My seat-by-seat guide to the March 20 South Australian election is open for business. If you’re a Crikey subscriber, you can read my general overview of the situation in today’s daily email, which I’ll republish here at a later time. In the meantime, enjoy the following charts showing the electoral progress of South Australia since it entered the modern world with the introduction of one-vote one-value in 1970, the first showing vote share and the second the proportion of seats one by each party (so where the red dips below the line in the middle Labor had a majority; where the blue rises above it, the Liberals had one). Note that I’ve lumped the Liberal Movement, a feature of the 1975 election, together with the Australian Democrats on the vote share chart, rightly or wrongly. I’m afraid I can’t for the life of me work out how to rearrange the seat share chart the way I want it in Excel, hence the lack of a title.
UPDATE (12/1/10)
I’ve calculated results for marginal electorates from the equivalent booths at the last two federal elections, to give some sense of where Labor over- and under-performed in 2006.
| FED 2004 | SA 2006 | FED 2007 | |
| LIGHT (Wakefield) | 44.0% | 52.4% | 51.6% |
| MAWSON (Kingston) | 48.5% | 53.1% | 52.5% |
| NORWOOD (Adelaide/Sturt) | 49.3% | 53.5% | 54.0% |
| NEWLAND (Makin/Sturt) | 42.4% | 55.1% | 48.8% |
| HARTLEY (Sturt) | 47.0% | 54.8% | 52.3% |
| MORIALTA (Sturt) | 44.0% | 57.4% | 49.9% |
| BRIGHT (Boothby/Kingston) | 43.7% | 56.4% | 46.7% |
| ADELAIDE (Adelaide) | 49.5% | 60.5% | 55.3% |
And here’s my piece in yesterday’s Crikey Daily Mail:
With one federal and three state elections in the offing, 2010 looms as the most event-packed year on the electoral front in recent history. As far as timing is concerned, the only wild card in the deck is the federal election. Kevin Rudd could use the emissions trading scheme trigger to call a double dissolution election at any time, although doing so in the first half of the year would commit the government to a highly problematic half-Senate election no later than mid-2012. Less troublesome would be a double dissolution later in the year, which would have to be held no later than October 16. A normal House of Representatives and half-Senate election could be held at any time from August 7, and could legally be delayed until as late as April 2011 next year – although it most assuredly won’t be.
Barring extraordinary circumstances, no such uncertainty surrounds the state elections. Victoria’s fixed term legislation sets the date for the last Saturday in November, which will be the 27th. South Australia likewise has a fixed election date of March 20. Tasmania does not have fixed terms, but Premier David Bartlett has announced the date well in advance – annoyingly also for March 20, setting up a repeat of the two states’ simultaneous elections in March 2006.
Today’s lesson concerns South Australia, for which I have just published my seat-by-seat election guide. Mike Rann’s rise to power after the February 2002 election completed Labor’s clean sweep of state and territory governments, which remained intact until the Carpenter government’s defeat in Western Australia in September 2008. The Rann government’s electoral fortunes since have followed a familiar pattern. It came to power as a minority government when conservative independent Peter Lewis made a shock post-election decision to throw his lot in with Labor, after saying during the campaign that any talk he might do so was “sleazy nonsense”. Faced by a fracturing opposition under the indecisive leadership of Rob Kerin, Rann brought home the bacon at the 2006 election, picking up a 7.7 per cent swing and winning six seats from the Liberals.
The trajectory of first-term minority government to landslide re-election had earlier been followed by Labor in Queensland (elected 1998, re-elected 2001) and Victoria (1999 and 2002), and was partly reflected by NSW Labor’s experience in winning a one-seat majority in 1995 followed by a resounding win in 1999. In each case Labor went on to win only slightly less emphatic third victories. While the polls suggest the Rann government will be re-elected (the most recent Newspoll gave it a 53-47 two-party lead), it seems unlikely it will do so in quite as fine style as Bob Carr in 2003, Peter Beattie in 2004 or Steve Bracks in 2006.
