Posts filed under 'General News'
2UE’s fill-in breakfast hosts Stuart Bocking and Tracy Spicer put together an excellent piece yesterday morning on how the New South Wales Government seems to be more concerned with feeding neat lines to the media than actually answering questions and addressing concerns.
It all came about following a Daily Telegraph report which claimed that the New South Wales Police’s traffic and speed monitoring plane had not been used once over the Christmas/New Year period despite assurances that it would be used. (As an aside, the information about the plane was pretty sketchy back before Christmas/New Year, with initial statements from the government and police indicating that it could be used anywhere and everywhere and later police statements amending that to just a couple highways near Sydney).
Stuart and Tracey had New South Wales Police’s Traffic Services Commander, Assistant Commissioner John Hartley on the show and asked him about the Daily Telegraph’s report.
John Hartley: It’s been up three times out of nine we could have used it and, look this bad weather is one with only a light plane we don’t want to send it up where it is dangerous or could endanger the pilot or the observer’s life. So we’ve only used it on three days out of the nine we could have.
A very direct answer which shows that the plane has actually been used, contrary to the Daily Telegraph report, and also shows that the police would have liked to use it more often.
You can imagine then, just how surprised Robert Spicer in 2UE’s Newsroom was when he asked the Police Minister, Michael Daley, the same question and didn’t get an answer, but instead was treated to an episode of Daley’s Daily Phrase.
Robert Spicer: How many times has it been in the air?
Michael Daley: Well we don’t give details about that. You understand that it has a deterrent factor even when it’s not in the air because you never know when and you never know where the plane might appear.
Robert Spicer: Yeah that sounds really good minister. Forgive me, but, I mean, the question really stands. How many times has the plane been in the air? You say the Telegraph is wrong, it has flown…how many times has it flown?
Michael Daley: I’ve just answered that question.
Robert Spicer: I don’t understand why you won’t say it’s been up once, twice or three times. I mean your Traffic Services Commander has just told Tracey and Stuart that he thinks it’s been up three times. Why is it a secret from your point of view?
Michael Daley: It’s not a secret. What we’d like to do is to say to drivers that you never know where and you never know where…that you never know when and you never know where that plane might be operating, so we’d prefer not to give details about when and where it’s operating. It’s as simple as that.
Robert Spicer: I appreciate that, I’m not asking you when it’s going to operate, I’m asking you in response to what you were saying about the Telegraph article…how many times has it operated? Not is it operating, but how many times has it operated?
Michael Daley: I’ve just answered that question for you twice.
Robert Spicer: I can understand you not wanting to say when it’s in the air in the future, I have no problem with that, but I fail to understand why you don’t want to say how many times it’s been up.
Michael Daley: Because that’s an operational decision that was made.
So effectively Michael Daley just wants to say that the Daily Telegraph is wrong and “you never know when and you never know where” etc etc etc, without providing any sort of information which might make his claims seem credible.
As Tracey commented a few moments later:
I can just imagine the media meeting they had in Michael Daley’s office this morning with all his media advisors coming up with this key message “you never know where and you never know when” and patting each other on the back and saying “yeah that’ll get it through, we won’t have to say how many times”
I don’t know whether the New South Wales Government are doing this so that they can employ a whole lot of media advisors making up nonsense, whether they’re trying to make the media give up on asking them about anything they don’t feel like talking about, or a combination of both. Regardless, it’s ridiculous. It’s also typical of a government which is so bad at delivering anything useful, that they have become quite expert in producing a vapid smoke screen of hot air which they delusionally think people can’t see through.
I think Stuart summed up the futility of it quite nicely by applying Michael Daley’s interview logic to Michael Daley’s personal life.
You could meet him somewhere and say “look, I forgot your name, what was it again?” “I’ve already answered that”
Brilliant work Stuart, Tracey and Robert in exposing what I think we all already know, but need to be reminded of so that we don’t become desensitised to it.
Samuel
January 7th, 2010 at 02:49am
We’re all about to be vaporised…again…apparently:
A STAR primed to explode in a blast that could wipe out the Earth was revealed by astronomers yesterday.
