It is hard not to see massive fraud in the Stirton figures yesterday. By his own calculation the Labor vote among the 18-24 year olds could be 39.5 not 32. The Green vote could be 20.42 not 19. The Others might be 5.267 not 5. The Independents 4.3 not 4. This means the Labor vote, two party preferred, among 18-24 year olds, could be, just might be, 62 percent. Among the 25-39 year olds, 47 percent. Among the 40-54 year olds, 51 percent. Among the 55+ year olds, 42 percent.
And these are the figures he is offering from landlines, expensive fixed lines to the home, and young people don’t have any. If you add only 1.5 percent to this to make up for the lousy sampling you get, probably, 52 percent for Labor, two party preferred
Yet the maximum he gives Labor, two party preferred, is 45.6 percent. How can he escape imprisonment?
By the same age variation Gillard gets 53 percent as preferred Prime Minister.
He is cloaking figures that suggest a comfortable Labor win, with a gain of ten seats, under figures that suggest a Coalition landslide.
Why is he not in gaol?
Just asking.
Name:
Questions of guilt, crime and punishment also loom large over the Federal Parliament, with three of its members under investigation concerning fraud allegations. All three protest their innocence, two have stood aside impending investigation, one remains, defiant to the end, “Who do you believe, the Prime Minister or….” Many years ago a President of the United States of America was in a similar position, who should we believe etc? Using the highest office in the Australian Parliament as a form of defence doesn’t wash, in fact it’s rather silly. It’s a bad look, many, many times, history has proven this sort of thing. You think she’d know better. The current Victorian AWU “slush” fund investigation is not about investigating an office, it’s about investigating individuals, and Julia Gillard is apparently one of them. Why doesn’t she do the right thing and join Craig Thomson on the cross benches. As they say, “what’s good for the goose, is good for the gander”. It’s not about office. It’s about something quite different. Is Rudd to be blamed for this too?
WTF, chris hunter? “two have stood aside impending investigation”…? What does this even mean? I guess you think your use of the word “impending” makes you sound legalistic and that it adds some weight to the rest of the nonsense you’ve written. I suggest you find a dictionary.
Better still, you should follow the PM’s advice to press gallery journalists and simply “don’t write crap.”
“Slush fund” was an unfortunate choice of words, it is a common enough expression but sounds shifty to those not familiar with it.
So far as I or I think anyone can make out there is really nothing to see here. Gillard did a very minor piece of legal work for a client she was also gong out with (unwise), setting up a legal body which he later used for crooked ends. Nothing to connect her with those crooked ends.
The reason people bang on about is simply because it reminds people that (a) she roots and (b) she has a union background….and these facts are thought by some to be shocking.
The problem is that its just this sort of nothing shite like Chris’ that takes over the conversation and keeps the real issues, like the economy, off the front page.
Listen here Chris, as long as I’ve got my job, as long as unemployment figures are ok, as long as interest rates are low etc I don’t give a rats arse about Thomson, Slipper et al.
Do you understand that?
If you’re so interested in uncovering mysteries why don’t you help Joe find his missing 70billion. That should keep you busy.
“Sort of nothing shite”? Really. But I do appreciate your point about having a job, that’s important. Interest rates are driven by factors well beyond our shores. Does it concern you that a vast number of Australian workers on casual rates get zero sick leave, are financially forced to attend the workplace sick with the flu or whatever (like bartenders for one) and spread it to everyone else, compromising the nations productivity? Would a politician accept those sort of conditions. Or do they get sick leave? How much does that cost the nation? Is that a real enough issue for you. The Labor party is the workers party isn’t it? Or am I suffering from a romantic illusion?
Fuck off Chris, you said some things that I responded to earlier and now you’re coming at me with this?!?!
