups we support. We trade satirical links with our friends. We read blogs we mostly agree with. We might refine our views on the economy or the health system or the environment, but we ain't switching sides because of a YouTube video.
So why are young people 'deserting' Howard? Because he's old, and Rudd is not. Because we worry about the environment, and don't trust Howard to do anything about it. Because we don't remember the fabled 17% interest rates, and quite frankly don't see ourselves getting a mortgage anytime soon anyway. Because, for all the talk of this generation's conservatism, we are still more socially liberal than older generations: more tolerant of homosexuality, less concerned about Muslims, less likely to believe in God. Put simply, we don't really share Howard's vision, such as it is. And if it's taken us til now to realise that, well, forgive us. We've been busy making videos for YouTube.
Commentators will make much of the idea that Rudd's superior online presence is swaying the Yoof Vote in favour of Labor. The YouTube election, etc. Resist this interpretation. For starters, it makes young people sound like imbeciles. "I'm, like, totally voting for Rudd. He has like a blog and everything." Please.
Secondly, there seems to be some confusion about what people use the internet for. Listen: hardly anybody is going online with an open mind and deciding who to vote for based on what they find. It doesn't work like that. The thing about Web 2.0 is that it's diffuse, fragmented, specialised. People look for like-minded content providers and stick with them. We seek out commentators whose views coincide with ours. We join Facebook groups we support. We trade satirical links with our friends. We read blogs we mostly agree with. We might refine our views on the economy or the health system or the environment, but we ain't switching sides because of a YouTube video.
So why are young people 'deserting' Howard? Because he's old, and Rudd is not. Because we worry about the environment, and don't trust Howard to do anything about it. Because we don't remember the fabled 17% interest rates, and quite frankly don't see ourselves getting a mortgage anytime soon anyway. Because, for all the talk of this generation's conservatism, we are still more socially liberal than older generations: more tolerant of homosexuality, less concerned about Muslims, less likely to believe in God. Put simply, we don't really share Howard's vision, such as it is. And if it's taken us til now to realise that, well, forgive us. We've been busy making videos for YouTube.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Shouldn't Steve Fielding be observing the Sabbath?
I got up just in time to watch Senator Steve Fielding, Family First, on Meet the Press this morning. I still have some residual gratitude for Fielding from the time he made the Government back down from its plan to process asylum seekers offshore. That was probably the Howard Government at its kookiest, and in that instance the system worked: Fielding told the Government to get stuffed, and they went on to devise new and subtler ways of demonising brown people.
But that was then. This morning he was talking about his grand plans for holding the balance of power in the Senate, which I found none too reassuring, although I was quite entertained by his little dig at the Greens for "wanting to give out free heroin". Those sneaky, dirty hippies! Also, he thinks petrol prices are outrageous and wants to cut fuel taxes. I wonder which opinion pol... I mean, carefully researched economic survey he got that idea from.
The highlight of the interview was when Fielding announced his proposal for a $10,000 baby bonus for the third child. Quick as a flash, the News Ltd journo probed: "Would that apply for the children of gay couples?" Fielding avoided the question once, but when it came straight back at him he had to admit that no, it did not apply to gay couples, because Leviticus says homosexuality is a sin and besides, gay people are all rich urbanites, they don't need us subsidising their stainless steel kitchens and cocaine habits. Actually he didn't say any of that, just something vague about doing what's best for the kids, but I heard the subtext loud and clear.
With all the recent hype about the influence of the Christian vote - Rudd banging on about Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Howard'n'Costello kissing up to the Exclusive Brethren - it's worth remembering how this man came to be a Senator in the first place. Family First received 56,376 primary votes in Victoria in the 2004 election. If every Victorian who voted for Family First in 2004 formed a group on Facebook, it would have slightly more members than "You were sexy until I saw that cigarette in your hand" , but fewer members than "If You Can't Differentiate Between "Your" and "You're" You Deserve To Die". So why does Steve Fielding get to go on Meet the Press and talk seriously about his legislative agenda? Antony Green, bless his wonky little heart, explains:
You see? It's a goddamn mandate, that's what it is.