It will self-destruct in an explosion called a supernova with the force of 20 billion billion billion megatons of TNT.
New studies show the star, called T Pyxidis, is much closer than previously thought at 3,260 light-years away – a short hop in galactic terms.
So the blast from the thermonuclear explosion could strip away our ozone layer that keeps out deadly space radiation. Life on Earth would then be frazzled.
[..]
[T]he International Ultraviolet Explorer satellite has shown them that T Pyxidis is really two stars, one called a white dwarf that is sucking in gas and steadily growing. When it reaches a critical mass it will blow itself to pieces.
[..]
The experts said the Hubble space telescope has photographed the star gearing up for its big bang with a series of smaller blasts or “burps”, called novas.
These explosions came regularly about every 20 years from 1890 – but stopped after 1967.
So the next blast is nearly 20 years overdue
The article does not suggest that the next blast will be the one to wipe us out, although I can just see the 2012 doomsday cult using it regardless.
I have one question about all of this: will the blast wave travel at, above or below the speed of light? If the blast wave travels at or above the speed of light, we will never see it coming and really shouldn’t worry as there isn’t a darn thing we can do about it. If, on the other hand, the blast wave travels below the speed of light, then the question is “by how much?”. From that we can calculate the time between seeing the blast and feeling the effects of it…and if we’re technologically advanced enough at the time, how long we have to prepare a defence for our planet and…well probably our solar system if we don’t want gravity to be affected too much…we wouldn’t want to save our planet only to end up plunging in to the sun due to gravitational changes, now would we?
Oh, and I just have to note that news.com.au ran this story as well…but they did it in the “breaking news” section, with the headline “Self destructing Supernova explosion may wipe out earth”. It makes it sound like the explosion has already happened and we are on the brink of destruction. It’ll get lots of hits, and I suppose that’s what matters!
(Thanks to Kane Bond for alerting me to this story).
Samuel
January 7th, 2010 at 12:48am
That’s a headline you’d never see in New South Wales, but it’s the state of affairs in Arizona where the whole implementation seems to be so badly botched that the speed camera program may very well be axed.
PHOENIX (AP) — More than a year after Arizona became the first state in the country to deploy dozens of speed cameras on highways statewide, threats to the groundbreaking program abound.
Profits are far below expectations, a citizen effort to ban the cameras is gaining steam, the governor has said she does not like the program, and more and more drivers are ignoring the tickets they get in the mail after hearing from fellow speeders that there are often no consequences to doing so.
“I see all the cameras in Arizona completely coming down ” in 2010, said Shawn Dow, chairman of Arizona Citizens Against Photo Radar, which is trying to get a measure banning the cameras on the November ballot. “The citizens of Arizona took away the cash cow of Arizona by refusing to pay.”
The Arizona Department of Public Safety introduced the cameras in September 2008 and slowly added more until all 76 were up and running by January.
Supporters say the cameras slow down drivers and reduce accidents, but opponents argue that they are intrusive and are more about making money than safety.
[..]
The cameras led to more than 700,000 tickets to drivers going 11 miles per hour or more over the speed limit from September 2008 to September 2009, the most recent data available, according to the Department of Public Safety. The mandated fines and surcharges on all those tickets would total more than $127 million, but they had generated just $36.8 million through September, Lieutenant [Jeff] King [photo enforcement district commander for the Department of Public Safety] said.
Some of the people who got those tickets are contesting them in court and could end up having to pay the fine, but many of them have gone unpaid because drivers know they have a good shot at getting away with ignoring them. When people get tickets, they can pay without question, request a court date and fight the ticket, or simply ignore the ticket because law enforcement cannot prove they received it. The ticket becomes invalid if a violator who ignores it is not served in person within three months. It is nearly impossible to say how many people have ignored their tickets because courts do not track the figure.
Yeesh. Over here the authorities just assume that you receive the notice and suspend your licence if you don’t pay. It seems to me that this is the main cause of the apparent failure of the speed camera program. If the tickets were enforced, people would be paying them.
Somebody really stuffed the implementation of this program…I wonder who it could be?
