Open 2010 Election Thread #3

Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott face off in front of Australian Parliament HousePlease keep the general election campaign talk (breaking news etc) on these Election Open Threads, and keep discussions on the other posts focussed on the topic presented by the author.

N.B. Off topic posts in other threads are liable to be summarily deleted at the discretion of the moderators.

The one and only topic that is not welcome on principle on these Election Open Threads is Endless Rehashing of the Labor Leadership Change.


writer, singer, webwrangler, blogger, comedy tragic |

Tagged with: ,
Posted in federal election 2010
5 comments on “Open 2010 Election Thread #3
  1. Brian says:

    This picks up on stuff from Election Thread #2.

    The medicare analogy does have some relevance IMHO, as one who lived through it with a young family at the time. The whole thing kept getting jerked around, with different mixes of tax and contribution, public/private involvement, which was quite disruptive. Blewett fixed it, but he did so by consulting people with the relevant expertise. A panel of experts, perchance? I’d love to go back and look at how the policy bit was handled pre and post election, but I don’t have time.

    Oakes is ridiculing Gillard for involving experts in the sustainability policy. Tingle is even calling for numbers, right now, off the top of her head, and should know better. Oakes reveals himself as a boofhead.

    One thing Medicare got wrong was that there wasn’t a mechanism for increasing the hypothecated tax to cover costs ‘going forward’, so the medicare levy is now almost irrelevant.

    The implications for the economy and society for the transformations needed for climate change are orders of magnitude greater than was the case with medicare. We are stuck with policies based on assumptions fed into a weekend seminar held in Brisbane, based on 550ppm or, if possible and not too inconvenient, 450ppm levels of CO2. The lower level would see the planet committed to no permanent ice and sea level rises of about 75m.

    Gillard’s scientific panel (which the media neglects in favour of guffawing like braying donkeys about the citizens panel) is crucial if we are going to get a grip on what needs to be done before we rush off and do it. The Greens targets make concessions to what might be called political realism, which means that if we don’t change them not too far down the track we’ll be down the crapper. But if we do that business will complain about shifting the goalposts, and with reason.

    Not sure about the citizen’s thing but we don’t need any denialists there, even though it’s advisory, which is one thing that’s different from parliament about it, did you notice, Laurie?

    I do think that we need bipartisanship. As Bob McMullan said the other day, the COALition is the only party in the advanced economies that’s run by denialists., who, if we take them seriously, would try to unpick what Labor might do if they got in. Not good for business certainty.

    In Nicholas Stuart’s book he says that earlier this year Rudd asked Gillard’s advice whether he should talk to the Greens on the CPRS. She advised him to “remain steadfast”. There was the possibility of a deal there with the Greens which may have been suppported by two rebel Libs in the Senate, but all that was a bit tricky. And we don’t know how big the denialist factor within Labor is, We know that it’s there, starting with Ferguson.

    I think it’s not unreasonable to infer that she always saw the need for bipartisanship and a more deliberative approach to policy development.

    But I’ve got no conclusive evidence apart from what comes out of her own mouth and if you want to believe that she’s motivated by shallow political considerations then there’s not much I can do about it.

  2. mbahnisch says:

    Bernard Keane on Labor’s strategy of putting the electorate to sleep, and its policy cowardice:

  3. mbahnisch says:

    Nielsen tables here:

    Click to access Nielsen_table_July_20_22_2010.pdf

    Note Coalition leading Labor 54-46 in both Queensland and WA.

    The sample size per state is small though, and therefore there’s a higher MoE than in the poll as a whole.

  4. Fran Barlow says:

    This poll in the marginal seat of Kingston done by the Adelaide Advertiser is interesting.

    It’s basically mortgage belt and the seat was marginal in 2007. Yet even allowing for sampling error, the ALP is winning easily — 67-33-2PP if you can believe it with 26% of Liberal voters preferring Gillard as PM.

    As some note, that whiny Pyne character could be in a bit of trouble.

  5. Sam says:

    54-46 is landslide territory. This seems unlikely to me, but it is an unusual election. Never in my life have I seen an election that so few people seem to care about. Shit, I am a bit of a politics tragic, and I don’t care all that much.

    Anyway, it looks like Labor will lose a few seats in cowboy states and win a few in south east. If they lose a lot in the cowboy states then 54-46 overall means they will win seats elsewhere that perviously were unthinkable.

Comments are closed.

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
%d bloggers like this: