Well good on that little journo who found the link between Malcolm Turnbull and Mossack Fonseca. That’s hard and boring work. Snaps to that person!
Gentle reader, you might need this t-shirt. #justsaying
Let’s talk about The Debate. Like most Australians, I did not watch the debate because I have a busy, busy life filled with real people. So I am going on hearsay here but as best I can believe people said irrelevant things, claims were made, the choice of tie was important and no one died. Here are the highlights I gleaned from the interwebs.
- Bill Shorten’s tie was a bit too long as ideally it should finish just on the belt line. This is how the Herald Sun saw it because: JOURNALISM.
- At some stage, Peta Credlin called Malcolm Turnbull Mr Harbourside Mansion. This is a weird insult. It’s kind of like calling someone Mr Unachievable Hair. Like, it’s definitely insulting but also confusing. Does it show a lack of political judgment to point out that Malcolm Turnbull is obscenely wealthy? Australians already know that and it doesn’t seem to bother them. Like Americans who like Trump, there is a huge swathe of people who like their politicians to be rich because it makes them look more capable of handling other people’s money. And Turnbull didn’t inherit it all either. Not sure about this one, Ms Credlin. Mathias Cormann claimed Mr Turnbull was “very much in touch” which helped a lot.
- A hundred swinging voters at the “people’s forum” gave the win to Mr Shorten 42 to 29, with 29 undecided. That is a lot of undecided. I mean, it’s not like anyone was going to hold them to it. It was still secret ballot. How hard can it be to pick one or the other in a meaningless televised debate? There’s no consequences for picking wrong or indeed picking at all yet still they resisted. Was the debate that bad or are people just getting more indecisive? I weep for the future.
- Far out, you know it’s a long campaign when the only thing on the grid for a debate day is an announcement about pathology. There’s A LOT of days to fill with announcements. Stay tuned for the announcement about worm farms, ink price relief and the gardening policy.
- I watched five minutes of the debate online and felt Malcolm’s repeated use of the names of question askers was obvious but nice (politeness costs nothing). I feel like Bill’s microphone holding looked very natural; he trained for that.
- One additional matter about the debate, brought to my attention by Mr Wiltowonga, an avid reader of stopitiloveit.com is that Mr Shorten said, “Anyone who tells you that money doesn’t matter in education is selling you a pig and a pope.” This is terrific. He obviously meant to say “pig in a poke” which is a great old fashioned expression about purchasing meat in a bag purporting to be pork that turns out to be a cat (but he misspoke if you listen closely). Why would someone not check their bag of pork? People in olden times were exhausted and didn’t have time to check in bags. Anyway, creating a new expression, a pig and a pope, is part of the great Australian tradition of Joh Bjelke Petersen and the not Australian innovation of George W Bush. Who can forget his belief that single mothers are working hard to put food on their families? The only Pope associated with pigs which Mr Wiltowonga could find was Pope Sergius IV, born Pietro Martino Buccaporci, (literally, “Peter Pig’s Snout”). He was Pope from July 1009, until his death in May 1012. Sergius was famous for wanting to drive the Muslims out of Palestine. If this is dog whistling by Shorten about Islamic Extremism, it’s at a pitch so high, even most dogs can’t hear it. Pope John Paul II was also presented with a pig in Honiara in 1984. But why are we talking about popes? Didn’t Shorten convert to being a Protestant when he got married? Religion is so complicated.
- From my exhaustive statistical analysis, Shorten and Neutral were a 50/50 line ball but no one called it for Mal:
|Age, SMH||No knockout punch in debate||Neutral|
|AFR||PM Backpedals on health but Shorten wins||Shorten|
|Australian||Shorten wins the night 42-29 but note yet a winner||Shorten|
|Herald Sun||Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten’s leaders debate picked apart by body language and fashion experts||Neutral|
|ABC||Malcolm Turnbull announces pathology deal during debate with Bill Shorten||Neutral|
|Guardian||Bill Shorten wins audience vote at first leaders’ debate with Malcolm Turnbull||Shorten|
This Liberal Party Questionnaire purporting to be a list of questions asked of candidates is pretty much the best thing on the internet today. Is it real? We don’t know. We just don’t know. It looks tremendously comprehensive and I’ll say this for them, they really know how to get into the detail. One of the most forensic pieces of work the Liberals have done in the last five years. Some of my favourite questions are:
Has anyone alleged that they have been harassed or stalked by you?
Have you ever been prosecuted under the Corporations Law?
Have you ever sent any letters to the editor?
On the other hand, Liberal Party researchers, you still have to do your own research work. No candidate is going to get through an eight page survey. None. Would like to see some of the filled out surveys, yes?