Seat by seat election tipping comp, previously discussed, begins here.

The winner(s) will be the person(s) who correctly tips the greatest number of seats, duh.

Just specify the HoR divisions that you tip are going to change hands.

You can change (ie resubmit) with new answers any time up until 11:59 pm September 6, AEST.

My first go:

Melbourne: -> ALP
Brisbane: ->ALP
Forde: -> ALP
Hasluck: -> ALP
Lindsay: -> Lib
Latrobe: -> Lib
Robertson: -> Lib
Deakin: -> Lib
Corangamite: -> Lib
Lyne: -> Nat
New England: -> Nat

dv said:

My first go:

Melbourne: -> ALP
Brisbane: ->ALP
Forde: -> ALP
Hasluck: -> ALP
Lindsay: -> Lib
Latrobe: -> Lib
Robertson: -> Lib
Deakin: -> Lib
Corangamite: -> Lib
Lyne: -> Nat
New England: -> Nat

Only 139 to go.

Only 139 to go.

it’s unlikely all the seats will change hands.

;-)

What do you win?

a gold watch as big as a banjo.

A shiny new Holden Corby.

http://www.collegehumor.com/article/6911810/wait-new-mexico-is-a-state

This is so true…well, mr kii’s youngest sister wanted to know if she needed to get a passport when he moved here in 1989.

http://www.collegehumor.com/article/6911810/wait-new-mexico-is-a-state

This is so true…well, mr kii’s youngest sister wanted to know if she needed to get a passport when he moved here in 1989.

Double oops :/

Maribyrnong will make it into governemnt hands but will be relegated to first loser before being sworn in…

Peak Warming Man said:

What do you win?

100% sure we all lose no matter who wins.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see something along the lines of a Queensland-like ALP Tarago party again though.

kii said:

http://www.collegehumor.com/article/6911810/wait-new-mexico-is-a-state

This is so true…well, mr kii’s youngest sister wanted to know if she needed to get a passport when he moved here in 1989.

I don’t feel so stupid when I read things like this.

I don’t think you read the rules well, kii.

PWM, you get a banjo the size of a watch.

So far it looks as though I am going to win this comp, at least until MB shows up.

dv said:

I don’t think you read the rules well, kii.

PWM, you get a banjo the size of a watch.

yeah, I know :( but…wait…what?

FWIW ….

• The Coaltion are favourites in 90 electorates
• Labor are favourites in 56 electorates

http://www.sportsbet.com.au/blog/home/sportsbet-pays-out-early-on-coalition-to-win-2013-election?CarouselSB1

Spiny Norman said:

FWIW ….

• The Coaltion are favourites in 90 electorates
• Labor are favourites in 56 electorates

http://www.sportsbet.com.au/blog/home/sportsbet-pays-out-early-on-coalition-to-win-2013-election?CarouselSB1

• People are idjits in 90 electorates.
• People are wary, but smarter in 59 electorates.

kii said:

Spiny Norman said:

FWIW ….

• The Coaltion are favourites in 90 electorates
• Labor are favourites in 56 electorates

http://www.sportsbet.com.au/blog/home/sportsbet-pays-out-early-on-coalition-to-win-2013-election?CarouselSB1

• People are idjits in 90 electorates.
• People are wary, but smarter in 59 electorates.

In fantasy land.
Also note that this is the first time that Sportsbet have paid-out before the result. They are that sure it’s going to be a landslide.

Spiny Norman said:

kii said:

Spiny Norman said:

FWIW ….

• The Coaltion are favourites in 90 electorates
• Labor are favourites in 56 electorates

http://www.sportsbet.com.au/blog/home/sportsbet-pays-out-early-on-coalition-to-win-2013-election?CarouselSB1

• People are idjits in 90 electorates.
• People are wary, but smarter in 59 electorates.

In fantasy land.
Also note that this is the first time that Sportsbet have paid-out before the result. They are that sure it’s going to be a landslide.

Doesn’t mean that it’s the right thing to do. How can anyone, with any intelligence, think that an LNP government led by Abbott is a good thing? The man is a bully, a misogynist and he can’t speak. He lies, he has no cultural awareness, he manipulates peoples’ base fears and he creeps me the fuck out.

Julia Gillard may have performed better in election campaign than Kevin Rudd, say key Labor Party figures

kii said:

Doesn’t mean that it’s the right thing to do. How can anyone, with any intelligence, think that an LNP government led by Abbott is a good thing?

Because the other seven billion people on the planet aren’t you and don’t think exactly the same as you.
There’s times that each major party is a good thing to have in power, this is not the time for the ALP.
I also have little faith that the LNP will be much less inept though.

Spiny Norman said:

kii said:

Doesn’t mean that it’s the right thing to do. How can anyone, with any intelligence, think that an LNP government led by Abbott is a good thing?

Because the other seven billion people on the planet aren’t you and don’t think exactly the same as you.
There’s times that each major party is a good thing to have in power, this is not the time for the ALP.
I also have little faith that the LNP will be much less inept though.

Good luck with that, Bill. I thought you had more intelligence. I was wrong. Let me know how it works out for you. Sheesh :/

kii said:

Spiny Norman said:

kii said:

Doesn’t mean that it’s the right thing to do. How can anyone, with any intelligence, think that an LNP government led by Abbott is a good thing?

Because the other seven billion people on the planet aren’t you and don’t think exactly the same as you.
There’s times that each major party is a good thing to have in power, this is not the time for the ALP.
I also have little faith that the LNP will be much less inept though.

Good luck with that, Bill. I thought you had more intelligence. I was wrong. Let me know how it works out for you. Sheesh :/

To have just one party running the country all the time is about the dumbest thing I’ve heard in a long time sorry.
The country needs both, so they can work their strengths on it. Then when their time is up, people vote them out. This is going to happen in about ten days no matter what you or anyone thinks.

Julia Gillard may have handed the Coalition 110 seats, says everyone else.

Spiny Norman said:

FWIW ….

• The Coaltion are favourites in 90 electorates
• Labor are favourites in 56 electorates

http://www.sportsbet.com.au/blog/home/sportsbet-pays-out-early-on-coalition-to-win-2013-election?CarouselSB1

Publicity stunt? Doesn’t seem like a lot of money in the scheme of things.

Spiny Norman said:

kii said:

Spiny Norman said:

Because the other seven billion people on the planet aren’t you and don’t think exactly the same as you.
There’s times that each major party is a good thing to have in power, this is not the time for the ALP.
I also have little faith that the LNP will be much less inept though.

Good luck with that, Bill. I thought you had more intelligence. I was wrong. Let me know how it works out for you. Sheesh :/

To have just one party running the country all the time is about the dumbest thing I’ve heard in a long time sorry.
The country needs both, so they can work their strengths on it. Then when their time is up, people vote them out. This is going to happen in about ten days no matter what you or anyone thinks.

Don’t expect Kii to make any sense in issues like this…she’s just emotional and unstable about it all..

i know whats happening in about 3 electorates..

Ill just put $20 on DV’s answer..

Dropbear said:

Spiny Norman said:

kii said:

Good luck with that, Bill. I thought you had more intelligence. I was wrong. Let me know how it works out for you. Sheesh :/

To have just one party running the country all the time is about the dumbest thing I’ve heard in a long time sorry.
The country needs both, so they can work their strengths on it. Then when their time is up, people vote them out. This is going to happen in about ten days no matter what you or anyone thinks.

Don’t expect Kii to make any sense in issues like this…she’s just emotional and unstable about it all..

Thanks, Dropped Bear for your idiot response. I am not either of those things
I don’t like Rudd and the mess he has made. To vote in Abbott’s henchmen is the most stupid thing anyone could do to the Australian people – they are not to be trusted.

kii said:

Dropbear said:

Spiny Norman said:

To have just one party running the country all the time is about the dumbest thing I’ve heard in a long time sorry.
The country needs both, so they can work their strengths on it. Then when their time is up, people vote them out. This is going to happen in about ten days no matter what you or anyone thinks.

Don’t expect Kii to make any sense in issues like this…she’s just emotional and unstable about it all..

