The latest federal ACNielsen poll, published in today’s Fairfax broadsheets, has Labor’s two-party lead down to 55-45 from 56-44 last month. Malcolm Turnbull’s approval rating is down four points to 51 per cent and his disapproval is up five to 35 per cent, while Kevin Rudd is more or less steady on 70 per cent and 22 per cent. Also included are questions on the government’s economic management (positive) and expectations about the economy (surprisingly optimistic).
UPDATE: Galaxy has also produced a poll showing Labor leading 55-45. The poll has Labor on 43 per cent of the primary vote, the Coalition on 40 per cent and the Greens on 11 per cent. No mention of a sample size that I can see, but in Galaxy’s case it’s usually about 800 (UPDATE: It’s 1004 for Galaxy, 1400 for ACNielsen).
UPDATE 2: A surprise from Essential Research: they too have Labor’s lead at 55-45 in their weekly survey. This is down from 59-41 last week, and as far as I’m aware is the closest result they have thus far produced. Also featured are questions on which party is deemed best to handle various issues (huge leads to Labor on climate change, environment and industrial relations, narrow ones to Liberal on inflation, national security and economic management) and the car manufacturing industry assistance package (47 per cent approve, 35 per cent disapprove).
1,045 Comments
To a degree
hahaha, yes probably
I think you mean recalcitrant…
The difference between what labour got in the last election and this poll result looks to me like it is within the MOE, as are several of the ’shifts’ reported in the article. The big exception seems to be that the more the public sees of Turnbull, the less they think of him. Since this has been a bit of pattern with his acquaintances in his previous metamorpheses, no surprise, really.
The big worry for Rudd in these polls should be the very high likelihood that all those optimistic folks are in for a disappointment. Unless, by ‘optimistic’ they mean they are optimistic that things won’t tank completely. If they become disappointed and blame Rudd, he is in trouble.
I have not been able to follow all the ins and outs of the phone story. My main sense is a disproportion all round. For me there is a larger governance issue here: When can and should PMs and pollies ‘fess up’. Why should we simultaneously expect them to be perfect and then be utterly sceptical that they will be perfect? Doesn’t this cause a sort of rot in the body politic? Why is the bar so high that we almost force them to fiddle faddle and falsify? Why are we pushing them up Denial Creek? What would happen if Rudd said, for example, ‘Yep, it sort of slipped out the wrong way. Of course GWD knows what G20 means.’
Galaxy – 55-45
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24660650-5001021,00.html
Thanks James.
Some more positive results for the ALP. Doesn’t Galaxy usually underestimate Green vote rather than overestimate?
Tony Wright and La Stupenda say the government’s poll success comes despite the economic situation and despite “continuing intrigue” over Phonegate. Poor little dears… they don’t get it. Despite their best efforts to talk down the economy (especially La Stupenda) with continuous negative reporting, even making up statistics, and despite their assurances that Phonegate “just won’t go away” (inclusing more “body language” reporting by La S. fro a ball in the US), the public has not reacted to any of it.
This is good for a couple of reasons:
It shows that the Press Gallery are not setting the agenda as much as they’d like to think they are, and certainly not as much as they used to be able to do.
It shows that Australians are confident in their government. They feel that Rudd can do whatever it is he did to Bush (including possibly nothing) and they’re still prepared to back him. The government – a Labor government – can handle the economy without sideline advice from the Libs. There’s a new pride emerging in our standing on our own two feet, and the voters are backing Rudd in doing so.
Other sections of the poll showed that confidence in the economy has fallen, but not by as much as the pundits would prefer. Their doom and gloom “war” reporting has washed over the people who go to work each day and see commerce continuing, people interacting profitably and only fools leaving themselves with $5 in their bank accounts when the mortgage funds go bung. It ain’t perfect, but it ain’t “mega billions” either.
There’s a sort of incredulity, dare I say “counter-intuitiveness” in the write up of the Nielsen poll in today’s Age. It’s as if Wright and Grattan are saying, “What do we have to do to force the buggers to panic and tut-tut about Rudd?” It’s a big slap in the face to the likes of the Insiders, who unanimously agreed yesterday that amateur analysis of videotaped body language was the new frontier in investigative reporting. They wanted Rudd to fess up and play the usual role for Australian Prime Ministers : abject supplication to the American President, any American President, even a lame duck who got rolled by G20 over the weekend.
It’s all part of the “Labor doesn’t know how to behave in proper company” schtick. And it hasn’t stuck. The Libs have been rendered irrelevant, and now quite possibly so have the pundits. A few of them are starting to show signs they’re getting it, while the rest are mired in their studios and their smoke-filled (metaphorically, of course) offices, pontificating from on-high.
Funnily enough it was Murdoch yesterday afternoon who launched into a diatribe against elites in the media believing they could and should be setting the agenda. OK, so his Boyer Lecture was full of holes and hypocrisy (especially when he got onto touchy issues such as “truth” and “honesty”), but his point was that a news organisation should understand its readership and/or viewership. The Grattans, Wrights, Cassidys, Shanahans, Brissendens et al I guess do have such a rudimentary understanding. It’s just that the number of those who follow their every word are dwindling. what’s the point of understanding a handful of pessimistic tragics who think we’re doomed, when the majority of the population is pretty upbeat, considering, and want to remain so?
One of the things mentioned in the original Phonegate article was the pretty-well unconditional praise of Rudd’s diplomacy: Sticking it to Bush, arguing his case (in a way Howard would never have done, it was pointed out) and getting a result. The media chose to turn this into “self-aggrandizement” (who does Rudd think he is, after all?), which it plainly was not. It was a report telling the public that our PM stood up to Bush on behalf of our country and could be a person of importance in the coming year or so of global negotiations. That’s a pretty important thing for the Australian people to understand about their leadership. And it’s something the pundits clearly don’t understand, either in the fact or the reasons why.
I think ‘intrigue’ is stretching it just a little.
The opening words of the Adelaide Advertiser article on the poll are “Australia’s globe-trotting Prime Minister”… somehow they couldn’t manage to start the article off neutrally.
Who is La Stupenda? Why do ppl at this blog insist on using these childish nicknames for everyone?
Adam @ 10
1. Michelle Grattan.
2. Because it people enjoy it.
“One of the things mentioned in the original Phonegate article was the pretty-well unconditional praise of Rudd’s diplomacy: Sticking it to Bush, arguing his case (in a way Howard would never have done, it was pointed out) and getting a result… It was a report telling the public that our PM stood up to Bush on behalf of our country and could be a person of importance in the coming year or so of global negotiations.”
Not that I think anyone really wants to trawl through this debate again, but I thought all the Labor cheerleaders here thought the article was a complete fabrication. I thought both sides (US and Australia) didn’t think it was a true representation of the conversation? Yet the PM still should be praised?
No. It was a puff piece cooked up and approved by the PM’s office. That’s why the media rightly characterised it as “self-aggrandizement”.
Michelle Grattan looks nothing like the real La Stupenda (Dame Joan), she’s quite small. If the name is intended to convey that she is conceited about her status as one of Australia’s most experienced political reporters, that is totally false. She is an extremely diligent, cautious reporter and a scrupulously fair commentator.
From an article in today’s SMH:
“[Howard] did not like his border protection policy being challenged, be it in 2001 or much later, such as in 2005 when fourbackbenchers went to the Lodge to lobby for a softening of mandatory detention.
“What are you doing with this chardonnay-sipping set? They don’t represent the same kind of people as you. Their seats are not like yours. Why are you here? You don’t belong in this group.”
To illustrate his point, Howard made available for his guests only three chairs, forcing Broadbent to fetch his own.”
What a ghastly ghastly man. Thank god he’s gone.
One last comment, sorry for so many Mr Bowe!
An article in today’s West Australian (page 12) indicates that Dr Chris Back, a veterinarian, and failed Liberal candidate for the state seat of Alfred Cove has won the preselection to replace Chris Ellison when he retires at the end of the year.
Oh dear ……
….
In that article we see rodent for what he is. Certain not as the statesmen he desperately wants. How able this :
“To illustrate his point, Howard made available for his guests only three chairs, forcing Broadbent to fetch his own.
Confirming the account to the Herald, Broadbent said the Lodge meeting was one of 13 the four had with Howard over mandatory detention. For the first 12 there was no chair for him. Only at the last was his chair there, directly facing Howard and in front of the others. Howard chose only to deal with Broadbent as a final compromise was nutted out, using him as “a bridge” to the others.”
Doesn’t matter how much spin or sugar coating fran kelly puts on tonights show, australians know what an absolute prick rodent really is.
BB@7
I usually enjoy your writing but I think you may be a little off-centre on this one.
It is reasonable for journos to note that two things that potentially might have had a negative effect on polling are not having a negative impact. They certainly would not be the only ones to think that poor economic times have the potential to impact on government approval ratings. The telephone stuff is fluff, and they know it, but it fits the general story pretty well. It has the potential to have an impact but it has not done so.
In relation to ‘best efforts at talking down the economy’, it must be a difficult call for journos. They can’t just pretend that the economy is going well. In fact, if any of them were really doing their job well, they would be telling all those optimists out there that the terms of trade will swing decidedly against Australia’s favour by this time next year, following the renegotiation of coal and iron ore contracts. From my perspective, people have become very used to good terms of trade on those two items. Increased world supply and rapidly falling demand are going to make coal and iron ore prices look very sick indeed. Apart from the downstream impacts on the private sector, BHP and RIO occupy a disproportionate percentage of the stock exchange. Further, the implications for WA, Qld and Fed budgets are going to be more than just a little significant. Whether they are incompetent and haven’t picked up on this, or whether they are competent and lying doggo on it, I don’t know. Getting the balance of reporting right on that one would be problematic. Don’t want to scare the horses, but the horses do need to have the basic knowledge that they are galloping towards, if not a cliff, then a steepish hill.
On journos setting agendas…I am inclined to agree that there is always a struggle between government and journos about what ‘the agenda’ is. Clearly, governments like to spin the agenda their way. In making the criticism of Wright and Grattan, for the sake of balance, you would also have to criticise Rudd for trying to spin things his way – unless of course you happen to believe that he is not trying to spin the agenda?
Finally, journos are simply generally not very interested in spinning news in a positive way because they, and their editors, believe that good news does not sell. Apart from that, Michelle Grattan has generally been fairly even in her assessments. It does seem to me that the OO journos, who worked too closely together with Howard and his office to set agendas, are struggling without the direct drip. Albrechtson will not get favoured treatment under Rudd. She will not get specially sponsored trips to write up Iraq stories as she did under Howard. With no-one much listening any more, she is struggling.
Adam @ 13, ours crossed.
Good on Russell Broadbent. I was aware of some of his difficulties at the time. Petro Georgiou was another who destroyed his political career for principle. It was, and is, good to see that the Liberal party still has some real heroes in it. Only four of them, but still…
Until the ‘broad church’ ceases to embrace only the right and the crazy right, the Liberal party is going to stay in deep doodoo.
Since they have no apparent present intention of reclaiming the wets from independents, the greens or labour, it may be some time before they can present as credible holders of the middle ground.
As for those who point out that this is just another example of the rodent in action, I ask that they use another phrase. Rats are sociable, clean and don’t eat their young.
The text of the G20 summit statement is here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/washington/summit-text.html?pagewanted=print
Its still really only an agreement to do somehting in the future, but it is more specific than I had expected. If it is implemented as written it will be a remarkably good outcome. A few bits stand out for me:
3 “… Policy-makers, regulators and supervisors, in some advanced countries, did not adequately appreciate and address the risks building up in financial markets, keep pace with financial innovation, or take into account the systemic ramifications of domestic regulatory actions.”
- that must have stuck in Bush’s craw!
7 “… Use fiscal measures to stimulate domestic demand to rapid effect, as appropriate, while maintaining a policy framework conducive to fiscal sustainability.”
- a strong endorsement of Rudd and Swan’s actions so far, and making a nonsense of Tony “economic skills” Abbott’s suggestion that the budget must remain in surplus.
13 “… Further, we shall strive to reach agreement this year on modalities that leads to a successful conclusion to the WTO’s Doha Development Agenda with an ambitious and balanced outcome.”
- that will be a very good outcome for Australia.
The G20 will meet again in April 2009 to ratify the final details. With Bush gone and Obama in power, that should happen. The only losers will be the “financial engineers” and corporate cowboys, some of whom had better start looking for new jobs.
Socrates, what does 13 mean and why will it be good for Australia?
other than rusted on followers the cane toad and Bolt are fading as well, i dont think anyone takes Shanahan very seriously after his spurious headlines lauding Howard’s so called comeback last year, Milne–well is Milne, an irrelevant little man who will be edged out as younger more savvy writers rise in the ranks, the best most balanced wordsmith we had of course has died, Matt Price’s Sketch was mandatory the first to be read and eagerly awaited on, somewhere out there another Price will eventually come up through the ranks, until then we have crappy stories and hopeful quotes such as Albrechson’s when Turnbull got the nod–”ladies and gentlemen it’s now game on”
Boerwar
Its the first time all the members of the G20 have agreed to finish off the Doha round, rather than just talk about it. That would remove a lot of agricultural protectionism. That would be good for (most of) our farmers. Some would be worse off, but most would have less competition from subsidised US and European esports.
23 – Annabel Crabbe does a fine replacement for the great Matt P.
Socrates, thank you. If I have it right, it would also favour third world farmers more generally as well?
Boerwar
Yes, very much so. That is why delegates from countries like Brazil at the G20 were also keen to include this in the agreement. Some Australian crops that are currently protected against crops grown in the third world, eg sugar, will lose. But overall we would be far better off. There was a fear that nations would revert to protectionism during the crisis, which would make things worse.
Item 7 is really a stinging rebuke for everything that the opposition has been saying lately and endorses Rudd and Swan’s direction. Expect this to feature in QT.
Malcolm Farr – Daily Telegraph:
What don’t the journos get??? People are NOT LOOKING for a different government – they like the one they’ve got!! I’m fed up with this type of reporting and I’m annoyed that I react to it and I vow to not post another comment about hack spin because it is a pointless exercise but sheeeeesh (silent scream).
Not to mention that people rarely look for a different government so soon after voting a new one in anyway. It’s the ‘born to rule’ rubbish again really… to the journos the Libs are expected to be in power, it’s just a question of when the voters wake up to themselves and realise that they made a big mistake last year.
Malcolm Farr again:
(Part B of the last time I’m posting on bias) – these sentences bear no relation to reality on any objective or subjective basis. Finis.
You’re right Dario – I just have to remind myself of their agenda and the fact that they spent a decade being hand groomed by the LNP and the old habit of pleasing the master dies hard.
What is that tosser somking? Rudds’s in record poll territory and has been there for ages. The ALP has won something like a year and a half straight polling including an election in the middle. Seriously, Farr should get his head outside of Canberra once in a while and realise that journos are the last people who should be making those kinds of ridiculous comments. Typical BS.
A story too Farr! Dario and Entre Nous you had better get over to Farr’s blog and support him, or something. The current posts on Malcolm’s blog are getting stuck into him for being a labour stooge! This despite his description of Rudd as ‘the nerd fluent in Mandarin and gobbledegook jargon’ and ‘being no hero.’ Farr, in his responses, seemed to be enjoying the fun.
I do wonder, if not exactly a ‘hero’, how Farr does actually interpret a 48 per cent lead as PPM.
Multiple parallel universes in action here.
Meh, just the Young Liberals at work… who really cares
A final question – why bother with the expense of polling if journalists ignore the quantitative evidence and instead rely on a qualitative poll of three – usually themselves, a mate down at the pub and a random politician from the opposite side – to write the story?
Indeed Boerwar – meanwhile on ‘planet journalism’…
So they can use it as ‘evidence’ of their opinion being vindicated whenever there is a move to the Libs, even if it means ignoring any moves the other way
I’ll give Malcolm Farr points for at least answering points raised on his blog.
Shananhan gets a hiding from posters and goes awol refusing to answer.
I’m not saying I agree with Farr on much but at least his blog is a two way thing.
The whole ’same old Labor’ and ‘Labor stooge’ stuff no longer works with the new Rudd government, because when people look back to the last government, they see the Hawke/Keating governments, who gave Labor an economic reputation to envy with the long list of reforms that made Australia’s economy what it is today, whilst maintaining a social conscience and Labor values.
12 – Hang on LTEP, I’ll just adust that soap box for you. There, now go right ahead.
Given I have no idea what you’re talking about…
The ideals stuff is tired on both sides. There was a time when Liberal governments were interested in preserving individual rights, while having small governments. Hard to believe I know, after the last “Liberal” government trashed every concept of individual liberty, right to speedy trial and freedom of expression, while wallowing in the largest barrels of budgetary pork ever seen in Oz political history. Meanwhile the public service expanded to larger (in % of GDP & workforce terms) than under Hawke and Keating, despite spending less on health and education. Spending up, services down, great achievement there!
Still, Farr is right about one thing – it is hard to see a reason to switch to voting Liberal (no matter how desperately hard he tries).
ltep – you don’t remember what you wrote about at #12? You don’t know what a soap box is or the saying “getting on your soap box? Fair enough.
You can call it what you want. I call it not being blind to reality. I thought dyno had a good point on an earlier thread when he referred to some people as having their eyes screwed shut to the fact that the Government could do any wrong. Maybe if I stuck up a picture of Kevin Rudd I could be truly objective.
To those interested in the web filter debate, here’s a website that will help you see things from the Government’s perspective: http://conroylogic.com/
Reading that article about Russell Boardbent being treated like crap by the leader who then is reported to have said that are not our people!
I will remember that comment next time I see my local MP! It makes me mad when the ALP starts on class postcode based envy but when the ALP are doing that are playing to there hardcore union base for I’m sure the ALP would never be so fricken dismissing of its own heartland. thankfully we no longer have such a narrow minded tool for PM!!
For lunch I’m going tom buy a latte! with that on to the more important news.
This poll result confirms what many in here and out there in voterland have been saying for a long time and that is while things look gloomy over all the Australian economy is in good shape, Interest Rates are coming down, many Austrlains would already be planning how to spend the coming hand-outs and the Government while it has made mistakes it has actually got on with the job of Governing.
The Liberal Party are a second rate opposition and we the voters expect out pollies to be focus on the national Interest, yet what have our so-called alternative Government been doing.
Crapping on about why two different people had different forecast and who spoke with whom, while there is a real possibly of job losses and business going broke, for many years I felt it was the ALP that had no fricken idea on how to run a country but the more I listen to the Liberals, the more I see them has pathetic.
The ALP have actually impressed me thus far sure its easy to say Ithey have made mistakes but unless you can show an alternive then all you are doing is blowing in the wind, that basically sums the Liberal Party up.
These poll numbers while showing a slight narrowing as one expects for a 12 month old Government but unless the Liberal Party lifts its game it will get its just deserve.
Overall I’m a little disppointed with this G20 summit for it appears all members will be developing their own policies and the timeframe of March next year seems a long way into the future when this issue has been around now for the last 12 months.
Regarding the arguement about should the Government go into deficit, I for one don’t like deficits but looking at both the Melbourne Bust and the Great Depression the biggest mistakes made by Governments of those eras was to over cut spending and proceed with deep cuts to wages and pensions, while it makes perfect economic sense to follow that policy.
The problem is regardless of how one may view the place of the Government, the fact remains Government is the biggest spending of Money within our economic system, yes I’m familar with the events that brought down the Cain/Kirner Governments so its important the Government doesn’t just spend for the shake of spending but focus on the really needed things.
I felt Robert Gobleston (sorry about the spelling) made an excellant point in the Business Spectator about getting the Superfunds to work with Governmetn to invest in projects.
I firmly believe what this country needs is to focus on broadening its approach to how it administrators public funding beyond the normal revanue and spend manner that we normally see.
William, sample sizes:
Galaxy, 1004, http://media01.couriermail.com.au/multimedia/2008/11/081117_poll/rudd_poll.doc
ACNielsen, 1400, http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/australians-defy-global-gloom/2008/11/16/1226770256739.html
Pretty good news on the retail front, all things considered…
http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,27753,24662631-31037,00.html
Retail up!! that in itself shows the gloom mercants up! at some point I would expect a quarter of poor numbers!
44 -Ah, so you do know what I mean. Just playing the innocent ltep?
You remind me of the old socialist left in Victoria. They became the conscience of the ALP. Trouble was they expected purity (to their cause) which meant exposing every little wrong, big and small and often, even around election time. The Libs loved them.
As someone pointed out earlier no – one is perfect and no damage has been done. The issue is dead.
Dario
The retail figures are good news. Especially with the pensioners & carers bonus coming this quarter, if Christmas sales are half normal, oz should stay out of recession in 2008/09. There will still be a need for further stimulus in the second half of next year I expect.
Socrates @ 50,
Thanks for reminding me
…. courtesy of our 2 kids we’ve got 2 grand coming our way. I expect it will be deposited with the first regular payment after December 1st.
Cheers
Damn dole bludgers.
Stop sucking at the teat of hard-working Australian society and get off your arses.
Nah, I’m just jealous.
You’re welcome Juliem. That is why I think the criticism of Rudd and Swan on this is going to bite the critics. We haven’t even seen the ebenficial effects of the actions they have already decided yet. If the bonuses succeed in us having a relatively normal christmas retail period, they could well get a bounce towards Labor in December polls.
Itep:
Not so. Overuse of the words “complete fabrication”. It wasn’t so much the article (which contained one contentious issues of fact),but the hullaballoo that followed it that concerned “Labor cheerleaders”, and yourself too, if you remember.
Well I was concerned about issues before and after the publication of the article. Having said that, again, I don’t think there’s a real need to trawl through the whole debate again. Everyone will already have made their minds up about the whole issue, with most people having made up their mind that they don’t care about it at all.
I like the boy cries wolf aspect. Rather than wait for Labor to make eventually inevitable economic policy stuffups, the conservative media went for the throat right from day one of the economic crisis. This means nobody will listen to them when the wolf does show itself, and everyone will think ‘just another day’.
Looking at the break-up of the retail trade figures, there is a government that clearly deserves criticism, but it is not Rudds. It is of course, NSW Labor. The NSW economy has shown nine consecutive months of negative growth, with a full year result of -1.5% in gross spending. Take them out of the equation and the national figures are OK – yearly growth of better than 3%. But NSW (25% of the national economy) so weighs the figures down that the result looks flat. See
http://www.abs.gov.au/AusStats/ABS@.nsf/MF/8501.0
You can easily find the NSW data – just go to the State by State spreadsheet, and scroll across to the right till you hit the large negative numbers…
At the moment I think Sussex Street is doing Rudd more damage than Turnbull.
7 . Janette Howard: the interview the ABC rejected
This is an edited extract of Janette Howard’s interview with the ABC for The Howard Years. The program’s producers were unable to include any of this material:
The biggest problem with our Government was the amazing numbers of ****wits, dipsticks and ****tards in it. I said to John even before we were elected, I said to him “John,” I said, “there’s not a single ****ing brain cell between the ****ing lot of them, I’ve never seen such a pack of ***eclowns.” And he agreed.
At the first Cabinet meeting — I had to run most of them in the first few years because bloody John didn’t have a ****ing clue, he said “well Malcolm used to do it this way” and I said “I don’t give a **** how Fraser did it, what the **** did he know?” — I looked at the whole ****ing lot of them and I said “what a ****ing crew. To think you *****s are running the ****ing country. We’re going to have to do all ****ing work our ****ing selves.”
Anyway we got rid of a few of them in the first years with all those ****ing travel rorts and eventually I called a halt and said “John,” I said, “if we keep this up there’ll be no ****ing bastard left. You’ll have to promote Petro ****ing Georgiou and Wilson ****ey and I’m not having that.”
There was one person I couldn’t abide. Not Costello. I mean we hated him, smirking little ****, but I tell you the one person I could never stomach was that bloody John Fahey. I told him time after time not to ****ing smoke in Kirribilli but I’d come home and there he’d be, his feet up on the pouffe like Lord Muck watching the football, smoking like a chimney. ‘The puffer on the pouffe’ I called him. And he’d cough something terrible. Like a ****ing steam train going up a ****ing mountain. I always said one day he’d cough up a ****ing lung and eventually that’s what he did. I called him “One Lung John” after that. Silly ****wit.
By about 2001 John had started to get the hang of chairing Cabinet. The poor little dear can be a bit slow on the uptake. Sometimes he just let Tim Fischer start rambling on about some ****ing walk he’d taken somewhere in the mountains and I’d have to say “Tim, love, no one gives a flying **** about your hike or your trains or what the **** ever so just sit there quietly will you dear?” I always had to sit on the same side as Richard Alston because I couldn’t handle that man’s eyes. God. He’s like some ****ing psycho staring at you. He unnerved me, he really did, when he left Cabinet I told John that he had to be sent out of the country, I didn’t want to run the ****ing risk of ever running into him. Ugh. Creepy.
I tell you who I didn’t mind was that Kim Beazley. Kim knew his place, which was on the other side of the chamber. I said to Kim once at some do, “Kim, you’re a lovely man and I hope you lead the Labor Party forever.” He started on some ****ing anecdote about Chester A. Arthur or Ulysses S. Grant or Ward Pally Austin or some ***** and I said “enough GBH of the eardrums, Kim, it’s bad enough having to listen to that little toady Downer all day.”
Downer was forever getting in the way trying to be ob-****ing-sequious to John, I don’t know how a man that tall could get underfoot so much I really don’t. But they put in that Simon Crean and then that Mark Latham character. Don’t get me started on that ****ing Latham ****. That ****ing **** ****ing **** a ****ing ****wit **** in the *****ing ****, and I ****ing said to John ****ing ****ball ****tard should ****ing **** **** ****ward **** for the rest of the ****ing decade.” I didn’t like him.
Now I know you want to ask me about this so I’ll ****ing get right to the point. John had this absolute ****ing BRAIN SNAP in 2007 and decided he was going to quit. I’d been busting a ****ing gut on APEC all year. I was the ****ing one who did all the ****ing work for that ****ing thing, planning the ****ing security, the ****menus, the ****ing clothes, the ****ing meetings. I got no help from anyone except that nice Mr Watkins from NSW who was a pleasure to work with and handsome in a proper sort of way, I quite liked him.
Anyway, I’d worked my ****ing arse off all year and John starts whingeing “I think I should quit, they don’t want me to stay, they think they’ll lose with me.” And I hit the ****ing roof and told him he either stayed in the job or he could start looking for a couch to sleep on. And he says in this pathetic little voice “but Janette, what about the party?” And I said to him “John Winston Howard the only party you need to worry about is the one where I ****ing caught you looking at that ****ing Condoleezza Rice woman.” And he gives me these big cow eyes god bless him. Back in 1967 about he made this so-called “joke” about how “once you’ve had black you never go back.” I never forgot that. And I caught him looking at that Rice woman when we went to America one time and he was in the doghouse for a few months.
So we went to the ****ing reception and there was no more talk of resignations. And that ****ing Rice woman stayed right away from my husband. Sow.
The thing I remember most about the Howard years is work. Hard ****ing work. I couldn’t rely on the Cabinet, and most of the time I couldn’t even rely on John. I just had to bloody do it myself. In the end it was almost a relief that we lost, I was getting bone tired day after day doing it all. Politics is a really tough job.
The Howard Years (sans Janette) screens tonight on ABC1.
—
HAHAHA!
