October 2004 Archives

It's official, the man who idolises Maggie Thatcher can now do his best to emulate her. The conservatives have control of the Senate. The soon to be mogulised SMH article says Pauline Hanson's preferences got them over the line. Is there no end to the political influence of that woman? She's eclipsed the preference deal blunder between Labor and Family first that would have given the God Botherers the balance of power. (Mind you, Barnaby Joyce is one as well.)

The only possible obstacle for the Government is rumblings from the Greens that they might challenge the result in Queensland. Not much comfort there.

Senate control is a bit of a dilemma for Howard. Do you go hard while the going's good, or do you back off and hope that you keep control next time round? Despite Howard's assurances that they won't be too radical, there'll be lots of discussion in the party room about how far they're prepared to go. The 'goers' will be thinking how the electorate has deliberately kept the sitting government in check in the Senate for the past 25 years. They'll argue that the situation this time round is an aberration.

A lot will depend if Howard stays or retires, but I expect the 'goers' will win out.

Expect the following to happen post June 2005:

1. The sale of Telstra. Not a forgone as the Nationals are not keen, or weren't when One Nation was breathing down their necks. Perhaps they'll take the advice of an incredibly smart person and break the company up.

2. Abolish Unfair Dismissal laws. Well, not exactly 'abolish,' just make them not applicable to small business. Small business may be reluctant to expand because of this arbitrary limit. Is a two tier system workable? I suspect the answer may lie in removing this protection from all employees.

3. Amend Industrial Relations laws. Awards will be pared back further and it will become harder for employees to collectively bargain via a union. Not a problem if you're well educated and qualified, but an open door to exploit the less skilled and socially confident.

   They'll remove the right for the Arbitration court to arbitrate disagreements, or abolish it completely, so the only recourse for disputes if you're on a contract will be the civil courts.

   There'll be some colourful, if futile, action from Trade Unionists.

   The aim, of course, is to have a pool of low paid, unskilled workers, US style, who have no rights or bargaining power.

4. Tighten up welfare. The government will make it harder to receive or keep benefits. The money saved will pay for expensive middle class welfare and high income tax cuts.
5. Amend the US Free Trade Agreement. The government argued that Labor's forced FTA amendments to protect the PBS from frivolous drug patents were unnecessary. The Americans are a bit upset about these 'unnecessary' amendments.

   Will the government cave in the US if this becomes a show stopper? It can if it wants. More likely they'll give away something else. Australian content regulations for existing media may do the trick.

6. Repeal Cross Media Law. Fairfax is gone, soon to be under the heal of a media mogul. Expect more foreign control and media concentration; those bits that Rupert doesn't own already.
7. Nobble the ABC. They now have the power to mess with the ABC's charter. The possibilities are endless. More political interference is likely. Introduce advertising, change the way the board is selected. Cut funding further. Interfer with news and current affairs programing and personnel. They could even privatise it completely.
8. Strengthen anti-terrorist laws. Allow the detention of children, increase surveylance on the population, remove checks and balances.
9. Amend the Senate's voting method. This is not protected by the constitution. They could abolish proportional representation or introduce quotas to lessen the influence of minor parties. Tempting, but that will help the Opposition when they win government. More likely they'll introduce city and country electoral zones. If done cleverly it could deliver an opposition disadvantaging gerrymander.

There'll be others. Hopefully, enough to ensure the electorate won't be so obliging next time round.

I've been a reader of 'The Bulletin' for well over 20 years. Obviously, someone at the magazine's been around for that long too, because this week they've resurrected a theme I distinctly remember during the period Bill Hayden was Labor leader in opposition. It's about the inevitable demise of the Labor Party.

The magazine's cover story 'ALP RIP: Is the party over for Latham - and Labor' is more about Latham's leadership style and his shaky hold on the office than the long term viability of the Labor Party, but I suppose it helps to sell magazines.

As much as the Conservatives would like to think Labor is on death's door, it's safe to say the party will inhabit the Treasury Benches again.

