ACNielsen’s errors are important:

Gary Morgan writes: Re. “Polling lessons from Election ’07” (yesterday, item 19). How could Irving Saulwick and Denis Muller write in their article: “Now it is undoubtedly true, as AC Nielsen’s John Stirton has acknowledged, that their final poll, showing a vast two-party-preferred lead of 14 points to Labor, was a “rogue” poll. That is, it was among the 5% of polls that produce results outside sampling variance. This is hard luck”. What has been conveniently forgotten is ACNeilsen published two final pre-election polls both giving: ALP 57%, L-NP 43% – one conducted by telephone and the other via the Internet – two “rogue” polls RUBBISH – the chance is 0.05 X 0.05 = 0.0025 ie. not very likely. ACNielsen’s errors are important – ACNielsen are at present trying to win the Australian radio rating tender which produces data which is used to sell $ millions of radio advertising. In the US ACNielsen’s TV rating service is used by advertisers to place $ billions of TV advertising while in NZ they are the main provider of TV, radio and print media data (Roy Morgan competes in NZ with print media readership data). ACNielsen have shown the Australian information industry that you can get it wrong twice using different methods. Ask Rupert Murdoch and others in the US what they think about the ACNielsen US TV rating figures – I suggest they will all say “too often wrong”!

Turnbull and the leadership:

Gary Price writes: Re. “Malcolm Turnbull, up close and political” (yesterday, item 2). A couple of months ago I wrote in this space that strong long-term leaders do not suffer equivalent talent anywhere near them, in case they lose a challenge for the leadership. So here we are after the election and to the Libs great good fortune there might one left – Malcolm Turnbull. I might be wrong but everyone else still standing appears to be dross. Here’s hoping Mr Turnbull is as smart and hard a worker as they say because he will need to be, and we need him to be – we don’t need another rampant government propelled by the ill-considered ideology of cashed-up special interests just yet – or ever. Is anyone else looking forward to the awesome prospect of two young, energetic, hard-working political leaders duking it out across the table in parliament? And the potential rewards for democracy in this country, after such a miserable time for it over the last few years?

Katherine Stuart writes: Greg Barns wrote: “This is a man who sends you emails at 3am. He is someone who constantly churns out ideas, strategies and missives to his staff. Turnbull works and works and works and travels, travels and travels for the cause. It does not matter what hour of the day. Just assume that Malcolm will be thinking and working. Of course he does sleep. But he struck me as being in the mould of Margaret Thatcher – requiring little sleep in order to function effectively.” Function effectively? I’m sorry, but this sounds more like a man in need of serious psychotherapy to deal with his inability to sleep (one of the classic signs of clinical depression) and possible manic periods, not to mention the teeth-grinding commonly linked to some mentally unhealthy blockage in being able to express authentic emotions described elsewhere in this article. The idea that someone who is “brilliant intellectually” is somehow acceptably excused (even discouraged) from being human in some kind of weirdly 1960s Superman sort of vein is surely pretty much old hat? Turnbull is a man who doubtless eats, sh-ts and sleeps like the rest of us – and needs to. Let’s not mythologise him just to fill the spin vacuum left by the post-electoral-defeat implosion of the Liberal party.

Russell Bancroft writes: If Turnbull wins the leadership, what chance an Australian head-of-state will be back on the agenda? With bi-partisan support it might just get up.

Howard’s cheerleaders:

Terry Costello writes: Re. “Exit, pursued by a dancing bear” (yesterday, item 6). Hopefully the end of Howard will mean people like Gerard Henderson and his ilk will be put back in their box. Henderson might be right about Howard leaving the Liberals in a terrible situation but I never heard him criticise Howard or the fact that he stayed on too long until after the election. The culture warriors whilst for awhile being Howard’s greatest allies in the end proved to be his greatest weakness because Howard obviously believed a lot of what they had written and said about him and his divisive policies. It will be interesting to see what the Howard cheerleaders do next. Will they stick with the Howard line or will they try to get on the Rudd juggernaut whilst no one is looking? I suspect many people in the Canberra Press gallery are more interested about being on the winning side to share the spoils of victory than actually believing in any principles.

