Sky News is broadcasting four “Voters Verdict” programs each night until Friday at 9.30pm EST. These feature American blow-in Frank Luntz and a 24-member focus group divided evenly between Labor-leaning and Coalition-leaning undecided voters. These voters will participate in “instant audience response dial sessions” that will measure their reactions to statements made by the two leaders. As you may have guessed, the instant audience response dial procedure is better known in this part of the world as “the worm”. Luntz was in the news yesterday after describing the Prime Minister as “a world leader for invective”, which suggests he is taking his time to acclimatise to Australia’s political culture. A preview program which aired last night can be viewed at The Australian site.
Richard Jones
Froth mate. I’m sorry but no substance. If there is “no question” about FFP being to the right of the Libs, why did they vote against work choices, against offshore detention of refugees and favour Australian corporate ownership and protection of local jobs?
You are on your own here, mate.
Your reasoning here:
“Well Generic Oracle if you are a devout Christian and fundamentally anti-gay and anti-green and believe the world was created 6000 years ago and that you will be saved and no one else will, then by all means vote FFP. It’s interesting how one needs to be tolerant of those who are intolerant, as a moderate Christian would.”
Is also breathtaking. In one snapshot you have both stereotyped a blogger on a website you hardly know and have revealed your very real prejudice. If by “anti-green” you mean “against those who advocate the environment” then, Richard, you would be wrong. I am a solar fanatic (as Lomandra well knows), a worm farmer, a passionate tree planter and currently developing sustainable development and encouraging green roof development.
If you mean “anti-gay” then you will have to speak to my gay friends and see what they think.
The strident ridicule that you heap on people’s belief systems about origins and theology are also pretty well correlated with fundamentalism. I don’t know if many here could argue why secular fundamentalism is better than religious fundamentalism? There seems to me, to be the same narrow-mindedness and tendency towards emotive, often violent action to defend it.
You make a big assumption about my beliefs and I don’t discuss them. This is a political website, as I often point out. I discuss all parties here in a political light. At the moment there are elements of the ALP, LIBS and FFP that I like, I am and always have been a swinging voter.
What disturbs me here is that you are expected to be monochromatic and those loyal to parties will not entertain any criticism of their people or parties. Or more commonly from me, praise. I respect John Howard, Kevin Rudd, Steven Fielding and even Bob Brown, all for different reasons and I enjoy psephology. Your posts didn’t add much to this discussion, I’m afraid, and I’m not sure this response does either (apologies folks!)
Hugo
#385
One of the most balanced posts I have read in a long time, thanks and I agree with you! 🙂
Jasmine
Nice to hear from you and, yes, I believe he did and sorry that we ever doubted that you were God..;) BTW can I get a bit more rain over here! LOL
Jen
“Stephen Fielding has done little to support families in australia – his greatest contribition has been to lobby to get preachers into secular schools.”
Sorry mate. Dead wrong sorry. Firstly, the chaplaincy program (if that’s what you are referring to) was a Howard initiative. Oh, and don’t for a minute suggest that Fielding bent JWH’s ear. Steve Fielding couldn’t even squeeze out a commitment to honour a previous agreement to provide family impact statements, let alone this.
Secondly, Steven Fielding’s recent private member’s bills include
a)amendments to protect meal breaks, penalty rates, public holidays and redundancy payments
b) Predatory pricing bill
c) Fuel pricing bill
d) Bank fee bill
Jen, last time I looked, each one of these has a significant impact to families, particularly those most disadvantaged in our poorest communities.
Two questions:
1. What part of these is NOT family friendly??
2. Name four bills from ANY other party that has come near this in terms of “family friendliness”.
I was “all ears” to find out about FFP and now I am “all ears” to see you defend this claim. This is a political website and these are amendments to current legislation currently under senate consideration. If this is not leading the way for families, pray tell, what is??
Um, anyone, doesn’t the results of the Lowey Institute’s poll provide some meat to the bones of why the mainstream polls are showing the sustained shift to the ALP? And would people start considering that there are many different forms of what constitutes “family” apart from what seems to be the common assumption going on in the debate above? The breeding/ currently raising children form is a subsection of the range available, yes, important, but as one who has major responsibility for a mother in law with dementia, for all sorts of reasons, it’s not the only configuration to which we need to pay attention as a society
Monica
My post mentioned nothing about children. Why assume it?
