Your Newspoll report is a highly selective interpretation:

Newspoll CEO Martin O’Shannessy writes: Re. “Newspoll chief regrets siding with The Australian” (yesterday, item 1). Your report is a highly selective interpretation of what was meant to be an education session for young members of the Market and Social Research Society as part of the Society’s Professional Development Programme. It’s true, I do regret getting my analysis wrong. Newspoll’s own figures (provided by me) a fortnight after the article showed that my predicted revival in the Coalition primary – based on historical trends -has yet to materialise. I should point out that other prominent speakers also recalled bad predictions they had made in the spirit of educating young researchers. However, your contention that I wrote the article at the urging of Dennis Shanahan is just not right. I’ve been informed that Dennis first saw it when he picked up the paper the next morning. The article was entirely my own idea and the fact that The Australian ran it on the front page was my evidence to say they wanted it. I offered the piece to The Australian because I thought Dennis Shanahan’s position was supportable.

Telstra responds:

Director of Telstra news services Andrew Maiden writes: Re. “Telstra profit disappoints as executive team scores a whole new deal” (yesterday, item 3). Stephen Mayne writes that Telstra CEO, Sol Trujillo, needs only a $7 share price to “walk away with more than $100 million from his five year trip Down Under”. First, Mayne ignores that share price is only a gateway: it earns Trujillo nothing unless many other targets are met. Second, you simply can’t attribute any specific value – let alone $100 million – without the service of a fortune-teller to tell you Telstra’s future share price. As for the rest of Telstra’s executives, they’d need to add $40,000,000,000 to shareholder wealth plus hurdle every transformation goal plus meet financial objectives just to achieve one-third of their entitlement. And if the entitlement were fully paid, Telstra’s shareholders will receive something in the order of 99 cents for every dollar of extra shareholders wealth created.

Ken Phillips and the IPA on IR policy:

Andrew Whiley writes: Re. “IR policy gives the lie to Rudd’s economic credibility” (yesterday, item 2). Ken Phillips decries “Wages Equity”, but isn’t that what his soul brothers in business and the conservative side of politics use as the argument to justify their own salary increases? I don’t see any Coalition MPs saying no to the latest “across the board” increase granted to them by their own centralised wage fixing body, the Remuneration Tribunal. No individual bargaining or wage competition when it comes to pollies hip pockets. Nor do we hear a squeak along similar lines from him when CEOs and execs trot out the usual wobbly justifications for regular dollops of largesse, pointing to US executive salaries, market surveys, or the hoary old “if you pay peanuts you’ll get monkeys” line. Ken and his friends worship the rule of the market, but only on a selective basis. Remind me of the last time pollies and executive packages went backwards as is happening to workers now in some sectors under the new IR laws he lauds?

David Howlett writes: Mr Phillips and others should look at the following parts of the Workplace Relations Act! Part 12—Minimum entitlements of employees; Division 1—Entitlement to meal breaks; Division 2—Entitlement to public holidays; Division 3—Equal remuneration for work of equal value. Perhaps the legislation is so complex that he could not find it?

Rhys Tate writes : Ah, Ken. Certainly, if you are on a six-figure salary and own a gorgeous home somewhere green, you can measure inflation at under 3% a year. All those clothes and whitegoods and new cars remain quite good value. As a student/ truck driver, however, I prefer to measure my inflation by the goods I actually spend money on: school fees, rent, groceries, bills/ services and petrol in that order. I’ve worked at the same depot for three years, and enjoyed one pay rise: about 7% give or take. As a ‘permanent’ casual, I am in no position to negotiate. Weez gets what weez given. So in these times of great fortune, I just about keep up with ‘inflation’. Ken, if only the goods I buy kept the same principles! I won’t bore readers with a blow-by-blow of increases, but not a thing on my list has stayed with inflation the past three years. Most have increased by at least 25%. Luckily, I live near a vibrant Greek market area, and can avoid being mugged by the duopoly for $25/kilo t-bones and $8/kilo broccoli. Our Mansionites in Taylors Lakes aren’t so fortunate. Meanwhile, Johnnie and Pete green light a squeeze on middle and lower class wages with WorkChoices and the 457 debacle. Someone out there must be enjoying increased purchasing power with those record profits. It sure ain’t me. I would hate to think I am one of the last generations of Australians who can work part-time and still afford to study. Ken, a simple extrapolation of WorkChoices for Joe/ Josie Paypacket is the United States, a black hole for wage-earners. If Kevvy can secure enough Senate seats, I’d say he’d have a mandate to destroy WorkChoices, wouldn’t you?

