Monday 6th of May 2024
Home » Blogs » John Richardson's blog

rock bottom .....

rock bottom .....

The latest fortnightly Newspoll - the first in some time to be released on Sunday rather than Monday night - has Labor's primary vote down a point on last time to 30%, the Coalition's up two to 46% and the Greens' down two to 12%, with the two-party preferred out from 54-46 to 55-45.

Julia Gillard has lost most of her lead as preferred prime minister, which narrows from 42-38 in her favor to 39-38, but the individual personal ratings are essentially unchanged, with Gillard down two points on approval to 30% and up one on disapproval to 59%, while Tony Abbott is down one on each to 31% and 58%.

Newspoll: 55-45 to Coalition

winning the sweepstakes...

Kevin Rudd named Australia's most trusted pollie
Dr Charlie Teo is Australia's most trusted figure
Least trusted? Only Kyle Sandilands

HINT: It's a he. Another hint: He likes biscuits. And sauce. Final hint: He often refers to himself by his nickname.

Since we're just giving this away, let's end the charade. It's Kevin Rudd.

The former prime minister is Australia's most trusted politician, according to a poll by the Reader's Digest.

The list, topped by popular surgeon Charlie Teo, was based on a two-round poll of 1268 adult Australians.

Rounding out the top five were: Dr Fiona Wood, Hugh Jackman, Princess Mary (Donaldson) and Dick Smith.

 

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/revealed-the-most-trusted-politician-in-australia-is-kevin-rudd/story-e6freuy9-1226410310773

---------------------------

Between you, me and an Obeid lamppost, I don't care much about Kevin Rudd... What these polls tell us is a perception mostly based on the ongoing stirring by the media, not a reality of performance... And coming from the Reader's Digest — a secular outfit with strong promotion of god — I can take Rudd the catholic with a drop of holy water...

Actually, between you, me and a fair shake of the sauce bottle, I would not be surprised if just before (of barely after) the election is announced in 2013, Julia would... Hey I can't tell you the future, can I ????...

---------------------------------------


I am a winner!!!! and a looser...


In 2001, 32 states attorneys general reached agreements with the company and other sweepstakes operators to settle allegations that they tricked the elderly into buying products because they were a "guaranteed winner" of a lottery. The settlement required the companies to expand the type size of notices in the packaging that no purchase is necessary to play the sweepstakes, and to:

  1. Establish a "Do Not Contact List" and refrain from soliciting any future "high-activity" customers unless and until Reader's Digest actually makes contact with that customer and determines that the customer is not buying because he or she thinks that the purchase will improve his or her chances of winning.
  2. Send letters to individuals who spend more than $1,000 in a six-month period telling them that they are not required to make purchases to win the sweepstakes, that making a purchase will not improve their chances of winning and that, in fact, all entries have the same chance to win whether or not the entry is accompanied by a purchase.

The agreement appeared to adversely affect Reader's Digest circulation in the U.S. Its 1970s peak circulation was 17 million U.S. subscribers.