Libs ‘expected more’ from G20 summit
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/17/2421682.htm?section=justin
More what? These people just don’t understand they sometimes need to say nothing. They don’t need to comment negatively on everything.
The OO reports:
The Poison Dwarf wasn’t there was he?
Quite frankly, who cares what the Libs say
LTEP
If they expected more contradictions of everything they have said in the past year of opposition and previous terms in government – they shouldn’t worry there is plenty more in the text of the G20 summary agreement. That thing will be a gold mine for Swan and Tanner in coming days. It makes their whole scare campaign, and suggestions to have budget surpluses at all times, look quite silly. The G20 statement also highlights systemic reasons why it was easy to balance budgets AROUND THE WORLD while the Libs were in office. That will make Costello choke.
Machu Picchu is one of those places where you must visit before you die. Even my skeptical missus had to admit it was sensational. It is a journey back in time, politically, culturally, socially, historically and religiously of their glories, cruelties and inhumanities.
Yet, It is a triumph of human spirit and ingenuity. You ask yourself, how could any human beings built such beauty and in harmony with the location where the condors dare and God lives. I will go back there one day to watch the sun rises over Machu Picchu.
And Diog, you were wrong.
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=MG1TvZgf3hI
Socrates
The reason labor were re-elected in nsw at the last two election is that the punters
considered the alternative to be even worse.
In no way am i defending nsw labor but if the voters think they are going to be “saved” by fatty o’barrell and co they are in for a big shock.
The nsw fibs have a real talent in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and thats even before the right wing religious nutters start to act up.
And i have little doubt that most voters can tell the difference between state and federal issues. Some don’t of course and the likes of limited news and fib-tv will do their best to connect state and national issues.
Dave
Fair comments. I agree most voters can tell the difference between State and Federal politics. At least the non rusted-on ones can. Queensland under Beatty was a case in point. State Libs were a joke, and barely got enough seats to be called a party, while Federally I think Labor were down to 6 seats (?) out of 26 after 2004.
I suppose my post should highlight that both sides in politics need to put the broom through NSW branches. There is no rational reason why our richest, most populous and best educated State should be an economic basket case.
If voters had not been able to seperate federal & state politics then how did we end up with so many state Labor governments and a federal Liberal government for so long? It’s just silly.
In nsw the carr years particularly the 5 years or so were an example of seeking office purely for the sake of power. Not all that dissimilar from rodent clinging to power in his later years. The big difference was the money available to rodent from the mineral boom.
Again i am not defending nsw labor BUT those three magic words – vertical fiscal imbalance where the federal government has the lions share of income around 80% from memory – around that magnitude anyway and “responsibility for about 59% of total spending outlays.
The states and territories – all of them get the short end of the stick and no way was rodent ever going to make life easier for them. States rely on property stamp duty, payroll taxes and property taxes. The GST income is netted off from what the states would have previously received from the feds via so called special purposes grants etc. On top of that rodent decreased spending on hospitals from the agreed 50% down to 40%.
IF rodent had got back in last year I doubt if any state labor would have retained power
Carr needed to sell the electricity assets – the generators plus the retail. He knew it would kill him politically so he rolled over.
I wait with batted breath to see what o’barrel actually achieves if he lasts that long.
Thats just the electorate having two bob each way isn’t it ?
Same as they do with the house of reps and the senate.
I think that would be a very simplistic view
Dario @ 61 says: “Quite frankly, who cares what the Libs say”.
Now that is a fair point, Dario, and it is supported by current opinion polling information. Yet it makes me wonder why so much bandwidth capacity is expended on PB threads by posters who want to talk (often in disparaging terms) about ‘what the Libs say’.
They should be asked to explain this.
Robb and hockey were saying rudd should go there and just listen. They can’t have it both ways ? Their back to believing in the magic pudding.
On Friday, Hockey was saying he shouldn’t even go.
David, it’s called gloating, I think, and is not an activity entirely restricted to Labor supporters, although admittedly, supporters of other parties have had limited opportunities to do so of late.
Apart from over a series of state polling. Those threads can be surprisingly quiet.
Only NSW Labor is incompetent. The rest of them are reasonable, and certainly better than the alternative.
So they would be a niche opportunity for Liberal supporters to vent on PB without much fear of contradiction?
They try sometimes but they can’t seem to explain why anyone should actually vote for Lib’s other than that they aren’t Labor. It might be an interested and lively debate if someone could explain the Liberal Party’s ideas and policies to put NSW back on track.
You forgot WA, we’re now in the grips of an ego driven “alliance” of Libs and Nats led by a Premier so Vain he is insisting, according to Peter Kennedy, that they’d be referred to as “The Government”, rather than the “Barnett Government”
“They try sometimes but they can’t seem to explain why anyone should actually vote for Lib’s other than that they aren’t Labor.”
Sounds like you just described the entire Liberal Party!
Silly Libs and their ideologically-driven historical anti-socialism… when nothing could be further from the truth…
Fulvio @ 73 I agree that gloating is not limited to Labor supporters and also that the opportunities for non-Labor supporters to gloat are sparse at the moment. I thought another reason might be that barrackers for one or other of the major parties know (explicitly or implicitly) that the longevity in government of the party they support depends in part on a perception of irrelevance and/or disarray among those who sit opposite to a government. Chatter on political blogs about the hopelessness of what oppositions say and do, is one way of nourishing that perception.
If being a rabble of an opposition kept an incompetent government in power, there wouldn’t have been a change in WA government.
WA Labor showed just the way to lose an election really. I don’t think anyone would really argue the Liberals did anything amazing to win it.
80 David Charles – I think you are probably right David. I also think it’s a bit of “get back” for the time a supporters party is in opposition.
A surprise from Essential Research: they too have Labor’s lead at 55-45 in their weekly survey. This is down from 59-41 last week, and as far as I’m aware is the closest result they have thus far produced. Also featured are questions on which party is deemed best to handle various issues (huge leads to Labor on climate change, environment and industrial relations, narrow ones to Liberal on inflation, national security and economic management) and the car manufacturing industry assistance package (47 per cent approve, 35 per cent disapprove).
It’s Teh NARROWING !!!!!!!
I think these polls show that support is remains pretty solid for the Labor government, as they have since the beginning of 2007, and nothing that’s happening at the moment seems likely to change that. So I suppose we shouldn’t be entirely surprised when the media try to talk up the contest, even if they are missing the actual big story, which is of landslide polling so consistent for so long, that I’m pretty certain it’s unprecedented (anyone care to think of anything that comes close?).
Rudd & co are showing themselves to be a prudent and cautiously reforming government, and most importantly, giving the impression of being “in charge”, while the Libs are simply opposing for the sake of it, with no positive agenda being put forward. Quite simply they are not giving anyone a reason to even consider shifting their votes to them. Could be that they are looking at the same polling that we are and simply trying to keep the base fired up in tough times.
And at any rate, we shouldn’t be surprised that the Libs seem to be bereft of ideas. The mainstream Right-wing party in Australia has always been defined in opposition to Labor, since the original Fusion in 1909 of the Free Trade and Protectionist wings of the Right, uniting to feeeze out a growing Labor. The Right in Australia has always been a bit light on for policy, and their various longish periods in government have been mostly held toether by strong leadership (Bruce, Menzies 2, Faser, Howard) and/or a weak ALP (Lyons plus above). Until the next strong man comes along (and I don’t see Truffles as that man), they will continue to flounder.
Socrates,
We are going to be using part of our money to replace our laptop computer. It died on us the weekend before the US election. Mum, Dad and two kids have had to adjust to sharing one computer
. If not for this money upcoming, we wouldn’t have been able to replace it at this point in time. Given your comments above and my familys example, I think that this will be a pretty much normal Christmas period and the polls should continue their upward trends 
Hugo, very correct.
“So I suppose we shouldn’t be entirely surprised when the media try to talk up the contest, even if they are missing the actual big story, which is of landslide polling so consistent for so long, that I’m pretty certain it’s unprecedented (anyone care to think of anything that comes close?).”
Correct. See http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/the-long-view/ which has the 2pp going back decades. Rudd Labor popularity is unprecedented, in part due to the fact Howard’s extreme-rightism has made them unelectable for the next 10-20 years. Even Hawke/Keating got 13 years.
The sort of numbers I would expect from a one year old Government that has made a few mistakes and is facing large problems.
“The sort of numbers I would expect from a one year old Government” – except it has never happened before?
I don’t know where that comment came from mexicanbeemer… wishful thinking?
juliem – also rebate next financial year for comps – yaaa
bob1234, it might be happening in WA at the moment for all we know. Perhaps today’s society is more likely to stick strongly with new governments?
just saw mr workchoices on channel 10 news still rabbiting on about ‘phonegate’ one thing I noticed he appeared to be slightly slimmer, is he on a diet?, is there a challenge in the air? should truffles be looking behind his back?
So why was polling the same, or higher, during the time Rudd Labor was in opposition?
Finns
Saw the video.
Your after-Machupicchu glow is going to be dimmed somewhat in the near future. Expect a call from some very pissed off Peruvian drug-lords. I hear they are not very forgiving when they find out who’s been stealing their coke and sleeping with their women. They seem happy to make the trip to meet you. I can’t imagine who told them all those terrible things about you….
The Galaxy Poll results are (a) good results for Rudd basically but (b) not so good results either. The basic news (55%tpp) is good. The downward move is beyond MOU, and not so good. The ratings on the economy and inflation are, to put it simply, not so good, and may be an indication that the electorate may have Rudd on notice if the economy stalls. Notable is that about 15% of the electorate is sticking with green and other combined.
Can anyone explain why Rudd’s Christmas bonus is not just a shameful vote bribe from Kevin masquerading as Father Christmas? If it’s to stimulate the economy, why is it means tested? Don’t couples with children earning over $150,000 (or whatever it is) spend money at Christmas?
And before you all say “Because they don’t need it”, may I remind you that’s my point. Because they don’t need it, they will spend it and stimulate the economy. Aren’t they more likely to spend it than people earning less?
Remember a significant amount is going to pensioners who will spend it. I’m not sure about low-middle income families. I assume a significant proportion will spend it and some will save. I think the high income families/singles will spend anyway, so there’s not really a need to shore them up.
The stimulus to the economy purely comes from how much of the $1000 they spend. Thorsten Veblen would argue that the leisure class are more likely to spend that money than the working class.
I would disagree. How many pensioners get enough money to save, let alone get by?
Giving it to pensioners killed two birds with one stone. They will spend it quickly, thus boosting the economy. And they will stop complaining for a while and making bad publicity for the stingy ol’ government. No-one has much sympathy for rich people.
bob1234
I’m sure the pensioners are an excellent bet to spend it and they certainly deserve it. I’m more thinking about the families. I would think that people on higher incomes would be more likely to have a discretionary spend.
As much as I don’t understand it, what is my pensioner mother spending hers on?
A plasma widescreen.
bob1234 @ 92
I said new governments. The Howard Government wasn’t new and had long since past the terminal point, just as the NSW ALP has, and possibly Qld ALP in a year or so. My hypothesis doesn’t really hold up though if you look at the WA Liberal vote in the year or even months prior to the election, where they didn’t regularly poll great numbers. It’ll be interesting to see how long the Liberal polling holds up in WA.
Diogenes are you really wondering why the Government didn’t give money to rich people?
ltep
I know why they don’t but I’m pointing out that it’s a cynical vote buying exercise, rather than a “rescue stimulus package” and should be recognised as such.
bob, mine did exactly the same thing. who says TV is a dying medium?
Well 1. lower income will generally spend more and save less (though admittedly it’s at the margin).
2. The package cost $10b… how much do you think it would have cost if it wasn’t means tested?
3. And yes… they don’t need it lol (and I am one of them – though I do get the carers bonus)
Diogenes, it’s both at once. Since the stimulatory value is the same whoever you give it to, of course you give it to the politically most advantageous constituency. That’s not cynicism, it’s democratic politics.
HOWARD YEARS REVELATION 1: The 1996 cabinet was full of gun owners.
Dio 102 – Grog is right. Think about it in reverse – whoever is least likely to save the money is most likley to spend it. The rich are most likely to save or invest the money rather than spend it. Not only that, what they do spend is most likely to go on imported luxury goods. Hence the best way to stimulate the economy is to give the money to people with low incomes (pensioners) and high needs (families with kids). I miss out myself but I have to admit the economic logic is sound.
Diogenes, surely any expenditure by govt can be seen as a cynical vote buying excercise?
Oh geez Shows ON – I forgot!! oh well you can catch the entire episode here:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/howardyears/
I’ll give it a look tomorrow at work (lunch break of course
)
I think there might be a huge gap between the theory of how to keep an economy from falling into recession and the nasty remedies that will be required if the recession becomes reality. It would be the far lesser of two evils if recession is avoided in Australia.
Just had a check of the extra interviews of the JWH Years – Downer blames Pauline Hanson on the media and the left! – Yep they used her to attack John Howard.
Howard’s future.
http://www.iccaction.com/
It didn’t take me long. I started getting into the sick bag with the one word to describe John Howard.
WARMONGER 1
RACIST 2
LUCKY 3
Centre – I was reaching for the sick bag as soon as Downer moist eyed pointed out how much Howard “loves the flag”.
I think it is minute 2.
Well ,what I took away from Episode #1 (and I won’t be watching again… too excruciating) was that Wreith painted himself as the bewildered bloke who – far from Hitchcockiyngly “knowing too much” – knew “too little”.
It’s amazing that such an ignoramus regarding his portfolios never twigged to what was going on, ever, yet manageed to get promoted to the dizzy heights.
The Wharfies, Children Overboard, his son’s Telstra card? “Wasn’t me,” say Wreithy. “I never had a clue.”
And now he’s occupying some sinecure position on some overseas bureau, happy as Larry? If I was his boss I’d be thinking of sacking him as a happy, but total ignoramus on anything he gets involved in, if his interviews are anything to go by.
It’s clear that the Libs are still in denial. They think that telling Friendly Fran a few porkies will resurrect them in the Public’s eyes. These poor losers have a long way to go.
SNIP: See Article 2 of comment moderation guidelines.
While I am happy to defer to Adam’s extreme pragmatism, I’m not completely convinced by the economics argument. Won’t a lot of people with credit card debt put the $1000 straight into that debt. You could argue that the rich are just as likely to spend the money as the poor.
Grog
If the expenditure was targeted at increasing the PMs popularity rather than for good policy, it would be cynical.
SNIP: See Article 2 of comment moderation guidelines.
HOWARD YEARS REVELATION 2: Reith misled parliament, he DID know that Corigan was training scab labour in Dubai.
No? While that’s the sensible thing to do, it’s not what people do. That’s why year after year we get a few billion dollars more into debt.
I’m not sure if this primarily is. Yes it won’t do him too much harm (though you have to admit there isa fair block out there who think the surplus is sacrosanct), but my cynicism meter first asks if the primary aim is to increase popularity. And these measures aren’t – no election coming, popularity already doing great.
No point pump priming the economy with unpopular funding, if popular funding will do the same thing.
These measures are 100% about getting people to spend money (the Govt should send out a Harvey Norman catalogue with the money). So give them to the people who will most likley spend the most of it.
If politically that’s good, well then as Adam says, kill two birds…. Doesn’t mean the spending shouldn’t be done in the first place. If there was no economic reason for the fiscal package, then I’d be with you as a screaming cynic (or more likely sighing that Rudd = Howard)
Who thinks Labor would’ve won the 1998 election if they promised a 5% GST, and higher income taxes on people earning say over $75,000 p.a.?
Why would’ve people voted for a 10% GST when they could’ve voted for a 5% GST instead?
Thinking back to that 98 election, Howard should have been a one term PM. John Della Bosca, that loser, blew it for Beazley with his timid and ineffective campaign on the GST big time.
Actually he didn’t mislead parliament, as the other guy stated, he replied only to one part of the question, in that he didn’t know of the companies mentioned.
Labor had a stupid capital gains tax policy that didn’t help.
Well the Howard Liberals basically did lose the 1998 election. Labor won 50.98% of the 2pp, the largest 2pp without a majority of seats in history, thanks to the biggest marginal seat pork barrelling in history, and single-member electorates.
ShowsOn it was amazing enough that Labor got so close in 1998 but honestly if you have a 45 seat majority you arent going to lose.
Looking back it is amazing that the Libs did so much in their first term…and far more difficult things than Labor has done.
Who reckons its harder to sign/ratify Kyoto and say Sorry to the Stolen generation than it is to clean up the waterfront, establish the ground work for a GST and create national gun laws???
I don’t think Rudd will be too disapointed if the bribe money goes straight to the big 4 banks either – I imagine they’ve all been given a government issued hotline phone to his office in the current circumstances, and I’ll guarantee a lot more back scratching before this thing is over.
That was only ONE question he was asked on the issue. He was asked REPEATEDLY day after day about this, and denied he had any knowledge.
I remember watching the whole issue play out in question time day after day.
From the howard Years, it’s amazing how he took the good work he did on gun control and just flushed it with his no response (and I would argue – sanctioning of) Hanson. His speech in QLD on the “lifting of the pall of censorship” was a direct wink to Hanson and he supporters that he was with them.
If we’re truly trying to stimulate the economy, as Rudd is doing on a Federal level with the unexpected bonus of popularity, why is the SA Government cutting back all it’s spending projects in response to the GFC. $770M on a new prison has been shelved amongst other projects. Isn’t that going to worsen a recession. Why are the Federal Labor and SA Labor Government responses completely contradictory.
“Who reckons its harder to sign/ratify Kyoto and say Sorry to the Stolen generation than it is to clean up the waterfront, establish the ground work for a GST and create national gun laws???”
Who prefers the former to the latter?
The polls now compared to then must be a real soul-killer for you Libs
Not to mention designing a fair IR system.
Glen – if signing Kyoto and saying Sorry were so easy, why didn’t Howard do them?
True. The government in 1997 was even worse than the Fraser government. As Howard has admitted in this episode, he needed the GST so that he would have something to talk about.
You mean allow Chris Corrigan to suck the government into charging tax payers for his own companies’ redundancy pay!? GENIUS!
Interesting that you refer to giving support to a private company for sacking workers, purely because they belong to a union, as “cleaning up”. Similar to how Corrigan on the program tonight called those workers, yes the ones that give him his fat pay check through their labour, “those people”.
What? So he got elected after saying “No GST” but once in Parliament started working on it right away? That makes him a liar. Nothing less.
Ignoring the problems with the gun buyback, he did synchronise gun laws.
Saying that the only thing Labor has done is ratify Kyoto and apologise to the Stolen Generations is so stupid it’s funny. It also clearly isn’t that easy, since your almighty Howard never managed to do it.
The GST should have been explained for what it was. Another form of revenue raising for the government. There was already a SGT in place. A Selected Goods Tax.
A GST was broadened to include all goods as well as services at a flat rate. That’s it! You call that tax reform?
The majority of the extra revenue that the GST raised went into the pockets of the top-end-of-town with tax cuts. Middle income earners were conned and low income earners were screwed.
Now it’s there turn to get screwed ($10.4 billion worth).
NSW is the same. Cutting projects, laying off staff.
Yeah it is contradictory but that’s hardly the fault of the Federal government.
Just because they were easy didnt mean they were the right thing for the country.
Howard didnt feel they were good for Australia.
bob that IR system was fair, it had no-disadvantage tests with those AWAs the IR laws of 1996 essentially set up the fall in unemployment during the Howard years.
bob what this will show you is that eventually all good things must come to an end and eventually so will Rudd, politics runs in cycles and right now its nicer being a Labor supporter than it is being a Lib but that will change….
Agree 100% Shows On @ 129.
OZ i am taking about tangible things original things…Labor cant claim credit for spending the surplus that we built up to stave off a recession…sorry but you cant have that one mate!
Glen,
You want to thankful that Rudd didn’t do what Howard did literally on day one and start removing his perceived enemies. The fact that Auntie Janet was able to bring you this sickening hagiography is testament to how different the two PMs are. I’m sure that nice Mr Morris, with his incisive commentary, was a boost to you!
Sooner or later, someone (won’t be the ABC) will do a warts and all expose and the vicious, insecure, little despot and I don’t think you will enjoy it as much you are this one.
Diog,
[sleeping with their women] – no such luck in Peru mate. In Rio, no probleme as they say in Portuguese. The girls from Ipanema are just as easy as the samba beat.
You are just jealous because they know how to pay tribute to the Los Amigos even in Peru where the Ruddster is heading next week for APEC. I already left a message to the locals to ensure that they will give the Ruddster a warmer welcome than Dubya gave him. But who gives a shirt anyway with Dubya, as he is both a lame and dead duck.
As Obama is turning a Clintonite in drag, I like the kid.
Because we have a federal system.
Well not directly. The stimlus package is about getting money spent now, rather that infrastructure investemt. We need both – and by God I want infrastructure projects. I have to admit not being up to speed on the SA budget situation, but I’d wager that $770m was spread over a fair length of time. Perhaps they’re redirecting spending? I don’t know. I only have some knowledge of the Oz Govt’s package, and the reasons for it.
Plus the Oz Govt is also cutting back on spending. Not all spending is the same.
Will building a new prison stimluate the SA economy? I don’t know; not in the short term. Long term yes. But as Keynes said, in the long term we’re all dead. No point planning for the long term if a short term recession kills off any chance of long term plans.
Sure, he was just wrong.
Why not? Labor got rid of industry protection, introduced enterprise bargaining, got rid of over regulation of the financial sector that let the economy grow. That is how the surplus was eventually created.
“bob what this will show you is that eventually all good things must come to an end and eventually so will Rudd, politics runs in cycles and right now its nicer being a Labor supporter than it is being a Lib but that will change….”
Of course.
Hawke/Keating got 13 years.
Howard got 11 years.
Labor, perhaps Rudd himself, will beat Howard’s 11
Oz
I’m not blaming Rudd for this one. But there should be better co-ordination between State and Federal Governments. The stimulus money SA gets in it’s Christmas bonus is basically the same as the money saved by dumping the prison, so the net sum is zero.
I asked you some time ago to name a single Howard policy besides selling public assets that “built up the surplus”. You don’t “build” a surplus. You just sit back and watch the mining boom. Both government’s are doing/did the same thing.
So yeah, the only thing Labor has done in is sign Kyoto, apologise to the Stolen Generation and go quite some way in staving off recession. Even those WERE the only things they’ve done (which they aren’t) I’d say they’re pretty formidable and each one worth a million of ANYTHING Howard did.
Um, Labor was absolutely responsible for the budget surplus. They were the ones that moved Australia from a keynesian to a monetarist economy and implemented all the major economic reforms that allowed the budget surplus to create itself during the global economic boom 2001-2007.
MALCOLM TURNBULL: If I was going to mention the very substantial real growth in wages during the period of the last Coalition government, Paul and compare it …
PAUL KEATING: That came off my wages policy.
MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, it’s – someone’s gotta take credit for everything, I guess.
PAUL KEATING: Well, I’m quite happy to take most of it.
…
PAUL KEATING: One of the key rules of public life, Malcolm, is you cannot think aloud in public about the deposit base of the country’s savings. You did this.
MALCOLM TURNBULL: So it’s all my fault.
PAUL KEATING: No, no, well a lot of it’s yours. They started taking money out of the smaller banks.
MALCOLM TURNBULL: This is the only thing you haven’t taken credit for tonight.
PAUL KEATING: Well, mate, I’ve made you rich. I can take credit for that.
MALCOLM TURNBULL: (inaudible), there you go. And what about all these people? Did you make them rich too?
PAUL KEATING: Most of them, yeah.
Roy if you dont think Rudd is the control freak Howard was you are quite foolish i am afraid.
If anything it is critical of Howard and sympathetic towards Costello.
Rudd didnt need to do that because Howard picked department heads based on merit rather than getting yes men in as Keating did (as shown by Ken Henry attacking the Government in 2007).
That all of you are critical of every single thing Howard did shows you to be partisan hacks. Unless you can give credit where credit is due your comments are worth discussing on this blog. Even i can name things, Whitlam, Curtin, Chifley, Hawke and Keating did that were good for the country but you cannot and when you make the exception and do you claim they were only half right…
I said “both”, Rudd/Howard.
Unfortunately, Keating did not get to see the surplus’ that were the creation of his reforms and us flogging bits of rock to the Communists.
ummm bob1234 who paid off Labor’s 96b in debt???
Howard did and if he hadnt Rudd would have $0 to spend right now!
Thats because some of the policy coming out of Whitlamn, Curtin, Hawke and Keating was brilliant.
They weren’t lying, racist, divisive, disgusting little rodents.
Still waiting for an answer…
The VERY best thing about fran kelly’s drivel tonight is that it is history.
That monster rodent has double wooden stakes in his heart (his government & his seat) and politically he is toast.
His denial of costello is also a bonus for labor because from the way costello now tells things, costello comes across (to me anyway ?) as a lot more believable than rodent. Costello MAY have been a good PM. Big call i concede but the comment is made against the background of what a so and so rodent was.
The rodent years were just about the rodents hate of people who were not like him.
pity Howard and Costello (ok Howard mostly) wasted the company tax that fuelled those surpluses.
“ummm bob1234 who paid off Labor’s 96b in debt???”
All Western Countries went in to massive debt during the global recessions of the late 80s/early 90s. When Howard left office, he did with 16 years of positive growth.
Hold on, he was only in power for 11 years!
Howard just sped up the process of paying it off through cuts in all sectors of the economy, and the global economic boom 2001-2007.
You know, for an economic rationalist, you certainly don’t seem to understand how economies and free markets work!
Decided to give Fran Kelly’s, no doubt massively over hyped, Howard self-justifying wank a miss, but made the mistake of flicking through the channel just as the ex Lord Lunchalot was telling how the only time his master chastised him was not,as you’d expect, for making an unholy mess of the lead up and aftermath of the Timor independence vote, or his gross incompetence (I’m being generous) in the Hussein bribery scandal, or the tardiness in helping Aussies get out of Lebanon, and probably many more stuff ups we didn’t get to hear about, but for having a go at Pauline Hanson. Which tells you just about all you need to know about John Winston Howard and his government.
Forget the thousands of Timorese lives lost, or the millions donated to a murderous thug we were about to go to war against, those are mere triflings of no import. But ticking off a, IMO, cunning harridan using racism to line her own pockets was apparently beyond the pale in Howard World. SIGH!
Glen, Howard got rid of most guns. Great policy.
If you want to take credit for your budget in 96, we will take credit for ours in 08.
The difference is that Rudd/Swan made real savings. Your mob cut everything that moved!
Except helicopters!
Bought lots of of them. Shame they didn’t work.
Greatest PM alright.
Well, why is it that Costello has all these big principals AFTER THE FACT? Sure he hit out against Hanson before Howard did (who didn’t?), but why wasn’t Costello taking the tough calls at the time? Why is he only a hero in the documentary afterward?
!!!!!! How did Henry’s pay go last year Glen?
You think Howard sacking 9 Departmental heads had anything to do with merit? It meant do my bidding or get the flick (or if it would be too close to an election to do that, I’ll just dock you pay).
151 diogenes, SA might just be rearranging their priorities and shifting the money around to where they will get more economic stimulus for the dollars spent. Queensland is bringing down a mid year budget review in the next week or so. It will be interesting to see if this is basically in line with what Rudd is trying to achieve.
There is also a Local Government summit on in Canberra this week with mayors from around the country meeting with the Federal Government and I’d be surprised if some form of economic stimulus is the flour of the month there also.
