A recent flurry of opinion polling today reaches a climax with results from ACNielsen and, unexpectedly, Newspoll, which normally reports on Tuesday. The former rains on the recent Coalition polling parade somewhat with a survey of 1403 voters showing no change in the primary vote situation from last month: Labor on 48 per cent, Coalition on 39 per cent. Nonetheless, the two-party result has narrowed just slightly, from 58-42 to 57-43, while Kevin Rudd’s preferred prime minister lead is down from 51-43 to 48-42. Bryan Palmer’s newly updated graphs can be viewed here.
Newspoll offers a similar result, with Labor leading 56-44 on two-party preferred. However, it’s better news for the Coalition in relative terms – the previous Newspoll three weeks ago had Labor with a quirky-looking lead of 60-40. The Coalition primary vote is up from 35 per cent to 39 per cent; Labor’s is down from 52 per cent to 46 per cent; Kevin Rudd’s preferred prime minister lead is down from 47-38 to 46-40.
430 Comments
Newspoll: 56/44 TPP
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/files/newspoll-18-jun.jpg
Good work James, I’ve now rewritten the post.
1. on a monday?!
2. damn off by one.. i punted 55
age says doom gloom, smh: not a dent but hope.
the oz. HOWARD IN TRIUMPHANT RETURN
oh dear
the war of the polls.
Closest AC Nielsen poll result all year. Closest Newspoll too; excepting that strange mid-week poll.
Taking the polls together, they do tend to suggest a slight movement in the direction of the Coalition over the past month.
You could either call it the start of a government resurgence or a mere correction of Labor’s previously sky-high numbers. (Depending, most likely, on which side you support.)
Seeing Shamaham talk up the poll was sickening. Yes there is a slight move for Ratty in the primary vote, but the 2PP result is what really counts.
but really both polls are 1 % off each other, much closer than Galaxy.
Given the unreliable nature of the Newspoll primary vote lately, I wouldn’t be taking their figures too literally.
I think the fact Newspoll uses preference distributions from the last election means there could be a extra percent hidden for the ALP.
This is because environmental issues will play a bigger role in this election than last, so some voters may be tempted to park their vote with the Greens. For some voters this may turn out to unintentionally sending their vote from the government to the ALP, simply because they follow a how to vote card.
I don’t understand why Newspoll doesn’t simply ask people to express a major party preference, assuming the person being interviewed said they were support a minor party.
This movement has to be what most would have expected a few months ago and probably a greater movement.
This gives Rudd lots of breathing space to try and solidify some of these numbers. He is sitting pretty if he has a decent sort of strategy from here on.
Howard’s BabyOver board I suspect will have to be via a 3rd party this time around to be credible.
May as well post this ABC Tasmanian Poll news here too [not good for the Govt]:
New poll results show the Federal Government in trouble in Tasmania.
An EMRS poll released today shows the Liberals are trailing Labor 35% to 65% in the northern seat of Bass, on a two-party basis.
The Launceston seat is the proposed site for a controversial new pulp mill, and is renowned as a swinging marginal seat.
The Government’s outlook is also bleak in the north-west seat of Braddon, where Labor leads 64% to 36% on two-party preferred.
Those results would give all five Tasmanian seats to Labor, by a comfortable margin.
The Nielsen is a rogue poll, but the Newspoll is about right (with a slight underestimation of the Nationals primary vote). Correcting for that, we find both parties are at either extreme of the 6 point band I mentioned in an earlier thread, a band they’ll occupy until the end of July. Then a further narrowing will occur.
Rogue poll (psephological phrase): A poll whose findings the speaker or writer does not like.
French elections: the left has staged a last minute rally and will win about 220 seats to the right’s 350. Still a victory for Sarko but not nearly as sweeping as predicted.
I am statistically challenged to understand how two polls can be only 1% apart and yet one be “rogue” and the other “about right”.
The polls will stay in this kind of range with a slight trend towards narrowing until the election is called, after which they will change dramatically to 50-50 or with the Government in front. The Coalition will be then nicely placed for a fifth election win.
The last Newspoll was a rogue. The current Newspoll and ACNielsen look about right. ACNielsen comes out at 44 if you recalculate the TPP based on preference flows at the last election.
These polls restore the status quo before the Galaxy aberrations, ie about 57/43. Since both polls have a margin of error of about 3% for figures around 50%, any talk of one or other being ‘rogue’ is plain silly. As can be seen from Brian’s graphs, there may be a very small upturn in the moving averages. The radical differences in Green and other party votes between pollsters is worthy of comment. These are consistent in magnitude over many polls. Why?
the margin of error for Neilsen is 2.6% and for Newspoll 2.9%.
Note they are in line with Morgan who has usually led both polls and has obviously improved his systems.
Dennis says: “Howard closes gap”, John Stirton (AGBN) says ” if the trend continues, the election will be very close”
These chaps had better watch themselves- their words will come back to haunt them
Peter Hartcher today in the SMH is also trying to spin their poll in Howard’s favour. What is it with these political commentators? Are they so bewitched or spooked by Howard?
I’m surprised actually there wasn’t more of a swing back to the Coalition, as a result of the anti ALP/ACTU campaign News Ltd in particular has been waging.
Yay, I picked 56-44 !
The very low level of volatility in these polls suggests that the punters aren’t taking too much notice of the commentariat, the day to day political noise or the for that matter the government.
In other words, they’ve made up their minds. They’re waiting patiently for polling day – armed not with a baseball bat just a blunt 2B pencil. But they will use it to the same deadly effect.
Steven Kaye,
How can Nielsen be rogue? The last Nielsen in May was 58/42. Today’s poll is within one point of Newspoll. Are you a transfer here from Ozpolitics? No wonder the comments were shut down!
Alan H: The reason the minor party numbers are so much lower in the Newspoll compared to other polls is in the framing of the question – Newspoll asks “which party would you vote for; ALP, Lib, Other, Indi” – people have to self-identify as Green etc to register. The other polls specify minor party names (so ask ALP, Lib, Green, AD, FFP, Other, Indi etc). This does mean that while Newspoll may get the TPP pretty close, their primaries are going to be slightly skewed.
Adam: I noticed in Le Monde this morning that the results are closer than that:
UMP (and allies) – 324
PS (and allies) – 205
Nouveau Centre – 22
PCF – 18
MoDem – 4
Les Verts – 4
Three polls from Galaxy, ACN and Newspoll this month, showing Labor on 44, 48, 46 and the Coalition on 42, 39, 39. Average them out and you get 46-40, which goes to about 55-45 after preferences. ACN and Newspoll 2PP both look mildly odd from the primaries to me.
I’m comfy with saying Labor’s about 55-56 at the moment and that the gap has narrowed somewhat. I note it is still possible (if Galaxy was rogueish) that Labor remains ahead by 49/38 or something like that, but it seems increasingly unlikely.
One interesting thing: 3 of the last 5 non-Morgan polls have Labor’s primary below 48. That was something that absolutely HAD to happen if the Coalition was to get competitive in this election. If it continues to drift down over the next month or so Labor will be in serious trouble.
Both Steven Kaye and Nostradamus are transfers from Oz Politics. They are , in my view, both prone to making unsupported assertions, and on occasion, playing the man rather than the ball.
William
Hope the young libs dont achieve what they did on Ozpolitics
ie slander,libel and ultimately shutting blog down
the less commentary by Blogs the more power to MSM
These two polls today are truly very bad for the Govt, despite what it says in “The Australian”.
Look at the evidence:
AC Nielsen
Dec 2 – primary vote ALP 48 Coalition 39 TPP 56/44
June 15 – primary vote ALP 48 Coalition 39 TPP 57/43
Newspoll
Dec 8 – primary vote ALP 46 Coalition 39 TPP 55/45
June 15 – primary vote ALP 46 Coalition 39 TPP 56/44
First three polls – Dec 2006 (ACN, Newspoll and Morgan)
primary vote ALP 48 Coalition 37.5 TPP 56.6/43.4
Last three polls – June 2007 (ACN, Newspoll and Morgan)
primary vote ALP 48.3 Coalition 38.6 TPP 57/43
Not much has changed since Rudd first came to the leadership (over 6 months ago), except that his approval has gone up and stayed in the 60’s and he continually leads Howard as preferred PM.
These are rather poor and I suspect the leadership speculation will arise once more.
Please, please, please… don’t let this blog go the way of OzPolitics. The continuous partisan sledging was nauseous, requiring one to wade through piles of crap before striking the odd psephological gem.
Let’s all lift our game, and if you don’t have a bi-partesan comment to make that is relevant to the thrust of the thread then please don’t waste the bytes.
Nostradamus says “These Tasmanian polls have sample sizes that are so low and have so little reliability that absolutely nothing can be read from them.”
Nostradamus, the EMRS poll was of 200 respondents in each and every electorate, that is, 5 x 200, or 1,000 voters, ie about the same as Newspoll, ACNielsen , Morgan or Galaxy, for the whole of Australia. Because the sample sizes in each electorate are the same, you can add the percentages in each category and divide by 5, to get a figure based on a sample size of 1000 (ignoring rounding of the original percentages). The margin of error depends on sample size alone, not the size of the population being measured.
With a sample size of 1000 total, hence about 3% margin of error for the aggregate, the overall TPP is 65/35. ALP primary is 57%. Lib is 33%, Green 9%. You can read from these figures for Tasmania whatever you like, but those are the figures.
I agree many voters are not taking too much notice of day to day political noise, but whether these voters have made up their minds, is very debatable. As I see it, these low involvement voters will become more engaged when the election date is announced. Opinion polls outside the campaign period are eagerly awaited and then interpreted by those of us who are interested political observers, but I sometimes wonder whether observers (including me) overanalyse the pollsters’ findings. I honestly do not know how anyone can say a particular level of 2PP support is “about right” and even if it is correct, why that is significant for the outcome of a Federal poll later this year. I accept that people may have intuitive feelings about what they think is the present level of support in the community for one or other side of politics. Usually, but not always, those feelings seem to be informed by their own desires for a particular outcome (that is, whether they barrack for the Coalition parties or for the Australian Labor Party). Summing it all up, this means that the present discussions on opinion polls while interesting, are not very persuasive for me one way or the other as to the likely outcome of the Federal election.
Based on those figures, Bob Brown won’t win a senate seat.
ALP 4 – Lib 2
Oh before everyone jumps on me, I was just using those figures.
IMHO Bob Brown is going to get a full quota or close to.
Don’t worry about Nostro, Steven or Leo as they are all Howard supporters.
I must admit i make the odd bi-partisan comment, however there is good and bad in these polls for both parties and leaders.
Rudd and the alp are still sitting pretty at aroun 55-58 (depending on the poll). Compare this to 2004/2001 they are now about 4-6% points higher than they were previously.
While the coalition maybe making a come back, Rudd and the alp shouldn’t be written off just yet.
If the polls are still around 55-58 by the end of July for the alp, then the coalition has a fight on its hands.
Speaker, the Tas figures are for HoR, not Senate, as I’m sure you recognise.
Mad Dog, call a spade a spade. Both Steven Kaye and Nostradamus post provocative nonsense more often than not. Their posts aren’t clever enough to be awarded the status of trolling, which when done properly is an art form. They’re just… tedious.
My recommendation is for any offending party (including myself) to be blocked (by Name) after warning. In which case, a poster will need a different handle in order to post, and they might conceivably grow a new personality to go with it.
Simon
Interesting point about preferences. Actually, I think these are generally a big assumption. Polling in the fortnight prior to the last election strongly underestimated preference swing from 2001.
I think your assumption about Labor is sound from the point of view of the Greens. The South Australian and Tasmanian State elections showed about 67% contribution to Labor from Labor preferenced Green candidates.
What is far less clear is the impact of Family First, which has shown a pattern of preferences on a seat-by-seat basis. In such cases where FFP preferenced Labor, the contribution is around 50% apparently. Interestingly, it is not much higher than this in Coalition-preferenced seats.
This suggests two things:
a) FFP voters are, by and large, more centrist than given credit for and
b) That FFP voters may be less influenced by HTV cards
Now, this is crucial. Such a group of voters are the most important. A chunk of these may well be swinging voters and given the swag of coalition marginals after the last election’s unexpected (and unpredicted by ALL polls) landslide, this could heavily influence the state of play.
In reality, stronger preferences to Labor by FFP may have substantial benefits to both these parties. Given the way that FFP has voted in the senate this year, Labor may stand a better chance of clearance through the senate than the (rather frustrated) Coalition has done this year.
I think the best thing going for Rudd and the ALP at this stage in the cycle is how well they continue to hold up as the year progresses. So far, Rudd has escaped the fall off in support that was evident in 01 and 04.
There seems to be a general acceptance that once the campaign starts things will tighten. However, elections do not have to follow the same pattern every cycle. If Rudd can campaign well, I don’t know why the current levels of support cannot be maintained. Many also think that Howard will again pull out a wedge issue that will help him back – but there’s no guarantee that he won’t be wedged himself. History does not have to repeat itself (even if most in the MSM think it definitely will)
Alan H: I recognised it – I just found it interesting.
These polls represent a disaster for the Libs.
If they’re not panicking, then they should very well be in order to turn this around. They are in La la land and just don’t get it.
Dress it up anyway you like, very little has changed since KRudd was leader. You’d rather be 2PP 55:45, and I don’t see thing s changing soon apart from a few more dodgy Galaxy polls to ensure Costello is off Howards back.
Aesop, I wouldn’t say these particular polls are a disaster, just more of the same. What is changing is an ALP victory moving from possible to probable. Every week that goes by supports the contention that Labor are being taking seriously. I’ve said elsewhere that this election is about Howard not Rudd; I won’t bore some of you by rehashing the details. Rudd’s made plenty of relatively small mistakes and I believe the electorate has given him a suit of armour because nothing he does wrong changes anything and nothing Howard does changes anything. If Rudd can stay out of trouble, he will win. Howard is behind on the scoreboard and on the clock. He has to do something special soon and I believe he doesn’t have it in him. The electorate wants more than Howard has to give.
I am reposting the following from an earlier thread as this is the most current one, and I think it is imprtant that all of us who want to discuss the political process act, no matter what level of self-restraint it requires, to ensure that this site does not go the way of OzPolitics:
I am concerned, like others, that the demise of OzPolitics Blog will see the worst offenders on that site migrate here. There has already been a rise in the temperature of debate that bodes ill for the future of this site. I follow four rules in posting:
1. I never ascribe motives to fellow posters.
2. I never make assumptions about fellow posters.
3. I never abuse fellow posters.
4. I never respond to abuse.
I think the last rule is particularly helpful, because abuse by A at one level leads to an abusive response by B at a higher level, which leads to A hitting back at an even higher level – and then you don’t even have a discussion about politics, just childish name-calling that would have earnt a detention if it had continued in any of my classes, not that I have ever taught students who were as abusive as some of the posters on OzPolitics.
There is no point in partisan rants on this site. Most of us try to stand back and adopt at least some objectivity in putting our views about the state of politics rather than as advocates of particular causes, though the latter obviously colours the former. It is possible to state your case forcefully without descending into viciousness. If you are unable to do so, go away.
General oracle… I agree with your comment that the Family First Party are a centrist party in terms of their socio-economic view of the world. However the spread across this spectrum is rather broad. What does define the party is the conservative views in relation to traditional family values.
I have been tracking the minor party polling done by Morgan, and this confirms the centrist leanings of their constituents in terms of 2PP. In fact they lean only marginally to the Coalition (average +3% on the blue side since the last election). Where there was a strong bias to the coalition was with Latham as Labor leader. The fear of Latham left Labor controlled by the Greens frightened many away. This will not be the case under Rudd.
Your comment about the directivity of FFP votes from the HTVs therefore is questioned. Certainly relative to the Greens, who will almost always return there vote to Labor regardless of the HTV, the FFP votes are quite directive. This enhances the negotiating power of FFP as the majors will clamour to gain a higher postion on the FFP card.
Classic comment from a Blogocracy poster.
“Good news for Labor who have increased their lead from 53-47 to 56-44 in the News Limited polls.
Howard had pulled back Rudd’s lead to 53-47 but momentum has clearly swung back to Rudd. ”
It really does depend on which numbers you choose to look at.
Let’s archive this thread and revisit it post polling day. Suspect some of you will want to take advantage of this site’s relative anonomity to change your names.
Lets look at the facts. In four of the last five elections, Newspoll had the Coalition going into the campaign either in front or level pegging. Labor clearly won the campaign in 1993 and 2001. In 1996 and 1998 the actual 2PP was identical to Newspoll at the start of the campaign – a draw. In 2004 Latham actually went ahead after the first week and then gradually fell away as the Coalition exploited doubts about him. It’s the only campaign they actually won.
During campaigns governments lose the advantages of incumbency and oppositions attain equal status in terms of air time etc. As always negative campaigning will be important but, if the last few weeks are any guide, the Coalition had better find something new to say because the current scare campaigns just aren’t cutting it. And Labor hasn’t even started on the Coalition’s negatives.
Since January Labor’s 2PP has averaged five percentage points better than the equivalent period in 2004 and the lift is even bigger on primaries. At this stage in the cycle the only thing that might save the Coalition is that if Rudd morphs into Latham – and I can’t see that happening.
Ray,
I used to think of Family First as a vaguely centrist party. But I am no so sure now. I still do not classify it with the US Religious Right, but I would be interested in how the following comments of a Family first candidate, David Bernard, can be seen in any way as centrist:
DAVID BERNARD of HOPPERS CROSSING (15 June at 04:59 PM)
Australian Your say Blog: Hockey’s bogus bogeyman
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/yoursay/index.php/theaustralian/comments/hockeys_bogus_bogeyman/P80/
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The demise of the union movement since the 1980s has corrresponded exactly with Australia’s increasing productivity. The 17 percent increase in real wages, not pathetic award rates, since Howard hit the streets, the lowering of interest rates and the lack of job-site brawls, stop works, go slows, and shut downs, and injected real life into Aussis families. I have experienced union thuggery. They are a bunch of leftwing militia who have nothing to do with increase, but everything to do with fear, standover tactics and power. With less than a fifth of workers still chained to unions, the union movement is desperate to hold on to their remaining fear-based control. Hockey is spot on linking their disgraceful behaviour and marketplace interference with the brain-dead, no-policy, winge-winge Labor Party.
…
DAVID BERNARD of HOPPERS CROSSING (15 June at 05:03 PM)
The unions so stuffed up Australia that many once profitable Australian companies have had to move offshore. I am one who has experienced union thuggery, standover tactics and the sheer terror unions place companies in to this day. Unions were once interested in workers rights, but since the 50s have been interested in their own political footballing, their super funds and their power over the economy. Workers are simply who they use and fool. I know because I’m one of the workers. I know because I’ve been threatened, ripped off and seen what they do to workers. They have evil ideologies such as crippling industries to get their way, providing no support to pregnant women or unborn children, and think that a system of penalty and award rates is a fair slice of the pie. They have no idea about how to make the economy thrive, no interest in workers welfare until after the accident, no sense of decency, and are just school-yard bullies, who have been let loose on society. The ALP is stacked with union members, Rudd’s front bench is 70 percent ex ACTU. A vote for Labor, together with all the Labor States, will totally destroy Australia.
Hard to be a serious observer and expect anything other than drifting polls, both the Nielsen and News polls are in-line with trends indicative of low volatility and are consistent with expectations of pretty much most people without a partisan axe to grind. So the question remains, is this a slow correction as those interested in Rudd are either spooked by the anti-union rhetoric or find themselves irritated by some of Rudd’s personality traits? Or is this drift to the conservatives part of an establishing trend as people become more engaged?
Despite the political theater of late, the artillery has been lightweight, both sides seem content to scrap around the edges in an attempt to lay out a general narrative to be fleshed out come campaign proper. I am surprised the Libs have let the nuclear cat out of the bag though, this would seem to me a risky maneuver open to exploit, are they gambling they can use it to neutralise the GG emission debate while delivering opportunities to big mining and creating leverage to wedge Labor? If so it could go spectacularly wrong.
Also this new broadband policy seems to me to be a big porridge of technologies from aging copper to unproven Wimax. Is this another hastily cobbled together plan like the Murray scheme? Howard just seems to be making policy reactively and on the run and hoping the holes don’t show up till after the next election, to me this would indicate internal polling has them genuinely worried, worried enough to justify such big risks at any rate.
“A vote for Labor, together with all the Labor States, will totally destroy Australia.”
Yaaawwn.
Chris, Oracle, Ray – categorising Family First may well be like the blind men touching different parts of the elephant.
But its reason for being is to promote conservative christian social values: so it deserves that categorisation. (Just as the DLP was an ‘anti-Labor’ party even if notionally it espoused pro-worker policies).
That Fielding opposed ‘WorkChoices’ mark 1 or equivocated over VSU doesn’t alter that. It is merely an interesting consequence of the power he has having won a seat on the back of sectarian support.
Ice
Interesting. I am a Howard supporter – who won’t vote Coalition so long as John Howard is leading the Liberal Party.
Interesting definitions you use.
In terms of comparison with 2001/2004 – by my reckoning Labor’s 2PP is tracking about 2.5% above 2001 and 4.5% above 2004. If you want to extrapolate that it has Labor getting about 51.5-52% of the 2PP vote on election day, which would probably be enough for a narrow victory. That is of course silly analysis, but it would have worked in 2004.
Chris
I would suggest Family First are a party with religious conservative views on social issues. People who hold those views will have a wide range of economic views, and they’ll be all the way from ex-DLPers like yourself to hardline free marketeers. Expecting a coherent economic policy approach is a bit much – most likely populism will rule the day on that front.
“And Labor hasn’t even started on the Coalition’s negatives.”
- duh, that’s because the Coalition does not have any negatives for Labor to attack!
Chris.. like I said Family First has a wide spread about the centre when it comes to socio economic policy, and this David Bernard is clearly to the extreme right of that bell. I can’t understand that any party would even consider endorsing a candidate with such views. Maybe they need to review the level of scrutiny applied to their selection process. I hope we don’t see this guy contest a federal seat.
Nostradamus: I assume Iraq, AWB, four(five?) interest rate rises, petrol prices, balooning foreign debt, banana republic level trade deficit, record household financial stress, housing unaffordability, lack of conviction on climate change, the federal-state blame game, leadership uncertainty, rampant porkbarreling and 11 years in office are all positives.
Note I didn’t mention WorkChoices. Didn’t happen. Wasn’t there. If it did happen we didn’t mean it. Sorry. We’ll do better next time. An unqualified positive.
Mark:
Nostradamus put out the bait, and you bit.
Mark, I totally agree.
We mustn’t forget that 2001 was extraordinary in that Labor was well out in front in March / April but far, far behind come August / September. The voter shift in those intervening months (esp post Tampa, 9/11) was massive. Labor went into the campaign well behind but then recovered immensely during the campaign to lose out 49 – 51 of the TPP vote. Many people tend to forget the trough Labor found itself in immediately before the campaign commenced. Instead, they tend to see Labor’s polls from March / April and then directly compare them to the final election result, a terrible trajectory down. But a more accurate observation would be a catastrophic trajectory down followed by an impressive bounce up during the campaign, only to fall short. Who says Labor can’t get a swing to it during the campaign?
Please, can we ignore him
Nostradamus, that is
Another day, another round of completely rotten polls for the government.
At first I couldn’t really foresee them losing later on this year, it now looks as though they are headed for a nasty drubbing. I’d like to establish the fact that I am a firm Howard supporter and I do not believe that Rudd has demonstrated that he is fit to lead (ie just an ambition-laden, slick spin-merchant with few policies of substance).
I must admit, I am a little bit dumbfounded over these horrific polls that really show no sign of abating – how could Australians possibly vote out one of the most competent government’s we’ve ever had, while re-electing without any qualms, a bunch of rotten to the core / completely inept State governments? I guess I’ll be asking myself that question for a long time to come.
I’m wondering if there’s anything the government can do to turn things around and recover – but by this stage, I am beginning to doubt this is possible. To say the least, Rudd is running a very mediocre, uninspiring campaign – yet given his repeated slip-ups and good economic news for the government, the fact that he really hasn’t suffered in the polls at all probably shows that this isn’t going to be much of a contest.
my rant.
Ray, Chris, Graeme
Thanks for your useful feedback. It is refreshing to see good, objective discussions generally on the thread.
I absolutely agree that any party will have candidates who, on one article or reported statement may appear extreme for the party. Gillard? (ALP)Tuckey (LIB)? Hutton (GRN)? are, on occasion, outspoken and on extremes with some values for their parties but generalising is as unhelpful as it might be for this FFP party here. It is still a little soon to tell.
In addition, parties can be oriented traditionally in terms of social values but this may or may not bear much relation to votes cast. Indeed, any party will have a “social orientation” that voters of other parties can’t stomach (perhaps why they don’t vote for them!) but this does not preclude commonsense stances on education, environment, economics and immigration. Indeed, bloggers on this site have convinced myself and others that FFP is genuinely centrist.