You mean to tell me that looking after a mother-in-law with dementia you couldn’t use:
1. Security in provisions in the workplace
2. Cheaper groceries
3. Cheaper fuel
4. Lower fees from banks
In what way are these bills NOT useful to you in your situation?? To be frank, as well, there is this myth that the ALP “looks after the disadvantaged”. To be honest, I can’t see it at present. What raft of recent provisions of the ALP has been anything but a copy of the Libs on social justice??? They were also largely silent on refugee detention, are happy to go along with the Libs on pulp mills and are committed to maintaining the current Lib spending at the expense of tax cuts, if elected!
The argument that FFP policies would not benefit anyone without kids is just unfounded, it really is. Why do you think Fielding’s soapboxes have trickled into the mainstream media, except that they are exactly that.. mainstream. We could ALL use a sensible break from these financial hits… well, except all those here who might happen to be independently wealthy! (Sorry Malcolm if you are on tonight!!)
Generic
thanks for that illuminating and measured response. Richard Jones, your posts at #382 and #386 are little more than rants. I expect that kind of thing from Cerdic or nostro, but your posts are usually informed and knowledgeable. Were you p*ssed or something? Mate, it was basically just a spray.
I find FFP to be a mixed bag, and very difficult to classify by conventional left-right, libertarian-authoritarian measures.
I still don’t particularly like them. But I don’t condemn them out of hand either.
BROWN BELCHINGS
As is my want, I read in the Courier Mail (Brisvegas) the Greens are doing the usual ‘open ticket’ threats to Labor and Labor is resisting a public allignment with them, but to keep a promise to Bill, the would be member for Kingston who frequents this site, I will not speak the name that must not be spoken (FF) and preference deals in the same sentence.
Ollie had a looksie at the Greens vote in Coalition marginals (0.1-5.0 2PP) at the 2004 Federal election.
Where the Greens share of the primary vote was 5% or better, the flow of Green 2PP preferences to Labor was between 70-88%, with the majority of them flowing 75% or bettter to Labor. {Kalgoorlie was the exception with 64%}.
The seats I am talking about include the one’s mentioned by Bob Brown in his ‘open ticket’ threat media blurb. These are Bennelong, Dobell, Eden Monara, Macquarie, Wentworth,Deakin, Bonner, Moreton,Kingston, Hasluck, Stirling, Bass, Braddon and Solomon.
Mathematically speaking, Labor could be wise in assuming it likely that at least 70% of Green 2PP preference flows in these critical Coalition seats will go to Labor…so they can afford to not deal with the Greens and perhaps be open to deal with…with….yeah that mob I cant mention without setting poor ole Bill Weller into a spin. I know who I would be ‘playing footsies’ with Mr Brown, with no disrespect, if I was aiming at winning this election.
I appreciate yet another opportunity to discuss Family First. Having spent time talking to Family First people while handing out ALP HTVs in both the last federal and the last Victorian election, I found them just like everybody else – no nastiness at all. In fact, nastiness at polling booths is exceedingly rare.
All parties have supporters who demonise other parties. Some of it is totally illogical. It is the nature of the game. Family First copes it a lot, even from ALP members, some of whom see the Greens as natural allies rather than the rivals that they are.
30 years ago, the DLP was attacked as extremist. Yet it was a mainstream democratic party, many of whose policies have now been put into effect by the ALP. It was a left-of-centre social democratic party, labeled right-wing purely because it was anti-communist – and we know who won that battle of history.
Steve Fielding voted against Workâ€Choicesâ€, one of the foulest pieces of legislation to go through the Australian Parliament, while the Democrats voted for the first major attack on working people, the Workplace Relations Act. In this case, Family First is to the left of the Democrats, but both Family First and the Democrats are, on the broader spectrum, centre-right parties, with Family First further to the right than the Democrats.
Family First is improperly categorised because the politically interested know about the Religious Right in the USA and automatically assign the same label to Family First because it is based on Christianity, but the Religious Right in the US is just a machine for transferring the votes of the poor and the middle classes to the Republican Party so the wealthy can pay less tax. Family First comes out of Australian culture, and is an entirely different sort of beast.
I think we’ve all forgotten the topic of this thread.
Generic Oracle,
Your posts, with their clear factual basis, are always a pleasure to read
Chris
As always, too kind, and I defer the same respect to your posts!
I also agree that this thread is way off topic and am happy for a shift (of threads or topics) !
I have also appreciated your insights into the DLP recently, it has filled in some historical gaps for me!
Generic Oracle,
Five books with interesting information on the DLP are Robert Murray’s The Split, Ross Fitzgerald’s The Pope’s Battalions, Brian Costar et al’s The Great Labor Schism, somebody whose name I forget’s Democrats and Demons and Paul Reynolds’s The Democratic Labor Party. The Victorian DLP’s records – which include the Victorian ALP’s pre-1955 records – are available in the state library, though you may not have the good fortune to be living in Victoria.
