Newspoll seems to have taken the week off, but there’s always Essential Research, which has Labor’s lead up to 61-39 from 60-40 last week. Also featured are questions on becoming a republic within the next few years (52 per cent support, 24 per cent oppose – the latter sounds a bit low), whether Australia should agree to allow Japan to conduct whaling if it limits its activities to the northern hemisphere (10 per cent agree, 81 per cent disagree), “how would you rate your loyalty to your employer” and “how would you rate your employer’s loyalty to staff”. Furthermore:
• The silly season endeth – Kerry O’Brien and Lateline are back, and parliaments federal, Victorian and South Australian resume today.
• The Australian Workers Union has released a comprehensive survey of workers’ attitudes to the global financial crisis, derived from 1016 interviews conducted by Auspoll. The headline finding is that 40 per cent fear losing their jobs in the next year.
• Parties’ disclosures of receipts, expenditure and debts are available for perusal at the Australian Electoral Commission, at least so far as donations of over $10,500 are concerned. Siobhain Ryan and Imre Salusinszky of The Australian and Bernard Keane of Crikey sift through the evidence; the latter also opens fire on the Coalition over its obstruction of legislation reversing the 2005 disclosure threshold hike. Keane notes that one travesty can’t be pinned on the previous government: that we have had to wait until February 2009 to find out what went on at an election held in November 2007. Anyone who imagines this has something to do with logistics should consider the practice in New York City, where donations have to be declared before election day and “made public immediately on a searchable, online database”.
• Antony Green returns from a fortnight in the wilderness (literally) with a belated post-mortem on the Liberals’ defeat in South Australia’s Frome by-election. As I suspected, independent Geoff Brock owes his win to a peculiarity of the state’s electoral system that saves ballot papers with incomplete preferences by assigning them the preferences officially lodged by their favoured candidate. Without this provision, 258 ballots that were thus admitted the day after polling day would have been informal, leaving Brock 38 votes behind Labor at the second last count rather than 30 votes ahead. Another issue has been brought to my attention by Kevin Bonham, who points to the fact that a certain number of Liberal voters harmed their candidate’s chances by voting Liberal rather than Labor. If 31 such voters had tactically switched to Labor, Brock would have been excluded and the distribution of his preferences would have given victory to Liberal candidate Terry Boylan. Public choice theorists call this flaw in preferential voting “non-monotonicity”, which is elaborated upon here (although Bonham reckons “some of their worked examples are wrong”).
• Antony also gets in early with a preview of Western Australia’s May 18 daylight saving referendum, which combines customary psephological insight with a keen eye for the state’s lifestyle peculiarities.
• Former Labor MLA Kathryn Hay will run as an independent for the Tasmanian upper house division of Windermere (extending from the outskirts of Launceston north to the proposed site of Gunns’ Bell Bay pulp mill), challenging independent incumbent Ivan Dean at the poll likely to be held on May 2. Peter Tucker at Tasmanian Politics reports that one of the the other two seats up for election, the Devonport-based division of Mersey, looms as a clash between Latrobe mayor Mike Gaffney and Devonport mayor Lyn Laycock. Mersey is being vacated by retiring independent Norma Jamieson.
• Staying in Tasmania, a recount has confirmed that the last remaining Labor candidate in Franklin from the 2006 election, Daniel Hulme, will assume the lower house seat vacated by former Tourism Minister Paula Wriedt.
• Mining magnate and former National Party director Clive Palmer is making himself visible as the Queensland state election approaches, having been profiled last week on The 7.30 Report and in a cover story for The Weekend Australian Magazine. The latest salvo in Palmer’s charm offensive is a demand of $1 million in damages for defamation from Anna Bligh, who said there was “something just not right about one billionaire owning their own political party” (the annual financial disclosures discussed previously list $600,000 in donations from Palmer to the Liberal and National parties). Sean Parnell’s Weekend Australian piece describes Palmer as a “notorious litigant”, who “once listed it as a hobby in his Who’s Who entry”. Palmer’s 18-year-old son Michael has been preselected as the Liberal National Party candidate for the safe Labor seat of Nudgee.
• Rick Wallace of The Australian reports that Nationals-turned-Liberal Senator Julian McGauran will face a number of challengers in his bid for one of the two safe seats on the Victorian Senate ticket, with other incumbent Michael Ronaldson “widely expected to claim top spot”. The field includes prominent Peter Costello supporter Ross Fox, barrister Caroline Kenny and solicitor Cate Dealehr. Other names mentioned by Andrew Landeryou’s VexNews are Terry Barnes, a “former Tony Abbott adviser”, and Owen Lysaght, who ran as an independent in Chisholm in 2004.
