After three successive 55-45 results, the latest fortnightly Newspoll returns the Coalition to its lowest ebb, with Labor leading 58-42. This hasn’t been matched by any seismic shift on the preferred prime minister rating: Kevin Rudd is up two points to 67 per cent, but Malcolm Turnbull is also up one to 18 per cent. If you’re feeling creative, you might interpret the results as a vote of no confidence in the Coalition party room’s hostility to the emissions trading scheme. More details to follow. UPDATE: Labor’s primary vote is up three points to 46 per cent, the Coalition’s is down three to 35 per cent, and Turnbull’s disapproval is down two to a four-month low of 48 per cent. Graphic here; more from Dennis Shanahan.
Meanwhile, the latest weekly Essential Research survey has Labor’s lead up from 59-41 to 60-40. Further questions cover Kevin Rudd’s performance at the G20 summit (good if not great), confidence in his representation of Australia at such events (high), whether respondents agree with Bill Clinton’s kind words about him (they do), confidence in economic conditions over the next 12 months (sharply higher), concern over personal job security (correspondingly lower) and employees’ perception of how their employer is travelling (mixed).
Some big news on the preselection front, as you’re probably aware:
• Peter Dutton appears to have failed in his bid to move from Dickson to McPherson, having lost Saturday’s preselection vote to Karen Andrews. The state executive of Queensland’s Liberal National Party can refuse to ratify the result, but senior figures in the party have reportedly ruled this out. Dutton is said to have come within a handful of votes of victory on the first round, but was defeated on the third after the excluded Minna Knight’s supporters moved en masse to Karen Andrews (although the ABC records Andrews’ win on the final round being a reasonably comfortable 75 to 59). Liberals are telling the media of a “bloc of up to 40 Nationals” accounting for both local branch and state executive delegates voted against Dutton, but Barnaby Joyce (who supported Dutton) gives this the status of “scratching on the back of a public lavatory door”. Jamie Walker of The Australian reports the outcome was influenced by a “boots and all” attack on Dutton at the preselection meeting by Judy Gamin, former Nationals member for the local seat of Burleigh; the role of Currumbin MP Jann Stuckey in shifting Knight’s votes to Andrews; and the absence of the seat’s Dutton-supporting sitting member, Margaret May, who “opted to continue with a scheduled parliamentary visit to Britain”.
• Dutton’s defeat has led to speculation he might instead be accommodated by a retirement announcement from Fisher MP Peter Slipper or Fairfax MP Alex Somlyay, but neither seems to be biting. Scott Prasser of the Australian Catholic University observes: “The trouble is when you are in opposition both federally and state, you can’t offer any existing MPs any positions overseas or posts so it is very hard to sort of lean on someone say could you please go for the good of the party because we’ve got nothing to offer you.” Many have noted there’s a vacant seat next door in newly created Wright, but as Andrew Landeryou of VexNews notes, this is designated Nationals turf under the merger arrangement.
• Stephanie Peatling of the Sydney Morning Herald reports high-profile constitutional lawyer George Williams might challenge Bob McMullan for preselection in his northern Canberra seat of Fraser.
• The ABC reports Tamworth councillor and Winton district farmer Russell Webb will seek preselection for the Nationals in the state seat of Tamworth. The seat has been held by independents for all but two years since 1991: by Tony Windsor until his entry into federal parliament as member for New England in 2001, and by present incumbent Peter Draper since 2003.
1,794 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 32 33 [34] 35 36 » Show All
Yes ShowsOn, the opposition, as Tanner had predicted, have boxed themselves into an uneviable position. What spending is being cut? or Are taxes going to increase???
Can our “pacfists” please explain how allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons is in the interests of world peace? I often wonder at what stage our pacifists would defend themselves. Would it be after their partner had been tortured or would they wait until their children had their throats cut.
Turn the other cheek, GG.