While poll respondents have strongly indicated they will not let the Michelle Chantelois allegations influence their vote, the issue is an electoral negative if only because the looming court cases threaten to distract Rann in the early part of the next term. The issue is also feeding into perceptions he will not see out the next term, taking some of the shine off his personal vote-pulling power. With no clear heir apparent in place, it also raises the prospect that ministers’ energies will be diverted into jockeying for the succession. Most importantly, Rann will not enjoy the electoral gift of a long-serving and increasingly unpopular Coalition government in Canberra.
The Liberals by contrast have stumbled almost by accident on a leader whose Newspoll approval rating for October-December was 51 per cent – the best result for a South Australian Opposition Leader in 17 years. As Antony Green demonstrates, voters don’t really get to know Opposition Leaders until an election campaign. If Isobel Redmond really is as saleable as her 33 per cent net positive rating makes her appear, and if she and her party can run a sufficiently tight ship, a lot of the 31 per cent who profess themselves undecided about her will break her way during the campaign – and many will jump on the Liberal bandwagon in doing so.
For all that, the odds remain stacked in Labor’s favour. It would take the loss of five seats to cost them their majority, and most likely six to cost them government given that one of the three cross-benchers is Labor-turned-Greens-turned-independent member Kris Hanna. In the context of South Australia’s compact 47-seat House of Assembly, that represents a considerable hurdle for the Liberals, who will need an overall swing of about 7 per cent.
The two pieces of low-hanging fruit are the seats of Light, based on Gawler just to the north of Adelaide, and Mawson, which consists of outer southern suburbs plus the McLaren Vale wine-growing area. Both are naturally conservative seats that are very likely to return to the fold.
Interestingly, the next four seats up the pendulum are the eastern suburbs neighbours of Norwood, Newland, Hartley and Morialta, which can brace themselves for some heavy duty pork-barrelling in the weeks to come. The 3.7 per cent margin in Norwood looks surmountable, but the seat recorded an unusually small swing to Labor in 2006 due to the popularity of the Liberal candidate, former Adelaide Crows star Nigel Smart. With a considerably lower profile entrant this time around, its natural margin would be at least 6 per cent.
Even more problematic is Newland (5.2 per cent), where the Liberals have scored an own goal by endorsing Trish Draper, the federal member for Makin from 1996 until her retirement in 2007. Draper continues to carry the baggage of an episode in 2004 when she was accompanied at taxpayers’ expense by her then boyfriend Derick Sands on a study trip to Europe. While she just managed to retain Makin at the 2004 election, she did so in the face of the biggest swing to Labor in the state – a woeful result for an electorate so heavily stacked with mortgage payers. Far from being forgotten, this episode made a return to the front pages last year, when Sands lost a defamation case he pursued against Channel Seven and the ABC over reports he had been identified as a suspect in a murder investigation.
In Hartley (5.6 per cent), the Liberals have made the less than inspiring decision to re-nominate Joe Scalzi, the long-term back-bencher who lost the seat to up-and-coming Labor member Grace Portolesi in 2006. Despite the relatively higher margin, the Liberals probably have more reason to be optimistic about Morialta (6.8 per cent), where incumbent Lindsay Simmons faces former Young Liberals president and Christopher Pyne staffer John Gardner. The only other seat with a margin that would normally be considered surmountable is Bright, located on the coast south of Glenelg around Brighton, where Labor member Chloe Fox has achieved an impressive electoral track record.
If the Liberals are to fall short in more than one of the seven aforementioned seats, they will need to make up for it with a freakish double-digit swing in Adelaide (10.5 per cent) or Florey (12.0 per cent). The government has been very mindful of the significance of the former seat in particular, making a number of contentious policy decisions relating to the city centre with a view to protecting its member, Jane Lomax-Smith.
