The latest Morgan face-to-face survey, combining polling conducted over the previous two weekends, shows Labor’s two-party lead down slightly to 59-41 from 61-39 in the previous survey. Their primary vote is down 3.5 per cent to 48.5 per cent, but the Coalition is up only 1 per cent to 35 per cent. The balance has gone to Family First and independent/others.
The Courier-Mail also reports on a Newspoll survey conducted for Griffith University’s Federalism Project showing “almost one in five” believe the states should be abolished, and “only one in three people in Queensland wants the status quo of federal, state and local government to remain”. More from Griffith University’s Socio-Legal Research Centre.
285 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 2 3 [4] 5 6 » Show All
Not sure we can draw parallels between Costello and Howard/Menzies. He was never a leader. But he was a significant figure in a Government that was rejected because the voting public perceived it had no vision for Australia’s future. So how could he present himself as the one to lead the Libs to future success?
As others have pointed out, the Libs can still win the next election if the economy goes into recession,
I have serious doubts about that, especially if Costello is leader. I have no doubt that, after getting into government and being able to do some dirt digging, Labor has a trunk full of solid political sticks to whack Costello with repeatedly, including the biggie, SerfChoices. Costello is a not a good performer when he does not have the considerable advantage of government and a compliant speaker.
Costello has way too much baggage, and I do not think Oz voters are going to forget it in a hurry.
John ofMelbourne
Costello’s great achievement was to move a lot of government funding from debt to equity. It was Keating who opened up the economy, Howard didn’t have the backbone to run with Campbell inquiry recommendation, Keating did.
ruawake
Both government have stated that they want to keep the government bond market reasonable liquid, can’t do that if you don’t have debt. That is why on one hand we have government bonds and on the other future funds ( I wonder if anyone will ever call them sovereign funds cause that is what they are) . The bond market is alive but no net debt.
One fascinating point, the 10 year bond rate for Australian and US treasury bonds is now about the same. I guess US treasury paper isn’t what it used to be.
Just Me Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
The sad truth is if you need changes to get the economy moving you don’t put a Liberal government in.
Antonio 147
I thought too that the Labor Ministers referred to may have been trying to destabilize the leadership issue in the Libs by their comments about Costello. However it is a little vague seeing as we do not really know who they are and whether or not the comments are authentic.
It is of course technically true that Costello can still make a comeback and lead the Libs. In fact that is true for anyone and others have done it before as has been pointed out. But Costello has shown little inclination to do the hard yards to become leader, and in fact refused when it was virtually offerred to him after the last election. To be even the Leader of the Opposition is a great honour and people cannot normally choose the timing themselves. One must grasp the opportunity when offered as it will probably only legitimatey come once in a lifetime, if at all. No, Costello lacks the heart for the job.
It is not necessarily the case that if a recession comes, the people will blame the Gov’t. I think the deceit of the Howard years woke enough people up and many obtained a more mature judgement. Do not under estimate the people.
Glenn Milne reporting from the sinking ship
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24013982-7583,00.html
“On Thursday last week my old and esteemed mate, Tom Switzer, who used to edit this page and who now works for Brendan Nelson as his international affairs adviser, offered up an opinion piece under Nelson’s name for the paper on the subject of climate change.”
Is poison dwarf saying that Switzer wrote Nelson’s article for him? that aint a good look.
CJ
Milne does say later that Nelson wrote the piece but the Milne article is interesting.
In one spot he says
“It was a question on which outraged and confused Liberal MPs SMSed me all week.”
And then at the end of the article
“if I reported claims in a new book that Julia Gillard had been Kevin Rudd’s preferred choice as treasurer I would not be dealt with again by the Government.”
Why on earth would the government have any dealings with him when he is so clearly deeply in the liberal camp?
Yes, more moronic ramblings from Milne
Milne:
Well, he bragged that he’d put this direct to illard on Saturday and that she denied it vehemently. So I guess the “most senior elected office holder” could be La Rouge herself.