While certain to increase, that $36.8 million in revenue through September will still fall far below the $120 million a year that former Gov. Janet Napolitano hoped to put in the state’s coffers when she ordered up the program in early 2007.
Oh…well that explains it. Janet Napolitano, the Obama administration’s National Security Nit-Wit (as Mark Levin so accurately put it yesterday)…the woman who said “the system worked” after a terrorist managed to get explosives on-board an aeroplane and use them on a flight in to Detroit on Christmas Day. The only reason many people didn’t die on that day is the heroic actions of other passengers.
Clearly Janet Napolitano’s definition of “work/worked/working” in the case of national security and for speed camera programs differs from the definition which can be found in English dictionaries.
Samuel
January 6th, 2010 at 07:32pm
Given that I spent so much time this morning tracking the news coverage of the Las Vegas court house shooting, I thought it would be a good idea to bring you the actual story courtesy of Channel 13 Action News.
My sincere condolences to the family of Stanley Cooper, the court security officer who was killed in the gunfire.
I appreciate that, for the vast majority of readers of this blog, this story is not particularly relevant as most readers of this blog are Australian, however it does tie in with my previous story about the delay in getting this story out nationally and to the world. Regardless of whether this story is relevant to you, watch the video…what is extraordinary about this is just how good the local news coverage is in the United States, especially when compared to local news coverage over here.
Las Vegas as a city, has a slightly higher population that Canberra (an extra couple of hundred thousand people) and, when you include the surrounding areas, is probably in line with Perth. Despite this, the local news coverage over there is far more thorough and regular than what you will find anywhere over here. Many TV stations have multiple full-length local news bulletins each day, for example. Additionally, this level of coverage is mirrored in many places right across the US…and yet it seems that we can only get this level of detail over here when a dust storm invades Sydney.
I suppose that a lot of this can be put down to the fact that the US has a much greater concentration of inland settlement than Australia, and as such has much more room and incentive for a competitive news business. In many ways I consider this to be one of Australia’s great problems…we are so coast-bound that we inhibit our own growth and prosperity as a nation. If more people lived inland, our coastal cities wouldn’t be choked and over-stretched, the potential for inland industry would grow significantly and, best of all, would probably lead to a self-fulfilling increase in inland rainfall based on more water being used and evaporating, which in turn helps our farming industry to sustain population growth.
Anyway, back on topic. I tip my hat to the staff at Channel 13 Action News. Your coverage of this story was excellent.
Samuel
January 6th, 2010 at 12:25am
Two federal agents have been shot and are being reported as dead in some places in Las Vegas, but you wouldn’t know it if you were listening to the last set of US national radio news bulletins. It’s bizarre, but it almost seems as if the national news outlets didn’t bother to call their local affiliates for information.
Here’s the basic rundown of events as I noticed it (note that all times are in Las Vegas local time/Canberra local time format)
Approximately 8:10am/3:10am: Shooting occurs
A few moments later: Newsradio 840 KXNT takes a call live-to-air from a witness. Sirens are audible in the background.
8:18am/3:18am: KXNT traffic runs a brief report on the area being locked down by police
Approximately 8:20am/3:20am: Around this time I went and checked other news outlets. The Las Vegas Review Journal had a brief “breaking story” blurb on their website, KDWN 720 had nothing on their website, TV Channel 13 (local ABC affiliate) had a brief story with flashy graphics (OK, a screengrab of their “breaking news” graphic…but still). National news outlets FOX, CBS and ABC had nothing on their websites.
Approximately 8:23/3:23: KXNT news runs a story including an update from the local police spokesperson advising that two federal agents have been shot, one offender has been shot and another may be on the loose.
Approximately 8:40/3:40: The Associated Press releases a very short story advising of a shooting which looks like a cut and paste from a government press release. National outlets FOX and ABC put it on their websites with no further details. KDWN have the story on their website.
8:49/3:49: KXNT runs an out-of-cycle “breaking news” report from Metro Police that the two federal officers are dead. Also note that the area has been completely locked down while police search for a second shooter.
