Life in Australia

Life in Australia

One word: Durian

 

Robert – a self-styled “foreigner” to our shores – is most upset to have been hoaxed by the false promise and dashed hopes of life in Australia. A few days ago Robert commented on an ancient post here at Values Australia and his comment was upsetting.

Sir Roger cannot bear the thought of another’s pain and Robert surely is in pain.

So is Sir Roger. He had no idea how unhappy he himself must be, given Robert’s assessment of the Oz he had until then thought so wonderful.

 

 

So following is Sir Roger’s response to Robert. 


Sir Roger has asked his manservant esteemed assistant to pen a response to Robert. He would have liked to have been able to respond personally but is unable as he is packing his belongings in preparation to leave this dreadful hell of a country.

He is astonished that he had been so blind in his comforts, his pleasures, his friendships, his safety and his freedoms not to realise how utterly miserable he must obviously be. And indeed he is at this very moment beset by a grotesque problem. That is, where he should move away to and how should he get there? By plane? Or by boat?

The United States may seem a much better option except for the constant shootings, the fundamentalist christians and the Tea Party.

The UK? Very civilised, at least on the surface, and the world’s funniest comedians, but, oh, the endlessly whining whingers! And the weather!

Somewhere in Africa, perhaps? Central African Republic? Chad, Nigeria, South Sudan? There are plenty of spaces becoming available there since so many of them are choosing to come to Australia. But the job opportunities are not so good and someone like Sir Roger is sure to be kidnapped. And he questions why, if it is so wonderful there, so many of them are choosing to leave, that so many could even find Australia preferable. Big question mark on that one.

Asia? He fears the death penalty for minor crimes in China. He values his internal organs (and his external ones for that matter) and doesn’t want them shared with a transplant tourist before his time.

Japan fails to offer the wide open spaces that he craves.

Malaysia? He just doesn’t like their appalling racism. You know? Of course as a white man he could live behind a tall fence in a white compound with fierce dogs but where is the interest in a bunch of self-absorbed, arrogantly superior, self-congratulatory, western businessmen and their bored wives and nasty children?

Thailand? One word. Durian.

Indonesia beckons…but trips at all the hurdles of entrenched – and world famous – political, judicial, law-enforcement and corporate corruption, not to mention brutality to animals, religious intolerance, terrorism, death by firing squad and plain ignorance. Pretty country, though, and lovely people if you get to know the ones who aren’t trying to rip you off.

India? Well, you know, of course it’s worth a visit but … Sir Roger doesn’t consider rape a worthwhile or even enjoyable pastime. One of his friends is moving to Bhutan. Would he have to convert to Buddhism, though? He’s not all that religious. AT ALL.

And South America is the most dangerous continent on earth.

There’s always western Europe, of course, and Sir Roger does love to spend large amounts of time there, especially in their restaurants and in the cheese and wine aisles of their supermarkets, but they can be cold to strangers who don’t speak their languages perfectly, don’t you think? And it’s all so old and the skies are so murky. There’s very little that’s fresh blue.

As for Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan and Syria … hmmm … you know, Sir Roger’s not much of a one for car bombs, Talibans, shooting young girl students, hatred, bigotry, religious intolerance, violence, bloodshed of any kind, actually – not even Rugby League – or cranky old narrow-minded farts in funny turbans and beards a pelican could nest in, doling out fatwahs like Easter eggs at Christmas.

So Sir Roger is struggling to find a country either

a) that would accept him or
b) that he would accept.

Perhaps after all he will have to remain for a little longer amongst the awfulness of:

  • religious tolerance (despite the fact Sir Roger is a little intolerant of religious beliefs in general),
  • freedom of speech
  • a more or less free press
  • freedom to congregate
  • personal safety
  • world standard education, free to secondary level
  • a social safety net
  • free medical treatment
  • stable democracy (with no shootings at election time)
  • astoundingly pleasant weather
  • mostly generous people
  • a thriving triple-A economy (no matter what they say)
  • a rich cultural life (very well, yes, much of it imported)
  • comparatively high incomes
  • comparatively low unemployment
  • electronic access to the fascinating rest of the world (while keeping it at a safe physical distance)

and many other such depressing qualities.

Perhaps therefore he will stay for a bit longer.

He has just phoned your writer now to explain that he is beginning to understand that when a person comes to another country of course they will come to that country with preconceptions.