One of my more endearing habits is encouraging everyone I ever meet to vote below the line in the Senate. The paragraph above is why. Your vote is far too important to leave in the hands of the political parties.
But that was then. This morning he was talking about his grand plans for holding the balance of power in the Senate, which I found none too reassuring, although I was quite entertained by his little dig at the Greens for "wanting to give out free heroin". Those sneaky, dirty hippies! Also, he thinks petrol prices are outrageous and wants to cut fuel taxes. I wonder which opinion pol... I mean, carefully researched economic survey he got that idea from.
The highlight of the interview was when Fielding announced his proposal for a $10,000 baby bonus for the third child. Quick as a flash, the News Ltd journo probed: "Would that apply for the children of gay couples?" Fielding avoided the question once, but when it came straight back at him he had to admit that no, it did not apply to gay couples, because Leviticus says homosexuality is a sin and besides, gay people are all rich urbanites, they don't need us subsidising their stainless steel kitchens and cocaine habits. Actually he didn't say any of that, just something vague about doing what's best for the kids, but I heard the subtext loud and clear.
With all the recent hype about the influence of the Christian vote - Rudd banging on about Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Howard'n'Costello kissing up to the Exclusive Brethren - it's worth remembering how this man came to be a Senator in the first place. Family First received 56,376 primary votes in Victoria in the 2004 election. If every Victorian who voted for Family First in 2004 formed a group on Facebook, it would have slightly more members than "You were sexy until I saw that cigarette in your hand" , but fewer members than "If You Can't Differentiate Between "Your" and "You're" You Deserve To Die". So why does Steve Fielding get to go on Meet the Press and talk seriously about his legislative agenda? Antony Green, bless his wonky little heart, explains:
Despite polling only 0.13 of a quota, Family First harvest preferences from numerous groups including the Progressive Alliance, the Christian Democrats, the Aged and Disability Pensioners Party, Non-Custodial Parents Party, One Nation, Liberals for Forests, the Australian Democrats, the DLP and the surplus from the Coalition.
You see? It's a goddamn mandate, that's what it is.
One of my more endearing habits is encouraging everyone I ever meet to vote below the line in the Senate. The paragraph above is why. Your vote is far too important to leave in the hands of the political parties.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Q & A with Pauline Hanson
Q: "By actually acknowledging the Aboriginal people as the traditional owners in our constitution, are we opening up a can of worms then?"
A: No. As inner-city liberals around Australia can attest, recognition of the Aborigines as traditional owners places no obligation on anybody to pay more than cursory attention to the plight of Aborigines. It sure does feel good, though.
Q: "Although it sounds very warm and fuzzy, what is the real implications for Australians and future generations?"
A: I concur. Subject-verb agreement is difficult.
Q: "Does becoming a republic sever not only our sovereignty with the crown but also with the land?
A: No. I am not aware that the proposed republic sought to eliminate property rights. Indeed, many republics around the world, some of them quite famous, still recognise land ownership.
Q: "Will the land revert back to Native Title and where does that leave all Australians who are not of an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural background?"
A: The Native Title Act came into force in 1994. Since then, Australians of various cultural backgrounds have displayed a dogged ability to remain in the country, except when they are mentally ill and mistaken for damned foreigners.
Q:"But they've got to stand up on their own two feet and start doing it for themselves as well. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink."
A: Current scientific consensus is that horses have four feet. Politically correct sensitivities being what they are, it is probably advisable that you avoid further comparisons of the Aboriginal people with any kind of non-human animal species. Also, making Aborigines drink is not widely considered to be the solution to the various problems faced by remote Aboriginal communities.
A: No. As inner-city liberals around Australia can attest, recognition of the Aborigines as traditional owners places no obligation on anybody to pay more than cursory attention to the plight of Aborigines. It sure does feel good, though.
Q: "Although it sounds very warm and fuzzy, what is the real implications for Australians and future generations?"
A: I concur. Subject-verb agreement is difficult.
Q: "Does becoming a republic sever not only our sovereignty with the crown but also with the land?