9:00/4:00: Top of hour national radio bulletins run with the “condition unknown” AP report. FOX update their story with a line about the lockdown. CNN don’t have a story as such, but rather a headline which links off to the Vegas FOX TV station’s news story which seems fairly comprehensive.
At some stage a little bit after 9:10/4:10: CBS add the story to their website, merging AP information with KXNT information.
9:20/4:20: KXNT run another out-of-cycle “breaking news” update with some further information and a failed cross to their reporter at the scene (the phone line dropped out).
By 9:30/4:30: NBC get the story on their site, with minor additions to the AP story. ABC bump the story to top billing (which it should have had everywhere for a lot longer than this) including an aerial photo, presumably from the local ABC affiliate Channel 13.
9:30/4:30: KXNT run another out-of-cycle update (I shudder to think how many ads they’ve dropped) with a cross to the reporter on the scene relaying information from police at the scene that Metro Police’s previous release about the federal agents being dead is possibly wrong, plus a description of the scene.
9:45/4:45: National networks seem to be close to catching up with the local outlets, with the notable exception of NBC which continues to run the ancient AP story. CNN actually have an article now.
9:50/4:50: I haven’t had a chance to check the other locals again, but KXNT are running yet another out-of-cycle update pushing the locals way ahead of the nationals again with further updates about the situation.
9:55/4:55: Las Vegas Review Journal run independent confirmation that at least one federal agent has died.
Update: 11:10/6:10: Well this is absurd. I can not find a single Australian media outlet that is aware of this shooting. AAP have not mentioned it yet, and nobody in Australia seems to have noticed. This is the top story in all US media right now, and not a peep down under, nor in Britain’s BBC…perhaps the news is coming by boat. End Update
Don’t get me wrong here. I am not surprised by the fact that local stations which have people on the ground are ahead of the New York based networks. What I’m surprised by is just how far ahead the local stations are, and how long it took the nationals to even notice what is probably going to be the top story for the rest of the day. Each and every one of the national networks has a local affiliate with a newsroom to borrow material from, and with the exception of CBS they seem to be failing to capitalise on these resources. If any of these networks used their local resources properly, they would blitz the competition completely.
All of this just goes to show that news travels just as slowly in the US as it does in Australia. If it doesn’t happen near a major news centre, then you will be waiting a long time for details. Is it any wonder that people are relying on the Internet for news over and above the big news organisations?
Samuel
January 5th, 2010 at 04:59am
As The Canberra Times noted this morning (albeit in an alarmist manner), the Guardian Angels are setting up a chapter here in Canberra. This is fantastic news and should be invaluable in making Canberra and safer and more friendly place.
Despite the Canberra Times and, more concerningly, police minister Simon Corbell’s pronouncements, the Guardian Angels is not a vigilante group. The Guardian Angels is not about taking the law into their own hands, but is instead all about conflict resolution and deterrent, both through street patrols and education programs.
I’ll forgive the CT angle on the story as they were really just repeating the whining of Simon Corbell which is, for a newspaper, understandable. The really sad thing here is that Simon Corbell seems to be incapable of doing even the most basic little bit of research and is instead focussing on the political views of the Guardian Angels’ founder Curtis Sliwa, tarnishing a valid and valuable group in the process, and ignoring the fact that the local chapter of the Guardian Angels have already started talking with the police to make it clear what their aims are.
From the above-linked CT article:
Police Minister Simon Corbell said Canberra usually ranked as one of Australia’s two safest cities and there was no pressing crime problem.
He questioned why there was the need for such a group. ”There is no room for vigilante or paramilitary-type groups in community safety,” he said.
Mr Corbell described Guardian Angels founder Curtis Sliwa as a right-wing conservative commentator and encouraged those involved to give their time to existing organisations working to minimise crime, drug and alcohol problems.
I agree with Simon on one point. Other places are worse. As I mentioned to 2CC’s Mike Welsh this afternoon, a place like Melbourne with its highly-publicised attacks on Indians would, on the face of it, appear to be a more likely candidate for this type of group, however that does not mean that such a group is without merit in Canberra. Canberra has a problem with crime, mostly of the assault and assault plus robbery type, and unfortunately there is only one deterrent to that which Simon seems interested in pursuing, and that is a greater police presence. A good idea for sure, but not one which is practical for any number of economic reasons which Simon would be sure to rattle off if pressed about why police aren’t standing on every street corner at every given moment.