Generic Oracle, I think that we all understand that politics and religion are inextricably entwined in the current world. Surely we can also understand that there are categorical differences between different types of fundamentalism. A ‘secular fundamentalist’, to use your term, bases his/her beliefs about the nature of the world and humanity’s place in it on objective scientific reasoning. This does not lead to any belief of superiority to any other human being, and certainly not to the view that anyone with a different view will be subject to eternal damnation. This contrasts rather strongly with fundamentalist Christians and Islamists, who insist that the myths and legends of disparate groups of middle eastern tribesmen form the total sum of all human knowledge worth knowing, and that all other human beings, who do not ascribe to this view are doomed. Unfortunately some of these people gain political power, and because of their totally irrational superstitions, threaten me, my wife, and my children, and all of my friends with harm. George Bush believes, on his own protestation, in the idea of the second coming, Armageddon, and the separation of the ‘saved’ from the doomed, and he thinks that nuclear war may be the way that this may come about. So do the Exclusive Brethren, and many of the member churches of the FF group. I do not want mentally deranged people of this type making decisions about the future of this planet, and , in particular the future of my children, and their children. Compared to them, the Greens are utterly harmless.
Please do not try to say that religion and politics are separate things. For committed Christians and Islamists, at least, they the same thing.
cheers,
Alan H
That’s ‘They are’
Alan H did you grow up in Victoria , Ascot Vale specifically ?
Alan LOL!
Remind me to pop over the fence and call those Christians that live there mentally deranged!!
BTW if you don’t believe in the “eternal damnation” bit, then I wouldn’t worry so much being “threatened with harm”!!
In reference to this:
“This [secular humanism] does not lead to any belief of superiority to any other human being”
I find humorous. My undergrad background is in psychology and in essence, we ALL belief our belief set to be ideal, compared with that of others, that is why we adopt it. Are you attempting to tell me that you don’t think your belief set is superior, when with a few digital bits, you have discounted the beliefs of hundreds of millions of people as “totally irrational superstitions”?
No, I see your point. Secular humanists are very egalitarian and tolerant of the belief systems of others 🙂
GO (405), to be fair to Monica, I think her post was general rather than attacking you. In current political debate “family” is often conflated with the nuclear family scenario. From reading many of your previous posts I’d take a liberty and guess you agree that this can somewhat limit political discourse on some broader familial relationships, reliances and needs. Happy to stand corrected.
I agree with your comments on Senator Fielding and his track record. I was personally pleasantly surprised at how Fielding’s record has developed. However, I remain wary about the organisation behind him. I would be happy to be disabused of this notion, but my understanding is that there are some large sections of FF that are reasonably characterised as fundamentalist and with links to US churches that are adept at a very politically activist approach to promoting fundamentalist values. Despite Fielding’s record, it makes me very cautious of the longer term agenda.
GO (415). Good points. At the end of the day we do believe our personal belief sets to be ideal. For me, one main criteria is a high level of tolerance for activities which don’t harm others, and a respect for scientific method. I can’t say that there is a universal right behind these, but I am hostile to belief sets which are contrary to these ideals, and activist fundamentalist christians are normally one of those .
[I find humorous. My undergrad background is in psychology and in essence, we ALL belief our belief set to be ideal, compared with that of others, that is why we adopt it. Are you attempting to tell me that you don’t think your belief set is superior, when with a few digital bits, you have discounted the beliefs of hundreds of millions of people as “totally irrational superstitions�
No, I see your point. Secular humanists are very egalitarian and tolerant of the belief systems of others]
“Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.” – Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Saying that God created the Earth is an opinion that many people believe based on faith, rather than evidence. There is no evidence to support such a claim, hence it can only be considered an opinion, because it is not a conclusion reached via logical reasoning.
I have no problem with other people believing such nonsense, but they aren’t allowed to pretend that it is an unchallengable fact. Facts require a much higher standard of proof than just “I think it is so, therefore it is”.
As I previously stated , the evangelical movement which is the organisation behind FF are well organised politically, and not about to let the mainstream population become aware of their idealogical agenda. They will present as “light green/ not extreme” at this election. Read – homophobic, anti contraception, pro – christianising secular schiools, anti- islam (or any other non-christian religion), anti-green, pro-creationism. And you can vote for them if you like… just know what you are voting for. They sure as hellfire won’t tell you in their eelction material.
