Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[drsmithy]

As for asylum seekers it is a trivial issue that has been blown out of all proportion by successive government to get themselves elected. If the coalition have the first intercourse about people drowning they would have let the government let the government implement the policies that the government though would stop the deaths. Instead Abbott played politics with the issue. He is certainly not a leader, as demonstrated by his failure to rise above his own quest for power to work towards saving life.

If the people shedding crocodile tears about drowning were really driven by eliminating deaths at sea, they'd be supportive of a plan to setup regular flights to offer asylum seekers safe passage from Indonesia, rather than trying to discourage them through cruelty.

 

[Pukka]

Missed this footnote to the "Sex Appeal" gaffe :- Tony Abbott struggles to name a woman

You think he would have at least mentioned his wife and daughters ..... they are paraded at every opportunity to try to counter his MCP reputation.

They're not paraded they're just his family. I don't see any problem at all.

 

[get me outta here]

This thread is altogether too serious, how about a little light (very ouch) relief....

Fork stuck in cough after sexual mishap

 

[medhead]

The media has no responsibility it seems, to do anything other than make headlines and sell newspapers. They must be put in that context. They could care less about anything else.

The media does have a responsibility to report news rather than actively participate in creating news as they did with all the Rudd fueled leadership speculation.

Any approach to democracy that assumes voters are stupid is bound to fail. Lincoln put it best.

The fact is that Rudd is who the ALP has as its figurehead, and Rudd has behaved so poorly as a leader that I just don't want him leading the nation.

His leaking in 2010 is reason enough.

I'm referring to the stupidity of the public of buying into his egotistical mania. It should have been recognised as BS by the media and ignored. Once the media decided to create the news the public stupidly lapped up Rudd's manic obsession with himself. Stupidity in its highest form. But Rudd's reliance on stupidity has succeeded as evidenced by him being the leader.

Replacing a bad leader with another bad leader really isn't going to work well in the long run.

 

[Pushka]

The media does have a responsibility to report news rather than actively participate in creating news as they did with all the Rudd fueled leadership speculation..

I agree with that in principle, but the ethics in journalism has long gone down the tube. It is all about the media now, and if there isn't a story, they create it.

Media reporters are becoming famous for breaking the news! "we reported it here first on 9" for example. Seriously, who cares who reported it first, or the name of the journalist who reported it. Just a sad development in the media.

But it isn't just Rudd who wears it - every event gets this treatment. Rudd does give them more than his share of ammo though.

 

[Pukka]

This thread is altogether too serious, how about a little light (very ouch) relief....

Fork stuck in cough after sexual mishap

Lol well at least he came clean and didn't use the old "I sat on a dinner plate/bowl of fruit line"

But seriously that's very off topic in fact it couldn't be further off if you tried

 

[BadgerBoi]

I tried Googling "News Limited anti Coalition bias 2007" and got nothing. Could you provide me with a better search as at this point ...

Can I point out that "google is your friend" on this thread is code for "I have a vague recollection of something, or I may have made it up, so I'll turn it around onto whoever dares question me". Hope that clarifies things.

 

[Skyring]

The media does have a responsibility to report news rather than actively participate in creating news as they did with all the Rudd fueled leadership speculation.

I'm referring to the stupidity of the public of buying into his egotistical mania. It should have been recognised as BS by the media and ignored. Once the media decided to create the news the public stupidly lapped up Rudd's manic obsession with himself. Stupidity in its highest form. But Rudd's reliance on stupidity has succeeded as evidenced by him being the leader.

Replacing a bad leader with another bad leader really isn't going to work well in the long run.

Well, I agree. But I'm not sure I follow you. The media created the Rudd-fuelled leadership speculation?

If Rudd fuelled it, then how did the media create it?

And if that's just playing with words, then consider that we are talking about the second highest office in the nation. Any change, any talk of change, is going to sell papers and get eyeballs onto screens.

Sure, there is always going to be speculation when things are a little wobbly, and from about January 2010 on things were very wobbly for Labor, but there has got to be something to it. The media making stuff up isn't going to wash for more than a day or so.

The media didn't prompt Gillard to act - in fact there was barely a whisper. And from that moment on, it was Rudd in revenge mode. Three challenges and endless undermining, beginning with the leaking during the 2010 election campaign. That was Rudd.

The media merely reported the facts - talk in Caucus, counting of noses, who was on whose side - and listened to gossip. Rudd wasn't inspired to act by the papers saying he had a chance. It was the other way round.

The man is driven by rage. It was a solid story before the 2010 coup, and it was backed up by reports from those who came in contact with him. There were any number of sob stories in the back of my cab. That flight attendant. Rudd staffers. The night he was ousted I had one of his staff taking a cab home rather than drive drunk, and he was on his phone the whole time.

The media couldn't have made it all up. Rudd wanted to get back up. Fact.

And he did.

 

[amaroo]

Can I point out that "google is your friend" on this thread is code for "I have a vague recollection of something, or I may have made it up, so I'll turn it around onto whoever dares question me". Hope that clarifies things.

