Perhaps to mark the first anniversary of the Rudd government, The Australian has come good a day early with the latest Newspoll. It finds Labor’s two-party lead steady on 55-45, from primary votes of 42 per cent for Labor (down two) and 38 per cent for the Coalition (steady). The Prime Minister’s personal ratings are his best since early May: his approval is up two points to 67 per cent, while his disapproval is down one point to 20 per cent. Rudd’s lead over Malcolm Turnbull as preferred prime minister is up two points to 42 per cent. However, 56 per cent of respondents said they would be “concerned” if the budget went into deficit.
UPDATE: Graphic here.
UPDATE 2: Essential Research has Labor’s lead at 56-44, up from 55-45 last week. Also included are leadership approval and preferred prime minister ratings and, interestingly, retrospective evaluation of John Howard, whose prime ministership is rated above average by 47 per cent of respondents and below average by 24 per cent.
419 Comments
This is a bit of a surprise. I like a couple of others thought it might get to 57.5.
Still, it does show that the support is pretty solid. It will take some deft work by the Libs and some major clanger to shift this now.
Definitely moving into fairly settled marriage territory now after the longest honeymoon in history.
scorpio@222 on the previous thread
I wonder if it is new project or just a continuation of this one
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSPEK33676020080218
In either case, it looks like the cost of nuke plants has risen from 51 billion yuan for 4 plants in Febuary to 100 billion yuan for 6 in November.
Under these economic circumstances I’m sure the government can make a case for going into deficit. It’s interesting that far more women than men are against a deficit. In fact a majority of men say it doesn’t bother them.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,24897,24695601-601,00.html
“This is the worst sequence on record for the Coalition, which even in the dog days of Opposition in the 1980s consistently polled in the mid-40s.”
And that was WITH the Democrat leakage, who attracted more support from disaffected coalition voters than the Greens do.
Coalition opposition for another 13 years? You betcha. Especially while they stick to the hard right and ignore people like Petro.
It’s obscene.
PAAPTSEF,
One thing is sure, at that sort of cost with the low wage costs in China,projects like this, are well out of the ability of a small economy like ours to afford them.
the two points labor went down went to the greens so its no real loss, i can hear the knives beeing sharpened in the liberal back rooms.
“the two points labor went down went to the greens so its no real loss, i can hear the knives beeing sharpened in the liberal back rooms.”
To be replaced by who exactly?
Turnbull is the best they’ve got, which says a lot about the current state of affairs in the Liberal Party.
I think we know what the MSM will concentrate on with this poll. It begins with D.
Bob i’m sure they’ll find a sacrifice to install, one thing the libs ar’nt short of is egos who think they’ll make wonderful PM’s and bring about universal acclaim from the adoring public, they’re delusional but there it is, i dont see them getting anywhere untill all of the old school dead wood resigns en masse and they bring in young eager blood with new ideas.
So we get to hav a ‘gender’ deficit , that makes me feel more alot more comfortable econamicaly Under a Keyne types we should be heading that way anyway productiveley given downturn trends
Th Centrists ar back in town , as long as one remembers tinks auto plants ar really McDonalds franchises , everyone wants one on there corner Although McCoffees ar consumer led So therefore if you want a green car , realistic scales of production and technical expertize base ar chips you don’t fold on for interest to guarantee future export levels Its all in th coffee
I note that this site has ‘fair and balanced’ rated Liberal oposition members , just wonder how many opposition members from any Party outside of shawdow cabinet ar Media stars with 5 star ratings Also see subject to MOE Labor is down 1% Primary since th electon good and bad , hasn’t consolitaed to home base but then out there in left wilderness further away for Libs to reach to catch
Wow, they have thrown everything including the kitchen sink at him and haven’t even looked like knocking any bark off.
It may be time to change tactics but I don’t think the Libs or their media supporters know how to.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,24897,24695601-601,00.html
Ouch! Where to from here?
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,24897,24695601-601,00.html
Turnbull should immediately dismiss Bishop as Treasury spokesperson. Secondly, a policy document would not go astray.
GP @ 13
Agreed as a good start, especially the notion that there is a need to do some policy work.
But I would suggest that until you get some Wets and small L Liberals back inside the broad church, you are going to struggle putting together a primary vote above 40%. I suggest that there are two or three per cent whom you have lost, who are not necessarily pro-Rudd, but just have nowhere in the Liberal Party that they can call home.
Re: the specifics of your suggestions, the trouble is, whom would you promote? Presuming Tip says ‘No’, Abbott, probably, maybe Hockey? But how would you keep the largish WA Division on-side? You are going to need them to hang on in the next election. Golly, the cupboard is looking fairly bare. For the election after next it would have to be Dutton or Hunt? The former has some runs on the board, and, as was pointed out in the previous thread, the latter has to do some spade work in an economic portfolio, noting that he has the brains.
13
Yep, good points – both of em
Would the 56% who don’t want the budget to go into deficit prefer that Australia go into a full on recession? I think that it might be a communications problem with some sort of confusion after twelve years of waffle from the previous Liberal government.
Only one punter in thousands would know what (if any) consequences there would be from a deficit budget. Most wouldn’t be able to define the term. It would be salutary to point out, for the man in the street, that taking out a mortgage is indeed going into deficit.
Oh no, can’t buy my first house. I would be going into deficit.
On Newspoll, Labor would be tracking 56+ on these figures. Pref distribution for Greens would be based on last election. The increased Green support would more likely be close to 100% Labor pref, but discounted because of the polling methodology.
No joy for Liberals here.
There was a Newspoll?
And Labor is still streets ahead?
Oh, yes, but the polls narrow as the election approaches, according to George.
Just like they did the last time.
Back to sleep.
GP,what have you got against Bishop as Shadow Treasurer, she is doing exactly what Liberal shadow treasurers have always done? I can’t see she is any different than any other shadow treasurer in the history of the Liberal Party.What’s your problem they have always been this bad.
Bryce @ 17:
How do you figure that?
Scorpio @ 202 (previous thread),
Thanks for that. I knew it wasn’t good in the long term but reading it in print makes it more obvious. Despite what the story says though (harking back to Chrysler’s example of the employes giving back benefits), I don’t think that the current crop of employees will do this. I’ve been there as recently as the 04 election (moved to Oz in December 04) and the mood of the state then was “whats in it for me?” not “how much can I give back?”. I don’t think that the current economic climate will have changed anything at all. If anything, it will have hardened their feelings. People employed in 2004 will be laid off now and counting on unions unemployment cash to go with their unemployment benefits. The unions unemployment cash that I refer to is what you might have read in some quarters as the “jobs data bank” or similar. It is more or less as I understand it, a line of unemployment pay but from the union not the state. So autoworkers, unless I’ve missed something, are getting two lots of unemployment pay. They won’t give this back nor anything else either. It is the “protect thy mates syndrome”
Re #4,
No, it isn’t ……… I say let them continue on their merry way down the path of ignorance. More time for Labor to straighten out their messes and put the country on the right path ……. it would be more appropriate to use that word to describe the government between 96 and 07 rather than the prospect of their remaining out of power for at least that long.
all mention of the poll including George’s article has disappeared from the Australian on line, whoops looks like someone made a boo boo releasing the data prematurely, if you’d have blinked you’d have missed it.
Minnesota is looking like McEwen did at the federal election …..
now we know what Howard and Bush were chatting about in their cosy little fireside chats, they were giving each other tips on how to handle those pesky refugees, their solutions have turned out to be amazingly similar, i wonder who thought up the idea of an exclusion zone first.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/the-detained-refugees-obama-will-not-free-20081123-6et7.html
Probably, as some would equate deficit as true confirmation of bad times, so would be concerned of this confirmation.
And shouldn’t the 1 year anniversary be 3 December when labor govt was sworn in?
“if the federal budget were to go into deficit as a result of further government spending in the new year”.
That is the question asked re the ‘56% of people are against a deficit’.Why did the question not include the words “to save us from a recession”.
Would the result have been different?
The Oz on-line might have pulled GM’s article but the horse has bolted. The ABC on-line had it up last night and it is still there.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/24/2427537.htm?section=australia
castle @ 25,
Unless it fits in with the news cycle, little things like that, tend to be ignored.
How do you figure that?
In the recent WA election the percentage of Green preferences going to Labor went down.
How dare they question the strength and determination of the ‘man of steel’.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24690422-5007146,00.html
Probably explains why he spent so much time humping the leg of GWB.
Tom.
ltep #20
Labor down 2, Greens up 2 and Libs no change.
Given Rudd moved up in ALL categories as well, I reckon the Green +2 would split 95:5 for Labor at worst – not split ~65:35 as in 2007.
Unless I’m reading the table wrong, Greens preferences flowed 80% to Labor in 2007. It varied a bit but was above 75% in all states and territories :
http://results.aec.gov.au/13745/Website/HouseStateTppFlow-13745-NAT.htm
Macedonians planted 6 million trees in one day… well done to them for doing their bit
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE4AI49U20081119
Generic Person then who would be Deputy Leader and Shadow Treasurer???
You couldnt get rid of Bishop as Treasurer and not remove her from the Deputy Leadership…
Hunt – Deputy Leader
Hockey/Dutton – Shadow Treasurer
Swan surely must go…Rudd under any other circumstances would have cut him adrift but it would look bad doing it during a GFC.
Swan is doing a great job in very difficult circs, unlike Costello who just rode the boom for eleven years.
And who managed to pull a deficit in the 2001 – 2002 financial year, midway through a boom!
I agree Swan is doing fine. He has also obivously established a good working relationship with Stevens and Henry. As Adam said, he is under more pressure than anyone in that role has had to face for a long time. Does anyone remember John Kerin in the early 90s recession, or Howard in the early 80s?
To prove the point, how many times has Swan bested Bishop? The score is embarassing. As GP said, Bishop should go, not Swan. If Labor should dump anyone it should be Conroy, with McKew and others still well worth trying.
Just one more comment – if Swan is performing so poorly, then why does even Newspoll give a clear, steady improvement on the (Labor) governments rating for ability to handle the economy? Obviously, Swan is besting Bishop in the public’s perception, and in the observation of any journalist who sees the two compete.
GP 35
To be fair, I’d agree with both of those calls. I have heard both Dutton and Hunt speak and they are both intelligent and not ego-maniacs. The coalition needs to find ways to get both more air time if it wants beter ratings.
Is George Meg in danger of getting a pink slip from the OO for this sort of unspun reporting?
For godsake Adam…look Costello had to deal with 9 budget deficit and 96b of net debt and the Asian Financial Crisis so i hardly call that riding the boom…Swan has made no tough calls and had a massive surplus that he didnt create to get him out of hot water…also Costello brought in a new tax system…so Swan is probably the worst Treasurer we’ve had for a long time…
9billion sorry and Keating said the budget was in surplus before 1996!
He’s been in the job a year. Your statement belongs at the bottom of a bird cage.
Glen
“so Swan is probably the worst Treasurer we’ve had for a long time…”
Impossible! You really have forgotten how bad Howard was! Here is the Wikipedia reference to Howard for this period to refresh your memory:
“During Howard’s tenure as Treasurer, the 90-day cash rate peaked at 21% on 8 April 1982 at a time when loan mortgage rates were capped by legislation at 13.5%, and inflation peaked at 12.5% in September 1982.[17] Peter Costello commented, in 2007, that “The Howard treasurership was not a success in terms of interest rates and inflation… he had not been a great reformer.”[18]“
Howard would have to have the record of worst treasurer.
He achieved the trifecta of double digit inflation, unemployment and interest rates at the same time, never been done before or since, also got the highest ever budget deficit as a % of GDP.
Costello would come next, drove the $A to its lowest ever level, even lower than Keating’s peso, also has record of most number of consecutive interest rate rises, easily an Aussie record and maybe a world record.
With those 2 at the helm we were fortunate we had the resource boom as we would be in a far worse state than 83 when labor had to clean up the last disgusting mess left by Howard.
Third worst treasurer, Lynch.
The federal budget is already in a ‘’structural deficit” and its much-vaunted surplus is disappearing fast after the former government wasted the boom years, according to a new report.
Access Economics’ Budget Monitor, out today, says China’s demand for Australian commodities has been artificially boosting the budget’s bottom line, and Australia is running a $17.8billion structural deficit this financial year when this is taken into account.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/australia-18b-in-deficit-new-report-says/1367889.aspx
Thankyou very much Howard and Costello! Aren’t your legacies already trashed enough as it is? A plague on both your houses.
Glen – at one point I was afraid Australia was becoming a place where people who had no perspective and were never going to see through the bed of roses the last government planted in front of them. I really though you were representative of a larger part of society.
Maybe we’ve just become a more cynical society, enough to immunise ourselves against the cheap propaganda we were happy top be fed before, but at least I’m not worried about you being representative of anything mainstream any more.
There is one difference between me and many left of centre people on pollbludger i can actually find things that ALP Prime Ministers have done that is good for Australia…you and others think anything and everything a Liberal Prime Minister does is poison and that is not just a shame but it is sad too.
We have seen cheap propaganda by many of our Prime Ministers including Howard and Rudd so i hardly think you can blame just one side of politics for that.
Socrates Swan is no good for several reasons…firstly he doesnt know his stuff (evident on many occasions), secondly he is a bad parliamentary performer, thirdly he is a bad media performer and thus he is terrible as Treasurer because he doesnt ooze confidence he oozes weakness and this is not helpfull especially in the guy pulling the leavers and not good for perceptions of the economy…Swan will make Costello out to be the greatest Treasurer we have ever had by comparison.
“i can actually find things that ALP Prime Ministers have done that is good for Australia”
That’s because Labor does undoubtedly good things for Australia. As opposed to the coalition.
Glen – it’s all this extremism that you’re creeping toward, and yet it’s based on the relativism of comparison with your ideological heroes.
It’s terribly schoolboyish and illogical.
There are fools on all sides. My debating you probably puts me in that category too.
