Roy Morgan’s latest face-to-face survey of 1799 voters has Labor’s lead up to 57-43 from 55-45 a fortnight ago. Labor is up 1.5 per cent on the primary vote to 47 per cent, and the Coalition down 2 per cent to 37.5 per cent.
Other stuff:
• I appeared yesterday before the Perth hearing of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters’ inquiry into the federal election, where I argued the increasingly problematic STV Senate system should be replaced by good old-fashioned list system PR with seats allocated using the New Zealand-style Sainte-Laguë formula. Not a chance in hell of this happening of course, but as Homer Simpson would say, at least I’m out there doin’ stuff. Perhaps I would have done better to have fallen in behind the Greens’ Commonwealth Electoral (Above-the-Line Voting) Amendment Bill 2008, which I hadn’t given due consideration as I wrongly believed it required full numbering of above-the-line preferences. When told it was optional preferential, I instead argued it would amount to a New South Wales-style de facto “largest remainder” system, with the potential to produce disproportional results: for example, parties which get 1.5 and 0.6 quotas on the primary vote could win one seat each despite the former party having won well over twice as many votes (as Antony Green puts it, methods like Sainte-Laguë ensure that “each MP represents roughly the same number of voters”). However, I now see it requires that a minimum of four boxes be numbered, which might solve or at least alleviate this difficulty – although there remains the likely problem of a higher informal vote. I remain open to persuasion on any of these points, and might yet make a supplementary submission.
• The Electoral Commission of Queensland has finalised its boundaries for the state redistribution. The new electorates which were named Macrossan, Samsonvale and Dalby in the original proposal will instead be named Dalrymple, Pine Rivers and Condamine.
• Christian Kerr of The Australian reckons blogs, and “polling blogs” in particular, contain “paranoia about certain journalists, certain newspapers (and) certain pollsters”. What a thing to say …
339 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 7 » Show All
112
Edward StJohn Says:
August 23rd, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Do you mean this
http://pollbludger.cn/
Possibly I exaggerate slightly. But the analogy between South Ossetia and the Sudetenland is a compelling one. The Ossets have some legitimate grievances against Georgia, just as the Sudentendeutsch had against Czechoslovakia. These are being exploited by an outside power which is using them as a pretext to conquer its neighbours. In this analogy Bush is Chamberlain and McCain is Churchill. I’m not sure who Obama is. The pacifist wing of the Labour Party perhaps.
It seems to me that we are seeing the beginnings of future conflicts, both within countries and between countries. The water conflict in Australia between the States, and even within States such as Victoria; internationally, the oil and gas control conflict, e.g., Iraq and Georgia (though I think Georgia is also about regional control of “their’ turf from Russia’s perspective). Perhaps the continued polling in favour of Fed. Labor is as much a hope that someone’s got some idea about what to do? Going for evidence, as much as it is my preferred method of operating, I’m not sure is going to help us.
If the MDB’s current condition is a combination of State and Fed. gov’t neglect and incompetence (though my understanding is that Victoria did actually do what was required to change irrigation practice and allocations), farming practices, and the real and permanent effect of climate change, then perhaps we need to be thinking about shifting populations and food production, as well as how we use water.
I must say I’m not heartened by the Brumby gov’t. on the Eddington Report’s proposal for another road tunnel across Melbourne. Unless your road transport is fuelled by low emissions fuel, all you’re going to do is add to the CO2 emissions. Even if you are using low emissions fuel, it just adds to the traffic congestion.
Adam in Canberra @ 152, speaking as someone who would rather that people not actually get killed or maimed or vaporised in any conflict, like Mayoferal, I ask, are you going to put you’re a**e on the line? Or do you expect some one other than you to do so?
Harry, on that line of argument no-one over 25 is allowed to have an opinion on matters of war and peace. “My fellow Americans, the Japanese have just attacked Pearl Harbour, but as your president I have no moral right to respond, since I’m 62 and have never worn a uniform.” This is not how the world works.
The Churchill/Chamberlain/appeasement analogy looks superficially attractive but:
1. The Czechs did not launch an artillery bombardment against the Sudeten Germans. The Georgians without warning launched an artillery bombardment against their own citizens. The fact that Russian ‘peacekeeping’ troops and Russians citizens with mixed up with Georgian citizens probably made it impossible for the Russians not to act. Of course, they wanted to act.