A: No. I am not aware that the proposed republic sought to eliminate property rights. Indeed, many republics around the world, some of them quite famous, still recognise land ownership.
Q: "Will the land revert back to Native Title and where does that leave all Australians who are not of an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural background?"
A: The Native Title Act came into force in 1994. Since then, Australians of various cultural backgrounds have displayed a dogged ability to remain in the country, except when they are mentally ill and mistaken for damned foreigners.
Q:"But they've got to stand up on their own two feet and start doing it for themselves as well. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink."
A: Current scientific consensus is that horses have four feet. Politically correct sensitivities being what they are, it is probably advisable that you avoid further comparisons of the Aboriginal people with any kind of non-human animal species. Also, making Aborigines drink is not widely considered to be the solution to the various problems faced by remote Aboriginal communities.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Mr Fixit
In a rare instance of early adoption, I have been advocating four-year fixed Federal terms for some time. I don't think it's in our interests that the government can manipulate the electoral cycle to their advantage. I'm all for consolidating all the pork-barreling into one pork season, fixed on the calendar, that we can all anticipate and maybe plan our hospital renovations around. Also, it seems to me like we're forever having elections, and I like politics. God knows how much they must annoy the apolitical among us. So, good on Kevin Rudd for promising to put the matter to the Australian people.
That doesn't mean I expect such a referendum to pass. For starters, it's a referendum. Those things hardly ever pass here. ("Referenda: Just Say No".) Secondly, a cursory glance at the Herald's comments page reveals the kinds of arguments that are going to be deployed in favour of the status quo, namely, scaremongering on how we're, yawn, in danger of becoming America, and one rather intriguing theory that fixed terms are part of the insidious Unions' Agenda and are therefore almost certainly against the interests of Ordinary People.
How the unions managed to become the antithesis of ordinary people I'll never understand, but I do know this kind of thing is exactly what we can expect from the No camp. Also, you can expect the debate to be more bitter than its subject would necessarily indicate. Australian discourse is peculiar in that respect: stem cell research, abortion, euthanasia, these we can debate like grownups. But the tax system, IR laws, heads of state, electoral terms? Forget it. I've noticed the same phenomenon in NSW Question Time: the drier the subject, the more likely it is to descend into name-calling, yelling, and scurrilous accusations. We're a funny bunch.
That doesn't mean I expect such a referendum to pass. For starters, it's a referendum. Those things hardly ever pass here. ("Referenda: Just Say No".) Secondly, a cursory glance at the Herald's comments page reveals the kinds of arguments that are going to be deployed in favour of the status quo, namely, scaremongering on how we're, yawn, in danger of becoming America, and one rather intriguing theory that fixed terms are part of the insidious Unions' Agenda and are therefore almost certainly against the interests of Ordinary People.
How the unions managed to become the antithesis of ordinary people I'll never understand, but I do know this kind of thing is exactly what we can expect from the No camp. Also, you can expect the debate to be more bitter than its subject would necessarily indicate. Australian discourse is peculiar in that respect: stem cell research, abortion, euthanasia, these we can debate like grownups. But the tax system, IR laws, heads of state, electoral terms? Forget it. I've noticed the same phenomenon in NSW Question Time: the drier the subject, the more likely it is to descend into name-calling, yelling, and scurrilous accusations. We're a funny bunch.
Miranda's Scoop: Labor for Terrorists, Against Babies
Call it a personal litmus test: every now and then, against my better judgment, I read one of Miranda Devine's opinion pieces. If this fails to enrage me, I worry that I am sliding down into the abyss of right-wing nuttery.
Today's piece caused no such concerns. Miranda chose to write about the recent furore over the death penalty, namely how McClelland exposed the secret plot to free all the terrorists that would come to be under a Labor regime. (Yes, she said "regime".) I don't really know what I expected; the headline, "Whose human rights come first?", is itself a pretty good indication that Miranda doesn't get it. Human rights are universal, not hierarchical, Miranda. That's actually the whole point.