Nathan Maskiell writes: Ken Phillips article praising WorkChoices and claiming the “sanity” of a solely economic basis for wage rises is traitorous to the Australian ethic of a fair go. The Harvester decision legislated a “living wage” and was the basis for 100 years of a harmonious and EQUAL partnership between capital and labour. Phillips may argue for economic rationalism, but in an egalitarian society, quality of life, CEO remuneration, CPI, ethics and previous decisions must feed into the minimum wage argument. PM Howard takes the same view as the chumps at IPA, who regard “Harvester” as a bad occurrence for Australia. Howard seems to be out of touch with mainstream opinion, as does Phillips, but keep flogging that dead horse!

Martyn Smith writes: Yesterday Crikey published an article by Ken Phillips of the IPA. The IPA (The Incompetents for Privatising Australia) long ago lost any credibility, as has their pinup boy John Howard. Presumably they are published as a matter of ‘balance’ and so on by Crikey. This is laudable and fair, we don’t have to read the bilge IPA writes, but to help those who are unaware of the IPA I suggest Crikey publishes them under ‘ravings of right wing lunatics’, or ‘black humour’.

Dave Horsfall writes: Ken Phillips would be more believable if the Institute of Public Affairs was truly independent as opposed to a front for the Liberal Party.

Angus & Robertson:

Alan Lander writes: Re. “Angus & Robertson throws the book at publishers” (yesterday, item 5). Three cheers for Michael Rakusin and all of his ilk. It’s time people – publishers in this case – stood up to this corporate arrogance with a united front, and maybe some “managers” will start to realise this Paleolithic style might impress their superiors, but has no place in civilised society. Publishers: hold your position: short-term pain for long-term gain and you will be rid of them.

John Richardson writes: Thanks to Michael Rakusin for exposing the predatory ways of Angus & Robertson, as evidenced by the arrogant and inept behaviour of their commercial klutz, Charlie Rimmer. Chalk-up more lost sales for Angus & Robertson, whilst we drink a toast to the success of Michael and Tower Books.

Sally Goldner writes: Hallelujah to Michael Rakusin for his response to hang ’em and rob ’em’s disgustingly rude letter. If more people took a stance like that against greed and power our planet would be 5000 times better off.

Steve Tucker writes: In an age of email and SMS when the closest one gets to a letter is a computer printed bill in the post one could be left wondering if the art of letter writing failed to make the transition to the 21st century. Michael Rakusin’s letter has restored my faith.

Warwick Doughty writes: What a great response from a small supplier, and what a dope from Angus & Robertson. Never heard of Tower, however I will now look for one of their titles at any book store other than Angus & Robertson and buy it, just because they deserve it.

Roger Cooper writes: Have Angus & Robertson outsourced their letter writing department to the Mafia?

Crikey’s editorial and Rudd’s “me too-ism”:

Mark Webb writes: Re. Yesterday’s editorial. In reflecting on your headline piece today I feel the need to ask a number of questions. Do we really want an electoral system that rewards the negative politics of fear, hatred, racism and being a “small target”? Is it right that Rudd looks like being elected not for opposing the Aboriginal intervention, the appalling handling of Mohammed Haneef and a range of other reactionary policies but precisely because he has refused to oppose them? What hope is there of ever having a decent government in this country whilst these conditions prevail? Most importantly what can be done about it?