Those preconceptions, when they come in hope, will often be that the new country will be just like the country they escaped but somehow better — their home country but without the bits they don’t like. And this will not work.

For example, Australia is Australia. It is not Sri Lanka, or Britain, or India, or Germany or wherever, with bells on.

It is Australia.

That is it.

Anyone who comes here will find strangeness and things that confuse and they don’t understand; social conventions they are not used to, and that grate with how things used to be in the old country.

When they come here their task is not to compare it to the world they know and the expectations they had. That leads inevitably to disappointment.

Their task is to discover Australia for what it is and to interact with that. And love that. Or leave.

If they don’t want to be here we have no wish to force them to love it or to stay. They have the choice.

In Australia we allow people to come and go as they please. Unlike North Korea or China or so very many other countries.

At least that is what Sir Roger told your writer to say.

Just a note or two to ‘Robert’ from Sir Roger’s own Montblanc:

“  This is Australia, Robert. And this blog is Sir Roger’s home. Here you do not have to be mealy-mouthed or pretend to be genteel, or try to swear without swearing.

If you write “fkcng” you are intending that people will think “fucking” and so you are swearing anyway. So writing “fkcng” is, you see, slimy. You said “fuck” and pretended not to. And it’s true that many Australians don’t like this sort of deceitfulness in anyone, not just what you call “foreigners”. You can write “fuck” here. And “fucking”.

And even ‘FUCK YOU, CUNT’

Also, Australia is not a “convict island”, at least not for 150 years. We are a big grown-up country now. We have cars and houses and the internet and everything, just like a proper country.

The only social-cultural vestiges of those origins are the remains of a belief in equality and fairness, and a healthy disrespect for authority, both sadly on the wane.

And when you talk about ‘the way foreigners see Australia’ this is blatant intellectual dishonesty. Certainly some foreigners don’t like Australia. Of course some don’t. It would be a miracle beyond all miracles if it were otherwise. So, a few “foreigners”, then? The ones who agree with you and are as stirred up about their disappointment as you are?

Robert, we are not required to create the country you wanted in your dreams in order to satisfy you, although we would very much like you to enjoy this country – very much. But we simply cannot create that country just for you.

So the use of the “convict” epithet and the lumping of all foreigners into your basket of betrayed hopes reveals both emotional desperation and intellectual dishonesty.

I really feel your pain that caused this outburst. I went to Sumatra once, hoping to experience a tropical paradise with generous, friendly people, only to discover it (Medan, anyway) was the absolute arsehole of the earth, even worse than Tehran, although the Batak people of Samosir Island were indeed very lovely.

But when I want my own arguments to be taken seriously I personally find it is best to refrain from corny, shouted insults and sloppy arguments.

 

 

Welcome to Australia, Robert!

 

 

The Next Big “Sorry”

The Next Big “Sorry”

Sorry Bastards

  Want a long-range heads-up? The question we should be asking Abbott and Gillard and all of their various immigration spokespeople right now is this:  

How do you feel about the inevitability that — possibly in your lifetime — a future Prime Minister of Australia will stand up in Parliament to make a heartfelt apology on behalf of the Australian people 

— an apology for you, for what you did, for who you were and for what you stood for?

Possibly in your lifetime. Certainly in the lifetimes of your children and grandchildren, your nieces and nephews and their children, so that they can share your shame, and hate you for the shame you spill on them?

Many others, and their children and grandchildren, will share the stain of complicity, or of not speaking up against you and your hideous policies.