But the form of her argument was interesting, sort of. Turns out there's a slippery slope all the way from condemning capital punishment to... condemning punitive amputation:
Indeed. Why stop at capital punishment? I am against capital punishment, and also against the amputation of the hands and feet of thieves. In fact, I would be greatly disappointed if Labor were against capital punishment but for cutting people's hands off. True, I don't remember reading anything about the endorsement of punitive amputation in the ALP charter, but then perhaps I wasn't looking hard enough.
This is the way it goes for Miranda: she takes the utterly, impeccably consistent Labor policy - not to be confused with the utterly, impeccably expedient words of Kevin Rudd - and somehow twists it to imply that Labor are the ones espousing some kind of inconsistent approach to human rights. What about the Saudis cutting off people's hands? Well actually, Miranda, if I were putting my money on one party to oppose a given form of cruel and unusual punishment, it would be the one with the unequivocal anti-capital punishment stance.
Let's recap: Labor's policy is that it opposes capital punishment, which means that it opposes capital punishment here and overseas. The Libs' policy is that they oppose capital punishment, which means they oppose capital punishment in Australia and for Australians, but not necessarily for foreigner types. Who's inconsistent now?
As for the bizarre swerve into the murky waters of abortion... well, actually, I was relieved to read it. Generally speaking, and to their eternal credit, Australians are not in the habit of politicising abortion, nor of drawing equivalence between a fertilised egg and a sentient human being. Bringing it up was probably the worst thing she could've done for the credibility of her argument - it just reads like she's working her way through a list of conservative talking points. American conservative talking points, at that. She should've just joined the Liberal MPs in their somewhat comic defence of McClelland from the mean, nasty Kevin Rudd. Didn't she get the memo?
Today's piece caused no such concerns. Miranda chose to write about the recent furore over the death penalty, namely how McClelland exposed the secret plot to free all the terrorists that would come to be under a Labor regime. (Yes, she said "regime".) I don't really know what I expected; the headline, "Whose human rights come first?", is itself a pretty good indication that Miranda doesn't get it. Human rights are universal, not hierarchical, Miranda. That's actually the whole point.
But the form of her argument was interesting, sort of. Turns out there's a slippery slope all the way from condemning capital punishment to... condemning punitive amputation:
There are plenty of terrible things we don't like that happen elsewhere in the world. Why stop at capital punishment? What about the amputation of the hands and feet of thieves in Saudi Arabia?
Indeed. Why stop at capital punishment? I am against capital punishment, and also against the amputation of the hands and feet of thieves. In fact, I would be greatly disappointed if Labor were against capital punishment but for cutting people's hands off. True, I don't remember reading anything about the endorsement of punitive amputation in the ALP charter, but then perhaps I wasn't looking hard enough.
This is the way it goes for Miranda: she takes the utterly, impeccably consistent Labor policy - not to be confused with the utterly, impeccably expedient words of Kevin Rudd - and somehow twists it to imply that Labor are the ones espousing some kind of inconsistent approach to human rights. What about the Saudis cutting off people's hands? Well actually, Miranda, if I were putting my money on one party to oppose a given form of cruel and unusual punishment, it would be the one with the unequivocal anti-capital punishment stance.
Let's recap: Labor's policy is that it opposes capital punishment, which means that it opposes capital punishment here and overseas. The Libs' policy is that they oppose capital punishment, which means they oppose capital punishment in Australia and for Australians, but not necessarily for foreigner types. Who's inconsistent now?
As for the bizarre swerve into the murky waters of abortion... well, actually, I was relieved to read it. Generally speaking, and to their eternal credit, Australians are not in the habit of politicising abortion, nor of drawing equivalence between a fertilised egg and a sentient human being. Bringing it up was probably the worst thing she could've done for the credibility of her argument - it just reads like she's working her way through a list of conservative talking points. American conservative talking points, at that. She should've just joined the Liberal MPs in their somewhat comic defence of McClelland from the mean, nasty Kevin Rudd. Didn't she get the memo?
