The first federal Newspoll in three weeks has Labor’s two-party lead steady at 59-41. Kevin Rudd’s lead over Brendan Nelson as preferred prime minister has widened from 60 per cent to 64 per cent, having gone 73-7 to 70-10 to 73-9 over the past there surveys.
Reflections on the Miracle of Democracy at Work in the Greatest Nation on Earth
Newspoll: 59-41
Copyright © 2008 Private Media Pty Ltd, Publishers of Crikey.com.au. All Rights Reserved.
Independent news, blogs and commentary on politics, media and business.
Editor: Jonathan Green.
Publishers: Eric Beecher, Diana Gribble.
Level 7, 22 William St, Melbourne, 3000. Ph: 1800 985 502 Fax: (03) 8623 9975
494 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 10 » Show All
246 It would also be good to have a PM who isn’t just pendering for pubic support and who actually cares about relationship with other countries except offending them
I think Rudd had alway had too big a head and too much believe in himself, it make him think too much of himselp, Note to Rudd, to most of the rest of the world, Australia is too small to matter, we only matters when we are being an annoance and places like China and US have a way of dealing with annoyances
245 Not shut up, but do not make a show of it, be more diplomatic. I think Tony Blair said it best, Superpowers (like China and US) won’t always listen to you, it is often better to be on the inside, to try to change their view, rather than on the outside and not being listened to.
Sorry John [249]. I presumed too much. No offense intended.
If only Rudd would headbutts the Queen, tell the Indians to take their wickets and go home, Tell the Packies in Islamabed Islam are bad. And tell the Kiwis …. well they are Kiwis
Then Australian’s isolationist policy will work really well!!!
Small problem – Therese is of Italian Heritage on her Mother’s side, her physical looks show it
– and on Italian Television, they really highlighted that aspect as a plus.
JOM 236
“Having said that I do not believe in global warming or better yet I do not believe in doomsday prophecies.”
I note with interest your use of the term “belief”. Surely if this is a scientific topic we can do a little better than resorting to beliefs to decide on a matter?
As for doomsday prophecies, I agree and tend not to believe them either. However I think there are two extremes in global warmign/CC debates, both false. One is that it will wipe out humanity within our life times. I agree that is false. The second extreme is that it isn’t happening. That is also false. In between, there is a range of impacts, consequences and costs of mitigation. Most credible scientists interested in climate change do not advocate extreme one. The trouble with people like Aitkins, is that they wish to opt for idiotic extreme two.
The most credible scientific and economic evidence is that it will be cheaper in the long run to fix climate change sooner rather than later. Just because it won’t destroy mankind doesn’t mean that it couldn’t wipe out whole industries, and some poor low lying countries. As usual, the problem is that an industry that benefits some people but harms the overall community can be difficult to remove or reform, if it has enough politicla power. That is why we stil have tobacco manufacturers and why I fear it will take some time to resolve climate change. I suspect we will probably be committed to melting Greenland first.
JOM
Noting your comment that you are a Republican, do you have any perception of what percentage of conservatives/coalition supporters that is true of?
BTW, if you want any sources for well written explanations of CC modelling, I can suggest URLs if you are interested.
251 dovif
I suggest you learn to point your toes inward while bending over if that’s the way you want to take it.
You talk as if trading is a one way street. It’s not. That’s why it’s called trading.
Heaven forbid that Rudd might voice the concerns of a nation.Next thing you know, he’ll be claiming to represent the entire nation?! It’s almost as if he’s acting as though he’s our Prime minister of something!!!!!
Me thinks you are easily offended and that you can’t tell the difference between a nation and a person. Ever had kids?
233 Bill
Too right. (I’m as guilty as most)
I think we should start referring to it as THE Glen however…..
Brendan nothing to appologise for, all good
My view on the Republic is that we should become one – but never with an elected President.
The “President” should be appointed by a two thirds majority of a joint sitting of both houses.
The way to implement this is to stay a constitutional monarchy but to change how the GG is appointed. Appoint the GG in the method I mentioned before.
Then when Queen Liz (who is well respected by most) eventually passes on, the mechanism is already in place.
No radical change. Just a Head of State appointed by the elected members of parliament.