Terry Kidd writes: I have to agree with your editorial about Kevin Rudd’s and Labor’s “Me too ism”. I’m finding it hard to believe that Labour has no policy difference to the Liberals apart from IR policy. Are we seeing a paradigm shift in Australian politics where Oppositions don’t try and offer an alternative? Where Oppositions simply sit and wait for the electorate to decide that it is time for a change, simply to see fresh faces because both sides of politics are really the same and won’t make any big changes? Has the current Government been too successful and no longer offers an Opposition any chance for credible alternative policy? Are we beginning to see a period when a change of government will only occur when the electorate decides it wants to give the other bloke a go because it doesn’t really matter who sits where in Parliament? I believe that John Howard has tried to hold on too long and is now looking a little tired, frazzled at the edges and his “use by date” appears to be on display. I believe this is the reason his Government is behind in the polls. However, I’m now getting very distrustful of Kevin Rudd and Labour because I simply can’t believe the multitude of identical policy positions and I keep waiting for the other shoe to fall. Will Kevin Rudd, if he wins the coming election, also suddenly find excuses such as core and non-core promises? Will such an eventuality be another example of “me too ism”?

If you care for your place in history just call the election now:

Tony Thompson writes: Re. “Promises of a distrusted man” (yesterday, item 15). Richard Farmer has made the point very well. John Howard, by his denying responsibility for the contents of a Liberal Party ad, has reinforced the perception (reality) that he is ‘sneaky’, ‘tricky’, and that he can not be trusted. Didn’t his mother tell him to accept responsibility for his (Party’s) actions? With all his recent poor decision in particular the Mersey hospital; the proposed Queensland plebiscites and the Murray-Darling water plan, it is time for him to let the people speak. John call an election immediately. If you care anything for your place in history just call the election now.

Same-s-x rights:

Doug Clifford writes : Re. “Same-s-x rights – action before the election?” (Yesterday, item 14). Just a note to let you know we are out here. My same-s-x partner and I have been together (and still share the same bed) since 17 July 1972. That’s over 35 years. We are both former Commonwealth public servants, but are still unable to access each other’s superannuation. I vote Green, and my partner, Labor (as far as I know; I respect his privacy in this, as in other matters), but all power to Warren Entsch.

Why is Scutt is writing to Rudd?

Rod Jarman writes: Re. “Scutt: ALP’s support of NT intervention “shameful”” (yesterday, item 13). Why is Scutt writing to Rudd? Where is her letter to Howard and Brough? Is she more upset with Rudd for his lack of opposition than she is with Howard for introducing it in the first place? If we follow her thinking Rudd would be lose-lose territory. He could oppose the legislation in an ultimately futile gesture that would have Howard and Brough singing from the rooftops that he doesn’t care about Indigenous kids. That’s lose-lose. Alternatively, he could ignore the bait, let the Government hang itself and make changes when he is power arguing its not working. Maybe we should write to Rudd and ask him once he is actually in Government.

Kevin07:

David Nolan writes: Re. “Kevin07: welcome to happy land!” (Yesterday, item 9). I idly looked up the Kevin07 website and was amazed to see that the Chinese T-shirt is indeed $7, but the postage is an additional $8.

Well done Mick Dodson:

Keith Perkins writes: Re. “Mick Dodson: abuse is no solution to abuse” (Wednesday, item 3). I have just turned eighty and have to admit that, Mick Dodson’s article, created one of the very few times in my life that I have had tears of shame and guilt in my eyes, albeit they were shed, not for Mick, but for my fellow Australians.

Irish Albert and egregious propaganda!:

Collette Snowden writes: Re. “The ALP’s secret weapon in the marginals: Irish Albert” (yesterday, item 16). I am horrified to discover that political campaigners have resorted to using live entertainment, and are distributing printed literature to a captive audience. What egregious propaganda! What can we expect next? Town Hall meetings? Printed pamphlets? The use of photography? Perhaps they will use posters or we will be subjected to billboard messages as we sit helpless in traffic or on public transport? Or perhaps they will turn to expensive, artfully crafted electronic advertising strategically placed in our most popular television programmes? Some devious political propagandist might even have the nerve to send a letter to me in my own home or an unsolicited email. Help! Who will protect me from the horror of political communication! We clearly need emergency legislation to stop such practices before it’s too late. Clearly Christopher Pyne must champion this cause. He could begin with the current spate of government advertising.

Heather Witham writes : This is the flyer for the oldies entertainment in SA. I don’t think anybody could claim they were being deceived!

