It's on
August 4, 2013 1:22 AM Subscribe

Kevin Rudd has visited Yarralumla and has asked the Governor General to issue the writs for an election to be held on September the 7th. The ABC's coverage starts the coverage with Vote Compass - Where do you stand (as if you already didn't know)? Faifax has offered this handy ready reckoner. News Corp Australia? Well they are calling on the services of Col Pot to ensure that Voting compasses and ready reckoners point in only the right direction, and to ensure that News' editors - rely on their instincts
posted by mattoxic (282 comments total) 14 users marked this as a favorite

Oh god, it is upon us.
posted by Jimbob at 1:27 AM on August 4, 2013 [8 favorites]

What Jimbob said.
posted by Coaticass at 1:58 AM on August 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

I only caught about 20 minutes of Channel 10's coverage this afternoon. It seemed to consist of a Liberal senator telling us how great Tony was, then Hugh Riminton telling us how Rudd was begging for donations while Abbott had been collecting donations for the last three years. Or something.

The news lady said 'gosh' a lot.
posted by dumbland at 1:59 AM on August 4, 2013

Wonder if Rudd "begging for donations" is driven by the Obama people he's hired for the campaign?
posted by Jimbob at 2:01 AM on August 4, 2013

to ensure that News' editors - rely on their instincts

For those unfamiliar with News Corp's Australian operations, this is code for "you didn't get where you are by needing to be told what Rupert wants you to say, so don't start now".
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 2:05 AM on August 4, 2013 [7 favorites]

Wonder if Rudd "begging for donations" is driven by the Obama people he's hired for the campaign?

I haven't signed up for them, but they sound exactly like the Obama emails. Trying to get a lot of small donations.
posted by dumbland at 2:12 AM on August 4, 2013

The ABC's vote compass site is great... shame it's not also being hosted/linked to from The Australian. There's inevitably going to be (or be argued that) site bias will be involved in the results.
posted by panaceanot at 2:44 AM on August 4, 2013

So I used the Vote Compass and found out I know basically nothing about Australian politics. I'm looking forward to this thread in the hopes that I might learn something.

I'd love to see a poll where Australians rank the issues covered by the Vote Compass.
posted by ob1quixote at 3:04 AM on August 4, 2013

What happens for others after they answer the last question - or, more accurately, respond to the last statement - on the ABC Vote Compass? Seems to have hung for me…
posted by puffmoike at 3:06 AM on August 4, 2013

Ignore. Seems to have righted itself whilst I was asking about it here on the Blue.
posted by puffmoike at 3:08 AM on August 4, 2013

puffmoike, ditto. Eventually it pops up "We are having some technical difficulties and are unable to process your answer. Please try again later." for me. I imagine it's under load?
posted by adamt at 3:09 AM on August 4, 2013

I must say, I'm endlessly cheered because I now think that even if they win, Abbott and his goons won't gain a senate majority. Even better, I think it's even money that they won't win at all - which would just be so, so rich, for their born-to-rule mentality, and give Turnbull a chance to roll some heads post-defeat, which the Coalition desperately needs - not just for them, but for Labor, and the country. A party that can step past Howard's legacy.

That all said, Lenore Taylor, as ever, is pretty much on the money.
posted by smoke at 3:11 AM on August 4, 2013 [4 favorites]

What happens for others after they answer the last question - or, more accurately, respond to the last statement - on the ABC Vote Compass? Seems to have hung for me…

Yeah I was originally cursing my shitty, shitty internet connection for the election compass failing to load - but when I clicked refresh, I noticed the number of people who'd used it had increased by about 6,000 while I'd was waiting. So I guess they're getting thrashed.

There's no point me doing it anyway. It'll just say "Godless Pinko".
posted by Jimbob at 3:27 AM on August 4, 2013 [4 favorites]

I put $10 on sportsbet on Labor to form the next government. They were paying $3.75 for a dollar, and I thought those odds were worth a shot.
posted by Wolof at 3:36 AM on August 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

I think we should all keep in mind the insightful point made by The Age: Labor's "crusade" has not been all smooth sailing: Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory have not signed up.
If Labor's plan was any good, surely the Liberal / National parties governing those places would have signed up for it, rather than create further uncertainty in an election year.
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:37 AM on August 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

Surely, Joe.
posted by puffmoike at 3:41 AM on August 4, 2013 [4 favorites]

That would require Campbell Newman to take a sensible apolitical position.
posted by chiquitita at 3:43 AM on August 4, 2013 [2 favorites]

So I used the Vote Compass and found out I know basically nothing about Australian politics. I'm looking forward to this thread in the hopes that I might learn something.

ob1quixote most Australians also don't know much about oz politics, but all you need to know is to vote for the guy that will:

Stop the boats
Get rid of the carbon tax
Cut the waste
posted by mattoxic at 3:44 AM on August 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

I put $10 on sportsbet on Labor to form the next government. They were paying $3.75 for a dollar, and I thought those odds were worth a shot.

Wow. I'm pretty leftist, admittedly, but I'd definitely take those odds. Given; does that include if Labor forms a minority government like last time?

This'll be the first election where I'm eligible to vote. Given where I live that's inevitably going to be Greens with preferences going to Labor.
posted by solarion at 3:44 AM on August 4, 2013 [2 favorites]

I (an American) have two fairly conservative Aussies next to me telling me the ABC is communist and will just tell me to vote Green or Labor (even though that's where I fall politically anyway).

But apparently the forces of crap web development have outweighed the forces of communism because I also get stuck after answering the last question and get messages about "technical difficulties." I guess I'll never know!
posted by olinerd at 3:58 AM on August 4, 2013

Vote Compass doesn't seem to be working for me. Maybe it doesn't like my answers to asylum-seeker questions. Or, you know, maybe it's those seven different tracker cookies my browser's blocking on the page.
posted by Wataki at 4:00 AM on August 4, 2013

ABC are running TVCs for vote compass. Maybe they should have checked it under load.
posted by mattoxic at 4:08 AM on August 4, 2013

If Labor's plan was any good, surely the Liberal / National parties governing those places would have signed up for it, rather than create further uncertainty in an election year.

HA HA HA HA HA. That was dry sarcasm, right? RIGHT?
posted by smoke at 4:08 AM on August 4, 2013 [3 favorites]

Vote Compass seems like a very accurate simulation. It generates an error trying to figure out who I should vote for too...
posted by adamt at 4:18 AM on August 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

Mercifully it will all be over soon and I'll vote just as I did last time. It's not like we're going to hear anything substantively different in the next four weeks than what been hearing ad nauseum for the last three years. At least, nothing that's isn't going to make me even less inclined to vote for them...
posted by adamt at 4:35 AM on August 4, 2013

Stop the votes!
posted by panaceanot at 4:41 AM on August 4, 2013 [3 favorites]

For me - the real question I facing int this election is just how can I most effectively spoil my vote. I'll complete the senate paper - but the reps, that's a different matter.
posted by mattoxic at 4:45 AM on August 4, 2013

Stop the oats!
posted by dumbland at 4:48 AM on August 4, 2013 [4 favorites]

solarion: "This'll be the first election where I'm eligible to vote."

I hope this doesn't sound too stupid, but I just wanted to say: welcome to the franchise. No matter which way you vote, I think everyone is glad to have you aboard.

For anyone else reading this who is coming up to their first election (or who has moved since last time), remember that time is running for voter registration. You have to have everything in place by 8pm, Monday 12 August or you'll miss out!
posted by curious.jp at 5:47 AM on August 4, 2013 [2 favorites]

Stop the tropes!
posted by rhombus at 5:50 AM on August 4, 2013 [2 favorites]

Popes / snopes / hopes / jokes / moats / floats

etc. (to get them out of the way)
posted by panaceanot at 6:07 AM on August 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

dickhoads
posted by moody cow at 6:15 AM on August 4, 2013

does that include if Labor forms a minority government like last time?

Yes, it does — all you need is a sworn in government. That's the bet — Libs to lead sworn in government ($1.24 when I bet), vs. Labs at $3.75.
posted by Wolof at 6:16 AM on August 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

ABC News 23. It's really the only place to get your election news.
posted by Mezentian at 6:56 AM on August 4, 2013 [2 favorites]

For me - the real question I facing int this election is just how can I most effectively spoil my vote. I'll complete the senate paper - but the reps, that's a different matter.

Bad idea?

If Minor Party Candidate A gets a certain percentage of the vote (5%?) they get $ in funding for your vote.

So, if you hate everyone, you can throw your vote away by voting for the minor party that best represents your view, not vote for the Big Two until well down the ticket, and help fund the Minor Party who can best stick in the craw of the Whichever Government in the next election.
posted by Mezentian at 7:01 AM on August 4, 2013 [2 favorites]

For me - the real question I facing int this election is just how can I most effectively spoil my vote.

Vote #1 quidnunc kid.
posted by the quidnunc kid at 7:05 AM on August 4, 2013 [15 favorites]

What's your position on bank levies?
posted by Mezentian at 7:13 AM on August 4, 2013

My government will crush the banks up into miniscule pieces of grit, then stuff the financial grit into bags and create a levee of gritty sand-bags around the Australian coastline to protect our nation from climate-change-inspired rising sea levels, and also boat people and their nefarious foreign boats.

This one policy will solve three of Australia's greatest conundrums: visitors, banking services and hot seawater. Also it will create thousands of jobs in Australia's ailing bag-manufacturing and bag-packing industries.

Then we can finally change those fatal lines in our national anthem from:

"Australians all let us rejoice,
For we are young and free;
We've golden soil and wealth for toil;
Our home is girt by sea ..."

To:

"Australians all let us admit,
We're old and it's a drag;
We're scared of boats and climate change,
Our home's girt by sand-bags ..."
posted by the quidnunc kid at 8:06 AM on August 4, 2013 [19 favorites]

So from my utterly uninformed American position I'd have to think that the optimum play is to put the minor parties that could in the future split the vote of the major party you oppose as high as possible, and bury the minor parties that could split the vote for the major party you support, even if you like them more than than "your" major party. Right?
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 8:29 AM on August 4, 2013

It's that kind of thinking that got us Steve Fielding.
posted by hawthorne at 8:36 AM on August 4, 2013 [5 favorites]

I'm not Australian, but I do have family there, so I care. It seems I'd be endorsing Labour if not for their abhorrent stance on immigration and their US-centric national security plans. Total dealbreaker. Endorsement: Greens.

...until it comes time to actually vote, at which time it's Labour all the way, because, seriously, take it from a Canadian: The perfect is the enemy of the good. Second Best is much better than The Absolute Worst Thing Ever. You really don't want what we've got, and you could very well get it exactly the same way we did.

Labour might reverse its stance on immigration with enough pressure, but the Coalition won't reverse its stance on anything, and will likely only intensify once in power.
posted by Sys Rq at 8:41 AM on August 4, 2013 [5 favorites]

this is why I wish Approval voting was the darling of the left, instead of IRV/Australian style voting. IRV solves the problem of a minor party that can't ever win sabotaging the major party that's ideologically closest to them (the Ralph Nader problem), but starts yielding nearly random results when there's more than two major parties. Approval voting actually yields results that reflect the will of the voters in most cases.

apologies for the electoral systems derail... I'll be seeing myself out now...
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 8:48 AM on August 4, 2013 [6 favorites]

So from my utterly uninformed American position I'd have to think that the optimum play is to put the minor parties that could in the future split the vote of the major party you oppose as high as possible, and bury the minor parties that could split the vote for the major party you support, even if you like them more than than "your" major party. Right?

No. That doesn't really make any sense. Spoilers only spoil if they're taking votes away from the party they're spoiling.
posted by Sys Rq at 8:48 AM on August 4, 2013

I'm relieved to hear that Adam Bandt is likely to hold onto the city of Melbourne (my old electorate) even with the Tories putting the ALP ahead of him.

I suspect I've been outside Australia for too long to vote in the next election (the limit's 6 years, right)? So instead I sent a donation to the Greens' campaign in Melbourne.
posted by acb at 8:54 AM on August 4, 2013

Approval Voting is in fact immune to tactical voting entirely, and it would make the Senate voting less like doing three years of taxes all in one go. I don't hold out much hope for it catching the public imagination though.
posted by Proofs and Refutations at 9:00 AM on August 4, 2013 [2 favorites]

The tactical vote thing is difficult here. It just does not apply in the lower house (with exception of the Melbourne electorate) due to compulsion in preferences: one way or another (pretty much, and I'm going to leave details out on pain of jail) you must effectively give your vote to one of the major parties and it's only the two party preferred that really matters (and is indeed, what's counted on the night).

In the Senate, you can vote tactically, but almost everyone votes "above the line" which means that preferences are distributed according to party selections. There aren't enough "below the line" votes to matter [long Paddington Bear bit goes here].