Ok , lets do this:
all of those things you mentioned concern me, they concern me a great deal. BUT what concerns me MORe is that each and every one of those points you mentioned are worse under the Liberals. Labor tries to tax the SUPER profits of billionaires and they’re shouted down as ‘class envy’. They try and fix schools/education and are shouted down as ‘wasteful”. They implement a stimulus package that saves the jobs of 100’s of thousands of Australians and are abused by every fucking dickhead with a cornflake packet post doctorate in economics.
As far as your attack on Gillard goes, I don’t buy it for one second. Boofy caught you out in the absurdity of your original claim. There’s not too much more any of us can add really.
And don’t try that kindergarten argument Labor is the workers party on me bullshit either. You think you can beat me with my own stick?!?!?!
Fuck you.
Go and chew on Twiggy’s dick - the Liberal Party is for grovelling and sycophancy isn’t it? Or am I suffering from a short sharp shock of reality?
Twiggy? Gillard watered down the original mining tax deal and let the miners off the hook. Just so she could be PM. Nice one Julia. But she had to topple Kevin because his opinion polls were real bad (52%). What are you sucking? The liberals?
Watered down or not (gee i wish it wasnt, but there you go) its STILL a piece of LEGISLATION that will put some money into the pockets of your kids. Or do you think that Gina or Clive need it more?
Do we really have to go back into ancient history about gillard vs Rudd?? I mean is it REALLY going to help the Liberals sneak through on their policy free zone??
Ummm, yes, I guess it will. I guess it has.
Listen here Chris, are we going to discuss your initial point or are we going to skip onto something new? Or are you going to try and address your hypocrisy as succinctly noted by Boofy below?
I mean address it without the distracting and irrelevant joke response you’ve already given?
You mean my grandkids,I was around well before TV, Judd. Abbott’s greatest fear is Rudd. Gillard is an hysterical lightweightworking for the Liberals, and herself.
Not the polls at all, but his leadership style and content.
How, who, when, where, why?
We’ve been over this hundreds of times.
@DQ, all without anything but hum hah. That the problem.
Who broke into Rudd’s office? When you’re that desperate to smear someone you’ve got a major credibility problem. Dwell,on it.
Ok, who? An autograph hunter? A druggie thinking to raid petty cash? CIA? KGB? Mossad?
You miss the point entirely. There is an investigation still going on, the PM may indeed be cleared of any wrong doing, that judgement is not ours to call. We will have to wait and see. But to use your high office as a form of defence is nonsense. Are we not all equal under the law, regardless of position held? I’m not interested in the PM’s sex life, or anyones for that matter, you degrade yourself when you talk like that.
That may well be one point but here’s another: I think you’re lying and are full of shit - the Liberals are NOT using the wait and see approach, what they’re doing is using it as an argument, using it a reason for the PM’s unsuitability for office and I’ve got no problem whatsoever if she “uses” her office to defend against UNPROVEN slur and slander like YOUR very own judgmental line “Why doesn’t she do the right thing and join Craig Thomson on the cross benches”!!!
Hypocrite anyone?
This is just another in a long tired line of pitiful tactics to deflect from real policy questions. You know why Chris? It’s because you blokes got nothing where it really counts, nothing on policy, nothing on reform.
As far as I am aware the PM is not in the slightest “under investigation” for anything. The Victorian inquiry centres on Kathy Jackson and the Health Services Union, and rightly so. Even Thomson was long out of office when Jackson and her cronies got their hooks into the union finances.
investigate, v. To observe or inquire into detail; examine systematically.
Are you saying DQ that Julia Gillard is not a person of interest in the whole AWU affair? Ralph Blewitt may be this, he may be that, but Julia Gillard had no right to use her office to crunch him, was she the PM back then? I repeat, ad nauseum, we are equal under law, titles have got nothing to do with it. THAT IS MY POINT.
“Are you saying DQ that Julia Gillard is not a person of interest in the whole AWU affair?”
Yes that is precisely what I am saying.
You may or may not be disingenuous when you fail to understand that “under investigation” and “person of interest” have special and particular meanings.