Thanks, Dropped Bear for your idiot response. I am not either of those things
I don’t like Rudd and the mess he has made. To vote in Abbott’s henchmen is the most stupid thing anyone could do to the Australian people – they are not to be trusted.

Please don’t confuse opinion with fact…

and have a good lie down.. sounds like you need it.

Dropbear said:

kii said:

Dropbear said:

Don’t expect Kii to make any sense in issues like this…she’s just emotional and unstable about it all..

Thanks, Dropped Bear for your idiot response. I am not either of those things
I don’t like Rudd and the mess he has made. To vote in Abbott’s henchmen is the most stupid thing anyone could do to the Australian people – they are not to be trusted.

Please don’t confuse opinion with fact…

and have a good lie down.. sounds like you need it.

The facts? The facts are there, under the smoke screen that Murdoch is spreading.
I need a good lie down because it’s late and I am tired – not because of your inference that I am unstable/upset/emotional.

Former PM Bob Hawke slams ‘terrible bias’ of News Corp election coverage
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-28/hawke-joins-chorus-against-news-corp27-election-coverage/4917014

An Open Letter to Journalists at News Ltd
http://theaimn.com/2013/08/25/an-open-letter-to-journalists-at-news-ltd/

How would that bill/legislation on media reform that didn’t go through have changed this?

Did it go through or was it watered down?

kii said:

Dropbear said:

kii said:

Thanks, Dropped Bear for your idiot response. I am not either of those things
I don’t like Rudd and the mess he has made. To vote in Abbott’s henchmen is the most stupid thing anyone could do to the Australian people – they are not to be trusted.

Please don’t confuse opinion with fact…

and have a good lie down.. sounds like you need it.

The facts? The facts are there, under the smoke screen that Murdoch is spreading.
I need a good lie down because it’s late and I am tired – not because of your inference that I am unstable/upset/emotional.

On of the good things about Australian politics is that no matter who runs the country you can be sure it will be a very similar flavor of vanilla.

lets look at the key issues..

both parties have a suite of reasonable intelligent, well intentioned MPs
both parties have a history of sound economic management
both parties are touting some form of carbon pricing mechanism
both parties are looking to build some form of electronic communications infrastructure
both parties support the NDIS

there may be some more philosophical differences in regards to health, education and workplace protections, but let’s face it, the gap isn’t that big.

So for me the question is more about who do we think will better represent our nation on the world stage.

diddly-squat said:

both parties are touting some form of carbon pricing mechanism

Are they?

I thought Tony was just proposing to subsidise low emission technology (so he can have some expenditure to cut when the time comes).

diddly-squat said:

kii said:

Dropbear said:

Please don’t confuse opinion with fact…

and have a good lie down.. sounds like you need it.

The facts? The facts are there, under the smoke screen that Murdoch is spreading.
I need a good lie down because it’s late and I am tired – not because of your inference that I am unstable/upset/emotional.

On of the good things about Australian politics is that no matter who runs the country you can be sure it will be a very similar flavor of vanilla.

lets look at the key issues..

both parties have a suite of reasonable intelligent, well intentioned MPs
both parties have a history of sound economic management
both parties are touting some form of carbon pricing mechanism
both parties are looking to build some form of electronic communications infrastructure
both parties support the NDIS

there may be some more philosophical differences in regards to health, education and workplace protections, but let’s face it, the gap isn’t that big.

So for me the question is more about who do we think will better represent our nation on the world stage.

I’m not terribly fond of either leader but I’d probably opt that Rudd has proven to be a better diplomat. Not that I have any say on the matter. It is most likely that the Nationals will reclaim this seat.

The Rev Dodgson said:

diddly-squat said:

both parties are touting some form of carbon pricing mechanism

Are they?

I thought Tony was just proposing to subsidise low emission technology (so he can have some expenditure to cut when the time comes).

OK… both parties have funding directed at addressing climate change through some form of transformation of the economy.

Yeah look … there’s another thread about the political issues associated with the election. This is the tipping comp thread.

Sorry, I don’t gamble.

diddly-squat said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

diddly-squat said:

both parties are touting some form of carbon pricing mechanism

Are they?

I thought Tony was just proposing to subsidise low emission technology (so he can have some expenditure to cut when the time comes).

OK… both parties have funding directed at addressing climate change through some form of transformation of the economy.

But only one has a policy that is likely to be implemented in any meaningful way.

.
All seats starting with the letter -

A: > Tony Abbott Liberal National Coalition
B: > Tony Abbott Liberal National Coalition
C: > Tony Abbott Liberal National Coalition
D: > Tony Abbott Liberal National Coalition
E: > Tony Abbott Liberal National Coalition
F: > Tony Abbott Liberal National Coalition
G: > Tony Abbott Liberal National Coalition
H: > Tony Abbott Liberal National Coalition
I: > Tony Abbott Liberal National Coalition
J: > Tony Abbott Liberal National Coalition
K: > Tony Abbott Liberal National Coalition
L: > Tony Abbott Liberal National Coalition
M: > Tony Abbott Liberal National Coalition
N- > Tony Abbott Liberal National Coalition
O- > Tony Abbott Liberal National Coalition
P- > Tony Abbott Liberal National Coalition
Q- > Tony Abbott Liberal National Coalition
R- > Tony Abbott Liberal National Coalition
S- > Tony Abbott Liberal National Coalition
T- > Tony Abbott Liberal National Coalition
U- > Tony Abbott Liberal National Coalition
V- > Tony Abbott Liberal National Coalition
W -> Tony Abbott Liberal National Coalition
X- > Tony Abbott Liberal National Coalition
Y- > Tony Abbott Liberal National Coalition
Z: > Tony Abbott Liberal National Collation

My prediction is that all seats will go the same way as last time.

Perth: Alannah MacTiernan ALP
Brand: Gary Gray (ALP)
Canning: Don Fucking Randall (Lib)

Senate – 3 Liberals, 2 ALP, 1 Greens.

party_pants said:

Perth: Alannah MacTiernan ALP
Brand: Gary Gray (ALP)
Canning: Don Fucking Randall (Lib)

Senate – 3 Liberals, 2 ALP, 1 Greens.

whoops – that should be WA Senate

“Senate – 3 Liberals, 2 ALP, 1 Greens.”

And the rest Palmer United Party, right?

dv said:

“Senate – 3 Liberals, 2 ALP, 1 Greens.”

And the rest Palmer United Party, right?

Refer to correction already issued.

Sorry, I’m typing with one hand and eating lunch with the other, I don’t multitask very well.

The winner will receive a piece of blue Indonesian amber.

So how many seats do you think PUP will get DV.
I want you to be objective with no kneejerk ideologically driven response.
Think about it, weigh up the options, look at the candidates, do some research and get back to me with your best number and with the factor of error shown.
Thanks.

I really don’t know: unfortunately most of the pollsters just put them in the “other” category so I don’t have good data on how they are faring.

Having said that I do not expect them to get any HoR representation. They might jag a senate seat in WA.

The Rev Dodgson said:

My prediction is that all seats will go the same way as last time.

Even in New England and Lyne?

If the polls indicate a coalition victory, I won’t even bother watching the coverage.

Clive Palmer in “talking straight out of his arse” shocker

Clive Palmer says asylum seekers are paid more by the Government than pensioners.

“Our senior citizens are paid less than newly arrived asylum seekers,” the Palmer United Party founder said at his campaign launch on Sunday.

“We must change this as soon as possible.

“As a first step, Palmer United will increase the old age pension by 20 per cent. This will amount to an estimated $150 extra a fortnight.”

The single rate of the age pension is currently $733.70 a fortnight.

That can be reduced based on the assets and other income in individual cases, but it is the maximum rate of benefit that can be paid to a single aged pensioner.

The claim: Clive Palmer says senior citizens in Australia are paid less than newly arrived asylum seekers. The verdict: Mr Palmer is wrong, and his explanation for the claim does not stack up.

Asylum seekers who are waiting for their claims to be processed and meet criteria set by the Department of Immigration are paid an allowance that is administered through a program run by the Red Cross called the Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme.

