This fortnight’s Newspoll shows Labor’s two-party lead unchanged on 56-44. Kevin Rudd’s approval rating is down three points to 62 per cent, while Brendan Nelson’s is up two to 16 per cent.
The weekly Essential Research survey has Labor retaining its 59-41 lead. Peter Costello is rated best person to lead the Liberals by 26 per cent against 13 per cent for Malcolm Turnbull, 8 per cent for Julie Bishop and 7 per cent for Brendan Nelson. However, Kevin Rudd is preferred to Peter Costello head-to-head 53 per cent to 27 per cent.
916 Comments
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 19 » Show All
“but I have perfectly accepted that the greatest prime minister in history is out of office.”
Well finally we agree !! yes Gough is doing well
Good one Ron (101).
Darn , actualy I made a rare gramatical error, I should hav said greatest living ‘oz’ PM , of course every historian agrees John Curtin was our greatest ever PM…exept Blainey
No 101
LOL. Have to admit you got me. Good call.
just trying to help your arguments as a friend
And on that note of good humour all round I’m off to the sack. Night all.
seee you Darn
Thanks Vera
Just saw your Pensioner’s cartoon in #99 , touche
Of course Pensioner’s econamic problems & luxury ar tax at equal ends and Brendan’s politcal antenna is diferent to mine It would hav been LAST tax measure I’d hav opposed whether it was sensible or economicaly sound or not , just do not understand politcal strategy there at all…nor that lite weight Fieldings
I don’t get this argument about the Medicare surcharge levy.
If removing it will discourage people to take out private health insurance, thus raising premiums, why didn’t its introduction REDUCE premiums?
Instead, since it was introduced, we have seen dramatic rises in these premiums, to the point where even the Howard government had to intervene.
We also saw increasing – not decreasing – pressures on public hospitals, with it being common practice (acknowledged) for private health patients to not declare their status.
And passing strange that a party who supposedly stands for individual choice punishes people for exercising this.
Zoom excellent points. The Liberals are always in favour of people’s right to vote Liberal. Other choices are less free. They are against people choosing:
- to go to a public school
- not to have children
- to control their own reproduction
- to marry somene of the same sex
- to act responsibly for the future of the planet
- to want adequate information about almost any area of government
- to oppose starting a war
- to exercise their right to join a union
- to have freedom of assembly for that union
- to exercise their right to protest against a visiting foreign politician they disagree with
- not to believe in a religeon
- to have an Australian as head of state for Australia
If we keep going down the Liberal path, we will be back in the middle ages, with large busineses in the role of robber barons.
On narratives:
1. Newspoll data shows that the Oz population still does not get the OO fixation with narrative, high-falutin’ speechification and style, over substance. OO Editor’s Memo to staff: ‘Spin wheels harder guys, all those stupid people are simply not getting our wisdom’.
2. ‘The Liberal Party as a Gutless Rabble’ narrative is starting to come under internal stress. Some of the libs have apparently twigged that rather than gaining government they are more likely to lose their seats at the next election. It has occurred to them that presenting month after month as a party with all the electoral appeal of a headless chook is doing some long term damage. Result: the knives are out, the whispers have started and the numbers are a-countin’. Costello has been told sell his book and make a decision by October. Turnbull is playing the loyal ‘Who me?’
3. There seems to be a narrative *grin* that Nelson is a nice guy because he personable, smiles a lot and is a hapless loser. When it came to the exercise of power, when he had some, he was not always such a nice guy. Unless I have got the wrong Minister, he was involved directly in some denial of funding attacks on academics who would not toe the Party line, resulting in some damaged careers, some long term damage to academic freedom and, indirectly some damage to democracy in Australia. (I acknowledge it was half-arsed compared with the systematic bastardry meted out by the Bush administration, particularly to scientists who were inclined to suspect that CC posed a threat to humanity.)
ABC radio reportes that abbott is “dismayed’ by continued poor polling
maybe its starting to sink in that the public dont like the fibs and their policy stances
Socrates
worstchoices was the beginning of institutionalised serfdom and still most fibs deep down believe that it should be policy
Ronster
You’ve been very quiet on Garnaut’s new selling out to the climate change sceptics, which he calls “realism”. It looks like Bolt has got to him. Rudd has a choice to make now. Does he go against the scientists and side with political expediency, or does he show some leadership? Do I even need to ask what the answer to that question is?
http://www.theage.com.au/national/garnaut-is-wrong-say-scientists-20080908-4c9l.html
No 110
Socrates, we already have an Australian head of state: the Governor General has been an Australian citizen since 1965. The High Court has already ruled, as early as 1907, that the Governor General is the Constitutional Head of the Commonwealth.
