The first Roy Morgan face-to-face poll of Tony Abbott’s Liberal leadership covers the last two weekends of polling, and it fails to replicate the encouraging results for Abbott in Morgan’s two earlier small-sample phone polls. Labor’s primary vote is up two points on Malcolm Turnbull’s last poll to 49 per cent, while the Coalition is up 0.5 per cent to 35.5 per cent. The Greens are down 1.5 per cent to 8 per cent. Labor’s lead on two-party preferred is up from 58.5-41.5 to 59-41.
Festive preselection action:
• Former Davis Cup tennis player John Alexander has won the Liberal preselection for Bennelong, having earlier tried and failed in Bradfield. Despite predictions of a close contest, the Sydney Morning Herald reported the Left-backed Alexander had an easy first round win over local business executive Mark Chan, scoring 67 votes in the ballot of 120 preselectors. As the Herald tells it, “the right split and the hard right deserted Mr Chan”, although VexNews notes the seat is “not a centre of factional operations for either camp”. The also-rans were businessman Steve Foley and financial services director Melanie Matthewson.
• Wanneroo mayor Jon Kelly has withdrawn his nomination for Labor preselection in the Perth northern suburbs federal seat of Cowan, after earlier being considered certain to get the gig. This comes in the wake of a Corruption and Crime Commission finding that Kelly had put himself at “risk” of misconduct through his relationship with Brian Burke. Burke presumably knew what he was doing when he subsequently endorsed Kelly, going on to say he had “sought my help on many occasions and I’ve always been available to assist him”. The West Australian reported the withdrawal was the product of a “mutual” decision reached after “a week of talks with Labor officials”, which included federal campaign committee chairman and Brand MP Gary Gray. Potential replacements named by The West are Dianne Guise and Judy Hughes, who respectively lost their local seats of Wanneroo and Kingsley at the state election last September. The ABC reports a decision is expected in mid-January.
• The Western Australian ALP has also confirmed Tim Hammond, Louise Durack and ECU history lecturer Bill Leadbetter as candidates for Swan, Stirling and Pearce.
• The NSW Liberals have selected incumbents Concetta Fierravanti-Wells and Bill Heffernan to head their Senate ticket, reversing the order from 2004. The Coalition agreement reserves the third position for the Nationals – I am not aware of any suggestion their candidate will be anyone other than incumbent Fiona Nash. Imre Salusinszky of The Australian reports Heffernan needed the backing of Tony Abbott to ward off challenges from David Miles, a public relations executive with Pfizer, and George Bilic, a Blacktown councillor.
• Phillip Coorey of the Sydney Morning Herald notes Left figurehead Anthony Albanese’s chutzpah in calling for the Macquarie preselection to be determined by rank-and-file party ballot, after the role he played in imposing numerous candidates elsewhere as a member of the party’s national executive. Albanese reportedly believes Left candidate Susan Templeman would win a local ballot, although the earlier mail was that the Right’s Adam Searle had the numbers and it was the Left who wanted national executive intervention.
• Final Liberal two-party margin from the Bradfield by-election: 14.8 per cent. From Higgins: 10.2 per cent. Respective turnouts were 81.51 per cent and 79.00 per cent, compared with 80.12 per cent at the Mayo by-election, 87.41 per cent in Lyne and 89.68 per cent in Gippsland. Question: if the results have been declared, why hasn’t the AEC published preference distributions?
• VexNews reports Saturday’s Liberal preselection for the Victorian state seat of Ripon was a clear win for the unsuccessful candidate from 2006, Vic Dunn, who my records tell me is “the local inspector at Maryborough”. Dunn reportedly scored 53 votes against 26 for Institute of Public Affairs agriculture policy expert and preselection perennial Louise Staley and four for local winery owner John van Beveren. Joe Helper holds the seat for Labor on a maergin of 4.3 per cent.
• The Berwick Star reports that Lorraine Wreford, the newly elected mayor of Casey, refused to confirm or deny reports she lodged a nomination for Liberal preselection in the state seat of Mordialloc last Friday. Janice Munt holds the seat for Labor on a margin of 3.5 per cent.
• The Country Voice SA website reports that one of its regular contributors, former SA Nationals president Wilbur Klein, will be the party’s candidate for Flinders at the March state election. The seats was held by the party prior to 1993, when it was won by its now-retiring Liberal member Liz Penfold.
