text:
Divining the meaning of elections is a mug's game
Trying to impart meaning on something as complex as an election is futile, but that doesn't stop pundits and commentators from lining up to give it their best shot, writes Chris Berg.
What does the Griffith by-election mean? What is its deeper, broader significance for the trajectory of the Abbott Government, and, through it, Australian politics?
In Fairfax papers, Peter Hartcher said Labor's win suggests "the people are reserving their judgment on Tony Abbott's government". The victor, Terri Butler, thinks, "We've said to Tony Abbott: hands off Medicare." Tony Abbott believes it's "a poor result for Bill Shorten". A Labor pollster reckons, "The by-election showed Labor too has some way to go to build trust with many in the electorate."
Of course none of them have any idea what the Griffith result means. Politics is all about converting ignorance into popularity.
There are two theories about what drives a by-election result. The first, and most appealing, is the referendum theory. This says that a by-election reflects the electorate's satisfaction or dissatisfaction with a government. Polls are necessarily hypothetical - they can only ask people how they might vote. By-elections are definitive.
The second theory is that a by-election is all about local candidates. In the off-election season (and assuming the by-election won't topple the government), voters are free to think more about the personality of individual politicians. Without the national significance, voters are more interested in local issues.
But in an important way, it doesn't matter which theory is most true. What matters is which theory the political class believes.
Pundits like the referendum theory because it makes by-elections more significant; more worthy of their scrutiny. Losers like the local candidate theory because it's all about creating exceptions to national trends - "that by-election was unique because the candidate had a strong local profile, well-known in their community..." etc, etc, etc.
Of course, much of the nonsense of Australian politics is self-interested nonsense. But the desire to impose narrative on disparate and complex events isn't just driven by the political necessity to spin in their favour.
We have an innate human desire to create order where there is disorder - to create meaning from the muddle of history.
The question at the front of this column - what does the Griffith result mean? - is an example of exactly that. Commentators who try to answer it aren't just filling word counts and news pages, but are trying to make the world intelligible.
Too bad that meaning-seeking is utterly futile. At best it lulls us into a false sense of security that we understand more than we do. At worst it's a confidence trick.
Philip Tetlock influentially argued in his 2005 book Expert Political Judgment that political experts - pundits, pollsters, analysts, consultants - are no better at making predictions than the general public.
When it comes to understanding infinitely complex systems, learning doesn't create authority, it creates overconfidence.
Tetlock found that while a little knowledge about a subject can help us improve our predictions about political events, having a great deal of knowledge is actually counterproductive.
When the book was published, most people focused on why it was so hard to get experts to make bets - that is, put money on the line - to back their predictions up.
But what was more important, and more interesting, was why experts are incredibly bad at predictions. It's that our social system is far too complex to even read, let alone understand well enough to forecast its future. The most learned expert can grasp only a few small elements of a political order.
When it comes to understanding infinitely complex systems, learning doesn't create authority, it creates overconfidence.
Far from being harmless, our demand for narrative and meaning in politics creates heroes where there are none.
The political class builds up elaborate mythologies about great election campaigns and great election strategists to explain the twists and turns of political fortune. There are giants of Australian politics who can read the "mood" of the electorate, who have a unique vision into what the battlers or working families want.
But these giants are more like soothsayers than scientists. Statistical chance is just as plausible an explanation for short term political change.
There's a parallel here with financial markets. Eugene Fama won the economics Nobel last year for his bubble-bursting empirical work on the efficient market hypothesis, which suggests most success in the share market is determined by random chance.
Every fund manager claims to consistently beat the market. Yet statistically speaking, somebody has to be Warren Buffett, and somebody has to be Gil Gunderson. It's the same in politics.
Hopefully Terri Butler doesn't actually believe Griffith was a referendum on Medicare. Hopefully Peter Hartcher doesn't believe the by-election can reveal anything deep about the aggregated opinions of the Australian electorate with any degree of certainty.
Hopefully they realise the game that they are playing: trying to impart meaning on events no person can possibly understand.
Chris Berg is a Research Fellow with the Institute of Public Affairs. His most recent book is In Defence of Freedom of Speech: from Ancient Greece to Andrew Bolt. Follow him at @chrisberg. View his full profile here.
More on politics:
- Andrew Porter: Toyota workers could do without this opportunity
- Mungo MacCallum: Spectacle beats substance in political circus
- Barrie Cassidy: Getting the message straight on industry policy
Topics: federal-elections, government-and-politics
Comments (230)
Comments for this story are closed.
11 Feb 2014 3:08:12pm
Who cares what it means? Labor won it and that is all that counts. Really Chris Berg, worry your pretty little head analyzing the outcome any more.
the yank:
11 Feb 2014 5:54:47pm
Yes Labor did win but I don't think either party should be overjoyed with the result.
Fredom of Speech:
12 Feb 2014 12:32:07am
Yes Yank Labor did win, and the results can just about mean anything to anybody. The election that will be interesting will be the probable senate election rerun in WA. If one is held it will not be before the Federal budget, and the meaning of the results will be a prelim judgement on the Abbott government. Give Abbott his due Yank he has so far stopped the boats.
12 Feb 2014 7:45:45am
He hasn't stopped the boats. They're still coming. He's just getting the navy to tow the boats back to Indonesia.
12 Feb 2014 7:59:27am
He hasn't stopped the boats just giving them new boats and sending them back to Indonesia and guess who is paying for these boats which I heard cost something like 70 thousand each, we are the tax payer, not abbott or his ilk, the humble old tax payer foots the bill and this guy wants to cut welfare to the needy. What a joke, bring on the next election as quick as possible we need it.
Do the math:
12 Feb 2014 9:17:47am
You heard $70 thousand? From where? From what expert?
$70 thousand per boat will still work out cheaper than detaining, transferring, paying welfare etc which was costing Australian tax payers $10billion a year under the ALP.
Do the math, it's still cheaper sending them back
Stuffed Olive:
12 Feb 2014 10:01:19am
It was in the papers the other day. One said $70,000 and another said $50,000 plus fittings. $70,000 sounds spot on.
12 Feb 2014 11:58:49am
And they turn back up to 90 people.
It costs $100,000 to look after EACH person arriving as an IMA to be processed.
Now that is what a real Cost Benefit Analysis looks like.
Even if it was $70,00 [which it is not ; that was for 6 boats] it is saving us up to $9 Million each boat. That is enough to meet a couple of minutes of interest payments on ALP $300 Billion debt.
Pity the ALP would rather see people arrive and cost us Billions then admit Abbott might have just stopped the boats.
12 Feb 2014 4:53:39pm
Do the maths,
Have you actually done the maths,how many people can be put back on board? and now the people smugglers don't have to overload the boats, they just need enough on board for a return trip to Indonesia ,the smugglers confiscate the lifeboats and sell them back to Morrisons minions or just flog them off to other refugees for a return trip to Australia Brilliant!
I like it when a plan comes together, it won't matter what this secret service on water policy is ,the fact is there are far more desperate people in the world who will not allow this mickey mouse program to be totally successful
Until all the civil wars are quashed in the middle East and people have some peace ,this problem will be ongoing all over the planet.
12 Feb 2014 9:21:58am
Yes, whatif, the boats cost about 70k each (plus food, water, navigation gear and so on probably boosts it to 150k), but the average cost for processing an asylum seeker is about 100k a head - that is, if each lifeboat stops just two asylum seekers, we're ahead.
I don't like the policy for other, humanitarian, reasons, but quite frankly it is proving effective and highly cost-saving.
the yank:
12 Feb 2014 8:16:10am
Fredom of Speech don't you think its too bad he hasn't allowed freedom of information and speech?
I don't see that Senate election as much of anything really. WA is a conservative state so I would expect it to go much the same as it did the first time.
State elections will be held more or less on state issues. I think Abbott will get a fair bit of mileage in the short term out of his political bashing of the unions (remember I told you guys that he had declared war on unions). But at the end of the day it will be his handling of the economy that will tell who wins the next federal election.
12 Feb 2014 9:04:31am
I wish there were freedom of speech but we will have to wait 30 years to find out what Tony and Co are up to.
I really hope that the asylum seekers do stop coming but only because I don't want to hear of people drowning at sea in an attempt to get a better life.
The reality is that it is way to early to call the political game won. Tony blocked every attempted by the previous government to find a regional solution to this problem and scored plenty of political points along the way but the problem still exists while people still put to sea in leaky boats.
Tony's victory may yet be a Pyrrhic victory.
12 Feb 2014 10:20:26am
"...what Tony and Co are up to."
What they are" up to" is to do what Labor was prevented from doing. Quite simply: Stop the boats.
They are setting out to stop the "business model" of the "people smugglers" and in so doing, save "illegals" from drowning. So they have kept Nauru and Manus as dumping grounds and have sent in the Navy to attack, what...a couple of dozen "people smugglers". Meanwhile, the cost (apart from millions of dollars) is the misery of tens of thousands of "illegals": imprisoned in poor conditions, no chance of coming to Oz, no re-union with family...
And who really cares about "illegals"? We have been told that they are not to be trusted, even when there is evidence of burnt hands, use of sprays and tossing people into the water...
Never mind entry into Indonesian waters ("inadvertently", of course} and the towing of boats in international waters and the detention of people at sea and who knows how many broken Refugee Convention regulations...
The end justifies the means, apparently. Yet it is strange that while in Opposition the LNP shouted loudly about boats and "illegals", but now all is hidden in a veil of secrecy. Is that hypocrisy or what?
12 Feb 2014 12:54:09pm
It is very pleasing that Labor won. Voters have not fallen for the propaganda that the Abbott govnt is doing a fantastic job - when clearly it isn't. Perhaps the idea that the voters are reserving judgement on Abbott - but at least they have not caved in to the propaganda.
Only a Research Fellow at the IPA could say that the Griffith election was meaningless. Labor won. It did not mean nothing.
12 Feb 2014 1:49:09pm
They won with a reduced primary vote. Not significant on the surface but given the electorate takes in the inner suburbs of Brisbane that has a Greens local counselor, one of the few state ALP members and was Anna Bligh' seat it's a pretty safe ALP area. I'm not sure that the LNP did that bad or the ALP did that great.
11 Feb 2014 5:56:38pm
That is exactly what he said!
11 Feb 2014 5:57:48pm
?Who cares what it means??? I do, Skeptic:
So, let?s see, 80.4% of the votes have been counted and we got a 2PP result of 51.7% for Labor and 48.3% for the Coalition. This is a victory for Labor.
Now, there was a 2PP swing against Labor of about 1.3% compared to the September election. Why? To understand this you have to look at the results of the first preference vote. First preferences went down for Labor by a 1.7% whereas those for the Coalition rose by 2.2%. Did ?disaffected? Labor voters actually vote for the Coalition? That?s very unlikely. The loss of Labor primary vote can be mostly attributed to the 1.5% primary vote for Melanie Thomas of the Pirate Party Australia, that has an anti-Abbott political agenda and in fact it competes with left-wing leaning parties for votes, then there is a number of voters who didn't bother to turn up and the informals, who may have corroded the Labor primary vote by the additional 0.2%. Whereas the gain for the LNP can be fully attributed to a partial swing to them by PUP voters. The mainly conservative PUP polled 3.4% at the last election in Griffith, but it was not running this time around. So, even with the partial swing to the LNP by conservative PUP voters, the LNP was able to secure only a 1.3% swing in the 2PP: A resounding failure and a clear warning to Tony Abbott that worse is coming.
Congratulations to Terri Butler!
11 Feb 2014 6:57:19pm
You just copied pasted what you wrote a few days ago in the article, "maccallum-spectacle-beats-substance-in-political-sideshow"... Word for word.....
How arrogant of you to assume you know what the voters thought.
Alpo Says, "The loss of Labor primary vote can be mostly attributed to the 1.5% primary vote for Melanie Thomas of the Pirate Party Australia, that has an anti-Abbott political agenda and in fact it competes with left-wing leaning parties for votes, then there is a number of voters who didn't bother to turn up and the informals, who may have corroded the Labor primary vote by the additional 0.2%. "
It made no sense then and makes even less today.
