No Morgan poll this week. Here’s some of the other mail:
• The Launceston Examiner reports that Brigadier Andrew Nikolic, veteran of numerous overseas postings and until recently the Australian Defence Force’s director-general of public affairs, has “confirmed that he is interested” in Liberal preselection for the federal seat of Bass. Also said to have his eye on the preselection is Senator Guy Barnett, who will otherwise have to settle for the slighly less appealing prospect of number three on the Liberal ticket.
• Michelle Grattan reports on a “glowing reference” for Kooyong preselection aspirant Josh Frydenberg from John Howard. Another of Frydenberg’s backers is Andrew Peacock. His principal rival, industrial relations lawyer John Pesutto, is supported by Institute of Public Affairs executive director John Roskam, who was himself sniffing the breeze before deciding not to proceed. Former Liberal president and Fraser government minister Tony Staley has given his seal of approval to Peter Jonson, a 62-year-old former Reserve Bank official known to the web at large as Henry Thornton.
• The Townsville Bulletin reports there are rumours that prodigious McDonald’s franchiser George Colbran again hopes to run for Labor in Herbert, where he narrowly failed to unseat Peter Lindsay in 2007. Colbran reportedly says he “won’t commit either way”.
• David Rood of The Age reports that John Brumby has “cleared the way” for Keilor MP George Seitz to be dumped at the next election, amid the fallout from the Ombudsman’s recent report into Brimbank City Council. The party’s administrative committee will decide this evening whether to take preselections for western suburbs seats out of the hands of local branches, in which Seitz and others remain powerful. Also affected will be Kororoit MP Marlene Kairouz, whose preselection ahead of last year’s by-election formed the backdrop of much of the shenanigans investigated by the Ombudsman, and Derrimut MP Telmo Languiller. Labor sources quoted in the article wonder why both Languiller and Western Metropolitan MLC Theo Theophanous aren’t equally being targeted along with Seitz, so it evidently should not be taken for granted that either Languiller or Kairouz are endangered.
• Taking his cue from Manmohan Singh’s assumption of the Indian prime ministership from the upper house, Malcolm Mackerras argues for an end to the convention that Australia’s party leaders must sit in the lower house, which he relates to the anachronistic presumption that it is the more democratic chamber.
• Final score from the Fremantle by-election: Carles 10,664, Tagliaferri 9,100. Margin: 3.96 per cent. I expected Labor would rein it in a little on late counting, but no.
• With the whiff of a dying government in the air, talk of electoral reform is very much in vogue in London this season, just as was when the scandal-ridden Major government was breathing its last. Conservative leader David Cameron opposes proportional representation but promises to “look seriously” at fixed terms. Health Secretary Alan Johnson – “still the favourite to lead Labour if Gordon Brown is removed from the top job“ – has suggested the government at last look seriously at the “Alternative Vote Plus” model which has been floating around since the 1998 report of the Jenkins commission, which was set up when Tony Blair came to power. It proposes a slightly watered down version of German/NZ style MMP, combining constituency members with party list members to produce a proportional result. Unlike Germany and NZ however, there would be a cap on the number of party list members which might make results less than fully proportional. The “Alternative Vote” part of the title refers to Australian-style preferential voting for the constituency seats, which the Jenkins commission appeared to be taken with as it had just helped defeat Pauline Hanson. From the Jenkins commission report, a “note of reservation by Lord Alexander”:
My colleagues also think that AV will contribute to a less confrontational style of politics because candidates will be inhibited from attacking rivals too strongly as they wish to gain their second votes. I do not see it as particularly desirable that candidates from different parties, who are different precisely because they do not agree on all issues, should be pulling their punches in order to seek approval from voters who support other parties. In any event, from my observation of Australia, which is the only single large country to use AV, their politicians tend to be, if anything, more blunt and outspoken than our own.
1,122 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 17 18 [19] 20 21 … 23 » Show All
I posted this last week but after reading these Greenies spruke about how good and gutsy Obama’s ETS is and how his targets are better than Rudd’s I’ll post it again.
This is not what I said. The United States is considerably further to the right than Australia, especially on environmental issues. Rudd could achieve a considerably more substantial scheme if he wanted to actually pick a fight on the issue, at relatively little electoral cost if he was smart, instead of going for the blandest, least politically troublesome scheme. If Obama had done the same, he’d be proposing a considerably worse scheme – instead, he’s buckling up for a fight to try and achieve the best scheme that’s actually politically possible.
Rebecca, the alternative would have been another faceless coalition senator and zero BOP for the Greens wouldn’t it?