• On Tuesday, The West Australian provided further data from the 400-sample Westpoll survey discussed a few posts ago, this time on attitudes to an emissions trading scheme. Forty per cent wanted it adopted immediately, down from 46 per cent two months ago. However, there was also a fall in the number wanting the government to wait until other countries committed to targets, from 47 per cent to 43 per cent. The remainder “ favoured other options to cut emissions or did not know”.
• Paul Murray of The West Australian offers some interesting electoral history on the occasion of the passing of former Liberal-turned-independent state MP Ian Thompson:
Shortly after the State election in February 1977, allegations began to emerge from both sides of politics about dirty deeds in the seat of Kimberley. Liberal sitting member Alan Ridge beat Labor’s Ernie Bridge on preferences by just 93 votes. The Liberals were the first to strike, claiming Labor was manipulating Aboriginal voters, but the move backfired badly. A subsequent Court of Disputed Returns case turned up scathing evidence of a deliberate Liberal campaign to deny Aboriginals the vote using underhand tactics and the election result was declared void on November 7.
Returning officers in the Kimberley for years had allowed illiterate Aboriginals to use party how-to-vote cards as an indication of their voting intention. What became apparent later was that Labor had put hundreds of Aboriginal voters on the roll and generally mobilised the indigenous community. The Liberals flew a team of young lawyers up from Perth to act as scrutineers at polling booths, with a plan to stop illiterate voters. The Court government pressured the chief electoral officer to instruct returning officers in the Kimberley to challenge illiterate voters and not accept their how-to-vote cards.
The court case turned up a letter of thanks from Mr Ridge to a Liberal Party member, who stood as an independent, saying “a third name on the ballot paper created some confusion among the illiterate voters and there is no doubt in my mind that it played a major part in having me re-elected”. Mr Ridge’s letter said that unless the Electoral Act was changed to make it more difficult for illiterate Aboriginals to cast their votes, the Liberals would not be able to win the seat.
Two days after the court ordered a new election, premier Sir Charles introduced in the Legislative Assembly a Bill to do just that. How-to-vote cards could not be used, nor could an instruction of a vote for just one candidate. Labor went ballistic, saying no illiterate voter would meet the test.
What transpired over nine hours was one of the most bitter debates ever seen in the WA Parliament and the galvanising of a new breed of Labor head kickers – Mr Burke, Mal Bryce, Bob Pearce and Arthur Tonkin, who came to power six years later. On November 10, it became apparent that the government was in trouble when one of the four National Country Party members not in the coalition Cabinet, Hendy Cowan, said he opposed the Bill because it disenfranchised all illiterate voters. When it came to the vote, the four NCP members crossed the floor and the maverick Liberal member for Subiaco, Dr Tom Dadour, abstained. The numbers split 25-25.
From the Speaker’s chair, Ian Thompson calmly noted that the law said when a Court of Disputed Returns ordered a by-election it had to be held under the same conditions as the original poll. If the Government wanted to amend the Electoral Act, it should do so after the by-election.
“Therefore I give my casting vote with the ‘Noes’ and the Bill is defeated,” he said. Hansard unusually recorded applause.
Dio said:
“That Mark Lynas article is very interesting. The fact that China made the developed countries take their unilateral 2050 reduction target of 80% out is a very bad sign indeed, as is the lack of civility from the Chinese leaders.”
Yeah i read that too and found it very disturbing. From reading that aticle the Chinese simply used COP15 to beat up on the US. Not that our media will report much along those lines. They are too busy trying to help out Abbott who wants to blame Rudd for everything.
What i found really shocking was that the Chinese sent a “second level” functionary who had to refer back for instruction to the leaders meeting. I cant think of any way that couldnt have been a calculated insult. Maybe they are really pissed at the US for approving the latest arms sales to Tiawan or something.
Peter
I have followed polls for a long while, I know the figures and have opinions on why they have moved. No amount of research will convert opinions into facts. We are talking about why a large number of people move their votes. Your lucky to get a rational statement from a single person, let alone a population.
[the facts are not really necessary to express an opinion on the general appropriateness of star chamber type provisions.]
They are. I believe that Parramatta Centrist is correct to point out that –
[Sure, there are some companies and managers out there who are bad guys and do the wrong thing. But guess what-there are workers and trade union officials who are bad guys too.]
IF this is a case of “trade union officials who are bad guys” then why should they get away with it? If this law is removed what other laws help to root out the “bad guys”?