74 years ago another terrible, vile event occurred. A boat full of refugees left the country they grew up in, fleeing from the persecution and horrors of their homeland and seeking refuge in a safe and welcoming country. They were Jews – 937 of them – escaping from Germany. The ship was the MS St. Louis. The year was 1939. They tried to land in Cuba, Canada and the United States. Each of these countries refused them entry by various means including creating retroactive laws, tightening existing ones, or bureaucratically reinterpreting existing ones, requiring unpayable financial bonds, or invalidating valid entry permits and denying the right to seek political asylum. All of this might have a familiar stench to you. The United States Coast Guard, the ship’s non-Jewish German Captain Gustav Schröder said, forced him to turn the ship back when he tried to land in Florida. Perhaps this rings a bell for you. Hypocrisy runs deep in all societies but no deeper than the United States in this case. Inside the Statue of Liberty since 1903 there has been a bronze plaque, a poem written by Emma Lazarus in 1883.
“ From her beacon-hand Glows world-wide welcome” it says. “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
Of course there was much breast-beating  and public displays of sympathy on the part of all the countries, who met to find a solution that could see the 937 refugees settled safely. Just not in the USA, Canada or Cuba thank you. But anywhere else. Eventually the ship was forced to return to Europe. Many were accepted by the UK, France, Belgium and the Netherlands. As you know, Europe was at war and only the UK was not overrun and occupied by the Germans. It is estimated that 254 of the 937 were slain, mostly in Auschwitz and Sobibór and that of the 620 refugees who returned to the Continent only 365 survived the war. So apart from the human legacy what is the political legacy of this “harsh, pragmatic, no advantage”, hypocritical, boat-discouraging immigration policy 74 years ago towards desperate people fleeing the horrors of their home countries? After the war, Captain Gustav Schröder was awarded the Order of Merit by the Federal Republic of Germany. In 1993, Schröder was posthumously named as one of the Righteous among the Nations at the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial in Israel. A display at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum tells the story of the voyage of the MS St. Louis. In 2009, a special exhibit at the Maritime Museum of the Atlantic in Halifax, Nova Scotia explored the Canadian connection to the tragic voyage. The display is now a traveling exhibit in Canada.   In 2011, a memorial monument called the Wheel of Conscience, was unveiled at Pier 21, Canada’s national immigration museum in Halifax. It was designed by Daniel Libeskind. The memorial is of a polished stainless steel wheel. Symbolizing the policies that turned away more than 900 Jewish refugees, the wheel incorporates four inter-meshing gears each bearing a word: antisemitism, xenophobia, racism and hatred. The back of the memorial is inscribed with the names of the 937 passengers. On 24 September last year US Deputy Secretary of State William J. Burns made a speech.
“ We who did not live it can never understand the experience of those 937 Jews who boarded the M.S. Saint Louis in the spring of 1939. Behind them, shattered windows and lives, loved ones in danger, crimes already underway and those crimes to come. Ahead, the hope of a new life in this country. We all know how this journey ends. The ship was turned away. Its passengers returned to a Europe that fell, country by country, to the cruelty they set sail to escape. Having made it so close to the safety of our shores, nearly one-third of the men, women and children of the M.S. Saint Louis perished, half a world away, in Auschwitz and other camps. … [T]he dangers were visible to those clear-eyed enough to see them. The warnings were already clear for those who cared to listen … And yet the United States did not welcome these tired, poor and huddled passengers as we had so many before and would so many since. Our government did not live up to its ideals. We were wrong. And so we made a commitment that the next time the world confronts us with another M.S. Saint Louis — whether the warning signs are refugees in flight or ancient hatreds resurfacing — we will have learned the lessons of the M.S. Saint Louis and be ready to rise to the occasion. … [A]nti-Semitism, genocide and mass displacement are – sadly – all-too-alive in 2012 … there are other M.S. Saint Louises setting sail right now … there is always more we can and must do.
Or in other words, “Sorry”. So Sir Roger offers the following notes for the future Prime Minister who will — inevitably — say “Sorry” to all those who have sought to come to Australia seeking asylum in boats – legally – as refugees and discovered that the story that we were a warm and welcoming people was a cruel hoax.
“ Many years ago our country was called upon to stand for the values we cherished as Australians.   When people who had lost everything, their homes, their livelihoods, their hopes and their futures came to us;   ~ when people full of terror who had seen, and often experienced, unimaginable horrors, or torture, came to us;   ~ when people who were so desperate that they risked death in leaky boats and violent seas came to asking for our help;   we were called upon as never before to show that we were indeed, and in our deeds, truly the people our story told about us;   a people of humanity, hospitality and generosity,   an understanding and tolerant people immensely proud of our multicultural triumph.     We failed. We proved that the story was a lie.   Our leaders failed us. Our institutions failed us. Our hearts failed us.   Instead, when we saw fellow human beings who so sincerely and transparently needed our help, people who had fled for their lives from wars, religious and tribal violence, and brutal tyrannical regimes, we told ourselves that those people were in fact queue-jumping, disease-ridden, child murdering terrorists and criminals who wanted to rape our women and steal the mineral wealth beneath our feet and the coins from our purse.   So to all those refugees we heartlessly turned away, or who we inhumanely imprisoned to the point where many of you went mad – and to those who never reached our shores but perished in the attempt – we say:   Sorry.   What we did as a people was based on greed, fear, narrow-mindedness, xenophobia, racism, hatred and ignorance. As a people we say:   Sorry.   What our leaders did was not based on any of these things.   It was based on the desire for power, on the desire to defeat an internal opponent in our own country.   You were merely the tool that they used. To achieve their narrow partisan goals they broke international laws and our own laws. They ignored international conventions and treaties.   What those leaders did, along with those in our bureaucracies and agencies who conspired with them and abetted them, was unforgivable, unconscionable and inhumane and it disgraced and dishonoured our country.   Their punishment is that their names and their reputations will be stained forever in the history of our country.   As we allowed them the opportunity to do what they did we say:   Sorry.   As you know, today’s Australia is not that Australia.   We have learnt from that dark time.   Our laws now ensure that it cannot happen again.   Our country truly is today — and thanks to so many of you — a people of humanity, hospitality and generosity, an understanding and tolerant people immensely proud of our multicultural triumph. We are once again true to our story and our values.   Thank you again.   I am so proud to be the Prime Minister of such a country, especially in the knowledge that we will never see such malignant, repugnant people assume leadership again.            

