The Australian reports this fortnight’s Newspoll has Labor’s two-party lead up to 55-45 from 54-46 a fortnight ago. Kevin Rudd’s lead as preferred prime minister is up from 59-25 to 62-22. Graphic here.
Other news:
• The weekly Essential Research survey has Labor’s two-party lead down from 61-39 to 59-41. Also featured are questions on level of interest in the US election and the Rudd government’s performance on various issues, the big surprise of which is a poor rating on health – possibly a spillover from mounting disaffection with various state governments.
• The redistribution of Western Australian federal electoral boundaries has been finalised. Two changes have been made from the proposal unveiled in August. One involves nomenclature: the electorate name of Kalgoorlie has been decomissioned after a history going back to federation, with the originally proposed Kalgoorlie instead to take the name of O’Connor and O’Connor to take on the new name of Durack. The second is substantive: part of the suburb of Tapping has been moved from Moore to Cowan. My back-of-envelope calculation suggests this will boost the Liberal margin in highly marginal Cowan from 1.1 per cent to 1.3 or 1.4. Margins in other electorates remain as calculated by Antony Green.
• The Tasmanian Liberal Party hasn’t wasted any time getting its Senate preselection for the next federal election in order, and the big news is that the Right faction’s Guy Barnett has been demoted from number two in 2004 to the loseable number three. The new number two is Stephen Parry, who was elected from number three in 2004.
• Speaking of Tasmania, the ABC reports that EMRS has conducted one of its semi-regular 1000-sample state polls. No figures on voting intention are provided, but we will presumably be hearing more shortly.
638 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 13 » Show All
On the right even.
HAHAHA.
Turnbull just demanded that Rudd call him “The Leader of the Opposition” and not “the Member for Wentworth”.
On the last question Turnbull seems to have missed Rudd’s argument over the leaked memo. Rudd says that the report regarding Bush’s lack of understanding of the G20 is not accurate, the implication being that therefore it can’t be a leak of the actual conversation, therefore no investigation is necessary.
Oz, the ABC are wrong. Today was the original reporting date. It’s since been extended.
Triton, investigation of the leaking of the details of a private conversation can be investigated, regardless of whether individual parts of the leaked material are incorrect.
Sorry, leaked phone call.
Rudd’s answers on this really are pathetic. I agree that world leaders won’t trust him on the phone if he doesn’t clear this up.
“Rudd’s answers on this really are pathetic. I agree that world leaders won’t trust him on the phone if he doesn’t clear this up.”
Nonsense. Utter nonsense. The world does not hang on the rantings of fib has beens.
ltep, I understand that. Rudd has picked the one (supposedly) incorrect part to avoid the question. My point was that Turnbull’s point of order on relevance suggested to me that he didn’t realize that Rudd _was_ relevant. Turnbull thought he hadn’t answered it all (mostly he hasn’t, but he did that time).
“I agree that world leaders won’t trust him on the phone if he doesn’t clear this up.”
Certainly not if Peter Mitchell is shnuffling around in the background!
“Kevin? Barack. First things first: Is anyone from The Australian in the building?”
dave, so you think that leaders of other countries don’t believe that any leak has occurred, or if they do they won’t worry that it’ll happen to them?
Garbage
Why?
They have much more to worry about atm than a former government on the other side of the globe stirring the pot.
If you believe otherwise no problem, it just shows how far out of touch the fibs and their fellow travellers are.
I am not going to change your view and you are not going to change mine.
Labor are in government and the fibs are irrelevant. Fibs can stamp their feet and roll on the ground but they remain irrelevant.
Dario @ 161 “Garbage”…Really. Don’t have a link for that, do you?
dave, you are no more relevant than Rudd’s answers. It’s got nothing to with the “fibs” or what leaders have to worry about. If a leak has occurred and it isn’t known where it came from, then why won’t it happen again? It could be an official. If you were a world leader on the phone to Rudd, how on earth could be sure the conversation won’t leak?
Thats your view.
I disagree.
Get over it.
wow, rudd is avoiding responding to a censure against him.
Howard said Obama was the terrorist favourite but you think a supposed ‘leak’ already refuted by GWB is likely to be damaging? Honestly…
Read all my previous posts on the subject. I can’t believe this still has legs when the credibility of the original story has been blown apart long ago.
Isn’t that the usual tactic?
My understanding is that it wasn’t a censure, but a suspension of standing orders.