There's no Bob Hawke in wings to sweep them back into government, so the task is harder this time. Labor will evolve, as they've done before, and circumstance will turn against the government, as it always does.

Just don't ask me how long it will take.

I can't help thinking, despite a lot of wishful thinking by left wing commentators, that John Kerry is heading for defeat in the coming US Presidential election.

The similarities to the recent Australian Federal election are there. The polls showing Bush consistently ahead; the odd poll showing Kerry gaining momentum a few weeks out, only to have incumbent regain the lead into the last week.

Like Howard in Australia, Bush seems to have the struggling middle class firmly in his grasp. The only wildcard is whether they turn up to vote.

I hope I'm wrong.

As a follow on from the previous entry .... the smart operators that have been stymied by reforms to the NSW upper house voting arrangements are alive and well in Federal politics.

The average punter may be confused by the Senate counting system ...

However, Glenn Druery knows exactly how it works. He can calculate every permutation of preference distribution in his head. This skill, plus the ability to talk sweetly with other candidates, has Druery still in the hunt for the last NSW Senate seat.

Not a bad result for someone who secured a paltry 17,979 primary votes - fewer even than the perpetual drop-outs, the Hemp Party - only 0.53 per cent of votes cast in NSW.

Druery has been associated with a variety of micro parties involved in preference harvesting. In this election he stood for Liberals For Forests.

The key to Druery's success - replicated by Family First in Victoria and Tasmania - is harvesting preferences from everyone else, while dealing with serious players on the basis of trading votes, not policies.

And don't expect Druery to apologise if he gets elected. "I wouldn't say it would be a travesty at all. I can't be an apologist for those who designed the system," he argues. "It was designed by the major parties to bolster their support and I don't think anyone has really come along before and said, 'Hey, this is how it works, let's take an entrepreneurial view of the system rather than the political hacks' view and see what can happen."

If Druery does make it, he'll have to wait till he retires to get his trotters in pollies superannuation trough, providing John Howard is true to his word about reforming the system.

Druery may think the Senate vote just a competition to get elected by whatever means possible. In my opinion, it would be a travesty if he got elected. The system needs to be changed to give the voters the power to distribute preferences as they, not the parties, see fit.

During the recent Federal election, above the line Senate voting delivered a seat for a Victorian Family First candidate, a person who received 1.9% of the first preference vote, or just 0.13 of the quota required to win the seat. Family First success had a lot to do with preference deals done with other parties, particularly the Labor Party. (Thanks guys!) The deals were done without any visibility to the voters when casting their vote.

This begs some questions:

Is it a good thing that you can vote for Senate candidates 'above the line' and have no idea of where your preferences are being allocated?

Is it desirable that you are made to allocate a preference for someone whose policies you detest?

I think most people would answer no the the above questions, but this is exactly what we have at the moment in Federal elections. Something should be done.

A solution to the above deficiencies in the Federal voting system is to adopt an Optional Preferential voting system similar to that used in the NSW elections. In the NSW lower house, the Legislative Assembly, voters only need to allocate one preference for the vote to be valid. It's up to the voters to decide if they want to allocate further preferences. If you don't like a candidate, you don't have to allocate a preference.

In the NSW upper house, the Legislative Council (LC) has a system that allows the voter to allocate preferences above the line. LC ballots used to follow the Senate format, but have evolved into something different.

Some background information follows detailing the evolution of the NSW LC ballot paper.

The facts in the following have been shamelessly lifted out of Prospects for the 2003 Legislative Council Election written by Antony Green.

Above the line voting for the Senate was introduced in 1984. It was established because the large number of candidates nominating themselves for the Senate made numbering every square chore, and caused large numbers of informal votes. The politicians decided it would be much better if the voters only number one square, with the parties deciding the preferences, a system called Group Ticket Voting. Voters have the option of voting the conventional way by numbering every square if they want to direct their own preferences.

