ABC, stay brave

Tony Abbott takes aim at the ABC

It is without a doubt that the Abbott Government is intent on curtailing as much scrutiny of itself as possible.  Step 1 is the ABC, with step 2 doubtless being the alternative and social media.  However, for the moment it’s the ABC.  Recent events include:

Tanya Plibersek:

“Tony Abbott’s comments today show he’ll blame everyone – including the media – for the promises he continues to break,” she said.

True enough Ms Plibersek, but more importantly – as broken promises are there for all to see – is the intention to deny the Australian public the chance to form their own opinion.  There shalt be only one opinion and his name shall be Murdoch.

It cannot be denied that the overwhelming bias since 2007 and before, has been pro-conservative and anti-most of everything else.  As an example, such was the success of the anti-Climate Change agenda, that the mainstream media sent Australia back a decade in terms of finding solutions.  A survey at the time (during Kevin Rudd’s 1st year at Prime Minister, but this is just from memory) provided that of all the Murdoch stable, only Melbourne’s Herald Sun provided anything near a balanced approach, and this was around 67%.  For others, the figures were far worse.  A balanced approached?  Unbiased?

Clearly, if you want to get the message out who does Tony Abbott run to?

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has fired a verbal warning to Jakarta…

Did he pass on his displeasure to Indonesia? No. Did he do it by way of a media press release? No. Did he pass the job onto his Minister? No.

The article tells us – wait for it – that . . .

Mr Abbott told radio station 2GB.

Specifically, Alan Jones’ Breakfast Show.

Clearly buoyed by his success in “accurately” enunciating his foreign policy intentions via shock-jock radio with a sure certainty that (of course) senior Indonesian officials have similar enthrall with Australian talk-back radio, Abbott has now turned to that other well-known broadcaster Ray Hadley, likewise at 2GB.  At least on this occasion Tony Abbott had at least a miniscule chance that someone/anyone from the media might listen to Ray Hadley, plus take it seriously.

Abbott’s interview with Ray Hadley is quoted below – this one should note, is the same Ray Hadley who was recently ordered to pay a woman $280,000 as compensation in a defamation case. “Acting Justice Henric Nicholas described Mr Hadley’s attack on Carlingford fish and chip shop owner, Kim Ahmed, as an ”unbridled tirade … spat into the microphone for the consumption of the audience”. Note: damages will be paid by the Macquarie Radio Network’s insurer.

“Meanwhile, people’s reputations are under question because of the ABC’s reporting of this matter, so I trust that the ABC will do the right thing.”  Ms J. Bishop was of course not speaking about the victim of Hadley’s defamation case.

However, undeterred by providing this interview to Mr Hadley and whilst knowing of Mr Hadley’s recent conviction of only a little over a month ago (and if not, one should ask why not), Tony Abbott then proceeded to shed crocodile tears about the naughty ABC not being on his side.

“A lot of people feel at the moment that the ABC instinctively takes everyone’s side but Australia’s,” he said in an interview with Ray Hadley on Sydney radio station 2GB.

“I think it dismays Australians when the national broadcaster appears to take everyone’s side but its own and I think it is a problem.”

It lacks ”at least some basic affection for the home team”.

Translation: the ABC has criticised me, and is therefore unpatriotic. I am, I am, I am, the Australia.  Tony, your ego is once again on display for all to see.  Tony, there is no home team; Tony Abbott currently heads one of the major political parties and the one which currently happens to be in power.  Tony, you are not “the home team”, Australia and the well-being and benefit of all Australians is the prime concern of all, irrespective of voting preferences.

Does Tony Abbott expect a robust critique of himself by appearing on shock-jock radio talk-back shows?  Or is this avoidance?  A token gesture so that he doesn’t cop the criticism of being entirely invisible.  Look at moi, I’ve been on Ray Hadley . . . duty done regarding “communication”.

Abbott’s crusade continues, to politicise the armed services, who as per the ABC are apolitical and who are sworn to adhere to basic practices.  Abbott’s awkward attempts to cosy up to the Navy in particular is nothing more than political opportunism.  By the way, Abbott if you are so concerned about Navy personnel, why this?

“Navy personnel carrying out border protection were quietly stripped of some workplace safety protections last month . . .”

So much for concern about “the home team” . . .

