The latest Morgan face-to-face poll has Labor’s lead at 59.5-40.5, up from 58.5-41.5 a fortnight ago. Primary votes are Labor 50.5 per cent (up 1.5), Coalition 35.5 (down 0.5) and Greens 7.5 (down 1). Elsewhere:
• The redistribution of Tasmania’s electoral boundaries has been finalised. Several amendments have been made from the original proposal, which you can read about here. Antony Green calculates the new boundaries have increased Labor’s margin in Braddon from 1.4 per cent to 2.5 per cent, while reducing it in Denison from 15.6 per cent to 15.3 per cent, Franklin from 4.5 per cent to 3.7 per cent and Lyons from 8.8 per cent to 8.4 per cent. Bass remains at 1.0 per cent.
• A bill to introduce fixed terms was introduced to the Northern Territory parliament on Wednesday. David Bartlett says similar legislation will be introduced in Tasmania next year, confirming the next election will be held on March 20, 2010 and setting up an ongoing clash with South Australia’s elections (to Antony Green’s dismay). I’ll have much more to say on fixed four-year terms next week.
• Tomorrow is Victorian local government election day, which in most cases means today is the last day for submission of postal votes. Read and comment about it here. Ben Raue at The Tally Room has council and ward map files for viewing in Google Earth.
• In Queensland, poll-driven decisions on water policy are being seen as a harbinger of an early election.
371 Comments
First!
A coalition opposition for another 13 years. One cannot honestly deny it.
A beautiful set of numbers! Hopefully these will be the year end set, so that Turnbull and co have time to reflect on them over the break.
Juliem
Continuing from the previous thread, I agree the US has seen through Bush’s politics now, but the ugly fact remains that his tactics did get him relected with an increased majority in 2004. We were no better, with the fear card workign for Howard in 2001 and again in 2004.
Antony et. al please excuse this question, but I plead ignorance as I’ve only been eligible to vote in elections since January 2007 when I got my naturalized citizenship. There is obviously something going on under the radar of which I’m not aware.
Why should it make any difference at all if two states vote on the same day? We currently have by-elections on the same day as other state elections. Just this year, the 4 NSW by elections were on the same day as the ACT elections. Each citizen is still going to only vote for their own candidates. On Federal election days, everyone votes at the same time. Not trying to cause trouble, just trying to understand the reasons why Antony
…….
Probably because the ABC needs to cover both and would have to spread their resources thinly
Not 4 year fixed terms. Fixed terms, but 3 years. Until I become President. Then non-fixed 6 year terms.
“but the ugly fact remains that his tactics did get him relected with an increased majority in 2004″
Clinton got in with 370 ECV in 1992, 379 ECV in 1996, Bush got in with 271 ECV in 2000 (just 5 more than Gore), 286 ECV in 2004, and Obama is projected to have 365 ECV.
The Republicans scrape in. The Democrats romp it in.
Socrates,
Yes, I know
…… weird how the bad political news and tricks paralled each other in each country. I’ve always wondered (and will never know since we can’t get a mulligan on history) if things would have turned out any different for Australia had Howard not been in the middle of it on the day. I think had he not been on the state visit to Washington at the time, the mental and personal impact of the events of 9/11 wouldn’t have hit him as hard and subsequently affected his political and personal judgement on policies …..
BTW, ignoring the absolute result and noting the trend vs previous Morgan polls (ALP +1.5; Lib -0.5) I am delighted ot see that people haven’t bought Turnbull’s stupid budget tactics. Now that the reality of deficits has been faced, I’d love to see the next newspoll too. After Turnbulls ranting on that score, I bet there will be no shift in his favor.
The Indians are in trouble big time. No, not in cricket.
The Mumbai Massacre exposes the soft underbelly of India:
* socially, too diverse and the caste system is illegal in law but still being practised in reality.
* religiously – The Hindu fandanmentalists are just as bad as the islamic fundamentalists.
* politically – democracy is fine on paper, but democracy as practised in India is like dog’s breakfast that can be bought or sold.
* economically – It cannot hope to compete with China.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/27/do2706.xml
Re 7,
People love the Democrats and vote for them. When the honeymoon wears off and they forget why the voted for the Dems, some of them switch back. “Opps, we’ve now elected a Republican administration folks”. Then after those people are shown the error of their ways, they come back home to the fold in droves ……
SNIP: To state the ludicrously, blindingly obvious, acknowleding you’re breaking the rules does not change the fact that you’re breaking them. Please wake up to yourself – The Management.
Oh come on, don’t use EV’s to measure “romping it home”. Clinton got 40% in 1992.
Clinton got 43%. Bush Sr got 37.7%. Independent Ross Perot got 18.9%.
Clinton got 370 ECV. Bush got 168 ECV. Perot got 0 ECV.
Clinton romped it home.
It never needed “exposing”. Anyone who paid attention to the world around them knows about Indians extremely violent and divisive history. The media and Government in Australia and other Western countries like covering it up and referring to India as the world’s “biggest democracy” for a number of reasons – mainly involving money.
I wonder if the Libs are starting to regret getting rid of Brenda?
On another topic, didn’t I read a few months back that the public service were about to revolt over the bad treatment since Rudd took over? Seems the msm can’t get anything right.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/bureaucrats-more-at-ease-with-rudd/1372523.aspx
You were comparing him to Bush II. Bush II got more votes than Clinton. Bush II romped it home.
I assume they must be more comfortable regarding their conscience.
They could have real Antony and a HOLOGRAM Antony!
Socrates, don’t ever do that again.
In fact, I’ve deleted your subsequent non-offensive comments as punishment.
#15 OZ, i think we something good going here.
Sorry William.
“You were comparing him to Bush II. Bush II got more votes than Clinton. Bush II romped it home.”
When you have a third, popular, candidate what do you expect?
Bush II got only a slender majority of ECV. Clinton romped it home both times.
I agree
Is the clock ticking against Malcolm Turnbull? Perhaps he will be taking a U-Turn right out of politics. Peter Brent at Mumble:
http://mumble.com.au/ 26 November 2008
About @313 on the previous tread.
The US Constitution cannot be amended by a ballot measure because it is not in line with the ratification process set out in Article V.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America#Article_V
The United States should change to the system Australia has.
It’s the un-Narrowing!
Perot was taking votes off the Republicans!
and the Democrats
Didn’t ronny reagan win in a landslide in ‘84: from wikipedia: Ronald Reagan defeats Walter F. Mondale with 59% of the popular vote, the highest since Richard Nixon’s 61% victory in 1972. Reagan carries 49 states in the electoral college;
370 isn’t considered a landslide according to FiveFirtyEight.com, 375+ is…
I am completely against fixed 4 year terms. That is an incredibly long time for the public not to be consulted on who are their representatives. I would have 2 year terms if I could but alas I understand the public is probably not ready to go that far.
We have three tiers of government, so why not have fixed 3 year terms for each, rotating between them? For example, in 2010 have a federal election, 2011 have the state elections and 2012 have the local elections (then in 2013 start the cycle again with another federal). Make it the same day each year (like the first Tuesday in November), and make it a public holiday called “Democracy Day” or something.
Presumably there are cost savings, it delivers certainty, it staggers electoral change, it’s easy to educate the kids and it places our democratic system squarely in the national psyche like Christmas or ANZAC day.
Melbourne Cup!
Coconaut, the problem with such short terms is that governments will spend their whole time trying to get re-elected, rather than trying to govern. As it is now, with three year terms, governments spend their first year doing anything nasty they need to do, the second year bedding it down, and the third in re-election mode. At least with four year terms governments would be able to concentrate on what they are elected to do (ie govern) for more of their term than at present.
I do, however, agree with you on fixed terms, and in a perfect world we would be able to arrange the electoral calendar so that all of our elections can be run on as few days as possible. I much prefer, though, to see elections early in the year, rather than November. When elections are on late in the year, the entire year is spent politicking (see 2007 for an example), whereas if an election is in, say, early March, there is only a short window for us to be bothered by politicians on the campaign trail. One of the great features of this country is our tendency for everyone to go to sleep between Christmas and Australia Day, so by having a March election, you are limiting the campaign to a maximum 6 weeks.
The Liberals/BCA would go ape if anyone suggested another public holiday. Unless it was called Howard Day. WorkChoices Day of Remembrance maybe.
Good idea, Coconaut, re a fixed election date. I wish that would happen.
I don’t mind 4 year terms for a first term Govt. because it takes them 12-18 months to get the hang of it. 3 years always goes so quickly – it really is 2 years because the last year of the term is usually full on electioneering.
4 years only seems a long time now because the NSW Govt. has been in so long. Altho I hate the thought, it really needed to lose the last election.
But NSW’s fixed date every 4 years is terrific.
On India, I think some posters are being a little harsh. India has been a functioning democracy for all of its existence (minus the two-year “Emergency” in the mid-70s) and I think they deserve some credit for that. It can’t be easy trying to organise elections for 1billion+ people. Certainly I have more time for Indian governance than I do for, say, China (communist dictatorship) or Pakistan (which has traditionally received far more Western backing than India, despite being a military dictatorship for much of its existence). India is of course a massive country, perhaps too big to really govern effectively, but I’d caution against dissing them entirely on the basis of a terrorist attack. Otherwise, to be fair, you’d have to do the same to the US and most of Europe.
Besides, we Aussies need to stick up for other cricketing nations!
dyspnoeia
Apreciate your indepth analysis of th US Constitution , however they ar mere pieces of paper against th knowledge trees tabancle you just can not hav 2 captains on th one ship
Having a duet as apex of authority just does not work Who ever heard at a wedding anniversary of th man buying a woman flowers ? , th women of course does , I mean how would it be if both did , just not enough flower holders Similarly th analogy what th US has achieved is confused responsibilty , meaning reely no efective responsibility Bush has power but no mandate and Obama had no power but mandate
….its called th transition period of a ship with 2 captains but th 2 rudders ar going left and right in message
So whilst I understand your detailed Constitation articles , diog not realising that th knowledge trees ar encryted with Da VinchAmigo Codes of secrecy wastes his time hitting a mere button , a mere Google button , Bill Gates is not that powerful to MP sacred grounds
“The Queensland premier has signalled backflips on recycled drinking water and the Traveston Crossing Dam, delaying the unpopular measures and raising speculation of an early election.”
Oh dear , AAP seem to be parroting the Courier-Mail and ABC’s Madonna King. Anna Bligh repeated again yesterday that the Qld Govt. will run full term, Scott Prasser states he thinks it will run full term.
The only people talking up this beat-up are Mr and Mrs Courier-Mail.
Hugo, do you know how H L Mencken defined democracy: the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard?
Your logic depends on the assumption that a government ‘trying to get re-elected’ will do the opposite of ‘trying to govern’. In other words, people will only vote for a government that makes bad decisions. If you really think that people will only vote for a government that makes bad decisions, wouldn’t it be better if they didn’t vote at all?
News Ltd publications beating up a story? Nah, I just don’t believe it…
The first mass movement for democracy was Chartism, launched in 1838 with the People’s Charter, which stipulated six goals:
Manhood suffrage (implying abolition of property qualifications for the vote)
Equal-sized electoral districts
Secret ballot
An end to property qualifications for candidates
Pay for MPs
Annual elections
Five down, one to go!
Madonna King is the wife of the editor of the Courier Mail. I think the perception that one family may set the political agenda in Brisbane is not healthy.
Hugo, you are only right of this point:
That is why the chinese are trying very hard to learn to play cricket.
J-D, I wasn’t suggesting that getting re-elected is neceassrily a bad thing for a government to pursue, but rather the pressures of re-election often mean that governments defer “tough” decisions (ie ones that may well be unpopular, but can still be considered “good” for the economy/ society) until after an election (regardless of how frequesnt they are). An example of this might be the private health care rebate. Most experts in the field (and I agree with them) see this as wasteful and bad policy – a huge amount of money is spent basically on propping up an ineeficient industry. But woebetied any government that tries to remove it (see the carrying on when Rudd & co tried to means test in the Budget just some of the middle class welfare that is so popular in this country). If we had more frequent elections than we do now, no government would ever make “hard decisions).
In essence you are arguing for every year to be just like 2007 – with politics (as opposed to policy) being shoved down our throats 24/7 all year. There might be some on this site that finds that idea appealing, but I reckon even we Poll Bludgers would get sick of it eventually.
I can’t see at all how we would be benefited by yearly elections. Once every 3 years is fine by me.
Finns @ 44 – yes, I look forward to the first Test Match (being of course real cricket) being played in Shanghai.
BTW, NZ are currently 228/6. If the Kiwis had one or two batsmen who could stick around after getting their attractive 30s and 40s, they would have a pretty good chance of beating us.
Amigo FINNS
only problam with chinese cricket , is how I read th Peking scoreboard upside down
Bob 1234 “The Republicans scrape in. The Democrats romp it in.”
No Republicans romped in 1972 , Reagan romped in 1980 & 1984 and since then Democrat Clinton romped in twice They all romp , depending on th times
Juliem “I think had he not been on the state visit to Washington at the time, the mental and personal impact of the events of 9/11 wouldn’t have hit him as hard and subsequently affected his political and personal judgement on policies …..”
No , Kevin Rudd was not there in New York , and he still supports Afghanistan incursion which is what 9/11 is about…terrorism Howard suported Afghanistan from day one as did Labor Party In fact Kevin Rudd has signalled consideration of increasing our troops in Afghanistan Don’t confuse Iraq
Just a thought but what about giving any new government (ie a change of government) a 4 year first term. Then as long as the same party retains power the following elections you have 3 year terms. You could even extend that idea to include 2 year terms after a prolonged time in power, eg. longer than 12 years.
I feel a party needs 4 years to set their progam but later in their time in government should become even more accountable to the people.
