PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   War in Australia (any Oz Politics): the Original (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/477678-war-australia-any-oz-politics-original.html)

Worrals in the wilds 4th Jan 2013 14:04

The real world?
When the run's on, the run's on.
Howard learned that.
Is the run on?
I reckon.
Prove me wrong come October and I'll send you a cyberspace drink. I'm no expert but I was dead on the money with the Qld election, despite various posters telling me otherwise prior to the day. They were all really busy on election night and couldn't find the time to post, so I drank their cyberspace drink. :}

The dole debate has shown how far removed these guys are from reality; the comment in itself was stupid, but the follow-up was even stupider. When a left wing ALP federal government alienates even lefties then there's a problem. This is not an ALP government that wins over covert right wingers (eg Keating and Co). This is not a right wing government that wins over left wingers (eg Howard and Co, pre Work Choices). This is a left wing ALP Government that has alienated a big chunk of their core voters with both the dole comments and ref management. IMO they've done that without winning over comparative numbers from The Other Side. Therefore, they've lost numbers; the numbers that would usually vote for them. As Richo (I think?) said; it's all about the numbers.

Not the economy numbers, either. Both sides have bandied them around too often for them to be worthy of respect. It's a bit like the adverts for $250 facials; 'Our studies show' :uhoh:. If there's one thing the hoi polloi have learned in the last fifty years, it's that studies and figures aren't to be trusted. They're just weapons in the PR debate. If there's a modern way to lose an argument, I reckon it's by quoting a survey.

As a former Qld ALP minister once said; 'our people never tell us when they vote against us. They just do it and don't tell us about it'.:suspect:

Strewth! I don't know how you can Politic in such conditions. If records are broken, Don't be surprised if the Global Weirding debate kicks off again. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...ilies/cool.gif
Yank, but he gets it...

sisemen 4th Jan 2013 14:50

Try real numbers next time sisemen rather than quoting hoax chain email dating back to 2007
Yep BG. You got me there fair and square. I was quoting from a 'round robin' email. I should have been more diligent to enable me to counter the administrative back up of Sussex St.

The thing is though the email that I quoted from was from a truly truly died in the wool ALP supporter. It surprised me when I got it. In fact I had had a previous run in with him when I had sent an email critical of Dullard and he had taken exception to it. And then this! Shock, horror. A total fan of the ALP and its workings sending me an email that critical of the "world's best treasurer" and Dullard. What was I to make of it?

Well, I am sure that your colleagues in Sussex St will all gather around the conference room on Monday morning and pat each other on the back and take comfort from the Victorian newspoll.

Sleep well. It's not going to be pretty come the election. And guess what? You guys are going to have to come up with some other spin lines to push out to a compliant media. Spin lines that we have already come up with in PPRuNe so maybe you're going to have to come up with something more original.

Andu 4th Jan 2013 21:17

Jools on AM this morning wearing her deep and meaningful voice as she pontificated about the Tassie bushfires.

The cynic in me sees McTurdan at a strategy meeting telling her that with a bit of luck and help from the ever-compliant and always co-operative mainstream media, she could turn these fires into her own Barack Obama New York pre-election hurricane.

...but that would be horribly cynical of me.

Back to the bushfires: what's the bet we're about to hear that the Greenies have forbidden burn backs and the clearing of fire trails around the worst affected areas? (Sorry, having a bad attack of the cynicals this morning.)

Buster Hyman 4th Jan 2013 23:12

This is a left wing ALP Government that has alienated a big chunk of their core voters with both the dole comments and ref management.

I've said this many a time. In their effort to cling to power & deal with the Watermelons, they have abamdoned the core principles of the ALP. This is what's going to hurt them, even though their character assassination of Abbott has been effective, they will discover it was for nought as their traditional support dries up.

Unfortunately, their supporters on here won't debate that (although, in fairness, I think Fleigs is indicating something along these lines) but trot out the tired old blah blah Abbott blah blah Workchoices blah blah...

Oh well...


