You are currently viewing the archive for February 2005.
The riots in Sydney are a great example of the problems caused by poor ghettoes. One of the best decisions of the Gallop Government was to bulldoze outdated council flats and replace them with housing built according to modern planning principles, including by putting Homeswest housing in upmarket areas. Naturally, the toffs complained about undeserving, dirty poor people moving in down the road. Fuck them.
This guide to beer ordering is an interesting concept, but it’s wrong! We don’t have “pots” in WA, dammit! Pints and middies, and some of the ethnic clubs still sell ponies, but that’s all. (via)
“[T]he concepts of liberty and democracy are so often completely at odds with one another … [that] the best way to increase liberty is to restrict democracy.” The Steve Edwards road to freedom: dictatorship!
ANF secretary Mark Olson reportedly had a go at Wanneroo MP Dianne Guise outside the Labor launch, telling her she wouldn’t be in parliament after the election. In fact, Guise pulled off a massive swing to win the formerly marginal seat with 50.7% of the primary vote. The ANF’s “independent nurse,” Anne Cowley, came in dead last with under 400 votes. Now Olson’s come crawling back, cap in hand.
Progress: “My new phone has a digital compass on it. While reading the 96 page booklet that came with the phone, I noticed it stated that using the compass drains the battery very quickly. Fucking great! So if I get lost in the bush for 10 days I have to take the charger with me.”
When I first mentioned Graham Kierath’s dirty tricks campaign, I asked, “after Paul Everingham’s experiment with green how-to-votes, what were we to expect?” The answer, it seems, is more dodgy green how-to-votes. Now that a Labor victory is assured, I nearly hope Kierath gets over the line. He would be “an almost certain candidate” for the Liberal leadership, and that would guarantee a third term for Labor.
Predicted ALP gain in Kingsley? Yay!
Four more years. Thankyou and goodnight.
As predicted the West Australian has moved behind Labor “grudgingly and with serious reservations.” A Westpoll conducted on Monday and Tuesday shows Labor in difficulty in several marginal seats, but the paper doesn’t trust its own poll and the headline reads “Labor was ahead in key marginals.”
A larger and more recent Newspoll puts Labor in a winning position, having improved steadily throughout the campaign. The Australian’s writeup includes this odd comment:
The Newspoll reveals another big surprise: a drift of voter support in Western Australia back to the two major parties.
A shift back to the majors was evident in the federal election results, and minor parties are fielding fewer lower house candidates (the Democrats aren’t running any at all), so I don’t know how that comes as a surprise.
Poll Bludger’s tipping Labor by five seats, Mumble says thirteen, and Crikey’s Charles Richardson says seven.
I certainly hope there’s a big swing to Labor, because Damien Parry has promised to pay some interesting forfeits in the unlikely event that he wins Carine (and if Mumble’s accurate, he could). But I think Poll Bludger’s got it right.
I’ve discussed Graham Kierath’s dodgy advertising before, but here’s a doozy from Alfred Covian Peter Ward:
[M]y absolute favourite piece of your campaign literature arrived in the mail today.
‘It’s Graham We Should Thank’ When bouquets are being handed around the politicians for the achievements, Graham Kierath doesn’t seek praise. … Yes, thank you Graham — thank you, indeed.
And then:
Written and authorised by G Kierath, PO Box 1032, Canning Bridge WA 6153.
Fantastic work, Graham. Great to see you are as modest as always.
Peter also notes that the Kierath newsletter is illegal, because according to the Electoral Act 1907 the authorising address needs to be a physical place and not a post box: “Unless of course you actually physically live in a PO Box, then it would be fine.”
It also fails to include the name and address of Kierath’s printer, another legal requirement. That rule is there so that we know MPs aren’t misusing their parliamentary entitlements, so I’m sure you’ll agree that it’s an important one. Kierath’s response?
Guilty. Along with probably 99% of other candidates, including those you clearly support. Hopefully we’ll all get to share a cell when your complaint reaches the Electoral Commission. In fact in all the literature I’ve seen, I think I’ve seen this complied with once.