Ruckus in the tally room:

Liam Downing writes: Re. “Election night ruckus threatens tally room’s future” (yesterday, item 23). I agree with Glenn Dyer. Having attended the National Tally Room for the first time in my life on Saturday night after waiting for an hour or so in the line, I will be immensely saddened if it is abandoned. To me, the Tally Room on Election Night was a rambunctious celebration of democracy. If it sounded like a sports contest, we should be happy! It clearly means that people are engaged in the political process, rather than distanced by an elitist studio environment into which only the most powerful are allowed. If you haven’t already, check out the YouTube videos to get a feel for what was happening. Admittedly, it was a noisy, primarily Labor crowd, but there were Liberals, Greens, Democrats and various other groups in various levels of happiness attending as well. Surely if the noise bothers Kerry O’Brien that much the AEC could build a soundproof glass wall behind the studios and make the media pay for it.

Putting the family first:

Mungo MacCallum writes: Re. “Politicians honour Year of the Family” (yesterday, item 13). I know I’ve asked this before, but when politicians retire so they can spend more time with their families, does this mean that they went into politics so they could spend less?

The 39 who didn’t want Kevin:

Dave Liberts writes: Re. “Don’t forget 39 Labor MPs didn’t want Kevin Rudd” (yesterday, item 18). Alex Mitchell obviously doesn’t know too many Federal Labor MP’s. Any suggestion that Rudd’s relatively narrow party room victory in December last year somehow signifies that the ’39 MP’s who didn’t want Kevin Rudd’ are only starting to ‘suck up’ now is ridiculous. For starters, the polls leapt from the day Rudd took the leadership, and only improved from there – guaranteeing many of these MPs their inevitable re-election. They’d have felt genuine gratitude for his performance for months. Similarly, I’m sure the absence of any internal obvious internal division in caucus (despite Rudd’s extraordinary changes to age-old caucus practices; he is selecting his front bench without a faction-controlled party room ballot) is evidence that Rudd himself has worked to smooth over any old cracks. Throw in the inevitable doubts which had to exist about electing any untested leader only eleven months out from an election at a time of economic prosperity and near-full employment, the traditional Beazley allies whose votes weren’t personal, a few votes cast for Beazley by MP’s who knew the ballot was a sealed deal and wanted to send a long-serving leader on his way with the dignity he deserved and you’ve got quite a lot of the 39. There will be no recriminations, at least not before the polls get pretty bad for a drawn-out period, and you’d have to expect that anyway whether Rudd had won by 10 votes or unanimously last December.

Mungo, Gough, Italian and tax:

Christopher Dale writes: Re. “Mungo: The dubious legacy of John Winston Howard” (yesterday, item 5). It is not often that we catch Mungo out. In his piece on the emergence from the Howard years I did like his misquote from Gough who of course would have quoted the last line of Dante’s Inferno correctly, notwithstanding his poor Italian in the Leggo Tomato Sauce ads. E quindi uscimmo a riveder le stelle. (And thence we emerged, to see the stars again) Please pass on my comments to him. He can purge his mistake by letting me know in what context Gough quoted Dante. Just curious…

John Bowyer writes: Regarding Mungo MacCallums little bit of gloating today. One thing. Read back on one of the taxes the GST replaced, “Sales Tax”, now that was a lovely tax. The tax office changed it and then had to delay the change over for some months because even they could not understand what they had done! The only thing wrong with the GST was the capitulation to silly Meg Lees by not making it all encompassing. Now it’s all Labor government of course it can be increased! Whoops, they would never ever do that surely?

First Dog on the Moon:

Justin Hill writes: Re. “First Dog on the Moon” (yesterday, item 10). Congratulations for making it permanent, I have no idea what it is on about most of the time but that doesn’t really matter.