Um, no. The alternative to Fielding would have been David Risstrom, a Green. Who would have voted for considerably more of Rudd’s agenda than Fielding has.
The alternative to the ALP preferencing FF was preferencing the Greens. They made a bad choice and are now suffering for it.
Are you sure? I’m not up with all the numbers but have seen it mentioned quite a few times that Fielding took what would be a coalition spot?
Having a good time there Glen? Got the popcorn out?
I know your opinion, I asked you for evidence.
So 0 to 15% targets is Obama fighting LOL You lot crucified Rudd for his 5 to 15% but like the hypocrits you are fall over yourselves defending Obama’s weaker ones. No credibility at all.
I know your opinion, I asked you for evidence.
This is my assumption of the relatively obvious, as a political observer.
It could just be coincidence, and there could really be fairies in the bottom of the garden too, but i am doubtful.
vera: I want Labor to start taking a stand, and pushing as hard as they can without suffering at the polls for it. Obama and Rudd are operating in a different political climate, which means that what they can actually achieve in doing that is different. It’s a similar situation with unionism – the prevalence of anti-unionism in the US means that he’s having to go out on a limb for less than what Rudd’s offering more-or-less because it won’t be controversial at all (unless you’re Heather Ridout).
so it’s ok for Obama to be weak, but not Rudd ?
What utter double standards.
Frank Calabrese: Uh, no. How about you actually read what I write before whittling off your clever little response?
I notice it is Green policy to Ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Then on further inspection I notice that Green Policies have not been updated since pre Nov 2007.
Is it because they don’t have the funds to update their website? Or have they not really figured out what their policies are?
Rebecca. the tune seems to have changed since Obama’s targets have become known, we had all this talk them being 30%+ on par with Europe, but now “he’s going out on a limb: lol, for zero to 15, as I said no credibility at all.
I can read perfectly, you’ve basically told Vera that you prefer the Obama version of being weak, to Rudd’s ?
and note their modus operandi of attacking the person rather than the subject matter and making it Personal ?
That’s rather funny considering your support for Labor, and your avatar.
Frank, jealousy’s a curse
Especially when we get the keys to the Liquor Cabinet at The Lodge.
2009, 1983 revisited?
Time Magazine, March 14, 1983
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,951966-2,00.html
Frank I have noticed a similar thing over the past couple of weeks, I guess some Greens are so passionate they think anyone who queries the policies of their party are personally attacking them.
They should try going to a Labor or Liberal branch meeting and toughen up.
Juliem, @ 840, We did bad this weekend allright ( insert crying smiley) The Bunnies play tomorrow night, and I’ll be saying Centre’s Hail Mary’s to help them over the line
We go for Qld in SOO
So, as I expected, you have no evidence. And you are quite wrong. Your cynicism has got the better of you. Labor did not “suddenly bring forward a commitment to introduce this particular area of law reform.” It was in Labor’s 2007 platform, as it was in 2001 and 2004, and McClelland brought it forward as soon as he could get it on the legislative timetable. The timing had nothing to do with Rudd’s position on civil unions in the ACT (a position with which I disagree). Nor is to true that “the ALP has shown relatively little interest in LGBT issues.” This government in its first year passed the most far-reaching piece of same-sex equality legislation in the history of the federal parliament. As for “benefitting the treasury”, I happen to know that this consideration never entered McClelland’s mind. If it had done so, he would have taken the same position that ShowsOn took above: if people want equality, they have to accept whatever costs come with that. You attribute to McClelland a degree of machiavellian cunning which he simply doesn’t possess. He’s a straightforward moderately liberal Catholic lawyer who brought in these bills because (a) it was party policy (b) he thought that’s what the gay and lesbian community wanted, and (c) he thought it was the right thing to do. Sometimes, Rebecca, people, even Labor politicians, act from simple and honest motives.
Rabbit stew is on the menu in Canberra tomorrow night.
I believe the Government even included a grace period in the regulation of the legislation. People living in same sex relationships have until July 1st of this year to inform Ceternlink that they are living with a partner, but will continue receiving higher payments until that date. From July 1st their partner’s income will be taken into account. If they don’t tell Centerlink they are in a relationship by July 1st, they will be committing welfare fraud.