Oh, and following your points to Soctates – your desire for a media performer in the Treasurers job highlights your preference for style over substance.
Pulling the levers – give me a break… on his own? (…in a dark dungeon, by the light of a candle, wearing nothing but a hessian sack…)
Out of interest – what would it take for you to change you opinion of Costello?
What is Greenspan’s cheer squad up to now?
Treasury pulls the levers. The Treasurer is just a figurehead.
GM piece on the Newspoll is showing for me, has been all morning. (cleared cache too, still there)
I’ve become tired of all the glorification(!) of Costello as Treasurer.
Over the years there have been heaps of reports that he didn’t have a clue and Treasury bods had to virtually teach him by rote to answer media questions.
His biggest asset was supposedly his QT appearances. I viewed them as the act of a bully – sometimes comically clever, but mostly full of spite and bile.
I notice he ran a deficit in 2001 – and from then on it was just laziness and a matter of watching the money splashed around on nothing substantial.
He doesn’t come even close to our greatest Treasurer.
Swannie is growing in the job and I, for one, do not want to go back to a Treasurer full of smirks and clever remarks. I want a bloke who is taking the job seriously and who is listening to advice.
Would love Turnbull & Co to be a little less desperate in their attempts to convince us that we hate Rudd. Heard Paul Bongiorno on RN the other morning saying that Turnbull can’t stand the thought that anyone but himself is PM. And therein lies all of Turnbull’s problems.
I have enjoyed Kev’s first 12 months. Lots of little things are being done that never get into the media – probably because they don’t want us to hear of them.
I heard a bloke on the radio this a.m. answering a shockjock doom merchant who said Rudd has done nothing. Bloke said his son has his laptop on his desk, his business is doing better because Labor has protected his apprentices with Workcover, his interest rates are down, and a few other things. Stupid RW shockjock said “I didn’t know any of that” – derrrr!! Poor sod probably is too lazy to do any research before his program which may point out why Labor is the favourite.
Glen – what Onimod said.
Treasurers have to be more than figureheads to be competent when times are tough. Treasuries can still get ignored by bad governments or treasurers. Consider all the times the previous government ignored treasury advice, or didn’t even seek it, in their desperate run for reelection.
BTW Glen, the fact I included Kerin in the list of past bad treasurers shows that my remark was not entirely partisan. Rudd was no genius running the Qld public service either, but he is doing better this time around.
For those not happy with FDoTM (Mongrel called trig) thingy… he’s put up a cartoon in response.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/firstblog/2008/11/24/and-where-was-your-brain-while-all-this-was-going-on/#comment-135
BH probably a Labor hack…each party puts members on the job to call up radio stations…
Being able to conduct yourself well with the media and in Parliament is necessary as Treasurer but dont think that is the only precondition i have, Swan is not up to the job…
So interest rates aren’t down, computers aren’t being put in schools? Come on Glen, you can do a lot better than that.
We should not over interpret the poll on the possibility of a deficit. The question was about how concerned you would be with a deficit and you would expect the answer to be near 100%. Of course we would all be concerned with a deficit, but would you feel more concerned with no deficit but a mortally wounded economy?
People will always be concerned with this but it says nothing about their support for government using a deficit to keep the economy functioning, fighting unemployment etc. This is why I mentioned before that I thought Swan and Rudd were playing a bit of politicis and mind games with this issue, continuining the surplus no deficit line (if possible) which has genereated concerns and calls from economists and the RBA. In the end people will see the Govt do it as a last resort and after publically made calls for them to do it.
The Opposition will be on a hiding if they in the oppose a deficit if and when one occurs because they would have to explain their choice of the alternative (if the media were to be honest about it that is).
Rudd’s personnel support is strengthening all over the place but we don’t yet see it in the TPP. I still think Labor will be strengthening in the polls.
We all have a good idea what tactics Turnbull and Co should be using I think, but hey, I’m not stop them whilst they are making mistakes.
I would also like to note that Swan beat Turnbull when he was Shadow Treasurer and the polls showed that putting Swan ahead of Turnbull.
personal
Glen – even if it was a party hack the shockjock should be on top of his game and know what has or has not been done. I am tired of the media dealing in 1/2 truths about any party be they Labor, Lib or anyone else.
Wouldn’t it be lovely just to have the facts presented without the constant need for drama.
I still disagree with you about Swan – doesn’t he have a pretty heavy Economics degree? Didn’t he very successfully organise and distribute funding for Queensland Labor a few years ago.
Just because we have been used to firstly Keating and his grand flourishes (which I BTW loved) and Costello and his bignoting smirkiness doesn’t mean that we always have to have Treasurers who carry on like Grand Dames.
Swan and Tanner as FM are making a very good fist of it regardless of what Malcolm Turnbull & Co think. I wouldn’t trust Malcolm as far as I could throw him – he appears to be grimy underneath where Costello was gutless.
Even I wish that Costello had had the smarts to try for the top job – for all his smirkiness I do not think he is as grimy as Turnbull.
Wasnt Swan afraid of confronting Costello on his 2004 budget?? Latham said he was quaking in his boots and had to get Bowen to do it for him lol!
Swan is a low flyer…until Labor gets Tanner in their the ALP will still be way behind the Libs on economic credibility…
TP @ 60 – excellent post
Though I disagree with the thinking that what we have seen from MT so far gives us some idea what tactics he will use in the future. This rubbish from him is just for now, I have no doubt tactics will change and MT will indeed put Rudd to the test
I’m confident Rudd is up to that test
Latham said a lot of things…
With Bishop as shadow? hahahahahaha
Glen – if that happened then it was 4 years ago. We all learn and grow, or should do.
Come to think of it – wasn’t Swan away on that day?
I reckon that Tanner is in the right place. He has the toughness to make the right cuts and to not be swayed by crying Ministers.
My kids in PS in Canberra say that some of the waste has been pretty awful over the past few years in their workplaces. Tanner has called a halt to a lot of that so the taxpayer will in front there.
Hurry up broadband – I’m still on slow dialup as wireless is a no go where I live (too many obstructions). So I’m off to the telly to see Julia do her piece in QT.
Didn’t watch Turnbull at the Press Club spot he booked for today (didn’t wait for an invite!!). Couldn’t bring myself to listen to how wonderfully well he would be handling the GFC in place of Kevin. If anyone watched can they give us a quick summation.
Will check in later.
Awww, I only caught the end of Turnbull blathering on and carping at the government. Hasn’t he learnt that rather than simply criticise the government, he needs to advance his own policy?
Some people never learn…
Only amongst those with no economic literacy.
Thanks for the tip (tip, get it? bahahaha ) Glen but honestly, we on the winning side (that huge, unprecedented in NP history winning side) are pretty happy with “our Kev’s” picks.
63 – you’ve fallen off the rocker now mate.
Still, that you think Swan isn’t up to the job, and that I think you’re not up to the job, are both pretty meaningless.
Maybe you should define economic credibility and we could go from there?
I guess you could always try the (McCain) experience argument?
The McCain experience argument sounded much like the Howard experience argument.
We all know what happened to that poor chap…
Agree wholeheartedly with GP @ 13.
“Turnbull should immediately dismiss Bishop as Treasury spokesperson. Secondly, a policy document would not go astray.”
My recollection is that the ALP was consistently behind in the polls until they actually formulated viable alternative policy positions and then, under Beazley, made up a lot of ground on the back of that. Rudd came in, did it more and better (there was also the fact he didn’t have Beazleys record of gracious concession speeches), and the Coalition were unelectable offal.
Bishop is way out of her depth, at best another Tip who hasn’t got a clue, and Turnbull just doesn’t seems to get that he’s not the PM. Saw Kroger on Lateline a couple of days ago arguing that Turnbull’s commercial experience makes him suited for these times. What rot! Its Turnbull’s ilk amongst the money men and dodgey bankers that actually created much of the financial crisis in the world today.
On the subject of Turnbull and his credibility, does anyone know if and when he gets to front the courts on his alleged involvement (through Goldman Sachs) in the HIH collapse?? Will be interesting to see what his numbers in the PPM stakes look like during and after that.
Na, cant agree with that. His job right now, is to criticize, niggle away at the edges and generally get on the news where he can. No leader, at this stage of the game would be putting policy out
Oh FFS, these Melbourne pensioners are STILL not Happy.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/24/2427801.htm?section=justin
Ricky Stewart left out his secret weapon in Saturday night’s League World Cup final.
Malcolm Turnbull has the best sidestep I have ever seen bar none. He would have untouchable with the ball.
At the Press Club address, I didn’t see him answer “one” question and that after slamming Rudd for failing to answer questions in QT in Parliament. WOW, what a class act.
The whole address was an attack on Rudd and occasionally Swan. Malcolm, people want to know what “you” stand for. After that effort we are no more informed than we were yesterday or the days and weeks before.
Whoever is advising Turnbull & his mob of non-performing colleagues should be replaced immediately. This was like a campaign address a week before an election and trailing in the polls.
This has to be classified as another golden missed opportunity to outline policy and strategy which differentiates the “so-called” alternative government from the incumbents. A definite “F” for fail on this one I am afraid.
Glen @ 63,
Doesn’t the Leader of the Opposition traditionally give the Budget Reply Speech?
i sat through Turnbull’s Press Club speech and believe it or not i didnt get the slightest bit irate, if today is the best he can do then he’ll never pull the libs out of the abyss they’re currently inhabiting, the whole speech was a self aggrandasment tirade about how omnipotent he was, watching this mobile ego at work was hilarious, how could anyone take him seriously after today? only the most rusted on lib would be impressed, he brushed off any searching questions afterwards, Paul Bongornio was correct then he said Turnbull just couldnt tolerate anyone but himself being PM.
I thought that was conveniently settled out of court soon after Turnbull became leader.
How many different fronts does the Liberal Party have? That’s like the 7th organisation apparently representing pensioners I’ve heard about.
I wonder if I get 200 old people to get their clothes off in front of town hall the government will spend $6 billion on renewable energy.
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24695165-5001021,00.html
Why bother going to effort of writing an article about a poll that’s clearly rubbish?
Googled Turnbull and HIH after i posted that, and last article i could find indicated that it was back in court 18 December this year as there are prospects that it could be settled out of court.
Anyone know what happened in the Venezuelan elections?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
No result yet as far as I am aware, but there was a massive turnout so it’s looking like Chavez may lose some power
Bit of a depressing result either way, I think. Shame the choice is between a party with authoritarian tendencies and corrupt gangsters.
The same, I think, goes for the Liberals as a party. They just cannot tolerate anyone but themselves being in government. This is evident in their churlish anger, which they’ve displayed since Rudd burst into the game as Opposition Leader when they saw their grip on power threatened. The constant spite and smear indicates a born-to-rule mentality. The mantra which they use to console themselves, “Rudd is a one-term wonder” likewise.
Like their greedy RW constituency they cannot come to grips with the fact that they cannot and will not have it all to themselves.
Chavez allies won a majority of Governor elections, but the opposition have picked up one so far. 17-3.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hnH8H_eglFrymD2NranoLmqWSN-QD94L35A81
Decent amount of support for Chavez.
Excellent responce by Jonathon Green to the whole Obama puppy thing:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/jonathan/2008/11/24/the-trig-perplex/
Fair enough. Boycott over.
(Geez am I a hard marker lol – but then I figure why punish myself for someone else’s stupidity. And besides, I can hardly claim to have never said the wrong thing. And in this case I believe it was a dumb oversight/error, rather than one of malicious intent.)
Isn’t it amazing how a simple, sincere apology works wonders…
US government guarantees half a trillion dollars of Citigroup’s loans, and chips in another 20 billion as well…
http://business.smh.com.au/business/citigroup-gets-500b-rescue-20081124-6fup.html
Sad, sad day.
60% of those surveyed in that Telegraph poll admitted to being Fib voters lol!
Sky nooze poll says 54 % say Rudd has done badly in first year. Just a guess here but i’d say the same 60% Fib voters have been busy again.
Ford wanting to work with Green Agenda.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/24/business/24ford.html?ref=business
sorry link here
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24695165-5001021,00.html
Thanks Judith re the Press Club today – I watched Graham Morris and Tim Gartrell on Sky Agenda and it got a bit of a mention. Spears, of course, trying to build Turnbull up but the others not agreeing too much. Morris gives Rudd Govt 8/10 for first 12 months which was a bit of a surprise.
Can anyone put me right on the Bank guarantee. I was really pleased to have it unlimited but why is it supposedly putting a bigger strain on the mortgage market.
Of course David Spears says that Turnbull’s brilliant financial brain should be utilised by Rudd but I thought Turnbull was criticising to protect his own interests.
The poll on reactions to a deficit is a classic example of a Sir Humhrey appleby type question. For example:
Q1 Are you worried if the budget goes into deficit?
Q2 Would you prefer for the government to raise taxes, cut spending or go into deficit?
Easy to get a negative answer when there is nothing to compare it to and only a negative connotation implied. Conversely the following question woudl be equally biased the other way:
Q3 Are you in favor of the government acting swiftly to provide an economic stimulus package in the face of the global credit crunch?
So you see, Sir Humphrey is alive and well and working for NewsCorp.
Just watched “Agenda”. Apparently at the National Press Club Malcolm criticised Rudd for not answering questions in parliament then avoided answering questions himself. Good one Mal.
I’m shocked I tells ya
Yeah, me too Dario. Couldn’t believe what I was hearing. LOL
It sounds like many in the media may be starting to lose their besottedness with Turnbull. Perhaps it’s the consistently bad polling, or are they just getting tired of him?
GB – was Graham Morris’ 8/10 for Rudd a surprise to you? He seemed to think more of Nelson’s stint in opposition than Turnbull’s.
Anyone – why is the unlimited guarantee bad for the mortgage market?
I’m kinda wondering why mo post @ 75 is still in moderation.
I thought it was a pretty good wrap-up of the press club address & can’t see any “forbidden” words in it except the r word!