Further up the pendulum are a number of Adelaide seats which normally lean moderately to Labor, where margins were engorged in 2006 by an Adelaide-wide swing of around 9 per cent. Even if the momentum the Liberals have been building in recent polling continues, they appear to be at considerable risk of achieving their biggest swings in these seats, where Labor can afford to take the hit.
[Of course I believe in the right to free speech – its a fundamental right of democracy. However, if you want something to be published in a newspaper and criticise others, you should expect to have to reveal your true identity. Malicious use of other peoples names and identities (which happens regularly on the Advertiser website) is itself undemocratic.]
Posting anonymously to criticise the government, whether it’s online or in print, is everyone’s democratic right.
You sir are reprehensible.
Posting on a blog using someone else’s identity is not everyone’s democratic right – in fact its illegal.
[Posting on a blog using someone else’s identity is not everyone’s democratic right – in fact its illegal.]
Way to shift the goalposts! When did I ever advocate posting using someone else’s identity, as opposed to anonymously?
You sir are reprehensible.
bob1234 as usual you miss the point. If anonymous posting is allowed, any name can be taken therefore someone else’s identity may be used. Your position by default supports the possibility of identity theft.
Do you really need to resort to the “you sir are reprehensible”? Play the ball, not the man.
[bob1234 as usual you miss the point. If anonymous posting is allowed, any name can be taken therefore someone else’s identity may be used. Your position by default supports the possibility of identity theft.]
That sort of spin is best left to Conroy calling anti-net filter opponents pedophiles.
Honestly, is that the best you can do?
I support and continue to support the freedom of anonymous criticism of governments and politicians. I do not support fraud.
I’ll let readers come to their own conclusions.
Hint: If half of the Labor hacks on PB are going against the Labor position, you know it’s bad policy.
[He conceded it would be difficult to police but the most “egregious and outrageous” breaches of the new laws would be identified.
Michael Lewis of Malvern wrote that Premier Mike Rann and Mr Atkinson should “hang their heads in shame”, adding that “Don Dunstan must be spinning in his grave”.]
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/labor-gags-internet-debate/story-e6frea6u-1225825708827
Too bloody right he would be.
The first bit is interesting though. It’s another one of those Howard anti-terror type of laws where it makes what a lot of people are doing illegal, but then gives authorities the choice on who they want to nab and do it easily. Great. When does my suburb get a gestapo outpost exactly?
Also, regarding the poll at http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/labor-gags-internet-debate/story-e6frea6u-1225825708827 I don’t believe i’ve ever seen a poll so lopsided as 90%-10%.
Half the Labor hacks on here and 90% of The Advertiser readers cannot be wrong. Getting one Labor hack to disagree with the party line is hard enough.
[The Right to Know Coalition, made up of Australia’s major media outlets including News Limited, publisher of The Advertiser , has called the new laws “draconian”.
“This is one of the most troubling erosions of the right to free speech in Australia for many years,” Right to Know spokeswoman Creina Chapman said.
“It is a fundamental principle of our democracy that voters are able to express personal views about the competing claims of political candidates without the fear that they might end up on a hit list held by a government whose policies they may have opposed.
“Isn’t the whole point of public debate that it is public and that Australians, including South Australians, are smart enough to read or listen to the views of others and make up their own minds?”]
again from the link above.
I predict one hell of a massive surge to the Greens. They’re already on a consistent ~12% after only being at 4% at the last election. I expect them to poll around what the Democrats did in 1997, if not more.
sykesie
[Posting on a blog using someone else’s identity is not everyone’s democratic right – in fact its illegal.]
First of all I doubt that is true but it’s irrelevant. This legislation is only for the duration of the election. It has nothing to do with defamation or identity fraud. If it did, it would be a permanent law.
And the only person involved in the debate who has been done for defamation is Atkinson who had to pay out $210K to a judge he defamed. Of course, the taxpayers paid the bill for him.
Too right mate, I held a protest rally in November, demanding Atkinson’s resignation, his list of legislative stuff ups alone is huge, I have worn some of the brunt of what he can use his position to achieve, even an investigation into his conduct went no further than 1 source as computers files were wiped at the highest level.