11 Feb 2014 7:28:14pm
No Rudski, it's a similar but not the same post. This one is updated and modified, but the message is the same, of course. Please do explain to me where is the arrogance? Just read the argument more carefully and without blinkers, you will see that, slowly, it will start making sense to you. Think for instance about the link between the primary vote for the PPA (a left-wing Party) and the lost primary vote for the ALP. Think also about the PUP (a right-wing Party) that did not run a candidate this time around, but the voters still voted. Where did the vote of those conservative people go? Partly to the LNP, wouldn't you agree?.... but not all of them.... hence the LNP lost....again. As you can see, this a new post, but the idea is just the same.... reality never changes, no matter how much you want to twist it around, I am sorry.
12 Feb 2014 12:00:18am
Speaking authoritatively as a Griffith voter who has spoken to the young blokes who live behind me I can tell you with absolute certainty that 4 votes for the Pirate Party were due to its 'cool name'. I would assume that a percentage of the party's other votes were also due to the name. Also Alpo a deeper reading of the Pirate Party manifesto will reveal they are not just anti Liberal/National but also anti Labor and anti Green as they are against all established Parties, hence the name Pirate.
12 Feb 2014 7:17:39am
Rumba, go to the PPA website and you will see that they compete with both Labor and Green votes against Conservative policies... I am sure you are right that a small bunch of people would vote for them because the name is "cool", or in favour of the LNP because they believe that it's the Like Napping Party or against Labor because labor is just too much work and they like a more relaxed lifestyle... etc. This is a big country with lots of weird people, but a big core of more or less reasonable people as well.
12 Feb 2014 4:42:44pm
Alpo, the swing to the LNP was there. What it means, if anything is unclear. What there wasn't, and this is clear, is a big swing of disaffected people making a protest vote against the government. On these figures, if that means anything, Abbot would win an election if it was held now. Griffith was a very safe Labor seat, and it is now marginal. Yes the Rudd factor was there, but this seat has been safe Labor for a long time. An inner city seat, somewhere the Greens would have felt they had a chance against a poor candidate.
11 Feb 2014 9:33:07pm
Even is one accepts Alpo's weird logic (a big if), a 1.3% swing to a Government in a by election, surrounded by all the Labor fear and smear and the Abbott-Derangement Syndrome and Newman-Derangement Syndrome so ably demonstrated by Alpo et al, is a good result by any standard. Bye, bye Bill.
12 Feb 2014 7:22:13am
Cobber, you still don't get the fact that the swing in favour of the LNP is less than the vote for the PUP, don't you? Not even the conservatives in the PUP like Tony Abbott.... that's definitely a bye bye Tony, I am afraid. Next stop, hopefully the re-run of the WA Senate election.... keep your eyes open, and take your goggles off.
12 Feb 2014 9:59:52am
The electorate is approx 75,000 people.
A swing of 1.5 is about 1100 people.
Alpo argues , "The loss of Labor primary vote can be mostly attributed to the 1.5% primary vote for Melanie Thomas of the Pirate Party Australia,
How on earth from your computer desktop can you tell how these people voted? Please I'd love to hear the reply.
12 Feb 2014 11:18:21am
Rudski, look at the percentages, think about the broad philosophy of each Party and then put the two things together. You will see that the ALP must have received the preferences from both the Greens and the PPA, plus some preferences from the PUP. The latter is what should worry Abbott the most. If you can't attract all the conservatives to your side then you are in very big troubles as a conservative leader.
12 Feb 2014 2:45:23pm
Ok, looking at primary vote is filled with far, far too many variables (and means very little in our system anyway). On 2PP the LNP made a gain.
This cannot be attributed to PUP not being in the election, unless you're claiming that a significant portion of those who voted PUP last time actually preferenced Labor and have now changed to vote LNP. Even if that IS the case, they have still decided to vote LNP over Labor this time. It's still a swing to the LNP, because they changed who they preferred.
The result is too close to that of the election to be considered much of a message to either party - I'd say Labor marginally underperformed and will be surprised by how close it was, but that really it's a status quo kind of result that no one can shout from the rooftops about (won't stop both sides doing so, of course).
11 Feb 2014 7:04:53pm
The outcome is not really that hard to analyse. People are sick of voting for selfish personalities, but now instead policies. A good outcome in my opinion. In an electorate that had every right to throw their hands up and say do I really have to vote again already? Bloody Kevin! But they still turned up and thought about it, and what they were voting for rather than simple minded revenge. Too bad for Glasson hey, constantly saying its not about Abbott whilst standing next to or behind him at every press conference. Makes you wonder what Tony is actually doing? Clearly not his job of dealing with complexities of running a country.
Great at the interview but clueless at the actual job. C'mon people you all know one in your workplace. Once hired difficult to get rid of.
11 Feb 2014 7:31:32pm
"Clearly not his job of dealing with complexities of running a country."... Hi cristophus, you have truly put your finger deep inside Abbott's political wound. He is quickly realising that although you can run the Liberal Party on three-word mantras, you cannot run the Country with that!
Peter the Lawyer:
11 Feb 2014 8:05:14pm
I'm going to love it when Abbott wins the next two elections on the trot as the economy improves and the ALP debt gets paid off. My chief reason for enjoying myself so much will be to see people like Alpo explode with fury, as they realise that the things they think are important are not felt to matter much by the great unwashed or the more informed among us either.
11 Feb 2014 9:44:59pm
"I'm going to love it when Abbott wins the next two elections on the trot as the economy improves"... Getting rid of local industries is unlikely to improve the economy, Peter? But hey, if everything else fails, just follow the example of your leader.... and pray.
" as they realise that the things they think are important are not felt to matter much by the great unwashed or the more informed among us either."... Hmm, jobs are only important to "biased" left-wingers?... Standards of living too?... and what about Education, and Hospitals, and other public services?... Is Abbott going to improve all that? How?... By asking us to "live within our means", by telling us that the "age of entitlements is over"? By closing down factories? By attacking the Union Movement as a preamble to re-introducing WorkChoices (because "the balance is too much in favour of the workers"?).... Ready for a $2/hr Gina-style salary, Peter?
Griffith is just the first step, more will come in 2014. Keep your eyes open and the fog away from your mind, because if you don't you may suddenly bump into a very hard reality.... and it might hurt!
12 Feb 2014 12:14:24pm
Alpo - If Griffith is the first step - then the swing is against Labor.
And who did the Griffith voters get for their trouble?
Another Labor industrial lawyer. Just what the Labor Caucus needs. They are really short on that brand.
12 Feb 2014 1:30:45pm
"If Griffith is the first step - then the swing is against Labor.".....
FalKirk, the swing in favour of the Coalition comes from only some PUP voters. It helps if you learn how to add in this circumstances. When you can't even attract all the votes from your conservative side of politics, you are in real troubles, I tell you. Okay, let me explain. Glasson got a primary vote of 44.5%. It is reasonable to assume that he got the preferences from both Family First (C. Williams) (1%) and the KAP (R. Sawyer) (1.1%), thus so far we have a 2PP of 46.6% for the LNP. Now, if you add all of the PUP votes (there was no candidate, but voters weren't impeded to vote) you get 46.6 + 3.4 = 50%. But the actual 2PP for Glasson was 48.3%. Who are the missing votes? Given that in September the PUP votes actually helped Rudd go through, I would expect that this time around they also helped Butler. So, some PUP voters are not happy with Abbott, and they are mainly conservatives...
Finally, the Griffith voters sent a message to Abbott and his Government: You are on the wrong track. Abbott may listen (unlikely) or arrogantly press on (most likely).... I will assist him at the bottom of his political precipice with some band aids in 2016... I am a humanitarian person after all.
12 Feb 2014 3:41:57pm
Alpo - you can indulge yourself in whatever gymnastic mathematics you like - it doesn't change the result.
1. There was a swing against Labor.
2. Griffith is now even more marginal than before the by-election.
Adelaide Rose:
11 Feb 2014 10:06:48pm
I would have thought even the most rusted on Liberal would realize that Abbott will be lucky to see out 3 years let alone be capable of winning 1 or 2 more elections. He's failing, miserably, and the only reason he's not hovering about in the 20-30s is that the ALP hasn't won back the people's trust yet. Should Abbott stay on the same trajectory he is currently on, voters will punish him even more decisively than they punished Labor. He is absolutely on a hiding to nothing!
12 Feb 2014 7:48:49am
I agree that he is failing, Rose. Badly. But what a shame Bill Shorten is such an uninspiring alternative. Rudd the wrecker has a lot to answer for.
12 Feb 2014 10:12:27am
It goes back even further to Keating, snake.
Keating basically ran down the bank of trust capital Labor previously had with the electorate. So much so that Beazley, Crean and Latham floundered against Howard. All that Labor had left to campaign on right at the end was Kevin 07 (the Messiah). And the public thought, "Hey, we should give Kev a run; he sounds good; we might get something for nothing here". And so Australia found itself run by its first Prime Prefect.
12 Feb 2014 8:08:57am
Ben what a stupid remark, abbott will never be re elected, he was only put in by people who were brainwashed by the media , and you were one of them, unfortunately for abbott and his party, ( who are already in fighting amongst themselves) the writing is on the wall, he hasn't got the brains to run a country and bring it to fruitation, instead we are heading into a recession, He is to busy coping the talks of the guys in the old USA as he cant even draft a speech for him self. I quote, Governments don't create jobs, good speech for the us not good enough for Australia. get real. If you are a lawyer I would not hire you to defend me, I would end up swinging on a rope.
Ben J:
12 Feb 2014 1:36:51pm
Peter I am with you there! I wonder who these blindfolded loud mouths will blame then. I am predicting at LEAST 2 more terms from this trustworthy gov.
what's annoying is that he is getting swiped for keeping his promises.
11 Feb 2014 8:17:15pm
I watched Bill Glasson on ABC 7.30 Qld the night before the election. Just as with Tony Abbott, he clearly had put all his energies into winning the election, not into any thought of what lay beyond Saturday.
I think Terri Butler did an outstanding job, as the new kid on the block, with a short time to campaign, against Bill Glasson's having campaigned for 14 months, as well as having a high profile.
The LNP had rushed in to start up a costly and unnecessary Royal Commission into the Insulation Scheme (to blacken Kevin Rudd's/Labor's name), just before Christmas, for political effect. Soon to follow, came the Union bashing with plans for yet another RC to follow - no coincidence that Terri Butler has union affiliations. These Commissions will come at a cost to the taxpayers in the multi-millions of dollars, at a time when we are told it's the 'end of the age of entitlement', we cannot afford to support our manufacturing industries.
In the light of it, in spite of all the usual LNP 'dirty tricks', Terri Butler's win was actually a greater achievement than shown in the voting figures.
11 Feb 2014 10:09:14pm
Good comment Rhonda. Thoughtful and I humbly agree.
You only have to look at Peter's comment above yours to see what these people are really about. Revenge rather than thought about what it might really equate to.
Revenge for what exactly is as confusing as ever.
Anne T:
12 Feb 2014 12:10:06am
I agree.
Chris Berg may have been onto something if he made your point that "Terri Butler's win was actually a greater achievement than shown in the voting figures."
As it is, his article is just a whinge because his 'side' didn't win whereas your post is insightful.
Political Psychiatrist:
12 Feb 2014 7:24:34am
Sorry Luvvies, but nothing has changed. The LNP still has the same crushing majority it had before the bi-election.
I asked a Canadian visitor what she thinks. Her reply; "Nothing has changed, except that the Conservatives are closer to winning the seat next time"
The ALP heirarchy knows this too.
12 Feb 2014 9:01:12am
"The LNP still has the same crushing majority it had before the bi-election."... But we knew that even before the by-election, didn't we?... So, what's in the Griffith by-election that is of interest? Well, I tell you (and your Canadian visitor) that it's the first step in the process leading to the end of this Government. Next step is the Qld by-election in Redcliffe, then presumably the re-run of the Senate election in WA, then the extremely interesting State election in SA, then the election in Tassie (expected to be in the pockets of the Coalition, so let's see what's going to happen) and finally, the very important election in Victoria, as the final statement for the fate of the Abbott Government (IF Abbott is still leading it....).