The way this idiot, Milne, conducts himself both on Insiders and in his various columns around the Murdoch papers would have had him already declared persona non grata, long before these shenanigans came to light. The sniggers, the unfunny jokes, the outright made-up stories, the nastiness and the slanders are disgraceful. Last weeks effort – Rudd’s “refusal” to say pay for the running of the Lodge in response to Milne concocted questions – was actually worse than the one last year about Rudd being ejected from the strip club for disorderly, drunken behavior (a story which was never repeated, nor retracted).
Not only is the current story about who Rudd wanted to be Treasurer monumentally irrelevant (in that it discusses the events of a year ago surrounding issues which are now settled), it’s another example of Milne’s personal view of himself as martyr.. except that his “martyrdom” is totally phoney.
We could see it in the intoxicated swing he took at Stephen Mayne at the Walkleys, because he’d been slagged off by Mayne. And we see it repeatedly in the irrelevant fairy tales, dreamed up out of his own self-obsessed mind that he prints as “News”. Milne likes to annoy, so that he has an excuse for people thinking he’s a drip.
Milne loves the concept of himself as an insider (lower case “i”). Except the tent he’s inside of is the wrong tent. He wanted to be next to the king, but he’s ended up with the camels. People laugh at him, chip him about the Walkleys, tell him he’s irrelevant, make comments about his size (contrasted with his ego) and generally treat him as a laughing stock.
This just makes him keener to irritate, like the small schoolboy in the playground who dares the bully to hit him. As soon as the blow is produced, setting the little kid on his arse, he has a chance to cry and whinge that nobody likes him because he tells the truth. He’s turned himself into a martyr to explain his unpopularity, to cover the fact that nobody liked him, or respected him in the first place.
I think we’re seeing the playing out of a slow-burn meltdown of Milne’s mind here. He styles himself as the flashy dressing, natty, savvy political shrewdie. Yet his columns, one by one, are trash. He’s having no effect on the national political discourse except to draw attention to his own public deterioration as a human being. If he wasn’t such a hateful litte so-and-so, I’d feel sorry for him.
Not that I care about the story, per se, but the front page of the Daily Telegraph today is a shining example of that rag’s total and complete disconnect from any form of reality in this (or any other) universe.
Their second lead story on the on-line front page reads thus:
Click on the link and the story linked is this:
Ah, the blockquotes should have been closed after “about it”.
A very positive article about Rudd’s foreign affairs efforts so far
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/rudd-steps-out-into-the-world-with-elan/2008/07/13/1215887445513.html
Rudd has probably conducted the most bumbling and incompetent foreign policy of any PM since the post war era. Quite amusing as this area was supposed to be one of his main strengths.
There are those that disagree with that assessment A-C.
From the link in Dario’s post…….
Now lets critique this against the previous administration…….
I think PM Rudd is doing a fine job. Just because the media or Opposition politicians disagree with how PM Rudd is performing doesn’t mean their assessment is correct.
The opposition can’t make up their minds what they believe until they consult Crosby Textor to make sure its popular with the electorate.
What utter shyte
Rudd has probably conducted the most bumbling and incompetent foreign policy of any PM since the post war era.
Delusional partisan nonsense.
Dario
SNAP!
Yeah, he should make a few threats about pre-emptive strikes so as our near neighbours sit up and take notice. That certainly worked well for Coward and his cronies didn’t it?
162 A-C – this coming from the “expert in unbiased comment” of course – NOT.
Who is minding the Opposition while Brendan is on leave? Oh, that’s right, no one gives a toss.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/14/2302634.htm
“Who is minding the Opposition while Brendan is on leave? Oh, that’s right, no one gives a toss.”
Correct. It looks like he’s been told to disappear so that Allbull, Hunt and Bishop can handle the questions relating to this week’s release of the discussion paper on emissions trading. Nelson has dug a big hole for himself and it’s about time he helped his party out by asking for it to be filled in with him still inside.
