The latest Essential Research survey has Labor’s lead down from 58-42 to 57-43, remembering that this is a two-week rolling average which was half conducted before Malcolm Turnbull replaced Brendan Nelson. Also included (just from the last week’s sample) are various questions on leadership and one on industrial relations (45 per cent think the government moving “too slowly”).
Reflections on the Miracle of Democracy at Work in the Greatest Nation on Earth
Essential Research: 57-43
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
762 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 16 » Show All
Consumer Affairs, Local Government, Housing and Childcare.
GP,
If you don’t know you should just say so. Such an inconsequential political figure didn’t really stand out, did she.
Thanks, William.
No 202
I did know, but plugging it into wikipedia yourself would have made you seem less lazy.
What, GP.
So now you aren’t interested in interaction with other posters or contributing in a meaningful way to civil intercourse.
Of course I could have done so, but you seemed to wish to converse.
Sorry I misread your intentions.
GP @ 196
I find the notion of any of the Liberal Front bench as leaders of anything more involved than a sewing circle slightly lunatic (but maybe i’m biased, just a bit……).
I am however genuinely interested in why you think Bishop assuming the leadership is lunacy as i am sure you would be looking at it from a different perspective to mine??
I think a good nights sleep may cure this laziness.
Night all.
No 206
The probability of Bishop assuming the leadership is so low that is unworthy of legitimate discourse.
Looks like the Libs are backing another loser.
{MOST Australians want the hefty alcopops tax to stay and would support increased tobacco tax if proceeds went to disease prevention, a Newspoll shows.
A survey commissioned by health and anti-smoking groups has found the 70 per cent tax hike on pre-mixed alcoholic drinks is supported by 57 per cent of adults irrespective of how the money is used.
But support rose to 84 per cent if most of the revenue funded programs to help prevent diseases such as heart disease and cancer.
“Eighty-four per cent is an extraordinary majority, particularly for an issue like paying more tax,” said Professor Ian Olver, chief executive of Cancer Council Australia, which funded the research with the Heart Foundation, Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA) and Action on Smoking and Health.
“It sends a strong message to politicians.” ]
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24394572-12377,00.html
Ok GP @ 208, i know thats your opinion. I was wondering what reasoning leads you to form such opinion? She is after all the Deputy, so the libs must think she has some potential??
No 210
The fact is that Turnbull is leader; unless he drastically stuffs up, he’ll be pretty safe for the time being.
Bishop has talent, but frankly is not leadership material. Heck, Bronny would be more popular.
Ahhh GP, i see comrade, you make good joke! Less popular than Bronny?? HaHa!!
South Australian Newspoll post.
GP,
I agree with you that Turnbull is safe for the time being (at least a year, I would think). He has more energy than Nelson, is more articulate and the party will be much more reluctant to dump him. That option will mainly come into calculations when the next election is looming and (if) the polls are still looking dire for the Libs.
I wouldn’t be as quick as you to write off Bishop, though. Shadow Treasury is a chance for her to make a mark. Sure, she’s off to a shocking start, but two gaffes of this nature hardly constitutes permanent destruction of a political career.
Good to see that Australia has jumped 2 places in the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index from 11th to 9th since the Sergeant Shultz brigade got turfed out of office.
Stupid, stupid woman on ABC Sydney radio with air-head Brissenden talking about the Bishop plagiarism business. She opined that the reason Swan may have found this plagiarism is because HE was about to use it himself, and so had it readily to hand! Totally spurious and mischevious fantasising, completely made up and blurted out with no evidence (or rational thought) whatsoever.
Later on she ventured that if the “Missy higging” story had been true, at least it would have given Rudd something to do on his trip that wasn’t boring.
How vacuuous! Is this where the maniacal search for pseudo “balance” gets us? When you don’t have a thing to criticise the government about, you just make it up like some dumb suburban mum having a latte and a gossip with the girls after tennis? Then you broadcast it to an audience of a hundred thousand?