My view, for what it's worth, is:
1. The ALP chucked out Rudd because they thought he might lose and thought he might win about equally;
2. They put him back in because he will save the furniture, not because they think he will win;
3. I have experience in holding my nose, but I don't think I can this time. And I understand preferences.
posted by hawthorne at 9:02 AM on August 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

Van Badham disagrees: Voting for Kevin Rudd makes me sick, but here's why I'll do it anyway.
posted by acb at 9:06 AM on August 4, 2013

You Can't Tip a Buick wrote:

So from my utterly uninformed American position I'd have to think that the optimum play is to put the minor parties that could in the future split the vote of the major party you oppose as high as possible, and bury the minor parties that could split the vote for the major party you support, even if you like them more than than "your" major party. Right?

No. You are, as you point out, utterly uninformed.

In the Australian House of Representatives we use Preferential Voting. Voters place a number next to all the candidates on the ballot paper in their order of preference. If no candidate receives 50%+1 of first preference votes then the ballot papers for the candidate whom received the least first preference votes are redistributed on the basis of the voters' second choices. This process continues until one candidate has a majority of the vote.

Thus one can happily vote for a candidate with no chance of being elected and still have your vote 'count' every bit as much as if you had voted for one of the front runners. There is no 'splitting of the vote'.

I'll actually vote for candidates that have absolutely no chance if they have a decent platform, in the hope that they'll receive sufficient percentage of the vote to get their deposit back - I like to think it helps encourage people to get involved in the democratic process in some small way. I just make sure that I place the major parties in my order of preference further down the ballot.

I happen to live in Melbourne, which is currently represented by the first Greens member ever elected to the lower house. Polls suggested that he would likely lose this time around, as both the major parties look likely to direct preferences on their how to vote cards to the other major party in Melbourne. But with the most recent attempts by Labor and Liberal parties to demonise asylum seekers it seems likely that more of the good burghers of Melbourne will vote Green for their first preference, and that many more will ignore the major parties how to vote cards and preference the Greens candidate ahead of the other major party's candidate.
posted by puffmoike at 9:07 AM on August 4, 2013 [6 favorites]

puffmoike: Yeah, the thing I'm not realizing is that there's no even remotely viable third party in Australia. If a third party ran the risk of getting more early-round votes than one of the major parties, though, tactical voting would re-emerge with a vengeance.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 9:12 AM on August 4, 2013

You Can't Tip a Buick: Whether there's a viable third party or not (either federally or on a seat by seat basis) doesn't have any bearing on the success of 'tactical voting' under our system.

I've only lived in Australia, so I don't claim to be properly across US, Canadian or other countries' electoral systems. But to take a fairly well known example if Ralph Nader ran in an Australian election then probably 9 out of 10 of his votes would end up being recorded for the Democrats, and they'd be worth every bit as much as direct votes for the Democrats.
posted by puffmoike at 9:20 AM on August 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

I wonder whether the sorts of people who think that voting 1 for Labor is more powerful than voting 2 for them after the Greens are the same sorts of people who think that turning the thermostat up higher will heat up the room more quickly.
posted by acb at 9:26 AM on August 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

Yep, acb, I've often wondered just how differently vote tallies might look if every voter actually understood the fairly simple process that is used to determine which candidate gets elected.

Anyone have any data on this stuff?
posted by puffmoike at 9:38 AM on August 4, 2013

Okay, test finally worked for me and I'm apparently pretty Green. However, my opinion that the monarchy is unnecessary did NOT go over well with the Aussie husband and friend. So not only did I learn more details of Australian political issues (very useful as we're moving there next year), I've also learned that I married a monarchist. Thanks for the FPP... I think.
posted by olinerd at 9:50 AM on August 4, 2013 [3 favorites]

Consider two major parties A and B, and one insurgent minor party C. C is ideologically to the left of A, and B is right-wing, which is to say evil.

For the sake of simplicity, say this is a very, very small electorate — 21 voters. Five of them are left-centrists who vote A first, then B, then C. Ten are right-wingers who vote BAC. Six of the voters want a change for the better, and so vote CAB.

After the first round, A is eliminated. The five votes for A are reassigned to B, giving B 15 votes and the election. Evil triumphs, demons walk the earth — or rather, swim it, since everyone's under feet of hot seawater.

After one or two rounds of that nonsense, the CAB voters will resign themselves to tactically voting ACB — after all, in the original scenario, if just one of the CAB voters had lied about their preferences and voted ACB, then A would have won.

This is not an uncommon scenario; versions of it tend to appear whenever there's more than two viable parties. The need to avoid it is why countries that use IRV tend towards two major parties, just as in FPTP, and is also why it makes sense for people in Australia to lie about their preferences and vote Labor first even if they like the Greens much better.

</derail>
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 9:55 AM on August 4, 2013

So why did the left-centrist voters vote ABC then instead of ACB? They're not very left wing...

Tot up the votes, ignoring 3rd preference (as it won't come into play, by my count)

A - 5x 1st, 6x 2nd = 11 votes
B - 10x 1st, 5x 2nd = 15 votes
C - 6x 1st, 0x 2nd = 6 votes

The party with the most votes across 1st and 2nd preferences is B, by a big margin. They SHOULD win, as that best represents the will of the voters expressed in your vote example.
posted by ArkhanJG at 10:48 AM on August 4, 2013

Argg, never mind - I can't count and forgot the 10x 2nd pref votes for A from the right wingers.
posted by ArkhanJG at 10:52 AM on August 4, 2013

Any nonhorrible voting scheme can be manipulated, see the gibbard-satterthwaite theorem. Istr there's a proof that strategic approval voting is np hard, tho.

Generally when the choice is over more than two alternatives the most accurate thing you can say is that there's no coherent will of the people. The people can be shown to prefer a over b, and also b over a. All there is is the outcome of the process, which can't be accurate or inaccurate.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:00 AM on August 4, 2013 [2 favorites]

Yeah, for most of my life I've lived in parts of the US that get the CBC, and the mess with vote-splitting in Canada is utterly infuriating. No one outside of Alberta likes the gray lizardman that the electoral system keeps putting in power, and yet, he can't lose. I'm just glad that last time around we can pin the blame on Liberal voters failing to make the clearly correct tactical choice...

In Canada, the Tories also count on support from not just Alberta, but also British Columbia, Manitoba, Sask, and, of course, Ontario.

As for vote-splitting, it is not vote splitting at all. Voters should be able to vote for whoever they want to, period - there is no one party that is entitled to speak on behalf of "progressive" voters.

In Canada anyway parties like the Liberals (who are definitely not the same as the NDP) enjoy support from specific regions, such as Newfoundland or some cities (Vancouver) that are not suddenly going to vote NDP to avoid vote-splitting. Same as Greens. Not even the same thing as the NDP. The talk of vote-splitting is total crap.
posted by KokuRyu at 11:17 AM on August 4, 2013

As for vote-splitting, it is not vote splitting at all. Voters should be able to vote for whoever they want to, period - there is no one party that is entitled to speak on behalf of "progressive" voters.

No one's suggesting otherwise. It's just that since the Progressive Conservative and Reform parties merged, a previously split right-wing vote is now consolidated while the left-wing is still divided against itself. That's all there is to it.

/derail
posted by Sys Rq at 11:43 AM on August 4, 2013

Wow, September 7. That's not much time. I look forward to the sprint of national elections coverage between today, August 4, 2013, and the Aussie national election on September 7, 2014, complete with lots of math, maps, mathemaps, etc.

The big Election Day Decision 2014 will tie in nicely to the midst of the USA 2016 presidential election, which will just be heating up by then.

wait, what? Unpossible!!
posted by Huffy Puffy at 1:54 PM on August 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

I'm glad it's a short campaign. Less faffing about. Also, it's funny that after all this delay it's actually going to be a week earlier than originally "planned" by Julia Gillard - presumably this time they looked the date up in a calendar.
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:00 PM on August 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

Huffy Puffy, do you mean the next Senate elections, or is 2014 a typo?

(And while some jockeying for 2016 in the US is already taking place, campaigning usually doesn't really begin until the January of the year before, following the end-of-year holiday season. Before that, the big story will be control of Congress following the 2014 mid-terms.)

Aside from the tactical discussion above, is there any good summary of the major issues at play amongst the electorate? I take it immigration is right up there, but what of the carbon tax? And are there significant issues of domestic importance that get no discussion in the US press?
posted by dhartung at 3:37 PM on August 4, 2013

I'm pretty sure Election 2016 started in late spring 2012, which is why I'm assuming the Aussie election must be next year, right? They can't possibly get it all over with in just a month.

Right?
Right?
posted by Huffy Puffy at 4:15 PM on August 4, 2013 [2 favorites]

They can't possibly get it all over with in just a month.

Oh believe me, judging by the media reporting, we've been in election mode since 2010...

Although it is fascinating that the man who's spent the last 3 years demanding a new election didn't manage to get a press conference together yesterday until after the Greens, gave a fairly unmotivated and uninspiring presser, and still refuses to debate Rudd despite previously saying "I'll debate him every day during the campaign".

I think the LNP had been assuming for too long they'd just be able to phone it in for this election, and appear woefully unprepared. Of course when they've got Murdoch on their side maybe they feel that's all they need to win.
posted by Jimbob at 4:42 PM on August 4, 2013 [2 favorites]

This will be an interesting election. The Coalition will pretend they can offer solutions to people's concerns, namely the economy (jobs and costs of living). Labor will portray these things as beyond the control of any political party (international economy and China), but instead ask that you trust Labor to do the least harm on Australia's neoliberal rollercoaster ride.

I'd have to think that the optimum play is to put the minor parties that could in the future split the vote of the major party you oppose as high as possible, and bury the minor parties that could split the vote for the major party you support, even if you like them more than than "your" major party.

It depends. You may want your preferred minor party to attract public funding, which requires 4 per cent of first-preference votes to be eligible for $2.488 per first preference vote. While there are some theoretical problems with IRV, in practice in Australia, preferences safely accrue to one of the two major parties in most electorates.
posted by kithrater at 4:53 PM on August 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

Daily Telegraph's headline today "Kick This Mob Out"

Glad to see at least Rupert has freedom of the press.
posted by mattoxic at 4:56 PM on August 4, 2013

oh c'mon, you're quite free to buy your own major daily and put whatever you want on the front cover.
posted by russm at 5:02 PM on August 4, 2013 [5 favorites]

I’m trying to swear off election following this year. Australian politics is so dismal and depressing at the moment, and even though I’ve been a political junkie all my adult life, I think it’s time to instigate a controlled withdrawal program. I know that I will learn not one single thing that will change my vote, and the only reason I will be watching is in the hope that Abbott will melt down on camera. If that does happen I’m sure I’ll hear about it.

Some of you may be interested in a new blog, AusVotes2013, which seems to have some decent independent coverage. I prefer the occasional grumblings of Andrew Elder though.

Come election day, I’ll be handing out HTVs for my local Greens candidate. Not that I agree with many of their policies, and not that he has a hope of winning, but Greens Senate representation will moderate the worst excesses of an Abbott government, and handing out HTVs does matter in boosting their vote.

If any of you are keen to bitch about the regressive policies of the major parties (and most of you are) and you’re not handing out HTVs on election day, you’re a fraud and a blowhard. I fully expect, given the passion shown on this blog, that a large number of you will be busy on your feet in five weeks. Otherwise, STFU.
posted by wilful at 5:11 PM on August 4, 2013 [2 favorites]

The vote compass and my own views compel me to vote Green, even though I dissagree on them on everything except refugees. I might throw a vote at one of the minor parties like the Future Party. Refugees are the big thing for me, though I wish I could vote for someone who's pro-NBN and anti-censorship.
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 5:13 PM on August 4, 2013

If any of you are keen to bitch about the regressive policies of the major parties (and most of you are) and you’re not handing out HTVs on election day, you’re a fraud and a blowhard. I fully expect, given the passion shown on this blog, that a large number of you will be busy on your feet in five weeks. Otherwise, STFU.

I've just stuck an "I'm a fraud, a blowhard and I vote" sticker on the back of the family car.
posted by mattoxic at 5:17 PM on August 4, 2013 [7 favorites]

You Can't Tip a Buick: "Consider two major parties A and B, and one insurgent minor party C. C is ideologically to the left of A, and B is right-wing … Five of them are left-centrists who vote A first, then B, then C."

ArkhanJG: "So why did the left-centrist voters vote ABC then instead of ACB?"

Exactly. Worth noting that at the last election, in the majority of electorates where the Labor ('Party A') vote dropped, the Greens ('Party C') picked up most of the drop.

A few examples .
posted by Pinback at 5:18 PM on August 4, 2013

Refugees are the big thing for me, though I wish I could vote for someone who's pro-NBN and anti-censorship.

The Greens aren't pro-NBN and anti-censorship?
posted by acb at 5:35 PM on August 4, 2013

If any of you are keen to bitch about the regressive policies of the major parties (and most of you are) and you’re not handing out HTVs on election day, you’re a fraud and a blowhard.

Now come on. HTV cards are complete bullshit, and elections would be better off without them. I reject the notion that I need anyone to tell me how to distribute my preferences, so why should I have a moral imperative to try to tell other people how to distribute their preferences, by throwing around millions of bits of paper that get scrunched up and thrown away in seconds?