Hugo, you’re just confirming what I said–that you think people will vote for bad decisions but won’t vote for good decisions. You (and, according to you, most of the experts) find the arguments against the private health-care rebate to be persuasive, but you don’t expect those arguments to convince most people. With more frequent elections, you seem to be predicting, governments would never make the ‘hard’ (unpopular but necessary) decisions. What then? Would things keep getting worse and worse because these decisions were never made? And would people nevertheless keep voting for things to get worse and worse? I find that implausible. But if you really think people are that stupid, wouldn’t it be better if they didn’t vote at all? It’s a serious question. I presume you are, in fact, in favour of democratic elections–but what’s your reason?
Hugo & amigo ronnie, it wont be long now. i heard the chinese is diverting part of its $800B economic stimulus package into cricket development so it can beat India by 2020.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/cricket/howzat-in-a-quick-declaration-china-embraces-cricket/2006/03/03/1141191849511.html
or is this what the chinese have in mind:
http://www.beetles-for-sale.com/cricket_fighting.html
Socrates
The President can’t pardon himself.
Thank goodness
But in this case it would be the President pardoning herself.
Where does it say that presidents cannot pardon themselves.
So the President could possibly pardon himself for the murder charges (opinion is a bit divided on this and it’s never been tested) but he couldn’t avoid the impeachment (which only refers to having him removed from office).
The annual elections proposal was part of the idea that the elected should face the people very regularly in order to keep then in check which was prevalent at that time and led to to biennial elections in the USA and triennial elections in Australia. The maximum term for the Parliament of the United Kingdom was 7 years untill the Parliament Act 1911
The reforms proposed by the Chartist were implemented (bar annual elections) over a long period of time.
Votes for every man (who was a British Subject and resident in the UK) over twenty-one (bar a few small exceptions) was not achieved until 1918 (and people with property qualifications in other electorates and those with masters and doctorates had multiple votes until 1948-1950).
Equal sized electorates were achieved gradually but there are a few exceptions such as various problems with the use of counties and local continuity requirements which have the odd distortion (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isle_of_Wight_(UK_Parliament_constituency)) and the over representation of Wales (and possibly Northern Island) with over representation of Scotland abolished in 2005.
Secret ballot was achieved in 1872.
Property qualifications for candidates was abolished at some point.
Pay for MPs was introduced by the Parliament Act 1911.
U.S. Presidents were inaugurated on 4th March until 1937 when it was changed to 20th Jan. for the same reason being proposed here now, Roosevelt’s long wait for the lame duck Hoover to bugger off in 1933. So there’s no reason it couldn’t be changed again.
Having a 4 month gap between the election and inauguration was probably necessary in the 1700s because communication was limited to the speed of a horse, and 2 months might still have been required in the 1930s, but with instantaneous communications these days they should be able to finalise the process by mid December.
Annual elections? Oh geez, please no. I used to be a big one for 4 years, but three years is probably about right. And any change to it will never get up constitutionally so no point worrying about it.
Sorry the posting program messed up the link and takes you to a different place.
Select, copy and paste should do the trick.
Talking about Presidential pardons, one name that has come up frequently is Conrad Black. I’m guessing that he has received bad news on that front (GWB hardly ever pardons, although Black would have got out for sure under Bill) and has vented his spleen on the US Justice system. While there is the tiny possibility that the article is just a little bit biased and a tad self-serving, it’s a really good read.
From my cell I scent the reeking soul of US justice
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article5213243.ece
What if she shoots everyone in Congress as well? If you ask me, the founding fathers didn’t think things through.
Remember they didn’t have hand held machine guns in their time.
They probably thought that if the President busted in with a one-shot rifle and started attacking Congress they’d have time to take him down while he reloaded.
Ah, hence the second amendment. Thanks for clearing that up, Oz.
William,
Yes and no; government in the US anticipates some7 things but perhaps not everything. Don’t know that anyone could anticipate everything? In regards to what you and the others previous on this train of thought are refering to … take the president’s State of the Union address as an example. The presidential line of succession is 16 layers deep – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession
Normally the address is in the House chambers and like here when there is a major address, all cabinet members and so on attend, crowding into extra seats, gallery, etc. However, EACH and every year, ONE of the 16 people on this list draws a short straw and does NOT attend the SOTU address in the House chambers. He or she watches from somewhere else in Washington, a closely guarded secret as to where they actually are. It is so that terrorists can not take the whole of the government out in one fell swoop and at least for the emergency and short term purposes, the government has someone who can lead it and allow barebones services to continue in the event of that eventuality. This has always been so for as long as I am aware which dates back to roughly the beginning of the second Nixon administration. I don’t have much memory of particulars before that. So it isn’t a recent response to 9/11.
Sounds like an awesome plot for Hollywood if you ask me…
Indeed, it sounds like Homer Simpson’s remake of Mr Smith Goes to Washington (which I just tried but failed to find on YouTube).
Can we just stop these stupid comments about shooting people?
SOS is number 4 in succession. That’s too close for comfort for me. Hillary might get some ideas.
What happens in Australia if a plane with say 15 Labor MP’s went down? That’s happened to a few soccer teams before. That would put the Liberals ahead of Labor. Would Turnbull become PM until the by-elections?
In case anyone was wondering where GP has been:
http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,27753,24720454-462,00.html
If the Opposition had any decency they’d support the current Government until elections could be held. Could they do that? Or do Government’s automatically lose their position once they lose a majority.
Actually, it’s six times that entire soccer teams have died in plane crashes.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2622075
I have an idea – and it’s only that – that PMs/ Premiers and their Deputies don’t travel together for this reason.
Challenge for bloggers to prove or disprove this (?incidence of PM & Deputy on same flight?)
If the government were to lose 15 MPs from a plane crash on an end-of-season trip, then the they would still be the government until parliament could sit. The parliament could then pass a motion of No Confidence in the government, but that’d be a pretty big call for the Opposition. Not that I’d put it past this lot (including sabotaging the plane!). Luckily for us, I’m not sure the Liberal Party is that competent.
Three ministers in the Menzies government were killed in a plane crash in August 1940. If that had happened after the election held one month later, that might indeed have cost his coalition its majority pending by-elections. However, for Labor to have taken advantage of that by moving a no-confidence motion would have been rightly viewed as very poor form.
Looking at the numbers at that time, Labor would still have needed support from independents, which they assuredly would not have received under the circumstances.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canberra_air_disaster,_1940
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_general_election,_1940
William
Looking at that 1940 election, I see there were three Labor Parties; Australian Labor Party (40%), Non-Communist Labor Party (5%) and the State Labor Party (2%).
There has to be a great story behind the naming of the Non-Communist Labor Party!
Finns @ 10
Those bloody rooineks are still at it.
Now why should we take a deep breath and count to 10 whenever the Britishers start making judgements on India?
As ‘preparation’ for Indian democracy the Britishers massacred thousands of unarmed Indian civilians on the streets. It routinely arrested without charge or court case Indian politicians. It got so that Indian politicians had their cases packed ready to be arrested.
India had a thriving metal production industry when the British arrived. None when it left.
The British used race as a justification for over a hundred and fifty years of dictatorial colonialism. When this got a bit much for the Indians, the British tied offenders to the mouths of cannon and pulled the lanyard. Following the recapture of Delhi the Britishers pretty well hunted down all the menfolk, including those with a bit of a prior predisposition to supporting the Britishers. The Britishers gave me a wry smile though. They were apparently a bit surprised, purblind fools that they were, that the last royal tour of QE2 to India was greeted with less than rapture.
Given the immense challenges, India has done a magnificent job to date. Not a perfect job. But a magnificent job. Many of the challenges have not gone away.
Comparing India with China is an interesting exercise. It seems to me far more likely that India will be able to deal with its social pressures than China. The latter has 30-40 000 cases of civil disobedience a year and no democratic structures to absorb and address civil pressures.
The Telegraph should just concentrate on the state of the Britisher economy, it needs all the condecension it can get.
The convention is that the parliament would not sit or pairs would be granted until the by-elections were held. It is a convention that was established in NSW in 1911 when 2 Labor MPs resigned their seats depriving the McGowen government of its majority.
William Holman was Acting Premier at the time and requested the Governor to prorogue Parliament. The Governor said no. So Holman went back to Parliament, the Labor speaker resigned their seat, and Holman went back to the Governor and handed in the government’s Commission.
This did two things. First, he resigned before the Opposition’s temporary majority would have allowed it to pass a vote of no-confidence. Second, with no Speaker, if the Opposition tried to take office, it would not have had the numbers having appointed a Speaker, and once the vacancies were filled at by-elections, the new government would probably have lost a vote of confidence, and with Labor back in a majority, Labor would have formed government again without an election.
The convention (according to R D Lumb, Constitutions of the Australian States) is that if a government lost a vote of no-confidence, and an alternative government was possible, an early election is not called but a baton change takes place. If one government lost a vote of no confidence, and then the replacement government lost a vote of no-confidence, the first defeated government is re-commissioned to call an early election, or if possible, to continue governing. This happened in NSW in December 1921 when the Fuller government was defeated seven hours after taking office, and Jim Dooley was re-commissioned as Premier to govern till an early election.
In the Mundingburra by-election situation in 1996, the Goss government could have been defeated by a vote of no-confidence as it had a Labor Speaker and so was in a floor minority. Sensibly, it was left for the by-election to resolve the numbers, and Goss resigned as Premier after Labor lost the seat.
So in short, any motion of no-confience passed by what would be viewed as a temporary change in numbers in the House of Reps would not trigger the resignation of a government.
ZOOMster
I believe during Whitlams days that he saw that the deputy and others were on separate planes for that very reason, however he insisted that they fly on the same plane because “If I’m going down then those bastards are coming down with me and won’t profit from my demise”.
Diogenes, Non-Communist Labor was Lang Labor. After Lang was dumped as Labor Leader in NSW, a number of communists managed to gain control of the NSW Labor executive. In Lang’s attempt to regain control of the Labor Party, he set up Non-Communist Labor. Between the 1940 Federal election and the 1941 state election, the division was patched up and the two parties merged, but the communist officials set up their own party which is generally known as Hughes-Evans Labor. As well as official Labor, some of the former Non-Communist Labor people ended up in a party generally known as Fowler Labor after Lillian Fowler, who was later a Lang Labor state MP. There were also breakaway non-communist Labor candidates who formed a loose Country Labor Party.
I should clarify, Hughes and Evans were kicked out of the state Labor Party by Federal intervention. It was after Labor and Non-Communist Labor merged that John Curtin finally had the firm numbers to convince the Independents to back Labor forming government in mid-1941. A few Labor members had to swallow a lot of bitterness, as one of the Non-Communist Labor MPs was ’stabber’ Jack Beasley, who along with his Lang Labor collegues had brought down the Scullin government in parliament at the end of 1931.
If one government lost a vote of no confidence, and then the replacement government lost a vote of no-confidence, the first defeated government is re-commissioned to call an early election, or if possible, to continue governing”
Then assume th fixed term legislation in States must diferentiate this , and cover this as opposed to temporary change in numbers caused by plane crashs , and then I tink how does Legislation prevent a Govt of day passing a motion of no confidese in itself at an opportune time , to get around fixed election timetables
Man, politics was so much more fun then.
It could, but it would look very very silly. In NSW, the process of a baton change requires a vote of no confidence with three sitting days notice, effectively a week. After the passage of such a motion, eight days are allowed in which a new government is given the opportunity to form. So in other words, it is a process you go through for two weeks before you can call an election.
So say a government brought itself down by defeating itself. In those circumstances, the Governor is entirely entitled to commission another government as the government has by convention just proved it does not have the support of the parliament. The opposition might offer to form government and would be entirely entitled to do so. The ex-government now in opposition now moves a vote of no-confidence in the new government, but it can’t be debated until the following week because of the 3 day rule. So the newly minted government open the files and finds as much dirt as it can on the recently defeated government before it is itself defeated in a vote of no confidence.
So by this stage we are 2-3 weeks into this farce. Now the newly re-commissioned Premier has to advise the Governor for an early election. Given that the intent of the fixed term legislation is that firms are fixed, the Governor may again decline the early election, again putting the government through the farce of defeating itself again to prove a new government cannot be formed.
If both sides agree on an early election, think for instance Labor and Liberal agreeing to an early election after cutting the size of the Tasmanian Parliament in 1998, then the whole process could be over in a fortnight at which time writs could be issued. But without opposition support, the whole process could be bloody, and also involve the government having to give up office for a week until it could resume office and get an early election.
That’s why no government is going to defeat itself unless the Opposition agrees.
So essentialy th conventions rely on politcans commonsense and/or self interest , rather than codifying
If I was to look at oppositions view in a State with fixed term electons , if Govt of day is in minority and relying on “independents” for majority , and then a motion of no confidense passed by th opposition criticaly at opportune time for them (supported by those “independents”) it could efectively bring that Govt down….. where independents and opposition were not a policy match to form govt and it suited those ‘independents’ to hav an election also
(If so politcal advantage would rest with opposition throughout th minority Govt’s term)
52- 55..61-66… 68, 70 – 76… ok.. I gave up at this point!
Friends, it’s Friday night – a life – get one
In essence, yes. The best way to think of it is in the case of Tasmania. The last two examples of hung parliament, under Labor’s Michael Field 1989-92, and Liberal Tony Rundle 1996-98, would not have come to an end in fixed term parliaments, unless as in 1998, the opposition and government agreed. The Greens would not support the Liberal Opposition to bring down the Field government 1989-92, and would not support Labor to bring down Rundle in 1996-98. Field in fact lost votes of no-confidence while Premier, but was not forced to an election. In one case, after losing the vote, the Parliament was suspended while he went to advise the Governor. His advice was that he was still in a position to govern. He returned to Parliament and moved an adjournment motion setting the next sitting date, which the Greens supported so the government continued in office. That failed attempt to bring down the government cost Robin Gray the Liberal leadership.
In both cases, it was clear that an early election had the strong chance of delivering the Opposition a majority. So the government and Green cross-benchers saw common purpose in not having an early election.