Chris, on the code of conduct:
I would agree here and have done the same previously on Ozpolitics. Trying to be objective has meant barbs from both “sides” of politics on that site and unwarranted assumptions which follow (as Dr Ed De Bono would call) “knife edge discrimination”. If you are not a Lib supporter, you must be a Labor supporter, fascist/communist, you get the idea. Of course this is all nonsense. No one yet has picked my political persuasion correctly, and if they did, I am not being objective enough with commentary.
I commend the bloggers here to take a more academic/psephological approach to discussions too, it is FAR more interesting that way.
A-C, your post exemplifies what is wrong with this Government. This assertion is not an attack on you but an observation that Howard supporters, and probably the majority of the govt, simply do not comprehend the problem — many people are unhappy.
I fully accept that many people are happy and doing well. But look at the polls going back months and months — many people aren’t happy. They’re suffering in one way or another, they’re missing out in one way or another. While some people are going forward, others are going backward. Howard’s mistake was in not looking after enough Australians. And all this “news” about how wonderfully the economy is doing just makes the misser-outerers feel even worse about missing out.
The govt can improve their chances by actually governing for a change instead of pandering to interest groups and peddling fear. I do believe though that it is so late in the cycle that people might view with cynicism any genuine governance from this point on, in which case we here might be chronicling a Shakespearean tragedy.
I tend to agree with those posters who state that these polls are just more of the same. It’s hard to see much volatility in these numbers, with just an almost statistically insignificant move towards the government over the last few weeks. If the election was in late 2008, the government could feel complacent, but as it will be some time in the next five months, they had better pull their collective (though I realise that word makes them uncomfortable) fingers out.
All in all, it feels like the rather fenetic build-up of political blather since the Budget is starting to dissipate, and with parliament not sitting for 6 weeks after this one, we can look forward to a bit of piece and quiet for a month or so. Of course, the voter who would never think of reading a site like this (ie 99% of people, no offence William), hasn’t been listening to any of this. They have made gut judgements about Rudd (safe, interesting) and Howard (was good, past his best) and then got on with their lives. I agree with pundits who say that barring external shocks, nothing much will change until the election, but I think other posters have pointed out that Howard is not a great campaigner. His strength has been in setting up the election dynamics beforehand. This year he is leaving his run very late, possibly too much so.
For my part, I vacillate wildly between exultation about an ALP victory and depression about Howard sneaking back in. I am prepared to stick my neck out, however, and say that we will definitely know by Christmas who will win the election.
LOL you have a very short neck Hugo
Does anyone know on which occasions Federal Elections have been held later than the third anniversary of the prior one?
Not too many, I suspect.
I remember reading that the only late elections in the last 60 years were 1949 and 1972. Both delayed by governments facing and eventually achieving defeat.
Just as some of us suspected, these recent polls point to the previous Galaxy poll (two weeks ago) being a rogue at best or a deliberately dodgy survey at worst. Frankly, I think Galaxy tried to rescue Howard from a fresh round of leadership speculation – the timing just seemed too coincidental – which brings into question Galaxy’s credibility. And the way the media jumped on that poll to declare the return of the “man-of-steel” was truly disgraceful.
Apart from that, there really isn’t much else to say in response to these polls other than we all knew there would be a slight drift back towards the government. Even so, the change is negligible, and as Aristotle points out, there hasn’t been ANY change in voting intention since Rudd took over the leadership in December. You can spin it this way or that way, but the FACT is Labor is in a very strong position pollwise.
On the issue of fears about this blog going the way of Ozpolitics, this is my two cents:
I think it is unreasonable to expect a politics blog in an election year not to get heated. There will be some anger as people often invest a lot of themselves in the outcome of their preferred party, and occasionally they will lose a sense of rationality and composure and this can sometimes turn into personal attacks. You cannot stop this from happening.
So, I think we need to be reasonable. It doesn’t matter if a thread has some heat in it from time to time. Just skip any posts that you can’t be bothered reading and move on.
But in saying this, I think Chris Curtis’ point about not responding to abuse is a good one. If someone is trying to wind you up, then don’t give them the satisfaction of getting wound up. Either ignore them or just respond with a clear, cogent argument, without resorting to unnecessary abuse.
In the end, I think people have been taking the need for moderation in blogs way too seriously. Let people say what they want to say. We’re all grown-ups. We can deal with it.
oakeshott, the 2001 election was held in November. The 1998 election was held in October.
“Does anyone know on which occasions Federal Elections have been held later than the third anniversary of the prior one?”
Full list for HoR elections:
31 May 1913 – 3 yrs 48 days
16 December 1922 – 3 yrs 3 days
17 November 1928 – 3 yrs 3 days
23 October 1937 – 3 yrs 38 days
28 September 1946 – 3 yrs 38 days
10 December 1949 – 3 yrs 73 days
29 May 1954 – 3 yrs 31 days (although there was a half-Senate election 9 May 1953)
9 December 1961 – 3 yrs 17 days
2 December 1972 – 3 yrs 38 days (although there was a half-Senate election 21 November 1970)
10 November 2001 – 3 yrs 38 days
From dates of all federal elections here: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/elect/elecdate.htm
The newspoll shows a subtle, but very steady decline in Rudd’s satisfaction rating, and rating as Preferred Prime Minister.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/files/newspoll-18-jun.jpg
If we assume that the ALP’s lead in the polls is entirely due to Rudd’s popularity (and I think that’s not too bad an assumption, given that Beazley’s ALP never polled this well), then this is moderately bad news for Labor.
PS: How the hell can Newscorp say “Howard closes gap” ? On primary, and 2PP vote they’re back to exactly where they were in May.
While I note the inconsistency between the findings of the Galaxy polls and those of Newspoll and ACNeilsen, I do not understand the argument that Galaxy lacks credibility and/or that it is in, some way, an instrument to “rescue” JWH. It is a business and its market research integrity must be paramount. For what it is worth, when I was telephone polled on Friday evening by a Galaxy interviewer, there was no “push polling”.
The two key factors in determining the outcome of the election will be the economy and the PM’s popularity. Those of you who have access to the Sydney Morning Herald will have seen that Nielsen also asked respondents to rate the two leaders against a number of attributes, like strength of leadership, vision, economic competence etc. Rudd naturally scored highly, but so did the PM; in fact, for someone who’s been in the job for 11 years his ratings are nothing short of phenomenal, and he blows Paul Keating out of the water (Keating’s ratings from 1995 are provided).
Importantly, the PM leads Rudd 78% to 53% on the issue of economic competence (he also led Keating 65 to 53 11 years ago). As long as the great economic data keeps rolling in – and it will – this lead will not diminish and will ultimately overshadow all other issues in the election campaign. And in the end the electorate will vote for the man who will maintain our prosperity.
Steven
As long as the great economic data keeps rolling in – and it will – this lead will not diminish and will ultimately overshadow all other issues in the election campaign.
Ok, we’ll take the PM’s rating on “economic competence” as a constant. I’m quite happy with that.
But if that’s the case,
(1) what’s driving the ALP’s lead in the polls now? And,
(2) whatever it is, is there any evidence that it will diminish?
Steven, you are perhaps forgetting that Rudd and Labor haven’t really taken Howard to task over economic issues yet. Howard has allowed quite a few myths and lies to propagate over many years about economic management.
A Rudd-led challenge in this area may still happen, or at least I hope so. As some suggest, this might be one area where Rudd is keeping his powder dry for later in the year.
While we’re on the economy, this says it all:
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/opinion.asp?class=your%20say&subclass=general&story_id=597138&category=opinion%20cartoon
The economy is complicated. Economists don’t even understand it. Everybody judges Howard as being better on the economy, but in reality the only index of economic performance that Bruce Average Citizen understands is whether or not he has money is pocket. To Bruce, the equation is that simple.
In 2004, even Dr John Hewson mocked the idea that only a Liberal govt could keep interest rates low. it didn’t matter to the opinion polls.
Forget economic arguments. Perceptions are everything. And the perception is that Howard is better at “managing the economy”. The proof that this is a real perception is in the Consumer Confidence indexes, which show that Bruce thinks he has money to burn.
David Charles, nobody can say definitively whether or not there was something sinister behind Galaxy’s recent poll, but several matters came to the fore that at least made some people wonder.
1) The poll was outside the usual cycle of Galaxy polls and happened to give just the kind of boost required for Howard at a time when he was looking very vulnerable. It also came at a time when there were no other competing polls (for two weeks) that might have muddied the waters. A clear media-led narrative about a Howard comeback was therefore able to be created, and indeed this is exactly what happened.
2) There were some very dodgy questions that were designed to probe why people were intending to vote for Labor or the Coalition. Some of these were clearly loaded against Labor, as reported by Crikey and others. This suggested a hidden (or maybe not-so-hidden!) agenda of trying to elicit very negative responses about Labor.
3) There were some reports from people polled that they were given these dodgy questions before being asked for their voting intention, which were likely to influence their responses. These reports appeared on Crikey and on Ozpolitics. Of course, we don’t know if these reports were accurate, but they nevertheless surfaced.
I understand the assumption that a company would not want to threaten their credibility. But if they really wanted to maintain a high level of credibility, then why the loaded questions in the follow up polling?
Look, who knows what was really going on with that Galaxy poll. Maybe it was just a rogue and a big coincidence. We will never know, but it will be interesting to see how Galaxy fares in future polls compared to Newspoll and ACNielsen. In the end though, most people on the blogs were questioning the accuracy of the sudden change in voting intention that was represented in that Galaxy poll, and in light of today’s polls, I think it was a reasonable call, whether you are a conspiracy theorist or not.
A-C, I found your post interesting. Let me give my opinion as to why I think the government is in trouble.
. Governments that have been in power a long time end up accumulating a lot of baggage. (eg. Children overboard, AWB, Kirribilli house, private dining rooms etc).
. Economics. The polls tell us that we trust JH to run the economy better than KR. Nevertheless, we learnt in the weekend papers that lots of people are having to dip into their super to get themselves out of financial trouble. Of course it’s their own fault for over-extending themselves, but they probably don’t see it that way. I think there is some resentment towards the government when they tell us we’ve never had it so good.
. Out of touch on environmental issues, notably greenhouse. Everyone knows JH doesn’t really believe in it and is only going along for the ride because he has to.
. David Hicks. I know, I know. David Hicks is a shitkicking bogan who nice people like us would cross the road to avoid. But the perceived unfairness of his treatment caused a lot of irritation with the government, as well as exacerbating the next issue, which is…
. Iraq. Taking us into Iraq was such a dumb thing to do. Not because it was bound to turn into a disaster but because it exemplified Australian’s ambivalence to the US. We want to be the US’ friend but not its lap-dog.
. Finally, economics (again). Although KR and co haven’t pursued it yet, I think the government is seriously exposed on economic management. We have a terrible current account deficit at a time when we have a record commodities boom. We have interest rates that are among the highest in the developed world. Manufacturing is taking a pretty big hit. I don’t think Howard campaigning on economic management is going to get him out of trouble.
Anyway, I think it’s pretty obvious that the government is rooted. Some people erroneously say that we’ve never voted out a government in good economic times. Not so. 1949, 1972, 1996. Governments in Australia just naturally wear out. This one has had a good long run. It really lost its chance at serious renewal last year when it failed to replace Howard with Costello. As long as we can trust Rudd not to screw up the economy, we will happily say goodbye to JH and crew.
…. and of course Workchoices. Another seriously dumb idea…
Does anyone know if Galaxy are about to come out with another poll showing a big swing toward the Govt to save Howard the embarassment of this double-whammy of Newspoll & AC Nielsen? If not, someone better concoct one fast!
After the First World War, the French built the Maginot Line to stop the Germans invading again. The German just went through the impassable “Ardennes†in neutral Belgium. Extrapolation from past elections assumes that nothing else has changed. The so-called closing of the gap may simply be the bounce produced by the margin of error that all polls have. It may be a trend – it may not be. No one, including me, knows.
Kevin Rudd grabbed the initiative from the start of the year, and it would be foolish to think he doesn’t have a few more ideas up his sleeve. I think he performs badly in some interviews where he refuses to engage with the question she is asked, but he is not alone there. He needs to cease being prolix and adopt simplicity as his talisman.
Graeme,
For the sake of the record, I do not accept that the DLP was an anti-Labor Party, though it was an anti-ALP party. I accept that Family First is a morally conservative party, rather than an outright party of the Right.
Leopold,
I think you have summed it up well, which again raises the whole issue of dividing everything on Left-Right lines.
Ray,
That seems a fair statement. One difficulty new parties have is finding their own centres or coherence. Look a the Democrats, who have gone from the party of choice for “progressives†to almost extinction.
A-C
A clue to your being “dumbfounded†is contained in your post. You ask, “how could Australians possibly vote out one of the most competent government’s(sic) we’ve ever had, while re-electing without any qualms, a bunch of rotten to the core / completely inept State governments?†The failure of Liberal supporters to understand how Labor State Governments keep getting re-elected is a failure to understand voters. The Victorian Labor Government is far from inept and not rotten in the slightest. It has rebuilt the state’s public services after a very destructive period of rule by the previous Liberal Government; for example, it has already invested $1.4 billion in rebuilding schools, is well on its way to invest $1.9 billion in rebuilding 500 schools in its current term, employed an extra 5,193 teachers (after the Liberals got rid of about 9,000), funded schools to cap prep to grade 2 classes at 21 pupils to improve literacy and numeracy learning, brought back traditional academic disciplines like history and geography (after the Liberal mess of SOSE), introduced the most rigorous reporting system I have ever seen, brought democratic elections to the Legislative Council (thus implementing a promise made by the Liberals in 1973 in order to obtain DLP preferences and broken immediately) and constitutionally protected the auditor-general as an officer of the parliament. In my town, there are a brand new primary school, a brand new police station and a brand new CFA station; in the next town, there is a brand new police/ambulance/CFA station. This record of achievement is highly visible and proof that charges of “completely inept†and “rotten to the core†are laughable. If the Liberals were able to be more measured and specific in their criticisms, they might make some progress.
Generic oracle,
Good points. It’s too late for me to hide my political views. Posting under my own name would make that impossible.
not “question she is asked”, but “questions he is asked”.
Has anyone put their thought to one of the factors in play at the moment are petrol prices?
All this talk about jobs for anyone who wants one, improving house prices, soaring wages – but at the end of the day, are people peeved because they’re having to pay more and more to fill up the car?
Family First’s Steve Fielding, based on his own doorknocking, reckons it’s a real issue biting with voters…
Chris, when you’re conducting unpaid advertising for the Bracks Government it’d be best not to sound as though you’re reciting some facts found from the nearest 2006 ALP election brochure. You know as well as I do that Kennett was faced with a situation massively different (courtesy of Joan Kirner) from the one inherited by Bracks. Funding was cut mainly because the State was bankrupted by the stunning incompetence of Cain/Kirner and Co. You also omit the fact that cuts to *public* education corresponded with a significant increase in the number of students enrolled in the private sphere.
The ineptitude of the current Victorian government is underscored by the there has been a massive increase in violent crime (ironically this has corresponded with the complete rooting of the police force). Every single major project the government has proposed as been delayed. Our dams are below 30% and the government has balked at every opportunity presented to them over the last 8 years to rectify the situation – their excuses for not building new dams in the North of the State are laughable (either there is not enough water or when there is, it would have adverse environmental effects). The VCE curriculum is an absolute joke – highlighted by the requirement that students “dissect†the meaning of text-messages in the year12 English exam. I almost forgot Victoria’s negative public sector cash flow (the worst in the nation) and the $ 3 billion+ net public sector debt recorded in the 2007 year.
Btw: I must thank you for displaying the utmost maturity after placing a (sic) after a quoted typo.
Kids above.
There is no inconsistency between Galaxy and these two polls. Galaxy’s survey, statistically speaking, said Labor’s primary vote was somewhere between 41 and 47 at a 95% confidence level. The ACN says (I think) somewhere between 45.5 and 50.5 at a 95% confidence level.
They overlap at around 46/47. Which, curiously enough, is where two of the last 3 Newspolls have put Labor’s primary vote.
It’s still not totally clear whether Labor are at 46/47 or still up around 49 (all surveys bar Galaxy are consistent with that as well). But these polls do not discredit Galaxy in any way, shape or form. They are all within each others margins of error. The balance of probabilities in my view favours 2/3 Newspolls being right, and Galaxy and ACN being right as well, giving us something like 47-39 as a population position. But the case is not yet watertight.
The 2PP is calculated differently in all 3 cases, so can’t really be compared in terms of margins of error. But even if you did, a range of 53 to 57 is easily reconciled.
By the way: to stick my neck out, my gut feeling remains that Rudd will lose. I don’t say it dogmatically, but that is my feeling and has been since December 4.
I see I’ve rediscovered the OzPolitics comments section… (”Rage, rage against the dying of the light”)
Leo, of all the ex OP POsters (how palindromically clever I am), yours is still up with the most analytical. I do miss Bushfire Bill’s posts, not necessarily for analysis, but they were such lovely analogies / stories. I agree that the story is fairly consistent at the moment, but at 56-57 IMO (I do think Galaxy was likely a bit low). Nevertheless, this is down a little from a fairly consistent 58-42 +/- noise picture we had a couple of months ago. As you suggest, it’s the slight fall in primary that is of most importance. It’s holding up OK though, from stratospheric heights.
And I strongly support Alan H’s comment of 2:09pm!
Leo, if you had to pinpoint the reasons why you believe Rudd will lose (despite his stratospheric poll numbers) what are they? I wish I could share your same optimism (or pessimism) but it does seem as though the Australian people have this peculiar infatuation with him that shows no signs of abating.
Cos to win the election Rudd needed to (really not faux) distance himself from the unions
But to keep his position within the ALP he needs to embrace the unions.
A great irony
I think voters are always looking for reasons to vote against a government in any democratic system, especially after a couple of terms. However, Oppositions need to give them a reason to do so. Look at the early year polls of all of Howard’s re-elections, and it was also largely true during Labor’s term in office and also during the long Tory rule in Britain (and indeed Labour now). This phenomenon appears to get stronger the longer a government is in power.
However, when it comes time to actually vote, people weigh up the choices in front of them, and voters will generally go for who seems more credible. In those elections referred to above, people made the gut choice about which side would do better. The overwhelming mass of people don’t hold the firm opinions of those who post here, and aren’t much interested.
This year Labor looks as good as they have since they lost office. Rudd appears to be a politician of some substance, and the front bench doesn’t look so bad to me – Gillard, Tanner and others are more than competent, and there is some talent coming in (eg Combet). It doesn’t take that many “stars” to make a reasonable government, as with Howard government and more particularly the State governments.
The biggest risk for the government is that Howard is clearly coming to end of his time, and voters sense that. Why wait another eighteen months for him to go when they can change now?
Labor looks ready to govern at about the same time that the government is getting tired. It doesn’t necessarily follow that the government will lose, but this may be THE sleeper issue of the whole campaign.
Coota
Yes. The petrol one in Australia is one I have always failed to understand in the mindset of Aussies. I think they must think in “liquids”.. what is the price of petrol? Milk? Beer? Water?
In understand FFP has pushed the petrol barrow since the first HTV card was handed out but I don’t always see how 10c a litre or even 35c a litre (most of the excise removed) would make a lot of real difference to the average family. At 50L a week this is $16.50. One packet of cigarettes, 2/3 of a carton of beer or 1/20th of an average mortgage payment!!
Now their idea to offer householders Tax relief on mortgages is sound and one which is common in Asia (especially Singapore and HK where housing is expensive like Sydney). This (apparently) would save about $100 a week. Now that is starting to talk!!
I also like the discussions of the Majors with PVs for electricity and wish we could consider a model like Germany’s, where ANYONE can bung up a PV panel and get paid 0.30 Euro a kWh and get charged .20 Euro kWh for electricity. So it is an incentive to produce. So if we could get free electricity AND get paid to produce AND get tax relief on our Mortgage… some of us might just be able to afford private health insurance!!
Edward, let me get this straight. The Labor Party has to become another Liberal Party to beat them in the election. Hmm, why bother with an election at all?
A-C,
I do not make a practice of correcting other posters’ grammatical mistakes. If I had not quoted you directly, I would not have bothered to note yours either. I placed the “sic†after your typo to indicate what it normally means; viz., that I was quoting accurately and had not made a mistake myself. I do make typos and I will not be offended if you place a “sic’ after one of them if you ever quote me. It’s standard practice and is not meant to reflect on the person whose words get the “sicâ€.
The facts I quoted are the result of my own research and knowledge and are not from any “ALP election brochureâ€. The return of academic disciplines to our schools, the rigorous reporting system, the reform of the Legislative Council and the constitutional protection of the auditor-general are not matters of expenditure. At the time the cuts to education expenditure were made, they were not justified on the grounds of a shift to private schools or on the grounds that the budgetary situation made them necessary. Had they been on the latter grounds, the government would have said that they were to be temporary.
Victoria was a wealthy low tax state. Victoria’s per capita Gross State Product – that is, the total value of our production of goods and service – was, far as I can make out from the statistics, as healthy in the ‘nineties as it was in the ‘eighties. The 1992-93 Australian national accounts show that total Victorian GSP in 1981-82 was $45.87 billion, or approximately $94.859 billion in 1994 dollars. A population of 3,968,000 meant a per capita GSP of $23,906. In 1992-93, GSP was $106.936 billion, or approximately $108.967 billion in 1994 dollars. A population of 4,456,000 meant a per capita GSP of $24,454. That is, over those eleven years we enjoyed a 14.1 percent growth in real terms for GSP and a 2.3 percent growth in per capita GSP. We were well able to afford high class education.
Victorian government outlays for the three years to 1991/92 were 12.1 percent of GSP compared with NSW at 13.0 percent (”Audit Commission report a political exercise”, Kenneth Davidson, The Age, 8/5/1993). Victorian current revenues over the same period were 11.2 percent, compared with NSW at 13.6 percent. In other words, Victoria taxed its economy less than NSW and spent less than NSW, but it borrowed more. If its taxes had been as high as NSW’s, it would have been in surplus and have been able to provide even better services.
In 1992, Victoria had the smallest public sector workforce of all the states, 17.9 percent compared with an average of 19.6 percent (The impact of Liberal/national policies on employment and public sector spending, Michael Salvaris). The lie of the overtaxing, overspending, overstaffed, inefficient Victorian public sector is well and truly past its use by date.
Nonetheless, this lie was combined with nonsense that defies common sense to undermine our education system. By selective comparisons with some other states in particular years and by ridiculous claims such that class sizes don’t matter (when professional expertise, research and commonsense say they do), the government was able to convince the media that education spending could be slashed. Victoria in fact spent less per head on education than the ACT, the NT, Tasmania and South Australia in 1991-92, and less per student than the ACT, the NT and South Australia in 1990-91. Education spending fell from 31.2 percent of the state budget in 1981/82 to 24.9 percent in 1991/92.
Pupil-teacher ratios tell a similar story. Victoria’s secondary pupil-teacher ratio was 10.8:1 by the end of the previous Labor Government in 1992, compared with 11.1:1 in SA and 10.9:1 under the Thompson Liberal Government in 1981. There is no doubt that the wealthier state Victoria was in 1992 could afford the less than one per cent improvement in secondary school staffing compared with the poorer state it was in 1981.
Poll driven blog? Politics should not be about polls but policy and having vision.
A-C,
Of course, the financial facts show that the reason for the cuts to education was not a lack of funds. The reason given at the time was “provider captureâ€, a weird notion imported from America as a result of a book about rowing and steering (Re-inventing Government), as the quotations below make clear:
‘…teacher unions have “captured†the operation of education services in regard to staffing and working conditions so that the education system has become unduly teacher-driven.’ (Institute of Public Affairs, Schooling Victorians, 1992)
‘There is extensive over-staffing of teachers, inefficient work practices and “union†capture of education expenditure.†(IPA, Schooling Victorians, 1992)
‘The schools are simply a racket and a rort for teachers who use it as a fully salaried system of outdoor relief.’ (Peter Ryan, “Teachers fail to get the pointâ€, The Age, 1/8/1992)
‘Socialist Left ideology…is nicely entrenched throughout the state education administrative system, thanks to a continuing infiltration of the faithful throughout the Cain/Kirner years.’ (Michael Barnard, ‘Labor could not learnâ€, The Age, 28/8/1992)
‘The perks and privileges of this cosseted profession were absolutely sacrosanct.†(“A lesson in anarchyâ€, Herald Sun (editorial), 19/11/1992)
‘Schools…appear to be run more for the benefit and convenience of their employees than for their users.’ (Claude Forell, “A reckoning unions had to haveâ€, The Age, 25/11/1992)
‘The Kennett Government is pledged to a course that promises to break the debilitating union stranglehold…’ (Michael Barnard, “Teachers in a state of intellectual undressâ€, The Age, 27/11/1992)
‘A strong moral case for the present Government unilaterally renouncing all agreements entered into by the previous Government with its employees can be made on the grounds that they were not arms-length agreements.’ (Professor Ross Parish, “Let the Public Service pay towards cutting the ranksâ€, The Age, 11/12/1992)
‘Mr Kennett…set out to break the power of the education unions which had been running the system…’ (“A hundred high speed days†(editorial), Herald Sun, 11/1/1993)
‘The present system has allowed education to become captive of its bureaucracies and powerful lobbies.’ (“A testing year in education†(editorial), The Age, 25/1/1993)
‘Money for schools was channelled into creating more jobs and better conditions for teachers.’ (“School lessons in economic necessity†(editorial), The Age, 27/1/1993)
‘The emergency teacher system…had not existed before 1980…’ (Don Hayward, quoted in Denis Muller, “Schools already feel bite of education cutsâ€, The Age, 1/3/1993) [As a school daily organiser, I knew this was untrue because I had employed emergency teachers without restriction in 1978.]