The bottom line is that these types of offences are usually done without witnesses. They are, by their nature, opportunistic, and having people around (be it police, security guards or Guardian Angels) acts as a significant deterrent.
As I said to Mike Welsh this afternoon, and as the founder of the local chapter Damian Heffernan also went to great lengths to emphasise, the Guardian Angels is a peaceful organisation with a mission to prevent violence. As Damian pointed out in the CT article and to Mike Welsh this afternoon:
the worst case scenario is to ever have violence occur or an arrest that’s basically considered as a failure
It should also be noted that the Guardian Angels is a citizen volunteer organisation. They have no special powers and are not under the misapprehension that they do. They are fully aware of the fact that their only power of arrest is the power of citizen arrest, however unlike the vast majority of us ordinary everyday people, they have studied the subject of citizens arrest and understand what that entails. They will also call the police, just like you and I would, if a situation warrants their attention (such as an assault occurring). They are not out to take over from the police but, as Damian said, they are out to hopefully reduce the police’s workload by taking lawful means to stop things happening before they start.
The Guardian Angels have a long track record of successful peace-keeping operations (for lack of a better term), starting with their great work in cleaning up the New York subway. It is a proven success story, so it is beyond me why Simon Corbell is so opposed to it except for political reasons.
This theory is solidified by the fact that the vast majority of the Guardian Angels’ planned work in Canberra will be in education, including working with local schools on anti-bullying programs. This is clearly not an extremist vigilante group, and one look at the organisation’s website would have shown Simon Corbell that. Instead, Simon chooses to be of the belief that anything related to a conservative talk radio host (Curtis Sliwa, founder of the Guardian Angels, is a conservative New York talk radio host, formerly on WABC with a nationally syndicated program, and now on New York’s AM 970 The Apple) must be bad despite his own police being more than willing to work with the Guardian Angels.
I’ll just be glad that Simon isn’t the police commissioner and doesn’t have any real authority over them.
In the meantime, I fully support the Guardian Angels opening a Canberra branch and applaud Damian Heffernan’s initiative in contacting the Guardian Angels so that he can open a branch here. I also look forward to Curtis Sliwa visiting Canberra to launch the chapter next month…if that is indeed what the Canberra Times meant when they wrote:
Guardian Angels founder Curtis Sliwa and the group’s founder in Japan, ”Duke” are expected to launch the Canberra chapter next month.
A visit from Curtis would be absolutely wonderful. I have a lot of respect for him and it would be an absolute privilege to shake his hand if he does come to town.
The Guardian Angels is a great organisation, and I look forward to seeing them out and about in Canberra.
Update: Mike Welsh’s interview of Damian Heffernan is up on 2CC’s website. End Update
Samuel
January 4th, 2010 at 07:21pm
I’m tempted to send Andrew Daddo another email now, but I won’t bombard him.
Currently he is talking to a professor about cigarette packaging, specifically the idea which keeps popping up of removing everything from the packaging except for the health warnings and horrid images. Naturally the professor thinks this is a wonderful idea because he helped write a government report to that effect…and maybe he is right, maybe it would make people less likely to smoke, but I have to ask the obvious questions…what right does the government have to deliberately ruin a legal industry?
If the government wants to stop people from smoking, then it should have the guts to make tobacco illegal and take the subsequent hit to its bottom line from the taxes which it would lose as a result. At the moment, it is perfectly legal to produce, sell and use tobacco. Taxing tobacco to the hilt does very little to stop people who are addicted from smoking…all it really does is reallocate money which they would have spent on other things.
And as for the tobacco packaging, well a recent German study just proves that the science isn’t settled on gory packaging being the ultimate deterrent:
According to a study, smokers who are continunally confronted with warnings that cigarettes kill actually develop coping mechanisms to justify continuing their habit.