And as a sidelight, there is the interesting question of a government handing back its commission but unable to lose a vote of no-confidence. The Governor has to have advisers, and if he or she cannot find alternative advisers, then the existing advisers continue in office. This would still take some time to resolve, but there would be a chance of the Governor using reserve powers to grant an early election in the case of a complete impasse.
Finally, don’t assume any Premier pushing for an early election would survive this process. Remember Joh Bjelke-Petrsen was asked to prove he had the support of his own government when he tried to sack several ministers, and he lost the leadership in this process. Nick Greiner resigned as Liberal Leader in part because his own party didn’t want to go through the vote of no-confidence that might have triggered an early election.
You’re probably right spam box. I’ll go to bed. But it gives William some bits and pieces for his piece on fixed term parliaments.
I should give up before I get on to the tied 1909 election result in Newfoundland, and the bizarre flip-flop government created by parliamentary deadlock in Naura. Even constitutional lawyers glaze over on those ones.
What an extraordinarily bizarre thread! The headline is a remarkably high ALP number from a big sample over two weekends, segues into paranoia and U.S. constitutional law and early twenty century political arrangements and meanwhile the Mumbai debacle continues. Tonight spoke to mates with family and friends in Mumbai and they’re O.K., but really worried.
tanks Spam Box , more complicated questons were to come
J-D@42
I wasn’t going to mention the Chartists but yes their role in Australian democracy is one of the great untold stories of this country. A lot of them were transported out of England to the colonies in the 19th century, so I’m not surprised at all Australia has enacted all of the Chartist aims other than annual elections (and we got unusually short 3 year terms).
I also wasn’t going to mention my predilection for annual elections because I know the public is not ready for it yet, and also a lot of people on pollbludger are enamoured by the whole “professional politician thing” and look upon elections as a nasty inconvenience for political parties, branches and sitting members!
But I actually think annual elections would really work. People say that politicians spend their first year being nasty, their second year governing and then their third year electioneering, but I think given annual elections, the public would very quickly learn to reward long-term thinkers rather than short term populism. The result would in effect be a smoothing out of the election cycle from its current distortion.
In fact, as a sop to the major party luvvies here, although I am generally a spoiler and dislike incumbency, annual elections I believe would assist incumbents.
Failing all that, I still think we could do federal-state-local on fixed three year terms. Three years is a very very long time. It’s not the 1970s any more, most jobs these days are four years or less, regular people’s performances are usually judged once or twice a year by management. If 2-3 year jobs and regular performance reviews are good enough for CEOs and engineers, they’re good enough for politicians!
HSO, what do they make of the mood of the locals over there at the moment?
The idea of giving a first term government an extra year is actually a very interesting idea, and I was initially very taken with it, but as I thought about it I think in fairness you can’t have the “reward for winning” different for candidates competing in the same election.
This is because voters would take the differing rewards into consideration when they voted, tilting the election unfairly in favour of either the incumbent or the challenger.
If culturally Australian voters turned out to either like voting often or voting not as often, it would begin to affect whether they voted for the incumbent or for a switch!
Can someone familiar with Sydney tell us who lives on Scotland Island and why it is the strongest Labor booth in the Division of Mackellar?
Well, it’s a pretty small island in the middle of Pittwater in Sydney’s north. I’m stunned that it is good for Labor though… although given that it would be a very safe Liberal area I guess anything is possible. They do have their own drama group, so maybe that’s where the lefties are hiding out
In 2007 there were 310 votes cast, with a Labor 2PP of 68.1%. It must be a hippy colony or something.
I remember Scotland Island from the Pittwater by-election in 2005. I see from my post at the time that the Greens vote at the 2003 state election was 48 per cent. I also notice that my comments threads were a bit shorter back then.
Dario @ 92, mostly people in Mumbai are shocked, according to my mates. The siege, of course, is not yet over, and people there are still having to deal with the ongoing nightmare.
2007 – Scotland Island Kindergarten, Tennis Wharf, SCOTLAND ISLAND NSW 2105 – http://results.aec.gov.au/13745/Website/HousePollingPlaceFirstPrefs-13745-1738.htm
Liberal 26.45%
Labor 26.77%
Greens 34.84%
Climate change coalition 9.68%
Definately a hippie colony.
This is what happened in the Queensland Parliament on 29 October in Cairns:
Division: Question put—That the motion, as amended, be agreed to.
AYES, 62—Attwood, Barry, Bligh, Bombolas, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Cunningham, Darling, English, Fenlon, Foley, Fraser, Grace, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Jones, Keech, Kiernan, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Lucas, McNamara, Mickel, Miller,
Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Pratt, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wellington,
Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Male, Finn
NOES, 25—Copeland, Cripps, Dempsey, Flegg, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lee Long, Lingard, McArdle, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey. Tellers: Rickuss, Elmes
Resolved in the affirmative.
Motion, as agreed—
Contrasted with the Liberal National Party’s contemptuous reply to the parliamentary motion today:
http://www.lnp.org.au/lnp-media-releases/lnp-state-media-releases/documents-back-lnp-policy-for-new-cairns-hospital/316.html
Nothing wrong with th principal in th Opposition Leaders 3rd paragraph Question is do th allegations hav substance or ar they mud raking After dr Death episode one should be cautous
Adam @ 94
Not sure if any of this helps, but:
Scotland Island is mostly bush with several hundred houses. It used to be a bit of a haunt for ne’er do wells and down-and-outers but it has been gentrified. It does not have shops or industries but it does have an artists group, which might explain the high labour vote. I seem to recall that there are no cars on the island, which might explain a high green vote.
steve @ 100
The last paragraph is extraordinarily short-sighted and stupid. Imagine senior public servants trotting off to the Opposition Shadow Ministers for a chat over a cup of tea with a quoir or so of briefing notes. It is not a ‘democratic right’. It is a recipe for failed governance. If they ever get back in, it is the sort of statement that will come back to bite them in the bum.
‘Yes Prime Minister, I gave the Shadow Treasurer the budget briefing notes and Finance’s figures; yesterday, actually. Well, it is my democratic right to give it to the Shadow Treasurer, and I believe, the timing is up to me as well. You might be pleased to know that I have made some amendments as a result of her advice. BTW, you might like to know that the Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister is not happy with the direction the Minister for Foreign Affairs is taking in the negotiations with China on the free trade deal, nor with the highly sensitive and top secret Afghanistan War exit discussions that you are having with President Obama. The Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs has some suggestions to make and advice to give.’
No 61
If the Speaker shot every member of Congress, the constitution would be worthless.
(as Treasurer, not as Deputy)
juliem
Interesting link. Fancy a swan trashing a bishop! Problems, problems. Looks like Mr Teamwork has been given his instructions by the OO. Problems, problems.
It looks like julieb (heh, heh) is gone for all money. They will have to give her a senior portfolio to keep the WA Division sweet. Probably the easiest thing at this stage is a simple swap between julieb and joe the plumber of depths. Problem is, joeh is yesterday’s man. Unless of course, peterc fancies a re-run? Not yet, I should think. Problems, problems.
But then of course there is the issue of the Young Turks, which means that peterd should get a run. But I can’t imagine the Howard Fud Faction giving in to the Young Turks without a fight. Problems, problems.
If he is smart, Mr Teamwork will have to give some serious thought to re-arranging the bickies in the Christmas stockings. He could use the julieb pressure to drop a few of the other non-performers and promote a few of the Young Turks. But the Fud Faction will not like that. Problems, problems.
Then there is the solid non-performing rump in the Nat Fuds. There is some un-used talent in the outer reaches of the Lib back benches who could do much better than the Nat Fuds, but the Nat Fuds understand troughs better than anyone. Problems, problems.
There is a big possibility that the Privileges and Ethics Committee of the Queensland Parliament will take an interest in this latest display of contempt for the institution of Parliament expressed in the response by McArdle who just happens to be a member with form.
It is the same McArdle who has a track record of failure of compliance as compliance officer for a law firm who was involved in a mortgage scam preying on senior citizens on the Sunshine Coast prior to becoming a parliamentarian.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/12/2160613.htm
Well, I don’t know of any CEOs on 2 year contracts, and I’ve appointed/reviewed at least four. Standard CEO contracts are (surprise!) 3 years with an almost guaranteed 2 years added on to this. (They also get paid a lot more than the average politician). Yes, they have annual reviews – I would argue that most pollies have daily ones.
I would expect that the quality of MPs would go down. You are not going to give up a secure position for one which can be lost each year. I know that the various constitutional rulings on ‘employees of the Crown’ has made it much harder to find candidates for this reason – people are not going to quit their job on the possibility only that they will be elected to parliament.
It will also lead to ‘MP churning’. It takes at least 6 months (and more like a year) for anyone to really get their head around any new position, let alone something so complex as governance. Using local councils as an example, I would say that most councillors are only getting the hang of it at the end of their first three year term (and also that it takes at least three years to make any significant changes). So, under an annual election scenario, you’d have only just got a grasp of the job when you’d be up for election again. (I accept that councillors are only part time, but have also worked closely with MPs and would make much the same observation).
Paul Kelly comes out firing against Julia’s IR legislation:
Well that’s not surprising given the rumour that Freehills wrote most of the Work Choices legislation. Kinda like getting the mother in law of your first wife to comment on the beauty and intelligence of your second.
The link to Kelly’s article:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24722121-12250,00.html
The Tiser has an All-Star Political Team of the Year.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,24722946-5006301,00.html
Adam,
If you go back over the last three decades, Scotland Island almost always recorded the highest Australian Democrat of any booth in NSW, and often outpolled Labor in that booth. I note at the 2007 Federal election, the Greens outpolled both Labor and Liberal. It’s an island, has no roads, has no cars, explains everything.
Surprisingly that “All-Star” political team isn’t that bad… Not sure about Costello and Hockey.
Paul Kelly should pop a few valium. Has he forgotten the last election as well?
While Julia is the obvious choice if something happened to the Ruddster, what would happen if they both went down in a plane? Who would take over? Swan would be political suicide and I really can’t think who else Labor would choose as PM. Tanner or Combet come across as the most likely to lead the ship.
Kelly is running the same business agenda he was last year. He loses credibility every week. Why “The Insiders” persists with him as their weekly commentator is beyond me.
Ross Gittins has a much different take on the IR laws.
http://business.smh.com.au/business/why-gillards-fair-work-bill-is-a-fair-cop-20081128-6mz1.html
And who out of Ross Gittins and Paul Kelly is the more respected economic analyst?
Dont know much about Gittins but as far as i know Kelly is a political commentator, and not an economic analyst. Anyone know more of his history and quals??
They don’t call this coming period the “silly season” for nothing. The main political commentators in the media go on holidays or drop down a gear, and second stringers are pushed to the fore. Leadership queries are raised because they allow endless speculation with minimal factual backup. With the polling figures we are seeing the person most in the gun should be Turnbull. His poor performance is only camouflaged by comparison with Nelson who set a very low bar. The best way of avoiding being eaten by the press wolves is to throw them a carcass in order to distract them.
Julie Bishop has just been thrown from Malcolms sleigh.
From the Gittins article:
“Only someone who regarded the role of unions as fundamentally illegitimate could worry about this. ”
That to me sums up Kellys approach and the that of the Fibs.
http://www.constitution.qld.gov.au/pdf/ParliamentNotes.pdf
Should be a fun final week in the Queensland Parliament next week by the way things have been shaping up
Seems like they don’t wait for plane crashes in Canada.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/29/2433266.htm?section=justin
Canada needs proportional representation to stop the over representation of the Conservatives and the Block.
Here is a funny video
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=7Dg5QhC6JaU
Tom i just gave a Blue tongue Lizzard a saucer of cat food (they love it, come in the cat door and help themselves the buggers) then watched your video lol
“Imagine senior public servants trotting off to the Opposition Shadow Ministers for a chat over a cup of tea with a quoir or so of briefing notes.”
That is an illogical partisan Labor argument Th only person making th crazy sugestion about passing on “briefing notes” to Opposition members is you
“Briefing notes” and th like ar covered by ethical & protocols (and legal) requirements covering Public servants inter- actions with ANY 3rd Partys , with heavy sanctions for P S offenders …..and regarding offending MP’s there’s ‘House’ Priviledge Commitee problams
There is todate no evidense this serious line has been crossed at all What so far has occurred apparently is P S generic chatter pro a new Cairns Hospital , that has always happened and always will ALL Govts hate it and ALL Oppositions including Labor oppositions) love it ..which provide general info
Suggestions that Govts can forse an Opposition to then reveal ’sources’ of generic leaked info is foolish and would kill off all ‘whistleblowers’ , then a secret executive… These ar issues of balanse and not crossing lines but then in AWB Scandal on your argument we would never hav learnt of th AWB scandal at all …and so your arguement against generic info disclosure is not democracy at all , its is extreme and would lead to extreme
Whats occuring in Q’d is a healthy debate both on policy and politcs about whether a new Cairns hospital vs refurbishing th old one , and its this context you’d partisanly missed
Paul Kelly crying in his beer over the demise of Workchoices. Get used to it old son.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24722121-12250,00.html
122 – Vera, it seems the conservative side of politics just do not know how to fix the mess they have created. I wonder how Key is going in NZ.
Hello Vera , can you clarify
“i just gave a Blue tongue Lizzard a saucer of cat food (they love it, come in the cat door and help themselves the buggers) then watched your video”
who watched th video , you , or th Blue tongue Lizzard , or th cats , or all of you
Sorry, I thought the answer was obvious.
Gittins knows far about everything, especially economics, than Kelly.
Hello ron how ya been keepin’
me and Ted (cat) watched the video, lizzard flat out drinking after his feed.
Gary 127
Took 2 months since Canadian election for calls of sacking so that gives Key about another 6 weeks all things being equal
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/turnbull-criticises-rudd-on-pc-blowout/2008/11/28/1227491827195.html
The Opposition is accusing the Government of reckless spending etc. on their plan for computers in schools. Once again, I don’t think they’re going to get traction on this. Fishing Academy’s and the like are one thing. But giving students computers is actually a good policy that deserves the proper amount of funding.