1,780 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 30 31 [32] 33 34 … 36 » Show All
Adam , i’ve not questiond if you were there nor wwho was ultimately responsible except to agree Locke had a ‘hat’ at th time
My disagrement was making th pref decsion at all with th DLP over Greens and ditto Fielding over Greens
And hav suggestd that Vic council numbers mean DLP guy doesn’t help Labor with a majority nor did he affect Abortion Bill as was a consience vote So am saying whoever was player in deciding it to me is irelevent , it was wrong and should never be repeatd …for tactical , politcal & policy reasons …as thats geez why we hav this Fielding nutter in Senate , godsake with shared balance of power to boot…travesty reely Am surporised you don’t agree
Bird @ 1541, good news travels fast
……. too bad Malcolm is deaf to the bush telegraph ……..
I’ve enjoyed the new A-Pac channel in the first week in our house here. Sat down with a coffee after dinner last night and watched replays of yesterdays QT
That’s because know so little about the ALP. Collins was an ALP Senator. The factions may hate each other, but they still want ALP candidates to win. Locke did the deal because he thought it was the best way to get three ALP Senators elected. And it would have done, had the ALP vote held up.
“That’s because know so little about the ALP” should read “That’s because YOU know so little about the ALP”
Frank @ 1544, have bookmarked the page. How do you know this person?
Actually if you were their Adam, did you criticise the deal did you say anything against it? So obviously you and your right wing mates went along with it?
http://www.aph.gov.au/LIBRARY/Pubs/rn/2004-05/05rn07.htm
Adam
After reading this ,doesnt the Gvt have other Bills that have been rejected once,that could be represented and used as a potential DD trigger.?
Of course not. It was a deal done by the responsible person, the state secretary, for the benefit of the party as a whole. Why would I criticise a deal designed to maximise the party’s chances of electing three Senators? It was a perfectly good deal – it just didn’t come off, as sometimes happens.
So Locke did the deal now, meaning did the deal. So it goes from it was the Socialist Lefts fault to if the ALP vote held up… When you make wild accusations please don’t single out particular people or factions..
I know the process you do not have to explain it.
Gus, I don’t know if we have DD triggers now or not. I don’t think we have one of any great importance. If the Senate rejects the stimulus bills, or the Fair Work bills, that might bring a DD on to the agenda.
Well I am a member of the Swan Hills branch – which is currently in limbo – the entire paperwork is in this room in a box as we didn’t have an AGM last year because of the State Election.
Steve
thank you
But it was all Eric Lockes fault then. What next.
I was asked who was responsible for the deal that resulted in Fielding’s election. All I did was answer the question. I don’t blame Locke or the SL for the fact that the deal turned out badly. Shit happens. If anyone’s to blame, it’s Mark Latham. If you know the process why do you ask such dumb questions?
http://www.theage.com.au/national/libs-fear-backlash-on-package-20090205-7z00.html
well derr…
As i recall tonight you said Eric Locke and the Socialist Left of the ALP, could not have also been the right wing of the party who were also present no…. And key people like Steve Conroy…… No….. And yep i was present but i did not say anything just went along with it… But it was all Erics fault and the Socialist Left….
When i frustrate you, you get personal.
Oh dear, the fit is hitting the shan. Some Libs are realising what they have done.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/libs-fear-backlash-on-package-20090205-7z00.html
How does it make you feel Adam when you know everything about politics but you cannot do anything about a dud deal?
As I have patiently tried to explain, this happened during the period when the SL-NUW alliance controlled the Vic branch. The SL installed Locke as state secretary, and he was in charge of preference negotiations for the 2004 elections. Conroy and others in the Right (including humble members such as myself) had nothing to do with it. Those are just facts of history. But as I have said many times, it was a perfectly legitimate deal and I do not criticise Locke for making it. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
No it would not have. Had the ALP vote “held up” there would probably have been a 3-3 ALP/Coalition split. A third Labor senator indeed, but not as a result of any deal with Family First.
Keep in mind that the key to electing a three Labor Senators would have been the ALP receiving preferences at the expense of the Greens. But the famous ALP/FF deal meant FF giving the ALP preferences at the expense of the Coalition.
We all know that Family First view the Greens as the party of Satan. Receiving their preferences ahead of the Greens was already a given.
The Facebook site for the stimulus package has 21,243 members and growing every second
The one against that Frank found has 47 members
So much for those Sky polls
So thats what GP and Glen have been up to!
Actually someone posted it over at LP
BTW, I reported the second offensive comment which links Julia Gillard to paedophillia and I suggest that those similarly outraged to do the same
marky marky
epic fail
The key to electing three Labor Senators is Labor polling three quotas, with a primary vote as high as possible and preferences from wherever they can be found. If the Labor primary vote in 2004 had been 2 or 3% higher we would have won three seats and no-one would give a toss whose preferences got us there. In 2004 we did a deal with FF, in 2007 we did deals with the Greens and the Shooters Party, and in 2010 we might do a deal with the Raving Monster Loony Party.