If someone goes and votes purely based on the set of numbers on a HTV card they're given, then they're completely disengaged from the political progress and barely deserve to have their voice heard.
posted by Jimbob at 5:42 PM on August 4, 2013 [3 favorites]

If someone goes and votes purely based on the set of numbers on a HTV card they're given, then they're completely disengaged from the political progress and barely deserve to have their voice heard.

And so the voice of the party whose box they tick above the line is heard in their stead.
posted by acb at 5:45 PM on August 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

We would be much better off skulking around the inner western suburbs of Sydney in the early hours with fake pamphlets advertising the ALP's pro Islam policies and how they plan to convert the leagues clubs to mosques.
posted by mattoxic at 5:47 PM on August 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

Jimbob: "HTV cards are complete bullshit, and elections would be better off without them."

acb: "And so the voice of the party whose box they tick above the line is heard in their stead."

Which is exactly what's on the HTV card anyway…
posted by Pinback at 5:47 PM on August 4, 2013

Now come on. HTV cards are complete bullshit, and elections would be better off without them. I reject the notion that I need anyone to tell me how to distribute my preferences, so why should I have a moral imperative to try to tell other people how to distribute their preferences, by throwing around millions of bits of paper that get scrunched up and thrown away in seconds?

Why? Because they work.

If someone goes and votes purely based on the set of numbers on a HTV card they're given, then they're completely disengaged from the political progress and barely deserve to have their voice heard.

And yet their voice is still heard.

If you want to make excuses for not participating, fine. Just don’t bitch when the Greens don’t hold the BOP.

Though I admit that in Tasmania where you are, Peter Whish-Wilson will easily get a quota, and his extra votes will end up with the ALP, getting them to three quotas. And the Greens don’t lack on the ground support and workers in Tassie.
posted by wilful at 5:57 PM on August 4, 2013

Most people's minds are already made up when they enter the polling station. If you're voting green it probably means you're pretty well engaged with the issues to put the coalition last, or at least before the gun nuts and the religious loons, so you probably don't need an HTV card. HTV cards help coalition voters put Labor and the greens last.
posted by mattoxic at 6:05 PM on August 4, 2013

It's not an excuse for not participating - it seems to me that doing nothing more than handing out HTVs is a fairly cynical, lowest-common denominator way of doing it.

What is the purpose supposed to be? The ones get picked up by Greens voters as they come past? Well, they were going to vote Green anyway, so why did they need the HTV to tell them how to do so? The ones picked up by apathetic voters? You're hoping that they're just going to go in there and do what the card says because they've got no better ideas themselves?

Or is the idea just to make sure your party has an on-the-ground presence at the booth? That's a completely legitimate aim, but I can't help feeling you'd generate more public good-will by running the BBQ than by trying to tell people who they should preference and hoping they'll be apathetic enough to follow your instructions.

Sadly, though, I guess you're right, that they do work. I'm just angry that apparently people really do give so little of a shit about democracy that they need instructions given to them on how they should number 5 boxes.

HTV cards help coalition voters put Labor and the greens last.

Yeah, this too.
posted by Jimbob at 6:08 PM on August 4, 2013

I'm a below-the-line voter. I get so frustrated that apparently a majority of the population are so disengaged that they can't even figure out who to vote for above the line without written instructions.

It would probably be better if they didn't fine people for not voting; it forces even the uninterested to vote.
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 6:18 PM on August 4, 2013

It would probably be better if they didn't fine people for not voting;

Then we'd end up with US-style campaigns where millions of dollars are wasted simply trying to get people off their arse to vote, and pathetic obsession with issues like abortion to try and "energize the base".
posted by Jimbob at 6:28 PM on August 4, 2013 [6 favorites]

I think compulsory voting it vital - Apart from talking about house prices, it's the only thing the entire nation does together.
posted by mattoxic at 6:37 PM on August 4, 2013 [4 favorites]

I think compulsory voting it vital - Apart from talking about house prices, it's the only thing the entire nation does together.

but why is that a good thing? do you really want bogans and rednecks who don't care about the issues to vote?
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 6:44 PM on August 4, 2013

but why is that a good thing? do you really want bogans and rednecks who don't care about the issues to vote?

The bogans and rednecks and habitual voters drown out those dragged out by toxic issues (i.e., “THE HOMOSEXICANS ARE COMING!”).
posted by acb at 6:46 PM on August 4, 2013

do you really want bogans and rednecks who don't care about the issues to vote?

Do you really want bogans and rednecks to win elections because one party scares them into a frenzy with talk about muslim commies who'll take all their guns away and use them to perform abortions, then pays for busses to drive them to the polls?
posted by Jimbob at 6:47 PM on August 4, 2013 [3 favorites]

Via Slashdot: Rupert Murdoch Wants To Destroy Australia's National Broadband Network

" The media mogul sees the NBN as a threat to his media empire and has ordered newspapers to attack the project at every opportunity. "
posted by Mezentian at 6:54 PM on August 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

There has been some fairly convincing debunking of that Murdoch story, as much as it would provide a convenient explanation for all the NBN hate out there.
posted by Jimbob at 6:57 PM on August 4, 2013 [2 favorites]

I'm more inclined to believe the debunking than the conspiracy theory. By the theory's logic, the Coalition NBN will still ruin Foxtel.
posted by kithrater at 7:00 PM on August 4, 2013

I do Charlemagne In Sweatpants. I would much prefer if the populous was a little bit engaged rather than totally unengaged and apathetic. But I bet this election will see the highest informal vote on record. Both major parties are utterly odious. The only reasons I can see to vote for the ALP is to keep Abbott out - rather than voting for the ALP because I identify with their policies or heaven forbid - a personality.

When Combet resigned - that was a blow for me. I was really hoping that he would stay on and lead the party (that I once cared so much about) back to a semblance of what it once was when it had people like Barry Jones, John Button, Paul Keating, John Faulkner, Mark Latham, Gerry Hand, Meg Ryan, Bob Hawke... The list is long. I can think of no one from the other side of politics who comes even close to matching these people.

The dumping of Gillard has destroyed any reason to vote Labor. If Turnbull was leading the coalition it would be all over.

Rudd was a disastrous PM, and will be again. Abbott would also be a disastrous PM - so we're screwed really.
posted by mattoxic at 7:02 PM on August 4, 2013 [2 favorites]

"I'm more inclined to believe the debunking than the conspiracy theory. By the theory's logic, the Coalition NBN will still ruin Foxtel."

I am not even slightly impressed by the debunking. The reality is that the NBN is a serious (and legit) threat to Murdoch's dominance, influence, and hence profitability.

As I understand it, by a remarkable coincidence the Coalition's scheme uses the same basic technical standard that Mr Murdoch's Foxtel cable system currently uses, the installation of which he previously had to fund himself. There is a dirty little deal going on between Murdoch and Abbott, the exact details of which we will not be privy to until it is too late.

If the Coalition win and trash the project, it will be one of the greatest acts of vandalism this country ever had to endure, and I hope they rot in political hell for it.

(Incidentally, I am pretty sure that Combet resigned for health reasons, more than anything else. Still a major loss though.)
posted by Pouteria at 7:58 PM on August 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

I plan to stay sane by concentrating on the major positive of the entire process:

Democracy Sausages.
posted by But tomorrow is another day... at 7:59 PM on August 4, 2013 [2 favorites]

Coalition's scheme uses the same basic technical standard that Mr Murdoch's Foxtel cable system currently uses

The Coalition NBN doesn't use the same basic technical standard that Foxtel uses. Foxtel runs over HFC and Satellite. The majority of households under the Coalition NBN would be receiving broadband via VDSL.

the installation of which he previously had to fund himself

Foxtel runs over the HFC networks. The two main HFC networks are operated by Telstra and Optus. Telstra and Optus covered the costs of installing the network, with Foxtel being a joint venture between Telstra and News Corporation to supply content over Telstra's HFC network. Optus and Foxtel later came to a content-sharing deal, so Foxtel more or less also runs over Optus HFC now.
posted by kithrater at 8:38 PM on August 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

If any of you are keen to bitch about the regressive policies of the major parties (and most of you are) and you’re not handing out HTVs on election day, you’re a fraud and a blowhard.

Wait, so if I believe that people can think for themselves, I am not progressive enough? (I am not eligible to vote, so this is academic for me.)

At risk of being the too-sensitive bleeding-heart, "bogans and rednecks" as a shorthand for "uninterested voters" really bothers me, because classism.
posted by gingerest at 8:52 PM on August 4, 2013 [5 favorites]

Not classism - out-and-out fucking bigotry.

With or without a big dash of hypocrisy…
posted by Pinback at 9:10 PM on August 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

Wait, so if I believe that people can think for themselves, I am not progressive enough?

No, you're simply an idiot (apolitically, no matter what your allegiance), because you're denying reality. HTVs work.
posted by wilful at 9:14 PM on August 4, 2013

HTVs work.

It's possible to object to things on grounds other than effectiveness.
posted by misfish at 9:18 PM on August 4, 2013

I understand that you feel strongly about this, but please don't call me names. HTVs are quick-reference sheets that endorse a specific slate of candidates and election issues, right? I often refer to a particular one (issued by a local weekly newspaper with whose politics I largely agree) for elections in my home state. But even though I personally believe certain issues are cut-and-dried priorities for progressive voters, I don't think they *all* are, and I don't know that handing out a particular party's cheat sheet is an ethical necessity.
posted by gingerest at 9:24 PM on August 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

HTVs work.

We'll see, because the only rational outcome, September 7th, is for Australia to deliver another hung parliament. No? Oh yes it is. No way should Australia give either of the major parties a majority to govern. They are both unsuitable.

Given my druthers, whoever forms government would have to negotiate permission to scratch. FT.

Rudd is no reformer. And Abbott's sudden lack of 'Howard' mention (that commenced yesterday, it seems) is louder than his former liberal use. Abbott is pure conniving sleeze.

The Labor party has had a major clean out, but not far enough; and the Liberals haven't commenced generational change. To borrow from the reformer of all reformers: "It's time" Abbotts and the hobbyist Turnbull took a hike along with the Bishops and most of the shady front bench. Shadow ministers, my foot.

Hang 'em.
posted by de at 9:33 PM on August 4, 2013

I think what Wilful is stridently suggesting is not about needing HSVs to help make a descision, but about manning a polling booth and putting in some effort to at least help bring about an outcome.

And can we stop being so fucking hysterical over the epithet bogan - it is not classist, there a plenty of bogans who attended private school, studied engineering and have gone on to live their lives in the leafy inner suburbs. Thanks for the wiki link to bigotry there pinback - I was lost for a while.
posted by mattoxic at 9:39 PM on August 4, 2013

And can we stop being so fucking hysterical over the epithet bogan - it is not classist, there a plenty of bogans who attended private school, studied engineering and have gone on to live their lives in the leafy inner suburbs.

What bullshit. What definition of bogan are you using? I don't think it's the same one the rest of the country has agreed on. Maybe check out the Macquarie Dictionary?
posted by misfish at 9:45 PM on August 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

Yeah I think since the rise of "Howard's battlers" and middle-class welfare, I think "bogan" in this context is barely a classist word. It's not unemployed guys in flannel shirts in housing trust units driving the LNP. It's people pissed off about losing a tax break for their new Statesman.
posted by Jimbob at 9:46 PM on August 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

And can we stop being so fucking hysterical over the epithet bogan - it is not classist, there a plenty of bogans who attended private school, studied engineering and have gone on to live their lives in the leafy inner suburbs.

Exactly. It pretty much means 'anyone without class'; not in the economic sense but in the 'taste' sense. Bogans include people like tradies, who have money. And Things Bogans Like lists 'McMansions' among other bogan signifiers.

I don't know where the idea that EVERYBODY has the capacity to make informed judgements about the leadership of a country came from.
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 10:00 PM on August 4, 2013

Maybe check out the Macquarie Dictionary.

I just did and I'm horrified that I could have been so insensitive.
posted by mattoxic at 10:04 PM on August 4, 2013

I don't know where the idea that EVERYBODY has the capacity to make informed judgements about the leadership of a country came from.

Sadly, I don't know if you're serious or not. Wasn't it you who wanted to discuss the wisdom of compulsory voting?
posted by de at 10:04 PM on August 4, 2013

How is an epithet for 'anyone without class' not classist? What do you think is meant by being without class? I'll give you a clue: it's a synonym for 'not our sort of people'.
posted by misfish at 10:04 PM on August 4, 2013 [2 favorites]

"Fucking hysterical"? You seem a little overwrought yourself.
posted by gingerest at 10:11 PM on August 4, 2013

Boganville made the Hansard.
posted by de at 10:13 PM on August 4, 2013

I don't know where the idea that EVERYBODY has the capacity to make informed judgements about the leadership of a country came from.

What, you mean representative democracy? I think it was the Athenians, but I gather some people think the Sumerians might have originated it, and nobody knows what was going on in places without written records. It's been around for quite a while, though.

