I'm so sorry: Australia is having an election and it's going to be very dumb

After a post-grad seminar by a New Guinean anthropologist, she told my my partner and I that many highland men regarded The Guardian Weekly (the airmail version one printed on rice paper) as 2nd only to the Bible distributed by Lutheran "missionaries".
Apparently, the fine paper made for excellent cigarettes and didn't annoy the Lutherans as much. :)
 
We're pretty much in the home stretch now. A few more young candidates have resigned or been disendorsed for, basically, bad offensive joke posts in their early 20s, including one from Labor and one from the Greens.

Something which probably won't move the dial much, but will come to be seen as part of electoral mythology if Labor wins, happened this week.

Basically Bill Shorten, Labor opposition leader, spoke in a heartfelt way on TV on Monday about how his mother had been denied opportunities to pursue her dreams due to poverty and how that was a motivator to him. She wanted to be a lawyer but had to take a teaching scholarship so age could afford to look after her kids. All very heartfelt and genuine and stuff.

A couple of the Murdoch papers (the Sydney one, republished in Brisbane) then ran an attack piece on him for lying about his dead mother. They said he omitted that she got a law degree in her fifties, under the headline "Mother of Invention".

This was disowned by the Liberals and most of the rest of the Murdoch press including the big Melbourne paper which didn't run it. It is obviously a stupid attack because getting a Master's of Law decades later supports the narrative of lost opportunity (she studied after her kids were grown and after university became free due to Labor policy). Plus because it was a pretty putrid attack on him over his dead mother.

The video of him responding is literally the most human, sympathetic and genuine he's ever seemed, the anger and hurt pretty visible. He normally seems pretty robotic and is often caricatured as not genuine and a bit shifty.

As I said it likely won't move the dial much. It'll only matter inasmuch as undecided voters see it and break to Labor because of it. But if he wins it was an impactful enough thing with the press that they'll see it as the own goal by rabidly partisan campaigning press which decided the election, and they'll start to mythologise it.
 
Last edited:
We're pretty much in the home stretch now. A few more young candidates have resigned or been disendorsed for, basically, bad offensive joke posts in their early 20s, including one from Labor and one from the Greens.

Something which probably won't move the dial much, but will come to be seen as part of electoral mythology if Labor wins, happened this week.

Basically Bill Shorten, Labor opposition leader, spoke in a heartfelt way on TV on Monday about how his mother had been denied opportunities to pursue her dreams due to poverty and how that was a motivator to him. She wanted to be a lawyer but had to take a teaching scholarship so age could afford to look after her kids. All very heartfelt and genuine and stuff.

A couple of the Murdoch papers (the Sydney one, republished in Brisbane) then ran an attack piece on him for lying about his dead mother. They said he omitted that she got a law degree in her fifties, under the headline "Mother of Invention".

This was disowned by the Liberals and most of the rest of the Murdoch press including the big Melbourne paper which didn't run it. It is obviously a stupid attack because getting a Master's of Law decades later supports the narrative of lost opportunity (she studied after her kids were grown and after university became free due to Labor policy). Plus because it was a pretty putrid attack on him over his dead mother.

The video of him responding is literally the most human, sympathetic and genuine he's ever seemed, the anger and hurt pretty visible. He normally seems pretty robotic and is often caricatured as not genuine and a bit shifty.

As I said it likely won't move the dial much. It'll only matter inasmuch as undecided voters see it and break to Labor because of it. But if he wins it was an impactful enough thing with the press that they'll see it as the own goal by rabidly partisan campaigning press which decided the election, and they'll start to mythologise it.

Well, as you imply, the datum only proves his point:
It was the lack of means not the lack of talents that kept her from the degree earlier.

Their charge though is different:
He did omit it and their issue with it is that supposedly spun some story about himself as a working boy or some such.
Which obviously doesn't even make sense.
Like "my mom had to settle for being a teacher" doesn't sound all that dickensian in the first place so it's hard to see how he's supposed to have mislead people.

Anyway. I have hideously underinvested in this election and i had in fact not heard the man speak until today. My apologies.


I think he sounds good, looks good, says sensible decent things.
I mean "best country in the world, with no arrogance" isn't exactly Brecht, but it's also kind of cute. :)

How confident are you that it'll all hold?
The main excuse for my underinvestment is that i figured this was a done deal. Now i looked at surprisingly tight polls and began tilting my head and whatnot...
 
Teaching and nursing used to be essentially the only professions open to women without means because university was quite expensive otherwise until it was made free in the 1970s.