Clare Prop 5th Jan 2013 00:44

A close friend of mine, who has been a union official all her life until getting shafted by them last year when she became ill; and who has brought up a daughter single handed after being widowed very young, has just given Gillard (whom she knows personally) a huge spray on her fb page. And a lot of her FORMERLY rusted on mates have agreed with her. This friend always had a good income with the union and her parents helped her after she lost her husband, but feels strongly that parents should be able to spend time with thier kids, not out at work desperately trying to put food on the table, or we could just end up with fuller juvenile prisons and long term social problems.

Trust me if these guys are spitting chips about JG plenty of others will be. They seem to be realising at last that the party they have supported all thier lives no longer exists and has been hijacked by the crooked lawyers, Emilys List, Fabians and spin doctors. Or maybe it is just becoming more obvious that there really isn't a single decent Labor MP left among the whole rotten lot of the lot of them. Trouble is they really feel there is no alternative.

criticalmass 5th Jan 2013 01:12

We all want to assume Labor will be kicked out at the forthcoming federal election some time towards the end of this year, but remember "whatever it takes" is the Labor mantra, even if it included rigging the election.

As an exercise, it would be interesting for the Australian Electoral Commission to undertake the following "audit".

1. Send investigators into every cemetery within five miles radius of every marginal Labor electorate.

2. Get them to record the name, date of birth and date of death of every legible headstone.

3. From the register of births, deaths and marriages, check the last address recorded for those names garnered from the headstones.

4. Check the names and last known addresses of the death-register entries against the electoral rolls and see how many match up.

5. Conduct spot-checks on those electors enrolled whose names match those from the headstones. Go to their recorded residences and verify their existence as living human beings.

6. Remove from the rolls all those whose physical existence as living human beings cannot be verified.

I wouldn't mind betting that quite a few thousand electors would be expunged from the rolls if this was done, but I fear the AEC has not the resources, nor the funding, to do it in the time left.

In my opinion, Labor will try to rig the forthcoming election. The only question is how they will try to do it, and whether they succeed or not.

Worrals in the wilds 5th Jan 2013 03:41

Trouble is they really feel there is no alternative.
A lot of supporters say that in public but vote differently in private. Then they'll join in with the public wailing and gnashing of teeth when the party gets hosed out of office, joining the indignant chorus of 'oh, how could people have voted for those dreadful tory spivs' when in actual fact they (and many others wailing along beside them) did exactly that. :E

If everyone in Queensland who claimed to vote Labor actually had voted Labor then they probably would have gotten back in. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...lies/cwm13.gifhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...s/badteeth.gif

As far as Queensland goes, IMO this is because by and large, the Party does not welcome internal criticism. The leaders became increasingly autocratic and siloed, and the last people they wanted to hear from were a bunch of members and supporters telling them why they sucked. The word around the campfire is that towards the end the leader wasn't even listening to senior Ministers. :ouch:

It was far more comforting to listen to the noddies and foot soldiers telling them how awesome they were doing and how the people loved them; right up until the day they lost all but seven seats and retained less than 27% of the primary vote. :uhoh:

I imagine that Canberra is very similar, if not worse.

Andu 5th Jan 2013 05:52

Worthwhile taking a look at:

Where's Judge Judy when we need her? - Michael Smith News

In short, $92,000 overpaid in single parent allowances, but because of "cultural issues", (despite the female involved being Australian-born[!]), the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of Australia has decreed that the taxpayer will not attempt to recover those funds.

90.An important plank of the Respondent’s case against the Applicant was that her evidence cannot be believed. In challenging her credibility, the Respondent pointed to a number of occasions when, it argued, the Applicant had lied for gain.

33. The social worker said that the community of which the Applicant’s family is a part is largely uneducated and highly dependent on Centrelink. She said they remain unintegrated with the wider Australian community. She said she knows many of the Applicant’s wider family and that the harsh views held by her immediate family are commonly held throughout the wider family.
(As stated above, the woman was born in Australia.)