12 Feb 2014 2:42:11pm
"If Abbott is still leading it..."
Alpo - the revolving door is in the Labor leader's office.
Well oiled and ready for the next knifing.
Albanese will be a shoe in - after all that's who the Party voted for.
12 Feb 2014 9:14:09am
Political Psychiatrist - what does a Canadian visitor have to do with anything?
And yes, that analysis is correct, the exact number of Liberal and Labor seats has remained the same. I'm glad you sat down and crunched the numbers there to work that out.
Overall nobody wins in a bi-election - all that's happened is a safe labor seat has turned into a potential swing seat, which will be interesting to see how the next few years play out as to if labor will reclaim it again or if the swing to LNP is greater. If the LNP had of won in the bi-election, the residents of Griffith wouldn't be any better or worse off (unless Abbott had a plan specifically to channel some funding their way).
James from Bray Park:
11 Feb 2014 11:14:48pm
It sure isn't a victory for the electorate.
12 Feb 2014 7:37:49am
That's an interesting point, James. Yes, I realise that there is this argument: a vote for Glasson is a vote for a member of the Governing Party, hence some chances of some benefits to come. Whereas a vote for Butler is a vote for an opposition Party with limited ability to give material things to the community. But that's a short-sighted approach, based on the advantages of "pork-barrelling". A better approach in my view is to look at the broader picture. A vote for Glasson would have been a vote to strengthen the disastrous policies that this Government is trying to introduce, a vote for Butler is a message that the People rejects those policies. Whatever pork-barrelling benefits might have come with Glasson... the Abbott Government disaster would have taken them away. The Abbott Government may press ahead with their failed Neoliberal agenda anyway, but the writing is on the wall: Go on and face defeat in 2016!
James from Bray Park:
12 Feb 2014 1:10:50pm
Thanks for the lecture mate. I can see by it that you certainly have an understanding of dirty political tricks and shallow thinking. Personally I have little time for either of the major parties, for their approaches or for their blind followers.
I am able to use logic, common sense and reason though, and through that ability I long ago worked out that Labor knows nothing about running an economy, unless you are talking about running it into the ground, and therefore has a tallent only for shovelling the dollars at the prolateriate; not that I have a problem with that demographic, and not that I disagree they should get a better deal than they get.
The other mob makes money brilliantly but is as tight as a fish's. Another thing I can tell you as a matter of common sense, is that these clowns have not been in power long enough to make the slightest difference either way. Every thing you are seeing so far, and probably for the next year at least, comes from the past couple of decades' worth of policy stupidity, from both sides of the fence; like a progressively enlarging beer can pile. With economic policy, one mob brings it in, the other gets rid of it. It's like economic respiration; inhale, exhale, inhale, exhale.
12 Feb 2014 12:35:57pm
Yes - just another Labor industrial lawyer - just what the nation needs.
Kangaroo Edward:
12 Feb 2014 10:15:50am
Spin doctors, spinning the spin.
I'm getting dizzy.
According to Glasson, he was robbed.
11 Feb 2014 3:11:15pm
If Mr Berg thinks that's good, he should tune into Dennis 'stop laughing, I'm serious' Shanahan over at The Australian - that particular "expert" can take a 51-49 NewsPoll result against the Coalition and turn it into a catastrophe for Labor.
The commentary fringe-dwellers who popped their heads up over the parapet after Saturday's by-election are mere amateurs by comparison.
11 Feb 2014 5:37:25pm
Or read their take on the same poll finding that most people think the ABC is balanced. Or as the Oz would have it, 'Poll finds a third of Coalition voters think the ABC is biased'.
11 Feb 2014 6:02:42pm
Hmm, broader Coalition voters are, on average, far more intelligent than Coalition bloggers!.... Interesting, I always said that there is a core of good and honest Coalition voters (the (l)iberals, so to speak)... But the Liberal stormtroopers populating this site are... pretty laughable, to borrow from MJLC.
11 Feb 2014 6:46:56pm
Borrow to your heart's content Alpo.
To be fair, I don't blame them when they complain about insufficient material being available here that meets their criteria of what's "fair" and "balanced". I blame the ABC for not doing more to explain that one entire channel (ABC3) was specifically set up to provide them with news and current affairs pitched at their demographic.
Anne T:
12 Feb 2014 12:12:04am
Oh for goodness sake, "their demographic." Who is 'their?'
12 Feb 2014 10:43:53am
Who is ['they']?
'They' are the ones who voted for the dolts who are in charge of the Government, Anne T.
John in Brisbane:
12 Feb 2014 2:52:19am
B1 and B2 are consistently two of the least acknowledged but hardest working investigative journalists in this country. They represent news gathering in its purest form.
12 Feb 2014 9:16:57am
Their coverage of the bear invasion is incredible, I would recommend it to anyone. I thought I was safe until they showed me that your neighbours could well be bears.
12 Feb 2014 12:23:53pm
I thank both John and Andrew for their contributions. The only way we can put this 'there's nothing on the ABC that caters for conservatives' nonsense to bed is by showing just how much right-wing oriented material is available if only they look harder. From today's ABC3 schedule;
Oh No! It's an Alien Invasion (2:25pm), Blue Water High (2:55pm), Sea Princesses (3:55pm), The Aquabats Super Show! (5:40pm), and Operation Ouch! (6:30pm) - all favourable presentations of various facets of the "Stop the Boats" policy.
League of Super Evil (1:55pm) and Fleabag Monkeyface (5:00pm) - The ALP and Bill Shorten shown as they really are.
Dennis & Gnasher (4:05pm) A noted newspaper journalist and a Sydney radio talk-show host dissect yet another day of Labor failure.
A World of Wonders (11:45pm), Rated A for Awesome (2:10pm), and Dead Gorgeous (3:30pm) - Liberal policy explained, followed by documentaries on Tony Abbott and Julie Bishop.
What's not to like exactly?
11 Feb 2014 8:14:34pm
It s more challenging to interpret polls on the ABC than bye elections. After all MOST people DON'T watch the ABC. Only 1% watch the ABC news channel.
The opinion of those who don't watch the ABC (80% of us) isn't valuable because they don't have experience of what they are giving an opinion on. Quite possibly they are just being nice because most Australians are.
The opinion of those who watch the ABC also isn't valuable because the are a self selected group.
So the ABC polls are a nonsense.
11 Feb 2014 9:59:21pm
Wow rtechow, I think you've taken right wing gibberish to new lows.
"Only 1% watch the ABC news channel."... Where'd you get that statistic?
Plus, "those who don't watch the ABC (80% of us)"... again how did you come up with that nice round figure? And what happened to the other 19%? How can anyone neither watch AND not watch something???
I think the truth about ABC polls is that people that like their news to be as fact based as possible, rather than emotion or ideologically driven come here instead of, say, news ltd sites where posts like mine wouldn't even be shown, but your confused yet outraged contribution would qualify for post of the day (if they have such a thing).
Hence the almost always left leaning of the results.
Anyway, I think we'll soon see how popular (or not) the ABC is after Abbotts committee gives him the conclusions he wants and extreme negative public feedback makes him backflip not unlike Pyne and his Gonski acrobatics.
11 Feb 2014 11:05:00pm
How do you know that "MOST people DON'T watch the ABC. Only 1% watch the ABC news channel" and "those who don't watch the ABC (80% of us)". Poll results?
Anne T:
12 Feb 2014 12:14:07am
I can't believe that you wrote "Quite possibly they are just being nice because most Australians are."
How can "nice" people vote for a government that is destructive, disrespectful, deceitful and duplicitous?
12 Feb 2014 12:13:42am
I assume that only regular ABC viewers are polled for that result. It makes no sense to poll people if they don't watch the ABC and if they do watch the ABC they obviously pretty much agree with the point of view expressed anyway so the poll becomes pointless. I mean it's kind of silly going to a Justin Timberlake concert and asking people if they like Justin Timberlake isn't it? You'll get a few people who went along with their friends or got a free ticket or enjoy pain but most people will say 'yes' or appear stupid.
11 Feb 2014 5:51:38pm
Its a 'catastrophe' for Labor because the government has started the year boldly enacting the whole conservative project, with stopping the boats, austerity, scrutiny of unions and the ABC, and better polling/election results might indicate that the people like this amped up conservatism. It's Shorten's honeymoon that is over. He clings to the last government's discredited policies, and is protecting union thuggishness. He is now seen as just another Labor hollowman.
11 Feb 2014 7:27:22pm
How is putting people into a $70k lifeboat. Sneaking into Indonesian waters without permission and saying goodluck hope you float to a safe shore somewhere stopping the boats?
What if Indonesia once their elections are over realises Internationally recognised governments can not legally do such a thing, and get a bit agro towards Australia in return about it?
A game of chicken we have a right to know about don't you think?
11 Feb 2014 8:52:41pm
The Coalition haven't stopped the boats - that's just another of Tony's long list of lies. They are being turned back, against the wishes of Indonesia and at considerable risk to to both the Navy and asylum seekers. In fact, Australia is now no different from those 'people smugglers' that Scott Morrison refers to as criminals - they are putting people on Australian boats and forcing or towing them illegally into Indonesian waters.
As I recall, Tony Abbott promised to create 1 million jobs in this term - so far, all they've done is create 50,000 jobs lost!
The austerity you claim doesn't hold up either, when they are spending multi-millions of taxpayers' money on unnecessary Royal Commissions. Then, next year they plan to introduce their deluxe Paid Parental Leave Scheme, which will see the highest earners (Tony's 'high calibre' women) benefiting the most.
Self-delusion appears to be what the Coalition and their supporters do best.
12 Feb 2014 12:30:27am
So Rhonda if TA hasn't stopped the boats, how many have arrived since the Libs got the unenviable job of fixing Labors stuff ups and I thought TA said he was going to turn the boats around as part of the deal so we all knew what was going to be a part of the plan anyway. I do agree with you re the ridiculous waste of money on the PPL for the well heeled when we have the big bloke telling us we ALL have to lift and the age has ended BUT not for politicians evidently, had to laugh at the idea that Mr and Mrs jo blow will have to wait till they are 62 now to get their hands on their super BUT the pollies on either side of the house will still get theirs early. They are all the same, look after number one and stuff everyone else.
12 Feb 2014 8:29:31am
If you are basing government performance on this ridiculous boats issue, you are part of the problem in this blind crash and burn performance. Most of the people over here who do not look like you are part of refugee or migration agreements. The boat people are not a threat. The boat issue was first raised by John Howard who recognised the need to establish a "threat" to maintain government. This is a classic political ploy when voters are leaving in droves. Under threat people stay with the government in power. Tony Abbott and his HR Nichols psychologist are well aware of this ploy.
Personally, I think the Griffith election result was a good win, given the way the previous incumbent had decimated the Labor Party and then walked away.
I believe that every election has a strong element of local issues and people, so it is probably impossible to make it an exact science.
I confidently expect that people are going to realise just how appalling current government decisions and policy are and come to realise just how much misinformation and manipulation is coming from the MSM.
11 Feb 2014 6:07:40pm
Yes I know Shortens plummeting popularity of nearly 10% and the diving ALP support of 4% are great signs for Shorten and the ALP.
Long may it continue!
11 Feb 2014 9:33:26pm
Shorten is still doing better than Abbott and for an Opposition to be ahead even 51-49 just a few months after being smashed in a general election is pretty well unprecedented.
12 Feb 2014 10:10:20am
It's a syndrome called 'buyers regret' - you get excited about something, you buy it, then regret that you did but eventually make what you bought part of life's "fabric" - like a favourite old sweater, or the favourite mug...you wouldn't be without it.
I think we should start getting used to the idea that this team could quite possibly be around for a considerably long time....
Kangaroo Edward:
12 Feb 2014 10:20:02am
There's no way this mob of halfwits are going to be around for long, runaway high inflation and massive unemployment will be the hallmark of their term.