Vera @ 122, they don’t give the government long in Canada either
…. they just had elections not too long ago 
Hello ron how ya been keepin’
Very fine tanks Vera , and especialy now that I am mostly away from th fake glitz of US politcs and its razmattaz ’spin’ , and back to th land of ‘oz’ politcs where those that spin we can simply say in aussie style….bullsh.t…. put up sense
Glad to see you hav Ted so well trained , but don’t let him watch Malcolm it might upset
http://news.bn.gs/article.php?story=20081126183542969
That seems to have gone unreported.
Should’ve called it the “People’s Peso”.
No 109
A rumour is not fact.
Kelly’s concerns are perfectly legitimate. Why should a union be able to gain entry to businesses in which there are no union members?
Gillard has been struck off my list as a reasonable ALP minister with this junk.
I’m sure she cries herself to sleep everynight.
No 137
Oz, please explain why you believe a union should be able to enter a workplace in which there are no union members?
Firstly she would have never won you over.
Secondly, that is music to my ears. So no more “Workchoices lite then?
If the Libs are so sure unions are monsters in disguise why don’t they have a policy of total eradication? Oh, wait they did, Workchoices but the public didn’t believe the unions were bad.
Poor Malcolm. The highest ranking Lib in the land agrees with Rudd over him.
http://news.smh.com.au/national/labour-budget-gets-backing-from-lib-mp-20081129-6nah.html
No 140
More obfuscation and avoidance of my question.
I’ll ask again: why should unions have a right of entry into workplaces in which there are no union members?
141 vera – there you have the difference between being a responsible government and a reckless opposition. Barnett knows that if he criticises the federal government for going into deficit it will rebound in spades if his state budget goes into deficit as well. He not silly
The real question is why shouldn’t a union be able to talk to non union members? They can’t make you do what you don’t want to do.
The only conclusion I can come to is that you think they are monsters and need eradication. The vast majority of unions and union members are far from the monsters you seem to think they are. But then for anyone who sees reds under the bed as you do I guess it is not surprising you’re carrying on this way.
GP 142 re unions
When I was a young fella I had a job in a metal foundry, hot hard work at the best of times, but in this decidedly Dickensian factory it was also a very dangerous job. Metal pours would explode with frightening regularity, the safety equipment was crap or non-existent, and the workforce had little or no training in safe work practices or first aid. A few of us tried to get a union to visit the shop, the management went ape, sending out senior onside workers to talk us down, saying the unions would ruin the place etc etc. I eventually left the place after injuring myself, it was just too dangerous, but at least myself and a workmate were able to exercise OUR RIGHT to speak to a union rep just before I left. I’m not sure what happened, but I hope that a union got in to tackle safety and health concerns that plagued this factory. That is why unions need the right to access POTENTIAL members (in scheduled break times). While there are a lot of safe and well run workplaces, there are still dangerous and unhealthy workplaces all over this nation that are run by unscrupulous management, and as long as these places still exist unions need access to see if ANY (not necessarily all) of the workers feel that they could improve their workplace through a relationship with a union. Have you ever worked in a dangerous workplace GP? Have you ever been exploited by management? Have you ever wondered every morning before going to work what sort of injury you might pick up today? Do you have any idea about every day workplaces at all? If you did you wouldn’t need to pose this question about unions. And yes I know, some unions have been dodgy and don’t deserve the name, but by and large my REAL EXPERIENCE with unions has been positive. A long as we have profit driven labour exploitation, we have a role for honest unions in this country.
ps – if I haven’t made myself absolutely clear here, the short version is you do not know what you are talking about.
That’s a good story.
Once you realise that union’s are naught but a collective of workers working together to represent their interests, any scaremongering looks really pathetic.
GP is just resorting to the last bastion of (Howard) Cowards: Scaremongering
Canadian Government looks very close to being toppled 6 weeks after the last election:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/11/28/fed-govt.html
GP – last year, in this area, all the supermarket trolley collectors (mostly mentally impaired) were sacked overnight and replaced by others whom everyone assumed from their skin colour etc were Africans.
The company stated that they had replaced the former trolley collectors with a cheaper workforce.
It was discovered on examination that the sacked trolley workers had been paid well under the award for some years, so if the new guys were cheaper then it was fair to assume they were being paid even less.
However because (i) they were African, with little or no English, and of unknown origing and (ii) no union official could approach them at the workplace and (iii) they were housed in company housing and so no union member could approach them after hours, it has been impossible to establish ANYTHING about the employment status of these people.
We don’t know what they’re being paid, if they’re on a contract, what their working conditions are, nothing.
If a union was allowed to enter the workforce, all of this could be sorted out in a couple of hours. As it is, it’s taking a series of court cases which are still a long way from resolution and will probably only address the concerns of the sacked employees, leaving the present guys in limbo.
Other cases I know of involve seasonal fruit pickers. Again, refugees – they are loaded on to buses in Melbourne, taken to an orchard somewhere in the middle of nowhere and left there. They have no idea where they are, can’t speak the language, have no idea of what they should be paid or what their rights are. When unions have got access to these properties, they have found these workers in sub standard housing (I mean dangerous to human health).
In both cases, although unions have tried to help, there has been noone else to help these workers. Without the limited aid given to them by unions they would be even further exploited.
(Disclaimer: I am not a unionist, or at present a member of a union, and I believe unions have too much power in the ALP. But I recognise the reason for their existence and the good work they do).
GP, the top end of town have their unions what do you think the AMA is? what about the various business unions that underpinned Howard’s anti union ads? every group of people has the odd bully boy from the school yard up, unions are no different but Howard’s ads depicting burly bovva boys turning the lights out are nothing but a comical parady to scare the cattle–it didnt work obviously.
GP, the checkout chick may be in a union, the fireys, the ambos, the nurses, the cops on the beat, the chemist, the teachers, the bus drivers and the folk next door are probably in their respective unions, normal people like us, i dont see any of them swaggering around in Tshirt and braces threatening the little shop owner trying to make a crust, would you ask any of them if they were in a union before accepting their help? i dont think so!
golly gosh, i think it must be a bit crowded under your bed with the reds ,the illegal immigrants, the terrorists, your spare cash AND the unions, whoops i forgot those pesky labor voters who seem to be blocking your hero Malcolm from his rightful place in the scheme of things.
Good post Pica.
Anti-union forces would argue, I suppose, that a properly regulated industry wouldn’t allow the kind of exploitation you describe to occur. And therein lies the rub: when it comes to the safety of workers, employer-controlled or even state-based, workplace protection and monitoring has historically been less effective than that provided by unions (directly or otherwise).
SNIP: See Article 2 of comment moderation guidelines.
GP
Oz, please explain why you believe a union should be able to enter a workplace in which there are no union members?
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=3qilQ_gfm3w
This idea of Harper’s that an opposition has no right to form a coalition with other parties to defeat his government is a joke. He claims that they weren’t elected as the majority party and therefore have no right to govern without another election. Does he really understand how his political system works?
So what?? It would be a formality that the Bloc and Conservatives would vote down a Liberal/NDP Government…. hence the GG would call another election and it would be a majority for Harps.
Dion is a lame duck and Harper probably wants to bring down his Government…why else would he try to eliminate campaign financing subsidies by the State…because the Libs who have 0 money would vote against it and the Government…
I just heard on the news that Robert Doyle is leading in the early counting of the local council elections here in Vic. How early do they start counting?
yeeeeeeeeeeeeha but we have a stupid preferential system so a Doyle win is no cert
The Bloc Québécois would not be part of any coalition government, but has expressed support for the idea as long as the coalition provides economic help for Quebec’s forest and manufacturing sectors.
“Gov.-Gen. Michaëlle Jean has been travelling in Europe for the past few days. She’s shown here visiting the monument of Hungary’s 1956 anti-communist revolution martyrs with her husband Jean-Daniel Lafond in Budapest on Wednesday. (Karoly Arvai/Reuters)”What’s happening in Ottawa right now is there are negotiations going on between the Liberals and the NDP about what that government would look like,” CBC’s Margo McDiarmid reported from Ottawa.”
Glen you may want to read that article linked by ltep at 148. You may not be able to rely on the Bloc.
“Oz, please explain why you believe a union should be able to enter a workplace in which there are no union members?”
Silly comment.
http://business.theage.com.au/business/workchoice-lite-thats-a-load-of-emotive-nonsense-20081128-6n1q.html?page=2
“much publicity has been given to the decision to permit union representatives to enter work sites where they have no members, but where there are workers eligible to be members.
Only someone who regards unions as fundamentally illegitimate could worry about this. In practice it will mean little.”
GP has yet to tell us if he thinks unions should be scrapped. Let’s face it everything he says in regard to unions points to such a conclusion.
Weak…anyway who would want Dion as PM he’s in the process of vacating the leadership so who’d be PM…Jack Layton HAHAHAHAHAHA!
The NDP is more radical than the Greens….and you’d have a lame Duck PM lol before someone who never faced an election as leader or been a federal leader before being PM its just stupid really.
Why wouldnt the Bloc defeat a Liberal/NDP administration??? What have they to gain by getting the Liberals in power federally when they are going cut throat in the Quebec provincial elections right now?
How about this Glen – “the coalition provides economic help for Quebec’s forest and manufacturing sectors.”
They have Harper over a barrel.
I think you are underestimating the fact that there will be many Liberal Party MPs (Red Tories) who would be very unhappy if they staged this coup…so considering that and given it would only take a few rebels or Bloc MPs their Government would be a shambles…plus they have different ideological positions on issues that would stain any alliance.
Harper has bent over a barrel to give Quebec what it wants….
You can laugh all you want Glen but if a minority government doesn’t toe the line the strength of such a system, if minor parties are indeed serious about the outcomes they desire, is that they can turn to the opposition to get their way, and fair enough too.
I cannot believe the so called “Red Tories” would forgo government. You sound worried Glen and I would suggest you have something to worry about.
Gary a minority government has to govern….it cannot be held hostage by minor parties…of course all this assumes the Bloc would vote against the Government which is no sure thing…
The NDP dont need the Liberals the Liberals need the NDP….how could they honestly convince the Bloc they’d have a more stable government than Harpers???
Also a Liberal/NDP Minority would have just 114 MPs…whereas the Tories would have 143…so even with them combined they’d have 30 less MPs which is just stupid they would try to form a Government….
One for Glen and GP to chew over.
WorkChoice Lite? That’s a load of emotive nonsense
Ross Gittins
http://business.theage.com.au/business/workchoice-lite-thats-a-load-of-emotive-nonsense-20081128-6n1q.html
Who’s laughing now?
not me
If what you say is true, and you seem to know more about it than me Glen, then why is Harper reluctant to call parliament together and face the no confidence motion? According to you he has the numbers?
I think you are taking the Bloc for granted, not a good move. I hope Harper does that.
The other point I would make Glen is that we’re in unchartered waters financially and any minority government is at risk if the oppostion parties think they are not performing in the best interests of the people they represent. As I said, rightly so.
Yes but the NDP want the Finance Ministry and Environment Ministry so i dunno the Liberals would like that…also the NDP want the Liberals to not proceed with business tax cuts and the Libs supported them in the election…lot of sticking points indeed.
You should not feed pet food to blue-tongues. See http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/buddies/MakeYourBackyardBlue-tongueFriendly.htm for more.
Glen @ 157,
Well the votes aren’t completely counted yet BUT at this point, I can certainly say I’m GLAD that Kennett kept his nose out of this race …. at least I can thank God for that small favor
“You should not feed pet food to blue-tongues.”
This is a political statement.
pet food – e.g. saccharine praise
blue-tongues – e.g. Christopher Pyne after a night on the merlot
(Pet food gives blue-tongues the bloat, which can sometimes, perversely, result in their thoroughly undeserved re-election.)
Glen, when government is on the line many sticking points can be overcome. Harper had better do so or he will find himself on the other side of the chamber.
Also Gary it would look bad if the Libs/NDP stayed in power only because of a political party that wants to destroy Canada…not a good look!
You realise that the flipside is that the Conservatives stay in power only because of a political that wants to “destroy Canada”.
The Conservatives are in a minority in the Commons so they need at least one other party and I don`t think the Liberals and the NDP have been helping them there in the last 20 months or so, so the Conservatives have been propped up by the Block during their current stint in government.
Denis Shanahan has realised the obvious, that Julie Bishop is a political corpse. So over the political silly season it will all be about the Dept Leadership tensions.
Anyone care to wager on Ms Bishop retiring from politics for “personal reasons” ?
Ruawake, I’d like to see them put Peter Dutton there he’d be less effective than Bishop.
Oz, you know that if a political party wants to destroy Canada that that is OK as long as they support a Conservative government. Where is your mind at?
Why is it that the Liberals say they believe in choice when their policies do not reflect that to be the case?
* They admit that people have a right to join a union yet they want to destroy unions.
* They say you can choose between public or private hospitals yet strip funding from public and offer a rebate for private.
* Same again with funding for private and public schools, more for private than public.
* They say they believe in a fair go in the workplace yet introduce workchoices.
The Liberal Party is the party of deceit and is one of the main reasons I switched to Labor.
I can’t remember who said it, but someone earlier noted that the media has begun to smell blood. Turnbull and the powerbrokers in the Libs are getting nervous and if they don’t do something the media will be start gunning for Turnbull.
So what they’ve done, cleverly, is throw them a carcass – Bishop.
Its a shame Dutton will lose his seat at the next election. He could become police commissioner somewhere, very far away.
I note that most here, including William it seems, are placing little importance on the local council elections here in Vic. Wise move. Give me a can of drying paint any day.
Ruawake! why do you think Dutton is gone in Dickson, I would imagine that while it is winnible I would have thought if the ALP couldn’t win it last time they may struggle next time, the same applies to Herbert
mexicanbeemer
0.26% Margin is not too secure. Dutton only just snuck back last election, next one he is toast.
