I have written a piece on the Rudd government’s first-year polling record relative to that of the Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke and Howard governments, which is freely available in Crikey. Elsewhere:
• For those with ready access to academic journals, the latest edition of the Australian Journal of Politics and History features a look at the role of the Senate in the Australian political system by Stanley Bach, lately of the Congressional Research Service of the US Library of Congress, and an examination of conscience voting in the federal parliament by John Warhurst of the Australian National University. The Australian Journal of Political Science has an overview of the introduction of proportional representation to the Victorian upper house at the 2006 election, by Nick Economou of Monash University.
• The Victorian Electoral Boundaries Commission has concluded there will be no state redistribution before the 2010 election, at least on the basis of “current information”. The present boundaries have been in place since the 2002 election. Hat tip to Tom the first and best. UPDATE: Further props to Tom for noting below that the determination rests on a definition of a “general election” that does not count the 2002 election, as it was conducted on the pre-reform regime when only half the Legislative Council faced election – perhaps contrary to the drafters’ intention.
• The Western Australian branch of the Australian Democrats has been deregistered after declining to challenge the electoral commissioner’s determination that it did not have 500 members.
322 Comments
First!
Over the last decade or so it seems there has been a pattern of state Labor governments narrowly winning a first term, or at least forming minority government, but then following it up a few years later a landslide win when going for a second term.
My question is, do Rudd and Federal Labor’s figures in their first year follow similar patterns to the first year of those state Labor governments that went on to record landslides?
You know, like S.A. in 2005, Victoria 2002, Queensland 2001.
Are there any early signs now of the foundation being built for a second term landslide? Surely the fact they have improved their vote points in that direction, but are there any other similarities?
Surely the fact they have improved their vote points in that direction, but are there any other similarities?
Good disciple in the parliament by the government and a rabble of an opposition in question time is also a big similarity to how the state governments operate. Once the good discipline breaks down it becomes very difficult to win the next election.
My prediction at this remove is that if the Liberals stick with Turnbull, they’ll do no worse than 2007 and perhaps slightly better. Otherwise, they’ll get minced.
Even if they switch to Costello?
Most of those state Labor governments won so convincingly going for a 2nd term that they basically ensured themselves a 3rd term.
If Rudd can manufacture that, then he will go down as the 2nd best Labor P.M. since Hawke.
I vote for minced, the Liberals have been very ill disciplined in the parliament and under the heat and pressure of a election campaign how they behave in Question time becomes magnified. That is with Uturnbull as leader.
Thats what was said of Latham, with whom Turnbull is compared.
Noticed also a commentator seems to imply that you are a conservative apologist.
William, the interesting thing about your analysis is how fragile it makes Rudd’s polling figures look. If the crisis gave him a leg up, it also seems to set him up for a fall. The vulnerability is that the Australians who are currently optimistic about the economy change their mind about Rudd when things get worse.
The other interesting issue is whether elections are truly for governments to lose. It seems to me that very weak oppositions at state level have been losing elections in the last five or so years. Is your prediction predicated on the Fed Liberals continuing to behave as at present?
Which commentator do you speak of?
They do seem to be making a lot of first term opposition mistakes:
1) Not developing any policies that differentiate themselves from the government
2) Attacking senior bureaucrats instead of the government itself
3) Acting like children in question time
“1) Not developing any policies that differentiate themselves from the government”
Showson, it is one thing to ask questions in parliament and quite another to be actively questioned about what the Oppositions own policies mean for the people of Australia. Lazy oppositions find electioneering difficult if they haven’t spent the previous three years refining their own policies in the public arena.
There are occasionally exceptions to this rule when the media refuses to question the Opposition Leader in depth, Howard 1996 and Barnett in 2008 but as a general rule that is how the cookie crumbles.
William,
I cast my vote for “otherwise”
The LNP must be concerned that Turnbull’s honeymoon lasted a week and that Rudd’s personal ratings seem to have strengthened against their last best choice.
The Ace for Turnbull once the GFC created some need for action was supposed to be some economic abilities. This doesn’t seemed to have helped on bit.
I think I mentioned elsewhere that these past few months has been a defining time for both Rudd and Turnbull with Rudd I believe now being accepted as the ‘real deal’ PM with his various ‘emergency’ actions. Rudd is now a ‘real’ incumbent. The polls show that people remain unsure of Turnbull and that many have decided that Rudd is preferable by a wide margin.
The main thing going for Turnbull is that everyone assumes that he will do much better than Nelson and assume that he would be a much better Opposition and Political leader. However, as earlier in the year, it has required the MSM to actually make something out of Turnbull and to undermine the government.
The assumption is I guess that the polls will close up near election year, because? I don’t know, it is just assumed. But the aura of Howard has gone so there will be no last minute drift away from Labor who will be the incumbent in any case and may benefit from that.
Rudd has been riding high for a few years and people continually think it is a honeymoon and will come down to normal levels, but he defies gravity. Maybe Rudd is representing something the people want beyond politics as usual.
Turnbull has yet to prove himself much different from Nelson apart from his awful arrogance. He will have to improve to make an impression on Labor who I believe at this moment are moving further ahead.
And I don’t expect the people to blame Labor for the state of the economy for various reasons in addition to the fact that it is obviously a USA caused event.
John Howard, the gift that keeps on giving (or taking).
Former PM John Howard defends $400,000 first year bill – http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24703555-5013871,00.html
One thing Rudd should do is give his ministers more exposure or at least increase the exposure of his best main bunch. This too is a glaring difference between the parties. Labor has a lot of depth. The Liberal’s are basically Turnbull and he is at the moment 99% wind and bluster.
Labor who will be the incumbent in any case and may benefit from that.
I think that is a very pertinent point, TP. The last minute incumbency swing to the then Liberal government has left a heap of vulnerable seats with minuscule margins for the Liberals to defend. Next time around the Liberals won’t have the advantage of knowing the date the election will be called nor the advantage of having huge staff which they utilized during the last election.
Indeed. Last election, polling was in record territory, then THE NARROWING!!! came when the election campaign was called and the coalition ramped up the economic dogwhistling. They are not the incumbents this time, if this polling keeps up Labor may very well increase their majority, in 2pp and/or seats.
We are in a rather bizarre situation however where the Newspoll satisfaction ratings (as opposed to Preferred PM ratings) of both leaders are over 50%. I wonder if Newspoll has ever recorded this before?
Congrats WIlliam, I see from your link you’ve been trashed by Marilyn. Surely a badge of pride
Almost certainly. Incumbency is a big benefit to governments, but decreases as the number of terms grows IMO.
bob @ 16
Would you believe November 2007?
16 bob, if Newspoll phoned me and asked if I was satisfied with the job Uturnbull is doing as Opposition Leader, I would give him the thumbs up. I am very satisfied that they are struggling so helplessly.
Another worry for the LNP is that incumbency factor may have been quite strong for them at the last election because of Howard. Thus at the end of the day there were a group loyal to Howard or just to nervous to change from him and the familiarity of having him around for so long.
I wonder if the constant 55/45 level for Labor is because of those who were afraid of change and stayed with the LNP because of Howard moved to Rudd once the ice was been broken. There no longer being a fear of losing Howard or of change there is no need for them to move back to the LNP. There is something safe and secure about a plain old Rudd and a dour and reliable Gillard. Competence and not charisma might be the requirement at the next election.
It also seems to me that a lot of people have been sucked in to accepting the MSM created myths about Rudd and, sprout them as semi-accepted fact. The do nothing, lots of review and pointless travel type memes conjured up by a desperate Liberal media.
We have been through this before but there was then a great list of what Labor had been doing and this is their first 12 months in govt for 11 years. The travel has been pertinent and important and cannot be said to be wasteful. And we have seen Rudd act decisively when the important thing was to display decisive action.
Strip away the MSM sledging myths and you get a fairly competent first term government. I think what people really don’t like or wish would change is Rudd’s personal communication style. They want him to sound more like a Hawke, Howard, Keating or something. I believe Rudd will develop a more direct and sedate media style as time passes.
Good point. But the 2007 election was unique. Both Rudd and Howard were popular. Rudd was just better (and still is).
I actually think Rudd’s communication style turns on the swinging voters, to the disappointment of the more rusted voters.
William
Why are you so sure that the Libs are better off under Turnbull than Cossie? Tip has been consistently ahead of Truffles as preferred Liberal leader.
Those polls were all conducted before Turnbull became leader, no? My guess would be that a poll conducted now would produce a very different result. I further suggest that rusted-on Liberals saw nominating Costello as a way to indicate their loyalty to the Howard government.
I agree with William.
What the Liberals need is a ton of hard policy work not a new leader but I won’t hold my breathe with this shadow ministry. They have spent most of the past year arguing who should be leader.
Yes, the polls were all with Nelson as leader. There might be a preferred Lib leader soon. I think after a few more bad polls with Turnbull miles behind Rudd as PPM, the preferred leader polls will favour a change to Cossie. Turnbull has botched the response to the GFC, much like McCain did, when it should have been tailor made for him. I admit his Shadow Treasurer hasn’t helped one iota, but I can’t see it getting a lot better for Turnbull.
There’s article by Christian Kerr that is well worth a read for those interested in what various Liberals say they are thinking. (You need to read carefully, because it is a little difficult to pick up when the Young Turks stop and when Kerr starts).
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24700742-5013871,00.html
The article is interesting because it accepts uncritically a number of lines that Kerr has been fed by members of the Young Turk faction in the Liberal Party. Kerr’s sources appear to be people like Morrison, Hunt and Keenan.
Apparently, Turnbull is surrounded by a band of young Liberal MPs ‘who have come to the forefront’. These are Greg Hunt, Steven Ciobo, Michael Keenan, Scott Morrison and Christopher Pyne. The Howard Government is declared dead. Howard is mentioned and thank goodness he lost his seat. Not mentioned in the article are the old guard of Abbott and Hockey. Minchin, Abetz and Costello get special mentions as being irrelevant and/or has-beens. Kerr criticises Bishop for not wanting to do the work to develop new ideas. BTW, if you want to know what happened to Nelsons leadership, it ‘terminated’.
But wait, there’s more. According to Morrison, the Federal Liberals are determined to be a ‘constructive Opposition.’
All the going is not smooth, however. Apparently some Liberals fear that Turnbull ‘will fall victim to his personality type’. Also, there is ‘no money’. Plus, the three reports on party reform appear to be stuck on a shelf somewhere. Plus, the Branch structure is hopeless (Berowra is stacked and Mackellar is moribund) and modern modes of politicking a la Rudd and Obama have passed the Liberals by. Stockdale’s Party reforms are ‘too ambitious’ but ‘the wily’ Staley should be able to concoct ‘a compromise’. Apparently they lack good staff just about everywhere.
Then there is a whole lot of ‘moral’ talk about how the economic stuff is ‘bedrock’ but there needs to be some work done on social justice and the environment. (You know, the Wet, Small L Liberal froth).
(Hmm, so Minchin, Abetz, Abbott, Bishop and Hockey are just going to lie down are they? Bring it on.)
What I find fascinating, is despite Turnbull being over 50% on Newspoll satisfaction, at 21% he’s only 5% higher than Nelson’s last poll on Preferred PM!
(Hmm, so Minchin, Abetz, Abbott, Bishop and Hockey are just going to lie down are they? Bring it on.)
If they want to be competitive in any election in the next decade they have no option, Oz. Stability is an important factor the voting public looks for and disunity is death.
Bob, Rudd’s approval rating at the time of Nelson’s last poll was 54 per cent – now it’s 67.
Excellent lead in post William. I don’t think people should assume the Federal elections will follow the State pattern. Despite his initial popularity I recall Hawke only just scrapped in a few years later (1987?). Of course, that was following the introduction of some unpopular reforms. This time around there can be little argument that what Rudd and Swan are doing is necessary, so I can’t see any backlash likely if they stick to their current policies. Still, if the economy does dip and polls follow teh pattern shown in Possum’s analysis in the lead up to the previous election, then Labor could lose a few points. That would still leave them in front of course.