Except by agreeing with the deal, at such an important time. I understand the mechanics of the deal Adam. As i have said also tonight the National Union Of Workers a right wing factional union could have easily walked away from the alliance if they wished.
All i am stating is that it takes two to tango and i believe both factions were responsible for this sham not one. To think that the right let the left do its own thinking over such important deals?
Lastly i know Eric Locke was not much but so is Conroy.
Frank even the name they have given the site is a bit off
Anyway i am off now you can have the last word Adam and personally rip me to bits.
Yes, and in 2006 they did so, and rejoined the Right. But at the time of the deal they were allied with the left. Can’t you get this through your head?
Well you’re just wrong, so what more can I say? Obviously I can’t persuade you of things you are determined not to believe.
Bedtime for Right-wing hacks.
GP and Glen
my comment at 1572 ( in light of frank’s and vera’s posts) was meant in jest.I didnt realise a real site existed.
After going to LP’s link I share frank’s and vera’s disgust.
A sick site indeed.
Also reported
“After going to LP’s link I share frank’s and vera’s disgust.”
dooble ditto
And if you look in the related sites you see the following:
Victorian Young Liberal Movement -typivcal, more like the movement of faecal matter for brains
Good on you Frank
Is it any wonder they grow up to become what we saw in the Senate inquiry tonight
Dweebs they may be Frank, but the “related sites” feed means nothing. It’s auto generated by code, nothing more – nothing less
Well Adam
you’ve gone to bed which guess stops civilised people talking behind your back But i’ll keep talking as you could read this tomoroow
You hav not addrsssed my #1551 post voicing absolute disagreemnt to pref Fielding over Greens on policy politcal or tactical grounds …and yes on my principals too & let someone at a meeting try ridicule principals of pref a sosialy consevative Fielding nutter who one wuld pre assess may get up on your prefs (& look whats happend did) You don’t trade with devils , and then gambleyou get up vs th devil ..also tightness of % ’s in 2004 made th social justise red neck policed devil getting elecd a posibility , enuog to say no , and tell Secretary Locke to tear it up
and that posibility , given you’re aiming to win HOR , guarantees an anti social justise Senator opposing your Social Democrat Agenda..perhaps balanse of power , and has (agains hould hav been pre factord
So if he came with a Pauline pref deal (in 87 when she had curency , then still back Secretary , no …principals count , so does tactical & policy rationale points i listed
That enough to say no to FFP howevr you then say quota’s needs Firstley interchanging Labor/Greens gets one up a left peson Secondley don’t remeber greens getting up in Vic , if so cann’t be many , so goods as wel l as principals favord Labor Third where were Fiedings votes gonna come from , i’d say Coalition who on polls were going to get there 3rd senator anyway , so Fielding was going to get some votes from both Libs AND Labor at expense of Greens makin it a Labor vs FFP fight & Labor was preferensing its oponent (and he won)
Had Labotr vote held up & Greens pref Labor wuld hav one th Seat instead of Fieldig , or slitlely less likely Greens would ha , but FFP could never hav …whereas had labor vote not held up (as ocurred then still Labor or Greens , but with Labor vote not holding up (which shuld hav been factored th FFP deel made FFP a good chanse to win th last seat & did
Of course , i don’t need this quota point bit anyway to suport that FFP pref was a disgrace for originol reasons said About time exec understood it was a mistake , so not repeatd …but your last sentense “and in 2010 we might do a deal with the Raving Monster Loony Party.” shows lesson is not learned Whilst i’m always right but ‘left’ , you ar not
1585: I think the ‘related groups’ are based mainly on number of members in both the group being viewed and whichever other ones (like the ‘people you may know’ feature, which for me usually throws up people I have 20-odd friends in common with but have somehow never met). When you’re got a group with only a few dozen members, the numbers get skewed a bit, so there may be only one or two shared members.
Things have kind of come full circle with the SL and the AWU part of Unity banding together to isolate NUW and the SDA.
I think this person is trying to get pre-selected for the Liberals:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25013849-7583,00.html
Her answer to our current crisis?
She endorses the G.P. option, since the government will have $115 billion less in revenue over the next 3 years, it should cut spending by the same amount! Her article is a perfect example of the way right wing economic theorists are wedded to their ideas as if it is a religious cult. According to them, any economic problem can be solved just by cutting taxes and social services.
Hmm, I’ve noticed that Bree and GP have been missing in action today. I wonder if they’ve been given cow pat polishing duties ?