Well said by Wendy Harmer,

And what of the other national state-funded outfits he (Abbott) is, by inference, comparing with our ABC ? Russia Today, France 24 , those in Laos or the “baddies” North Korea? Their aims are clear: to promote the current government (or regime) in a favourable light and to vilify the opposition. To be a mouthpiece for those in power. To cosy up to governments and vested interests in affectionate embrace.

Is it any coincidence that certain ABC journalists have been threatened with “services no longer required” should they dare write a critique which might be unfavourable to the current ruling classes?

It is no secret that the NBN is being canned due to Murdoch:

The biggest fear for pay TV is advertising dollars being sent elsewhere as online services offer more affordable advertising rates than pay TV or free-to-air TV can offer.

The next stage on the path to control of what we see and what we know is our ABC is control of all dissenting opinions.

Malcolm Turnbull (this comment rapidly taken from the front pages, but still available via this link as I write):

Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has strongly defended the ABC’s editorial independence in the face of Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s attack on the national broadcaster, which he says ”instinctively takes everyone’s side but Australia’s”.

Mr Turnbull defended the Prime Minister’s right to critique the ABC but, in comments that could be interpreted as resistance to Mr Abbott, he said the ABC was rightly accountable to its board of directors, not politicians.

Further from Turnbull:

Mr Abbott told radio 2GB that Australians wanted ”some basic affection for the home team”, but Mr Turnbull said the broadcaster was more constrained by rules around editorial fairness than its competitors in commercial media.

Without putting words in Mr Turnbull’s mouth, this might be interpreted as, “Abbott, what on earth are you raving on about? The ABC is “more constrained” than anything and anyone in the the commercial media.”

Kevin Andrews:

Speaking at Canberra airport on his way to a cabinet meeting, the Social Services Minister said that in a robust democracy, the media should be scrutinised as much as anybody else.

Indeed Mr Andrews, and we all look forward to your critiques of the unsubstantiated rumours, false information, and opinion dressed up as fact as is currently presented to us by the mainstream media.  Surely, if your boss desires to continue to give patronage to such things as shock-jocks, the requirement should be that these persons must come under the same scrutiny as the ABC.

An anonymous constituent:

Coalition senator Ian Macdonald vigorously supported the Prime Minister’s criticism of the ABC on Thursday, noting that constituents asked him, ”when are you going to get rid of the ABC?”

Here we arrive at the crux of the matter, Tony Abbott wants the ABC to be his own personal cheer squad, as if we don’t have enough of that already from the Murdoch media and it’s associates.  However, this is a mere side issue on the road to the silencing of all dissenting opinions, the inability of Australians to read alternative views.  This is of course quite suitable to the Murdoch media who currently languishing behind paywalls,  who wants opposition silenced, or as much as possible in a semi-democratic society – first step, procure excuses to cut the ABC’s funding . . . next step . . .

We are therefore placed with a Prime Minister who believes that “the home team” is the only team that one is allowed to barrack for.  However, when he stated that “Test cricketers occasionally drop catches, great footballers occasionally miss tackles and, regretfully, there were a couple of occasions when this mistake was made – but it won’t happen again.”.

Labor’s communications spokesman Jason Clare said the study was ”all about providing an excuse to cut the ABC’s budget”.

“The night before the election Tony Abbott said there would be ‘no cuts to the ABC,” he said.

“If Tony Abbott cuts the ABC’s budget it will mean he is a liar, simple as that”.

This issue might have conveniently disappeared for the moment, but watch out come budget time, it is likely that B1 and B2 will be hocking their ‘jammies.

When the Institute of Public Affairs starts talking about the irrelevance of Australia having a national broadcaster, then we should be doubly fearful.  I wonder if having nobbled the ABC via budgetry means that there will be any “takers” to fill the shoes of the ABC in providing news transcripts for the blind?  Not much money in that one for Murdoch, so I can’t see it happening.

If there was ever a case for a taxpayer-funded state broadcaster, it doesn’t exist today. Australians have at their fingertips access to more news from more varied sources than ever before. Online, every niche interest and point of view is well covered. And as private media companies continue to struggle with profitability, the continued lavish funding of the ABC only serves to undermine their business model further.

Sorry, but I’ve changed my mind. I was paid to.