I’m really wanting to know why Tribe won’t give evidence. Is it only because he is being forced to? If the law to compel was changed tomorrow would he give evidence?
Victorian Building sites were ruled by thuggery, I doubt very much there will be much support in Victoria for Peter’s point of view.
And that is one things unions need to realize. When you lose public support you power evaporates, and no amount of huffing and puffing will bring it back.
Parramatta Centrist,
What you have written here just demonstrates how effective the Business/Corporate world has been in deflecting responsibility for OH&S on to the “workers”!
[-it’s also the case that trade union representatives make bogus claims about workplace safety, as part of tactics in industrial disputes or in award negotiations.]
In over 40 years involvement with the Union Movement specialising in OH&S, I have “never” come across a situation such as you describe here. It may have in a limited number of cases but I am yet to hear of any.
OH&S is such a major area of concern for unions that the chances of them destroying their legitimacy in this regard are slim indeed!
[-many workplace incidents are due to worker neglience.]
This is one of the oldest furphies going that workers deliberately get themselves injured through either negligence or the one that is most favoured by employers who treat OH&S as nothing but an unreasonable expense to be avoided at all costs, worker “carelessness”!
No worker leaves home in the morning saying to their family, “I am going to have a serious or fatal accident today due to my own negligence or carelessness!
Employers have a responsibility under law to provide a safe and healthy working environment. If an accident occurs, employers do everything in their power to minimise or avoid that responsibility especially to reduce culpability regarding compensatory payment for that injury.
[There are a lot of companies which do take workplace safety very seriously-it’s good business to do so, and morally the right thing to do. But in situations where management has done all it reasonably can, and workers take off their PPE when the supervisor isn’t around, or don’t follow the lock-out procedure because it’s inconvenient, and somebody gets hurt, who is to blame?]
[But guess what-there are workers and trade union officials who are bad guys too.]
This is just plain wrong and is totally unsupportable by “any” evidence to prove that what you say here is right. It’s easy to blame Unions for just about “anything” because that are mostly unable to defend themselves through the media.
Blaming the “victim” is as old as the employer/employee relationship and is not only restricted to this area either. Sexual assault, assualt, robbery victims are constantly accused of contributing to the crime committed against them. It’s more than time this was stopped!
[No worker leaves home in the morning saying to their family, “I am going to have a serious or fatal accident today due to my own negligence or carelessness!]
Ya I suppose that is why no worker shows up to work pissed and no union objects to workers being tested for drugs and no union objects to people being effect being summarily dismissed.
More evidence of the recycling of old people and old ideas as Howard’s media advisor is recruited by Abbott. These are the guys that were towelled up by Labor last time and managed to lose their beloved Howard’s seat.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/24/2780013.htm
[the facts are not really necessary to express an opinion on the general appropriateness of star chamber type provisions.]
True Peter.
The laws appear to allow only workers to be called before, not discuss what they were called for and severe penalties for breaches.
Regardless of who or what industry they are targeted at they seem more in line with anti- terror laws than industrial laws. And they appear to be specifically targeted at one group only.
Any defence of them being retained by Rudd by alpers here does appear along the lines of the ingrained mantra labor good liberal bad.
[Employers have a responsibility under law to provide a safe and healthy working environment. If an accident occurs, employers do everything in their power to minimise or avoid that responsibility especially to reduce culpability regarding compensatory payment for that injury.]
Workplaces result from the interaction between employees. If en employee runs over another employee with a forklift it actually has very little to do with the person paying both there wages. All he can do is insist that no one shows up pissed, introduce rules to separate fork list and walkers and do his best to have the rules followed. The employee can do his best to get people he suspect of being pissed tested and try and keep the union at bay. That is the reality.
The managing director is not on the floor to judge all this, he relies on other employees.
The current situation will push the Australian workforce to contract labour, with large users of labour doing there best to protect themselves legally from the whole thing by passing the risk to the sub contractor.
fredn,
[Ya I suppose that is why no worker shows up to work pissed and no union objects to workers being tested for drugs and no union objects to people being effect being summarily dismissed.]
That is just a stupid statement. I was intending to give a detailed response to this but I think you are sensible enough to realise there are 14M workers in Australia and surely some have been sent home drunk or sacked.
There are hundreds of occupations where workers are drug and alcohol tested and the unions involved support this as an important OH&S measure.
When was the last time your pilot or bus/train driver was drunk at work or your ambulance/fireperson!