‘Money which could have been saved by reduced teacher numbers has been used to improve teachers’ working conditions…the education budget has been allowed to become unnecessarily bloated…Throwing more money at a problem, by itself, can never be guaranteed to achieve the desired result.’ (Kevin Donnelly, “Why we’re inefficientâ€, Herald Sun, 3/5/1993
‘That structure is prone to “capture†at the centre and the extremities by organised interest groups such as teacher unions…’ (page 9, Vol. 2, Report of the Victorian Commission of Audit, 1993)
‘The powerful public sector unions were permitted by default to run…education…’ (“Jim Kennan scratchesâ€, Herald Sun (editorial), 29/6/1993)
‘…during the 1980s, the union movement “captured†the operation of the public sector. This led to considerable over-staffing and restrictive work practices…’ (Des Moore, “Why government needs to be rolled backâ€, The Age, 5/7/1993)
‘…cosy deals with teacher unions…wasteful school work practices.…It is understandable that some union officials who rode the Labor gravy train are resistant to reform.’ (Alan Stockdale, “Education’s future depends on savingsâ€, The Age, 22/9/1993)
‘Unions have focused on industrial relations to build up a cosy bracket of work practices rather than concentrate on professional standards.’ (Don Hayward, quoted in Felicity Dargan, “100 schools to goâ€, Herald Sun, 30/9/1993)
This line of thought was nothing more than teacher-bashing, but it was rarely permitted to be challenged in the mainstream media. In its decision on teacher workload on 24 February, 1995, the Australian Industrial Relations Commission recognised that teachers were overworked, consequently took away the Victorian government’s right to unilaterally damage teaching conditions in the state and gave the lie to these claims:
“One observation which must be made relates to an assertion made earlier in proceedings before the Commission about allegedly favoured or special treatment afforded to teachers in Victoria by a previous State government. There is no foundation in fact for such an assertion…”
The one thing all polls are telling us is that Howard is in trouble right now. To say this will or won’t continue is pure speculation. We will just have to wait and see.
A-C,
I could now spend some hours researching crime statistics to see if your claim that there has been “a massive increase in violent crime†is true, but instead I will ask you to provide some figures of crime rates over, say, the last 20 years.
I do not know if “every single major project†has been delayed. It looks to me like Eastlink will be finished ahead of time, but my impression over the last 40 years of observing politics is that all governments have projects that are over time and over budget. If you want to quote some facts and figures to show that the current Victorian Government is any worse, please do so.
Victoria has had a budget surplus for every year of the Bracks Government. Just as ordinary people take out mortgages to buy houses, so sensible governments borrow money for capital works. They do so because the investment will add to economic growth and thus the overall wealth of the community. In addition, that economic growth will increase government revenue and allow the debt to be paid back. It is also a fair thing to do because the assets so built are of benefit to future generations, not just the current generation of taxpayers.
I do not agree that the VCE curriculum is an absolute joke. I say that as someone who has actually taught it and can see value in the study of literature, the development of writing skills and the analysis of the way language is used to present arguments. However, I do agree that the standard to pass is woeful, something which we will both agree is the fault of the previous Kirner Labor Government, but which you may or may not be willing to agree the previous Liberal Government did nothing to fix in its seven years in office, though between 1994 and 1996, it did reduce the number of marks required to get an A in English assessment tasks. At least, the current Labor Government has introduced the Victorian Certificate of Learning as an alternative to the VCE. It is also the case that the criteria for judging VCE are quite rigorous. The problem is that they are not enforced. Indeed, in 1999, under the Liberals I must add, when I went to an inservice on the new VCE, we were told that the Board of Studies, as it then was, still expected a 95 per cent pass rate, indicating clearly that the criteria did not mean what they said. If text messages are to be a significant part of the English exam, I would regard that as absurd. If they simply form part of a language analysis task along with more substantial uses of the language, I do not see a problem.
That leaves the question to dams. I agree that the Labor Government should have been quicker to act on the lack of water, though I would not dismiss the issue of environmental flows as you appear to do. If Liberals can produce actual facts and figures and reasons rather than rely on hyperbole, they will have a chance of cutting back the lead that the Labor Party enjoys in every state and territory.
The basic point I am making applies to the ALP too. Many Laborites cannot understand how people can vote for the Howard Government. Yet, to win those votes back, they must make the effort to understand.
Coota Bulldog,
Is it just me or is Steve Fielding become quite good by focusing on simple meat and potato issues rather than on religious issues in the last twelve months. On that he deserves another term.
Fielding isn’t up for re-election until 2011. Maybe he is doing tghis so he can become the next Brian Haradine after the Election if the lib Majority is lost, especially with Ron Boswell being in deep doo doo for the Nats and Rod Kemp and Kay Patterson retiring for the Libs.
THanks for that insightful and comprehensive discourse about the Victorian education system. Errr, isn’t this thread about Federal opinion polls?
The basic point I am making applies to the ALP too. Many Laborites cannot understand how people can vote for the Howard Government. Yet, to win those votes back, they must make the effort to understand.
That one’s simple.
They voted for him in ‘96 because they didn’t like Keating.
They voted for him in ‘98 because … well, they didn’t actually vote for him. He got back in thanks to a quirk of the system, though he didn’t actually get the majority of votes.
They voted for him 2001 because there was a war on, and as the graphs on ozpolitics.info show, the Opposition took a massive dive around Sept 11 and never recovered.
http://www.ozpolitics.info/election2007/pollchart-newspoll-tpp-comparative.png
They voted for him in 2004 because too many people correctly sensed that Opposition Latham was a lunatic.
Sounds like the luck of the devil? Not really. Governments rarely change in Australia. I read recently that we’ve now had some 10 consecutive elections in this country (state and federal) without a single change of government.
Hugo,
You are right. This thread is meant to be about federal politics, but sometimes state affairs intrude, and I respond.
Labor is way in front federally. The Australian spins everything in a Liberal direction. This is not 2001 or 2004, so extrapolating from those election years is no guide at all as to what will happen this year. I still tip Kevin Rudd to gain 22 coalition seats. Come the end of July, when the voters have their tax cuts in their pockets, I will revise my prediction, but I do not expect that money to cut the Labor vote at all.
It is not Glenn Milne’s 1969 either, but if it were, the 7 per cent swing of that year would give Kevin Rudd a solid victory. What Mr Milne is forgetting is that in 1969 there was a significant DLP vote, transferring Labor votes to the coalition. This is no longer the case.
Adam,
You said earlier in the year that if Labor were still polling high votes come May/June, you would start to feel more confident. Do you?
Looks like those displaced by Bryan’s diaspora are find new homes here. I can’t say I’m pleased in all cases.
The Australian has an article today about how strongly voters are attached to each party. They have used this chart:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/files/newspoll-19-jun.jpg
The story goes that this is bad for the Government, becuase 57% of supporters being strongly attached to a party is quite rare this far out from an election campaign. But hasn’t the reporter missed the more important point, that there are 13% of voters likely to change their vote? Isn’t this where elections are actually won and lost, the election campaign is all about swaying this group of people to one side or the other, whcih would be more than enough to change the result?
Nostradamus and other Liberal supporters are entitled to post comments here. I don’t have a problem with that. I’ll happily admit to being an ALP supporter.
Last night on the 7.30 Report, Michael Brisenden was comparing the polls with those at the same stage in 2004.
2007: ALP(56-57), COALITION(43-44)
2004: ALP(52), COALITION(48)
So, Labor is doing 4-5 points better than this time 3 years ago.
I’m a natural pessimist when it comes to the ALP(probably because I’ve suffered through too many defeats since 1996). I’d never underestimate the possibility of Howard making another comeback. Rudd will need to be on his toes, use the winter break to release some comprehensive policies, and rein in the Unions. In my opinion, the ALP will need to be as conservative as possible to get elected in October/November.
“I read recently that we’ve now had some 10 consecutive elections in this country (state and federal) without a single change of government.”
Twelve including territories since those heady days of 2001/2002 when there were 4 changes of government (including ACT & NT) in 8 elections…
Frank Calabrese said:
He is in trouble – but only against the Libs – so the senate majority won’t be affected no matter what happens.
The combined conservative senate vote in QLD was above 57%. The chance of it dropping below 43% is nil.
As a fellow ALP supporter in this election can you explain why the ALP are getting these good poll figures now without turning themselves into Liberal Lite as you seem to be suggesting they need to do with the comment “In my opinion, the ALP will need to be as conservative as possible to get elected in October/November.”?
Simon, but is 13% more than enough to change the vote? What makes you think the 13% would all shift from Labor to coalition? The net gain to the coalition may be say 4 percent. On present figures would that be enough?
I know we’re dealing with poll figures which may or may not be accurate now or into the future but it is an interesting exercise.
As discussed in a previous thread, Boswell’s best chance is to be on a combined coalition ticket.
Their individual votes will certainly not hold up to the 2004 levels, which delivered the freak result of 4 coalition seats on a 3.2 combined quota.
Depending on preference deals some of the “conservative” vote may well cross to the ALP who need to limit the coalition to 2 seats if they want to prize control of the Senate from the coalition.
This opens the possibility of a conservative minor (FFP, ONP, Hansen) taking a seat, leaving a 2-3-1 or even a 2-2-1-1 result if the Greens get amoungst it.
Always an interesting battle in Qld. They’re a weird mob!
Political preference doesn’t concern me, just strength of argument and evidence offered.
Ray
| agree that Queensland is weird when it comes to politics. It can landslide Coalition Federally and then landslide Labor in a State election in less than two years after.
I agree that there is an odds on chance for a minor party senate seat here but think that it would be uphill for the Greens. Labor would either have to do exceptionally well in senate tickets to overflow to Green, or the Greens will have to lift their game. In the last state election, Greens polled just under 8% in Primaries, FFP was just over 7% and perhaps has a better chance here.
I think South Australia will be an interesting one, with Dems still in decline and a stronger showing for Greens generally in SA. I think no one is under any pretences that the Dems have had their day and most will be surprised to see them alive at all with senators up for re-election.
I am not sure of my maths though I think it expresses the opinion that the Gov’t are stuffed. That is if the newspoll of “how strongly voters are attached to each party” is correct. MLS (Most Likely Support)
% Nat % % of Nat % of % to
Vote MLS vote MLS Not Win
MLS (alp52.5Lib50)
ALP 2pp 56 88 49 13 3.22
LIB 2pp 44 87 38 13 11.72
ALP Primary 46 88 40 25 12.02
LIB Primary 39 87 34 25 16.07
The last election was the first I can remember where QLD senate didn’t split 2-2-1-1. Its just that one of the singles has been the Nationals, except for 1998, where they were delivered to the Dems and One Nation. The nail will go in both coffins this election, although Hansen will throw a spanner in the works again.
The minor contenders will be the Greens and Family First for these seats.
At 8% the Greens are still very much in the mix, but need still to harvest the Dems and residue ALP to get their quota. This will not serve the ALP as it does not come at the expense of the coalition. The only way they can attract conservative votes is via an exchange with FFP ahead of the Greens.
In SA the Greens and FFP would need to harvest residues from both minors. This eliminates the Greens chances as they will not get Liberal preferences ahead of FFP or Labor. I think it most likely will split 3-3 again.
Alright, I’ll bite.
Not impossible for Dems to get 3% in SA and QLD … that would put them right back in the hunt for those two seats. Especially as its likely they will get prefs from minor parties before Greens. If Greens are pulled back to 5-6% in those two states it would be close.
I think FF will do better this time than last time. I think 3% in Victoria for FF is not out of the question. Bad news for Dem senator Lyn Allison, as to be in it I think the dems need to outpoll FF (as they needed to do last election and didn’t).
a = % National Vote
b = % Most Likely Support (MLS) from total party support
c = % MLS reflected as a % of national support
d = % not MLS
e = % needed to get to majority of seats (alp 52.5 Lib 50)
a b c d e
ALP 2pp….. 56 88 49 13 3.22
LIB 2pp….. 44 87 38 13 11.72
ALP Primary 46 88 40 25 12.02
LIB Primary 39 87 34 25 16.07
This maybe more readable
In Late July, KRudd will announce that he has reached agreement with all State Labor Governments to transfer IR powers to the Feds if he is elected.
This is the silver bullet for the rodent.
The NSW State Government has not published details of the AG department spending in its budget today for this very reason.
A-C,
I have consulted the new VCE Study Design. There is no ‘requirement that students “dissect†the meaning of text-messages in the year12 English exam’.
Generic Oracle & Dembo
At the last Qld election the Greens polled 7.99% and FFP 1.89%, so I’m a little confused about where you got 7%. The Greens contested 75 seats and FFP 26 of the 89 seats on offer. If you allow for the number of seats stood in, the Greens statewide poll would have been 9.48%, and FFP’s 6.47%. Both would have favoured seats where they could do reasonably well (though not exclusively). However, I don’t think either will hold up in the federal election – note the Greens & CDP vote drop in the last Federal election in NSW compared to both the 2003 & 2007 state elections, and the Greens drop in Victoria during the same period. So, while they are both in with a chance, I don’t rate it highly.
Equally, with regards to the Democrats, they will be without Natasha in SA although Bartlett may push his own vote up. His problem will be harvesting from the right-wing minors – as it is for the Democrats nationally. They may get them in some states but not in others where they are perceived to be too far ahead. And there are hardly any left wing minors left nowadays…
Ah, Edward, I’ve been waiting for the true you to appear. The “KRudd” nickname is used by his most ardent detractors on blogs. Nice to see you out in the open.
Rudd’s office is leaking like a sieve and straight to the government.
Correction:
In SA the Greens and FFP would need to harvest residues from both “majors”.
The only chance the Dems had was in their homeland of SA, and only with Natasha at the helm. Even she saw the writing on the wall. Their chances of resurrection now are less than that of Don Chip leading the party again.
Stewart J:
That should be Greens 9.26% FFP 6.68% in seats contested.
I assume the 7% comes from rounding.
I think 3%+ for FF in Vic is a definite given Fielding’s profile and their state election result (4.3%). Their upperhouse result escapes me..
There was discussion in the coalition partyroom about the housing affordability today – another meat and potato issue. So, while Howard/Costello focus on the great productivity snafu, the real concerns of backbenchers facing re-election is that it’s just too expensive for young people to buy a house.
Howard/Costello have cut themselves out of any semblence of a policy on this point by blaming the states. And Labor doesn’t have a coherent policy.
Ultimately, as Steve Fielding seems to be picking up, if your kids can’t afford a house, and you can’t afford to drive into town, then you get a little bit miffed with someone. In this case, that someone appears to be the Federal Government.
Gary,
To be fair I am equally disparaging of both sides – you should admit.
“Rudd’s office is leaking like a sieve and straight to the government.”
Have my doubts. You’re referring, I assume, to the brief on productivity.
In some ways it’s reassuring that there is something Kev does not know. He could be lucky on this occasion. It could have been his GST-birthday cake during the election campaign.
Now all he has to do is swat up on a textbook. Krugman’s Macroeconomics is an easy read, and probably to his taste.
I am coming out of voluntary retirement very briefly, tax and housing affordability is the bait I can’t resist.
And yes both sides at a Federal level are diabolical.
Labor can’t promise to kill the 50% CGT discount the ‘public’ outcry from the small wealthy minority who have wined and dined on this would be very unwelcome.
One obvious solution to allow ’superannuation mortgages’ so that people can invest for their retirement in their own homes has too much potential to frighten unions running superannuation funds and will almost certainly lead to ‘the government is making me sell my house” as retirees who taken advantage of this don’t like the idea of downsizing in retirement.
Neither side could possibly, in an election enviroment, outline a policy to kill non-commercial losses (ie kill negative gearing) it would take guts and leadership the government doesn’t have and Labor would be a sitting duck for the obvious spin on rental costs skyrocketing in the short term.
Once you accept that orderly planning is both necessary for State and Local Government, and in fact well planned and constructed communities are desired by consumers (these things all have in built costs) – once you accept this as essential to urban growth then the only impact State Governments have on housing prices and demand is to subdue, the higher stamp duty the less investment heat.
It is a foolish debate, it is clearly fueled by Commonwealth settings (all bar those few fringe radicals who advocate free for alls which would be a disaster for everyone) and is only going to be calmed by Commonwealth settings.
I think it combined with rising interest rates and work choices perfectly explain the polling for Rudd.
Jas, good to see you back “briefly”, be sure to do it again
SS Labor charting a slightly wobbly course through rough seas but making headway.
Speaker, you say the conservative’s Senate vote was over 57% last time. That rather depended on the preference merry go round and your definition of ‘conservative’. For the record, the Senate votes were: Coalition 46.2%, ALP 32.56%, Greens 5.55%, Others 8.5% (over 4% for La Celebrite Hanson), Family First 3.5%, One Nation (not Hanson) 3.2%, Dem 2.26%, Libs for Forests 1%.
Stewart J
I stand corrected on the primaries for FFP and Greens in QLD. You are quite right, I was rounding (did say ‘nearly 7′) the FFP primary in contested seats (as it turned out!) and the Green percentage was, indeed, taken from primary state figures (again, rounded). Too hasty with grabs from their websites!
Coota
I think you are right with “Meat and Potatoes” from Fielding. He seems to be focussing on “dinner table politics” which is not a bad tactic for vote winning around the middle (class and political persuasion!).
This is perhaps where the Greens have their work cut out for them. Credit to them, they are idealists and do not tend to “sell out” their principles, even if they tend to alienate them (and confuse swinging voters at times!).
The Dems. on the other hand, seem to have been swamped by the Greens in terms of position redundancy and by FFP in terms of Senate-function redundancy, which is a little sad, given their important contribution to the political landscape in the 70’s and 80’s, Chipp was a visionary.
Pauline Hanson has realised that it’s easier to sell a vote in 2007 than carb covered fried fish, which may explain her decision to stand again. Again, though, she is unswayed in her core principles and has some loyal supporters. Like the Dems, however, she appears at a nadir of political influence.
Chris – although other commentors rightly point out that this has nothing to do with the Poll Bludger’s post, in the interest of not seeming as though I’m cutting and running from our little stoush – I believe the text message dissection was in the 2006 year 12 English exam. If it wasn’t then I’ll need to go back to the the media reports I read last year
A-C
Thank you, A-C. I did not teach VCE in 2006. I remember media reports suggesting such would happen, but I do not know if it did. A current year 12 teacher whom I consulted informs me that it is not part of the current course.
Nadir = lowest point, implies there is no lower, implies there might perhaps be a higher point to come.
Not so for the Dems and One Nation.
The next step is the grave.
This, however was said of the DLP, who just won a seat in the Vic parliament. Should have been two!
Greetings from Melbourne, colleagues
(Yes Edward I am home at last from my imaginary travels, back to my dreary Walter Mondaleish existence. Melbourne is shocking cold after pretending to be in Bangkok!)
The DLP was kept going by a hard core of zealots working around a single issue – abortion – which they felt strongly about. I can’t see anyone feeling that strongly about anything in the Democrats program to want to persist once all the Senate seats are gone. One Nation on the other is a party of cranks and will probably linger on.
Edward – true Edward. I was really having a tongue in cheek go at you.
Hopefully you are right Black Jack.
I would hope that Senator Fielding has no interest in anyone’s meat and potatoes other than his own (does this have a different meaning outside of Port Macquarie?)
BTW was the translitteration from Walter Mitty to Walter Mondale deliberate or Freudian?
I can’t imagine that Hanson is seriously standing and putting her own money up to campaign. Surely she is just hoping that her name and the free publicity that it brings will get an end result of 4% so she can live on AEC funding for another 3 years.
Senator Coonan admits brodband mistake… 12 MBPS will not be rolled out to all of australia… (probably not even to all of the 40 marginal electorates that just happen to seemingly have some priority, according to the PM because they are regional, which was news to me here in Bonner, in not so warm Brisbane.
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21933962-5003402,00.html
Meanwhile Ross Vasta MHR has repaid $24000 in electoral allowances, claimed, apparently, due to an administrative error…
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21933161-5003402,00.html
Of course, none of this is earth shattering in itself, but it seems to me that it is typical of the self made ruts that the coalition has been consistently running into during the last six months, and which has served to hinder their effort to claw back support for Kevin Rudd.
In other news from the past couple of days, Agforce, a large rural lobby group are now advising the Qld goverment to reject the federal government’s $10 Billion water plan, as they have been unable to get ’satisfactory answers’ to various issues from the office of the Minister for Water resources. I suppose that this sort of thing will happen if you draw up a ‘master plan’ on the run, without proper preperation and costings etc.
A-C,
I have just read the 2006 VCE English examination. There is no mention of dissecting text messages in it. There is one half-page section not reproduced on the VCCA website due to copyright problems, but the mere fact that copyright problems are the reason for its non-appearance makes it unlikely that it consists of text messages.
Behind our discussion is the relevant issue of placing yourself in someone else’s shoes. I understand why people elected the Kennett Government in 1992. I really do not understand why they re-elected it in 1996. My perspective is, naturally enough, coloured by the fact that I was a teacher who witnessed first-hand what it did to my profession and the children I taught. I still remain amazed at how the PR message it got across was so different from the daily reality that so many of us suffered. I will give just one example: as I drove to school one morning, I heard Don Hayward, the Education Minister, on the radio explaining that the government was not closing any schools. Fifteen minutes later, I was at our morning staff meeting at which the principal read out the list of schools to be closed in the Northern Metropolitan Region. But I have to accept that, for some reason, the public did not see things the way I saw them.
Similarly, there are many Liberal supporters who cannot understand how Steve Bracks has been re-elected in two landslides, yet he has. There are also Labor supporters who are completely befuddled by the re-election of John Howard on three occasions. They think of Iraq, David Hicks, the “silencing†of the Left and wonder how Mr Howard can get away with it. But hard-headed political observers do have explanations, and once the losing side gets “itâ€, the losing side will be in the position to become the winning side. That brings us to Kevin Rudd and his likely victory this year. Labor now gets “itâ€.
“VCAA”, not “VCCA”
And what is “it”?
Chris
Will you please come out and say that you secretly believe that Bracksie is actually Victoria’s first DLP premier. I can’t imagine you could sustain your belief in his wonderfulness any other way!
Talk about spinning!
The SMH had the following headline this morning : EXPOSED:SECRET BUSINESS PLOT TO WRECK LABOR.
This article stated “The key messages to be developed include working on the emotional voter response to the prospect of unions regaining power…”.
The Government Gazette headline on the same story read:
GOVERNMENT WILL DESIGN BUSINESS ADS.
The take was “…the 6.5 million dollar campaign will recommend avoiding an emotional fight with unions…”.
Both Fairfax and Rupert acknowledge SMH has the leaked conspiratorial memo, so I know who I’m inclined to believe.
Fulvio Sammut Says:
June 20th, 2007 at 3:46 am
Talk about spinning!
The SMH had the following headline this morning : EXPOSED:SECRET BUSINESS PLOT TO WRECK LABOR
Its hardly a secret plot, thats bloody funny. Should be interesting, but not surprising, to see what page the Vasta (alleged) missapropriation issue gets in the Courier Mail up here in QLD today. So much for the ‘inside’ tip that only the Liberal Party hack (not the 3 elected ones) is going to have mud on his face when the ‘inquiry’ is completed- I note an editoral in The Courier Mail yesterday called for the issue to be resolved a.s.a.p for the sake of the families of the accussed. I dont know why I read such media, maybe its abit like people who hate Big Brother but watch it anyway.
I’d love to know who leaked Rudd’s productivity paper to the media.
Similarly, the ALP must have a mole in the public service/Howard’s office.
Oh yes, this will be a nasty election campaign!
Ross Vasta – surely he’ll be one of the first Liberals to bite the dust on election day, if not beforehand.
Strop:
I said they’d get off – and he is, just as I said.
The polls are improving for the government, however at most the government is polling 40% of the primary vote and 46% of the two party preferred vote. That means if they remain the same at election time, the biggest Labor two party preferred vote in postwar history and give Labor a majority of around 26-30 seats.
But Tristan The Australian sees this as a wonderful recovery by the government. Of course they’re basing it on a past poll that even they see as being over exaggerated for Labor but, hey, let’s not spoil a good story with facts.