Does anyone have a reference to the factional allegiances of the current Federal Cabinet and Ministry?
ruawake, if the game was in Canberra I’d agree with you but we have a bit more of a chance in Sydney. I’ll still do Centre’s prayer though
Kevin Rudd MP: Prime Minister – OLD GUARD RIGHT
Julia Gillard MP: Deputy Prime Minister – FERGUSON LEFT
Wayne Swan MP: Treasurer – AWU RIGHT
Senator Chris Evans: LEFT
Senator John Faulkner: LEFT
Lindsay Tanner MP: LEFT
Simon Crean MP: RIGHT
Stephen Smith, MP: RIGHT
Joel Fitzgibbon MP: RIGHT
Nicola Roxon MP: RIGHT
Jenny Macklin MP: SOCIALIST LEFT
Anthony Albanese MP: LEFT
Senator Stephen Conroy: RIGHT
Senator Kim Carr: SOCIALIST LEFT
Peter Garrett MP: UNALIGNED
Senator Penny Wong: LEFT
Robert McClelland MP: RIGHT
Senator Joe Ludwig:AWU RIGHT
Tony Burke MP: Minister RIGHT
Martin Ferguson MP: FERGUSON LEFT
10 Right, 9 left, one unaligned. Coincidence?
Neither Rudd nor Gillard take any part in factional activities. In fact most Cabinet ministers don’t. Exceptions would be Carr and Conroy, since things are a bit fraught in Victoria at present.
The Right has an absolute majority in Caucus, so Rudd was being generous in picking a factionally balanced Cabinet.
It is interesting that Penny Wong voted for Beazley during the leadership contest, yet Rudd still promoted her from junior shadow portfolios all the way to cabinet.
Not quite Rudd and Turnbull… Actually gee, Rudd sounds a lot like Hawke – bloody socialist!
Point?
You think there should be more from the left??
I imagine in practice Garrett supports the left. If he had worked his way through the ALP the way the others at the cabinet table did he would be in the Left.
Or that they’re not Left enough for the Superior Greens.
The hell is defending 15%?
The Greens policy hasn’t changed because of the US legislation.
With the exception of yourself, the Greens have been suspiciously quiet on this, and your fellow Green Rebecca is praising Obama for this figure.
Hey Frank, you think maybe that’s because they’re the Australian Greens?
15% is not Labor policy either, but I don’t see the ALP rubbishing it.
You don’t honestly believe that Rudd and not the factions had the controlling hand in picking the ministry do you?!
Rudd obviously needed someone from the Left to keep the numbers even, but my guess is that Wong was his choice. Rudd chose Wong to be his spokesperson at Labor election H.Q., so he obviously felt she did a good job in that important role.
But as you reaptedly fail to realise, the Greens attacked Labor for 5%-15%, yet your fellow greenite Rebecca reckons Obaam is the King Dude on ETS because of 0%-15%.
The Hypocrisy by your mob is breathtaking.
There was a lot made about the fact that Rudd allegedly hand picked the ministry without factional influence.
According to Peter Hartcher in “To The Bitter End” what really happened was that Rudd picked his team but the right felt under-represented, kicked a fuss and there was a reshuffle.
Rebecca–
two examples of MPs influencing policy —
* Candy Broad forced Victorian Labor to legalise abortion, despite great pressure from the more conservative elements within the party.
* Senator Conroy and the extention of IVF and surrogacy.
Candy Broad is a good example of what you’re saying doesn’t happen. She belongs to the Left. She simply kept going until she got the result she wanted.
I think the MPs you’re talking about weren’t trying. I know a few like that – make a bit of a token effort, then spend the rest of their parliamentary life talking about what they would have done if teh Left weren’t so downtrodden.
They tend to be from the ‘purer than the rest of them’ faction within the party and have a lot in common with SOME members of the Greens (wouldn’t dare to suggest that all supporters/members of a particular party fit into some sort of stereotype, despite the constant suggestions here that all Labor hacks are the same…)
My guess is that is how Kate Ellis became a minister at the expense of Kate Lundy
And in his case it was driven by personal experience re not being able to have a chiled by the mormal method.
I don’t think you quite understand Rebecca’s posts. I think she’s made it clear that she doesn’t support the US targets, but she doesn’t need me to speak for her.
I don’t understand this tendency to conflate what one person says (misconstruing that even that) to the entire Greens when it’s been pointed out that you’re wrong.
I mean I don’t treat the entire ALP has moronic, simple minded buffoons because of what you post.
It’s a good thing – SA is severely underrepresented both in ministry and cabinet.
Oh yes I do – it is YOUR inability to do so.
Once again, another personal attack from the morally righteous – I don’t call you, or Rebecca names, just your party in general – BIG Difference.
Yeah but you got Xenophon, who more than makes up for it.
I’ll be sad when he stops being relevant. Definitely injects something new into politics.
Enormous difference even.
Pages: « 1 … 17 18 [19] 20 21 … 23 » Show All