One of the big concepts underlying public schooling is that it's intended to give every child the capacity to make informed judgments about - amongst many other things - their leadership. Not everyone has suffrage - just adult citizens.
posted by gingerest at 10:29 PM on August 4, 2013

It's fascinating thinking about what Charlemagne in Sweatpants' criteria for being allowed to vote might be.
posted by Jimbob at 10:51 PM on August 4, 2013 [3 favorites]

What, you mean representative democracy? I think it was the Athenians, but I gather some people think the Sumerians might have originated it, and nobody knows what was going on in places without written records. It's been around for quite a while, though.

Its never been extended to everyone, though.
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 10:53 PM on August 4, 2013

Its never been extended to everyone, though.

Well there you go. It's another Australian first.
posted by de at 10:56 PM on August 4, 2013

HTV cards are complete bullshit, and elections would be better off without them.

Be that as it may, they work, and they work surprisingly effectively and cheaply.

Most people's minds are already made up when they enter the polling station.

This majority may be smaller than you think. HTVs can literally make the difference between which way a particular booth goes. Parties aren't in the business of handing them out for funsies.

do you really want bogans and rednecks who don't care about the issues to vote?

Um yes, I do, because democracy? The kind of polity where everyone agrees with you is fascism by any other name. Much as it pains me that people base their voting decisions on radically different priorities to me - or simple ignorance, or racism, etc - that's what we sign up for in a democracy.

Interestingly, by far the highest number of informal votes are from recent migrants to Australia, i.e. those with poor English. The Coalition has for many years been trying to disenfranchise them and young people, as they tend to lean left.

If we had voluntary voting in Australia, I think we would be in an even worse way than America. It's not just a matter of convincing people to vote; when it's voluntary, you end up with fringe parties (eg tea party) wielding disproportionate influence.

Every citizen in Australia draws a host of benefits in all kinds of forms from the state - as ungrateful and unaware as they may be of it. It behooves every citizen to make the effort to front up to a booth every couple of years, and spend at least a few moments debating how they want their country/state/council run. And if that choice is the choice between going straight to hell, or taking the scenic route, so what? Do you think politicians find the decisions they have to make easy ones? I fucking hope not. Politics, compromise, democracy is hard. But if you give up in disgust, apathy, sadness, you are just letting someone else who cares more make the decisions. And fanatics will always care more than anyone else.
posted by smoke at 11:20 PM on August 4, 2013 [9 favorites]

This majority may be smaller than you think.

The best evidence I could find (read: 5 minutes of googling) is a Morgan poll taken on the nights before the 2010 election which found 9 per cent of those surveyed were undecided, which dropped to 4.5 per cent on the day of the election.
posted by kithrater at 1:10 AM on August 5, 2013 [1 favorite]

Anyone got a cite for HTV cards working?

I do think to limit political discourse and criticism only to those who hand out the cards is quite a dangerous idea. Devaluing the ideas of those who do not all participate in the same way is, in my mind, pretty heavy handed, and insults are pretty uncalled for. I was hoping Metafilter would rise above insults and pointless swearing but I guess given the level of political coverage in Australia its not to be unexpected.
posted by Admira at 1:24 AM on August 5, 2013 [1 favorite]

From my own limited involvement in Aus politics, I suspect HTVs have more influence for preferences than number one. Of course, the majors are falling over themselves to exhaust votes. I recall the last state election here in NSW, numerous volunteers from the majors screaming "just vote 1".
posted by smoke at 1:32 AM on August 5, 2013

I can add, having had a look at numbers from booths that had HTV volunteers, and those that didn't - and the difference between - I can personally attest that there is a noticeable difference between the two (at least for the Democrats, at a particular point in time).

I suspect there is some circularity in play here; areas that were strong tended to attract more HTV volunteers etc. However, when you are looking at a difference between two booths in the same electorate that are say 1-2 kilometres apart - HTVs look awfully convincing and convenient.

That said, I have never seen this data from Coalition or Labor - it's possible that it's only relevant to minor party, where visibility is an often major issue.
posted by smoke at 1:37 AM on August 5, 2013

[Bogans] pretty much means 'anyone without class'; not in the economic sense but in the 'taste' sense. Bogans include people like tradies, who have money. And Things Bogans Like lists 'McMansions' among other bogan signifiers.

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong? Check your assumptions.

Sadly, the Macquarie Dictionary Online is behind a paywall, but here's the Oxford definition:

bogan
Pronunciation: /ˈbəʊg(ə)n/
noun
Australian/NZ informal, derogatory

an uncouth or unsophisticated person, regarded as being of low social status:
- some bogans yelled at us from their cars
- my family are culinary bogans

It's an unquestionably pejorative term, based on socio-economic standing.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 1:47 AM on August 5, 2013

Oh, I found the Macquarie definition quoted in a recent ABC article:

Australia's Macquarie Dictionary already defines a bogan as a "person, generally from an outer suburb of a city or town and from a lower socio-economic background, viewed as uncultured."

The Macquarie also offers various state-based alternatives including "bevan" and "bev-chick" (Queensland); "bog" (WA); "booner" or "charnie bum" (ACT); "chigger" (Tasmania); and "scozzer" (Victoria).

posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 1:50 AM on August 5, 2013 [1 favorite]

It's an unquestionably pejorative term, based on socio-economic standing.

So then, say, Ray Hadley and Eddie McGuire aren't bogans?

Because as far as I'm concerned, they are bogans. 100%. Privileged, white, male, wealthy bogans.

"chigger" (Tasmania);

Residents of Chigwell, I assume? I'm guess I'm just lucky they didn't go with "Rokebies" instead...

No Australian Election thread is complete without TISM.
posted by Jimbob at 2:10 AM on August 5, 2013

When I was in high school (late 80s/early 90s), bogans wore ball-hugging blue jeans and flannelette shirts, had mullets and/or rat's-tails and listened to AC/DC, often in their Sandman panelvans.

From what I understand, that definition of bogan acquired a sheen of vintage authenticity and thus cool, with “bogan” nights opening in trendy clubs, and the local hipsters affecting the style and a curated appreciation of authentic Aussie bogan rock. The authentic bogans, meanwhile, don't care for artisanal authenticity to that extent, and have been becoming in some ways more like the American bro, in dress (Oakley sunglasses and Ed Hardy muscle shirts) and musical taste (gangsta rap is big, and I wouldn't surprise if brostep was as well).

It's much the same authenticity narrative as has been played out in the US, with Brooklyn trustafarians dressing like the authentic lumpenproletariat of yore and the actual proletariat moving on to whatever makes sense in the now.
posted by acb at 2:16 AM on August 5, 2013

So then, say, Ray Hadley and Eddie McGuire aren't bogans?

Because as far as I'm concerned, they are bogans. 100%. Privileged, white, male, wealthy bogans.

I suppose you could argue that they are. They both came from working class backgrounds - the wealth came later. I certainly think that their public personas are constructed to appeal to what might be called the bogan demographic.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether they are legitimately 'bogans' or not - the term is still pejorative and classist.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 2:20 AM on August 5, 2013 [1 favorite]

Residents of Chigwell, I assume?

Yeah, that was it, Jimbob. The term was current in the '80s when I was going to matric and uni in Hobart, but shifting demographics may have made it less popular or the connection less obvious in recent years. The term "bogan" wasn't as widespread back then; people talked about "ockers" instead. Maybe "bogan" has been taking over more widely in the past decade or so?

I lived in Canberra in the 1990s and heard "booner" there at the time, but this may also be on the way out under pressure of "bogan".
posted by rory at 2:29 AM on August 5, 2013

Bugger - bogan is a pejorative term huh?. Well what other term can I use for uneducated, unthinking, willfully ignorant Australian person -a term that is, err, not pejorative. Prol? Yobbo? This needs to be settled - because we need to talk about them, they represent a huge voting block.
posted by mattoxic at 2:43 AM on August 5, 2013 [1 favorite]

ozziebattlas?
posted by Jimbob at 2:53 AM on August 5, 2013 [1 favorite]

Asperationals
posted by mattoxic at 2:55 AM on August 5, 2013

they represent a huge voting block.

I don't know man, I think the homogeneity is largely projected. People vote for different parties, for very different reasion - and despite this, poorer voters (including bogans) tend to be more often Labor voters. You can see this illustrated in then-academic-now-MP Andrew Leigh's paper here. The relevant para:

. In general, the relationship is monotonic – at any point, more income makes voters more likely to support the Coalition. But it also appears that the effect is strongest for the top and bottom deciles. Controlling for other factors, those in the bottom decile are 7 percent more likely to vote Labor, while those in the top decile are 15 percent less likely to vote Labor.

Again, the difference may be smaller than widely thought; plenty of rich people vote Labor and vice versa. It's an interesting, easily-accessible read - I recommend it.
posted by smoke at 3:01 AM on August 5, 2013 [1 favorite]

Smoke, I would have thought that 7% (even if it's still 7%) would have been lost to labor. I work in an a blue collar - heavily union dominated industry, and smoko room chatter is almost exclusively anti labor. Anti boat people, anti NBN - but most probably I only walk through when the the loudmouths are abroad. Interestingly though, the television is always on ABC News 24. But the feeling is that labor has abandoned the unions, and its pretty much every man for himself.
posted by mattoxic at 3:14 AM on August 5, 2013

I think you are all forgetting the most important issue here, September 7 is sausage sizzle day at your local primary school.

More seriously, from what I can tell I live in the seat of Melbourne, which is held by 10% by the Greens, who will hopefully hold it, particularly because it's pretty progressive, and the ALPs new refugee policy will not go down well with lots in the electorate.

Sad that having moved I no longer get to the member for Batman
posted by Hello, I'm David McGahan at 3:31 AM on August 5, 2013

I work in an a blue collar - heavily union dominated industry, and smoko room chatter is almost exclusively anti labor. Anti boat people, anti NBN - but most probably I only walk through when the the loudmouths are abroad.

Huh; this I would not have expected.

Another data point; my public service policy shop seems to lean decidedly anti-coalition, which is not the same thing as pro-Labor, but it ends up in the same place.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 3:32 AM on August 5, 2013

Oh and I have a colleague running for office in a seat that's been adjusted, and now expected to be much closer. Hoping she wins of course, and not only because that means she'll have to resign and with only 6 months on my contract I might be able to findangle her now vacant position.
posted by Hello, I'm David McGahan at 3:35 AM on August 5, 2013

but most probably I only walk through when the the loudmouths are abroad

Believe it or not, this is an actual thing: spiral of silence.
posted by smoke at 3:41 AM on August 5, 2013 [3 favorites]

I think what Wilful is stridently suggesting is not about needing HSVs to help make a descision,

Bad form to point out typos I know, but his made me think of cash-up bogans asking their car dealers how they should vote. (HSV = Holden Service Vehicle, beloved of hoons and petrolheads everywhere).

My boss, who is a centrist Liberal hates Tony Abbott. All the girls in the office hate Tony Abbott. Everyone agrees that the economy is fucked, refugee policy is fucked (and I think they're all pro-gay marriage too). It's a pretty broad cross-section of backgrounds, and it seems there's a pretty broad "Anyone but Tony" movement out there.

Unfortunately, a lot of people also want to "Kick This Mob Out".
posted by Mezentian at 7:53 AM on August 5, 2013

... there's a pretty broad "Anyone but Tony" movement out there.

Speaking about anyone but the real Tony, does anyone else see Abbott as a bar-stool, trilby and cigarette, away from a young Sinatra look-alike now that he's undergone the prime ministerial makeover?
posted by de at 10:39 AM on August 5, 2013

If we're making broad statements about the sentiments we see around us, in my workplace, up an ivory tower in a university, everyone is basically rooting for the Greens. My union, the NTEU, held a poll of members a few weeks ago to gauge who they should endorse. Andrew Wilkie won, then the Greens, then the Labor candidate.

Meanwhile, over the river, where I live, out in the boonies, last election the Liberal Party didn't even bother sending anyone out to hand out HTVs at the booth, everyone is so pro-Labor.

Come to think of it, the only certified, official LNP voter I talk to regularly is 1,000km away. My perspective is clearly distorted. It's why I struggle so much to understand how anyone could have any kind of objection to a vital, past-due infrastructure project like the NBN.
posted by Jimbob at 12:02 PM on August 5, 2013

Where I live John Nguyen - Liberal for Chisholm is actively campaigning and we see him many mornings by the railways station. The other day I missed my train, and had time to spare, and I got to hear a constituent bailing John up over Tow The Boats Back (TTBB^®)

Being an ignorant sort of fellow- and grossly assuming that John is a product of the Vietnamese diaspora that made its way here over the high seas as asylum seekers, I asked him where he would be if TTBB^® were in place when his parents fled Vietnam.

Oh my parents didn't flee Vietnam, they were born right here in Melbourne. And tow the boats back is just one of the many strategies a coalition government may employ to curb.....