Comparatively, if smokers are shown warnings suggesting the habit could make them unattractive, they are more likely to give up. Teenagers who took up the habit to impress or fit in with their peers were more likely to be influenced by warnings about their appearance, the study found.
“In general, when smokers are faced with death-related anti-smoking messages on cigarette packs, they produce active coping attempts as reflected in their willingness to continue the risky smoking behaviour,” the study said.”
People know that smoking is bad for them, but they do it anyway. If the government is serious about saving lives and not just about increasing their bottom line, then they need to make tobacco illegal and offer assistance to people to wean them off the tobacco.
Samuel
January 4th, 2010 at 12:59pm
I expect to be back on deck on the blog tomorrow. My plans for tonight involve watching 112 Emergency on SBS Two (it may be an abysmal show, but it is thoroughly addictive, and my need to see Dr. Driessen and Mr. Bender oust the corrupt Mr. Sellman forces me to continue watching it…and it would be nice to see Martin actually warrant his top spot on the credits by appearing in more than the opening titles) and then I shall go to bed. My phone will remain off until at least 3am (yes, I have a mobile phone again) so that I can sleep through the change of year, unlike last year where my sleep was interrupted far too many times, prompting a bit of a tirade on 1WAY FM.
I will admit that, earlier this week, I did toy with the notion of heading out for the new year changeover…but quickly dismissed the plan once I realised that I:
a) still have trouble stomaching the idea of being out of the house, on foot, after dark
b) struggle to enjoy the Civic night-life under any circumstances, and
c) don’t give a single hoot (let alone two) about the local timezone declaring a change in year at a different moment to the vast majority of timezones
If you intend on celebrating the new year, then I hope you enjoy yourself even if I doubt that I will ever understand your urge.
Samuel
December 31st, 2009 at 06:31pm
Merry Christmas everybody. I hope that whatever you are doing today, you have a wonderful and enjoyable day.
Samuel
December 25th, 2009 at 11:30am
Two by-elections have taken place today, one in the electorate of Bradfield for the seat of former Liberal Party leader Brendan Nelson, and the other in Higgins for the seat of former federal Treasurer Peter Costello.
Labor have, for reasons best known to them, decided not to run candidates in these by-elections, effectively making the Greens the main left-wing party to contest these elections. I’m a tad busy panelling for a 1WAY FM Outside Broadcast of Twin City Church’s Carols By Candlelight as well as doing a couple odd jobs for my day job, but I’m trying to keep an eye on these elections as well. Unfortunately I don’t think that they can really be considered a test of Tony Abbott’s leadership without Labor candidates to go up against…but with the party of climate doom (The Greens) as the main opposition in these seats, it is a barometer of the electorate’s stance on climate change.
I’ll update this post with results throughout the night.
7:37pm
Bradfield (top three) – 18.27%% counted
FLETCHER, Paul William – Liberal Party – 9,213 votes (56.14%)
GEMMELL, Susie – The Greens – 4,157 votes (25.33%)
LEISHMAN, Marianne – Australian Sex Party – 524 votes (3.19%)
Higgins (top three) – 21.83% counted
O’DWYER, Kelly – Liberal Party – 9,527 votes (51.59%)
HAMILTON, Clive – The Greens – 6,535 votes (35.39%)
MULHOLLAND, John – D.L.P. – Democratic Labor Party – 662 votes (3.59%)
8:10pm
Bradfield (top three) – 38.06% counted
FLETCHER, Paul William – Liberal Party – 19,087 votes (56.04%)
GEMMELL, Susie – The Greens – 8,683 votes (25.49%)
LEISHMAN, Marianne – Australian Sex Party – 1,102 votes (3.24%)
Higgins (top three) – 47.28% counted
O’DWYER, Kelly – Liberal Party – 21,012 votes (52.57%)
HAMILTON, Clive – The Greens – 13,791 votes (34.50%)
MULHOLLAND, John – D.L.P. – Democratic Labor Party – 1,504 votes (3.76%)
8:40pm
Bradfield (top three) – 53.38% counted
FLETCHER, Paul William – Liberal Party – 26,271 votes (55.30%)
GEMMELL, Susie – The Greens – 12,406 votes (26.12%)
LEISHMAN, Marianne – Australian Sex Party – 1,585 votes (3.34%)
The Liberal Party appear to be home here.