2. Neither Germany nor Czechoslovakia had nuclear weapons.
3. The US has used up all its conventional chips in Iraq and Afghanistan and is fully stretched. It has had to fiddle around with troop deployment rotations in order to keep barely enough troops on the ground now. The US military went public on opposing a mooted strike on Iran. Imagine what they said in private on Russia! It would have been the big ‘nyet’ to Bush and Condi.
4. The conventional weakness of the US meant that conventional defeat at the most, or a protracted war of attrition in Georgia was likely. In either case, the impetus to using their little cans of instant sunshine would become more and more compelling. Conversely, if the US did succeed in trashing the Russians, then the Russians would be reaching for their little cans of instant sunshine.
5. The Europeans are simply not going to go in for the slaughter of another generation v the Russians because the Americans couldn’t manage one of their clients properly.
6. McCain, a warfighter in a losers’ war (that cost, what? one million Vietnamese casualties?), and strong supporter of the slaughterhouse invasion of Iraq which was based on the big lie about WMD, looks like he wants to do it all again. He must be a slow learner. His sabre rattling apparently helped get Saakashvili’s juices flowing. I have serious doubts about whether Obama can cut it as Prez. I have no doubts at all about McCain. He is a dangerous warmonger.
Adam
A better question is whether you would have gone to war when you were 20, say in Vietnam. Even if you wouldn’t have gone to Vietnam, I agree it doesn’t mean you can’t have an opinion on going to war.
155 Adam – now let’s actually answer HSO’s question shall we. I don’t think you are in any danger of being the president or PM.
“Even if you wouldn’t have gone to Vietnam, I agree it doesn’t mean you can’t have an opinion on going to war.”
But surely if someone is advocating war you would at least expect them to say something like, “If I was young enough I’d go.” Not, “No you wouldn’t catch me going.”
What’s it tell you about a person who advocates war but would avoid it like the plague themselves? I don’t think I’d be happy with say generals in the army that had that point of view, would you?
I refuse to be led down the path of debating what I personally would or would not have done at any point in the past or what I would or would not do today. This is always a cheap diversionary tactic in debates of this kind. In the context of World War II, neither Roosevelt nor Curtin volunteered to serve in World War I – Curtin was a draft resister – but no-one to my knowledge questioned their right to command their armed forces in World War II. Both the US and Australia have professional, volunteer armed services who sign up in the full knowledge that their elected government may send them into a war.
Adam in Canberra @ 160
Not that you appear to need it, but supported.
Adam
what are your thoughts on the “Bradley Effect”?
I have to agree with Adam. I’d be really useless in a war. I’m not cut out for it. I’d be much more useful looking after the wounded (Plastic Surgery was actually born after WWI to look after the maimed veterans). I’m pretty much a pacifist but that doesn’t mean I don’t advocate war in some circumstances.
I’m sure Adam would be much more useful to Oz as a diplomat or foreign affairs adviser rather than in the front lines. It doesn’t mean he can’t advocate war IMHO.
Obama’s campaign so far has been like the syncronised swimming:
* Artistic Impression – 9.5 * Technical Impression: 9.4 and with lot of beautiful legs thrashing around. But even the wife has to ask, what is it all about?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article4582920.ece
ESJ, if you can recall, I said from the beginning this election will be a referendum about Obama.
#146 Adam in Canberra
Stock markets around the world are already in a parlous state, recession is threatening in the US, oil prices are at record highs and still rising, $80 billion a year is being wasted on the war in Irag, climate change needs our urgent attention – and the best you can suggest is a war with Russia. WTF are you thinking of man?
Russia aren’t easy beats you know, as Hitler found out during WW2. I’m hoping you were just pulling our legs and I tuned a little bit too late to get the joke.
Diogenese @ 162
I wouldn’t give up hope about the possibility of being useful in a war.
Really, there is plenty of scope for everyone to be useful in a war. In many wars, most of the actual killing is probably done by a minority of the fighters. Naturally, this varies a bit, war by war.
So, in some wars, and for most participants, the main use is actually to be around to get killed by the minority. Nothing to it. As an example, in world war 1, I believe it was artillery that did most of the slaughter and artillerymen were definitely in a minority of the participants.