11 Feb 2014 3:15:23pm
"Hopefully they realise the game that they are playing: trying to impart meaning on events no person can possibly understand."
Not that the IPA ever does this, eh Chris Berg?
11 Feb 2014 5:29:57pm
Probably to impart meaning you'd need to divine the motivations of each voter who changed their vote over the three months, group them and generalise from that. It doesn't happen. Much easier to put out spin. Criticise it when you see it, if it amuses you. I can't see much here to object to.
12 Feb 2014 5:56:41am
Dedicated Drum readers who have been in the site for years know that if a by-election went against the Labor party during their government, the IPA would have trumpeted the result as a 'disaster' for Labor and 'proof' that LNP policies (even if they didn't exist at the time) were gaining broad public support.
12 Feb 2014 9:44:45am
Rubbish Apples. I don't see the IPA as spruikers for the Coalition. More often than not they try to be their guilty conscience. There are plenty of regular posters that do that job for the Coalition. And Labor, and the Greens.
12 Feb 2014 11:16:22am
OUB yes it is quite the reverse, the Coalition are spruikers for the IPA, along with the HR Nichols society, Business Council of Australia & Minerals Council of Australia.
12 Feb 2014 11:28:37am
The fact that there are spruikers for each side of the political divide in the peanut gallery doesn't have a bearing on Berg's own brand of spruiking. If Berg's complete article hstory were available, you'd be able to revisit the various articles where he used poll results to argue that the Labor party had lost touch with the electorate. It seems that for Berg, any poll that shows increased LNP support indicates the resounding success of the LNP, whilst a poll that shows that Labor has more support than the LNP indicates that such support is transient and borders on being random.
11 Feb 2014 3:21:51pm
Chris, I don't know if we have ' giants' of politics, at least not in our Political Parties of either side of the argument. Reading the mood of the electorate is often twisted and often blown out of proportion by the current media bias, which the Murdoch press seems to control and will determine the mood of the voter and often tell them which way to vote. A perfect example of this was the photos of Rudd, Albanese and Bowen? dressed as Nazi, soldiers and headlines, demanding they be thrown out of office, and the photos of O'Farrell as Premier before the election day when NSW voted. I doubt if the Griffith election shows us anything, other than Labor held it. Although coalition members, who think they are giants proclaimed it a victory after losing. Far too early for us to know if it is showing a trend to get rid of Abbott, there are many who believe in his demonising of asylum seekers and his secret police tactics as well as the attack on the Unions. Until everyone is stung by the continuing lying and ums and aahs and job losses, relying on a by election after 5 mths won't tell us anything.
the plainsman:
11 Feb 2014 5:36:45pm
I tend to agree with you, David, all this shows in reality is that the ALP have retained a long time Blue Ribbon seat albeit having nearly lost it in the General Election, but the number crunching is about where it was then. Also, it does show that the government's Honeymoon is not over, and that is probably due to the border protection tough stand which is showing results.
11 Feb 2014 6:05:14pm
"Also, it does show that the government's Honeymoon is not over..." ...Obviously, you haven't been reading the opinion polls. The Liberals used to love them..... but not anymore....
11 Feb 2014 8:56:58pm
LOL, So Alpo, if the polls are against the coalition, how do you account for a swing to the coalition.
You can't have it both ways, either the coalition is on the nose or they aren't.
11 Feb 2014 9:53:25pm
Greg, are you referring to the swing in Griffith? Oh easy, that came from some of the conservative PUP voters, not surprisingly. But not all conservative PUP voters actually voted for the Coalition, and that's what makes Labor's win in Griffith so interesting, and so worrying for the Coalition. The gap in Queensland, at the State level is also narrowing between the LNP and Labor. Even the latest Newspoll (just published) gives the ALP up with a 51% at the national level.... Jobs are going but none is coming... These are not good times to be a Liberal....
11 Feb 2014 10:32:06pm
Neither can you Greg. Either you have a brain between your ears or you don't. If your proud of the everyone else fell down Bradbury PM, then good luck to you and your LOL's at bad jokes.
12 Feb 2014 12:49:58am
As far as Alpo is concerned from reading his multitude of posts it would not matter what the Labor party did, it would be OK with him, reminds me of Bill Shorten when he agreed with Julia even though he didn't know what she said. I would have difficulty being that one eyed. I voted Liberal cos in my opinion Labor were doing a crap job taking the countries finances from a $20B black figure to a $400B red figure in 6 years, but that doesn't mean I will vote for them next time cos I don't like the PPL and Hockey looks like he is going to hurt us all financially. Political parties need to be sat on their backsides at the polls or they just get too cocky as seen with honest JH, it does them the world of good. Just don't take me for granted, I am no Alpo. Shouldn't own up to this so don't tell anybody but I voted for Kev cos I didn't like JH and his stupid workchoices. Ya gotta keep em guessing, don't let them see your hand....
12 Feb 2014 9:20:35am
Hi stu,
Your post is truly worth replying to. First, thanks for being such an assiduous reader of my posts, it's nice to see that somebody is reading what I write, hence it's not a waste of my time. Oh, regarding your perfectly fine decision to vote as you wish, please let me say something about the reasons you give for it. You mention the debt, but you forget that:
a) The Gross Government debt was not zero when Howard left.
b) The debt was incurred to save the country from the Neoliberal GFC and to start doing the infrastructure work that Howard totally neglected for 11 years.
c) The Government of incompetents that you helped win, has already increased our Government debt by at least 8 billion.
Also, I and many others from the centre-left and left, did criticise here both the former Gillard and the former Rudd-II governments (e.g. see the issue of the hardening of policies on asylum seekers, which I didn't and don't like). None, I repeat, none of the supporters of the Coalition ever wrote a single word critical to Abbott and his team here, with the exception of a couple of Libertarians.
Political Parties should no be kept on guessing, they should be told exactly what you want, and if they don't deliver.... vote them out!
12 Feb 2014 11:21:50am
Alpo replied to stu: "...The Government of incompetents that you helped win, has already increased our Government debt by at least 8 billion...."
I'll also add that several infrastructure projects have either been severely damaged or completely trashed by the incoming government and existing infrastructures (like the Department of Science) have been abolished.
That's not good for the future of the country.
12 Feb 2014 12:46:47pm
Exactly what we did last September.Thanks.
12 Feb 2014 6:04:17am
The swing against Labor is easily accounted for by the fact that a high ranking figure in the party, one who gets a lot of media exposure, was no longer the candidate. That's not to make the seat safe for the high profile candidate though, it's Bennelong time and it might happen again, yet there is a distinct advantage for the high profile candidate.
Or do you think that if Abbott, Turnbull or Hockey suddenly vacated their seats, there wouldn't be a swing against the Libs?
11 Feb 2014 6:09:14pm
Border protection tough stand, (abuse of human rights actually), maybe working. Or is it the fierce seasonal storms?
Can anyone shed some light on the numbers for storm season last year?
12 Feb 2014 12:07:26pm
Over 400 IMAs in the period to end of January in 2012/13.
The "storms" are only the luvvies getting upset that Abbott kept his election promise after they shrilled he could not.
Eggs and faces come to mind.
Anne T:
12 Feb 2014 12:18:39am
" . . . the border protection tough stand which is showing results" - the plainsman, that is a grievously wrong statement to make.
Asylum seekers who arrive by boat are not a 'border protection' issue. I can't believe that someone who can read and write falls for that drivel.
How can you be so dismissive? So that is all that it is about. "Showing results." What a morally bankrupt country Australia has become.
12 Feb 2014 2:11:02pm
Sorry people arriving on our borders without control is not a border control issue, methinks you need have a little rethink about that Anne.
11 Feb 2014 5:42:26pm
It is definitely too early to '(show) a trend to get rid of Abbott' when there was a swing of 2.2% to the Coalition. When was there last a bigger swing to a government at a by-election? You can put it down to annoyance at Rudd breaking his word (yet again) and forcing his electorate back to the polls so soon or you can put it down to a sympathy vote for a good Coalition candidate but no doubt there were many more factors affecting individual voters. I would have thought some might be annoyed that Shorten hadn't addressed some of the issues that got Labor thrown out of office, instead insisting they remain ALP policy. But that is just my bias finding expression. Feel free to put up your own reasoning when you come up with something more than a collection of silly insults.
11 Feb 2014 6:17:51pm
OUB, where did you get the 2.2% swing from. You need to visit the Electoral Commission for an update. I don't think the result has shown any trends really. Labor won, congratulations Terry Butler.
11 Feb 2014 7:30:52pm
That's what I took from an AAP report this afternoon "Labor claims victory in Griffith". To give it some context "Latest Australian Electoral Commission data shows a swing on the primary vote against the Labor party of 1.72 per cent and a swing to the LNP of 2.2 per cent, with Dr Glasson taking 44.5 per cent before preferences were dished out".
Is this wrong?
11 Feb 2014 9:34:20pm
Not wrong, just incomplete. Once preferences were distributed the swing to Glasson was much smaller.
Politically Incorrect:
11 Feb 2014 3:22:26pm
This by-election just like the last 2 federal elections has been all about 2 major parties throwing mud at eachother... nothing more.
Outside form a couple of taxes Abbott, Rudd and Gillard were all pretty similar as far as policy went.
How people cannot see the similarities between these 2 right wing parties is mind boggling.
kagey one:
11 Feb 2014 5:36:09pm
Abbott, Rudd and Gillard were all similar as far as policy went.
At the election that's close to the mark.
But you forgot to check who changed all the policy AFTER the election.
(hint: it wasn't Gillard or Rudd)
We are beginning to see the real Tony Abbott now. Scant concern for Australian workers, serious danger of losing the proposed disability insurance scheme, a couple of olde-worlde conservatives re-jigging the education system...
It's too depressing to continue.
12 Feb 2014 12:36:06am
"On a unity ticket with Labor" was Tony Abbott's claim BEFORE the election on both education and the NDIS. Who could forget the absolute fiasco when Abbott tried to tell the electorate AFTER the election, they only THOUGHT he'd said "A vote for Labor, is the same as a vote for the Coalition, when it comes to education". He treated us all as mugs - including those who voted his government in (although that assessment was accurate in their case).
The attitude by this government towards the Australian people has been one of contempt, ever since they came to office.
Politically Incorrect:
12 Feb 2014 9:54:26am
Well many would argue a fixed carbon tax was changing policy after the election. Labor are not innocent there neither.
Both parties are obsessed with throwing mud at eachother even now and they are doing that because:
a) There is no shortage of mud to throw on both sides.
b) It's easier than thinking up real policy.
c) The electorate seems to reward mud slingers when you look back at every election over the last 20 years. Even Keatings victory over Hewson was based on mud slinging, Howard was the master at mud slinging.
Rudd and Gillard were so good at throwing mud against eachother that Abbott didn't even need to do much, but combined the internal mud slinging with Abbott's expertise in mud and negativity created a perfect storm.
The Australian people just love drama. People say Australians vote on issues and are intelligent voters but they are not and never have been.
12 Feb 2014 8:56:45am
Only the last two elections, PI?
Politically Incorrect:
12 Feb 2014 9:44:16am
No not only, but people have short memories :)
11 Feb 2014 3:25:33pm
"Of course none of them have any idea what the Griffith result means."
As you said everybody has their own take.I would think the good people of Griffith just hope it is the last time they have to go to the poles for another 2 1/2 years.
11 Feb 2014 3:26:50pm
The result was slight swing to the LNP resulting in the appointment another worthless Labor legal hack who will do little (if nothing) for the people of Griffith.
11 Feb 2014 5:46:11pm
I don't know about that. I expect she will be found a seat in a prominent place behind Shorten and give me someone to look at when he is speaking. I think she is physically appealing. I do wonder how much weight was placed on her looks in the pre-selection process (cynic rather than sexist on this occasion).
12 Feb 2014 12:55:47am
If you are so observant OUB, you must surely have noticed that there are a couple of female backbenchers placed prominently on the other side the House - to draw attention away from the fact that the Coalition has only ONE female in their Cabinet!