Higgins (top three) – 58.21% counted
O’DWYER, Kelly – Liberal Party – 25,326 votes (51.47%)
HAMILTON, Clive – The Greens – 17,302 votes (35.16%)
MULHOLLAND, John – D.L.P. – Democratic Labor Party – 1,933 votes (3.93%)
This one is a bit closer. The Liberals look pretty comfortable, but Clive Hamilton has a chance on preferences.
8:48pm
The Liberal Party’s Kelly O’Dwyer has declared herself victorious in Higgins. She is almost certainly right, but I would have expected Bradfield to be declared first.
9:05pm
Bradfield (top three) – 58.88% counted
FLETCHER, Paul William – Liberal Party – 29,050 votes (55.46%)
GEMMELL, Susie – The Greens – 13,674 votes (26.10%)
LEISHMAN, Marianne – Australian Sex Party – 1,734 votes (3.31%)
The Liberals have this one in the bag. They should have declared by now.
Higgins has not been updated on the AEC website since the last update.
9:40pm
The Liberals have now declared themselves victorious in Higgins as well.
9:45pm
Bradfield (top three) – 66.41% counted
FLETCHER, Paul William – Liberal Party – 32,501 votes (55.12%)
GEMMELL, Susie – The Greens – 15,567 votes (26.40%)
LEISHMAN, Marianne – Australian Sex Party – 2,002 votes (3.40%)
Higgins (top three) – 61.49% counted (result is final according to the AEC website. Not sure if they mean for the night or if they’re not bothering to count the rest of the votes)
O’DWYER, Kelly – Liberal Party – 26,893 votes (51.74%)
HAMILTON, Clive – The Greens – 18,172 votes (34.96%)
MULHOLLAND, John – D.L.P. – Democratic Labor Party – 2,031 votes (3.91%)
10:05pm
Bradfield (top three) – 69.20% counted (another “final” result)
FLETCHER, Paul William – Liberal Party – 33,991 votes (55.38%)
GEMMELL, Susie – The Greens – 16,071 votes (26.18%)
LEISHMAN, Marianne – Australian Sex Party – 2,087 votes (3.40%)
Samuel
December 5th, 2009 at 07:43pm
I remember back in 2006 saying to 2UE’s Stuart Bocking that if the New South Wales government was a television soap opera, it would be accused of being too unrealistic. Alas, for the poor sods of New South Wales (OK, some of them deserve it…they did vote for this mess) it’s about as real as it gets.
Today the soap opera continued to get worse by fulfilling a story line which the writers have been slowly forcing on us since August. Kristina Keneally, planning minister for ensuring enviro-whacko involvement slows down development, is the new Premier. She does make history for being the first female Premier of New South Wales (or, to be more precise, she will, once the official swearing-in ceremony takes place), and for that I congratulate her…I just wish there was something to celebrate here.
The weird thing about New South Wales is that all that ever seems to happen is the same incompetent people are given different portfolios to “manage”. Once they have done a bad enough job, they get “promoted” off to another job. If you make bad decisions for long enough, you get promoted to Premier, take all the heat from the media about the daily disasters of your government, and then after a few dismal years get to disappear from public life and take up a job with Macquarie Bank. Nathan Rees was so bad at it that he got out of the leadership one day before his 15 month anniversary.
The only thing preventing the Liberals from taking power is that nobody seems to be convinced (even the Liberals themselves don’t appear convinced) that they would do a better job. I just believe that, no matter how addicted Barry O’Farrell is to media stunts, he couldn’t possibly be any worse. This feeling is reaffirmed by the fact that one of Kristina’s closest supporters is “minister-for-almost-everything-he-can-possibly-break” Joe Tripod One.