Actually I think it is in his Gantt Chart. I’m sure he would love to extract rents on his near monopoly, what self respecting cartelian wouldn’t?
StephenD:
Apparently that is a mistranslation caused by Liberal Bias.
Translating from the master manuscript (KJV) with a keen conservative mind it actually reads:
“Nuke ‘em from orbit.”
http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project
GG
Great logic there.
The same could be said for Israel, Pakistan, India etc etc. The warmongers didn’t advocate bombing them to prevent them developing nuclear weapons.
Dennis’s “Exclusive”: Costello approached to take over leadership
CONFIDANTS of Malcolm Turnbull, convinced his leadership of the opposition was terminal and he was leaving politics, sounded out Peter Costello about taking over the Liberal leadership only four weeks ago.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26189708-601,00.html
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html
GG
Iran is just one of many potential hotspots, but is being managed as best as diplomacy allows
Musrum and StephenD
I’ve never found that pointing out the gross hypocrisy of many Christians actions and beliefs gets you very far. Pointing out that Jesus advocates the exact opposite of they espouse ends in irrational abuse.
Bob Ellicott, A-G to the Fraser government, and erstwhile Federal Court Judge, rears his VERY ugly head again:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26188811-7583,00.html
It’s the Dismissal all over again. The Governor-General is not bound to take the advice of his or her ministers on double dissolutions (or anything else, unless, presumably it’s a Liberal government, and then the Westminster System kicks in fully).
Otherwise, the Prime Minister’s advice has only persuasive influence, not absolute influence.
The Governor-General should also take advice from “leading Constitutional experts” (Garfield Barwick, where are you?) on such weighty matters. They will know best. A Minister’s advice might be sullied by a grubby political agenda. Men of the law have no politics, as Ellicott’s last paragraph incontrovertibly reveals:
Yairs…. Bob’s mapped it all out for them, just like he and other “leading Constitutional experts” did for Fraser all those years ago. All the Opposition has to do is tick the boxes.
Anyway, the present G-G is working for Rudd, was appointed by him. FAR too politicaly compromised, I’d say.
Go Sloppy Joe!
A Morgan poll published yesterday showed Mr Hockey was now preferred Liberal leader.
The poll conducted on Wednesday and Thursday night found Mr Turnbull’s support as preferred leader among Liberal voters fell 14 per cent to 21 per cent since the last poll three months ago. Mr Hockey’s support as preferred leader rose by 14 per cent to 35 per cent.
Link
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2009/4423/
There’s no way the High Court would rule that an entire double dissolution election invalid invalid.
What “failure to pass” means is whatever Quentin Bryce thinks it means, and she will most likely rely on what the Prime Minister says.
Nobel Peace prizes are symbolic by nature…in years to come what will Obama’s prize symbolise?
How easy it is to be popular when you haven’t delivered anything yet?
How easy it is to be popular when you hand out free cash??
This could be a bubble burster for the Left.
Well as Diogenes pointed out, it is actually a myth that the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded based on things people have done:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/09/world/main5373407.shtml
Most of the people criticising giving the award to Obama seem to be blissfully unaware of why it was awarded.
Looking at the criteria wanted by Alfred:
I think Barack is deserving.
Lê Ð?c Th? of Vietnam refused the prize in 1973. Henry Kissinger (awarded jointly) got it by himself instead. In hindsight, did he deserve it?
For Lê Ð?c Th? read Le Durc Tho.
Bushfire Bill @ 1644
Congratulations on a fine piece. Your contributions are always worthwhile and entertaining.
Oh piffle!
From Miranda Devine…
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/costello-the-exit-of-the-enigma-20091009-gqoi.html
Miranda misstates the moral of this story. It is not always cowardice that cautions someone from getting into a fight, but in Costello’s case it was.
Costello is only able to play the violins and act all noble and statesmanlike (in Mirand’s eyes anyway) today because he didn’t grubby his hands in a Liberal Party punch-up. He was too precious and too cowardly to even stand up for himself, much less anyone else without a guarantee that the fix was in, the ref was corrupt and the resulot an inevitable victory.