Socrates I’m sorry I wouldn’t know. I do want a Bill of Rights in which ever model is adopted.
Yes please do suggest the URL’s.
Ruawake I like it, add a Bill of Rights in there and it has my vote!
Rx Says:
I was politely saying; ignorant sods. And in my own way trying to understand why has the Liberal party ended up where it is. I can see great men and jerks on both sides of politics. If you believe economies should be ran in a rational fashion Button was one of the greats. Why has the Liberal party end up with foul mouthed members that don’t believe in rational economics?
That sound like a good idea, Ruawake. Sometimes I’m tempted to just plump for an elected President to get it over with, but the competition between the two streams of government might be too intense… not perhaps immediately, but eventually.
On the oher hand, one thing an elected President could do (if he or she is elected let’s give them some teeth) would be to reject legislation if he or she didn’t think it was in the country’s best interests. There would have to be some qualifiers. For example if the legislation was passed with a 2/3rds majority then it couldn’t be stopped, but if it wasn’t then perhaps the President could delay it for three months to give everyone time to cool down. A second delay would result in a delay of one month before it could be presented again. There could be no third delay. This might have stopped the Pacific Solution legislation, which was needed instantly. A President could have held that over for three months and maybe given Labor a chance to have voted against it, or amended it, rather than being wedged into supporting it. It might have given parliamentarians a chance to haggle witht he President and to have arrived at a better solution.
What I guess I’m saying is that there are many who wanted and still want an elected President (enough to have lost republicans in general their Republic at the referendum), but I haven’t seen any writings at all on how the balance between Parliament and President would be struck. It’s a damn big change to have all in one go.
John
I’m not outright arguing agaist the bill of rights, but I am interested in what you (individually or collectively) want it to achieve?
My perspective is that the bill is only as strong as the legislation that supports it, and while the bill has an aspirational value, it will eventually have to be backed up by extremely technical legislation as people search for the limits of the language in the bill.
Don’t we already have that now?
Nick
I like Mr Beans bow where her gives Her Maj a Liverpool Kiss
251
dovif Says:
April 9th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
246 It would also be good to have a PM who isn’t just pendering for pubic support…
Plesae keep the funny stuff coming
JoM
Not too sure about a bill of rights – this would probably result in decades of High Court challenges until the judiciary sorts out exactly what the words mean.
We already have common law rights and implied rights under the constitution.
JOM
I agree on the Bill of Rights. I think one of the reasons why the previous referendum failed wasn’t just Howard’s tactics – the ARM didn’t think things through and lost an opportunity to fix weaker parts of our constitution.
As for climate change, here are some of the best sites IMO:
Hadley Centre (British Met Office) has a great download explaining the science:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/models/modeldata.html
(I would especially recommend downloading the briefing, which is clearly explained, but not dumbed down)
RealClimate is a good blog where professional climate scientits debate issues:
http://www.realclimate.org/
Finally Stephen Schneider and James Hansen have their own sites with many downloads. Hansen is more alarmist but from him that should be taken seriously, because he also probably has access to more data than anyone else:
James Hansen
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/
Stephen Schneider
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/
Another good website would be New Scientist’s continually updated “Special Report” on Climate Change: http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/
This has a wide range of articles including news pieces and features on different aspects of climate change. Most of the articles will reference scientific journal articles and the relevant research.
Remember when the talk was of the “greenhouse effect”? Speculation about the globe getting hotter did not just start with Al Gore!
Some of you will remember the 1980s TV documentary series Cosmos) produced by scientist-astronomer-cosmologist (and unabashed peacenik lefty), Carl Sagan. He was warning of a “greenhouse effect” way back then:
Here is a relevant clip from Cosmos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pG0OTZx2_8Q&feature=related
Pretty prescient stuff!
dovif @ 241 -
First he upset our third largest trading partner USA, by pulling out of Iraq, while the USA did stuffed up Iraq, and is right to have no friends in Iraq, a little bit of support for a “friend” will ensure the same coutesy is given back to us in the future, while on the surface, the US is going to say that it does not matter, and toe the diplomatic line, inside they are likely to be upset.