Might I add that if this was so ‘damaging’, then why was Rudd one of the 9 leaders called by Obama after his win? Berlusconi got snubbed after he made a nasty remark about him…
171: That’s just a technicality. Debate on the substance of the censure motion usually always ends up happening during debate on the suspension motion.
I find it curious that they are banging on about a non-leaked or partially leaked phone call of no consequence. The best they can do now is to try and run a ‘trust’ issue.
Now if the details of a supposed leak are not correct and in fact an invention what then is the real issue for world leaders? The question on the mind of world leaders will be if to trust Australia’s media to be honest and not invent phone conversations that didn’t happen, in which case they can never ring Australia.
It is of course a joke. World leaders are all very familiar with the media, especially a dishonest Murdoch media, and that they will invent anything regardless of the truth; they continue to all communicate notwithstanding the media.
But the problem for Sinister Malcolm is that the polls show he has very low trust levels and Rudd high levels so he loses the ‘who do you trust’ battle right there.
This is all about an extremely jealous Turnbull, Liberal Party and some Murdoch media journalists who cannot accept that Rudd talks to world leaders all the time and especially now and mentions it often. Turnbull’s super sized self-importance micro chip is about to blow up through extreme envy.
But if we want to talk about trust and if world leaders can trust Australian PMs lets think about Mr Sheriff Howard, the tamed and owned poodle of GW Bush. How many of our Asian leaders would trust him? What trust did Australia’s government ear with AWB corruption in its ranks, the SIEVX deaths, rendering of Habib for torture, Hicks, Iraq lies, WorkChoices assault and so on.
If a government and leader ever had serious questions to answer about trust it would certainly would be the Howard Govt.
Dario, Howard was out of line, but he was turfed out (and good riddance). What does that have to do with this?
Can someone give me one good reason why leaders will trust Rudd on the phone in future, or doesn’t anyone think it matters if they don’t?
Thomas Paine, if it was all an invention then Rudd should be more than happy to deny that there was any leak from him or his office and kill the matter. He won’t.
No one in the Australian Liberal Party has had the guts so far to say Howard was out of line.
allbull is just about at the last throw of the dice stage.
Most people trying to get through the current financial situation will just think what planet do the fibs come from.
Whats next another batch of leaflet drops in the seat of lindsay ?
dave, with respect, allbull’s proper title is The Leader of the Opposition.
(Or, based on his PPM performance today, Two Little Ducks.)
they never learn, now they’ve had a second go at Henry after this mornings foray, he could nail them at the Press Club address tomorrow, obviously the journos are going to question him over it, now the moot point is just what stance is he going to take– the perfect diplomatic public servant, or say it as it is and throw it back at the libs, of course i’m praying for the latter.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24635223-601,00.html
i wont miss it for worlds lol.
Or as Rudd called him today, much to Turnbull’s glee:
The Right Honourable Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition.
Inner Westie – of course it is.
and may it long be his title – it is only proper.
I think The Australian is also heading down the path of becoming damaged goods if it isn’t already there. Its efforts to undermine the Government and uncritically support the Liberal party since the election has caused it to continually abase itself and stretch credulity to near breaking point. Much more of it and the main news of the wont be the Government of the country but what to do with some of our ’sick’ and out of control media.
Please don’t drop links without saying what it is about, I will never go to them if no clue is given. Especially OO links.
As David McKnight opined in the weekend Herald, Murdoch will cop substantial losses to promote his “ideas”:
“… last year, to support its bid for The Wall Street Journal, News Corporation began advertising itself on the theme ‘Free people. Free markets. Free thinking.’
In support of such a position, Murdoch maintains loss-making newspapers such as the New York Post and the London Times. The Australian lost millions for 20 years until the mid-1980s. Murdoch’s preparedness to take losses year after year testifies to the fact that he often puts ideas and influence before profit.”
Inner westie
“two ducks” – nice
I always thought he was a bit quackers btw
Murdoch and his support for the fibs, through the discredited OO is a bit like the fibs australian voter base – aging.
Uncle rupert is about 79 and although he comes from a long living family on his mothers side, I really wonder what happen to the OO and its stable of flunkies after rupert falls off the perch. Would the whole empire be sold off or just those sections which are not profitable enough ?
Either way when “the day” arrives it presents another opportunity for payback, eerr I mean reform of media ownership laws.
The nats will probably just wither – how long since they had any real new talent ?