I apologised for making assumptions, and went on to wait for my train. When I arrived at work, I looked John up on John's website, and yes, his parents were born in Australia, but his grandparents came here as refugees in the 70s - by boat.

Fuck me if you can't take the politician out of the boy.
posted by mattoxic at 2:50 PM on August 5, 2013 [1 favorite]

Where I live - the Inner West - I got kicked out of a party by saying I'd vote Liberal to stop the Internet filter.
The Greens in North Sydney hold up anti-nuclear and anti-mining signs, which make it really hard to be on their side.
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 3:00 PM on August 5, 2013

From his website, John Nguyen himself arrived as a refugee in 1980. There doesn't seem to be any mention of his parents at all in media pieces about Nguyen, just his grandparents and siblings. Given his arrival date in 1980, it was likely he was resettled in to Australia from one of the regional camps of Vietnamese refugees.
posted by kithrater at 3:44 PM on August 5, 2013

"Speaking about anyone but the real Tony, does anyone else see Abbott as a bar-stool, trilby and cigarette, away from a young Sinatra look-alike now that he's undergone the prime ministerial makeover?"

No, I still think he looks like Admiral Ackbar.
posted by Pinback at 3:46 PM on August 5, 2013

With his grandparents - odd, I read it completely differently the other day. My Bad.
posted by mattoxic at 4:12 PM on August 5, 2013

The Age did a profile on Nguyen a while back.

Nguyen was raised by his grandparents: his parents stayed in Vietnam because his father, an intelligence officer in the South Vietnamese army, was being held by Vietnamese communists in a ''re-education'' camp. The family was not reunited until 1989.

Nguyen, his grandparents and his two siblings, fled the Vietnamese communist regime, which was persecuting the ethnic Chinese business community after the fall of Saigon in 1975.

It seems highly unlikely that his parents were born in Melbourne.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 4:30 PM on August 5, 2013 [1 favorite]

yeah, I read that - I misheard, misresd and misposted
posted by mattoxic at 4:53 PM on August 5, 2013

The Liberals seem to have an issue with putting candidates into seats to sway the ethnic vote:
The Coalition has been criticised for peddling three-word slogans but party supporters should rightly expect that a Liberal candidate could memorise six points of the plan to stop boats.
Looking like Bambi dropped into a scene of Sharknado, Diaz couldn't offer one.
The unedited version of Hill's gentle savaging of Diaz, who is standing in the seat of Greenway, offered up worse. Like Diaz's take on Direct Action: "We're doing more than planting trees ... we have a solar panel,".

It goes on to explain that the Diaz family owns a number of migration agencies in the area, and have been busy branch stacking. I'm not sure how that fits into TTBB®, but it's interesting.
posted by Mezentian at 7:41 PM on August 5, 2013 [1 favorite]

Found the video.

This week's Mal Award winner.
posted by Mezentian at 8:15 PM on August 5, 2013

John arrived in Australia in 1980 with his grandparents as a refugee fleeing persecution in communist Vietnam.

How does the Liberal for Chisholm feel about refugees? He wants the boats stopped. I know not all refugees arrive by boat, but it just seems to me there's a degree of cognitive dissonance there.
posted by Mezentian at 10:29 PM on August 6, 2013

I don't think cognitive dissonance is a problem for either pollies or the electorate at large. Indeed, I think a decent serve of it is required to be a successful politician.

What I really wish, is instead of cost of living nonsense, some politician or party had the courage to actually talk about the looming, huge, gap between tax revenue and spending, and actually start a discourse about how more taxes will be needed if people want to preserve medicare, school funding, pensions of all types etc, as they currently exist. And that the public had the maturity and courage to think about it seriously.

And climate change. Sad, really, that it's disappeared from the agenda when the propects for international action are much better than in 2007/2008.
posted by smoke at 10:42 PM on August 6, 2013

Don't worry smoke, the public is interested in things other than cost of living issues. For example, the number one story on the most trusted news website in Australia is that a politician drank a beer.

Cutting-edge journalism at its best.
posted by kithrater at 10:56 PM on August 6, 2013 [1 favorite]

For example, the number one story on the most trusted news website in Australia is that a politician drank a beer...

...with a disgraced former member of his party, widely believed to have used union funds to pay for prostitutes.

Way to bury the lede.

But it's still not a story - politicians make deals, that's how the system works, especially in a minority government.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 12:04 AM on August 7, 2013

If he holds his seat, I'll eat my hat.
posted by smoke at 12:19 AM on August 7, 2013

...with a disgraced former member of his party, widely believed to have used union funds to pay for prostitutes.

Disgraced, according to the Murdoch press and the Coalition. And widely believed, but not ever actually proven/convicted. It's ridiculous that anyone would buy into the whole "tainted vote" bullshit the Coalition invented. Although I'd pay good money to watch Christopher Pyne run like that again...
posted by Jimbob at 1:12 AM on August 7, 2013

Murdoch's personal politics are more ideological than most people think.
posted by acb at 6:34 AM on August 7, 2013

Well, I know where my (lefty, Melbourne) vote is going. Up against those of my parents, who explicitly told me tonight that theirs would cancel out mine.

Of course, there's two of them and one of me...
posted by gadge emeritus at 7:35 AM on August 7, 2013

Well with the polls sitting to close to 50/50, everyone's vote cancells everyone else's out. Funny how it goes, like that. Ultimately the election will be decided buy a working family aussie battler in Bankstown. As our founders intended.
posted by Jimbob at 1:40 PM on August 7, 2013 [1 favorite]

The tele's front page today.
posted by mattoxic at 6:33 PM on August 7, 2013

Hogan's Heros? That's just so dated.
Then again, Peter Beattie's back.
posted by de at 8:46 PM on August 7, 2013

Rudd's putting people in camps and exiling them to horrible places. I don't want to Godwin the thread, but....
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 9:32 PM on August 7, 2013

The tele's front page today.

I've never lived in Sydney or Melbourne. Born in Adelaide, lived in Darwin a couple of years, now in Hobart. Have the Tele and the Herald Sun always been this fucking British-rag-tabloid insane? I always had the impression they were, you know, lowest-common-denominator Murdoch junk...but actively stupid? So arrogant and sure of themselves that they're willing to alienate over 50% of their potential readership with stunts like this? Seriously, you get more value for money from the front page of the NT News.
posted by Jimbob at 10:30 PM on August 7, 2013

I grew up reading the New York papers, and the New York Post had the same reputation and headlines as the Tele. And it's published by Murdoch, and it's old editor is now running the Tele. So I'm not really surprised.
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 10:39 PM on August 7, 2013 [1 favorite]

I think it comes from having two papers in the town - they feel the need to differentiate themselves. Fair enough. But it's gone beyond that, into completely throwing their lot in with the crazies.

In contrast, my city's paper (only one!) - the Hobart Mercury, also a Murdoch property - had headlines yesterday about the relief households would feel due to the interest rate cut.

Bizarro world over there at the Tele and Hun.
posted by Jimbob at 10:47 PM on August 7, 2013

I was reading the Herald Sun today, and apart from Bolt - who can only have received a bump on the head, there was actually some balance. The letters page, usually my favourite reading had strangely enough a few letters from the left. There were two opinion pieces, one from right - which gently chided Abbott for not costing policies, and apiece from the left that was more strident.

The front to page three was Essendon doping scandal which made me think that the HUN are avoiding being tarred with a brush.
posted by mattoxic at 3:29 AM on August 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

From news.com.au, and I am not making this up: AUSTRALIANS' apathy for the election has been overcome by an attraction to Tony Abbott's daughters.

No, really. Look at their lovely teeth.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:52 AM on August 8, 2013

Let's get this out of the way: Abbott's Assets
Anyway, his father was a dentist.
posted by de at 6:33 AM on August 8, 2013

This is an interesting article on some News Ltd spin, if you think News might be spinning the election.
posted by Mezentian at 12:43 AM on August 10, 2013

Refugee candidate says stop the boats

A bit tough for him given that there's hardly any daylight between Liberal and Labor on this issue.
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:37 AM on August 10, 2013

My partner has Insiders on. It's hard to my loathing of that program to increase any further. "People [who?] have stopped making positive comments [which?] about the Rudd campaign [when?], and you [me?] could hear the air going out of it this week".
posted by smoke at 4:15 PM on August 10, 2013

Oh man. Insiders. The only thing I hate more than Insiders is that I have a habit of lying in bed on a Sunday morning, getting my phone and checking Twitter, to be hit by a continuous stream of people going on about what's on fucking Insiders. Why do people watch it? Insiders are the problem. The problem.
posted by Jimbob at 12:53 AM on August 11, 2013 [1 favorite]

Abbott makes the funniest gaffe since Latham confused his own candidate with Ivan Milat.
posted by hawthorne at 3:26 AM on August 12, 2013 [1 favorite]

Insiders are the problem. The problem.

I have QandA playing. The problem is larger than you think. There is no one suppository for all that binds us.
posted by de at 5:23 AM on August 12, 2013 [2 favorites]

The problem is larger than you think.

Christopher Pyne isn't that big.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 5:26 AM on August 12, 2013

Christopher Pyne isn't that big.

So, like, someone admits to sleeping with him.

Someone has to.

(I am so sorry, His thoughts were red thoughts, but you left a suppository-sized hole for that.)
posted by Mezentian at 6:15 AM on August 12, 2013

AUTOMATED MESSAGE FOLLOWS:

[His thoughts were red thoughts is unable to respond at the moment as, due to the sheer disgust he experienced after considering the content of the preceding comment, he began violently vomiting. This has continued for some hours. There is no sign of relief at this point.]
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 7:30 PM on August 12, 2013 [1 favorite]

Someone has pointed out that Christopher Pyne occupies a marginal seat.

Time to roll out Mike Rann?
posted by Jimbob at 10:21 PM on August 12, 2013

Really? He's not a blue ribbon stain?
He has survived so long.
posted by de at 1:24 AM on August 13, 2013

Abbott's 'suppository' slip has attracted international attention. Can't wait for the world to meet Anthony Abbott unleashed. Little wonder Peta Credlin drinks and drives.
posted by de at 1:29 AM on August 13, 2013

Being Australians, he really need to hear how our international chums are viewing the election.
So, The Daily Show.

Please ensure all drinks are firmly stowed.

And, since this is the Election thread until the election:

http://www.belowtheline.org.au/

Share it.
Make love to it.
If you are so inclined to actually have a vote.
posted by Mezentian at 3:40 AM on August 13, 2013 [2 favorites]

Apparently my electorate has candidates from both the Australian Sex Party and the Stable Population Party. I have no idea whether they'll be swapping preferences, but the SPP's slogan seems to be BETTER NOT BIGGER, so I suspect not.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:58 AM on August 13, 2013 [1 favorite]

The Liberals have decided to preference Labor over Greens for every House seat. This could potentially return Melbourne to Labor, and probably ends the hope of any increase in Green MHRs.
posted by kithrater at 5:34 PM on August 13, 2013

Boooo, though I must say it makes perfect ideological sense.
posted by smoke at 5:56 PM on August 13, 2013

What's the tactical rationale, though? Is it just that they have finally realised that minority governments are poison even if you win, and they would rather be in opposition than win without an outright majority?
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:07 PM on August 13, 2013

Melbourne is the only seat it would make a difference in, I believe, Joe. It's also possible they are hoping Labor would be stupid enough to do the same - as they have done in Victoria in the past.
posted by smoke at 7:12 PM on August 13, 2013

What's the tactical rationale, though?

I would guess that the Liberals believe that minority government was unpopular, and so there are votes to be made by being tough on minority government (as opposed to just being tough on minorities in general, hey-oh!).

It's unclear whether this is true. There's a recent ANU survey which found mixed opinions about minority government, while a December Newspoll found a high level of dissatisfaction.
posted by kithrater at 8:01 PM on August 13, 2013 [1 favorite]

The Marginal Seat Song.

I give it to you, here, now, in this place, because I am five favourites off 5,000, and where better to shamelessly whole for votes than an Australlian election thread.

(Also, Greens have a not awful $350 million gun buyback deal for semi-aautomatic weapons. That's like policy. Sure, the guns will be handed out to Torres Strait Islanders to kill the Boat People who will be FLOODING in the back door, but hey... that's a hung parliament.

Wait, Rudd and Abbot are refusing to do deals with the minor parties in the event of a hung parliament?

It's almost like they hate democracy.

(VOTE ME)
posted by Mezentian at 4:06 AM on August 14, 2013 [2 favorites]

What's the tactical rationale, though?
Maybe it's nothing more than for Abbott to ask whether Rudd is "man enough" to reciprocate. The ALP isn't quite that foolish. Perhaps it's an attempt at a signal about minority governments.

One further possibility is that it will likely stop there being another strand of opposition voiced in the House - one that does not have to answer to what "Western Sydney" is seen to represent. Should the Greens hold Melbourne, their Member's voice would speak for a moderately-sized but significant national slice of the electorate in a way that maverick rural independents by their nature cannot. Having Greens in the Senate does not count in the same way.
posted by hawthorne at 7:26 AM on August 14, 2013

Please be informed: the opposite of a real solution is a thought bubble.
posted by de at 12:55 AM on August 15, 2013

Honestly, I'm so sick of the election - and I'm into politics! God knows what regular Australians think. The naked grab for votes is even more self-serving and squalid than usual.

