Australian federal election 2010: a garden trowel analysis of Teh Worms

Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott with the Channel 7 polygraph 'worm'

Apparently many Federal Coalition MPs and associated political hacks just can't believe that their favourite verbal street brawler might just turn out to be the one politician in 2010 that most of Australia secretly loves to hate.

To the last person the Coalition has forgotten the considerable negative baggage Tony Abbott has acquired over the years and haven't factored in the possibility of a quiet desire to 'pay back' this man for years of arrogant, sneering, judgmental and plain offensive statements made about various sections of Australian society.

Indeed, since 1994 Abbott's cast his net so wide that it would be hard to find an extended family with a single member he has not offended at one time or another.

Rather than face this possibility right now, Liberal Party director Brian Loughnane simply launched himself into the stratosphere obviously hoping to meet up with Major Tom:

Today Tony Abbott clearly established himself as an alternate Prime Minister. He showed the people of Australia he was up to the job. The Prime Minister just waffled.

Assorted Coalition sympathizers have decided that they are more than a little suspicious of those Channel 9 and Channel 7 Leaders' Debate audience response 'worms' - maybe it's all a bit of a conspiracy or even a really big one.

Journalist Adam Carroll writing in The Daily Examiner on Wednesday 24 March 2010 is also a trifle uneasy:

SO, what to make of yesterday's debate between Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and the man who wants his job, Tony Abbott?
If Channel Nine's worm is to be believed, the Prime Minister romped it in.
The worm, or the people controlling it at least, didn't appear to like what Mr Abbott had to say about health, the area for which he was responsible for a time in the Howard government.
The result - the worm had Mr Rudd winning 71-29 - should be viewed with a deal of scepticism. There's no way Mr Rudd won the debate by that margin, if indeed he won it at all.
Either the room was unintentionally stacked with rusted on Labor supporters, or the 'wormers' had preconceived views about Mr Abbott.
Whatever the reason, the worm plunged through the floor each time it was the Opposition Leader's turn to speak. Sometimes it headed south even before he opened his mouth.
The worm is an unnecessary distraction and should be retired for future debates.
It was disappointing Mr Rudd did not use the debate to reveal more detail about his proposed changes to the health system.
Perhaps he should have been pressed a tad harder on that front.
It was also evident the Coalition will need to undertake some serious policy work in areas like health if it is to land any blows on the Rudd Government.
Vague as he might have been about Labor's health plan, Mr Rudd at least appears to be speaking to people in a way the Coalition is not on this important topic. His message is clear: 'I'm willing to do something to improve the system'.
Mr Abbott is unlikely to make any significant policy announcements until much closer to the election. That's not unusual.
However, his tendency to try and score cheap political points fell flat each and every time yesterday, a sign people want to hear constructive debate about issues such as health, free of negativity. And in an election year, this can only be a good thing. Let's hope both sides of politics heed the message.

Go to Possum Comitiatus over at Pollytics for a discussion on the merits of the two methods used to track responses during this debate:

Channel Nine's worm used market research firm Ekas to source their actual participants. Ekas runs a large online panel from which self-identified undecided voters were selected to man the worm handsets – with each participant getting paid $50 to attend the shindig. The actual audience response technology however was provided by a different company, IML Australia.

Channel 7 on the other hand used Roy Morgan to not only source participants, but to provide the Roy Morgan Reactor technology to do the audience response tracking. The people selected by Morgan to participate were a cross-section of all voters (not just Undecideds that Channel Nine used) that approximately reflected the current state of voting intentions. These folks too were paid $50 to participate.

First Dog on the Moon from Crikey refuses to take the matter seriously and was at his rollicking best in this absurd cartoon last Wednesday:

Brolgas fly into the Clarence Valley

Once again the Clarence Valley has been visited by some remarkable wildlife. About 60 Brolgas (Grus rubicunda) have taken up residence in the Lawrence area as part of their nomadic response to seasonal rain.

These graceful birds are one of our larger species of bird; with a wing span over 2 metres. The large outspread wings feature in the spectacular courtship rituals for which these birds are renowned. These elaborate rituals of the Brolga are important to indigenous culture. An Aboriginal legend tells of a beautiful young woman who loved to dance. She was turned into a tall, slender bird. The intricate brolga dance is replicated in some of the Aboriginal dances.