The above the line system was adopted by NSW for upper house ballots in 1988. The NSW system closely followed the Federal system, using Group Ticket Voting.

It all came to a head during 1999 NSW election. The upper house ballot paper that had 81 groupings and 264 candidates, and measured 1m x 0.7m! Registering a political party was relatively easy, hence the large number of groupings. Smart operators saw a seat in the NSW LC as a way to set themselves up financially for life. Politicians in NSW qualify for generous superannuation entitlements after being in parliament for two terms. Since politicians are elected to the LC for two terms, winning once was like winning the lottery. A lot of effort was put into stitching up preference deals that would get a minor party candidate elected despite only receiving and handful of primary votes. Antony Green was too polite to state it so cynically, but he did point out the following:

The ease with which parties were registered in NSW was one of the causes of the giant ballot paper in 1999. Many registered parties appeared to have overlapping party memberships, and seemed to consist of names derived from petition drives rather than formal acceptance of party membership. It also appeared many parties were closely related, and attractive party names were adopted that did not always reflect the opinions of the people who had set up the party. When combined with the control of preferences allowed by group ticket voting, multiple party registrations became an effective way to channel preferences to a preferred candidate. Several candidates elected in 1999 achieved their quota thanks to very complex flows of preferences that would have been impossible without group ticket voting.

The NSW upper house voting system, similar to the one still used in Federal Elections, was effectively corrupted. This was confirmed when Malcolm Jones of the 'Outdoor Recreation Party,' a beneficiary of preference swapping deals, was found rorting his travel allowance by the Independent Commission Against Corruption.

The system was changed for the 2003 NSW election. Political parties had more stringent tests applied before they could nominate for the ballot, and Group Ticket Voting was abolished. To register a valid LC vote, the voter could number one or more boxes above the line, or number a minimum of 15 candidates below it.

It's still possible for a minor party to win with a small primary vote, but it's much more unpredictable.

Voters should be given the decision for preference allocation in Senate Elections. In a half Senate election, only 6 senators from each state are elected. Groupings could be limited to six candidates, and electors could choose preferences above the line. Even if the compulsory preferential voting was retained, voters would only need to number a handful of boxes.

And for some trivia:

1. In Federal Senate elections, those who vote below the line can make mistakes and the vote is still valid! From Antony Green:

Senate elections are conducted using compulsory preferential voting. Group Voting Tickets must show preferences for all candidates. Some saving provisions are provided so that below the line votes are not unfairly excluded from the count. A formal ballot paper must show preferences for at least 90% of candidates, and up to three acceptable sequence errors are allowed in preferences.

I wonder what an acceptable error is?

2. In NSW, all LC votes are entered into a computer but not counted!

Random sampling is used in NSW LC ballots to allocate preferences! The exact preference calculation could be done at the touch of a button, but isn't. This is a NSW constitutional requirement and can not be changed without a referendum.

3. In NSW, a vote can be valid if marked with a tick or a cross, but it's an offence to promote voting this way.

I'm expecting a knock at my door any minute!

Not a peep from the Rabid RWDB brigade about Australia rejecting a request from the UN for extra troops to protect UN personnel in Iraq.

Update: That regional powerhouse, Fiji, is coming to Australia's rescue in supporting the UN in Iraq.

From a UN spokeswoman ...

"The Government of Fiji has agreed to provide the United Nations with the necessary manpower for protective security details for senior UN officials in Iraq, as well as a guard unit for the protection of UN facilities in Baghdad," she said.

Australia, perhaps being shamed into action, is providing logistical support for the Fijians.

As a clarification regarding the original entry, let me confirm that I'm no fan of the US invasion of Iraq, or Australia's role in it. However, the damage is done, and I think it was pretty poor of the Australian government not supporting the UN request to protect UN personnel while attending important tasks such as the Iraqi elections in January.

I'm surprised that so little has be said on this issue, particularly from those who have regularly applauded the government's Iraq policy.

