Stopping the boasts

With a resurgence in the number of asylum seeker-carrying vessels moving shorewards, Tony Abbott has taken us back to 2001¹ and told us he will

Stop the boats.

In response, Gillard and the ALP are slightly more confused about persuing an almost identical outcome. While there are issues of fairness and honesty involved, and the policy in this area doesn't deserve to be ignored, the acceptance of the idea that unauthorised boat arrivals are significant to the overall questions related to immigration and population² is ridiculous.

The rest of the Liberal mantra can almost be summarised as 'stop the bloat'. While I've seen some details of Labor's “real solutions”, mostly they've been simply telling us to

Stop a boat,

sorry, stop Abbott, and that only they can achieve this for us. I am told that, if elected, Abbot will “take Australia backwards”. Economics and industrial relations get a run, but no doubt we're also meant to conclude that the coalition broadband-lite will 'stop the posts', at least the ones requiring a lot of bandwidth.

Not wanting to be outdone on personality-driven anti-campaigning, in the last week the opposition moved their ads forward from the bloat and boats message to also question the PM's trustworthiness. Both sides have put a lot of effort into telling us not to choose the others, and they both get agreement from Mark Latham, who thinks the answer is to

Stop your votes.

Whatever your choice, I expect that most of the boasts and promises will be stopped and forgotten pretty soon - probably by Monday.

¹Which was, incidentally, the last time I was in Australia for a federal election campaign.
²The discussion of which has been, for the most part, bringing together every issue that has population as a factor and putting them together as a scare campaign targetted at self-interest, with very little consideration of how the details interact with each other.

First preference: getting it straight

In several places, I've emphasised the fact that Labor seats reported as "safest" due to the high two party preferred result against the Liberals are actually closer to being taken by the Greens. I've done this mainly it is often overlooked in an unhelpful tendency to make everything one-dimensional and it find it interesting just in being unusual.

As it turns out, Sam Byrne's campaign material has this plastered all over it - "It's between the Greens and Labor". I must admit that while it may add legitimacy to their perceptions, I doubt that it's an effective way to campaign, particular combined with the rest of their comments.

Still, at least it makes more sense that Anthony Albanese's complaints about them. Whatever they suggest regarding preferences, they're making it very clear that they're not looking for a "protest vote". There might be more to say when you put it in the national context, but I don't see anything misleading said about this particular contest.

Then there's the (inconspicuous) Liberal candidate, who also seems to protest a bit much. Even though he may well have other outcomes foremost in his mind, suggesting preferences for the Greens ahead of Labor is exactly the same as saying (truthfully or otherwise - not that I think there's a deal here) that you'd rather the result go that way. Not that that in itself should matter to a potential voter. In fact, let's completely avoid the Alan Jones response to how-to-vote cards and point out that whatever you think of the parties, candidates, and electoral and parliamentary machinations, there's no reason not to choose your own ordering.

Turning green?

I'm not sure I should really read over people's shoulders on the train, but in doing so, I discovered that the Daily Telegraph is reporting that the state Labor Party is worried. Worried that any Labor seats with a margin of less than 15% are "under threat". That's a lot of seats. But I'm interested in the Tele's inclusion of the traditionally safe seat of the deputy premier - Marrickville (and the neighbouring Balmain). Their two party-preferred margins are low because the Greens have become the second party, and aren't quite the same as the other seats mentioned. Are they more or less "under threat" than the seats held by similar margins over the Libs/Nats?