ICAC will destroy him, hence his stance on its introduction.
Its some what up to the media now judging by the amount of info being shared about.
Now we know that this Atkinson chappy is a dud as Attorney-General.
Rann has pulled the rug from under his feet and declared he will retrospectively repeal the legislation if he wins government.
So we will go through this election having this draconian law hanging over our heads, with the certain knowledge that it remains in place, at least up until the parliament next sits – well after the next election.
Premier Rann must now publish the wording of the section as it will be after he retrospectively repeals it – so we can at least make an educated guess at what law we must operate under – assuming Rann wins the election and also assuming he does as he has promised – retrospectively repeal it.
Labor introduced this law into the parliament. They stand condemned for doing so. They stand condemned not only for the intent to restrict freedom of speech inapropriately, but for totally stuffing up the wording of the law and creating angst, concern and uncertainty. Every MP who supported the Bill as introduced by Labor also stands condemned. In particular, the SA Attorney General stands doubly condemned – for his enthusiastic support of the draconian provision, for introducing it and for totally stuffing it up. In my humble opinion he is a moron. Further in my humble opinion he is not a fit and proper person to hold the position of First Law officer of the state of South Australia. I hope he resigns his portfolio by the end of this week. If he fails to do so, IMHO Premier Rann should terminate his commission and appoint another person as A-G. That new A-G will have responsibility for overseeing the retrospective repeal of the provision, should Labor win the election. It cannot be left in the hands of this Atkinson bloke to attend to the repeal – he will probably stuff that up as well. In my humble opinion Atkinson cannot be trusted to do anything correctly.
It is also important that a new A-G is appointed immediately to ensure no prosecutions are brought under the Act during the period from now until parliament meets and repeals the provision. Reports suggest that Atkinson is emotionally attached to this draconian legislation, and fears exist that he is a nasty bit of gear. Fears are also held, that despite the announcement by Premier Rann, Atkinson in an act of vindictiveness for being slighted by the Premier over-ruling him by announcing the legislation will be repealed, will want to bring a prosecution asap not only to show how committed he is, but to pay back Rann for the slight.
Every South Australian must be deeply concerned about the quality of the government now in power. In my humble opinion, it as a shambles.
OOps – I incompetently failed to link the news article to the above post:-
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/victory-atkinson-loosens-gag/story-e6frea6u-1225826104175
I have to wonder about the honesty of the Attorney General, Michael Atkinson. He is either dishonest or he made an honest mistake when he declared that a blogger by the name of Aaron Fornarino did not exist.
Well as it turns out he does exist – and he lives just 500 metres from Atkinson’s electoral office.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/mike-meet-aaron-he-lives-500m-from-your-office/story-e6frea6u-1225826082741
IMHO – such a fundamental mistake by Atkinson, to properly check the facts before he made a definitive statement like that about the non-existence of Fornarino – clearly indicates he is not a fit and proper person to hold the the position of A-G.
Rann should ask for his resignation. If not given – then Rann should sack Atkinson.
DIOGENES – #260
[ And the only person involved in the debate who has been done for defamation is Atkinson who had to pay out $210K to a judge he defamed. Of course, the taxpayers paid the bill for him. ]
This Atkinson bloke in my opinion is a total loser. How dare he have the audacity to defend his draconian ban on internet discussons during the election campaign on the basis the law was designed to protect against defamation – when he has already been found guilty of defaming someone – not just an ordinary person but a judge.
As A-G his sworn duty as First Law Officer is to uphold the judicial system. Yet he has been found guilty of defaming a judge.
Atkinson must resign today. Otherwise Rann must sack him immediately.
I have been thinking about Rann’s actions in over ruling his dud A-G and telling the SA people he will repeal this draconian anti-internet political discussion provision if he is re-elected.
The A-G went on TV yesterday and defended the draconian law by claiming it was intended to stop defamation.
Who is concerned about defamation?
