44 thoughts on “Sandpit

  1. I really don’t understand how any working class or middle class person could have been stupid enough to vote for PUP. Clearly (even in the name) it was a front party for the interests of one (near) billionaire.

    Why would anyone think that a billionarie or near billionaire would give two hoots about the interests of ordinary people? Take a look at Silvio Berlusconi and all the corruption and neglect of common peoples’ interests surrounding him. That is what happens when people are stupid enough to elect billionaires. But geez, all it takes it an advertising budget and people will fall for any nonsense. It’s very depressing actually.

  2. @Ikonoclast

    I really don’t understand how any working class or middle class person could have been stupid enough to vote for PUP.

    There are a great many stupid and craven people in this country. There always have been and its not restricted to the poor either.

  3. @Ikonoclast
    If it makes you feel any better, PUP only got 5.5% of the vote in the House and ranged between 2.2 and 9.8% in the Senate, depending on the State (the 9.8% figure is for Queensland).

    But the makeup of the Senate, coupled with wacky preference flows, has given it disproportionate influence, of course.

  4. Long-time readers will be unsurprised to hear that I don’t quite agree!

    There is a narrative put about by the establishment media that “it woz Clive’s money wot won it”.

    I suggest that this is probably untrue. The establishment media (with far more clout than a few bill-boards and MSM ads – and don’t forget Palmer spent less than the LNP) attempted to ridicule and denigrate PUP as a joke/novelty voting option. I imagine that alone pushed a chunk of voters his way. Then there is the fact (not lost on many “bogans”) that he may be a cynical and opportunistic billionaire, but at least he is Australian and (as a bonus) he is not Rupert Murdoch.

    The Greens/Palmer idea is odd. The Greens have been consistently building their base vote over about 17 years with a fairly clear political message. Palmer was essentially saying: “Hate the current record of Labor (on everything – including refugees) but don’t want to give the LNP a free kick? Vote for me”.

    As I keep trying to point out, the Greens vote did not collapse. If Palmer took a slice of cluelessly unthinking “protest” voters away from the Greens, then he took a much larger slice of genuinely protesting voters away from ALP/LNP.

    I’m one of those clueless moronic braindead Queenslanders who (after Greens) voted for Glen Lazarus because I didn’t want another robotic automaton from the ALP/LNP duopoly sitting in the Senate thanks to my “vote”.

  5. PS: I also think that a sizeable percentage of Greens votes (especially in the Senate) were cast on the basis that Rudd had rejected the Greens but Gillard had done them over.

    In much the same way that the Democrats demise can be tied to their Telstra sale deal with Howard and later identification with the ALP, the Greens made a terrible decision to trust Gillard’s ALP government and ended up being, not entirely unfairly, depicted as simply stooges of the ALP.

    If the Greens successfully distance themselves from the ALP in the opinion of the electorate, I believe they will continue to grow as a considerable force. I certainly hope so.

  6. @J-D

    Palmer’s public statements have made his policy very clear. He wants onshore processing and the Convention rights observed. By the standards of the major parties that makes him a dangerous leftie on this issue.

  7. As for this latest politician travel rorts issue, I think it’s a storm in a teacup. I really don’t care if politicians fiddle their travel expenses a bit. The real moral and intellectual crime is politicians who don’t understand macroeconomics, don’t care about solving unemployment and don’t care about or deny global warming, resource depletion and limits to growth. Those are crimes and oversights of a massive nature which will lead directly to widespread collapse and millions of unneccessary deaths. Travel rorts just don’t rate on the scale of the real challenges we face. But of course the media will always focus on the most trivial and emotive issues.

  8. @Megan

    There is a narrative put about by the establishment media that “it woz Clive’s money wot won it”.

    Is there? I admit I don’t read or watch a whole lot of MSM, but I haven’t personally noticed this view being presented in the MSM. My view comes from my own observations and discussions with Greens members, most of whom endorse the “shift in the pure protest vote” hypothesis. Palmer’s money was involved to the extent that it funded his huge advertising blitz in the latter part of the election campaign, which massively boosted the party’s profile. The fact that the opinion polls showed a marked increase in PUP’s notional vote after Palmer’s ad blitz commenced supports the thesis that this boost in awareness helped his vote significantly.

    The establishment media (with far more clout than a few bill-boards and MSM ads – and don’t forget Palmer spent less than the LNP) attempted to ridicule and denigrate PUP as a joke/novelty voting option. I imagine that alone pushed a chunk of voters his way.