I noticed that PBers were talking about fixed terms earlier, how about fixed 3.5 year terms?
Just who do you think you are coming up with compromises like that?
There will probably be a redistribution in Qld next year so it’s a bit premature to be speculating about particular seats in 2010.
What’s happening in Canada is very interesting. Harper’s Tory government is the only major western government which is refusing to resort to Keynesian policies (spend big and go into deficit) to deal with the GFC. Instead he proposes cutting spending to balance the budget, which is what governments did in pre-Keynesian days. That’s why the 1929 Crash turned into the Great Depression. Very bold stuff for a minority PM. No wonder the other three parties are planning to put him out. The BQ profess not to care who rules in Anglo-Canada, but in fact they prefer the Tories because they think Tory rule makes the BQ more popular in Quebec. But if the Tories are going to drag Canada into a depression with their pre-Keynesian policies, the BQ will have to react, by supporting a Liberal-NDP coalition.
LOL I honestly think that 3 is too short and 4 is too long.
Elections could be held on the last Saturday in March and then, 3.5 years later, the last Saturday in September?
Why is post 189 awaiting moderation?
Adam
The redistribution is irrelevant, the Libs vote in outer metro Brisbane is suffering from demographic change, probably more than any other place in Australia.
I suggest 2% swings to Labor in these type of seats is almost certain in SE Qld (barring some areas of the Gold Coast).
I agree 0.26% makes Dutton look gone but considering the last election was an outstanding result for Rudd and it would be hard to see him improve.
Actually not just in 1929 but also the 1890s bust were made worst by Government cutting spending rather than attempting to use there position to generate growth.
beemer, yes that’s true. That’s what all governments did before Keynes solved the question of how to deal with the cyclical nature of capitalism, thus saving the system from itself. Only truly backward and stupid Tories still reject his recommendations – like Harper and the Australian Liberal Party.
Labor received 50.44% of the TPP vote in Qld, if anyone thinks they will not do better next federal election, well counselling may be available.
COAG added to the funding of Health and Education today which will go a long way towards addressing the underfunding of hospitals during the Howard era.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/newshome/5179469/coag-agrees-151b-new-funding/
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/11/28/rbs.shares.ap/index.html
The good people of Britain now own the Royal Bank of Scotland.
Somewhere, the old Anglo-Socialists are turning in their graves.
The next election is two years away. In the current volatile economic and political circumstances, speculating about what will happen in 2010 is just hot air. Jim Scullin was pretty popular in his first year too.
The old Caledonian Socialists will be pretty happy I would think.
I notice the Lib supporters shut their mouths after they were given http://business.theage.com.au/business/workchoice-lite-thats-a-load-of-emotive-nonsense-20081128-6n1q.html which made them realise unions wont be running rampant.
Anyone who believes the Libs can win the next election advocating major cuts to balance the budget needs their head read. Rudd’s big spending program will go down a treat with voters and the Libs will have to answer one question which will spell their demise (at the next election at least). What programs and jobs will you cut in order to gain a surplus? Game over.
“Anyone who believes the Libs can win the next election advocating major cuts to balance the budget needs their head read. Rudd’s big spending program will go down a treat with voters and the Libs will have to answer one question which will spell their demise (at the next election at least). What programs and jobs will you cut in order to gain a surplus? Game over.”
Indeed. Howard only got in after Labor was in power for 13 years, and their 1996 campaign was the smallest of small target campaigns in history. They promised next to nothing.
But took away almost everything.
They broke our hearts.
Sorry, you said that so dramatically.
Adam, how on earth can you invoke the example of Scullin when the circumstances, including actions taken by the Scullin government, are so different. Once again I say there is no comparison.
What would really rub it into the liberals is if Labor say how much more they would have had to spend if the Liberals had not wasted the boom times. If we go into deficit the Liberals, rightfully, may be to blame.
Centre, I’ve got one in the moderation queue as well and the only bad word I can see in mine is the name of the Victorian leader prior to Bracks
……..
I’ve got one in Moderation too Juliem but I think it was a reaction to Howard’s COAG underfunding of hospitals so the machine got it right I think.
Gary, my point is that a government can be popular after one-third of its term but still lose the next election. Anything could have happened by 2010, and Rudd could either be a national hero or in deepest disgrace. I don’t know, and nor does anyone else. To say in November 2008 that Labor will definitely win a particular seat in October 2010 is just wank. Didn’t anyone learn anything from the wildly over-optimistic predictions made by most people here last year?
Must be the time of the month as WB is getting very sensitive.
“To say in November 2008 that Labor will definitely win a particular seat in October 2010 is just wank.”
Labor will definately win Grayndler.
Found this piece of wisdom browsing another website tonight ….
Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber – Plato
Julie, I can’t find a reason for my 189 post being moderated. Maybe because I started it with LOL.
Testing Testing… Dessicated Coconut, The Rodent, All Tip No Iceberg, Phillip Ruddock…
Have you considered the possibility of its being abolished in a redistribution?
bob, you think you’re so smart – if federal Labor has a collapse similar to that currently been seen with NSW Labor, the Greens could easily win Grayndler.
Fair dinkum, if Labor don’t win the next election the way Turnbull and his mob are going at the moment, I will donate my body to NASA for space travel.
I don’t think you can “donate your body” to NASA for space travel.
Clever.
perhaps as ballast? I joke I joke
Oz I’m sure there is plenty of savings to be made on one way flights.
Zoom me up Scotty!
Adam is right – it’s not likely that the Liberals will win the next election, but only a fool would completely rule out the possibility. A couple of points to bear in mind:
We are living through topsy-turvy times, and they may get more so. Voters who’ve been raised on a diet of “no worries” might punish a Govt (any Govt) which has the misfortune to be in power when there’s a recession. The chances of a recession (in Australia) increase by the day.
Also, Turnbull is both a bright guy and a pretty inexperienced Parliamentarian, don’t forget. Both of which mean that it is possible that his performance as leader will improve significantly over time (if the Party leaves him there long enough).
Labor are long odds-on to win in 2010, but not certainties.
On the topic of Canada, people have mentioned both the Conservatives handling of the economic crisis and the removal of subsidies to political parties but I don’t think this has been mentioned yet:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081128.wcoalition29/BNStory/politics/home
What could be is interesting is if there might be some kind of electoral reform in Canada if the new government gets up. It’s definitely in the best interests of the split progressive vote.
Dyno, absolutely agree with both you and Adam. My criticism had nothing to do with that point. It was to do with using the Scullin comparison but Adam cleared that up for me.
The current Canadian Parliament is unlikely to vote for PR because a majority is held together by fptp`s main beneficiaries the Tories and the Bloc.
I wasn’t suggesting PR, just putting changes on the table. Isn’t the exact make up of the parliament irrelevant since it would have to come to a referendum anyway?
Comment made to silense other nite on Williams first year charts Trends from last 3 PM’s periods was beauty popularaty contest did not impress me , but there underlying 2PP vote was similar to rudd’s making re -electon more likely But did mention Hake 1984 and Howard 1998 then got scares in electons about 12 mnths later again
Neither faced a GFC , and turnbull’s 50% pluss approval is extraordinary high , so put away th chardonny for moment , aloyt of water to fall
Minus , Expect unemployemnt to be heading to 7% and inflation could be also high , Fair Work Bill will add to that , BHP dumped Rio so boom at prior levels may not be there & certainly on in commodity prices , so lower incomes , and budget should be in deficit
Plus ,Advantage reely will be memory of howard and W/C , and non recent history of Feds getting only 1 term Labor on balanse has th advantage….but not these xxhorbitant curent 2PP margins , delusionary high I tink
There is no constitutional impediment to PR in Canada.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/c1867_e.html
Interesting that Julia brings in a once in a century change to IR , and she is Houdini as no one in Media or LCP seems to hav noticed
We’ve had Unions in IR all tis time as “representaives” of workers , and this is retained
But my understanding is Julia’s Fair Work also makes Unions a party to th Bill on there own just employers and Workers This opens a minefield of options plus and minus , and tink this was th trojan horse she used to allow Unions to enter Employors where there is no Union members at all But that rojan horse cou;ld go anywhere and wonder about what amendments and coding will occur , but future hot potatos can see in both fronts Why would punditariat and Media not look at (my undrstanding) of unions new separate place in IR additional to being a representaive of workers , magic
Generic Person
“I’ll ask again: why should unions have a right of entry into workplaces in which there are no union members?”
Well you got alot of PB’s answers Actualy I went out tonite , enjoyed some Fosters , actualy quite a lot , my wife a non drinker drivers home and a Policeman stioops th car and wants to do a breatherlizer on her so I say to th guy why th hell do you stop us because she is obeying th non 0.05 drinking Law
Then some hoons drive past and hoot th horn to rub it in
Now vast numbers of Employers in non Union workplaces actualy pay proper wages , pay th supa levy , holiday & sick pay , giv out weekly pay slips , pay overtime , some often giv unrequired bonus’s , and maintain a safe work place etc They will be unfairly inconvenienced disadvantraged in time etc by Julia’s FWB , and if you ar defending them so would I
But there ar alot of drink driving Employers , so we need a fairness pendulim John Howards pendulum swung too far against workers working for drink driving Employars , and obviousley encouraged some non drink driving employers to be drinkers Challenge for Liberal Party is to argue where th fairnes pendalum should be Labor has staked out there pendulum position which will somewhat affect productivity & inflation in exchange for deemed fairness
Did that drink driving/IR laws analogy actually make sense?
LOL! Young earth creationist / nut case S.A. politician Dennis Hood forced to hand over a lump of cash to a district judge after he defamed her:
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,24726985-5006301,00.html
“Did that drink driving/IR laws analogy actually make sense?”
Only if one thinks
“bob, you think you’re so smart – if federal Labor has a collapse similar to that currently been seen with NSW Labor, the Greens could easily win Grayndler.”
That’s why I didn’t pick Sydney or Melbourne.
If the Greens were to win Grayndler at the next election, they’d win a fair few more than Grayndler. And I can’t forsee that happening, in a time like this people will flock back to the right, not to the left of Labor.
And I don’t think Labor are about to split three ways again. This is not early federal politics.
Ron @ 101 said: “Briefing notes” and th like ar covered by ethical & protocols (and legal) requirements covering Public servants inter- actions with ANY 3rd Partys , with heavy sanctions for P S offenders …..and regarding offending MP’s there’s ‘House’ Priviledge Commitee problams
Boerwar now says: Ron, you are quite right about the laws covering information flows between public servants and parliamentarians. The point I was making was that it is McArdle who appears to be having difficulty with the concept. Steve has previously made the point that McArdle may find himself trying to explain the following to the ‘House’ Privelege Committee.
“As a Member of Parliament, any public servant or other person, has a right to speak to Opposition MPs and provide us with information without the fear of a Beattie-Bligh Government political vendetta. That’s a democratic right and it should not be compromised by the Labor Party’s games.”
Boerwar sums up: Providing Opposition Members of Parliament with ‘information’ is not a democratic right. If McArdle means ’some’ information but not ‘other’ information he should say so. McArdle is demonstrating that he can’t be trusted with Government responsibility.
201
Well said. Howard got up in ‘96 on a promise *not* to make big spending cuts.
There’s still 2 years before the next election for both major parties to change tactics and messages a number of times.
youre right ltep, labor is at least 10 % ahead so they dont need to change tactics, the opposition shows NO SIGNS of changing tactics, Turnbull having squandered a valuable opportunity to change the (failed) Nelson strategy.
Next
Kerri-Anne Whatsername from the Sun-Herald must be on Insiders this morning as she’s written a high-dudgeon piece on the abuse of question time.
Oh the misery! Oh the perfidy!
Rudd uses Dorothy Dixers to get his message across. He ignores stupid Opposition gotcha questions and says what he wants to say instead. Not a mention of the Opposition’s constant disruptive points of order. It’s all down to Rudd, for refusing to be relevant. I suppose the idea is that no matter how stupid the question, how banal the concept, Rudd must answer interrogatories from the likes of Joe Hockey, Tony Abbott and Rainmaker in exactly the terms they couch them in, traps, snide inferences, facile schoolyard points and all… or else he will incur the wrath of the Whatsername. Another “The Libs hearts are pure as the driven snow. It’s all Rudd’s fault” diatribe.
Why answer a Dorothy Dixer from your own side on what the government has done, in concrete terms, to combat the global financial crisis, or keep employment levels going when what Rudd really should be doing is responding, point by excruciating point, to a smart-arsed, spin doctor-crafted piece of drivel regarding whether deficits are bad things and aren’t the government hell-bent on destroying the economy and total hypocrites? What’s the answer to that one? “The government is not hell-bent on destroying the economy, and we believe deficits can be useful when the rest of the world is using them to combat the GFC. Oh, and we don’t thinjk we’re hypocrites either”?
Whatsername’s basic premiss is that the Opposition should determine the nature of Question Time. Whatever they ask, however nincompoopic, should be responded to, in detail by the Minister, thus neatly delivering them their evening news sound-bite. It’s just another version of the “Labor is illegitimate” line. They have no say in the workings of the Parliament. It is their job to fall for the QT traps the Opposition lays and thus lose dutifully the next election, when rightful posteriors will once again inhabit the Treasury benches.
Perhaps if the quality of the questions from the Liberals and Nats improved then government mightn’t have to pad out QT with so many long-winded answers to Dorothy Dixers. But that doesn’t seem to have occurred to Kerri-Anne.
Call me a political savant: there she is, Kerri-Anne Whatsername up on Insiders, at the moment acting the instant-expert on Mumbai. They’re getting pretty easy to read. What’s the bet she brings up the “disgrace” of QT in panel discussion and that Pies agrees with her?
Predictable.