Very poor, ABC,…VERY poor.
Of course it is the Liberal ABC – but, your not allowed to complain about it apparently.
I did complain about it.
Got the usual platitudes and references to the Code Of Conduct. Quick response but useless anyway.
Deborah Cameron’s politics segment (just after 9am) with Brissenden is all about mutual giggling at the “circus” etc. etc. in Canberra. Her feedback segment , after 9.30, is mostly about mothers, babies and recipes.
Deborah Cameron feels free to make up whatever she wants to. Maybe in conversation that’s OK, but not on taxpayer funded airwaves which are supposed to report something approaching the truth, or keep quiet about it.
Bishop was caught-out. Whether or not the listener views this as serious, or even worthy of comment is up to them. But this does not give ABC journalists (both Cameron and Brissenden make much of their “credentials”) the right to make up empty-headed crap to achieve some sort of phoney “balance.” So sick and tired of seeing govenment, especially in these dangerous times, depicted as “boring”, “silly” or the appropriate subject of schoolgirl giggles and nothing else.
Sorry if this has been raised somewhere else. Former Senator Robert Ray will be conducting the review into the WA ALP election campaign. The terms of reference are wide-ranging and will be completed by 15 Dec 08.
218
Take a chill pill Bill
I note Tim Costello quoted today in the SMH saying that Rudd SHOULD be in New York for the U.N General Assembly, because they are discussing global poverty!
Indeed, he said that IT WOULD BE AN INSULT IF THE AUSTRALIAN PM wasn’t there!
My oh my! Not the first time Tim has been at odds with his brother!
But, of course the Libs don’t give a _______ about poor, starving people in underdeveloped countries, they would much prefer sticking up for Porsche drivers and the private health industry.
I know this is US news but it’s very relevant to this thread, esp with Rudd in NY. The Paulson Bailout looks dead in the water. There might be a different Dodd version but constitutional law problems have now been raised. The stock market isn’t going to like this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/business/economy/24fannie.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1222214762-w74Zfx9k6KjCh+qwGMgyNg
220
Where did you spring from, Wet?
Seems Congress has learnt from the Iraq affair and realise you just cant say here you go we will trust you on it. This was going to be another of those con jobs with billions disappearing into the void and nobody know where or for what. Congress should play hard ball on this to ensure the funds go to the righ places in the right amounts with the right conditions and so forth. I certainly wouln’t trust Bush and his mates with $700bn in the last months of his adminstration.
For a simple debunking of the Paulson plan go and have a look at Peter Martin’s blog.
Bill Clinton was pretty good on Letterman the other night too.
223
I’ve been lurking in the shadows… just for the record i think you probably make a few good points around these parts but i think you over reacted to the comments on 702 this morning.
Readily to hand? Even though she made the comments on Monday, and Swan called her out on them on Tuesday?
Obviously that journalist doesn’t bother to actually watch, listen, or read what happens in parliament.
Murdock is meeting up with Rudd, maybe this is why the opposition is frothing at the mouth about this trip-do you think they might be wary of losing Murdock’s patronism??? weeel just a thought lol.
bugga i forgot the link, sorry.
http://abc.com.au/news/stories/2008/09/24/2372556.htm
Is QT on? I’m in the dark here.
Judith @ 229
It would indeed be very amusing should murdoch change his position and sent down riding instructions to his Australian papers to end their Liberal leanings.
I did mention the other day that I saw an interview with murdoch (and probably Murdoch had arrange to be interviewed on whatever show it was) where he endorsed Obama with a number of very positive comments and got down on McCain. Now that might be because of the Wall street meltdown and a desire to dissociate himself from Republicans or it might be a change in thinking or he might just think Obama is the right guy. Now that Howard has gone and the remainder being fairly mediocre he might reassess the tendency to support the right here. One can only hope. It would be fairly shocking to not find an over abundance of partisan reporting from his stable.