They (the Libs) still believe that Australia’s boom was entirely due to them, it had nothing to do with the Global economy which enriched just about every Country except Zimbabwe and Nth Korea. Just as now, with the collapse of many financial institution, will effect the rest of the World.
When the Nationals (Country Party) wake up that they should become a separate party and be independent like the Democrats and the Greens they will become more irrelevant.
Diogenes @ 113
Well, you will get your factoids from that tredoid Age rag.
Thank goodness for the OO which has yet another statistically-based CC analysis, this time of the IPCC authoring and peer review processes. It turns out that the consensus of 2500 scientists on the IPCC ‘primary claims’ in fact received ‘little support’ which came from ‘a narrow self-interested coterie of climate modellers’. In case we can’t read the small print, the subbie has provided the following headline: ‘Climate case built on thin foundation’. To cut a wordy story short about 100 IPCC scientists are leading the other IPCC 2,400 scientists (and, by implication, most of the rest of the scientific world) by the nose.
Of course, in the interest of balance, the OO does not make the point that the sceptic case is built on a relatively thinner ‘foundation’.
On a more serious note, from a narrow, business-specific point of view, some Australian businesses will benefit from ETS, some will not be affected, and others will be best served by migrating overseas. How does the Garnaut ETS address the latter category?
No 113
Garnaut is not selling out to the sceptics – if he were doing that he would be proclaiming that anthropogenic climate change is a fallacy. Not so.
Bishop and Minchin are those that would bring back in WorkChoices++ under a different name. And I do recall Nelson saying that we should be able to get to a situation where employees can negotiate without the need for union representation. This was after the demise of WC. No doubt that idiot Hendy keeps the fire burning there.
Some like Bishop, Minchin and Abbott refuse to admit that they had anything wrong. They just think the Australian people just don’t understand properly. Every worker becoming an independent contractor tendering for a job, looking after their own leave, sick leave, super etc is just so much better. Gee people could simply group outside of offices each morning and wait for the foreman to choose what they need from the crowd.
The polls continue to say that Labor is the only acceptable government.
No 118
Thomas, if people choose not to engage a union to represent them, then they should not be persecuted because some nanny state thinks they need extra protection of a union.
In principle, besides a set of minimum standards, the market should be able to operate as free as possible. That said, Workchoices added too much regulation to industrial relations.
tp
maybe we should rename the fibs “the artful dodger” party
No 2
salute her maj every morning do we, or just a quick tug of the forelock
Yeah, because everyone knows that people’s labour is the same as a barrel of oil, and should be traded accordingly.
and the human jellybaby maintains his stoic ignorance
” said problems in the US economy were affecting the economies of other countries, including in Australia.
But he said the policies of the Rudd Labor government, which won last November’s election, were largely to blame for Australia’s economic plight, ABC Radio reports.”
http://news.theage.com.au/national/costello-slams-govt-economic-policies-20080909-4cer.html
No 2
Is he one of your heroes still, or is the cold light of day showing him up for the buffoon he was?
No 121
Imbecile. Minimum standards would preclude the treatment of human labour as a barrel of oil.
No 122
Gusface, I thought the buck stopped with Dudd. Seems not given that he deflects blame at every opportunity.
No 2
“Imbecile. Minimum standards would preclude the treatment of human labour as a barrel of oil.”
Under Worstchoices a barrel of oil was worth more than a fair days work and the fibs would have set up a market trading “labour contracts”
wonder who the imbecile is now No2
GP says @ 114 “Socrates, we already have an Australian head of state: the Governor General has been an Australian citizen since 1965. The High Court has already ruled, as early as 1907, that the Governor General is the Constitutional Head of the Commonwealth.”