“my post”!!!
It has been alleged that it caused investors in the mortgage market to all pull out and move to safer investments, resulting in the mortgage funds freezing. Reality of course has shown that investors were already pulling out of such investments because arse was already falling out of it, and that they had begun freezing well before the guarantee came in.
Dario @ 98,
They went into the PC Address with blank notebooks and walked out with them still blank.
In answer to most questions he either said, “all in the fullness of time” or, “as per my previous answer”.
All in all a wasted hour for the journo’s.
I loved this comment on the ABC site re the Newspoll.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/24/2427537.htm?section=australia
This was in Crikey today – I don’t know how to get it over properly so just cut and pasted it – but it says a lot about Wayne Swan.
“Michelle Healy writes: I worked for Wayne Swan when he was ALP State Secretary. I recall that there were one or two staffers who were slightly wary of him, but that was only because they were afraid he may actually ask them to do some work. For those who were bone lazy and apathetic, I guess he must have seemed a little intimidating.
In any case, I had never known him to be rude to any of the staff at Head Office, even though it could be uncomfortable to be at the end of his withering stare. For my part, he was a great boss – completely professional and dedicated – and was very understanding (and admirably kept his cool) when, despite my good intentions, I made one or two accidental stuff ups during the campaign.”
Thanks Dario – that was what I thought. Friends were pulling their money out of investment trusts a few months before the Bank guarantee was given so I couldn’t understand Turnbull blaming Rudd for it.
If Turnbull didn’t answer questions then it could mean he hasn’t got a clue. As BB says, he just chucks a lot of stuff around and hopes something, anything, will stick and be right.
Journos will be mad if it was a wasted hour or so – they probably thought they had an easy story all lined up for tomorrow.
Anything to bag the Government over, whether it was their fault or not
I think they will have to do what they have often done lately.
Just make it up!
Thought I’d provide a bit of light laughter: The Daily Telegraph’s RANDOM MINISTERIAL SCANDAL GENERATOR
http://dsc.dailytelegraph.news.com.au/m/dt.aspx?id=6bd8c4d5b9&group=Daily%20Telegraph&name=Random%20ministerial%20scandal%20generator
BH
The funniest part is that despite his grandstanding on the subject – it was confirmed that Turnbull had himself withdrawn his own funds from the investment trusts.
I’ve given up measuring the static to noise ratio – there are more interesting signals to monitor.
Maybe we need to start a version of SETI to undertake the task of listening for coherent policy from the Liberal party?
I’m afraid I might blink and miss it.
If you actually watched the address Dario, Turbull did praise Rudd for some good decisions…what is he suppose to say that after a year Rudd did nothing wrong?? Is that Labor’s meaning of bipartisanship lol!
Turnbull refused to answer 2 questions based on whether he supported the principle of individual contracts and he didnt answer them…now you can understand how testy this issue is for us and how Labor would love a free kick…Turnbull didnt give Gillard a free kick and yes it looked bad him not answering them but for godsake Rudd barely answers anything in QT so big whoop!
Turnbull’s speech 8/10 for me
The Opposition doesn’t like the Government outlining its achievements since taking office last year.
Probably because it shows up them for their lack of anything substantial and beneficial over the previous three years.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/24/2428269.htm?section=justin
Having ranted here about the whole “Trig thing”… I should acknowledge that JG has sorted it out to my satisfaction(like it matters but anyway)
Thanks for the retraction JG … is all good, on my end
to all my friends!!
Just a short blog …. HAPPY ANNIVERSARY EVERYONE!!!
Essential Research has Labor’s lead at 56-44, up from 55-45 last week. Also included are leadership approval and preferred prime minister ratings and, interestingly, retrospective evaluation of John Howard, whose prime ministership is rated above average by 47 per cent of respondents and below average by 24 per cent.
This from the mob that spent how may millions on advertising?
Scorpio, every now and then a comment goes into moderation for no reason that I can see. Yours was one of them.
The Daily Telegraph “Random Ministerial Scandal Generator” remains me of this David Blunkett policy maker, referring to the former British Home Secretary. Those unfamiliar with Blunkett can mentally substitute him with their home-grown subject of choice (Phillip Ruddock, perhaps).
Maywald is going to be up against the head of the Murray Irrigators in Chaffey next election. Last election her primary vote was 53% and Labor got 10%. Would she have a better chance if Labor don’t run against her and campaign for her (she’s still a National although she is in Rann’s Cabinet)
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,24696783-2682,00.html
I suspect she’d have a better chance if Labor campaigned against her.
How did the poll rate Paul Keating (The greatest PM in my life time) and Bob Hawke or did they just survey Johnny?
They just surveyed Johnny, but it occurred to me that it would have been most interesting if they had asked about past PMs as well. I’ll suggest it to them.
Yes I just look at it. Goes to show that you can fool most of the people some of the time.
My, my, just look at that primary vote for the LP on Essential Research. They’re clearly doing something right. Sniggle. Going to be interesting to see Possum’s update of the Pollytrack, though William’s tracking of who is better on the hot topics, I still find absolutely fascinating in relation to how the LP lost the plot. Got to be a few Ph.D.s in an exploration of that topic. As opposed to “The Howard Years” – wish there was a symbol on the keyboard for irony.
Not most, just all Liberal voters a tiny percentage of everyone else.
William re Maywald
You are a political genius! But how do you campaign against one of your own ministers? You can’t criticise her policies, judgment or character. I suppose you could say the people of Chaffey would be better off with a Labor member than her but that’s pretty hollow.
The Libs choosing a prominent irrigator might work in Chaffey to their advantage but I think it will go down very poorly in metropolitan Adelaide where the election will be won.
Onimod @110:
That really tickled my fancy. It’s the funniest idea I’ve read in a long time…
You can just see it: screen savers, background processing, bugs that cause your PC to crash or hang, and a prize for the first contributor who finds a Liberal Party policy in all the microwave background hum.
You get a municipal reserve (funded, of course, with porkbarrel handouts) named after you.
“Bushfire Bill Reserve”.
Where do I sign up?
Just a passing thought. Has anyone got any theories about why it was George M. who got to do the report on the Newspoll. Mine is that he has somewhat more credibility than just about anyone else, though Mike Steketee is O.K., and the O.O. is trying to claw back some credibility?
Maybe the Liberal hacks had all slashed their wrists and were unavailable?
Bushfire Bill, you forgot the mouse pads a la promoting Workchoices, so cleverly exploited by Julia in QT. A mouse pad with a LP policy on it. What would they pay for that?
Don’t forget Bludgers, the Howard Years at 8.30.
It will be like going on one of the big rides at an amusement park. Only difference is we’ll be cringing and screaming all the way through it instead of laughing and screaming. Still, hopefully we’ll come out of it alive. Some may throw up, so I’ll have a bucket close by in case.
BB
Michelle Gratten clearly didn’t appreciate the brush off she received today from allbull when he didnt really reply to her questions at the PC (other including Laura Tinge also appeared pissed off with allbull) .
Will watch with interest on tomorrows reports from Gratten and Tingle.
I thought allbull today did immense harm to any prospect he might have ever had be PM.
He can across as an astonishing arrogant and egotistical bully. The more he talked the more I believe average people would have been fundamentally repulsed.
It was not a pretty sight and was all about how brilliant allbull is and how dumb everyone else on the planet is.
I cheered all the way through. IT was pure congealed arrogance on display by a person too smart by half.
How anyone would change a vote to allbull is just not believeable.
Watching the Howard Years. Reliving the nightmare.
Centre
I can’t watch it, but I saw that tonight they tip the bucket on Tip about the GST. Evidently he botched the negotiations so badly with the Dems that it was dead in the water until Howie shafted him and took them over himself. There’s always a silver lining.
Dave, plus a significant proportion of those polled don’t trust Mr. Turnbull, nut do trust mr. Rudd.
nut means but, clearly.
Centre, youve basically echoed my feelings about the PC address today, Turnbull let the real persona slip out and it wasnt pretty, i thought it was hilarious, good entertainment, he primped and posed and expounded on just how good he was and belittled veryone else,he derided Rudd for not answering questions and refused to answer probing ones himself.
Meg Lees has got me gritting my teeth on the Howard years, that dreadful woman’s pettiness singlehandedly destroyed the democrats, all we have left is that nutter Kanck and she’s retiring thank heavens.
Watching “The Howard Years” highlights just how unpleasant this lot were. Especially looking at how they spoke about the Tampa issue. The more I see of Reith the more my skin crawls. Thank goodness we are rid of these bigoted, sycophantic rabble.
Don’t know, but the lack of non-fantasy land stuff was welcome.
Fiz you are only getting that because the ABC has made the Howard Governments achievements to look negative and its failures awful…i have not yet seen one achievement that actually the ABC praise Howard for so no wonder you lefties enjoy watching it.
Hawke and Howard would have favourable polling id say but Keating would be about as popular as George W Bush right now IMHO…
I have no silicone ashtrays left, and I snapped my last reinforced leather belt when Reithy started on about how innocent he was about… well… everything.
So there’s nothing to restrain me and nothing soft left that I can chuck at the screen without doing damage to my (admittedly) retro, actual glass picture tube (although it is 16:9 widescreen, so I’m only 10 years behind the technological 8-ball).
The old silicone ashtrays used to bounce off the tube until they got too brittle and I chipped the damn thing with the last one. The leather straps, thongs really (if you must know), served me well until I noticed I was wearing out the sofa in the “straining corner” during the Budget Reply speech, when Nelson proposed his amazing 5c per litre reduction in petrol. Jeezus that was a bad night!
I chewed on the leather straps for a while (to preserve the sofa), but had to give up when Rainmaker started going on about the bank guarantee concept, and how he was against it before he was for it and then he was against it again. I got so confused and cranky I used to scare the dogs, writhing and screaming (as I did) and occasionally foaming at the mouth sometimes when I shouted at the screen and told it to “F**k off and die, you bast**d”.
Imagine telling a screen that! Well, I did. And that was when I realised I had a problem.
It wasn’t really the screen’s fault. It’s only a piece of glass, doped with rare earth elements. Not really a thinking person at all. And it wasn’t really the dogs’ fault. I was just me, and it was then I realised I had to get a grip or else I’d go mad and start talking to myself in the street.
The residents of Beecroft, NSW, 2119, will put up with a lot, but a joker talking to himself in the street crosses the line. They start crossing the street when they see “that weird guy from up the road with the two doglets” talking to himself.
So, here I am, unable to watch The HowardYears because I’ve just about ruined the sofa and my health, and that’s before I even get to the dogs’ mental health. Plus the carton of silicone ashtrays I ordered has wasted away to nothing (cheap silicone, I suspect).
So I have no alternative but to NOT watch The Howard Years. Otherwise Herindoors will get shitty with me for ruining the furniture, the dogs will take up permanant residence under the bed, and I haven’t seen Timmy The Cat for weeks, except at feeding time, when he dashes in, scoffs his tuna and then exits pronto for the bush where, despite the funnel webs, it seems a lot safer, what with me gesticulating at the TV and cursing lots (with the odd flecks of foam).
It’s a little known fact that cats and dogs can rarely see what we humans can see on-screen. Something to do with frame rates and RGB color responses, I’m led to believe. It’s a cross-species “thing”. Suffice it to say that when I’m on one of my ranting raves at something political, the animals can only hear what I’m upset about, and not see it. The screen is just a blur in their eyes. It upsets them that I’m upset, and if they’re upset, then I’m upset. It’s a sort-of round-robin of upsettedness that I want to escape from.
The thing is: I love my animals more than I love John Howard and his delusional, retro-re-writing of history.
So youse’ll have to tell me what happened in Friendly Fran’s Flying Circus tonight, because I can’t take the risk. I can’t take the risk my animals will move out and I can’t take the risk that Herindoors will divorce me due to the damage I’ve done to the sofa (I know, sounds shallow, but she has depth in other areas).
Ok, so at the moment, there are far too many balls up in the air for Old BB. And watching Howard might just cause the whole ping-pong bag full of them to come tumbling down.
I hope youse all understand.
Don’t know if this has been put up yet, so apologize if this is a repeat …..
And this is only a guess on his part, but an educated one …. and I said within the last 24 hours that this was looking just a bit like McEwen
…..
Agree totally. Keith now effects such a casual cache about it all. What a low life.
Dolly is not much better.
The salient point emerging from “the rodent years” is how much was policy on the run, major major stuff – the GST – Timor – Pacific switch n Bait without cabinet consultation. To that add the $10 B murray darling back of the envelope summer holiday brain fart and the aboriginal intervention.
Now if that happened under labor the stooges of the fibs would be demanding a dismisal.
BTW meant to raise this before – at todays allbull PC session the bit about the taxation review underway by the fibs. I got to say I was amazed truffles was not asked to rule out any increase in the GST rate. This is something that would have been and WAS the reaction to labors tax review.
WHY is that ? Were all the journos pissed today ? Did they leave their brains elsewhere ? Why were they incompetent and negligent in not raising such a basic query ?
SNIP: Overheated comment deleted – The Management.
The Howard Years tonight reminded us of two major facts:
1. Meg Lees destroyed the Democrats. Well done Meg, you can live with that for the rest of your life. At the time Meg thought she was really important because Howard was needed to negotiate with her. I’ll tell you what a complete idiot she was? Meg Lees honestly thought that the Democrats were going to be the second major political party ahead of Labor.
2. It cost us $1 Billion to stop the boat people on the Tampa landing on our shores. Therefore Howard effectively spent $1 Billion to improve his chances of winning the 2001 election. Shame Howard Shame!
Could that be because he was not, in fact, a brilliant statesmen and nation builder but a lying, snivelling, double-crossing, racist, selfish and greedy d*ckhead.
Centre but both policies worked…you cannot argue with that.
They might not have been perfect but what tough ones ever are.
Strange… ‘the Howard Years’ didnt seems to mention that all the Tampa refugees bar about 10 ended up in…… Australia!
