TE-BO: The Election Trail – 1
Everyone's Opinion should count, and you should be prepared to defend yours as the Opinions expressed hereto will hopefully challenge you.
|This week’s election trail began with ‘The Debate’ – and by the week’s end it was dubbed the worst debate since Hawke and Hewson had a go in the late 80’s. I agree, I turned it off after 20 minutes. Abbott was as stoic as usual and the snake-oil sales pitch of Rudd with his hand gestures and monotone makes him more untrustworthy the more he speaks.
Both Abbott and Rudd are suffering from overexposure – not so much in the image context – but they have already run out of things to say. The media are fighting a war to fill their air-time and news pages with stories that don’t repeat the same stump speech’s.
The electorate swing is happening and Rudd’s preferred PM status has been paired back. I have to be honest, I take 1-2 hours of morning news from 24, and 9, and then I only read the RSS feeds from a half dozen or so of the major publications. Of the 3-400 or so RSS feeds that come in – 80% are about the same story and the bias talked about between Murdoch press and the others is so evident.
Since Gillard was outed, Dennis Shanahan from ‘The Australian’ has dumped on RUDD more than he ever dumped on Gillard. You just can’t read his stuff anymore – there is no objectivity nor does his stories provide any balance where the alternative is projected.
Overall – the print press coverage is fish and chip paper and not worth the purchase price paid.
The Vision coverage has had a few good moments – the ‘sex appeal’ gaff by Abbott built into much more than it really was, it was the low point of the week for him. Earlier in the week, the Liberal candidate in Western Sydney Mr Diaz gaffed big time – it was distraction value at best during a campaign with no highs and many lows. Rudd continues to struggle with his hair tick’s, and The Greens struggle to get any value coverage.
Predictably, both sides are coy on their costings and state they won’t release their numbers until the last week of the campaign trail, or so they say.
Of outside interest – some 200k voters enrolled themselves in the week after the announcement of the election. That still leaves about 1.2 million still not enrolled and that in itself says so much. That represents about 8% of the eligible vote count [15 million] – and about equal to The Greens total 1st preference vote count assessed by the latest polls.
That 8% is more that enough to determine the election result. What can be said is the ‘compulsory voting’ rule is challenged by this number, and for those who don’t agree with the compulsory vote statute, get yourself un-enrolled.
An interview with a Media spokesperson for the AEC stated the AEC’s position on un-enrolled voters as ‘encouragement’, as opposed to a seek and ‘fine’ those who persistently avoid enrollment.
The AEC operate under Federal Legislation and can only do what they are mandated to do. The ‘compulsory voting’ stand is policy astride a barb-wire fence … the ‘fine’ system is there as the deterrent, but the AEC don’t have the funds to seek and prosecute 1.2 million unregistered voters with the ‘fine’ value as it stands.
It was also advised that of the 1.2 unregistered voters, 500k were aged between 18-24, with 18 yo’s having a one in two enrollment stat.
Who understands politics and the policy structures in the under 30 age bracket, is it 50%, is it higher or lower.
I know 50 yo’s who argue about a party and all the good they will do, yet don’t know a thing about that party’s policies. They offered an opinion based on what they believed and had been passed down and around. They were talking about something they had read somewhere.
That brings the debate – it is the media/journo that explains the party policy in a format that allows them to slant the story whatever way they want – and that can be called a ‘paid for editorial’ or a ‘party donation’ without money ever changing hands.
You have to be honest with yourself – who is really interested in who leads the Nation? Are any of them really any different – they’re politicians and you now what they say about politicians, zebra stripes today, and leopard spots tomorrow.
If it be the case where the majority of the electorate don’t understand the policy differentials, why do we have the compulsory vote scenario?
What is Rudd and Abbott selling – personality, because to explain policy without the headline ‘candy handout’ … who would listen? All they are trying to sell is creditability and trust, the ALP have proven they don’t have it, or do we take Abbott on trust because he is the lesser of two evils.