Diogenes 162 -
I would want to work in the public information department in war time.
Finns 163 -
Of that there can be no doubt. It would seem the referendum verdict is going badly for him.
ESJ
I think Biden will add more to Obama’s ticket than Romney or Pawlenty will to McCains. Biden was the last person McCain wants to go up against on foreign affairs coz he’ll lose.
If you look at a electoral-votes map for McCain and give him VA it becomes a tie. That puts the following states marginal:
Repub- VA, ND, SD, NC, OH, FL, MT, CO
Dem- NH, NV
Obama’s got eight states he can take to win (most being medium or large) and McCain has only got two small states he can take and hold his marginal eight. Obama has to be favourite.
Diogenes,
Look at this Republican ad
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/
in an objective sense the Republicans are just very very good at campaigning.
I think virginia and the carolinas are lost to the Democrats as is Indiana
Ultimately the election will be decided in
Nevada
Colorado
New Hampshire
Ohio
McCain must win Colorado and Ohio and one of the other 2. Tough but definitely doable!
McCain’s problem may be a possible lack of interest in Republican voters to get out and vote and, the possibility of many more Democrat voters being stimulated to go out and vote. Has there been any poll on this?
“Tough but definitely doable!”
ESJ, I thought it sounded like the Opals at $4.40.
TP
Registration is the best way to measure that and Obama is way ahead in registrations. He did the same with Hillary. Most of the polls use “likely voters” to weed out the uninterested. Voluntary voting really makes the US polls much less reliable than ours. The Youth Vote is notoriously unreliable for actually turning up.
as a long time lurker, but VERY rare contributor, it sickens me to read posts that advocate the use of violence in such a casual manner. it makes me want to vomit to read A in C advocating the use of war to resolve international disputes and at the same time excuse himself from haivng to do any of the killing( or being killed) because it is not his thing! how many soldiers in any modern war have been killing andf being killed because it is?! to suggest that it is ok for soldiers to fight and die because they volunteered to join the defense forces is risible. did most of those mainly poorly educated, low socio economic background people really make an informed choice in joining the armed forces- one based on the idea that they were joining to actually fight and die- and kill? really, a lot of you should be ashamed of yourselves.
Adam
I agree with your (and my) right to comment, though I disagree with your Sudetenland analogy. It seems Georgia would have been far better off if Bush had been a Chamberlain type, urging restraint.
Nevertheless, assuming you were just being hyperbolic with your comment on war with Putin, I must ask you and others, what can realistically be done to stop Russia in Georgia at present? To me the answer is nothing effective, which was why it was so stupid to initiate conflict. The options to me seem as follows:
1. Diplomatic pressure – this has less weight in a world shiftign towards unilateral action. Russia already feels sidelined from intnernational forums, so I don’t think this will work from the US or its allies.
2. Economic pressure – this has more potential, but eastern Europe badly needs Russian gas and oil, so many western countries will not want to push this.
3. Military pressure – well what forces does the US have spare to do this with? Not much, I’d say. Like others I don’t want to see an actual war. They tend to work out badly for all concerned and not as expected (like the “easy” invasion of Iraq to teach Sadam a lesson). Military pressure short of war sounds tough and sensible, but in reality such brinkmanship has ended in actual wars many times in the past. Its a big risk. Letting Georgia and Ukraine enter Nato would be putting Europe in exactly the same position as it was before World War One.
Overall it seems to me that the west can’t do squat in Georgia, and should try to make peace ASAP, not continue with stupid inflamatory rhetoric.
Adam in Canberra @ 155. This is rubbish. People of a certain age, or prior experience, can’t lead a nation at times of war/danger? Not what I was pointing to in any way. Let me spell it out for you. You seem to be very keen for any number of people to let loose the dogs of war in a number of places in the world. It would not be you, or indeed I, who would suffer from such action, in the first instance. But you seem to me to be extraordinarily bellicose, and it would not be you who took the bullet.
jaimie @ 172. Good on you for raising your voice. I am challenging Adam on this. I say put up your argument.
Sorry, I got a bit cranky about all of this stuff about how war was such a good idea, which was what I gleaned from Adam’s posts. About which I thought him/you all too enthusiastic.