More than lame!
It’s actually worse than that, the simple way to protect yourself from the risk of employing people is to get someone else to manufacture the product. Why employ people when you risk going to jail for there actions.
[The Coalition vote was on a clear decline from March 2005 see here:
http://possumcomitatus.wordpress.com/2007/10/16/the-long-view/%5D
In decline yet well above Beazleys.
Also Possum is not a reliable source. I am still waiting for him to correct his number for boat arrivals in 2002 which was made up entirely of boat arrivals in 2001.
[It was so popular, it cost him government and he lost his seat into the bargain to a first time Labor candidate! ]
I was being sarcastic, just as i’m being sarcastic when I say because Labors vote is so high everyone loves the 1500% surge in boatpeople!
If the 2001 election taught you nothing, it is that a majority of Australians are not far leftwing rabble. A majority of Australians are centre-right conservatives with strong views on Aussie values and morals.
scorpio
What was the ambit claim put forward by the union the represents the metrapolitan fire fighters.
[Also Possum is not a reliable source.]
Woe is me!
Possum,
Truthie’s barbs hurt. It’s like being tickled to death with a feather.
I’m no union basher. No-one was happer than me to see “Workchoices” given the flick but I remember when unions had free rein and to be honest it was ugly. While I’m very happy to see workers rights and conditions be protected I am also happy not to go back to the free rein era. Both business and unions need to be restricted for their own good IMHO, not just business and not just the unions – both.
I asked a question earlier – If the law to compel to give evidence is removed what other laws help to root out the “bad guys” of which there were and are some?
re BIG party support.
Good no-gods!!! This is like spoon feeding kindergarten kids.
I said that the combined support for the 2 big parties has been in a downward trend for several decades. In my original post I also said I was referring to first preference support. I did not refer to 2PP support, which by definition must always equal 100%. However, because these days 2CP contests are in an increasing number of seats between a minor party (Greens) or an independent and a major party, I would not be surprised if the big parties combined 2CP support was also in a downward decline trend.
However, it seems that some people on here are so obsessed with Labor, they could only think that I was talking about Labor (is there anything else that occupies their daily lives?), and therefore stated that contrary to my view Labor party support was increasing, therefore I was wrong. Unfortunately for such people, their increasing Labor support theory is not inconsistent with my original statement.
Read my lips:
The combined support for the big parties has been declining over several decades.
P.S. I trust that some people who post here are not representative of the big parties, and are just urgers calling from the sidelines. If I am wrong in that, it may provide some anecdotal evidence of possible reaons why the combined support of the big parties is in decline.
PY,
Shame about this post then. I think you’re BS’ing yourself.
Peter Young
Posted Thursday, December 24, 2009 at 11:31 am | Permalink
fredn
Despite you views of the big parties, BOTH parties continue to see a downward trend in their electoral support. Something has got to be amiss.
http://results.aec.gov.au/13745/Website/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-13745-105.htm
John Howard lost his seat in 2007 as a delayed reaction to his Tampa policy in 2001.
Gee, TTH was right, this random equating of unrelated facts is fun!
allegory,
There’s the one about Nelson Mandela’s incarceration on Robben Island for 27 years being proof that long prison sentences work.
Since his release, Mandela has gone on to be President, an international icon and has never re offended.
PY@2150:
[When I originally posted about the declining support for the big parties and declining membership, I said this was based on my recollection of statistics I had read.]
The declining support is for the Coalition. You recollect wrongly.
From Poss’s site:
2007 election result:
ALP primary 43.3
LNP primary 42.1
ALP 2PP 52.7
LNP 2PP 47.3
All poll average:
ALP primary 44.9
LNP primary 36.6
ALP 2PP 57.1
LNP 2PP 42.9
And please, spare us the martyrdom of how hard you work.
This took only a few minutes of my time, and I still can’t find your post admitting you stuffed up over an hour ago, and where you published the results of your onerous research.
PY:
And, like GG, I am still waiting for your hard-won research to justify this statement:
[ Something has got to be amiss.Despite you views of the big parties, BOTH parties continue to see a downward trend in their electoral support. Something has got to be amiss.]
[There’s the one about Nelson Mandela’s incarceration on Robben Island for 27 years being proof that long prison sentences work.
Since his release, Mandela has gone on to be President, an international icon and has never re offended.]