****
Incidentally, Annabel Crabb's typically brilliant piece on the McClelland/Rudd/Howard/Downer dustup just about made the whole exercise worthwhile.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Bob Ellis Wants to Make Us Cry
This is truly depressing. I had just started to get my hopes up for this election, and now Bob Ellis goes and dashes them before the campaign even kicks off. It's a brilliantly, brutally detailed hypothetical of how Howard and co are going to win the election, despite the polls and Workchoices and everything else. And it's awfully plausible.
Highlights/lowlights:
- "Hammer Gillard's private life and toxic socialist history under privilege".
Done! But always time for more of that in Canberra. Reds under the bed! Hey, she's even a redhead. That screams "untrustworthy commie feminist".
- A Senate inquiry into Peter Garrett's history of drug use as a youngster.
Labor seem so desperate not to let Garrett become a liability that they haven't let him be an asset. Never mind that he was a friggin' rock star or that a few months ago government MPs were climbing over themselves to announce their own druggy indiscretions: pot can ruin your life. We saw it in those TV ads. Won't somebody think of the children?
- Turning up in Bali during the election campaign to say: "I know it's in mid-election, but global warming is important, and I'm here to discuss it with China, the worst offender. Kevin Rudd cares so little about it, he's still back in Australia, selfishly campaigning."
If the Kyoto-dissing, global warming Johnny-come-lately Howard manages to convince us that he's a better climate warrior than Kevin Rudd, we deserve everything we, as an electorate, get.
- Bush's prearranged bombing of Iran.
I can totally see the nuanced, cautious Kevin Rudd being painted as an Ahmadinejad apologist, plus a few well-timed bombs over Tehran would freak the hell out of people. Vote conservative, there's a war on!
- Howard calling the election on Melbourne Cup day, when people are too drunk to register to vote
All too believable... and I find it kinda funny, I find it kinda sad...
I feel like those people who periodically threaten to skip the country if Howard gets elected again.
Highlights/lowlights:
- "Hammer Gillard's private life and toxic socialist history under privilege".
Done! But always time for more of that in Canberra. Reds under the bed! Hey, she's even a redhead. That screams "untrustworthy commie feminist".
- A Senate inquiry into Peter Garrett's history of drug use as a youngster.
Labor seem so desperate not to let Garrett become a liability that they haven't let him be an asset. Never mind that he was a friggin' rock star or that a few months ago government MPs were climbing over themselves to announce their own druggy indiscretions: pot can ruin your life. We saw it in those TV ads. Won't somebody think of the children?
- Turning up in Bali during the election campaign to say: "I know it's in mid-election, but global warming is important, and I'm here to discuss it with China, the worst offender. Kevin Rudd cares so little about it, he's still back in Australia, selfishly campaigning."
If the Kyoto-dissing, global warming Johnny-come-lately Howard manages to convince us that he's a better climate warrior than Kevin Rudd, we deserve everything we, as an electorate, get.
- Bush's prearranged bombing of Iran.
I can totally see the nuanced, cautious Kevin Rudd being painted as an Ahmadinejad apologist, plus a few well-timed bombs over Tehran would freak the hell out of people. Vote conservative, there's a war on!
- Howard calling the election on Melbourne Cup day, when people are too drunk to register to vote
All too believable... and I find it kinda funny, I find it kinda sad...
I feel like those people who periodically threaten to skip the country if Howard gets elected again.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
McClelland Shows Integrity, Is Quickly Reprimanded
When I checked the news this morning, I was delighted to hear that the Labor Party not only opposes capital punishment - that much, we knew - but was willing to say so this close to the election. Public opinion on the death penalty is decidedly mixed at the best of times. The spoof website Values Australia summed it up as follows:
I needn't have been too excited. It was only a matter of hours before the iron fist of Kevin Rudd made itself known: Yes, he opposes the death penalty, but it's insensitive to say so right now. I say he's right. Questions of morality involving life and death should always be considered secondary to people's possible hurt feelings.
Never mind that McClelland made the statement on Monday, in a speech delivered to a human rights group, or that the anniversary of the Bali bombings is not til Friday. In Kevin's sunshiny new world, reiterations of existing ALP policy should never be made within five days of the anniversary of any terror attack. In fact, Rudd went one step further: he now retroactively supports the death penalty of Hussein and Amrozi, and even indulged in a little hypothetical condemnation of Osama bin Laden to the gallows.