Again, I would refer you to my previous post about the beginnings of the environmental wars- within countries, within States, between countries.
I, personally, think war is an inherently bad thing. People killed, maimed, traumatised, sums it up.
Do you think this is the only option, Adam in Canberra?
I also agree with you Jaimie. I was trying to explain that war with Putin would be stupid, on the assumption that those who advocate war as a solution are not interested in morality. But of course, it is quite immoral, and that alone sould be a good enough reason not to do it.
Adam in Canberra @ 152 -
and McCain is Churchill.
No. He’s just a silly old fart who shot he’s fool mouth off making promises neither he or his country could keep.
About his only claim to fame is that he was a POW who ‘bravely’ endured nearly 6 years of torture when he could have gone home. Without that there is precious little in his military or political career to recommend him.
Near last in his graduating class at the academy (a far worse record than GWB!). Crashed 3 aircraft in accidents. Was a senior officer on a carrier where procedures were so lax that an air to air missile fired while aircraft were being readied on the flight deck (incidentally, hitting McCain’s plane and nearly killing him). The resulting explosions and fires killed 132 and nearly sunk the ship. And somehow in less than 20 combat hours he managed to rack up 28 medals. Thats nearly 1.5 per sortie! Yeah, right!
Nor has his political career been spectacular. I personally find it interesting that he is almost universally disliked by the veterans community.
Churchill won his war. So far McCain is batting 0-3 by my count.
I’m not sure who Obama is. The pacifist wing of the Labour Party perhaps.
Or a realist who knows his country’s military is in no shape to finish anything a fool in the Whitehouse might start. I am aware you have a low opinion of the Russian military. Both Napolean and Hitler would disagree with you.
174 Harry “Snapper” Organs – spot on.
That’s silly Mayo Feral.
Napoleon and Hitler were defeated by General Winter. IN hitlers case by the recklessness with which the russian generals and stalin treated soldiers lives – 28 million russian dead in WW2.
Well I’ve put my name up to go to war for ‘oz , Aussies die , a soldier does not decide if he wants to go to war he just goes , so do not understand some comments against Adam at all
He could hav said I’d go , and negated further comment Instead he frankly said that was/is hypothethical for him so that was an irrelvant point , and more importantly said those that decide to go to war actualy do not fight
As to DEMOCRATIC Georgia , USA was lame and stood hav stood up Russia immediately , made them a provisional member of Nato immediately thereby activating Nato & Putin would hav blinked preventing russian troops at minimum moving past Ossettia soil , and threatened G8 membership and WTA application should they enter Ossettia AND demanded UN peace troops immediately enter Ossettia
USA also could hav signalled carriers were on way as a Nato training excercise
All messages you can not invade ademocratic Country Both bush and Obama initially were p.ssweak hesitiant and then gallingly lame
Do not doubt another DEMOCRACY Ukraine is on Putin’s gaze , nor that Ukraine saw shaky USA response
Edward StJohn @ 180 -
Napoleon and Hitler were defeated by General Winter.
No. Bad planning. Anyway, despite global warming the General will still have a say.
IN hitlers case by the recklessness with which the russian generals and stalin treated soldiers lives – 28 million russian dead in WW2.
So? Do you believe Putin, the current General Staff, or the Russian people, would be any less ruthless in defence of the Rodina?
Can anyone explain how the selection of Biden as VP is a “Change I can believe in”? 30 odd years in the Senate does not equal a change to me, just more of the old style polititics.
Obama’s rhetorical flourishes in the Primaries are coming back to humiliate him.
Oh, and here is something for the Obama supporters to choke on this bright Sunday morning.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDVUPqoowf8
The attacks on Obabma here border on the hysterical and personal and have me perplexed. Did he actually personally insult some people here? You would think so.
It looks like sulking children lashing out and, I gather it is because their personal preferance didn’t get up or they are waving the McCain flag.
I thought there was another forum somewhere were people could go an insult each other and the candidates they might support in American politics.
Good to see some of the other bloggers get stuck into the idea that war is a wonderful way of solving problems. I would support a very strong military and a neutral position (say, like along the Swedish model).