Image courtesy of http://www.sortius-is-a-geek.com

Follow @MigloMT

In October Malcolm Turnbull announced the appointment of former Tesltra boss Ziggy Switkowski as NBN Co to lead a three-person board overseeing the national broadband network.

In his inaugural appearance at a senate estimates hearing, Switkowski said Telstra’s copper network is ‘robust’ and has been well-maintained for decades. Concerns expressed about the network not being up to being the basis for a FttN NBN, he added, were “misinformed”. He stressed that:

The copper network has been in place for a long time. It’s constantly being maintained, remediated, upgraded.

Readers here will be all to well aware of the criticism of the government’s plan to provide the NBN through Telstra’s copper network; an antiquated alternative to Rudd’s NBN, the future of which is now in doubt.

But it’s remarkable to hear Switkowski’s glowing praise of the copper network when compared to what Telstra had to say about it in 2003 while he was chief of the telco:

Telstra will replace its century-old copper wire phone network with new technology within the next 15 years, saying the ageing lines are now at “five minutes to midnight”.

Telstra executives revealed the problem at a Senate inquiry into broadband services on Wednesday.

Go figure.

I guess it’s easy to change your mind when the government pays you lots of money to do so.

(Thanks to Kaye Lee and Bacchus for this post).

What if . . . ?

Follow @MigloMT

We well remember the drama surrounding the 2010 election result. In the end, it came down to Independents Windsor and Oakeshott siding with Labor for two reasons: Labor’s National Broadband Network (NBN) and the promise from Julia Gillard that she would not disrupt Parliament by calling an early election.

Given that a number of Liberal backbenchers were vying for the NBN to come to their electorates and that the government did serve its full term, Winsdor and Oakeshott made the right call.

Some optimists are suggesting that the 2013 election might be a repeat of 2010.

Let’s assume it is. And let’s assume it again comes down to a couple of Independents having the deciding vote.

What would they vote on and why?

I realise it is difficult to answer given that the Coalition have not released much in the way of policies, so we can only go on what we know so far.

Go fo it.

Note: This is a repost of an old post, which today seems more relevent than the time it was originally published.

Maybe Rupert wants to stop the boats

Follow @MigloMT

The Murdoch conspiracy has been gaining a bit of traction over the last couple of weeks, being kicked along by Paul Sheehan’s article in The Age Murdoch’s vicious attacks on Rudd: it’s business where Sheehan echoes our earlier claim that:

News Corp hates the government’s National Broadband Network (NBN). The company has formed a view that it poses a threat to the business model of by far its most important asset in Australia, the Foxtel cable TV monopoly it jointly owns with Telstra.

The claim has found its way to the top office in the land, with even Kevin Rudd recognising that:

Murdoch’s views on the election campaign largely mirrored those of conservative opposition leader Tony Abbott, who has promised to downsize the planned broadband network.

“Does he sense it represents a commercial challenge to Foxtel, to the major cash-cow for his company, or not?” asked Rudd, referring to the planned broadband network.

Meanwhile, even the British press has picked up on the story, agreeing that the conspiracy is well and truly hatched and is evident in the destructive attacks the Murdoch media have launched against the government, saying:

The reason for Murdoch’s dramatic intervention in the current election has caused some debate. One interpretation of Murdoch is that he acts only for commercial advantage. Reflecting this, Paul Sheehan in the Sun-Herald argued that Murdoch wants to destroy Rudd and Labor because they are building the National Broadband Network (NBN). The NBN’s capacity to allow the quick downloading of movies and other content would be a threat to Murdoch’s Foxtel TV operation, so the argument goes.

Of course, this is all scoffed at by Tony Abbott.

Maybe Tony Abbott hasn’t been paying attention to the vile attacks on the Australian Government by the Murdoch media. Or from Murdoch himself, who recently tweeted:

Australian public now totally disgusted with Labor Party wrecking country with it's sordid intrigues. Now for a quick election.

— Rupert Murdoch (@rupertmurdoch) June 26, 2013

So Mr Murdoch believes that Labor has wrecked the country. How wrong could he be? As Alan Austin points out in today’s Independent Australia, “profound falsehoods about Australia’s economy are repeated relentlessly” and the Murdoch media are the ones leading this charge. I’ve been to America a few times in the last couple of years and I am struck by the number of people who comment how envious they are of Australia’s economic position and, in particular, how our government guided us through the global financial crisis. Mr Murdoch is the one American I know of – and the only one publicly – to openly condemn our economic status. He says it’s bad. The evidence shows the contrary.

