Did anyone catch the education debate on the 7.30 report between Julie Bishop and Stephen Smith?
The opinion in our house was a hands down win to Julie Bishop. It was the triumph of substance and detail over cliche.
What did others think?
This is not the first time I have had to deal with the matter of my approach to comments, and it probably wont be the last.
My comments policy is simple: play the ball and not the (wo)man.
I try not to delete comments — really I don’t. I do not to want to be the chief censor. I am not a great believer in the nanny state, and I don’t want to run blog that is bound up in the lexical contortions of political correctness.
That does not mean I am comfortable with a free for all slug feast, where anything goes. I will delete those comments I judge to be offensive, sexist, racist, slanderous, defamatory, lewd or otherwise inappropriate. I am much more inclined to delete comments that do not argue a particular policy perspective, but simply resort to name calling or personal abuse.
The decision to delete or sanitise a comment is always a difficult one. I try not to be too pure, as it would (a) take up too much of my time and (b) interrupt the flow of comments. I am inclined to leave common political nicknames that might be marginally offensive — for example rodent or Krudd — provided the rest of the post argues a substantive point. But if the post is little more than personal abuse, I may well consign it to the bit bucket. While I cope with friendly (if not a little barbed) nicknames for fellow readers, name calling, insults and general nastiness are not acceptable. If someone tells me they find something offensive I tend to take it seriously (provided it does not look like a tit-for-tat response to a my decision to delete an earlier comment).
Some will argue that I am capricious and inconsistent in my approach. All I can say is: guilty as charged. So there can be no mistake, I reserve the right to apply my comments policy in a completely capricious and inconsistent manner. I reserve the right to edit or delete comments from anyone. I reserve the right to turn off comments for any particular post, or to prevent individual readers (or everyone) from making comments.
If you don’t like my comments policy, don’t post any comments.
Some have accused me of favouring those from the left when I delete comments, and others have accused me of favouring those from the right. In this blog I strive to remain objective, balanced and very much middle of the road. If it is true that my deletions exhibit a political bias, please accept my assurances that it is not something I consciously set out to do. Also, consider the possibility that those whom I am supposed to be oppressing with my deletions may actually be responsible for the imbalance in deletions.
Of course, I would not need to reiterate these matters if everyone sought to respect others and exercised personal responsibility in the comments they post.
Well that is the end of the sermon.
May the deity or philosophy of your personal preference guide you always.
When the major parties ‘leak’ private polling that is ostensibly damaging to their cause, you always need to wonder about the hidden agenda. In this case, the Australian has Coalition polling.
CONFIDENTIAL private polling by the Coalition parties reveals a number of Government MPs are vulnerable, with Labor making good headway in key marginal seats.
The Australian has learned that Labor’s vote has strengthened in a number of electorates along the eastern seaboard and in Tasmania.
The Nationals’ vote is particularly soft in NSW and Queensland as voters continue to take a liking to Kevin Rudd.
The Liberal vote is also said to be softer in crucial marginal seats such as Eden-Monaro in southern NSW and Tasmania’s Bass and Braddon - both won by the Coalition in 2004.
Some senior Coalition figures say the parties’ private polling reflects Newspoll, which has Labor well ahead of the Government after preferences, 54 to 46 per cent.
If we were to assume that Labor would get a two-party preferred vote of 54 per cent at the next Federal election (a plausible change of government figure as the next graph shows — Hawke and Howard were close to this mark for their first terms), it would roughly equate to a 7 per cent swing on the Mackerras pendulum. With a uniform swing of this magnitude, Labor should expect to increase its representation from 60 seats to around 90 seats in the House of Representatives. It would be a crushing defeat for the Howard Government, and with a four per cent margin in the seat of Bennelong, a personal defeat for the Prime Minister as well.
The question remains: why ‘leak’ the polling to the Australian? Was it a call to arms for the party faithful? Was it a wake-up call to Coalition parliamentarians? Was it to provide cover for the ferocity with which the Coalition plans to attack Rudd in the coming weeks?