LOL sometimes you can lead a horse to water.......

I found one link in about 0.000000001 sec.......not that hard really.

 

[Hvr]

LOL sometimes you can lead a horse to water.......

I found one link in about 0.000000001 sec.......not that hard really.

And it could've been even faster if you had the NBN connected.

 

[Pushka]

And it could've been even faster if you had the NBN connected.

We don't even have a nominated year yet for NBN.

 

[amaroo]

And it could've been even faster if you had the NBN connected.

Given the dramas in this thread - this is the best reason I've heard to support the thing

 

[Skyring]

We don't even have a nominated year yet for NBN.

It's never going to happen. The NBN needs to connect to 90% of households to break even. 50% of houses get by without a landline, and that's right now.

 

[footy99]

I have no interest in politics but find election betting an interesting guide to what is likely to happen.

Currently the combined total of everyone game to put their money down on the result produces odds of:

Coalition 1.14
Labor 7

So essentially, as of right now, the consensus among the public is there is a 6/7 chance the Coalition will win, and a 1/7 chance Labor will win.

Delving deeper, a few days prior to Gillard's overthrow, she was 1.50 to lead the labor party into the next election, and 71 to be prime minister. Rudd was 2.50 to lead the labor party and 16 to be prime minister. Think about that. So it surprised precisely no-one that when Rudd managed to overthrow Gillard, Labor's odds came crashing in from 14 to 3.50 in a heartbeat. An astonishing shift in chances solely from a change in face. Gillard couldn't win under any circumstances, Rudd was an outside chance. They have since drifted back to 7 as mentioned.

The Coalition had similar possibilities for mass gain in popularity through an overthrow. But that they would win the election has never been seriously questioned so it hasn't come to that. I expect it to arise at some stage during their next term, whenever Labor looks likely to win again.

It's just a different angle to view it from. Says nothing of the issues but clarifies the real chances of winning as determined by the public willing to back their judgment and how those chances would be affected by leader changes.

 

[Pukka]

I have no interest in politics but find election betting an interesting guide to what is likely to happen.

Currently the combined total of everyone game to put their money down on the result produces odds of:

Coalition 1.14
Labor 7

So essentially, as of right now, the consensus among the public is there is a 6/7 chance the Coalition will win, and a 1/7 chance Labor will win.

Delving deeper, a few days prior to Gillard's overthrow, she was 1.50 to lead the labor party into the next election, and 71 to be prime minister. Rudd was 2.50 to lead the labor party and 16 to be prime minister. Think about that. So it surprised precisely no-one that when Rudd managed to overthrow Gillard, Labor's odds came crashing in from 14 to 3.50 in a heartbeat. An astonishing shift in chances solely from a change in face. Gillard couldn't win under any circumstances, Rudd was an outside chance. They have since drifted back to 7 as mentioned.

The Coalition had similar possibilities for mass gain in popularity through an overthrow. But that they would win the election has never been seriously questioned so it hasn't come to that. I expect it to arise at some stage during their next term, whenever Labor looks likely to win again.

It's just a different angle to view it from. Says nothing of the issues but clarifies the real chances of winning as determined by the public willing to back their judgment and how those chances would be affected by leader changes.

I agree wholeheartedly but you will get slagged by the lefties for bringing such a serious event down to betting.

They're all a bit grumpy at the moment as Tony Abbot looks nailed on.

 

[medhead]

Well, I agree. But I'm not sure I follow you. The media created the Rudd-fuelled leadership speculation?

If Rudd fuelled it, then how did the media create it?

And if that's just playing with words, then consider that we are talking about the second highest office in the nation. Any change, any talk of change, is going to sell papers and get eyeballs onto screens.

Sure, there is always going to be speculation when things are a little wobbly, and from about January 2010 on things were very wobbly for Labor, but there has got to be something to it. The media making stuff up isn't going to wash for more than a day or so.

The media didn't prompt Gillard to act - in fact there was barely a whisper. And from that moment on, it was Rudd in revenge mode. Three challenges and endless undermining, beginning with the leaking during the 2010 election campaign. That was Rudd.

Rudd provided the fuel and the media lit the speculative bonfire. Rudd's fuel is meaningless without the media's participation.

 

[Sprucegoose]

Rudd leads Labor support in death spiral. Greens go down on latest poll. Fresh Newspoll makes Abbott's underdog claim hard to swallow. Gillard not responding to calls for comment.

I heard she was on holidays in honkers????

 

[Skyring]

Rudd provided the fuel and the media lit the speculative bonfire. Rudd's fuel is meaningless without the media's participation.

The fact remains that Rudd undermined Gillard, leaking through the election, making her job even more difficult in the minority government that Rudd caused.

The media didn't make this up.

Rudd's loyalty, teamwork and trustworthiness was, on a scale of one to ten, zero.

 

[Pukka]

I heard she was on holidays in honkers????

Or redecorating her new $1.8M beach shack??

 

[Pushka]

He certainly did undermine Gillard. But I reckon she leaked a few incidences of his tanties too.