Vasta et al are not “off” yet Mr. Speaker, but I will ‘watch this space’ with interest. Im thinking Vasta is already in a precarious position. How much damage do you think it would do if they dont walk away squeaky clean ?
P.S . The cut and thrust of an the election space is starting to warm up now, bring it on. Leaks, freaks and the left feild surprises are starting to enter the fray, love it !!
Interesting that Mark Parnell Greens MLC and Xenophon MLC no pokies seem to be the only ones to say no to parliament pay rises here in SA. People of principle? Should be more doing that!
I would love to see how my vote is going in Kingston. The last Poll had it at 6 percent. It would be interesting to see if the few things we have done over the last month has had any affect or as Adam said – if i went overseas till election day it still would be 6
silent_jasmine Says:
June 19th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
I am coming out of voluntary retirement very briefly,
Why have you retired???
Hey Bill,
Where ya been ?
I notice Bob Brown has been silent about the recent federal payrises. So you think he is unprincipled ?
The Speaker, evidently you don’t watch Lateline. Brown was interviewed last night, called the pay rises ‘disgraceful’ and called upon Labor and Coalition backbenchers to support his planned attempt to block them in the Senate.
Saw the new liberal senator from Qld on ABC news tonight, she was asked her reaction to the pollies pay rise.
She said “more money to throw pearls before the poor”, at least she didn’t say swine.
“I notice Bob Brown has been silent about the recent federal payrises.”
Speaker, actually Bob Brown was on Lateline last night saying that the pay rises were a disgrace and that the Greens would not be supporting them.
Charlie: ok you got me – sorry Bill.
In my defence I did a quick browse of Bob Brown’s media releases before posting.
A lot of %**p gets written about Bob Brown. Most of his critics seem to have never listened to a word he’s said, let alone taken the time to read a policy on greens.org.au.
I guess the fact that he gets such little exposure in the media makes him an exposed target. This is because since the govt got control of the Senate, I’m hard pressed to think of a situation in which any journalist would need to interview him.
I’m disappointed to see the usual shallow tabloid populism about MPs’ pay rises being echoed here. MPs are if anything underpaid for how hard most of them work.
Adam, can you confirm for me whether Opposition front benchers only get paid the base salary? If so, it’s a joke that government parly secs are earning $30,000 more than senior Opposition Shadows.
Bill,
Although Bob Brown has criticised the pay rise, will he actually accept it? Or will he funnel the additional pay he will receive into charity? I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt and say the latter, but I wouldn’t mind some confirmation on this one.
Apart from the Leaders and Deputy Leaders in both chambers, I believe that is the case. The Whips also get more.
And it’s easy for Senators to be critical, they don’t have electorates to worry about. Some of them are rather less hard-working – although I’ve no doubt Brown works as hard as anyone.
Bob Brown does not get no media. He might only get to give the odd sound-bite, but he appears on the news a lot and is quoted in the papers pretty often for, as you say, someone who has no practical influence due to the Government having control of the Senate.
Something about him being a “conviction politician!” no doubt (with apologies to Mumble).
Pseph anybody taking a moral position can be accused of hypocrisy. That’s very easily done.
I’m not accusing him of hypocrisy, I’m just wondering if he’s guilty of it.
I say pay them and stop whingeing about it. Id want to be paid alot more than they do to take that mantle on. Brown has a track record for carping about the pay increases and usually trots out something like “Nothing brings the Coalition and ALP together quicker than a pay increase”. Different strokes for different folks. Havent heard of Brown making plans to donate the increase to some charity or something..not recently anyway.
Maybe I am slipping into amnesia ahead of my time, but apart from the union people going off at Latham pre election 2004 about his anti-logging policy pre election, I can not remember a time when, in an election year, so many Unionists dirty washing has been splashed across the media and the would be PM having to ‘distance’ himself from them and/or call for a National meeting to pull these people into line or call for Union officials etc to resign- Are some Union people prepared to white-ant Rudd ? With friends like that who needs enemies. Looks like sections of the labor movement are shooting themselves (more specifically Rudd) in the foot, again. Unions irrelevant in 2007 – Ha.
P:S I dont buy into the conservative dirty washing conspiracy theories that will say union dirt in the papers in standard pro-Coalition practice..some it is, sure. But this is getting rediculous now.
Arbie Jay,
It was said as a joke.
pseph, your confirmation ……
Senator Brown said the increase was not justified and should be given to charity if his attempt to stop it fails.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Brown-will-seek-to-block-MPs-pay-rise/2007/06/19/1182019109563.html
C-woo
sick sort of joke dont ya think?
Here’s the acid test for Kev: will he make another tokenistic sacrificial lamb of a union official, or will he go further and distance Labor from the ACTU?
Too late Evan, he’s locked in, He cannot take this risk before the election I think. Different story if he loses – it” be on for young and old in the ALP
If Rudd loses Gillard will make her move. Mumble reckons she is electoral poison.
Hmm I just noticed Mr Mumble has put a Ku Klux Klan picture at the top of his webpage. I wonder what the purpose of that is..
If by any chance Rudd doesn’t make it, I am left wondering who in the hell the ALP has left. Would Gillard have a hope of becoming leader?
I think some of you are buying the government’s argument that most people are fearful of those nasty unions and their bosses. Whereas most people are more fearful of losing their pay and conditions. I think Minchin’s comments will get a very “liberal” run during the campaign.
Nah Gary,
I think the ALP took one look at the polls and thought why do anything to change the relationship with unions? we’re going to win anyway and it’ll cause a lot of angst to change it.
That’s ok if they win but there will be lots of recriminations if they dont. Assuming they lose it will be the number one reason. So some will argue to cut them lose and others who are beholden to union votes for a power base will oppose it.
If that happens were talking a split and probably ten years of Costello.
Nielsen last month, question about unions having too much power under a Rudd government.
Agree 38
Disagree53
Virtually split along party lines. Will the fear of unions overide the fear of future loss of pay and conditions. The answer would be pretty straight forward I would suggest.
Drop, that’s exactly right. Other data (though limited) also suggests that the majority of people do not regard unions as the kind of threat that the government would like.
Howard has a lot of work cut out for him in the months ahead. If there were a deep underlying fear of unions, it would be a lot easier. Howard could just play to that and most likely he would sway lots of voters towards the government. But the fact that not much has changed in the polls despite a lot of union bashing really reflects that the government has to do more at CREATING a perceived threat from unions, which is going to take a lot longer. Of course, it is completely disingenuous and relies on playing Australians like fools, as usual, but ho-hum, I noticed Howard had another good crack at it this morning:
“You heard Mr McDonald talking about people working at Hungry Jacks, I mean what he’s really saying is ‘if Rudd wins, we’ll be back in town, we’ll be running the country again, and we’ll make sure you don’t have a job’”.
Gosh, I can almost hear the sky starting to fall in…
I agree its not fear of unions – its that most people dont really have anything to do with unions (given they represent about 10% of the private sector workforce).
The point is that people get that unions controlling the ALP shows just how anachronistic it is. I think people are also aware of the Blair New Labour example in Britain. Hence the issue can be framed as is the ALP modern and relevant or living in the 70’s? Rudd has chosen not to make any demonstrative break with the past, its the gamble he took in December I guess.
More than anything if they lost it’ll be for this reason.
Netvegetable,
Kudos to Sen. Brown then!
The Coalition needs to be careful about highlighting too much union thuggery, because Rudd seems to be dealing with it (albeit superficially). People need to remember Beattie dealing with electoral rorters in the ALP. He lined them up, and took them out, one by one. He went on to record a thumping election victory. The Coalition made ALP rorters the number one election issue and the public saw the ALP/Beattie as the person best placed to deal with it.
Punters might only see fat union thugs behaving badly, then that nice, new Labor man Kevin standing up to those bullies and kicking them out. Sometimes you need to pick fights with your (so-called) friends in order to prove you’re tough and no patsy.
Then again I might be wrong….
Whether the ALP are modern or relevant probably won’t be as big a factor to your average swinging voter, as the introduction of an unpopular piece of legislation without any prior consultation with the public. As much as your average worker sits around discussing Blair’s New Labour example, they do seem a tad more interested in working conditions and pay rates. The odd video of a naughty union boss is unlikely to counter that. Everybody is entitled to their opinion on these things though.
The problem for the conservatives is that recent Labor government history does not reflect Labor being run by militant unions either state (Victoria in particular) or Federal through Hawke and Keating. Why should Rudd be any different particularly given the reduced power and numbers of the union?
The other problem for the conservatives is that they’re firing off their ammo now, giving Rudd a chance to rectify any perceived problems. The bad polls have forced them into it. I believe Tim’s scenerio is accurate.
After the WA bloke (whose name I still can’t remember) who else will appear? What other militant bosses are there?
The business organisations planning to run an advertising campaign don’t realise it but all they are doing is making Howard’s IR laws front and centre. We’ve seen what happens from the last time the government ran a “positive” 50 million dollar ad campaign. I say bring it on, focus everyone’s minds on these laws and off the unions and watch the polls swing accordingly, like they did last time.
“Unions Bad” is just clutching at straws IMHO. We’ve had industrial peace since Hawke became PM.
People see the tapes recently and say to themselves it’s no worse than what the other side get up to. The strategy will not find resonance. The “Latham Bad” strategy found resonance because, as in legends, there was a kernel of truth in amongst the storytelling. People have more important things to worry about than unions and they’re what people will be thinking about when they vote.
Desperate times call for desperate measures, and we’re seeing desperate measures.
When’s the next poll due out ?
Morgan should have another poll out tomorrow, Newspoll Tuesday week and ACNielsen the middle of next month. As far as Galaxy is concerned, who knows.
I can’t wait!
I predict Morgan….. 55-45 again
Speaker, you should also predict the headlines that will accompany the reportage of the poll. How would 55/45 be Shanahanized?
Mr Speaker… the KKK image is a link. Click on it.
As Tim says Rudd is dealing with issues and not hiding. He’s rolling with the punches and denying JWH the chance to get mileage out of them. Howard has lost credibility, and I think he knows it. His strategy appears to be to make Rudd=scary. So far Rudd has been
1. a liar (his family upbringing)
2. a cheat (Burke affair)
3. inexperienced
4. in bed with the unions (Mighel, McDonald)
5. pompous
6. disrespectful of servicemen (ANZAC service)
7. a thief (Future fund)
8. unfit for office (Reine affair)
9. full of himself (various)
10. a coward (cut and run from Iraq)
11. a wrecker of the economy (climate change)
That’s all I can think of so far. He hasn’t been soft on illegal immigrants yet, so I guess that’s coming. Maybe we can start Rudd-slur Bingo? Seriously though, I hope the govt keeps this up. It’s part of the reason the electorate just isn’t listening any more.
First of all there won’t be any reporting of the Morgan poll, there never is and secondly you really have to know whether the poll is a phone poll or a face to face poll. The face to face polls seem to give Labor a higher vote. Mind you a 55 – 45 result would mean no signifcant movement has taken place but Shanahan would find some somewhere. I notice Shana used to make a big deal about the preferred PM vote, particularly when Labor was in the lead with Beazley. Strangely, the preferred PM vote doesn’t seem to matter now as far as Shana is concerned. I wonder why?
edward o:
umm ok, “Polls Steady for PM” or “Support for Rudd Dives” (If there is any drop in Rudd Preferred PM)
Leopold:
When I saw the KKK image it wasn’t linked to anything, he must have been working on it still. IMHO a rather extreme interpretation of Palm Island events.
A warning from the US (from Slate):
Seven months before the Iowa caucuses, polling and news organizations are cranking out an average of four nationwide and two state polls each week. Pollsters and journalists alike warn not to read too much into early polls, then read into them whatever they want.
This week, a CNN/WMUR poll in New Hampshire shed new light on how silly the media’s polling obsession has become. The poll’s sample size of 304 likely Republican primary voters was sketchy enough. A poll that small has a +/- 5.3 percent margin of error, which means the apparent leader (Romney, with 28 percent) is actually in a statistical dead heat with two who seem far behind (McCain and Giuliani, each at 20 percent), who in turn do not have a statistically significant lead over the man in fourth (Thompson, with 11 percent).
At first glance, the poll results imply that 92 percent support one of the GOP candidates, and only 8 percent “don’t know yet” who they’ll vote for. But on further inspection, the numbers are closer to the reverse. Of those 304 voters surveyed, a grand total of 18 say they’ve “definitely decided” to vote for their candidate. That’s 6 percent. Given the +/- 5.3 percent margin of error, it’s possible that *nobody* in New Hampshire has made up their minds. Another 37 percent say they’re “leaning” to a candidate.
Adam, that author’s grasp of margin of error is simply tragic.
Well, so is mine, but you get the point I’m sure
A relative of mine was polled by Morgan the other day. A lot of questions were asked about unions and the relative strengths/weaknesses of each patry/leader. However, this relative claimed there were no questions about primary vote, just 2PP. I noticed also on the Morgan website that they did some qualitative research. Whilst I’m sure many pundits will dismiss such research out of hand, it might provide some clues as to why we’re seeing the polls that we have now.
Edward StJohn (June 19th, 2007 at 9:50 pm),
“It†is the understanding that things are as they are; e.g., Victorians voted to re-elect the Bracks Government because they were content with the improvements to public services it made in its first term; or, Australians voted to re-elect the Howard Government because they were relaxed and comfortable and not fussed about David Hicks.
blackburnpseph (June 19th, 2007 at 10:25 pm),
I do not believe that Steve Bracks is actually Victoria’s first DLP premier. It is true he is from a DLP family, but so are half the Labor leaders in the country. (We’re everywhere!) He has implemented DLP policy (reform of the Legislative Council), but Paul Keating implemented DLP policy (APEC, compulsory superannuation), and no one thought of him as the first DLP PM.
I don’t even believe that Mr Bracks is wonderful, just better than the previous premier, which is a problem because the Bracks Government judges itself by the standards set by Kennett Government, standards that are so easy to exceed, when it should be judging itself by higher ideals. If it did so, there would be no Ski-gate. The other aspect of my hobby horse is that I will challenge hyperbole and inaccuracy when its is about the field I know best – education.
A punters thought of the day- Look For the Rudder.
Another day of watching ye ole union movement kicking and screaming its way into oblivion- the sociologist in me says 2-3 more (losing) elections before we see the ALP-Union disconnection IF Rudd loses his Rudd-er and wanders off course. With both major parties favouring the Right Wing to allure themselves to the ‘centre’ voter yet again this election is THE one to win. Gillard as leader of the Proposition if Labor loses ? Yeah, why not put up another blob of spak filler (aka Latham) until Labor thinks they have another ’serious’ chance at winning. She wouldnt have ‘the numbers’ but if Rudd loses Im going to wish she did.
Can we please not discuss State issues here – I am not interested nor do I come from the state in question but, it is filling up the whole blogg and makes annoying to come here.
Does anyone understand STROP’s posts? I certainly don’t.
Adam , Would that be because he is attacking your beloved ALP?
# Edward StJohn Says:
June 21st, 2007 at 9:22 am
Too late Evan, he’s locked in, He cannot take this risk before the election I think. Different story if he loses – it†be on for young and old in the ALP
Thats where the ALP will fragment. You cant have two parties that are very similar. The left wont stay in a dying party ( if the ALP looses which i believe they will ) Without the Unions the ALP cannot win and it seems with them they cant either.
Topics in my workplace today
1. Pollies pay rises and admiration for Parnell , Such , Xenophon , Brown on their stance
2. Union trouble for the ALP
No Bill, it’s probably because, like me, he finds them incomprehensible.
Isn’t it great though, that on a blog like this you can chose what you wish to read, ignoring the rest.
I suggest Kina might care to adopt my stragedy rather than get frustrated over the boring or the irrelevant.
The name of the poster is usually a good guide after the first post.
Is he? I have no idea what he is doing.
Bill, while you are here:
* The Greens WA website contains no mention of your Senate candidate Scott Ludlum, and I cannot find a photo of him anywhere. My email to the Greens WA has not been answered.
* The Vic Greens website contains nothing about the federal election or your candidate Richard di Natale.
* The NSW Greens website hasa general “vote Green in the Senate” blurb but nothing about Kerry Nettle.
* Only the Qld, SA, Tas and ACT websites even mention their lead Senate candidates.
* None of the state websites give any info on House of Reps candidates such as your goodself.
* I realise the Greens are not a wealthy party, but one of the good things about websites is they are relatively cheap, and surely the Greens have lots of young techy volunteers.
* The ALP has a full list of all its candidates, most with photos and biographies, at its website. So do the Qld and Vic Liberals.
Adam I just dont understand why they are so slow organizing themselves. I have been tweaking the electorate since the State election ( didnt have pre-selection at that time but was busy with YR@W as a Greens official and AMWU delegate) and it seems everyone else is still asleep in the other states.
Fulvio Sammut Says:
June 21st, 2007 at 7:29 pm
The name of the poster is usually a good guide after the first post.
Yes it is and their seems to be an influx of strange ones in here lately
Then may I suggest, in the nicest possible way, that you spend less time in premature obituaries for the ALP, and more time on getting your colleagues to get themselves in gear? You may not agree with my view that the Greens are going to be struggling this year, but I’m sure you will agree that Senate seats are not going to just fall into the Greens’ laps. The online community, which is growing exponentially, is surely a key Green constituency. I suspect the WA Greens at least are too furry to understand this.
Adam Says:
June 21st, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Does anyone understand STROP’s posts? I certainly don’t
I dont see anything difficult to understand about what I am posting, but Im happy to (a) put it in plainer language or (b) take my keyboard elsewhere if the general consensus is Im missing the point of this blogpace.
bill weller Says:
June 21st, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Adam , Would that be because he is attacking your beloved ALP?
Nope Bill, Im actually a commie leftie who votes ALP or donkey but Im not one-eyed.
Fulvio Sammut Says:
June 21st, 2007 at 7:29 pm
No Bill, it’s probably because, like me, he finds them incomprehensible.
Ill try to make my posts more comprehensible in future-no problem. You can ignore my posts, hell i would most of the time.
Strop
Vive la difference.
And yes i understand your posts
oh shoosh
tampa 2007 has happened
its over
Am I missing something?
NT ’state of emergency’
enter ‘the rabbit’
Yes. Tampa II … sigh
Kina,
It doesn’t happen that often. You’ve appeared at just one of the few occasions. Just skip what you don’t want to read. You’ll find there’ll be a few non-state posts you might choose to skip too.
Adam: Here’s some information about the WA Greens Senate Candidate to help you out:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_shakespeare_of_the_greens/
Strop: I understand you. Stick around and write write write.
PS. When I say it doesn’t happen that often, I mean on federal politics threads. State issues get discussed a lot on state election threads.
I spend a bit of time looking at blogs and enjoying the hyped-up language that many people use on them. I am particularly entertained by the Liberals’ anti-union campaign and by The Australian’s anti-Left campaign. But those playing this game need good intelligence. The ironies of history are a wonder to behold. It’s a bit hard to run a campaign against the “Left†when you don’t know who they are. The story, “PM delivers a lesson on history for schools†(The Australian, 21/6/2007), shows John Howard giving a history award to a well-known La Trobe University “Maoist†of old (for writing a book on democracy!). What would Julie Bishop think? I hope Kevin Rudd or Stephen Smith raises the matter in Parliament.
which old Maoist was this?
Rudd has endorsed the NT ’state of emergency’. Rabbit neutralised.
Blacklight- Are you suggesting the NT ‘State of Emergency’ issue is going to be “the rabbit” Mr Howard has pulled out his political hat to win the 2007 Federal Election ? I dont imagine Indigenous issues will rate that highly, “sorry”.
nothing to do with indigenous issues..all to do with ‘leadership’ and strutting
I do hope you are right STROP
Adam:
Picture of Scott Ludlam Greens WA Candidate in here:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~greenswa/gi/20070327GI.pdf
oh and:
“THE Federal Government has released a 200-page draft bill of its controversial access card just hours before Parliament took a six-week break for winter.
Human Services Minister Chris Ellison will give the community two months to comment on the draft legislation, which was released late today.
It almost guarantees that the Government won’t introduce the contentious new card before the next federal election, due to be held in October or November.”
Adam,
Peter Cochrane. He could have reformed, of curse. We don’t all stay true to our original beliefs like me.
Blacklight – The NT Rabbit will be forgotten quicker than Howard’s water initiative, with as much effect on the voters.
Thanks, but it’s a pdf and I cannot use the photo.
Maybe he can join Vic Zbar and I in “Ex-Maoists for a Right-wing Labor Government.” Albert Langer supported the Iraq War of course but he’s not quite ready to cross over yet.
Vic Zbar, there’s a blast from the past! Barry York, another LaTrobe Maoist, also supported the Iraq War on the grounds – I kid you not – that it’s right to rebel. I’ll get his letter to the editor when I have more time.
Adam, if the only problem with the photo is that it’s in a PDF, tools to extract images from PDFs are standard with Linux. I can email you the image if you want.
1. Adam/Bill
The Greens do seem to be struggling a bit since the last election, though we know minor party polling is notoriously inaccurate. Of course the Greens are about far more than the environment, but is a key platform that has become (tokenistically) mainstreamed by the duopoly(tics). Still think Bob will come up with his own “Common Bilby” out of his Akubra and galvanise sleeping Greens and sympathisers towards a common cause. He’s good at it.
2. The indigenous issue is of serious concern and nothing is new, though the extent of it just shows how we have all failed these people. No party has done the right thing and most of us (myself included) are in the 93% who live in our cities and rarely spare a thought and never visit these places. It does grieve me to see what mankind can do to itself whilst others look on.
I don’t even feel like debating politically on this one, demographically, i guess a lot of us here are fathers with kids (mine are young). We do tend to elevate our “rights and principles” above all else, even if they are not working. I must admit, for the life of me, I can’t see why we defend our “right” to pornography so vehemently. This latest admission is tantamount to saying that grog and porn are causative in this social degradation. I also find it curious that the ACT has the “second most relaxed laws” about porn and blood alcohol limits of 0.08 (are they still, Canberrans?).
Prohibition doesn’t change human nature but naiive (and mostly unchallenged) humanist dogma that says free people enshrined with their rights will naturally “fix themselves” has certainly not helped the Aboriginal people of our nation. Noel Pearson is a good man, with a clear head and a good heart. I hope more people will listen to him, the PM included.
I agree that, for want of a better term, “indigenous paedophilia” was an attempt at the wedge. The PMs “decisive action” (after 11 years) has all the qualities that appeal to the remaining Hansonites. However, it has failed, at least so far.
Howard’s disappointment when Rudd gave his full support in Parliament was palpable. The obvious questions of individual rights, state rights and paternalistic indigenous policy seem to have been ignored by all sections of Labor, presumably to ensure the greater good.
Only Bob Brown has raised these issues – as has been said before – Labor now outsources its left wing to the Greens.
I imagine I speak for many on the right wing of Labor when I say I support Brough’s tough policies on indigenous affairs 100% and only wonder why we put up with the failed policies of lefty ministers like Hand and Tickner for so long. Separatism has utterly failed, and now it’s full steam back to Paul Hasluck and integration. I would (a) ban alcohol sales to all indigenous people in the NT, Cape York and the Kimberley (b) remove children at risk from dysfunctional families on a two-strikes-and-you-lose-em basis (c) enforce primary education in English for all indigenous kids. Goodbye stolen generation, hello Rescued Generation.
Adam: I’ve taken the liberty of extracting the photo from the pdf for you. Resolution was better than expected.
Download from here:
http://www.upperhouse.info/wagrns.jpg
Many thanks
Rudd can’t say this and the State Premiers have been gutless so far so here is my response to Adam, and I don’t know about Bill’s two labor parties but for laughs while I know I am not state convenor of my faction and cannot and do not speak for anyone in the right it is where I am, like Adam. So discussion between brothers ((and sister)) at arms.
Adam
(a) ban alcohol sales to all indigenous people in the NT, Cape York and the Kimberley
Both prohibition and apartheid have a less than glorious history. Please explain in detail how and why they will work in anyway other than for the short term electoral glory of Howard? (And I’m in the wedge that wont work camp as explained above).
(b) remove children at risk from dysfunctional families on a two-strikes-and-you-lose-em basis
Agree 100% – but we tried this for a chunk of decades, including in my life time, so quite recently, not a big success, why will going back to a failed policy work this time?
(c) enforce primary education in English for all indigenous kids.
Please expand on ‘force’. Do we jail the kids or their parents or both when Howard realises that primary education isn’t currently voluntary already; and that there is both a problem and some genuine hurdles here. If there were no hurdles the Whitlam Government would have solved most of the problems and the Hawke / Keating Govts would have mopped up any outstanding issues.
I don’t know Adam, I know we have had disagreements before, but really you believe Howard has the answer and is the man with the solutions for this national crisis? It hasn’t occured to you that State and Federal Governments, unlike Howard over the last 11 years, have had genuine people who wanted to solve this issue?
Now Howard is right, they have failed, but not because it is an easy fix as Howard paints, it is largely in the too hard basket, because without massive resources it is too hard.