Mount Migently Manifesto

Mount Migently Manifesto

 Australian Values

 

Australian values have lately been enthusiastically asserted by some Australians and Sir Roger has been much impressed – in much the same way a washed-up prize fighter feels the repeated impressions of his opponents’ fists in his guts.

These assertions of “Australian values” tend to be energetically debated:

in Melbourne with French and Indian visitors to Australia on trains, buses and trams,

in university college meetings in Sydney,

in the halls, offices and party rooms of Parliament House in Canberra

and particularly on commercial radio breakfast programs everywhere

Sir Roger was reeling from the onslaught and disheartened by the proponents’ ignorance, illogic, idiocy and illiteracy; by their fear, spite, narrow-minded prejudice, stupidity and frankly pre-agricultural social views. 

Someone had omitted to convey to them that for their brain to operate as advertised it is necessary to update the database regularly and to calibrate it with reality

Someone had omitted to explain to them that the texts on which their ethics are based and with which they (selectively) justify much of their self-righteous bombast are not actually sacred but were all simple rulebooks written thousands of years ago to enable the social control of brutal sand tribes, to suit their primitive times and conditions, calm their existential terrors, alleviate their ontological horrors, excuse their ignorance and justify their brutality. 

Someone had failed to explain to them that the foundation myths, the stories of Australia on which they hang their narrative of Australian culture, are just that. Myths. It never happened, Bruce.

It’s just like when your girlfriend lied to you – you weren’t the first. 

Dismayed by the galloping erosion of the humane, generous, fair and tolerant values of his Australia Sir Roger therefore repaired to the mountain top seeking counsel and wisdom from the winds,  the silence and the intelligences of the cosmos. 

Sir Roger was generously granted that counsel and has returned from the mountain top bearing enlightenment. 

Over the next few days and weeks he will share with his world these insights into the best of human and Australian values. 

 

 

Malcolm Turnbull: Next Prime Minister?

Malcolm Turnbull: Next Prime Minister?

 

Backing into the limelight


Sir Roger believes
Malcolm Turnbull could easily be the next Prime Minister of Australia.
What do you think? Here’s why:

1) The coalition and the right wing media will bring too much pressure on Julia Gillard about the Slater and Gordon quagmire – either facts or compelling implications – so that either she can’t stay, or she becomes too much of a liability to the party’s electoral success, vacating the PM-ship by choice or force.

2) Rudd will decline to nominate for leadership of the party, so he will be drafted and oh so very reluctantly accept (as someone described T. E. Lawrence, “always backing into the limelight”).

3) With Rudd at the helm again, Abbott, who already is hugely disliked (and an immature fool), barely tolerated as “at least not Gillard”, will preside over disastrous poll results (because Rudd will easily usurp his role as “at least not Gillard”).

4) Abbott will be unceremoniously dumped and Turnbull, who is hugely liked, will replace him. Christopher (Politics Beats Values) Whine, by the way, will immediately explain that while he couldn’t say so he always hated Abbott, thought he was the wrong man for the job, and preferred Turnbull.

5) People are already angry at Labor which in most policies is indistinguishable from the coalition; indistinguishable even from those of the war criminal  John Howard. People are looking for an alternative but they are a bit fond of action on global warming and humane treatment of refugees, both of which might just conceivably be revived under Rudd.