Thankfully, Terri Butler appears to be an articulate woman who will serve her constituents well. Such a contrast to the shrill women for whom the Coalition seems to have a preference.
12 Feb 2014 12:12:21pm
I thought htere were no women in the Coalition - you can't have it both ways .
Speaking of shrill women Butler is straight from ALP casting - female industrial lawyer who has represented the CFMEU.
She regurgitates the same drivel as the other ALP clones - Plibersek, Rowland, Ellis, Wong, Risworth ..........
Where's Tony:
12 Feb 2014 8:01:47am
What absolute drivel, Alfie.
Can you please explain why a Union Lawyer, who looks after the interest of Australian workers, is less worthy of election to Fed Parliament than a corporate Lawyer who moved heaven and earth to keep Hardie's out of court while so many suffered and died from mesothelioma.
I think the moral distinction is quite clear but then one is a Lib, while the other is Labor, I guess it must be a born to rule thing.
Constantly bowing down to the mob that you apparently worship makes me feel so sad for your inability to recognise that they are an immoral, self serving mob of parasites who's only interest is in their own jobs.
what the:
11 Feb 2014 3:27:00pm
Politics is all about converting ignorance into popularity - you've summed up the Liberals election to a tea. Never has this ploy worked so well to convince a nation that's doing better than almost every other nation that they're doing it tough. Seems people are already seeing they've been sold a dud. A litany of broken promises and backflips already could result in a rare single term.
kagey one:
11 Feb 2014 5:38:09pm
...and they shouldn't know what their government is doing because it's better for them if they don't.
Fairy-tale stuff.
11 Feb 2014 3:30:29pm
I love it how everytime there is a negative issue for the Coalition, Chris Berg and the IPA pop up to try to detract attention from it.
Abbott trying to silence the media (ABC)? Oh yes, but look over here this is really an issue about global security blah blah blah. No, no it isnt - its an issue about the Coalition wanting to silence hte media that the IPA would lambast Labor over if and when it did the same.
Coalition loosing a by-election? Oh yes, but look over here its just pointless trying to read into these things. Once again, you wouldnt see them playing the same game of distraction if this was Labor.
11 Feb 2014 5:41:20pm
I commented on why Piers Akerman was booted off Insiders, and SNIP. Apparently this is dangerous information. Even allegations of bias are treated with bias.
I have made an official complaint about the inability of the ABC to find a single Australian whose opinion is that we need to be tough on boat people (ie the majority opinion). This complaint won't work because the ABC's complaint mechanisms are deliberately blind to systemic bias. Thank you Leftist bullies. Abbott knows the score and will bring great retribution.
Kagey One:
11 Feb 2014 6:25:14pm
Piers Akerman was probably booted off The Insiders because he lacked the balance that most commentators manage to display. In my opinion he's a fairly repulsive individual and our tv sets are better off without him.
He is a person well suited to the print media - the conservative, right wing ones.
11 Feb 2014 7:50:30pm
You, like the rest of the Left have great difficulty understanding the word 'balance'. Balance refers to proportionately representing mainstream viewpoints in the community and nothing else. The Left hides behind 'standards' to exclude non-Left views. Balance is supposed to be an outcome, not a process. Astoundingly, you accuse Akerman of lacking balance, but then go on to admit that he shouldn't be on Insiders because you just don't like his political views. In other words, you strip the word 'balance' of its democratic meaning and redefine it to mean only people the Left approves of are 'balanced'. You want the Left to dominate the ABC out of pure selfishness and don't care about democracy, the right of political expression, the creative tension of debate, and that people who don't share your worldview have to pay for your propaganda machine. Its so wrong.
11 Feb 2014 9:35:46pm
The poisonous tripe that Akerman was dishing out about a former Prime Minister's partner was nowhere near "mainstream."
11 Feb 2014 11:00:00pm
Do you even know where the terms 'left wing' and 'right wing' originated from? Or why? Hint.. Actually I wont.
Do some research and get back to us when you can be bothered. In the meantime your wasting everyone else's time and sending us all backwards.
Kagey One:
12 Feb 2014 2:22:27am
Typical right-wing exaggeration. I didn't say he shouldn't be on Insiders because I disagree with his views. I said he's ideally suited to print media. I did say he's a repulsive individual, but not specifically for his views... it's principally because of his manner.
And balance means considering both sides of an argument. It doesn't mean liking or agreeing with both sides of an argument. His arguments have always been biased towards the money-minded, bugger the helpless or disadvantaged. Typical crappy conservative attitudes.
11 Feb 2014 7:38:48pm
I thought he was booted off for repeating a scurrilous rumour about the sexuality of the partner of the former pm-but-one, and scuttled like a cockroach when Barrie called him on it. And then made a weasily pretend apology when he realised he was the only person apart from Alan Jones (who was probably asleep at the time) who thought his remark was funny and insightful.
Good that you are all over systemic bias, maybe you can write a piece for the drum about why Susan Ley isn't in a senior role and Mattias Cormann is, or how Michala Cash is a lower calibre of parliamentarian than Kevin Andrews. Or is that all about MERIT (Mates Employed Regardless of Intelligence or Training) so not about bias at all?
11 Feb 2014 8:31:57pm
He repeated the rumour about Tim that we all know and joke about. He didn't endorse it. That's a pretty weak reason to be kicked off.
I am largely unaware of the respective talents of those individuals. I would bet that the government simply picked its best team, and just happened to leave few women in higher positions. It would have been easier for Abbott to succumb to tokenism, but he is indicating that performance matters most. There is a smaller talent pool of women because they are less able or willing to lead the ruthlessly committed political life necessary to succeed at the highest levels. Diversity does involve differences you know? The situation will improve as new members gain experience.
11 Feb 2014 8:34:26pm
"I commented on why Piers Akerman was booted off Insiders, and SNIP. Apparently this is dangerous information. Even allegations of bias are treated with bias."
The allegations are without evidence or merit - merely slanderous gossip with no public merit or interest. Hardly "dangerous information" to the thinking person
Given that Akerman has added nothing further to Insiders I'm unsurprised that he hasn't been asked back; he's merely been occupying a chair.
"I have made an official complaint about the inability of the ABC to find a single Australian whose opinion is that we need to be tough on boat people (ie the majority opinion)."
Here's a tip: no one cares about your conspiracies or demands for what amounts to false balance. It's the ABC's job to disseminate news and information, not to act as a propaganda outlet for a government or it's ideology.
"This complaint won't work because the ABC's complaint mechanisms are deliberately blind to systemic bias. Thank you Leftist bullies. Abbott knows the score and will bring great retribution."
It's not that the ABC is blind to systemic bias, it's that you're a childish coward (like far too many on the noisy regressive end of politics) solely interested in having a broadcaster prosecuting a single viewpoint at the expense of proper journalism and reportage. Your opinion has no merit.
Bullying? This may be hard to swallow for the crybaby regressives but this is the precise behaviour you're engaging in - your saying quite bluntly that you desire "revenge and retribution" against the ABC for not peddling your point of view, despite it not being it's job. "If you don't slant stories the way we like, we're going to get you" - that's schoolyard bully behaviour.
Want to scream at someone about being ignored or silenced? Look in the mirror. Your behaviour brings about the consequences you deserve.
12 Feb 2014 9:07:29am
APM- there's no shortage of balanced, articulate and intelligent people who can make a case on reducing the flow of boats into Australia (which really means from Indonesia). Akerman just isn't one of them. It's not a hard argument to make and it's one that can be made with logic, compassion and persuasion. I have no affinity with the way the argument has been made thus far any more than I have affinity with any arguments that have been made against it. Akerman mistook his platform for being an opportunity to play political games rather than speaking to the topic. I'm not a Cassidy acolyte either but at least he doesn't actually give a comment on who you should vote for. Something his detractors seem to overlook.
11 Feb 2014 5:42:24pm
IPA driven policy that's making the Liberal Party make decisions that are killing jobs in Australia?... Nope, must be them darn Unions again.
11 Feb 2014 3:36:54pm
Chris you can talk it up all you like but the fact is Labor won a safe Labor seat with a reduced margin. End of story.
11 Feb 2014 9:58:07pm
Griffith has not always been safe Labor seat , you should look at the history of the seat .
The seat of Griffith is situated amongst some of Brisbane's most desired suburbs to live -in and the seat should be more of a blue ribbon Liberal seat than a seat held by Labor .
The seat of Brisbane which is very close to the seat of Griffith has almost always been a Labor seat yet in 2010 and 2013 election it was won by the Liberals .
The 2007 election and Kevin Rudd becoming prime minister after the 2007 election is one of the factors that has helped to keep Griffith in Labor hands .
If you do an analysis of all the seats in Queensland there are lots of seats in Queensland that are held by the Coalition that should be Labor seats instead of having Griffith being held by Labor instead of the Coalition.
11 Feb 2014 3:37:04pm
Strange the IPA mentions Eugene Fama for winning a Nobel Prize in economics for proving something that the IPA supports. The IPA categorically rejects another Nobel Prize-winner in economics, Paul Krugman, for his working in proving that cutting the public sector makes the economy worse.
Polysemantic Pete:
11 Feb 2014 3:40:29pm
Griffith by-election was to elect a federal member, but how often do we hear about certain issues either playing a big role, or having nothing whatsoever to do with results in state government elections and by-elections? It seems to be important at times to certain interested parties, but at other times we are told us punters make a distinction between the two spheres. Problem with that is voters are both citizens of states and also the country as a whole.
The Napthine Government is hanging on by a slim margin and I can't help feel people in Shepparton, or in Altona and Broadmeadows will be looking to policies made in Canberra when casting their vote. If Labor get back into Government in Victoria it will be interesting to hear the pundits and commentators from all sides explaining the win or offering excuses for the loss.
Reading the tea-leaves in the bottom of the cup after an election doesn't tell us too much, because my reason for voting for a particular person or party will be different to reasons why others voted the same way. For example, I might vote Labor because I see the NBN issue as most important, but another person may have voted Labor because they want a decent NDIS. Someone may have voted for the Coalition because they wanted to "stop the boats", while others made their decision because they wanted to see the carbon tax removed. This is why I find the idea of "mandates" as ridiculous, even when it's the side I voted for suggesting they have one.
11 Feb 2014 10:13:50pm
Most seats in Victoria are either very strong Labor or very strong Coalition seats and the seats in Victoria don't often change so much in the elections to another party unlike some other States .
Labor usually wins or loses government when seats in Tasmania , New Souths Wales or Queensland change .
Labors best chance of winning the next elections lies mainly in Tasmania , Queensland and New South Wales .
There are lots of seats that the Coalition is holding in New South Wales which maybe only held for one term because they are seats that swing a lot depending on which party wins government .
12 Feb 2014 8:37:55am
Hence the funding for companies in Tasmania by the Libs.
11 Feb 2014 3:42:30pm
"We have an innate human desire to create order where there is disorder - to create meaning from the muddle of history."
No, no, no Mr. Berg. You got it wrong again!
We have an innate human desire to *destroy* in order to re-construct for the benefit of the Markets. This is the reason why you supported Bush in his destruction of Iraq and Afghanistan so Trillions-of-dollars could be spent to destroy buildings and bridges, (not to mention those poor souls who were liberated from their bodies), and to re-construct new ones out of the rubble left behind.
If humans persist not to learn from history, then History repeats itself.
...and funnily enough, it's called "progress."
11 Feb 2014 3:44:31pm
I'm not sure if the ancient Greeks or Romans had a God of politics but thank goodness for the Catholic Church making Sir Thomas More "the heavenly?Patron?of Statesmen and Politicians".
Maybe a good read of said Saint's book 'Utopia' (Libellus vere aureus, nec minus salutaris quam festivus, de optimo rei publicae statu deque nova insula Utopia) would be in order.
Maybe Tony should look into making it compulsory... It's a history thing.
11 Feb 2014 3:44:38pm
I agree about the markets just gambling really and to think so many have their retirement saving in there as super is frightening really.
And to think employers are forced to contribute to this superannuation gambling rather than paying the employee is terrible.
How many other countries force this.