As for the Liberals, much as Turnbull’s attack policy on the bailout plan has been foolish, I agree he is their best chance. At least he soudns like a leader, even if he doesn’t actually know anything about running the economy. Nelson and Costello look too weak, and Abbott and the rest are slightly too crazy.
Uh, Steve, that was Boer War. Also, thank you for the positive comments in the other thread.
I agree that disunity is death. The interesting thing is that this is the boldest attempt yet by the Young Turks to carve out some territory. The fact that they chose to go public, via Kerr, must increase the tensions within the Parliamentary Party considerably. The Old Guard is not going to like being bad-mouthed this way.
Did anyone get the full Crikey today? Typical for them to publish something I want to read after my trial subscription ran out!
This is what I’m interesting:
The only shred of hope Turnbull has to hang on to is his satisfaction rating despite the fact that few want him as PM over Rudd. This is a hope but also a threat. If he starts to lose satisfaction ratings Rudd’s PPM may get to 80%!
As I said I think a lot of Turnbull’s satisfaction rating comes from many ‘assuming’ him to have sufficient competence since he had that rating from the beginning and it really hasn’t changed that much. His attacking Stevens and Henry were thus very silly and more likely to harm himself than anyone.
If Turnbull behaves in public like he did at the Press Club address the other day then it will be the end of him. A very distasteful person indeed.
The Liberal Party sinks to new lows. Rather than work on their own policies, they continue to criticise the Rudd Labor government, this time through… merchandise including a Rudd doll? How pathetic! It’s going to be one long road back to government. Another 13 years like the Hawke/Keating years would do nicely.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=671478
“The Kevin Rudd memorabilia store, a website created by the Liberal Party, targets the prime minister’s perceived character flaws through a range of fictional memorabilia products.”
Socrates @ 33
I suggest that Turnbull had an alternative strategy:
He could simply have supported a bail out plan ‘in principle’ as being necessary. He could then still attack the less popular elements of it, warn that it might not be comprehensive enough, warn that it should not be at the cost of going into deficit, and then chip away as the cracks start to appear. He appears to be bipartisan at a time of national crisis and demonstrates but differentiates himself in that he would have handled the agreed response more capably.
Socrates, I suspect you’re thinking of the 1984 election – Hawke did more than just scrape in, but he did have his majority reduced, which was a remarkably poor result given those first-year poll ratings we’ve been discussing.
Socrates, if the economic stimulus packages are successful in avoiding a recession, then the real hard work begins for the government of going through the budget line by line and making savings at the same time as slowly growing the economy again. This process will test the opposition to the limit as they don’t get the quality information that the government gets from attending international conferences and getting detailed briefing from central banks worldwide.
The opposition even now is flying blind compared to what Rudd, Gillard, Swan, Tanner, Emerson, Albanese, Smith, Crean and co would be briefed about on a daily basis.
“Socrates, I suspect you’re thinking of the 1984 election – Hawke did more than just scrape in, but he did have his majority reduced, which was a remarkably poor result given those first-year poll ratings we’ve been discussing.”
The Hawke Labor campaign of 1984 was a bit of a disaster though.
Krugman’s view of the British stimulus package.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/24/hm-stimulus/#more-1083
It is a rather silly that the boundary review legislation was messed up so that 2002 was not counted as a general election.
(and congratulations to me for bringing the non review up in the last Victorian thread)
Shows On @ 35 Here are some excerpts:
‘But instead, like a banshee on a rampage, you tore at the Government’s entrails until its viability was effecctively compromised.’
‘It may be a novel concept for you, let me say that the conscientious business of governance can never be founded in a soul so blackened by opportunism.’
“Now I understand, you are thinking about a transition to the Legislative Assembly from the comfort stop you are currently occupying. And that that transition, in the medium term, is about the Party leadership and the Premiership. Let me tell you, if the Labor Party’s stocks ever get so low as to require your services in its Parliamentary leadership, it will itself have no future.”
Worth the price of a Crikey sub on its own, IMHO.
Oh Dear, Hilary could be slapped down by the emoluments clause.
http://donklephant.com/2008/11/24/does-the-constitution-bar-hillary-clinton-from-becoming-secretary-of-state/
WOW, COOL! Hopefully they put the whole thing up tomorrow.
So his blocking of the power sell off was just to help his own political ambitions. Why am I unsurprised?
William
my take may be alittle diferent in degrees to your summary graphs
Wondering whether there there is a graph using Primary votes , notewithstanding diferent levels of minor party suport over last 30 years
Not a fan of beauty contests as Hawhe much loved for long periods didn’t hav party vote intentions up in heights Fraser and Howard whilst not deemed pretty seem more consistent at vote suport levels
Hav been indisagreeemtn with most here over Turnbull , as I do not tink voters ar seem switched off him at all yet so given rudds & governemtns popularity he has done well
On those last 3 PM’s and partys raw figurres Rudd is on similar course for re-electon
yet Hawke 2984 and Howard 1998 got a scare so perhaps 2nd years may be more revealing
Why were Fraser’s figures so low? Was it because his government basically didn’t do anything? That’s the perception I get from reading things about his government.
What’s up with all the business leaders now saying we don’t need a budget surplus? Why weren’t they saying that in the mid 1990s?
Is it because they are – generally speaking – all opportunistic Labor bashers?
Steve @ 46
Where there’s a will there’s generally a way. I have heard it suggested that one of the reasons why at least part of the Snowy Scheme is underground was because it helped meet the constitutional responsibilities of the then Federal Government for the defence of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth could then invest without fear of the Constitution.
For Hilary, the obvious suggestion is that Obama reduces the pay of the Secretary of State to below what it was before Bush raised it. The intent appears to be to stop people using the opportunity to increase the depth of their snouts in the public trough. Reducing the pay to below what it was before she came into the picture clearly meets this concern of the founding fathers.
More Bull from the Libs.
http://www.liberal.org.au/documents/RuddReportBook.pdf
Frank, this is exactly the sort of nonsense the Liberals don’t need. If they produced a detailed policy of that length on any subject they would be better off. Take another point of their primary vote for stupidity and another for laziness.
“Why were Fraser’s figures so low?”
You ar confusing beauty with voter intent respect
Fraser ony won those beauty things on Easter Island , unless you look at oppoition leader as well
Fraser’s figures were so low because he had no personality, wasn’t convincing, opposed for opposition’s sake, and was duely disliked, especially for his actions toward the end of the Whitlam government in blocking supply, forcing the people to vote for him lest they end up with another Labor government and a coalition controlled Senate.
Notice how Fraser only barely won an election (1980) once Whitlam was gone, and then demolished in 1983.
Frank @ 51
It helps keep the faithful in the cart.
Page 8 pretty well gives you the thrust of the next Liberal election campaign. Not very imaginative.
The challenge for the Liberals will be to conflate Rudd with the damage. As long as Australia somewhat lags the thundering herd down the slope, people will think Rudd is doing OK.
Fraser had his razor gang. Very unpopular. A popular song in Brisbane at the time was, “Give Fraser the Razor”.
A poster from the era is here.
http://www.labor.net.au/news/1188533446_31953.html
bob1234 credit where credit’s due. Fraser grew a personality as soon as he started criticizing the Howard govt over Tampa, involvement in Iraq, etc.
Personally, I consider him the greatest ex Prime Minister this country’s ever had.
Um, OK. But that doesn’t answer the question: “Why were Fraser’s figures so low?”
No I meant when he was P.M. Why were his figures so low THEN?
I think Fraser’s biggest problem was his Treasurer. It was always the extreme economic remedies of Howard that were the millstone around Fraser’s neck.
Here’s his wikipedia entry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Fraser
Tip Costello thought well of Howard as Treasurer.
But the way Howard tells it, he wanted to start the reforms that ultimately the Labor government provided, but Fraser stopped him.
I’ve never seen anybody stop Howard from doing anything except Kevin Rudd and Maxine.
or Hyacinth…
“Why were his figures so low THEN?”
Hav a look at an Easter Island monument , then a picuture of Malcolm Fraser Th momuments hav more warmth
Additionaly Fraser carried legacy of ‘dismissal’ , of lack of legitimacy tones even after 1977 Furthermore his govt was austere like he Then Fraser partly took this sport loving nation out of Olympics So in all these areas Malcolm Fraser was never a pin up for voters but voters don’t vote on love for a PM , and in 1980 a fist full of dollars in there pockeys
Another thing that comes into play for a new government is the public’s high expectations and the reality of government, especially without control of the Senate. That the ‘Sorry’ and Kyoto happened right at the beginning helped to fulfill some of that unrealistic expectation.
Inevitably there has to be a period where especially a new (responsible) government must take some time to gather and assess information, get across portfolios and fine tune what their original policies were etc. The MSM and Opposition can then run the meme that government is doing nothing tangible except getting reviews. So maybe a dip in a new governments rating at or during its first year is only natural, especially if original expectations were so high as they would have been with Rudd.
The GFC was a bit of a savior for Rudd as it now allows him to redefine some of the public’s expectations of his government through the prism of economic tough times. A public with lowered expectations are going to be less disappointed when some things cannot be done. Also the GFC and the governments response to it itself becomes the be all and end all of the governments performance who will be cut some slack. If the government does manage to meet a lot of their promises the public might be grateful for having their lowered expectations exceeded.
It is difficult for the LNP to attack Rudd on this as ‘there is a war on you know’ and it will probably be counter productive. Turnbull may be in more danger of harming himself than the govt with his constant attacks on everybody.
“The GFC was a bit of a savior for Rudd as it now allows him to redefine some of the public’s expectations of his government through the prism of economic tough times.”
I do not see any semblance of a savior in th GFC for Rudd , th voters or this country
Actualty GFC has diminished opportunities Rudd can persue for this Nations long term benefit socialy and econamicalyAnd even politcaly its a dangerous 2 edged sword
Rudd’s personal ratings have gone up since the GFC climax and after Turnbull taking over in Opposition. The people liked what they saw in Rudd’s actions and approach and feel much more comfortable with him than Turnbull by a huge margin. And this is with Turnbull the merchant banker meant to be some sort of expert on economics/finance.
Labor’s position appears to have strengthened in this time frame regardless of the fact their is now an Opposition leader with a 50% plus satisfaction level.
The major issue in everyone’s mind is the GFC and its domestic effects. Everyone knows you have to deal with this effectively before anything else, all other things pale into insignificance in comparison. Rudd can moderate people’s expectations with regard to other promises and people would likely moderate their expectations in any case realising there is less money about to do things.
It is a double edged sword but only if Labor really botch it by not following expert economic opinion, but with a plethora of experts at their disposal Labor can implement recommended and acceptable measures. Labor gets blame only if they have been seen to be totally irresponsible. That is not likely to happen with the likes of Rudd.
This is a very visible global financial crisis and very visibly affecting all nations, many worse than ours. It has and will be all over the media for year and more and people are being informed about its nature maybe more than before. Labor will be more likely judged on if they did everything within their power to mitigate the GFC effects.
The GFC is a bit of savior for Rudd because even though it reduces the scope of what he can do with regard to election promises it also allows him to legitimately amend the scope and detail of many promises citing the GFC, which people will understand. Just like Howard and the War on Terror. People will cut Labor much more slack if it is seen to be engaged in a real ‘war’ on the GFC whilst also attending to election promises.
People might even see a familiar figure in Rudd fighting the war on the GFC for the protection of the people as they saw Howard fight his wars on Terror etc. As I mentioned before Rudd’s decisive actions in response to the GFC now has him defined as the ‘real deal’ PM. And his very personal support increase seems to demonstrate that.
If the GFC is still around in the election year as it will be then voters might actually be scared to make a change of govt that has been fighting the good fight and has plans in progress etc. In the same way Howard used terrorism and refugee fear to boost his chances.
Not that I think the Rudd needed as savior given the quality of the Opposition.
Steve @ 46, that is old news and to date, I’ve wondered why the normally quite efficient and thorough Obama team hasn’t seemed too worried about this. Either they are clueless (find that hard to believe) OR they’ve figured out some legal angle around it which hasn’t as of yet, been made public to us.