6) Nevertheless Turnbull is better liked than Rudd and, promising to pursue good, moral and humane policies and good real Australian values, will win the next federal election in a landslide.

7) The Greens and Independents will disappear from the Reps – mostly because people are so bloody … we’ll stop there.

 

Assessment of Current Australian Politics

Assessment of Current Australian Politics

 

Executive Summary 

  

Sir Roger has been absent from his adoring public. He has been busy, of course, and apologises from the bottom of what is left of his heart; from what is left of Australian politics by the Australian politicians who have mercilessly and inexorably broken it.

Sir Roger has made a deep study of the state of Australian politics over the last few weeks and the Executive Summary of his report is one line:

Bastards, cunts and ferals.

All of the politicians making public statements in Australia now are liars and dissemblers, desperately competing to be the first to dig Australian politics to the bottom of the political sewer.

They are weak, gutless, fear-driven cowards.

And they all seem to be trembling with terror in front of the toxic opinions of the deranged, ignorant, selfish, self-loathing, self-soul-saving, racist, hate-mongering, xenophobic Christians of Sydney’s west and Melbourne’s army of lip-service christian bogans.

Perhaps Judy Davis said much better (and more kindly) on the 7.30 Report on Thursday night:

“ I just wish that the politicians would have the courage to say what they believed was right, and if necessary walk away, just walk away from all the glory of office for the sake of what they believe is true. And I think that’s what the public wants.

Yes of course it’s exactly what the public wants. But they’re not going to get it.

Are our politicians really the best we can get? Do we really deserve this bunch of cheats and liars, dick measurers and gutless wonders? Are these bastards, cunts and ferals really a true reflection of who we are as a nation? Is this today’s high point of Australian politics?

And now Sir Roger needs to lie down with Johnny, or Jim and try to forget.

 

 

END OF: Assessment of Current Australian Politics

 

Julia Gillard, Kevin Rudd and the Red Cordial

Julia Gillard, Kevin Rudd and the Red Cordial

Ptthpphthphthppthphtthpphpth!

Sir Roger supposes that, given he is the default custodian of Australian Values, he is bound to comment on the recent burst of enthusiasm in Canberra.

The lesson to be learnt from it all is Don’t Let Unionists and the NSW Right Drink the Red Cordial. (They make such a mess all over the place.)

But where to start?

First,

we’d like to see the résumés of the people who have been advising Kevin Rudd for the last six months.

My god, there has rarely been such a display of collective stupidity, incompetence and/or self-serving inhumanity in federal politics since … since …  since Abbott & Costello, Sir Foppling Downer, Ruddock the Nazgûl, the tame but dreadful Keelty and, perhaps, DIC Correll, gave advice to John Howard.

Rudd was a joke for most of his leadership. And the joke was that he thought people voted for him. He thought, or came to believe, that people voted for him because they liked him. Pfffftt.

People voted for him so as not to vote for John Howard and his debauched, dissolute, corrupt, self-satisfied, complacent, arrogant party of political brigands.

They voted, specifically:

  • against Work Choices,
  • for responsible policy on climate change and the environment,
  • for human treatment of refugees and asylum seekers and
  • for an apology for what was done to generations of aboriginal people.

Rudd’s popularity was high for as long as there was a prospect he would deliver these things. And he did deliver more or less on Work Choices and certainly on the Apology.

But the doubts were there for years as he substituted imprecise promises of distant and uncertain reports-and-inquiries for actual action.

“We are acting decisively to set up an inquiry into whatever.”

Voters have felt betrayed especially about the acute need for action on mental health which has fallen away into nothing.

He looked cowardly when he distanced himself on a number of occasions from the bad news of broken promises which he ruthlessly forced his ministers to deliver while he was conveniently out of town. He didn’t look tough. He looked weasely.

The ascendancy of Tony Abbott has spooked him. And so he tried to look tough on the Mining Super Tax which he described as an example of revolutionising the taxation system which it patently was not. It was just a money grab and everyone knows it. Money to salve the hip-pocket nerve in the run-up to the next election. So we knew he lied about it being a revolution in taxation as long as this was the only recommendation of the hundred or two made by Henry that was taken on board. He recanted about the party political advertising “cancer” so we knew that he was unreliable, and untrustworthy – in fact that he was just another politician.