The Gods must be crazy?
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/populate-or-perish-pell/2008/07/14/1215887502895.html
Interesting to see that Sydney’s resident religeous fundamentalist, roman style, has attempted to destroy the last vestige of moral credibility for his employer by saying that we must “populate or perish”. Truly a man of his (grandfather’s) times. I guess someone has to look after all those ageing priests in their retirement.
Iemma deserves all the rotten tomatoes that come his way over World Youth Brainwashing Day. State money for a personal religeous recruiting drive. This only proves that as soon as you give credibility to fundamentalists, they simply use the chance to push their own crazy world view.
I know at this point I am supposed to make some PC remark about respecting people’s religeous beliefs. But I am an atheist and prefer the Dawkins approach.
From the ABC news:
“…Cardinal Pell would not commit to a broad apology to sex abuse victims when questioned today….
Cardinal Pell told reporters: “We’re keen to make a very difficult situation better [but] it is very hard to know how to do it.”
Hmmm. It seems to me that a good start would be to be honest, up-front and supportive with those who have suffered abuse. Pell and Hollingworth (although they played for different teams in the same competition) have shown where they stand on these matters. They try and sweep the problem under the carpet and if that fails they try to make the complainant feel responsible for their situation.
I practise Christian values more honestly than either of them and I am an atheist.
Steve K
Exactly. Regarding sexual abuse by priests, Pell said it was a “local issue”. Yet it has always seemed to me remarkable that the catholic approach to dealing with this problem (keep it quiet/pay off victims/move the offending priest on without publicity) was the same in every english speaking country where it was reported – USA, Ireland, Australia, UK and Canada to name a few. If you didn’t know better you would think it was an official policy. Given the conformist and bureaucratic style of the catholic church, does anyone seriously think it wasn’t policy? All those bishops came up with the same cowardly response independantly? The fact that none ever spoke out against it was indicative of the tight control exercised under JPII.
Of course, there is no need to remind readers who was the enforcer of catholic church policy at the time… a man named Ratzinger. No wonder he wants to apologise. I wonder if he will apologise for organising the cover up?
The God haters are out in force again with their never ending faulting of religion. Time for a bit of perspective.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24007121-16741,00.html
GG
You can’t hate a non-existant object. Back to logic class with you
However I do have something approaching contempt for those hypocrits who use religeon to justify their own selfish actions, while holding a smug air of moral superiority. That includes a very high percentage of religeous leaders. I say that from experience, having seen how the catholic church perates from the inside. Finding money to pay for a lot of aged priests in their retirements really was one of their biggest fears. So much for doing good in the world.
BB @ 159
Poison Dwarf just has to have a “stunt” for the sunday papers. There is regular pattern of this. He does the same whenever he can but most sundays you can rely on muck racking – mainly aimed at labor.
Cassidy should never have allowed him a forum after his assault on steven maine. Nor should he be still appearing on the show.
He is a low life yet the abc gives him a leg up. Same with the toad.
175
Greensborough Growler
Who wrote that piece? It’s as biased as any I’ve read.
BTW it’s not god haters at work – it’s often the work of people who are opposed to the spiritual and emotional (and sometimes financial) rip offs that the church carries out each and every day. If JC were to walk this land he’d have more of a problem with the Pell’s, Hollingworth’s and Co than the work of Lateline.
Socrates -
an old saying was – that the missionaries went to PNG to do good. But they did very well…..
I thought the pope was infallible. How does Pell explain his position on climate change when the infallible one had this to say to on the subject yesterday – “We have to give impulse to rediscovering our responsibility and to finding an ethical way to change our way of life.”
Pell’s position? “Sydney Catholic Archbishop George Pell says his scepticism towards climate change is not incompatible with the Pope’s decision to set the issue as the theme for his visit to Australia.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/14/2303151.htm
Before anyone tries to explain Pell’s difference of opinion with the pope’s let me put mine forward.
