Odds shorten on Howard Election win

[Lusankya]

Yes, you can place a bet on just about anything in Australia.

Odds shorten on Howard election win

BETTING odds for the federal Coalition have seen a greater shift in the past seven days than at any time this year, Sportingbet Australia says.

And punters now see a late November or early December election.

The odds of the Coalition Government making it five wins in a row have dropped dramatically in the past few days from $3.70 to $2.85, on the back of bets as big as $10,000, it says.

However, Labor is still favourite to gain power at $1.43.

"When (Prime Minister) John Howard looked doomed last week, all the money was for Labor. But a week is a long time in politics and we're now seeing a flood of substantial bets coming in for the Coalition," Sportingbet Australia CEO Michael Sullivan said.

"What we're now beginning to see is Howard sneaking his way back into the contest and punters are responding by backing the PM at good odds.

"A boost in the opinion polls and Kevin Rudd's tax gaffe have made the punters enthusiastic about the great odds available on Mr Howard and his team."

There has also been a shift in betting on the timing of the election after comments made by Mr Howard this week.

Mr Howard told a joint party room meeting that it may not be their last meeting, suggesting that Parliament could reconvene again in the week of October 15.

"Punters across Australia reacted by supporting November 24 as the most likely day for the federal election," Mr Sullivan said.

Punters with Sportingbet had previously favoured November 10 and October 27, but November 24 has now firmed into favouritism at $3.50.

There also has been steady support for December 1, at odds of $3.75.

"It does look likely that we're headed for a late November election, which certainly suits the punters, coming after Spring Racing," Mr Sullivan said.

[mr friendly guy]

I will put my stock in opinion polls than betting odds, since opinion polls ask people who they want to win, while betting is people asking who they think will win.

And hopefully the election is soon, but preferably when I am back from Melbourne, since postal voting is a bitch.

[Crown]

I will put my stock in opinion polls than betting odds, since opinion polls ask people who they want to win, while betting is people asking who they think will win.

And hopefully the election is soon, but preferably when I am back from Melbourne, since postal voting is a bitch.

Ha! I have to do it from overseas! And you're going down Howard! No more children overboard for you, little cock stain!

[mr friendly guy]

Ha! I have to do it from overseas! And you're going down Howard! No more children overboard for you, little cock stain!

Right now Howard is desperately looking to pull another scapegoat, er I mean rabbit out of his arse, er I mean hat.

My money is Muslims being the scapegoat again. Its not like the Haneef thing worked, but hey, maybe second time is the charm.

[tim31]

Last parliamentary session: 7:30 Report has the shitfight for those who missed it.

[weemadando]

Again I have to say it, as much as I hate Howard and co. its quite probable that I hate Rudd and the unionites more. The Labor party has become more unionist in the past few years than I'd have thought possible. The kicking of various members in preference for giving a run to union officials (even those pending court action) is enough to put me off. As is Rudd's continual lack of any actual policies/

[mr friendly guy]

As much as I dislike the unions, I would still vote for Rudd over Howard. At least Rudd and the ALP as far as I can tell, aren't crewed by bloody racist wankers, unlike the Liberals (Lightfoot, Abbott, Howard himself).

While for many people racism was something out of a text book, I experienced it growing up so people will forgive me if my tolerance of racist wankers is, oh how about nil.

[Archaic`]

Frankly, even if there are a few racist wankers in the Liberals...so long as it doesn't influence their policies (and I'd hardly call the introduction of the citizenship test as being that, which I know some people have been going on about), I'd much prefer them running the economy then the unions.

[mr friendly guy]

The citizenship test is a waste of money to appease right wing wankers and idiots, since knowing trivial is not what makes one Australian. However it itself is not necessary racist per se.

However when the racists are high up in the Liberal party, chances are their policies are going to be affected. Dr Haneef anyone, or was that not government policy by esteem Mr Andrews backed up by Howard.

[Archaic`]

I wouldn't call that racism. I'd call that over-reacting to issues related to terrorism.

[weemadando]

I think that the racism issues are far more of an issue for the population than political parties.