Juliem, it was news to me but I don’t follow the minute detail of the US political system unless it is lit up in lights.
julium @ 70
It has been done before, apparently – by the other side.
Housing market yet to bottom in US:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/business/economy/26housing.html?_r=1&hp
At last, a glimmer of hope that maybe talking up the economy is the new black. The Age’s editorial rips into Turnbull:
Some journalists seem to be getting the message that telling everyone they’re financially ruined and that our country is a basket case along with all the others has a negative effect on consumer sentiment, the stock market, investor confidence and the general misery level out in society. What we need now is confidence, not of the cockeyed-optimist kind, but a realistic and practical appraisal of the situation. Instead we have been getting macho opinionista shouldering each other out of the way to be “blunt” and “frank” about things they didn’t have a clue on just a couple of months ago. The price of instant expertise is instant confusion and instant gloom.
In Turnbull’s case, however, there is no excuse. He should know better, that’s his job. Good on the Age (and some of the thinking colomnists) for pushing back.
BB@73
Cf the Age, spot on.
It remains a puzzle why Murdoch, who has much to lose from a declining economy, continues to permit the OO, and Turnbull, to trashtalk the economy.
Australia to avoid recession: OECD
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,24709117-643,00.html
The Age this morning is scathing in it’s assessment of Turnbull’s PC speech,knowing my bias i’m glad i’m not the only one who thought is was a disaster.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/editorial/turnbulls-speech-shows-a-deficit-of-good-sense-20081125-6hdr.html
Bidding for the NBN closes at noon today… anyone think Tesltra isn’t just bluffing?
75 – Watching Sky Noos this morning. The first report was about the OECD report. They flashed up a headline at the bottom of the screen that said something like “Australia to avoid recession” but went on to talk about all the negatives for Australia and did not verbally mention once that the report suggested that Australia would probably avoid recession.
I guess bad news is bigger news than good news.
William
Thanks for the clarification last night on 84 vs 87. I think the point is still valid though. People shouldn’t assuem Rudd will follow the pattern of recent state governments, even though I agree he is polling and (more importantly) performing very well at present.
Regarding responses to the GFC, at least we can’t be as bad as the US (OK setting the bar pretty low I know). Here is a fascinating piece by Krugman pointing out that the latest $800 Bn bailout may not have been necessary if they made a simple clarification of a previously given guarantee. The catch is, making that clarification might have forced them to admit the debt was incurred under Bush. Who do they think they are fooling? This sort of strategy virtually concedes that the right know they are aiming their political strategies at the morons constiuency:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/25/the-fed-is-confusing-me/
Yes.
It’s pathetic though. The other bidders who have been playing games with the Government all deserve to be awarded the tender far more than Telstra, but regardless of who wins Telstra is likely to launch a legal challenge.
Sorry, I mean they are bluffing. They’re going to bid.
On what grounds?
Regarding their copper infrastructure which is most likely to have to be compulsorily leased to provide the last mile in any fibre to the node network.
Interesting review William!!
While Hawke may have polled higher than Rudd and while he won in 1984 with a reduced margin I would say that there are several factors that have changed.
The most important being that at the next election the Liberal Party will be haunted by the ghost of workchoices! and this Government is faced with two big issues that if it can handle successfully negate should set itself up for a second term.
One thing that seems to have occured in recent years is once upon a time it seemed when Governments sought re-election they suffered swings, this has been turned on its head with second term thumping landslides in Victoria, Western Australia, Queensland, South Australia, New South Wales and NT. in everyone of these landslides the ALP have turned its marginals into safe seats and picked up Liberal Party seats it has not previously held.
If the Rudd ALP Government can take this country though this economic crisis without a recession it will own the economic debate for unlike the Asian economic crisis this is bigger and the impact as been far greater for a wider range of people! with petrol prices, property prices and Interest rates falling combined with a solid handout of $10.4 Billion combined with the Local Government grants the Government can be confidence of avoiding a recession.
You may ask why did I include property prices! sure its a bumber if you brought in at the top of the market but House prices were reaching unsustainable levels when you consider that rent and wages had not kept pace, the conditions were ripe for a repeat of the Melbourne bust!
The other big issues are ETS, the ETS issue that has the potential to make or brake the Government for it will test the ALP internally with its completing arms “Blue & White” the Government neess to ensure that its core Union base has protection which is made more important but the state of the economy, the ALP needs to make a policy that acheives the objectives of reducing the emissions while not Tatcherising the Hunter and La Trobe valleys.
One way the Government can acheive this is by getting the country though the next year without a recession for that will build confidence in it! from that develop a solid I.R framework and from there develop a framework to introduce the ETS.
If the ALP can balance these policies then it will be returned with a thumping margin! the only state that may hurt the ALP is New South Wales, yes I’m aware that people know there is a different between State & Federal but still if the NSW economy is tanking then it makes it harder for the ALP to convince voters who stuck with Howard last to swing, again if the ALP can remain recession free and can produce some good candidates also with one or two Liberals retiring then we could see the ALP make some gains.
Seems Robert Gates is going to stay on as Secretary of Defence.
Yeah but only for 12months wow Obama really lives up to his rhetoric on bipartisanship by leaving just 1 Republican in for 12 months lol….
Well Glen, the Republicans caused this whole mess, and in the past few months they (Bush + his cabinet) have not demonstrated they have what it takes to get the US out of it. I think most folks would agree that Obama has made a very sensible decision in excluding them from controlling any economic levels. Obama didn’t exclude them – they excluded themselves.
Glen 87
Even the repoublicans would be better off without this government. It has proven incompetent in almost every way. Most peopel with a shred of dignity (eg Powell) left of their own accord some time ago. Who wouldn’t sack them?
Re the Keating – John Robertson correspondence, discussed above.
Keating mentions Robertson’s plan to move the LA to become premier.
Don’t know if the plan is real or not, but I doubt it will happen. It’s simply too hard to find a seat winnable at by-election. You’d need a seat where JR would have good prospects (>90%) of actually winning it.
So, exclude anything closer than a 20% margin in 2007. You then exclude:
- Lakemba and Cabra (just had by-elections);
- seats like Balmain, Marrickville, Canterbury and Heffron, where the current members are reasonable ministers and some of the few who are of benefit to the government and are not going anywhere (not to mention Green risk!);
- the Illawarra seats (JR would be an outsider, they’ve elected a Green before at by-election, and after Wollongong Council anything could happen)
… then you’re left with about 6 seats in the greater west of Sydney as possibilities. And of those, I don’t think Joe Tripodi, Paul Gibson or Tony Stewart are standing aside for anyone!
I had a rabid Liberal supporter pointing out to me that Rudd is up for re-election before the next NSW State election. He felt confident that the NSW voters would vent their spleen on Rudd as they hadn’t been able to deservedly savage the NSW Labor Party, or what remains of it. He expected a handful of extra seats as a result. Any chance he’s right
Dio, not in my opinion
Well the Libs can rest assured that they shall win back Robertson no matter what happens…
No surprise, Telstra put in a non-compliant bid
http://business.smh.com.au/business/telstra-lodges-lastminute-broadband-bid-20081126-6i3r.html
Diogenes @ 91
The Libs should be favourites for Robertson, due entirely to “local factors”. If I were them, I wouldn’t be banking anything else just yet. Macquarie St simply hasn’t eroded Rudd’s substantial political capital.
Politicians always get mixed up in the State-Federal dichotomy. For years Bob Carr and John Howard attracted the votes of the same people. Each could have said that the other tier of government had little or no impact. Then Iemma won in 2007 and said Workchoices was an important factor.
My personal view is that for 2010 it’s a factor only if people are getting a bit tired of Rudd by then. I guess anything’s possible, but no sign of it so far.
It’s a bit deflating to turn on question time and get a long ministerial statement by Rudd.
There’s also a decent chance that Labor may pick up Macarthur and Hughes at the next fed election if the current holding pattern continues (which I’m sure it won’t, but anyway…)
In Macarthur, Pat Farmer is set to retire and he almost lost to a 20 year old student last year anyway…
In Hughes, Dana Vale would almost certainly retire if the Libs looked like they would lose the next election (and may retire nonetheless). If Labor can recruit a decent candidate (e.g. Steve Waugh), they would be in a very good position to pick that seat up.
That said, I’m sure seats like Robertson will be vulnerable if their members don’t improve their performance. Another candidate for such a seat would be the very marginal Corangamite, where I hear the local MP (Cheeseman) is a bit of hack…
I think if Rudd gives NSW its fair share of the stimulus package cash (neither more nor less than deserved) then people will soon see who their real problem is. No doubt Rudd will point that out in the next campaign too.
I wonder what this will mean for the quality of ABC reporting…
http://news.smh.com.au/national/abc-to-lay-off-journalists-20081126-6id1.html
And from the other ABC:
http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,27753,24710201-31037,00.html
If anyone’s watching QT can they please explain why Malcolm has been making a speech for the past 15 minutes?
It’s not QT, they’re statements on indulgence
Regarding ABC layoffs – I take it “success” in Victoria means it reduced costs. Never mind the quality. Forgive my cynicism but computer editting is know substitute for a reel humane who understands context. Why do we still stick ot this fiction that “good management” can squeeze “improvements in productivity” from tasks that are not mechanised via any means other than forcing people to work longer hours?
Also in light of parallel events in the banking sector, will we see similar cost cutting in the salary packages of the ABC Board & executives?
Once again Turnbull is extremely irritating in bringing up bipartisanship on the financial crisis. The Opposition is not the government. They were voted out. They were told by the voters that they were not wanted in running the country. I don’t know why Turnbull thinks he should be involved, or why he thinks that what he has to offer would be better than the advice given by the government’s usual advisers on these matters – Treasury and the Reserve Bank.
Turnbull is desperate for the LNP to get some reflected credit off Rudd Labor’s handling of the GFC. So far he has talked bi-partisanship and then criticised. The best he has been able to do is use lower level Treasury leaks.
Russ has said that the budget may be forced into recession – a wise move to say it; it may be beyond thier control.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/26/2430344.htm?section=justin
At least interest rates are always lower under Labor
In a post on a previous thread, someone referred to a post on a conservative website to the effect that Labor should, given the financial crisis, somehow suspend their right to govern and hand back responsibility to the Liberals to steer us through these times.
Presumably, only the omniscient and divinely appointed rightful controllers of the public purse, the Liberal Party and the heroic Dear Leader, are competent to take charge, and Labor should not stand in the way of their fulfilling their God Given Duty.
It is with this mindset, Triton, that Dear Leader demands to be consulted and included in all decisions fiscal. It is his right.
With attitudes like that they will be in opposition for a very, very long time
It is quite a joke really and simply shows the total ignorance of some people:
If these people truly understood how terrible Howard and Costello were as economic managers they would need to seek life long counselling. It was Howard and Costello who have robbed the present of more methods of dealing with the GFC by throwing away $390 billion in surpluses generated by the global boom.
oh dear–did i miss much with Turnbull’s speech? i’m afraid i dozed off and missed his wise oration, i’ve just caught Rudd slapping him down about something over Goldman Sachs.
Yep now watch that become the lead story on ABC tonight and probably other media outlets.
Is it a big deal? No. Is it evidence of the government stuffing up? No.
Will any of that matter for the media who are desperate to suck the so called “D-word” dry? No.
Charges against Noel Washington have been dropped.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/26/2430297.htm
oach! Julie Bishop was just asked if she wrote her question herself.
Re Rudd and the “deficit” – about time he did so too, he was only creating a rod for his own back. It was poor politics to carry on for so long, but he’s got in early, and by the time it happens (probably May 2009) people will be well used to the idea…
I have been comparing this in my mind to Keating’s “This is the recession that Australia had to have”, which was particularly damaging because he had spent months denying the obvious, that we were, or were about to be, in a recession. Keating of course relied on the technical definition of a “recession”.