One of the hazards of attending an 'elite' private school in the 70s was the pressure to join the 'cadet' unit. My school prided itself on having one of the largest (if not the largest) 'volunteer' cadet units in the country. There were other schools who had bigger units, but attendance at those was compulsory.

The pressure was on second year students to join to maintain the school's prestigious quasi-military status. This was done by dividing the year into small sections, and having teachers and / or student NCOs haranguing them to join. Peer pressure won out, and most did, including me. Being interested in technology, rather than trekking through mud, I joined the school's Air Cadets in preference to the larger army unit.

In 1971, I was in third year high school (year nine in modern terminology), and the second of my three year term in the Air Cadets. Every year, the cadet units would go on camp, and this particular year we were accommodated at Williamtown air base north of Newcastle, NSW.

Williamtown housed and trained a lot of air-force apprentices, and the school cadets were a constant amusement to them, as we marched everywhere. They called us 'ants.' We were housed in decrepit barracks, long abandoned by the regular air force, learnt essential life skills such as how to make bed rolls, and had magnificent nightly rumbles while our reservist teachers got pissed in the officers' mess.

The base had a picture theatre, and one night we were rounded up to go to the movies. We took up the front of the theatre; the apprentices were stationed at the rear. When the national anthem started, 'God Save the Queen' in those days, a chorus erupted from behind, "Stand up, ants!" When it concluded we got the "Sit down, ants!" command. It was bisare! The movie started.

The film was "Wake in Fright." An Australian movie, at a time when the local film industry hardly existed. I thought how strange it was to hear Australian voices. As the story unfolded, I was transfixed.

To those who haven't seen it, it's about a teacher who was forced to do a three (?) year stint in the outback to repay his teacher's training bond. The bond used to be the Education department's device to force graduate teachers to teach anywhere in the state. Teachers' training was free as long as you complied. If you didn't, then you had to pay a large amount of money for breaking the contract.

The film starts at an outback school on the last day of term. The teacher is planning to go to Sydney to meet his girlfriend. The trip requires an overnight stop over in a regional centre, where, in the biggest two up game you've ever seen, he blows all his money on one throw on the chance that he would be able to pay his bond back to the Education department.

The story unfolds as he is taken into the local community. With only a dollar to his name, he descends into a world of crass male mate-ship, booze and violence.

It's not a pretty film as it turns a mirror on the ugly side of the Australian psyche. It has some horrifying scenes of kangaroo shooting. The film was directed by a Canadian, probably the reason why it exists in all its gory detail. I doubt if an Australian director would have got away with it.

As a sixteen year old, I was blown away when I saw it.

Like many tech heads, I'm not an arts buff by any stretch of the imagination, but in my opinion, 'Wake in Fright' is the best Australian film ever made. It's the only film I've ever recorded from TV and kept. I've still got it, complete with adds and Bill Collins' comments.

I've always wondered what happened to it. I hadn't been replayed on TV for years. Now it seems they've found it.

It amazes me that a movie like this can get lost, then saved on the brink of destruction. How many others are in the same predicament?

Anyway, the good news is that the negative's been found, and it's likely to be available for viewing once again. If it comes on close to you, go and see it.

Chris Sheil has started a lively debate with his article 'Letting it Bleed' at Back Pages.

Just when you think there's no answer to the right wing braying, along comes someone who's succinct writing causes a storm of (mostly) positive comment about the events of last weekend.

Thankfully, Chris left the Sociology theory in the lecture room, unlike some other academic bloggers I've read lately. Mind you, I now know what 'Nihilism' means. Being an engineering type means my social theory is rusty, if it ever existed.

As stated previously, I had no doubt that Labor would lose the election. Howard nailed the election early by exploiting doubts about Labor's ability to run the economy. The heavily indebted people living in the mortgage belts, ie, marginal seats territory, were not going to take a chance on this unknown leader.

We now know that the non-economic issues that so many of us are passionate about didn't cut through.