The homophobia and racism are just so damn common now - it pisses me off.

[thejester]

I will put my stock in opinion polls than betting odds, since opinion polls ask people who they want to win, while betting is people asking who they think will win.

And hopefully the election is soon, but preferably when I am back from Melbourne, since postal voting is a bitch.

No offence dude, but the bookies almost always get it right. I'd put a lot of stock in what they're saying.

[thejester]

Again I have to say it, as much as I hate Howard and co. its quite probable that I hate Rudd and the unionites more. The Labor party has become more unionist in the past few years than I'd have thought possible. The kicking of various members in preference for giving a run to union officials (even those pending court action) is enough to put me off. As is Rudd's continual lack of any actual policies/

You are joking, aren't you? The unions have less power in the ALP then ever before, and Rudd is the polar opposite of them...as has been pointed out numerous times, he probably disagrees with most of 'their' policies and will resist them once in office.

The only thing that concerns me is the possible abolition of AWAs; I think it's a daft move and I suspect if Labor enters office it won't happen, as Rudd et al are smart enough to realise it's the specifics of WorkChoices, not work place reform full stop, that has alienated voters.

[mr friendly guy]

I wouldn't call that racism. I'd call that over-reacting to issues related to terrorism.

And Southern Rednecks don't call it racism when they hang up the confederate flag, its uh being proud of their heritage.

I think that the racism issues are far more of an issue for the population than political parties.

The homophobia and racism are just so damn common now - it pisses me off.

I have observe the Liberal party (both state and Federal) seem more willing to take advantage of it than Labor. Notice them getting chummy with the racist One Nation party a few years back, what with talks of preference deals. It was only after immense pressure from Labor and the minor parties that they stopped.

In fact, in Western Australia where I lived, the ALP introduced laws making the age of consent for homosexuals the same as heterosexuals. The Liberals just gave us homophobic Colin Barnett.

In NSW the Liberal opposition leader ?Brogden or something call his opponent's Asian wife a "mail order bride". The gutless coward tried to kill himself when he faced a backlash rather than face up to it.

Federal Liberal politician Ross "Aborigines are the lower end of the colour spectrum" Lightfoot wanted to make it easier for WHITE Zimbabwe farmers to enter as refugees, at about the time the Government was doing everything to stop refugees coming in (while Muslims anyway) by shipping off to Naura. When ask would BLACK Zimbabwe farm workers also get the same treatment in escaping the Mugabe regime, he said they shouldn't.

John Howard refusing to say sorry for the racist stolen generation policy on the grounds that he didn't do it (never mind that people accuse the previous government of being responsible and not him), but apologises to Indonesia over the anthrax scare. Does that mean he was responsible for sending white powder to the Indonesian Embassy.

Tony Abbott's racist tirade, thus demonstrating why abortion should have been legalised earlier.

[Archaic`]

I wouldn't call that racism. I'd call that over-reacting to issues related to terrorism.

And Southern Rednecks don't call it racism when they hang up the confederate flag, its uh being proud of their heritage.

I wouldn't say that metaphor equates well here, given that the racist principles and motivations are quite clear with the rednecks, where things are much more murky with the politicians.

Yes, there are some racist crackpots in the Liberals. There's likely just as many in Labour too (if not more, given their voters are closer to the bogon demographic, if only by virtue of the party traditionally painting itself as representing those of lower socio-economic status). To claim that the policies of the whole Liberal party are intrinsically linked with racist sentiments, simply because some of those crackpots are high up in the party (again, same thing with Labour), is frankly absurd.

As far as this particular incident in concerned, if you think was motivated by racism, rather than just being one of a series of radical moves (for better or worse) made in the name of curbing terrorism, then prove it. Do you honestly think that things would have been any different, had the bombers and doctor been white anglo-saxon men, born and raised in western Europe?

[mr friendly guy]

I wouldn't say that metaphor equates well here, given that the racist principles and motivations are quite clear with the rednecks, where things are much more murky with the politicians.

So in other words, if some people are less proactive in their racism, we should give them the benefit of the doubt. Gotcha.