Adam,
I too support the measures that have been announced.
I would like to see, in addition, some positive measures like additional funding for housing for these communities.
There’s a big palm island aboriginal protest scheduled for lunchtime in Brisbane today. The new policies might cause an already angry crowd to get even angrier.
I’ll wander down and check it out while I grab lunch. (I work in a skyscaper in the city). If anything interesting is happening I’ll let you guys know.
I’ve already said too much for silent jas but none of the Howard solutions are massive resources; they are Hansonesque popular gimicks.
Something decisive has had to be done about the appalling lives many aborigines lead. Whether John Howard is right in each particular, I do not know, but I have never believed that he is the devil incarnate and I do believe that even the most cynical of politicians can have a genuine human dimension. In any case, politically the reaction he is getting from some will help him. I heard Bob Brown on TV last night call the government’s actions “racistâ€. We have the belief that he is appealing to the Hansonites expressed here. What better way to look mainstream than have all the usual suspects attack you! Mr Howard knows exactly which buttons to press to get a reaction from the “Leftâ€, which never fails to help him win votes. I’ve said it before: John Howard cannot beat Kevin Rudd, but the Left can.
Jasmine
Prohibition and apartheid: Indigenous people are facing extinction in one generation at the hands of their own social pathologies unless radical steps are taken. They cannot solve these problems themselves, and most of their self-appointed, corrupt and incompetent “leadership” refuses even to try, focussing on easy symbolic grievances instead. This is a race-based crisis and requires race-based solutions. In that sense I’m not afraid of “apartheid.” Yes prohibition has a sorry history but alcoholism is at the root of the indigenous social breakdown and since it isn’t possible to put 200,000 people into rehab tackling supply seems the only alternative. It can’t be enforced 100% but even 75% would be a big improvement.
Child removal: The previous policy didn’t fail, it was just abandoned. The aim of that policy was to “breed out” Aboriginality by placing the kids in white-run institutions or with white families. In its own terms it was a success – thousands of Indigenous kids were indeed removed from Indigenous society. The aim of removal now will be to rescue kids from dysfunctional families and communities where they are at acute danger of being beaten, raped and killed, and where they are being in turn rendered dysfunctional. I would place them with approved functional Indigenous families (of which there are many) or in Indigenous run institutions.
Enforce primary education: kids not in school would be removed as per (b)
Howard: I’m not interested in discussing this in party-political terms. This issue of such urgency I will support anyone who is doing the necessary. At the moment it’s Brough. “Genuine people who want to solve this issue” is not good enough. They have to be willing to ignore Pat Dodson and Lowitja O’Donohue etc and do what needs to be done.
Well Mr Howard has dissapointed the Miles Franklin winner.
“The winner of the prestigious Miles Franklin literary award says the Federal Government’s planned intervention in Northern Territory Aboriginal communities is a “sledgehammer” approach.
Last night author Alexis Wright was awarded this year’s Miles Franklin award for her novel Carpentaria set in traditional lands in the Gulf of Carpentaria.
A member of the Waanyi Nation, Wright says the Federal Government has ignored the recommendation of Indigenous conventions in the Territory, and is instead planning to impose its will on the people…….”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/06/22/1958723.htm
Chris, I agree Howard is not the devil incarnate…he’s just got the franchise for Australia.
I have it on good authority that before the 1996 election the devil appeared in Howard’s office and made a deal with him. He said “I’ll give you the PM’s chair, if you will give me your soul and the soul’s of you family for eternity.” Howard thought about this for a while before replying “OK, but what’s the catch?”
Oakeshott said “Only Bob Brown has raised these issues – as has been said before – Labor now outsources its left wing to the Greens.” Haha good one
Chris, I’m far from from being a Howard fan but believe he is doing the right thing here and so does Rudd and Labor. The political heat has already been neutalised. Brown doesn’t speak for Labor. Brown will be seen as out of touch and irrelevant by most on this as he is already on other issues. Also, for people to go running back to Howard fear has to be involved. I can’t see any fear element in this.
If Howard is on the nose, as I believe he is, this initiative will have a news shelf life of 3 or 4 days at best and other defining issues will dominate as usual.
Rob,
When I first heard that joke, it was about a film producer.
Gary,
I basically agree, but getting slagged off by the usual suspects never did John Howard any harm.
Brown is welcome to the 10% or so of the electorate who are “left” in any meaningful sense. And as a niche party, that Greens can achieve their objective (winning Senate seats) best by occupying the far corner of politics where they have no competition. Labor’s objective is to win a federal election by getting (at least) 50% of the 2PV. This will not be done by chasing a 10% minority up its tree – indeed that would be totally counter-productive, because the 90% who don’t vote Green actively dislike them. Labor needs to occupy the broad centre, as Rudd understands very well. (And the further to the right the Libs allow people like Alex Hawke to drag them, the easier that becomes.)
Incidentally, let’s open a book on the size of the 2-party swing to Labor in Mitchell, shall we? The current national Lib majority is 20.7%
10% anyone?
oops “national” = “notional”
Morgan 57.5/42.5 TPP
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2007/4180/
I think Hawke would be rather representative of his community. Despite all the “extreme” tags I don’t think he’s any more conservative than the Prime Minister. He’s just a world away from his wet young Lib comrades.
No large swing either way. Certainly less than 5%.
What concerns me about Howard’s actions is that they have a purely indigenous focus.
Having spent most of my working life in the outer west of Sydney, I know that their is a significantly sized white underclass for whom all these issues: Drugs and alcohol, truency, unemployability, generational welfare, child abuse, lack of male role models, are present. They are a large part of Mount Druitt society and this is as much a disgrace on Australian society as is indigenous poverty.
To concentrate on and apply special resources only to the Indigenous population is wedge politics which actively demonises one sector of society based purely on race. It is ideally placed for the wedge and appeals particularly to whites just above the underclass who have their belief in superiority over blacks confirmed. Pauline could not have done better. On the down side for Howard – one of the underclass’ grievences with Labor is that it gives Blacks ’special treatment’ (I love the Paul Kelly song). Now even Howard is doing that, albeit with paternalistic and prohibitive actions.
I am also concerned by the policy that all under 16 year old aborigines will undergo medical examination – what will be examined? – compulsory vaginity checks in the girls? a lax an*l sphincter in the boys? perhaps the famed ‘Mongoloid spot’? We really are regressing.
This is called the “we can’t do anything because we can’t do everything” fallacy.
No, its the “look in your own backyard” approach
The swing in Mitchell will be about the same as the national swing. If he is as religious right wing as he has been painted he is a perfect fit for that electorate.
I have relatives who live there – they will love him.
Well I’m going back to my corner, but the proof will be in the pudding, kinda Howard deserves to win, I can’t wait to see the success of this ‘policy’.
The approach that you support Howard on in the Northern Territory – if it works, which I doubt- could just as well be applied to Mount Druitt (and state equivalents).
The response from the parties, if this was suggested would be significantly different. If it was suggested I would also prohibit all gambling including scratchies and lotto and forcibly close that Gommorrah of the west – The Rooty Hill RSL.
OK the corner needed cleaning … it is called the we can’t do anything because we don’t have any clue how to fix the mess and going in stupid circles that ignore the realities of history it always stupid.
Add to stupid here we a plan that is clearly for political purposes, has all the back of an envelope expertise of the water initative and is in the run up to a Federal Election; it does not bode well for the victims of this ‘policy’.
Howard and Costello have the massive surpluses let them give each of the States 1 billion dollars next financial year for them to implement as broad a range of solutions as they can.
Oh wait that might indicate a serious proposal to help people, not just an election gimick.
Latest Morgan face to face poll – Labor 58, Coalition 42 TPP
I was going to say something about how Howard’s Outback Solution struck me as politically motivated but then I found this on The Piping Shrike, which sums it up pretty well for me:
“There used to be a straight-forward way of stopping child abuse, lock the offenders up. But we are talking here of Aboriginal children, so, of course, the solution cannot be that simple. Indeed getting around to finding the perpetrators, either Aboriginal or white, and arresting them, seems to be the last thing being talked about here. Instead the discussion is entirely focussed on the eternal Australian question, what is wrong with the way Aboriginal people organise their lives?”
http://thepipingshrike.blogspot.com/
Morgan is actually 57.5-42.5.
“Welfare curbs could extend to all parents: Howard” says [i]The Australian[/i].
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/
Amazing – the first thing I said when I heard Howard’s plan was that everyone on welfare would cop the same treatment.
Leopold – it depends on which and how Morgan distributes the prefereneces. If the preferences are distributed by how people preferenced last election, the TPP is 57.5 – 42.5. If the preferences are distributed by how people say they will vote, the TPP is 58.5 – 41.5. I rounded the figures off.
id go with 57.5
in 2004 morgan got the primary vote right. However it borked the prefs.
in any case
1. same old big margin
2. events of last night, today change this … or does it?
Today’s stories about personal debt, among young people especially, makes Possum Comitatus’s graph, taken from RBA data, worth looking at again.
http://possumcomitatus.wordpress.com/2007/05/24/why-howard-is-rooted-in-one-simple-graph/
Could this be an election sleeper?
Just imagine if the ALP had been in government for the last decade.
By now we would have Opposition Leader Howard stumping the country warning the punters of Labor’s Debt Dragon about to devour them. The Oz would carry cartoons of Treasurer Swan with his finger in the cracking, trembling Dyke of Personal Debt. Letters to the Tele and Herald Sun would tell of children unable to sleep because of nightmares of the Debt Banksia Men. Galaxy would be reporting an 80-20 TPP in favour of the Coalition.
So why is it not happening? The Government would answer that people’s assets have swelled correspondingly. True, but does this compensate for the debt worry? Are people happy with a life plan to use their super to finally pay off their debt, something that is getting harder to do anyway, as lump sums become a feature of the past?
The Government’s other answer is that interest rates would be higher under the ALP. Assume this is true. It is still only a partial remedy at best. The water will be up to your neck, but your chances of drowning are, well, less than with the ALP.
A Treasury-approved answer to the personal debt problem would be to increase productivity. A more contentious approach would be to move the wages-profit share in a direction opposite to where it’s headed now.
Work Choices is of course intended to accelerate the share more towards profit, for the great majority at least, in the interests of efficiency (and consequent productivity).
In the process however a lot of people with modest skills, or where supply of the skills outstrips demand, are going to be hurt. The personal debt burden will seriously aggravate their situation.
As far as I can see the ALP has not made this explicit connection. Maybe it will.
While I agree with a lot of the policies suggested to “save the children” in the NT, like so many things offered by this government, they contain a bitter poisoned pill and a healthy dose of craziness.
Banning pornography? Are they serious? And “privatising” the native title-held land is supposed to help indigenous children how? The community rejected that policy just a few months ago.
Seems like the government is just implementing what it wants, under the guise of helping people. Kind of like building nuclear power stations and expanding uranium mining to “save the environment”.
I think Howard is about to do some high stepping over the indigenous policy: (this all from the ABC news site)
1) He has called for volunteer doctors and the AMA has responded by saying “not without appropriate training” and the question of consent for examination will “take months and months to work out” i.e. not in this election year
2) The federation of police associations says it has not been “thought through”, won’t work and will lead to police shortages country wide – apparently Howard has responded by suggesting the military can be used (sweet mother of Jesus!)
3) The authors of this report say Howard’s response will lead to suicides and more violence.
I think this may now be quietly dropped, although if the public mood turns Rudd has the excuse that he was waiting for a ministerial briefing. I don’t think any of this was actually about indigenous welfare.
Congratulations are due to Mr Howard and Mal Brough for their principled and strong stand on indigenous affairs in NT. This is exactly why he will be re-elected – and we all know that even though he had no choice but to meekly fall into line, Rudd (or any other Labor leader for that matter) would never have the balls to adopt measures like this. Never. And I’m sure that behind closed doors the majority of Labor MPs are furious with their leader.
About the latest Morgan – once again, the unwary and gullible all too quickly take it at face value. Firstly, ignore the 2PP figure and just concentrate on the primary votes; secondly, automatically adjust the Labor figure down and the Coalition figure up and you’ll find they’re practically neck and neck. And to think there’s still 5 months until the election!
Interesting that Stanhope and apparently Macklin have condemned the policy.
Stanhope said it is racist. An interesting view from the cultured cafes of Manuka to say the least. You can always rely on the Left.
Gary: You should use the 57.5 figure – you’ll notice Morgan itself uses it in its graphs.
Here is where I feel that there is some cognitive disonnance with the basic dogma of secular humanism which undergirds Australian politics across the spectrum. We tend to be wary of the imposition of prohibition on things shown to be harmful to society. The reason? An infringement of basic (individual) rights. This dogma is accepted as an International and political foundation, though, just like Newton’s laws of gravity, don’t work practically in some circumstances.
Now, these rights relate to adults of (appropriate, and mind you, variable) age, depending on the practice to engage in particular activities. These include drinking in public, smoking, sexual activity, possession of or access to porn and gambling. Most posters here would agree that some of these activities are OK in moderation, though we might argue all day about which ones.
What seems to be ignored is that ALL of these activities have SOME consequences for society every day. These consequences, often, affect the innocent, whose rights are subjugated under this philosophical basis.
Proof? Our society as is. Secular humanism undergirds policy on every single issue above and it is difficult to argue that ANY have declined in significance since Federation. Certainly true for Indigenous issues on BOTH major sides of politics. Troubled people don’t magically “get right” by self-determination and enshrining individual rights, absolutely regardless of colour (Oakshot, my father taught in Campbelltown for years and I concur with you about the state of Western Sydney).
Rights of the individual will always undermine the rights of society, at times, because rights overlap. It is the fallacy of humanistic utopia. We can’t ALL get what we want without affecting others. “I have a right to smoke!” says one, “I have a right to clean air” says another. Neither is right, neither can have exactly what they want in public. (If you think the latter does, then would you also take cars off the road for this person?).
In the present case, the rights of individuals must be subjugated to the rights of children. I am not a fan of prohibition, but it is a re-writing of history to suggest that it “didn’t work”. Of course people still got alcohol and it did breed organised crime. Alcohol induced crimes, however, plummetted. Hospitalisation of alcoholic-related disorders such as Cirrhosis dropped. Domestic violence under the influence also dropped.
Is is wrong to drink alcohol? Most of us would say no. Can it contribute to social dysfunction? Yes. If a community suffers a majority of children bearing the brunt of this lack of self-control, then is it not acceptable to subjugate these rights for adults who seem unwilling or unable to be responsible for the sake of breaking the cycle for the next generation.
The same, only moreso, with porn. I have yet to find anyone of any political persuasion promote the responsible benefits of porn in the same way as one would defend alcohol and yet it is significantly more available than alcohol.
It is not enough to cry “moralist”. We are ALL moralists, with varying tolerances for destructive behaviours. Are you a “moralist” because you don’t like murder, or violence? Then why is someone a moralist if they have the balls to say that porn is not a good thing for us as a society and needs regulation in the same way that illicit drugs are currently regulated.
The dogma is wrong. Humanism, like communism, does not appear to work for human societies. It has had almost 300 years to prove it.
Steven Kaye – why not just produce your own figures. You know, the ones you want to see.
I can’t understand why it is more reliable to use preference flows from the last election instead of the preferences indicated by those polled. There must be an explanation. Any ideas?
If Morgan isn’t relying on preferences indicated by those polled (and clearly he isn’t for his graphs) why bother with publishing this figure?
Steven Kaye – using your philosphy, since three polls have shown Galaxy to be somewhat generous to the coalition what we need to do with the last Galaxy Poll is to take off 3% from the coalition primary vote and add at 2 to 3 percent to the Labor vote to get a more accurate reading as to what is really going on out there. Oh and forget about the TPP because who cares what the others think.
Last election Morgan got the primary figures very close but was way out on its TPP. Now I don’t know for sure, but I think the repondents were asked for their preferences in that last poll. That might explain why he is giving two figures.
“Stanhope said it is racist. An interesting view from the cultured cafes of Manuka to say the least. You can always rely on the Left.”
Let’s be fair and balanced here, and not condemn all the Left! The sentiment apparently expressed resonates with Marxism of the Frankfurt School. György Lukács described it best:
“A considerable part of the leading German intelligentsia, including Adorno, have taken up residence in the ‘Grand Hotel Abyss’ which I described in connection with my critique of Schopenhauer as ‘a beautiful hotel, equipped with every comfort, on the edge of an abyss, of nothingness, of absurdity. And the daily contemplation of the abyss between excellent meals or artistic entertainments, can only heighten the enjoyment of the subtle comforts offered.’ ”
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/theory-novel/preface.htm
Gary: Morgan got a couple of Elections wrong, despite having reasonable-ish primary vote figures due to relying on what people said with regards preference distribution. Using the previous election’s flows was shown to be more reliable.
As an example, look at how people told Morgan they were going to preference in this recent poll:
Democrats to ALP – 96% Looks waay to high, 70%? is more like it.
Greens to ALP – 90% Should be 80 or less
Family First – 51% to ALP, Will probably favour the coalition in an election
One Nation – 63% to ALP, Will probably favour the coalition in an election
Don’t you agree the figures look a tad wrong ? Do you think 96% of Democrats will preference the ALP ? I don’t.
This isn’t a tiny fragment of voters either, 15% of those polled chose minors.
Bryan at OzPolitics and Mumble did some good work on this topic a couple of years back.
They probably use both techniques for two reasons, continuity with the previous polling technique and to cover their a#s if they are way off.
The Speaker – I take your point. Thanks for the explanation.
Maybe I don’t know what I’m talking about, mr Speaker (no, I mean it, maths and statistics are not my strong suite) but doesn’t your argument pre-suppose that respondents are telling the truth in nominating their primary vote and then lying when nominating their preference?
What is the justification for this assumption? Surely they could equally be lying in nominating their primary voting intention?
I agree that on any analysis of previous elections the preferences stated here are grossly at variance with reality , but does that give any objective substance to your assessment?
My point is, don’t you have to accept the whole result, or not at all?
So Macklin has condemned the PM’s indigenous policy, Edward? Didn’t take long to show her true colours, and I bet she speaks for a lot of Labor MPs.
Forgive me but I missed the class where the thing we are trying to save the children from was caused by alcohol and p*&n*graphy.
I do know that offenders are more likely to have p$%nogr*phy (I went to that class), but again I missed the class where taking away the alcohol and reading material of choice cured the offender. Why do we send them to jail when the cure is so very very simple?
I know this site only attracts a narrow class of very informed people. But I ask you again, why would you think for a minute that such simple homespun remedies would work? If it were so simple why was it not done before?
Oh and taking away welfare payments … dead set winner as a way of curing social dysfunction and disadvantage. Lets cut out social welfare all together and all of society’s ills will be solved.
If you are doing political analysis – fantastic – we can all stand back applaud the PM’s brilliance and wait to see if the polls shift, and maybe they will.
But if you care at all for the children and the adults of these communities, and many posters are saying they do, please think a little bit. If you want to tell them the way the will live in this country and whether they will live in community ghettos or jail fine say that, but don’t pretend to care while at the time embracing such apparent absurdity.
Are we talking Jenny Macklin?
The one and only Macklin
So Howard was confronted by Aboriginal leaders 5 years ago about this crisis and he did nothing. Why am I not surprised?
Edward can you point me in the direction of Macklin’s comments please? I’ve looked and can’t find them.
Opinion polls provoke bewilderment in lead-up to Australian election
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jun2007/sep-j22_prn.shtml
More ‘thugs’ are marked for sacking.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21947544-601,00.html
ETU still waiting for return of donations
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21947546-601,00.html
I agree Adam that the Greens will be hard pressed to win Senate seats.
Fulvio Sammut said:
Neither do I
Actually No, they lie about their first preference vote as well.
To quote (roughly) Bryan Palmer at Oz Politics (I think, maybe it was Mumble – however I can’t find it ATM):
“Voting for John Howard is like m—-bation, everyone does it but no one admits to it”
When asked who they will vote for, some JWH voters are scared that the pollster will judge them negatively, so they say Labor, however when in the anonymity of the polling booth, they vote Liberal.
This goes a long way to explaining why the Telephone Morgan is always 2% lower than the in-person Morgan – people are more worried about the negative opinion of someone who is sitting in their living room than a telemarketer on the phone, however the problem is present in phone polling as well.
Some people in these comment areas like to talk about “Pro-Labor Polling Bias” and there is some truth in it, however the degree of bias is a matter of some debate.
See below:
http://www.ozpolitics.info/blog/2005/03/24/opinion-polls-pooling-and-smoothing-techniques/
I’ve digressed from minor party preferences..
There are other factors as well:
- The face-to-face technique used by morgan may bias towards Greens voters in inner city seats where it’s easier for Morgan pollsters to operate. Outer suburban or rural greens may be more likely to preference coalition but are under-represented in the sample.
- The voter may preference differently on election day when exposed to HTV material from their party of choice. (ie Family First voters)
Probably some more I can’t think of but I’m tired of typing.
Anyway using 2004 preference distribution levels is an objective enough way to do it.
Gaz, I think it was the World Today on 2BL.
There is some truth in that people are embarrassed to vote for Howard and the Liberals but do so anyway. Back when I was a wee lad in the school system, the politics teacher (quite the social democrat) always went on about his disappointment in teachers who he knew “voted Liberal but would never admit to it”.
One example I suppose, but something to think about.
I know that years ago very few admitted to voting Liberal yet they always won but I think that type of thinking has changed. Just take a look on the blogs, in the newspapers and and listen to radio talkback. They no longer hide behind the bushell so I’m not convinced of that argument.
Edward, I don’t doubt your source (I still can’t find it) but I’ll tell one thing, it made no impact anywhere else – zip.
I found Stanhope’s criticism though.
Gary, while many of the Liberal-voting stereotypes may proudly state they vote Liberal on the airwaves and in the ‘papers, the great mass of people are not involved and keep their political ideas to themselves. These are the people who may be ‘ashamed’ (sigh) to state they vote Liberal.
Only a tiny minority of voters are writing blogs, sending letters to the paper, and going on talkback.
I know many people who proudly say they vote Liberal. As a matter of interest how does this theory apply to the state scene when it comes to opinion polls? The polls have been fairly accurate in predicting wins for Labor.
The best example of this was the 1992 UK election (where admittedly polling is more difficult because of voluntary voting). Every poll said that Kinnock would beat Thatcher. Even the exit polls said that Kinnock had won. But he hadn’t. There was a big “secret Tory” vote among traditional Labor voters in English towns who (a) didn’t want a Welsh PM and (b) did want Thatcher’s tax cuts.
bill weller Says:
June 22nd, 2007 at 6:43 pm
I agree Adam that the Greens will be hard pressed to win Senate seats.
Are you saying none in 2007 Bill, nationwide ? Most ‘experts’ I read say the remainng Democrat Senators are doomed, for one reason or another, and their seats will go to the ALP (VIC/SA/WA/QLD) or the Greens. Do you have the time to expand on this prognosis ?
Kinnock probably would have beaten Thatcher in 1992. That’s why the Tories changed leaders.
“The same, only moreso, with porn. I have yet to find anyone of any political persuasion promote the responsible benefits of porn in the same way as one would defend alcohol and yet it is significantly more available than alcohol.”
I’m a Democrat and I happily defend people’s right to view pornography. A healthy and active sex life is an essential part of healthy living and successful relationships, and pornography can have a role to play in that.
So there you go, someone of a declared political persuasion promoting the responsible benefits of porn!
Noisy Jasmine & Dembo
Thanks for the response but nothing either new, nor surprising here.
1. Both of you, I trust that you, of course have first hand experience with the plight of the indigenous. It is a criticism I find the Left struggling to answer, that often their philosophies and political dogma, indeed even the substitution of “placard activism” for something that actually helps lives, is something that many Australians seem to have grown weary of.
I work and socialise with people that work with Indigenous people, urban and remote, on a weekly basis. Removing Petrol, Alcohol and Porn works, ask Noel Pearson, who knows better than you. Sorry for being so blunt here.
2. Dembo, your hollow argument about pornography runs thus:
a) A healthy and active sex life is a healthy thing
b) Your belief is that pornography may contribute a role in this health
c) Presumably this “right” is a freedom and worth protecting
Ok well, here’s a similar set:
a) A healthy social life involves community involvement, sport and healthy competition
b) Healthy competition and sporting activity can improve confidence and self esteem
c) This right is a freedom worth protecting
….Oh, except that this is a set of arguments for a Sporting Shooter defending the rights to high-powered automatic weapons in 1996.
How keen are you on gun control?
My point is simply that both sides of politics hold values grounded in logic they don’t afford to others. Well might you argue that porn and alcohol don’t primarily cause child abuse (neither do guns make human beings violent) but in both cases, their presence in the lives of people with problems contribute to greater damage.
I don’t like guns, I don’t like porn and I drink alcohol regularly but don’t like the way that governments profit from its distribution (it makes them slower to reduce its availability). Indigenous communities in crisis need none of it. They do need people who can turn their placards back into mops and help out.