I don’t know what court case he is referring to, and therefore I don’t know in what context the Court used the expression “Constitutional Head of the Commonwealth,” but GP must know that “Constitutional Head of the Commonwealth” isn’t the same thing as “head of state.” To whom did the new GG swear allegiance last week? Herself? No, to the Sovereign, Queen Elizabeth II. The expression “head of state” doesn’t appear in the Constitution, but these paragraphs do:
“1. The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives, and which is herein-after called “The Parliament,” or “The Parliament of the Commonwealth. ”
“2. A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty’s representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen’s pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.”
Thus, the Queen is at the pinnacle of Australia’s constitutional arrangements, although she has delegated all her powers in respect of Australia to the GG. Note that the GG holds office “during the Queen’s pleasure.” That is, the Queen can dismiss the GG if advised to do so by her Australian PM. What kind of head of state can be dismissed by another head of state? Or does GP think we have two heads of state, like Andorra and San Marino?
The Howard government was the highest taxing in history, and as a proportion of GDP they still hold that record even against the Rudd government.
And the Howard government didn’t contest a single ALP-held seat in any by-election in their 11 years – Gippsland put Rudd in front by 1 in less than a year!
Oh what short memories we all have.
Constitutional Head of the Commonwealth is the same as Head of State.
R v Governor of South Australia [1907] HCA 31
Read it at your pleasure.
GP @ 1
Agree, not that I care a bit about the pain the libs are experiencing. It is good to see them spilling their own blood for a change. But, compared with that of the Iraqis, it is not even real blood. Just a bit of lib angst compared with that of the hundreds of thousands of injured and dead Iraqis, and the four million or so Iraqis who have left home since they were invaded with Howard at the helm.
The libs’ have several big problems: Leaders who cannot, or will not, lead; followers who suffer from serial gutlessness;, and a messiah complex.
As a result they are failing in their primary tasks: They are incapable of keeping the Rudd Government up to the mark, which is needed right now, and should be sharp right now. Keep them on their toes. The libs are also incapable of presenting as a serious alternative government which is needed for the sake of our democracy.
But there is a positive: The time out the libs will generate with their approach to leadership and policy development should give them plenty of time to reflect on their performance in Government and to SIEV through their consciences, if any.
No 127
Bill your argument is wrong.
No 129
I always laugh uncontrollably how leftists proclaim to be bastions of freedom and human rights, yet simultaneously criticise the liberation of Iraq from a brutal and despotic dictator to the extent that they argue it should never have occurred. Shame on them.
@130
Like the Libs, you scream it is wrong but fail to explain how.
I seem to recall that was in relation to the Education revolution. Nice attempt to put words in his mouth though. Try again…
@131
The end does not justify the means.
Almost 1 million dead by US hands.
Should we all believe in capital punishment too?
No 132
Bill, if you had the dilligence to read the preceding comments in this thread, I have already explained the fallacious nature of your argument. The problem is your partisan rancour is impenetrable.
I will look up the case, but I don’t believe for a second that the High Court in 1907 would have held that anyone other than the King was Australia’s head of state – if indeed they accepted the proposition that Australia was an independent country, which prior to the Statute of Westminster they might well not have done.
In the meantime, GP, if the GG is Australia’s head of state, what is Queen Elizabeth with regard to Australia? Why does our “head of state” swear allegiance to her?
113 Diogenes
I think Garnaut’s done the right thing. A lowish target sure, but far more importantly a short timeframe. Like it or not Governments work in election cycle timelines. Tell them we want a 60% reduction by 2050 and they’ll ignore it. They know that they’ll be long gone before anybody calls them on it.
Tell them we need 10% by 2020 however and they start to think in election cycles.
Hell, if I had my way it would have been 2% by 2011 then 5% by 2014, 10% by 2017, etc.
Make a government accountable within a single term and things will happen.
@135
I see nothing of the sort.
No 133
Dario, I’m repeating what Rudd said himself during the election campaign:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfe2Q6Sj4IU – on hospitals
As PM:
http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=3&ContentID=94477 – on the economy
Looks like you Labor hacks are intellectually lazy.
GP
Your terminology is incorrect. If you said AGW is a fallacy, you would be a CC denier, not a sceptic. The sceptics are still waiting for the science to make their mind up one way or the other, hence their prevarication and lack of serious action (like Mr Garnaut).
BTW As appalled as I am with myself but I found myself agreeing with your arguments about the “luxury” car tax. I can’t think of a single reason why it’s a good policy. If it was based on emissions and petrol consumption, I can see why a Ferrari or Maserati should be taxed more highly but it’s not. It seems to be a cheap political stunt based on class distinction, with the pathetic comeback “You just like helping out Posche and Ferrari drivers” being the standard response to pointing out that it is without merit.