That allowance is paid at 89 per cent of Centrelink’s Special Benefit payment, which is equivalent to Newstart or Youth Allowance.

The maximum rate of Newstart for a single person under 60 who is not a carer and has no dependents is $497 a fortnight. The maximum Newstart payment, specifically for carers, is $683.50 a fortnight.

A single asylum seeker eligible for the assistance scheme would receive $442.33 a fortnight, 89 per cent of the single rate of Newstart.

That is almost $300 a fortnight less than the age pension.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-29/clive-palmer-wrong-asylum-seekers-pensioners/4917836

Bugger, you people tricked me into discussing politics

dv said:

I really don’t know: unfortunately most of the pollsters just put them in the “other” category so I don’t have good data on how they are faring.

Having said that I do not expect them to get any HoR representation. They might jag a senate seat in WA.

I’d say no in WA. He isn’t one of us, he is a QLD’er, they rank olny just below ‘Dubbers, Victorians, Tasmanina and Croweaters in our disdain league table..

Don’t tell anyone, but I think ol’ Clive might be gaining some support here. The PUP candidate for my electorate promises an end to homelessness, full employment and enough food for everyone.

Surely everyone already has more food than they can comfortably eat.

Clive Palmer is a nutcase, I hope he does not get in

CrazyNeutrino said:

Clive Palmer is a nutcase, I hope he does not get in

One can only hope the good citizens of QLD all exercise their right to vote below the line in the Senate and put him somewhere near the bottom of their preferences.

• and enough food for everyone

Just because it is enough for everyone does not mean that everyone will get enough…

A large proportion of my electorate are retirees, and I’m not aware of them eating dog food. Kilos of devon, yes, but not dog food.

Ref: I worked in the only supermarket in town.

furious said:

Julia Gillard may have performed better in election campaign than Kevin Rudd, say key Labor Party figures

I doubt it, their own polls, all their members in speaking to the community told them they were heading for the mother of all drubbings under Gillard. Putting in Lemon 07 was an act of desperation to save the furniture.

What else has CP been wrong about?

heaps of things I bet

we need sites like the ABC and online newspapers to start listing all the wrong and right things polies/candies say

I know there are websites like http://www.politifact.com.au/

it makes an effort to create such lists

heres one on Tony

http://www.politifact.com.au/personalities/tony-abbott/

http://www.politifact.com.au/personalities/tony-abbott/

http://www.politifact.com.au/personalities/clive-palmer/statements/

not much there on Nutcase

“Children in our indigenous communities are dying at a faster rate than children in Africa, India and South America.”
http://www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/may/28/clive-palmer/palmer-say-indigenous-children-die-faster-rate-chi/

False

and all the things that they’re wrong about

what research did they do?

Griffith to Bill Glasson.

Well this competition has been a great success. That blue amber is mine for sure.

Where’s Martin B disappeared to?

Rupert wins.

End of story.

Bubblecar said:

Where’s Martin B disappeared to?

And the Colonel.

dv said:

Clive Palmer in “talking straight out of his arse” shocker

Clive Palmer says asylum seekers are paid more by the Government than pensioners.

“Our senior citizens are paid less than newly arrived asylum seekers,” the Palmer United Party founder said at his campaign launch on Sunday.

“We must change this as soon as possible.

“As a first step, Palmer United will increase the old age pension by 20 per cent. This will amount to an estimated $150 extra a fortnight.”

The single rate of the age pension is currently $733.70 a fortnight.

That can be reduced based on the assets and other income in individual cases, but it is the maximum rate of benefit that can be paid to a single aged pensioner.

The claim: Clive Palmer says senior citizens in Australia are paid less than newly arrived asylum seekers. The verdict: Mr Palmer is wrong, and his explanation for the claim does not stack up.

Asylum seekers who are waiting for their claims to be processed and meet criteria set by the Department of Immigration are paid an allowance that is administered through a program run by the Red Cross called the Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme.

That allowance is paid at 89 per cent of Centrelink’s Special Benefit payment, which is equivalent to Newstart or Youth Allowance.

The maximum rate of Newstart for a single person under 60 who is not a carer and has no dependents is $497 a fortnight. The maximum Newstart payment, specifically for carers, is $683.50 a fortnight.

A single asylum seeker eligible for the assistance scheme would receive $442.33 a fortnight, 89 per cent of the single rate of Newstart.

That is almost $300 a fortnight less than the age pension.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-29/clive-palmer-wrong-asylum-seekers-pensioners/4917836

People are squealing about Murdoch being partisan but no-one bats an eyelid when the ABC prints such biased crap.

“Hmmm, CP said something, lets twist it beyond recognition, then produce irrelevant facts to disprove our version of what he didn’t actually say”

What did he actually say?

Govt spends $X on asylum seekers
Govt spends $Y on pensioners.
Do the sums, more is spent on each Asylum seeker than each pensioner.

who cares

they’ve taken so much debt that its boned the place for a few decades

“What did he actually say?”

His exact words were:

“Our senior citizens are paid less than newly arrived asylum seekers. We must change this as soon as possible.

There’s no way you can interpret this to mean total spending on Australia’s immigration detention and processing per capita … he said “are paid less”.

He was just plain wrong, and by a huge margin.

Thanks for asking.

wookiemeister said:

who cares

they’ve taken so much debt that its boned the place for a few decades

Australia’s problem is that we haven’t taken advantage of their triple-triple-A ratings and low interest rates to take on more debt to fund infrastructure.

I assume Palmer is running merely because he’s a bored attention seeker, but I wonder why his “candidates” have bothered climbing aboard. Maybe he’s paying them generous salaries.

>Australia’s problem is that we haven’t taken advantage of their triple-triple-A ratings and low interest rates to take on more debt to fund infrastructure.

Yes, but wookie never seems to notice Australia’s position around the top of every list of the world’s wealthiest, best and nicest countries.

dv said:

“What did he actually say?”

His exact words were:

“Our senior citizens are paid less than newly arrived asylum seekers. We must change this as soon as possible.

There’s no way you can interpret this to mean total spending on Australia’s immigration detention and processing per capita … he said “are paid less”.

He was just plain wrong, and by a huge margin.

Thanks for asking.

I was listening to the debate on live wireless. I heard what he said.

Bubblecar said:

I assume Palmer is running merely because he’s a bored attention seeker, but I wonder why his “candidates” have bothered climbing aboard. Maybe he’s paying them generous salaries.

I would suppose that’s it.

Kingy said:

dv said:

“What did he actually say?”

His exact words were:

“Our senior citizens are paid less than newly arrived asylum seekers. We must change this as soon as possible.

There’s no way you can interpret this to mean total spending on Australia’s immigration detention and processing per capita … he said “are paid less”.

He was just plain wrong, and by a huge margin.

Thanks for asking.

I was listening to the debate on live wireless. I heard what he said.

So you must surely agree with what I’ve said. :-/

Bubblecar said:

>Australia’s problem is that we haven’t taken advantage of their triple-triple-A ratings and low interest rates to take on more debt to fund infrastructure.

Yes, but wookie never seems to notice Australia’s position around the top of every list of the world’s wealthiest, best and nicest countries.

not with lots of debt

the debt exploded in 2007

the more debt the worse things get

just ask Socrates, the money lenders destroy countries

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

who cares

they’ve taken so much debt that its boned the place for a few decades

Australia’s problem is that we haven’t taken advantage of their triple-triple-A ratings and low interest rates to take on more debt to fund infrastructure.

So when we take on even more debt to fund politicians pay rises and incompetence, what happens when it’s time to pay it back?

We pay it back during the next boom, right? Except that during booms, the interest rates go up because everyone wants to borrow money.

Go ask Greece how that worked out for them.

Kingy said:

dv said:

“What did he actually say?”

His exact words were:

“Our senior citizens are paid less than newly arrived asylum seekers. We must change this as soon as possible.

There’s no way you can interpret this to mean total spending on Australia’s immigration detention and processing per capita … he said “are paid less”.

He was just plain wrong, and by a huge margin.

Thanks for asking.

I was listening to the debate on live wireless. I heard what he said.