It occurs to me that Kristina Keneally and US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have two things in common. Firstly, they are both of the far-left delusion that socialism works (to be fair, Kristina is on the right with a lot of social issues, but is firmly planted on the left for economic issues). Secondly, they are both from Nevada (I don’t know how I’m going to break it to my Vegas friends that one of their escapees has moved their deckchair to the helm of the SS Titanic New South Wales). One must therefore wonder if the writers of this horrifying soap opera intend on bringing in Harry “Dingy” Reid as Kristina’s deputy when his electorate finally vote him out next year. Between her links to the right-wing of the Party, and Harry’s links to the left, she might just be able to stave off a mutiny long enough for Labor to lose an election.
For the record, Kristina defeated Nathan 47 to 21 in today’s leadership spill. That says more about Nathan’s embarrassing tenure as Premier than it does about Kristina. Realistically, these people should have been unheard-of backbenchers following a John Brogden victory in 2004. One can only dream of how much better New South Wales would be if John hadn’t shot himself in the foot with that stupid “I don’t think I can win” speech a couple days before that election.
So, who wants to predict how long Kristina will last as Premier?
Samuel
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:59pm
With New South Wales Premier Nathan Rees facing the possibility of a leadership challenge, Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard has thrown in her two cents worth on Nathan’s performance as Premier:
“Obviously Nathan Rees has been doing a wonderful job in the state of New South Wales”
Source: 2GB 11am news
Julia, please just go on your taxpayer-funded holiday and leave the commentary to the sane.
Samuel
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:05am
I can’t help but feel sorry for Wayne Swan today. He is the one Labor politician who couldn’t avoid the limelight and had to try to explain away another interest rate rise…he did not look in the least bit comfortable.
Perhaps now I understand federal Labor’s obsession with the emissions trading scheme. Wayne Swan is on-record as saying that traffic jams cause inflation, so perhaps he is hoping that an ETS will reduce the number of cars on the road, thereby reducing the number and severity of traffic jams, thereby cutting back on inflation and, as a result, interest rate rises and his subsequent uncomfortable press conferences.
It’s an interesting, albeit flawed, theory Wayne.
Samuel
December 1st, 2009 at 04:50pm
Not simultaneously though, I might add.
Kevin Rudd’s aeroplane has been grounded due to a mechanical fault.
His spokesman says the Prime Minister will stay overnight in the US capital where he met with US President Barack Obama early this morning our time.
Mr Rudd was due back home tomorrow.
Meanwhile Barack Obama is being invited to visit Australia next year.
Mr Rudd said Mr Obama may visit Australia in 2010, possibly combining his trip with visit to Indonesia, where he spent part of his childhood.
”We had a chat at the end of our conversation about his desire to visit Down Under,” Mr Rudd said.
“I told him he was always welcome and we are looking at the possibility of him visiting Australia in the course of 2010. That would be terrific,” he said.
Despite my opposition to the Bamster, I would warmly welcome him to this country as the democratically elected leader of the free world. It would be an honour to have him here, just like it was an honour to have George W. Bush here earlier this decade. Perhaps he can bow to Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott?
Samuel
December 1st, 2009 at 01:11pm
The good news is that Tony Abbott, who never had any intention of doing anything other than oppose the ETS, called a secret ballot on the matter of the ETS after he became party leader, and the party voted 55 to 29 in favour of deferring the ETS instead of supporting it.
The bad news is that four Liberal Senators are willing to cross the floor and vote for the ETS, according to an anonymous source of News Limited blog The Punch. Thankfully that is short of the seven Senators that Rudd/Wong/Gillard need in order to have the ETS approved by the Senate.
Two things on those Senators. Firstly, I’m surprised that there are four willing to cross the floor. One or two I could understand, but four seems a bit high immediately after the party voted in a new anti-ETS leader and clearly voted against the ETS.
Secondly, why do I get the awful feeling that Gary Humphries is one of the Senators who could cross the floor?
Update: Greens leader Bob Brown has just said what I’ve been saying for a while now. An Abbott Liberal Party gives Labor and the Greens the opportunity to negotiate a stronger ETS…one that they actually believe in. We can now have an election where the issue is a Labor/Greens “strong ETS” versus a Liberal/National “no ETS”. End Update
Samuel
December 1st, 2009 at 12:53pm
Next Posts
Previous Posts