And it wasn’t only the numbers there – in his own party – that held him back from taking the leadership or having a genuine go at the Prime Ministership, it was those other numbers: the Australian people, millions of ‘em.
The voters were sick of him too.
Humble? Costello? Miranda kinda, sorta had a thesis going there untilshe used the word “humility” in the same sentence as the word “Costello”.
Peter Costello didn’t want the job because he hated the Liberal Party as it stood after the Rudd victory. He hated Turnbull in particular because Tyurnbull was smarter than him an still is. And he was too scared to dip his toe in the waters of political contest unless he had a sugar daddy (or preferably many sugar daddies) to back him up. He was a classic case of the perpetual apprentice who’ll never get to be Foreman Material.
BB you should post this directly in comments on her article.
And The SMH might want to consider replacing her with you!!
BB
Definitely in fine form this morning!
Greg Combet was really quite impressive on the radio yesterday.
And one could see how the Elliocott line would appeal to Turnbull the lawyer (assuming he lasts that long) or Hockey the lawyer (assuming he gets the job) or Tony Abbott the lawyer (if the Liberals want to make things particularly interesting)
Musrum@1645:
Not a problem. Just take all News Corp. sites off Google.
They’d change their tune pretty quick, I reckon.
If it’s not on Google, it doesn’t exist.
Interesting article by PVo on carbon and indirectly linking to nuclear as the salve.
Umm,its “flawed” not “floored” and nuclear has already been excluded from the “mix”
Since PVo has no idea,doesnt the basis of his article lack substance?
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26188814-7583,00.html
1664 – Done and dusted Squig. Time to move on isn’t it?
Gus
He doesn’t really mount much of an argument does he. I agree with his sentiments but he’s got no figures, costs, feasibility, baseload calculations etc etc.
The bottom line is that we might be able to reduce our CO2 emissions without nuclear, esp if geothermal or clean coal get up. If they don’t, we can still manage it but the RE cost would be horrendous.
Lots of scientists have given up on the politicians delivering large enough cuts to our CO2 emissions globally. The reality is that we won’t do very much globally. There is a shift in focus now on into how to cool the planet with sulphur, mirrors etc etc.
Diogenes @1659
I’ve always found that irrational abuse from hypocritical monotheists its own reward.
Musrum
Have you ever tried asking them about “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you”?
The really smart ones reply that they are masochists so they enjoy the pain.
It is all a misunderstanding, such as when they say turn the other cheek the priests interpreted it as the buttock cheek, but we must remember all the good they have done.
Desperation, thy name is liberal.
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/dodgy-insulation-causing-house-fires-20091010-graw.html
How low can you go.
1679
The dodgy wiring is not the governments fault. There will always be people who take shortcuts. Down lights are high energy (a lot of that going into the heat that causes the fires) and should be got rid of but the government is not responsible for those already installed before it got into power.
Recent price spurt.
That’s a fall of about of 15%
A drop of 24%
A 6% fall.
So falling prices make housing unaffordable.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/price-spike-puts-a-house-beyond-many-20091009-gqrq.html
Now, why do real estate agents and politicians rate the same in trustworthiness?
It won’t be excluded forever. There will be coalition governments in the future that will allow it. So we may as well start planning for it now.
Obama really is a class act. A perfect response.
And the Ruddster congratulates him.
I think Ellicott’s article is broadly correct, except
1. He does not mention the 1951 precident, when referring the banking bill to a committee was accepted by the GG as “failure to pass.”
2. He says “On one view, a cloud may then even hang over the validity of the actual double-dissolution election.” I don’t think this is true. My understanding is that the Crown has an absolute discretion in granting dissolutions, and its decisions are not justiciable.
But he is correct to say that the CPRS bill, if passed by a joint sitting after a DD, could still be found to be invalid on the grounds that the Senate had *not* “failed to pass” it.