Yes, there are some racist crackpots in the Liberals.

Wow. Thats a change from your previous statement where you thought it doubtful that there were racist wankers in the Liberal party.

There's likely just as many in Labour too (if not more, given their voters are closer to the bogon demographic, if only by virtue of the party traditionally painting itself as representing those of lower socio-economic status).

Such as? Not that I have reason to suspect you are just making it up, but I want you to actually state who these politicians are, rather than just me taking your word for it.

Moreover the "Labor is just as bad" is an obvious red herring and is irrelevant to my point that the Liberals have racists in them. It might be valid as to why I chose to vote for labor, but has no bearing on the above point.

To claim that the policies of the whole Liberal party are intrinsically linked with racist sentiments, simply because some of those crackpots are high up in the party (again, same thing with Labour), is frankly absurd.

I didn't realise I said the policies of the WHOLE liberal party were affected by racists in them. But are you saying that Government members can't affect their own party's policies?

Why don't I tell you which policies or policy proposals I think are related to racism

1) Treatment of asylum seekers in appalling conditions. Except if you are WHITE Zimbabweans then Ross Lightfoot wants you to get special entry.

2) Stolen generation apology.

Lets not beat around the bush. The policies of the stolen generation were blatantly racist. By refusing to acknowledge wrong doing by previous Governments, Howard is indirectly giving some support to those policies. Its clear (in my above example) has no problems saying sorry for things done by others so the I don't have to say sorry because I didn't do it, doesn't hold water.

As far as this particular incident in concerned, if you think was motivated by racism, rather than just being one of a series of radical moves (for better or worse) made in the name of curbing terrorism, then prove it. Do you honestly think that things would have been any different, had the bombers and doctor been white anglo-saxon men, born and raised in western Europe?

I don't doubt the government wanted a "wedge" so they could appear tough on terrorism. I am saying that they wouldn't have tried smearing Doctor Haneef when the evidence has come in that previous "evidence" against him was false and made up, if he was, say a White Christian British doctor, and they would have tried to find another "wedge issue" close to election time.

[Archaic`]

I wouldn't say that metaphor equates well here, given that the racist principles and motivations are quite clear with the rednecks, where things are much more murky with the politicians.

So in other words, if some people are less proactive in their racism, we should give them the benefit of the doubt. Gotcha.

No, I'm saying that the motivations of the politicians are a lot less clear. Certainly, I don't think it's fair for us to make the assumption that a person is racist as default, which seems to be your position when it comes to the Liberals.

Yes, there are some racist crackpots in the Liberals.

Wow. Thats a change from your previous statement where you thought it doubtful that there were racist wankers in the Liberal party.

I never said any such thing, as anyone who cares to read over my previous posts in this thread can clearly see, and I'll thank you kindly not to put words in my mouth.

There's likely just as many in Labour too (if not more, given their voters are closer to the bogon demographic, if only by virtue of the party traditionally painting itself as representing those of lower socio-economic status).

Such as? Not that I have reason to suspect you are just making it up, but I want you to actually state who these politicians are, rather than just me taking your word for it.

He's just retired, but Beazley is the obvious one here, with his repeated attacks on "foreign workers stealing Australian jobs", never referring to skilled migrants. Tony Burke goes into that same boat as well.

If you're of the opinion that the NT interventions are racism, Northern Territory ALP chief minister Clare Martin wanted it to be sustained for decades. The Vic and NSW premiers both pledged police to the pan, and the whole thing had the support of federal labour and Kevin Rudd.

And if we want to go back to that test...federal Labour apparently tried to get that applied to Muslim and Asian tourists as well.

Moreover the "Labor is just as bad" is an obvious red herring and is irrelevant to my point that the Liberals have racists in them. It might be valid as to why I chose to vote for labor, but has no bearing on the above point.

It was included simply to demonstrate the point, so that both sides of the discussion were visible. Otherwise, it would've appeared from your vitriol that everyone but the coalition were squeaky clean angels.