Interesting…
Anthony Albanese has asked the Speaker to investigate a discrepancy between what Julie Bishop actually said, on the House tape recording regarding her now infamous “Wall St. Journal plagiarism”, and her words as reported in Hansard.
He wants an explanation as to why the two records are different.
Don’t know what’s at the bottom of this, but for the tape and the printed record to be different ther’d have to be a good explanation. Any Hansard junkies out there who might have some ideas?
TP @ 230, QT is on per normal
Obviously Bishop contacted Hansard and got them to change it.
Page 37 of Monday’s Hansard says:
I see no attribution to the Wall Street Journal there.
Sorry for being slow… but you’d think she’s get them to change Hansard in her favour, not in a way that would support the charge of plagiarism (by not including a reference to the WSJ)?
I think it was the original tape – i.e. her actual words, as spoken – that gave no attribution to Hansard. If the Hansard reflects that actuality, then where’s the change?
Tape:
“In my speech I was referring to the United States plans. In fact the words I used were the technical explanation from the US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson which have been published widely.”
Hansard:
“In my speech I was referring to the United States plans and in fact the words I used were a technical explanation of US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s plan which have been published widely.”
The matter of contention is was she explaining Paulson’s words or the reporting of his plan?
Oh dear, so she can’t even understand who she plagiarised. She plagiarised the Wall Street Journal, not Henry Paulson.
Ah ha! I see… a subtle difference. I suppose her argument would be that she “mis-spoke”, or didn’t express her meaning clearly, and sought to have the meaning … er… clarified in the printed version…. except that she was reading her speech, was she not?
The world wonders: what are the protocols for having Hansard altered away from the original tapes of the spoken words? You’d think these should go through the Speaker or some formal process, not just a visit to the Hansard office by the member in question, a cuppa tea and a bikkie, and a quick edit while they gossip away?
Yeah… whoever she plagiarised the WSJ or Paulson, it wasn’t attributed. Her Hansard statement is more accurate, but still does not attribute.
In other words she ws trying to make herself out to be an economics whiz, by pretending that the “technical explanation” was hers and hers alone, not lifted word for word from another source.
Looks like the Naughty Corner for Julie.
apparently Costello gave Swan a mild pat on the back–dunno whether Swan should be flattered or wary.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,24394980-5005962,00.html
I think Members can ask to have Hansard changed as long as it does not change the meaning of the words said.
Yep Naughty Corner for Ms Mesmer again.
I’d like to see Swan run that “Naughty corner” phrase back at her in QT. Wasn’t it him she first used it against?
This would be sweet, sweet payback.
(Waiting now for GP to chime in and lecture me that two wrongs don’t make a right).
Her original “blame the staff” excuse was more convincing.
She should have just shut up in the first place, it would be forgotten about already if she had.
Caught the end of Julia & Swanny’s press conference on sky news. When they crossed back to the studio the comment was something like, Swanny was crowing over the big tick the IMF had given his budget.
Interesting to read Cozzie’s radio comments (referenced above) on the “economic tsunami”. I’ve always believed they delayed the election so long hoping it would hit hard in time to save their bacon. They then could have made an argument that “Now is not the time for change, no matter how you feel about Howard.” Might have worked, too: the “Dennis Connor” gambit… sail into the spectator fleet and hope the other bloke rams into someone before you do.
Also interesting to see his pretty flat-out statement that he’s not interested in the Leadership anymore. Hinted at a job of public service (not IN the PS, OF public service). His latest part-timer with the world Bank (is it?) as some kind of malpractice invigilator indicates Cozzie is interested in doing good works.
(a) This would give him an excuse for not attracting a salary befitting an ex-Treasurer,
(b) Would at least be a job he could use to redeem himself in his own and the public’s eyes.
My prediction is a job with Brother Tim in the island missions or similar.
Congratulations everyone – 21.283 million:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24395667-12377,00.html
Its Tim’s to stand in Higgins for the Labor party!
Good to see that the growth is heading west and north
Pages: « 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 16 » Show All