Berlusconi admits to bribing judges, albeit briefly.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hfWuGdUAdCQIpIuLrVm6zzuTtqKA
1684
2. Since a Double Dissolution has specific written constitutional requirements, it would not be a huge stretch of the law for the High Court to rule, if the conditions had not been met, that the dissolution was invalid and the parliament at the time of the “dissolution” continued on until its term expired or the HoR was dissolved early.
This would, however, be a significant political disadvantage for any political force that tried it. The Coalition would get massive punishment if it tried it and I can`t see them bringing such a challenge. If there was some doubt as to the validity of a DD of the current parliament (such doubt is unlikely though) and a certain Victorian Senator was not re-elected, then he might challenge it.
1686
Such a challenge might be brought by someone with more money than sense, who got a falling to vote fine.
Anyone who sees “money” instead of “dollars” in 1687 needs their eyes checked.
My understanding is that no court can rule on the validity of the Crown’s exercise of the Royal Prerogative. There’s not much of the Prerogative left, but granting dissolutions is definitely part of it. Apart from that, the consequences of overturning the valdity of a dissolution and the consequent election would be enormous. Every decision made by every minister, every tax dollar raised, every pension paid, every public service and ADF promotion, every judicial appointment, would all be invalid. The Commonwealth would be open to billions of dollars in lawsuits.
1689
The executive decisions would not be invalid because the appointment of ministers is the constitutionally GG`s role not that of the Parliament. It would be impossible for the High Court to rule a non-DD election invalid because there is no constitutional prerequisites for the calling of non-DD elections. What the High Court can and cannot rule is a decision for the High Court.
The High Court might rule the Senate election portion of a DD invalid but uphold the HoR portion (as that can be dissolved at any time).
While on Elections i am wondering was the media report last week correct that the Brumby Government can call an early election if a bill cannot be passed.
1692
http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubLawToday.nsf/a12f6f60fbd56800ca256de500201e54/641025E59D9CA8CDCA2575E5007891D6/$FILE/75-8750a191.pdf
Diog a freudian slip if there ever was one there with Silvio.
Even if he was brough before a court on corruption charges his popularity remains high lol.
Italian Politics is much more amusing think of the conversations that could be occuring on an Italian equivalent PB site lol!
1694
I am sure that endemic corruption would get depressing and/or boring quite quickly.
Psephos is right. If the GG acts to issue a clearly unconstitutional writ for a DD there would be the right to injunct the writ. If it is clear the High Court might injunct but not otherwise. But once the writ is issued and the election held and writ returned, the Court will not undo the election.
Tom, go and read the 1974 judgments on the Pipeline and Minerals Authority Act. The bill was invalidated after being passed into law by a joint sitting. The High Court had earlier refused to consider the constitutionality of the bill meeting the DD requirements at a case that tried to prevent the bill being presented to a joint sitting. If the the High Court won’t rule on matters going to a joint sitting, then it is not going to revisit the issue of the writs.
I suspect we’d be arguing whether it’s possible to still be the best person to lead your country even if you are hopelessly corrupt and shameless.
1695
That is certainly my view of NSW politics, yet still it lingers like the smell of rotting fish.
1696
The High Court has been known to change its mind over time. Stopping the election beforehand would be preferable to cancelling an election.
And I suggest you also read the McKinlay case. It found that there were too many members of the House of Representatives and that the states were incorrectly represented. The Court didn’t undo the terms of those incorrectly elected members or invalidate laws passed by the parliament. It just ruled on the case and the Fraser government had to fix up the representation rules before the 1977 election. I can’t remember the name of the principle involved, but the High Court won’t retrospectively undo these decisions.
I’d also point out that by the time the High Court ruled on a case involving a DD, the term of the previous House might have expired, which would get the whole process of government into an appalling pickle.
Pages: « 1 … 32 33 [34] 35 36 » Show All