But only after we’d blown millions incarcerating and tormenting them for 3-4 years or so.
Like a lot of the Howard years: political success and shambolic policy disaster travelled hand in hand.
Centre – It was a billion dollars – at least, rodent took out away from our hospitals, uni’s schools and pensioners.
The pensioners who are these days acting up no good (and the shock jocks behind them) should hang their heads in shame about their silence back in the day.
Yeah that fact jumped out at me as well.
Glen = so now you say the end justify the means ?
Wtf, of course you can.
There’s thousands of economic arguments against the GST, whether one personally agrees with it or not, and there are a number of reasons Howard’s immigration policy was a piece of crap. I’ll let others do the hard work, but don’t just say “You can’t argue with it”, because you’re going to get pulled up.
Yeah but you have completely missed the point Glen. The Pacific lack of solution cost over $1 billion, but 85% of the people aboard the Tampa are now living in Australia!
So this “those people will never set foot in Australia” ethos was just a complete FRAUD, a vast majority of ‘those people’ are now living in Australia, and are now Australians!
Worked? Yeah as Howard said in the program “the sense was that boats were arriving willy nilly”. Yep “the sense” is more important than “the facts”.
Would it have cost $1b to process them in Australia?
It didnt ‘work’ at all. Operation Relex merely delayed entry at GIGANTIC expense to the OZ taxpayer – they all came here in the end, on refugee visas. All of em! Except the ten NZ took.
Refugee flows slowed through the whole SE Asian region after 2001 – because the Taliban regime was felled. Had very little to do with domestic amendments to Australian refugee law.
dave Rudd has just given billions of dollars to a failing auto industry but unlike that Howard’s pacific solution worked = no more boat people, Rudd’s car industry policy = still failing car industry.
Add to that the capex of building the “facilities” on christmas island port augusta etc etc.
Where were the journos when all of this was going on – were they asleep.
Why arn’t they asking questions NOW ??
re 147. C’mon Glen. Ok, you can play wedge politics but $1 Billion. If it was Labor the MSM would have crucified them.
$1 Billion. Disgusting. I wonder how much Howard has blown on boat people, wars and government advertising in his time of office? Maybe Fran will tell us? I wont hold my breath!
What in the last 2 weeks?? Geez, I do like how you give Rudd plenty of time to succeed.
Lefty e how many refugees came before Tampa and how many came after it…net drop thus the policy worked.
ShowsOn and the rest of you fail to realise that we no longer have the boat people problem we had before Tampa and Howard fixed the issue almost completely.
Glen – you are WAY out of line, fella !
The Billions the fibs have spent on business welfare – not onty the car industry are matters of public record. Just go look at historical records – your lot were there 12 years they spent BILLIONS on same.
re 156. Glen the money will keep people in jobs in an economic downturn. It is not wasted to win Rudd the election like on the Tampa for Howard.
Yes but unlike Labor we didnt run up 96b in debt so we could actually afford it!
What you fail to realise is that while we did prop up the auto industry we never did it to the extent Rudd is and we never propped up Ansett…nuff said!
Yeah we were so swamped. Any numbers to back up how big a problem it was?
Oh dear. There have been 3 in the last 6 months!
The Tampa was a boat in distress in international waters. It had every right according to International Law to go to the nearest port, which was Christmas Island.
Why is it that liberal hacks like to pretend that Australia is the only country int he world? Why is it that Liberals couldn’t care less about a billion dollars pissed away on nothing?
Debt as a percentage of GDP was lower in 1996 than in 1983.
They were on their way to Indonesia the boat peoples boat came from Indonesia thus the Tampa should have taken them to Indonesia!
It was 1b and the policy was a success…no more boat people we won!
love them apples and oranges.
You’re comparing a whole industry with an airline?
And you do realise much of the Rudd plan is contingent on the industry spedning money first – they don’t the Govt doesn’t. It ain’t a grant.
It was an industry…you had Compass fail and then Ansett it was big.
GROG
You were very gracous to JG regarding th Trig perplex
I was less so , but irrespective a view was put of human error that won’t be forgot
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/jonathan/2008/11/24/the-trig-perplex/
What you did do is WASTE $85 b in windfall mineral boom income . Waste it
No but you did prop up stan howard and re- define moral risk. The PMs brothers company HAS to be supported – everyone else go jump !
Thank you for succinctly pointing out everything that was wrong with the policy.
Us and then.
Re 155
There was another reason why the boats stopped coming. Money was paid to informers in Indonesia who would advise of boats leaving. Both Indonesian and Australian authorities worked together to stop the boats leaving for Australia. Methinks Indonesia was promised something in return.
We never wasted any money…most of that money was given back to Australians in tax cuts.
Glen, bugger all asylum seekers came before the Tampa, and bugger all came afterwards.
In the entire 11-year period from 1990-2001 the sum total of asylum seekers arriving by boat was 12,000 people.
Thats less that one year’s offshore refugee quota in this country.
You were duped mate.
The rodent years have more stench with every episode that is screened.
Incorrect. Most was spent on middle class welfare.
YOU withdrew funding from australian hospitals, public schools and universities.
It is a matter of public record. YOU broke the deal on hospital funding – that cannot be forgiven.
170. Yeah Ron, I was feeling gracious. But it won’t be a 3 strikes and you’re out thing.
I think Green was dumb rather than purposefully cruel. Maybe I’m being naive or too soft a touch.
Yeah perhaps he didn’t need to mention the right wing blogger bit, but I focussed more on the:
it was a dumb slur. It was wrong. He admits it, doesn’t try to say “oh it was just a joke” or “we didn’t think it would cause offence”. Rather the sense I got from Green’s words were an acknowledgement that they didn’t think at all.
Let’s hope he does do so in the future.
I guess the main reaosn I was happy to forgive, is to be honest, I don’t like being angry. Which is why I try to avoid reading certain blogs on news.com.au. When I do I invariably get worked up over things and people who will never acknowledge an offense may have been given (unintentional or not). I like seeing Green acknowledge his error.
I also know I’ve done dumb things; and sometimes I’ve been too pigheaded to acknowledge I was wrong.
re 174. Glen of course the money was wasted. Just think, even more could have been given in tax cuts by raising the threshold of the top marginal rate? Let alone really putting it to good use like on infrastructure and hospitals.
Oh look, I went and got the Vaseline and Leigh Sales came on TV! Her unlikely appearance on Monday night’s Lateline is clearly a result of me getting the petroleum jelly.
By the way, what exactly do you see wrong with refugees coming to this country? You do know that it’s impossible for them to come illegally?
Treasurer Howard had one surplus budget and 4 deficit ones. Not all that $96bn was Labor’s. All the deficits, all the debt, came from budgets in recession years.
And $390Bn was wasted by PM Howard.
The smugness of rodent is still there. He is banished disgraced. party in the wildness and without prospect. and still a smug rodent.
Readers are advised that I have made a new addition to my comment moderation guidelines – Article 9. It covers references to politicians as rodents, and is effective henceforth.
Middle class welfare is going to be a long lasting problem left behind by the ‘Howard Years’. A whole mass of people who now expect money to be sloshed into their wallets and purses, right at the time when we will need to be cutting back significantly. It will be an issue because it is so politically charged and people have come to rely on those variety of payments.
My husband and I are expecting a baby – we will not be receiving the baby bonus. We missed out on the first home owners grant by 12 months. We have nothing to complain about as we are in a comfortable position and haven’t over-leveraged ourselves. But I read on parent forums a large number of people who are now complaining that they will not be receiving bonus payments and they are getting antsy about it. It could be a vote changer.
What a great legacy to leave – a whole generation of people who now expect governments to lavish cash on them when they don’t really need it, whilst begrudging those who genuinely need welfare due to unemployment, mental health issues, and lack of education. World class effort there, Liberal Party.
Well there’s no point coming here anymore.
GROG
#179
I agree with your comments entirely Although as you say “Yeah perhaps he didn’t need to mention the right wing blogger bit” , so i just wanted on principal to highlight that , and therefore th concern neeeded focus on big issue minus that
.
Also figured if I’m gonna get banned , it may as well be by unanimous agreemnt of all Crikey management
lefty e @ 175
Glen, bugger all asylum seekers came before the Tampa, and bugger all came afterwards.
In the entire 11-year period from 1990-2001 the sum total of asylum seekers arriving by boat was 12,000 people.
Yet at around the same time about 60,000 true illegal immigrants were coming here annually without the government caring or doing a thing about it. On their own figures by late 2003 there were nearly 250,000 of them.
The difference? They flew in on tourist visas and they were mostly Europeans and Americans. In other words, the immigration policy wasn’t driven by illegality – seeking refuge isn’t illegal, overstaying your visa is – but racism.
As for the 12,000 figure. Thats about how many Kiwis arrive here on one way tickets every fortnight.
re 182. $390 Billion was wasted by the Howard government. That means that our 08 surplus should have been $410 Billion. $410 Billion would have certainly been enough to guarantee that we avoid a recession in difficult times. So it’s true, Howard failed to manage the economy in good times for the bad.
187 ron I added a comment on Green’s blog re your comment.
You’re right, but as (I think it was) GP said on the previous post, there’s not much point me denying my fun on PB, so that’s also why I came back from my whole day of protest
Also not sure if William is on a hit count payment, but if so, I wouldn’t want to cost him because of what he had no power over.
err not sure if thast really holds up! I think it means $390b should have been spent on infrastructure etc rather than middle-class welfare.
William,
I support the general intent of the ruling and can’t tolerate the undergraduate behaviour of those who use stupid nicknames for politicians (a la Crikey’s Krudd) but I make an exception for “lying ro***nt”. So would “rat” be OK?
I won’t be surprised if that number rises once the harsh economic medicine spooned out by the conservative ex-merchant banker-led government starts to gripe at people’s wages and standard of living.
Rat is out of bounds.
“Former Member for Bennelong” is fine.
I get the feeling that there will be a lot of references to the Carrier of the Black Plague on this blog in future….
I wish journalists would stop trying to get politicians to say “deficit”.
“Why is the government so opposed to deficits?” Leigh asks.
Because you journalists, in your desperate attempt for a “gotcha” moment have made deficits and the like to be some kind of satanic tool and you guys are the ones that have enormous influence.
Leigh should have given up on it some time ago. Tanner is absolutely hammering her.
Recalling when Keating referred to Howard as “the greatest job and investment destroyer since the Bubonic Plague”. LOL!
And the latest “smear”, from the Fibs.
http://www.ruddshop.com/
William, as you would be aware, I refer to those in the political realm by their actual names. What if, in a moment of outrage, we swear at someone, or do something just stupid like Jonathon G. and First Dog? Interesting, n’est pas?
Grog IF Howard wasted $390 Billion, that means waste for no economic benefit (such as on boat people), you could add that to this years budget surplus.
NEWS FLASH!: LEIGH SAYLES has a new HAIR STYLE!
I admit that “rat” might present me with a challenge in certain contexts. I’ll see how I feel when it happens. You are of course allowed to refer to the fact of Brandis having called Howard a lying rodent (does it have the status of “fact”?), but you’re not allowed to exploit it to dodge the rule. “Krudd” is not allowed.
The comment will be snipped, and life will carry on as before.
We’ll call it the “Brandis Manifesto”.
I reckon name calling christened by Paul Keating should be allowed.
Cuppa @ 193 -
I read the 12,000 figure (actually 6,000/week) during the recent Kiwi election campaign, so assume it’s recent and therefore probably already reflects the current NZ economic woes. I believe they get much more on the dole here than back home.
Fulvio Sammut @ 195 –
Carrier of the Black Plague
Isn’t he the bloke who used to follow the Usher of the Black Rod on occasion?
The plague affects different body parts in different people, Mayo.
Frank, that looks really stupid. Who would bother? And Centre, I’m going to have to go to bed, because if I actually really thought about what you could do with the money Howard wasted, I’d, I’d, I’d just be flabbergasted. No, really depressed.
No 145
Howard had massive support in the community by stemming the accelerating inflow of illegal entrants. Did you not see that phone poll where 90% of the 122,000 people polled supported the turning around of the Tampa? I think poll bludgers are the ones who are out of touch.
No 142
How was the GST “on the run” policy? Costello worked on it for 12 months, only to have Meg Lees remove fresh food, thereby making the tax much more complex to administer.
I’m not really sure how much money Howard wasted, I was going on Jovialmonk’s figure. But I’m sure we would be in a stronger position had Rudd been PM from 96 onwards and that goes for the whole world if Obama had been pres since 2000.
No 202
If Lib supporters can’t use Krudd, communists should not be able to use rodent. Even if Brandis said it, it is simply beneath us all to use these childish names.
No 210
Centre, your inability to admit anything good that Howard did is pure ignorance.
William@ 203. You make me laugh. Your mother should be proud of you. And again, some things you post here don’t get sufficient exploration. I still reckon that move in who reckons who is best able to deal with the most important issues graph is the one to watch.
GP if the GST was such a good policy why don’t the liberals increase it to 20% as further tax reform?
GP
Are you making this up?
A phone poll of 122,000?
No 215
Rewatch the Howard Years Part II on the ABC website and it showed news footage of a phone poll which attracted 122,000 respondents.
GP, feline staple saved the best for last one year ago today.
No 214
Centre, I’m guessing you prefer the litany of inefficient stupid state taxes that the GST replaced.
William can you please unlock my moderated post @211?
Just watching the Coward Years here in w.a. Was interesting how its showed up his essentialy completely incompetent handling of the East Timor issue. Its well known that Howard wanted US support before he would move. Apparently, according to this program the issue was that the US would not commit ground troops, which makes sense considering that is was also Clintons attitude in regard to Kosovo.
But the breakthrough was apparently when Howard met Clinton in NZ and said that he didnt want immediate ground troops, just intel, and “distant” backing, which Clinton immediatley gave.