Gillard is not under investigation, be she PM or Abbott’s next job, dogcatcher.
Chris, Tony Abbott has a court case pending. Should he step aside? (hopefully)
He should just step aside anyway.
Stfu Chris, you’re talking shite!
Absolute “impending” nonsense.
LIAR. and a nincompoop, talking about issues you clearly have not the faintest understanding of
“under investigation concerning fraud allegations. . . . Many years ago a President of the United States of America was in a similar position”
this is nonsense. There is no investigation, what does ‘in a similar position’ mean? which president? Nixon?!!! he was the only one under investigation for anything that was not a load of bullshit made up by the right. And to bring up Nixon about even the issue that is not being investigated in Gillard’s case is not even a sick joke, it is Jones-ish
I can’t understand why you and DQ don’t get what I’m saying. Julia Gillard was widely reported as saying we either believe her, the Prime Minister, or Blewitt, a no good nobody. She made that comparison, actually in words a bit harsher than that. I presume her premise being, well I’m the Prime Minister, so I must be more believable. Is that so hard DQ and JSA? I also understand, from recently reading about it, the AWU affair is still being looked into, it’s not done and dusted. Am I wrong? By your logic, anything a leader utters must be gospel, more believable, because they are leaders ie, Gillard’s logic. If Abbott becomes leader are you going to believe everything he says because he is the leader? You guys need a serious reality check.
Well, what do you expect her to say? That Blewitt has any credibility at all?
Whether he does or not is for others to judge, but if she is asked a direct question . . .
Do you understand, chris hunter?
purely idiotic to base anything on a throwaway line during a phoney opposition attack, really, are you just nuts?
comparing that to the US impeachment process of either Nixon or Clinton, is also just vile mudslinging, guilt by absurdly-stretched association (or childish point-making about some vague constitiutional idea which has nothing to do with a political slanging match)
Throwaway lines when you have the immunity of the house. And when Julia Gillard stated what she did about Mr Blewitt she implied that it was what ‘other’ people had said about him. Wasn’t he a regular sidekick of her partner during that “slush fund” period, couldn’t she make her ‘own’ judgements about Mr Blewitt, considering how horrendous and disgusting he was supposed to be? Perhaps he was a good bloke back then? Fair suck of the prawn.
I wasn’t comparing anything other than when a leader’s credibility is under attack we shouldn’t just assume their innocence merely because they are leaders. Without the tapes to prove otherwise Nixon would have been ‘innocent’. Without the DNA, Clinton likewise. The PM may be right, Blewitt is fabricating the whole thing, he’s not credible. But it’s one persons word against another, that’s all. I’m not a judge, I don’t know the truth, do you? History tells me to be prudent and not just assume that Blewitt is a fabricator, despite Gillard’s nasty, condemning ‘protected’ tirade.
bullshit; now she is just a coward - no ‘nasty’ too !!- not a Nixon-like destroyer of the constitution
Give up, you have been shot down in flames
Red Baron, she is a very nice lady indeed, a motherly figure, loving, fair to all, Interesting bunch of talent on that back bench.
A poll of 1400 australians - give me a fuck king break!
and the MRM go off like obedient jack rabbits.
MRM = murdoch ruled media
Thank you, Dali, for explaining what MRM means. Now what’s ‘a fuck king’? Elvis?
I read somewhere that Mussolini wanted to curb or rather eradicate swearing by putting posters and signs on public transport exhorting Italians : Non bestemmiare per l’honore d’Italia. It had zero effect.
Those of a fascist turn of mind usually try the same trick from time to time. It’s in their nature to try to control everything they can.
The BACWA is a true fascist attribute.
That reminds me of something I saw on that show with the magicians Penn and Teller with a swear word in the title. They interviewed a woman against swearing. She distributed plastic anti-swearing signs to shops. One shopkeeper reacted to them by swearing!
