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
Pages: « 1 … 5 6 7 [8] 9 » Show All
#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
Pages: « 1 … 5 6 7 [8] 9 » Show All