Premier Rann is obviously concerned about defamation. He currently has before the courts a defmation suit against the media for publishing the claims of a previous staffer – that Rann rooted her.
Now taking a defamation action and having it before the courts has effectively shut down debate and discussion of this staffer incidents based on the principle of sub-judice.
The draconian internet law would have shut down a lot of debate about election issues. When the hoo-haa started, it might have occurred to Rann that people might start to think this new law was to be used to shut down any further debate about the staffer incident – and conclude that Rann was absolutely desperate to do anything – anything at all – to stop discusssion of the staffer incidnt. Thus shutting down debate might have worse consequences for SA Labor – then actually allowing it to continue.
After all – the law of defamation has always governed the internet. He didn’t need to shut down debate to prevent defamation – the defamation law would continue to work as it always has.
Thus spooked – he decided to go for the least damaging alternative – promise to hold off prosecuting under the law and to repeal later.
That I think is a distinct possible scenario.
It would be interesting to hear from Rann – as to why he allowed this law to pass through cabinet, be presented to parliament, to be voted into law – and then shortly after turn around and say it was a useless law.
I agree it’s a shocking law, but now i am wondering if SA has a useless and shocking Labor leader.
Why should Atkinson be sacked for supporting a piece of legislation that most of the parliament voted for? I hadn’t realised but apparently even Mark Parnell – yes that’s right, the Green MLC – also voted for this legislation.
If a government legislates that eating babies is ok, with all of parliament agreeing to it, are you saying not to blame the government, just because others agreed with it?
Oh, and SA Labor/Atkinson will be repealing the law due to the massive outrage.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/victory-atkinson-loosens-gag/story-e6frea6u-1225826104175
The law will be repealed after the election but will be very unlikely to be enforced during the election campaign. And they wouldn’t otherwise they’d be killed in the media.
So to the Labor hacks who supported this because they thought it was good policy (instead of my claims they were blindly following the party line), I take it you will now argue that Labor has it wrong and that you still support this policy?
Oh what contortions Labor hacks will need to undergo to get out of this one! 😀
So Labor under Mike Rann introduced legislation into parliament to protect himself from being defamed, and will repeal the law once his “affair” is no longer an issue
I like that type of skills in a politician
dovif:
[Mr Atkinson said the law would not be enforced for comments posted on AdelaideNow during the upcoming election campaign, even though it was technically applicable.]
bob269
Victory over tyranny! At least Atkinson had the wisdom to know this was going to cost him votes. But the whole episode has illustated a control-freak aspect ot his personality which will not help him in the future.
The arguments over libel and defamation were rubbish as Dio and yourself said. There is plenty of existing legislation to go after people who actually make criminal statements on the internet, and in those cases legal means to find out who they are.
This whole episode only reinforces my wish that Australia were a republic with a bill of rights. We have far fewer rights than people realise here, and there is not much to stop us losing them other than public opinion. A less ham-fisted politician than Atkinson might have gotten away with this.
sykesie
I was surprised Parnel voted for it too. However a bit of reading yesterday led me to notice that it was passed early last year among a raft of bills about disclosing political donations. Easy to miss it for a small party without many lawyers on staff. I am not aware it was even debated (happy to be proven wrong).
bob – I don’t have any problem with you criticising the government if you don’t like something they do; that is your democratic right. However, this bill would not have passed if the liberals and your own green MLC hadn’t voted for it. Surely they deserve some of your criticism as well?
[bob – I don’t have any problem with you criticising the government if you don’t like something they do; that is your democratic right. However, this bill would not have passed if the liberals and your own green MLC hadn’t voted for it. Surely they deserve some of your criticism as well?]
The bill wouldn’t have passed with just Labor and Green support. It required the Libs to vote for it. The Libs are the main opposition party with a ton of resources and lawyers, they are more responsible than anyone to make sure legislation is properly analysed before voting on it.
Ok so what you’re saying is that Mark Parnell is a waste of space and takes no responsibility for his actions.