The Brolga is a grey crane with a distinct red head and a dark dewlap under the chin – characteristics which can be seen in this photo (© Linda Wright). The legs are dark grey and extend behind the tail when the bird is in flight. The males and females are similar in appearance. Brolgas generally live in flocks on large open wetlands, grassy plains, coastal mudflats and irrigated croplands, where they feed on vegetable matter such as tubers, grains and grasses, as well as some insects and small animals. Brolgas form island nests, which may protect them from some feral predators such as foxes and cats.

Our wetlands provide critical habitat for many migratory or nomadic species that visit the Clarence Valley, and is one of the primary reasons why these areas should be preserved. Indeed, protection of the natural wetland system, including both temporary and permanent inundation of freshwater, intertidal and estuarine areas is important for most of our wildlife.

As well as dependence on limited wetlands, the Brolga faces several challenges for which it has poor recovery potential. Their population and range has been significantly reduced since European settlement. Though these birds are widespread in northern Australia they are considered vulnerable in New South Wales. So we are lucky to see this number visiting, and lucky to have the wetlands to support them.

To view an active display of these beautiful birds visit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biY6jr4zywM

Imelda Jennings
Wildlife SOS

* GuestSpeak is a feature of North Coast Voices allowing Northern Rivers residents to make satirical or serious comment on issues that concern them. Posts of 250-300 words or less can be submitted to ncvguestspeak at live dot com dot au for consideration.

Another Abbott-ism

Australian Leader of the Opposition, Hon. Tony Abbott MHR, is certainly value for money when it comes to value-laden judgements and snappy one liners.

This is my favourite of the moment:

Endemic substance abuse and family violence..........They're the all-but-inevitable result of too many people with not enough to do...

Yes, you heard it in his Battlelines first. Boredom is the root of some of our most serious social problems.

Mr. Abbott's level of certainty is er, monumental.

Pushing that misogynistic boulder up Mount Everest

There's no denying that the Australian baby boomer generation have lived through widespread social change.

Morphing social mores and technological evolution over the last seventy years (rather than violent national revolution) mean that our lives bear little resemblance to what they were in the late 1940s and early 1950s when we first started to look at life around us.

Women have probably noticed the change more because we have gone from an obligatory post-puberty shackling with girdles, suspender belts, gloves and hats each time we wanted to leave the house to a free and easy form of dress and, these days are not automatically directed away from higher education and a career towards early motherhood and domestic slavery.

Yet from a female perspective there are still constant reminders of how puny that progress actually is when a young man happily ensconced with wife and children can widely email this 'joke':

What do you say to a woman with 2 black eyes?
Nothing, she's been told twice already.

It's enough to make one cry.

Evil eastern religions are working for the devil says former exorcist bishop

Page 10 of "The Daily Examiner" on Monday 22nd March 2010:
"ALL those evil eastern religions are working for the devil and are trying to trap our souls with wicked devices such as yoga, tai chi and reiki massage.
And let's not start on Harry Potter and Twilight - both are rickety paths to the fires of hell.
At least these are the claims of Bishop Julian Porteous, the second in charge of the Australian Catholic hierarchy who was quoted in yesterday's Sun-Herald.
Bishop Porteous warned people who practiced yoga, reiki and tai chi could find themselves "in the grip of demonic forces" by embracing the underlying religious beliefs of these de-stressing techniques.
Aside from the complete cultural ignorance of such claims, Bishop Porteous, in his blind recruitment grab aimed at the gullible, would be laughable if he wasn't in such a powerful position within the church.
An organisation plagued with claims it has harboured and protected paedophiles en masse for decades can hardly be calling other religions evil. Wasn't there something about people in glass houses in that Bible book?
Such ill-informed posturing does nothing to swell the church's diminishing numbers and only serves to push the community further in a secular direction."
With a groundswell of interest in atheism of late, religious leaders need to contribute sensibly to the issues of the day if they are to be taken seriously and their faith heard.
All those blood-thirsty Buddhists probably meditate everyday I reckon."
This 61 year-old bishop is also known for his dislike of priestly jokes; "There has been a tendency for people to feel a joke at the end of the Mass is something to leave people with a smile, but I personally don't think it is appropriate" and was Sydney's locum exorcist for five years.
Bishop Porteous holds the titular See of Urusi in Northern Africa and thinks that climate change science claims are "sometimes exorbitant" and sees the 2009 Victorian bushfires as some form of national purification by fire.
The last a rather uncomfortable if subdued echo of the more extremist views of Danny Naylor.
Sorta makes me wonder if Bishop Porteous shares Catch the Fire Ministries' take on the Equal Opportunity Bill 2010.