Andrew Fisher and Kevin Rudd:

Maureen Chambers writes: Re. “Turnbull knows not to turn away opportunity” (yesterday, item 15). Charles Richardson wrote: “… first-term opposition leaders are not all bad. True, none has won federally since Andrew Fisher in 1914, but the last two – Andrew Peacock and Kim Beazley – both came very close: Beazley won a majority of the vote at his first attempt, and Peacock did the same at his second.” Don’t quite understand this – why isn’t Kevin Rudd mentioned as being a first-term opposition leader who is the first since Andrew Fisher in 1914 to win federally? Am I missing something?

Editorials, red hair and sinking ships:

Jeff Marsh writes: Re. Sunday’s editorial. I thought the comment “Which is all very well, except now we get Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister. For three years. Had anyone thought that through?” were you guys just being ironic! You know, like calling a bloke with red hair; “Bluey”

Linda Mottram writes: Re. Monday’s editorial. Though the sinking ship analogy was obvious, it made me chuckle heartily… I have shared it far and wide on this side of the planet (where I won’t be living for much longer). Very funny. Very apt. Very fine election coverage which kept me posted far better than the mainstream. Well done.

McMillan and Kooyong did better than stated:

Wayne Robinson writes: Re. “Perhaps the small “l’s” provide a clue” (yesterday, item 21). Actually the sitting Liberal members in McMillan and Kooyong did better than stated by Richard Farmer; both had a swing to them on the 1st preference votes (Russel Broadbent, a big one of 7.53%, and who actually achieved an absolute majority before the counting of preferences).

No Ruddslide in Tassie:

Louise Crossley writes: Amidst the euphoria of its national triumph, Labor should take a close look at the election results in Tasmania. There was no Ruddslide here, in fact the reverse. In all five seats there was a swing against Labor compared to 2004, while in every seat the Greens increased their vote. So even though Labor won the 2PP vote in every seat it was only on the back of Greens preferences. And the third Labor seat in the Senate comes in part from Bob Brown’s excess quota. This is clearly not an endorsement of Labor, but rather of the Greens’ rejection of the Tamar valley pulp mill which was the major focus of its campaign. Think again Mr Rudd, this issue will not go away, and you do not have a mandate to allow the mill to be built without further scrutiny.

Director liability:

Andrew Brown writes: Re. “ASIC boss wants softer line on director liability” (yesterday, item 33). Adam Schwab’s comments on potential lessening of personal liability on company Directors unfortunately have resonance only at the very large end of public company life. For those of us operating at the smaller end of the public company market, D’Aloisio’s mooted review is welcome news. We know smaller companies are the lifeblood of our economy, and that trying to raise capital for them can, at times, be an arduous task – especially with no realistic alternative to the ASX in the public sphere. The costs involved in running a smaller public company escalated dramatically from 2003, as compliance regimes tightened to a draconian degree, with legal fees per hour on the increase, and a greater requirement to use lawyers to create an acceptable paper trail, offsetting the decline in price of D&O and PI insurance (a cyclical event). The structural balance is starting to be redressed a little with, for example, reduced paperwork for new capital raisings via a rights issue as markets use the benefits of continuous disclosure to a greater degree. The biggest issue, however, remains attracting talent to smaller company boards. Numerous highly capable people think I’m insane to sit on public boards which pay $25-$35k per annum and assume the current level of personal liability, especially if the underlying company is in a “start-up” phase or needs corporate surgery. Their fears are heightened by the increased use of litigation funding, and the outlandish cost of court access in Australia, where D&O insurance only goes so far. Schumpter’s notion of “creative destruction” inevitably means some companies won’t make it, but to torture the Directors who make a genuine attempt at growth or regeneration is hardly reasonable. As a Director who has had the unfortunate experience of having to put two companies into administration, there’s enough angst dealing with the fallout from employees and creditors, as well as the reasonable demands of ASIC and administrators, without the worry of having your net worth reduced to zero by egregious bureaucrats or lawyers. Have a jibe at the Old Boy’s Club by all means, but don’t let it colour your view of the real world out there.

Send your comments, corrections, clarifications and c*ck-ups to boss@crikey.com.au. Preference will be given to comments that are short and succinct: maximum length is 200 words (we reserve the right to edit comments for length). Please include your full name – we won’t publish comments anonymously unless there is a very good reason.