“Bullshit!” Is what it was called. Penn Jillette is truly wonderful.
fuck king
Elvis? Naah. Costello?? Naah. Peter Naah.
Only person who could possibly be a contender is the lucky guy who could last the whole night with Anna Magnani.
I came across an urban legend that links the two words: it claims that couples that were having children were required to first obtain royal permission (usually from a local magistrate or lord) and then place a sign somewhere visible from the road in their home that said “Fornicating Under Consent of King”, which was later shortened to “FUCK.”
I wanted to add an appendix:
they sometimes added “Condoms Used Next Time” which was also later shortened.
Police State tactics being used all over the place by LNP should scare the shit out of Australians and I think despite it all it does.
Australians realise in their democracy is under threat by a security establishment lusting for total control.
In Abbott they wonder…if he is prepared to trample over every fair thing to gain power…what might he do to retain it?
Tampa was a made for television event largely produced in an office overlooking the Harbour Bridge and Nuetral Bay. It won at both ends…Howard was returned and Norway got its first hard right goverment in decades.
Tampa and various similitudes of it will be our fare.
yes, the first PM whose eyes spin in opposite directions at a time of terrorism hysteria and secret police straining at the leash to protect us from ourselves is not a good mix
Bob Ellis: “And these are the figures he is offering from landlines, expensive fixed lines to the home, and young people don’t have any.”
Not according to the ACMA figures.
18-24 66%
25-34 72%
35-44 88%
These groups like most these days may have a mobile but use a fixed
line also.
Of the 18-24′s that live away from the family home only 14% dont have access to a fixed line at their place of domicile.
So .. two thirds of those under 25 have a landline and a mobile. How often are they near the landline? Eight hours a day? After midnight, is it, and before breakfast? What percentage of them have made, or taken, a landline call in the last month? Two percent, is it? Three? How many have done a phone poll? One percent, is it? Half a percent? What percentage of students have done a phone poll? One tenth of one percent, is it? Or less?
What are you talking about?
Don’t you realise a poll that doesn’t get to four million people is invalid?
Don’t get it, do you.
Yes I do get it, I just wish for the sake of accuracy the dogma of no body of a certain age having a landline or engaging in something that takes them from it could take a rest.
The scenarios you pose apply regardless.
Look at it also the other way;People with landlines,how many have done a phone poll? One percent, is it? Half a percent? What percentage have done a phone poll? One tenth of one percent, is it? Or less? Or were they out?
Have you ever done a landline poll?
I haven’t.
If a poll doesn’t get to four million people it’s invalid then are you saying all of those polls are tosh?
OK then.
I am not disputing your figures above. I had a bit of a google on ACMA and landlines.
Two points. They are also saying that increasingly, particularily the younger generation are switching to mobiles and alternative technologies.
Also, they say that many people have landline for internet usage, meaning many may have a landline but not necessarily a handset that can be phoned. Many use landlines for alternative communication techniques, Viop, skype, email, etc.
I could not find figures for these sorts of breakdowns of landline usage.
Also the pdf’s that google delivered were dated 2011. Are your figures more recent?
Without a doubt usage of other technologies is on the increase.
Some of the measurements indicate several methods of communications as you point out.
It’s possible to drag figures from all over the place.
I envisage jsa, the bit between his teeth straining at the reins researching the VOIP service in suburban Moldova as we speak.
But that’s not the point I’m trying to get across, I’m not in a competition trying to win some pointless contest.
In fact it’s waste of energy in my view.
The only thing I’m interested in winning is seeing the party retaining government.
strange difference to US
“The number of U.S. adults with a mobile phone but no landline rose to 34% in the first half of 2012.”
http://bgr.com/2013/01/02/us-landline-usage-study-2012-279607/
will investigate further
Just as well we aren’t there isn’t it.
Chris’s figures definitely underestimate landline-only people - I’d say maybe 30pc of under 30s have no landline phone.