Raw Prawn
I don’t think Howard got in on any promise he made, more that he wasn’t Keating, same as Hawke wasn’t Fraser. The drovers dog would have won the 83 election and Hycaniths poodle would conversely have won the 96 election.
Andrew Robb is funny. He’s on Insiders saying that the govt should be changing access rules to superannuation so that it can be used for infrastructure projects, rather than using public money (which apparently just needs to be piled away in a corner for a rainy day – i.e. for the Liberals to use as pork in election years).
Oh yes Mr Robb, *please* take money out of my superannuation fund and put it into toll roads like the Cross City Tunnel in Sydney – that sounds like a stellar idea!
Centre,
My post is up now …..
So why did the Howard Government come up with $10 billion to ‘fix the Murray’ then?
Surely they could have encouraged a superannuation fund somewhere to do it?
I had to turn off Insiders…it was just boring. Andrew Robb rabbitting on about deficits and how evil they are and continually saying Rudd was going into deficit when it wasn’t necessary and young Barrie not pointing out that Rudd had NOT committed to a deficit but said it was an option if necessary.
Then the panel started banging on about the same thing.
Tedious.
Aren’t the MSM a real piece of work! Howard promised to reform QT and for 11 years, with their mob in government, not a word of complaint about QT from the MSM. Now that Rudd is PM they want changes.
Well I would like to see two changes:
1. No points of order. The opposition should sit there, lips shut, with their hands behind their back, copping the belting the born to rule mentality deserve.
2. Answers should be restricted to a reasonable time limit.
The Liberals were good at dishing it out, but they can’t take it can they?
Dutton backs Bishop and says Swan will go. Methinks he protesteth too much. It’s interesting that he mentions Christmas, as that is the obvious time to remove Bishop by.
Julie Bishop going a great job: Dutton
http://news.theage.com.au/national/julie-bishop-going-a-great-job-dutton-20081130-6nj5.html
whilst bishop is a dud and will probably go, Turnbull has also failed, and the opposition must realise its not necessarily a PERSONEL issue but a POLICY and STRATEGY issue. It appears that they simply believe that because of the economic slow down that Labor will be voted out next election, so they dont need to do or change much. Rudd’s popularity has INCREASED since the slow down
Kerry-Anne Walsh’s article reads a lot like a review of QT by someone who has never paid attention to politics in their life, turns on the ABC around lunchtime and is very upset that the Government won’t respond to questions like “How goes the war on everything?”.
The thing with QT is that it takes two too tango. If the Opposition wanted to “hold the Government to account” or “Seek information” they could easily do that, and in fact have.
However they’re far more concerned about scoring political points and making the news that afternoon then any real fact finding. So obviously the Government doesn’t want that to happen so they swing back.
For an example of how it’s really not that difficult to “get information”, look at some of the questions The Greens raise in the Senate. Yes, if there’s something particularly sensitive the Government waffles around it, but most of the time it’s a simple of question of “Why are you doing A and not B?” and the reply is “We chose option A because the advice we received from a number of bodies, I will forward that too you when I get back to my office”. Easy.
Yeah, but that was a “non-core promise” and doesn’t count.
It’s only Labor that have to be held to account. The “man of steal” can do no wrong, don’t you know.
Why is Kerrie Anne Walsh even worth a post here?? What has she ever done or reported of significance?? Seems really informed to me and just goes with the liberal talking points of the day
sorry UNinformed, of course
inner westie 173 – v funny
)
Why did that South Australian Family First MLC not just say it in the Legislative Council under parliamentary privilege and not say it in a press conference?
Good point!
A gossip columnist that gossips about the “goings on” of Canberra and Sydney should not be worth talking about.
Tom
Because he’s an idiot.
Well obviously he is.
Tom
I should add that this is on the background of a continuing attack on the DPP, judiciary and lawyers in SA which has been led by Rann and Atkinson for populist reasons. We are TOUGH ON CRIME in SA! We don’t like all these do-gooders who talk about rehabilitation. We have a “Rack ‘em and stack ‘em” policy to our jails.
The relationship between the Government and legal fraternity is so poisonous that Atkinson decided to give all the legal work for setting up the Marj Hospital (a $2B project) to Victorian firms without asking SA firms to tender.
Watch out at those Christmas sales. In the US, a Wal-Mart employee was trampled to death at a sale. But even that didn’t stop the shoppers. Hopefully it’s an “Only in America” story.
Wal-Mart Employee Trampled to Death
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/29/business/29walmart.html?em
Perhaps this provides an answer to GP about why unions should be allowed to visit workplaces where they have no members.
Oh Dear after months of the Federal Opposition trying to talk Australia into a recession, now they tell us it is the Government that is doing exactly that.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/5180534/pm-talking-economy-recession-oppn/
Ahhhhh there you go! The government is irresponsibly talking us into a recession whereas the Liberals are doing it responsibly.
The only people who are hanging out for a recession is the Liberal Party. There is certainly cheap points in it for them and they can blame Rudd for talking us into recession to boot. All this of course when the Liberals keep reminding us we are heading for a recession.
Well I have got news for the Liberal Party, we are going to slow but where most of the world will be in recession, Australia is going to avoid a recession. All under the leadership of the Rudd/ Gillard/ Swan government. So the liberals should just sit there in silence in QT and take it all like adults. And if they feel like they are going to explode, good, all the better.
Has Robb already taken over as shadow Treasury spokesman? Don’t they trust Bishop to attack the Government?
The opposition is truly a basket case. They dont know if they are coming or going.
If we avoid both a deficit and a recession, they should start planning for at least a few more terms of opposition. And even if we dont avoid both, they should still plan nevertheless!
It seems that in the US the war on consumer confidence has delivered its first casualty.
But seriously, breaking down doors, wild stampeding, wailing and jostling: these people are more desperate than a herd of futures traders!
WB, as more and more people access the web via the mobile phone, either via the wireless or the G3, you should talk to your Crikey people about a mobile version of PB.
Technically it should not be too difficult as SMH, Age, Oz, BBC, Youtube etc etc all have a mobile friendly version of their website. Businesswise, you also dont want to miss out on an emerging audience.
Cheers.
That maybe so ltep but do you see the Libs ever supporting a deficit? I don’t. As I said anyone who believes the Libs can win the next election advocating major cuts to balance the budget needs their head read.
They won’t advocate major cuts to balance the budget. They’ll use the small target strategy of not advocating cuts before, cutting after.
But can a small target strategy work after only 3 years of opposition?
Or if the economic situation is that dire, people may very well support some cuts?
No, but they don’t have too. It’ll be the governments argument that the only way they can keep a precious surplus for surplus sake is by major cuts. And they’re going to have to respond.
Thanks to Howard, we’re too addicted to stuff we don’t need.
Major/minor cuts, it will mean the same thing to the government. money taken away from om going programs, programs for stimulating the economy and promoting employment in tough times. Do you worry about a budget deficit or your job? Do you worry about a budget deficit or hospitals and education? A scare campaign for the taking.
Just thinking, Insiders is probably a positive for Labor. It’s a place for the Libs and their cheer squads to gather and bitch and mislead and stamp their feet and abuse Ruddy every Sunday morning. Sort of therapy for them after another week of bad polling.
The good thing for Labor is that they ain’t got much of an audience (perhaps a dozen or so pollbludgers) and while they (Libs) congregate at their own private club (ABC) they aren’t out in the real world causing mischief.
The $Billion 6 who runs the Liberal National Party franchise in Queensland.
[QUEENSLAND iron-ore magnate Clive Palmer has laid claim to the title of Australia's richest man as the global financial crisis continues to reshape fortunes.
He has lost about $500 million on paper since July, but told The Sunday Mail yesterday he still had assets of about $6 billion.
That puts his wealth ahead of some of the biggest names in Australian business, whose fortunes have been eroded by the collapse on the stockmarket.
Mr Palmer headed The Sunday Mail's Queensland Top 100 Rich List revealed in August, and several others in the exclusive club have also managed to weather the storm, including internet entrepreneur Graeme Wood, gas developer Bob Bryan, coal magnate Ken Talbot and retail king John Van Lieshout].
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24726123-3102,00.html
Lucky for the Libnats they have someone to replace Eddy Groves as their paymaster.
I missed this story from a couple of days ago but it appears that the economic stimulus is starting to hit its straps with a jump in new home sales of 24.9 % for Queensland in October.
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24721888-3102,00.html
Meanwhile Tim Colebatch looks into the rearview mirror and sees doom and gloom peppered with bad news.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/recession-we-are-going-to-have-20081128-6my1.html?page=1
If we don’t go into recession, the Libs will ignore that and still find some way to label the Government as ‘irresponsible economic managers’. Unemployment will most certainly rise whether we hit recession or not, so that will be the likely focal point.
Fair enough, they need something to try and get themselves back into government.
And developing policy is too hard.
Dario, the ABS releases the September quarter figures on Wednesday.
http://petermartin.blogspot.com/2008/11/colebatch-dont-believe-anyone-who-wont.html
http://www.sfe.com.au/content/sfe/products/trt/targetratetracker.htm
Yes, as interest rates plunge, I just hear Turnbull now, “Unemployment will always be lower under a coalition government”. Good luck with that one
You can put 10 economists in a room and get 10 different answers. I don’t believe Colebatch or Martin any more than I believe the IMF.
It would be pretty easy to counter that by saying that pay and conditions will be lower under a Coalition government.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081129.wtories_message1129/BNStory/Front
Canadian government backs down on political subsidies.
The Canadian opposition parties have Harper at their mercy.
I think they’re beginning to realise what “minority government” actually means.
Good on them.
If you’re going to have a conservative government that’s the way to do it. Keep the buggers in check.
Very exciting developments in Canada.
Clearly what will happen is as follows:
1. If we go into recession it will be Rudd’s fault.
2. If we grow slightly, keep our heads above water, say 1%, Rainmaker will say that under a Coalition government we would have done better, say 1.3%.
Same old, same old: under the Libs you will always be better off. Completely unquantifiable, un-provable and totally without basis, but there you go…
Write this one down. It will happen.
This whole narrative is completely bogus and won’t run at all for the Libs. Everyone knows that this crisis had its origins in the failed policies of the Liberal Party’s ideological soul-mate, George W Bush. Everyone knows that Rudd is taking the correct and necessary steps, on the advice of the Treasury and the RBA, and with the support of virtually all economists. The same policies are being followed everywhere except Canada. Turnbull actually supported both of Rudd’s major measures (spending the surplus and the bank guarantee), no matter how much he is now trying to wriggle out of that support. The more Turnbull bloviates the bigger the hole he is digging himself into.
KerryAnne Walsh is right but her sudden awakening appears to be partisan. KerryAnne has been around and her outrage is confected.
But she is right.
Question Time is supposed to be a significant element in accountable, democratic government. That is exactly what it is not. Regardless of who is in power, it is closer to the theatre of sound and fury, signifying nothing of substance, but everything about public positioning. It is about perceptions of who is a ‘winner’; who is cock o’the walk. Costello is a prime example of why question time matters – his reputation is almost solely based on his roostering at question time. He is not stupid. By avoiding shadow ministerial duties he has avoided the humiliations of being roostered. His parliamentary performance reputation remains more or less intact. The concomitant problem is that it reinforces perceptions of cowardice.
Parliamentarians and party hacks out of power whinge incessantly about question time; quite rightly so. They are trying to have it put about that the Government of the day is ‘cheating’ in a contest. Parliamentarians and party hacks in power crow but not because they believe they are contributing to accountability in government. They crow because all they can see is that they are yesterday’s feather dusters, today’s roosters, and tomorrow’s feather dusters.
To journalists perhaps. Everyone else knows he is just bluster, reflected in his polling numbers (or lack of them). A tiny fraction of voters watch QT, let alone the news!!!
What is totally astonishing is that Walsh has repeatedly said that Costello is a great parliamentary performer. This when in government and with scripted lines to humiliate the opposition. Now with Cossie on the opposition backbenches, she wants QT to be changed – obviously to suit the oppositions needs.
Do you think that if someone sat down with Walsh and calmly explained to her that she comes across as a blatant one-sided hypocrite, she would understand?
Ooh! I know this one!!!
NO
The way Walsh put herself up as an “expert” on the Indian terrorist matter was illustrative. A couple of days ago I’m sure she couldn’t have cared less for what happened in Mumbai, but today on Insiders she was offering (what I’m sure she reckons is) “sage” commentary. Now, we all have our ideas on terrorism in India, which we are entitled to possess, as Walsh is. It’s just that she gets to write hers up as if she’s been a student of Indian Affairs for thirty years, while the rest of us confine ourselve to pub talk.
It was the same thing with the Indigenous Intervention: fat-arsed, city-bound hacks, more used to pigging out on red wine and Italian food in Leichhardt or Brunswick, who most likely have never mat a tribal kouri in their lives, suddenly became experts in indigenous affairs, and felt themselve able to offer profound endorsement of the Howard government’s policy on same. Total crap of course, complete balderdash, but there you go: when news is opinion everyone has to have one, and to appear to have held that opinion all their adult lives.
I have to say I have been a bit dissappointed in a few journalists coverage of the Mumbai attack, though to be fair it was a confusing situation. The SMH had a photo of a terrorist on Saturday captioned as a “Deccan Mujahadeen”. There is no confirmation such a group even exists. Many commentators I read suggest it is just a front for Lashkar-e-Toiba. At best they should have said “claimed to be” or “unconfirmed”.
The West Australian had a front page story on Saturday about the State Goverment adopting a policy of on the spot infringement notices for minor social offences, but including stealing and common assault among them. Nothing outrageous in the idea, the concept and reasoning behind it is clearly understandable,although treating any assault so apparently lightly would cause one at first blush to think.
The West played this one with a straight bat, reporting the story fairly and straight forwardly, and making its own views clear in a separate, mild, opinion piece. Everything as it should be.
What stood out starkly was the difference with which this bunch of putrid hacks would have treated the same story if it had arisen while Labor was in power.