11 Feb 2014 3:51:29pm
What does the Griffith by-election mean? Simple really. Labor won the government lost. While it makes no difference to the numerical in-balance in the parliament it would have been a huge boost for Tony Abbott if Bill Glasson had got up. Similarly if Glasson had won it would have been a devestating set back for Bill Shorten who is just finding his feet as opposition leader. Terri Butler came across as a very genuine individual and Labor for once got its endorsement right. A lesser quality candidate drafted from the Union ranks would have almost certainly misfired.
11 Feb 2014 3:54:17pm
Yes, yes Chris...who knows what it means when an ALP candidate wins
on the other hand if a Liberal candidate wins the meaning is clear
11 Feb 2014 3:55:44pm
"What does the Griffith by-election mean?"
It means nothing. Way to close to the last election and way to far from the next to amount to anything for eithor side. The drift to the Coalition was interesting but will mean nothing for the next election as it to far away.
What i find really intersting is, it is now Tuesday and the first peice on the by-elecion was from Chris Berg and a fairly balanced peice it was. What is the bet that if there was a large swing against the Coalition then Mungo or Barrie already had a set peice written explaining why and how the Abbott government had got it so badly wrong, the writing was on the wall and what the nasty Coalition needs to change to improve.
Kagey One:
11 Feb 2014 6:30:37pm
The reduced turnout makes any change from the previous balance uninterpretable. Did a bunch of Labor voters not bother, because they were confident it couldn't change hands?
Any other suggestions?
11 Feb 2014 10:26:51pm
Possibly young people who's interests lie other than a by-election? They wouldn't know about it from their peers either because they're all in the same boat. Maybe more internet notification is needed, concentrating on the fine?
Waterloo Sunset:
11 Feb 2014 4:00:24pm
I'd expect Shorten to be dumped.
That's my reading.
11 Feb 2014 5:44:06pm
Rubbish. I'm sure his wife still loves him just as much as she did on Friday.
You might want to check the waiter didn't put something rather unhygienic and distasteful in your tea before he served it to you if that's what you think you're reading in the leaves WS.
11 Feb 2014 5:57:53pm
But, as someone said in another post on this site, do you think he will stab himself in the back??
12 Feb 2014 12:11:23am
A common misconception. They had discussions and evolved, which, at the end of the day is respectable.
Who will stab Abbott in the back? No one, no matter how bad he is. Not even Turnbull, a reasonable person and much more natural leader. Tony divided and conquered his own party first....
Now the 'Coalition' are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Can't change leaders now, or in the foreseeable.
Think about it.
12 Feb 2014 9:08:25am
Given that's how most party leaders end up, you might be on to something
Andale Andale Arriba Epa Ipa:
11 Feb 2014 4:00:40pm
Thanks for this piece.
I had seen this sentiment elsewhere, that it is hard to divine the meaning of Terri Butler's win in the Griffith by-election.
I now know that it is dubious, because the IPA has now said exactly the same thing through its mouthpiece.
Therefore, it must be an important win for Labor and the Cons are keen to downplay that importance.
Again, thanks.
11 Feb 2014 4:03:17pm
one thing we do know is that abbott is running scared. the resault shows that labor are on target for a landslide in the next election. Besides that, everyone now knows that abbott cheated and lied his way to power through manipulation of the press, specifically murdoch who is abbots real boss.
Forrest Gardener:
11 Feb 2014 6:50:17pm
JGM, too much. If you are going to parody the Labor Fan Club you'll have to tone it down a bit.
Waterloo Sunset:
11 Feb 2014 8:25:47pm
Yes it was pretty weak. Surprised it got through - but then I suppose it just adds to story of ABC bias, FG.
11 Feb 2014 9:03:31pm
Right, labor barely held onto a safe labor seat with a swing against them.
11 Feb 2014 9:37:17pm
It wasn't a safe Labor seat. Even Rudd only held it by a low single-digit margin. It used to be safe Labor but has been eroded over time as sometimes happens to safe seats.
11 Feb 2014 4:06:42pm
Don't count on it happening anytime soon Chris. As long as a result reinforces a narrative, it will be used to "prove" any number of points.
11 Feb 2014 4:07:03pm
Thanks for this Chris, about time someone stopped the cheer squads. The same game goes on every night when the 'experts" tell us why the share market went up or down and what is likely tomorrow.
It's a bit worse in the political arena as we tend to lean towards the side we fundamentally prefer, then make excuses post hoc to explain the outcomes or brag if our "side" is on top
11 Feb 2014 4:07:07pm
I expected at least some attempt at rational analysis but Cris Berg has failed to deliver. I would think that with PUP choosing to leave the by election alone. then most PUP supporters would have voted for Dr Glasson. That's up to a 3.6% boost he could reasonably have expected. He didn't get it.
Kevin Rudd Was an extraordinary local member and I imagine he attracted plenty of personal supporters. Dr Glasson didn't get many of them swinging his way either. I expect plenty of them stayed away altogether. There are over 97,000 electors enrolled in Griffith and almost 91,000 of them turned out for the national poll. How many voted this time? Just over 78,000 voted, more than 80% of the electors.
My analysis is that there was plenty of interest shown by the locals in this election. Dr Glasson did very well considering growing levels of disenchantment with the current federal government and general disaffection with the Queensland State Government.
Congratulations to Terri Butler for your success but you will need to win many more supporters if you want Griffith to become a safe seat.
11 Feb 2014 4:10:28pm
What it means is we now have another Labor lawyer in Federal Parliament. Liberal lawyers are bad enough, but Labor ones are far worse. About the only blessing for having lawyers in parliament is that it stops these vultures practising their money-grubbing habits via victimisation of single vulnerable individuals, and instead lets them indulge themselves at everyone's expense. Oink oink.
11 Feb 2014 6:41:25pm
So spud, why are Liberal lawyers, who work for the boss to stop workers getting their entitlements (eg compensation for asbestosis) better than Labor lawyers who work for the workers.
12 Feb 2014 12:28:05pm
Precisely for the reason that you think Labor lawyers work for the workers.
11 Feb 2014 4:12:57pm
It was a draw wasn't it?
After 6 months of a new govt the electorate decided it did not have enough information to change its mind in favour of the govt or away from the govt.
True believers from the political class will only see glass half full though. We can igniore them.
Same conclusions can be drawn from the upcoming 2 State elections in March and Victoria in November.
11 Feb 2014 4:13:55pm
The Griffith by-election results were particularly difficult to predict because of some unique local factors. Anyone attempting to draw any conclusions is drawing a particularly long bow.
11 Feb 2014 4:25:15pm
you read into it what you want it to tell you!
11 Feb 2014 4:25:37pm
"Of course none of them have any idea what the Griffith result means."
Simple. It means Rudd should have come clean and answered the big question, and not snuck out of it. He could have saved all that expense and everyone's time if he'd been honest about what he was going to do if (when) he won the seat and lost the September election. He may still have won and then quit, like he did, but he owed Griffith an honest answer before they voted.
11 Feb 2014 4:37:57pm
Labor won the Griffith by-election!
11 Feb 2014 4:40:39pm
Doing a bit of deep thinking about how our system of government works and the implications this has for our place in the world should be our highest priority.
Communicating the message that nothing can have greater impact than the effectiveness of our system of government is crucial.
It probably doesn't matter that we pots and pans raise a clattering cacophony calling each other black as long as the priority this matter deserves is made clear. Eventually the really elite intellects will engage ? we just need to sit on our egos and make them welcome.
James from Bray Park:
11 Feb 2014 4:44:49pm
Apparently the election in itself was "a mug's game". The meaning of the election was simple. Rudd had absolutely no respect for the fact that the tax payer would have to pay a rediculous amount of money as a result of his childish decision to leave. It was also a slap in the face for the people who believed in him.
Who the hell do these idiot politicians think they are? They claim they want to represent their constituents and then as a result of childish carry-ons with their contemporaries they just bail out and stick the tax payer with more bills. No matter who your support, the party should be paying for the new election. That sort of stupidity would become scarce then.
Across the board there is too much assumption that we plebs exist as an enabler for these drongos to play 'upper-class'.
11 Feb 2014 4:53:53pm
You're right, any real meaning is too obscure to fathom, but there are lessons the parties can take from the results-
For Labor, they can still win some seats, even if the candidate is a labour lawyer married to a union apparatchik. Even if their leader at the state level is the Paluszchook. Those few seats they will continue to hold are worth fighting over.
For the coalition, they can get a small swing with a good candidate despite the weight of history, and any other weight they are willing to acknowledge.
Just imagine the result Labor could get if they clean up their selection process and offer a real person as their candidate.
12 Feb 2014 1:29:31pm
On the money, Gnome. I doubt the changes you refer to will happen under BS though. After all, he owes everything to the system.
"A cabal of operatives, selecting people in their own image -determines who gets what and where. The price is unquestioning upward loyalty." These words were in the (Fairfax) SMH about 4 months ago and are written by one R. Cavalier, former aide to the Whitlam government's Clyde Cameron and former minister for education, finance and energy in the Unsworth and Wran governments.
Rod Cavalier also said: "An iron law of (NSW) Labor politics is that no important decision requires a greater number of people than can sit comfortably round a table at a chinese restaurant. The diners are union officials and their lieges."
This is reminiscent of AMWU's Doug Cameron, Luke Foley, and a difference of opinion over black bean soup, on Ian MacDonald's preselection. That could have worked out better, perhaps? There are some great people in Labor, but they have little power. Much of the problem is arguably related to the huge increase in federal ALP MPs who are former officials or staffers. From around 24%, 40 years ago to around 70% today. And that's while union membership has declined.
Have a good one.
11 Feb 2014 4:58:12pm
Berg is wrong: in fact, every voter has their own reasons for voting one way or another, by which they try to give meaning or message to the politician. He's right, however, that most commentary (including this!) is self-interested opinion making generalisations. We actually have the tech now to move away from executive government to something closer to democracy, but then you'd run into the rock of indifference - people hired politicians to deal with this stuff, they don't want to have to do it themselves.
11 Feb 2014 5:01:41pm
Congratulations to Terri on a great win. To defeat a high profile candidate like Glasson so soon after a landslide shows only one thing. Abbot and his team of buffoons are on the nose. This of course is before the Toyota disaster. Who can you blame for this one Tone. No one but yourself.
11 Feb 2014 10:36:13pm
Yes, it would be interesting to see how many dollars each "side" poured into this. I suspect it would've been closer if the PM had of stayed away instead of tarnishing Glasson by making the association clear. Oh wait, is that UnAustralian of me to have that opinion?
11 Feb 2014 5:09:00pm
you did not end your sentence while talking of Butler and Hartcher . By the same token. You should also end up with.
"hopefully Abbott does not believe its a poor result for Bill Shorten"and hopefully "News ltd and The Australian do not go to town in that its a disaster for Labor.
Be consistent
11 Feb 2014 5:26:12pm
I think you are being a little too generous to commentators here Chris. A lot of there work is done because someone has to make a comment on the issue of the day. When I read Hartcher's headline that was my assumption. I couldn't read any more. The electorate hadn't passed the judgment Hartcher thought appropriate so the swing to the government in a by-election, a rare event, was to be disregarded. Please. In my fevered imagination a collective groan went up in the newsroom (do they still have newsrooms?) when the call went out for someone to make a comment and Hartcher dutifully put his hand up after a delay.
As long as commentators give their reasons I am happy to read their stuff and make up my own mind on their conclusions. Things can be learnt, factors can be taken into account and weightings changed. Often I feel justified in making an equally biased comment with just as much false confidence as journos seem to offer. All good fun. If I give my reasons people can make up their own minds on the validity of the comment, hopefully after a moment's thought.
When reading your piece a few names came to mind as reliable, learned counterindicators. Malcolm Mackerras was an intelligent pollster who added value and consistently made dud forecasts. Hugh White was regularly called on by the ABC to make comments on a war, I think it was Iraq. Every time I listened to him I learnt something (admittedly it may not have been retained very long). And it seemed every time events turned out exactly the opposite to his forecast the next day. There was an analyst at a broking company whose research was favourably regarded by institutions for its content. They just learnt to take the opposite conclusion. Gave his firm orders just the same. I do think I recognise in myself sometimes the instinct to make the wrong decision too often. Such is life. Be aware of it and carry on. Sometimes it is too easy to be distracted by details when a view over the trees seems to show the way forward, even as you trip up on the roots.