For some reason I am reminded of the Late Show sketch … well worth a watch!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhKErCF2mJE
“Don’t tell me about Mr Mandela… He’s a trouble maker … he’s been to jail you know”
“You put him there”
“You twist the story.. you put facts into the story”
And of course the interview with TTH’s hero:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yvC8-Y4hk0
Just think! 27% of people preferred him as prime minister! Tony, Brendan and Malcolm must be so jealous.
don- 2172
Read my lips. The combined support for the 2 big parties has been in a downward trend for several decades.
Your figures show that between 2007 and the “poll average” the combined support for the major 2 parties fell from 85.4% to 81.5%.
Incidentally, although the figures support my statement, I would not rely on such short term figures – because I am talking about a downward trend over several decades.
The reason you can’t find my post ” admitting you stuffed up over an hour ago, and where you published the results of your onerous research.” is because I haven’t posted any such post. So you can rest easy, you are not going crazy because you can’t find it.
Off to the second in four lots of present openings…
This morning with my family, tonight with my sister’s family, tomorrow with my husband’s family, Boxing Day my birthday party….
Merry Christmas to you all, looking forward to lots of good arguments in 2010!!
And lots of elections (aren’t we lucky bludgers….)
[Peter Young
Posted Thursday, December 24, 2009 at 1:13 pm | Permalink
….
Read my lips:
The combined support for the big parties has been declining over several decades.]
Unfortunately you have based your argument on a factoid that is wrong if you use the 2 party primary vote to underpin your argument. If you use party membership you may have a case.
Poor old mother Adele.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/6619117/ripper-labelled-rude-by-greens-mp/
And this warning about the WA Greens playing footies with Crazy Colin.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/6619111/barnett-gets-green-light-in-freo/
[ an old midwinter custom in Wales, is a holdover from pagan celebrations before Christmas was introduced. Mari Lwyd means “gray mare” in English.
In its purest form (still to be seen at Llangynwyd, near Maesteg, every New Year’s Day) the tradition involves the arrival of the horse and its party at the door of the house or pub, where they sing several introductory verses. Then comes a battle of wits (known as pwnco) in which the people inside the door and the Mari party outside exchange challenges and insults in rhyme. At the end of the battle, which can be as long as the creativity of the two parties holds out, the Mari party enters with another song.]
Mari Lwyd Bludgers
Peter
Your hard won research may bring up this article.
http://www.crikey.com.au/2007/11/02/comitatus-the-decline-of-the-minors/
PY@2176:
[Read my lips. The combined support for the 2 big parties has been in a downward trend for several decades.]
Let’s assume you go away and find the results. (I won’t be holding my breath)
Let’s assume that the combined support for the two big parties has been in a downward trend for several decades.
Since we have preferential voting, this means diddley squat.
All that matters is the 2PP after the election.
And if you can find the figures, and if they bear out your assertion (‘read my lips’ doesn’t cut it as a source, who are you? Another anonymous poster. ) it just means that there are more minor parties contesting seats. Big deal.
If Poss said ‘read my lips’, I’d sit up and take notice.
You, mate, are not Poss.
[What i found really shocking was that the Chinese sent a “second level” functionary who had to refer back for instruction to the leaders meeting.]
OMG imacca, “shocking”? count yourself lucky, they should have been crawling on their all fours on their way to see the Son of Heaven. These barbarians just aint got no manner.
Fredn@2181:
[Peter
Your hard won research may bring up this article.
http://www.crikey.com.au/2007/11/02/comitatus-the-decline-of-the-minors/%5D
Thanks for that, much appreciated.
PY’s lips are looking a bit chapped, methinks.
Finns,
I know you were too busy blogging here on PB, but, you should have gone to Copenhagen, mate.
2184
As I said to Peter very early in the exchange, I may have opinions as to why, but I have been following this long enough to know the facts.
My opinion: minor parties that represent different demographics have gone. We are left with the greens with a very defined and narrow demographic that will expand and wane, but will not move that much no matter how bitter the exchange on poll bludger. The result reflects a lack of choice, not a population happy with their options. That is why I believe you have to look at party membership to see what’s going on.
What Copenhagen demonstrated is that it is very difficult, if not impossible, for evenly-matched powers to make one another do anything the other does not want to do.
Various lesser powers can hide behind the skirts of choice.
Sooner or later regret will join fear to tip the balance towards substantial actions.
Squillions of community organizations are struggling with declining memberships.