In this matter, as in life, Kevin is merely falling in line with his supposed adversary: John Howard has said he doesn't support the reintroduction of the death penalty in Australia. But the rationale for Howard's stance is utterly utilitarian: he doesn't want to see any irreversible miscarriages of justice, at least not on his watch. This allows him to be oddly equivocal about the application of the death penalty; hence his confounding statement, in 2003, that despite not supporting capital punishment in Australia, the matter is really for the states to decide. Hence, also, his ambivalent response to Van Nguyen's hanging in Singapore. And hence his refusal to oppose the death penalty when applied to foreigners in foreign jurisdictions - Amrozi in Indonesia, Saddam Hussein in Iraq. "Different people have different views", says Howard, sometime States' rights advocate and cultural relativist.
Kevin Rudd has no such excuse. His objection to capital punishment is a priori and based on his Christian faith. He's always been consistent in the past, having previously opposed the execution of Saddam Hussein. As he outlined in the Monthly magazine in 2006:
1. Australians do not support the death penalty.
1.1 At least, not for Australians, especially in other countries.
1.2 However, Australians do support the death penalty for non-Australians in other countries.
1.2.1 After all, they're just ignorant, uncivilised nig-nogs...
1.3 ...although Australians do not support the death penalty for non-Australians within Australia....
1.3.1 ...because that would make us just like the ignorant, uncivilised nig-nogs.
I needn't have been too excited. It was only a matter of hours before the iron fist of Kevin Rudd made itself known: Yes, he opposes the death penalty, but it's insensitive to say so right now. I say he's right. Questions of morality involving life and death should always be considered secondary to people's possible hurt feelings.
Never mind that McClelland made the statement on Monday, in a speech delivered to a human rights group, or that the anniversary of the Bali bombings is not til Friday. In Kevin's sunshiny new world, reiterations of existing ALP policy should never be made within five days of the anniversary of any terror attack. In fact, Rudd went one step further: he now retroactively supports the death penalty of Hussein and Amrozi, and even indulged in a little hypothetical condemnation of Osama bin Laden to the gallows.
In this matter, as in life, Kevin is merely falling in line with his supposed adversary: John Howard has said he doesn't support the reintroduction of the death penalty in Australia. But the rationale for Howard's stance is utterly utilitarian: he doesn't want to see any irreversible miscarriages of justice, at least not on his watch. This allows him to be oddly equivocal about the application of the death penalty; hence his confounding statement, in 2003, that despite not supporting capital punishment in Australia, the matter is really for the states to decide. Hence, also, his ambivalent response to Van Nguyen's hanging in Singapore. And hence his refusal to oppose the death penalty when applied to foreigners in foreign jurisdictions - Amrozi in Indonesia, Saddam Hussein in Iraq. "Different people have different views", says Howard, sometime States' rights advocate and cultural relativist.
Kevin Rudd has no such excuse. His objection to capital punishment is a priori and based on his Christian faith. He's always been consistent in the past, having previously opposed the execution of Saddam Hussein. As he outlined in the Monthly magazine in 2006:
“The Christian belief in the sanctity of life should cause us to conclude that capital punishment is unacceptable in all circumstances and in all jurisdictions.”
In all circumstances except the leadup to an election, that is. Or, as Mr Rudd would have it, in all circumstances except within five days of the Bali bombings anniversary.
Monday, October 8, 2007
I'm Not Sure They're Fully Grasping Her Concern.
The story: Isla Fisher is challenging the film studios to make more comedies starring women. Fisher says there aren't enough comic opportunities for women in their own right; that women are generally relegated to a 'girlfriend' role.
The headline: "Borat's babe plans Hollywood sex revolution"
Update: The Herald changed its headline quick-smart, no doubt because some pesky female-type person pointed out the irony. However, it stands in its original form here and a similar form here.