So we should continue to kill, mostly innocent, Iraqis, and flush another $2 billion down the Iraq misadventure toilet just so as not to upset a discredited administration that will be history in 10 months?
And if you believe the U.S. will automatically support us just because we have helped them in the past then you haven’t been paying attention. For all their many failings, American governments have consistently shown one, IMHO, very admirable quality. They always act in what they perceive to be their country’s best interests. If in doing so they can help out a friend, so be it. But if they believe such help isn’t in their best interest then they’ll leave you swinging in the wind.
He aslo upset our second largest trading partner Japan, by not visiting them
No he didn’t, as you’d probably know if you read other than the opposition gazette. The problem has been mostly at the Japanese end, not ours.
He now upset our biggest trading partner, by going over there and complaining about their human rights. There are better channels to show your concern, without making a big scene and upseting China
Ah yes, the Howard doctrine. Don’t say anything publicly, leave it to the annual Australia-China Human Rights Technical Cooperation Program meeting in which our delegate goes through the motion of ticking off the Chinese representative over China’s human rights record while the latter pretends to give a stuff.
That’s really working, isn’t it?
We might be heading for another recession we had to have
Possibly. But it won’t be because of anything Rudd has said/done on Iraq, Japan or China.
Just read Rudd’s speech to Beijing University students. Excellent.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23511584-5013947,00.html
He should use that speechwriter more often.
Thanks for the links guys I’ve added them to my favourites and I will get to them asap.
Ruawake I agree with you when you say, “bill of rights – this would probably result in decades of High Court challenges until the judiciary sorts out exactly what the words mean.” BUT I would like to have my rights of freedom of speech, freedom of association enshrined.
Implied rights are not enough!
272
BB
Rudd has offended another nation through this little offering in the speech to the uni students:
“Because I was a graduate in Chinese, the then Australian Government decided to send me to Sweden, where in those days I could barely find a decent Chinese restaurant.”
Goodness, when will he stop! First he upsets the US, then Japan and the UK followed by China. Now he’s having a crack at the Sweden.
Steve K
Who cares about the land of Iced-Volvos
Mayoferal
you might be forgetting something call WWII, if not for the US, Australia would either be isolated, or be under Japan rule
“So we should continue to kill, mostly innocent, Iraqis, and flush another $2 billion down the Iraq misadventure toilet”
Typical lefty BS, Did you know that 1 million Iraqi died between 1988 and 1998 because of genocides? Of course those people did not matter
Did you know why so many Iraqis wanted to get out of the country before the iraq war?
The same people who were killing iraqis are still killing them, at a much slower rate and with no political approval now, we Australian and USA are not killing them
typically poorly through out left wing garbage
John of Melbourne @ 242. I know you have a sense of humour, and your posts, while conservative in tenor, are intelligent, polite and entertaining
I therefore wish to clarify something, in the event that you have misconstued the intent of my earlier post. I was trying to be ironic and funny, nothing more.
It is not under any circumstances acceptable to denigrate or devalue any culture or religion, nor to abuse members of that group on the basis of their ethnicity or religion. It is irrelevant who the perpetrator is, it is wrong.
The point I was highlighting was that your description of Crikey as a left wing publication had a touch of the absurd about it, the equivilent absurdity of dismissing the subject article merely on the grounds that it’s author had a muslim sounding name.
Perhaps though, as is probably the case, it is I who have misconstued you in this instance, and if so I apologise.
Do keep on blogging furiously from the Right, it keeps us centralists honest!
For the best part of 5 decades I’ve been pointing out to American friends that their Bill of Rights was just a scrap of paper. For all but about 6 years they’ve hotly disputed by contention. Only one or two still, halfheartedly, do.
Cheers Fulvio, I appologise too if I have misconstrued something.
Lol, I too believe I am a Centralist.