Perhaps the folk who used to do real things are now inside their castles, fingering their keyboards.
fredn – 2182
Thanks for that reference. My cursory reading of that article indicates it examines inter alia the “other” vote as recorded by polls (not elections) between January 2005 and July 2007 which showed an initial increase in the starting “other” poll and then a decrease below that initial poll figure at the end of the period. As such, it may not be particularly helpful, but I am grateful that you took the time to bring it to my attention.
Don – 2182. Please don’t hold your breath waiting for my post re figures. I would not want you to ‘pass over to the other side’ on account of my failure to hastily post the figures.
As to what the figures mean for governance in Australia (state and federal) for the future can be discussed when I put the figures up. However, I might just say that governance is not determined by single MP electorate voting alone (except perhaps in Qld).
Boerwar,
My organ playing is superb!
GG
lol
Fredn@2186:
[The result reflects a lack of choice, not a population happy with their options. That is why I believe you have to look at party membership to see what’s going on.]
Membership of clubs and societies has, I believe, been going down across the board, never mind party memberships.
Anecdotally, clubs that I belong to have trouble getting younger members, the hair gets less and whiter each year as I look around the room.
Here is one corroborating report I found, about adult participation in sporting clubs:
Trends in organised sport membership: Impact on sustainability
Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, Volume 12, Issue 1, Pages 123-129
R. Eime, W. Payne, J. Harvey
[Sporting clubs play a key role in community-level physical activity. This study investigated participation trends in sport club membership. A survey of 50 State sports governing bodies in Victoria, Australia collected information on factors affecting membership trends. The records for four of these sports were analysed for the 6 years, 1998–2003. Three sports reported increases in total membership (average annual rates (AARs): 0.3, 1.9 and 12.4%), and one reported a decrease (AAR: ?1.0%).
There was a decrease in both the absolute number (AARs: ?1.1%, ?2.3%, and ?3.5%) and the proportion (AARs: ?0.5%, ?0.7%, ?1.7% and ?2.3%) of adult members.]
The reasons are not hard to find. Over the years the female participation rate in the workforce has increased. This, combined with the increase in hours worked by many employees means that they have less time available for things like club and Party membership.
PY@2189:
[Don – 2182. Please don’t hold your breath waiting for my post re figures. I would not want you to ‘pass over to the other side’ on account of my failure to hastily post the figures.]
I see. A drive by post.
Without having an evidence, I doubt whether the Chinese were intent on delivering humiliation at Copenhagen. I suggest that they had the following items of self-interest going into Copenhagen, and achieved them:
1. Maintaining control over ‘internal’ information.
2. Gaining a ticket to continue to increase their CO2 emissions.
3. Gaining a mandate to reduce emissions intensity per unit of production. Important for internal politicking.
4. Gaining AGW credibility by refusing to accept external funding.
5. Gaining some implicit acknowledgement from developed nations about responsibility for the state of affairs. This to be gained by developed nations’ funding proposals.
6. Maintaining a leadership role in the South countries, in face of the fact that it is China’s emissions that are increasingly going to have a negative impact on South peoples’ interests.
7. Refusing to bullied by the debtor nation.
I reckon they the Chinese did pretty well.
don,
Changing technology is in the mix also. People draw their political information from a variety of sources including televison, newspapers, FM radio stations and even sites like PB which allow people from all over to communicate and argue their points of view.
Being a member of a Party used to be a way of informing oneself about political issues. Kevin Rudd, Tony Abbott etc are on TV most nights banging on about the issue du jour.
Horseracing is another sport that has changed. Apart from the major carnivals, very few people attend races. Yet, I’d argue Horseracing and gambling are more popular than ever being accessed through Pay TV, the pubs and clubs etc.
[Finns, I know you were too busy blogging here on PB, but, you should have gone to Copenhagen, mate.]
GG, yes. i think i got the priority right :P.
Why can’t we get a decent scandal like Italy?
[Videos posted on the internet sought to stir doubts over a December 13 attack on Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi by hinting it was staged to create sympathy for the embattled leader.]
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/24/2780362.htm
[I reckon they the Chinese did pretty well.
]
We might change our minds on that in 20 or 30 years
Diogenes – 2197
Just watch this space.
In NSW one is bound to happen soon.
TP
My mind won’t need changing. My point was that they did pretty well in terms of the outcomes they sought.
The narrow and short-sighted Chinese self-interest, while to be expected and fairly well matched by the US contribution, is a disaster for us all.