So, if Howard had been clear withh the Americans on the suppport that Australia wanted in order to lead the UN forces 3 or so weeks before, we would have been in their , and maybe a load of people who died, wouldnt have. I hated Howard at the time for the way he handled this, and this program just reminds me why Australia is so much better off without this little man. Tampa, Kiddies Overboard, just more signposts to how bad the Coalition were.
GP, i dont mind talking about the good things Howard did in his tenure–now lets see, hmmm, just a moment, let me think for a moment, ahhh, i’ll come up with something shortly, oh dear, wait a tic i’ve got it–no that was Keating, be patient GP i’ll get back to you eventually.
Generic Person, wee stalwart from the LP side of politics, do you have any explanation as to why your great new leader, Mr. Malcolm Turnbull, is doing so badly in the polls?
No 220
imacca what rubbish. He did not mishandle anything given that his international reputation increased markedly after the whole affair. He even got appropriate UN backing – what more do you people want?
HSO, he doesn’t have the economic credentials of Swan, Tanner and the only man with a masters in economics in parliament, Emerson. Turnbull was a Liberal barrister who worked with a bank for a short time.
Like so many seriuos issues , “boat people” matter got reduced to Media one liners for th ‘left” and “right” gouge on in both politcal and humanitarian sensotional headlines
Actualy there were many layers to both , and public did NOT like Labors non solution at all , so despite Labor should hav won/made 2001 electon reel close as Howard’s glaze had waned aboit , Howard reflected publ;ics concern about security of our shores ….and ignored th reel or perceived nasty edges to it
That issue decided 2001 electon reely , and ar we saying public got overall view so wrong , do not tink so
222
And then he lost his seat. (SNIP: Test failed – The Management). (just testing)
222 “what more do you people want?”
GP an apology for twelve wasted years!
GP, surely the liberals could find more inefficient stupid taxes that they could replace with a further 10% GST. Or are you saying that there is no need for further tax reform?
If you believe there is the need for further tax reform, and the GST is such a great tax, why don’t the liberals increase the rate of the GST?
Ugh, the moderation system on these blogs is annoying because it throws the numbering system for posts out of whack if one post happens to get caught in the filter.
GP
Except that the policy was not aimed at illegal entrants, who continued to fly in on tourist visas in significant numbers.
It was aimed at a small number of refugees, who, by definition, can’t be illegal.
So Howard’s support was predicated on lies and misinformation, as usual.
(William, I’m trying to be good, but spell checker wants to change ‘Howard’s’ to “Coward’s’. Am I allowed to accidentally press ‘change’?
No 228
Who said increasing the GST was a good policy? Your arguing with a strawman and dodging my questions to suit you. Your mindless hackery really isn’t worth any more of my attention.
No 230
Illegal entrants was my (incorrectly used) term not Howard’s, so blame me for my error and stop casting ridiculous aspersions as to Howard’s integrity. I’d also note that they are not refugees until they set foot on Australian territory.
The facts are that boat people from Indonesia were making their way to Australian waters in alarmingly high numbers, thus effectively being queue-jumpers, and the majority of Australians rightly opposed their entry.
steve, just once,I’d like the MSM to expose the lie at the centre of that stupid mantra of the Libs. being better economic managers. That’s never going to happen. Garbage reporting. Pollbludgers, Pollytics, Political Sword, Larvatus Prodeo, and all the Economics blogs, are best places to know what’s going on.
228 & 230. Something very appropriate happened as a result of the moderation process. GP stopped arguing with himself!
“Who said increasing the GST was a good policy?”
I am trying to find something worthwhile Howard did?
I thought that was the centrepiece of the Howard legacy?
Do you think he’s o.K.? Generic Person, Are you O.K.?
LOL! An unscientific, un-sampled and unweighted PHONE poll! You got us there.
Ah! I see! So your policy is if you don’t let people come here, they can’t be refugees, so you don’t have any humanitarian concerns! Cat, Bag, Out.
GP, Australia could have led the UN troops into East Timor weeks earlier. Since UN compounds were being violently overrun at the time i dont think that UN backing was an issue. At the time the talk was all about getting American support and tonights program makes the case that it was Howard and Downers stuff up in not clearly articulating Australias position that delayed that. The delay cost lives.
What happened with his “international reputation” afterward is irrelevant to the statement i made previously, particularly given the natural tendancy for everyone to be trying to put the best face on things after the intervention to facilitate the moving on that was so desperatley needed at the time.
I acknowledge that it was a good thing for Howard to start the process rolling. It was unfortunate that Habibi was such a nutter and moved things on much faster than anyone thought he would. Once that happened it seems that Howard was well out of his depth, and Downer was simply his messenger boy.
SNIP: Dummy-spit deleted – The Management.
Don’t like it when people go silent. G.P.. Spark up, or we shall begin ignoring you like the Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition,the Member for Wentworth.
For anyone interested, ABC is playing a wonderful Jean Renoir film at 1:15 AM early Wednesday morning. It is called “This Land is Mine” and concerns a school teacher trying to do what he can to resist the Nazi occupation. It is of course a Hollywood propaganda film, but it is really interestingly made.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036431/
No 238
imacca, Howard’s foreign experience was indeed nascent by his own admission, but you’re applying a double standard. He went through all the right procedures and even gained the support for the UN. This was not the same with the Iraq invasion and yet you’ll criticise him endlessly for that.
I know the lack of reasoned content in this post, while also noting that it is ironic you’d post it.
If you don’t want to participate here, go do something else.
But, Generic Person, if we’re brain dead, why are we still capable of arguing? You resort to this sort of name calling when you can’t mount an argument. It’s as simple as that,
SNIP: Sequel to dummy-spit deleted – The Management.
An unscientific, un-sampled and unweighted PHONE poll of 122,000 (90% opposing th boat people unrestricted entry)
2001 electon was decided on boat people issue Voters supported Howard to win so that is pnly poll that counts
Labor failed ( and posters here still ignore) th queston , would one continue to accept th boat people coming here in whatever numbers and be accepted here as refugeees
…and if not , th solution ?….as opposed to howard’s deterant of entry and bribing th indonesians
(US went though that exercise on Mexican border , atarted with a trckle , US built a fence but there ar NOW 12 million yes 12 million illegal “refugees”…and increasing by th day)
Tink question may be how it was done , and with what social etc compensation
We are ignorant brain dead people!
You know you are winning when they start calling you names.
William, are you doing it on purpose?
Generic Person , you’re not capable of counting. Silly cloth eared bint.
Sorry GP, but i’m not going to get drawn into an Iraq discussion. I suppose you’ll be pleased though that Kevin Rudd is now PM? I mean, he’s popular at home, lots of diplomatic experience. Crisis happens and he shows that he can respond without demonising anyone (except overpaid CEO’s and they deservve it!!).
For someone of whom it was said that they were elected because of their similarities to Howard, he’s really quite different in some positive ways.
Wonder if the Australian Government is considering tax cuts as a form of financial stimulus?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/24/business/worldbusiness/24euro.html?ref=worldbusiness
Last time I checked Labor got more than 10% in that election.
Plus it was a push question anyway. What if the question was: “Do you think the Australian Government should break international conventions, laws and treaties?” Would 90% of people say yes to that?
If anyone is bored, free to add more votes to these links:
http://legacyrecordings.uservoice.com/pages/general/suggestions/76713
http://legacyrecordings.uservoice.com/pages/general/suggestions/76711
http://legacyrecordings.uservoice.com/pages/general/suggestions/76741
I bet the Liberals are. That’s their answer to everything.
Generic Person
Howard’s gone.
Bush is about to go
Blair’s gone
Can’t even remember the name of the guy in Spain.
That is pretty much what I wanted GP.
Oh perhaps for the Liberal part to face reality and move on, but that isn’t going to happen. I’ve got used to the idea, that I am politically homeless, but that is not as sad as those banging on about the complete and utter failure that destroyed the liberal party.
No 252
The problem is ShowsOn, is that you cannot accept that the majority of Australians approved of Howard’s policy of stemming the tide of boat people.
“Last time I checked Labor got more than 10% in that election.(2001) ”
There is only one ting worse than a CC denier , a partisan supporter who does not realize Howard actualy won 2001 electon ….and won it on th broad national security “boat people” issue
Better to deeal with Labors policy error then , and address my #245 questons
Ron, agree 100%.
Ron, why is that you’re the only rational Labor supporter here?
Learn the difference between majoritarianism and democracy.
Where did I write that Howard didn’t win the 2001 election?
LOL!
No 259
ShowsOn, accept the fact that Beazley lost the 2001 election.
ER must have changed something about their polls, the last two are now in the ball park of the others. 56/44 seems about right and would show the strengthening credentials of Rudd the polls are showing.
Turnbull is exactly like Palin in that he lacks competence, is arrogant, will say anything and, is totally oblivious to the fact of this inability. Palin and Turnbull are dumb in so many ways but actually don’t know it.
This would explain Turnbull’s unbelievable level of arrogance. He mistakes arrogance (supreme belief in own importance) for ability, in fact he is now using arrogance in the place of ability. This type of incompetence would explain his previous abysmal performance at GS.
It is amazing that just being made leader of a failing bedraggled Opposition has let lose the Turnbull arrogance monster, just imagine if he had the top job. He would think he was king of Australia.
At least Keating’s arrogance which was acerbic offhandedness possessed a greater degree of ability to balance it out. Turnbull’s arrogance has no foundation in reality and is simply pompousness. It really is slippery Barristers talking with Turnbull and you can understand the comment of one senior bank executive that you always ‘felt a bit dirty after dealing with Turnbull’.
I want to know why Rudd’s indiscreet comments about Bush, and Turnbull’s enthusiastic exploitation of them, didn’t affect the polls either way. I, myself, would have expected them to.
I actually expected Turnbull’s ratings to go down. Nobody in Aus likes Bush. Most Australians would have understood Rudd making jokes about him at dinner parties (after all, most of us do too). And Turnbull’s protestations that the issue was damaging relations with the US were a bit funny, given that he was the only one keeping the issue alive.
fredn, many of us have become used to being politically homeless. It doesn’t apply anymore. See “the Piping Shrike”.
Where did I write that Howard didn’t win the 2001 election?
Umm, Generic Person, has it occurred to you it might be time to dissemble and lose the Republican brand s your gravitar?
Gee the neocons don’t miss a chance. Wonder if the Libs here will push the same idea.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/
No I think it is good, it warns those new to this blog not to expect much more from him other than “TAXES ARE STEALING! M’KAY”
Sorry that was meant to be the Republican brand as your gravitar. Maybe it’s the glasses?
Well, Im not afraid of credit where credit’s due. So far I credit the Howard govt on:
1. Gun laws, good. 8/10
2. Pass marks for East Timor (Oz public deserves lion’s share for policy shift and prompting INTERFET in 99, but govt and army did well organising it at short notice – once they finally stopped poo-pooing the idea of leading a PKF with the Yanks, and started asking for US support instead, ie as late as September ‘99) 6.5/10
3. Full marks for destroying the Australian Democratic. 10/10, excellent work.
Damn it, hate it when I mistype the punch line.
That was:
“3. Full marks for destroying the Australian Democrats. 10/10, excellent work!”
Giving Indonesia $1 billion of aid after the tsunami.
Of course the standard Liberal hack would probably oppose such humanitarian charity.
ShowsOn the US Republican love taxes! How else would they bail out the banks, after they’ve enjoyed a little much “free trade” at the taxpayer’s expense? Not to mention the billions and billions in agricultural subsidies, that are making it harder and harder for our farmers to make a living.
We’re not up to that bit Showson, but I’m sure it would make the list…
PS Oh , and all the rest was shite!
I can’t, just can’t credit the Howard government with anything really. Anything they did was for votes, mostly driven by the creature from Kirribilli. The only government I’ve ever known of equal turptitude is that of Joh in Q’LD.. Bad bad man with many others besides him.
ShowsOn
#251
Ron “2001 electon was decided on boat people issue Voters supported Howard to win so that is pnly poll that counts
ShowsOn: “Last time I checked Labor got more than 10% in THAT (2001) election”
Ron #255
“There is only one ting worse than a CC denier , a partisan supporter who does not realize Howard actualy won 2001 electon ….and won it on th broad national security “boat people” issue”
Now ShowsOn , you reely pedanticaly threw an irrelevant 10?% figure into your #251 to camoflage my point Howard DID win th 2001 electon, so saying Labor got more than 10% in that 2001 electon was not even disengenuous , pretty ordinary reely , Howard won electon , its called democracy….and Howard DID win that electon on th broad national security “boat people” issue” , ddeal with reality policy
Since then you’ve quoted only PART of my abov quote Unlike you I accept both th reality that John Howard principal had majority community support and so sensibly it would , and that Labors “efective” non policy on a National Security issue was a bad policy error , and you not seem to grasp voters sensibly thought so as well ….and most damaging of all based on Polls by far more than th majority votes John howard actualy got ….no Party is perfect you may learn
HSO, you are being intellectually dishonest by refusing to give some credit to Howard. Mindless hackery is boring.
Um, no. This is how I got 10%
I started off with 100%, I subtracted 90%, which left me with 10%.
I then compared and contrasted this with the percentage of the vote that Labor received at the 2001 election, and I noted that they received substantially more than 10%.
I then pointed this FACT out in a post.
Where did I write that Howard didn’t win the 2001 election?
SNIP: Abuse deleted – The Management.
Which made it impossible for Beazley to oppose Howard’s response, lest being accused of “supporting Osama Bin Laden”, especially in regards of 9/11 which cemented Howard’s victory and in fact gave him a bigger majority because of threat of terrorism.
Hello Generic Person. If you live in Melbourne, which I suspect you do, William has my permission to give you my personal contact details. I’m willing to give you an up close and personal about the sad, the bad and the dysfunctional. You want to accuse me of being dishonest? What about you get off your bottom and stop accusing me of hackery. What about you start acknowledging others’ peoples’ opinions as equally valid as your own?