But unlike other Americans, Mr Murdoch has immense financial interests in this country. Of course he wants to protect them. Even nurture them. Old Rupert can only be supporting the Coalition for no other reason than they offer the best deal in protecting those interests. They simply have no other policy that could possibly attract his fanatical support. It has to be the NBN, or the destruction of it, more’s the point.

Or maybe – and I say this jokingly – he is only behind the Opposition because he wants the boats stopped.

What do you think?

Destroy Rudd, destroy the NBN

Someone in the mainstream media has finally caught on that Rupert Murdoch wants Labor to lose the election because the NBN effects his Australian business interests:

Why Murdoch wants Rudd to lose the coming federal election is not merely political, it is commercial. News Corp hates the government’s National Broadband Network (NBN). The company has formed a view that it poses a threat to the business model of by far its most important asset in Australia, the Foxtel cable TV monopoly it jointly owns with Telstra.

Not surprising, the article has gone viral in social media.

But where did this story first break? In social media itself.

In February we wrote in Revealed! The media conspiracy against the Government that:

“The Murdoch media has been leaning to the right since the Whitlam days but the anti-Labor meme was really ramped up just before the 2010 election. The catalyst was Murdoch’s luncheon with Tony Abbott, where the NBN (National Broadband Network) must have been the main talking point as the very next day Abbott publicly announced that he’d rip up the NBN”.

“He pissed a few of us off by jumping too soon, thinking that people might tie the announcement to the meeting with Murdoch, which luckily they didn’t. The NBN will effect Murdoch’s profits, and let’s be very clear on that, so the reason to back Abbott was clearly motivated by money for the media empire”.

The post raised a few eyebrows as well as attracting a number of sniggers, as one would expect. However, the appearance of this brilliant piece by Kieran Cummings the very next day, Why Murdoch’s media is gunning for your NBN got to the heart of the matter. The article kicked off with:

It seems a day doesn’t go by where articles are being posted to News Limited (Murdoch) websites with nothing but negative spin for the NBN. Most, if not all, are founded on poorly constructed arguments that ignore technology & the reality. They all seem to point to one solution: anything the Coalition are saying they’ll deploy.

While this does reek of patent bias amongst Murdoch’s Australian arm, I feel this goes a little deeper than just wanting a Coalition government, but a fear of becoming obsolete in the age of IPTV (Internet Protocol Television).

Within days it was revealed – via social media – that the Abbott/Murdoch relationship was not confined to a simple luncheon where the destruction of the NBN was masterminded, but it was indeed an ongoing process:

Yes, there is some breaking news… Tony Abbott has lunch at News Ltd HQ every week. Incredulous I asked the person to repeat it.

“EVERY week, in private,” to discuss the latest “Get Gillard” strategies. No wonder there’s such a seamless segue between what News writes and what Abbott parrots. He’s dealing with the enemy. They’re writing the script for him.

It’s not a fuck-up. It’s a fucking conspiracy.

I have it on the very highest authority, however, given without hesitation… in fact, volunteered by someone with no ostensible axe to grind, but should should know it to be true. It’s this person’s job to know Abbott’s movements, in detail.

It’s comforting to know that the better elements of the mainstream media have finally seen the light.

I don’t know about you, but I’d rather live in a democracy than a Murdochracy. It appears that a particular political party would prefer the latter.

Follow @MinkelCA

It’s a no brainer

Follow @MigloMT

During the 2010 election campaign we had Tony Abbott campaigning frenetically against the NBN. In response to his desire to rip up progress, Julia Gillard came up with this gem:

Imagine missing out on the possibilities of the future.

Thankfully, in 2010 Julia Gillard was given the opportunity to ensure that we didn’t miss out on these opportunities. Nasking, commenting on The Political Sword gave us a brief insight to what the future provided post 2010:

Let’s face it . . . the economy is sound . . . rates are low . . . unemployment is low compared to many struggling countries . . . Labor has a better NBN . . . has the disability scheme . . . education reform . . . the $18,000 tax free threshold . . . is strong on superannuation and trying to make it fairer . . . got rid of Workchoices . . . built trades training centres . . . has been fair to all schools . . . focused on disadvantage and making schools more hi-tech with better science labs and libraries to assist us to modernise . . . has focused heavily on diverse infrastructure . . . got us through the GFC . . .