Hitler was beaten in Russia by the big battalions. He ran out of Germans before Stalin ran out of Russians. Stalin must have had God on his side. (The British, Australian and United States historical misrepresentations about the second war are extensive (about ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’). It was the world’s foulest despotic tyranny which did the ‘heavy lifting’. And this despotic tyranny proceeded to enslave half of Europe for half a century as its war prize.
Napoleon was beaten in Russia because the French army had virtually no system of logistics and depended on looting and plundering the countryside for food. Rape was a common side-benefit. (The other armies, including the English army had a similar pre-disposition to looting, plundering, foraging and rape. The English were also rather more famours for getting totally plastered as part of work conditions of the soldiery).
Anyway, the Russians knew all this and scorched the earth in front of the french army. The Russian Cossacks helped sort out smaller french foraging parties, and the Russian roads and the Russian Winter then made garnering food from the countryside even more difficult. When they ran out of food, the french retreated and mostly died of starvation, starvation-related diseases (such as typhus) or froze to death. There were also some large battles, which the Russians mostly won. It is a matter of judgment whether they or the conditions were the deciding factor.
In both invasions, the Russian peasantry paid a monstrously huge price. In both cases this price was made worse by Russian war fighting policies. Warmongers rarely bother themselves too much about what is going to happen to civilians before a war. Too messy.
Thomas Payne @ 185
I don’t think you have to be hysterical to be concerned about Obama, although he is certainly making some of the neocon ultra rightists in the US wet their pants.
I wouldn’t support McCain because he is a warmonger.
My concerns about Obama are: lack of managerial experience, the suspicion of corruption surrounding the purchase of his house, lack of policy substance and some of the mad buggers he used to hang around with but has thankfully since ditched.
In the circumstances, and given the job he is applying for, I think these are reasonably valid concerns.
On the positive side, he is able to generate hope and is not stuck in the grooves that have led the US to the subprime credit crisis and the $3 trillion war in Iraq.
GG
As Obama said “Biden changed Washington but Washington didn’t change Biden.”
It sounds good but it’s a little lame. It’s hard to argue that Biden wouldn’t be a good VP (and POTUS if the worst happens).
McCain has the same problem as Obama. His “I’m a maverick and my own man” routine is going to look pretty stupid if he picks Romney due to overwhelming pressure from Wall St and the neocons. Romney is now 2/1 on with the bookies and the rest are 5/1 or more.
I think the Dems will be happy with a Biden vs Romney match-up.
On Insiders today, Barnaby Joyce called for evidence- and science-based decision making. He the proceeded to model the Murray Darling Basin for the information of all the ignorant viewers: The MDB is like a carpet with a lady on one side (Adelaide) and another lady on the other side (Queensland). In terms of the hydrology, if you tip a bucket of water on the Queensland side it won’t make any difference to the Adelaide lady unless the carpet is saturated which it isn’t right now. *says to self, crikey, at last I can understand the MDB*
Moral of Mr Joyce’s MDB model? It was OK for Queensland irrigators to do what they did this year because it wouldn’t have made any difference to Adelaide. *cynical guffaw*
Xenophon called on the feds and the states to stop procrastinating and for the feds to use their corporation powers to take the MDB over and run it as a single system.*applauds loudly, but doesn’t hold breath*
But this will collide with Rudd’s ‘cooperative federalism’, least common denominator, model of governance which is generating all the delays? *hmmmm*
Both of them thought the feds should stop talking and do something. *thinks: where were you and yours Sen Joyce for the last 11 years?*
Xenophon also indicated that he was co-sponsoring with the Greens a proposal to hold a Senate Enquiry. Mr Joyce then thought (live on TV) he would co-sponsor it as well. *thinks: bring it on Nick, but don’t let the libnats strangle the TOR because they have such a lot to hide.*
The Labour senators would back the libnats on a restricted TOR to protect their colleagues in the state labour governments who also have a lot to hide.*sigh*
Good morning bludgers
Thanks for your comments last night. I said I wasn’t going to be drawn into ad hominem arguments about wars and I meant it, so there. I know this blog is full of lefty/hippy/pacificist nongs, and their approbrium doesn’t bother me. They enjoy their freedom of speech here, in part, because one old lefty pacifist, John Curtin, was willing to become a war leader, and to introduce conscription to do so, despite being attacked in exactly these terms. Talk about history repeating itself as farce.