ShowsOn
Th KO was delivered to your argument 2 posts ago , you ar now posting from dazed memory
Your #275 “explaining” how you mathematicaly arrived at th psephological “expert” opinion that “Labor got more than 10% of th vote in 2001 electon” will amaze Antony Green , with shock
By way , using your maths , Howard got more than 10% of th vote in 2007 electon
Amazing ting is is that Howard won 2001 electon , AND Rudd won th 2007 electon….with amjority 2PP votes ….abit more relevant would hav thought
FRANK
“Which made it impossible for Beazley to oppose Howard’s response”
Unfortunateley Kim Beasley equivocated , bad policy error and voters saw that , should hav been clever on policy
Have you worked it out yet though? Because these replies suggest otherwise.
SNIP: Abuse deleted – The Management.
Where did I write that Howard didn’t win the 2001 election?
Where did I write otherwise?
The first time you ever replied to one of my posts you attacked me while agreeing with what I wrote! Your replies to my posts tonight demonstrate that your comprehension skills haven’t improved much since then.
I know, but he really had no choice, the media would’ve had a field day crucifying him and if you recall, ANYONE who dared criticised Bush or Howard on their handling of 9/11 were immediatly branded “Terrorist Sympathisers” and Un American/Australian – so it was a case of damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
“You’re either with us, or you’re against us.”
Exactly my point, it was the Iraq War which prompted me to join the ALP, plus Howard’s Welfare To Work policy, which as a person with a disablity was extremely demeaning and was not the way to encourage workplace participation.
Sure! Apologies to Defamed Raw Prawn for not clearing his/her comments sooner – now that you’ve had one comment cleared, future comments will appear instantaneously.
Huh?
Which Iraq war, Frank?
Do you mean to say you had a conversion on the road to Damascus (well, in that general direction, anyway) only as late as 2001-2002? An old diehard Labor man like you?
Porca la miseria, non lo credo!
It was a joke, William.
On two occasions the moderation process made it seem GP was arguing with, or insulting, himself by referring to people by number, as is his wont,and thereby referring to his own post.
It was funny at the time.
ShowsOn
I made a post in #256 clearly stating howard won 2001 electon and won it on th broad national security boat people issue
In doing so i also exposed th absurdity irrelevance of your #252 post saying “Labor won more than 10% of 2001 vote Howard won majority 2PP vote fullstop so whether Labor got more thn 10% is irrelevant , deel with it”
Since then you hav made numerous blogs trying to extricate yourself from this irrelevant 10% comment , and ar convincing no one of its relevance , perhps not even yourself When you go backwards in a debate you seem to accelerate with each post
Voters in 2001 wanted a national security boat people policy , Howard broadly refelcted what voters wanted and won electon , and Labor equivcoated , poor Labor policy response and lost
I’ve always been an ALP supporter, but never got around to joining up till 2002.
Bit of trivia, my Brother in Law, Simon Keely stood for the federal Seat of Forrest in 1990, while his Brother Christopher stood in Tangney at the same Election, their older brother is former WA State School Teachers Union President Mike Keely.
#288: Gotcha.
I believe Nelson may have suspected that Turnbull’s extreme arrogance would get out of control and shoot both himself and his party in the foot and grate many of those on his own side. I get the feeling that there are numbers of his own people only just able to stop themselves from barfing.
Frank
“I know, but he really had no choice”
Yes he did I tink What Beasley’s unsaid message was efectively saying (unacceptably) to vast majority of voters was any number of boat people could come , and th fear was th trickle may increase (and may hav for all we know) , now Bealey did that by equivocation of not offering a coherent end to boats coming solution , and not through a 9/11 connection at all Later Howard joined those dots that Beasley left open by a poor policy response to actual boat people issue itself
Fair enough Frank.
On my part I was politically indifferent until the dismissal of the Whitlam Government in 1975, and the affront to democracy that it was pushed me firmly pro Labor, or perhaps more correctly, anti Liberal. Never been a party member though.
Some things you can’t forget or forgive.
I was only 10 in 1975 and even then I was pretty politically aware, and that single event solidified me as a leftie, and my first political memory was Whitlam’s IT’s Time jingle – produced by legendary Festival Records A& R Manager Pat Aulton and the first time in Australian Political History that a Political Party used music to sell their Leader & Party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Aulton
I’ve always thought Barwick has been treated too genorosly by Historians
Actually Pat Co-Wrote the It’s Time Jingle with the late Paul Jones, and of course featured the who’s who of the Australian Entertainment Industry at the time.
http://www.milesago.com/industry/aulton.htm
Not to be confused with the Manfred Mann lead singer of the same name who is still with us.
Ron,
Shows On’s allusion to more than 10% voting Labor in the 2001 election was in response to GP’s quoting of a Ch.10 poll (featured on last night’s ep. of Howard Years) which had 90% of 122,000 callers approving the Government’s response to Tampa (I’m paraphrasing as I don’t recall the precise question).
The poll was meaningless, as it was one of those ring-in this number yes, that number no.
GP’s position that the Liberals won the election, and Shows On’s view that Labor’s vote was greater than 10% can thus be reconciled, as this thread has played out.
Irrespective of this “poll”, there is little doubt that the majority of Australian voters (probably somewhat fewer than 90%) approved the Howard Government’s position at the time, though many would argue that doesn’t make it right. I think the revelations on the Howard Years would only tend to increase the doubts of many people* that the reaction to Tampa was either sound or legitimate policy.
* Acknowledged that many (most?) here on both sides of the debate are rusted ons, whose pre-existing views would be confirmed by their viewing of the Howard Years.
Barwick, from memory, was a former Liberal Attorney General and High Court Judge who provided a self serving, and in my (and many notable Jurists of the time) view, spurious opinion to the Liberal Party justifying their and the then Governor General’s legally and morally indefensible actions.
Nevertheless, apart from this appalling blemish, he had a very distinguished career on the Bench.
Ugh Gillard’s fair work proposal heralds much more union power. Disgraceful.
I found the discussion on Howard positives very interesting indeed, but very limited, including especially the contributions of the Howard hagiographers who post on this blog. Here are seven Howard positives. I leave considerations of motivation on the part of Howard to one side and focus on the actions and the consequences.
1. Gun control – not far enough, but a good start.
2. $1 billion to Indonesian tsunami. When your neighbour is in trouble you should get in and help. Good stuff. It was also managed better than a fair bit of overseas aid, such that a largish proportion of it actually made the changes needed by ordinary victims.
3. Rapid-fire $1billion interest-free loan to Thailand during the Asian Financial crisis. This was probably the single most successful foreign policy initiative of the Howard Government. It was very greatly appreciated by Thailand – one of our key friends in South East Asia.
4. Howard finally fixed the East Timor mess left by the incompetent Whitlam and Co. I believe critics of Howard do not give sufficient value to how very dangerous East Timor was for Australia (and for Indonesia). Retaining it was a fundamental value of the Indonesian military as well as other key players in Indonesian politics. Howard quite rightly waited for US backing, because without it we could still be involved in at least guerilla skirmishing with Indonesian or Indonesian-front units. His gaining of UN support was critical because it meant that it was possible for moderate elements within Indonesian political circles to save face in not going to war. At the worst we would have been faced with a long-term, low intensity war. Posters here need to realize that we cannot possibly ‘win’ an all-out war with Indonesia. Yes, we could destroy their air force and their navy relatively easily, but really, all Indonesia needs to do is just sit there. Such a stoush would have no clear winners on either side – and it would have generated vast foreign policy problems for at least the next generation or so. As an example, imagine that Indonesia Governements supported JI because they believed it is a way of ‘getting back’ at Australia for East Timor. Well done by Howard.
5. Introducing the GST. Imagine the Australian fiscal situation without it right now. The acid test is that no Labour government or opposition would seriously even consider removing it. They know how important it is.
6. Radically improved the efficiency in costs per container movement. Still not up to world standards, but getting there. The means were unacceptable, but the outcomes stack up (pun intended).
7. Howard’s refusal to join the US in a knee-jerk fashion, by indicating that we would not automatically join in a Taiwan Strait military fight. This is probably the most important signal of future Australian foreign policy by the Howard Government. As usual, largely missed by the MSM at the time who did not pick up on the implications. Fortunately both the US and the Chinese Governments did pick up on the signal, as intended. I believe this is important positive of the Howard Government because, as US relative power wanes, we are going to have to become a bit more sophisticated at juggling China, India, Japan and the US in our neck of the woods. Ongoing slavish adherance to any one of the big four is probably not a sensible long-term option.
William, you will be pleased to know that I nearly used the word ‘Dolly’ and also the term ‘Cat Food’ but managed to restrain myself. The new rule is going to take some of the fun out of posting here.
On a more serious note, I would appreciate your broad views on acceptable approaches to the use of the term ‘rascist’. It is a serious issue for Australian politics, with serious implications so needs to be addressed.
Boerwar @ 302 -
4. Howard finally fixed the East Timor mess left by the incompetent Whitlam and Co.</i.
Although Indonesia special forces had conducted limited operations inside ET from September onwards, Indonesia did not invade the country until 7th December 1975, nearly a month after the Dismissal, and annexed it in 1976.
Anyway, the Indonesian’s had the approval of the only party that mattered, the USA, which feared victory by the left-wing FRETILIN would lead to a Communist run ET which might limit transit of USN ships, particularly submarines, through its waters.
Labors IR policy will give Turnbull and Keenan alot of political ammo…if what the Australia said was true.
MayoFeral @340
Thanks for the clarification, I must admit I was a bit foggy on the details. I would appreciate your views about what, if anything, Whitlam could have done better while he had the chance to do so?
If anyone is suffering under the misapprehension that the 2001 election was won by Howard on the back of immigration policy, I suggest they read “Dark Victory” by Marr and Wilkinson.
Howard did the four things he was best at. Dog-whistling, wedging, lying and abusing the role of public servants. And it worked because lots of Aussies are xenophobic about “boat people”. He read the people better than Beasley, who was well and truly wedged.
And before Labor tries to make too much mileage out of it, Beasley went along with most of what Howard did. And the most pivotal public servant was Jane Halton, who is the head of Nicola Roxon’s Health Department.
I agree with Dio 307 – 2001 was dissappointing to me for two reasons – firstly Howard’s behaviour, seconldy Beasley’s weakness. He turned out to be the most substantially conservative Labor leader of his generation. Therefore he didn’t offer an alternative.
As for Halton, there are many still unanswered questions. Given recent public comments by naval officers who were effectively gagged at the time, her view of events at the time looks at best inconsistent with the view of those actually there.
Yeah, cos they have a long track record of truth telling
/sarcasm
Well they did when it comes to Rudd leaking his phone conversation to the Australian lol!
I think Rudd takes the cake for the most conservative ALP leader Socrates…but he is coupled with one of the most left wing deputy’s in a long time…
Oh please, what utter crap
Socrates
I know it’s only a silly hypothetical question, but how would Rudd have handled the same thing if he was Beasley
He was happy to avoid any economic wedges last election but he does seem to have fairly firm social views and I don’t think he would have gone along with Howard on the Tampa. He’s a very smart operator but it’s a hard one.
That’s not really saying anything though. I don’t know that much about our past Deputy PM’s but Australia is hardly renowned for feisty, leftist leaders.
Gillard may be part of the Labor “left” but I fail to see it in any of her, or the governments, policies.
TP back at 262 said
Which causes me to ask, if Palin can do her ‘Fargo’ interview oblivious to the fact that turkeys were being culled just behind her, what would Truffle’s ‘Fargo’ interview consist of? What obliteration would Malcolm be oblivious to as he was being interviewed? A merchant banker getting it in the neck, perhaps? The 2pp polls? Any other suggestions?
A humungous stimulus package being prepared.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/President44/story?id=6320498&page=1
Dio 312
Agree – I think Rudd is stronger than Beasley on social policy, and that has been confirmed while in government. Hence I don’t agree with Glen that Rudd is more conservative than Beasley; Beasley didn’t really stand up for a lot of traditional Labor policy, which I was quite dissappointed to see.
To answer your question, Rudd could have diplomatically pointed out our international treaty obligations, and maneuvered Howard into somehow saying that a bunch of refugees on a boat were a “threat”. Howard’s approach at the time was a very “cowboy” attitude of policy on the run, but it was never challenged.
after trawling through the net, Turnbull’s grand speech at the PC seems to have gone down with a resounding thud, the only mention i could find of it was a letter to the editor in both the Age and the Herald, both letters scathing, i’ve copied them here, he’s wasted a good chance to display what he’s got to offer with letting his egotism and self aggrandiosment get in the way.
Does Malcolm Turnbull have a problem with non-subservient women? Three female journalists asked intelligent and pertinent questions during the ABC broadcast of the proceedings of the National Press Club yesterday. One senior newspaperwoman with excellent economic credentials was scornfully dismissed by Mr Turnbull. Another was simply brushed off and the third was given a kindergarten level non-answer. This female viewer was distinctly unimpressed.
Isabelle Wharley Willoughby
Bold and the bland
AFTER watching Malcolm Turnbull’s speech at the Australian Press Club, I imagine that, short of a catastrophic political meltdown, Kevin Rudd’s Government should feel reasonable secure in its tenure.
The Leader of the Opposition, despite the head-nodding adoration of a group of “toadies”, seemed hesitant and short of fresh ideas under the scrutiny of media questions on issues from taxation and future workplace directions to climate change and alternative energy sources for Australia.
Beyond replying in a stock standard manner, saying he was waiting to see what the Government put in place before being able to respond, Turnbull came across as having more wind than bite. He appeared to be lacking the sort of future-looking freshness that this country will need.
Given the importance of having a prepared alternative government in our adversarial system, I am more shaken than stirred by this ongoing blandness.
Graeme Foley, Kew
Just another Liberal in other words.