So you must surely agree with what I’ve said. :-/

He didn’t say these words above during a debate. He said them DURING HIS CAMPAIGN LAUNCH.

Those exact words.

wookiemeister said:

just ask Socrates, the money lenders destroy countries

I don’t think Socrates was well versed in modern economic thinking.

Witty Rejoinder said:

wookiemeister said:

just ask Socrates, the money lenders destroy countries

I don’t think Socrates was well versed in modern economic thinking.

ask plato then

in the republic he fingers the cause of Athens demise

Witty Rejoinder said:

wookiemeister said:

just ask Socrates, the money lenders destroy countries

I don’t think Socrates was well versed in modern economic thinking.

I wonder if wookie is allergic to hemlock.

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

who cares

they’ve taken so much debt that its boned the place for a few decades

Australia’s problem is that we haven’t taken advantage of their triple-triple-A ratings and low interest rates to take on more debt to fund infrastructure.

—-

pfft Australia’s swinging voters have been swayed by Murdoch press.

Western Sydney voting for a Liberal gov that will stop more immigrants (??) while forgetting the tax cuts.

Bubblecar said:

I assume Palmer is running merely because he’s a bored attention seeker, but I wonder why his “candidates” have bothered climbing aboard. Maybe he’s paying them generous salaries.

He is one of those whose companies pay extra under the mining tax. He is about abolishing taxes that don’t suit him.

dv said:

Kingy said:

dv said:

“What did he actually say?”

His exact words were:

“Our senior citizens are paid less than newly arrived asylum seekers. We must change this as soon as possible.

There’s no way you can interpret this to mean total spending on Australia’s immigration detention and processing per capita … he said “are paid less”.

He was just plain wrong, and by a huge margin.

Thanks for asking.

I was listening to the debate on live wireless. I heard what he said.

So you must surely agree with what I’ve said. :-/

He didn’t say these words above during a debate. He said them DURING HIS CAMPAIGN LAUNCH.

Those exact words.

Paid with what? Cash?

Or cash + housing + medical care + phonecalls + clothing + transport + etc + etc.
Pensioners don’t get anything after the “cash”. The rest is taken out of their cash.

Paid with what? Cash?

Or cash + housing + medical care + phonecalls + clothing + transport + etc + etc.
Pensioners don’t get anything after the “cash”. The rest is taken out of their cash.
——————-
Pensioners do get a lot of that either free or discounted.

I haven’t decided my voting preferences yet, but ALP, Greens and Libs are in the bottom half. PUP, Wikileaks and AMEP are in the top half.

Kingy said:

I haven’t decided my voting preferences yet, but ALP, Greens and Libs are in the bottom half. PUP, Wikileaks and AMEP are in the top half.

What does AMEP stand for?

Kingy said:

I haven’t decided my voting preferences yet, but ALP, Greens and Libs are in the bottom half. PUP, Wikileaks and AMEP are in the top half.

—-

Is that your election spruik in the local elections. ;)

tauto said:

Kingy said:

I haven’t decided my voting preferences yet, but ALP, Greens and Libs are in the bottom half. PUP, Wikileaks and AMEP are in the top half.

—-

Is that your election spruik in the local elections. ;)

No. But since this is an election tipping thread, there are currently 11 of us running for 4 seats, and three of those people are current councillors. Most of the others have nice clothes and expensive cars. I reckon my odds are somewhat long.

FWIW ….

http://marktheballot.blogspot.com.au/

Spiny Norman said:

FWIW ….

http://marktheballot.blogspot.com.au/

What is it worth?

http://www.southcoastregister.com.au/story/1739724/gilmore-liberal-exhumes-work-choices/?cs=202

Interesting….I’m tipping that this is how it will be if the LNP take office.

Now to inject some much needed humour: http://fttb.org/

Not part of the comp but here are my tips for the Senate…

As always there were 2 ALP and 2 Coalition senators in the territories. The territorial senators are elected every three years, whereas the state senators are elected for six years.

Despite a change in overall support levels, the overall results of the 2007 and 2010 senate elections for the states were effectively the same.
In 2007, GRN+ALP = 19, Coalition = 16, and there was one indie (Xenophon). It is the class of senators that will be up for re-election this time around
In 2010, GRN+ALP = 19, Coalition = 16, and there is one DLP. These guys are good until 2016.

All up, then, GRN+ALP=40, Coalition = 34, and there are two others.

In order for the Coalition to obtain control of the senate, they would need to pick up five more net seats, either by themselves or by parties who will support them.

I am going to assume the Territorians remain at 2 each: there is usually some talk that the Greens could snag the second seat in the ACT but this seems less likely this time.

So the 36 state senators up for reelection:
NSW 3 COALITION 3 ALP
VIC 3 COALITION 3 ALP
QLD 3 COALITION 3 ALP
WA 3 COALITION 2 ALP 1 GREEN
SA 2 COALITION 2 ALP 1 GREEN 1 INDIE
TAS 2 COALITION 3 ALP 1 GREEN

The ALP’s weakness in NSW, VIC, and QLD is enough to see them fail to grab a third seat, but not enough for that to give a fourth seat to the COALITION. I am predicting that in NSW and VIC, the ALP’s lost seat will go to the GREENS, and in QLD, to KAP, which is where the ALP has directed its preferences.
I don’t predict in any change in WA. The swing in SA, I say, will end up with the COALITION picking up one spot at the expense of the Greens: the mail seems to be that Xenophon will be returned.
Tasmania has seen a 12% swing in HoR polling towards the Coalition: if that is reflected by a swing even half that big in the Senate, one spot will go from the ALP towards the Coalition.

So my prediction for that class:
NSW 3 COALITION 2 ALP 1 GREEN
VIC 3 COALITION 2 ALP 1 GREEN
QLD 3 COALITION 2 ALP 1 KAP
WA 3 COALITION 2 ALP 1 GREEN
SA 3 COALITION 2 ALP 1 INDIE
TAS 3 COALITION 2 ALP 1 GREEN

So this would see the Greens pick up one more senate place in total, ALP to lose 4, the Coalition to gain 2, there will still be 1 indie and 1 DLP, and now 1 KAP.
GRN+ALP 37, 36 COALITION, 1 DLP, 1 KAP, 1 INDIE.

This would not be an easy senate for the Coalition to work with. Without Green or ALP support, they would need ALL of KAP, Xenophon, and the DLP onside.

It would also not be completely straightforward for an ALP government, but they would probably find that Xenophon would be willing to play ball.

Detailed post DV. How do you devine the mood of so many electorates?

dv said:

Not part of the comp but here are my tips for the Senate…

As always there were 2 ALP and 2 Coalition senators in the territories. The territorial senators are elected every three years, whereas the state senators are elected for six years.

Despite a change in overall support levels, the overall results of the 2007 and 2010 senate elections for the states were effectively the same.
In 2007, GRN+ALP = 19, Coalition = 16, and there was one indie (Xenophon). It is the class of senators that will be up for re-election this time around
In 2010, GRN+ALP = 19, Coalition = 16, and there is one DLP. These guys are good until 2016.

All up, then, GRN+ALP=40, Coalition = 34, and there are two others.

In order for the Coalition to obtain control of the senate, they would need to pick up five more net seats, either by themselves or by parties who will support them.

I am going to assume the Territorians remain at 2 each: there is usually some talk that the Greens could snag the second seat in the ACT but this seems less likely this time.

So the 36 state senators up for reelection:
NSW 3 COALITION 3 ALP
VIC 3 COALITION 3 ALP
QLD 3 COALITION 3 ALP
WA 3 COALITION 2 ALP 1 GREEN
SA 2 COALITION 2 ALP 1 GREEN 1 INDIE
TAS 2 COALITION 3 ALP 1 GREEN

The ALP’s weakness in NSW, VIC, and QLD is enough to see them fail to grab a third seat, but not enough for that to give a fourth seat to the COALITION. I am predicting that in NSW and VIC, the ALP’s lost seat will go to the GREENS, and in QLD, to KAP, which is where the ALP has directed its preferences.
I don’t predict in any change in WA. The swing in SA, I say, will end up with the COALITION picking up one spot at the expense of the Greens: the mail seems to be that Xenophon will be returned.
Tasmania has seen a 12% swing in HoR polling towards the Coalition: if that is reflected by a swing even half that big in the Senate, one spot will go from the ALP towards the Coalition.

