Let's drop the drivel and find a real story.

We've come to a pretty pass when journalists are again engaging in petty cut-and-paste politics, and puerile analysis, this time about disunity in the Federal Liberal Party.  

The leaked email, leapt on first by the leaper of leapers Glen Milne, was initially referred to as a liberal party squabble, nyer, OK, maybe he has a point, but then it became a division in the party and not just in one paper. Almost as soon as the story has been whipped up out of nowhere, poorly analysed and reported, we get a flurry of contradictory stories suggesting poor Mr Nelson is calling for party unity, burying the hatchet (in whom we might ask), and generally trying to ease his way out of a major conflagration.

A major conflagration entirely lit and fed by poor analysis on the part of headline grabbing journalists, editors, sub-editors and the rest.

With thousands of words and dozens of column inches now dedicated to this drivel, I can only bury my fingers in my keyboard to bemoan this kind of cheap trick journalism, and hope that it soon gives way to some real investigative reporting which will contribute, rather than detract from, our democratic process.  

By Philip Argy

Without detracting from the new Government's victory, the media really does a poor job in reporting facts.  With a 5% to 6% swing from the Coalition to Labor, it means that 94% to 95% of voters voted exactly the same as they did in 2004.  Out of about 13.5 million voters, that means around 800,000 people changed their vote.  But of those, some were in electorates where a swing of that magnitude didn't change the result becuase the incumbent had a greater margin, and in others most of the swing was 'absorbed' by the margin, so that the no. of votes that actually determined the outcome of the election were probably less than 100,000 across the country, and perhaps even as few as 20,000.  Ultimately you have to wait for the results to be formally declared and then see by how many votes the ALP candidate won in the aggregate across the seats that changed hands to change the majority in the House of Reps.

In an average electorate of 80,000 voters a 5% swing is 4,000 votes.  Very few seats were wrested with a margin of that magnitude, so at the end of the day, what are we to make of it all?  In Bennelong, for example, it has been suggested that there is a large enough Chinese community that if they all found appealing the idea of having a Prime Minister who could speak mandarin, and they voted for Labor as a consequence, that was enough to unseat the PM.  We may never know, but language like landslide and overwhelming mandate and suggestions that the Howard government was despised don't seem apt to me given the facts.