So Cossie and Howard didn’t get it off from day 1. And Cossie still wouldn’t challenge.
What can you say about Cossie, fair dinkum, if he ever wanted a sex change, he’d only be up for the cost of a couple of implants LOL.
162 MF – my thoughts exactly. And Downer almost thought it funny.
Howard agreed with Hanson. There is no reason to think otherwise. He comes out 7 months after to say she’s wrong? Horse bolted; gate swinging open.
Yes, but could Cossie really have been as blind as he always makes out?
Howard leads a round of applause for Reith and the waterfront, but doesn’ t mention the hard yards Cossie put in on the GST; Howard gazumps Cossie at a press conference Cossie called to announce the GST, hogging the limelight and leaving Cos talking to an empty gallery; Cossie puts Hanson last on his HTV and gets a dressing down (etc etc…all of which we know because Cossie or his mates tell us…) and Cossie still expected that Howard was going to hand him the leadership one day?
Reminds me of Annabel Crabb’s comparison of PC to one of those hopeful women who think that the reason the boyfriend hasn’t called is that he’s planning some extravagant romantic gesture to sweep her off her feet…when in fact he hasn’t called because he doesn’t want to talk to her.
Did Peter think that Howard was ‘testing’ him with all these slights and that, if he proved his devotion, he’d one day get thrown the bone?
(PS nice to see that REITH got invited to Kirribilli…and what an insight that Janette’s approval of him meant more than that of cabinet…)
See as i expect most of the posters on pollbludger are hacks…
The man was PM for 11.5 years and you have not one policy you think was good and you continue to use disrespectful terms to name him (rodent), and your childish excuse that Brandis said it doesnt justify your childish name calling of an Australian Prime Minister. It really is beneath you people.
Ahhh big difference Centre we had a 9b deficit and you had a 20b dollar surplus
nice try.
No they cut everything they hated ideologically.
“Howard agreed with Hanson. There is no reason to think otherwise. He comes out 7 months after to say she’s wrong? Horse bolted; gate swinging open.”
Not to mention what he said to that guy afterward, shown on The Howard Years.
Something along the lines of ‘There, you happy? I gave the stupid speech”
steve
Sounds more like Foley’s battening down the hatches.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,24576403-5006301,00.html
The more i watch Cossie, the more sorry i feel for him. he is looking a very tragic figure.
Have already said the gun control was excellent. Cancelled out though by his Hanson reaction (or lack thereof).
I’m with you on that. KRUdd is stupid, so is rodent. (Not a fan of Fibs either).
The next time you refer to your precious’ surplus without explaining WHAT HE DID I will force you to have sex with him.
The ABC should have simply handed over the money for the doco to the Liberal Party of Australia and let them chose the producer, the interviewer etc and to then allow the final product to go through Liberal quality control.
Hang on… maybe that’s exactly what the ABC did.
Costello and Beazley were two great politicians never to become PM and that is sad IMHO.
Tougher gun laws.
As a proportion of GDP, the deficit was lower when Labor left power, than when Labor came to power in 1983.
Who can’t accept the he just wasn’t good enough for the top job.
That award goes to Bob Brown.
“Sounds more like Foley’s battening down the hatches.”
No matter. SA Labor seems to like the ‘rack em, pack em, stack em’ policy.
Glen,
it is not fair to lump Kimbo with Cossie. At least Kimbo tried and Cossie never did.
What is being dished out is exactly what the rodent dished out for those 11.5 years to people he regarded as enemies who stood in his way.
Take a hike sunshine
Not to mention Beazley gained 50.98% of the 2pp in an election. Costello didn’t even fight an election.
No.
Bob Brown is a left wing radical and is while he is an champion of the environment he does not represent the wider community.
The Howard Years – at least it’s got a happy ending.
Costello was never in the position to be the leader not with someone like Howard in there to be absolutely fair Fins.
Plus Costello was Deputy leader for a decade.
Beazley was leader on and off for a decade.
Kimbo probably would have won in 2007 anyway.
Glen, the real truth is that Beazley blew it. Howard was too greedy and Cossie had no ticker. But it dosen’t matter because Rudd will prove to be better than all of them.
True, but you always need to preface that with the One Nation 8% that was directed away from sitting candidates…
But yes Cossie didn’t get there. He has only himself to blame and curse.
Beazley was a bad opposition leader, but would’ve been a very good PM IMO. I don’t think Cossie would’ve been a good opposition leader either. His only way to PM was the Keating route – he needed to be in the job first before going to an election.
Latham on the other hand was a good opposition leader, but would’ve been a God awful PM.
Centre that is your opinion and a naive one at best considering Rudd hasnt even been in power for 1 year let alone 11.5 or 13? Let us be the judge on how good he has been for the nation when he leaves the stage and the lights go out.
People are smart enough to vote for themselves, who follows the how to vote ticket? Especially of a minor party?
We wouldnt need How to Vote cards if we had the democratic voting system of First Past the Post but nooooo the Nationalists stuffed things up and brought in preferential voting….
“ummm bob1234 who paid off Labor’s 96b in debt???”
by selling off telstra for 60+ billion and hacking into the budget re uni/health/etc…
truly brilliant!
Yes, but in 98 the ALP primary vote went up 1.38%. The Dems went down 1.63%. The Greens went down 0.78%. And yet the ALP 2PP went up 4.61%.
If how to vote cards don’t matter, why do they matter so much to every single party every single election?
“Yes, but in 98 the ALP primary vote went up 1.38%. The Dems went down 1.63%. The Greens went down 0.78%. And yet the ALP 2PP went up 4.61%.
If how to vote cards don’t matter, why do they matter so much to every single party every single election?”
Errr, because both parties supporters had ppl putting One Nation first?
If someone had planned on voting Labor, a HTV card wouldn’t have made them vote One Nation then Liberal, or vice versa…
Glen at 186 wrote:
It is a matter of perspective. Liberals call him and the Greens radical, but to his followers he is probably quite moderate. Howard, on the other hand, called himself an (economic) radical:
John Howard, Sydney Morning Herald, 18 December 2004
http://www.smh.com.au/news/federal-election-2007-news/prime-mover/2007/11/19/1195321650843.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
Given SerfChoices as radical IR, I’m not about to argue with him on that.
Glen how do you honestly think Turnbull is going? Without bias I really think he’s a lightweight. Nelson also was so disappointing. I reckon if Cossie doesn’t lead the party they could lose by upto 50 seats next election.
“We wouldnt need How to Vote cards if we had the democratic voting system of First Past the Post but nooooo the Nationalists stuffed things up and brought in preferential voting….”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swan_by-election,_1918
Labor would have dominated Australian politics if the Nationalists (conservatives) didn’t move to preferential voting. The Country Party vote came from the conservative vote.
You might not like preferential, but i’m sure you wouldn’t like historical Labor domination either.
I’m not even sure why he doesn’t like it. He keeps saying it gives people two votes, but that’s nonsense. It gives everyone a vote, unlike FPP which often excludes a majority of the electorate.
The Libs lost 4.83%; the Nats 2.91% (7.74%). One Nation’s primary was 8.43%
So effectively all of it’s primary came from the Libs and Nat. The ALP voters didn’t go to One Nation.
And if you are simply not liking it now for the fact Greens votes come 80% from Labor over Liberal, bear in mind the left minor party vote has only expanded because of the way preferential allows a ‘double vote’.
I know I would have voted for Labor rather than the Greens if we didn’t have preferential.
I’m betting you ain’t Robinson Crusoe there.
Anyhoo enough muttering over the Howard years for me. ciao
gawd, peter reith! e musta sunk more piss than me cos e couln’t remember a fing that ‘appened all the time e was in, what a plonker. giz a pint luv….
“The Libs lost 4.83%; the Nats 2.91% (7.74%). One Nation’s primary was 8.43%
So effectively all of it’s primary came from the Libs and Nat. The ALP voters didn’t go to One Nation.”
Hahaha, stop thinking so simplistically. One Nation’s prefs went 56% to the coalition, 44% to Labor. You’re thinking in gross swings, not net swings. If the Greens go up 3%, Labor steady, coalition down 3%, would you say that’s 3% that went from coalition to Green? NO! Put oversimplistically, 3% went from coalition to Labor, and 3% from Labor to greens. So the net swing for this theoretical situation is 0% for Labor. But that doesn’t mean the pool of voters has changed!
Turnbull is going better than Nelson would have been at this stage and while i couldnt predict the outcome of 2010 we mostly see 1st term governments relected but that doesnt mean Turnbull wont be PM one of these days.
I think Turnbull is good for us we needed a leader.
Granted he’s made mistakes but so do all opp leaders and he’s on a hiding to nothing considering he’s having to back up after the defeat of the 11.5 years of Liberal Government.
What i want from Turnbull more than anything is policy. Lest he become like Beazley and oppose everything and propose virtually nothing. I cant see the Liberals going backwards in 2010 but i cant really see us winning either who knows what will happen.
No they wouldnt have Bob because the conservatives would have merged and been unbeatable…that’s what happened in Canada…
The example you use is an extreme case and this happens but that is democracy.
Fact is id rather 1PPV…i dont think it would favour anybody but it would cut the minor parties out of the loop and thats a good thing.
OZ i am saying that some votes count more than once.
You vote for Labor or the Liberals and thats counted once.
You vote for the Greens its counted as a Green vote then it is given to another Party…hence it has counted twice when my vote only counted once!
Ill bet if we were in the 1950s/60s and the DLP was helping us win you’d be against preferential voting lol!
“What i want from Turnbull more than anything is policy”
Well, I would agree with that.
“No they wouldnt have Bob because the conservatives would have merged”
Why would they have merged? They split. Thus why they brought in preferential, because at that time it Labor vs anti-Labor. The Nationalists (conservatives) and the Country Party were then able to compete each other without losing votes.
The Nationalists would have lost government and Labor would have won, if preferential wasn’t brought in by the next federal election at the time.
“You vote for the Greens its counted as a Green vote then it is given to another Party…hence it has counted twice when my vote only counted once!”
But if the Greens are on the 2pp (like Melbourne or Mayo), then it’s only counted once. If you were in Melbourne in 2007, and voted Liberal, your vote would have been counted more than once. That’s a democracy!
Yes but that is undemocratic…either way bob1234.
Also that happens very rarely and the fact that it has to happen at all is undemocratic.
PV is crap bring back FPTP!
“Fact is id rather 1PPV…i dont think it would favour anybody but it would cut the minor parties out of the loop and thats a good thing.”
Depends. What we are referring to is the lower house, the Senate as reformed for 1949 allows minor parties representation, via the single transferrable vote. And we all know the minor parties have their reps in the upper and not the lower.
So reverse what the Nationalists did! Wouldn’t make a hoot of difference!
Actually it is worse that that! Every time there is a recount the gap widens even more! Clearly something must be done…
No, what is undemocratic is non-preferential forms of voting. If 40% want a right candidate and 60%, via two candidates evenly, want a left candidate, more people want a left candidate, but in first past the post, the 40%er would win.
And again Glen, the guy in your avatar would be next to forgotten in history with first past the post. Chifley would have won 1949 and Menzies would have been booted.
Rudd Labor has had a fairly good first year especially as they have been in the wilderness for 11 years.
So you really have to give Rudd a lot of credit from going from being made Opposition Leader, blitzing and really playing with Howard’s mind, in a brilliant election performance it must be said. And hitting the ground running from day one getting stuck into everything, making himself well known in other countries and when hit with a generational economic disaster acted firmly and quickly and remains on the ball.
For a first year compared to his predecessors Rudd deserves some high marks despite somethings not working out to plan, as you would expect and considering that much of the media has been rabidly trying to undermine him. But the people still have a high level of confidence in him. So really its congratulations to Rudd, the apprenticeship is over, you would expect them to improve from here and do the right things with economy.
Geoffrey Robertson for President!
Essential Research 55/45 must be an outlier given the other polls show a different movement.
SNIP: Offensive comment deleted – The Management.
No, your Green vote is “excluded”. It isn’t counted as anything. If they haven’t got a high enough primary vote, then you scratch them off the ballot paper and count the next one down.
The system is far more democratic than FPP which gives certain voters ZERO votes. You can’t keep ignoring that.
So I take it you didn’t enjoy the program John?
Thomas Paine @ 218
I would mostly agree, but he has dropped the ball on CC. If that is not fixed, nothing much else will matter. In a 100 years there will be a one sentence condemnation of Howard. It will not be about what a self-inflated power hungry little opportunist he was. It will be this: ‘He had the opportunity to do something significant about climate change and instead worked against initiatives taken by others.’
Glen @ various
Turnbull badly needs to take a deep breath, stop his reflexive negativity, reform the Liberal Party, get a good body of wets inside the broad church, and develop some policies.
The rest of us need it to keep Rudd on his toes.
What do you think the chances are of Turnbull changing his ways?
Former Federal Liberal MP Kym Richardson has withdrawn from being a candidate in the next S.A. election, because he is probably going to be charged with impersonating a police officer, and of obstructing justice:
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,24666895-5006301,00.html
Remarkably, according to Clinton Porteous, in the Courier Snail, “motorists are venting their anger at the Federal Government over petrol prices – even though the price of fuel is plunging.” Note the words “venting their anger”. He uses this poll to prove it. Spot the beat up.
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24665186-952,00.html
Clinton, you are a knob
So they are venting their anger now that prices are much lower and not when they were at a peak and after the Libs blocked fuelwatch.
So there we go another story the sole purpose of which is to attack Rudd.
They could save their readers lots of time by just using a few words; “Rudd, Boo” That gets their essential message across without the faking.
Speaking of Labor In Power, here is a clip of the opening segment. The Narrator sounds suspiciously like Fran Kelly – though I could be wrong.
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=9QfS_I-4wd4
“but he (Rudd) has dropped the ball on CC”
No Rudd definitively has not Politcs & economics worldwide has been changed
12 months ago , it appeared th pro Kyoto mark 11 Hillary would be POTUS …AND there was no Wall Street meltdown …..with momentum for 25% by 2020 that th EU , Japan , Canda etc were committed to
Coppenhagen IPPPCC 2009 does not look promising with non committed Kyoto POTUS and particularly World econamys heading towards recession Garnaut has argued that whilst a majority public wants us to go alone on CC emmissions , it would be econamic suicide for ‘oz’ , so we ar ‘relying” on Coppenhaggen…don’t hold your breath after unravelling th Coppenhaggen Media release “spin”
Geo Politicaly Kyoto has been , th EU , ‘oz’ , Japan , Canada etc all pro Kyoto having been playing shadow boxing VS Russia (selfish) , India & China (rightly expecting th required Kyoto protocol’s initial emmission concessions as developing countries , otherwise ambivalant) etc ….AND th USA (previuosly unknown whether a pro Kyoto POTUS in 2008 would win)….suspect th price of Obama’s win whatever else he achieves , may be realistic 2009 Kyoto CC outcomes as he is likely to tip th Geo Political scales against Kyoto by not agreeing to China & India protocol concessions forcing them to sit pat , with Russia smiling selfishly
Not one Obama suporter was ever interested in this possible scenario , well politcaly it may happen , hope not Fact is there is a masive disincentive for thems to act…better to leave problem & there Counties econamic costs to th Leader after them , is desired thinking
Take your choiuse who to blame , but I’d put it squarely at Russia and th USA ….and certainly not Rudd seeing th world has since changed , Rudd is blameless for subsequent world “events” & is acting responsibly via Garnaut’s latest recomendations , although expect Rudd to still try to bring in a worthy RET scheme to mitigate Not one oif those “allies” or enemkys at end of day will giv a damn about ‘oz against there self interest
might add , China , India & Russia ar presently IN Kyoto having ratified it , USA has NOT and th new POOTUS like th old one does NOT want to either , making Kyoto’s future almost a UN shell talk feast , some progress but unsatisfactory …rather than th required reel progress
“PV is crap bring back FPTP!”
especially where there is a three cornered contest between Labor, Libs and Nats
Here here, old bouy!
Was interesting watching the section on the wharf dispute. I actually got out and spent some time on the picket lines during that. Seems from tonights program that at the time Rieth and Howard were telling a lot of porkies to parliament and the media. How different would Australia be now if they MUA had followed up on the conspiracy trial in 98?? Howard would have been gone, and likely his government with him. Still, MUA had to do the right thing by their members at the time. It was good to see that Rieth at least blabbed enough so that its now a matter of record that he and Howard lied to just about everyone at the time. Silly man.
Howards tacit support for Hansens positions on asian immigration and his attempts to subvert Wik still disgust me.
As said before on this blog, the best thing about it is that its history. Howard, by losing the election AND his seat has gone down in history as one of the most comprehensivley rejected PM’s in our history. Until the Fibs (very appropos after watching tonights show!!) actually get that and really understand why they lost (their policies were shite and people hated them, and they were too willing to submit to a little dictator that the people also hated) they aint coming back.
No 86
I find it hard to believe the Rudd Government could be construed as a reforming government at this early stage, given the comparably radical changes that occurred in Howard’s first term. Rudd’s first term has been very tame.
yes GP that’s because little Johnny was a stain on our country’s land
No 152
What absolute rubbish. I can’t believe you’re saying that signing Kyoto and saying Sorry is worth a million times more than ending the unproductive monopoly on the waterfront, slashing a 9 billion deficit, reforming national gun laws that have made Australians safer and so forth.
At the end of the day, Rudd will be remembered for building up one of the biggest surpluses on record and holding the record for spending it in the shortest amount of time!
No 157
That is the most disgusting pieces of prose I’ve read in a long time.
No 176
Howard’s lethargic response to Hansonism can hardly have cancelled out his gun reforms. Hanson engaged in racist piffle, but at the end of the day she did not supersede the necessary gun laws that prevented senseless massacres at the hands of gun-wielding madmen.
No 195
Yeah, unfortunately when you have a wasteful PM like Paul Keating (who lied about the state of the budget), essential programmes require slashing.
Diogenese @ 151
The answer is simple. The federation is not a strength but a hideous weakness. Time to get rid of all those wasteful states and territories. They are well past their use-by date, as their behaviour in a real crisis amply demonstrates.
Ron @230
I didn’t buy the Howard cop-out and I don’t buy the Rudd cop-out.
Australians are either first or second per capita carbon polluters. Rudd has done nothing practical to change this. Ergo, he has dropped the ball on what he could actually do, rather than on what he actually can’t do.
GP @ 238
‘Howard’s lethargic response to Hansonism’. LOL. Beauty. You must have enjoyed creating that one!
Howard must have been having a busy day at the office on other things if what he did to Hansonism was ‘lethargic’. He stroked it, co-opted it and made it his very own, with vastly improved dog whistles, and the classic Howard ‘It wasn’t me, I wasn’t there, I didn’t say that, and nothing happened.’ framework’. He was a class ‘act’, all right.
No 241
Per capita emissions are meaningless. What matters is the actual total volume of emissions and by that measure Australia’s contribution is minuscule.
Dio “Why is the SA Government cutting back all it’s spending projects in response to the GFC , $770M on a new prison has been shelved”
To avoid a recession using duopoly spending econamics
.
th $770 million from shelving th Prison gets spent on th poor and pensioners who will spend it , which boosts demand
.
th $770 million from shelving th Prison , ALSO means more convicts on th streets , convicts steal , then spend , which boosts demand
.
listen to this Amigos video for th econamic references from th “knowledge trees” shown
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=MG1TvZgf3hI
SNIP: Unconstructive comment deleted – The Management.
little johnny was a giant stain on our great proud land
No 245
Can we also have No 246 removed for continued “non-constructive-ness”
GP @243
Ah, a per capita consumption denialist! PCC is meaningful because only a global solution will work, and no global solution will even get off the ground while absurdly wealthy per capita contributors continue to pollute at globally extreme levels.
Ergo, first step is to get our own house in order. There is plenty we can do which will either have neutral or even positive long term effects on the economy. The trouble is that Howard has conditioned the Australian public to think the opposite, and Rudd has done virtually nothing to disabuse them of same.
Per capita pollution is meaningful. (Golly, it is easy to get used to the style of this sort of thing).
#247: Notwithstanding that Mr Hat is a racist son of a bitch, I’m letting him off with a warning because he’s new here.
No 248
It may be meaningful in terms of securing global agreements, but in the end, it is meaningless. Australia is a minnow in terms of emissions when compared to China and the United States – action is required in those two economies any real change is to occur.
GP @ 238
Gun reform was an outstanding example of what Howard could have achieved had he been a somewhat different person.
GP @ 248
I think we are agreed that it is ‘meaningful’ in terms of securing global agreements. That is meaningful enough for me to make it worthwhile to pursue unilaterally.
Also agreed that if the major absolute pollutors (I believe China recently made it to number one by some counts) need to be in the cart for it to work.
No 251
??? Howard achieved gun reform! What on earth are you talking about?
GP @251
me bad
Gun reform, which he did achieve, was an outstanding example of what Howard could more generally have achieved had be been a somewhat different person.
No 254
I still don’t understand what you’re saying. Why would he need to be a different person?
GP @ 255
He could have made Australia a socially cohesive society. He could have made history a search for truth, rather than a handmaiden of his truth. He had the status and the nous to do something significant on climate change. He could have fundamentally strenghtened Australia’s research infrastructure. He could have helped prevent the Iraq war. He could have halted the decline in Australian biodiversity. He could have… but he did not.
I am thoroughly aware that you will say that he did wonders by transferring risk to individuals, did wonders by introducing the GST, did wonders by helping the unions on their path self-destruction, et cetera, et cetera. You would say that he was wonderful because he used his skills so well. I would say that he simply wasted them. Our starting and finishing points are fundamentally different.
No 256
Boerwar, you are trying to confuse or create a dichotomy between social cohesion and political conviction. Politics requires you to stand for something, not for nothing. You can’t be all things to all people and those that try will be voted out of office.
GP @ 257
Your assertion creates some interesting propositions for consideration.
The first is that Howard was a conviction politician. While there were clearly some major themes in his political life, it is arguable that towards the end he was willing to subordinate these to his major personal aim, which was power. Probably the most important arguable case in point was his abandonment of fiscal responsibility.
Then there is the implied proposition that conviction poltiticians cannot mediate their convictions in such a way as to be inclusive rather than exclusive. I suggest that it is possible, and that it requires both compromise and what might be called ‘public stance’. We know that Howard was willing to compromise to achieve his objectives, so no real argument there. However, the ‘public stance’ is probably an area where there will continue to be debate. On the one side are those who say that he said or implied what they thought and felt and made them feel good about it. On the other are those who say that he unnecessarily dog-whistled his way on issues relating to race, both external and in relation to Indigenous issues, and asylum seekers. Our views might well diverge here, the ground is contested, but the basic proposition, that conviction necessarily equals inflexibility with respect to inclusiveness, is probably untenable.
GP time for beddy byes here. Thank you for your posts, and will repond to your reply, if any, tomorrow.
I disagree that Howard was fiscally irresponsible. After all, the ACTU rioted on parliament house when his Government attempted to balance the budget! Paul Keating went to the 1996 election telling everyone that the budget was in surplus when in fact it was $9 billion in debt. So those in the ALP camp can hardly claim to be the new barons of fiscal responsibility when they were the ones that expunged it from the annals of prudent government when last in office.
Yes, I accept that spending did rise in Howard’s fourth term, but the Government was still running healthy surpluses and delivering tax cuts and jobs growth, as well as delivering on social programs.
Whilst Rudd delivered a significant surplus, he did so in large part due to increases in taxation, instead of cutting more expenditure. He then tarnished his mantra of fiscal responsibility by placing an unlimited guarantee on deposits, exceeding a trillion dollars. He then spent $10 billion on pensions. He then announced another wasteful bail-out of the local automobile industry.
I again disagree. Howard did not dog-whistle anyone. It is a false accusation made by those on the left who want to portray Howard as a racist bigot in total ignorance of the fact that Australia’s foreign immigration reached record numbers whilst Howard was in office; in total ignorance of the fact that his electorate had a sizeable proportion of foreign immigrants; in total ignorance of the fact he helped hundreds of Sudanese people, gravely affected by the ongoing violence in Sudan, to find homes in Australia…and so on and so forth.
On Indigenous issues, there have been mistakes on both sides. That said, the NT intervention, whilst coming late in his last term, will be remembered as one of the most decisive, and meaningful, actions to change the plight of indigenous people in Australian history. The left will scorn him for suspending the racial discrimination act and accuse him of being racist, but they will do so in total ignorance of the real help that the Intervention is providing to indigenous people on the ground. Help that probably should have arrived 30 years ago….but help that is there, finally, at last.
WOW….who would have thought Philip Adams would turn over a new leaf and support free markets:
All hail the free market
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24666029-5013491,00.html
GP they definitely didn’t heavily promote the fact they were increasing immigration did they? Also, remember Andrews shameful tirade against Sudanese refugees in the last term?
The intervention is not useless, just ill conceived and poorly rolled out. I’d be interested to know what good you think it’s done. I’d also be interested to know how positive it’s been for Indigenous people to be branded child sex offenders. The proportion of child sex abuse that is found will be interesting in justifying the action that’s been taken. The whole action, of course, used Conroy logic. That is, if you oppose any part of the intervention you support child sex abuse and hate children.
Dio,
See my #696 US thread. Bill may yet prove to be our saviour
“the ACTU rioted on parliament house”
GP and damaged a single door I believe. I’ve seen thunderstorms cause bigger damage than the beatup of the Murdoch Press and Howard Government’s ‘Riot’ at parliament House.
GP @ #255
Thanks for that, I enjoy a good laugh before breakfast.
This is actually starting to get funny:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24668030-5007133,00.html
“The Opposition could use this to revive the issue when the Prime Minister returns to Australia today.”
I think the time has come for the Opposition to ditch some of the ad hoc advice being bandied around by the Murdoch Press. It is becoming an embarrassment to the Liberal Party.
It seems that Russia, Saudi Arabia,Mexico,South Africa now feel safer than Australia as without the photo on the web site the USA will not come and save us from attack.By,those Howard Huggers in the Whitehouse are still sore that “Th man of steel” was kicked out by the Australian people.
ltep
I’d also be interested to know how positive it’s been for Indigenous people to be branded child sex offenders. The proportion of child sex abuse that is found will be interesting in justifying the action that’s been taken.
As I understand it, very little sex abuse has been found and if anyone has been charged it’s been kept very quiet.
OTOH, a much greater well documented child abuse problem keeps getting ignored only rarely getting a brief media mention. Like this one:
Guess there are few votes/circulation boosts in bashing whitees, eh?
oops,
By should be Boy.
some unexpected praise for Rudd.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,24668447-5005962,00.html
Former member for Kingston and candidate for the state seat of Mawson at the next election, Kym Richardson, has stepped down from his campaign amidst revelations he faces charges for impersonating a police officer.
I’m not sure if it’s been raised already but today’s Herald Sun reveals further details of the Galaxy Poll.
Figures: Total | ALP/Coalition
Gone too far 12 | 2/28
Got it about right 40 | 57/23
Not done enough 32 | 27/32
Don’t know 16 | 14/17
Figures: Total | ALP/Coalition
Postpone 25 | 19/39
Stay with timetable 41 | 50/34
Introduce sooner 21 | 20/14
Don’t know 13 | 11/13
as i whizzed past the cane toad’s column in my morning forays the headline seems to be inferring the ABC is skewed towards labor after the airing of The Howard Years, dunno what planet he’s on, no i didnt get a link, i didnt want to go in and open up that pit of slimy bile–it’s too soon after breakfast.