To claim that the policies of the whole Liberal party are intrinsically linked with racist sentiments, simply because some of those crackpots are high up in the party (again, same thing with Labour), is frankly absurd.

I didn't realise I said the policies of the WHOLE liberal party were affected by racists in them. But are you saying that Government members can't affect their own party's policies?

You pointed out both state and federal racists, so I'd say you did say that.
And I'm not saying that at all. You may have misread what I said before. I was saying that it's absurd to think that the policies are intrinsically linked with racist sentiments. ie. That every relevant policy is somehow influenced by racism. That's what you seem to have been suggesting up to this point.

Why don't I tell you which policies or policy proposals I think are related to racism

1) Treatment of asylum seekers in appalling conditions. Except if you are WHITE Zimbabweans then Ross Lightfoot wants you to get special entry.

Actually, this one doesn't have that much ground to stand on. Firstly, they had rights as citizens of the Commonwealth, putting them further up in the queue anyway. Secondly, there were in imminent threat of death to stay in Zimbabwe, due to the racist policies of that country, whereas the black Zimbabwean farm hands, while certainly suffering, were not likely to be hunted down and killed on principle by their fellow countrymen.

2) Stolen generation apology.

Lets not beat around the bush. The policies of the stolen generation were blatantly racist. By refusing to acknowledge wrong doing by previous Governments, Howard is indirectly giving some support to those policies. Its clear (in my above example) has no problems saying sorry for things done by others so the I don't have to say sorry because I didn't do it, doesn't hold water.

Bullshit. His failure to apologise was based on the fact that a formal acknowledgement would open the government up to massive litigation. He still ended up making a formal apology through a motion of parliament as early as August 1999. When he tried to apologise again to a packed crowd years later, everyone turned their backs to him. Frankly, that the issue is still being brought up just seems to be political opportunism and grandstanding now.

As far as this particular incident in concerned, if you think was motivated by racism, rather than just being one of a series of radical moves (for better or worse) made in the name of curbing terrorism, then prove it. Do you honestly think that things would have been any different, had the bombers and doctor been white anglo-saxon men, born and raised in western Europe?

I don't doubt the government wanted a "wedge" so they could appear tough on terrorism. I am saying that they wouldn't have tried smearing Doctor Haneef when the evidence has come in that previous "evidence" against him was false and made up, if he was, say a White Christian British doctor, and they would have tried to find another "wedge issue" close to election time.

So in other words...you are saying that you honestly think that things would have been any different, had the bombers and doctor been white anglo-saxon men, born and raised in western Europe. And you also appear to be saying that information leeks from the police, which resulted in the media's smear campaign, are the fault of racist government members? That's quite the accusation. Again, I'd like to call on you to back up these accusations with some evidence, rather than empty words.

[mr friendly guy]

No, I'm saying that the motivations of the politicians are a lot less clear. Certainly, I don't think it's fair for us to make the assumption that a person is racist as default, which seems to be your position when it comes to the Liberals.

I don't assume the Liberal person is racist by default, but nice of you tp put words in my mouth. I don't attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity. However whenI see PM giving a slap of the wrist to members of his own party making racist statements then the malice angle becomes more likely.

I never said any such thing, as anyone who cares to read over my previous posts in this thread can clearly see, and I'll thank you kindly not to put words in my mouth.

Ahem

Frankly, even if there are a few racist wankers in the Liberals...so long as it doesn't influence their policies (and I'd hardly call the introduction of the citizenship test as being that, which I know some people have been going on about), I'd much prefer them running the economy then the unions.

Sorry mate, when people use the phrase "even if" in such a context its blatantly implies they don't think the claim following it, is true or at the very least unlikely.

If you're of the opinion that the NT interventions are racism, Northern Territory ALP chief minister Clare Martin wanted it to be sustained for decades. The Vic and NSW premiers both pledged police to the pan, and the whole thing had the support of federal labour and Kevin Rudd.

This is the second time you just guessed and guessed wrongly I would find such and such a government policy racist. Want any more guesses?

