Tim Blair

A sample of only 600?!? On 600, the 53% result is only about 1.5 std devs above 50/50.

And with not enough to assert for the entire population, they then break it down by age and gender?

Obviously, not having a freakin' clue about statistics presents no obstacle to the publication of polls.

I recently conducted a similar poll. It had a sample size of one, and was held over a vast area that reached from one corner of the room to the other. Here are the complete results:

• Which candidate will you be voting for in the next election? Voldemort!
• If you plan to direct your preferences to any particular candidate, who will this candidate be?Phillippe, of course!
• Say, answering all those questions is tough work - would you like a chocolate bar?
Yes. Yes I would.

From this completely scientific and thoroughly objective poll, I conclude that Lord Voldemort will soon come to power in the next election, in an unholy alliance with Urkkon of the Davvrus. TREMBLE, AUSTRALIA, AND FEAR THE WRATH OF VOLDEMORT!

Worth noting that the same poll had Labor up by a much more impressive margin last time around. And it covers only NSW and Victoria. And it has a grand total of 600 respondents.

So, it's pretty much garbage.

And it turns out one of the zombies in the public service wants to bring the children overboard scandal (quote, unquote) up again. If Labor takes the bait and is kind enough to fight this election on illegal arrivals, you can put another ten points in the Coalition's column.

Oh, come on. You're complaining that they used the term "phoney campaign"?

I saw a poll taken in Berkeley - John Kerry is expected to win 98% of the vote.

A similar poll in Chicago gives Kerry a lead of 108% to 4%.

Front page favourable SMH poll result.Gang of 43 for truth in Government.Valder comes out on the Sunday programme regretting helping Howard to leadership(afraid of being roughed up by Liberal heavies)kids overboard gets another airing.I would say that not only the SMH are getting desperate, one nut is throwing some heavy duty dirt at the moment.How he keeps a straight face while talking about restoring respect to the Australian political process I'll never know.

Welcome back to the Children Over-Board take 2.

Although I vaguely remember a full parliamentary inquiry, Labor witch-hunt, that failed to find the PM guilty of misleading the public given the information he received...

A little strange don't you think that now just prior to an election someone remembers telling the PM about the details. Is he upset because he wasn't asked to be part of the 43?

An interesting issue is Scratfon's current status. Scrafton was a highly ambitious public servant and something of a high flyer - he went for graduate recruit in 1985 to Divsion Head in 2002 - and was by all outward indicators well in line for a Dep Sec job in Defence or some other large Department. Then suddenly, according to his letter, he has "retired" - not resigned, not moved to the private sector, just "retired". It's out of character, and in any case he wouldn't be old enough to retire, 55 being the minimum age in the APS. Scrafton was an older graduate - say early 30s in 1985 - but it still means he's at best only in his early fifties. So has he resigned or was he packaged out or what?? And what, therefore, are his issues??

That's all pretty curious, regarding Scrafton's status. My gut-level reaction is that he's a partisan shill, and I believe that will be the reaction of most folks following this story. As funny as the references to him "breaking his three year silence" (coincidentally, weeks before a poll is called) are, they raise one very pathetic fact: Labor still wants to make this campaign about something that happened even before the last election was held.

Bad idea on their part. If you want to campaign on a scandal or even a psuedo-scandal, you'd be well advised to ensure that the subject matter is one you're comfortable with. Sure, you may make Howard's credibility a central issue in the campaign. Personally, I doubt they will manage to do even that; most people who aren't partisan zombies concluded two things when the initial investigation was underway: (1) Howard was lying through his teeth; and (2) they really couldn't care less.

But you unavoidably revive the treatment of boat people as a political issue, or at the very least a factor weighing on voters' minds even if it isn't explicitly discussed in the media. That's something that most Liberal supporters are more than happy to see occur. The big question is ... is Labor?

Actually, there's one thing that bothers me - and bothers me a lot - about the media's treatment of this subject. And that's the rapidly emerging conventional wisdom that "children overboard" was "a deciding factor in the 2001 election" because it generated ill feeling towards boatpeople.