[Ok so what you’re saying is that Mark Parnell is a waste of space and takes no responsibility for his actions.]
What i’m saying is that there is no way the entire parliament would have voted for such a measure as we know it today – it defies logic. There is no way Parnell or Winderlich would ever have voted for such a law, they are vehement civil rights activists. I tend to believe the Libs when they say it was buried and not made clear in the legislation. But the Libs have the lawyers and resources to ensure they know better, in this case they didn’t.
I’m afraid ignorance of detail is never an excuse in any profession, let alone politics.
[I’m afraid ignorance of detail is never an excuse in any profession, let alone politics.]
However there was no premeditated intention by Parnell to reduce civil rights. It’s not an excuse however it is a reason. I forgive him.
For any Laborites to go crying over Parnell’s accidental support for reducing civil liberties is about as rich and contradictory as it gets, and is about an obvious ploy as it gets to divert attention away from the massive fail that is Atkinson.
The grass is always greener around the septic tank I say.
skyesie : #276
[ I’m afraid ignorance of detail is never an excuse in any profession, let alone politics.]
I have condemned EVERY politician who voted for this provision. That includes Labor, Liberal, green, Red Black and Brindle.
Do you join with me in condemning all politicians.
Do you join with me in double condemning the A-G, this Atkinson bloke, for writing the law, enthusiastically championing it and even defending it to the hilt until the rug was pulled from under his feet by Rann.
Do you join me in double condemning Rann, as premier for letting it through cabinet, allowing the dud A-G Atkinson to draft it, to introduce it and leaving it in the hands of the A-G to strenuously defend it when it arose as an issue yesterday? His moral condemnation is slightly less than Atkinson because he finally last night announced the provision would be repealed.
Your insistence on trying to apportion all the blame to one person, a Greens MP is an appalling party-political partisan act. The Greens MP shares i/60th of the blame (or whatever the total number of MPs is). The Labor Party must take well over 50% of the blame, but the double blame for both Atkinson and Rann, and for the fact that it was Labor that drafted and introduced the provision which enabled the others to make the fatal mistake of supporting it – taking all those factors into account Labors blame must be at least 80%. The balance falls on the Liberals 19% and the Greens 1%.
[ATTORNEY-GENERAL Michael Atkinson will move immediately to repeal controversial laws which sparked an outcry over censorship of the internet.
After backing down late last night to say the laws would not be put into effect, Mr Atkinson told reporters he would follow the advice of Opposition legal affairs spokeswoman Vickie Chapman and use a section of the Electoral Act to immediately repeal the section.
Earlier, Mr Atkinson said it would be repealed but could not do it until after the election and had promised that no action would be taken against internet users during the election campaign.]
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/victory-atkinson-loosens-gag/story-e6frea6u-1225826104175
HEAR HEAR!!!!!!!!!!
😀
HHmmmm the Circus is in town, back flips from every where, Atkinson back flips, well he doesnt change anything, has just decided he can ignore the written law, now the Lib’s though Vicki Chapman demand the Attorneys resignation, funnily enough I met with Vicki in October for the very same reason, and she did not want to be involved, hhmmmm that’s right she backed the Legislation, well when they all thought it suited them.
The Media are all over this story, yet I held a protest rally on the very same issues and some, with a couple of hundred supporters and it was not newsworthy?
Interesting times 🙂
sykesie
The Greens and Libs were misled by Labor about what this would cover. Holloway said one thing and then Atkinson did a completely different thing.
He is incompetent. Chapman had to point out that he can repeal the electoral act immediately. He doesn’t know his job and the stench of bad decisions around him would get anyone else sacked who didn’t have the backing of the Right.
What duds the Libs and Greens were to support legislation that is now labelled ‘draconian’. Gross incompetence at best. Not fit to govern.
Where was the Murdoch press when the bill passed parliament? AWL.
No excuses, please, for any of the above who all failed the test and are now crying blue murder.
The blame lies first and foremost with those who sought to implement it.