I feel like a sense of possibility and vision is completely lacking - along with anything but lip service for the overwhelmingly important issue of climate change. It's like a council election on the national stage, except councils aren't letting asylum seekers get beaten, raped, and imprisoned for votes.

From the Guardian: "the only party with numbers in every single policy announcement is the Greens. The Coalition has thumped the theme all this week of the Greens being economic fringe dwellers, but consider these two facts:

1. The Coalition won't release its costings until the final week of the campaign.

2. The Greens won't release a policy without a costing."
posted by smoke at 6:10 PM on August 15, 2013 [5 favorites]

whatever happened to the light on the hill?
posted by russm at 9:34 PM on August 15, 2013

Someone mistook it for a suppository.
posted by de at 9:45 PM on August 15, 2013

It was smothered by blanket of racism, self-interest, and narcissism.
posted by smoke at 9:48 PM on August 15, 2013

Don't be fooled. The sheep were giving a stock response, they've herd it all before.
Wrong forum.
posted by de at 12:16 AM on August 17, 2013

DEMOCRACY!

As the election draws closer, the Coalition is banning some of its candidates from speaking to the media or their electorate.

I don't care which parties do this, they should be shunned.
posted by Mezentian at 8:09 AM on August 17, 2013

It's actually best for everyone. Lots of candidates are pretty stupid and you wouldn't be interested in what they have to say. But just like SBS to dress this up as some sort of sinister conspiracy!
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:14 AM on August 17, 2013

Well, this is surprising:
Coalition unveils paid parental leave

Greg Jericho doesn't like it because it disproportionately benefits wealthier families. Once upon a time I would have agreed with him, but my experience has been that social benefits tend to get cut back unless they're aimed at the middle class.
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:14 PM on August 17, 2013

Coalition's parental leave is Abbott's baby and is unpopular even in his party. No surprises there. As a real solution (to what?), can't help wondering how it will really impact young professional women's work force opportunities and participation.

And it goes without saying: Lots of candidates are pretty stupid and you wouldn't be interested in what they have to say.

Rudd. Abbott. Carr². Katter. Palmer. Shorten. Pyne. Bishop². Cash! Turnbull. Mirabella. Geezus.

We're being hounded to innovate by a bunch of staid politicians. How's a 'Candidate Pageant' for innovation? Given half a chance, we would decide who governs this country, and the circumstances in which they govern.
posted by de at 9:41 PM on August 17, 2013

The ABC is running one of its "Your Say' things and so far, of 22 comments, most people tend to favour the ALP system.

As a real solution (to what?), can't help wondering how it will really impact young professional women's work force opportunities and participation.

I'd place a small wager on the fact the birth rate's going to dip a little until the scheme kicks in.
posted by Mezentian at 11:59 PM on August 17, 2013

The election's not far off; surely it could have been made retrospective.
posted by Joe in Australia at 1:19 AM on August 18, 2013

Abbott's PPL has been packaged in a whole lot of rhetoric to help it look like considered policy, but let's not forget it's just another Abbott foot-in-mouth blurt: "all about" encouraging women of "calibre" to have children.

It may never fly if Hockey becomes Hyde.
posted by de at 2:05 AM on August 18, 2013

This is the first election I have seen so much dissection of preferences (apparently the Australian Sex Party prefer One Nation above the Greens, and wikileaks the Shooters & Fishers above Greens, among other sins.

Voting Below The Line is hard, and that is why I do it. And thanks to the Internet I now have the tools to figure this stuff out.
posted by Mezentian at 3:57 AM on August 18, 2013

I think this is almost strong enough for a FPP as it is, but as I am lazy:
WRONG, KEN THE VOTING DINGO!
posted by Mezentian at 6:52 AM on August 18, 2013 [2 favorites]

From Getup, Election is Coming: Game of Seats.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 5:44 PM on August 18, 2013

Also, the most WTF moment of the campaign for me so far - the Christian Democrats claiming that gay couples are paid more than straight couples, that 'Mum and Dad taxpayers are the most oppressed Australians in our economy', and demanding 'pay equality'.

Of course, the Christian Democrats are lying morons who are full of crap.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 5:53 PM on August 18, 2013

Party's over guys. It's clear that the Australian electorate, in its wisdom, prefers Tony Abbott and his mob over KRudd et al. He'll be our PM in just three weeks. Time to start preparing yourselves emotionally for that fact. Some ideas: start withdrawing from political news, disengage yourself, turn off the ABC and start watching the ACA and TT. Take up gardening. Get an addiction to hard drugs. Volunteer in your community. Anything to keep your mind off the fact that Chris Pyne is your new Education Minister, Sophie Mirabella is your Industry Minister, and the Direct Action Plan is Australia’s climate change solution. But you can tell yourself (and it’ll be true) that whoever’s in power nationally doesn’t really matter all that much, they’re only the politicians, the public service are still highly professional, life will go on, they will lose an election in the future, and the ALP weren’t that good on a lot of important issues themselves.
posted by wilful at 6:18 PM on August 18, 2013 [5 favorites]

whoever’s in power nationally doesn’t really matter all that much, they’re only the politicians

Unless you're a refugee. Abbott wants to deny the claims for residency of 30,000 asylum seekers whose applications are currently being processed, so that they can never get residency, be restricted to rolling temporary protection visas, be denied any opportunity to work and thus left wholly dependent on welfare payments (under a work for the dole scheme), with no avenue for appeal. At all.

If Labor wants to top that, they'll have to commit to rolling all asylum seekers into a big ball and launching them directly into the sun.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 7:04 PM on August 18, 2013 [3 favorites]

Liberal candidate has no idea what the Coalition's climate change policy is.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 7:24 PM on August 18, 2013 [1 favorite]

wilful, surely we can find some (possibly scant) relief in fantasising about Turnbull successfully challenging Abbott for leadership?
posted by kithrater at 9:25 PM on August 18, 2013

Kithrater, the only way Turnbull will become PM is after some major scandal that almost brings down the Abbott government. In which case, Turnbull’s ascendency will only be the icing on the cake! His Thoughts Were Red Thoughts, you’re not getting it, the asylum seeker policy is what the electorate are understood to want. Given how little difference there is in the inhumanity of the two major parties, the only decent signal as to whether these policies are beyond the pale is what happens to the Green vote. I don’t think it’ll go up much. Basically, collectively we are a pack of cunts and we deserve whatever the 21st century dishes up at us. Lose your delusion.
posted by wilful at 11:01 PM on August 18, 2013

Not so fast wilful. I'm keeping ~~Sophie Mirabella~~, gone: election night's one small pleasure.

kithrater, may I recommend you fantasise about the Australian public doing to Abbott what it did to Gillard, focussing on the sexist theme, giving the Coalition the support it needs to spill Abbott for Hockey. PS: Turnbull's not in parliament, he's in seniors' day-care for the elite.

Finally, the Greens hold power in the senate until 1 July, 2014, when it will transfer to ~~gun toting Queenslanders~~ Katter's posse:

With the ‘Balance of Power’, and the strength of public opinion, Katter’s Australian Party will develop the approach, the policies, and produce the new kind of government that our country so desperately needs.

Who remembers Joh Bjelke-Petersen?
posted by de at 11:16 PM on August 18, 2013

My provisional plan for election night is to get drunk and watch Keating!

Who remembers Joh Bjelke-Petersen?

That reminds me - I need to get some new shoes.
posted by russm at 11:25 PM on August 18, 2013

Thoughts Were Red Thoughts, you’re not getting it, the asylum seeker policy is what the electorate are understood to want.

Oh, I get it. But the Coalition has come up with a policy that makes Labor's actually look compassionate, by comparison. There's still a distinction, but it is between 'utterly horrifying' and 'really quite horrifying'.

Technically, asylum seekers are better off under Labor. But they're in for a world of hurt either way.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 11:34 PM on August 18, 2013

giving the Coalition the support it needs to spill Abbott for Hockey.

I honestly fail to see how that is any better. Hockey is either a "fair dinkum", as the pollies are so fond of asserting, idiot, or doing a frankly incredible impression of one. Economically, he's shockingly illiterate, and the calumny he's heaped upon the public service - when his own sums are so dodgy it defies belief - does not bode well.

Turnbull, I feel, is at least somewhat grounded in Reality as It Exists, understands climate change and its danger, and doesn't really care what people do in their private lives eg gays marrying etc. I mean, I can literally never see myself preferencing coalition first, so it's academic so far as it pertains to me - but whilst Turnbull can't be said to be representing the future, he does at least represent the present. Abbott and Hockey are both has-beens living in the past in every meaningful way.

Oh, I get it. But the Coalition has come up with a policy that makes Labor's actually look compassionate, by comparison.

I know right? I honestly thought they wouldn't be able to do it (still suspect what they're proposing is flagrantly illegal), but they did. Honestly, the next step is concentration camps (well, I reckon the difference WRT Manus Island is getting pretty academic). Fucking depressing, particularly when survey after survey shows that most voters are not made or broken over asylum seekers.
posted by smoke at 11:41 PM on August 18, 2013

Being a prat by nature, I always vote below the line in the Senate. However, with 97 candidates in Victoria, I think I’ll give up the habit of a lifetime. For those that want to be fully informed of where their above the line preferences flow, I give you the AEC website link: http://www.aec.gov.au/election/downloads.htm
posted by wilful at 11:42 PM on August 18, 2013

However, with 97 candidates in Victoria, I think I’ll give up the habit of a lifetime.

Given how the preferences are flowing from people like The Australian Sex Party and Wikileaks, I'd be wondering if that's the right course of action.
posted by Mezentian at 11:48 PM on August 18, 2013 [1 favorite]

Nah I'll just be Vote 1 Greens. The Greens preferences that aren’t exhausted will flow to the ALP above the Coalition. (I note that the Stable Population Party put the Greens below the Libs)
posted by wilful at 11:55 PM on August 18, 2013

I know right? I honestly thought they wouldn't be able to do it (still suspect what they're proposing is flagrantly illegal)

Both sides are proposing policies that would constitute a breach of Australia's international treaty obligations. The UN Refugee Agency has said as much regarding the Labor proposal.

The Coalition proposal is almost certainly ripe for an appeal to the High Court on constitutional grounds, namely the denial of procedural fairness.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 12:15 AM on August 19, 2013 [1 favorite]

Another Coalition candidate caught out, this time for running a website comprised of dumb sexist jokes and 'tit banter' [warning, Daily Telegraph link].
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 6:44 PM on August 19, 2013

Before the election a dumb candidate
Wrote banter, tit-banter, tit-banter
Headquarters saw it and got quite irate
At the banter, tit-banter, tit-banter
"Are you a moron?" the campaign staff cried
"Have you no braincells inside your inside?"
Take down your website and apologise
For your banter, tit-banter, tit-banter!"
posted by Joe in Australia at 10:40 PM on August 19, 2013 [2 favorites]

Newsflash: proof that Australian politicians are at least partially human and have a sense of humour - Round and Round by the Super Best Friends
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 11:00 PM on August 19, 2013

Senate Tickets unravelled.

Observation 1: Microparties seem to be almost entirely a right wing phenomenon. Why? Is it a preference harvesting thing?

Observation 2: Sad to see my once-beloved democrats preferencing the likes of Katter and Family First ahead of the Greens. Those parties are the antithesis of what the Dems once stood for (i.e not being insane).
posted by smoke at 1:06 AM on August 20, 2013

Smoke, are you sure about that? I just reviewed the preferences for parties in NSW. The site you linked to says that many more minor parties have their preferences ultimately going to Labor than to the Coalition.
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:00 AM on August 20, 2013

Joe if you count it up yourself, you get 22 to coalition, 17 to Labor. However, this is misleading, as in many cases the preference flows before it gets to the two majors does more than enough to ensure that the coalition will ultimately get the vote at the end of the day.

In some cases, Labor may be higher than Coalition, but when Family First, One Nation, PUP etc are much higher than either, that is a coalition vote ultimately.
posted by smoke at 4:41 AM on August 20, 2013

I counted on my fingers and I may have gotten it wrong, but I thought the proportions were reversed. Also, how do you mean that a vote that goes (e.g.) "Family First, One Nation, PUP" can ultimately be a vote for the Coalition? That's not how preferences work: once a party is excluded the preference flows to the next one on the list, as though the excluded party had never been listed.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:14 AM on August 20, 2013

I am just ashamed by the parties we have.
Smokers' Rights?
Fishin' and Huntun' and Sport?
Stop The Greens?

By the way, http://www.belowtheline.org.au is now live in terms of your selection editor. Seriously, share it wide if you can.
Above the lone voting is bad.
posted by Mezentian at 6:16 AM on August 20, 2013 [1 favorite]

as in many cases the preference flows before it gets to the two majors does more than enough to ensure that the coalition will ultimately get the vote at the end of the day.