It wasn’t so much the fact of the recession that hurt Keating, but the build up of expectation as to how he was going to be forced to acknowledge the reality once the technical definition was met. And he then did it with typical bluster, the “I’m actually doing you a favour” or “it’s something we needed anyway” undertone. Which did rather beg the question that if that were the case, why couldn’t you level with us last week/month…
And the Liberals used that footage in their 1996 election campaign ads…
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/%20pdf/keating.pdf
Keating surface again to criticise union’s control of the ALP
There seems to be general agreement in the MSM that JBishop is light beer, but the AGE editorial (ta for the link earlier Judith) and the SMH turn on Turnbull may be the beginning of a more general pricking of Malcolm’s image bubble. Surely they have to realise he hasn’t cut it out in the real world, and while it won’t stop their lack of acknowledgement of Rudd’s generally steady steering, we may have arrived at a crossroads for Malcolm Inc. If he does his usual grandstanding on the inevitable deficit, I wonder if he’ll get more of what the Age dealt out beyond the realm of Fairfax? I’d love to see the OO, Hun etc flip on him.
Thomas Payne
Would like to see where the $390 million come from, if it had to do with repaying Keating’s Debt, Rudd can borrowed again ……. giving them back to tax payers is hardly wasting the surplus….. to see how a government can throw away surpluses, please see the NSW Labor Government
#116
I’ll take a stab that TP is referring to government advertising.
You mean the debt that was lower in GDP terms after Labor left office in 1996 than when it came to office in 1983?
Dovif
TP 109 referred to $390 BILLION in Howard government budget surpluses and spending sprees, not $390 million. I know maths isn’t a Liberal strength.
As for where the number came from, I’d bet its straight from the budget papers Costello crowed over for 11 years. He was quite happy to boast about how much revenue had boomed, and how reasonable it was to hand it back in tax cuts. Hence GPs point. Of a huge financial windfall they were given, Howard and Costello invested about $50 billion out of $390 billion; the rest is gone.
Socrate and TP
I see, so maybe it is you and TP who does not understand finance
Budget surplus are actually money that are not spend by the government, that is what is meant by Surplus – ie Income less expenditure = surplus
These money goes into funds for the future, it goes into infrastructure funds, it goes to repay debt. For example, if a government run a $390 B surplus one year and then a $390 defacit in the next, then the government is budget even between the 2 years
For TP to think that the Howard Government “wasted” a $390 surplus is nonsence, because to spend it, would means that the Howard budgets must have at some point went into a $390 million deficit, which has not happened
In the next few years, we will be spending this surplus, ie when we go into deficit. So if someone will waste this, it will be Kevin Rudd. The start is not very good.
Increasing the First home owner grant …. has Rudd learned the lesson of the sub prime crisis? He has been to the US ….. the crises arisen because people who do not have the deposits, were borrowing and buying houses, without the ability to repay …. ie subprime mortgages … this was encourage by the US government …. Is Rudd repeating the same mistake?
Surely there are better ways to increae home affordability without artificially increasing the price of houses …. ie like the US …. The commonwealth and the States can release more land for example
part of 6 billions to US Car makers … yes this will means more Union jobs in Australia’s non competative automotive plants, but this money is going straight to the US to pop up Ford and General Motors. Whose incompetative cars, and poor work practice had made the companies almost insolvant.
Giving council money to do what they want …. is planning even require …. or will we get 100 more swimming pools in every subrubs
The start is not good
Rubbish. The FHOG is to hopefully prevent a housing market dive, we do not have a subprime problem in Australia. Money to car makers continues what the previous government has done and keeps 200,000 jobs in time of possible recession. The council money is not to ‘do what they want’, they must submit proposals for the money and what it can be spent on is limited. Try again.
Dovif
I said they blew $390 billion on a combination of surpluses and spending sprees. They didn’t actually achieve $390 billion in surpluses, because they spent so much instead. But if I understand TPs point correctly their income would have exceeded forecasts by that order ($390 B over 11 years) so they SHOULD have had $390 billion in surpluses if they had budgetted responsibly. The $390 Billion was teh size of their windfall, not their surplus. The fact that the real surplus total was a lot smaller than $390 B is precisely the point Howard and Costello are being damned for now.
And what nation building infrastructure projects did the Howard government embark upon?
While the rest of the OECD was increasing investment in education, health, rail and broadband we were throwing money at swinging voters. Money that drove up the hidden tax known commonly as inflation.
Socrate
That is just rubbish, unless you can find $390 billions of money that was unwisely spend, it is just conjecture. And you are really talking about big budget items and not tax cut …. because who is to say taxpayers are better or worst at spending.
I can go into every government in the world and find any figure I want and say that was spend irresponsibily for example the NSW state government’s payroll increased 100% in 7 years, I could just say all that was irresponsible
For about 4 years now, people here has been arguing that the Lib did not spend on infrastructure, when most infrastructure project are done on a need basis or during recessions to limit inflation. Now they are arguing they spend too much.
The only comparison you can do is Australian against other countries and past government, we have one of the largest surplus in the world and throughout the history of Australia, and it is largest by value and GDP terms, if you are complaining about this, it will almost be impossible to make you happy
The privatisation of electricity is a bad idea because the income from the power utilities is higher than the cost of the debt incurred so is financially bad for the governments finances in the long term. The government can also borrow cheaper than the private sector to build more generating capacity. Another reason that power utilities should not be sold off is that if the government owns the major generators then they can just decide to build more environmentally friendly power generation and close the polluting generators instead of having to by them out.
Oz
“While the rest of the OECD was increasing investment in education, health, rail and broadband we were throwing money at swinging voters. Money that drove up the hidden tax known commonly as inflation.”
Education, Health, Rail are all state issue
Broadband, Australia already have one of the highest speed in the world, much better than the US, Australia is also the only country in the world, apart from countries who still own their telecommunication companies to pay for their own broadbrand
If Australia did spend this money during full employment …. what do you think would have happened to inflation?
Who here is arguing they spent too much on infrastructure??? They did the very opposite for 12 years! The only thing I can think of them spending on was the north-south rail link which went broke!!!
No, they are not
The “Age” in giving Rod Eddington a spray for his appointment as Chairman of the ANZ Board, gives an even bigger one to Uncle Rupert and News Ltd. Should be more of it.
And this bit hits hard.
http://business.theage.com.au/business/anzs-eddington-error-20081125-6hjs.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
Looks like the Poms are worried about an exodus of Aussies heading home.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/11/26/1227491577546.html
I recall the AFR last week made the observation that Howard Costello blew all but $2bn of their windfall in their later years which they state was $87bn pa.
Whatever the exact quanitity we can say a humongous amount of money was wasted. This was also the opinion of the Chief Economist of the ANZ last year.
Thomas Paine at number 132 wrote:
Kevin Rudd, as always, has his finger on the facts …
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/dailys/dr141008.pdf
Question Time, House of Representatives, 14 October 2008:
(my emphasis)
The front page of the AFR a few days ago citing the IMF report should be compulsory reading for anyone who still believes the myth that the Liberals are better economic managers.
Oz, what date the AFR edition if you know please?
Sorry Cuppa, I can’t remember. I think it was sometime in the last three days.
OK, mate, thanks for the lead. I’ll find it and scan the article.
Glen,
How many Democrats did Bush appoint? Or is bipartisanship something only losers seek? I’d have given them nothing and taken them nowhere. Just like Bush Cheney – real he-men who only kicked a bloke in the head if he looked like getting up. Yes – those two had vision. Obama just needs the help that only a Tory can give. Not.
By the way, did you know those two broke/ignored a law that said the POTUS/VP could not represent the same state? Even though one came from Connecticut and the other Wyoming, in politics they represented Texas. I guess conventions are just for losers. Just like bipartisanship.
Speaking of bipartisanship, it will be interesting to see how Obama and Turnbull “work together”. Because that is what Turnbull said he is looking forward to. I’m just struggling to find a precedent whereby the Prez checks in with the Oz Opposition leader. Maybe if young Hussein needs to move some personal assets ahead of fund freezing, I guess there is still hope for Mal and that monstrous ego of his. POTUS seeking help on Oz didn’t happen with Bush and Latham and I can’t understand why!
Oz, maybe you did not notice, Kevin Rudd is sitting on the following infrastructure war chest created by the Howard-Costello surpluses
$5 billion endowment fund for university campuses
$22 billion Road and Railway Fund
$2 billion Future Fund
in additional to the surpluses
These fund could not be spend when there is 2% unemployment, because there is no people to work on these project, to adopt these during 2% unemployment will cause massive skills shortage and therefore massive inflation, that is why the funds were created to be spend now
Howard had the highest surplus and we have “experts” in here who said he spend too much. Howard also through Keating and Hawke spend too much, he spend his first budget cutting a lot of the excesses.
Since Thomas Paine, Socrate, Oz etc thinks that Howard are hugh spenders. Like Howard, a new government would have plenty of area to cut spending …… so what did Kevin Rudd cut …… apart from health, NOTHING!!!!!!!!!…. and he had a larger mandate than Howard had and is more popular
So Kevin Rudd has Kept all of Howard’s “excessive” spending, – the tax cuts, the spending on federal roads, the spending on Public private school and defense Kevin Rudd agreed with them. Maybe the next time you talk about Howard, you will need to include Rudd in the same sentance.
Oh hush.
Neither Howard nor Rudd “created” any surplus’. The surplus’ are there because of our hard working miners. I keep asking Liberals to elaborate on what Howard did to “create” the surplus’ besides sell revenue generating public assets and ride taxes from the mining boom. No one has yet given me an answer.
Anyone hear the Telsta guy say that the Govt has recieved $50 billion from the sale of Telstra and that it is now upto shareholders to decide what they do?
Given that Costello “paid off” debt exclusively by asset sales, what economic miracle did he really perform?
The IMF said that.
What? Rudd hasn’t “cut” anything in health. What he has cut is fat out of government departments (See the very recent IT stuff, winding back on contractors) and he’s cut sad, vote-grabbing handouts. They’re just two off the top of my head.
Oz,
How about the $420 million to upgrade the Dept of Immigration IT system, trumpeted by the Hoard Govt, that is still performing worse than the original.
Or the Half a billion to implement Workchoices at a departmental level (excluding advertising).
A lazy billion for one company.
It’s obscene.
Dear Mr BillBowe Baggins,
I notice that at the same time you were allegedly “writ(ing) a piece on the Rudd government’s first-year polling record relative to that of the Blah, Blah, Blah and Blah-Blah governments”, you were also posting profanties of a most intimate nature and casting unfounded aspirations upon the fine per-mier of our nation’s most populous state, all on a certain bolg that shall remain nameless (but which has lots of mice involved). Is life so dreadfully boring in Kevin0Heavenland that even your good self is reduced to scrawling naughty words on the blackboard? I am hocked and shorified.
Happy anniversary! Hic.
Twain
I wonder how long Turnbull can keep a lid on these fanatics, while the hard-right string-pullers stand behind him with knives poised …
Sydney Morning Herald, 26 November 2008
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/opposition-to-back-demise-of-work-choices/2008/11/25/1227491548459.html
Then there’s Julia Gillard, Questions Without Notice, House of Representatives, 25 November 2008:
http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2008-11-25.13.2
MT, I direct you to Article 2 of comment moderation guidelines for an exposition on my highly nuanced attitude to rude words. Consider the incident to which you refer a mark of my respect for the curator of the site in question, who once found occasion to remark: “I found a way of banning those bastard smiley faces from the comments section. From now on we’ll have to express our emotions through the magic of swearing.” As the expression goes, or should go: “when in Rome, call Nathan Rees a useless ****”.
Exactly when did we have 2% unemployment under the Howard government?
Scorpio @ 131
I wonder where one million Australian expats are going to live? I hope the Labor Government has not allowed our border defences to decay too much from the extraordinary standards of the erstwhile L*beral N*tional Coalition Government.
I look forward to the photos in the OO of baby expats being flung overboard from self-sinking ships. I suppose there could finally be a good use for Howard’s Christmas Island White Eleph*nt or we could swap them for New Zealanders (say at two-for-one). Then again, Nauru and PBG would babysit quite a few, at a price.