No wonder Ken Henry needs to go and spend quality time with Hairy-nosed Wombats.
The Shadow Treasurer has apparently recommended ‘wait and see’. The Treasurer is not going to say at estimates, ‘That is just stupid.’ So he neatly turns her words into a hypothetical which shows just how silly he really thinks it is.
‘But last night Dr Henry challenged the Opposition to say how long the Government should wait before acting to forestall recession. Asked if he agreed with assertions by Opposition Treasury spokesperson Julie Bishop that the Government should “wait and see” how serious the effect of the world recession wason (sic) Australia, Dr Henry responded, “For how long should one sit and wait?’
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25014876-601,00.html
Shanahan on the situation:
‘The situation the first Labor Government in more than a decade faces when it goes to the polls in about 18 months at the end of its first term is: 800,000 unemployed, a budget deficit of at least $35 billion and national debt of the proportion that took a decade to repay.’
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25013852-7583,00.html
Shanahan
‘Costello ousting Bishop a better bet’.
Shanahan even suggests that if Costello is Shadow Treasurer and Turnbull fails, Costello would be ideally placed to… you know what.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25014829-5013404,00.html
I happen to know the creator of the group, a great Young Liberal.
This writer wouldn’t be a bit of Labor supporter would he?
Coalition tired and emotional as PM naps
..Greg Hunt, the young Victorian Liberal frontbencher who never lets a chance to spin a carefully crafted line about … well, anything ……
Among the pathetically grateful premiers was Western Australia’s Liberal chief, Colin Barnett.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/coalition-tired-and-emotional-as-pm-naps-20090205-7z02.html
GP @ 1594
Hmm. The facebook site prompts the question about whether it is just conservatives who self-indulge in sexualizing political issues, or whether there are elements in every band of political thinking that use the approach?
Either way, these particular examples do the Liberal Party no credit at all.
I agree with Ron 1586 and disagree with Adam on preferencing Fielding: it was a bad idea in principle and at best a high risk move. Fielding was supported by groups strongly opposed to most of Labor’s policy platform and it was both bad in principle and looked bad to support him.
Tactically it was a risky thing to do. As preference allocation at the recent SA by-election has shown, when you get down to placings after several rounds, it can become a bit of a lottery. If this site has taught me one thing, its that opinion polls just aren’t accurate enough to make this sort of calculation with confidence. The deal may have increased the odds of a third Labor senator, but it also increased Fieldings odds. As it turned out, the latter outcome came up. Labor would have been much better off with another Green, and only having to do deals with two camps (Greens and Xenephon) instead of three.
Good morning bludgers.
Ron @ 1586: I don’t have the stamina to decypher your illiterate postings when they’re more than a paragraph long. If you want to communicate with me you will have to do so in standard English.
Socrates @ 1597: That’s all easy to say in retrospect. No-one in 2003 thought Fielding had the slightest chance of election, so if he was willing to give his 1% or so of the vote to Labor as preferences that was obviously of interest to us. The Democrats thought so too, which is why they also did a deal with FF – and it was actually Dem preferences that kept Fielding in the count long enough to get ALP preferences. The deal seemed like a good idea at the time, and no-one would be arguing otherwise if the ALP had won three seats as a result of it. As it happened, it didn’t work out, as sometimes happens. That doesn’t deter anyone from doing further deals. In 2007 Labor swapped preferences with the Shooters Party, and that did help us win three seats. I take it you have no problem with that outcome. Should we have said “no deals with Shooters” and let the Coalition win another seat?
I also disagree that having Fielding in the Senate is a much worse outcome for Labor than having another Green. That it is only obviously the case if you think Labor should be moving further to the left. I don’t think that, and I wouldn’t welcome a situation where Labor was totally dependent on the Greens. Fielding is a difficult negotiating partner, but having the cross-benches split between right (FF) and left (Greens) works to Labor’s tactical advantage in the Senate. The same is true of having both Greens and DLP in the Vic Leg Council – in that case even more so, because as I said last night Kavanagh is basically a Labor man at heart. Just because most people posting here come from a left-of-Labor position doesn’t mean that everyone else has to accept their view of the world.
The NSW ALP cannot even do a presentation right, how did these idiot get into politics, I wonder how many of them can read and write at a year 9 level
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/inadequate-submission-puts-nsw-down-the-list/2009/02/05/1233423405333.html
I was listening to Stephen Mayne this morning on ABC Radio National. His basically supported Turnbull’s position especially in regard to the deficits. I think Stephen has to make his his mind as to what he is.
Is he a failed entrepreneur? a failed shareholder activist? a failed commentator? or a failed politician?
Pages: « 1 … 30 31 [32] 33 34 … 36 » Show All