It could be the case that I'm remembering a different election to the folks in medialand, but from memory the folks had decided at least since Tampa that the boatpeople weren't the sort of guys and gals we wanted here. That attitude was so firmly established that children overboard could have, at most, comformed to it; the Government claims could not have hardened the attitude, much less created it. In fact, children overboard only started receiving blanket media coverage when it looked as though the Government might be caught in a lie.

To go back in time and turn it into an election-tipping factor is not only intellectually dishonest; it is also inconsistent with the media's own treatment of the issue at the time in question.

Good analysis GOE essentially correct ; hopwever I would add one caveat and that is if the government is clearly shown to be lying and not just "known" to be lying then the government is dead meat unless they can pull a rabbit out of the hat.The electorate's perception of Keating as arrogant and above the people was decisive in his defeat.

Ah, if there's anything that's sure to make me laugh, it's a political poll. I'm actually surprised they managed to get as many as 600 respondents. It's often a lot lower. These things mean NOTHING.

At least the politicians are smart enough to regard polls with a grain of salt, and as a result, they fight desperately for my vote right to the last minute. Very entertaining. Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight!

A couple of things about COB#2. Scraften says that no one in defence believed the children overboard story. Obviously he didnt talk to Admiral Barrie who went into the senate inqury still saying that the story was true. You remember him, he was the bloke that Laurie Oakes had a shot at calling him a dill. The people Scraften was talking to can't have known too much because they dont appear to have told him that a child was thrown from a boat: SIEV7 on the 25 October 2001 as witnessed by the crew of the HMAS Bendigo. You can look it up on Hansard, or Alan Ramsey, no friend of Howards, had an extract from it in an article in the SMH in Feb. 2002. Ramsey's conclusion was spot on: Defence didn't tell howard that the claim about SIEV4 was wrong but they also didn't tell him about the true child overboard story. I've thougt for a long time that the Howard team should get on the front foot about this, and now seems as good a time as any. As to Labor wanting to reopen the Senate inquiry to talk to scraften, if they wanted him that bad they should have subpoenaed him in 2002 and forced him to appear.

A couple of things about COB#2. Scraften says that no one in defence believed the children overboard story. Obviously he didnt talk to Admiral Barrie who went into the senate inqury still saying that the story was true. You remember him, he was the bloke that Laurie Oakes had a shot at calling him a dill. The people Scraften was talking to can't have known too much because they dont appear to have told him that a child was thrown from a boat: SIEV7 on the 25 October 2001 as witnessed by the crew of the HMAS Bendigo. You can look it up on Hansard, or Alan Ramsey, no friend of Howards, had an extract from it in an article in the SMH in Feb. 2002. Ramsey's conclusion was spot on: Defence didn't tell howard that the claim about SIEV4 was wrong but they also didn't tell him about the true child overboard story. I've thougt for a long time that the Howard team should get on the front foot about this, and now seems as good a time as any. As to Labor wanting to reopen the Senate inquiry to talk to scraften, if they wanted him that bad they should have subpoenaed him in 2002 and forced him to appear.

A couple of things about COB#2. Scraften says that no one in defence believed the children overboard story. Obviously he didnt talk to Admiral Barrie who went into the senate inqury still saying that the story was true. You remember him, he was the bloke that Laurie Oakes had a shot at calling him a dill. The people Scraften was talking to can't have known too much because they dont appear to have told him that a child was thrown from a boat: SIEV7 on the 25 October 2001 as witnessed by the crew of the HMAS Bendigo. You can look it up on Hansard, or Alan Ramsey, no friend of Howards, had an extract from it in an article in the SMH in Feb. 2002. Ramsey's conclusion was spot on: Defence didn't tell howard that the claim about SIEV4 was wrong but they also didn't tell him about the true child overboard story. I've thougt for a long time that the Howard team should get on the front foot about this, and now seems as good a time as any. As to Labor wanting to reopen the Senate inquiry to talk to scraften, if they wanted him that bad they should have subpoenaed him in 2002 and forced him to appear.