So my prediction for that class:
NSW 3 COALITION 2 ALP 1 GREEN
VIC 3 COALITION 2 ALP 1 GREEN
QLD 3 COALITION 2 ALP 1 KAP
WA 3 COALITION 2 ALP 1 GREEN
SA 3 COALITION 2 ALP 1 INDIE
TAS 3 COALITION 2 ALP 1 GREEN

So this would see the Greens pick up one more senate place in total, ALP to lose 4, the Coalition to gain 2, there will still be 1 indie and 1 DLP, and now 1 KAP.
GRN+ALP 37, 36 COALITION, 1 DLP, 1 KAP, 1 INDIE.

This would not be an easy senate for the Coalition to work with. Without Green or ALP support, they would need ALL of KAP, Xenophon, and the DLP onside.

It would also not be completely straightforward for an ALP government, but they would probably find that Xenophon would be willing to play ball.

—-

If you are right then Katter becomes the new Harradine of the senate and can get what he wants…

tauto said:

If you are right then Katter becomes the new Harradine of the senate and can get what he wants…

now there is a bright move!!!

tauto said:

If you are right then Katter becomes the new Harradine of the senate and can get what he wants…

Goodbye foreign investment?

Skunkworks said:

tauto said:

If you are right then Katter becomes the new Harradine of the senate and can get what he wants…

Goodbye foreign investment?

—-

He would of first have to consult with the deputy PM Barnaby Joyce.

tauto said:

Skunkworks said:

tauto said:

If you are right then Katter becomes the new Harradine of the senate and can get what he wants…

Goodbye foreign investment?

—-

He would of first have to consult with the deputy PM Barnaby Joyce.

So, ‘goodbye any investment’?

tauto said:

Skunkworks said:

tauto said:

If you are right then Katter becomes the new Harradine of the senate and can get what he wants…

Goodbye foreign investment?

—-

He would of first have to consult with the deputy PM Barnaby Joyce.

He would be good for aboriginals though. Actually I am hoping between Abbott and Pearson with the support of ex luvvie Mundine a probable Lib victory will do some good things for them.

When they talk of a swing of x percent, what exactly does that mean, expressed in algebra?

straight line

tauto said:

straight line

That’s not algebra

morrie said:

tauto said:

straight line

That’s not algebra

—-

Ok, if 50 is the benchmark, then 48 means a 4% swing. 52-48.

tauto said:

morrie said:

tauto said:

straight line

That’s not algebra

—-

Ok, if 50 is the benchmark, then 48 means a 4% swing. 52-48.

So it is just the difference from the previous split, expressed as a percentage?

morrie said:

tauto said:

morrie said:

That’s not algebra

—-

Ok, if 50 is the benchmark, then 48 means a 4% swing. 52-48.

So it is just the difference from the previous split, expressed as a percentage?

——

Yeah.

tauto said:

morrie said:

tauto said:

—-

Ok, if 50 is the benchmark, then 48 means a 4% swing. 52-48.

So it is just the difference from the previous split, expressed as a percentage?

——

Yeah.

preferences often cancel it out.

tauto said:

morrie said:

tauto said:

—-

Ok, if 50 is the benchmark, then 48 means a 4% swing. 52-48.

So it is just the difference from the previous split, expressed as a percentage?

——

Yeah.

Ok, thanks. I never did quite understand exactly what they meant by that.

morrie said:

tauto said:

morrie said:

So it is just the difference from the previous split, expressed as a percentage?

——

—

I doubt that..

Yeah.

Ok, thanks. I never did quite understand exactly what they meant by that.

tauto said:

morrie said:

tauto said:

——

—

I doubt that..

Yeah.

Ok, thanks. I never did quite understand exactly what they meant by that.

When they talk of a swing of x percent, what exactly does that mean, expressed in algebra?When they talk of a swing of x percent, what exactly does that mean, expressed in algebra?

—-

Typically they will be talking about 2PP. If, say, the ALP’s two party preferred vote is 50.1%, and it drops to 49.1%, that means there has been a swing against it of 1%

Skunkworks said:

Detailed post DV. How do you devine the mood of so many electorates?

My analysis is just based on published state-by-state polling and the preference flows.

*divine

dv said:

When they talk of a swing of x percent, what exactly does that mean, expressed in algebra?When they talk of a swing of x percent, what exactly does that mean, expressed in algebra?

—-

Typically they will be talking about 2PP. If, say, the ALP’s two party preferred vote is 50.1%, and it drops to 49.1%, that means there has been a swing against it of 1%

Swing seems an odd term for it. I would call that a shift.

morrie said:

dv said:

When they talk of a swing of x percent, what exactly does that mean, expressed in algebra?When they talk of a swing of x percent, what exactly does that mean, expressed in algebra?

—-

Typically they will be talking about 2PP. If, say, the ALP’s two party preferred vote is 50.1%, and it drops to 49.1%, that means there has been a swing against it of 1%

Swing seems an odd term for it. I would call that a shift.

Well I’m sorry.

dv said:

morrie said:

dv said:

When they talk of a swing of x percent, what exactly does that mean, expressed in algebra?When they talk of a swing of x percent, what exactly does that mean, expressed in algebra?

—-

Typically they will be talking about 2PP. If, say, the ALP’s two party preferred vote is 50.1%, and it drops to 49.1%, that means there has been a swing against it of 1%

Swing seems an odd term for it. I would call that a shift.

Well I’m sorry.

That’s not good enough.

morrie said:

dv said:

When they talk of a swing of x percent, what exactly does that mean, expressed in algebra?When they talk of a swing of x percent, what exactly does that mean, expressed in algebra?

—-

Typically they will be talking about 2PP. If, say, the ALP’s two party preferred vote is 50.1%, and it drops to 49.1%, that means there has been a swing against it of 1%

Swing seems an odd term for it. I would call that a shift.

The TV networks like to use a pendulum type graphic to illustrate it.

diddly-squat said:

On of the good things about Australian politics is that no matter who runs the country you can be sure it will be a very similar flavor of vanilla.

lets look at the key issues..

both parties have a suite of reasonable intelligent, well intentioned MPs
both parties have a history of sound economic management
both parties are touting some form of carbon pricing mechanism
both parties are looking to build some form of electronic communications infrastructure
both parties support the NDIS

there may be some more philosophical differences in regards to health, education and workplace protections, but let’s face it, the gap isn’t that big.

So for me the question is more about who do we think will better represent our nation on the world stage.

Labor is spending 2 billion on health and education whereas LNP is spending pretty much zero.

Click on Policies:
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/pork-o-meter

FTR this was my first go (8 Aug). I intend to amend it this week.

I’ll list my ‘seats changing hands’. 

Seat tipping

ALP -> LNP: Corangamite, Greenway, Robertson, Dobell, Bass, Braddon 

LNP -> ALP: Brisbane, Forde, Solomon, Dawson*

Ind ->LNP: New England, Lyne

Green -> ALP: Melbourne

• Think I might be tipping with my heart not my head here, but I’m allowed one surely.

By my calcs that would leave the numbers
ALP 71 LNP 77 KAP 1 IND 1
Making Abbott PM with the smallest first-term majority since 1913 (excluding the special case of the 1940 election).

Got senate tips, MB?

MartinB said:

FTR this was my first go (8 Aug). I intend to amend it this week.

I’ll list my ‘seats changing hands’. 

Seat tipping

ALP -> LNP: Corangamite, Greenway, Robertson, Dobell, Bass, Braddon 

LNP -> ALP: Brisbane, Forde, Solomon, Dawson*

Ind ->LNP: New England, Lyne

Green -> ALP: Melbourne

• Think I might be tipping with my heart not my head here, but I’m allowed one surely.

By my calcs that would leave the numbers
ALP 71 LNP 77 KAP 1 IND 1
Making Abbott PM with the smallest first-term majority since 1913 (excluding the special case of the 1940 election).