JB @ 271
Unexpected, particularly given that Fran (I authorise this message) Kelly was asking the questions.
No 262
The Little Children are Sacred report outlined egregious stories of child abuse.
And it doesn’t exist in other communities? Do you think Aboriginal people are more likely to sexually abuse children?
No 277
No, not at all. All I’m saying is that the problem is more acute and disproportionate in Northern Territory communities.
Egregious in the sense of “outstanding” or egregious in the sense of “unnecessary”, GP?
Disproportionate in comparison to exactly which communities? Can I see the figures you’re usuing for this assumption?
No 279
Here we go again….egregious in the sense of “extraordinarily bad”
No 280
http://www.apo.org.au/linkboard/results.chtml?filename_num=166250
I thought it was just a knee jerk reaction to the latest report they had GP. I’d be surprised if it was any better/worse or different to anywhere else.
No 280
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/the-hidden-shame-of-the-nts-camps/2007/07/06/1183351460448.html?page=fullpage
How many more links do you want before you start realising how acute the problem is in the NT? Partisan hackery doesn’t solve the problem and kudos to Rudd for continuing the policy.
No 283
In the Age article that I provided, it was said that the rate of STDs in Aboriginal children is 25 times higher than the national average.
284 Show me a report into child abuse that produced substantially different results GP.
GP, since the intervention has there been a marked decrease in the amount of child sex abuse?
You still haven’t answered my question as to what communities you are comparing these figures to. How do the figures compare to, for instance, low income areas? Are there similar figures in relation to domestic violence in low income areas or in areas with high migrant populations? If so, should measures be taken targeting these communities, for instance quaranting of welfare, banning of alcohol and pornography etc.
That’s not what “egregious” means as I already told you.
No 289
Sorry Adam, but every modern dictionary that I have read states that a common definition of “egregious” is “extraordinarily bad”. If you wish to continue your petulant disregard for that fact, then so be it.
Geoffrey Robertson for President!
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2422192.htm
290 Sorry GP but every report into child abuse from anywhere in this century tells the same story. The only difference here was the proximity of an election.
If the problem was so important, why did Howard do nothing about it for a decade?
The question is does “extraordinarily bad” equate to “extraordinary in some bad way; glaring; flagrant: an egregious mistake; an egregious liar.” I’m not so sure it does.
Adam and GP
I think you are both egregiously wrong. In common use, egregious means something more like flagrant. The “outstanding” meaning is archaic. The stories themselves are not egregious, but the child abuse is.
Therefore, “stories of egregious child abuse” would be better, but I think even that could be accused of being a tautology.
Ronster
You are an out and out genius.
No 293
Why did Keating do nothing about it for 13 years?
What benchmarks were set to measure the success of the intervention GP?
1) Because there was a bipartisan consensus to do nothing about it.
2) Whenever the Labor government spent money on programs specifically for Aboriginals, the opposition used it as a wedge issue to provoke racial animosity.
“What benchmarks were set to measure the success of the intervention GP?”
The re election of Howard and Brough apparently.
Benchmarks!?
The Howard government didn’t even BUDGET for the $850 million it cost IN THE FIRST SIX MONTHS!
Is question time on today?
Glen, only if Rudd is being questioned by the local government delegation.
GB, that would be the sanest Question Time of the year so far.
I hardly think it is fair to say that Fraser praising Prime Minister Rudd is unexpected he doesnt like his own party any more and probably votes Labor anyway so no surprises that he likes Kevin.
GP @ 282 & 284
I am curious as to why you provided links to old articles 2003 & 2007 when there is a wealth of evidence assessing the impact of the Intervention. If you had read the Yu report @ http://www.nterreview.gov.au/ you would not have written:-
“The left will scorn him for suspending the racial discrimination act and accuse him of being racist, but they will do so in total ignorance of the real help that the Intervention is providing to indigenous people on the ground.”
The intervention has a a very real negative impact on the ground in Central Australia, old people who have worked all their lives are having their aged pensions managed by Centrelink and they are feeling humiliated, as are the thousands of other people who have worked hard to look after their families but have come under this regime because of where they live.
“In speaking to their submission the Australian Indigenous Doctors Association (AIDA) reported on a health impact assessment currently under way which indicates that the NTER has created a feeling of ‘collective existential despair’—feelings characterised by a ‘widespread sense of helplessness, hopelessness and worthlessness, and experienced throughout entire community(s)’
I would also suggest you read the Commonwealth Ombudsmans report on the underpayment of welfare to Indigenous people, particularly in remote communities, a situation that is rapidly worsening as people are put into breach.
I don’t get it. Malcolm Farr on “Insiders” seemed to be poo pooing the importance of this “phonegate” BS on “Insiders” on Sunday and now he he writes about Rudd not being included in a final photo on some bloody website. Then he asks the question will it effect Rudd politically here. Don’t they look at the recent polling? Don’t they get that most Australians think Bush is a joke and that Rudd is popular? Don’t they get that the whole thing has died the death? Amazing.
No 298
Yeah yeah. Any opportunity to label the Liberal Party as racist bigots….you are pathetic mate.
Glen
True enough about Fraser, but conversely not much that is Liberal is left in the Liberal party, so Fraser might well ask who abandoned who? They should just change their name to Conservative or Tory Party like in Canada, and stop pretending.
No 300
Kevin Rudd didn’t even consult the Reserve Bank before guaranteeing $1.2 trillion of savings. Your point?
Gary what Rudd did was wrong and as a former diplomat he should have known better than to leak confidential conversations with world leaders…he has avoided the kind of tough scrutiny that Howard faced in his first term…
No 307
Liberalism is alive and well in the Liberal Party. Communists can join the Labor party – something I suggest Malcolm Fraser should do.
I used to think Fraser was a bas…. However, since his time as PM concluded he has seen the light and told the truth about the Liberal Party. He has also done a great deal of work helping the down and outs of this world. What a mongrel ah Glen?
BS at its best. Geez I’m glad you’re on the other side.
No, I am not saying they ARE racist bigots, I am just pointing out that they did a very good job acting like it whenever the previous Labor government tried to implement any programs for Aboriginal health and education.
Why would he need to? The Reserve Bank isn’t the executive government.
That’s because the first two terms Howard government was a hopeless joke that saw ministers left and right sacked over travel rorts, and the inability to obey Howard’s doctrine of ministerial responsibility.
Which version of liberalism are you referring to?
Communists can join the Liberal party too. The longest serving Liberal premier in S.A. was a socialist who took over the entire power industry.
Gary Bruce,
Fraser got Mugabe into power…enough said about the man.
To be fair to Fraser, Mugabe wasn’t a complete nutcase then.
Moreover, Fraser had a minor role in helping end apartheid in South Africa. Something that Margaret Thatcher refused to do.
So he ain’t all bad.
Glen thats nothing. Howard supported Bush even after he was in power and he could see what he was like!
Glen
I read a biography about Mugabe. Fraser’s name wasn’t mentioned once. I think we have a grossly inflated view of how important Fraser was to Mugabe. The Poms put him there.
ShowsOn so instead of nutjobs like Botha they now have nutjobs like Zuma wowie!
How amusing it is to listen to you all back up your man Fraser lol hilarious!
There is an important difference Glen. the ANC is elected democratically, whereas Botha was never democratically elected, because the majority didn’t have their human rights respected.
Either human rights mean something, or they are just something written about in books.
ANC is just like the National Party they maintain the institution of a one party state and that is undemocratic…i hope the new breakaway party does well there.
It is a one party state if people keep voting for it.
You can’t say the same about the apartheid regime. It was a one party state because a whole lot of people didn’t have the right to vote against it.
Those two things are not exactly the same.
“How amusing it is to listen to you all back up your man Fraser lol hilarious!’
Even more amusing is to watch how the Liberals try to disown their former heroes. At least the centre left parties have a sense of place in history for their former leaders.
Glen @ 322
There are 16 political parties represented in the Parliament in South Africa see http://www.southafrica.info/about/democracy/polparties.htm so what do you mean about a one party state?
Fraser wasnt a hero, yes he won 3 elections but he blew it calling that DD election and after him we had 13 years in the wilderness.
Holt and Gorton are held far higher in Liberal Party esteem than Fraser.
Steve yeah like Doc Evatt and Arthur Calwell lol not to mention Billy Hughes!
All played an important role Glen, as did Fraser but common decency towards people who have bought the Liberals to where they are now, is not a strongpoint of the political right.
Yeah, we never know how bad Holt was going to turn out…
“Holt and Gorton are held far higher in Liberal Party esteem than Fraser.”
Are you saying the Liberal Party treats its former leaders like great artists? Far more prized when dead than alive.
Holt won the 1966 election in a fashion that no other politician may repeat…that landslide may never happen again…he was far from unpopular ShowsOn!
No we rehabilitated Gorton before he died and Holt was always widely respected…but when a former leader votes for the other mob then that doesnt really keep them many friends in the party.
steve @ 324:
“At least the centre left parties have a sense of place in history for their former leaders.”
What… you mean like Brian Burke?
They know they will keep their mouths shut then
lol and Joan Kerner too for that matter or Morris Iemma lol
Costello is right on this, Labor has the cult of the party, Liberals have the cult of the leader.
Hence they were willing to let the entire government fall last year, rather than telling Howard to bugger off.
So when will Gillard tell Rudd to bugger off lol!
When she has the numbers hahahahah
“Liberals have the cult of the leader.”
Well once they no longer breathe anyway.
Glen @ 330
What about running as an independent for a Senate seat as Gorton did? You ‘rehabilitated’ Gorton? Is that like re-educating?
“Even more amusing is to watch how the Liberals try to disown their former heroes.”
Was Latham ever a Labor hero? (Coz he seems to have been fairly convincingly disowned by his party.)
Speaking of Latham, it was amusing to read in the weekend Herald that on the day before the 2004 election, Howard expected Latham would give him a savage handshake on camera when they crossed paths at the ABC. In fact, he willed this to happen on account of the negative PR it would bring Latham among female voters (in particular).
From Latham’s wiki page:
On the morning of 8 October, the day before the election, a television crew filmed Latham and Howard shaking hands as they crossed paths outside an Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio studio in Sydney. The footage showed Latham appearing to draw Howard towards him and tower over his shorter opponent. The incident received wide media coverage and, while Latham claimed to have been attempting to get revenge for Howard squeezing his wife’s hand too hard at a press function, it was variously reported as being “aggressive”, “bullying” and “intimidating” on the part of Latham. The Liberal Party campaign director, Brian Loughnane, later said this incident generated more feedback to Liberal headquarters than anything else during the six-week campaign, and that it “brought together all the doubts and hesitations that people had about Mark Latham”. Latham disputes the impact of this incident, however, having described it as a “Tory gee-up: we got close to each other, sure, but otherwise it was a regulation man’s handshake. It’s silly to say it cost us votes – my numbers spiked in the last night of our polling.” (Latham Diaries, p. 369) According to Latham’s account of events, Latham came in close to Howard for the handshake to prevent Howard shaking with his arm rather than his wrist.
Yes but Gorton had to deal with McMahon who is still respected less than even Fraser…
Also the Party (and McMahon) treated Gorton shabbily and thus pushed him to run as an Independent in the ACT…
“Yes but Gorton had to deal with McMahon who is still respected less than even Fraser…”
Glen, this is enlightening, and do tell who was respected less than McMahon?
John Hewson?
Most likely McMahon is the about as bad as it gets for us…i guess Billy Hughes or Joe Lyons are the ALP’s most hated…but only because they switched sides not because they were bumbling fools.
“Most likely McMahon is the about as bad as it gets for us…”
Glen, I can see your point there, because apart from Fraser the rest are heroically dead or post humusly rehabilitated I assume.
Steve at 324
Hohoho. Heard of Mark Latham?
rogan, no I haven’t heard of Prime Minister Mark Latham but if you see him listed anywhere let me know.
Steve at 344
I understand Latham was a “former leader”. I stand to be corrected by your greater knowledge, of course.
Who knows, we may some day see Governor-General Latham.
We are talking about past PM’s aren’t we? PM’s Burke, Iemma, Latham
Name a Labor PM the Labor Party treats as badly as the Libs treat Fraser.
Billy Hughes
I thought of Billy. So swapping sides isn’t justification then for having anything against him?
Malcolm hasn’t joined the Labor Party. No comparison there.
I don’t recall anyone complaining about him in the last 50 years do you?
Same applies to Joe Lyons.
I don’t understand what the difference is for Opposition Leaders is though? Or Premiers?
They’re still leaders of the party.
“Malcolm hasn’t joined the Labor Party.”
No but he votes for them.
Latham and Crean would have to be up there too.
Crean? You do realise he’s currently the Minister for Trade in the Rudd Government?
Yeah but he wasnt exactly a good leader for the ALP. He was a bit like Nelson lol!
Somehow I don’t think too many Labor people will be harking back to the Crean days of leadership.
Similarly, somehow I think Liberals will want to forget the Nelson and Downer days.
Re 304
What the h*** have I missed? I’ve been at lawn bowls all day. Some one please supply a URL so I can read the details
…… Cheers
Thanks Judith, got it now
…. that’s what I get for not reading through all posts before replying to any one of them 
…
re 312,
Gary, it is much like the line Julia and Lindsay have trotted out in recent QT’s. “Don’t watch what they say, watch what they do.” Fraser has obviously shown by his actions since leaving office that he is well and truely imho completely on our side now. (I’m not getting into 1975 debate, I wasn’t around then and that is water under the bridge). I will take anyone who wants to hoist the Labor flag no matter what they previously have done if they are an honest convert. He can’t “say” it as he is a former PM but whether he says it or not, his actions are enough for me (”not what they say, what they do”. Good on him
Glen @ 316,
Bagging your own man, eh? Well at least officially your own man
….. unofficially, I’ll take him. And while I don’t know African politics so I can’t take a stand on the truth or not of what you said, I might note this.
Mugabe is of such a forceful personality that I think he would have found a road to power in some way, shape or form even if Fraser (as you’ve said) wasn’t involved. The power hungry grubs always do. That having been said, I hear Putin is working on changing the laws to maybe let him back into power as well …….
I think conceptions about ’sides’ are really childish and do nothing to further appropriate political discussion in the nation’s interests. If only more prominent politicians or past politicians were able to put petty partisan politics to the side and advocate for certain things.
I suppose one issue where this is the case if on the Republic. Interestingly, Julie Bishop recently gave a speech to the ARC Convention, the transcript of the speech mysteriously missing from her website.
Putin may as well make himself Tsar and be done with all the haggling.
ltep @ 362
Maybe they’re trying to find the author so they can be properly credited.
Rudd gives $300 million to local councils for works
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24669369-29277,00.html
Glen
You may say that the Liberal party is still liberal, but I wonder if a Fred Cheney or James Killen would even get Liberal pre-selection these days? In NSW I doubt it.
Turnbull distances himself from Howard
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/18/2423034.htm?section=justin
Maybe if Turnbull was running an Opposition which seemed markedly different from the former government I would believe him. Unfortunately, it’s the same faces, the same tired ideas and a refusal to let go of bad policy of the past. You can’t be different just by saying you’re different. Exactly what would Turnbull have done differently?
Howard had a liberal philosophy? Really? Everything about the fellow smacked of illiberalism!
Howard had a very liberal attitude to the truth.
LOL Diogones, I overlooked the obvious! He is liberal with the truth.
Blaming Fraser or anyone else for the Mugabe dictatorship is idiotic. Mugabe was the most popular and sucessfull of the leaders of the freedom fighters at the time of Independence, and as such was always going to be the leader of the new Zimbabwe. To have attempted to install anyone else would have been futile and wrong.
There is a reason why so many leaders of Liberation movements are often poor democrats when they finally achieve freedom. It takes a strong will, to the point of extreme pugnaciousness to achieve what Mugabe and his ilk did in Zimbabwe, amd for others such as Arafat, Ho Chi Minh, etc. In the bloody battles they were forced to fight, moderates get killed off pretty early in the piece, in a darwinian search for sucess.
To those who espouse the belief that this is an Afro/Asian way of doing things, see the fate of Michael Collins in Ireland, and the sundry moderates of the subsequent IRA/UVF movements there.
“It takes a strong will, to the point of extreme pugnaciousness to achieve what Mugabe and his ilk did in Zimbabwe…”
Michael who has been putting stuff in your water!
Mugabe the moment he siezed power murdered his political opponents i guess that’s what you mean by strong will.
Zimbabwe would have been better off with Ian Smith still in power.
Compare Rhodesia to the Zimbabwe we see today and you’ll agree.
Howard was also very liberal with the tax-payers money before an election. I need to take an antidepressant every time I hear him talk. I would have overdosed if I watched that Fran Kelly hagiography last night.
When did he tell you that Glen?
Gary if he doesnt vote for the ALP he surely votes Green, how could he vote Liberal given his expressed opinions?
Which opinions Glen?
Glen
Whether Mugabe murdered his opponents when he took power is hotly contested. My reading is that he grew into the monster he is today, rather than having been that way all along. But I could be wrong.
foreign and domestic.
Howard was also very liberal with using our taxes to pay for ads to sell his liberal party, come to think of it he was also very liberal with the public purse whenever Jeanette got an overwhelming urge to renovate, who could forget the $1/2 mill to alter the dining room to fit in two more chairs at the Howard dinner table and what about the pure silk wallpaper bought at an enormous price to decorate the primeministereal jet, i know little Johnny had to use the fully crewed plane for his daily forays to Canberra and back–but $hundreds of thousands for wallpaper–that was bloody ridiculous, we all would like the best but we dont expect the tax payer to pay for it for us, thank heaven Johnny has to pay for her artistic splurges now, i noticed Theresa sent all of Jeanette’s tacky green leather lounges into storage and restored Kirribilli and the Lodge back to their original glory, by restoring the lovely old furniture that belongs in them.
Well just humour us and let us know one such policy and why it couldn’t fit in with any part of the Liberal Party. Are you arguing he’s that far separated from moderate Liberals, such as Petro Georgiou or Judi Moylan?
Maybe so but that is beside the point. Crean has been treated very well by the party thankyou. As someone pointed out he is a minister.
ltep – both parties don’t put up with losing leaders that never make it to PM and tend to treat them as lesser beings to some degree. It’s how they treat their past PM’s, I would argue, that differs.
The Libs are not fond of losing PM’s (Howard may end up being an exception, although I have my doubts on that). Billy McMahon and Fraser certainly have no place in the Libs hall of fame. Yet Labor places Keating and particularly Whitlam right up there. The only ones they have difficulty with are the turncoats and who wouldn’t. Why would Labor think Lyons or Hughes were the greatest PMs around? They were conservative PMs when they left office.
He’s only a minister because he had ministerial experience something hardly nobody in the Rudd cabinet had prior to obtaining office…also the ALP have treated Latho badly…
Hawke should be there way way way before Keating…
Curtin
Hawke
Whitlam
Chifley
Keating
Scullin
ect
For us
Menzies
Howard
Lyons
Holt
Hughes
Barton
382 – again, beside the point Glen. Crean is a minister. They could have not made him a minister and had all untried ministers. Just as an aside not one of those “untried” ministers has lost their job in the first year.
I’m not sure what your list of names is about (?).
376,
The ones I like
…. like supporting a Republic for one 
This is the first new government to go its first year without a ministerial resignation since the Whitlam ministry.
By the end of the first year of Howard’s government he had had three ministers (Sharp, Jull and McGauran) and a parl sec (Gibson) resign. In their first years in office Hawke lost one minister (Mick Young) and Fraser two (Garland and Ellicott, plus Greenwood who had a stroke).
Yes juliem but plenty of Liberals support a Republic, for instance Turnbull and Bishop (Leader and Deputy Leader) and Marise Payne being ones I can think of off the top of my head. I’m sure there’s a few monarchists on the Labor side (I can’t think of any though).
That’s what’s so silly about calling Fraser a Greens member. I can’t think of any that are completely out of place in the Liberal Party.
Gary as i remember the ALP tried to oust him from his seat….
Juliem but Malcolm Turnbull supports that too
There are no monarchists on the Labor side. An Australian republic is party policy to which all candidates are committed.
So you couldnt be a Labor candidate if you supported the Constitutional Monarchy we have in place right now….
Seems to me another example of….ALP=no choice, Liberal Party=choice.
Glen
If he hadn’t made a swim for it to the proverbial Chinese sub, it’s likely Holt would have been rolled within months. He did well in the ‘66 election but it went downhill from there very quickly.
It is questionable whether he was mentally up to the job. Having to referee the bile that existed between McMahon, McEwen and the interference of the GG – Casey (who had delusions of kingship, didn’t help.
In terms of his legacy, Holt was lucky he went when he did. Same with Kennedy. Both would have been much diminished if they’d not been cut down when they were.
Glen
You have made a number of questioned claims in this thread which have been challenged and not defended. I suggest you preface such remarks with “I think” or “I allege” rather than state them as “facts”. Claiming to know Fraser’s voting intentions would be a case in point.
Also, I didn’t have time to respond to an earlier remark you made suggesting it was a chocie between either joining the Liberal party or becoming a communist. How absurd. There are always more than two choices and the first falsehood is to say otherwise. The second is to claim that the Liberals are Liberal. I repeat my earlier claim that the Liberal party is no longer liberal, even less than the Labor party is socialist.
Two falsehoods in one statement – almost Howardesque Glen!
But not committed enough to actually do anything about.
Well you can still be a monarchist, you just can’t state your views publicly and have to pledge to support the party view. A completely ridiculous position in my opinion.
Let’s say Australia was set up as a new nation tomorrow.
Who in their right mind would say “hey, let’s have our head of state be someone who resides in another country”.
Our constitutional arrangements are nothing more than an accident of history. No one rationally chooses any political system other than a Republic.
Socrates i didnt make the remark about Liberal/Labor and Communist Party.
ShowsOn but this system has worked well for 107 years, hard to argue about buying a new pair of shoes when the ones you are wearing fit.
Any more irrelevant statements you want to make about Crean Glen? He IS a minister. They could have decided not to choose him. Crean has done well.
Except that time the greatest PM we will ever have was sacked.
YES! Successfully steered into a Whitlam debate. Now tear each other apart as I watch.
How convenient of you to forget about 1975!
How convenient of you to forget that the High Court refused a more liberal interpretation of the corporations power until the 1940s, the effect of which was to make Australia a British satellite, instead of an independent nation. Sure we have grown into that, but why isn’t that fact reflected in the constitution?
Those two reasons alone are why Labor supporters are deeply suspicious about numerous aspects of the constitution.
Going to get us free trade with China.
Oh cmon it worked well for 107 years with one exception, that’s damn good id say?
Whitlam could of sacked him you know, before he sacked Gough.
You have to laugh. All of a sudden Bush has included Rudd in the photo. An embarrassing omission. So much for the snub BS.
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24670022-5001021,00.html
Yeah, he should’ve. It was the only fair thing to do given the circumstances of the Liberals abusing the constitution, and hundreds of years of parliamentary conventions.
Also why Whitlam appointed that douce is beyond me hundreds of more qualified people out there…
The Labor Party did NOT try to get rid of Crean. Certain individuals within the Party did but this was not supported by the branches in his electorate.
On that line of argument, the Liberal party tried far harder to get rid of Howard last year.
Secondly, yes, you could be a monarchist and a parliamentary member of the Labor party PROVIDED you were elected after caucas had pledged its support to a republic. The ‘pledge’ only binds candidates to support caucus decisions where they have been part of the decision making process (that is, they were a member of caucus at the time). The theory is that, if you have been in a room of like minded people and put your point of view to thme and been defeated, your point of view lacks the democratic support of your colleagues. If you weren’t there to put the argument, then you’re exempt.
This is sensible; there has to be an avenue for a member of the party to run for election on the basis of disagreeing with current policy (otherwise there would never be change).
Andrew Robb has just suggested that the PM should have used the $300M local government infrastructure funds to push for efficiencies!
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/18/2423202.htm
Ah yes, we all want lower wages now that the economy is going into recession. Boy I bet the voters will be kicking themselves for not re-electing the Workchoices crew now that there is a greater risk they might lose their jobs. What better time to force peopel to work for less?
Good thinking Mr Robb. I can imagine the next few questions he will receive. Does he still support Workchoices? How many local govenment jobs would he suggest should be lost? How much should local government wages be reduced? How would he force these “efficiencies” through? Will people volunteer for a wage cut?
388,
Yes, Turnbull does, but as his opinion. It isn’t Liberal party policy. There heaps more things Fraser has done over the years that I like but as the proverbial has hit the fan at my house tonight, I can’t think to itemize them at the moment, so sorry for that.
I should add to 407 that Robb did not say that lower wages would be the source of the efficiencies. But there is no other way to achieve it. Local standards for things like roads vary because teh quarry and bulding materials vary. Smaller local shires already share equipment to be more cost effective. The only way to make the very small shires more efficient would be to force amalgamate them, Qld style. That would mean job loses in small coutry towns.
Socrates
Robb is off with the pixies, its the old Rat Govt. idea of using funding as a way of forcing people to do things your way. They did it with almost everything they funded.
Ratism is still alive and well.
ShowsOn at 400
!!!
OK – Federation was about federating 6 colonies and had nothing to do with the creation of a “nation” as that word is conventionally understood. The “nation” of Australia emerged somewhere between World War I and II – take your pick from 1. Signing the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, 2. Balfour Declaration of 1926, 3. Statute of Westminster of 1931 or (less likely) 4. Menzies declaring war in 1939 (the exact words he used don’t help, but anyway).
The interpretation of the Corporations power suffered from the Huddart Parker “horribles” – the idea that if a broader interpretation was accepted, the Commonwealth could (as they do these days) legislate for all manner of things provided there was some link with the activities of constitutional corporations. Never mind that the States could do exactly this. This was not really overthrown until 1971 (Concrete Pipes). By that time anyone other than a deluded arch-libertarian would acknowledge that Australia was a nation.
But my key observation is that it is not clear to me how a constitutional court set up under a constitutional document could somehow have procured or hastened nationhood status for a federated colony by a different or more adventurous interpretation of the Corporations power!!
Australian political parties in Government since 1945 animated GIF edition!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Australian_states_political.gif
!!!
So do we just pretend it is a document of nationhood because it defines the federal government, parliament and judiciary?!!!
Thank you for supporting my argument!!!
!!!
“Efficiency” is just market-speak for cost-cutting which is jargon for firing people.
There was some report today that was apparently tabled at the Council of Local Government’s that suggested many councils amalgamate to cut costs. My whole view on the “Get rid of the states issue” is pretty simple. Abolish what we currently call states, pass the responsibility for things like health and education onto the Federal government and amalgamate councils and shires into more “regional” governments that would handle transport, planning and the like.
Again the Labor Party is the one who brings to the fore the question of including Local Govt. in the Constitution.
I wonder which party opposed it when it was last put at a referendum?
Glen @ 397 -
ShowsOn but this system has worked well for 107 years, hard to argue about buying a new pair of shoes when the ones you are wearing fit.
Thanks in large part to the born and bred republican Wallace Simpson, who probably did more to save the British Monarchy than any person in history. It is unlikely that either the Nazi sympathising Edward VIII or the institution would have survived long once Hitler no longer needed them.