I follow politics closely, too closely probably, and I think I have a handle on electoral processes, but I just realised I don’t know how this works. If I vote 1 above the line for fringe-dwelling Left party, that are soon excluded, and their preferences go to a fringe-dwelling Right party (which is excluded later) before it does a major Left party, and the Right fringe-dweller vote lodges with the coalition, then does my contribution ends up counted with the Coalition’s quota?

Doesn’t sound like an argument for below-the-line voting mezentian, sounds like an argument for knowing where preferences go, or voting for a party that is likely to get a quota.
posted by wilful at 4:26 PM on August 20, 2013

Observation 2: Sad to see my once-beloved democrats preferencing the likes of Katter and Family First ahead of the Greens.

I wouldn't be sure of that. The once-beloved Democrats basically don't exist, and a few other people have taken over their name to attempt to ride on their reputation. The Pirate Party had problems with this - doing preference negotiations with people claiming to represent the Democrats, and then those people disappearing without a trace. The "Liberal Democrats" are a Coalition front group, in particular.

Doesn’t sound like an argument for below-the-line voting mezentian, sounds like an argument for knowing where preferences go, or voting for a party that is likely to get a quota.

A lot of people are messed up about preferences, not least the parties themselves. The Wikileaks party has basically fallen apart, after handing out preferences to fascists before supporters like the Greens, a decision which was later pathetically blamed on an "administrative error". I used Below The Line this morning, and sorted out my Senate preferences in 2 minutes, so I don't know how those supposedly highly educated human rights lawyers at Wikileaks managed to fuck it up so damn hard. In Western Australia Wikileaks preferenced the Nationals above the Greens' Scott Ludlum - basically the only politicians in Australia who's supported Wikileak's cause.

The instructive thing is that the the WA candidate made a comment about Greens being "the competition". Now, there are two kinds of competition in politics; ideological competition - those parties who believe the exact opposite of you; and poll competition - those parties who believe something very similar to you, and similar people are going to vote for them as you. The Australian preferential system means that the later sort isn't actually a threat to you. You have to worry about the first sort. Put the Australia Firsts and the Rise Ups and the Australian Christians at the end. Put the good guys, the Greens, the Pirate Party, whoever, up the top. Because - and here's the important thing - your preferences only flow to them if you're knocked out - you're only handing your votes to your polling competition if you're already lost the seat! Admittedly, the Senate formula has further complications, but in reality there is no strategic reason for left-wing parties to hand preferences to fascists ahead of other left-wing parties.
posted by Jimbob at 5:13 PM on August 20, 2013 [2 favorites]

in reality there is no strategic reason for left-wing parties to hand preferences to fascists ahead of other left-wing parties

There are good strategic reasons for every other minor party to preference the Greens last. Imagine the following:

* To get a Senate seat, you need ~14.3 per cent of the votes.
* Around 20 per cent of people vote for minor parties in the Senate, of which around 10 per cent goes to the Greens.
* The Coalition and Labor prefer dealing with sole-seat minor parties than the Greens in the Senate, and so are likely to direct their surpluses to minor parties other than the Greens.

As such, if you are a non-Green minor party, by making a deal with all other non-Green minor parties to preference each other over the Greens, you maximise the chance of raising the combined non-Green minor party vote for the last remaining Senate seat to be greater than the Green minor party vote. If you can be the lucky non-Green minor party to be the survivor of that particular amalgamation of quota surpluses and other minor party votes, then you get the seat.

If you preference the Greens highly, then you are quickly knocked out because you do not have the votes of other non-Green minor parties to rely upon, because those parties don't preference you because you made a deal with the Greens instead.
posted by kithrater at 5:24 PM on August 20, 2013 [3 favorites]

Good article (as always) by Ross Gittins this morning.
posted by wilful at 5:58 PM on August 20, 2013

If you can be the lucky non-Green minor party to be the survivor of that particular amalgamation of quota surpluses and other minor party votes, then you get the seat.

Which is, ultimately, putting it down to luck. There's just as much chance you, as a HEMP party candidate, will get elected, as a CEC party candidate. It comes down to a toss of a coin. I don't see how progressive candidates would prefer that to ensuring a Greens candidate gets elected instead. I guess I'm just not cynical enough.
posted by Jimbob at 6:15 PM on August 20, 2013

The most dangerous woman in Australia?

At a press conference at which he announced the decision, Abbott explained that, unlike “everyone else in this campaign [who] supports economic growth and supports a more prosperous economy”, the Greens advocate “fringe economic policies”...As a result of this edict the Liberal Party will, in 24 seats across the country, direct its preferences to candidates of the Citizens Electoral Council (CEC), ahead of the Greens.

The CEC, which is affiliated with the far-right conspiracy theorist LaRouche's organisation of the US, has as one of its major policies a plan to put an Australian on Mars. Wouldn’t you love to see the policy costing of that one? Unfortunately the CEC, like the Liberal Party and unlike the Greens, has not released any costings for its election promises.

posted by Jimbob at 6:18 PM on August 20, 2013 [1 favorite]

Which is, ultimately, putting it down to luck

You're only really fighting for 10 per cent of the vote, and the preferences from Labor and the Coalition. A primary vote of 2.3 per cent or 1.9 per cent can be enough to win the 6th senate seat. If a non-Greens minor party candidate is confident they can get ~20 per cent of the 'Other' vote, then why not take the chance?
posted by kithrater at 6:41 PM on August 20, 2013 [1 favorite]

I don't know how those supposedly highly educated human rights lawyers at Wikileaks managed to fuck it up so damn hard.

Poppycock, they didn't fuck it up; they preferences went exactly where they wanted them, and anyone would be a fool to believe otherwise. They even hired Simon Jackman as a preferences consultant to ensure they got it right - they are trying to maximise preference flows.
posted by smoke at 7:30 PM on August 20, 2013 [1 favorite]

Well then, they fucked up thinking no-one would notice. Apparently most of the WA Wikileaks Party volunteers have quit.
posted by Jimbob at 8:04 PM on August 20, 2013 [2 favorites]

Abbott, you fearful Jesuit!

"We feel compelled to express our disappointment that, as graduates of our Jesuit schools, you would allow those principles, cultivated in our common tradition, to be betrayed," Henry writes.

posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 12:00 AM on August 21, 2013

Apparently the tit-banter guy has "decided not to run as the Liberal candidate for Charlton."

This doesn't make any practical difference: it's too late to change the ballot papers and he wasn't going to be elected anyway. But at least something something something fill in a pious platitude later.
posted by Joe in Australia at 12:21 AM on August 21, 2013

This, from one of the many Wikileaks resignations this evening (including their #2 senate candidate in Victoria) is the best explanation so far of what went wrong. tldr; Assange demanded the right to veto council decisions, wanted to play the preference deals to win, and thought the "average punter" couldn't care less about preference deals with fascists.
posted by Jimbob at 2:00 AM on August 21, 2013 [4 favorites]

Oh yeah, also, Assange deigned to phone into 1 of the last 13 council meetings.
posted by Jimbob at 2:03 AM on August 21, 2013

Watching debate right now - a trillion times better than the last one. It's absolutely shameful how much better the questions from the public are compared to the shit flung by those gormless monkeys pretending to be journalists last time. Every question has been substantive, open-ended, concerns things that actually affect people's day to day lives. No bullshit so far about boats, highways, or other silly nonsense. Pleasantly surprised by my fellow QLDers.
posted by smoke at 2:06 AM on August 21, 2013 [1 favorite]

There are a lot of things I don't know - but one thing I'm in no doubt about whatsoever is that Assange is a massive wanker.
posted by smoke at 2:08 AM on August 21, 2013 [2 favorites]

Indeed, smoke.

Been having fun with the Below the Line website. Really really hard to pick a loser this time, which party comes stone last on my ballot. It's a real toss up between Stop The Greens, Rise Up Australia, No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics, that old favourite the Citizens Electoral Council, One Nation, Shooters and Fishers, Smokers Rights, Family First, and the out and out loons like Senator Online, Bullet Train for Australia and Australian Motoring Enthusiasts.

Who would you choose for your last? Think I'll have to stick with the old trusty and go with the CEC yet again.
posted by wilful at 5:11 AM on August 21, 2013

Antony Green wrote earlier this year about the chances of the Coalition picking up a fourth Senate seat in WA. I don't know how many votes the WA Nationals will get out of Wikileaks, but they've made it easier for the Coalition to get its vital 39th seat in the Senate and hence an outright majority.

If I were Assange, I'd be demanding a diplomatic passport and a ticket home "for services rendered", assuming the Libs win the election.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:36 AM on August 21, 2013 [2 favorites]

Funny thing. Here in Tasmania, "Stop the Greens" didn't preference The Greens last.
posted by Jimbob at 1:07 PM on August 21, 2013

I think I'd be going Rise Up Australia - they're basically nazis. But then, I take a perverse pleasure from putting people like Bob Carr and Mark Arbib really low down the list, as well.
posted by smoke at 3:00 PM on August 21, 2013

I understand the Pirate Party in NSW, in their preference submission, reversed the order of ALP candidates, and put Doug Cameron first, and Bob Carr last. Stylish.
posted by Jimbob at 4:48 PM on August 21, 2013

Important depressing post by Brian Merkel at LP, Youth vote with their feet:

Laura Tingle in the AFR writes of youth apathy threatening Labor hopes. Only 3641 extra voters aged 18 or 19 have enrolled to vote in the September 7 election and only 21,787 aged 20 to 24. The Australian Electoral Commission estimates that 400,000 voters aged under 25 have failed to enrol.

The question is why.

Worse still, the young seem to be especially reluctant in some marginal seats, where their vote just might make the difference.

In the Senate too a few votes could mean a lot. Steve Austin on ABC Local in Brisbane yesterday interviewed Glenn Druery from Independent Liaison who has been called “the preference whisperer”. He advises minor parties on their best chances of election via preferences.

His message to them is to put the major parties last. He reckons that if any of the fringe senate candidates this year get as little as 1% of the vote we could be surprised at how far they get in the count. Towards the end of the interview he did a quick run through giving his tips for the last seat in each state. In South Australia it’s probably Xenophon and then daylight, but whackos like shooters parties could surprise elsewhere.

I think the message is that if you vote below the line and want to show your disgust for Abbott’s mob by putting them last, then think again. Your vote could end up putting a nut job into parliament.

Meanwhile Bernard Keane at Crikey has a bit of cheer for Labor voters. The latest Essential Research poll has the major parties at 50-50 2PP. He finds that Labor could possibly just hang on with 49% of the vote. Someone said the other day that in 1998 Howard actually won with 48.5 % of 2PP. My memory is that as few as 3000 votes spread over a bunch of electorates could have made Beazley PM.

Keane runs through the figuring in each state and comes out with the surprising result of Labor 73, LNP 75, plus Katter and Wilkie. Wouldn’t that be fun?

posted by wilful at 5:59 PM on August 21, 2013 [2 favorites]

I always forget I bumped into you first at LP, Wilful. I don't head there as often as I used too. Miss Mark's insight and the groupthink/shallowness of many commenters/moderators started getting me down. I do wonder if DD or Ambigulous ever pop up here under nome de plumes - they'd be a good fit, I reckon.
posted by smoke at 6:14 PM on August 21, 2013

Sorry to Brian, that’s Bahnisch, not Merkel. Rob Merkel is another LP poster.
posted by wilful at 6:54 PM on August 21, 2013

My memory is that as few as 3000 votes spread over a bunch of electorates could have made Beazley PM.

I understand that at the end of the day, if you have the numbers you win; but once you start praying for contingencies like this you're really clutching at straws.

400,000 voters under 25 failed to enroll? Fucking hell, that's horrific.
posted by Jimbob at 7:38 PM on August 21, 2013

Rudd is behind in his own seat? I don't know, but if they can't win the election (ha!), maybe Kevin getting McKew'd would be the best thing for Labor.
posted by adamt at 11:29 PM on August 21, 2013

Glasson, who is running an intensive local grassroots campaign, leads Rudd on a two-party preferred basis by 52% to 48%. The poll's margin of error is 4%.

Hrmmm.

That poll is a piece of shit - Robocall polls are notorious unreliable, and unrepresentative. Having Rudd going 44% to 34% is very unlikely. Not impossible I grant, but extremely unlikely.
posted by smoke at 11:39 PM on August 21, 2013

Robocalls are a joke. So easy for people to lie about, so few interested participants. The only people who would press buttons in response to a pre-recorded message are the lonely elderly and the mischievous young.
posted by wilful at 11:55 PM on August 21, 2013

Someone on Twitter who was called for that Griffith poll claims they were called and given the opportunity to be polled twice.
posted by Jimbob at 2:10 AM on August 22, 2013 [1 favorite]

Maybe the pollsters were double checking.
posted by de at 2:19 AM on August 22, 2013

Young at heart, Mezentian.
posted by wilful at 4:01 PM on August 22, 2013

Well when your reporting a 48-52 split with a 4 point margin of error........