Teachers were educated and recruited on bonds, which they had to pay back if they quit, and nurses were required to live in convent-type arrangements. They weren't what you generally did if you had options, they often were a way for women to escape an abusive home or find some independence.

He also has spoken about her later life numerous times, because it's a key part of the story and became possible due to Labor policy. If he omitted it on a brief TV spot it was likely due to brevity.

In terms of outcome likelihood, I don't think much has changed. Polls are virtually always within 2% of 50-50 in two party preferred terms and it's looking like 51 or 52% to Labor. Labor victory is still very likely, but you never know what can happen on a seat-by-seat distributed basis.
 
Interesting that in Australia apparently politicians use 'swear words' often.
Nice speech, i hope it helps him.
That said... i can't see him making more global memes than the special one:


:D
 
Former Labor PM Bob Hawke died aged 89, he didn't quite make it to see the election.

He would be one of the most popular former prime ministers, I think.
 
It's pretty funny that mentions mentions Clive Palmer (a party currently with zero seats if you exclude the one won by another party) and not the National Party, the junior coalition partner in the actual government with 22 seats.
 
One of my colleagues just emailed us a link to this vid he found on YouTube (via his subscription to RT, but don't let that put you off, they obviously got it from somewhere else). I'm pretty sure it's on topic — but even if not, it's certainly funny (and only about half a minute long).

 
Very sad that Bob Hawke died. My generation was not around to live through his PMship, but knows that he was possibly Australia's best leader and a top bloke.

In terms of the election, I think it's difficult to understand what an impact Hawke's death will have. As unfortunate and morbid as it is, there could not possibly have been a bigger event to boost Labor's chances in the final days of the campaign. The front page of every newspaper and every question on the campaign trail, the day before the vast majority of the country cast their votes, is a constant reminder of how good a Labor government can be, to which the Coalition can have no possible response.
 
Election day arrives
hopefully it will be an early result tonight
but it is looking close... according to the polls...
go team Labor,
 
Depending on the result would Australia be interested in renting our (NZ) PM. She's great, Aussie is richer than us so it could be win win.
 
I've been having a hard time figuring out where my preferences should go in the Senate. There are a range of bottom of the barrel parties which I need to order in some way. I don't want to just cut my preferences off before then, because I do have a preference between, e.g. the Australian Conservatives and Fraser Anning. If the final seat comes down to a choice between those two, I want my preference to count. One difficulty, though, is ordering the anti-vax/conspiracy theory parties against the far-right parties. I think I've settled on:

27. Lib/Nat
28. UAP
29. Health Australia Party
30. Citizens Electoral Council
31. Christian Democrats
32. Shooters, Fishers & Farmers
33. Involuntary Medical Objectors
34. Australian Conservatives
35. Great Australian Party
36. One Nation
37. Rise Up
38. Fraser Anning

At the other end of the ticket there are actually quite a few good options. I don't think I'll get to Labor until around 12th.
 
I just went 1 2 3 exhaust in the ACT. There's only 2 senators and that was enough to have the meaningful say, and there's on Liu 8 groups. Luckily there's savings provisions that let you number less than 6.
 
It's hard to say when there will be a result, partly because it very much depends on the margin (obviously), and also because of the large increase in pre-polls. But I'd hope for it to be called by 9pm AEST.

I ended up voting below the line and preferencing to 101 (no prefs for Anning). I didn't want to go below the line but I had to in order to split up some of my initial preferences (I wanted to #1 Rod Bower for my own peculiar cultural reasons, then go for the Greens before the others in Bower's group). Far more manageable than the state election, though, where you could go up to about 350.
 
What time in Aussie will they expect to have results?

It could be called by the ABC's iconic psephologist Antony Green as early as about 7.30pm if it's a blowout, or remain unknown for days if it's extremely close. Official declarations come days later for administrative reasons but to know "The result" we all pretty much go by what Antony Green says on the night.

Counting of first preferences and an indicative 2-candidate-preferred are done and published at each booth, so it all comes down to how clear that picture is in terms of number of seats won.
 
It could be called by the ABC's iconic psephologist Antony Green as early as about 7.30pm if it's a blowout, or remain unknown for days if it's extremely close. Official declarations come days later for administrative reasons but to know "The result" we all pretty much go by what Antony Green says on the night.

Counting of first preferences and an indicative 2-candidate-preferred are done and published at each booth, so it all comes down to how clear that picture is in terms of number of seats won.

About an hour and a half then.
 
Top Bottom