On the other hand, the Australian Government might say, ‘Hey, this is a fantastic human resource; full of skills, initiative and experience. Let’s develop a targetted strategy to welcome them back and get them entrepreneuring in Australia.’
William, I suggest to you that your allegedly ‘highly nuanced’ attitude to rude words and smiley faces is negated by your bald statement that “we don’t do fun here”. If we can’t have fun with Nathan Rees, we should all pack up our buckets and spades.
PS, I have yet to find an alternative Rees (or Reese) to which the amphibian might have been referring. Perhaps all Nathan Reesi are ****s as a result of some weird genetic mutation. I think this highly likely.
Mark Twain good to see you are still alive and well.
You would have loved the circus in the Queensland Parliament this arvo when two National Party members forgot they were canefarmers and had to be reminded they were before they sheepishly made the admission they should have made before they began speaking. One was the Member for Burdekin, Rosemary Menkens, the other the Member for Mirani, Ted Malone.
It seems the main role of the Liberal National Party in Queensland is to ensure that NSW Labor is not the only basket case of a political party in the country.
How can they justify no redistribution when the number of inner city constituents has increased significantly since the last redistribution? There was even talk of bring back St Kilda electorate. William do you have a copy of the changes in demograhic data?
“general election” Victoria now has fixed terms and the definition of “general election” is clearly defined.(Prior to 2006 it did not) It will always be held in November of the relevant year. Any election outside that time frame would have to be an extrordinary election. Difficlut to see under what circumstances such election can be held. Remember the Upperhouse no longer has the authority to block supply and the Governor is limited to taking advice from the government.
Broadly, the EBC must conduct a
redivision if there have been two general elections since
the previous redivision, or if the enrolments for a certain
number of electorates have fallen outside a 10% tolerance in
the period 18 to 24 months before the next scheduled
State election.
The last redivision of both Houses of Parliament was in
2000-01, and there have been two State elections since
then (in 2002 and 2006). However, the 2006 State election
was the only general election (defi ned in the Act as an
election at which all the members of both Houses are
elected). Therefore, the EBC determined that the “two
general election” triggers for a redivision did not apply.
This is highly questionable as surely the 2002 election was also a general election. the report is also noted for its lack of detail and statistics on each of the electorates and the projected changes in enrollment. A quick look at the commitee membership explains all.
Little to no confidence there.
Harrumph. More casting of aspirations, Steve. Lest we forget the Tasmanians?
The population projections (see the link about the VEBC above originally provided by me) predict that not enough electorates will have variations from +/-10% and +/-20% to trigger a redistribution without two “general elections” having occurred (To make democracy@work even more annoyed Mr Tully is on the VEBC because he is electoral commissioner).
If the Parliament of Victoria was dissolved early (because of a loss of confidence in the government and no suitable new government being formed) it would reset the election timetable and elections would not revert to the last Saturday in November in the even year between the leap years.
MT, Have you written any more books lately or still slaving away as a scribe?
That’s the thing, D@W – they have determined that 2002 was not a general election, because only half the Legislative Council was elected.
Still scribing, Steve. My book production venture ceased in 1910.
That’s a pity, MT I’ve got a book at home so similar to your writing style it is uncanny.
MT @ 150
From a taxonomic perspective you may wish to consider allocating N. reesii to the Order of ‘f*sh’, bearing in mind that reverse anthropomorphism is banned on this site. Anthropomorphism itself has yet to be tested. For example it is clear that we are not allowed to say, ‘H*w*rd is a r*t’. But we have yet to test William’s response to, ‘That r*t is just like H*w*rd’. As I have noted before, I have not been tempted by either approach to a Coalition bestiary, because r*ts are sociable, clean-living creatures who do not eat their young.
I suggest the Order of f*sh because many species of f*sh have the ability to change gender when they reach a certain age, or size, or status in the school); as in, ‘X was a p—-; X is now a c—’.
Well Victoria has never had a full legislative council election. No in my life time. In fact there was never provison for a full LC council election, only half. Where is the link on the population distribution. I was discussing this issue with a well informed polly last month and they assured me that inner Melbourne was due for a redistibution as Albert Park and Melbourne had gown so much that there was justification to reinstate St Kilda.
That is until 2006.
Scoprio 131
Its a really good point you raise about the ex-pats coming back home. The US ones are likely to return in even larger numbers. This will put pressure on infrastructure and housing supply in our major cities. We can slow down the immigration rate but we can’t stop our own people returning.
Steve, that book would be A John Laws limited edition: combining John Laws’ Book of Irreverent Logic and John Laws’ Book of Uncommon Sense (A selection of readings and writings of Australia’s legendary broadcaster, iconoclast, social observer and wit) by John Laws? Am I right? I can give you a taste, if you insist.
No Victorian redistribution before 2010! that means one will ne to be held niot long after that for not only is their a misbalance in the inner city but also the urban fringe.
The idea of bring back a seat called St Kilda could be Interesting, only problem where would the rest of Albert Park go, unless it was abolished and a new seat including South Yarra was created or maybe the VEC will push Melbourne south of the Yarra to include all that lay within the city of Melbourne.
A seat just focused on St Kilda, Balacavia, Elwood and St Kilda East would be an ALP Vs Green battle.
The VEC may settle to move more of Elwood into Brighton.
I am surprised the democrats still have 500 memebrs in Victoria let alone any other state. Will they soon be deregistered in other states?
Dear Mr/Ms Southern-African Colonial Military Engagement of the fin de siecle period,
Mr Baggins may not allow “J*hn H*ward is a Myxine glutinosa“, but he should.
Twain
Albert Park and St Kilda existed alongside Prahran and Melbourne. I would love it if someone can provide a link to the Commissions statistics. I assume they have published the data they have relied on. Personally I am all for a 75 member lower house and a 5 x 9 or 5 x 7 upper house (15 lower to one electorate/province). For some reason the VEC did not consider this model when they were drafting options ofr reform. ( I know why) Dividing the State into five upper-house electorates was relatively simple and effective. Using the Hume corridor as a natural boundary you had two rural and three urban electorates.
MT, I just hope don’t ever get an inclination to study the life of the Parrot.
Socrates @ 164,
Quite possibly a number of younger ones will move back to their old bedrooms at mum & dad’s.
If a considerable number move back, it could make a bit of a mess of the unemployment figures if they have difficulty in finding employment here too.
In areas of skill shortages though, they could expect to be offered increased renumeration by their current employers so some will benefit by staying put.
Quite an interesting quandary though for the Australian situation because so many were employed in the financial area in GB and the jobs here are drying up as well.
Anyone watching Lateline?
Tony Jones is extremely bemused with Joe Hockey’s response.
He asked him “Do you agree with Wayne Swan’s argument that things have changed, especially considering that over the last 3 weeks a number of countries have gone into recession, including Japan and the entire EU?”
“Not at all Tony.”
Scorpio
The ex-pats aren’t all backpackers in their early 20s. There are several hundred thousand adults 25 to 40 involved, and I can’t see them taking a room at mum and dads. Unemployment will be an issue, but given our rate is under 5%, the UK is 5.8% and the US is already heading towards 7% I would think that will be a pressure pushing more people to return than stay abroad. as for skill shortages, they apply here too. Lots of expat teachers, nurses, engineers or even tradesmen could all get jobs here tomorrow.
He’s not the only one
Hockey’s just stumbling all over the place. Saying Rudd is taking us into deficit without a plan… must be news to Kev seeing as we haven’t gone actually into deficit. It’s all bluster from the big man.
I’m looking forward to the debate, if the budget does go into deficit, where the government puts to the libs what measures they will refuse. I can see the line, do you want a deficit or a recession?
Yeah, the interview was good, Tony came straight out of the blocks.
Can someone please answer this question? I’m a bit uneducated about this stuff – missed the last lot of evil Labor deficits.
When the Government goes into deficit and borrows, who does it borrow from? I know some countries borrow from the IMF but they’re a bit poor. Do they borrow from other countries? Or from the banks?
If the Government borrows money from the banks doesn’t that sort of make a mockery of the deposit guarantee? Since they’ll be guaranteeing the banks with money that they’ll be borrowing from the banks?
Oz @ 176,
Usually they just issue Government Bonds which are taken up by institutional investors and larger private investors, usually domestic.
Or they can do what the US are presently. Both issuing Bonds and printing more money. The Chinese have purchased around 2 trillion $ US so far.
Oz
Governments can borrow by issuing bonds (promises of future repayment with a premium). Or they can borrow internationally. In fact, government borrowing used to be one of the main mechanisms by which governments influenced interest rates.
Yup, what scorpio & Socrates said. The bonds are normally issued by the Reserve Bank.
Just watching Lateline in Adelaide now and yes Tony really had his examples lined up to question Joe Hockey on who wasn’t planning to go into deficit to fund a stimulus. This is why Rudd should have just said they might go into deficit! Everyone else is anyway. If the coalition says we shouldn’t they just look silly. Would they prefer higher unemployment? Higher taxes? Cuts to hospitals? ROTFL
Thanks for that!
Keatings well publicised $96b debt was in Bonds. For all the bluster etc by the previous Government, they still retained around $53b in Government Bonds.
It is imperative that investors, especially institutional investors to be able to access these Bonds as they are “secure” investments but usually pay a lower dividend in better times than shares and other instruments.
For the recreation of a St Kilda district to help the over population of Melbourne it would have to cross the Yarra which I think unlikely to happen.
Thats not a deficit, this is a deficit.
For those who complain about the ABC stuffing things up when reporting – here is their “Corrections and Clarifications” page.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/corrections/
Krugman discusses the US economy and the various plans.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/25/krugman-talks-about-his-o_n_146558.html
MT @ 168
LOL. Beautiful. But, fair’s fair (sic). I believe Hyac*th would have first dibs.
TP @ 184
Yep, and that is not even counting the black hole!
The $US 3 000 000 000 000 (how many noughts does a trillion have, exactly?) or so that the Iraq War is reputed to be costing might have come in handy right now. It won’t be the first time that an empire has been brought to its knees by silly old warmongering.
I have a question for the economic literati hereabouts:
In the olden days (when money was more or less tied to the value of silver and/or gold) countries in strife mucked around with the the coinage by increasing the base metal proportion of silver and/or gold coins. The coinage was debased, inflation rose and it Was No Good for the Economy.
Is there some sort of threshold for borrowing, or bond selling, which essentially equates to the old-fashioned debasing the coinage?
Frank @ 185
Good as far as it goes, and would be good to see the rest of the MSM adopt this as a minimum standard. It does not address the fact that you can vary the taste of the stew considerably without spilling any of the ingredients.
Dio,
Replacement for Hillary in the Senate?
…..
http://tinyurl.com/6×2kuy
democracy@work@167
From what I’ve heard, the Democrats still have over the magic 500 members in Victoria and NSW. In SA they have an MP so they automatically still qualify as a party (although I think they should not be neglecting membership numbers there!). Not registered in Tas, ACT or WA. I think the WA Democrats could’ve made it if they had tried, but for various reasons they decided not to proceed. I guess QLD is the next in danger of de-registration. Ironically NSW is the strongest division apparently since it has been without a senator since 2004 and has built up a membership base sufficient to carry it forward without dependence on a political staff.
From my point of view, the party is making the transition from a parliamentary party to a more democratic member-driven party. A lot of people in the party who joined it for the parliamentary career path will be unhappy but it’s kind of exciting in its own micro-party way.
Here’s my deluded wishful thinking: I think membership numbers will bottom out early next year and then slowly begin to rebuild as the new structure attracts new people.
Boerwar @ 190 -
Is there some sort of threshold for borrowing, or bond selling, which essentially equates to the old-fashioned debasing the coinage?
No, because you’re borrowing existing money, not creating more.
It’s when you set the printing presses running to create new money that isn’t backed by an increase in wealth that things go astray. That’s when people start needing wheelbarrow loads of cash to buy a loaf of bread, as the poor billionaires of Zimbabwe can testify.
heh, what if it was an increase in pensions that put the Budget into deficit, would Uturnbull oppose it?