We're being taken for suckers, and, I suspect, on a grand scale.

probes 5th Jan 2013 06:53

slightly off-topic - the news this morning claimed most Australians have rushed to the beaches to escape the heat-wave :sad:... and I'm gonna try to drive to my Father's through the white around-zero sh*t (if you pardon my language) that is supposed to be snow at this time of the year... why is there no balance in the world? :E

Worrals in the wilds 5th Jan 2013 07:40

Some of them didn't rush out, either :sad:. There is still one missing at Broadbeach due to big surfs. Drive safely, anyway. :)
Thoughts for the Tassies, too :sad::sad:. At least there haven't been any fatalities but it still looks pretty terrible down there.

Tasmanian bushfire damage grows

Croozin 5th Jan 2013 21:50

It's not just here on Jet Blast that people are expressing concern about how the next election might be rigged. This, from the Piers Ackerman site:

Back in the Hawke-Keating era, a decision was made to alter the electoral laws to allow voters to front up to any polling station within their electorate. Previously, voters were required to attend just one polling station, governed by their proximity to their residential address.

Hawke reputedly boasted to his colleages at the time that this change would perpetuate Labor in power for generations. We are all familiar with Labor’s “Vote Early and Often” credo.

Let’s say that there are 40 polling stations in your electorate. You could, in theory and in practice turn up at each one of the 40 and have your name crossed off the roll to vote.

Get 10 people doing this and you would have 400 votes for Labor instead of the ten they are entitled to.

Have 100 people turn up to vote at each polling booth and, well, you get the picture.

Apparently there is no action taken against those who vote multiple times, not even a slap on the wrist. The multiple voter simply denies that it was them, and with no ID demanded, who is to argue?

Labor supporters routinely trawl the births, deaths and marriages columns and vote in the names of the recently dead.

Why is it in this day and age that we in Australia still rely on the Honour System in relation to voting?

Why do the voting scrutineers require no form of ID, when these days you have to produce your ID for even the most trivial transactions?

Why is there no electronic cross-checking between booths that ensures a voter gets one vote and then is crossed off from voting again at a different polling booth?

Make no mistake, Labor and its union backers are going to use every dirty trick in the book, including electoral fraud, to retain office at this year’s election.

And it seems that there is nothing at all that we can do about it.

Jim of Sydney (Reply)
Sun 06 Jan 13 (07:07am)

Buster Hyman 5th Jan 2013 23:56

Apparently there is no action taken against those who vote multiple times, not even a slap on the wrist.
I can personally vouch that the above is not true.

I share the exact same name with my Dad & when we lived in the same house, we often got letters/fines from the AEC saying that one of us voted twice, and the other didn't vote at all. From then on, whenever we voted, he always made sure they crossed off the first name, and I always got the second name crossed off.

Oh, the other thing I can't get my head around is the amount of votes they would end up with. In an oversimplified example, lets say there's 100 registered voters & 10 booths. One guy votes at all 10 booths then, assuming everyone else voted correctly, there'd be 109 votes counted. Surely there's checks & balances against the amount of registered voters in any given electorate?

RJM 6th Jan 2013 00:13

Even if they spot a duplication, say by comparing the crossed off electoral rolls from each booth in the electorate, or by finding an 'out of electorate' vote claimed in the same name, how do they know how the person voted?

In other words, how do they know which party's vote to reduce?

Andu 6th Jan 2013 01:28

Didn't one of the 6.30 misnamed "current affairs" shows (ACA?/TDT?) have some clown on a few months ago who boasted that in the 2010 election, he'd voted for the Greens 150 times? If that was true, I can't believe the AEC wouldn't have picked it up and asked him to explain, if not during the checks they assure us the do immediately after each election, then after he'd gone public on TV.

Did anyone else join me in choking (and hitting the mute button) when the atonal droner from Altona came on the ABC's 'Grandstand' show during the cricket yesterday? I couldn't bear to listen, but I understand from later reports that she promised to give hundreds of thousands of borrowed money to breast cancer research.

The pre-election pork barrelling would appear to have begun.