You think Benne Long is safe for the Libs… considering the high Chinese population likely to vote for Rudd’s friend Li?

One change.

My 2nd go:

Melbourne: -> ALP
Brisbane: ->ALP
Forde: -> ALP
Hasluck: -> ALP
Lindsay: -> Lib
Latrobe: -> Lib
Robertson: -> Lib
Deakin: -> Lib
Corangamite: -> Lib
Lyne: -> Nat
New England: -> Nat
Indi: -> Indie

dv said:

Indi: -> Indie

ploise explain

This dude is predicting a hung parliament with Labor retaining my local seat.

Meanwhile, why does the British Labour Party have a U in it and the Aussie Labor party don’t?

ploise explain
—-

Basically I am tipping Independent McGowan to beat the Liberal candidate Mirabella in the HoR division called Indi.

Divine Angel said:

This dude is predicting a hung parliament with Labor retaining my local seat.

Meanwhile, why does the British Labour Party have a U in it and the Aussie Labor party don’t?

that is assuming a zero percent swing ;).. there will not be 3 indy seats this time – two of them are retiring and the nats are shoe ins

That’s not a prediction, DA. Basically that is Green’s calculator that you can use to make your own predictions on the basis of various swings.
When you first load it, it has the status of the previous election (ie, zero swing).

Dropbear said:

Divine Angel said:

This dude is predicting a hung parliament with Labor retaining my local seat.

Meanwhile, why does the British Labour Party have a U in it and the Aussie Labor party don’t?

that is assuming a zero percent swing ;).. there will not be 3 indy seats this time – two of them are retiring and the nats are shoe ins

Yes, I saw that after I posted. I was fiddling with the polls also, which don’t show on that generic URL but, based on a number of those polls, it will either be a hung parliament or Coalition win.

>>the Liberal candidate Mirabella

Ahh yes! Voted most disgusting by more MPs.

So, nothing on Labor’s missing U?

dv said:

ploise explain
—-

Basically I am tipping Independent McGowan to beat the Liberal candidate Mirabella in the HoR division called Indi.

Sophie wouldn’t like that. You won’t like her when she’s angry.

Divine Angel said:

So, nothing on Labor’s missing U?

In the late 19th century, the USA actually had something of a respectable union movement and there were American immigrants who were influential on Australia’s labour movement. Additionally, the simplified US spellings cromulated by Mr Webster were considered more modern and rational.

Divine Angel said:

So, nothing on Labor’s missing U?

An early ALP leader back in the 1890s liked the new simpler spelling trend.

Interesting. Ta.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Divine Angel said:

So, nothing on Labor’s missing U?

An early ALP leader back in the 1890s liked the new simpler spelling trend.

It’s actually old English spelling. The U came later.

It was spelt ‘Labour’ until 1912, when King O’Malley (look him up) persuaded the party to drop the U to ‘modernise’ it, and to distinguish the party from the general labour movement.

But it completely ruins the joke: Can men have babies? (No) Then why is Rudd in Labour?

Divine Angel said:

But it completely ruins the joke: Can men have babies? (No) Then why is Rudd in Labour?

So tell the joke using American spelling.

I think it loses something if you have to preface the joke by saying it needs to be thought of as American spelling.

You could restrict yourself to telling it out loud, rather than in text format.

Look … it’s a pretty shitty joke anyway.

dv said:

You could restrict yourself to telling it out loud, rather than in text format.

Look … it’s a pretty shitty joke anyway.

Hey I laughed at this :)

To me, the biggest thing about the ALP campaign is that it has been all about Abbott, and nothing about their plans or ideas..

It makes it hard to seriously consider them.

Dropbear said:

To me, the biggest thing about the ALP campaign is that it has been all about Abbott, and nothing about their plans or ideas..

It makes it hard to seriously consider them.

totally agree

Dropbear said:

To me, the biggest thing about the ALP campaign is that it has been all about Abbott, and nothing about their plans or ideas..

It makes it hard to seriously consider them.

I think, and to the surprise of many on the forum he will be a cautious pollie and any reforms or policies will be slow paced and incremental, he is not going to shake things up too much.

captain_spalding said:

It was spelt ‘Labour’ until 1912, when King O’Malley (look him up) persuaded the party to drop the U to ‘modernise’ it, and to distinguish the party from the general labour movement.

Thanks, Captain.

I knew the spelling was due to American influence, but I forgot that King O’Malley was the culprit. I knew O’Malley was a colourful character, but i didn’t know (or had forgotten) a lot of the stuff in the Wikipedia article on him.

Actually, I should specify that I am predicting Dobell to go to ALP and Fisher to go to LNP. Probably can take it for granted…

Dobell: Ind -> ALP
Fisher: Ind -> LNP
Melbourne: Green -> ALP
Brisbane: LNP ->ALP
Forde: LNP -> ALP
Hasluck: Lib -> ALP
Lindsay: ALP -> Lib
Latrobe: ALP -> Lib
Robertson: ALP -> Lib
Deakin: ALP -> Lib
Corangamite: ALP -> Lib
Lyne: Ind -> Nat
New England: Ind -> Nat
Indi: Lib -> Ind