Re Family First…I have been told that the party actually gets a bit of support from Muslims and other non-Christian religions. They have families too. While they’re obviously backed and funded by Christian churches, the FFP have taken pains to promote themselves as pro-family, rather than pro-Christian. You get a lot more votes that way.
The smartest part of the FF party is its name. Just like the bloke who got elected to the NSW Upper House by calling his party “Better Future for our Children” or something like that, and did lots of preference deals. I dunno what his policies were, but who can argue about a better future for our children? Even the editorial writers at the Oz seem to support that now…
It’s hard to argue against the proposition that governments should make the concerns of families a top priority (and we’re all in families, in one way or another). I have no doubt that there are some fanatical Christians in the FF camp.
Funnily enough, I was just thinking about the Australia First Party. That was an excuse to hate immigrants.
[It’s hard to argue against the proposition that governments should make the concerns of families a top priority (and we’re all in families, in one way or another). I have no doubt that there are some fanatical Christians in the FF camp.]
I agree families are important, but liberalism is based on the importance of the individual. You hear stupid terminology used in parliament by Costello and Howard, they constantly talk about “giving families a job”, which other than a small business doesn’t make much sense. Individuals have jobs, individuals are members of families.
And moving along –
(never discuss religion in polite company)
the Oz editorial is a corker. Amazing that a non-citizen like rupert can determine an election outcome. Or is just that he knows which side his bread is buttered on?
[the Oz editorial is a corker. Amazing that a non-citizen like rupert can determine an election outcome. Or is just that he knows which side his bread is buttered on?]
Do people really read The Oz before deciding how to vote?
Plus, you should remember that The Oz hammered Howard over the children overboard affair, but then limply endorsed him!
Jen 😉 Nice call and good topic!
Much has been said about this, including just on Lateline. I don’t think we can read much into this as an editorial piece. A leader’s legacy is a bit like a creek after a storm, it takes a fair while until you can clearly see what is going to settle.
I do think that Howard has perhaps over-claimed credit for the economic management, though ideologically, conservative governments swung this far to the right do tend towards clearing debt and locking the money away. The public (especially the ageing public) has been enamored with the “fund” idea (education, future etc) though perhaps the reforms have been less spectacular.
This is certainly the case with tax reform. A loose (though I would argue, vulnerable) labour market is one thing which can loosen up business but we are LONG overdue for income tax reform, particularly being promised with the GST (how many taxes were supposed to disappear???).
Recent attempts to take over traditional state responsibilities may be less considered “reforms” and more the product of the power you get when you are rolling in cash. Admittedly, the electorate seems at a loss to know why wall to wall state Labor governments are literally rolling in GST revenues and (until recently in some states) wads of cash through stamp duties from the housing boom and yet basic services like health are approaching the third world.
Howard has been a strong leader, certainly prepared to put his next term on the line for a controversial call, but a master of reform, I think probably not.
Can I just say that the Voter’s Verdict was kind of lame. The clips they showed were stupidly short, and didn’t show either Howard or Rudd actually explaining a policy. This resulted in most of the audience complaining that neither side had any policies, and that they were just attacking each other.
But I guess it showed how such a distorted view of the world a policy junky like me lives in. I read all the online papers constantly, I can name all the policies I agree and disagree with. Whereas the people in the audience think neither party has anything.
In the case of the Mersey hospital maybe that is good for Howard, but surely Rudd needs to get his policies out there more if he wants to win.
I wonder if Sky News are backing Howard, rather than Rudd, and are using this US style of “Polling” to give Howard some sort of Sympathy ?
[I wonder if Sky News are backing Howard, rather than Rudd, and are using this US style of “Polling†to give Howard some sort of Sympathy ?]
It is basically just the same WORM thing that 9 has been using for ages.
They just used lame clips where you didn’t really know exactly what they were asked, and you got the first 3 sentences of each reply.
You can watch all the episodes on The Australian webpage, but I can’t find the link cos they’ve taken the banner down.
I guess it taught me that that it takes effort to stay informed with all the issues. Most people can’t be bothered being informed, so they make a judgement on emotive things like HOW a question is answered, not WHAT is said. But I guess I already knew that, I just hoped it wasn’t true. 😐
Simon Howson,
Have to agree with your comments concerning that Sky New Programme (Voter Verdict). The clips shown could only be judged on the style of Rudd or Howard and there appeared to be no effort to judge any policies. This was very evident at the end of last nights programme where the general consensus seemed to be that they needed more information..