Worrals in the wilds 6th Jan 2013 02:54

If that was true, I can't believe the AEC wouldn't have picked it up and asked him to explain, if not during the checks they assure us the do immediately after each election, then after he'd gone public on TV.
Yeah, true. I wonder if anything happened over that? :confused:

The pre-election pork barrelling would appear to have begun.
They could have used some of the pork to raise what the PM admits is an 'incredibly tough' Newstart allowance instead. Might save a few votes from the leftie heartland, too.

Watching a leftie ALP government (that's already looking lacklustre in the polls) kick single parents and the unemployed is like watching a Coalition government give the miners a slagging (pun intended :}); OMG WTF?

Andu 6th Jan 2013 04:29

Back in the Hawke-Keating era, a decision was made to alter the electoral laws to allow voters to front up to any polling station within their electorate. Previously, voters were required to attend just one polling station, governed by their proximity to their residential address.
I didn't know that, or that Hawke had been so blatant about why he made the change. Surely, with all the misgivings I've seen about voting fraud on a number of sites like this one, it would be easy to re-introduce the requirement for each voter to vote at a particular polling station?

Dare I say "of course", the current government isn't likely to bring about any such change, but maybe the Libs should do so? That's if they can get in.

Worrals in the wilds 6th Jan 2013 06:59

The Libs got in between 1996 and 2007 with large majorities in four elections. While it's always important to guard against electoral rorts I think (with respect) that people are getting a little over-excited. What it does demonstrate is the community percieves that the current federal government are completely untrustworthy.

The same things were said in the last state election here for the same reason (ie the perception that the government would do anything to stay in power); the results are history. In any case, the National Party's rampant gerrymandering in Queensland (which the ALP have also been good at) shows that tweaking electorate boundaries is not exclusively a Labor Party tactic by any means, and it's far more effective than drumming up a few dead voters. To drum up significant numbers would require an awful lot of people working together in a major electoral fraud; all from a party that's currently flat out getting people to turn up to branch meetings or hand out how to vote cards. :hmm:
Legislative Assembly of Queensland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

IIRC each federal electorate has about 90,000 voters. Even if some little scuzzbag did vote 150 times in one electorate, unless it's a knife edge seat it's not going to affect the outcome. It'll make the Greens look better because they're a small party, but it pales into insignificance against the other 89,999 votes. That's not to say what he did was right for a second (Did he get prosecuted? He should have been) but there aren't all that many knife edge seats, particularly in a federal election.

And IMO, particularly in the next one. :}

Croozin 6th Jan 2013 08:48

Weren't three or four electorates decided upon in the 2010 election by fewer than 200 votes? (Sorry, can't quote the particular electorates, but was Adam Brant's Melbourne electorate one of them?)

However, the main point is, as you so correctly state, Worrals:

What it does demonstrate is the community perceives that the current federal government are completely untrustworthy.

Worrals in the wilds 6th Jan 2013 09:00

You could well be right. If any election was throwable it was the 2010 effort.

However, to rig an election you'd have to know exactly which three electorates were going to be at a knife edge prior to polling day. The only alternative would be to have 150 stooges or dead people in all 150 electorates (or at least the unsafe seats) ready to go. You would also have to count on the vote being reasonably close, as it was at the 2010 election. To throw an election against a landslide would be far more difficult.

If you could organize that it would probably be easier to convince 150 people per electorate to legitimately vote for you in the first place. The ALP had a 2.5% swing against it at the last federal election and lost seven seats; that was before all the recent debacles when a lot of people (myself included) thought Gillard would be a great PM, even though the thought of depending on the Greens was a bit concerning.
Three years is a long time in politics.

Croozin 6th Jan 2013 09:27

Worrals, I've heard on the ABC that the Labor Pardee (and Liberal Party too, I'm sure) strategists have marginal seats so tightly under scrutiny that they know which streets in those marginal seats to target with their teams, so I think your argument might not hold water.

AS the election approaches, look at any TV network or newspaper and you'll see the percentage swing required in each electorate, updated daily if not multiple times a day (especially as the election approaches), so really, they'd only need to concentrate on a half dozen really marginal (or predicted by the latest poll to be marginal) seats and Bob (Brown?)'s your uncle.

As you said, it all boils down to the utter distrust we have in this sorry excuse for a government.

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:21.

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.