The average driver just wants their car to work and get them from A to B… what goes on under the bonnet doesn’t usually cross their minds much. When you’ve just bought a new car you just aren’t looking for another one straight away unless you bought a lemon. So far the Rudd government is not a lemon, and the voters aren’t in the market for a new car.
that’s because they havent been able to look like one given they havent made a tough decision since taking office Dario…anyway Swan is a lemon enough…
Glen, whatever reason you think is the reason for it is irrelevant, the perception of the government in voterland is the same
Roy,
What about ‘An economic melt down led by Merchant Bankers’
So GP, it ISN’T Workchoices lite? Can have it both ways.
I missed yesterday’s QT but taped it and watched it this morning (I know, I know). The number of times the opposition questions went straight back over their heads for 6 was unbelievable. They were slaughtered.
Ugh, Workchoices gave more power to bosses without any counterbalancing power to employees – fascism!
Don’t be too hard on GP, he’s just following Turnbull’s lead and taking both sides so that he can claim to be have been right in the end
Yes Glen and that in turn will give Labor political ammo. How sweet to be able to show just how committed to Workchoices the Libs are.
By the way, Who’s Keenan?
Gary, Michael Keenan MP for Stirling and Opposition Shadow IR Minister…
QT will be his first test underfire with Gillard but there is enough to worry about with Labor’s legislation he will do a good job…but then Gillard will bring up WC and the coolaid drinkers on this blog will say how wonderful she is when she wont have allayed the fears of ‘working Australians’
WorkChoices – the gift that keeps giving! Thanks Howard, Costello, Minchin, Hockey, Bishop, Andrews, Turnbull, Abbott, Keenan etc…
Peter Fuller
#299
You make a perfectly rational obsevation of what ShowsOn “appeared” to do , ie reply to Generic Person’s quote of ABC program’s 122,000 TV poll Reality however is in what ShowsOn ACTUALY said …misrepresenting one posters comments with another posters comments to prop up his lame arguments
ShowsOn #252
Ron : “2001 electon was decided on boat people issue Voters supported Howard to win so that is pnly poll that counts” (extracted by ShowsOn from from my #246 post)
ShowsOn:
“Last time I checked Labor got more than 10% in that election.
Plus it was a push question anyway. ”
ShowsOn quotes my blog , then has no intelectualy capacity to challenge it , so instead replies with words replying to Generic Persons ‘poll’ blog….as if I’d said it or to cloud what i’ve said
Which is why for next hour after I exposed ShowsOn’s vain attempts to link his irrelevant 10% comment (which belonged to only replying to GP’s blog) to my blog that stated Howard won 2001 election by majority 2PP & why national security boat people isse (and this electon Howard win whatever Labors vote was , 10% or otherwise) Such amatuerish debating techniques ar disqualified after year 4 and diminishs this Site , but as he’s continualy misprepresented in past leaving it encourages his repetition and not lifting his game
As to your other two other broad coments boat people issue i generaly agree However whilst Push Polls have never been much good (& less so today as Partys reely ar “prepared” ready for them) , back in 2001 its value simply was to highlight there was actualy “an issue” of concern…a broad politcal hint of AN issue no more Scientific polls (later) confirmed th concern was precisely th broad policy thrust Howard took and sensibly so , and voters thought so also (vs equivocating Kim Beasley)
Those , and I note still today who tink howard did not actualy capture (coreectly) this mnational security sentiment & fear of just how many boats may arrive in future (and now we’ll neer know for sure) ar kidding themselves about commonsense of voters Voters were right Howard broadley was right Kim Beasly never coherantly responded in a national security policy sense this legitimate issue reely
When one doe not accept defeat and reely understand why you lost (probabley Turnbulls current problam I tink) , then its hard to learn and shape polcy (and politics ) how to win What has been polluted in peoples memories then & now in this issue is th politcs of it , rather than th policy issue itself in peoples minds Politics and its prosecution simply maggnified a pre existing voter issue , with children over bord an example of politcal tricks Tampa converseley becme th line in sand highlighting both th voter concern policy issue & a solution Howard was offering and acting on , with th politcs used to magnify it (with Kim Beasley just kept equivicating , and so Beasley having opening a hole his later condemnations of 9/11 lacked some credibility as well)
Most on this Site may not like reality that majority of voters suported Howard’s policy IRRESPECTVE of children over bord type incidents media presentations & politcal tricks , but tink voters were right
As a separate issue there is boat people themselves , th human tragedy th treatment th loss of life on th seas th leaving loved ones at home and how they were treated at Nahru etc but its separate to what people wanted regarding national security of ‘oz’ shores unfetterd people “arriving”
IF th argument is that th boat people should hav continued to be let come , and obviously th numbers would hav progressively grown (as there was people smuggling dolars in it) , how many could keep coming (unlimited numbers ?) and for how many years ? ….and how come they can jump queue of legitimate refugees in Darfur etc ? Beasley failed to addrss th core questons Suggest Rudd would adopt Howards broad deterrant approach including Howards bribing of indanesions & others (but probabley with more internationa diplomocy and an eye for humantarian treetment of detainees held as well) Only choise public got was an iron fist to solve probalm or a velvet glove , th latter a sure loser and rightly so
Firstly, the fact that I, a political junkie (I did tape and watch QT and watch it live most days) has to genuinely ask who Keenan is says a lot about Keenan and the opposition don’t you think?
Secondly, the fears of “working Australians’ have already been allayed. They removed the architects of Workchoices and don’t want them back anytime soon. The only people who will dislike this legislation are your rusted ons like yourself Glen, which shows that it is “Workchoices lite” doesn’t it. It does my heart good to hear you and people like you bleat about the changes. It shows Labor are doing their job.
“shows that it is “Workchoices lite” doesn’t it.”
Make that IS NOT “Workchoices lite” doesn’t it.”
By the way Glen remember the anti-union campaign your mob produced at the last election. Guess what, it didn’t work. Why? Because most people feared Workchoices more than they feared the unions. Nothing will change in that regard.
I recall seeing a graph (pretty sure it was published on Poll Bludger) that showed people’s fear of union power peaked in the 1970s. The Liberals showed how seriously out of touch they are with their ridiculous melodramatic union-boogy-man campaign last election. ‘Twas like a flashback to the 1950s reds-under-the-bed campaign style. Good one, Libbos.
GB – I loved the bit yesterday in QT when Malcolm T asked about shareholders having a say in executive salaries.
Julia’s immediate response was “The Poacher turning Gamekeeper”. Took me ages to stop laughing. How right she was – he poached millions from a merchant bank and now wants to be the big protector of the little bloke. Julia is one ahead of him – she must have been good in the Courtroom.
Notice the big Banks are out today telling Malcolm to back off his criticism of the Bank guarantee and to pass the bill immediately. Wonder if he will listen to them or still stick with his merchant mates.
Anyone else see that Mr Howard cost us $400,000+ in his first 9 months in retirement and that is apart from his super.
… bogey …
You LOST the 2007 election remember. Gillard can do whatever she wants now.
Where did I write that Howard lost the 2001 election?
Gary Bruce
That’s one of the saddest admissions I’ve heard in my life.
I know Dio. It’s like a bloody drug, I’m addicted. I’m not alone here though as BH has indicated above. One likes to see the Libs being caned, they deserve it.
Nah, it would’ve been if he admitted to ALSO downloading the Podcasts:
http://www.abc.net.au/newsradio/parliament/
Gary
Did you watch QT as much when the Libs were in power? That would be the real test of a dangerously addicted political masochist.
Dio, I did but I must admit to not following it as closely when certain speakers got up. Some were good for a laugh but most were boring.
Dr Phil! Dr Phil!! We have a live one!
Downer was funny. Whenever he got angry he sounded like was about to cry.
Possum – LOL
Costello thought he was funny while Abbott thought he was scary and clever. Both were the opposite to what they thought they were.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/bill-to-kill-workchoices/2008/11/25/1227491522653.html
bluddy hell i couldnt watch question time before because i couldnt afford to keep replacing the smashed tellies, that speaker–now i cant even remember his name was an absolute disgrace, i even wasted my time emailing a protest to him once, but him being a Howard lackey all i got was platitudes back, the current speaker even though labor seems much more even handed–or am i biased? anyway i must admit i love seeing Julia or Lindsay in full flight.
David Hawker, the last Speaker of the Howard Government was the worst:
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/member.asp?id=8H4
Jenkins is perhaps the best speaker the parliament has had for 20 years.
#349
The previous Speaker was David Hawker, member for Wannan. After becoming thoroughly accustomed to him as Speaker for years it was quite strange listening to him in parliament yesterday attacking the government’s policies.
Hawker was a disgrace.
Regarding Turnbull and answering questions in QT (or not), and the general indignance and outrage displayed by Hockey and others in countless points of order on relevance, one would think that John Howard used to answer questions.
Time for parliament.
Turnbull just wasting questions already…
Excellent news to see Gillard has introduced the IR laws – this is delivering on another key Labor election promise at the end of their first year. Those who know the system know that WorkcChoices was not a simple legislative failure to fix, because it had been carried through to introducing a flawed new adminstrative system as well. Still, this is a good step forward
To those who say this will give people ammunition to attack the government with, I have to laugh. Workchoices was deeply unpopular (and rightly so). Given increased job insecurity in the current climate, I can’t imagine why anyone other than its deranged writers would have grown more fond of it since. Any coalition member who thinks they are going to score points defending it might as well try to defend Bush’s reputation for statesmanship. My only concern is that the timetable to make changes is a bit long, though we all know how regrettable the outcome was when the original WorkChoices Indenturred Slavery Bill was rushed through the Senate.
As for QT, two wrongs don’t make a right, so I woudl like to see people on both sides answer questions. I don’t watch QT. Its a waste of my time.
Unless I’m missing some subtext for the nickname, “Dolly” is not the kind of thing I mean when I refer to:
#356
On QT, no two wrongs don’t make a right, but to be credible the Opposition should not be pretending that only Labor ministers don’t answer questions.
Unless he is referring to Dolly the Sheep
Happy first 1st birthday PM Kevvie!
Could someone please provide a link to the new I.R laws?
MB, here’s a brief descrition from the SMH, haven’t seen the full details anywhere yet
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/bill-to-kill-workchoices/2008/11/25/1227491522653.html
Dolly with a question!!!
Dolly’s replacement I should say
Hawker was obscene. Remember the grubs saga?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hawker
A 2006 ruling made by Hawker after an incident during a heated exchange in the House brought further motions of dissent from the Opposition, and drew criticism of the Speaker’s impartiality from the media.
After a motion regarding share trading was moved by Kelvin Thomson, the Member for Wills, on 25 May 2006, Leader of the House Tony Abbott referred to Thomson indirectly using unparliamentary language by moving the motion “that that snivelling grub be no longer heard”.[1] The Deputy Chair at the time, Peter Lindsay, did not make comment against to the withdrawal Abbott made using the words “if I have offended grubs, I withdraw unconditionally”. Later, the Speaker assumed the Chair, but it was only after the Opposition attempted to move a dissent motion that Abbott withdrew “unconditionally any imputation or offensive words against the member for Wills”.[2]
When Manager of Opposition Business Julia Gillard however attempted to mimic exactly the exchange of 25 May by moving the motion “that that snivelling grub over there be not further heard”[3] against Abbott on a health legislation amendment, and then stating that “If I have offended grubs, I withdraw unconditionally”, the Speaker asked Gillard to withdraw “without reservation”. Gillard responded that “in accordance with your ruling yesterday, I have withdrawn effectively”, but the Speaker then said that “I have no option…but to name the member”, and subsequently by motion from Abbott, Gillard was removed from the House for twenty-four hours.
I have not ventured too far into the debate on bias on the ABC previously but I have to say I find this one strange: the introduction of the new IR bill does not even make it onto “Top Stories” on the ABC website??? Whether for it or against it, it was one of the biggest issues in the past election campaign. How is this not a top story?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/default.htm
It was added to the Just In website 14 mins ago:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/justin/
Seriously I think far too much time is spent worrying about ABC bias. The commercial networks are far more biased in my opinion. They are biased in favour of whatever is good for them.
Socrates – check the ‘most popular’ list.
Yesterdays’ Turnbull news made the top of the pops.
Given the overwhelming response in the comments to the story you could make a strong case that his goose is cooked.
Jenny Macklin is beating up poor Tony Abbott without mercy.
“Jenny Macklin is beating up poor Tony Abbott without mercy.”
Yes, that was hilarious! Love QT.
Yes, Jenny was braining poor Tony! Abbott keeps getting brained by the women lol. His liberal tag team mates had to continually stand up to throw in phony points of order to stop the bloodbath!
What about Swan? I think he is the best performer in parliament since Keating. That’s right I’m not kidding! The best since Keating.
He absolutely DEMOLISHED Hocky today. It followed on from his demolishen of Bishop yesterday.
If anybody still things he should be replaced by Tanner, they are simply uninformed! The Labor Party has the two best treasurers in the house in order at the moment.
371 – I agree Centre. Swan has improved tremendously since the election.
ShowsOn,
I’ve only been a recent follower to Parliament as I just moved to Oz about 4 years ago now. I saw Hawker every now and again but didn’t watch as regularly as I do now that Labor are in power. I note that Jenkins doesn’t seem (to my uneducated eye) to have any more control over parliament than Hawker and in each case, they are of course somewhat partial to their own side.
What in your opinion (or anyother bludger who cares to reply) makes a good speaker? Just curious to know “in general” from anyone and in particular, from you, why Jenkins is good.
Cheers
Apparently Access Economics has criticised the Liberal Party’s handling of the economy during their time in office.
As the treasurer correctly pointed out, you should save and INVEST in the good times and stimulate the economy in the bad. Labor is working in tandem with fiscal and monetary policy. The Howard government did the exact opposite.
Imagine what could have been done today if the porkbarrelling, government advertising, boat people, wars, and billions handed in tax cuts to the rich, had been properly saved and invested in those good times for the bad?
“What in your opinion (or anyother bludger who cares to reply) makes a good speaker? Just curious to know “in general” from anyone and in particular, from you, why Jenkins is good.”