This fits with what is happening in the US
“Younger people are leading the way to a cell-only world. More than a third of people under age 35 - including about half of those age 25 to 29 - have only cell phones.”
One commentator said about the US situation
“These numbers may explain why some of the pollsters using landline-only calls in the last election ran off the rails so spectacularly. So many Americans can no longer be reached via a landline phone that polling methods simply must be adjusted.”
Current figures are not easily available for landline only use by googling, but here is what I found:
the latest ACMA survey, June 2012 says 20pc of Australians had no landline
(other reports in US or show 7pc of landlines are not used for phones)
in April 2011 ACMA survey of the mobile-only people, 65pc were 34 or younger. (That is, 65pc of all mobile-only were young, not 65pc of young were mobile-only)
(These figures are rapidly changing, so will now be more landline only: e.g. In the US mobile-only soared from 10c in 2006 to 34c in the first half of 2012)
http://www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/Library/researchacma/Digital-society-research/communications-report-201112-library-landing-page
http://engage.acma.gov.au/one-in-five-australians-go-mobile-only/
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-205_162-6476743.html
http://bgr.com/2013/01/02/us-landline-usage-study-2012-279607/
Yes well my figures as you realise came from the ACMA as well.
As I said above scoring points on trivia isn’t really my bag, but there is the one point when you write ‘I’d say’ when on the thumbnail that comes up on your ACMA link says 16%, well which part of your anatomy did that come from?
this is an important issue, above personalities, even for you
16pc is NOT the figure for landline-only among the young; try 46pc would be closer
one would think that this issue has been well-considered, but bigger things have been overlooked, as seems to have happened with some US polls; and our polling is not as intense or multifarious as the US, by a long shot
The telephone system in the USA might draw your attention one day.
You may think its important, I don’t see the relevance to the election.
46%? Yeah right.
relevance is to the polls, which are driving the image of the govt as losers
young people massively deserting landlines is not due to the phone system - use your bloody eyes next time you walk down the street
You silly, silly man.
Whether you or I think it’s right or not mobiles do not get rung for polls
This we know.
All the whinging and squealing in the world ain’t going to change that in the run up to September.
And your imagination needs a 30,000k service with the massively claim.
Chris’s figures definitely underestimate landline-only people – I’d say maybe 30pc of under 30s have no landline phone.
This fits with what is happening in the US
“Younger people are leading the way to a cell-only world. More than a third of people under age 35 – including about half of those age 25 to 29 – have only cell phones.”
One commentator said about the US situation
“These numbers may explain why some of the pollsters using landline-only calls in the last election ran off the rails so spectacularly. So many Americans can no longer be reached via a landline phone that polling methods simply must be adjusted.”
Current figures are not easily available for landline only use by googling, but here is what I found:
the latest ACMA survey, June 2012 says 20pc of Australians had no landline
(other reports in US or show 7pc of landlines are not used for phones)
in April 2011 ACMA survey of the mobile-only people, 65pc were 34 or younger. (That is, 65pc of all mobile-only were young, not 65pc of young were mobile-only)
I’ve omitted the ACMA Communications Report 2011-12 links because of the site’s rules
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-205_162-6476743.html
sorry for double post, tricked by the Ellis site’s efficiency!
Public perception is interesting.
Not sure of the demographics or the numbers surveyed or if Readers digest has much of a following these days, but here’s an interesting list of Australia’s most trusted people.
Take particular note of 90-100.
http://www.readersdigest.com.au/australias-most-trusted-people-2013
What a weird list, it’s mainly celebreties, actors and singers…says a lot about Australians, at least about the ones that read Readers Digest.
Not many politicians, two from Labor, one Liberal and one National….
Seeing Twiggy there made me chuckle… No writers, scientists, no artists.
Kyle and Gina too, WOW!
people who read the Digest are almost certainly representative of a very weird subset of people. Myself, I always feel slightly disoriented after glancing at a few pages - a strange effect