The headline: "Borat's babe plans Hollywood sex revolution"
Update: The Herald changed its headline quick-smart, no doubt because some pesky female-type person pointed out the irony. However, it stands in its original form here and a similar form here.
Pulp Mill Polling
The SMH and the Australian have two different takes on the Howard government's fortunes in the polls. The Herald's version is based on its latest Nielsen poll, which shows an "entrenched" lead for Labor in the two-party preferred. Labor's share of the primary vote, however, has dropped two percentage points, although it's still healthy enough at 47% (versus 40% for the Coalition).
The Oz, meanwhile, takes the slightly peculiar tack of headlining internal Liberal polling in Tasmania, which shows the Coalition's figures rising in all but the electorate of Lyons, where the Liberal candidate has been speaking out against the pulp mill. The Australian chose to see the results thus:
This seems an odd way to spin the Libs' awful poll result in Lyons. Yes, Ben Quin's support fell in the wake of announcing his opposition to the pulp mill, and the Coalition has since approved the mill. But the situation in Lyons is hardly looking up for the Coalition. Quin, apparently a man of some conviction, has quit as the Liberal candidate over his party's support of the mill, and is now considering running as an independent, possibly with the Greens' preferences. The Greens' share of the primary is a not-inconsiderable 11%.
Of course, the seat is currently held by Labor, so it's not like Lyons is a must-win for the Coalition. (Luckily for them.) But nor is it a good example to pick if you're trying to paint a picture of an imminent Coalition resurgence.
Meanwhile, despite the Oz's upbeat headline - "Coalition buoyed by mill" - grave fears for the marginal, Liberal-held seat of Bass are buried deep in the ninth paragraph:
So, to recap: the polls say Coalition is probably not going to reclaim Lyons, despite approving the pulp mill, and also that it stands to lose Bass, which the candidate says is because of the pulp mill. Nevertheless, the pulp mill "will significantly boost [the Coalition's] chances in the state's key seats".
Enough. The opinion poll thing is getting silly. Please can we have the election already?
The Oz, meanwhile, takes the slightly peculiar tack of headlining internal Liberal polling in Tasmania, which shows the Coalition's figures rising in all but the electorate of Lyons, where the Liberal candidate has been speaking out against the pulp mill. The Australian chose to see the results thus:
Despite widespread opposition to the mill among local residents and businesses in northern Tasmania, the internal Liberal Party polling of 300 voters in Lyons suggests approval for the pulp mill may work in the Coalition's favour. The polling in the days after Mr Quin's public criticism of the mill found the Liberals' primary vote had crashed from 42 per cent at the 2004 election to just 30 per cent, with its two-party-preferred vote slumping from 46 per cent to 35 per cent.
This seems an odd way to spin the Libs' awful poll result in Lyons. Yes, Ben Quin's support fell in the wake of announcing his opposition to the pulp mill, and the Coalition has since approved the mill. But the situation in Lyons is hardly looking up for the Coalition. Quin, apparently a man of some conviction, has quit as the Liberal candidate over his party's support of the mill, and is now considering running as an independent, possibly with the Greens' preferences. The Greens' share of the primary is a not-inconsiderable 11%.
Of course, the seat is currently held by Labor, so it's not like Lyons is a must-win for the Coalition. (Luckily for them.) But nor is it a good example to pick if you're trying to paint a picture of an imminent Coalition resurgence.
Meanwhile, despite the Oz's upbeat headline - "Coalition buoyed by mill" - grave fears for the marginal, Liberal-held seat of Bass are buried deep in the ninth paragraph:
Bass MP Michael Ferguson, who last week expressed fears he could lose the marginal seat over the issue. Polls show he is likely to lose the seat, held by just 2.7 per cent, to Labor's Jodie Campbell.
So, to recap: the polls say Coalition is probably not going to reclaim Lyons, despite approving the pulp mill, and also that it stands to lose Bass, which the candidate says is because of the pulp mill. Nevertheless, the pulp mill "will significantly boost [the Coalition's] chances in the state's key seats".
Enough. The opinion poll thing is getting silly. Please can we have the election already?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)