Today’s papers carry two polls. Both are disastrous for Team Debnam and the NSW Coalition parties.
Newspoll for January-February 2007 has Labor state-wide predicted two party preferred share at 59 per cent to the Coalition’s 41 per cent.
ACNielsen’s poll from last weekend has a similar result: 57 per cent for Labor and 43 per cent for the Coalition.
A couple of observations: First NSW has optional preferential voting. NSW voters must put 1 in the box of the preferred candidate. They do not need to number any further squares for their vote to be valid. If they do number further squares, and their preferred candidate is excluded from the count, their vote will be transferred to their second preferred candidate, and so on, as far as they have numbered the ballot paper. With both of the major parties on the nose, primary votes may be more important in determining the outcome, rather than preferences. It is likely that a sizable number of voters will not preference either if the major parties. Also possible, the number of independents and minor party candidates may increase.
Second, this election may become another example of poorly performing opposition leaders helping lame duck governments secure an increased majority re-election. It is something I call the Hewson effect, after Keating’s 1993 victory. Although to be fair, it could be called the Doc Evatt effect. While ‘lame duck’ may be too severe a description for the Howard Government in 2004, the Mark Latham effect increased the Coalition’s vote share at that election.
So what does this mean for my tipping? I am becoming the man who changed his tips more than he changed his underwear. I have upped the seat count to 55. While I am tempted to up it further, I suspect the optional preferential voting system will see more independents and minor parties, rather than more Labor members.
It is about time I paid some attention to the NSW election on 24 March 2007. There is a frisson with this election. In the one corner we have the vaguely unpopular Morris Iemma leading what many would call a tired and bumbling government. In the other corner we have the morals campaigner and fundamentalist: Peter Debnam. Tired versus ugly is not a menu many voters find appealing. Dom Knight described the context for this election in the following terms.
On Labor’s record, this should be a one-sided election. The broad dissatisfaction with the Carr legacy (which inspired the meekly apologetic tone of Iemma’s slogan) combined with the remarkable succession of scandals under the new Premier — Scully, Orkopoulos and Chaytor the most prominent dominoes to topple — would surely have put a halfway competent leader like Brogden miles ahead by now. But every gaffe of Iemma’s seems to be matched by an even bigger disaster from Debnam. Most foolishly, while riding high after picking up several unexpected scalps, Debnam inexplicably tried to add another, Attorney-General Bob Debus, using the testimony of a convicted child sex offender. Extraordinarily, this left him even further behind Iemma’s government in the polls. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
The Labor government goes into the poll with a huge safety buffer. It won the 2003 election in a landslide: 55 Labor seats, 32 Coalition seats and 6 independents. With subsequent resignations and by-elections, Labor now has 52 seats, the Coalition 30 and independents 10. One seat is vacant.
From the last election, (and factoring in new electoral boundaries), the Coalition needs a 12.3 per cent swing to win government outright. Any thing less than a uniform 4 per cent swing to the Coalition, would see no net gain for the Coalition. An 8.7 per cent swing would see a hung parliament, with the independents holding the balance of power. With a ten per cent swing, the Coalition should win more seats than Labor.
But a change of government is a big ask. The most recent polls have Labor in a strong position. Newspoll in November-December 2006 had the state wide two-party preferred prediction at 53 for the Coalition to 47 for Labor. The January 2007 Morgan poll had Labor on 58 and the Coalition on 42.
The betting markets agree on the likely outcome. Centrebet has Labor as the strong favourite.
My tip? Notwithstanding the polls, I reckon there will be a small late swing against the Labor Government. Consequently, I am tipping a Labor win with 51 seats — a reduced majority. (Update: my tip at 51 did not even last a day).
I know I am out on a limb here. The Poll Bludger argued that Labor should keep all its seats, and possibly gain some. Truly surprising when you consider the troubles the Government has navigated over recent months. We will see whether I hold my nerve with my slightly pessimistic tip, or whether I will chicken out closer to the election date and increase Labor’s seat count.
Check out Anthony Green’s election site or William Bowe’s election site. Both are excellent.