September 14, 2004


Forget the polls, forget the pundits, forget most everything you’ve ever learned. Robert Bosler, the Sydney Morning Herald's Mark Latham specialist, has decided who will win the election:

The winning energy is not on Howard. It is on Mark Latham.

The energy, it is on him! Take that to the bank, people.

Posted by Tim Blair at September 14, 2004 04:58 AM

I bet you have to free the brains to get the energy on you.

Posted by: R C Dean at September 14, 2004 at 05:40 AM

Good post-election taunt:

"Hey Latham! Did ya get any on ya?"

The "you wanker" part is optional...

Posted by: mojo at September 14, 2004 at 05:56 AM

May the Forks be with him (stick one in, he's done).

Posted by: ras at September 14, 2004 at 06:21 AM

Lots of people bet in such small stakes that they convert them to energy to express them in everyday units. A gram gives you about 100,000,000,000 kwh of energy. The sun uses that trick to appear more important. So anyway the money is on this guy, a small amount. ``If you converted it to energy, it would be a lot.''

Posted by: Ron Hardin at September 14, 2004 at 06:39 AM

I wonder if Bosler detected that energy with crystals? Or perhaps he used a pyramid?

I hear they sharpen razor blades, too.

Posted by: Steven Den Beste at September 14, 2004 at 07:48 AM

So Latham is joule-encrusted then?

Posted by: Paul Zrimsek at September 14, 2004 at 08:27 AM

this question is for the Aussie readers...who DO you think will win? Are the press and leftys sitting in their echo chamber talking about Lathums energy, or DOES he have the advantage.

Posted by: debbie at September 14, 2004 at 10:40 AM

There be similar types of healin be goin on at sister Margit's site where the energy of the lord Latham is at work.

Come, be cured, Its a miracle.

Posted by: nic at September 14, 2004 at 10:40 AM


Howard will win. There isn't really any momentum outsuiode media land for change. The more the media carp, the more votes J-Ho will get.

Yesterday I watched as the ALP candidate in my electorate was cold shouldered in an attempt to hand out leaflets to the voters at Bondi Junction Station. This morning in contrast Malcolm Turnbull, the Tory candidate, was getting lots of positive reaction.

Labor just can't be trusted on security and border protection.

Posted by: Toryhere at September 14, 2004 at 11:12 AM

He may be a Joule to Bosler but would you buy a used car from this man

Posted by: Terry at September 14, 2004 at 11:14 AM

Bookies know more than anyone and currently Centrebet has Labor at $2.75 and the Coalition at $1.40.

Posted by: slatts at September 14, 2004 at 11:44 AM

slatt that means that Latham's got a bounce.JH was $1.30.So now he is only going to get creamed not obliterated.

Posted by: gubbaboy at September 14, 2004 at 11:53 AM

Don't you just love the SMH's the unbiassed reporting of the election! This morning's example: turning Howard's suggestion that there might have been an SMS warning of the Djakarta bombing into a huge front-page lead story with the banner headline: "Howard went overboard on bombing warning".. overboard... geddit? Nudge nudge, wink wink.

Posted by: Freddyboy at September 14, 2004 at 12:11 PM

Latham actually went out to $3.20 over the weekend and Howard to $1.30.

Comments on the margoyle's site were definately 'kooky'.

People claiming that the country 'is' broken and that our foreign debt, not national debt, is almost 395 billion. Did Simon Crean give them those fugures???

Claims that not signing Kyoto were damaging the environment, even though Australia is currently the only country that is under the Kyoto targets.
Not a single signatory of Kyoto has gone close to meeting their emission targets.

The old jaffa though is "we need someone who'll give us back democracy!"

How, with compulsory union membership?

Latham and his voters ar fuckwits.

Posted by: scott at September 14, 2004 at 12:16 PM

I sent the Margolye a comment on todays little rant and surprise surprise it didn't make the comments section.

The media is doing all it can to get Latham over the line but surprisingly there has been little traction.

Just have a look at todays admission by Latham, he admitted that his policy has big problems, it will be interesting to see how much time that concession is given in the news tonight plus, his package is yet to be costed by Treasury so its just a list of promises.

Now he promising to cut hospital waiting lists, didn't Bob Carr come to power on a similar pledge and aren't NSW hospital lists at record levels.

What amazes me is that people would actually vote to give the unions more power, they represent 20% of the workforce and yet will control the decision making process of this country.

Posted by: Nuffy at September 14, 2004 at 12:44 PM

"I bet you have to free the brains to get the energy on you."

Haha, that little Margo reference wasn't lost on me...

Posted by: Brent at September 14, 2004 at 02:31 PM

Nuffy, you wont get into the webdiary if she knows your screen name. You weren't expecting the ugly one to let you enlighten them with facts did you??