Rx@270
Thanks for the Sagan clip – I’d forgot how much I really enjoyed that show when it first came out – remember sitting watching it with friends and being stunned by the suggestions in it – also remember the Jupiter fly-by and the excitement then too!
dovif@276
So Saddam was a monster – all agree. But does waging a war against him without considering the likely reaction in the region so clever either? Comparing body counts is kinda absurd at the end of the day – when all said and done, hundreds of thousands (if not millions if you take into acount the impact of resource diversion during the oil embargo) of Iraqi’s have died. I still remain opposed to the invasion of Iraq, but I understand the need to liberate the people of that nation. What I don’t understand is the desire to continually justify a poorly thought through exercise, and why we have not continued on the same tack – invade North Korea, invade Sudan, invade Zimbabwe and so-on. Invasion is not an effective foreign policy tool in itself, just a way of imposing your will (generally for a short period of time) on another nation.
ruawake & John of Melbourne
Some concerns regarding simply replacing the GG with a parliamentary elected President – even if it is in reality the method of selecting a GG first. Firsty, Australia already has a compromised separation of powers as the Govt is drawn from the parliament, and this wont address that. We will continue in a tradition of responsible government but with the checks and balances afforded by a true separation of powers. Secondly, the House of Reps does truely represent the Australian people. If 98% of MP’s are elected on less than 80% of the vote how can this be representative? frther, in any electorate somewhere between 49%-30% is at anyone time not represented by their elected MP, beacuse they did not vote for that MP or their party. Is any GG elected by the parliament then representative of the people at all? Lastly, although this might be seen to mirror the German model of federation, the principles applied in Germany and Australia are different, as are the governing traditions.
273 John
amidst some of the illustrations of low intelligence elsewhere, I’m not sure that implied rights are not enough is actually true.
I think this is the same problem we’ve discussed here before – the gap between policy and outcomes. I reckon we’re probably in total agreement on what rights we would like to see beefed up, but I’m not convinced a bill of rights will achieve that. In a way, it’s the same as the republic thing under discussion – the polling suggest a majority of Australians like the idea of a republic, but when it came to the technical detail, we became a rabble. Rights can only ever really be implied, because they must be supported by legislation or case law – a system we already have.
Won’t same sticking points will occur, whether it’s a new bill or the implied one we live with now? Are you prepared for the bill do live or die dependant on whether it enshrines the right to same sex unions, abortion by choice, the right to euthanasia? Once you stack all those issues up in a row it’s pretty hard to get any sort of agreement.
I’m not saying I’m totally against it, but I reckon the system we have now where we can chip away at each of those issues, and have hundreds of years of case law that show progression toward ’solving’ many of them might actually be a better alternative.
Convince me.
Stewart J
Not sure what you are getting at.
Are you suggesting an elected president appoints the executive?
re:climate change. why does conservatism equate with scientific ignorance?? is it purely the vested interests of the polluters??
ruawake
Under a US-style Presidency if would (the President assumes the rights of the monarch and appoints the Ministers, but with legislatury oversight of Executive action). Under a German-style Presidency it would not, as the Prime-Minister (Chancellor) is still drawn from the parliament, but the method of election to the German parliament is significantly different from the Australian, especially the method of electing the upper house (it is indirect, based on who is in power in each of the states). So the election of a German President is based upon a significantly different premise.
There was also a typo in the third line…”…tradition of responsible government but withOUT the checks and balances afforded by a true separation of powers.” I would argue that the Westminster notion of responsible government is flawed in application in Australia, due to related issues.
1) the electoral system (single member electorates) favours majoritarian parties and not independents; and,
2) the high level of party discipline within the Australian parliament.
A genuine separation of powers would allow for more direct accountability of the Executive by the Legislature, but does have a draw back in that the legislature is still a body susceptible to party domination and discipline, and might still engage in partisan attacks on the Executive or be wholly compliant to it.
dovif @ 276
you might be forgetting something call WWII, if not for the US, Australia would either be isolated, or be under Japan rule
No I didn’t forget. Do you really think America came to our aid because they liked us? In 1941 very few even knew we existed. They helped us because it was in their best interests.
I would in return remind you that until 1941 most Australians thought Britain wouild move heaven and earth to come to our aid. They were as wrong as you are about America.
“So we should continue to kill, mostly innocent, Iraqis, and flush another $2 billion down the Iraq misadventure toilet”
Typical lefty BS, Did you know that 1 million Iraqi died between 1988 and 1998 because of genocides? Of course those people did not matter
Crap. Most of the million died in the Iraq/Iran war, not at the hands of Saddam. Which is not to say he wasn’t a murderous thug. But that is not why Australi invaded Iraq. As Howard made very clear we did it for our advantage, not the Iraqis’.