Pell was a climate change sceptic as he wanted to support the Howard government position as it suits the catholic church to have a conservative government in power especially when they provide bucket loads of tax payer money to the church through schools and hospitals. The rodent knew this and was up to his eye balls in the con job.
Socrates, Steve K, et al,
I also style myself as an athiest with a strong set of moral values (’Christian’ or otherwise). In my mind moralism and atheism have a mutual attraction.
Which brings me to the tosh that was printed as an editorial in the Weekend Oz. I won’t honour it by adding a link, but you can find it on lard-*rsed Landeryou’s dog blog if you scroll down and grope around his nether regions.
It does not become any media organisation when, to justify its supposedly superior moral world view, it first resorts to attacking its commercial rivals and engages in puerile name-calling. It proves the baselessness of its original claim. But when dear old aunty ABC is also attacked, that’s when my hackles are aroused. (At my age, dear bloggers, not much else ever gets aroused.)
The “inconvenient truth” about reporting the role of the church(es) in covering up the sexual abuses of its priests simply can’t be deferred to a more suitable time because it makes those who defer complicit in the original sin. Carpe Diem!
I always thought the ‘priestly’ role was all about Weberian typology, but apparently the Weekend Oz knows better. Me thinks that turbulent priest Tony (Becket) Abbott has a new weekend job.
Many thousands of young people visiting our largest city celebrating and rejoicing in their love of God is a great endorsement of the religious life. You don’t seem very happy in your cynical atheistic world. Hopefully, the light of Jesus will shine on you one day and provide you some real meaning to your life.
Ross,
You sad, sad person.
BTW I posted the editorial at 175.
I agree with GG – let the kids have their fun, it is important to them. It is also basically irrelevant to most of the other 4.2 million people who inhabit Sydney.
…other than forking out over a million bucks of taxpayers funds for it of course
sorry, that should be 100 million bucks
Well GG, take a walk through some slums in Manilla before you wax too lyrical about the “joys of the religeous life”. If you want to own the belief, you also have to own the consequences.
For that matter, even though WYD is supposed to “celebrate all faiths”, I’d be amused to see the young jump-for-jesus brigade try to take a walk through Islamabad or Mecca while proclaiming their faith. Then we’d see the extent of gods love as practised by the faithful.
What’s wrong with faulting religion? We live in a liberal democracy, everyone is entitled to fault anything they want. In liberal democracies there is absolutely no restraint on what people are allowed to think (the existence of numerous contradictory religions is proof of that). You employ your liberal right to believe – and in fact express – something when you have a go at “God haters” (a statement I consider an oxymoron), but unfortunately you seem unwilling to afford the same right to others who wish to criticise religion. Why do you want a right that you are unwilling to let others have? That is illiberal.
Why should religion receive special treatment that isn’t afforded to people who pursue other beliefs? Liberalism is foundational to our political system. Other countries like Iran make religion foundational, to the exclusion of liberalism. In liberal countries, everybody is free to pursue whatever beliefs they want, be they religious or other wise. However freedom of religion is a right that descends from liberalism; liberalism doesn’t descend from religion.
This is the big mistake Paul Kelly made in his gaga article on the weekend, he seems to assume – like the Pope – that morality has a direct religious origin. But this is untrue, people can do good things whether they believe in God, Gods, or no God. It is sad that seemingly intelligent people can make the mistake of a first year philosophy student.
The fact religion descends from liberalism is obvious. If a religous beleif ever conflicts with a law, the law wins, because it is implemented based on the democratic will of the people, not because of religious doctrine or authority. The High Court stated this in the (infamous) 1983 ‘Scientology case’:
“… the area of legal immunity marked out by the concept of religion cannot extend to all conduct in which a person may engage in giving effect to his faith in the supernatural. The freedom to act in accordance with one’s religious beliefs is not as inviolate as the freedom to believe, for general laws to preserve and protect society are not defeated by a plea of religious obligation to breach them.” http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1983/40.html
If you want to own the belief, you also have to own the consequences.