Current status is ALP 71 , Coalition 72, Ind 5, Green 1, KAP 1
So my overall predicted status would be: 71 ALP, Coalition 76, Ind 2, KAP 1

````PM 2Ring said:

captain_spalding said:

It was spelt ‘Labour’ until 1912, when King O’Malley (look him up) persuaded the party to drop the U to ‘modernise’ it, and to distinguish the party from the general labour movement.

Thanks, Captain.

I knew the spelling was due to American influence, but I forgot that King O’Malley was the culprit. I knew O’Malley was a colourful character, but i didn’t know (or had forgotten) a lot of the stuff in the Wikipedia article on him.

I just love that one of Canberra’s best pubs is named after the wowser mongrel :)

sibeen said:

I just love that one of Canberra’s best pubs is named after the wowser mongrel :)

You pounded a nail into the stump?

Skunkworks said:

Dropbear said:

To me, the biggest thing about the ALP campaign is that it has been all about Abbott, and nothing about their plans or ideas..

It makes it hard to seriously consider them.

I think, and to the surprise of many on the forum he will be a cautious pollie and any reforms or policies will be slow paced and incremental, he is not going to shake things up too much.

No, no, no, that can’t be right. Only stupid people will vote for him. Stupid and ugly people. Stupid and ugly and reckless people.

I think once again Australia will be a sunlit upland looking down on a sea of blue with the Coalition winning over a million seats.

Skunkworks said:

I think, and to the surprise of many on the forum he will be a cautious pollie and any reforms or policies will be slow paced and incremental, he is not going to shake things up too much.

Perhaps. But isn’t he claiming to get rid of the carbon tax and restore mining taxes to the pre-Rudd system? Or don’t you class that as shaking things up?

dv said:

Actually, I should specify that I am predicting Dobell to go to ALP

that’s a tricky one

sibeen said:

PM 2Ring said:

I knew O’Malley was a colourful character, but i didn’t know (or had forgotten) a lot of the stuff in the Wikipedia article on him.

I just love that one of Canberra’s best pubs is named after the wowser mongrel :)

Yes, that is rather droll.

I found this interesting:
Wiki said:

his most popular platform among conservatives was to rid hotels of barmaids “hired for their physical attributes rather than their prowess in drawing ale”. Although unsuccessful himself, in 1909 laws were passed to require registration of barmaids who were now required to be a member of the owner’s family.

I guess that would cut down on patrons flirting with and man-handling the barmaids. :)

Wiki said:

his most popular platform among conservatives was to rid hotels of barmaids “hired for their physical attributes rather than their prowess in drawing ale”. .

A remarkably progressive anti-discrimination move

PM 2Ring said:

Skunkworks said:

I think, and to the surprise of many on the forum he will be a cautious pollie and any reforms or policies will be slow paced and incremental, he is not going to shake things up too much.

Perhaps. But isn’t he claiming to get rid of the carbon tax and restore mining taxes to the pre-Rudd system? Or don’t you class that as shaking things up?

Nothing too radical there, Rudd is also changing his carbon pricing despite it being the greatest moral challenge of all time and should have listened and not get ahead of the world and the mining tax via Swann is a joke. I am all for taxing the profits of miners, but to do that you need a tax that collects revenue.

Skunkworks said:

Dropbear said:

To me, the biggest thing about the ALP campaign is that it has been all about Abbott, and nothing about their plans or ideas..

It makes it hard to seriously consider them.

I think, and to the surprise of many on the forum he will be a cautious pollie and any reforms or policies will be slow paced and incremental, he is not going to shake things up too much.

He won’t have any money to do anything too radical

>I am all for taxing the profits of miners, but to do that you need a tax that collects revenue.

I’m fairly sure that was already covered.

Dropbear said:

He won’t have any money to do anything too radical

Like sending out pamphlets congratulating themselves on returning a surplus as promised?

Peak Warming Man said:

I think once again Australia will be a sunlit upland looking down on a sea of blue with the Coalition winning over a million seats.

We can only hope.

PM 2Ring said:

Skunkworks said:

I think, and to the surprise of many on the forum he will be a cautious pollie and any reforms or policies will be slow paced and incremental, he is not going to shake things up too much.

Perhaps. But isn’t he claiming to get rid of the carbon tax and restore mining taxes to the pre-Rudd system? Or don’t you class that as shaking things up?

They tell us the impact of the carbon tax has been negligible.. So maybe it’s removal will be too.

Anyhoo he’s got 4/5ths of F’all chance of that getting that through the unrepresentative swill senate

dv said:

Wiki said:

his most popular platform among conservatives was to rid hotels of barmaids “hired for their physical attributes rather than their prowess in drawing ale”. .

A remarkably progressive anti-discrimination move

Geffukked

PM 2Ring said:

sibeen said:

PM 2Ring said:

I knew O’Malley was a colourful character, but i didn’t know (or had forgotten) a lot of the stuff in the Wikipedia article on him.

I just love that one of Canberra’s best pubs is named after the wowser mongrel :)

Yes, that is rather droll.

I found this interesting:
Wiki said:

his most popular platform among conservatives was to rid hotels of barmaids “hired for their physical attributes rather than their prowess in drawing ale”. Although unsuccessful himself, in 1909 laws were passed to require registration of barmaids who were now required to be a member of the owner’s family.

I guess that would cut down on patrons flirting with and man-handling the barmaids. :)

Certainly did at the Ora Banda.

dv said:

Actually, I should specify that I am predicting Dobell to go to ALP and Fisher to go to LNP. Probably can take it for granted…

Given that those were the previous election results.

bourke said:

You think Benne Long is safe for the Libs… considering the high Chinese population likely to vote for Rudd’s friend Li?

Not super safe, no. I’ll be somewhat less than shocked if the ALP win Bennelong with an against-the-trend swing to them. But at this stage I’d still give Alexander >50% chance.

Dropbear said:

To me, the biggest thing about the ALP campaign is that it has been all about Abbott, and nothing about their plans or ideas..

It makes it hard to seriously consider them.

I think the last sentence is a little strong but the general sentiment is right. There are seriously diminishing returns in attacking Abbott. Australia’s been convinced Abbot’s a douche for ages, they’ll vote for him anyway.

I can’t believe NBN and NDIS haven’t been the centre of the campaign.

MartinB said:

Dropbear said:

To me, the biggest thing about the ALP campaign is that it has been all about Abbott, and nothing about their plans or ideas..

It makes it hard to seriously consider them.

I think the last sentence is a little strong but the general sentiment is right. There are seriously diminishing returns in attacking Abbott. Australia’s been convinced Abbot’s a douche for ages, they’ll vote for him anyway.

I can’t believe NBN and NDIS haven’t been the centre of the campaign.

On Labors behalf that idiot John McTernan has a lot to answer for. How many frigging hints and polls do you need to understand that the personal attacks are not gaining traction? Six years worth still not enough?

MartinB said:

Dropbear said:

To me, the biggest thing about the ALP campaign is that it has been all about Abbott, and nothing about their plans or ideas..

It makes it hard to seriously consider them.

I think the last sentence is a little strong but the general sentiment is right. There are seriously diminishing returns in attacking Abbott. Australia’s been convinced Abbot’s a douche for ages, they’ll vote for him anyway.

I can’t believe NBN and NDIS haven’t been the centre of the campaign.

On Labors behalf that idiot John McTernan has a lot to answer for. How many frigging hints and polls do you need to understand that the personal attacks are not gaining traction? Six years worth still not enough?

Dropbear said:

dv said:

Wiki said:

his most popular platform among conservatives was to rid hotels of barmaids “hired for their physical attributes rather than their prowess in drawing ale”. .

A remarkably progressive anti-discrimination move

Geffukked

Harsh

dv said:

Dropbear said:

dv said:

A remarkably progressive anti-discrimination move

Geffukked

Harsh

Barmaids had it tough back in those days. And they generally copped a lot of flack from the married women, whether they deserved it or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_pub#Gender_segregation

Gender segregation

The main bar of the typical Australian pub, usually the largest, was the so-called “Public Bar”. However, this title was an ironic misnomer, since until the 1970s, only men were permitted to drink in Public Bars.

Most pubs included a “Ladies’ Lounge”, furnished with chairs and tables, where women and men could drink together, but in many pubs women were usually only admitted to the Lounge Bar when accompanied by a male. It was also common for women not to be allowed to buy drinks for themselves.

[…]
Women in pubs

Historian Diane Kirkby has made a detailed examination of the role of women in the history of the Australian pub. She has found that, despite their long history of gender segregation, pubs provided an important source of income for many women.

Widowhood and wife desertion were much more common in 19th-century Australia than today, and in the absence of any social safety net for single mothers, women had to explore every available option to provide for their families, especially in remote areas. Pub-keeping provided jobs not only for widows and deserted wives, but also for many female ex-convicts.

It was comparatively lucrative work, so pub-keeping became a welcome and preferred option for many women. The evolution of the ‘classic’ pub and the women’s roles in the pub developed concurrently in the mid-19th century, when the term “barmaid” first came into common usage.