Well there was my post about the grubs saga above, but the most often obviousness was how he would cut off a point of order from the opposition straight after they said “relevance” as their point of order. At least Jenkins allows them to get half of their relevance point of order out before he cuts them off to see exactly what they’re going to say, but as almost all relevance points of order are, is not a point of order.
Yes Gary, before the election I preferred Tanner, but I have since switched. The truth is they are both excellent. And without bias, both better than Costello in difficult times.
Centre, that would have required stacking up a much larger surplus than we already had. There’s a limit to how much public money the goverment can hoard before voters start demanding that _their_ money be handed back. I think we were pretty close to that point at $22b.
Leaked Treasury documents supplied to the IMF led them to conclude that Howard/Costello ran the economy in a manner most unsuitable for
the conditions.
“Peter Costello’s fiscal policy was potentially more damaging than any other period since the Whitlam years”.
via http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/09/12/peter-costellos-legacy/
Maybe triton. But the money should only have been given back to the people who really needed it. Like the ones who are finally complaining about it since Rudd won the election.
The money should have been saved and properly invested for the inevitable tough times. Now that we need funding to stimulate the economy, would could be staring at a deficit. We all know that the rich got the vast majority of the tax cuts under liberal. Frankly, they could have managed well enough without it.
They may not have been complaining so much if the money had been spent on infrastructure as well
Oh dear, Mr Truss as one of the coalition has shown they are back at square one, yet to have moved on from last year’s election loss where they were so resoundingly defeated!
His speech says for all the bluster of the Rudd government anniversary, he’ll show how useless it is by giving a comparison of what Australia would have been like if the coalition retained power at the 2007 election!!! Oh dear! What a slippery slope he’s climbing there.
Howard set the pension as a percentage of male average earnings. Then, with SerfChoices, he set about driving down wages and conditions. If allowed to continue SerfChoices would have meant less money in the pockets of employees and therfore less money in the pockets of pensioners. I wonder how many of the inherently Liberal-supporting pensioners would have been aware of that eventuality – and what excuses they would have made for their lowering living standards engineered by the Liberals.
It’s true Cuppa. And most economists know it. The MSM should realise it as well.
Costello continually said that when a government can run surpluses, they should give it back to the people who most contributed to it – the rich.
That’s the legacy of the Howard/Costello government.
WHAT POOR VISION!
On Truss, someone should remind them of how much extra pork Howard was promising right up to the last days of last years election campaign. we woudl have nbeen back in the 70s “stagflation” episodes – rising unemployment while inflation was still taking off.
On coalition infrastructure, its even worse than the figures suggest. They studiously avoided funding urban public transport, while pork barrelling rail lines from Darwin to Adelaide, which have now gone broke anyway. Worse than nothing – a waste.
CHOICE magazine looking at taking over Grocery Watch. Hope so… they will be able to get much more out of it… should be a good end result if it goes ahead.
http://news.smh.com.au/national/consumer-group-eyeing-grocerychoice-site-20081125-6h1q.html
Link to the new IR legislation as requested by MB:
Arghhh! try again.
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bills/r4016_first/toc_word/08222b01.doc;fileType=application%2Fmsword
Gillard’s great second reading speech:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24704778-5013871,00.html
I just watched Gillard at a press conference and then Malcolm, both talking about the IR legislation. Malcolm came across like he’d just been dumped by his wife or some such. He was so downbeat. Gillard came over as confident and certainly on top of things.
Did anyone else see these news conferences?
By the way the Libs have done the only thing they could have without committing political suicide. They will vote for the IR bill in the House and try for amendments in the Senate.
Truffles’ demeanour indicates he might be mourning the demise of SerfChoices? Interesting. I bet he’s not the only Liberal in sackcloth and ashes. The poor dears, having to sit and watch their showpiece of economic extremism executed before their very eyes. While Australian employees and employers benefit, the Liberals weep.
I know this should really in the WA thread but don’t expect any WA pensioners to strip naked over this desicion by the Barnett Government
http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/barnett-reneges-on-free-christmas-seniors-and-pensioner-transport-20081125-6h0s.html
My mum will be annoyed at Barnett’s move on free travel. She was looking forward to that.
Frank
All true-blue-rinse liberals, I mean pensioners, must make sacrifices to help get Their Party elected.
For that matter, if the Liberals want to ever start broadening their appeal to under 50 year olds, they had better ditch any lingering fondness for Workchoices. The young (especially students with part time jobs) and women workers were the chief loosers from the Legalised Slavery Bill, and its replacement will cement a sizeable majority of under 30s voting for the government. Grey power alone will not get the Liberals back into government.
I saw a few comments earlier about using the expression “Carrier of the Black Plague” instead of “Rodent”. I forget the context…
There is a new movement called the “Plague Deniers” who claim that the Black Plague was not caused by Yersinia Pestis and Rattus Rattus. It was caused by an epidemic viral fever, like Ebola.
The problem is that the Libs matched Labor’s promise, and while Labor didn’t put in a time frame, Barnett promised it would happen within the first 100 days, plus to add insult to injury there are signs on Railway Stations announcing the 14th December start date.
Another broken Barnett promise.
Juliem : “I note that Jenkins doesn’t seem (to my uneducated eye) to have any more CONTROL over parliament than Hawker and in each case, they are of course somewhat partial to their own side. What …..makes a good speaker?”
Speakers in HoR reely hav no control , governemtn (who appoints him) can pass any Bill they like and opposition cannt’t ultimately stop it passing , and Opositions can be as disruptive as they like to delay passage & make HoR unrulely So speakers first role is to giv appearance of respectibility to Parliament as if its civilised Th second role of a Speeker is to appear impartial to outsiders as both Patys know he is reely not Th third role of th speeker is occasionaly “side” with th opposition (but on non crucual decsions) to encourage both sides to keep within some bounds of unruliness , and depending oin speaker’s character a degree of respect from both sides may come Th fourth role of speeaker is overall to ensure ebnouh eficiency in HoR so that Governmetns legislative progrem does get processed (or as much as can be maximised) in a session
Juliem , if one wish to umire a footy game between your son’s team and a dreaded diferent surburb opposition team , and try to be impartial…..if you ar even remotely impartial….your son will not speek to you after th game
Boerwar @ 306 -
MayoFeral @340
I would appreciate your views about what, if anything, Whitlam could have done better while he had the chance to do so?
I doubt Whitlam either necessarily wanted to do something, or thought he needed to.
FRETILIN were regarded as Marxists. Whether they were ideologically committed Reds or just hoping to attract support from China or Russia in the way Castro (at least initially) did is probably debatable. Neither Gusmao or Ramos-Horta come across as red raggers.
But certainly Whitlam would have been aware of the U.S. position and was probably as concerned as they were. The last thing he would have wanted was a communist state on our doorstep, especially one that he thought wasn’t economically or politically viable and which controlled sea routes through which a large part of our exports are shipped.
Anyway, given how fresh the Vietnam disaster was in the national consciousness, I don’t believe anyone had the stomach for another war. Especially one we would likely have lost in the long run.
Plus he would still have regarded ET to be Portugal’s problem. ET didn’t declare independence until Nov 28th, more than 2 weeks after Fraser became caretaker PM.
Nor do I believe Whitlam thought that Indonesia was going to unilaterally annex the country. Its actions up to the invasion suggested they were more interested in helping groups opposed to FRETILIN, the Timorese Democratic Union (UDT) and to a greater extent the less popular Timorese Popular Democratic Association which wanted ET to amalgamate with Indonesia.
To be fair to Fraser, he would have seen the situation in much the same way and was probably as surprised as anyone when it became obvious that the Indonesians were determined to stay. That said, I believe we could have done more thereafter. His recognition of Indonesia sovereignty was a diplomatic and humanitarian low point only eclipsed by Howard on Tampa and the Pacific Solution, IMO. From memory, we were the only country to do so.
Diogenes at 395, throughout his career John Howard relied on subterfuge, obfuscation, false perceptions and smoke and mirrors to convince the public that he was what he portrayed himself to be.
Why now should we allow a little thing like the truth about the Black Plague interfere with our appreciation of him as he really was?
GB at 334, I would argue that the union campaign DID work for the Libs to some extent, maybe by bringing some of their base back. Remember they went from 56/44 pre-campaign to 52.7/47.3 despite a confused on the ground campaign with an interest rate rise in the middle and the lindsay scandal at the end
How do you match up “DID” and “maybe” in the same sentence Andrew?
How do you prove your opinion? I can prove mine, Rudd won and by a good margin after coming from a long way behind. His campaign against Workchoices beat the campaign against the unions. Simple. People must have feared Workchoices more than the unions otherwise Howard would have won.
You want to argue degrees and I want to argue absolutes.
Your ABC:
Just been watching the Barbie Doll reading out the Sydney ABC 7pm bulletin, where she said, in that Oh-So_Cheerful “Good News” voice of hers:
Let the bill passs the House Of Reps?
How generous of them, and how enlightening of the ABC to let us in on this bit of good news about Turnbull and his pirate crew.
Except the government has a total majority in the House Of Reps, which is why they are, y’know, the government.
Even in defeat, the Opps are letting the government win. How magnanimous of them and how lovely of the ABC to let us know about it.
Tossers: the Libs and the ABC.
MayoFeral@398
Thankyou. Interesting stuff.
GB @ 401
A few of corrections needed GB.
Rudd didn’t come from a long way behind – Labor under Beazley was ahead on 2PP for most Newspolls in 2006.
And it wasn’t Rudd’s anti-Workchoices campaign, it was the unions’. In fact Rudd was at pains to distance himself from unions throughout the campaign.
And I think Possum has previously demonstrated that the Coalition vote did come back in the last week or two. Mark Textor’s view is that the anti-union ads were intended to minimise losses, he didnt expect them to win the election.
Juliem
On speakers. The first issue is how well they understand parliamentary procedures and standing rules. A problem for speakers is that the House is full of legal people. Many of them are, practically speaking, useless, but all of them know how to argue the toss on rules and regulations. Jenkins did get himself into a spot of bother early on in terms of his knowledge of the rules but has got it pretty right since. There are structural issues – the Opposition hopes to use the rules to wrong foot the Government – they have very little to work with, so they will put as much pressure on the speaker as possible. If the speaker gets sick of it, he turfs a few out of the house. There is another structural problem, because some members of the opposition regard it as a badge of honour to get turfed out of the House. Sometimes oppositions will deliberately create ‘uproar’ in the House to try and draw attention to an issue that they want publicised. Another issue is that governments control who the Speaker is. It is a bit of plum posting with extra pay attached, so there is usually competition for it by people who do not rate a ministery. If the speaker serially displeases the government, he loses his job. I agree with others that Jenkins (I think his father may also have been Speaker) is generally pretty good at his job.
thanks Boerwar ….. the speaker in a parliamentary system plays such a different role than the speaker in the US HOR
…… going to miss QT tomorrow, we will be out at the new James Bond movie ……
Juliem – Harry Jenkins is doing a good job as Speaker. The last one, as everyone is saying, was a shocker. Even Lib friends told me they thought he was awful.
The Libs got away with mayhem against the Labor opposition and it was so awful I gave up watching so that my telly, like BB’s, wouldn’t be destroyed.
Don’t feel guilty, Garry Bruce – I have to admit I am a pretty constant watcher now – usually find a lousey job to do while it is on (ironing, cooking, anything). It is sheer pleasure to see how this Govt. is evolving. And what else is retirement for but to do the things you couldn’t do before. Of course, my old man thinks I am a nutter but as long as he gets spoilt it’s OK.
Remember Howard & Co telling us before the election that the Labor Ministers would be duds – well I reckon they leave the mob on the other side for dead now and I get a lot of information from their answers so I’m not sure why Turnbull thinks they don’t answer questions.
The Howard Govt. only ever gave a 30 sec answer before it turned on Labor.
Methinks the Opposition is very, very jealous at the moment and darn tedious to listen to.
Juliem – do you think it is better having virtually a non-party system in Congress/Senate instead of Westminster system. The Speaker over there seems to have more power than here.
Do you think the reason US members of Congress are more likely to cross party lines than Australian MP’s because of how Congress works or because the party system is less disciplined?
I think the better system is one that allows for a greater variety of views to be heard without fear of retribution.
By the way that question was directed to everyone, not just Juliem.
We are so wedded on to our party system that it seems hard to envisage non-party votes on bills.
Altho I’m strictly Labor I do like the free votes on big social issues like abortion, euthanasia, and the like. It seems to be the right way to look at those things especially if there are a few very dogmatic bods in influential positions in a party. They can use their bullying power which seems wrong for some issues.
I think the media contributes to our more adversarial Parliamentary style as well – they seem to demand it.
I wish our elected members would cross the floor and were more free to vote. Another positive, on top of the already mentioned, would be they would more representive of their electorate. In Victoria we have Labour bayside m.ps supporting channel deepening and country m.ps supporting the north-south pipe! Under an U.S. system I doubt that would happen. There are many flaws in their politics but this is one advantage they have over us.
I have a free for view article in Crikey today comparing the Rudd government’s first year ratings with Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke and Howard.
Kevin Rudd action dolls and a whole lot more merchandise sending up the PM available on a liberal party website. How childish can a bunch of supposedly adult people get?
Silly question! You’re talking about a political party that took a cardboard cut out into the House of Representatives.
Ebola? are you referring to Hycanith?
Well, there was the Howard love doll,
http://www.101usesforajohnhoward.com/2007/04/17/69-inflatable-love-doll/
Just more quid quo pro, searching for the reason why Howard was voted out, focusing on any negative against Howard and copying it to use against Rudd.
They need to look honestly at themselves and the previous government to find the reasons as to why the libs were voted out.
It wasn’t petty little things, they will not move forward until they do.
And they have parliamentarians who refuse to work in Parliament on Fridays because it interferes with their golf day.
New thread.