The future of property investment:

Sonja Davie (former negative and positive gearer) writes: The future of property investment is likely to look like this: large property trusts set up to own, develop, let and manage residential housing for profit. Rents will be set accordingly. Negative gearing is a scam, not because it subsidises investors, but because it subsidises renters. It relies on house prices going up, year after year. Otherwise the investor makes an overall loss, only partially offset by tax deductions. Years of stagnating house prices would see negative gearing die a natural death.

ABC ads:

Simon Sharwood writes : Re. “No to ABC ads: 8c a day is enough” (yesterday, item 18). So Quentin Dempster thinks that SBS is being ruined by ads? Not for this little black duck who finds SBS more entertaining and relevant than the current incarnation of the SBS. I can scarcely find a locally-produced show to watch on the ABC. SBS churns out RockWiz , the sublime Food Safari , Kick , Nerds FC etc, all of which get ravenously devoured in this household. Its imports, like TopGear and South Park , are coveted by the commercials. All that vs. the ABC’s big hits of … The Chaser ? Seems to me the SBS board must be doing okay.

An ABC critic writes: When is the small, vainglorious Quentin Dempster ever going to get over the fact that he is not a staff-elected Board member of the ABC? Apart from his average weekly performance presenting the NSW version of Stateline which is little more than a vehicle for Quentin’s pet subjects rather than any genuine attempt to provide coverage of NSW-based news, Dempster seems to suffer from an enormous case of being out of the limelight. At the risk of offending Quentin and the so-called Friends of the ABC, what is wrong with the ABC exploring alternate revenue sources. Bring in appropriate advertising /sponsorship partners. Reduce the massive taxpayer subsidy to keep the national broadcaster on air. Let the ABC become truly competitive with the rest of Australia’s media and learn how to make an honest buck, rather than have to grovel to the Australian Government every few years. The pure say the ABC should be kept free of the influences of advertisers, yet every hour of every day, the ABC is flogging its own commercial wares to its radio and TV audiences.

Andrew Mack writes : How long has this “eight cents day for the ABC” bizzo been around? A long time, it seems. With recent funding cuts, how many cents per day is it now? Five? Six? Three? Can someone do some sums?

Beijing not that toxic:

Humphrey Hollins in Beijing writes: Re. “Beijing’s Olympic countdown amidst enviro concerns and extinct dolphins” (yesterday, item 20). I have spent the last several days in Beijing and apart from today when the skies are Western Australian blue, it has been grey with visibility of about five hundred metres. But I have not found the air to be toxic and I have not seen one person wearing a mask, unlike Bangkok or Phnom Penh where masks are common. Last night we attempted to get to the ceremony at Tiananmen Square, along with millions of Chinese but we were all diverted away from the square and we saw and heard nothing. Will the government be enforcing the same policy when the games are on I wonder?

Nine’s repeats:

Stephen Turner writes : Re “Glenn Dyer’s comments” (Wednesday, item 23). Just noticed your comment in Wednesday’s media section in Crikey, talking about Nine not marking the two CSI shows on Tuesday night as repeats in many guides, when they clearly were. What I can tell you is that this was not a mistake, and would have been very deliberate on Nine’s behalf. I used to work for a company compiling online TV guides, and we dealt with Nine (and other networks) regularly to get their program data. Very often, Nine would submit their guides to us which had the various repeat markers included or not included, and we ran with that. But at some point, we noticed that episodes we knew from our experience were repeats were not being marked as repeats. We queried this with Nine and they demanded that it not be marked as a repeat. To put it simply, we refused to do this and that was the end of it, but undoubtedly it had happened before we noticed it, and even more likely, other TV guide compilers were not checking their guides as readily and wouldn’t have noticed this situation. It’s a deliberate scheme by Nine — they don’t want audiences to know they’re running repeats. They have so little respect for their audience that they’re quite certain they can get away with it, even if it’s quite obvious now.

Oops:

Mark Colvin writes: Re. “FACTBOX: Five organ trafficking hotspots” (yesterday, item 17). T

here’s a difference between a hotspot and a hotpot. A fine distinction, perhaps; but a crucial one, especially in a story about organ trafficking.

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.