Two Australian Leaders: popularity polling and that polygraph worm

Well, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott can't say that he wasn't warned. Talking heads from the medical fraternity, at least one well-known journalist and even ordinary voters told him before he went into today's televised Leaders' Debate that he would be wise to present Coalition policy and not indulge in politicking.

Instead Abbott lead with his jaw and the Channel 7/Morgan Research handpicked audience with their fingers on the polygraph worm obliged by landing a blow on that jaw at almost every opportunity.

I had made myself a coffee which almost stood to attention on the amount of caffeine it contained, in anticipation of a nail bitingly tense debate.

Halfway through I abandoned the coffee and took up my knitting, as the worm spent most of its time on the middle line or in positive territory when Kevin Rudd was speaking and, on the middle line or in negative territory when Tony Abbott had the floor.

Attacks on the Prime Minister, mention of that so-called 'great big new tax' and even talk of the failed national roof insulation scheme did not move Abbott out from under the wrong side of that visual opinion line - in fact he was a distinct medical flatline when he refused to talk about any Coalition health policy he intends to take to the federal election.

All this merely confirms what Essential Media has been saying for some time, Kevin Rudd is still popular with the electorate and currently 'owns' health policy.

Excerpt from the Essential Report survey results (based on an estimated 1,000 respondents) taken between 16-21 March 2010:

Better Prime Minister – Rudd or Abbott

Q. Regardless of your likely party choice for the next election, which of the leaders – Kevin Rudd or Tony Abbott – do you think overall would be the best Prime Minister?

21 Dec 09 - 22 March 10

Kevin Rudd 51% - 50%

Tony Abbott 25% - 30%

Don't know 24% - 19%

When it comes to a choice between Rudd and Abbott as better Prime Minister, 50% selected Rudd and 30% selected Abbott. The results for Rudd shifted slightly (-1%) since we last asked this question in December 2009. However, there has been a five percent increase in the number of people that prefer Abbott and a decrease in the number of people that don't know (-5%).

Results followed party lines – 92% of Labor voters chose Rudd and 74% of Coalition voters chose Abbott. 64% of Green voters selected Rudd and 11% of Green voters selected Abbott.

People aged 65 years and over were more likely to think Abbott would make a better Prime Minister (42%) while 18 – 24 year olds were more likely to indicate they don't know who would make a better Prime Minister out of Rudd and Abbott (28%).

Federal takeover of hospitals and health services

Q. Do you support or oppose the Federal Government's plan to take over the responsibility for funding hospitals and health services from the State Governments?

%

Total support 58%

Total oppose 12%

Strongly support 25%

Support 33%

Neither support nor oppose 21%

Oppose 7%

Strongly oppose 5%

Don't know 9%

Over half (58%) of those surveyed support the Federal Government's plan to take over responsibility for funding hospitals and health services from the State Governments, 12% oppose, 21% neither support nor oppose and 9% don't know.

79% of Labor voters, 46% of Coalition voters and 55% of Green voters support a Federal takeover for funding of hospitals and health services. 27% of Coalition voters neither support nor oppose the plan and 22% oppose it.

People in NSW were more likely than those in other states to support a Federal takeover (64%). 55% of people in Queensland and 52% in Victoria support the plan.

Males were more likely than females to support the plan (61% v 56%). Support for a Federal takeover was highest amongst 55 – 64 year olds (67%).

In February this year we asked the Australian public whether they support or oppose a Federal takeover of hospitals. The results showed that 58% supported a Federal takeover, 10% opposed it, 19% neither supported nor opposed and 13% didn't know.