11 Feb 2014 5:27:35pm
I think the by election was not a good result for the LNP.
Their candidate was a good one as far as politicians go. The fact that he was rolled would be a bit disheartening.
In a broader sense, I doubt whether it matters.
Shorten, for example, could easily place his right wing ideology in the liberal party.
11 Feb 2014 11:52:35pm
Don't want to burst the bubble but the last time a government won a seat off the opposition so soon after an election was early last century. The swing to the LNP would make Lobor sit up.
11 Feb 2014 5:27:56pm
I just thought it was amazing [and in all honestly hilarious] that the new Labor member for Griffith, Miss Terri Butler, could actually keep a straight face while parroting the patronising Labor line that the result of the by-election 'sent a message to Tony Abbott and the LNP'.
Given that fewer voters [29,256 compared to 34,878] and a smaller percentage of voters [38.6% compared to 40.4%] voted for Labor as their first preference in the by-election than did in the Federal election AND there was actually a swing [albeit small] to the government - what exactly was that message Miss Bulter?
If Labor continues to be as self-deluded as this it won't be 'One term Tony', it will be 'Five term Tony'...
11 Feb 2014 6:12:01pm
John, the swing in primary votes against Labor is almost entirely explained by the votes for the Pirate Party Australia, a left-wingish Party. The tragedy for Abbott is that given that the PUP was not running, the LNP failed to attract their votes in sufficient numbers to win the by-election. So, the total loss for the LNP is clear: They can't even attract sufficient conservative voters, let alone swing others. This confirms that they are on the way down.... as the opinion polls are telling you.
11 Feb 2014 11:53:51pm
From the one who trumpeted Abbott would never be PM. LOL.
12 Feb 2014 7:46:16am
From the one who predicted an Independents Day and Abbott, in fact, failed miserably to win control of the Senate* because of the vote for Minor Parties and Independents, and now his whole legislative agenda is hanging from a thread.... But please, mortan, feel free to delude yourself... it's free of charge.
*And even a prominent member of the shadow cabinet: Sophie Mirabella, was unceremoniously dumped by the People in favour of an Independent... did you predict that, mortan? Ha!
patience radlett:
11 Feb 2014 6:25:57pm
Oh, please John - I for one hope not (re the 5 terms)
11 Feb 2014 6:38:50pm
Yes. Tony Abbot is not a great speaker and not overly attractive looking. There was many comments here celebrating when he was elected leader of the liberal party calling him unelectable Abbott. He has now seen of Rudd, Gillard, Rudd again and secured a swing to the liberal party against Shorten. The ALP continue to unestimate him I don't think the ALP has learned much from its big loss federally and around the states.
Shorten could have embraced the inquiry into union corruption to draw a line between the ALP and the union movement an opportunity he passed up.
11 Feb 2014 11:00:48pm
Underestimated Abbott, his onside media and generous donors ability to get him elected yes, but he's lived down to expectations on ability to take the country forward in a positive way. Even if his dubious claim to have "stopped the boats" (how many do they have to tow away?) was true, no Australian is better off for it.
Agree that Shorten should just sigh and say "ok, have your royal commission if you must", opening up the very real likelyhood later (if history is anything to go by) that very few, if any, charges are laid.
Even if some "baddies" were found, that would only prove that yep, some people are dishonest, but proves nothing against Unions especially considering the raising of work standards/pay and healthier economic byproduct of a wealthier population that they achieved.
The conclusion then would be that the coalitions obsession with juvenile revenge only leads to a bigger national debt while trying to undermine a prosperous and secure community.
patience radlett:
11 Feb 2014 6:53:14pm
Oh, please John - I for one hope not (re the 5 terms)
11 Feb 2014 10:46:36pm
At the rate of jobs lost and industry closures per Abbott-year so far, I don't think the country will last 5 terms (15 years).
Trent Toogood:
12 Feb 2014 12:59:38am
errr John.
No doubt Bill Glasson expected to win, even felt entitled to win, and the fact that he didnt, was devastating.
A lot of Liberal money was spent on his campaign, all for nothing.
If the PUP had a representative in the election, there would have been no swing to the LNP.
With Abbott on the nose and CanDo now apparently a cant, the Victorian Government in turmoil and in WA the Liberal government a shambles, things aren't looking good for your Tone.
12 Feb 2014 9:39:39am
Yes John and if Glasson had managed pulled off an upset he would never have said the result of the by-election 'sent a message to Bill Shorten and the ALP'
It's just politics, pure and simple
Big Ben:
11 Feb 2014 5:39:34pm
Thanks Chris.
What the by-election mean't in a nut shell was that the Liberal carbon producing electric light on the hill is fading fast.
Thank-you fair minded Australians in the seat of Griffith. Mr Abbott is a disgrace. Now we just need someone really interested in the future of our great country to take up the reins of leadership and bring back the 'Fair Go' for all ethos. Seventy five thousand dollars of tax payers hard earned to pregnant millionaires and billionaires; the man's deluded.
11 Feb 2014 5:42:19pm
perhaps elections are a mug's game?
In the name of democracy, we cast our votes for the candidates of our choice. But does it really give us the outcomes we so desperately wanted?
Tony Abbott told us that he is all for job, more jobs, and shed loads of jobs. If records served us right, his promises seemed to deviate far from his promises.
Ahh well, there is another election coming up in about 2.5 years. But please don't bet your last dollars that it will make fk-all difference, either LNP or ALP. There are major factors at play here that even the sweetest promises will not able to paper over the problems !
By the way, we are going to diversify into road building now, as the last car builder is closing down...
11 Feb 2014 5:57:56pm
"There's a parallel here with financial markets. Eugene Fama won the economics Nobel last year for his bubble-bursting empirical work on the efficient market hypothesis, which suggests most success in the share market is determined by random chance."
Bubble-bursting empirical work on the efficient market hypothesis!!!
Huh! You don't say!
Talk about stating the obvious. Most success in a lottery draw, which is winning the first prize, is also determined by random chance.
Gee whiz!.. If I made the same statement would I be awarded with the economics Nobel?
The trick in making lots of money in the financial markets is, not to play the game from outside and gamble, rather you play the game from inside and get the *insider information* before everyone else finds out. Surely you must know that Chris.
11 Feb 2014 11:18:51pm
An even better way, is to get your hands on other people's money, and then simply steal it
11 Feb 2014 11:56:42pm
I hope your wrong that's where my super is.
12 Feb 2014 11:37:06am
Never, mortan, bet more than you can afford to lose.
The market is just a more sophisticated gamble than poker, with more variables and far too many players, all of whom put their own egos and varied psychologies to work in the attempt to take all your stake.
It's definitely "a mug's game".
11 Feb 2014 6:33:31pm
What it means is there is still a lot of LNP voters who still voted for our chaotic LNP government but failed in this election they still read those trashy NEWS LTD stories.
the eggman:
11 Feb 2014 6:45:03pm
Chris, I'm not surprised to find that your view is that people cannot understand complex events, like elections, given that you seem to be a typical charlatan/mystic of the neoliberal economics bent who would like nothing better than to defer to the inscrutable market god in all things.
Sure chance plays a role in events, but events can still be understood and influenced. Now, you may find the Liberal's recent loss baffling, but I'm pretty confident that it can be attributed to the way the Liberals have been governing - especially seeing as giving people the ability to decide their government on the basis of its merits/performance is kinda the whole point of having a democracy.
I bet the result would have been even stronger now that Toyota has advised that it's closing.
Keith Lethbridge Snr:
11 Feb 2014 6:57:26pm
G'day Chris.
Thanks for your article.
If my theory is correct (that we're painting ourselves into a corner by persisting with the economic strategy of pursuing growth, supported by debt) then we'll see plenty more "nil-all" election results in the future.
It's natural that political parties would suggest that things will be better "if you vote for me". Most likely they truly believe that to be the case. When Percy Public finds that it ain't necessarily so, he changes his vote at the next election.
The Growth / Debt economic strategy has reached the point where it can only win if some other country loses. If that happens, the losers roll their swags & head for the winning country because they have no choice.
We can all do better. A new strategy of Stability is required. In a stable situation, every advance in appropriate technology raises the standard of living for everyone. However, a stable situation cannot be achieved while we have an ever-rising population.
That's a huge challenge for all of us, especially our elected representatives. If we can't meet that challenge, look forward to increasing political disruption, not to mention environmental degredation, poverty, wars, pestilence & loss of other species.
11 Feb 2014 7:10:59pm
Another K Rudd 'big brother' moment.
Once again, taxpayers of Australia pick up the cost of this election process because Kevin Rudd decided 3 weeks after his loss in the Federal election he doesn't want to be in politics anymore.
Good riddance to Kevin Rudd and now, the people of Australia pick up the bill from 6 years of bad Government.
11 Feb 2014 11:57:53pm
Jamie anything to get rid of wrecker Rudd was money well spent.
Perth Perspective:
11 Feb 2014 7:23:07pm
I note Terri Butler trundled out the old "Labor standing up for working families". Me thinks it should review that turn of phrase, given that many that it supposedly stands up for will not be working e.g. Ford, Toyota, maybe SPC.
It is a pretty silly phrase that rolls of the tongue of all and sundry, ad nauseam, on the ALP side. There are many more components that make up a society beyond working families. Still, she got the gig so maybe it is all rather pointless. But please, don't get me started on another ALP branch officer, union movement lawyer type slotting in to an ALP seat at a federal level....shish !
Waterloo Sunset:
11 Feb 2014 8:30:52pm
She also, quite unbelievably and naively, trumpeted her decreased vote, as a message to Abooot, and Newman.
She needs a few lessons in politics, poor lamb.
Her husband is in the unions, so she probably had some home help with her script.
Trent Toogood:
12 Feb 2014 1:07:12am
You see what happened was, your mob lost and Labor won.
I know its hard to grasp, but keep saying it over and over and maybe it will sink in.
Waterloo Sunset:
12 Feb 2014 8:29:33am
One can't lose something that one never had. Duh?
All one can do is look at the portent.
The portent was superior for The LNP: it increased its vote.
The ALP's vote decreased....And thanks for the opportunity to point that out.
Trent Toogood:
12 Feb 2014 2:15:10pm
"One cant lose something that ones never had. Duh?"
When one contests an election, one wins or one loses.
In this particular case, your one lost, no matter what ridiculous spin, one spruiks.
I know it's a bitter pill to swallow, all those expectations, all that money wasted.
Time to move on, as they say.
Give us a break:
12 Feb 2014 2:18:37pm
"All one can do is look at the portent"
If one is desperately looking for positives, one can look at the portent.
One can also look at the result.
Trent Toogood:
12 Feb 2014 1:04:50am
Well, methinks Abbott is certainly not standing up for workers.
Methinks Abbott could not care less about workers.
When Abbott inflicts us with his Industrial Relations policy, there is no doubt workers will be worse off.
Thats what methinks.
11 Feb 2014 7:44:29pm
Actually Chris, it does have a very obvious and important meaning. It means that it's time for the neocon apologists like yourself to try to spin it as anything but what it is - an embarrassing defeat that shows that the cold dead hands of the LNP's extremist puppetmasters are not quite as tightly wrapped around political power as they thought.
11 Feb 2014 8:13:08pm
The thing that makes me mad about Labor is the way they don't let reality interfere with there 'message'. To say the by-election result where they experienced a swing against them as a message to Tony Abbott is just nonsense.
I would much prefer to hear them agknowledge that they got the win and then recognise they have more work to do. They go on and do their job of sledging the govt. If this swing was repeated at an election it would obviously be a terrible result for the ALP ie worse then the last drubbing.