Oz
To prove your point as completely false. And you do not have a bloom
a. we had surpluses from 1999, 6 years before the “China” resources bloom
b. the bloom was first driven by housing, ie the $7k and $14k grant, not great policy, but there to drive down unemployment, and creat business post 9-11
To drive the bloom, Howard did the following
a. make it easier for employers to employ workers, so unemployment went down and GDP went up, taxes went up, as did wages
b. decrease taxes, so business want to employ workers, so unemployment went down and GDP went up, taxes went up, as did wages
c. attract skills migrants to Australia, to ease skills shortage
d. drop tax on superannuation, increase superannuation fund investment, creates new business, so unemployment went down and GDP went up, taxes went up, as did wages
e. reduce taxes to 0 on Australian company investing overseas, increasing the amount of company calling Australia home, and increasing investment of Australian company – ie bring wealth into Australia
So many people here really do not have a clue about Economics, it is unbelievable
Oz said
so what did Kevin Rudd cut …… apart from health, NOTHING!!!!!!!!
What? Rudd hasn’t “cut” anything in health. What he has cut is fat out of government departments (See the very recent IT stuff, winding back on contractors) and he’s cut sad, vote-grabbing handouts. They’re just two off the top of my head.
LOL, you are easily fooled, Rudd cut government department, so he can get Howard cronnies out and later employ his own, start looking for union officials to appear
Vote grabbing handouts, please name 1? He had not announce it in the budget
He has definitely cut health spending, the Howard government had these 2 policy.
1 Medicare surcharge, ie if you are earning lots of money, you are forced into superannuation funds or you have to pay the surcharge
2 Health fund rebate, for every $1 you spend on health fund cover, the government pays 30c
This allows the govenment to fund the private sector of health, so that the public system is not under too much stress
If we raises the medicare surcharge and people drop out of the private health insurance, the government will no longer have to pay as much in the health fund rebate ….. these people rejoins the public system …. ie increasing the stress on the underfunded (by the states) public systems
The increase of surcharge threshold is Rudd reducing current funding into Health, leaving a hole in future for the state governemnts
Bronwyn Bishop has butted in to proceedings in the House first up and moved that Anthony Albanese be suspended. Normally about 20 minutes is wasted going through two or three divisions before the published order of business begins, but this one was dealt with in one division (defeated of course). This sort of mischief is common on Thursdays for both LNP and ALP oppositions.
I don’t understand the rules that determine when members can hijack proceedings like this. When it does happen there is usually a motion from the government that “the member be no longer heard” to shut him/her up, after which normal business resumes, but what’s to stop another opposition member then piping up instead?
What the hell? The resources boom did not begin in 2005.
He decreased taxes so taxes went up. Well played.
No, his deregulation of the employment market actually drove down wages.
The skills bottleneck in Australia under the Howard government was pretty much the worst it had ever been. We’re currently short of 30,000 engineers.
If by “many people” you mean dovif, then yes, it is unbelievable.
No, he kept Howard appointees. Please don’t make up blatant lies.
The baby bonus.
No, he hasn’t. At this weeks Coag meeting he’s set to increase health funding 66% more than the last government and that’s on top of the billions he’s given to boost it since the election.
I think you should read that sentence back and realise how pathetic Howard’s health policy was. Especially if it was geared around “government funding the private sector”. That worked brilliant for ABC, no?
Methinks dovif needs to take a long hard look at the facts before putting fingers to the keyboard. There’s either an awful lot of ignorance or just plain misrepresentation coming from his/her fingers on the keyboard.
Dovif
I wonder why you even bother? The last election proved that even the punters who aren’t political tragics (like we who inhabit this blog
), saw through all that spin from the Howard government. They registered that there had been a (lucky) boom, that a lot of the cash had been blown, and that genuine long term investment had declined. They realised that they were starting to pay for it in terms of higher interest rates. That battle is past, and lost. Move on to a fight you might win.
Howards economic critics weren’t just ALP supporters. They included the OECD, World Bank and a lot of senior economists. Even the Business Council of Australia (usually a Liberal Party cheer squad) expressed concern over the lack of infrastructure and skills investment back in the 2004 election campaign. Howard was a cynical populist who would sell the future for a single extra vote. He was good at it, but it caught up with him in the end.
So lets move on. The question now is how to fix the current mess. Most serious economists agree that will require a stimulus that might push the budget into deficit for a year or two. So be it. Or, we can believe Malcom Turnbull and stay in surplus, while accepting recession, higher unemployment and lower wages. Option 1 please.
And this is what’s going to do the Libs in at the next election. Malcolm will have to tell us what projects and programs set up by this government in order to encourage economic activity will be slashed and burned in order to create the surplus he so desires. What extra jobs will go under the Libs? What health and education budgets will have to be cut?
Add to that the dangers in bringing back WC and the government will have a potent mixture to fire back at the Libs.
Sky are on the mid day news talking about the India terrorist attacks as you would expect. But instead of talking with government officials, they had Downer on air for 10 minutes. Couldn’t they find someone in the active DFAT to talk to? Sheeessshh …..
I think implementing a paid maternity scheme would be the best thing the government could do politically.
Imagine at the next election they could say “During the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression, the Rudd Government secured jobs and growth by investing in infrastructure and implemented Australia’s first national paid maternity system.”
The Liberals managed to do neither of those things during the biggest economic boom since the post-war era.
Where is the Foriegn Minister, Steven Smith? The only government official they can find to talk about Mumbai at the moment is Simon Crean, acting FM ……
Live streaming news from Mumbai via IBNLive ….
http://ibnlive.in.com/videos/video_streaming.php
Smith was away from question time yesterday, i think he must be overseas with Crean acting at home.
Smith is probably involved in the trade negotiations. There was a promise at the G20 summit that all countries would work towards completing the Doha round trade negotiations this year. That means quite a lot of trade and foreign ministers are burning the midnight oil right now.
http://news.theage.com.au/national/turnbull-not-ruling-out-backing-gst-cut-20081127-6jd4.html
I so hope that happens. Not only do I find the GST an abhorrent and inequitable economic policy, but winding it back is another way of dismantling Howard’s so called achievements.
http://news.theage.com.au/national/greens-byelection-costs-transparency-20081127-6jc8.html
Positive step, in my opinion. Also well thought out. Includes interesting caveats:
I think the Libs were arguing a temporary drop in the GST. I would hate to be the government that increases it again. Not a good idea.
Oz 207
I disagree on the GST. It actually helps equity, because many people on large incomes from investments but low taxable incomes still have to pay it. This includes some pensioners who, with no means tests, can be millionaires these days. The most harshly taxed individuals are middle income earners on PAYE and students or others with several part time jobs who only get to claim one tax free threshold. GST income allowed PAYE tax scales to be adjusted, and rightly so. I’d agree to a reduction to the GST IFF other tax anomalies were removed at the same time, such as tax free investment income and family trusts. Kerry Packer pboaste about paying no tax, but he couldn’t avoid the GST.
I should add I’m not in favor of raising the GST – just no reduction unless it goes with a review of the whole tax mix.
I’d also like to see some State taxes removed that were supposed to be gone after the GST, but in some cases that was never followed through. Property title transfer fees would be a good example, which financially penalise those who must move for work. Here in SA the various first home buyers grants do little more than compensate people for the extortionate rates of property taxes. Buy a home in Adelaide and you pay almost double the stamp duty you pay in Brisbane or Perth.
Is the P.M. emotional, or is he sick?
Or both?
It’s really hitting the fan over in Mumbai. 82 dead, 900 injured and it’s still going strong. Are we still happy to sell our uranium to this lot.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,24714152-5006301,00.html
I was strongly anti GST when it was first introduced, but now I’m a true believer. What with all the traditional tax avoidance measures that have been available to the wealthy, plus the additional measures that Howard introduced such as non taxable income for over 60’s, the only people paying tax will be those in middle income families in their expensive years of life paying mortgages and educating kids. Income tax has been made to be very unfair.
The principle of the GST is unfair, but at least it is a tax the wealthy have to pay. It should be increased to 20% or more and reliance on income tax should be decreased.
But if such families have enough kids they get all their tax back through Family Tax benefit.
The REAL people that get slugged are singles and couples without kids. They pay income tax and GST but have no way of getting any back from Centerwank.
Woah, no thank you. the GST is regressive, income tax is somewhat progressive.
I agree with you that now we have the GST we are stuck with it. But I don’t think it should ever been increased.
What should be increased is the tax free threshold. It should be doubled instead of decreasing or cutting the highest tax bracket.
Oh dear, it seems Julie Bishop may have asked Brian Burke for advice re entering politics.
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,24715336-2761,00.html
YAY! Christopher Pyne was just warned during Question Time.
This gives me the democratic right to send my local member an abusive email!
How can it be “highly defamatory” just to speak to Brian Burke about entering Parliament? I know he’s a creep but he can give out advice. Julie Bishop is a bit sensitive at the moment.
And here is the blog in question.
http://www.6pr.com.au/blogs/bobs-blog/julie—bb-and-me/20081126-6iob.html
Question to Gillard regarding Joel Klein.
His speech at the Press Club yesterday was one of the best ever.
Oh dear, Julie. Who’s been a naughty girl.
Income tax can be made fairer by taxing trusts, inheritance and superannuation income.
Reform of the excise system so that the amount charged is more inline with the costs to governments (e.g. a volumetric alcohol tax, higher petrol and tobacco taxes) and adding some over used products that cause harm to society like sugar, salt and artificial food additives. Also a food processing tax should be considered.
Then there would be no more need for the GST.
NO WAY! 2 minutes after I sent my abusive email Pyne gets kicked for a frivolous Point of Order!
Of course this means I can send another abusive email!
In my post at 183 I meant Albert Park (or Prahran) would have to cross the river for it to make a difference to overpopulation in Melbourne. A cross Yarra inner-city electorate is unlikely.
I gathered thats what you meant when you remarked crossing the yarra.
It has been done federally, for many years Hawthorn was joined with Richmond in the seat of Yarra then held by Jim Cains, that seemed to have been the case for a good 20+ years. and of course both Williamstown and Port Melbourne use to both be in Melbourne Ports.
The City of Melbourne crosses the Yarra to include Southbank and the domain part or South Yarra, both normally vote Liberal which may strengthen the ALP’s position in the seat of Melbourne.
Pyne is my member too. ShowsOn, tell him that a number of Sturt residents are concerned that his unrully behaviour is trashing the reputation of our quiet locale. Nothing abusive mind – we don’t want to start behaving like Liberal staffers in Lindsay
Here it is! A real zinger!
I mentioned I was loyal; I didn’t say I’d EVER vote for him.
(You know, like Stephen Colbert, he endorsed Obama, but didn’t vote for him)
Once again “refusing to rule out” is interpreted as meaning “ruling in”. What a croc.
LOL!
Pyne replied:
ShowsOn
Very good. Something like this might hit the mark too:
“This is no way for a member of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition to behave!”. Frankly I would have expected this sort of thing from the socialists and their union thugs.
Dissappointed of Beaumont
It’s called Flying Spaghetti Monster journalism. If it isn’t false, it must be true!
I am again reminded of Derek and Clive, when Peter Cook wrote to Margaret Thatcher complaining that he had “the horn”:
If he’d been from my electorate, I’d be reminding him that that was no way for a member of the Opposition, repeat, the Opposition, to behave.
ShowsOn
Next time you should send an email saying that you are sick of being dismissed by patronising politicians who use brief platitudes instead of addressing the concerns raised, and that ss far as you are concerned, the phrase “Thanks for the feedback” is an incitement to justifiable homicide.
See if you get the same message back then.
Solid gold! This would work!
Yeah, but sent as a HTML email with “Opposition” written in 52 point font.
Good idea! But I followed it up with:
Regarding the M.P.I. debate now on, you know you have lost if Kevin Andrews gets a chance to speak, let alone speak 3rd!
ShowsOn @ 212/213,
I was watching here at home and said virtually the same thing at the same time. “Sick, overcome with emotion or out of breath …..”