It’s a no brainer.

Love the sum-up: it’s a no brainer.

Imagine losing all that in the future.

What’s not in the news

Follow @MigloMT

It’s a pity that the best stories never make it into the mainstream media. Without social media we would never read those stories: stories written by ordinary people, instead of less-than-ordinary journalists. It’s the same with opinions. Our MSM certainly is opinionated and nobody else’s opinion is worth sharing.

I devote this post to a handful of stories and opinions shared on my Facebook pages. They represent what’s being talked about in social media and offer a stark contrast to what we read in the MSM. People out there are asking questions and they are questions that the MSM don’t want answered. Read the few I’ve selected, then give me your thoughts.

From Dave H:

Hi Guys. I’ve got NBN on in Kiama. As well as being super fast and cheap, there’s another advantage with NBN. This is the disconnection of the old Telstra copper phone line, and with it the line rental charge each month is dropped. So even before getting NBN, I’ve saved $30 each month. I now use a VOIP phone as my home phone. (Monthly phone bills are usually around $10 – another saving). As far as NBN charge goes, I`m on a $40 a month plan and get 25000 speed with a download limit of 50GB. In saying that, I’m considering changing over to the 100,000 speed with a download limit of 75GB. This deal is only $50 a month.

So just to summarise and compare. I used to pay $30 a month phone line rental, $68 a month for ADSL2 with 12GB limit and around a $100 per month phone bill. Total approx $200 each month. Now I pay $0 for line rental, $40 a month for superfast NBN and around $10 a month for phone/ VOIP calls. A total of approx $50 a month. SO NBN HAS SAVED ME AROUND $150 EACH MONTH.

From Gerard T:

The quality of our communications infrastructure, and our business, diplomatic, and defence relationships with China will have vastly more influence on the lives of average Australians than 66 asylum seekers. So I ask the question: Why does a refugee boat arrival hold more weight with the MSM?

From Barbara L:

So poor Bob Carr is in trouble with Julie Bishop for slagging off at Thatcher . . . who cares. Thatcher insulted Carr and his Malaysian wife many years ago, running down Asian migrants to Carr while his Malaysian wife was standing within earshot . . . I don’t blame Carr for not wanting to be nice about Thatcher.

From Ellie C:

What a great synopsis of the heart of the matter of media bias and its power in this country. The left no longer has a voice. If it does, it is scarcely a whisper. It has nothing to do with free speech but has everything to do with power and influence.

Another from Barbara L:

re Julia’s Community Cabinet meeting in WA last night . . . no mention in the MSM today about how well it all went for Julia and her new Ministers . . . there was no real drama . . . no screaming abuse at Julia . . . nothing . . . so I guess they felt there was nothing to report.

From John L:

Main stream media further dumbs us down (and by implication itself) by never addressing either the character of the opposition leader or his plans for the future of Australia. For example will we ever see a headline “Time to put up Tony”.

From M:

It’s scary that the media are not doing their job. Many journalist friends have expressed the same concerns; they don’t feel as though they are traditional journalists anymore, they are simply writing what the powerful want them to write. The real turning point for me came after Mark Scott’s treatment of John Faine recently. That was fucking pathetic. Faine was doing his job and Scott publicly chastised him.

And finally, another one from John L:

Tony Abbott takes his Catholicism seriously. His past spontaneous outbursts about his daughters virginity, his fear of homosexuality, his opposition to abortion, his veto (as Health Minister) of the RU486 drug, his views on euthanasia, his opposition to same-sex marriage and stem cell research all give confirmation to a dogma more attune to Rome than the changing moral landscape of Australia.

Over to you.

On the eve of a Coalition policy announcement

Follow @MigloMT

The release of the Coalition’s broadband policy is imminent, with some speculation that it may be released as early as tomorrow. That gives the Murdoch media only 24 hours to soften the way by condemning the Government’s NBN with all guns firing.

And haven’t they been busy? What the Coalition’s policy will contain is irrelevant of course. It’s assumed it will be faster, more endurable and of course cheaper than what the Government has provided. Well, cheaper anyway.

Which makes now a good time to go after the cost of the NBN.