C'mon Grundiard, you have some good Australian journalists on staff - use them. Please.
posted by Hello, I'm David McGahan at 6:28 AM on August 23, 2013

Barry Jones: The 2013 election and the death of rationality.

I personally think he's getting a little bit nostalgic in some ways - most elections are orgies of bastardry and imbelicity - however I share his general ennui. That said, Bazza needs to look outside the window; The Greens' policies address all the issues he flags, and they talk about it constantly.
posted by smoke at 9:15 PM on August 29, 2013 [1 favorite]

Tony Abbott's Syria response a rebuke for Kevin Rudd
posted by de at 12:53 AM on August 30, 2013

A nation that introduced the secret ballot to the world, that led the world extending the franchise to all adult males and then all women, has somehow managed to produce a Senate electoral system that is incomprehensible to all but the most psephologically skilled.

Antony Green's takedown of the motherfucking Senate election process is a must read. I had a FPP all lined up with links to the absolutely crappy deals that everyone has engaged in (Greens, PUP, KAP, One Nation, the shooters and fishers and fuck the reef parties) but my browser crashed and I lost it all and I don't have it in me to stare into that fresh hell again, knowing that 95% of Australians vote above the line and give their vote away.

The comments are worth reading too.
posted by Mezentian at 4:56 AM on August 30, 2013 [2 favorites]

" 95% of Australians vote above the line and give their vote away."

WTF does this even mean?
posted by wilful at 6:49 AM on August 30, 2013

Bottom line: Australians not only don't choose the prime minister, we also do not choose the senators.
posted by de at 7:05 AM on August 30, 2013

If you vote above the line in the Senate, your preferences are decided by grubby back room deals, and allocated according to the party's wishes rather than your own if your preferred candidate gets knocked out.

So, if I vote [1] above the line for, say, Wikileaks, and Wikileaks polls badly, my second preference gets activated and because Wikileaks have hopped into bed with Rise Up Australia, all of my votes are transferred to then.

Of course, because I am not a fucking moron, I chose to vote below the line, and I know that there is no way in hell theoretical me (who is for free speech and gay marriage and thus support Wikileaks), would ever support the pro-censorship, neo-Nazi, conservative policies of the hatemongers in RUA over, say, the pro-Assange Greens Senators* so I would number their senatorial candidates somewhere between 107 and 110 on the ballot.

Once again, Ken the Voting Dingo explains it better than I can.

(*As happened where Wikileaks preferenced everyone above Scott Ludlam, even though he has been Assange's strongest supporter in the Australian Parliament.)
posted by Mezentian at 6:21 PM on August 30, 2013 [2 favorites]

I have no idea how many MeFites are around at this hour but...
Australia’s most prominent 2ICs: Deputy Prime Minister Anthony “Albo” Albanese, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition Julie Bishop and Dr Adam Bandt, the Deputy Leader of the Greens will be hosting rage in an Election Special.
Starts about now.
posted by Mezentian at 6:30 AM on August 31, 2013

In further news, tomorrow's Tele. Hmmm. Subtle.
posted by Mezentian at 6:42 AM on August 31, 2013

I am GUTTED that I missed Election! Special! rage. What could possibly be more important to choosing the country's leader than which deputy party leader had a song dedication to Bono?

Also, everyone knows about the Reddit AMA with Kevin Rudd, right?
posted by gingerest at 6:29 PM on August 31, 2013

Mezentian, this is ridiculous, you need to get a grip. It's not like the preference flows are secret and unknowable. I am also not a fucking moron, and I voted above the line.

If you vote for either of the major parties, like the overwhelming majority of Australians do, your vote will lodge precisely where you intended it to. If you vote for the Greens, then your vote will mostly lodge precisely where you want it to, otherwise almost certainly with the ALP. You're really over-egging this.
posted by wilful at 5:06 AM on September 2, 2013

You're probably right. This is the most depressing election I have participated in, and I probably am spending to much time wondering if I should preference Shooters and Fishers over or under Australian Fishing and Lifestyle Party.

At least on Sunday it could be all over.
posted by Mezentian at 6:43 AM on September 2, 2013

Console yourself. If it had been Gillard contesting the election then the senate would have likely gone to the conservatives. As it is, the worst excesses should be ameliorated by an ALP/Greens block.
posted by wilful at 7:40 PM on September 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

Gillard who?

Robert McClelland
Chris Evans
Nicola Roxon
Harry Jenkins
Martin Ferguson
Simon Crean
Craig Emerson
Greg Combet
Stephen Conroy
Peter Garrett
Stephen Smith

Did I miss anyone?

News: Jenny Macklin set to be new leader of the opposition.
(There is no-one else! Bill Shorten's saving himself for a 2016 challenge.)
posted by de at 8:52 PM on September 2, 2013

and I probably am spending to much time wondering if I should preference Shooters and Fishers over or under Australian Fishing and Lifestyle Party.

I don't worry about this, I just enjoy it. Sometimes I number backwards, and have some fun choosing the most disgusting cousin-fucking fascist bastards for number 83. It's never going to actually matter. Even when weird things like Steve Fielding and John Madigan happen, it's because of the hazy dribble of votes from the major party tickets, not because someone put him at position #73 instead of #74 below the line.

News: Jenny Macklin set to be new leader of the opposition.
(There is no-one else! Bill Shorten's saving himself for a 2016 challenge.)

Mate, you forgot Albo, the Tory Terroriser.
posted by Jimbob at 8:54 PM on September 2, 2013

Albo's not for the elbow?
posted by de at 8:56 PM on September 2, 2013

Albo's seat looks like a marginal ALP seat...until you realize that in 2010 the 2nd place party in the seat were the Greens!

From the ABC's election site:

A poll by Lonergan Research published in the first week of the campaign reported first preferences of Labor 47%, Liberal 28% and Greens 22%. This puts support for both the Labor and Liberal parties up since 2010 and the Green vote down. If this poll is correct and the Greens have slipped back to third place, then Labor will win Grayndler in a canter.

posted by Jimbob at 9:04 PM on September 2, 2013

As it is, the worst excesses should be ameliorated by an ALP/Greens block.

I really frigging hope so. I think Abbott's making a tactical error in both talking about it as if he's already won, and floating the possibility of a DD. They'll get fucking walloped if they try it, and every goddamn fruitcake this side of Coober Pedy will win frigging seat ahead of Labor and Libs. Greens might like it; they'd almost certainly get two senators in most states.

The IPCC update, when it comes, will give Labor and any party with a bloody skerrick of morals enough ammo to send any denialist legislation to the dustbin.
posted by smoke at 9:37 PM on September 2, 2013

Oh man. People just don't get DDs. There was some wag on Twitter the other day -"There needs to be a double-dissolution so the commie Greens scum get wiped out of the Senate!!1!"

I didn't have the heart to tell him...
posted by Jimbob at 10:16 PM on September 2, 2013 [2 favorites]

Jimbob, the worst thing is, most political journalists don't get it either. A lot of fatuous commentary about DD elections the last several years. A 7% quota or thereabouts would mean probably only a few more Green Senators, but a LOT more nutjobs. The Senate would become unworkable.
posted by wilful at 11:17 PM on September 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

> I didn't have the heart to tell him...

By the time Abbott gets through, all voters will have more than a remedial understanding of his game-plan including advanced DD ~~orders~~ manoeuvres. Have you been listening to Abbott? He's now prescribing 'opposition' for Labor's rehabilitation as if it's a kindness.

> I think Abbott's making a tactical error in both talking about it as if he's already won

Abbott has already won, he's just coaching his electorate right to the siren, while thinking entirely about the next election, and the one after that. Abbott has done nothing but coach the electorate. He has been running a meta-campaign since day one: "You've got . to change . your lo . cal member". Remember?

We're not electing a prime minister.
We're electing a Menzies puppet.
(Peta Credlin on strings)
posted by de at 11:26 PM on September 2, 2013

I read John Quiggin regularly, and thoroughly agree with his latest post. I’m sure I have a receptive audience here:

Unless there’s a sudden turnaround in the polls, Tony Abbott will become Prime Minister of Australia. This will be the third time in my life that a Federal Labor government has been defeated, the other two occasions being 1975 and 1996. On both those occasions, despite substantial and enduring accomplishments, the government had made a mess of macroeconomic management, and the electorate, unsurprisingly, wanted to punish them. And, despite my strong disagreements with them (and with the way Fraser came to office), the incoming Prime Ministers had serious views on how best Australia’s future could be managed. Fraser has only improved since leaving office, making valuable contributions on the national and global stage. My evaluation of Howard, following his defeat, starts with the observation that he was ‘the most substantial figure produced by the Liberal party since the party itself was created by Menzies’.
Nothing of the sort can be said this time. The case put forward by the LNP is based entirely on lies and myths. These include the claims that
* Labor has mismanaged the economy and piled up unnecessary debt and deficits
* Australian families are ‘doing it tough’ because of a soaring cost of living
* The carbon tax/price is a ‘wrecking ball’, destroying economic activity
* The arrival of refugees represents a ‘national emergency’
None of these claims stands up to even momentary scrutiny.
Then there’s Abbott himself. After 20 years in politics, I can’t point to any substantial accomplishments on his part, or even any coherent political philosophy. For example, I’m not as critical of his parental leave scheme as some, but it’s totally inconsistent with his general political line, a fact that his supporters in business have been keen to point out. On climate change, he’s held every position possible and is now promising, in effect, to do nothing. His refusal to reveal policy costings until the second-last day of the campaign debases an already appalling process. He treated budget surplus as a holy grail until it became inconvenient, and has now become carefully vague on the topic.
Obviously, the fact that such a party and such a leader can be on the verge of victory implies that the Labor side has done something dreadfully wrong. It’s the oldest cliche in politics for the losing side to claim that the problem is not the policies but inability to get the message across. In this case, however, I think it’s true. Gillard lost the voters early on with stunts like the consultative assembly, and never managed to get them to listen to her for any length of time. Rudd was doing well in communicating his vision from his return to the leadership until he called the election. He then wasted three weeks on small-bore stuff apparently aimed at Katter party preferences. He seems finally to have rediscovered his voice, with the launch speech and his Q&A appearance, but I fear it’s too late.
Still, in the unlikely event that any undecided voters are reading this, I urge you to take a serious look at the alternative government, and place the LNP last on your ballot in both houses of Parliament.

posted by wilful at 11:32 PM on September 2, 2013 [2 favorites]

Yeah, I'm completely with John Quiggin here.

I can't imagine any situation in which I would ever vote Liberal. But in some situations, I don't begrudge them a win, say, against corrupt dog-eared old Labor governments like in New South Wales. But this Federal Election, I just don't understand it. How the conversation became focused on the myth that Australia is in some kind of dire economic circumstance that Abbott is going to fix with...no policies!, I have no idea.
posted by Jimbob at 12:10 AM on September 3, 2013

That's all very well for Quiggin and his latte-swigging comrades on the left, but what does he propose to do about the families who are doing it tough because of Labor's mismanagement of the carbon tax? The cost of living is a national emergency and it is destroying economic activity. Does he just want to sit back while soaring refugees swing wrecking balls at us?
posted by Joe in Australia at 1:00 AM on September 3, 2013 [6 favorites]

Not another national emergency?

But I agree, extreme household bills will have to come down preferably before local council rates go up: Pollution Levy, Fire Levy, Drought Levy, Flood Levy, Pre-loved Boat Levy, Soil Erosion Levy.

Good thing Tone's for small government, military policing, and cutting red tape. There's so much less to worry about.
posted by de at 1:23 AM on September 3, 2013

Labor's undemocratic ELECTION BLACKOUT may STIFLE the Liberal Party's BUDGET COSTINGS

Also, ~~Ronnie~~ Roger Corbett, the chairman of Fairfax Media, says Tony Abbott would make a good prime minister "because he's a very sincere, nice type of human being". KEVIN RUDD IS A REPTILIAN SPACE ALIEN AND WILL EAT YOUR BABIES. VOTE LIBERAL!
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:21 PM on September 3, 2013 [2 favorites]

Also, Ronnie Roger Corbett, the chairman of Fairfax Media, says Tony Abbott would make a good prime minister "because he's a very sincere, nice type of human being"

From ABC's Liz Foscia on the Tweeter;

Roger Corbett may have an agenda..have been told he's become a member of the Liberal party in the Clifton Gdns branch #auspol

posted by Jimbob at 4:27 PM on September 3, 2013

The Guardian tracked all spending announcements made by the leaders over the campaign. Cynical as I am, even I was flabbergasted at the difference.
posted by smoke at 8:58 PM on September 3, 2013 [4 favorites]

« Older 300 Game Mechanics (give or take) | Business clients can be poor with the simple task... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

MetaFilter

It's on
August 4, 2013 1:22 AM Subscribe

Tags

Share

It's on August 4, 2013 1:22 AM Subscribe

Tags

Share

It's on
August 4, 2013 1:22 AM Subscribe