And he didn’t look strong against the miners. He just looked stupid. It wasn’t David and Goliath it was Dopey and Godzilla.

In his desperation to counter the attraction (he thought) and the traction of Tony Abbott he swung the party to the right. He matched Abbott on asylum seekers and he ditched climate change as policy – possibly the two biggest things that got him elected in the first place.

When he became Prime Minister he had placed the party in the centre right. That left the LibNuts nowhere to go but further to the looney right fringe, where Tony Abbott lives. Brendan Nelson and Malcolm Turnbull tried to contest the centre right and failed. All Rudd had to do was to stick to the centre right – humane social policies with responsible fiscal policies – and he would have been a three-term PM. But he got spooked.

The hilarious moment came, in fact when the night before he jumped he promised that Labor wasn’t going to lurch to the right into Abbott territory on climate change and refugees. But it already had! His asylum-seeker policies were as ruthless, at least in prospect, as John Howard’s, and his proposed action on climate change now non-existent, like Howard’s.

The other amusing thing he said was that he had been elected PM by the voters of Australia. This was not true. You can’t vote for the Prime Minister, just your local member and the factions elect the leader of the party. So the factions just unselected him as leader.

It was the lurch to the right that really opened up the Greens’ opportunity in the centre. They now look like the centre left instead of the looney left fringe. We can all see that they had been right all along, all those years of banging on about climate change and the environment and being ignored as radical-newage-pinko-leftie-drug-crazed-hippy-weirdos.

Oh, and gay.

And it turns out they were right and we should have listened to them way back then. But way back then they were unelectable. Now it is quite conceivable that they will hold the balance of power, possibly even in the Reps. It may be the only way to keep a rein on the ALP’s slide to the right.

Anyway, Rudd broke the faith and broke our hearts and he had to pay for it sooner or later.

The power brokers all have the Labor Party self-destruct DNA. You can see it in NSW every day. Two and a half years in power federally clearly is beyond their capacity to cope with. The boiler was bursting and they longed for the quiet, familiar decades of Opposition.

One doesn’t blame Gillard. She knew Rudd’s number was up (courtesy of the naughty boys who had drunk the red cordial) and she was obliged to take the opportunity.

One doesn’t care whether she’s a woman or not. It’s no big deal. Bandaranaike, Meir, Gandhi, Thatcher, Clark; Boudicca, Mary, Anne, ER, VR, EIIR. Xena. All have come before, elected and unelected, both. We already know for goodness’ sake, that women are up to the task. They always have been. What one does care about is whether she does a good job for the country.

One dislikes her. Especially her awful, grating voice and strident accent. Someone on a radio talkback show said they liked her because she was a good communicator and a straight talker and they were looking forward to the end of all the political spin.

One begs your pardon?

One cannot recall a single time that Gillard ever actually answered a question, or at least the one that was asked. All there ever is with her is spin and slogans and ignoring the question. Here’s an answer I prepared earlier. Over and over and over again. She is a waste of space and a waste of time.

And she is still preferable to Tony Abbott by a long long way.

And if she softens asylum seeker policy and urgently implements real climate change policy and compromises on the mining tax grab and addresses mental health then one might change one’s mind about her.

We don’t deserve this bullshit. We shouldn’t be limited to choosing between the Liars and the Other Liars and the pot-smoking-long-haired-tree-huggers.

There ought to be a law that says anyone who wants to be a politician is banned from running for office and the politicians should be drafted the way juries are.

UPDATE:

The question whether the bloodletting was worth it pragmatically (and what else is there in politics?) may be answered by the betting market, although one wasn’t watching before the guillotine fell to know how much tightening there has been.

Betting on the election result is strongly towards Labor. Centrebet has Labor at $1.36 against $3.05; Sportingbet has $1.40 against $2.85.

Top election date betting is for August 28: Centrebet $3, Sportingbet $3.50; September 4: Centrebet $5.50, Sportingbet $5; any date in 2011: Centrebet $6, Sportingbet $5.50. All other dates in 2010 are at longer odds. So the punters apparently expect Gillard to go early while she’s got the new-girl bounce. Hmmm. (Strokes chin)

MORE UPDATE:

Recommended: more, more professional, betting analysis, immediate polling results and other entrail sorting available from Possum Pollytics and the Pollbludger. The new-girl bounce is there but would Kevin have won anyway?