We would have been treated to a tirade of anti Labor vitriol, a never ending parade of photographs of old ladies sporting black eyes as a result of assault, a call to arms to demonstrate outside Parliament House, innumerable interviews with faux indignant Liberal politicians and assorted right wing shock jocks, strident, shrieking demands for the return of the lash, and column feet, not inches devoted to explaining how Labor is soft on crime.
Stinking self serving hypocrites.
Those conservatives arguing that NSW should not receive funding for hospitals etc from the Feds because they are a basket case are actually advocating penalising the average person in the NSW street for the sins of their government. Do they realise that that is the logical extention of their argument?
Various topic blogs & coment on some Boewar appreciate you quoting extract from my #101 re P S reltions with MPs & agreeing with those fundamentals Second quote of your blog (unattributed) of course belongs to McArdle
Nothing wrong with what he said either , democracy feeds on info flows providing it doesn’t cross governance reqiuirements when dealing with 3rd Partys Thats why I mentioned AWB scandal info Your mistake is to atribute to McArdle something he didn’t say , and nor will he say which is why his quote actualy was fine IF House Privelegges Committee finds he got briefing type notes he has big problams and so he should , but so far no evidense and doubt there is any
This is just argy bargy State politcs , with somke info indicating a new airns hospital will be cheaper long term and quicker to build Govt’s probalm is th site Facts & benefits of actual issue (a hospital) as often occurs is clouded by both Partys politcs and MSN reporting McArdle’s comments (but not fully defined) and th reaction to them (making worst adverse assumptions) ar part of th politcal ‘game’…. a ‘game’ th public get very anoyed at with reason
HoS Queston Time ?
How many ‘left’ bloggers here religously watched HoR Q & A Time during John howards period ? How many “Bolt-ites right bloggers religously watched HoR Q & A Time during PM PK’s reign of word terror ?
Rusted ons just luv Q & A ….its like a one horse race , your horse always wins Perhaps there’s some erotica in spanking oppositions who reely do not hav any recourse Exxceptions of course ar ‘gaffes’ or an incompatent Minister but those exseptions do not justify th present farce of “democratic” Q & A in fact most aussies see clips of it , and cringe (rightly)
Recall PJ called it a vaudeville time for song and dance routine , and I’d add , where only th intelligent 1/2 of th audience see th humour
IF one wants not erotica but accountability from Q & A it needs reform Perhaps throw out dorothy Dixers Perhaps throw out all Govt Questions (and hav ministes make “announsements” outside of Q & A) Perhaps limit answers to say a minute , allow one/two supplementary Questons (each limited to say a minute) Change Standing Orders to limit/prevent references to oppositions policys allegedy said for comparison purposes but reely a debating gold mine to smash a defenceless opposition WITHOUT often answering/justifying Govt position on an issue (leave th comparative snips to actual ‘debates’) where there snuck in anyway Perhaps require a Q & A over a week to need to include say 1/2 of Cabinet , rather than all Q’s to PM and th select few Perhaps revolutionaries do some sort of quid quo with Media so Q & A is published daily , most people worjk when Q & A is on and replays at nite conflict with sport or soapies (or sleep “etc”) , or perhaps on ABS at civalised hour Perhaps revolutionaries make speeker a non Party 3rd person appointment for a term , rather than an elected MP
But don’t expect a bookie to lay bets on a one horse race , because when Libs do return to power you’ll be back to th sport or soapies (or sleep “etc”) ….some of which should never hav been forgone anyway
For your photographic pleasure, here is Albull’s Flickr Page.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/malcolmturnbull/
Don’t say you weren’t warned
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24730483-7583,00.html
Seems Milne’s the only one left defending Julie.
In the Sunday Crimes, even Peter Van Onsolen was giving Julie a good old bollocking.
Shame it’s only in the dead tree version.
“In the Sunday Crimes, even Peter Van Onsolen was giving Julie a good old bollocking.”
Abit cavalier with that last word there
Fulvio, I noticed that – and not a peep from the Sunday Crimes, nor the evening TV news ether.
I’m wondering how 6PR will cover it on Monday – pity Ratings Season has endend and Beaumont & Sattler are in Holiday mode.
Good to see the Rudd Government’s latest Indigenous Affairs initiatives, and bravo Minister Macklin. If former Prime Minister Howard hadn’t been so intent on winning the culture wars, these are some of the initiatives he could have done so easily. It just wasn’t Howard’s way, so another half a generation of time was wasted. I must admit that my perceptions of Macklin, fairly low to start with, just keep on improving.
The initiatives include turning 2000 CDEP ‘jobs’ into 2000 real jobs, extra funding for health and a big boost for Indigenous housing:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24731194-5013404,00.html
Socrates, this has everything you want to know about Mumbai attack but were afraid to ask
http://www.outlookindia.com/
this has been a massive failure of intelligence and political will on the Indian side.
The Poison Dwarf dishes out the the bitchiness this morning in an (even for him) unusually nasty piece that basically says, “Labor made some mistakes, so we can’t can’t criticise Bishop.”
TPD segues smoothly from Gillard – as in “Gillard introduced the computers for schools package without reckoning on the installation expenses” – to Rudd – as in “Rudd got the funding wrong when in Opposition, so what kind of recrod is that for a government?” – forgetting they were in Opposition at the time.
Finally he calls anyone who criticises Bishop “stupid” for doing so, because everything bad that’s ever happened has been Rudd’s fault.
Or something…
As Phillip Coorey suggested this morning they have finally made the switch from “denial” to “anger”.
Meanwhile a lazy Malcolm Farr discovers “Aspirationals”, who like big cars and big houses but are modest about their success. Their votes are crucial in any election, intones Farr.
With geniuses like this working for our big newspapers, why do we worry so much about the state of the media?
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24730106-5001031,00.html
Hmm, looks like Christmas stockings will be full of fear and loathing over in Liberal Parliamentary Party Land. Are the wheels starting to fall off? Is the prospect of at least another five years in the wildnerness finally starting to sink in? Is fear itself the one thing they should really be frightened of?
Looks like Hockey and/or Robb, and/or maybe some others, did the big whinge job to Mitchell, or to some other OO paid person, on how Julie Bishop was useless because she hadn’t hurt the Government on the economy. The OO duly obliged with a hatchet job. What were the knifemeisters thinking? Put some pressure on Julie? Put some pressure on Turnbull? Very, very poor judgement.
But hang on, Glen Milne thinks it is all a cruel misunderstanding because Julia and Julie have ‘equal status’ and people are incorrectly saying nice things about Julia and incorrectly saying nasty things about Julie. So the Labour Party should stop saying nice things about Julia and the Liberal Party should stop saying nasty things about Julie? Yep, that should work.
OK, so Julie knows that she is for the highjump. Under extreme pressure, she has jumped the first hurdle to becoming a Pollbludger. Her counter-attack is that it is all the OO’s fault! But how can EVERYTHING on BOTH SIDES be the OO’s fault? It is just not logical. Julie Bishop also thinks that Peter van Onselen has ‘an unhealthy obsession with her.’ Cor, I’m looking forward to some-one fleshing out the details.
Joe Hocky is mute, for a change. I’m sure that there is something in Shakespeare about that approach, but I’ve forgotten what it is. Turnbull says that he is full of confidence in Julie Bishop. Oh, oh, those are ‘Beware the Ides of December’ grindstone words. Dutton’s ‘Who me?’ is that he thinks Swan’s the one who will be a goner by Christmas. Nice try by Dutton, but it comes a bit hot on the heels of Christian Kerr’s piece on Dutton and the Young Turks. Timing looks a bit skew-whiff for Dutton to be doing a Pontius Pilate. But then again, the Young Turks and the Fuds Faction are probably not talking to each other much, so the Young Turks piece in the OO coming out a few days before the Bishop Hatchet Job piece in the OO might really have just have been a nasty coincidence. Dutton really may be innocent on the second one. Anyway, I wish they would all get themselves organised. Trying to figure out how the Credible Alternative Government makes decisions is like trying to sort out the Da Vinci Code.
Julie Bishop should be completely glad about one thing: The Nat Fuds have nodded off and will not be bothering anyone for a while.
That sort of leaves Robb as a possible suspect knifemeister. Nice chap, so it might not have been him. But he may have had some feelings about the matter and got a bit flustered when questioned about it by Grattan.
‘Andrew Robb, when asked whether he would like the Shadow Treasurer’s job said, “I’ve got a job which I’ve got my hands full on and I will stick with that.” ‘
http://www.theage.com.au/national/defiant-bishop-hits-out-at-critics-20081130-6nsl.html
Fin 306
Thanks that is an excellent link. Confirms what I have read from other sources with more detail.
Phillip Coorey has managed to find some unhappy Liberal righties that are tired of Big Mal’s poor performance and the direction the party is heading in:
“One backbencher rang in last week to demand why the press was not making more of the polls, the observation being that the Coalition was faring no better in the public opinion polls that it was under Brendan Nelson.
…
A few are disgruntled with Turnbull’s style. One MP said he tends to cut people off in the party room and lecture them, more like a chief executive than a political leader. Howard at least let people speak before either ignoring them or biting their head off, he said.
The main criticism concerns the policy direction in which the Coalition is travelling. The right, which for so long has had its way inside the Liberal Party, is struggling to cope. The MP who complained about the lack of movement in the polls believes the rush to embrace Labor policy and moderate causes is costing the Liberal Party its core constituency. “We’re not going to take voters from Labor by pretending to be Labor,” he said.”
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/libs-look-back-in-anger-in-a-new-moderate-era/2008/11/30/1227979840033.html
Milne sounds like he’s in love. And Marilyn Monroe was highly intelligent, certainly much smarter than the ditzy and shallow Bishop.
And Hillary is SOS, with Jim Jones as NSA (the 4 star general not the reincarnation of the Jim Jones People’s Temple, but I’m sure there will be a lot of Kool-Aid jokes). Gates is staying on.
I propose that Obama send Hillary to Mumbai and Pakistan to sort out the mess forthwith. I hear the Tal Mahal is a nice place to stay.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/30/obamas-foreign-policy-tea_n_147200.html
China is in trouble as India blooms in Mumbai. cricket anyone?
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90776/90884/6543180.html
Diog, Hillary will be in beijing. she knows which side of the bread is buttered.
Queensland Galaxy poll out in Curious Snail.
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24730633-3102,00.html
Some good news on the internet safety front it would appear
http://news.smh.com.au/national/net-safety-campaign-getting-through-20081201-6o3y.html
[Telling internet-savvy teenagers that someone claiming to be a kid may be a 40 year-old “creep” appears to be the key to teaching online safety.
The Smart Online Safe Offline website – a federally-funded project – has had more than two million hits since its launch in October.
Links to the website, which targets online threats such as predation, grooming, cyber bullying and identity theft, pops up on social networking sites such as MySpace.
The message about the internet is getting through, the National Association for Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect says.
“It is unique, it empowers kids by talking to them in their world and their language,” CEO Maree Faulkner said.
The campaign showcased the potential of the power of digital marketing to drive highly positive change.
The campaign can be viewed at http://www.soso.org.au.
Despite the partisan rancour, at least one financial institution is seeing its first home owner saving accounts being picked up big time, despite them not even advertising it yet…
http://www.news.com.au/business/money/story/0,28323,24732132-5017313,00.html
We were talking about Internet censorship/ filtering before and the possible banning of Pro-Anorexic sites was mentioned as something to consider. I don’t agree with it myself but the debate is very topical and needs to be addressed. Newsweek has a good article on the sites. Well worth reading, esp for HSO.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/170528/output/print
“Mums and Dads” eh – twice, even!
Is there anything more suspicious than the invocation of the Ms&Ds to embrace something?
Not surprisingly it’s always in the context of the Ms&Ds to invest (for there own/family’s betterment, of course).
Nothing but pure altruism here.
Inflation headed down quickly:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,24732323-643,00.html
The Liberals are going to need a new line of attack for Question Time.
…their…
Courier Mail on-line Poll. Typical, why do they bother?
I think Glenn Milne’s piece must have gone to Bishop’s head. Maybe being described as a “blonde” who tends to frighten men who cross her path has caused a little girlish excitement in the dressmaker’s dummy that is our (actually their) Julie.
Now she’s accusing Peter van Onselen of being “obsessed” with her. As are no doub all men who a frightened by her and who write she’s a “blonde” and that that description will do to temper criticism.
Pies said on Insiders yesterday that he thought attacking Julie was ungentlemanly, picking on a woman and all that, don’t y’know? Now today Glen is setting her up as an Amazon, “who challenges men by her very presence.” Sheesh, I wish they’d make their minds up. Is Julie a shrinking violet too “naice” to hit back against all those nasty blokes who make fun of her? Or is she the Queen Bitch who intimidates and frightens those same blokes (and the horses too, I’d warrant, with those eyes doing their thing)?
The World wonders…
She claims no-one has said anything to her about her performance. They she would say that, wouldn’t she?
Yeah, I thought that’s how they operate. Now confirmed.
[Michael of Darra, I’ll see your 50:1 re the election date, and raise it to 100:1 that if LNP {{ just keep their mouth shut, let the media do the slog,}} the Beattie/Bligh era will come to a close, as Qlders realize that the vote is to vote ‘em out, not in.}
And this is a clever play on words.
[”Ellen Pea” should start inspiring us} LNP!
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/comments/0,23836,24730633-3102,00.html
More good news
http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,27753,24732518-31037,00.html
Queensland poll thread up.
“Pies said on Insiders yesterday that he thought attacking Julie was ungentlemanly, picking on a woman and all that, don’t y’know?”
Hmmmm… Does anyone remember what Pies said when Heffernan and the Neanderals were attacking Julia Gillard with politically objective terms like “barren”? Hypocrite or idiot? I can’t decide on Milne.