Apparently it’s going to cost $90B and this fits nicely into this headline “The Ninety Billion Nightmare – the real cost of the NBN rollout“. We learn that:

The final cost of the NBN rollout could more than double and exceed $90 billion by the time it is finished, according to a new analysis contained in the Coalition’s broadband policy.

So, it’s according to the Opposition.

The Coalition’s estimates of the real capital costs suggested they would be more likely to reach $71 billion, not the $37.4 billion claimed by NBN Co’s most recent estimates. The overall cost to the taxpayer, including overly optimistic revenue targets, would more likely reach $94 billion, the 12-page costing document claims.

What else has the Coalition waffled on about that the Murdoch press has been eager to build a story around? How about this: “Government urged to release ‘true cost of NBN’”

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy appears to have made a false claim about the National Broadband Network as he tried to defend the project over allegations it faces massive cost blow outs. Senator Conroy told ABC Radio this morning that the Coalition was a “fact-free zone” but he appears to have wrongly claimed the NBN’s corporate plan was audited by the Auditor-General as he attempted to justify its price tag.

The coalition estimates the final price tag of the NBN could more than double to $90 billion-plus, and that it will take an extra four years to complete.

The claims are made in the coalition’s broadband policy, obtained by The Daily Telegraph, which opposition communications spokesman Malcolm Turnbull has promised will be released soon.

Yes, it’s another one of those “the Coalition says  . . .” scoops. Please ignore the fact that it was denied by Senator Conroy, the prime Minister and the Auditor General. Goodness, as if they‘d know.

Meanwhile, Rob Oakeshott, who chaired the Federal Parliament’s committee investigating the NBN has:

. . . lambasted the Coalition for its claim that the real cost of Labor’s National Broadband Network project was likely to be up to $90 billion, pointing out that the treasury and finance departments disagreed with the Coalition’s estimate.

The Coalition has not yet published any document to verify its claim, but this morning the Daily Telegraph reported that using modelling from key telcos and finance industry analysis of the NBN Co’s 2012 corporate plan, the Coalition had estimated the project would take four years longer to finish and potentially cost an extra $45 billion to complete. The newspaper claims to have seen sections of the Coalition’s policy analysis in the area.

However, Rob Oakeshott, the outspoken independent MP whose backing for the NBN helped put the Gillard Government in power back in 2010 and who chaired the Federal Parliament’s committee investigating the project and holding it to account, has a different view. “If today’s Daily Telegraph was true on NBN costing $90 billion, the INDEPENDENT Treasury/Finance boffins would have it on-budget,” Oakeshott said on Twitter this morning. “They don’t.”

Oakeshott further added in comments to some of his followers: ” I am being kind. Let’s see what they produce this week. This is a very big test for Tony Abbott to get his NBN policy right … rate of return, rate of return, rate of return. It is everything in business, and infrastructure – public and private.” And then, referring to the Department of the Treasury: “I’d trust their judgement over politicans/media any day of the week. Apolitical,qualified,and focussed. If not them, then who?”

The Coalition’s $90 billion claim this morning is not the first time it has claimed that the NBN would cost dramatically more than the Federal Government’s estimates. Over the past few months, senior Coalition politicians such as Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull have repeatedly publicly claimed that the NBN could could cost as much as $100 billion to build, despite the company’s own estimates showing that it will require around $37 billion of capital injection from the Government and eventually make a return.

Now why wasn’t that reported in the Murdoch media? Maybe it can be traced back to this:

“The Murdoch media has been leaning to the right since the Whitlam days but the anti-Labor meme was really ramped up just before the 2010 election. The catalyst was Murdoch’s luncheon with Tony Abbott, where the NBN (National Broadband Network) must have been the main talking point as the very next day Abbott publicly announced that he’d rip up the NBN”.

“He pissed a few of us off by jumping too soon, thinking that people might tie the announcement to the meeting with Murdoch, which luckily they didn’t. The NBN will effect Murdoch’s profits, and let’s be very clear on that, so the reason to back Abbott was clearly motivated by money for the media empire”.

How nice to provide us with a bit more evidence and, significantly, on the eve of a Coalition policy announcement.

What if . . . ?

Follow @MigloCW

We well remember the drama surrounding the 2010 election result. In the end, it came down to Independents Windsor and Oakeshott siding with Labor for two reasons: Labor’s National Broadband Network (NBN) and the promise from Julia Gillard that she would not disrupt Parliament by calling an early election.