Another point the laborites have missed nuffy is that Latham said he is going to apologise to the aboriginals immediately on behalf of you and me. That mean that we will be liable, because we're 'white' for compensation.

The litigation will be enormous and all at the tax payers expense.

I was amazed at how quickly Labor claimed that the caller in Perth was a Liberal stooge but haven't since issued her an apology for making such a statement. It just shows how much contempt Latham and his party have for low income workers, especially those that can count.

Posted by: scott at September 14, 2004 at 05:21 PM

I don't want Latham to win, but I fear he might.

After all, the Howard government has been there since '96, and rare is the government that last longer than eight years. (Hawke very nearly lost the 1990 election to Andrew Peacock, in fact, he lost the popular vote if I recall).

Posted by: Quentin George at September 14, 2004 at 05:35 PM

"The aura, the aura"--Colonel Kurtz

Posted by: JDB at September 14, 2004 at 05:40 PM

Whether it is Kerry vs Bush or Latham vs Howard, leaders' debates are, of necessity, mainly generalisations (or worse: too many promises and not enough substance). Let's face it, there are'nt too many charismatic JFKs, Reagans, Menzies or Clintons around to help with boring material. So Howard was right to limit leader debate! He was also right to emphasise the fact that he is a member of a team. However good either might be, he is'nt a one-man band. Secondly, we should not confuse our form of executive government with that in the US where Bush's cabinet members are NOT allowed to be part of the legistlative arm of government...whereas ours MUST be MPs or Senators. This means that our cabinet ministers are much closer to policy all the way from formulation, through legislation to administration in their departments...which should make them fairly expert in their portfolio. Conclusion: THEY are the ones we shold be listening to; so let's get down to spefics and have a series of debates between the various ministers and the shadow ministers... asap after each policy area is COMPLETELY settled: i.e. no more promises, all cards on the table (fully checked and funded) and no more aces up sleeves). Now, who's going first: Crean vs Costello; Gillard vs Abbott; Macklin vs Nelson, etc. etc. bring on the experts and leave the generalists at home. If we MUST live through the next three and a half weeks let's try to make it a bit more interesting. It may help us evaluate the (often complex) policies AND the teams rather than all this concentration the leaders

Posted by: Terry at September 14, 2004 at 05:59 PM

ABC drive time radio in Melbourne definitely campaigning for Latham. In the space of 15 minutes, heard an extended interview with some indie filmmaker who, along with 29 of her mates, made a collection of 15 short films which are collectively titled "Time to go, John". Film being launched by Margo - bet it was all publicly funded, too. Followed immediately by very soft interview with Vic treasurer John Brumby, claiming that $200 million a year is being taken out of the Vic state budget, so blame John Howard because we don't have the money we projected to spend on police, schools, hospitals and roads. That's what you get when the ABC defines "balance" as an equal number of minutes given to each party, and ignores the qualitative slant made by their on-air announcers and editors.

Posted by: steve at September 14, 2004 at 06:56 PM

Steve - I think I heard somewhere that REHAME the guys that monitor all media have been given the job to monitor the ABC as to how much air time is given to all the political parties.Problem is I guess the election will be over before they bring out the results.

Posted by: mike t at September 14, 2004 at 07:35 PM

Notice the poll results on ACA lately - on at least 3 polls Latham is not in the race. Crikey thinks 20000 or 50000 votes can not be right! the ABC doesn't report it and I have not seen any questions being put to Latham or any drones for their response. Can you imagine the field day if Jonny was getting this response ! What do you think is happening out there ! Will it make GOFF look like he was popular in 1975?

Posted by: BUZZLE at September 14, 2004 at 08:18 PM

Briefly saw Lacker on TV tonight in a party political advertisement. He had a very conservative set in the background and blathered on about the "ladder of opportunity" (unfortumately for him, that's the ladder that Howard erected for the battlers after 1996 and which Labor would dismanle with increased Union power, high interest rates and high taxes). Obviously, the ALP aren't familiar with the rules of political broadcasts as set down in "Yes Minister", otherwise they wouldn't have put Lacker agianst a staid background wearing a dark suit. This means that what he is proposing is radical and new fangled, even though he's trying to pretend he's steady and conservative.
Howard by 15.

Posted by: Toryhere at September 14, 2004 at 08:51 PM


You're right about the Margoyle, she is not interested in balance, shes got her knickers in a twist about Howard and nothing is too outrageous to be published on the webdiary.

It has got me fucked what the SMH editors see in her and that pap she serves up. She is the most biased, bitter, twisted and just plain pathetic person I have come across on either side of politics and that is saying something.

She can however take credit for making me a LNP fan, I wasn't overly interested in politics but I got sick of her negativity, that really crystalized my thoughts, I wonder how many other people are like me!

JWH thanks you Margo, keep up the good work!

Posted by: Nuffy at September 14, 2004 at 11:01 PM