Yup.
And as for populate or perish, coming from a celebate, there is a kind of irony in that. Get thee forth and do your bit, Mr Pell.
This land already has enough trouble supporting 21 million in the lifestyle to which we have become accustomed, where are the resources for another 10, 20, 30, whatever million going to come from, especially if that leaves less for us to sell overseas to pay our import debts? Even if we double our population and none of our neighbours add any at all, we will still be WAY behind Indonesia, China, etc. So what is the point of massive population increase, how does it benefit us?
Out of touch with reality much, your eminence?
celebate = celibate
GG 184, you are sounding triumphalist.
As a product of western education I was encouraged to think independently and to nurture enquiring minds in my own children. You say “the light of Jesus”; I just say the sun. You say spiritualism; I just say nature. Whatever.
I don’t know what is cynical or sad about that. In fact, GG, I really am quite a cheerful fellow.
Hello Grinch!
You know my views on the fairytale that is religion – Dawkins for me too. But at least you are still plugging away. Personally I think WYD is a huge conspiracy on the part of the Church to get thousands of horny (uncontracepted, anti-abortionist) little teenagers in one place so the inevitable will happen (Catholic girl here!) so they can try and breed themselves the next generation of Catholics before they completely disappear.
Ross @ 192, you’re cheerful and you don’t believe in god?
I’m afraid that doesn’t make sense. It is the conviction of the transcendental philosophers who lead the catholic church, for example, that any ungodly joy claimed by sad, sad, godless creatures such as yourself is, by definition invalid.
Please take GG seriously when he bemoans “haters” at 2.45pm and then expresses his contempt for you at 3.31pm … he clearly knows The Way.
Dario
The State Govt. kicked in $86 million – the Catholic Church $150 Million. The Sydney Chamber of Commerce estimates a direct benefit of $250 million.
Now back to my point, surely it is a good thing to see a hundred thousand kids enjoying themselves and doing something they consider to be important?
It will all be forgotten in a couple of weeks – but the kids will tell their family and friends what a great time they had in Sydney.
Better than “Where the bloody hell are you”
I’m glad I’m not the only one who noticed this hypocrisy.
IW@194.
Well said, Westy. To put it in simple terms, I don’t need to follow any ‘light of Jesus’. I find the dogmas, taboos and restrictions of organised religions utterly pointless and contradictory. Indeed, I think it’s sad that various religions confine their adherents within certain no-go areas. No such demarcation disputes with me.
However, I acknowledge that many people do need spiritual guidance. I have no problem with that for mine is a mild athiesm.
For a militant atheistic perspective, may I paraphrase the words of Phillip Adams: “Religion may be eager to forgive me for my sins, but I will never forgive religion for its sins throughout history.” He has a point – albeit a dogmatic one.
Newspoll tomorrow.
Who gives a rats about religion – if you are into it great. If you are not great.
I did not think this was Theology Bludger.
GG,
My family are all baptised Catholics, and my father was a student at one of the most notorious schools in Adelaide for abuse. He still finds it hard to talk about his childhood and only recently tried to return to his school for the first time since he left, and froze up as he tried to go through the gates. Don’t abuse people for being God-haters because they’re calling the church on its horrific history of abuse and cover-ups. I’m sure I speak for others when I say that I have no problem with Catholics (particularly since my family are all Catholics), but I have a passionate hatred against the church itself.
At the risk of beating a dead horse, I’d also like to respond to another theme of both GGs and the Oz – that this is all just a case of differing beliefs and hence the criticism of WTF day is somehow unfair. Nonsense. I don’t go around seeking government funds to promote atheism. Nor do I attempt to lobby governments for laws to force others to obey atheist principles. The real problem with religeous fundamentalists is not that they are living their own lives in a delusion, but that they want to force the rest of us to follow suit. They don’t have the right to do that.
Pages: « 1 … 2 3 [4] 5 6 » Show All