Chris pointed out how the old class terms of 'boss' and 'worker' have been hijacked by the conservatives to become 'liberal elites' and 'ordinary people.' This caused a lot of discussion in the comments.

Here's mine.

The old term 'boss' is derogatory. The old class structure where the 'boss' was socially superior has almost gone. Bosses are now called Supervisors or Managers, and modern work culture has them on a much closer social level to the people they supervise. 'Worker' has connotations of manual workers or factory labourers, the type of work that mostly gone off shore. Workers and Manager and Supervisiors are all now 'employees.'

My answer to the conservative rewriting of the social strata is that the Labor party should start referring to their constituency as 'employees.' Labor should sell themselves as the party that looks after employees' interests. The 'employees' party.' Employees are Labor's natural constituency. They need to aim for them. Starting today.

This would fit Chris' observation that for the Labor party to win government, they need to aim at 100% percent of the population to get the 52% required. I think 98% would do.

And what about the employers? Well, they can vote Liberal like they always do.

With the elections over, the frequency of posts from the sty will be less frequent. Unlike other bloggers who have lots have time on their hands, my time is divided between work and family commitments. Blogging comes a poor third. SWMBO says I'm spending far too much time in front of the PC, and she's right.

Less blogging will give me a chance to get the head around last weeks election results. I don't think I can write too much about it at present. The tendency is to argue that the reason why Labor lost is because of the apathetic nature of swinging voters. I don't want to go there; we live in a democracy and people have the right to vote for whoever they like and for their own reasons.

There's been a tendency with conservative writers to paint the election result as proof of the latest social theory. I think these writers would do everyone a favour by acknowledging that both parties targeted the marginals, and that the result was nothing more than the electorate examining the options and casting their votes based on self interest.

Interestingly, no one predicted the weakening of the review power of the Senate. In my opinion, this was an unintended consequence of the vote, not helped by Labor's preference deal with Family First. The electorate has consistently voted over the past 20 years to keep the government in the minority in the Senate. I don't believe they voted to give the government control. No point in speculating on the implications until the count is finalised.

Having a short break while I attend to pressing matters of work and family.

Too many red wines (and a few more whines as the results came in) last night.

Unlike other more prominent left leaning bloggers (here, here and here), I had no illusions that Labor would get in. The fear tactic worked at treat, and there just weren't enough reasons for the punters to take the risk.

I didn't think the government would increase their majority. Credit where it's due, Howard ran a brilliant campaign. He threw his long held economic convictions out the window, and pitched at the uninformed swinging voter.

R.I.P. the philosophical election campaign.

Howard completely out manoeuvred Lathem on the Tasmanian forrests. He set the agenda by making noises about going green, then said nothing until Labor showed their hand. His move to effectively leave the forestry status quo in Tasmania delivered two seats by 6.00pm eastern time. Game over.

Going on the swings, it's arguable that the demise of One Nation delivered a double whammy to Labor. One nation took away traditional Labor voters when Pauline was on the scene. The collapse of One Nation delivered those voters to Howard. The numbers are almost identical.

The democrats are dead. Pity as IMO they saved us from the worst excesses of sitting governments, regardless of persuasion. I gave them my second preference in both houses. The Democrat's platform was not as loopy as the Greens, and I didn't think it was a good thing to have Labor and the Greens holding the balance of power in the Senate. I needn't have worried. The government may control the Senate as well.

We'll soon see where the God Botherers' Family First party is coming from if the government requires their vote(s) to get bills through the upper house. Expect to see the sleeper issues come back into prominence after July next year. Telstra, cross media ownership laws, and unfair dismissal, to name three.

Expect to see some really nasty Thatcherite legislation come through if they get Senate control in their own right.

It will be interesting to see how the government conducts itself this term. Will they lose the plot completely as the enormity of the win dawns on them? I'm a believer in the truism that governments get elected once too often before they get thrown out. Watch for unrest if Howard decides to hang on, as he well might.