I was also annoyed by some of the comments by the participants who appeared to be either uninformed/misinformed or were already aligned with one of the parties. The premise was that these people had not decided which way to vote however there were a couple who appeared to align with one or other of the main parties every time.
I would not say it is not a waste of time but it added very little to any understanding of what is going on in “voter landâ€.
An event like this tends to underscore for me the fundamental importance of political civics being taught more clearly at the school level.
Where we have a democracy which makes voting compulsory, which I do believe is a good thing for the best chance at true representation, it has to be married with some semblance of understanding of what the voters are voting for.
The majority of students can coast through High Schools with only a vague understanding of parliament, a cynical view of politicians (which is worse than Canada, UK, USA and even South Africa!) and almost no understanding of party history, platforms, ideology and policy.
This would be like making driving compulsory but only ensuring that students know how to open the door.
The end result is “showbag politics”, where incumbents shore up goodies to entice voters over the line. Comments on this program confirmed that.
Generic Oracle, I stand totally behind my post. Only just read your reply, which follows the Glen line of reasoning, straw men, misquoting, deliberate misunderstanding. The people I call deranged are the Armageddon believers, who think that its fine for the world to be destroyed, because the ‘chosen’, that is to say themselves, will be ok. This is a political issue, because George Bush, many of his cabal, and the Exclusive Brethren, to whom John Howard gives personal audiences , and on whom he relies on for electoral funding, believe it. Don’t come the ‘millions believe it, how could they be wrong’ non-sequitur. The entire population of the world believed that it was flat, when the Armageddon myths were first thought up, those who first pointed out that it isn’t were threatened with death, and actually killed, by the believers in that myth. Guess what? The earth isn’t flat, and the sun doesn’t orbit around it, and the rest of the entire grab bag of myths are just that, myths. It is patently obvious to any rational, thinking individual, who has not been brain washed as a child, that all religious ‘belief systems’ are simply products of the human imagination, mostly from times long past, but also more recently, as is the case with Scientologists and Mormons. Just because myths are 2 or 3 thousand years old doesn’t make them true. Or do you think that the aboriginal dreamtime stories are more ‘true’ because they are 40,000 years old.
I repeat, I do not want deranged people who think that the world is expendable, just so long as they get to heaven, to have any power in our political system, any more than I want paranoid schizophrenics to be in a position to start a nuclear war. The fact that ratbags like this can end up with the balance of power, because they mislead the public into believing that they are harmless, is a matter for concern. Your view, that belief systems should be given respect, just because they are termed religions is plain silly. It leads to ridiculous conclusions, such as Al Quaida’s terrorism is fine, because it is based on firmly held religious belief, or that New Guinean cargo cults are worthy or our respect.
Irrational beliefs lead to irrational decisions, and it doesn’t matter at all whether they are dignified with the name ‘religion’
cheers,
Alan H
OLLIE, no. Sydney inner western suburbs.
cheers,
Alan H
Just say ‘NO’ to religion.
Generic Oracle Says:An event like this tends to underscore for me the fundamental importance of political civics being taught more clearly at the school level.
The problem with an organization like ‘family first’ is that you simply can’t trust them with ANY education. A group that wants to change curriculum to teach ‘creationism’ as a science should have no part in this process.
If you want to wax on about the “fundamental importance of political civics being taught more clearly at the school level.”, perhaps you should first teach kids about ‘critical thinking’, or ‘scientific method’. You can’t expect people to have a reasonable outlook on life, when you expect them to only be brainwashed on certain subjects.
[Where we have a democracy which makes voting compulsory, which I do believe is a good thing for the best chance at true representation, it has to be married with some semblance of understanding of what the voters are voting for.]
Well, watching that programme made me want voluntary voting / attendence even more! At least in the U.S. voters go to the ballot box and vote FOR someone. In our system, if Rudd wins, it will be at least partly because people are voting AGAINST Howard.
For all the people that don’t know, don’t understand, don’t care, I think it would benefit our democracy if they stayed home.
People must understand that staying informed requires a bit of effort to read webpages, and to watch The 7:30 Report rather than TT or A Current of Crap. Being illinformed can’t always be blamed on politicians!
” voluntary voting ”
Voluntary voting isn’t as great as it’s made out to be. I don’t have a problem with people not voting if they have a reason but I think in a democracy people should be expected to vote. The main problem with Voluntary Voting is it gives such a big advantage to the big parties and especially those with the most money. Both major parties in America hire buses and taxis, etc to take their supporters to the voting booths. If you haven’t got a huge budget, forget it you’re finished. If you can’t raise at least 100 million dollars in the USA you’ll never be President.