3. There is no point disputing the causative influence of alcohol and porn in lowering resistance to predatory behaviour. It is well established and, in my roles in the past with trying to rehabilitate paedophiles and counsel their victims, alcohol and porn were two factors that increased the likelihood and severity of attacks and contributed to maintaining the cycle of abuse.
One thing that has always made me both sad and angry is the stridence and ignorance of those with a political barrow to push with no runs on the board with helping victims. Please tell me differently with the two of you. It would certainly be a refreshing change.
I am certainly not meaning to offend both of you, nor to denigrate the Left. Some of my most important values would be considered Left. This is not a partisan debate, this is a debate about Australian Political Dogma.
All party politics has dismally failed the Indigenous of this country. It’s time we did something to change this.
STROP says
Are you saying none in 2007 Bill, nationwide ? Most ‘experts’ I read say the remainng Democrat Senators are doomed, for one reason or another, and their seats will go to the ALP (VIC/SA/WA/QLD) or the Greens. Do you have the time to expand on this prognosis ?
Negatives
1. It will be very hard for us to win extra Senate seats due to the possible alliance between the ALP and FF in every state except NSW. A very disappointing but expected shift to the religious right by the ALP.
2. As many on here have explained the poor Dem vote will work against us as we do not get many prefs from other parties.
3. The usual media ‘ Ban ‘ and promotion of negative views of the Greens.
Positives
1.On the plus side the slow creeping up of Howard in the polls has increased our percentage so it could just as easily turn around
2. Both the left wing unions and YR@W are promoting vote 1 Green in the senate.
3. The move to the ? center right by the ALP has alienated the left and may bring our vote up.
Hi Generic Oracle,
1. I worked for two years with a native title rep body, with indigenous people, in an office and on country. Of course, I can’t presume to speak for any Aboriginal person or group, or even a NTRB, all I can do is offer my own opinion, and it is that Howard has always wanted to convert native title held land to private leases, and lo-and-behold, one of his ways to stop the pedophiles is to … convert native title held land to private leases. You mention causation, but I feel fairly confident in saying that pedophilia and having native title land are not related to each other. So I question this aspect of the government’s proposed policies.
2. I was not supporting the “right” to view porn. I initially questioned the link between viewing pornography and being turned into a pedophile (or any kind of sexual deviant), which is an implicit assumption in Howard’s proposal. I think it is a wrong assumption. Millions of Australians look at porn and do not become kiddie fiddlers.
But even though I wasn’t supporting the “right to view porn”. I would anyway support an adult’s right to view almost any material they want (obviously there are consent issues that mean some material must be banned, etc), including most forms of pornography, books about terrorism, books on religion and any political material.
And also comparing banning consentually made, non-violent porn (which is what Howard wants to do for Aboriginal people only) to banning weapons which kill people, that’s setting up a straw man argument I never made. But even in that case, I have never been for banning guns. In fact, I am in favour of adults owning many types of guns. I call it “letting people do whatever the hell they want as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else” – crazy concept I know, but it’s just how I feel.
By the way, people are so quick to say this policy or that policy has failed Aboriginal people … my own opinion is that 150 years of oppression will take several generations to turn around and that Reconciliation in this country has barely started, and as a policy has never been put in place.
Is this all offtopic? I hope not as I feel it’s related to polls as Howard will clearly be expecting a bounce from this, and he is hoping to wedge Labor on this issue.
The Greens may benefit from a lower Liberal vote and getting into the two candidate prefered vote seting them up for possible success in the next election (probably a 2008 DD).
Tom:
getting into the two candidate prefered vote
Which seats do you think the greens will come second in ?
bill weller Says:
June 23rd, 2007 at 6:25 pm
It will be very hard for us to win extra Senate seats due to the possible alliance between the ALP and FF in every state except NSW. A very disappointing but expected shift to the religious right by the ALP.
Thank you Bill for your response:
FF only scored 2.0% of the primary vote nationally in 2004. Only 32.8% of FF 2PP preferences went to Labor. Dosent look like much does it. But if you look at the marginal seats up for grabs at the 2007 Federal Election, FF vote becomes significant.
I can see the benefits for the ALP of making an alliance with FF is SA. On 2004 Federal Election figures (a) Makin, Wakefield and Kingston would probably have gone to the ALP (b) Boothby would be well within grasp and (c) ALP marginals (Adelaide and Hindmarsh) would have been protected by an increase in FF 2PP preferences- that makes sense. At the Federal election, FF wont have the advantage they had in the State Election where ‘how to vote’ stuff was pasted on the walls of the polling booths,-but an alliance with the religous right in SA still reads good for Labor on paper.
In other States I dont see much to be gained by an alliance with FF compared to one with the Greens, despite the well documented view that Green preferences ‘directing’ is far less reliable than that of others.
Ive read about ALP-FF negotiations in QLD with nothing yet set in concrete;
Ive heard the ALP in Victoria are resisting making a deal with the Greens because they are ‘playing footsies’ with FF or giving it consideration at least; again nothing set in concrete to date.
Nothing about WA is floating up to us here in QLD.
According to Mr Brown, the Greens is Tassie have stated they will not direct preferences to the ALP unless there is a very good reason to do so.
In NSW, the Green-ALP ‘deal’ may not be very reliable, given that some Green’s in NSW refused to direct preferences to the ALP at the last State Election.
When I sent an email to Senator Feilding asking if FF had made any preference deals with Labor, all i got back (as i expected) was a polite ‘thank you’ for the enquiry and a link to a press release which documented reasons why FF have a problem with the Greens. Duh !!
I am yet to be convinced of a rationale for Labor to ‘play footsies’ with FF in any other State other than SA if the goal is to (a) shore up Labor marginal seats under threat and (b) to use minor parties 2PP preferences to take Coalition marginal seats where the FF primary vote is significant enough to seriously influence the outcome.
I cant find any seats other than in SA where the FF vote was significant enough to win or protect a seat for Labor (in 2004) on the back of stronger FF 2PP preferences except for Bonner in Qld and Braddon in Tasmania.
There are seats outside of SA where FF preferences might make a small contribution (in my opinion not significant ) to protecting Labor marginals from being lost to the Coalition and others where FF preferences could bring the Coalition 2PP margin down to something Labor can have a crack at winning at the next Election after 2007 if the 2PP swing to Labor in the nominated seats is less than current national polls are predicting. Some of these seats could go to Labor in 2007 if the swing is strong enough, and probably will have to go to Labor to win the election.
The Coalition seats I am thinking of would be Lindsay, Page, Bennalong, (NSW) Corangamite ,Deakin, McMillan, Latrobe, Gippsland (VIC), Blair, Herbert, Hinkler (QLD), Kalgoorlie (WA) and Solomon (CLP) currently held by the Coalition.
The marginal Labor seats outside SA an increase in FF 2PP preferences could have a small role in protecting are Banks, Lowe, Parramatta, Richmond (NSW) Ballarat, Bendigo, Holt , Isaacs (VIC) Rankin (QLD), Cowan and Swan (WA).
In this scenario, I am assuming 14 seats will be ALP gains regardless of FF preference influence at the 2007 Election. These are Dobell, Eden Monaro, Macquarie, Wentworth (NSW), Kingston, Makin, Wakefeild, Boothby (SA), Bonner, Moreton (QLD), Hasluck, Stirling (WA), Bass and Braddon (TAS).
If the end game is not necessarily FF assistance with House of Representatives seats, but more motivated toward securing FF assistance in the Senate seats up for grabs in WA, SA, VIC and QLD (in order to avoid a DD in 2008), well i guess that makes sense.
Bob Brown of the Greens lamented-
“Labor, which has 28 seats now, cannot win a Senate majority of 39 seats at this year’s election. So there are two possible outcomes: Howard’s Coalition retains a Senate majority, with Family First as its backup. Or the Greens win the balance of power. If Rudd Labor wins government, it will face a hostile Howard Senate blocking major bills such as industrial relations reform†(Bob Brown, Greens leader :June 8th)
Id be interested in the opinions of people who have been studying federal elections alot longer than i have. Mine is idle speculation- what say you Adam Carr, Bill Weller, Mr Speaker, et al ?
The Greens may pass the Libs in Melbourne, Sydney and Grayndler where the 3 candidate vote difference with the Liberals is below 6%.
STROP-
To me any deal that the ALP does with FF is a deal with the enemy. What next ? Pauline Hanson becomes popular again and if the ALP doesn’t win this time they start chasing her new parties preferences in a bid to win government?? I do not support any party that promotes racism , homophobia, sexism ( Hanson ) or a party that believes God will save those who speak in tongues and that trying to make a difference is to save others from the devil and that he is the only true leader. ( FF ) ( AOG ) This hideous group split families on a regular basis, send people mental and promote HOMOSEXUALITY as sick depraved and can be removed from belief in god.
The one thing that i have as a weapon to this group is my past involvement with them and i can educate possible FF voters of their connection with the AOG church. Its amazing how many devout Christians did not know the connection at the last election.
Bill
I appreciate your analysis of the marginals and the effect that FFP could have. Quite a lot of thought in that post and very objective for a member of “the mortal enemy of FFP”. Quite commendable!
I would add that in Queensland, I think there is more scope for Labor preferences with FFP. Sure, FFP stands a reasonable chance of a senate seat here, made firmer with potential ALP preferences, though in this symbiotic relationship, there could be some Labor spoils too.
In the seat of Brisbane, for example, Arch Bevis (ALP) held since 1990, but in 2004 was faced with the most marginal Labor seat at 0.9%. He was returned 4.0% against a strong and popular Liberal Candidate, chiefly on the backs of both FFP and Nats.
But wait, there’s more for the ALP! Blair, 5.6% marginal LIB at the last election showed FFP primaries at 3.65 to the Greens 2.94. Given recent swings to Labor and every election since this showing FFP rises (though I wouldn’t discount the Greens this year increasing a share), for the ALP, FFP is a better shot to get them over the line.
One more: Bonner. LIBs most marginal in 2004 held on 0.6%. FFP polled at 4.36% and Greens at 4.93%. Admittedly, Greens do look a better choice on primaries, though an FFP preference would take more fuel of the Lib fire and many Greens voters would kayak to Antarctica rather than vote Liberal.. preference deals with ALP or not!
So, I see your point, agree with SA, see that NSW and Vic will be interesting but I would see a lot of merit in throwing ALP preferences to FFP in both SA and Queensland in particular. If they did, I think we’d see Brisbane held with Blair and Bonner won for the ALP.
over to you!
Generic Oracle Says:
June 24th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Bill
I appreciate your analysis of the marginals and the effect that FFP could have. Quite a lot of thought in that post and very objective for a member of “the mortal enemy of FFPâ€. Quite commendable!
Either you are being very funny or you meant to direct your post to STROP.
Strop: wow, how long did it take to write that post ?
My opinion has always been this:
The Greens are the ALP’s whipping-boy. The ALP can treat them however they want and the Greens will keep voting for them. Labor should use and abuse them whenever and wherever possible for any slight advantage that suits them.
But where does it suit them to do a deal with FF ?
SA definitely.
FF did quite well in the QLD Election, much improved on their Federal election performance. With so many seats up for grabs Labor should do a deal there.
FF are weak in NSW and WA, however WA is looking a worry for Labor and a deal with FF might save or win a seat.
There has been such a hooha over Fielding that I doubt Labor in Victoria will be able to do another deal.
Tasmania.. Bob Brown will get nearly a quota so FF will receive Labor preferences if they are still in the race regardless. ie a deal isn’t a big deal in Tassie.
Hi The Speaker I have been having a speech or two and going to community group meetings and talking to business owners , unionists and residents.
Your comment above saddens me [ The Greens are the ALP’s whipping-boy. The ALP can treat them however they want and the Greens will keep voting for them. Labor should use and abuse them whenever and wherever possible for any slight advantage that suits them. ] but id say is true on how the ALP would see us. What would be sadder is if the ALP lost due to its no principle deal with FF.
What would be sadder is if the ALP lost due to its no principle deal with FF.
How would that occur ? You think voters will protest by voting for John Howard who also preferences FF ? Impossible.
*embarrassed grin*
Certainly did mean Strop, Bill, not yourself!
As you know, I’ve been intrigued with FFP on this site and have been researching them since we last talked. I did remember that you weren’t altogether complimentary! Thus I was impressed with the current objectivity, but I must pass this on to Strop.
I do think the ALP is somewhat taking the Greens for granted, the view from the Left has to be unidirectional with preferences and the dominant view is a big fat Labor hill (with a somewhat closer Democrat Dam slowly sinking into drought).
To completely slaughter this analogy, Labor is off trying to buy rights to the FFP bridge to battler-land, previously on Majority leasehold to the Coalition.
Still, Bob is safe is Tassie, one would expect, and FFP has its work cut out in WA and NSW. Where is this “insider leakage” on Labor preferences with FFP coming from posters? Have I missed something in the media?
I get your point Bill. I was living in Adelaide studying theology at Bible College in Malvern (1980-81) when the AOG were establishing themselves out at Klemzig and claiming exclusive access to ’salvation’ via speaking in tongues and they continue to regard homosexuality as ‘evil’ etc etc.
However, you argument that Labor doing a deal with FF is a deal with “the enemy” is abit over the top and a tad hypocritical. Depends on whom you consider to be “the enemy” and it what context, yes ?
A case in point: NSW 2001 SENATE ELECTION: In 2001 the Greens polled only 4.3% (0.3 quotas), but won the last seat after receiving preferences from the Coalition and One Nation. In 2004, the Coalition directed its preferences to the Greens ahead of Labor in the Senate across the nation.
I didnt hear any Greens complaining about receiving preferences from One Nation and the Coalition in NSW in 2001 or across the nation in 2004.
However, these preference deals can come undone if the goal is gain Senate seats for Labor-
According to Wikipedia, ” In Victoria, Family First allocated their senate preferences to Labor (2004), in order to help ensure the re-election of the number three Labor Senate candidate, Jacinta Collins. In exchange, Labor gave its Senate preferences in Victoria to Family First ahead of the Greens, expecting Family First to be eliminated before these preferences were distributed. In the event, however, Labor and Democrat preferences helped Family First’s Steve Fielding beat the Green’s David Risstrom to win the last Victorian Senate seat”
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_legislative_election,_2004).
I dont think Labor is going to to dodge a preference deal with FF on the grounds that they may be religious fanatics with a penchant for speaking in tongues and exiling practicing homosexuals from their church services, particularly in SA where FF 2PP preferences will impact on 6 marginal seat outcomes.
Considering that of their three elected representatives, only one is AOG, I’m not convinced they’re an AOG party, however you guys keep talking about it like it’s an established fact.
But if I was a Green I would keep saying it and attempting to smear them at all opportunities because it’s good strategy.
Mr Speaker I dont think FF is exclusively the political wing of the AOG either. I said “may be…”;
I know alot of fundamentalist Christian people who identify with FF for other reasons (emphasis on family values etc) It is a good strategy for the Greens though to paint them as a bunch of religious zealots, definitely.
Family First find their money, candidates, man power, core vote and organisational leaders from the AOG church.
However it is not the church’s political wing, but they are very close to it. I suppose its all in the branding
The speaker/Bill/Strop
Yeah, I heard this line on this blogsite, when I started really researching FFP and, particularly, votes made in Senate and Private Member’s bills. I told Bill previously, I found no fanaticism in any stances.
To say that one’s beliefs shouldn’t interfere with politics is naiive and discriminatory, for a country largely known for tolerance and acceptance. For the life of me, I can’t see the difference between having policy influenced by secular humanism, nominal agnosticism, Christianity or any other belief system.
Using this against FFP is just as much a fear campaign as talking about “thuggish unionists” in the ALP, “Cold, calculating big businessmen” in the LIBS and calling Greens “Communists”. As far as I can see, it is just politics.
This is a democracy, just like the voters let the Libs know when WC was getting “fanatical” and dangerous, I think you’d find the same the minute that FFP suggested any policy or position that radical. It’s democracy, it’s not dangerous. Look at One Nation. One “who”?
I think, to the Greens, the real danger has nothing to do with their Christianity (though, as has been correctly stated on this blog, this is far from obvious in the senate) and far more to do with being politically in the centre. This is prime real estate in Australian politics, wedged between the political duopoly we have.
I’d just be careful that the Greens didn’t alienate any more voters with extreme claims of fundamentalism. I can’t see it, it just isn’t there. Just because a party doesn’t share your exact value set, it doesn’t make them extreme.
Families seem to be resonating with the major platforms I read about them in the paper: Tax relief on mortgages, dropping petrol excise, controlling predatory pricing… All core issues, not a radical sniff.
Greens have bleated a little too much about VSU and FFP eventually supporting this. No surprises, really. A significant constituent of Greens support would be previous or current Uni students with involvement in political activism on campus. For a National Political Party hoping for credibility with ALL Australians, this is simply not relevant. Sorry but it is not a big issue and many Average battlers I talk too don’t understand why we have the right to choose to join the union at work but not at Uni.
So this issue seems to be a non-issue. Every party has ideals and beliefs that influence policy that others don’t agree with. That’s why we have parties. FFP is not radical but the true reason for Greens hatred is more than likely political. FFP can and does appeal to both sides of politics. The Greens don’t and support seems to have dropped off.
STROP,
You are correct about the 2004 ALP-FF Senate preference deal. Note that this time Jacinta Collins is the Number 1 Labor Senate candidate and therefore will not need FF preferences to be elected. FF is unlikely to want to preference the other Labor candidates and therefore an ALP-FF Senate deal is less likely. However, if FF really puts the Family First, it will want the Howard Government out of office and should be prepared to assist more morally conservative Labor candidates in order to achieve this. In the world of realpolitic, if the price of such FF support is ALP preferences to FF in the Senate, the ALP will pay the price. It will probably be academic this time, as the Labor vote will give it three quotas in Victoria and the surplus will be insufficient to elect an FF candidate. Given that Labor cannot win control of the Senate this time, it is immaterial who gets the non-Labor Senate seats. If the Greens have any sense, they will swallow their pride, preference Labor throughout the country and wait for the almost inevitable double dissolution to increase their Senate numbers and give them the balance of power.
I took the weekend off to be more silent jas than noisy jas.
Firstly I am not from the left, I am camped firmly in the right in Labor. I applaud the common sense response of Carpenter and Beattie and Fraser. I like Fraser’s ‘I don’t care if it is an election stunt or not lets try and help these people with the sudden energy of the Government.’ I like also Carpenter and Beattie saying what everyone thinks about 11 years not merely of neglect but of active opposition to the traditional owners of Australia, rings hollow against his sudden love.
Was it Fraser that asked what had changed between the Commonwealth’s starve them out policy of just a few months ago and last week, except for the looming of the election?
I think the only risk for Rudd is looking a bit weak Beazley wise, but given Adam’s expressed view, there is only a handful of people like me (apparently in the wrong faction) that thinks his uncritical response is entirely political and weak. So Rudd should lose nothing. He supports mostly and gets to take pot-shots at the most failed elements of a plan that is clearly being made up minute by minute; with less resources and the same detail of planning as the Water Plan. We have seen this kind of con before. This time the PM has made sure no-one with any power gets in his way.
Generic Oracle I am not going to claim a long list of associations and understandings with local traditional owners, nor deny them. That I am cynical about this Prime Minister just means I have been awake over the last 11 years, it doesn’t mean I am from the left nor that I am ill-informed about community matters and what works.
But community does matter in one way Howard is not putting forward community generated ideas, they are not driven by the community, and quite frankly 6 months of troops and police in the streets can only result in more traditional owners in jail? Since they are so underrepresented in Australian jail populations jailing a whole more traditional owners will be a resounding success.
In one of my past lives I was standing with a client outside a local court about to go into session. A 12 year old boy was talking to his mum or aunty and saying essentially that this charge (car stealing from memory) was a real crime, not one of those petty ones, and that he was one of the men now. This was in a major regional centre.
Yes more of Howard and Hansons law and order can’t hurt, and I’m not suggesting anyone should get away with crimes, but really extra police and soldiers on the ground? How are they going to change a culture?
Look at Iraq for the effectiveness of externally imposed democracy and law and order.
Where a community wants to stop alchohol itself or p*&n itself, well that community will have to consider and rise to meet the weaknesses and challenges of prohibition – and good luck to them. But I suspect that the success of the programme stems not from the prohibition, but rather from the community driving to empower itself and outcast the problems from within.
But where it is externally imposed and enforced by troops and police for regional Victoria (or more laughably Tasmania) in the streets I tend to suggest that the community is more likely to come together to defeat the invader than it is to embrace them in the liberators in the streets.
Hope I’m wrong but the six month window, looks like it is ‘just a till after the election’ thing; the resource commitment so far seems laughably small in the face of a national emergency, compare and contrast the cost of this response to our sitting in Iraq for 5 years because Bush needs us there? And as Fraser suggested this morning they are making it up as they go and not prepared to talk to Queensland and WA who have experience and decades of failure to share with Howard and his new found interest in the traditional owners of this fine land.
“What would be sadder is if the ALP lost due to its no principle deal with FF.”
I think it is a sad development of our PR system in the senate that people think preference deals need to be made on principle. Surely people are standing for parliament for a party whose ideals they believe in, so their primary aim should be to get themselves elected. That is the principled stand. Until we get rid of parties setting their preferences (move to a NSW LC model) I say do whatever deal it takes to get you elected.
Jasmine
Since you’re posting, I assume you’re reading the blog as well. You commented not so long ago that Steve Keen’s ‘Debunking Economics’ was a book you had read and liked. Thanks for the tip, as I read it myself, and there were (unusually for attacks on ‘orthodox economics’) one or two things I had not already learnt in first year classes some years back.
Two things. First, can I suggest you read social democratic economist John Quiggin’s review of that book in the Economic Review in 2002. Second, to reinforce what Quiggin says: Keen’s critique is largely useless (aside from one or two points, as I mentioned) a) because it attacks a straw man – most economists outside the extremist Chicago School do not believe most of the things he is attacking – and b) because a number of the critiques, particularly the foundational attacks on general equilibrium and monopoly/competition, are simply wrongheaded.
And finally – I urge you to pick up a copy of the US economist Paul Krugman’s popular works, especially ‘Peddling Prosperity’ and ‘Pop Internationalism’. Your view of economics is fundamentally inaccurate, and as long as you continue reading only those people who share your own flawed understanding, you will be an intelligent person who lacks the information to apply your intelligence properly (sorry if you find that description offensive).
Apologies to Mr Bowe for such a completely off-topic post, but it bothers me when perfectly intelligent people resolutely insist on viewing economics from such a jaundiced and inaccurate view as that offered by Steve Keen and his ilk.
Sorry – Quiggin’s review was in the Economic RECORD not the Economic Review… momentary brain-to-keyboard problem.
Well not that it makes much difference to you Leopold because your comment holds basically correct, all other things being equal (and without the defendant conceding the ‘fundamentally inaccurate’ point) it would be true to say that beyond year 12 economics (mostly mars bars and donkeys from memory – I was a country girl long story) my thinking about economics has been relatively limited, and I’ve drawn relatively limited views of any sort. So it would probably be more accurate to say Mr Keen influenced me, much more than me reading someone I liked. Although I have been heavily influenced by a certain Canadian Historian who I think you would not like as well.
And surely like any highly specialised, highly focused, completely opaque to most outsiders: Economics, like Law, like Factional Poliltics and like polling science needs to be tough enough to withstand a few jaundiced outside views?
But next long plane flight I have, I’ll put aside Ralston-Saul and Tax Lawyer Weekly to enjoy your recommendations …
dembo Says:
June 25th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
I say do whatever deal it takes to get you elected.
Im sorry but i cannot support this way of self election. I could not live with myself gaining a seat on the preferences from e.g. racist or homophobic party. People that do, have no morals or principles.
Well Bill, what are you doing in the Greens then ? (See my post above )
Yes I can see some value in a FF-Labor preference deal in QLD now, thanks. In NSW the Greens-ALP deal puts FF on the ‘who cares’ pile I suppose and in WA, as others have pointed out, FF is not strong, yet. Talking about WA, I noted the Premier of WA on “Today” this morning rejecting JWHs request for police and basically saying ‘too little too late mate’. Premier Beattie hasnt boo about it up here in QLD yet ; probably too busy fighting off Labor election strategists bitching about the potential damage his pig-headed determination to amalagamate city councils is going to have on Labor’s pitch at Coalition seats in rural-provincial areas.
Bill
This is precisely why the Greens will never achieve any objective of being a governing party in Australia. If you will not yield nor compromise values, nor work with the government of the day (as the democrats have done), “no one will want to play with the Greens”, Bill. Mainstream Australia will not bend that far and I think the chances of becoming a major player are slim.
I respect the Greens being true to their principles, but I always find great hypocrisy with those who espouse tolerance…. for everything people believe that fits nicely into the set of accepted values of their party then scorn, vitriol and exaggeration for the rest!
If you think that those Greens who preference other parties like FFP and (presumably) ONP have no morals and principles, then I’d hate to think what you think of the parties themselves!! This is the kind of vilification and discrimination that the Left supposedly abhors..