Any literature I’ve designed includes the printer’s address — it’s not hard — and nothing that’s come through my letterbox from Labor, the Libs, or the two independents who’ve distributed material in Kingsley has lacked the appropriate fine print. (I check these things. Sad, I know.)
Vote [1] Kierath. Because we need a member who’s above the law.
The Australian’s Matt Price says that when his shonky costings were exposed, Colin Barnett “turned crimson and began to sweat”. The West’s Steve Pennells reckons “the blood drained from his face.” Who’s correct? Did Barnett turn red or white?
The West doesn’t put many of its stories online, and those it picks are rarely from the front page. But from the tiny, blurry thumbnail of tomorrow’s cover, I can make out, “I was misled into standing for marginal seat: nurse.” I think I can guess where that’s headed, and I’m looking forward to unwrapping the paper in the morning! [Update: My mistake. A pro-Labor story was too much to expect, but an interpreter who says she couldn't understand a form? Sounds a bit sus to me. Here's the key line: "A spokesman for the WA Electoral Commission said it had probed Ms Ma's complaint but found no wrongdoing."]
With fluoridation back on the agenda, let me remind Queensland readers to tread carefully — fluoridated water turns kids into Communists.
This is what the Chamber of Commerce and Industry thinks of its former CEO’s financial credibility:
It has apparent gaps in expenditure. We are extremely cautious and suspicious of its comprehensiveness. If elected, the Coalition would have to do a complete re-think of its finances.
Some of the savings are ambitious to the point of being unachievable. We have a concern that these numbers would indicate deficits in several of the years.
The Australian doesn’t hold back, either:
Mr Barnett’s campaign is reminiscent — including the same sort of innumeracy — of Pauline Hanson at the pinnacle of her popularity. Some of his policies are pitched to prejudice and economic ignorance, and he has made no convincing case he would be a competent premier.
Matt Price, who claims to be the first to spot the error, feels sorry for Barnett:
Once highlighted, the simple, horrendous error dominated the announcement. Questions rained on the Liberal leader like bullets. Barnett muttered something about “arithmetic discrepancy”, turned crimson and began to sweat. The exchange became juvenile.
TV reporter: These figures don’t add up.
Barnett: Yes, they do.
TV reporter: No, they don’t.
Barnett: Yes, they do.
Liberal strategists wore thousand-yard stares as their man, and possibly the election, vaporised on video. … Barnett’s harrowing half hour has, in all likelihood, transformed a feisty underdog into political roadkill. It was sad to watch.
I reckon the costings fuck-up will be enough to swing even the West behind Labor (though it will be a transparently reluctant endorsement).
It’s been clear all along that Mark Olson’s deal with the Liberals is a sham. The mooted $50 million for improved conditions is not guaranteed; it is an upper limit for a package to be negotiated at some time in the future. The idea that Barnett, whose goal is to cut $400 million from health spending, would give them full value is ludicrous.
But now it seems it’s not just the $50 million for working conditions that’s illusory. The entire $212 million package, including the wage rise, was left out of Barnett’s long-awaited costings. He hasn’t put money aside to pay the nurses.
And that’s not all. His long-awaited policy costings just don’t add up, as the media who sat down to hear his spiel quickly worked out:
Unfortunately the document, which Mr Barnett said he had prepared himself, contained a $204 million error, with the estimated savings from scrapping Labor’s desalination plant adding up to $407 million, rather than the claimed $611 million.
Pointing out the savings figures were “notional”, Mr Barnett was forced to defend his ability to manage a $14 billion budget, when he was unable to add up a column of figures.
And that’s just the things he included. As I mentioned above, his deal with the nurses didn’t make the document. Neither did the canal ($400 million according to Barnett during the week), and neither did a promised power station ($400 million).
The common denominator? These three things are the Coalition’s key campaign commitments and feature prominently in their television ads.
How do you submit policies for costing and accidentally leave out your biggest promises?
How can you trust Colin Barnett?