(I should add that I drive a 89 Corolla before anyone accuses me of being self-interested.)
No 136
Adam, it is not a question of what you believe, it is a question of what the High Court clearly enunciated in its judgment. If you are too lazy to read it and are too blinded by the claims of an arrogant former PM, then so be it. But don’t be so absurd as to put words into the mouth of the High Court. In 1907, it was presided over by judges who were the founding fathers of our constitution, which makes them highly authoritative on the issue of determining who is our head of state.
No 140
Whilst you are right to point out the incorrect terminology, the reality is that those that subscribe to the Climate Change religion label anyone who questions, criticises or rejects the science as a “sceptic”. Both sides are guilty of this.
Whilst I am undecided myself on the issue of AGW, I do find it deeply unsettling that scientists are proclaiming that the “science is settled”, when the whole discipline of science relies on testing the accuracy of hypotheses on the current facts available. Nothing in science is ever truly settled: a theory is only settled until another scientist disproves it.
This is just moronic. Why does the DFAT protocol page clearly state that: “Australia’s Head of State is the Queen of Australia, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II” http://www.dfat.gov.au/protocol/Protocol_Guidelines/15.html
Did they put that up there as a joke? Are they trying to trick foreign governments into making elementary protocol errors? Or maybe they are just waiting for you to correct them with your reference to irrelevant 1907 court cases?
How are you going to get your law degree if you can’t even pass year 12 politics?
So do you believe that creationism is still in with a chance, and that we are just waiting on evolution to be disproved?
Stick to referencing irrelevant case law; science doesn’t seem to be your thing.
No 143
ShowsOn, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade does not have jurisdiction to interpret the meaning of the constitution. The High Court does.
The only moronic argument here is the use of an inaccurate DFAT website to disprove my contentions.
No 144
ShowsOn, where have I said that creationism is more valid than the evolution? Both concepts are merely theories, and those who subscribe to either school of thought are merely doing so based on their own opinions. I for one am not a religious person, but I have no problem with both theories being exposed such that students can make up their own minds. If you are honestly going to say that the science is now settled on how the earth came to be, then there is no point arguing with such stupidity.
Congratulations Generic Person
you’ve switched a monachy vs republican queston to a 1907 case muddying th herring waters with a legalistic point of diference as to what we hav Incidently no problem to me if you support a monachy
Can you tell me when a GG is appointed , does th PM consult or advise Queen of England beforehand
Anyone who thinks that Rudd is a communist is a fool.
And the reason the High Court has never had to make a determination on who Australia’s Head of State is is because it is completely obvious that it is the Queen, her heirs and successors.
If the Queen isn’t our Head of State, then that means she doesn’t do anything, and is another reason why Australia should be a republic. So you are either wrong, and we should be a republic, or you are right, which is even more reason why Australia should be a republic.
So ring them up and tell them to correct their erroneous webpage. Please make a recording of it, I want to hear them laugh at you.
OK GP, I have now read the case. The Court was discussing the disputed South Australian Senate election of 1906, a matter I am quite familiar with. The Court, in discussing the correct procedure for filling Senate vacancies, said:
“The Governor, as the officiating Constitutional Head of the State, is accordingly named as the person to whom the notification is to be given, and the notification must be regarded as addressed to him in that capacity. So, in certifying to the Governor General the names of the senators elected, chosen, or appointed the Governor must be regarded as acting in the capacity of the Constitutional Head of the State, being in that capacity the proper channel of communication with the officiating Constitutional Head of the Commonwealth, the Governor General.”
The key phrases are of course “acting in the capacity of” and “officiating”. OF COURSE the GG and the state Governors “act in the capacity” of, and “officiate” as, heads of their respective jurisdictions, because the powers of the Sovereign have been delegated to them under the respective constitutions. That doesn’t derogate from the Queen’s status as head of state, and certainly no-one in 1907 thought so.
As I noted above, the Constitution makes it clear who the head of state is, without using the expression. Do you seriously think that Sam Griffith and Andrew Inglis Clark intended to displace the Queen as head of state? Every first-year law student knows better than that.
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 19 » Show All