If you believe that what dictators do to their citizens is a reason for launching illegal wars of agression then why does the U.S. court even more bloodthirsty dictators than Saddam – some of the rulers in the *stans make him look like a choir boy by comparison – and use their torturers to illicit, mostly useless, information from CIA captives?
Did you know why so many Iraqis wanted to get out of the country before the iraq war?
A mere trickle compared to the 2 million plus that have left Iraq since the invasion and a similar number who are refugees within Iraq.
The same people who were killing iraqis are still killing them, at a much slower rate
So the mission is a complete failure, then, eh?
we Australian and USA are not killing them
Really? Those we aren’t directly killing – and with the Americans increasingly resorting to aerial bombardment they are killing a great many, mostly civilians – are being killed by ‘militias’ funded by the U.S. or by militias fighting to ‘our’ militias.
Meanwhile the country breaks up, in the absence of a true and effective Iraqi government, into what Nir Rosen calls “fiefdoms run by warlords and militiamen.” A chaotic, violence plagued tinderbox of city states, proliferating militias armed to the teeth, competing regions armed to the teeth, and competing religious factions armed to the teeth.
typically poorly through out left wing garbage
Yawn
Stewart J
I assume you are a supporter of a minority party (sorry if I am wrong). Multi-Member electorates is a recipe for chaos. Why would anyone want to consign Australia to almost perpetual minority Govt?
283 Andrew
nice question
The really funny thing (ha ha…oh f&*k!) is that the conservative approach (Nicholas Stern) is action. I’d suggest that the group you are labelling as the conservatives will be painted as the radicals, given enough time.
I think there is correlation, without necessarily a direct relationship.
Have you read Future Shock – Alvin Toffler? He’s not the only one, and it’s been a long time since I read it, but I believe he posits that some people can cope with change – others can’t, and others need it.
My short analysis of human history suggests that any portion of time spent at the extreme end of this spectrum actually breeds, or empowers the opposing end, and thus we have a somewhat self-balancing system of human development.
here’s an insightful quote:
“But a lot of conservatives attempt to make me one as well, put me in my place. I don’t know why they think we’re all going to convert each other.”
3 brownie points for someone who can identify the source?
onimod
The daughter of Trevor Bormann’s childhood sweetheart?
Christopher Hitchens’ homeopath?
No I cheated: it’s the illustrious granddaughter.
I see another Labor politican (in Tasmania) came to grief today for misleading Parliament. What a decent lot of people – just includes liars, pedophiles, sexual deviants and all other forms of corruption that one can imagine. Any State that elects them deserves all they get.
Barry
That will teach him to buy a crap shredder.
288-89
Too easy to cheat?
290 Glen – you’ve typed the wrong name.
onimod
I could give you far too much detail.
Barry, you Queensland Young Libs are a funny lot, never noticed you whinging about the Queensland Liberal who was going to quit last week to protect our democracy. Was the threat to quit of Steve Dicksen’s the lie or the later backflip? I could never work it out.
294 hahahaha
I can’t – so you’re safe….
291 The other possibility is that the treat to quit was a lie and the threat to remain a liberal is a lie, Barry.
FEDERAL and state Liberal MPs in Queensland are warning they may quit the party and join a new state-based body if the federal Coalition partners fail to agree to merge.
As divisions with the Liberals over plans for a new Queensland party deepened, federal MP for Fisher Peter Slipper and state MP for Kawana Steve Dickson refused yesterday to rule out joining the new party.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23509801-5006786,00.html
Steve – a 60 yo man a member of the Young Libs. That is quite a compliment. I have no idea about Steve Dicksen but I do know about the crooks in the Labor Party. Perhaps I can keep you informed. You obviously don’t keep up to date. BTW – I’m still waiting for you to put up regarding your allegations against Joh. I think about 4 days has passed now since I threw up the challenge. No allegations, no urban myths, no Labor stories – just facts.
Your challenge is?
298
Barry
So you’re 60+ years old, love Joh and hate Labor – yep, red neck for sure
Pages: « 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 10 » Show All