Been out tonight ... had a few drinks, watched it all unfold; I'm totally depressed. His Minuscule is home and gloating. Been watching it with friends. A little wasted.

As I predicted, they're in, but I didn't forsee the increased majority. More worrying is the possible control of the Senate.

When I'm a more coherent I'll give my views how it happened.

To you RWDBs out there .... I'll think of something smart to say later.

Update: The Bunyip's at it already.

I still think our furry friend will get back in, but, I'm heartened by that other big event the bookies got wrong......

Tipped to win four on the trot, the Lions went down to Port in the final stages of the AFL Grand Final. Is it an omen?

Go you undecideds! Do the right thing!

Is the 'vote for secularism' waning? Miranda Divine thinks it is. She points to the rise of the Family First party as proof, and thinks media scrutiny of the organisation is extreme.

Miranda paints Family First as a moderate organisation. Certainly, its public face may appear to be, but what are they like behind that bland facade? She claims that some extremist remarks attributed to a supporter were an aberration, not the norm.

On occasions, it has to be said, Family First supporters are their party's worst enemy. When a campaign volunteer in Brisbane this week answered "yes" when asked by a Greens supporter if lesbians should be burned to death, it made headlines around the country. The party banned the volunteer and publicly rebuked him. But the story fitted beautifully into attempts to paint party supporters as dangerous crackpots.

The media has every right to ask what's behind this new political organisation. At the end of the day, Family First are in it to exercise power, ie, impose their personal beliefs onto the rest of the population. Why else would they be seeking election? If they have links to extremist religious organisations, then we should know about it.

In an election in which so-called Bible-belt preferences may be crucial, an aggressively secular media is making itself a player.

And a good thing, too. Just because it's a religious organisation doesn't mean it's immune from scrutiny. If the government has done deals with them, then we need to know about it.

Miranda thinks 'the baby boomers who control public debate in this country' fear religion. Not all political commentators are boomers, Miranda. I'm fairly sure there aren't many boomers at crikey.com.au.

The influential political website crikey .com.au, often echoed in print by journalists, has given the "God-botherers" much attention during the campaign ....

She's correct in the sense that secularists, many of whom are boomers, fear the effect that religious conservatives will have on the rest of us if they get the chance.

Boomers remember the conservative straight jacket that the country was in before the sixties. The worry that younger people who never experienced it may inadvertently cause it to happen again if they allow these religious political groups have too much influence.

Bugger!

The polls are not looking good for Labor. The marginals are holding for the government. The Greens’ vote seems to have increased at the expense of the opposition. On the face of it, the parties are close on a two party preferred basis, but the government has the edge.

Sometimes I wonder why I bother.

My lower house vote usually doesn't mean much as I live in the Prime Minister’s electorate. Although his seat has steadily moved west into hostile territory due to redistributions over the past 20 years or so, he normally has a five to ten percent buffer that allows him to concentrate on other things. Thanks to John Valder's 'Not Happy, John' campaign, this margin is likely to be eroded, but not to the extent that will lose him his seat.

In the spirit of cooperation with the NHJ movement, I will be numbering our furry friend last on the ballot paper, after Fred Nile’s Christian Democrat Party. (Normally I put One Nation and the God Botherers last.)

At least my vote counts in the Senate. Be sure that I'm planning to annoy the electoral officials by numbering every square.

I can only hope we are going to have some surprises this election. Are all the usually solid Liberal seats going to hold? Commentators have noted the 'Doctors’ Wives' phenomenon where the better informed and well off voters will register a protest on the back of issues largely ignored by the rest of the population. Could there be some new marginals created this election?

One lives in hope!

Liberals defecting in safe seats may mean that the margin to win government this time will be more like 50/50, instead of the 49/51 that the coallition has enjoyed previously. It won't make any difference to the result, but will make the process seem slightly fairer.