Further, I believe that statements like those you have made detract a little from the sentiment on the forum, to discuss federal politics in as objective and informative a way as we can. Your statement has certainly not warmed me to the Greens.
Mars bars and donkeys… sounds like an interesting long story.
‘Mainstream’ economics certainly does need to be tough enough to stand up to jaundiced outside views, and in general it is (or is flexible enough to adapt when they score a hit).
I’m merely suggesting that it might deepen your appreciation and understanding of economic policy debate (you certainly take a strong and even passionate interest in tax and IR from memory) if you looked at both sides of the story.
By the way, a point of mutual interest… and actually relevant to the website… what do you reckon Mr Smith’s chances are of taking the opposition leader’s office should Heavy Kevvie lose/implode? Would he be the ‘Right’ candidate to take on Gillard do you think?
Generic Oracle Says:
June 25th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
This is precisely why the Greens will never achieve any objective of being a governing party in Australia. If you will not yield nor compromise values, nor work with the government of the day (as the democrats have done), “no one will want to play with the Greensâ€, Bill. Mainstream Australia will not bend that far and I think the chances of becoming a major player are slim.
So Generic Oracle i need to compromise on Homophobia and racism {to name just two } to win vote? My workplace was always racist and homophobic but i always stood firm and now these same people have tolerance and some even enjoy the more extroverted gay men on Big Brother etc. Yes there is still an underlying thread of racism but its has been watered down greatly to the point where Asian and Aboriginal people have been seen as human and nice. What i am saying is that if you make a stand long enough people will be interested in why and thats where you can show that we are all equal. I would hope that writers on here would support such principles
My understanding is that Mr Smith may have one or two enemies in caucus, but it surely is a possibility; but a choice from the right would always be correct?
I take your point on tax and IR, and yes I’ve run into economics in both.
Bill said:
I could not live with myself gaining a seat on the preferences from e.g. racist or homophobic party.
You’d better ask Kerry Nettle to resign. She won her seat on One Nation preferences.
The Speaker Says:
You’d better ask Kerry Nettle to resign. She won her seat on One Nation preferences.
I am talking about actively negotiating prefs from racist etc groups
In the past the greens have try to do a deal with one nation,the Shooters.
So bill in you eyes Kerry Nettle has (in your words) “no morals or principles” is that true? Because is got 86.9 from One Nation a “racist or homophobic partyâ€
Because is she got 86.9 prefs from One Nation a “racist or homophobic partyâ€
Thank goodness for the Greens and their principaled stand on all issues.
For some on this site all to keen to sacrifice their principale in order to achieve power, it must be a shock to you.
What’s with James trying to put words into bills mouth,
If One Nation want to give preferances to whoever that’s up to them.
The Green never have done a deal with One Nation, so stop trying to green wash and smear their good reputation, thats the job of the Murdoch press .
One thing I was not saying that the green have in the past done a deal with one nation but THEY HAD TRY TO DO ONE IN THE PAST
Yes the Green are so principled they voted down a nuclear plant plebiscite bill in the vic parliament
And I did not put words in bills mouth I was just Quoting this
bill weller Says:
June 25th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
dembo Says:
June 25th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
I say do whatever deal it takes to get you elected.
Im sorry but i cannot support this way of self election. I could not live with myself gaining a seat on the preferences from e.g. racist or homophobic party. People that do, have no morals or principle
I personally am ridiculously happy for progressives to be elected by backwards reactionary types ahead of other backwards reactionary types, or major parties for that matter. It’s neither principled nor unprincipled.
James I cannot do deals with ON or FF on principles. Its against what i believe
It’s not as if your principles are costing you electorally, Bill. The next member for Kingston will be Labor or Liberal. It won’t be a Green. Come back and say that when you’re polling 30%+ on primaries and then principles mean something.
Envy said:
Thank goodness for the Greens and their principaled stand on all issues.
Your Green candidate Bill Weller was on here a few weeks back touting the rightness of shutting down television stations because they help “capitalist enslavement”, and also supported shutting down multi-national owned wineries in his electorate.
Are these your Green Principles ?
Forgive me if I take criticisms of other parties by the Greens with a massive grain of salt.
The Speaker Says:
Your Green candidate Bill Weller was on here a few weeks back touting the rightness of shutting down television stations because they help “capitalist enslavementâ€, and also supported shutting down multi-national owned wineries in his electorate.
Are these your Green Principles ?
Where did i say that i wanted either shutting TV stations or wineries?
edward o Says:
June 27th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Bill. The next member for Kingston will be Labor or Liberal. It won’t be a Green. Come back and say that when you’re polling 30%+ on primaries and then principles mean something.
I have never stated i have any chance of winning Kingston but a win for me is to increase our vote and profile and that means having principles that you stick with. None of this NO AWAs well maybe some gee lets call it something different. Oh and the removal of the right to strike or organize a YR@W campaign under a possible ALP government. Nothing disgusts voters more than broken promises and U turns. Why do you think the polls are slowly moving back to Howard? With still months to go before the election i can see ( as i have stated before ) Howard getting to that winnable point. Then what??? Who will the ALP members and supporters on here blame? The Greens? Its is very sad watching the ALP twisting and turning trying to clone the Libs to the point where many swinging voters i know are now backing Howard again. Reason Better the Devil thats in rather than one that is not staying with the original promises and stance
YR@W – NO AWAs nothing less
– The right to strike or organize if the ALP hits the worker.
I have seen a complete turnaround by some union bosses in their working class rhetoric and are now playing dead. Anyone here that believes Rudd and co will win easy is delusional and thinking that he will win at all is at best fingers crossed
Bill, not my point. What you’re doing is of course admirable, although I would never vote Green in my life (early exposure to Drew Hutton back when I lived in Brisbane ruined me, what can I say?).
The point I was making is that you were saying you cannot do deals on principle, whereas that’s laughable. You have nothing to deal with. You can’t offer FF or ON preferences in the either house because your voters don’t follow HTVs anyway. They can’t offer you preferences in Kingston because you won’t get within a bulls’ roar of the final 2PP cut.
Also, spare the NO AWAs stuff, that’s not a response to anything I’ve said. I’ll just say I support AWAs for those who want to sign them and leave the politics at that.
Sorry Edward the AWA stuff was not leveled at you but just showing how both the ALP and ACTU can change to fit what they think people want.
As for the prefs i am talking IF i was in a position to win.
Interesting to note that a leaflet put out by Senator Wortley on Rudds promise to build new trade centers in Kingston naming my daughters high school as one of them to receive this great future. The problem is the State Government poo pooed that idea as they want to close our school down due to numbers dropping. oh and its prime real estate. Ya got to love it when pollies dont know whats going on in my electorate and dont seem to communicate betwenn State and Federal. Couple this with the disappointment of local community groups with the ALP candidate and major parties overall does well for the range of candidates from small parties and independents
Bill you naivity is showing again- but carry on, I love idealists; they give me something other than myself to laugh about.
Bill said:
Where did i say that i wanted either shutting TV stations or wineries?
Here:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/477#comments
Oh yes, “Public enlightenment minister” Weller.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/477#comment-13933
“What im saying is that i can understand if a President etc wanted to change the way the country was run it would need to shut down media that is owned by capitalist that want to keep enslaving the people.”
yes i can understand if he wanted to do that. All dictators have to do that in order to silence opposition. So?
what was the winery comment???
Mr Speaker you will have to do a bit better than that.
As I said before “thank goodness for the Greens and their principals”
not trying to put words in peoples mouths .
Bill I should apologise for bagging your idealism; At least you are active, out there on the hustings, a political activist in the real world while others like me have long ago tossed in the towel through dissolusionement with the ‘party’, or ‘party’s and allowed ourselves to be swallowed up in the capitalist competition for ‘a better life’ at the expense of our next door neigbbours or others cornened into ghetto like suburbs that have long ago lost their economic and social utility beyond acting as holding pens for Centrelink recipients.
Go for it Bill- I owe you more respect than i have shown in recent posts.
Preferences deals have nothing to do with idealism. ATL voting requires preferences to be submitted to the AEC.
Your ideals and values are represented by the party you vote or stand for, that should be enough!!! Who you do pref deals with, who you sit next to on the bus and who made your sandwich are irrelevant to your values!
Bill
You have missed the point of much of this latest thread, I believe. We were talking about doing preference deals. No one, myself especially, has said that any Green should do ANY deals. All I stated that if the goal of the Greens is to run the country one day (it is certainly not to assist the government of the day to lead, on the basis of their senate voting since first Federal Election contested), then this is never going to happen.
Actually, you may read too fast to catch details (or, more likely, I write too much
) but I actually commend the Greens for choosing values over pragmatism.
I understand the sensationalist argument of your “racism” and “homophobia”, but, to apply your logic to FFP and ONP, they both preference major parties, so obviously their “racism” and “homophobia” are not as entrenched as your hatred of their parties.
Bill, I have heard you give serious rants about “the religious right” and Christians on this site, with perhaps more vilification than I have seen by anyone else on the basis of race, gender or religious beliefs. I contend that Greens appear just as bigoted and narrow-minded about such groups and it puzzles me.
In my discussions on the street with swinging voters, the concerns they have about the Greens included a perception of being soft on drugs and porn. Some would hold these as closely as you hold yours but I have not seen the same vilification here.
My point is simply that people join and vote for parties because they believe in them (obviously). It doesn’t make people evil or stupid because they don’t agree with you. A growing popularity of a point of view, moral or otherwise, does not make it “right”… Hitler was democratically elected.
When you rail against what you call the “religious right” (FFP) you just come across as a bigot, and yet, I don’t think you are. After researching FFP after you introduced me to your views, you were, I think wrong, Bill. I think you would be in a minority here that would consider FFP to be from the right. They are plainly centrist. If this were not true, both sides of politics would not be listening to them any more than they presently listen to ONP (who are more comfortable with their tag).
If FFP are morally conservative, that is no more an evil than being morally liberal. To suggest this, by definition, is bigotry. Their morals, like those of ANY politician, will influence debate as much as any other. They are Left on IR, Left on immigration, Left on social justice, right on economics, education and Law and order… having trouble picking the problem here Bill? They are not liberal on Gay marriages, nor are Liberal, Labor and the Nationals. Why single them out here???
Certainly, my point remains: The Greens can never achieve majority government in Australia without preferencing parties who don’t agree with their “principles”.
Over to you..
I am into ideology and politics
Generic Oracle I do not have anything against Christians ( there are many members of the greens who are Christian ) My problem with FF is that
1. They are the political party of the AOG and other pentecostal churches ( there are pentacostal Catholics Anglicans etc who also support FF) That would not be a problem but you need to experience them first hand to understand where im coming from.
2. They have never supported the YR@W campaign in Kingston ( if they were left in IR you would think the would ) I have been told they are hostile to this campaign
3. I have family members who are gay – So not accepting of gay people and preaching they are evil and can be changed to be is disgusting
4. They split families ( there is much evidence of this )
5. The ministers are rich while the majority of parishioners stay poor
6. They fit the description of a cult ( they are being watched by cult observing groups )
7. A member of this church told my wife that she has been fighting cancer most of her life because she or her parents must have been evil.
I could go on. What i am trying to say is that i would hate so see a party with this type of mentality behind it gain support. The other thing that is interesting is the bagging FF gives the greens on issues but they sit back supposedly squeaky clean. They are not!
Both parties are trying to attract FF to win government, not because they are a center party.
I would be interested to talk to a FF candidate that is not tied some how to any pentecostal church or sect
This shows the senate candidates in 2004 and their church connections.
http://www.signposts.org.au/2004/09/21/putting-the-family-first/
I doubt any candidate does not have the same connection in 2007 either
Bill
Nothing new mate. Sounds like you have a personal axe to grind here. A lot of this doesn’t ring true with me. I have friends who are Christians and are pretty sure the church they attend is one of these AOG churches and you do not describe them, nor their friends. However, I respect your personal experiences and can understand the root cause now of your more emotive opposition to the AOG.
Again, my core arguments were political (this is, after all, a political website). I remain impressed by the policies and positions held by this party, they are very important to our major parties in this next election and I think in a democracy, they have every right to be there. They obviously have strong support for a new party that seems to be growing its voter share.
Their policies are centrist, populist at times, but nevertheless the sort of politics that your average punter has an interest in and Steven Fielding is working hard (not a bad count currently of private member’s bills to his name).
Anyway, Bill, thanks for sharing and I doubt that anyone can convince you differently but I will remain giving FF the benefit of the doubt at present. Though your ranting has not drawn me closer to voting Green unfortunately..
Fielding has been centrist at times, and it’s difficult to move too far away from populism when you go on about FAMILIES en masse. Still, media reform – where was the benefit to families in that?
Generic
Shouldnt the voter have all available information regarding who is backing/behind the nominated candidate/s
Why is FF so ashamed of their links to AOG
Hi Bill,
Who would the Greens preference then if it is all a moral imperative to you? Both the Liberal and Labor party have done far worse things to gay people than Family First. Family First has not outlawed gay marriage whereas Libs and Labor have. I always vote below the line and as a gay man I can tell you I will put Labor and the Libs below FF for that very reason. I would not vote, join or campaign for those two parties at the moment for that reason too (they may change, I may change, who knows). So are the Greens and Democrats morally bankrupt on the issue of gay marriage if they did preference deals with the Libs, Labor or FF? Of course not! Greens and Dems are paradigms of tolerance and progressiveness on gay rights. It’s throwing the baby out with the bath water to cripple your chances of electing a “good” candidate by ruling out any deal.
It would only be immoral if the Greens did a preference deal deliberately to get FF (or any other party) in ahead of themselves, which is completely nonsensical since that is not why political parties exist. This is why it is impossible for a preference deal to be immoral.
Besides, FF aren’t that bad. Not everything I disagree with in the world is *pure* evil.
Nothing Bill says ever makes sense.
1 – “That would not be a problem but you need to experience them first hand to understand where im coming from.”
Ok so we have to trust Bill on this one. He is afterall, completely unbiased.
2 – They have never supported the YR@W campaign in Kingston
Oh no! and those dastardly liberals didn’t either I bet!
I like this bit the best, he starts his points list with “My problem with FF is that” … (list) then.. “4. They split families ( there is much evidence of this )”
Family First split families!!
and..
6. They fit the description of a cult ( they are being watched by cult observing groups )
Family First is a cult!!!
Oh, I see, Points 3-7 are all about the AOG, Bill changed topics.
The Speaker
Very funny
but I wonder why other facts like “Family First eat babies” and “Family First want nuclear waste in childcare centres” was missed??
Dembo
Good points about Lib/Labor, still think FF’s stance on Gay marriage would be no more favourable than current Lib/Labor position, but no different. Thus I was questioning why FF was singled out.
Gusface
It appears to me that Australians in general have an inexplicable bias against evangelical Christians, that it doesn’t seem to have towards athiests, secular humanists, gay political groups, evangelical environmentalists or even militant unionists. I can only guess that the party did it more to reduce the chances of political infighting amongst Christians themselves if it was a “Christian party”.
A parallel is that the ALP is made up of card carrying Unionists, gets the vast majority of their funding through unions, elects unionists to the front bench but goes to great lengths to say that they are not beholden to the union movement. Now remember, they are union members, imagine how purely diabolical it would be if they were Christians!!!
I keep making the point here that ALL politicians have beliefs and values that influence them and their parties. You are kidding yourself if you think you ever get filtered intellectual purity when making decisions. It is simply discriminatory to suggest that one party be made to reveal that candidates/members go to church on Sunday. There are Christians in ALL parties.
Should we therefore expose every humanist, buddhist, muslim, hedonist, pagan and Paris-worshipper in all parties? What point would that serve?
An example. Drew Hutton, Green Candidate in Brisbane, has been outspoken in the past about being an Anarchist. Now, like others here, I am a political tragic and interested in Democracy, but when I read this in the Courier Mail in 2004 I was a little anxious. Unless he has significantly changed his values since candidacy, what place does he have in a democratic government, when core beliefs denounce involvement in organised government? This, in terms of policy, in my mind, is far more important to me than the fact that Steve Fielding goes to church on Sunday!!! I couldn’t care less about that… I care about a commitment to “getting the democratic machine working”.
I think that opposition to FF revealing church involvement (which there is rightfully no compunction for candidates to do) is more about bigotry and xenophobia than a commitment to fairer democracy. Let ‘em go to church I say! Just keep putting out smart policy!
I think that opposition to FF revealing church involvement (which there is rightfully no compunction for candidates to do) is more about bigotry and xenophobia than a commitment to fairer democracy. Let ‘em go to church I say! Just keep putting out smart policy!
Thats great Generic Oracle as long as they don’t bring the church to our government, schools, workplaces , hospitals etc
Its not about exposing it is about being open
The Speaker Says:
June 29th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Nothing Bill says ever makes sense.
The AOG and other pentecostal churches political arm is FF. They are entwined. So the candidates beliefs would also be entwined and if they ever got to the stage of having control of government their beliefs would be put on us. Strange though that they believe God will give them what they want ( they also believe in the power of positive thinking and the prosperity gospel) yet God seems to not give them 50% + 2pp. Their core church beliefs are bad for the community and family.
I wish people that seem to like FF would study them a bit deeper. Its amazing that most Greens are studied until people can bad mouth them yet FF gets no such treatment.
# Gusface Says:
June 29th, 2007 at 9:52 am
Generic
Shouldnt the voter have all available information regarding who is backing/behind the nominated candidate/s
Why is FF so ashamed of their links to AOG
This is exactly what i mean. Be open where your backing comes from etc. At this time my backing comes from the Greens , YR@W Kingston and possibly the AMWU. oh and i am a member of the Friends of Aldinga Scrub and the Onkaparinga Community Coalition.
Generic Oracle Says:
June 29th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
The Speaker
Very funny
but I wonder why other facts like “Family First eat babies†and “Family First want nuclear waste in childcare centres†was missed??
Now you are minimizing what myself and others have experienced with these type of churches. I would say most members of AOG/FF are honest in their beliefs and themselves. We mostly do not like the Mormons or JWs coming to our doors preaching their brand of religion yet we now have a political party that in time will do just that. Can anyone explain to me why most Catholics, Anglicans , Baptists , Uniting just to name a few do not support FF ? I would love to see a AOG minister renounce his wealth give all to the poor and be as Jesus was then be a candidate. I would support him or her 100%
BILL, BILL BILL What are you doing ?
“Thats great Generic Oracle as long as they don’t bring the church to our government, schools, workplaces , hospitals etc”.
Broadly speaking Western culture, ideals, values, morals etc upon which our ‘democratic’ social system is based, even now, are an inheritance of church/christian discourse. Its a bit late to kick ‘the church’ out of our Government, schools, workplaces, hospitals, etc dont you think ?
Generic Oracle Says:
June 29th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
“We mostly do not like the Mormons or JWs coming to our doors preaching their brand of religion yet we now have a political party that in time will do just that”.
If that happens Oracle, we can choose to do what we do with the Mormons and JWs-say ” I cant talk right now, Im trying to repair my blow up doll so it dosent cheat on me with my neighbour again” and close the door.
Same goes for Federal elections, say “no thanks’ by voting for someone else. My point is this is a democracy and tolerance of varying extremist positions on a range of issues is part of the game-
Stereotyping and vilifying any group on the grounds of questionable assumptions, as Bill has done with FF, is going to draw strong reactions, and so it should in MHO. FF havent come to my door, and when/if they do i will respond with a cheeky ‘no thanks’ and, as is my right, choose to close the door.
Interesting discourse all round.
Strop, I think with your last post you meant “Bill”, though. The quote was his.
Bill, on simple argument, I must say I rarely hold credence with those that begin “most people of group Y believe X”, as in “Most Anglicans/Catholics/Uniting Church members do not vote FFP”. I am not aware that you are running polls, and for this particular response, the sample size had better be quite large.
I admit there are far more Catholics and Anglicans, according to the last census, than actual FFP first preferences in any election, but QLDs 7% FFP first preference actually covers more than those indicating “Pentecostal” on the last ABS data for QLD, and that is assuming that every single “Pentecostal” person voted for them, which is a dubious assumption.
The rest either came from other Christians or other non-Christians, not affiliated with pentecostalism, which doesn’t seem to support the assertion that it is a “pentecostal party” as you have suggested.
Agree with Strop. We are a democracy, a polite “no thanks” preserves dignity whilst exercising democratic rights. We all do precisely that at the booth. One would hope
I maintain that I am interested in Family First, certainly on the basis on policy and political positioning. If they are churchgoers, I am cool with that. They do seem intent on working with the government of the day and have support (and an ear) on both sides of politics, which is filling the old (and, I believe, important) role of the Dems, so, in the light of this and, ironically, Bill, your obvious bias, this has driven me to consider them more for my vote and, despite my Green conscience, away from the Greens.
A very stimulating discussion and this will certainly be an interesting election!! (stocking up early on popcorn and beer!!)
1. Most non pentecostal voters who voted family first did not know the links between FF and AOG
2. The amount of interest in green candidates and their political history and beliefs on here has been on a large scale much bigger than our vote size. FF should also be looked into this way
3. People should not be victimized by their sexuality as we are in the 21st century not in some religious dark age.
4. Generic Oracle Says:
but I wonder why other facts like “Family First eat babies†and “Family First want nuclear waste in childcare centres†was missed??
Very funny
That is just silly and minimizes what people have gone through with these type of churches
5. People need to separate pentecostal churches from mainstream churches when discussing this topic
6. Again if FF is attacked or shown to be linked to AOG its me being biased but if the Greens are attacked by people on here or FF themselves then thats OK. seems a bit hypocritical to me.
7. I want openness in political parties. If it is no shame to show that a group is behind you and financing you then why hide it?
“We want influence that alters the perception of God and the church; an influence that goes beyond the four walls of the church and penetrates the heart of men and women who are without hope . . . influence that gives us real access to the realms of politics, media and the entertainment world . . . to create leaders and people with influence that is so pervasive it cannot be stopped, so attractive it cannot be ignored, so contemporary it cannot be ridiculed and so authentic it cannot be rejected.”
- Ashley Evans, Paradise Church pastor and co-founder of Family First
A volunteer was disciplined for answering “yes” when asked whether Family First backed lesbians being burned to death.
Gee thats Democratic
http://baliset.blogspot.com/2004/10/family-first-one-christians-view.html
A AOG member who is upset that FF denies its links with the AOG and Christianity when the proof is that the links are there
Bill, the great irony is that you say FF are intolerant and what not, but look at how intolerant you are of them and how much effort you’re putting into demeaning them.
Being a candidate for public office… I do worry. A lot of the stuff you say on here could very easily be exploited by your opponents.
Whoops. I apologise for putting your name to something Bill posted Generic.
Bill you appear to clutching at straws of evidence to support your position on it but I admire your passion and persistence.
tolerance only seems to be for the right side of politics.
# STROP Says:
June 30th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Whoops. I apologise for putting your name to something Bill posted Generic.
Bill you appear to clutching at straws of evidence to support your position on it but I admire your passion and persistence.
thank you and it helps to win the biggest poster on poll bludger too! theres always a positive!
Bill can you explain to me these comments by Peter Singer, who is a Victorian Greens founder and co-author of the book “The Greens” with Bob Brown ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
Singer states that Dekkers believes that zoophilia should remain illegal if it involves what he sees as “cruelty”, but otherwise is no cause for shock or horror.
Read the “Zoophilia” section – is this Greens policy ?
Remi I do not support the comments of Peter Singer in regards to Zoophilia
Remi
Wow. An eye-popping read!!
Bill
Maybe you are right!!! Maybe candidates SHOULD reveal more about their backgrounds. Especially after reading Remi’s link above!!
One of the main thrusts of your arguments appears to be your personal experience with some members of this AOG church, extrapolating that to represent the Family First political party..THEN stating that preference deals should not be made with such a party.. THEN stating that those who do deals have no morals.
My understanding is that some AOG people made some disparaging remarks about a gay relative of yours and a friend with an illness/disability that was told that she/her parents must have been evil as a reason given for the condition. Well, this sounds both weird and undignified and I fully understand your feelings, though not your extrapolation to an entire political party.
However, if we were to apply your same reasoning to the article linked by Remi:
1. Peter Singer is a prominent member of the Greens movement, having been a founding member of the Victorian greens and lead senate candidate in 1996.
2. Peter Singer espouses views including support for sexual relations between humans and animals, lobbying the UN to give Great Apes “person status”, favours euthanasia of infants and adults with disabilities and other rather interesting though fairly repugnant views, I would predict, to many of our posters here.
3. Apparently he is held in high esteem by Greens (just found him glorified on the Greens website). So how could we support a party that endorses this man?
4. How could anyone preference the Greens, in good conscience, in the 2007 Federal Election?
Now Bill, I am NOT saying your reasoning is valid, I am just trying to show you how your same reasoning can be used with equal effect to attempt to damage the Greens.
You may support animal sex, Great Ape rights and share the Darwinian/ecological basis to remove disabled people from our populations and think these higher values than parties who refuse to endorse gay marriage.