    Yes, I agree that Palmer’s status as an anti-establishment outsider was the main source of his appeal to protest voters. I doubt though, that many people who voted for him were paying attention to the insider commentary in the Murdoch press and ABC.

    The Greens/Palmer idea is odd. The Greens have been consistently building their base vote over about 17 years with a fairly clear political message. Palmer was essentially saying: “Hate the current record of Labor (on everything – including refugees) but don’t want to give the LNP a free kick? Vote for me”.

    It’s not as odd as it seems. It’s well known within the Greens, and among psephologists, that for the last two decades or so, a portion of the Greens vote has been “pure protest”, i.e. people who don’t have a particularly strong attachment to the Greens platform, but vote for them as an anti-establishment statement. It’s thought that this protest vote lines up, to some degree, with the minority proportion of the Greens vote that preferences the Conservatives rather than Labor. The fact that, in the recent election, the proportion of Greens preferences flowing to labor was higher than usual (i.e. around 90% rather than the usual 75-80%), supports the thesis that the decline in the Greens vote was at least partially due to the departure of this protest vote.

    the Greens made a terrible decision to trust Gillard’s ALP government and ended up being, not entirely unfairly, depicted as simply stooges of the ALP.

    Although I personally wouldn’t characterise the Greens-Labor deal this way – I think it was something of a ‘marriage of convenience’ that became less convenient for both sides later on – I do agree that the perceived closeness of the Greens to the Gillard government may have dented the party’s anti-establishment credentials and in doing so assisted the shift in the protest vote away from the Greens.

    As I keep trying to point out, the Greens vote did not collapse.

    Given that no-one on this thread has said that the Greens vote collapsed, I wonder why you keep doing that. Presumably you don’t deny that the Greens vote declined in comparison to the 2010 election.

    Personally, I hope that Scott Ludlam’s bid to secure a Senate recount in WA is successful and results in him and the Australian Sports Party candidate being elected to the Senate. Although I like and respect Louise Pratt, I would prefer to see the number of confirmed anti-carbon tax Senators reduced by one.

  9. @Alan
    I had not looked at Palmer’s public statements, but I have now. They are based on the assumption that claims can be processed in a matter of hours. Claims are not now processed anything like so expeditiously, so the question necessarily arises of what changes in the rules are expected to speed things up so dramatically.

  10. Judith Sloan goes on holidays and blames penalty rates for the closure of the local Bunnings on a public holiday. As Bunnings elsewhere were open you could conclude that the QLD market for hardware is feeling the effects of austerity.

    PS there is no Bunnings in Mooloolaba

  11. @J-D

    I spent quite along time working in the department of intimidation. Those claims could be processed much faster than the immigration bureaucracy and the government have persuaded themselves they could be. If there are no security issues, which is true of the vast majority of cases, there is no reason they could not be finalised in a month or so. The immigration bureaucracy processes those claims slowly because it empowers them as a bureaucracy and instead of making fairly routine decisions they are making great big important decisions. The UK and Canada manage to process these claims much more quickly than we do, and they do not need privative clauses to prevent the courts reviewing their work.

    As soon as you look at what happens in other countries the whole nonsense about th difficulty of processing collapses.

  12. @Alan
    I don’t know how quickly they could be processed, although I’m absolutely in favour of processing them as quickly as possible. You suggest that most of them could be processed in a month or so. Palmer’s public statements suggest that most of them could be processed in a day or so. There’s a big difference. Do the UK and Canada process most claims in a day or so?

  13. @J-D

    I have not made the claim that applications could be processed in a day. Nor have I claimed that the UK and Canada process within a month. Why then are you putting these claims to me instead of Clive?

  14. @Alan
    The claim I am responding to is in fact your claim, namely, that Clive Palmer’s public statements make his policy clear. Since those statements imply that he thinks processing can be done in a day or so, but don’t explain how he supposes that speeding-up could be achieved, my view, in direct opposition to the one stated by you, is that his public statements don’t make his policy clear.

    If I had a strong interest in having it made clear, naturally it would make sense for me to direct my inquiries to Clive Palmer and not to you, but the only point I was making here is that, contrary to your stated position, it is not something that has already been made clear.

    I hope that helps to make my position clear.

  15. I have not seen any media reports on what Greenpeace expected to happen to them after they illegally boarded Russian ships and installations. Deportation? Plainly, they got that wrong.

    Greenpeace is rather precious when they complain that others board their ships over a political disagreement. They claim the right to board other ships uninvited.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s