And the generations coming on after the baby boomers are more inclined towards labor or the greens etc.
Further to my comment at 186 …
Pity those “ideas” are so outmoded … The Australian is a cack-caked bullhorn for a diminishing circle of neo-liberal ideaologues (which may once, perhaps, have represented something, perhaps, approximating, perhaps, an “orthodoxy”).
Pitifully low circulation is one thing; pitifully low impact is quite another.
(And to think the ABC invited this dinosaur to present the Boyer Lectures!)
Triton went:
Because a story that was at best embellished, at worst outright fabricated by a (ahem) “source” does not a matter of international gravitas make.
“Media goes apeshit on manufactured nonsense” doesn’t really qualify as a diplomatic incident, especially since both parties involved have already called bullshit on the story.
So now, with the story being twaddle it’s all about the leak. Well, the journo’s know the source…. chuckle.
But they’ve been remarkably quiet about it at The Oz.
Inner Westie
“And to think the ABC invited this dinosaur to present the Boyer Lectures !
”
Yep agree with your comment completely. limited news seems to have taken over our abc in the opinion area.
fran kelly runs with the front page of the OO on a daily basis, OO talking heads regularly dominate Insiders, sometimes lateline/ la trioli seems to get her views from the OO.
Did the current abc md come from a limited news background ?
Then uncle rupert, the yank turns up on an abc gem – the boyer lectures to pontificate to us how we ought to run the place. The same place he sold out on – chucked his australian citizenship away to make more money than he can possible ever spend.
His action speak a lot louder than his words.
But shame on the abc.
And remarkably, the red cordial kid who stirred up the bull ants nest is still standing there with his stick!
(In shock coz he’s covered in ants.)
Mesma has been caught cheating again
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/11/2416784.htm?section=justin
So itep and triton if I go to the media and state that I overheard a telephone conversation between the two of you planning to bomb the US embassy and it is printed in the Australian as “coming from a source” – does that give the story credibility? Should the two of you be investigated by the AFP because details of a conversation were leaked? By your own standards, neither of you are allowed to question the veracity of the story, even though you argue its not the content of the story, its the fact that I alledge that I overheard your statement thats the proof as your reasoning dictates.
Tom.
Frank I remember the fuss the Liberals made over Latham plagiarising. Now we have B
Yeah, let’s have a bit of a squiz down the Boyer Lectures list …
2008 – The Velociraptor – “A Golden Age of Freedom”
2007 – Graeme Clark – “Restoring The Senses”
2006 – Ian Macfarlane – “The Search For Stability”
2005 – Archbishop Peter Jensen – “The Future of Jesus”
2004 – Peter Conrad “Tales of Two Hemispheres”
2003 – Owen Harries “Benign or Imperial? Reflections on American Hegemony”
2001 – Prof Geoffrey Blainey “This Land is all Horizons: Australian Fears and Visions”
2000 – Chief Justice Murray Gleeson “The Rule of Law and the Constitution”
1999 – Dr Inga Clendinnen “True Stories”
1998 – David Malouf “A Spirit of Play: The Making of Australian Consciousness”
The choice of Kerry Stokes in 1994 (”Advance Australia Where?”) was probably fair given that at that stage he hadn’t blown $200 mil on C7 litigation …
173 – James, that’s not a technicality at all. While debating the suspension of standing orders members are asked to speak to that motion. That is, why they think the standing orders should be suspended. Rudd has not spoken against such motions before. This is not unusual.
That motion was defeated so Rudd didn’t need to speak re the censure.
ird Brain Bishop being the worst ever offender.
HYPOCRITES!
Hmm posted half way through a post?
So here’s that Tasmanian poll I was talking about yesterday:
http://www.emrs.com.au/pdfs/State%20Voting%20Intentions%20November%202008%20Report.pdf
Labor 30, Liberals 26, Greens 18, undecided 23.
There’s a break up of votes by age as well. Unsurprising except The Greens are out polling Liberal in the 45-54 bracket.
David Bartlett still preferred premier by an 18 point margin.
In the past I have heard “The Member for Brand”, “The Member for Hotham”, “The Member for Werriwa”, but good Lord, we have to call the Born To Rule Mentality by their correct title.
“The Queen Elizabeth II Right Honourable Leader Of The Opposition and Member for Wentworth”!
HYPOCRITES!
Lightweight!
Pages: « 1 … 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 13 » Show All