If you read my comments when this was discussed in previous N & P thread you would know I don't see it as racist. I do have doubts as to why the Government needs to take back Aboriginal land to help police and cut out child sex abuse, considering we don't need to take away property from paedophiles in non-Aboriginal families, however I pretty much stated I supported the endeavour in general.

It was included simply to demonstrate the point, so that both sides of the discussion were visible. Otherwise, it would've appeared from your vitriol that everyone but the coalition were squeaky clean angels.

And earlier in my response to Ando's comment about homophobia and racism were common in society, I clearly stated I thought the coalition "more willing" to appeal to this. I didn't realise "less willing" suddenly became "squeky clean angels", but whatever.

But come back to me when you can find a Labor politician that has made statements as bad as Abbott or Lightfoot or Brogden and lets include Ruddock for that matter since you want to play the "Labor is just as bad" angle.

You pointed out both state and federal racists, so I'd say you did say that.
And I'm not saying that at all. You may have misread what I said before. I was saying that it's absurd to think that the policies are intrinsically linked with racist sentiments. ie. That every relevant policy is somehow influenced by racism. That's what you seem to have been suggesting up to this point.

Its not absurd when the politicians are racists. I am not saying its the only factor, just that it is one.

Actually, this one doesn't have that much ground to stand on. Firstly, they had rights as citizens of the Commonwealth, putting them further up in the queue anyway. Secondly, there were in imminent threat of death to stay in Zimbabwe, due to the racist policies of that country, whereas the black Zimbabwean farm hands, while certainly suffering, were not likely to be hunted down and killed on principle by their fellow countrymen.

Oh please. Black Zimbabweans have been beaten and tortured because the oppose the Mugabe government. I thought one of the criteria for refugee status is

Any person who owing to a well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his/her nationality and is unable, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself/herself of the protection of that country.

Being persecuted for a policial opinion fits the bill for Black Zimbabweans opposing the Mugabe regime.

And according to the Government own website, there is not a goddamn mention about people from commonwealth countries being higher up the list when applying for refugee status. You are getting confused with free migrants which is a different concept.

Never mind of course according to your own logic Black Zimbabweans would be move up the queue any way as commonwealth citizens, shh, just don't tell Lightfoot.

Oh given that Lightfoot's proposal was a few years ago, and unless Robert Mugabe and his supporters managed to kill these white farmers very subtly right under the nose of the Western media, please back up this claim of threat of "imminent" death.

Bullshit. His failure to apologise was based on the fact that a formal acknowledgement would open the government up to massive litigation.

Oh that makes it so much better. The government refuses to compensate for a racist policy, because they are cheapskates, not because they are racists. I am sure the victims are feeling much better already.

You know, you might be able to sell this one if the Government members themselves didn't display racism in some other way.

On another note, does that mean Labor being willing to risk massive litigation to apologise makes them more "anti-racist" than the government.

He still ended up making a formal apology through a motion of parliament as early as August 1999.

So where is this massive litigation from this formal apology? Either his official reason for not apologising is bullshit, or it wasn't a proper apology. Either way one of your position falls.

Frankly, that the issue is still being brought up just seems to be political opportunism and grandstanding now.

I thought I will save you the time of trying to make another guess as to which policies and actions I consider racist.

So in other words...you are saying that you honestly think that things would have been any different, had the bombers and doctor been white anglo-saxon men, born and raised in western Europe.

The bombers would still be labelled terrorists (and rightly so), however I seriously doubt they would put all that effort in character assasination of the Doctor once it became clear there was zero evidence connecting him to the bombings. Do you see the government trying to smear Terry Hicks with terrorist link accusations just because he is related to a convicted terrorist. Because thats exactly all they had on Dr Haneef, his cousin was a terrorist.

And you also appear to be saying that information leeks from the police, which resulted in the media's smear campaign, are the fault of racist government members? That's quite the accusation. Again, I'd like to call on you to back up these accusations with some evidence, rather than empty words.

I am not talking about the leaks from the police. I am talking about Andrews own media release where he selectively edited out parts of Dr Haneefs conversation to make him look bad, (and then cries foul when Haneef releases the full transcript). That was a conscious move on the government's part, no.