Anyone who’s given a cursory glance at this blog over the past months will know that I won't be voting conservative this Saturday. I'm firmly in the Labor camp this election, for the following reasons:

1. Iraq. I'm not happy with the way Australia under Howard followed United States' foreign policy without question. Going after terrorist havens in Afghanistan was sensible; abandoning that effort to invade Iraq was stupid. He should have told the Americans so.

   Bin Laden is still free, his terrorist organisation is still operating, and the forces that should be hunting him down are busy controlling the Iraqi insurgency.

   Howard lied as he had already committed troops to Iraq when he was stating that the decision to deploy had not been made.

   Over a thousand allied troops, and many thousands of Iraqis, died because of the invasion.

2. Howard often stated his dislike of Medicare. Under his watch, Medicare diminished as bulk billing decreased due to the non adjustment of the doctors' scheduled fees. Only when it became a potential election issue did he move to shore up the system by creating the 'Medicare Safety Net.'

   The problem is that the Medicare Safety Net favours the well off, shown by statistics of where the money's being spent, and the doctors, who can raise their fees much more easily.

3. Under the coallition, government grants paid to wealthy private schools increased enormously. Any complaints about this are dismissed by saying they are based on 'class and envy.'
4. The government refuses to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

   The weather patterns are changing, global temperatures rising, coral reefs bleaching, glaciers and ice shelfs retreating, while the government refuses to acknowledge there may be a problem.

   Their solution to CO2 emissions? Carbon Sequestration! Purleez!!

5. The economy. Yes, it is doing well, but is it sustainable? We have a boom based on a housing bubble, fueled by reductions in capital gains tax and ballooning debt. Our current account deficit is at record levels. We have woeful levels of research and development.

   Debt levels are so high it would take only a small rise in interest rates cause a collapse in the housing market. The global economy is not looking strong, and the oil price is at a record high.

Howard's had his go. It's time for a change.

Despite my mother's reluctance to change her vote, it seems that many other may be prepaired to if you believe the poll results in the Sun Herald this morning.

Personally, I don't trust the polls. There's too much variance in the results. Last week labor was on the ropes with the coalition having 50% of the primary vote, this week Labor's ahead on a two party preferred basis 54% to 46%.

You only have to cast back to two not so distant elections that went against polled trends. Paul Keating was given no chance in 1993 against John Hewson, and Steve Bracks won against Jeff Kennet in Victoria in 1999. It seems that lots of voters make their minds up on the day.

Unfortunately, the politically astute are outnumbered 9 to 1 according to Paul Sheehan (no link) in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald. No matter how much we bloggers lament the standard of electioneering, the message is not aimed at us, but the 20% of the population who are swinging voters and don't know or care about politics. They are sick to death of the election campaign, don't particularly like the government, and have misgivings about the challenger. Their decision is based on self interest. My guess is they don't have a clue who to vote for, and their answers to polling questions depend on what's happened in the last couple of days.

These people will front the booths next Saturday and vote on instinct. My guess is that they will go for safety and vote for the incumbent.

A development that will cause despair in the Labor party; my 88 year old mother has confirmed that she won't be changing her vote to Labor, despite the proposed Medicare Gold scheme! 'I'm worried about interest rates,' she told me. She has private hospital cover and would save some money if the scheme came in, but she's unmoved.

I hate to admit this, but I actually agree with a sentiment of the The Bunyip, who, in his usual long winded way, questions why Gold Medicare is not to be means tested.

For battlers, one could perhaps advance a case that the public purse makes an appropriate pillow. But across-the-board largesse? Guaranteed access to the enforced generosity of one's fellow citizens? Surely Latham is joking.

and ...

But the idea that consumers, insulated by insurance, need never bear the full burden of their medical costs is certainly no way to run a health system.

Quite right. But then, a lot of retired voters are self funded, and Labor is desperate for their votes, too. Lathem can always means test the system later. On the other hand, the Professor is ignoring the Medicare safety net, which, although it does make the well off pay more, is just as likely to blow out the health budget.