The question is what impact would it have had on us? Would you be reading this in English, German, or Japanese? This is the risk you take in owing allegiance to foreigners, Glen. They may have less to loose than you do.
Typical conservative argument. Feudalism and slavery “worked” for much longer. There comes a time when institutions are past their use-by date, and monarchy in Australia is one such.
Monarchists in Caucus: The pledge binds all candidates to support majority decisions of Caucus. If and when Caucuas decides to move on the republic, all members will be bound by that decision. It’s an academic argument because all Caucus members support a republic. Since 1975 and particularly since 1999 it’s become a totemic issue for Labor.
Inaction on republic: The government’s view is that there is no point in going to the expense of another referendum while the Queen is alive, because it would lose. I think that is a correct judgment. All things will come in due season – Labor is a gradualist party, remember?
Other than Bill Hayden, there was one sitting Labor MP who said he was going to vote against the last referendum. Any idea who it was?
I saw this photo in the paper last Sunday, and felt it helped the Republican cause immeasurably: http://www.stuff.co.nz/images/772968.jpg
Socrates @ 409 -
I should add to 407 that Robb did not say that lower wages would be the source of the efficiencies. But there is no other way to achieve it.
Not so sure about that, mate. My council would have to have one of the most inefficient works departments in the country. They never resurface a road in its entirety, preferring to do it in about 50 metre sections over a period of many months. Furthermore, some much used roads are so bad that you need a 4WD to use them, while other less traversed ones have been resurfaced at least 3 times in as many years.
That said, Robb almost certainly was suggesting cutting wages and/or staff.
Bill Hayden was not a Labor MP, or even an ALP member, in 1999.
Robb was just saying something, because he thought he has to. Rudd convenes the first ever meeting of Local and Federal Govts. an idea that was ridiculed in parliament at the time by the Libs.
Now, as usual, this ridicule has come back to bite them on the bum. So they (her Maj’s loyal opposition) cannot say “Good Idea”.
The Constitution was drawn up by men mostly born in the first half of the 19th century, who considered themselves British rather than Australian, and who knew that approval of the document they came up with needed to come from an English Parliament and be assented to by an English Queen. In the very unlikely event that they even considered the option of a Republic, it would never have been able to get past the English approval process.
These facts alone should be enough to justify a complete reworking of the Constitution to bring it up to modern acceptable standards. The fact that a nation of inherently Republican people who dont have much love for Brittain are ruled by a Monarchy not even held in very high regard in her native England just proves how ridiculous it all is, and the complete illogicality of the Monarchists position.
If you think the system still serves us well, contemplate the fact of the continuing statehood of Tasmania and the built in gerrymander of the electoral system that entails.
We dont just need a Republic, we need a complete new Constitution!i
Michael, it’s that kind of windy lefist rhetoric that makes getting a republic referendum up more difficult. There is nothing basically wrong with the way Australia’s constitutional system works, apart from the symbolic issue of the head of state and the absence of a bill of rights. Federalism and bicameralism have wide support and no referendum to abolish the states or change the federal structure would ever pass.
Michael Cusack, are you suggesting (by constitutional means) the abolition of Tasmania as a State, the incorporation of its territory into another State, and a consequential removal of its Senators (or reduction of their Senate numbers a la Territory representation)?
That would be a novel (to me) stance, and an extremely interesting one.
Haven’t several already passed?
No
If by novel you mean something that’s never going to happen and by interesting you mean horrible then yes.
ltep, have you not heard of the old Chinese curse “may you live in interesting times”?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_referendum,_1906
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_referendum,_1977_(Senate_Casual_Vacancies)
That was the sense in which I was using the word “interesting”.
Neither of those changed the federal structure.
Tomatoes tomatoes.
Yes, and she didn’t have to worry about packing them as they still had the original plastic covering on them..
Howard did exactly that with the universities, threatened them with funding cuts unless they moved their staff off “inefficient collective agreements and onto the more worker friendly individual AWA’’s.
Discussing such a thing is a waste of time as it’s highly unlikely a majority of Tasmanians would agree to abolish the state and reduce their representation in the national parliament (as the triple majority would require).
I also think you misunderstand what ‘gerymander’ means.
Pretty sure it’s “gerrymander”.
A gerrymander is the deliberate drawing of electoral boundaries to get a particular candidate or party elected (or not elected). This is a gerrymander:
http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/images/preview/congdist/FL20_109.gif
We no longer have gerrymandering in Australia. What you are referring to is a malapportionment: the allocation of more seats to a state or region than its population would merit. The Constitution requires Tasmania to have five seats, while its population would only give it three.
O RLY!?
He opposed the Republic was my point.
There was ANOTHER PERSON who was a sitting Labor MP in 1999 who opposed the referendum, and said he was going to vote against it. I thought you may know who it was.
That is one hell of an electorate.
Adam
Is it Labor Party policy that we have to wait for the Queen to die before we get a referendum om the Republic, or is it just the practicalities? Going by her Mum’s age at death, we’ve still got another 20 years to go!
What would happen if she abdicated?
We’d be better of doing it before she died so we could say “Hah, we never had to live under His Royal Majesty, King Charles”.
QEII rates higher on the Worst Britons Ever list (No 10) than the Greatest Britons Ever (No 24). What the hell are we waiting for?
I note that the Brits do have some taste and rate Blair as the Worst Brit ever with Maggie at number 3.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Greatest_Britons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Worst_Britons
No.
http://www.thepoliticalsword.com/post/2008/11/18/The-Rudd-Report-Card-one-year-in.aspx#continue
Well worth reading – a meta analysis of the commentariats opinions of KMR’s first year. Always make time for this site as analysis is in depth, timely and intelligent.
But probably the GFC needs to be over b4 the ALP/rudd moves on the republic
It is the PM’s stated view that there will be no move on the republic while HM is alive, and in case you haven’t noticed yet, when the PM says something is so, it is so.
Adam in Canberra,
Wow! Makes old Jo look like an amateur.
http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/images/preview/congdist/FL20_109.gif
I believe that is Turnbull’s view… have not seen that voiced by Rudd, other than ‘not right now’
Adam in Canberra,
Can’t imagine too many in caucus arguing against a leader with a 70% approval rating!
Adam
care to provide al ink to this statement
or is it wishful thinking?
This is worth a read. I would love to see other commenter’s opinions of it.
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/mediadiary/index.php/australianmedia/comments/howard_years_popular_but_was_it_fair/
al ink= a link
Rudd has never said this.
It would be an absurd thing for any Republican to say.
Uncle Rupert gave his major Aussie publication a big wrap up a few days ago. If this is anything to go by he may need to think again.
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/coverington/index.php/theaustralian/comments/making_fun_of_joe_too_easy_edition/
I wonder if the “online bookies” are offering odds on how long she will last. Might be worth a tenner or two.
Hmm, maybe I am confusing Rudd’s comment with Turnbull’s.
Rudd seems to have said only that it is not a priority for the first term.
Makes you wonder why Turnbull said it then
Turnbull is a republican and he has said it, so it’s not “absurd.”
btw
I really enjoyed the ABC show.
not as biased as i expected and some way toward an understanding of the motivations of howard
ps reith is a flipperhead
He is a sayer of absurd things.
The whole point of a Republic is that Australians should decide the structure of Australia’s government and constitution. To then say we have to wait for someone in another country to die demonstrates a complete inability to comprehend the entire issue.
Who cares if The Howard Years is biased. If Pearson, Pies and Henderson want to make another documentary, why don’t they do it?
And so what if the ABC is biased, Pearson is biased, and he is on the SBS board, Albrechtsen is biased, and she is on the ABC board.
LOL! Oh dear….
Rudd said this in April this year.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/07/2210352.htm
Err…. I think there’s a flaw in the logic there somewhere…non sequitur or something?
Why is it that whenever Costello talks about the behind the scenes machinations of the Howard government he ends up sounding self centred? Same thing happened on that episode of 4 Corners.
Given that Turnbull was chairman of the Republican Movement for seven years, I think he may understand the issue just a little better than you.
All bow to Adam’s superior knowledge of what is, and what is not
Adam
“king” malcolm was the best thing the monarchy had since menzies
its just he kept his sheeps clothing on!
Well it’s easy to rewrite history now. Turnbull was a very effective leader of the ARM. We would have had a republic for eight years now had not the referendum been sabotaged by Cleary and the leftist direct electionists, who voted for monarchy went they couldn’t get their own way.
Stop being so ABSURD! Maybe if he WASN’T the ARM leader for seven years we would be a Republic already, did you give that some consideration?
I thought we had to bow WHENEVER he was posting! Are you saying you weren’t? Why else does he tell us when he is leaving. I thought that was so we can stop bowing.
temper temper
There were bigger problems than that. Voters WANTED a direct election model, I don’t know what was gained by the 2/3 parliament vote model. It isn’t like it convinced any monarchists to jump over.
Plus the whole process was just a political one, there wasn’t a grass roots movement supporting the issue.
So I take it you voted No then?
I’d only support a direct election model if there were strong limits on the President’s powers in the Constitution. I’d like the President to remain a figure-head and retain much of the system we already have.
looking at from alateral perspective,one could say todays LG meeting was the spark of a grass roots movement toward a republic
vive la rudd
A hereditary presidency perhaps?
Jannette will be pleased.
Kevin Rudd (at Devonport Senior Citizens Club during last year’s election campaign, eager to placate an old man who had just called him an “ignorant bastard” for interrupting the club choir’s rendition of It’s Amore): There will be no move on the republic while HM is alive! Therefore, as a republican, I hope the old handbag carks it within the current electoral cycle. (Turning to Sid Sidebottom while closely inspecting a sandwich) Are these sandwiches fresh?
Yes, Itep, that was the majority view at the Convention. The referendum was lost because of the dummy-spit by the direct electionist minority.
Did ShowsOn vote Yes or No? I want to know.
Perhaps she/he was too young to vote at the time?
Turnbull also chaired the committee appointed by Keating to examine republic options, and he spent months going round the country attending poorly attended meetings where people would turn up with their conspiracy theories and half-understood views on constitutional law and, as patiently as he could, he would try and explain away their concerns. He actually put a lot of time, effort and intellect as well as money into the republican cause over many years, and I always find it a bit rich that people just dismiss him as a show pony on the issue.
The biggest mistake he and Keating ever made was not to release some draft constitutions for a direct election, which would have required a codification of the powers of the President. He could have released several, one for a titular head of state like Ireland, another for a strong Presidential model like France, maybe a full blown American Executive head of state. Ten years after the debate, the direct election Republicans have still not done even that basic work. Always easier to sit on the sidelines and chuck rotten fruit at anyone that does bother to do the hard yards.
Adam
I voted yes
what did you vote?
What about Downer’s effort?
I voted YES (but I voted No for Howard’s stupid preamble).
I was there (with a Republican Young Liberal) handing out YES cards for the ARM, and people young and old would come up to me and say “This is a joke, we won’t get to vote for the President, so I’m voting No”. That was the mood of the day, and I was doing this at a marginal Labor end of a safe Liberal seat.
I didn’t point out to them that we don’t get to directly vote for the P.M. or G.G. either, because I didn’t want to start arguments. But the flavour of the day as I recall it was direct election or nothing, so we got nothing.
When Australians hear the word “President” they think of the President of the U.S. They think that means you get to vote for them (OK forget about the electoral college, Australians generally have no idea what that is). While this is about Australia having a “President”, it will need to be a direct election model to pass. The fact Turnbull didn’t see this, and couldn’t get a grass roots movement together means he should have a fair share of the blame for the loss, John Howard deserves a lot as well of course.
The interesting thing is the Young Liberal I was working with loved the minimalist model. He said that he wouldn’t support a direct election model. So Costello is right on this, the Liberals should’ve supported it when they were in Government, because it is going to be an issue that will split them having to deal with it in opposition.
Of course I voted yes. And so did the rest of my family, who are all Liberal voters, because I persuaded them that the Convention model was safe. They would not have voted for a direct election model. In that they are typical of a lot of moderately conservative people without whose support a republic will never happen.
I voted No rather than vote for Howard’s flunky.
Rather we got the right model even if it takes a little longer.
No, the principal blame lies with Cleary and co, who formed a tacit alliance with the morons at ACM to spread a pack of lies about the model on offer, so that the result was the ignorance and confusion seen at the polls (where I also spent all day, arguing with people who had been conned by this unholy alliance.) I’m still angry about it nine years later.
I crossed out Yes and No and placed a big tick beside “Eddie McGuire or bust”.
Some of you might be interested to note that the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee is currently inquiring into a private senators bill for a plebiscite to be conducted at the next election on the republic issue. Anyone who feels strongly about it might think about putting a submission in to the inquiry.
Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy have announced they support the bill (and the conducting of a plebiscite) as they believe it will finally put the Republic issue to rest.
1999 was wasted opportunity, and we may not get another chance at this for another five years or more. I remember hearing back then Ted Mack (ex ind MP) on the radio saying that we should vote No, and then the politicians will hear the will of the people and we’ll get another referendum within “a few years”. Well it’s nine years later and I’m still waiting Ted!
Fact is, we don’t get many chances to change the Constitution, and rarely on something so big. The referendum went down for many reasons – the split in the republican vote, the shamelessly populist opposition (this in the high tide of Hansonism), a PM who camapigned for a No vote – but one of the main things is that most punters have no real idea of what the Constitution is, and a referendum is just a chance to give the political class a kick without changing anything. Of 44 referenda since Federation, only 8 have passed (all figures approximate).
Whatever people’s motivations were for voting No back in ‘99, the effect was that those people voted to retain the monarchy, and it looks like we’ll be stuck with it for a while yet.
I clearly remember polls in 1999 showing that a theoretical direct election model would likely pass. It had something like 10% higher figures than the parliament model on offer.
Of course the 2/3 parliament model was a more representative way of choosing a head of state than the way a G.G. is chosen now (whoever the P.M. wants + political considerations). But voters just can’t handle not being able to directly vote for someone called “President”.
The Americans do get to vote directly for their President. Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin were on the ballot paper.
There was a Newspoll in 1999 that showed only 50% of Australians know we have a written constitution. Most people must think we just base everything on U.K. parliamentary conventions.
Good point. They just don’t base the win on popular vote, an important distinction to what I wrote.
Most people generally have no clue. A surprisingly small number of people know the Senate even exists. Makes you wonder why they think they get two ballot papers when they vote.
They vote for members of the electoral college. On their ballot papers they see “delegates supporting Obama-Biden” and “delegates supporting McCain-Palin” or some such wording. But of course the delegates are legally free agents, not bound to any candidate. That’s not why I call direct election.
Adam
No it doesn’t. It says “Electors of President and Vice President” and then lists the tickets underneath. Here’s a sample ballot paper.
http://www.loudmurmurs.com/2008/10/17/i-voted-today/
It varies from state to state, and in some states from county to county.
At least we can agree that the election of the U.S. President is more direct than either the appointment of our Governor General, or the appointment of our Head of State!
Or even a 2/3 vote of a joint sitting of parliament.
Horrific story on Foreign Correspondent about Neo-Nazi groups in Israel.
“Most people generally have no clue.”
That is a grave miscalculaton of ‘oz’ peoples What they know is if a bunny like Phil cleary is telling them THEY should hav th right to elect THERE President vs a bunch of pollies that few aussies trust anyway who ar saying NO NO trust us to selkect YOUR President…who in th hell ar ‘oz’ people going to take notice of…of course th bunnies like Phil Cleary
“Most people generally have no clue” . thry hav enough of a clue not to giv pollies power IF given a choise not to , thereby guaranteeing th Republics failure in advanse , and most pundits knew it in advanse
All that was ever needed was to make an aussie at th top of th current politcal sysyem , not make a French revolution of th current Westmintar Sytsem , and perhaps look at those ‘reserve powers’
I liked the idea of directly electing the President, but not giving them any more powers than the current GG, except for a few more ceremonial ones so we see a bit more of them. Miranda Kerr would be the obvious choice if we were voting now.
I still voted yes, but I know lots of people voted against the Republic because the pollies would pick the President.
I was referring to them not having a clue about our political/legal institutions. I wasn’t casting a judgment on that, just making a statement of fact that has been demonstrated in surveys/polling over time.
Part of the difficulty with constitutional change is that not enough people know enough about the constitution to make an informed decision. It makes the ‘If you don’t know vote no’ campaign a very attractive one.
I’m actually quite glad the republican referendum didn’t get up – if only because it mean JWH can’t claim to be the “father of the republic”. Petty I know, but then, as Prinicpal Skinner would say, I’m small man; a petty, small man.
The problem with any direct election is that you’d have to put up with them making all sorts of political comments and attempting to assert influence over the legislature via the media etc. They’d be able to back this up with a purported ‘mandate’ from the people.
Not to mention the huge waste of money that would be involved if they’re just going to have ceremonial roles.
I support direct election but of course I voted yes. As a Republican you’d have to have been a loony not to. But I don’t buy the Cleary argument. The referendum asked the wrong question but I think the Oz public should be given some credit – most times they do “have a clue”.
Only if a team of genealogists can prove she isn’t related to John Kerr.
But Geoffrey Robertson would be good if she couldn’t balance being President and her duties with Victoria’s Secret (which she would be forced to continue by a new act of parliament).
ShowsOn, you’re no longer allowed to refer to “core ‘left’ policies”. It is funny only in your own mind.
Way off topic, anyone going to see Australia when it comes out?
Sounds like it is aimed mostly at American audiences, so a fair bit of “crikey” “strewth” and “cobber” throughout.
Grog
fair suck of the sav,me old china,i’m as dry as a dingos …
NO
but gusface you’d be flat out like a lizard drinking to miss it.
Ok that made no sense, but it’s my fav Aussie slang.
We would save a lot of money by not having to pay a few million whenever the Queen decides she wants to visit.
The ‘99 change would’ve been a good start. But then we could’ve moved to a popularly elected executive.
So on election day you get 3 votes, Executive (Labor, Liberal, Green, etc), House of Reps, Senate.
Whoever wins the executive vote forms the new government, and appoints Ministers from in or out of the legislature.
This way you could have proportional representation in the House too.
The President becomes the Head of Government, and could only be sacked by say a 75% vote of a joint sitting of both houses.
Well I don’t support that model. I like having the Westminster system as I think it’s far more accountable than having a separate Executive.
William
I believe there are core “right and left” policies
worstchoices=core “right”
unemployment benefit=core “left”
Do you disallow the distinction?why?
Well I voted Yes for a republic but wasn’t too disappointed when it failed because I wanted to (like many who voted No) directly elect the president. However I have changed my mind. If we are going to have our own head of state for symbolic purposes (like we should) it is more practical and convenient for parliament to select the president.
Turnbull failed to explain the case because of his pigheaded arrogance. The Monarchists kicked the Republican Movement’s butt big time in the campaign.
Gusface, about three months ago, Ron referred to “core ‘left’ policies” – a perfectly unremarkable concept, like you say – and ShowsOn has been boringly ridiculing him about it ever since.
Grog
im not a herpetologist but I think lizards absorb moisture thru their tongue.ie they dont drink as such
My favs “like a shag on a rock” and “as slow as a wet week”
William
my apols
Shows -pull your head in
Winston:
In Canada, you just require assent from half the legislatures. In Australia, you need assent from a majority of people in a majority of states. It doesn’t sound so difficult, until you realise Australians hate referendums, often voting against them just for spite. Of 44 proposals to change the Constitution, only 8, all really minor, have passed. Any proposal to expand Commonwealth power, or to enact socially progressive measures, will automatically fail in Western Australia and Queensland; from there, you just have to fail in one more state and then you’re toast. It’s intentionally set up to defeat change.
I have absolutely no idea what the term means, that’s what makes it so funny.
Yeah, that’s why people who were unsure should’ve voted for it anyway.
I mean the people who realise that the Queen actually isn’t more closely related to god than regular Joes.
I would like to endorse Antony Green’s praise of Malcolm Turnbull’s commitment to ARM. I agree with Adam that cynical anti-politician attitudes were cultivated by the direct electionists, and who can forget Tony Abbott’s and Sophie Mirabella’s “don’t trust politicians” (that’s a paraphrase, but I think fairly reflects their position).
The gathering of Local Government representatives jogged my memory about the 1988 referendums. I gave up hope in the possibility of sensible constitutional amendments when those modest proposals (including constituional recognition of Local Government) secured around one-third of the total vote. I concluded that scare campaigns would always triumph in the light of the widespread ignorance about the Constitution. I vividly recall a conversation with an apolitical conservative voter who was voting no, because “the Constitution had served us well for almost ninety years”. The fact that it had been only rendered workable by various activist High Courts was completely beyond this woman’s knowledge and understanding.
That’s why I know an intelligent bloke like Glen doesn’t really believe the constitutional monarchy has served us well for 107 years, but that he’s prepared to advance it as a convenient talking point.
I just wanted him to define it so I could understand his posts better.
To me ,shows, the concept of “core” policies referto a set of ideals.
left=equanimity,social justice,state regulation.
right=individual,user pays,’market forces’.
Its the argy bargy in between that we debate here imo
Sure, but Ron was just using it to attack Obama, even though Obama’s policies were pretty left by U.S. standards.
More so than either of the Clintons, and certainly more so than McCain! That’s why I found it so confusing.
I seeing your coming from indepth knowldge of th system Thats true , yet equaly i’m suggesting ‘oz’ people reely do hav a clue in what matters with that system…they overwhelmingly do NOT want th Monachy at all , they (rightly) do not trust politcians…they (probably rightly) suspect politicans will chose one of there own or like ilk ..whereas they (probably corectly) would make a better choise …they believe (theoreticaly technicaly corectly) that a directly elected president will not hav any more powers than th current GG….thats alot of tings right…..where they miss is what role a directly elected president actualy becomes from day one (an ‘alternative elected person) and what conflicting to parliament role it may ultimately turn into
Now bunnies like cleary did know that reel danger , and still proceeded knowing that model would be preffered and knowing th parliamentary model therefore must lose
NOW , at h tijme I had a third way to defeat th bunnies , and also th Monarchists like howard , but no one was interested in amigo plans Actualy I wanted in conference for a claytons strategic withdralaw and then proposed one referendum only ..d o you suport an asussie head of State in place of Queens Represntative implemented from 1/1/2003 (with proposals for his electon to be put to you berforehand) That would hav knocked all th monarchists out of th ball park in one hit…for ever , and that is actualy reel left policy , break bonds with England and be ourselves in everyway constitutionaly , which Labor PM Curtin started in his war speech
Ron
someone earlier posted that unless the PM was behind it the ref was doomed anyway.
I think it was doomed the day howard let it run
If kev has the time he will get this from the ground up.The best time would be in the second term.
a lot will rest on the MSM as well of course
James Valentine on Lateline!
Surely he will end the show with a saxophone solo.
Howard wanted it to fail of course, so he APPOINTED all those monarchist hacks to the Con-Con, even though most Australians are actually Republicans!
I think practically the best way to go would be a series of plebiscites to sort out firstly whether we want a republic, and secondly what model should be used. Once those are sorted out it would make the task of a referendum much easier. I see no reason why that couldn’t be done within 10 years.
ltep
as Ron pointed out
everything else is just fluff and tomfoolery
Gusface
I wrote my proposal at time , admittedly someone de-proved th lingos abit There was to me a triangle of 2 Republicon groups and one Monarchist Group …my Amigo way was simply to let th bunnies like cleary tink they won someting , a referendum on what I posted :
“d o you suport an asussie head of State in place of Queens Represntative implemented from 1/1/2003 (with proposals for his electon to be put to you berforehand)”
Let him and his cohorts in ‘negotiations’ even tink it was there idea …even let them announse it Operation strategy was to defeat th monarchists…for ever , later fight th bunnies , but not both , it was unwinnable a th bunnies had th most attractive choclates to spoil Republic , and didn’t th monarchist probably chuckle at th poor stategy
I agree with you ltep. How would you vote?
You mean like this
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=-Wqx7Hj08is
This song could be dedicated to a certain former PM of late
Totally! Great song!
Why don’t they have James Valetine on Lateline more to talk about economics as well?
He could intermittently play the sax, while talking about the DAX?
One constitutional referendum sure to get up would be to delete sections 60 and 74 as well as the last paragraph of section 23.
Bill Evans from Westpac could play piano, with Valentine on sax, and Tony Jones on drums.
WOAH! What about section 59, the section that gives the Queen a veto over any bill for one year after it has been given Royal Assent by the Governor General!
To think we have such a clause in a supposedly democratic constitution!
If there was a referendum partially on whether the Commonwealth should have the power to make laws about an Aboriginal race of any one state does any body think that it would get support?
When I said section 23 I meant section 73.
Tom the first and best
I don’t know what they ar ….all i want is to retain our Westminter System and agree with gusface & Itep on that , but hav an aussie as Head of State , elected by by 2/3 or 75% of Parliament ….and maybe look at those at reserve powers , will your changes do that
Make that sections 59, 60 and 74 as well as the last paragraph of section 73 and the phrase “, or that he reserves the law for the Queen`s pleasure”.
There’s no way such a system will be offered AGAIN, when it failed last time.
No it is just getting rid of reference to appeal to the Privy Council and the ability for the Queen to have a direct say in the law of Australia.
I think Whitlam got rid of appeals to the Privy Council in the Australia Act.
My bad, it was the Hawke government:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_Act
Yes but there is still reference in the constitution to it.
My referendum proposal would not delete the bit in section 73 that prevents restriction of appeals to the High Court from state Supreme Courts that were allowed to the Privy Council at the time of Federation.
Ron :
“but hav an aussie as Head of State , elected by by 2/3 or 75% of Parliament ….and maybe look at those at reserve powers , will your changes do that”
ShowsON:
“There’s no way such a system will be offered AGAIN, when it failed last time
Actualy it will happen , probaly by going down my amigo route first (of gwetting yes to an aussie head of State first before proposing how he’s elected) to get Monarchists ‘out of th poker game first , followed by th election of non 1950 ’s howards Royalists to parliament & there Menzies Royalist voters goiung to th never never land , and parisan education of a “receptive” diferent generation community , you giv up on th principal too easily but believers won’t
After the stimulus
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/after-the-stimulus/
‘we are coming back, coming back’
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-EU-Britain-Politics.html
Rudd the first red sheep in a National Party family.
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24673220-3102,00.html
GP @ 260
Sorry for the delay, (and thank you for those who took up the cudgels in my absence).
You seem to think that I am engaging in some reflexive, automatic, party-based writing. I should point out that I live in no camp, cheer for no squad, belong to no party, and enjoy the freedom to think and write independently. Those who read my posts regularly will know that I will stick it to Howard, Rudd, the Greens or whoever, whenever I feel it right to do so.
Your red herrings on John Howard’s fiscal irresponsibility are creative. I don’t care what the unions did, or what labour leaders do or did. The issue is whether Howard was fiscally responsible.
Howard was not fiscally responsible. He was prepared to pay anything to stay in power.
You let the cat out the bag with your line ‘he increased spending’. His Treasurer should have done the right thing and resigned on the issue, but, as usual, whinged about it after the event. An example of his fiscal irresponsibility, and there were many, is the so-called superannuation ‘reforms’ of his last couple of years in office. This deluged wealthy superannuants with free money, creating a large structural flaw for future budgets. The Rudd Government should do something about it because it is going to chew huge holes in the budget, but, unfortunately, Rudd chose to make a ‘no-change to superannuanation’ promise in the election campaign. As with his other promises, good or bad, he will keep them.