Here, I could be offended, because I am a person with a disability and globalise this view to the Greens party… but I shan’t. Precisely because I believe you are clutching at straws, your argument is emotive rather than substantial.
By the way, the argument above is marginally stronger, I believe, since the points above relate to a senior Greens figure, whilst I believe the issues you had with people in the AOG were not FF candidates/leaders.
Generic Oracal, get a grip, why are you telling lies about Peter Singer? No where does he support animal sex like you say, talking about clutching at straws, you are the master.
You might think making outrageous, slanderous, accusations to distract attention form Bill’s well researched and presented exposay of extreamist, secret, minority cults, to take attention away.
The fact remains Family First are a threat to the democratic process with a lot to hide by the sounds of it.
While you like to “having sex with animals” our democracy is under threat from Family First and the church meddling in state affairs.
Thanks to Bill for his good work.
THE SWING REQUIRED ?
I have done some homework on the notional 2PP swing question for anyone who can’t be bothered doing it or want a synopsis of what you could learn by going to the AEC and/or the experts sites (eg. Adam Carr) regarding 2PP swing history in 2001-2004.
There are 10 Coalition marginal seats where the swing required (based on current Notional 2PP margins) was achieved in previous elections (2001 or 2004). These were –
Kingston (0.1), Macquarie (0.5), Wakefeild (0.7), Makin (0.9), Braddon (1.1), Hasluck (1.8), Stirling (2.0), Bass (2.6), Solomon (2.8) and Dobell (4.8). 0nly Dobell would require a 2PP swing above 3.3%.
There are 5 other Coalition marginal seats where a 2PP swing of 3.3% to Labor would gain the seat- These are Bonner (0.6), Wentworth (2.5), Moreton (2.8), Lindsay (2.9) and Eden Monaro (3.3).
0ther Coalition seats I have nominated (15) require a (notional) 2PP swing ranging from 4.0 (Bennalong) to 8.6 (Hinkler). Labor will be hoping for gains amongst these seats to square up with inevitable losses (eg Cowan). These are Bennalong, McMillan, Deakin, Corangamite, Herbert, Boothby, Page, Blair, Latrobe, Longman , Cowper, Robertson, Gippsland, Flynn and Hinkler.
Current polls indicate a national 3.3% 2PP swing to Labor is very possible, probable in some seats. A 2PP swing of 3.0% would strip the Coalition of 13 of the seats nominated. Should be an interesting election this time around based on these figures. And, yes, I do remember Beasley lost an election despite winning the National 2PP battle.
Generic Oracle:
“Apparently he [Peter Singer] is held in high esteem by Greens (just found him glorified on the Greens website). ”
can you point me to this page? My ace google skills aren’t cutting it this morning.
d
Family First’s only elected member to parliement has a disgracefull record as far as attendance and voting against famalies goes.
“Fielding has been a part-time senator for the families he claims to represent. He was absent from 43 votes in 2005 and 105 Senate votes in 2006. Many of the votes he ignored were family friendly, concerning eradicating poverty (June20, 2006), the effect of petrol prices (August 10, 2006) and improving antenatal care in rural Australia (August 16, 2006).
http://www.vic.greens.org.au/2007-election/preferential-treatment-is-all-part-of-a-political-ruse/
Envy/ Darryl
Just reprinting Remi’s wikipedia link above:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
Darryl: http://www.vic.greens.org.au/about-the-greens/brief-history
Envy, actually if you have an issue it may be worth taking this up with Wikipedia. The quotes in text about Singer are:
“Singer stated that “mutually satisfying activities” of a sexual nature may sometimes occur between humans and animals” and “Singer believes that although sex between species is not normal or natural,[13] it does not constitute a transgression of our status as human beings, because human beings are animals” though he does make the statement: “”I don’t support sex with animals, I think it’s a lot more fun to do it with humans”. A decision apparently based more on preference than ethics or morality, perhaps.
Envy, you sound less restrained than Bill. Look, I was objectively researching FF after a discussion with Bill a month ago. It was clear to see that his opinions are based mostly on narrow personal experience with an organisation that may or may not be instrinsically linked with FFP. I see no threat to democracy through their policy nor their senate votes and, I suggest, if you are truly a political tragic, neither do you.
More ironically, I am a passionate environmentalist, though strident bloggers here and elsewhere have clearly dissuaded me, and perhaps others here, from considering them at the next election. I didn’t think the “greens were extreme” but am now starting to wonder. My point above was simply demonstrating how Bill’s discourse in discrediting FF could just as easily be used to discredit ANY party. I’m sorry if you missed my absurdity.
If there are lies above, then they are not mine and show that you didn’t read the link posted by Remi.
My aim is certainly not to slander anyone, so whether Peter Singer condones sex with animals, is sympathetic or otherwise is actually not my point. Simply that you can’t extrapolate a political party and make judgments about other parties preferencing on the basis of your own limited experience, nor on the apparent beliefs of one candidate.
Nice work, Strop.
I personally don’t think Wentworth is that marginal, as there was a large anti-Turnbull protest vote last time that will return to him, and also Turnbull is cautious enough to devote significant resources to Wentworth that other candidates don’t have.
In fact, in a big swing 5%+ I think Turnbull could be “last man standing”. He then just needs to relax about the whole wealth thing (he’s so paranoid about it)…
Whatever Singer’s views on bestiality, he has certainly taken view on speciesism, that I consider to be extreme. One of the reasons I cannot support the Greens is because his views pervade a lot of enviromentalist thought.
A single and brief example: protests to the World Bank on the development of hydro-electric and irrigation schemes in India because of the problems in relocating Bengal Tigers. While the preservation of species is important so are the concerns of the poorest of the poor in India. http://pudang.tripod.com/articles/emag.html
First world Greens imposing their power and will on third world peasants is not an attractive sight.
Also hilarious work on the Peter Singer stuff. I love Peter Singer and am a committed environmentalist, but on paper you could definitely argue the Greens promote sex with animals while FF are just a socially-conservative church-backed political party. Beware the perils of the sound-bite debate!
Generic Oracle said:-
2.” Peter Singer espouses views including support for sexual relations between humans and animals”,
Where does he espouse that??
Still trying to deflect attention from your Family First/AOG.?
I suppose you also think Eternal Brethren, another extream, christian, fudamentalist cult (under police/AEC investigation for criminal activities) are not a threat to our democratic way of life?
Bob Brown says :-
“After criticism, Fielding has begun attending more votes. He has voted against increasing the use of renewable energy; against ending old-growth logging; against assessing the effect of Gunns’s Tasmanian pulp mill on endangered species; and against Australia contributing fairly to global efforts to keep temperature rises to less than 2C. He voted against my amendment banning junk-food ads during children’s TV viewing hours. He voted to abolish student unions and to increase foreign ownership of the Australian media. And when I moved to stop more salary hikes for politicians until the wages of childcare workers increased, Fielding stayed out of the Senate.
Perhaps if you were’t so obsessed with exotic sexual activities and event 11 years ago, you might like to research properly and not misquote people to deliberatly smear the Greens.
I guess it’s par for the course that the Greens are subject to “shooting the messanger syndrome” , because their polacys are so good,
as the voting public have aknowledged, despite the smeer campaigns waged againts them by just about everybody in the media and untruth tellers like Generic Oracle
Great Ape personhood is not something I would consider ‘extreme’. Unorthodox, perhaps, but I’m tentatively a supporter. Individualism, theory of mind, complex social interaction and language have all been observed amongst great apes. The more we know, the less different to us that they appear. Richard Dawkins and Jane Goodall are other supporters.
Envy
I was present on another well-known blogsite, now “silent” due to partisan politics. I liked the site and this one and do not wish the same. Thus, I politely decline further discussion on the issue, if that is ok with you.
Those who know me know that I have supported Greens, Democrats, Liberals, Labor and Family First, when they merited it and criticised them when I felt they hadn’t.
This was, originally, an academic/political debate about polls and preferences and I, like others here, felt that Bill was not giving a measured, nor particularly “researched” argument. My points above, which you have missed (and Dembo, thanks to you and BTW I agree with you about the sound bites!! understood completely) were simply to illustrate that using Bill’s same reasoning, ANYONE can be made to look more extreme than they are. In other words, he was using, in the language of debate ” A slippery slope sequence” to elicit an absurd outcome.
You have taken the crust of the debate and missed the point. I am not flag-waving here for any party, never have. I am simply saying that tolerance, by definition, means showing dignity to all who hold other views, even if you vehemently disagree with them. Ideally, too, on a website like this, you would also reference sources, as I have done.
I wish this not to descend into some mirky war between Greens and FF, I don’t think anyone does. So I won’t continue this discourse with you, if that is OK?
That’s to be expected when you can’t defend your position
Envy said: I suppose you also think Eternal Brethren.. are not a threat to our democratic way of life?
That should be “Exclusive” Brethren and no they aren’t a threat to our democratic way of life. Their anti-green advertisements are infact a legitimate part of the democratic political process.
Is it just me, or is anyone who opposes the Greens EVIL THAT MUST BE DESTROYED ?
Thanks for correcting me on the name of the Exclusive Brethren.
I have to correct you on the fact that the AEC and the police do think they are not a part of the legal democratic process and are investigating their illegal activities relating to anti-Green advertising and connection to Liberal Party, and not declairing who finaned them.
Not to mention dodge activities in NZ and Canada where Exclusive Brethren specialise in influencing government of any Party not just Greens.
I suppose their attention to the Green in Australia is recognotion of the growing vote and influence of the Australian Greens
Generic Oracle,
I find your posts clear, reasoned and interesting, and I hope that you continue them. No matter how much invective others use, it is never necessary for anyone to respond in the same way, so if you can keep your cool under provocation, keep posting.
Family First certainly falls between the Liberal Party and the Labor Party on the political spectrum. I would label it as Centre Right, whereas you, I think, tend to label it as Centre Left. I would rate both Family First and the Greens ahead of the Liberal Party, but I may be unusual in that. Steve Fielding voted against the government’s IR laws, which is in his favour; he voted for its VSU legislation, which is not in his favour. W can go through all his votes and express agreement or disagreement with each one. But the idea that Family First is extremist is without foundation. That someone from the AOG Church told Bill that disability is the result of the disabled person’s doing evil reflects badly on the church member making the statement, but it says nothing about Family First. Every party has supporters who do and say dreadful things. This is quite different from the party itself doing or saying something dreadful.
Family First cannot deny its religious connection, but so what? The Family First booth worker I spoke to in last year’s Victorian election told me that six members of his church were candidates and that when they had asked for help, 500-600 of the 800 church members had volunteered. That’s just the democratic process at work. Anyone who wants to get involved in politics, Christian or atheist, is free to do so, through whatever party suits.
Family First’s political problem is finding a constituency. The outer-suburban entertainment-style church congregations simply are not big enough. Steve Fielding’s 2004 victory was possible because the Labor vote collapsed. In normal circumstances, the preferences would have gone the other way, but the coalition would still control the Senate. I expect Labor’s vote to be much higher this year. The question is whether or not the coalition vote will collapse to such an extent that its preferences contribute to a successful preference harvest by Family First. I am doubtful. I can see FF existing as a very minor party of around 4 per cent and never getting beyond that level. The Greens will remain the third party of choice for the foreseeable future, taking the spot held by the DLP (1950s-1970s) and then by the Democrats (1970s-2000s).
To The Speaker please have alook at links below and then tell me of your Exclusive Brethren “no they aren’t a threat to our democratic way of life.”
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/18344/exclusive-brethren-25
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/18024/exclusive-brethren-22
and about police investigation into alegations of molestation of children
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/423466/1072589
Firstly, there is a huge difference between saying that something is not inherently immoral or degrading, and saying that you are in favour of or promote that thing. Anyone unable to see this difference should probably stop reading philosophy because they are unlikely to get much from it.
Secondly if we are going to start playing the “prominent member of party X says this; is that party policy?” then can we also try it with for example Bill Heffernan?
Personally, Family First’s apparent denial that people in same-sex relationships can be a family (as its policy on “The Family” suggests: http://www.familyfirst.org.au/documents/THEFAMILY_000.pdf) makes it pretty non-centrist to me.
Would the Family First Party really suggest that two women in a relationship with a kid don’t constitute “a family”?
Chris Curtis Says:
July 1st, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Family First cannot deny its religious connection, but so what? The Family First booth worker I spoke to in last year’s Victorian election told me that six members of his church were candidates and that when they had asked for help, 500-600 of the 800 church members had volunteered. That’s just the democratic process at work. Anyone who wants to get involved in politics, Christian or atheist, is free to do so, through whatever party suits.
Thats my point they should be open with the connection so voters know where they are coming from. If they get 500 booth workers to our 100 good luck to them. There is no jealousy’s from me. Just want the openness and for people to dig deeper with this party as many seem delighted to do with the Greens
Chris Curtis Says:
July 1st, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Generic Oracle,
I find your posts clear, reasoned and interesting, and I hope that you continue them. No matter how much invective others use, it is never necessary for anyone to respond in the same way, so if you can keep your cool under provocation, keep posting.
I agree with you Chris. As i have posted before that even though i don’t agree with many on here. I respect their posts / beliefs and Knowledge and to me its all a learning issue. Yes i have personal issues with the AOG but so do many others. It just scares me having gone down that pentecostal road myself that this same grouping could influence government in the future. The AOG goal is to save society by showing them their version of gods way as do many of the more extreme Christian sects.
New Topic LoL will the Democrats ever come back after this election?
from another list
Some speculation in the press this morning that if Howard gets a Tampa
like bounce in the polls this week he may call an election as early as
the end of this week. Apparently the earliest he can go is August 4.
Just some anecdotal evidence, the letters page of my local paper, The
Manly Daily has been full of this issue all week. Perhaps a worrying
sign that this issue is pushing all the same buttons as Tampa. This
week’s Newspoll will be eagerly awaited.
Wasn’t that what Peter Brent was speculating?
i think so i never got a link to the actual story
Sacha,
To regard the couple and child you mention as a family is a left-wing view; to not so regard them is a right-wing view, so Family First is on the Right in that position. To require secret ballots before employees take industrial action but not before the employer, or more precisely, the employer’s managers, take industrial action against employees is a right-wing view, so the Labor Party is on the Right in that position. You have to look at more than one policy to judge where a party fits on the eighteenth century left-right continuum.
Bill,
I am not defending the Assembly of God, and you have every right to be hostile to that church given your experience of it. But I wouldn’t tar Steve Fielding with the same brush. All who pay attention to politics know that there is a connection between Family First and the newer evangelical churches. It doesn’t worry those who vote for it.
I am a strong advocate of animal welfare. I think personhood for the Great Apes is a bit PC, but they should be protected, as should all animals from experimentation. The idea that mankind is a totally different sort of creature from all others cannot withstand modern knowledge of DNA.
The Democrats will not recover from this year’s defeat. There is not a strong enough core of belief to hold them together. It’s the Greens’ turn now!
Chris
Cheers mate, I always enjoy reading your comments too! I’m quite Rhino-skinned, so no fear of me ever getting upset but I just didn’t want this thread going pear-shaped! Agree with your comments but do think that FF is perhaps more centre-right than centre-left, as you suggest.
Envy
Cheers and good luck supporting your party! Passion is always a good thing for things you believe in!
Bill
Everyone here bags you at some stage and you still top the post-list!! So we all know you have Rhino-skin
No hard feelings. With regard to the Dems, it doesn’t look good. As I’ve said, Greens represent a lot of the policy and FF may end up filling the middle-minor slot but I wouldn’t discount the Dems just yet.. a long way to go until October(ish)
Chris wrote in part: “To regard the couple and child you mention as a family is a left-wing view; to not so regard them is a right-wing view.”
I’m sorry Chris, why is one view “left” and the other “right”?
Glen Milne is speculating an early election call based on Coalition concerns about the negative impact the APEC conference is expected to have on the electorates views of the PM, particularly in Sydney.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21842364-601,00.html
Apparently, the August event is in danger of putting a “wet blanket” over any slow creep momentum gains the Coalition is expecting from the roll out of Costellos ‘heres 30 peices of silver- go on take it- you know you want to’ vote buying scheme targeted specifically at voters considering jumping ship to Labor (grey army, etc).
Did I have to mention ships; The 2007 Tampa ‘rabbit’ (saving the world in NT) is getting plumper by the day and is wresting momemtum from the Rudd camp for the winter solstace period. No wonder the Unions at the Brissy chat fest were screaming at Rudd to get some POLICY out, NOW !!
In Aussie rules football terms the ‘championship’ quarter is the third- I think I just heard the half time whistle blow. Should be interesting to see what the coaches (election strategists) have up their sleeves in the coming weeks.
APEC is in September: Doh !!
Chris, whether one thinks that same-sex couples with a child are a family is more about social liberalism rather than the 20th century ideological left/right scale.
You can easily find “right-wingers” (e.g. libertarians or classical liberals) who subcribe to a socially liberal line and probably also find socially illiberal dyed-in-the-wool marxists (who would oppose any focus on sexuality as class is the only political issue that matters).
dembo Says:
July 1st, 2007 at 10:27 am
Nice work, Strop.
I personally don’t think Wentworth is that marginal, as there was a large anti-Turnbull protest vote last time that will return to him, and also Turnbull is cautious enough to devote significant resources to Wentworth that other candidates don’t have.
Thanks for your comments Dembo. My speculations about the swing required etc was based purely on mathematical reality only. Each seat is going to have to have its pros and cons for either side as you rightly point out regarding Wentworth.
Will the ‘Brian Burke’ issue or the boom effect WA voters in Cowan, Swan, Stirling, Hasluck? What about the ’save the world in NT’ policy in Solomon; the ‘missapropriation’ allegations against Vasta et al in 3 QLD marginals; the McKew factor in Bennalong; the impact of Centrelink hard line policy about to be imposed on single parent familes with a high representation in particular marginal seats (Dobell, Lindsay, Page, etc); seats with above average mortgage payers (Bonner, Kingston, Makin, Wakefeild Hasluck) and the ‘local’ issues and political games being played. Fascinating stuff.
New Galaxy poll: 55/45 TPP
http://media01.couriermail.com.au/multimedia/2007/07/070702_galaxy/galaxy.doc
up from the now famous/infamous (depending where you stand) 53-47 poll.
apparently only 25% believe the PM cares about the indigenous crisis.
58% believe its all an election ploy.
uh oh.
Any one hear anything about the Cook and Parramatta preselections?
Chris Curtis said:
“The Greens will remain the third party of choice for the foreseeable future, taking the spot held by the DLP (1950s-1970s) and then by the Democrats (1970s-2000s)”
I think there is a distinction to be made between the DLP/Greens and the Democrats and their position in the senate.
Up until the late 1970s, the senate was dominated by the two majors and any minor party was an attendant extreme party to the majors (ie Libs and Lab were “the center”).
The big success of the Democrats has been in creating a “middle” for the senate. The DLP was not a centrist party (despite some revision going on nowadays) and while I agree with many of the Greens views, I think they are once again further away from the center than Labor. In effect, a return to the old system.
Greens with the balance will be something quite different to the Democrats. The biggest shake-up in 30 years I think.
Dembo
I agree with your assessment of the role of the Greens compared with the Dems. A “major-minor” party like the Greens having reasonable representation is not bad or “evil” but nor does it do much to “balance the senate”. It merely provides a clearer voice for the Left, currently muddied within the Labor party due to the party playing catch-up to the right to sway voters back from the Liberals.
In part, this has probably been necessary for Labor, since the swinging electorate (mostly) has shifted Right as the Liberal party has assumed a policy set more consistent with the late 1960’s, back from a position as Left as it ever was at about 1995. In essence, the populace had shifted with the incumbent party, just as it tended to do with the previous Labor reign.
These swinging voters do tend to do what they are told until something makes them realise the pot has “warmed up”, then they start hopping out! In 1996 it was perhaps economics and a revolt against “political correctness”, a rich vein tapped by ONP with immigration, indigenous issues and some small measure of Xenophobia (non- ONP voters tended not to need an explanation).
Now, it is becoming clear that the workplace has woken up voters. All was comparatively fine (at the suburban lot level) until the public realised that they can’t afford their plasmas with a pay cut. Beyond the poll noise, I agree with those that suggest that the underlying pattern is stablilising rather than closing. The swinging voters may well be making up their minds early.
Against this background, the Greens in the senate mostly provide a clarion call for the Left in an environment of growing conservatism, however, there is little evidence that this will “balance” the senate significantly. The senate majority “gift” will be (likely) gone this year and Fielding is some comfort to the coalition but no yes man.
What needs to be considered is this chunk of Gen-Xers that is present in Australia. Overshadowed in population by both Boomers and Generation Y, advertising and media in general focusses on these larger demographics with higher disposable incomes. Politicians would be wise to spend some time wooing the X-ers. They make up a sizeable chunk of swinging voters and are, as a group, more conservative than boomers.
Xers have young families now. This means they care intimately about Health, Education and the affordability of their mortgages. This means IR is crucial. They absolutely need their jobs. They have a pragmatic approach to the environment, interested more in sustainable building/removating/living, water tanks and PV panels than spending weekends waving placards and chained to trees. Save the climate but help me pay my mortgage too.
If this group and the blue-rinse set have already decided on their vote, it could come down largely to the young and single voter bloc and here I think Labor and the Greens stand to clean up on the undecideds.
Generic Oracle Says:
until the public realised that they can’t afford their plasmas with a pay cut.
I cant afford one now! And i have no interest in having one. My luxuries are an old computer and my political library ( its amazing what bargain books you can buy from charity shops ) My wife ever the bargain hunter buys most of her clothes at charity shops and looks fantastic. Our furnishings are also from these shops. I believe the simpler you live the happier you are. But i do need to buy a new computer.
I think the Democrats will wither and die with party members joining either the Greens or FF. It would be interesting to know what type of people that did vote Dems now vote FF.
William would you be able to do one of your post list polls to see who has been doing all the postings ( i love polls and voting )
On the Cook preselection: the Supreme Court (?) reinstated the 15 odd preselectors that had been thrown out and the preselection is going to happen in July.
Sacha,
In applying the labels of left-wing and right-wing to attitudes to same-sex families, I was using a more mainstream traditional continuum, rather than including libertarians, who are such a tiny percentage of the political spectrum. I’d go along with the Marxists as regarding class to be a more significant political issue, but that puts me out on a lonely limb.
Dembo,
I agree that the DLP was not a centrist party. It was a centre left party, committed to social welfare, decent working conditions, environmental awareness, democratic electoral systems and much more. Had it retained the balance of power, its senators would have voted with the other Labor senators to stop not only WorknotcalledChoicesanymore but also the first set of Liberal IR laws that the Democrats supported. That puts the DLP to the left of the Democrats on IR. On other issues, I concede the Democrats would be to the left of the DLP, but the middle in the Senate was there well before the Democrats arrived. When it held the balance of power, the DLP joined with the ALP to set up the committee system which has been such an important part of the Senate’s performing its role as a House of Review.
Both the Liberals and the Labor Party have moved to the right over the last 25 years, so the DLP of old would find itself not only in its traditional position to the left of the Liberals but on some economic issues to the left of the Labor Party as well.
You are right about the Greens: when – not if – they gain the balance of power they will be to the left of both major parties. This will be the first time that the balance has been held by a party that does not lie between the two majors but beyond both of them. Interesting times!
Bill,
My own view has been for several years that the Democrats should have amalgamated with the Greens. It was obvious to me about three years ago that their only chance of survival lay that way. There is just not enough room for two third parties. I’ll put it another way. The record third party Senate vote is Frank McManus’s 19 per cent in 1970. I bet many of those voters voted for Don Chipp in 1977, yet common opinion would regard the DLP and the Democrats as totally different parties.
Chris
I had occasion to work around politcal groups from 1991 to 2000.
The democrats I met were mainly young but very on-ball and cool headed.
Approaching the 2001 election I talked of their prospective wipeout and suggested that they would likely head to the Greens and was quite surprised that this idea was firmly rejected. It was not so much an anti-green feeling but more that the party was not for them.
My impressions of those dems I met and from other readings is that the dems did mainly stick to Chipps ideal of being a “liberal” party, they liked their independence and status of watchdog. Unfortunately they blew this with their comprises on IR and the GST and their infighting.
As to where they went, I believe they went to Howard in one form or the other in 04 as Latham was not for them and I believe they will turn to Rudd in 07 as he is more of small “l” liberal for them. They are a sizable block of around 4-5% that could decide the election.
I don’t think they will go to the Greens, the greens should have polled higher in NSW with both labor and liberal being unpalatable. Likewise I don’t think they will go to FF due to their percieved ties to the religous right which also worked against Debnam.
I think there was a move to join the Greens with the Dems but like Arbie Jay Said it was rejected. Most people i know who voted Dems pre GST saying that the Dems shafted them and would never support them again i believe the Greens would not see an amalgamation with them favorably or worth the risk. The anti Dem feeling is bigger than any anti Green feeling