Another case of the SMH going soft on Labor

What is it with the SMH these days? Why do they feel they need to continually apologise for Labor, when it seems all the voters want to do is boot them out at the state level?

Here we have a story on the elections over the weekend. The big news of course was the WA election, which actually mattered. But the SMH decided to mix in the outcomes of two by-elections to soften the blow to Labor, and to try and undermine Nelson once again.

In Mayo, John Howard's former industrial relations adviser Jamie Briggs won narrowly after battling against 10 independent and minor-party candidates, none of whom directed preferences to him. He suffered a swing against him of more than 10 per cent.

I'd say that if he got no preferences whatsoever, then he did very well to retain the seat. Do these people not understand the importance and power of preferences in our electoral system? And this from a man who is described as the "Chief Political Correspondent"? What planet is he on?

The inclusion of the words "industrial relations adviser" is presumably an attempt to re-ignite supposed voter anger over Work Choices, and to have another stab at John Howard, now long departed from the national stage. Philip Coorey is really showing his true colours here.

By late yesterday, Mr Briggs held the once-safe seat by 52 per cent to 48 per cent over the Greens' Lynton Vonow.

Once safe seat? I am old enough to recall an election where it was thought Downer was going to get done-over by that Redgum fellow. Safe? Balls! Downer firmed up his majority over time, but the seat has always been awash with idiots like these (thanks to the Devils Kitchen for that). The video at that link is a must-see by the way. Listen out for the idiot hippy saying, "Bring me to this rock, which has had the most incredible life".

But back to the SMH. Check out the language:

Labor - "bruising"

Nationals - "obliterated", "massacre in Lyne", "thrash the Nationals candidate"

Liberals - "almost lost" (as opposed to winning 52 to 48 on the 2 party preferred vote, which is more than Kevin Rudd scored in the last election)

There is not a single word of analysis as to why Oakeshot won in Lyne. Not one word about the factors governing that byelection, just the fact that the Nationals did badly, and hence "Nelson is on the nose" - but it was the Nationals that got wiped out, not the Liberals! Does Coorey not understand the difference between the two parties, and the oddities that surround anything to do with the National Party?

So the real story, which is the probable defeat of Labor in WA - against all odds mind you - is whitewashed by two by-elections that have no impact on how the country is governed. In essence, the kick in the balls for Rudd is washed away and belittled by a nasty little attack on the coalition.

Coorey - what a complete tosser.

PS - just as I published this article, Bolt published one on the Mayo by-election which better describes the recent history of the electoral ups and downs that Downer had.

PPS - apparently the main theme of the Mayo by-election was the Murray-Darling, which presumably means there was a cavalcade of Green fear-mongering about climate change and all that other tripe. If that's the case, the the Libs did very well to retain the seat in the face of hysterical tirades by the likes of Wong, who would have been accusing the Libs of being "soft on climate change" etc etc.

Therefore, the result of this by-election is, if anything, a slap in the face for those that believe that the electorate has been suckered by this climate change hocus pocus. If a seat with one of the biggest Green votes in the country, and one affected directly by problems with the Murray-Darling, can't be captured by the loons, then climate change is dead in the water. Fatally holed below the waterline (assuming there is any water in the Murray-Darling) by Mayo.