If you are interested in tracing the turning point for this fiscal irresponsibility, study Howard’s reaction to Kennett’s loss of government in Victoria. Kennett had a swag of cash at the time, and you could almost see Howard’s mind ticking over on that one. As usual with Howard, the lust for power over-rode all other considerations.
As for the dog whistles, I understand why you would want to try to clear Howard of it, because it is very ugly stuff. You choose some very unfortunate example on which to base your case. You raise the issue of his electorate. There is little doubt that Howard’s racist comment about Asians, on the public record, returned to bite him in an electorate with a steadily increasing proportion of Asian-born or Asian-descent voters. It is also a bit clumsy on your part to choose Howard’s record on Sudanese people as a further example of the lack of dog whistling on the part of the Howard Government. It would be worth your while to examine carefully the disgraceful dog whistling carried out by Minister Andrews in relation to African youths in Melbourne in the run up to the last election.
Howard had it in his power for ten years to do something extraordinarily positive and strategic for Indigenous People. He had $390 billion to spare and he had state governments favourably disposed to doing something positive about Indigenous affairs. For ten years Howard’s achievements were not just utterly zip, they were destructive. The difference between the vast potential at his disposal and his achievements in this field is absolutely staggering. The ‘Intervention’ efforts of his last year in office do not make up for the ten years of neglect and had not made a skerrick of difference by the time he was gone. Taking into account the potential at his disposal, Howard’s record on Indigenous Australia is completely indefensible. I don’t know why people even bother to try.
There is a major strategic problem for the Liberal Party. You have dissed all your Wets and your small l Liberals. There is plenty of evidence for this. One example will do: there were only four left in terms of the Russell Broadbent saga. These were precisely the sort of people who would have baulked at dog whistling and provided some balance in party-room discussions. These are also the people you need desperately to bring some balance to your Party and some appeal to the middle of the road electorate. It will be hard for the decent right and the crazy-right in the Liberal Party to let go of things a bit and to re-embrace the Wets and the small L Liberals. This is far more important than trying to defend the indefensible in Howard’s record. Until you do re-embrace the Wets and the small L Liberals, you are history.
Why do I bother with this? Because I would hate to think that Rudd will go unchallenged by a reasonable opposition for the forseeable future. Not good for Australia.
A thoughtful piece of writing Boerwar, but personally I’d be quite happy to live without the Liberals in power federally for the rest of my life .
Seems that a lot of people were talking about Turnbull vis a vis the Republic over night. I woke up and found this, Turnbull made what could be considered in some quarters a major statement in Perth yesterday. Not about the Republic but about something else that I know for a fact that Rudd has asked him more than once in Parliament at the dispatch box to say and he’s refused to do so. Don’t know if this is now official Lib policy or if this is just Malcolm’s personal opinion ….
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/turnbull-chooses-obama-over-howard/2008/11/18/1226770451044.html
Steve @548
Thank you. Apart from that, as the old saw goes, ‘Be careful what you wish for. You might get it.’
For those of you who think that global warming will just mean that things will be a bit warmer, and the beach a bit closer:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/science/18trees.html?_r=1
juliem @549
Thank you for the link. A good move by Turnbull. Time for the Liberals to move on from the dead weight of Howard and his absurdly racist attack on Obama. As the article says, tactically it frees Turnbull from the effective Labour counterattack on the George Bush G20 thingie. Not that any of this will make much difference amongst voters.
If Turnbull can now move a bit further and begin developing some good positive policies, so much the better.
Boerwar, would be nice if they moved on but it is likely that they may not, if you go back to the article about 2/3 of the way through it strongly hints that they will go right back to the same dead horse about phonegate ……
juliem @553
I think you may be right.
For those of you who think the GFC is the worst crisis facing Australia, spare a thought for the Murray Darling Basin:
http://www.mdbc.gov.au/__data/page/1366/Drought_Update_Issue_16_-_November_2008.pdf
ShowsOn @ 413
It IS a constitution for a nation, because there is no question that Australia is a nation or that the Constitution is valid and generally does what it purports to do (how well it does it being a completely separate question).
It’s just that the Constitution did not itself create or at the time of its drafting and acceptance have anything to do with the creation of that nation (or purport to do so).
Government, parliament and judiciary have nothing to do with nation status. The states themselves had all these things prior to federation, and still do.
Centre @ 528
I would vote yes on the question on whether we should be a Republic but would oppose any model which involved direct election of a President even if the result was to keep what we have now.
The WA Electoral Commission will soon deregister the WA branch of the Australian Democrats as its membership is below 500.
I would vote no regardless but thats because i like the system we have in place.
But if i could stomach any Republic Model as a conservative id say the 2/3s of Parliament model is the best way, thus we essentially swap GG for President…this requires less changes to the constitution than direct election which is just dumb.
I could also stomach a Republic if the Flag stayed the same.
They are two totally different issues. There’s no need to conflate them David Flint style.
Oh, no. This will not make JWH’s day. Turns out one of our most loved national symbols might be Chinese:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUKTRE4AH1P020081118
OTOH, no doubt Rudd gets along with them famously.
But you have to wonder about Sonny Hammond given how well he understood Skippy’s chatter. Is he a Maoist? Was he on Cheviot beach the day Holt went missing. Was Skip?
Glen @ 559,
Why? Not trying to advocate one way or the other on the flag, remember I’ve not been an Aussie citizen my whole life. But from my relatively new (citizen since Jan. 07, in the country since Dec. 04) perspective, I don’t understand why Aussies would want the Union Jack still on the flag if the Brits were officially out of the picture politically. Just trying to understand the “why” of your statement, that is all, thanks
.
ShowsOn @ 560,
See my #562. I know that you and Glen aren’t of the same cut of cloth politically so this statement makes it even a more interesting situation to ponder for me. Why would you want the flag the same if the Republic were in full force?
I think he’s arguing against tying them up in the same argument. Plenty of people who support a republic wouldn’t support changing the flag. Therefore many monarchists attempt to confuse the republic issue by tying in considerations of the flag. I support a republic but couldn’t care less either way about the flag. It’s just a bit of fabric as far as I’m concerned and no amount of ‘We went to war under this flag’ rhetoric will convince me otherwise.
A reminder of just how far Australia is in tackling Climate Change. I trust Kevin will be doing the same very soon.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,24674611-5006301,00.html
Juliem
Raising issues like the flag is a standard obstructionist tactic for those opposed to a republic. The idea of an Australian republic has enjoyed majority support for at least a decade. The concensus gets less clear when you go to secondary issues like the flag and whether to elect the president. So raising them causes disagrement in republic supporters, which is then exploited by pro-monarchists.
The problem with the flag debate is that as soon as you propose changing the flag, people ask “well, what will the new one look like?”
Pretty much every idea for a new flag has been (rightly IMHO) derided as being crap – the flag will not change until we find a new one that has near-universal recognition and appreciation (like Canada’s Maple Leaf).
Gee, the British Government actually listens to it’s scientists. Ours listen to an economist.
Ok Socrates, fair enough.
But on the issue of the flag alone, is there any logical explantion that a reasonable person could stomach for WHY the Union Jack should be on the flag representing a (hypothetical) completely politically independent Australia? Using what is perhaps is not the best example but is the only one which I have to offer, when the US went through their formal independence from GB in the 18th century, the flag we developed didn’t have the Union Jack on it. Canada is another example from the other end of the political spectrum. They’ve changed their flag even while still part of the Commonwealth.
I simply do not understand logically (on the flag issue in and of itself) why the UJ should remain if a republic is in force.
Juliem, the argument is usually tied up in patriotism and the insult it would cast onto past Australians who have fought wars under the flag. It’s not so much an argument of logic but one of appealing to emotion and a clinging to the past.
They also try and tie the essential nature of ‘Australian’ with images of the flag and paint those who would attempt to change it as un-Australian elitists. Howard atttempted to force future Government’s hands on the issue by inserting a provision into the Flags Act that any proposal to change the flag must be put to the Australian people, although I doubt the provision would hold up if challenged. It was just one in a long series of lame wedge tactics.
Juliem
Logically you are right; personally I think it is an example of our cultural cringe when people insist on it.
The “gone to war under the flag” bit is rubbish too as ltep said. I have read a lot of military history and it seems clear that a lot of the actual veterans of WWI and WWII had no thoughts about the flag in why they fought. I think the flag thing is hung onto by conservatives, the RSL (trying to justify its existence), and people of english descent who still identify strongly with “the mother country”. The latter is pretty ironic to – from what I have read, only a minority of Australians with British heritage actually came from England – most were either Scottish protestants or Irish catholics.
Ok, Socrates …. thanks
….. now I wish that we had some Canadians on board PB to explain how their country was able to get it done with the flag. Plenty of Canadians died under the old model, first lot comes to mind are the gas attacks in France in WW1 ……… Canadians seemed to be abel to get around that argument …..
Cheers
BTW, further to ltep’s points, some of the motivations and personal accounts of WWI/WWII veterans are quite interesting. One I read of a New Giuinea veteran complained bitterly that on the way home from WWII an RSL rep tried to sign up all the veterans on teh boat, even though teh RSL had done nothing to help them. Even then (1946!), it had devolved into a private industry trying to keep itself alive. The real help for veterans vcame from legacy, red cross and the salvation army.
Similary with motivations for fighting – the myth is a long way from reality. Some of the most popular reasons for fighting in WWI were: unemployment, desire for overseas travel, (escape from) family problems, friends had already enlisted, and needed the money. Patriotism and the desire to defend England was a long way down the list.
I always think that argument is hilarious (fighting for the flag)…the image it brings to mind is a group of soldiers standing on the edge of the battlefield, saying, “Who are you going to fight for?” “Oh, I think the Canadians, don’t you? That leaf is so pretty.” “Hmm…but I do like those stars on the blue background.”
Or…”I know the reasons behind fighting in this war are crap, but gee, you know, one of their guys tore down our flag yesterday, so how about it?”
I did have a New Guinea veteran ring me up once on this issue (I’d ‘dissed’ the flag inadvertently) to say that if his mates who died during the war knew the nonsense that was being talked on the issue they would have been greatly disappointed – they weren’t fighting for the flag, but for certain beliefs about their country and what it represented.
juliem the flag is such an important symbol to a country and our flag sums up our history (UK) and our place in the world (southern cross) and our federation (fed star)…
every design for a republican flag has been pathetic because they have no symbolism and no history…we would probably already be a republic if we had a minimalist model and a constitutional amendment protecting the Australian Flag…but alas the Republicans are a divided lot.
Juliem if you dont understand the significance of having the Union Jack as part of our flag i suggest you read some history books.
Juliem they changed their perfectly good red ensign flag to appease the Quebecers because it failed to recognise the large proportion of Canadians with French not British heritage.
You don’t fight for a flag. You fight for the country and it’s ideals. The signifier is not the same as the signified.
Glen, you totally missed the point – lock stock and barrel. I give you more credit than that because while you are a Lib I believe you are intelligent. So I will make the assumption that you have cherry picked parts of what I said and deliberately ignored the rest, knowing better.
In a hypothetical republic, a NEW leaf has been created in the history books without the Queen/King et. al. In that instance, going forward, the Union Jack is no longer relevant because the new direction that the country is taking doesn’t involve the Brits any more. Your rabble (see #575) is what Socrates and ltep noted as the right wing arguements to distract and confuse the Republic issue
.
Nice chatting with you
Um there’s a fair f@ckin portion of Australian who don’t have British heritage….
Glen wrote (above):
“Swap GG for President”….
That concept reminded me (brought it all flooding back from the memory archives) that, during the referendum campaign, “Swapping GG for President” entailed some couple of dozen word processing changes (mostly of the “cut and paste” variety: replace “GG” with “President” etc.), but these were monstered-up in the scare campaign as “Involving literally dozens of amendments to the Constitution,” and similar shock/horror descriptions.
This was almost as bad as Tony Abbot (politician) saying “We are leaving it to mere politicians to appoint the President,” when of course hewas a politician and previously the GG had been appointed by just one politician with one vote, the PM, not the full Parliament by 2/3rd majority.
It’s all coming back to me: I remember how I felt when the public swallowed these arguments as they were spouted out by those who should have known better. I can remember thinking: are we ever going to get any change in this country?
Still not convinced of the intelligence, or perhaps, more accurately, the attention span of your Average Aussie, and his or her ability to digest concepts any more complicated than: “Who will I vote for on Idol this Sunday?”
Glen
If the flag sums up our history, why does it have the Union Jack rather than the Aboriginal flag?
I know that it would be a historical break with ‘the mother country’, but the fact remains white settlement has its roots in British history, not to mention that much of our legal and political systems share the same style as those at Westminster…
Just because we have made a formal break, doesnt degrade the fact that much of our history and our roots come from Britain and that is why the Union Jack is on our flag, because it is a symbol of our past, heritage and our institutions. Therefore it deserves its place on our flag for the same reason the Federation Star and South Cross does.
I am talking about the history of Australia from white settlement, which had made Australia what it is today, many of us dont hold any connection to Aboriginal history.
Because Aboriginals have not had the same type of impact on our institutions and laws than Britain…not to mention they make up a tiny minority of all Australians.
I’m not in favour of changing the flag, firstly because it’s an excellent design and none of the alternatives have been any good at all, and secondly because it now has a century of history and tradition attached to it, and that counts for something in a country which doesn’t have much of either. So what if the Union Jack is an anachronism on the flag? It doesn’t hurt anyone, and it’s a reminder of Australia’s origins as a state.
Most Australian soldiers serving during the first & second world wars would not have fought under our ‘current’ flag. In the first world war most units would have used the union jack, while a small number flew the red ensign. During the second world war most units (about 90%) used the red ensign, and a small number used the blue ensign, which is our current civilian flag. The Navy & Airforce had their own unique flags as well.
Many of us don’t have British history connections. Mine is mainly Irish and German. Lots of countries have contributed to making Oz what it is today and I would prefer if we didn’t favour one country, even if it was the most significant. It’s unnecessarily divisive.
It would be much more devisive to try to change it.
Other countries don’t have any trouble with anachronistic national symbols, in fact they enjoy them. The Dutch national anthem pledges loyalty to the King of Spain, but no-one would dream of changing it.
The best case you could make for the flag being divisive would be to argue on the basis of Indigenous people and ‘invasion’. I’m not sure changing the flag would particularly help that.
In any case I don’t see it ever changing. The political backlash that would ensue from any proposal to change the flag would just be too large.
I’m in favour of flying the indigenous flag/s alongside the national flag.
I think all this illustrates that the sensible approach to a republic is clear:
1. first a general referendum on the question fo whether peopel want a republic?
2. then resolution of how to do it/what constitutional amendments required
3. debates about flag, anthem etc when we are ready to actually do it
That way the distraction issues don’t sidetrack people from the main question. The multi-stage process gives the anglophile nutters time to get used to the idea.
The problem with (1) is that large numbers of people won’t vote “Yes” to a general question if they don’t know what model they are committing themselves to.
Yay the Flag! Way to get off track! I’m in favour of a free space where the Union Jack usually sits; here we can all add our own culturally and historically relevant symbol. Aboriginal flag, NZ Silver fern, boxing kangaroo, Greek flag, Union Jack, Stars and Stripes, whatever takes your fancy, it would more appropriately reflect our human constitution to have a variety of totems united under (i.e. next to) the Southern Cross (which I reckon most folks would see as a useful unifying symbol).
Socrates-573,you are correct, my husband was a career soldier who joined for Korea on his 18th birthday, after that came Japan, Malaysia and Vietnam with a few minor countries inbetween, he swore by the salvo’s, even when they were on the front lines being shot at the salvo’s wer’nt too far behind, they’d give writing materials and send a letter and provide some of the comforts of home, he always gave to the salvos before he bother with the RSL, he called them the old boys club, when John died it was legacy who looked after me and made sure i got my gold card and entitlements, they stay in contact with a phone call every now and then to see if i need anything.
Can’t the question state: “Do you want Australia to become a Republic sometime in the future? You will be given another vote on the precise model if this question passes.”
Brilliant! People who really like the flag could put a copy of the old flag (including the union Jack) where the union jack goes!
This is fair for EVERYONE!
Why do we need a flag at all? Lets not have one. Recycle all the metal in flagpoles. Let’s honour our country without getting tied up and distracted over symbols. It is just a piece of cloth.
So the idea is that the national flag used at official events will have a grey patch with ‘Insert image here’ written on it?
itep 596, maybe a sponsor’s logo. ‘This State memorial service is brought to you by Toyota’, etc, etc,
Judith 593
Yes, it really makes you wonder why the RSL has any politicla credibility at all? They stopped being genuine representatives of veterans several wars ago.
If you are interested in the debate about the flag, I suggest you check the CBC archives on how Canada managed to change its flag in the 1960s. http://archives.cbc.ca/politics/language_culture/topics/80/ It was a spectacularly divisive issue in Anglo Canada. (Quebecers were more sanguine about abandoning the Red Ensign as the Canadian Flag.) In the end the debate was assisted by someone coming up with the very distinctive red and white maple leaf flag. But the importance of the Flag debate was it was part of a bigger debate about national identity, which also involved debate about bulinguilism. The same sort of debate would no doubt occur here, and at this stage we don’t have an alternative flag to discuss. No one should remind Malcolm Turnbull that he once helped sponsor a copmpetition for a new flag that came up with one interesting feature I liked, a dot-painting Federation star.
Obviously, my floating signifier suggestion for the flag is half-pisstake, but I’m also half serious. I think the official flag should simply drop the union jack, leaving a Southern Cross and federation start on the blue background. With that as a base people are free to add national flags or legitimate cultural symbols (aboriginal flag for example) as they see fit for themselves or their organisation. Those that wish to leave it as it is can then do so, but why impose the union jack on all of us when so many of us have no connections (affective or genealogical) to Britain?
Oh, and for god’s sake, this flag stuff should go nowhere near a discussion of a Republic. Like so many have said, it’ll just muddy the waters terribly and plays into the monarchist hands. The republic is much more important for our sense of nation.
Surely we will become a Republic before ever changing the flag, else the issues will get confused. Some will think changing the flag will make us a Republic, or atleast that is what the ACM will say…
That should be ‘bilingualism’. Which reminds of the apocryphal story of Lester Pearson extolling the virtues of bilingualism somewhere in northern Manitoba, only t be abused by an elderly woman who asserted “If English was good enough for our Lord Jesus Christ, then it is good enough for Canada.”
Do we need a referendum to change the flag?
Pretty sure we don’t
That’s debateable Diogenes. In 1998, the Flags Act was amended by the Howard Government to set rules for changing the flag’s design or to replace the flag entirely (namely, a referendum must be held).
There are a number of issues with that. Firstly, the Act itself can be amended to remove the referendum/plebiscite provision. Secondly, it’s doubtful whether the legislation requiring a referendum is Constitutional.
The Howard government altered the Flag Act (think i’m correct in the name) to require a plebiscite to change the flag. However, the Flag Act is simple legislation, so the plebescite provision can be easily repealed. Under the provision, if the Northern Territory had become a new state and they wanted to add an extra point to the Federation Star on the flag, it would have needed a plebiscite. This is an example of why you don’t entrench things in legislation without really good reason.
Hey, I too like the dot-painting concept. Perhaps we should replace the Union Flag with a dot-painted representation of it!
That being said, now that it is ‘entrenched’ it makes it politically more damaging to amend the Act to allow the flag to be changed by executive action. Critics of changing the flag can point out that the Government is being undemocratic and over-riding the public’s opportunity to choose our flag. I assume this was what the Howard Government had in mind when they set about putting in the plebiscite provision into the Flags Act.
Now that’s an idea! That sounds like an interesting compromise.
Ah yes BUT the effect of that provision to the flags act means that it is now political suicide for a government to change the flag without consulting the people due to the near limitless arguments and criticisms available to any opposition. Which frankly is never going to happen anyway (unless some anti-English sentiment wave engulfs the country).
Also – unless I’m very much mistaken – the High Court has never ruled on any manner & form provision which isn’t enshrined in the constitution. I very much agree with Antony that any challenge would be likely to end in the ruling of ‘act of parliament can be repealed by act of parliament…end of story.’ But the court has been inventive before, so one can never tell.
Given the readily available s 128 I find it hard to imagine the High Court could rule on any other basis.
The problem with that is that s128 quite clearly states ‘This Constitution shall not be altered except in the following manner.’
It would be a brave court which dared to alter the convention that Parliament can amend it’s own legislation as it sees fit provided a majority is present. But then again, it isn’t completely inconceivable… the State governments can, for example, edit their own constitutions without needing to consult the people (unless they want to alter Parliament itself) and is allowed to create provisions in the State Constitution which bind future governments to manner & form requirements.
Still, that’s a long bow to draw.
Max,
Two things. First, state constitutions are much weaker than the federal one. Most state governments are empowered to make laws for the “peace, welfare and good governance” of the state without any qualifications. The federal constitution is much more restrictive in conferring powers on the fed govt.
Second, the way that state governments have entrenched legislation and bound future governments has been to say “the upper house cannot be abolished without a referendum by the people and the requirement to have a referendum to abolish the upper house cannot be amended without a referendum by the people”. This is called double-entrenchment and has been held to be effective by the High Court.
Howard’s Flag Act, by contract, is only entrenched once – if you change the Flag Act by legislation, you can change the flag by legislation as well.
The Liberals often run these “it’s the law, it can’t be changed” arguments. They said the same thing about the GST being raised remember, they said the act meant all the states had to agree, but didn’t mention that that section of the act could simply be repealed at a federal level.
So if Howard REALLY wanted to do something about the flag, he should’ve proposed a referendum where the flag was defined in a new section of the constitution.
But instead it was just something to talk about instead of actually governing.
ShowsOn,
Howard could have really done something about the flag by doubly entrenching the legislation – i.e. say that to change the Flag Act, you have to get a referendum of the people.
Of course, that would have led to a High Court challenge which could have knocked the whole thing over…
The flag i dont think would be changed despite the wishes of the latte drinkers, all the yobs on Australia day and going to the cricket would not want to change the flag.
It will happen, but not until well after we become a Republic. The ties to the past diminish as time rolls on.
but Glen 617, think of the possibilities, how about the image of Pig Iron Bob in the top left corner? you go for that, surely?
Max and ltep at various, above…
The High Court has already done this. In Kartinyeri, the Hindmarsh Bridge case. In a nutshell, the Heritage Protection Act (an Act of the Cth) would otherwise have applied to make the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Act unlawful. But the HIB Act provided that the HPA did not apply “in relation to the preservation or protection of an area or object”, in relation to the bridge. The effect of this was that the local indigenous people could not make an application to the relevant minister that the area be protected as a “significant Aboriginal area”.
I’m no expert on the NT Intervention, but I believe that in respect of the Intervention, the same mechanism has been applied – ie. the Racial Discrimination Act does not apply to the extent that it may impact on the intervention.
Anyway, as to the Flags Act:
1. There is no serious question that s 3(2) of that Act could be repealed or materially amended.
2. I doubt that s 3(2) is unconstitutional, as any old plebiscite could easily do the job. The only requirement is that the new flag be chosen by a majority of electors. A “referendum” (esp. in the s 128 sense) is not required. The constitution is not really in play here.
3. I agree that the Howard amendment just makes it more politically difficult to change the flag.
Wonder how much their recession will help with that target.
The amazing thing about that target is that only 3 members of the House of Commons voted against it!
The financial crisis seems to be helping Gordon Brown a lot:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/nov/19/early-general-election-conservatives-labour
What about state flag reform?
100% of Australian state flags as opposed to 30% of Canadian province flags and 2% of American state flags.
Have the Union Jack on them.
Or Fraser, Glen.
Here is a link about New Zealand flag reform.
http://www.nzflag.com/
After a bit of digging, I found the flag design I remembered with the dot pattern art. It isn’t good enough as a flag, but it had a kernel of an idea which I thought was interesting. Better than a boomerang or kangaroo. http://www.ausflag.com.au/images/034.gif
Perhaps a lawyer can comment on how the Commonwealth can be bound by the Racial Discrimination Act when the Constitution specifically empowers the Commonwealth to make special laws for “the people of any race.” (s51 (xxvi)). The 1967 referendum removed the words “other than the aboriginal race”, so the meaning is quite clear: the Commonwealth can pass laws that relate only to indigenous people with ipso facto infringing the RDA.
that should read “without ipso facto infringing the RDA.”
[After a bit of digging, I found the flag design I remembered with the dot pattern art. It isn’t good enough as a flag, but it had a kernel of an idea which I thought was interesting. Better than a boomerang or kangaroo. http://www.ausflag.com.au/images/034.gif
If you stare at it long enough, does the Union Jack appear?
The RDA doesn’t stop the Commonwealth from legislating in any particular way as they can include a provision stating that the Racial Discrimination Act does not apply in relation to that legislative measure. For instance, the NT intervention legislation included a provision that said that the Racial Discrimination Act would not apply.
I think the Act is essentially and interpretive measure, where when interpreting other pieces of legislation courts are to take it that the Racial Discrimination Act provisions apply unless otherwise specified.
It actually removed “other than the aboriginal race of any one state” (as well as section 127) leaving it as “the people of any race, about who it is deemed necessary to make special laws”.
The RDA is also binding to states as Queensland fond out when it tried to definitively legislate terra nullius in 1985.
I love those broad interpetative measures. Like the Acts Interpretation Act, a personal favourite.
The RDA was implemented under the treaties power which allowed the Commonwealth to impose it on the states without being bound itself.
http://www.atns.net.au/agreement.asp?EntityID=755
You know you’re in Nerdsville when people have their favourite Acts of Parliament. Anyone else keen on the Pig Slaughter Levy Amendment Act (No. 2)? Or the Dried Vine Fruits (Rate of Primary Industry (Excise) Levy) Validation Act?
Don’t laugh Adam. There is some bloke who takes the AEC to the courts after every election saying it has breached some obscure inhereted British Act by failing to enforce that all candidate deposits must be paid with gold soverigns.
I remember being passed a two volume epic sent ot the ABC by some loser arguing that by signing the Treaty of Versaile and joining the Legue of Nations, the Australian Constitution had been nullified some time in 1922. My suggested response to the ABC was that they should tell this bloke to take his case to the High Court, which would be a problem because if he proved his case, the High Court would cease to exist and could not make a ruling. I think they sent a standard ‘Thank you for your interesting program idea’ response in the end.
Oh dear, they are still around.
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/constitution.htm
Reminds me of someone who claims that all members of parliament are ineligible to stand because they’re sworn allegiance to a foreign power… the Queen. Somehow that seemed like a rational enough idea to that person to write down and send letters about!
Adam might rememeber better, but someone in the 1950s tried to get Catholics disbarred from the Australian Parliament under Section 44 becuase they were subject to a foreign power i.e. the Pope. And we all know by the Bill of Rights that it is illegal for any Catholic to own a gun.
I can see the headline now “ABC election commentator Antony Green posts biased against small political group on political blog”:-).
Ltep – that happened to Heather Hill, the One Nation Senator elect that never was.
Although, to be accurate, in her case Queeny was wearing a British crown rather than an Australian one which is why she was deemed ineligible to sit as a Senator.