OH NO! He has done it! Pyne has made me feel sorry for him! He replied to my reply with:
That is the reply of a guy completely stuck in the doldrums of opposition.
That’s the reply of a guy who hasjust realised what everyone else has known for years; he will never make it to cabinet.
ShowsOn @ 228,
I will remind myself of this line when I might have occasion in WA to reference my sitting member. Both Federal and State for Ellenbrook are Libs …….
I was listening on the radio, which made it a bit hard to work out. But I think he is just sick.
Indeed
but at least your local Ellenbrook Ward Councillors are good Labor People 
Well, we have to make our own fun!
The thing is, I spent a few hours on election day last year standing next to Pyne handing out Labor ‘how to votes’.
I annoyed him to most by encouraging people to vote against WorkChoices.
There was a 10% swing at the booth I worked at, but it still wasn’t enough.
Socrates @ 231,
I don’t watch Parliament every day, wish I could. But speaking of “thugs” though, what the h*** gives with Joe Hockey today?????? Does he always speak so badly of Kevin or was today an exception?
ShowsOn @ 241, jet lag tends to do that to you if you don’t give your body time to rest up a bit. Betcha Kevin is going to get a nice sleepin this weekend
…….
ShowsOn
I met Pyne once when he visited the hospital. I could barely resist the urge to run from the room. It was like being Maced into all orifices simultaneously.
i believe rudd was just puffed after running to the chamber he arrived just in time after the speaker had sat down the member for cowper and hockey pointed to him with an angry face so i’m guessing that he was just puffed as he seemed to improve
Some image…
Oh come on, Pyne loves the theatre of a parliamentary hurl! He’s a dandy, remember. A political narcissist. The more attention he gets the better. And the snickering bully boys he leaves behind (Hockey, Abbott, Robb and, in an honourary capacity, Bishop) all give him his due …
(From the OED: Dandy: A person who is superlatively fine, neat, or dainty; also neat, trim, or ‘tidy’ in form or action.)
Dandy’s not the word I’d use, but I cannot say on this blog what would be.
I think Kev has had a cold for the last couple of days, and he wont be getting much sleep this weekend Juliem as he has a COAG meeting Saturday to hand out $13 billion for health. (according to Nicola Roxon in QT.)
Saw vision of Rudd at a ceremony earlier in the day that was interrupted when fire sprinklers went off. He was still there chatting to the firies as they mopped up, so I’m guessing he may have been way behind schedule for the rest of the morning which could account for him arriving breathless for QT.
Something for dovif to consider:
Even worse they made a continuing headache for everyone by selling it off as a single identity.
pyne, that accent, that smug little grin, that cherubic malice, the overall rah rah effect, he’s like a dolly mini me…
I see Pyne as a humourless type. You know, the sort of kid that played chess in the library during lunchtime, and who wore socks with sandles during summer.
“socks with sandles”
Only the Young Liberals would accept him, hoity-toity misfits with powerful dynastic connections making up the bulk of their membership base.
They even agreed to ignore the foot odour and the huffy Little Lord Fauntleroy routine (which was always at its most intense following a loss in chess).
Well, ain’t 24 hours, let alone a week, a long time in politics? With the appalling events in Mumbai, the death of another soldier in Afghanistan and the political chaos in Thailand, I reckon Her Maj.’s Loyal Opposition could implode from lack of relevance. Not to mention them looking and sounding like economic illiterates with their confected outrage about the possibility of a deficit. The bit of Hockey I saw on the news, I actually found quite shocking, he was so nasty towards Rudd. It must be absolutely galling that the bloke he declared to be unready to be PM, prior to the election, is the PM, and that thus far, with the solid approval of the Australian people.
HSO he spent all of QT today trying to call Rudd “nasty” – basically because Rudd said of Bishop that she “is renowned for her originality in this place”.
John and Brian completely ripping apart everything and everyone.
MayoFeral
Thank you for response. Will keep the tyre of my wheelbarrow inflated, just in case.
Since Mr Costello is back in the predictions game and doing Julie’s Job we should be keeping tabs. So far he is 100% wrong. The market hadn’t bottomed when he said it had. He is now predicting no recession for Australia, except of course if Labor stuffs it up. Clever. Beats working for a living.
HSO,
One must feel some sort of sympathy for the Opposition.
They spend 2 weeks trying to get the Government to get an admission that a deficit may be possible – then, when they get it, the news is swamped by the bombings in Mumbai and the death of soldier in Afghanistan. The poor guys can’t take a trick atm…
P.S. I must also express my deepest (and sincerest) sympathy for the people injured/killed in Mumbai (and their families), as well as for the family of the dead soldier in Afghanistan.
I think Crikey is turning out to be just a abbreviated version of The Australian with the right wing trash it sometimes has as story headlines. So what is the point of it? We already have a media dominated by right wingers Liberal sycophants.
They may as well said KRUDD we hate you and want to tell everyone you have done nothing; though we know we would be lying (which they are of course).
Could have written by Ackerman or Bolt that one.
Must say I found that headline in a supposed media outlet to be offensive. The certainly wont be getting any business from my family or friends.
There is still well and truly an on-line niche out there for an honest counter balance to the Murdoch nonsense.
Noble move, but a small problem – will your boycott include not posting here, considering Mr Bowe is now a blogger at large for said publication ?
Frank,
It’s all William’s fault. PB has become so right wing since the transition to the magazine section of Crkey.
The poll result re ‘are you scared by a government deficit’ is odd. Opposition supporters are greatly disturbed by this odd concept that occurs nowhere else in the world, Government supporters are marginally relaxed and comfortable. But the demographic beakdown shows that men are much more relaxed and older folk much more comfortable about a deficit, yet this is the reverse of the normal Lib/Lab bias of these groups. Huh?. Is there an extreme reaction by young Liberal females against a deficit or extreme disinterest by older Labor males?
My subscription to Crikey will end in December & I will NOT be renewing it.
Since Mr Costello is back in the predictions game and doing Julie’s Job we should be keeping tabs
While he’s in a rare talkative mood, maybe someone should ask him why if deficits are the sign of an incompetent government, as his fellow travellers maintain, he ran the country into one in 2001/2. Sure there was the Asian implosion, but that was small beer compared to the current crisis which the Opposition say isn’t an excuse for anything less than a huge surplus.
Of course we’d already be in deficit if the Government had heeded Opposition demands and kept the ADF in Iraq, given single aged pensioners a $30/week increase, used Workchoices to drive down wages and therefore also the tax take, knocked 5 cents/Litre off the petrol excise, scrubbed the luxury car and alcopops taxes and bailed out mortgage funds.
Mayo
Good questions. Someone should also ask Costello whether he ever ignored treasury advice, or never bothered asking for any on a $10 billion Murray “rescue plan”.
I guess the earlier questions around Stephen Smith’s absence from the Parliament today have been answered by his appearance on Lateline… via satellite from London
God he’s boring.
Nothing against him, but he’s so damn boring.
I agree. The perfect kind of FM for these sorts of situations. Shits all over Dolly.
yep, smith is dull-ish, but we can do without another FM as ‘interesting’ as dolly (I still reckon they cloned him and made pyne)
Yes I think it’s an asset, especially in his role. He’s effectively de-politicised FA because of the way he says stuff.
Socks and sandals is a good combination.
The soldier’s death is a reminder of Rudd’s biggest mistake to date – he willingly inherited one of Howard’s bigger foreign policy disasters. Rudd has subsequently neither skedaddled nor developed a convincing exit strategy from Afghanistan. Karzai’s Government does not rate as sustainable because of its corruption. Beyond that, winning the hearts and minds can only proceed if the hearts and minds outside Kabul are properly protected from the Taliban. But civil engineering jobs of any magnitude outside Kabul require batallion-sized protection.
The death of the soldier is therefore emblamatic of one of the main problems. The Australians had been there before. In other words, there are not enough resources to hold territory. The contested areas within Afghanistan are increasing, not decreasing. The Afghan police force is totally unlikely to become anything like capable of maintaining civil order in anything like the foreseeable future.
It is become a war which is neither loseable and is not winnable in the military sense. It therefore requires a political exit strategy. Where is the discussion by the Rudd Governmen about how it intends to go about things? It is unreasonable to expect the military to keep taking casualties in the absence of anything credible from Rudd, other than the let’s hang around and wait and see which appears to be the current policy.
Much as I regret saying this when the death is raw for family, friends and colleagues, it needs to be said. Our soldiers do their soldiering very well. They should be able do so knowing that the civil is on top of its side of the equation.
Am away a feww days , and th Site is taken over by those who studied econamics at University then coming out actualy believing th theories were practical in a reel world ….what with th econamic rationist Dovif supporting Howard and th ‘left’ blogers inaccurately saying Howard wasted 390 billion surpliuss’ on other ,
Anyone that looked at alternative ronanomics knows econamic rationalism lies in th rubble of Wall Street with trillions of losses , discredited and Labor Keynes type econamics is re-recognised where Big Govt has a role worldwide to fix th unfettered free markets thoery mess Conversely to th ‘left’ blogers there was no 390 billion surplus in th first place for Howard to spend That figure is nonsense & non existant Fact is in overall settings Howard over 12 years did a fair job , otherwiase we would be an econamic basket case like so many other Countires and heading into recession
Good parts were retiring of some of Govt 96 billion debt which now helps rudd and monies in future Fund , Education fund etc which were wise and also helps Rudd access needed captial
Where I disagrees with John howard is partly how he sourced revanues and significantly his use of outlays GST is a flat tax and so is blatantly inequitable , initialy was revenue neutrel removing 7 other taxes but made even further inequitable excess funds financed rejig of tax scales favourng upper end , bracket creeep and boom dividend paid for later tax cuts to partly offset tax creeps and th balanse often in middle class welfare (good politcs , terrible econamic productivity) This feed generaly into unproductiv consumption creating demand inflastion ultimately and so higher interest rates finaly Do not agree this was good policy overall
However also what overall outlays policy did not created was investment in either infrastucture needed for long term National productivity , or in education and TAFE’s (Howard cut) thereby creating th later skill shortages and demand pressures on interest rates For a while this was camoflages by lower wages in some sectors caused by th inequitable W/C ( a discredited deregaulation wages theorry that places econamics abov working family humans , which econamics is suposed to serve not be master of)
And if econamic rationalists ar not yet embarrased how leaky there ‘ationalist’theorys compred to alternatives then compares that interst rates when john howard left were within 0.25% of th level when PK left so so much for interst rate managers (cycles play a role not just Govt) , and taxes as % of GDP were higher under john howard than PK so much for ’small “Govt” , skills shortages ar now out of wacko , National productivity infrastucturees ar varyiously obsolete , National income essentialy relies now on what we can dig up , th trade deficit debt was 180 billion when PK left and at Nov 2007 was 540 billion (which requires financing , but with no long term structoral adjustment planned by Cossie)
And of course for econamic rationists , some “core left Labor” policys could be mentioned….that rotten Schools Commission alocation of funds State vs Private Reality is public funds ar directly financing state of art facilities at some private schools , whilst other private & public schools hav shocking facilites and it is THAT huge facilities discrepancy which is publicly finansed , which overrides in equity any argument for State Aid…close th gap and State aid has some arguments I feel John Howard has indirectly via funding increased that faxcilities discrepancy Now Kevin Rudd clevely is partly redressing (but not enough for mine) via internets etc in all schools
As for Private Health surcharge at 50K , it was a transefer of monies to Privat Insurance Industry & Private Hospitals ….lame excuse it took pressure of Public hospitals…way to take pressure off was diversion of those funds directly doect to Public Hospitals not via mirrors hoping trickle down efect
So john howards policys did leave us money in bank , did retire Public Debt , did provide/encourage growth , did provide some benefits to new home owners , and to new mothers and child care relief blah blah , and did foster trade with China and others , however tings I sugest econamy could hav been done diferently with diferent priorites for better national outcomes as listed , rather than traditional consevative policy philosophies and consequent ‘dry’ econamics implementation
And as for that 390 billion , well ronanomicaly tink its a delusion at one level and at another simply th inflation adjusted diferential in overall terms of trade betweeen th respective Labor & Liberal Govenemts of gross discretionaries
OK. Here it is. The Rudd Plan for Afghanistan. Change nothing, but expect others to do more. If Australia is not prepared to do more and others are not prepared to do more, then we should simply get out.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/28/2431959.htm
Unbelievable – Greg Sheriden pretty much says the Mumbai attacks are the fault of Obama:
Code for – if McCain hadn’t been elected this wouldn’t have happened.