Ironbar defends Julie.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/01/2434206.htm
A story on a dramatic drop in the inflation rate last quarter:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/01/2434269.htm
This can’t be right. The coalition is still worried about government spending and the deficit, which they say will feed inflation. Yet this story says that inflation is no longer a threat, just as Stevens, Henry, Rudd and Swan have claimed. Surely those four idiots can’t be right and the great genius, Our Malcom is… wrong?? No!!!
Those questions about inflation in parliament last week were just stupid. They proved that the Liberals have no coherent argument at this stage of the political cycle.
It is obvious that inflation will decline if economic growth slows, ESPECIALLY considering the fact petrol prices alone dropped by 20% in November!
Whoever is working out the Liberal’s Talking Points at the moment is even worse than Nelson’s Talking Point expert. They are incoherent and can’t hit a barnyard door. All they seem to come across as is DESPERATE.
Would it really kill them to come up with a policy?
I don’t think they need much policy at this stage, but they need to START MAKING SENSE.
Mumbai terorists plan was to kill 5,000 They had weapons and ammo to kill 5,000
Bush was originaly right about 9/11 …th threat of terrorism to all A new type of war , with terorist ultimately with chemical or nuke capacity Mumbai is another 9/11 , as was London , Madrid & Bali currently more die in World from other means than terorism , but thats only until terorists get reel weapons
Thats for th peaceniks here why we Australia is in Afghanistan , where so many training camps ar Terrible that Indian got reliable CIA intell and didn’t act , got more of there own intell and still did not act Appeasement in histary has never succeeded , just made th maniacs stronger to ultimately inflict more deaths
Nothing wrong with concurently addressing some of th causes either but in th Palestinians its blatantly obvious Nothing wrong either in sensably ’supporting’ XCountries struggles with internal terrorist groups & perhaps Howard deserves a tick with Indonesia ‘dealings’ th World’s biggest muslim countries (whereas th US a big cross in dealing with Pakistan)
So suppose Mumbai becomes yesterdays news , India does not act or learn and hopes th next terorist attack is in someones else’s backyard , th neocons foolishly call it a ‘war’ , th peaceniks preach love to all , th terrorists daily seek more powerful weapons , th underlying misery problams creating fertile ground ar not solved , our troops rightly risk there lives in Afghaniston , and glen Milnm can only worry about womans rights…. but only if they ar from th ‘right’ politcal Party
Haha
Whine asked Julia a dumb question – situation normal. While Julia was wiping the floor with him she also took a swipe at mesmerelda – something like getting one of the fibs to explain the concept of ratios.
mesmerelda got up no good and was caught on camera with a hate filled twisted face, arm outreached across the table, clawed hand throwing across towards Julia.
poor old mesmerelda, the penny then dropped about how it was going to look on the news tonight.
priceless !
Penny Wong continues to sell SA up the river. She is making sure Victoria gets a $750M pipeline to Melbourne to suck the Murray dry of 75B litres of water. At least we’ve got Mr X to stick up for SA.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,24730632-2682,00.html
Dio, by all accounts that pipeline will actually save water by bypassing existing systems that leak like a sieve
Ron
I agree with you that the terrorists need to be confronted. I’m not suggesting appeasement. But the point is to disentangle it from national level politics. The Pakistan terror groups have recently tried to target the Pakistan PM in a hotel in Karachi! So yes by all means lets see action, but no more invasions. The operation of these groups occurs despite or because of an inept/corrupt Pakistani government and defence force, which the US propped up for far too long.
Of course the Indian response was inept. I understand Patil, the Indian Home Minister has already resigned/been sacked. There is a good discussion of Indian views here:
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/16195
Dario
I have to agree with Dio on the pipeline. Yes it will save water but it also reallocates it. That does make the Murray Darling system worse off. They could have plugged the leaks without the new pipe, whose only purpose is to divert water.
Ronster
This looks pretty bad. Bush is sending Condi to India/Pakistan/Kashmir after the attacks. Condi has spoken to Bami about what to say and how to speak in sentences, which is all to the good. Obama wants to send a special envoy of his own, his top man, and it’s probably going to be Clinton. It’s great that he is going to use his SOS “pre-emptively”. Of course, it’s BILL Clinton he’s going to send NOT HILLARY Clinton. All bets are off!! Bill Clinton is the REAL SOS, NOT Hillary.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/30/bush-sending-condoleezza_n_147264.html
Dario
So they’re going to block the existing pipeline because it’s losing too much water are they…
Mesmerelda has lost the plot.
http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/peter-van-onselen-like-a-political-stalker-says-bishop-20081201-6odb.html
Further on the Victorian pipeline, it has been commented on by Dr Mike Young at Uni Adelaide, who has analysed the entire water balance in the Murray Darling System. See http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/sa/content/2006/s2255966.htm
“But some of the project’s funding will also be spent on a pipeline to Melbourne which will be used to pump the city 75 billion litres of water.”
“Professor Mike Young from the University of Adelaide says subsidising some parts of the system and not others will create an imbalance.
MIKE YOUNG, UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE: And when people in Victoria get infrastructure subsidised then people in South Australia will lose out and everybody has to understand that when one person gets something for free, it comes at a cost to everybody else and that might not be to the benefit actually of the nation as a whole.”
and he makes this further point:
“MIKE YOUNG: A lot of the savings are what are called leakage and seepage. Leakage and seepage water goes through into the ground water and then flows back into the river. If we do modernise, then the obvious thing we need to do is put all those leakage and seepage savings back into the river.
One hundred per cent of them. If you don’t do that then you’re actually cheating on the future and cheating on the future of the river.”
So the Victorian pipeline does divert water from the Murray Darling basin, and none of the “savings” are being returned to the river. Tim Flannery has also criticised the plan.
“
I think Julie Bishop is really feeling the heat. After asking Wayne Swan a question, some comment came from the other side and rather than ignore it and sit down she lingered there, looking for who’d said it. And earlier there was that strange clawing gesture at Julia Gillard. She looks angry.
Amigo Ronnie,
the trouble with the Indian political system is the politicians are more interested in money and power, in that order, before anything else, including their own grandmother.
If Obi threw his grandma under the bus, the Indian politicians would drive the bus.
That analogy is a bit in poor taste considering the recent death of Obama’s Grandmother, but we do get the drift.
I still think tip is waiting to be drafted into the leadership.
If polls continue to trend the wrong way for allbull come mid march 2009 he will under emmense pressure.
And all the time the knives are out all around. Brenda is waiting to dish out payback as will allbull when he is dumped.
little johnnie has left a great legacy
Van Onselen has been shamed by Bishop’s fraudulent contribution to the (orgasmically-stimulating) collection of essays he edited, Liberals and Power: The Road Ahead. Also by Nelson’s “ghosted” contribution (largely written by Tom Switzer), and by the fact that, while his mug appears on the front cover, Turnbull, the current driver of whatever clapped-out jalopy the Liberal party is using to propel its way down The Road Ahead, declined to contribute at all.
The good professor has his reputation to protect.
OT ………. ,
Does anyone know the brand name and model number of a good mobile phone for someone who doesn’t have fluid movement and motion in the hands and fingers? I’m interested in getting a phone for a rellie for Xmas. PB is my largest potential network of information
. Ideally, I’m looking for something with a (relative to a normal phone) larger keypad and/or distinct individual keys so it won’t be hard to press/use them. Eyesight is not a problem, just free movement and motion in the hands/fingers. Cheers and thanks in advance 
URL if possible would be good so I can check it out and also it needs to NOT be tied to a specific network if possible. We’re trying to keep the family all on one network LOL …….
Juliem,
A quick google search came up with this mob.
http://www.etoengineering.com/index.htm
Bless you Frank, I’ve clicked on that link and navigated through a few more pages and am now on a website for a company called Jitterbug ….. this looks like it will fit the bill and will now have to share the information with my husband. Good on you
Jitterbug are a US company
……..
From Sky News: Essential Research has Julia Gillard leading Malcolm Turnbull 39% to 34% on who would make the better PM. On the same question Kevin Rudd leads Gillard 63% to 14%.
On the North South pipeline….
It doesn’t steal any water from anyone.
Under the Murray Darling agreement, each state has an allocated amount of water, which is capped. If Victoria saves water through infrastructure renewal, then Victoria is entitled to use that water any way it sees fit – it doesn’t affect SA.
Victoria is planning to send an equal amount of water down the Murray as it takes for the North South pipeline and for its own farmers, as an environmental flow. No other state is entitled to use that water for anything else – it might be travelling through SA but it’s Victoria’s water. Obviously, it will benefit the SA environment at no cost to South Australians.
So (to play devil’s advocate) Victorian farmers can argue that they are being robbed by SAs, who gain by the infrastructure improvements (environmentally, at least) without making a contribution to it.
As for moving water between catchments, if you really think that’s a sin we should de-commission the Snowy River scheme and let the Snowy flow as nature intended it to, rather than diverting water for the benefit of irrigators.
Anyone want to bet that Wong and Rudd go for a pitifully inadequate Emissions reduction target to appease the Business lobby? At least if we had Howard in we wouldn’t have bothered to get our hopes up that the Murray and Climate Change would have been taken seriously. After the largely symbolic signing of Kyoto, which meant basically nothing in terms of actual policy, the Labor Government has been almost indistinguishable from their predecessors.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24733305-2702,00.html
Dio, save your tirade for when/if such a decision is made. You may just be going off half cocked.
I note that the latest Essential Research Poll pitted Julia gillard up against Malcolm as preferred PM. He got 34% and Julia 39%. Oh dear.
Diogenes, when it comes to climate change I am at ease with Rudd & Wong. This is a serious issue and there are serious consequences to the economy involved. They must be careful and they must get it right.
If the sceptics were in government we could be facing a disaster in future or if we did what the Greens wanted god help the economy. No, I have total confidence in the right party to get climate change right.
Gary
There’s no point waiting for a bad decision to be made to complain about it. You have to complain before the decision is made. I’m going to use 20% as the benchmark for the 2020 reduction. Anything more shows a serious and brave commitment to addressing CC and puts Australia in the leadership category. Anything less than 20% will be a cave-in to business and leave Australia in the US/China/India/Russia League of CC Denial Nations.
Zoomster
Try running that argument in any pub in Murray Bridge. I understand that that might be how things are under the agreement, but as Mike Young comments I posted show, in real world terms it is a nonsense. Just because “leakage savings” don’t count, doesn’t mean they don’t matter. The fact is Victoria is diverting 75 billion litres per year out of the system. The fact that they could do that under the agreement shows it was a badly worded agreement, not that there is no loss.
The sooner states stop hiding behind entitlements under arcane agreements and face the consequences of their bad past water management decisions with honesty and accountability, the sooner the Murray Darling will stop from turning into a series of salt marshes.
As for the Snowy, that is raising a non-sequitur since it is not a dying system. Even so, if it was appropriate to return some flow to it then I’d say do it.
The “economy” vs. “acting on climate change” is a false dichotomy.
If one doesn’t act on climate change there will not be an economy to worry about.
Anyway, I’m a bit over Mumbai being talked up as if it heralds some massive paradigm shift in the way the world works.
The Herald had about 439 feature articles on it today but a tiny little article, barely a paragraph, about how Christians had killed 400 Muslims, and injured thousands, in riots in Nigeria.
Centre
The EU is committing to a 20% reduction by 2020. They claim this will only cost 0.5% GDP of the block. I think we can manage the same. Business will squeal because they are obsessed by growth and hate having any regulations imposed on their ability to do whatever they want.
20% of 1990, yes?
Not this 10-15% of 2000 rubbish. Give us a couple more years and it’ll be 5% of 2010 levels.
Dio
We agree again. On CC targets, teh economic downturn is reducing emissions in China about 5% anyway (lower steel use in manufacturing) and would be similar here. No reason to make targets lower – they should be easier to reach.
If one does act on climate change (without proper regard to the economy) there will not be an economy to worry about!
Diogenes, what I am saying is that I trust Rudd & Wong to get it right much more than either the sceptics or the Greens.
Centre
Can you prove that? The whole point of the Garnaut report was that the opposite is true. Business always says this but its rarely true, except for businesses that are dying anyway. Thanks to our black coal Australia has some of the cheepest raw electricity prices in the western world. If we can’t compete its got nothing to do with power costs. A $50/tonne carbon tax would result in a 20-25% increase in retail power prices, which represents no more than 1% on inflation. In fact in the present (economic) climate, the extra work from emission reduction schemes will probably be a net economic gain. Business always counts the costs without counting the benefits to shoot down such ideas, but its usually a false argument. If we always listened to what every business lobby group demanded, we’d still have children down coal mines.
There’ll be a planet.
Centre
I agree with that but I remain to be convinced that the end result will be any better. They might well get there by a more sensible, educated route but if you end up at the same place, it’s a bit irrelevant that the route was better.
Oz
Yes. The 2020 target is 20% reduction from 1990 levels.
No doubt
OK, let’s not worry about any economic impact. Let’s cut emmissions by 100% from 2/12/08.
“children down coal mines”
But then child-powered extraction would slow the coal economy!
Frank
#343 You missed Amigo FINNS correct analogy point Obama was prepared to trash his own (white) grand mother to score a politcal racial point on TV live to 300 MILLION
“I can no more disown him (Pastro Wright) than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/18/obama-race-speech-read-th_n_92077.html
Disgusting & indecent …Now FINNS was simply saying similorly by analogy that Indian politcans ar more interested in money and power than facing th Mumbai terrorist problems and I agree …Overseas politcans ar below Aussie politicans standards
New thread.
Socrates – OK, so why should Victoria spend all that money on water savings? It seems a little harsh to expect Vic to expend $1 billion without thought of return. If it’s to benefit SA, then surely SA should kick in some.
And as for the Snowy – yes, it is a dying system. That’s why Vic lobbied NSW and Canberra so hard to have water returned to it. The only way that this could happen was by Victoria finding water savings elsewhere, equivalent to the extra amount going down the Snowy. Haven’t heard anyone complaining that this water is being ’stolen’ from SA but it’s a very similar scenario.