I’ve just noticed that site involves Joe Bryant, who formed an odd party called the Independent EFF before the 1988 NSW election and drove the Labor Party to distraction in some seats campaigning against labor’s proposed tightening of gun laws. I think the EFF meant Enterprise Freedom and Family, though Stephen Loosely dubbed it Extremism, Fuhrer and Fatherland. Bryant famously had a gigantic metal trojan horse deposited by crane in the forecourt of NSW Parliament one evening. The trojan horse (or one like it) still pops up at rallies around the country, usually covered with slogans attacking the banks. Every so often i see it suddenly appear in some obscure news story.
Prop for all occasions!
Since Julia Gillard was born in Wales she must have given up her British Citzenship before she became a member of the Commonwealth Parliament or Gellibrand is vacant and if the Parliament has not otherwise provided then any person could sue her for 100 pounds in any counrt of competent jurisdiction (section 44 of the constitution (not exact wording)).
Actually, the Heather Hill case was interesting, as it came close to overturning the previous Wills by-election case on the meaning of Section 44. A minority of judges wanted the meaning of Section 44 as it related to entitelment to sit in Parliament be be left to the Parliament to decide. Be interesting to see how that one is ruled on in the next big test case.
All candidates for Labor preselection have to swear a blood oath that if they were born in a foreign country (which does include the UK) they have either renounced their prior citizenship, or if this is not possible (as with Greece, which doesn’t allow renunciation), have made every reasonable attempt to do so. That seems to satisfy the law as the courts currently hold it to be, but it’s still a very grey area. After the Cleary and Hill cases, I seem to recall that Howard agreed to hold a referendum to clarify both the office of profit section and the citizenship section, but of course he didn’t.
Local government is another issue Adam. Labor’s attitide is that any candidate who is on a local council must resign before nominating. The Liberal Party’s legal advice is different. The matter has never been tested in court. If you remember in 2007, the Labor candidate in Wentworth against Malcolm Turnbull had the problem of serving on a state tribunal which he had forgotten about and hadn’t resigned from before nominating. He was fortunate that the relevant Act had been updated post the Wills by-election to include a deeming clause, that is that any member of the tribunal who stood for Parliament was automatically deemed to have resigned their office.
I might be wrong on the Heather Hill case, but can’t be bothered trying to read the judgement. There was some legal argument about whether the High Court should have ruled on the petition, but I can’t remember the detail.
George Newhouse… *shakes head sadly*
In WA, there are at least 4 local members, all Liberals, are still members of their local council, despite being elected to State Parliament, and will continue in their dual roles until their Council terms finish.
Now here’s a test for you Anthony – why was Senator Ferguson expelled from the Senate? (no looking at Wikipedia)
On another topic entirely, has anyone seen the newest post on Larvatus Prodeo on the Cheney indictment possibilities?
Ben Chifley was a member of Abercrombie Shire Council all through his parliamentary career, including when he was PM. Has the law been changed since then?
It will be a pity if Al Franken isn’t elected to the Senate, he won’t be able to do his promised “quickie impeachment” of Bush and Cheney.
Adam,
Didn’t Jackie Kelly have a similar situation to those two mentioned earlier?
From memory she was an army lawyer at the time of her election, so her election went to court. But then she won a subsequent election easily.
Was Senator Ferguson the only one to be removed from the provision about being absent from Parliament for a certain length of time?
Yes, but what was the reason he was absent from the Senate?
Senator George Brandis spends $230K on travel expenses in the last half of 2007, almost as much as Howard and Rudd during the same election period!
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24676755-29277,00.html
Adam used to write for Wikipedia before he was forced out – now it’s been divided between leftists who protect and whitewash the left articles (Lenin and Marx etc) and Tories who protect and whitewash the right articles (Thatcher and Reagan etc)
I have this vague recollection of Tony Abbot attacking Mark Latham for remaining on a council after being elected at a by election in ‘94.
How do you get forced out of writing stuff for wikipedia? Can’t you just make amendments anonymously?
O.K. Adam @ 659. I’ll bite. Why was he absent?
You know me better than that, ShowsOn.
He insisted on his right to remain a member of the Qld Legislative Council and the Senate at the same time. He was eventually expelled for non-attendance and the law was changed to prevent concurrent membership.
Good grief, has George Brandis acquired Kevin 737 syndrome but without the relevance?
Frank C @ 651, is that allowable in W.A.?
Sir Thomas Bent was on two different councils (Brighton & Moorabbin) as well as being a State MP for Brighton! all at the same time, that must be some sort of record for mulible seat warming!
I guess he thought he better cash in while he was still a minister.
He made a pretty hysterical appearance on Lateline the week before the election. So his defense could be that he wasn’t of sound mind during that period.
Apparently it is.
Frank, Section 44 of the Commonwealth Constitution defines the qualifications for membership of the Commonwealth Parliament and has nothing to do with state parliaments. I think, for instance, Mike Rann may not have renounced his New Zealand citizenship.
Looks like SA politics can be a bit rough sometimes too.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24675676-12377,00.html
Clover Moore is currently Lord Mayor of Sydney at the same time she is the Memeber for Bligh (actually I think the seat is called Sydney these days) in the NSW parliament. Though am I right in thinking that the prohibition doesn’t apply unless you are intending to sit in the Federal parliament?
I wish I knew how google comes up with ‘related searches’ on its news search. For me it comes up with johanna griggs, nikki webster, kingsley, fannie bay, noam chomsky and bruce mcavaney. It’s the Nikki Webster that bothers me. And I know you shouldn’t search for yourself, but I like to know who is quoting me out of context.
This is the upshot of a sad and sorry affair in S.A. politics. Basically Speaker Lewis gave these nut cases a platform to spout their sex abuse conspiracy theories, which just detracted from the REAL issue of sex abuse occurring against wards of the state.
No that makes perfect sense. Nikki Webster said she wanted to date you in a recent issue of FHM. I picked up a copy for scholarly purposes of course.
Don’t play all innocent with us, Antony, we know all about your illicit liaison with Nikki Webster.
Antony,
I’m referring to being a locval councillor and a State member of Parliament, ie in Swan Hills (my electorate), Frank Alban is still a City of Swan Councillor, despite winning the seat.
Hmm, gives a whole new spin on this – http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=jNKLn0A-1CM
Yes, come clean Mr. Green.
After all, we’re all friends here.
FHM? Sorry, the only magazine I read is The Economist.
So you don’t know you were voted Sexy Psephologist of the Year by “Lost Through Fractionation” Monthly?
Frank, that’s allowed unless barred by WA Legislation. Queensland has now passed a law preventing sitting local councillors running for state parliament. If they don’t resign first, their nomination is deemed as a resignation from their council. The same law does not apply to running for the Commonwealth parliament, and no other state has a similar law. That’s how Clover is Lord Mayor and MLA for Sydney. As I said, it has been raised but not come before the courts whether being on a local council falls under the Constitution’s ‘office for profit’ provisions.
It’s a small and relatively unattractive talent pool though Adam.
Antony, surely by next federal election the ABC will have touch screens, a coloured ice skating rink, and a hologram of Kerry O’Brien?
Or at the very least, can we have a new graphics system that shows the primary vote and 2pp votes at the same time!
I’ll give you ~2 years to work on it.
Why hasn’t it come before the High Court in 100+ years?
Are we just waiting for a really, really close federal election for it to be tested?
That sounds about right, wait for a disputed election before clarifying what that section actually means.
You won’t get touch screens and interactive graphics until the networks agree to abandon the tallyroom. You need to have tight control of lighting to do any of those tricks, and it is impossible in the tallyroom. I back the AEC that the tallyroom has outlived its usefulness.
And as for that ‘Help me Obe Wan ‘ hologram stuff, no thanks.
You don’t need a close election to challenge under Section 44. Any seat can be challenged, though a safe seat wouldn’t be much point because a party wouldn’t win at a by-election. The ‘Office for Profit’ stuff has only been considered since Phil Cleary was tossed out in 1992 because he was on leave without pay from his job as a teacher. As I said, most people who could be challenged have chosen to sort out any potential problems before nominating.
But can’t the networks do their coverage from their studios if they want to?
I figured the ABC would just broadcast from Sydney next time given they kept on getting drowned out whenever Bennelong was mentioned.
Or do you need to be at the tallyroom to get instant access to the AEC data?
Well the WA State election tallyroom was at the ABC’s Perth studios, even though the actual counting was at the Fremantle Passenger Terminal, as the the usual location, the Claremont Showgrounds were not available due to the Election being called just a few weeks short of the annual Royal Show.
I would’ve thought they could be anywhere they liked, with the data sent electronically.
But I guess there is tradition to it, maybe it is expected of the ABC to be at the national tallyroom, because that is where they usually are.
4 million expected to attend Obama’s inauguration:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/17/AR2008111703672_pf.html
No, the tallyroom is completely useless, no need to be there at all. But it does have history which is why long time Canberra veterans want to keep it.
I’ve been through two Parliamentary committees on this subject. When the JSCEM last looked specifically at the tallyroom, the ABC took no position, I appeared personally saying the tallyroom should be abandoned, but the federation of commercial broadcasters (I think it is called Free TV Australia) argued for it to be retained. So it was. And if the tallyroom was there with all the commercial broadcasters, the ABC chose to go there as well.
The big change occurs in 2011. The next NSW election will be the first in country without a tallyroom. Victoria may yet think twice about it as well, but at this stage the next Federal election will have a tallyroom.
Obama will be bringing along five small loaves and two small fishes…
Atmosphere/Drama. TV ratings etc.
Ouch!
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24676574-12377,00.html
I wonder if our Pauline is a member?
What were your arguments? Noise? Technology has over taken it?
My recollection was that the other side argued that it was a tradition that should be retained, and that it creates an impression of a transparent democratic process in action.
Most likely you’ll be in the tallyroom with a laptop, surrounded by cameras, with a hologram of you seated next to Kerry in Sydney.
ShowsOn and scorpio
There’s a great story behind those allegations. The politician was evidently completely innocent but he did lose his temper, a la Belinda Neal, and was photographed in an unfortunate location. A few people jumped to the wrong conclusions. I don’t think he’ll win much though because not many people heard his name directly as a result of the allegations but would have got a packet if the name was published.
With Nikki Webster sitting on the other side!
hilary would’ve turned the water into wine
Diogenes,
Trouble is that now, no one will be game to tell the full story because of the legal action.
It certainly has me intrigued to know more about it.
Whine?
Shows on, the tallyroom is an empty metal shed with a concrete floor. The AEC data all comes from a server in Canberra or Sydney, and the ABC’s internet is Sydney where we pull the data from, not the tallyroom. Every bit of equipment used by the AEC and by the networks has to be taken to Canberra, and most of the staff as well. It costs the AEC a million dollars to conduct the tallyroom, and they rightly think it is money that could be better spent elsewhere. The last JSCEM hearing asked whether cost recovery from the media was an option, but cost recovery would just end the tallyroom because no one would pay to go.
I’ve done every election since 1990 in the tallyroom, and never seen the tallyboard or had a conversation with somebody from a political party. If you know what you are doing, absolutely everything you need to call the election is in the XML file the AEC publishes on its website. All the tallyroom is is atmosphere, and in the case of 2007, that atmosphere was just a little bit too rowdy.
Poor babies. If you gang a gang of fascist thugs, you can’t complain if your own methods are turned back on you.
Superiority through non violence.
Antony, don’t mention AEC internets or XML files! MelbCity might be lurking and might launch one of his “AEC are tools of Satan” rants at us.
Yup. It worked with Hitler.
LOL! Why of course!
I thought the allegation was
A group of nutcases thinking there was a grand pedophilia conspiracy running through S.A. business, the police, judiciary and politics.
They had provided no evidence to back up their claims, even though they were asked to do so repeatedly by the Government.
The main “witness” to the supposed crime had a history of making similar allegations against other people, again without any supporting evidence.
Well the ABC should just break ranks and do it from Sydney. Most of it is crosses around the country anyway.
We just need new spiffy graphics that show Primary votes, 2PP, and preference flow percentages at the same time. Rather than the suspenseful wait for the 2pp count.
You could put Tony Jones in the tallyroom if you need some atmosphere, you know, interviews with Bob Ellis about to pass out. That sort of thing.
I wonder if this is a further diversion to take peoples minds of the failed and phoney “phonegate” campaign.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24672541-25090,00.html
Antony, what happened with the ABC subtitle graphic tally count at the last election? The numbers seemed to be swapped around for ALP & the Libs, and then ended up being greyed out after a while. A software glitch I take it?
Where will Turnbull do his concession speech? The steps of the Opera House?
Oh noes, I agree with her. Moreover, Turnbull is the WRONG person to help make this happen. So the less he says the better.
You think he’ll still be opposition leader at the next election?
Speaking of Tally Room’s – here is a pic of the 1975 Federal Election one.
http://www.waynemac.com/gallery/19_TallyRoom.jpg
and here is the Caption:
Whoops, that should be 1977
I wonder who she copied it off?
Shows On, we don’t show primary and preferences on the same graphic because they don’t match. We show actual primary percentage votes, but the 2PP numbers are always projections. They may or may not have any relationship to the primary count, and there is certainly nothing sensible you can show in terms of preference flows.
Dario: In the mad rush of getting all the graphics working, we’d overlooked the graphic for the bottom of frame had been prepared with the party labels round the opposite way to the numbers that were being put up. The graphic excludes all seats with no votes, but our computer systems include zero count seats in the prediction, which meant the computer did not have a count that corresponded to the graphic which allowed anyone to check whether it was right. We’ve added such a display to the computer now so if such an error ever occurs again, it can be sorted out.
That might have been a cause of the foul-ups in the Tally Room in the last election.
The wonderful world of television
Flying by the seat of your pants!
Antony, seeing as you haven’t replied to either of my emails over the past year for one reason or another, could you reply here?
http://www.abc.net.au/elections/sa/2006/guide/pastelec.htm
In SA, for 1962, the ALP primary vote is 54.0%, whilst in 1965 it is 55.0%. So why do both elections show the ALP 2PP as 54.3%?
A little late in the thread, but it’s not often one gets to tell Antony he’s wrong!
At the risk of blowing my cover, I have every reason to confirm that the ALP had no problems with local councillors nominating for federal seats at the last election. There was absolutely no requirement to stand down from local council to do so. On the other hand, they bent over backwards to ensure that any hint of being (however inadvertently) a foreign citizen was extinguished.
The reason this has never been tested is simply that, until the Phil Cleary Wills case, noone had ever tested the section of the Constitution about employees of the Crown being ineligible to stand (one gets the impression noone had ever read it). The Wills case, and subsequent actions spilling out of this (i.e. Jackie Kelly & the One Nation senator) raised the question of local councillors.
Bob1234, I don’t know.
Another question: If Jackie Kelly was ruled ineligible because she had not resigned her RAAF commission in time, how was it that serving members of the armed forces retained their seats in parliament during both world wars? Adair Blain remained an MHR while a Japanese POW, and in fact was re-elected in 1943 while a POW (how did he nominate?).
Antony, it’s on your elections website. Wouldn’t it be a good idea to find the correct information, or remove the incorrect information?
To have the status quo is to leave incorrect information on it.
Fellas it’s so easy. The answer is staring us right in the face.
After we become a republic, the Australian flag will be:
1. Gold Southern Cross in the centre.
2. Green background (Green and Gold for Australia sound familiar).
3. Red, White and Blue outline stripes to replace union jack.
Easy
Sheesh
Bob1234, those numbers were taken from documents provided to me by the Commonwealth parliamentary. Somewhere in my library at home I have the orginal document, but after 10 minutes of looking, I haven’t found it so can’t say whether it is a typo or not.
However, prior to 1970, it was common in most states for the major parties to skip contesting each seat. Some time in the early 1970s, academics set about creating two party preferred statistics going back to the 1930s, and they created 2PP figures even in seats that were uncontested, or where one of the major party candidates was absent.
As a result, prior to 1970, most state election results have this odd anomaly that the 2PP might have little relationship to the primary vote. From memory, that applied to most SA elections in that period, where there were always a few uncontested conservative seats.
So, I can’t tell you whether it is an error or whether it is an odd arifact of how 2PPs were retrospectively calculated.
Adam, because no one had tested it, and also because there was no such thing as Australian citizenship.
To those who commented on the flag debate above: my apologies for not responding sooner. Since the debate has moved on I won’t continue with it, suffice to say that I agree with the general consensus that the Act could be repealed with legislative ease (and great political pain). It would still be a very interesting case to take before the court.
Or maybe it wouldn’t and it would simply get shot down in a two page judgement. Who knows? But without double entrenchment, it’s probably not enough. Howard was smart enough to know that the political retribution would more than do the job of protecting the flag.
Antony, the issue is not citizenship, it is office of profit under the Crown. If Kelly’s RAAF commission was an office of profit in 1996, why was this not the case during World War II?
I had already considered that, but what are the chances it is correct, seeing as it is the exact same as the previous election, and it is the only election listed to have the Labor 2PP lower than the Labor primary, seeing as the Labor 2PP was only 1-3% higher than the primary prior to the Democrats…
If you can find out, it would be great, but if not, oh well… thanks anyway.
Antony GREEN at 702
Which shows you you can not rely on a computer to provide an accurate count. Garbage in garbage out. Then there is the system itself that deistorts the outcome and prediction as we saw in the Queensland Senate count when the Greens where denied representation thanks to the system in place which did not reflect the voters intentions.
Well given the circumstances, maybe it was decided as a bipartisan agreement not to challenge the eligibility of such candidates who were serving the country.
So since it went unchallenged, it was considered OK. But if someone took it to the courts, they would’ve probably ruled otherwise.
Are you referring to this?:
http://andrewlanderyou.blogspot.com/2007/12/senate-update-feeney-challenged-by.html
Sorry I meant 717 .. 712Antoiny Green made a msileading statement “If you know what you are doing, absolutely everything you need to call the election is in the XML file the AEC publishes on its website” Theat would be true as long as they provide the deatiled daat. In Victoria 2006 the VEC did not provide detialed stats on the upper-house (Thanks to Antony Green) The AEC thankfully did provide information on the Senate count. The detailed preference data file took three months to publish and the VEC failed to makle available the data for teh preliminatry count so there was no way in which a proper comparsion beteen count A and Count B could be made. Hey you scratch their back they will scratch yours. If they have something to hide you can always support them in return for a favour at a later date.
Or was Kelly knocked out in 1996 because she had not renounced her NZ citizenship? Surely she would have had to do that when she was commissioned in the RAAF?
Adam, the last part of Section 44 states that the office for profit provision does not apply to any military person not wholly employed by the Commonwealth, such as in the Reserve or MPs serving in the military.
Kelly’s problem was that she was an Officer in 1996, but nominated before being transferred to the reserve. That meant she did not come under the last part of Section 44 and therefore had an office for profit.
I understand it is normal practice for military members to be shifted to reserve duties as soon as they become candidates.
That was a hypothetical based on the way they calculate teh Surplus transfer value .. You should also look at the Queensland results. Queensland produced the wrong outcome. If you count the Queensland election exclusing all other candidates except the last seven (2ALP3LIb/NP and 1 Green) the Greens should have been elected. The reason they did not get elected is the way in which votes attributed to excluded candidates are distributed.
According to wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Kelly
Ah, democracy@work. You’ll be pleased to know there was a meeting of your fan club from electoral offices around the country in the ACT election tallyroom in October. The conspiracy exists, the truth is out there ……..
democracy@work
#734
Instead of making unsubstantiated innuendos against Antony Green …why do you keep watching and then keep later complaining….. better still set up your own telecast as you may then learn th technical & statistical problems associated with such an election broadcast including from AEC
So it looks as though there were two reasons for her disqualification.
Section 44 disqualifies any person who is a subject or citizen of a foreign power meaning that unless we had High Court of xenophobic judicial activist and/or South Pacific Islanders (Fijians, Tongans etc.) then a New Zealand Citizenship would not be a barrier to being a member of the Commonwealth Parliament.
Kelly nominated 2 February 1996 but didn’t arrange her transfer in to the reserve until 17 February. Open shut case, as was the failure to renounce her New Zealand citizenship.
No Tom, a New Zealand citizen is a subject of the Queen of New Zealand, not the Queen of Australia. That’s the Statute of Westminster for you.
Antony Green is the one that believs in Conspiracy theoris; I dont it is just a coverup of a munumental stuff up. A coverup spiced with lies and misinformation.’
Antony have you examined that election data and recounted teh Queensland result excluing all other unsuccessful candidates? I think not.
No.
#740 I am very much aware of the technical issues surrounding the count thanks. I will agree on some things with Antony the authorities could do a better job at providing data. But it does not mean they need to exclude information just because the ABC is not interested or can not cope with it. I have attended many Tally rooms in my time and I am of the view that of they can provide the information required in a timely fashion then the days of the tally room are over. Sad in many ways as it did provide an opportunity for some to meet some very interesting people under the same roof.But the world moves on and the money is wasted.
Antony Green at 746 as I expected. If you have not looked at it then your not in a position to make an informed assessment
I am not saying that someone who is a New Zealand citizen only can be a member of parliament but someone who is a dual Australian-New Zealand citizen.
can.
Antony thanks for that. S44 seems to make it clear that Kelly’s problem had nothing to do with her RAAF service. She could have sat in parliament in RAAF uniform if she had wanted to, as has happened from time to time in the UK (Sir John Keyes denounced Neville Chamberlain in the House in 1940 in the full dress uniform of an Admiral of the Fleet). So she must have been knocked out over her NZ citizenship.
But New Zealand is not a foreign power.
Any country which is not Australia is a foreign power.
Democracy at Work
“I am of the view that of they can provide the information required in a timely fashion ”
Well I am of th view you do not know what you ar talking about , and proof of pudding is not omnly your clear lack of technical broadcast experise , but your willingness to make statements you do not know ar true or not eg
“But it does not mean they (th ABC) need to exclude information just because the ABC is NOT interested or can not cope with it”
If you had miniscule credibility before this statement , you went to zero quickly You do NOT know what th ABC quote ” is NOT interested in or can not cope with it”….as with MelbCity
Does NZ still use the Meek’s method of counting multi member constituencies?
If the constitution meant foreign country it would have said foreign country not foreign power.
No Adam, she was knocked out both as an RAAF member and as a New Zealander. In 1996 she had yet to enter Parliament. She was a full-time RAAF officer, therefore fell out for holding an office for profit. All she needed to do was transfer to the reserve before nominating and she would have been protected.
If she had been an MP and in the Military, she would also have been protected. MPs are not employees of the Crown, so an MP in service is protected by not beeing wholly employed by the Commonwealth. Obscure I know, but then so is the whole of Section 44.
Ron @754 your opinion based on your own bias. I assure you I do not what I am talking about. I have been designing computer networks and databases for well over 20 years. I have participated in just as long tally room counts. I also have analysed in detail the various data streams provided by both the the AEC and VEC. As to your credibility and experience. I can not comment.
Tom, in 1901 the Empire was a legal unity and there was no such thing as a separate Australian citizenship, so any British subject could sit in any parliament in the Empire. But the Statute of Westminster and the Australia Acts have completely severed Australia’s legal links with the UK, and with NZ. Today a British or NZ citizen is as much a foreigner in Australia as a Mongolian.
Antony, so an MP can join the ADF without losing their seat, but an ADF member cannot become an MP?
The reason the VEC did not provide 2006 upper-house polling place results on the night was thanks to Antony Green. I can publish the correspondence ito back up my informed statements f you like.
dom
Are you the entity formerly known as Melborne City or Andrew Van Der Craats?
Adam I think it was possible to remain employed as a teacher in the early days… It was not that long ago that Aboriginals were denied a vote and in order to vote in the upper house you had to own property. We have made some stride in electoral reform but we still have a long way to go.
Local Government in Victoria used to elect three candidates via an exhaustive counting system. The same voters elected all three candidates.
Adam, my point is not that New Zealand is not foreign (it is foreign) but that it is not a POWER which means that a dual Australian-New Zealand citizen can be a member of the Commonwealth Parliament.h
Tom, no they can’t. Trust me on this. No-one who is a citizen of any other country can be a member of the Commonwealth Parliament.
GG
if one looks at Democracy at Work’s post #737 , link ‘Q’ld Results’ and look up submission point 9/ and see who wrote it …it is Melbourne City or Andrew Van Der Craats
MelbCity , why th hell do you not post as MelbCity …..because we already knew MelbCity was a flat earth AEC lover
AND Deomocracy at work “As to your credibility and experience. I can not comment.”
…just as well because I’m an expert
Also th calcs on Q’ld electon were correct using reel world maths
I have never quite understood how that multi-member-preferential-majoritarian-exausive system worked.
Lord Palmerston once said: “The Schleswig-Holstein question is so complicated, only three men in Europe have ever understood it. One was Prince Albert, who is dead. The second was a German professor who became mad. I am the third and I have forgotten all about it.”
I thought MelbCity was banned, hence the different username.
Gripping documentary about the Jonestown massacre on 7 right now.
Ron resorting to mindless abuse are you. Please enlighten us as to your true identity and your experience since you wish to make such comparisons.
As I indicated above Antony Green has not undertaken the analysis of the election result data and as such is not in a position to make an informed decision. I have you? Do you know what your talking about. Well here is your chance please outline your level of experience and the skill set you bring to the table… Namel; job title and experiance will do as starters. lol
Shows on seeking to silence critics are you. Shame.. Ban then all tehn eevry ibne will agree with you,.
I get very tired of democracy@work on this subject.
In February 2006, the VEC invited all Victorian media organisation to a meeting on the design of an XML feed to provide results to the media on the night of the 2006 Victorian election. Of the dozens of people invited, only two attended, myself and a representative of the Nine Network. The purpose was to design a system to allow the media to call the election result as quickly and reliably as possible.
At that meeting, we were asked whether the media were interested in receiving a feed with booth results for the Legislative Council. The answer of both me and the Nine representative was no. Subsequently, AAP made the same response.
The point was, the feed was designed as a media feed. But in the run-up to the 2006 election, the VEC also allowed non-media people to have access to the same feed. So democracy@work was given access to the feed designed to be supplied to the media. And as I among others hadn’t requested LC booth data for the media feed, the feed democracy@work received didn’t have the data he wanted.
For goodness sake, we were designing a media feed, not an audit feed. We got exactly what we requested. I have no idea what democracy@work requested of the VEC ahead of the 2006 election, but ever since then the fact he did not receive the data he wanted is my fault. All I can say to democracy@work is that if you want data from an electoral commission, you get in early and request and work out a format for it, and don’t turn around afterwards and endlessly abuse me because I didn’t do all the work for you.
Time for bed before this tedious topic annoys me further.
Hey, I didn’t ban you, don’t take out your nonsense on me.
If you’re banned your banned, and according to the forum rules, it is wrong to try to get around the ban.
ShowsOn, you bastion of conformity with rules you, …..
Well Democracy at Work , you avoided fessing up to being MelbCity….yet th links at your #737 suggest you ar ….or his “brother in spirit” ….either way we know you ar therefore an AEC conspiracy lover that this Site has repeatedly exposed as providing grossly inaccurate info
As for me , this site recognises “amigo” as totally sufficent on its own Its called comparativve electoral credibility but you’ve as MelbCity ala hav distinctively earned minus status there and there you remain
I actually read the rulesfor the first time the other day, so now I consider myself an expert!
And I’ve never been banned, I’ve only been threatened with a ban twice. That’s TOTALLY different to actually being banned, then trying to get around it.