What a complete and utter fool. Nothing in his article actually points to this having anything to do with the election. But that doesn’t matter – who needs facts or logic?
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24718523-5013460,00.html
260 Oz – that has to be one of the all-time best Clarke and Dawe’s
that should be “seriously pleased” – the ABC staff need to work on their scribing!
From Sherid***’s article:
Did I miss the inauguration? I could swear it wasn’t even Christmas yet.
And hasn’t he heard of Kashmir?
Sheridan must think what the rest of us have noticed – Bush has stopped governing.
Also by that logic, Sheridan must think that 9/11 was Bush’s fault, and Bali was Howard’s fault? I certinaly don’t believe that myself, but it shows how twisted his logic is. I’m so glad I don’t read the print or electronic versions of the Australain.
Sheridan is a complete imbecile. How the OO keeps paying him to write that mindless drivel is beyond me. Terrorist attacks of this nature take at least six months of planning. So were the terrorists planning a message to Obama six months ago which they were going to call off if McCain won because the message would not be needed?
For fairly up to date and detailed information on Mumbai, I have found the following Indian news websites usefull:
Times of India
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/One_terrorist_left_in_Taj_hotel_says_NSG/articleshow/3766889.cms
The Hindu
http://www.hinduonnet.com/
John Hartigan, chairman and chief executive of News Limited, won the 2008 Walkley for Journalistic Leadership (awarded last night).
In a syrupy video celebration of Hartigan’s career and achievements (shown before the award was presented), the most lavish praise came from Murdoch.
(The kiss of death.)
So Hartigan’s leadership was recognised with this country’s highest journalistic honour. Leadership of such distinguished opinion writers as Piers Ackerman, Andrew Bolt, Glenn Milne, Dennis Shanahan, Janet Albrechtsen, Greg Sheridan and Christopher Pearson.
You pat my back and I’ll pat yours, eh! What a joke.
Or hundreds of years of Hindu-Muslim-Christian-Sikh tensions?
I’m a bit surprised about this reaction to Mumbai. India’s had a number of suicide bombings this year. Yes, nothing on this scale recently. But the reaction in some circles is one of complete shock, “We played cricket there, how could this have happened!”.
I suppose it’s also different in another sense as it was a deliberate attack against foreigners, Bali-style, rather than the usual bombings in India.
It was a bit depressing to hear the old “Linked to Al-Qaeda” line pulled out again. I thought we were past that rubbish. Some news anchor was saying “Credible experts believe that this new group has ideological, material and financial links to Al-Qaeda”. And then they asked the expert and he said “Yes, the type of attack is something Al-Qaeda could do”. Weighty evidence.
The reason all these stupid theories and blame are being tossed around by incompetents in the media is because THEY DON’T KNOW ANYTHING, so they make up a reason and fill in the blanks. Typical toilet paper rubbish.
Oz
If you read the links I posted from India you wil see that the reprots of links ot Pakistan are credible. One report says that the Indian army has already captured three attackers, one of whom is named as a Pakistani national. I would not imply that there are no racial tensions or even past terrorist attacks in India, but the point is they are internal. There is not a history of the internal groups attacking foreigners. These attacks are clearly organised by outside forces. See Juan Cole’s website for analysis:
http://www.juancole.com/
Peter Hartcher – “Budget policy should lean in the opposite direction to the prevailing economic conditions. When the economy is growing well, the Government should set aside its windfall revenues as surpluses. When the economy is shrinking, the Government should go into deficit to stimulate growth. That is the way sensible budget policy works.
Turnbull knows this well. To pretend it is some sort of irresponsibility of Rudd’s is itself an act of irresponsibility. It marks the descent of Turnbull to economic stuntsmanship, no better than his predecessor, Brendan Nelson.”]
Say no more.
Gary
Yes that is Turnbull. The silly thing is that politically, they could have taken the opposite tack adn scored points off Rudd. Rather than say “deficits are terrible” when everyone else who knew anything thinks otherwise, they could have said – “why did it take you so long to admit we’d have a deficit”. “Why delay any furhter stimulus”. But they didn’t, so now they will be seen as the ones coming to the solution last.
Morgan ALP 59.5 L/NP 40.5
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2008/4339/
That’s kind of big.
bull butter
Morgan ALP 59.5 L/NP 40.5
Now, that’s what I call an Anniversary present.
Bludgers, I’ve posted a three month summary of polling which includes the averaged results from all pollsters for November. Bludgers can choose to accept the total results, some of the pollsters, one of the pollsters, or none of the pollsters.
Life’s great in a free society.
http://www.ozforums.com.au/viewtopic.php?id=4419
While the polls show the opposition so far behind Glen will not accept any of the pollsters. Of course this attitiude will change some time in the distant future when the polls show the opposition a mile in front.
It is both the fault of Dubya and Obama. the hiatus between now and jan09 has caused the financial crisis management and solution to be drifting aimlessly,
exhibit A: look at that idiot Paulson’s handling of the crisis.
exhibit b: Mumbai
So either Dubya should resign now and hand it over to Obama or Obama should launch a coup and topple Dubya and take over immediately. We cannot wait 2 more months of indecision.
Amigos, they effing need the Knowledge Tree of Maccu Picchu.
Finns
I’m looking forward to Jan 20 2009, when all these problems will be a thing of the past because the Dream Team of Obama-Clinton will take over the US. If Bush AND Cheney resign now, Pelosi becomes President.
That would be a big improvement on the current situation.
Its a bit difficult to blame Obama when he has no constitutional power to do anything yet. He has been talking informally to both Houses of Congress since the election. Neither Bush nor Paulson has made any public statement that they would act on policies Obama would propose. Obama has moved with considerable speed to put together his future governmental team and start working on economic stimulus proposals. His nomination for SOS has to go through a vetting process (as normal) and even if everything is fine Hillary would have no access to foreign intelligence resources of the US yet. So any US blame for current events rests squarley with the current administration.
To be fair, I don’t blame Bush for either Mumbai or the economic collapse. Instead I blame him for failing to respond adequately to both. US relations with India have soured over Bush’s term of office, as first he tried to buddy up with Musharaf in Pakistan (as General Musharaf actually launched an invasion of India!) and then was reluctant to deal with India on uranium. We all know about the economic response.
Amigo FINNS
th knowledge trees sayeth you can not hav 2 captains on one ship…….and when has th wheel and th other th navigation ….we sail into mists of inactions , allowing unchained reactions of no replys Th Law of AmigoGravity
Diog, if Obi has balls he would launch a coup to topple Dubya because as amigo Ronnie correctly observes “you can not hav 2 captains on one ship”. That is exactly what we have now. Diog, you are wrong, again.
Morgan poll today (F2F): ALP 59.5 LNP 40.5
#306
Sorry, I’m 90 minutes late with that, after Aristotle.
Finns
I know quite a lot about Machu Pichu and the Incas. I’ve been a little surprised that I have never heard of these “Knowledge Trees”. Imagine my concern when I exhaustively searched the Net for their existence at Machu Picchu and found nothing referring to them…
What was the previous Morgan F2F?
Never mind… there it is in the side bar
Diog, why do you think the Spanish never got to Maccu Picchu? As Michael Palin, no not Sarah Palin, observed in his Full Circle series about South America, the Spanish destroyed everything about the Inkas except Maccu Picchu.
Why, because it was protected by the “Knowledge Tree” as MP was located where God lives. Dont trust me about it, go and feel the presence yourself at MP.
Finns
I’m beginning to wonder if the “Tree of Knowledge” would be more appropriately referred to as the “Sapling of Deception”.
Hey there Finns
Please help me . . . what Article of the Constitution gives the POTUS-e the power to topple the POTUS? I’ve scoured Article II sections 1 and 4, and the 20th and 25th amendments and I can’t see it anywhere. Perhaps a 28th Amendment has been passed that they haven’t told anyone about. Maybe it was slipped through as a fine-print rider to a ballot measure on Nov 4.
You see, it may cause some comment if Obama were to Saddamise Bush without a mechanism to do so. And then bumping off Cheney, Pelosi and the whole damn succession would also be viewed a trifle askance I think.
So I think it’s a trifle obtuse to lay any blame at Obama’s door for situations he has absolutely no authority to deal with, no matter how much one is filled with distaste at his election. But I can’t wait for Jan 20 – it’s going to be a bright new day dawning.
BTW, to help with your advice to me, here are the relevant bits of the Constitution.
Ariticle II, section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Article II Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Amendment 20 – Presidential, Congressional Terms. Ratified
1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.
2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.
3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.
5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.
6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.
Amendment 25 – Presidential Disability and Succession.
1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.
4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
Thank goodness for this. What a can of worms it would have set loose.
http://business.smh.com.au/business/rudd-rules-out-gst-cut-20081128-6mhe.html
Socrates @ 303,
Bush can be blamed for a whole h*** of a lot. While it has been several years now, I do believe that most people apportion blame for the Spanish terrorist attacks (shortly before their elections that year) either directly or indirectly on Bush following on from the 9/11 attacks. That caused Spain to pull out quick smart from Iraq at the time and also that attack was later linked to Al-Quaeda (sp?). While it has been neither proven or shown yet that AQ is behind this one, it has all of their hallmarks (way way too well planned to have been an ad hoc type attack) and time will likely show it as such. Anything AQ and post 9/11 can be traced directly or indirectly back to Bush. He has a lot to answer for in the hereafter.
Dyspnoeia
Hypothetical question – under the US Constitution could the Speaker shoot the President and Vice President, thereby become president, and then pardon themself for the shootings? (I hope Carl Rove isn’t reading this.) Its a bit flippant I know, but I was really wondering what limitiations exist on the right of presidents to grant pardons.
#313, since when “coup d’état” pays any attention to the Constitutions. Since Obi promises “change”, you cant get a bigger change than a coup d’état.
Link to live streaming feed coverage from India, sorry I’ve not had time to check the link myself (watching the cricket, so the audio is on for that) so don’t know if this is being broadcast in English or not.
http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/video/video_live.aspx?id=0
juliem
Well I wasn’t trying to defend Bush either
He has certainly made a mess of it; I just don’t think he can be blamed for starting the recent waves of islamic terrorism, as they pre-dated the Bush presidency.
I posted a comment on a similar thread at John Quiggan’s blog that the whole “war on terror” response was misguided. It has simply given the terrorists what they want – publicity and notoriety. Hardly motivation to change their ways! There has never been any serious attempt by Bush to attack the underlying cause of the terrorism. Aussie diggers in Afghanistan have realsied the need to win hearts and minds, but it still seems to escape Dubbya. I read comments several years ago arguing that the whole notion of “terrorism” was misguided. It isn’t a form of war in any practical or legal sense. We should just treat them as a form of crime gang. Less glamorous, but realistic.
More people die on our roads every year than have died in terrorism in Bush’s whole time in office. So why make such a huge panic about it? Answer: it plays into a fear-campaign tactic that suits conservative politics. They’ve made a mountain out of a mole-hill but it got them relected. Worked for Howard too.
Correct
Socrates,
OT to India but this map shows the difference between the 2004 and 2008 elections in the US. If a county voted MORE democratic than it did in 2004, it is marked blue EVEN if McCain ended up winning it. The color shading is stark and clearly shows the current disapproval rating of GB. {click on the numbers below the map one at a time and it lays out the information displayed in different ways}
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/11/05/us/politics/20081104_ELECTION_RECAP.html
Yeah, I know you weren’t supporting Bush, Socrates
….. I think I was taking you several steps further though by saying I would lay blame on his doorstep for a whole lot more than you would …….
New thread.