The blame will be found in the next poll
The WA Libs and NT Libs started much further behind in their election campaign, this might be the momentum they need for another upset
“Your insistence on trying to apportion all the blame to one person, a Greens MP is an appalling party-political partisan act.”
You obviously don’t read what I say very carefully Peter Young. I was merely pointing out that other parties that have voted for this legislation can’t scurry and hide under the carpet; as the Toorak Toff points out they voted for it. Fact.
[The blame will be found in the next poll]
The Greens will surge. Everyone i’ve talked to who hates it blames both the major parties for it. My housemate who has always voted incumbent in the lower and Dem/Grn in the upper, will be voting Green in the lower this year.
And yes, these are only anecdotes from one person – but you watch the polls and the election.
I predict the Greens to do approximately as well as the Democrats did in 1997.
[You obviously don’t read what I say very carefully Peter Young. I was merely pointing out that other parties that have voted for this legislation can’t scurry and hide under the carpet; as the Toorak Toff points out they voted for it. Fact.]
Perception is everything. People are blaming Atkinson, or the major parties. Nobody whinges about the Greens encroaching civil liberties because they’re all about civil liberties! Whilst ignorance is not a defence, the Greens hearts have always been in the right place on civil rights – and then on the other hand we have Atkinson…
[The Democratic Labor Party – formed as a breakaway from the ALP in the 1950s by members disgruntled about communist influence on the party – is fielding three candidates.]
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/in-depth/minor-parties-big-ambitions/story-e6frebnu-1225826325410
The Advertiser are absolutely loving this. It’s a shame they’re exploiting 1950s communist fears to fuel incorrect assertions by idiots that modern Labor is communist.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/victory-atkinson-loosens-gag/story-e6frea6u-1225826104175
Can I ask everyone what they think of Atkinson in the video here?
I said the other day that i’d never seen a poll so lopsided as 90-10 against Atkinson’s legislation.
I stand corrected.
Same link…
Should Michael Atkinson resign as Attorney-General after being forced to repeal his laws censoring internet comment?
* Yes 93.53% (289 votes)
* No 6.47% (20 votes)
I voted Yes without hesitation – i’ve never felt so enraged with a Labor MP before. He is far too conservative and too old, and completely out of touch with the community.
Dunstan would be turning in his grave.
Maybe they could replace it with a law that lies and deciept are illegal for the duration of the election campaign. I’d like to see that.
ALP still on $1.18 at centerbet. Settle chaps, more likely that the social left will in part vote Grn then straight back to ALP.
It reminds me of the Higgins byelection, a few bloggers get excited. 20 million divided by the blogging community of 2000 gives and rough result of about 1 in 10,000.
Bob 1234 – #291
[ exploiting 1950s communist fears to fuel incorrect assertions by idiots that modern Labor is communist.]
If one was forced to compare modern day Labor with an early 20th century political movement, the closest fit would be Fascism., and Communism would run a long way behind.
bob1234 – #292
I watched the video of Atkinson. He is a gooose.
On a more superficial level he does not have a very good on camera appearance. His teeth look gappy – and there may even be some missing. I am sure these days they can do dental work to “cap” teeth etc which would give him a much better image. At present(although in the near future he may not be) he would be on a good salary as A-G and would surely be able to afford the costs of dental treatment to improve his on camera image.
PY – 296 suggests you know nothing about fascism. Have a Bex and Lie Down.
[If one was forced to compare modern day Labor with an early 20th century political movement, the closest fit would be Fascism., and Communism would run a long way behind.]
Disagree, I think fascism is overplaying your hand a bit…
[On a more superficial level he does not have a very good on camera appearance. His teeth look gappy – and there may even be some missing. I am sure these days they can do dental work to “cap” teeth etc which would give him a much better image. At present(although in the near future he may not be) he would be on a good salary as A-G and would surely be able to afford the costs of dental treatment to improve his on camera image.]
I don’t care what my politicians look like, I care what they do or don’t do.