11 Feb 2014 9:06:41pm
The Griffith Electorate covers some of Brisbane's most desired and upmarket suburbs and the inner suburbs of the electorate were once poor working class suburbs that are now more trendy suburbs where many young people live who are on high income and who are buying old homes and are doing the renovations , I lived in the electorate as a child and in 1965 , the small workers cottage that I lived in was sold for $6,100 , today the price ticket on the same cottage with renovations is very close to million dollars ,
Griffith is a bit like Mr Turnbull's seat of Wentworth in Sydney which has posh suburbs like Vaucluse , Rosebay , Double Bay and the inner suburbs in the electorate that were once poor suburbs but are now trendy expensive suburbs to live in .
Griffith has gone against the trend in the last few election because of Mr Rudd and there are other seats in Queensland like Forbe and Longman which are now held by the Liberal government that has many pensioners , fairly poor and lower working class electors living in the electorate which Labor has not been able to win in the last election .
The election result for Labor in the last by election for Griifith would be patchy where Labor would have lost and gained votes and the result for the Liberals was not good at all considering the changing demographics of the electorate .
The result in Griffith is a poor result for Tony Abbott because the seat of Griffith should be an easy seat for the Liberals to win compared the many other seats in Queensland and the Liberal candidate in the by-election comes across as a fairly genuine moderate Liberal who is well known in the electorate as an eye surgeon .
I think the reason Griffith was not won by the Liberals was not because of the standard of the candidate but because of Tony Abbott and because people still have doubts about Mr Abbott's leadership qualities and what kind of future Australia has with Tony Abbott as prime minister .
red rooster:
11 Feb 2014 10:11:11pm
Treetop your the only one to make sense out of all this nonsense. I suspect that you have a Political Science background.
Trent Toogood:
12 Feb 2014 1:12:21am
Thats why Glasson was desperately trying to distance himself from Abbott and Newman prior to the election.
He saw those two as millstones around his neck.
Unfortunately for him, the Abbott Newman stench was too strong and down the gurgler he went.
11 Feb 2014 9:31:13pm
I wonder if offset against the gradual disillusionment with the LNP is the remnants of ill-feeling possibly still generated by the Kevin and Gillard saga? My point is simple. Perhaps this is not the best electorate to make judgements from. Perhaps, we should be looking further afield and farther away from any electorate that is affected by those Labor troubles in the way that this one possibly is given that 'Kevin' was at the centre of all Labor problems for some considerable time.
Brian of Buderim:
11 Feb 2014 9:40:09pm
I heard that 15 000 eligible voters did not take part in the by-election.
This is what ought to be concerning everyone. Why are so many turned off by the electoral process that they did not even bother turning up to get their name crossed off the roll?
Team this with the informal vote and you find as much as a quarter of the electorate not bothering to express an opinion. This is NOT a drive for optional, rather than compulsory, voting. It is a reflection of a political process that has not reached as much as a quarter of the electorate.
That is the elephant in the room!!
11 Feb 2014 9:42:08pm
Who cares what it means?? Who cares about the opinion of anybody when the voters of Griffith elected Terri Butler as their representative.
Labor had a victory, a win is a win, there is no doubting that.
The Liberals can waffle all they like but she won fair and square and they should quit their whining.
Tony Abbott should not be smug about these results, this will transfer to a huge loss for him at the next election and the sooner that happens the better. Australia deserves better than this PM and the electors will see past his lies when they go to the ballot box again.
12 Feb 2014 7:16:12am
Yes Francie, a good win for Labor. Don't forget they tried hard to get Glasson in and failed miserably. I guess wasting 60million on a witch hunt of unions didn't help them. Now Stone should resign as she has failed her electorate badly and can't be trusted. She was elected on a platform of more jobs more jobs and look what's happened. Now it's less jobs LNP.
11 Feb 2014 10:11:42pm
Another fair piece Chris. You're the only IPA contributor worth reading. What are you doing there anyway? You know it's trashing your reputation right?
Actually I think you were generous to Labor. 1.8% swing against them is a worry considering all the lies, embarassments and destruction of the Coalition both federally and state.
The swing against could've been the party installing Shorten over the more loved Albanese, or Rudd quitting like that. I dunno.
I take heart in the biggest winners (measured by simple increase in vote) being independants and the Greens staying exactly stable. Yeah mostly that. Many said the last election spelt the end of the Greens, but they were wrong. Again.
The Greens, independants and other small parties will be with us for as long as the major parties keep failing us in favour of the already priveledged few. And that's a given so long as money and media control stays as it is, so yeah.
11 Feb 2014 10:38:36pm
Interesting Chris I am sure you would have been finding lots of reasons if the labour party lost .Your party lost so accept it for all the dodgey actions of the Abbot Governmnet.!
11 Feb 2014 11:08:07pm
Posters in these pages specialise in divination, Chris. There's going to be a flood of gainsaying, crowing, prophecy and tortured justification. But you knew that already.
12 Feb 2014 12:20:34am
And if the Libs had won we would have had an article about how bi-elections are a measure of the country's pulse. It is sad that you think anyone believes you are anything but a mouth piece of the Liberal Party.
International Teacher:
12 Feb 2014 2:24:46am
Mr Berg, I think you need to include more literature review in your thinking on predictive abilities, and your version of Tetlock's views should be qualified by reference to:
The Dunning Kruger effect
These Cornell researchers were able to show that those with less knowledge made much more confident predictions because, as Wikipedia says, of the inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude. Those with more knowledge tended to make much less confident predictions, speaking more about probabilities and particular limiting factors in individual cases. Also, most education researchers are backing the Heinz test idea that black-and-white thinking is childlike and should lesson as the child passes 12yo.
So your article says that election results are not black and white and are rather a more sophisticated picture of particular electorates on particular days, yet you say that Tetlock thinks that we need people with less knowledge to interpret the outcomes?
I think you should also see Alan Saunders' wonderful Philosophers Zone episode 25 June 2009 which argues that Conservatives base their judgements not on science but on gut-feel, even in the face of contrary factual evidence. Gut-feel doesn't separate facts from fiction, Mr Berg.
John in Brisbane:
12 Feb 2014 2:42:32am
It was the expected result, albeit decidedly unconvincing. It doesn't mean much. But you are wrong to say that these are events that no person can possibly understand. That sounds like the Bart Simpson defence, "It was too hard so I gave up." You are confusing the issue. There were plenty of factors but forming and testing hypotheses is a fun and potentially useful pursuit. Astute people are more likely to identify the most important factors. Sometimes, for every 100 group-thinking pundits there might be only one Nate Silver or Warren Buffet. So pay more attention to them. There is then a big difference between dispassionately weighing up factors like they do and the wanton wishful thinking of intellectually incestuous chuckle-heads. Of course the winners will probably ascribe it all to their platform and the alleged misdemeanours of the losers. That's the style these days and is why most politicians from the two majors and the majority of pundits are so poorly regarded - weasel wording can be detected by sound and smell from several postcodes away. It's at the point where politics is like WWF wrestling - you know that most of the action is nonsense.
I urge people to watch or re-watch that old movie "Bullworth" about the politician who could no longer cope with the drivel he had been trotting out. I saw it years ago on an Arab airliner and people were cheering on the plane when the politician started talking straight. And this was just after 911.
Brownus Average:
12 Feb 2014 7:00:39am
The number one high priority importance placed upon the retention of this seat by the Labor executive could explain his though not immediately passionate support for the existing dubious E.T.S.
In these short past few critical months his priority for being the Top dog, has demonstrated to all levels his pursuit for success is neither timely, nor necessarily include, this nations interest.
The current labor executive appears to have narrow group selfish continuity of consistant dark resemblance. suggesting that he may well indeed be the one.!
12 Feb 2014 7:58:13am
The only thing the by election tells us is that if the Liberal Party want Bill Glasson as a Federal Parliamentarian they need to find another seat for him.
12 Feb 2014 9:08:08am
The problem is, politicians don't understand their own ideologies.
The ideology of infinite growth on a finite planet is a self defeating absurdity. Politicians are sacrificing our environment in the pursuit of their absurdity. How absurd is that?
12 Feb 2014 9:18:39am
Isn't hindsight wonderful? If Glasson had managed pulled off an upset there would certainly have been a stampede by Abbott & co, Berg and his fellow IPA cronies to attach some sort of "meaning" to it...
12 Feb 2014 10:16:09am
Chris, I think you mean "impute" not "impart". We attribute or ascribe meaning to an event, like reading the entrails, and foretelling the future from their shape, etc. To "impart" indicates the meaning of the event is clear to the commentator, he is just disclosing it. Having said that, it's a natural human characteristic to ascribe meaning to the outcome of the election. In the same set of entrails, tony Abbott and the commentators you cite get opposite messages from the same event. Big deal!
12 Feb 2014 10:47:29am
A more accurate reflection of what the voters wanted would have happened in it had been first past the post. As it happened, Labor got in because of the Greens' preferences. The Greens clearly knew they could not win and instead decided - once more - that they would muddy the water. First past the post, please.
12 Feb 2014 11:42:43am
What message out of Griffith?
That depends on which eye you have your political patch on.
The results are more clearly defined.
The last two polls have taken Griffith from a safe Labor seat to a marginal.
Labor's attempt to "send a message to Campbell Newman" failed. Newman will probably lose a swag of seats come the next State poll - but with the Labor Opposition currently meeting in a shoe box, it won't matter.
It will no doubt come as a relief to Newman that he will be rid of a lot of one term, nuisance back benchers. His own seat is at risk. But the word is head office will move him to a safe electorate.
12 Feb 2014 12:26:54pm
Only the 4th time that a by-election has swung to the government. Following on from the lowest ALP primary vote in 103 years at the general election. Something is definitely stinky out there in ALP heartland.
12 Feb 2014 1:44:41pm
Joe, the latest Newspoll (yes the Murdoch The Australian Newspoll) gives a 51% preference to the ALP. Not only that, the ALP won the seat of Griffith, for the second time in 5 months, thanks to the preference of some conservative PUP voters for the ALP.... We and they know perfectly well what's stinky with this Abbott Government....
Greens are go:
12 Feb 2014 12:30:33pm
On average most by elections swing against the government by 4%.
So labour needed around 7% and over for any messages to be sent to the goverment.
Labour lost more ground. libs slight increase . As Munngo pointed out last week how many more angry Labour voters can there be. Looks like there were still some out there.
From what I can gather Greens ran a rather half hearted campiagn and still polled well.
It is only a matter of time before the Greens are the major party on the left.
12 Feb 2014 12:47:06pm
One thing that hasn't,t been commented on is the low turnout. So far only 70% of the total electorate has been counted. In September 91% of the electorate voted. It is well known that in by elections there is always a lower turnout and that ALP. voters are likely to make up the majority of the lower turnout. It would seem that the swing against Labor could be accounted for by this. Add in the personal vote for Rudd being lost and it looks like a reasonable result for an Opposition badly beaten 5 months ago.
12 Feb 2014 1:13:51pm
I made a mistake in my previous post. 80% turnout so far not 70. Nevertheless my comment that in by-elections a low turnout hurts the labor vote more than the conservative vote and this with the loss of the personal vote for Rudd makes for a reasonable result for the ALP
12 Feb 2014 1:22:32pm
If you really wanted to decipher the election it could be done easily, and im sure it has by people who are smarter than I with statistics.
First, what are the views of those voting? Is it a local or federal issue? This gives you X and Y.
Now for each of those, you further assess their voting intention for Labor or Liberal on the basis of voting against Liberals Federally or for Labor Federally and intention for who will do the best job locally (and why, if you really wanted but that is too complicated.
The you would have a breakdown of what the voters thought was the most important issues and thus, how they voted and WHY.
12 Feb 2014 1:33:11pm
Good article. I think people need to be reminded not to try to explain things beyond their comprehension.
Science may not have the answer to everything, but IMO not having an answer is better than an answer that is wrong. But we have too many people in this world with that innate desire to join all the dots even though they don't have all the relevant information. Like a crossword puzzle that you fill in with guesses and incorrect words just to finish it, all you'll end up with following this approach is a pile of nonsense.
Comments for this story are closed.