Given that a number of Liberal backbenchers are vying for the NBN to come to their electorates and we see that the government will serve its full term, Winsdor and Oakeshott made the right call.

It’s my gut feeling that the 2013 election might be a repeat of 2010.

Let’s assume it is. And let’s assume it again comes down to a couple of Independents having the deciding vote.

What would they vote on and why?

I realise it is difficult to answer given that the Coalition have not released much in the way of policies, so we can only go on what we know so far.

BTW, thanks to Bilko for suggesting the topic.

Rob Oakeshott (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Beyond 2013

Follow @MigloCW

The 2013 election looms as one of the most important ever. It is not simply Labor versus Liberal, the working class versus the upper class or the progressives versus the conservatives. It is an election to determine whether Australia keeps up with the pace in the global village or cuts itself adrift to float aimlessly in the global seas.

I see this as the most important election because the world now moves at a pace never before seen. Social and economic changes can take us by storm overnight, whereas in our lazy past we could have a nap in the hammock and still wake up in an unchanged world. We also face the uncertainty that climate change can bring, the predictions of which are horrific.

Labor wants to keep up with, or at the best drive these changes to take us into the future. The Opposition is quite happy to keep resting blissfully in the hammock.

The Coalition, unsurprising, appeal to the aging demographic. In a recent article Polls Apart I looked at the cohort group of their supporters and wrote that:

If you look at the Primary Vote results for the latest Newspoll you’ll notice that support for the Coalition jumps dramatically with each increasing age group.  The healthiest support is in the 50+ age group.

This suggests rightly or wrongly that older Australians – in accordance with their preferred political party – have less interest in the uncertain future. They won’t be in it. Why bother with it?

The people who care about the future are the youth of today. Is it any wonder that they find the direction and policies of the Labor Party the most appealing? The correlation is obvious.

To confirm my suggestion that the Australian youth favour the policies of a party that addresses the social and economic changes of the future, this appeared yesterday:

Newspoll surveys indicate the coalition’s primary vote would slip by 1.5 percentage points if the ‘youth vote’ increased.

An analysis of Newspoll surveys indicate the coalition’s primary vote would slip by 1.5 percentage points if those eligible to vote but not enrolled – mainly young people – were enrolled, The Australian reports.

As many as a dozen Liberal and Nationals seats could come into play if Labor and the Australian Greens could mobilise the ‘youth vote’, the paper said.

The coalition holds 10 seats with a margin of less than two per cent. The most vulnerable are the Liberal-held Boothby in South Australia (0.3 per cent); Hasluck in Western Australia (0.6 per cent); and Aston in Victoria (0.7 per cent).

Brisbane (1.1 per cent) and Solomon in Darwin (1.8 per cent) have a high proportion of students and young workers, while Herbert in far north Queensland (2.1 per cent) and Swan in Perth (2.5 per cent) have very high proportion of young people of voting age.

The Greens would be the main beneficiary of direct enrolment, in effect from July, analysis by Professor Ian McAllister of the Australian National University found. Their first preference vote would rise by 0.6 of a point, while Labor’s vote would increase very marginally.

This finding has left he Opposition jittery. Take Christopher Pyne’s response:

Senior Coalition frontbencher Christopher Pyne has accused Labor of rorting the electoral system, following an analysis of new electoral laws that will see up to 1.5 million voters automatically enrolled to vote.

An analysis of Newspoll surveys published on Monday, suggests the Coalition’s primary vote would slip by 1.5 percentage points if those eligible to vote but not enrolled – mainly young people – were enrolled, The Australian reported.

New laws passed by federal parliament in June mean the Australian Electoral Commission can enrol voters or update their details using information from other government government agencies, such as tax records and vehicle registration.

As many as a dozen Liberal and Nationals seats could be threatened if Labor and the Australian Greens mobilised the ”youth vote”, according to the Newspoll analysis.

On Monday, Mr Pyne told Sky News this was ”the latest iteration” of Labor trying to get an advantage over the coalition.

If we let the youth of Australia do the talking, they’d tell us they want to be part of the future that embraces or leads change. They want better technology. They want a cleaner environment. They will vote for the party that delivers these . . . beyond 2013.

Where do you want Australia to be beyond 2013?