And as for democracy@work on Queensland. I have not looked at it. I’ve said nothing on it. I’ve not claimed to be an expert on the Queensland Senate count. I was asked by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters to explain his submission on Queensland but I told them I didn’t have time. As he says, as I’ve not looked at Queensland, I’m not in a position to say anything on the Queensland Senate count, which is why I’ve never said anything on the Queensland senate count. How much longer do I have to keep saying nothing on the Queensland Senate count before I stop being accused of not being informed to speak about the Queensland Senate count?
Arguing with democracy@work is like wrestling with a blancmange.
Adam @760. I think that’s about right.
Some bans are more permanent than others. It was obvious from the get-go who D@W was, and if the ban still applied I would have enforced it.
Oh. That’s perfectly all right then. Carry on.
Antony Green
“I’m not in a position to say anything on the Queensland Senate count, which is why I’ve never said anything on the Queensland senate count. How much longer do I have to keep saying nothing on the Queensland Senate count……Arguing with democracy@work is like wrestling with a blancmange”
Never again …by pretending regarding Democracy at Work that you ar a non gentleman (like me) and ignore him …. And by th way hav never wrestled those angry blancmange’s , I like eating th choclate flavour ones
I just don’t like sledging of icons like Antony.
It just ain’t right.
Then how is it antony that you are in a position to comment on the outcome when you have not looked at the count. If you took the time you would soon realise that the Greens had in fact won the last Queensland senate spot.it is not that hard to count take about half an hour. Less Time then it took you to analysis the hypothetical I presented. Thanks for your confirmation on that issue,. Please look more closely at the Queensland Senate result. The wrong person was elected thanks to the distortion in the system., It did not accurately reflect the voters intentions. the Greens were denied representation as a result.
and I thought you were about electoral reform … looks like your just a player .
Sorry Greens I did not know Antony Green was a oprotected species. Even when he is at fault. (Such as preventing the publication of election results which limited the proper scutiny of the ballot and indirectly added to the errors in the count.)
D@w
Boo!
Thanks William.I did liek your submission by teh way. It has mademe think more about the system,. If they can not get it right and make teh system more accurate and reflective of the vote then I think you are right we are better off with a party list system. (I prefer they get it right first and foremost)
Democracy at Work , you’ve misunderstood two points Firstly no one is a protected species from legitimate debate , but your assertions & nasty innuendos do not reach th level of legitimate Secondly your surplus transfer value theories Melbcity ar flawed as ar your conspiracy ideas against th AEC Every suystem has an inherent issue
William
At one stage you posted a submission and said you may be persuaded into making a supplementary subnmission , not sure if you got th chance
I mentioned a proposed multi level concept to minimize distortions …including with a threshold , a ‘quota’ system , a compulsory above line ticking , an initial exclusion of th allocation of certain prefs , a selective use of Sainte-Laguë system to break specific gridlocks , a propertionality aspect over preferencing aspect at a certain threshold , and lastly allocation of certain excluded prefs as a last step if all other steps had failed to create a full quota
Light relief
Obama’s Use of Complete Sentences Stirs Controversy
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-borowitz/obamas-use-of-complete-se_b_144642.html
Some instruction and history
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/17/paul-krugman-schools-geor_n_144298.html
Not sure how timely this ‘news’ is:
1. Ted Stevens got up in Alaska by 3724 votes with 2500 votes to go.
and
2. It looks like a Texan Grand Jury has indicted VP Cheney on a conflict of interest issue having to do with an $85 million invetment of his in an prison company. Not sure if I have this right, but, if so, there would be a certain symmetry if Dick got the opportunity to sample the quality of his services.
Boerwar it’s happened in Queensland before when Geoff Muntz the National Party prisons minister finally wound up on the inside looking out. His most famous act as prison minister was ranting at a press conference “there is nothing wrong with the food” while the prisoners were rioting at Boggo Road prison. He enjoyed the food so much that eventually he ate the mess for Breakfast, lunch and dinner.
Boerwar did you have a link for that? CNN says Bagich was elected, not Stevens.
http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/main.results/#S
Steve@793
lol. In such cases I would be only too happy to make an exception to my belief that in general we incarcerate far too many people for far too long. (Your example seems to be an interesting variation on feeding the chooks.)
With respect to deterrent affect, there seems to be very little relationship between sentence length and the probability that a crime will be committed. There does seem to be a correlation between the whiter the collar, the less the likelihood of ending up inside.
The punishment aspect virtually stops once the prisoners become institutionalised. Perversely, the more they are institutionalised, the less likely they will be able to cope once outside. The exceptions I would make are those who are more than less likely to recidivate. The reason for this is that society is only likely to support a low imprisonment rate if it feels reasonably ’safe’ in doing so. A judgement call here, but I would err on the side of protecting society.
I believe that it costs about $40,000 per year per prisoner. Not very sure about that figure. There are far better ways to spend that money – eg on services for mentally unwell people to stop them ending up in jails. Setting up businesses to have an interest in locking up lots of people was one aspect of privatisation that I thought was plain stupid. It is dead easy for the businesses to run ‘law and order’ campaigns to grow the business. Such businesses do not have a social bottom line, so their basic interest is not aligned with that of society. Plus, it might also create new opportunities for corruption.
Itep @ 794
Not sure how helpful this is: Le Monde 20 Novembre, a para on P 6 headed ‘Defaite du senateur republicain Ted Stevens en Alaska’. They sourced it from AFP and AP.
They also say this gives the dems 58 seats in the senate.
Itep @ 794
Just went back and checked. My bad. You’re right. Bagich it is.
Boerwar I hear you but it’s too hard for governments to reform the justice/setencing system and too easy for oppositions and the media to score points if the government does so.
Itep
I agree that it would be hard to do, but believe that it is possible to do. Very few people would have any idea of what the cost per prisoner per year is, or how little difference incarceration rates or incarceration lengths make to community ’safety’. Very few would have any idea of the opportunity costs, either. The point is that the debate is rarely very informed and is usually run schlock/horror with a particular ‘celebrity’ recidivist. I think you are generally right that it is not in the political interests of Oppositions to take the ‘political’ out of it. On the other hand, if it happened that on purely policy grounds, both a Government and an Opposition had similar views, then the Opposition could take the initiative by quietly offering to go bipartisan on reforms. This is still unlikely, but not impossible. A related problem is that Oppositions rarely have the policy drive, or access to policy development resources to help them develop and drive the initiative.
Wow! I’ve woken up and found there was a psephological flame war last night while I slept peacefully in my little bed.
What I would like to know is: What’s wrong with Mongolians? And why does the Queensland Senate count engender such passion? Lastly, if someone is banned, and then un-banned, does William have a responsibility to tell us about this development? I’ve been through the rules and can’t find anything specific on the subject.
Thank youse.
Adam
You need o be a little bit careful with NZ it gets a mention in our constitution. The way I read it they can become a state and there is little Australia could do to stop them.
I just posted on the US thread some links about the US economic situation. It is looking pretty dire for GM, Ford and Chrysler. This is not necessarily a disaster for their Oz operations, which could be sold and taken over by more competitive makers. Indeed, if someone like Honda took over one and started making economical cars here, it wouldn’t be a bad thing.
However there is one obvious consequence of this – with all due respect to Kym Carr, the government should be very cautious in actually handing money over to Holden or Ford right now. We don’t want to be in the situation of a german Bank, or Lehamns UK, which were looted by the New York parents for billions shortly before going bust.
fredn, on my reading New Zealand isn’t an original state as defined in s 6 so for a new state to be added to the Commonwealth there would need to be parliamentary approval (under s 121). Your statement that there’s nothing Australia could do to stop them isn’t really correct.
All of which is not really worth commenting on as New Zealand would never want to become a state of Australia in any case.
And indeed, would we want them?
well, at least it still rains in NZ
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE4AI11B20081119
Dunno if some already posted this.
Cheney and Gonzales indicted by a Texas grand jury for “organized criminal activity” related to alleged abuse of inmates in private prisons.
Boerwar,
Just did a quick bit of research and found that in some states in the US it costs as much as $69,000 per year to house each prisoner.
With a prison population of 1 in 100 of the general population, no wonder the US economy is so bad.
Australia,
Great Brittan,
Certainly this seems to be extraordinary sums of money spent on incarceration, especially when you take into consideration the cost of indicting and the trial process.
The amount spent on rehabilitation is minuscule in comparison.
Yes, but try and explain that to victims of crime or people scared such crimes will be committed to them. That type of logic doesn’t hold much sway with those people.
All it would take is for one serious crime to be committed by someone released under a lighter penal system and the critics would feel vindicated and the media would have a field day. It’s not going to happen.
I would much rather my tax dollars be spent in rehabilitating suitable offenders than have them institutionalized in a university of crime as well as alienating them from society and becoming resentful of that society and wanting to hit back at it. Which is what is happening presently.
An interesting take on it from the NZ Hansard.
REPLY;
And this on “Privatisation” of Prisons.
And this on rehabilitation, which Australian Authorities might pay to have a look at. This under a “Labour” Government too. The Nationals will probably unwind the progress made in search of a few votes.
http://theyworkforyou.co.nz/portfolios/corrections/2006/jul/18/prisoners
SMACK:
Reminds me of something.
they still hav’nt learned anything, what a bunch of pratts.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24678507-5013948,00.html
Apparently it’s not all bad here!
http://theyworkforyou.co.nz/portfolios/corrections/2006/jul/18/prisoners
Hopefully, Obama will reverse this injustice.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24679282-12377,00.html
Judith Barnes @ 812,
You couldn’t expect much different from that waste of space, Helen Coonan, could you?
That argument is so poor, it is almost beyond stupid.
That could mean that because he had not made it clear that he was against pedophilia or pretty well any other such thing, that he might actually be in favour of it!
Bah humbug! What a mob of clowns.
Socrates
I agree totally GM, Ford and Crysler are 3 of the worst run motor companies in the world. They have been made obsolete by the Japanese. The companies have been run the same way for the last 40 years, they have been left behind by technology.
If you look at the power, fuel consumption ratio, manoeuvrability and cost, they lags significantly behind the Japanese.
It would be a mistake to keep them going in the US, by keeping the tariff on import and giving them millions from the tariff to subsidise them.
Unless both the companies and the workforce modernises, they will revisit this again in a few years
What Australia does not want to do is give them $6 billion, so they can continue to subsidise their incompetitive American workforce.
I thought Obama had already said he will close Guantanamo:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/17/2421702.htm
Obama can’t do anything about it. The control order was imposed by a judge at the request of the Australian federal government.
I don’t have much sympathy for Hicks. Of course his ‘trial’ was a joke, but at the end of the day, he plead guilty to aiding a terrorist organisation.
According to Coonan, there must be two Barack Obama’s.
I can’t remember there being a previous “president-elect Obama”, and I am so glad that the Libs have “no lingering concern about it.”
They must be trying to see if they can get the 2PP back above 60%. It shouldn’t be too hard the way they are going.
If Obama declares the Tribunal that accepted the plea bargain illegal and unconstitutional as he has indicated, then the Australian Order would have no legal standing either.
How can actions of the U.S. government effect control orders imposed by an Australian court under Australian anti-terrorism legislation? That makes absolutely no sense to me. The President of the U.S. has no standing in an Australian court.
The only way Hicks’ control order will be lifted is if the Australian government either via the AFP or the Attorney General requests it. I doubt that will happen any time soon.
Wasn’t the control order issued by an Australian court?
Australia 1/13, Hayden caught at slip.
Yes. It was probably part of the agreement with the U.S. (You can let him out after 8 months if you put a control order on him). But it was the Australian government that actually did it under Australian laws.
ltep, read 821 again!
I wish Coonan would just shut up
ltep, if the reason for the control order is no longer applicable because the US has had the Presidential Decrees rescinded that were the reason for that order being applied, then it stands to reason that the order would no longer apply according to Australian law.
The Order would have to be rescinded!
I have re-read it. The legal standing the control order has is that it was issued in a proper way by a court. Obama declaring something or other would not change that in itself.
2/22 oh boy
3/23
ltep, I’ll take a little bet with you.
When Obama rescinds the Decrees, Hicks’ Lawyers will immediately apply for the Order to be quashed and it will be.
Well that would in part depend on the Australian Government’s position on the matter. It’s not as simple as you’re making it out to be.
There’s just no pleasing some people…
http://news.smh.com.au/national/pensioners-call-for-boost-in-age-pension-20081120-6c8o.html
Ford changes it’s decision and will keep it’s Geelong plant open
http://news.smh.com.au/national/ford-backflips-on-vic-plant-closure-20081120-6c8f.html
Not much of a crowd, if it was organised by a shock jock however…..
Dario@834
I’m surprised they weren’t naked.
Surely its obvious that the “pensioner lobby” is just a Liberal front? Howard did very little for pensioners, other than a series of one-off payments, yet we didn’t hear a peep out of these people. Many non-aged pensioners under Howard didn’t even get the one off payments.
Or that Steve Fielding didn’t turn up in a koala suit or something
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/20/2425038.htm?section=justin
Which is exactly what the government has committed to doing: make it viable and long-term. (As opposed to the Coalition’s band-aid approach).
The government has also said that some measures talked about earlier may have to be looked at twice in light of the economic crisis, but the promised pension review is sacrosanct.
So what is the point of the Pensioners’ Coalition protest?
Oh, that’s right, it’s the pensioners’ coalition. Attended by NSW opposition spokesman for ageing Andrew Constance. Hmmmm, another coalition beat-up on behalf of they who never seem to get enough.
Magic Tuesday morphs into Magic Wednesday.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/petrol-tuesdays-now-wednesday/2008/11/20/1226770605806.html
And these jokers still can’t see the sense in Fuelwatch?
apart from those “one off” payments
pension payment was exempt from tax
Tax threshold got increased substantially, as did tax offset.
Imputation credit got refunded from investments
That added to the fact that inflation was low, means that there is not many complains
Fuel watch LOL
Name another country that has it? Even the govenment report said there is no prove it works
Trade practice act would normally deem any law that does not allow a company to change the prices they charge as anti-competitive
How many times have you been to check out Groscery watch
Dovif your spin won’t convince me. I’ve thought about it and recognise the significant strengths to Fuelwatch. It’s nothing like the Grocery Choice sham. I have no sympathy for the petrol companies, it’s the consumer that I’m interested in.
I want to know where the cheapest petrol near me is every day thank you very much
I want to know that the price quoted on the website will be the price charged when I get there.
Dovif
None of the Howard measures you mentioned affected the income of pensioners reliant on the pension – which is precisely the point of the current protesters. The main effect was that those with additional income got to keep it. Some already very wealthy self-funded retirees got to claim the pension when they never had it before. Given that their super payments had already been exempted from tax this was an obvious double dip. Meanwhile the imputation credits also applied to non-pensioners, so would have had no impact on the proportion of average incomes that pensioners received. Thus Howard made the pension system less equitable, while not reducing its cost to taxpayers. Yet still no protesters? Again, they are a Liberal front; only someone more senile than themselves would believe a word of it.
I want to know where the cheapest petrol NEAR ME is every day thank you very much
That is the point, most area have very similar prices, and we are not going to drive an hour to get cheaper petrol
Fuel watch is a bad idea for the following reason
+A petrol station cannot change their prices for a whole day, ie if I am an independant operator, and no one come to my service station for a whole day I am going to struggle staying competitive.
+All the caltex/BP etc has to do is incurred losses for a few month and all the independant is out of business, if everyone finds out they are cheapest and do not use the independant ones
+2 day FM gives out this information for free, why are you not using it! When I was in Melbourne the same happened
+While a Caltex/BP can report the price for all their petrol stations, all the independant operatior has to report theirs every day
+I put in petrol when I run out, I normally do not plan on when I run out of petrol
dovif, then you should set the cheapest price possible that you think you can trade at.
Of course all the nonsense about independent retailers is just that. Perth, which has a FuelWatch scheme has the same proportion of independent retailers as other states. The sky has not fallen in.
Socrate
Wealthy retiree?
My grand parents are on the pension and have a little money in their superannuation fund, that is actually the normal pensioner, who have a little bit of savings and need the pension to pay for their daily expenses
“Given that their super payments had already been exempted from tax”
Wrong. All super contribution carry entry tax of 15% or 46.5%, income in the superannaution fund is also taxed at 15%, money that had not been taxed going into a Superannuation fund, will still be taxed on the way out
“Meanwhile the imputation credits also applied to non-pensioners, so would have had no impact on the proportion of average incomes that pensioners”
Wrong the fact that a non-pensioner gets it does not means income of a pensioner does not increase. It is actually a red herring
If you used to receive $70 of dividend, you now receive $70 + $30 as a tax refund, your income increase over 40%.
“FM gives out this information for free”
So FM can but the internet can’t?
SNIP: Name-calling deleted – The Management.
And don’t forget that it was a LIBERAL Govt, which introduced Fuelwatch in WA
Rubbish. As ltep said, why aren’t all the independents out of business in WA then?
Again rubbish, see above
that information can be out of date by the time it goes to air
wtf?
Good for you. Lots of people actually take note of when they are running low and are on the look out for the cheapest petrol they can find, as they pass several petrol stations on the way home or out.
OK, so we will just sit around waiting for FM to give us the latest petrol prices instead of us being able to ckeck that information for ourselves?
There are two points to come out of Fuelwatch:
1. The Liberals opposed it for oppositions sake.
2. The Liberals sticking up for their rich oil company mates.
Dovif, Glen, GP, you all must be so proud. SHAME SHAME SHAME!
The Liberals sticking up for their private insurance “industry” mates.
The Liberals sticking up for their distillery mates.
The Liberals sticking up for their luxury car sellers / drivers mates.
The Liberals handing a big stick to greedy employers (SerfChoices).
Shame, Liberals, shame.
The Ford plant decision is surprising but pleasing. Hopefully they’ll continue developing the six as it’s a good engine. They can go back to smaller capacities with the block for fuel economy as well as continue the development of turbos on it. It’s a proven performer with LPG and they can look to cylinder on demand technology as well. Ford don’t have to get out of large rear wheel cars. There will always be a market for these, but they’ll need to find export markets for them to be sustainable.
There were four independent petrol stations in my area before Woolies and Coles got the go ahead to sell fuel using vouchers. One has now been leveled and the site supports a new car dealership, one has been boarded up for about 4 years – not sure what the plan for it is, one is now used as a fruit and veg shop and the fourth is a cleared block with a for sale sign on it. I’m not in WA where apparently the independents are still doing OK.
Tuesday morning, the petrol station on the main road into town was selling ULP at $1-10/L and had so many customers cars were blocking lanes on one of the access roads. Obviously, those queuing thought it was cheap. Yet they could have got it for 3.2 cents less at another outlet less than 500 metres away without having to queue. In fact when I passed there wasn’t a customer in sight. With Fuelwatch there probably would have been.
4/96
The Liberal Party sticking up for their rich mates; who can pay themselves what they like REGARDLESS of their success or failure, and paying their employees what they like under workchoices!
SHAME SHAME SHAME!
Go Andrew Symonds!
Cryptic, ShowsOn.
Is shame the new obscene?
Yup
MF, well apparently, according to the liberals, we should drive around in a 10km radius checking out where the cheapest fuel is and then drive back to where the cheapest was only to find that the price has changed.
Shame Shame Shame!
Dovif
Less anecdote (which can be chosen to prove anything) and more norms please.
Regarding wealthy retirees, it is unfashionable to say it but self-funded retirees are the wealthiest sector of the population.
Super payment tax was concessional; still lower than tax on the minimum wage. Only excess contributions for people earning in the top marginal tax bracket had super taxed at 46.5%. If you or these groups claim that those individuals need more assistance I strongly disagree. I hope the appeal is ignored as it deserves to be.
You mis-construed my last claim: I was referring to the proportion of the average wage represented by pensions, which FELL under Howard. Now these Liberal (party member?) rent-an-oldie protest groups are complaining that it should increase. Again my question – why didn’t they complain when Howard didn’t increase the rate?
This might help a bit.
http://mypriceboard.com/
“why didn’t they complain when Howard didn’t increase the rate?”
Perhaps they were cowed by Howard (their Otherwise Hero). Or perhaps they weighed their disgruntlement against their delight about his arch neo-liberal decisions on Iraq, refugees, workplace reform etc.
This Liberal front, the Pensioners Coalition, IMO run the risk of hurting the cause of pensioners as a whole. I mean, they’ve just been doled out more than a thousand dollars per pensioner (to be received in time for Christmas), and here they are, just weeks after being advised of their windfall, protesting again.
While the economy goes into extremely unsettled waters, with the likelihood that everyone will be affected and have to tighten their belts, we have these Liberals with their hands out, grasping, grasping, giving all (or other) pensioners a bad name.
p.s. irony alert.
Of course, being “good” Liberals, they would no doubt despise the idea of social security assistance being given to other (equally, or perhaps more needy) groups such as the unemployed, single mothers and invalid pensioners.
Cuppa
Precisely – there are many groups more in need, with less means, than self-funded retirees. The whole point of super tax concessions was to get this group OFF the aged pension system. There is very little justification to give them more, on grounds of need or equity. I have much more sympathy for carers, those on disabled pensions, or aged pensioners solely dependant on the aged pension for income.
Should the PM come out and tell these whinging pensioners to grow up and stop behaving like spoilt children?
The absolute undisputed mathematical fact is that funding for all welfare recipients fell astronomically in real terms under Hero Rodente, and is rising under Labor. If these pensioners seriously believe that a conservative government cares for their well being and represents their best interests, they are a serious pack of delusional ignorant old fools!
The new battle-cry for the Howardista “pensioners” (aka self-funded retireees)
“What do we want?”
“More money!”
“When do we want it”
“I can’t remember.”
Helen Coonan, now she is good. The shadow foreign minister has come out and said that what Howard said about Obama was acceptable because Obama at the time had not denounced terrorism.
The Liberals have kept criticising Labor for appointing a set number of women as members, and not like the Liberals based on merit.
Have a look at the talent on both sides!
Coonan, the two Bishops, they must be so proud LOL.
Of course a union for pensioners is going to do all it can to pressure the government for a pay increase to its members. One way to put a lot of pressure onto the Government is via the media. I’m finding all this outrage a little hard to understand.
A Gigabyte of power…
Centre
Be fair to the Liberals – after all they lost Jackie Kelly!
ltep
partly its the inconsistency – this group of self proclaimed “pensioner advocates” said nothing during the Howard years, even though the relative position of pensioners then slipped much further, despite that government having ample means to address the problem.
For that matter, its also a question of their legitimacy. They are not a union. Who elected them? Who do they represent? Who funds them?
But most of all, for me its the (ill) legitimacy of their cause, as per my previous posts.
http://news.smh.com.au/national/australia-to-sign-transpacific-pact-20081120-6cjh.html
this lot tried to draw me in to their little schemes, i just reported them to major crime at the time.
this idea came from Alan’s trial when a witness, Mr. B, said VE told him they were going to make a movie of Alan’s torture and death, i dont believe senior members of the judiciary are involved in the “family” maybe a couple of minor members at a stretch and as far as i know no movies were ever made.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,24680559-5006301,00.html
No argument there but I think it is all about timing ltep. The fact is the government is about to hand them a large lump sum with a long standing committment to better their situation in the next budget. Given that is the case, why the union action? It would be different if the government was arguing against what they want but they’re not.
It really is not a good look for the pensioners at this point in time.
This poll is looking good for PM Rudd so far. ie Until the Lib staffers get going.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,24679947-5006301,00.html
Now I’m beginning to get really p’d off.
The Australian runs with a story the first sentence of which says in part “David Hick’s father has made an emotional plea to Kevin Rudd not to impose a second control order on his son …”
Never mind that the story does not report one word that Terry Hicks has said which refers to Kevin Rudd or any requested intercession by him.
Never mind that it is an issue entirely (and properly) outside any powers that Kevin Rudd possesses.
Never mind that Kevin Rudd has said not one word on the issue.
Suddenly Kevin Rudd is involved because some half arsed Murdoch flake says he is.
Now watch the press quote themselves as authority for the proposition.
And for the record, may I say that David Hicks, fool that he is, is owed a profound apology for the abuse of power exercised over him by the Howard Government, and its abrogation of its duty to protect him to the limits of the law. But that does not in any way impact on whether or not, on an objective overview by a lawful and competent authority, he poses a risk to our country.
That, unlike in the days of the Howard Regime, is for a proper court to decide, not Mr Rudd or anyone else.
This makes a nonsense out of the Oz article.
http://news.smh.com.au/national/no-new-control-order-for-hicks-afp-20081120-6bss.html
And, by the way, you can see where it’s going.
If the court removes the control order, Rudd is soft on terrorism.
If the court extends it, Rudd is just as bad as the previous regime.
Shock, horror
I feel better now.
I would think it would be proper to assume that all US politicians and most certainly 100% of Governors, Senators and candidates for the Presidency would at the very minimum be against terrorism toward the USA and its allies. The vast majority of Americans would of course be against it as would Australians.
So is Coonan saying there was something about Obama’s character that made it proper to assume that he could be in favour of terrorism and up until the time he made it obvious there was some doubt?
I think that is more offensive than Howard’s original statement which we all interpreted as an attempt to help the Republican party by dissing on him. Coonan however is now making a character assessment of Obama. She thought it was reasonable to assume he could have been a supporter of terrorism. Thanks a lot.
The Libs desperately using any argement to rjustify obviously bad acts. Turnbull already went some way to disowning Howard’s statements the other day, now Coonan adds more insult to Obama. I think the Libs would do much better of people like Bishop and Coonan actually didn’t speak. And quite often Turnbull for that matter.
SNIP: Offensive comment deleted – The Management.
How long was he incarcerated for?
he is a terrorist or at the very least a follower of militant islam, he’s a bad cookie the best place for him is jail or worse.
Dio,
Have you seen this?
Seems to be heating up a little for the British National Party.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/web/heat-rises-over-uks-web-map-of-fascists/2008/11/20/1226770602625.html
Good post, Thomas Paine at 889.
Glen, I suppose the good cookies are those corporate bosses from GMH who are asking congress for $Billions to keep them afloat for another 6 months, and those mega rich (pay themselves anything) corporate bosses responsible for the GFC.
Hicks was caught playing war games with the Taliban. Bush had in the past made deals with the Taliban before 9/11.
Given a choice, those corporate bosses (or even Bush) should do Guantanamo, before Hicks.
Has anyone heard of the Enhanced Primary Care Program? This was the Rat govt. Dental scheme for people with “a chronic medical condition and complex care needs and your oral health must be impacting on, or likely to impact on, your general health.”
A chronic medical condition is one that has been or is likely to be present for at least six months. It may include, but is not limited to, conditions such as asthma, cancer, cardiovascular illness, diabetes mellitus, arthritis, mental illness, musculoskeletal conditions and stroke.
Complex care needs means that you are receiving ongoing care from a multidisciplinary team, which includes your GP and at least two other health or care providers.
“In line with its election commitment, the Government planned to close the Medicare chronic disease dental scheme to all patients by 1 July 2008, and to re-direct the savings to its new dental programs (Commonwealth Dental Health Program and Medicare Teen Dental Plan). However, on 19 June 2008, the Senate blocked its closure. On 16 September 2008, the Senate blocked the Government’s second attempt to close the scheme.”
I qualify, in spades, for this program. But, as I have found out, it is impossible to access. 8 weeks and zero progress. Even