Barmaids, like many other working women, had to fight against the ‘traditional’ gender challenges of lower pay rates and social stigmatisation. Unlike other classes of working women, such as domestic servants and shop staff, barmaids were often stigmatised and shunned. This discrimination was exacerbated by the “morals” campaigns that were waged around Australia from the 1880s to the 1920s, and religiously-motivated temperance activists deliberately fostered a negative image of the barmaid as a “loose woman” who lured men into pubs to drink and squander their money.

The reality was often the exact opposite. Barmaids typically prided themselves on their ability to pour, chat, and keep a clean bar simultaneously – not to mention their ability to support themselves and their family – and they deeply resented this characterisation by prohibitionists, but the stereotype stuck. Even though many barmaids loved the job because it offered better pay and greater freedom than typical female occupations like household servants, barmaids remained the object of scorn by ‘proper’ society.

MartinB said:

Dropbear said:

To me, the biggest thing about the ALP campaign is that it has been all about Abbott, and nothing about their plans or ideas..

It makes it hard to seriously consider them.

I think the last sentence is a little strong but the general sentiment is right. There are seriously diminishing returns in attacking Abbott. Australia’s been convinced Abbot’s a douche for ages, they’ll vote for him anyway.

I can’t believe NBN and NDIS haven’t been the centre of the campaign.

It makes it hard for ME to seriously consider them then.

But yes, they’ve done a spectularly shit job at selling their strong points.

Skunkworks said:

Nothing too radical there, Rudd is also changing his carbon pricing despite it being the greatest moral challenge of all time and should have listened and not get ahead of the world and the mining tax via Swann is a joke. I am all for taxing the profits of miners, but to do that you need a tax that collects revenue.

The format of the tax isn’t the problem per se, it’s just that the price for the bulk commodities (coal and iron ore) has fallen through the floor and the exchange rate has been so strong.

Ok, my final go. Some may be unrealistic ;-)

Change from the last election:

Corangamite -> LIB
Deakin -> LIB
Greenway -> LIB
Robertson -> LIB
Moreton -> LIB
La Trobe -> LIB
Capricornia -> LIB
Parramatta -> LIB
Dobell -> LIB
Brisbane -> ALP
Forde -> ALP
Dawson -> ALP
Lyne -> NAT
New England -> NAT
Fairfax -> PUP

ALP: 66
LIB/LNP/CLP/NAT/WA NAT: 80
KAP: 1
PUP: 1
GRN: 1
IND: 1

MartinB said:

Deakin -> LIB
Forde -> ALP

Interesting.

OCDC said:

MartinB said:

Deakin -> LIB
Forde -> ALP

Interesting.

Forde was ALP then became LNP last election so a swing back is an interesting as a suggestion

monkey skipper said:

OCDC said:

MartinB said:

Deakin -> LIB
Forde -> ALP

Interesting.

Forde was ALP then became LNP last election so a swing back is an interesting as a suggestion

Just for historical context, Forde should be won or lost by one vote.

morrie said:

monkey skipper said:

OCDC said:

Interesting.

Forde was ALP then became LNP last election so a swing back is an interesting as a suggestion

Just for historical context, Forde should be won or lost by one vote.

I have read through the bits of paper all people in my area have been handing out and posting in my letter box. I will be deep in thought about Mr Geoff and what I shall do tomorrow in the polls/

and one of my children will be voting for the first time. She asked about a few policies of personal interest to her and which party was making the claim about those direction in change. I pointed her to the party but aside from that I have not influenced her decision process.

Forde, Dawson and Fairfax are the most unrealistic on that list, but I need my fun.

Lindsay and Banks are probably the most unrealistic not on the list although any number are very uncertain including Melbourne.

Forde, Dawson and Fairfax are the most unrealistic on that list, but I need my fun.

Lindsay and Banks are probably the most unrealistic not on the list although any number are very uncertain including Melbourne.

So there’s officially no hope whatsoever of avoiding a Tony Gubment?

• So there’s officially no hope whatsoever of avoiding a Tony Gubment?

Best, most unrealistic, hope is LNP in but Abbott losing his seat…

Bubblecar said:

So there’s officially no hope whatsoever of avoiding a Tony Gubment?

It’s not offIcial ‘til the AEC says so. There’s always hope until then but I don’t see any signs in favour.

MartinB said:

Bubblecar said:

So there’s officially no hope whatsoever of avoiding a Tony Gubment?

It’s not offIcial ‘til the AEC says so. There’s always hope until then but I don’t see any signs in favour.

I’d say the probability of a Labor win was of the order of 10%.

i.e between about 1% and 20%.

Which is >> 0%.

The actual bettin’ odds for the ALP have come down a bit, from 17.00 to 14.00.

So that’s something.

There’s definitely a significant chance of the ALP victory. It’s not like 1000 to 1 or something.

Can we give Mr Rabbit a dose of myxomatosis?

kii said:

Can we give Mr Rabbit a dose of myxomatosis?

No, as Edward Jenner demonstrated.

morrie said:

kii said:

Can we give Mr Rabbit a dose of myxomatosis?

No, as Edward Jenner demonstrated.

Doh, Frank Fenner, not Jenner.

No-one’s tipping Eden-Monaro?

I tip Labor to retain my local electorate, Petrie.

Will be surprised is Liberal don’t retain their seat here. It has only ever been Labour once in my 21 years of living here, Warren has it pretty tired up.

>>Will be surprised is Liberal don’t retain their seat here. It has only ever been Labour once in my 21 years of living here, Warren has it pretty tired up.<<

I can do better than that….I’m in Wannon. Malcolm Fraser won it for the conservatives in 1955 and it hasn’t changed sides since!

Mal has though.

>>Mal has though.<<

Indeed he has. He was always OK on the refugee thing, but it took him a long time to grow up into an adult human being in other areas. I’m glad he did though. Everyone should move along The Path (as my mother says. And no she is not particularly religious, she picked up that saying when she did a comparative religions course in the 1960s)

Any tipping on when Rudd will declare or who the new leader of Labor will be?

I think it will be about 8 and Shorten.

In Page, our Labor bag-lady/krudd supporter rep is on 4+ poicent.. but she has steady local base..

could be a tight one

So who won?

OCDC said:

So who won?

None of you.

OCDC said:

So who won?

these guys

I can’t pay this out until the seats are finalised, sorry.

dv said:

I can’t pay this out until the seats are finalised, sorry.

Of course.

I note that both Martin and I expected Brisbane to go to ALP. :-?

Also note that NEITHER of us predicted ANY Tasmanian seats to go to the Coalition. Ho ho ho.

dv said:

Also note that NEITHER of us predicted ANY Tasmanian seats to go to the Coalition. Ho ho ho.

Oops.
That was a pretty definite case of federal ALP being punished for the failure of state ALP-Greens. Still, it can be hard to predict that sort of thing in advance.

PM 2Ring said:

dv said:

Also note that NEITHER of us predicted ANY Tasmanian seats to go to the Coalition. Ho ho ho.

Oops.
That was a pretty definite case of federal ALP being punished for the failure of state ALP-Greens. Still, it can be hard to predict that sort of thing in advance.

Well the results basically went in line with the polls.

I just didn’t believe the polls.

dv said:

I note that both Martin and I expected Brisbane to go to ALP. :-?

Also note that NEITHER of us predicted ANY Tasmanian seats to go to the Coalition. Ho ho ho.

TROLLOLOLOLOL

PM 2Ring said:

dv said:

Also note that NEITHER of us predicted ANY Tasmanian seats to go to the Coalition. Ho ho ho.

Oops.
That was a pretty definite case of federal ALP being punished for the failure of state ALP-Greens. Still, it can be hard to predict that sort of thing in advance.

Much easier to predict it after the event ;)

Next tipping comp:
When will Smarmy make his next Readership Charrenge?

My guess:
Feb 2016

Actually, Crikey’s Bludgertrack poll analysis was very accurate.

They predicted the following on their final analysis:
Labor 46.5 Coalition 53.5 in the 2pp

Primaries
Labor 33.9
Coalition 44.3
Greens 9.4
Others 12.4

Seats:
Labor 57
Coalition 90
Others 3

State by State ALP 2pp
NSW 44.8%
Vic 51.1%
Qld 43.6%
WA 43.1%
SA 47.6%
Tas 48.9%
Territories 52.2%

Seats
NSW 19 ALP 29 Coal
Vic 19 ALP 17 Coal
Qld 7 ALP 22 Coal
WA 3 ALP 12 Coal
SA 5 ALP 6 Coal
Tas 1 ALP 3 Coal

Another big win for the holistic poll aggregation methodology

On current trends it does seem I am going to win this comp, with 131 right versus 128 for MB and 127 for Rev

dv said:

On current trends it does seem I am going to win this comp, with 131 right versus 128 for MB and 127 for Rev

Considering the amount of time I spent on research, I think my prediction was pretty bloody good.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

On current trends it does seem I am going to win this comp, with 131 right versus 128 for MB and 127 for Rev

Considering the amount of time I spent on research, I think my prediction was pretty bloody good.

Persistence is a good model

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

On current trends it does seem I am going to win this comp, with 131 right versus 128 for MB and 127 for Rev

Considering the amount of time I spent on research, I think my prediction was pretty bloody good.

Persistence is a good model

Just reading Nate Silver on weather forecasting this morning.

Apparently modern forecasts do better than persistence over any prediction period, but for temperature predictions more than 10 days in advance the best predictions are actually worse than just using average climatic data.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

On current trends it does seem I am going to win this comp, with 131 right versus 128 for MB and 127 for Rev

Considering the amount of time I spent on research, I think my prediction was pretty bloody good.

Persistence is a good model

It’s still too early to call but the ABC computer is predicting DV will win the inaugural ETC ( Election Tipping Contest ), first prize this year is a signed copy of Peter Slippers semenal memoirs “Mister Speaker”, it’s a spiffing book.

Then surely the best prediction is just using average climate data, so the best prediction is no longer better than just using average climate data.

Okay, now that’s over…

The results

Rev 127
Martin 130
DV 131

Pretty close in the end and I’d like to thank the AEC for getting me over the line