Thank you Grand Old Elephant, you are indeed correct sir. Labor and the media claimed it was Tampa that won the Libs the election, now Kim Beazely is claiming Children Overboard was the reason.

doolo, I too clearly remember Admiral Barrie claiming that he still believed the Children Overboard issue to be true. The senate inquirey only found that the video footage was inconclusive. Good enough for labor and Laurie Oaks to claim that anyone who thinks they saw a child tossed into the water must be a liar.
[Although it was agreed that at least one child was confirmed thrown into the water, but the Senate inquiry put that down to the mother ensuring the childs safety]. Remind me never to go on a cruise with her!!!

But there is another issue that is the key to the whole saga. How did the boat sink?

Video footage along with eyewitness reports that have been to date deemed truthful, clearly show that the boat was sabotaged by the asylum seekers.

They ruptured the fuel tanks and attempted to set the boat on fire as well as puncturing the hull of the boat. So whether the children were thrown in or not is irrelevant because either way they were going to end up in the water. It was the actions of those on board that put the kids in the water and sunk the boat.

Mike Scrafton had his chance three years ago to tell 'his' story. Maybe some coaching from Beazely has helped him with his version of events!!!

I was wrong yesterday about Scrafton's age. He's currently 56, which means he would have been at least 55 when he retired.

But that makes it odder. These days, no one who's a high flier and in the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme (CSS) (which Scrafton certainly was) retires at 55. You either resign at age 54 and 9 months (because the actuarial peculiarities of the CSS give you a bigger pension than if you go at 55) or you stay on because you want to push your career further. As I indicated yesterday, Scrafton had every prospect of further advancement. Despite what he told the Australian today about being victimised by Defence after his stint in Reith's office, he was in fact promoted from SES band 1 to SES band 2, with a significant increase in salary (and a better car). The general belief in Defence was that he was promoted because of his service in Reith's Office.

So what gives? What pissed him off?? Was it simply a better offer from the Victorian public service, or what??

doolo, thanks for the tip. I also found this little jaffa that illustrates how just pretending to throw a kid overboard is looked at by the Navy and Government.

Labor and Bob Brown should hang their heads in shame at this.

Crap, the link didn't work. Try this, it's in PDF format. http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/maritime_incident_ctte/report/f05.pdf

Oh, so THIS is where you guys are hiding your response to proof that Howard is a contemptible liar.

JWH 2004: I did not discuss the photographs with Scrafton.
JWH 2002 (to 4 Corners): I discussed the photographs with Scrafton.

Geez, Johnny, if you're going to go full-tilt with the lies, try to keep them consistent...

Jeremy, if you had a brain you wouldn't know it.

Just try the sites mentioned then tell me who's lying. It seems after reading the events of the Arunta, Adelaide, Bendigo, Warramunga, Leeuwin, Wollongong, Dobbo and Bunbury that Labor have some explaining to do.

For starters, SIEV 09 - SINAR BONTANG III, October 01, a male on board the said vessel tried to strangle a child.

Bendogo, 24 October 2001, a woman did threaten and then drop a screaming child into the ocean.
These are the words issued in a statement from Able Seaman Mathew Levi of the HMAS Bendigo in regards to the SIEV 07 incident, 24/10/01;

"I saw a child in a red jumpsuit being held over the side" of an asylum seekers' boat". [SIEV 07]
"I saw the child being dropped into the water as the hysterics and screams increased,"

SIEV 10 – SUMBER LESTARI, November 01, the vessel was torched and subsequently 33 children under the age of 12 were recovered from the water.

Each incident involved children being dangled over the side of the boats threatening to throw them into the water.
Even a tool like you Jeremy should be able to see that this is an extremely dangerous situation and one Labor doesn't want the public to know.

Thanks Scott for putting that prick Jeremy in his place with some facts.As for me I'll just remind the prick about Mr Hilton, Port Kembla ALP Branch President who was part owner in a brothel allegedly employing children as prostitutes.Perhaps that would be ALP policy,allow open door refugee policy so the likes of Mr Hilton can have a greater pool of the vulnerable to be parasitic on.