Mayo Feral amused me by saying, of my comparison of McCain with Churchill re South Ossetia: “No. He’s just a silly old fart who shot he’s [sic] fool mouth off making promises neither he or his country could keep.” Which was of course exactly what both the appeasers and the left said about Churchill in the 1930s when he made his warnings about Hitler. And indeed Churchill was in many ways a silly old fart – but he was right about Hitler, and right to warn that war would be an inevitable necessity unless the western powers stood up to him. And we know what happened. (Or at least some of us know what happened. Possibly our feral friends do not.)
“..and more importantly said those that decide to go to war actualy do not fight.”
I wonder how many wars we’d have if they had to fight, and that’s the point Ron. It’s ok to come up with promoting starting a war against a country not attacking your land but are those that do prepared to live and die by their convictions? Surely a fair enough question.
Hi Off topic, but does anyone who were to find the list of Liberal Candidates preselected in the 2010 SA Election.
Or does anyone who has been preselected in Morialta.
Thanks
“I know this blog is full of lefty/hippy/pacificist nongs, and their approbrium doesn’t bother me.” Nice one Adam, just categorise everyone that disagrees with you under the same banner and all is well eh? I for one am not part of that group but still disagree with you.
You keep bringing up Curtin. Curtin didn’t advocate going to war on a countries not immediately threatening his country. He also became PM after we were rightly committed to the war by Menzies. No comaprison.
Felicity, you don’t generally get published list until a few months out from the election (if that), but I’ve been able to ascertain the following:
MORIALTA: John Gardner
MOUNT GAMBIER: Steve Perryman
HARTLEY: Joe Scalzi
FROME: Terry Boylan
NORWOOD: Steven Marshall
NEWLAND: Trish Draper
FISHER: Christopher Moriarty
MAWSON: Kym Richardson
STUART: Dan van Holst Pellekaan
Quite a few familiar names there. The upper house ticket is 1. David Ridgway; 2. Stephen Wade; 3. Terry Stephens; 4. Jing Lee; 5. Rita Bouras.
Adam
Are you from the von Clausewitz school of thought that war is a logical extension of politics?
I thought Trash has had her snout in the public trough long enough? Isn’t it time she got a job in the private sector?
ShowsOn
You have to be semi-competent to survive in the private sector which probably explains her return to the public trough.
Perhaps we can come to a compromise. How about – it’s ok for old men (and women), who don’t have to put their own bodies on the line, to send young men off to be slaughtered, as long as those young men have the right not to participate, if they choose.
If “my body my choice” is a good enough argument to justify abortion on demand, it is certainly good enough to justify not wanting to end your life blown to pieces on a battlefield, or suffering mental and physical trauma for years after if you’re “lucky” enough to survive.
Who knows, a policy like that might even force the decision makers to properly look after the soldiers coming home from war, instead of abandoning them to their own devices, or grossly underfunding the services they need to rebuild their lives. (as happened in the US after Vietnam). If there was a general perception that you’re not going to be looked after when/if you get back, a lot of young men would have second thoughts about wanting to become involved.
With such a policy, wars would still continue to happen, for those who believe in them – and those who don’t would be left alone to live their lives, safe from the whims of gung ho leaders who wouldn’t give a toss if they lived or died. (and some like George Bush, who made sure he dodged the Vietnam draft when he had the chance to put his own body on the line).
Newland takes in most of her old seat. She would’ve lost the seat at the last election if she didn’t ‘retire’.
We don’t have conscription anymore. So the State can’t force anyone to go to war if they don’t want to.
If someone joins the Army, Navy, Air Force, then they have waived their right not to participate.
It doesn’t. “My body my choice” simply means that it ISN’T the Government’s choice, and it ISN’T the Drs choice, and it ISN’T the man’s choice. It is the choice of the person who is pregnant.
I don’t think the abortion debate is a good analogy anyway. Because a moral compromise has formed without the need to define when life actually starts. Plus, people who think a zygote has the same rights and moral worth as a 50 year old adult are never going to approach the debate logically.
It is pretty obvious to tell when a member of the military is dead or alive, so it’s a different issue that can’t be argued for by analogy.
Pages: « 1 … 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 7 » Show All